If you live in or near any of the five boroughs of New York City you are probably growing familiar with (or, maybe sick of) the term "congestion pricing." If you area Londoner you have been familiar with it, making peace with it and living it, for almost four years now. The rest of you may be as puzzled by it as I was on my introduction to the term via one of Time magazine's Fifty Top Ten Lists of 2007. The Top Ten Green Ideas list has it at number 8:
Whether it's water, energy or Hannah Montana tickets, the best way to encourage efficient use of a commodity is by putting the right price on it. Ditto for driving. Cities around the world — including London and Singapore — have adopted congestion pricing, which seeks to reduce car use by charging drivers to use the most heavily trafficked inner urban streets. Car-loving America has avoided the policy, until this year, when New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced that he would bring congestion pricing to the most gridlocked area in America: Manhattan. Bloomberg's plan, part of a long-term sustainability blueprint for the city called PlaNYC, would charge cars $6 to enter the busiest parts of Manhattan between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on a weekday. If he pulls it off, congestion pricing could help cut carbon dioxide levels and New York's sky-high asthma rates — and perhaps more importantly, show other American cities the way to go.
So, this idea goes like this: Congestion pricing is the practice of charging motorists more to use a roadway, bridge or tunnel during periods of the heaviest use. Its purpose is to reduce automobile use during periods of peak congestion, thereby easing traffic and encouraging commuters to walk, bike or take mass transit as an alternative. According to the article on its implementation in London, after widespread criticism and opposition to the plan, its acceptance has grown, even as the prices have risen. This appears to be an especially good plan for cities with antique core areas, like London - like Manhattan and Boston in this country, with limited access routes into the central area. In researching congestion pricing, I came across this great site: Transportation Alternatives, a group founded in 1973 whose stated mission is "to reclaim New York City's streets from the automobile, and to advocate for bicycling, walking and public transit as the best transportation alternatives. " The site has an extensive page on the subject of congestion pricing and the city, explaining, among other things, how the monies generated by the plan would be used:
The revenues collected through the charge will be used solely to fund expansions and improvements to our regional transit system and acheive a state of good repair on city streets and on the transit system. The benefits of this plan across all five boroughs are significant. .....New York City has not expanded its transit system significantly for over 50 years. The fees generated from the congestion charge will enable a broad range of improvements in mass transit, such as subway expansion, Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) to East Queens and South Brooklyn, fast ferry service from the Rockaways and across the East River, as well as safer bicycling and walking infrastructure. Many of these improvements would be cost prohibitive without the revenue generated from a congestion charge. Current estimates, based on an $8 charge for entering Manhattan south of 86th Street, place annual revenue from the charge at roughly $400 million in the first year and up to $900 million by 2030.
Transalt.org looks like a good place to keep up with progress on the plan, as they publish frequent publicity releases on it. Streetsblog has an interesting post on this issue, asking: Congestion Pricing: Does New York Have the Will? At yet another recently discovered site concerning Transportation solutions for safer, smarter, more liveable cities, called citystreets, I found a piece with some healthy skepticism as well as some good suggestions for the plan, Congestion Pricing, Let's Clear the Air. If we are going to reduce the carbon emissions from our cities, make them places where people can still enjoy some semblance of a healthy and quality life, ideas like this, and even more radical plans, are going to have to be accepted, implemented, embraced. And sooner, rather than later.
