NYC Plan for the Future - Congestion Pricing and More

[skadistic]

Why not raise the rates of the tolls for the tunnels and bridges? What the Varisano up to? Only 10 bucks? Make it 15.

 

[The Yankee]

That's a conversation I had with a guy this week on where he's lived. He said he got bounced from Manhattan twice so he moved to the first stop in Brooklyn, then the second, then the third when he finally decided he had to buy a place.

Well, at least he was able to buy one. The hot thing right now is to shove condos everywhere. Those aren't cheap.

And if I were to somehow live in Manhattan once I'm done living in this dump of a building, I'd have to expect living in Washington Heights and paying $1100 per month or more.

Or do what some young people do because they're so desperate to live in Manhattan and be cool: get into a tenement situation and shove four or more into some apartment.

Even Alphabet City isn't cheap anymore. It started in the mid-90's when my grandmother was forced out. Now I can't even look at Avenue A without feeling like I'm losing money.

 

[The Yankee]

Why not raise the rates of the tolls for the tunnels and bridges? What the Varisano up to? Only 10 bucks? Make it 15.

The Verrazano toll is $9 one way (so it'd work out to $4.50 if you used it going each way) and only gets you into Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. Staten Islanders would throw a fit. Though maybe we should revoke the free Staten Island ferry and Staten Island Railroad instead (a move by Giuliani when Staten Islanders were angry enough that they talked of seceding from the city).

Even so, the money from increased tolls would only lead to more people moving around New Jersey and up Brooklyn to head to the cheaper (or free) crossings and would make a drop in the bucket compared to what's needed to really expand the mass transit system.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Looking at it, I actually think the congestion pricing is too modest, especially since any tolls on the way in are deducted from the price. If a commuter already pays a 4 dollar toll, it only costs 4 more dollars to get through. I really wonder how strong the effect will be with such leniencies. I guess it made it more politically palatable to keep it low, and it means there will at least be something in place rather than nothing. I guess this is a wait and see situation.

And if I were to somehow live in Manhattan once I'm done living in this dump of a building, I'd have to expect living in Washington Heights and paying $1100 per month or more.

Wow, that is about what it would cost in Calgary for a modest apartment as well.

 

[Whomp]

Looking at it, I actually think the congestion pricing is too modest, especially since any tolls on the way in are deducted from the price. If a commuter already pays a 4 dollar toll, it only costs 4 more dollars to get through. I really wonder how strong the effect will be with such leniencies. I guess it made it more politically palatable to keep it low, and it means there will at least be something in place rather than nothing. I guess this is a wait and see situation.

I think one of the arguments is the tax is regressive because it impacts a lot of people who can't afford to live in Manhattan and they keep getting pushed further and further away from what circles the island.

I think people simply learn to adapt by car pooling and using public transportation.

 

[The Yankee]

Wow, that is about what it would cost in Calgary for a modest apartment as well.

Depends on what you mean by modest. My currently $900/month place is essentially two rooms with a small kitchen and a small bathroom. That and our superintendent never actually does his job, so everything here doesn't work, from the doorbell to sometimes the radiators (we can't control the heat, though gas is included) to the lights in the stairwell and the fact that the banister broke clean off the wall when my father was on it. The banister hasn't been replaced (its been 3 months and was a simple wood banister) and the lights haven't been replaced (been over one month since they went out).

The neighborhood is pretty decent, that's about the shining light in it.

 

[The Yankee]

I think one of the arguments is the tax is regressive because it impacts a lot of people who can't afford to live in Manhattan and they keep getting pushed further and further away from what circles the island.

I think people simply learn to adapt by car pooling and using public transportation.

The only viable option for most of those places would be car pooling (which would probably have to be set up by some new community organization to get people to know one another), since service to these outlying places is subpar at best (though in a few of the areas, the higher income ones, they actively resist transit expansion).

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Depends on what you mean by modest. My currently $900/month place is essentially two rooms with a small kitchen and a small bathroom. That and our superintendent never actually does his job, so everything here doesn't work, from the doorbell to sometimes the radiators (we can't control the heat, though gas is included) to the lights in the stairwell and the fact that the banister broke clean off the wall when my father was on it. The banister hasn't been replaced (its been 3 months and was a simple wood banister) and the lights haven't been replaced (been over one month since they went out).

The neighborhood is pretty decent, that's about the shining light in it.

Well, pretty close to some situations in Calgary, anyway. There is a 0.5 percent vacancy rate right now, so landlords have been opting for massive rent hikes. That is jthe oil boom for you. The most expensive place to live in Canada is Fort Mac up north, where average rents are 1,600 (for a dump).

Currency differences should be taken into account, although the Canadian dollar is at about 94 cents right now so that is minor. Obviously New York is more expensive, but not by a lot (outside of Manhattan, anyway).

 

[The Yankee]

It's certainly a lot more in the main part of Manhattan unless you get ultralucky. Wish I could have acted upon it, but once saw some place for $1200 near Broadway and 53rd Street. Probably was a dump and you'd have to deal with all sorts of crap, but that's what I have here anyway with a longer commute.

Still, say this program is wildly successful and people leave their cars behind or off near Manhattan but not in it. There isn't enough room to contain more people on some of the lines going into Manhattan. Those need to be expanded first. Problem is, Albany won't help us out. The money gets funneled to some favored districts upstate.

 

[Tabasco Sauce]

If people are charged $8 to get into the city at certain points, it is illogical to think that they will all take the subway/buses...

No, instead, traffic would increase dramatically at free crossing points, causing hell for commuters. Oh, and if the city sees this happening, how long until the other crossings are taxed? Its only a matter of time until commuters get screwed over completely, either forcing them to fork over $200+ a month or forcing them to use an strained, dilapidated commuter system. One more thing, where does this money go, down what bureaucratic sewer does it descend?

 

[The Yankee]

Ostensibly, there would be the charge to get into the city (say from the free Brooklyn Bridge) since it would enter into the "south of 86th Street zone." The only difference, as far as I know, is that the crossings with tolls would stay that way in addition to the toll for entering Manhattan.

So right now, it is like this:
Use the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel to enter Manhattan: $4.50 one way
Use the Brooklyn Bridge to enter Manhattan: Free

Once the congestion toll is placed:
Use the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel to enter Manhattan (which is in Downtown Manhattan): $4.50 one way plus $8 toll
Use the Brooklyn Bridge to enter Manhattan (again leaving you in Downtown Manhattan): Free plus $8 toll

And the money raised is supposed to go to the transit system for the needed expansions and maintenance.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Problem is, Albany won't help us out. The money gets funneled to some favored districts upstate.

Yup. That is when you need a government like Ontario's.

 

[Whomp]

It must be a worldwide phenomenon between city and country because downstate Illinois hates Chicago.

 

[The Yankee]

Yup. That is when you need a government like Ontario's.

I'm going to end up being one of those people that supports Downstate New York seceding from Albany, it seems. Though Washington takes more from the city than the state, I believe. Perhaps it's about even now that we have Democratic control at least forcing Homeland Security to pay a bit of attention to us.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

I'm going to end up being one of those people that supports Downstate New York seceding from Albany, it seems. Though Washington takes more from the city than the state, I believe. Perhaps it's about even now that we have Democratic control at least forcing Homeland Security to pay a bit of attention to us.

For some reason I suspect that within the coming decade, America will do an equivalent of the interstate highway project but with public urban transit... what with emissions/environmental problems and all. It seems like just a matter of time, no matter what political party is in power or what level of government is responsible.

Just hang tight. Pretty soon government will take not of the fact that New York is not only the biggest and most important city, but also the most energy efficient. Its importance can only rise.

 

[The Yankee]

That would be pretty hard to pull off, I would think. There are too many congressmen that wouldn't want to put money into systems that mostly would benefit metropolitan areas (as it'd probably be inefficient to build a national rail system beyond what we already have with Amtrak). The chances of such a thing happening are a bit greater with Democrats since they tend to represent urban areas moreso than Republicans (and captured many suburban seats in 2006, which might also benefit).

Setting further standards for emissions and so forth wouldn't be out of the question.

 

[The Yankee]

Here's some backup over my claim that this can't work without additional capacity:

link (free login may be required)

By WILLIAM NEUMAN
Published: June 26, 2007

They are just lines on a graph, but for many subway riders they will provide unique insight into one of the great aggravations of life underground: why trains on some lines are so often both crowded and late, while on other lines the trains seem to cruise along on schedule with almost no one on board.

In an unusually candid effort at self-examination for a habitually insular agency, New York City Transit yesterday presented what could be called an index of straphanger frustration. It made an analysis of each subway line that shows at a glance how often trains run late, how crowded they are and whether more trains could be added to ease the problems.

What is revealed is both predictable and eye-opening. Many subway lines are simply maxed out, meaning there is no room on the tracks they use to add trains that could carry the swelling numbers of riders. And that has implications that range from day-to-day decisions about how trains travel through the system to long-term planning on how to best move people around a growing city.

“From my point of view, this is scary,” said Howard H. Roberts Jr., the president of New York City Transit, who presented the data to members of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s board. “This is scary in the sense that right now, on a lot of these lines, we’re several years and a big capital construction project away from being able to provide what I consider adequate service. We’re constrained.”

Mr. Roberts said the data had particular significance in light of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s proposal for a congestion pricing system that would charge most drivers who enter Manhattan below 86th Street — with the intent of moving people out of their cars and onto mass transit.

Mr. Roberts said that on many subway lines, especially the heavily used numbered lines, there is little or no room to accommodate more riders.

“It’s bad news,” Mr. Roberts said. “There’s no room at the inn.”

If congestion pricing becomes a reality, planners will have to rely on additional bus service as a way to increase the transit system’s capacity.

Mr. Roberts had his staff compile the data to solve a mystery he encountered after taking over the nation’s largest transit system in April. He said that he noticed that the subway’s A division (the 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 lines) regularly operated with about 7 percent more late or canceled trains than the B division, (all the letter lines and the No. 7 line.) The 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 trains are part of the old IRT system, the city’s first subway.

What Mr. Roberts discovered was that most of the A division lines are being stretched to their limit in two ways: no additional trains can be added to the schedule during rush hours because the tracks they use are already handling the maximum number possible, and most of the rush hour trains are already crammed with an overflow of riders.

Crowding is so bad that on the 4, 5, 6 and L lines, trains during the morning rush exceed the transit agency’s loading guidelines, which posit that every rider should have at least a three-square-foot space to stand in (that translates to a square patch of car floor 20 inches on each side).

Crowded trains can lead to delays because it takes people more time to get in and out of the cars.

But the real squeeze results from the crowded tracks. Trains must operate with enough space between them so they have room to stop to avoid a collision. That limits the number of trains that can fit on a stretch of track. And when a track is operating at full capacity, even small delays —like those caused by a passenger who is ill or someone holding a door open while a friend races down the stairs — can have a big impact.

“You get to the point where the slightest deviation in schedule causes a backup and what is sometimes referred to as ‘the wave,’ ” Mr. Roberts said. “One train slows down for any reason and it starts a wave back up the system.”

He compared the most heavily used tracks to a highway with bumper-to-bumper traffic, where someone slowing down or changing lanes can force drivers far behind to put on the brakes.

The information presented yesterday brings the problem into clear focus.

The No. 4 and 5 trains share the express track on the Lexington Avenue line in Manhattan. The track is at full capacity, with a total of 27 trains an hour running during the morning peak. In addition, peak ridership on both lines exceeds the guidelines, with more people jamming onto cars than the cars are meant to hold.

It is no wonder, then, that in April, riders on the No. 4 line suffered through the greatest number of late trains, with only 83.2 percent of trains running on time. The No. 5 train was not far ahead, with 87.2 percent of trains on time.

It was a far different story on another set of tracks. The J, Z and M trains, which run from Queens to Manhattan and Brooklyn, are far from using their full capacity, both on the tracks and inside the cars. All three lines had an on-time performance close to 99 percent in April.

Mr. Roberts said that he is trying to find solutions to these problems. He has asked the agency’s engineers to study the feasibility of extending the length of the platforms on the most crowded lines, to allow for longer trains. On the Lexington Avenue line, that could mean running 12-car trains instead of the current 10-car trains, a 20 percent increase in capacity. But a project of that magnitude would take several years to complete.

Other long-term solutions are also years away, including a new Second Avenue subway and expansion of a computerized signal system that would allow the trains to run closer together, increasing the number that could run on the tracks.

The MTA argues that if it can implement the tracks needed so that the subway trains can be operated by communication-based train control (CBTC), it can place more trains per hour onto the tracks, since the need to have distances between the trains would be not as great. However, the Transport Workers' Union Local 100 (the union representing nearly all of the MTA's transit workers) has fought the measure, since the implementation of CBTC would result in the elimination of one of the two workers aboard nearly every train (shuttles and 4-car trains only have one employee).

However, CBTC won't happen for a long time systemwide. The L train has already been updated for CBTC, but as you can see in that article, applying it to interlocking routes will be difficult and result in many disruptions of service, as it did for the L.

(The L train serves Canarsie and areas around northern Brooklyn, areas that may be fairly isolated from adequate subway service and access to some of the other lines, thus the crowding on the L has always been there. Take it from a former L train rider.)

Since congestion pricing won't wait until 2050 for the subway system to be updates, there have to be more ways to increase capacity. In the short-term, it will mean more buses. Longer term, it will mean subway extensions that actually get built.

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

@The Yankee. I don't think anyone ever claimed this would be attempted without increasing capacity. That was one of the central keys to the whole plan.

 

[The Yankee]

@The Yankee. I don't think anyone ever claimed this would be attempted without increasing capacity. That was one of the central keys to the whole plan.

Yes, that's in there, but will they wait as long as it will take to add the capacity, given the current state of affairs? Remember that the state often has us by our groin with such things, we'd need the funding first to expand capacity.

What happens if (maybe even when) the state shoots us down? There are many legislators that have constituents driving to Manhattan for work. My former boss, Tom Suozzi, said it was a good thing to have them put on mass transit, but he cannot vote to give the city and the MTA the funds needed, as he's a county executive, not a representative.

Can Bloomberg wait? Can his successor wait?

Mr. Bloomberg also called for improvements in express bus service and other public transportation in neighborhoods with little access to the subways, and where people are most inclined to drive into Manhattan for work or shopping. He said the city would complete those improvements before anyone is charged in the congestion pricing system.

Still, the reaction of many officials from outside Manhattan was cool. “I wonder if it is another hidden tax on working people,” said Adolfo Carrion Jr., the Bronx borough president. “I worry about people who need to use their cars to get to work.”

Money raised through congestion pricing would be added to the $400 million a year in combined city and state funds that the plan seeks for the creation of a new financing authority for transportation projects. The Sustainable Mobility and Regional Transportation authority would issue bonds to award matching grants for projects by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and other agencies.

Mayor Bloomberg said yesterday that the added financial muscle was needed to close a $31 billion funding gap in 18 projects that are planned or underway, including the Second Avenue subway.

The new authority would be governed by a board with equal representation from the city and state. But it could provide a mechanism for Mr. Bloomberg and future mayors to reclaim some power over planning and capital expenditures by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. It is also a joint city and state agency, but one that has often been dominated by appointees of the governor.

In a prepared statement yesterday, officials from the M.T.A. said: “We applaud the mayor’s commitment to the transit system and will carefully analyze the city’s proposal to understand its impact on the M.T.A.”

 

[Desmond Hawkins]

Ya, you are right. At least with buses it can be done pretty quickly with the availability of funds (unlike subways which are difficult to fast-track). I imagine that if the pricing does stay on schedule, it will be mostly due to buses.

The fear I have of postponing the process is that these kind of things have a tendency to just be shelved indefinitely.