Manhattan's latest attempt at disguised taxation has ground to a halt in the most trivial fashion. Mayor Michael Bloomberg's proposed congestion charge for cars and trucks headed into the city below 60th street was summarily ignored by lawmakers. Rather than a contentious fight in the state assembly, the clock was simply run out and the bill died without being put to a vote. The failure of Bloomberg's plan means that New York City will also miss out on 350 million federally earmarked dollars for mass transit, and other ways to improve air quality and decrease gridlock must be sought. Even if it had passed, Manhattan's fee of $8 for cars and $21 for trucks would have been lower than what Red Ken charges for entry to London proper. While the goal of decreasing gridlock and improving air quality is admirable, we can see how the congestion charge would further squeeze those who can least afford it. To be sure, an alternative to Manhattan's current traffic would be welcome, and embracing change isn't always easy, but lets see what they come up with next. Thanks for the tip, RxMadness!
[Source: AFP, Photo by Mario Tama/Getty]
BREAKING: More Porsche Panamera pics surface![BREAKING: Automaker bailout agreement reached in Senate, still not a sure thing [UPDATE]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/11/billpass_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
BREAKING: Automaker bailout agreement reached in Senate, still not a sure thing [UPDATE]![LA 2008: 2010 Mazda3 shows its smiling face [w/VIDEO]](http://www.blogcdn.com/www.autoblog.com/media/2008/11/01_mazda3_live_la_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
LA 2008: 2010 Mazda3 shows its smiling face [w/VIDEO]
LA 2008: Honda surprises with FC Sport fuel cell sports car concept
LA 2008: Redesigned 2010 Ford Fusion
Formula for Peace: Israeli and Palestinian drivers get on track
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 Pontiac G8 GXP
Knight Rider: The Liveblog -- Season 1, Episode 8
In the Autoblog Garage: 2009 HUMMER H3T Alpha
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
why not the LS2LS7? @ Apr 8th 2008 2:34PM
Well, we sure as hell know this isn't a news site.
I've seen more palatable coverage on littlegreenfootballs.
Fatima @ Apr 8th 2008 2:41PM
No, I think congestion charge was the best option. Then they could use the revenue to improve mass transit. Money talks.
geekmorgan @ Apr 8th 2008 4:25PM
How does this "squeeze those who can least afford it"? If you can afford to drive in to work in Manhattan and park in a lot (and not take the $2 subway) then you can afford to pay an extra $8. More people should use mass transit here, and this would have helped.
dave @ Apr 8th 2008 4:34PM
They could tax the working people and visitors that come into Manhattan with excessive tolls. That money might be used for mass transit. It's doubtful, but some of that money could possibly be used for mass transit.
The other option would be the million dollar plus salary surcharge. It was in a bill proposed by the senate. If you earn more then a million dollars you would pay a surcharge on your salary that would be used to help pay for mass transit.
Bloomberg put a stop to that though. Apparently raping the working class to benefit the rich is ok, but asking the rich to help everyone else out is taboo.
Bloomberg is an awful out of touch zero. I'm glad his stadium failed(bc a 60,000 person stadium wouldn't have created congestion) , I'm glad he couldn't stop free parking of Sunday, and I'm glad his congestion poor tax failed as well.
Score one for the middle class.
tekdemon @ Apr 8th 2008 8:38PM
geekmorgan is completely right, nobody who "can least afford it" decides to drive into manhattan where gasoline is $3.70 a gallon and parking costs $30 a day (and that's the early bird special).
Get real, anybody who "can least afford it" would either take the bus and subway for 2 dollars, or if they lived further out in Long Island or Connecticut or Westchester or New Jersey they'd drive to the LIRR or Metro North or NJ Transit station then park there and take the train (or bus sometimes from Jersey).
The only time you'd drive is if you figured you could pay the insane parking fees, or if it was off-peak hours anyway.
tj @ Apr 8th 2008 2:43PM
"Further squeeze those who cant afford it"
You kidding me? Who lives in Manhattan and owns a car and would fit in that category?
Tourists walk. Manhattan's "poor" (read: make between 100k-200k family income) take the subway - certainly dont own cars! Everyone else can deal with it. Remember, this is the town that costs over half a million just to buy your right to a parking space.
I just dont see the real harm here. It seems to be a wash: it reduces congestion by nailing a cars with a flat fee. This includes cabs, who in part charge based upon how long you sit there in traffic. Reduced traffic = sit there less = pay less on the meter = make up for built-in fee.
I'm an auto enthusiast as much as anyone else on this board. But people who live in Manhattan are by definition not auto enthusiasts (who actually drive cars) unless they are extremely rich. Let the city have its $8 fee and hopefully we could be able to get across town in under an hour...
Samurai Jack @ Apr 8th 2008 2:48PM
Absolutely. If you can afford to park in Manhattan you can surely afford the trivial (relative to the parking fees) congestion charge. If this sort of thing makes sense anywhere in the U.S. it's Manhattan.
Spitzer would have pushed for this one. ;-)
Level @ Apr 8th 2008 3:20PM
Your comment makes no sense.....yes people that live in Manhattan can deal with it because they do make mucho $$$$$$ but eveyone else that lives on Queens, Brooklyn, Bronx & Staten Island dont make that kind of income...People that live on the other boroughs can't afford it and the people that live in Manhattan that can take the train to their job due to being so close....Plus lets face it one of the biggest problem thats at fault here is the lack of city planning for traffic...any body on the boroughs and long island that want to go to Jersey or vice versa have to go through manhattan to get to the tunnels...Im pretty sure you would reduce congestion if there was a direct path to and from jersey to the rest of the boroughs...and to top it off, the congestion fee won't reduce congestion that much its just a way to squeeze every penny out of the people that work here "disguised taxation"...
look at the numbers most all of the tax income the state receives comes from the 5 boroughs and long island yet almost all of the money is spent upstate and the city gets the lower end of the stick...The money is there but its spent mostly in the suburbs of NY then the city which is generating the cash flow.
Better public transit give me a break the MTA had a surplus yet they should different books were it appeared like if they were loosing money...
The state new better and realized this was not going to help the people in NYC, only make people in certain gov positions get their pockets richer...
jason @ Apr 8th 2008 3:24PM
This is ignorance at its best. A majority of the vehicles in Manhattan do not belong to the people who live there. This means most of the traffic in Manhattan is actually commercial (cabs, trucks, dollar vans, delivery). To say that these people can just bite the bullet on an additional $8 to enter the city is just plain ridiculous and shows a completely lack of empathy on your part. For example, dollar vans barely make enough money per run between Brooklyn/Queens and Manhattan now, with rising gas prices. By imposing this fee, youll effectively put these people out of the job, while they were providing a valuable service - carpooling usually about 20 at a time into Manhattan. Not to mention several food businesses that are constantly bringing food to the outer boroughs. This is certainly nothing to cough at especially for people making several trips a day. Do you people even live in Manhattan?
tj @ Apr 8th 2008 3:31PM
You two are just being silly. NYC is an expensive place. Adding a congestion fee will force people to alter their habits or pay a little more. Blaming "lack of planning" is a little silly given the roads aren't exactly going to be changing any time soon.
Raising the cost to live and do business there will ween out those who really dont seen NYC as worth the cost.
Shawn @ Apr 8th 2008 3:48PM
tj, do you live in this area? You sound like you never been here before. NYC is an expensive place to live because real estate is expensive. This plan affects those who live in the boroughs and the burbs. This is a tax on those who can't afford it.
You want people to hang their jobs on the MTA getting its act together? You must not live here.
tj @ Apr 8th 2008 3:53PM
All my family is on the island. I understand the impact on the people in the boroughs. The higher cost for them to get to work must necessarily work out over time in higher compensation at the lower end. Their higher compensation will have to be paid for through higher prices at restaurants, services, etc ultimately by those who live there.
As for the people living in the boroughs who make good money in the city and don't work in the service sector, they can eat this cost. They benefit from lower housing costs by not living in Manhattan at the expense of those who actually have to live there. Tough for them.
Dude @ Apr 8th 2008 2:46PM
If they want to relieve congestion, start taxing any building taller than 5 floors. It's stupid to allow the construction of skyscrapers and then try and tax everyone who shows up to live and work in them.
Mr. Oak @ Apr 8th 2008 3:17PM
Dude: my response was intended for SamuraiJack.
Mr. Oak @ Apr 8th 2008 3:14PM
You're obviously speaking from a platform of ignorance.
They (The MTA) do not deserve to be given another dime.
Mr. Oak @ Apr 8th 2008 3:32PM
Too many (10s of thousands) of vehicles with "Official" tags in the windows parked in Lower Manhattan. All of those spaces could be metered and generating revenue for the City.
That $21 is what pisses me off. This city is trying to be like the casinos in AC and Las Vegas. The $21 dollar fee will be hardest on the self-employed commercial vehicle operator that already must pay horrendous Insurance premiums, a toll if his cargo crosses any of the 20 or so already tolled bridges and tunnels. Since the "official" city vehicles clog all the parking spaces, chances are, he will be ticketed and quite possibly towed
nikolasm @ Apr 8th 2008 2:59PM
Poor people do not drive into Manhattan (especially south of 60th) and they surely do not park there. Good use of your noggin coming up with that line. I mean, it costs what, $8 to get onto Manhattan and unless you find street parking, which ain't free either, at least $40 to park in a garage. Poor people should and would welcome this congestion pricing, as it would provide greater transit option to them.
StickShift @ Apr 8th 2008 3:06PM
Neither is rail or ferry travel. If you live reasonably far from NYC yet still work there, travel by car is a good option. In addition, the farther from NYC you live, the harder it is to find mass transit there and the more painfully long the trip becomes. Trust me, this tax screws people who don't live in NYC and offers only marginal benefits for those that do.
WB233629 @ Apr 8th 2008 3:34PM
Try talking to some people in London and see how they like congestion pricing. I have family who lives in Kensington and Red Ken and his ludicrous pricing is despised by most Londoners. If they really wanted to relieve congestion they should create an LIRR that works, one central train terminal so that people can either get off at Grand Central or Penn Station and maybe just maybe eliminate traffic cops who only make the process worse. If the public transportation from the suburbs worked at all people would stop driving into the financial district which is where the worst congestion is.
StickShift @ Apr 8th 2008 3:48PM
Actually, the New Jersey Transit is working on bringing all its rail traffic into Penn Station with THE Tunnel:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Hudson_Express_Tunnel
That won't get everyone out of cars though and neither is it being funded by the congestion charge. See, we don't need the charge to improve mass transit.