Skip to content

Posts from the "Congestion Pricing" Category

8 Comments

This Weekend, NYC’s Traffic Dysfunction Gets Worse

As of this weekend, driving over the free East River bridges will be a bigger bargain for drivers, adding to NYC's traffic dysfunction. Map: Sam Schwartz

In case you missed it, Crain’s ran a good piece today wherein “Gridlock” Sam Schwartz explained one of the less-publicized effects of the MTA fare and toll hikes slated to take effect this weekend. NYC’s already-dysfunctional road pricing system is about to make even less sense.

With tolls on the MTA’s East River crossings going up in each direction, the incentive for drivers to take the free Queensboro, Williamsburg, Manhattan, and Brooklyn Bridges is about to intensify. Schwartz told Crain’s to expect a lot more toll-shopping drivers on streets that are already choked by traffic:

“Today I would estimate 50,000 cars, trucks and buses [crossing the free bridges]. On Monday, I’m estimating 60,000—another 10,000 will switch, and only aggravate the situation at the free bridges,” Mr. Schwartz said. “They vote not with their feet, they vote with their tires.”

“What we have is a bridge like the Ed Koch-Queensboro Bridge sandwiched between two toll crossings—the Queens Midtown Tunnel and the Triborough Bridge,” he said. “And every time there’s a toll increase, more and more drivers hop off the Long Island Expressway at Van Dam Street to avoid going straight ahead to the Queens Midtown Tunnel, and then they just saturate the streets of Sunnyside and Long Island City, snaking their way to the lower level or the upper level of the Queensboro Bridge.”

To add to the Queensboro Bridge example, in addition to the western Queens neighborhoods that have to put up with all the extra congestion, exhaust, and honking on their streets, bus riders will get the short end of the stick. Every day 16,000 bus passengers ride over the Queensboro Bridge. Their trips are going to get more sluggish and unreliable after this weekend.

Until the governor and other electeds step in to fix NYC’s broken road pricing system, the dysfunction will only get worse.

11 Comments

Graphed: Support for Congestion Pricing Depends on How You Frame It

Toward the end of last week, City Council speaker and current 2013 mayoral frontrunner Christine Quinn set off a burst of transportation policy buzz when she said she still supports congestion pricing but doesn’t expect it to get revived in Albany.

Remember, though, that while risk-averse Albany electeds may try to preemptively dismiss road pricing as politically impossible, public support for the idea is actually quite strong when it’s framed as a way to fund transit, according to a series of Quinnipiac polls conducted in 2007 and 2008.

Capital New York’s Azi Paybarah has done a huge service by graphing the results of those Q poll congestion pricing questions. When the policy was framed as “charging vehicle owners a fee to drive below 60th street in Manhattan during rush hours,” support tended to fall below 40 percent. But support surged when the pollsters asked, “Would you support congestion pricing if the money were used to prevent an increase in mass transit fares and bridge and tunnel tolls?”

Here’s his graph of the percent support for congestion pricing in response to the different questions:

Graph: Azi Paybarah/Capital New York

Paybarah notes that the last two polls, in January and March of 2008, used another variation on the question instead of the “preventing fare hikes” angle. This question asked simply, “Would you support congestion pricing if the money were used to improve mass transit in and around New York City?” (Any road pricing plan would likely pay for transit improvements by funding the MTA’s capital program, and keep fares lower by reducing the amount of capital spending that’s covered by fare-backed debt.)

Read more…

7 Comments

Quinn Says She Still Supports Congestion Pricing

After some pressing from Capital political reporter Azi Paybarah, Christine Quinn followed up her evasive and pessimistic statements about congestion pricing this morning with a firmer but still pessimistic statement about her position:

“I supported congestion pricing. I support congestion pricing. I do not see it coming back in Albany but my support for congestion pricing has not changed.”

So, if Quinn gets elected, don’t expect her to make the first move on this.

4 Comments

Chris Quinn: “I Don’t Anticipate Congestion Pricing Coming Back Around”

Dana Rubinstein reports that City Council speaker and current mayoral front-runner Christine Quinn is bearish on congestion pricing’s political prospects:

“I don’t anticipate congestion pricing coming back around,” City Council Speaker Christine Quinn told an audience at New York Law School today, when asked about its near-term future. “It didn’t do well and I don’t expect that proposal to come back around in that way.”

Is this disappointing? Sure, it would be great news for New York City if a mayoral candidate ran in support of the single most transformative traffic and transit policy out there. And Quinn, who helped shepherd congestion pricing through the City Council in 2007 and 2008, is one of two contenders with a voting record in support of it. (The other is John Liu, who voted for congestion pricing when he was a City Council member representing Flushing, then turned around and opposed bridge tolls in 2009, when he had a citywide campaign to worry about. Bill de Blasio, meanwhile, voted against congestion pricing but is on the record supporting East River bridge tolls pegged to the subway fare.)

But is this significant? Well, I don’t think it means a whole lot.

Noted congestion pricing champion Michael Bloomberg, for instance, never campaigned on congestion pricing. He floated East River bridge tolls in 2002, a month after getting elected for the first time, but stopped pressing for them after then-governor George Pataki ruled out the idea. Running for re-election in 2005, Bloomberg again didn’t make congestion pricing a campaign issue, but it turned out to be his single biggest policy initiative in 2007 and 2008. Democratic Governor Eliot Spitzer backed the idea, and if he wasn’t such a weak-willed dirtbag, who knows, he might have steamrolled congestion pricing through Albany.

So mayoral candidates aren’t going to campaign on road pricing, even if they believe in it, and in the end, the person who has the most power to make it happen is the governor. If the NYC region is going to get a rationally priced road network and a well-funded transit system, it’s up to Andrew Cuomo to get things started — from the looks of it, preferably sometime after the mayoral election.

15 Comments

Lessons From London After 10 Years of the Congestion Charge

A Republican member of Congress told me last week that he recently was in London for the first time in a long while. “Traveling was so much better,” he said. “You can actually get around. That traffic-charging system they’ve got seems to be doing a lot of good.”

London’s system — known formally as congestion charging — started up 10 years ago this Sunday, on February 17, 2003. In the decade since then it has been meticulously monitored, analyzed and debated — perhaps more than any traffic-managing scheme since Moses parted the Red Sea. It has also spawned a raft of charging programs elsewhere, most notably in Stockholm, and, starting last month, in Gothenburg, Sweden’s second city. Of course, an all-out effort to enact a comparable system here, the proposal to toll motor vehicles entering Manhattan south of 60th Street, died in the state legislature five years ago.

Ten years on is a good time to take stock. Let’s have a look.

What It Is: Cars and trucks pay £10 (roughly $15.60) to drive into or within the charging zone between 7 am and 6 pm on weekdays. The zone is London’s commercial and financial hub and, at 8 square miles, rivals Manhattan’s 8.5-square mile Central Business District. Taxis are exempt, as are qualifying low-emission vehicles. Cars registered to zone residents, who account for 2 percent of Greater London’s 7 million people, pay one-tenth the standard charge.

How Drivers Pay: London’s system deploys 1,360 closed-circuit cameras at 348 sites within the charging zone and on its boundaries to record the license plates of vehicles entering and moving within the zone. The plates are continuously matched against a database of monthly accounts, and “spot” payments are made via Internet or at kiosks, drawing down accounts or billing license-plate holders. This cumbersome system arose not only from the absence in the U.K. of electronic toll collection systems such as E-ZPass when the system was launched a decade ago, but also from the decision to charge for car trips entirely within the zone in addition to vehicle entries. A byproduct is the relatively meager net revenue available for transport improvements.

Traffic Outcomes: In its first few years, the London charging scheme was heralded as a solid traffic-buster, with 15-20 percent boosts in auto and bus speeds and 30 percent reductions in congestion delays. Most of those gains appear to have disappeared in recent years, however. Transport for London (TfL), which combines the functions of our NYCDOT and MTA and which created and operates the charging system, attributes the fallback in speeds to other changes in the streetscape and traffic management:

Read more…

2 Comments

Why NYC Needs Busways and Traffic Reduction, in Two Pictures

Photo: Clarence Eckerson

Here’s a look at Roosevelt Avenue and 82nd Street in Jackson Heights earlier this afternoon. Streetfilms’ Clarence Eckerson says the line to get onto these buses snaked twice as long as what you can see in the frame. Buses were already rolling up full and proceeded to crawl along Roosevelt, in traffic, at walking speed.

Eventually these buses merge onto Queens Boulevard, where today they would have run into this hellish traffic jam:

Each of those buses, packed as they were, was probably moving about as many people as all the cars in this picture combined.

With HOV restrictions in effect tomorrow, everyone riding the bus won’t have such a sluggish trip. And if the city reserves some lanes exclusively for buses — which seems like it could be in the offing, though specific plans are unknown right now — bus riders can bypass traffic even more quickly.

Of course, gridlock on streets like Queens Boulevard was worse today than it usually is, but grinding traffic heading to the free Queensboro Bridge is a fact of life when the subways are functioning perfectly well, too. The steps the city is taking to make the transportation system function during this emergency are pretty close to what needs to be done to eliminate the daily dysfunction on NYC streets: road pricing and busways.

24 Comments

Bloomberg: Transit Should Be Free, and Drivers Should Pay More

Mayor Bloomberg talks transit in his 2007 PlaNYC speech. Photo: Sarah Goodyear

Yesterday, Mayor Bloomberg rode the Staten Island Ferry, which has the distinction of being one of the few forms of public transportation in New York that is free to its users. At the press conference to announce the world’s largest ferris wheel (plus additional parking!) near the ferry terminal in St. George, the mayor was asked for his thoughts on transportation. He replied:

If you were gonna design, keep in mind, the perfect public transportation system, you would have it be free and you would charge people to use cars, because you want the incentive to get them to do that.

This short quote provides a window into the philosophy that has guided the Bloomberg administration’s transportation policy. It’s about more than congestion pricing. Free transit is not just the dream of progressive activists, it’s also a policy goal of the billionaire mayor.

Will any among the current crop of candidates to succeed him best Bloomberg on this front? How many of them think that, in an ideal world, transit should be free? How many of them would actually work to make that happen? If the next administration doesn’t step up for transit, other cities will continue to leave us in the dust.

11 Comments

NYC Doesn’t Need Albany’s Permission to Enact Congestion Pricing

Roderick M. Hills, Jr. is the William T. Comfort III Professor of Law at New York University Law School.

When Mayor Bloomberg failed in 2008 to persuade the state legislature to give New York City the power to toll roads and bridges into the Manhattan Central Business District, the fight for a congestion charge appeared lost. Behind this perception was the assumption that New York City did not already have the power to enact congestion fees.

In my view, this assumption is false. Section 1642(a)(4) of the NY Vehicle & Traffic Law already authorizes cities with a million residents (a.k.a. New York City) to impose “tolls, taxes, [and] fees … for the use of the highway or any of its parts where the imposition thereof is authorized by law.” As I argue in the latest issue of City Law [PDF], this provision is best construed to delegate to New York City the power to toll its roads and bridges, so long as the City Council enacts a local law defining the toll. Such a local law would satisfy Section 1642(a)(4)’s requirement that “tolls, taxes, and fees” be “authorized by [local] law.”

In short, New York City does not need Albany’s permission to pass a “congestion fee” ordinance. It already has the power to do so without further state legislation.

Is there any argument against this straightforward reading of Section 1642(a)(4)? One might respond that those last three words — “authorized by law” — mean “authorized only by state law.” But this reading makes little sense. Reading the statute to require an additional state law before New York City may toll its roads effectively reduces Section 1642(a)(4) to a tautology, essentially reading it to say that “state law gives New York City the power to toll roads if state law gives New York City the power to toll roads.” By contrast, reading the statute to allow NYC to impose congestion fees when “authorized by either state or local law” construes the statute to place a familiar “non-delegation” limit on local officials’ power, by requiring the mayor or commissioner of transportation to secure a fee schedule from the City Council before they impose tolls on drivers.

Does this argument mean that New York City’s enactment of a “congestion fee” ordinance would not face legal challenges? Unfortunately, no: For one thing, opponents of congestion pricing would almost certainly litigate to protect the status quo. Moreover, notwithstanding the straightforward language of the Vehicle & Traffic law, many prominent attorneys with expertise in local government law are skeptical about the idea that New York City can act alone on congestion fees. What explains this skepticism?

Read more…

7 Comments

Traffic Pricing Is Evolving. Can Its Opponents?

“The difficulty lies, not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones,” wrote John Maynard Keynes in his ground-breaking 1935 treatise, “The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money.”

Richard Brodsky. Photo: Assembly Democrats/Flickr

Keynes was bemoaning budget-balancing nostrums that deepened the Great Depression. But the famed economist’s lament applies equally to Richard Brodsky’s exhumation last week of his outdated criticisms of congestion pricing.

Brodsky is the former state legislator who almost single-handedly derailed Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal in 2007-08. He retired in 2010 after nearly three decades representing parts of Westchester County in the State Assembly and carving out a reputation as Albany’s most ardent — and acerbic — champion of progressive economic and environmental policies. Indeed, it was by attacking from the left, as the upholder of egalitarian ideals, that Brodsky outflanked the “billionaire mayor” and defeated his pricing plan.

In truth, though, Brodsky’s objections were overblown, and traffic pricing has evolved considerably since 2008, even as the city and region’s need for transit funding has grown dire. But you’d never know that from the shopworn rhetoric Brodsky tossed out last week against Gridlock Sam Schwartz’s traffic plan, in an article in the New York Observer:

You can call a banana “broccoli,” but it’s still a banana. They are looking for answers in the wrong places, still pursuing tolls. Equitable? That’s not equitable.

That’s the short version. Brodsky detailed his “issues” with congestion pricing in the January 2008 minority report of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission (PDF, p. 8):

Four particular facets of the pricing scheme exacerbate the regressivity and unfairness of the Commission’s proposal. First, it is a flat fee paid by all regardless of income. Second, those who pay tolls on other facilities are exempted from the fee, intensifying the unfairness because those in NJ, CT, Westchester and LI tend to be wealthier than those in the outer boroughs who must pay the new fee. Third, there are clear wealth distinctions between the outer boroughs and Manhattan [which] increases the regressivity of the scheme. Fourth, the largest single group of contributors to congestion, taxi users, whose average income is higher than the average driver, is largely exempt from the fee.

Of Brodsky’s four issues from 2008, three do not apply to Schwartz’s 2012 plan.

Read more…

16 Comments

Why Gridlock Sam’s Traffic Plan Could Go the Distance

Saturday will mark two months of non-stop acclaim for Gridlock Sam’s traffic-pricing plan. The accolades kicked off on March 5 with a gushing op-ed, “Meet Sam Schwartz,” by New York Times emeritus editor Bill Keller, and they haven’t let up. The Wall Street Journal, Transportation Nation, WNYC’s Brian Lehrer Show, Channel 13, and Crain’s New York (a profile plus an editorial) have extolled Sam’s plan to overhaul New York’s tolling network and generate $15 billion over the next decade to improve roads, bridges, subways and buses across the city. By now, any New Yorker who professes ignorance of the plan has either been hiding under the proverbial rock or is flummoxed by its political implications.

Such an outpouring of support is unprecedented for congestion pricing proposals anywhere, and is virtually unheard of for any serious policy proposal in New York. I’ve spent a good deal of time pondering it from my vantage point as a long-time traffic-pricing proponent; as an exponent of rival but complementary pricing plans, first with Ted Kheel and more recently with the Move NY coalition; and currently as a modeler helping Sam quantify his plan’s traffic and revenue benefits. (That work is supported not by Sam but by the Kheel family’s Nurture Nature Foundation.)

So how do I explain the overwhelmingly positive press reactions to Gridlock Sam’s Fair Plan, as he calls it?

First, the plan feels inclusive, far more so than any prior traffic-pricing plan.

Consider what it offers residents of Queens, the city’s most car-dependent borough after Staten Island: dollar fares on MTA buses in subway-less areas; Bus Rapid Transit service on the Long Island Expressway; and, most spectacularly, a halving of current tolls on the borough’s five MTA bridges, from the Throgs Neck in northern Queens to the Gil Hodges and Cross Bay Blvd. Bridges in the Rockaways. These benefits are palpable — the MTA bridge discounts alone will save Queens residents $100 million a year — and they are integral to the plan, in accordance with the precept of charging premium tolls to drive into the congested heart of the city. Other boroughs are slated to get similar discounts and benefits including BRT on the Belt Parkway and the Bruckner Expressway, a widened Staten Island Expressway, and highway expansions intended to take trucks off Brooklyn streets.

Second, Sam’s plan feels egalitarian.

Read more…