As I predicted over on Room 8 (see “Congestion: You Can Fee Me Now or Fine Me Later”), the result of this rejection is going to be radicalization, and there will be substantial pressure to go along with ANY measure that ISN’T congestion pricing.

Congestion pricing was rejected because it benefitted may people somewhat in the indefinate future while hurting a politically influential minority right now. Measures to restrict traffic flow in a given neighborhood (regional effects on overall mobility be damned), in contrast, provide an immediate benefit to a small minority with broadly diffused negative consequences for the indefinate future. Thus, such measures work with our pandering pols as they are.

Unless there is rationing by price, the only check on congestion is congestion itself. That being the case, there is no reason not to reverse measures to improve traffic flow if these impose costs on non-travelers (those including those who want to park). This process has shifted my point of view.

Pedestrianize some cross streets in Midtown, and provide draconian enforcement against those in bus lanes or blocking the box, and what do I care if those in the travel lanes can’t get anywhere? I’ll just stay off the congested, polluted streets. Deliveries can shift to the evening.

Perhaps with the new leadership in the DOT the city can design it’s way out of congestion. Start building physically seperated bus lanes, seperated bike lanes, widen sidewalks, remove parking (as well as charge more for parking as mentioned above). Do it on a massive scale, take away the capacity and the traffic will dissapear, isn’t that what all the studies show?
Plus it gives the added benefit of faster busses, safer bike routes and more room for chock a block sidewalks.

“Perhaps with the new leadership in the DOT the city can design it’s way out of congestion.”

Right. Such an effort would require increasing the city’s capital budget by orders of magnitude. [the current budget allows for reconstruction of perhaps less than 1% of the city’s street system every year]. In the ridiculously unlikely event that such an effort could be funded, imagine the effect on congestion of actually trying to implement a construction program of this size. The reason people talk about things like congestion pricing, tools, enforcement, incentives, parking reform, etc. is that there’s no way to [re]construct our way out of the mess we’re in

Residential parking permits require approval by the state legislature. They were in the congestion pricing legislation just rejected.

The class warfare crowd went nuts on congestion pricing. Picture their reaction to making residents pay a lump sum fee for a permit to park on the streets of Flatbush,Astoria or Pelham.

Although I’m in favor of charging market rates for street parking, I’d be afraid of the power it would give parking garages. If on-street parking was more expensive, more people might move their cars to garages, resulting in more money for the companies that own garages. As we’ve clearly seen with Brodsky and congestion pricing, the parking industry was able to give a lot of money to a politician to have him be their mouthpiece against congestion pricing. Why give them more money? That’s why market-price street parking would have to be coupled with other tactics to reduce traffic in the first place in order to mitigate the benefit received by parking garages.

What if NYC congested its way to congestion pricing? Close streets to traffic and make them pedestrian plazas. Reduce lanes available to cars and instead devote them to emergency vehicles, buses, and bikes only, fining those who violate this rule. Maybe things will have to get a lot worse before they can get any better.

One thing Mayor Bloomberg could do immediately would be to reinstate the HOV rules that were put in place immediately after 9/11. If people are forced to carpool every day, they might eventually think that paying $8 to ride solo is worth it.

after reading all these comments, seeing how stupid these ideas are, i realize my ideas are stupid too. change shouldn’t be made without knowledge of the problem. let’s have proffessionals solve these traffic problems. my 2 cents: permit parking won’t help.

I kind of agree that the Brodsky flap is probably more red herring than anything else but if he’s going to basically make up an official report to fudge the facts and lie to the people then I say let’s sling some mud and see what sticks.

I think a more effective charge would be the one TA made later, namely that Brodsky represents some of the region’s wealthiest commuters. You won’t see him arguing that point. It’s almost funny to watch a state pol from Westchester posturing about working for the little guy.

http://dencity.wordpress.com

Glenn (#1):

There were quite a few other suggestions that came out of the working groups leading up to PlaNYC. One of my favorites: move city agencies that “need” to have their cars and placards out of the congested parts of Manhattan. The most obvious: 1 Police Plaza (which has about 0 friends among the nearest neighbors in Chinatown). Why site them all downtown? Share the love with the outer boroughs.

Brodsky and the other clowns in the legislature are craven opportunists and false populists, but Bloomberg sunk this thing himself. He’s been mayor all this time and he still doesn’t know how to find his way in Albany?

I also think Transalt’s leadership needs to listen to something other than its own voice. Car Culture is very much ingrained. Forget the NYC part of it–most people in the burbs are drivers and perceived this as a shot across the bow even if they rarely drive into Manhattan. Look at the coverage Congestion Pricing got in media outlets in Detroit and LA.

That said, Bloomberg is probably going to take the few powers open to him to make Brodsky wish he’d gone along with the proposal. I personally expect Bloomberg’s people to go back to all the white collar businesses in Manhattan and say ‘remember the tax cuts we gave you over the last twelve years? Here’s the quid pro quo’. And I can think of several.

Or, plan B, the city could go to the parking garage owners and force them to create bicycle parking. you could probably double the number of bike commuters if they had safe places to lock up.

Forget the NYC part of it–most people in the burbs are drivers and perceived this as a shot across the bow even if they rarely drive into Manhattan.

And it really was a shot across the bow. I’ll admit that the main thing I liked about the plan was that it set a precedent for policies specifically aimed at deterring driving – the stick instead of the carrot. Even with Bloomberg’s clumsy implementation, the case for it was (and is) watertight; no one can make a coherent objection to it.

I didn’t think that the motorists would not only make incoherent objections, but that they would get away with them, and have the media and associated flunkies repeat them perfectly credulously. Oh yes! A regressive tax on the poor! A waste of money! It wouldn’t help asthma in the South Bronx! Hurting the small businessman! It’ll turn the Upper East Side into a parking lot for Westchester! They sure spread that horseshit thick.

Sadly, it looks like the motorists have constructed an Impenetrable Wall of Bullshit, and nothing that attempts to make motorists pay their fair share, or deter them from clogging, polluting and killing, will pierce it. The daily papers, to their credit, mostly editorialized in favor of the plan, but when it came to calling Brodsky and company on their lies, they weren’t prepared.

It looks like the only thing that will break through the Wall of Bullshit is a true pro-transit populist movement from the boroughs to counter the fake populism of the Brodskys and Diazes, which is basically what our friend Niccolo has been saying for months. But as long as the poor strive for (and identify with) the Richard Brodsky SUV lifestyle, it’s going to be hard going.

Does anyone know who controls what parking permits? What is under the mayor’s purview, and what is the state’s? Are they matters of contract negotiations?