Further to yesterday’s post, one of the big draws of the TD Five Boro Bike Tour is that it takes riders over the Verrazzano, the big-ass bridge between Brooklyn and Staten Island that is completely closed to bikes every other day of the year:
The upshot of this is that there’s no way to ride a bike directly between Staten Island and any other part of the city. Of course you can take your bike on the free Staten Island Ferry, though that’s no good if you’re prone to sea sickness and/or impatience. I mean who the hell wants to stop riding and wait for a boat? Not waiting for stuff is the entire point of riding a bicycle:
Except for red lights. Always stop at those red lights, kids:
Well, the MTA understands how important the Verrazzano is to the ride, because apparently they’re trying to shake Bike New York down for more money to use it:
I guess first they tried to extort the New York City marathon, and that didn’t work, so now they’re targeting those wimpy bikers:
Hey, I’m not naive; I know Bike New York isn’t some babe in the woods. They’ve got the biggest ride going, plus a phalanx of free laborers like Esteemed Commenter Leroy, and I’m sure they’re making out pretty damn good. In fact pretty much everyone is making hay: Bike New York, the City of New York, the MTA, the NYPD, the porta-potty rental operations, the murderous cartels who control the global banana industry…. So I’m sure it’s all part of an elaborate dance in which the MTA tries to fleece Bike New York for a little more money, then Bike New York tells the New York Post who are always up for a little controversy in which they can quote an indignant firefighter, and then the porta-potty vendor jacks up its rates because global warming is resulting in overripe and consequently less binding bananas, which means more porta-potty cleanup, and it’s all part of the endless whining and kvetching that we New Yorkers call “negotiating:”
Nevertheless, the MTA’s claim that they must compensate for lost revenue bears further examination. Okay, I don’t know what Bike New York paid to use the bridge this year, but last year Bike New York paid $90,000:
Presumably that doesn’t account for the lost toll revenue while the bridge is closed to motorists, which seems to be what the MTA is complaining about. Now the bridge is closed for like half a day. On a Sunday. Meanwhile, the MTA is also on the cusp of introducing congestion pricing, the stated goal of which is to reduce traffic:
Yes, it’s not the only goal, it’s also supposed to fund transit improvements, but this is the one people cite most often and as you can see above it’s the first thing the MTA mentions on the congestion pricing page. I must say I’ve always been highly suspicious of this claim. The MTA needs money, badly. Do we really think they’re introducing another toll because they’re hoping people won’t pay it? The best way to reduce traffic in Manhattan would be to close more and more streets to motor vehicles, which would not only reduce traffic but increase transit ridership, and allow buses to move more quickly, which would benefit the MTA in terms of both increased fare collection and more efficient operation, and then flowers will bloom and birds will sing and we’ll all hold hands and sing songs as we skip through the streets of Manhattan.
But instead, the same agency that’s telling us they’re introducing a toll they hope people won’t pay is telling us that a freaking bike tour needs to give them more money because they’re not collecting tolls on a single bridge for a few hours one a year.
Something doesn’t add up.
To be clear, I have no problem with congestion pricing, at least in theory. For one thing, it doesn’t affect me in the slightest, as I drive The Car That I Own into what will soon be the congestion zone virtually never. They could charge you $200 to drive into Manhattan below 60th Street or whatever it is and it wouldn’t mean shit to me. For another, of course drivers should pay “their fair share” (whatever that is), and there are too many of them, and we need better transit, and safer streets, and all of that stuff. Mostly, it’s just that I don’t think any of this is going to happen, and while I’m happy to be proven wrong, I’m willing to make a gentlemen’s bet that, assuming it goes through, in a year or two we’ll see headlines in the New York Times like this:
Congestion Pricing Was Supposed To Reduce Traffic And Improve Transit. It Hasn’t. What Happened?
So why do I think this? Well for one thing, I live in New York, and I’m alive and sentient. For another, we’re always told that New York City drivers are profoundly entitled, and that congestion pricing has been a success in places like Stockholm, and London. So what does congestion pricing look like in those places? Here’s the deal in Stockholm:
It’s a maximum of 135 SEK, which is like twelve American Fun Tickets.
Meanwhile, here’s London:
Fifteen Pounds Sterling is like Eighteen American Fun Tickets, which is a lot less than it was last time I was over there, when that money would have bought you a house in Jersey.
Meanwhile, what other tolls are the drivers of London and Stockholm subjected to? As far as I can tell, virtually none. As I understand it, there’s like one other toll somewhere in the London area, and the whole UK has like 23 tolls. As for Sweden, I don’t think they have any tolled roads at all.
Here’s what New York City looks like:
These are just the tolled crossings that go in and out of the city itself. Of course, this is New York (and New Jersey), so naturally different bridges and tunnels are tolled by different bloated agencies. Here are the tolls on the light purple crossings:
And here are the tolls on the dark purple crossings:
Keep in mind this does not include the tolled highways outside of the city such as the New England Thruway, the New York State Thruway, and the New Jersey Turnpike, or any of the other tolled crossings in the region. And yes, you can theoretically drive anywhere in the city (except Staten Island) and avoid paying a toll, but in most cases it’s so circuitous that it’s not worth it. (Or you can just use a bullshit fake or obscured license plate, which is a whole other problem.)
I’m not saying “Won’t someone think of the poor motorists?,” but I am saying the idea that the drivers of the New York City metropolitan area are cruising around for free while their dutiful counterparts overseas are paying their way like good, penitent citizens is far from accurate. More than that, I’m also saying that there is an absolute fuckload of tolls around here–and yet people drive anyway, more and more every single year. The city alone probably has more toll roads than many of the world’s countries, and somehow this one is gonna fix everything?
Sure it is.
In any case, if you express skepticism over our version of congestion pricing, which according to the advocates will solve traffic, fix the subways and buses, cure climate change, and reverse male-pattern baldness, you will be branded a NIMBY and all sorts of other acronyms. However, I think this is odd, when it’s such a disingenuous way of accomplishing something you could do in a few weeks by pedestrianizing more Manhattan streets. If anybody, you’d think it would be the advocates who would be most critical.
But what do I know?
