The funny thing about transit in LA (even the aside that it’s symbolic with highway urbanism) is that it has a transit network that’s way above-average by American standards, although obviously below-average by global developed country standards. It’s actually totally possible to live a reasonably pleasant life in central/west LA without owning a car, whereas no such thing is possible in the mid-sized Midwestern city where I grew up.
The Metro still needs to solve a few huge problems with its expansion, though:
- reform land use and parking requirements near metro stations, otherwise you get massive car-oriented buildings or low-density SFH neighborhoods near stations (see the E line, esp. La Cienega and Rancho Park stations).
- Defeat local NIMBYism on spurious CEQA grounds (Beverly hills held up the D line for decades and now Bel-Air is trying to do the same thing with the Sepulveda Pass line)
- public safety on trains and buses - every time a bus driver or passenger is assaulted, the LA times trots out the same nonprofit jabronis that say that the solution is free fares or jobs or whatever.
I’m a little bearish on the prospects for Metro for those reasons, esp. because the mayor doesn’t seem very interested in reforming land use… but I hope I’m wrong.
As a native New Yorker there are so many things going up. Rent, food, gas, etc. Enough is enough already. The Subway's are so unsafe because of panhandling, drug attics in the subway entranceway threatening customers to pay them to go through the turnstile. I have to communicate with my wife daily who is a city worker and make sure she gets to work safely. Ridiculous. Now you want to force people to take the subway system as a means of travel. Don't think so. MTA, Now isn't the time to try charge us for your congestion pricing plan that because you wanted to implement something on credit. Your loss not ours. Why should we pay for your mistakes. Focus on a subway system that doesn't work. A city worker who loves NY and now unfortunately may consider leaving. Focus on strengthening Our law enforcement to gain respect back and make NYC safe and affordable again.
For NYC there are better ways to raise money. We know congestion pricing doesn’t work. London is a parking lot. Stockholm built and continues to build more bridges, tunnels and ring roads. More taxes in NYC means more fraud and poverty. Taking a hard look at the MTAs costs, stopping fare beaters and requiring ID to enter the subway (which has proven to nearly eliminate crime), park & ride and leasing on street parking are all cost effective wins.
As a person who live in the lower part of the zone why should I have to pay to come home, visiting relatives in NJ pay for tunnel and then pay 15 dollars to come home not right I'm not causing congestion also there is one section that when you exit Bklyn bridge and you cross over a street to go on the FDR you would've been charge 15 dollars just for driving crossing the street to get on FDR not fair.
Yes! I live in lower Manhattan and it's not right to have to pay to come home! The plan could have worked if there were exemptions for residents but in no way was that the case. They would still have made plenty of money from non residents but no, too much greed on their part. Now it's biting them in the ass! I am relieved and feel vindicated.
Don't feel vindicated yet it on a long pause some sort of exemption would have been good but it was for low income I'm not low income but also not middle also for exemption you would have had to pay first and then take it out on taxes.
Sounds like it's way past time to reform the MTA into something that can build with a modicum of efficiency. The MTA shouldn't need congestion taxes just to function effectively, not with a $19 billion budget.
Thanks for a most informative discussion. Apart from the benefits that accrue from investment in public transportation infrastructure, if one were to exclude cars completely, the streets would become safe places for children to play providing a viable alternative to 'screen time' that is associated with poor mental and physical health.
I couldn’t care less about children playing in the streets.. I have to commute from midtown to the east bronx at 4:30 am by car .. it would take me 2 hours by subway.. I paid taxes every time I get gas also my registration fees I don’t need another tax. I added it on top of me. oh, and by the way, I make a little north of $60,000 a year I would have to pay almost $5000 a year in tolls. How would you like to pay an extra five grand at your pay to go to work and come home?
I would argue that a central CBD sucks the life out of the possibility of numerous potentially more accessible centers of business activity. Town planning does us no favours whether we are adults or children. The problem that besets you results from single use zoning that is an aid to monopolization.
Exclude cars? So if you work north, east or west of NYC, We'll I guess you're just out of luck.
When we enforce our criminal laws, flooding our subway with law enforcement, subway crime goes down, conversely we need to do the same regarding our traffic laws.
Arguably, the timing of this was quite unfortunate as any knowing increase in expenses given the inflation regime of the past 4 years was clearly going to be met with significant protests, and ultimately, all of this is political, not economic. I don't believe anybody will argue with the concept that, especially in NY, with its substantial population density, mass transit is more effective than personal vehicles for the reasons you outline.
However, talk about misreading the room, ask yourself what the biggest current political issue is everywhere in the nation, and any governing official knowingly raising prices is going to find themselves, or their party quickly out of work. and you know, as well as I do, that for elected officials, whatever their policy promises, the single most important issue is getting re-elected. so in this particularly fraught election season, proposing raising costs of driving to/in NY was a guaranteed loser.
Perhaps if we could improve the education system sufficiently so that the population had a better grasp of economics and what trade-offs looked like, as well as a more effective message from the Hochul government, it would have been more likely to succeed.
but the world we have is the one we have, not necessarily the one we want, so we have to recognize and adapt to it. Clearly Hochul did not do that effectively.
A good article, thank you. I would add a few points:
NYC already has the highest taxes in the country and adding a new tax became unbearable for many, especially considering the poor public provision across the board.
The scheme has little to do with congestion: you could have tiered pricing based on actual congestion but the plan basically set one charge except for very early mornings. Even weekends would’ve been ensnared when there is little congestion.
London’s scheme was a small area in a city without pre-existing tolls for bridges and tunnels. Residents were discounted 90%.
The tax would’ve hurt small businesses most as they must receive deliveries from multiple suppliers per day and would see a decreased customer base as suburban clients would stay home.
You highlighted the MTAs many failings but there should be emphasis put on the fact that users can pay for the services they consume. Not paying fares is common place, politicians have kept the price for transit too low for too long and most of the budget gets eaten away by overly generous overtime payouts.
There is a question about democratic norms: the plan was voted on by the state for small area. Residents never had a plebiscite. Many advocating for the charge are people outside the zone.
You don’t have to pay the tax if you don’t drive. Small business wouldn’t have been hurt: every supplier only pays once per truck and they usually have multiple stops in the city.
Wow, 750 condo/ apartments at the North Berkeley BART station? That's absurdly dense for the area. I can't imagine the Berkeley NIMBYs going for that. Also, isn't there an equity issue with congestion fees? In a city like Oakland, there are nice parts and not so nice parts. People in the not so nice parts often visit the nice parts to go shopping or walk in the park, etc. Congestion fees would limit access.
its always writers who do not understand that most people detest nyc and every big city who think, like the worthless politicians, that spending and taxing the people they rely on to the breaking point is the answer to everything. nyc is a black hole. it is corrupt to the core. why corporations think they need to be there in 2024 is mindboggling. where is the benefit? its too expensive. its dangerous. they are taxes to oblivion. for what? any national corporation would be better served having its headquarters in the center of the country. its much cheaper and travel is much easier. nyc has outlived its usefulness if it ever had any in the first place. the choice to live there or do business there is nothing more than an expensive mistake.
The high cost of construction is the result of the high labor productivity of NYC. If you are a construction worker at the big apple you should be able to afford to live there. You should be able to send your kids to good schools, you should have housing, and healthcare. And thus, construction workers compete with Wall Street workers, executives and lawyers for the same services. To make NYC more livable, this hyper concentration of workers should be spread across the US metro areas. But here is the Catch22, workers at these fortune 500 companies don't want to live in Houston, nor in Denver nor in Chicago, because they are not as walkable as NYC.
"New York City and its surrounding suburbs make up the largest urban economic cluster on planet Earth"
9th largest, according to the table at the link provided by you (which can be arranged by population). Metro Tokyo/Yokohama is almost as big as 2 NYC metro clusters slapped together.
By "economic cluster" he's talking about what the U.S. Census Bureau would call a Combined Statistical Area (CSA), which is a larger unit than a “metro area” = Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). (For instance, SF-San Jose-Oakland is one CSA, but two metros/MSAs.)
I can see the motivation for using “economic cluster” here—since the whole point of a CSA is to identify a single, merged commerce/labor market, even if there are multiple urban centers/metros within that market—but, strictly speaking, this is an incorrect use of “economic cluster”, a term that’s intended to refer to a geographically concentrated set of businesses within a single industry or set of closely integrated industries (e.g, Hollywood studios, or the NYC publishing blob).
The generic term needed to make international comparisons (I don’t think “CSA” is used outside the United States would be “conurbation” or “urban agglomeration”.
“Only” the New York City MSA has a population of around 18M, which is also smaller than a comparable number of world megalopolises.
.
Nobody would write “the largest urbanized area/cluster/agglomeration” in good faith for something measured in dollars, and furthermore the “largest urban cluster” statement is immediately followed up with the population figure that it represents.
The funny thing about transit in LA (even the aside that it’s symbolic with highway urbanism) is that it has a transit network that’s way above-average by American standards, although obviously below-average by global developed country standards. It’s actually totally possible to live a reasonably pleasant life in central/west LA without owning a car, whereas no such thing is possible in the mid-sized Midwestern city where I grew up.
The Metro still needs to solve a few huge problems with its expansion, though:
- reform land use and parking requirements near metro stations, otherwise you get massive car-oriented buildings or low-density SFH neighborhoods near stations (see the E line, esp. La Cienega and Rancho Park stations).
- Defeat local NIMBYism on spurious CEQA grounds (Beverly hills held up the D line for decades and now Bel-Air is trying to do the same thing with the Sepulveda Pass line)
- public safety on trains and buses - every time a bus driver or passenger is assaulted, the LA times trots out the same nonprofit jabronis that say that the solution is free fares or jobs or whatever.
I’m a little bearish on the prospects for Metro for those reasons, esp. because the mayor doesn’t seem very interested in reforming land use… but I hope I’m wrong.
As a native New Yorker there are so many things going up. Rent, food, gas, etc. Enough is enough already. The Subway's are so unsafe because of panhandling, drug attics in the subway entranceway threatening customers to pay them to go through the turnstile. I have to communicate with my wife daily who is a city worker and make sure she gets to work safely. Ridiculous. Now you want to force people to take the subway system as a means of travel. Don't think so. MTA, Now isn't the time to try charge us for your congestion pricing plan that because you wanted to implement something on credit. Your loss not ours. Why should we pay for your mistakes. Focus on a subway system that doesn't work. A city worker who loves NY and now unfortunately may consider leaving. Focus on strengthening Our law enforcement to gain respect back and make NYC safe and affordable again.
Nothing to do with congestion pricing.
For NYC there are better ways to raise money. We know congestion pricing doesn’t work. London is a parking lot. Stockholm built and continues to build more bridges, tunnels and ring roads. More taxes in NYC means more fraud and poverty. Taking a hard look at the MTAs costs, stopping fare beaters and requiring ID to enter the subway (which has proven to nearly eliminate crime), park & ride and leasing on street parking are all cost effective wins.
Nope. Drivers creating the congestion are the best source of … paying for congestion, glad I could help clarify it
It’s pretty clear you all don’t give a damn about children in NYC.
As a person who live in the lower part of the zone why should I have to pay to come home, visiting relatives in NJ pay for tunnel and then pay 15 dollars to come home not right I'm not causing congestion also there is one section that when you exit Bklyn bridge and you cross over a street to go on the FDR you would've been charge 15 dollars just for driving crossing the street to get on FDR not fair.
Yes! I live in lower Manhattan and it's not right to have to pay to come home! The plan could have worked if there were exemptions for residents but in no way was that the case. They would still have made plenty of money from non residents but no, too much greed on their part. Now it's biting them in the ass! I am relieved and feel vindicated.
Don't feel vindicated yet it on a long pause some sort of exemption would have been good but it was for low income I'm not low income but also not middle also for exemption you would have had to pay first and then take it out on taxes.
It would have worked. You would have paid.
Forced to pay
Why shouldn’t you pay if there are too many cars and the hole grid is jammed?
Ex out to jersey to visit relatives come out of tunnel to come home to park where's congestion live 4 block from tunnel exit
Sounds like it's way past time to reform the MTA into something that can build with a modicum of efficiency. The MTA shouldn't need congestion taxes just to function effectively, not with a $19 billion budget.
Thanks for a most informative discussion. Apart from the benefits that accrue from investment in public transportation infrastructure, if one were to exclude cars completely, the streets would become safe places for children to play providing a viable alternative to 'screen time' that is associated with poor mental and physical health.
I couldn’t care less about children playing in the streets.. I have to commute from midtown to the east bronx at 4:30 am by car .. it would take me 2 hours by subway.. I paid taxes every time I get gas also my registration fees I don’t need another tax. I added it on top of me. oh, and by the way, I make a little north of $60,000 a year I would have to pay almost $5000 a year in tolls. How would you like to pay an extra five grand at your pay to go to work and come home?
It is pretty clear you all don’t care about kids in NYC
I would argue that a central CBD sucks the life out of the possibility of numerous potentially more accessible centers of business activity. Town planning does us no favours whether we are adults or children. The problem that besets you results from single use zoning that is an aid to monopolization.
Exclude cars? So if you work north, east or west of NYC, We'll I guess you're just out of luck.
When we enforce our criminal laws, flooding our subway with law enforcement, subway crime goes down, conversely we need to do the same regarding our traffic laws.
Arguably, the timing of this was quite unfortunate as any knowing increase in expenses given the inflation regime of the past 4 years was clearly going to be met with significant protests, and ultimately, all of this is political, not economic. I don't believe anybody will argue with the concept that, especially in NY, with its substantial population density, mass transit is more effective than personal vehicles for the reasons you outline.
However, talk about misreading the room, ask yourself what the biggest current political issue is everywhere in the nation, and any governing official knowingly raising prices is going to find themselves, or their party quickly out of work. and you know, as well as I do, that for elected officials, whatever their policy promises, the single most important issue is getting re-elected. so in this particularly fraught election season, proposing raising costs of driving to/in NY was a guaranteed loser.
Perhaps if we could improve the education system sufficiently so that the population had a better grasp of economics and what trade-offs looked like, as well as a more effective message from the Hochul government, it would have been more likely to succeed.
but the world we have is the one we have, not necessarily the one we want, so we have to recognize and adapt to it. Clearly Hochul did not do that effectively.
A good article, thank you. I would add a few points:
NYC already has the highest taxes in the country and adding a new tax became unbearable for many, especially considering the poor public provision across the board.
The scheme has little to do with congestion: you could have tiered pricing based on actual congestion but the plan basically set one charge except for very early mornings. Even weekends would’ve been ensnared when there is little congestion.
London’s scheme was a small area in a city without pre-existing tolls for bridges and tunnels. Residents were discounted 90%.
The tax would’ve hurt small businesses most as they must receive deliveries from multiple suppliers per day and would see a decreased customer base as suburban clients would stay home.
You highlighted the MTAs many failings but there should be emphasis put on the fact that users can pay for the services they consume. Not paying fares is common place, politicians have kept the price for transit too low for too long and most of the budget gets eaten away by overly generous overtime payouts.
There is a question about democratic norms: the plan was voted on by the state for small area. Residents never had a plebiscite. Many advocating for the charge are people outside the zone.
You pay nothing if you don’t drive. That’s it.
You don’t have to pay the tax if you don’t drive. Small business wouldn’t have been hurt: every supplier only pays once per truck and they usually have multiple stops in the city.
You forget about the benefits of less congestion
Wow, 750 condo/ apartments at the North Berkeley BART station? That's absurdly dense for the area. I can't imagine the Berkeley NIMBYs going for that. Also, isn't there an equity issue with congestion fees? In a city like Oakland, there are nice parts and not so nice parts. People in the not so nice parts often visit the nice parts to go shopping or walk in the park, etc. Congestion fees would limit access.
its always writers who do not understand that most people detest nyc and every big city who think, like the worthless politicians, that spending and taxing the people they rely on to the breaking point is the answer to everything. nyc is a black hole. it is corrupt to the core. why corporations think they need to be there in 2024 is mindboggling. where is the benefit? its too expensive. its dangerous. they are taxes to oblivion. for what? any national corporation would be better served having its headquarters in the center of the country. its much cheaper and travel is much easier. nyc has outlived its usefulness if it ever had any in the first place. the choice to live there or do business there is nothing more than an expensive mistake.
FIrst you have to shut down the Koch machine:
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html
The high cost of construction is the result of the high labor productivity of NYC. If you are a construction worker at the big apple you should be able to afford to live there. You should be able to send your kids to good schools, you should have housing, and healthcare. And thus, construction workers compete with Wall Street workers, executives and lawyers for the same services. To make NYC more livable, this hyper concentration of workers should be spread across the US metro areas. But here is the Catch22, workers at these fortune 500 companies don't want to live in Houston, nor in Denver nor in Chicago, because they are not as walkable as NYC.
"New York City and its surrounding suburbs make up the largest urban economic cluster on planet Earth"
9th largest, according to the table at the link provided by you (which can be arranged by population). Metro Tokyo/Yokohama is almost as big as 2 NYC metro clusters slapped together.
Pretty clear when he said "economic cluster" he meant GDP. Otherwise he could have written "metro population" or similar
Now, one could argue for a PPP adjustment. But the point is NYC should be able to afford improvements commensurate with its size.
By "economic cluster" he's talking about what the U.S. Census Bureau would call a Combined Statistical Area (CSA), which is a larger unit than a “metro area” = Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). (For instance, SF-San Jose-Oakland is one CSA, but two metros/MSAs.)
I can see the motivation for using “economic cluster” here—since the whole point of a CSA is to identify a single, merged commerce/labor market, even if there are multiple urban centers/metros within that market—but, strictly speaking, this is an incorrect use of “economic cluster”, a term that’s intended to refer to a geographically concentrated set of businesses within a single industry or set of closely integrated industries (e.g, Hollywood studios, or the NYC publishing blob).
The generic term needed to make international comparisons (I don’t think “CSA” is used outside the United States would be “conurbation” or “urban agglomeration”.
.
this is the tri-state (+ a small corner of PA) CSA that he’s talking about, with the population in the 22-23M range: https://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/econ/ec2012/csa/EC2012_330M200US408M.pdf
“Only” the New York City MSA has a population of around 18M, which is also smaller than a comparable number of world megalopolises.
.
Nobody would write “the largest urbanized area/cluster/agglomeration” in good faith for something measured in dollars, and furthermore the “largest urban cluster” statement is immediately followed up with the population figure that it represents.