When I said that we shouldn't focus so much on the fact that congestion pricing reduces congestion in Manhattan, I didn't mean to imply that congestion isn't reduced elsewhere. It definitely is! and it definitely is a major plus, I didn't mean to downplay that.

I also agree that politics play a huge part in why sensible policies like this don't get passed.

In general, I like thinking of congestion pricing as being first and foremost a policy to help fund transit that happens to be good for the environment, rather than an environmental policy that happens to help fund transit. Between us that's just two different ways of looking at the same thing, but if you're trying to hype up a policy like this towards the outer boroughs, I think it pays to focus on the transit improvements rather than the environmental improvements.

If you focus on the environmental improvements, it can easily degrade into someone in the outer boroughs thinking that they're footing the bill to provide cleaner air for everyone. Of course I realize that most of the drivers are coming from the burbs, but this is where the "us vs them" mentality starts, and it's hard to overcome that.

If you focus on actual transit improvements that the outer boroughs would be receiving, then you avoid that initial division.

Like I mentioned earlier, I would take it a step further. If after doing a study of what transit investment is needed, you find out that you need a certain amount of transit expansion in Manhattan, and a certain amount of expansion in the outer boroughs, you then skew the results in favor of the outer boroughs. Or, keep the LINES that you're adding the same, and maybe change the type of service you're adding. For example: instead of adding subways to Manhattan and express buses to the outer boroughs, add subways to the outer boroughs and express buses to Manhattan.

The reality is that congestion pricing reduces traffic congestion in the boroughs as well as in Manhattan, because people drive through the boroughs to get to the city. Indeed, most people who drive to Manhattan will experience the majority of their vehicle miles outside Manhattan, since Manhattan is so small. I live not far from the Queens end of the Queensborough bridge. The air quality in my neighborhood is in the bottom decile nationwide, and I'm confident that traffic from this bridge is a principal cause of this tragedy.

In short, I believe that the reason congestion pricing failed has a lot more to do with horse trading and politicans' empathy for drivers than with rensponsible policy development.

True, it is partially wishful thinking to expect some of these connections (I would probably be the only person on a bus from the East Bronx to Bayside!). You obviously can't say "everywhere should be connected with everywhere else" without realizing that it's a huge waste to have a bus with 2 people on it going from Staten Island to Southern Brooklyn.

You're also right about your political analysis of the situation. It only depresses me when I see completely rational decisions ruined by political whims...

I could talk forever about my thoughts on this, but in short, I think that congestion pricing has a tendency towards an "insiders vs outsiders" mentality, when it shouldn't! If anything, lowering prices on outer borough to outer borough crossings increases this mentality. Most people see "yay cheap bridges" or "maybe this will appease them", I see "Manhattan is worthy of incentives towards urban development and the outer boroughs aren't".

While you still have to be smart about what sort of transit you're investing in, I think that we should orient the policy as being FOR outer borough residents. Sure, it's nice that congestion is being reduced in Manhattan and we're getting a second ave subway, but focus on what the GOAL of the plan is for the outer boroughs.

I'm sure there are particular political situations that would make this impossible... But in general I would think that in a bargaining situation, saying something like "would you support this if we expanded the 7 train past Flushing instead of on the West Side" would gather the more support than offering toll concessions.

I find it pretty intriguing that there was a proposal to use congestion revenues to lower outer borough bridges that don't connect to Manhattan.

Personally, I don't think that would be a good idea. Just as any form of congestion pricing would discourage driving and increase transit options in Manhattan, this particular addition would encourage dependence on cars for those outer borough residents who don't regularly go into Manhattan, and drive them away from more urban future development.

If anything, I would like to see congestion revenues biased towards transit that doesn't even touch Manhattan - moving more towards a web of transit rather than a hub and spoke design. We need more incentives not to drive for other trips within the outer boroughs more than we need incentives not to drive into Manhattan.

Plus, while I'm not as well versed in the politics of this situation, I would think outer borough politicians would be more likely to support a plan with this sort of bias.

The real service the MTA provides is a scapegoat for outerborough Manhattan-envy that Weprin and Weiner can use to rise to whatever level political gravity will take them without their provision of a great metropolitan development strategy. I guess all politics is local after all.

In Weiner's district (http://www.tstc.org/reports/cpsheets/USCongress_factsheet_district%209.pdf) 64% of commuters commute outside of the "congestion zone". Only 5% drive alone to the zone.

In Weprin's district (http://www.tstc.org/reports/cpsheets/NYCcouncil_factsheet_district%2023.pdf) 74.5 commute outside of the congestion zone. 6% of commuters drive alone into the zone.

(Unfortunately, TSTC doesn't give the breakdown by mode outside of the zone.)

Right. One of the possibilities, proposed by many, was to use some of the additional revenues the MTA would get by tolling all the crossings to Manhattan (including those at existing toll crossings, which people would no longer avoid), to reduce tolls at other crossings such as the Verranzano and Rockaway bridges.

The idea is that people traveling between the boroughs are unlikely to have a convenient transit option. A more progressive alternative might have reduced those non-Manhattan tolls only for HOVs and trucks, to encourage carpooling.

The issue of benefit has come up with the proposed payroll tax. Residents of and businesses in outer MTA counties like Dutchess don't get as much transit service from the MTA as NYC, and thus object to paying an equal tax, an objection that Brodsky has raised (he wants NYC targeted for more pain). Of course given the high average subsidy level out there, they might be getting their tax money back and then some (like Staten Island), but the MTA studiously avoids compiling and publishing data that way.

That Long Island politicians continue to oppose the LIRR Mainline Third Track project totally fucks this constituency out of a viable transit future (as dim as that future might be). The plastic tax and land use fence the suburbs have constructed around NYC continues to obstruct the construction of a viable political constituency for metropolitan transportation (MTA?).

They've used the data by place of residence, I meant to day.

One would find that the longest trip times are TO Manhattan, which has the highest wages in the U.S., rather than FROM any particular place. People are willing to endure longer commutes to get those wages, even if they live farther away.

Different interests have used the data by place of work to argue for disinvestment in transit in more roads, because transit trips take longer on average and thus (in this view) provide a lower quality of life. But of course you can't drive to Manhattan, thus making the point moot.

Unless you have a placard.