Opponents of congestion pricing, based in Queens, released a report with an alternative to the proposal last week. Proponents of congestion pricing, who would probably otherwise support many the alternative’s ideas, immediately blasted it for being what it probably is – a red herring designed to ensure that nothing happens, existing privileges are maintained, and problems are not solved, but the public is confused about who is to blame and thus just shrugs its shoulders. The typical Albany win over the public, in other words. Still, there is enough of interest in the proposal that it deserves a thoughtful review, and such a review finds that it is essentially an extension of current policies, and has the same hole as those policies. The opponents’ proposal, more over, gores even more oxen that congestion pricing, and may thus be designed to stir up even more opposition. Still, it is worth considering as the basis for a more complete alternative, if only to test the opponent’s sincerity. Filling that hole, however, could make the proposal as viable as congestion pricing, if not as flexible.
What the opponents are proposing is to extend the city’s current policy – limiting congestion in the Central Business District by limiting parking. New public parking garages in central areas of Manhattan, Long Island City, and perhaps after a recent zoning (not sure of this) Downtown Brooklyn are permitted only by special permit, and thus require a multi-year review complete with an environmental impact statement. Few if any are built. With off-street space thus limited, the cost of parking in existing garages has soared, enriching parking lot and garage owners, and important, organized and powerful political constituency. In addition, the city attempts to limit the number of for-hire vehicles by limiting the number of yellow taxis (but not “black cars”,) and the high tolls on the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel Authority facilities also discourage driving through Manhattan (but at all times not just peak times).
These policies have failed. Because parking off the street is limited but not driving on it is not, the policy does nothing to discourage those who don’t have to park, including the taxi and black car industry, from crowding the streets, and does nothing to charge them for doing so. Limited parking doesn’t encourage those who double-park, such as those making deliveries, to come during less congested hours. Limited parking does nothing to discourage through traffic from going through Manhattan. Finally, those with parking permits are able to drive over the free bridges and park for free, so there is no reason for them to consider mass transit, and the number of privileged permit-holders continues to rise. For non-permit holders, metered parking remains cheap in Manhattan relative to off-street parking, and not all spaces have meters, because free on-street spaces are made available for Manhattan residents to keep cars.
High tolls on the Triboro Bridge and Tunnel facilities, combined with the ability to avoid tolls entirely by traveling over free bridges, encourages vehicles, trucks in particular, to go out of their way to back up through Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City on their way to those free bridges. The limitations on taxis only served to reduce the supply of taxis relative to demand, and in recent years the city has reversed that policy by selling additional medallions to earn money for the budget. The boom in “black cars,” which are theoretically prohibited from responding to street hails but often do, has undermined the policy in any event.
The congestion pricing opponents propose to make Manhattan less attractive to drivers by raising the cost of metered parking (to the level of the parking garages, reducing their competition) until supply meets demand, so less traffic congestion would be caused by those driving around looking for a place to park. The opponents call for reductions in free on-street parking permits, although since the permit holders are among the most politically active, that may be a poison pill designed to arouse unbeatable opposition. To reduce the back-ups caused by taxis picking up street hails, more cab stands would be established at curbside, further reducing on-street parking. Other free on-street spaces would be metered. This could force Manhattan residents who rely on free spaces to give up their cars, because they would not be able to feed the meter while at work even if they could afford it. Finally, to both raise revenues and discourage congestion causing behavior, the opponents recommend a ticket blitz against double parking, blocking the box, and other infractions caused by the need to put vehicles somewhere when the demand for space exceeds the supply. The fines and parking meter revenues, according to the opponents, would replace lost congestion pricing revenues.
Since most of these are sensible measures they shouldn’t be rejected out of hand. But they don’t do anything to discourage through traffic, an issue the opponents acknowledge. Their inadequate response it to restore two-way tolls on the Verranzano Bridge, for trucks only, and raise tolls on TBTA facilities higher than would otherwise be the case, but to include off-peak discounts. Neither a lower inbound Verranzano toll for trucks nor an off-peak discount, however, could replace the lure of the free bridges – if anything higher tolls elsewhere would encourage even more people to go out of their way to take them. The hellish traffic problems of Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City go unresolved. The congestion pricing proposal, in contrast, discourages trucks from driving across Manhattan to get from Long Island to New Jersey by imposing a cost that equalizes their payment whether they use a tolled facility or not. A two-way toll on the Verranzano, moreover, would be opposed by politically influential Staten Island elected officials.
Even so, the congestion pricing opponents, in recommending variable tolls for peak and non-peak hours and higher costs for parking have accepted the concept of using pricing to limit the over-use of a scarce resource, a large leap for them to make if they have in fact made it. Perhaps they should be given a little credit rather than just ignored. That leap could be extended, and the through-traffic problem solved, by a simple measure – toll the free bridges to Manhattan.
Clearly this is not what the congestion pricing opponents have in mind. For one thing, with both higher parking charges, which the opponents have proposed, and tolls on the free bridges, “middle and working class New Yorkers who live out the proposed congestion zone” would end up paying twice instead once. Those who live and keep private motor vehicles inside Manhattan, on the other hand, would be able to drive around for free in the congestion zone for free, or just paying the higher parking charges, because the toll would be for entry into the area rather than for driving around within it. Moreover, the congestion pricing proposal exempts those who stay on the highways, to avoid shifting traffic from (for example) the FDR to the BQE if the FDR is the shorter route, but simply tolling the bridges would not.
On the other hand, a bridge toll proposal could be adjusted to offer something valuable to “middle and working class” drivers. One possibility is a trade, with the MTA taking over the newly-tolled East and Harlem River bridges to Manhattan, and the city receiving the Verranzano, Bronx-Whitestone, Throggs Neck, and Rockaway Bridges in exchange. Freed from the burden of carrying the transit system, the tolls on the latter could be reduced. I’ll bet that a Public Use Microdata run of 2000 Census or American Community Survey data would show that those commuting by private auto between Staten Island and Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx, or Nassau and Westchester via Queens and the Bronx have much lower average incomes than those who drive to Manhattan, particularly if public employees are excluded. They also don’t have the alternative of a reasonable trip via transit, although they could carpool.
In addition, EZ Pass and other identification systems could be installed along the exits from the peripheral Manhattan roads to the center of the borough, and as long as a vehicle stayed on the peripheral roads it could only be charged the same as on the Verranzano, Bronx-Whitestone, Throggs Neck, and Rockaway Bridges. Thus, there would be no reason for through traffic to go out of its way anywhere, neither through Manhattan as today or through Staten Island or the Bronx. And in addition, the tolls to Manhattan could be cut during off peak hours.
What you would have, then, is congestion pricing that isn’t called congestion pricing. Using the rivers as the boundary is simpler but less flexible – one couldn’t exclude upper Manhattan or include Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City, measures a street-based system would make possible. Once couldn’t have a lower charge in Downtown and Upper Manhattan than in the 28th to 60th Street area, where congestion is at its worst, which congestion pricing also would make possible.
All in all, it might be simpler just to implement congestion pricing, even if a “toll swap” with transit supported solely by vehicles entering Manhattan and lower tolls elsewhere were to be implemented. But if combining what the opponents are least pretending to be in favor of with a toll cost shift to Manhattan Bridges from peripheral bridges would limit their opposition, it is at least worth exploring. If nothing else, if they propose something reasonable, why not call their bluff rather than just question their motives?