Did She Make Citibike More Expensive?

 The goal of reducing motor vehicle traffic in New York City—if indeed there ever was such a goal (or, more precisely, if city officials were serious about it)—seems increasingly distant.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, Governor Kathy Hochul halted congestion pricing, which would have taken effect this month.

I favor such a plan in principle. To be fair, however, I can understand the objections of contractors and other small business owners in the outer boroughs and suburbs who must bring large, heavy equipment into Manhattan every day. For them, and others, mass transportation, cycling or walking are not mere inconveniences: they are not feasible.

As a result of the Governor’s order, some mass transportation improvements (or catching up on deferred maintenance), which would have been funded by charging drivers $15 to enter Manhattan south of 60th Street, have been cancelled or deferred.

I have not heard of any cancellations or deferrals to bicycle infrastructure projects. I have to wonder, however, whether Citibike’s second price increase this year—20 percent—on eBike rentals is an indirect result of Hochul putting the kibosh on congestion pricing.

The money raised would have gone to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the state agency in charge of New York City’s subways and buses, some of its bridges and tunnels and suburban commuter bus and rail lines (including Metro North and the Long Island Rail Road). While Citibike doesn’t receive funds from the MTA —ironically, the bike-share program is run by the ride-share company Lyft—it is affected by street and driving conditions. For one thing, Citibike has its own fleet of vehicles to service the program. One of the reasons Citibike gave for its price increases is vehicle and insurance costs that are higher than anticipated—no doubt, at least in part, because of traffic congestion. Another is battery swapping on its eBikes:  the program doesn’t have enough charging or swapping stations. (Problems in creating them are one reason why Tesla ended battery-swapping.)

Why Did She Halt Congestion Pricing?

There are two benchmark prices in New York City: the subway or bus fare and a slice of pizza.  Those two prices are usually equal, or close to it. At this moment, the transit fare is $2.90 while in most pizzerias, a slice (without pepperoni or any other toppings) will set you back $3.00-$3.50.

If a mayor or New York State Governor does anything to cause an increase to the fare or the price of a slice, it can cost him or her votes—or an election altogether.

So, in that sense, when Kathy Hochul halted congestion pricing in New York, it could be seen as a shrewd political move—at least if her rationale for it is not specious.  

She is now saying that implementing congestion pricing—in other words, charging drivers $15 to enter Manhattan south of 60th Street—would make a slice of pizza more expensive.

There is, perhaps, a certain logic to her assertion.  After all, almost no Manhattan pizzeria owners or workers actually live in the borough. Also, nearly all of the supplies and ingredients for pizza-making come from factories and warehouses in Brooklyn, the Bronx, Queens, New Jersey or even further away. It will therefore cost more to transport those goods—and, in some cases, for owners and workers to transport themselves (many live in transit “deserts”). Hochul asserts—perhaps correctly—that those costs will be passed on to customers.

Image by James Andrews

Hochul had been, until recently, in favor of congestion pricing because the money would help to improve the city’s and region’s mass transit. (The Metropolitan Transit Authority, which includes regional commuter railroads in the immediate suburbs as well as New York City’s buses and subways, is a state agency that reports to the Governor.) But her support generated backlash in the outlying neighborhoods and suburbs, where she hasn’t been terribly popular.  

Much of that backlash has come from the kinds of commuters and suppliers I’ve mentioned. But I am sure that it also has come from people like contractors, who often have to bring large loads of supplies and tools from the outer boroughs and New Jersey into Manhattan. 

In other words, I think Hochul realized she’d stirred up, if unintentionally, a kind of class warfare between skilled blue-collar workers—who, probably, would be most affected by an increase in the price of a slice—and those they perceive as “the elites.”

In a way, it mirrors the hostility and resentment they feel toward cyclists, whom they perceive as “privileged “ or “entitled.” And I suspect that perception of cyclists—and bike lanes—has something to do with their opposition to congestion pricing.

It will be interesting, to say the least, to hear and see what, if anything, Kathy Hochul says and does next.

What Congestion Pricing Might Prevent

A few days ago, I wrote about congestion pricing and the wonderful effects it's having on people's physical and mental health--not to mention pedestrians' and cyclists' safety--in Center City London and beyond.  It's been proposed here in New York but it's gone over about as well as lead bagels.

The funny thing is that the people who are most vehemently opposed to it are always complaining about parking.  I should think that, if anything, it would make parking easier.  It might even prevent scenes like this:

From XCiteFun

 

Does Congestion Pricing Save Lives?

Here in the US, there's one very easy way for a politician to ensure that he or she will not be elected:  Proposing a tax increase.

Forget that.  If it even sounds like a tax increase--or the government, in any way, shape or form taking more money--it will destroy the aspirations of any candidate.

That is one of the reasons why no New York City mayoral candidate has ever proposed it.  Michael Bloomberg, in the middle of his second term as Hizzoner, made it part of his long-term sustainability program for the Big Apple.  Then-City Council Speaker Christine Quinn favored it.  So did the conservative Republican leader of the New York State Senate, Joseph Bruno.  And then-Governor Eliot Spitzer liked the idea, too.

The somewhat-modified plan was approved, 30 votes to 20, by the New York City Council on 31 March 2008.  To qualify for Federal funds to research and implement the plan, the State Assembly had to vote for it  by 7 April.  That day, after a closed-door meeting, the Assembly's Democratic Council decided not to vote on the proposal, citing "overwhelming opposition", in the words of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver.

Within three months, the price of gasoline would spike to $4.00 a gallon. (I know that for you Europeans, that is cheap. But I can recall my father filling up the gas tank of the family station wagon for $5.00 when I was in my early teens!)  That, ironically, would cause a five percent decrease in automobile trips into Manhattan below 60th Street, the area that would have been affected by a congestion-pricing plan.

I think it was Woody Allen who said, "Life is hard.  But what's the alternative?"  Something like that might be said about congestion pricing.  Yes, it would cost money and it might mean giving up something else.  But if it saves lives--forget "lives" plural, let's talk about just one, perhaps your own--wouldn't it be better than the alternative?

Turns out, a claim that congestion pricing could save lives is not hyperbole.  There's evidence to support it, courtesy of in Colin Green and his fellow researchers.

Professor Green is a health economist at the University of Exeter Medical School.   This month, he and his colleagues will present a study at the Royal Economic Society's annual conference in which they show that in the congestion zone, there has been, not only a dramatic decrease in the number of accidents, but also an even more dramatic drop in the accident rate, i.e., the number of accidents per vehicle mile driven.  

That was a significant finding because a decline in the number of accidents could be attributed to other factors--or could be seen as a statistical aberration--more easily than such a shrinkage in the rate per mile.

Moreover, Dr. Green and his cohort found that fewer accidents were occurring in the rest of London, outside the congestion zone.  What that suggests is that one of the objectives of congestion pricing is being achieved:  People's behavior is changing.  More are riding bikes and walking; fewer are driving.  And the revenue collected from congesting pricing is used to improve mass transit and cycling infrastructure, which causes more people to see them as realistic alternatives to their (usually short) driving trips.

Milan, Singapore and Stockholm all have plans similar to London's in place.  As far as I know, no one has studied them in the way Dr. Green has examined London's plan.  But I would suspect that similar, if less dramatic, results have been achieved.  Whatever the results, if lives are saved, I think it's worth whatever would be charged to drive and park in the center of the city.