# New York City Adopting Congestion Pricing



## Don Omar (Aug 10, 2006)

Greening the Big Apple










Apr 26th 2007 | NEW YORK
From The Economist print edition

*The mayor's long-term plans for saving the environment *

THE city is in pretty good shape. Unemployment is at a record low. It is safer now than it was when Kennedy was president. Tourism is thriving. The bond rating is high. After the September 11th 2001 attack, many expected the worst for New York. But the mayor, Michael Bloomberg, has turned deficits into surpluses. He has also managed to make New Yorkers live healthier lives, banning smoking and trans-fats. Now, he has set his sights on the city's long-term sustainability.

The population is expected to grow by almost 1m to 9m by 2030—and the infrastructure is already crumbling. If something is not done to make the Big Apple greener, said Mr Bloomberg on April 22nd, New York will be on a “collision course with the environment”. He proceeded to unveil a 25-year vision that he hopes will be a model for other cities.

The mayor is proposing 127 new initiatives dealing with land, air, water, energy and transport. His proposals include introducing molluscs into the city's waterways as natural bio-filters, adding bicycle lanes and hastening the cleaning and rezoning of 7,600 acres (3,100 hectares) of contaminated land. He hopes to add 1m trees. New parks should mean that every New Yorker lives no more than 10 minutes away from one. School playgrounds will be open to the public.

Some of his provisions are even more ambitious. He plans to cut the city's greenhouse gas emissions by 30% in part by improving the efficiency of power plants. To pay for this, a $2.50 monthly surcharge will go on electricity bills. He argues that by spending $30 a year until 2015, every household will save $240 a year after that. This bid for energy conservation would be the broadest attack on climate change ever undertaken by an American city.

*The most controversial proposal and the most politically courageous is congestion pricing. A one-time sceptic, Mr Bloomberg has been won over by the success of pricing in London and Singapore and now intends to set up a three-year pilot programme. The $8 fee to enter Manhattan below 86th Street will, he hopes, encourage more people to use public transport, thus improving the air, general health (in some areas one in four children suffer from asthma) and the quality of life. Taxis are exempt. By his reckoning, only 5% of New Yorkers commute to Manhattan by car. Those drivers will pay about half the fees, suburban commuters and commercial vehicles the rest.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, California's verdant governor, and Britain's prime minister, Tony Blair, both sent messages of support to the mayor. But Mr Bloomberg still has to win over his own state. He hopes, for instance, that the state legislature will agree to create a body with authority to raise money for improving transport. The city will commit $200m a year to such an authority and he wants Albany to match it, plus help from the federal government. Congestion pricing is expected to raise $380m in its first year alone.*

Mr Bloomberg's vision is ambitious. But he needs to overcome Albany's doubts, and to win over public opinion in New York. He must do it fast: he will be in office for fewer than 1,000 more days.


----------



## Don Omar (Aug 10, 2006)

Mayor Proposes a Fee for Driving Into Manhattan










By MARIA NEWMAN
Published: April 22, 2007
nytimes.com

Saying that he would not spend his final term in office “pretending that all is fine,” Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg made a series of Earth Day proposals this afternoon to improve the environment of New York City, including charging a new congestion fee to drivers who come into parts of Manhattan during peak hours during weekdays.

The $8 congestion fee was one of 127 initiatives included in a sweeping plan by the mayor to help the city of currently 8.2 million people cope with an expected surge in population that he said is sure to put a strain on its transportation, housing and energy systems.

“Let’s face up to the fact that our population growth is putting our city on a collision course with the environment, which itself is growing more unstable and uncertain,” the mayor said.

A key objective is to *reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 30 percent by 2030*, by which time the population is projected to grow by at least a million people, he said.

The proposal that is sure to attract the most attention, and possibly objections, is one *to impose the $8 fee on car drivers, and $21 for truck operators, to drive in Manhattan south of 86th Street.
*
The mayor said congestion on the city’s streets is the source of many of the city’s health, environmental and economic problems.

“We can’t talk about reducing air pollution without talking about congestion,” he said.

“As our city continues to grow, the cost of congestion to our health, to our economy and to our environment are only going to get worse,” he said. “The question is not whether we want to pay, but how do we want to pay — with an increased asthma rate, with more greenhouse gases, with more wasted time, lost business and higher prices. Or do we charge a modest fee to encourage more people to take mass transit.”

*The fee the mayor is proposing would only be imposed during the week, between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.. And motorists driving the major highways along Manhattan’s east and west sides would not be fined, so it would be possible to go from Brooklyn to Harlem along Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive without entering the zone.*

*The fee would be deducted from the tolls commuters already pay to come into Manhattan via the bridges or tunnels.

There would be no toll booths, just a network of cameras that would capture license plate numbers and either charge a driver’s existing commuter account or generate a bill to be paid each time.*

The mayor said that *about half of the fees would be paid by New York City residents — and the other half by commuters from surrounding areas.* But he pledged not to begin imposing the fee for at least a year, until city officials can upgrade mass transit service into parts of New York City that are currently not well served by the city’s subway or train system.

*Revenue from the fees, he said, would generate about $400 million in its first year*, money that would be used to make improvements in the transit system.

The proposed fee, known as congestion pricing, is applauded by environmentalists and alternative transportation groups. But there is little doubt that much of the package of proposals will face stiff opposition from local politicians and trucking companies, as well as from the state legislators who will decide whether to approve many aspects of it.

State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky said he opposed the mayor’s proposal for a congestion fee because it is a regressive tax.

“The middle class and the poor will not be able to pay these fees and the rich will,” said Mr. Brodsky, who is chairman of a committee that oversees the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. “There are a lot of courageous things in the mayor’s package, but this one is not very well thought out.”

Clayton Boyce, a spokesman for the American Trucking Association, a national industry group, told The Associated Press, “It will be a real problem for operations for trucking companies and shippers, including all the retailers in Manhattan, which is substantial.”

“And all the people who get FedEx and UPS deliveries will have problems and will bear extra expense, so we definitely see problems with it,” he said.

The mayor, who has become known for his proposals that affect residents’ lifestyles, including a ban on smoking and a ban on the use of trans fats in the city’s restaurants, at one point in the speech joked about how far his own proposals have gone in forcing people to change the way they live.

“Banning trans fats is not enough. We also have to ban all desserts and sweets,” he said, before quickly letting on to his audience that he was only joking.

The mayor spoke, appropriately enough, at the American Museum of Natural History, in the Milstein Hall of Ocean Life, under an imposing model of a 94-foot blue whale suspended from the ceiling— the largest model of a blue whale in existence.

Mr. Bloomberg is a mayor who has in many ways practiced what he preached today, riding the subway to work almost every day. He also pointed out that the museum’s president, Ellen V. Futter, walks to her job everyday.

The mayor’s congestion tax is patterned after one imposed by London in 2003, where government officials say it has significantly reduced congestion. During Mr. Bloomberg’s speech, he played a videotaped message from Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who congratulated the mayor on his leadership.

Mr. Bloomberg talked about how cities and individuals have to take action, even when those actions may not be initially popular with others.

Like with the smoking ban, he said, “we did it, and whole countries followed us.”

“We’re not interested in preaching to others,” he said. “We’re doing what’s best for our city. And when we reap the benefits, perhaps others will continue to follow.”


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

$8 is too high for cars, and $21 is WAYY too high for trucks (unless you don't see a problem driving up the inflation in lower Manhattan more than it already is, possibly scaring business and causing mass unemployment in the area). But I do think it is a good idea. $4-5 at most (approximately the cost of a single subway trip without discount) would encourage people to take transit while not discouraging people from coming in who choose to drive.

Also, how in hell are they going to fit 9 million people into Manhattan?!?!


----------



## Elmo (Feb 5, 2003)

@Electrify:

Not in Manhatten, but in New York.


----------



## hkskyline (Sep 13, 2002)

Well, the parking fees are a killer already. A few more bucks for a congestion fee won't make much of a difference anyway.


----------



## Dreamliner (Jul 18, 2005)

*This is just plain WRONG. I pay for the right to drive on those streets through registration and licensing fee's. Those are PUBLIC streets, paid by and maintained by public taxes. This is simply another move to make Manhattan more elitest. This is nothing for the wealthy...but it will hurt the middle and lower clases. Take mass transit they say. Well, when ALL stations are updated (Escalators/Elevators) and are clean, well patroled and trains arrive every 4 minutes, then MAYBE. Otherwise forget it Mike. We're watching whose going along with this ripoff. Remember I drive and I vote.*


----------



## Don Omar (Aug 10, 2006)

Breaking News: Manhattan is already elitist for those who drive.
Is there really an inflation problem in Lower Manhattan and how would an $8 fee mean anything for people who pay $35 dollars for daily parking.
NYC mass transit is really good too. The subways are clean and safe, and almost always on time. I think that this move is to make New York less elitist, because the average person uses public transportation and the funds generated by the fee will go to fund those types of projects.


----------



## gladisimo (Dec 11, 2006)

Finally... it's arrived...


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

Dreamliner61 said:


> *This is just plain WRONG. I pay for the right to drive on those streets through registration and licensing fee's. Those are PUBLIC streets, paid by and maintained by public taxes. This is simply another move to make Manhattan more elitest. This is nothing for the wealthy...but it will hurt the middle and lower clases. Take mass transit they say. Well, when ALL stations are updated (Escalators/Elevators) and are clean, well patroled and trains arrive every 4 minutes, then MAYBE. Otherwise forget it Mike. We're watching whose going along with this ripoff. Remember I drive and I vote.*


While I don't entirely agree with your point, you do bring up a good one: will people with special needs that cannot take the subway or commuter rail be required to pay the congestion fee???

Also hkskyline, making trucks pay 2.5 times higher a fee every time they deliver goods to the area will only make the inflation in the area much worse. I still think $5 for the entire day would be good though: It would cost less than a 1 day pass or a round trip so people won't feel "villainized" for choosing to drive, but with parking, gas, and congestion would greatly encourage people to take transit instead.


----------



## Octoman (Nov 16, 2006)

My condolences. We have had this for a few years now. Originally it was improsed only on the very core of London with a daily charge of $10 and we were promised the area covered would not be increased and the price would not change for the foreseeable future. Since then, the area has been almost doubled to take in a largely residential part of West London, the charge has been increased to $16, they are now planning a further increase in the size of the zone to take in what is left of the city centre and a fee increase to $50 for polluting vehicles is in the pipeline.


----------



## lasdun (Mar 4, 2006)

... and it's great!

The buses are better and more reliable, more people are cycling, more are walking and more are taking public transport. Polution in the center has fallen, roads have been narrowed (making more space for pedestrians) and pavement culture is thriving.

The congestion charge was the best thing to happen to London since the Tube - I've just sold my car, now I car share when I need one and take the train or bike everywhere else. 

New York has a great deal to gain from it. Good on Bloomberg for taking on a more challenging culture than here!


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Since you have to pay outrageous parking fees and have to deal with horrible traffic, I think this plan will be the nail in the coffin to deal with the few commuters who still go into Manhattan by car.

I remember hearing a friend of mine who works in Midtown paying $52 for parking for 3 hours when he first moved there and didn't use transit. $8 extra is nothing in comparison. I believe that they are making an EZ-PASS system for trucks bringing products, is this true?

Anyway, since people have to already pay $6 for tolls from the New Jersey side to get into Manhattan for the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, it will just be a surcharge for them.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

OOC, on a whole what is London's feelings about the whole congestion pricing thing??? Do they love it, or hate it??? Also, how has this effected the mayor's popularity rating???


----------



## newyorkrunaway1 (Nov 21, 2004)

I think this is a great idea. For cities with as much congestion as NYC, is a great thing! This way, your make a profit off of limiting congestion and curving pollution.


----------



## pokistic (May 8, 2007)

What a great idea. :yes: London is doing so well. I hope other cities follow aswell.


----------



## city_thing (May 25, 2006)

Electrify said:


> OOC, on a whole what is London's feelings about the whole congestion pricing thing??? Do they love it, or hate it??? Also, how has this effected the mayor's popularity rating???


The congestion charge has been a big success. Less cars, more revenue to spend on improving public transport.

I wish a few Australian cities would do this as well, such as Sydney, Melbourne and Perth (bad traffic cities) -Auckland would benefit from this as well.


----------



## Dreamliner (Jul 18, 2005)

Other than myself, how many of you actually own a car and live and regularly drive in a major city?


----------



## kub86 (Aug 13, 2004)

Congestion pricing poll: 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070504/us_nm/newyorkcity_traffic_dc_2


Interesting quotes from article:
"Only 35 percent of the drivers supported Bloomberg's plan versus 61 percent against it when told about the $8 fee."

"Some legislators who represent the city's four outer boroughs have slammed the proposed congestion fee. They say the plan hits poor residents the hardest, explaining they often must drive as commuting by bus or subway just takes too long."

Contradicting numbers:

"In a clear indication that saving time is not a primary reason for driving, 61 percent of drivers say that mass transit would be as fast or faster," Kathryn Wylde, who runs the Partnership for New York City, said in a statement. Some 66 percent of motorists from Queens and Brooklyn share that view.

*Also, 60% of polled drivers said they would use another option if the $8 charge was in place.
---------
Just shows that people drive because they want to; not because they*have* to. 

So taking the information above...16% of all commuters to manhattan drive, of which 60% would find other means if the $8 charge was in place. That equates to about a 10% increase in mass transit ridership. Can the system handle that?? 

Wow, and transit share to the city would be almost 95%! That's amazing.


----------



## PresidentBjork (Apr 29, 2007)

Congesting was controversial in London when first introduced but people quickly got used to it.

It's worked - congestion has been reduced, and public transport is good.
Driving into London was always a pain in the arse, and upon my trips to New York it's no dream come true either. The fee will encourage more people finally give up the ghost and go with public transport which will receive more funds from this.

Simply, it works, and to be honest $8 dollars is £4 now, and in London the charge for one day is double that, same for trucks, so it's not that expensive.


----------



## Nomels (Jun 10, 2006)

To be fair, its not expensive. And it works in London and Riga (Latvia) is going to introduce the charge soon as well.


----------



## Dreamliner (Jul 18, 2005)

Yeah, I thought so.hno:


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

^^ I have a car, but I don't live in a major city (Hartford).

I could not even imagine how stressful it may be to drive a car everyday to and from Manhattan. It must suck. But at least New York has a good public transportation system to fall back on, over here...you got a car, or you're screwed.


----------



## Don Omar (Aug 10, 2006)

thus the ideal sense for the lower half of Manhattan to adopt congestion pricing


----------



## Octoman (Nov 16, 2006)

Maybe congestion has reduced in central London a bit but personally I cant see a great deal of difference. Even prior to the charge you wouldn’t drive into London unless it was unavoidable. It is sheer hell. Getting from the edge of the city to the centre took hours and still does.

I have noticed that our public transport is more crowded than ever which I take to be a sign that some motorists have been forced from the roads. But for the existing commuters who already took the train this is not a benefit, it has made life worse. I have also seen no improvement in fares. In fact both buses and rail have had inflation busting fare INCREASES since the introduction of the charge. 

It has had other side effects that people forget to mention. Business in the centre for instance have reported loss of trade – particularly those selling heavy good or relying of impulse passing trade. Also, if you call a tradesperson to your home they add the congestion charge to your bill. A plumber may carry out ten jobs in a day. He only has to pay the charge once but he bills his customers every time. Extra dosh for him I guess but we all end up paying the C charge without even picking up a set of car keys!

Don’t mean to sound negative but these things are irritants. Clearly congestion needs to be tackled but I would prefer to see viable alternatives to the car provided rather than imposing yet another tax. A carrot rather than a stick approach. I also think that declaring the C charge experiment a total success is not the full truth. Sure, it has led to some improvement but it has come at some cost, both financially and socially.


----------



## Dreamliner (Jul 18, 2005)

Octoman said:


> Maybe congestion has reduced in central London a bit but personally I cant see a great deal of difference. Even prior to the charge you wouldn’t drive into London unless it was unavoidable. It is sheer hell. Getting from the edge of the city to the centre took hours and still does.
> 
> I have noticed that our public transport is more crowded than ever which I take to be a sign that some motorists have been forced from the roads. But for the existing commuters who already took the train this is not a benefit, it has made life worse. I have also seen no improvement in fares. In fact both buses and rail have had inflation busting fare INCREASES since the introduction of the charge.
> 
> ...


I couldn't agree with you more. For some reason, some people believe that motorists wake up every morning and decide: : "Hmmm, I think I'll drive into the city center today and sit for hours in traffic, burning fuel and wearing out my car and my sanity, just for the fun of it.". People drive into the city because they HAVE to, not because they WANT to. It's usually those who DON"T drive who want to impose this. Face it boys and girls, this is nothing but a TAX.


----------



## Dreamliner (Jul 18, 2005)

[quote=Don Omar) Breaking News: Manhattan is already elitist for those who drive.

And here's a new's flash for you: If you reread my post, you'll see that I wrote that it would make Manhattan even MORE elitist than it is. Implying that it already is. We now return you to your regularly schedualed program that is already in progress...


----------



## samsonyuen (Sep 23, 2003)

I hadn't heard about this. But it's a good idea. I've heard about Montreal doing something similar with their bridges into the island again.


----------



## shadyunltd (May 1, 2006)

samsonyuen said:


> I hadn't heard about this. But it's a good idea. I've heard about Montreal doing something similar with their bridges into the island again.


True, but it will never happen, anyway.


----------



## theworldshallcry (Mar 8, 2007)

Nobody _has_ to drive. Every person I know that "has" to drive voluntarily chose to live in places without public transport coverage. Nobody is forced to live in far-flung suburbs, and I see no problem in punishing those that do. The pollution and congestion selfish suburbanites foist upon more self-sacrificing citizens never was fair, if justice is the issue at hand. By the way, a tax is not inherently evil any more than immunization shots are for the human body. It is rarely necessary, but sometimes we just need that little sting.


----------



## Dreamliner (Jul 18, 2005)

Can't argue with all that logic. I rest my case.


----------



## Dreamliner (Jul 18, 2005)

*Heard today on News88: When asked today on wether "Congestion Pricing" would relieve New York City of traffic congestion, Mayor Bloomberg answered: "No."". I told you it was nothing but a TAX.*


----------



## Don Omar (Aug 10, 2006)

City Traffic Pricing Wins U.S. and Spitzer’s Favor









Southbound traffic on Ninth Avenue near the Lincoln Tunnel, an area that would be affected by Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal.

By DANNY HAKIM and RAY RIVERA
Published: June 8, 2007
nytimes.com

ALBANY, June 7 — Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s plan to reduce traffic by charging people who drive into the busiest parts of Manhattan received significant support on Thursday as Gov. Eliot Spitzer endorsed the idea and the Bush administration indicated that New York stood to gain hundreds of millions of dollars if the plan were enacted.

If the measure is approved by the Legislature, New York will become the first city in the United States to impose a broad system of congestion pricing, which was introduced in London in 2003 and has been credited with reducing traffic there.

Governor Spitzer said he would work to ensure passage of the plan, which is a major part of the mayor’s blueprint for improving air quality and traffic flow for the next several decades. The Bloomberg administration has estimated that it could put the program into effect within 18 months of legislative approval.

“This is a necessary investment for the future of New York City, which is to a great extent the economic engine of New York State,” the governor said. “And so this is not really a question of whether, it’s a question of how, it’s a question of making sure that we do it properly.”

Mr. Spitzer appeared alongside the United States transportation secretary, Mary E. Peters, who announced that New York City was one of nine finalists for a share of $1.1 billion in federal aid to fight urban traffic. Ms. Peters warned, however, that the city’s potential share could be endangered if the mayor’s plan did not have state approval by August.

Despite the pressure of that warning on the Legislature, the plan faces opposition in Albany. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a Democrat who represents Lower Manhattan, outlined a list of concerns about the plan, including questions about the several hundred cameras Mayor Bloomberg has proposed installing to track cars that enter Manhattan. Mr. Silver also said the fees paid by drivers in London rose greatly after congestion pricing began, and worried about similar increases here.

In the Republican-led Senate, the majority leader, Joseph L. Bruno, introduced legislation on Thursday to enact the mayor’s plan but stopped short of endorsing it, and it was unclear when the issue would come up for a vote.

The mayor’s plan would charge $8 for cars and $21 for commercial trucks that enter Manhattan below 86th Street between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays, or $4 for drivers within the congestion zone, with several exceptions.

The legislative session ends on June 21, but the governor said he would most likely call the Legislature back into a special session by August to consider the measure.

“Part of this process is certainly to ensure that we can give the secretary the assurance that this is a plan that will happen,” the governor said at a joint appearance Thursday morning with the mayor and Ms. Peters. He added, “She wants that assurance, and therefore we need to create a persuasive argument that Albany is behind this.”

“Obviously,” he added, “the governor is behind it.”

Secretary Peters, who called the Bloomberg plan “very bold,” said that up to five of the nine cities would be selected to receive federal funds by mid-August, but she intimated that New York City was likely to be among the winners because no other city was as far along in its planning.

“It cannot be easy for a politician to propose charging commuters more money to enter Manhattan, but the mayor’s plan is sound, and the mayor’s plan will work,” she said.

Despite his endorsement, Governor Spitzer and his aides have concerns about the fine print, including the mayor’s proposal to create a public authority to take in the new revenue, estimated at $380 million a year. That would give the mayor more say over transportation spending. Mr. Spitzer would like to see the money remain in the control of existing authorities and would like to use it to ease a looming deficit at the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Mr. Spitzer also said he wanted to examine any ripple effects the program would have on traffic in neighborhoods outside Manhattan.

That concern is shared by some Assembly members from New York City who represent districts just outside the toll zone.

“One of the major problems is that districts like mine and others become possibly parking lots,” said Assemblyman Joseph R. Lentol, a Democrat who represents the Brooklyn neighborhoods around the Williamsburg Bridge.

Assemblyman Keith L. T. Wright, a Harlem Democrat, called the plan “a great start.”

“My only condition,” he added, “is that we have to be leery and vigilant and watchful that certain communities are not used as parking lots.”

Mr. Lentol said he believed that a majority of Assembly Democrats would be opposed to the mayor’s plan, but added that it was hard to say for sure because many members had yet to focus on the issue.

The Assembly will hold the first of a series of public hearings on congestion pricing on Friday, with the mayor as the first witness.

In the State Senate, the eight Long Island Republicans, an influential bloc, are likely to oppose the bill.

But the mayor’s word carries considerable weight with Republicans. He is one of the largest individual donors to the Senate Republican leadership, giving them more than several hundred thousands last year.

“Looking at the bill, obviously I think we owe the mayor the courtesy of a look through, but it’s a difficult thing, a difficult thing to go with,” said the Senate deputy majority leader, Dean G. Skelos.

Other finalists for the federal funds are Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, Minneapolis, St. Paul, Miami, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle. Those cities account for one-third of all highway congestion recorded among the nation’s 85 largest cities, and handled about 20 percent of all vehicle travel in America, according to the Transportation Department.

New York City officials hope to receive about $500 million in federal money. Secretary Peters suggested the funds could be used right away for enhancing public transit to accommodate those who previously drove to the city.

As it happened, Ms. Peters said she had been delayed from reaching the Thursday morning meeting with the governor and the mayor because she was stuck in traffic on the Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive.


----------



## Electrify (Mar 19, 2007)

theworldshallcry said:


> Nobody _has_ to drive. Every person I know that "has" to drive voluntarily chose to live in places without public transport coverage. Nobody is forced to live in far-flung suburbs, and I see no problem in punishing those that do. The pollution and congestion selfish suburbanites foist upon more self-sacrificing citizens never was fair, if justice is the issue at hand. By the way, a tax is not inherently evil any more than immunization shots are for the human body. It is rarely necessary, but sometimes we just need that little sting.


I've always wondered what a liberal Texan would sound like...

(don't disagree with what you said though, just found it quite "interesting" the way you expressed yourself)


----------



## Don Omar (Aug 10, 2006)

Bloomberg’s Traffic Plan Gets U.S. Boost

By WILLIAM NEUMAN
Published: August 14, 2007
nytimes.com

Federal officials are expected to announce today that they will help finance Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan to ease traffic in Manhattan if it is ultimately approved by lawmakers, according to a government official. 

An announcement will be made in Washington today by the federal transportation secretary, Mary E. Peters, who has said she will choose up to *five cities to share $1.1 billion in federal money* aimed at helping them fight gridlock by reducing traffic and promoting mass transit.

The official would not say how much money New York would receive. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because public discussion of the decision in advance of today’s announcement was not authorized. An aide to a member of New York’s congressional delegation said the Transportation Department notified his office of the decision yesterday.

Stu Loeser, a spokesman for Mr. Bloomberg, declined to comment last night.

The mayor’s plan was first aired in April as part of a package of proposals meant to guide the city’s growth in an environmentally sensitive way over the next two decades. The plan proposes to charge drivers $8 and trucks $21 a day to enter or leave Manhattan below 86th Street on weekdays during the workday. Those who drive only within the congestion zone would pay $4 a day for cars, $5.50 for trucks.

The congestion charging plan is designed not only to cut traffic, but to generate hundreds of millions of dollars in annual revenue that could be used to help pay for large-scale transportation projects.

The traffic plan drew opposition from politicians in the other four boroughs and the suburbs, which are home to many people who regularly drive into Manhattan.

In a last-minute compromise in July, days after what the city called a federal deadline for a plan, *a special session of the State Legislature agreed to create a commission to study the mayor’s plan*. Many of the 17 members would be chosen by Mr. Bloomberg, Gov. Eliot Spitzer and other officials who have supported the proposal.

The commission would make a recommendation by Jan. 31, and after that the plan would have to be *approved by the City Council and the Legislature by March 31*.

Under the rules set by the Legislature, however, the commission can proceed only if the federal government agrees to provide at least $200 million to help finance the proposal if it is ultimately approved.

In submitting an application for federal financing to the Transportation Department, the Bloomberg administration asked for more than $500 million.

Part of that money would be used to set up a high-tech system to administer the congestion charging program.

E-ZPass readers would charge a majority of drivers for travel in the zone. For vehicles without E-ZPass, a system of cameras around Manhattan would photograph license plates. Drivers would be expected to submit payments to the city.

Some of the federal money also may go to support improvements to the mass transit system, like expanded bus service to accommodate drivers who might switch to public transportation.

It appeared likely that the financing approved by the Transportation Department would cover both part of the congestion pricing costs and other aspects of the mayor’s traffic-fighting plan, which could proceed whether or not the more controversial $8 driving charge was approved by the State Legislature and the City Council.

It was also expected that at least some of the federal financing would be contingent on the ultimate approval of the mayor’s plan, or something like it.

Under the compromise worked out in July, the new commission must study a variety of traffic-cutting options before coming up with its recommendation.

The move by federal officials to offer financing can be seen as a major boost for the mayor’s plan. It will also probably increase the pressure on legislative leaders to agree to let the city proceed, or face the loss of a substantial pool of federal money.

Other cities that have applied for the federal traffic-fighting aid are Atlanta, Dallas, Denver, *Minneapolis-St. Paul*, Miami, San Diego, San Francisco and Seattle.


----------



## eusebius (Jan 5, 2004)

Rather than taxing, streets should be redesigned, more way to pedestrians and cyclists. I wish London's charge money would go into decent cyclepaths like in any given village or city in NL and DK. Only takes a bit of political courage.

As for NYC; should the whole of Central Park become a part of this zone? Seems like putting an unnecessary border through the park?


----------



## Northsider (Jan 16, 2006)

I love it! Chicago needs to adapt this ASAP! I agree though, 86th seems a bit overboard, that's way north of the downtown area. I guess Midtown gets a lot traffic too though.


----------



## ChrisZwolle (May 7, 2006)

I don't think it would work very much in New Yorks case. Traffic intensities are already exceptionally low fur such a dense and developed city as New York, because public transportation is very good there. I would go with the subway to work, not by car or bicycle.


----------



## storms991 (Mar 28, 2006)

Great Job NY!!!, I see no reason why people can't use the subways and trains, whenever I have to get to NY, I take the Train from Hoboken/ Metropark, buses are also quite convenient due to the centralized Port Authority Bus Terminal. All you lot who think the rule will do more harm than good, just try the subway or the bus once. BTW, walking/ biking is my preferred mode of transport, soak in the beauty of the city. 
If you don't live near or in NY, you have no right to criticize this plan because more times than not, NY will have a far better mass transit system than where you live.

I expect a rebuttal.


----------



## jamesinclair (Mar 21, 2006)

Now how about they use that money to cap public transport prices?

8$ might seem like alot, but a family of 4 has to pay 16$ roundtrip to go into the city on the subway, so the car wins out anyway.


----------

