On Mon, 7 Apr 2008, Joseph Catron wrote:
> Fine and good. So why penalize it only in the city's wealthiest
> neighborhoods - and more specifically, by "outsiders" in those
> neighborhoods?
Well, just for the record, IIUC, the city's wealthiest neighborhoods are still on the upper east side -- and thus outside the zone, in the same position as Queens. The zone under the most recent plan started at 60th St.
Secondly, in the most recent version of the plan, outsiders who take toll bridges would have been able to offset the tolls against the congestion charge, making it largely free for most of them.
The reason the zone is where it is is not because the rich people live there but because that's where the jobs that people commute to are located.
(And actually, in the last iteration, there was a special gratuitous hit that rich people living in the zone would take -- their parking garage charges would go up by 8% because they'd lose their waiver. I never actually understood how that furthered the aims of the plan -- it would seem it would simply add to the stress on parking places as some people gave up garages (not to mention goading the biggest money behind the opposition, which came from parking garages in the zone) -- but listening to your spiel makes me think that perhaps it was put in their precisely to show that the rich in the zone were taking hits too.)
It seemed to me that after all these adjustments were made, the people who would mostly get hit would be people in Manhattan who take their cars downtown -- which seems eminently fair, although I'm not sure it would be enough to make any sizeable difference.
The other groups would be outer boroughs people who don't cross toll bridges; cab riders and drivers; and trucks. The last was the most interesting question because they actually don't have a public transportation option -- their only option would be to time shift. Or to charge us all more.
It wasn't at all clear to me how this plan, as sketched, would finally pan out. But I'm not sure I understand the elitist tag. My guess would be that the poorest half of commuters are not taking cars no matter where they live.
Michael