Tolling the East River bridges: more MTA woes perhaps leading to a backend congestion charge?

First, to come clean: I supported the congestion charging plan. I thought it was a great alternative to the present system of inconsistent tolling of various routes into the midtown and downtown. For instance, if you come from wealthy Westchester, you can get to Midtown and Lower Manhattan without paying any tolls. If you come from poorer Staten Island (within the city!) or Rockland County, there's no way to avoid a toll. The best routes of travel from Queens often are avoided, irrationally, by motorists trying to avoid the TBTA tolls (Triborough Bridge of Queens-Midtown Tunnel) by taking a "free" bridge. I bet such motorists waste more fuel in traffic than they would have spent just taking the closest bridge—and they don't exist in a vacuum either. They're probably causing unnecessary congestion too.

While the congestion charge had popular support, at least when people understood that its revenues were going to go to improving transit, it also had some powerful enemies. The most powerful enemy it had was, arguably, the New York State Assembly, which refused to even consider the proposal and killed it after the City Council voted in support of it. So desperate were the Assembly Democrats to pander to suburbanites that they were willing to violate the city's sovereignty, and blew hundreds of millions of dollars in federal financing to get the program started.

Now, with the MTA's budget even more in the pits, a commission appointed by Governor David Paterson to recommend new financing sources for the MTA came up with a plan that will have almost the same effect: tolling the East River and Harlem River bridges ("M.T.A. Needs Champion, but Who?" by William Neuman at The New York Times, 2008-11-29).

He is due to deliver a final report to the governor by Friday that is expected to include proposals for a tax on corporate payrolls in the region, tolls on the bridges across the East and Harlem Rivers and an increase in fares on the subway, bus and commuter railroads. Those measures would provide enough money for the authority to overcome a $1.2 billion budget gap next year and allow it to finance a long-term capital program that could cost as much as $30 billion through 2014.

The response to Mr. Ravitch at the partnership underscores the difficulty of his task. Kathryn S. Wylde, the president and chief executive of the group, said “the overwhelming reception” to Mr. Ravitch’s appeal — which did not include details of the payroll tax or tolls — was “positive.” But she also said that while business leaders might be open to a new tax to support the transportation authority, they were concerned about the possibility of multiple tax increases as the state and city sought to balance their budgets as well.

I'm not sure I would consider a new tax a good idea, although additional tolls are certainly fiscally sound.

Here's what I'd like to see immediately before any new taxes are implemented in our overtaxed state: first, keep labor costs down. Don't toll the East River bridges except electronically. Next, eliminate toll booths on the MTA bridges and tunnels and replace these tolls with electronic collection. For those who don't have E-ZPass, send them a bill in the mail along with an E-ZPass (and charge them for the E-ZPass, plus labor)—that way there will be no excuse for not having a pass. Over the long term, this should cut the operating costs of the MTA bridges and tunnels drastically. Finally, permit and external, independent audit of all MTA operations to eliminate as many inefficiencies as possible, managerial and union alike.

See also:

• NY1: "Report: Commission To Recommend Tolls On East River Bridges", 2008-11-27
  

Alternatives to the traffic congestion charge?

A local group opposed the congestion charge ("Study Gives Alternatives to City Plan for Traffic," William Neuman, NY Times, 2007-10-12) proposes alternatives:

Raising parking meter rates in Manhattan, creating more taxi stands and putting in place a series of other measures could achieve the same level of traffic reduction as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, according to a report by a group opposed to the mayor’s proposal.

“We’ve said all the way through that there are better ways to deal with traffic congestion,” said Walter McCaffrey, a former city councilman from Queens who is the spokesman for the group, Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free.

Mr. McCaffrey said the report was sent this week to the 17 members of a commission created by the State Legislature to study the mayor’s plan for an $8 charge on cars entering or leaving the area of Manhattan below 86th Street.

The commission is also required to consider alternatives to the mayor’s plan that could achieve similar results. The Bloomberg administration has estimated that its proposal would reduce the miles traveled by vehicles in the Manhattan charging zone by 6.3 percent.

The commission must make a recommendation to the Legislature by Jan. 31 on a plan to ease traffic congestion.

The report by Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free identifies 13 measures that, when taken together, it predicts would reduce traffic more than the mayor’s plan.

Chief among the measures is a proposal to increase greatly the number of metered parking spaces in Manhattan by putting meters on many blocks where parking is now free. The study also proposes raising the rate for on-street parking, doubling it in many areas and increasing it even more in the busiest parts of Manhattan.

The goal would be to create a higher turnover in parking spaces, in order to lessen the time drivers spend circling the block looking for parking. The report says that is a major contributor to congestion in parts of Manhattan.

I think we should do that anyway, but here's where it gets touchy:

Hugh O’Neill, the president of Appleseed, an economics consulting firm, which wrote the report, said that the goal of the study was to find measures that focused on specific causes of congestion. The report also includes proposals that the city could carry out on its own, without the Legislature’s approval, which is needed for congestion pricing.

The report calls for the city to eliminate many of the thousands of parking placards that city employees use to get free parking.

It's really amazing that the city would want to decrease the environmental effects of driving and then turn around and encourage its employees to drive. NYC has the most extensive rapid transit system on Earth; we could encourage our civil servants to use it.

Other proposals included more taxi stands and higher peak hour tolls. The mayor's office had no comment.

Hidden costs to the congestion charge?

NY1: "MTA Finds Hidden Costs In Mayor's Congestion Pricing Plan" (October 8)

MTA officials say Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan project would wind up costing hundreds of millions of dollars more than originally thought in transit service upgrades.

A commission created to evaluate the plan estimates the agency would need to spend more then three quarters of a billion dollars over the next five years. That money would go toward new buses, subways, and station renovations to accommodate the thousands of commuters, who are expected to take public transportation to avoid paying $8 to enter portions of Manhattan.

The MTA's concerns come as the agency is trying to raise support for a fare hike on trains, buses and subways.

The commission's recommendation on congestion pricing is due in January. The measure requires support from City Hall and Albany.

NY Times: "M.T.A. Says Mayor’s Plan to Ease Traffic Will Cost $767 Million to Accomplish" (Robert D. McFadden, October 8)

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in a report to a commission created to evaluate the mayor’s plan, estimated that expanded transit service and capital improvements for city and suburban riders who would give up their cars to get into Manhattan over the next five years would cost $767 million.

The total, the authority said, comprised $284 million in 2008 and 2009 for 367 new city and suburban buses, 46 new subway cars and many station renovations and service enhancements; $163 million for other subway and bus improvements from 2010 to 2012, and $320 million for two new bus terminals in Queens and Staten Island.

...

Citing congestion pricing projections provided by the city, the authority said 78,000 motorists in the city would shift to mass transit, while only 2,500 from the Mid-Hudson region served by Metro-North and 3,500 served by the Long Island Rail Road would take trains. It said it was premature to estimate how many of the 170,000 commuters who crossed bridges and tunnels each day would give up their cars.

I wonder why this comes as a surprise actually. We knew we'd have to upgrade service sooner or later. It just now happens to be sooner.

This puts NYC in an interesting dilemma though. Much of our rail transit actually runs at capacity, which means that adding more people to the services means overloading the system.

There is, however, the obvious fact that this "unfunded" spending will at least be made back. It's times like these when it's responsible for the City or State to take out debt.