most teachers neither live nor work in the CBD. Right?

Jonathan

I’m perplexed by your mistrust of census data. Could you elaborate? Not even the parking-industry front men who are leading the fight against congestion pricing have questioned these numbers.

we do not agree about transit policy. We do not agree about congestion pricing transferring wealth.

You cite a report from William Street. It is self-serving (for the mayor and the wealthy, not you). Any congestion sort of study that does not use the cordon counts is iffy. And their data is aggregrated at the wrong level. It is a report written with a conclusion in mind (iow, politically motivated).

Reducing road capacity takes cars off the road. But then those that stay on stay on because they can tolerate delays (out of necessity), not because they can afford it.

Finally, most of our teachers, including those who drive, neither live nor work in the CBD. But outer borough parking around schools can be horrendous.

Jonathan

In fact, history has shown that they don’t care about those issues.

So to support any giveback, is, well giving in to givebacks.

Bloomberg did not attempt to play us against one another. He simply responded to the demands made by opponents of congestion pricing, who argued that before proposing congestion charges, the mayor should reduce the number of parking permits given to city employees. The existence of these parking permits is widely accepted as the reason city employees are twice as likely to drive into the congestion zone as other workers, so this was not an unreasonable demand. In fact, those in favor of congestion pricing (business groups, environmentalists, advocates for the poor, transit advocates, unions, etc.) generally agreed with it.

It doesn’t matter if we agree on the meaning of the word “regressive” as long as we agree that congestion pricing would result in a downard transfer of wealth. If you don’t believe me that drivers make more than subway riders, look at the data: http://www.streetsblog.org/wp-content/pdf/insidethebudget154.pdf

Reducing road capacity is a great way to reclaim public space. Unfortunately, without a pricing mechanism in place, such a plan would serve to worsen both congestion and pollution, the two problems the plan is intended to deal with.

Civil Servant: True, parking permits are a minor issue for teachers, but an important public policy issue. The city loses billions in economic activity each year due to traffic congestion. Parking permits are a big part of the problem.

when everyone gets charged the same, regardless of ability to pay, that’s regressive.

On the trip into Manhattan (not all bus and subway riders make that) mass transit users probably have an income comparable to that of drivers. I think you forgot the railroads. In lower middle class ring suburbs and outer borough neighborhoods, many are automobile dependent. Further, it is those who have lower paying jobs who are more likely to need to move from place to place within Manhattan.

Congestion pricing appeals most to those who can afford to pay it – it will keep others off the roads. It discriminates on the basis of wealth.

Reducing capacity (making streets pedestrian only, knocking out moving lanes for bike lanes, etc, etc) will force drivers to decide if they really can endure the delays. It discriminates on the basis of need.

I’ve got good teeth, but I won’t suggest that we trade away dental benefits. Why would you let Bloomberg play us against each other?

Jonathan