An opinon piece showed up on Yahoo entitled "Congestion pricing could reduce traffic, but is it fair to ask drivers to pay up?" which I will go through because of the ridiculous claims in it.
Congestion pricing works in a similar way to typical road tolls, but
rather than asking drivers to pay a fee to cross a bridge or use a
certain highway, it imposes an extra cost on anyone driving into heavily
congested areas.
Toll roads, like the Garden State Parkway were originally supposed to pay for the construction of the highway. They were supposed to be temporary. Of course, once the state got a taste of the revenue the tolls continued with various excuses, the usual one being "to maintain the road". Back before cameras and electronic tolling, these tolls actually caused congestion as everyone had to slow from 65MPH or so to a dead STOP to pay a toll.
So in this respect, congestion pricing is like toll roads: Another means for the state to extract revenue from people.
Supporters
of congestion pricing say it’s long past time for the U.S. to finally
take serious action to reduce traffic, which not only robs millions of
Americans of their precious time but also causes a wide range of harms
to residents and the planet. Advocates say reducing the number of cars
clogging the roads would lead to safer streets, less noise pollution,
cleaner air and fewer climate-warming emissions and bring in a major
influx of funding to help improve other modes of transportation. Others
make the case that it’s simply a matter of fairness, because the drivers
who flood into cities impose real costs on the people who live there,
but currently pay nothing to help mitigate those harms."
There's a lot to unpack here. Traffic doesn't rob people of their time. They have choices. Different job, different mode of transportation. I say this as someone who has a significant commute. I choose to leave early to avoid the worst of the traffic. I did NOT have to take the job. I don't work in Manhattan but I know for certain I would not drive there. I would not pay the parking costs. I will not sit in the traffic. Other people will do so.
Per the safer streets, lets be clear. In the city, the biggest risk of getting hit is due to jay walking by pedestrians who are often looking at their phones rather than where they are going. Don't get me started on trying to make a right turn.
But undercutting the 'less cars" argument is that the state believes only 120k cars would be taken off the road. Given the millions of crossings daily, I don't think they expect, or want, too much reduction. After all, no cars means no toll collected.
Can't argue with the noise pollution. Manhattan is loud. Of course, if you choose to live there...
"Drivers who flood into cities" Actually bring this thing called "economic activity" to cities. Every time you see an out of state plate in Manhattan, that's taxable income (tolls aside). They are likely to pay to park. They are likely to pay to eat. They are likely to pay to be entertained. They are likely to pay to shop. Who exactly do you think that benefits? They didn't have to leave their state to come to NY.
Per pollution. Vehicles today emit far less noxious gasses and particulates than even the 1970s. If THAT was the issue EVs would be exempt from "congestion pricing" 'cause they do not contribute to particulate or gas emissions. The main contributors to air pollution in NYC are diesel vehicles: Trucks and busses. 18wheelers rarely go to lower Manhattan so it's not them.
" London, for example, still has the some of the world’s worst gridlock despite more than 20 years of congestion pricing. There are also concerns that the plan would merely reroute traffic out of rich city centers and into poorer communities that are ill-equipped to take on the extra burden."
That's because the congestion pricing in London, like NY is not really about congestion.
If NY wants to be serious, as possible about congestion, it would:
1) stop eliminating vehicle lanes and turning them into bike lanes. Every lane removed just causes more congestion upstream. I doubt they'll do this but you cannot keep eliminating vehicle lanes and then complain about congestion. It could actually be argued that the bike lanes have *increased* congestion.
2) Stick a knife into Uber and Lyft. When these companies started the idea was that people who already had cars and commutes could get paid to give a lift to other people going to the same (or close) locations. Now people buy cars with the express purpose of being a taxi. This put a whole bunch of cars on the road as taxis that hadn't existed before. I would guess that upwards of 30% of vehicles on NY highways and roads is some kind of taxi. Each one of those taxis are fares not being paid to public transport. I'm sure there are reasons for that, but the fact is, that these Ubers both add to congestion and "rob" the MTA of fares. Deal with that before turning on people in actual private vehicles doing private business.
Medalion Taxis should have been exempted because by purchasing the Medalion they paid for the "right" to around Manhattan.
3) Get these climate crazies and people who talk about "vehicle violence" out of the decision making process.
4) The zone should NEVER have included tolls on entrances to and from bridges that do not have direct entries or exits to highways. That was the clearest sign of a money grab. That the Queens representatives went along with this just shows their corruption.
