[UPDATE 1/10: For whatever reason, Google News is pushing this post (which was written in November 2007) near the top of some searches. MTR's response to the Jan. 10, 2008 Quinnipiac poll, which finds that 60% of NYC voters support congestion pricing if it improves regional transit, is available here. -Ed.]
A Quinnipiac poll released today reported opposition to congestion pricing among New Yorkers. But before opponents of congestion pricing rejoice, they should consider the following:
1. The Quinnipiac poll failed to link congestion pricing to the mass transit improvements it would bring.
The pollsters asked this question: “The Bloomberg administration has suggested using congestion pricing to reduce traffic in New York City by charging a fee for vehicles that drive south of 86th Street in Manhattan. Do you support or oppose the Bloomberg administration’s congestion pricing plan?”
New Yorkers responded: 61% opposed to pricing and 33% in support.
Then the pollsters asked the question in a different way: “Would you support congestion pricing if the money were used to prevent an increase in mass transit fares and bridge and tunnel tolls?”
Surprise, surprise! Support grows substantially if pricing prevents a hike in mass transit fares, with 53% supportive and 41 % opposed.
Of course people don’t want to pay more if they get nothing specific in return. The question mentions a reduction in traffic congestion but this is much less compelling than lower transit fares or better transit service. And though congestion pricing may help soften the transit fare hike blow, no one believes that it is going to prevent a transit fare hike entirely.
Why didn’t Quinnipiac ask this one?
“The federal government has agreed to allocate $354 million to NYC for bus service improvements if we approve congestion pricing. Congestion pricing revenue would also be dedicated to major transit projects. In light of this, do you support congestion pricing as a way to improve mass transit and speed commutes?”
Across the country, from Utah to San Francisco to Ohio, Americans are supporting tax hikes to pay for transit projects. Do you think they voted yes to a question which placed a tax hike in a vacuum, severed from the benefits it would bring? “Do you support a tax hike?” would be shot down faster than an American can eat a french fry.
2. In cities with congestion pricing in place, polls show opposition before implementation but support after. Four-fifths of Stockholm residents opposed congestion pricing in a survey done prior to its implementation, but ultimately voted to make the plan permanent in a referendum held 7 months after the plan began. A Transport for London survey conducted three years after the implementation of pricing found that pricing supporters outnumbered those opposed two to one. Before pricing was implemented, Londoners were split on the issue.
3. The Quinnipiac poll only surveys voters, not New Yorkers. 1.7 million New Yorkers are not registered to vote, according to Urban Agenda. That means the poll excludes almost a quarter of New York City’s population.
[...] latest Quinnipiac congestion pricing poll were repeated with little analysis earlier this week, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign noted a significant, though not surprising, shortcoming.The Quinnipiac poll failed to link [...]
[...] Quinnipiac pollsters should be credited for asking the right question. In previous polls, respondents were asked whether they supported congestion pricing but were not told that pricing [...]
I represent Quinnipiac University.
The headline on the Quinnipiac University Poll press release reads, “NYC Voters Back Congestion Pricing, If It Helps Transit.”
The release reports that New York City voters oppose congestion pricing 58 – 37 percent, but would support congestion pricing 60 – 37 percent if money from the plan is used to improve mass transit.
Ms. Slevin’s numbers are wrong and her criticism is unwarranted.
Pat, I think you meant to comment on the post from today. This post is from November and refers to an earlier Q poll.
It looks like Google News is treating this post as if it’s the new one, for some reason. I’ve added an update to explain this at the top of the post.