Showing posts with label congestion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label congestion. Show all posts

Thursday, December 17, 2009

Will Congestion Pricing Return From The Dead?

Will Congestion Pricing Return From The Dead?: "

2009_12_congestionpric.jpg
Photograph by RGP on Flickr
Even while haggling in Copenhagen, our politicians are still hard at work for us: case-in-point, Mayor Bloomberg did an interview with CNBC yesterday to discuss the MTA funding crisis, and alluded to the possible re-birth of his congestion pricing plan:



'I don't think congestion pricing, or those kind of things, are dead. One-half of the legislature, the Albany Assembly, they tried to pass a bill to put congestion pricing around all of Manhattan and they couldn't get it done. The Senate didn't go along. Next time, come March, they're going to have to balance a budget and I think any kind of revenue source will be on the table...If we had done congestion pricing two years ago, perhaps they wouldn't be in this situation.'



As the Post reports, Bloomberg's controversial idea was to charge $8 to drive into Manhattan below 86th St. on weekdays, based on similar successful pricing plans in London and Stockholm, but it died in the Assembly last year. With the MTA facing a budget gap of nearly $400 million right now, Bloomberg took this opportunity to raise the congestion pricing plan as a solution, although the News reports he was careful to distance himself a little from pushing the idea too hard, saying, 'Whether you see it in New York or not, I'll leave it up to the state legislature.'



However, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, seen as congestion pricing's killer, told NY1 yesterday, "[T]he mayor has added congestion by narrowing streets, by putting benches in the middle of the city—and this was the same mayor who talked about congestion when he was going to build a football stadium in the middle of the most congested part of the city. They've now put park benches in the middle of Times Square, reduced Broadway traffic up and downtown from four lanes down to one or two, and lower Broadway down to one lane. So, he's created congestion just in these traffic patterns that have taken place.'





Add to digg
Email this Article
Add to Facebook
Add to Google



"

Sunday, November 22, 2009

City Council Parking Giveaway Will Bring More Gridlock

City Council Parking Giveaway Will Bring More Gridlock: "

New Yorkers could spend a third of a million more hours a
year stuck in traffic if the “grace period” for parking violations voted
by the City Council
this week becomes law.




3672447574_f6f7a69255.jpgPhoto: @10/Flickr
That’s what the Balanced Transportation
Analyzer
traffic-pricing model calculates, based on an assumed 10 percent drop in
issuance of parking tickets. While no one knows just how many fewer tickets
will be issued (none of the 47 council members voting aye on Intro
907
offered a guess), the manifold repercussions for enforcement — a narrower time window,
greater complexity, general undermining of traffic agents — suggest that a one-tenth
drop isn’t unreasonable.








Worsened gridlock follows automatically from making curbside
parking cheaper. The lessened likelihood of being served a parking ticket can
be expected to draw more auto trips into Manhattan
and around town as well. The added congestion isn’t huge; most car trips not made are on account of other
factors, and only a tenth of all parking tickets are being assumed away. But the
impact will be visible.



Most of the estimated 334,000 hours lost, around 85 percent, will come from drivers outside the Manhattan Central Business District, putting an ironic stamp on
Council Member Tish James’ reminder to
the mayor
that his narrow re-election was “a call from average New Yorkers
for relief.”



Note: Readers who want
to check the analysis in the BTA should head to the Parking worksheet, a dozen tabs from the back.

"

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Taxi Surcharges and Congestion Pricing — They Go Great Together

Taxi Surcharges and Congestion Pricing — They Go Great Together: "

The surcharge on NYC medallion taxi fares that took effect this month is a bit like a bases-loaded groundout that scores a run but kills a big inning: It does some good, but a ringing base hit could have done a lot more.



traffic_taxis.jpgCongestion pricing paired with a significant taxi surcharge would speed cab trips and boost Manhattan's transit funding contribution. Photo: Bill in STL/Flickr.
The good, in this case, is a new pot of money for the financially strapped MTA: the 50 cent-a-ride surcharge is expected to raise $80 to $85 million a year according to transit officials, a figure confirmed by inputting the surcharge into the Balanced Transportation Analyzer (BTA) pricing model. While that will barely cover one percent of the MTA's budget, it will help patch the authority's deficit and sustain essential services like subway car cleaning and system maintenance.


A side benefit is that the discouragement of taxi use due to the surcharge should cause travel speeds in Manhattan to rise, saving time for car and truck drivers and bus passengers. With some taxi trips switching to subway or bus, transit farebox revenues will go up as well. But the surcharge is so slight -- around 5 percent of a typical fare -- that these gains will barely be perceptible: a mere 0.1-0.2 percent rise in Manhattan travel speeds and a $2-$3 million-per-year rise in transit revenues, according to the BTA. And any increase in taxi cruising to make up for the lost fares would cut into the minuscule improvement in traffic.


While the press bewails the surcharge's impact on taxi users, the people likely to suffer the most are the drivers, who on average can be expected to turn 1½ to 2 fewer fares a week. Losing $20-$25 in weekly revenue may not seem like much, but it's a bitter pill for drivers who can barely pay off their medallion leases as it is. Indeed, the taxi surcharge, enacted by the legislature as an afterthought to the "mobility (payroll) tax" last spring, may do to drivers what the new taxi credit card payment system reportedly has not: drive them to the wall, economically.


Does this mean that surcharging taxi fares to pay for transit is categorically a bad idea? Decidedly not. I'm prepared to argue that a taxi surcharge a good deal larger than 50 cents per ride is essential to the political and logistical success of congestion pricing. At the same time, congestion pricing is essential to making a taxi surcharge fair for taxi drivers and passengers. With, and only with, a cordon toll, will Manhattan traffic improve sufficiently that cabbies can book more fares per shift, not fewer. Moreover, the same speedup will enable users to save valuable time, partially compensating them for the surcharge and ensuring that the taxi sector stays robust.


To grasp these synergies, consider a variable toll to drive into the Manhattan Central Business District of $3 to $9 on weekdays and $2 to $4 on weekends, with the revenues used to cut transit fares roughly in half. Residents of Queens and Brooklyn would pony up 45 cents of every dollar in new toll revenue, because of tolls on the East River bridges. Manhattanites would contribute less than 7 cents of each dollar, less than residents of Nassau County, Staten Island and the Bronx, yet would reap most of the benefits of quieter and safer streets, cleaner air, and faster bus service.


Such a plan would be DOA in Albany. Indeed, I would argue that this very imbalance between beneficiaries and benefactors helped doom the Bloomberg cordon fee in 2008 and the Ravitch bridge tolls this year.


Now take the same toll plan and add a 33 percent taxi surcharge -- yes, a one-third increase in the mileage rate, the waiting time rate and the "drop." Instantly, Manhattan residents -- who comprise an estimated three-fourths of medallion taxi users -- would see their payment share nearly quadruple to 25 percent. Brooklyn and Queens residents' share would shrink from 45 percent without the taxi surcharge to 28 percent with it. The borough-inequity argument largely disappears.


Not only that, the taxi surcharge revenue, a cool $400-$500 million according to the BTA, could allow transit officials to eliminate bus fares. Free buses would be a particular boon in distant precincts where subway lines don't reach. As well, the rise in the taxi fare would offset the fall in the "time cost" of taxi service due to the decrease in auto traffic, and keep new taxi trips from inundating the CBD. Total use of medallion cabs would stay roughly constant under this integrated plan, with the reduction in gridlock enabling drivers to handle an extra 15-20 fares per week without booking more hours.


As for the effect on taxi users, the BTA indicates that the integrated plan outlined here would add $2.16 to the price of the average CBD cab trip while shortening the ride by 1.8 minutes. In other words, passengers pay $1.20 per minute saved -- a steep rate, for most of us, and it would be steeper for trips that venture outside the CBD, where the travel time savings would be smaller, percentage-wise. Even with a cordon toll, then, taxi surcharges can't be sold to riders as an unalloyed win-win, although riders could help themselves by cab-pooling and prioritizing their taxi use.


Of course, taxi surcharges are still justified as a means of internalizing the "social delay" costs of vehicle traffic on congested streets. They're most fair and effective, though, when coupled with cordon tolling.

"

Monday, October 19, 2009

Wanted: Crowd-Sourced Transportation Analysis

Wanted: Crowd-Sourced Transportation Analysis: "

My recent post refuting David Owen's attack on congestion pricing ignited a long, rich thread. Here's one comment, from "Jonathan," that struck a nerve:



[A] cordon-pricing plan … which doesn't charge center-city residents could result in an increase in those residents' automobile use. If the streets are free of outer-borough traffic, more of my Manhattan neighbors might drive to work, or simply make extra automobile trips within the cordon that without CP [congestion pricing], they would have made by subway or taxi.



meet_the_bta_cropped.jpg

Jonathan's right: Any Manhattan cordon-pricing scheme will lead to an uptick in car trips that start and end within the charging zone. It's one of those "rebound effects" that congestion-price modeling needs to account for, and which I've taken pains to incorporate in my Balanced Transportation Analyzer pricing model.


Indeed, I daresay that the BTA handles just about every issue ever raised on this blog about congestion pricing. How many transit users will switch to cabs? Will variable tolls really flatten rush-hour peaks? Won't faster roads lure back the trips killed off by the toll (Owen's conundrum)? And many more.


Technically, the BTA is a spreadsheet. But I think of it as a vast mansion, whose 46 interlinked "rooms" (worksheets) are stocked with precious data and ingenious algorithms for cracking open questions like these:



  • How does congestion on weekends compare with weekdays?

  • How sharply do traffic speeds rise as volumes fall?

  • Which boroughs and counties stand to pay the most with congestion pricing?

  • Will a cordon toll lead to more bicycling, and will that improve public health?

  • Can decommissioning vehicle lanes increase congestion pricing's benefits?

  • Which will boost transit use more: lower fares or better service?

  • How many fares does a cabbie get in a ten-hour taxi shift, with and without pricing?


Multiply that list a hundredfold and you get a sense of the BTA's hidden treasures.


I say "hidden" because, except for a few mavens like "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz, who calls it "the best [modeling] tool that I have seen in my nearly 40 years," the Balanced Transportation Analyzer remains largely untapped by advocates. To me, it's as if we're all starving while this rich storehouse next door goes to waste.


Which prompts me to ask: Why is the BTA so underused? Is our community missing out on a valuable tool? What should we do about it?


Let's make this an open thread, with emphasis on what can we do together to make the BTA more accessible and useful to New York's livable streets community. (The model is adaptable to other cities, so those of you not from NYC are also invited.)


As for Jonathan's question: the BTA shows that over the course of a typical weekday, 72 percent of all vehicle miles traveled inside the Manhattan Central Business District are by cars, trucks and buses that have crossed into the CBD, either at 60th Street or across the Hudson or East Rivers, and thus would pay the congestion toll. The remaining 28 percent of VMT is mostly by medallion taxicabs (22 percent). Cars and trucks that stayed within the cordon zone and couldn't be tolled accounted for just 6 percent of all CBD traffic. (All this is derived and shown in the table at the bottom of the BTA's "Cordon" worksheet.)


This tells us that: 1) Even if "intrazonal" traffic rises sharply, as Jonathan fears, it will add relatively little VMT because it's such a small share of overall cordon traffic to begin with; and 2) rather than fret over the free pass for intrazonal trips (which are impractical to toll with current technology), congestion pricing needs a strategy to stop a surge in taxicab use from filling the newly freed road space.


The plan currently advocated by Ted Kheel and myself does just that. It combines a 33 percent surcharge on all three taxi-fare components -- mileage, waiting time, and the "drop" -- with time-variable car tolls of $3/$6/$9 on weekdays and $2/$3/$4 on weekends (trucks pay double, reflecting their greater bulk, while medallion cabs are exempt from the toll but pay the surcharge). Under this Kheel-Komanoff Plan, intrazonal VMT is predicted to rise by approximately 120,000 miles a day -- 40,000 by cars and trucks, 80,000 by taxicabs. But cordon VMT by vehicles coming from outside, and thus tolled, falls far more, by 450,000. This yields a net drop in cordon travel of 330,000 VMT, an 8 percent decline that, the model predicts, will boost average travel speeds within the CBD by around 20 percent.


The point of this post isn't to advocate for a particular plan, however. It's to show that rebound effects and other asserted congestion-toll pitfalls can be modeled and, with the right plan, accommodated.


The figures are based on 2007 traffic levels. Current volumes are probably slightly less. While a decrease in "baseline" traffic cuts into the benefits of congestion pricing, both the saved time and new transit revenue predicted for Kheel-Komanoff are still striking. And, yes, if you want to test our pricing plan (or your own) with reduced baseline traffic, the BTA even has a switch to adjust the volume.

"

Thursday, October 15, 2009

Streetfilms: Drivers Behaving Rudely

Streetfilms: Drivers Behaving Rudely: "

Cars blocking crosswalks, drivers failing to yield to pedestrians, unnecessary honking -- New Yorkers have to contend with these violations every day on nearly every corner in the city.


As Streetsblog publisher Mark Gorton says in this Streetfilm, most drivers are not bad or mean people, but few seem to realize how their conduct behind the wheel inconveniences and endangers pedestrians. It's a level of rudeness and carelessness that we tend not to tolerate in other spheres of life, especially when you consider the risks involved in piloting a multi-ton vehicle. New Yorkers can get brusque or nasty on the subway, but you rarely see straphangers engage in behavior that poses an immediate danger to the people around them. So what is it about driving a car that lets people disregard the safety of others?

"

Sunday, August 3, 2008

MTA plans to eliminate toll booths at the major crossings




The Daily News reports that the MTA plans to remove the toll booths in favor of EZPass transponders/receiver arrays blanketing the former and increasing cameras to photograph cars who don't have the latter. The Port Authority plans to have a feasibility study lasting 14 months and it's report published soon after.

While at first light, it does sound feasible to have it done however, possibly another agenda is in the works for the MTA and, for that matter, law enforcement. By eliminating toll booths would also eliminate jobs and traffic congestion surrounding the plazas. Pollution and health concerns would also abate, albeit temporarily, should the price of oil hold firm or rise.

But what would happen to the rarely used commuter discount that the PA offers for cars with 3+ passengers? The rule is that the toll booth operator would count the heads in the personal vehicle and issue a discount, $2.00 vs. $8.00. How would that be resolved? Then, this would be a fine excuse to increase tolls and expect higher fines for skipping without paying.

Law enforcement would also monitor those crossings much efficiently in the attempt to apprehend perpetrator or civil lawyers could subpoena evidence for their respective divorce/malfeasance cases. I hate to say it but another hash mark against privacy; I should be on my toes.

Photos by MTA

Saturday, July 12, 2008

D = Bon Jovi


D = Bon Jovi
Originally uploaded by java_pot
I would avoid driving around Central Park tomorrow between 72nd street and 86th street. There will be at least 40-70,000 attendees watching the rock concert. Rarely does the MTA subway system advertise a transit bulletin featuring a Grammy nominated rock band to advise taking mass transit.
Extended Stay Hotels