Streetsblog New York City

Early this week, I noticed a number of my favorite bloggers linking to this Elisabeth Rosenthal essay at Environment 360, on the mysterious greenness of European nations. The average American, as it happens, produces about twice as much carbon dioxide each year as your typical resident of Western Europe.

Rosenthal attributes much of this difference to behavioral factors relating, it seems, to Europeans' unique tolerance of inconvenience. She writes:

But even as an American, if you go live in a nice apartment in Rome, as I did a few years back, your carbon footprint effortlessly plummets. It’s not that the Italians care more about the environment; I’d say they don’t. But the normal Italian poshy apartment in Rome doesn’t have a clothes dryer or an air conditioner or microwave or limitless hot water. The heat doesn’t turn on each fall until you’ve spent a couple of chilly weeks living in sweaters. The fridge is tiny. The average car is small. The Fiat 500 gets twice as much gas mileage as any hybrid SUV. And it’s not considered suffering. It’s living the dolce vita.

She later adds:

Also, in Europe, the construction of most cities preceded the invention of cars. The centuries-old streets in London or Barcelona or Rome simply can’t accommodate much traffic — it’s really a pain, but you learn to live with it. In contrast, most American cities, think Atlanta and Dallas, were designed for people with wheels.

What makes this particularly remarkable is that she opens the essay by discussing an experience she has in Stockholm, in which she insists on taking a taxi from the airport, which ends up being much slower and more expensive than the train.

Read more...

Ahead of this week's National Bike Summit in Washington, DC, syndicated columnist Neal Peirce wonders if 2008 will be "bicycling's best year since the start of the auto age." He writes about developments promoting the bicycle as a legitimate form of transportation around the world, many of which have been featured right here on Streetsblog:

First the trends: oil costs are surpassing $100 a barrel, global warming alarm calls are mounting, polluting autos and trucks increasingly clog city streets, and health concerns about a sedentary and fattening society are mounting.

And now the developments: Handy bike-for-hire stations are proving instant hits in Paris and other European cities and seem poised to invade urban America. Moves to add painted bike lanes along city roadways are being eclipsed by proposals for entire networks of "bike boulevards" -- roadways altered radically to accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. And a companion "Complete Streets" movement -- making roadway space for cyclists and pedestrians, not just cars and trucks -- is gaining traction nationwide.

Read more...

Robin Chase is the co-founder and former CEO of Zipcar and the founder and CEO of GoLoco, a ride-sharing service that uses social networks like Facebook to connect people who want to carpool. A Harvard University Loeb Fellow, Chase is an authority on the use of wireless and mesh network technology as it applies to transportation. She'll be giving a talk at Baruch College, 151 E. 25th St., Room 759, at 9:30am on October 19th. There she'll discuss some of the ways wireless technology can facilitate near-term reduction of CO₂ emissions. What follows are some excerpts from a telephone conversation last week with Sarah Goodyear.

Sarah Goodyear: Your talk at Baruch College is titled "The Window of Opportunity is Now: How Wireless Can Move Us to More Sustainable Transportation." Explain what you'll be discussing.

Robin Chase: The pitch starts with my complete horror that we have less than five years to turn worldwide CO₂ emissions around. One of the senior climatologists that I refer to said if that turning point of CO₂ emissions happens in 2015, i.e. seven years from now, we have a 50-50 chance of averting catastrophic effects of climate change. I personally would like to improve those odds.

When we think about the transportation world, everything is major infrastructure change: Let's build more rail, more transit, more walkable communities. Let's create more fuel-efficient cars and move to hybrids and alternative fuels. Not one speck of that work is going to have a remote impact in the time frame we're talking about. So while I think those are critical and important things for the medium run and the long run, we need more people focused on what we're going to be doing in the next five years.

SG: How does wireless fit in?

RC: From my Zipcar experience and from watching congestion pricing played out in London and Stockholm, I've learned that money -- market pricing, or accurate reflection of pricing -- is what turns people's behavior on a dime. If we're serious, that's where we have to go. Marketing is everything and wireless technologies bring us to a totally different world of possibility.

Zipcar and car-sharing is one example of how the ability to rent a car by the hour easily and therefore pay almost full car costs for that hour causes people to drive dramatically less. You don't run out and buy your quart of ice cream, because it's going to cost you ten bucks to buy that quart of ice cream. You say OK, I'll do without, I'll eat cookies, I'll pick up ice cream tomorrow.

Likewise ride sharing, which is what GoLoco is all about. There are a couple of reasons ride-sharing has been underused. One of them is stranger anxiety: I really don't want to step into a car with anybody. The rise of social networks has transformed that equation. We're all friends of friends, so we can get some level of comfort around that. Then the whole money-changing-hands piece. People think it's complicated, why bother. They think it's dirty, embarrassing and awkward. So we can do an online payment system. And the whole matching-up of people finding those rides--that's what the Internet and our wireless devices in our hands are all about. That we can make those connections relatively easily.

SG: How can wireless technology and mesh networks enable congestion pricing?

RC: What is shocking about the congestion pricing model that was done in London and in Stockholm and in Singapore is that those systems are creating wireless infrastructures on closed networks with proprietary devices. If we're going to spend out oodles of money for wireless infrastructure for our transportation systems for congestion pricing and for road pricing, we should be making those open networks using open standards, i.e., things that consumers and businesspeople have devices that hook up to. We'd actually do an open source communications platform. And we can transform this required investment in transportation wireless infrastructure into something that's an economic development boon and that makes information ubiquitous and very, very low cost, while we're making carbon -- the old economy -- high cost.

Read more...

It wasn't your typical congestion pricing forum, but last night about 50 people got to hear the pros and cons of the Bloomberg plan debated in a relaxed, informal setting, with instructions from the moderators to keep drinking.

The event, sponsored by the London-based Institution of Civil Engineers, brought together two proponents and two critics of pricing at Manhattan's 11th Street Bar, in Alphabet City. Amidst the academic banter, kind lighting and cold pints, it was hard to imagine things would get all that heated. They didn't.

Not that the dialogue was short on substance. Critic Dr. John Falcocchio, Professor of Transportation Planning at Polytechnic University of New York, for instance, didn't seem to be against pricing as a concept as much as he was skeptical of the plan as proposed. According to Falcocchio, a variable pricing scheme based on the Stockholm program, rather than London's flat-rate model, would be a better fit for New York. Falcocchio said charging more during peak congestion times would speed traffic flow more effectively than a flat fee, which he believes will fail to reduce congestion "in a measurable way." Falcocchio acknowledged the transit benefit from pricing revenues, yet advocated for improved enforcement of traffic laws before a possible "gradual" implementation of pricing.

NYC DOT Director of Studies Thomas Maguire replied that enforcement is built into the plan, and that the city would like to have more red light cameras (which depend on approval by suspicious state lawmakers). Maguire also pointed out that there is no neighborhood in the city where a majority of commuters don't already take transit, but noted that some of the worst congestion is in "asthma alley" neighborhoods leading into Manhattan and the central business district. Driving, Maguire said, is a choice, and pricing uses a "carrot and stick" approach to encourage motorists to choose transit.

Representing the anti-pricing Queens Chamber of Commerce Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free, attorney Corey Bearak claimed that population projections cited by PlaNYC are "dead wrong" (talking point alert!), and are an "excuse" to squeeze the middle-class "schlump" who has to drive into Manhattan. Bearak said neighborhoods with asthma-stricken populations are located "nowhere near" the congestion pricing zone, and that too much of the anticipated pricing revenue would be devoted to administrative costs. Instead of pricing, Bearak said, the city should work on reviving the commuter tax.

After a round of queries from the audience to both sides -- including one about the city's "schizophrenia" when it comes to clipping bikes (out of DOT's hands, responded Maguire) and bike parking (no definitive answer here, other than possible isolated zoning adjustments) -- ICE moderator David Caiden called the question. "Congestion Pricing, as proposed in PlaNYC 2030, Solves Manhattan's Transport Problems," yea or nay?

Twenty-six audience members were polled in favor, with "not even 15" against.

As moderator, I don't believe Caiden was counted among the 26, but he could have been. "I think it should be $50," he said earlier in the evening, referring to charging "those evil-doers coming in by car."

"But I'm not at all biased," he added.

Photo: Brad Aaron

 

Sweden re-launched its congestion pricing system today following a 6-month trial and voter referendum last September, in which Stockholm residents approved the traffic control measure by a margin of 52 to 45. The referendum was a definitive victory for a system that reduced Stockholm's traffic congestion by as much as 50 percent and decreased noxious air pollution by 14 percent (you can see some stats here). Notably, prior to the 6-month trial run, polls showed that as many as 80 percent of Stockholm residents were against the idea congestion pricing.

The Local reports on the newly relaunched pricing system:

There will be a number of key differences between the new arrangements and those during last year's trial. One change is that the transponders - electronic devices used in the trial to make it possible to take the charge directly out of drivers' accounts - will not be used. Instead, cameras will read cars' plates, and those vehicles whose drivers are registered will have the money debited directly from their accounts.

Other drivers, as before, will have to pay the charge within 14 days of driving in the zone. This can be done online, at Pressbyrån or 7-Eleven stores or in banks.

Another key difference is that taxis will no longer be exempted from paying the charge. A number of taxi operators have already said they plan to increase charges as a result. The charge will be tax-deductable for some companies and commuters.

Mike Castleman, a New Yorker currently in Stockholm offers some congestion pricing photographs on Flickr. Below is a photo of the pricing menu, which charges different fees based on time-of-day. "Kr" stands for Kronor, the Swedish currency.

Stockholm has just completed its congestion pricing trial. Thanks to broad public support, parliament voted to make the fee permanent. Will New York be in the same position years from now? The Local (Sweden) reports:

Sweden's parliament on Wednesday voted in favour of a permanent road toll for Stockholm in a bid to reduce congestion, with the scheme kicking off on August 1.

The system is aimed at reducing traffic and pollution in the city, and the revenue is to be used for road improvement in the Stockholm area. The toll was broadly supported by deputies, who cast their votes several times on individual aspects of the bill rather than on one overall proposal. The toll was operated on a trial basis last year and exceeded expectations of a 10 to 15 percent reduction of cars entering and leaving the capital, registering instead an average fall of between 20 and 25 percent.

Stockholm residents voted to adopt the congestion charge in a referendum held in September 2006 in conjunction with the country's legislative elections. The Swedish capital will join other cities such as London, Rome and Singapore which have already introduced toll schemes.

All vehicles except buses and foreign-registered cars that enter or exit central Stockholm on weekdays during the peak hours of 6:30 am to 6:29 pm will be required to pay a fee. Electric cars and hybrid vehicles will be exempt from the toll until 2012.

Photo: zeraien/Flickr

Reported in The Local (Sweden):

Support for the congestion charge in Stockholm is greater than ever before, according to a new poll.

In the poll, conducted by Skop for newspaper Stockholm City, 67 percent of those questioned said it was good that the new government had decided to reintroduce the charge. 33 percent of the 1,021 people asked said they disapproved of the decision.

A 51.3 percent majority voted in favour of retaining the charge in a referendum in September. The incoming centre-right administration promised to honour the vote, but said that income from the charge would go towards road-building, rather than towards public transportation as the Social Democrats had planned.

Photo: audreym/Flickr

The New York Times came out advocating for progressive transportation policies in its Sunday City section editorial, saying that the departure of DOT Commissioner Iris Weinshall presents "a great opportunity to take bold action on a vexing quality of life and health issue: traffic congestion."

After giving Weinshall props for her actions on the Queens Boulevard front (and taking her to task on the Staten Island Ferry crash), the Times goes on to say how much more needs to be done, voicing some arguments that probably sound mighty familiar to Streetsblog readers:

Whoever gets the job should waste no time in helping to secure federal money to study ways of relieving traffic, including the possibility of congestion pricing. Washington has recognized that the nation's cities need traffic controls, and millions of dollars are being offered to municipalities seeking solutions. New York should claim its share.

There has been a lot of pushback on the idea of congestion pricing, in which drivers would be charged a fee in the most heavily trafficked part of the city, Manhattan south of Central Park. Opponents portray the fee as a regressive tax that would be hard on small businesses, but versions of such a charge in London, Stockholm and elsewhere show promising results, reducing traffic apparently without impeding commerce.

As a quick second act, the next commissioner could take a bite out of congestion and set an example for the rest of city government by revoking its workers' parking permits, an idea promoted by Transportation Alternatives, a nonpartisan advocate for reduced car traffic. City workers from all departments, the police in particular, regularly abuse the privilege -- the permits amount to a free pass to park, even double-park, anywhere -- especially in Lower Manhattan and downtown Brooklyn.

In the larger picture, the new commissioner should treat city transportation as the regional issue it is. Much of the traffic on the most heavily used streets originates in outlying areas. Workers are commuting from ever greater distances. Sometimes that is a matter of necessity, sometimes it's a matter of perceived convenience.

The city would benefit greatly from a transportation leader who promotes use of public transit, walking and cycling as not just a way to a destination, but as a way of life.

Last month residents of Stockholm, Sweden voted in a citywide referendum to continue that city's experiment with congestion charging. By charging motorists a fee to drive into the city center, congestion charging had successfully reduced the amount of time Stockholm motorists spent waiting in traffic by 30 to 50 percent while significantly reducing air pollution and providing a number of other benefits as well. The vote represented a remarkable flip-flop in public opinion. Only months before, residents of Stockholm were firmly opposed to congestion charging. That changed once they experienced the results. There was, however, just one hitch: While the voter referendum approved congestion charging, the left-leaning political parties that had supported the system were voted out of office in the very same election.

The voter referendum on congestion charging was not legally binding. It was only advisory and it was not known whether the new government would continue the program. Now a Swedish newspaper is reporting that the newly elected Swedish government will keep the congestion charging system going with a compromise: More of the revenue that the system generates must be put towards road improvements in the Stockholm's outer rings.

"Now that the streets of the city and the roads leading in to the city have begun to clog up again since the congestion charge was removed, it is very clear that this is an effective tool and it would be foolish not to use it", write the three Centre Party MPs in today's Dagens Nyheter.

Parliament member Lennart Hedquist suggests that it may be possible to reach a compromise. "I am not in favour of the tax as it is now. But the compromise could be that the tax will be used for infrastructural development in the areas around Stockholm", he told The Local.

One possible lesson for New York City seems clear: Any congestion charging system that is developed for Manhattan needs to provide direct and tangible benefits to the outer boroughs.

Photo: Snerz on Flickr

Streetsblog: So, what happened in yesterday's election?

James Savage: The tradition in Sweden is to hold all elections on the same day so we have municipal elections, we have a general election and local referenda on various issues. The general election resulted in a change of government with the ruling Social Democrats thrown out after twelve years. In Stockholm, the local municipal authority, which was also Social Democrat, was thrown out and replaced by a center-right coalition.

SB: The headline in your newspaper describes the result of the congestion charging referendum as "Neither a Ja nor a Nej" -- I'm sure I'm not pronouncing that correctly -- but what did you mean by that?

JS: Yeah [laughing], you're not. The congestion charge was introduced by a Social Democratic municipal authority that had gone into elections in 2002 saying that, in fact, there would be no congestion charge. But then the Social Democratic Government, in order to get the support that it needed from the Green Party at the national level, agreed to impose the charge on the municipality in Stockholm. The Social Democratic leadership in Stockholm cooperated with their national leadership even though it was against their manifesto's promises.

SB: Annika Billström (pictured right) is the leader of Stockholm's municipal authority? She's the mayor?

JS: She was the mayor. That's one of the things that happened yesterday. She is no longer the mayor and how much that depends on the way congestion charging was introduced -- that's one of the questions that people are asking now. People suspect that it played quite a large role in her defeat.

SB: How come?

JS: She started out against congestion charging and then basically lay down as soon as the Central Government tried to impose it. That annoyed people even though, ironically, residents of Stockholm eventually started to appreciate the congestion charge and voted to keep it.

SB: So, the party that brought on congestion charging was essentially punished for they way they went about it and yet the referendum still voted in favor of congestion charging.

JS: It's rather contradictory isn't it? But that is basically what happened and the center-right alliance that has been elected to replace Billström and the Social Democrats is broadly opposed to congestion charging.

SB: Must this new government now re-activate the congestion charge? Was the referendum binding?

JS: No. The referendum was only advisory. The government isn't obliged to re-introduce the congestion charge. What makes it more complicated is that the new center-right government has traditionally been opposed to congestion charging. They say that they will respect the will of the people but there is a third confusing factor here. People living in the suburbs which are controlled by different municipal authorities than central Stockholm, and traditionally vote for the right wing, are broadly opposed to the congestion charge because they're the people who have to pay it.

SB: Were these suburban municipalities able to vote on the referendum?

JS: No. And in the plan set up by the Social Democratic government there was no mechanism for the suburbs to be consulted. But the municipal authorities in these different suburbs had their own referenda. The Social Democrats considered this to be completely irrelevant. They weren't going to pay any attention to this at all. But of course now, the Social Democrats are written out of the equation and we've got a center-right government and a center-right council and they will make their own decisions and they will take these referenda into account. So, it puts the whole thing up in the air.

SB: So, the politics of traffic is a mess pretty much everywhere, I guess.

JS: It's a mess [laughing]. It's extremely complicated.

Read more...