Congestion Pricing
Posted by Fred Jandt
Editor, Mass Transit
This year it seems like finding new and creative ways to fund transit (without, you know, funding transit) is the big story. New York City’s Mayor Bloomberg is pushing hard on one of the latest schemes to fund transit — congestion pricing.
Bloomberg holds up London as a shining example of this new funding mechanism. On the surface, it looks great. Anyone driving south of 86th street during certain hours (between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.) has to pay a toll. For New York they are looking at tolling cars $8 and large trucks $21. This money would be used to fund the MTA and pay for some of the infrastructure the system would require.
As they say, though, the devil is in the details. Already the New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine has stated that his state’s mass transit systems aren’t prepared for the surge in ridership that could be caused by the congestion pricing and that the plan could have a lot of implications.
I’m not sure anyone is listening as both Chicago and Los Angeles have begun considering congestion pricing for their downtowns. So will it work? Well according to the London’s mayor it’s excellent.
In London they have seen a 20 percent drop in congestion, fewer car accidents, an increased transit system and better air quality. Sounds pretty good, no?
The potential problem is that London, like many other European cities, is already geared towards transit and can handle a 30 percent surge in ridership after initiating a congestion pricing plan.
Reports are out recently that New York’s subways are jam-packed with riders and the increased ridership from congestion pricing could not be absorbed by them. In fact, most of the ridership would have to be put on buses. Mayor Bloomberg’s plan calls for half the money gained from the plan to go towards a purchase of more than 350 buses.
But what about NJ Transit? Are they going to see some of that money? Won’t their ridership increase dramatically as well?
Congestion pricing sounds good on the surface, but unless you have the transit system in place to get those people who stepped out of their cars to their destinations, all it is going to do is tick people off or get them to drop some extra money and keep on driving — which kind of defeats the purpose.
Thanks for reading the MT Position, updated every Thursday.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:52 am
Yes, the US is far behind Europe in mass transit infrastructure, and the solons at the state and national don’t plan to do anything about it anytime soon. So, when city mayors propose ‘congestion pricing,’ they are forcing the legislators’ nand. Beef up the system, or take a long ride out of office in the next election. If this is the way America catches up with the rest of the world, I’m all for it.
June 28th, 2007 at 9:56 am
I believe we need to go a step further and spread the cost of public transit. I think the real solution to public transit and getting people to use the service is to make it free and fund it with a fuel tax on everyone that drives on our highways and streets. Think about it, who are the most frequent users of public transit? The lowest paid work force mostly in service industries trying to eek out a living. Free public transit would be a great help to that sector and would also create an incentive for people to get out of their cars and ride.
Just my thoughts,
Joe
June 28th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
If it takes gimmicks to do what we need to do for meeting the Peaking Oil challenge, then we most certainly are heading for economic collapse. Was 911DAY part of Bloomberg’s thinking? It will take something broader in scope than urban congestion taxing- i.e., fuel use taxes.
In (peakoil.net) article 374 the concept of Energy Independence Bonds is included in the discussion. This is a Government Savings Bonds series, on the order of the WWII War Bonds and Victory Bonds. This is another way to raise capital for renewable energy, linked rail & transit projects. Freight railway infrastructure, including local reach warehousing and dormant line rehab should be included. EMERGENCY! This is ahead, a transportation crisis unlike any country in the world has ever faced, we are so auto/truck dependent,
There is something else we can look at, a very interesting model presents itself in the manner of financing the Golden Gate Bridge in the depression. On that great project, the finacial consortium included 1000’s of S.F. Bay area home owners who allowed a lien on their homes, put their residences up as collateral with the cumulative result of gaining a sum sufficient to carry the project forward. As the project completed, the liens rolled over to a lien on bridge tolls.
By including freight railway rehabs and line extensions in the mix with passenger upgrades, it is possible to construct a collateral package that looks more attractive to lenders. In other words, the project itself is collateral for project capital, with the freight component a better guarantor than simply another passenger feature.
This author favors rail over BRT for that reason; the bus component maintains feeder position, as it did back when this dance with the imported oil tarbaby began circa 1940. It is now,in this time frame of 2007-2010, imperative for all interested parties, Chambers of Commerce, Transit Officials/APTA to immerse themselves in the lexicon of Peaking Oil, become passionate about the threat this imminent crisis to our very civilization: posed by a flattening of supply and subsequent annual decline of transport fuels. Start with a look at “Cantarell”, please.
Gunnar Henrioulle
“Second Dimension Surface Transport Logistics Platform”
June 29th, 2007 at 9:12 am
We need to change the way we fund transit in NA in order to establish the required infrastructure to meet the anticipated increase in ridership. I believe the only way this can be accomplished is to focus on alternate financing schemes which partner public and private entities to expand existing systems in a cost efficient and timely way. We can no longer expect government to pick up the entire tab for funding. In addition many TA’s are in serious trouble with regard to fleet rotation and expansion of their systems and the industry needs to find a way to mitigate this trend. The rest of the world is well ahead of NA in this regard due in part to their committment to transportation as part of their standard infrastructure. New innovative funding sources are key to this issue.
June 30th, 2007 at 12:34 am
Congestion Pricing, in New York city, could be a winner if - and that’s a big “if” - the idea is “sold” the right way. Most people who drive to Manhattan have a mass transit alternative, but they hate the subways and they would rather deal with the traffic. If the mayor had only sit down with the transit officials and come up with a plan, and then broach the idea to the public, there would have been far less resistance to the idea today. Now, the congestion pricing initiative is bogged down in Albany politics, from which it may never return.
The express bus is the dark horse here.
Sencerely
Torin Reid