Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy, Republican Representative Nicole Malliotakis of Staten Island, and Democratic Representative Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey all strongly oppose congestion pricing south of 60 degrees. is truly ironic.th Manhattan street. These political opponents found bipartisan unity in a fact-based analysis of congestion pricing. Their opposition is echoed by the program's architect, disgraced former New York governor Andrew Cuomo.in Mr. Cuomo's case He questions the policy, but not the timing, but like most opponents, he only mentions the cost of tolls and ignores the benefits of congestion relief. All these people know that opposing tolls and taxes is good politics, even if public policy is bad. The drumbeat of opposition to fees is turning the public against it, as the overwhelming political rhetoric refers only to costs, exaggerates potential negative impacts, and completely ignores benefits. These politicians shamelessly pander to political gain, but unfortunately we have become accustomed to them being shameless. I've written about this issue several times, so I'd like to revive some of my previous posts. As observed in June 2022:
„years ago, social service association investigated the distributional effects of congestion pricing and found that: “…only 4 percent of working residents in the outer boroughs drive to work in Manhattan and may be subject to congestion pricing. That compares to 56 percent of suburban residents who use…” Funding programs that reduce traffic and provide additional funding for mass transit would redistribute the wealth of the wealthy to benefit working-class commuters. Making public transport more attractive has a range of positive environmental, social and economic impacts. As New York City reopens, it will need to charge motorists a fee to use its congested road space. The fact is, we're not adding more streets in Manhattan, we're trying to put more vehicles on those streets. Traffic jams are bad again and we need to come up with some way to encourage people to get out of their cars and take the subway. ”
Then, when New Jersey Governor Murphy started his pathetic political pandering, i wrote it:
„Oh, again. Local media in New York is reporting on a fee that was intended to be levied to use the rare and congested streets south of 60th Street in Manhattan, with the cash used to subsidize mass transit.“ Like clockwork, minor politicians in Brooklyn, Queens, New Jersey, and the Bronx are complaining about „attacks“ on working New Yorkers. Big politicians take the lead: New Jersey governor talks about „double taxation.“ While the untested concept is accepted as fact, people are worried about drivers taking up his parking spots north of 60th Street. Perhaps the most ridiculous is the idea that congestion charges are regressive taxes. Here's a newsflash: Almost all the people who drive into the city are either senior enough in their organizations to have access to subsidized parking or wealthy enough to pay for parking…The real leader is a New Yorker. will encourage residents to do what 96% of people do. Take mass transit to Manhattan! Murphy probably won't bother advocating for mass transit since most Jerseyans already use public transit.According to the article Dave Colon Published on StreetsBlog NYC in October 2021: „New Jersey commuters who drive to work in Manhattan's so-called central business district are made up of a small group of wealthy people. Census data processed by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign What was announced Monday is a scathing rebuke to New Jersey politicians who say congestion fees are an unfair tax on the hard-working middle class. The transportation advocacy group looked at commuting patterns in the Garden State's 21 congressional districts closest to Manhattan and found that, on average, just 1.6 percent of commuters from those areas drive to the CBD for work. The median income of those commuters was also found. The average annual pay for commuters was $107,996, about 22% higher than the median pay of $88,407 for transit commuters. In other words, New Jersey drivers who use the Holland Tunnel, Lincoln Tunnel, or George Washington Bridge to get to Manhattan below 60th Street are small in number but big in their wallets. ”
To revive these studies and inject some facts into biased media coverage of congestion pricing, I interview people who typically drive in Lower Manhattan and ask them what they think about congestion pricing. . I'd love to see an interview with someone who was stuck in traffic for an hour trying to drive across town. Ask them how much they would pay to travel through lower Manhattan a little faster.
There is no doubt that the new policy will have unintended negative consequences. New policies and products have drawbacks that cannot be predicted without experience. Who knew that social media would become an addiction? Who knew that Superfund laws would discourage urban brownfield development and encourage suburban greenfield development? Importantly, policies and products can be adjusted to address negative impacts. However, the basic policy design of congestion pricing is sound. Congestion pricing generates revenue for mass transit agencies and reduces traffic congestion. Surge pricing works. It works for Uber, it works for Jet Blue. It influences demand and improves service and revenue.
New York City's mass transit system is comparable to the human system that circulates our blood. It is an essential element of our virtually organic economic circulation system. Additional maintenance, modernization, and expansion are needed, but our region cannot afford to pull significantly more money from current revenue sources to adequately fund them. There are limits to how much money can be collected from fare boxes, but the MTA needs to figure out a way to stop people from boarding buses through back doors or jumping through turnstiles for free. At the same time, even in today's hybrid office environment, central business district congestion remains high and must be reduced. The labor value lost due to traffic delays is partially recovered by charging congestion charges that increase traffic speed.
MTA finally set June 30thth as the starting date for congestion charges. The courts and Congress should step back and begin this important project. The alternative is an aging subway system and increased traffic congestion. The subway system still uses the mechanical signaling system used a century before him. People in wheelchairs and strollers are navigating inaccessible systems, like a throwback to the good old days when no one cared about accessibility. Assuming congestion pricing is eventually implemented, inefficient and incompetent managers of mass transit systems should be held accountable for efficiently spending all of this new revenue stream. We already know that building mass transit in New York is far more expensive than in any other city in the world. The media needs to shine a bright spotlight on the use of these new funds, and this increased oversight should help ensure we get more bang for our bucks for transportation than we currently receive.
Congestion pricing, paradoxically, was invented in the 1950s by the late Bill Vickery, a colleague at Columbia University, to reduce congestion on subways. Years after developing this concept, he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics for the genius of his proposal. Several other large cities around the world have also introduced this policy, and it has been successful wherever it has been tried. Indeed, policies need to be tailored to local conditions wherever they appear. Prices charged, waivers, discounts, valid hours, and days can all be adjusted to address unforeseen impacts.
As a longtime professor of public management, management, and sustainability management, I am well aware of New York's poor track record in mass transit management, particularly in contract management for the MTA. Some of this is due to state and city contracting and construction regulations, and some is due to the MTA's bureaucracy, dysfunctional work rules, corruption, and waste. It's natural to wonder if we're just sending „good money after bad money.“ My view is that despite the waste in the system, the demand for better service and new infrastructure such as station elevators and computer-controlled traffic lights will require additional revenue. If we could fix some of the dysfunction in these systems, we would get more out of that revenue, but if we are to bring our nation's mass transit system into its 24th year of the 21st century, we need some form of will require new resources.
The views and opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia Climate School, Earth Institute, or Columbia University.