Congestion Panel Considers Shrinking Zone and Tolling Bridges

The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission wants to reduce the size of the proposed congestion pricing zone, replace cameras with higher parking fees, and possibly toll the East River bridges, according to a (subscription only) story by Erik Engquist in Crain’s New York Business today.

A few of the steps under consideration:

  • moving the northern boundary from 86th Street to 60th Street;
  • "drastically" reducing the number of cameras to cut administrative costs and "mollify civil libertarians";
  • retooling the toll offset proposed for New Jersey drivers;
  • tolling the East River bridges (over the objection of Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz).

The Daily News says the panel is also thinking about eliminating the $4 fee for trips within the congestion zone, and creating additional, smaller zones in downtown and Midtown.

This sentence really jumped out of Engquist’s article:

In place of cameras, much higher fees for on-street parking, and perhaps a new tax on garage parking, would be imposed to raise revenues and discourage driving in the central business district.

So, what does that mean? Is the Commission considering replacing congestion pricing (as defined by the federal government) in favor of more stringent and expensive parking policies? If so, will the feds still give New York City a $354.5 million grant for that?

For a refresher on the hows and whys of the original pricing proposal — which addresses many, if not all, of the commission’s concerns — see Streetsblog’s four-part interview series with PlaNYC architect Rohit Aggarwala.

In the meantime, here’s the Crain’s article in its entirety.

Traffic plan detour

Congestion panel may move boundary, make other changes to win support

BY ERIK ENGQUIST

The commission reviewing Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal is likely to overhaul it by moving the northern boundary from 86th Street to 60th Street and simplifying enforcement.

According to people involved in the process, members of the panel believe the changes are necessary because polls and hearings show that support for the plan is shaky and hinges on whether it would generate enough mass-transit funding.

"Because of the public hearings and the issues raised by the Assembly and others, a whole range of issues is being looked at," says Marc Shaw, chairman of the commission. "The overall desire is to find a way to reduce congestion and do it in a way that doesn’t have a negative impact on the economy."

The 17 commission members, appointed by city and state lawmakers, are expected to make other changes as well to increase revenues, make the fee scheme fairer to city drivers and ease privacy concerns.

The panel is awaiting projections on the impact of possible changes but appears certain to drastically reduce the hundreds of cameras proposed, many of which were to be used to track vehicles within the congestion zone. Shedding cameras would mollify civil libertarians and help slash administrative costs-initially projected to eat up 40% of revenues-to 25% or less, freeing up more money for transit projects. Better bus and subway service is essential to winning the approvals needed from the City Council and the state Legislature.

In place of cameras, much higher fees for on-street parking, and perhaps a new tax on garage parking, would be imposed to raise revenues and discourage driving in the central business district. A 60th Street boundary would eliminate the fee for drivers who stop short of midtown and ease fears that commuters would treat residential streets above 86th Street as park-and-rides.

The New Jersey problem

A thornier matter is how much to charge suburbanites who drive into the city, especially New Jersey residents, whose congestion fees would be entirely offset by their Hudson River tolls under the mayor’s plan. City lawmakers, whose support is crucial for any plan to be adopted next year, consider it unfair that revenues would come entirely from their constituents.

"Key issues for legislators will be [the amount of] revenues raised for the mass-transit budget, and equity," says Kathryn Wylde, who represents the City Council on the commission and is president of the Partnership for New York City. "They cannot swallow having some people pay a charge based on where they live, and other people, particularly non-New Yorkers, pay nothing."

But hitting toll payers with a congestion fee might discourage so many from driving that toll revenues would plunge for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates the Holland and Lincoln tunnels, and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which runs other tunnels and bridges. Both authorities rely on toll money to fund debt obligations.

"It’s an issue," says Mr. Shaw, a former first deputy mayor for Mr. Bloomberg.

City, Long Island fight looms

The question of whether to let Long Island commuters avoid congestion fees could spark a battle between their Republican senators and Democratic Assembly members from the city. Under the Bloomberg plan, these drivers’ Midtown Tunnel tolls would offset their $8 daily fee.

Indeed, each modification to the proposal will threaten its delicate balance.

"Changing the plan will mean revisiting all the concessions and considerations involved with the MTA and Port Authority in particular, but also the state Department of Transportation, the state of New Jersey and the jurisdictions of Long Island and Westchester," says Ms. Wylde. "It’s just not that simple."

For example, tolling the East River bridges would sabotage pricing’s political support in Brooklyn. "I will not support any aspect of congestion pricing if tolling of the bridges is in it," says Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz. "That’s off the table."

Nevertheless, Mr.Shaw says it "is something that’s being looked at."

State law requires the commission to finish its work by Jan. 31, so pressure will intensify in the coming weeks. "At some point, it has to be ‘Pencils down’ on the research," says commission member Andrew Darrell, regional director of advocacy group Environmental Defense. "And we’ll have to move forward with a plan."

  • Dan

    The 60th Street idea would be terrible for the CBD. It’s ironic that the people who have been the most vocal about a problem that doesn’t exist, people going to 87th street and heading in by train, will cause that very fictional scenario to be made real at 60th street. Because if you work on 57th street and the zone starts at 60th street it really WOULD be in your interest to drive around the upper portion of midtown. Argggh.

  • Jonathan

    I think the Kathryn Wilde comments are particularly insightful on how the CP proposal is a balancing act between the many agencies and jurisdictions involved. That was the original reason why I thought the plan would never be implemented: it would be too difficult to address every agency’s concerns in an equitable way.

  • Dan is 100% correct

  • Dan

    it would be too difficult to address every agency’s concerns in an equitable way.

    And some jurisdictions’ concerns are so thoroughly based on fears, misinformation, misunderstanding, selfishness and intransigence (Hello, Riverdale!) that they don’t deserve to be treated equitably. But that’s what politics is all about, I guess.

  • anonymous

    “will the feds still give New York City a $354.5 million grant for that?”

    Please, please just stop using that logic. It is one of the worst possible justifications for any project. Sure, in this case, the federal government’s interests are aligned with your pet project, but just think back to the 1950s, where the exact same phrase was used to argue for highways (which came with a 90% funding match from the federal government) over subways (which got the city no federal funding).

  • Dan

    The feds aren’t giving NYC money for new highways or urban renewal housing projects. They’re giving NYC money for new buses, ferries and a congestion pricing system that will, if all goes as planned, remove around 120,000 vehicles per day from city streets.

    So, I think it’s a pretty good question: Do the modifications currently being discussed by the Commission still qualify for the federal money?

  • Erik Engquist

    Using parking fees rather than congestion pricing to discourage car trips *within* the zone would not affect the feds’ $354.5 million promise. The fees for crossing into the congestion zone would remain. What you’d lose is hundreds of cameras designed to charge cars $4 each for trips originating within the zone and not leaving it. If the commission finds it will cost $3 in overhead to collect every $4 in fees, it’s going to find a cheaper way — i.e., parking fees. That is what my story said; the Daily News just repeated it and included a mention of the $4 intra-zone fee that would be eliminated.

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Bridge Toll Plan Headlines Congestion Commission Report

|
One of four options presented in the Traffic Mitigation Commission’s Interim Report. Download the report. When the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission meets today, it is expected to deliberate four proposed alternatives to Mayor Bloomberg’s original congestion pricing plan. While Chairman Marc Shaw writes that that the commission "may choose to modify," "combine elements" or "put […]

Are East River Bridge Tolls the Better Way to Go?

|
Writing for the Brooklyn Rail, Carolyn Konheim overviews the legacy of "Tammany-style" former Brooklyn Democratic leader Meade Esposito, and posits that the deceased "capo di tutti capi in New York politics" still exerts influence on city transportation policy. Konheim, who is a proponent of tolling the East River bridges, argues that Esposito’s record of protecting […]

Three Concrete Proposals for New York City Traffic Relief

|
This Morning’s Forum: Road Pricing Worked in London. Can It Work in New York? Three specific proposals to reduce New York City’s ever-increasing traffic congestion emerged from a highly anticipated Manhattan Institute forum this morning. One seeks variable prices on cars driving in to central Manhattan, with express toll lanes and higher parking fees to keep things […]

Brian Ketcham Proposes a “Simpler, Cheaper Traffic Fix”

|
Distribution of vehicles entering Manhattan CBD by direction and pricing status (Zupan & Perrotta, 2003). 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 […]

Pricing Advocates Call for Impact Study and New Parking Policies

|
Congestion pricing advocate Carolyn Konheim and consulting partner Brian Ketcham are advising the Bloomberg administration to drop its resistance to a congestion pricing Environmental Impact Study. The two say a study is needed to head off "likely 11th hour litigation" aimed at stopping the three-year pilot program from taking effect, a possibility Streetsblog alluded to […]

RPA Refutes Anti-Pricing “Alternatives” Study

|
On Wednesday, Jeffrey Zupan, Regional Plan Association’s transportation analyst, issued a comprehensive rebuttal of the main traffic reducing measures proposed in Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free’s anti-congestion pricing report, “Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion Mitigation in the Manhattan Central Business District." Thanks to Zupan, Transportation Alternatives and other critics, four fundamental problems with the Keep […]