Docstoc

Intro

Document Sample
Intro Powered By Docstoc
					Introduction

Summary

1/24/2008

This summary sheet is in two parts. Part 1 lists key policy choices that you, the user, can change. Part 2 summarizes the results of the policies chosen.

Part 1: Policy Choices
Note: We invite you to change settings in User May Change column (small azure box). This will change the results shown in the large azure box further below (under the heading, Results correspond. Figs. in these columns don't link to calculations.

Policy Choices 1. Auto Cordon Fee (charged 24/7, unless "yes" is inputted in #2) 2. Is Cordon Fee Varied by Time of Day? (must read yes or no) 3. Truck Cordon Fee as a multiple of Auto Cordon Fee 4. Taxi Surcharge (100% of which is then taxed) 5. Portion of CBD "new road capacity" kept from autos + trucks 6. Street defining northern boundary for Curbside Parking Charges 7. Subway Fare as a percent of current (1/2008) fare 8. Bus Fare as a percent of current (1/2008) fare 9. Subway Space Index 10. Bus Crowding Index $

User May Change

Kheel Plan 2007 Levels

16.00 $ No 2 25% 50% 96 0% 0% 3.50 1.00

16.00 $ No 2 25% 50% 96 0% 0% 3.50 1.00

2.76 No 1.75 0% 0% 100% 100% 3.00 1.00

Part 2: Key Policy Results

Note: Policy Choice #2 (above) is linked only to revenues. We are working on linking it to traffic impacts.

Reduction in auto trips entering the cordon on a typical weekday Note: "Cordon" = Central Business District = Manhattan south of 60th St. = "CBD" Above figure, expressed as percent reduction in auto trips now entering the cordon Net increase in persons entering cordon by transit or auto on a typical weekday Above figure, expressed as percent increase in person trips now entering the cordon % increase in citywide person-trips by transit or auto % reduction in citywide VMT (VMT = Vehicle Miles Traveled; reflects all motor vehicles, not just automobiles) % reduction in VMT within the cordon (streets only; no highways; assumes no change in truck traffic) % improvement in traffic speeds within cordon (streets only) % improvement in traffic speeds outside cordon % reduction in citywide CO2 emissions from all motor vehicles Annual Increase in funds available to agencies (i.e., in combined tolls plus farebox revenues) Economic, Social and Environmental Benefits (Annual, Net)
of which Time Savings (by motor vehicle users both inside and outside the CBD, including bus riders) provide the following amounts

Additional subway cars that must be deployed during weekday peak hour (8-9 a.m.)
Note: A link from the number of subway cars back to the net change in agency funds will be added shortly.

Part 3: Some Other Results
Capital Costs of Transit Upgrades that are reflected in the Results column in Part 2.
Note: These costs are amortized at the capital recovery factor shown here, derived in Subway Costs: 8.0%

Details / Notes (boldface expressions refer to linked worksheets in this file)

See Future Price. See By Hour worksheet for time-of-day toll schedule (if yes is chosen). Applies to heavy vehicles. Current value is probably ~ 1.5-2.0. Surcharge in effect 24/7. Note that fares will rise slightly less. See Taxis. See discussion in Traffic, cells A67-A70. Yields zero revenue unless set to 60 or 96. Latter yields more. Percents are used instead of dollar amounts because current fares are more complex (and lower) than nominal $2.00. Square feet per standee during rush hour. See Transit Capacity. 1.00 indicates one seat per passenger. See Transit Capacity.
Results apply to choices in User May Change column

Kheel Plan

253,900 31.7% 68,500 2.4% 2.8% 8.9% 25.4% 34.1% 10.2% 10.1% $ $ $ 460,000,000 5,500,000,000 3,870,000,000 211 $ $ $

253,900 31.7% 68,500 2.4% 2.8% 8.9% 25.4% 34.1% 10.2% 10.1% 460,000,000 5,500,000,000 3,870,000,000 211

$

1,010,000,000

$

1,010,000,000

Revenue
A. Cordon Entry Fee

1/24/2008

A. Existing Conditions (no entry fee, paid fares)
Toll Revenues for Midtown Cordon (CBD) Percentages denote share of toll revenues to be included in calculating existing conditions
2006 Toll Revenues, 000 Total % Allocable

MTA (TBTA) Verrazano-Narrows Triborough Bronx-Whitestone Throgs Neck Brooklyn-Battery Queens Midtown Henry Hudson Marine Parkway Cross Bay MTA TOTAL $274,100 $288,300 $186,384 $223,756 $73,868 $127,075 $44,901 $11,536 $11,630 ######## $0 $144,150 $0 $0 $73,868 $127,075 $0 $0 $0 $345,093

50%

100% 100%

Source: URS (Prepared for the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority). "History and Projection of Traffic, Toll Revenues and Expenses and Review of Physical Conditions of the Facilities of Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority." June 1, 2007. Page 14, Table 5.

Port Authority Holland Tunnel Lincoln Tunnel George Washington Bridge Bayonne Bridge Goethals Bridge Outerbridge Crossing MTA TOTAL $87,621 $117,408 $328,570 $23,469 $78,244 $83,565 $718,877 100% 100% $87,621 $117,408 $0 $0 $0 $0 $205,029

Source: Port Authority 2008 budget, http://www.panynj.gov/budget_cap_plan/pdf/proposed_2008_budget.pdf, p. 7 (2006 actual).

Annual Motor Vehicle Toll Revenue, millions (includes taxis), 2006
Calculated from MTA and PANYNJ data directly above

Transit Revenue, millions, 2006 Annual Subway Revenue, millions Annual Bus Revenue, millions Total Annual Transit Revenue, millions
Subway and Bus Revenues taken directly from Transit worksheet.

Taxi Surcharge Daily Taxi Trips Average Per-Trip Revenue
from Schaller 2006 Taxi Fact Book, sourced in Taxi worksheet.

Total Medallion Taxi Revenues (millions) Total Revenue, existing conditions (per year, millions)

B. Changed Conditions (entry fee, paid fares)

Automobiles (excludes medallion taxis) Tolled Vehicle Trips (per weekday) Average Toll Are Cordon Fees Varied by Time of Day? Effective Average Toll Average Daily Toll Revenue, thousands Annual Auto Toll Revenue, millions (excludes taxis) Trucks Tolled Truck and Bus Trips, per weekday (assumes no attrition despite tolling) of which Buses, which we leave untolled, are estimated to comprise:
from Buses worksheet, rounded up.

leaving this many Truck Trips Assumed ratio of new toll to that for automobiles Average Toll Are Cordon Fees Varied by Time of Day? Effective Average Toll Average Daily Toll Revenue, thousands Annual Truck Toll Revenue, millions Transit Subway Trips (per weekday) Average Effective Subway Fare Annual Subway Revenue, millions Bus Trips (per weekday) Average Effective Bus Fare Annual Bus Revenue, millions Total Annual Transit Revenue, millions

We derive these figures in detail, rather than copying them from above, so that we can run alternative fare scenarios, if we choose.

Figures at right understate transit ridership and revenues because they don't account for increased ridership in response to toll entry fee.

Taxi Surcharge Daily Taxi Trips Per-trip revenue Annual Taxi Revenue, millions NYC revenue from taxi fare surcharge, millions Total Revenue, millions

Metro-Nor

2006 Fareb

City-Statio

All Station-

Metro-North

Revenue s Estimated

L.I.R.R. (a

2006 Fareb

In-City Trip All Trips, O
Long Island

Revenue s Estimated

Commute

Estimated

Note: NJ Tra

D. Reduc

B. Free or Reduce-Fare Transit A. Existing Conditions (no entry fee, paid fares)

C. Cordon Entry Fee and F

A. Existing Conditions (no

Page Down once for results.

Page Down o

Automobiles (includes meda
7 (2006 actual).

$

550

Annual Auto Toll Revenue, millions (includes taxis)

$

550

Annual Auto Toll Revenue, m

$ $ $

1,938 778 2,716

Transit Annual Subway Revenue, millions Annual Bus Revenue, millions Total Annual Transit Revenue, millions

$ $ $

1,938 778 2,716

Transit Annual Subway Revenue, millio Annual Bus Revenue, millions Total Annual Transit Revenu

$

521,000 $ 9.61 $ $ 1,652 3,266

Taxi Surcharge Daily Taxi Trips Average Per-Trip Revenue
from Schaller 2006 Taxi Fact Book, sourced in Taxi worksheet.

$

521,000 $ 9.61 $ $ 1,652 3,266

Taxi Surcharge Daily Taxi Trips Average Per-Trip Revenue

from Schaller 2006 Taxi Fact Book

Total Medallion Taxi Revenues (millions) Total Revenue (per year, millions)

Total Medallion Taxi Revenues

Total Revenue (per year, mill

B. Changed Conditions (still no entry fee, but reduced/free transit)

B. Changed Conditions (en

518,900 $16.00 No $16.00 $ 8,302 $ 2,740

Automobiles (excludes medallion taxis) Tolled Vehicle Trips (per weekday) Average Toll Are Cordon Fees Varied by Time of Day? Effective Average Toll Average Daily Toll Revenue, thousands Annual Auto Toll Revenue, millions (excludes taxis) Trucks Tolled Truck and Bus Trips, per weekday (assumes no attrition despite tolling) of which Buses, which we leave untolled, are estimated to comprise:
from Buses worksheet, rounded up.

564,600 $16.00 No $16.00 $ 9,034 $ 2,981

Automobiles (excludes meda Tolled Vehicle Trips (per weekd Average Toll Are Cordon Fees Varied by Tim Effective Average Toll Average Daily Toll Revenue, th Annual Auto Toll Revenue, m

70,000 5,000 65,000 2 $32.00 No $32.00 2,080 686

70,000 5,000 65,000 2 $32.00 No $32.00 2,080 686

Trucks Tolled Truck and Bus Trips, pe of which Buses, which we leave

from Buses worksheet, rounded up

$ $

leaving this many Truck Trips Assumed ratio of new toll to that for automobiles Average Toll Are Cordon Fees Varied by Time of Day? Effective Average Toll Average Daily Toll Revenue, thousands Annual Truck Toll Revenue, millions Transit Subway Trips (per weekday) Average Effective Subway Fare Annual Subway Revenue, millions Bus Trips (per weekday) Average Effective Bus Fare Annual Bus Revenue, millions Total Annual Transit Revenue, millions

$ $

leaving this many Truck Trips Assumed ratio of new toll to tha Average Toll Are Cordon Fees Varied by Tim Effective Average Toll Average Daily Toll Revenue, th Annual Truck Toll Revenue, m

4,541,000 $ 1.29 $ 1,938 2,247,000 $ 1.05 $ 778 $ 2,716

Figures at right overstate transit ridership because they reflect carrot (cordon fee) and stick (of free or reduced-fare transit) instead of carrot alone.

5,122,400 $0.00 $ 2,742,000 $0.00 $ $ -

Transit Subway Trips (per weekday) Average Effective Subway Fare Annual Subway Revenue, millio Bus Trips (per weekday) Average Effective Bus Fare Annual Bus Revenue, millions Total Annual Transit Revenu

521,000 $ 11.65 $ 2,004 $ 352 $ 6,494

Taxi Surcharge Daily Taxi Trips Per-trip revenue Annual Taxi Revenue, millions NYC revenue (from taxi fare surcharge), millions Total Revenue, millions

518,000 $ 9.61 $ 1,643

Taxi Surcharge Daily Taxi Trips Per-trip revenue Annual Taxi Revenue, millions NYC revenue (from taxi fare s Total Revenue, millions

$

3,667

C. Reduced or Eliminated Fares for In-City Rides on Commuter RR's
This study envisions, and assumes, equalizing fares for all intra-city rides on the Long Island Rail Road and Metro-North, to the fares on adjacent subway lines. (This is to ensure "fare equity" and also to allow transit users to choose between rail and subway based on convenience and schedule rather than price. Thus, our plan will result in a reduction in the current LIRR/Metro-North revenue stream, which we estimate here. All data and calculations are by Joseph Clift, a member of the study team and a former director of planning for LIRR. Joe developed his calculations in a large (3 MB) spreadsheet which is too unwieldy to incorporate into this spreadsheet, and which we therefore excerpt and reference instead (directly below). Metro-North (all dollars are in thousands) 2006 Farebox Revenue $ 434,650

"MTA Metro-North November Financial Plan 2008-2011, Accrual Statement of Operations by Category, p. V-129. (nets miscellaneous ticket sales revenues so as to leave farebox rev.)

City-Station-to-City-Station Ticket Sales Revenue, Oct. 2006

$

898

All Station-to-Station Ticket Sales Revenue, Oct. 2006
Metro-North "2006 October Ticket Sales Data"

$

37,956 2.36%

Revenue share, in-city rides as a % of all rides, Oct. 2006 Estimated Revenue, in-city rides, 2006 (12 months) L.I.R.R. (all dollars are in thousands) 2006 Farebox Revenue $

10,300

$ 457,400

"MTA Long Island Railroad November Financial Plan, 2008-2011, Accrual Statement of Operations by Category," p. V-92.

In-City Trips, Oct. 2006 All Trips, Oct. 2006 Revenue share, in-city rides as a % of all rides, Oct. 2006 Estimated Revenue, in-city rides, 2006 (12 months) Commuter Rail Lines, combined Estimated Revenue, in-city rides, 2006 (12 months)
Note: NJ Transit has no service entirely within NYC, so is not included here.

$ $

3,254 29,875 10.89%

Long Island Rail Road Station Sales by Ticket Type Reporting Group, Month = October 2006

$

49,800

$

60,100

D. Reduced or Eliminated Fares for MTA Bus Co.
As with in-city commuter rail, discussed above, this study assumes equalizing fares for all in-city bus. This is to ensure "fare equity" and also to allow transit users to choose between NYC Transit buses and buses operated by MTA Bus Co. (primarily express buses) based on convenience and schedule rather than price. MTA Bus Co. (MTABC) was created as a subsidiary of the MTA in Sept. 2004, under an agreement with the City of New York, in order to maintain service by seven private bus companies. Under the agreement, NYC pays MTABC the difference between the cost of operation of the bus routes and all revenues and subsidies received by MTABC. Thus, the costs of MTABC operations are 100% reimbursable by the City. The transition of service began on Jan. 3, 2005 and was completed on Feb. 20, 2006. Upon completion, MTABC was operating over 1,250 buses serving approximately 350,000 riders daily. MTABC operates 46 local routes in the Bronx, Brooklyn and Queens, and 35 premium-fare express routes between those boroughs and Manhattan. Source: MTA 2007 Budget (see MTA Bus Co. Estimated Revenue, 2007 (12 months, in thousands) $ 137,502

MTA 2007 Budget, section entitled MTA Bus Company, 2008 Final Proposed Budget, November Financial Plan 2008-2011, p. V-327. Available at http://mta.info/mta/budget/nov2007/part7.pdf. Same source reports 2006 revenue to have been $125.135 million.

C. Cordon Entry Fee and Free Transit, combined A. Existing Conditions (no entry fee, paid fares)

Page Down once for results.

Automobiles (includes medallion taxis)

Annual Auto Toll Revenue, millions (includes taxis)

$

550

Annual Subway Revenue, millions Annual Bus Revenue, millions Total Annual Transit Revenue, millions

$ $ $

1,938 778 2,716

Taxi Surcharge Daily Taxi Trips Average Per-Trip Revenue
from Schaller 2006 Taxi Fact Book, sourced in Taxi worksheet.

521,000 $ 9.61 $ $ 1,652 3,266

$

Total Medallion Taxi Revenues (millions) Total Revenue (per year, millions)

B. Changed Conditions (entry fee, reduced/free transit)

Automobiles (excludes medallion taxis) Tolled Vehicle Trips (per weekday) Average Toll Are Cordon Fees Varied by Time of Day? Effective Average Toll Average Daily Toll Revenue, thousands Annual Auto Toll Revenue, millions (excludes taxis)

428,800 $16.00 No $16.00 $ 6,861 $ 2,264

Tolled Truck and Bus Trips, per weekday (assumes no attrition despite tolling) of which Buses, which we leave untolled, are estimated to comprise:
from Buses worksheet, rounded up.

70,000 5,000 65,000 2 $32.00 No $32.00 2,080 686

leaving this many Truck Trips Assumed ratio of new toll to that for automobiles Average Toll Are Cordon Fees Varied by Time of Day? Effective Average Toll Average Daily Toll Revenue, thousands Annual Truck Toll Revenue, millions

$ $

Subway Trips (per weekday) Average Effective Subway Fare Annual Subway Revenue, millions Bus Trips (per weekday) Average Effective Bus Fare Annual Bus Revenue, millions Total Annual Transit Revenue, millions Taxi Surcharge Daily Taxi Trips Per-trip revenue Annual Taxi Revenue, millions NYC revenue (from taxi fare surcharge), millions Total Revenue, millions

5,122,400 $0.00 $ 2,742,000 $0.00 $ $ -

$ $ $ $

518,000 11.65 1,992 340 3,290

Cost-Benefit

1/24/2008

This spreadsheet catalogues and compares the societal costs and benefits of the combined cordon toll and free transit. Note: Explanatory notes are omitted in most cases where values are derived from other worksheets. Policy assumptions underlying these results are shown in "User May Change" column of Summary worksheet. Annual $, NYC only, millions Values in parentheses denote net loss
Gains Losses Net Gain

Governmental Agencies' Costs and Benefits A. Motor Vehicle Tolls ("losses" are existing tolls to be netted from new toll regime) B. Transit Revenues ("losses" are vs. current farebox; "gains," if any, are vs. zero fare) C. Commuter Rail Revenues (from discounting in-city rides as per subway fare) D. MTA Bus Co. Revenues (from discounting as per bus fare) E. Taxi Revenues (surcharge on medallion cabs) F. Expanded CBD curbside parking charges G. Operational savings from eliminating subway and/or bus farebox H. Cordon Administration I. Facilities/Operations to Serve Increased Transit Ridership SUBTOTAL Economic, Social and Environmental Costs and Benefits A. Motor vehicle users' saved time that was previously lost in traffic 1. All m.v. users within the CBD 33% 2. All m.v. users outside the CBD 49% 3. Bus riders' addit'l saved time, gained by fare-free board. 18% B. Mobility Changes (more transit trips, fewer m.v. trips) C. Reduced crash damage costs D. Reduced driver insurance costs E. Reduced climate damage from lesser carbon emissions F. Reduced air pollution health/enviro damages G. Reduced noise costs H. Longevity benefits of increased cycling and walking SUBTOTAL TOTAL

$2,950 $0 $0 $0 $340 $700 $170

$550 $2,720 $60 $140

$4,160

$50 $180 $3,700

$2,400 ($2,720) ($60) ($140) $340 $700 $170 ($50) ($180) $460

Components

$3,870

$3,870

$1,270 $1,900 $700

$220 $420 $70 $40 $290 $150 $1,020 $6,080 $10,240

$580

$580 $4,280

($360) $420 $70 $40 $290 $150 $1,020 $5,500 $5,960

Agency Costs and Benefits are derived primarily in Revenue, Transit and CBD Parking worksheets.

The remainder of this worksheet derives Economic, Social and Environmental Costs and Benefits.

Travel

1/24/2008

This worksheet estimates changes in the number of person-trips into the CBD and citywide, due to our policies. All trip data are 24-hour, typical weekday. Some rows are vehicle-trips, others are person-trips (we have taken pains to distinguish). Current
Trips Into or Out of CBD (C1) All Other Trips (C2) All Trips Trips Into or Out of CBD (K1)

Kheel Plan
All Other Trips (K2)

Motor Vehicle (excludes trucks and buses)
Automobile work trips 800,000 2,485,000 3,285,000 526,000 2,425,000

C1 and K1 figures are 2x the respective one-way figures in Traffic worksheet. C2 nets VMT of all CBD auto trips, divides by average auto trip length, and pro CBD trips. K2 nets C2 figure by the reduction in non-CBD auto trips estimated in Cost-Benefit worksheet.

Automobile work person-trips Automobile non-work trips
Note below "Automobile work trips" (above) applies here.

960,000 560,000 840,000

2,982,000 4,969,000 7,454,000 10,436,000 281,000 393,000 10,829,000

3,942,000 5,529,000 8,294,000 12,236,000 521,000 729,000 12,965,000

672,000 332,000 530,000 1,202,000 234,000 349,000 1,551,000

2,910,000 4,850,000 7,275,000 10,185,000 272,900 407,000 10,592,000 Percent changes:

All figures multiply auto trips by respective occupants per trip. Kheel Plan figures also allow for slight increase in vehicle occupancies, as auto users economi

Automobile non-work person-trips

Note below "Automobile work person-trips" (above) applies here. Automobile person-trips (sum of relevant rows) 1,800,000

Taxi trips Taxi person-trips (excl. driver) SUBTOTAL Motor Vehicle person-trips

240,000 336,000 2,136,000

C1 and K1 figures are 2x respective one-way figures in Traffic worksheet. C2 nets C1 from total daily taxi trips in Taxi worksheet. K2 applies estimated cityw

All figures multiply taxi trips by respective occupants per trip. Kheel Plan figures also allow for slight increase in vehicle occupancies, as taxi users economize

Percent increase in avg vehicle occupancy of motor vehicle trips into the CBD
Note: value is capped at 50%, to prevent anomalously high figure if huge tolls are inputted.

6.6%

Assumed increase in vehicle occupancies of motor vehicle trips into the CBD, per $ increase in cordon toll above current level (Komanoff assumption) Assumed average length of (one-way) NYC auto trips, miles:
Rounded value of mean auto commute distance, from Komanoff analysis of Schaller data in "Rolling Carbon" project for Transportation Alternatives, 2007.

0.5%

7

Assumed average length of (one-way) auto trips to CBD, miles:
see ref. to Komanoff-Ketcham work for "The Hours," in Traffic wrksht, Col. Block A, Section 2

11

Assumed % of non-CBD auto trips that are for work
Komanoff assumption; primarily for display, actual % affects est. of net trips only tangentially.

33%

Automobile VMT in NYC, typical weekday, millions of miles
based on analysis in VMT worksheet, reduced by 8% to allow for trucks and buses

67

Current
Into/Out CBD (C1) All Other (C2) All Into/Out CBD (K1)

Kheel Plan
All Other (K2)

Transit
Subway 3,472,000 1,069,000 4,541,000 4,160,000 1,390,700

C1 is 2x the figure derived in Transit worksheet, Section 3. C2 is difference between all transit trips (Ibid.) and C1. K1 increments C1 with twice the incremen Transit worksheet, Part 5. K2 increments C2 with subways' share of gain in non-CBD transit trips estimated in Cost-Benefit worksheet.

Bus

95,000

2,152,000

2,247,000

129,000

2,473,700

Same procedure as for Subway, immediately above.

SUBTOTAL Transit person-trips

3,567,000

3,221,000

6,788,000

4,289,000

3,864,400 Percent changes:

Assumed % of additional transit trips taken on subways
Komanoff assumption; is for display only, actual % doesn't bear on est. of net trips.

50% 19,753,000 5,840,000 14,456,400 Percent changes:

All Person-Trips (M.V. + Transit)

5,703,000

14,050,000

aken pains to distinguish). Kheel Plan
All Trips Trips Into or Out of CBD

Increase
All Other Trips All Trips

2,951,000

(274,000)

(60,000)

(334,000)

es by average auto trip length, and prorates result by work trips' share of non-

3,582,000 5,182,000 7,805,000 11,387,000 506,900 756,000 12,143,000 Percent changes:

(288,000) (228,000) (310,000) (598,000) (6,000) 13,000 (585,000) -27.4%

(72,000) (119,000) (179,000) (251,000) (8,100) 14,000 (237,000) -2.2%

(360,000) (347,000) (489,000) (849,000) (14,100) 27,000 (822,000) -6.3%

e occupancies, as auto users economize by car-pooling. See end of section.

worksheet. K2 applies estimated citywide reduction in taxi trips from Taxi. occupancies, as taxi users economize by car-pooling. See end of section.

Note that % reduction in CBD auto person-trips differs slightly from % reduction in CBD auto trips shown in Summary worksheet.

Kheel Plan
All Into/Out CBD

Increase
All Other All

5,550,700

688,000

321,700

1,009,700

increments C1 with twice the increments to CBD subway trips derived in enefit worksheet.

2,602,700

34,000

321,700

355,700

8,153,400 Percent changes:

722,000 20.2%

643,400 20.0%

1,365,400 20.1%

20,296,400 Percent changes:

137,000 2.4%

406,400 2.9%

543,400 2.8%

Traffic

1/24/2008

Note: Key results are in yellow-shaded cells two screens over to right.

This worksheet is the heart of the analysis. It treats the two primary policy options -- a cordon entry fee and free or reduced-fare subways and buses -- first separately (in column "blocks" A & B) and then in combination (column block C). The analysis rests on "elasticities" of travel demand -- the extent to which people's proclivity to travel on different modes (private vehicle, transit) is affected by changes in both the cost to drive or use transit, and the time it takes to complete a trip. The interactions between travel demand and travel speed require that the analysis be "dynamic." Reductions in motor vehicle use due to road tolls (entry fees) or free transit lead to freer-flowing traffic, i.e., shorter trip times, which in turn can "attract" new motor vehicle trips. Because of this interactivity, the calculations in Column Blocks A and B must be repeated a number of times until the perturbations in travel demand peter out.

Part 1: Traffic Analysis
Sources or "bases" of all assumptions are indicated in small type like this immediately below the relevant row. Daily data are per weekday unless noted. Annual data use a special multiplier (shown in Constants worksheet) to convert from daily. "Motor vehicle trips" refer to vehicles; "transit trips" and "trips in motor vehicles" refer to persons.
Columns 2-4 display sector-specific results and/or assumptions, whereas Columns 1 & 5 apply to all traffic and trips. 1 2 3 4 Generic or Work Non-work Taxi Common Trips Trips Trips Assumptions

A. Cordon Entry Fee
This "column block" estimates the effect of the cordon entry fee on trips into and within the charging zone.

0. Existing Conditions
Automobile trips into the CBD Breakdown of those trips by major category Automobile trips into CBD, broken down 800,000 50% 400,000 35% 280,000 15% 120,000
From Hub-Bound worksheet. Based on NYMTC data. Rounded to nearest 10,000. Autos only (includes taxis, excludes trucks, buses, motorcycles). Taxi % is Komanoff rough est. Remaining trips are apportioned between work and non-work per total trip breakdown in H.I.S. worksheet, Section 4.

1. Drivers React to Higher Price to Drive
Assumed Entry Fee for Automobiles Resulting Increase in Total Out-of-Pocket Trip Cost
Do not re-set this parameter here. Do so from Summary worksheet.

66%

66%

21%

Work and non-work trip increases are calculated in Future Cost and reflect existing tolls (which would be netted against the new entry fee), parking where applicable, gas, etc. Taxi increase reflects surcharge chosen in Summary worksheet, which is partially offset by travetime savings that reduce waiting time charged in fare (see derivation in Taxi worksheet).

Own-price elasticity

-50%

-90%

-22%

This parameter denotes extent to which % increases in trip prices translate into % reduxns in trips. Work and non-work figures are from Tri-State RPC 1977 study sourced in Tri-State Elasticities worksheet. Taxi elasticity is from Schaller, Bruce. “Elasticities for Taxicab Fares and Service Availability,” in Transportation , August 1999, pp. 283-97; abstract stating that own-price elasticity is negative 0.22 is available at http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/port/1999/00000026/00000003/00207883.

Share of prior trips that survive (after "processing" through own-price elasticity)

78%

63%

96%

Calculated by inputting the increases in trip costs and price-elasticities shown above into standard formula relating demand changes to price changes.

Lost trips due to cordon entry fee, numbers (w/o bounceback, est'd dir. below) Lost trips due to cordon entry fee, % (w/o bounceback, est'd dir. below)

89,530 22.4%

102,540 36.6%

4,990 4.2%

The numbers and percentages above represent the expected reductions in automobile trips into the CBD due to the cordon entry fee. That is not the end of the story, however. The reduction in traffic volumes will tend to attract new trips. This offsetting phenomenon is modeled directly below.

Medallion taxis' share of all auto trips into CBD lost due to cordon fee:

2.5%

2. Drivers React to Higher Travel Speeds due to Reduction in Vehicles

Do not re-set this parameter

This part estimates the "bounceback" effect on trips of the reduced traffic within the charging zone. here. Do so from Summary The next 20 or so rows are used to estimate the improvements in traffic speeds w/I the CBD. worksheet. Portion of newly freed CBD road capacity made car-free (allocated to wider sidewalks, bike lanes, BRT, etc.):
Explanation and Rationale: Both the entry fee and free transit will free up road space, which we can regard as new road capacity. Automobiles will then be able to travel faster, which will attract new trips. A policy option is to reserve some of this new capacity to non-motor vehicle uses (e.g., bus lanes, bike lanes, wider sidewalks), which will hold down the increases in vehicle speeds and thereby suppress some of these trips. The portion of the new capacity so allocated is reflected in the calculation of "bounceback" (newly attracted trips) in Part 2 of this column block and of Column Block B.

Motor vehicle trips into CBD, after initial price impact of entry fee
Calculated by deducting lost trips above, from baseline trips further above.

310,470 15%

177,460 15%

115,010 60%

Share of Typical Trip Distance Occurring Inside CBD

Work and non-work figures are Komanoff assumptions based loosely on average one-way 11.3-mile trip distance into Manhattan on East River bridges (derived in Komanoff-Ketcham report "The Hours," available at www.bridgetolls.org/research/). Taxi figure is Komanoff rough estimate based on assumption that most taxi trips into the CBD originate near the CBD.

Share of Typical Trip Distance Occurring Outside CBD Extent to which CBD part of trip gets to enjoy "lost trips" % just calc'd:

85% 75%

85%

40%

% shown is Komanoff est. intended to reflect imperviousness of some trips to cordon pricing (e.g., buses, trucks, uniformed services, within-CBD travel). As a result, the % reduction in traffic volumes within the CBD will be less than % reduction in automobile trips entering CBD.

Attenuation factor for previous parameter, for non-CBD section of trip

3

4

2

This factor is intended to reflect fact that some/much of a trip occurs "upstream," i.e., outside CBD, where traffic reduction, while non-zero, will be less than that within CBD. A value of 3 (for example) indicates that outside the CBD, the reduction in traffic volumes is presumed to be attenuated three-fold from the figure used for within the CBD. Figures shown are Komanoff estimates.

% Reduction in Ratio of Traffic Volume to Traffic Capacity for Section of Trip w/i CBD if no reconfiguration of street space, i.e., no "lanes" taken from service 18.5% with reconfiguration of street space, i.e., some lanes taken from m.v.'s 9.2%
The second of the two above rows above adjusts the actual reduction in traffic for the placing of some road capacity off-limits to m.v.'s.

% Reduction in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD Factor by which volume % reduxn evokes speed % incrs, in CBD Factor by which volume % reduxn evokes speed % incrs, outside

6.2% 2 1.25

4.6%

9.2%

Above factors are, in effect, an "elasticity" indicating the extent to which traffic-volume reductions are leveraged into speed improvements. In "The Hours," which primarily addressed travel on approaches to the CBD rather than within, Komanoff and Ketcham used 1.5.

% increase in speed for trip part within CBD % increase in speed for trip part outside CBD % increase in overall trip speed % increase in overall trip time Own-time elasticity

18.5% 7.7% 9.3% -8.5% -100% 5.8% 7.7% -7.1% -124% 11.5% 15.7% -13.6% -50%

The negative "Increases" indicate reductions in trip time. This mathematical form is used for input into elasticity formula below. This variable denotes extent to which percentage increases in trip durations (times) translate into percentage reductions in trips. Work and non-work m.v. elasticities are from Tristate 1977 study. Taxi elasticity is KEA assumption.

New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds

109.3%

109.6%

107.6%

These percentages are calculated by inputting the increases in trip times and time-elasticities shown above into standard formula relating demand changes to time changes. They denote the increases in traffic volumes due to the improved traffic speeds.

Increase in volume due to higher travel speeds New trips due to higher travel speeds after cordon entry fee ("bounceback") Automobile trips into CBD, after initial "bounceback" (improved speeds)

9.3% 28,900 339,370

9.6% 17,000 194,460

7.6% 8,700 123,710

Calculated by multiplying % volume increase times number of m.v. trips into CBD after initial price impact of entry fee.

3. Drivers React to Lower Travel Speeds due to Increase in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
There is more than one round of bounceback. This part estimates "opposing bounceback" -- the reduction in trips once traffic grows in response to reduced congestion. The methodology is identical to that in Part 2 directly above. Automobile trips into CBD after Steps #1 and #2 339,370 194,460 123,710 Increase in trips compared to pre-bounceback 9.3% 9.6% 7.6% % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD 6.8% % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD 2.3% 1.7% 3.4% % Reduction in speed for trip part within CBD 13.6% % Reduction in speed for trip part outside CBD 2.8% 2.1% 4.2% % Reduction in overall trip speed 4.4% 3.8% 9.8% % Increase in overall trip time 4.3% 3.7% 9.0%

New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds Automobile trips into CBD, after this "bounceback" (lower speeds) Decrease in automobile trips estimated in this "step" Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step

95.9% 325,500 13,870 4.1%

95.6% 185,900 8,560 4.4%

95.8% 118,500 5,210 4.2%

4. Drivers React to Higher Travel Speeds due to Decrease in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
This part performs another (the third) iteration of bounceback Automobile trips into CBD after Steps 1, 2 & 3 Decrease in trips estimated in prior step % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD % Increase in speed for trip part within CBD % Increase in speed for trip part outside CBD % Increase in overall trip speed % Decrease in overall trip time New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds Automobile trips into CBD, after latest "bounceback" (improved speeds) Increase in automobile trips estimated in this "step" Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step 325,500 4.1% 3.2% 1.1% 6.3% 1.3% 2.1% 2.0% 102.1% 332,200 6,700 2.1% 1.0% 1.8% 1.8% 102.2% 190,000 4,100 2.2% 2.0% 4.6% 4.4% 102.3% 121,200 2,700 2.3% 0.8% 1.6% 185,900 4.4% 118,500 4.2%

5. Drivers React to Lower Travel Speeds due to Increase in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
This part estimates another iteration of "opposing bounceback" Automobile trips into CBD after Steps 1 through 4 Increase in trips compared to pre-bounceback % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD % Reduction in speed for trip part within CBD % Reduction in speed for trip part outside CBD % Reduction in overall trip speed % Increase in overall trip time New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds Automobile trips into CBD, after this "bounceback" (lower speeds) Decrease in automobile trips estimated in this "step" Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step 332,200 2.1% 1.6% 0.5% 3.2% 0.7% 1.1% 1.0% 99.0% 328,800 3,400 1.0% 0.5% 0.9% 0.9% 98.9% 187,900 2,100 1.1% 1.0% 2.3% 2.3% 98.9% 119,800 1,400 1.2% 0.4% 0.8% 190,000 2.2% 121,200 2.3%

6. Drivers React to Higher Travel Speeds due to Decrease in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
This part performs another (the fifth) iteration of bounceback Automobile trips into CBD after Steps 1 through 5 Decrease in trips estimated in prior step % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD % Increase in speed for trip part within CBD % Increase in speed for trip part outside CBD % Increase in overall trip speed % Decrease in overall trip time New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds Automobile trips into CBD, after latest "bounceback" (improved speeds) Increase in automobile trips estimated in this "step" Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step 328,800 1.0% 0.8% 0.3% 1.6% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 100.5% 330,500 1,700 0.5% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 100.6% 189,000 1,100 0.6% 0.5% 1.2% 1.2% 100.6% 120,500 700 0.6% 0.2% 0.4% 187,900 1.1% 119,800 1.2%

7. Drivers React to Lower Travel Speeds due to Increase in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
This part again estimates "opposing bounceback" -- the sixth iteration Automobile trips into CBD after Steps 1 through 6 Increase in trips compared to pre-bounceback % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD % Reduction in speed for trip part within CBD 330,500 0.5% 0.4% 0.1% 0.8% 0.1% 0.2% 189,000 0.6% 120,500 0.6%

% Reduction in speed for trip part outside CBD % Reduction in overall trip speed % Increase in overall trip time New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds Automobile trips into CBD, after this "bounceback" (lower speeds) Decrease in automobile trips estimated in this "step" Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step

0.2% 0.3% 0.3% 99.7% 329,600 900 0.3%

0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 99.7% 188,500 500 0.3%

0.3% 0.6% 0.6% 99.7% 120,100 400 0.3%

8. Drivers React to Higher Travel Speeds due to Decrease in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
This part estimates the seventh and last iteration of bounceback (further perturbations are small and may be ignored). Automobile trips into CBD after Steps 1 through 7 329,600 188,500 120,100 Decrease in trips estimated in prior step 0.3% 0.3% 0.3% % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD 0.2% % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% % Increase in speed for trip part within CBD 0.4% % Increase in speed for trip part outside CBD 0.1% 0.1% 0.1% % Increase in overall trip speed 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% % Decrease in overall trip time 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds 100.1% 100.1% 100.2% Automobile trips to CBD, after latest BB (improved speeds) 330,100 188,800 120,300 Increase in automobile trips estimated in this "step" (see Note 1 below) 500 300 200 Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step 0.2% 0.2% 0.2% Total (net) decline in m.v. trips to CBD, after accounting for BB (see Note 1) Total (net) decline expressed as % of original trips Decline %, expressed as % of Stage-1 (pre-BB) decline Net Bounceback Factor 69,900 17% 78% 22% 91,200 33% 89% 11% (300) -0.25% -6% N.A.

Note 1: Cells in designated rows have been programmed to return a nominal value of 10 in the event the computed value yields zero. This will avoid a zero result entering another cell as a denominator.

e or reduced-fare subways

nt modes (private vehicle,

n motor vehicle use due to " new motor vehicle trips. ntil the perturbations in

t) to convert from daily.

sults and/or assumptions, o all traffic and trips. 5 Total Trips

Columns 2-4 display sector-specific results and/or assum whereas Columns 1 & 5 apply to all traffic and trips 1 2 3 Generic or Work Non-work Common Trips Trips Assumptions

B. Free or Reduced-Fare Transit
This "column block" estimates the effect of free or reduced-fare transit on trips into and within the charging zone.

0. Existing Conditions
Automobile trips into the CBD
Sourced in column block to left.

800,000

ks, buses, motorcycles).

. worksheet, Section 4.

800,000

Automobile trips into CBD, broken down
Derived in column block to left.

400,000

280,000

1. Drivers React to free or reduced-fare transit (by reducing the number of automobile trips into the CBD)
$16 Increase in transit trips into CBD, resulting from free or reduced-fare transit Cross-elasticity of automobile demand w/r/t changes in transit use 127,898 95% 144,125 50%

These numbers are derived in Transit worksheet. They reflect both the "price" and "time" inducements from eliminating transit fares.

es are from Tri-State RPC s and Service Availability,” in

This complicated-sounding parameter is intended to capture the extent to which the increases in transit trips shown above replace automobi opposed to replacing trips by non-motorized modes, or replacing no trips at all (since some new transit trips may correspond to brand-new tr Technically, the parameter denotes the % change in auto volume per % change in transit volume caused by changes in transit costs or trave Source: Tri-State Elasticities worksheet. Cross-elasticity for transit time (53%) has been reduced to 50% for simplicity.

Decrease in person-trips in automobiles into CBD due to transit gains 121,500 72,100 % of above decreases that is taken from taxis: 5% Est'd as taxis' share of cordon-fee-caused losses, times: Decrease in trips in m.v.'s into CBD due to transit gains, by m.v. trip type Vehicle occupancy rates 115,425 1.2 68,495 1.5

Because the X-elasticity for taxi trips isn't known, transit trips taken from taxi trips must be estimated separately. Above % is Komanoff roug

changes to price changes.

Work and non-work figures are Komanoff rough estimates. Taxi figure is from Bruce Schaller, "NYC Taxi Fact Book" (see Taxi worksheet). Decrease in automobile trips into CBD due to transit gains Figures in the next two rows convert person-trips int

197,060 24.6%

Lost automobile trips into CBD due to free or reduced-fare transit, numbers Lost automobile trips into CBD due to free or reduced-fare transit, %

96,200 24.1%

45,663 16.3%

entry fee. That is not the end directly below.

Numbers and %'s above represent expected reductions in m.v. trips into CBD due to availability of free or reduced-fare subways and buses. not the end of the story, however. The reduction in traffic volumes will attract new trips. This offsetting phenomenon is modeled directly belo

Do not re-set this parameter here. Do so from Summary worksheet.

2. Drivers React to Higher Travel Speeds due to Reduction in Vehicles
This part estimates the "bounceback" effect on trips of the reduced traffic within the charging zone. The next 20 or so rows are used to estimate the improvements in traffic speeds w/I the CBD. Portion of newly freed CBD road capacity to be made car-free (allocated to wider sidewalks, bike lanes, BRT, etc.):

50%

acity. Automobiles will then be uses (e.g., bus lanes, bike portion of the new capacity n Block B.

This parameter is explained in the text block directly to left. For consistency, its value should be set equal to the value chosen at left for the analysis, but there is no a priori reason it could not be set independently -- except that a single value must be used for the combined-policy a right.

602,940

Automobile trips into CBD, after initial price impact of reduced-fare transit
Calculated by deducting lost trips above, from baseline trips further above.

303,800 15%

234,337 15%

Share of Typical Trip Distance Occurring Inside CBD
See explanation in Column Block A, to left.

attan on East River bridges h estimate based on

Share of Typical Trip Distance Occurring Outside CBD Extent to which CBD part of trip enjoys traff. reduxn calc'd above:
See explanation in Column Block A, to left.

85% 75%

85%

services, within-CBD travel). .

Shrinkage factor for previous parameter, for non-CBD section of trip
See explanation in Column Block A, to left.

3

4

<--- Note: Since street space is only reapportioned once, this is the only step in which the Volume-toCapacity ratio is altered (reduced).

% Reduction in Ratio of Traffic Volume to Traffic Capacity for Section of Trip w/i CBD if no reconfiguration of street space, i.e., no "lanes" taken from service 13.9% with reconfiguration of street space, i.e., some lanes taken from m.v.'s 7.0%
See explanation in Column Block A, to left.

% Reduction in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD Factor by which volume % reduxn evokes speed % incrs, in CBD Factor by which volume % reduxn evokes speed % incrs, outside

4.6% 2 1.3

3.5%

See explanation in Column Block A, to left. Here, the factor for speed changes outside the CBD is slightly greater since transit trips tend to originate closer to the CBD, where congestion is more severe.

% increase in speed for trip part within CBD % increase in speed for trip part outside CBD % increase in overall trip speed % increase in overall trip time
See explanation in Column Block A, to left.

13.9% 6.0% 7.2% -6.7% -100% 4.5% 5.9% -5.6% -124%

Own-time elasticity
See explanation in Column Block A, to left.

New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds
See explanation in Column Block A, to left.

107.2%

107.4%

9.2% 54,600 657,540

Increase in volume due to higher travel speeds New trips due to higher travel speeds after cordon entry fee ("bounceback") Automobile trips into CBD, after initial "bounceback" (improved speeds)

7.2% 22,000 325,800

7.4% 17,400 251,737

Calculated by multiplying % volume increase times number of m.v. trips into CBD after initial impact of eliminating transit fare.

3. Drivers React to Lower Travel Speeds due to Increase in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"

tion in trips once traffic . 657,540 9.1%

There is more than one round of bounceback. This part estimates "opposing bounceback" -- the reduction in trips o traffic grows in response to reduced congestion. The methodology is identical to that in Part 2 directly above. Automobile trips into CBD after Steps #1 and #2 325,800 251,737 Increase in trips compared to pre-bounceback 7.2% 7.4% % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD 5.3% % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD 1.8% 1.3% % Reduction in speed for trip part within CBD 10.6% % Reduction in speed for trip part outside CBD 2.3% 1.7% % Reduction in overall trip speed 3.5% 3.1% % Increase in overall trip time 3.4% 3.0%

629,900 27,640 4.2%

New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds Automobile trips into CBD, after this "bounceback" (lower speeds) Decrease in automobile trips estimated in this "step" Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step

96.7% 315,000 10,800 3.3%

96.4% 242,800 8,937 3.6%

4. Drivers React to Higher Travel Speeds due to Decrease in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
629,900 4.2% This part performs another (the third) iteration of bounceback Automobile trips into CBD after Steps 1, 2 & 3 Decrease in trips estimated in prior step % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD % Increase in speed for trip part within CBD % Increase in speed for trip part outside CBD % Increase in overall trip speed % Decrease in overall trip time New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds Automobile trips into CBD, after latest "bounceback" (improved speeds) Increase in automobile trips estimated in this "step" Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step 315,000 3.3% 2.6% 0.9% 5.1% 1.1% 1.7% 1.7% 101.7% 320,400 5,400 1.7% 0.8% 1.5% 1.5% 101.8% 247,300 4,500 1.9% 0.6% 242,800 3.6%

643,400 13,500 2.1%

5. Drivers React to Lower Travel Speeds due to Increase in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
643,400 2.1% This part estimates another iteration of "opposing bounceback" Automobile trips into CBD after Steps 1 through 4 Increase in trips compared to pre-bounceback % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD % Reduction in speed for trip part within CBD % Reduction in speed for trip part outside CBD % Reduction in overall trip speed % Increase in overall trip time New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds Automobile trips into CBD, after this "bounceback" (lower speeds) Decrease in automobile trips estimated in this "step" Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step 320,400 1.7% 1.3% 0.4% 2.7% 0.6% 0.9% 0.9% 99.1% 317,600 2,800 0.9% 0.4% 0.8% 0.8% 99.1% 245,000 2,300 0.9% 0.3% 247,300 1.9%

636,500 6,900 1.1%

6. Drivers React to Higher Travel Speeds due to Decrease in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
636,500 1.1% This part performs another (the fifth) iteration of bounceback Automobile trips into CBD after Steps 1 through 5 Decrease in trips estimated in prior step % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD % Increase in speed for trip part within CBD % Increase in speed for trip part outside CBD % Increase in overall trip speed % Decrease in overall trip time New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds Automobile trips into CBD, after latest "bounceback" (improved speeds) Increase in automobile trips estimated in this "step" Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step 317,600 0.9% 0.7% 0.2% 1.4% 0.3% 0.5% 0.5% 100.5% 319,000 1,400 0.4% 0.2% 0.4% 0.4% 100.5% 246,200 1,200 0.5% 0.2% 245,000 0.9%

640,000 3,500 0.5%

7. Drivers React to Lower Travel Speeds due to Increase in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
640,000 0.5% This part again estimates "opposing bounceback" -- the sixth iteration Automobile trips into CBD after Steps 1 through 6 Increase in trips compared to pre-bounceback % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD 0.4% % Increase in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD % Reduction in speed for trip part within CBD 0.7% 319,000 0.4% 0.1% 246,200 0.5% 0.1%

638,200 1,800 0.3%

% Reduction in speed for trip part outside CBD % Reduction in overall trip speed % Increase in overall trip time New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds Automobile trips into CBD, after this "bounceback" (lower speeds) Decrease in automobile trips estimated in this "step" Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step

0.2% 0.2% 0.2% 99.8% 318,300 700 0.2%

0.1% 0.2% 0.2% 99.7% 245,600 600 0.2%

8. Drivers React to Higher Travel Speeds due to Decrease in Vehicles associated with "Bounceback"
638,200 0.3%

may be ignored).

639,200 1,000 0.2% 160,800 20.1% 82% 18%

This part estimates the seventh and last iteration of bounceback (further perturbations are small and may be ignore Automobile trips into CBD after Steps 1 through 7 318,300 245,600 Decrease in trips estimated in prior step 0.2% 0.2% % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip w/i CBD 0.2% % Decrease in Traffic Volume for the Section of Trip outside CBD 0.1% 0.0% % Increase in speed for trip part within CBD 0.4% % Increase in speed for trip part outside CBD 0.1% 0.1% % Increase in overall trip speed 0.1% 0.1% % Decrease in overall trip time 0.1% 0.1% New volume as % of old, due to higher travel speeds 100.1% 100.1% Automobile trips to CBD, after latest BB (improved speeds) 318,700 245,900 Increase in automobile trips estimated in this "step" 400 300 Above, expressed as a percentage of trips at the start of this step 0.1% 0.1% Total (net) decline in m.v. trips to CBD, after accounting for BB Total (net) decline expressed as % of original trips Decline %, expressed as % of Stage-1 (pre-BB) decline Net Bounceback Factor 81,300 20% 85% 15% 34,100 12% 75% 25%

elds zero. This will avoid a

ector-specific results and/or assumptions, s 1 & 5 apply to all traffic and trips. 4 5 Taxi Total Trips Trips

Columns 2-4 display sector-specific results whereas Columns 1 & 5 apply to all 1 2 Work Trips

C. Cordon Entry Fee and free or reduced-fare Transit, combined

d within the charging zone.

This "column block" estimates the effect of the cordon fee + free or reduced-fare transit combined on tr

0. Existing Conditions
Automobile trips into the CBD Breakdown of those trips by major category Motor vehicle trips into CBD, broken down
Above cells are sourced near top of Column Block A.

800,000 50% 400,000

120,000

800,000

mobile trips into the CBD)
272,023 unknown

Important Note: Owing to the overlap between motor vehicle trips eliminated by the entre fee and trips a reduced-fare transit, special care must be taken to calculate the joint effect of combining the entry fee a

om eliminating transit fares.

This is best accomplished by multiplying the respective percentages of surviving trips from the separat eliminates double-counting of the two types of lost trips. The steps are laid out directly below. Percentage of trips surviving despite cordon entry fee (from Column Block A) 83% Percentage of trips surviving despite free or reduced-fare transit (from Column Block B) 80%
Above cells are calculated directly from results shown at bottom of Column Blocks A and B.

ps shown above replace automobile trips, as ps may correspond to brand-new travel). by changes in transit costs or travel times. or simplicity.

Cross-products (close approximation to joint percent of surviving trips) Double-counting avoided by not simply adding percentages of destroyed trips Surviving trips (number) Eliminated trips (number) Eliminated trips (percents)

66% 4% 263,000 137,000 34%

193,600

X-products eliminates double-counting by employing the Rule of Complements from Probability Theory. (Think of Venn Diagr

on-fee-caused losses, times: 2 arately. Above % is Komanoff rough est.

9,680 1.4

Fact Book" (see Taxi worksheet). t two rows convert person-trips into m.v. trips

6,914 5.8%

148,778 18.6%

reduced-fare subways and buses. That is enomenon is modeled directly below.

arging zone. 50%

ike lanes, BRT, etc.):

to the value chosen at left for the entry-fee t be used for the combined-policy analysis at

113,086 60%

651,222

40%

2

7.0%

greater since transit trips

9.1% 12.0% -10.7% -50%

<--- Note: Since street space is only reapportioned once, this is the only step in which the Volume-toCapacity ratio is altered (reduced).

105.8%

5.8% 6,600 119,686

7.1% 46,000 697,222

minating transit fare.

with "Bounceback"

ck" -- the reduction in trips once n Part 2 directly above. 119,686 697,222 5.8% 7.1% 2.6% 3.4% 7.7% 7.2%

96.6% 115,600 4,086 3.4%

673,400 23,822 3.4%

d with "Bounceback"
115,600 3.4% 1.3% 1.7% 3.7% 3.6% 101.9% 117,700 2,100 1.8% 673,400 3.4%

685,400 12,000 1.8%

with "Bounceback"
117,700 1.8% 0.7% 0.9% 2.0% 1.9% 99.1% 116,600 1,100 0.9% 685,400 1.8%

679,200 6,200 0.9%

d with "Bounceback"
116,600 0.9% 0.3% 0.4% 1.0% 1.0% 100.5% 117,200 600 0.5% 679,200 0.9%

682,400 3,200 0.5%

with "Bounceback"
117,200 0.5% 0.2% 682,400 0.5%

0.2% 0.5% 0.5% 99.7% 116,900 300 0.3%

680,800 1,600 0.2%

d with "Bounceback"

are small and may be ignored). 116,900 680,800 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% 0.1% 0.3% 0.3% 100.1% 117,000 100 0.1% 3,000 3% 43% N.A.

681,600 800 0.1% 118,400 14.8% 80% 20%

s 2-4 display sector-specific results and/or assumptions, hereas Columns 1 & 5 apply to all traffic and trips. 3 4 5 Non-work Taxi Total Trips Trips Trips

d-fare transit combined on trips into and w/i the charging zone.

35% 280,000

15% 120,000

800,000

ed by the entre fee and trips attracted by free or of combining the entry fee and free or reduced-

rviving trips from the separate analyses. This out directly below. 67% 88% 59% 4% 165,800 114,200 41% 100% 98% 98% 0.0% 117,300 2,700 2% 546,100 253,900 32% 80% 85% 68%

bility Theory. (Think of Venn Diagrams.)

Transit

1/24/2008

This worksheet calculates changes in transit use due to the availability of free or cheaper transit, and a CBD cordon fee. "Motor vehicle trips" refer to vehicles; "transit trips" and "trips in motor vehicles" refer to persons. Some methodological notes The analysis has to examine the CBD separately from the rest of the city, because the cordon fee affects only travel into the CBD.

Do not re-set cells within this box. Read note directly below about Subway Wo

Subway
Overall Work Non-work Overall

Bus

Proposed new fare level, as percent of current fare

0%

0%

Subway and Bus work-trip fares may be re-set in Summary worksheet. Subway non-work is programmed to be same as Subway work, and ditto fo We use percents rather than dollar values because the former are more transparent, given the complex NYC Transit fare structures.

Proposed new fares

$0.00

$0.00

These are calculated from the above percents and "Current Transit Fares" below. Note that current fares are far less than the nominal $2.00 "base."

1. Basic Transit Ridership, Fare and Revenue Data (All data are current conditions, i.e., do not reflect proposed policies, and are citywide Subway
Overall Work Non-work Overall

Bus

NYC Transit ridership, 2006 (millions)

1,498.6

741.4

Subways: http://www.mta.info/mta/ind-perform/annual/nyct-s-ridership.htm. Figure is most recent bar, labeled 2007, but presumably is 2006 since page was a in Oct. 2007 and otherwise the graph would have omitted 2006. Buses: http://www.mta.info/mta/ind-perform/annual/nyct-b-ridership.htm.

Breakdown of above between work and non-work trips. Weekday average ridership, 2006 Current Transit Fares ("Fare 1") 4,541,000 $1.29

60% 2,725,000 $1.40

40% 1,816,000 $1.13 2,247,000 $1.05

Komanoff estimates. Note that the percentages pertain to all transit trips, not merely transit trips into CBD. "Overall" figure calculated by dividing full-year ridership (above) by number of equivalent weekdays in a year (shown in Constant worksheet).

Overall subway fare is same as farebox average shown directly below. Subway fare for work trips is Komanoff estimate. Subway non-work fare was approxim trial-and-error to ensure that implied subway revenue matches actual farebox figure directly below. Analogous procedure was done for bus fares.

Current fares are derived from farebox revenue figures directly below. While it is possible that work fares are slightly higher than non-work, we assume one le Fare "true-up" check to ensure that calculated revenues above = actual. $1,937.93 $778.60 Farebox Revenue (Millions) Farebox Revenue (Millions)

Revenues from "2006 Final Estimate," MTA Feb. 2007 Financial Plan, available at http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/pdf/adopted07_5.pdf

Ridership (Millions)

Implied Fare

$1,937.90

1,498.6

$1.29

$778.10

2. Elasticities (sensitivities of transit usage to price (fare) and service (travel time)) Non-technical readers should skip this section, except perhaps for last data row, "Combined instant ridership gain …" Subway
Overall Price-Elasticity Assumptions and Intermediate Calculations Work Non-work Overall

Bus

Ridership 1 (normalized, i.e., set to 100) Transit own-price elasticity (sourced in Tri-State Elasticities).

100

100 -9.0% 109.0 9.0%

100 -23.4% 123.4 23.4%

100

Ridership 2 (normalized, calculated from point fare elasticity "Instant" ridership gain due to changed fare ("price effect"), % (w/o bounceback)
Time-Elasticity Assumptions and Intermediate Calculations Transit own-time elasticity (sourced in Tri-State Elasticities).

In the event Ridership 1 = Ridership 2, four cells above "re tiny positive # to avoid zero as divisor in other cells.

Reduction in travel time due to eliminating fare collection

-50% 3%

-55% 2%

Travel time reductions for subways are Komanoff-Haikalis estimates, in lieu of data from MTA (despite proffering several requests), and are intended to reflec but real savings from eliminating MetroCard purchase and use and from speeding egress from subway stations. Travel time reductions for buses are derived 2A, directly to right.

"Instant" ridership gain due to free fare ("time effect"), % (w/o bounceback) Combined "instant" ridership gain from free fare (both effects), % (w/o b-back)

1.5% 10.5%

1.1% 24.5%

Calculated as sum of two separate gains calculated above, minus products, to eliminate possible double-counting in simply adding gains from lower fare and

3. Transit Trips to the CBD, 24h, weekday (All data are current conditions, i.e., do not reflect proposed policies, and are citywide.)

This section estimates transit trips that cross into and terminate in the CBD. The subway part is done by first prorating total weekday subwa the percentage that end in the CBD, and then apportioning these between work and non-work. The bus part is done by importing the estima number of local bus trips that enter the CBD (from Buses worksheet), and apportioning those between work and non-work. Not needed for buses, since 38% (subway) Percent of subway trips that cross into and terminate in the CBD bound bus trips are est'd dir Subway 1,736,000 68.5% 31.5% Bus 47,600

Derived in H.I.S. worksheet. Note that since only half of subway trips are inbound, the percentage shown corresponds to twice as high a share of inbound trip

Total transit trips that cross into and terminate in the CBD, per day Percentage of CBD-bound transit trips that are work:

Subway figure is Subway % directly above, times total daily subway trips further above. Bus figure is taken directly from Bus worksheet.

Derived in H.I.S. worksheet. The subway %'s are based on all trips into the CBD from NYC outside the CBD. Bus %'s are based on CBD-bound trips from Up Manhattan only, since essentially all of those are local buses, whereas the vast majority of CBD-bound bus trips from other boroughs are express buses.

We now separate the CBD-bound subway and bus trips into work and non-work. Subway
Overall Work Non-work Overall

Bus

Estimated daily transit trips now arriving in the CBD

1,736,000

1,190,000

546,000

47,600

4. Increased Transit Trips to the CBD from free or reduced fare (24h, weekday) Data in this section pertain only to free fare (cordon fee is ignored for now). Incrs in transit trips from free fare (prior to incorporating bounceback) 258,500 Shares of free-fare-caused increases, broken down in 2x2 matrix Shares of work increases broken down by subway/bus; ditto for non-work 124,800 46% 98% 133,700 49% 93% 13,523

These figures must now be adjusted (reduced) due to bounceback -- the extent to which faster car travel induces more of it (see fuller descr Traffic worksheet, Section 2). More transit trips means fewer auto trips, though for several reasons the reductions are considerably less tha The analysis is carried out in Traffic worksheet, in Column Block "B." The result there that is pertinent here is the bounceback factor, which here to prorate (downward) the increase in transit trips due to free or reduced-fare transit. Net Bounceback Factor (derived in Column Block "B" of Traffic. See long note directly above). 20% This denotes the percent by which the increases just derived must be reduced, to reflect the dynamic interplay between autos and transit. Increase in transit trips into the CBD, resulting from free transit (with bounceback), 24h, weekday Broken down as follows:
Shares are calc'd with percentage shares from Section 3. Work Subway Work Bus Non-work Subway Non-work Bus Combined

99,300

2,466

106,400

8,296

216,462

5. Increased Transit Trips to the CBD from cordon fee (24h, weekday) Note: This section will employ the cross-elasticity of transit trips w/r/t auto trips (The reverse cross-elasticity, auto w/r/t transit, was used in T
See Tri-State Elasticities worksheet for source as well as explanation of cross-elasticity and its relevance.

Total (net) decline in m.v. trips to CBD, after accounting for bounceback
from the Traffic worksheet. Work Non-work

160,800
Combined

Breakdown of these trips (excludes taxis)
from the Traffic worksheet.

50%

35%

85%

Breakdown with taxi trips apportioned to either category Total (net) decline in m.v. trips to CBD Vehicle occupancy rates Decline in person trips in m.v. to CBD Change in Transit Volume per Change in Auto Volume caused by change in Auto Cost Increase in transit trips resulting from cordon fee (24h) Broken down as follows:
Work Subway

59% 94,600 1.2 113,520 95% 107,800
Work Bus

41% 66,200 1.5 99,300 50% 49,700
Non-work Subway

100%

157,500
Non-work Bus

105,200

2,611

46,100

3,595

6. Increased Transit Trips to the CBD from both cordon fee and free/reduced transit (24h, weekday)

We cannot simply sum the respective increases from Sections 4 & 5, because of the likelihood that this would double-count some transit trip would arise from both the "carrot" and the "stick." (In Traffic, we adjusted [reduced] the analogous sums to avoid a similar double-counting procedure is to calculate percentage increases and deduct the cross-products.
Work Subway Work Bus Non-work Subway Non-work Bus

% increase in transit trips from free/reduced fare % increase in transit trips from cordon fee Cross-products Sum, less cross-products Adjusted sum as percent of unadjusted sum Unadjusted totals Adjusted totals (from both "carrot" and "stick")

7.3% 7.7% 0.6% 14.4% 96.3% 204,500 196,800

0.5% 0.6% 0.003% 1.1% 99.7% 5,077 5,100

11.7% 5.1% 0.6% 16.2% 96.5% 152,500 147,100

0.7% 0.3% 0.002% 1.1% 99.8% 11,891 11,900

373,968 360,900

7. Calculations of Increased Transit Trips and Reduced Motor Vehicle Trips, Citywide (24h, weekday) Subway
Combined Work Non-work Combined

Bus 444,800 622,000

Weekday ridership gain from free fare (without bounceback)

730,600

285,800

Bounceback: % of these increases that will be lost because roads will now offer faster car trips ("bounceback," discussed/derived above) Weekday ridership gain from free fare (with bounceback) 581,400 227,400 354,000 495,000

Note: It may be of interest to compare the two boxed figures in the preceding row, to see whether the free fare attracts more passengers to subwa

Current weekday subway and bus ridership (copied from above) Percent increase in passengers

4,541,000 13%

2,247,000 22%

8. Calculation of Decreased Auto Trips Citywide due to Free or Reduced-Fare Transit (24h, weekday) Note that not every "attracted" transit trip equates to an "eliminated" car trip, for two reasons: (i) some transit trips replace "not traveling"; and (ii) some motor vehicles have more than one person. Instant weekday reduxns in trips in motor v's, due to free fare (w/ b-back) Average motor vehicle occupancies Instant weekday reduxns in m.v. trips from free fare (w/ b-back) 216,030 1.35 160,000 177,000 1.35 131,100

1.35 291,100

1.35 227,300

Calculated as simple average of work and non-work occupancies estimated in Traffic worksheet.

This figure is taken from the net (final) bounceback percentage for m.v. trips into CBD under free transit, derived and shown in Traffic and Revenue. Ideally, would be derived through an iterative process such as performed for trips into CBD in that worksheet. However, this would require enormous work, particularl estimating non-CBD bounceback. We believe the shortcut used here is an acceptable proxy.

Net weekday reduxns in m.v. trips from free fare (w/ bounceback)

231,663

127,331

104,332

180,890

9. Further Examination of Increased Transit Trips to Reveal Their Hourly Distribution

Some of the increased transit users will seek to travel during the peak hour (8-9 a.m.) and hours (7-10 a.m.), adding stress to the already st transit system. Here we sift the increases derived in the previous sections, which are for a 24h period, to infer estimates of the peak distribu results will be inputted in the Assignments worksheet, which distributes the increased transit riders among the different portals to the CBD. Repeat of results from Part 4 Increase in transit trips into the CBD, resulting from free transit (with bounceback), 24h, weekday
Work Subway Work Bus Non-work Subway Non-work Bus Combined

99,300 Relevant cross-elasticity, which will determine the number that came from automobiles Number that came from autos 95% 94,300

2,466 95% 2,300

106,400 50% 53,200

8,296 50% 4,100

216,462

153,900

Repeat of results from Part 5 Increase in transit trips resulting from cordon fee, 24h, weekday
Work Subway Work Bus Non-work Subway Non-work Bus

All of these came from autos (by definition)

105,200

2,611

46,100

3,595

157,506

10. Summation of Previous Section (note: use percentages only, since figures here aren't netted for double-counting carrot and stick) Unadj. increase in transit trips into CBD, 24h Number of above that came from autos, 24h
Percentage of new transit riders coming from autos Percentage of new transit riders not from autos

204,500 199,500 97.6% 2.4%

5,077 4,911 96.7% 3.3%

152,500 99,300 65.1% 34.9%

11,891 7,695 64.7% 35.3%

373,968 311,406 83.3% 16.7%

travel into the CBD.
directly below about Subway Work Level.

Bus
Work Non-work

0%

0%

e as Subway work, and ditto for buses. uctures.

$0.00

$0.00

e nominal $2.00 "base."

sed policies, and are citywide.) Bus
Work Non-work

Combined

2,240.0

umably is 2006 since page was accessed dership.htm.

40% 899,000 $1.20

60% 1,348,000 $0.95 6,788,000

stant worksheet).

way non-work fare was approximated via s done for bus fares.

han non-work, we assume one level, for simplicity.

Ridership (Millions)

Implied Fare

Farebox Revenue (Millions)

Implied Fare

741.4

$1.05

$2,716.00

$1.21

Bus
Work Non-work

2A. Buses Time Savings from Fare-Free Boarding + Improved Travel Speeds This subsection estimates the impact on bus trip times from the combination of fare-free boarding and improved traffic flow. The first part relies on a spreadsheet created by MTA staff as part of their early planning effort for Bus Rapid Transit, which was informally provided to us in Sept. 2007. The twelve modeled scenarios included several involving fare prepayment, one of which would be analogous to free transit, and which is shown below in Column C.
A Est. Impact of Fare-Free Boarding B

100 -9.0% 109.0 9.0%

100 -23.4% 123.4 23.4% Total Observed Time for "A" (in minutes and seconds) Total Trip Time Observed for "A" (in seconds) Dwell Time (in minutes and seconds) Dwell Time (in seconds) Saved Dwell Time (in seconds) Saved Dwell Time, % of Dwell Time

Ridership 2, four cells above "return" a o as divisor in other cells.

-50% 20%

-55% 20%

56m 17s 3,377 16m 16s 14m 54s 976 894 82 8.4%

uests), and are intended to reflect modest reductions for buses are derived in Section

Implied Traveling Time (in seconds) Saved Dwell Time, % of Total Trip Time

2,401 2.4%

11.8% 18.4%

13.1% 33.8%

"A" is current situation, observed w/ stopwatch by MTA. All data here apply to Bx12 Limited from 207th St. to Coop City. "B" assumed low-floor buses with alighting restricted to the rear door. "C" assumed low-floor articulated buses w/ 3 doors, alighting and boarding permitting at each door, and prepayment. Add Impact of Reduced Traffic

adding gains from lower fare and faster trip.

es, and are citywide.)

rorating total weekday subway trips by done by importing the estimated nd non-work. Not needed for buses, since CBDbound bus trips are est'd directly.

% Reduction in Travel Time due to Kheel Plan reduced traffic Saved Time from Reduced traffic Travel Time w/ Kheel Plan VMT (in seconds) Total Trip Time w/ Kheel Plan VMT (in seconds) Total Time Saved w/ Kheel Plan (in seconds) Same as Above, as %

9.2% 222 2,179 3,155

222 2,179 3,073 304 9.0%

Reduce this Result for Conservatism (since BX12 route on which modeling was based has greater dwell time than average (it is system's 5th busiest); and also on general principles)

ce as high a share of inbound trips.

35.3%

64.7%

MTA calculation of time saving (due to fare-free boarding) MTA recommendation of time saving result to apply (due to fare-free boarding) Implied MTA factor by which to reduce time saving: Est'd Total Time Saving from Kheel Plan (counting fare-free-boarding + reduced traffic) if apply MTA factor for conservatism) Above, rounded
Note: Above cell ("rounded") had to be partially "hard-wired" in order to avoid circularity from basing bus time savings on traffic reduction which is based on bus usage (and reduced car usage) which itself is based on bus time savings. While the 21.2% result is based on a 9.1% reduction in travel time (and 10% reduction in citywide VMT), the same cell yields 20.0% down to a travel time saving of 6.7%, i.e., the 20% result that we use in our citywide modeling is fairly robust. Note also that we applied the MTA conservatism factor to travel time as well as dwell time.

sed on CBD-bound trips from Upper boroughs are express buses.

Bus
Work Non-work

16,800

30,800

1,783,600

3,098 1% 2%

10,425 4% 7%

272,023

es more of it (see fuller description in ons are considerably less than 1-for-1. he bounceback factor, which we use

between autos and transit.

uto w/r/t transit, was used in Traffic).

double-count some transit trips that oid a similar double-counting. The

97%

Bus
Work Non-work

Combined 456,200 1,352,600 20% 363,100 1,076,400

165,800 discussed/derived above) 131,900

cts more passengers to subway or bus.

125,305 1.35 92,800

181,550 1.35 134,500 518,400

in Traffic and Revenue. Ideally, the figure equire enormous work, particularly for

73,852

107,038

412,552

dding stress to the already strained estimates of the peak distribution. The e different portals to the CBD.

counting carrot and stick)

re-free boarding and s part of their early 2007. The twelve ld be analogous to free

C

2m 36s 156 820 84.0%

24.3%

from 207th St. to Coop City. % Reduction if same boarding, i.e., reflects only reduced traffic 222 6.6% Note: Above cell had to be "hard-wired" from its original calculation as quotient of "Saved Time from Reduced Traffic" above and to left, by "Total Trip Time Observed for 'A' further above, in order to avoid circularity from basing bus time savings on traffic reduction which is based on bus usage (and reduced car usage) which itself is based on bus time savings.

ch door, and prepayment.

2,179 2,335 1,042 30.8%

as greater dwell time than

21.8% 15.0% 31.2% 21.2% 20%

m basing bus time savings sed on bus time savings. ywide VMT), the same cell ywide modeling is fairly l time.

Column Block "A" These columns reflect 2005 subway ridership volumes and current NYC Transit operations
Added Trains per hour to reach V/C = 1.0 (rounded up) Added Cars per hour to reach 1.0 (may be high due to rounding)

Column Block "A-1"
Columns use V/C = 0.86

Column Block "B"

Column Block "B-1"

Column Block "C" plan

Column Block "C-1" Columns use V/C =0.86 Addit'l
Trains/hr Addit'l Excess to reach Cars/hr to Riders criterion reach over V/C w/ off- criterion Feasible criterion load + w/ the Number Trains/Hr above, w/ Swell Swell of Trains needed off-load + (rounded (may be per Hour to reach the Swell up) high) (Note 1) 1.0

Column Block "D" (and D-1) These columns determine whether tracks can handle riders under both criteria
Can the alterCan the Trains/Hr native 1.0 be needed criterion met w/i to reach be met Track the alter- w/i Track connative constraint? criterion straint? Excess riders that Track can't accommodate Trains that Cars that won't be won't be run run because because track track can't can't handle handle

These columns net avail. rail and bus seats from 2005 riders in Block "A" Columns use V/C =

Portal
Line

Subway

Hourly Rider Volume (2005) (Note 1)

Division

Capacity per Car

Cars per Train (avg)

Capacity per Train

Trains per Hour (Note 2)

Actual Capacity (hourly) (Note 3)

Volume-toCapacity Excess Ratio Riders ("V/C") (using V/C (2005) = 1.0)

Excess Addit'l Addit'l Riders Trains/hr Cars/hr (using to reach to reach V/C value V/C value V/C value shown (rounded (may be above) up) high)

Available Capacity on Parallel Commuter Rail Lines (Note 4)

0.86 Addit'l Columns add 05-07 growth plus "swell" from our Addit'l Cars/hr to Rider Addit'l Trains/hr reach V/C Available Volume Excess Trains/hr Addit'l Excess Addit'l to reach Capacity after offVolume/ Riders to reach Cars/hr to Riders value 2007 V/C Ratio Excess Trains on Nearby loading Capacity over V/C = 1.0 w/ reach 1.0 (using V/C V/C value above w/ Riders w/ Est.'d Riders w/ Riders w/ per hour above w Bus Lines onto Ratio w/ 1.0 w/ offComm. w/ Comm. value Comm. off-loading Riders w/ off-loading off-loading to reach Comm. Rail + Bus (Bus V/C = parallel off-load to load to Rail + Bus Rail + Bus above) w/ but w/o off-loading and the + swell V/C = 1.0 1.00) Commuter Comm. Comm. (rounded (may be Comm. Rail + Bus (may be the Swell and the Swell (Note (using V/C (rounded (Note 5) RR + Bus Rail + Bus Rail + Bus up) high) Rail + Bus (rnd'd up) high) (Note 6) Swell 7) = 1.0) up)

Inputs for Block "C"
Est'd Rider Growth Factor, 2005 to 2007 (Note 6)

Addit'l Cars per hour to reach 1.0 (may be high)

Cars per Swell hour Growth (current, factor i.e., Case (Note 7) "1")

North of 60th St. 1 2 3 A,D B,C 4 5 6 Queens E F N, W R V 7 Exp 7 North B'klyn L J,M,Z South B'klyn A,C F B D N Q M R 2,3 4,5 22,297 13,436 11,091 9,744 11,188 9,966 3,140 7,162 14,767 19,904 383,418 B B B B B B B B A A 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 110 110 9.53 10 10 10 10 10 8 10 10 10 1,381 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,160 1,450 1,100 1,100 24 14 9 9 9 9 6 10 19 23 368 33,149 20,300 13,050 13,050 13,050 13,050 6,960 14,500 20,900 25,300 467,077 0.67 0.66 0.85 0.75 0.86 0.76 0.45 0.49 0.71 0.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,902 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 58 24,047 3 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 275 12,222 73 301 28 834 834 1,668 75 0 284 1,586 14,951 22,224 13,135 11,063 8,910 10,354 8,298 3,065 7,162 14,483 18,318 356,245 0.67 0.65 0.85 0.68 0.79 0.64 0.44 0.49 0.69 0.72 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 877 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18 11,332 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134 22,636 13,383 11,268 9,090 10,561 8,482 3,123 7,294 14,756 18,686 363,333 24,064 14,244 11,978 9,714 11,277 9,120 3,324 7,753 15,701 19,961 387,626 0.73 0.70 0.92 0.74 0.86 0.70 0.48 0.53 0.75 0.79 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,658 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66 25,016 793 92 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 28 0 0 10 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 271 28 14 14 14 14 14 28 28 26 26 556 24 14 9 9 9 9 6 10 19 23 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 24 14 10 9 10 9 6 10 19 23 YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES 5,534 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 60
"A" Division "B" Division matches sum in Commuter Rail, Pt 5.

17,587 13,100 12,119 20,843 11,918 15,915 14,525 26,883 21,657 16,612 17,100 8,861 6,800 13,916 12,153 17,879 12,855

A A A B B A A A B B B B B A A B B

110 110 110 145 145 110 110 110 145 145 145 145 145 110 110 145 145

10 10 10 10 9.08 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 11 11 8 8

1,100 1,100 1,100 1,450 1,316 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,450 1,210 1,210 1,160 1,160

16 12 12 16 11 14 13 22 15 13 14 10 9.8

17,600 13,200 13,200 23,200 14,478 15,400 14,300 24,200 21,750 18,850 20,300 14,500 14,210 15,730 15,730 17,400 19,720

1.00 0.99 0.92 0.90 0.82 1.03 1.02 1.11 1.00 0.88 0.84 0.61 0.48 0.88 0.77 1.03 0.65

0 0 0 0 0 515 225 2,683 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 479 0

0 0 0 0 0 1 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 10 10 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0

2,502 1,786 805 958 2,715 2,268 6,141 3,015 455 434 2,965 -

3 2 1 1 0 3 3 6 3 1 0 0 0 1 0 3 0

30 20 10 10 0 30 30 60 30 10 0 0 0 11 0 24 0

94 354 354 472 47 1,651 1,651 94 2,021 2,021 441 441 2,337

284 142 142 879 57 816 771 2,043 453 301 834 0 0 2,321 0 150

17,208 12,604 11,623 19,492 11,814 13,449 12,103 24,746 19,183 14,290 15,824 8,420 6,800 9,258 12,153 17,729 12,537

0.98 0.95 0.88 0.84 0.82 0.87 0.85 1.02 0.88 0.76 0.78 0.58 0.48 0.59 0.77 1.02 0.64

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 547 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 330 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0

2,123 1,290 309 249 4,004 541 2,816 -

2 2 1 0 0 1 0 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0

20 20 10 0 0 10 0 40 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 24 0

17,533 12,846 11,847 19,878 12,034 13,743 12,372 25,243 19,583 14,597 16,141 8,583 6,926 9,515 12,378 18,060 12,775

18,620 13,656 12,596 21,166 12,771 14,726 13,269 26,904 20,978 15,667 17,242 9,154 7,364 10,411 13,160 19,205 13,598

1.06 1.03 0.95 0.91 0.88 0.96 0.93 1.11 0.96 0.83 0.85 0.63 0.52 0.66 0.84 1.10 0.69

1,021 456 0 0 0 0 0 2,705 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,476 0

1 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0

10 10 0 0 0 0 0 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 0

3,535 2,342 1,282 1,281 362 1,527 1,013 6,162 2,336 4,291 -

4 3 2 1 1 2 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0

40 30 20 10 9 20 10 60 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 32 0

28 14 14 28 28 14 13 27 16 14 28 28 12 14 14 30 28

17 13 12 16 11 14 13 25 15 13 14 10 10 13 13 17 17

YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

20 15 14 17 12 16 14 28 17 13 14 10 10 13 13 19 17

YES NO YES YES YES NO NO NO NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

456 1,526 1,012 1,447 1,092 -

0 1 0 0 0 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0 10 0 0 0 20 10 10 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018 0.018

0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.061 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063 0.063

160 120 120 160 100 140 130 220 150 130 140 100 98 143 143 120 136 229 140 90 90 90 90 48 100 190 230 3,606

13 13
15 17

243

75

TOTALS

(1) Measured at peak load point in peak 60-minutes, a.m. period, Spring and Fall Average, 2005). From internal MTA worksheet, "A.M. Peak 60-Min Peak Load Point V/Summary Spring & Fall 2005 Average," provided in response to Kheel Study Team FOIL request. (2) Actual average number of trains in 8-9 a.m. peak hour. "Hub-Bound Travel Report 2005," Section B pages III-11, III-13, III-14 and III-17 (NYMTC, 2007).

Additional cars that would need to run in peak hour, if sufficient track capacity: Additional cars that will need to run in peak hour, given track constraints:

271 211

180 130

91 81

(3) Capacity of actual trains based on MTA loading guidelines. From internal MTA worksheet, "A.M. Peak 60-Min Peak Load Point V/Summary Spring & Fall 2005 Average," provided in response to Kheel Study Team FOIL request. (4) Derived in Commuter Rail. Assumes passengers have access to commuter lines upstream of peak load point on subways. (5) Many cells in this column had to be divided by two to avoid assigning single bus runs to subways entering CBD from opposite directions. We will devise an automatic assignment procedure in a later iteration. (6) 2005 to 2007 ridership growth factor is based on NYC job growth, shown in Pop & Employ worksheet. (7) "Swell" growth factors are from Reassignments. They reflect incrs in peak-hour transit usage and the partially offsetting incrs in bicycle commuting. This value is inputted in Summary worksheet. Do not change here.

Buses

1/24/2008

This worksheet derives weekday hourly passenger arrivals on local buses into the CBD, by subtracting express bus passenger arrivals from All data in this worksheet were provided by Joe Clift, who took them from the 2004 Hub Bound Travel Report.

LOCAL BUS TRANSIT BY SECTOR (Passenger Arrivals in CBD) RECAPITULATION, 2004-INBOUND 60th Street Sector BUS PSGRS
35 15 10 9 13 46 94 146 177 148 117 114 120 118 121 126 147 130 120 104 100 79 73 55 2,217 191 37 19 20 60 404 1,219 3,608 6,366 4,254 2,528 2,314 2,680 2,432 2,333 2,584 3,188 2,954 2,192 1,264 950 683 558 427 43,265

HOUR 12-1 am 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 noon 1 pm 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 mid TOTAL

Brooklyn Sector BUSES PSGRS
2 2 2 2 2 1 5 7 7 5 6 6 5 6 7 8 8 7 6 4 3 2 2 2 107 7 0 1 2 0 14 64 182 212 139 157 160 98 105 112 128 77 82 53 19 34 16 14 10 1,686

Queens Sector BUSES PSGRS
8 2 0 0 0 1 7 11 12 12 11 9 13 10 10 6 10 10 12 12 14 10 9 8 197 38 2 0 0 0 25 195 299 307 214 213 162 222 123 185 96 115 109 94 75 32 43 43 41 2,633

NJ Sector BUSES PSGRS
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

BUS TRANSIT BY SECTOR
RECAPITULATION, 2004-INBOUND

HOUR 12-1 am 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 noon 1 pm

60th Street Sector BUS PSGRS
42 15 10 9 13 52 116 202 222 175 137 133 139 344 37 19 20 60 603 1,986 5,291 7,426 4,617 2,846 2,561 2,927

Brooklyn Sector BUSES PSGRS
2 2 2 2 5 36 138 273 206 72 29 23 21 7 0 1 2 133 1,468 5,299 11,839 8,935 2,725 914 541 449

Queens Sector BUSES PSGRS
12 2 0 0 0 2 27 116 167 73 44 29 27 55 2 0 0 0 50 868 4,043 6,068 1,920 772 437 465

NJ Sector BUSES PSGRS
60 32 12 18 32 128 476 866 988 520 282 231 218 1,086 659 73 92 1,170 4,687 17,803 33,334 34,284 15,052 7,261 5,102 4,261

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 mid TOTAL

137 142 153 188 202 160 130 117 96 85 66 2,741

2,699 2,760 3,163 4,252 4,943 3,344 1,899 1,357 923 718 585 55,380

21 24 21 19 16 10 9 5 4 4 2 946

415 464 444 278 198 149 46 69 50 52 10 34,488

25 21 17 26 22 17 23 23 18 16 16 723

295 305 170 205 181 125 130 81 75 63 64 16,374

239 287 410 562 480 398 331 229 173 146 109 7,227

3,970 4,662 6,405 8,572 7,581 6,429 5,151 3,307 2,664 3,180 2,623 179,408

Same as above, but Express Buses only
12-1 am 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 noon 1 pm 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 mid TOTAL 7 0 0 0 0 6 22 56 45 27 20 19 19 19 21 27 41 72 40 26 17 17 12 153 0 0 0 0 199 767 1,683 1,060 363 318 247 247 267 427 579 1,064 1,989 1,152 635 407 240 160 0 0 0 0 3 35 133 266 199 67 23 17 16 15 17 13 11 9 4 5 2 2 2 0 0 0 0 133 1,454 5,235 11,657 8,723 2,586 757 381 351 310 352 316 201 116 96 27 35 34 38 4 0 0 0 0 1 20 105 155 61 33 20 14 15 11 11 16 12 5 11 9 8 7 17 0 0 0 0 25 673 3,744 5,761 1,706 559 275 243 172 120 74 90 72 31 55 49 32 20 60 32 12 18 32 128 476 866 988 520 282 231 218 239 287 410 562 480 398 331 229 173 146 1,086 659 73 92 1,170 4,687 17,803 33,334 34,284 15,052 7,261 5,102 4,261 3,970 4,662 6,405 8,572 7,581 6,429 5,151 3,307 2,664 3,180

11
524

158
12,115

0
839

0
32,802

8
526

23
13,741

109
7,227

2,623
179,408

ss bus passenger arrivals from total bus passengers.

Arrivals in CBD) D ALL SECTORS BUSES PSGRS
45 19 12 11 15 48 106 164 196 165 134 129 138 134 138 140 165 147 138 120 117 91 84 65 2,521 236 39 20 22 60 443 1,478 4,089 6,885 4,607 2,898 2,636 3,000 2,660 2,630 2,808 3,380 3,145 2,339 1,358 1,016 742 615 478 47,584

ALL NYC SECTORS BUS PSGRS
45 19 12 11 15 48 106 164 196 165 134 129 138 134 138 140 165 147 138 120 117 91 84 65 2,521 236 39 20 22 60 443 1,478 4,089 6,885 4,607 2,898 2,636 3,000 2,660 2,630 2,808 3,380 3,145 2,339 1,358 1,016 742 615 478 47,584

D ALL SECTORS BUS PSGRS
116 51 24 29 50 218 757 1,457 1,583 840 492 416 405 1,492 698 93 114 1,363 6,808 25,956 54,507 56,713 24,314 11,793 8,641 8,102

ALL NYC SECTORS BUS PSGRS
56 19 12 11 18 90 281 591 406 39 20 22 193 2,121 8,153 21,173

595
320 210 185 187

22,429
9,262 4,532 3,539 3,841

422 474 601 795 720 585 493 374 291 251 193 11,637

7,379 8,191 10,182 13,307 12,903 10,047 7,226 4,814 3,712 4,013 3,282 285,650

183 187 191 233 240 187 162 145 118 105

3,409 3,529 3,777 4,735 5,322 3,618 2,075 1,507 1,048 833

84 4,410

659 106,242

only
71 32 12 18 35 170 651 1,293 1,387 675 358 287 267 288 336 461 630 573 447 373 257 200 167 1,256 659 73 92 1,303 6,365 24,478 50,418 49,828 19,707 8,895 6,005 5,102 4,719 5,561 7,374 9,927 9,758 7,708 5,868 3,798 2,970 3,398 11 0 0 0 3 42 175 427 170 0 0 0 133 1,678 6,675 17,084

399
155 76 56 49 49 49 51 68 93 49 42 28 27 21

15,544
4,655 1,634 903 841 749 899 969 1,355 2,177 1,279 717 491 306 218

128
9,116

2,804
238,066

19 1,889

181 58,658

Taxis

1/24/2008

Part A of this worksheet compiles parameters related to medallion taxicabs that are used in other worksheets. Part B examines the impact of our proposals on the number of medallion taxi trips. Part C estimates the change in the number of fares per hour enabled by the higher travel speeds. Part A. Taxi Parameters (before implementing Kheel Plan) Annual Revenue, millions, 2005
New York Taxicab Fact Book, 2006, p. 34: "Taxicabs generated $1.82 billion in fare revenue in 2005." http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxifb.pdf.

$

1,820

Weekday Daily Revenue, 2005 Taxi ridership, millions, 2005 (number of fare trips, not number of passengers)
NY Taxicab Fact Book, 2006, p. 3

$ 5,515,000 172 521,000 1.4

Taxi ridership, daily (weekday), 2005 (# of fare trips, not # of passengers) Passengers per trip
New York Taxicab Fact Book, 2006, p. 3: "With an average of 1.4 passengers per trip …," http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxifb.pdf.

Per-trip revenue
New York Taxicab Fact Book, 2006, p. 1: "The average fare is $9.61 for a 2.8 mile trip, or $11.44 when surcharges and tips are included (taking into account the November 2006 increase in wait time)." http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/taxifb.pdf. Note, however, that dividing $5,515,000 daily revenue by 730,000 daily trips yields $7.55.

$

9.61

Average trip length, miles
Same as above.

2.8 2.0 6.0 4.77

Assumed average trip length for taxi trips beginning and/or ending in CBD, miles
Komanoff estimate.

Assumed average trip length for taxi trips that don't relate to CBD, miles
Algebra.(what non-CBD trips must average for 100% of trips to be average above).

Wait time included in an average taxi trip, minutes
New York Taxicab Fact Book, 2006, p. 16. "Including surcharges and a 15% tip, the average fare is $11.44 for a 2.8 mile trip with 4.77 minutes wait time."

Cost (fare) per minute of wait time.
New York Taxicab Fact Book, 2006, p. 16.

$ $

0.40 1.91 20% 36%

Cost of wait time in a typical taxi trip Percent of typical taxi fare (w/o tips or surcharges) attributable to wait time Upper bound of same percentage, for short trips in Midtown
Calculated from parameters in New York Taxicab Fact Book, 2006, p. 16. "A typical short trip that stays within Midtown Manhattan averages 1.13 miles with 6.1 minutes waiting time and costs $6.80."

Est'd % of typical taxi fare in CBD attributable to wait time, for this analysis
Mean of two percentages directly above.

28% 39%

Percentage of taxi VMT spent cruising
New York Taxicab Fact Book, 2006, p. 19, "39% of total cab mileage, a total of 314 million miles, was spent cruising for passengers in 2005."

Above %, rounded sharply down, to reflect presumed lower cruising in CBD Percentage of taxi VMT spent with fares (passengers) Multiplier to fare miles to calculate total taxi miles

30% 70% 1.43

Part B. Impact of Kheel Plan on Number of Taxi Rides All figures are for typical weekday. 1. First consider trips that have at least one end (start or finish) in the CBD. Note that such trips have been reliably estimated to account for 80% of all medallion taxi trips. (New York Taxicab Fact Book, 2006, op. cit., p. 8.) Although that datum is from 1988, there is no reason to believe it has changed much. Taxi rides entering the CBD, before Kheel Plan Taxi rides entering the CBD, after Kheel Plan % Surviving % Lost We apply the above loss percentage to all CBD-related trips, i.e., to:
See long note above, citing New York Taxicab Fact Book.

120,000 117,300 98% 2% 80% of trips

For non-CBD trips, we increase the CBD loss percent by this factor:

2

4%

Komanoff assumption, reflect premise that taxi exemption from cordon fee helps hold down taxi losses for CBD trips.

Then the estimated overall (citywide) percentage of lost taxicab trips is: Numerically, this translates to lost trips on a typical weekday, as follows: Number of lost taxi fare trips, annual, millions Part C. Change in the Number of Fares Per Cab (per hour and per shift)

3% 14,100 4.7

1. First, we estimate the duration of a typical trip that begins or ends in CBD (minutes)
Formulas use parameters from Traffic and Cost-Benefit worksheets. Before After % imprvmnt

Average Speed (mph) (wghtd avg of CBD + non-CBD miles) Pickup time, minutes (Komanoff assumption) Dropoff time, minutes (Komanoff assumption) Travel time, minutes (Calculation) Total time, minutes Time lost cruising between fares, minutes

14.8 0.25 0.5 8.1 8.9 3.5

17.5 0.25 0.5 6.9 7.6 2.9

18%

15% 14%

"Before" time prorates fare time by non-cruising % of VMT. "After" time does same but adjusts latter for faster travel due to less traffic.

Total time, minutes, counting time lost cruising

12.3

10.6

2. Now estimate duration of trips that begin and end in CBD (minutes)
Before After % imprvmnt

Average Speed (mph) Pickup time, minutes Dropoff time, minutes Travel time, minutes Total time, minutes Time lost cruising between fares, minutes

8 0.25 0.5 15.0 15.8 6.4

10.7 0.25 0.5 11.2 11.9 4.8

34%

25% 24%

3. Now estimate duration of trips that don't relate to CBD (minutes)
Before After % imprvmnt

Average Speed (mph) Pickup time, minutes Dropoff time, minutes Travel time, minutes Total time, minutes Time lost cruising between fares, minutes

25 0.25 0.5 14.4 15.2 6.2

27.5 0.25 0.5 13.1 13.8 5.6

10%

9% 9%

4. Now apply weights to the three types of trips (based on "after") Total trips of which trips into CBD are: so we assume trips out of CBD are: non-CBD trips are: which leaves this many trips as intra-CBD: 506,933 117,300 117,300 99,511 172,822 23% 23% 20% 34%
Numerical Change

We now weight durations of the three types of trips, by their percent shares, to calculate fares per hour and per shift
Before After % imprvmnt

Average Speed (mph) Pickup time, minutes Dropoff time, minutes Travel time, minutes Total time, minutes Time lost cruising between fares, minutes Total time, minutes, including cruising time Fares per hour (including time lost cruising) Fares per shift lasting 9 hours

14.5 0.25 0.5 11.6 12.3 5.0 17.3 3.5 31.2

17.1 0.25 0.5 9.8 10.6 4.2 14.8 4.1 36.6

18%

15% 15% 15% 17% 17%

5.4

Taxicab Fact Book (op. cit., p. 48) says typical shift lasts 10 hrs which includes a 50-min. break; and averages 30 fares.

Part D. Estimate of the extent to which the Fare Surcharge will be (partially) offset by reduced Wait Time
Before After % Increase

Drop Miles Wait Time TOTAL

$ $ $ $

2.50 5.20 1.91 9.61

$ $ $ $

3.13 6.50 2.03 11.65

25% 25% 6% 21%

Note: Wait Time "after" should be calculated as Wait Time "Before" x (1 + taxi fare increase %) x (Ratio of "After" to "Before" Travel Time shown approx'ly a dozen rows earlier. However, this would introduce circularity in the Transit worksheet, since the % increase in the taxi fare would be dependent on changes in traffic volumes which would be affected by the % increase in the taxi fare (since that would influence taxi ridership and, hence, traffic volumes). To circumvent this circularity, we have "hard-wired" the % increase in wait time charges, using an IF statement related to the magnitude of the cordon price.

Commuter Rail

1/24/2008

This worksheet is a work in progress. Some numbers are preliminary and will change as additional information is obtained by the study team

This worksheet evaluates the capability of the two comuter railroads that serve neighborhoods also served by the MTA New York City Trans subway system – the MTA Long Island Railroad (LIRR) and MTA Metro-North Railroad – to accommodate some of the peak-hour subway ri that will arise as a result of more affordable transit and cordon pricing. This would be provided by establishing price parity between intra-NY commuter rail ticket prices and the price of a subway trip, down to and including free travel. Once price parity is established, subway riders w have the option of a faster trip to the CBD from a nearby commuter rail station will shift, freeing up subway capacity for the added riders.

Conclusion: LIRR and Metro-North trains paralleling the overcrowded Lexington Ave & Queens Blvd Express subway lines have substantial spare capacity today, and this can be further augmented in the near future. Accordingly, pricing and operational adjust to the LIRR and Metro-North lines can provide significant relief to subway riders, even allowing for increased commuter rail riders The analysis proceeds as follows, from the bottom of this worksheet, upwards.

Section 1 (bottom of page) separates the LIRR's Pt. Washington Branch passengers from all other passengers traveling on the Main Line, a a differential assignment to subway lines in Section 6.

Section 2 calculates excess available LIRR and Metro-North fleet capacity -- the passenger capacity of the fleet available for use after the a in-service requirement has been met, based on current equipment and passenger volumes.

Section 3 presents an action plan to increase commuter rail capacity into the CBD by utilizing excess available fleet capacity in the peak ho

Section 4 calculates existing available commuter rail capacity -- the additional riders that can be accommodated on existing service on LIRR MetroNorth trains entering the CBD during the 8-9am peak hour in 2004. Section 5 deducts the seats that will be needed to handle riders who will shift directly from automobiles to the LIRR and Metro-North.

Section 6 assigns that available existing and additional peak hour capacity on the LIRR and Metro-North to subway lines by portal into the C

6. Assignment of Available Commuter Rail Capacity to NYC Subway Lines -- based on 2004 NYMTC Hub Bound Travel Report & cu This section assigns the available peak hour capacity on the LIRR and Metro-North to subway lines by portal into the CBD, based on an assessment of where riders shifting to the commuter railroads would otherwise enter the CBD by subway.

All recent Hub Bound travel reports show significant to excessive available peak hour seating capacity on both LIRR & Metro-North. This av combined with additional capacity identified in Fleet Capacity Analysis below, provides sufficient capacity to absorb demand greater than fu

These %'s assign available LIRR pk hr capacity to subwy l

#7 LIRR Pt Wash Branch 70% 992 10% 239 1,231 1,107 2,337

E&F 15% 213 75% 1,791 2,003 2,039 4,042

J/Z 0% 0 5% 119 119 124 243

%'s assign LIRR pk hr capacity to subway lines

%'s assign LIRR pk hr capacity to subway lines

Main Line Total LIRR Additional LIRR Capacity - from Fleet Availability Analysis (Section 3, below) LIRR Total Available Capacity Metro-North Main Metro-North Capacity ('04 Hub Bound Report) Total Available Commuter Rail Cap.By Subway Assignment 4,717 12,222

2,337

4,042

243

5. Estimation of Total Seats Available on Commuter Rail to Serve Subway Overflow L.I.R.R.

Multiplicative factor to adjust for car commuters taking some commuter rail seats

Multiplicative factor to adjust for car commuters taking some commuter rail seats

A. Existing Pt Wash Branch Capacity B. Existing Main Line Capacity C. Total Existing LIRR Capacity D. Additional Capacity - Fleet Availability Analysis E. LIRR Gross Available Capacity

Section 4 Section 4 A+B Section 3 C+D

2,952 4,973 7,924 7,706 15,630 (8,125) 7,505 48%

48%

Seats Needed to Handle Former Car Commuters (from Assignments, Section 5) Net Seats Available on L.I.R.R. % of Gross Seats Still Available on L.I.R.R. after netting Car Commuters Metro-North Existing Metro-North Capacity
Section 4

10,814 (6,097) 4,717 44%

44%

Seats Needed to Handle Former Car Commuters (from Assignments, Section 5) Net Seats Available on Metro-North % of Gross Seats Still Available on Metro-North after netting Car Commuters

4. Identification of Existing Commuter Rail Capacity Within NYC - based on 2004 NYMTC Hub Bound Travel Report This section calculates existing available capacity -- additional riders that can be accommodated on existing service -- on LIRR and MetroNo trains entering CBD during 8-9 am peak hour in 2004. Calculations are based on reported trains and cars entering during that 60-minute pe Capacity includes moderate standee loading on trains projected to stop at NYC rail stations. The capacity calculation is then compared to re passengers to determine existing available capacity.

Commuter Rail Peak Hour Existing Available Capacity Analysis (8-9 a.m.) 2004 Hub Bound Report LIRR Existing Available Capacity - Pt Wash (est'd cars/pssngrs) - MainLine (est'd cars/pssngrs) Subtotal - LIRR Trains 6 30 36 Cars 64 300 364 Psgrs 4,589 29,131 33,720 Psgrs /Car 71.7 97.1 92.6 Cap/Car 107.8 108.7 108.5 Capacity 6,901 32,604 39,504

Metro-North Existing Available Capacity - Hudson Line 14 97 7,410 76.4 - Harlem Line 16 126 10,382 82.4 Subtotal 30 223 17,792 79.8 110.9 24,725 - New Haven Line 20 155 13,002 83.9 118.3 18,334 Total - Metro-North 50 378 30,794 81.5 113.9 43,060 If New Haven capacity availability* is only 35% Adjusted New Haven Line Adjusted Total - Metro-North Available Capacity vs 04 Hub Bound * Moderate standees (no crowding) -- 10 passengers/car vestibule = 20/car ** Assumes that NY State's 35% share of New Haven Line operating & capital cost is limit on how much of line's capacity can be used for in service. Also assumes removal of legal prohibition against New Haven Line's providing service intra-New York State.

Trains Queens Sector LIRR - Pt Wash (est'd cars/pssngrs) - MainLine (est'd cars/pssngrs) Total - LIRR NEC - Amtrak

6-7 am Cars

Psgrs

2004 NYMTC Hub Bound Travel Repor 7-8 am Trains Cars

6 14 0 126 0 10,640 0 29 1 281 6

Total - Queens Sector 60th Street Sector Metro-North - Hudson Line - Harlem Line Subtotal - New Haven Line Total - Metro-North Empire Line - Amtrak Total - 60 Steet Sector

14

126

10,640

30

287

4 4 8 6 14 1 15

22 28 50 39 89 5 94

1,050 1,411 2,461 2,346 4,807 97 4,904

10 12 22 13 35 1 36

59 90 149 97 246 4 250

3. Fleet Availability Analysis: Action Plan to Provide Additional 8-9am Peak Hour Capacity Into CBD - based on Available Capacity This section presents an action plan to increase available commuter rail capacity into the CBD by utilizing excess available peak hour cars a locomotives calculated in the next section.

Long Island Railroad (LIRR) Action Plan In 1994, the LIRR contracted for and committed $500 million for delivery of 23 “dual-mode” (able to take power from electric third rail or an i diesel engine) locomotives and 134 bi-level passenger trailer cars that would enable customers on 3 of the railroad’s 4 non-electrified “diese territory” branches to travel from their home station to New York Penn Station (NYP) on a “one-seat” ride (a rail trip during which the traveler carried between originating and destination stations on the same train in the same seat), thereby avoiding the customary but time-consumin inconvenient transfer from an diesel locomotive-hauled train to an electrically powered train at an intermediate station. Concurrent with this commitment to improved service for diesel-territory customers, the LIRR undertook “Schedule 99”, a blueprint for increa the number of trains entering Penn Station in the AM peak hour from 36 in 1994 to 42 in 1999, the anticipated operational date for the dualfleet.

Today, eight years after the dual mode fleet went into service, only one dual-mode locomotive-hauled train arrives in NYP in the 8-9am peak while 6 diesel-hauled trains terminate at Queens stations – L.I. City, Hunters Point Ave and Jamaica – requiring most peak-hour diesel-territ customers to continue to transfer at Jamaica Station to complete their trip into NYP (four other dual-mode trains arrive in NYP at earlier and times).

This analysis applies the basic operational concept of Schedule 99 – increasing the tempo of operations to move an additional 6 peak-hour into NYP (in addition to the 37 trains now scheduled into NYP dudring 8:00-8:59am). Four of the added trains are dual-mode trains from die territory. This will finally achieve the one-seat ride intended with the 1994 $500 million investment in dual-mode locomotives and passenger

Capacity into NYP for subway passengers shifting onto the railroad is achieved whether or not the train added to NYP is new or just reassig from its existing terminal station in Queens. Customers on the reassigned trains now take up space on the existing electric trains they now t to at Jamaica Station, which will be released when they stay on their now-dual-mode train and get their one-seat ride into NYP. Fleet Availability Analysis: Actions to Provide Additional 8-9am Peak Hour Capacity Into CBD

LIRR - Electric Multiple Unit (EMU) Cars (M-3's & M-7's) 1. Sufficient EMU cars are available to operate up to 3 additional peak-period 10-car trains (2 in the peak hour) from the inne Branch (Great Neck west to Woodside) into NYP. 2. Sufficient EMU cars are available in excess of the 3 additional 10-car trains to add cars (in pairs) to existing peak period t LIRR stations in east and southeast Queens and the Jamaica Station hub. EMU Total LIRR - Trailer Cars (C-3's), pulled by dual-mode (DM-30) or diesel (DE-30) locomotives 3. Sufficient trailer cars & dual mode locomotives (2 required/train) are available to operate one additional diesel territory tra electric territory, into NYP during the peak hour, releasing equivalent EMU capacity that can be used to serve the existing pe serving the 6 LIRR stations in east and southeast Queens & Jamaica. 4. Sufficient dual-mode locomotives are available to extend one Oyster Bay train now teminating at Jamaica Station into NY providing additional capacity to Jamaica & the 3 LIRR stations west of Jamaica serving central Queens. 5. Sufficient dual-mode locomotives are available to take 2 peak-hour diesel territory trains that now terminate at Hunters Po shift them into NYP Penn, providing additional capacity to Jamaica & the 3 LIRR stations west of Jamaica serving central Qu Trailer Car Total LIRR Total Metro-North Action Plan

There is no significant excess available peak hour Metro-North car fleet to utilize for additional peak hour capacity. Trains from diesel territo GCT, leaving no potential for additional capacity by extending trains or shifting trains. * Moderate standees (no crowding) = 20/car, based on 10 spaces for each vestibule, 2 vestibules per car. 2. Available Capacity (today) This section calculates currently available LIRR and Metro-North fleet capacity for the a.m. peak. COMMUTER RAIL FLEET EXCESS AVAILABLE CAPACITY ANALYSIS TYPE LIRR EMU M-3 M-7 TOTAL NET AVAILABLE SEATS TRAILER TRAINS C-3 CAB C-3 REG TOTAL CAR TOTAL LOCOMOTIVES DM-30 (dual mode) DE-30 04 HB Pk Hr 8-9am -- LIRR EMUs Trailers Total 137 141 140.0 23 111 134 1,142 12% 12% 20 98 118 1,000 117 106 107.8 172 836 1,008 15% 12% 146 736 882
Seats/Car # Units OOS Ratio Peak Avail

22 23 45 107.8 140.0 108.5

18% 12%

18 20 38

* Superb maintainability of M-7 fleet, with low failure rate and high mean distance between failures, should make it possible to reduce spare ratio from a cons ** DE-30's can be substituted for 5 of the DM-30 (dual mode) A.M. requirement of 15 -- trains currently assigned do not travel into Penn Station.

TYPE METRO-NORTH EMU-HARLEM/HUDSON M-3A M-7 TOTAL NET AVAILABLE SEATS EMU-NEW HAVEN M-2 M-4 M-6 TOTAL EMU TOTAL TRAILER CAB REG TOTAL CAR TOTAL

Seats/Car

# Units

OOS Ratio

Peak Avail

117 106 109.1

142 336 478

15% 10%

120 302 422

119 117 117 118.4 112.9

242 54 48 344 822

15% 15% 15%

206 45 39 290 712

112 118 116.9 113.6

28 135 163 985

12% 12%

26 119 145 857

LOCOMOTIVES GENESIS DM DE

32 4 36

12% 12%

28 3 31

04 HB Pk Hr 8-9am -- Metro-North EMUs Trailers Subtotal New Haven Line EMUs Trailers Subtotal Total

109.1 116.9 110.9 118.4 116.9 118.3 113.9

1. Estimate Port Washington Branch Passengers This section estimates LIRR Pt. Washington Branch passengers, applying '04 Hub Bound LIRR peak hour passengers/car to cars schedule Pt Washington Branch. This makes it possible to assign subway riders shifting to rail in Section 1 on a different basis for the Pt. Washington and the LIRR's Main Line. Inbound Peak Hour - 8-9 am Trains 6 30 36 17% Cars 64 300 364 18% Pssngrs 4,589 21,511 26,100 18% Cars/Train 10.7 10.0 10.1

Pt Wash Branch (05/21/07 TT except Pssngrs - estd w #/car) MainLine (NYP 2004 HbBnd net of PW) NY Penn Station 2004 HubBound Pt Wash % of NYP

Train # 301 303 419

Port Washington Trains - 09/10/07-11/11/07 Public Timetable & GO #401/Timetable #4, 05/21/07 NYP Time # Cars 1st Stn 1st Zn Stn Last Zn Stn Start Time Flushing? Woodside? 07:46 AM 10 GNck GNck Wdsd 07:06 AM 7:26 7:34 07:55 AM 10 LNck LNck Aub 07:22 AM N 7:43 07:58 AM 10 PtWsh PtWsh GNck 07:19 AM N 7:46 08:11 AM 08:26 AM 08:35 AM 08:38 AM 08:44 AM 08:59 AM Cars/Stops 09:02 AM 09:14 AM 12 10 10 10 12 10 64 8 10 PtWsh LNck PtWsh-Man GNck PtWsh GNck PtWsh GNck PtWsh LNck Aub GNck PtWsh Bysd PtWsh GNck GNck Bysd Wdsd Bysd GNck Flshng Dglstn Wdsd 07:36 AM 07:55 AM 08:05 AM 08:04 AM 08:08 AM 08:24 AM 08:18 AM 08:38 AM N N 8:12 N N 8:41 2 N 8:55 N N 8:22 8:26 N N 2 N 9:03

Trains arriving in NYP 8-9 a.m.

421 305 423 307 425 309 Pk Hr Total 427 311

n is obtained by the study team.

y the MTA New York City Transit me of the peak-hour subway ridership g price parity between intra-NYC is established, subway riders who apacity for the added riders.

Express subway lines have ricing and operational adjustments creased commuter rail ridership due

rs traveling on the Main Line, allowing

eet available for use after the a.m. fleet

le fleet capacity in the peak hour.

ted on existing service on LIRR and LIRR and Metro-North.

ubway lines by portal into the CBD.

ub Bound Travel Report & current rail operations into the CBD, based on an

h LIRR & Metro-North. This available existing capacity, absorb demand greater than full capacity on any subway line.

e LIRR pk hr capacity to subwy lines/portals

N/W/R 15% 213 10% 239 451 431 883

#4/#5

#6

#2/#3

#1

A/D

B/C

Ck Sum

capacity to subway lines

1,417

capacity to subway lines

2,388 3,805 3,700 7,505
These %'s assign available Metro-North pk hr capacity to subway lines

70.0% 3,302 883 3,302

2.0% 94 94

15.0% 708 708

2.0% 94 94

10.0% 472 472

1.0% 47 47

4,717 12,222

1,417 2,388 3,805 3,700 7,505

4,717

Travel Report service -- on LIRR and MetroNorth ering during that 60-minute period. culation is then compared to reported

Capacity Analysis (8-9 a.m.) Available Cap. Utiliz. Seats 66.5% 89.3% 85.4% 2,312 3,473 5,784

Standee Capacity 640 1500 2,140

Available Capacity 2,952 4,973 7,924

Standees per Car* 20 20

% Cars w Standees 50% 25%

72.0% 70.9% 71.5%

6,933 5,332 12,266 (3,466) 1,866 8,800

1,472 775 2,247

8,405 6,107 14,512

20 20

33% 25%

543 2,014

2,409 10,814 35%

20

50%

ne's capacity can be used for intra NYC k State.

YMTC Hub Bound Travel Report 7-8 am Psgrs

Trains

8-9 am Cars

Psgrs

Trains

9-10 am Cars

Psgrs

26,100 147

6 30 36 2

64 300 364 14

4,589 29,131 33,720 290

19 2

172 14

12,970 278

26,247

38

378

34,010

21

186

13,248

4,109 6,847 10,956 7,875 18,831 270 19,101

14 16 30 20 50 1 51

97 126 223 155 378 5 383

7,410 10,382 17,792 13,002 30,794 227 31,021

6 10 16 10 26 1 27

38 70 108 66 174 5 179

2,433 5,376 7,809 5,344 13,153 160 13,313

based on Available Capacity quantified in Section 2 cess available peak hour cars and

er from electric third rail or an internal ailroad’s 4 non-electrified “dieselail trip during which the traveler is e customary but time-consuming and e station. edule 99”, a blueprint for increasing d operational date for the dual-mode

rives in NYP in the 8-9am peak hour, ng most peak-hour diesel-territory ins arrive in NYP at earlier and later

move an additional 6 peak-hour trains s are dual-mode trains from diesel de locomotives and passenger cars.

d to NYP is new or just reassigned xisting electric trains they now transfer eat ride into NYP. 6-10am Peak Period Additional Svc to NYP Trains Cars in the peak hour) from the inner Pt. Washington 3 0 3 30 14 44 2 0 2 20 14 34 2,156 1,509 3,666 400 280 680 8-9am Peak Hour -- Additional Service to NYP Cars Seats Standees* Trains

pairs) to existing peak period trains serving the 6

ne additional diesel territory train, with stops in be used to serve the existing peak period trains 1 1 2 4 7 7 4 10 21 65

1

7

980

140

ing at Jamaica Station into NYP in the peak hour, al Queens. at now terminate at Hunters Point Ave. in L.I.C. and t of Jamaica serving central Queens.

1 2 4 6

4 10 21 55

560 1,400 2,940 6,606

80 200 420 1,100

acity. Trains from diesel territory already run into

APACITY ANALYSIS
A.M. Reqmt Net Avail IF M-7 OOS Ratio* is set = 10% 10%

NET AVAIL

GAIN

854

28 3,019

44 4,744

16 A.M. REQUIREMENT (Estimated Distribution) NYP LIC MNTK 5 10 3 0 9 3 29 33 12 29 42 15 16

17 94 111 965

3 4 7 35

3 4 7 51

15 14 29 356 8 364

3 ** 6 9

3 6 9 Seats 38,384 1,120 39,504

10 10

3 8 11

3 3

e to reduce spare ratio from a conservative 12% to 10%. vel into Penn Station. A.M. Reqmt Net Avail

NET AVAIL

GAIN

415

7 764

7 764

0

287 702

3 10

24 142 844

2 3 13

26 3 29

2 0 2 Seats 18,879 5,846 24,725 16,697 1,637 18,334 43,060

173 50 223 141 14 155 378

assengers/car to cars scheduled on the nt basis for the Pt. Washington Branch

Psngrs/Car 71.7 71.7 71.7

Sum Diff

-1,534

-2,585 -4,119 -4,006 7,505

0 0

Subway Lines Impacted Total Capacity #7 70% 1,789 10% 179 1,968 10% 112 10% 64 10% 160 336 2,304 E&F 15% 383 75% 1,342 1,726 75% 840 75% 480 75% 1,200 2520 4,245 J/Z 0% 5% 89 89 5% 56 5% 32 5% 80 168 257 N/W/R 15% 383 10% 179 562 10% 112 10% 64 10% 160 336 898 Chk Sum Total 100.0% 100.0%

2,556 1,789 4,346

100.0%

1,120

100.0% 100.0%

640 1,600 3,360 7,706

(Estimated Distribution) SCOOTS 5 5 20 25

2 3 5

Subway Costs

1/24/2008

This worksheet is a work in progress. Some numbers are preliminary and will change as additional information is obtained by the study team. This worksheet calculates capital and operating costs to handle the ridership swell and also reduce the Subway Crowding Index (passenger capacity rate) to a more humane level than NYC Transit's 1.0 criterion. Subway Crowding Index: Millions $505 8% 350% To vary this parameter, change corresponding cell in Summary worksheet.

Capital Cost
Derived in Section 2 below.

Annual fixed charge rate (factor converting capital into annualized costs)
Derived at right. Interest rate was approximated from randomly chosen MTA offering statement (2002 Series F Refunding Bonds, $446 Million, http://www.mta.info/mta/investor/pdf/transp2002f-os.pdf).

Annualized Capital Cost Annual Operation & Maintenance Cost
Derived below.

$40 $49 $89
For Subway Crowding Index of 350%

Total Annual Costs 1. Calculate additional subway cars required

This section derives the capital and O&M costs of the increased train service identified in Transit Capacity. As train and car requirements change, the cost to acquire the additional fleet changes, as do operating and maintenance costs. The change in fleet size will be accommodated in physical facilities, such as shops and crew facilities, and by an increased tempo of operations.

Additional Peak Hour Subway Trains Required (from Transit Capacity) Additional Peak Hour Subway Cars Required (from Transit Capacity) "A" Division Cars (numbered subway lines ) "B" Division Cars (lettered subway lines ) Total Additional Shoulder Trains and Cars Required for each Peak Hour Train and Car
These trains are required to handle additional riders in shoulder hours next to peak hour. Study team assumption.

22 130 81 211 0.5 33 200 120 320 15% 235 141 380

Total Additional Subway Trains Required Additional Subway Cars Required For Weekday Operations "A" Division Cars "B" Division Cars Total Additional Subway Cars Required For Weekday Operations Subway Car Spare Ratio (% of car fleet reserved for scheduled & unschduled maintenance). Study team. Additional Subway Cars Required for the Car Fleet (including spares) "A" Division Cars "B" Division Cars Total Additional Subway Cars Required for the Car Fleet 2. Calculate capital costs of additional car fleet "A" Division Cars
Source: 08/21/07 NYMTC NYC TCC Program Report (pdf, p. 90) the official transportation capital planning document for NYC.

Current New York City Transit (NYCT) plans call for purchasing 47 subway cars for the #7 line in 2008 at a cost of $1.6 M each. These are the only A Divsion cars to be purchased over the next 5 years, according to NYMTC. Therefore, the first 47 additional "A" Division cars do not have to be purchased, but instead can utilize the cars released by the new cars. Overhaul costs of $0.5 M/car are included in the capital cost analysis. Additional "A" Division Cars in excess of 47 would have to be purchased. The first 47 cars would be available in 2008, with additional (new) cars delivered beginning no earlier than late 2009, unless an extension on the current order is negotiated. Unit cost of current purchase price -- $1.6 M -- increased by 10% to $1.75 M.

Additional "A" Division Cars Required Number to be provided from existing cars released by cars-on-order Purchased new Total "A" Division "B" Division Cars
Source: 08/21/07 NYMTC NYC TCC Program Report (pdf, pp. 90 & 91) Current NYCT contracts will bring over 1,000 new "B" Division cars to NYC over the next 5 years at costs beginning at $2.1M and trending down to as low as $1.7 M each. Therefore, all additional "B" Division cars required do not have to be purchased, but instead can utilize the cars released by the new cars. Overhaul costs of $0.5 M/car are included in the capital cost analysis. Effective delivery date of an expanded fleet is now, as new cars are delivered and existing cars are retained.

235 47 188 235

Additional "B" Division Cars Required Number to be provided from existing cars released by cars-on-order Total Additional "A" Division & "B" Division Subway Cars

141 376

3. Calculate operations and maintenance costs of additional subway cars required for weekday operations
Operating and maintenance costs are driven by the "Total Additional Subway Cars Required For Weekday Operations" calculated at the top of this worksheet. All costs have been converted to a cost per additional weekday subway car, for ease of analysis.

Total Additional Subway Cars Required For Weekday Operations Annual Costs Operations Labor (subway operators & conductors) Car Maintenance (car maintainers, cleaners, etc.) Traction and Propulsion Power (electricity) Other costs (Insurance, Claims, Maintenance & Other Operating Contracts and Materials & Supplies) Full-Time Positions @ $94,300 Operations Labor (subway operators & conductors) Car Maintenance (car maintainers, cleaners, etc.) Detailed derivation of these #'s is completed and will be added Commuter Rail Costs To come. For now, we rough-estimate total annual costs of expanding public transit to accommodate the swell and meet the target Subway Crowding Index, by multiplying the annualized subway system costs above, by this factor: Total Annual Costs for the Expanded Mass Transit System Implied Capital Costs of Transit Improvements included in above figure:

320

2.0 $178 $1,010

Capital Recovery Factor

To vary this parameter, change corresponding cell in Summary worksheet.

Years Interest CRF Insure/admin Total Rounded

25 4.50% 6.74% 1.00% 7.74% 8%

Capital Cost/Car (millions) $0.50 $1.75

Capital Cost (millions) $24 $411 $435

$0.50

$71 $505 Cost at 2007 Prices (millions)

2007 Cost/Car

$44,600 $68,400 $12,900 $26,300
Positions /Car

$14.3 $21.9 $4.1 $8.4 $48.7 151 232 383

0.47 0.73

million million

Fare Collection

1/24/2008

This worksheet estimates the savings in administrative and personnel costs from eliminating fares on NYC Transit buses and, perhaps, subways, as part of the plan to reduce/eliminate transit fares. Note that the indirect, "second-best" estimating methods used here were necessitated by New York City Transit's failure to respond to repeated data requests. All figures are annual.

A. Subway Fare Collection Costs -- 3 Ways to Estimate
Method 1: Prorating/Updating from a 1982 Estimate Subway fare collection costs as % of collected revenue (1982) 19%

Source: PCAC (Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA) report, “Four Methods of Increasing Productivity in the MTA: Pass-Reader Fare Collection System, One-Person Train Operation, Signal Modernization, Articulated Bus,” prepared by Victor M. Lopez-Balboa, Oct. 1982, p. 3.

Current (2007) subway farebox revenues

$2,022,500,000

MTA 2007 Budget, section entitled NYC Transit, 2008 Final Proposed Budget, November Financial Plan 2008-2011. Available at http://mta.info/mta/budget/nov2007/part6.pdf.

Current (2007) subway fare collection costs if 1982 relationship pertains

$384,000,000

Method 2: "Bottoms-Up" Calculation, based on 1985 token booth staffing levels and costs Personnel to staff NYC Transit token booths in 1985 Number of stations in 1985 3,834 463

Dec. 11. 1985 draft report by Ned Towle, Director, NYCTA Dept. of Planning and Budget. According to that report, in 1985 the transit system operated 463 stations with 516 24-hour change booths and an additional 237 part-time booths (p. 19), staffed by 3,834 hourly-rated employees (p.37).

Number of stations in 2007
MTA 2007 Budget, section entitled NYC Transit (see full cite above for Farebox Revenues), p. V-231.

468

Personnel to staff NYC Transit token booths currently, if 1985 relationships pertain NYC Transit total personnel cost, 2007

3,875 $4,829,600,000

MTA 2007 Budget, section entitled NYC Transit (see full cite above), p. V-245, table, "Non-Reimbusable and Reimbursable," column, "2007 November Forecast."

NYC Transit, number of personnel (positions), 2007

49,069

MTA 2007 Budget, section entitled NYC Transit (see full cite above), p. V-231; also p. V-321, column, "2007 November Forecast."

Total labor cost per position, 2007 Implied cost of personnel to staff NYC Transit token booths in 2007 Method 3: More Realistic Estimates of Number of Station Agents and Their Salaries

$98,400 $381,000,000

Results from Methods 1 & 2 above agree to within 1%. However, both methods implicitly assume same level of staffing (per station) in 2007 as in 1980s. Method 2 also assumes that token-booth clerk salaries are average for entire NYCT. Here, we reconsider both assumptions. Assumed reduction in token booth positions from 1985 basis 15%

Komanoff assumption, intended to reflect NYCT's concerted cost-cutting efforts. Note Gothamist's recent (12-26-07) mention of the "2005 … closing [of] 164 token booths." http://gothamist.com/2007/12/26/mta_spends_25_m.php.

Now attempt to derive annual fully-loaded cost for token booth clerks Published 2004 per-hour salaries for station agents Starting After 3 years
City of New York, Dept. of Citywide Admin Services, Notice of Examination, No. 3025, Station Agent, Jan. 2004, available at http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcas/downloads/pdf/noes/stationagent.pdf.

$15.46 $21.64

Inflation factor to 2007
CPI ratio, July 2007 vs. Jan. 2004.

1.125

2007-adjusted per-hour salary (75% senior rate, 25% starting rate)

$22.60

Labor Cost breakout (all costs are from MTA 2007 Budget table sourced above, under total personnel cost, 2007) Total $4,829,600,000 Payroll $2,979,300,000 Overtime $328,600,000 Total Salary and Wages $3,307,900,000 Total Salary and Wages, ratio to Payroll (i.e., Overtime adder) 1.11 Total Fringe Benefits (Health & Welfare, Pensions, Other) $1,521,700,000 Labor Total, ratio to Payroll (i.e., Overtime + Fringe adder) 1.62 Labor Total, ratio to Payroll + Overtime (i.e., Fringe adder) 1.46 2007-adjusted, all-in per-hour salary
Calculated as 2007-adjusted per-hour salary, times ratio of Labor Total to Payroll

$36.64

Hours worked (Komanoff assumptions: 50 weeks, 40 hrs/wk) 2007-adjusted, all-in per-hour salary (After 3 Years only) This figure matches a "data point" in New York magazine, Sept. 18, 2005: Annual Salary, station agent Annette Sutton-Epps
"Who Makes How Much," http://nymag.com/guides/salary/14497/index5.html.

2,000 $73,000

$46,363 1.066 $49,424 1.46 $72,000

Inflation adjustment, 2005 to 2007 (using CPI) Salary, adjusted to 2007 Adjustment for Fringe Benefits (ratio of Labor Total to Total Salary and Wages, above) All-in Salary, adjusted to 2007

Now calculate token booth staffing points @ reduced salary & reduced number of personnel Personnel to staff NYC Transit token booths currently, incorporating above reduxn Est'd annual all-in personnel cost (average of two methods above) Product of these two figures Above, rounded 4. Savings from Eliminating Subway Fare % of current fare collection cost that could be retained as savings, if fare eliminated 50% 3,294 $72,500 $238,821,765 $239,000,000

Komanoff assumption, in lieu of input from NYC Transit, intended to balance ability to eliminate many positions with realworld challenges of retraining and redeploying current station agents.

Savings from Eliminating Subway Fare
Formula uses logic statement that sets result to zero unless fare is eliminated.

$120,000,000

B. Maintenance of Subway & Bus Fare Collection Machinery
1. Subway Machinery Annual Maintenance Maintenance Savings from Eliminating Subway Fare 2. Bus Machinery Annual Maintenance (derived directly below) Number of NYC Transit buses 2006 figure, from http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ffbus.htm. Number of MTA Bus Co. buses
http://mta.info/mta/budget/nov2007/part7.pdf.

$20,000,000 $20,000,000 $29,000,000 4,518 1,250 5,768 $5,000 $29,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000

Komanoff assumption. Primarily for vending machines, gates, etc. Turnstiles are assumed to be kept, for data purposes.

Total number of buses whose fare-collection machinery must be maintained by MTA Assumed annual maintenance cost per bus Maintenance Savings from Eliminating Bus Fare

C. MTA Administrative Costs Associated with Fare Collection
Komanoff assumption.

Administrative Savings from Eliminating Transit Fare
Formula uses logic statement that sets result to zero unless fare is eliminated.

D. Total Savings from Eliminating Bus and/or Subway Fares

$174,000,000

Curbside Parking Revenue

1/24/2008

This worksheet estimates the revenue gain from expanding and increasing curbside parking charges in and north of the CBD. The "CBD" column blocks apply to the targeted charging zone: Manhattan south of 60th Street.

The "60th - 96th Street" column blocks estimate the revenue potential from expanding and increasing curbside parking charges north of the

There are at least four rationales for considering higher parking fees for Manhattan from 60th to 96th Street: a) to reduce border effects of drivers seeking to evade cordon fees by parking north of the CBD; b) to provide an equitable way for Manhattan auto owners to contribute to congestion pricing without a costly intra-zonal charging system; c) to reduce "cruising" -- vehicle circulation searching for parking spaces -since fees would be set at levels that achieve one vacant space on each side of each block; and d) to return a portion of the revenues to communities for streetscape improvements for pedestrians and cyclists and for enhancement open spaces. Actual meter rates will be set to achieve an overall 15% vacancy rate.

Manhattan Central Business District (CBD
Current Regime, all hours

Part "A"
Curbside parking spaces metered non-metered
Source: For CBD: NYC Dept. of City Planning, An Evaluation and Update of Off-Street Parking Regulations in Community Districts 1-8 in Manhattan , July 2002. Cited in Donald Shoup, The High Cost of Free Parking , p. 514, American Planning Association, 2005. Shoup states (p. 552) that survey area includes all Manhattan from 59th St. to Battery, between Hudson and East Rivers. Shoup reported first two rows above; third is difference. For 60th-96th calculations, see Part "B" below.

28,737 6,904 21,833

For CBD: We propose $8.00/hr rate for 11 peak hours, half that for 3 shoulder hours. "Current" figure assumes 1/2 of metered spaces are charged flat $2/hr while other 1/2 employ muni-meters charging $2 first hr, $3 second hr, $4 remaining hrs, with avg stay of 4 hrs (per Shoup, op. cit., above, p. 300.) Note: "Alternative Approaches to Traffic Congestion Mitigation in the Manhattan Central Business District" (Coalition to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free, Oct. 2007) cites $1.73 for average rate/hr charged for CBD curbside parking, from unspecified recent study. For 60th-96th: We propose lower rates, reflecting large residential component. "Current" figure is based on observations by Kheel study team.

Hourly Parking Rate

$2.63

Hours per day rate is charged
Currently charged 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. We propose 6 a.m. to 8 p.m.

10 6

Days per week that the rate is charged
We propose charging on Sunday, notwithstanding the rescinding several years ago of metered parking charges on Sunday in response to religious lobbyists. The principle of charging for curbside space is important and should not be whittled down to benefit a particular group.

Revenue factor (percentage of charged hours for which space is actually paid)
Current % is Komanoff placeholder estimate. We conservatively reduce that for our plan, conceding that the reduction in traffic into the CBD will likely reduce demand for curbside parking.

85%

Percentage of currently metered spaces for which metering will be retained Percentage of non-metered spaces for which metering will be implemented
Current percentage allows for possibility that CBD curbside parking is extended without Kheel Plan. We limit new parking spaces to 75% of currently non-metered spaces to ensure space for cycle lanes, bus rapid transit, pedestrian infrastructure, etc., and also for general conservatism.

100% 0%

Total metered curbside parking spaces in Manhattan CBD Daily Revenue (rounded) Annual Revenue (rounded)
Assumes 365 days.

$ $

6,900 154,250 48,000,000

Total Annual Revenue (gross)

$

48,000,000

Some additional money will presumably be expended on increased parking enforcement and collection. Below, we rough-estimate current parking enforcement and collection costs as a percentage of parking revenues, citywide. Parking Revenue Collection Costs, 2007 (est.) Parking Enforcement Costs, 2007 (est.) Combined Collection and Enforcement, 2007 (est.) $ $ $ 6,800,000 11,600,000 18,400,000

Estimated by Community Consulting Services from NYC Adopted Budget FY 2008, http://www.nyc.gov/html/omb/pdf/fp6_07.pdf. Budget lines include Parking Violations Bureau, City Meter Parking Service, and OTPS.

Citywide Parking Revenue, 2007 (same NYC Budget source as above). Parking Collection and Enforcement Costs as a percentage of Revenues, 2007 Analogous percentage, estimated for incremental CBD parking

$ 114,800,000 16%

Rounded down from current citywide percentage, on assumption that relationship is sublinear due to economies from high CBD parking rates.

Manhattan Central Business District (CBD Current Estimated CBD Parking Collection/Enforcement Costs Net Annual CBD Parking Revenues $ $ 7,700,000 40,300,000

% of gross parking revenue set aside for community benefit (walk / bike / open space enhancements) Parking Revenues set aside for community benefit (walk / bike / open space enhancements) Net Increase for Transit Net Increase for Communities Net Increase for Transit + Communities

Part "B"
Estimation of parking spaces in Manhattan from 60th to 96th Streets, river to river East-West miles per street, West Side (incl. intersections) Number of blocks between 60th and 96th Streets (excluding 96th St.) Block faces % linear distance consumed by intersections Total miles of curb space East-West miles per street, East Side (incl. intersections) Number of blocks between 60th and 96th Streets (excluding 96th St.) Block faces % linear distance consumed by intersections Total miles of curb space Total linear miles of East-West Curb Space Total linear feet of East-West Curb Space Space required for parking (feet) Number of potential East-West Parking Spaces

Adjustment for bus stop areas # parking spaces lost at each avenue (for 60th, 65th, 72nd, 79th, 86th Streets) # Avenues Two way operation Number of cross town streets requiring this adjustment Number of parking spaces removed Net remaining cross town parking spaces Gross # parking spaces that are already metered (assume 60th, 65th, 72nd, 79th, 86th Streets) Less number of spaces removed by bus stops Number of East-West spaces that are presently metered Number of East-West spaces that are presently unmetered North-South linear miles of roads (incl. intersections) (miles) Number of blocks (avenues), river to river excluding Central Park Block faces % linear distance consumed by intersections Total linear miles of North-South curb space Total linear feet of North-South curb space Number of potential East-West Parking Spaces Adjustment for bus stop areas Assume 4 parking spaces at every 3rd block along York, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, Lex., Madison, 5th, Broadway, Columbus, Amsterdam (spaces) Number of intersecting blocks where buses stop (one-third of 36) Two way operation Number of North-South Avenues with bus service Number of parking spaces removed by bus stops Net remaining cross town parking spaces Number of Avenues where metering does not occur Number of North-South spaces that are unmetered Number of North-South spaces that are metered Curbside parking spaces (north-south, east-west, 60th to 96th Streets, river-to-river) metered non-metered

ges in and north of the CBD.

sing curbside parking charges north of the CBD

6th Street: a) to reduce border effects of for Manhattan auto owners to contribute to irculation searching for parking spaces -d) to return a portion of the revenues to n spaces. Actual meter rates will be set to

anhattan Central Business District (CBD)
Proposed Regime 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. 6-7 am, 6-8 pm

Manhattan, 60th - 96th Streets
Current Regime, all hours Proposed Regime 7 a.m. - 6 p.m. 6-7 am, 6-8 pm

CBD + 60th-96th 58,814 14,089 44,725

28,737 6,904 21,833

30,077 7,185 22,892

30,077 7,185 22,892

$

8.00

$

4.00

$1.50

$

4.00

$

1.00

11 7

3 7

10 6

11 7

3 7

75%

75%

85%

75%

75%

100% 75%

100% 75%

100% 0%

100% 75%

100% 75%

23,300 23,300 $ 1,537,800 $ 209,700 $ 561,000,000 $ 77,000,000

$ $

7,200 91,800 29,000,000

24,400 $ 805,200 $ $ 294,000,000 $

24,400 54,900 20,000,000

METERED SPACES CBD + 60th-96th Proposed 47,700 At Present 14,100 Increase 33,600

$ 638,000,000

$

29,000,000

$

ection. Below, we rough-estimate current

314,000,000 U N M E T E R E D S P A C E S CBD + 60th-96th Proposed At Present Increase

16% 10% 10%

anhattan Central Business District (CBD) Proposed $63,800,000 $574,200,000 0% $0 $534,000,000 $0 $534,000,000 $ $

Manhattan, 60th - 96th Streets Current 4,600,000 24,400,000 Proposed $31,400,000 $282,600,000 33% $94,200,000 $164,000,000 $94,200,000 $258,200,000

CBD + 60th-96th Proposed $95,200,000 $856,800,000

$94,200,000 $698,000,000 $94,200,000 $792,200,000

0.6 36 2 20% 34.6 0.9 36 2 20% 51.8 86.4 456,192 20 22,810

4 11 2 5 440 22,370 3,168 440 2,728 19,642 1.9 14.4 2 40% 32.8 173,353 8,668

4 12 2 10 960 7,708 5.4 3,250 4,457 30,077 7,185 22,892

D SPACES

By Hour

1/24/2008

This worksheet estimates the revenue consequences of varying the cordon toll by time of day. Still to come: linking time of day tolling to traffic impacts. 1. Establish hourly volumes and define three rate periods on the basis of relative volumes. We will use hourly volumes of all crossings into Manhattan (combined) as our data base. Our criteria
Peak Shoulder Graveyard If hourly volume exceeds If hourly volume exceeds 100% of mean hour 80% of mean hour all other hours

Total Manhattan Crossings, 2005 Average Hourly Traffic Volumes, To and From Manhattan, (All Facilities)
2005 Manhattan River Crossings, NYC DOT, Feb. 2007, http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/manrivercross05.pdf, p. 23. Hourly Vol., % of Mean Graveyard Hour Rate Class Volumes

1-hr period, starting:

Hourly Volume

Shoulder Volumes

Peak Volumes

12:00 AM 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM 24 hrs avg hour

16,211 10,867 8,643 9,059 13,821 31,718 59,336 67,767 63,871 56,317 47,982 44,207 42,435 42,749 46,756 50,218 51,743 53,237 50,665 45,111 37,854 34,538 32,134 26,142 943,381 39,308

41% 28% 22% 23% 35% 81% 151% 172% 162% 143% 122% 112% 108% 109% 119% 128% 132% 135% 129% 115% 96% 88% 82% 67%

Graveyard Graveyard Graveyard Graveyard Graveyard Shoulder Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Peak Shoulder Shoulder Shoulder Graveyard

16,211 10,867 8,643 9,059 13,821 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26,142 84,743

0 0 0 0 0 31,718 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37,854 34,538 32,134 0 136,244

0 0 0 0 0 0 59,336 67,767 63,871 56,317 47,982 44,207 42,435 42,749 46,756 50,218 51,743 53,237 50,665 45,111 0 0 0 0 722,394

Percentage of all trips, at present

9%

14%

77%

2. Estimates of Time Shifts from Implementing Variable Tolls Note: Figures in this section are merely educated guesses. Considerable analysis would be needed (and should be done) to develop a solid methodology to estimate the likely changes. Percent of each category moving to Graveyard Percent of each category moving to Shoulder 10% 5% 5%

Rough estimates, as noted above. Note that these estimates are "hard-wired," i.e., they do not vary among different tolling scenarios.

Changes from first of the 2 shifts shown above Changes from second of the 2 shifts shown above Combined changes from both shifts Trips after accounting for time shifts Percentage of all trips, from variable pricing

49,744 49,744 134,487 14%

-13,624 36,120 22,495 158,739 17%

-36,120 -36,120 -72,239 650,155 69%

3. Variable Toll Scenarios and their Impacts on Revenues Previously Estimated for a Flat (24/7) Cordon Toll Variable Toll Scenario #1 (relative tolls) -- 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 Toll Rate as % of Peak Rate Revenue if no time switching (% of flat toll revenue) Revenue w/ time switching (% of flat toll revenue) 33% 66.7% 100% 3% 10% 77% 89% 5% 11% 69% 85% Cross-Products Sum This scenario is the one selected by inputting "Yes" to the query, "Are Cordon Fees Varied by Time of Day?," in Summary worksheet.
Lost Revenue, Millions

$400 $550

Variable Toll Scenario #2 (relative tolls) -- Free off-peak, Shoulder priced at $10 (if Peak = $16) Toll Rate as % of Peak Rate Revenue if no time switching (% of flat toll revenue) Revenue w/ time switching (% of flat toll revenue) 0% 62.5% 100% 0% 9% 77% 86% 0% 11% 69% 79% Cross-Products Sum This scenario is not linked to any other cells or worksheets, and is shown for illustrative purposes only.

Lost Revenue, Millions

$530 $750

Note: These estimates of lost revenue are arguably conservative (i.e., they err on the high side) because they do not allow for the possibility that some trips tolled off the road by the flat 24/7 cordon fee would "survive" a variable tolling scheme. The error is probably considerable, insofar as 23% of trips at present do not occur during the peak (rising to 31% under the variable tolling assumptions here).

VMT (vehicle miles traveled)

1/24/2008

This worksheet estimates reductions in VMT from the cordon-fee and free-transit options.

Note: Several possible other sources of VMT reductions aren't counted here, such as (i) reduced intra-CBD driving due to free transit, and (i number of households owning cars (due to cordon entry fee and, especially, availability of free transit), which then leads to a drop in casual easy car availability. "Motor vehicle trips" refer to vehicles; "transit trips" and "trips in motor vehicles" refer to persons. 1. Macro VMT estimates VMT, 2005 (million miles)
Manhattan NYC

Interstates Expwys Principal Arterials Minor Arterials Major Collectors Local Total Subtotal, w/o Interstates or Expwys

324.44 919.94 1,025.91 839.14 645.93 354.18 4,109.54 2,865.16

4,581.99 4,451.23 5,650.37 4,137.03 1,934.05 3,326.86 24,081.54
Not relevant

Source: KEA file, Emissions Master File _ 16 Nov 2005.xls, from Synapse 2004 project. Drawn from NYS DEC database.

2. CBD VMT NEW YORK (MANHATTAN) CBD BELOW 60TH ST, 2005 BUILD VMTS FROM NYBPM RUN

AM
692,372

MD
1,083,228

PM
875,679

NT
686,751

TOTAL
3,338,030

Above table is a reproduction of a (tiny) Excel spreadsheet, "NY CBD BELOW 60 ST summary," provided by NYMTC to C. Komanoff, 1 Nov 2007. The four columns are different time intervals, and the Total cell represents average CBD VMT on a typical weekday. Based on detailed companion spreadsheets from NYMTC, the Total figure would decline by approximately 15% if highways (e.g., FDR Drive, bridge and tunnel ramps, entrances and exits) were deducted. Annual VMT, millions 1,102 million miles

3. VMT destroyed by policy options (all figures are daily for weekdays) Cordon Fee
Work Trips Non-work Trips Taxi Trips All Trips Work Trips

Free Tr

A. Per-weekday VMT destroyed by eliminating trips crossing into cordon
1. VMT destroyed in CBD

M.V. trips into CBD eliminated (net, weekday) Distance per eliminated trip (miles) Share of Trip Distance occurring w/i CBD CBD miles destroyed per m.v. trip eliminated
Taxi miles reflect cruising.

69,900 12 15% 1.8 2 251,600

91,200 12 15% 1.8 2 328,300

(300) 2.8 60% 2.4 1 (700)

160,800

81,300 10 15% 1.5 2 243,900

Number of one-way trips per trip into CBD CBD m.v. miles destroyed per weekday

579,200

Percentage of total weekday CBD VMT destroyed % of CBD VMT destroyed
2. VMT destroyed outside CBD

17.4%

M.V. trips into CBD eliminated (net, weekday) Distance per eliminated trip (miles) Share of Trip Distance outside the CBD Non-CBD miles destroyed per trip
Taxi miles reflect cruising.

69,900 12 85% 10.2 2
1,426,000 1,677,600

91,200 12 85% 10.2 2
1,860,500 2,188,800

(300) 2.8 40% 1.6 1
(480) (1,180)

160,800

81,300 10 85% 8.5 2

Number of one-way trips per trip into CBD Non-CBD miles destroyed per day
3. All VMT destroyed (by eliminating cordon entries)

3,286,020 3,865,220

1,382,100 1,626,000

CBD's percentage of VMT destruction

15%

15%

59%

15%

15%

B. Per-weekday VMT destroyed by eliminating trips other than those that cross into cordon These are entirely due to the citywide free-transit policy Citywide m.v. trips eliminated due to free transit (net, weekday)
Source: Transit worksheet.

201,200 81,300 162,600 38,600

Of which the following were one-way trips into the CBD (noted, in order to avoid double-counting) Above quantities converted into round-trips Net non-CBD m.v. trips eliminated due to free subways (net, weekday) Average trip distance, miles

Adapted from mean of 7.8 miles for average one-way subway commute and 3.6 miles for bus, from Komanoff analysis of Schaller data in "Rolling Carbon" pr Alternatives, 2007. Non-weighted mean of 5.7 miles is rounded down to reflect non-commute trips.

Weekday VMT destroyed C. Summary of per-weekday destroyed VMT (by combining cordon entry fee with free transit)
Breakdown

VMT destroyed w/i CBD VMT destroyed outside CBD Total VMT destroyed Percentage of non-CBD destroyed VMT assumed to be medallion taxicabs 1%

13% 87% 100%

Note: "Percentages of base" are taken against arterials + local streets (i.e., excluding limited-access highways) for CBD, but against all VMT for citywide.

Rough estimate based on: (i) approx citywide taxicab VMT of 800 million; (ii) assumption that 25% of that is outside CBD; (iii) approx citywide VMT of 24 billio

iving due to free transit, and (ii) reduction in the then leads to a drop in casual driving associated with

Free Transit
Non-work Trips Taxi Trips All Trips

Both Policies (combined)
Work Trips Non-work Trips Taxi Trips All Trips

34,100 10 15% 1.5 2 102,300

3,000 2.8 60% 2.4 1 7,200

118,400

137,000 10.9 15% 1.6 2 449,000

114,200 11.5 15% 1.7 2 392,500

2,700 2.8 60% 2.4 1 6,500

253,900

353,400

848,000

10.6%

25.4%

34,100 10 85% 8.5 2
579,700 682,000

3,000 2.8 40% 1.6 1
4,800 12,000

118,400

137,000 10.9 85% 9.3 2

114,200 11.5 85% 9.7 2
2,224,000 2,616,500

2,700 2.8 40% 1.6 1
4,300 10,800

253,900

1,966,600 2,320,000

2,544,300 2,993,300

4,773,000 5,621,000

15%

60%

15%

15%

15%

60%

15%

211,400 34,100 68,200 143,200 3,000 3,000 (3,000)

412,600 118,400 233,800 178,800 5

challer data in "Rolling Carbon" project for Transportation

894,000

Weekday

Annual

% of base

848,000 5,667,000 6,515,000

280,000,000 1,870,000,000 2,150,000,000

25.4% 8.9%

t against all VMT for citywide.

i) approx citywide VMT of 24 billion, above.

Cordon

1/24/2008

This worksheet estimates the capital and annual costs to build, operate and administer the cordon charging system. It also estimates the effective new lane-miles and the car-free public space "created" by reducing VMT within the CBD. 1. Cordon Capital Costs All costs are fully loaded, i.e., include design, contracting, community approval, etc. Cost per Location (rounded; derived in next four rows from NYC data) NYC target cost for designing and installing charging system for its cordon scheme
to come (Doctoroff document)

$526,000 $179,000,000 340 19 11 6 2 $9,990,000 100% $20,000,000 5 $4,000,000

Number of locations on which NYC target cost is predicated
to come (Doctoroff document)

Number of Locations for our plan Avenues (FDR, Sutton/York, 2nd Ave, Lex, Park, 5th, CPW, B'way, Columbus, 11th Ave, W Side Hwy) Bridges (two each for Manhattan and Queensboro, one each for Brooklyn and Wmsburg) Tunnels (Lincoln, Holland) Cost for all Locations Adder for indirect costs (design, contracting, community approvals) Total (rounded) Amortization period, years Annualized capital cost 2. Cordon Operating Costs Average Daily Vehicle Entries to CBD, 24-hours, after cordon fee (excludes medallion taxis)
from Traffic and Revenue worksheet) Percent using E-Zpass (may be conservatively low)

428,800 70%

NYC estimate reported in Daily News, "Mayor says congestion plan will raise $390M for mass transit," Oct. 22, 2007, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2007/10/22/2007-10-22_mayor_says_congestion_plan_will_raise_39-4.html

Percent using other payment mechanisms

30%

Charging Costs (per vehicle costs are adapted from Daily News article cited above: "Every time the system reads an EZPass tag on a car or truck, the city expects the cost to be 30 cents - even though E-ZPass transactions cost far less for the MTA's bridges and tunnels (15 cents) and the New Jersey Turnpike (6 cents). The city expects cameras will be able to automatically read license plates for just 15 cents each - down from 75 cents each in earlier drafts." per vehicle # per day $ per day $ per year

E-ZPass $0.15 300,160 Photo $0.30 128,640 Subtotal Adder for administration/enforcement (Komanoff placeholder assumption) Total Charging Costs 3. Cordon Total Costs 4. Spatial Implications of Reduced VMT Inside the CBD Cordon Lane-Miles in the CBD (Manhattan south of 60th Street) Avenues North-South miles south of 60th St. Number of lanes @ 60th St. (excludes W Side Hwy, FDR) Number of avenues @ 60th St. (excludes W Side Hwy, FDR) Implied lanes per avenue @ 60th St. Adjusted lanes/ave. reflecting narrowing in south Implied lane-miles south of 60th St. Avenue miles south of 60th St. (may be useful for redesign) Streets

$45,024 $38,592 50%

$14,900,000 $12,700,000 $27,600,000 $13,800,000 $41,400,000 $45,000,000

Source

5 91 15 6.1 5.2 387 75

CK [BTK implies 6, but Mapquest shows 5] BTK BTK BTK CK [take 15% off BTK figure)

Number of lane-miles Lanes per street Adjusted lanes per street reflecting narrowing in south Implied lane-miles south of 60th St. Street miles south of 60th St. (may be useful for redesign)

165 3.5 3.15 520 165 907 900 25.4% 25.4% 230 50% 50% 115 13% 30% 22% 115 12 11 11.6 7,027,344

BTK BTK CK [take 10% off BTK figure)

Total Lane-Miles, Streets and Avenues Combined
Total Lane-Miles, Streets and Avenues, Rounded Reduction in CBD VMT due to Kheel Plan % Reduxn in CBD Lane-Miles that could maintain current V/C Above figure, in Lane-Miles % CBD "new road capacity" being kept from autos+trucks % New CBD lane-miles being made avail. to autos + trucks New CBD lane-miles being made avail. to autos + trucks This figure as a % of current CBD lane-miles This figure as a % of current CBD avenue lane-miles This figure as a % of current CBD street lane-miles New CBD lane-miles being kept from autos + trucks Average width of a street lane, feet Average width of an avenue lane, feet Avg width of a CBD road (street and avenue, weighted), feet Square footage of new car-free CBD lane-miles

policy choice inputted in Summary

CK CK Algebra

Representation of this square footage as parkland Note: This is for envisioning purposes only; the Kheel Plan does not assume or require converting the "newly minted" road and street space to park space. Acreage of new car-freeCBD lane-miles 160 Acreage of Washington Square Park 9.75
http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/historical_signs/hs_historical_sign.php?id=6537

NYC Parks

"Number of Washington Square Parks" of new public space Acreage of Madison Square Park "Number of Madison Square Parks" of new public space Acreage of the High Line http://www.thehighline.org/about/highlinebackground.html
"Spans 22 blocks, from 34th Street to Gansevoort Street 1.45 miles long." (Ibid.)

16 6.234 26 6.7

NYC Parks

http://www.nycgovparks.org/sub_your_park/park_info_pages/park_info.php?propID=M052

Friends of the High Line

"Number of High Lines" of new public space 24 Representation of this square footage as lanes for buses, bicycles, pedestrians Linear miles of new car-freeCBD lane-miles 115

charging system. MT within the CBD.

TK implies 6, but Mapquest shows 5]

ake 15% off BTK figure)

ake 10% off BTK figure)

putted in Summary

EFFECTS OF THE KHEEL PLAN ON TRANSIT RIDERSHIP
(All figures are person trips entering Manhattan CBD) AUTO 24-HOURS EST. 2007 1,068,000 Percent of Total Transit Trips K. Plan Gross Impacts (292,500) TOTAL w/ Plan Percent Increase 8 - 9 AM EST. 2007 78,200 Percent of Total Transit Trips K. Plan Gross Impacts Reassignments TOTAL w/ Plan Percent Increase 51,300 -34.4% (26,900) 379,300 72.9% 28,400 (32,000) 375,700 -0.9% 58,300 11.2% 1,600 14,700 74,600 28.0% 82,400 15.8% 14,200 12,200 108,800 32.0% 13,200 94.1% 6,800 775,500 -27.4% 1,916,100 76.8% 343,900 2,260,000 17.9% 290,100 11.6% 27,700 317,800 9.5% 287,800 11.5% 49,600 337,400 17.2% 45,600 42,600 88,200 93.4% SUBWAY BUS COMMUTER RAIL BICYCLE

6,400

Population & Employment

1/24/2008

This worksheet is drawn from two NYMTC spreadsheets: New York Urban Region Employment by County, 1970-2030; and New York Urban Population by County, 1970-2030. Those spreadsheets contain actual data for 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2002, and projections for 5-yea 2005 to 2030. I have eliminated most columns, in order to focus on the 2002 data and 2010 projections that we use in Reassignments to b 2004 hub-bound travel data to the present (2007). All rows past those for New York City could be eliminated as well. POPULATION (000) 2000 2002 8,008.3 8,072.0 1,332.7 1,358.4 2,465.3 2,475.7 1,537.2 1,555.4 2,229.4 2,227.2 443.7 455.4 2,753.9 1,334.5 1,419.4 2,179.2 280.2 341.4 95.7 286.8 74.0 177.7 923.5 6,661.8 884.1 793.6 609.0 122.0 350.8 750.2 615.3 470.2 510.9 489.0 297.5 144.2 522.5 102.4 1,888.8 882.6 182.2 824.0 21,491.9 2,795.0 1,339.3 1,455.7 2,225.3 287.7 355.8 98.5 291.2 74.1 180.1 937.9 6,790.2 894.5 795.9 609.9 126.7 358.2 772.4 627.7 478.6 536.8 496.5 307.7 148.9 528.9 107.5 1,916.7 894.6 186.4 835.7 21,799.2 EMPLOYMENT (000) 2000 4,277.3 269.4 584.6 2,682.2 624.1 116.9 1,457.5 743.3 714.2 1,079.6 139.4 149.8 32.9 133.7 33.1 81.6 509.2 3,748.3 570.2 451.1 287.6 68.8 244.3 474.4 306.6 342.6 179.4 218.8 217.7 53.1 289.2 44.3 1,064.9 536.9 89.5 438.6 11,627.7

AREANAME NEW YORK CITY Bronx Kings New York Queens Richmond LONG ISLAND Nassau Suffolk MID HUDSON Dutchess Orange Putnam Rockland Sullivan Ulster Westchester NEW JERSEY Bergen Essex Hudson Hunterdon Mercer Middlesex Monmouth Morris Ocean Passaic Somerset Sussex Union Warren CONNECTICUT Fairfield Litchfield New Haven REGION

1990 7,322.6 1,203.8 2,300.7 1,487.5 1,951.6 379.0 2,609.2 1,287.4 1,321.8 2,026.0 259.5 307.6 83.9 265.5 69.3 165.3 874.9 6,097.1 825.4 778.0 553.1 107.9 325.8 671.7 553.2 421.3 433.2 470.9 240.2 130.9 493.8 91.7 1,806.0 827.7 174.1 804.2 19,860.8

2005 8,209.3 1,367.5 2,515.3 1,583.0 2,272.7 470.9 2,837.2 1,357.4 1,479.8 2,312.8 300.1 375.6 101.9 298.9 79.1 188.8 968.2 6,927.0 905.4 809.8 622.1 130.0 366.5 785.6 652.0 494.8 552.9 498.8 314.9 152.0 530.8 111.4 1,958.4 916.1 191.9 850.4 22,244.7

2010 8,411.7 1,391.1 2,565.9 1,625.8 2,334.3 494.7 2,923.1 1,377.7 1,545.4 2,422.4 328.0 408.9 110.0 315.7 90.3 195.2 974.2 7,095.9 907.4 818.0 648.6 136.1 388.4 813.5 665.0 500.4 574.1 503.8 330.4 156.1 538.8 115.4 2,016.5 945.7 206.9 863.9 22,869.6

1990 3,966.1 237.8 504.5 2,565.1 567.3 91.6 1,329.8 716.8 613.0 1,009.2 140.4 128.3 26.3 122.7 31.8 76.2 483.6 3,403.9 533.8 436.2 273.5 51.4 223.6 407.5 265.5 288.4 146.1 225.0 166.1 42.0 303.0 41.9 1,028.0 509.6 83.0 435.4 10,737.0

Source: New York Metropolitan Transportation Council, September 2004

Note: 2002 estimates from U.S. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis Analysis by Community Consulting Services, March 2005

nty, 1970-2030; and New York Urban Region and 2002, and projections for 5-year periods from s that we use in Reassignments to bring NYMTC nated as well. EMPLOYMENT (000) 2002 2005 4,145.2 4,177.1 274.3 282.0 588.2 590.5 2,548.8 2,545.8 617.5 635.4 116.3 123.4 1,464.1 742.6 721.5 1,094.2 142.1 152.2 34.0 137.7 33.8 81.7 512.7 3766.5 566.9 447.1 289.4 71.7 252.8 474.2 315.1 344.2 189.4 213.6 213.4 54.9 287.9 45.9 1056.2 530.1 89.7 436.5 11,526.2 1,488.8 742.7 746.0 1,123.8 145.8 160.4 36.5 142.0 34.8 86.1 518.1 3,882.0 581.3 442.3 286.6 75.3 260.0 503.0 332.4 367.0 199.7 217.7 233.2 58.8 278.2 46.6 1,072.2 534.8 93.6 443.8 11,743.9

2010 4,460.4 295.5 621.6 2,737.7 668.3 137.4 1,565.7 767.3 798.4 1,170.9 154.8 171.4 38.3 148.7 36.3 88.5 532.9 4,079.5 593.1 456.6 300.4 83.4 271.5 528.1 357.8 392.0 216.4 220.0 262.7 63.6 284.2 49.7 1,135.3 568.3 100.2 466.8 12,411.8

Annualized Annualized Population Employment Increase Increase 2002-2010 2002-2010 0.52% 0.92% 0.30% 0.93% 0.45% 0.69% 0.55% 0.90% 0.59% 0.99% 1.04% 2.10% 0.56% 0.35% 0.75% 1.07% 1.66% 1.75% 1.39% 1.01% 2.50% 1.01% 0.48% 0.55% 0.18% 0.34% 0.77% 0.90% 1.02% 0.65% 0.72% 0.56% 0.84% 0.18% 0.89% 0.59% 0.23% 0.89% 0.64% 0.70% 1.31% 0.42% 0.60% 0.84% 0.41% 1.27% 0.85% 1.08% 1.50% 1.50% 0.96% 0.90% 1.00% 0.48% 1.00% 0.57% 0.26% 0.47% 1.90% 0.89% 1.35% 1.60% 1.64% 1.68% 0.37% 2.63% 1.86% -0.16% 0.99% 0.91% 0.87% 1.40% 0.84% 0.93%

f Economic Analysis

Bicycles

1/24/2008

This worksheet estimates the number of trips that will be diverted from transit to bicycling, both total and by mode, as a result of the improved cycling infrastructure in the CBD and the reduction in automobile VMT in the CBD and citywide. Many of the values here are drawn from Section I ("Longevity Benefits of Increased Cycling and Walking") from the Cost-Benefit worksheet. Bicycle's current share of vehicular trips in NYC Increase in share of such trips estimated to result from cordon fee / free transit Ratio, increase in cycling share to the to existing cycling share Estimated daily non-commercial cycling trips in NYC, currently Estimated increase in non-commercial cycling trips in NYC Percentage of current cycling trips that end in the Manhattan CBD
Transportation Alternatives, "Bicycle Blueprint" (1993), Table, "Daily Bicycle Trips in NYC," p. 158. Above figure is ratio of "daily bicycle trip ends" in CBD to all such trip ends in NYC.

2.00% 1.87% 0.93 380,000 355,000 60%

Derived by Komanoff in spreadsheet, "Komanoff estimates of NYC cycling levels _ 3 July 2007.xls."

Percentage of cycling trips ending in Manhattan CBD that originate outside CBD
Komanoff estimate. Allows for return trips (i.e., these are included in the other 80%).

20% 45,600 213,000 42,600 5% 75% 5% 10% 5% 100% 32,000 2,000

Above row, expressed as the daily number of trips Estimated increase in non-commercial cycling trips that will end in CBD
Applies CBD's existing share of trips. May be conservative in light of sharper VMT drop in CBD.

Increase in non-commercial cycling trips into CBD that originate outside Breakdown of prior (current) modes for these trips (if not cycled) Automobile (includes taxi) Subway Bus Walk Trip not taken Total Daily trips into CBD converted from subway to bicycle Daily trips into CBD converted from bus to bicycle

Komanoff estimates. All figures are "hard-wired" except subway, which = 100% less sum of the others.

CO2 (Carbon Dioxide)

1/24/2008

This worksheet calculates the reduction in emissions of CO2 from the two policy options combined. Note: Figures here do not yet reflect the elimination of non-CBD trips due to citywide free transit. A. Key Assumptions and Factors Pounds of carbon dioxide emitted per gallon of gasoline
Source: Carbon Tax Center.

19.63

Estimated miles per gallon and resulting CO2/mile for vehicle types
mpg

CO2 lb/mi

Taxicabs in typical traffic conditions

13

1.51

Komanoff/Transportation Alternatives, "Rolling Carbon" analysis (in spreadsheet "Rolling Carbon Commuting Scenarios _ 28 August 2007.xls," Autos worksheet. Assumes actual traffic conditions where taxis operate.

Percentage reduction in taxi MPG for CBD portion of trips Percentage addition to taxi MPG for non-CBD portion of trips

4% 6%

Komanoff assumptions. First figure is intended to reflect even-greater traffic congestion in the CBD (and resulting lower mileage), compared to overall taxi travel. Second figure is calculated to offset first when inside/outside CBD shares are accounted for.

Taxicabs within CBD Taxicabs outside CBD Automobiles (light-duty vehicles) in typical NYC traffic MPG penalty to LDV figure to reflect heavy-duty veh's in mix of elim'd trips Motor vehicles in typical traffic into/from CBD Percentage reduction in MPG for CBD portion of trips Percentage addition to MPG for non-CBD portion of trips
Komanoff assumptions.

12.5 13.8 16.1 2% 15.8 10% 5% 14.2 16.6

1.57 1.42 1.22

Komanoff/T.A., Rolling Carbon analysis (above). Assumes actual traffic conditions where autos operate. Komanoff assumption. Would be greater (~5%) but for presumption that relatively few truck trips will be dissuaded.

1.24

Motor vehicles within CBD Motor vehicles outside CBD

1.38 1.18

B. CO2 Reductions (calculations) -- all figures below pertain to the combination of the cordon fee and free transit. Inside CBD
Taxis Other Total

Outside CBD
Taxis Other Total

VMT reductions per day CO2 reductions, pounds per day CO2 reductions, tons per year

6,500 10,200 1,680

841,500 1,163,300 191,940

848,000 1,173,500 193,620

4,300 6,100 1,010

5,662,700 6,709,700 1,107,100

5,667,000 6,715,800 1,108,110

C. Current CO2 Emissions from Motor Vehicles NYC Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2005 All sources, million metric tons
Source: PlaNYC, p. 9. We assume GHG's equate to CO2.

58.3 20% 11.7 2,205 12.9 10%

Percentage of above attributable to cars and trucks
Ibid.

CO2 from cars and trucks, million metric tons Pounds per metric ton CO2 from cars and trucks, million tons Percent of above eliminated by the combined policies

nd free transit. Both Trip Portions
Taxis Other Total

10,800 16,300 3,000

6,504,200 7,873,000 1,299,000

6,515,000 7,889,300 1,302,000

Hub-Bound Travel

1/24/2008

This worksheet was created by C. Komanoff on 25 Oct 2007. It slightly adapts a spreadsheet from Brian Ketcham, who in turn adapted it from data provided by NYMTC. The original NYMTC data may be found in a Komanoff spreadsheet, "Hub-Bound Travel 2006 _ 25 Oct 2007.xls. Note that the NYMTC data did not include entires into the Hub via the Lincoln Tunnel. These had to be estimated separately, further below, to calculate total vehicle entries into the CBD.

Results (motor vehicle entries to Hub on typical weekday, by classification) are

Hub-Bound 2006 Vehicle Classification and Occupancy Sur Vehicle Classification Counts by Sector CL 1 CL 2
Passenger Cars

CL 3
2-Axle, 4Tire Single Units

CL 4

CL 5

CL 6

Motorcycles

Buses

2-Axle, 6Tire Single 3-Axle Units Single Units

60th Street Sector Southbound - Inbound FDR Drive York Avenue Second Avenue Lexington Avenue Park Avenue Fifth Avenue 7th Avenue between 58th and 59th Street 7th Ave Xtens btw7th Ave Pk Exit & CPS Columbus Avenue Broadway between 60th & W 61st Street Bway btw Col Circle & West 60th St West End Avenue West Side Highway Sub - Total Proportion of Total Northbound - Outbound FDR Drive York Avenue First Avenue Third Avenue Park Avenue Madison Avenue C Park E Dr. btw CPS & 60 St Pk Entr CPW bet. Columbus Ave. and W 60th St. Amsterdam Avenue Broadway between 60th & W 61st Street Bway btw Columbus Circle & W 60th St West End Avenue West Side Highway Sub - Total Proportion of Total Westbound

4 17 71 62 8 37 16 0 20 12 99 44 126 514 0.1%

61,469 24,171 46,663 24,926 24,464 28,930 15,527 7,368 22,942 18,686 18,325 14,219 91,831 399,519 92.4%

2,944 529 1,223 2,430 310 289 292 5 2,156 1,221 150 255 867 12,667 2.9%

411 376 1,171 912 108 828 357 0 650 600 799 386 372 6,968 1.6%

0 259 3,074 1,385 275 783 432 0 1,359 497 729 582 206 9,579 2.2%

0 38 349 187 41 513 496 0 172 49 101 71 116 2,131 0.5%

2 8 44 13 6 50 0 68 24 9 77 10 60 369 0.1%

64,911 7,214 37,350 29,953 20,695 22,887 14,973 16,461 19,390 11,180 17,566 7,721 51,767 322,065 91.4%

2,827 92 727 2,603 288 406 103 184 1,788 1,231 127 240 595 11,209 3.2%

476 182 697 1,070 90 967 4 521 583 818 681 297 143 6,526 1.9%

1 103 2,052 1,615 200 759 105 310 1,395 800 895 462 146 8,841 2.5%

0 17 1,009 128 50 584 60 85 295 86 126 121 280 2,839 0.8%

C Park E Dr. btw 5 Ave & C Park East Dr Total

0 883

14,999 736,583

104 23,979

0 13,493

105 18,524

55 5,024

Hub-Bound 2006 Vehicle Classification and Occupancy Sur Vehicle Classification Counts by Sector CL 1 Brooklyn Sector Westbound - Inbound Williamsburg Bridge Manhattan Bridge - Upper Level Manhattan Bridge - Lower Level Brooklyn Battery Tunnel Booklyn Bridge Sub - Total Proportion of Total Eastbound - Outbound Williamsburg Bridge - Upper Level Manhattan Bridge - Upper Level Manhattan Bridge - Lower Level Brooklyn Battery Tunnel Brooklyn Bridge Sub - Total Proportion of Total Total Queens Sector Westbound - Inbound Queens Midtown Tunnel Queensboro Bridge - Upper Level Queensboro Bridge - Lower Level Queensboro Bridge - Ramp from 59th St. Sub - Total Proportion of Total Eastbound - Outbound Queens Midtown Tunnel Queensboro Bridge - Upper Level Queensboro Bridge - Lower Level Sub - Total Proportion of Total Total CL 2 CL 3 CL 4 CL 5 CL 6

35 12 36 3 352 437 0.2%

61,659 27,365 5,279 26,299 65,029 185,630 94.3%

592 482 163 178 599 2,012 1.0%

331 659 114 2,321 413 3,837 1.9%

195 2,199 1,141 187 80 3,802 1.9%

67 349 209 209 2 835 0.4%

54 14 63 5 8 144 0.1% 581

56,709 29,081 9,124 21,062 62,456 178,431 94.7% 364,060

759 611 97 149 646 2,261 1.2% 4,273

696 842 97 2,063 336 4,033 2.1% 7,870

520 1,628 199 119 9 2,474 1.3% 6,276

140 402 29 181 2 753 0.4% 1,588

3 95 74 1 172 0.1%

40,975 31,531 46,874 13,542 132,921 93.7%

902 264 687 49 1,902 1.3%

1,692 34 584 0 2,309 1.6%

577 40 2,351 47 3,014 2.1%

654 0 482 6 1,141 0.8%

7 97 76 179 0.1% 351

38,912 38,161 34,786 111,858 91.8% 244,779

1,003 487 822 2,311 1.9% 4,212

1,058 393 533 1,984 1.6% 4,293

579 230 2,837 3,646 3.0% 6,660

610 389 722 1,720 1.4% 2,861

Holland Tunnel Eastbound - Inbound Holland Tunnel Proportion of Total

7 0.0%

36,158 94.7%

747 2.0%

329 0.9%

600 1.6%

325 0.8%

Westbound - Outbound Holland Tunnel Proportion of Total Total Vehicles Entering CBD, except via Lincoln Tunnel Proportion of Total Lincoln Tunnel Ketcham-Komanoff approximation

6 0.0%

39,387 96.3%

885 2.2%

345 0.8%

144 0.4%

111 0.3%

1,130 0.1%

754,227 93.2%

17,327 2.1%

13,442 1.7%

16,994 2.1%

4,431 0.5%

This approximation does not employ vehicle class percentages from the other crossings, due Tunnel traffic. Instead, we use gross vehicle classification percentages from NYMTC's 1996 C Tunnel Eastbound traffic. These are shown below. Results of our approximation are show 63,000 from NYMTC Hub-Bound 2004 Survey

Total vehicle entries via Lincoln Tunnel L. Tunnel autos, taxis, motorcycles L. Tunnel light trucks, buses L. Tunnel heavy trucks NYMTC's 1996 Classification Study
LINCOLN TUNNEL EB LINCOLN TUNNEL WB HOLLAND TUNNEL EB HOLLAND TUNNEL WB

70% sum of auto + taxi shares below (Eastbound); includes motorcycles, but presumably de min 22% calculated as bus share + 60% of truck share 8% calculated as 40% of truck share Grand total entries to Hub
AUTO 60.5% 65.7% 72.4% 72.2% TAXI 9.3% 10.2% 4.9% 4.7% TRUCK 19.7% 15.4% 21.0% 20.9% BUS 10.5% Note: 60.5% (at far left of table) was reported as 8.8% 1.7% 2.1%

eekday, by classification) are shown at far bottom, far right.

assification and Occupancy Survey ation Counts by Sector CL 7
4 or more Axle Single Units

CL 8
4 or more Less Single Trailers

CL 9
5-Axle Single Trailers

CL 10
6 or more Axle Single Trailers

CL 11

CL12

CL 13
7 or More Axle MultiTrailers

Total

5 or Less Axle Multi- 6-Axle MultiTrailers Trailers

Autos (w/o M/C)

0 3 206 6 0 6 2 0 6 0 14 34 14 290 0.1%

0 0 30 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 15 0 52 0.0%

0 0 275 25 0 30 0 0 107 17 61 2 0 515 0.1%

0 0 62 1 0 0 0 0 7 0 0 0 0 70 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0.0%

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.0%

64,828 25,392 53,121 29,939 25,205 31,416 17,121 7,373 27,419 21,079 20,276 15,607 93,531 432,304

61,469 24,171 46,663 24,926 24,464 28,930 15,527 7,368 22,942 18,686 18,325 14,219 91,831 399,519

0 1 43 2 3 9 0 27 12 4 4 32 14 151 0.0%

0 0 6 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 12 15 0 35 0.0%

0 0 215 89 1 18 1 20 85 41 51 1 0 520 0.1%

0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

68,217 7,615 42,142 35,471 21,332 25,679 15,246 17,676 23,571 14,169 19,539 8,898 53,004 352,555

64,911 7,214 37,350 29,953 20,695 22,887 14,973 16,461 19,390 11,180 17,566 7,721 51,767 322,065

0 441

0 86

0 1,035

0 72

0 0

0 1

0 1

15,262 800,120

14,999 736,583

assification and Occupancy Survey ation Counts by Sector CL 7 CL 8 CL 9 CL 10 CL 11 CL12 CL 13 Total

0 0 49 0 0 49 0.0%

1 0 6 0 0 7 0.0%

31 106 101 10 0 247 0.1%

0 0 12 0 0 12 0.0%

0 0 1 0 0 1 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

62,910 31,170 7,109 29,205 66,474 196,867

61,659 27,365 5,279 26,299 65,029 185,630

0 1 7 0 0 8 0.0% 57

0 0 0 1 0 1 0.0% 7

49 159 17 3 0 227 0.1% 474

0 0 2 0 0 2 0.0% 14

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 1

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0

0 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0

58,926 32,737 9,632 23,582 63,455 188,331

56,709 29,081 9,124 21,062 62,456 178,431

385,198

364,060

19 1 6 0 25 0.0%

0 0 3 0 3 0.0%

6 0 437 0 443 0.3%

1 0 0 0 1 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

44,826 31,965 51,495 13,644 141,929

40,975 31,531 46,874 13,542 132,921

10 0 27 37 0.0% 62

1 0 4 5 0.0% 7

1 0 102 103 0.1% 546

0 0 0 0 0.0% 1

0 0 0 0 0.0% 0

0 0 0 0 0.0% 0

0 0 0 0 0.0% 0

42,179 39,756 39,907 121,841

38,912 38,161 34,786 111,858

263,770

244,779

12 0.0%

2 0.0%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

38,178

36,158

3 0.0%

2 0.0%

1 0.0%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

0 0.0%

40,883

39,387

376 0.0%

62 0.0%

1,205 0.1%

82 0.0%

1 0.0%

1 0.0%

1 0.0%

809,277

754,227

ges from the other crossings, due to the sui generis quality of Lincoln ercentages from NYMTC's 1996 Classification Count study, for Lincoln of our approximation are shown at right.

s motorcycles, but presumably de minimis, can be ignored.

43,974

Grand total entries to Hub (incl. via Lincoln Tunnel) are shown immediately to right:

798,201
Autos (w/o M/C)

% (at far left of table) was reported as 60.6% by BTK. It was reduced by 0.1% by CK to make %'s sum to 100.0%.

92%

Lt Trucks + Buses

Heavy Trucks

3,355 905 2,394 3,341 418 1,117 648 5 2,806 1,821 948 641 1,239 19,634

0 300 3,994 1,610 316 1,332 930 0 1,652 562 904 704 336 12,637 431,790

3,303 274 1,423 3,672 377 1,373 107 705 2,371 2,049 808 536 738 17,734

1 121 3,326 1,833 254 1,369 166 443 1,786 932 1,088 631 440 12,387 352,186

104 37,472

160 25,183

15,262 799,237

922 1,140 277 2,499 1,012 5,849

294 2,654 1,517 405 82 4,952 196,430

1,455 1,453 194 2,212 981 6,294

708 2,190 252 304 11 3,464 188,188

12,142

8,415

384,617

2,594 298 1,271 49 4,211

1,255 41 3,277 53 4,626 141,757

2,061 880 1,354 4,294

1,200 619 3,691 5,510 121,662

8,505

10,135

263,419

1,076

938

38,171

1,229

261

40,877

30,769

23,151

808,147

14,062

4,964

63,000

44,830
Lt Trucks + Buses

28,115 871,147
Heavy Trucks Total

5%

3%

H.I.S. (Household Interview Survey)

1/24/2008

This worksheet presents data from the NYMTC 1997-98 Household Interview Survey that informs some of the parameter estimates used in this spreadsheet. The data were compiled under the supervision of George Haikalis.

1. Average Toll Cost This section estimates the average tolls paid by drivers entering the CBD. It establishes that the average agrees with the L.I. figure to within 10%, indicating that the East River bridges toll average is a reasonable proxy for tolls paid from all directions. TABLE X-3: TRIPS TO AND FROM NEW YORK CITY
WORK

Bus Long Island North of NYC West of Hudson R. Total 1,360 4,982 87,386 93,728

Rail/Ferry 131,836 102,511 143,615 377,962

Mass Transit Total 133,196 107,493 231,001 471,690

Auto 211,672 110,661 185,355 507,688

Taxi 3,127 3,354 8,515 14,996

Auto+Taxi Total 214,799 114,015 193,870 522,684

Work Totals 347,995 221,508 424,871 994,374

% Mass Transit 38.3% 48.5% 54.4% 47.4%

Source: NYMTC 1997/98 Household Interview Survey Same data reformatted to estimate tolls now paid by drivers (taxis excluded)
Work Non-work Combined

Estimated Toll (2005)

Cross Products

Long Island North of NYC West of Hudson R. TOTAL Average: Ratio, average to L.I. figure

211,672 110,661 185,355

339,181 128,082 175,650

550,853 238,743 361,005
1,150,601

$2.76 $0.50 $5.00

1,518,288 119,372 1,805,025
3,442,685

$2.99 1.09

Toll rates are for round trips. L.I. figure is from Price to Drive worksheet. North of NYC assumes token amount for NYS Thruway, CT Pike and Harlem Riv crossings. West of Hudson reflects Port Authority crossings discounts for off-peak and E-ZPass (see http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/bridges/pdfs/01_08_05_TollRatesFile.pdf).

2. Work vs. Non-work Trips -- for all trips (whereas we need Work vs. Non-work for auto trips only) Table X-7: Trips to the Manhattan CBD from Non-CBD origins by Time of Arrival Presumably is transit plus motor v. trips combined. Type 12-6a 6-10a 10a-4p 4-8p 8p-12a Total Work 21,561 1,064,813 240,448 112,047 28,363 1,467,232 NON-WORK 18,214 2.4% 243,745 31.8% 295,228 38.5% 154,093 20.1% 55,483 7.2% 766,763 100.0% TOTAL 39,775 1.8% 1,308,558 58.6% 535,676 24.0% 266,140 11.9% 83,846 3.8% 2,233,995 100.0%

1.5% 72.6% 16.4% 7.6% 1.9% 100.0%

Source: NYMTC 1997/98 Household Interview Survey

Same data reformatted to compare work to non-work trips.
Totals Totals Re-apportioned to squeeze into: 85% Rounded

Work trips Non-work trips Total

1,467,232 766,763 2,233,995

66% 34% 100%

56% 29% 85%

55% 30%

Re-apportionment is done to divide trips among work, non-work and taxi, in Driver Equilibrium worksheet. The percentages are then rounded to the nearest 5 percent.

3. Breakdown of Subway trips according to their relationship to the CBD cordon.
2004 counts 1997/98 NYMTC HIS work non-work

total

Intra-CBD To and from CBD Non-CBD Total CBD-related % Half of above Rounded down

389,098 3,139,528 1,087,587 4,616,213 76% 38% 30%

220,662 1,320,725 554,194 2,094,067

89,883 644,776 928,845 1,660,962

310,545 1,965,501 1,883,701 3,755,029 52% 26%

4. Work vs. Non-Work Trips to the CBD TABLE X-1: WORK / NON-WORK TRIPS TO THE MANHATTAN CBD

WORK by Mode of Travel Mass Transit Total
255,051 183,908 214,370 87,589 230,610 30,141 444,980 271,497 746,618 1,001,669 86,727 28,120 114,847 55,238 3,049 258 2,359 26,007 86,911 35,761 5,360

Bus

Revised Rail/Ferry

Auto

Taxi

Auto+Tax Work i Total Totals

Area of Origin

Manhattan CBD Upper Manhattan Queens Bronx Brooklyn Staten Island Bklyn-Qns Upper Man.-Bronx NYC no CBD Total NYC Nassau Suffolk Total LI Westchester Putnam New Haven Dutchess Fairfield Total N. of NYC Bergen Rockland

34,389 18,543 8,152 4,684 4,148 11,894 12,300 23,227 47,421 81,810 0 304 304 1,752 0 0 272 0 2,024 24,307 2,005

220,662 165,365 206,218 82,905 226,462 18,247 432,680 248,270 699,197 919,859 86,727 27,816 114,543 53,486 3,049 258 2,087 26,007 84,887 11,454 3,355

58,945 18,784 44,619 5,112 40,819 11,427 85,438 23,896 120,761 179,706 30,271 10,533 40,804 23,163 248 0 164 3,167 26,742 14,820 2,868

75,077 21,478 9,560 822 1,355 904 10,915 22,300 34,119 109,196 1,594 1,533 3,127 0 0 0 548 1,595 2,143 1,260 147

134,022 389,073 40,262 224,170 54,179 268,549 5,934 93,523 42,174 272,784 12,331 42,472 96,353 541,333 46,196 317,693 154,880 901,498 288,902 1,290,571 31,865 118,592 12,066 40,186 43,931 158,778 23,163 78,401 248 3,297 0 258 712 3,071 4,762 30,769 28,885 115,796 16,080 51,841 3,015 8,375

Area of Origin

Orange 3,232 Passaic 5,073 Hudson 9,271 Essex 5,344 Union 1,070 Morris 2,687 Somerset 1,029 Middlesex 4,806 Monmouth 7,711 Ocean 0 Hunterdon 310 Warren 0 Sussex 0 Mercer 0 Total W. of Hudson R. 66,845 Total Suburbs 69,173 Total Non-CBD 116,594
Grand Totals 150,983

2,719 1,827 41,976 19,325 10,241 5,709 2,122 7,076 5,447 172 634 0 435 3,408 115,900 315,330 1,014,527 1,235,189

5,951 6,900 51,247 24,669 11,311 8,396 3,151 11,882 13,158 172 944 0 435 3,408 182,745 384,503 1,131,121 1,386,172

1,267 3,018 11,559 5,776 3,858 4,219 1,189 5,142 3,885 2,057 0 429 450 2,510 63,047 130,593 251,354 310,299

0 0 1,735 726 288 0 410 0 0 0 0 0 158 1,130 5,854 11,124 45,243 120,320

1,267 7,218 3,018 9,918 13,294 64,541 6,502 31,171 4,146 15,457 4,219 12,615 1,599 4,750 5,142 17,024 3,885 17,043 2,057 2,229 0 944 429 429 608 1,043 3,640 7,048 68,901 251,646 141,717 526,220 296,597 1,427,718 430,619 1,816,791

0.623978 Extracted from the Above table, for non-CBD trips into the CBD
Work Auto N-Wk Auto Combined

Number of trips
These numbers are from above table.

251,354 52.2% 1.2 209,462 58% 49% 50%

230,592 47.8% 1.5 153,728 42% 36% 35%

481,946 100.0%

Previous data row, as %
These percentages will be used in Assignment worksheet.

Car Occupancy Rates
These numbers are Komanoff assumptions

Number of Cars % of Combined % of Combined, re-apportioned to squeeze into: Rounded

363,190 100% 85%

Work Bus N-Wk Bus

Combined

Number of trips (careful, incl. express buses)
These numbers are from above table.

116,594 62.6%

69,605 37.4%

186,199 100.0%
Combined

Previous data row, as %

Work Rail N-Wk Rail

Number of trips
These numbers are from above table.

1,014,527 72.0%

394,425 28.0%

1,408,952 100.0%

Previous data row, as %

NON-WORK

Bus 22,684 9,586 29,340 61,610

Rail/Ferry 24,530 24,239 46,311 95,080

Mass Transit Total
47,214 33,825 75,651 156,690

Auto 339,181 128,082 175,650 642,913

Taxi 5,540 2,971 6,478 14,989

Auto+Taxi Non-Work Total Totals 344,721 131,053 182,128 657,902 391,935 164,878 257,779 814,592

% Mass Transit 12.0% 20.5% 29.3% 19.2%

Grand Total by Mode of Travel 739,930 386,386 682,650
1,808,966

% Mass Transit 24.4% 36.6% 44.9% 34.7%

NON-WORK by Mode of Travel Mass Transit Total
151,629 152,864 88,846 42,792 75,846 7,243 164,692 195,656 367,591 519,220 11,155 5,324 16,479 12,701 677 450 208 8,905 22,941 7,877 1,143

Bus

Revised Rail/Ferry

Auto

Taxi

Auto+Ta xi Total

NonWork Totals
292,701 207,837 109,288 60,060 135,644 15,117 244,932 267,897 527,946 820,647 36,372 7,691 44,063 19,159 883 2,188 808 11,389 34,427 26,097 1,143

61,746 34,034 2,066 2,051 7,495 1,136 9,561 36,085 46,782 108,528 0 0 0 2,254 0 0 0 772 3,026 6,113 548

89,883 118,830 86,780 40,741 68,351 6,107 155,131 159,571 320,809 410,692 11,155 5,324 16,479 10,447 677 450 208 8,133 19,915 1,764 595

86,727 36,227 17,426 17,268 54,523 7,283 71,949 53,495 132,727 219,454 25,217 2,367 27,584 6,458 206 1,738 600 2,484 11,486 17,916 0

54,345 18,746 3,016 0 5,275 591 8,291 18,746 27,628 81,973 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 304 0

141,072 54,973 20,442 17,268 59,798 7,874 80,240 72,241 160,355 301,427 25,217 2,367 27,584 6,458 206 1,738 600 2,484 11,486 18,220 0

681,774 432,007 377,837 153,583 408,428 57,589 786,265 585,590 1,429,444 2,111,218 154,964 47,877 202,841 97,560 4,180 2,446 3,879 42,158 150,223 77,938 9,518

TOTALS Grand Total % Mass by Mode Transit of Travel

59.7% 78.0% 80.3% 84.9% 75.0% 64.9% 77.5% 79.8% 77.9% 72.0% 63.2% 69.9% 64.7% 69.6% 89.1% 28.9% 66.2% 82.8% 73.1% 56.0% 68.3%

1,465 305 8,322 1,008 0 0 0 0 1,702 0 0 0 334 0 19,797 22,823 69,605 131,351

583 0 15,860 3,601 990 601 0 3,575 6,550 0 1,587 421 0 1,095 37,222 73,616 394,425 484,308

2,048 305 24,182 4,609 990 601 0 3,575 8,252 0 1,587 421 334 1,095 57,019 96,439 464,030 615,659

7,948 3,695 10,947 5,192 2,546 885 469 2,245 1,048 2,984 522 609 158 1,631 58,795 97,865 230,592 317,319

0 0 1,290 0 0 280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,874 1,874 29,502 83,847

7,948 9,996 3,695 4,000 12,237 36,419 5,192 9,801 2,546 3,536 1,165 1,766 469 469 2,245 5,820 1,048 9,300 2,984 2,984 522 2,109 609 1,030 158 492 1,631 2,726 60,669 117,688 99,739 196,178 260,094 724,124 401,166 1,016,825

17,214 13,918 100,960 40,972 18,993 14,381 5,219 22,844 26,343 5,213 3,053 1,459 1,535 9,774 369,334 0 722,398 2,151,842 2,833,616

46.5% 51.8% 74.7% 71.5% 64.8% 62.6% 60.4% 67.7% 81.3% 3.3% 82.9% 28.9% 50.1% 46.1% 64.9% 66.6% 74.1% 70.6%

0.648145

TSRPC (Tri-State Regional Planning Commission) Elasticities

1/24/2008

In August, 1977, the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission published a report, "Short Term Effects of Transportation Policy Changes on Auto and Transit Ridership" (Interim Technical Report 5303). The report compiled and distilled the available literature into estimates of elasticities for transit and auto modes in NYC. It is thoughtful, professional and credible. Following are the report's best estimates of these elasticities intended for use in NYC, going forward at that time.
Work Non-work

Direct Elasticities each figure denotes the percent change in the first variable per one percent change in the second Transit Volume w/r/t Transit Cost Transit Volume w/r/t Transit Time Auto Volume w/r/t Auto Cost Auto Volume w/r/t Auto Time -9% -50% -50% -100%
Work

-23.4% -55% -90% -124%
Non-work

Cross Elasticities each figure denotes the percent of lost trips in the second mode (due to changes in time or cost) that is "captured" by the first mode (figures given are absolute values) Change in Transit Volume per Change in Auto Volume caused by change in Auto Time Change in Transit Volume per Change in Auto Volume caused by change in Auto Cost Change in Auto Volume per Change in Transit Volume caused by change in Transit Time Change in Auto Volume per Change in Transit Volume caused by change in Transit Cost

95%

40%

95%

50%

95%

53%

95%

50%

Elasticity Formulae
Point Fare Elasticity:

e1 = ( (R2-R1)/R1)/((F2-F1)/F1) or R2 = e1*R1*(F2-F1)/F1 + R1
Mid-point Elasticity (not used here) e2 = ((R2-R1)/(Q1+Q2)/2)/((F2-F1)/(F1+F2)/2) or R2 = R1*(e2*((F2-F1)+(F1+F2))/((F1+F2)-e2*(F2-F1))

R denotes ridership F denotes fare e denotes elasticity

Price to Drive

1/24/2008

This worksheet estimates the out-of-pocket cost for a round-trip using an East River crossing, for each year from the late 1970s to present. The data it generates are used in Komanoff's independent estimation of the price-elasticity of motor vehicle trips into the CBD. Constants NYC fuel-economy penalty (vs. US average)
KEA estimate.

22.5% 15% 11.3 40% $0.05 $0.15

NYC gasoline price premium
KEA estimate.

One-way distance (miles) for trips across East River bridges
KEA estimate from 2003 analysis for "The Hours: Time Savings from Tolling the East River Bridges"

Percentage of drivers who pay to park (at market rate)
KEA estimate.

Per-mile Cost (perceived by drivers) of insurance, wear, maint. (1975) Per-mile Cost (perceived by drivers) of insurance, wear, maint. (2005)
KEA estimates. Lower figure for 2005 (adj. for inflation) is intended to reflect improvements in vehicle reliability.

Year

US Gas NYC Gas Price Price

Avg Car Avg Lt Trk MPG, EPA MPG, EPA

Lt Trk % NYC VMT

Avg Veh MPG, EPA

Miles per Gasoline Price to Price to Gal., NYC Cost Park (mkt) Park (avg)

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

65.2 88.2 122.1 135.3 128.1 122.5 119.8 119.6 93.1 95.7 96.3 106.0 121.7 119.6 119.0 117.3 117.4 120.5 128.8 129.1 111.5 122.1 156.3 153.1 144.1 163.8

75.0 101.4 140.4 155.6 147.3 140.9 137.8 137.5 107.1 110.1 110.7 121.9 140.0 137.5 136.9 134.9 135.0 138.6 148.1 148.5 128.2 140.4 179.7 176.1 165.7 188.4

13.4 13.6 14.0 13.8 14.1 14.3 14.6 16.0 16.5 16.9 17.1 17.4 17.5 17.4 18.0 18.8 19.0 20.2 21.1 21.0 20.5 20.7 21.1 21.2 21.5 21.6 21.4 21.9 22.1 22.0 22.2

10.5 11.0 10.5 10.8 11.2 11.6 11.9 12.2 12.5 13.5 13.7 14.0 14.3 14.6 14.9 15.4 16.1 16.1 17.0 17.3 17.4 17.3 17.3 17.2 17.2 17.2 17.0 17.4 17.6 17.5 16.2

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% 11% 12% 13% 14% 15% 16% 17% 18% 19% 20% 21% 22% 23%

13.4 13.6 14.0 13.8 14.1 14.3 14.6 16.0 16.5 16.8 17.0 17.3 17.3 17.2 17.8 18.5 18.7 19.8 20.6 20.6 20.1 20.2 20.5 20.6 20.8 20.8 20.6 21.0 21.2 21.0 20.8

10.4 10.5 10.9 10.7 10.9 11.1 11.3 12.4 12.8 13.0 13.2 13.4 13.4 13.4 13.8 14.4 14.5 15.3 16.0 15.9 15.6 15.7 15.9 15.9 16.1 16.1 15.9 16.3 16.4 16.3 16.1

$1.53 $2.03 $2.56 $2.76 $2.55 $2.42 $2.33 $2.31 $1.81 $1.80 $1.74 $1.90 $2.06 $1.94 $1.94 $1.96 $1.95 $1.97 $2.10 $2.08 $1.80 $1.99 $2.50 $2.43 $2.30 $2.64

$5.00 $5.40 $5.80 $6.20 $6.60 $7.00 $7.40 $7.80 $8.20 $8.60 $9.00 $9.40 $9.80 $10.20 $10.60 $11.00 $11.40 $11.80 $12.20 $12.60 $13.00 $13.40 $13.80 $14.20 $14.60 $15.00 $16.00 $17.00 $18.00

$2.00 $2.16 $2.32 $2.48 $2.64 $2.80 $2.96 $3.12 $3.28 $3.44 $3.60 $3.76 $3.92 $4.08 $4.24 $4.40 $4.56 $4.72 $4.88 $5.04 $5.20 $5.36 $5.52 $5.68 $5.84 $6.00 $6.40 $6.80 $7.20

2004 2005 2006

192.3 233.8

221.1 268.9

22.5 22.9

16.2 16.2

24% 25%

21.0 21.2

16.3 16.4

$3.07 $3.69

$19.00 $20.00

$7.60 $8.00

Gas price (cents/gal.): 1978-1997 are from Monthly Energy Review, May 1998 (hard copy available to KEA). 1998-2000 are from on-line MER. Both sets use Miles per gallon (US) columns are from Monthly Energy Review, Table 1.9. Light truck % of NYC VMT refers to the share of "passenger vehicle" VMT by minivans, pickups and SUV's. Figures are KEA estimates. Average vehicle miles, EPA, denotes the EPA-rated average mpg for passenger vehicles in NYC, weighted by the shares of sedans and light trucks. Miles per gallon, NYC, denotes estimated actual on-road average for passenger vehicles in NYC. Toll Cost is derived in Toll Rates worksheet. Price to Park (market) is KEA estimate, interpolating linearly between 1975 and 2005 rates estimated by KEA. Other per-mile costs are calculated as linear interpolation of 1975 and 2005 values. CPI data are from Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov/cpi/home.htm#data. "All Urban Consumers," 1982-84=100.

Other costs

Toll Cost

Trip CPI (82- Trip Cost Cost 84=100) 2000 $ (adjusted for inflation)

$1.13 $1.21 $1.28 $1.36 $1.43 $1.51 $1.58 $1.66 $1.73 $1.81 $1.88 $1.96 $2.03 $2.11 $2.18 $2.26 $2.34 $2.41 $2.49 $2.56 $2.64 $2.71 $2.79 $2.86 $2.94 $3.01 $3.09 $3.16 $3.24

$0.21 $0.22 calculated $0.38 as sum of $0.38 green cols. $0.37 $0.38 $0.48 $0.50 $0.51 $5.88 $0.55 $6.64 $0.66 $7.52 $0.74 $8.04 $0.91 $8.24 $1.03 $8.46 $1.04 $8.62 $0.99 $8.79 $1.14 $8.67 $1.34 $9.10 $1.36 $9.30 $1.46 $9.78 $1.70 $10.42 $1.74 $10.58 $1.76 $10.84 $2.04 $11.37 $1.88 $11.43 $1.99 $11.79 $2.22 $12.39 $2.13 $12.52 $2.17 $12.51 $2.24 $13.01 $2.27 $13.78 $2.40 $14.32 $2.34 $14.60 $2.46 $15.54

53.8 56.9 60.6 65.2 72.6 82.4 90.9 96.5 99.6 103.9 107.6 109.6 113.6 118.3 124.0 130.7 136.2 140.3 144.5 148.2 152.4 156.9 160.5 163.0 166.6 172.2 177.1 179.9 184.0

$15.52 $15.76 $15.72 $15.23 $14.71 $14.63 $14.28 $14.06 $13.62 $13.80 $13.53 $13.59 $13.73 $13.37 $13.30 $13.54 $13.28 $13.33 $13.60 $13.44 $13.21 $13.44 $13.78 $13.92 $13.98 $14.54

$3.31 $3.39

$2.56 $2.76

$16.55 $17.84

188.9 195.3 201.6

$15.09 $15.73

are from on-line MER. Both sets use Table 9.4, Motor Gasoline Retail Prices, U.S. City Average.

s of sedans and light trucks.

Future Price

1/24/2008

This worksheet "grafts" the proposed congestion price onto near-future (2008) price conditions to calculate the increase in the cost of an average trip due to congestion pricing, and the corresponding drop in demand. Note: This worksheet is over-simplified in several respects: (i) it examines only East River trips, and (ii) it does not account for the inducement to drive resulting from time savings due to reduced traffic. Assumptions Assumed annual increase in U.S. mpg from 2005 baseline: Assumed annual increase % in U.S. gas price (nominal) from 2006: Assumed annual increase in price to park (mkt) from 2005 baseline: Change in percentage of trips in which driver doesn't pay to park Assumed annual increase % in Other costs (nominal) from 2005: Assumed annual increase in CPI from 2006
(cents per gallon) US Gas NYC Gas Miles per Price Price Gallon, US

0.2 5% $1.00 Zero 2.5% 2.5%

Year

Cong Pricing?

Miles per Gal., NYC

Gasoline Cost

Toll Price to Price to Cost Park (mkt) Park (avg)

Other costs

2005 2006 2007 2008 2008 2009 2010

No No No No Yes

233.8 263.5 276.7 290.5 290.5

268.9 303.0 318.2 334.1 334.1

22.9 22.9 23.1 23.3 23.3 23.5 23.7

16.4 16.6 16.8 16.9 16.9 17.1 17.2

$3.69 $2.76 $4.12 $2.76 $4.29 $2.76 $4.46 $2.76 $4.46 ######

$20.00 $21.00 $22.00 $23.00 $23.00

$8.00 $8.40 $8.80 $9.20 $9.20

$3.39 $3.47 $3.56 $3.65 $3.65

Estimated increase in 2008 trip cost w/ congestion pricing (over same-year no-congestion-price base):

66%

Trip Cost

CPI (8284=100)

Trip Cost 2000 $

$17.84 $18.76 $19.41 $20.07 $33.31

195.3 201.6 206.6 211.8 211.8

$15.73 $16.02 $16.17 $16.32 $27.08

East River Crossings

1/24/2008

Average Daily Crossings (source: NYC DOT, "Manhattan River Crossings," various years, various tables)
BBT QMT Trib Manh MTA total BB MB WB QB

1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

62,042 64,032 52,065 49,916 46,620 45,636 52,444 53,500 58,252 60,445 62,386 58,657 56,189 61,130 58,032 63,469 60,778 63,256 62,959 59,254 60,512 63,883 62,510 57,561 57,013 61,097 57,091 54,690 61,091 63,307 63,242 48,059 56,976 56,271 54,488 49,043

77,180 81,747 74,936 74,214 75,219 65,315 65,881 71,150 72,696 69,827 73,216 81,211 78,229 78,134 74,808 76,065 71,478 77,813 76,243 72,828 71,186 80,616 81,835 77,288 68,511 73,882 72,285 78,023 79,697 80,941 80,879 72,864 82,834 85,377 86,599 86,063

85,121 90,372 80,052 85,592 82,676 72,566 68,325 73,276 76,572 87,885 88,439 93,361 88,158 92,967 95,247 94,644 93,432 95,795 99,438 92,720 99,840 94,487 97,198 92,660 79,536 95,696 92,981 91,313 93,863 98,553 103,079 102,224 94,759 93,177 97,958 91,898

224,343 236,151 207,053 209,722 204,515 183,517 186,650 197,926 207,520 218,157 224,041 233,229 222,576 232,231 228,087 234,178 225,688 236,864 238,640 224,802 231,538 238,986 241,543 227,509 205,060 230,675 222,357 224,026 234,651 242,801 247,200 223,147 234,569 234,825 239,045 227,004

100,050 102,535 103,815 102,834 99,959 103,750 102,590 104,532 104,848 91,319 103,954 102,572 110,991 115,825 110,432 116,929 126,555 123,523 129,153 131,951 129,626 128,491 125,643 134,793 134,837 131,883 131,872 147,898 144,131 127,065 147,767 95,586 121,145 134,444 137,563 132,210

72,077 68,681 73,803 73,401 77,198 74,320 68,057 64,835 74,257 75,403 77,914 79,589 87,760 85,222 89,104 100,825 77,784 77,519 75,221 68,593 69,550 72,695 78,117 74,526 78,418 75,126 81,075 83,209 78,172 92,311 75,684 73,064 66,152 73,767 79,129 80,363

73,062 72,299 76,219 79,989 78,914 82,057 82,471 82,490 82,626 81,340 82,663 85,100 79,369 86,947 94,898 107,386 107,181 107,362 102,643 107,967 109,474 115,345 98,307 86,591 83,525 100,588 88,570 96,124 109,268 107,941 108,376 82,202 103,364 100,243 110,528 107,030

126,554 120,555 136,455 138,066 138,560 144,252 145,130 146,283 138,415 133,966 127,929 127,864 136,864 125,158 134,107 150,892 158,191 151,688 153,841 152,591 140,063 131,438 141,078 135,964 151,483 157,306 161,965 184,179 192,119 189,190 182,940 176,469 176,419 184,964 180,369 178,610

Brooklyn Battery Tunnel 2001 volume was surveyed on 1-Oct-2001 and reported as only 13,762, owing to post-9/11 restrictions. I have estimated that datum average of that figure from 11-Sept-01 through 31-Dec-31, and of the year-2000 volume for 1-Jan-01 through 10-Sept-01. Other crossings have not been reca they were only modestly less than 2000 volumes.

ER br tot All crossings

MTA %

371,743 364,070 390,292 394,290 394,631 404,379 398,248 398,140 400,146 382,028 392,460 395,125 414,984 413,152 428,541 476,032 469,711 460,092 460,858 461,102 448,713 447,969 443,145 431,874 448,263 464,903 463,482 511,410 523,690 516,507 514,767 427,321 467,080 493,418 507,589 498,213

596,086 600,221 597,345 604,012 599,146 587,896 584,898 596,066 607,666 600,185 616,501 628,354 637,560 645,383 656,628 710,210 695,399 696,956 699,498 685,904 680,251 686,955 684,688 659,383 653,323 695,578 685,839 735,436 758,341 759,308 761,967 650,468 701,649 728,243 746,634 725,217

37.6% 39.3% 34.7% 34.7% 34.1% 31.2% 31.9% 33.2% 34.2% 36.3% 36.3% 37.1% 34.9% 36.0% 34.7% 33.0% 32.5% 34.0% 34.1% 32.8% 34.0% 34.8% 35.3% 34.5% 31.4% 33.2% 32.4% 30.5% 30.9% 32.0% 32.4% 34.3% 33.4% 32.2% 32.0% 31.3%

restrictions. I have estimated that datum here as the pt-01. Other crossings have not been recalculated since

Toll Rates

1/24/2008

This worksheet derives weighted average toll rates for the three East River crossings operated by MTA Bridges & Tunnels Note: Tolls shown are one-way, but all crossings charge tolls in both directions. This is reflected in Price to Drive worksheet. Data through 2000 are from Komanoff spreadsheet, "MTA Hub Bound Volumes _ CK Mods 17 Jan 03.xls," prepared as part of analysis for TSTC on travel impacts from different MTA toll scenarios.
Average daily volumes Triboro Manh. QMT 26,462 26,465 30,045 32,554 34,044 36,995 36,680 44,639 38,866 48,503 38,509 48,595 38,185 52,286 39,839 59,913 49,544 64,460 54,311 64,677 58,321 62,982 61,115 64,389 62,008 63,115 62,301 59,603 65,038 60,251 63,038 60,988 67,713 66,139 69,386 69,755 69,850 71,540 69,416 73,602 66,432 75,932 68,884 78,481 77,180 85,121 81,747 90,372 74,936 80,052 74,214 85,592 75,219 82,676 65,315 72,566 65,881 68,325 71,150 73,276 72,696 76,572 69,827 87,885 73,216 88,439 81,211 93,361 78,229 88,158 78,134 92,967 74,808 95,247 76,065 94,644 71,478 93,432 77,813 95,795 76,243 99,438 72,828 92,720 71,186 99,840 80,616 94,487 81,835 97,198 Base Passenger Car Toll Totals 52,927 62,599 108,297 122,572 132,735 135,103 135,591 145,595 162,058 173,478 175,092 174,972 174,093 170,101 173,462 172,297 185,745 195,596 199,064 200,629 203,016 209,481 224,343 236,151 207,053 209,722 204,515 183,517 186,650 197,926 207,520 218,157 224,041 233,229 222,576 232,231 228,087 234,178 225,688 236,864 238,640 224,802 231,538 238,986 241,543 BBT QMT $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.58 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.91 $1.00 $1.35 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.75 $1.98 $2.00 $2.23 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 Trib M $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.25 $0.50 $0.50 $0.50 $0.58 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.91 $1.00 $1.35 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.75 $1.98 $2.00 $2.23 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 Totals BBT X-Products QMT TMP Totals

BBT 1948 1949 1950 1951 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992

37,258 41,253 45,366 47,999 45,120 45,843 48,054 54,490 53,789 49,468 48,970 48,197 48,173 48,271 51,893 56,455 57,674 57,611 60,652 62,116 62,042 64,032 52,065 49,916 46,620 45,636 52,444 53,500 58,252 60,445 62,386 58,657 56,189 61,130 58,032 63,469 60,778 63,256 62,959 59,254 60,512 63,883 62,510

$0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.35 $0.70 $0.70 $0.70 $0.72 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.91 $1.00 $1.18 $1.25 $1.50 $1.50 $1.75 $1.98 $2.00 $2.23 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50

$0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.29 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.28 $0.55 $0.55 $0.55 $0.62 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.91 $1.00 $1.31 $1.43 $1.50 $1.50 $1.75 $1.98 $2.00 $2.23 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50

13040 14439 15878 16800 15792 16045 16819 19072 18826 17314 17140 16869 16861 16895 18163 19759 20186 20164 21228 21741 21715 22411 36446 34941 32634 32706 39333 40125 43689 45334 56463 58657 66080 76413 87048 95204 106362 124952 125918 132226 151280 159708 156275

8511 9170 9717 9627 9546 9960 12386 13578 14580 15279 15502 15575 16260 15760 16928 17347 17463 17354 16608 17221 19295 20437 37468 37107 37610 38100 49411 53363 54522 52370 66264 81211 105770 117201 112212 114098 125087 153707 152486 162516 177965 201540 204588

9249 11160 12126 12149 13072 14978 16115 16169 15746 16097 15779 14901 15063 15247 16535 17439 17885 18401 18983 19620 21280 22593 40026 42796 41338 42330 51244 54957 57429 65914 80042 93361 119194 139451 142871 141966 163506 189228 198876 206905 249600 236218 242995

30800 34768 37720 38576 38410 40983 45320 48819 49152 48690 48420 47345 48183 47901 51626 54545 55533 55918 56819 58582 62290 65441 113940 114844 111582 113136 139988 148445 155640 163618 202769 233229 291044 333064 342131 351267 394954 467888 477280 501647 578845 597465 603858

1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

57,561 57,013 61,097 57,091 54,690 61,091 63,307 63,242 48,059 56,976 56,271 54,488 49,043

77,288 68,511 73,882 72,285 78,023 79,697 80,941 80,879 72,864 82,834 85,377 86,599 86,063

92,660 79,536 95,696 92,981 91,313 93,863 98,553 103,079 102,224 94,759 93,177 97,958 91,898

227,509 205,060 230,675 222,357 224,026 234,651 242,801 247,200 223,147 234,569 234,825 239,045 227,004

$2.96 $3.00 $3.00 $3.42 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.81 $4.00 $4.40 $4.50

$2.96 $3.00 $3.00 $3.42 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.81 $4.00 $4.40 $4.50

$2.96 $3.00 $3.00 $3.42 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.81 $4.00 $4.40 $4.50

$2.96 $3.00 $3.00 $3.42 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.81 $4.00 $4.40

170317 171039 183291 195061 191415 213819 221575 221347 168207 199416 214524 217952 215924

228688 205533 221646 246974 273081 278940 283294 283077 255024 289919 325485 346396 378913

274172 238608 287088 317685 319596 328521 344936 360777 357784 331657 355221 391832 404603

673177 615180 692025 759720 784091 821279 849804 865200 781015 820992 895230 956180 999440

Toll rate for 2005 reflects March 13, 2005 rollout of $4.50 toll. See http://www.answers.com/topic/triborough-bridge-and-tunnel-authority, or http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/pdf/manrivercross05.pdf.

Manhattan jobs are Annual average employment in New York County, provided to KEA by Solidelle Wasser of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, on July 5, 2005, in response to a data query. "I am attaching data for New York County from the QCEW(Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages) program. Data from 1975 to 1977 are not comparable because there was a change in the coverage of unemployment insurance in 1978. Annual average data for 2006 are not yet available from this program. Should you have questions on this or any other program with which we can be of assistance, please let us know. Solidelle Wasser, economist. 212-337-2418" Updated July 26, 2007 with 2006 data for jobs and earnings.

Bridges & Tunnels

ce to Drive worksheet.

MTA % of Effective E Riv X'ings 1-way toll

Manhat- ManhatManhattan tan Jobs tan Wages Wages / CPI 000 000,000 (82-84=100)

37.6% 39.3% 34.7% 34.7% 34.1% 31.2% 31.9% 33.2% 34.2% 36.3% 36.3% 37.1% 34.9% 36.0% 34.7% 33.0% 32.5% 34.0% 34.1% 32.8% 34.0% 34.8% 35.3%

$0.10 $0.11 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.19 $0.24 $0.25 $0.26 $0.27 $0.33 $0.37 $0.46 $0.52 $0.52 $0.49 $0.57 $0.67 $0.68 $0.73 $0.85 $0.87 $0.88

2,178 2,181 2,205 2,247 2,237 2,245 2,287 2,320 2,353 2,391 2,386 2,376 2,343 2,206 2,125

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

23,582 24,976 26,642 34,986 37,345 41,513 46,426 50,787 54,854 59,693 64,270 70,566 77,553 84,897 87,142 91,839 90,002 98,550

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

43,833 43,895 43,963 53,660 51,440 50,380 51,073 52,629 55,074 57,452 59,730 64,385 68,269 71,764 70,276 70,267 66,081 70,242

34.5% 31.4% 33.2% 32.4% 30.5% 30.9% 32.0% 32.4% 34.3% 33.4% 32.2% 32.0% 31.3%

$1.02 $0.94 $0.99 $1.11 $1.07 $1.08 $1.12 $1.14 $1.20 $1.17 $1.23 $1.28 $1.38

2,109 2,118 2,104 2,142 2,263 2,306 2,382 2,287 2,342 2,249 2,212 2,214 2,249 2,296

$ 99,554 $100,990 $108,058 $118,465 $129,431 $142,242 $151,723 $172,880 $175,402 $162,963 $162,549 $176,835 $189,341 $210,431

$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

68,895 68,145 70,904 75,504 80,643 87,265 91,070 100,395 99,041 90,585 88,342 93,613 96,949 104,381

and-tunnel-authority, or

ureau of Labor Statistics, ensus of Employment and mployment insurance in 1978. er program with which we can 6 data for jobs and earnings.

Value of Time

1/24/2008

This worksheet compiles prior estimates of the value of a vehicle-hour of travel saved due to traffic re-optimization via cordon fees, free tran were estimated by Komanoff and Brian Ketcham in 2003, as part of the analysis of East River Bridge Tolls presented in "The Hours: Time S River Bridges," by Komanoff and Ketcham. That report is available at http://www.bridgetolls.org/research/. Further below we compare these (Dec. 2007) study of the cost of air traffic delays at Kennedy Airport, which also required positing an average value of travelers' time.

Further below, we report, and compare to, the value of air travelers' time, as estimated in a Dec. 2007 study of air travel delays at Kennedy NYC Comptroller's Office. We establish that our valuation of motorists' time is only one-fourth as great as that study's valuation of a Note; "S.O.V." = Single Occupant Vehicle.

Value of an hour of saved vehicle time, as estimated (separately) by Komanoff and Ke All dollar values are in 2003 prices
On-peak S.O.V. On-peak Car 2+ Off-peak S.O.V. Off-peak Car 2+ Bus Commuter Van

Share of bridge vehicles
Komanoff estimates.

20% $15 $30 $22.50 $25

5% $36 $72 $54 $50

25% $7.50 $15 $11.25 $15

25% $15 $30 $22.50 $30

2% $190 $340 $265 $325

7% $45 $90 $67.50 $100

Komanoff, low value, 19-June Komanoff, high value, 19-June Komanoff, average Ketcham, sole value, 20-June

Ketcham says values could be plus or minus 20%. Following are his explanatory notes.

On-peak S.O.V. or car - assume $25 per person, 2 people per car Off-peak S.O.V. or car - assume $15 per person, 2 people per car Bus - average of 10 people at $10 per person off peak, and 30 people at $15 per person on peak, plus $50 per hour for driver. Commuter van - average of 3 people at $10 per person off peak, and 8 people at $15 per person on peak, plus $20 per hour for driver. Commercial van - assuming just the driver, on and off-peak, $40 per hour, not including cost of van itself. Big rig (18-wheeler) - $50 an hour for driver, $80 per hour off-peak and on (ignore BK note that since the industry assumes peak hour travel takes twice, may Other truck - $45 per hour driver plus $45 per hour for the truck.

Number of people per vehicle 1.0 2.4 1.0 3.0 21.0 6.0 Note: Weighted avg becomes 2.31 if more precise vehicle shares from 2000 are used. (They're in BTAP file, East River Bridge Toll Revenu Number of people per car (not per motor vehicle)

Value of an hour of saved time for airline passengers at the New York City area's three major airports (JFK, LaGuardia,
Median Value (2005 $/hour) Inflation adjustment, 2005 to 2007
Calculated as ratio of July 2007 to July 2005 Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers

$47.97 1.066 $51.14 $17.51 $11.15 1.133 $12.64

Median Value (2007 $/hour) Komanoff Average Value (2003 $/hour) for cars Komanoff Average Value (2003 $/hour) per driver or passenger in cars Inflation adjustment, 2003 to 2007
Calculated as ratio of July 2007 to July 2003 Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers

Komanoff Average Value (2007 $/hour) per driver or passenger in cars

Ratio, Airline passenger value to Komanoff car user value

4.0

Note: The median value of airline passengers' time (first row in block of rows above was estimated in "Grounded: The Impact of Mounting F City's Economy and Environment," Office of the New York City Comptroller, Dec. 2007. Page 18 of that report states: "In a soon-to-be publis impact of airport congestion, economists Steven A. Morrison and Clifford Winston have estimated that for pleasure and business travelers, in 2005 dollars ranged from $27.13 to $79.16 per hour with a median of $47.97.”

A preliminary version of this "soon-to-be published study" was published in August 2006 under the title, "Another Look at Airport Congestion Morrison of Northeastern University and Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institution. It is available at http://www.economics.neu.edu/activities/seminars/documents/Another_Look_at_Airport_Congestion_Pricing.pdf. They wrote, at p. 9:

A preliminary version of this "soon-to-be published study" was published in August 2006 under the title, "Another Look at Airport Congestion Morrison of Northeastern University and Clifford Winston of the Brookings Institution. It is available at http://www.economics.neu.edu/activities/seminars/documents/Another_Look_at_Airport_Congestion_Pricing.pdf. They wrote, at p. 9: "Passengers’ time costs depend on their value of travel time, which varies by trip purpose, and the number of passengers on each flight. Fo sample, we used the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Household Travel Survey to calculate the percentage of trips whose purp percentage whose purpose was pleasure and the average household income for business and pleasure travelers. 10 Consistent with the U. Transportation’s (1997) guidelines, we value business travelers’ travel time at 100 percent of the wage and pleasure travelers’ travel time at Passengers’ values of time in 2005 dollars ranged from $27.13 to $79.16 per hour with a median of $47.97."

-optimization via cordon fees, free transit, etc. The values shown Tolls presented in "The Hours: Time Savings from Tolling The East arch/. Further below we compare these values to values from a new average value of travelers' time.

7 study of air travel delays at Kennedy International Airport for the s great as that study's valuation of air travelers' time.

ted (separately) by Komanoff and Ketcham in 2003 are in 2003 prices
Commercial Big Rig Van (18-wheeler) Large Truck Weighted Average Wghtd Avg, Cars Only

8% $50 $100 $75 $40

2% $150 $300 $225 $130

6% $75 $150 $112.50 $90 $ $ $ $

100% 28.88 56.95 42.91 43.45 $11.68 $23.35 $17.51

0 per hour for driver.

assumes peak hour travel takes twice, maybe these figures should be doubled?)

1.25 1.0 1.25 AP file, East River Bridge Toll Revenues _ 28 Feb 03 . Xls)

2.36 1.57

e major airports (JFK, LaGuardia, Newark)

"Grounded: The Impact of Mounting Flight Delays on New York at report states: "In a soon-to-be published study of the economic at for pleasure and business travelers, “passengers’ values of time

e, "Another Look at Airport Congestion Pricing," by Steven A.

_Pricing.pdf. They wrote, at p. 9:

e, "Another Look at Airport Congestion Pricing," by Steven A.

_Pricing.pdf. They wrote, at p. 9: umber of passengers on each flight. For each of the airports in our late the percentage of trips whose purpose was business and the ure travelers. 10 Consistent with the U.S. Department of e and pleasure travelers’ travel time at 70 percent of the wage. 47.97."

Constants

1/24/2008

This worksheet compiles numerical parameters (constants) that figure in the various analyses in this spreadsheet.

Day-to-Year Multiplier (ratio of annual travel volumes to weekday) Day-to-Year Multiplier for typical cycling VMT per day Pounds of Carbon per molecule of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Feet per mile Square feet per acre

330 365 0.273 5280 43,560

Regressions

1/24/2008

This worksheet applies statistical linear regression to historical data to infer the price-elasticity of motor vehicle trips across the East River. Two-year moving averages are used, to "smooth" temporary aberrations in travel data. The one-time but severe changes in travel patterns imposed after the 2001 attack on the World Trade Center make it advisable to combine five years of data (2001-2005) into a single averaged data row. The Summary Output table (further below) indicates that each percentage change in the number of Manhattan jobs is associated with a 0.61% change in the number of E. River crossings; while each percentage change in the price to drive across the E. River is associated with an oppositely-signed 70% change in the number of crossings. That is, the revealed price-elasticity of vehicle trips across the East River is (negative) 70%, indicating that East River vehicle trips are price-elastic. This finding jibes extraordinarily well with the auto price-elasticity estimates in the 1977 Tri-State Regional Planning Commission study (see Tri-State Elasticities worksheet): negative 50% for work trips and negative 90% for non-work trips. The Data
East River Crossings Manhattan Jobs, 000 Price to Cross E Riv

% Changes from Prior Period
Crossings Jobs Price

1978 1979-80 1981-82 1983-84 1985-86 1987-88 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94 1995-96 1997-98 1999-2000 2001-2005

607,666 608,343 632,957 651,006 702,805 698,227 683,078 685,822 656,353 690,709 746,889 760,638 710,442

2,178 2,193 2,242 2,266 2,337 2,388 2,359 2,165 2,113 2,123 2,285 2,335 2,253

$15.52 $15.74 $14.97 $14.46 $13.84 $13.66 $13.66 $13.34 $13.41 $13.46 $13.32 $13.61 $14.65

0.1% 4.0% 2.9% 8.0% -0.7% -2.2% 0.4% -4.3% 5.2% 8.1% 1.8% -6.6%

0.7% 2.2% 1.1% 3.1% 2.2% -1.2% -8.2% -2.4% 0.5% 7.6% 2.2% -3.5%

1.4% -4.9% -3.4% -4.3% -1.3% 0.0% -2.4% 0.6% 0.4% -1.0% 2.2% 7.6%

SUMMARY OUTPUT Regression Statistics Multiple R 83% R Square 69% Adj R Square 62% Std Error 0.03 Obsrvtns 12

ANOVA
df SS MS F Signif F

Regression Residual Total

2 9 11

0.015738 0.0078692 9.9749602 0.005208 0.0071 0.0007889 0.022839

Coefficients

Std Error

t Stat

P-value

Lower 95%

Upper 95%

Intercept X Var 1 (% change jobs) X Var 2 (% change price) RESIDUAL OUTPUT
Observation Predicted Y

0.9% 60.7% -70.0%

0.8% 22.4% 26.0%

1.084 2.715 -2.689

0.306 0.024 0.025

-1.0% 10.1% -129.0%

2.7% 111.4% -11.1%

Residuals

1979-80 1981-82 1983-84 1985-86 1987-88 1989-90 1991-92 1993-94 1995-96 1997-98 1999-2000 2001-2005

0.3% 5.7% 3.9% 5.8% 3.1% 0.2% -2.4% -1.0% 0.9% 6.2% 0.7% -6.6%

-0.2% -1.6% -1.1% 2.2% -3.8% -2.3% 2.8% -3.3% 4.3% 1.9% 1.1% 0.0%

Note: In alternative analysis excluding Triborough Bridge (i.e., with TB Manhattan Plaza crossings zeroed out in E Riv Crossings and Toll Rates worksheets), the coefficients are virtually unchanged. Here are results: Regression Statistics Multiple R 80% R Square 64% Adjusted R Square 57% Standard Error 0.03 Observations 12 ANOVA df Regression Residual Total SS 2 0.0178287 9 0.00984605 11 0.02767475 MS 0.008914348 0.001094005 F Significance F 8.14835857 0.00955658

Intercept X Variable 1 X Variable 2

Coefficients Standard Error 0.6% 1.0% 64.9% 26.4% -69.9% 29.0%

t Stat 0.663 2.461 -2.411

P-value Lower 95% Upper 95% 0.524 -1.6% 2.8% 0.036 5.2% 124.6% 0.039 -135.6% -4.3%


				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:114
posted:11/1/2009
language:English
pages:203