Creative Funding
- Posted by ryan on November 19th, 2009 filed in Cities, Policy/Politics, Transit
From Bloomberg:
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa said his goal to speed up construction of 12 transit projects and ease congestion in the second-biggest U.S. city requires “creative” funding help from Washington.
Villaraigosa is pushing a plan to complete about $20 billion of subway and rail-line work by 2019, 20 years sooner than an initial estimate by Los Angeles County’s Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The mayor said he’ll seek a funding advance from the U.S. government against future local sales tax revenue, along with federal grant money.
You know what I’m going to say — if you’re interested in raising money for transit, reducing congestion, and building a transit ridership base then you might want to consider congestion pricing.
Which isn’t to say that the federal government shouldn’t be kicking in a hefty share for projects like this. What would be really smart would be for the feds to say, look, we want to get the most out of our investment, and that requires you to increase user costs on congested roads. That will ensure a better distribution of people across modes, and it will mean that you have enough money to properly maintain and, if necessary, expand your transportation systems. Make cities an offer they can’t refuse; say you’ll pay for any project that makes sense according to a set of reasonable criteria — in full — so long as local governments begin pricing congested roads.
November 19th, 2009 at 10:51 am
Does Los Angeles have the power to start congestion pricing? New York City wanted to try it, but couldn’t get approval from the state government in Albany. And there was substantial federal funding available then.
It may have to be an offer that states can’t refuse, and funding for city-specific projects might not qualify.
November 19th, 2009 at 11:12 am
Ben, it’s a good point. Another is that we have no infrastructure for tolling. Ryan’s right and we can leave it with that and the idea that maybe the future construction plans should include toll plazas as well as subways. But I have to drive, I’d guess 80 miles south to find somewhere that can accept my toll (and, incidentally, it’s a private toll plaza.)
November 19th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
Have you seen a thought-through scenario for how one congestion charges an entire regional freeway system?
I haven’t and every discussion I have ever heard falls on one of neighborhood opposition.
If you are going to price a freeway then you will divert some significant traffic to an adjoining arterial. The impacted neighborhood will scream loudly as it does NOT want more traffic. So then you say ok we will congestion charge the arterials. And then the people on neighborhood streets go crazy. And so on.
I don’t see how (and I am judging from my close view of Seattle) that the politics of pricing an entire grid system won’t fly politically.
Then there are the privacy issues (yes I have heard all the theories of how it can be anonymous and I don’t believe them) which bring out another anti- opposition.
Even if you suggest a cordon system as in London (I believe) you run into the problem of favoring in-city use of freeways which doesn’t cross a boundary.
Of course my question is whether you have seen a fairly complete plan/scenario (taking into account the politics) for how such a system might be installed.
Have you? I ask sincerely.
Now I don’t deny at all that it might work (in all ways) in Manhattan. But there it would have been a cordon system and wait till you see the politics of where to place the cordon! i.e. everyone wants it just a few blocks outward (from the city center) from where they live!
November 20th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
I’m gonna do my usual “people don’t like, and don’t even like thinking about, ideas that are strange to them” rap.
Usually, it’s about IRV. Why it has to be ‘instant’ is beyond me; people know what a regular runoff is like, and might be open to arguments for it. IRV simply causes their brains to shut down.
Same here: rather than charging for driving in urban areas, which people aren’t used to except on bridges and tunnels, how about if we charge a more realistic rate for parking? If you’re gonna drive into a congested area, you’re doing it because you’re planning to park somewhere, and get out and shop, go to work, visit the doctor, whatever.
So charge for parking - a high enough rate so that there’s almost always a space free on any block, but low enough so that, at any given time, most of the spaces are occupied.
See what effect that has. Then see if you still need congestion pricing.