For many years, New York City transit advocacy groups such as the Straphangers’ Campaign, Tri-State Transportation, Transportation Alternatives, the Regional Planning Association, the Empire State Transportation Alliance, etc. have been campaigning for congestion pricing as the magic solution for mass transit. If congestion pricing were to be approved, how much would it do for NYC’s mass transit?
A Brief Description of Two Congestion Pricing Proposals
Complicating a discussion of congestion pricing is the fact that it never passed and thus, there is no final version. For this article, I will rely on the congestion pricing proposal of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission (TCMC) and the tolling of the East River/Harlem Bridges proposal of the Ravitch Commission (RC).
The first, strictly speaking, is congestion pricing: Cameras would be set up on all avenues south of 60th St. and at the exit points of the East River Bridges to record the license plates of passing cars. Those entering the restricted zone would be charged a fee of $8.00.
The second would impose tolls on all bridges leading into Manhattan (4 East River & 10 Harlem River), which are not tolled today. The Ravitch Commission suggested $5.50, the same as MTA controlled bridges and tunnels, while Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver suggested pegging the tolls to the $2.00 subway fare (2009 prices). Some suggested excluding the Bronx Harlem River bridges but such an exemption wouldn’t last long. Once tolls are imposed on the East River bridges, Bronx elected officials don’t have sufficient power to prevent their bridges from being tolled in the future.
The Composite Nature of Congestion Pricing
Congestion Pricing is actually a composite of three closely related issues: (1) Is it a good idea to reduce traffic in a section of a city by isolating it and forcing motorists to pay a toll to enter; (2) Who will administer the program, set the price and collect the tolls?; and (3) Where will the revenues go?
Is Congestion Pricing a Good Idea?
The first question is beyond the scope of this article. To summarize, proponents argued that congestion pricing would reduce traffic and air pollution in the Central Business District of Manhattan, while raising large revenues for mass transit. Opponents charged that the outer boroughs would be turned into parking lots, that economic hardship would be imposed on poorer drivers, that businesses in Manhattan would suffer, and that Manhattan would assume that status of a gated community, etc. Civil libertarians didn’t like the idea of many cameras on city streets that would be necessary for fare collection.
Who Is in Control?
In contrast, to vigorous debates on the idea of congestion pricing, there was almost no discussion on who would administer the program. In the TCMC proposal, Mayor Bloomberg suggested setting up a new Sustainable Mobility and Regional Transportation Authority (SMART). In the bridge tolling proposal, the Ravitch Commission proposed that NYC should lease or sell the un-tolled bridges to the MTA.
Too many people don’t understand that a public authority is completely isolated from the political process. Thus, once either the SMART Authority or the MTA assumed control, that agency would have total power to set the price of the tolls. When NYS Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver proposed that the bridge tolls be pegged to the subway fare, this would hold for a short time until the MTA decided differently. The agency wants uniform tolling on all the bridges and tunnels so there would be no "bridge shopping." Thoughts that the MTA would lower the rates on its tolled bridges to equalize them with the tolls on the newly tolled bridges are a fantasy.
Having public authorities administer congestion pricing is the worst possible arrangement. All a public authority needs to do is to demonstrate that it needs a fare or toll hike to balance its operating budget and no one is able to stop it from raising prices. In London, prices started at the equivalent of $8.70 and rose to the equivalent of $13.90 only two years later (NY Daily News, 4/22/07). Having the ability to raise prices with impunity is a major cause of the waste and bureaucratic bloat that public authorities are famous for. In contrast, if tolls were to be set by the City Council, the rates would be lower with increases at far longer intervals or the City Council people would be voted out of office. Raising fares/tolls would be a measure of the last resort and elected officials would have to make a decision, instead of grandstanding in front of the people.
It’s difficult to assess the enormous damage done to civic engagement by public authorities. At the beginning of the decade, MTA public hearings were packed, with sessions lasting until the early hours of the morning. In 2010, even though fare hikes, service cuts and layoffs were at the top of the agenda, public hearing halls were empty as people realized that no matter what they said, no matter what their elected officials said, it was a "done deal." The Ravitch Commission suggested abolishing them not because they were a mockery of democracy but to further insulate the MTA from a showcase of "atmospherics (RC, 7)."
When an agency blatantly ignores their needs and holds them in contempt, people will not support funding it. Popular hate and mistrust of the MTA was far more decisive in stopping both congestion pricing proposals than the opposition of auto drivers, which transit advocates claim. In 2008, Sheldon Silver stated that he didn’t bring the TCMC proposal to a vote in the NYS Assembly because no one trusts the MTA. In 2009, then State Senate Majority Leader, Malcolm Smith, didn’t have enough votes in the State Senate for the RC proposal. He called the MTA a "black hole" and charged that the agency repeatedly comes back for more money.
A second problem arises if the MTA were to administer tolling on the East River/Harlem bridges. Currently, the agency collects tolls from NYC bridges and tunnels according to a formula which allocates much of the revenue to subsidize commuter rail riders and keep their fares low. "Under a 1972 state law, the toll surplus...is split at best 50/50 between city transit and the commuter railroads (NY Daily News, 2/19/03)." The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission study demonstrated that over 60% of those using the East River and Harlem bridges come from NYC while only 13% come from the rest of Long Island and Upstate NY.
This formula must be abolished not only on bridges that would be tolled but also, on bridges and tunnels that are under MTA control today. It’s clear that the citizens of NYC pay most of the tolls and their money should be spent exclusively for their mass transit needs. Tolling proponents have conveniently shoved this issue under the rug, while opponents have surprisingly not pounced on it. The losers are the transit riders of NYC.
Where Would the Revenues Really Go?
Both plans would turn over the revenues to the MTA, which has two budgets: The operating budget covers the running of the trains and buses. It includes salaries, general maintenance, fuel, and servicing the debt. The capital budget covers system expansion projects such as the 2nd Avenue subway, East Side Access, new tracks, signals, station renovations, new subway cars and buses, etc. The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission proposed using congestion pricing revenues for the MTA’s capital budget while the Ravitch Commission named the operating budget.
What would the MTA use the money for? Ultimately, for whatever the agency wants, thanks to its public authority status! Congestion pricing would be throwing more money at the MTA for more of the same: more automatic trains, modernization for the sake of modernization, lavish beautification projects in wealthy neighborhoods, etc. (Some of the money would go to pay the interest on the agency’s huge debt.) This agenda has little, if any, public support.
The best that NYC would see would be what the MTA proposed in 2008. Everyone agreed that congestion pricing would add riders to NYC's subways and buses. The MTA proposed to deal with this increase by running a few more trains and buses on certain lines–far more could have been done. Otherwise, their plan relied heavily on 12 new express bus routes, the worst solution (TCMC, 14). Not only are express buses slow but also, they are extremely expensive. New Yorkers would get the unenviable choice of paying $6.50 for a toll or $5.50 for an express bus and once again, be the losers.
Transit advocacy groups campaigning for congestion pricing frequently use open lists, giving the appearance that congestion pricing is the answer to every conceivable wish. It would keep down fare/toll hikes, restore/prevent service cuts, increase maintenance and the rebuilding of stations, fund countless Select Bus Service routes all over the City, extend subway lines, build new Bronx Metro North stations, etc.
This is the quintessence of public deception. First, the revenues would be finite, around 500 million/year. Taken together, this money couldn’t come close to pay for all the items listed and suggested. Second, transit advocacy groups campaigning for congestion pricing do not speak for the MTA and hardly have any influence on the agency. The agency has never provided an official list how the extra money would be used. If transit advocates maintain this course, it will eventually backfire leaving people feeling angry, deceived, and used.
Many transit advocates have crossed the line from mass transit advocacy to MTA advocacy to a point of contradiction. Most have stood up at public hearings saying that they are opposed to the removal of station agents and subway conductors. Yet, they advocate congestion pricing for the MTA capital budget with its Smart Card and Automatic Trains projects, which would remove both. In the present setup, it’s accurate to say that a vote for congestion pricing is a vote to remove the human presence from the system. Thus, transit advocates must ask themselves: "whose side are they on?" before publicly saying what they know people want to hear. This is not some obscure budget item that one could live with, but an extremely important concern for subway riders.
What would be fair for congestion pricing revenues? Since most people agree that Manhattan would benefit from reduced traffic and air pollution while the outer boroughs would be saddled with parking problems and more crowded trains, the answer is simple: all congestion pricing revenues must be legally dedicated for use in transit projects exclusively in the outer boroughs, with the City Council allocating them every two years. Such a condition cannot be imposed on a public authority.
Conclusion
In conclusion, for the discussion on congestion pricing to return to question #1: "Is it a good idea," New York City must end its leases with the MTA, recapture control of the MTA bridges and tunnels and must have the power to allocate the revenues for its mass transit. Unless these conditions are met, the people of NYC will be the losers.
Sources
- Report to the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission & Recommended Implementation Plan, January 31, 2008.
- Commission on MTA Financing, December 2, 2008 (a.k.a. "Ravitch Commission").
- Ellen Tumposky & Kathleen Lucadamo, "London Broil over Regs," New York Daily News, April 22, 2007, p. 27.
- Josh Rogers & Julie Shapiro, "Silver Feels the Heat of a Race; Says Congestion Pricing Could Pass," Downtown Alliance 8/15-8/21/08.
- Brendan Scott & Tom Namako, "Blood on Tracks," New York Post, March 18, 2009.
- Richard Schwartz, "Bus & Subway Riders Should Sue the MTA," New York Daily News, February 5, 2004, 37.
- Catherine Nolan & Gene Russianoff, "City Must Get Fair Share of Any Tolls," New York Daily News, February 19, 2003, 27.
John Rozankowski - I have been a community activist in the Bronx for some 20 years and participated in many local campaigns in the interest of the people. ...
Join the Conversation