Edmunds.com | Inside Line | Auto Observer Your Account | Help | Directory
You are here:
![[F]](http://a332.g.akamai.net/f/332/936/12h/www.edmunds.com/media/townhall/webxicons/site.gif){kind=small}
Forums
Automotive News & Views Congestion Pricing - Are you for or against it?
42 messages, Last post on Apr 10, 2008 at 7:41 AM
You are in the Automotive News & Views Forum. Your Hosts are steve_ & claires
| Congestion Charging is an interesting beast. I can understand how you would want to charge more or less depending on the fuel economy\size\CO2 emissions of the vehicle, but there is a point where it won't affect the amount of people bringing in high emissions cars into a congestion zone. If we look at London, one of the main reasons that Congestion Charging has worked is because of the Tube (as has been stated earlier). However, in London I believe that if you register your vehicle as a minicab, you don't have to pay the Congestion Charge. I may be wrong on this, but that is what I have heard. Also, the current push by Red Ken to increase the charge by up to £25 is ridiculous. Porsche has already stated that they would like a judicial review of the pricing proposal. | |
Quadruple the fines for being ticketed during the congestion periods. 
|
|
|
Just could be the next cause of flight from the cities. Maybe living in a State that epitomized urban flight I might be tainted. Because at one time traffic in the city made it too hard to find parking so all the business started moving to malls and industrial parks. It seemed as if there was some movement back to the cities in the last few years. But if people are going to have to pay higher fees just to enter the cities why bother? Years ago I passed up a promotion working for Xerox because I would have to transfer to Santa Monica. Parking would have been a pain and housing was higher than the rest of the surrounding area. Unless you have a reasonable public transportation like London you are punishing the working person. |
|
|
As someone who lives in NYC, and lived in Manhattan for several years.... and owned/parked a car there!, this whole thing is multi-faceted. When I was paying $300 each month to park I kinda sucked it up... I could have done what friends did, and parked the car 30 minutes away, in a lot in Brooklyn or above 96th street and cut that in half, however convenience, my inability to manage a real schedule, and a demanding job made the lot in the basement of my apartment building "worth it." Now I live on Staten Island, and have no choice but a toll bridge if I want to drive off the island - was my choice to move to SI, got more room, diff QOL, etc, so it was "worth it." In theory, I understand cong pricing... in fairness, what I do for a living means I spend a ton of time in places other than midtown, and to be blunt, when I go in I have the option of billing it all as expenses. I see this costing the city: many of the folks who drive in are your middle/upper management driving in from LI, Westchester, and NJ. They are not going to stop driving in. They might stop buying lunch, they might choose to telecommute more often. They might choose to work from the satellite office. So they will be choosing not to spend time/money in the city. What I hope is that measures like this drive more companies to understand that a centralized workforce, built around the "9-5" schedule is obsolete and counterproductive. The infrastructure exists for remote access to networks, decentralized (and productive) workers, less congestion, AND cleaner air. |
|
|
|
|
Mike Bloomberg's grand plan to get his billionaire hand into the pockets of hard working men and women went down in flames today as the NYS legislature refused to even vote on the measure. The plan is now considered DOA for the time being. Perhaps if the crooked pols who run New York State and NYC would stop stealing our money to pay for their hookers and to put their girl/boyfriends on the state payroll there would be money for improved mass transit. As it stands, every time there is a need for funding these bozos come up with a new fee (tax). Bloomberg can fly to work in his own helicopter so why should he care if we go broke getting to work. 
|
|
|
Replying to: oldfarmer50 (Apr 08, 2008 6:42 am) Now that New York state won't be getting the $350 million from the federal government, the feds are now looking at alternative projects that could use the funding. One of these projects is the widening of the Boulder Turnpike (aka US 36) from Boulder to the Denver suburbs. Possible uses include adding lanes (only 2 each way at the moment) or a dedicated car pool / HOV lane.
|
|
|
|
|
they recently floated the very interesting proposal to initiate a congestion charge on one approach to the City (the one leading from the Golden Gate Bridge) in order to pay for its repair. Since it is a state highway (highway 101) it seemed outrageous to introduce a special fee to repair it, and so far it is bogged down over this issue. To me, the more pertinent issue is how can it be a congestion charge if it doesn't penalize everyone entering a certain area? Under the proposal, entering SF from the east bay would not have incurred the charge, so the fee targeted the people in the bedroom communities north of the bridge. How does the NY proposal work? Is it similar to London, where a circle is drawn around downtown on the map and everyone inside it has to pay? In principle, I am FOR that type of charge in the few places mentioned previously that have (a) a huge downtown congestion problem; and (b) very effective public transit. From what I know of the U.S., I could count the cities that qualify on one hand: NY, Boston (I base this one on third-party info), Chicago, SF, and....???? Someone mentioned DC? Also, has anyone studied what traffic and parking are like just outside the boundary of the congestion zone? Do lots of people drive as far as they can drive and then hit the transit only once it would cost them to drive any further downtown? If so, that stinks for the residents and businesses around there, doesn't it?
|
|
|
Replying to: nippononly (Apr 08, 2008 3:55 pm)
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: fezo (Apr 08, 2008 4:01 pm) Even if they manage to get the idea to fly in its current form, which is highly unlikely, they won't succeed in their goal because people will just cross two bridges to reach the City, thereby bypassing the surcharge (and still saving money, even though they have to pay two bridge tolls). They need to delineate an area which represents the toll zone, regardless of which direction you enter it from. And they are chasing those same federal funds here with this cockamamey plan that it sounds like they are in NY. And of course, the folks that would be impacted by the fee in its current form are the only ones NOT living in a part of the bay with train access to downtown. Brilliant. There is ferry service, so maybe they see that as an acceptable substitute. And folks who actually live in SF will never have to pay the fee. I believe with the London plan even city residents that live outside the zone pay the fee if they enter the zone. One final note: in SF we have already made the parking so limited and so expensive that most workday commuters ALREADY use the trains and buses. That might be a better approach to reducing congestion than this charge, which makes things difficult for tourists and the like. Tourism is an important component of the economy in San Francisco.
|
|
|
|
|
Replying to: michaell (Apr 08, 2008 10:31 am) Wrong! If the whole congestion pricing scam was just chasing federal dollars we all lose. Where does federal funding come from? Our pockets! It's just a different pocket they are stealing it from. I am just amazed that people still think that there is free government money.
|
|
You are here:
Forums
Automotive News & Views Congestion Pricing - Are you for or against it?
