slide1 l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Congestion Mitigation: Options for Evaluation New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission January 10, 2008 PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Congestion Mitigation: Options for Evaluation New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission January 10, 2008

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 14

Congestion Mitigation: Options for Evaluation New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission January 10, 2008 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 363 Views
  • Uploaded on

Congestion Mitigation: Options for Evaluation New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission January 10, 2008 Report Outline Introduction Background: the Mayor’s Plan Public Comment and Evaluation Criteria Research Agenda Options for Evaluation Appendices

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

Congestion Mitigation: Options for Evaluation New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission January 10, 2008


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
slide1

Congestion Mitigation:Options for Evaluation

New York City Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission

January 10, 2008

slide2

Report Outline

  • Introduction
  • Background: the Mayor’s Plan
  • Public Comment and Evaluation Criteria
  • Research Agenda
  • Options for Evaluation
  • Appendices
slide3

Interagency Working Group

  • New York City Department of Transportation (NYCDOT)
  • New York State Department of Transportation (NYSDOT)
  • Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)
  • Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ)
slide4

Five options for evaluation

  • Mayor’s congestion pricing plan
  • Alternative congestion pricing plan
  • Tolling the East River and Harlem River bridges
  • License plate rationing
  • Combination of parking and taxi policies
slide5

Mayor’s Plan

  • 86th Street northern boundary
  • Free periphery
  • Intra-zonal charge
  • Inbound and outbound charge
  • 6.7% VMT reduction
  • $224m capital cost
  • $649m gross revenue (annual)
  • $229m operating costs
  • $420m net revenue
slide6

Strengths and Weaknesses: Mayor’s Plan

Weaknesses

  • High capital and annual operating costs
  • Complex to implement
  • Does not charge taxis or for-hire vehicles
  • 340 charging sites raise greater privacy concerns

Strengths

  • Reduces VMT by 6.7%
  • Intrazonal trips subject to $4 congestion fee
  • Free periphery allows through drivers to use the FDR and Route 9A without paying
slide7

Alternative congestion pricing plan

  • 60th Street northern boundary
  • Charged periphery
  • No intra-zonal charge
  • Inbound charge only
  • 6.8% VMT reduction
  • $73m capital cost
  • $582m gross revenue (annual)
  • $62m operating costs
  • $520m net revenue
  • $1 surcharge on taxi and for-hire vehicle trips in the CBD
  • Increase meter rates in the CBD
  • Eliminate Manhattan resident parking tax exemption in the CBD
slide8

Strengths and Weaknesses: Alternative congestion pricing plan

Weaknesses

  • Does not offer a free peripheral route for through trips (for example from Brooklyn to the Bronx)
  • Some intrazonal auto trips would not be subject to any new fee or tax

Strengths

  • Reduces VMT by 6.8%
  • Lower capital and operating costs than the Mayor’s Plan
  • Charges taxi and for-hire vehicle trips in the CBD
  • Easier to implement than the Mayor’s plan
slide9

East River and Harlem River Bridge Tolls

  • Per trip toll
  • East River and Harlem River bridges
  • MTA toll structure
  • 24 hour
  • 7.0% VMT reduction
  • $67m capital cost
  • $947m gross revenue (annual)
  • $88m operating costs
  • $859m net revenue
slide10

Strengths and Weaknesses: Tolling

Weaknesses

  • As a 24/7 toll, would charge drivers who do not contribute to congestion
  • Would not charge intra-Manhattan travel
  • Per trip charges would have a large impact on commercial vehicle operations
  • Harlem River tolls would impact local trips between South Bronx and Harlem/Washington Heights

Strengths

  • 7.0% VMT reduction
  • Highest net revenue
  • Lower capital and operating expenses than the Mayor’s plan
  • Eliminates the need to match transactions to calculate a daily charge
  • Would enable City, MTA, and PA to move toward a uniform tolling strategy for Manhattan
slide11

License Plate Rationing

  • 86th Street northern boundary
  • 20% vehicle ban
  • Assumes that DMVs in Tri-state area each create a system to register license plates by household
  • 10.3% VMT reduction
  • No revenue generated
  • Capital and operating costs depend on method of implementation
slide12

Strengths and Weaknesses: Rationing

Weaknesses

  • Requires tri-state area DMVs to institute a household- based licensing system
  • Does not generate revenue
  • Restricts ability of businesses to make deliveries
  • Reduces revenue to MTA and PA

Strengths

  • Reduces VMT by 10.3%
  • All drivers impacted equally
slide13

Combination of parking and taxi policies

  • Eliminate parking tax exemption for Manhattan residents
  • Increase parking tax from 18.375% to 38.375% in Manhattan
  • Increase on-street parking rates in the CBD
  • Eliminate 10,000 placards used to commute to jobs in the CBD
  • Impose $2 overnight on-street parking fee in the CBD
  • $8 surcharge for taxi and for-hire vehicle trips below 86 Street
  • 3.2% VMT reduction
  • $660m gross revenue (annual)
  • Capital and operating costs unknown
  • ~$660 net revenue
slide14

Strengths and Weaknesses: Combination of parking and taxi policies

  • Not further evaluated (did not meet 6.3% VMT reduction threshold)