by Neysa Pranger, Director of Public Affairs, RPA
By now you've likely heard that last week the commission set up by the State Legislature to come up with a plan to address the region's growing traffic problems released its recommendation: a version of congestion pricing in Manhattan. The commission's 17 members overwhelmingly supported Mayor Bloomberg's once radical idea to reduce pollution-spewing, economy-draining traffic while at the same time raising critical funds for public transportation.
As promising as this is, the fate of the plan is still uncertain. Before it can be implemented, the City Council and State Legislature must also approve it. The legislation that created the commission states that those legislative bodies must "consider" the panel's recommendations by March 31st, though not necessarily vote on it. But, the end of March is also the deadline for obtaining $354.5 million in federal grant money to start-up the program and provide immediate transit improvements to underserved areas of the city. Given the glacial speed at which the legislature has been known to act, it is not too early to start looking at potential road blocks standing in the way of adopting the commission's plan.
Before we address those, however, let us take a minute to weigh in on the merits of the plan approved by the commission. All in all, it is a substantial improvement over the Mayor's original version. It raises more money - $491 million annually - reduces more traffic, requires less up-front capital investment, and cuts down on concerns about privacy. It meets all the eligibility criteria for the $354.5 million in federal funds. The new plan shrinks the congestion zone boundary from 86th to 60th Street and charges only those motorists coming in to, rather than out of, the zone. It eliminates the fee for travel within the zone and charges the same fee for travel on the peripheral roadways. The plan also raises on-street parking meter rates to increase parking spot availability and cut down on endless searching for on-street parking, eliminates a little-known parking garage tax exemption for Manhattan residents, and adds a $1 surcharge to all taxi trips that either end or begin in the zone.
So what are some of the remaining points of contention? Let's examine some of them as well as look at ideas to address them.
First, reducing the impact on limited-income drivers.
This issue has been a thorny topic from the get-go. While 95% of city residents do not drive into Manhattan by automobile, 5% do. Census data clearly shows that these drivers are wealthier than transit riders, but the legislature should still think about how to accommodate those drivers with limited incomes who need to travel to Manhattan by car. One option could be to set up a state tax credit for those on limited incomes affected by the charge.
Second, New Jersey toll offsets.
Because tolls on all MTA and Port Authority facilities can be deducted from the congestion charge, a recently approved increase in Port Authority tolls mean that few drivers from New Jersey will pay any additional congestion fee. This issue raises ire among legislators who believe everyone should have to pay the congestion charge, not just New York residents. In many ways, however, the system of charging a similar fee at all access points makes sense. Drivers would then make rational decisions about which routes to take instead of driving out of their way for the cheaper toll barrier. New Jersey residents already pay a toll to come into the city, so providing an offset would equalize access into the Central Business District. The legislature should also consider the fact that New York drivers using MTA tunnels and bridges will benefit from the deduction just as New Jersey drivers will. Unfortunately this argument seems lost on Albany.
If the congestion pricing revenue was devoted only to New York-oriented transit projects rather than shared projects, such as Access to the Region's Core, this argument should go away. In the Mayor's original PlaNYC proposal, congestion pricing revenue would help pay for projects jointly funded by the Port Authority and MTA, but legislators could simply move funding to MTA projects since the increased tolls on the Port Authority crossings would fund the projects joining New York and New Jersey.
Third, dedicating the money for transit.
There is a fear that the money raised will be siphoned off to other City or State expenses instead of being dedicated exclusively to transit. Committing revenue to a particular purpose, however, is entirely in the purview of the Legislature, and has been done before. In 1968, the legislature set a formula to guarantee that a share of the MTA's revenues from its bridge and tunnel tolls is dedicated to transit. Similarly, taxes like the mortgage recording tax, petroleum business tax, corporate franchise tax and sales tax have also been reliably dedicated to transit since the early 1980s. Also, the Governor recently proposed a traffic congestion mitigation fund in the state budget to insure that these funds are dedicated to transit. And lastly, the MTA will be delivering its five-year capital program 18-months early so legislators can see exactly how congestion pricing funds will be spent.
As RPA's own Bob Yaro said last week, "Congestion pricing will not solve all our transit problems, but it is the most promising and innovative way to expand our transit system in a time of recession and budget shortfalls." Congestion pricing is indeed our best hope for continuing the growth of our region and keeping transit projects going. While the plan put forth last week was a big step forward, there should be no doubt that much work remains. The State Legislature and the City Council must now have the drive to maneuver around potential roadblocks and steer congestion pricing home.
By now you've likely heard that last week the commission set up by the State Legislature to come up with a plan to address the region's growing traffic problems released its recommendation: a version of congestion pricing in Manhattan. The commission's 17 members overwhelmingly supported Mayor Bloomberg's once radical idea to reduce pollution-spewing, economy-draining traffic while at the same time raising critical funds for public transportation.
As promising as this is, the fate of the plan is still uncertain. Before it can be implemented, the City Council and State Legislature must also approve it. The legislation that created the commission states that those legislative bodies must "consider" the panel's recommendations by March 31st, though not necessarily vote on it. But, the end of March is also the deadline for obtaining $354.5 million in federal grant money to start-up the program and provide immediate transit improvements to underserved areas of the city. Given the glacial speed at which the legislature has been known to act, it is not too early to start looking at potential road blocks standing in the way of adopting the commission's plan.
Before we address those, however, let us take a minute to weigh in on the merits of the plan approved by the commission. All in all, it is a substantial improvement over the Mayor's original version. It raises more money - $491 million annually - reduces more traffic, requires less up-front capital investment, and cuts down on concerns about privacy. It meets all the eligibility criteria for the $354.5 million in federal funds. The new plan shrinks the congestion zone boundary from 86th to 60th Street and charges only those motorists coming in to, rather than out of, the zone. It eliminates the fee for travel within the zone and charges the same fee for travel on the peripheral roadways. The plan also raises on-street parking meter rates to increase parking spot availability and cut down on endless searching for on-street parking, eliminates a little-known parking garage tax exemption for Manhattan residents, and adds a $1 surcharge to all taxi trips that either end or begin in the zone.
So what are some of the remaining points of contention? Let's examine some of them as well as look at ideas to address them.
First, reducing the impact on limited-income drivers.
This issue has been a thorny topic from the get-go. While 95% of city residents do not drive into Manhattan by automobile, 5% do. Census data clearly shows that these drivers are wealthier than transit riders, but the legislature should still think about how to accommodate those drivers with limited incomes who need to travel to Manhattan by car. One option could be to set up a state tax credit for those on limited incomes affected by the charge.
Second, New Jersey toll offsets.
Because tolls on all MTA and Port Authority facilities can be deducted from the congestion charge, a recently approved increase in Port Authority tolls mean that few drivers from New Jersey will pay any additional congestion fee. This issue raises ire among legislators who believe everyone should have to pay the congestion charge, not just New York residents. In many ways, however, the system of charging a similar fee at all access points makes sense. Drivers would then make rational decisions about which routes to take instead of driving out of their way for the cheaper toll barrier. New Jersey residents already pay a toll to come into the city, so providing an offset would equalize access into the Central Business District. The legislature should also consider the fact that New York drivers using MTA tunnels and bridges will benefit from the deduction just as New Jersey drivers will. Unfortunately this argument seems lost on Albany.
If the congestion pricing revenue was devoted only to New York-oriented transit projects rather than shared projects, such as Access to the Region's Core, this argument should go away. In the Mayor's original PlaNYC proposal, congestion pricing revenue would help pay for projects jointly funded by the Port Authority and MTA, but legislators could simply move funding to MTA projects since the increased tolls on the Port Authority crossings would fund the projects joining New York and New Jersey.
Third, dedicating the money for transit.
There is a fear that the money raised will be siphoned off to other City or State expenses instead of being dedicated exclusively to transit. Committing revenue to a particular purpose, however, is entirely in the purview of the Legislature, and has been done before. In 1968, the legislature set a formula to guarantee that a share of the MTA's revenues from its bridge and tunnel tolls is dedicated to transit. Similarly, taxes like the mortgage recording tax, petroleum business tax, corporate franchise tax and sales tax have also been reliably dedicated to transit since the early 1980s. Also, the Governor recently proposed a traffic congestion mitigation fund in the state budget to insure that these funds are dedicated to transit. And lastly, the MTA will be delivering its five-year capital program 18-months early so legislators can see exactly how congestion pricing funds will be spent.
As RPA's own Bob Yaro said last week, "Congestion pricing will not solve all our transit problems, but it is the most promising and innovative way to expand our transit system in a time of recession and budget shortfalls." Congestion pricing is indeed our best hope for continuing the growth of our region and keeping transit projects going. While the plan put forth last week was a big step forward, there should be no doubt that much work remains. The State Legislature and the City Council must now have the drive to maneuver around potential roadblocks and steer congestion pricing home.
@RegionalPlan
Leave a comment