I was traveling yesterday, and didn't have a chance to note my despair at the demise of the New York City congestion pricing plan. Charles Komanoff has an excellent post on Gristmill about why the plan was the "smartest urban-transportation idea since the subway," and why it failed, that's worth checking out. Had it won approval, the plan would have created a $500 million revenue stream for mass transit, and it would have a least created the possibility of significantly reducing traffic and pollution. The main takeaway is that congestion pricing isn't a failed political pursuit, but that it was executed poorly in this case.
One I think should be highlighted is that it put a misplaced emphasis on pricing as a means of reducing climate change. While it's true that congestion pricing (and the larger principle of reducing American reliance on the automobile) does help curb climate change, it's neither the biggest nor the most immediate payoff. Foremost should be the improvement to the life of those who live in the city, by making it a cleaner, safer place and making public transit more efficient and available. It's an unfortunately reality that many people still don't care so much about climate change, and are much more motivated by things that will improve their immediate lives.
The congestion pricing plan would have done that, whether or not most realize it now. They might very soon, when the gasoline surges to $4 a gallon and folks start to wonder about why we don't have better public transit alternatives. There are good lessons here in the first major fight over congestion pricing here in the U.S., key for when New York takes up another try at a pricing plan, perhaps like this one Komanoff discusses, and for Washington State, which looks to be the next to take it up.
--Kate Sheppard
