It’s apparent from the report (PDF) released yesterday that the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission took careful notes during the more than 25 hours of public testimony given on the Mayor’s congestion pricing plan. The report examines the Mayor’s plan, along with four alternatives reflecting concerns raised over several months of public hearings.

“Congratulations to the Traffic Mitigation Committee for releasing a thoughtful and fair interim report,” said Kate Slevin, Tri-State’s executive director. “The congestion pricing alternatives presented in this report were created by and designed for New Yorkers as a direct result of a successful public process. We applaud the Commission’s work and strongly urge the City Council and State Legislature to approve an equitable and effective congestion pricing plan that raises money for transit.”

The Commission met yesterday to discuss the findings of the interim report, and faces a January 31 deadline to recommend one or more proposals to the City Council and State Legislature.

Along with Mayor Bloomberg’s original congestion pricing proposal (setting the northern boundary at 86th Street, excluding periphery roads such as the FDR and West Side Highway, charging a $4 intra-zonal charge), the report considers four alternatives.

Alternative Congestion Pricing Plan

The first of these is an alteration of the original congestion pricing proposal. Most significantly, it shifts the northern boundary down to 60th Street. It also eliminates the intra-zonal charge for Manhattan residents. This change would significantly reduce implementation and operational costs because it dramatically cuts the number of license plate reading-cameras needed. It also addresses privacy concerns raised repeatedly during the public hearings.

The number of people impacted by the proposed congestion pricing fee would decline by about 46,000 drivers (25%), with most of the benefit accruing to Manhattan drivers. However, the plan evens that out somewhat by eliminating the current parking tax discount for Manhattan residents. The alternative plan would also assess a $1/trip surcharge for taxi and livery service trips beginning or ending in the CPZ, as well as a $1 surcharge for vehicles entering the zone without EZ-Pass, and would increase metered parking rates in the zone. This alternative is expected to reduce driving by slightly more than the Mayor’s original proposal (6.8%) and raise $520 million per year in net revenue for transit, about $100 million more than the Mayor’s plan.

East River and Harlem River Toll Plan

Favored by Commission Chairman Marc Shaw, the proposal to apply a $4 toll to the East River and Harlem River bridges has been roundly dismissed by the press and several elected officials. Like the MTA’s tolls, these tolls would be charged in both directions all day long, and for each individual bridge crossing. Drivers without EZ-Pass would be charged a $1 surcharge.

This alternative would reduce driving by 7 percent and generate far more revenue for transit ($860 million/year) than any of the other proposals in the report. However, it does not address trips which start and end within Manhattan.

License Plate Rationing Plan

The favored plan of Commission member and vocal congestion pricing opponent Richard Brodsky, the License Plate Rationing plan would ban 20 percent of vehicles from entering Manhattan south of 86th Street from 6 am to 6 pm on any given weekday. Vehicles would be restricted based on the last digit of their license plate, with each vehicle banned one out of every five weekdays.

There were likely political reasons for this alternative’s inclusion, and it obviously doesn’t merit more than very cursory consideration. It would not qualify for the $350 million in federal congestion pricing funding, and would raise no revenue for transit. Capital and operating costs would be just about as high as the various congestion pricing proposals.

Furthermore, as the Campaign wrote in MTR #559, Mexico City’s experiment with license plate rationing resulted in increased vehicle purchases, gasoline consumption, and driving, and a drop in transit use.

Combination Plan

The Combination plan is largely focused on parking policy reforms. It would more than double the parking tax in the CBD to 38.375 percent, eliminate the parking tax discount for Manhattan residents, increase parking meter rates in the CBD, and assess a $2 overnight parking fee in the CBD. It would also cut government parking placards by 10,000, and charge an $8 surcharge on taxi trips that start or end south of 86th Street (another idea Brodsky suggested in earlier Commission meetings).

The interim report finds that this plan would not achieve the legislatively mandated VMT reduction of 6.3 percent (according to the report, VMT would decline by only 3.2 percent). For this reason, the alternative is not fully evaluated in the report. However, it is likely that significant revenue could be raised through this proposal. And the Campaign fully supports efforts to charge more appropriate rates for curbside parking, especially in the CBD. As MTR reported last week, the Mayor has already taken steps to address placard parking abuse, mandating a 20 percent cut in the number of permits issued (equivalent to about 14,000 placards) and restricting the authority to issue placards to NYCDOT and NYPD.

City and State Must Do Their Part

Of the five alternatives (including Mayor Bloomberg’s original proposal) reviewed in the interim report, the Alternative Congestion Pricing Plan gets the Campaign’s vote. It is thoughtfully constructed and a product of a public process that was truly open and meaningful.

The commission will hold seven public hearings on the interim report, one on Jan. 16 and six during the week of Jan. 21 (they have yet to be scheduled). A final recommendation, to be issued on Jan. 31, could include aspects of all five plans and incorporate concerns brought up at the next round of public hearings.

Afterwards, the plan will move into the political realm, as it must be approved by both the City Council and State Legislature. Should the final plan prove as thoughtful as the Alternative Congestion Pricing Plan above, the city and state’s politicians will hopefully show the political courage to vote for better transit and reduced traffic.

Such courage should be easier to come by in the wake of yesterday’s Quinnipiac University poll, which found that most NYC voters supported congestion pricing as a means to improve transit. As the Daily News said today, politicians must “have the vision and plain common sense to give a green light to the program… that is clearly what the public wants and should get.”