Given that it's not just the roads into downtown that are at crush depth during the rush hour, but Metro as well, I don't see how a congestion charge is going to help matters unless you significantly increase Metro's capacity. True, such a congestion charge could help fund that extra capacity, but you would need that capacity IN PLACE when you begin the congestion charge or you're just going to make a bad situation that much worse...

by Froggie on Mar 29, 2010 1:50 pm • link • report

DC doesn't have the worst congestion in the region. Most of the significant identified congestion problems are in the suburbs.

Yes, DC has congestion problems on certain roads (NY Ave., I St., K St., etc.) but again, compared to other roads in the region, particularly the Beltway, it is less, comparatively.

As a bicyclist, during many rush hour periods I can run red lights, which I only do when there is not oncoming traffic. That is an indicator of limited congestion.

Furthermore, having a congestion charge in DC would be used by entities such as the Arlington County Economic Development Authority to compete against DC for the relocation of businesses.

So a congestion charge would have to be regional to not put DC at a competitive disadvantage.

And

by Richard Layman on Mar 29, 2010 1:57 pm • link • report

I'm not familiar with how the London tax works, but how would this affect non-private cars such as taxis, buses, and police cars?

Also, as someone noted above, the majority of congestion (in terms of time) is on the beltway and associated highways. Wouldn't it make more sense to toll the beltway than to charge someone crossing the Key Bridge into Georgetown?

by Teo on Mar 29, 2010 2:05 pm • link • report

Non-starter. All it will do is encourage employers to move outside the perimeter, or in some cases, to other metro areas.

by Answer Guy on Mar 29, 2010 2:05 pm • link • report

DC doesn't have the worst congestion in the region. Most of the significant identified congestion problems are in the suburbs.

Agreed. I have no problem getting around town, even during rush hour--usually by bike.

Also as a DC homeowner, I'm against any policies that encourage the suburban municipalities from slowly committing suicide. I factored in the deeply entrenched stupidity of their policies when buying my home, and don't want to see their sudden enlightenment adversely impact my homes value.

Don't you guys have a couple more beltways to build?

by oboe on Mar 29, 2010 2:06 pm • link • report

Sorry:

"...policies that encourage discourage the suburban municipalities from slowly committing suicide..."

by oboe on Mar 29, 2010 2:09 pm • link • report

I like the thought of a congestion charge in principle, but part of what makes it work in London is the fact that the bus system runs 24 hours a day, with special Night Bus routes picking up after the Tube shuts down for the evening. The Night Buses run every half hour (20 minutes on Friday and Saturday nights) and run both out and in from the end of the Tube lines, allowing passengers who miss the last train to get out to some of the most far-flung areas of the bus network or come back into the city without having to worry about bringing a car downtown. Not exactly feasible with the current state of Metrobus, I fear.

by sg on Mar 29, 2010 2:13 pm • link • report

With them any jurisdictions, I do not know whether a congestion charge would work. Didn't Bloomberg want something like that for Manhattan? How's that going?

I think it would be a lot better to develop a regional infrastructural improvement plan and then collect to money for that through a temporary sales tax increase.

The plan should be very clear. These roads will be widened, improved, built. These metro lines will be extended here. These bus improvements will be made. These VRE/MARC lines. Etc.

People can then vote on whether they want to pay for those plans with an increased sales tax. If yes, those improvements will be made, and the tax will be levied until the projects have been paid for.

If the plan is not specific, you will get the boondoggle that we had a couple years ago in NoVa where the people voted down a 1% sales tax increase for an unknown plan.

Last, it would be unacceptable to start charging anything without clear plans.

by Jasper on Mar 29, 2010 2:14 pm • link • report

As much as a like the idea of taxing drivers, I don't think this will work.

I think drivers who commute to and from downtown D.C. would love other options other than driving. For example, I have several coworkers who stopped taking Metro because of a curious scenario of overcrowding and deteriorating service. If we're going to ask people to resort to other options other than driving, then there have to be adequate alternatives in place. As of now, in my opinion, there are not.

In addition, I agree that the worst traffic problems in our region are not downtown; they're practically everywhere else where the suburbs have exploded with little-to-no planning or necessary infrastructure improvements. Taxing drivers in D.C. will not alleviate those problems and in fact would probably just give people reason to do business outside downtown.

by Adam L on Mar 29, 2010 2:15 pm • link • report

Without adequate infrastructure in place this is something of a non-starter. But what if the revenue streams are used to back some bonds that could provide funding up front to expand Metro service in various ways (including adding parking at various outer stations).

There's no reason any money from such a charge would go to "competing" towns--it's easy enough to, say, dedicate the funds to WMATA, with some guarantee that the share spent on improvements in MD and VA is above some threshold.

by ah on Mar 29, 2010 2:22 pm • link • report

Matthew Yglesias seems to think that congestion pricing is an inevitability, and that we'll look back in a generation and laugh at ourselves for being so daft and not implementing one earlier.

While I generally agree with the idea of a congestion charge, I don't think the region is so uniformly prosperous that implementing one wouldn't adversely impact the areas affected by it. In other words, the commentariat is right to suggest that such a move would keep companies away from DC or from the DC area as a whole. Furthermore, as long as gas is cheap, people would likely take their dollars elsewhere. Finally, what's to say that the feds wouldn't just pick up the tab for congestion charging like they do for their employees that take metro?

I think a far better idea would be to coordinate a regional gas tax and use those funds to finance improvements in roads, bridges, mass transit, and bikeped projects.

The same argument against congestion pricing - it's regressive - applies to the gas tax. But it is equally bunk, IMO.

The DC region is simply too interconnected for congestion charging to work, unless we implemented one that affected the entire circumfrence served by the metrorail system. I doubt that would fly in PG county, and it may exacerbate the problems in Tysons Corner.

Simply put, gas is too cheap. Until it's more expensive, we'll continue to have problems like this. Better to make it more expensive now to fund improvements that will come in handy when gas is expensive because the market has made it that way...

by JTS on Mar 29, 2010 2:23 pm • link • report

I agree with your (and Ryan Avent's) call for a congestion fee, but strongly disagree that the revenue should be applied regionally. Why should revenue generated in DC help cover improvements in VA or MD, when it's their auto-centric transportation funding priorities that led us to this congestion? I'd be more conciliatory if they hadn't fought the Commuter Tax a few years ago. If VA and MD want a share of the money, they should toll I-66 and the beltway.

by jeff on Mar 29, 2010 2:26 pm • link • report

I live on the edge of downtown and commute downtown via bike, bus, or rail (depending mostly on the weather). I find that congestion is hardly a problem, save for two or three blocks.

The really horrendous congestion in the area is out in the suburbs. Furthermore, congestion charges would add yet another burden pushing employers to the suburbs.

Also, how long do you want to bet it will take until Congress strike it down?

by Eric F. on Mar 29, 2010 2:27 pm • link • report

Correction: I live on the edge of the L'Enfant Plan, not the edge of downtown.

by Eric F. on Mar 29, 2010 2:28 pm • link • report

In general, a gas tax would not suffice. Transit riders have to contribute too.

@ Eric F: What would you care about congestion charging? You never drive in and out of the District. You would not be paying anything.

by Jasper on Mar 29, 2010 2:46 pm • link • report

In these economic times, anything involving revenue sharing between DC, MD and VA is simply not going to happen. DC is going to argue that since it has to deal with the congestion, it should keep all the money. MD and VA will argue that anything involving taxing of their citizens is a commuter tax and is illegal.

And even if by chance revenue sharing were accepted, I have a hard time seeing MD and VA legislators agreeing for that revenue to be used to fix up mass transit in DC.

by Fritz on Mar 29, 2010 2:57 pm • link • report

@Jasper,

It's not a matter of if he's affected, it's a matter of the efficacy of the policy as a whole.

I absolutely support the principle of congestion pricing, but the details of any proposal for the DC area would be crucial. Simply based on a) the geography of the area, b) the location of employment centers, c) transit infrastructure, and d) existing areas of high congestion, I'm not sure a London-style cordon zone would really work all that well, or be all that necessary.

The worst congestion, in my experience, isn't on downtown streets (again, as Eric notes, save for a few bottlenecks). Unlike London's zone, DC does have a few freeways that dump traffic into the core. Would you opt for a cordon zone, or just for tolling the highways? The one natural barrier DC has is the Potomac - what would just tolling the bridges alone do? DC's not physically isolated the way Manhattan is (and their proposed congestion charge would have taken advantage of their bridges and tunnels).

by Alex B. on Mar 29, 2010 2:57 pm • link • report

In a paper I wrote three years ago, for creating a truly linked land use and transportation planning paradigm in DC, I suggest instead of a congestion charge, a transit withholding tax. Now, it could be just as much a business location killer as a congestion charge, and for it to work, the federal government would have to agree. (A withholding tax helps fund TriMet in Portland, including the Fareless Square, and transit service in Lane County, Oregon [Eugene].)

Depending on the rate, it could generate up to $200MM in DC. I recommended that the bulk of the money be used to pay for the separated blue line as well as other transit improvements. Arguably, you could pay for some road improvements too, but the reality is that DC's road network is for the most part built out, and doesn't need add'l capital improvement $ for road projects.

An alternative method would be to do a bond-funded project comparable to Seattle's "Bridging the Gap" program. I'd like to propose something similar in Baltimore County in the plan I am writing there, but I don't think it would survive the review period by the Executive Branch.

http://www.cityofseattle.net/Transportation/BridgingtheGap.htm

In any event, this kind of question -- what type of transit system and how to fund it -- ought to be part of a larger discussion, not merely branded as a congestion charge.

I have argued for a few years that there needs to be an annual transportation advocates conference.

But in any event, given the massive degradations experienced with WMATA and the need to rebuild trust, I argue that a regional planning initiative be undertaken to deal with all the relevant issues:

- management
- leadership
- funding
- expansion
- system improvement
- safety
- costs of the system
- paratransit
etc.

http://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2009/11/st-louis-regional-transit-planning.html

by Richard Layman on Mar 29, 2010 3:00 pm • link • report

Implement a congestion charge and use the money to improve transit service. I agree with oboe, anything that impedes the death march of car-centric suburbs is bad. Use this as just another way to encourage people to take transit.

by MLD on Mar 29, 2010 3:07 pm • link • report

I look forward to implementing this proposal. Property values in Arlington and Montgomery County are going to soar. Everyone who isn't a federal employee or law firm partner are going to find jobs elsewhere in the region.

by charlie on Mar 29, 2010 3:19 pm • link • report

A good idea if used to correct the environmental classism of placing the freeway traffic disproportionately south of the Anacostia without tunneling/cover.

But we know this will simply be another charge to maintain the folly of keeping the freeways truncated.

by Douglas A. Willinger on Mar 29, 2010 3:22 pm • link • report

@ Alex B: As I've said before. I'd opt out of a congestion charge. It's an elaborate way to collect money that you might as well through general taxation. If we don't have enough money for infrastructure, why not just raise taxes (income, business, sales and/or property)?

Calling a tax a charge is silly. So, we need politicians that will tell us that we're not paying enough money for the things we're demanding from the government.

Seriously, why go through the trouble of putting up all these complex electronic monitoring systems, with all the possible screw ups and budget, privacy and oversight issues, when you can just increase some tax with a minute amount? Really, why not just do the simple thing?

You want smaller government? Then you want a tax increase!

by Jasper on Mar 29, 2010 3:43 pm • link • report

@Jasper,

Because it's not just a revenue-raising mechanism, it's a congestion reducing mechanism. For that to work, the charge needs to be targeted at places and times that are congested.

It's the same concept as performance parking - the price should vary according to demand. Demand, obviously, will vary by time and place. The key is to also make the system simple enough to understand on a day to day basis - hence London's fixed zone and fixed daily price - you'll trade some efficiency for predictability.

It's not called a tax because congestion pricing shouldn't apply uniformly - it should only apply to congested areas.

by Alex B. on Mar 29, 2010 3:49 pm • link • report

Jasper,

That's right, I probably wouldn't be paying the tax, but I fear it might convince businesses to move jobs out of DC to the suburbs. The loss of private employers downtown is a serious risk, especially considering that rents per square foot in DC are already high and that our corporate income tax rate is among the highest in the nation.

Furthermore, I disagree that downtown traffic is that bad anyway.

So this congestion charge would essentially

1. Encourage businesses to leave DC (or choose not to relocate here in the first place)
2. Improve transportation services whose benefits will accrue largely to suburban residents.

DC residents would lose on the former count and not benefit that much from the latter count (unless we drive, which we are far less likely to do than our suburban counterparts).

by Eric F. on Mar 29, 2010 3:53 pm • link • report

@Alex B.

Sorry, but not all taxes apply uniformly. That's why we have gas taxes, alcohol taxes, and tobacco taxes. They target something undesirable, just like this targets congestion. I'd prefer to place tolls on I-495, I-66, and I-395 or on the bridges leading into the city over this congestion tax because at least tolls are something people in the United States have seen before and they would have the same effect without having to deal with the privacy issue or using new, untested technology.

by Teo on Mar 29, 2010 3:56 pm • link • report

Tolls would be a just way to fund that networks needed improvements, and could be varied to meter demand based upon such things as the time of the day, such as a southbound D.C. I-95 Fort Totten.

by Douglas A. Willinger on Mar 29, 2010 4:04 pm • link • report

+100 for Froggie. Given Metro's woes a congestion pricing scheme/tax/fee cannot be workable.

LA is expanding their transit systems (See today's LA Times) via federal funds. It's time Congress ante'd up and gave us the system we deserve. 4 tracks in all directions.

by Redline SOS on Mar 29, 2010 4:07 pm • link • report

@Teo,

I'm not sure what you're arguing. The gas tax applies uniformly to gas. It does not apply uniformly to congestion.

by Alex B. on Mar 29, 2010 4:09 pm • link • report

Its a bad idea for the fact the way DC is designed. Creating a zone down town will only create more traffic on areas outside of the zone.

If person is coming from one end of DC to another they will have to pass through the zone; depending on where the zone starts and stops. There are not enough cross town streets in DC at all to create a zone without taxing people whom would not even go downtown.

Depending on where the zone is all people on the east side of the Anacostia could get taxed because there are only 4 ways from that part of DC to another. Lets say Penn Ave & M street SW/SE get included that would make only Benning RD & E. Capitol free from a zone.

I would be perfectly fine with this if DC did not have a river doing through it which separates on part from the other and creates back up by funneling traffic over 4 bridges.

Why not put the tolls on the borders of major roads with MD & VA. such as all areas by Eastern, Western, & Southern Avenues plus the Potomac and gives residents who live within 1/4 mile from Eastern, Western, & Southern Avenues a free pass to not get charged.

Any type of congestion tax will hurt people whether it be traffic or rail the people whom get hurt are the ones who cant change there schedules to come in at a different time which is mostly blue collar work which does not pay that much anyway.

by kk on Mar 29, 2010 4:22 pm • link • report

@Alex B.

What I'm saying is that the congestion "charge" is actually a tax, just like the gas, alcohol and tobacco taxes I mentioned. I'm not sure where you misread my post, but I was pointing to those three taxes as examples of a targeted tax, much in the way that a congestion tax would be targeted at congestion.

As you mentioned, this might work in Manhattan because of it's island status, but this won't work in DC. Tolling just the birdges on the Potomac would basically only be tolling Virginia residents. Tolling the bridges over the Anacostia would mean that DC residents living in SE would have to pay the toll as well (unless they get special bypass permits, but that leads to too much complexity). Tolling the highways might be the best bet, but that might just lead to more congestion on the other, free bridges.

by Teo on Mar 29, 2010 4:31 pm • link • report

Wow... some spelling mistakes. That's what I get for typing with one hand and eating an apple with the other.

Should say "because of ITS island status" and "just the BRIDGES on the Potomac"

by Teo on Mar 29, 2010 4:33 pm • link • report

How about have Congress enact, on behalf of the District, a commuter tax and give the proceeds to WMATA? Commuter taxes exist everywhere else without destroying business downtown.

by Steve S on Mar 29, 2010 4:40 pm • link • report

We are a region of almost 9 million residents (close to 6 million in the DC "metro area"). People from the Baltimore area commute to DC on a daily basis, as well. Let's be clear about that. There is no longer any physically discernible boundary separating our two MSAs.

by E on Mar 29, 2010 4:40 pm • link • report

@Teo,

If you want to call it a tax, that's fine. I don't really care what it's called - what I was arguing against was Jasper's assertion that congestion pricing is "an elaborate way to collect money that you might as well through general taxation." That's simply not true - the mechanisms we have right now for general taxation will not address congestion at all - i.e. increasing the gas tax might curb overall gas usage, but that won't necessarily make a dent in congestion.

The other missing bit of information is crucial - congestion pricing can reduce demand. It's not merely a revenue-generation mechanism. The beauty of congestion pricing is that when the charge does generate revenue, it is both a signal that more capacity is needed and a financing mechanism to build said capacity. If the charge alone can't reduce congestion, that's the signal that you need more capacity. It also means you can charge more money on that link to pay for it.

by Alex B. on Mar 29, 2010 4:46 pm • link • report

I guess the way I see it is that the fundamental problem is that people think nothing of long commutes to get to work, which clogs the roads for the whole region. Building more roads just encourages more long-distance commuting. And we don't have the resources to build enough transit so that everyone can get off of the roads.

by Jack Russell on Mar 29, 2010 5:15 pm • link • report

@Teo -- there's no reason one needs to use physical boundaries for tolls, as London has shown. They just defined a downtown zone--cameras snap pics of your plate and either you register your plate and pay the fee, or don't and pay the fee plus a penalty--that costs you money during set weekday hours.

Plenty of places to set the boundary, but it might be something along the lines of Rock Creek Park on NW, Florida Avenue, 8th St NE/SE, M St SE/SW, and Maine Ave/Ohio Drive SW.

by ah on Mar 29, 2010 5:27 pm • link • report

@ ah

How would you get around them; most places that have tolls also have options to avoid the toll by take a longer route and what would this be here.

You said a boundary of Florida Ave & M Street SW/SE how would you get around those.

Both of those streets are the main road ways to get around in those parts of the city and you effectively are making a trap so that people have to travel them.

Examples;

To get anywhere above Florida Ave you have to cross it meaning you get tolled or taxed. You can not avoid it because of Geographical and man-made barriers such as New York Ave, Amtrak and the Red Line.

With M street only way to get to Anacostia, Congress Heights etc without going over to Penn Ave or East Capitol Street.

You are creating a stratification point where people may be without the money to afford the toll cant go in the area.

A better option would be a square or rectangle area that has streets to the north/south/east/west that you can used to avoid but if you have to get into the area you will get charged.

In any case in idea of creating zones should be on a ballot because it will effect people and businesses already there with no options to get around it effectively give those residents a tax for living there.

Telling people to catch metro wont help; our system is a piss poor piece of shit; it would be okay if the metrorail/metrobus system covered all points of DC but they don't so that can not be used as a way around it.

by kk on Mar 29, 2010 5:47 pm • link • report

i like the idea of tolling to start -- just easier: install some tolls, hire some money takers, and start taking. i say charge 24 hours/day, but jack it up during peak commute times to relieve congestion. there will be lots of crying about 'overflow', so neighborhood concerns should be addressed adequately with appropriate traffic calming, then let the cops loose on pass-thru speeders -- more revenue!

put the money into close-in walk and bike infrastructure, first, and then use leftover money to finance construction of new rail lines -- probably at-grade light rail, but possibly grade-separated, too. let's do the 30-in-10 deal that LA is about to do. the end goal must be that nobody _needs_ a car to get to and from downtown DC.

but i'm open to regular congestion pricing too -- i would just hope it's done a bit better than London -- more dynamic pricing, bigger drops in congestion, etc. most importantly -- more bike infrastructure, including full-on cycletracks on every major road, full bicycle facilities at every Metro station, etc.

and i was just thinking about a 'progressive drivers' advocacy group of some type. maybe it's just a front group of some type, but maybe it could actually be a legitimate group of drivers that argues for tolling and congestion pricing, etc. -- things that will legitimately make our driving lives better. we hate being stuck in traffic, we hate the idea of streets like the new K Street will kick bikes off it and cater only to motorized traffic because that will just induce demand and cause more traffic, etc. I'm not driving right now, so it's not really a fit for me right now, but if my situation changes (and it always is) i'll revisit the idea.

by Peter Smith on Mar 29, 2010 6:09 pm • link • report

I'm sure the Fairfax County Economic Development Authority would love to see this happen, but it won't.

by Kyle on Mar 29, 2010 6:33 pm • link • report

@kk - that's the point, though. If people need to get there then they should seek alternative routes or transportation mechanisms that don't increase congestion. You can't get something for nothing, and the point of a tax/toll/fee is to reduce the problem by giving people incentives for not contributing to the problem. If someone in SE wants to drive to, say, upper northwest during peak congestion times then they need to be willing to pay the price or take the long route or use public transit. (BTW, my "borders" were an illustration, not necessarily the right ones.)

by ah on Mar 29, 2010 7:14 pm • link • report

Why target DC and disadvantage the core of the metropolitan area? It would make more sense to charge for entering places like Tyson's Corner, or developing sprawlburbs. This would discourage the usual kind of development and encourage suburban transit. The Dulles Toll Road hasn't stopped Reston/Herndon from developing but the area isn't quite like, say, Gaithersburg.

by Rich on Mar 29, 2010 8:48 pm • link • report

How "medieval" ... you pay a toll to get into the city. Why don't we build city gates while we're at it too!

by Lance on Mar 29, 2010 9:50 pm • link • report

Many thoughts:

1. We have plenty of capacity, we just use it really inefficiently. So a congestion charge would help with that. You don't need more capacity to handle carpools, or telecommuting, or biking. And surely not every bus is packed. So I disagree with those who say there isn't enough capacity to elsewhere to allow for fewer people to drive. When gas prices go up, people suddenly drive less.

2. The idea that this will drive businesses away from the core is ridiculous. The federal government is not going to pack it up and go to cheaper pastures. If they were, the DHS would be building an HQ in Detroit not Anacostia. The businesses that need to be near the federal government aren't going to leave for cheaper pastures either, because if they could, they would have done that already. The reason why the city is congested is that people really want to be here. Taxing people money to come here, instead of time as we do now, will not change that.

3. You don't need to set up toll booths. London has cameras that photograph cars (and their plates) as they drive around the congestion zone. Computers and operators record which cars entered and on which days. If the driver pre-paid to enter the zone (which can be done via cell phone), they are not billed. If they didn't pre-pay they're sent a monthly bill for each day they went in. Obviously pre-paying is cheaper.

4. Right now people are paying to enter the city during rush hour with their time. This time is totally wasted. But if people payed with money, they'd save time. Time they can be doing something else. And the money goes to badly needed transportation improvements. Win-win. Imagine if it took 6 hours to get into the city from Alexandria. You'd pay something to get in in 15 minutes right? So why not pay something less to go from 30 minutes to 15 minutes?

by David C on Mar 29, 2010 9:59 pm • link • report

On a more serious note, when there's a shortage of something, the solution isn't too allocate it out on the basis of 'ability to pay' but rather to produce more of it ... so that everyone can partake of it. .. and not just those with deep pockets. And if we can't build more of it (as is perhaps the case where we don't want to destroy our neighborhoods just to satisfy commuter demand) then let's just let everyone have a fair chance of getting it ... Let's not stack the deck against those with less money to begin with and foster a society where the have-nots are forced to take mass transit while those with the means can avoid it. It's not equitable. The streets are for everyone and not to be fenced off for an elite.

by Lance on Mar 29, 2010 10:03 pm • link • report

This is something that would help fund desperate transportation needs- but the gov't framework needs to exist. Unfortunately, the region straddles very different governments with different political realities. The most effective way to get everyone to work together is to have an authority that controls transportation policy for the region. But how do you make that happen with two different states and a city govt? You could add another tax layer to those that live/work in the area. I think that a per-use congestion charge or some kind of commuter tax would be more fair to the taxpayers.

by TimW on Mar 29, 2010 10:07 pm • link • report

This is as crazy an idea as the bag tax! Wait, someone ought to tell Tommy Wells about it .. he'll be sure to sign on to it!

by Lance on Mar 29, 2010 10:08 pm • link • report

Should read- But I think a per-use congestion tax or a commuter tax would be more fair than a blanket tax to those who live/work in the region. That's because like others have pointed out, it targets the behavior that you are trying to change- congested roads and lost time, productivity, and energy from sitting in traffic for so long. Such taxes would speed up the change that we are seeing now due to the costs they are bearing from their commutes- it's that more people would rather live close to their work and pay more for less house than going for the cheap housing that made the suburbs what they are.

by TimW on Mar 29, 2010 10:22 pm • link • report

when there's a shortage of something, the solution isn't too[sic] allocate it out on the basis of 'ability to pay'

Actually it is. It's the fundamental basis of supply and demand. It's the reason why the cost of strawberries fluctuate as they become more or less scarce.

Right now we have a good - road space - that is scarce, but we treat it like a free good (like air). This is bound to cause chaos.

Let's not stack the deck against those with less money to begin with and foster a society where the have-nots are forced to take mass transit while those with the means can avoid it.

Your class warfare arguements miss some key points. No one is forced to do anything. If those of little means wish to drive the roads they can. In a sense this kind of market already exists. Do you propose that we make sure that everyone have a car and gasoline at their disposal, free of charge, so as to make things equitable? Note that the haves will be paying a fee that will then go to subsidize the transit of the have-nots. That's hardly oppression.

by David C on Mar 29, 2010 10:58 pm • link • report

@David C:
"when there's a shortage of something, the solution isn't too[sic] allocate it out on the basis of 'ability to pay'

Actually it is. It's the fundamental basis of supply and demand. It's the reason why the cost of strawberries fluctuate as they become more or less scarce."

And you missed the point ... you grow more strawberries ... here or elsewhere. There was a time when strawberries could only be had 'in season' and their supply was severly limited. Not anymore. Strawberries now get grown around the globe (and brought here) and grown in ways that allows 'more for less'. Your 'allocation solution' assumes we have what we have and we need to ration it. It's this kind of thinking that is the biggest barrier to providing true solutions. It's like the bag tax. It makes one feel good without really doing anything other than to delay that which really would help. Should we be surprised that London has implemented this idea and New York hasn't? There's a reason London isn't what it was back when it knew how to run an empire. There're a lot of Tommy Wells running around Britain nowadays ...

by Lance on Mar 29, 2010 11:23 pm • link • report

1. By your own admission we can't grow any more strawberries/build more roads. Not without destroying our neighborhoods. So that isn't an option. When supply is static and demand goes up, price goes up. It's that simple.

2. It's this kind of thinking that is the biggest barrier to providing true solutions. You don't actually have a solution. Your solution is the status quo.

3. I don't see how it's like the bag tax at all. Do you mean that, like the bag tax, it would be a wild success that completely changes behavior for the better over night with very little grumbling?

4. The bag tax reduced use of plastic bags by 87% and raised $150,000 for Anacostia River clean up. How is that not "really doing anything".

5. London was bombed to hell in the late 30's and early 40's. 70 years later it has passed NYC to regain the title of "financial capital of the universe." You were saying...

by David C on Mar 29, 2010 11:46 pm • link • report

Assuming that you must respond to demand changes with exactly the same amount of new supply assumes you have the prices right to begin with. What if the new supply is really cheap to provide? What if it's really expensive?

Shouldn't prices reflect how hard it is to provide people with new supply, rather than just how much stuff cost last week or year?

New supply could be really cheap, in which case the additional people wanting it could pay for it themselves at the current prices. See strawberries in winter.

New supply could be really pricey, in which case if you want more you're going to have to have prices increase or somebody else is going to have to pay involuntarily (taxes) to support it.

by Michael Perkins on Mar 30, 2010 8:36 am • link • report

@Michael, "New supply could be really cheap, in which case the additional people wanting it could pay for it themselves at the current prices. See strawberries in winter.

New supply could be really pricey, in which case if you want more you're going to have to have prices increase or somebody else is going to have to pay involuntarily (taxes) to support it."

I think you have it. Though I'm not sure we're in agreement. You see there's never 'too cheap'in my opinion. There was a time when kings lived worse than how the poorest of those among us live today. Had we as a human race accepted then that new supply of the 'really pricey' things should be allocated since it was 'too pricey' for anyone except kings, then the rest of us would stil be without indoor plumbing, central heating, or any of the other 'basics' (i.e., read: cheap things) of today.

by Lance on Mar 30, 2010 8:46 am • link • report

@David C:

1. By your own admission we can't grow any more strawberries/build more roads. Not without destroying our neighborhoods.

Not true at all. Looking at it regionally, we've been growing new neighborhoods forever around here. Today they're being grown in places like Herndon, yesteryear they were being grown in places like Cleveland Park ... and even Dupont and Shaw ... which were themselves 'new' when they were built out of swamps and fields in the 1870s.

2. It's this kind of thinking that is the biggest barrier to providing true solutions. You don't actually have a solution. Your solution is the status quo.

As overhead wire proponents like to point out, you don't rule out what is existing as an alternative to going forward. You know, just because you don't think it's not working doesn't mean it's broken. Look at our metro area today and compare it back 25, 50, 100 years. I think given the population increases, it's doing quite well. If there's congestion, people will naturally find alternatives. They don't need government to step in an make it worse under some misguided belief that by collecting more taxes they can stem the tide. If there are too many people driving in, then they'll know that themselves without being taxed to let them know. And mosthe available roads, a public good remember, won't be auctioned off to the highest bidders.

by Lance on Mar 30, 2010 8:53 am • link • report

Right, increases in our productivity and technology can make formerly expensive things cheaper, expanding supply and reducing costs.

HOWEVER: One of the inputs for making new highway capacity is land (physical space). Land is a scarce resource, and it's incredibly valuable in urban areas (principle 2: the cost of something is what you have to give up to get it, giving up the land available to build dense buildings is a large cost).

Under your model, we would react to people demanding more highway capacity by building more highways or widening roads. That's a very expensive solution, and it's not going to get cheaper by the application of technology or productivity.

No, the reaction to people demanding more highways is to get them to demand highways only when they really need it. Pricing is a good method of rationing, although other societies like China have tried other methods, like only allowing odd-numbered license plates on odd-numbered days, or restricting the number of licensed cars or drivers.

Back to your other solution "letting everyone have a fair chance of getting it", does that mean you'd be in favor of allocating rush hour commute permits by lottery? What do you mean by this?

by Michael Perkins on Mar 30, 2010 9:00 am • link • report

@David C 3. I don't see how it's like the bag tax at all. Do you mean that, like the bag tax, it would be a wild success that completely changes behavior for the better over night with very little grumbling?

If your measure of success is how well you can control and manipulate others' behavior, then yes you've been successful (though not to the extent you're claiming with your '87%' reduction, since many of us have just switched our shopping to the 'burbs). However, the real measure of success would be a real reduction in polution of the Anacostia ... and I've yet to see any proof of that. You see those of us opposing the bag tax never questioned your ability to manipulate and control us, we just never saw the correlation between that and your ability to reduce pollution in the Anacostia. And we still don't.

by Lance on Mar 30, 2010 9:08 am • link • report

By your own admission we can't grow any more strawberries/build more roads.

Not true at all. Looking at it regionally, we've been growing new neighborhoods forever around here.

I was talking about roads, and you're talking about new neighborhoods. The problem is not a lack of far away suburbs. If housing prices are any indication, there is no shortage of those. There is a lack of road space downtown. And, I was quoting you. So if what I wrote was "not true at all" then in the course of 6 comments you've completely contradicted yourself.

just because you don't think it's not working doesn't mean it's broken.

I assume the double negative is unintentional. How is "not working" different than "broken"?

by David C on Mar 30, 2010 9:11 am • link • report

the real measure of success would be a real reduction in polution[sic] of the Anacostia ... and I've yet to see any proof of that.

The program has only been in place for three months. They don't have any data yet. But if you'd care to place a wager on what the results will be once data is available, I'd be interested in that.

by David C on Mar 30, 2010 9:14 am • link • report

How about getting an effective transportation system up first before considering congestion taxes.

We should be developing other ways to get from point A to B instead of just adding a tax; which wont do a damn thing to solve or try to solve the problem. All it does is mask the problem with B.S.

Before any type of congestion fee/tax whatever is enacted people should travel the routes of majority of workers and see how they get to wherever in DC and build bus routes along those ways.

With peak of peak fees; it needs to be noted that all cant change the time they can come to work most jobs that can are usually higher end jobs where you are your own boss or is paid via a year amount regardless of time you work.

With many people who are paid by hour of work this would effect them greatly by spending more when they really can not afford to do so.

Just thinking about jobs where you can not choose your own hours I get

restaurants (all types excluding manager & chef)
schools
daycare
medical environments excluding doctors
low level government employees
employees below manager in most businesses
security
retail stores
all blue collar jobs where you are not your own boss

I say there needs to be a compromise about this.

There can be a congestion fee/peak of peak rates but every address in DC must be no more than 1/8 of a mile from a bus stop so that there is a option of using public transit.

by kk on Mar 30, 2010 9:16 am • link • report

@Michael Under your model, we would react to people demanding more highway capacity by building more highways or widening roads. That's a very expensive solution, and it's not going to get cheaper by the application of technology or productivity.

No, not at all. I would advocate more 'sprawl' ... And while I might agree that there might be better ways of sprawling then what we've been doing (e.g., building Kentlands vs. Levittown), there's nothing wrong with growth ... which is what is sprawl. And focusing on the allocation of existing resources does nothing to address the real issue, and that is that we must grow or infrastructure if we are to house everyone.

Just a note, I'm not against allocation per se. The market will naturally allocate things. What I'm against is the government putting in a tax in the name of allocation. That's big government looking for an excuse to put in an extra tax. That's not government really seeking to make the situation better. Just to profit from it.

by Lance on Mar 30, 2010 9:21 am • link • report

just because you don't think it's not working doesn't mean it isn't.

i.e., I think it's working very very well ... as it stands.

by Lance on Mar 30, 2010 9:24 am • link • report

Well, your entitled to your opinion, but the fact is that we have the 5th most congested city in America. I doubt many people would agree that it is working just fine.

by David C on Mar 30, 2010 9:32 am • link • report

@David, Without getting into a long diatribe ... I don't get caught in that congestion. Why? Because I've chosen to live where I can walk to conveniences around my home, because I've chosen to live where I have a 'reverse commute' and the 25 miles can be done in 30 minutes. In short, I'm okay because I've chosen how I respond to the natural market forces. And others are okay too because I've chosen not to compete with them for otherwise scarce road space. And in so doing, I have contributed to the many changes that individuals make each and every day by excercising their freedom to choose. Having the government instead come to allocate existing resources to the highest bidder not only impedes those natural choices, but skews them. Yes, they allow a politician or two or three to 'control and manipulate' but over the long run they hinder rather than help the situation.

by Lance on Mar 30, 2010 9:43 am • link • report

Lance, if you don't get caught in congestion, then you wouldn't theoretically have to pay congestion pricing. That's the whole point of the congestion charge - to charge it only where and when you have congestion.

by Alex B. on Mar 30, 2010 9:53 am • link • report

though not to the extent you're claiming with your '87%' reduction, since many of us have just switched our shopping to the 'burbs

Call me a diehard skeptic, and I hear this assertion a lot, but I think you should probably provide some evidence (any evidence) of these "Plastic Teabaggers". 'Cause I think you're deluding yourself if you think it's more than yourself and couple of other Lone Men and Women of Integrity who've stopped shopping in the District because of this.

[Strangely relevant captcha: "myopic rage"]

by oboe on Mar 30, 2010 10:07 am • link • report

DC's congestion is to London's as a candle is to a raging bonfire. The complications of implementing that system, plus the cost of cameras and equipment, is stupidly inefficient.

Why don't any public officials, be they local or national, have the cojones to propose a gas tax? It'd be 100% less stupidly expensive to implement, and would further increase pressure to develop intelligently around the area.

by MikeS on Mar 30, 2010 10:43 am • link • report

DC is not the #5 most congested _city_ in the U.S. The Washington region is the #5 most congested region. The cited Forbes article calls regions by the center city. It's a mis-reading of the information.

Again, DC's (the center city's) congestion is significantly less than most of the other jurisdictions in the region. In fact, nonautomobile centric mobility is the city's primary competitive advantage vis-a-vis the rest of the region.

The reality is that "transit works" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! and it's proven every day by the relative paucity of traffic on most of the city's streets.

Sure streets like CT or NY Avenues and I Street have persistent traffic. It needs to be addressed.

But a congestion charge imposed only in DC would have cascading negative impacts on DC.

David -- many federal agencies leave the city and continue to do so (e.g., NSF and all the agencies that Robt. Byrd gets for Virginia), although I don't think that the federal govt. would move agencies as a result of a congestion charge

by Richard Layman on Mar 30, 2010 12:58 pm • link • report

I meant Robt. Byrd and West Virginia.

by Richard Layman on Mar 30, 2010 12:59 pm • link • report

Having the government instead come to allocate existing resources to the highest bidder not only impedes those natural choices, but skews them.

You're right. Instead of auctioning off mineral, grazing and timber rights on federal land, the government should just let everyone have a fair chance of getting and say first come, first served. Wait, isn't that the classic tragedy of the commons?

One of the key roles of government is to deal with the tragedy of the commons. And road congestion is another version of this classic economic problem. This is EXACTLY the kind of situation that government is best at handling.

Also Lance, why do you think others don't follow your lead and live such congestion free lives of ease? Is it because they're stupid? Or is it because thier rational choices are different from yours. They have a different job, in a different place, with a different salary, different family ties...etc. You do realize that it's mathematically impossible for anything above 49% of people to have a reverse commute right? What about the other 51%?

And all of this blather about freedom and manipulation. Oh my God, you sound ridiculous. People have the same opportunity (not a right) to drive places that they have now. One for which they pay with taxes, fees, tolls etc...We're just talking about a new fee. So if you think the gas tax is fine, or toll roads are fine, or fees/taxes associated with car ownership/registration/licensing are fine then you're a hypocrite for criticizing this fee.

Are people controlled and manipulated when their right to commit murder is taken away? Are they controlled and manipulated when the price of stamps increases (Shouldn't we all have a right to send mail? Why is this privilege set aside for just the wealthy who can afford stamps? Postal carriers, a public good, should not be auctioned off to the highest bidder). I'm sorry to be the one to tell you, but the government is in the business of controlling behavior - whether that be not allowing people to pollute, forcing people to send their kids to school or yes, discouraging everyone from driving to the same place at the same time. That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing.

by David C on Mar 30, 2010 1:07 pm • link • report

MikeS, a gas tax doesn't solve the problem of congestion - or at least not directly. It discourages all driving, at all times in all places. It's a bit of overkill. Not that the gas tax shouldn't be raised, but just not to reduce congestion.

by David C on Mar 30, 2010 1:10 pm • link • report

@David C
I don't have numbers on-hand, but generally speaking, isn't driving through congested, traffic-choked areas the least fuel-efficient circumstance for most cars?

As you say, a gas tax will effect all drivers but I'd argue that due to the nature of fuel efficiency it has a greater effect on commuters who routinely drive through traffic, moreso than long-distance freight truckers.

If the tax generated funding for mass transit, wouldn't it gradually reduce congestion by increasing access to and use of alternative modes of transit, reducing overall fuel demand (and the sting of the tax) in the long run?

by MikeS on Mar 30, 2010 1:24 pm • link • report

@Richard, "But a congestion charge imposed only in DC would have cascading negative impacts on DC." I disagree. DC's advantage is not that it is easy to drive into and out of at rush hour. There already IS a congestion charge - it's just in the form of time. What is proposed is changing that charge into the form of money. Has this had a cascading negative impact in other places where it was tried?

@MikeS, it's not that raising gas taxes won't help with congestion. We saw during the last gas spike that people left their cars at home when gas prices went up. It's just that it's like cutting off the hand to remove a wart. If the problem is congestion, taxing a car driving on a backroad at 1am isn't part of the solution.

by David C on Mar 30, 2010 1:49 pm • link • report

@David C
I like your analogy, but I'd replace wart with "steadily degenerating cancer that causes your fingers to twist in increasingly inefficient and unhealthy ways to compensate for the tumors."

If you penalize all drivers slightly but in the process singleHANDedly reduce congestion, fund future transit projects, and steer long-term development toward more sustainable modes of transit, then hey, not a bad deal.

I just think a heavyHANDed solution that has multiple positive outcomes would prove more cost effective than an expensive system designed to monitor congestion in a city which, relatively speaking, isn't as congested as it could be. Plus, there are maintenance and operating costs to any system with cameras and databases, people to employ, technical upgrades for the future, time and effort spent handling contested charges or people evading fines... Some cents at the pump would generate fewer headaches.

by MikeS on Mar 30, 2010 2:11 pm • link • report

Interesting related story:

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2010/03/another-reason-for-congestion-pricing.php

by oboe on Mar 30, 2010 2:17 pm • link • report

@MikeS. You are correct. There is some amount by which you could raise gas taxes enough to eliminate congestion. And it would have other benefits. Politically, you could never get there - especially if you plan to use the money to fund transit. I suspect Congestion Charging is significantly more politically viable.

by David C on Mar 30, 2010 2:18 pm • link • report

@David C
I suspect you're right.

by MikeS on Mar 30, 2010 2:23 pm • link • report

I have argued for a few years that there needs to be an annual transportation advocates conference.

hear hear! the bay area had a 'transitcamp' a couple of years ago -- it was more tech/nerd-oriented, but it was very productive and fun.

right now i'm a bit more interested in a 'bike/walk-camp', but nobody else seems interested so far. :(

i think most other bike/walk advocates are busy with their yearly trip to DC. maybe a walk/bike/transit summit would be a good idea..??

regarding the 'businesses will leave/sky will fall' argument to a congestion charge, i'm inclined to not only say 'bullocks' but to also say that companies will probably rush into DC now that it's actually possible to drive into and out of. intuitively, this is the more likely outcome afaic.

so, yeah, the congestion pricing needs to be set so that if people are willing to pay the fee set such that congestion again creeps past 'Level X', then the price needs to be able to be adjusted automatically (or nearly so) to bring congestion down to a reasonable level -- whatever we decide that level should be. i remember reading that London's congestion just swelled-up again after a while -- don't know the full truth there.

by Peter Smith on Mar 30, 2010 3:15 pm • link • report

I've written about transit camps in the Bay Area and Toronto. Your bike/walk camp is a good one too.

David -- u r right about the congestion charge that is imposed today is time. Your question about where a congestion charge has been imposed and the impact is a good one. I am only familiar with three places, Singapore, Stockholm, and London. There are probably more. I don't know much about Stockholm. With Singapore and London, you don't have the same level of polycentric development patterns and vicious regional municipal jurisdiction competition. DC's business district doesn't have the same level of absolute prominence and dominance that "The City" does in London or the authoritarian control of Singapore.

I just don't see how DC could survive going it alone with a congestion charge. As it is, Alexandria, Arlington, Fairfax, Bethesda, Silver Spring, and the I-270 corridor, and lately New Carrollton, keep picking off DC-based businesses. This would be one more advantage that those jurisdictions would use against DC.

Look, I am not against the idea, I just think it would be very hard to do in practice without having significant and negative unintended consequences over the long term, not unlike Philadelphia's wage taxes, which have driven businesses to locate outside of the city.

by Richard Layman on Mar 30, 2010 10:09 pm • link • report

"This would be one more advantage that those jurisdictions would use against DC."

I might add to that that DC lost the race a long time ago. We're in no way 'central' to anything ... except maybe government offices ... and I'm not even sure about that. Not that any of that really matters anymore. Office buildings are so 'last century'. Cities need be places that attract residents and attract people looking for good restaurants (and nightlife) and good shopping. As even the federal government is coming to understand, most business is nowadays conducted in a virtual world where office buildings just serve as the occasional meeting place .. and must vie with coffee houses and restaurants and even airport lounges for that honor.

Richard, your argument is still correct but it doesn't really apply to where offices are located but rather to where people want to sleep, eat, and play ... in the course of business or just plain 'life'. And this type need is far less set in stone than was the old-fashioned office building. It's easy to set your next meeting in a coffee house outside the gated pay cordon. Doesn't take much thinking or effort.

The problem with this whole idea is that at its heart it is an example of thinking locally rather than regionally (despite the obvious after thought that one should think regionally ... and one should do it because it is the right thing to do.) What we have now is a situation where market forces cause everyone to think regionally whether they intend to or not. DC doesn't dare do anything to hurt itself in the competition with MoCo and Arlington (or at least it shouldn't if it really knew what was good for it) and vice versa. The end result is that we have a region in lockstep with itself in providing the best of everything that benefits everywhere in the region and, most importantly, allows for growth by the very needed (and much maligned) 'sprawl'.

by Lance on Mar 30, 2010 10:29 pm • link • report

And to take the argument a step further ... We still have our historic neighborhoods and low rise Washington neighborhoods because there was no 'regional planning authority' forcing all new office construction to be done downtown (back when that mattered.) Instead we have a wonderful far flung region that is much more livable than than other places where they had the means and ability to enforce a concentration of uses in zoned ares in one core central city. These other cities now often find themselves with inner cores that aren't viable in the new economy in that they can't support the mixed use development that a metro area like ours was actually built around. In effect, our lack of central planning by government has permitted a natural central planning to be effected by market forces that is far superior to any that could be developed or thought of by any bureaucrat.

by Lance on Mar 30, 2010 10:40 pm • link • report

And to take the argument a step further ... We still have our historic neighborhoods and low rise Washington neighborhoods because there was no 'regional planning authority' forcing all new office construction to be done downtown (back when that mattered.) Instead we have a wonderful far flung region that is much more livable than than other places where they had the means and ability to enforce a concentration of uses in zoned ares in one core central city. These other cities now often find themselves with inner cores that aren't viable in the new economy in that they can't support the mixed use development that a metro area like ours was actually built around. In effect, our lack of central planning by government has permitted a natural central planning to be effected by market forces that is far superior to any that could be developed or thought of by any bureaucrat.

by Lance on Mar 30, 2010 10:40 pm • link • report

It's not an absolute argument. It's relative. DC's office market is still strong. But it is strong for a certain type of business, mostly organizations (law firms, trade associations, national media, etc.) that for a variety of reasons, value proximity to the federal government. Other types of business tends to not locate in the city's core any more (there are other reasons too, relating to the cost of space), but elsewhere in the region, on agglomeration economics grounds (e.g., biotech proximate to NIH, military contracting proximate to military installations, etc.).

If you want to see what I mean, think of Baltimore. Most of its central business district has been leached out as businesses have been merged into other entities located elsewhere (NYC) or moved out elsewhere into the region.

DC won't have all the business. But it needs to have enough so that it doesn't become Cleveland or Detroit or St. Louis. (It would have long ago had there not been requirements to have at least 65% of federal government headquarters agencies located in the District proper, even though the total is actually below this number.)

This is important because regardless of your point about what matters most is where "people eat, sleep, and play," the reality is that a goodly chunk of the city's overall tax revenue is generated by the commercial property in the downtown portion of the central business district (it's close to 20% of the revenue stream).

I guess where I am part of the "Growth Machine" thinking is that your point about local vs. regional is true, but at the same time it isn't because taxes and revenue streams for municipalities aren't paid and created regionally, they are paid according to particular jurisdictions. So at the end of the day, you have to think about local and regional dimensions simultaneously, while working to preserve your tax base. "Think regional, act local."

I have these conversations with colleagues in the planning office in Baltimore County. One person in particular says there needs to be a regional sustainability plan. But it becomes hard to actually execute something like this when it comes down to "block by block" decision-making because the jurisdictions compete for businesses and residents. The jurisdictions also are hard pressed economically, they have a lot of needs, they don't have enough money. That's true for even the more successful counties. (It's weird for me because traditionally, I have been focused on revitalization and repopulation of center cities and now my responsibilities are to "represent" for the county, while at the same time having to prioritize regional transportation connections.)

by Richard Layman on Mar 31, 2010 4:49 am • link • report

@Richard, (It's weird for me because traditionally, I have been focused on revitalization and repopulation of center cities and now my responsibilities are to "represent" for the county, while at the same time having to prioritize regional transportation connections.)

That's a good thing, really. Being forced to see something through another's viewpoint leads to better decision making all around. After all it really shouldn't be a matter of advancing one's cause at the expense of another's cause, but instead finding that common ground where you have a win-win solution and everyone leaves the table feeling they've gotten what they came for. You're in a fortunate position.

by Lance on Mar 31, 2010 11:13 pm • link • report

Terrible idea for DC. It may work well in Europe, but that's because they're willing to pay much higher taxes/fees then we are and they are much more transit minded to begin with. Also, it's not like Metro can handle additional passengers right now, as they can barley keep the trains running frequently and on time as it is. Not to mention that the bus service is inadequate bus service form certain suburbs. And why would DC not keep the revenue form this new tax? If they were to give up some or most of the money the tax generated then the other jurisdictions need to pay in the percentage that they want in return. So if Prince William county only offers up 5 % they only get 5% in return. The answer, short term is street cars/light rail and water taxis. There is a new startup water taxi company american river taxi(americanrivertaxi.com) that is looking into a passenger only commuter taxi service on both the Potomac and Anacostia with ground links between the water and Metro stations. This could become a great future option for people south of the Pentagon in Virginia. Street cars will also help , but need to be drastically expanded and linked with a light rail system, much like Portland Oregon. The purple line is a start but should be expanded into all parts of close in Maryland and Virginia, via downtown DC. In short, however, blindly taxing cars entering the district would be reckless at this point, as the transit system is not equipped for the additional strain that would result, form both economical hardship (we are still in a recession) and in transit patten changes. Ideally you could connect the light rail system with the water taxi service. Also, the Metro system as it is currently operating is not going to survive. If anything, we should be adding other options to people form the suburbs and then connecting them to the Metro as close the the core as possible. These additional options (streetcars, light rail and water taxis) should also allow for suburb to suburb trips as well. Once these new options are linked in and operating, then the Metro could dramatically increase it's fares as it would be the fast to core option that is interconnected with all the other options.

by Mike on Apr 1, 2010 2:27 am • link • report