Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg commutes by subway to City Hall on most days. (Tina Fineberg/Associated Press, 2005)On his weekly radio appearance on WABC this morning [listen], Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg spoke hypothetically about the congestion pricing proposal he is all but assured to announce on Sunday. One plan under consideration would charge drivers $8 to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan during the workweek as a way to reduce traffic and air pollution.
Mr. Bloomberg said he expected a fight in Albany to impose the plan. “I’ve always thought, it’s a difficult political lift,” he said, “but it’s getting to the point of, what do you want? You can’t have it both ways.”
The mayor also said the charge would not be onerous, considering the costly price of parking in Manhattan, and that most, though not all, people who commute by car tend to be “people who can afford it.” Asked if it was a new tax, he described it as a reasonable cost for a service the city provides. He compared the cost to the $12 people pay to attend a movie. Of course, few go to the movies daily.
Here are excerpts from his remarks:
Some people are influenced by the cost, you’ll always find somebody… Look, I take mass transit, not because it’s cheaper but because it’s the fastest way to get to work… I just want to get my commute over with, and now that I’m a senior it’s only a dollar….
Using economics to influence public behavior is something this country is built on, it’s called capitalism. Tax policy influences you to drill here and mine there and grow this and live here and do that, and you know, that’s common. We have tried to make it more egalitarian with subsidies for people.
We have programs for people who aren’t as lucky as you and I to help them afford to be able to buy food and clothing. And in this day and age it sounds like a lot of money, but you go to a movie and it’s 12 bucks. So let’s put some of this stuff in perspective here. The cost of parking here in the city, people who drive into the city generally — you have to be careful not
to say everybody — but if you look at the statistics, it tends to be people who can afford it because otherwise they’ll take mass transit.And we have to do a much better job of providing mass transit in parts of the city where the city never invested in the past, and now we’re paying for that. Places way out in Queens, places Staten Island, Brooklyn, there are lots of places in the city that aren’t served by subways. The city lost the courage to keep investing in subways back in World War II…
If you were to charge — and I’ll let you know on Sunday at 12:30 — but if you were to charge, you’d take the money and invest in mass transit.
At nyc.gov, you can listen online or download an mp3.
2007
1:12 pm
as my friend amy just pointed out to me, it’s actually not capitalism at all. taxes are anti-capitalist.
also, as mentioned by the previous blog post, yes, this is a regressive tax. maybe that’s what he meant by its being capitalist: “[…] and the poor get poorer.”
— Posted by adm
2007
1:58 pm
Right on. I also don’t see how the city couldn’t provide a system, as I believe they do in London, whereby those who actually are required to drive for work could obtain a pass or permit from their employer or from the city at a reduced cost. I think this can be done in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the less fortunate, and I believe it is also true that the majority of Manhattan traffic is actually not caused by commuters, but by people who do not live or work in this area. There is certainly no reason that tourists or people driving at their leisure a) should be driving in the busiest parts of Manhattan in the first place and b) shouldn’t be willing to pay for the privilege.
— Posted by JLB
2007
2:08 pm
Do it Mike!!!!
In the short term it will stink, but in the long term…… A few years, the results will be everywhere! Less congestion, better air quality, safer for pedestrians walking around and eventually more buses and subways! A good idea long in the making.
— Posted by Michael
2007
2:15 pm
Some figures for those who dont understand the need for urban transportation investments (capital and operational): In the past 25 years, despite increases in transit ridership, only four new route miles (a 1.7% increase in the more than 1,250 mile network) have been added to the MTA subway system.
This is a historic opportunity to address the urban transportation investment impasse in a city where most of the trips are done by public transport, and not by car (we need to recognize that with NYC’s density, there is no room for everyone to drive, therefore, we need to understand that we need to invest in non-car mobility, and address cutting edge successful transportation planning practices)
— Posted by Ramon Munoz-Raskin
2007
2:20 pm
I live in Hell’s Kitchen and entirely favor congestion pricing. The traffic, pollution, and noise are incredible. London’s experience suggests that congestion pricing will help. As long as the approach doesn’t penalize the poor, it will be a great benefit to NYC. Bravo to Mayor Bloomberg and his bravery in tackling a tough issue!
— Posted by Andrew Solomon
2007
2:27 pm
Although I understand the Mayor’s traffic congestion concerns, I believe his hypothetical surcharge is foolish! There are far too many variables to consider, for instance., US Gov’t, Municipal, Council Members, NYPD & FDNY, and most importantly ALL Emergency Vehicles. Perhaps a vehicle ban during peek hours during the week is more acceptable. Let’s keep in mind that the Mayor will not be in office when this plan hits the fan and fail. He will be remembered for that bust and not anything good he’s accomplished…
— Posted by LMNYer
2007
3:08 pm
Go for it, too many cars, too few bicycles and pedestrians.
— Posted by Ron Fox
2007
3:24 pm
Of coures he is right. In general we undervalue all kinds of public goods, just look at how we value street parking as opposed to parking in private lots. Of course this done both by right, but progressives should also learn how to use markets to enhance the value of public spaces.
— Posted by joel rosch
2007
3:25 pm
This is terrible. Eight bucks is a scam!!!
Wow are they going to collect the $8? The sight of more tolls booths is going to be more of an eyesore than it’s worth.
What does he call “downtown”? Below 59th street? Below Canal?
What is this about comparing it to the cost of the movies? I CAN’T AFFORD TO GO THE MOVIES either, Mike. All I can afford is Netflix for $15/mth.
— Posted by Jackie
2007
3:28 pm
Why not try it in a very limited area, let’s say Downtown or the core of Midtown? 86th Street all the way down really overreaches.
— Posted by Brad Melrose
2007
3:45 pm
Despite earlier posts, this is a capitalist proposal at capitalism’s best. Traffic congestion in midtown and lower Manhattan is a classic example of what economists call an externality; that is, a cost on other people (the rest of us) created by someone (a driver)who doesn’t have to pay that cost. Making drivers pay for the traffic congestion they create doesn’t subvert the capitalist system, it makes it work better. And putting the money raised into mass transit and better pedestrian and bicycle facilities is even better. Bravo to Mayor Mike!
— Posted by Kerwin
2007
4:04 pm
It’s the best idea Bloomberg has ever had. For those of us who actually live in the city, it must happen,
together with more bike lanes and smaller cabs. This will mean less pollution, less congestion, a better city for everybody.
Stop bringing your car to Manhattan, particularly if you are driving alone. There are alternatives. Use them.
— Posted by aztecprincess
2007
4:28 pm
If you agree on the following two points:
1. there is too much traffic
2. mass transit needs to be improved
… then either come up with a different idea or don’t complain!
I personally think it’s a great idea, though I do think it will be important to have a type of permit system (as mentioned in an earlier post, referring to london’s system) that will adjust the price depending on the driver’s purpose.
— Posted by Stephan B
2007
6:09 pm
This sounds great! Tweaks like people who need to use a car for their jobs (like exterminators or repair people or whatever), that can (and should) be figured out.
But taxing the well-off commuters who drive their BMWs in instead of taking the subway, and using the money to build more subways for regular people? AWESOME.
— Posted by anonymous
2007
7:56 pm
I would think that, if successful, an $ 8.00 congestion pricing scheme would work to the benefit of the people (like exterminators or repair people)who need access to vehicles for their livelihood.
If I employ a repairman, whose tools and supplies necessitate a van, I’m paying that person at least $25.00 an hour (almost certainly more, especially with any benefits) plus a $3 bucks an hour or so for gas, insurance and wear and tear on the van.
If the decreased traffic saves that repairman one hour (of an 8 hour day) the benefit to the business owner is a $ 20 GAIN!
That was the conservative scenario.
How about this:
That same repairman is critically injured while working. The decreased congestion allows the ambulance to arrive 2 minutes earlier on the scene and can deliver the patient to the emergency room 3 minutes sooner.
Ask a doctor if 5 minutes of extra time in the emergency room is worth $ 8.00 to a critically injured patient?
This would apply to everyone, the workin guy from Queens, the bike messenger from the Bronx, the hedge fund trader from Greenwich.
Everyone.
— Posted by howie hedd
2007
12:07 am
Mayor Bloomberg does it again. Bravo, let’s get these cars out of Manhattan! As for the garage owners, nobody owes them a living. If they complain, keep hitting them harder and harder at the bottom line until they either stop complaining or until they are out of business - I don’t care which.
— Posted by blacklight
2007
12:09 am
What about ordinary folks just trying to make a living? $8 plus tolls is more than the value of 2 hours of minimum wage work.
This kind of stuff was one of the reasons I left New York for California in the early 1970s. Always felt the city was out to rip me off at every turn. Mentioned before on this blog alternate side of street spoiled the pleasures of living in Manhattan.
Beats me why ordinary voters vote like the idle rich who can afford to very generous with other people’s money!
For all the hoohahing about New York’s intellectual life people act like total sheep when it comes to the things that really count. Without struggle New Yorkers let the City University, public education and affordable housing go straight to the dogs without passing GO.
— Posted by MARK KLEIN, M.D.
2007
3:22 am
Dr. Klein,
Since you seem to have the credentials, why don’t you authoritatively answer my question two posts above.
What percentage of trauma patients would survive if they were to arrive at the emergency room 5 minutes faster?
As a follow-up I must ask, do you consider dying in an ambulance stuck in traffic one of the “pleasures of living in Manhattan”?
— Posted by howie hedd
2007
3:20 pm
Yeah!
Its past time! We should have done something like this long ago! Like in London! Enough pretending and posturing, everyone knows NYC, Manhattan specifically, is a playground for the world’s elite, lets make it official! Since the subway system is so amazing and covers the ENTIRE city so well it wont be a problem at all! All those people in Brooklyn and Queens can simply take the bus to a train, or DRIVE to the bus to take the train. Sheesh, why don’t they just live in Manhattan? Its probably because they are too lazy to work hard enough to afford it. Anyway, I’m completely with you Bloomberg! Because I know that you will definitely be in office long enough to fulfill your vague promises to use these proposed tolls to set up better services to the outer boroughs!
— Posted by Jon
2007
2:00 pm
Make it $10 and reduce the subway fare by $.50! We should cut out auto traffic all together in Central Park too.
Ride a BIKE.
Tax away Mike.
— Posted by Curt
2007
10:43 pm
Howie Hedd
The only thing you left out is that much of the congestion in Manhattan, particularly the Upper East Side is caused by double parked repair service vans. So your theory has a nice little gaping hole in it.
But who cares if the repair man lives or dies…you can alway grab the yellow pages and hire a new one, right?
— Posted by P Dub
2007
3:17 am
Any environmental progress Mayor Bloomberg hopes to accomplish through congestion pricing and support for pedicabs is likely to be more than undone through careless oversight by his administration of the 2nd Ave Subway project. The Mayor’s Environmental Protection Agency and his three appointees to the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) apparently overlooked the fine print of the MTA’s environmental impact submission. It is quite likely, as a consequence, that Mayor Bloomberg could depart office with a reputation for leaving the New York region with deteriorating air quality.
Consider the following buried deep in the MTA’ s Environmental Impact Submission and omitted from discussion at any of the one-sided forums also banning mention of a light rail alternative - sponsored by the controlling Democratic and Republican Manhattan Eastside political culture, particularly Community Planning Board 8, the Lexington Democratic Club, Lenox Hill Democratic Club, Eastside Democratic Club and the Metropolitan Republican Club, all of whom collaborate also to frustrate political opposition at the Board of Elections and in the Judicial Selection Process.
The MTA Environmental Impact Submission made the following minimum grudging admission: “Because of the large scale and extended duration of the construction required for the Second Avenue Subway, the construction could potentially increase regional concentrations of ozone precursors-NOx and VOCs-as well as fine particulate matter (PM2.5), all of which are pollutants of concern on a regional basis. The regional effects of the project’s construction were
assessed in two ways: 1) the total amount of these pollutants throughout the region that would result from transportation of spoils was calculated; and 2) the concentrations of PM2.5 that would result from the project’s trucking and construction site activities were computed on a regional basis. =The concentrations of ozone precursors (NOx and VOCs) that would result from construction were not predicted on a regional basis, since these pollutants are of concern because of their role in the formation of ozone, but that process is very complex and there is no reliable way to predict a project’s effects on ozone.” Scary isn’t it.
Mayor Bloomberg has an obligation to halt all 2nd Ave subway project activity until there is a guarantee that there will be no increased regional concentration of ozone precursors-NOx and VOCs-as well as fine particulate matter (PM2.5) during the seven-year projected first phase of construction.. Even the MTA recognizes that these are “pollutants of concern.”
The optimum course for Mayor Bloomberg would be to cancel the 2nd Ave subway and replace it with light rail on either 1st or 2nd Ave. For the cost of the eventual 6 miles of 2nd Ave subway, 60 miles of desirable non polluting light rail could be built in New York City and there are serious unmet transportation needs in Eastern Queens, South Brooklyn, Northeast Bronx and Staten Island. Advanced cities around the world such as Barcelona (installing 200 miles of light rail), Lisbon, Munich, Tampere, Vancouver, Toronto, Jerusalem, Denver in the US etc. are going to light rail instead of subway route.
There are three proposed light rail projects in Staten Island which require funding. It would be ironic if residents of Staten Island, Eastern Queens, etc. are not only denied improvements in their own sluggish public transportation because all available funding is being spent on the East Side of Manhattan but also forced to experience deteriorated air quality thanks to a early to mid 20th century style transportation project known as the 2nd Ave Subway. Mayor Bloomberg, through his representatives on the MTA and his Commissioner of Environmental Protection Agency should recognize he is Mayor of all New York City not just the East Side of Manhattan and take steps immediately to protect his own excellent reputation among environmentalists.
— Posted by George N. Spitz
2007
10:24 am
Answer to Howie Hedd’s #15 questions to me.
Howie–What percentage of trauma patients would survive if they were to arrive at the emergency room 5 minutes faster?
Dr. Klein opines: Doubt there’s be any effect because EMT services are so sophisticated today. Unnecessary deaths are more likely the result of delays in the hospital from such things as the staff overwhelmed by trauma cases, an OR available, etc..
Spent a lot of time at Kings County Hospital when a med student at Downstate. The ER was more like a combat casualty triage zone where the wounded waited and waited and waited and waited!
The other thing is never ever have a serious accident or acute illness between June 20th and July 15. Why? That’s when residents finishing their training leave and newbies straight out medical school start.
Howie–As a follow-up I must ask, do you consider dying in an ambulance stuck in traffic one of the “pleasures of living in Manhattan”?
Dr. Klein opines: Given my above answer you might live longer stuck in traffic. When the EMT folks drop you off alive at the ER, that’s when the mortality rates start going up in NYC hospitals.
Since you never know where and when disaster will strike, tattoo your health insurance info on your chest. In NYC money talks and everything else walks or dies!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Remember, dear friends, His Honor is a true blue capitalist. Social Darwinism is alive and well in NYC.
— Posted by MARK KLEIN, M.D.
2007
11:59 am
A lot of the criticisms for the congestion pricing plan assume that it creates an economic hardship for people who have to drive and can’t afford the tolls. But according to a recent study by Schaller Consulting (http://www.transalt.org/press/releases/060223necessity _choice.html), auto commuters from outlying Queens, Brooklyn & Staten Island earn 35% more than their public transit-using neighbors and 80% of auto commuters have transit alternatives that offer travel times within 15 minutes of their car trip.
— Posted by Jessica B
2007
1:15 pm
hey i’ve got a great idea! why not charge each of the mayor’s supporters $8 for every antiegalitarian idea he has? with the revenue generated, we can develop other ways republicans can use backdoor taxes to take the place of the front door tax monies they use to benefit their friends and business associates, instead of the ordinary citizens who foot all the bills. now here’s a real idea — ban all traffic in all of new york city except emergency and service vehicles. then the only reason for dying in an ambulance will be an antiquarian health care system based on profit instead of caregiving. not enough public transportation then, you say? wow, maybe it’s time to hold politicians accountable for their lies and thievery that have crippled infrastructure nationwide. and why not start in the nation’s largest city?
— Posted by D. C. Johnson
2007
1:19 pm
Hizonah is a gaziolonaire, it’s no sweat of his back, so what else is new. But, why won’t they freight everything by rail; eliminating trucking in the city, would indeed do way with a lot of the congestion.
.
— Posted by apugster
2007
1:44 pm
here’s a followup idea that does the mayor’s one better. why not charge everyone within manhattan $8 per breath that they take? this will mean more oxygen will be available, live bodies and hence traffic will be minimized, there will be less carbon dioxide pollution, global warming will be reduced, and the funds generated can be used to train people to breathe even less, say one breath an hour. thousands of new jobs will be created for breath counters. if every city in america follows suit, funds now allocated for anti-pollution measures and to fight global warming can be reallocated to more important things like more sports stadiums (with, of course, more generous allotments on the number of breaths per hour the athletes may take), and new wars against hapless middle eastern countries, which, in light of all the extra revenue generated by the breath tax, excuse me, breathing service fee, can be waged without the support of the federal government, u.s. constitution aside, which of course, it already is. why should only the fed’s buddies have all the benefits of war profiteering? now that’s real capitalism!
— Posted by D. C. Johnson
2007
1:54 pm
If the whole nation acted this way, we would be way ahead economically. The trains were killed off long ago as the car became the new addiction. I love to drive but let’s face it, as population grows there simply aren’t enough freeways one can build. Show me a subway station and I’ll show you local economics at work. It creates jobs, lowers the cost of living.
Start manufacturing trains in detroit. I’ll bet the pay is pretty good. If Detroit doesn’t do it maybe upstate can find a new manufacturing base. Everyone wins
— Posted by Nick B
2007
2:18 pm
They have a similar system in Singapore. Everyone has an EZPass-like system on their dash. It deducts from an account whenever the driver enters certain districts at certain times. This sort of system would probably be more effective than the camera system he proposes. However, some people are concerned that this strangles all vehicles, but it would be very easy to write off or exempt emergency vehicles, taxis, and buses from this tax. Beyond that, congestion pricing provides the best possible source of income for increasing the scope and ability of the subway system.
— Posted by Schuy
2007
5:20 pm
I am in full support of this initiative. Everyone on this post who has come out against this system needs to do further reading on the actual proposal and the benefits of the systems in place in other countries. There are a lot of statements on this post that are simply not founded in the research on Congestion pricing and how this plan would be implemented. Bloomberg is giving us the opportunity to change NYC for the better for many years to come. Please do not sacrifice this opportunity by jumping to unfounded conclusions based only on a personal assumption. Imagine, less traffic…
— Posted by Timmy
2007
9:07 pm
Why don’t we just remove the financial district, maybe we could ask some of the larger companies in ny to relocate, it seems all this commerce is inconveniencing the residents of nyc who obviously don’t benefit…… there are trade offs…. we live in NYC, get used to it
— Posted by Rob
2007
11:35 pm
He’s lost his mind !
— Posted by Ted
2007
9:51 pm
Isn’t it easier for us to ban cabs from traveling around lower Manhattan as they are one of the main reason of traffic, double parking and even triple parking problem. I think it would be at least 1/3 of tarffic disappear from lower Manhattan if we solely ban cabs from lower Manhattan, not to mention they are always breaking the traffic regulation rules. By banning cabs, we can save money from building all the toll plaza, cameras and save money from hiring people for taking care of the toll plaza, and to maintain our beautiful landscape of lower Manhattan, the toll plazas are just plain ugly. If they are to charge New Yorker fees to drive to Lower Manhattan in rush hour, it is fair to stop cabs from going around Manhattan during that period too, or I think people would just take cabs around, and the problem would still be remain unsolved. Or if MTA agree not to raise the fair anymore, it would be workable, or else, we would be charged high fairs as they are monopoly to start with… It is a great problem that we need to consider as well.
To all those boomberg supporters, please think of these potential negative effects that it may bring to us, before blindly support whatsoever comes from his mouth.
— Posted by Stanley
2007
10:40 pm
Following up on Stanley’s remarks, taxi’s are most certainly a major cause of congestion in Manhattan, if not thee major cause. But why are they exempt under the Bloomboerg plan from the congestion fee? When you look at Bloomberg’s past proposals like having the municipal labor unions put $600million in concessions on the table to finance wage increase (which coincidently corresponded to the $600 million price tag on the West Side Stadium) this just falls right into the pattern. Pick a targeted group to finance marginal improvements that pay for the added demand on, in this case, mass transit but which benefit a much larger population, i.e. all commuters.
But would the money raised by a congestion fee put any kind of a dent on a mass transit system that does not even meet current demands, particularly in the outer boroughs? Tellingly, Bloomberg just recently stated that he could not guarantee that there would be sufficient funding to complete the Second Avenue Subway beyond the current phase. So if the proposed congestion fee actually achieved the stated goal of reducing traffic, that would result in even less funding of expensive mass transit projects to meet the added let alone the current demand!
One might think that not exempting taxis from the fee would be the logical answer, given the strong demand for them. Then why not? When you look at where the fee would be applied, trucks which deliver vital goods and services, those fees are simply passed on to the consumer in higher prices. Not only that, the higher consumer prices which result generate additional sales taxes for the city. The city reaps a classic double whammy. The fees from private auto are a straight dollar for dollar revenue source, but it is relatively minor. But with taxis, the ridership is generally business people during the 6am to 6pm time period. Any revenue gained would be offset by deductible expenses which might well prove counterproductive given a tendency for overstatement. Thus the state and city income tax yield might actually shrink as a result. On top of that, the increased demand for taxis would mitigate any relief in congestion and pollution. So, at the end of the day,does this mean that the proposed congestion fee is simply another tax? You bet your life it does.
— Posted by P Dub
2007
3:03 pm
I don’t think any politician should have the right to determine that taking another $8.00 out of our pockets is a good thing for New York. At the least, I think this matter should be voted on at election time, so the people who live here (remember us?) can make the decision on this matter with their votes. Otherwise, it’s just a bunch of lawmakers doing whatever they think is right, whether it hurts people or not.
— Posted by Lynne E.
2007
4:59 pm
I agree with the mayor but I would suggest that all the bridges and tunnel tolls to be eliminated on the weekend.
— Posted by Michael Russell
2007
11:11 pm
I drive only to get out of the city, but my experience is that double parked trucks and vans are the chief problem with congestion and traffic flow. Parking in garages is so expensive, only the wealthy can afford it. Why doesn’t the city build a lot of high rise parking garages that charge reasonable rates? That would get thousands of parked cars off the streets and the delivery trucks (and other necessary vehicles) would not have to double park.
I don’t put much faith in any benefit the revenue will bring to New York City. I am sure that the money raised will simply go into the pockets of the small elite who run the city: some politicians, their large supporters and the MTA. Remember when the latter cried poor and needed to raise the fares? It was found that they had cooked their books, really had a surplus and still they were allowed to raise the fare. Were the people of this city even asked? Did they see any benefit from the increased revenue? Aside from a bit of cosmetic treatment at a few subway stations, it just disappeared into some (already) well-lined pockets. Congestion pricing probably will reduce congestion (unless the number of taxis doubles), but the revenue raised will never be heard of again.
— Posted by Dutch