By allowing motorists to ride for free across a select group of bridge is costing the city nearly $1 billion in annual revenues, the city’s Independent Budget Office said recently. The IBO has released its annual report of city budget options, and one of their recommendations includes tolling the East River bridges to generate revenue. Although the IBO is issuing this proposal with an eye toward the city’s depleted coffers, I have long supported a plan to toll the bridges in an attempt to generate revenue for transit.

In its report, the IBO runs the numbers. By tolling the East River bridges at $9.60 per round trip — rates comparable to those levied on drivers crossing through the Brooklyn-Battery and Queens-Midtown Tunnels — the city would generate $690 million in revenue. By placing a $4.40 round-trip fare on the eight Harlem River spans would lead to an additional $280 million.

“On all of the tolled bridges, buses would be exempt from payment. IBO’s revenue estimates assume that trucks pay the same tolls as automobiles,” the report says. “If trucks paid more, as they do on bridges and tunnels that are currently tolled, there would be a corresponding increase in total revenue. IBO estimates that exempting all city residents from tolls would reduce revenue by more than half, to $440 million.

In its report, the IBO runs through the pros and cons, and the arguments are near and dear to our hearts:

Proponents might argue that the tolls would provide a stable revenue source for the operating and capital budgets of the city Department of Transportation. Many proponents could argue that it is appropriate to charge a user fee to drivers to compensate the city for the expense of maintaining the bridges, rather than paying for it out of general taxes borne by bridge users and nonusers alike. Transportation advocates argue that, although tolls represent an additional expense for drivers, they can make drivers better off by guaranteeing that roads, bridges, tunnels, and highways receive adequate funding.

Some transportation advocacy groups have promoted tolls not only to generate revenue, but also as a tool to reduce traffic congestion and encourage greater transit use. Peak- load pricing (higher fares at rush hours than at nonrush hours) is an option that could further this goal. If more drivers switch to public transit, people who continue to drive would benefit from reduced congestion and shorter travel times. A portion of the toll revenue could potentially be used to support improved public transportation alternatives. Finally, proponents might note that city residents or businesses could be charged at a lower rate than nonresidents to address local concerns.

Opponents might argue that motorists who drive to Manhattan already pay steep parking fees, and that many drivers who use the free bridges to pass through Manhattan already pay tolls on other bridges and tunnels. Many toll opponents may believe that it is particularly unfair to charge motorists to travel between Manhattan and the other boroughs. These opponents draw a parallel with transit pricing policy. With the advent of free MetroCard transfers between buses and subways, and the elimination of the fare on the Staten Island Ferry, most transit riders pay the same fare to travel between Manhattan and the other boroughs as they do to travel within each borough. Tolls on the East River and Harlem River bridges would make travel to and from Manhattan more expensive than travel within a borough.

In addition, because most automobile trips between Manhattan and the other boroughs are made by residents of the latter, inhabitants of Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx would be more adversely affected by tolls than residents of Manhattan. An additional concern might be the effect on small businesses. Finally, opponents might argue that even with E-ZPass technology, tolling could lead to traffic backups on local streets and increased air pollution.

The report seems particularly relevant today after my recent discussion on distance-based fares. While I do not advocate for a zone system for New York’s subways, tolling the bridges would generate revenue for transportation projects and user fees for upkeep while discouraging unnecessary car trips. As those who drive into Manhattan’s Central Business District are significantly wealthier than those who do not, these tolls wouldn’t penalize those who cannot afford it. The money should go, in part, toward boosting public transit, and the city would be better off for it.

Meanwhile, as Streetsblog noted in its coverage of the report, the IBO proposed a number of other transportation-related initiatives: “Other transportation-related suggestions in the report include making private school students pay for yellow bus service and MetroCards ($37 million), restoring the fare on the Staten Island Ferry ($4.8 million) and replacing late-night Staten Island Ferry service with buses ($3.7 million).” Those all seem rather sensible to me.

This map shows New York City's Community Boards shaded by median household income. Click to enlarge.

As the MTA has struggled to find money, its fare policies have increasingly come under the microscope. Without substantial state support, the only way the MTA can close its budget gaps is through fare hikes or restructuring the way we pay. The current flat fare is a solution that serves to equalize the amount everyone pays to ride the subway. While discounted unlimited ride cards give some folks a benefit, the base fare is the same from Inwood to the Rockaways.

Across the world, different subway systems treat fares different. We have to travel no further than Washington, D.C., to find distance-based fares, and London’s Underground is famous for its fare zones. In D.C., the further one needs to travel, the more the ride will cost. In London, the further away one gets from the central business district, the more one must travel. If a straphanger’s ride doesn’t enter Zone 1 but crosses multiple zones, the fares go up accordingly.

Recently on SAS, as I discussed how high the fares could go, those who comment on the site wondered about a zone-based fare system. Our system’s turnstiles can be configured for swipes upon exit, and the fare system could be reconfigured for zones or distance. (The comment thread begins right here and continues on for a bit.)

Now, my objections to zone-based fares cover a few topics. First, while distance- or zone-based fare systems are in place elsewhere, they seem prevalent in systems that cross city limits. The London Underground extends well beyond the City of London, and in fact, the local governmental unit that makes up the City is all in Zone 1. In D.C, however, distance-based fares pay no attention to city boundaries.

But because so many people — 5 million per day — use the subway system to get to work and because the city would not exist as a major economic hub without the subway, a distance or zone system seems inherently unfair to me. It penalizes people because there isn’t enough space on the island of Manhattan for all of us.

My second complaint involves the map at the top of this post. Using the Furman Center’s 2009 State of the City report, I color-coded community board district by median annual income. Perhaps I could have used colors that were more contrasting, but in general, the darker the shade, the richer the community board. As a baseline, the two South Bronx communities in light pink have median annual incomes below $20,000 while the Upper East and West Sides are above $100,000.

If you were to overlay a subway map on top of this socioeconomic representation of the city, it becomes tougher to justify a zone fare. Suddenly, the richest folks in the city are the ones who are closest to work and can most afford to pay higher. In Brooklyn, the poorest residents down in the Coney Island area live furthest away, and in Queens, Astoria and its neighbors to the south are richer than those from Flushing who are further away from the city.

Only in the Bronx would a distance-based fare make sense because incomes rise as we head north, but even then, the folks in the South Bronx make around 18 percent of what those who live in the East and West 80s in Manhattan do. If the subway is supposed to be a public good that allows for people of any income bracket to get to their jobs in a cost-efficient way, New York’s socioeconomics seem to make a zone- or distance-based fare highly problematic.

Ultimately, I don’t think zone-based fares are the answer for New York City. Once upon a time, when richer folk left the urban core for the supposed comforts of the suburban sprawl, a zone system might have made sense. But in today’s New York, those who can least afford to pay would be forced to hand over more dollars under a zone fare regime while the city’s wealthiest don’t. Unless the MTA were to create a convoluted fare system that pits intraborough Manhattan travel against interborough travel, we’ll be stuck, for better or worse, with a flat fare system.