Austinist: Austin Almost Ready For Congestion Pricing

ELTB

Wed, 09 Apr 2008 03:09:48 -0600

mdahmus, im really glad you are the former transportation commissioner. you are seriously deluded if you believe that either waterloo or austin java will thrive when people have to pay extra to patronize. what percentage of their customers arrive by car, single or multiply occupancy? i would guess in the 70%+ range.

shilli

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:58:25 -0600

But it sounds like Washington D.C. may be ready: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/16/AR2008031602469.html Basically, the D.C. plan would toll most existing highways. That was actually my initial idea for Austin - toll MoPac and I-35 as they go through downtown. That is where the most congestion is anyway.

shilli

Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:33:30 -0600

So you guys are saying that Austin isn't ready for congestion pricing? Looks like NYC isn't ready either: http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/07/congestion-pricing-plan-is-dead-assembly-speaker-says/index.html?hp Killed by suburbanites. I have a feeling single person in a car commuting is going to die a slow, painful death.

mdahmus

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 09:31:15 -0600

Waterloo and Austin Java both get substantial amounts of patronage from people who arrive by means other than the single-occupant automobile. (I used to walk to Waterloo; AJC wasn't there when I lived in the area). The proportion of such travellers is rising each year as well - these businesses will thrive, with or without congestion pricing - they're good attractors for pedestrians.

ELTB

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:24:10 -0600

how about we just bulldoze the non-essential downtown businesses like waterloo, austin java etc? this will cut demand for their products thus reducing traffic. they will be out of business if your plan is implemented anyway.

mdahmus

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:40:14 -0600

Congestion pricing isn't supposed to be about 'fairness' - it's supposed to be about managing access to a scarce resource through pricing (kind of like how capitalists do it, after all). The market price is supposed to have more to do with supply and demand than it does with cost of production (although of course over time if you charge too high a price, somebody will undercut you). The side effect of all this is that the buses suddenly work a lot better (ask people in London). Compare/contrast to the communist method: low (or no) prices and long lines. Guess which one is business as usual, ironically? Comrade Sal Costello loves it! We're nowhere near ready for it here, sadly. It's a close call whether it will pass in New Friggin' York where 90% of people don't drive into Manhattan alone.

mdahmus

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:40:08 -0600

Chiken

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:29:48 -0600

So I live at Congress and Oltorf and I work at Congress and Second, and I would be charged every time I cross the river -- yet my officemates who live in Round Rock and commute 30 minutes each way would get off with no charge? What a brilliant, sensible plan! Usually I agree with what you have to say Shilli, but this suggestion is so ridiculous that at first glance I thought you were being sarcastic.

section8

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 07:48:13 -0600

dumbest idea ever. should think through before posting publicly.

KatintheHat

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 01:41:46 -0600

Just to note, with the London system people who live within the "toll" area are exempted from the fees and can travel through the checkpoints for free. :) They also give out special passes/rates to those who work within the region but live outside of it. I'll also say, it must be working because the traffic in London runs pretty smooth.

bob

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 22:13:12 -0600

I think the key is having a public transporatation system (comprised of multiple means of mass transit) that is a viable alternative to driving one's car. [Viable, in that one can get to a given location with the same relative time/cost of driving a car.] And our congestion -- on both the highways and the major city streets -- is nowhere near that of the other cities that are enacting these plans.

Grape Ape

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 21:57:42 -0600

I think we all agree that the city should be built for people and not cars. Problem is, the current state of the city requires that those who can afford to live in the downtown "city" area are generally having to work outside of that area because unless you're a lawyer or involved in politics, there aren't a lot of jobs in the downtown area that pay a wage that allows people to live in $500K efficiencies. I'd love to be able to jump on my bicycle and go to work, unfortunately I don't see any corporate offices moving into space on Congress. Sure there are a lot of little startups and satellite offices for larger companies, but again, highly specialized and competitive. Until firefighters and bar staff can afford to live downtown I think cars are a necessity for most more than a right.

Christoball

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 20:51:51 -0600

Driving a car isn't some sort of inalienable right. Resurrect Norman Mailer's NYC mayoral campaign of 1969, in which he proposed a ban on private cars in Manhattan. Start building cities for people, not cars.

Grape Ape

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:32:23 -0600

Congestion pricing or something similar may be something to look at if and when we get to congestion, but there is no way I'm going to pay $8 to cross the river to come north when I'm one of the only cars on the road at 10am or 7pm for that matter and we're all doing 80mph. I just don't see how 4 hours of semi-heavy traffic a day warrants someting like this.

shilli

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:10:18 -0600

I agree with most of the comments above (including the comment that raising the gas tax is probably a better plan in general). However, if the growth projections for Austin are anywhere near accurate, traffic will get worse, so I think it is a good idea to consider ideas other than building more roads. Maybe a congestion pricing plan could be done in conjunction with the pending streetcar proposal - charge people if they want to drive along the streetcar route.

elvislives

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:47:59 -0600

Here's a much better thought out idea on how to pro-actively battle traffic congestion that is up for vote in Los Angeles County... http://blog.wired.com/cars/2008/04/should-drivers.html

LoudMouth

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 17:17:29 -0600

I say go for it Shilli, since you make all the decisions in this town.

tim

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:51:47 -0600

I was disappointed to read the article and realize that Austin isn't ready for congrestion pricing in the real sense. I was hoping one of our city council had proposed it. Actually the river isn't a very good toll booth. Since most of the traffic problems occur north of it. Better tollbooth placements would be on the ring roads. You make 620, Parmer, 290, and Slaughter ring roads. Obviously you need a little work to make that ring, but it's the basic idea. People outside of that area are the most likely to be getting cheaper housing at the expense of city dwellers. These people would pay 24 hours a day to come into the city. Then you do another ring at 183, 360, I-35, and 71 to capture real congestion pricing. Obviously you need 1 or two more roads to connect the dots, but you get the idea. Congestion pricing doesn't work by tollbooths anyway. You just get a few cameras on the major road ways. It's much simpler, and the tollbooths don't add to the congestion. Of course, we could just get North and West Austinites to pay their fair share for capmetro. That's another way to fund it. Commuter rail should have started in South Austin. Because they paid for it. People who pay for CapMetro don't get WiFi on their express buses. People who pay for CapMetro get fewer express buses. People who pay for CapMetro don't get commuter rail service. And people who pay for CapMetro can't take CapMetro to work along 360, even though it's techinically in Austin.

Grape Ape

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:48:45 -0600

Can't work, no actual public transportation, too many people who live in downtown and south of the river have to work north along 183 and the like. Oh yeah, and then there is that Austin doesn't even have a traffic problem, let alone congestion. Call us back when we actually experience true gridlock.

YoYoMa

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:24:34 -0600

MrMichael, I'm with you. There is not any congestion here compared to most/all major cities. Oh, traffic backs up a little, boohoo. Austin is tiny.

myname

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:19:44 -0600

The congestion problem isn't due to locals crossing the bridges. It's all the suburbanites flooding into the city and/or working along 183, etc. If only there was some way to collect money from those people on those roads that could be used to pay for public transportation. I don't know, maybe some sort of toll on the roads? Toll road. Has a nice ring to it.

MrMichael

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:10:21 -0600

I don't care what all of you whiners keep saying, compared to other cities Austin is NOT anywhere near being congested enough for something like this.

hollabackdan

Wed, 02 Apr 2008 16:06:59 -0600

so your solution is to punish anyone who lives south of the river? this while the greatest growth in housing is north of the city. this would only encourage unrestricted growth north of the city. also you can't even make an argument for congestion pricing until a reliable public transport system is in place. you cannot implement the pricing with the argument that the money will pay for public transport, it already has to be there.