Congestion Pricing Plan Is Panned in Albany -

I'm not saying that a greener society is a bad thing by any means. HOV lanes are incentive to drive with others to work, but honestly it is a major pain in the ass to schedule my life around a transit system.

When I lived in VA, I had to commute to Tysons Corner from Reston. It's a 15 minute drive in your care but you pay about $10 in tolls round trip. The flip side of this is that you pay $8 for the bus and it's 1 hour one way. With a bus that comes every hour at 10 past the hour going to the city to do something that would normally take 2 hours round trip to include the actual activity now will take anywhere between 3-4 hours. Close to TWICE the time. I'm NOT into wasting time. MOney I can get back at some point, but you try to do that with time.

To put this into perspective, let's look at the average work day - 9 to 5. you'd spend at a minimum another 1/4 work day on a bus. When I had to do that 8 hour work days were 10 hour work days and I received 0 compensation for the headache, screaming nasty people, and rushed feeling I had when I used a bus - not to mention the 8 dollars a day it was to use the bus, when 8 dollars of gas would last me more than a week.

On top of that, if you make it costly to drive to work then what is to say that employees wont ask for compensation from employers to cover the cost of being employed in the city. The transit system will already most likely raise the price to use it because they'll be in a good position to get away with it. I'd even gander that the difference in cost from mass transit and driving wont be but a couple of bucks in short order if that idea happens.

I think a better alternative is make new roadways for bicycles only and give tax breaks to cycling employees. Its green, its super cheap and you don't have to hike the price of anything to do it.

And, what about the police pull over scenario I laid out... you still think situations like that (which WILL occur frequent enough to be an issue) are good?

I just don't see the well laid, honestly helpful and logical foundation in this for anything other than lining some pockets.

Still:

Why shouldn't you have to pay for the privilege of driving alone into the city and adding to gridlock and pollution?

A better question is:

Why SHOULD you have to pay?

Buses travel slower, take longer to change lanes, and block lanes when stopped and use diesel - a dirtier fuel than gas. If everyone were 'forced' or at least coerced to use them wouldn't we need more buses to accommodate the passengers?

Extreme weather happens in the Bay area, and sometimes a bus can't run. What about all of those people out of work for that day, or what if the bus breaks down or runs late... Employers aren't going to give to pellets about the bus being late or not running - they want the work done to turn the dollar.

What about people who live a considerable distance from the city, where a bus may not run. Should they be inconvenienced to then drive toa bus stop and wait for a bus to then wait to got o work there by extending their work day by a lot more than most people would like to stay away from home? I don't think so.

I'm sure there is a good alternative to what the city may find as a problem here, but I'm not so sure that what they're planning is a good one. That's all I'm saying.

I'm actually nearly done with a recent book that discusses congestion pricing in a chapter or two on externality charges, The Undercover Economist (small related excerpt at link, via Google Books). It's pretty good for the general reader. Maybe I'll review it for Newsvine.

I really need to learn more about it. The book is for it, like it is for externality charges in general. It uses the example of London, which implemented congestion pricing some time ago. The argument in the book is persuasive, however.

Regarding cars, I would love to get rid of mine, but it's not practical in Austin (probably like most cities). I understand where Shaun is coming from on public transport. If a city has a comprehensive public transport system, then doing without is fine. But most cities and metro areas do not; they have a minimal public transport system.

Make me dictator, however, and we'll have light rail and subways in every city in the country, with congestion pricing all around. :-)

But I also realize that I am incredibly fortunate to live car-free and that it isn't possible for many. What bothers me are excuses like "transit takes too long" or "transit gives me headaches." As if driving doesn't do either? And time on transit is time to read, to zone out or to think.

This is true, transit time is time to read or to think, but that's YOU. Just like, I dont get headaches driving, I actually ENJOY driving and I enjoy tuning my car and racing my car... but that's just ME.

Personally I'd much prefer to read on my couch or in my bed and reading while in motion does in fact make me hurl (literally). I can't even read on a plane without getting queazy after 10 minutes.

The fact is that it removes choices from people's lives. A lot of people don't' want to be forced to sit on a bus and do something else when they could drive, cut transit time exponentially and then also have time for something else they'd rather do.

Like I said... I'll wait to see a detailed plan before I commit to saying it is a completely good idea or not...and again, there's still bicycles - old as dirt but effective as anything else, and a hell of a lot greener than a bus.

I never said that I was racing to work, but one of the things that article didn't state was if the fees would only apply to business hours or high traffic times - if it applies to all 24 hours of a day then it does hamper leisure driving.

And congestion pricing isn't saying a person can't drive on his own, in his own car, just that if he wants to do that, adding to congestion in the city, he/she will have to pay to do so.

I know, and you can watch as commercial setups leave the city to escape the areas affected by this 'fee' (fine) so that shoppers will be more likely to actually go and shop there. This means then that the only people or at least a good majority of the people to be effected would be employees. Which commercial gone or with substantially LESS commercial in a city, then you lose a lot of money.

And you still don't come close to addressing the idea that in order to accommodate the increase in mass transit commuters there would have to be several new things happen:

• more buses, which move slow and having more of them will add to congestion
• mass transit companies now being in better position to hike prices
• an equivocal amount of pollution by the much larger number of buses burning diesel for longer period of time than an average commuter driving twice for very short periods.

It just seems like you're only really looking at it from your side and even still aren't looking for any potential problems so that they could be combated or at least altered to make it a better idea. I can't accept any idea from anyone without first understanding the pitfalls and caveats.

And even so, you ignore that you have to take into consideration ALL of the drivers in their own cars, which add up to more than buses, in terms of exhaust and gas burnt.

A bus holds what? 60 people in a large one and we'll say that each car hold 4 people...

we know that the buses will only be max capacity during certain parts of the day, otherwise they're half to 1/4 full of people. Cars generally have about 2 people in them. 20 buses at average capacity (we'll assume about 35-40 people per bus) is 700-800 people. It would take about 400 cars - true thats a lot of cars. HOWEVER, the buses would be running 15 hours a day (1 hour break from 16 average bus service hours), six days a week for a total of 1800 hours of emissions irrespective of how many people actually took the bus. Car commuters in the 400 cars driving 2 hours round trip to work six days a week makes 1600 hours of emissions. thats 200 hours of emission less. All of that aside, the buses are not yet all coverted to hybrid and it would take a lot of money and time to do that (I'd guess a statute of about 5 years on the optimistic side to implement it completely) where as by 2010 / 2011 ALL cars have to be low or zero emission meaning a MUCH shorter implementation time.

Oh, and I dunno if you looked at gas prices, but where I am Diesel is a good 30 cents a gallon MORE than Supreme gas.

What you also miss is what about parents who have to take their children to school or day care? Shouls they be coerced into doing all of THAT earlier so they can catch a bus to go to work and then have to rely on the bus to be on time and the employer to let them out at exactly the right time to catch the bus to go back to get the car to pick up the kids...

People on transit still stop for lunch and buy things, usually on a greater frequency than those with cars, since they are limited by what they can carry.

Right - limited. In order to do anything substantial they'd have to get in a car...and at some point congest something somewhere.

And, do you assert that businesses around town in the industrial parks and districts don't make a substantial amount of money from employees in that area - bars from after work... restaurants during lunch... with a drop in employees they'll take a hit they don't want to take. Little greasy spoons and well established places like a Walmart close to the residential areas wont, but the commercial places that make most of their money from the employees in the city will.

We, as a country, need to get over the entitlement complex of driving alone. Anything making that less savory is wonderful in my book.

That's just you and a handful of people. You give me right and privilege to do something and I'm going to do it in the way I see fit. I.e. carry a gun or drink alcohol. As long as I dont hurt other poeople then who are you to tell me I can or cant do something with my own property?

Driving by myself to where i need to go is okay in my book because then I do not have to inconvenience someone or be inconvenienced. Beyond that is the fact that other people in my car generally annoys me. They want to touch things, complain about my music or try and talk when I'm very clearly trying to either pay attention to the road or listen to my music.

Maybe we feel entitled to drive alone, because we ARE entitled to drive alone. What, are you going to impose some kind of idea that each home shoudl be limited to two vehicles per house hold now?

This seems to be more an issue of what is convenient for you and not what's better for everyone. And, it just makes me like the idea less... good try though, it was 'fun'...

Your main reason for not liking a congestion fee is that it might hit you in the pocketbook,

Well there that too, but mainly because it seems like a stupid idea.

And yes, I do think that parents should also have to pay a congestion fee/tax. There are ways of working around having to drive your car with just yourself inside into a city. Even if they drive, those parents are going to have a good hour or more of driving to get to their suburban home from the city to pick up the kids.

Oh, well it's already hectic enough why not just make it more expensive on top of it... great.

You also seem to think that employers are inflexible about transit...I will repeat again, I've never met one that is. So long as you call when you are delayed by transit (which is rare), they don't stand at the door with a stopwatch.

haven't brought that up in about 2 or so comments....

Um, and your reasons for wanting to drive all alone in a car that creates congestion aren't?

I don't contribute to congestion when I drive by myself anymore than I contribute to congestion when I drive with someone else. Your whole argument is that a car is bad because a car screws up buses. You ride the bus, therefore it inconveniences you and thus people should ride the bus for you to have an easier time. My whole argument is that its plainly stupid to want to force or coerce someone into doing something extra simply because you think its great.

You're talking about adding new stuff, I'm talking about NOT adding it. For my idea to work you simply do nothing or ride a bike (which was my initial argument), which is why I said that you're whole argument isn't about being greener as you initially tried to pawn it off as... otherwise you'd have eaten the bike ideas or expanded upon it.

I wouldn't call it stupid, necessarily. It's an example of an externality charge. (Reading at the link.)

I'm not suicidal, which is why I won't entertain biking in SF. Also, my vision isn't the best (I have no depth perception) and biking would be a death sentence for me.

Okay, well there is that then...

And yes, I do think that buses, carrying more than one person, should have the right of way over a car with one person in it--it's simply common sense in a city.

easy fix - BUS ONLY lane on the inside track (right most lane) of every street they travel. Make a speed limit for buses in block with white numbers to contrast and easily discern from a separate and possibly lower speed limit for cars.

No one is suggesting a congestion tax there, just in cities where each person driving alone adds to the gridlock.

No, just a fine or fee... and I'm unclear as the to the latter half of the statement:

"just in cities where each person driving adds to gridlock"

just what in cities - a tax or fine that you just a comma ago said wasn't being proposed?

Want to avoid a congestion fee? Carpool or take transit. Sorry, but you being bothered by either isn't reason for you to be allowed the privilege of driving alone into the city. Your very reasons for doing so are all selfish, to be honest. They boil down to "me me me!" Fine, have your selfishness, but be ready to pay for it, if it is that important to you.

Actually I wasn't against carpooling, but the way the article and you both present this is that a car period is going to incur a fee. Or was there some kind of plan that put buses and carpoolers int eh same lanes of traffic (which would congest the buses since you claim that cars are what makes them slow - thereby sort of diminishing mass transit efficiency...

But I see no reason in continuing this discussion with you as it seems that you've never worked in an actual city,

Well except that I've stated at least once city I've worked in (DC, and if THATS not a city I couldn't begin to describe one to you). Besides having an industrial park doesn't mean that the area in which it is located is not congested or not a city. Try thinking outside of a Rice A Roni box... Hey if you wont bother to read what I've written - you're right, there's no reason to carry it on. Once again you simply fail to read... this is at least the third time I've tried to have a civil discussion with you but you wash over what Iv'e said and redirect to a non-issue or you simply ignore what I've written. Sorry...