The post Sunday Video: New York Is Tackling Traffic Through Congestion Pricing first appeared on The Urbanist.

That’s where congestion pricing comes in. After a program delay triggered by New York Governor Kathy Hochul, New York City launched its congestion pricing system on January 5. Early reports are that pricing has reduced gridlock in Lower Manhattan, where a $9 toll is in force during peak hours. And whether or not pricing succeeds at decongesting streets over the long-term, toll revenue will help pay for a whole slate of needed improvements to New York’s aging subway network. Transit ridership has also jumped since pricing went into effect.

Seattle has flirted with its own congestion pricing system. In 2018, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan announced the City would study a downtown cordon tolling scheme, and she boasted the city might have even beat New York to the punch. That didn’t happened. The study dropped in 2019 and her administration continued to drag its feet and insist that the program would need a public vote before it could be implemented. Generally, cities that successfully implement congestion pricing implement it as a pilot program so the public can see the benefits before facing a vote.

By the last year of her term, Durkan dropped congestion pricing and pivoted to an “electrification blueprint.” The policy has remained off the menu under her successor, Mayor Bruce Harrell, who has preferred a still loosely-defined “low-pollution neighborhood” concept under a slow implementation timeline.

The post Sunday Video: Why Traffic Is Worse Than Ever and NYC’s Solution first appeared on The Urbanist.

As governor, Hochul has the power to nominate a plurality of members to the MTA board, but it would take a vote of the board to confirm her decision. The specter of a huge budget hole presented an obstacle to winning that support, so Hochul floated hiking payroll taxes on New York City businesses to partially replace funding. However, the New York State Legislature rejected that idea, facing considerable pushback from transit riders — not to mention businesses abruptly being targeted.

Riders Alliance, a New York City-based transit advocacy group, rallied riders to contact their legislators. Transit riders are holding out hope that the MTA board and the state transportation commissioner will overrule Hochul and implement congestion pricing as planned.

“Legislators must not compound Governor Hochul’s betrayal of millions of public transit riders,” said Betsy Plum, who is executive director of Riders Alliance, in a statement. “The proposal on the table will not fix the subway. A billion dollar IOU is not nearly enough money nor is it nearly secure enough to build trust and rebuild our critical infrastructure.”

Transit supporters pointed out the move risks a death spiral for the subway and climate action in the name of coddling wealthy suburbanite car commuters.

“It is simply not credible that New York has money lying around to keep subsidizing the commutes of wealthy suburbanites,” Plum said. “Killing congestion pricing narrows our options to save the subway and prepare it for climate change, risking again the death spiral we barely avoided from the pandemic.”

This isn’t just an NYC fail, this is a national fail. Seattle & cities across the country look to NYC to be a transit leader.

If you care about transit , take up @RidersAlliance action & keep congestion pricing moving forward. https://t.co/vp9ehzCD8O

— Kirk Hovenkotter (@khoven) June 5, 2024

New York’s continued waffling on congestion fees, referred to as decongestion pricing by some supporters, also could set the policy back nationally. Kirk Hovenkotter, executive director of Seattle-based Transportation Choices Coalition, stressed the national importance of New York staying the course.

“Congestion pricing is not just a NYC story,” Hovenkotter told The Urbanist. “It’s a national story. Places across the country look to New York City for leadership. Like New York, we have a looming funding gap, and the urgent need to redesign our most dangerous roads and fully fund the transit that riders deserve.”

Transportation Choices Coalition has advocated for road pricing as a means to fund transit and safety improvements and drive down carbon emissions, alongside other transit leaders and climate groups.

In 2018, Seattle Mayor Jenny Durkan announced her intent to pursue decongestion tolling in the downtown core and secured a $1 million grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies for that purpose, but ultimately all that resulted from the half-hearted push was a study that sat on a shelf. Advocates had hoped New York City taking the plunge could jumpstart some momentum on the stalled policy in Seattle.

Tolling has also been a stumbling block in Oregon, where tolling revenue had been intended to fund highway improvements in the Portland metro before Governor Tina Kotek pulled the plug this spring. Oregon had spent seven years and $61 million planning the toll system. Continued opposition to tolling could jeopardize the $7 billion and counting I-5 Interstate Bridge Replacement project over the Columbia River.

“Congestion pricing offered inspiration (and a prime case study) for our state and region to look at progressive revenue strategies that encourage transit and cut greenhouse gas emissions,” Hovenkotter said. “Governor Hochul’s decision sets back those efforts.”

Transit funding & decongestion policy are paramount climate issues. @GovKathyHochul should resign as co-chair of the @USClimate Alliance if she does not change course on decongestion pricing for New York. https://t.co/jm3PsKhSHl

— Joe Fitzgibbon (@joefitzgibbon) June 7, 2024

Rep. Joe Fitzgibbon (D-West Seattle, 34th) took criticism a step farther and called on Hochul to resign as co-chair of the U.S. Climate Alliance if she does not see decongestion pricing through. Fitzgibbon was instrumental in Washington State Legislature’s successful effort to pass the Climate Commitment Act, a cap-and-invest carbon pricing system, in 2021.

Hochul had vowed support for decongestion pricing as recently as two weeks ago, but she seems to have become aware of “unintended consequences,” which include concerning poll numbers in suburban swing districts, in the last couple of weeks, painting herself as protecting the middle class in pausing the program.

“A $15 charge might not seem like a lot to someone who has the means but it can break the budget of a hardworking or middle class household,” Hochul said. “It puts the squeeze on the very people who make this city go.”

A study for New York City’s congestion pricing system found that the overwhelming majority of people who drive into Midtown and Lower Manhattan are rich — not the blue collar sufferers that Hochul and other congestion pricing opponents have evoked. The congestion area would only apply to people who drive into Manhattan below 60th Street, many of whom already pay bridge tolls. It would not apply to trips within or between the other boroughs. This makes it a toll paid largely by New Jersey residents and other wealthy suburbanites. Transit really is the dominant mode in moving people to and from Manhattan.

Approximately 3.9 million commuters enter into Midtown and Lower Manhattan daily, with over 75% using transit; high rates of trips are also made by walking and biking. Conversely, some 700,000 vehicles enter into Midtown and Lower Manhattan every day, according to the MTA, creating severe gridlock. The MTA projects that congestion charging will reduce this by 100,000 cars, about a 14% decrease in traffic, while moving a large share of those trips to transit.

Hochul’s statements last month at the Global Economic Summit in Ireland went in the opposite direction. “It took a long time because people fear backlash from drivers set in their ways,” she said. “But, much like with housing, if we’re serious about making cities more livable, we must get over that.”

Hochul showed that she is not over that yet, especially not with prominent Democratic political insiders and consultants in her ear. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who represents a Brooklyn district, endorsed the move and Politico reported he has discussed suburban swing district polling ahead of the poll and stressed the importance of flipping Congressional seats in suburban New York to retaking Democratic control of the House. And of course, Hochul might have begun to fear for her own reelection prospects in 2026, if she had bought into the suburban revolt hypothesis.

MTA board members have said they were blindsided by Hochul’s proposal, leaving them scrambling to adjust capital investment plans. Behind the scenes, they’ve asked if Hochul intends to cancel the Second Avenue subway extension into Harlem or gut the agency’s accessibility program, Curbed reported. As a legacy system built before the Americans With Disabilities Act, New York’s subway has many stations that are hard or impossible to reach for disabled people and for families with small children.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams, who had previously sought to distance himself from pricing, has supported the move to pause the program.

“If she’s looking at analyzing what other ways we can do it and how we do it correctly, I’m all for it,” Adams said. “We have to get it right. This is a major shift in our city and it must be done correctly.”

Whether Hochul and Adams will ever get the political backbone to embrace decongestion pricing remains to be seen. A pause would give them a chance to summon their resolve, but otherwise accomplishes nothing.

The political calculation that pausing decongestion pricing would score points with suburbanites also appears to be tempered by the fact the state has already invested hundreds of millions in infrastructure to implement the program. This last-minute reversal makes New York Democrats appear fickle and fiscally irresponsible, which could be a bigger political liability than simply choosing transit and the environment over wealthy motorists who want to drive into Lower Manhattan.

Decongestion pricing has a proven track record in lowering pollution, asthma rates, and traffic crashes while lessening traffic jams and funding infrastructure improvements. Past experience in cities like Stockholm that have implemented decongestion pricing shows that seeing is believing, and public support swings dramatically once those benefits are on display. American cities are never going to get a chance to see for themselves if they never take the leap.

The post Torpedoing NYC Decongestion Tolls Would Be National Setback first appeared on The Urbanist.

The Durkan administration cited equity concerns in its “pivot” away from downtown decongestion pricing, but those concerns and possible solutions to them have been widely covered since her administration embarked on the plan. We at The Urbanist suggested a few in our initial coverage. The congestion pricing study that Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT) released in May 2019 found that most people who drive Downtown are high-wage earners and stressed the need for an equitable design to the program.

The study found that pricing works. “In every case, congestion pricing has reduced vehicle trips, reduced CO2 emissions, and lowered travel times,” study authors wrote. They also suggested a host of ideas to promote equity through the program, such as discounts for low-income motorists.

Very little happened next. The Durkan administration didn’t turn the study into an actual policy proposal, and then quietly informed the Seattle City Council they were pivoting away from the idea in fall 2020, KUOW’s John Ryan reports. The news wasn’t really a surprise since Mayor Durkan had neither mentioned decongestion pricing in her brief state of the city speech in January nor her previous 2020 agenda-setting speech nor really much at all since the initial push in 2018 and 2019.

“One policy that never got a mention in the speech was congestion pricing, which Mayor Durkan had previously presented as a first-term priority key to her climate strategy,” I wrote after her February 2020 state of the city speech. “Inevitably, congestion pricing will face a tough political fight to pass, but that fight is made tougher by the Mayor’s plan to run it as a ballot initiative before voters ever get to see it in action and reap the benefits. The City will be conducting outreach this year to craft the specifics of the proposal and build support, but it seems unlikely that it’ll be on a ballot before 2022 — unless the Mayor is ready to stake her reelection campaign on it in 2021.”

That reelection campaign never materialized after Mayor Durkan’s popularity nosedived in 2020. Durkan faced criticism as she stood by her police department as it tear-gassed and blast-balled Black Lives Matter protesters, medics, nurses, journalists, and bystanders alike, and oversaw the abandoning of the East Precinct building when the protesters persisted. The Mayor drolly declared it “a summer of love,” simultaneously alienating the Left and the Right in one masterful stroke. In December, the Mayor announced she was not running for re-election, arguing this would allow her to focus on executing on policy in her final year. Road pricing was no longer on her mayoral bucket list, though the Mayor said road pricing would still be considered as part of broader equity-minded reforms.

“Given recent community feedback and the evolving nature of the dual crises of COVID-19 and systemic racism, the staff leading this effort are pivoting the conversation from specifically addressing ‘Congestion Pricing’ to instead focusing on how best to fund the transition to a more equitable transportation system,” the Mayor’s Office wrote to council members according to KUOW. “Pricing will be considered, along with an exploration of other progressive funding tools that can support [greenhouse gas] reduction and invest in a more equitable transportation system.”

In its place, her administration released an “electrification blueprint” last week, which we would spend more time covering if it wasn’t so likely to end up in the dustbin like the pricing scheme that preceded it. The blueprint’s goal of creating an emissions-free zone is a good one, but the Durkan administration’s track record delivering even on the intermediate steps to get there is not good. Progress on new walking, biking, and transit infrastructure has slowed.

When Durkan first announced her congestion pricing push, it was the same week she delayed the rollout of several key protected bike lanes Downtown. Delaying or canceling bike lanes, RapidRide projects, and the Center City Connector streetcar has become a hallmark of her administration. Without a steady pace of walking, biking, and transit improvements, it’s hard to imagine how an emissions-free zone or a pricing system would thrive, let alone get off the ground. Ryan Packer highlighted the dearth of progress on the bike network under Durkan in their writeup in Seattle Bike Blog.

“That goal actually comes directly from a commitment the City made in 2017, when then-Mayor Tim Burgess signed onto a declaration along with eleven other cities from around the world to ensure that a major zone in their city is zero emission by 2030,” Packer wrote. “At the time, Mayor Burgess was quoted alongside Paris Mayor Anne Hidalgo as saying, ‘Responding to climate change’s threat requires big thinking and bold action.’ Paris has proceeded with a fundamental reshaping of the city’s streets, with around 30 miles of pop-up bike lanes added in just 2020 that will likely all remain permanent. Seattle built around 2 miles of protected bike lanes last year.”

Visionary mayors like Hidalgo were rapidly pedestrianizing streets and deploying protected bike lanes before the pandemic and ramped up the pace after declaring Covid emergencies in order to give residents more options to safely recreate and get around their neighborhoods. Mayor Durkan did greenlight the Stay Healthy Streets program that topped out at about 25 miles worth of open streets. The method was primarily to deter through traffic on existing neighborhood greenways with temporary signs and barriers. The greenways should have been designed this way from the jump, but it was a welcome change.

There was a problem though: Stay Healthy Streets mostly snaked through single-family areas and never reached mostly avoid apartment-heavy areas and business districts. We argued for greatly expanding the program and focusing on the densest neighborhoods, where the lack of open space was most acute and physical distancing to limit Covid spread most challenging. By fall though, SDOT had begun to dismantle parts of the open streets program, such as the highly popular segment on Lake Washington Boulevard, rather than continuing to expand it. While Mayor Durkan pledged to make 20 miles of open streets permanent, she did not fund it in her subsequent budget. That put SDOT in the awkward situation of proposing to shelve some more bike projects in order to scrape together money to continue the open streets program.

All this is to say big visions are well and good, but an administration also needs to take all the smaller steps to get there — sometimes in the face of fierce resistance from some neighbors and business owners. Fewer cars polluting Seattle would be good. Emissions-free zones would be great. The path is paved in smaller, less sexy projects like repairing and adding sidewalks, protected intersections, road diets, and a complete network of protected bike lanes and frequent bus lines.

The pandemic has given us a temporary respite from the severe congestion that has plagued Seattle — if not the deadly crashes. But we can’t take it for granted or let it go to waste. Now while traffic volumes are lower would be the perfect time to add dedicated bus lanes, pedestrianize streets, and pilot protected bike lanes. If we start now, we might not find ourselves chasing the next fad in four years’ time in an effort to rebrand the last four years of spinning our wheels.

The post Mayor Durkan ‘Pivots’ from Road Pricing to Electrification Blueprint first appeared on The Urbanist.

Depending on whom you ask, road pricing is either just around the corner, far off on the horizon, or a pipe dream. One reason why it seems like a very tall order to pass congestion pricing–or decongestion pricing or a pollution surcharge as some prefer to call it to emphasize policy benefits of congestion relief and pollution reduction–is that some have contended that pricing would first need to go to a voter referendum before it could go into effect. That is Mayor Jenny Durkan’s plan as well. But, as far as I can tell, that interpretation of state law is incorrect.

Moreover, going to the ballot first may be a less strategic choice since cities rarely initiate road pricing as a referendum–going back to when Singapore pioneered the policy in 1975. On the other hand, some cities have defended pricing schemes against repeal referendums after residents see benefits of road pricing in action and realize the downsides are minor. I don’t know of any cities that have succeeded on the go-to-ballot-first route, and that puts Seattle’s plan on shaky foundation.

State law (Chapter 47.56 RCW) has laid out narrow guidelines for how state highways can be tolled, but these stipulations do not apply to local roads. Additionally, while transportation benefit districts (RCW 36.73.065) have to go to voters before they can toll, local governments do not have the same restrictions, except when tolling state highways and bridges (RCW 47.56.031).

The law is clear on this: “Similarly, local or quasi-local entities that retain the power to impose tolls may do so as long as the effect of those tolls on the state highway system is consistent with the policy guidelines detailed in chapter 122, Laws of 2008. If the imposition of tolls could have an impact on state facilities, the state tolling authority must review and approve such tolls,” RCW 47.56.805 states. In other words, Seattle doesn’t have to use a transportation benefit district to enact tolling, since local entities retain the power to impose tolls on local roads.

Mayor Durkan’s Plan

The Mayor’s Office should be commended for advancing road pricing, but I hope they revise their plan and implement pricing via direct legislation rather than referendum. It could be presented as a pilot program. That way road pricing has a chance to work–lessening traffic congestion, decreasing pollution, and speeding up transit–before it has to survive a popular vote.

I reached out to the Mayor’s Office for comment and a spokesperson said they were working under the assumption that state law required congestion tolling go to the ballot, but reaffirmed the Mayor’s commitment to working through the process.

“The Mayor is committed to moving forward with congestion pricing in a fair and equitable way, driven by the input received through a robust civic conversation,” said Chelsea Kellogg, spokesperson for Mayor Durkan. “This necessitates an intentional, responsive, and robust outreach and engagement process to identify a sustainable, progressive policy that can fund critical transit priorities, create a healthy downtown environment, and ultimately reduce the pollution that contributes to climate change.”

The Mayor has a community outreach plan and hopes to identify an equity mechanism through that process.

“In partnership with DON [the Department of Neighborhoods] and SDOT [Seattle Department of Transportation], OSE [the Office of Sustainability and Environment] is planning a series of workshops and community listening forums, in neighborhoods throughout the city, to better understand who is driving and why, while also capturing resident priorities and needs to ensure a future policy proposal does not burden those who are already most impacted by climate change and Washington’s regressive tax structure,” Kellogg added.

Outreach is a good idea, but it won’t necessarily swing public opinion on the matter. Putting controversial progressive policies on the ballot is certainly in vogue in Washington state right now, but that doesn’t mean it’s the right fit for road pricing. While it may seem politically safer to just let the voters decide, it brings its own complications.

The Ideal Time to Enact Road Pricing

Timing the initiative right is complicated. To face the most progressive electorate, an initiative should go on the ballot in a Presidential year, preferably a wave year, and November 2020 appears perfect on that front. The problem is that’s too soon logistically. 2020 is dedicated to outreach and policy formulation in the Mayor’s plan. The earliest feasible ballot date under that timeline is 2021, but that also runs into its own political problems.

First off, an odd-year will typically have a smaller and more conservative electorate. But it’d also require Mayor Durkan to fully run on congestion pricing since it’d be on the ballot alongside her. If she took that leap, that could be powerful, but it’s also incredibly risky and could backfire. One of her opponents is likely to run against pricing as an opportunistic way to contrast with the Mayor and grab a base in the primary. Given the skepticism around congestion pricing, that seems likely to work as a primary strategy, and, assuming it does, road pricing could be the defining issue of the 2021 mayoral election. Under this scenario, if Mayor Durkan loses, the new mayor would have come into office on a wave against road pricing probably delaying the policy by at least another four years through mayoral veto or indifference. 2026 would be the new optimistic launch date.

2022 is the other time road pricing backers are floating for a ballot initiative and that seems less fraught than 2021, but still problematic. The outcome of the 2021 mayoral election could still either invigorate the effort or take the wind out of its sails depending who wins. Will the winning candidate choose to distance herself from pricing while campaigning in order to either use it as a wedge issue or avoid it being used against her? It’s a Midterm year so turnout should be higher than an odd-year election but still well short of Presidential levels.

Fundamentally, no matter the year, the ballot-first route still asks voters to take a leap of faith on a policy they haven’t yet seen work, putting fear-mongering tactics in the driver’s seat.

The Benefits of Road Pricing in Action

That’s why I think the ideal way to pass road pricing is legislatively as a pilot project. Put it into effect in January so that it has several months to work before it has to withstand electoral politics and an inevitable repeal effort. Get out in front of criticism with a media blitz to highlight how:

• Pollution levels are dropping. London saw a 12% decrease in nitrogen oxides and particulate matter within the toll zone. London and other cities have took to calling them “Low Emission Zones.”
• Public health is improving. Stockholm saw a 50% drop in asthma-related hospital visits after pricing.
• Congestion really is lower, making freight and carpooling more efficient. London has seen a 30% drop in congestion after pricing, while Singapore saw a 24% drop.
• Transit, biking, rolling, and walking are picking up the slack and thriving in unclogged streets. The London Congestion Charge has generated more than £1.6 billion to invest in transportation since 2003. Those investments and lower congestion have boosted transit and it helped London record its largest ever increase in cycling last year.
• Downtown streets are more pleasant places to get around. Cities with congestion pricing have been confident about closing streets to cars and creating pedestrian thoroughfares while Seattle still lets cars drive through Pike Place Market. Street cafes and downtown parks also perform better with less congestion, noise, and pollution.
• People are adjusting their commutes and liking their new options. People assume that commuters are set in their ways, but tolling really does impact their choices. Why should driving downtown be free when a bus fare is $2.75?
• Low-income people are getting rebates, exemptions, or free transit passes to lower the burden on them. This makes the policy’s impact even more equitable. Mayor Durkan and many pricing backers have been adamant that equity must be baked into the proposal. Whatever the mechanism, we’ll have to stress that it really is happening and helping low-income folks cope.
• Climate emissions are down. Congestion pricing helped Stockholm shrink its carbon footprint by 20%. Singapore estimated a 10% to 15% drop in carbon emissions from its congestion pricing system. Meanwhile, Seattle’s climate footprint keeps on growing.

We can show all these things if we pass road pricing via the Seattle City Council with the Mayor’s signature. The campaign to pass a ballot initiative would only be able to tell people these things. Seeing is believing.

During the pilot, the City should highlight that high-impact upgrades, such as bus lanes, are being backed by pollution fee revenue. Imagine putting bus lanes on a decongested Denny Way to suddenly turn the perpetually late Route 8, into a bus that people can rely on again. Imagine re-timing Mercer Street signals to prioritize people walking, rolling and riding buses so that routes like the 40, 62, and 70 face fewer delays crossing the Mercer Mess and are more dependable.

Stockholm legislatively enacted congestion pricing as a pilot program in January 2006 and then it faced a ballot referendum in September 2006. It passed in the City of Stockholm (though it failed in 14 surrounding suburban municipalities) because even in nine short months people had a chance to see it work. This is despite polling that hadn’t been favorable before they enacted the pilot program. Seeing it work sold residents on the program, convincing them to buy into supporting messages.

Perhaps my read of the state law is incorrect, but, even if it is, it may still be more prudent to lobby the state legislature to amend state law and clearly permit cities to implement road pricing rather than try the unproven strategy of passing a ballot referendum right off the bat. That could doom road pricing to years of delay and indecision.

The Seattle City Council isn’t exactly stacked with road pricing proponents–here’s how 2019 city council candidates answered our decongestion pricing question. However, convincing at least five councilmembers seems easier than trying to convince hundreds of thousands of Seattle voters to take a leap of faith–especially considering a campaign would have to out-organize the deep-pocketed automobile industry, which will spend liberally trying to convince voters of the opposite.

The post Skip the Ballot, Seattle Should Enact Road Pricing As a Pilot Program first appeared on The Urbanist.

For the widen highways crowd, the opening of the Alaskan Way boulevard (in the footprint of the mercifully dismantled highway viaduct) is the light at the end of the tunnel. But that surface megaboulevard–eight lanes at its widest–isn’t likely to solve congestion either. Traffic tends to fill the vessel it is given–more a gas than a liquid.

This is counterintuitive. Motorists–many of armchair traffic engineers themselves–often assume wider roads mean less traffic congestion. Billion of dollars have been wasted on this folk wisdom–often with transportation departments aiding its dissemination. The problem is there is no practical evidence for this belief. In fact, a 2011 study by economists Matthew Turner of the University of Toronto and Gilles Duranton of University of Pennsylvania demonstrated traffic and road capacity have a perfect one-to-one relationship. Add lanes and they fill as fast as you add them. This means expensive highway expansion projects historically have ended with overall congestion just as bad as when the project was initiated.

This is the principle of induced demand. Make it cheap and easy to drive and motorists will drive more. Unfortunately this well established though often ignored principle means that Tim Eyman’s Initiative 976 will worsen traffic congestion: $30 car tabs will encourage more people to drive and more often. Cheap car tabs will create more traffic at the same time that transportation agencies face decimated budgets due to the sudden loss of car tab revenue. This underscores the need to backfill I-976 transit cuts.

Moreover, the law of induced demand suggests a particularly effective way to raise revenue would be with fees that hit motorists like car tabs did. The commercial parking tax would serve this purpose, as would congestion pricing, or decongestion pricing as we would call it. Induced demand also suggests that establishing dedicated bus lanes by simply painting over general purpose lanes wouldn’t create traffic Armageddon. In fact, it would improve matters by offering a scalable climate-friendly alternative while leaving road congestion largely unchanged.

The relationship between road capacity and congestion really is that persistent. Adam Mann with Wired talked to the authors of that 2011 road congestion study, explaining their findings.

[Turner and Duranton] decided to compare the amount of new roads and highways built in different U.S. cities between 1980 and 2000, and the total number of miles driven in those cities over the same period.

“We found that there’s this perfect one-to-one relationship,” said Turner.

If a city had increased its road capacity by 10 percent between 1980 and 1990, then the amount of driving in that city went up by 10 percent. If the amount of roads in the same city then went up by 11 percent between 1990 and 2000, the total number of miles driven also went up by 11 percent. It’s like the two figures were moving in perfect lockstep, changing at the same exact rate.

The law of induced demand cuts both ways. Transit might get some motorists off the road, but others rise to take their place. But unlike highway widening, transit scales. Adding transit may not lower congestion, but overall capacity to move people goes up as service increases, especially if that transit is reliable and efficient thanks to dedicated lanes. The same can be said of protected bike lanes, which can fit more people per square foot of road space.

The passage of I-976 puts us in a bind, but the solution is right before us. Progressively taxing and investing in transit can reverse our losses and put us back marching forward and seizing our role as a national leader in transit and breaking car dependence.

Almost 60% of King County voters rejected I-976–and an even greater share of Seattle voters. And, as I noted last week, King County passed Sound Transit 3 with 58% of the vote and approved the ultimately doomed I-1631 carbon fee initiative with 58%. King County is ready to embrace the future rather than cling to childish notions that roads can be free, driving cheap, and congestion nonexistent.

The post The Law of Induced Demand: Road Widening (and I-976) Invites Congestion first appeared on The Urbanist.

As Downtown congestion worsens, decongestion pricing is a top topic; as the name suggests, decongestion pricing can address our congestion problem–in addition to raising transit funds and decreasing climate emissions. Councilmember Mike O’Brien has advocated for studying pricing after a traffic study for a tolled SR-99 tunnel showed that traffic would spill onto Downtown streets as motorists seek to avoid the toll. Mayor Jenny Durkan voiced her pricing support in April 2018. SDOT released a preliminary study of decongestion pricing in May, and Uber, which has also backed pricing, released a study in July.

We asked candidates “Do you support a congestion pricing program downtown? If so, what considerations should be made when setting up such a program?”

Below is how candidates who answered our questionnaire responded. Overall the responses were pretty positive, with some candidates citing equity concerns to withhold endorsing the policy. Port commission candidate Sam Cho (at the very bottom) cited a concern of it raising too much revenue and held firmly against pricing and tolling during our interview.

You can click on each candidate’s name to get a PDF of each candidate’s entire questionnaire. By the way, there was also a question on an Uber and Lyft fee, too, if you’re curious where candidates stand on targeting ridehailing companies specifically. Our primary endorsements are available here.

Lisa Herbold (District 1)

I included funding to study congestion pricing as proposed by Councilmember O’Brien in the budget balancing package I proposed as Chair of the Budget Committee in 2017.

At this point I’m not prepared to support it–we don’t yet have a proposal with clearly articulated goals.

Analysis of geographic impacts is needed first (the White Paper notes this is a best practice). Given the tolling on the SR99 tunnel, congestion fees on Seattle streets would more likely fall on those who live on the west side of Seattle, such as West Seattle.

Any proposal needs clear, easily understandable goals, in particular how it would reduce carbon emissions, and how that fits in with Seattle’s overall climate action plan, since it requires approval in a public vote.

If passed, any revenue must be used for projects that reduce carbon emissions.

It appears likely a public vote would be necessary, and there may be a role for the Washington State Transportation Commission as well.

Phil Tavel (District 1)

Chamber-endorsed Phil Tavel didn’t return a questionnaire but has opposed decongestion pricing at candidate forums.

Tammy Morales (District 2)

I’m conflicted about congestion pricing. It could be a sensible solution to reducing traffic downtown, but I worry that a) it will disproportionately affect trade workers who must drive and low income families who’ve been pushed out to the suburbs b) the actual reduction in traffic won’t be nearly enough to make the drastic reductions in carbon emissions that we need in the next 12 years, and c) in order to be equitable, funds raised from congestion pricing need to go back into public transit improvements that help not just folks in the city, but also people who have been displaced to the suburbs/exurbs. Before we start taxing people for driving into the city we need to make sure there are solid alternatives for them to rely on.

Christopher Peguero (District 2)

I am supportive of congestion pricing only if that money goes towards building a more robust public transportation system that benefits all people.

Phyllis Porter (District 2)

I am open to considering congestion pricing downtown if the funds generated go directly towards funding transit and infrastructure projects, and if there are adequate exemptions for low income households that have no choice but to drive. While this has the best of intentions, I want to make sure that should it be implemented its done in a way that ensures input from the communities potentially most impacted.

Mark Solomon (District 2)

Endorsed by Mayor Jenny Durkan and the Chamber PAC, Mark Solomon did not return a questionnaire but opposes decongestion pricing.

Kshama Sawant (District 3)

No. While I totally agree with the motivation to discourage car use, I do not agree that tolls, essentially taxing working people, is an effective solution. I believe what’s needed is to provide a viable, attractive and sustainable alternative by massively expanding public transit and making it a highly convenient (with far greater and denser network of routes, greater frequency and number of stops) and free at the point of use, funded through taxing the rich.

Seattle’s affordable housing crisis is pushing people further away from their jobs and exacerbating the traffic gridlock and impact on climate. Congestion pricing targets all the workers who have been priced far beyond the city and have to drive in to work. People who can already afford to live in Seattle can avoid the tax by taking public transit.

A 2009 University of Washington study concluded: “As a percentage of income, the poor pay much more.” A Seattle Times article highlighted how some working class I-520 drivers had accumulated over $10,000 in toll fines, and were forced to file bankruptcy. In 2015, before Washington eased its fine collection process, 90,000 local drivers had accumulated $53 million in back tolls and fines, leading to many abandoning their cars when the state places a hold on their tabs.

Construction workers in particular don’t have the option even if there is access to transit into the city, given how they have to go from job to job, sometimes with little notice, and have to bring their tools with them. And construction workers are already paying extortion parking fees to for-profit private companies.

We need far-reaching solutions like a Green New Deal for working people and dramatically expanding public transit. This should be paid for by taxing the wealthiest in our city, rather than policies that put the burden disproportionately on working people and the poor.

Logan Bowers (District 3)

I support congestion pricing in downtown Seattle. It would reduce car usage, ease congestion, improve air quality, enable faster bus and streetcar service, and make downtown safer for people on wheels of all forms and pedestrians.

Social and racial equity are important considerations to incorporate when setting up a congestion pricing program. The City should engage community stakeholders to determine the criteria it uses to evaluate equity. Revenue from the program should first be used to address any equity concerns (e.g. by providing subsidies or funding transit or infrastructure improvements to help those people that the program may harm) before being earmarked for other projects.

Zachary DeWolf (District 3)

Absolutely. But we can’t just copy and paste from other communities, like New York, London, or Singapore! We need to first identify the why: is it to reduce congestion, is it to address the climate crisis, or is it to raise revenue for transportation?

Egan Orion (District 3)

Endorsed by the Chamber PAC, Egan Orion did not return a questionnaire and has not staked a firm position on decongestion pricing. He’s a maybe.

Ami Nguyen (District 3)

Nguyen did not return our questionnaire. She’s a no on decongestion pricing based on her responses elsewhere.

Shaun Scott (District 4)

Yes. I was the first candidate in the District 4 Seattle City Council race to support congestion-pricing, and am glad that I have set the terms of the debate in this race with respect to climate justice. The city of London has raised upwards of $1.5 billion in the last decade using congestion pricing. Our primary considerations should be a) structuring the tax in such a way so that it does not disproportionately impact working people who have been displaced, and b) using the revenue to fund projects that address climate change at a regional level, so that people who have been displaced to distant suburbs can have access to public transit.

Cathy Tuttle (District 4)

YES! But we need to make sure that congestion pricing is done right, in a way that doesn’t overly impact those of low-income, or those who may need to drive, such as elderly, disabled or parents with small children, tradespeople who rely on vehicles, etc. We also need to ensure that our transit system is reliable, frequent and convenient enough to handle the increased passenger load from congestion pricing. Our biggest challenge will be the need to plan the pricing correctly so that it significantly decreases traffic and carbon emissions without hurting vulnerable communities or stressing our transit system.

New York, as well as European cities like London and Stockholm, have implemented successful congestion pricing programs that we can look towards, but we must remember that Seattle is unique in many ways so we can not overly rely on those comparisons.

Emily Myers (District 4)

Yes. Congestion pricing can lead to a real reduction in traffic, increased use of transit, and a cleaner environment. The revenue from congestion pricing can fund increased transit and free transit. It is important to consider all the communities this policy might affect, and as such I do worry about the potential for disproportionate impact on low income workers who may drive to work from outside the city and people with disabilities who rely on car transit, but I believe this can be mitigated by improved regional public transit options. As such, I believe that enacting more aggressive congestion pricing in the city should be aligned with better regional bus service (as described in TBD answer) and am optimistic that we’re moving in that direction. Further, in cities like London, they provide passes to people with disabilities, reduced rates for people who live in the areas with congestion pricing, discounts to Electric Vehicles and other exemptions and incentives. The recently released study of congestion pricing identified many of these contingencies, and I think the next step is to talk to folks from these communities about how best to structure exemptions or discounts to protect vulnerable communities when we enact a policy. If it is to be an effective strategy to reduce traffic, we must continue to build infrastructure for walking, biking, and public transit.

Joshua Newman (District 4)

Absolutely, specifically a Cordon or Area Pricing Program. The Seattle Department of Transportation has done an exemplary job laying out the research and options in its Phase 1 Summary Report. The objective is clearly reducing congestion while mitigating impacts on vulnerable communities. I will follow the lead of this report which leverages Seattle’s Race and Social Justice Toolkit, while keeping in mind the objective of moving people and freight throughout Seattle.

Alex Pederson (District 4)

Endorsed by the Chamber PAC, Alex Pedersen skipped our questionnaire and the transportation forum we cosponsored with MASS. He’s a hard pass on decongestion pricing, as we are on him.

Debora Juarez (District 5)

Congestion pricing is an interesting and innovative tool to reduce emissions along our rich transportation spine. I am still examining the racial and equity impacts on labor, immigrants, families, disenfranchised communities, and people living with disabilities. Congestion pricing should focus on congestion, emissions, equity, and reinvesting revenue into more transportation choices for all of Seattle.

Melissa Hall (District 6)

I am concerned. London is a different situation because it is a highway and so I am not sure about the safety numbers. Congestion sucks and is bad for the environment but it is very good at slowing traffic and downtown is where many of our most vulnerable pedestrians congregate. I want to see more data from NYC if possible because there is an argument that it should cost the same to get downtown on the bus or streets, but I am worried about anything that makes courts and elected officials less accessible.

Heidi Wills (District 6)

When I was student body president at the UW, I helped bring the U-PASS universal bus program tocampus. My motivator was to make transit affordable and accessible for every student so more people would take transit and rely less on driving, improve our air quality and lower our carbon footprint. My support for buses is the primary reason I ran for the city council 20 years ago. Charlie Chong was considered too popular to beat, but he said some disparaging remarks about buses which is why I ran against him.

My support for a reduced carbon footprint and funds for transit services continues today. I am open to considering congestion pricing. Perhaps the timing isn’t ripe until residents have greater mobility options including transit. I am hearing from a substantial number of people in my district that they do not support it and that it would discourage them from driving downtown in the evening to frequent restaurants and entertainment. That’s something we should be mindful of. Peak hours is an option so it’s directed at morning commuters. Regardless, from my experience, it will no-doubt be controversial at the beginning, just like the U-PASS was, but after time, I suspect our community will come to embrace it. To ensure equity, we should use a sliding scale for commuters based on income and type of driver with different structures for freight, delivery vehicles, work vehicles, carpools, and standard commuters. If drivers utilize a “Good-To-Go” pass, it enables us to introduce a sliding scale payment structure.

Jay Fathi (District 6)

Yes. We should consider the consequences of having spent a century designing a city for cars, then abruptly charging people to use it that way. Most importantly, whatever congestion pricing program that may be adopted must include exemptions and consideration for residents or workers that would be unduly burdened by such a flat tax. We must consider that congestion pricing will disproportionately impact many communities underserved by transit. We must remember that for some residents with disabilities, or with children in daycare, or with a second job across town, or with heavy tools or equipment they have to bring to work every day, etc., driving may be – for now – the only realistic option. Additionally, as the cost of housing in Seattle pushes city workers into communities further outside of our urban center, congestion pricing done wrong could become a “poor tax” on thost not wealthy enough to live where they work.

Dan Strauss (District 6)

Strauss did not return a questionnaire and best we can tell is a maybe on decongestion pricing.

Sergio Garcia (District 6)

Known for his Mussolini mustache and his Mussolini-lite policies, Garcia didn’t return our questionnaire. He’s a no on decongestion pricing but one of his main policy proposals is cracking down on jaywalking and crossing when Don’t Walk is blinking with a big surge in police spending (supposedly alleviating congestion).

Michael George (District 7)

I am open to considering congestion pricing downtown if the funds generated go directly towards funding transit and infrastructure projects, and if there are adequate exemptions for low income households that have no choice but to drive. Of course I would also need to see the data and get input from experts and the general public before making a decision.

Andrew Lewis (District 7)

At this time I do not support congestion pricing. Until we have a comprehensive grade separated rail-based transit system, I do not believe we are providing a sufficient alternative to driving to warrant the imposition of a regressive congestion pricing scheme. I do support in the long-run applying such a program once we have realized a more extensive light rail network, and using all the revenue generated to subsidize transit fares. But, as of this writing, that time is far off

Jim Pugel (District 7)

No. This is another tricky question. I would support this if it is supported by evidence and clear data. Who would be impacted by a congestion price? Amazon coders or the janitors servicing the buildings where they work? We cannot afford to institute another regressive tax that disproportionately affects working people who need to drive to work due to our lack of a fully comprehensive and accessible public transit system. However, we equally cannot afford to wait and do nothing to decrease our carbon emissions and must act quickly to find the best possible solution that works for workers and the environment.

There are also significant political constraints to analyze — we cannot afford another backlash that will stall other priorities, like tackling our homelessness crisis or expanding transit. That means further study on how a congestion price would work to ensure it is not another regressive tax. Price fluctuations during peak and shoulder times, an income-based pricing system so lower income folks are not overly-burdened, and keeping all revenue transparent to taxpayers and going only towards transit and not Councilmembers’ pet projects.

Evan Williams (District 7)

Williams didn’t return our questionnaire and is reportedly a maybe on decongestion pricing.

Preeti Shridhar (Seattle Port Commission Position 2)

Do you support tolling Airport Drive to reduce private vehicle use at the airport?
I would support tolling on the drive, if other measures do not prove successful. For example, parking garage rates could reflect “demand pricing” and lead to a reduction in private vehicle use. I would also want to consider how “private vehicles” like Uber and Lyft cars would be accommodated. Another consideration is the rapid transit service to the airport. If you live near a light rail station that works, but what about those who don’t? Is that a hardship for them? I would need more information to make a good decision, but I support the principle of reducing private vehicle use at the airport.

Sam Cho (Seattle Port Commission Position 2)

I do not support tolling. I believe tolling has been abused to serve as a source of revenue rather than used to disincentivize drivers. We should instead be focusing on mass transit and light rail.

The post Decongestion Pricing and What Candidates Said About It first appeared on The Urbanist.

Uber tapped ECONorthwest to carry the study and provided it with its carefully guarded trip data to shed light on traffic patterns. ECONorthwest sought to follow the framework the City laid out in its own preliminary study issued in May–which was more focused on table-setting than the nuts and bolts of a program. The four goals laid out were:

1. Be equitable
2. Have positive climate and health outcomes
3. Reduce congestion
4. Be feasible to implement

ECONorthwest identified a decongestion pricing plan that appeared to meet all those conditions. And Uber trumpeted the findings and welcomed such a program. One element that seemed especially Uber-friendly was the daily cap of $3.80 in tolls that would mean ridehailing drivers would only pay the toll once or twice before capping out.

The Road to Decongestion: How We Got Here

In 2017, Councilmember Mike O’Brien secured $200,000 for studying decongestion pricing added to the City budget. O’Brien was seeking to prepare for cars diverting and spilling into Downtown streets due to SR-99 tunnel tolling, which was essential to pay for the $4 billion project and particularly its upkeep costs going forward. The Washington Department of Transportation had said that SR-99 tolling would begin in June, though it since delayed tunnel tolling until the fall.

In April 2018, Mayor Jenny Durkan made a big splash when she announced her support for studying downtown decongestion pricing–although she did that the same week as she delayed the Basic Bike Network and halted the Center City streetcar project. Mayor Durkan said she hoped to have decongestion pricing in place by end of her first term in 2021, but that seems unlikely at the speed this process is playing out.

While City leaders were dipping their toes in the decongestion pricing water, they were also considering enacting new fees on just ridehailing trips. Uber had supported Seattle’s exploration of decongestion pricing, but both Uber and Lyft spoke out against targeting only ridehailing services when The Seattle Times broke the story that such a proposal was in the works and being kept under wraps by Mayor Durkan. With the threat of a ridehailing-only fee, decongestion pricing is clearly the more attractive option for Uber. Currently, ridehailing companies pay only 24 cents per trip to Seattle and 33 cents per trip to King County, which is significantly less than cities like San Francisco and Chicago. Also relevant: Uber (and Lyft) continue to hemorrhage billions of dollars, has a questionable business model, and had an initial public offering that went very poorly.

What’s In It for Uber

It’s likely decongestion fees would be tacked onto the cost of ridehailing trips for users, but it would be much less of a competitive disadvantage for Uber because every car would be paying the fee, and the daily cap–if actually implemented–would spare its drivers. That could give Uber and Lyft a competitive advantage over private car ownership. ECONorthwest seems to acknowledge there are better ways to target congestion than this model:

For this white paper, we imagine a single charge – per vehicle per day – that reflects the highest toll rate hour in which the vehicle operates within the downtown toll zone. For example, if a vehicle enters downtown prior to the morning peak when the toll rate is $1.00, parks, but then departs downtown during the afternoon peak when the toll rate is $3.80, then the daily charge would be $3.80. This approach maintains the incentive to minimize exposure to toll costs by avoiding the highest traffic times of day while allowing for a single daily charge to be applied to each vehicle. There are many other tolling approaches that are feasible, and that may more precisely target trips that contribute the most to congested conditions

ECONorthwest Fair and Efficient Congestion Pricing White Paper

For some folks, decongestion pricing would make bikeshare and scootershare trips more attractive, but Uber is in that business too. Pricing could also encourage more people to give up car ownership and that could encourage them to take more ridehailing trips, especially if those trips are faster due to less congestion. Finally, since studies have increasingly linked the recent worsening of urban congestion to the proliferation of ridehailing, Uber backing decongestion pricing could avert backlash and improve public relations.

Making Decongestion Pricing Equitable

The analysis of who would pay the decongestion tolls indicate equity is attainable. In fact, making the impact of a pricing program equitable would be easier than some thought. For starters, the bulk of decongestion tolls would be paid by the wealthy. Under the scenario studied, the highest earning 10% (or decile) or households pays a quarter of tolls, while the lower 50% pay less than a quarter of tolls. While the low-income folks who do pay the tolls would feel them as a larger chunk of their household budgets, clearly the wealthy pay the lion’s share of the tolls levied.

Low-income Toll Rebate Program

One mechanism to make pricing’s impact more equitable is redistributing some of the toll revenue back to low-income people. “Using $50 million per year of the net toll revenues, the City could implement a mobility fairness program,” the study states. “Such a program could target rebates for moderate income downtown employees, low income households’ trips into downtown for critical purposes, and support the general mobility needs of low income Seattle households.”

The study lays out some ways to channel $50 million in annual toll revenue back to below median income households, who would pay $31 million in tolls and thus come out ahead.

“Using toll revenues, Seattle based employers could provide employees whose incomes are near or below the regional median a monthly e-purse starting at about $85, or about $1,000 per year,” the study states. “Eligible service expenses might include transit fares, bike-share expenses, shared-ride expenses, parking charges and tolls. For the eligible employees that daily pay the toll to enter downtown Seattle this could entirely offset daily expenses. For employees that pay the downtown toll less frequently, or avoid the toll entirely by taking transit or other means the e-purse disbursements could represent a net fiscal gain.”

The e-purse idea sounded like a light-version of LA Metro CEO Phillip Washington’s idea to make transit fare-free with the revenue from decongestion pricing, which he tossed out there at a transit panel at the Downtown Seattle Association’s State of Downtown conference in February. In fact the e-purse could be administered directly to ORCA transit passes for lower-income folks living or working within the toll zone.

All in all, ECONorthwest and Uber have made an interesting contribution to the decongestion pricing debate. They’ve shown that making pricing an equitable program is very achievable. The proposal to reinvest more revenue back in to below-median income households than they take out seems to indisputably accomplish this. But the wider outcomes of the program are highly equitable, too. The reduction in pollution and the increase in transit speed and reliability would also help low-income communities that bear the brunt of road pollution and clogged transit–and who are most at risk from the climate crisis.

The post Uber Pushing Congestion Pricing with New Consultant Study as Durkan Weighs New Ridehailing Fee first appeared on The Urbanist.

Pausing the streetcar and protected bike lane projects seems to signify a watering down of One Center City, which had included them as near-term recommendations to deal with worsening downtown gridlock anticipated due to a number of major constructions projects and buses coming out of the transit tunnel and spilling onto already congested bus lanes.

During last year’s budget proceedings, Councilmember Mike O’Brien sought and secured $200,000 to study decongestion pricing. The SR-99 tunnel set to open later this year will have tolls–though the state Transportation Commission hasn’t yet decided exactly when tolling will start and how much it’ll charge. One reason Councilmember O’Brien sought decongestion pricing is to discourage motorists seeking to avoid the tunnel toll from funneling onto Downtown streets instead. Another reason–which Mayor Durkan highlighted–is decreasing greenhouse gas emissions–fully two thirds of Seattle’s emissions are from the transportation sector. Decongestion pricing would reduce the number of private vehicles Downtown and ensure traffic moves more efficiently.

Both Mayor Jenny Durkan and her opponent Cary Moon supported exploring decongestion pricing during their campaigns last year. The mayor’s announcement signals support for Councilmember O’Brien effort but didn’t offer much in the way of what her preferred plan would look like. Here’s what we do know about where she stands on One Center City:

Mayor Durkan’s press release suggests many pieces are in flux as her administration searches for “innovative” solutions.

“Engaging both private and public partners, the City is aiming to use every innovative and effective tool, including incentivizing telecommuting, partnering with navigation applications to provide insights on best times to leave downtown, working with local business partners on ‘stay and play’ promotions to encourage commuters to leave downtown at the most beneficial time, and supporting innovative options for first and last mile transit trips such as bike share, microtransit, and carpooling apps,” Mayor Durkan said.

Basic Bike Network Delays

While seeking microsolutions like microtransit and god-from-the-app-machine fixes, the Durkan administration backed away from several near-term recommendations from the One Center City Advisory Board.

• Fourth Avenue protected bike lanes are pushed back to 2021.
• Extending Pike/Pike protected bike lane to Broadway is pushed to 2021, too.
• Ditto Ninth Avenue N protected bike lanes.

• The Center City Connector streetcar was assumed in planning but with Durkan’s executive stop-work order, its future is now uncertain and it may not open until 2021 (or later) if work is resumed.

One Center City Near-Term Actions

The City and its partners affirmed some One Center City elements:

• The transitway on Fifth and Sixth Avenues is slotted for September 2019.
• Third Avenue will get all-door boarding and presumably off-board payment by September 2019.
• Public Realm improvements (e.g., enhanced bus stops, better lighting, and safer street crossings) in Downtown, Chinatown-International District, and Montlake Triangle.
• On the other hand, improved “user experience” for pedestrians will include yet more signage cluttering sidewalk. The statement promises improved “wayfinding for motorists looking for parking to reduce circling and congestion” is also promised.”
• Ridehailing zones at transit stations judging by the promise of “enhancing transit stops to help travelers find a ridehail or carshare vehicle to complete their trip.”

The One Center City partners–the Seattle Department of Transportation (SDOT), King County Metro Transit, Sound Transit, Seattle Office of Planning and Community Development, and the Downtown Seattle Association–define the period of maximum constraint from 2019 to 2021. Since key protected bike lanes are pushed back to 2021, they are not a part of the strategy to deal with this constrained period. In fact, it would appear SDOT has again sacrificed bike lanes on the altar of preserving level of service for motor vehicles, which they can rationalize since it means transit will move a little faster.

Transportation Committee Chair O’Brien and Councilmember Rob Johnson expressed frustration at being left out of the loop regarding One Center City changes at Tuesday’s committee meeting. SDOT Interim Director Goran Sparrman said delaying protected bike lanes give the Downtown transportation network “resiliency” in the period of maximum constraint. Councilmember Johnson lamented how poorly allocated Downtown street space is, and he has a point. Protected bike lanes rank highly for people-moving capacity per square foot of street space, and on-street parking ranks lowest of all, yet we see on-street parking maintained on most streets in this period.

Extended Constraint Period?

The period from 2021 to 2024 may still be a constrained and congested time. Northgate Link is expected to provide relief when it opens in 2021, because more people will arrive by Link rather than in buses competing for limited bus lane space Downtown. Still, many commuter buses from the northern suburbs will continue Downtown rather than truncate at Northgate Station judging by early planning. It won’t be until Lynnwood Link and Federal Way Link opens in 2024 that the number of commuter buses Downtown will drop in a significant way.

Designing a Good Decongestion Pricing System

We don’t know much about what the City has in mind for a decongestion pricing system, but here a few suggestions to avoid likely pitfalls.

• Progressive pricing – Like ORCA LIFT, we should set up congestion pricing with significantly reduced rates for low-income motorists. That way this policy does not fall hardest on those who can least afford to pay.
• Dynamic pricing – Prices at peak commute hours should be high to discourage trips at this time, and significantly lower at less busy times to encourage trips to switch to off-peak. Maybe the Mercer Mess doesn’t have to be a mess if we balance trip demand.
• Consider lower rates for public-interest work trips – Some jobs, like social work or case managing, can require travel all over the city and all those trips would add up. We should consider a favorable rate for work trips for public interest jobs. We don’t want to decrease the capacity of social aid organizations.
• Use traffic cameras to ramp up enforcement of blocking intersections – Congestion is exacerbated by motorists who block intersections in their haste to make it through a traffic light. Congestion pricing will likely mean adding traffic cameras. We should use traffic cameras to tackle congestion caused from intersection blockage and to defend transit lanes from encroachment.
• Wisely spend the proceeds on transit – Congestion pricing will likely bring major revenue, so we should make sure we use for maximum benefit. High-impact transit investments could lessen the sting of tolls.
• A strong political campaign – Passing decongestion pricing is a big political lift and will require a strong political coalition with a smart campaign to pass the finish line. New York City has been trying to enact congestion pricing in Manhattan for more than a decade but continues to be thwarted. If it’s true that we’d need a public vote to do decongestion pricing as The Seattle Times reported, congestion pricing will have a tight-rope to walk. We will need a clear convincing message why decongestion pricing will improve transportation and livability in Seattle. Mayor Durkan will need to be a champion.

The Road Ahead

Mayor Durkan said she is hoping to enact decongestion pricing by the end of her first term in 2021. To do so would be a big win for urbanism and reducing traffic congestion and greenhouse emissions. When it comes to getting the basic protected bike network implemented, though, congestion pricing will likely come too late to change SDOT’s mind about key protected bike lanes like Fourth Avenue and Pine Street. Many North American cities from Calgary to Chicago to New York City have rapidly rolled out their basic bike networks downtown while Seattle has vacillated–apparently worried bicyclists would displace motorists who would then delay buses.

“Mayor Durkan is committed to reducing single occupancy vehicles downtown,” the Mayor’s press release states. “According to the 2017 Center City Modesplit Survey, transit use has skyrocketed by 41,500 in the last seven years in downtown Seattle during the peak morning rush hour. Walking, biking, and rideshare, including carpool, saw gains of thousands of trips per day. Conversely, the percent of commuters driving alone has fallen down to 66,500 single occupancy vehicles–the lowest rate since this survey began tracking trends in 2010 and a reduction of nine percent over the last year. The survey illustrates an overall decrease of approximately 4,500 single-occupancy vehicles in the city, despite employment growth of approximately 60,000 jobs since 2010.”

Decongestion pricing addresses the biggest source of congestion: single occupant automobiles. Reduce the quantity of cars and bikes and buses can efficiently mix and streets can become safer and more pleasant places to be. Congestion pricing can deliver this benefit, but, alas, it looks like we’ll see more foot-dragging on protected bike lanes in the time being. Instead, we’ll have deus ex machina remedies heavy on app-based “innovation” to distract us until this period of maximum constraint hopefully subsides.

Author’s Note: This article has been updated to use the term “decongestion pricing” rather than congestion pricing, since reducing congestion is the goal of the proposal. Jarrett Walker made the case for using the term “decongestion” pricing in this article.

Action Alert: Build the Center City Connector Streetcar

Are One Center City Multimodal Improvements on the Way?

The post Mayor Durkan Backs Decongestion Pricing, Delays Basic Bike Network first appeared on The Urbanist.