A serious concern. There is fortunately an easy solution: Speed cameras.

My fear is congestion pricing might just make the streets more dangerous. I favor enlarging sidewalks (and bike lanes), removing street parking, and closing more streets to traffic to discourage people from driving in nyc.

Strangely, I make the best time walking on Wednesdays. With all the Broadway matinee traffic, it’s easy to cross against the lights.

Your surmise is correct that taxi usage would be crosscut (moved in both directions at once) under congestion pricing, particularly if some toll revenues are used to reduce transit fares. Under the Kheel-Komanoff Plan, the taxi surcharge and fare cuts would cut taxi use, while faster travel and less use of private cars would raise it.

Using the parameters in the BTA, the predicted net impact is a 5% increase in taxi ridership even as overall VMT within the CBD falls by 8%. This should be good news for cab drivers. Ditto, the prediction in the BTA of almost 3 more fares per shift, due to speedier trips. (See “Motor Vehicles” worksheet, Row 772, and “Taxi” worksheet, Row 150.)

As for cruising — I admit that I hadn’t thought about how pricing might affect the share of taxi VMT accounted for by cruising — I simply kept it at 39%. My price-elasticity of taxi use (from Schaller, BTW — it’s sourced near the top of the “Taxi” worksheet) is for taxi ridership, not taxi VMT. But the question of whether taxi VMT would vary differently from taxi ridership seems non-essential to me, especially if taxi ridership is projected to increase.

— Charlie

Mike – Nat – J:Lai — I’ll check out the interface angle, thanks.

BicyclesOnly: Your hunch is right that geographic differentiation can’t be built into this level model, unfortunately. As to community boards, engineers and planners like Sam Schwartz, Fred Kent, Jan Gehl et al. are far more knowledgeable and persuasive than I could be even if I had the kind of model you’re fantasizing.

Cap’n Transit: The BTA’s “Bus Boarding” worksheet isn’t quite complete, but take a look. (The version you recall in BTA 1.0 was simplistic and I’m working on improving it.)

DJStroky: Congratulations on “breaking the BTA.” I’m a bit chagrined, though also pleased that it took a $200 cordon price! I’m sorry I don’t have a cash prize for you, you deserve one. What broke it wasn’t the price-elasticity but the time-switching algorithm … I probably need to attenuate that, since even with a $200 toll next to a $6 toll, some drivers will stick to the higher-price period. Thanks for smoking that out.

DJStroky (more): As for the estimated trip distance, are you questioning my chosen parameters, or my use of a point estimate rather than a distribution? I’m not sure I would agree on either count, but I’d like to know. As for the 1977 elasticities, did you get to read further down in the “Elasticities” worksheet where I back up the key variable (driver price-elasticity) with recent findings?

DJStroky and all: Thanks much, keep it coming. — CK

I would include in the model actual or estimated traffic volume and speed data by roadway, and then create a graphic interface that allows the user to “play God” on a map of the grid by converting lanes of MV traffic to other uses. The model would compute the changes in the resulting modal composition, volumes and speed of the traffic on all of roadways predicted to be affected by the changes the user makes, based on observations and assumptions regarding traffic patterns and behavior. I’d bring the model to a Community Board meeting and put it on a screen so these people (whose are by no means experts on traffic) can see the effect of a proposal such as BRT, protected bike paths, closing Central park to cars, etc.

I have a feeling the model I’m describing is only slightly less ambitious than Hari Seldon’s model of psychohistory (Asimov fans take note) and would take Charles a lifetime to construct. but maybe it would be feasible for Charles to work with activists on the Upper East and West Sides who have convinced their respective community boards to at least consider proposals for protected bike lanes, to come up with an analysis of traffic effects to rebut the arguments of those who mindlessly argue that any reduction in traffic lanes will “bring traffic to a standstill,” when in fact non-MV traffic is facilitated rather than hindered, that effect is magnified by modal shift, and MV effects are materially offset by modal, route and time-of-commute shifts by drivers in response to the changes.

A more user-friendly interface would definitely help, as would a way to gain greater confidence in the underlying assumptions.

To address the second point, is there any chance you can get this in a peer-reviewed academic journal (forgive my ignorance if you already have)?

Obviously this requires expertise and funding. But that’s the way to go.