The key issue in considering congestion pricing in New York City should be to understand who is actually driving into the Manhattan core at what times and to what purpose. There does not seem to be any systematic examination of these issues in the latest approach to the issue. In studies undertaken some years ago it was clear that most of the people who drove daily into the core were there for business reasons, not for commuting reasons. Many were sales people who used their cars to make sales calls and were expecting to make more than one trip during the work day. Being in the core was a business trip and that trip is not likely to end if there is a congestion price on top of the parking charges already felt. We also know that most of the people that drive into the core have their parking charges paid by their employer. When you raise the charges, the employer will simply pay more.

Many people firmly believe that there is no economic value to the trips that arrive into the core by automobile or truck. They see it as easy to tax these trips out of existence. But that is not likely to happen without economic cost. What research that was released before the latest venture revealed that most of the people who were driving into the core from elsewhere in New York City were coming from areas that were underserved by mass transit,many from areas originally intended to have subway access in the planning done in the 20s. People in these areas, whether in Bayside or southeast Brooklyn, make a rational choice between a relatively short trip from home to work by car and a multi-leg,much longer trip by public transportation. If it is a business trip,the choice is a no brainer. If their parking is subsidized as a commuter,as happens for people from nurses to surgeons, then it also probably a no brainer. Time is worth money.

Until we know who will be adversely affected by congestion pricing in New York City, then we should be cautious about its introduction. It may turn out to be the last straw for some people who are job generators. We should not forget that New York City’s belief that it could tax manufacturing without effect in the late 60s accelerated the deparure of manufacturing from New York City.

Dynamic price levels make it hard to plan and are an economic bad idea.

Adding toll lanes to existing roads, creating many more choke points is a horrible idea. HOT lanes must die.

And I am not sure I understand the logic of lowering the price of subways off peak. If they are underused (and thus more comfortable), and driving and parking is already so expensive, don’t we already have the incentives set up to take the subway at offpeak times?

It really seems as that the only winners here are bikers.

I also think you’re a bit optimistic about the effect of pricing on peak traffic. People said the same thing about unlimited metro cards, but my understanding is that this is not how it worked out in practice. Maybe it will go down the way it did in London, and maybe it won’t–but then what’s happening to the commuters? You certainly can’t count on that as the only possible outcome, or even the most likely one.

Does this make you wonder how effective a congestion charge is going to be?

The goal here should be to change behavior, not raise money.

I hope not. The idea of congestion pricing is aligns the private cost of car travel with the public cost. One might find that commuters are less price sensitive than business trucks and through traffic. But the point is once you get the price right, you don’t care.

Of course, this is not to say that usage won’t increase, just that a lot of people already regard the marginal subway ride as free.