It was strange to see in Railway Age an attack on New York City’s congestion pricing plan, “More Fun Times and Unintended Consequences Ahead?” by Financial Editor David Nahass. He dismissed the concept thus: “There is a fascination in the congestion pricing model and the MTA’s reliance on its revenue … [ There are] ample other revenue trees to shake …”
This reminds me of years ago when the search for an Amtrak funding source was on. Imagine a room full of doors. Behind every door you opened, a powerful interest said, “Not here, go over there.” The solution was creative use of the tax code engineered by a Senator for whom Amtrak was a priority. As Finance Committee Chair, the late William Roth (R-Del.) had relevant jurisdictional power. Thus, Amtrak received a one-time funding boost of $2.3 billion as part of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, which also created the Roth IRA and reduced several federal taxes.
Making motorists pay for the congestion and climate-related problems they cause, and using the revenues to improve transit, arguably is more logical than using the Taxpayer Relief Act to fund Amtrak. Nahass avoids mentioning “climate” or the London experience, where congestion pricing has made “Central London and the city a much more pleasant, people-centric place to be [while] increasing the throughput of people,” to quote Alina Tuerk, head of transport strategy and planning at Transport for London, the equivalent of the New York MTA. Since congestion pricing was introduced, London got rid of various car lanes within the zone and repurposed them as walkways, bus lanes and bike lanes.
It would be sad if the President is able to kill this logical plan. That would make a mockery of the states’ rights concept that Republicans otherwise champion.
Ross B. Capon is Senior Advisor, Public Policy and Passenger Service, PTSI Transportation; and President Emeritus, Rail Passengers Association.
