The question is one of value. Value can't be captured if peak-period drivers are not provided with a high capacity, affordable, and reliable alternative to driving. Prcing and *real* transit has to be done at the same time.

Just sayin'

Also, it seems more like a matter of political will than anything else. There are plenty of options available in the toolbox - a *REAL* BRT (doesn't cost that much) and a viable, safe network of bike lanes (which costs even less) combined with an effective mass transit system that's NOT constantly being raided to plug in the holes in Albany's budget. The only thing holding us back seems to be nothing more than a small but wealthy, politically connected and unbelievably short-sighted minority.

There's absolutely no way adding lanes for cars is going to do anything other than encourage more traffic and congestion. I don't really know what the problem is in London (it certain works beautifully in Stockholm). That should be looked into, but I'm sure the fact that there are fewer cars in the city "centre" is all to the good.

We are making the full series available on DVD at the close of the series.  Many communities/advocacy groups are planning on purchasing a DVD and hosting a showing in their city by showing all of them, or many of the ones in the series.

You can pre-order the DVD above or wait until the final film comes out and come back for more details.

In any other metro, businesses would just decamp to suburban office parks at the first sign of their employees (more likely executives) getting upset at having to pay to drive.

This is not a viable tool in the toolbox here in the USA. Good rail lines (not streetcars running in shared traffic, but light rail in its own lane at a bare minimum) can incent people to leave their cars at home; focus on that. 

Gridlock Sam brings it into the mainstream.

For example, in NYC we have seen a continued raiding for NYS mass transit funding - this keeps MTA fares going up, routes slashed, service continues to get nibbled away.  If we had a dedicated funding source there would be far better service.

It has not reduced congestion over the long term. Traffic volumes have been reduced by 20% and have stayed reduced. Congestion initially dropped 30%. It has since increased so that after 7 years it is worse than before congestion pricing was implemented.

The initial results were too good. Congestion was down even at times when traffic volumes were the same as before congestion pricing went into effect. Something other than reduced traffic flows was causing decreased congestion.

London compressed about 5 years worth of street and infrastructure repairs during the year before congestion pricing was implemented. London streets were in A-1 condition, when congestion pricing was implemented. They then declined with time. Congestion increased with the decline in street repair.

Congestion pricing is also a very inefficient way to raise funds. The administrative overhead is large. Congestion pricing would be outlawed as a charity because of its huge overhead. Too little of its charging fees are returned to the transportation system.

NYC CBD traffic volumes peaked in 1984. Today's traffic volumes are already 25% below those volumes. There have been cordon counts since the 1970's. There is no reliable long term data on congestion for NYC. It's all anecdotal. I don't know of hard evidence that traffic is more congested now than in the past. If congestion is indeed bad with volumes down 25%, I'd look to traffic management as the cause and not to increased volume.

If people are paying ~$13/day to come into London (and overall congestion is only reduced by 20%), shouldn't we be able to do at least $10/day? With 1.9 MILLION daily trips into San Francisco (Source: SamTrans, San Francisco County Transportation Authority), even if San Francisco experienced a 20% drop in daily car commutes (a positive thing!), that would still mean $15.2/million A DAY for public transportation in San Francisco. And FYI, if this all went towards Caltrain, this would solve their deficit in TWO DAYS.

...and that's not even counting the even more palatable income source:
http://burritojustice.com/2011/03/08/a-modest-proposal-beer-train/

Still reading this? Go now to http://www.sfcta.org/rtp and start entering your livable streets wish list!

In my view, in order to minimize or offset potential equity impacts associated with roadway pricing strategies there must be a high capacity, affordable, and reliable transit alternative to driving on the priced facility. The transit alternative can't simply be express bus masquerading as BRT operating in mixed-traffic on a new HOT/HOV lane, but rather a legitimate alternative to driving that is part of a broader transit system. The alternative must be made available either prior to implementing pricing or at the same time. Rather than building new HOT/HOV lanes, we should price all existing lanes.

Unless and until we have implemented pricing in combination with new or improved "real" transit, we should not even consider highway add-a-lane projects; not even to "solve bottlenecks." We can't possibly know how much capacity is really needed until the combination is implemented - it may well be that we don't need additional capacity, but rather a 21st century perspective on solving the problem.