I've been driving in New York City for over 30 years and have seen firsthand how tough it is to get around the city's jam-packed streets. There's talk about starting congestion pricing in Manhattan, especially below 60th Street. This idea definitely needs a closer look. Supporters say it'll cut down traffic and bring in money for public transit, but I wonder if these are anything more than hopeful guesses.
Congestion pricing advocates think it'll help ease traffic in and around the charging zone. They talk about how it will cut down two million miles of travel each day, which sounds great on paper. But is driving less really going to mean less traffic in a busy place like New York? That seems like a giant leap to make.
That second selling point is a promise to generate $1 billion a year for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) so it can upgrade mass transit. While we can all agree that the city's aging transit infrastructure needs an upgrade, one has to wonder whether this money will be used for much-needed improvements or vanish down the MTA's proverbial "money pit."
While the MTA has a vital mission of providing efficient subway, bus, and commuter rail services, its record in managing its finances and operating efficiently could be better. There remains a concern that this revenue from congestion pricing may be another raindrop in the bucket of a deep problem.
But it continues beyond MTA's dismal financial prowess, and doubt is widespread that it will do anything to reduce congestion. History shows that when, in the past, efforts were made to ease urban gridlock through planning provisions such as road widening, again, those efforts never created a lasting impact. What makes congestion pricing any different?
And third, diversions of trips from Manhattan. Has anyone thought of the changes that would be expected because of the increase traffic and air pollution in the Bronx, Staten Island, Long Island, and New Jersey? Those are the exact places the MTA's own study suggests would bear the brunt of these worsening conditions. Instead, it is a shift of the problem to other regions and making the air pollution problem greater there.
The belief that drivers will quickly switch to other transit means is a joke. In my experience, driving offers a degree of independence that mass transit will never parallel. Can the state truly know for sure that tolls will result in a 15 to 20 percent reduction in car trips?
We also need to think about fairness. The congestion charges might cost those more who are already struggling financially. It doesn't seem right to tax people who have less, though there's talk of giving discounts to low-income drivers. But they're still determining how much discount they'll get or what other details need to be worked out.
Then there's the recent nod from the Federal Highway Administration to the MTA's report. It highlights a real dilemma: trying to help disadvantaged communities without unintentionally making things worse for them. These efforts should be helping, not causing more problems.
And really, there's got to be a better, fairer way for drivers in New York City to tackle congestion and fund public transit. There are better solutions than congestion pricing for New York's long-standing transportation issues.
The city is looking for solutions that are both long-lasting and consider the needs and opinions of everyone living there. Right now, congestion pricing seems like it's missing the mark. There are better fits for effective, area-wide strategies, and it might not be the best approach for that city.
Clayton Craddock is a devoted father of two, an accomplished musician, and a thought-provoker dedicated to Socratic questioning, challenging the status quo, and encouraging a deeper contemplation on a range of issues. Subscribe to Think Things Through HERE, and for inquiries and to connect, email him here: Clayton@claytoncraddock.com