What is apparent from the debate in New York is that Bloomberg, despite months of speculation about this proposal, seems to have caught local leaders by surprise.  Either that, or these leaders are so flummoxed by the idea that someone would regulate their car use that they can’t catch up to the underlying principles of the proposal.  Some state legislators haven’t even bothered to check in with their own constituents to see if they back congestion pricing.  Instead, the natural political reflex to grandstand against a tax increase seems to have taken over.  Here is a recap of the arrows slung so far, along with a rebuttal to each:

• Congestion pricing unfairly targets the working and middle classes – This critique relates to both the regressive nature of the fee (i.e., a flat fee is a greater hardship on lower and middle income families than on the wealthy) and the fact that working and middle class families are less likely to live in Manhattan.  This critique conveniently ignores the fact that anyone driving into Manhattan is already incurring costs from parking and tolls in excess of $8 per trip.  The purpose of the fee is to be enough of a hardship that most people will leave the cars at home, thereby avoiding not only the congestion charge, but all the costs associated with driving.  In addition, congestion pricing represents a massive shift of resources from car drivers to the working and middle classes in the form of financial support for public transit and other alternative transportation options.

• Congestion pricing simply shifts congestion to the edge of the restricted zone – This prediction did not materialize in London, where edge neighborhoods experienced a decline in congestion and smog as well.  Anyone who knows Manhattan understands that drivers will not drive to 86th Street in hopes of finding parking.  After trial and error, most drivers will realize that leaving the car at or near home makes the most sense.

• Congestion pricing unfairly targets suburban drivers – If only this were the case.  Suburban drivers shouldn’t be able to flee the city and then return at will to impose costs on the remaining residents.  In New York, however, roughly 60% of the car trips into Manhattan are by city residents, so suburban drivers can’t complain that they are bearing an unfair burden.

• The fees will be bad for businesses in the restricted area – These are the same people who argue that congestion is bad for business as well. Which is it? Commercial vehicles will incorporate the fee into the cost of doing business and enjoy the benefits of free-flowing traffic.  If anything, this change may improve business for local shops by attracting pedestrians who linger in neighborhoods longer.  Various local business organizations as well as the Real Estate Board of New York support the plan.  Furthermore, the local economy in London has suffered no ill effects from congestion pricing.

• The use of video cameras throughout the area is an invasion of privacy – New technologies are often subject to privacy concerns at their introduction.  These concerns fade as people realize that the technology is truly about improving efficiency and not spying.  Video cameras are already present in most retail and commercial buildings and the EZPass technology used to charge the fee is already in use on toll roads throughout the country.

• Congestion pricing is such a severe response; there must be less dramatic ways to reduce congestion – Yeah?  Like what?  Every alternate proposal is either equally intrusive or too ineffectual to make a difference.  This argument is the last refuge of the skeptics who, despite repeated warning signs about the devastating impact of excessive car use, can’t believe that they should have to pay to drive.

Denial is the common element to all of the critiques, as if Bloomberg were a parent telling everyone that the party is over.  Local leaders play their part by responding with the familiar, child-like cries of “it’s not fair,” “you’re no fun,” “you can’t tell me what to do,” and the heart-wrenching “you’re so mean.”  In fact, in all conversations about limiting personal car use, skeptics exhibit the same juvenile tendency to ignore consequences and abdicate personal responsibility.  Bloomberg, on the other hand, has been lauded for his patience and charity in the face of the repeated, ill-informed whining.

For the moment, the doubters in the State Assembly control the fate of the proposal.  The debate, however, has highlighted the shallowness of their arguments and any defeat of congestion pricing will be due to political maneuvering and not the merits of the opposing views.  Win or lose, Bloomberg will be remembered for having the courage to let the “pay-to-drive” cat out of the bag in the U.S. and for outing the local leaders for whom innovative, substantive policy is an inconvenience to be ignored like pedestrians at a crosswalk.  Years from now, when pricing plans for driving are the norm, we should remember who deserves the credit.

Photo Credit: Gotham Gazette