According to a spokesperson, the authority plans to have the paths open on an alternating basis. Updates are posted on the PA website, and are also available by signing up for cyclist and pedestrian email and mobile alerts.

Over 315,000 bus riders cross the Hudson River each weekday. More than half of these bus riders travel through the Lincoln Tunnel, but the exclusive bus lane, which only operates during the morning rush hour, is at capacity.

This Streetfilm, produced in collaboration with the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and with animation by Hugh Gran and Carly Clark, offers recommendations on what the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey can do to improve these bus crossings. You can also download TSTC's full May 2009 report on area bus service [PDF] for more info.

Average weekday eastbound trips, 2008. Source: TSTC/Port Authority of NY & NJ.

The Lincoln Tunnel XBL was established all the way back in 1971. In the last 38 years, bus ridership crossing the Hudson has boomed, especially this decade, but capacity for buses hasn't kept pace. Unless provisions are made to accommodate more bus travel -- and soon -- riders will face slower trips, the ridership gains of recent years will flatten out, and traffic troubles will deepen as more commuters choose to drive.

The good news is that it doesn't take all that much time or money to deliver some significant enhancements for bus riders. In a new report, "Express Route to Better Bus Service" [PDF], Tri-State lays out a strategy to expand on the success of the Lincoln Tunnel XBL and make bus travel more attractive for all trips across the Hudson. It's a wake-up call for the Port Authority to get moving on some long-overdue improvements.

"A population nearly the size of Cincinnati travels by bus across the Hudson River every weekday, but plans to enhance service for these riders are stalled," said Tri-State's Veronica Vanterpool, co-author of the report. "With bus travel anticipated to grow, we need to stop treating bus riders like second-class citizens and provide them with faster commutes and better access to information."

Tri-State recommends creating a westbound Lincoln Tunnel XBL during the evening rush and moving full-speed ahead with plans for a new high occupancy/toll lane for the morning commute (which has been stuck in the study phase for way too long). The report also touches on strategies to speed bus service across other Hudson River crossings, organize on-street loading for the city's growing volume of private bus operators, and make it easier for riders to plan their trips.

Follow the jump for the full slate of Tri-State's major recommendations.

Key Recommendations 

Short Term

1. Expedite the completion of the Lincoln Tunnel High Occupancy Toll Lanes study and implement the recommendations immediately.
2. Establish a westbound XBL in the Lincoln Tunnel during the evening rush hour.
3. Create an online portal for regional bus riders, with maps, route schedules and carrier information.
4. Improve communications technology for buses and update signage.
5. NYC should develop, with community input, strategies for formalizing bus loading/unloading and bus parking areas in neighborhoods across the city.
6. Coordinate with MTA and Westchester County’s Bee-Line to create and/or expand existing bus service between Westchester County and George Washington Bridge Bus Station.

Long Term

1. Study the potential for High Occupancy Tolling on the Holland Tunnel and GW Bridge.
2. Move forward plans to renovate and add capacity to the Port Authority Bus Terminal with community input, and to construct a bus garage on the West Side.

The pathway in the park near the George Washington Bridge has been reopened to pedestrians and bicyclists as of this morning 4/28/09 and will not require any further closures.

Assuming no other projects are pending elsewhere along the route, it looks like bike riders and walkers can finally take advantage of an uninterrupted path from Battery Park to Inwood.

A temporary detour along the Hudson River Greenway in Washington Heights went into effect Thursday.

The closure, related to work on the George Washington Bridge, will reroute cyclists to Broadway and Ft. Washington Avenue between 158th and 181st Streets. According to a Port Authority flier [PDF], pedestrians may access the park and riverfront through the tunnel at 172nd Street.

Interruptions are to occur on a "periodic" basis until December 31, "typically" from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m.

Rendering: PA Associates

Instead, according to the Manhattan Times, the Port Authority will build spaces for about a dozen smaller commercial shops and offices, says PA Executive Director Christopher Ward.

The decision to plan for multiple tenants, Ward said, was partly driven by the belief that retail opportunities should serve customers who walk or take transit to the terminal, rather than out-of-area shoppers arriving by car.

"The community spoke clearly that we didn't need more cars," Ward said.

Work on the terminal, which is expected to increase bus capacity by 50 percent over the existing design, is currently scheduled to start in late 2009 and should take about three years, the Times reports.

According to the signage plan [PDF], cyclists and ped traffic will be rerouted to Broadway and Ft. Washington Avenue between 158th and 181st Streets, in Washington Heights. As you can see from the signs, work was scheduled to begin in September. According to a notice from Community Board 12, as of last week the PA was set to get started on November 3, but has since postponed again.

Streetsblog has a message in with the PA to see what the latest projected dates are. Looks like the work is supposed to take anywhere from six to eight weeks.

In a post on Mobilizing the Region yesterday, TSTC says it's time to build on the success of the much traveled Manhattan-bound express bus lane:

The Lincoln Tunnel’s Manhattan-bound XBL is the busiest bus lane in the country, carrying 1,700 buses with over 62,000 passengers on weekday mornings. In fact, it is so popular that it is now congested at times, though it still speeds bus times by 15-20 minutes according to the Port Authority. This has prompted the Authority to study the creation of a bus/high occupancy toll (HOT) lane in the tunnel to alleviate gridlock on the bus priority route.

However, there has been less discussion on how to improve evening rush hour traffic into NJ, which is actually worse. During the average evening peak period (4-7 pm), nearly 15,000 cars travel westbound into NJ; by comparison, around 13,900 cars enter NYC during the morning rush (7-10am). Usage of a Jersey-bound XBL (which would either replace an NJ-bound general purpose lane or be a contraflow lane carved out of NY-bound traffic) would almost certainly rival that of the morning XBL, providing real benefits for the largest share of trans-Hudson commuters and creating further incentives to commute by mass transit.

A Jersey-bound XBL would also help to alleviate some of the problems that the new blocking-the-box crackdown is meant to address. Some of the worst box-blocking hotspots are in Hell's Kitchen, where cars line up for block after block on their way out of Manhattan through the Lincoln Tunnel.

For more ideas about improving bus service on bridges and tunnels, see Cap'n Transit's series on the topic.

Photo of NJTransit bus leaving Manhattan via Lincoln Tunnel: Jumpy/Wikimedia Commons/MTR

Funding shortfalls and logistical hurdles may be delaying plans to replace Penn Station, but the Municipal Art Society's campaign for Moynihan Station is not letting up. The MAS has been on a roll this spring, hosting a series of events related to the West Side project. This video, posted yesterday, features former Washington Post reporter Don Phillips and Metro-North lawyer Walter Zullig, Jr. discussing the project within the context of the national and regional rail networks. From the MAS recap:

Phillips provided a global overview of the transportation crisis and discussed how Europe, Asia, and even Mexico are placing massive investments in their infrastructure. France, for instance, is building rail tunnels “like crazy” for trains that, in some cases, will be carrying trucks. Iran is on a rail building boom. And Mexico is building a huge new port and rail network to compete with the Port of Los Angeles.

But “we have no vision at all,” said Phillips. “All we can say now is no new taxes.”

Rail enthusiasts jonesing for pictures of gorgeous new stations will get their fix in the first part of the video, which shows some recently completed projects -- in Europe, of course. If the Port Authority takes over the Moynihan Station project, might New York finally get a palatial new station of its own?

As the Times, Post, and Star-Ledger reported this morning, Corzine is threatening to sue:

"I am dismayed at the attempt by the New York City Council and New York State lawmakers to politicize the selection of Port Authority capital projects," Corzine said. "Unless this plan treats all drivers fairly, I am prepared to pursue legal action to protect New Jersey commuters from this outrageous action."

Transferring funds from the Port Authority to the MTA requires Corzine, the Port Authority board, and New York Governor David Paterson to all give their consent. While Corzine seems unlikely to sign off on such an agreement, the door is ajar, according to the Times:

One Port Authority official, who was not authorized to speak publicly, said that the issue could be resolved if Mr. Corzine, Gov. David A. Paterson of New York and the Port Authority can resolve the $1 billion contribution.

In a perfect world, the public discussion about Hudson River tolls would also consider the traffic associated with toll-shopping and what can be done to prevent it. Instead, it looks like we're in for more posturing about "fairness" this week. Might we suggest taking this opportunity to revisit Carolyn Konheim's proposal to raise the congestion fee to $10?

The Mayor's office released a statement yesterday expressing optimism that the changes would win over legislators who remain on the fence:

The amendments that the Senate introduced last night to their bill will address many of the remaining concerns that we've been hearing from the City Council and members of the State Legislature.

But the amendments apparently did not satisfy Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Appearing on New York 1 last night, Silver said drivers from outside the city were still getting off easy:

"I don't think it addresses the issues that are before us, like those people that cross the Hudson, either coming from New Jersey or Rockland," said State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. "The statement is, you don't contribute to congestion. It's only Brooklyn and Queens and the Bronx we're asking to pay, not the others. That's one of the major issues here."

You read that right. It seems Silver either doesn't believe a billion dollars is a big enough contribution from drivers who cross the Hudson, or he wants them to pay up directly, instead of having the Port Authority pass on funds to the MTA.

Then there's this from today's Post:

The State Assembly will not even consider the controversial congestion-pricing plan until a new state budget is passed, Speaker Sheldon Silver privately told his members...

We look forward to working with the Assembly, the Senate, the Governor and the City Council to work out the unresolved issues that have been raised, including mitigating the impact on lower-income drivers and ensuring that commuters who use Port Authority crossings are doing their part.

So, some effort is still underway to tweak the current bill or otherwise address the "New Jersey issue", even though, as Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala pointed out at Monday's City Council hearing, Port Authority tunnels will generate $45 million in pricing revenue each year without changing the legislation one bit.

This issue could be resolved, as transportation expert Carolyn Konheim has suggested, by bumping up the congestion fee to $10 across the board. However, working out some sort of deal with the Port Authority without raising the fee seems more politically feasible at this point, especially in light of Sadik-Khan's hearing testimony:

There are still some questions to resolve on the issue of a greater Port Authority contribution to transit in New York. There is a legal issue with charging different prices to different groups of people, there is a political issue, because the Port Authority is a bi-state agency, and there is the policy question -- can the Port Authority again support the MTA capital program? It participated in the first MTA rebuilding program, from 1982-1986.

Offsetting part of the fee for low-income drivers, meanwhile, has long been rumored to be a pre-condition of Speaker Silver's support. The Bloomberg administration has hinted that it is working on some sort of manipulation of the earned income tax credit to accomplish this.

DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan is set to deliver testimony to the City Council Committee on State and Federal Legislation. Streetsblog got a copy of her prepared remarks, which include a few new pieces of information:

• "The City is developing a way to obtain an EZPass via cash payment, so that option will not be limited to those with credit cards or bank accounts." Also, "the City is working on ways to ease the financial burden on low-income drivers."
  
• The plan on the table requires only 25 cameras, compared to 300 that would have been necessary under the mayor's plan.
• "We agree that more revenue from Port Authority tolls should be devoted to mass transit in the city." But even without altering the current proposal, "two-thirds of Holland and Lincoln Tunnel drivers will pay some or all of the congestion pricing fee. Revenue from these drivers will amount to $45 million a year, or 10% of total gross congestion pricing revenues."

The commissioner's remarks go on to address the Port Authority issue more fully:

There are still some questions to resolve on the issue of a greater Port Authority contribution to transit in New York. There is a legal issue with charging different prices to different groups of people, there is a political issue, because the Port Authority is a bi-state agency, and there is the policy question -- can the Port Authority again support the MTA capital program? It participated in the first MTA rebuilding program, from 1982-1986.

It's now or never for congestion pricing, the MTA, and maybe even the city itself, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this morning.

Speaking before a sold-out crowd at the Battery Park City Ritz-Carlton, Bloomberg and U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters were the guests of honor at today's Crain's New York Business Breakfast Forum, where the mayor painted a bleak picture for a city transit system without congestion revenues and the $354 million in federal funds that hinge on the adoption of a pricing plan by March 31.

"Refusing those funds is basically saying that there will be next to no MTA capital projects in our immediate future," said Bloomberg. "It's just the truth of the matter. There is no money short of this."

Bloomberg said there are "only four significant issues" left to address in the current pricing plan. As to doubts that revenues will be dedicated to transit, the mayor implied there would be no alternative, other than "a steep increase in fares." The MTA has borrowed all that is "feasible," he said, noting that even with pricing funds, there is a $9 billion gap in the agency's capital plan.

Residential parking zones will guard against park-and-ride problems, Bloomberg said. Responding to criticism of a toll credit for New Jersey car commuters, the mayor cited estimates that indicate the new $8 toll is already reducing peak hour traffic. "So, in a very real sense, there's already a congestion pricing fee for New Jersey drivers," he said, pointing out that the State of New York receives a 50 percent share of Port Authority tolls.

According to Bloomberg, his administration is working with lawmakers on a possible refund for low-income city commuters "that offsets what they'd pay in congestion pricing fees that are over and above the comparable cost of commuting by subway" -- a significant compromise reportedly insisted upon by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. He gave no further details.

Though he said the city needs to "make sure our governor is on board," Bloomberg bristled at the notion that recent turmoil in Albany could stall the plan, since the makeup of the legislature has not changed. "There's nothing new here," he said. "Either you're going to do it or you're not."

Asked if there was any possibility that the plan could be passed now but implemented during better economic times, as has been suggested by Comptroller William Thompson, Secretary Peters responded simply: "No." For her part, Peters said she is "optimistic" congestion pricing will pass. If not, she said, New Yorkers will have missed out on a "once in a generation" opportunity.

Playing to his business-friendly audience, Bloomberg elicited rueful chuckles when he pointed out that while New York has four earth-boring machines at work on subterranean transportation tunnels, Shanghai has 90.

"Cities that are our competitors in the global economy are making investments that will ensure their future," he said. "So must we."

The Daily Politics got hold of the letter [PDF], which appears below in full, including the names of its 20 signatories -- some of whom, like David Yassky and Melissa Mark-Viverito, are pricing supporters.

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

We are writing to urge you to correct an unfairness in the "congestion pricing" policy proposed by the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, prior to the upcoming votes in the City Council and the State Legislature.

We are concerned that the burden of paying for congestion pricing will fall too heavily on New York City residents - and in particular on residents of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island - while commuters from outside the City will remain unaffected.

Under the current proposal, bridge and tunnel toll payments would be credited against the $8 congestion charge. This means that commuters who currently pay tolls to use the Port Authority and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority river crossings will pay no additional congestion fee. The bulk of these drivers live outside of New York City. At the same time, drivers who enter Manhattan via the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge or the Williamsburg Bridge will pay the full $8 congestion charge. Most of these drivers do live within New York City.

This is blatantly unfair.

Indeed, the Final Report of the Congestion Pricing Commission itself appears to recognize the unfairness when it states: "The Commission recommends that the State Legislature consider the concerns raised by some Commissioners regarding the contribution of commuters from west of the Hudson River to the MTA Capital Plan."

We ask you, as the primary architect of the congestion pricing plan, to act to remedy the unfairness, either by amending the plan to require commuters from outside New York City to pay a congestion fee in addition to bridge and tunnel tolls, or by forcing the Port Authority to agree to devote a significant portion of their revenue from Hudson River crossings to funding mass transit in New York City (as suggested in the sentence quoted above from the Commission Report).

One proposal for addressing the unfairness would be to give drivers a full credit for bridge and tunnel tolls only if they reside in one of the five boroughs; under this proposal, drivers from outside the City would be given partial credit for toll payments but would still be required to pay some fee for entering the congestion zone. This would improve the existing plan in three ways. First, it would treat New York City residents more equitably in comparison to New Jersey commuters; while City residents would still bear the brunt of the new charges, the unfairness would be lessened. Second, it would raise substantially more revenue than the current proposal, with no additional cost; this revenue would enable more significant expansions in mass transit service than are envisioned in the Commission proposal. Third, it would make the policy more effective in reducing congestion by giving New Jersey commuters an incentive to choose mass transit.

We have been told by members of your Administration that a concern has been raised as to the constitutionality of a plan that provides a different toll credit to City residents than is provided to non-residents. After consulting with constitutional law scholars, we are confident that our proposal is constitutionally valid - just like, for example, the current practice of allowing Staten Island residents to pay a reduced fare for using the Verrazano Bridge.

As an alternative to adjusting the toll credit, another way to address the unfair burden on City residents would be to require the Port Authority to contribute a significant portion of its revenue from tolls on the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge to the Metropolitan Transit Authority, for use in funding system improvements within the City. We note that in expectation of the congestion pricing policy, the Port Authority cynically raised the tolls on the crossings it controls, so that those tolls will be exactly the same as the $8 congestion fee - thus ensuring that revenue generated from drivers who use those crossings will be spent by the Port Authority rather than on mass transit. Either of the two proposals discussed in this letter - capping the toll credit, or requiring a Port Authority contribution to the MTA - would ensure that more of the revenue generated from driving commuters goes to mass transit, and would help force the Port Authority to be a more responsible partner in planning and implementing the region's transportation network.

Finally, we note that some of the signatories to the letter support the idea of congestion pricing; others do not, or have concerns beyond the unfairness of the plan's burden on City residents in comparison to non-resident commuters. All of us, however, believe strongly that this unfairness must be corrected.

Sincerely,

Council Members,

Yassky
James
Mark-Viverito
Garodnick
Brewer
Koppell
Jackson
Gioia
Seabrook
Felder
Vacca
White
Mendez
Liu
Gentile
Lappin
Stewart
Vallone
Rivera
Dilan

During his State of the State address, Governor Spitzer claimed that his administration is "turning Stewart Airport into an economic engine for the Hudson Valley and an environmental model for the world: the very first carbon-negative airport." In this morning's New York Times, we see the Port Authority, touting SIA as an air congestion reliever for metro NYC, making similar claims about the airport's green credentials.

Though there is talk of "terminals, baggage equipment, offices, stores and restaurants that do not produce greenhouse gas emissions," and even "produce or support enough green energy to begin to offset the emissions generated by the planes," the one attraction to be confirmed so far is ease of parking:

''Stewart can be kind of a beacon for a lot of things,'' said Anthony Shorris, executive director of the Port Authority, which has a 93-year lease on Stewart and runs the other three airports. ''An anchor for growth in the Hudson Valley, a major reliever of the other airports, a cargo and job-generating facility for a new economic growth pattern, and a demonstration of the potential for sustainable development in aviation.''

Change is already unmistakable: A new exit off Interstate 84 and wide new access roads now lead to the airport. A 350-space parking lot went up in three weeks and new chairs abound in the baggage claim area.

Shorris foresees 3 million annual passengers using Stewart within a few years. The attractions will include an easy trip to the airport, plenty of parking, comfortable terminals and flights taking off on schedule, he said.

Dan Hurwitz, a 60-year-old math teacher at Skidmore College, recently drove 100 miles to Stewart from his home in Saratoga Springs because a flight to Sarasota, Fla., was cheaper from Stewart than from the Albany airport closer to his home.

''Parking was really easy in the credit-card lot,'' he said. ''They told me to be here two hours early but everything's fast. I could have come an hour later.''

The report is based on residents' responses to a detailed survey; 64 percent said they supported pricing (I highly recommend the survey data, which begins on page 12). Reading it feels like a quick whiff of fresh air if you're used to choking on the fumes spewed by Anthony Weiner, et al. But the sensation doesn't last long. Even though Kellner declines to dismiss pricing out of hand, he requests so many adjustments that it's fair to ask whether any real-world plan could secure his support.

The report states that "none of the five options outlined in the [TCMC] report constitutes a viable plan," then goes on to suggest alterations that would make pricing palatable. A satisfactory pricing plan, it says, would:

• Guarantee all revenue goes toward the MTA's capital budget
• Include a residential parking permit program
• Deduct tolls on MTA or Port Authority bridges from the congestion fee for New York State vehicles (out-of-state drivers would pay in full)
  
• Set the northern boundary at 72nd Street, not 86th Street (because it's a major commercial corridor) or 60th Street (which would lead to a park-and-walk effect)
  
• Add exemptions for disabled people and those making trips to the hospital
• Dump the "regressive" taxi surcharge in favor of one on "black cars" (luxury livery vehicles)

The full list is quite long. Some of the concerns have been subsequently addressed. Other objections seem like the same type of straw man argument advanced by the most ardent foes of pricing. Given a likely scenario in which the TCMC's final recommendations incorporate some but not most of these suggestions, how will Kellner and others straddling the fence cast their lot?

Randolph points out that despite reforms over the past few years, the most influential authority, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, still operates outside many of the laws that cover government agencies, including public-meeting and freedom of information laws. And, given the enormous importance of Port Authority holdings, she rightly calls for more accountability:

[I]f Lower Manhattan is now being rebuilt under the same system that Moses used to both advantage and disadvantage New Yorkers, today's authorities must use their power more responsibly. Governor Spitzer should push for more rules imposing transparency and accountability, like requiring authority directors to sign an oath that they will carry out their fiduciary duties responsibly.

For the Port Authority, the New York and New Jersey Legislatures need to finally pass identical laws requiring public access to its enormous public works operations, which are, after all, the public's business. Mr. Coscia, like many authority directors, now promises "transparency" at some level. But it is worth worrying that future builders might decide, as Robert Moses did regularly, that the best way to respond to public concerns is to send out the bulldozers at midnight.

The top brass over at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey are patting themselves on the back about the PA's plan to take over Stewart Airport near Newburgh, NY. "The region clearly needs additional capacity for air travel," Anthony Coscia, the agency's chairman, was quoted as saying in the New York Times. "It's undeniable. This is intended to remedy exactly that problem." If the deal goes through, Stewart, 60 miles north of New York City, will become the region's fourth major air hub.

This expansion of air travel capacity comes at a time when people in other industrialized nations, most notably the United Kingdom, are increasingly aware that there is no such thing as free flight. Prince Charles of England recently announced he had cancelled his annual ski vacation after coming under fire from the nation's Green Party and others for making too many unnecessary airplane trips. British Prime Minister Tony Blair caused a stir in scientific circles when he said he was reluctant to cut back on recreational travel and trusted in technology to cut airplane emissions. (Blair later received support for his stance from anti-poverty activist Jeffrey Sachs, who said global warming wouldn't be stopped by a decrease in air travel.) Celebrities such as Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and David Beckham have been targeted by critics of wasteful flying.

Plane Stupid, an anti-flying activist group in the UK, contends that not only is air travel a major contributor to global warming, it is also, through airport expansion, a significant culprit in noise pollution and the destruction of open spaces. The roar of cargo and passenger traffic tops the concerns of Ulsterites Fight Overflight Noise, a local group opposing expansion at Stewart. But their voices have been drowned out by elected officials, including governors Eliot Spitzer and Jon Corzine, who say that increasing the region's airport capacity is a simple necessity.

Photo: John Wardell (Nethino) on Flickr