Chelsea Now photo by Lindsay Beyerstein
Nicky Gavron, the deputy mayor of London, talks about congestion pricing at a recent forum held at NYU. Seated to her left are Queens City Councilmember Eric Gioia; Andrea Batista Schlesinger, executive director of the Drum Major Institute, which sponsored the event; Queens City Councilmember John Liu; and Edd Ott, executive director of New York’s Central Labor Council.
By Lindsay Beyerstein
The Deputy Mayor of London captivated some of New York’s top policymakers, business leaders and transportation activists at a forum sponsored by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy last Friday. They came to hear how London is tackling global warming and gridlock through congestion pricing.
Congestion pricing, the practice of charging vehicles extra to enter busy areas during peak hours, is an especially hot topic in New York City right now. Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC2030 initiative involves a similar program for Manhattan south of 86th Street.
Joining deputy mayor Nicky Gavron on the panel were Ed Ott, executive director of New York’s Central Labor Council, and City Councilmembers John Liu and Eric Gioia.
Gavron, who had participated in the C40 Large Cities Climate Summit, held in New York City earlier last week, explained that the mayors and legislative bodies of the world’s major metropolises are becoming increasingly concerned about the global warming.
Cities are especially vulnerable to the effects of global warming, such as urban heat islands, rising sea levels and flooding, Gavron noted. Centuries of accumulated wealth are at risk if cities don’t take decisive action within the next decade.
“We are experiencing currently the effects of greenhouse gases from the 1950s, when we consumed as much oil in a year as we now consume in six weeks. And we have to feel the effects of four and a half decades,” she explained.
Dramatic reductions in emissions in the next 10 years will be needed to forestall runaway climate change, Gavron argued, claiming that cities must take a leadership role on this issue instead of waiting for state and federal authorities to act.
Congestion pricing once seemed like a radical idea, but the urgency of the climate crisis is giving the concept traction in city halls around the world. London, Singapore and Stockholm have already implemented such programs.
London’s congestion pricing program was launched in 2003, amid stiff opposition and dire predictions of economic devastation. Despite the initial resistance, London’s Mayor Ken Livingstone was determined to rescue the city from crippling congestion that was costing the city $4 billion a year, according to figures cited by Gavron, and the resultant abysmal air quality that had earned it the derisive moniker “Dirty old man of Europe.”
According to Gavron, London’s congestion pricing system uses a camera-and-computer network to automatically levy an 8 pound charge on all vehicles entering London’s central business district between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. on workdays (weekends, evenings and public holidays are still free)—emergency vehicles, disabled drivers, taxis and hybrid cars are exempt from the fees. The cameras also monitor the license plates of vehicles entering the zone, while mobile enforcement teams patrol the area in vans.
Enforcement is rigorous, and although residents in the zone get a 90 percent discount on the fees, Gavron noted that not everyone is playing by the rules. “By the way, your U.S. embassy still hasn’t paid the congestion fee,” she said.
To encourage law-abiding participation, she advised that New York City give drivers many convenient options to pay their congestion charge. Londoners can pay by text message, telephone, online or at designated retail outlets. Drivers can also open pre-paid accounts from which funds are deducted automatically.
London’s program is showing results: A third fewer cars enter the central business district each weekday, and congestion is down by 26 percent. The total number of people entering the zone is the same as ever, but a greater percentage of commuters and residents are using the subway, bus and other environmentally friendly alternatives such as bikes.
Thanks to congestion pricing, harmful emissions have dropped substantially within the zone. Central London now produces 15 percent less carbon dioxide than it did before congestion pricing, despite substantial economic growth in the interim.
Meanwhile, the predictions of economic ruin have not materialized, Gavron said, and congestion pricing has had no discernable impact on employment, the number of businesses, turnover, commercial rents or profitability. London experienced a sharp economic downturn between July and September 2005, which many attributed to the reduction in tourism following the July 7, 2005, terrorist attacks, when the London subway bombings occurred. However, the trend had fully reversed by early 2006, and central London’s annual growth rates now surpass the U.K. average.
“London is booming now. For a New Yorker to say that streets are busy and crowded, you know it’s true,” confirmed Councilman Gioia, who recently visited the city on a fact-finding mission.
But London’s deputy mayor stressed that congestion pricing cannot work without complementary improvements to the public transportation system.
For example, London’s buses used to languish in traffic, Gavron noted, but with the implementation of congestion pricing, the city stepped up enforcement to keep cars out of bus lanes. That, plus fewer cars coming into the zone and additional buses on the streets, has produced marked change, with buses circulating far more efficiently. In fact, timetables actually had to be rewritten because so many buses were running ahead of schedule.
Last year, congestion pricing generated the equivalent of $241 million in London. That revenue has been earmarked for further improvements in public transportation, Gavron stressed.
John Liu, who chairs the New York City Council’s Transportation Committee, said he supports congestion pricing in New York for environmental reasons, and out of concern for the economic toll that congestion is exacting on the city. A recent report by the Partnership for New York City estimates that congestion costs New York businesses $13 billion a year in extra transport time. Traffic jams mean late deliveries, wasted fuel and higher costs to the consumer.
The retail, manufacturing and construction sectors are among the hardest-hit. How fast a construction firm can put up a building depends substantially on how long it takes to bring in the building materials and cart out the refuse. Every extra day adds to the final cost of construction.
“My dad owns a flower shop in Queens,” said Gioia. “He used to deliver in a truck to Manhattan, but it’s no longer profitable, thanks to the ‘time tax.’ It takes too long, the gas is too expensive. There are business owners in the outer ring who are making the decision every day about getting into Manhattan, and the congestion fee is just putting a number on that.”
At the same time, Liu wants to make sure that congestion pricing doesn’t become a burden on New York’s working residents. He noted that many of his constituents in Queens are underserved by public transportation already; under congestion pricing, constituents who couldn’t afford the proposed $8 congestion charge might have to add more than an hour to their commutes on public transit.
Gioia seconded Liu’s concern that the burden of congestion pricing be distributed equitably. His constituents in Long Island City, for example, who are also underserved by the MTA, fear that their neighborhoods will turn into a parking lot for outer-borough residents as a result of congestion pricing.
Gioia and Liu also both warned that there was the potential for a major backlash against congestion pricing unless all constituencies were consulted in a mutually respectful manner, including small business owners and members of immigrant communities.
Along these lines, Gioia objected to what he saw as the tendency of some elite opinion-makers to dismiss opponents of congestion pricing. That attitude is not only condescending, it’s self-defeating, he argued.
“There’s no faster way to kill this than to go on Queens Boulevard and tell the folks that oppose this plan they’re ‘parochial whiners.’ If you do, bring Police Commissioner Kelly with you, because there won’t be anything I can do to protect you,” Gioia said, drawing chuckles from the audience.
At the same time, he stressed the substantial and largely under-appreciated economic and health impact that unchecked congestion is exacting on his constituents.
Meanwhile, Liu called for firm commitments about the maximum acceptable commute time by public transit. Ideally, he hoped the city would set a 30-minute maximum for transit commutes from the outer ring to Manhattan, but he conceded that 45 minutes might be a more realistic target.
Along the lines of Gavron’s comments, Liu also challenged the City to invest its substantial surplus in buses and other improvements to the transportation system before starting congestion pricing.
Ed Ott, of the Central Labor Council, concurred, noting that there is the potential for significant opposition from labor if the city didn’t improve access to public transportation before levying surcharges. “Good congestion pricing is like good sex,” Ott said. “It all depends on what you do upfront.”
