I think Peter is right on this issue, even though I support the idea of congestion pricing. Why should federal money go to subsidize facilities used solely by the rich who can afford to shell out an extra $8-21 each day for the privilege of driving on them?
Congressman DeFazio is absolutely correct on this issue. The proposed charges to enter NYC amount to discrimination by income and class. Bloomberg, a rich man, can easily afford what he is proposing many others can not. If Bloomberg really wants to do something himself, he can dump his often used private plane and fly by commercial airline.
“The proposed charges to enter NYC amount to discrimination by income and class.”
I’d call it more of affirmative action than discrimination, but whatever…
Bloomberg, a rich man, can easily afford what he is proposing many others can not.
I think you are confused about which classes will be paying the congestion charges: only the upper classes in NYC own cars, the lower classes won’t be paying $8/day to drive in the city because they couldn’t afford the $15k/year for parking in the first place.
Just 4.7% of working Brooklyn and Queens residents, for example, commute by car into Manhattan’s central business district, City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan said at a City Council hearing.
Considering this congestion charge would only affect lower Manhattan – South of 86th – I’d hardly call it discriminatory. As was pointed out, most New Yorkers in that part of town don’t even own cars. Those that do drive externalize a huge amount of problems on the people who do live in the area – health problems from pollution, clogging the streets, etc.
Doesn’t the congestion fee have to be a burden on someone for there to be an impact on congestion?
Yes. However, the people that it will burden aren’t people that wonder where their next meal will come from or even close, they are upper class people that will decide that they should park their Lexus’s and BMW’s in New Jersey, and just take the subway/taxi to work. I don’t know the numbers, but I imagine that we are taking (on a regular basis: the tourists are another matter,) on the order of 5% of the population in the top 25% of the income range for the city, (people that are making more than $100k/year.) Yes, Bloomberg, (net worth $1B+,) will be able to pay it regardless, but mostly this is a fight within the upper class, not something that is very interesting to most of us down on the lower income brackets…
I don’t think politicans have a leg to stand on with regard to this issue. How much “carbon” do they spew up into the air flying back and forth to D.C. and to various engagements? Take Gore and the Price of Wales for instance – they talk about global warming ad nauseum but then jetset all over the world to do it. How disingenuous of them! What they need is a “virtual” congress and telecommute instead of wasting so much gas going back and forth. Technology to save the environment – what a concept! This would also address the security concern of having all the elected officials all in one place simultaneously. I would favor an agressive carbon credit given to people who use technology to “offset” their supposed need for frivolous travel. If transportation of a good is involved its one thing but to jetset somewhere to blab with others is another, in my opinion.
Al Gore’s organization purchases carbon offsets to mitigate the impact of their travel, and “green” wind and solar energy for his home/offices. In the real world, some “offsets” are more effective than others, but nonetheless Al Gore is cognizant of the carbon output of his team’s travel and makes attempts to document and compensate.
That also depends on whose money is getting spent to fund the project. It sounded to me like DeFazio is complaining about the use of federal funds.
Yeah, there is that. But on the other hand if Bloomberg actually follows through on spending all of the revenue raised to develop more transit projects, it’s a net win, since the lower classes definitely would benefit from increased bus service and new subway lines…
it’s a net win, since the lower classes definitely would benefit from increased bus service and new subway lines…
In any other city I’d agree with this statement, but given TriMet’s and Metro’s standing policy of investment only towards light rail projects, the new tax revenues would certainly be funnelled into a select few MAX and Streetcar lines to further enrich developers like Homer Williams who have little to zero concern for affordable housing or social enrichment of lower income populations, and certainly there would be no added bus service to help improve mobility from those areas where lower income residents live.
BTW, for anyone that is going to point me to the Transit Investment Plan, how much mobility is added by a new bus stop sign? And where is “bus” mentioned in Metro’s transportation plans? (New exhaust filters don’t add capacity and routes.)
Greg, does the fact that Gore emits a lot of CO2 make global warming fake, or mean that we shouldn’t do anything about it, or what exactly is your point? (And: Gore isn’t in Congress. I do like the idea, mainly because it makes the representatives more accessible to the voters and less accessible to lobbyists, but that is a different topic.)
Ross said: “It sounded to me like DeFazio is complaining about the use of federal funds.”
Yes, that is his complaint. However, if it convinces more people to ride transit, why shouldn’t it qualify for federal funds any less so than building new subway lines would do the same? I mean, we have a goal that we reward cities for trying to reach, why should we limit the methods that they use to reach it?
Not that that applies in all situations, but the basic idea behind congestion pricing is to bill people for their effect on other people’s use of the roads, so everyone (both the people that decide to no longer drive, and the people that still drive) benefits from the less traffic on the streets. As such, congestion pricing makes sense in New York, where traffic is bad enough that a marginal car is making the traffic worse, but if you implemented congestion pricing is say, Ashland, and convinced more people to ride the bus as a result, (is there a bus in Ashland?) then the congestion pricing would be a market inefficiency, or a regular old “tax” on driving…
Erik said: “In any other city I’d agree with this statement, but given TriMet’s and Metro’s standing policy…”
Wow. If you wanted to convince me that you really do read what other people type, this wasn’t it. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City, (also known as “NYC” as you might notice it says at the top of the screen,) and so this thread has nothing to do with Portland or Metro and the only relationship to this state is that DeFazio, (the guy that disagrees with him,) is our congressman. But you probably won’t read this anyways, so why am I bothering?
Considering this congestion charge would only affect lower Manhattan – South of 86th – I’d hardly call it discriminatory. As was pointed out, most New Yorkers in that part of town don’t even own cars…
That isn’t correct at all.
One, 42nd street (i.e. Times Square) is considered “mid-town Manhattan. Below 86th isn’t “lower Manhattan”…it is MOST of Manhattan.
Two, this area includes most of the most expensive areas of NYC including the upper east side and central park south, west and east. These are people who are the most likely to own cars in Manhattan.
“Al Gore’s organization purchases carbon offsets to mitigate the impact of their travel, and “green” wind and solar energy for his home/offices.”
Energy tax credits and carbon offsets are just a scapegoat so the wealthy can continue their obese lifestyles of with multiple big houses and country estates, private planes, life in the fast lane, luxury travel and living in excess, while at the same time spewing lip service to the rest of the population on how they should conserve. Buying into the energy tax credit/carbon offset methodology demonstrates a hypocritical mindset.
I am surprised to see you write this “Energy tax credits and carbon offsets are just a scapegoat so the wealthy can continue their obese lifestyles…”
When in the past you have defened the need for people to drive large SUVs. If I am not incorrect, I think I even read you saying the that “Hummer” tax credit for business was justified because many small business people needed all kinds of vehicles.
So, if you truly don’t like “obese” lifestyles, why are you not a bigger support of alternatives to the automobile?
Energy tax credits and carbon offsets are just a scapegoat so the wealthy can continue their obese lifestyles of with multiple big houses and country estates, private planes, life in the fast lane, luxury travel and living in excess, while at the same time spewing lip service to the rest of the population on how they should conserve. Buying into the energy tax credit/carbon offset methodology demonstrates a hypocritical mindset.
Gee, Terry, I hadn’t mentioned “energy tax credits”, you inserted those into what I had said, but thanks anyway.
As for hypocrisy: People who pay more money for carbon offsets (assuming they are buying genuine offsets) are genuinely reducing the impact they cause to the planet, and by extension, it’s inhabitants, rich or poor. Where I come from, that’s not called “hypocrisy”, that’s called “ethical”.
Wow. If you wanted to convince me that you really do read what other people type, this wasn’t it. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City, (also known as “NYC” as you might notice it says at the top of the screen,) and so this thread has nothing to do with Portland or Metro and the only relationship to this state is that DeFazio, (the guy that disagrees with him,) is our congressman. But you probably won’t read this anyways, so why am I bothering?
Hmm. I thought this was “PORTLAND Transport” and this was a thread to discuss what NYC is doing and applying the principles to Portland.
Or am I mistaken, and that the transit advocates here seem to be God and know what is best for everybody? Where’s the thread to discuss public transit in Baghdad; after all there’s lots of U.S. federal dollars, a major need for public transit, and no current infrastructure.
18 responses to “DeFazio on Congestion Pricing in NYC”
DeFazio is wrong on this issue. He’s totally anti-road toll for some reason. Never understood why.
I think Peter is right on this issue, even though I support the idea of congestion pricing. Why should federal money go to subsidize facilities used solely by the rich who can afford to shell out an extra $8-21 each day for the privilege of driving on them?
Congressman DeFazio is absolutely correct on this issue. The proposed charges to enter NYC amount to discrimination by income and class. Bloomberg, a rich man, can easily afford what he is proposing many others can not. If Bloomberg really wants to do something himself, he can dump his often used private plane and fly by commercial airline.
“The proposed charges to enter NYC amount to discrimination by income and class.”
I’d call it more of affirmative action than discrimination, but whatever…
Bloomberg, a rich man, can easily afford what he is proposing many others can not.
I think you are confused about which classes will be paying the congestion charges: only the upper classes in NYC own cars, the lower classes won’t be paying $8/day to drive in the city because they couldn’t afford the $15k/year for parking in the first place.
I think you are confused about which classes will be paying the congestion charges: only the upper classes in NYC own cars,
Doesn’t the congestion fee have to be a burden on someone for there to be an impact on congestion? Or is this strictly a revenue raising idea?
From the NY Daily News:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/05/23/2007-05-23_congestion_plan_is_right_route_brass-1.html
Just 4.7% of working Brooklyn and Queens residents, for example, commute by car into Manhattan’s central business district, City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan said at a City Council hearing.
Considering this congestion charge would only affect lower Manhattan – South of 86th – I’d hardly call it discriminatory. As was pointed out, most New Yorkers in that part of town don’t even own cars. Those that do drive externalize a huge amount of problems on the people who do live in the area – health problems from pollution, clogging the streets, etc.
Doesn’t the congestion fee have to be a burden on someone for there to be an impact on congestion?
Yes. However, the people that it will burden aren’t people that wonder where their next meal will come from or even close, they are upper class people that will decide that they should park their Lexus’s and BMW’s in New Jersey, and just take the subway/taxi to work. I don’t know the numbers, but I imagine that we are taking (on a regular basis: the tourists are another matter,) on the order of 5% of the population in the top 25% of the income range for the city, (people that are making more than $100k/year.) Yes, Bloomberg, (net worth $1B+,) will be able to pay it regardless, but mostly this is a fight within the upper class, not something that is very interesting to most of us down on the lower income brackets…
I don’t think politicans have a leg to stand on with regard to this issue. How much “carbon” do they spew up into the air flying back and forth to D.C. and to various engagements? Take Gore and the Price of Wales for instance – they talk about global warming ad nauseum but then jetset all over the world to do it. How disingenuous of them! What they need is a “virtual” congress and telecommute instead of wasting so much gas going back and forth. Technology to save the environment – what a concept! This would also address the security concern of having all the elected officials all in one place simultaneously. I would favor an agressive carbon credit given to people who use technology to “offset” their supposed need for frivolous travel. If transportation of a good is involved its one thing but to jetset somewhere to blab with others is another, in my opinion.
Greg –
Al Gore’s organization purchases carbon offsets to mitigate the impact of their travel, and “green” wind and solar energy for his home/offices. In the real world, some “offsets” are more effective than others, but nonetheless Al Gore is cognizant of the carbon output of his team’s travel and makes attempts to document and compensate.
– Bob R.
but mostly this is a fight within the upper class, not something that is very interesting to most of us down on the lower income brackets…
That also depends on whose money is getting spent to fund the project. It sounded to me like DeFazio is complaining about the use of federal funds.
That also depends on whose money is getting spent to fund the project. It sounded to me like DeFazio is complaining about the use of federal funds.
Yeah, there is that. But on the other hand if Bloomberg actually follows through on spending all of the revenue raised to develop more transit projects, it’s a net win, since the lower classes definitely would benefit from increased bus service and new subway lines…
it’s a net win, since the lower classes definitely would benefit from increased bus service and new subway lines…
In any other city I’d agree with this statement, but given TriMet’s and Metro’s standing policy of investment only towards light rail projects, the new tax revenues would certainly be funnelled into a select few MAX and Streetcar lines to further enrich developers like Homer Williams who have little to zero concern for affordable housing or social enrichment of lower income populations, and certainly there would be no added bus service to help improve mobility from those areas where lower income residents live.
BTW, for anyone that is going to point me to the Transit Investment Plan, how much mobility is added by a new bus stop sign? And where is “bus” mentioned in Metro’s transportation plans? (New exhaust filters don’t add capacity and routes.)
Greg, does the fact that Gore emits a lot of CO2 make global warming fake, or mean that we shouldn’t do anything about it, or what exactly is your point? (And: Gore isn’t in Congress. I do like the idea, mainly because it makes the representatives more accessible to the voters and less accessible to lobbyists, but that is a different topic.)
Ross said:
“It sounded to me like DeFazio is complaining about the use of federal funds.”
Yes, that is his complaint. However, if it convinces more people to ride transit, why shouldn’t it qualify for federal funds any less so than building new subway lines would do the same? I mean, we have a goal that we reward cities for trying to reach, why should we limit the methods that they use to reach it?
Not that that applies in all situations, but the basic idea behind congestion pricing is to bill people for their effect on other people’s use of the roads, so everyone (both the people that decide to no longer drive, and the people that still drive) benefits from the less traffic on the streets. As such, congestion pricing makes sense in New York, where traffic is bad enough that a marginal car is making the traffic worse, but if you implemented congestion pricing is say, Ashland, and convinced more people to ride the bus as a result, (is there a bus in Ashland?) then the congestion pricing would be a market inefficiency, or a regular old “tax” on driving…
Erik said:
“In any other city I’d agree with this statement, but given TriMet’s and Metro’s standing policy…”
Wow. If you wanted to convince me that you really do read what other people type, this wasn’t it. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City, (also known as “NYC” as you might notice it says at the top of the screen,) and so this thread has nothing to do with Portland or Metro and the only relationship to this state is that DeFazio, (the guy that disagrees with him,) is our congressman. But you probably won’t read this anyways, so why am I bothering?
Considering this congestion charge would only affect lower Manhattan – South of 86th – I’d hardly call it discriminatory. As was pointed out, most New Yorkers in that part of town don’t even own cars…
That isn’t correct at all.
One, 42nd street (i.e. Times Square) is considered “mid-town Manhattan. Below 86th isn’t “lower Manhattan”…it is MOST of Manhattan.
Two, this area includes most of the most expensive areas of NYC including the upper east side and central park south, west and east. These are people who are the most likely to own cars in Manhattan.
“Al Gore’s organization purchases carbon offsets to mitigate the impact of their travel, and “green” wind and solar energy for his home/offices.”
Energy tax credits and carbon offsets are just a scapegoat so the wealthy can continue their obese lifestyles of with multiple big houses and country estates, private planes, life in the fast lane, luxury travel and living in excess, while at the same time spewing lip service to the rest of the population on how they should conserve. Buying into the energy tax credit/carbon offset methodology demonstrates a hypocritical mindset.
Terry,
I am surprised to see you write this “Energy tax credits and carbon offsets are just a scapegoat so the wealthy can continue their obese lifestyles…”
When in the past you have defened the need for people to drive large SUVs. If I am not incorrect, I think I even read you saying the that “Hummer” tax credit for business was justified because many small business people needed all kinds of vehicles.
So, if you truly don’t like “obese” lifestyles, why are you not a bigger support of alternatives to the automobile?
Energy tax credits and carbon offsets are just a scapegoat so the wealthy can continue their obese lifestyles of with multiple big houses and country estates, private planes, life in the fast lane, luxury travel and living in excess, while at the same time spewing lip service to the rest of the population on how they should conserve. Buying into the energy tax credit/carbon offset methodology demonstrates a hypocritical mindset.
Gee, Terry, I hadn’t mentioned “energy tax credits”, you inserted those into what I had said, but thanks anyway.
As for hypocrisy: People who pay more money for carbon offsets (assuming they are buying genuine offsets) are genuinely reducing the impact they cause to the planet, and by extension, it’s inhabitants, rich or poor. Where I come from, that’s not called “hypocrisy”, that’s called “ethical”.
– Bob R.
Wow. If you wanted to convince me that you really do read what other people type, this wasn’t it. Bloomberg is the mayor of New York City, (also known as “NYC” as you might notice it says at the top of the screen,) and so this thread has nothing to do with Portland or Metro and the only relationship to this state is that DeFazio, (the guy that disagrees with him,) is our congressman. But you probably won’t read this anyways, so why am I bothering?
Hmm. I thought this was “PORTLAND Transport” and this was a thread to discuss what NYC is doing and applying the principles to Portland.
Or am I mistaken, and that the transit advocates here seem to be God and know what is best for everybody? Where’s the thread to discuss public transit in Baghdad; after all there’s lots of U.S. federal dollars, a major need for public transit, and no current infrastructure.