Congestion Pricing, Hashed Out Over Pints

It wasn’t your typical congestion pricing forum, but last night about 50 people got to hear the pros and cons of the Bloomberg plan debated in a relaxed, informal setting, with instructions from the moderators to keep drinking.

The event, sponsored by the London-based Institution of Civil Engineers, brought together two proponents and two critics of pricing at Manhattan’s 11th Street Bar, in Alphabet City. Amidst the academic banter, kind lighting and cold pints, it was hard to imagine things would get all that heated. They didn’t.

Not that the dialogue was short on substance. Critic Dr. John Falcocchio, Professor of Transportation Planning at Polytechnic University of New York, for instance, didn’t seem to be against pricing as a concept as much as he was skeptical of the plan as proposed. According to Falcocchio, a variable pricing scheme based on the Stockholm program, rather than London’s flat-rate model, would be a better fit for New York. Falcocchio said charging more during peak congestion times would speed traffic flow more effectively than a flat fee, which he believes will fail to reduce congestion "in a measurable way." Falcocchio acknowledged the transit benefit from pricing revenues, yet advocated for improved enforcement of traffic laws before a possible "gradual" implementation of pricing.

NYC DOT Director of Studies Thomas Maguire replied that enforcement is built into the plan, and that the city would like to have more red light cameras (which depend on approval by suspicious state lawmakers). Maguire also pointed out that there is no neighborhood in the city where a majority of commuters don’t already take transit, but noted that some of the worst congestion is in "asthma alley" neighborhoods leading into Manhattan and the central business district. Driving, Maguire said, is a choice, and pricing uses a "carrot and stick" approach to encourage motorists to choose transit.

Representing the anti-pricing Queens Chamber of Commerce Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free, attorney Corey Bearak claimed that population projections cited by PlaNYC are "dead wrong" (talking point alert!), and are an "excuse" to squeeze the middle-class "schlump" who has to drive into Manhattan. Bearak said neighborhoods with asthma-stricken populations are located "nowhere near" the congestion pricing zone, and that too much of the anticipated pricing revenue would be devoted to administrative costs. Instead of pricing, Bearak said, the city should work on reviving the commuter tax.

After a round of queries from the audience to both sides — including one about the city’s "schizophrenia" when it comes to clipping bikes (out of DOT’s hands, responded Maguire) and bike parking (no definitive answer here, other than possible isolated zoning adjustments) — ICE moderator David Caiden called the question. "Congestion Pricing, as proposed in PlaNYC 2030, Solves Manhattan’s Transport Problems," yea or nay?

Twenty-six audience members were polled in favor, with "not even 15" against.

As moderator, I don’t believe Caiden was counted among the 26, but he could have been. "I think it should be $50," he said earlier in the evening, referring to charging "those evil-doers coming in by car."

"But I’m not at all biased," he added.

Photo: Brad Aaron

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Panel: Sustainable NYC: Congestion Pricing

|
The Wagner Transportation Association invites you to learn about the policy and planning issues behind New York City’s proposed congestion pricing plan. Panelists represent a variety of positions and will discuss congestion pricing from the perspectives of  traffic management, public transit, the economy, and the American Automobile Association.  Come learn about the specifics of the […]

Debate: Congestion Pricing

|
The Institution of Civil Engineers invites you to a debate in a bar: "Congestion Pricing, as proposed in PlaNYC 2030, Solves Manhattan’s Transport Problems" Arguing For Congestion Pricing: Thomas Maguire NYC DOT Director of Studies Daniel Peterson Professor of Transportation Planning, Columbia University, and Senior Transportation Engineer, Arup Arguing Against: Joshua E. Bienstock Queens Chamber […]

RPA Refutes Anti-Pricing “Alternatives” Study

|
On Wednesday, Jeffrey Zupan, Regional Plan Association’s transportation analyst, issued a comprehensive rebuttal of the main traffic reducing measures proposed in Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free’s anti-congestion pricing report, “Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion Mitigation in the Manhattan Central Business District." Thanks to Zupan, Transportation Alternatives and other critics, four fundamental problems with the Keep […]

Today’s Headlines

|
Are Congestion Pricing Hearings a Stall Tactic? (Daily Politics) RELATED: Albany Yielding to Minority on Pricing (Daily News) PlaNYC Goals Undermined by Atlantic Yards (Gotham Gazette) Preservationists Question Moynihan Station Plan (Post) Development Slated for Flatbush Ave Extension (Brooklyn Eagle) UN Expansion Could Include New East River Park (Sun) Designs Considered for Gateway Park Renovation […]

What Will It Take for Assemblyman Kellner to Vote for Pricing?

|
Two weeks ago, State Assemblyman Micah Kellner submitted a report to the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission [pdf] detailing his concerns about the two pricing plans in the TCMC’s interim report. Kellner’s district encompasses both of the congestion zone’s proposed northern boundaries, running from 60th Street to about 90th Street, and from 3rd Avenue to the […]

Paterson Backs Pricing, Introduces Bill in Albany

|
David Paterson is going to do right by his old State Senate district after all. New York’s new governor settled any doubts about his position on congestion pricing this afternoon, introducing a bill that follows the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. The Daily Politics has the scoop: "Congestion pricing addresses two urgent concerns […]