Though it turns out it wasn’t going to be a cornerstone of his second administration (or he is the craftiest bureaucrat ever), it is still notable that congestion pricing made the headlines only a day after Bloomberg’s administration. It seems obvious that our most famous subway commuter would think it rational for private vehicles pay closer to their true cost of sharing the roadways. Given what a hard sell it was in London, it nonetheless deserves fuller consideration here. Though congestion has always been a cultural marker of living in Manhattan, the preponderance of single passenger cars (average number of daily occupants in river crossings: 1.35) are only a sliver of that history, so their banishment would be more a return to a historical norm than an aberrance.
Any tracking mechanism inflames our libertarian notions of freedom of moment, though the threat of increased observation or surveillance is no longer the surefire way to garner knee-jerk opposition it once was. But even if you are the sort for whom such intrusion is a make or break characteristic, imagine the issue in economic terms: how much is the privilege of a particular form a privacy worth? The city streets are a resource of absolute scarcity (we can’t make any more, even if density increases). There are anonymous alternatives (even though MetroCards do feature user tracking, one can design an anonymous routine pretty easily — but cards more often, and with cash), but the costs of maintaining privacy are massive: time lost to congestion, and increased wear and tear on streets. Since there is no other way to regulate this (exclusive of tolls at all the river crossings), we can establish a saturation point at which this burden is no longer viable, or beneficial to the majority (who are clearly transit customers).
As people bend their intellects to rationalize opposing this eminently sensible plan, you run into a couple poorly considered counter arguments:
1. The strain on the transit system will be onerous. Currently, about seven million fares are collected daily by the MTA. Around two million river crossings are recorded each day. The likely absolute impact of any congestion pricing (even if it were amazingly effective) would be at most a 5-7% increase in MTA ridership.
2. Congestion pricing is regressive. Driving into Manhattan for the day already costs in the neighborhood of $35 (tolls and parking), excluding ownership costs. That’s $8,750 yearly for a full-time worker. There may be people living on a razor-thin margin regarding the cost of their commute, we can’t get too exercised about people making highly irrational economic decisions for a purported convenience.
3. Taxes, Big Government, Blah, Blah, Blah. This is not a surreptitious tax increase. It’s unlikely the city would realize substantial increases in revenue from the program. As a matter of straight revenue, the city could do far better by getting the state to reinstitute the misnamed Commuter Tax. What the city would get would be an amazing quality of life improvement: reduced driving time for ‘legitimate’ vehicles, improved response time for emergency dispatch, less noise, less pollution, and a net savings in economic efficiency upwards of 15-20 times the potential revenue.
One unstated, but possible, benefit will be gathering better data on car ownership in the congestion zone, and an incremental increase in tax revenue. Many residents buy and register cars out of state (to avoid sales tax), or fail to transfer registration when moving here. Since the only way to receive an exemption from the fees will be some sort of registration program, the city will get a far clearer picture of how many vehicles are stored in the city, and can further develop a traffic management policy (perhaps creating additional disincentives to car ownership).
Think of it visually. There are about 12,000 taxi medallions issued in the city. Figure 90% of those are on the street at a given time, and three-quarter of them are in Manhattan. That means that even when it seems like every other vehicle in midtown is a cab, it means there perhaps only eight thousand cabs on the street. Morning traffic (7-10AM) comprises 180,000 crossings, the majority single occupancy automobiles. If congestion pricing reduces this number by 20%, it will mean four times the number of cabs on the street at a given moment less of private autos. While adding 1% to the ridership of the subway.
The trends are staggering: during the years of greatest increase in river crossings (1950-1960) subway ridership decreased 20% (only recently returning to the levels of the 1940’s). Though the PANYNJ (Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and the Geo Washington Bridge) crossings have seen consistently the largest increases, a largish minority of destinations are other than Manhattan, and there are still a massive number of East River inbound commutes (many of which may be intracity).
It’s the sort of policy discussion that is strange to get into, because there is no good, and even very few bad, counter-arguments. Development is always impossible to gauge as a next tax benefit, and gentrification is haphazard and difficult to forecast. Even the smoking ban threatened cherished notions of our identity. Maybe I’m not trying hard enough, but I can’t find a reason to not support this. Anyone vehemently opposed will be, by definition, a non-resident, slipping out of the city at the end of the day, likely blaring a horn and driving dangerously on their way to some distant suburb, siphoning off tax dollars and giving nothing back to the life of the city. Well, now they can, seven dollars at a time.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
Hey, we thought their court system was a pretty good idea too.
Though it turns out it wasn’t going to be a cornerstone of his second administration (or he is the craftiest bureaucrat ever), it is still notable that congestion pricing made the headlines only a day after Bloomberg’s administration. It seems obvious that our most famous subway commuter would think it rational for private vehicles pay closer to their true cost of sharing the roadways. Given what a hard sell it was in London, it nonetheless deserves fuller consideration here. Though congestion has always been a cultural marker of living in Manhattan, the preponderance of single passenger cars (average number of daily occupants in river crossings: 1.35) are only a sliver of that history, so their banishment would be more a return to a historical norm than an aberrance.
Any tracking mechanism inflames our libertarian notions of freedom of moment, though the threat of increased observation or surveillance is no longer the surefire way to garner knee-jerk opposition it once was. But even if you are the sort for whom such intrusion is a make or break characteristic, imagine the issue in economic terms: how much is the privilege of a particular form a privacy worth? The city streets are a resource of absolute scarcity (we can’t make any more, even if density increases). There are anonymous alternatives (even though MetroCards do feature user tracking, one can design an anonymous routine pretty easily — but cards more often, and with cash), but the costs of maintaining privacy are massive: time lost to congestion, and increased wear and tear on streets. Since there is no other way to regulate this (exclusive of tolls at all the river crossings), we can establish a saturation point at which this burden is no longer viable, or beneficial to the majority (who are clearly transit customers).
As people bend their intellects to rationalize opposing this eminently sensible plan, you run into a couple poorly considered counter arguments:
1. The strain on the transit system will be onerous. Currently, about seven million fares are collected daily by the MTA. Around two million river crossings are recorded each day. The likely absolute impact of any congestion pricing (even if it were amazingly effective) would be at most a 5-7% increase in MTA ridership.2. Congestion pricing is regressive. Driving into Manhattan for the day already costs in the neighborhood of $35 (tolls and parking), excluding ownership costs. That’s $8,750 yearly for a full-time worker. There may be people living on a razor-thin margin regarding the cost of their commute, we can’t get too exercised about people making highly irrational economic decisions for a purported convenience.
3. Taxes, Big Government, Blah, Blah, Blah. This is not a surreptitious tax increase. It’s unlikely the city would realize substantial increases in revenue from the program. As a matter of straight revenue, the city could do far better by getting the state to reinstitute the misnamed Commuter Tax. What the city would get would be an amazing quality of life improvement: reduced driving time for ‘legitimate’ vehicles, improved response time for emergency dispatch, less noise, less pollution, and a net savings in economic efficiency upwards of 15-20 times the potential revenue.
One unstated, but possible, benefit will be gathering better data on car ownership in the congestion zone, and an incremental increase in tax revenue. Many residents buy and register cars out of state (to avoid sales tax), or fail to transfer registration when moving here. Since the only way to receive an exemption from the fees will be some sort of registration program, the city will get a far clearer picture of how many vehicles are stored in the city, and can further develop a traffic management policy (perhaps creating additional disincentives to car ownership).
Think of it visually. There are about 12,000 taxi medallions issued in the city. Figure 90% of those are on the street at a given time, and three-quarter of them are in Manhattan. That means that even when it seems like every other vehicle in midtown is a cab, it means there perhaps only eight thousand cabs on the street. Morning traffic (7-10AM) comprises 180,000 crossings, the majority single occupancy automobiles. If congestion pricing reduces this number by 20%, it will mean four times the number of cabs on the street at a given moment less of private autos. While adding 1% to the ridership of the subway.
The trends are staggering: during the years of greatest increase in river crossings (1950-1960) subway ridership decreased 20% (only recently returning to the levels of the 1940’s). Though the PANYNJ (Holland and Lincoln Tunnels and the Geo Washington Bridge) crossings have seen consistently the largest increases, a largish minority of destinations are other than Manhattan, and there are still a massive number of East River inbound commutes (many of which may be intracity).
It’s the sort of policy discussion that is strange to get into, because there is no good, and even very few bad, counter-arguments. Development is always impossible to gauge as a next tax benefit, and gentrification is haphazard and difficult to forecast. Even the smoking ban threatened cherished notions of our identity. Maybe I’m not trying hard enough, but I can’t find a reason to not support this. Anyone vehemently opposed will be, by definition, a non-resident, slipping out of the city at the end of the day, likely blaring a horn and driving dangerously on their way to some distant suburb, siphoning off tax dollars and giving nothing back to the life of the city. Well, now they can, seven dollars at a time.