Environmental Defense and the Pratt Center for Community Development have released a report (available here) which disproves the logic underpinning alternative plans to congestion pricing by Rep. Anthony Weiner, City Councilman Lew Fidler, and the Keep NYC Congestion Tax-Free coalition.

While it appears few are taking seriously alternatives like Fidler’s “9 CARAT STONE” plan, which would finance three expensive tunnels with a regional payroll tax and which calls for NYC to “force the issue” of hydrogen fuel cell cars, the report provides three useful criteria – timeliness of implementation, ability to cut traffic, and ability to fund transit – that all alternative traffic mitigation plans should be measured against and which thus far only congestion pricing has met.

Most instructive is a critique of plans which would improve traffic flow without providing disincentives for drivers:

PlaNYC and competing alternatives advanced by opponents of congestion pricing all seek to improve traffic operations and management through means including signal timing, enforcement of traffic laws, better taxi and truck management, and traffic information systems. Building on many years of efforts New York City has already made, these measures share in common an interest in boosting the efficient use of road space. While these measures are important for easing traffic congestion, they can be expected to only produce short-term congestion relief on their own. In the absence of cordon congestion pricing, improving traffic flow in Manhattan will lead to a well documented phenomenon known as induced traffic demand: additional road space and increased vehicle speeds will attract more drivers, ultimately worsening rather than improving traffic conditions over time.