On Sunday, Temple Beth Emeth in Ditmas Park, Brooklyn hosted a classic congestion pricing match-up: Michael O'Loughlin of the Campaign for New York's Future vs. Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (who, it turns out, went to shul at Beth Emeth until age ten).

The crowd of 50 could best be described as congestion pricing agnostics. An informal survey indicated that most take the subway to work (the temple is a short walk from the B and Q trains). They wanted proof that the plan would work as advertised, and based on the Q & A that followed the debate, they still need to be convinced.

The two opponents knew each other's talking points almost by heart. Each had rejoinders ready for nearly every argument and statistic thrown his way. When Brodsky claimed that his license plate rationing scheme would reduce more traffic than pricing, O'Loughlin effectively skewered the idea, using rhetoric usually reserved for the other side. "How do you tell someone who has to drive to the hospital that they can't, because they have the wrong license plate number?" he asked.

During the Q & A, the crowd asked pointed questions that probed deeper than the usual anti-pricing tirades. But as they moved the discussion away from broad pro-and-con arguments, and toward the nitty gritty specifics of the proposal now before the City Council, the Westchester Assemblyman who represents some of the wealthiest car commuters in the metropolitan region, pounced on every opportunity to raise doubts about whether congestion pricing would work as projected.

When someone asked how many pedestrian fatalities would be averted by pricing, for instance, it gave Brodsky a window to call the existing data into question and issue his familiar call for state environmental review.* When someone asked how much of the $8 fee would go towards enforcement and how much towards capital improvements, he played up the $125 million annual administration cost. O'Loughlin rebutted many of Brodsky's claims, but the Assemblyman tossed a lot of spaghetti against the wall and some of it stuck. He returned to one particular stat a few times -- "commuters are only 18 percent of the [congestion] load" -- implying that the congestion fee wouldn't affect the other 82 percent of trips very much.

A quick check of the facts shows that Brodsky's heavily repeated 18 percent figure is way off the mark. DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller's February 2006 study, "Necessity or Choice" (download it) reported that "personal autos comprise an estimated 60 percent of vehicles with Central Business District destinations." A year later, Schaller's intercept surveys of 1,600 Manhattan motorists showed an even higher rate -- 74 percent of drivers approaching the bridges and tunnels in the Manhattan CBD between noon and 6 pm said they were making work-related trips (download it).

Though not everyone bought into Westchester Assemblyman's obfuscations, pricing skeptics weren't exactly won over either. They remained especially reluctant to believe that a dedicated funding stream for transit would not get raided for other purposes, with or without a lock box. One woman I spoke to after the Q & A, a regular subway rider, said, "I'm very dubious now... We don't know if it's going to work. I'm not convinced that traffic and air quality would be improved." Richard Brodsky: Mission Accomplished.

* In London, congestion charging has led to a net reduction of between 40 and 70 personal injury accidents per year and significant reductions in pedestrian injuries and fatalities inside the charging zone. For more detail, download the annual TfL monitoring report and check out page 70.

A crowd of nearly 200 filed into the auditorium at St. Francis College in downtown Brooklyn last night, ready to pop a few questions to DOT about residential parking programs. But first, three of Brooklyn's City Council members gave some of their first public comments since the Congestion Mitigation Commission delivered its final recommendations last week.

David Yassky kept his speech short, pretty much sticking to the sentiment that RPP is good because it will "give neighborhood residents first crack at the parking spots on residential streets."

Tish James, who had previously expressed support for congestion pricing if RPP was attached, staked out the position that Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, and Prospect Heights -- her district -- should all be covered by RPP, regardless of what happens to pricing. (This foreshadowed a major theme of the evening -- fear that one's neighborhood would be left outside looking in when the RPP boundaries are drawn.) James then ran through her "wish list related to congestion pricing," which ranged far and wide, including: capital improvements to transit ("the G train sucks"), taxi stands, more bike lanes, ending placard abuse, and re-instating the commuter tax. It wasn't exactly clear at the end where she now stands on pricing itself.

Bill de Blasio opened by saying, "I need to see complete, tangible, absolute progress on RPP before I can think of supporting congestion pricing." He then proposed that RPP zones should be allowed to sprout all over the city in neighborhoods near subway lines, to deter park-and-ride behavior. At one point he delivered some provocative rhetoric about weaning ourselves from the automobile, preparing for a different future, and changing our habits. But his verdict on pricing? "We don't expect the current plan on the table to pass."

When DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller and his team took the stage, they were somewhat on the defensive. A Windsor Terrace man (who later identified himself as the chair of Community Board 7) had accused the previous speaker, Joanne Simon of the Boerum Hill Association, of "drawing a line around her neighborhood." The offense: Simon had showed the audience a map of the 2004 downtown Brooklyn RPP study, which applied to Boerum Hill, Brooklyn Heights, and parts of Fort Greene.

So Schaller took pains say that RPP would be available to many neighborhoods on an opt-in basis. Though not every neighborhood would be eligible, Schaller reacted favorably to de Blasio's idea of mapping RPP zones near subway lines. He recapped DOT's recent neighborhood parking workshops and outlined the four basic RPP options DOT is currently weighing. In a straw poll at the end of the event, almost everyone in the audience, except for the Windsor Terrace contingent, said they wanted some form of RPP. The most popular variant was DOT's Option A.

A few interesting nuggets came out of the Q & A session between the audience and Schaller's team, though many questions were more interesting for the attitudes revealed than any information brought to light. Here are some highlights:

Q: When will there be a pilot program?
A: If congestion pricing goes according to plan, a test RPP program would go into effect prior to spring 2009.

Q: What political authorization is necessary to proceed with RPP?
A: The city can implement a temporary pilot on its own, but it needs state approval for a permanent RPP program.

Q: Will DOT hold forums in Sunset Park, Windsor Terrace, and other neighborhoods?
A: DOT wants to be in touch with neighborhoods and anticipates talking to different Community Boards about RPP.

Q: How will boundaries be determined?
A: DOT will look to community boards to help decide. The size of a zone should be reasonably compact, conforming to notions of what a neighborhood is (i.e. not just a few square blocks, but not half the borough either).

Q: Why give local employees permits at all?
A: One view is that they contribute to the local economy and should be accommodated, another is that they should take transit or park off-street like other non-residents. Some sort of balance based on the context of the neighborhood is probably desirable.

Q: Won't the only stores that can withstand RPP be big boxes and those with big parking lots?
A: No, most people who shop at local merchants are already parking at meters, so RPP wouldn't affect them. (That was the answer given; no one said anything about all the people who walk, bike, or take transit to shop and eat out.)

Q: What about people whose cars are registered outside the neighborhood in order to get cheaper car insurance -- will they be eligible for permits?
A: There was no firm answer to this at first, then a consensus seemed to emerge that RPP permits should be based on where cars are registered, which would bring insurance cheats in line.

Q: What steps will be taken to ensure that permits are not loaned, stolen, or sold?
A: They will have the license plate or vehicle registration number on them.

Hours after the Congestion Mitigation Commission revealed that residential parking programs would be attached to its congestion pricing plan, about 70 Brooklynites gathered at Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope last night to talk about RPP. The event was the third DOT/EDC neighborhood parking workshop held this week, following others in Long Island City and Forest Hills. This round of workshops focused tightly on RPP compared to the first round, in November, which examined parking in general.

DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller, on hand for the evening, told me that RPP was still in the early planning stages, and that it comprised one part of DOT's broader parking management program. While development of RPP will proceed regardless of congestion pricing's ultimate fate, Schaller noted that "the commission's report gave more definition to what the timeline would be." In addition to permit fees and eligibility requirements, the big issues that need to be hammered out, he said, include defining the boundaries of permit zones, drawing up a process for establishing new zones, and determining how to administer the details of issuing permits and enforcing the rules.

Workshop participants sat at tables in groups of eight while DOT staffers led the exercises. First the DOT reps presented data gathered from observations of the study area, which included the northern blocks of Park Slope and most of Prospect Heights. A few numbers that jumped out:

• The vacancy rate of residential (non-metered) parking spots never exceeded five percent
• Among parked vehicles observed at 2:00 p.m., 41 percent were registered outside Brooklyn and 29 percent were registered outside New York City
• Among vehicles that parked overnight, 35 percent were registered outside Brooklyn and 27 percent were registered outside New York City (the numbers may be a little exaggerated, since they don't measure newcomers accurately)

In the main exercise, participants were presented with four RPP program options. Each option applied different rules to four categories of parkers:

1. Local residents
2. Non-residents who work in the neighborhood -- "local employees"
3. All-day parkers -- park-and-ride commuters, relatives in town for the holidays
   
4. Short-term visitors -- shoppers, people going to the dentist
   

The options were intentionally left somewhat open by DOT, since the details are still flexible. Here's the rundown:

Option A:

• Permit required to park in non-metered spots during the hours RPP restrictions are in effect (could be anywhere from 8-24 hours)
• Residents and local employees issued annual permits that cost $75-$125
• All-day parkers and short-term visitors not eligible for a permit

Option B:

• Similar to Option A but with one big difference: RPP would only be in effect for 1-2 hours each day, staggered on each side of the street. This still locks out park-and-riders but would, on the face of it, give short-term parkers a reason to cruise for free spots.

Option C:

• Similar to Option A but with one really huge difference: Only residents could obtain an annual permit. Everyone else would have to buy a daily permit for $8, which could also be purchased in monthly or annual equivalents.

Option D:

• Same as Option C, but like Option B, RPP would be in effect 1-2 hours each day, staggered on each side of the street.

People were asked to evaluate the options in terms of quality of life, traffic mitigation, fostering transit use, and meeting the parking needs of the four groups. Then the questions turned toward matters of implementation and administration. In the final exercise, people outlined the ideal permit zone for their neighborhood on a map of the study area.

Whether due to the subject matter, the roundtable format, or the crowd itself, the discussion didn't provoke the same kind of passion as congestion pricing. For the most part, people seemed in favor of RPP, although one table was unanimously opposed to it. Curiously, everyone at that table owned cars but also favored congestion pricing. It was the notion of drawing boundaries around neighborhoods that bothered them about RPP.

As Schaller had hinted, boundaries may be a more critical issue to resolve than fees or eligibility. At the table where I completed the exercise, some people drew a boundary around the entire map, while others outlined no more than six blocks. Some DOT staffers who had worked the Forest Hills workshop the night before said that residents there wanted huge zones because they liked to drive to see their friends.

After the exercises ended, I spoke for a minute with Michael Nared, a resident of Starrett City who commutes to a catering hall in Harlem. He drives to Park Slope and hops on the train there. If anyone at the workshop stood to lose from RPP, it was him. But he wasn't necessarily opposed to it, or to congestion pricing for that matter. If pricing and RPP both take effect, he said he'd sell his car and take the bus to the train -- a 70-minute commute from start to finish. He wasn't angry, just anxious that the MTA won't be able to get him to work any faster than it does now. He also thought that mass transit -- or at least buses -- should be free if there's going to be a congestion charge. I asked him if he'd heard of the Kheel Plan, and he said no.

United Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten sent a letter to Mayor Bloomberg Friday expressing objections to his plan to reduce the number of city government parking permits and prevent unions and city agencies from printing their own. Weingarten's letter echoed Teamsters president Gary LaBarbera's recent assertion that "parking permits are a form of compensation for teachers"and other city employees (Is anyone paying taxes on that "compensation?" Is it accounted for in any city budget?)

In her letter, reprinted below in full, Weingarten makes three particularly remarkable claims:

1. "Teachers are not abusers of parking permits."
   A quick visit to UncivilServants.org (or your own neighborhood streets) shows Weingarten's blanket claim is, obviously, incorrect.
   
   
2. "Teachers do not clog areas such as lower Manhattan" with their personal vehicles.
   Not only are teachers' cars part of the Lower Manhattan traffic jam, in a city where 43 percent of elementary school kids are unhealthily obese, teachers and education officials have been known to clog school playgrounds with their personal vehicles. In one notorious case, Public Advocate Betsy Gotbaum intervened to stop city employees from using the Tompkins Square Middle School's playground as a parking lot in 2004.
   
   
3. Parking permits are necessary to "attract the best and the brightest to teaching" in New York City.
   Really? I'm no education policy expert and I'm sure that some teachers really do need to use cars for work, but do the world's best and brightest come to live and work in New York City for the convenient parking?
   

I think Weingarten and the unions may find that they are fighting a costly and losing battle here. The public has little sympathy for the maintenance of a city employee parking system that is so blatantly abused. Few issues draw the ire of such a broad range of New York City civic groups as city government parking placard abuse.

A recent Independent Budget Office report found that cops, firefighters and teachers drive to work at double the rate of any other group of New York City workers. Why?

As DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller told Streetsblog in the very first post we ever published, "Free parking has a tremendous impact on the decision whether to drive or take transit." Moreover, among teachers working in Manhattan, "nearly all of these auto commuters have transit alternatives," Schaller said. His 2006 study found that ninety-five percent of the government employees driving into Manhattan from Brooklyn and Staten Island live in neighborhoods where the majority of their neighbors use transit.

No one is proposing eliminating teachers' permits. Rather, there just needs to be a more centralized and rational system for distributing parking permits based on real need. And there needs to be real enforcement. Hopefully Weingarten and the unions will realize that they are better off pushing for a parking "cash-out" law like California's than fighting to maintain their oft-abused parking privilege.

To:
Mayor Michael Bloomberg
Deputy Mayor Edward Skyler

Cc:
Deputy Mayor Dennis Walcott
Labor Commissioner James Hanley
Chancellor Joel Klein

Gentlemen:

It was deeply troubling to learn -- through media coverage -- of your plan to reduce by 20 percent the number of parking permits issued to all city employees.

On the numerous occasions we have raised the need for more parking for teachers, we have been repeatedly told that this is a collective bargaining issue. If increasing parking availability is a bargaining issue, then clearly, reduction is as well. Now you have apparently chosen, by fiat, to move forward a plan that would penalize the hardworking men and women who teach our city's kids.

Teachers in New York City public schools receive permits that enable them to park on a portion of their school block, during school hours only. Taking away these permits at a time when we're making strides to attract the best and the brightest to teaching (the NYC education workforce is the highest-qualified it's been since the fiscal crisis of the 1970s) makes absolutely no sense. Many city schools are difficult to reach by public transportation, many teachers travel between schools and available parking is clearly one incentive to attract teachers to high-needs schools.

Teachers do not clog areas such as lower Manhattan. Teachers are not abusers of parking permits, and to publicly suggest that they are is deeply troubling. Holding abusers of parking privileges accountable for their actions should not be done at the expense of teachers whose jobs are hard enough already.

I urge you to reconsider your position and would like to meet with you on this as soon as possible.

Randi Weingarten

Department of Transportation Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller has clearly been busy. At Monday's Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission meeting he presented more than a dozen separate congestion pricing scenarios. Having run each of them through NYMTC's state-of-the-art regional traffic model, Schaller delivered estimates for how each of the various pricing schemes would impact total vehicle miles traveled, costs and revenue.

Commission chairman Marc Shaw introduced the day's discussion by saying that "Everything's still on the table" while acknowledging that some of the scenarios Schaller was modeling were "obviously controversial." Shaw also went out of his way to express disappointment that the New York Times had chosen to editorialize against the idea of East River Bridge tolls "before we've even had a public discussion about it."

Schaller's Powerpoint presentation is available in its entirety below. There were a lot of numbers and transportation policy jargon but here are a few notable points:

• NYMTC's "Best Practices Model" was updated in September of this year. The previous model, which was used to derive the transportation data for Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC, was based on New York City's 2002 mass transit network. The updated model uses the 2005 transit network. Thanks to the opening of two more subway tracks across the Manhattan Bridge and other improvements, Schaller said, "the amount of transit service has increased over the last few years," making it more attractive and feasible for motorists to switch to transit "when you apply a pricing signal." As a result, when the numbers are run through the new model, Mayor Bloomberg's original congestion pricing plan shows an increased reduction in VMT, jumping from the intial 6.3 percent estimate to 6.7 percent. All of the data that Schaller produced for Monday's meeting was generated using the updated model.
• The reduction in VMT produced by moving the northern boundary of the pricing zone from 86th to 60th Street is "smaller than a lot of us expected," Schaller said. While the Mayor's original proposal produces a 6.7 percent VMT reduction and $420 million per year in net revenue, moving the border to 60th Street produces a 6.2 percent VMT drop and $387 million.
• The big news was that eliminating the "intrazonal charge," the $4 fee for driving a car inside the pricing zone, barely has any impact on VMT reduction while significantly reducing capital and operating costs. Moving the boundary to 60th Street while eliminating the intrazonal fee (and all of the technology required to make it work) would produce a 5.9 percent reduction in VMT along with $94 million less in capital costs and a whopping $135 million/year less in operating costs. Shaw was clearly intrigued by this scenario.
• Levying a $1 surcharge to motorists who aren't using EZPass would be "an attractive thing to have whatever the final package may be," Schaller said in a rare expression of overt opinion. Processing EZ Pass vehicles is cheaper than using license plate recognition technology.
• Plain and simple East River bridge tolls -- $8 flat fee, 24-hours-per-day, would reduce VMT 5.6 percent, would cost only $39 million/year to run (compared to the $229 million operating cost of the Mayor's plan) and would raise $531 million in net revenue (versus the Mayor's $420 million).
• Add the 60th Street cordon to the ERB tolls and use the MTA's toll rates, $4 inbound and $4 outbound, and you're looking at a whopping 13.4 percent projected reduction in VMT and net revenue of more than $1 billion. Upon seeing that scenario Teamsters president Gary LaBarbera reminded his fellow Commissioners, "truck traffic has to be considered seriously. You can't put 12 yards of concrete in the subway."
  
• After Schaller's presentation, Partnership for New York City president Kathy Wylde suggested that, in addition to road pricing, the Commission would need to propose some sort of "assessment" for on-street and garage parking, adding, "I think it's pretty clear there's a consensus here that getting rid of the intrazonal charges will result in greater revenue and greater equity" and that tolling the East River bridges would, essentially, "collect the same money from the same people but do it in a more efficient fashion."
• Shaw, who is becoming increasingly assertive in these meetings, noted that putting the fee on the bridges themselves might also allow New York City's regional transportation agencies to more easily "coordinate all of the tolls" coming in and out of the city. "One could start to look at a way to do coordinated congestion mitigation strategies for everyone coming from all sides whether it be west of the Hudson or over the East River."

 

| View | Upload your own

Spencer Wilking reports:

There's nothing more blessed to the New York City driver than finding an open parking spot. Donald Shoup, professor of Urban Planning at UCLA, would like New Yorkers to reconsider that ideal. The parking policy cult hero addressed a crowd at Fordham's Pope Auditorium Monday evening. His mission: Eliminate free parking.

"Some people think that charging for curb parking is un-American. I think it is very American to ask people to pay for what they use," Shoup said. "We're not a nation of freeloaders."

Shoup contends that much of the congestion on New York City streets is due to drivers circling the block, hunting for that elusive free parking spot. Shoup's bold plan is to charge more for curbside parking, which he believes would free up more parking space for people who need it, reduce congestion-causing cruising and generate funds for local street improvement projects. He also said that his ideas on parking would be easier to implement than Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan.

Armed with a Powerpoint presentation, Shoup displayed Al Gorian flare, weaving humor, amusing visuals and staggering facts to keep his audience both entertained and informed.

Shoup's lively lecture and the fact that he may very well be the only academic in America to focus solely on parking policy has earned him cult hero status in the world of urban planning. In his introduction, Paul Steely White, executive director of Transportation Alternatives joked that Shoup is a rock star who "prefers loose tweed to leather." With his characteristic droll delivery, Shoup replied, "Maybe I should change my name to Shoup Dogg."

The professor began his lecture by illustrating the ills of American parking policy, first citing the staggering amount of real estate Americans allocate for cars. He believes faulty public policy has created a culture that expects free parking everywhere. "The planning process has gone wrong and it costs a lot of money," said Shoup. "Because we so deviate from normal business practice with curb parking we get these very inferior results."

In New York City, this is compounded by the cost differential between curbside parking and private lot parking. Shoup says the low, often free, cost of curbside parking versus the high cost of off-the-street parking has created a perverse situation in which drivers are more inclined to cruise around hoping to be rewarded with a free parking spot.

Shoup quoted Seinfeld's George Costanza to sum up the essential New Yorker attitude when it comes to curbside parking: "It's like going to a prostitute. Why should I pay when, if I apply myself, maybe I could get it for free?"

Calling Manhattan "the capital of cruising," Shoup cited several recent studies on cruising to demonstrate its contribution to gridlock. Bruce Schaller, a deputy commissioner at the Department of Transportation found that 28 percent of drivers in SoHo were looking for curb parking. A similar study conducted by Transportation Alternatives in Park Slope concluded that 45 percent of drivers were cruising.

To limit the amount of cruising and balance the supply and demand of parking, Shoup suggests the city should allow the price of curbside parking to float upwards until each block reaches 85 percent occupancy, or about one free parking spot per block.
Shoup calls this the Goldilocks principle: "Parking prices shouldn't be too high, or too low. They should be just right."

Shoup says that the price of curbside parking should vary according to time and location, much like the pricing of hotel rooms. "If you turned parking supply over to the hospitality industry they would figure out how to do it," said Shoup.

To ease store owners' fears of losing customers to increased parking costs, Shoup suggests that merchants get a cut of the parking revenue. A large portion of the cash created by new parking costs would go local Business Improvement Districts that would use the money to improve the streetscape, making commercial corridors more pleasurable for pedestrians.

Shoup offered three California cities where this type of parking policy has been implemented successfully. Pasadena, Redwood City and Glendale were able to revitalize their downtown shopping districts by increasing the cost of parking and funneling those funds into public space improvement projects.

The issue of congestion pricing was conspicuously missing from Shoup's talk. The only mention of congestion pricing came in Paul Steely White's introduction saying that Shoup's ideas on parking were "not an alternative to congestion pricing, but a complement." However, talking to Dr. Shoup after the lecture he suggested that his reforms would be more feasible than the Mayor's plan due to the controlled pace of implementation. "The city can do the parking first because it can be done in small increments,"
he said.

Shoup did have some skeptics. Hilary Kitasei, of the Lower East Side, voiced concern over the increased movement of cars that parking reform seeks to create from parking turnover. "New Yorkers wouldn't dare drive for fear that they'll lose their space. Once you create this wonderful environment where it's possible to drive to other neighborhoods, why would I stay home at night? It seems like this city could be unleashing a much worse nightmare than what we have now," she said.

Shoup also had some ideas about the influx of city parking permits -- a long abused system that lacks accountability. He says New York City employees are three times more likely to drive to work. Shoup believes that the city could offer employees cash to get these permits off the street. "If you told these permit holders we'll give you $500 a month to surrender your permit I bet a lot of them would give up that permit," he said.

Over 100 people filled Fordham's Pope Auditorium to hear Dr. Shoup speak. He's in New York to further his "no free parking" campaign, meet with BID leaders, city agency officials and the press. Shoup's theories are detailed in his 700-page opus, "The High Cost of Free Parking" (Chicago:
Planners Press, 2005).

Reported by Spencer Wilking for Streetsblog.
Photo: Stan Paul, UCLA School of Public Affairs.

| View | Upload your own

Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller's team at the Department of Transportation has been taking ideas offered up by Traffic Mitigation Commission members and running them through NYMTC's regional traffic model. Schaller's job is to help the Commission determine how effective each of these ideas will be in cutting traffic and reducing total vehicle miles traveled in New York City. To keep its $354.5 million federal transportation grant, the City must reduce VMT 6.3 percent using road pricing.

Schaller presented his findings at yesterday's Commission meeting. You can flip through his presentation above (though, I recommend clicking through to the Slideshare web site and viewing the larger version). Since the first and most important slide is too small to read, here is the list of the traffic reduction ideas that Schaller's team has been modeling either as alternatives, supplements or modifications to Mayor Bloomberg's original proposal (you'll note that Lew Fidler Tax'n'Tunnel plan didn't make the cut):

• Night delivery incentives
• Telecommuting incentives
• Increasing the cost of parking in the CBD
• Taxi stands
• Surcharge on taxi and livery fares
• East River Bridge tolls
• License plate rationing
• Required carpooling
• Creation of High-Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes
• Changing the northern boundary
• Charging to drive on the FDR and West Street
• Changing the hours / variable charges
• Changes to the toll credit policy
• Exempt hybrids.

Aside from Assembly member Richard Brodsky's continued treatment of the scrupulous, forthright Schaller as the quintessential evil government bureaucrat (Brodsky knows exactly how important it is to attack the credibility of the "Keeper of the 6.3%"), the highlight of yesterday's hearing, for me, was an exchange towards the end on government employee parking permits.

Brodsky was pressing Schaller for more detailed modeling of the VMT impact of reducing the number of government-issued parking placards when Teamsters president Gary LaBarbera, pictured right, cut in with strong objections. LaBarbera didn't want Schaller or anyone to do any additional modeling -- or talking -- about government-issued parking permits. I couldn't quite type fast enough to keep up with him, but this is pretty close to exactly what he said:

Parking permits are a form of compensation for teachers, firefighters and police officers. I don't believe in employees losing benefits or compensation. We've got to think seriously before we talk about taking away this benefit from one segment of our community; teachers, firefighters and police officers.

So, there you have it. Though you won't find it accounted for in any City budget, spelled out in any City employee contract, or fought over in any recent negotiation, union leadership believes government-issued parking permits are "a form of compensation." Now that LaBarbera's put it on the table, the City and the unions can finally begin to account for this "form of compensation" and talk about exactly how much of it New York City's hard-working civil servants are actually owed.

As usual, traffic was heavy on 125th Street outside the Alhambra Ballroom in central Harlem, Wednesday evening, where the Department of Transportation held its fourth of seven planned workshops to discuss parking strategies in neighborhoods bordering the City's proposed congestion pricing zone.

According to Bruce Schaller, Deputy Commissioner for Planning and Sustainability at the DOT, the workshops have two goals. First, DOT is listening to concerns residents have about the parking impacts of congestion pricing. Residents' are worried about "park and ride" commuters who currently drive into Manhattan's Central Business District, but with the advent of an $8 pricing fee might park just outside the pricing zone and take transit to their final destination.

Second, DOT is suggesting possible parking strategies -- "Just ideas," says Schaller -- for addressing those impacts and gauging community reaction to them. Schaller emphasizes that DOT wants to get residents of potentially affected communities involved as early as possible.

The Harlem workshop, much more sparsely attended than the one in Park Slope, Brooklyn the night before, drew about thirty neighborhood residents and representatives of numerous local organizations. It was heavily staffed by DOT and its outreach consultant, Howard Stein Hudson. Though Harlem has among the lowest car-ownership rates in the nation, only 20 percent of households have a vehicle, all but a handful of the residents in attendance were car owners and frequent drivers. One contrarian, a long-time local, showed up on a beat-up bike sporting a weathered Transportation Alternatives sticker.

Participants and moderators gathered at three tables to discuss concerns and options. Many were adamant that a motoring lifestyle was the neighborhood norm. Said one woman, a low-income housing developer and trained city planner: "Everyone in my building owns a car."

Said another, also a professional planner: "Harlem has poor services and everyone needs a car to access better services." A friend added that 125^th street was a regional shopping and driving destination and more parking was badly needed. In a nod to Yogi Berra, she added "Harlem is a giant, crowded, shopping mall, but there is no parking, so no one comes here anymore."

Participants agreed that Harlem's streets are already a daily disaster of double parking, endless cruising, placard abuse, and unfair enforcement -- especially the wrath-provoking ticketing of double parked church goers and during street cleanings. They also cited concerns about asthma and air pollution and the need to reduce car-use (that is, car-use by outsiders and infidels). At one table, participants also acknowledged that parking on business streets should be treated differently than on residential streets.

DOT presented participants with two main options for addressing parking shortages: charging more for on-street parking in metered areas, and Residential Parking Permits in unmetered areas. Though participants complained about cruising for short-term parking on business streets, they recoiled at having to pay more at the meter even if it saved them time and improved their chance of finding a spot.

Residential parking permits drew widespread support, though exactly how they would work was controversial. "I like them, but DOT seems to be really pushing these RPPs." Said a long-time resident who said she saw RPP's work in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Most of the car owners liked the idea that RPP's were a chance to improve their chance of getting free parking, but didn't like the idea of paying much for them. Other, more tech-oriented ideas like smart parking meters, that can detect feed-the-meter types and alert police, and in-car GPS chips that can alert drivers to open spaces, were met with skepticism.

DOT's Schaller says that comments will be compiled after the initial round of meetings and incorporated into a larger study of parking trends. The study will help inform a second round of workshops in January at which alternatives will be introduced.

Additional reporting by Erik Shilling. Photo: in2jazz on Flickr

In an op/ed piece in Monday's Daily News, Brooklyn-based transportation consultant Brian Ketcham proposed some changes to Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan. Ketcham, who has been pushing for some form of congestion pricing since his time working for the Lindsay Administration more than 30 years ago, argues that New York City should:

• Put tolls on the free East River Bridges.
• Move the pricing zone's northern boundary down to 60th Street.
• Eliminate all free and long-term street parking and charge hefty garage rates at on-street meters inside the Central Business District.

It is not surprising to see the idea of East River bridge tolls popping up right now. Prior to Mayor Bloomberg's Long-Term Sustainability announcement in April, virtually everyone who was doing serious thinking about New York City traffic reduction was focused on the 170,000+ vehicles traveling over the free East River bridges each day.

In July 2003, Ketcham and economist Charles Komanoff published, The Hours, a study that found that tolling the free East River Bridges would "do away with more than 9% of the idle time that motorists, truckers and bus riders now lose in traffic tie-ups throughout New York City" with significant congestion reductions in the outer boroughs, in particular.

Earlier that year, Komanoff also published "Who Will Really Pay," a study that found commuters who drive to work over the East River bridges earn, on average, $14,300/year more than those who don't drive to work over a free bridge (download it here).

A September 2003 Transportation Alternatives study of East River bridge tolls by Bruce Schaller made similar findings. Schaller also noted the difficult "political realities" of tolling the bridges.

In November of 2003, Jeff Zupan and Alexis Perrotta at the Regional Plan Association published a study that tested four different congestion pricing scenarios, all of which included some form of East River bridge tolls (download it here). One of their models found, "At the East River bridges traffic would drop by about 25 percent, likely leading to the virtual elimination of congestion at those crossings," as well as "relief on local streets" and "less traffic on the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway."

With all of that in mind, here is Ketcham's Daily News editorial, re-printed in full:

Congestion pricing is a terrific and necessary idea, and Mayor Bloomberg deserves great credit for reenergizing the concept. But to have a real chance to work, his plan must be rejiggered - now. It must be simplified in its design and coordinated with proposed fare hikes.

The basics are clear. Across the city, people are fed up with traffic. And they don't want to pay more for transit until it gets better. That's why we should immediately halt the MTA fare and toll hike process so we can determine whether a simpler congestion charging plan could net a reliable $500 million a year for fares and capital improvements.

But that's just the necessary first step to purchase the goodwill of the public. At the same time, Mayor Bloomberg should roll out a much simpler traffic control system that really makes sense to all New Yorkers. The plan that's currently on the table prescribes a needlessly complex infrastructure and demands costly administration and enforcement.

Here's how to fix it. First, ditch the elaborate detection grid. For his three-year trial, the mayor has proposed building a full-scale network with 340 charging stations on Manhattan streets south of 86th St. A grid of E-ZPass sensors and cameras would track and charge cars $8 and trucks $21 to drive into the core of Manhattan during the business day. Trips that begin and end in the charging zone would pay $4 a day. Taxis and through-traffic, which are a large part of the traffic, would be exempt from charges, as would residents moving their cars on street-cleaning days.

Charging cars and trucks to get into the central business district makes perfect sense - but the rest of this scheme would be a logistical nightmare. All trips would be screened and photographed, some many times, and payments and locations recorded, producing a database of great concern to the American Civil Liberties Union - but adding little revenue.

The complication, controversy and confusion are not worth the costs - which would be around $169 million more than the federal government has allotted to install the new technology.

There's an easy alternative that would actually work. New York should capitalize on its bridge and tunnel portals to Manhattan. Close the loophole of the four untolled East River bridges in Brooklyn and Queens - which right now are the source of nearly half the free entries into Manhattan. Install overhead charging monitors on the six inbound bridge spans and set the congestion fee on them so there is no difference with MTA tolls.

Drivers would then no longer clog local streets to find cheaper routes. Research shows that tolls on the four bridges will cut congestion citywide by 9%, which is more than the mayor's 6.4% traffic reduction goal in his Manhattan target zone.

The bigger challenge is how to charge the more than half of drivers who now enter the central business district free from north of 60th St. This traditional northern boundary of midtown provides an elegant line in the sand - and an ideal site to test charging on Manhattan streets. Tolls would be collected only once on the two highways and on the 11 southbound avenues that cross 60th St. These 19 total stations would cost $7 million to install - well within the $10.4 million in federal funds allotted for the pilot. The low operating cost would leave $500 million a year for public transit improvements.

Supporters of the mayor's plan might have one reasonable objection to this idea: How can we also discourage people from driving within the central business district? The answer: Eliminate all free and long-term street parking and charge hefty garage rates at on-street meters.

New York needs congestion pricing. But to succeed, congestion pricing itself needs to be transformed into a more sensible version of the mayor's costly, headache-prone proposal.

Ketcham has more than 30 years of professional experience in traffic engineering. As a New York City official in the early '70s, he authored the nation's first transportation control plan to meet clean air standards.

It may not have been Mayor Bloomberg's intention when he proposed congestion pricing, but he has put reforming curbside parking policies front and center. Desperate for "alternatives" to pricing, opponents have borrowed proposals to hike curbside parking rates, and price free curb spaces. These parking reforms which would significantly reduce double-parking and traffic snarling cruising, are championed by Transportation Alternatives, and its former consultant Bruce Schaller, who is now a Deputy Commissioner at the city DOT.

Regardless of whether congestion pricing meets legislative approval in March, it has laid the groundwork for significant changes in city parking policy. The first hint came this week in a DOT press release announcing community parking workshops in neighborhoods on the edge of the congestion pricing zone. Says DOT:

The study areas, which display a range of parking-related conditions, were selected based on their representative characteristics and their ability to inform parking strategies that can be applied citywide…DOT (is working) to develop a toolbox of potential parking solutions that can be applied to neighborhoods citywide.

Traffic is a hot issue because of the mayor. But on-street parking reform has been percolating for a number of years thanks to Transportation Alternatives. The advocates at T.A. commissioned key studies by Schaller which revealed that 28 percent of Soho traffic and 45 percent of Park Slope traffic is made up entirely of motorists cruising for parking space.

T.A. also brought UCLA parking guru Don Shoup to New York City to meet with business leaders, police and DOT officials. Shoup's message that curbside parking prices should be based on occupancy targets -- typically 85 percent of curb spots filled -- was very well received. Despite being posed by some as an "alternative" to congestion pricing, ideally on-street parking reforms would work in concert with pricing, as they do in London, to reduce traffic and create more space for pedestrians, cyclists and buses. However, with or without road pricing, much needed changes in curbside parking are coming to New York City.

Thanks to Zupan, Transportation Alternatives and other critics, four fundamental problems with the Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free plan have emerged:

1. Any alternative plan which does not include some form of congestion pricing will forfeit $354.5 million in federal transportation aid -- much of which is dedicated to bus improvements in Brooklyn and Queens.

2. The plan does not address through traffic, which accounts for 39% of driving in the Manhattan CBD. Congestion pricing does.

3. The plan does not address -- and may worsen -- traffic diversions from paid river crossings to free East River and Harlem River bridges, which hurt neighborhoods including Downtown Brooklyn, LIC/Woodside, Harlem and the South Bronx. Congestion pricing directly addresses these traffic diversions.

4. Some of the traffic reducing measures in the plan -- value parking pricing, variable tolls and BRT, for example -- would be far more effective if used with congestion pricing, instead of as a substitute for it. Many of the measures are not "alternatives" to congestion pricing but complements.

Among other problems with the report, the Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free plan applies an "equity double standard":  It harshly criticizes congestion pricing for its pocketbook impact on middle class motorists while ignoring the impacts of value parking, variable tolling and $200 double parking tickets that the plan would impose on these same motorists.

Zupan sums up the "Alternatives" report:

While many of these measures are worthwhile, the report overstates both their traffic reduction impact and their revenue potential. Many of these estimates are speculative, and the costs and difficulties of implementation are largely unaddressed. More importantly, nearly all of these would be far more effective if implemented in combination with congestion pricing.

The full text of Zupan's comments appears after the jump.

Comments by Jeffrey M. Zupan, Senior Fellow for Transportation
October 15, 2007
on “Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion Mitigation in the Manhattan Central Business District (October 2007)”
by Keep New York Congestion Tax Free

This report argues for a set of 13 proposals that could reduce vehicles miles traveled and congestion by as much or more than PlaNYC’s proposed congestion pricing pilot program. While many of these measures are worthwhile, the report overstates both their traffic reduction impact and their revenue potential. Many of these estimates are speculative, and the costs and difficulties of implementation are largely unaddressed.  More importantly, nearly all of these would be far more effective if implemented in combination with congestion pricing. The following comments address the specific proposals in the report.

Meter 10,000 now free on-street spaces and charge double the current rate: The report estimates that this action would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 1.8 to 2.4 percent and increase revenues by $80 to $100 million per year. The report indicates that a 1995 study found that cruising for on-street parking accounts for 15 percent of VMT in west midtown during midday, and they extrapolate this to all day for all of the charging zone, an unsupported assumption. The revenue assumptions are equivalent to each parking space being used fully for 13 hours each weekday, which may be overly optimistic. They do not account for the added cost of meter installation, enforcement, and administration. Conclusion: Traffic impacts are conjectural and net revenue gains are likely to be too high.

Reforming placard use: The report indicates such reform could lead to reductions of “perhaps 2 to 3 percent” and add $50 to $60 million in revenues. They cite Bruce Schaller’s reports on the subject. There are three problems with their analysis. First, they rely on a hypothetical example by Schaller of a 14,000 reduction in cars driven by government employees, i.e. a “what if” not an estimate. But they also say that a review to identify which workers should receive (or keep) placards must be done. There is no certainty that the resulting review would eliminate 14,000 workers from the placard pool. Second, they assume that each worker travels 4 to 5 miles per day within the zone, which is much too high since most of the workers are destined for Lower Manhattan and the vast majority are likely to cross into the zone across the nearby East River, and if they do come from the north use the FDR Drive or West Street. Third, the report takes credit for added revenue as former placard users switch to on-street meters.  This assumption is flawed in two respects: a) it cannot assume that these workers would continue to drive and switch to on-street meters, as many may switch to public transit or off-street parking, and b) the added revenue has already been counted in the on-street meter proposal discussed above. Conclusion: Both the VMT reductions and revenue potential are likely to be much lower than estimated in the report and implementation will be difficult.  

Reduction in taxi cruising: This action is estimated to reduce VMT by “perhaps 2 to 3 percent.”  No revenue potential is assumed. They target a goal of 50 additional cab stands to accomplish this, but do not discuss locations or the difficulty in finding locations where it can make sense from a traffic impact perspective. The report states that cruising accounts for 13 percent of VMT and takes credit for reductions in cruising by 10 to 20 percent, not out of line IF you could install 50 cab stands. Conclusion: Ability to implement is unproven.

Higher taxi fares: A $3 surcharge for trips starting or ending in the zone is suggested, which is estimated to reduce VMT by 1.5 percent. The report points out that taxis are excluded from the current congestion pricing (CP) plan. No revenue gain is assumed for the City. In effect, this is a policy that could also be effectuated through congestion pricing by eliminating or reducing the taxi exemption. There is no discussion of the City’s argument that this could have negative economic impacts, or the political difficulty of getting it enacted. Conclusion: This measure, if included as part of the City’s congestion pricing plan, would increase the revenue potential to be directed toward public transit.

Higher and variable tolls on existing tolls facilities: The report’s proposal is estimated to reduce VMTs by 1.5 percent and bring in $195 million per year. The assumption about these tolls increase is that the added revenue is a substitute for the revenue achieved by the congestion pricing proposal. However, it tries to take credit for expected increases in PA and MTA tolls that have to be made in any case to cover rising operating, maintenance and debt service costs rather than the new money for state of good repair and system expansion that CP would generate. So the revenue cannot be counted as a replacement for congestion pricing revenue. It does raise the unanswered question of whether the CP charge will increase along with tolls.

This proposal also highlights the inequities and inefficiencies of the current system, flaws that congestion pricing would correct. The increase of tolls on current facilities while leaving other entry points free places the entire financial burden on only a portion of drivers entering the CBD. It will also exacerbate congestion in neighborhoods leading to the free crossings as drivers seek to avoid higher tolls. Variable tolls would also be far more effective when combined with congestion pricing. In fact, a study commissioned by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign in August found the largest time saving benefits would be realized if MTA instituted a value pricing program consistent with PlaNYC’s proposed congestion pricing plan. Conclusion: Periodic toll increases cannot be seen as a substitute for congestion pricing, and in the absence of it would be inequitable and lead to more traffic problems, especially in Brooklyn and Queens, not less. Variable pricing is an effective tool that should be implemented along with congestion pricing.

Two-way truck tolls on the VN Bridge are estimated to reduce VMT by 0.1 to 0.2 percent and add $10 million in revenue. These estimates are small and conjectural and the proposal, no matter how sound, will and has received tremendous resistance from Staten Island. Conclusion: This proposal, although a sound one is largely irrelevant as part of a substitute for the City’s Plan.

Increased fines from traffic enforcement are estimated to gain from $75 million to $150 million in revenue annually. At the proposed fine levels, this would require an average of 6,000 summonses a day. It would be useful to know how much of an increase in summonses that represents. The estimates are conjectural and the cost of issuing these summonses is not accounted for. If successful in reducing violations, which is not ensured, the revenues would diminish over time. One cannot take credit for both traffic gains and sustained revenue gains from enforcement measures. Conclusion: In the absence of more analysis, it appears that the revenue estimates are overstated and the enforcement costs understated.

Block the box ticketing is proposed and estimated to gain $15 or to $25 million in revenue based on 300 to 500 additional summonses daily. This is highly conjectural, but like other traffic enforcement measures that issue summonses, even should the program be successful in reducing block the box violations, the revenue gains would diminish over time. Conclusion: The revenue gains are likely to be overstated.

Black car enforcement measures, construction project regulations, traffic signal upgrades, and implementing 511 are proposed but all traffic gains are conjectural and revenue gains, if any, are modest. Conclusion: These measures are useful complements to the City’s CP plan, but traffic and revenue benefits are conjectural and modest.

Added bus and ferry services are assumed to attract 5,000 auto commuters, but this estimated is highly conjectural and unlikely; there will be no financial incentive for drivers to shift, as there is with the congestion pricing plan.  The shift is presented as hypothetical and none of the net added costs associated with these new services are accounted for. Conclusion: The traffic benefits are conjectural and the net revenues are likely to be exceeded by the costs to implement.

The Observer reported on Wednesday that Walter McCaffrey's Committee to Keep New York City Congestion Tax Free recently solicited UCLA parking policy guru Donald Shoup to do a study of curbside parking policy in New York. Carolyn Konheim, a Brooklyn-based transportation consultant and decades-long congestion pricing advocate, thinks that sounds like a great idea.

As DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller pointed out in his 2007 study, Free Parking, Congested Streets, "free or reimbursed parking is an inducement for the majority of motorists who choose to drive to the Manhattan Central Business District rather than use public transportation or other means of travel." Despite this fact, Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC 2030 has almost nothing to say on reforming parking policy. Konheim suggests that "we need to price both roads and parking." Perhaps this is something that congestion pricing advocates and opponents might actually be able to agree on.

Here is Konheim's commentary:

The Mayor should extend the offer to Shoup. The California- based consultant concluded years ago that pricing parking can be as effective as pricing roads. The high cost of Manhattan off-street parking proves the point. Bruce Schaller's finding that half the auto entries into the Manhattan Central Business District (CBD) park for free also proves the point.

London has demonstrated that we need to price both roads and parking. Seeing parking as the low hanging fruit, London started curbside pricing first. At an NYU forum on pricing this spring, London's First Deputy Mayor Nicky Gavron, congestion pricing ambassador extraordinaire, whispered away from the microphone: "I hate to be critical, but you've got parking all wrong -- you need to control it first. In London, you can't park for more than 20 minutes without a permit or you'll be clamped. If you can park, it costs 40 quid [~$80]."

Garage rates in central London run $65/day, $1,200 a month. London auto commuters have no local street parking option outside the central pricing zone because all 32 boroughs in the city limit non-resident curbside parking to two hours and deliveries and drop-offs to 20 minutes. In boroughs close to the center, a stay of two hours costs about $8. Spaces are designated in all boroughs for residents who pay a range of $180 to $250 a year for permits for one car and one visitor. Businesses can also get parking permits. Violators' tires are enthusiastically clamped by local wardens who collect fines of $300 or more for their boroughs, which use the revenues for improving roads and traffic calming. The borough of Westminster is developing an automated parking enforcement system. The borough in the center of London nets about $70 million a year in parking revenues.

New York is obviously way behind on parking management. In the core of Manhattan, there are ten times more off-street spaces than in London, and half the drivers into the CBD pay nothing for parking. Many New York neighborhoods are plagued with commuter parking, abuse of agency parking privileges and counterfeit parking permits. Meter feeding is the norm on New York retail streets, which in the boroughs typically adds up to a cost of $8 -- but is not regarded as prohibitive as the proposed $8 congestion fee.

Local civic leaders have expressed fears about the impacts on communities near subway stations that serve the pricing zone, which are not assuaged by Mayoral allusions to -- but no apparent action on -- residential parking permits. Any serious action on resident permits would reveal that they must be just one part of a comprehensive parking program that requires broad public appreciation that street space doesn't come free -- a heavy lift for champions of local parking "rights."

Mayor Bloomberg's bold pricing initiative creates an opportunity to start in Manhattan by properly pricing ALL parking within the pricing zone. The fee would deter free parkers (many on the City payroll). And parking permit fees equal to the $4/day that the Mayor proposes to charge residents for trips within the pricing zone could provide the equity he seeks by charging Manhattan drivers for intra-zone trips. Doing so would eliminate the need for the costly proposed charging network of thousands of charging stations.

As London Deputy Mayor Gavron asked: "Why would you want multiple cordons? We have enough trouble with one." A charging cordon across 60th Street and bridges and tunnels, even simpler than London's, would be far less costly and free up far more congestion revenues for better transit -- the real payoff for all New Yorkers.

Unless Mayor Bloomberg and Deputy Mayor Daniel Doctoroff are content to leave their legacy in the hands of Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority leader Joe Bruno, they should pursue three parking policy reforms that would, like congestion pricing, reduce traffic and generate millions for transportation and street improvements. Unlike congestion pricing, these reforms do not require the approval of the state legislature.

Most Manhattan-bound drivers (PDF file) drive out of choice, not necessity. A recent Schaller Consulting study uncovered the reason why: Most drivers do not pay for parking. As any transportation expert will tell you, the carrot of free parking is too irresistible for drivers to refuse, even when they have decent transit options.

Government workers have their coveted (and often counterfeit) placards, and all drivers have access to a bounty of free and $1.50 per hour spaces, even if they have to circle the block for 40 minutes to find one. Because under-priced spots along the curb are always full, cruising for parking accounts for up to 45 percent of all traffic on city streets.

Three steps, used in other big cities, would enable the mayor to redress root causes of traffic congestion while generating a windfall to fund street improvements:

• Increasing the price for metered parking to a level that frees up spaces and reduces cruising;
• Charging residents for permits that would give them preferences for parking on public streets;
• Cleaning up the rampant misuse and abuse of city issued parking permits.

Brodsky's report is -- big shocker -- "sharply critical" of the Mayor's traffic relief plan and suggests that "it would impose an unfair tax on lower- and middle-income drivers," according to the New York Times.

Prior to Brodsky's press conference, Mayor Bloomberg will be detailing the mass transit benefits of PlaNYC and "the need for Albany to act by July 16th to secure up to $500 million worth of federal funds to implement short-term mass transit improvements and to set up a pilot congestion pricing program." The Mayor will be appearing at the New York Building Congress forum, 1:00 pm, at the Ritz-Carlton Battery Park.

Bring it on, Simons.

Crain's New York reports that the earth is shaking below Dept. of Transportation headquarters at 40 Worth Street:

Janette Sadik-Khan, the city's new transportation commissioner, politely says she's building on the foundation left by her predecessors. In fact, she is shaking it. A month into her job, she's advancing ideas that the department has long rejected, from residential permit parking to banning cars from Central Park to the mayor's revolutionary congestion pricing plan.

Ms. Sadik-Khan knows she can't merely reform the Department of Transportation's policies. She has to change its very mind-set, because staffers have long seen their mission as moving as much traffic as they can, as fast as they can.

Overcoming such entrenched thinking is an immense task, as Ms. Sadik-Khan, 47, knows from experience. As a DOT staffer in 1991, she answered Mayor David Dinkins' call to reduce congestion by writing a plan for East River bridge tolls. The idea was predictably unpopular and died quickly. Ms. Sadik-Khan's abandoned report sits on a shelf in her unglamorous 10th-floor office at 40 Worth St., a reminder of what happens when policy meets politics.

After leaving city government, she worked as a senior vice president at engineering giant Parsons Brinckerhoff and before that as a transportation official in the Clinton administration.

This time, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has vowed to fight for congestion pricing regardless of the political cost, which is why Ms. Sadik-Khan is in the hot seat. "When I talked with the mayor about the possibility of joining the agency, I did talk to him about wanting to do congestion pricing, moving forward with bus rapid transit, taking a greener approach, looking at complete streets, a revitalized bike network," she says. "I very much see working toward a greater, greener New York as the new mission."

She speaks of redesigning the city's streets for pedestrians, bicyclists and buses. That's what Jon Orcutt from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Andy Wiley-Schwartz from the Project for Public Spaces and traffic consultant Bruce Schaller have advocated for years. The department had never listened, but Ms. Sadik-Khan not only heard them, she hired them.

At 40 Worth St., you can almost feel the foundation rumbling.

Janette Sadik-Khan: Four days.

Streetsblog: Left in the legislative session?

JSK: Yeah, well, maybe four days left, maybe more days. August in Albany. What can be better?

SB: (Laughing) So, let's start with something other than congestion pricing. How was your trip to Copenhagen to meet with Jan Gehl? Had you ever been before?

JSK: Never been.

SB: What did you think?

JSK: I thought it was spectacular. The experience of riding a bicycle in a city in which the car is not the priority was really inspiring. One piece that was a bit of a surprise was how well behaved people were in Copenhagen. I didn't see a single person break a single traffic law while I was there which is certainly a little different than the experience that we have here.

SB: I noticed the same thing when I was there last fall but every Copenhagener I asked insisted they were just as rude and unruly as New Yorkers.

JSK: Gehl went through the historic trajectory of how they've reclaimed public space bit by bit, one street at a time. Today, they've reached a tipping point where 36 percent of the people commuting to work are on bike and they're looking to get that mode share up to 40 percent.

The other thing that amazed me is that there are all of these bikes parked all over the place and it appears that none of them are locked. They all have these small black handcuffs on the rear wheel. You turn the key and this steel rod comes through and locks it up. How long do you think that would last on the streets of New York City? Ten minutes?

So, there are definite cultural elements that make Copenhagen Copenhagen and need to be adapted to work in New York. But the design of the streets and their approach to the streets are really interesting and I'm hoping to bring Gehl over at the end of next month to help us work on a pedestrian and public space strategy much like what he did for London.

SB: Would you have him work in a specific location or citywide?

JSK: We need to be able to show what can be done in all five boroughs with a variety of different techniques. But not everything needs to be a massive capital project. I'm looking to see what we can do on a shorter term basis to have some immediate impact in reclaiming streets and coming up with different designs for roadways and sidewalks.

SB: Are you looking at reclaiming on-street parking space for other uses?

JSK: That is something we're looking at. In fact, we're talking about removing a lane of parking on Broadway next to City Hall. Deputy Commissioner Michael Primeggia has been really great about looking for ways to reclaim street space. He's been helping me identify where these different places can be. The other question is once we reclaim it what do we do with it? You have to do it in a way that leaves a meaningful public space.

SB: So, let's talk about congestion pricing. There are a lot of negative signals coming out of Albany and Sheldon Silver. What's the status?

JSK: We're very hopeful. It's a heavy lift, certainly. The Mayor's working very hard and all of us are working very hard to see the legislation and authorization come through by Thursday, which is when the session ends. The Senate has been terrific. Bruno's been really good. The Assembly is open and we continue to do briefings. The governor has been very supportive, so that's a big help. We'll see what happens when the chips fall on Thursday.

SB: If congestion pricing doesn't pass do you have a Plan B? Are there traffic reduction measures that the city can implement if this plan falls through?

JSK: Everyone is shooting for Thursday but the promise of a special legislative session later this summer is still out there. So, Plan B is the special session. We are not giving up hope at all. We are fully committed. We need to get this legislation passed. It needs to pass now. It would be ridiculous to throw away hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds. That's our plan and when the plan passes we're looking to institute a series of immediate short term improvements before the switch is flipped on congestion pricing, including increased express bus service, ferry service and a variety of other initiatives. So, our emphasis is on making sure this congestion pricing program passes. On the transportation side, we don't think there's anything more important for the future of New York than getting this plan through.

SB: Is it a given at this point that no new "SMART" authority will be created and the MTA will administer the congestion pricing program?

JSK: That is still in negotiation. On the governance side I think that they are looking at a model that includes both the city and the state much along the lines of the Capital Program Review Board which handles the MTA's money. There are four votes on the CPRB: the City, the State, the Assembly and the Senate. Four people in a room. It takes a unanimous vote of the CPRB to pass the MTA's capital program. So, I think people are moving towards that kind of a governance model. But the negotiations continue.

SB: The City's proposed Bus Rapid Transit system will be dependent on camera-based enforcement of the bus lanes. Is the legislature going to give us the cameras? Is that sort of issue even on the radar in Albany right now?

JSK: It's definitely on the radar. It's part of our plan. We're hoping it is also addressed in the next four days. Keep those phone calls going to your legislators.

SB: The Hudson Yards rezoning on the west side of Manhattan requires developers to include over 20,000 new parking spaces. We recently did a story about this on the blog that generated a lot of response. People don't understand how these parking requirements fit with the Mayor's long-term sustainability and traffic reduction goals of PlaNYC.

JSK: In Copenhagen I was joined by City Planning Commissioner Amanda Burden. We spent a lot of time talking about the success of cities like Portland and Chicago that have revised their zoning codes with lower parking ratios and how that has led, in a lot of instances, to a renaissance for pedestrian space and transit without any apparent downside.

SB: Towards the end of his private consulting career, your new Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller put forward a study suggesting that pedestrianizing Prince Street in SoHo, say, on weekends, might be doable and even desirable. Can we expect to see you move on this type of project?

JSK: We're looking at all sorts of treatments to improve the streets of New York. Bruce being here is going to help us. A lot of people have interesting ideas. It will be exciting to have Jan Gehl here because he will help us identify some of the places where we can do urban acupuncture and specific interventions, much as he's done in other cities.

As important as it is to do these interventions, it is also important to ensure that we have policies and programs in place that will set the direction for the agency for years to come.

Is Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, a regressive tax, unfair to New York City's poor and working class?

That's what Westchester Assembly member Richard Brodsky and quite a few of the other critics claim. Before last week's public hearing before the state legislature Brodsky cited a study commissioned by City Hall showing the mayor's plan would increase the average speed of vehicles in Manhattan from 8 mph to 8.6 mph, and said to the Daily News, "Why is this worth a regressive tax on the middle class and a new invasion of privacy to go only six-tenths of a mile further in an hour?"

There are a lot of different ways to address the equity question and rebut the claim that congestion pricing is a regressive tax. Bruce Schaller did a nice job of it for Gotham Gazette. And the Drum Major Institute has made a strong case as well.

But the best case of all might be made simply by handing Richard Brodsky and his fellow State Assembly members Metrocards and loading them all up on the M14 crosstown bus, winner of last year's Pokey Award for its 3.9 mph average speed.

New York City's fare-paying bus riders account for nearly 2.3 million trips on the average weekday. As a group, they are among New York's most disadvantaged -- disproportionately women, seniors, children and the disabled. Even relatively well-off bus commuters with full-time jobs, have household incomes $10,000, on average, lower than car commuters (see chart above). While bus ridership is surging, bus speeds are plummeting. Some New York City buses travel slower than a walking pace.

When London Mayor Ken
Livingstone was mustering public support for congestion pricing, he made sure that the public and the critics knew that bus riders would be some of the biggest beneficiaries of his traffic reduction plan. Mayor Bloomberg ought to do the same.

How much will bus riders benefit? While six-tenths of a mile per hour speed increase may not sound like much to Brodsky, it adds up to nearly 14 million hours a year in time savings for bus riders, according to calculations by economist Charles Komanoff.

Applying the speed-up projected in the mayor's PlaNYC report -- ranging from 1 percent in Staten Island to 7.5 percent in Manhattan -- Komanoff estimates that once congestion pricing gets under way, bus riders annually will spend 3.2 million fewer hours waiting at bus stops and 10.7 million fewer hours stuck in bus crawl (Download Komanoff's detailed spreadsheet).

The mayor needs to develop specific constituencies that feel they will benefit directly from pricing. If the city's one million plus regular bus riders feel they have a stake in pricing, it would help create a reservoir of support outside of Manhattan. Most New Yorkers outside of Manhattan seem to perceive pricing's benefits as diffuse and its costs as very specific. This is why a proposal that costs nothing to 95 percent of the public is having political trouble.

When underdog Bill Clinton ran for president, his campaign kept itself focused with the slogan "It's the economy, stupid." Similarly, Mayor Bloomberg's slogan could be, "It's the bus riders, stu… um, Brodsky."

Photo: Birdfarm on Flickr

Following in the footsteps of Bruce Schaller and Jon Orcutt, Project for Public Spaces vice president and transportation program director Andy Wiley-Schwartz is heading over to 40 Worth Street where he will be reporting to Deputy Commissioner Schaller at DOT's new Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. There they will be working to implement the transportation and public space objectives set out in Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC.

Wiley-Schwartz starts at DOT on Monday. While there has been no official announcement of his hiring or his title, word has it Wiley-Schwartz will be working on new public space initiatives, which seems like a natural fit, given his experience at PPS. With DOT's recent focus on reclaiming under-utilized bits and pieces of street space as public plazas and with tremendous grassroots energy in places like Hell's Kitchen, SoHo, Gansevoort, Grand Army Plaza, Williamsburg and even the occasional, random on-street parking spot -- it seems like "public space initiatives" could be a pretty exciting job description at DOT right now.

Wiley-Schwartz has been a contributor here at Streetsblog. At PPS he specialized in working with Departments of Transportation and community groups all across the U.S. on downtown street enhancement, traffic calming and bicycle and pedestrian projects. He is a national lead in the Context Sensitive Solutions movement, an articulate advocate and just a really pleasant guy to work with. Here is an excerpt from his PPS bio:

He specializes in helping communities rebuild their neighborhoods and cities by leveraging transportation funding into the development of public spaces, including streets and other transportation facilities, in part by focusing on strategic partnerships and programming.

Andy's current projects include PPS's New Jersey Smart Choices program: an outreach, education and training program to help municipalities plan and make sustainable land use decisions in partnership with the New Jersey Department of Transportation. He is also working with the Times Square Alliance in New York City, the City of Elmira, NY to revitalize the area under and around a railroad viaduct downtown, and advising the City of Indianapolis on their plan to build a "Cultural Trail" through their central business district.

And, no, this is not an April Fool's prank. It's June, people.

Following the appointment of Bruce Schaller as Deputy Commissioner for Planning and Sustainability, Jon Orcutt is DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan's second high profile hire since taking over the agency. Stay tuned for one or two more big appointments.

Kate Slevin will be taking over as Tri-State Transportation Campaign's acting executive director. Here is the press release from TSTC:

After 13 years with the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Jon Orcutt is joining the staff of the New York City Dept. of Transportation to serve as senior policy advisor to new city transportation commissioner Janette Sadik- Khan.

The Tri-State Campaign's board of directors has appointed Kate Slevin as acting executive director.

Jon's new position is a testament to how far transportation reform themes have advanced in New York City and the metropolitan region. Mayor Michael Bloomberg's PlaNYC sustainability program for 2030 embraces congestion pricing for Manhattan south of 86th Street and a host of improvements to mass transit and the city's bicycling and walking environments. Congestion pricing to manage demand for metropolitan roadway travel was a founding principle of the Tri-State Campaign.

Jon has extensive experience as a transportation reform advocate in the New York region. He was executive director of Transportation Alternatives from 1989 to 1994, the Tri-State Campaign's associate director from 1994 to 2003 and executive director until June 8th, 2007. Last fall he served on the transportation advisory committee to Governor Spitzer's transition team.

"I've always had the highest regard for Commissioner Sadik-Khan's abilities, vision and drive and am excited to contribute to the transportation aspects of PlaNYC under her leadership," said Jon. "Meanwhile, I'm confident the Campaign will not miss a beat in Kate's capable hands."

Jon thanked the Campaign's present and past staff members for their tenacity and invaluable contributions to the organization's success, and the organization's directors and funders for the incredible education and innumerable opportunities that working at the Campaign provided him.

"Viewed from the perspective of 1994, today's public policy discussion of metropolitan transportation is almost unrecognizable. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign has played a strong role in changing the terms of discussion and the contents of many elements of policy. I think it's worth a case study in public advocacy success, and it's been a real privilege to have been involved," Jon said.