Home › Contributors › Rich Kassel › Thanks for your comments, here's some answers...

Rich Kassel's Blog

Thanks for your comments, here's some answers...

March 26, 2008

Posted by Rich Kassel in Curbing Pollution , Environmental Justice , Health and the Environment

Tags:

congestionpricing, newyorkcity, NYC, trafficcongestion

In recent comments on the blog, a number of readers have expressed concerns about the cost of delivering goods in the City, as well as other aspects of the congestion pricing proposal being debated in New York this month.  Today, I’ll address a couple of them—and thank you all for keeping Switchboard a lively discussion spot.   

First, several comments came from people concerned about the impact of congestion pricing on the cost of doing business in New York City.   

As somebody who grew up in New York’s now-mostly-gone wholesale meat business, I understand how critical it is to get deliveries to the customer, on time and under budget.  And, having worked on diesel pollution issues for more than a decade, I am certainly aware of the thin profit margins in most trucking businesses, which makes any cost increase an important issue.  

So, what does that mean for congestion pricing? 

Reader Nick Vlahos shared his concern about added costs to his flower business due to congestion pricing.  Nobody likes added costs (especially given what’s happening to our gas and food bills lately), but reduced congestion should speed up his deliveries.  If this happens, his $21/day investment in congestion pricing should lead to higher productivity. (Important clarification of how the charge will work: congestion pricing is a once-a-day charge, no matter how many deliveries in and out of the congestion pricing zone are made). 

That’s the example of the London congestion pricing system, where many businesses prefer paying the charge for less crowded streets. 

The bottom line:  today’s traffic costs businesses a lot in terms of lost time and uncertain delivery schedules, and if congestion pricing reduces traffic, that should help many delivery-oriented businesses.  

Reader Larry Dwyer (and others) suggested that congestion pricing is a regressive tax on the middle class.  As I’ve written in prior posts, I don’t think this is the case.  After all, the data is clear:  car commuters to lower and midtown Manhattan make at least 30 percent more, on average, than transit users.  And, less than 5 percent of New York City workers currently drive to work in the congestion pricing zone. 

In other words, a small percentage of people who make more, on average, than most New Yorkers will be paying a fee to drive at certain hours, which will create the funding to benefit all New Yorkers (including the drivers who will benefit from cleaner air and less congested commutes).

But he and others implicitly have raised an important point:  there will be some drivers who need to drive, and who aren’t rich.  That’s the problem with relying on average incomes. 

So, let me be clear on this:  NRDC supports policies that will ease the burden on lower-income workers. 

As the debate approaches a vote and a final bill is negotiated, we will be supportive of measures that aim to solve this issue.  

Reader David Li has suggested mandated car pooling, nighttime truck deliveries and taxi stands as ways to reduce congestion.  Leaving aside some enforcement and practicality issues, I agree with him that these ideas have merit. 

I’ve been in European cities that have mandatory nighttime deliveries, and the streets are quieter and less congested during the daytime as a result.  (But a cautionary note:  in mixed-use communities, nighttime deliveries might be a nightmare for those who are trying to sleep near the businesses accepting deliveries).   

I would respectfully suggest that each of David’s ideas is complementary to congestion pricing, and not a suitable replacement. 

Why? 

Because they don’t generate the $4.5 billion in revenue to rebuild and expand the transit system, which is equally important for today and tomorrow’s New Yorkers. 

Reader Larry Stouder has asked, “what about the outer boroughs?”  Others have asked similar questions. 

Well, if congestion pricing was just about Manhattan south of 60th Street, neither I nor NRDC would be much impressed.  But what gets us onboard are the projections that show that traffic will drop throughout the City—by 39 percent in Western Queens, 20 percent or more in northern Manhattan and northwest Brooklyn communities. 

Why? 

Because car commuter who doesn’t drive in Manhattan also won’t drive on the Van Wyck, the FDR, and the Gowanus, or on side streets in Astoria, downtown Brooklyn, and other neighborhoods en route to their Manhattan destinations.   

As for Larry’s and other’s concerns about people using Queens neighborhoods as “park-and-rides” by commuters trying to avoid the charge, I suggest that somebody who currently pays $50 or more to park in Lower Manhattan is unlikely to cruise the streets of Jackson Heights to find a spot and take the subway.   

But here’s another, perhaps even better answer:  the Traffic Mitigation Commission recommended (based in part on NRDC advocacy) that community monitoring be conducted throughout the 3-year pilot project, and that if unforeseen traffic or other impacts are found, that that the City must mitigate them.  We’ll be working hard to make sure that mandatory mitigation is in the final bill. 

Readers Kate and Catherine raised some strong points in favor of congestion pricing as a way to fund the MTA’s capital needs.  I especially like the idea of reducing congestion now, and continuing to work on all of the other infrastructure needs that will be necessary to prepare for a City with an extra million people, a region with an extra 3-4 million people, and a port with double or even triple the amount of incoming cargo by 2030.

Whether you agree with me or not, I appreciate your comments.  Thanks for writing.

• permalink

Comments are closed for this post.