I am Hope Cohen, Deputy Director of the Center
for Rethinking Development at the Manhattan
Institute. Among other participation in this
debate, we issued a study in late 2006 on the
public acceptability of pricing programs. I
would like to note in passing that there was
virtually universal agreement among participants
of focus groups assembled for that study that
taxis are a form of public transportation in
New York City. (In other words, mitigation approaches
that include taxi surcharges would be using
pricing to discourage a mode of public transportation.)
Thank you, commissioners, for this opportunity
to comment on your interim report and the alternative
approaches to congestion mitigation discussed
in it.
The overall concept of the Bloomberg administration's
original proposal is elegant—reduce traffic
congestion in Manhattan's central business district,
while raising revenue for underfunded and much
needed transit improvements. Qualify for federal
funding for up-front transit improvements to
entice drivers out of their cars, benefit the
economy, the environment, and the infrastructure
that enables New York to be the most environmentally
efficient place in the nation. However, the
specifics were always much too complex, with
different prices for driving into (or out of)
the charging zone vs. driving within it, along
with a very expensive—and potentially intrusive—network
of E-Z Pass readers and cameras throughout the
zone, from the Battery to 86th Street.
Eliminating the charge for driving within the
zone would remove much cost and confusion. The
East and Hudson rivers define all but one side
of Manhattan's business district, so adding
a northern boundary and simply charging people
to enter the zone would be fairly straightforward.
The most efficient and sensible approach is
for the commission is to build a mitigation
program around reinstating tolls on the so-called
free East River Bridges.
Toll revenue helped finance the construction
of the Brooklyn and Williamsburg bridges. The
tolls were discontinued—along with those on
the Manhattan and Queensboro bridges—in 1911
by Mayor William J. Gaynor, who saw "no
more reason for toll gates on the bridges than
for toll gates on Fifth Avenue or Broadway"
and proposed making up the lost revenue through
an annual tax levy. Since that time, tolling
the East River bridges has been the third rail
of New York City transportation politics. Mayors
who tried to bring up the subject quickly dropped
it again under intense interborough pressure.
Thanks to his innovative proposal for a congestion
fee in Manhattan's central business district,
Mayor Bloomberg has made it safe at last to
discuss traffic solutions that were previously
off limits.
The lack of tolls has put the bridges in competition
for funding with the entire array of municipal
budget priorities. This has cost the bridges
dearly. The absence of a dedicated funding stream
resulted in deferred maintenance and, ultimately,
dangerous disrepair. (Just last month, a state
task force issued multiple "flags"—both
"yellow" and "safety"—to
the Brooklyn Bridge for problems including decaying
beams.)
Meanwhile, all of the tolled East River crossings
(the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's
Triborough Bridge, Queens-Midtown Tunnel and
Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel) and the Hudson River
crossings (the Port Authority's George Washington
Bridge and Holland and Lincoln tunnels), which
also charge tolls, are in exemplary condition.
Tolls yield enough revenue not only to maintain
the facilities to the highest standards, but
also to subsidize the public transit operations
of Metropolitan Transportation Authority and
the Port Authority.
The participation of the MTA and Port Authority
executive directors on this commission also
offers an opportunity to develop a unified approach
to pricing all the crossings—and thus to rationalizing
traffic patterns. Pricing influences driver
behavior. The free bridges, as well as their
feeder roads, are generally more clogged than
the tolled tunnels and their approaches.
Some have argued that a toll-based program
would not meet the criteria for award of federal
funds (some $354 million, mainly to be used
to provide new transit options for city neighborhoods
now underserved and thus the disproportionate
source of car commutation). While it may be
true that the tolling alternative as presented
in the interim report as Option #3 would not
qualify, it is easy enough to design a slightly
different version that would qualify—for example
imposing tolls in different directions depending
on time of day, or even turning off toll collection
during particularly uncongested hours.
The tolling alternative would generate more
revenue and less traffic than the mayor's approach.
It is simpler to understand and to implement.
It acknowledges the geographic reality that
Manhattan is an island whose access routes are
difficult to build and expensive to maintain.
It has only one apparent drawback: It would
allow Manhattanites to add to pollution and
congestion by moving their cars inside the central
business district without constraint. But the
city does not need costly cameras and sophisticated
software to solve this problem.
First, a 60th Street boundary would capture
entry fees from Manhattan's most significant
source of automobile commuters, the Upper East
Side. Second, since availability of free parking
near the workplace is the single best indicator
of whether someone will drive to work in Manhattan,
the panel should recommend an array of measures
to charge more for parking. Possible actions
include modifying metering policies, charging
people to park at currently free curb space
and revoking residents' tax exemption for garage
parking. City Hall's recent announcement about
reducing official parking placards is a much
needed first step on the road to parking rationality.
Finally I'd like to note that transportation
subsidies already exist. What we're discussing
here is rearranging them—from free
bridges and cheap parking to strengthened infrastructure
and expanded capacity.
