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.
36 comments
I’ve never understood the argument that’s it’s somehow unfair to toll motorists from entering Manhattan. If it’s simply an argument about fairness, why are most of the automotive routes of the most transit-accessible borough free, while it’s the opposite situation for travel between Queens and the Bronx or Brooklyn and Staten Island?
Buses would be cheaper to run than the ferry? That’s interesting.
Advocates should push for equalizing the costs to enter Manhattan to improve traffic. It doesn’t make sense for the QMT to be tolled and the Queensboro Bridge not to be tolled.
There’s a good argument for the MTA not being responsible for any part of the student subsidies, but I’d oppose eliminating it just for private school students, which strikes me as a pure revenue grab.
But as for the bigger ticket item, tolling of the East River bridges is no doubt necessary and justified. I don’t know that transit should be a primary use of this revenue; the city has many other urgent causes (e.g. education, human welfare) that don’t have the enormous untapped revenue generation capacity of the MTA. The big benefit to the MTA of East River bridge tolling is that it would drive additional consumers onto transit, and create more room for fare hikes.
“don’t have the enormous untapped revenue generation capacity of the MTA”
What “enormous untapped…capacity” would that be? This blog has spent a lot of bandwidth establishing that the capital plan is $10B in the hole after this year, that there have been successive substantial fare increases, that the State and City for the last decade have eliminated transfers from General Revenues and that the fare-box is supporting this system to a greater extent than any other US system. Apparently someone is hiding a lot of money under a mattress somewhere. Must be some lumpy mattress.
Fare increases, obviously. Unlike basic schooling, which is constitutionally mandated to be free, and welfare programs that don’t offer a revenue opportunity, the MTA has a lot of capacity to collect more money from its users before the loss of riders would make additional fare increases counterproductive.
“I have long supported a plan to toll the bridges in an attempt to generate revenue for transit.”
Yet another plan to make driving prohibitively expensive that you support. Are you proposing bridge tolls IN ADDITION to congestion pricing and the elimination of free parking, or is it one or the other?
Yet another simplistic non-sequitur that ignores the real costs of an automobilocracy. Why, yes, let’s make it more expensive for everyone else to get around. Only the drivers matter!
I am far from rich, I have a car and I drive it as needed, but when I go to the office 5 days a week you can bet your last dollar I’m on the train. Why is it that this is a foreign concept to most drivers is beyond me. Oh and going out of your way to seek the free bridge when you have the tolled tunnel right in your face saves you NOTHING! Especially with gas prices like these.
I’ll be conducting free MetroCard usage lessons all week!
What I don’t get is, why would you want to sit in traffic while you’re driving? If I were to drive, I’d want to be able to avoid the congestion. I may not be rich, but I value my time at way more than whatever fee would ever reasonably be levied to drive in Manhattan.
I don’t know about that. On a round trip, I save $11 by using the 59th St. Bridge over the Queens Midtown Tunnel. Even with high gas prices, I come out ahead.
How bout we just do congestion parking pricing. It would reduce traffic. As much as 30% of the traffic is cars cruising for parking. Have the parking fees as low as possible for a minimum of 1 parking spot to stay open per block. That should enable drivers to save time (and gasoline thus $) cruising for a spot, and ease congestion in Manhattan CBD and downtowns throughout NYC.
http://www.cato-unbound.org/20.....e-markets/
Why stop at bridges? Why not put tolls on all the city highways? We could have tolls on the FDR, the BQE, the LIE, etc. We can make it so that only the super rich will be able to afford to drive their cars anywhere.
Bridges are proportionately more expensive to maintain than highways, and they are certainly NOT free. But as they are untolled today, those of us without cars are subsidizing you, so that you can drive on them without paying for their upkeep.
The level of tolls suggested is nowhere near enough to make cars unaffordable for all but the super-rich, so that argument is just specious.
The reality is that the BQE, FDR, etc., should be tolled, too. Just like your Internet connection or your cell phone, you should pay for what you use. But because those highways have so many entrances and exits, implementing a toll structure would be extremely complex. Bridges are easy, because there is one route that every user must pass through.
Also, it makes sense to toll the scarcer resource. Bridges are natural choke points, because there are a limited number of them. Once you’re in a borough, there are many more travel routes you can take.
“Bridges are proportionately more expensive to maintain than highways, and they are certainly NOT free. But as they are untolled today, those of us without cars are subsidizing you, so that you can drive on them without paying for their upkeep.”
That right there…..is the most INTELLIGENT COMMENT I have ever ready on this website! Hands down. The first two bridges that come to mind with a comment like this are the 3rd Avenue and Willis Avenue bridges. 3rd Avenue had to be completely overhauled and the Willis is a completely brand new bridge. Where do people think that money comes from?
They can save even more money by simply decommissioning the bridges and tunnels. No money to bridge upkeep whatsoever, except what is required to allow the bridges to serve bikes. That way no one can get into Manhattan by car at all. Manhatrtan would become the greatest place in the history of mankind. They even made a movie about how great it would be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_from_New_York
How will stores get delivieries in a car free Manhattan? Do you like going to the supermarket and seeing stocked shelves, or would you rather see empty shelves like they had in the USSR?
A car-free Manhattan is not the same as a truck-free Manhattan.
Eliminating bridges and tunnels would be very problematic. How would we evacuate Manhattan if that were necessary, have everyone swim and kayak?. It also would greatly increase the time necessary to evacuate Long Island, and seriously hamper east west movement between New England and the rest of the US west of the Hudson River.
Donald, Al, your ability to detect sarcasm needs a major overhaul.
“Where do people think that money comes from?”
Oh, just a wild guess here, but I’ll say “taxes.” And since most of the commenters here seem to think that owning a car makes you “rich” (or at least richer than people who don’t own cars), I’ll just point out that rich people pay a lot in taxes. So no, you are not “subsidizing” car owners. If they really are richer than you, they are subsidizing you. Take a look sometime at the statistics from the IRS about what percentage of income tax revenue comes from the top 1% or the top 5% of the filers.
Well just to inform you. This city and state is subsidizing more money towards bridges and roads than ever and less than ever towards mass transit. Over the past 30 years this city and state has all but gotten out of the business of funding mass transit. But the money continues to get pumped into dead ends like the BQE or Manhattan Bridge. I’m 29, they’ve been fixing the BQE and Manhattan Bridge since my birth. I live in this town and own a car but I am far from rich. My car is not going to make money for me in this town. Donald makes it seem as if he would die to take the train.
Park the car and get on the train and you can save more than just that 11 dollars you claim to be saving using the 59th Street Bridge which they’ve been fixing since I was in Kindergarten! Out of all this infrastructure that I mentioned above, the only item that has seen any improvement in the past 30 years is the Subways! Same ole 59th Street Bridge, same ole BQE and same ole Manhattan Bridge! We need less cars pounding them not more and less money continuing to be dead ended in keeping these roads from falling to the ground because out of all the billions spent, not once can we say they’ve been in a state of good repair in the past 30 years!
Income tax is paid predominantly by the rich. And sales and payroll taxes are paid predominantly by the poor and the middle class. What’s your point?
By God Eric, you’re right!
It’s our God-Given American right to be able to drive an SUV into Manhattan free of charge!
The public good be damned!
Oh actually, my idea wouldn’t work since it’s obvious that the MTA needs to soak drivers to keep the choo-choos humming. Actually people not driving across the NYC area would be the absolute death knell for the MTA. Idea withdrawn.
Actually, this wouldn’t “soak” drivers. It would increase average traffic speeds on the bridges and reduce congestion by discouraging drivers from taking unnecessary trips by car onto Manhattan. Those who don’t feel its worth paying or cannot afford the toll, can take the bus (remember, which can now travel faster because of decreased congestion), commuter rail or subway, which all can be improved by the additional 970 million a year.
I have to say, and I have been belligerent about this topic as well, that I kinda just don’t get it. You can toll everything. If we want to keep CO2 emissions down, levy a talking tax.
Congestion pricing is the fairest. most sensible approach. Why pay for a Saturday evening movie when you can go to Monday’s first showing for half off? Give us a choice. Do not unilaterally impose tolling on a bridge (whose upkeep by the way, is already paid for in the city’s budget, and whose budget comes from tax receipts)
Tolling the bridges doesn’t necessarily entail the money going to the MTA. I don’t think anymore than a surplus should be used for transit myself, after the bridges and city street system are both paid for (of course, a surplus is unlikely). That would, just as well, free up resources for city transit capital improvements – and be a step away from these oblique cross-subsidies, where drivers subsidize transit users a little with bridge tolls, while transit users subsidize drivers more through general appropriations.
Well the thing for me is that the IBO has some nerve. If the rest of these bridges are going to be tolled then who do they think the city is going to call on to handle the tolling for them? The MTA of course and if I’m the MTA I’m not tolling on behalf of the city. That’s an equipment expense for the MTA just so the city can come out on top.
Likely the city would do what is already done with the RFK (Gasp! I called it that!), Midtown and Brooklyn Battery Tunnels and that is pass off all responsibility to the MTA. That means the MTA is responsible for maintenance. And if that’s the case then the MTA will pocket the money for themselves which would only be right. The NYCDOT is not in the business of tolling and I don’t see them starting now.
I don’t see why it would have to. Right now, I think tolling the free bridges is illegal at the state level anyway. Which is funny, since those bridges are city-owned and operated.
Leave it to Albany: doing the responsible thing and paying for what you have is against the law!
With all the money this city brings to this state you would think they would be a little more hands off, but no! They have to have they’re cake and eat it too.
Why do people think congestion pricing is even possible? Cuomo is certainly against new taxes (and will be against this kind of fee) in part because he has ambitions beyond New York State.
The national government is cutting the budget and a number of programs and services will have their funding REDUCED.
How will the MTA get the additional funds it needs? By raising fares. For those of you in favor of anti car policies, politicians DRIVE to work. Public transportation is for those too poor to afford it in the United States as a whole, and even in New York.
As for tolling the highways like some of you suggested, merchandise, goods, food, etc is brought in by truck, not by subway. By doing that you’d simply be increasing the costs of items sold in stores in NYC, as the shipping costs are passed on to the end customer.
The phrase “anti car” is a staple of poorly thought out arguments against drivers paying a more equitable share of the costs they incur. Amusingly, it’s often couched in anti-entitlement rhetoric too.
Seriously: anti-congestion pricing is the most anti-car position there is. It’s the same thing as demanding the road system not work well only because it has never worked well. Especially politicians, who presumably value their time at their hourly salary, would benefit from it. The only people who arguably don’t benefit are the ones who aren’t doing anything very economically beneficial to begin with.
And all these rants about food miss the point: food comes in by truck, and is made a lot more expensive by the congestion those trucks sit in, where a driver and possibly porter are being paid and fuel is wasting.
^^^^GET THIS COMMENTOR 10 GOLD STARS!!!^^^^
“Public transportation is for those too poor to afford it in the United States as a whole, and even in New York.”
Have you not ridden some of NYC’s subways, or ridden some of NYC’s buses, perhaps ever? Otherwise, you would not say this. NY’ers ‘well enough to do to afford cars’ take the subway regularly and ride the bus at least semi-regularly. There are actually some people who choose NOT to drive and not because of economics.
Agreed because anyone who drives in this town (me) would agree that it’s a pain in the butt and if you could somehow go without a car in this city, you would.
If I could go back to when I was 22 years old with my own place and no kids and NO NEED FOR A CAR. I would. Zip car back then would have been heaven sent!
I’m one of them. I got to say, too, I love it. That’s thousands of dollars in disposable income I have in a year that I wouldn’t have if I lived outside of New York. It’s no wonder that drivers don’t want to pay a greater share of their own costs; they have a very expensive dependency, and their lifestyles probably very often put them on the edge of poverty.
That said, it’s not that I don’t drive. I just keep my need to drive low enough to where a few rentals/year suffices.