Executive Summary
Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free proposes a cost-effective, efficient, fair and practical alternative plan that will address
the problems posed by congestion in New York City and exceed the guidelines imposed by the Urban Partnership
Agreement between the USDOT and New York City, New York State and the MTA. Key elements of this alternative
plan include:
• Value pricing for curbside parking in the Manhattan CBD. Sharply reducing the number of “free” on-street parking
spaces in commercial areas of Midtown and Lower Manhattan and increasing the price of on-street parking.
• Major reform of the City’s system for issuing parking placards to City employees, and for regulating their use, in
order to limit issuance of placards to those who need them for job-related purposes, end illegal parking by placard-
holders, and encourage public employees to use mass transit.
• Greatly expanding the number of taxi stands in the Manhattan CBD, along with other measures to reduce the time
cabbies spend cruising for passengers - a practice that by itself accounts for approximately 13 percent of all vehicle-
miles traveled (VMT) in the CBD.
• Implementing variable pricing on existing tolled crossings serving the CBD and restoring two-way truck tolls on
the Verrazano Bridge. Increasing MTA and Port Authority bridge and tunnel tolls, incorporating variations in
pricing by crossing and by time of day; and removing the existing incentive for trucks heading to New Jersey from
Long Island, Queens and Brooklyn to travel via the Manhattan CBD by restoring two-way tolls on the Verrazano
Bridge.
• Increasing fines for the types of parking violations that contribute most to congestion in the Manhattan CBD
(double-parking, parking in bus stops or loading/unloading zones, etc.), coupled with more aggressive enforcement and legislation that strengthens the City’s ability to enforce existing rules against “blocking the box.”
• Reducing congestion caused by “black cars” and non-yellow for-hire vehicles through a targeted campaign against
parking and other violations these for-hire vehicles contribute to congestion; and exploring the feasibility of
creating designated parking zones for these vehicles.
• Modernizing traffic signals in the Manhattan CBD, to enable NYCDOT to manage the flow of traffic more
effectively through “real-time” adjustments in signal timing.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 1
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
A look at the City’s congestion pricing plan highlights how it fails the test of equity, efficiency and economic viability:
• The City’s plan disproportionately hits the pockets of middle-class and working New Yorkers who live outside the
proposed congestion zone.
• The City’s plan shifts traffic and pollution to neighborhoods outside the congestion zone.
• The City’s plan requires and depends on massive spending on infrastructure (they claim $233.6 million; London
paid more for much less - $376 million).
• The City’s highly inefficient plan loses 39 percent of all revenues raised to its cost of operation.
• The City’s plan, if implemented, imposes substantial harm to New York City’s economy.
• Some $100 million annually in “compliance costs,” the value of time motorists and businesses will have to
spend paying congestion charges (or appealing fines for late payment, etc.).
• As much as $690 million overall reduction in economic activity in the City, a loss of as many as 8,700 jobs,
and tens of millions of dollars in lost State and City tax revenues.
• The City’s plan fails to efficiently use its existing value-pricing system (existing bridge and tunnel toll
infrastructure).
The primary flaw in the City’s congestion pricing plan is that it indiscriminately taxes all vehicles whether or not they
are a direct cause of congestion; it thus fails to focus on the root causes of congestion. These include:
• Unnecessary cruising by yellow-medallion cabs (accounts for 13% of total VMTs in the congestion zone).
• Undervaluing on-street parking (mid-day cruising for on-street parking accounted for 15% of all VMTs in West
Midtown; 28% of those driving in Soho are looking for parking).
• An out-of-control and permissive placard and permit system (86% of all cars with placards around City Hall parked
illegally; 88% of all cars with placards around Chinatown parked illegally).
• The 10,000 trucks that drive through Manhattan daily with no point of origin or destination in Manhattan.
• Undervaluing of parking and traffic fines and the lack of consistent, aggressive enforcement.
• Undervaluing of tunnel and bridge crossings during peak periods.
• The 30,000 “black cars” and other non-yellow for-hire vehicles that clog our streets in Midtown and Lower
Manhattan.
2 October 2007
I. Short- and Long-Term Options to Reduce Congestion and VMT
The Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free plan, unlike the city plan, focuses on the direct, root causes of congestion.
Options that reduce VMT, congestion or both (2008-2009)
• Value pricing for curbside parking in the Manhattan CBD.
• Reforming the issuance, use and enforcement of parking placards.
• Reducing cruising for fares by medallion cabs.
• Implementing variable pricing on existing tolled crossings serving the CBD and restoring two-way truck tolls on
the Verrazano Bridge.
• Increasing fines and more aggressive enforcement of existing parking and traffic rules (including “block the box”
legislation).
• Reducing congestion caused by black cars and non-yellow for hire vehicles.
• More effectively regulating the use of streets for construction projects.
• Modernizing traffic signal systems.
• Implementing 511 (A system to notify drivers of real time traffic conditions).
• Expanding express bus and ferry service.
Options for reducing congestion: beyond 2010
• Major transit system improvements.
• Bus Rapid Transit.
• Lower Manhattan bus depot.
• Incentives for off-peak delivery.
• Increased use of water transportation for movement of freight.
• Expanding the Lower Manhattan traffic management program to Midtown.
• Improving the distribution of information to motorists by state of the art technology.
• Encouraging greater use of bicycle transportation.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 3
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
Alternative approaches to reducing congestion:
Possible reductions in VMT
Possible reductions
in VMT, Manhattan
below 86th Street
Options for 2008-09
1) “Value-pricing” on-street parking 1.8 - 2.4%
2) Reduction in cabs cruising for fares 1.3 - 2.6%
3) Restructuring fares for cab rides in the 1.2 - 1.8%
CBD
4) Reform of the placard system 1.2 - 1.5%
5) Higher tolls/variable tolls 1.0 - 1.5%
6) Higher parking fines/more aggressive 0.6 - 0.9%
enforcement
7) Expanding express bus and ferry service 0.4 - 0.6%
8) Restoring two-way truck tolls on the 0.1 - 0.2%
Verrazano
SUBTOTAL 7.6 - 11.5%
Long-term options (2010 and beyond)
1) Major transit improvements 2.0 - 3.0%
TOTAL 9.6 - 14.5%
The report also notes additional options for reducing
congestion that also merit further consideration. These include:
• Allocating more curb space in the busiest
commercial areas for loading and unloading.
• Requiring adequate space for off-street loading
and unloading in all large new commercial
buildings in the Manhattan CBD.
• Requiring City agencies with offices in the
Manhattan CBD to develop plans to facilitate
telecommuting and creating incentives for private
companies to do the same.
• Developing additional park-and-ride capacity
outside the Manhattan CBD, and maintaining or
replacing existing facilities in areas that are being
redeveloped (such as Flushing).
• Raising the monthly cap on transit subsidies that
employers are allowed to provide as a tax-free
employee benefit.
• Exploring the feasibility of using double-decker buses in place of articulated buses, which take up more street space.
• Introducing MTA Minivans to cover routes where full bus service is not viable.
II. Revenue Potential from Alternative Approaches to Congestion Mitigation
While the primary purpose of the alternatives outlined above is to reduce congestion (and to meet or exceed the goal of
a 6.3 percent reduction in vehicle-miles traveled within the proposed zone), several of them would also raise revenue.
Like the net operating revenues from the proposed congestion pricing system, these funds could be used to help finance
needed improvements in mass transit and other transportation systems, and to fund other congestion mitigation
measures.
4 October 2007
Alternative approaches to reducing
congestion
Implement variable pricing on existing tolls
Value pricing for curbside parking
Reform of the placard system
Higher parking fines/more aggressive enforcement
“Block-the-box” legislation and enforcement
Verrazano two-way truck tolls
Stricter regulation of the use of street space by construction contractors
TOTAL
Revenue measures Revenue potential
$2 increase at MTA and Port Authority tunnels ($1 $195 million
increase off-hours), and a $1 increase at Triborough and
George Washington Bridges, and a $0.50 increase at
Henry Hudson Bridge
Metering 10,000 currently-free on-street spaces and $80 - 100 million
increasing charges by an average of 100%
Increase in on-street parking and parking charges $50 - 60 million
Increased fines for illegal parking $75 - 150 million
Issuing 300 to 500 additional tickets per weekday at $200 $15-25 million
per ticket
Recapture avoided tolls $10 million
Increased revenue from fines for violating permit $3 - 5 million
conditions (and increases in some fees)
$428 - 545 million
The estimates presented in the table above are not intended as a definitive statement of the revenues that could be
generated from alternative approaches to reducing congestion; they are intended rather to illustrate a range of possible
revenue impacts. In some cases, more aggressive congestion mitigation measures could generate more revenue - if, for
example, curbside parking were priced high enough to eliminate, rather than reduce, cruising for parking in the CBD.
And while further refinement of these alternatives will allow us to develop more precise revenue estimates, it is already
clear that these alternatives could potentially generate revenues approaching or even exceeding those projected for the
City’s plan.
The alternatives presented here could exceed the 6.3 percent VMT reduction target set by the Legislature and by the
U.S. Department of Transportation; and they could do so without the need for massive spending on infrastructure.
• This plan, unlike the city plan, targets the specific root causes of congestion.
• This plan, unlike the city plan, minimizes any potential cost to the city economy.
• This plan, unlike the city plan, reduces congestion and pollution rather than shifting these problems elsewhere in
the city.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 5
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
• This plan, unlike the city plan, employs targeted value pricing rather than an indiscriminate congestion tax.
• This plan, unlike the city plan, imposes no new value pricing infrastructure and also uses the existing bridge and
tunnel infrastructure.
• This plan, unlike the city plan, provides additional funding for mass transit without wasting money on the massive
capital and annual operating costs of the city congestion pricing system. [See chart above]
• This plan, unlike the city plan, uses technology to strategically target congestion.
• This plan, unlike the city plan, employs no highly intrusive system of cameras that attacks the privacy of New
Yorkers.
• This plan, unlike the city plan, recognizes how congestion results not solely from the number of vehicles on the
road, but also from a lack of traffic management and planning.
• This plan, unlike the city plan, requires no environmental impact statement.
The question remains: why consider a controversial, regressive, exorbitant and complex congestion pricing
scheme in the face of better alternatives? The alternatives outlined above and detailed in this report will
more effectively meet the need to alleviate congestion - and will do so at a lower cost.
6 October 2007
Contents
I. Introduction 11
II. Options that reduce VMT, congestion or both (2008-09) 17
III. Options for reducing congestion: beyond 2010 27
IV. Other possible initiatives 33
V. Conclusion 35
References 37
OYoApril 22, 2007, in an Earth Day Address, New r
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion
Mitigation in the Manhattan Central Business District
Introduction
k City Mayor Michael Bloomberg proposed
that the City establish a new system of congestion
pricing that would apply to most private vehicles
traveling below 86th Street in Manhattan on weekdays
between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM. By encouraging people who
travel into the central business district (CBD) to shift from
private autos to some form of mass transit (or to travel at other
times), the Mayor argued that the proposed system would
significantly reduce traffic congestion in the CBD. Moreover,
the City estimates that it would generate several hundred
million dollars annually that could be used to fund needed
improvements in mass transit.
The Mayor’s proposal, and the arguments for its adoption
that he has so cogently and forcefully presented, have served
a valuable purpose. They have called attention to the problem
of traffic congestion and sparked widespread public discussion
about how it might be addressed most effectively. And they
have helped highlight the need for increased investment in the
City’s and the region’s transit systems - and the need to find
the revenues required to finance that investment.
That the Mayor was right to raise these issues is evident from
the speed with which a consensus seems to have been reached
about the need to confront them. Even the most vocal critics of
the Mayor’s proposal have agreed that the City needs to take
action to reduce congestion and to generate more revenues for
transit. The debate has for the most part been about how to do
so most effectively.
This report - prepared by Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free,
a coalition of groups that has opposed the City’s congestion
pricing plan - presents a series of alternatives that we believe
would be more effective in reducing traffic congestion than the
Mayor’s plan, and could do so at lower cost. And while the
report’s primary focus is on reducing congestion rather than
financing mass transit, the anti-congestion measures described
in the report would also generate hundreds of millions of
dollars annually in new revenues that could be used to fund investments in transit.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 11
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
The debate on congestion pricing
Under the City’s plan, most private autos entering or leaving
the congestion pricing zone between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM
on weekdays would be charged $8.00; those traveling solely
within the zone would be charged $4.00. Trucks entering
or leaving the zone during the same hours would be charged
$21.00; those traveling only within the zone would be charged
$5.50. Vehicles traveling only on the West Side Highway or
the FDR Drive would be exempt from the charge; and those
paying tolls to enter the zone via MTA or Port Authority
tunnels would have the amount paid in tolls credited against
the congestion charge.
Several types of vehicles would be completely exempted from
the charge - medallion taxis, some types of for-hire vehicles,
and (as a result of a subsequent agreement between the City
and the federal government) vehicles owned or operated by foreign governments and international organizations.
The City has estimated the initial set-up costs of the proposed
system at approximately $240 million. In its first few years
of operation, the City estimates that it would generate about
$620 million annually in congestion-charge revenues; after covering an estimated $240 million in annual administrative and operating costs, the system would yield about $380 million each year to support improvements in mass transit.
Opponents of the City’s proposal raised a number of objections, arguing that:
• Advocates of congestion pricing had seriously overstated
the costs that traffic congestion imposes on New York
City’s economy.
• The proposed charge would be inequitable, constituting
in effect an unfair tax on people and businesses in Upper
Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten
Island who need to drive into the CBD. New Yorkers
of modest means, who could least afford the added cost,
would be among those hit hardest.
• As a result of the additional costs imposed on people
living, working, doing business in or visiting New York
City, the congestion charging system would have a
significant adverse impact on the City’s economy, leading
to a loss of 7,700 to 8,700 jobs.
• The reductions in CBD congestion promised by advocates
of congestion pricing would be achieved in part by shifting
traffic (and pollution) to other, already-congested areas
(such as the Cross-Bronx Expressway).
• Advocates’ claims about the “success” of London’s
congestion charging system (on which the Mayor’s
proposal was modeled) were highly misleading. London’s
system is costly and inefficient. Local residents and
business organizations have been sharply critical and most
of the initial gains in mobility reported during the first
year of implementation have since evaporated.
• With at least 39 percent of all revenues ($3.12 out of
every $8.00 charge) going to cover administrative costs, the proposed congestion pricing system would be a
particularly inefficient way to raise the revenues needed to finance mass transit improvements. Data on the cost of London’s system, moreover, suggest that the City may be underestimating the costs involved in implementing and operating the proposed system - and thus may be overstating the net revenues it will generate.
• There are other options available (both for alleviating
congestion and raising revenues for transit) that would be less costly, more efficient and equitable, and less damaging to New York ’s economy.
Acknowledging that many serious questions about the
proposed system remained unanswered, the New York State
Legislature declined to approve legislation authorizing the
City to create and operate a congestion pricing system. Instead,
the Legislature in July 2007, created a seventeen-member New
York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. The
Commission was charged with assessing the congestion pricing
plan proposed by the City, as well as alternative approaches to
reducing congestion. The statute specifies that any alternative
approach recommended by the Commission must match or
exceed the 6.3 percent reduction in vehicle-miles traveled
(VMT) that the City claims its proposed congestion pricing
system would achieve below 86th Street in Manhattan.
In August, the U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)
announced a conditional award of $354 million to New York
under the Department’s Urban Partnership program, primarily
for improvements in bus service that are intended to provide
an alternative to driving into or within the Manhattan CBD.
The award is predicated on legislative approval - no later than
March 31, 2008 - of either the Mayor’s congestion pricing
proposal, or an alternative that is approved by USDOT and
that also reduces VMT in the proposed pricing zone by at least
6.3 percent.
Alternatives to the City’s proposal
Advocates for the congestion pricing system proposed by the City have argued that there is no realistic alternative that
can produce either the reductions in traffic congestion or the increased revenues for transit that the City’s proposed system would offer. But even a preliminary review of the available
alternatives clearly shows that this is not the case. There are many realistic, readily-available approaches to achieving either of these objectives that the Commission, the City Council
and the Legislature should consider before they think about approving a system as costly and as fraught with serious
problems as that proposed by the Mayor.
12 October 2007
Table 1: Alternative approaches to reducing
congestion: Possible reductions in VMT
Possible reductions
in VMT, Manhattan
below 86th Street
Options for 2008-09
1) “Value-pricing” on-street parking 1.8 - 2.4%
2) Reduction in cabs cruising for fares 1.3 - 2.6%
3) Restructuring fares for cab rides in the 1.2 - 1.8%
CBD
4) Reform of the placard system 1.2 - 1.5%
5) Higher tolls/variable tolls 1.0 - 1.5%
6) Higher parking fines/more aggressive 0.6 - 0.9%
enforcement
7) Expanding express bus and ferry service 0.4 - 0.6%
8) Restoring two-way truck tolls on the 0.1 - 0.2%
Verrazano
SUBTOTAL 7.6 - 11.5%
Long-term options (2010 and beyond)
1) Major transit improvements 2.0 - 3.0%
TOTAL 9.6 - 14.5%
In order to assist the Commission, the Council and Legislature
in assessing possible alternatives to the City’s plan, Keep
NYC Congestion Tax Free has begun to identify and evaluate
a menu of initiatives that would reduce both VMT and
congestion. This report offers a preliminary review of several of
these initiatives.
• Part II of the report focuses on thirteen initiatives that
could significantly reduce VMT, congestion or both - while in several cases also providing revenues that could be used to reduce mass transit - and that could be implemented during 2008 or 2009;
• Part III discusses several other initiatives that could also
help reduce VMT, congestion or both, but would require additional time for planning and implementation.
In addition, the report includes a list of other congestion
mitigation measures that have been proposed during the course of the debate over congestion pricing, which also deserve
further study.
Although the review of alternatives described in this report is still preliminary, a number of important conclusions are already evident.
It is clearly possible to achieve a reduction of 6.3 percent or
more in VMT (and an even greater reduction in congestion)
without resorting to a complex, expensive, inefficient and
inequitable congestion pricing system. Several measures that
could help achieve this reduction are listed in Table 1, and
described in greater detail in the body of the report. Several
of these approaches use some form of pricing to reduce
congestion - but do so in ways that avoid the most glaring
problems associated with the City’s proposed congestion
pricing plan.
The figures on possible reductions in VMT presented in the
table are preliminary estimates, based on previous research
on traffic in New York City conducted by a variety of experts.
Further research and analysis will be needed to refine these
estimates; but there is clearly sufficient evidence to show that if
the City wants to reduce VMT in the Manhattan CBD by 6.3
percent, there are other (and better) ways to achieve that goal.
2) Reducing VMT should not be the primary measure of success.
Reduction in vehicle-miles traveled is not by itself an adequate criterion for assessing strategies for alleviating congestion in the CBD. Several of the measures described in this report
could be very effective in reducing congestion, even though they would have little or no effect on VMT.
We recognize that in the near term the Legislature’s charge to the Commission and the terms of the USDOT grant award effectively require that the Commission focus initially on
VMT. In the long run, however, it makes far more sense to focus on measures of congestion and overall traffic mobility. As Professor John Falcocchio, Director of Polytechnic University’s Transportation Research Institute, has suggested, the City’s goal should be to maximize overall mobility.
3) Focus more directly on specific sources of congestion in the CBD.
The City’s proposal implicitly assumes that congestion is
largely a product of the aggregate number of private cars
entering (or driving within) the CBD. With a few exceptions,
the Mayor’s plan does not focus directly on specific sources of
congestion - such as taxi and “black car” traffic, under-pricing
of on-street parking, abuse of parking placards issued to City
employees, double-parking or parking in loading zones, etc.
(Indeed, the City’s proposal specifically exempts taxis and for-
hire vehicles other than black cars from congestion pricing. The Mayor’s plan to accelerate conversion of New York ’s
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 13
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
medallion cabs to all hybrid vehicles over the next five years
rightly recognizes that taxis are a significant source of air
pollution and greenhouse gases - but his congestion pricing
plan ignores their even greater contribution to the problem of
congestion.)
To his credit, the Mayor has proposed a number of other
initiatives that would deal directly with specific sources of
congestion, such as enforcing more vigorously the prohibition
on “blocking the box,” which we also discuss in this report.
And he has proposed improvements in bus and ferry service
that would offer people who live in neighborhoods not now
well served by transit an alternative to driving into Manhattan.
Nevertheless, the City’s plan does not address some of the
most significant sources of congestion. Sam Schwartz, one
of New York ’s leading traffic experts (and a supporter of
congestion pricing) has called for the City to start addressing
these problems immediately. He specifically recommends that
the City focus on taxis, black cars, trucks making through
trips via the CBD and abuse of parking placards issued to City employees. Schwartz concludes that:
….we don’t need to wage an all-or-nothing battle on
congestion pricing to combat traffic. By targeting the four
major culprit vehicles that are the root cause of most traffic,
we can create a little breathing room on our streets.
In contrast, the alternatives to the City’s plan that are described in this report include several that would directly address specific sources of congestion; and there are no doubt other options that could do still more in this area.
4) Focus on those alternatives that produce the greatest benefit at the least cost - and that are clearly do-able.
While the alternatives presented in Part II of the report
embody a variety of approaches to reducing congestion
- value pricing, stricter enforcement, more effective use of
technology, improving transit alternatives - they have several characteristics in common.
• They would generally speaking cost much less to
implement (both initially and in terms of ongoing
operations) than the proposed congestion pricing plan.
• They generally would not impose significant new costs
on New York ’s economy. (Increased tunnel and bridge
tolls might be an exception - but the need to generate
additional revenue for mass transit probably makes higher
tolls inevitable in any case.)
• With few exceptions, they involve actions that the City,
the MTA, the Port Authority and other agencies are
already authorized to undertake.
• They are clearly do-able. Some - such as increasing tolls,
on-street parking charges or fines for illegal parking - are
clearly-defined actions for which “we know the drill.”
Others - such as modernizing traffic signals - represent an
extension or acceleration of initiatives already under way.
Additional analysis will be required to determine precisely
which combination of alternatives, in what order, will deliver
the greatest benefit at the least cost, and whether there might
be others that should also be included. But we believe the
thirteen initiatives suggested here represent a solid starting
point for the Commission’s, the Council ’s and the Legislature’s deliberations.
5) Proceed incrementally - and stay flexible.
Rather than relying on a single, capital-intensive,
technologically-complex - and ultimately inflexible - solution
to the problem, the alternatives presented here represent
an array of options that could be employed in different
combinations, with varying degrees of intensity, while the City
continues to monitor its progress in reducing congestion.
This incremental approach is more in tune with the reality that predictions about growth in population and traffic are uncertain at best. Various forms of mass transit have in recent years absorbed most of the growth in demand for travel into the CBD - and with planned improvements, they can continue to do so. Meanwhile, improvements in the management of traffic can be effected as needed, step by step.
Moving quickly to implement a more radical approach might
be justified if the volume of traffic in the CBD, and the
severity of congestion associated with it, were clearly getting
worse. But the City has not presented any evidence that this
is in fact the case. Indeed, data recently released by the New
York Metropolitan Transportation Commission (NYMTC)
show that in 2005 - even as the City’s economic recovery was
accelerating - the total number of autos, taxis and trucks
entering the Manhattan CBD on a typical fall weekday
declined by 2 percent.
A more cautious, incremental approach seems particularly
appropriate at a time when a variety of economic warning
signs are already visible. In his call for City agencies to tighten
their belts, Mayor Bloomberg has already acknowledged that
an economic slowdown - if not a more serious recession - is
likely to occur in 2008. History suggests that as New York ’s
economy slows down, the overall level of traffic in Manhattan
will decline. This could give the City some breathing room in
which to move ahead incrementally with less dramatic - but in
the long run, less costly and potentially more effective - ways
to manage congestion.
The City and the State should also keep in mind that several
of the New York industries that tend to get hit first in times
14 October 2007
of recession - such as retailing, restaurants, and Broadway
theaters - are among the industries that could be most
adversely affected by congestion pricing. The next eighteen
months could thus be a particularly inopportune time to be
treating the City’s traffic problems with a new form of shock
therapy.
6) Better ways to raise revenues
For some advocates of congestion pricing, the City’s proposal has always been more about “pricing” than about “congestion” - more a politically-palatable, media-friendly way to raise
more money for mass transit than a way to address the problem of congestion. But just as there are many ways to reduce congestion other than the proposed congestion pricing system, so are there more efficient ways to generate additional revenue to support improvements in mass transit.
For the past twenty-five years, New York has benefited greatly from the framework that was put in place in the early 1980’s to fund the turn-around of what had been a rapidly deteriorating subway, bus and commuter rail network - a combination
of farebox revenues, dedicated taxes, capital appropriations
from all levels of government and subsidies from motorists.
To sustain its transit system into the future, New York will
probably have to seek additional funding from all of these sources.
In opposing the City’s congestion pricing plan, Keep NYC
Congestion Tax Free is not suggesting that motorists be
exempted from having to bear a portion of the growing cost
of maintaining New York ’s and the region’s transit systems.
But we are suggesting that any initiatives aimed at raising
additional revenues for transit must do so as efficiently and as
equitably as possible.
Several of the options described in this report - higher and
variable bridge and tunnel tolls, higher charges for on-street
Table 2: Estimated annual revenues from selected
initiatives
Initiative Annual revenues
Higher/variable tolls $195 million
Value-pricing on-street parking $80 - 100 million
Placard reform $50 - 60 million
Higher fines/stronger enforcement $75 - 150 million
“Block-the-box” enforcement $15 - 25 million
Verrazano two-way truck tolls $10 million
Strict regulation of construction contractors’ $3 - 5 million
use of street space
TOTAL $428 - 545 million
parking in the CBD, reform of the placard system, higher
fines (and more aggressive enforcement) for parking and traffic violations - could produce substantial new revenues, which
could in part be dedicated to improving mass transit. And they could do so more efficiently and at significantly less risk to the City’s economy.
A summary of the alternatives
As noted above, this report explores two sets of options: those that would reduce vehicle-miles traveled, congestion or both and could be implemented by the end of 2009; and those that could achieve either of these objectives, but would require more time (2010 and beyond) for planning and implementation.
Each of the options is identified below and discussed in greater detail in the remainder of the report.
Options that reduce VMT, congestion or both (2008-09)
1. Sharply reducing the number of “free” on-street parking
spaces in commercial areas of Midtown and Lower
Manhattan and increasing the price of on-street parking.
2. A major reform of the City’s system for issuing parking
placards to City employees, and for regulating their use, in
order to limit issuance of placards to those who need them
for job-related purposes; end illegal parking by placard-
holders; and encourage public employees to use mass transit.
3. Greatly expanding the number of taxi stands in the
Manhattan CBD, in order to reduce the time cabbies spend cruising for passengers - a practice that by itself accounts for approximately 13 percent of all vehicle-miles traveled in the CBD.
4. Changing the existing structure of taxi fares, to provide
a significantly higher initial fare for trips originating or
ending in the Manhattan CBD on weekdays between 7:00
AM and 7:00 PM, in order to encourage greater use of
buses and subways (or walking) for relatively short trips.
5. An increase in MTA and Port Authority bridge and
tunnel tolls, incorporating variations in pricing by crossing and by time of day.
6. Restoration of two-way tolls for trucks on the Verrazano
Bridge to remove the existing incentive for trucks heading to New Jersey from Long Island, Queens and Brooklyn to travel via the Manhattan CBD.
7. Substantial increases in fines for the types of parking
violations that contribute most to congestion in the Manhattan CBD (double-parking, parking in bus stops or loading/unloading zones, etc.), coupled with more aggressive enforcement.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 15
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
8. Legislation that strengthens the City’s ability to enforce
existing rules against “blocking the box,” coupled with
more active enforcement.
9. A targeted campaign against parking and other
violations by “black cars” and limousines that contribute
to congestion and exploring the feasibility of creating
designated parking zones for these vehicles.
10. More strictly regulating construction contractors’ use of
street space for purposes such as storage of materials and
placement of equipment.
11. Modernizing traffic signals in the Manhattan CBD to
enable NYCDOT to manage the flow of traffic more
effectively through “real-time” adjustments in signal
timing.
12. Deployment of the “511” travel information system (as
currently planned by the New York State Department of
Transportation), which will improve the availability of
information on road conditions, congestion, construction,
traffic accidents, events that will affect traffic, etc.
13. Expansion of express bus and ferry services in
neighborhoods that are not now well-served by mass
transit.
Longer-term options (2010 and beyond)
1. Major improvements in transit capacity that are expected
to result in a significant reduction in vehicular traffic,
including the East Side Access project, the new Trans-
Hudson rail tunnel and the Second Avenue subway.
2. Expanding DOT’s planned “Bus Rapid Transit” (BRT)
pilot project on First and Second Avenues to other
corridors in the Manhattan CBD.
3. Establishment of a commuter bus station and lay-over
facility in Lower Manhattan, to reduce commuter bus
traffic during peak periods and on-street parking of buses
during the mid-day hours.
4. Providing incentives for businesses in the Manhattan
CBD to schedule deliveries during off-peak periods.
5. Expanding the use of water transportation for local and
regional movement of freight.
6. Expanding the Lower Manhattan traffic management
program to Midtown.
7. Deployment of new technologies that will further enhance
drivers’ access to information on traffic conditions and
suggested alternate routes - for example, the new system
that Nissan will be piloting in Beijing in 2008.
8. Encouraging greater use of bicycle transportation, by
constructing physically-separated bike lanes in key corridors, and by increasing the supply of bicycle parking in the Manhattan CBD.
Other possible initiatives
During the course of the debate on the Mayor’s congestion
pricing proposal, a variety of other measures have been
suggested that might help to reduce congestion in the
Manhattan CBD without incurring the costs that the City’s
proposed congestion pricing system would entail. Many of
these suggestions merit further analysis. We cite just a few of
them here:
• Creation of high-occupancy lanes, where feasible, on the
crossings serving the CBD.
• Requiring City agencies with offices in the Manhattan
CBD to develop plans to facilitate telecommuting and
creating incentives for private employers to do the same.
• Creating new park-and-ride facilities in the boroughs
outside Manhattan, while also protecting existing park-
and-ride locations from development pressures.
• Requiring all new commercial buildings in the Manhattan
CBD to provide adequate facilities for off-street loading and unloading.
Conclusion: There are better ways to reduce congestion
The alternatives presented here should not be seen as a
definitive set of recommendations for how best to reduce
congestion in the Manhattan CBD. More work is needed to
refine our preliminary estimates (or develop estimates, where
they are lacking) of the impact of various alternatives on VMT
and congestion and to determine the costs associated with
those alternatives.
Nevertheless, the information we have assembled here clearly demonstrates that (contrary to what supporters of the proposed congestion pricing plan have so frequently stated) there are real alternatives to the City’s plan - alternatives that are in many respects superior.
During the next several months, Keep NYC Congestion Tax
Free will continue to develop information and analyses to help
the public, the Mayor, the Commission, the City Council, the
Governor and the Legislature choose the course that is best for
New York.
16 October 2007
II. Options that reduce VMT, congestion or
both (2008-09)
1) Value-pricing on-street parking in the Manhattan
CBD
Research by some of the nation’s leading traffic experts has
found that free or low-cost on-street parking contributes to
urban traffic congestion in several ways. It encourages drivers
to cruise the streets looking for free or low-cost spaces. At the
same time, it reduces the rate of turnover, thus ensuring that
at any given time fewer spaces are available and encouraging
double parking. In New York City, a 1995 study found that
cruising for on-street parking accounted for 15 percent of
all vehicle-miles traveled in West Midtown during the mid-
day period; and the slow, stop-start nature of such cruising
means that it undoubtedly accounts for an even larger share
of congestion in the area. A survey of motorists conducted in
Soho in 2000 found that 28 percent were looking for a place to
park.
Despite enormous demand for parking in the Manhattan CBD, the majority of on-street spaces in the area (22,100 out of 29,000) are not metered. Moreover, the cost of metered on-
street parking is only a fraction of the typical cost of parking in a garage; one recent study found that the average charge for parking in a metered space in the CBD was $1.73, while charges for parking in a garage averaged $24.42.
Elimination of un-metered on-street parking in the busiest
commercial areas within the CBD, coupled with a significant
increase in on-street parking charges, would have a significant
impact on excess congestion in some parts of the CBD. It
is proposed that the City begin metering up to 10,000 on-
street spaces in which parking is now free and develop a more
rational pricing structure for on-street parking in the CBD.
Charges might vary locally within the CBD, but we assume
for purposes of this analysis that charges should on average be
doubled (with even higher increases in the busiest areas).
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
If cruising for a parking space accounts for 12 percent of
vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in the CBD at mid-day
(including traffic on the West Side Highway and the FDR), changes in the pricing and regulation of on-street parking
sufficient to reduce cruising by 15 to 20 percent could effect a reduction of approximately 1.8 to 2.4 percent of total VMT - a significant contribution toward achievement of the City’s goals for reducing congestion. (Further analysis will be required
to determine the fee levels and structure that will be most
effective in achieving reductions in this range.)
In addition to reducing cruising for parking, a sharp reduction
in the supply of free on-street parking, combined with an increase in the cost of metered parking, would also encourage some drivers to shift to mass transit. This would lead to a further reduction in total VMT within the CBD.
Because drivers who are searching for a parking spot tend to
slow the pace of traffic, the percentage reduction in congestion
that results from reduction in cruising is likely to be greater
than the reduction in VMT - perhaps on the order of 2.0 to 3.0 percent.
Revenue potential:
Metering 10,000 currently free on-street spaces and doubling the average charge would generate approximately $80 to $100 million annually in new revenues.
2) Reforming the issuance, use and enforcement of parking placards
For many years, placards have been issued to some City, State and federal employees that allow them to park on the street at no cost. In theory, most placards do not entitle these employees to park where it would otherwise be illegal. In practice,
however, placard-holders routinely park illegally, and those
who do so are almost never ticketed. A 2006 study conducted
for Transportation Alternatives found that in the area around
City Hall, 86 percent of all cars displaying placards were
parked illegally. In Chinatown, 88 percent of all parked cars with placards were parked illegally.
Problems caused by abuse of legitimately issued placards are aggravated by placards issued - with no apparent basis in law - by several public employee unions. Recent reports, moreover, suggest part of the problem is caused by the printing and sale of fake placards.
Abuse of the placard system contributes to congestion -
especially in Lower Manhattan - in several ways. It encourages
government employees who might otherwise use mass transit
to drive instead. Cars parked illegally in loading and unloading
zones force trucks to double-park. And parking by placard-
holders in metered spaces reduces the number of available
spaces, thus encouraging other drivers to cruise for parking.
Commenting on the traffic problems caused by abuse of placards, Former NYCDOT Deputy Commissioner Sam Schwartz says he has “not seen conditions this bad in 25 years.” Schwartz says that these “privileged parkers:”
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 17
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
….contribute about 8 percent of the traffic downtown, and
add far more than that through their “piggish” behavior of
blocking bus stops, bus lanes and even hydrants.
There may be legitimate reasons for the City to offer free
parking to some groups of employees, such as police officers,
firefighters and teachers. And there may be a legitimate need
for placards among those City employees whose jobs require
that they drive frequently within the City. But there is no valid
reason - for any class of employees - to treat the right to park
anywhere, any time with impunity as an entitlement of the job.
The City needs to undertake a thorough reform of the placard
system:
• Issuance should be limited to employees who have a clearly
documented, frequent need to use their own vehicles to
travel within the City on official business or to whom the
City is contractually obligated to provide free parking, and
for whom it is unable to provide off-street parking.
• Except in very limited, strictly defined circumstances,
drivers with placards should be entitled only to park
without charge in what are normally metered spaces. A
placard should not be a license to park in a loading zone,
at a bus stop, at a hydrant, on the sidewalk, etc.
• To break down the existing culture of entitlement and
non-enforcement that pervades the placard system,
the City should consider shifting responsibility for
enforcement to a new unit outside the Police Department.
• Enforcement agents should have access to a data base of
all currently valid placards, so that they can more easily
identify expired, unauthorized and fake placards. Illegally
parked cars with invalid placards should be towed.
• Repeated violations by holders of valid placards should
result in revocation.
• The City should consider coupling reform of the placard
system with incentives for employees to shift to mass
transit - for example, offering teachers either free parking
or free monthly Metrocards.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
In a report prepared in 2006 for Transportation Alternatives,
Bruce Schaller concluded that “If government workers
commuted by car at the same rate as FIRE [finance, insurance
and real estate] and professional workers, there would be
14,000 fewer cars coming into the CBD each day.” Assuming
that each of these cars travels an average of 4 to 5 miles per day
within the zone, such a decline in commuting by car would
translate into a reduction of approximately 1.2 to 1.5 percent in
total vehicle-miles traveled within the congestion pricing zone.
Map courtesy of the 2006 New York City Taxicab Fact Book by Schaller Consulting.
Moreover, because illegal parking contributes
disproportionately to congestion (especially in Lower
Manhattan) we estimate that the reduction in congestion
would be substantially greater - perhaps 2 to 3 percent.
Revenue potential:
Bruce Schaller has estimated that reducing by 14,000 the
number of cars driven into the CBD each day by government
employees would increase municipal parking revenues by
approximately $33 million (as the City begins to collect
revenues from metered spaces that had previously been
occupied at no charge by cars with placards). Because we are
also proposing an increase in on-street parking charges, we
estimate that increase in revenues resulting from reform of the
placard system could be as high as $50 to $60 million.
The City might also realize an increase in revenues from fines for parking violations.
3) Reduce cruising for fares by medallion cabs
Taxi service is closely tied to the Manhattan CBD.
• Bruce Schaller reports that 80 percent of all taxi trips
begin or end (or both) within the Manhattan CBD.
• Manhattan residents account for 71 percent of all taxi
trips in the City; residents of the other boroughs account
for only 10 percent. (Non-City residents account for the
18 October 2007
remainder.)
• Between 7 and 9 AM, people who are commuting to
work by taxi account for 61 percent of all taxi trips. As the
map on p. 18 shows, the overwhelming majority of those
who take taxis to work in New York City are Manhattan
residents.
Putting aside the important service taxis provide to business and leisure visitors to the City - and their role in providing access to the City’s airports - it is not an exaggeration to
say that the primary function of taxis in New York City is
to provide Manhattan residents with a substitute for private
automobiles. Manhattan residents use taxis the way that
residents of other boroughs use their own cars.
Taxis account for approximately 33 percent of all vehicle-miles traveled in the proposed congestion pricing zone. In some of
the most congested areas of Midtown, their share of VMT is at times significantly higher. According to data prepared by
Bruce Schaller for the TLC, cruising for passengers accounted for approximately 39 percent of all vehicle-miles traveled by
taxis in 2005 - a 15 percent increase since 2001 in VMT
spent in cruising. We can estimate that cruising accounts for
approximately 13 percent of total VMT in the congestion
pricing zone. (To put this figure in perspective - the total of
vehicle-miles traveled by taxis cruising for passengers is by
itself double the total reduction in VMT that the City claims it can achieve through congestion pricing).
Taxi drivers, passengers and the City as a whole could all benefit from reduced reliance on cruising as a means of connecting drivers with passengers. There are several means by which the City could accomplish this objective:
• Increase the number of cab stands in Midtown and
Lower Manhattan. Devoting more curb space to
clearly-visible cab stands would make getting a cab
easier and more predictable as well as reduce the need
for cruising. By the end of 2010, the City should aim to
create at least 50 additional active cab stands in Midtown
and Lower Manhattan. Cab stands could also be made
more attractive - for example, by providing shelters for
passengers.
• On a pilot basis, allow group rides from designated cab
stands at certain high-volume locations.
• Encourage informal ride-sharing through on-line services
such as Hitchsters.com and RideAmigos.com, which allow users to arrange taxi-sharing for daily trips to work, for airport trips, etc.
• Explore the use of wireless phone and GPS technology to
allow drivers to locate passengers looking for a cab.
Former City DOT Deputy Commissioner Sam Schwartz
has suggested that with 13,000 taxi medallions now in use,
the City has about 1,000 more than are needed to meet the
demand for taxi service. Beyond an optimum number of 12,000, Schwartz argues that having more cabs on the street simply generates more traffic and adds to congestion. He recommends that the City start buying out 100 medallion owners per year for the next ten years. While this approach would be expensive, the City should consider it as an option for the future, if the need to reduce congestion increases.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
The reduction of cruising by 10 to 20 percent would yield a
reduction of 1.3 to 2.6 percent in total VMT in the congestion
pricing zone. In the most congested areas of Midtown, the
reduction could be significantly higher. Moreover, because on-
street pick-up and drop-off of passengers is a significant source
of congestion, the percentage reduction in congestion could be
significantly greater than the reduction in VMT - perhaps 2.0
to 3.5 percent.
Revenue potential:
Installation of cab stand shelters could be franchised, as with
bus shelters and other “street furniture.” A major expansion of
taxi stands, however, would probably require some reduction
in the amount of curb space now devoted to metered parking
- and would thus entail some modest loss of parking revenues.
4) Restructuring taxi fares
As noted previously, taxis (according to data published by the Mayor’s office) account for approximately 33 percent of vehicle-
miles traveled in the proposed congestion pricing zone. In
some of the busiest parts of the CBD, they no doubt account
for an even greater share of traffic. Given their contribution
to the overall problem of congestion in the CBD, the fact
that among Manhattan residents taxis function in large part as a substitute for private cars, and the fact that most people who live or work in Manhattan have relatively easy access to mass transit, the City should not exclude taxis from its overall strategy for reducing congestion.
As it seeks to use pricing to manage private auto traffic, the
City should consider how it might use pricing to reduce the
use of taxis in the CBD during peak periods. One option, for
example, might be to impose a substantial surcharge - say,
$3.00 - on trips starting or ending in the Manhattan CBD
on weekdays between 7AM and 7PM. The goal of such an
increase would be to discourage the use of taxis for relatively
short trips (especially within the CBD) for which walking or
use of buses or subways offer a readily-available alternative.
This increase could be coupled with an adjustment in mileage
charges so that for longer trips (say, six miles or more) there
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 19
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
would effectively be no increase in the total fare.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
At current rates, a $3.00 surcharge, coupled with a reduction
from 40 to 30 cents for each additional fifth of a mile,
would increase the charge for a 1.2-mile taxi ride (about
average for Manhattan) from $4.50 to $7.00 - an increase
of approximately 56 percent. Research conducted by Bruce
Schaller in the 1990’s found that taxi fares had a “trip
elasticity” of 0.22. That is, a 10 percent increase in taxi fares
would reduce trips by 2.2 percent. (Conversely, a 10 percent
erosion in the real cost of the fare due to inflation would have
roughly the opposite effect - a 2.2 percent increase in taxi use.)
Based on this analysis, we can anticipate that if the average
price of the average-length CBD taxi trip increases by 50
percent, utilization will decline by 11 percent. If trips taken
between 7AM and 7PM account for two-thirds of taxi
vehicle-miles traveled, we can estimate (after discounting for
the percentage of time drivers spend cruising) that a $3.00
surcharge of the type described above would reduce total
VMT in the Manhattan CBD by approximately 1.5 percent.
Because taxis’ contribution to congestion is generally
disproportionate to their share of VMT, a 1.5 percent
reduction in taxi VMT should produce a larger reduction in
congestion - perhaps on the order of 2.0 to 2.5 percent.
Revenue potential:
There would be no direct revenue impact, although the MTA would see some increase in revenues from greater use of transit for short trips within the CBD.
5) Higher tolls with variable pricing
Among the various means available for reducing congestion
in the Manhattan CBD, higher tolls would not necessarily be
among Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free’s preferred options.
The number of vehicles entering the CBD is not by itself the
principle cause of congestion. In any case, as the recently
released NYMTC data for 2005 show, that number is not
increasing. In fact in 2005, the latest year for which data
are available, the number of autos, taxis and trucks entering
the CBD on a typical day declined by 2 percent. Given the
upward trend in fuel prices, that number could decline further,
even without any major intervention such as congestion
pricing.
Nevertheless, given the financial challenges confronting the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, significant increases
in MTA bridge and tunnel tolls - probably during 2008
- appear to be inevitable. While some motorists will respond
by shifting to the City’s toll-free bridges, experience suggests
others will choose not to drive - thus resulting in a reduction
in total VMT.
Although its financial position is stronger, it is likely that
the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey will also be
considering a toll increase during 2008 or 2009. Because there
are no toll-free alternatives available to those driving into the
CBD from the west side of the Hudson, a toll increase on the
Port Authority’s crossings would translate more directly into a
decline in VMT.
Thus, while the primary purpose of the expected increases
in tunnel and bridge tolls will be to raise revenues, they will
result in reductions in VMT that should be counted against
the 6.3 percent VMT reduction target defined in both the
recently-enacted legislation and New York ’s agreement with USDOT.
Experience in New York and elsewhere shows that the effectiveness of a toll increase as a means to reduce CBD congestion can be enhanced if the new toll incorporates one or more elements of variable pricing. There are two approaches that the MTA and the Port Authority might consider.
Geographic variations - charging higher tolls on the
crossings that feed traffic directly into the CBD (the Holland,
Lincoln, Queens-Midtown and Brooklyn-Battery Tunnels)
than on others (the Port Authority’s three Staten Island
bridges, the Whitestone Bridge, etc. This would have the dual
effect of encouraging people traveling to destinations in the
CBD to switch to other modes of transportation, and diverting
some of those who are “just passing through” the CBD to
other routes.
Time-of-day variations - charging higher tolls during the hours that are most congested. Detailed studies of the Port Authority’s variable tolls, which were introduced in 2001, show that the program was particularly effective in encouraging
drivers to shift their trips to the hours before the AM peak in order to avoid the higher toll.
The effects of a toll increase, in combination with variable
pricing, would in some respects be similar to those of the
City’s proposed congestion pricing system - encouraging
some drivers to switch to other modes of travel or to off-peak periods, and shifting some through traffic to routes outside the CBD. (This option also preserves the existing free crossings for those who choose to put up with a bit more congestion in order to avoid the toll.)
20 October 2007
It is critically important to note, however, that unlike the
proposed congestion pricing system, toll increases and variable
tolls on the existing tolled facilities can achieve these results
without having to spend $240 million in scarce City capital
funds on an elaborate new infrastructure; and at virtually no
additional operating cost, in contrast to the $240 million it
will cost to operate the City’s proposed congestion pricing
system.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Based on analyses of the impact of previous toll increases, we estimate that a $2.00 increase in the two-way cost of CBD bridge and tunnel tolls, while tolls on other crossings are
maintained at their current levels, would reduce vehicle-miles traveled in the CBD by approximately 1 to 1.5 percent.
Including a time-of-day variation would not have a major impact on VMT, but would shift private auto traffic out of peak periods. Based on the Port Authority’s experience with implementation of its variable pricing program in 2001, we estimate that charging $1.00 more for entry into the CBD via the QMT and the BBT could shift about 5 percent of all peak-
hour auto traffic to the pre- and post-peak periods.
Revenue potential:
Tolls can be adjusted to generate revenues needed to support
the MTA’s and the Port Authority’s operating and capital
needs, while at the same time shifting travel patterns in ways
that help alleviate congestion. We estimate, for example, that
a $2.00 increase in the two-way cost of entering and leaving
the CBD via the two MTA and two Port Authority tunnels
during peak and mid-day periods plus a one-dollar increase at
other times, a $1.00 increase on the Triborough and George
Washington Bridges, and a $0.50 increase on the Henry
Hudson Bridge would generate approximately $195 million in
additional revenues.
6) Two-way truck tolls on the Verrazano Bridge
The one-way toll on the Verrazano Bridge allows vehicles to move from Staten Island to Brooklyn at no charge but imposes a double toll on those traveling from Brooklyn to Staten
Island. For truckers driving from Brooklyn, Queens and Long
Island to New Jersey, this creates an incentive to avoid the toll
by driving into Manhattan via the toll-free East River bridges
(especially the Manhattan bridge), and then to New Jersey via
the Holland or Lincoln tunnel (which collect tolls only from
those driving eastbound, from New Jersey to New York).
A return to two-way truck tolls on the Verrazano would
eliminate the incentive for trucks to make west-bound through trips via Manhattan.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Sam Schwartz, a former deputy commissioner at the New
York City Department of Transportation, estimates that
trucks currently make approximately 10,000 through trips
each day via the CBD, with the one-way toll on the Verrazano accounting for a significant portion of this traffic. If we assume that restoration of two-way tolls on the Verrazano would cut that number by 2,500, we can estimate that total VMT in the CBD would decline by approximately 0.1 to 0.2 percent.
Revenue potential:
In addition to reducing the number of truck trips through
the Manhattan CBD, eliminating the one-way toll for trucks
on the Verrazano would generate additional revenue for
the MTA. We estimate that shifting 2,500 through trucks
each day from Manhattan to the Verrazano would generate
approximately $10 million annually in new MTA toll revenues.
7) Increased fines, more aggressive enforcement
Various types of illegal parking - double-parking, parking in
loading and unloading zones or at bus stops, violating posted
time limits, etc. - are a significant source of congestion in the
Manhattan CBD. Experience both in New York City and
elsewhere suggests that for many drivers, deciding to park
illegally is the product of a rough calculus: How much will
it cost me (in time and money) to park legally, what is the
probability of being ticketed (or towed) if I park illegally, and how much will I have to pay?
The City could alter that calculation - and thus reduce
the incentive to park illegally - through more intensive,
geographically-focused enforcement and by significantly
increasing fines for parking violations. The table below lists current fines (for Manhattan below 96th Street) and some possible increases.
Rather than apply the higher fines to all of Manhattan below 96th Street, the City might want to consider applying these increases only to the most congested commercial areas.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
The combination of higher fines and more aggressive
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 21
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
Table 3: Current fines and possible increased fines
for parking violations
Current fine Possible
increased fine
General no parking, exceeding time $65 $125
limit, expired meter, etc.
Double parking $115 $200
Parking in a loading/unloading $95 $250
zone
Parking in a bus stop, bus lane, taxi $115 $250
stand, etc.
enforcement could help reduce vehicle-miles traveled in the CBD. By increasing turnover in legal on-street parking spaces, it would reduce slightly the time drivers spend cruising for
parking. If the greater availability of legal parking were to result in a 5 percent reduction in cruising for parking spaces, it would reduce VMT by approximately 0.6 to 0.9 percent.
Higher fines and more aggressive enforcement, moreover, are
likely to have a much greater effect on excess traffic congestion
by removing impediments to the efficient flow of traffic in the
CBD.
Revenue potential:
We estimate that increasing fines for illegal parking as
described above would in the short term (depending on the
violations and the areas within the CBD included; and driver
response) increase revenues by $75 to $150 million annually.
In the long run, if this initiative is successful, revenues would
decline as the incidence of illegal parking in the CBD declines.
8) “Block-the-box” legislation and enforcement
“Blocking the box” has long been recognized as one of the
forms of driver behavior that contributes to congestion. Drivers who block the box are rarely penalized, however. The law now classifies blocking the box as a moving violation. As a result, only police officers and a small number of traffic enforcement agents are authorized to cite drivers for blocking an
intersection,, and they must write up the violation on the spot and issue a ticket directly to the driver - a time-consuming process that can slow traffic down even more.
A survey of 10 of Manhattan’s busiest intersections conducted
in 2006 by the Manhattan Borough President’s Office counted
a total of 3,044 vehicles blocking these intersections during a
nine-hour period - an average of 34 block-the-box violations per intersection per hour. None were ticketed.
In 2007, Mayor Bloomberg proposed legislation that would
allow all 2,800 traffic enforcement agents to issue tickets for
blocking an intersection by entering the offending vehicle’s
plate number into their hand-held devices, with the ticket then
being mailed to the owner (as is done now under the red-light
camera program). The Mayor also proposed that the fine for
blocking and intersection be increased from $90 to $115.
Consistent with our proposal for increasing fines for various forms of illegal parking that aggravate congestion, we propose that the fine instead be increased to $200.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
More effective enforcement of rules against “blocking the
box” is unlikely to have a significant impact on VMT. It
will, however, help to ease the flow of traffic and reduce
congestion. We have not yet quantified the impact of increased
enforcement of block-the-box rules on traffic congestion;
but given the frequency of violations, as documented by the
Borough President’s Office, the impact could be substantial.
Revenue potential:
Increasing the fine for blocking the box, coupled with more
active enforcement, will result in increased revenue from fines.
Issuing just 300 to 500 additional tickets per weekday at $200
per ticket would generate approximately $15 to $25 million in
additional revenue. (As with other proposals to increase fines
and intensify enforcement, however, it is important to note that
the primary goal is not to increase revenues - it is to change
drivers’ behavior in ways that help reduce congestion.)
9) Reducing congestion caused by “black cars”
There are now approximately 10,000 “black cars” licensed to operate in New York City, most of which serve Manhattan businesses. Black cars contribute to congestion in the
Manhattan CBD, not only because they represent a significant share of all vehicular traffic in the CBD, but also because of practices that impede the flow of traffic - double-parking,
parking in loading zones, etc. Stopping for “street hails” (a service that livery cars are not legally authorized to provide) can also slow traffic.
In the most congested areas of Midtown and Lower Manhattan, the City could consider a number of measures aimed at reducing congestion caused by black cars:
• A targeted campaign of enforcement against double-
parking and other parking violations - as well as illegal
22 October 2007
street hails - by livery cars;
• Exploring the feasibility of requiring that livery cars
waiting for passengers do so either off-street or in specially-designated on-street parking areas.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Due to the limited availability of data on traffic generated by for-hire vehicles, we have not yet developed an estimate of the impact on VMT and congestion.
Revenue potential:
The City could realize a modest increase in revenues from increased enforcement.
10) Regulating the use of streets for construction projects
In an area as densely-developed as the Manhattan CBD, staging construction projects can be a complex process. Allowing contractors to use portions of adjoining streets - for storage of materials and equipment, for placement of a lift or a construction trailer, etc. - is in many cases unavoidable.
Construction is essential to the City’s economy - but as a
consequence of this need to use the streets, a high level of
construction activity often translates into higher levels of
congestion. This may to some extent be inevitable. There
is nevertheless some evidence that the use of City streets
to support construction projects is not being managed as
efficiently as it could be.
The Department of Transportation currently charges as little
as $50 for three months’ use of a traffic lane. In a City where
it can cost $1,500 to park a single car for three months, a fee
of $50 to park a construction trailer in the street for the same
period seems absurdly low. Such under-pricing encourages
contractors to occupy street space beyond what is truly needed.
Recent press reports, moreover, suggest that contractors do not
always comply with conditions set out in their permits.
In the near term, the City should focus on ensuring
- especially with many large construction projects now under way or being planned - that contractors adhere to the terms and conditions of their permits.
Over time, the City should also consider increasing the fees
it charges for use of its streets by contractors, to better reflect
the value of the space and the duration of its use. Given the
already high cost of construction in New York, the City needs
to weigh carefully the trade-offs involved in seeking to reduce congestion by restricting (or significantly increasing the cost of ) contractors’ use of the streets.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Ensuring compliance with permit conditions (and possibly increasing fees as well) is not likely to have a significant impact on VMT. It could, however, have a significantly greater impact on congestion. Further research will be needed before we can estimate the impact of such changes on VMT.
Revenue potential:
To the extent that more rigorous enforcement of permit
conditions leads to more frequent fines, the City could realize
a modest increase in revenues. Higher fees for certain types of
permits - for example, for placement of construction trailers
on the street - could also generate additional revenue. Overall,
revenue increases might be on the order of $3 to $5 million
annually.
11) Modernizing traffic signal systems
Active management of traffic signal timing is an essential tool for managing congestion. The severity of congestion can vary greatly from place to place (and from street to street) within
the CBD, and from hour to hour within the day. By adjusting signal timing, traffic managers can, for example, slow the
movement of vehicles into a congested area, and speed the flow of traffic out of the area.
There are, however, two requirements for active management of traffic signals. First, the traffic lights themselves have to be equipped with advanced solid-state traffic controllers (ASTC’s), rather than old-fashioned electro-mechanical controls. Second, they need an on-line, real-time connection to a traffic management center, where traffic conditions are monitored and adjustments can be made as needed.
Moreover - as the City noted in its application for federal funding under the Urban Partnership Program - ASTC’s can also be used to time signal changes so that buses are given priority at busy intersections.
New York City DOT is currently in the midst of a long-
term program for converting all of its 12,000 signalized
intersections to ASTC’s and bringing them on line. As of
mid-2007, fewer than 2,000 of the 12,000 were equipped with
ASTC’s. Moreover, almost all of the new systems have to date
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 23
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
been installed in the boroughs other than Manhattan. As of
mid-2007, only 20 intersections in the Manhattan CBD were equipped with ASTC’s.
The City could significantly enhance its ability to manage congestion in the Manhattan CBD by accelerating the modernization of traffic signals at approximately 300
intersections.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Active management of signal timing will not by itself reduce vehicle-miles traveled in the Manhattan CBD, but it could have a significant impact on congestion.
By helping to make bus service quicker and more reliable,
use of ASTC’s to give priority to buses could help encourage
some people to shift from taxis or private autos for trips into or
within the CBD, and thus result in a slight reduction in VMT.
Revenue potential:
Traffic signal modernization would in itself generate no new revenue. To the extent that it helps induce a shift to buses, it might lead to a slight increase in MTA revenues.
12) Implementing 511
511 is a travel information service that delivers traffic, transit,
and weather information directly to a telephone (and, in
some cases, an electronic device, such as a mobile phone or
computer). The system had its origins in 1999, when USDOT,
with the support of 17 states and 32 transit agencies, petitioned
the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to
designate a nationwide three-digit telephone number for travel
information. In 2000, the FCC designated 511 as a national
traveler information number, while leaving state and local
agencies responsible for the implementation of the service.
Recognizing the need for a consistent approach to 511
planning and implementation, the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) in
2001 spearheaded creation of the National 511 Deployment
Coalition. Its goal is “the timely establishment of a national
511 traveler information service that is sustainable and provides
value to users.”
USDOT has provided federal funds to state and local
governments to plan for deployment of 511. As of September
2007, 511 is active in all or part of 29 states. Most other states
are moving toward implementation.
In July 2007, the New York State Department of
Transportation issued a Request for Proposals for service
providers to design, build, operate, host and maintain a
statewide 511 service. Proposals were submitted in August;
and DOT expects to select a contractor by late fall. The
contract will be for a three-year period, with the potential
for four additional six-month extensions. New York ’s service is expected to provide information on roadway conditions,
congestion, travel speeds and time, work zones, and both
planned events and unplanned incidents affecting traffic. There will be no charge to users of the system.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Deployment of 511 is not expected to have a significant impact
on total vehicle-miles traveled in the Manhattan CBD, but
it could help reduce congestion by encouraging drivers to
shift to less congested routes or off-peak periods. In a survey
conducted in South Florida after the system was deployed,
97 percent of all respondents said that they had changed
their travel behavior at least once, based on information they
obtained through 511. A similar survey in Virginia found that
93 percent had changed their behavior based on information
from 511.
A survey of 511 users in Arizona focused more specifically on how users changed their behavior. The most common changes reported were changing routes to avoid congestion, and
changing lanes to avoid incidents; smaller numbers left earlier or later as a result of information obtained through 511.
Revenue potential:
None; the service is provided at no charge.
13) Expanding express bus and ferry service
Developing new transit services, especially in areas not well-
served by existing transit systems, can help reduce reliance
on automobiles, and thus reduce vehicle-miles traveled in the
CBD. In the short term, the quickest way to expand transit
services is through expansion of express bus and ferry services.
New York City’s proposal to the U.S. Department of
Transportation for assistance in implementing congestion
pricing included funding for expanding both express bus and ferry service.
24 October 2007
• The City and the MTA are seeking to add 194 buses,
both to increase service on existing express bus routes and
to start service on several new routes, including routes
serving northeastern Queens (e.g. College Point), the
Northeast Bronx and Bay Ridge. Of the 194 buses, 136
would be used on routes within New York City, and 58
for service between the City and Nassau and Westchester
counties.
• The City is also seeking to develop new ferry routes
serving East River waterfront neighborhoods and
Rockaway. Other areas that could benefit from the
development of new ferry services include the South Shore
of Staten Island, and several waterfront communities in
New Jersey.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Not all the riders attracted to these new services would
otherwise be commuting by automobile Some will be people
who would otherwise be using less convenient forms of transit.
Even a relatively modest shift, however, could have an impact
on VMT. If by 2010 new express bus and ferry services lead
5,000 commuters each day to leave their cars at home, we
estimate that total VMT in the proposed congestion pricing
zone would decline by approximately 0.4 to 0.6 percent; and
that congestion would decline by a similar amount.
Revenue potential:
Ongoing operating costs of new express bus and ferry services
would be offset in part by farebox revenues.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 25
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
III. Options for reducing congestion: 2010
and beyond
1) Major transit system improvements
In the long run, major transit and commuter rail system
improvements now planned or under construction will enable
the City and the region to continue the existing trend of
having these systems absorb most of the growth in demand for
travel into, out of and within the Manhattan CBD. If all are
completed as planned, they may even reduce the total volume
of automotive traffic below its current levels. Such projects
include:
• The Long Island Rail Road ’s East Side Access project,
providing direct LIRR service into Grand Central Terminal;
• The Second Avenue subway;
• The new trans-Hudson rail tunnel being developed by
New Jersey Transit;
• Extension of the Number 7 train to the Hudson Yards
area;
• Metro-North service into Penn Station;
• Greater use of the existing Metro-North and LIRR
infrastructure to provide intra-City rail service; and
• The addition of a third track to the LIRR between
Hicksville and Queens Village.
As shown below, estimated completion dates range from 2013 to 2018.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Environmental impact analyses that have been prepared on
several of these projects suggest the scale of their potential
impact on vehicular traffic. According to environmental
Table 4: Major transportation projects
impact reports, East Side Access, the Trans-Hudson Tunnel
and the 2nd Avenue subway taken together will reduce the
number of vehicular trips into the CBD by about 41,000 per
day. We estimate that this will translate into a reduction in
VMT of 2.0 to 3.0 percent. Other projects in the list above could add to this impact.
Revenue potential:
While all of these projects will generate some revenue from fares and other sources (such as advertising), none are expected to generate sufficient revenue to cover operating costs.
2) Bus rapid transit
Bus rapid transit (BRT) is a relatively new type of
transportation service, which applies features found in
traditional rail transit (such as a dedicated right-of-way) to
bus service, thus making buses faster and more reliable. The
MTA, the New York City Department of Transportation, and
the New York State Department of Transportation have been
working together to introduce BRT service in New York City.
BRT pilot projects will be implemented on five routes, one in
each borough. Manhattan’s BRT route, the First and Second
Avenue - 125th Street Corridor, will span much of the East
Side, extending approximately 8.5 miles from the Staten Island
Ferry Terminal to 125th Street, then crossing 125th Street
from First Avenue to Twelfth Avenue, adding an additional
3 miles to the route. This route will serve a number of heavily
populated and dense neighborhoods including the Financial
District, the Lower East Side/Chinatown, Midtown East, the
Upper East Side and Harlem. The First and Second Avenue
stretch of the route would replace the existing M15 limited
service.
According to PLANYC, it is expected that BRT will operate in dedicated bus lanes with bright, distinctive signage. Stops will be placed every 10 to 15 blocks apart. The First and
Second Avenue route is expected to draw 12,900 daily BRT riders.
Project Cost estimate Estimated
completion date
East Side Access $6.3 billion 2013
Second Avenue Subway $3.8 billion (Phase 1) 2013 (Phase 1)
$3.4 billion (Phase 2) 2018 (Phase 2)
THE Tunnel (Access to the $7.4 billion 2016
Region’s Core)
7 Subway Line Extension $2.1 billion 2017
Metro-North to Penn Station $812 million 2013
LIRR Main Line Corridor $770 million 2013
Improvements
Source: PLANYC 2030
While the pilot project’s impact on VMT and overall levels
of congestion in the CBD will be very small, a successful pilot project could lead to expansion of the service to other corridors, with the potential for greater impact.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
According to the MTA’s BRT study, the proposed BRT route
would operate about 13 to 18 percent faster than existing bus
service along First and Second Avenues. While most riders
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 27
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
might initially be drawn from conventional bus service, BRT
may also have some potential to divert passengers from taxis or (to a lesser extent) private cars. As the system expands it could - in addition to improving bus service, which is its primary
objective - have a modest impact on VMT and congestion.
Revenue potential:
Any impact on revenues will be modest since, as noted above, most riders will already be transit riders.
3) Lower Manhattan bus depot
The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation has
estimated that approximately 450 buses enter Lower
Manhattan on a typical weekday. Buses play a critical role
in bringing workers to jobs in Lower Manhattan, but they
can also contribute to traffic congestion. Because Lower
Manhattan does not have a bus terminal, commuter buses
must stop on the street to pick up and drop off passengers.
And without a facility at which they can lay over between
the morning and evening peak periods, some drivers simply
park their buses on the street from early morning until late
afternoon.
A proposal for construction of a downtown bus terminal was
included in a plan for revitalizing Lower Manhattan in 1966,
and the idea has been revived periodically ever since. While
creation of such a facility offers some clear advantages, it would be difficult to site. This is so not only because of the scarcity of land in Lower Manhattan, but also because a reduction in on-street pick-up and drop-off inevitably means that for some passengers, the result would be a longer walk between the bus and their workplaces, and vice versa.
Most recently, a team retained by LMDC to plan the redevelopment of the lower Greenwich Street corridor in 2005 recommended development of a new, automated bus facility on the site now occupied by the Battery Garage.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
While development of a new bus facility would not
significantly affect total vehicle-miles traveled, it could ease
the flow of traffic by reducing on-street pick-up and drop-off
activity.
Revenue potential:
A facility serving commuter buses could generate some
revenue; but the Port Authority’s experience with the Midtown
bus terminal suggests that it will not be sufficient to cover the
facility’s operating costs.
4) Incentives for off-peak delivery
While trucks account for only a relatively small share of total vehicle-miles traveled in the CBD during peak and mid-day hours, they contribute disproportionately to the problem
of excess traffic congestion. Shifting deliveries to off-peak hours has often been cited as a way to reduce truck-related congestion.
Advocates of Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing proposal have suggested that by charging trucks $21.00 to enter the
CBD on weekdays between 6:00 AM and 6:00 PM, it would provide a powerful incentive for companies to shift deliveries to the hours before or after the charging period. However,
the Mayor’s proposal ignores the reality that in the great
majority of cases, neither shippers nor trucking companies
determine delivery time. That decision is most often made by the receiving companies. Charging truckers $21.00 to enter the CBD provides no incentive for receiving companies to change delivery hours. As a result, the proposed charge is likely to
have little or no effect on delivery traffic - and the congestion it generates - during the charging period.
The dilemma can be stated plainly - shifting to off-peak
delivery reduces trucking costs, but it increases costs for the receiving company. Penalizing truckers for making deliveries in peak periods (e.g. through congestion pricing) raises their costs - but provides no incentive for the receiving companies to agree to off-peak delivery.
The most comprehensive study of off-peak delivery conducted to date in New York City (completed in 2006) concluded that the most effective way to encourage receiving businesses to shift deliveries to off-peak hours would be through tax incentives. Such incentives could be tailored to the needs of specific industries and property types.
• Restaurants, for example, may be more open to scheduling
deliveries at night, since in many cases they will incur little or no additional cost. A relatively modest incentive - such as a tax credit worth up to $10,000 annually,
depending on the size of the establishment - might be sufficient to induce significant numbers of restaurants to shift to off-peak deliveries.
• For large commercial office buildings, the City might
explore the feasibility of providing tax incentives for
lease provisions requiring that all routine shipments (for
example, office supplies) go to central receiving facilities
during off-peak hours, for subsequent delivery to tenants
during the day.
28 October 2007
Based on in-depth interviews with more than 500 Manhattan
businesses, the study cited above found that it might be feasible to switch as many as 20 percent of all peak-period and mid-day deliveries to off-peak hours.
Engineering this kind of shift in Manhattan’s business
logistics is likely to be a long-term proposition. In order to
understand more clearly the dynamics of the process (and how
the program can most effectively be marketed) the City might
consider starting with a large-scale, multi-year pilot project
- covering, for example, Manhattan below Canal Street.
NYCDOT is already planning to undertake an off-peak
delivery pilot project in Brooklyn. While this could no doubt prove to be a useful exercise, the need to encourage off-peak deliveries appears to be greatest in the Manhattan CBD. The City should therefore consider moving ahead at the same time with a pilot project in Manhattan.
For government offices and other public facilities within the CBD (such as colleges and hospitals) there is no reason why the City and State should not move ahead now to require off-
peak deliveries.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Shifting deliveries to off-peak hours would by itself have little
or no impact on total vehicle-miles traveled in the CBD. It
would, however, reduce congestion by switching some of this
traffic to less congested evening and early-morning hours. A
20 percent shift to off-peak delivery could significantly reduce
peak and mid-day congestion in the proposed congestion
pricing zone.
Revenue potential:
Incentives for off-peak delivery would not produce revenue.
5) Increased use of water transportation for the movement of freight
As the growth of the New York area’s population and economy has continued to generate additional truck traffic, interest
in finding alternative means for moving goods into, out of
and within the region has increased. For a variety of reasons, however, cost-effective options for shifting freight movement away from trucks are limited.
Although the volume of regional and local freight that could
be shifted from trucks to water transport is relatively small,
such a shift could prove to be attractive in cost-benefit terms;
and compared with other options would be relatively easy and
inexpensive to initiate.
New York City has already begun to move in this direction,
proposing a major increase in the use of water transport
to move municipal waste out of the City. A recent study
conducted for the Port Authority by researchers at New York
University and Rutgers University targeted several other niche
markets for which water transport could prove advantageous:
• Construction materials and equipment;
• Hazardous materials; and
• Overweight and over-sized cargoes.
(It is worth noting that with hazardous and over-sized cargoes
- as with municipal waste - there may be environmental and
safety reasons, over and above the need to reduce congestion,
for moving these cargoes off the region’s local roads, highways
and bridges.)
Any significant increase in the use of water transport for local and regional movement of freight would require a number of steps by the relevant public agencies, including:
• Investing in local maritime transport facilities at
appropriate locations throughout the City and the region;
• Preserving and if necessary expanding maintenance and
operating facilities on the rapidly-developing waterfront
for companies engaged in the water-borne movement of
freight;
• Requiring use of water transport, where feasible and
appropriate, for delivery of supplies and equipment, for delivery of construction materials and equipment on public construction projects; and
• Strictly regulating the movement of hazardous and
oversized cargoes by truck, especially in densely-populated areas or on bridges with limited capacity.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Further study will be needed to determine potential for
diversion of freight that would otherwise move by truck.
Revenue potential:
Use of water transportation to move local and regional freight would not generate significant revenues.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 29
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
6) Expanding the Lower Manhattan traffic
management program to Midtown
The City could make greater use of information technology to manage traffic and reduce congestion. In Lower Manhattan, it has already begun to do so. The Lower Manhattan
Construction Coordination Center (LMCC) and the New
York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) have
developed a plan that involves use of 41 wireless cameras
and a network of sensors to collect real-time information
on traffic conditions between Canal Street and the Battery.
The information is fed into a central location, where it can
be used to guide immediate, short-term traffic management
and enforcement actions, to advise the public about traffic
conditions and in planning longer-term solutions in areas of
chronic congestion.
Traffic congestion, like crime, is in many respects a highly
localized, frequently shifting phenomenon. The program
developed by LMCCC and DOT is in effect applying to the
problem of traffic congestion the approach that the NYPD
used so successfully with COMPSTAT - using information
technology to identify emerging or recurring congestion
“hot spots,” to direct resources to those locations, and to take
remedial actions tailored to specific local conditions.
The City should consider expanding the program developed
by LMCCC and DOT to Midtown. Especially in areas
where a large volume of new development is expected during
the next decade - such as the west 30’s - more effective use
of information technology may prove to be the single most
important contributor to more effective use of the streets.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
The goal of the program is not to reduce vehicle-miles traveled, but to move traffic more efficiently, and address more directly localized conditions that cause or aggravate congestion.
Revenue potential:
None.
7) Improving the distribution of information to motorists
One of the most effective ways to manage congestion is by
giving drivers the most current and most complete information
about traffic conditions, thus enabling them to make informed
choices about how to deal with those conditions. While the
quantity, quantity and timeliness of information available to
drivers has improved considerably during the past two decades,
there is still room for improvement in this area.
Nissan, for example, recently announced that it will over the
next year be installing its Star Wings navigation system in
600,000 of Beijing’s estimated 3 million cars. The system will
help drivers find the most efficient route to their destinations,
based on current traffic conditions. The company claims it will
be able to reduce Beijing’s notoriously-bad traffic congestion by
20 percent.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
Given the relatively high level of information already available to New York-area drivers (which will be enhanced with the deployment of 511), systems such as Nissan’s are unlikely
to have as dramatic an impact as that forecast for Beijing. Some further reduction in congestion might nevertheless be anticipated.
Revenue potential:
While 511 services will be provided at no charge, there may be some potential to charge drivers for more advanced services.
8) Encouraging greater use of bicycle transportation
Bicycles account for only a very small share of travel within
New York City. In 2000, for exampled, only 0.3 percent of all
employed New Yorkers used bikes as their principal means of
getting to work. Nevertheless, the use of bicycles for travel into
and within the Manhattan CBD is growing; New York City
DOT reports that on a September weekday in 2006, 22,300
people biked into the Manhattan CBD between 7AM and
7PM - an increase of 74 percent over the number reported in a
similar survey in 2000.
Bicycle transportation is from several perspectives an attractive option - it reduces energy consumption, improves air quality, is highly flexible, doesn’t require much space, and contributes to better health. Research conducted in New York and elsewhere suggests, however, that there are number of common barriers to increased use of bicycles for routine travel within the City. Concern about safety - and in particular, about the mixing
of bikes and other traffic - is one of these; lack of parking at
riders’ destinations is another.
To address these barriers, the City should:
• Consider greater use of physically separated bike lanes
- as recently announced by NYCDOT for Ninth Avenue
30 October 2007
in Manhattan - along corridors that have the greatest
potential for increased bike use.
• Require commercial parking garages in the CBD to set
aside a certain number spaces for bicycle parking (relative
to the total number of auto parking spaces).
• Provide some modest incentives for owners of commercial
properties to provide bicycle parking.
• Identify small parcels of publicly-owned land in the CBD
that might be used to create more parking spaces for
bicycles.
• Provide secure bicycle parking (e.g. bike lockers) at park-
and-ride lots.
Estimated impact on VMT and congestion:
In the near term, the direct impact of increased bicycle travel
on either VMT or congestion in the CBD is likely to be very
small; but it could grow over time.
Revenue potential:
There could be some modest potential from charges for bike
parking. The City might, however, choose to forego such
revenue in order to encourage greater use of bicycles.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 31
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
IV. Other possible initiatives
During the course of the past several months, members of
Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free, as well as other participants
in the debate over congestion pricing, have suggested a variety
of other measures that might help to reduce congestion in the
Manhattan CBD, without incurring the costs that the City’s
proposed congestion pricing system would entail.
Many of these suggestions merit further analysis. We list some of them here, simply to reinforce the point that there are many steps the City could take over the course of the next several
years - and indeed, many steps that it could take today - to
alleviate congestion.
• Create high-occupancy lanes on selected crossings
into Manhattan (as the City has done recently on the
Manhattan Bridge).
• Allocate more curb space in the busiest commercial areas
to loading and unloading.
• Require adequate space for off-street loading and
unloading in all large new commercial buildings in the
Manhattan CBD.
• Require City agencies with offices in the Manhattan CBD
to develop plans to facilitate telecommuting, and create
incentives for private companies to do the same.
• Develop additional park-and-ride capacity outside the
Manhattan CBD, and maintain or replace existing
facilities in areas that are being redeveloped (such as
Flushing).
• Raise the monthly cap on transit subsidies that employers
are allowed to provide as a tax-free employee benefit.
• Explore the feasibility of using double-decker buses in
place of articulated buses, which take up more street space.
• Expand use of minivans on routes where full-scale bus
service does not appear to be feasible.
• Increase the supply of off-street parking in the CBD
through changes in zoning requirements.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 33
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
V. Conclusion
The alternatives to congestion pricing this report presents meet the tests of equity, efficiency and economic sense. Congestion pricing indiscriminately taxes all vehicles entering the
Manhattan CBD whether or not they cause congestion. Our alternatives more effectively target congestion’s root causes. The critical flaws in the City’s proposal include its failure to focus on the key causes of congestion, such as:
• Taxis cruising the streets of Manhattan;
• The proliferation of black cars;
• City issued placards to people who have no need for them who
clog our streets and tie up our curbside space;
• The failure to strictly enforce traffic and parking laws; and
• The 10,000 trucks that have no point of origin or destination
in Lower Manhattan that daily use our streets as a pass through, generating massive traffic jams.
This report identifies these and other specific causes of
congestion, and offers realistic solutions to these problems.
The alternatives outlined in this report emphasize value
pricing and use of technology. These approaches satisfy
the requirements to qualify for the federal anti-congestion
funding, without the elaborate and expensive infrastructure required for the city’s congestion pricing scheme.
This report incorporates the good ideas promoted by our
Mayor with respect to traffic mitigation. It also adopts
many solutions to the problems of traffic in the Manhattan
CBD promoted by our most illustrious traffic experts such
as Sam Schwartz, John Falcocchio, Donald Shoup, Bruce
Schaller, Jose Holguin-Veras, and Charles Komanoff, and
organizations such as NYU’s Rudin Center for Transportation, Rutgers University’s Voorhees Transportation Center, and
Transportation Alternatives.
While congestion pricing will adversely affect the economy
(resulting in $690 million in lost economic activity, tens of
millions of dollars in lost State and City taxes and as many
as 8,700 lost jobs) and will shift congestion and pollution to many locations in the outer boroughs (many of those locations already have more traffic congestion and pollution than
Manhattan), our alternatives will reduce miles traveled in
Manhattan by as much as double the amount as congestion
pricing without punishing those who can least afford to pay
this regressive tax, or harming the City’s economic vitality and
quality of life.
Unlike the congestion pricing plan which focuses solely on
VMT, this alternative plan offers many additional traffic
mitigating solutions that alleviate congestion beyond the rigid
VMT criteria employed by congestion pricing proponents.
Congestion is not solely a factor of the number of vehicles and VMT, but also is a function of inefficient traffic management. The alternatives outlined in this report focus on both reducing VMT and improved traffic management.
The mitigation alternatives identified in this report could generate approximately $428 to $545 million, without major capital investments or major increases in operating costs.
(The proposed congestion pricing will require a minimum
investment of $233.6 million and yearly operating costs will
be $240 million. Approximately 40 cents out of every dollar
charged for congestion pricing will be lost to overhead). In
contrast to the massive infrastructure needed to sustain
congestion pricing, the alternatives outlined in this report use currently existing infrastructure and resources.
The City’s congestion pricing proposal follows a rigid all-or-
nothing approach. This alternative plan incorporates a modular approach. The public, the Commission, and city and state
legislators remain free to accept or reject any of the modules, and, each module has a range (providing the flexibility to fine tune each module. They can choose to implement any of the modules more or less aggressively).
Real and better alternatives exist to reduce traffic congestion
more effectively and comprehensively without any need to
implement a drastic plan which will disrupt and harm the lives
of many residents, working people and small businesses in our
City. This report conclusively establishes the City’s ability to
achieve a reduction well in excess of 6.3 percent in vehicle-
miles traveled, and raise revenue for mass transit, without
resorting to a complex, expensive, inefficient and inequitable
congestion pricing scheme.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 35
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
References
511 Deployment Coalition, http://www.deploy511.org
Allison de Cerreno et al, Bi-State Domestic Freight Ferries Study (NYU, Rudin Center for Transportation; Rutgers University, Voorhees Transportation Center), September 2006.
Allison de Cerreno and My Linh Nguyen-Novotny, Pedestrian and Bicyclist Standards and Innovations in Large Central Cities (NYU Rudin Center for Transportation, January 2006)
Design Trust for Public Spaces, Designing the Taxi (New York, 2005)
John Falcocchio, Jose Darsin, Elena Prassas, “An Inquiry on the Traffic Congestion Impacts of Parking and Pricing Policies in the Manhattan CBD,” Polytechnic University, Transportation Training and Research Center, February 1995.
John Falcocchio, “Performance Measures for Traffic Mobility Management in Center Cities: A Manhattan (NYC) Case Study,” forthcoming, Transportation Research Board.
Jose Holguin-Veras et al, Evaluation Study for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey’s Time of Day Pricing Initiative (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, March 2005)
Jose Holguin-Veras, Potential for Off-Peak Freight Deliveries to Congested Urban Areas: Final Report (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, December 2006)
Charles Komanoff, “A Value Pricing Toll Plan for the MTA: Saving Drivers Time While Increasing Revenue” (prepared for the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, 2003)
Lower Manhattan Construction Command Center, “Traffic Management Plan,” 2006.
Manhattan Borough President’s Office, Thinking Outside the Box, July 2006 (http://www.mbpo.org/press/pressreleases/news_item.2006-07-10.5792761787)
MTA, East Side Access: MTA Long Island Rail Road Grand Central Connection - Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2006. http://www.mta.info/capconstr/esas/
feis.htm
MTA, Second Avenue Subway - Final Environmental Impact Statement, 2004. http://www.mta.info/capconstr/sas/feis.htm
MTA New York City Transit, NYCDOT, NYSDOT. “New York City Bus Rapid Transit Study. Final Concept Plan for the First and Second Avenue - 125th Street Corridor.” August 2006.
New Jersey Transit and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, Access to the Region’s Core - Draft Environmental Impact Statement, 2007.
http://www.accesstotheregionscore.com/DEIS_Documents.html
NYS Department of Transportation, Request for Proposals: 511 Travel Information System, July 16, 2007.
Bruce Schaller: “Elasticities for Taxicab Fares and Service Availability,” Transportation, 1998.
Bruce Schaller, The New York City Taxicab Fact Book, March 2006 (http://www.schallerconsult.com)
Bruce Schaller, “Free Parking, Congested Streets: The Skewed Economic Incentives to Drive in Manhattan,” a report prepared for Transportation Alternatives, March 2007.
Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion 37
| Mitigation in the Manhattan CBD |
Sam Schwartz, “To start hacking traffic, take 1,000 taxis off our streets,” New York Daily News, September 12, 2007.
Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking, American Planning Association, 2005.
State of New York /City of New York, Urban Partnership Agreement Application, June 22, 2007; and “Answers to Follow-Up Questions Submitted to USDOT.”
Transportation Alternatives, “Top 10 Drive-to-Work Census Tracts in Manhattan” (September 2005): http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/reclaiming/drive_to_
work.pdf
Transportation Alternatives, “UNCIVIL SERVANTS: A Survey of Government Worker Parking Abuse in NYC’s Chinatown and Civic Center” (April 2006):
http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/reclaiming/uncivil_servants.pdf
Transportation Alternatives, “Above the Law: A Study of Government Parking Permit Abuse in New York City” (September 2006):
http://www.transalt.org/campaigns/reclaiming/abovethelaw.pdf
USDOT Intelligent Transportation Systems, Final Report: Model Deployment of a Regional, Multi-Modal 511 Traveler Information System, September 30, 2005.
http://www.itsdocs.fhwa.dot.gov/JPODOCS/REPTS_TE/14248.htm
Carolyn Wolff and Pierre Vilain, “Congestion Pricing as a Traffic Management Tool: Evaluating the Impacts at New York City’s Interstate Crossings,” (paper presented to the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, 2007)
38 October 2007
Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free represents a diverse
coalition of civic, business and labor organizations and
businesses throughout New York City. We share a simple
vision: to keep our city congestion tax free. Our members
oppose the $8 fee ($21 for trucks) the Mayor proposes
to impose on drivers entering Manhattan below 86th
Street. Our members urge New Yorkers to deliver a
simple message to our legislators: “Say no to the fee the
Mayor wants to charge us to enter Manhattan.” Many
supporters and coalition members propose alternatives
to the congestion tax that better address traffic issues in
our entire city and provide new sources to support mass
transit.
Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free
www.keepnycfree.com
