Highlights of the “Equal Tolls, Unequal Access” Discussion

April Greene reports on Monday’s congestion pricing panel discussion at the New School:

"And now the last of the bald men will speak," said Jeffrey Risom, an urban designer at Gehl Architects of Denmark, as he took the podium at Monday night’s congestion pricing panel at the New School. Indeed, all four panelists did possess this common trait, but the diversity of their backgrounds — in academia, government, non-profits, economics, and private development — set them well apart despite that shall-we-say glaring similarity.

Leading off from the event’s title, Jean-Christophe Agnew, a professor of American Studies at Yale, spoke about congestion pricing’s roots in bridge-crossing and stall-renting tolls in early modern Europe. Jeffrey Zupan of the Regional Plan Association fast-forwarded to 20th century New York when Columbia professor and Nobel prize winner William Vickery and Mayors Lindsay, Dinkins, and Koch, as well as the RPA itself, all proposed different modes of congestion pricing (none of which came to pass). Zupan also highlighted some points in New York’s troubled transit history, among them the fact that, despite population growth in the millions during the last century, the extent of NYC’s subway system peaked in 1937.

Environmental economist and "re-founder" of Transportation Alternatives Charles Komanoff jumped in next with some of the theories behind the plans. Quoting pedicab luminary George Bliss, Komanoff pointed out that mobility and community should not be in conflict, "they should enhance and serve each other." Jeffrey Risom followed with examples of Copenhagen’s effective methods for reducing traffic congestion while bolstering quality of life: many use incentives for biking and walking rather than "punishments" for driving.

When the floor opened for questions, many in the full-house crowd of about 80 asked about the fairness of congestion pricing — wouldn’t it run poor drivers off the road while providing a smoother commute for the rich? Komanoff asserted that, for one, most people driving into Manhattan’s CBD have higher annual incomes than those who take public transit, so most people paying congestion fees wouldn’t be those who could least afford it. He also said that in existing congestion pricing systems, such as California’s State Route 91, it has been shown that most drivers choose to pay the fee for situational, not habitual, reasons (for example, taking a sick child to the hospital rather than just wanting to get to work faster every day). This tendency leads to less essential car trips as a group, rather than less wealthy drivers as a group, being cut from the equation.

Also discussed was the notion of reforming the car from its growing status as entitled emotional limb back to simply a method of transport. The panel agreed that the proclivity of old habits to die hard is one of congestion pricing’s toughest foes. Zupan iterated that the process will take patience and that people do grow to like new and better systems, but only when they can see them in action.

Talk shifted from the historical and theoretical to the immediate and practical: the what’s and how’s of congestion pricing for New York City. When asked how taking one in ten cars off the road would make any real difference to gridlock, Zupan responded that the relationship between the number of cars on the road and the amount of congestion is not necessarily linear. For example, he said, when there is a 10% reduction in volume of traffic, there can be up to a 30% gain in space for the remaining cars.

Other points raised included the fact that New York, unlike London, already has a way to track almost three-quarters of its drivers — through their E-Z Passes — and that adding a tracking element to the existing technology wouldn’t incur nearly the cost that creating and installing all-new tracking systems in the UK has. Therefore, New York City’s congestion pricing system might not have to start as high or be raised as much as London’s to make equivalent capital gains.

Komanoff outlined his four stopgap measures for the time between the implementation of congestion pricing (and the subsequent swell in numbers of transit riders that might result) and the completion of the Second Avenue subway and East Side Access: 1) drivers can stagger their trips to spread out rush hours, 2) while many subways are currently operating at capacity, MetroNorth and the LIRR are not; they could take more intra-city riders and help relieve subways, 3) there is unused subway track on many lines and being able to use it depends not on politics but on raising money, 4) potential for biking in the city is largely untapped; thinning car traffic would provide a great incentive for more to ride.

Reported by April Greene

  • a guy

    It seems like on spin off effect of the toll around lower Manhattan might be a realization that one can shop, and work in Queens and Brooklyn just as easily as one can in Manhattan. Much of the opposition to the congestion pricing plan seems to center around the fact that it will restrict access to Manhattan to outerboro residents (question whether traffic already has this effect?) but if Downtown Brooklyn, the South Bronx, and Central Queens had their own business districts, would this really be a big problem?

    The only thing that would be better for me than a shorter commute into Manhattan would be not having to go there at all.

  • fdr

    I have trouble squeezing onto the F train now, and will have more trouble if former Queens drivers get on it earlier than I do (or try to).
    Charlie’s stopgap measures aren’t going to help me and I don’t think his permanent solutions will either.

  • mf

    In exchange for bridge tools, drop the sales tax in the boroughs outside Manhattan by half a point.

  • Komanoff

    Hey fdr — According to my data (from NYMTC among other sources), your F train operates during rush hour at an average passenger loading rate of 0.88. That’s less than the 1.00 that NYC Transit aims for, but more than the 0.85 level that to me seems reasonably humane. Then again, these numbers may not reflect the reality of your commute.

    But please consider whether my “stopgap measures” are useless. Again, according to my data, the LIRR today has enough rush-hour capacity, mostly on its Main Line, to absorb 4,200 riders from the E & F trains combined … and the track capacity to handle enough additional trains to absorb another 4,200 E & F riders during that same peak hour.

    If those 8,400 LIRR seats are filled equally by E & F riders, the “Subway Crowding Index” on the F would drop to 0.66, from 0.88. Additional passengers due to congestion pricing would raise that somewhat, but not enormously — my calculations suggest to around 0.73. So your train would be less crowded than today.

    Sorry for throwing so many numbers around. I pulled them from a larger analysis that you’ll read about soon on Streetsblog.

  • Jonathan

    What’s a passenger loading rate, and what’s the NYC subway’s average during rush hour?

  • fdr

    Hey Charlie, go to Roosevelt Avenue or 21st Street in Queens or Roosevelt Island at 8am and try to take the Manhattan-bound F. Never mind whether the “loading rate” is “humane”. You literally can’t get on. As for Metro North, you are asking Queens commuters to choose the more expensive option to avoid squeezing onto already overcrowded trains. Some will, some won’t. All I’m saying is the system is already overloaded and can’t take even a relatively small increase.

  • Komanoff

    fdr — point taken, though I trust you saw my disclaimer. LIRR, not Metro-North, would off-load some E & F. I left out a key part of my premise: fare parity. More to come next week, I promise. The bottom line is: less crowding (0.73 vs. 0.88).

    Jonathan — my “passenger loading rate” is an awk renaming of MTA’s “V/C” (Volume/Capacity) ratio. SCI (Subway Crowding Index is a better term).

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Inom Tullarna: The Ancient Roots of Congestion Pricing

|
If you’re a New York City transportation policy geek but you’ve had enough of congestion pricing realpolitik and can’t bear to sit through another Kathy Wylde vs. Walter McCaffrey slugfest, Monday evening’s New School panel may be just the ticket. Equal Tolls, Unequal Access? Congestion Pricing and Its Historical Antecedents brings together an unusual group […]

Refresher: What is Congestion Pricing?

|
There seems to be some confusion by both friends and foes of congestion pricing as to what it actually is. "Congestion pricing" is a term of art that refers to congestion tolls, road pricing or road tolling or other road user fees. It is a concept distinct from charging for parking. The foremost expert on […]

Panel: What’s Driving Congestion Pricing? A Discussion with the Experts

|
Democratic Leadership for the 21st Century, in conjunction with NYU’s Robert F. Wagner School of Public Service, present a discussion about an issue affecting all New Yorkers. The panel will include: Kathryn Wylde, President and CEO, Partnership for New York City John Liu, City Councilman (D-Queens) and Chairman, City Council Transportation Committee Walter McCaffrey, former […]

Will Richard Ravitch Resurrect Congestion Pricing?

|
Marc Shaw, former chair of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, caused something of a stir in the local press on Friday, when he predicted that congestion pricing would "rise again" as a proposal to toll East River bridges and a cordon across 60th street. Speaking at a panel discussion at the RPA’s Regional Assembly, Shaw […]

The Introduction of a New Order of Things

|
In his essay, "Valuing the Commons," Charles Komanoff discusses congestion pricing and carbon taxes and the difficulty in convincing people to pay for their negative externalities. Komanoff wrote it back in June and it’s on Grist this week: What, then, is standing in the way of congestion fees and a national carbon tax? The power […]

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 […]