NYC congestion charges: an update
Robert I. (aka Neat Engine), New York native and former Seattle grad student, sent me this update (from the Times City Blog) on the city/state discussion about congestion pricing in Manhattan:
Journalists, advocacy groups and residents on both sides of the issues have been struggling to make sense of the congestion pricing agreement reached in Albany on Thursday.
On one hand, the deal at the very least seems to keep Mr. Bloomberg’s idea of charging drivers in Manhattan alive. It may even allow the city to begin taking steps to begin putting such charges in place.
On the other the plan hardly means congestion pricing is a done deal. A 17-member commission of city and state representatives will study different ways to mitigate traffic — not limited to congestion pricing — and act by March.
Streetsblog‘s take:
Congestion Pricing: What’s the Deal?
Nobody knows whether the convoluted and difficult congestion pricing “deal” reached by political leaders yesterday will actually result in anything. The deal is complex even by Albany standards. A few things, however, are clear:
1. Mayor Bloomberg does not have a “green light” to move forward with congestion pricing, nor has he been granted any new powers. The deal denies him the authority to impose a pricing charge until approved by the City Council and state legislature.
2. The feds may still yet give New York City congestion pricing start-up funds despite the missed Monday deadline.
3. The deal mandates a very specific timeline by which the process will move forward and a 17-member commission that may become an important forum for the congestion pricing and and broader transportation debate, good things could emerge.
4. Transportation policy and livable streets issues have moved to the top of New York City’s civic agenda and will remain in the political spotlight for some time to come.
5. There are a ton of things that could still derail congestion pricing.
Meanwhile, London, a congestion-pricing pioneer, is raising some of its charges. According to Carbusters magazine, SUVs (called “4x4s” and, occasionally, “Chelsea tractors,” in England) might soon have to pay as much as 25 pounds per day to drive into the city.
MLKC Metro, part II
I saw this on a 43 while I waited at Montlake this evening:
It’s not the first time I’ve seen the new county logo on a bus, but it’s the first time I’ve been able to get a picture. I dropped my camera at the Bus to Work Day celebration back in March (good thing I won a bike to compensate), so I can only get pictures if Bus Nerd is with me and the lighting is good enough for him to use his phone. But I digress.
I can’t wait until I finally get to ride on a Dr. King bus. With the exception of my phone-camera-toting husband (well, and maybe Original Bus Chick), there’s no one I’d rather travel with.
NYC: the congestion-pricing debate continues
Mayor Bloomberg is still pushing hard for congestion-pricing in New York. Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like the state legislature will approve his plan in time for the city to receive a $500 million federal traffic-reduction grant. From the Associated Press:
The U.S. Department of Transportation plans to choose up to three cities for pilot programs to combat traffic and pollution, providing up to $500 million for each winner to implement the plan… New York state Senate leader Joseph Bruno, a Republican, says Monday is the federal government’s “drop-dead date” for New York to commit itself to Bloomberg’s proposal.
[…]
Supporters of Bloomberg’s plan argue that hard choices are required for New York City’s future. They also cite the immediate benefits: Clearing the air in “hot spots” that threaten children’s health; reducing traffic congestion in a choked Manhattan striving to remain the world’s financial epicenter; and the lure of up to $500 million in federal funds. The Bloomberg administration predicts that street traffic would decrease by 6 percent in lower Manhattan during the three-year pilot project as more people use public transit.
But approval of Bloomberg’s plan in Albany will likely require deft diplomacy, bipartisan cooperation and a thick skin in a Legislature long criticized as slow, dysfunctional and ruled absolutely by each chamber’s majority party: Republicans in the Senate and Democrats in the Assembly.
It would be a shame for the city to lose out on that money, especially since, according to Bloomberg, $300 million of it would be used to fund immediate transit improvements.
New York Legislature: Take it from a resident of a city that’s lost it’s share of federal transportation funds: You want this money.
A Friday of firsts
On the 48 this morning, I sat behind a father who was taking his preschool-age son on the bus for the first time. The two of them seemed to be having a great time: the son, excited about the bell, the big seats, the beeping of bus passes as they slid through the reader; the father, happy to answer his son’s questions about what was what and why, chuckling at the boy’s occasional outbursts (That’s a big truck!/Did a bad guy mess up that building?/Three blue cars!). It was a beautiful father-son bonding experience–that is, until, about three stops from Montlake, when an average-sized, middle-aged man got on, and the little boy shouted, in the same excited tone he’d used to point out the truck, “Ooh! Look at that big fat guy!”
On my next ride, I experienced a parenting first of my own: 25 weeks into my pregnancy, on a standing-room only bus, someone actually offered me a seat. (I didn’t take it, since I felt able to stand.) Of course I was grateful but also, for some odd reason, embarrassed. It’s strange to be on the other end of that offer.
They weren’t THAT scary
Remember that empty lot I told you about a few months ago? The one I walk through to get from the 545 stop to my office? (Yes, I still walk through it; my fear of geese was quickly overcome by my need for convenience.) Geese aren’t the only animals that live there. The part of the lot that’s not paved is a sort of swampy wetland, with tall grass and a good half acre of deciduous trees, and it’s home to rabbits, frogs, and lots of (less intimidating) species of birds. During the wet times of year, the ditch at the edge of the trees becomes a small pond, and in the evenings, you can hear the frogs singing their hearts out–so loudly they can be heard above the traffic noise that surrounds them.
Recently, my employer bought this empty lot. (It was only a matter of time, really.) For a few weeks, it was fenced off and filled with construction workers and equipment (complicating many bus riders’ walks to work). The ditch/pond was dug up and covered with a layer of greenish sod.
I learned last week that the lot will be used for “overflow” parking. My coworkers have tired of waiting for the company-paid valets to find spaces for their cars in the crowded garages.
So much for the geese. And the frogs.
To charge or not to charge (or, “Pay as you leave, pay as you enter, or pay… never?”)
At a time when high fuel costs are causing many transit agencies to consider fare increases, a couple of agencies in rural Washington are making fare-free policies work. From a recent article by Larry Lange:
[Island Transit] is one of only two transit agencies in the state that don’t charge for rides, and one of only a handful nationwide that don’t. Others tried no-fare buses, but returned to charging customers.
No-fare service attracts more riders and can eliminate payment disputes, speed up bus travel and get cars off the road, eliminating pollution and appealing to those seeking green living.
Of course, rural systems don’t have the ridership or frequency of service of larger, urban systems. Despite the–from where I sit (on the 4)–all-too-frequent incidents resulting from passenger-driver fare disputes, free service isn’t really on the table at Metro. Given the funding climate for transit, and the fact that 22% of Metro’s revenue (target: 25%) comes from fares, it hardly seems possible.
“A fare-free policy might be appropriate for smaller transit systems in smaller communities, but is ill-advised for larger transit systems in major urban areas,” a 2003 University of South Florida study concluded. It said fare-free service increases maintenance and labor costs and in some cases led to criminal activity that “drove away existing riders.”
Then again, San Francisco’s considering it:
San Francisco leaders are considering making that city’s transit system fare-free. Mayor Gavin Newsom recently noticed that many riders don’t bother to pay fares and has asked his controller’s office to study the idea of eliminating them. Results are due in late August. San Francisco would lose about $145 million in revenue each year by dropping fares, almost a quarter of its system revenue, but could rid itself of the expense of managing its fare system.
“It’s complicated to administer, so there’s some appeal in the city not having to manage that,” said Peg Stevenson, San Francisco’s chief services auditor.
I’ve only been to one (small) city that had free bus service: Aspen, Colorado, of all places. You wouldn’t expect folks in Aspen to focus on transit. Then again, with the tax base in that city, they can probably afford to provide lots of great public services.
But I digress.
If the funding were available, I’d like to see free buses (etc.) here–first of all, because I believe that transit is a democratizing force (the cheaper, the more democratizing), and secondly, because I think it would encourage more people (of all economic circumstances) to ride. Besides, fare policies are difficult to administer, make buses later than they need to be, and create hardships (and sometimes anger management issues) for drivers.
What do you think? Are free buses a good idea?
How to pass the time at a bus stop, part I
Eastbound 4, 10:45 PM
A twentysomething woman and her kindergarten-age daughter follow a twentysomething man onto the bus. They sit in the forward-facing seats across from his, daughter near the window, mother near the aisle, facing the object of her pursuit.
Twentysomething woman, speaking loudly enough for everyone on the bus to hear: “I just don’t understand it. Guys are always trying to talk to me. Pretty much everyone wants to be with me, and I turn them down just to see the looks on their faces. Now I’m giving you the opportunity, and you don’t want it.”
The twentysomething man sits silently, looking somewhat embarrassed. The woman continues.
TSW: “I told my cousin you turned me down, and she was like, ‘Now that’s a first.’ For real, though, all kinds of dudes want to be with me. Basketball players have tried to holler, rappers try to get at me…”
She continues in this vein for several more minutes, until the man mumbles something unintelligible.
TSW: “What? Why can’t you tell me?” She gestures toward her daughter, who has witnessed the entire scene. “Is it her?”
More on car-free travel
According the American Public Transportation Association, lots of folks who travel to major U.S. cities this summer will use public transit to get around those cities. From a recent press release:
In its Green Travel Forecast, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) estimates that 90 million American adults will travel to large American cities this summer. On average, one out of three people surveyed said they will tour green by using public transportation (34 percent)… A ranking of the top ten city destinations and their transit use among visitors follows:
• New York City (48%)
• Washington, DC (46%)
• Boston, MA (43%)
• San Francisco (40%)
• Philadelphia (34%)
• Chicago (31%)
• Seattle (30%)
• Las Vegas (26%)
• Los Angeles (26%)
• Atlanta (22%)
I love taking public transit in unfamiliar cities. Yes, there is the anxiety associated with learning a new system–how and when to pay, where to get off, etc. (thank God for the Internet)–but that is easily offset by the adventure factor. Plus, you learn a lot more about a city on a public bus (or train) than you ever would on a tour bus.
Here are some of the reasons the people surveyed are choosing to ride:
Sixty-two percent said it would be less expensive than taxicabs or rental cars, followed closely by 61 percent who say they won’t have to worry about finding a parking space for their vehicle. Another 48 percent say they will use public transportation when traveling because it is easier to use, while 42 percent like not having to drive around an unfamiliar city…
For those of you who are planning to travel to another city this summer, APTA has put together this guide: “Green Travel Forecast, a Consumer’s Guide to Touring American Cities in a More Environmentally Friendly Way.” The section on Seattle isn’t all that informative (it doesn’t really explain the relationships among the agencies or distinguish between commuter and city service), so I’m not sure how useful the stuff about the other cities is. Still, at the very least, it’s a good place to start for links.