One of the key concerns expressed by community residents, advocacy groups, and elected officials about any congestion pricing proposal has been the impact on air quality from a perceived increase in vehicular traffic in their communities. The “periphery argument” reasons that drivers seeking to avoid the congestion fee will drive to just outside the periphery of the pricing zone, park, and take transit the rest of the way.
The Campaign rebutted this argument back in MTR # 557. However, new analysis conducted by research staff for the NYC Traffic Mitigation Commission further allays this concern with projections showing a reduction in vehicle miles traveled outside of the pricing zone. Analysis of the four alternative plans and the Mayor’s original plan shows that all would decrease VMT throughout the five boroughs, Long Island, and the rest of the NYC metropolitan area. In fact, areas bordering the zone would see some of the largest VMT reductions. For example, VMT would fall by 6.1% in Western Queens (Long Island City, Astoria, Sunnyside).
Even comparatively small VMT reductions have a great impact on gridlock. For example, the alternative congestion pricing plan reduces VMT by 1% in Staten Island, but reduces traffic at level of service “F” by 12.3% in the borough (“level of service” is a traffic engineering term referring to traffic flow; “F” is the worst level of service and represents stop-and-go traffic). As with VMT, areas next to the pricing zone see some of the highest reductions in traffic at level of service “F” (Northwest Brooklyn, for example, would see a 22.1% reduction in F-level traffic under the alternative congestion pricing plan).
Nevertheless, NYC DOT is currently conducting “neighborhood parking workshops” to discuss possible mitigation strategies for increased parking activity resulting from congestion pricing. London and other cities which have enacted cordon pricing have not seen increases in parking around the edge of their pricing zones, perhaps because of measures like residential parking permits.
The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission held the last public hearings on the interim report yesterday, but members of the public can still e-mail the commission through the Campaign for New York’s Future or at congestion_mitigation_commission@dot.state.ny.us.
In fact there has been NO impact statement whatsoever issued on the effects that the congestion plan might cause in the “out-lying” areas, or those areas outside the congestion zone. It is my suggestion that government take a look at the stress, overcrowding and indeed the creation of yet newer congestion areas when those avoiding the congestion area start to travers those streets and communities. Notice that the impact of such a scenario has NOT been brought to anyone’s attention…guess it does not matter what the middle class feel or have to endure. It is the rich who will be able to afford the congestion tax as they get driven around in their limo’s or worse drive themselves around in their Maybach’s, Mercedes, Rolls and Bentley’s that we see so often in midtown. There are other ways to handle this…..I feel that if there were mandates imposed that all vehicles entering Manhattan MUST be either alternative fuel or retrofitted with appropriate filters in order to gain entry on to the island. This would at least help to cut down on the air pollution that the heavy traffic causes while moving into the congestion zone, or around town.
[…] phenomena that has not proven a problem in cities where congestion pricing is in place. In fact, research by the TCMC shows that congestion in border neighborhoods would actually decrease with pricing in effect. But […]
[…] the central business district even though many neighborhoods outside of Manhattan would have seen major traffic relief under the plan). Ultimately, he points to the inherent difficulty of disrupting the status quo […]