Well said--the congestion charge is great, but better still would be reducing transit capital and operating costs!
Also want to stress before using sticks, use carrots to attract transit riders. Look at SF vs. Calgary. SF has more expensive gas and downtown parking than Calgary. SF has $7 tolls while Calgary has none. But in 2019 the CTrain got over 2x the per-mile ridership of the BART because individual CTrain lines ran every 5 minutes while individual BART lines ran every 15.
And you can't really fine people who evade tolls either, which would be the best solution to that issue as even if you place face cams, the driver can still block their face as if it were the sun
It's going to use an automated system which could be set up to detect if a plate is fake, altered, or obscured and they can subsequently send police after the car. Then the city can just confiscate the vehicle. It's not really a difficult problem to solve
This system will be implemented or you think it should be?
Tons of cars already have obstructed plates and the police do not seem to be trying very hard to rectify this, so I am not sure it is quite so easy to solve.
You should contact Charles Komanoff to talk about this - he built a huge excel model to predict the outcomes of various different implementations of the plan.
One observation of hers that stands out the most is this:
"In fact, car commuting is so prevalent among government workers (they drive at twice the rate of private-sector employees) that the MTA estimated in its environmental assessment that simply reducing the number of government-supplied free-parking permits would achieve the congestion-reduction goals of congestion pricing—without congestion pricing."
In other words, we already have a solution to congestion (and the air pollution it causes) right in front of us: government worker placards. Eliminating those would cost zero dollars. However, that wouldn't raise any money for the MTA. And that reveals what congestion pricing in NYC is really about: it's just a revenue source. And, in true NYC fashion, it's the most convoluted, and cursed way of going about things, one that allows for lots of favors to be doled out in the fom of exemptions, but with no guarantee that the money will actually get raised as predicted. This is why we can't have nice things in New York. Alas.
what do you think of the idea that you need a transit fare/pass to drive in your car?
one cool thing about this is that if you buy your monthly transit pass, you already have a transit pass, so even if you use your car for some trips, you have transit as a "free" alternative for trips that don't require it.
another cool thing is that this is a tax on car use of the roads with an easy to justify amount. (i.e. why should it cost more to use public transit for necessary trips?) while it also effectively ensures public transit is always cheaper when possible (because of fuel costs, parking costs, and ownership costs).
also, it provides a basic framework to handle exceptions (e.g. 65+ don't pay for their transit pass, and also don't pay to use their car if they have one; students pay reduced prices, if you get classified as low-income, you pay a lower price)
I think it could make sense to have a different price, but that seems like a decent baseline while simple to implement.
The justification for this would presumably be that transit conveys societal benefits. But if something has generalised societal benefits then it should usually be (co)-funded from general tax revenue.
The justification for congestion pricing is mainly that it disincentivises something that's directly harmful to health and economic activity (congestion).
I don't think car travel should necessarily always be more expensive than transit. Choosing to drive should have all its negative externalities priced in, but if for a certain journey it's still more economic than taking transit then it doesn't make sense to penalise it/favour transit further.
wasn't thinking of how to design a perfect system, more was wondering about the political feasibility of a compromise (i.e. maybe it is just lower resistance to have a single price)
regarding the specific justification of pricing driving, if the argument is a libertarian one about compensating people for negative externalities, although I understand in principle, I think as a pedestrian and a downtowner, I would need a lot of personal compensation to balance all the pollution I have to breath in, plus the noise and general "reduced fun" walking besides cars all day. note that I don't care about "congestion" per se. I guess I could say the same thing about smoking in crowded places.
I also notice that we are so far from living in a libertarian utopia/distopia, and it seems a bit strange when these principles are applied to only very specific things in discourse.
I don't think pricing in negative externalities is an exclusively libertarian policy... you could raise the cost of driving in general by factoring in its negative impacts and still decide on walling off e.g. inner cities to cars entirely (no matter the congestion price someone is capable of paying or willing to).
My point was maybe more regarding the question you posed (why should it cost more to take public transit?): I think it's okay when some marginal trips remain cheaper to pull off with a car, whether you're driving yourself or not. Note that I am more thinking about really uncommon trips here. Visiting a weird relative who lives 2 km in a forest, that sort of thing. If that's basically all you do with your car - the rest of the time you walk or cycle to get groceries etc. then I don't think any policy framework should obligate you to purchase a transit pass.
Well said--the congestion charge is great, but better still would be reducing transit capital and operating costs!
Also want to stress before using sticks, use carrots to attract transit riders. Look at SF vs. Calgary. SF has more expensive gas and downtown parking than Calgary. SF has $7 tolls while Calgary has none. But in 2019 the CTrain got over 2x the per-mile ridership of the BART because individual CTrain lines ran every 5 minutes while individual BART lines ran every 15.
Service is critical, but better than stick or carrot is stick AND carrot!
And you can't really fine people who evade tolls either, which would be the best solution to that issue as even if you place face cams, the driver can still block their face as if it were the sun
You can fine people for obstructing their plate.
It's going to use an automated system which could be set up to detect if a plate is fake, altered, or obscured and they can subsequently send police after the car. Then the city can just confiscate the vehicle. It's not really a difficult problem to solve
This system will be implemented or you think it should be?
Tons of cars already have obstructed plates and the police do not seem to be trying very hard to rectify this, so I am not sure it is quite so easy to solve.
You should contact Charles Komanoff to talk about this - he built a huge excel model to predict the outcomes of various different implementations of the plan.
I highly recommend this piece by Nicole Gelinas:
https://www.city-journal.org/article/full-speed-ahead
One observation of hers that stands out the most is this:
"In fact, car commuting is so prevalent among government workers (they drive at twice the rate of private-sector employees) that the MTA estimated in its environmental assessment that simply reducing the number of government-supplied free-parking permits would achieve the congestion-reduction goals of congestion pricing—without congestion pricing."
In other words, we already have a solution to congestion (and the air pollution it causes) right in front of us: government worker placards. Eliminating those would cost zero dollars. However, that wouldn't raise any money for the MTA. And that reveals what congestion pricing in NYC is really about: it's just a revenue source. And, in true NYC fashion, it's the most convoluted, and cursed way of going about things, one that allows for lots of favors to be doled out in the fom of exemptions, but with no guarantee that the money will actually get raised as predicted. This is why we can't have nice things in New York. Alas.
what do you think of the idea that you need a transit fare/pass to drive in your car?
one cool thing about this is that if you buy your monthly transit pass, you already have a transit pass, so even if you use your car for some trips, you have transit as a "free" alternative for trips that don't require it.
another cool thing is that this is a tax on car use of the roads with an easy to justify amount. (i.e. why should it cost more to use public transit for necessary trips?) while it also effectively ensures public transit is always cheaper when possible (because of fuel costs, parking costs, and ownership costs).
also, it provides a basic framework to handle exceptions (e.g. 65+ don't pay for their transit pass, and also don't pay to use their car if they have one; students pay reduced prices, if you get classified as low-income, you pay a lower price)
I think it could make sense to have a different price, but that seems like a decent baseline while simple to implement.
The justification for this would presumably be that transit conveys societal benefits. But if something has generalised societal benefits then it should usually be (co)-funded from general tax revenue.
The justification for congestion pricing is mainly that it disincentivises something that's directly harmful to health and economic activity (congestion).
I don't think car travel should necessarily always be more expensive than transit. Choosing to drive should have all its negative externalities priced in, but if for a certain journey it's still more economic than taking transit then it doesn't make sense to penalise it/favour transit further.
I agree with Janek. Though I do think this has a positive ability in unifying riders and drivers in understanding the costs of accessing public infra
wasn't thinking of how to design a perfect system, more was wondering about the political feasibility of a compromise (i.e. maybe it is just lower resistance to have a single price)
regarding the specific justification of pricing driving, if the argument is a libertarian one about compensating people for negative externalities, although I understand in principle, I think as a pedestrian and a downtowner, I would need a lot of personal compensation to balance all the pollution I have to breath in, plus the noise and general "reduced fun" walking besides cars all day. note that I don't care about "congestion" per se. I guess I could say the same thing about smoking in crowded places.
I also notice that we are so far from living in a libertarian utopia/distopia, and it seems a bit strange when these principles are applied to only very specific things in discourse.
I don't think pricing in negative externalities is an exclusively libertarian policy... you could raise the cost of driving in general by factoring in its negative impacts and still decide on walling off e.g. inner cities to cars entirely (no matter the congestion price someone is capable of paying or willing to).
My point was maybe more regarding the question you posed (why should it cost more to take public transit?): I think it's okay when some marginal trips remain cheaper to pull off with a car, whether you're driving yourself or not. Note that I am more thinking about really uncommon trips here. Visiting a weird relative who lives 2 km in a forest, that sort of thing. If that's basically all you do with your car - the rest of the time you walk or cycle to get groceries etc. then I don't think any policy framework should obligate you to purchase a transit pass.