So there's a new Q-poll that shows New Yorkers split -- leaning negative -- on the idea of congestion pricing. At the Politicker, Azi has quotes from the Partnership for NYC and NYPIRG/Straphangers pointing out that poll respondents were not advised of any of the potential benefits of the proposal, so what you're seeing is a pretty raw reaction to a new issue.

Streetsblog points out that this state of play is hardly unique in the history of road pricing proposals:

While the new survey will be viewed by some as a sign that the traffic relief plan is politically impossible, it is worth noting that compared to public opinion in London and Stockholm prior to the launch of those cities' congestion pricing systems, opposition among New York City voters and criticism in the local press appears to be far less intense.

Before its implementation in Stockholm, Sweden, a survey showed that 80 percent of Stockholm residents were opposed to the idea of congestion pricing. After a seven month trial from January to July 2006, 53 percent of Stockholm residents voted to keep the city's congestion charging system in place.

Likewise, prior to the start of London's successful congestion pricing system, newspaper headlines screaming "Ken-gestion!" and "Carmageddon!" The January 8, 2003 edition of the Guardian predicted, "The scheme will be condemned as a failure within days, perhaps hours, of it starting. The senior officials in Transport for London will be named and shamed. Livingstone will be told he must resign." Yet, after three years of congestion pricing, Transport for London surveys showed that more than 70 per cent of Londoners said the system was effective and twice as many supported the charge as opposed it.

Public opinion will probably matter more in New York than in other cities that have introduced congestion pricing. London mayor Ken Livingstone had the power essentially to order a congestion charge unilaterally; in Stockholm the charge was apparently instituted by the national government for a seven-month trial period, after which, as Streetsblog points out, a permanent charge was approved in a referendum of previously-hostile city voters. I haven't looked into the history of Singapore's charge, but the citystate isn't exactly famous for its democracy.

In New York, by contrast, the thing will have to be approved by a City Council full of ambitious politicians who will almost all be looking for new jobs after 2009; most of those politicians represent "outer-borough" constituents. Supporters of congestion pricing here in NYC are going to have to work harder to move public opinion much more up front. So the Q-poll should tell us something about how much work they have cut out for them.

Bookmark/Search this post with:

| | | | | | | |