Bta 1.1

Welcome to ...
. . . the Balanced Transportation Analyzer (Version 1.1)

© 2007-2011 Nurture New York’s Nature & Charles Komanoff
An integrated spreadsheet model to assess revenue gains, traffic improvements and

other benefits of time-variable congestion pricing and transit pricing in New York City
Requires Excel 2007 or later (PC) • or Excel 2008 or later (Mac)
Before you begin, please take these 7 quick steps to ensure that your
Excel program can handle the mathematical interactivity built into the BTA.
1 Click the Microsoft Office Button in the upper left-hand corner of your screen.
2 At the bottom, click Excel Options.
3 In left-hand column (near top), click Formulas.
4 In Calculation options section, select Enable iterative calculation check box.
5 Set maximum number of iterations to 100.
6 Set maximum change box to 0.001. Why? Since the BTA is written dynamically and interactively
7 Press OK at the bottom. must configure Excel to feed cell outputs back into other ce
Otherwise, the BTA will return "circular formulas" with blank
incorrect results. Note: With "iteration" turned on, there may
Great. You should now be ready to go. delay in the display of new numbers in response to your inp
Excel cycles through 100 iterations.
To learn more about the BTA, read the text directly below. Feel free, however, to skip the rest of this worksheet and the next three (
Traffic Plans and Flowchart), and proceed to the Results tab, where you can view the traffic and revenue impacts of several pre-se
pricing scenarios discussed in Traffic Plans.
1. Dual Purpose of the BTA
A. The model offers transportation planners, agency officials and advocates a transparent and straightforward tool for testing policy p
for impacts on traffic levels, travel speeds, time spent traveling, agency revenues, emissions and other "externalities," and other key
B. The model supports policy proposals to institute time-variable, geographically balanced congestion pricing in New York City and ap
revenues to improve the quality and affordability of public transit.
2. Sustainable Transit Plans

Ted Kheel and Charles Komanoff have fashioned several integrated travel pricing proposals for New York City, each of which charges
drive a motor vehicle into the Manhattan Central Business District (CBD), with the toll amount dependent on time of day and day of w
plan also implements a surcharge on medallion taxi fares. The plans are summarized in the third worksheet tab (Traffic Plans).
3. Unique Features of the BTA

To our knowledge, the Balanced Transportation Analyzer is the first publicly available software tool capturing the crucial transportatio
interactivities that characterize cities with a downtown core, and thus permitting robust evaluation of transportation policy proposals fo
cities, particularly proposals centered on road and/or transit pricing.
Among the interactivities captured (reflected) in the BTA are:

A. Relationships between the price (fare) to drive, use transit and take taxis, and usage of those modes.
B. “Rebound effect” by which reduced auto use is tempered by trip growth from the reduced “time cost” of travel.
C. Mode-shifting between autos and transit, as changes in the price of one lead to changes in use of the other.
D. Time-of-day shifting for both modes, via algorithms that capture the propensity of drivers and transit users to shift travel times t
advantage of lower tolls or fares.
E. Changes in attractiveness of transit service as traffic volumes, service quality and fare collection media change.
4. Sponsorship of the Balanced Transportation Analyzer
Development of the BTA has been ongoing since Sept. 2007, under the auspices of Nurture New York's Nature, a non-profit founde
Theodore (Ted) Kheel (May 9, 1914 - Nov. 12, 2010). Go to <http://www.nnyn.org/> to learn about NNYN. To learn about Ted's illust
career, go to <http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/library/kheel/about/history/theodoreKheel.html>. For an obituary-eulogy to Ted, go here:
http://bit.ly/cWuexa.
Lead developer of the BTA is Charles Komanoff. For information about Komanoff, visit <www.komanoff.net>.
5. A prior version of the Balanced Transportation Analyzer (BTA 1.0) …
... was completed in January 2008, in conjunction with NNYN's report "Balancing Free Transit and Congestion Pricing in New York C
prior "Version 1.0" has been completely superseded by the current Version 1.1. Anyone interested in accessing BTA 1.0 is direc
last worksheet tab of this spreadsheet, BTA 1.0.
6. BTA 1.1 – Major advances vis-à-vis Version 1.0
Important new features of BTA 1.1 include:
(i) time-of-day cordon pricing (seven different weekday time periods and tolls replace the confining one-price-fits-all assumption in BT
(ii) time-of-day subway fares -- a means to improve capacity utilization and avoid worsened crowding from congestion pricing's conve
some auto trips to transit trips;
(iii) explicit treatment of weekends/holidays for autos,transit and taxis;
(iv) explicit modeling of intra-CBD travel;
(v) improved modeling of speed-volume relationships (which translates reduced vehicle volumes to improvements in motor vehicle sp
(vi) ability to adjust baseline traffic volumes to reflect possible deviations from pre-toll traffic levels, including apparent reductions afte
due to the economic contraction;
(vii) full specification of medallion taxicabs as an autonomous travel mode alongside autos and transit;
(viii) full interactivity allowing feedback of traffic impacts into mode choice which then further affects traffic impacts.
(ix) explicit treatment of improvements in on-time subway peformance from investing toll revenues in transit.
(x) estimation of changes in the number of people (as opposed to vehicles) entering the CBD on a typical weekday
(xi) approximation of a relationship between increased capital investment in transit and reduced transit trip times, allowing dedication
revenues to transit investment to be translated into increased transit use and revenue
(xii) specification of relationship between toll increases and car occupancies (carpooling)
(xiii) options for means-tested toll discounts and/or waiving the toll on each vehicle's first E-ZPass paid toll for CBD bound trips, that m
(xiv) analysis of the prospect that park-and-ride commuters will flood gateway neighborhoods to the CBD
(xv) separate "levers" to vary the three elements of the medallion taxi fare: the "drop," the per-mile charge, and the wait-time charge
crawling along in congested traffic
(xvi) separate "levers" to vary truck tolls according to the number of axles
We are excited by the quality of data, interactivity and creativity embodied in the BTA, and we look forward to your using it t
different options for cordon-based traffic pricing in New York City. We welcome your suggestions, comments and questions
address them to C. Komanoff <kea@igc.org>.
Acknowledgments: Much of the mathematics, programming, trouble-shooting and debugging of the BTA has been handled by phys
Deena M. Patel, PhD, and Princeton computer sciences grad Will Fisher. Many key elements, including emissions calculations, delay
estimation, and speed-volume relationships, are their handiwork. Urban planner Josef Szende (MA, Columbia Univ.) contributed sign
quantifying means-tested tolling impacts and costs in 2010 and played a big part in analyzing transit upgrades and other issues in 20
contributions have also been made by transportation planner Ed Pike, mathematician Howard Shaw, PhD and programmer Michael J
Spreadsheet architect Charles Komanoff also gratefully acknowledges the intellectual contributions of Michael Brown, George Haikal
Hefner, David Jordan, Brian Ketcham, Carolyn Konheim, Gary Roth, Sam Schwartz, Prof. Ken Small, Jane Kheel Stanley, Vince Tayl
and Jeff Zupan.
1/6/2012
Version 1.1)
off
improvements and ON THE INTERNET

cing in New York City
This spreadsheet, "the BTA," is available via this link:
<http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/BTA_1.1.xls>
8 or later (Mac) Since we are continually upgrading the BTA, we encourage

you to access the link from time to time to ensure that your
copy is up-to-date. (Note date stamp in the first row of this and
other worksheets.)
sure that your

uilt into the BTA.
Try Out Your Own Toll Ideas!
Go to User Inputs worksheet ― it's the sixth "tab" in the list

that should be showing at the bottom of your screen, or follow
ten dynamically and interactively, you the link in the Index tab ― and follow the directions there. See
ed cell outputs back into other cells. how your traffic and revenue results compare with ours!
urn "circular formulas" with blank or
h "iteration" turned on, there may be a brief
numbers in response to your inputs, as
erations.
s worksheet and the next three (Index,

evenue impacts of several pre-selected
A Spreadsheet Is ...
... a computer file that performs calculations and other

mathematical "operations" on data that are entered into
"cells." Key features of spreadsheets include (1) placement of
data in cells that are organized in grids of rows and columns,
(2) "formula bars" that display each cell's mathematical
content (make sure yours is set "on" via check box under
htforward tool for testing policy proposals menu choice "View"), and (3) ability to construct separate data
er "externalities," and other key indicators. pages (called "worksheet tabs") whose cells can communicate
with cells on other pages. (The BTA has 55 such tabs.)
n pricing in New York City and apply the Because large spreadsheets can be tricky to navigate, we
have included an "Index" to the different tabs (it's
the next tab/page), and lots of explanatory notes.
For more info on spreadsheets:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheets>.
with cells on other pages. (The BTA has 55 such tabs.)
Because large spreadsheets can be tricky to navigate, we

have included an "Index" to the different tabs (it's
the next tab/page), and lots of explanatory notes.
For more info on spreadsheets:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spreadsheets>.
York City, each of which charges a toll to

dent on time of day and day of week. Each
ksheet tab (Traffic Plans).
apturing the crucial transportation A "Macro" Is . . .

transportation policy proposals for such
... a set of instructions embedded within the spreadsheet that
"execute," on command, a particular calculation -- a "program
within a program." When you opened the spreadsheet, you
should have chosen the "Enable Macros" option. If you did
not, please exit and and reload the spreadsheet, selecting
"Enable."
cost” of travel.
ansit users to shift travel times to take
on media change.
ork's Nature, a non-profit founded by Manhattan Central Business District (CBD)

NNYN. To learn about Ted's illustrious
ary-eulogy to Ted, go here: The "cordon" area which motor vehicles will be charged a
congestion fee to enter consists of all of Manhattan Island
south of 60th Street. This 8.5-square mile zone, the
commercial heart of New York City, is commonly known as the
Manhattan Central Business District (CBD). For a further
description, see the Cordon worksheet tab.
ongestion Pricing in New York City." The

sted in accessing BTA 1.0 is directed to the
Read about the BTA in ''Wired" Magazine
The June 2010 issue of "Wired" has an extensive article on

the BTA by renowned financial blogger Felix Salmon. In clear
and delightful prose, "The Man Who Could Unsnarl
Manhattan Traffic" traces the intersection of Ted Kheel's and
Charles Komanoff's lifelong transit advocacy and elucidates
ne-price-fits-all assumption in BTA 1.0); the ethical and pragmatic basis of congestion pricing: the
social delay costs caused by one additional car trip into the
g from congestion pricing's conversion of Manhattan CBD.
For full article, follow this link:

<http://www.wired.com/magazine/2010/05/ff_koma
noff_traffic/>
mprovements in motor vehicle speeds); For more media coverage of the BTA, click here:
<http://www.nnyn.org/news.html>
cluding apparent reductions after 2008

raffic impacts.
pical weekday
sit trip times, allowing dedication of toll
Links to BTA Slide Show, Video, Paper

id toll for CBD bound trips, that month
A video of Charles Komanoff's July 2009 presentation at the
Sam Schwartz Co. unveiling the BTA is available here:
<http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/kheel_komanoff_pl
harge, and the wait-time charge for an_video.html>
The slide presentation itself (35 slides) may be downloaded

by clicking here:
<http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/BTA_Presentation.
look forward to your using it to assess
pdf>
ons, comments and questions. Please
This paper on transit and traffic pricing and policy may be of
interest:
<http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/Free_Transit_for_N
YC.pdf>
BTA has been handled by physicist
ing emissions calculations, delay Note that due to revisions in some BTA parameters and
Columbia Univ.) contributed significantly to algorithms, not all results in those 2009 materials will match
upgrades and other issues in 2011. Major up precisely with current (2011) results.
PhD and programmer Michael J. Smith.
of Michael Brown, George Haikalis, Brodie
, Jane Kheel Stanley, Vince Taylor, PhD,
Index
The BTA has 55 worksheet "tabs," or "pages." Clicking on any linked tab takes you to that page.
Linked tab or page Description

Title Page Summarizes nature, purpose and sponsorship of the spreadsheet.
Index (this page)
Traffic Plans summarizes some of the traffic-transit policy proposals developed using the BTA, including the Move NY p
Flowchart Outlines key relationships among car/truck, taxi, subway and bus use that effectively define the BTA.
Assumptions Catalogues several hundred key assumptions that drive the BTA, including elasticities, baseline costs to dr
Results Summarizes policy choices embodied in each traffic plan; shows impacts on traffic, transit usage, agency r
User Inputs Shows key parameters of certain scenarios, and enables users to test own scenarios.
Changes Documents the BTA's estimates of costs to implement various possible measures, e.g., dollar buses, disco
Revenues Estimates agency revenues associated with policies being modeled.
Cost-Benefit Reports monetized value of changes in traffic, travel and revenues predicted by any chosen plan.
Travel Estimates changes in number of persons expected to enter the CBD in cars, taxis, subways and buses.
Motor Vs Calculates changes in motor vehicle traffic within and outside CBD as result of congestion tolls, new transi
Motor Vs Weekends Duplicates Motor Vs worksheet, for weekends (Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays).
Distances Calculates mean driving distance for auto commuters to edge of Manhattan CBD. Also estimates mean dis
Approaches Estimates share of traffic on approach roads to CBD accounted for by cars and trucks that enter CBD and
Breakeven Compares time savings vs. toll payment for an individual commute trip into the CBD.
Incidence Estimates toll-plan incidence by county; demonstrates graphically the impact of taxi surcharge on Manhatt
Trucks Estimates mix of truck types that currently enter the CBD and calculates average ratio of truck-car tolls from
Taxis Estimates impacts of cordon toll and possible taxi surcharges on use of yellow cabs, and feeds those resu
Transit Estimates improvements in transit travel times from increased transit investment.
Subways Calculates effects of any hour-by-hour "regime" of subway fares chosen by user; with over 400 rows and 4
Subway v. Bus Develops algorithm for assigning new transit trips between subway and bus modes.
Park-and-Ride Estimates the extent to which drivers might be expected to park outside the CBD and complete their journe
Travel-Time Switching This text-only worksheet explains algorithms in Motor V's and Subways that estimate number of trips that
Buses Estimates impact of new pricing on bus service; also compiles number of buses and their passengers ente
Bus Routes Apportions annual ridership on NYC Transit buses among the five boroughs.
Bus Boarding Estimates time savings from fare-free boarding.
Weekday Hours Estimates baseline 24-hour weekday divisions of CBD traffic and chooses hourly cordon tolls (user may va
Weekend Hours Estimates baseline 24-hour weekend divisions of CBD traffic and chooses hourly cordon tolls (user may va
Weekends Compiles hour-by-hour weekend traffic levels as percentages of weekday levels.
Delays Estimates aggregate hours and minutes of vehicle-delay caused per each additional trip into the CBD.
Delays Weekends Does same as Delays, for weekend vehicle traffic.
Delay Costs Translates delay hours into delay dollars, based on our estimates of value of drivers' time in traffic.
Speed-Vol., Cordon Presents mathematical relationships used in Motor Vs worksheet to translate changes in CBD traffic volum
Speed-Vol., non-Cordon Presents mathematical relationships used in Motor Vs worksheet to translate changes in non-CBD traffic v
VMT Calculates and aggregates citywide reductions in vehicle miles traveled from new tolls and fares.
Elasticities Compiles estimates of transit and motor vehicle "time" and "price" elasticities (i.e., measures of sensitivity
Gini (Named for Italian economist Corrado Gini). Calculates extent to which time-based fare pricing flattens the
Cordon Cordon estimates costs to build, operate and administer the cordon charging system. Also estimates lane
Emissions Calculates changes in emissions of CO2, Total Organic Gases, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and P
EMFAC Displays outputs of EMFAC (Emission Factors model developed by the California Air Resources Board for
Speed-CO2 Calculates average CO2 emission rates as function of vehicle speed, based on empirical observations tak
Fare Collection Estimates monetary savings from eliminating fares on NYC buses and subways.
Population & Employment Derives compound growth rates suitable for bringing 2004 travel data to 2007 baseline.
Parking Calculates baseline percentages of paid vs. free parking within the CBD, for input into Motor Vs.
Hub-Bound Compiles data on motor vehicle entries into CBD on typical weekday, for use in Motor Vs and Traffic work
Trip Price Calculates impact of cordon tolling on out-of-pocket cost for an average East River vehicle trip, and estima
H.I.S. (Household Interview Survey) Compiles data from NYMTC 1997-98 Household Interview Survey that infor
River Crossings Compiles annual volumes for the seven crossings. Is dependent variable in analysis in Regression works
Value of Time Derives our estimate of value of vehicle-hours saved in traffic through our proposed policies.
Toll Rates Estimates effective toll rate for passenger car crossings each year. Also compiles annual employment data
Constants Compiles several parameters that are used in more than one worksheet.
Regressions Displays results of earlier linear regression analysis by Komanoff that estimated price-elasticity of auto acr
FreshDirect Calculates delays to other road users due to use of highway, curb and street space by FreshDirect trucks d
BTA 1.0 Summarizes this spreadsheet's predecessor: Version 1.0 of the Balanced Transportation Analyzer.
1/6/2012
o that page.
ng the BTA, including the Move NY plan.

that effectively define the BTA.
uding elasticities, baseline costs to drive into the CBD, value of an hour of saved time, and more.
cts on traffic, transit usage, agency revenues, time lost in traffic, and other quality of life indicators.
own scenarios.
e measures, e.g., dollar buses, discounting intra-city commuter rail to subway fares, etc.
edicted by any chosen plan.

n cars, taxis, subways and buses.
result of congestion tolls, new transit fares and related policies.
hattan CBD. Also estimates mean distance between pairs of random points w/i the CBD.
cars and trucks that enter CBD and pay toll. Figures in traffic modeling in Motor Vs worksheets.
into the CBD.
impact of taxi surcharge on Manhattan's toll burden vis-à-vis boroughs and suburbs.
es average ratio of truck-car tolls from axle-based truck toll schedule.
of yellow cabs, and feeds those results back to other BTA worksheets.
en by user; with over 400 rows and 40 columns, is BTA's transit workhorse.
d bus modes.
e the CBD and complete their journey to the CBD by subway, to avoid the congestion toll.
ys that estimate number of trips that will switch travel time in response to time-of-day tolling and subway fares.
r of buses and their passengers entering the CBD on weekdays.
oses hourly cordon tolls (user may vary). These specs go into traffic model in Motor Vs worksheet.
oses hourly cordon tolls (user may vary). These specs go into traffic model in Motor Vs Weekends worksheet.
ach additional trip into the CBD.
alue of drivers' time in traffic.

anslate changes in CBD traffic volumes due to tolling, into changes in traffic speeds within the CBD.
anslate changes in non-CBD traffic volumes due to tolling, into changes in traffic speeds outside CBD.
d from new tolls and fares.
sticities (i.e., measures of sensitivity of travel demand to travel times and prices) used in the model.
h time-based fare pricing flattens the uneven hour-by-hour profile of subway use.
harging system. Also estimates lane-miles and public space "created" by reducing VMT within the CBD.
n Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and PM10 that are projected to result from toll and fare changes.
e California Air Resources Board for a range of vehicle speeds and vehicle types.
based on empirical observations taken on freeways in California for range of traffic conditions.
to 2007 baseline.
D, for input into Motor Vs.
for use in Motor Vs and Traffic worksheets.
e East River vehicle trip, and estimates resultant decrease in driving.
ousehold Interview Survey that informs some parameter estimates used in the model.
ble in analysis in Regression worksheet.
our proposed policies.
o compiles annual employment data for Manhattan, for us in Regression worksheet.
estimated price-elasticity of auto across East River.

street space by FreshDirect trucks delivering groceries to customers in Manhattan CBD.
ced Transportation Analyzer.
Traffic Plans
This page summarizes some of the traffic-transit policy proposals developed using the BTA, including the Move NY Plan.
Plans outlined here (and available for automatic inputting in the Results worksheet tab):
Move NY (Sustainable Transit) Plan — plan being circulated by the Move NY coalition during 2011.
Move NY Plan with more radical toll structure — potential variant on the Move NY Plan.
Fair Plan — advanced by transportation engineer Sam Schwartz ("Gridlock Sam").
Baseline — not a plan, but a replica of current conditions, intended to ensure the BTA is properly calibrated.
Baseline with $320M/yr cut in subway spending — quantifies impacts from Albany funding raids
This is the plan advanced by the Move NY Campaign (a/k/a Sustainable Transportation Campaign) in 2011.
The nominal auto toll, which varies by time of day and day of week, and is charged in the inbound direction only, is shown
in graphs at right. The effective average toll on weekdays averages $7.70, a figure that reflects (i) our proposed exemption
of each vehicle's first trip each month, (ii) a decision to cap the (inbound) toll at the Holland, Lincoln, Queens-Midtown and
Brooklyn-Battery Tunnels at either the current inbound toll charged there or the cordon toll level shown in the graphs,
whichever is higher, (iii) the double toll that will be paid by vehicles passing through the CBD (since they enter the CBD
twice — on the return leg as well as the initial one), and (iv) higher tolls for trucks and buses. For comparison, note that
under the 2007-08 Bloomberg congestion-pricing proposal, autos would have paid $8 and trucks $21, although these
charges would have been in effect only from 6 am to 6 pm. Note also that the Dec. 2008 Ravitch Plan would have charged
$10 round-trip ($5 each way) in the form of East River bridge tolls.
Other provisions of the Move NY Plan include a surcharge on medallion taxi fares (rather than charging for each CBD-
entry by yellow cabs) and a 15% reduction in tolls on the MTA bridges, all of which are outside of the CBD and, thus, don't
funnel cars and trucks into the congested heart of the city. The plan applies $450 million a year in toll revenues to the MTA
Capital Plan, to help maintain the transit system in a state of good repair, and thus improve travel times and attract new
transit trips. Other available funds are dedicated to improving and expanding transit operations and providing strategic
discounts in certain transit fares.
This is a more revenue-intensive version of the Move NY Plan shown above.
The auto toll is the same as for the regular Move NY Plan.The taxi surcharge is also unchanged.
However, the discount on the MTA bridges is eliminated. Instead, the revenue that would have had to
be set aside to pay for that discount, $150 million a year, is available to enhance public transit via
increases in both the capital budget and the operating budget.
Owing to those transit expenditures, the improvement in traffic speeds within the CBD is slightly higher
than for the Move NY plan.
This is a more revenue-intensive version of the Move NY Plan shown above.
The auto toll is the same as for the regular Move NY Plan.The taxi surcharge is also unchanged.
However, the discount on the MTA bridges is eliminated. Instead, the revenue that would have had to
be set aside to pay for that discount, $150 million a year, is available to enhance public transit via
increases in both the capital budget and the operating budget.
Owing to those transit expenditures, the improvement in traffic speeds within the CBD is slightly higher
than for the Move NY plan.
Sam Schwartz, former chief engineer and deputy commissioner of the NYC Dept of Transportation, and a champion of
congestion pricing for many decades, has developed and is advocating this plan.
A key feature of the Fair Plan is its steep discount on tolls currently charged on the MTA's seven bridges. The rationale is
two-fold. First, none of the MTA bridges feed directly into the Manhattan Central Business District; accordingly, their tolls
should be less than tolls on tunnels, bridges and thoroughfares that funnel vehicles into the CBD and contribute greatly to
costly traffic congestion. Second, giving something back (in the form of reduced tolls) to drivers from outside Manhattan
(i.e., the "outer boroughs" and suburbs) should be politically attractive and should help win legislative support.
The broad conception of the Fair Plan is similar to the Move NY Plan, in that both would apply sizeable tolls to trips into
the Manhattan CBD that are currently untolled. Indeed, the Move NY Plan has appropriated the Fair Plan's outer-borough
(MTA) bridge discounts, albeit at a lower rate — 15% discounts rather than 35-40%. There are notable differences,
however. The Fair Plan provides a 10% toll discount for NYC residents (an estimated 57% of all CBD crossings), whereas
the Move NY Plan offers NY State E-ZPass holders exemptions from the toll for the first trip in each month. The Fair Plan
has no medallion taxi surcharge but instead charges taxis the full toll for each crossing. The Fair Plan toll isn't varied by
time of day or day of week. And the Fair Plan appears to have a very high surcharge for trucks (details TK). Finally, the
Fair Plan doesn't spell out transit allocations and investments via its toll revenues, though it does include an intriguing set
of bicycle, pedestrian and roadway enhancements. For details, click on link TK.
The BTA includes a baseline "plan" in which tolls and transit fares have been assigned actual 2010-11 conditions. It is
intended to help ensure the BTA is correctly calibrated; If the plan 'returns' zero results (e.g., zero net revenue, zero
changes in traffic speeds), that is a positive indication that the model will produce reasonable results when it is given tolls
and fares that differ from current levels.
Another scenario, "Baseline with 5% drop in subway ridership," manipulates a handful of variables (transit spending and
fares) to "force" the BTA to yield a 5% drop in subway usage. It enables us to estimate the rise in traffic and drop in traffic
speeds that would "accompany" (result from) that drop in subway ridership.
Other plans advanced by C. Komanoff during 2008-2010 included: the Kheel-Komanoff Plan, the Kheel Plan, Kheel Plan II, and an MTA
These plans are no longer fully supported by the BTA, because of changes in key baseline conditions (traffic levels, transit fares, toll lev
generate media interest and were also described in a number of articles and reports by C. Komanoff. Here's a fairly complete list:
Links pertaining to the Kheel-Komanoff Plan (all are from 2009)

for a March fact sheet on the plan: <http://nnyn.org/kheelplan/Free%20Transit%20Plan%20Fact%20Sheet%20_%20March%202009.pd
for a March 13 Newsday article: <http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/oped/ny-opkhe136067115mar13,0,4278279.story>
for a March 10 Streetsblog article: <http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/03/10/beyond-ravitch-still-time-for-a-bolder-plan/>
for a Feb. Gotham Gazette article: <http://www.gothamgazette.com/article/fea/20090209/202/2821>
for a Jan. Grist article: <http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2009/1/6/134612/6720>
for the NNYN Web page summarizing the plan: <http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/kheel_komanoff_plan.html>
Links pertaining to the original Kheel Plan

for the "Bolder Plan" report: <http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/Full%20Kheel%20Report%20for%20web%20_%2023%20Jan%202008.pd
for a Feb. 2008 article in Grist about the plan: <http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/2/11/64835/1733>
for the BTA 1.0 spreadsheet: <http://www.nnyn.org/BTA%20_%2024%20Jan%202008.xls>
for the NNYN Web page with these and other links: <http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/kheel_plan1.html>
Links pertaining to the Kheel II Plan

for the NNYN press release announcing the Kheel II Plan: <http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/kheel_plan_release.html>
for the NNYN Web page summarizing the plan: <http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/kheel_plan2.html>
Links pertaining to the MTA Rescue Plan (both are from 2009)
a May 7 Streetsblog article: <http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/05/07/albanys-choice-or-ours/>
an April 16, 2009 Streetsblog article: <http://www.streetsblog.org/2009/04/16/needed-a-better-way-to-sweeten-the-ravitch-plan/>
1/6/2012
g the Move NY Plan.
See Rows 16 to 33.

See Rows 35 to 52.
See Rows 54 to 71.
See Rows 73 to 76.
See Rows 77 to 80.
Key Plan Policies

• Cordon-Entry Auto Tolls: variable (see charts below) • Outer-Borough Bridge Tolls: red
$0.25 on "drop" • Truck tolls: Sliding scale, averages 1.6x auto toll • Bus-Subway Fares: no
gn) in 2011.
1. Move NY Plan,
2011
d direction only, is shown Weekday Auto Toll to Enter CBD
) our proposed exemption
oln, Queens-Midtown and $15.00
shown in the graphs,
ce they enter the CBD
comparison, note that
$21, although these $10.00
Plan would have charged
harging for each CBD- $5.00

f the CBD and, thus, don't
n toll revenues to the MTA
l times and attract new $0.00
nd providing strategic To activate this plan in the
11 p.m.
Midnight
10 a.m.
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
11 a.m.
1 p.m.
2 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
10 p.m.
12 noon
1 a.m.
2 a.m.
7 a.m.
BTA, enter '3' in Cell H25 of 3 p.m.

the 'Results' worksheet tab.
Key Plan Policies

• Cordon-Entry Auto Tolls: variable (see charts below) • Outer-Borough Bridge Tolls: no
2. Move NY Plan, modified time, $0.50 on "drop"; weekends: same as Move NY Plan, above • Truck tolls, Bus-Subway
to yield somewhat more
revenue
Weekday Auto Toll to Enter CBD
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
$0.00
idnight
11 a.m.
12 noon
11 p.m.
1 a.m.
2 a.m.
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
9 a.m.
2 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
10 p.m.
8 a.m.
10 a.m.
1 p.m.
9 p.m.
$15.00
$10.00
$5.00
To activate this plan in the $0.00

BTA, enter '4' in Cell H25 of
Midnight
11 a.m.
12 noon
11 p.m.
1 a.m.
2 a.m.
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
9 a.m.
2 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
10 p.m.
8 a.m.
10 a.m.
1 p.m.
9 p.m.
Key Plan Policies

3. Fair Plan,
• Cordon-Entry Auto Tolls: constant $10 ($12 if cash) • Outer-Borough Bridge Tolls: redu
advanced by noted be far greater than for autos (TBD) • Bus-Subway Fares: no change from present (ditto for e
on, and a champion of transportation engineer
Sam Schwartz (Gridlock Weekday Auto Toll to Enter CBD
bridges. The rationale is Sam)
t; accordingly, their tolls $15.00
and contribute greatly to
rom outside Manhattan
ative support.
$10.00
zeable tolls to trips into
Fair Plan's outer-borough
otable differences,
CBD crossings), whereas $5.00
ach month. The Fair Plan
Plan toll isn't varied by
details TK). Finally, the $0.00
include an intriguing set To activate this plan in the
11 p.m.
Midnight
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
10 a.m.
11 a.m.
1 p.m.
2 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
12 noon
1 a.m.
2 a.m.
7 a.m.
3 p.m.
10 p.m.
BTA, enter '5' in Cell H25 of
4 & 5. Baseline Plans

10-11 conditions. It is
o net revenue, zero
ults when it is given tolls
To activate these plans in the

es (transit spending and BTA, enter '1' or '2'
traffic and drop in traffic (respectively) in Cell H25 of the
'Results' worksheet tab.
Kheel Plan, Kheel Plan II, and an MTA Rescue Plan.
tions (traffic levels, transit fares, toll levels). They did, however,
noff. Here's a fairly complete list:
%20Sheet%20_%20March%202009.pdf>
115mar13,0,4278279.story>
me-for-a-bolder-plan/>
0web%20_%2023%20Jan%202008.pdf>
_plan_release.html>
ay-to-sweeten-the-ravitch-plan/>
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
10
20
30
11 p.m.
11 p.m.
Midnight
Midnight
1 a.m.
1 a.m.
2 a.m.
2 a.m.
3 a.m.
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
8 a.m.
elow) • Outer-Borough Bridge Tolls: reduced by 15% • Other Auto Discount: toll waived for first trip each month • Medallion Taxis: No cordon toll, but all trips are surchar
es 1.6x auto toll • Bus-Subway Fares: no change from present • Express Bus fares: reduced by 10% • In-City Commuter Rail trips: pay transit fare
BD Weekend Auto Toll to Enter CBD Weekday S

(doesn't reflect unlimited a
$15.00 $2.50
$2.00
$10.00
$1.50
$1.00
$5.00
$0.50
$0.00 $0.00
Midnight
1 a.m.
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
10 a.m.
2 a.m.
6 a.m.
10 a.m.
2 p.m.
7 p.m.
12 noon
Midnight
1 a.m.
2 a.m.
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
11 a.m.
1 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
10 p.m.
11 p.m.
1 p.m.
2 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
10 p.m.
3 p.m.
elow) • Outer-Borough Bridge Tolls: no reduction • Other Auto Discount: toll waived for first trip each month • Medallion Taxis: No cordon toll, but all trips are surcharged
Y Plan, above • Truck tolls, Bus-Subway Fares, Express Bus fares, In-City Commuter Rail fares: same as Move NY Plan, above
BD Weekend Auto Toll to Enter CBD
$15.00
$2.50
$2.00
$10.00
$1.50
$1.00
$5.00
$0.50
$0.00 $0.00
Midnight
1 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
12 noon
11 p.m.
Midnight
1 a.m.
2 a.m.
3 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
10 a.m.
2 p.m.
5 p.m.
7 p.m.
2 a.m.
3 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
4 a.m.
9 a.m.
11 a.m.
1 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
6 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
10 p.m.
2 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
10 p.m.
1 p.m.
9 p.m.
1 p.m.
BD
1 p.m.
2 p.m. 2 p.m.
3 p.m. 3 p.m.
4 p.m. 4 p.m.
5 p.m. 5 p.m.
6 p.m. 6 p.m.
7 p.m. 7 p.m.
8 p.m. 8 p.m.
9 p.m. 9 p.m.
10 p.m. 10 p.m.
$10.00
$15.00
$0.00
$5.00
$0.00
$5.00
$10.00
$15.00
Midnight 11 p.m.
1 a.m. Midnight
2 a.m. 1 a.m.
3 a.m. 2 a.m.
4 a.m. 3 a.m.
5 a.m. 4 a.m.
6 a.m. 5 a.m.
7 a.m. 6 a.m.
8 a.m. 7 a.m.
Fares: no change from present (ditto for express buses and commuter rail)
9 a.m. 8 a.m.
10 a.m. 9 a.m.
11 a.m. 10 a.m.
12 noon 11 a.m.
1 p.m. 12 noon
2 p.m. 1 p.m.
3 p.m. 2 p.m.
4 p.m.
Weekend Auto Toll to Enter CBD
3 p.m.
5 p.m. 4 p.m.
6 p.m. 5 p.m.
7 p.m. 6 p.m.
8 p.m. 7 p.m.
9 p.m. 8 p.m.
10 p.m. 9 p.m.
11 p.m. 10 p.m.
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
Midnight
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
$2.50
1 a.m.
2 a.m. Midnight
3 a.m. 1 a.m.
4 a.m. 2 a.m.
5 a.m. 3 a.m.
4 a.m.
6 a.m.
5 a.m.
7 a.m.
6 a.m.
8 a.m. 7 a.m.
9 a.m. 8 a.m.
10 a.m. 9 a.m.
(doesn't reflect unlimited a
ash) • Outer-Borough Bridge Tolls: reduced by varying amounts, averaging 37% • Other Auto Discount: 10% for NYC residents • Medallion Taxis: Pay same cordon toll a
Weekday S
D
BD
5 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
8 a.m.
0
2
4
6
8
10
0
10
20
30
Midnight Midnight
1 a.m. 1 a.m.
2 a.m. 2 a.m.
3 a.m. 3 a.m.
4 a.m. 4 a.m.
5 a.m. 5 a.m.

6 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m. 7 a.m.
8 a.m. 8 a.m.
9 a.m. 9 a.m.
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
$2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
S $2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
U $2.25 ###
B $2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
Taxis: No cordon toll, but all trips are surcharged: 12% on miles, 20% on wait time, $2.25 ###
il trips: pay transit fare W $2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
Weekday Subway Fare E $2.25 ###
(doesn't reflect unlimited and bulk-purchase discounts)
$2.25 ###
$2.50
E $2.25 ###
$2.00 $2.25 ###
K $2.25 ###
$1.50
$2.25 ###
$1.00 D $2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
$0.50
A $2.25 ###
$0.00 $2.25 ###
12 noon
Midnight
1 a.m.
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
10 a.m.
11 a.m.
1 p.m.
2 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
10 p.m.
2 a.m.
6 a.m.
Y $2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
S $2.25 ###
###
###
###
s: No cordon toll, but all trips are surcharged: weekdays: 15% on miles, 25% on wait ###
bove ###
###
###
$ values below are from User Inputs ###

$2.50 worksheet. ###
###
$2.00
MoveNY MNY, alt Fair Plan###
$1.50 A $3.00 $3.00 $10.00 ###
$3.00 $3.00 $10.00 ###
$1.00
$0.50
$0.00
11 a.m.
12 noon
Midnight
1 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
1 p.m.
2 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
2 a.m.
3 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
10 a.m.
10 p.m.
$2.50
$2.00
$1.50
$1.00
U $3.00 $3.00 $10.00 ###
$0.50 $3.00 $3.00 $10.00 ###
T $3.00 $3.00 $10.00 ###
$0.00
$3.00 $3.00 $10.00 ###
11 a.m.
12 noon
Midnight
1 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
1 p.m.
2 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
2 a.m.
3 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
10 a.m.
10 p.m.
O $7.00 $7.00 $10.00 ###
$9.50 $9.50 $10.00 ###
$9.50 $9.50 $10.00 ###
W $9.50 $9.50 $10.00 ###
$9.50 $9.50 $10.00 ###
ts • Medallion Taxis: Pay same cordon toll as private autos • Truck tolls: Appear to E $7.00 $7.00 $10.00 ###
$7.00 $7.00 $10.00 ###
E $7.00 $7.00 $10.00 ###
Weekday Subway Fare $7.00 $7.00 $10.00 ###
(doesn't reflect unlimited and bulk-purchase discounts)
K $9.50 $9.50 $10.00 ###
$2.50
$9.50 $9.50 $10.00 ###
$2.00 D $9.50 $9.50 $10.00 ###
$9.50 $9.50 $10.00 ###
$1.50
A $9.50 $9.50 $10.00 ###
$1.00 $9.50 $9.50 $10.00 ###
Y $7.00 $7.00 $10.00 ###
$0.50
$7.00 $7.00 $10.00 ###
$0.00 S $7.00 $7.00 $10.00 ###
12 noon
Midnight
10 a.m.
10 p.m.
1 a.m.
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
11 a.m.
1 p.m.
2 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
2 a.m.
6 a.m.
###
A $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
U $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
T $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
O $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
W $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
E $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
E $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
K $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
E $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
N $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
D $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
$5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
S $5.00 $5.00 $10.00 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Flowchart
This worksheet, while not technically a flowchart, sketches the key relationships among the four travel modes -- car/truck, taxi, subway
and bus -- that are modeled in the BTA.
For each vehicle category, we itemize the "agent" impacting its use (e.g., the cordon toll, or travel time savings due to it) and specify the
direction (positive or negative) of the impact and its approximate magnitude.
Note: "Strength of effect" is approximate. It is meant to reflect not only the elasticities (which are shown in a later worksheet,
Elasticities), but also the magnitude of the agents (tolls, fares, etc.) assumed in the Sustainable Transit Plan, which are outlined in the
worksheet, Traffic Plans.
Example: the time-elasticity assumed for car and truck trips exceeds the price-elasticity; thus, a 10% reduction in travel time would
generate a larger percentage increase in car trips than would a 10% reduction in trip cost. Nevertheless, the impact of tolls in the ST
Plan exceeds the "rebound effect" of faster travel; this is because the ST Plan tolls would raise the average price of CBD-bound trips
more (percent-wise) than the time savings would reduce the same trips' travel times.
Note: "Transit" denotes subway and bus service.
Direction of
effect
Dependent Variable (the quantity (negative or
affected by the agent) Agent (operates on and affects the dependent variable) positive)
Car and truck trips to CBD Cordon toll on cars and trucks Negative
Travel time savings because cordon toll has cut traffic Positive
Improved and/or cheaper transit service Negative
Yellow cab (taxi) trips Taxi fare surcharge Negative

Cordon toll on cars and trucks Positive
Travel time savings because cordon toll has cut traffic Positive
Improved and/or cheaper transit service Negative
Subway trips Fare reductions (financed by cordon toll and taxi surcharge) Positive
Travel time savings from subway service improvements Positive
Bus trips Fare reductions (financed by cordon toll and taxi surcharge) Positive
Travel time savings from bus service improvements Positive
Travel time savings from eliminating fare collection Positive
Timing of car/truck trips to CBD Higher toll for one time period vis-à-vis prior or next period Negative
Timing of subway trips to CBD Higher fare for one time period vis-à-vis prior or next period Negative
1/6/2012
es -- car/truck, taxi, subway
ngs due to it) and specify the
later worksheet,
an, which are outlined in the
ion in travel time would

e impact of tolls in the ST
price of CBD-bound trips
Strength of
effect (large,
medium or
small) Interpretation/Explanation
Large CBD tolls have big impact on number of trips.

Medium Speed gains make car travel more attractive.
Small Better transit attracts some trips from cars, but not a lot.
Small Taxi use is much less price-elastic than car use.

Small Higher entrance fees for cars make taxis more attractive, but the effect is small.
Medium Taxi users are time-sensitive; higher speeds from cordon tolls will result in more trips.
Small Better transit attracts some trips from taxis, but not a lot.
Small Transit use isn't very price-elastic.

Small Higher entrance fees for cars make transit more attractive, but the effect is small.
Medium Transit use is relatively time-sensitive; better service attracts trips.
Small Transit use isn't very price-elastic.

Small Higher entrance fees for cars make transit more attractive, but the effect is small.
Medium Transit use is relatively time-sensitive; better service attracts trips.
Medium Faster boarding due to eliminating fare would attract trips.
Small Not many drivers will switch travel time to take advantage of a lower toll.
Small Not many drivers will switch travel time to take advantage of a lower toll.
Assumptions
This worksheet collects many of the assumptions that drive the BTA.
The assumptions here are linked from but not to the assumptions in the various worksheet tabs. Changing figures in this worksheet wil
not change the values of any calculations in or results from the BTA.
This list of assumptions follows the sequence of the worksheet tabs. Where worksheets have been skipped, either their key assumptions
have been treated elsewhere in this sheet, or they were considered peripheral and were omitted.
Rather than scroll through this long (752 rows) worksheet, click on any link below to be taken directly to that section.
Results & User Inputs

Revenues
Cost-Benefit
Travel
Motor Vs & Motor Vs Weekends
Incidence
Trucks
Taxis
Transit
Subways
Subway vs. Bus
Buses
Weekday Hours & Weekend Hours
Weekends
Speed-Volume, Cordon
Speed-Volume, non-Cordon
VMT
Elasticities
Cordon
Emissions
Parking
Value of Time
Results • User Inputs
Assumptions that are inputted into the Results and User Inputs worksheet tabs are not shown here. Those "input assumptions" pertain to
the particular traffic scenarios that we have pre-programmed into the model (which users are free to modify). Rather, the assumptions here
are those that take the input assumptions (tolls, transit fares, etc.) and calculate the changes in traffic, revenues and emissions that those
inputs will bring about in New York City and beyond.
Revenues
Percentage of George Washington Bridge crossings and toll revenues attributable to CBD trips:
Is given in Cell G163. Affects calculation of baseline toll revenues from tolled portals to the Manhattan CBD.
Percentage of George Washington Bridge crossings and toll revenues that eventually enter CBD:
Is given in Cell N163. Affects estimate of PANYNJ lost revenues if cordon toll is additive to existing tolls (i.e., no rebate).
Revenue share, in-city rides as a % of all rides, Metro-North
Revenue share, in-city rides as a % of all rides, LIRR
Appear on Row 311. Affects MTA revenue loss if plan includes discounts to intra-city commuter rail trips.
Cost-Benefit
The Cost-Benefit worksheet, now 696 rows long, derives estimates of important social-cost indicators but is not essential to the architectur
of the BTA. It is also exhaustively referenced. Accordingly, only a handful of key assumptions are shown here.
Average value of a vehicle-hour saved in traffic (these values are used to monetize time savings from cordon tolls)
Weekdays, within CBD (derived via matrix of values est'd for autos, taxis, trucks, etc. in Value of Time wksht)
Factors to adjust weekday time value to weekends, and in-CBD to outside-CBD (Komanoff assumptions)
Weekends vs. Weekdays Shown in Cost-Ben tab, Row 103. Note: Different Outside/Inside- 90%
CBD ratio for vans, trucks, rigs:
Out-CBD hour vs. Inside Shown in Cost-Ben tab, Row 104. From VOTime
tab, Row 105.
Weekends, within CBD (Product of Rows 60 and 62.)
Weekdays, approaches to CBD (same method as for Weekdays, above, though with different weighting of vehicles)
Weekends, approaches to CBD (employs same CBD-to-approaches factor as for weekdays)
Climate value of each metric ton of CO2 emissions averted through cordon toll (Komanoff assumption)
Military and national-security cost reduction, per gallon of gasoline averted through toll
Calculations are documented in 'Cost-Benefit' worksheet tab, Rows 465 through 500.
Air quality value of each metric ton PM10 emissions w/i CBD averted through cordon toll
Calculations documented in 'Cost-Benefit' worksheet tab, Rows 539 through 556. Is 10x value assigned by Calif. Air Resources Board.
Gain in bicycling's mode share in NYC that would be triggered by each 1% drop in citywide auto traffic
Calculations documented in 'Cost-Benefit' worksheet tab, Rows 631 through 648. Underlying assumption is that NYC auto traffic would need to be
eliminated altogether for cycling's mode share to rise to current levels in Germany, Denmark and Netherlands.
Value of each life saved from reduced emissions or increased physical activity resulting from cordon toll
Derived in 'Cost-Benefit' tab, Rows 376 through 381.
Travel
Auto occupancies for trips to CBD

Work
Non-work
Through trips
First two figures are from 'H.I.S.' worksheet, Row 128. Third is mean of those two.
Vehicle-occupancy elasticities (VOE) for these trips
Work
Non-work
Through trips
VOE was defined in a paper by Graham et al. cited in Travel worksheet. A value of negative 0.10 was used in a related paper co-authored by
Graham (A Road Pricing Model for the Mexico City Metropolitan Area, by Armado Crotte, Daniel J. Graham & Robert B. Noland, typescript, late
2009 or early 2010). We use that value for non-work trips but halve it for work trips to reflect presumed lower availability of car-pooling in NYC alon
with greater difficulty of car-pooling for work trips. For through trips we take average of work and non-work trips.
VOE was defined in a paper by Graham et al. cited in Travel worksheet. A value of negative 0.10 was used in a related paper co-authored by
Graham (A Road Pricing Model for the Mexico City Metropolitan Area, by Armado Crotte, Daniel J. Graham & Robert B. Noland, typescript, late
2009 or early 2010). We use that value for non-work trips but halve it for work trips to reflect presumed lower availability of car-pooling in NYC alon
with greater difficulty of car-pooling for work trips. For through trips we take average of work and non-work trips.
Motor Vs • Motor Vs Weekends (This section occupies the next 126 rows.)
Daily vehicle trips into the Manhattan CBD (baseline, 2007-08) Weekdays
Auto trips for work that don't go through cordon 260,800
Same as above, not for work 183,400
Figures reflect 2007-2008 travel levels and are drawn from several
Thru trips by all vehicles sources including Hub-Bound, H.I.S. and Taxi worksheets and were 127,100
checked against Bruce Schaller's 2006 report for Transportation
Taxicabs 65,000
Alternatives, "Necessity or Choice? Why People Drive in Manhattan."
Trucks 38,200
Buses Figures shown here are rounded versions of actual figures appearing in 11,400
both worksheets, in Row 68.
Total 685,900
Percent of (non-taxi) auto trips to CBD that are work trips (weekdays):
Taken from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 39, but derived in H.I.S. worksheet, Row 131.
Percent of (non-taxi) auto trips to CBD that are work trips (weekdays):
Komanoff assumption entered in Row 39 of 'Motor Vs Weekends' tab.
Percent of car or truck thru-trips that return thru cordon (as opposed to bypassing CBD on return leg):
Komanoff assumption entered in Row 43, intended to capture 'toll-shopping' as well as presumed greater flexibility and range of through-trips.
Ratio of trip mileage, CBD-through-trips to trips whose destination is CBD
Komanoff assumption entered in Row 81. See other columns, same row, for factors for trucks and buses.
One-Way Trip Distances for trips into cordon (miles) Total Distance Non-CBD Part
Auto trips for work that don't go through cordon 18.2 16.9
Same as above, not for work See 'Motor Vs' sheet, Rows 79 through 87. 18.2 16.9
Thru trips by all vehicles 27.0 25.4
Non-CBD Portions are derived in 'Distances'
Taxicabs worksheet, by weighting auto-commuters to CBD 8.0 6.0
(est'd in 2006 by B. Schaller) and driving distances
Trucks 15.5 12.5
from nearly 100 geographic entities.
Buses 19.4 17.4
CBD Portions for weekends are slightly higher than for wkdays for auto work + non-work trips. See factors in 'Motor Vs Weekends' tab, Row 83.
Per-hour motor vehicle entries to Manhattan CBD (baseline, 2007-08)

Weekdays
Graveyard, 11 pm - 5 am 9,969
Figures here are derived through
Morning pre-peak, 5 am - 6 am 24,061 elaborate algorithms in 'Weekday Graveyard, Midnight - 10 am
Morning peak, 6 am - 9 am 46,258 Hours' and 'Weekend Hours' Early Shoulder, 10 am - Noon
worksheets, with final calculations
Morning post-peak, 9 am - 10 am 41,059 appearing in Row 125 of 'Motor Shoulder 1, Noon - 5 pm
Vs'. Sums, multiplied by hours,
Midday peak, 10 am - 2 pm 33,113 equal totals in Row 108. Peak, 5 pm - 8 pm
P.M. peak, 2 pm - 8 pm 35,836 Shoulder 2, 8 pm - 10 pm
P.M. post-peak, 8 pm - 11 pm 24,919 Late Shoulder 2, 10 pm - Midnight
Traffic-weighted avg speed for motor vehicles within Manhattan CBD, 6 am - 6 pm weekdays, mph
Equals figure in 'Motor Vs' tab, Row 187. See discussion in that worksheet, Rows 177 through 190, which draws on 2009-10 NYCDOT data.
Traffic-wghtd avg speed for motor veh's on approaches to Manhattan CBD, 6 am - 6 pm wkdays, mph
Equals figure in 'Motor Vs' tab, Row 203. See discussion in that worksheet, Rows 195 through 205, which draws on data in 2007 PlaNYC report.
Average motor-vehicle speeds (baseline, 2009-10 for CBD, 2007 for Approaches)
Weekdays Weekends
CBD Approaches
Graveyard, 11 pm - 5 am 21.1 55.0 CBD
Morning pre-peak, 5 am - 6 am 20.2 44.2 Graveyard, Midnight - 10 am 19.6
Morning peak, 6 am - 9 am 9.2 17.1 Early Shoulder, 10 am - Noon 14.5
Morning post-peak, 9 am - 10 am 9.8 20.3 Shoulder 1, Noon - 5 pm 10.9
Midday peak, 10 am - 2 pm 12.1 24.0 Peak, 5 pm - 8 pm 9.6
P.M. peak, 2 pm - 8 pm 8.2 15.5 Shoulder 2, 8 pm - 10 pm 11.9
P.M. post-peak, 8 pm - 11 pm 11.9 25.9 Late Shoulder 2, 10 pm - Midnight 14.1
Weekday speeds in Rows 146 through 152 are calculated in 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs Weekends' tabs so that (i) traffic-weighted average speeds equa
averages in Rows 138 and 140, and (ii) each period’s speed and traffic volume satisfy equations developed in 'Speed-Vol., Cordon and 'Speed-Vol.,
non-Cordon' tabs. Same applies to calculations of weekend speeds. Averages are harmonic, due to speed's inverse relationship to time.
Baseline costs for CBD-bound trips (round-trips, 2007-08)
Note: These costs, which comprise costs such as fuel (gasoline) and parking, are the baseline relative to which proposed tolls will raise the
total price of a CBD trip. The resulting percentage increases in the trip price will be "operated on" by the assumed price-elasticities to yield
contractions (decreases) in the number of trips. The BTA specifies a set of 42 such costs -- one for each of 6 trip types in each of 7 trip
periods -- for weekdays, and another 36 (6 x 6) for weekends. Below, we show the component costs for one trip type, work trips, for each o
the 7 weekday periods.
Baseline Costs, Work Trips Only (weekdays)

Graveyard A.M. Pre-peak A.M. Peak A.M. Post-peak Midday Peak P.M. Peak
11 p.m. - 5 a.m. 5 a.m. - 6 a.m. 6 a.m. - 9 a.m. 9 a.m. - 10 a.m. 10 a.m. - 2 p.m. 2 p.m. - 8 p.m.
Fuel $5.83 $5.78 $8.69 $7.77 $6.96 $9.37
Parking $1.42 $4.24 $14.92 $18.78 $17.32 $10.89
Existing Tolls $1.96 $1.96 $2.16 $1.96 $1.96 $2.06
Other* $1.45 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90 $2.90
Total $10.67 $14.89 $28.68 $31.42 $29.15 $25.22
*Perceived cost of possible traffic or parking tickets, incremental maintenance, crash costs, etc.
Each figure in matrix is product of calculations on subsidiary assumptions which may be traced via Rows 219 through 257 of 'Motor Vs' tab. Fuel costs
vary by time of day due to differences in travel speeds which affect fuel economy. Slight variation in existing tolls reflects PANYNJ time-of-day tolls. Mos
critical item, parking, has its own eponymous worksheet tab.
Means-Tested Tolling's Impact (Reduxn) on Avg Cordon Toll (if applicable, i.e., if made part of plan)
This figure reflects two assumptions: (i) that 12% of CBD-bound auto trips will qualify for means-tested discount from cordon toll, and (ii) that the
discount will be set at 50%. First assumption reflects detailed geographic analysis by urban planner Josef Szende under spervision of C. Komanoff,
predicated on discount being extended only to households with income no greater than $45,000 a year and located more than 1/4 mile from rail or
express bus stop to CBD. Second assumption is by Komanoff.
Share of cordon-crossing trips assumed to be exempt from cordon toll

Komanoff assumption, intended to reflect disability, emergency personnel, and similar categories that might be required in legislation enabling tolls.
Driving Elasticities For discussion and derivation, see Price (i.e., w/r/t % increase Time (i.e., w/r/t % increa
Elasticities' worksheet, esp'ly in trip's total cost) in trip's total duratio
Rows 1-77 & 119-154. For cross-
Auto trips for work elasticities, see Rows 78-115. -0.500
Weekend thru-trip elasticities differ
Auto trips for non-work -0.900
from values here, due to different
Thru trips (one figure fits all) weights betw work and non-work -0.665
trips.
Taxi trips (medallion cabs only) -0.220
An Important Note on Elasticities
The BTA applies price-elasticities shown directly above to total baseline price of round-trip into CBD in Row 171. As a quick comparison of
figures in Rows 169 and 171 demonstrates, total baseline price is 3-12 times as great as baseline toll price alone. Hence, price-elasticities
from sources that are calibrated to toll prices alone must be adjusted (upward) many-fold for comparability.
Time-Switching Elasticities
From period To period

Morning Peak (6-9 a.m.) Morning Before Peak
Morning Peak (6-9 a.m.) Morning After Peak
Evening Peak (4-7 p.m.) Evening Before Peak
Evening Peak (4-7 p.m.) Evening After Peak
Source: “Congestion Pricing as a Traffic Management Tool: Evaluating The Impacts At New York City’s Interstate Crossings,” by
Carolyn Wolff and Pierre Vilain of Louis Berger Associates, commissioned by the Port Authority. The study analyzed drivers’
responses to the differential tolling regime that the PA instituted on its six Hudson River vehicular crossings in 2001.
The elasticities in the above table are not conventional elasticities that operate on price changes to yield demand changes. Rather, each
elasticity operates on the ratio of the toll in the period being switched “from,” to the toll in the period switched “into.” See Time Switching
worksheet for details on how these elasticities are operationalized in the BTA.
Ratio, non-cordon-bound trips' non-cordon VMT, to cordon-bound trips' non-cordon VMT :
Full name for this parameter is Ratio, non-cordon-bound trips' non-cordon VMT, to cordon-bound trips' non-cordon VMT (on approaches to
CBD). It denotes our best estimate of the extent to which vehicles that are not bound for the Manhattan CBD are co-occupying roads to
(and from) the CBD with vehicles that are actually headed into the CBD (cordon). This parameter is used to ensure accuracy in calculating
the extent to which the cordon tolls will reduce traffic and, hence, improve travel speeds on the highways and other major arteries that feed
the bridges, tunnels and local streets that actually cross into the CBD. The figure shown corresponds to our estimate that only around a
third of vehicles on the approaches are actually en route to or from the CBD -- a figure derived in the Approaches worksheet tab. Had we
not reflected "dilution" of CBD-bound traffic with other traffic, we would have vastly overstated the extent to which the cordon tolls are
predicted to improve travel speeds outside the CBD.
Same ratio as above, for medallion taxis only

The proportion of medallion taxis' non-cordon VMT that takes place in trips that never enter the CBD is far lower than that for cars, trucks
and buses. This figure, and the analogous one for other vehicles, shown above at Row 214, are presented in the 'Motor Vs' worksheet.,
Rows 161 to 164.
Incidence (this worksheet estimates each borough/county's (i) share of toll burden, (ii) # of HH's that drive to CBD at least once per mon
Assumed car occupancy of carpools into CBD (Komanoff assumption)

From 'Incidence' tab, Row 56. Reflects assumption that every third carpool has two passengers rather than one.
% of weekdays that "regular" commuters living in NYC drive into CBD (From 'Incidence' tab, Row 75.)
Weekdays Weekends
For NYC 85% 72%
For remainder of MTA 12-county region 80% 68% Array is from 'Incidence' tab,
Rows 75-78, and Rows 135-
For NJ + CT 80% 68% 138.
For 'Other' 35% 30%
Factor by which thru-CBD-commute autos are supplemented by other, less regular Both figures are Komanoff
thru-CBD work trips assumptions.
Factor by which thru-CBD-commute autos are supplemented by other, less regular Both figures are Komanoff
thru-CBD work trips assumptions.
% of auto trips entering or re-entering CBD that are now tolled 'Incidence' tab, Rows199-213, has assumptions in a
Baseline taxi revenues paid by Manhattan residents (From 'Incidence' tab, Row 263.)
% autos driven regularly to CBD on weekends also driven regularly to CBD on wkdays (Komanoff)
Addit'l non-work trips per month per regular commuter (Komanoff assumptions, Row 361.)
% of HH's using car for commuting that have E-ZPass (Komanoff assumptions, Row 376.)
% pts by which irregular Households' EZ-P use is less than commuters' (Komanoff)
% car-owning non-CBD-commuting HH's taking zero CBD trips/mo. (Komanoff assmptns, Row 382.)
HH's using car for CBD access >= 1x/month and using E-ZPass:
Ratio of that number to all CBD-crossing auto trips This number, calc'd in Cell 396, is a result, not an assumption. It is shown he
Trucks
Some assumptions
Number of trucks crossing into the cordon Row 27
% of those entries that are part of a through-trip Figures in Row 32
array at right
% of truck through-trips that return through cordon Row 43
are from 'Motor
% truck thru-trip segments that are part of rnd-trip that goes thru cordon twice Vs' and 'Motor Row 45
Vs Weekends'
worksheets.
Some results Row
references are
Trips that aren't part of a through-trip to those Row 62
Trips that include 1 or 2 through-trips sheets. Row 63
Cordon-crossing trips that are part of through-trips Row 64
C-crossing trips, with trips that pass thru cordon twice counted only once Row 71
Truck entries to CBD, categorized by axles 2 3 4

74.5% 20.8% 3.0%
These are shown in 'Trucks' worksheet, Row 91, and are derived there in Rows 32-94.
Taxis The assumptions below make up only a fraction of the entries in the 'Taxis' worksheet, which runs to
over 518 rows. Most of those rows perform mathematical operations on the data below as well as on
data such as CBD vehicle speeds that are 'called' from other worksheets.
Baseline assumptions from B. Schaller's "Taxi Fact Book, 2006," but also incorporating NYS Taxi Surcharge ($0.50 per ride) adopted in 20
Annual Revenue, millions, 2011 (est.)

All assumptions are from Schaller,
Taxi ridership, millions, 2005 (fare trips, not number of passengers) except (i) weekend passengers
Passengers per trip per trip, which is by Komanoff (in
lieu of separate weekend
Average trip length, miles estimates by Schaller), and (iii) %
Percentage of medallion taxi trips that are CBD-related of VMT spent cruising, which
reduced Schaller's 39% figure by
around one-tenth.
All assumptions are from Schaller,
except (i) weekend passengers
per trip, which is by Komanoff (in
lieu of separate weekend
estimates by Schaller), and (iii) %
of VMT spent cruising, which
reduced Schaller's 39% figure by
Assumed average trip length for taxi trips that don't relate to CBD, miles around one-tenth.
Percentage of taxi VMT spent cruising
Number of fares per shift, baseline
Baseline assumptions by Komanoff

Average trip length for taxi trips beginning and/or ending in CBD, miles
Of which CBD portion, in miles, is
Ratio, avg miles for non-CBD to avg miles for CBD trips
Estimated total miles of different taxi fare trips (excludes cruising)
Entirely w/i CBD (Komanoff assumption)
Entirely w/o CBD (Komanoff assumption)
Origin or destination in CBD but not both Calc'd algebraically from Rows 299 & 300 & 'Taxis' tab Rows 355-359.
VMT of leaving-CBD taxi trips as % of VMT of entering-CBD trips (predicated on more direct end-of-shift exits)
Number of medallion taxicabs (publicly available and widely known datum)
Assumed share of change in taxi rides that is met by change in number of taxi shifts
Shifts per day per medallion taxi
% of medallion taxi fares that breach cordon zone (inward direction)
% of medallion fares that breach cordon zone outward and return without fare
% of medallion cab shifts that begin by breaching cordon zone inward w/o fare
Time required to pick up a passenger, minutes (does not include cruising)
Time required to drop off a passenger, minutes (does not include cruising)
Average passenger hail time, minutes
Other assumptions by Komanoff

Estimated mode shares of passengers' "second choices" if cabs are deemed too costly
Subway
Bus
Thess assumptions effectively function as cross-elasticities of demand for
Private Auto other modes with respect to demand for medallion taxi service.
Bike or Walk
No Travel
Transit
% of NYC Transit fares paid for on Incremental-Cost Basis Figs are first 8 months 2010 and are documented and
calculated in 'Transit' worksheet, Rows22-23.
% of NYC Transit fares that are undiscounted
Note: See 'Transit' tab, Rows 38-64, for baseline transit fares, discounts, etc.
% trips going thru subway turnstile that are allocable to subways

Calculated and documented in
% trips going thru a bus "turnstile" that are allocable to buses 'Transit' tab, Rows 104-108.
% bus trips w/ no subway component
Duration of a typical subway trip, hours

Komanoff assumption, includes wait time. Is used to estimate average percent by which subway trips are lengthened by reduced
service frequency.
Percent by which average NYC subway trip duration will be shortened per $100 million/year invested in capital
Derived in 'Transit' worksheet, based on NYC Transit data on expense savings, lengthening of travel time, and riders affected from
two measures adopted on system-wide basis in Winter 2010. We have reduced the figure derived through this process by a factor of
3 to make it an appropriate basis for extrapolating the extent to which increased investment would be expected to improve subway
trip times. This is intended to avoid over-optimistic prediction of travel time gains from increased expenditures, especially insofar as
the base from which the deterioration in service documented in the 'Transit' worksheet is so slender.
Derived in 'Transit' worksheet, based on NYC Transit data on expense savings, lengthening of travel time, and riders affected from
two measures adopted on system-wide basis in Winter 2010. We have reduced the figure derived through this process by a factor of
3 to make it an appropriate basis for extrapolating the extent to which increased investment would be expected to improve subway
trip times. This is intended to avoid over-optimistic prediction of travel time gains from increased expenditures, especially insofar as
the base from which the deterioration in service documented in the 'Transit' worksheet is so slender.
Percent attrition in above rate per each additional $100 million invested
Komanoff estimate. Is intended to capture diminishing returns in translating transit investment to improved travel time.
Number of years required for assumed investment to realize its full predicted benefit:
Komanoff assumption, intended to reflect real-world lead times between capital spending and service benefit.
Average distance ridden on NYC Transit bus trips, miles
Komanoff estimate, based on calculations in 2007 on database of census-derived home-to-work and work-to-home trips developed
by B. Schaller, circa 2006-2007. Is used in estimating % by which greater spending on bus operations reduces riders' travel times.
Share of increased spending on transit operations devoted to subways (buses receive remainder)
This input parameter is set by the user in Row 105 of 'User Inputs' tab.
% reduction in average NYC bus trip durations per first $50 million/yr in additional operating expenditures
From 'Buses' worksheet, Row 274. Estimated by distributing $50 million among the 20 most frequented bus lines.
Rate of Attrition of Effectiveness of Increased Expenditures, Relative to That for Capital given in Row 342.
Komanoff est. Is intended to capture presumed steeper slope of diminishing returns for operating expenditures and bus sector, vis-à-
vis capital investments and subway sector.
Percent attrition in above rate per each additional $50 million spent
Komanoff assumption. Is product of Row 342, Row 359, and one-half (to adjust $100 million base in Row 342 to $50 million base in
Row 356).
Subways
NYC Subway subway ridership, 2011 (millions, projected)

Projected turnstile count in "MTA 2011 Final Proposed Budget: November Financial Plan 2011-2014," Nov. 2010, p. 470 of 584,
available at <http://bit.ly/eH4JCA>.
Adjustment factor to normalize ridership to full fare

Komanoff estimate. Is shown in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 22, but is derived in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 104.
Adjusted (full-fare equiv.) subway ridership, 2011 (millions, projected)
Appears in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 28. Is product of Rows 369 and 372, above.
Work trips' percentage of subway trips (balance is non-work trips)
Komanoff assumption. Is relevant because of differing work and non-work elasticities. Appears in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 31.
Subway Farebox Revenue, 2011 (millions, projected)
From same Nov. 2010 MTA budget document referenced in Row 370, above.
Overall Work
Current Adjusted Subway Fares ("Fare 1"), Work Trips vs. Non-Work Trips $1.56 $1.56
Overall Fare is calculated by dividing Farebox Revenue in Row 378 by Adjusted Ridership in Row 374. See 'Subways' tab, Row 41
for derivation of average work and non-work fares.
Effective discount from average subway fare on incremental-cost paying rides
Is derived in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 53. Reflects 2011 MTA bonus discount and share of incremental-cost paying rides eligible for
bonus, both of which are specified or derived in 'Transit' worksheet, Rows 42 and 53.
Hour-by-hour subway riders entering and leaving Manhattan CBD (vector of 24 figures, not shown her
Figures appear in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 129 and are from NYMTC, Hub-Bound Travel Report 2008,
<http://www.nymtc.org/files/hub_bound/HUB_Bound_2008_Report.pdf>, Tables 24 & 25, 'Total Persons Entering (Leaving) The Hub
By Hour and Mode in 2008'; prorated by 2011 and 2008 total ridership.
Hour-by-hour division of subway trips between work and non-work (vector of 24 figures, not shown her
This breakdown is needed because price- and time-elasticities of travel demand differ between transit work and non-work trips.
Figures appear in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 133 and are drawn from matrix in 'Weekday Hours' worksheet tab (extending from
Column P to Column R, Row 18 to 25) that helps apporition CBD-bound auto trips among work, non-work and through; we apply
those factors to subway trips as well.
Price (i.e., w/r/t % increase Time (i.e., w/r/t % increa

in trip's total cost) in trip's total duratio
Transit Elasticities
Transit trips for work -0.090
Transit trips for non-work -0.234
Derivation and detailed discussion may be found in 'Elasticities' worksheet, esp'ly Rows 4 to 77 and 117 to 156.
For cross-elasticities (not shown here), see same worksheet, Rows 79 to 115. Time-switching elasticities are
discussed in eponymous worksheet.
Average change in subway trip duration (due to transit investment enabled by toll revenues)
Figure is shown in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 202, but is actually derived at 'Transit' worksheet in Rows 206 and 340. It reflects
results of investments made possible by toll revenues that will help keep system in state of good repair, as well as possible service
expansions. It is applied uniformly in all time periods.
Duration change from any other exogenously specified cause (e.g., cuts, efficiencies; is currently set to zero)
% of riders who pay on per-ride basis and, thus, may respond to fare discounts offered on per-ride basis
Shown in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 273, but derived in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 34 as sum of cash, pay-per-ride & bonus-pay-per-
ride shares in first eight months of 2010 (most recent data available).
Time-switching elasticities for subways (one vector for switching earlier, another for later, each w/ 24 figures, not shown here)
These figures appear in 'Subways' worksheet, Rows 275 and 277, and are derived in the dozen or so rows oreceding them.
Cross Elasticities (these express extent to which trips that are lost in one mode rematerialize in another)
Work trips
Change in Transit Volume per Change in Auto Volume caused by change in Auto Time Not used
Change in Transit Volume per Change in Auto Volume caused by change in Auto Cost 90.25%
Change in Taxicab Volume per Change in Auto Volume caused by change in Auto Time or Cost 4.75%
Change in Auto Volume per Change in Transit Volume caused by change in Transit Cost 90.25%
Change in Auto Volume per Change in Transit Volume caused by change in Transit Time 90.25%
Change in Taxi Volume per Change in Transit Volume caused by change in Transit Time or Cost 4.75%
These figures are explained and derived in 'Elasticities' worksheet, Rows 87-116.
Income ratio, car commuters into CBD to subway riders into CBD
Komanoff estimate. Is used to amplify propensity of subway riders to respond to fare differentials, relative to auto commuters'
propensity to respond to toll differentials (holding price-elasticities constant).
Assumed work share of weekend/holiday subway trips (Komanoff assumption)

Vehicle Occupancies (of autos entering Manhattan CBD)
Average weekend vehicle occupancy (Komanoff estimate)
Average weekday vehicle occupancy (wghtd avg of work and non-work occupancies in H.I.S. worksheet)
Subway vs. Bus (this worksheet apportions new transit trips (from auto trips "tolled off the roads") between subway and bus.
Subway
Time to access mode, minutes (at start + finish) (Komanoff assumptions) 10
Travel time on mode, minutes (one way, for CBD-bound trips) 17.0
Calculations use avg subway trip duration from 'Sub v. Bus' worksheet, Row 31 which in turn draws on (adjusted) avg length of one-
way subway commute trip for both modes to keep comparison on common footing.
Average value of an hour's time for auto commuter to CBD (Shown in Sub v. Bus, derived in Value of Time)
Discount, to reflect sub-sample "tolled" into transit (Komanoff assumption)
Value of an hour's transit travel time (including time to 'access" ride) for auto trips "tolled into" transit
Calculated in Sub v. Bus worksheet as product of auto-commuter's time value and complement of discount percent (rounded)
Standard deviation of distribution of total transit trip cost, as a percent of distribution mean
Komanoff assumption. Helps generate statistical distribution of trip costs, to derive probabilities of auto trip migrating to subway or
bus.
Buses
Persons Arriving in Manhattan CBD by Bus from Origins in New York City (Weekdays, 2007)
Source: NYMTC, Hub-Bound Travel Report 2007, Tables, Subway By Sector, MTA NYC Transit Summary, 2007-Inbound and 2007-
Outbound (p 61 of 104), available via http://www.nymtc.org/data_services/HBT.html. Figs are compiled by hr.
NYC Transit bus ridership, 2011 (millions, projected)

MTA 2011 Final Proposed Budget: Nov. Financial Plan 2011-2014, Nov. 2010, p. 470 of 584, available at <http://bit.ly/eH4JCA>.
Komanoff estimate.
Adjusted (full-fare equiv.) bus ridership, 2011 (millions, projected)
Appears in 'Buses' worksheet, Row 23. Is product of Rows 460 and 462, above.
Bus revenue, 2011, projected, millions
Source: "MTA 2011 Final Proposed Budget: November Financial Plan 2011-2014," Nov. 2010, p. 449 of 584, available at
<http://bit.ly/eH4JCA>.
Current (2011) normalized bus fare, all trips (no distinction betw work and non-work trips)
Calculated by dividing projected farebox revenue shown in Row 466 by adjusted ridership in Row 464. Is shown in 'Buses' worksheet, Row 28.
Reduction in bus travel time due to lesser traffic, greater service provision, and/or free fare (if applicable)
Calculated in 'Buses' worksheet, Row 74, drawing on calculation in 'Bus Boarding' worksheet that draws on citywide-average
reduction in VMT, and on calculation in 'Transit' worksheet relating expenditures to more frequent bus arrivals.
Work trips' percentage of bus trips (balance is non-work trips) Komanoff assumption.
Weekday Hours
These worksheets assign 24-hr motor vehicle entries to the CBD into parallel 3x24 matrices (one for
• weekdays, one for weekends) of hr-by-hr entries for work trips, non-work trips and through-trips;
Weekend Hours allocation by hour is needed to guide the toll structure and estimate traffic levels and speeds; allocation
by trip type is needed to reflect different trip costs and elasticities.
Daily (weekday) motor vehicle crossings into Manhattan
Source: NYCDOT, 'Manhattan River Crossings, 2006.' We use its hour-by-hour figures, shown in 'Weekday Hours' worksheet, Rows
31-54, as proxy for entries to CBD. Note that 2007 total (956,483) matches 2006 figure used here.
Factors Weekdays
Work Thru
Graveyard 0.40 2.00 Weekends
Figures in boxes at right are Komanoff ests. They
A.M. Pre-peak 1.50 1.00
adjust work and thru-trip shares of auto trips from 24-h
avgs shown in Rows 102 and 104. Value of 1.00 A.M. Peak 1.60 0.60 Graveyard
indicates that % of work or thru trips in period matches
its 24-h avg. Factor of 2.00 for graveyard thru-trips A.M. Post-peak 1.30 0.60 Early Shoulder
indicates that overnight thru-trips had 2x their 24-h Midday Peak 1.10 0.80 Shoulders
share. Non-work trip factors 'fall out of' work and thru-
trip shares. P.M. Peak 0.75 1.00 Peak
P.M. Post-peak 0.60 1.50 Late Shoulder
Results
Following are the allocations of 24-h total work, non-work and through trips into the time periods used in the Motor Vs and Motor Vs
Weekends worksheeets, resulting from applying the above factors to the respective total trips:
Weekdays Work Non-Work Thru
Each array element is respective share of inbound

auto trip types (work, non-work, thru) occurring in the
respective pricing bins.
No. of hours Period
6 11 pm - 5 am Graveyard 3.5% 10.1% 17.5%
1 5 am - 6 am A.M. Pre-peak 5.3% 1.0% 3.5%
3 6 am - 9 am A.M. Peak 32.3% 8.6% 12.2%
1 9 am - 10 am A.M. Post-peak 7.8% 5.1% 3.6%
4 10 am - 2 pm Midday Peak 21.2% 19.3% 15.5%
6 2 pm - 8 pm P.M. Peak 23.5% 42.5% 31.4%
3 8 pm - 11 pm P.M. Post-peak 6.5% 13.3% 16.4%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Weekends Work Non-Work Thru
Each array element is respective share of inbound

auto trip types (work, non-work, thru) occurring in the
Period
10 Midnight-10 am Graveyard 30.9% 18.0% 30.7%
2 10 am-Noon Early Shoulder 11.1% 7.7% 11.0%
7 Noon-5, 8-10 pm Shoulders 40.0% 41.8% 35.8%
3 5 pm-8 pm Peak 11.2% 22.9% 14.9%
2 10 pm-Midnight Late Shoulder 6.8% 9.5% 7.6%
100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Weekends
Weekend and holidays average traffic levels as a percent of weekday average
Calculated by comparing weekend to weekday volumes for Triborough Bridge (Manhattan-bound portion) and Queens Midtown
Tunnel, provided by MTA Bridges & Tunnels, in two sample months (March and Sept 2007). These crossings were selected over
other MTA crossings because they are the main crossings into Manhattan for which data were available. The two months were
chosen more or less at random; other months probably would yield similar results.
Calculated by comparing weekend to weekday volumes for Triborough Bridge (Manhattan-bound portion) and Queens Midtown
Tunnel, provided by MTA Bridges & Tunnels, in two sample months (March and Sept 2007). These crossings were selected over
other MTA crossings because they are the main crossings into Manhattan for which data were available. The two months were
chosen more or less at random; other months probably would yield similar results.
Speed-Volume, Cordon
Following is the equation we use to calculate relative speeds within the Manhattan CBD:
S = 22.183 / [1 + 0.1*(V/VK)4.00]
where S = speed, V = vehicle volume (in CBD vehicle miles traveled per hour) and VK is a situation-specific parameter,
whose value is calculated in the Speed-Vol., Cordon worksheet through a trial-and-error process that causes the
weighted averages of calculated CBD weekday speeds during 6 am - 6 pm to equal 9.5 mph (the figure inferred by
NYCDOT from GPS readings on medallion taxis), and for the 5-6 am speed to be reasonably close to the 16 mph speed
similarly inferred by DOT.
The worksheet provides the empirical basis and mathematical derivation of the equation, along with a graph.
Speed-Volume, non-Cordon
Following is the equation we use to calculate relative speeds outside of (on the approaches to) the Manhattan CBD:
S = 130.63 * e ^ (-0.0225 * V / 38,372)
where S = speed, V = vehicle volume (in vehicle miles traveled per hour by (i) motor vehicles bound to (or from) the CBD,
and (ii) other motor vehicles operating on the same roads) and 38,372 is a constant whose value we calculate, in the
Speed-Vol., non-Cordon worksheet, through a trial-and-error process to solve for the constant that causes the weighted
averages of non-CBD speeds that are calculated from the equation above to equal 18.22 mph: the figure calculated in the
VMT worksheet for the boroughs and counties surrounding the Manhattan CBD (from 6 am - 6 pm) in the PlaNYC report.
The worksheet provides the empirical basis and mathematical derivation of the equation, along with a graph.
VMT
NYC vehicle miles traveled (VMT), millions of miles a year

See 'VMT' worksheet, Row 51 for documentation.
Autos' share of NYC VMT
Source: Schaller, "City in Flux," 2007, p. 5: "Autos account for an estimated 75% of vehicle miles traveled in the five boroughs."
Percent of cordon-bound vehicle trips made by NYC residents (pertains to "into" + "thru" CBD trips alike)
Appears in 'VMT' tab, Row 261, but is derived in 'Incidence' tab, Row 187.
Percent of VMT occurring within city limits, for cordon-bound vehicle trips made by NYC residents
Percent of cordon-bound vehicle trips made by non-NYC residents
Complement of Row 562 here.
Percent of VMT occurring within city limits, for cordon-bound vehicle trips made by non-NYC residents
Komanoff assumption, appears in 'VMT' tab, Row 267.
Percent of outside-cordon VMT in all cordon-bound vehicle trips that occurs within the city limits
Figures in Rows 562-567 are specified and justified in 'VMT' worksheet, Rows 262-268. Figure in Row 569 here follows algebraically
from the preceding four.
Elasticities
Auto elasticities (including taxicabs) are shown and referenced in Rows 186-191, above.
Time-of-travel-switching elasticities are shown and referenced in Rows 201-208, above.
Transit elasticities are shown and referenced in Rows 398-404, above.
Cross-elasticities (between modes) are shown and referenced in Rows 418-426, above.
Following are factors by which we adjust auto elasticities

Komanoff
Truck price-elasticity as a % of that for auto work trips assumptions. 0.33
Bus price-elasticity as a % of that for auto work trips Shown in 0.20
'Elasticities',
Truck time-elasticity as a % of that for auto work trips Rows 173-176. 0.33
Bus time-elasticity as a % of that for auto work trips NA (subsumed in transit time-elasticity)
Cordon
1. Capital Costs for Cordon-Tolling System
NYC target cost to design and install charging system for its original cordon scheme
Initial press reports put cost at $179 million. We increased this to $250 million, in light of statement from TCMC report, p. 36.
Number of locations on which NYC target cost was predicated
Same TCMC document and statement as above.
Calculated Cost per Location
Ratio of Row 590 to Row 594.
Adder for indirect costs (design, contracting, public consultation) (Komanoff assumption)
Further adder for foregone "scale economies" from reduced size (Komanoff assumption)
Revised Cost per Location
Row 594 times one plus Row 596, times one plus Row 597. Note that two adders are compounded.
Number of Locations for our plan
Avenues (FDR, Sutton/York, 2nd, Lex, Park, 5th, 7th, CPW, B'way, Col., 11th Ave, WS Hwy)
Bridges (2 ea. Manhattan + Qboro, 1 ea. Bklyn + Wburg; 8 for Harlem River bridges)
Tunnels (Lincoln, Holland, Bklyn-Battery, Queens-Midtown)
Total (rounded)
Cost for all Locations (product of Rows 598 and 604)
Amortization period, years (Komanoff assumption)
Annualized capital cost (quotient of Rows 605 and 606)
2. Operating Costs for Cordon-Tolling System
Weekday Vehicle Entries to CBD to be tolled

From 'Motor V's' worksheet, Row 848,with taxi entries substracted from total.
Percent using E-ZPass, weekdays (Komanoff assumptions)
Charging Costs per transaction E-ZPass Other (cash)
$0.15 $0.50
See 'Cordon' worksheet, Rows 84-87.
Charging costs per day using E-ZPass, per weekday Calculated from figures in
Rows 611, 613 and 615.
Charging costs per day using other mechanisms, per weekday
Adder for administration/enforcement (Komanoff assumption)
Annual Charging Costs, Weekdays (rounded)
Product of (i) Sum of Rows 617 and 618; (ii) one plus Row 619 ; and (iii) weekdays in year.
Weekend Vehicle Entries to CBD to be tolled
From 'Motor V's Weekends' worksheet, Row 848,with taxi entries substracted from total.
Charging costs per day using E-ZPass, per weekend day For weekends, we assume
higher % of cash payments.
For weekends, we assume
higher % of cash payments.
Charging costs per day using other mechanisms, per weekend day
Annual Charging Costs, Weekends and holidays (rounded)
3. Total Annual Cordon-Tolling Costs Shown in 'Cordon', Row 128; is also sum of Rows 607, 620 & 627 here.
4. Spatial Calculations
The total volume (acreage) of street space in the CBD influences BTA results through the input parameter that specifies the amount of
street space (if any) to be "taken from service" by motor vehicles as an ancillary benefit that could be provided under congestion pricing.
The BTA processes that parameter as a % of total current street space available for vehicles (see 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 399).
Times Square is used in the BTA as a useful "metric": the User Inputs worksheet allows the user to specify the "number of Times Squares
worth of space" to be removed from the traffic stream.
Times Square defined: Times Square is a major intersection in Manhattan, New York City at the junction of Broadway
and Seventh Avenue and stretching from West 42nd to West 47th Streets (from Wikipedia).
Times Square acreage

Calculated through detailed measurements memorialized in 'Cordon' worksheet, Rows 136-160.
Acreage of street and road space in the Manhattan CBD
Calculated through detailed measurements memorialized in 'Cordon' worksheet, Rows 167-189.
Times Square's acreage as % of street space in entire CBD
Emissions
In this worksheet, the BTA calculates changes in emissions of CO2, Total Organic Gases, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and PM10
that will result from a congestion toll and any related measures. Emissions will change due to changes in both VMT (vehicle miles traveled
and traffic speeds. The worksheet captures both phenomena.
The worksheet calculates emissions of each of the five pollutants under (i) baseline conditions and (ii) with the pricing regime selected in
the Results worksheet. Emissions are calculated by multiplying VMT for each time period by the emission factors applicable to the average
speed for the period. Emission factors are calculated using the most recent (2007) edition of the California Air Resources Board's (CARB)
EMission FACtors model, EMFAC2007.
Calculations are done separately for light-duty vehicles (cars, including SUV's and taxicabs), trucks and buses, and per weekday or
weekend day. The emission factors for each vehicle class are averages of a fairly wide range encompassing the different vehicle
characteristics within each class; although it would be preferable to have the full distribution of speeds and the associated emissions, that
degree of precision was beyond our scope. The resulting daily figures are converted to annual values, and the differences between baselin
and pricing results are calculated.
The emission factors are automatically "looked up" from emission curves specified in two related worksheets, EMFAC and Speed-CO2 (n
shown here). Following are a handful of assumptions that were made in applyling those factors.
Medium Truck (10,000 - 26,000 lbs) fuel consumption per mile, relative to light-duty vehicles
Bus fuel consumption per mile, relative to light-duty vehicles
Cordon fuel-inefficiency factor (due to more stop-and-go traffic within cordon than outside cordon)
See 'Emissions' worksheet, Rows 5-17, for details.
Parking
The column of daily costs in Column I of the table below was used to guide the specification of parking costs that form a significant part of
the total baseline costs of round-trip auto trips to the Manhattan CBD, appearing in Rows 237-251 of the 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs
Weekends' worksheeets.
As the table indicates, that column, and the associated column of parking "shares," draws heavily on a March 1, 2007 report by Schaller
Consulting for Transportation Alternatives, "Free Parking, Congested Streets: The Skewed Economic Incentives to Drive in Manhattan."
(Henceforth, Schaller 2007.) <http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/reports/freeparking_traffictrouble.pdf>
Schaller (early 2007) Komanoff (late 2008)
Share of CBD Share of CBD

commuters Daily parking commuters
falling in this cost for these falling in this
CBD car commutes, classified by parking situation category commuters category
1. Pay to park in lot or garage 38% $24.42 40%
2. Park on street, pay via meter 5% $1.73 5%
3. Parking is provided or reimbursed 38% $0.00 38%
4. Park on street without paying 19% $0.00 17%
Total 100% $9.37 100%
Assumed daily cost for "parking provided or reimbursed," as a percent of cost for "paid lot or garage":
Source for Schaller: Schaller 2007, pp. 9-10. Note: his weighted avg of $8.89 (p. 10) is slightly less than total shown above.
Source for Komanoff: Schaller's share for "park on street w/o paying" (#4) was reduced by one-tenth to reflect presumed decrease in placard parking by
Bloomberg administration; change has been allocated proportionally to #1 and #2. Cost for #3, which Schaller counts as zero, is assumed to be a
percentage of Schaller #1 cost, on premise that the party bankrolling "free" parking recognizes direct and/or opportunity cost of providing the space.
(Percentage is shown in column I, directly below table, and is Komanoff assumption.) We also raised costs for #1 and #2 slightly to reflect 2008 conditions
vs. 2006.
Note: The wide variation in parking costs in the table produces a wide variation in total baseline driving costs in the Motor Vs and Motor Vs worksheets.
The elasticity and other algorithms in those worksheets operate on the mean baseline cost; while it would have been preferable to operate on the actual
distribution of costs, we believe that our methodology is an acceptable "second-best."
Value of Time
Following are the assumptions and breakdowns by which we calculate the value of a "vehicle-hour" spent (stuck) in traffic within and
outside of (on the approaches to) the Manhattan CBD.
The figures here are only a subset of the more detailed derivation and presentation contained in the Value of Time worksheet.
Within the Manhattan CBD
# occupants Value of a
besides driver VMT % vehicle-hr
# occupants Value of a
besides driver VMT % vehicle-hr
Auto work-trip 0.15 19.7% $35.76
Auto non-work-trip 0.50 14.6% $20.09
Auto thru-trip 0.33 8.2% $29.00
Van or small truck passngr's are encompassed in figur 7.6% $48.21
Large truck - 0.9% $80.36
Big Rig (18-wheeler) - 0.4% $160.71
Bus 20.00 2.3% $224.99
Medallion Taxi, occupied 0.40 30.1% $55.99
Medallion Taxi, cruising - 16.2% $12.86
TOTAL 100.0% $41.45
Sources
The key assumption underlying the table is the value of an hour of saved time for a NYC airline passenger, derived as follows:
Value of an hour of saved time for airline passengers (nationwide median, 2008 $)
Based on work at Brookings Institution, sourced and calculated in 'Value of Time' worksheet, Rows 25-43.
Adjustment factor from national median to NYC
See 'Value of Time' worksheet, Rows 47-53.
Value of an hour of saved time for NYC-area airline passengers (median, 2008 $)
Product of Rows 737 and 739.
The time of drivers and occupants in each vehicle category in the table in Rows 719-731 was then valued vis-à-vis the value of time for the
NYC-area airline passenger shown in Row 741.
Our assumed relative value of time for drivers (relative to that of the NYC-area airline passenger in Row 741) ranges from 0.2 for the drive
of an empty taxicab and 0.25 for an auto driver on a non-work trip, to 0.5 for an auto driver on a work trip and 0.67 for a taxi passenger.
Lesser values are used for passengers or additional taxi riders, and values outside the CBD are generally taken as 2/3 of the correspondin
value of time within. Weekend values are discounted by 40%.
See Value of Time worksheet for further details.

###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
###
gures in this worksheet will ###
###
###
ither their key assumptions ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
nput assumptions" pertain to
Rather, the assumptions here ###
es and emissions that those ###
###
###
###
###
5% ###
###
25% ###
###
2.5% ###
11.1% ###
###
###
###
###
ot essential to the architecture ###
###
###
###
$41.45 ###
###
60% ###
67% ###
$24.87 ###
$29.72 ###
$17.83 ###
###
$50.00 ###
###
$0.16 ###
###
###
$3,200,000 ###
sources Board. ###
###
0.22% ###
uto traffic would need to be ###
###
###
$4.0 million ###
###
###
###
###
###
1.15 ###
1.50 ###
1.29 ###
###
###
-0.05 ###
-0.10 ###
-0.075 ###
###
ted paper co-authored by
obert B. Noland, typescript, late ###
bility of car-pooling in NYC along ###
###
###
###
###
Weekends ###
92,300 ###
Note: These figures treat 'through-
277,000 ###
round-trips' -- trips that cross the
129,800 CBD in connecting a non-CBD ###
origin and destination, and then do
65,000 the same on the return journey -- ###
12,700 as one CBD trip, even though they ###
will pay two tolls. See 'Motor
5,710 Vehicles' tab, Rows 27-76. ###
582,500 ###
###
59% ###
###
25% ###
###
80% ###
and range of through-trips. ###
1.5 ###
###
###
CBD Portion ###
1.25 ###
1.25 ###
1.60 ###
2.00 ###
3.00 ###
2.00 ###
Vs Weekends' tab, Row 83. ###
###
###
###
Weekends ###
13,809 ###
26,797 ###
33,697 ###
36,205 ###
32,061 ###
24,813 ###
###
9.50 ###
09-10 NYCDOT data. ###
18.22 ###
a in 2007 PlaNYC report. ###
###
es) ###
s ###
###
Approaches ###
53.9 ###
30.0 ###
22.4 ###
20.2 ###
25.6 ###
31.1 ###
###
weighted average speeds equal ###
Vol., Cordon and 'Speed-Vol.,
ationship to time. ###
###
###
###
###
h proposed tolls will raise the
med price-elasticities to yield ###
rip types in each of 7 trip ###
ip type, work trips, for each of
###
###
###
P.M. Post-peak ###
8 p.m. - 11 p.m. ###
$6.74 ###
$6.34 ###
$1.96 ###
$2.90 ###
$17.95 ###
###
57 of 'Motor Vs' tab. Fuel costs ###
s PANYNJ time-of-day tolls. Most ###
###
###
6% ###
###
ordon toll, and (ii) that the
er spervision of C. Komanoff, ###
re than 1/4 mile from rail or ###
###
###
3% ###
in legislation enabling tolls. ###
###
Time (i.e., w/r/t % increase ###
in trip's total duration) ###
-1.000 ###
-1.000 ###
-1.000 ###
-0.800 ###
###
###
###
71. As a quick comparison of ###
one. Hence, price-elasticities
###
###
###
###
###
Elasticity ###
-0.60 ###
-0.13 ###
-0.22 ###
-0.09 ###
y’s Interstate Crossings,” by ###
study analyzed drivers’ ###
ossings in 2001.
###
###
and changes. Rather, each ###
into.” See Time Switching ###
###
###
2.0 ###
###
rdon VMT (on approaches to ###
are co-occupying roads to
###
nsure accuracy in calculating
other major arteries that feed ###
stimate that only around a ###
ches worksheet tab. Had we
hich the cordon tolls are ###
###
###
0.1 ###
er than that for cars, trucks ###
the 'Motor Vs' worksheet., ###
###
###
o CBD at least once per month) ###
###
###
2.333 ###
###
85% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Weekdays Weekends ###
15% 35% ###
###
s199-213, has assumptions in array by county and toll crossing. ###
###
70% ###
###
10% ###
###
Between 0.5 and 3, depending on county. ###
###
Between 85% and 90%, depending on county. ###
###
5 ###
###
Between 20% and 60%, depending on county. ###
###
10.2% ###
ot an assumption. It is shown here for completeness. ###
###
###
###
45,000 15,000 ###
34% 37% ###
80% 70% ###
89% 82% ###
###
###
29,700 9,390 ###
8,500 3,300 ###
15,300 5,610 ###
38,200 12,690 ###
###
5 6 ###
1.4% 0.2% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
$0.50 per ride) adopted in 2009 ###
All, or Weekdays Weekends ###
$1,906 ###
172 ###
1.4 1.5 ###
2.8 ###
80% ###
4.0 ###
35% ###
30 ###
###
###
2.5 ###
1.8 ###
1.4 ###
###
2.0 ###
5.3 ###
3.0 ###
75% ###
13,237 ###
75% ###
1.19 1.19 ###
8% ###
5% ###
40% ###
0.25 ###
0.40 ###
5.4 4.4 ###
###
###
###
45% 40% ###
33% 25% ###
15% 25% ###
5% 8% ###
2% 2% ###
###
###
Subway Bus ###
48.2% 51.5% ###
10.9% 18.9% ###
###
###
###
95.6% ###
74.0% ###
77.3% ###
###
0.75 ###
###
###
###
1.3% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
5% ###
###
###
5 ###
###
###
3.63 ###
###
###
###
###
67% ###
###
###
0.62% ###
###
###
1.2 ###
###
###
###
3% ###
###
###
###
###
###
1,631.7 ###
###
###
95.6% ###
###
1,559.5 ###
###
60% ###
###
$2,436.3 ###
###
Non-work ###
$1.56 ###
###
###
###
5.4% ###
###
###
###
of 24 figures, not shown here) ###
###
###
###
of 24 figures, not shown here) ###
###
###
###
###
Time (i.e., w/r/t % increase ###
in trip's total duration) ###
-0.500 ###
-0.550 ###
###
###
###
###
-8.4% ###
###
###
###
0.0% ###
###
48.2% ###
###
###
not shown here) ###
###
###
###
Non-work trips ###
Not used See 'Elasticities' tab, Row 87. ###
47.50% ###
2.50% ###
47.50% ###
50.35% ###
2.58% ###
###
###
1.5 ###
###
###
###
20% ###
###
###
2.00 ###
1.29 ###
###
subway and bus. ###
###
Bus ###
10 ###
40.2 ###
###
###
###
$29.08 ###
25% ###
$21.80 ###
###
24.1% ###
###
###
###
###
###
104,061 ###
###
###
###
707.5 ###
###
80% ###
###
566.0 ###
###
$851.9 ###
###
###
$1.51 ###
es' worksheet, Row 28. ###
4.6% ###
###
###
40% ###
###
###
lel 3x24 matrices (one for
ips and through-trips; ###
evels and speeds; allocation ###
###
###
955,662 ###
###
###
###
###
###
Weekends ###
Work Thru ###
1.30 1.30 ###
1.20 1.20 ###
1.00 0.90 ###
0.60 0.80 ###
0.80 0.90 ###
###
###
###
Motor Vs and Motor Vs ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
All ###
calculations ###
are
performed in ###
the Weekday ###
Hours and
###
Weekend
Hours ###
worksheets. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
85.1% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
24,082 ###
###
75% ###
###
56.9% ###
###
75% ###
43.1% ###
###
60% ###
###
68.5% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
sumed in transit time-elasticity) ###
###
###
###
###
###
$224,000,000 ###
###
340 ###
###
$500,000 ###
###
100% ###
100% ###
$2,000,000 ###
###
###
12 ###
6 ###
4 ###
22 ###
$44,000,000 ###
5 ###
$20,000,000 ###
###
###
###
500,600 ###
###
80% ###
###
###
###
$60,100 ###
$50,100 ###
100% ###
$55,100,000 ###
###
425,800 ###
###
$47,900 ###
$53,300 ###
100% ###
$23,300,000 ###
###
$118,000,000 ###
###
###
###
###
specifies the amount of
d under congestion pricing. ###
###
###
worksheet, Row 399). ###
###
e "number of Times Squares ###
###
###
###
###
###
4.22 ###
###
1,270 ###
###
0.33% ###
###
###
###
###
Nitrogen Oxides, and PM10 ###
VMT (vehicle miles traveled) ###
###
###
###
e pricing regime selected in
ors applicable to the average ###
Resources Board's (CARB) ###
###
###
###
s, and per weekday or
he different vehicle ###
e associated emissions, that ###
e differences between baseline
###
###
###
EMFAC and Speed-CO2 (not ###
###
###
2.6 ###
3.4 ###
1.2 ###
###
###
###
###
hat form a significant part of ###
or Vs' and 'Motor Vs ###
###
###
1, 2007 report by Schaller ###
es to Drive in Manhattan." ###
###
###
Komanoff (late 2008) ###
###
###
Daily parking ###
cost for these
commuters ###
$25.00 ###
$2.00 ###
$6.11 ###
$0.00 ###
$12.34 ###
###
25% ###
###
###
###
###
decrease in placard parking by
ero, is assumed to be a ###
st of providing the space. ###
ightly to reflect 2008 conditions
###
###
###
Vs and Motor Vs worksheets. ###
rable to operate on the actual ###
###
###
###
###
ck) in traffic within and ###
###
###
Time worksheet. ###
###
Outside the Manhattan CBD ###
###
Value of a
VMT % vehicle-hr
Value of a
VMT % vehicle-hr ###
38.2% $23.84 ###
26.8% $13.39 ###
17.0% $19.34 ###
10.6% $43.39 ###
1.3% $72.32 ###
0.6% $144.64 ###
4.2% $160.71 ###
0.8% $55.99 ###
0.4% $12.86 ###
100.0% $29.72 ###
###
###
###
rived as follows: ###
###
$53.57 ###
###
1.20 ###
###
$64.28 ###
###
###
à-vis the value of time for the ###
###
###
###
ranges from 0.2 for the driver
0.67 for a taxi passenger. ###
en as 2/3 of the corresponding ###
###
###
###
Results
Note: For Sensitivity Analysis, scroll to right (beginning in Column O).
This tab summarizes the impacts on traffic, agency revenues, time lost in traffic, transit usage, and other key i
The two key results of any congestion pricing plan are (1) extent of improvement in traffic flow within the Manhattan Central Business Dis
available to make transportation more affordable and efficient.
Key results of plan selected in black block cell (H25) are Net revenue available to make travel
shown in blue boxes at right: more efficient & affordable
$1,050 million / year

For more results, Page Down once or twice. (Row 55 Revenue, less Expenditures in
Rows 36, 39 & 52)
This worksheet displays key results for the traffic-pricing plan selected in Row 25, as well as for any 'Custom' plan you, the use
Use the 'Switch' in Cell H25 to select among five plans shown. The Baseline plan (#1) has been pre-set to represent actual 2010-11 co
(e.g., no net revenue), that would be an indication that the BTA is well benchmarked.
To create your own custom plan, change the settings in User Inputs worksheet.
You may choose among 5 Plans: 1 2 3
Baseline with
Click on cell H25 to choose one of the Baseline
$320M/yr cut in
Move NY Plan
plans shown. subway
spending
All figures are in millions of dollars, a

Worksheet (in
Revenue Results which $$ calc'd) Description
Cordon Toll
Revenue (unadjusted) Revenue Gross revenue increase from tolls for motor vehicle trips into Manhat
Revenue Adjustment Motor Vs Loss from switching advent of wkday off-peak toll to 6 pm, from 8 pm
Adjusted Revenue Results Row 33 figure, less Row 34 figure.
Administration Costs Cordon Toll collection operating costs + annualized capital cost.
Taxi Surcharge
Revenue Revenue Revenue shown is gross surcharge.
Portion Reserved for Cab Drivers' Health Fund Assigning a fixed % of the revenues to drivers and/or owners may he
NYC Transit
Subway Farebox Windfall Revenue Revenue gain from plan measures that lead to increased use of NYC
Bus Farebox Windfall Revenue Revenue gain from plan measures that lead to increased use of NYC
Fare Administration Savings Fare Collection Reflects any savings from eliminating or reducing fare collection mac
Toll Revenues Invested in Transit (Capital) User Inputs Portion of annual revenue stream dedicated to transit capital plan.
Toll Revenues Spent on Transit (Operating) User Inputs Portion of annual revenue stream spent on improving transit operatio
Subway Fare Discounts Revenue Cost to subway revenues from discounting some fares.
Bus Fare Discounts Revenue Cost to bus revenues from discounting some fares.
Toll Change to MTA bridges Revenue MTA net loss if discount "outer-borough" (e.g., Verrazano, Throgs, W
Commuter Rail Farebox: Blanket Discounts Revenue Change in gross revenue from Discounting all Metro-North and LIRR
Add to Row 49 if intra-city rail fare = $2.25 Revenue Change in gross revenue from charging subway fare on M-N and LIR
Express Bus Farebox: Blanket Discounts Revenue Change in gross revenue from MTA Express Buses
Payments to Offset Reduced Tolls Revenue Even if Port Authority and MTA retain "first call" on their cordon tu
Payments to Port Authority revenues due to (i) lesser use of GW Bridge, and (ii) fewer inbou
These items denote our compensation of the Authorities' lost reve
Payments to MTA Bridges & Tunnels
Total Income (Revenue)
Total Expenditures (Investments)
Net: Income (Revenues) Less Expenditures (Positive figure denotes surplus, or contingency; red fig
$ millions per year

Where the Revenues Will Come From Ho
$ millions per year
$600
$1,200
$1,000
$800
$400
$600
$400
$200
$200
$0
1
-$200
$0
1
3
-$400
"CBD" denotes Manhattan

Travel Results (all figures are 5 years out, when Worksheet
transit investments have borne fruit) where calc'd Central Business District
(entire borough south of 60th
St.)
Weekday Traffic Speeds & VMT Note: "VMT"
Speed gain, 6am - 6pm (Vehicle Change:
Speed gain, 24-hour Miles Change:
Traveled) is
VMT change, 6am - 6pm Motor Vs Change:
the prime
VMT change, 24-hour measure of Change:
the amount
of driving.
Note: "VMT"
(Vehicle
Miles
Traveled) is
Motor Vs
the prime
measure of
Number of cordon entries, change, 6am - 6pm the amount Change:
of driving.
Number of cordon entries, change, 24 hours Change:
Time Savings Cost-Benefit

Time Savings to Drivers (vehicle users), millions per year
Extra Savings to Bus Riders if zero fare (saving from faster traffic is subsumed in prior row)
Total Time Savings
Before After
Number of Persons Traveling to CBD on a Typical Weekday 3,483,000 3,580,000
(via subway, bus and auto combined; excludes commuter rail, medallion taxi, bike, walk, ferry)
Worksheet
where calc'd
Total Driving in NYC (veh. miles traveled) VMT (covers all motor v's w/i five boroughs)
Subway Usage
Weekday increase, 24h
Weekday increase, a.m. peak (8-9)
Weekday increase, p.m. peak (5-6) Subways
Wkday incrs, 22h (all except am + pm peaks)
Annual increase (weekdays + weekends)
Gini Coefficient for subway use (weekdays) Gini (fluctuations in ridership over 24 hrs)
Bus Usage Buses (all days, i.e., 365 days/yr)
NYC Transit Fares Subways, Buses Subways

Fare Change
Current (2011) actual average fare $1.49
New fare (with pricing), weekdays Subways, Buses $1.49 0%
New fare (with pricing), 365 days $1.49 0%
Medallion Taxicab Usage (365 days) Taxis
Who Pays? Incidence "Tolls" include

taxi surcharge revenues.
Within NYC
Borough or County whose residents will bear the highest share of the new tolls
Share of new toll payments to be borne by residents of that (#1 incidence) borough
Borough or County whose residents will bear the second highest share of the new tolls
Share of new toll payments to be borne by residents of that (#2 incidence) borough
Percentage points by which toll payment share for Queens will exceed that for Brooklyn
5-borough residents' share of the new tolls
Manhattan residents' new toll payments as a percentage of all of New York City's
Outside NYC
Share of new toll payments borne by residents of 7 counties in MTA region outside NYC
County outside NYC whose residents will bear the highest share of the new tolls
Share of new toll payments to be borne by residents of that borough
Share of new toll payments borne by residents of New Jersey
Share of new toll payments borne by residents not from NJ or MTA region
1/6/2012
, transit usage, and other key indicators of any traffic plan selected by the user.
n the Manhattan Central Business District, and (2) net revenue
Change in avg vehicle speed in

Manhattan CBD (6 am - 6 pm avg),
5 years out (when transit investments
have borne fruit)
17.8%
(From Cell F87)
for any 'Custom' plan you, the user, may devise.
pre-set to represent actual 2010-11 conditions. If it 'returns' zero results
4 5 Choose
Click on black cell at left. A small
Gridlock Sam triangle should appear. Click it, and
Move NY Plan, a "drop-down menu" will appear.
Schwartz Fair Move NY Plan
modified Use it to select among Plans 1-5.
Pricing Plan
l figures are in millions of dollars, annual and rounded to nearest $5 or $10 million.
Revenue Expenditures
Description (income) (outflow)
om tolls for motor vehicle trips into Manhattan CBD. $1,080

t of wkday off-peak toll to 6 pm, from 8 pm time assumed in Row 33. $40
$1,040
sts + annualized capital cost. $120
urcharge. $160
revenues to drivers and/or owners may help win their acceptance. $20
easures that lead to increased use of NYC Transit subways. $180

easures that lead to increased use of NYC Transit buses. $20
eliminating or reducing fare collection machinery. $0
stream dedicated to transit capital plan. $490
stream spent on improving transit operations. $490
rom discounting some fares. $10 If small non-zero value, is probably
artifact of Metrocard fare structure.
discounting some fares. $0
uter-borough" (e.g., Verrazano, Throgs, Whitestone, others) tolls -$150
rom Discounting all Metro-North and LIRR Commuter Rail Road fares $0
rom charging subway fare on M-N and LIRR intra-city rides $40
rom MTA Express Buses $20
nd MTA retain "first call" on their cordon tunnel toll revenues, they may lose $60
ser use of GW Bridge, and (ii) fewer inbound trips on BBT and QMT Tunnels. $20
r compensation of the Authorities' lost revenues.
$40
$1,250
$1,250
denotes surplus, or contingency; red figure indicates deficit.) $0 Million
How the Revenues Might Be Invested

0
0
1
10
11
$ millions per year
For VMT changes in specific

districts, go to 'Approaches'
tab, Cells M145-M155. Value of Time Savings to Travelers
Calculated as saved hrs x values in Value of Time sheet.
Roads to and $4,000

CBD from CBD
17.8% 6.4%
$3,000
16.3% 6.2%
-7.2% -6.4%
$2,000
-7.0% -6.6%
$1,000
$0
1
4
$4,000
$ mill
$3,000
$2,000
-15.3% NA
$1,000
-15.9% NA
Trips that make Trips that make $0

use of CBD zero use of CBD
4
$1,100 $1,040
$0
$2,140
m illio n s o f h o u r s p e r y e a r
Change Change, %
97,000 2.8%
Travelers Time Savings (in hours)

160
Change: -3.3% 140
120
100
80
Change: 7.5% 60
40
Change: 6.1%
20
Change: 6.5% 0
1
4
Change: 7.6%
Change: 7.4%
Change: -1.3%
Change: 2.3%
Buses 50%
Changes in Vehicle Speeds in CBD (Weekdays)
Fare Change
40%
$1.20
$1.20 0% 30%
$1.20 0% 19% 21%
20% 17%
14%
11%
Change: 5.8% 10%
4%
1%
0%
11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm
-10%
Queens -20%
20.9%
Brooklyn
15.4% 50% Changes in Vehicle Speeds in CBD (Weekends)
Programming
5.5% note: Most cells
40%
67% in column to left
employ "IF"
23% statement to 30%
avoid dividing by
zero if user has 20%
13% 13% 13% 14%
selected 9%
"baseline" (no 10%
21% toll) scenario. 3%
0%
Midnight-10 am 10 am-Noon Noon-5 pm 5 pm-8 pm 8 pm-10 pm 10 pm-Midnight
-10%
-20%
note: Most cells 40%
in column to left
employ "IF"
statement to 30%
avoid dividing by
zero if user has 20%
13% 13% 13% 14%
selected 9%
"baseline" (no 10%
toll) scenario. 3%
Nassau 0%
7.7% Midnight-10 am 10 am-Noon Noon-5 pm 5 pm-8 pm 8 pm-10 pm 10 pm-Midnight
-10%
8%
4% -20%
###
### Results: Sensitivity Analysis
###
###
### The BTA's key input parameters are the set of 12 elasticities that reflect our best estimate of the propensity of
### demand for auto trips, transit trips and (medallion) taxi trips to vary in response to hypothesized changes in the
prices and travel times (trip durations) for these modes.
###
###
###
Why specify 12 elasticities, when our construct of 3 modes (auto, transit, taxi) and 2 variables (price and travel
### time) suggests 6 (3 x 2)? First, autos are disaggregated into three trip types (work, non-work, and "through" trips
### that pass through the CBD rather than terminating there). And transit trips are separated into work and non-work
as well. This yields 6 price-elasticities and 6 "time-elasticities."
###
###
### (We exclude "cross-elasticities" from this discussion. Note that all of our elasticity assumptions are presented and
### derived in the BTA's Elasticities tab.)
###
###
We performed our first sensitivity test of this set of elasticities on 30-Dec-2010, using Excel's random number
### function to create a factor that has an equal probability of assuming any real value greater than 0.5 and less than
### 1.5, to multiply by each point-elasticity value. (A mathematical expression would be: 0.5 < r < 1.5.) Following is an
example of the syntax, applied to the price-elasticity of taxi usage.
###
###
### Taxi price-elasticity = -0.22 * (1 + 0.5 * ((RANDBETWEEN(-10000,10000))/10000))
###
###
The first term in this expression, negative 0.22, is our best estimate of the price-elasticity of taxi ridership. The long
### expression following the first asterisk has been constructed algebraically to vary randomly between 0.5 and 1.5.
### Thus, the taxi price-elasticity must always fall between negative 0.11 and negative 0.33, i.e., it varies randomly
between 50% and 150% of our specified 'best estimate."
###
###
###
### Taxi price-elasticity is one of 12 elasticity inputs into the BTA. We created analogous random variables for the other
11, with each randomized independently of the others. We repeated the process 20 times, creating 20 trials. For
### each, we inputted the 12 elasticities into the settings for the "ST, simplified" plan on Dec. 30, 2010. The results
### are shown below, for two important model outputs (highlighted in the blue boxes at top left of this worksheet tab):
(i) net revenue available to make travel more efficient & affordable, and (ii) change in avg vehicle speed in
### Manhattan CBD.
###
###
###
### Change in
Net revenue avg speed
### Trial # gain ($ M) in CBD
###
### Base Case $1,710 19.4%
###
Sensitivity Analysis: Revenues &
### Random 1 $1,690 19.5%
$2,400
### Random 2 $1,620 25.3%
### Random 3 $1,810 15.2% Speed Gain,
### Random 4 $1,750 13.8% $2,200
$2,000
$1,800
Sensitivity Analysis: Revenues &
$2,400
Speed Gain,
$2,200
small non-zero value, is probably ### Random 5 $1,740 15.9%

tifact of Metrocard fare structure. ###
Random 6 $1,780 16.5% $2,000
### Random 7 $1,660 19.0%
### Random 8 $1,810 17.8%
$1,800
### Random 9 $1,920 20.7%
### Random 10 $1,710 17.7%
### Random 11 $1,730 22.2% $1,600
### Random 12 $1,700 16.3%
### Random 13 $1,840 15.9% $1,400
### Random 14 $1,740 16.1%
### Random 15 $1,710 20.1%
$1,200
### Random 16 $1,720 15.7% 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
### Random 17 $1,650 21.5%
### Random 18 $1,730 15.5%
### Random 19 $1,620 23.9%
### Random 20 See note below box, directly below.
### Each number corresponds to a d
### Mean $1,733 18.3% Dotted lines show results with BTA base
### Std Dev. $76 3.2%
###
###
In our final trial, #20, the model became unstable, rendering the results unreliable. This likely resulted from a statistical
### anomaly in which each auto time-elasticity was randomly assigned a value close to the maximum (50% higher) end of its
### range: 35% higher than the specified value for auto work trips, 28% higher for auto non-work trips and 47% higher for auto
thru-trips. Such a combination has only around a 1% chance of occurring at random.
###
###
###
### The means and standard deviations for the 19 valid trials suggest that the model's predictions of net revenues are
extremely robust, i.e., they vary within a small range. For the predicted gains in CBD speeds, the variance is
### somewhat higher, and the mean is a full percentage point less than the gain predicted from the BTA's point
### elasticity values. This suggests that the BTA's speed predictions are slightly biased upwards and are less robust
than the revenue predictions. Nevertheless, the small standard deviation, about one-sixth of the mean, indicates
### that the speed prediction is robust.
###
10
11
### ***********************************************************************************************************************************
###
### Revenues Spending Time $ Hours/106
### Graph inputs. Do not disturb!
### $200 $120 $1,100 41
### $1,040 $20 $1,040 55
### -$150 $490 $730 52
ers
sheet. ### $160 $490 $2,870 148
### $10
### $0
### $0
### $40
### $20
### $60
3
4
### $0
###
###
###
3
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
urs) ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
3
###
###
###
###
###
###
eekdays) ###
###
###
###
21% ###
14% ###
%
###
###
- 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm ###
###
###
###
###
Weekends) ###
###
###
###
###
13% 14%
###
###
m 8 pm-10 pm 10 pm-Midnight
13% 14%
###
m 8 pm-10 pm 10 pm-Midnight
###
###
###
r best estimate of the propensity of
onse to hypothesized changes in the
axi) and 2 variables (price and travel

s (work, non-work, and "through" trips
are separated into work and non-work
asticity assumptions are presented and
010, using Excel's random number

al value greater than 0.5 and less than
would be: 0.5 < r < 1.5.) Following is an
price-elasticity of taxi ridership. The long

o vary randomly between 0.5 and 1.5.
negative 0.33, i.e., it varies randomly
analogous random variables for the other

ocess 20 times, creating 20 trials. For
d" plan on Dec. 30, 2010. The results
boxes at top left of this worksheet tab):
change in avg vehicle speed in
Sensitivity Analysis: Revenues & CBD Speed Gains
$2,400 26%
Speed Gain, 24-hr avg 24%

$2,200
22%
$2,000
20%
$1,800
18%
Sensitivity Analysis: Revenues & CBD Speed Gains
$2,400 26%
Speed Gain, 24-hr avg 24%

$2,200
22%
$2,000
20%
$1,800
18%
$1,600
16%
$1,400
14%
$1,200 Revenue ($ Millions) 12%

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Each number corresponds to a different trial.

Dotted lines show results with BTA base case elasticities.
le. This likely resulted from a statistical

e to the maximum (50% higher) end of its
uto non-work trips and 47% higher for auto
dom.
model's predictions of net revenues are

ns in CBD speeds, the variance is
n predicted from the BTA's point
y biased upwards and are less robust
about one-sixth of the mean, indicates
*******************************************************************
Driver + Passenger time

savings include buses, but
counted only at avg auto
occupancies from Travel
worksheet (betw 1-1.5)
rather than actual ~20. Thus,
bus inclusion causes only a
minor overestimate of total
hour saved.
User Inputs
RESULTS SNAPSHOT (go to Results worksheet tab for complete list)
Selected Plan: Move NY Plan
Average CBD speed gain, 6am-6pm: 17.8%
Annual net revenue (after admin costs, taxi benefits, and $1,050
compensating PANYNJ + MTA for lost tunnel tolls): million / yr
Plan
Calculations operate off plan chosen in 'Results' worksheet, Cell H25.
3.
1. Baseline 2. Baseline w/ Move
Some details about (replicates $320M/yr cut in NY
Input Parameters parameter values 2011 tolls and subway
Plan
fares) spending
Toll intervals are pre-set in the BTA and cannot be changed. You c
1 Weekday Cordon Tolls Weekday Toll Intervals course, change the toll amounts.
11 pm - 5 am (6 hrs) $0.00 $0.00 $3.00
Note: values shown here may be 5-6 am + 8-11 pm (4 hrs) $0.00 $0.00 $7.00
reduced, in practice, by 10 am - 2 pm (4 hrs) $0.00 $0.00 $7.00
'downstream' provisions in Items
10 & 13, or increased by Items 9-10 am + 2-8 pm (7 hrs) $0.00 $0.00 $9.50
11 or 12.
6-9 am (3 hrs) $0.00 $0.00 $9.50
Note: Formulas for Cells J25-J36 use 'max' algorithm to ensure toll is non
2 Weekend Cordon Tolls (i.e., at least $0.001) to prevent instability in 'Incidence' tab.
Weekend Toll Intervals
Midnight - 10 am (10 hrs) $0.00 $0.00 $5.00
Note: values shown here may be 10-12 am + 10-12 pm (4 h) $0.00 $0.00 $5.00
reduced, in practice, by Noon-5 pm + 8-10 pm (7 h) $0.00 $0.00 $5.00
'downstream' provisions in Items
10 & 13, or increased by Items 5-8 pm (3 hrs) $0.00 $0.00 $5.00
11 or 12.
NA NA NA
3 Toll One Direction or Two? 1 1 1

Note: Toll shown in Items 1 & 2
applies to entire (round) trip.
4 Toll Entire Cordon, or just the Values: CORDON CORDON CORDON

Free Bridges? CORDON Note: The BTA assumes tolls are charged in-bound only. To model bridge tolls ch
BRIDGES in each direction, rather than a one-way-only cordon toll, user should input doub
intended each-way toll amount in the arrays in Rows 25-36.
EAST
5 Toll Level for Harlem Riv Values: 0% 0% 50%
bridges, % E Riv bridges Percent Above percents apply only if BRIDGES or EAST selected in Row 42.
6 Does Cordon Toll Raise or Values: INCREMENT INCREMENT INCREMENT

Replace Current Tolls? INCREMENT
REPLACE
7 Cap inbound MTA tunnel toll Values: NO NO YES

@ MTA toll rate? 'YES' or 'NO'
8 Values: NO NO NO
Is cordon toll "means-tested"?
'YES' or 'NO'
9 Waive cordon toll for first trip Values: NO NO YES

of month by E-ZPass holders 'YES' or 'NO'
w/i MTA counties?
10 Non-Revenue Vehicles, % of 0% 0.0% 2.5%

Traffic Entering CBD
11 Surcharge if Pay w/ Cash $0.00 $0.00 $2.50
12 Truck cordon toll (average 2.0 2.0 1.6

ratio to auto toll)
13 Toll discount for 2nd or more 0% 0% 100%

commercial vehicle trip to
cordon on same day
14 Average change in tolls on % change 0% 0% -15%

MTA/TBTA bridges
15 Taxi Surcharge, Weekdays

A. Drop ($ Increase) $0.00 $0.00 $0.25
B. Per-Mile Rate (% Incrs) 0% 0% 12%
C. Wait Time Rate (% Incrs) 0% 0% 20%
16 Taxi Surcharge, Weekends

A. Drop ($ Increase) $0.00 $0.00 $0.25
B. Per-Mile Rate (% Incrs) 0% 0% 12%
C. Wait Time Rate (% Incrs) 0% 0% 20%
17 % of Taxi Surcharge $ Given to 0% 0% 10%

Drivers + Owners
18 Street Space Repurposed from 0 0 0
autos (lane-miles) (lane-miles) (lane-miles)
19 Annual Toll Revenues $0 $0 $490

Invested in Transit Capital million/year million/year million/year
20 Annual Toll Revs. Spent on $0 ($320) $490

Transit Operations million/year million/year million/year
21 Subways' % Share of 0% 100% 67%

Spending from Item #20
22 (Other) Subway Service 0% 0% 0%

Changes
23 % Change in Price of 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

Unlimited Fare MetroCard
24 % Bonus w/ Purchase of 7.0% 7.0% 7.0%

MetroCard of $10 or More
25 Weekday Subway Fare Weekday Fare Intervals Fare intervals are pre-set. However, you may change fare levels.
11 pm - 5 am (6 hrs) $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
5-6 am + 8-11 pm (4 hrs) $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
All other hours (8 hrs) $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
7-8 am + 4-5 pm (2 hrs) $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
9-10 am + 6-7 pm (2 hrs) $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
8-9 am + 5-6 pm (2 hrs) $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
Override Factor 1.00 1.00 NONE
Keep Fare?
YES YES NO NO
NO
26 Saturday Subway Fare $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
27 Sundays + Holidays Subway $2.25 $2.25 $2.25

Fare
28 NYCT Bus Fare, weekdays $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
29 NYCT Bus Fare, Saturdays $2.25 $2.25 $2.25

30 NYCT Bus Fare, Sundays $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
31 Fare Reduxn for All Metro- % reduxn 0% 0% 0%

North & LIRR Service
32 Charge Subway Fare for Intra- Invoke Discount? NO NO YES

city Metro-N & LIRR?
33 Fare Reduxn for Intra-NYC % reduxn 0% 0% 10%

Express Bus Trips
34 Baseline Traffic Reduction % reduxn 0% 0% 0%

1/6/2012
Using this worksheet to test different toll and fare scenarios
The values in Columns G, H and I correspond to NYC congestion pricing plans being discussed in 2011. The 'swi
that selects from among the four plans is located in Cell H25 of the 'Results' worksheet tab.
Feel free to make adjustments in those plans (Plans 3 - 5). Simply change the pertinent setting(s) in those column
you wish to save the file with those changes, please do so with a new filename.
Values in blue font in "Baseline" Column E have been set to duplicate 2010-11 traffic and transit status quo. If res
(changes in revenue, traffic, transit use, etc.) equal zero when "switch" in Results tab has been set to 1, this is a s
that the model has probably been successfully initialized.
esults' worksheet, Cell H25.

4.
Move NY 5. Figures in this Worksheetw Location
Plan, 'Gridlock column here
within that
modified Sam' Fair correspond parameter
worksheet
Pricing Plan automatically to featured
values of plan
selected in
the BTA and cannot be changed. You can, of 'Results' tab.
ounts. By Hour
$3.00 $10.00 $3.00 Box,
$7.00 $10.00 $7.00 "Weekday Toll
Levels," near
$7.00 $10.00 $7.00 top of Cols. G
$9.50 $10.00 $9.50 &H
$9.50 $10.00 $9.50
J36 use 'max' algorithm to ensure toll is non-zero
nt instability in 'Incidence' tab. By Hour
$5.00 $10.00 $5.00
Box,
$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 "Weekend
$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 Toll Levels,"
near top of
$5.00 $10.00 $5.00 Cols. AD &
NA NA NA AE
1 2 1 Cordon
CORDON CORDON CORDON Motor V's

Box in
arged in-bound only. To model bridge tolls charged Column M,
way-only cordon toll, user should input double the Row 268
amount in the arrays in Rows 25-36.
50% 0% 50% River Row 20
f BRIDGES or EAST selected in Row 42. Crossings
INCREMENT INCREMENT INCREMENT Motor V's

Box in
Column L,
Row 271
YES YES YES Hub-Bound Row 77
NO NO NO Motor V's Row 282

Cols. H & L
YES NO YES Motor V's Row 289
2.5% 1.0% 2.5% Motor V's Row 319

Col. K
$2.50 $2.50 $2.50 Motor V's Row 285
1.6 2.2 1.6 Motor V's Column AZ,

Row 264
100% 0% 100% Motor V's Column BG,

Row 269
0% -39% -15% Revenue Section C
NA Taxis Rows 411 to

$0.25 $1.00 $0.25 413
12% 0.0% 12.0%
20% 0.0% 20.0%
Taxis Rows 411 to

$0.25 $1.00 $0.25 413
12% 0.0% 12.0%
20% 0.0% 20.0%
10% 10% 10% Taxis Row 423

0 0 0.0 Motor V's Row 399
(lane-miles) (lane-miles) (lane-miles)
$565 $625 $490 Transit Row 203

million/year million/year million/year
$565 $625 $490 Transit Row 320

million/year million/year million/year
67% 67% 67% Transit Row 324
0% 0% 0% Subways Row 206
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% Subways Row 180

Buses Row 66
7.0% 7.0% 7.0% Subways Err:511

Buses Err:511
However, you may change fare levels. Subways

$2.25 $2.25 $2.25
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 'Proposed
Fares' Box in
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 Rows 72 to
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 79, or
Override
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 Factor in Row
NONE NONE NONE 73, Col. Z
NO NO NO
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 Subways
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 Subways
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 Buses
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 Buses

$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 Buses
0% 0% 0% Revenue
YES NO YES Revenue Section F
10% 0% 10% Revenue Section G
0% 0% 0% Motor Vs
###
###
###
nt toll and fare scenarios ###
###
espond to NYC congestion pricing plans being discussed in 2011. The 'switch' ###
is located in Cell H25 of the 'Results' worksheet tab. ###
###
plans (Plans 3 - 5). Simply change the pertinent setting(s) in those columns. If ###
anges, please do so with a new filename. ###
###
mn E have been set to duplicate 2010-11 traffic and transit status quo. If results ###
e, etc.) equal zero when "switch" in Results tab has been set to 1, this is a sign ###
essfully initialized.
###
###
###
### Other Plans (shown largely for historical referen
###
###
### Traffic East + Harlem
East River
What This 'Parameter' Is or Does Congestion Riv. bridge
### Mitigation bridge tolls
tolls (Ravitch)
### Commission
###
BTA can handle 7 weekday cordon toll levels (which we've collapsed into###
5). While tolls can be any amount, we've tried to steer clear of complex ### $8.00
toll structures.
### $0.00
### $8.00
Weekday Hours worksheet shows hours of day that make up each toll ### $4.57
interval. ### $8.00
###
BTA can handle 5 weekend cordon toll levels (which we've collapsed into###
4). While tolls can be any amount, we've tried to steer clear of complex ### $0.00
toll structures.
### $0.00
### $0.00
Weekend Hours worksheet shows hours of day that make up each toll ### $0.00
interval. ### $0.00
###
This parameter's function is to ensure that toll administration cost est'd in###
Cordon worksheet reflects the number of trips that will be subjected to ###
tolling.
###
###
### CORDON
BTA is designed to model cordon tolls "(CORDON") but can also
approximate effects of only tolling East and Harlem River bridges ###
("BRIDGES"), as Ravitch Commission proposed in 2008-09, or East ###
River bridges only ("EAST").
###
###
Applies only to "BRIDGES" scenario in which CBD cordon is not tolled, ### 0%
and East and Harlem River bridges are tolled instead. ###
###
BTA can treat cordon tolls as increments to current applicable tolls or as ### REPLACE
replacement of them (as in 2007-08 TCMC-Bloomberg pricing plan). ###
Specify via "switch" in next column at right.
###
###
Autos entering CBD via Bklyn-Batt & Qns-Midtown T's already pay a toll.### NO
This feature permits discounting of cordon toll there. ###
###
Offers toll discounts for drivers who are both low-income and transit- ### NO
underserved. ###
###
This feature zeroes out, from each E-ZPass account on autos registered###
within the MTA 12-county region, the toll for the auto's first trip into or ###
through the cordon, in each month.
###
###
Reflects exemptions for police, fire, etc., plus disabled. Set at 2x the ### 2.5%
percent for QMT, BBT and Triborough Bridge. ###
###
Captures higher admin costs when E-ZPass is not used. ###
###
BTA 'graduates' truck tolls based on # of axles. Value is developed in ### 2.5
'Trucks' worksheet, at Row 104. Figure is rounded. ###
###
Applies to second or more trips into cordon zone on same day, by any ### 0%
vehicle with commercial plates. ###
###
###
Applies to MTA bridges that don't access CBD. Percentage pivots off Cell### 0%
I75 in 'Revenues' worksheet. ###
###
### 8.3%
High values raise more revenue and dampen possible boomlet in taxi
use in response to improved CBD travel speeds (which also reduce ###
Reflects $1
effective fare rise by trimming taxi wait time). In future, we may vary ### added to taxi
surcharge by time of day to reflect congestion. trips w/ start or
###
end in CBD.
###
(See notes for Weekday Surcharge, Row 79.) ### 0%
###
###
###
###
Allocating a share of surcharge revenues to taxi owners and drivers can ### 0%
help gain their support (with reduced gridlock from cordon tolls as further###
inducement).
###
###
By reducing motor traffic within CBD, a cordon fee creates opp'ty to ### 0
repurpose street space. User selects quantity of such space as # of lane-### (lane-miles)
miles -- literally, the space covered by one travel or parking lane
extending for one mile. Note that CBD street space comprises 907 lane-###
miles covering 1,270 acres, and that 1 lane-mile = 1.4 acres. See ###
Cordon worksheet. ###
###
Toll revenues invested in transit will help keep transit system in state of ### $0
good repair and, hence, maintain and attract ridership. ### million/year
###
Toll revenues spent on transit operation will make service more reliable, ### $0
fast and attractive, helping maintain and attract ridership. ### million/year
###
Revenue dollars allocated to improved transit service are assigned either###
to subways (via this %) or buses (the remainder). ###
###
Denotes expected % incrs in avg duration of subway trips, apart from ### 0%
previous item (transit investment). Set to zero if no change, positive for ###
worsening of service, negative for improvements.
###
###
To reset 30-day unlimited fare to 2010 level (prior to fare hike imposed ### 0%
on 30-Dec-2010), input this amount: -12.4%. ###
###
To reset bonus % to 2010 level (prior to fare hike effective 30-Dec-2010),### 0%
input this amount: 15%. To retain actual %, input: 7% ###
###
Fares shown are for one ride using a pay-per-ride card allowing two or ###
more rides. ### $1.25
### $1.75
See Subways worksheet for hours making up each fare bin. ### $1.75
### $1.75
To test uniform fare hike, e.g., from $2.25 base fare to $2.50, set ### $1.75
"Override Factor" to ratio of new fare to base fare, e.g., 1.11 (ratio of ### $2.25
$2.50 to $2.25). Zero cancels override factor.
### 1.00
###
To keep current fare, set Override to 1 and type YES in this row. ### YES
###
### $1.00
###
###
### $1.00
###
To be filled in ###
### $1.00
###
### $1.00
###
To be filled in
### $1.00
###
###
###
###
Applies to all Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road trips that take place### 0%
entirely within NYC ###
###
### 0%
Applies to all buses operated by MTA Bus Co. (MTA division that in 2005
took over the 7 private bus companies providing bus service in NYC). ###
###
###
Reduces # of pre-toll (baseline) trips by autos, taxis, trucks, buses. ### 0%
Negative % implies increase. Lets toll scenarios operate on more ###
realistic baseline if recession has shrunk traffic.
###
n largely for historical reference)
Kheel-
Kheel II Plan,
Komanoff
2008
Plan, 2009
"Orphaned" text below to be superseded by new columns w/ input parameters applicable to bri
$3.00 ` How to use the BTA to model the impact of bridge tolls (as opposed to a cordon toll to drive into the CBD)
$6.00 You'll alter some of the "Baseline" settings (choice #1), shown in Column H.
$6.00 The tricky step is setting the toll levels in Rows 25-29 (weekdays) and 32-36 (weekends):
$9.00 If you want the tolls to apply 'round the clock on weekdays, set all five weekday tolls in Column K to twice the desired o
bridge toll. This is because bridge tolls would be collected outbound as well as inbound, whereas the BTA charges tolls
$9.00 trips. Ditto for weekends. The BTA automatically applies half of the East River bridge toll rate to all Harlem River bridge
'half' to any desired fraction or percent, via Cell H47).
If tolls will apply only in some hours, you'll need to look up the BTA hours that correspond to your hours, in the workshe
$2.00 Hours and Weekend Hours. (You may need to prorate the toll for periods that aren't fully tolled.)
$3.00 Now re-set Row 42 in Col. H to BRIDGES (for tolls on East + Harlem Riv. bridges) or to EAST if only tolling E. River bri
$4.00 Also set Row 69 in Col. H to 2, to indicate that average truck tolls will be double car tolls. (Or, pick your own factor.)
$4.00 Finally, go to previous worksheet, 'Results', and enter the number 1 in the choice box in Row 25.
NA All key results -- revenue generation, traffic reduction, speed improvements -- will now be shown in the 'Results' works
CORDON
INCREMENT
NO
NO
0%
2.0
100%
0%
33%
33%
10%
1
(lane-miles)
$0
million/year
$0
million/year
0%
$0.00
$0.50
$1.00
$1.00
$1.50
$2.00
NONE
NO
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
100%
100%
0%
nput parameters applicable to bridge tolls.
ordon toll to drive into the CBD)
tolls in Column K to twice the desired one-way East River

nbound, whereas the BTA charges tolls only on inbound
ridge toll rate to all Harlem River bridges (you can change
orrespond to your hours, in the worksheets Weekday

aren't fully tolled.)
es) or to EAST if only tolling E. River bridges.

car tolls. (Or, pick your own factor.)
e box in Row 25.
ill now be shown in the 'Results' worksheet.
Changes
This worksheet documents the BTA's estimates of costs to implement a variety of possible measures, e.g., dollar buses, discounting intra-
These figures can be (and were) derived quickly and easily by altering the relevant parameters in the User Inputs worksheet. Nevertheles
evaluating different pricing options.
Date of Estimated Impact

Item / Proposal Calculation Scenario Used on Net Revenue
Dollar Buses 3/8/2011 ST costs $320 million
Fare-Free Sundays 3/8/2011 ST costs $120 million
Cut taxi surcharge in half (to 20% 3/8/2011 ST + "ST with lesser taxi lose $220 million
wkdays, 15% other) surcharge"
25% hike in cordon toll 3/8/2011 ST gain $230 million
Reduce price of unlimited transit 3/8/2011 ST lose $120 million

fares by 10%
Reduce price of unlimited transit 3/24/2011 ST with $1 avg taxi fare lose $140 million
fares by 12.4% hike, no bus-sub fare
breaks
Restore pay-per-ride bulk 3/24/2011 Same as dir'ly above, lose $100 million
discount to 15%, from 7%. plus 12.4% drop in
unlimiteds price
Reset "baseline" so reserve = $50M, 10% commuter rail and express buses, other changes from above
1/6/2012
ible measures, e.g., dollar buses, discounting intra-city commuter rail to subway fares, etc.
ameters in the User Inputs worksheet. Nevertheless, we have collected them here, as an aid to
How Calculated Notes
Gain in 'Results' tab, Cell I57 from switching bus fares to $2.25 from $1.00
Decrease in 'Results' tab, Cell I57 when Sunday bus and subway fares are
switched to zero from $1.00 and $1.50, respectively
Difference in 'Results' tab, Cell G13 between Scenarios 2 (ST) and 3 (ST with
lesser taxi surcharge
Increase in 'Results' tab, Cell I57 when $8 peak toll is raised to $10, and $4 off-
peak to $5
Multiply following cells by 90%: (i) in 'Subways', all 24 data columns in Row 180; May understate cost since
(ii) in 'Subways', both data columns in Row 485; in 'Buses', all three data columns doesn't reflect switching
in Row 66. from pay-per-riders
May understate cost since

Observe reduction in 'Results' Cell I57 when '-12.4%' is inputted for '% Change in
doesn't reflect switching
Price of Unlimited Fare MetroCard' (Row 112).
from pay-per-riders
Observe reduction in 'Results' Cell I57 when '-15%' replaces '7%' in '% Bonus w/ May understate cost since
Purchase of MetroCard of $10 or More' (Row 115). Reflects both subways and doesn't reflect switching
buses. from pay-per-riders
r changes from above

Revenues
This worksheet collects estimates of revenue impacts of tolls and transit from traffic pricing (including taxi surcharges)
and transit fare hikes, reductions or redesigns. It also estimates revenues from tolls currently charged on bridges and
tunnels into the Manhattan CBD.
A. Transit Revenue
All figures in box are annual, in millions of dollars, and employ 2011 ri
(MTA near-term transit projections have been quite accurate in
NYC Transit Revenues
Subways Bus
Weekdays Weekends Total Weekdays Weekends
Rev. w/ Current (2011) Pricing $1,979 $457 $2,435 $684 $167
Revenue with New Pricing Plan $2,126 $479 $2,605 $700 $172
Revenue Increase (decrease) $148 $22 $170 $15 $4

Subways revenue data are shown and/or derived in Rows 434 through 519 of 'Subways' worksheet
Bus revenues are from Rows 127 and 148 of 'Buses' worksheet.
7.4%
Predicted % change in usage From 'Results' tab, Row 111, From 'Results' worksheet, Row
resulting from new pricing plan which in turn is from 114, which in turn is from
'Subways' tab, Row 534. 'Buses', Row 109.
Derived algebraically from $179 Derived algebraically from

Revenue attributable to
Rows 21 and 27. Rows 21 and 27.
usage change ($ millions) million
B. Traffic-Pricing Revenue
NYC Traffic-Pricing Revenues
Cordon Charge to Drive
Into Manhattan CBD Surcharge on Meda
Based on 2010-2011 traffic levels + 2011

Based on 2005 taxi ridershi
baseline tolls, gas and parking costs, etc.
Weekdays Weekends Total Annual Trips, baseline (millions)

Revenue with Current Pricing $385 $151 $536 Annual Trips w/ new pricing (millions)
Revenue with New Pricing $1,252 $361 $1,612 Taxi surcharge $, under chosen plan
Note: Cells in Row 47 employ 'if' statement to
Revenue Increase (decrease) $866 $210 $1,076 Annual taxi-surcharge rev. (millions)
Current Cordon-pricing Total is derived in Row 208. It is allocated between weekdays and weekend
(ii) ratio of average weekend to weekday toll crossings in 'Weekends' worksheet, Row 148.
New Cordon-pricing figures for Weekdays and Weekends are derived in Motor Vs and Motor Vs We
Taxi Surcharge revenues are respective products of Rows 45 and 47 which in turn are from 'Taxis' w
C. Tolls on MTA Bridges and Tunnels
1. MTA Toll Revenues, broken down by tolls charged to access Midtown Cordon (CBD), and other tolls
All figures are annual. Percentages denote share of toll revenues to be included in calculating existing condition
T H E S E C O L U M N S A R E N O T U S E D I N C A L C U L A T I O N S (except allocation
Toll-Pay Trips
08 Rev, 000 2009 Toll Revenue, 000 (000), 2009
MTA (TBTA) Total Total % Allocable Total
Verrazano-Narrows $ 278,906 $ 295,901 0% $ - 68,569
Triborough 287,877 304,794 0% $ - 59,423
Bronx-Whitestone 212,125 225,224 0% $ - 42,646
Throgs Neck 219,855 222,825 0% $ - 39,029
Brooklyn-Battery 73,590 73,248 100% $ 73,248 15,896
Queens Midtown 131,264 134,927 100% $ 134,927 27,692
Henry Hudson 44,126 49,581 0% $ - 22,574
Marine Parkway 12,019 12,921 0% $ - 7,872
Cross Bay 12,212 12,694 0% $ - 7,546
MTA TOTAL $ 1,271,974 $ 1,332,115 $ 208,175 291,247
Sources
All data in table except allocation percentages and average tolls are from from URS doc, "History and Projection of Traffic, Toll Revenues and Expens
Conditions of the Facilities of Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority," April 30, 2010, Page E-15, Table 5. This document is available at
http://www.mta.info/mta/investor/pdf/2010/Appendix_E_URS_Engineers_Report.pdf. A predecessor document is available at <http://www.mta.info/mta
Allocable % for Triborough is per Brian T. Ketcham, personal communication to Komanoff, August 2008. Allocable % for H Hudson is by Komanoff. Ave
calculated by dividing revenues by toll-paying trips. Note that TBTA doubles actual toll-paying trips in arriving at Verrazano-Narrows trips figure shown
shown).
2. MTA Estimated Lost Revenues from Implementing Congestion Pricing (uses 2011 projected revenues above at r
If the cordon toll supplements rather than replaces existing tolls, the MTA stands to lose revenues from its own tolls on the Queens
Midtown and Brooklyn-Battery Tunnels, as drivers cut back on CBD trips due to the higher total toll.
Projected Base Revenue, Queens Midtown + Bklyn-Battery Tunnels, 2011 Sum of figures in Rows 70 and 71, Column P.
Weekdays
Expected % change in cordon-crossing trips due to pricing -15.9%
Weekdays and Weekends percentages are from 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs Weekends' worksheets, Row 902. Weighted figure weights those two pe
respective total entries into CBD from Row 27 of same worksheets, adj'd for relatve frequency of weekdays and weekends.
Expected change in revenue due to congestion pricing, thousands

Product of % change in tolled trips in Row 90 and base revenue in Row 88.
3. Impacts of Possible Toll Increase for MTA Bridges that do not access the cordon
All revenue figures are annual and in thousands of $$.
MTA Tolls collected from crossing that do not enter the Manhattan CBD ($ 000) $1,286,430
Approximate average one-way distance for these crossings 12.9
Cost of fuel (gasoline) per trip on these crossings $5.45
Average current toll for these trips $10.30

Other costs (than gasoline and current tolls) for average round-trip on these facilities $4.00
Baseline driving cost $19.74
Toll Change, % -15%
Toll Change, $ ($1.54)
% change in baseline driving cost due to increase in non-cordon tolls -7.8%
Applicable Price-Elasticity (from Elasticities worksheet) -67%
Bridge Usage "retention" after toll change 105.6%
Bridge Usage "retention" adjusted for rebound effect (increased traffic discourages trips) 103.7%
MTA Tolls collected from crossings that do not enter the Manhattan CBD ($ 000) $1,134,046
Approximate revenue change from toll increase ($152,384)
Above, rounded ($152,000)
4. Estimated average trip-distance (one-way) for MTA Bridges

Tunnels are shown for completeness, but are not included in weighted average in Cell P133
Toll $ paid by Avg miles Toll $ paid by Avg miles Toll $ paid by
HH's w/I HH's w/I HH's w/I
Crossing 5 miles 2.5 5-10 miles 7.5 10-15 miles
Verrazano Bridge 75,840,991 27.8% 67,164,651 24.6% 28,432,903
Bronx Whitestone Bridge 29,406,089 18.7% 40,943,894 26.0% 25,059,687
Throgs Neck Bridge 18,609,032 13.5% 34,977,003 25.4% 22,026,420
Triborough Bronx Bridge 26,872,950 24.1% 33,749,273 30.2% 17,242,641
Triborough Manhattan Bridge 37,220,377 35.4% 23,205,980 22.1% 15,775,193
Henry Hudson Bridge 7,471,129 19.9% 11,366,346 30.3% 6,281,681
Marine Parkway Bridge 6,989,321 65.3% 2,127,509 19.9% 930,945
Cross Bay Bridge 653,223 19.4% 1,378,550 40.9% 748,901
Queens Midtown Tunnel 22,860,813 23.1% 17,478,291 17.7% 13,551,164
Brooklyn Battery Tunnel 13,654,503 21.8% 30,853,559 49.3% 10,097,298
Total 239,578,428 24.0% 263,245,056 26.4% 140,146,833
Source: Toll $ figures are for 2004, and are from C. Gordon and J. R. Peters. "Measuring Toll Burdens: Applying Lorenz Curves to a detailed datas
MTA Bridges in New York City." Transportation Research Board - 90th Annual Meeting. January, 2011, p. 6 of 17. Gordon & Peters source the data
Survey. 'Highest Toll Burden Zip Code Tabulation Areas.' Average miles are by Komanoff.
Note that the Gordon-Peters data are in toll dollars, whereas we use them here as if they were in crossings. The difference between the two metric
minor.
D. Port Authority Tolls
The PA raised its Hudson River crossings tolls on Sept 18, 2011. Complete toll schedule is available at <http://www.panynj.gov/about/t
PEAK HOURS: Weekdays: 6-10 a.m., 4-8 p.m., Sat. & Sun.: 11 a.m.-9 p.m. OFF-PEAK HOURS: All Other Times.
OVERNIGHT HOURS for Trucks: Sundays-Thursdays, 10 p.m. until 6 a.m. the following morning
Effective 18-Sept-2011
E-Zpass E-ZPass Trucks

Vehicle Type Class # Axles Off-Peak E-ZPass Peak Overnight
Cars 1 2 $7.50 $9.50 NA
Trucks 3 3 $27.00 $30.00 $22.00
Revenue Data (does not reflect the Sept. 2011 toll increases, unfortunately; our data request to the PANYNJ is pending)
All figures are annual and in thousands. Percentages denote share of toll revenues to be included in calculating baseline conditions fo
N O T U S E D I N C A L C U L A T I O N S (except allocation
2008 Toll Revenue, 000
Estimated Allocable % Allocable $
George Washington Bridge $ 442,904 5.0% $ 22,145

Holland Tunnel $ 116,622 100% 116,622
Lincoln Tunnel $ 156,483 100% 156,483
Bayonne Bridge 30,047 - Two Tunnels:
Goethals Bridge 111,037 -
Outerbridge Crossing 110,387 -
PORT T O T A L, t h o u s a n d s $ 967,480 $ 295,250
Source: PA 2009 budget, http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/budget-2009.pdf, p. 47 of 107.

PANYNJ Estimated Lost Revenues from Implementing Congestion Pricing (uses 2011 projected revenue)
To the extent that the cordon toll raises existing trans-Hudson tolls, the Port Authority stands to lose revenues from its current Holland
and Lincoln Tunnel tolls, as drivers cut back on CBD trips due to the higher toll. The same will apply to the share of GWB crossings
that would have eventually entered the CBD.
Base Revenue from three PANYNJ crossings (000) Budget 2011 figure, Allocable to CBD, from Cell O169.
Weekdays
Holland Lincoln
Net avg incrs in toll at crossing shown (simple avg of work + non-work trips) $0.22 $0.22
Arithmetic mean of work and non-work tolls allocable to cordon toll on PA tunnels, from Row 274 of 'Motor Vs and Motor Vs Weekends' worksheet
Nominal avg incrs in toll (simple avg of work + non-work trips) $8.48 $8.48
Arithmetic mean of work and non-work tolls allocable to cordon toll on PA tunnels, from Row 272 of 'Motor Vs and Motor Vs Weekends' worksheet
Toll increase at crossing shown, vis-à-vis nominal increase at other crossings 3% 3%
Row 183 divided by Row 185, except that GWB figure is from Cell N163 to reflect est'd share of GWB crossings that now drive into cordon. Note th
Projected % change in crossings -0.4% -0.4%
Bold figures in Cells K189 and O189 are percent drops in all entries, from Row 893 of 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs Weekends' tabs. Column entries to
Wghtd-avg % change in crossings, combining weekdays and weekends -0.3% -0.3%
Figures weights Row 189 percents by respective days in year and daily crossings.
Expected change in revenue due to cordon toll, thousands ($378) ($465)
Respective %'s in Row 191 multiplied by projected revenues from Holland, Lincoln and GWB in Column L, Rows 163 to 165.
Weekdays
Expected % change in cordon-crossing trips due to pricing -15.9%
Weekdays and Weekends percentages are from 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs Weekends' worksheets, Row 902. Weighted figure weights those two pe
respective total entries into CBD from Row 27 of same worksheets, adj'd for relatve frequency of weekdays and weekends.
E. Current (2010-2011) Revenues from Existing Tolls on Crossings into the Manhattan CBD
Annual Toll Revenues from MTA Crossings into the CBD, millions $229
Annual Toll Revenues from Port Authority Crossings into the CBD, millions $307
Annual Toll Revenues from All Crossings into the CBD, millions $536
F. Reduced Fares for MTA Bus Co.
The BTA allows for the option of reducing express bus fares, perhaps even to the extent of equalizing fares for all in-city bus. This
would promote "fare equity" and 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.
The BTA allows for the option of reducing express bus fares, perhaps even to the extent of equalizing fares for all in-city bus. This
would promote "fare equity" and 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
(available at http://mta.info/mta/budget/nov2007/part7.pdf).
MTA Bus Co. Projected Revenue, 2011, thousands (farebox revenue) $ 169,452
MTA 2011 Budget, section entitled MTA Bus Company, 2011 Final Proposed Budget, November Financial Plan 2011-2014, p. V-327. Available at
<http://bit.ly/hYifuy>.
G. Reduced Fares for Commuter Railroads
Long Island Rail Road Metro North Rail Road
2011 Projected Fare Revenue $606,736,000 $562,883,000

Source: MTA 2011 Adopted Budget, February Financial Plan 2011 - 2014. P. 196 and 216 of 346. Available at: http://bit.ly/ijRtAx, combined information
Assumed Fare Reduction, % 0% 0%

Is figure inputted in 'User Inputs' worksheet, Row 141.
Lost Revenue, $ $0 $0
Simple product of Rows 232 and 235. Price-elasticity is ignored, for simplicity (and conservatism, if discount is applied.
H. Reduced Fares for In-City Rides on Commuter Railroads
This section uses LIRR and Metro-North fare and boardings data to estimate the cost of discounting fares for intra-city trips on these rail l
Summary
2011 Intra-City Revenue $67,638,360 $14,278,148

Sum of each agency's two zones of fare revenues in row 307; combined information is sum of LIRR & MNRR.
2011 Intra-City Rev. if All Commuter Fares Discounted $67,638,360 $14,278,148
Intra-City Revenue in Row 248 multiplied by complement of assumed fare reduction % in Row 235.
Intra-City % of Total Agency Revenue 11% 3%
Total agency revenue earned within New York City in row 248 divided by total agency revenue in row 232; combined information is sum of LIRR & MN
Revenue if New Fare Adopted for Intra-City Trips $30,863,993 $6,823,890
Combined revenue each agency would earn from its two zones (in row 334) if intra-city fare is $2.25 (in row 313); combined information is sum of LIR
Cost to System of Adopting New Fare

Cost calculated on undiscounted 2011 revenue $36,774,367 $7,454,258
Difference between current revenues in row 248 and revenues from new lower fare from row 254; combined information is sum of LIRR & MNRR.
Cost calculated on discounted 2011 revenue $36,774,367 $7,454,258
Difference between current revenues in row 250 and revenues from new lower fare from row 254; combined information is sum of LIRR & MNRR.
Derivation: Fares Per Intra-City Ride

Source LIRR fares: New Fares - Effective December 30, 2010. Long Island Rail Road. Available at: http://bit.ly/fhqu7y
Source Metro-North fares: Ticket fares NY State - Metro North. Effective December 30, 2010. Available at: http://bit.ly/ih9hpG.
Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 1 Zone 2

Peak or 10-trip Peak $7.25 $8.75 $6.75 $7.50
Off-Peak $5.00 $6.25 $5.00 $5.75
10-Trip Off-Peak $4.25 $5.33 $4.25 $4.90
Weekly Unlimited $52.25 $61.75 $49.25 $55.50
Weekly Unlimited, per ride $5.23 $6.18 $4.93 $5.55
Assumes 10 rides per week.
Monthly Unlimited $163.00 193 $154.00 $178.00
Monthly Unlimited, per ride $3.88 $4.60 $3.67 $4.24
Assumes 2 rides per weekday, 21 weekdays per month.
Average Peak Fare $5.06 $6.03 $4.75 $5.38

Average of fares in rows 267, 271, and 274 weighted by assumed usage in rows 287, 288, 289, and 290.
Assumed use (KEA assumptions)
One way 25% 25%
Week pass 25% 25%
Monthly pass 50% 50%
Average Off-Peak Fare $4.60 $5.67 $4.53 $5.20

Average of fares in rows 268, 269, 271, and 274 weighted by assumed usage in rows 287, 288, 289, and 290.
Assumed use (KEA assumptions)
One way 35% 35%
10-trip Off-Peak 35% 35%
Week pass 15% 15%
Monthly pass 15% 15%
Weekdays
Inbound Peak Boardings 1,568 11,431 41 3,254
Inbound Off-Peak Boardings 509 5,982 83 1,350
Estimated Intra-City Revenue $20,552 $205,650 $1,141 $49,052
Average fare multiplied by ridership for both peak and off-peak, multiplied by 2 for two directions.
Annualized Weekday Revenue $5,137,997 $51,412,591 $285,257 $12,262,885
Weekends
In-bound Boardings 1,395 15,876 98 2,810
Estimated Intra-City Revenue $6,422 $89,994 $444 $14,600
Average fare multiplied by ridership for both peak and off-peak, multiplied by 2 for two directions.
Annualized Weekend Revenue $738,499 $10,349,272 $51,011 $1,678,995
Total Revenue from Intra-City Trips $5,876,496 $61,761,864 $336,268 $13,941,880

% of total revenue per agency 1.0% 10.2% 0.1% 2.5%
Intra-City Revenue, Zones Combined $67,638,360 $14,278,148

% of total revenue per agency 11.1% 2.5%
New Fare $2.25

Standard pay-per-ride single subway/bus fare, from 'Transit' worksheet, Row 40.
New fare $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
Applies fare in Row 313, above, to each zone for each railroad.
Weekdays
Inbound boardings 2,077 17,413 124 4,604
Sum of peak and off-peak boardings (one direction of travel) in each zone from rows 295 and 296 since new fare applies to all times of day with one p
Revenue with new fare $9,347 $78,359 $558 $20,718
Total funds that will be earned by each agency on weekdays with new lower fare replacing previous fare structure. Each trip is also multiplied by two s
account for one direction and most trips are round trips.
Annualized Revenue with new fare $2,336,625 $19,589,625 $139,500 $5,179,500
Weekends
Inbound boardings 1,395 15,876 98 2,810
Inbound boardings in each zone only account for one direction of travel.
Revenue with new fare $6,278 $71,442 $441 $12,645
Total funds that will be earned by each agency on weekends with new lower fare replacing previous fare structure. Each trip is also multiplied by two s
account for one direction and most trips are round trips.
Annualized Revenue with new fare $721,913 $8,215,830 $50,715 $1,454,175
Total Revenue with new fare $3,058,538 $27,805,455 $190,215 $6,633,675
New York City LIRR Stations Westbound Boardings

Source: MTA Long Island Rail Road Passenger Counts: 2006. Available at: http://bit.ly/fS5zmc.
Mid-day
AM Peak (Off-Peak) PM Off-peak Weekends
Zone 1
East New York 10 10 3 27
Forest Hills 469 75 42 407
Kew Gardens 590 154 47 671
Mets-Willets Point No data
Nostrand Avenue 1 3 2 5
Woodside 498 123 50 285
Zone 2
Auburndale 573 101 15 599
Bayside 2,882 820 216 2,208
Broadway 968 243 78 1,108
Douglaston 1,021 326 85 551
Flushing 231 199 76 730
Hollis 99 13 2 118
Jamaica 1,389 1,729 667 7,154
Laurelton 543 137 42 571
Little Neck 1,132 492 23 871
Locust Manor 576 122 42 364
Murray Hill 289 103 34 362
Queens Village 621 173 45 545
Rosedale 1,037 153 23 652
St. Albans 70 16 7 43
Zone 1 Sub-total 1,568 365 144 1,395

Zone 2 Sub-total 11,431 4,627 1,355 15,876
New York City Station Total 12,999 4,992 1,499 17,271
LIRR System Total 109,425 33,889 13,879 89,996
New York City MNRR Stations Weekday Boardings

Source: MTA Metro North Rail Road Passenger Counts 2007. Available at: http://bit.ly/fKielE.
Weekday
AM Peak Off-Peak Weekends
Zone 1
125th (Hudson line) 20 17 13
125th (Harlem line) 9 45 58
125th (New Haven line) 12 21 27
Total 41 83 98
Zone 2
Riverdale 627 95 225
Spuyten Duyvil 933 131 304
Marble Hill 124 51 117
University Heights 22 5 15
Morris Heights 47 25 58
Wakefield 312 82 223
Woodlawn 720 272 730
Williams Bridge 133 46 129
Botanical Garden 145 146 429
Fordham (Harlem) 170 446 531
Fordham (NH) 3 43 43
Tremont 9 7 2
Melrose 9 1 4
Total 3,254 1,350 2,810
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
of dollars, and employ 2011 ridership and revenue. ###
s have been quite accurate in recent years.) ###
###
ansit Revenues ###
###
Bus Subways + Bus ###
###
Total Weekdays Weekends Total ###
###
$852 $2,663 $624 $3,287 ###
###
$871 $2,826 $651 $3,477 ###
###
$20 $163 $27 $189 ###
ough 519 of 'Subways' worksheet. ###
###
###
2.3% ###
###
###
###
$20 $198 ###
million million ###
###
###
###
###
c-Pricing Revenues ###
###
Surcharge on Medallion Taxi Fares
###
###
Based on 2005 taxi ridership + 2006 fare structure.
###
Weekdays Weekends Total ###
aseline (millions) 117.8 54.2 172.0 ###
###
/ new pricing (millions) 126.1 56.0 182.1 ###
###
$, under chosen plan $0.87 $0.91 ###
n Row 47 employ 'if' statement to return zero if surcharges are zero. ###
urcharge rev. (millions) $109 $51 $160 ###
###
between weekdays and weekends based on (i) numbers of such days in year, and ###
ds' worksheet, Row 148.
###
ved in Motor Vs and Motor Vs Weekends worksheets, Rows 992. ###
47 which in turn are from 'Taxis' worksheet. ###
###
###
###
###
and other tolls ###
###
calculating existing conditions for cordon entry ###
###
T I O N S (except allocation %'s) THESE COLUMNS ARE USED IN CALCULATIONS ### TOLLS IN SAM SCHWARTZ P
Toll-Pay Trips
(000), 2009 URS-TBTA Revenue Projections for 2011 (000's) ### (See notes at bottom
Not to CBD Avg Toll Paying Trips F/C Revenue Avg Toll Allocable ### Baseline
68,569 $4.32 69,048 $ 339,702 $4.92 $ ###
- $13.00
59,423 $5.13 59,524 346,226 $5.82 $ ###
- $13.00
42,646 $5.28 42,878 256,723 $5.99 $ ###
- $13.00
39,029 $5.71 39,268 254,963 $6.49 $ ###
- $13.00
0 $4.61 15,050 78,595 $5.22 $ 78,595### No discounts are applied to MT
0 $4.87 27,271 150,658 $5.52 $ 150,658### since these as CBD portals.
22,574 $2.20 23,496 59,203 $2.52 $ ###

- $8.00
7,872 $1.64 8,072 15,104 $1.87 $ ###
- $6.50
7,546 $1.68 7,658 14,509 $1.89 $ ###
- $6.50
247,659 292,265 $ 1,515,683 $5.19 $ 229,253### $1,286,430
###
Toll rates are from 1-p sheet, "Con
Figs for individual facilities are from Table 20 ("Traffic and toll###
affic, Toll Revenues and Expenses and Review of Physical Pricing Rev.Est Spreadsheet," pro
Revenue Forecast, [Assuming] Periodic Toll Increases") of
ment is available at Schwartz Co., March 11, 2011, exc
URS report cited to left. Totals were calculated here -- URS ###
lable at <http://www.mta.info/mta/investor/pdf/urs_2007.pdf>. Verrazano figures (which were (om
Table 20 had none -- though rev. total agrees w/ fig. in URS
or H Hudson is by Komanoff. Average tolls are for 2009 and are
Table 22. Allocable figures multiply Revenue F/C's by ### SSCo. sheet) are assumed same
zano-Narrows trips figure shown (thus explaining "low" toll Whitestone & Trib in order to harm
percents in Column G. ### proposed discounts.
###
###
ected revenues above at right) ### Toll levels assume cash payment,
to only a minority of trips. But hear
### is percent reductions rather than a
s own tolls on the Queens ###

###
Revenue figure in Cell S75 is MTA
projection for its bridges. Figure in
T75adjusts projection for % chang
shown in Column U.
Revenue figure in Cell S75 is MTA
### projection for its bridges. Figure in
T75adjusts projection for % chang
s in Rows 70 and 71, Column P. $ 229,253 ### shown in Column U.
Weekends Weighted ###
-14.6% -15.6% ###
ghted figure weights those two percentages by ###
weekends.
###
###
($35,700) ###
###
###
###
###
Sources ###
Difference between forecasted 2011 total revenues and 'allocable' revenues in Row 75. ###
Cell P133, drawn from geographic data sourced in Rows136-140. ###
Calculated as 2x distance in Row 101 x gasoline price in 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 259, divided by assumed ###
avg 18 mpg.
###
Uses 2x forecasted 2011 trips and tolls in Rows 66 through 75, but excluding Rows 70 and 71. ###
Komanoff rough est. intended to encompass applicable parking, wear/tear, incremental insurance, etc. ###
Sum of Rows 102 through 105. ###
Chosen by User, and displayed in 'User Inputs' tab in Cell N76. ###
Product of Rows 104 and 107. ###
Row 108 divided by Row 106. ###
Weighted average of work and non-work trip elasticities from Elasticities worksheet. ###
Calculated as [one plus the Row 109 percentage] raised to the elasticity in Row 110. ###
Calculated by attenuating % increase reflected in Row 111 by one-third (a Komanoff assumption). ###
Product of Rows 100, 112, and the sum of 1 and Row 107. ###
Row 113 less Row 100. ###
###
###
###
###
###
Avg miles for Est'd avg
trips beyond distance###
Avg miles Toll $ paid by Avg miles 15-mile cutoff (miles) for all
###
HH's past 15 Total Toll $ for (Komanoff trips using
12.5 mi. NA crossing est.) crossing###
10.4% 101,441,022 37.2% 272,879,567 100.0% 25 ###
13.1
15.9% 62,033,109 39.4% 157,442,779 100.0% 25 ###
14.3
16.0% 62,032,546 45.1% 137,645,001 100.0% 25 ###
15.5
15.4% 33,863,302 30.3% 111,728,166 100.0% 20 ###
10.9
15.0% 29,011,628 27.6% 105,213,178 100.0% 20 ###
9.9
16.7% 12,398,412 33.0% 37,517,568 100.0% 25 ###
13.1
8.7% 657,051 6.1% 10,704,826 100.0% 15 ###
5.1
22.2% 588,703 17.5% 3,369,377 100.0% 7.5 ###
7.6
13.7% 45,063,039 45.5% 98,953,307 100.0% 25 ###
15.0
16.1% 7,918,954 12.7% 62,524,314 100.0% 20 ###
8.8
14.0% 355,007,766 35.6% 997,978,083 100.0% ###
12.9
###
Figure dir'ly above is wghtd avg for all bridges; excludes two MTA tunnels
###
###
orenz Curves to a detailed dataset of users of
Gordon & Peters source the data to TBTA ###
###
difference between the two metrics is probably ###
###
###
###
###
###
http://www.panynj.gov/about/toll-fare-2011.html>. Following are excerpts. ###
###
###
Source: PANYNJ Press Release Number: 3-2008, dated Jan 04, ###
2008 <http://www.panynj.gov/press-room/press-item.cfm?
headLine_id=946> ###
Effective 02-Mar-2008 ###
###
Cash Toll E-Zpass E-ZPs Trucks Cash Toll
All Hours Off-Peak E-ZPass Peak Overnight All Hours ###
$12.00 $6.00 $8.00 NA $8.00 ###
$39.00 ###
###
YNJ is pending) ###
ulating baseline conditions for cordon entry ###
###
T I O N S (except allocation %'s) USED IN CALCULATIONS ###
2009 2010 2011 ###
$ Allocation % Allocation $ Allocation ###
for Baseline for PA Toll for PA Toll
Actual Estimate Budget, 000 Tolls, 000 Impact Impact, 000 ###
$ 444,412 $ 452,555 $ 459,995 $ 23,000 25% $ 114,999 ###
$ 120,297 $ 125,489 $ 127,211 127,211 100% $ 127,211 ###
$ 154,593 $ 154,003 $ 156,659 156,659 100% $ 156,659 ###
$ 274,890 $ 279,492 http://www.panynj.gov/corporate-information/pdf/budget- ###
2011.pdf, p. 58 (Table: Gross Oper. Revs. by Facility")
###
###
$ 306,870 $ 398,869 ###
###
This figure This figure
is used to is used to ###
estimate estimate
PANYNJ PA's toll
baseline revenue
toll loss from
revenues fewer trips
from trips to CBD
into the due to
Manhattan cordon
CBD. toll.
This figure This figure
is used to is used to
estimate estimate
PANYNJ PA's toll ###
ojected revenue) baseline revenue ###
toll loss from
revenues fewer trips ###
from trips to CBD
nues from its current Holland into the due to ###
e share of GWB crossings Manhattan cordon ###
CBD. toll.
###
able to CBD, from Cell O169. $ 398,869 ###
###
GW Bridge All portals Holland Lincoln GW Bridge All portals ###
###
NA $0.00 $0.00 NA ###
Motor Vs Weekends' worksheet tabs. ###
NA $8.64 $8.64 NA ###
Motor Vs Weekends' worksheet tabs. ###
25% 0% 0% 25% ###
hat now drive into cordon. Note that cordon-crossers pay full toll. ###
-4.0% -15.9% 0.0% 0.0% -3.7% -14.6% ###
eekends' tabs. Column entries to their left prorate those figures by the ratios in Row 187. ###
-3.9% [NA - values above are subsumed in figures at left] ###
###
($17,889) ($18,732) ###
###
###
###
Weekends Weighted ###
-14.6% -15.6% ###
ghted figure weights those two percentages by ###
weekends.
###
($62,000) ###
###
###
###
Sources ###
Row 75, Column P (2011 'allocable' data). ###
Row 169, Column M (2010 'allocable' data). ###
Sum of two prior rows. ###
###
###
###
###
es for all in-city bus. This ###

erated by MTA Bus Co. ###
###
###
he City of New York, in order
ence between the cost of ###
BC operations are 100% ###
, 2006. Upon completion,
6 local routes in the Bronx, ###
urce: MTA 2007 Budget ###
###
###
###
2014, p. V-327. Available at ###
###
###
###
###
###
Combined ###
###
$1,169,619,000 ###
it.ly/ijRtAx, combined information is sum of LIRR & MNRR. ###
###
###
###
###
$0 ###
###
###
###
###
r intra-city trips on these rail lines. ###
###
###
Combined Assumptions as to "days" ###
Trips/day 2 ###
$81,916,508 Weekdays/week 5 ###
Weekdays/month 21 ###
$81,916,508 Trips/week 10 ###
Trips/month 42 ###
14% Weekdays/year 250 ###
nformation is sum of LIRR & MNRR. Wknds+holidays/yr 115 ###
$37,687,883 ###
mbined information is sum of LIRR & MNRR. ###
###
###
$44,228,625 ###
ion is sum of LIRR & MNRR. ###
$44,228,625 ###
ion is sum of LIRR & MNRR. ###
###
###
###
ih9hpG.
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Combined ###
###
###
16,294 ###
7,924 ###
$276,395 ###
###
$69,098,730 ###
###
###
20,179 ###
$111,459 ###
###
$12,817,778 ###
###
$81,916,508 ###
7.0% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
lies to all times of day with one price. ###
###
ach trip is also multiplied by two since in-bound boardings only ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
ach trip is also multiplied by two since in-bound boardings only ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
TOLLS IN SAM SCHWARTZ PROPOSAL URS-TBTA Projexns for 2010 (000's)
(See notes at bottom) Paying Trips Revenue Avg Toll
Proposed Change 68,831 $ 312,369 $4.57
$8.00 -38.5% 59,320 321,364 $5.42
$8.00 -38.5% 42,514 237,133 $5.58
$8.00 -38.5% 38,900 235,245 $6.05
$8.00 -38.5% 15,201 73,882 $4.86
No discounts are applied to MTA tunnels, 27,373 140,732 $5.14
since these as CBD portals. 23,015 54,021 $2.35
$4.40 -45.0% 7,924 13,765 $1.74
$3.20 -50.8% 7,589 13,362 $1.76
$3.20 -50.8% 290,168 $ 1,401,874 $4.83
$784,134 -39.0%
All figures are from Table 11 of April 30, 2010
Toll rates are from 1-p sheet, "Congestion URS report cited directly to left. Totals and
Pricing Rev.Est Spreadsheet," provided by Sam average tolls are from that table and have not
Schwartz Co., March 11, 2011, except that been independently verified here.
Verrazano figures (which were (omitted from
SSCo. sheet) are assumed same as Throgs,
Whitestone & Trib in order to harmonize
proposed discounts.
Toll levels assume cash payment, which applies

to only a minority of trips. But heart of proposal
is percent reductions rather than actual levels.
Revenue figure in Cell S75 is MTA 2011

projection for its bridges. Figure in Cell
T75adjusts projection for % change in tolls
shown in Column U.
Revenue figure in Cell S75 is MTA 2011
projection for its bridges. Figure in Cell
T75adjusts projection for % change in tolls
shown in Column U.
Cost-Benefit
This worksheet compiles societal costs and benefits of pricing scenario selected by user in Summary and User Inputs.
Net Benefit of Selected Plan: $2,340
Traffic Pricing Benefits and Costs

3,000
$ Million per Year
User Fees ▪ Transit Fares User Fees ▪ Taxi Fares

User Fees ▪ Driver Tolls Wellness ▪ Cabbies' Health Plan
Wellness ▪ More Walking Wellness ▪ More Biking
2,000 Time ▪ Subway Riders Time ▪ Bus Riders
Time ▪ Bus Boarding Time ▪ Non-CBD Trips
Time ▪ CBD Trips Enviro ▪ Noise
Enviro ▪ Air Quality Enviro ▪ Petroleum
Enviro ▪ Climate Enviro ▪ Crashes
1,000
0
Travelers' Toll & Fare Admin. Wellness Environment Saved Time Saved Time (Drivers
Amenity (Transit)
(1,000) Travelers' Amenity represents lost (or gained)

"utility" of trips that drivers forego due to the If Transit Fare (a subset of User Fees) appears below the x-axis, it
congestion toll (or trips attracted to transit by indicates an increase in total dollars paid for transit travel, due to
lower fares). If bar falls below x-axis, drivers' larger ridership attracted by service improvements.
lost amenity has outweighed transit users' gain.
(2,000)
Input assumptions underlying results in graph are shown in User Inputs worksheet. Explanatory notes are omitted in most cases where
values are derived from other worksheets.
Results Annual $, NYC only, millions

Values in parentheses denote loss
Toll & Fare Administration Revenues
A. Cordon Administration
B. Operational savings if eliminate subway and/or bus farebox $0
S U B T O T A L, Toll & Fare Administration $0
Economic, Social and Environmental Costs and Benefits Gains

A. Transit Riders' saved time due to faster traffic and/or service improvements $727
1. Bus Riders $101
2. Subway Riders $626
B. Motor vehicle users' saved time that was previously lost in traffic Components
1. Trips into, in or through CBD 51% $1,101 $2,146
2. Trips that make no use of the CBD 49% $1,045
3. Bus riders' addit'l saved time, from fare-free board. 0% $0
C. Mobility Changes (more transit trips, fewer m.v. trips) $0
D. Reduction in crash damage costs $127
E. Reduction in driver insurance costs (not included in any summary figures) $32
F. Reduction in climate damage from lesser CO2 emissions $51
G. Reduction in ecological and national-security costs from lesser petroleum use $23
H. Reduction in air pollution health/enviro damages $222
I. Reduction in noise costs $80
J. Longevity benefits of increased cycling $188
K. Longevity benefits of increased walking $188
L. Taxi surcharge revenues applied to drivers' health plan $20
S U B T O T A L, Economic, Social and Environmental Costs and Benefits $3,597
User Fees (Tolls and Fares)

A. Driver Tolls $150
B. Taxi Fares
C. Transit Fares $70
S U B T O T A L, User Fees $220
TOTAL $3,817
Attached array feeds into bar chart below. Quantities are pulled from cells above.
Travelers' Toll & Fare
Amenity Admin. Wellness Environment
Enviro ▪ Crashes ($134) ($120) $127
Enviro ▪ Climate $51
Enviro ▪ Petroleum $23
Enviro ▪ Air Quality $222
Enviro ▪ Noise $80
Time ▪ CBD Trips
Time ▪ Non-CBD Trips
Time ▪ Bus Boarding
Time ▪ Bus Riders
Time ▪ Subway Riders
Wellness ▪ More Biking $188
Wellness ▪ More Walking $188
Wellness ▪ Cabbies' Health Plan $20
User Fees ▪ Driver Tolls
User Fees ▪ Taxi Fares
User Fees ▪ Transit Fares
Column Sums (check): ($134) ($120) $396 $503
Derivations
Agency Costs and Benefits are derived primarily in Revenue worksheet. The remainder of this worksheet derives eight classes of
economic, social and environmental costs and benefits.
A. Transit-Riders' saved time Parameters that apply for all 'saved time
Ratio, weekend value of time to weekda
Includes: Ratio, non-CBD value of time to in-CBD
• Bus riders' savings from general traffic speed-up Komanoff assumptions
• Bus and subway riders' time gained from improved service
• Bus riders' time gained from fare-free boarding (if applicable)
Weekdays
1. Bus riders' savings from general traffic speed-up and improved service
Number of bus passenger rides per year, with pricing (thousands) 581,114
Both figures are from Buses worksheet, Row 118.
Time saved per ride due to increased transit investment + faster traffic (minutes) 0.87
Difference between 'before' and 'after' figures for duration of average bus ride, calculated and shown in 'Sub v. Bus' worksheet, Row 33.
Hours saved per year due to increased transit investment + faster traffic 8,411,377
Product of Rows 110 and 112, times 1,000 and divided by 60.
Average value of a bus rider's hour saved in the CBD, weekdays and weekends $13.82
Average value of a bus rider's hour saved outside CBD, weekdays and weekends $9.21
Copied from 2x2 matrix in 'Value of Time' worksheet, Rows 146 and 148 and Columns I and N.
Percent of bus riders' time savings realized inside CBD 20%
Komanoff est., reflecting (i) Manhattan's roughly 25 percent share of NYC Transit bus ridership, as shown in 'Bus Routes' worksheet, Row 24; (ii) f
that CBD has some, not all, Manhattan bus rider-miles; (iii) disproportionately high travel speed gains within CBD.
Annual value of bus riders' saved time, inside CBD, millions $23
Annual value of bus riders' saved time, outside CBD, millions $62
Each figure in matrix above is product of three elements: (i) Hours saved in Row 114; (ii) percent of time savings within CBD, or its complement, fr
Row 119; (iii) average value of saved time in Rows 116 and 117.
Matrix at right prorates matrix to left by ratio of the sources of bus riders' time savings: less traffic, as reflected in 'Bus Boarding' worksheet, Row 1
and 'Transit' worksheet, Row 335.
Annual value of bus riders' saved time Sums of Rows 122 and 123. $85
2. Subway Riders' Saved Time from improved service

Number of subway passenger rides per year, with pricing (thousands) 1,430,540
Both figures are from Subways worksheet, Rows 530 and 532.
Time saved per ride due to increased transit investment (minutes) 1.44
Difference between 'before' and 'after' figures for duration of average subway ride, calculated and shown in 'Sub v. Bus' worksheet, Row 31.
Hours saved per year due to increased transit investment 34,298,790
Product of Rows 131 and 133, times 1,000 and divided by 60.
Average value of a subway rider's hour saved in the CBD, weekdays and weekends $20.34
Average value of subway rider's hour saved outside CBD, weekdays and weekends $13.56
Copied from 2x2 matrix in 'Value of Time' worksheet, Rows 146 and 148 and Columns G and L.
Percent of subway riders' time savings realized inside CBD 30%
Komanoff assumption.
Annual value of subway riders' saved time, inside CBD $209
Annual value of subway riders' saved time, outside CBD $326
Each figure in matrix is product of three elements: (i) Hours saved in Row 135; (ii) percent of time savings within CBD, or its complement, from Ro
140; (iii) average value of saved time in Rows 137 and 138.
Annual value of subway riders' saved time Sums of Rows 142 and 143. $535
3. Bus riders' time gained from fare-free boarding (if applicable)

These savings are calculated on current ridership to avoid double-counting with mobility benefit of new trips.
Annual bus ridership (from Buses worksheet) 708

Average bus trip distance for commute trips (from VMT worksheet) 2.4
Calculated by discounting average distance for NYC Transit bus-commute trips from Schaller, shown in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 273, reduced by
adjustment factor for all transit trips shown in 'Sub v. Bus' worksheet, Row 30.
Average bus speed 7.7

From NYC Transit data, as calculated in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 275.
Average duration of a bus trip, currently 18.8
Estimated average reduction in bus travel time from eliminating fare collection 0%
From 'Bus Boarding' worksheet, Row 148. Includes 20% reduction for conservatism.
Average duration of a bus trip, after re-priced transit 18.8
Average savings in bus trip duration from eliminating fare collection 0.0
Assumed waiting time (current), minutes 4.2
NYC Transit "Bus: Wait Assessement" reports wait times within "acceptable limits" 81.7% of time during 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. for 2006 and first half 2007
(http://www.mta.info/mta/ind-perform/month/nyct-b-wait.htm). Criteria are 3 minutes max 7-9 a.m. and 4-7 p.m. (peak) and 5 minutes 9 a.m.-4 p.m
(shoulder). We assume 40% of passengers are peak and average 2.5 minutes; 40% shoulder averaging 4.5 minutes; 20% off-peak averaging 7
minutes.
Reduxn in waiting time from eliminating fare collexn (Row 162 x Row 158) 0.0
Est'd total savings per trip from eliminating fare collexn (Row 161 + Row 167) 0.0
Hours saved by bus riders from eliminating fare collection 0.0
Average value of a bus rider's hour saved $9.66
Wghtd average of in-CBD and out-CBD respective avg per-hour values of saved time, which are calculated from SUMPRODUCT operations on 2x
array in Columns I & J and Rows 116 & 117.
Annual value of bus riders' time saved in traffic from eliminating fare collection $0
Is elimination of fare collection among the policies assumed in the model? NO
Annual value of bus riders' time saved in traffic from policies assumed in model $0
B. Drivers' saved time that was previously lost in traffic

Applies to auto drivers, auto passengers, taxi users and truckers. Bus riders' time is accounted for in prior section.
All figures are inputted or calculated directly from this or other worksheets, except as noted.
Method: We first estimate vehicle-hours saved, as the difference in aggregate annual m.v. hours between the current regime and the n
We then multiply those vehicle-hours by estimates of the average value (or cost) per vehicle-hour. The latter are derived in the Value o
Time worksheet.
Method: We first estimate vehicle-hours saved, as the difference in aggregate annual m.v. hours between the current regime and the n
We then multiply those vehicle-hours by estimates of the average value (or cost) per vehicle-hour. The latter are derived in the Value o
Time worksheet.
Before applying this valuation, however, we must split vehicle-hours saved outside the CBD between (a) hours saved in CBD-bound tr
and (b) hours saved in trips that don't cross into or thru CBD, but which benefit from less-crowded roads, highways and bridges due to
decrease in traffic into and through the CBD.
Weekdays
Begin subroutine
Daily VMT outside CBD, after pricing 65,765,443
Motor V's and Motor Vs Weekends tabs, Rows 908.
Daily VMT outside CBD and not bound for CBD, after pricing 46,770,557
Motor V's and Motor Vs Weekends tabs, Rows 911.
% of Daily VMT outside CBD not bound for CBD, after pricing 71.1%
Ratio of Row 190 to 184.
End of subroutine
Weekdays
1. Motor Vehicle Users Whose Trips Go Into (and Out of) or Through CBD
Daily vehicle-hours saved within the CBD 42,018
Both figures calculated in Totals columns block of Row 963 in respective Motor Vs worksheets
Daily vehicle-hours outside the CBD 52,964
Product of (i) complement of percent in Row 192 and (ii) non-CBD hours shown below, in Row 214.
Total daily vehicle-hours saved in CBD-connected trips 94,983
Sum of Rows 197 and 199.
Number of applicable days in the year From 'Constants' worksheet. 250
Total annual vehicle-hours saved in CBD-connected trips Row 201 x Row 203. 23,745,650
Avg value of vehicle-hour saved in traffic $41.45
Weekday figure is derived in 'Value of Time' worksheet, Row 91. Weekend figure applies factor from Row 103,above.
Annual value of veh-hrs saved in CBD trips, $ millions (includes bus riders) $984
Bus riders time savings included in above annual values $14
From upper row in matrix at right in Rows 122 and 123.
Net annual value of veh-hrs saved within CBD, $ millions (excl. bus riders) $971
2. Motor Vehicle Users Outside of the CBD Weekdays

Total daily vehicle-hours saved outside the CBD 183,377
Both figures calculated in Totals columns block of Row 972 in respective Motor Vs worksheets
Of which daily veh-hours saved outside CBD, on non-CBD-connected trips, are: 130,412
Product of (i) percent in Row 192 and (ii) total non-CBD hours shown in Row 214.
Same as Row 216, except annually, not daily: Row 216 x Row 203. 32,603,087
Avg value of veh-hr saved in traffic outside CBD $29.72
Weekday figure is derived in 'Value of Time' worksheet, Row 127. Weekend figure applies factor from Row 103,above.
Ann. value of veh-hrs saved on non-CBD trips, $ millions (includes bus riders) $969
Bus riders time savings included in above annual values $36
From lower row in matrix at right in Rows 122 and 123.
Net ann. Val. of veh-hrs saved on non-CBD trips, $ mill. (excludes bus riders) $933
3. Summary, Motor Vehicle Users' Time Savings Weekdays
Annual value of all vehicle-hours saved $1,903
CBD-bound (or in or thru) trips' share of time savings value 51.0%
Ratio of Row 211 to 228.
C. Mobility Changes (more transit trips, fewer m.v. trips)
Method: Car trips that are no longer taken, due to cordon entry fee or re-priced transit, provided utility to the trip-takers. The number o
such trips and their average and aggregate value are estimated in Part 1. Conversely, new transit trips taken due to transit's now being
re-priced have value for those trip-takers, estimated in Part 2.
Weekdays
1. Motor Vehicle Trips no longer taken
A. Auto Trips Into the CBD
Trips into CBD eliminated, per day 109,166
From Motor Vs and Motor Vs Weekends worksheets.
Trips into the CBD eliminated, per year 27,292,000
Increment in trips' cost that led trip-takers to eliminate them $7.95
Difference between 'before" and 'after' average tolls, from Motor Vs and Motor Vs Weekends worksheets.
Estimated average net benefit of eliminated trips to trip-takers $3.98
Calculated as half of the cost increase that led trip-takers to eliminate the trips, i.e., that tipped each trip-taker's
private cost-benefit calculus from the black into the red. The one-half factor is midpoint of the actual range of
values, which is as little as .01 cents to as much as the entire cost increment.
Lost value of the m.v. trips no longer taken, per year $108
B. Non-CBD Auto Trips (abandoned due to less-expensive buses)
Trips eliminated, per day 27,583
Trips eliminated, per year 6,896,000
Effective reduction in transit fare that led to those trips being eliminated $0.00
Difference betw old and new bus fares, factored by % of change in bus usage attributable to price rather than to changes in service or taxi surc
Estimated average net benefit of eliminated trips to trip-takers (= 1/2 of old fare) $0.00
Calculated as half of transit fare reduction, for reasons outlined in previous sub-section for trips into CBD.
Lost value of the m.v. trips no longer taken, per year $0
C. Non-CBD Auto Trips (abandoned due to less-expensive subways; note that CBD-related auto trips transferred to subways
Trips eliminated, per day 29,384
Trips eliminated, per year 7,346,000
Effective reduction in transit fare that led to those trips being eliminated $0.00
Fiigure is average difference between old and weekday/weekend new subway fare.
Estimated average net benefit of eliminated trips to trip-takers (= 1/2 of old fare) $0.00
Calculated as half of transit fare reduction, for reasons outlined in previous sub-section for trips into CBD.
Lost value of the m.v. trips no longer taken, per year $0.0
D. Taxi Trips (abandoned due to higher taxi fare; excludes taxi trips switching to transit/auto/bike/walk due to higher fare)
Trips eliminated, per day (914)
Trips eliminated, per year (228,425)
Increase in taxi fare that led to those trips being eliminated $0.96
Estimated average net benefit of eliminated trips to trip-takers (= 1/2 of fare incrs) $0.48
Lost value of the taxi trips no longer taken, per year -$0.1
Weekdays
2. New Trips taken on Transit (attracted by re-priced transit; trips priced out of m.v.'s are counted in Section 1C above)
A. Subway Trips Into CBD
New trips into/out of CBD per year due to re-priced transit 0
Both figures calculate change in annual subway rides for weekdays/weekends, and prorate by the portion of the change attributable to fare
changes as opposed to duration changes. Both figures are also prorated by CBD-related trips' share of all subway trips.
Estimated average net benefit of new transit trips to trip-takers (est'd. above) $0.00
New value of the new transit trips into the CBD, per year $0
B. Other Subway Trips (non-CBD-related)
Change in non-CBD trips per year due to re-priced transit 0
Prorates Row 276 figures by ratio of non-CBD-related weekday subway trips to CBD-related, using figure in Subways worksheet, Row 53.
Estimated average net benefit of new transit trips to trip-takers (see above) $0.00
New value of the new transit trips, per year $0
C. Bus Trips
Change in trips per year due to re-priced transit
Taken directly from Buses worksheet, Section 3D, where it was derived using a work/non-work split rather than weekday/weekend.
Estimated average net benefit of new transit trips to trip-takers (see above)
New value of the new transit trips, per year
D. Reduced Crash Damage Costs
Method: Ascertain annual NYC traffic injuries, with latter separated among fatal, severe, serious and other. Estimate average "valu
or societal cost per injury type, and multiply by respective injury number. Add allowance for cost of non-injury crashes. Prorate
resulting sum by anticipated reduction in citywide VMT (a proxy for expected reduction in crash rates) due to pricing.
1. Crash Fatalities (annual numbers)
Official NYC Data FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10

Citywide traffic fatalities 310 300 276 259
Motorists/passengers 136 123 98 97
Bicyclists/pedestrians 174 177 178 162
Source: Mayor's Management Report, 2010, http://www.nyc.gov/html/ops/downloads/pdf/2010_mmr/0910_mmr.pdf, p. 64.
Disaggregated % of total
Motorists/passengers Difference between Rows 301 and 306. 30.9%
Motorcyclists Komanoff assumption: 8.7%
Bicyclists Komanoff assumption: 5.6%
Pedestrians Difference between Rows 302 and 307. 54.8%
2. Severe Injuries (annual numbers)
Most estimates in this section are derived on basis of data in NYCDOT report, "The NYC Pedestrian Safety Study & Action Plan,
Technical Supplement," Aug. 2010. <http://bit.ly/eatYGP>. This detailed and thorough report assessed the numbers, locations, types
and consequences of pedestrian injuries from traffic crashes in New York City over the five-year period, 2002-2006. We refer to it
below as NYC Ped SSAP, Tech Supp.
"This study defines severe injuries (or “A” injuries) according to NYSDMV criteria. NYSDMV-categorized severe injuries include all
injuries involving an unconscious, semiconscious or incoherent victim, all injuries involving amputation, concussion, internal injuries,
severe bleeding, moderate or severe burns, fractures or dislocations, and eye injuries. These injuries typically involve a pedestrian
being transported from the scene by ambulance." NYC Ped SSAP, Tech Supp., p. 5.
"A total of 843 pedestrian fatalities occurred during this period [2002-2006], according to the reconciled NYCDOT/NYPD database of
traffic fatalities. NYSDOT data provides information for a total of 7,354 fatal and severe injury pedestrian-vehicle crashes. Of those, 739
crashes resulted in pedestrian fatalities and 6,615 crashes led to 6,784 severe injuries." NYC Ped SSAP, Tech Supp., p. 4.
Number of severe pedestrian injuries in NYC traffic crashes, 2002-2006

NYC Ped SSAP, Tech Supp., p. 4.
Pedestrian severe injuries as % of all severe injuries from NYC traffic crashes, 2002-2006
NYC Ped SSAP, Tech Supp., p. 3. "From 2002 to 2006 … 6,784 [pedestrians] were seriously injured in motor vehicle crashes in
New York City, representing … 26% of serious injuries in that five-year period. In the context of that paragraph, "serious" clearly
refers to "severe."
Annual severe injuries to all road users in NYC traffic crashes, 2002-2006
Prorated from pedestrian figure in Row 327. Calculated as one-fifth of Row 327 divided by Row 329.
Reduction in annual crash rates 2007-2010, from 2002-2006 (Komanoff placeholder assumption)
Estimated annual severe injuries from NYC traffic crashes, 2007-2010
Row 333, less percent in Row 335.
3. Serious Injuries (annual numbers)
Lacking NYC-specific data, we estimate the number of serious injuries by applying national ratios of serious to severe injuries for each
road-user type. Our source is "Incidence and Total Lifetime Costs of Motor Vehicle – Related Fatal and Nonfatal Injury by Road User
Type, United States, 2005," Traffic Injury Prevention, 11:3353-360, 2010, by Rebecca B. Naumann & Ann M. Dellinger (Motor Vehicle
Injury Prevention Team, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) and Eduard
Zaloshnja, Bruce A. Lawrence, and Ted R. Miller (Pacific Institute for Research & Evaluation, Calverton, Maryland). Article is available at
<http://pdfserve.informaworld.com/757422__926084087.pdf>.
The injury categories in Naumann et al. are (i) nonfatal hospitalized injuries, which we take to correspond to "severe"; and (ii) nonfatal
injuries treated at emergency departments and released, which we assume correspond to "serious."
Estimated Annual Fatal, Severe and Serious Injuries from NYC Traffic Crashes, by Road User Type, 2007-2010
U.S. Ratio,
Serious to
Severe Fatalities Severe Serious
Motorists/passengers 15.06 88.5 1,452 21,862
Motorcyclists 6.62 25.0 410 2,715
Bicyclists 19.71 16.0 263 5,174
Pedestrians 5.15 156.8 2,572 13,245
Ratios were calculated by Komanoff from Naumann et al., Table 1. Fatals are copied from Rows 305 to 308. Severe injuries are prorated from
severe total in Row 336 and percents in Rows 305 to 308. Serious injuries apply ratios in Rows 355 to 358 to severe injuries.
4. Per-Injury Societal Costs of Fatal, Severe and Serious Injuries
We begin with estimates from Naumann et al., which we increased from 2005 to 2008 dollars using the CPI (all-urban index).
Per-injury costs: include medical care and lost productivity only (2008$)
Fatalities Severe Serious
Motorists/passengers $ 1,402,000 $112,900 $4,220
Motorcyclists $ 1,674,000 $141,100 $5,580
Bicyclists $ 1,451,000 $102,300 $4,980
Pedestrians $ 1,243,000 $121,800 $3,780
Mean (calculated for illustrative purposes only) $ 1,442,500 $ 119,525 $ 4,640
Adjustment factor (multiple) to above figures to reflect costs not included in medical care and lost
productivity: pain, suffering, lost amenity, and lost nonmarket productivity.
Basis: We begin with McCubbin and Delucchi, "The Social Cost of the Health Effects of Motor Vehicle Air Pollution," UCD-ITS-
RR-96-3(11), Table 11.4-6. This volume is one of 20 in the exhaustive 15-year study of the "Annualized Social Cost of Motor
Vehicle Use in the U.S., 1990-1991," UCD-ITS-RR-96-3 (1) rev. 1 (June 1998, minor revisions Oct. 2004), by U-C Davis
researcher Mark A. Delucchi, Ph.D (summary version available at http://www.its.ucdavis.edu/publications/2004/UCD-ITS-RR-96-
03(01)_rev1.pdf). High and low values of accidental death, $4.0 million and $1.0 million, yield mean of $2.5 million. Adjusted to
2008 dollars (1.58 CPI factor) yields $4.0 million, which is 2.7x mean fatality cost shown in last row of table.
Total societal per-injury costs, with pain, suffering, etc. added to medical care and lost productivity (2008$)
Figures apply Row 375 factor to prior table. Fatalities Severe Serious
Motorists/passengers $ 3,839,000 $ 309,200 $ 11,560
Motorcyclists $ 4,584,000 $ 386,400 $ 15,280
Bicyclists $ 3,973,000 $ 280,100 $ 13,640
Pedestrians $ 3,404,000 $ 333,500 $ 10,350
Mean (calculated for illustrative purposes only) $ 3,950,000 $ 327,300 $ 12,708
Figures are products of Row 375 factor and entries in table in Rows 368 to 371.
5. Annual Societal Costs of Fatal, Severe and Serious Injuries from NYC Traffic Crashes (2007-2010)
Total societal per-injury costs, with pain, suffering, etc. added to medical care and lost productivity (2008$)
Figures are in $ millions Fatalities Severe Serious
Motorists/passengers $340 $449 $253
Motorcyclists $115 $158 $41
Bicyclists $64 $74 $71
Pedestrians $534 $858 $137
SUMS $1,051 $1,539 $502
Figures are products of crashes in Rows 355-358 and per-crash costs in Rows 385-388.
Add for other crash costs

Komanoff est. intended to capture minor injuries, lost amenity and property damage from far
greater volume of crashes with less-serious or no injuries.
Total annual cost of motor vehicle crashes in New York City (millions)
Anticipated change in NYC VMT from proposed pricing measures.
From VMT worksheet (see summary box in top section of worksheet).
Anticipated change in NYC motor vehicle crash costs
Percentage change in VMT in Row 408 multiplied by current total crash costs in Row 407.
E. Reduced Driver Insurance Costs

This entry is intended to capture the savings in insurance premiums for vehicles registered in NYC,
owing to the anticipated reduced per-vehicle crash frequency from reduced VMT.
Number of motor vehicles registered in NYC 2,000,000
Komanoff placeholder estimate.
Annual per-vehicle insurance cost $1,083
NY State average 2006 premium, from table, Top Ten Most Expensive and Least Expensive States for Average Expenditures for
Automobile Insurance, 2005, in http://www.iii.org/media/facts/statsbyissue/auto/.
Adjustments to above cost to reflect NYC (instead of NYS) and 2008 (vs. 2006) (none)
Anticipated change in NYC VMT from proposed pricing measures. -3.3%
Assumed % of VMT reduction attributable to vehicles registered in NYC 67%
Sum of five borough shares in Incidence worksheet (Part C).
Assumed % of NYC VMT accounted for by NYC-registered vehicles 73%
Komanoff placeholder estimate.
Anticipated per-vehicle change in VMT, for NYC-registered vehicles -3.0%
VMT change in Row 422 times NYC vehicles' share of that change in Row 423, divided by NYC vehicles' share of all VMT in Row 425.
Share of per-vehicle VMT change assumed to be reflected in insurance rates 50%
Komanoff estimate reflecting both "stickiness" in rates and non-VMT-related damage costs.
Anticipated per-vehicle change in insurance premiums, % -1.5%
Product of NYC-registered vehicles' VMT change in Row 427 multiplied by insurance-rate factor in Row 429.
Anticipated per-vehicle change in insurance premiums ($16)
Product of insurance reduction percent in Row 431 and annual insurance cost in Row 418.
Estimated change in total auto insurance costs for NYC-registered vehicles ($32)
Per-vehicle insurance premium change in Row 433 multiplied by number of registered vehicles in Row 416.
F. Reduced Climate Damage from Lesser Carbon Emissions
This entry is intended to capture the avoided climate damage associated with the reduced use of motor vehicle fuels
(gasoline and diesel) due to the changes in vehicle miles traveled and traffic speeds from our pricing proposals.We
use a mid-range figure for carbon (emissions) taxes in bills considered in Congress.
Weekdays
Change in CO2 emissions due directly to cordon tolling, metric tons (per year) (720,156)
Derived in Emissions worksheet.
Of which light-vehicle component (passenger vehicles, excluding trucks and buses) is:
From 'Emissions' worksheet, Row 332.
Adjustment factor to light-veh emissions, to reflect non-toll reductions in VMT (due to transit "attraction")
From 'VMT' worksheet. Is ratio of all light-vehicle VMT reduction (Row 22) to reductions due directly to cordon toll (Row 17 plus Row 18).
Adjusted change in CO2 emissions from light vehicles
Product of Rows 446 and 448. Note that this adjustment is slightly crude insofar as it implicitly credits CO2 reductions from improving 'other'
vehicles' fuel efficiency at same rate as derived via detailed modeling in 'Emissions' tab.
Adjusted change in CO2 emissions, reflecting transit attraction from passenger veh's, metric tons (per year)
Calculated as difference between Rows 450 and 446, added to combined figure in Row 444.
Mid-range price imputed to a metric ton of CO2 in carbon tax bills $50
Komanoff estimate. Rep. Larson's 2009 bill, America's Energy Security Trust Fund Act, envisions a $15/ton
initial level with annual ramp-ups of $10-$15 per ton, so would reach or exceed $100/metric ton by 2020. Other
bills envision lower levels, however.
Climate damage costs eliminated by proposed policy
Product of Rows 453 and 455, with sign reversed.
G. Reduced Petroleum Consumption (new section, added 3-June-2010)

(Pertains to national-security and ecological costs of oil extraction, transport and refining. Note, combustion is covered elsewhere.)
Part 1: Estimate per-gallon reduction in military and national-security costs attributable to the selected plan
Row 494 divided by Row 500.
Annual amount by which U.S. military expenditures would be reduced if no oil were used for U.S. highway
transport, expressed in billions of 2004 dollars
Source: Mark A. Delucchi, James J. Murphy, "US military expenditures to protect the use of Persian Gulf oil for motor vehicles," Energy Policy 36
(2008) 2253-2264. From the Abstract: Analyses of the full social cost of motor vehicle use in the US often estimate an ‘‘oil import premium’’ that
includes the military cost of defending oil supplies from the Persian Gulf... In this paper, we [address] the question: ‘‘If the US highway transportatio
sector did not use oil, how much would the US federal government reduce its military commitment in the Persian Gulf?’’ We work towards our answ
in five steps, accounting for interests not related to oil, the interests of other oil-consuming countries, the interests of producers apart from the
interests of consumers, and the interests of non-highway users of oil. We estimate that were there no oil in the Persian Gulf, then US combined
peacetime and wartime defense expenditures might be reduced in the long run by roughly $27-$73 billion per year (in 2004 dollars), of which roug
$6-$25 billion annually ... is attributable to motor-vehicle use.
Note: We have selected the upper end of Delucchi-Murphy's range, based on this passage later in their paper (p. 2262):
"Expenditures on the military are only a portion of the entire relevant military or security cost of using oil [which] is equal to the military control cost
plus the dollar cost of whatever military or security problems remain in spite of, or even due to, the military expenditures. These residual costs inclu
reduced flexibility in the conduct of US foreign policy, strains on international relations due to the activities of the US military and even due to
competition for oil, anti-American sentiments due to the presence of the US military in the Middle East, political destabilization of the Middle East, a
the nonfinancial human-suffering costs of war and political instability related to US demand for oil. Although to our knowledge nobody has ever
quantified these costs, they are important. Indeed, one could argue that a primary motivation of many programs and policies aimed at reducing US
dependence on foreign oil is not to reduce military expenditures related to defending the Persian Gulf, but rather to mitigate some of the political a
human costs associated with US demand for Persian Gulf oil. If this is right, then the costs that we have not estimated may be large relative to the
military costs we have estimated."
Note that Roger Stern ("United States Cost of Military Force Projection in the Persian Gulf, 1976–2007," Energy Policy 38 (2010) 2816-2825)
estimates the cost in 2008 dollars of U.S. "Persian Gulf force projection" to have averaged $212.5 billion annually during 1976-2007, with a 2007
estimate of $500 billion. However, these figures include military force for purposes other than protecting U.S. transport fuels (i.e., other uses of oil,
non-U.S. uses of oil, and non-oil objectives in the Gulf) and thus aren't fully comparable to the Delucchi-Murphy figure above.
Inflation adjustment, 2004 to 2008

Calculated as ratio of 2008 to 2004 Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers
Reduction in U.S. military expenditures (per above), expressed in billions of 2008 dollars
U.S. gasoline consumption, gallons per year, 2007-2009, billions, average
Calculated as mean of those three years (from USEIA, Monthly Energy Review), x gallons/bbl x 365.25 days/year.
U.S. diesel fuel consumption, gallons per year, 2007-2009, billions, average
Cannot be gleaned from MER since diesel and distillate are combined. Instead, we apply 2000 ratio of U.S. truck
fuel to passenger vehicle fuel from Komanoff, Ending The Oil Age (2002), Table 1.
U.S. "highway" (motor fuel) consumption, gallons per year, 2007-2009, billions, average
Part 2: Estimate per-gallon reduction in water pollution damages attributable to the selected plan
Annual costs in billions of dollars
Health and environmental effects of leaking motor-fuel storage tanks
Urban runoff polluted by oil from motor vehicles
Environmental and economic impacts of large oil spills
TOTAL
Source: Mark A. Delucchi, Environmental Externalities of Motor-Vehicle Use in the US, J Transport Economics and Policy, ISSN 0022 5258, Volum
34, Part 2, May 2000, pp 135-168, Table 6. Except that the third category has been multiplied by 10 in rough attempt to account for occasional but
recurring spill disasters such as Exxon Valdez in Prince Edward Sound (1989) and Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico (2010).
Note: NY Times financial columnist Andrew Ross Sorkin wrote <http://nyti.ms/aXAduj> on June 8, 2010 that "while conservative estimates put the
[to British Petroleum for the Deepwater Horizon disaster] at $15 billion, something approaching $40 billion is not out of the question," based on an
estimate by Credit Suisse that BP's cleanup cost could run as high as $23 billion, and possible additional claims of $14 billion by gulf fisherman an
the tourist industry. Moreover, not all lost ecosystem services are necessarily included in these figures. Yet even doubling Sorkin's rough estimate
$80 billion equates to "only" $8 billion per year, or essentially the annual figure we have used here (in 2008$), if it is spread over a decade to allow
the fact that the BP spill is not an annually recurring event.
Part 3: Calculate change in annual petroleum consumption due to the selected plan
Change in CO2 emissions due directly to cordon tolling, metric tons per year
from 'Emissions' worksheet, Row 332.
Adjustment factor to light-vehicle emissions component, to reflect non-toll reductions in CO2:
From Row 448. Is needed to capture reduced auto use from transit 'attraction'. Note that we apply it only to gasoline, based on its rough 1-1 co
Adjusted change in CO2 emissions, kg / yr (previous entries, times 1,000, times adj factor if applicable)
CO2 emission factors for motor fuels, pounds per gallon
Source is Komanoff Excel file, Carbon_Contents_7_Jan_09, which drew on USEPA Web sources that have been removed/replaced. New sources
CO2 emission factors for motor fuels, grams per gallon (prev. entries x number of grams per pound)
CO2 emission factors for motor fuels, expressed as kg per gallon (previous entries, divided by 1,000)
Implied change in gallons of petroleum fuel consumed per year, due to pricing (rounded)
Part 4: Multiply per-gallon damage costs and change in gallons consumed due to selected plan
Estimated annual reduction change in societal costs of oil provision, due to congestion pricing ($ millions)
Military / national-security ($ millions)
Ecological ($ millions)
Total ($ millions)
In CBD
H. Reduced Health/Environmental Damages from Air Pollution
(Should be expanded to include damage to visibility and biota, although these will almost certainly add only a few percent to the figure
This item captures the health and environmental benefits of reducing emissions of "conventional" air pollutants due to
reduced vehicle miles driven and improved traffic flow. Method is to reference metric tons of pollutant reductions from
Emissions worksheet, convert to (short) tons, and multiply by best available estimates of per-ton health and
environmental costs associated w/ each pollutant.
Changes in "conventional" air emissions, tons (per year)

TOG (Total Organics -- previously termed "hydrocarbons") (84)
CO (carbon monoxide) (825)
NOx (Oxides of Nitrogen) (111)
PM10 (Particulate Matter, 10 microns or less in diameter) (13)
Derived in 'Emissions' worksheet, Rows 366 to 369 expressed in tonnes, and including adjustment for transit attraction from cars
due to lower fares and enhanced service; those figures are here converted to tons.
"Valuation" for each pollutant ($ of damages per ton) In CBD Outside CBD
TOG $16,000 10 2 $160,000
Factors to
CO CARB $0 convert 10 2 $0
Factors (see
NOx box at right) $16,000 CARB to 10 2 $160,000
NYC
PM10 $320,000 10 2 $3,200,000
Air Pollution damage costs eliminated by pricing.
TOG Factors above are Komanoff $13.4
assumptions for in-CBD and
CO outside-CBD, respectively. $0.0
NOx $17.8
PM10 $40.8
TOTAL $72.0
A further note on the dollar value of reduced health/environmental damages from air pollution
At this writing, the value of reduced health/enviro damages from air pollution under the user-selected plan is $222 million, as shown in
Row 562. Spread among 8.3-8.4 million NYC residents (http://www.nyc.gov/html/dcp/html/census/popcur.shtml), and allowing for non-
residents, this equates to around $30 per person per year, a relatively modest figure. And this is despite raising the per-ton pollution
'valuations' estimated by the California Air Resources Board, a body with a well-earned reputation for aggressiveness in pursuing and
reducing air pollution.
To ensure that our approach does not understate pollution benefits from congestion pricing, we consulted another authoritative source
"The Social Cost of the Health Effects of Motor-Vehicle Air Pollution, Report #11 in the Series, "Annualized Social Cost of Motor Vehicl
Use in the United States, based on 1990-1991 Data," UCD-ITS-RR-96-3 (11) (August 1996), by Donald R. McCubbin and U-C Davis
researcher Mark A. Delucchi, Ph.D. (Delucchi is referenced in Sections C and G of this worksheet tab.)
Table II-A-50 of this extensive report (p. 337 of 347) reports an "upper bound" cost, for PM-10 emissions from motor vehicles, of $75.2
per thousand miles driven in the New York MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area). Were this 1990-1991 value to be brought to current (20
conditions, it would need to be increased for general inflation, but that increase would almost certainly be more than offset by the
significant reductions in per-mile emissions since 1990-91. The same is true for the "lower bound" cost of $3.76 per thousand miles,
shown in the companion Table II-A-49 (p. 336 of 347).
Let us compare these figures to the implied cost of PM-10 emissions per thousand miles, as revealed by emissions modeling here. At
writing, the Sustainable Transit Plan would reduce PM-10 health damages by nearly $110 million a year. The VMT reduction from the
Plan is estimated (in the VMT worksheet) at around 940 million miles per year. Dividing the first figure by the second yields an implied
cost for PM-10 emissions of more than $115 per thousand miles. This is 50% more than the (unadjusted) upper-bound figure in
McKubbin-Delucchi, and 30 times greater than the lower bound.
This suggests that the valuation method used here to estimate air pollution benefits from congestion pricing does not err on the low sid
This suggests that the valuation method used here to estimate air pollution benefits from congestion pricing does not err on the low sid
I. Reduced Noise Costs
Method: Prorate national estimates of noise costs of motor vehicle use, and apply to the expected changes in VMT in NYC, with
suitable scaling for different population exposures. National noise costs are from Delucchi analysis referenced in Part C, as detaile
hardcopy document, "The External Damage Cost of Direct Noise from Motor Vehicles," Report #14 in the Series: the "Annualized
Social Cost of Motor Vehicle Use in the United States, based on 1990-1991 Data," by Mark A. Delucchi and Shi-Ling Hsu, Dec. 199
UCD-ITS-RR-96-3 (14).
Cost of Motor-Vehicle Noise, U.S. urbanized areas (1991$) $41
Table 14-7C, "Results of the High-Cost Analysis," which we believe applies to NYC, notwithstanding the authors' inclusion of a low-
cost case that totals only $83 million (1991$), and their asserted belief that "the cost is not likely to exceed $5 billion." (pp. 1-2) In
informal polls taken by Komanoff in the early-mid 1990s, New Yorkers consistently ranked motor vehicle noise as more damaging to
them than motor vehicle air pollution.
Adjustments to above cost to reflect 2008 instead of 1991 conditions (none)

Inflation adjustment, 1991 to 2008 1.58
Cost of Motor-Vehicle Noise, U.S. urbanized areas (2008$) $64
Note that Delucchi and Hsu employ the U.S. Census Bureau definition of "the term 'urbanized area' to represent a geographic
area consisting of one or more central cities and a penumbra of suburbs and satellite cities."
NYC population, 2006 8,035,586

U.S. population, 2006 299,398,484
Accessed 22-Oct-07 from http://factfinder.census.gov/home/saff/main.html?_lang=en (Search: "New York City" or "United States," respectively
Estimated percentage of U.S. population residing in urbanized areas 75%
Komanoff estimate.
U.S. population residing in urbanized areas, 2006 224,548,863
NYC population as percent of U.S. urbanized population 3.6%
Est. noise costs from m.v.'s to number of U.S. residents as live in NYC (2008$) $2.31
Adjustment factor for NYC conditions vs. typical U.S. urbanized conditions 1
Conservatism, intended to offset non-conservatism of taking Delucchi's high-cost est. for national damage cost, above.
Estimated noise costs from motor vehicles in NYC (2008$) $2.31
% of NYC m.v. noise costs assoc'd w/ autos (as opposed to trucks + buses) 75%
Komanoff estimate.
Estimated noise costs from automobiles in NYC (2008$) $1.73
Anticipated change in NYC automobile VMT, % -3.3%
Anticipated change in NYC motor vehicle noise costs, % -3.3%
Anticipated change in NYC motor vehicle noise costs, 2008$ ($80)
J. Longevity Benefits from Physical Activity of Increased Cycling and Walking
Method: Estimate the increase in bicycling in NYC that would be associated with reduced VMT, through suitable prorating of urban
cycling levels in Europe. We assume that eliminating motor vehicle use in NYC would raise cycling levels here to those now seen i
Europe, and we then prorate the reduction in VMT to estimate the increase in cycling. We then translate the increase in cycling to
reduced mortality, which we monetize according to the value of a saved life. The resulting benefit is then doubled to allow for
comparable longevity benefits due to increased walking (with the implicit assumption that the lesser per-walker health gain will be
offset by the greater absolute growth in the number of walkers).
Estimated percent of NYC non-walking trips that are made by bicycle 2.0%
Komanoff est. from original spreadsheet, "NYC Bicycling -- Estimates of Volumes and Miles." Latest edition
(25-Jan-2011, w/ 2010 data) estimates NYC bicycle miles at 2.7% of motor vehicle miles.
Estimated percent of daily trips that are made by bicycle or by walking Bicycle
Germany 10%
Denmark 18%
Netherlands 26%
"Walking And Cycling For Healthy Cities," by John Pucher and Ralph Buehler, Built Environment, Vol. 36, No. 4,
Dec. 2010, pp 391-414, Fig. 1.
<http://policy.rutgers.edu/faculty/pucher/BuiltEnvironment_WalkBike_10Dec2010.pdf>.
Percent of non-walking urban trips that are made by bicycle in:

Germany 13%
Denmark 24%
Netherlands 34%
Arithmetic mean of these three values 24%
Differential (in percentage points) between 3-country average and NYC, bike % 22%
% of above differential that wd disappear for each 1% drop in NYC auto VMT. 1%
Komanoff estimate, predicated on assumption that eliminating NYC auto VMT would usher in "Euro" cycling levels.
Anticipated change in NYC VMT from pricing policies -3.3%
From 'VMT' tab, Row 22. Figure encompasses all of NYC and likely understates % change in traffic in or near
CBD, where cycling infrastructure is more robust.
Share of NYC-3-country cycling differential that these policies would eliminate 3.3%
Product of Rows 647 and 649, with sign reversed.
Percentage pt incrs in NYC cycling share from drop in NYC VMT 0.71%
Note: Mortality data in next four rows are from NYC Dept. of Health, "Summary of Vital Statistics, 2009," available
at http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/downloads/pdf/vs/2009sum.pdf, Table 2.2, "Deaths and Death Rates per 1,000
Population by Age, Ethnic Group, and Sex, New York City, 2009."
Deaths among NYC residents, 2009 52,881

Deaths, ages 75 and over 28,208
Deaths, ages 19 and under 1,105
Deaths among NYC adult residents "of bicycling age" (20-74), 2005 23,568
% change in mortality among adults with moderately high physical activity vis-à-vis those
with little or no physical activity -28%
Lars B. Andersen et al., "All-Cause Mortality Associated With Physical Activity During Leisure Time, Work, Sports, and Cycling to
Work," Arch. Intern. Med., Vol. 160, June 12, 2000, pp. 1621-1628. Participants in the study at Copenhagen Univ. Hosp. were
13,375 women and 17,265 men, ages 20-93. Results section states: "Bicycling to work decreased risk of mortality approximately
40% after multivariate adjustment, including leisure time physical activity." However, the paper's "Bicycling to Work" section states:
"After adjustment for age, sex, and educational level [and] leisure time physical activity, BMI, blood lipid levels, smoking, and blood
pressure, the relative risk [in those who cycled to work] was 0.72." (95% conf. interval, range 0.57 - 0.91) The authors also cite a
paper in Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. (1994;26:967-972) that found a 39% higher mortality rate in those who didn't cycle to work vs.
those who did; a 1.39 risk ratio for not cycling equates to 0.72 for cycling. See http://archinte.ama-
assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/160/11/1621.
Anticipated change in % of adult New Yorkers who cycle to work 0.71%

Anticipated change in mortality rate among adult New Yorkers of cycling age -0.20%
Anticipated change in deaths of New Yorkers due to increased bicycling -47
Value of a statistical life in the U.S., 1991 $2.5
Derived in detailed note in Rows 376 through 381, above.
Inflation adjustment, 1991 to 2008 1.58
Value of a statistical life in the U.S., 2008 $4.0
Value of NYers' increased longevity from greater cycling due to less VMT $188
Assumed ratio of longevity value from increased walking to increased cycling 1.0
Komanoff assumption. Intended to reflect expectation that walking will increase more than cycling in absolute
amounts, while each mile walked adds somewhat less to health than a mile cycled. It would be highly desirable to
derive an independent estimate of increased walking and the associated longevity benefits, but that was not
possible within the scope of this study, thus necessitating the gross approximation employed here. Note that the
exercise value of both cycling and walking transcends improved longevity and includes greater all-around
wellness. As the editor of Nature Neuroscience, Sandra Aamodt, wrote in The New York Times on Nov. 8, 2007,
“exercise improves what scientists call ‘executive function,’ the set of abilities that allows you to select behavior
that's appropriate to the situation.” (Exercise on the Brain,
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/08/opinion/08aamodt.html)
Value of NYers' increased longevity from greater walking $188

Value of NYers' increased longevity from greater cycling and walking $376
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
mmary and User Inputs. This figure is copied from cell K75, where it is###
turn calculated as the sum of these cells: K47 ###
(deadweight administrative costs), K67 (net
Million per year enviro/societal benefits), and K73 (user fees,###
aggregated).
###
###
###
###
and Costs ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Entries in ###
graph at ###
left are
derived in ###
remainder ###
of this
worksheet. ###
PageDown
to find
###
pertinent ###
sections.
###
Saved Time Saved Time (Drivers) User Fees
(Transit) ###
###
###
###
User Fees) appears below the x-axis, it ###
otal dollars paid for transit travel, due to
by service improvements. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
y notes are omitted in most cases where ###
###
###
Annual $, NYC only, millions ###
Values in parentheses denote loss ###
Expenditures Net ###
($120) ($120) ###
$0 ###
($120) ($120) ###
###
Losses Net Gain ###
$0 $727 ###
$0 $101 ###
$0 $626 ###
###
$0 $2,146 ###
###
###
($134) ($134) ###
$127 ###
$32 ###
$51 ###
$23 ###
$222 ###
$80 ###
$188 ###
$188 ###
$20 ###
($134) $3,638 ###
###
###
($1,040) ($890) ###
($160) ($160) ###
($200) ($130) ###
($1,400) ($1,180) ###
###
($1,654) $2,338 ###
###
s are pulled from cells above. ###
Saved Time Saved Time
(Transit) (Drivers) User Fees ###
###
###
###
###
###
$1,101 ###
$1,045 ###
$0 ###
$101 ###
$626 ###
###
###
###
($890) ###
($160) ###
($130) ###
$727 $2,146 ($1,180) $2,338 ###
###
###
###
s worksheet derives eight classes of ###
###
###
arameters that apply for all 'saved time' calculations ###
Ratio, weekend value of time to weekdays: 60.0% ###
Ratio, non-CBD value of time to in-CBD value: 66.7% ###
Komanoff assumptions ###
###
###
Weekends Combined ###
###
142,609 723,723 ###
###
0.87 ###
n in 'Sub v. Bus' worksheet, Row 33. ###
2,064,202 10,475,579 ###
###
$10.51 ###
$7.01 ###
###
20% ###
hown in 'Bus Routes' worksheet, Row 24; (ii) fact ###
$ due to faster traffic, not
s within CBD.
improved service ###
$4 $14 $3 ###
$12 $36 $7 ###
time savings within CBD, or its complement, from (in millions) ###
###
s reflected in 'Bus Boarding' worksheet, Row 147 ###
###
$16 $101 million ###
###
###
320,767 1,751,307 ###
###
1.44 ###
hown in 'Sub v. Bus' worksheet, Row 31. ###
7,690,733 41,989,523 ###
###
$15.47 ###
$10.31 ###
###
30% ###
###
$36 ###
$56 ###
avings within CBD, or its complement, from Row ###
###
$91 $626 million ###
###
###
efit of new trips. ###
###
million ###
miles ###
n in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 273, reduced by ###
###
mph ###
###
minutes ###
###
###
minutes ###
minutes ###
minutes ###
###
ing 7 a.m. - 7 p.m. for 2006 and first half 2007
d 4-7 p.m. (peak) and 5 minutes 9 a.m.-4 p.m ###
ging 4.5 minutes; 20% off-peak averaging 7 ###
###
minutes ###
minutes ###
million ###
###
culated from SUMPRODUCT operations on 2x2 ###
###
million Do not type in this cell; its value ###
is chosen by fare settings in User ###
Inputs worksheet.
million ###
###
###
ed for in prior section. ###
###
ours between the current regime and the new. ###
hour. The latter are derived in the Value of
###
###
between (a) hours saved in CBD-bound trips ###
wded roads, highways and bridges due to the ###
###
###
56,343,998 ###
###
39,554,085 ###
###
70.2% ###
###
###
###
21,835 ###
Note that a small but non- ###
zero number of the within-
24,635 CBD saved hours (and ###
dollars) shown here are for ###
trips that stay within CBD
46,470 141,453 and aren't in medallion taxis.###
These "free rider" savings ###
(denoted as such since the
115 drivers pay no toll) are ###
relatively small. Still, it might
5,344,071 29,089,720 be useful to break them out ###
$24.87 $38.25 of the calculation. ###
Row 103,above. ###
$133 $1,117 million ###
###
$3 $16 million ###
###
$130 $1,101 million ###
###
Double-wghtd avgs (wghtd
82,671 by hrs saved/day and ###
days/year) are illustrative ###
only and do not figure in any
58,036 calculations. ###
###
6,674,111 39,277,198 ###
$17.83 $27.67 ###
m Row 103,above. ###
$119 $1,088 million ###
###
$7 $43 million ###
###
$112 $1,045 million ###
###
$243 $2,146 million ###
###
53.7% 51.3% ###
###
###
###
###
ded utility to the trip-takers. The number of
ansit trips taken due to transit's now being ###
###
###
###
85,272 ###
###
9,806,000 ###
$5.22 ###
###
$2.61 ###
###
###
###
$26 $134 million ###
###
12,093 ###
1,391,000 ###
$0.00 ###
e rather than to changes in service or taxi surcharge. ###
$0.00 ###
###
$0 $0 million ###
ated auto trips transferred to subways are counted in Part A) ###
6,989 ###
804,000 ###
$0.00 ###
###
$0.00 ###
###
$0.0 $0 million ###
it/auto/bike/walk due to higher fare) ###
(467) ###
(53,724) ###
$1.01 ###
$0.51 ###
$0.0 $0 million ###
###
counted in Section 1C above) ###
###
0 ###
he portion of the change attributable to fare ###
hare of all subway trips. ###
$0.00 ###
$0 $0 million ###
###
0 ###
ng figure in Subways worksheet, Row 53. ###
$0.00 ###
$0 $0 million ###
###
0 million ###
split rather than weekday/weekend. ###
$0.00 ###
$0 million ###
###
###
###
serious and other. Estimate average "value"
or cost of non-injury crashes. Prorate ###
crash rates) due to pricing. ###
###
###
###
4-yr average ###
286.3 ###
113.5 ###
172.8 ###
mmr/0910_mmr.pdf, p. 64. ###
4-yr average ###
88.5 ###
25 ###
16 ###
156.8 ###
###
###
###
###
fety Study & Action Plan,
he numbers, locations, types ###
2002-2006. We refer to it ###
###
###
###
d severe injuries include all
concussion, internal injuries, ###
pically involve a pedestrian ###
###
###
###
NYCDOT/NYPD database of ###
n-vehicle crashes. Of those, 739
P, Tech Supp., p. 4. ###
###
###
6,784 ###
###
26% ###
ured in motor vehicle crashes in ###
hat paragraph, "serious" clearly ###
###
5,218 ###
###
10% ###
4,697 ###
###
###
###
###
###
ious to severe injuries for each ###
Nonfatal Injury by Road User
n M. Dellinger (Motor Vehicle ###
and Prevention) and Eduard ###
Maryland). Article is available at
###
###
###
nd to "severe"; and (ii) nonfatal ###
###
###
Road User Type, 2007-2010 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
305 to 308. Severe injuries are prorated from ###
355 to 358 to severe injuries. ###
###
###
###
CPI (all-urban index). ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
2.7 ###
###
ehicle Air Pollution," UCD-ITS- ###
ualized Social Cost of Motor
ct. 2004), by U-C Davis ###
blications/2004/UCD-ITS-RR-96- ###
ean of $2.5 million. Adjusted to
ow of table. ###
###
###
ost productivity (2008$) ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Crashes (2007-2010) ###
###
ost productivity (2008$) ###
Combined ###
$1,041 ###
$315 ###
$208 ###
$1,528 ###
$3,092 $3,092 million ###
###
###
25% ###
###
###
###
$3,865 million ###
-3.3% ###
###
($127) million ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
es for Average Expenditures for
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
vehicles' share of all VMT in Row 425. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
million ###
###
###
###
###
d use of motor vehicle fuels ###
our pricing proposals.We
###
###
(183,947) (904,102) ###
###
(744,212) ###
###
sit "attraction") 1.15 ###
ctly to cordon toll (Row 17 plus Row 18). ###
(852,283) ###
###
edits CO2 reductions from improving 'other'
###
tric tons (per year) (1,012,174) ###
###
###
###
###
###
$50.6 million ###
###
###
###
te, combustion is covered elsewhere.) ###
###
e to the selected plan $0.16 ###
###
###
$25 ###
###
Gulf oil for motor vehicles," Energy Policy 36 ###
often estimate an ‘‘oil import premium’’ that ###
] the question: ‘‘If the US highway transportation
n the Persian Gulf?’’ We work towards our answer ###
, the interests of producers apart from the ###
o oil in the Persian Gulf, then US combined
billion per year (in 2004 dollars), of which roughly ###
###
###
heir paper (p. 2262): ###
###
###
g oil [which] is equal to the military control cost
military expenditures. These residual costs include ###
ivities of the US military and even due to
st, political destabilization of the Middle East, and ###
though to our knowledge nobody has ever ###
ny programs and policies aimed at reducing US
ulf, but rather to mitigate some of the political and ###
ave not estimated may be large relative to the ###
###
###
###
07," Energy Policy 38 (2010) 2816-2825) ###
llion annually during 1976-2007, with a 2007
ting U.S. transport fuels (i.e., other uses of oil, ###
chi-Murphy figure above. ###
###
1.14 ###
###
$28.49 ###
139.4 ###
###
43.7 ###
###
Ratio = 0.31 ###
183.1 ###
###
$0.05 ###
1991 $ (10^9) inflation adjst 2008 $ (10^9) ###
$0.5 1.58 $0.8 ###
$0.5 1.58 $0.8 ###
$5.0 1.58 $7.9 ###
$6.0 $9.5 ###
###
Economics and Policy, ISSN 0022 5258, Volume ###
in rough attempt to account for occasional but
on in the Gulf of Mexico (2010). ###
###
###
010 that "while conservative estimates put the bill ###
billion is not out of the question," based on an
ional claims of $14 billion by gulf fisherman and ###
es. Yet even doubling Sorkin's rough estimate to ###
n 2008$), if it is spread over a decade to allow for
###
###
###
from gasoline from diesel from both ###
(744,212) (159,890) (904,102) ###
###
1.15 ###
ly it only to gasoline, based on its rough 1-1 correspondence to passenger veh's. ###
-8.52E+08 -1.60E+08 -1.01E+09 ###
19.63 22.37 ###
at have been removed/replaced. New sources TK. ###
8,904 10,147 ###
8.90 10.15 ###
(95,717,000) (15,757,000) (111,474,000) ###
###
###
###
###
$17.3 ###
$5.8 ###
$23.1 ###
###
Outside CBD Combined ###
###
tainly add only a few percent to the figures below. -- C.K., 3 Mar. 2010) ###
###
entional" air pollutants due to
of pollutant reductions from ###
per-ton health and Emission changes in metric tons are derived in Emissions ###
worksheet, using emission factors from EMFAC model (converted
here to short tons). Per-ton valuations are California Air Resources###
Board (CARB) estimates, compiled in Carl Moyer Program ###
Guidelines, <http://bit.ly/eOKnY5>, April 2008. They are intended
(715) to capture health effects of "criteria pollutant" emissions. ###
Paragraph 1 of p. C-1 gives value of $16,000 per "weighted" ton of
(7,702) NOx, TOG and PM10. Formula C-2 gives PM10 a weight 20 times
###
(1,526) those values. CARB assigns zero value to CO. ###
(123) ###
###
ent for transit attraction from cars
We have increased these values to reflect higher population ###
density (and, hence, higher population exposure) of NYC vis-a-vis###
California urban areas.
$32,000 ###
$0 ###
$32,000 ###
$640,000 ###
###
$22.9 $36.3 million ###
$0.0 $0.0 million ###
$48.8 $66.7 million ###
$78.6 $119.4 million ###
$150.3 $222.3 million ###
###
###
###
selected plan is $222 million, as shown in
nsus/popcur.shtml), and allowing for non- ###
s is despite raising the per-ton pollution ###
ation for aggressiveness in pursuing and
###
###
###
we consulted another authoritative source: ###
s, "Annualized Social Cost of Motor Vehicle
by Donald R. McCubbin and U-C Davis ###
sheet tab.) ###
###
###
0 emissions from motor vehicles, of $75.27
90-1991 value to be brought to current (2008) ###
certainly be more than offset by the ###
ound" cost of $3.76 per thousand miles,
###
###
###
revealed by emissions modeling here. At this
llion a year. The VMT reduction from the ###
rst figure by the second yields an implied ###
(unadjusted) upper-bound figure in
###
###
###
gestion pricing does not err on the low side.
###
###
###
###
expected changes in VMT in NYC, with ###
i analysis referenced in Part C, as detailed in ###
eport #14 in the Series: the "Annualized
rk A. Delucchi and Shi-Ling Hsu, Dec. 1996, ###
###
###
billion ###
###
the authors' inclusion of a low-
xceed $5 billion." (pp. 1-2) In ###
hicle noise as more damaging to ###
###
###
###
###
billion ###
ea' to represent a geographic ###
###
###
###
New York City" or "United States," respectively) ###
###
###
###
###
billion ###
###
mage cost, above. ###
billion ###
###
###
billion ###
###
###
million ###
###
###
###
VMT, through suitable prorating of urban
###
se cycling levels here to those now seen in
e then translate the increase in cycling to ###
benefit is then doubled to allow for ###
the lesser per-walker health gain will be
###
###
###
###
###
Walking ###
24% ###
16% ###
25% ###
Mean: 22% ###
###
###
###
###
Note: We hope in future to estimate
###
separately the prospective increases in
cycling within and outside the CBD, to ###
better capture the considerable ###
differences in VMT impacts and cycling
potential between the two areas. ###
###
cycling levels. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Work, Sports, and Cycling to ###
nhagen Univ. Hosp. were
sk of mortality approximately ###
ycling to Work" section states: ###
pid levels, smoking, and blood
57 - 0.91) The authors also cite a ###
who didn't cycle to work vs.
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
million ###
###
###
###
million ###
million ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
million ###
###
million ###
###
How People Reach the CBD: Full Breakout How People Reach the CBD: Coarse Breakout
Auto; 16.51%
NJ Transit Bus; 5.26% Bicycle or Ferry; 2.09%

Motor Vehicle; 19.21%
NYC Bus; 2.93%
Commuter Rail; 8.46%
Taxi; 1.42%
Truck; 1.28%
Transit; 80.79%
Subway; 62.05%
akout
le; 19.21%
Diagnostic tool to chart "convergence" in cordon
Speed Comparisons entries through our series of traffic iterations
6 a.m. - 6 p.m. 24h Delta, from
Cordon Section Cordon Entries previous # first change
Baseline mph 9.5 10.5 B 685,934
Equilibrium mph 11.2 12.2 C 538,416 -147,518 0
Factor (ratio) 1.18 1.16 D 623,620 85,205 85,205
% Gain from baseline 18% 16% E 552,548 -71,072 14,132
Non-Cordon F 605,661 53,114 67,246
Baseline mph 18.2 20.8 G 574,056 -31,606 35,640
Equilibrium mph 19.4 22.1 H 577,118 3,063 38,703
Factor (ratio) 1.06 1.06 I 576,763 -355 38,348
% Gain from baseline 6% 6% J 576,771 8 38,356
K 576,779 8 38,364
VMT Comparisons L 576,767 -12 38,352
6 a.m. - 6 p.m. 24h
Cordon
Baseline VMT 2,060,667 3,434,068 Delta (from prior # cordon entries)
Equilibrium VMT 1,912,774 3,192,349
Factor (ratio) 0.93 0.93
Non-Cordon
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Baseline VMT 14,630,269 23,592,061
Equilibrium VMT 11,844,884 18,994,886
Factor (ratio) 0.81 0.81
Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk
Vehicle Time Comparisons (all figures are per day) 11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm
Within Cordon
Motor v. hrs spent in cordon, before (calculated in Row 190) 21,207 4,396 57,677 17,526 51,146 135,844 39,196
Above, normalized to reflect VMT change (via factor in Row 884) 20,322 3,806 53,153 16,242 48,126 125,344 36,289
M.V. hours in cordon, after (Row 883 fig. divided by Row 919 fig.) 20,188 3,670 44,523 13,878 43,443 103,683 31,881
Saved m.v. hours in cordon (Row 960 less Row 961) 135 136 8,630 2,364 4,683 21,662 4,409
Outside Cordon (all VMT on cordon-bound roads, not just VMT from cordon-bound trips)
Motor v. hrs outside cordon, before (Row 167 div by Row 200) 135,546 44,478 649,056 166,442 512,262 1,500,238 340,612
Above, normalized to reflect VMT change (via factor in Row 913) 127,184 41,450 627,123 160,598 497,178 1,456,882 327,692
M.V. hrs outside cordon, after (Row 908 fig. div. by Row 922 fig.) 127,198 38,503 586,154 150,574 473,178 1,370,815 308,305
Saved m.v. hours outside cordon (Row 967 less Row 968) (14) 2,946 40,969 10,023 23,999 86,067 19,387
% time saving (Row 969 divided by Row 967). 0% 7% 7% 6% 5% 6% 6%
Corrected calculations of m.v. hrs outside cordon, after 127,198 38,503 586,154 150,574 473,178 1,370,815 308,305
Saved m.v. hours outside cordon (Row 967 less Row 971) (14) 2,946 40,969 10,023 23,999 86,067 19,387
Revenue Calculations (weekdays only)
Weekday entries 54,285 17,442 115,493 34,090 117,363 ### 59,800

Totals
326,991
303,284
261,266
42,018
3,348,634
3,238,106
3,054,729
183,377
5.7%
3,054,729
183,377
576,779
Diagnostic tool to chart "convergence" in cordon
Speed Comparisons entries through our series of traffic iterations
24h Delta, from
Cordon Section Cordon Entries previous # first change
Baseline mph 13.0 B 582,537
Equilibrium mph 14.4 C 472,603 -109,934 0
Factor (ratio) 1.10 D 522,306 49,703 49,703
% Gain from baseline 10% E 488,618 -33,688 16,016
Non-Cordon F 507,719 19,100 35,116
Baseline mph 28.7 G 497,053 -10,665 24,450
Equilibrium mph 29.8 H 497,564 511 24,962
Factor (ratio) 1.04 I 497,346 -219 24,743
% Gain from baseline 4% J 497,302 -44 24,699
K 497,386 84 24,783
VMT Comparisons L 497,265 -121 24,662
24h
Cordon
Baseline VMT 3,169,918 Delta (from prior # cordon entries)
Equilibrium VMT 2,947,647
Factor (ratio) 0.93
Non-Cordon
Baseline VMT 20,366,830 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Equilibrium VMT 16,789,913

Factor (ratio) 0.82
Graveyard Early Shoulder Shoulder 1 Peak Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder (none)

Vehicle Time Comparisons (all figures are per day) Midnight-10 am 10 am-Noon Noon-5 pm 5 pm-8 pm 8 pm-10 pm 10 pm-Midnight
Within Cordon
Motor v. hrs spent in cordon, before (calculated in Row 190) 49,422 19,089 74,433 54,116 26,249 19,977
Above, normalized to reflect VMT change (via factor in Row 884) 45,680 17,762 69,815 51,093 24,375 17,983
M.V. hours in cordon, after (Row 883 fig. divided by Row 919 fig.) 44,307 16,238 61,885 45,178 21,502 15,761
Saved m.v. hours in cordon (Row 960 less Row 961) 1,373 1,524 7,930 5,915 2,873 2,222
Outside Cordon (all VMT on cordon-bound roads, not just VMT from cordon-bound trips)
Motor v. hrs outside cordon, before (Row 167 div by Row 200) 298,179 177,756 713,518 504,723 230,930 167,107
Above, normalized to reflect VMT change (via factor in Row 913) 277,154 172,088 695,442 493,500 223,333 159,949
M.V. hrs outside cordon, after (Row 908 fig. div. by Row 922 fig.) 274,142 164,180 665,018 473,397 211,658 150,400
Saved m.v. hours outside cordon (Row 967 less Row 968) 3,012 7,908 30,424 20,103 11,675 9,549
% time saving (Row 969 divided by Row 967). 1% 5% 4% 4% 5% 6%
Corrected calculations of m.v. hrs outside cordon, after 274,142 164,180 665,018 473,397 211,658 150,400
Saved m.v. hours outside cordon (Row 967 less Row 971) 3,012 7,908 30,424 20,103 11,675 9,549
Revenue Calculations (weekends and holidays only)
Weekend entries ### 46,463 151,119 99,626 54,813 36,563

Totals
243,285
226,707
204,872
21,835
2,092,212
2,021,466
1,938,795
82,671
4.1%
1,938,795
82,671
497,386
Distances
This worksheet has two sections.
The first calculates the mean distance to commute to the Manhattan CBD via auto -- a key input for the Motor Vs workshee
Weekends, too).
The second estimates the mean street distance between two randomly selected locations within the Manhattan CBD -- a qu
specification of mean trip distances for intra-CBD medallion taxi rides in the Taxis worksheet.
1. Mean Distance to Commute to Manhattan CBD via Auto
This section calculates the mean distance that CBD-bound commuters drive from their origin to the edge of the CBD. It was developed by
3, 2011, and revised by Josef and C. Komanoff in late May, 2011.
Data are based on map on p/ 49 of Bruce Schaller's 2006 report "Necessity or Choice: Why People Drive In Manhattan," available at <http
report, Schaller assigned CBD auto commuters to roughly one hundred "districts," of which approximately half are in the five boroughs and
Here, Josef used GIS software to specify the driving distance from each district to the edge of the CBD, using shortest driving route from th
to nearest CBD portal. The number of CBD auto commuters shown here is midpoint of each range specified on Schaller's map.
Averages for all auto commuters as well as for the component subgroups are shown below.
A. Commuters starting in New York City
Distance to CBD Auto

Community Board CBD (miles) Commuters
Bronx
1&2 5.4 750
3&6 9.3 750
4 4.9 750
5 7.7 750
7 9.7 750
8 9.9 3,250
9 8.1 3,250
10 10.2 3,250
11 12.2 2,000
12 12.8 2,000
Average 9.7 Sum 17,500
Manhattan (excludes Districts 1 to 6, since these are in the CBD)

7 1.4 3,250
8 1 6,100
9 4.3 750
10 4.5 750
11 2.8 750
12 6.8 3,250
Queens
1 3.3 3,250
2 2.2 2,000
3 5.2 3,250
4 5.8 2,000
5 6.4 4,500
6 7.1 2,000
7 8.8 6,100
8 9.7 4,500
9 11.1 2,000
10 11.8 3,250
11 12.6 4,500
12 12.8 3,250
13 15.7 6,100
14 16.5 2,000
Brooklyn
1 2.4 750
2 2.1 2,000
3 3.7 750
4 4.1 750
5 7.7 750
6 3.2 2,000
7 7.4 2,000
8 4.8 750
9 4.7 750
10 7.8 3,250
11 9.2 3,250
12 7.4 2,000
13 10.8 750
14 7.6 2,000
15 9.8 3,250
16 8.1 750
17 8.1 2,000
18 9.7 4,500
Staten Island
1 14.3 4,500
2 16.2 4,500
3 21.5 6,100
NYC Total 9.25 128,400
B. Commuters Outside of New York City but within MTA 12-County Region
Nassau
4 18.4 3,250 Great Neck and Port Washington, two peninsulas
5 25.2 2,000 Oyster Bay, eastern North Shore
7 21.8 2,000 Garden City, south of Great Neck
8 27.1 750 Bethpage, south of Oyster Bay
10 17.9 2,000 Franklin Square, north of East Atlantic Beach
11 24.1 750 Freeport, from South Shore to central LI
12 28.7 750 Levittown, between Oyster Bay and Massapequa
13 32.1 750 Massapequa, eastern-most part of the south sho
15 20.1 2,000 Valley Stream, east of Kennedy Airport, north of E
16 24.2 2,000 Island Park, south shore of Nassau County
17 29.2 750 Merrick, south shore, north of Jones Beach
Suffolk
6 34.4 2,000 Huntington Bay, Western North Shore
9 36.6 750 Amityville, Western south shore, closest to Nassa
14 42.4 750 West Islip, south shore, SE corner of map
[Off the map] 50 4,300
Average 44.0 Sum 7,800 'Off the map' denotes districts too far from CBD to be in
necessary to equate ratio of Suffolk's total to Nassau's
Rockland County
40 32.1 * 3,250 Piermont - eastern county including Hudson Rive
41 28.2 4,500 Monsey - western county, bordering Orange Cou
Westchester County
42 31.7 2,000 Hawthorne from northern county Hudson River in
43 42.4 * 2,000 Bedford northeastern corner of the county on the
44 20.7 3,250 Tarrytown from mid - county Hudson River inland
45 22.9 2,000 Mamaroneck eastern LI Sound shore
46 15.3 3,250 Yonkers western county just north of NYC
47 18.5 3,250 New Rochelle eastern county just north of NYC
Putnam County 50 1,200 Putnam auto commuters are prorated from sum of Wes
Orange County 60 2,500 Orange auto commuters are prorated from sum of Wes
39 36 2,000
Dutchess County 75 1,800 Dutchess auto commuters are prorated from sum of W
7 non-NYC MTA Counties 25 53,800
MTA 12 Counties 13.9 182,200
B. Commuters Outside MTA 12-County Region
New Jersey
18 36.8 2,000 West Milford - NW corner of map
19 28.5 3,250 Ramsey - at Rockland Co. border
20 23.2 3,250 Hilsdale - directly south of Spring Valley
21 16.4 6,100 Westwood - northernmost part of state's Hudson
22 43.8 * 750 Boonton
23 17.4 3,250 Wayne
24 13.3 3,250 Passaic
25 33.5 * 750 Madison
26 18.9 2,000 Summit
27 14.3 750 West Orange
28 10.6 750 Irvington
29 7.8 4,500 Fort Lee
30 14.3 2,000 Berkeley Heights
31 10.5 750 Union
32 5.4 2,000 Hoboken
33 24.2 750 North Plainfield
34 19.5 750 Cranford
35 8.1 750 Elizabeth
36 5.7 2,000 Jersey City
37 26.3 750 Metuchen
38 8.7 750 Bayonne
[Off the map] 45 4,000 Off the map' denotes districts too far from CBD to be in
Average 19.84 Sum 45,100 24.8%
Connecticut Estimates*
1 45.6 * 2,000
2 32.1 2,000
3 27.6 750
[Off the map] 50 1,000 'Off the map' denotes districts too far from CBD to be in
Average 39.32 Sum 5,750 12.7%
Upstate NY + Other States 75 5,000 These areas were too far from CBD to be included in S
Non-MTA Counties 26.8 55,850
All Car Commuters 16.90 238,050
* Mileage had to be estimated because part of district not shown on map.
2. Mean Distance Between Randomly Selected Pairs of Points Within the Manhattan CBD
The data array below is intended to simulate the roughly 6 mile x 1.4 mile Manhattan Central Business District. (Note that the implied area
matches the published figure of 8.5 square miles.)
Each cell in the array returns the mean distance from that cell to a randomly selected cell in the array (including the instant cell). The figure
the cell values, is a reasonable approximation of the travel distance between any two randomly selected points.
Note that a more fine-grained treatment, particularly of latitude distances, would presumably increase the calculated mean slightly by atten
contributed by zero-distance cells. Unfortunately (and bizarrely), Excel did not permit more than ~ 30 absolute-value calculations to be ave
requiring us to use a more "gross" approach.
Horizontal (longitude) distances, miles

Vertical (latitude) distances,
miles 0 0.2 0.4 0.6
6 3.70 3.55 3.45 3.40
5.6 3.35 3.20 3.10 3.05
5.2 3.05 2.90 2.80 2.75
4.8 2.80 2.65 2.55 2.50
4.4 2.60 2.45 2.35 2.30
4 2.45 2.30 2.20 2.15
3.6 2.35 2.20 2.10 2.05
3.2 2.30 2.15 2.05 2.00
2.8 2.30 2.15 2.05 2.00
2.4 2.35 2.20 2.10 2.05
2 2.45 2.30 2.20 2.15
1.6 2.60 2.45 2.35 2.30
1.2 2.80 2.65 2.55 2.50
0.8 3.05 2.90 2.80 2.75
0.4 3.35 3.20 3.10 3.05
0 3.70 3.55 3.45 3.40
1/6/2012
a key input for the Motor Vs worksheet (Motor Vs
tions within the Manhattan CBD -- a quantity that informs the

rksheet.
o the edge of the CBD. It was developed by Josef Szende on March
ople Drive In Manhattan," available at <http://bit.ly/hMv1>. In that

proximately half are in the five boroughs and the other half outside.
he CBD, using shortest driving route from the center of each district
nge specified on Schaller's map.
Map from Bruce Schaller, "Necessity or Choice: Why People Drive In Manhattan" (p. 49)
Neck and Port Washington, two peninsulas on LI Sound, across from the Bronx
r Bay, eastern North Shore
en City, south of Great Neck
age, south of Oyster Bay
lin Square, north of East Atlantic Beach
ort, from South Shore to central LI
own, between Oyster Bay and Massapequa, central LI
apequa, eastern-most part of the south shore of the county
y Stream, east of Kennedy Airport, north of East Atlantic Beach, south of Franklin Square
d Park, south shore of Nassau County
ck, south shore, north of Jones Beach
ngton Bay, Western North Shore

ville, Western south shore, closest to Nassau border
Islip, south shore, SE corner of map
e map' denotes districts too far from CBD to be included in Schaller's map. CBD auto commuters were estimated as number
sary to equate ratio of Suffolk's total to Nassau's with the ratio in 'Incidence' tab (Row 70). Distance is Komanoff est.
ont - eastern county including Hudson Riverfront

ey - western county, bordering Orange County
horne from northern county Hudson River inland to Valhalla

rd northeastern corner of the county on the CT border
own from mid - county Hudson River inland to Rosedale, NY
aroneck eastern LI Sound shore
ers western county just north of NYC
Rochelle eastern county just north of NYC
m auto commuters are prorated from sum of Westchester + Rockland, using ratios of commuters in 'Incidence' tab, Row 70. Distance is Komanoff est.
e auto commuters are prorated from sum of Westchester + Rockland, using ratios of commuters in 'Incidence' tab, Row 70. Distance is Komanoff est.
ess auto commuters are prorated from sum of Westchester + Rockland, using ratios of commuters in 'Incidence' tab, Row 70. Distance is Komanoff est.
Milford - NW corner of map

ey - at Rockland Co. border
ale - directly south of Spring Valley
wood - northernmost part of state's Hudson riverfront
e map' denotes districts too far from CBD to be included in Schaller's map. Number and distance are Komanoff ests.
NJ vs. 12-county MTA region
e map' denotes districts too far from CBD to be included in Schaller's map. Number and distance are Komanoff ests.
CT vs. NJ
areas were too far from CBD to be included in Schaller's map. Number and distance are Komanoff ests.
usiness District. (Note that the implied area, 8.4 square miles,
e array (including the instant cell). The figure in Row 224, the mean of
selected points.
crease the calculated mean slightly by attenuating the weighting

n ~ 30 absolute-value calculations to be averaged within a single cell,
ntal (longitude) distances, miles

0.8 1 1.2 1.4
3.40 3.45 3.55 3.70
3.05 3.10 3.20 3.35
2.75 2.80 2.90 3.05
2.50 2.55 2.65 2.80
2.30 2.35 2.45 2.60
2.15 2.20 2.30 2.45
2.05 2.10 2.20 2.35
2.00 2.05 2.15 2.30
2.00 2.05 2.15 2.30
2.05 2.10 2.20 2.35
2.15 2.20 2.30 2.45
2.30 2.35 2.45 2.60
2.50 2.55 2.65 2.80
2.75 2.80 2.90 3.05
3.05 3.10 3.20 3.35
3.40 3.45 3.55 3.70
Average of all 120 data points in the 15 by 8 array: 2.65

###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
ce is Komanoff est. ###
###
e is Komanoff est. ###
###
###
nce is Komanoff est. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Approaches
This worksheet examines traffic data for the "approaches" to the CBD -- the highways and bridges that lead from trip origins to the
portals of the CBD (and vice-versa, for the return trips).
Its purpose is to estimate a key parameter in 'Motor Vs' (and Motor Vs Weekends) worksheet (in Row 161 of both worksheets): the
share of traffic on CBD-bound roads that is accounted for by CBD-bound trips. This result is shown in the box at left directly below, in
Row 20.
Summary of Analysis and Calculations in this Worksheet
Metholodogy: CBD-bound trips are consid

% of vehicles from trip origins to the beginning of final "p
on road that The second is the portal itself. For each se
% of non-CBD are going to vehicles on the road that are ultimately bou
trip distance CBD percentage by the segment's portion of tot
1. Non-portal, non-CBD trip segment 94.6% 30% percentages is the estimated percent of tra
goes to the CBD.
2. Portals to CBD 5.4% 100%
Total (wghtd avg of 1 and 2) 33.9%
Percent of non-CBD trip distance for portals is calculated in Row 97. Percent for non-portals is its complement.
Percent of vehicles in non-portal, non-CBD segments that are going to CBD is product of highlighted-boxed figures in Rows 74 and 81.
A. Baseline Data on CBD-bound Trip Volumes and Distances
Total Auto Work Auto Non-Wk Thru Trips
Daily motor vehicle trips into cordon, rounded 685,934 260,770 183,410 127,122
Total distance (one way) 18.2 18.2 27.0
CBD miles included in that distance 1.3 1.3 1.6
Non-CBD miles included in that distance 17.2 16.9 16.9 25.4
First three rows are taken directly from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Rows 76, 85, and 87. Fourth row subtracts third from second.
B. Trip Segments from Origins to Beginning of CBD Portals
Metholodogy: Consider, as an example, a trip from Brooklyn's Canarsie neighborhood to lower Manhattan. Leaving aside the CBD
portion of the trip, the "approach" can be segmented into the roughly 7-mile portion from Canarsie to the start of the Manhattan Bridge,
and the 1.4-mile journey on the bridge itself.
The bridge portion is estimated in Part C. Here, for the longer section from the origin to the bridge entrance, we calculate, for each
borough or county, the percentage of commute trips by auto that culminate in the CBD. This is done in the table directly below.
The percentages are then averaged, weighted by the number of vehicles in the respective borough or county. The weighted average
must then be adjusted. A downward adjustment is warranted because the percentage of all trips going to the CBD is almost certainly
less than the commute percentages shown here. At the same time, however, most CBD bound trips presumably are on roads on
which disproportionately more vehicles are going to the CBD. We suspect that the resulting upward adjustment would swamp the
downward one.
As a final note, the table below, which was developed and generously provided by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, includes
only New York State and thus excludes NJ and CT.
Drove Alone Carpool Vehicles

Drove Alone Carpool to Vehicles to Outside of Outside of Outside of
to CBD CBD CBD CBD CBD CBD Total Vehicles
The Bronx 12,712 4,727 14,860 99,446 34,000 114,901 129,761
Brooklyn 22,230 11,113 27,281 179,835 61,116 207,615 234,896
Queens 35,865 15,322 42,830 283,306 80,002 319,671 362,501
Richmond 11,109 4,121 12,983 92,744 18,962 101,363 114,346
Manhattan 9,692 5,419 12,155 47,456 20,183 56,630 68,784
5 Boroughs 91,608 40,701 110,108 702,787 214,263 800,179 910,288
Nassau 17,653 4,367 19,638 412,106 48,745 434,263 453,901

Putnam 997 202 1,089 37,106 3,742 38,806 39,895
Rockland 5,792 1,791 6,606 91,755 12,826 97,585 104,191
Suffolk 7,805 2,252 8,829 515,705 64,656 545,094 553,923
Westchester 11,736 2,828 13,022 249,988 37,555 267,059 280,081
5 Counties 43,983 11,440 49,183 1,306,661 167,524 1,382,808 1,431,991
5+5 135,591 52,141 159,292 2,009,448 381,786 2,182,987 2,342,279
5 + 5 if include NJ, CT, upstate NY at same % as the 5 Counties and 1/2 their weight
Calculated as ratio of (i) sum of Row 72 Vehicles to CBD plus half of same in Row 70 to (ii) same for Total Vehicles.
Source: TSTC Analysis of 2000 Census Transportation Planning Package
Carpool factor (persons per carpool vehicle) assumed abve: 2.2

Adjustment to correct vehicle percentage shown so as to reflect CBD/non-CBD split on 5.0

roads on which CBD-bound vehicles travel:
Komanoff assumption
C. Distances of CBD Portals (miles)

Miles Daily Volume
Williamsburg Bridge 2.0 58,432 7.4%
Manhattan Bridge This table establishes the 1.3 35,643 4.5%
Brooklyn Bridge weighted average of trip 1.2 67,595 8.5%
distances outside the CBD
Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel that is via portals all of whose 2.0 30,729 3.9%
traffic is bound for the CBD.
This table establishes the
weighted average of trip
distances outside the CBD
that is via portals all of whose
traffic is bound for the CBD.
Queens Midtown Tunnel 1.5 47,192 5.9%
Queensboro Bridge 1.8 89,515 11.3%
Lincoln Tunnel 1.5 61,619 7.8%
Holland Tunnel 1.6 48,226 6.1%
All Northern approaches (i.e., 60th Street) 0.1 355,648 44.8%
TOTAL 0.9 794,599 100.0%
Percent of wghtd average non-CBD trip distance 5.4%
Miles: First six are from Komanoff analysis in 2003 report, "The Hours: Time Savings from East River Bridge Tolls." Holland Tunnel averages north
and south tube lengths provided in PANYNJ fact sheet available at http://www.panynj.gov/commutingtravel/tunnels/html/holland.html. Lincoln
Tunnel averages three tube lengths provided in PANYNJ fact sheet available at http://www.panynj.gov/commutingtravel/tunnels/html/lincoln.html.
Last is Komanoff assumption.
Volumes: All data are taken directly from Hub-Bound worksheet.

% Continue to
Daily Volume CBD
George Washington Bridge 148,567 5%
Daily volume is from '2007, Manhattan River Crossings.' % continuing to CBD is from 'Revenues' worksheet, Row 165.
D. Changes in VMT on Approach Roads, due to Pricing
Total Auto Work Auto Non-Wk Thru Trips
Daily m.v. trips into cordon, before 685,934 260,770 183,410 127,122
From Motor Vs worksheet (repeated here in Part A)
Non-CBD miles in these trips 16.9 16.9 25.4
From Motor Vs worksheet (repeated here in Part A)
Daily m.v. trips into cordon, after 576,767 209,202 155,931 87,124
From Motor Vs worksheet, Row 848
Daily VMT from m.v. trips to cordon, before 23,592,061 8,814,060 6,199,276 6,445,119
Daily VMT from m.v. trips to cordon, after 18,994,886 7,071,069 5,270,500 4,417,198
Each figure is daily trips x non-CBD miles, doubled (to capture outbound as well as inbound legs).
Change (4,597,175) (1,742,991) (928,776) (2,027,921)
% Change for CBD-bound trips -19.5% -19.8% -15.0% -31.5%
% Change for all trips on these roads -6.6%
Calculated as % change for CBD-bound trips in Row 122, multiplied by CBD-bound trips' share of traffic in Row 20.
E. Change in VMT and Traffic Speeds in Selected Neighborhoods That Act as 'Funnels' to the CBD
The BTA does not have the capability to estimate changes in traffic levels in individual districts or counties, beyond the Manhattan CBD
To estimate VMT (vehicle miles traveled) changes in particular areas, we draw on data from the Jan. 31, 2008 Final Report of the Traff
Commission, which estimated VMT changes for the districts shown below (including the CBD and all of NYC).
As can be seen in Column Group 1, the TCMC estimated that its "alternative" pricing plan (the one presented to, but not enacted by, th
2008) would reduce VMT by 6.4% in the CBD and by 2.1% for all five boroughs combined. That roughly 3-to-1 ratio is somewhat differ
corresponding ratio produced by the BTA.
We therefore prorate our results by the TCMC's in two ways: by the TCMC estimate of changed VMT within the CBD, shown in Group
changed VMT for NYC as a whole, shown in Group 3. We then average the results in Group 4. We believe that the VMT changes sh
are reasonable estimates for the changes in VMT that may be expected in the districts shown, as a result of the pricing plan c
worksheet.
Estimated VMT Reductions by Sub-region 1 2

(Column Group 1 figs are from TCMC Report, Table 14, p. 41 (62 of 94) Bloomberg Plan, modified by Plan Selected by User
TCMC (%'s prorated from CBD)
Manhattan CBD (South of 60th St) 6.4% 7.0%

Manhattan north of 86th St 3.8% 4.2%
Figures at
Bronx 1.3% left are 1.4%
from
Northwest Brooklyn* 4.7% Interim 5.2%
Rest of Brooklyn 1.1% Report to 1.2%
the Traffic
Western Queens** 6.1% Congestion 6.7%
Rest of Queens 0.9% Mitigation 1.0%
Commissio
Staten Island 1.0% n, January 1.1%
2008, Table
Long Island 0.3% 14 (p. 62 of
0.3%
New Jersey 0.3% 94), Col. 2, 0.3%
"Alternative
Orange & Rockland 0.4% Congestion 0.4%
East of Hudson (CT, Dutchess, Putnam, Westchester) 0.2% Pricing 0.2%
Plan")
NYC 2.1% 2.3%
Outside NYC 0.3% 0.3%
*Northwest Brooklyn includes: Park Slope, Carroll Gardens, Boerum Hill, Red Hook, Downtown Brooklyn, Williamsburg, Greenpoint and Bushwick.
**Western Queens includes: Long Island City, Astoria and Sunnyside.
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
###
d from trip origins to the ###
###
###
of both worksheets): the ###
ox at left directly below, in ###
###
###
###
gy: CBD-bound trips are considered in two segments. The first extends ###
gins to the beginning of final "portal" (bridge or tunnel) into the CBD. ###
is the portal itself. For each segment, we estimate the share of all ###
the road that are ultimately bound for the CBD. We then weight that
by the segment's portion of total trip distance. The sum of weighted ###
s is the estimated percent of traffic on CBD-bound roads that actually ###
CBD.
###
###
###
###
in Rows 74 and 81. ###
###
###
###
Taxicab Truck Bus ###
###
65,000 38,200 11,432 ###
8.0 15.5 19.4 ###
2.0 3.0 2.0 ###
6.0 12.5 17.4 ###
###
###
###
###
###
. Leaving aside the CBD ###
art of the Manhattan Bridge, ###
###
###
###
e, we calculate, for each
table directly below. ###
###
###
###
nty. The weighted average
he CBD is almost certainly ###
mably are on roads on ###
ment would swamp the
###
###
###
tion Campaign, includes ###
###
###
###
% of Veh's ###
that Enter
CBD ###
11.5% ###
11.6% ###
11.8% ###
11.4% ###
17.7% ###
12.1% ###
###
4.3% ###
2.7% ###
6.3% ###
1.6% ###
4.6% ###
3.4% ###
###
6.8% ###
###
6.0% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
16.0% NJ vs. all other portals ###
###
###
###
###
###
Holland Tunnel averages north
html/holland.html. Lincoln ###
avel/tunnels/html/lincoln.html. ###
###
###
Daily Vol.
to CBD ###
7,428 ###
###
###
###
###
Taxicab Truck Bus ###
###
65,000 38,200 11,432 ###
###
6.0 12.5 17.4 ###
###
76,175 36,810 11,524 ###
###
780,000 956,543 397,062 ###
914,105 921,742 400,271 ###
###
134,105 (34,802) 3,209 ###
17.2% -3.6% 0.8% ###
###
###
###
###
###
es, beyond the Manhattan CBD, or for NYC as a whole. ###
, 2008 Final Report of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation ###
NYC).
###
###
ented to, but not enacted by, the NY State Legislature in ###
y 3-to-1 ratio is somewhat different from the ###
###
###
###
ithin the CBD, shown in Group 2; and by its estimate of
eve that the VMT changes shown in Column Group 4 ###
s a result of the pricing plan chosen in the 'Results' ###
###
###
2 3 4 ###
Plan Selected by User Plan Selected by User Plan Selected by User ###
(%'s prorated from CBD) (%'s prorated from NYC) (%'s average #2 and #3) ###
10.0% 8.5% ###

Each
6.0% 5.1% ###
Bold figure Bold figure figure is
at top to left 2.0% near 1.7% average of###
is from bottom of corres-
'Results' 7.4% column is 6.3% ponding ###
tab, Row 1.7% from 'VMT' 1.5% figures in ###
90, and tab, Row Column
was 9.6% 22. Other 8.1% Groups 2 ###
derived in 1.4% figures, 1.2% and 3. ###
'Motor Vs.' including Please do
Other fig's 1.6% for CBD at 1.3% not use ###
are top, are figures in
prorated
0.5% prorated
0.4% Rows 144
###
from that 0.5% from that 0.4% or 156. ###
figure and figure and Use boxed
those in 0.6% those in 0.5% figs in ###
other 0.3% other 0.3% Groups 2 ###
column. column. &3
3.3% 2.8% instead. ###
0.4% 0.3% ###
###
Greenpoint and Bushwick. ###
###
Breakeven
This worksheet compares the time savings and toll payment for individual commute trips into the CBD. The reader may use
to estimate the driver's value of time and commute distance whose time benefit will offset the toll cost.
A. Breakeven Analysis: Auto Commuters
1. Weekdays, work trips (on a 24-h basis, not just peak periods) in CBD outside CBD
Value of time (per vehicle-hour) for work trips; includes fractional passengers $35.76 $23.84
Average distance traveled (round trip) 2.50 33.80
Average speed, before, mph (24h, weighted by # trips in each period) 10.50 20.78
Average speed, after, mph (24h, weighted by # trips in each period) 12.22 22.08
Travel minutes, before 14.28 97.57
Travel minutes, after 12.28 91.86
Time saved, with cordon pricing (minutes) 2.01 5.71
Time saved, with cordon pricing (hours) 0.033 0.095
% of baseline travel time saved 14.1% 5.9%
Value of time saved $1.20 $2.27
Toll (avg for autos on work trips)
Discussion: Above analysis suggests that average commuter to CBD recovers less value in time saved than he/she must spend in cordon
entry toll, even though graph in Cost-Benefit tab indicates that aggregate time savings to drivers (and passengers) have approximately t
same value as drivers' toll payments.
The resolution of the paradox lies in free-riders. Just as most vehicles that are driven on the approaches to the CBD aren't bound for the
CBD and never enter it, many of the hours saved on roads outside the cordon are saved on non-CBD trips. These trips aren't
charged a cordon fee, but their drivers save time nevertheless. Thus, while a micro analysis indicates that most individiual trips into the
CBD will pay a higher toll than they will gain in time savings, a macro analysis indicates that the total value of the time savings is roughly
the same as total toll payments (including taxi surcharge) -- see Results or Cost-Benefit worksheets.
Note that within-CBD trips also include some free riders -- trips that only circulate within the CBD and thus don't pay a cordon fee, but still
reap the benefit of cordon pricing, via higher traffic speeds. There are proportionately far fewer free riders within than outside the CBD,
however.
Morning Peak, en route to CBD

2. Weekdays, work trips (peak periods) in CBD outside CBD
Average distance traveled (one way) 1.25 16.90
Average speed, before, mph (24h, weighted by # trips in each period) 9.18 17.07
Average speed, after, mph (24h, weighted by # trips in each period) 10.96 18.26
% of baseline travel time saved 16.2% 6.5%
Toll (autos on work trips, peak periods)
Discussion: Gap between toll cost and value of time saved is less for this peak-period trip but is still substantial.
B. Breakeven Analysis: Van Drivers (tradesmen, e.g., plumbers, elevator repair, heating or A/C service)
Weekdays, van trips during peak periods in CBD outside CBD

Average distance traveled (round trip) 6 25.04
Average speed, before, mph (6-9 am morning peak) 9.18 17.07
Average speed, after, mph (6-9 am morning peak) 10.96 18.26
Toll (van trips during peak) calculated by raising auto toll by: 25%
Discussion: Time saving comes closer to offsetting toll in this case. Indeed, any of the following adjustments will raise value of time save
to more than toll:
Adjustment 1: Add second (or third) trip, since time savings grow linearly while toll amount stays fixed.
Adjustment 2: Increase value of time by more than 11%, to at least $53 per hour within CBD and $48 per hour outside CBD.
Adjustment 3: Raise distance traveled within CBD by 20 percent.
C. Taxis All taxi trips CBD trips only

Value of time (per vehicle-hour); includes fractional passengers $55.99 $55.99
Average distance traveled 2.8 2.0
Average speed, before, mph 12.79 10.50
Average speed, after, mph 14.43 12.22
Surcharge $0.96 $0.85
Discussion: Whether the surcharge is offset by value of time saved varies depending upon share of trip that takes place within CBD and
trip's coincidence with peak traffic periods.
1/6/2012
CBD. The reader may use it

cost.
combined Sources
'Value of Time' worksheet, Rows 63 and 101.
'Motor Vs' worksheet, Rows 79 and 85.
111.85 Calculation from earlier rows.
6.9% Calculation from earlier rows.
$3.47 Calculation from earlier rows.
$6.68 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Cell W291.
he/she must spend in cordon-

ngers) have approximately the
he CBD aren't bound for the

rips. These trips aren't
ost individiual trips into the
the time savings is roughly
n't pay a cordon fee, but still

hin than outside the CBD,
Evening Peak, en route to CBD

in CBD outside CBD combined Sources
$35.76 $23.84 'Value of Time' worksheet, Rows 91 and 129.
1.25 16.90 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Rows 79 and 85.
9.2 65.5 142.23 Calculation from earlier rows.
17.3% 5.9% 7.5% Calculation from earlier rows.
$0.94 $1.54 $4.81 Calculation from earlier rows.
$7.39 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Cell R291.
combined Sources
'Value of Time' worksheet, Rows 66 and 104.
$9.27 Calculation from earlier rows. ###
$10.28 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Cell R287, plus % shown at left. ###
will raise value of time saved
hour outside CBD. (Note: If % in sentence to left is negative, then time savings already surpass toll.)
CBD trips,
evening peak Sources
$55.99 'Value of Time' worksheet, Row 70. Same value in/out CBD.
2.0 'Taxis' worksheet, Rows 79 and 122.
8.18 From 'Taxis' worksheet, Row 375 and 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Rows 933 and 184, respectively.
9.89 From 'Taxis' worksheet, Row 375 and 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Rows 934 and 869, respectively.
$2.37 Calculation from earlier rows.
$0.85 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Cell R323, plus % shown at left.
takes place within CBD and

Toll Incidence 1/6/2012
This worksheet estimates prospective cordon toll payments by residents, on a county by county basis. It then adds (i) prospective medallion taxi surcharge payments, and (ii) possible
"Outer Borough Toll Relief" (toll reductions on MTA bridges) so that each county's (or state's) share of toll "incidence" can be estimated.
These calculations are shown and displayed in Rows 19-306.
Another function of this worksheet is to estimate the number of different vehicles in each county or state that are likely to take at least one trip into or through the CBD in a typical month.
This enables estimation of the revenue and traffic impacts of offering one toll-exempt trip per month per vehicle.
These calculations begin in Row 308.
Last, this worksheet calculates the number of autos that are driven into or through the CBD for work purposes from each county on a typical weekday, and compares this to the number of
employed people living in each county. The resulting ratio offers a good county-by-county picture of the extent to which residents will be significantly affected by the cordon toll.
These calculations are shown in Rows 429 to 437.
A. County by County (or State) Shares of Toll Burden (with Applicable Medallion Taxi Surcharge)
User-Selected Pricing Plan, with Taxi Surcharge & OBTR* User-Selected Pricing Plan, w/o Taxi Surcharge, w/o OBTR*
Bronx Bronx
Brooklyn CT
Brooklyn
NJ Bronx
. CT
Bronx Manhattan Manhattan
NJ
Queens Queens
Orange
Other
Orange
Other S.I. S.I.
Dutchess
Dutchess Putnam
Brooklyn Nassau Brooklyn Nassau
Putnam Rockland
Rockland Westchester Suffolk
Suffolk
Westchester
Suffolk Suffolk Westchester
Westchester
Rockland
Nassau Rockland
Manhattan
Nassau Putnam
Manhattan Putnam
Dutchess
S.I. Dutchess
Orange
Orange S.I.
NJ
Queens NJ Queens
CT
CT
Other
Other
"OBTR" = Outer-Borough Toll Relief (via Bridge Discounts) "OBTR" = Outer-Borough Toll Relief (via Bridge Discounts)
Pie charts are derived below.
1. AUTOS
Trucks
This worksheet estimates the mix of truck types that currently enter or drive through the Manhattan Central Business District and calculate
the revenue implications of applying the Port Authority's axle-based toll schedule for trucks at its crossings to the proposed CBD cordon to
Abbreviations
"PA" = Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which operates, inter alia, the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.
"MTA" = Metropolitan Transportation Authority, whose "Bridges and Tunnels" unit (formerly the Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority, or
TBTA) operates, inter alia, the Queens Midtown and Brooklyin-Battery Tunnels.
A. Definitions and Criteria
We begin with the PA's definition of trucks. According to the Authority's "Green Book" of Traffic Rules and Regulations, a truck "shall mean
motor vehicle having dual rear wheels designed, used or maintained primarily for the transportation of goods, wares and merchandise or
registered for such use." (March 2008, p. 5, avail. at: < http://1.usa.gov/hntgWf>, emphasis added)
The PA's "dual rear wheels" criterion is noteworthy. It denotes two wheels on each side, i.e., four rear wheels in total, and implies that so
long as a vehicle has only two rear wheels, it is treated, for toll purposes, as an automobile. In other words, the PA tolls "man with van"
vehicles (e.g., Econoline vans) at the same rate as passenger cars.
MTA 's definition of a truck differs from the PA's. On its Web page, "MTA Bridges and Tunnels Crossing Charges" (see
<http://bit.ly/hQ2X0A>), the MTA defines trucks simply as "More than 7,000 lbs maximum gross weight (MGW)." (A vehicle must also have
commercial license plates to be considered a truck by the MTA.) Presumably, then, Ford 2011 E-Series vans are classified as trucks by the
MTA − even though they have just two rather than four (dual) rear wheels − since they are all 8,000 MGW or higher. (See Ford specs here
<http://bit.ly/hfg8N9>.) Note that Maximum Gross Weight is determined through commercial vehicle registration and E-ZPass registration.
B. Vehicle Classification Shares
Both the PA and the MTA count vehicles by "type" at all of their toll crossings, including those into the Manhattan CBD. Not surprisingly, the
counts follow their respective truck classification systems. And both of these differ from the NYMTC "Hub-Bound" data from which we have
estimated the number of truck crossings into the CBD.
The PA's truck classifications, based on number of wheels and axles, are straightforward. Unfortunately, some vehicles that we count here
(most critically, in the Motor Vs and Motor Vs Weekends worksheets) as trucks, e.g., Econoline vans, are recorded by the PA as cars
since they pay car tolls on PA crossings. Moreover, the only CBD-crossing data available from the PA, for the Lincoln Tunnel, may not be a
good representation of all CBD-bound traffic, if trucks make up a higher share of CBD-bound vehicles from west of the Hudson than they d
for, say, vehicles entering from the north at 60th St. Thus, the PA data (for the Lincoln Tunnel) may not suffice on their own.
The MTA data, for the Queens-Midtown and Brooklyn-Battery Tunnels, appear to us to be a reasonable proxy for all CBD-bound vehicles.
But the MTA truck classification system, based on weight, strikes us as too confusing to "sell" to the public as part of a cordon toll plan.
The MTA data, for the Queens-Midtown and Brooklyn-Battery Tunnels, appear to us to be a reasonable proxy for all CBD-bound vehicles.
But the MTA truck classification system, based on weight, strikes us as too confusing to "sell" to the public as part of a cordon toll plan.
We therefore interpolate between PA and MTA data in order to subdivide the number of trucks entering the CBD by number of wheels and
axles — the criteria used by the PA to toll trucks, which we intend to rely on for our formulation of truck tolls.
Lincoln Tunnel Truck Volumes (See Row 131 for source.)
Cars, Single Rear

Wheels, Autos, 2-axle truck with
Vans, Pickups, M- Buses (includes Dual Rear
cycles, RVs Minibuses) Wheels 3-4 Axles 5 or more Axles
24-h averages 49,974 6,808 3,369 1,215 446
Copied from sums of hourly data in table, below, and shown in Row 163.
Compare to Mix of Vehicles Entering Manhattan CBD on weekdays (which includes not just Hudson River crossings but also E River a
Passngr Cars Buses Trucks
TOTAL 444,180 11,432 38,200
Share, % 89.9% 2.3% 7.7%
% w/o Buses 92.1% 7.9%
Figures are taken from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 68, and exclude through-trips and medallion taxis.
Now compare to MTA Tunnel Truck and Car Volumes (Figures are annual and are from URS annual report for TBTA, available at <http://www.mt
18-Wheelers
Cars 2-Axle truck 3-Axle truck 4-Axle truck 5-Axle truck
QMT 26,672,000 1,662,000 232,000 34,000 16,000
93.2% 5.8% 0.8% 0.1% 0.1%
BBT 16,265,000 621,000 166,000 11,000 7,000
95.3% 3.6% 1.0% 0.1% 0.0%
We have highlighted the cells in Rows 63 and 70 because of their approximate equality, which suggests that Queens-Midtown Tunnel data
may be a good proxy for truck crossings into the CBD in general.
The remaining step is to subdivide the MTA's counts of 2-axle trucks into dual rear wheels and single rear wheels, which we can only
approximate at this time, and which we do directly below.
Share of 2-Axle trucks observed by MTA that have dual rear wheels, and thus would be classed by PA as trucks (Komanoff assumption):
Which gives rise to this table:
TBTA & QMT Volumes, revised to reflect PANYNJ classifications
Cars
(includes 50% of Trucks (includes
Vehicles 50% of Vehicles
recorded by MTA recorded by MTA
as 2-Axle trucks) as 2-Axle trucks)
27,503,000 831,000 232,000 34,000 16,000
% of cars + trucks 96.10% 2.90% 0.81% 0.12% 0.06%
% of trucks only 74.5% 20.8% 3.0% 1.43%
The percentages in Row 91 represent our best estimate of the breakdown by type of truck (using the PA's classification system), of trucks
entering the Manhattan CBD.
C. Proposed "Graduation" of Truck Tolls
Here we derive approximate toll schedule that charges trucks per number of axles, with objective of having trucks (i.e., vehicles that PA wi
classify as trucks) charged tolls that average 1.5 to 2 times as much as tolls for cars.
The following toll schedule accomplishes that objective.

Increment to truck toll for each additional axle after the 3rd (expressed as multiple of car tol
Truck toll as 2-Axle truck 3-Axle truck 4-Axle truck 5-Axle truck
multiple of car toll 1.30 2.25 3.00 3.75
Calculated toll (peak hours) $12.35 $21.38 $28.50 $35.63
D. Current Tunnel Toll Rates
Lincoln Tunnel Cars 2-Axle truck 3-Axle truck 4-Axle truck 5-Axle truck
Axles 2 2 3 4 5
Wheels 4 6 10 14 18
E-ZPass, Peak $8.00 $16.00 $24.00 $32.00 $40.00
Truck Toll as Multiple of Car Toll 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00
E-ZPass, Off-Peak $6.00 $14.00 $21.00 $28.00 $35.00
Truck tolls (3 axles and more) are from <http://www.panynj.gov/truckers-resources/>. Tolls for cars and 2-axle tr
<http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/tolls.html>. All tolls are as of March 2011.
MTA Major Crossings Cars 2-Axle truck 3-Axle truck 4-Axle truck 5-Axle truck
Axles 2 2 3 4 5
Wheels 4 6 10 14 18
E-ZPass $4.80 $8.66 $14.18 $18.12 $23.63
Major crossings are RFK, Whitestone, Throgs Neck, BBT, QMT. Note that MTA tolls do not vary by time of day. Toll r
Dec-2010 and are from <http://www.mta.info/bandt/traffic/btmain.html>.
E. Lincoln Tunnel Truck volume Data These data are distilled at the bottom, in Row 163, and are used above, in Row 56.
Lincoln Tunnel Truck Volumes by Time of Day (source: NYCDOT, "Manhattan River Crossings," p. 70 of 70)
Cars, Single Rear

Cars, Single Rear
AM
12 852 61 25 46 16
1 522 30 23 43 17
2 377 11 23 48 19
3 366 14 62 56 24
4 641 25 140 99 45
5 2,097 136 321 131 75
6 4,243 429 380 128 51
7 3,608 805 342 53 20
8 3,175 879 305 43 11
9 3,390 587 321 60 20
10 3,307 292 251 57 19
11 2,854 209 182 58 20
PM
12 2,533 195 174 55 20
1 2,380 221 176 37 13
2 2,416 262 155 24 13
3 2,379 373 109 24 6
4 1,944 517 86 19 4
5 1,578 400 51 13 2
6 1,912 408 52 14 5
7 2,182 322 47 24 4
8 1,933 225 32 44 7
9 1,886 164 36 48 8
10 1,839 138 34 54 9
11 1,560 105 42 37 18
TOTAL 49,974 6,808 3,369 1,215 446
Share, % 80.8% 11.0% 5.5% 2.0% 0.7%
% w/o Buses 90.9% 6.1% 2.2% 0.8%
W/ trx combined 90.9% 9.1%
F. Commercial Vehicle Occupancy Rates (pertinent to estimating number of people entering the CBD, in Travel worksheet)
Average occupancy rate for trucks and other commercial vehicles entering Manhattan CBD
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
###
###
###
usiness District and calculates
he proposed CBD cordon toll. ###
###
###
###
###
dge & Tunnel Authority, or ###
###
###
###
###
ulations, a truck "shall mean a ###

, wares and merchandise or ###
###
###
n total, and implies that so ###

e PA tolls "man with van" ###
###
###
###
es" (see
)." (A vehicle must also have ###
are classified as trucks by the ###
igher. (See Ford specs here:
n and E-ZPass registration. ###
###
###
###
###
an CBD. Not surprisingly, their ###

nd" data from which we have ###
###
###
###
e vehicles that we count here
corded by the PA as cars ###
Lincoln Tunnel, may not be a ###
est of the Hudson than they do
on their own. ###
###
###
###
for all CBD-bound vehicles.
part of a cordon toll plan. ###
###
###
BD by number of wheels and ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
All ###
61,812 ###
###
###
crossings but also E River and 60th St.) ###
All ###
493,812 ###
100.0% ###
100.0% ###
###
###
BTA, available at <http://www.mta.info/mta/investor/pdf/urs_2007.pdf>). ###
18-Wheelers ###
6+-Axle truck ###
2,403 28,618,403 ###
0.0% 100.0% ###
1,096 17,071,096 ###
0.0% 100.0% ###
###
Queens-Midtown Tunnel data ###
###
###
eels, which we can only ###
###
ks (Komanoff assumption): 50% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
All Just trucks ###
2,403 28,618,403 1,115,403 ###
0.01% 100.0% ###
0.22% 100.0% ###
###
ssification system), of trucks ###
###
###
###
###
cks (i.e., vehicles that PA will ###
###
###
###
xpressed as multiple of car toll): 0.75 ###
###
6+-Axle truck Wght'd avg ###
4.50 1.59 ###
###
$42.75 ###
###
###
###
6-Axle truck 7-Axle truck ###
6 7 ###
22 26 ###
$48.00 $56.00 ###
6.00 7.00 ###
$42.00 $49.00 ###
7.00 8.17 ###
es/>. Tolls for cars and 2-axle trucks are from ###
1.
###
###
6-Axle truck 7-Axle truck ###
6 7 ###
22 26 ###
$27.57 $33.08 ###
5.74 6.89 ###
do not vary by time of day. Toll rates are as of 30- ###
###
###
used above, in Row 56. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
All
All ###
###
1,000 ###
635 ###
478 ###
522 ###
950 ###
2,760 ###
5,231 ###
4,828 ###
4,413 ###
4,378 ###
3,926 ###
3,323 ###
- ###
2,977 ###
2,827 ###
2,870 ###
2,891 ###
2,570 ###
2,044 ###
2,391 ###
2,579 ###
2,241 ###
2,142 ###
2,074 ###
1,762 ###
61,812 ###
100.0% ###
100.0% ###
100.0% ###
###
in Travel worksheet) ###
###
1.5 ###
###
Transit
This worksheet develops a number of parameters and relationships that apply to broad elements of the NYC Transit system
as a whole.
Parts A through E deal with transit fares. Part F summarizes average subway and bus speeds. Parts G and H help the BTA
estimate the extent to which increased (or decreased) capital investment (Part G) and operations spending (Part H) will
improve transit service as measured by travel speeds and trip durations.
A. Transit Fare Media
Close to half of NYC Transit (subway and bus) rides are purchased with "unlimited" fare cards that effectively cause the rider
to perceive the marginal cost of an additional trip as zero. This will attenuate (more or less proportionately) the price-
responsiveness of subway and bus use.
% of NYC Transit fares paid for on

Incremental-Cost Basis Subway
Figures in 2x2 array are calculated directly from MTA data 2009 (12 mo.) 49.2%
shown on far side of Column O.
2010 (8 mo.) 48.2%
% of NYC Transit fares

that are undiscounted Subway
See Note in Rows 19-20. 2009 (12 mo.) 11.3%
2010 (8 mo.) 10.9%
Est'd increase in market share for incremental-cost pay media, if some or all NYC
Transit rides are discounted on per-ride basis (in percentage points, not %). 0%
Komanoff estimates. Had hoped to set to 5% and 10%, resp'ly, to reflect expected shift to per-ride media to take advantage of per-ride
discounts, tempered by ongoing "secular" shift to unlimited fare media; but figure was assumed greater because of assumed more
tenuous financial situation of bus riders. Have set to zero to avoid apples/oranges comparisons of baseline to projected.
Note that a more detailed treatment would parametrize the Row 28 figures to discounts assumed in fare scenarios.
Projected share of increm.-cost based rides, w/ pricing (rounded to nearest 5%) 48.2%
B. Fare Discounts (Pay-Per-Ride Fares) Subway
Base Fare (as of 30-Dec-2010) $2.25
MTA Discount (available for Pay-Per-Ride Bonus Metrocards) 7%

"Comparing Unlimited Ride and Pay-Per-Ride (Regular) MetroCard." MTA - NYCity Transit. Dec. 30, 2010. Available at: http://www.mta.info/metrocard
MTA Discount prior to 30-Dec-2010 fare increases 15%
"Higher Fares, Tolls Kick In," Wall Street Journal, 30-Dec-2010, by Andrew Grossman, available at <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240529702
% of Incremental-Cost Based Rides

that Receive a Discount
See Note in Rows 19-20. 2009 (12 mo.) 76.9%
2010 (8 mo.) 77.4%
Effective discount from average fare on incremental-cost paying rides 5.4%

Effective discount from average fare on all rides 2010 (8 mo.) 2.6%
Product of Rows 53 and either 20 or 34. Projected 2.6%
As of 30-Dec-2010 28-Jun-2009 to 30-Dec-2010

C. Fare Discounts (Unlimited MetroCards) Subway Bus Subway
30-day Unlimited Ride MetroCard (a/o 30-Dec-2010) $104.00 $104.00 $89.00

7-day Unlimited Pass (as of 30-Dec-2010) $29.00 $29.00 $27.00
Weighted Average of the two (applies only to changes)
Source: Fares are via <http://www.mta.info/metrocard/mcgtreng.htm#unlimited> for 30-Dec-2010 fares;

<http://www.mta.info/mta/news/releases/?en=090511-HQ15> for prior fares.
Weighted averages of 30-day and 7-day fare changes in Row 63 employ normalized shares of 30-day and 7-day MetroCards from Row 28.
Weighted averages of subway and bus fare changes in Row 64 weight subway and bus use of unlimiteds with respective projected 2011
ridership (from 'Subways' and 'Buses' tabs which are weighted in turn by unlimited media's shares of all subway and bus rides from Row
20. Note that Reciprocal was calc'd first.
D. Allocating Transfers between Subways and Buses
Many NYC Transit trips involve transfers -- from subway to bus, bus to subway, or bus to bus. Clarifying the MTA's
bookkeeping for these trips can help in accurately estimating costs per subway or bus ride, which are crucial parameters in
the BTA's algorithms for predicting changes in transit use in response to fare changes.
Subway trips 4,000,000

Bus trips 2,200,000
Trips that transfer between subway and bus 500,000
Trips that transfer between two buses 500,000
Total number of transit journeys 5,000,000
Bus journeys that involved transfers between two buses 250,000

One-half of trips that transfer between two buses in Row 81.
Bus journeys that involved transfer with a subway 250,000
One-half of trips that transfer between subway and bus in Row 80.
Bus trips that involve no transfer of any type 1,200,000
Total bus trips in Row 79 less bus trips that involve transfers in Rows 80 and 81.
Pure bus journeys 1,450,000
Sum of bus trips w/o transfers in Row 88 and bus journeys w/ transfers in Row 86.
Pure subway trips (no transfers) 3,500,000
Row 78 less Row 80.
Share of transfers allocated to subway system 64.5%
Share of subway-bus transfers allocated to bus system 35.5%
Ratio of Row 78 or 79 to sum of those rows; reflects Komanoff assumption that allocations
are proportional to respective number of unlinked trips.
Subway trips, with transfers allocated (rounded) 3,823,000

Row 88 plus Row 94 percent times Row 80 subway-bus transfers.
Bus trips, with transfers allocated (rounded) 1,627,000
Row 92 plus half of Row 80
Bus trips with no subway component 1,700,000
Row 79 less Row 80.
% trips going thru a subway turnstile that are allocable to subways Subways 95.6%
% trips going thru a bus "turnstile" that are allocable to buses Buses 74.0%
% bus trips w/ no subway component 77.3%
E. Student Discounts
Helpful Web pages from NYC Dept of Education:

Pupil Transportation: <http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/Transportation/default.htm>
Student Metrocards: <http://schools.nyc.gov/NR/exeres/0D2F636B-1214-47D2-835B-F1D600BBF4C4,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Publish
Services and Eligibility: <http://schools.nyc.gov/Offices/Transportation/ServicesandEligibility/default.htm>
F. More Detailed Estimates of Transit Speeds
Average transit-vehicle speed, mph

Copied from Row 275.
Estimated percent by which speed for select/express service exceeds average
Subway % is Komanoff estimate. Would be higher but for fact that baseline average includes express service.
Estimated speed for select/express service, mph
Product of Row 121 and one plus Row 123.
G. Capital
This section establishes an approximate relationship between increased subway-system investments and decreased subway
trip times -- the idea being that investments in subway train equipment and system reliability, scheduling and deployment will
bring about reductions in passengers' subway trip travel times.
The objective is to be able to quantify, albeit roughly, the extent to which investing a revenue stream from cordon tolls (or any
other source) of $100 million a year (say) in transit, rather than applying it to reducing fares, would achieve quantifiable
benefits, i.e., faster trips which would materialize (via transit time-elasticity) as greater use of subways, higher transit
revenues, reduced auto use, and improved vehicle speeds.
Primary data source is Jan. 27, 2010 MTA report, "2010 NYC Transit Service Reductions," available at
<http://www.mta.info/mta/news/books/pdf/100125_1031_service2010-nyct.pdf>. This 26 MB pdf itemizes dozens of proposed
subway and bus service cuts. For two measures, the MTA estimated lengthened trip durations and annual budgetary savings.
These are summarized below.
The takeaway from these numbers is that the MTA evidently is willing to lengthen subway trip durations by 3.3%-4.8% to
save $100 million a year in operating costs. (These percentages are extrapolated or prorated from the much smaller savings
-- less than $6 million -- for the actual measures shown.)
Reduce Weekend
Train Frequencies
to Accommodate
Construction Work
Description of proposed service cutback

Page in MTA report (see citation above) where cutback is discussed 3
Weekdays 1
# passengers affected (per MTA)
# minutes / passenger (per MTA)
Calculated hours per year -
Weekdays 2
# passengers affected (per MTA)
# minutes / passenger (per MTA)
Calculated hours per year -
Saturdays
# passengers affected (per MTA) 1,600,000
# minutes / passenger (per MTA) 1.0
Calculated hours per year 1,386,667
Sundays
# passengers affected (per MTA) 1,600,000
# minutes / passenger (per MTA) 1.0
Calculated hours per year 1,680,000
Grand total hours (Sum of Rows 160, 164, 168 and 172.) 3,066,667
Net Annual Savings (per MTA) $5,500,000
% Lengthening of Trip Durations, avg'd across entire subway system 0.25%
(Row 173 figures, divided by Row 184.)
% Lengthening Durations per $100 Million dis-invested 4.6%
(Row 177 figures, multiplied by ratio of $100 million to Row 174 figures.)
Total NYC Transit Subway Trips per year

2007 Turnstile count, from 'Subways' worksheet, Row 18.
Duration of a typical subway trip, hours
(Placeholder value; intended to include wait time)
Total Hours, NYC Transit Subway Trips per year
Product of two previous rows
Mean of the two % values above the box:

(Denotes empirically-based estimate of the extent to which subway service would be worsened (trips
lengthened) in order to save $100 million a year in operating expenses.)
Factor by which we have shrunk this percentage for conservatism (to "correct" for extrapolating from
single-digit millions to $100 million).
Komanoff figure. Figure greater than one indicates conservative approach was used.
Est'd % change in subway trip durations per first $100 million/yr in investment (abs value):
Percent (not percentage point) attrition in above rate per each additional $100 million:
Komanoff est. Captures diminishing returns in translating transit investment to improved travel time. Mathematical
form is such that if first $100 million yields 2% improvement in travel times, second $100 million yields 2% x .925%
or 1.85%, third yields 1.85% x .925% or 1.71%, etc.
Revenues invested in subways under our road pricing scenario (absolute value):
Reflects scenario selected in Results worksheet. Automatically imported from User Inputs worksheet.
Estimated eventual change in avg subway trip times due to transit investment (abs value):
Calculated from Lookup table below. Second part of formula (after plus sign) prorates gain from "last" investment
under $100 million. IF statement ensures Lookup doesn't search for zero.
Est'd eventual change in avg subway trip times due to transit invstmnt (adj for sign)
Pivots off actual value, including 'sign', in User Inputs worksheet, Cell J99. Positive sign denotes lengthened
(worsened) service, negative sign denotes shortened (improved) service.
Lookup table to calc. investment-

Hundreds of duration relationship
millions of
dollars
Hundreds of
millions of
dollars That year
1 1.29%
2 1.23%
3 1.17%
4 1.11%
5 1.05%
6 1.00%
7 0.95%
8 0.90%
9 0.86%
10 0.81%
11 0.77%
12 0.74%
13 0.70%
14 0.66%
15 0.63%
16 0.60%
17 0.57%
18 0.54%
19 0.51%
20 0.49%
21 0.46%
22 0.44%
23 0.42%
24 0.40%
25 0.38%
Number of years over which investment is applied (i.e., years required to reap full benefit):
We believe 5 (years) is a reasonable approximation, but we have inputted a value of 1 to show the full eventual benefit of these investments.
H. Operating
This section establishes an approximate relationship between increased subway or bus operating expenditures and
decreased trip times -- the idea being that increasing service reduces passengers' subway or bus trip travel times.
1. Allocated Cost of One Hour of Bus or Subway Service (all figures are for 2009 unless noted)
Some data from "Operating Expenses, Service Supplied and Consumed." TS(Time Series) 2.1. National Transit Database,
<http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/HistoricalData/TS2.1TimeSeriesOpExpSvcModeTOS.exe>. Referred to here as OES
Other data from From: "Table 13: Operating Expenses by Mode, Type of Service and Object Class." Transit Expenses. 2009 Nation
Transit Database <http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/dt/2008/excel/T13_Op_Exp_Mode_Class_2008.exe>. Referred to
as OEBMTOSAOC.
Other data from From: "Table 13: Operating Expenses by Mode, Type of Service and Object Class." Transit Expenses. 2009 Nation
Transit Database <http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/dt/2008/excel/T13_Op_Exp_Mode_Class_2008.exe>. Referred to
as OEBMTOSAOC.
Total New York City Route Miles

Sum of distance covered on all bus routes (buses) and sum of all tracks used by subways in service. From: "The MTA Network." Updated: Dec
2009. Available at <http://www.mta.info/mta/network.htm>. Note:
Total New York City Routes

Number of distinct bus and subway services in operation. Source: same as for Route Miles, directly above.
Average Route Length, miles
Ratio of route miles in Row 262 to routes in Row 265.
Revenue Vehicle Hours
Total hours that buses or subway cars spent on routes collecting, moving or dropping off passengers. Source: OESSAC.
Revenue Vehicle Miles
Total miles that buses or subway cars spent on routes collecting, moving or dropping off passengers. Source: OESSAC.
Average trip distance in miles
Averages of census-derived home-to-work and work-to-home trips, as culled by Schaller, circa 2006-2007 and calc'd by Komanoff in 2007.
Average transit-vehicle speed
Ratio of revenue miles in Row 271 to revenue hours in Row 269.
Vehicles Operated in Maximum Service
Maximum number of vehicles, buses and subway cars picking up and dropping off passengers at any given time. Source: OESSAC.
Revenue Hours per Vehicle (per year)
Ratio of revenue miles in Row 269 to vehicles in Row 277.
Operator Salary and Wages
Funds spent on personnel driving and operating buses and subways. Source: OEBMTOSAOC.
Other Salary
Salaries for all other persons assoc'd w/ providing service including schedulers, dispatchers, vehicle maintenance, fare collection, and track
maintenance. Source: OEBMTOSAOC.
Fringe Benefits
All benefits in addition to wages including: retirement plans, pension plans, medical plans, dental plans, life insurance, short-term disability,
unemployment insurance, workers' compensation insurance, sick leave, holiday leave, vacation (and other paid leave such as bereavement le
jury duty), uniform and work clothing allowances, and tools allowances for mechanics. Definition is from: "2010 Annual Reporting Manual of the
National Transit Database: Financial Module," p 133, available at:
<http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/pubs/ARM/2010/pdf/2010_Financial_Module.pdf>. Source: OEBMTOSAOC.
Total Payments to Operators

Sum of Rows 281, 283, and 286.
Fuel and Lube Costs
Gasoline, diesel, propane, lubricating oil, transmission fluid, and grease for use in vehicles. Source: OEBMTOSAOC.
Tire and Tube Costs
Lease payments or purchase costs of tires and tubes. Source: OEBMTOSAOC.
Casualty and Liability Insurance
Insurance premiums as well as public liability and property damage settlement pay outs and recoveries. Source: OEBMTOSAOC.
Utilities
Payments to utility companies including propulsion power for electric vehicles, electric power for other uses, natural gas, other heating fuels,
telephone, water, sewer, and garbage collection. Source: OEBMTOSAOC.
Payments to utility companies including propulsion power for electric vehicles, electric power for other uses, natural gas, other heating fuels,
telephone, water, sewer, and garbage collection. Source: OEBMTOSAOC.
Total Operating Cost (excludes capital amortization on vehicle purchases)
Number of vehicle-hours that could be purchased for one million dollars

Calculated as $1,000,000 divided by hourly per-vehicle operating costs in Row 303.
Est'd % reduction in bus trip durations per first $50 million/yr in operating expenditures:
From 'Buses' worksheet, Row 274. Estimated by distributing $50 million among the 20 most frequented bus lines.
Rate of Attrition of Effectiveness of Increased Expenditures, Relative to That for Capital:

Komanoff est. Is intended to capture presumed steeper slope of diminishing returns for operating expenditures and
bus sector, vis-à-vis capital investments and subway sector
Percent (not percentage point) attrition in above rate per each additional $50 million:
Calculated as one-half of Row 198 figure (since applies to each $50M rather than $100M), times Row 311 figure.
Captures diminishing returns in translating transit spending to improved travel time. See Row 199 for elaboraiton.
Toll revenues spent on transit operating improvements under our road pricing plan
Reflects scenario selected in Results worksheet. Automatically imported from User Inputs worksheet.
Allocation of toll revenues betw bus and subway operations (absolute value)
Subway figure is product of total change in spending in Row 320 and % of that change spent on subways from
'User Inputs' tab, Row 105. Bus figure is done likewise but uses complement of subways' %. It also has an arbitrary
($100) 'floor' to ensure its value is non-zero, to avoid a mathematical singularity in a dependent cell.
Total operating expenses, 2009

Source: "MTA New York City Transit." National Transit Database - 2009. Federal Transit Authority. P. 105 of 642.
Available at: http://bit.ly/leX3nG.
Ratio, Subway operating expenses to Bus operating expenses
Change in avg bus/subway trip times due to change in operational expends. (abs value)
Bus figure is calculated from Lookup table below. Second part of formula (after plus sign) prorates gain from 'last'
expenditure increment under $50 million. IF statement ensures Lookup doesn't search for zero. Subway figure
prorates bus figure by (i) ratio of system operating costs from Row 333 and (ii) ratio of subway spending to bus
spending, both given in Row 324.
Change in avg bus trip times due to incrs'd operational expenditures, corrected:
Corrects prelim result in Row 335 for 'sign', in event of negative value in Row 320 (Correction could have been built
into Row 335 value, but complicated Lookup Table function used there makes it simpler to apply correction in
separate step.)
Lookup table to calculate expendit.-

millions of
dollars
Lookup table to calculate expendit.-
millions of
dollars That year
0.5 0.62%
1.0 0.60%
1.5 0.58%
2.0 0.56%
2.5 0.55%
3.0 0.53%
3.5 0.52%
4.0 0.50%
4.5 0.48%
5.0 0.47%
5.5 0.46%
6.0 0.44%
6.5 0.43%
7.0 0.42%
7.5 0.40%
8.0 0.39%
8.5 0.38%
9.0 0.37%
9.5 0.36%
10.0 0.35%
10.5 0.34%
11.0 0.33%
11.5 0.32%
12.0 0.31%
12.5 0.30%
13.0 0.29%
13.5 0.28%
14.0 0.27%
14.5 0.26%
15.0 0.26%
15.5 0.25%
16.0 0.24%
16.5 0.23%
17.0 0.23%
17.5 0.22%
18.0 0.21%
18.5 0.21%
19.0 0.20%
19.5 0.19%
20.0 0.19%
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
ents of the NYC Transit system ###
###
Note: Notwithstanding its title, this worksheet
does not encompass all of the transit analysis in ###
the BTA. See worksheets Subways, Sub v. Bus,
s. Parts G and H help the BTA Buses and Bus Boarding for further analysis. ###
ons spending (Part H) will ###
###
###
###
###
s that effectively cause the rider ###

oportionately) the price- ###
###
###
###
Bus ###
53.1% Data in this row are for background purposes only. ### 2009 (12 mo.)
51.5% ### 2010 (8 mo.)
### Source: MTA worksheet,
are our calculated arithm
###
Bus ###
20.0% Data in this row are for background purposes only. ### Further breakout, of unl
18.9% ###
###
### 2009 (12 mo.)
0% ### 2010 (8 mo.)
edia to take advantage of per-ride

### Source: Same MTA work
ter because of assumed more and 30-day cards' shares
###
seline to projected.
###
### http://nyp.st/fgRXIE
### 2010 sees decrease in s
51.5% ### By TOM NAMAKO, Trans
### Last Updated: 6:21 PM, F
### Posted: 6:20 PM, Februar
### Subway and bus ridership
Bus ### The yearly number of ride
### But that didn’t hurt the MT
$2.25 ### The increase in funds with
### Riders kept flocking to the
7% Note: applies to farecards w/ at least $10 value. ### Total ridership undergroun
2010. Available at: http://www.mta.info/metrocard/compare.htm. ### The bus system wasn’t so
### Total bus riders decrease
15% ### There were about 700 mil
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203525404576050123745877678.html?mod=googlenews_wsj>. ### [further text on December
###
###
###
62.3% Data in this row are for background purposes only. ###
63.2% ###
###
4.4% ###
###
2.3% ###
2.3% ###
###
28-Jun-2009 to 30-Dec-2010 Change (Multiple) Reciprocal of Change ###
Bus Subway Bus Subway Bus ###
###
$89.00 1.1685 1.1685 0.8558 0.8558 ###
$27.00 1.0741 1.0741 0.9310 0.9310 ###
1.1427 1.1398 0.8752 0.8773 ###
1.1418 0.8758 ###
es; ###
###
ay and 7-day MetroCards from Row 28. ###
iteds with respective projected 2011

###
all subway and bus rides from Row ###
###
###
###
###
Clarifying the MTA's ###

hich are crucial parameters in ###
###
###
###
Estimates at left are from a 2000 paper, “Effects of Fare Incentives on New York City Transit
Ridership,” written by analysts at the MTA, L. Hirsch, J, Jordan, R, Hickey, and R. Cravo, ###
published in Transportation Research Record, Vol. 1735, p. 147-157. We use them in ###
subsequent rows to estimate the percent of trips that qualify as fully allocable subway and bus
trips. Note that source gave number of bus trips as "more than two million." ###
###
###
###
###
###
From the paper by Hirsch et al.:
On an average weekday, passengers make over 4,000,000 subway trips

and more than 2,000,000 trips on NYC Transit buses. These passenger
These trip numbers include trips made by full-fare riders and half-fare senior
figures are citizen/handicapped riders, as well as about 500,000 student trips
from (200,000 on the subway and 300,000 on buses).
From the paper by Hirsch et al.: ###
On an average weekday, passengers make over 4,000,000 subway trips ###
and more than 2,000,000 trips on NYC Transit buses. These passenger ###
These trip numbers include trips made by full-fare riders and half-fare senior
figures are citizen/handicapped riders, as well as about 500,000 student trips ###
from (200,000 on the subway and 300,000 on buses). ###
calculation
s by Subway ridership is measured by the number of entries into the subway ###
Komanoff system, including transfers from buses. Bus ridership is measured by the ###
made on number of bus boardings (i.e., unlinked trips), including transfers from the
the figures subway or from other buses. Approximately 500,000 weekday passenger ###
from the trips make use of both a bus and a subway, with a similar number of trips ###
MTA paper, requiring a transfer between buses. Thus, the number of NYC Transit
above. linked trips (or passenger journeys) is about 5,000,000 each weekday. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
These %'s will be used in other ###

worksheets to "normalize" ###
subway & bus ridership counts.
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
0BBF4C4,frameless.htm?NRMODE=Published> ###
###
###
###
###
Bus Subway ###
7.74 18.25 ###
###
20% ###
express service. ###
7.74 21.90 ###
###
###
###
###
stments and decreased subway ###
scheduling and deployment will ###
###
###
###
stream from cordon tolls (or any
would achieve quantifiable ###
subways, higher transit ###
###
###
###
ailable at
pdf itemizes dozens of proposed ###
s and annual budgetary savings. ###
###
###
durations by 3.3%-4.8% to ###

from the much smaller savings ###
###
###
###
###
Revise Off-Pk ###
Service Levels:
Change Max. ###
Loading Guideline
from Zero to 10-18 ###
Standees per Car ###
###
###
4 ###
###
160,000 ###
0.9 ###
600,000 ###
###
140,000 ###
0.75 ###
437,500 ###
###
155,000 ###
0.5 ###
67,167 ###
###
130,000 ###
0.8 ###
109,200 ###
1,213,867 ###
$3,100,000 ###
0.10% ###
###
3.2% ###
###
###
1,631,700,000 ###
###
0.75 ###
###
1,223,775,000 ###
###
###
3.9% ###
###
###
###
3 ###
###
###
###
1.3% ###
###
###
5% ###
###
###
###
###
$490,000,000 ###
###
###
5.74% ###
###
###
###
-5.74% ###
###
###
###
ookup table to calc. investment- ###
duration relationship
###
Cumulative ###
1.29% ###
2.52% ###
3.69% ###
4.80% ###
5.85% ###
6.85% ###
7.80% ###
8.70% ###
9.56% ###
10.37% ###
11.15% ###
11.88% ###
12.58% ###
13.25% ###
13.88% ###
14.47% ###
15.04% ###
15.58% ###
16.10% ###
16.59% ###
17.05% ###
17.49% ###
17.91% ###
18.30% ###
18.68% ###
###
5 ###
ull eventual benefit of these investments. ###
###
###
###
###
ating expenditures and
bus trip travel times. ###
###
###
###
###
###
ries) 2.1. National Transit Database,
SvcModeTOS.exe>. Referred to here as OESSAC. ###
###
Object Class." Transit Expenses. 2009 National ###

_Exp_Mode_Class_2008.exe>. Referred to here ###
###
Per Vehicle-Mile
Aggregate Data Per Vehicle-Hour Calculations Calculations ###
Bus Subway Bus Subway Bus ###
Subway
2,070 659 ###
service. From: "The MTA Network." Updated: Dec. 31, ###
###
245 26 ###
###
8.45 25.35 ###
###
13,273,514 19,320,766 ###
sengers. Source: OESSAC. ###
102,693,042 352,524,575 ###
engers. Source: OESSAC. ###
3.63 7.78 ###
a 2006-2007 and calc'd by Komanoff in 2007. ###
7.74 18.25 ###
###
3,924 5,388 ###
rs at any given time. Source: OESSAC. ###
3,383 3,586 ###
###
$547,024,200 $307,171,300 ###
###
$520,727,000 $1,528,666,200 ###
vehicle maintenance, fare collection, and track ###
Komanoff note: Bus tire and tube cost in Row ###
$852,888,700 $1,466,412,800 296 implies $36,000 per vehicle per year, or ###
$100 per day. If a bus tire costs $700 (?), then
each bus would be receiving one tire change ###
ntal plans, life insurance, short-term disability, per week!
on (and other paid leave such as bereavement leave,
###
ion is from: "2010 Annual Reporting Manual of the ###
Source: OEBMTOSAOC. ###
###
$1,920,639,900 $3,302,250,300 $144.70 $170.92 $18.70 $9.37 ###
###
$166,354,000 $5,765,700 $12.53 $0.30 $1.62 $0.02 ###
ource: OEBMTOSAOC. ###
$141,098,700 $215,778,300 $10.63 $11.17 $1.37 $0.61 ###
###
$31,370,400 $47,452,700 $2.36 $2.46 $0.31 $0.13 ###
ecoveries. Source: OEBMTOSAOC. ###
$20,898,800 $258,282,800 $1.57 $13.37 $0.20 $0.73 ###
for other uses, natural gas, other heating fuels, ###
###
$171.80 $198.21 $22.21 $10.86 ###
###
5,821 5,045 ###
###
###
0.62% ###
###
###
120% ###
###
###
###
3.0% ###
###
###
###
###
$490,000,000 ###
###
Bus Subway ###
###
$163,333,333 $326,666,667 ###
###
###
###
###
$2,289,448,330 $3,313,127,436 ###
###
Meaning conveyed by ratio below is that a dollar of spending leverages a ###
greater % gain in average trip duration on buses than on subways.
###
1.45 ###
###
1.95% 2.70% ###
###
###
###
###
-1.95% -2.70% ###
###
###
###
okup table to calculate expendit.- ###
okup table to calculate expendit.-
###
Cumulative ###
0.62% ###
1.22% ###
1.80% ###
2.37% ###
2.91% ###
3.44% ###
3.96% ###
4.46% ###
4.94% ###
5.41% ###
5.87% ###
6.31% ###
6.74% ###
7.16% ###
7.56% ###
7.95% ###
8.33% ###
8.70% ###
9.06% ###
9.41% ###
9.74% ###
10.07% ###
10.39% ###
10.69% ###
10.99% ###
11.28% ###
11.56% ###
11.83% ###
12.10% ###
12.35% ###
12.60% ###
12.84% ###
13.07% ###
13.30% ###
13.52% ###
13.73% ###
13.94% ###
14.14% ###
14.33% ###
14.52% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Subway Bus
1-Ride Tkt PPR Bonus PPR No Bon. Unlimited Cash 1-Ride Tkt PPR Bonus PPR No Bon. Unlimited
2.9% 37.8% 8.5% 50.8% 12.8% 0.1% 33.1% 7.1% 46.9%
2.4% 37.3% 8.5% 51.8% 11.8% 0.1% 32.5% 7.1% 48.5%
Source: MTA worksheet, "Monthly Fare Media Market Share." 2009 figures are by MTA. 2010 figures
are our calculated arithmetic means of MTA's figures for Jan-Aug 2010.
Further breakout, of unlimited fare media

Subway Bus
7 Day 30 Day 7D Normzd 30D Normzd 7 Day 30 Day 7D Normzd 30D Normzd
13.5% 34.4% 28.2% 71.8% 14.7% 32.1% 31.4% 68.6%
13.4% 35.5% 27.4% 72.6% 14.6% 33.4% 30.4% 69.6%
Source: Same MTA worksheet as above, w/ analogous calculations. Normalized figures inflate 7-day
and 30-day cards' shares as if the two were the only fare media.
http://nyp.st/fgRXIE
2010 sees decrease in subway & bus riders, increase in funds for MTA
By TOM NAMAKO, Transit Reporter
Last Updated: 6:21 PM, February 15, 2011
Posted: 6:20 PM, February 15, 2011
Subway and bus ridership dipped in 2010, a year that was a long ride for straphangers who endured the worst service cuts in decades.
The yearly number of riders on the rails, buses, and paratransit was 2.31 billion — which clocks in at .1 percent below expectations, preliminary MTA num
But that didn’t hurt the MTA’s bottom line, as the agency raked in $3.30 billion dollars at the farebox, which is $2.3 million above the estimates of bean-co
The increase in funds with a decrease in riders was made possible by the series of fare hikes the MTA has implemented — this January marked the third
Riders kept flocking to the subways though.
Total ridership underground was the second-highest since 1950 at 1.60 billion — that’s 1.5 percent, or 24 million trips, above 2009.
The bus system wasn’t so lucky.
Total bus riders decreased by 2.8 percent from 2009, a decrease of about 20 million trips.
There were about 700 million total bus rides taken in 2010, the stats show.
[further text on December 2010 service problems omitted]
e cuts in decades.
w expectations, preliminary MTA numbers show.
lion above the estimates of bean-counters .
ted — this January marked the third in three years.
, above 2009.
Subways
This worksheet calculates changes in subway use in response to changes in (1) the level and structure of
subway fares and (2) implementation of CBD cordon fees.
It is based on projected 2011 ridership figures. While ordinarily we prefer to employ actual data,
we've had to update fare data to 2011 values (which went into effect on Dec. 30, 2010) in order to
have a coherent baseline. Since changes in fares obviously affected ridership, that figure must be
updated as well.
1. Baseline Subway Ridership, Fare and Revenue Data
NYC Subway subway ridership, 2011, projected (millions) Overall Work Non-work
Projected turnstile count in "MTA 2011 Final Proposed Budget: 1,631.7

November Financial Plan 2011-2014," Nov. 2010, p. 470 of 584,
available at <http://bit.ly/eH4JCA>.
Adjustment factor to normalize ridership to full fare 95.6%
From 'Transit' worksheet, Row 104. This figure is intended to approximate number of full-fare rides by
adjusting for bus-subway transfers. We hope to further adjust to reflect seniors' and disabled half-fares, as
well as student discounts of 100%.
Adjusted (full-fare equiv.) subway ridership, 2011, millions: 1,559.5

Calculated as the product of the turnstile counts in Row 18 and the adjustment factor in Row 22.
Breakdown of above between work and non-work trips. 60% 40%

This breakdown is needed because the BTA assumes different elasticities for work vs. non-work transit trips.
Percentages are Komanoff estimates. Note that they pertain to all subway trips, not merely subway trips into
CBD.
Subway Fare Revenue, 2011, projected (un-normalized) $ 2,436.3 (million)

Projected figure, from same Nov. 2010 MTA budget document referenced in Row 18 note, above, p. 449 of
584.
Work-trip and non-
work trip different
Current (2011) Adjusted Subway Fares, Work Trips vs. Non-Work Trips (adj. per note in Row 23) fares were intended
to reflect seniors,
transfers, etc., but as
Overall Fare (All Rides) is quotient of Farebox Rev. Overall Work Non-work of 4 Feb 2011 all
in Row 36 and Ridership in Row 18. For Overall baseline fares are
Fare (Normalized), divisor is Adj. Ridership in Row All Rides $1.49 $1.49 $1.49 assumed uniform.)
28. Normalized $1.56 $1.56 $1.56
Weekday/Weekend breakout (un-normalized) Weekdays Saturdays Sundays
Note: These 2009 data are used only to derive Daily 5,086,833 2,928,247 2,283,601
factors in Rows 53 and 57, rather than to Days/Yr 250 52 63
establish ridership levels per se.
Ann. (000) 1,271,708 152,269 143,867
Weekday datum is from http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/index.htm, table, "2009 subway ridership at a
glance," accessed Dec. 26, 2010. Weekend daily figure is quotient of annual and days/yr.
Percentage of subway system weekday rides accounted for by trips entering/leaving/using CBD
Calculated as one ratio divided by another; first is ratio of 2011 total weekday subway trips entering or
leaving hub in Row 99 divided by all 2009 weekday subway trips in Row 47. Second is ratio of 2011 annual
subway trips in Row 18 divided by 2009 annual subway trips in Row 10.
Factor to multiply weekday figs. in next sections to extrapolate from CBD to all subway trips
Reciprocal of figure in Row 53.
2. Hourly Subway Trips to CBD, Baseline (weekdays)
This section presents hourly subway ridership (# of passengers) entering and leaving the CBD on weekdays.
Note: while these hourly splits are suitable for subway rate design (since hub-bound trips are the most congested), they are not
ideal for estimating revenue impacts for system as a whole. Those require systemwide hourly splits. Pending those, we employ
these.
These are weekday data. They represent projected 2011 turnstile counts, by hour
2011 Entering Hub Leaving Hub Entering + Leaving Proposed Nominal

Fare
Hr starting Riders % Max Riders % Max Riders % Max % All Bin
Midnight 9,753 2.4% 28,765 9.5% 38,518 7.6% 0.9% 1

1 a.m. 4,306 1.0% 13,386 4.4% 17,692 3.5% 0.4% 1
2 a.m. 3,412 0.8% 6,811 2.2% 10,223 2.0% 0.2% 1
3 a.m. 3,131 0.8% 4,064 1.3% 7,195 1.4% 0.2% 1
4 a.m. 7,007 1.7% 4,041 1.3% 11,048 2.2% 0.3% 1
5 a.m. 34,012 8.2% 10,164 3.4% 44,176 8.7% 1.0% 2
6 a.m. 108,308 26.1% 38,781 12.8% 147,089 29.0% 3.5% 3
7 a.m. 242,272 58.5% 79,620 26.3% 321,891 63.5% 7.6% 4
8 a.m. 414,306 100.0% 92,977 30.7% 507,283 100.0% 11.9% 6
9 a.m. 262,552 63.4% 68,544 22.6% 331,097 65.3% 7.8% 5
10 a.m. 127,113 30.7% 50,387 16.6% 177,501 35.0% 4.2% 3
11 a.m. 90,338 21.8% 49,274 16.3% 139,612 27.5% 3.3% 3
12 noon 79,621 19.2% 60,316 19.9% 139,937 27.6% 3.3% 3
1 p.m. 81,995 19.8% 66,067 21.8% 148,061 29.2% 3.5% 3
2 p.m. 90,750 21.9% 93,405 30.8% 184,154 36.3% 4.3% 3
3 p.m. 107,313 25.9% 130,964 43.2% 238,277 47.0% 5.6% 3
4 p.m. 126,305 30.5% 187,666 61.9% 313,971 61.9% 7.4% 4
5 p.m. 132,592 32.0% 302,960 100.0% 435,552 85.9% 10.2% 6
6 p.m. 95,898 23.1% 263,202 86.9% 359,100 70.8% 8.4% 5
7 p.m. 63,957 15.4% 172,941 57.1% 236,898 46.7% 5.6% 3
8 p.m. 47,615 11.5% 117,469 38.8% 165,084 32.5% 3.9% 2
9 p.m. 30,570 7.4% 90,140 29.8% 120,710 23.8% 2.8% 2
10 p.m. 26,566 6.4% 72,543 23.9% 99,109 19.5% 2.3% 2
11 p.m. 15,864 3.8% 46,792 15.4% 62,656 12.4% 1.5% 1
TOTAL 2,205,556 2,051,277 4,256,834 100.0%
Wghted avg proposed weekday fare, before time-switching.
Hourly entering / leaving figures are calc'd by prorating projected 2011 annual ridership in Row 18 by actual 2008 annual ridership in
Row 9 (at far right) by actual 2008 entering / leaving figure for that hour in array running from Row 30 to Row 53, also at far right.
3. Changes in Hourly Subway Trips to CBD from New Fares and (possible) Service Investments
This section calculates the number of rides that will increase, disappear and time-switch due to changes
in fare (including possible time-variation) along with time-varying cordon fee.
Premise: To estimate subway passengers' propensity to shift travel time, we applied the Port Authority analysis of time-shifting
by drivers using the PA's Hudson River crossings (see detailed explanation in Time Switching worksheet), with three
adjustments to reflect: (1) subway passengers' lesser price-sensitivity and, thus, lesser propensity to time-shift ; (2) subway
passengers' lesser monetary savings for time-shifting; (3) the fewer minutes or hours that subway riders must time-shift to reach
the lower-fare period, compared to the three-hour duration of the PA's periods for drivers.
We recognize that it is unusual to apply an empirical relationship observed for drivers, to straphangers. Given the absence of
empirical data to measure subway users' responses to institution of time-of-day fares, and absent any a priori reason not to do
so, we regard this step as reasonable.
Because the price-elasticity of subway ridership differs between work and non-work trips (see Elasticities worksheet), it is
necessary to dichotomize subway trips into work and non-work trips, below.
A. Subway Trip Gains/Losses due to Changes in Subway Trip Price + Duration (w/o time-shifting)
Hour beginning
Baseline Ridership entering + leaving hub in hr (actual riders, not normalized by % in Row 22)
Assumed percentage of all subway trips that are work-related (Copied from Row 31.) 60%
Factor to multiply percent in Row 131 to reflect hourly variations. (From multiples chosen for auto trips in By Hour wksht.)
Percentage of trips in each hour that are work-related, unadjusted 61%

Each column figure is product of Row 133 column entry and figure in box in Row 131. Fig. in box dir'ly above is wghtd avg.
Percentage of trips in each hour that are work-related, adjusted. 60.0%
Adjustments, made manually, ensure that wghtd avg % of work trips matches assumed percentage in Row 131.
Number of trips entering or leaving hub that are work-related
Of which these are purchased on pay-per-ride basis
And these are purchased with unlimited fare cards
Rows 140 and 141 apply, to Row 139, subway ride shares of pay-per and unlimiteds from 'Transit' tab, Row 20.
Number of trips entering or leaving hub that are not work-related
Of which these are purchased on pay-per-ride basis
And these are purchased with unlimited fare cards
Rows 144 and 145 apply, to Row 143, subway ride shares of pay-per and unlimiteds from 'Transit' tab, Row 20.
Number of trips entering or leaving hub that are purchased on pay-per-ride basis Sum of Rows 140 and 144.
Number of trips entering or leaving hub that are purchased with unlimited cards Sum of Rows 141 and 145.
Current Nominal Fare

Average of work and non-work fares in Row 42 wghtd by work/non-work %'s drawn from Row 137.
A1. Subway Trip Gains/Losses among trips purchased on pay-per-ride basis (price changes only)
Current Fare as Experienced by Subset of Subway Riders who pay on per-ride basis
Average of nominal and discounted fares, wghtd by share of pay-per-riders who do or do not use discounted media, as est'd in Row 51 of
'Transit' worksheet. The former share enjoys the fare discount for qualifying pay-per-ride Metrocards shown in Row 42 of 'Transit' sheet.
Both shares pivot off nominal per-ride fare shown in Row 40 of that sheet.
Proposed Nominal Fare Shown in entries in Column N, Rows 74 to 97 or calc'd via 'override' in Row 73.
Override is in effect if boxed cell in Row 73 Col. Z, has a number in it. If it does, then new fare = product of override factor and baseline fare
for that hour. If no override, then 'If' statement causes new fare to be either baseline fare or fare indicated by value for that hour given in
Col. N.
Proposed Fare to be Experienced by Subset of Subway Riders who pay on per-ride basis
Adjusts fare from Row 159 w/ pay-per-ride discount inputted in 'User Inputs' Row 115 and % of pay-per-rides recv'ing discount.
% Change in work-trip ridership among pay-per-riders, due to subway price change
Draws on transit price-elasticities for work trips from 'Elasticities' tab, Row 49 and on current & proposed fares in Rows 155 and 163.
% Change in non-work-trip ridership among pay-per-riders, due to subway price change
Above row draws on transit price-elasticities for non-work trips from 'Elasticities' worksheet, Row 49.
Change in work-trip ridership among pay-per-riders due to subway price change
Each figure is product of percent in Row 165 and baseline work-trip pay-per-ride figure in Row 140.
Change in non-work-trip ridership among pay-per-riders due to subway price change
Each figure is product of percent in Row 167 and baseline non-work-trip pay-per-ride figure in Row 144.
Total Change in ridership among pay-per-riders due to subway price change
Each figure is sum of Rows 169 and 171.
A2. Subway Trip Gains/Losses among trips purchased w/ Unlimited MetroCards (price changes only)
Current Fare as Experienced by Unlimited Card Riders

Solved algebraically with Rows 150 and 155 and % of riders who pay on per-ride basis from Row 20 of 'Transit' worksheet.
Proposed Fare to be Experienced by Unlimited Card Riders
Product of Row 178 and factor calculated from assumed percentage change in unlimited fares from 'User Inputs' tab, Row 112.
% Change in work-trip ridership among unlimited card riders, due to subway price change
Draws on transit price-elasticities for work trips from 'Elasticities' tab, Row 70 and on current & proposed fares in Rows 178 and 180.
% Change in non-work-trip ridership among unlimited card riders, due to subway price change
Above row draws on transit price-elasticities for non-work trips from 'Elasticities' worksheet, Row 70.
Change in work-trip ridership among unlimited card riders due to subway price change
Each figure is product of percent in Row 182 and baseline work-trip pay-per-ride figure in Row 163.
Change in non-work-trip ridership among unlimited card riders due to subway price change
Each figure is product of percent in Row 184 and baseline non-work-trip pay-per-ride figure in Row 167.
Total Change in ridership among unlimited card riders due to subway price change
A3. Subway Trip Gains/Losses among Pay-Per-Riders + Unlimited Riders Combined (price changes only)
A4. Subway Trip Gains/Losses among All Riders Due to Service Changes
Possible changes to average subway trip duration (applies only to periods with zero fare, if any)
Duration change due to eliminating fare collection -2.0%
Figure in box in Row 199 above is Komanoff-Haikalis est., intended to reflect time savings from obviating need to use (and, in some
instances, buy) MetroCards, as well as faster station egress from removing turnstiles, gates, etc.
Duration change due to transit investments + operational expenditures -8.4%

Figure in box in Row 202 is sum of two Rows from 'Transit' worksheet: 210 and 340. It reflects results of capital investments and/or
operational expenditures using toll revenues that will help keep system in state of good repair, as well as possible service expansions. Is
applied uniformly in all time periods.
Duration change from any other exogenously est'd cause (e.g., cuts, efficiencies) 0%
Combined percentage change to average subway trip duration
Sum of Rows 199, 202 and 206. Simpler and probably at least as accurate as cross-products.
Change in work-trip ridership due to subway duration change
Results in Row 209 draw on transit time-elasticities for work trips from 'Subways' worksheet, Row 64.
Change in non-work-trip ridership due to subway duration change
Results in Row 211 draw on transit time-elasticities for work trips from 'Subways' worksheet, Row 64.
Total Change in ridership due to subway duration change
Of which these changes are among pay-per-riders
And these changes are unlimited card riders
Figures in above two rows are product of respective subway ridership shares from 'Transit' Row 20 and total change in Row 213.
Total Change in work-related trips (due to any subway price and duration changes)
Each figure is sum of Rows 169, 186 and 209.
Total Change in non-work-related trips (due to any subway price and duration changes)
Each figure is sum of Rows 171, 188 and 211.
Combined change in ridership due to subway price & trip-duration changes
A5. Summary of Subway Trip Gains/Losses Due to Price and Service Changes
Grand total changes

Of which these changes are among pay-per-riders Each figure is sum of Rows 173 and 215.
And these changes are unlimited card riders Each figure is sum of Rows 190 and 216.
And, of which these changes are for work trips Each figure is sum of Rows 169, 186 and 209.
While these changes are for non-work trips Each figure is sum of Rows 171, 188 and 211.
Combined change in ridership due to subway price & trip-duration changes, expressed as percent
Each figure is ratio of change shown in Row 223 to baseline figure given in Row 129.
B. Subway Trip Gains/Losses between periods, due to time-shifting to lower fare periods
New baseline (with price and duration impacts but before time-shifting to lower fare periods)
Can a subway passenger save money by moving to the preceding hour period? See Time Switching worksheet for our
methodology for calculating time-
shifting.
Can a subway passenger save money by moving to the subsequent hour period?
Ratio, trips in period to trips in preceding period, before pricing (rewrite to return zero unless can save $ by switch earlier)
Ratio, trips in period to trips in subsequent period, before pricing (will rewrite to return zero unless can save $ by switching later)
Ratio, fare in period to fare in preceding period, before pricing Is set to 1, since base subway fare has
no time variation.
Ratio, fare in period to fare in subsequent period, before pricing
Ratio, fare in period to fare in preceding period, with pricing

Note: zero fares, if any, are assigned this value for calc'ing fare ratios in Rows 255 & 257 to avoid dividing by zero:
Ratio, fare in period to fare in subsequent period, with pricing
Ratio of fare ratios for time-switching earlier (Row 255 divided by Row 251); if > 1, some trips will switch earlier
Ratio of fare ratios for time-switching later (Row 257 divided by Row 253); if > 1, some trips will switch later
Price-elasticity of subway ridership (weighted average of work and non-work transit figures in Elasticities worksheet)
Price-elasticity of driving in same hour (using subway ridership's mix of work and non-work trips)
Elasticities for calc'ing "time-switching earlier" factor
Reflects three adjustments: (i) different avg incomes of subway users vs. drivers (and, hence, different sensitivity to fare differentials; (ii)
different price-sensitivity of transit vs. driving; (iii) shorter subway "fare bins" vs. PA study.
Elasticities for calculating 'time-switching later' factor (note from Row 268 applies here)
% of riders who pay on per-ride basis and, thus, may be amenable to time-switching to lower-fare period:
Derived in 'Transit' worksheet. See Row 34 there.
Effective elasticities for calculating 'switching earlier'' factor
Effective elasticities for calculating 'switching later'' factor
Factor to multiply Row 247 figure, to indicate trips switching to preceding period, first pass
Factor to multiply Row 249 figure, to indicate trips switching to subsequent period, first pass
Factor to multiply Row 247 figure, to indicate trips switching to preceding period, adj. capped at: 0.75
Factor to multiply Row 249 figure, to indicate trips switching to subsequent period, adj. capped at: 0.75
New ratio of trips in period to trips in preceding period
New ratio of trips in period to trips in subsequent period
Trips switching to preceding period
Trips switching to subsequent period
Trips switching into period from subsequent period
Trips switching into period from preceding period
Net (total) change in trips in period
Trips in period, with pricing
% net change in trips in period
% 24h trips occurring in each period, with pricing
4. Effect of Subway Trip Changes on Auto Trips into CBD

Since this section is concerned with substitution of
subway trips for auto trips into the CBD, we must
isolate subway trips into the CBD from other
Baseline Subway Trips into CBD
subway trips.
Data at right [Row 310] are from Section 2, Row 74.
Number that are work-related
Product of adjusted share of trips that are work-related in Row 137 and baseline subway trips into CBD in Row 310.
Number that are not work-related
Row 310 less Row 312.
Baseline subway trips into CBD as % of period's total baseline subway trips into + out of CBD
Baseline subway trips in Row 310 divided by Total subway trips in same hour in Row 129.
Change in work trips to CBD via subway due to fare + duration changes (excludes hr-switching)
Prorates absolute incrs in subway work trips in Row 219 by % of trips in period that are CBD-bound, in Row 316.
Change in non-work trips into CBD due to price and duration changes (excludes hour-switching)
See explanation in Row 319 except applies to non-work trips.
Number of work trips to CBD that mode-shifted from (to) autos
Applies cross-elasticity from autos to transit in Row 97 of 'Elasticities' worksheet to increase in work trips in Row 318.
Number of non-work trips to CBD that mode-shifted from (to) autos
Decrease (increase) in autos driven to CBD due to subway work-trip price and duration changes
Invokes average work-trip vehicle occupancy from H.I.S. worksheet.
Decrease (increase) in autos driven to CBD due to subway non-work-trip price and duration changes
Invokes average non-work-trip vehicle occupancy from H.I.S. worksheet.
Total decrease (increase) in autos driven to CBD due to subway price and duration changes
5. Effect of Subway Trip Changes on Medallion Taxi Trips into and in CBD
Number of work trips to CBD that mode-shifted from (to) taxicabs

Number of non-work trips to CBD that mode-shifted from (to) taxicabs
Decrease (increase) in taxicabs driven into and in CBD due to subway work-trip price and duration changes
Invokes average medallion taxi vehicle occupancy from Taxi worksheet.
Decrease (increase) in taxicabs driven into and in CBD due to subway non-work-trip price and duration changes
Invokes average medallion taxi vehicle occupancy from Taxi worksheet.
Total decrease (increase) in taxicabs driven into and in CBD due to subway price and duration changes
6. Change in Transit Trips in/out of CBD due to Changes in Auto Trips from Pricing
A. Changes in Inbound Auto Trips, Grouped by "Pricing" Bins

Change in auto work trips from congestion pricing (vehicles)
From Motor Vehicles worksheet, Row 891, grouped by time bins.
Note that, conservatively, we limit attractions"
Change in auto work trips from congestion pricing (persons) of tolled-off auto trips to transit, to work and
Multiplies previous row values by work trip vehicle occupancy in H.I.S. worksheet. non-work trips only, i.e., we exclude through-
trips; even though, in reality, some through
Change in auto non-work trips from congestion pricing (vehicles) trips would switch to transit as well.
From Motor Vehicles worksheet, Row 891, grouped by time bins.
Change in auto non-work trips from congestion pricing (persons)
Multiplies previous row values by work trip vehicle occupancy in H.I.S. worksheet.
B. Same Changes in Inbound Auto Person-Trips, Now Grouped by Hourly Bins

Change in auto work person-trips from congestion pricing (persons)
Pricing bins in Row 350 are allocated to hour bins by prorating with %'s in array in 'By Hour' worksheet.
Change in auto non-work person-trips from congestion pricing (persons)
Pricing bins in Row 354 are allocated to hour bins by prorating with %'s in array in 'By Hour' worksheet.
C. Resulting Changes in Inbound Transit Trips (Grouped by Hourly Bins)

Change in transit work trips from change in auto work person-trips
Change in transit non-work trips from change in auto non-work person-trips
Above two rows are factored by respective cross-elasticities in Elasticities worksheet, Row 91.
D. Changes in Outbound Trips, Grouped by Hourly Bins (Part D telescopes Parts A-C above into one)
Change in auto work trips from congestion pricing (persons)
Aggregate change in work person-trips in Row 350 is allocated via hourly %'s of outbound trips in 'By Hour' worksheet.
Change in auto non-work trips from congestion pricing (persons)
Aggregate change in work person-trips in Row 354 is allocated via hourly %'s of outbound trips in 'By Hour' worksheet.
Change in transit work trips from change in auto work person-trips
Change in transit non-work trips from change in auto non-work person-trips
Above two rows are factored by respective cross-elasticities in Elasticities worksheet, Row 91.
E1. Total Changes in Inbound Transit Trips Sum of Rows 364 and 365.
E2. Total Changes in Outbound Transit Trips Sum of Rows 373 and 374.
E3. Total Changes in Inbound and Outbound Transit Trips Sum of Rows 377 and 378.
7. Allocation of Tolled-Off CBD-bound Auto Trips between Subway and Bus
Baseline data for subway/bus allocation

Weekday bus riders to CBD
from Buses worksheet. NYC only (excludes NJ).
Weekday subway riders to CBD
Repeated from Row 46.
Bus share of weekday transit trips into CBD, baseline
Multiple to that share, due to changes in bus speeds and transit fares due to pricing + other changes.
Derived in Sub. vs. Bus worksheet.
Bus share of weekday transit trips into CBD, from the pricing policies assumed in this spreadsheet.
New transit trips (inbound + outbound, combined) that will be accommodated on buses
Product of total new transit trips in Row 379 and percent of such trips allocated to bus in Row 391.
New transit trips that will be accommodated on subways
Difference between Rows 379 and 393.
Of which these changes are among pay-per-riders Each figure multiplies Row 395 by respective share of pay-per
and unlimited rides taken from Row 20 of 'Transit' tab.
Subway trips in hr (reflecting tolled-off autos + direct subway price effect; but not tolled-off cab rides)
Sum of prior calculation of new transit trips in Row 302 and new trips calc'd in this section and shown in Row 395.
Of which these trips are by pay-per-riders Sum of Rows 147, 229 and 397.
And these trips are by unlimited card riders Sum of Rows 148, 229 and 398.
8. Assignment of Subway's Share of Changes in Medallion Taxi Usage

Net change in weekday subway trips due to changes in taxi usage:
Derived in Taxi worksheet, Row 292. Captures both fare and travel-time changes.
Assign above 24-hr change to 24 hourly bins
Row 406 prorated by respective hour's share of total taxi entries, using Rows 94 and 97 of Motor Vs worksheet.
Subway trips in hr (adds tolled-off cab rides to prior total in previous block)
Of which these trips are by pay-per-riders Sum of Rows 401 and 410.
And these trips are by unlimited card riders Sum of Rows 402 and 411.
Grand total change in subway trips in period

Row 412 less Row 403.
% net change in trips in period (with toll + subway fare + taxi fare, vs. baseline)
% Subway trips occurring in period (with toll and fare pricing)
Change in subway trips in period (subtotal; pending mode shifts from taxicabs, shown in Row 426)
Total with all pricing policies from Row 416 less baseline value in Row 149.
9. Subway Farebox Revenue
A. Weekdays
Baseline Revenue, by period and total (CBD weekday trips only), non-normalized daily
Total is sum of 24 respective column figures, each of which is product of the number of CBD weekday trips in
Row 129 and baseline nominal fare for each in Row 150.
Baseline Revenue (CBD weekday trips only), normalized to reflect actual full-equiv fares
Product of Row 427 figure and normalizing-fare factor in Row 22.
Baseline Revenue, by period and total (all weekday subway trips, not just w/ CBD component) daily, adj.
Product of Row 430 figure and true-up factor from CBD to all trips in Row 57.
Baseline Annual Weekday Revenue (all weekday subway trips) annual adj., 000
Product of Row 432 figure and figure from 'Constants' worksheet for number of weekdays in year.
New Revenue, by period and total (CBD weekday trips only), non-normalized, from Riders who pay on per-ride basis
Product of total new rides using pay-per-fare cards in Row 413 and effective fare for these rides in Row 163.
New Revenue, by period and total (CBD weekday trips only), non-normalized, from Riders who use Unlimited Cards
Product of total new rides using unlimiteds in Row 414 and effective fare for these rides in Row 180.
New Revenue, by period and total (CBD weekday trips only), non-normalized daily
New Revenue (CBD weekday trips only), normalized to reflect actual full-equiv fares
Product of Row 440 figure and normalizing-fare factor in Row 22.
New Revenue, by period and total (all wkday sub. trips, not just w/ CBD component) daily, adj.
Product of Row 442 figure and true-up factor from CBD to all trips in Row 57.
New Annual Revenue (all weekday subway trips) annual adj., 000
Product of Row 442 figure and figure from 'Constants' worksheet for number of weekdays in year.
Percent change in Annual Revenue (weekdays) 7.5%
Revenue Change (all trips) annual adj., 000
B. Saturdays, Sundays & Holidays
Weekend/holiday subway use can't be modeled like weekdays, since we don't have hourly usage data.
This necessitates a simpler approach, with a single fare for each day. (Arguably this is reasonable in
any event, given the dynamics of weekend and holiday subway use.)
1. Baseline (Saturdays, Sundays & Holidays)

Baseline rides, 2011 (per day, projected, unadjusted)
Actual Sat/Sun rides in Row 47, prorated by ratio of 2011 proj. annual rides in Row 18 to actual 2009 rides in Row 9.
Baseline rides, 2011 (per day, projected, normalized)
Row 459 times normalizing factor in Row 22 to convert turnstile to paying rides.
Baseline rides, 2011 (entire year, projected, normalized), thousands
Row 461 times # of Saturdays or Sundays-Holidays from 'Constants' worksheet.
Baseline revenue, 2011 (entire year, projected)
Baseline normalized rides in Row 463 times normalized fare in Row 44.
Baseline rides, 2011, per day, using Pay-Per-Ride (unadjusted) Each figure multiplies Rows 459 and 461 by shares of pay-per
Baseline rides, 2011, per day, using Unlimited Cards (unadj.)
Assumed work share of weekend/holiday subway trips (Komanoff assumption)
Weighted average price-elasticity for weekend/holiday subway trips
Weighted average of applicable transit price-elasticities, from Elasticities worksheet.
2. With Proposed Fares (Saturdays, Sundays & Holidays)
Proposed Nominal Fare

From 'User Inputs' Rows 129 and 132.
Proposed Fare to be Experienced by Subway Riders who pay on per-ride basis
See note in Row 156, except that the nominal fare is from Row 475 rather than Row 150.
Proposed Fare Change, %, to be felt by Subway Riders who pay on per-ride basis
Ratio of Proposed fare in 477 to baseline fare in Row 155 less one.
% Change in ridership by riders who pay on per-ride basis, due to subway fare change
Calculated as one plus percentage fare change in Row 479 exponentiated to elasticity shown in Row 470.
New rides, per day, using Pay-Per-Ride (unadjusted) (total, not increase, but price changes only)
Calculated as baseline pay-per rides in Row 467, increased by percent in Row 481.
Proposed Fare to be Experienced by Subway Riders who pay with Unlimited farecards
From Row 180; reflects change (if any) from Unlimited Fares, taken from 'User Inputs' Row 112.
Proposed Fare Change, %, to be felt by Subway Riders who pay with Unlimited farecards
Ratio of Proposed fare in 485 to baseline fare in Row 178 less one.
% Change in ridership by riders who pay with Unlimiteds, due to subway fare change
Calculated as one plus percentage fare change in Row 487 exponentiated to elasticity shown in Row 470.
New rides, per day, using Unlimiteds (unadjusted) (total, not increase, but price changes only)
Calculated as baseline pay-per rides in Row 468, increased by percent in Row 489.
3. With Proposed Service Changes (Saturdays, Sundays & Holidays)

Weighted average time-elasticity for weekend/holiday subway trips Row 471 note applies here.
% Change in ridership due to subway service improvements
Calculated as one plus total % change in trip duration in Row 207, exponentiated to elasticity in Row 496; less one.
Increase in ridership due to service imprvmnts (per day, unadj.) Product of baseline in Row 459 and % in Row 497.
4. Total (Unadjusted, per day, Saturdays, Sundays & Holidays)

New rides, per day, 2011, using Pay-Per-Ride (unadjusted) (total, not increase) Sum of Rows 483 and 500.
New rides, per day, 2011, using Unlimited Cards (unadjusted) (total, not increase) Sum of Rows 491 and 501.
New rides, 2011 (per day, projected, unadjusted) Sum of Rows 504 and 505.
New rides, 2011 (per day, projected, normalized)
Projected rides in Row 506 times normalizing factor in Row 22.
New rides, 2011 (entire year, projected, normalized), thousands
Row 507 times # of Saturdays or Sundays-Holidays from 'Constants' worksheet.
New rides, 2011, normalized, from Riders who pay on per-ride basis, thousands
Row 509 times ratio of pay-per-rides in Row 504 to total in Row 506.
New rides, 2011, normalized, from Riders who pay with Unlimited Cards, thousands
Row 509 times ratio of unlimited fare rides in Row 505 to total in Row 506.
New Revenue from Riders who pay on per-ride basis
Pay-per ride riders from Row 511 times applicable fare in Row 477.
New Revenue from Riders who pay with Unlimited Cards, thousands
Non-pay-per ride riders from Row 513 times applicable fare in Row 485.
New Revenue, all subway riders, thousands
C. All days, combined
Baseline annual rides, weekdays (thousands)

24-hr 2011 rides in/out of CBD from Rows 99, divided by CBD rides as % of all rides from Row 53, multiplied by weekdays in year.
Baseline annual rides, weekends (thousands)
Normalized (fare-paying) rides from Row 503 divided by fare-to-turnstile adjustment factor in Row 22.
Baseline annual rides, all days (thousands)
Projected annual rides, weekdays (thousands) Increase from baseline: 7.9%
Projected 24-hr rides in/out of CBD from Row 399, div. by CBD rides as % of all rides from Row 53, times weekdays in year.
Projected annual rides, weekends (thousands) 4.9%
Projected normalized (fare-paying) rides from Row 509 divided by fare-to-turnstile adjustment factor in Row 22.
Projected annual rides, all days (thousands) 7.4%
Baseline annual revenue
Sum of Baseline Weekday revenues in Row 434 and Baseline Weekend revenues in Row 505.
True-up Calculation: % difference from MTA revenue figure given in Row 37. 0.03%
Complement of ratio of baseline revenue directly above in Row 524 and baseline revenue in Row 36.
New annual revenue 7.0%
10. Adjustment Factors to Adapt Weekday Subway Attraction (from Autos) to Weekends
A. Volumes
Relative weekend volume to weekday volume
Ratio of respective volumes in Row 41.
B. Attractions to Subway
Weighted average price-elasticity for weekend/holiday subway trips (from Section 7, above)
Weighted average price-elasticity for weekday subway trips (same, but uses weights from Section 1)
Ratio, average weekend subway price "after" to same "before"
Ratio of effective fares in Row 539 (projected for weekends) to baseline in Row 535.
Ratio, average weekday subway price "after" to same "before"
Ratio of effective fares in Row 536 (projected for weekdays) to baseline in Row 535.
Weekend subway ridership change factor (uses standard elasticity formula)
Weekday subway ridership change factor (uses standard elasticity formula)
Relative weekend attraction to weekday attraction (ratio of two previous values)
C. Vehicle Occupancies
Average weekend vehicle occupancy (Komanoff estimate)
Average weekday vehicle occupancy (wghtd avg of work and non-work occupancies in H.I.S. worksheet)
D. Aggregate Impact of Factors A through C
Weekend (product of weekend factors in Parts A and B, divided by weekend factor in Part C)
Weekday (weekday factor in Part B divided by weekday factor in Part C)
Ratio, Weekday to Weekend Auto Reductions
###
1/6/2012###
###
###
###
### Ridership (millions) Revenue ($ millions)
### Subway Bus Subway Bus
### 2008 1,624 $2,022.50 $821.11 '2007 Final Estimate,' MTA Feb. 2008
### 2009 1,580 726 $2,245.62 $821.11 "MTA 2011 Final Proposed Budget: No
###
### 2008 subway ridership at a glance (source: http://mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/index.htm, accessed 25-Aug-2009)
### Annual Ridership (thousands) 1,623,881
### Average Weekday 5,225,675
### Average Saturday 2,979,391
### Average Sunday 2,310,944
### Average weekday, Saturday, and Sunday ridership includes every weekday, Saturday, and Sunday in the year, except ma
### major holidays (New Year’s Day, Presidents’ Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Chris
the annual total.
###
###
### 2008 bus ridership at a glance (source: http://mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/index.htm, accessed 25-Aug-2009)
### Annual Ridership (thousands) 746,977
### Average Weekday 2,377,320
### Average Saturday 1,460,744
### Average Sunday 1,106,246
###
### Weekday Subway Trips Entering and Leaving the Manhattan Central Business District
### Actual data for typical weekday in 2008
###
### Hour begins Entering % of total Leaving % of total Enter+Leave
###
### Midnight 9,706 0.44% 28,627 1.40% 38,333
### 1 a.m. 4,285 0.20% 13,322 0.65% 17,607
### 2 a.m. 3,396 0.15% 6,778 0.33% 10,174
### 3 a.m. 3,116 0.14% 4,045 0.20% 7,161
### 4 a.m. 6,973 0.32% 4,022 0.20% 10,995
### 5 a.m. 33,849 1.54% 10,115 0.50% 43,964
### 6 a.m. 107,789 4.91% 38,595 1.89% 146,384
### 7 a.m. 241,111 10.98% 79,238 3.88% 320,349
Work-trip and non- 8 a.m.
### 412,321 18.78% 92,531 4.53% 504,852
work trip different
fares were intended ### 9 a.m. 261,294 11.90% 68,216 3.34% 329,510
to reflect seniors,
transfers, etc., but as###
10 a.m. 126,504 5.76% 50,146 2.46% 176,650
of 4 Feb 2011 all ### 11 a.m. 89,905 4.10% 49,038 2.40% 138,943
baseline fares are
assumed uniform.) ### 12 noon 79,239 3.61% 60,027 2.94% 139,266
### 1 p.m. 81,602 3.72% 65,750 3.22% 147,352
### 2 p.m. 90,315 4.11% 92,957 4.55% 183,272
Weekends### 3 p.m. 106,799 4.87% 130,336 6.38% 237,135
2,575,093### 4 p.m. 125,700 5.73% 186,767 9.15% 312,467
115### 5 p.m. 131,957 6.01% 301,508 14.77% 433,465
296,136### 6 p.m. 95,438 4.35% 261,941 12.83% 357,379
### 7 p.m. 63,651 2.90% 172,112 8.43% 235,763
### 8 p.m. 47,387 2.16% 116,906 5.73% 164,293
### 9 p.m. 30,424 1.39% 89,708 4.39% 120,132
80.3% ### 10 p.m. 26,439 1.20% 72,195 3.54% 98,634
81.0% ### 11 p.m. 15,788 0.72% 46,568 2.28% 62,356
###
### TOTAL 2,194,988 100.00% 2,041,448 100.00% 4,236,436
1.25 ###
###
Source: NYMTC, Hub-Bound Travel Report 2008, Tables 24 & 25, "Total Persons Entering (Leaving) The
### Hub By Hour and Mode in 2008," (pp 66 & 67 of 118, available at
### <http://www.nymtc.org/files/hub_bound/HUB_Bound_2008_Report.pdf>. Although 2009 data became
available in early 2011, the shape of the hourly data (which is what these figures are being used for here)
### does not appear to have changed noticeably.
###
###
###
ost congested), they are not
Pending those, we employ ###
###
###
by hour ### Change proposed fares in
### Rows 74-79 from 'User Inputs'
worksheet (Rows 119-124)
Proposed Nominal ### rather than directly below.
Fare ###
Fare ### Proposed Fares Or, you can override fare "box" at left (puns intended) by stipulating a uniform fare as a multip
### Fare Bin Fare current fare. Enter your change in the 'User Inputs' worksheet, and it will be shown automatica
right. Zero cancels override function.
$2.25 ### 1 $2.25
$2.25 ### 2 $2.25
$2.25 ### 3 $2.25
$2.25 ### 4 $2.25
$2.25 ### 5 $2.25
$2.25 ### 6 $2.25
$2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
Fare bins Hourly Subway Ridership Entering and Leavi
are set by
user (you).
$2.25 ### 600,000
They
$2.25 ### determine
fare
$2.25 ### amounts,
$2.25 ### based on
figures in Ridership increases in all
$2.25 ### blue box hours except 5-6 p.m. and
$2.25 ### directly
above. perhaps 8-9 a.m.
500,000
$2.25 ###
400,000
fare
amounts,
based on
figures in Ridership increases in all
blue box hours except 5-6 p.m. and
directly
perhaps 8-9 a.m.
above. 500,000
$2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
$2.25 ### 400,000
$2.25 ###
$2.25 ###
###
$2.25 ###
### 300,000
day fare, before time-switching.###
###
ual 2008 annual ridership in ###
Row 53, also at far right. ###
### 200,000
###
nvestments ###
###
###
###
100,000
###
###
ty analysis of time-shifting ###
heet), with three ###
o time-shift ; (2) subway
ders must time-shift to reach###
0
###
t . . . . . . . . . . . n .
h m m m m m m m m m m m m
### ig a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. a. oo p.
i dn 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 N 1 2
ers. Given the absence of ### M
ny a priori reason not to do ###
###
###
icities worksheet), it is ###

###
### 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
###
###
### Midnight 1 a.m. 2 a.m. 3 a.m. 4 a.m. 5 a.m. 6 a.m.
###
### 38,518 17,692 10,223 7,195 11,048 44,176 147,089
### 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 1.0% 3.5%
###
###
in By Hour wksht.) ### 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 0.40 1.50 1.60
###
### 24% 24% 24% 24% 24% 90% 96%
e is wghtd avg. ###
### 24% 24% 24% 24% 50% 80% 95%
###
### 9,244 4,246 2,454 1,727 5,524 35,341 139,734
### 4,455 2,046 1,182 832 2,662 17,030 67,334
### 4,790 2,200 1,271 895 2,862 18,311 72,400
###
### 29,273 13,446 7,769 5,469 5,524 8,835 7,354
### 14,106 6,479 3,744 2,635 2,662 4,257 3,544
### 15,167 6,967 4,026 2,833 2,862 4,578 3,811
###
of Rows 140 and 144. ### 18,561 8,525 4,926 3,467 5,324 21,287 70,878
of Rows 141 and 145. ### 19,957 9,167 5,297 3,728 5,724 22,889 76,211
###
### $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56
###
###
###
###
### $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14
d media, as est'd in Row 51 of ###
in Row 42 of 'Transit' sheet. ###
###
### $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
verride factor and baseline fare###
value for that hour given in ###
###
### $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14
s recv'ing discount. ###
### 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
es in Rows 155 and 163. ###
### 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
###
### - - - - - - -
###
### - - - - - - -
###
### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
###
###
ce changes only) ###
###
### $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03
###
### $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03
puts' tab, Row 112. ###
### 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
es in Rows 178 and 180. ###
### 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
###
### - - - - - - -
###
### - - - - - - -
###
### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
###
###
d (price changes only) ### 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
###
###
###
###
eriods with zero fare, if any) ###
### 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
ed to use (and, in some ###
###
### -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4%
ital investments and/or ###
ssible service expansions. Is ###
###
### 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
### -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4%
###
### 417 191 111 78 249 1,593 6,298
###
### 1,455 668 386 272 274 439 365
###
### 1,871 860 497 350 523 2,032 6,664
###
### 902 414 239 168 252 979 3,211
### 970 445 257 181 271 1,053 3,453
change in Row 213. ###
###
### 417 191 111 78 249 1,593 6,298
###
### 1,455 668 386 272 274 439 365
###
### 1,871 860 497 350 523 2,032 6,664
###
###
### Note: Figures below are not 'final' figures, since they will be supplemented not only by 'period changes' in Section B,
###
### 1,871 860 497 350 523 2,032 6,664
###
### 902 414 239 168 252 979 3,211
### 970 445 257 181 271 1,053 3,453
###
### 417 191 111 78 249 1,593 6,298
### 1,455 668 386 272 274 439 365
###
### 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.7% 4.6% 4.5%
### Note: Percents above are not 'final' percents, since they will be supplemented by 'period changes' in Section B as we
###
###
###
### 40,389 18,551 10,720 7,545 11,571 46,208 153,753
###
me Switching worksheet for our### $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
ology for calculating time- ###
### $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
###
ve $ by switch earlier) ### 0.61 0.46 0.58 0.70 1.53 3.99 3.33
###
an save $ by switching later)### 2.18 1.73 1.42 0.65 0.25 0.30 0.46
###
o 1, since base subway fare has### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
no time variation.###
### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

###
### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
$0.01 ###
### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
###
### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
###
### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
###
### -19.9% -19.9% -19.9% -19.9% -16.2% -11.9% -9.7%
###
### -80.4% -80.4% -80.4% -80.4% -70.0% -58.0% -52.0%
###
### -27.5% -27.5% -27.5% -27.5% -25.6% -22.7% -20.7%
###
tivity to fare differentials; (ii)
###
###
### -7.4% -7.4% -7.4% -7.4% -6.9% -6.1% -5.6%
###
48.2% ### 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2%
###
### -13.2% -13.2% -13.2% -13.2% -12.3% -10.9% -10.0%
###
### -3.6% -3.6% -3.6% -3.6% -3.3% -2.9% -2.7%
###
###
### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
###
### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
###
CK needs
to ### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
annotate /
explain ###
these two ### 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
rows.
###
### 0.61 0.46 0.58 0.70 1.53 3.99 3.33
###
### 2.18 1.73 1.42 0.65 0.25 0.30 0.46
###
### - - - - - - -
###
### - - - - - - -
###
### - - - - - - -
###
### - - - - - - -
###
### 1,871 860 497 350 523 2,032 6,664
###
### 40,389 18,551 10,720 7,545 11,571 46,208 153,753
###
### 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.9% 4.7% 4.6% 4.5%
###
### 0.9% 0.4% 0.2% 0.2% 0.3% 1.0% 3.5%
###
###
s concerned with substitution of
to trips into the CBD, we must ###
s into the CBD from other ### 9,753 4,306 3,412 3,131 7,007 34,012 108,308
###
### 2,341 1,033 819 751 3,503 27,210 102,893
###
### 7,412 3,272 2,593 2,380 3,503 6,802 5,415
###
### 25.3% 24.3% 33.4% 43.5% 63.4% 77.0% 73.6%
###
### 106 47 37 34 158 1,226 4,638
###
### 368 163 129 118 174 338 269
###
### 95 42 33 31 143 1,107 4,186
###
### 175 77 61 56 83 161 128
###
### 83 37 29 27 124 962 3,640
###
### 117 51 41 37 55 107 85
###
### 199 88 70 64 179 1,070 3,725
###
###
###
###
### 5 2 2 2 8 58 220
###
### 9 4 3 3 4 9 7
###
### 4 2 1 1 5 42 157
###
### 7 3 2 2 3 6 5
###
### 10 5 4 3 9 48 162
###
###
###
###
### 349 (3,744)
###
vatively, we limit attractions"
trips to transit, to work and ### 401 (4,305)
nly, i.e., we exclude through- ###
h, in reality, some through
h to transit as well. ### (2,065) (655)
###
### (3,098) (983)
###
###
###
### 79 51 41 43 69 (4,305) (6,442)
###
### (607) (394) (314) (335) (536) (983) (1,124)
###
###
###
### (71) (46) (37) (39) (63) 3,886 5,814
### 289 187 149 159 255 467 534
###
###
###
### (1,689) (1,116) (786) (672) (831) (1,329) (2,220)
###
### (1,174) (776) (546) (467) (577) (923) (1,543)
###
### 1,524 1,008 709 607 750 1,199 2,003
### 558 369 259 222 274 439 733
###
###
### 218 141 113 120 192 4,352 6,348
### 2,082 1,376 969 829 1,024 1,638 2,736
### 2,299 1,517 1,081 949 1,216 5,990 9,084
###
###
###
###
### 498 146 101 73 283 2,107 8,724
###
### 9,753 4,306 3,412 3,131 7,007 34,012 108,308
###
### 4.9% 3.3% 2.9% 2.3% 3.9% 5.8% 7.5%
### 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
###
### 6.3% 4.3% 3.7% 3.0% 5.0% 7.6% 9.7%
###
### 145 65 40 28 61 454 879
###
### 2,154 1,453 1,041 921 1,155 5,536 8,205
###
y respective share of pay-per ### 1,038 700 502 444 556 2,668 3,954
ow 20 of 'Transit' tab. ### 1,116 753 539 477 598 2,869 4,251
### 42,543 20,004 11,761 8,466 12,726 51,744 161,958
###
### 20,500 9,639 5,667 4,079 6,132 24,934 78,043
### 22,043 10,365 6,093 4,386 6,594 26,810 83,915
###
###
###
(20,558)###
###
### (299) (299) (299) (299) (299) (722) (1,388)
###
y respective share of pay-per ### (144) (144) (144) (144) (144) (348) (669)
ow 20 of 'Transit' tab. ### (155) (155) (155) (155) (155) (374) (719)
### 42,245 19,705 11,462 8,167 12,428 51,022 160,570
### 20,357 9,495 5,523 3,936 5,989 24,586 77,374
### 21,888 10,210 5,939 4,232 6,439 26,436 83,196
###
### 3,727 2,014 1,239 972 1,380 6,847 13,481
###
### 10% 11% 12% 14% 12% 15% 9%
### 0.9% 0.4% 0.3% 0.2% 0.3% 1.1% 3.5%
###
###
###
###
###
###
Totals###
$6,650,171### $60,173 $27,639 $15,971 $11,241 $17,259 $69,013 $229,787
###
###
$6,355,901###
###
$7,915,194###
###
$1,978,799###
###
on per-ride basis ### $43,484 $20,283 $11,798 $8,407 $12,792 $52,519 $165,279
###
Unlimited Cards ### $22,512 $10,501 $6,108 $4,352 $6,623 $27,190 $85,569
###
$7,146,186### $65,996 $30,784 $17,906 $12,759 $19,415 $79,709 $250,848
###
$6,829,967###
###
$8,505,563###
###
$2,126,391###
###
### 10% 11% 12% 14% 12% 15% 9%
$147,592###
###
###
###
###
Sat / Sun /
Holidays###
(sum of two###
columns at Sundays +
right)### Saturdays Holidays
###
###
### 3,024,318 2,358,522
###
### 2,890,492 2,254,158
###
292,318### annual, 000 150,306 142,012
###
$456,668### annual, 000 $234,813 $221,856
###
and 461 by shares of pay-per ### 1,457,336 1,136,507
ow 20 of 'Transit' tab. ### 1,566,982 1,222,015
### 20% 20%
### -0.205 -0.205
###
### Sundays +
### Saturdays Holidays
###
### $2.25 $2.25
###
### $2.14 $2.14
###
### 0% 0%
###
### 0.0% 0.0%
###
### 1,457,336 1,136,507
###
### $1.03 $1.03
###
### 0% 0%
###
### 0.0% 0.0%
###
### 1,566,982 1,222,015
###
### Sundays +
### Saturdays Holidays
###
### -0.540 -0.540
### 5% 5%
###
and % in Row 497. ### 147,483 115,015
y respective share of pay-per ### 71,068 55,423
ow 20 of 'Transit' tab. ### 76,415 59,592
###
###
of Rows 483 and 500. ### 1,528,404 1,191,930
of Rows 491 and 501. ### 1,643,398 1,281,608
of Rows 504 and 505. ### 3,171,801 2,473,537
### 3,031,449 2,364,083
###
306,573### annual, 000 157,635 148,937
###
### 75,960 71,769
###
### 81,675 77,168
###
$315,564### annual, 000 $162,259 $153,305
###
$163,374### annual, 000 $84,005 $79,369
###
$478,938### annual, 000 $246,263 $232,675
###
###
###
###
1,325,291###
d by weekdays in year. ###
305,851###
###
1,631,142###
###
1,430,540###
eekdays in year. ###
320,767### Not Normalized
### normalized, (allocated
i.e., reflects all over fare-pay
1,751,307### Effective Average Fares rides rides)
### Baseline $1.49 $1.56
$2,435,467### Projected, Weekdays $1.49 $1.56
### Projected, Saturdays $1.49 $1.56
### Projected, Sundays $1.49 $1.56
### Projected, Wknds/Hols. $1.49 $1.56
$2,605,329### Projected, All Days $1.49 $1.56
###
###
###
###
###
0.51###
###
###
-0.21###
-0.15###
1.00###
###
1.00###
###
1.000###
1.001###
0.999###
###
2.00###
1.29###
###
0.253###
0.776###
0.33###
'2007 Final Estimate,' MTA Feb. 2008 Financial Plan, p. 39 of 101, available at http://www.mta.info/mta/budget/feb2008/0208_4.pdf.
MTA 2011 Final Proposed Budget: November Financial Plan 2011-2014," Nov. 2010, p. 470 of 584, available at <http://bit.ly/eH4JCA>.
p/index.htm, accessed 25-Aug-2009)
ay, and Sunday in the year, except major holidays. Ridership on

y, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas) is included only in
ex.htm, accessed 25-Aug-2009)
ntral Business District
% of total
0.90%
0.42%
0.24%
0.17%
0.26%
1.04%
3.46%
7.56%
11.92%
7.78%
4.17%
3.28%
3.29%
3.48%
4.33%
5.60%
7.38%
10.23%
8.44%
5.57%
3.88%
2.84%
2.33%
1.47%
100.00%
rsons Entering (Leaving) The
hough 2009 data became

ures are being used for here)
tipulating a uniform fare as a multiple of 2006 data -- not used, shown for com
eet, and it will be shown automatically at NONE Hr Ending
Midnight
1 a.m.
2 a.m.
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
p Entering and Leaving the CBD (Weekdays) 9 a.m.
10 a.m.
11 a.m.
12 noon
1 p.m.
2 p.m.
Change Baseline
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
Change Baseline
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
10 p.m.
11 p.m.
TOTAL
. . . n . . . . . . . . . . .
m m m m m m m m m m m m m m
a. a. a. oo p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p. p.
N
9 10 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
7 a.m. 8 a.m. 9 a.m. 10 a.m. 11 a.m. Noon 1 p.m. 2 p.m.
321,891 507,283 331,097 177,501 139,612 139,937 148,061 184,154

7.6% 11.9% 7.8% 4.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.5% 4.3%
1.60 1.60 1.30 1.10 1.10 1.10 1.10 0.75
96% 96% 78% 66% 66% 66% 66% 45%

95% 95% 80% 60% 60% 60% 55% 45%
305,797 481,919 264,877 106,500 83,767 83,962 81,434 82,869

147,355 232,223 127,637 51,320 40,365 40,459 39,241 39,933
158,442 249,695 137,240 55,181 43,402 43,503 42,193 42,937
16,095 25,364 66,219 71,000 55,845 55,975 66,628 101,285

7,756 12,222 31,909 34,213 26,910 26,973 32,106 48,806
8,339 13,142 34,310 36,787 28,935 29,002 34,522 52,479
155,111 244,446 159,546 85,533 67,275 67,432 71,347 88,739

166,781 262,837 171,550 91,968 72,337 72,505 76,715 95,415
$1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56
$2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
$2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14
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
$1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03
$1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03

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% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
-8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

-8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4%
13,783 21,722 11,939 4,800 3,776 3,784 3,670 3,735
800 1,260 3,290 3,528 2,775 2,781 3,311 5,033
14,583 22,982 15,229 8,328 6,551 6,566 6,981 8,768
7,027 11,074 7,339 4,013 3,157 3,164 3,364 4,225

7,556 11,908 7,891 4,315 3,394 3,402 3,617 4,543
13,783 21,722 11,939 4,800 3,776 3,784 3,670 3,735
800 1,260 3,290 3,528 2,775 2,781 3,311 5,033
14,583 22,982 15,229 8,328 6,551 6,566 6,981 8,768

y by 'period changes' in Section B, but by Mode Shifting with Autos and Cabs. They will also be prorated from CBD-related trips, to full-system trips.
14,583 22,982 15,229 8,328 6,551 6,566 6,981 8,768
7,027 11,074 7,339 4,013 3,157 3,164 3,364 4,225

7,556 11,908 7,891 4,315 3,394 3,402 3,617 4,543
13,783 21,722 11,939 4,800 3,776 3,784 3,670 3,735

800 1,260 3,290 3,528 2,775 2,781 3,311 5,033
4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8%

period changes' in Section B as well as by Mode Shifting with Autos and Cabs.
336,474 530,265 346,326 185,829 146,163 146,502 155,043 192,923
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
2.19 1.58 0.65 0.54 0.79 1.00 1.06 1.24
0.63 1.53 1.86 1.27 1.00 0.94 0.80 0.77
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
-9.7% -9.7% -11.9% -14.8% -14.8% -14.8% -15.5% -16.9%
-52.0% -52.0% -58.0% -66.0% -66.0% -66.0% -68.0% -72.0%
-20.7% -20.7% -22.7% -24.8% -24.8% -24.8% -25.2% -26.0%

-5.6% -5.6% -6.1% -6.6% -6.6% -6.6% -6.8% -7.0%
48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2%
-10.0% -10.0% -10.9% -11.9% -11.9% -11.9% -12.1% -12.5%
-2.7% -2.7% -2.9% -3.2% -3.2% -3.2% -3.3% -3.4%
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
2.19 1.58 0.65 0.54 0.79 1.00 1.06 1.24
0.63 1.53 1.86 1.27 1.00 0.94 0.80 0.77
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
14,583 22,982 15,229 8,328 6,551 6,566 6,981 8,768
336,474 530,265 346,326 185,829 146,163 146,502 155,043 192,923
4.5% 4.5% 4.6% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.7% 4.8%
7.6% 11.9% 7.8% 4.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.5% 4.3%
242,272 414,306 262,552 127,113 90,338 79,621 81,995 90,750
230,158 393,591 210,042 76,268 54,203 47,772 45,097 40,837
12,114 20,715 52,510 50,845 36,135 31,848 36,898 49,912

75.3% 81.7% 79.3% 71.6% 64.7% 56.9% 55.4% 49.3%
10,374 17,740 9,467 3,438 2,443 2,153 2,033 1,841
602 1,029 2,609 2,527 1,796 1,583 1,833 2,480
9,363 16,011 8,544 3,102 2,205 1,943 1,834 1,661
286 489 1,239 1,200 853 752 871 1,178
8,141 13,922 7,430 2,698 1,917 1,690 1,595 1,445
191 326 826 800 569 501 581 785
8,332 14,248 8,256 3,498 2,486 2,191 2,176 2,230
493 843 450 163 116 102 97 87
15 27 67 65 46 41 47 64
352 602 321 117 83 73 69 62
11 19 48 46 33 29 34 46
363 621 369 163 116 102 103 108
(17,733) (4,358) (8,420)
(20,393) (5,012) (9,683)
(2,373) (1,483) (2,895)
(3,560) (2,224) (4,342)
(7,187) (6,764) (5,012) (2,598) (2,419) (2,320) (2,346) (2,551)
(1,254) (1,181) (2,224) (1,165) (1,084) (1,040) (1,052) (3,166)

6,486 6,105 4,523 2,345 2,183 2,094 2,118 2,302
596 561 1,056 553 515 494 500 1,504
(2,694) (2,743) (2,443) (2,388) (2,413) (2,553) (2,770) (3,165)
(1,873) (1,906) (1,698) (1,660) (1,677) (1,775) (1,925) (2,200)
2,432 2,476 2,204 2,155 2,178 2,305 2,500 2,857

889 906 806 788 797 843 915 1,045
7,082 6,666 5,580 2,899 2,698 2,588 2,617 3,806

3,321 3,381 3,011 2,944 2,974 3,148 3,415 3,902
10,403 10,047 8,590 5,842 5,672 5,735 6,032 7,708
20,724 24,299 8,467 4,373 3,708 3,786 3,622 3,878
242,272 414,306 262,552 127,113 90,338 79,621 81,995 90,750
7.9% 5.5% 3.1% 3.3% 3.9% 4.5% 4.2% 4.1%

1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
10.2% 7.2% 4.1% 4.3% 5.1% 5.9% 5.5% 5.3%
1,064 723 348 252 290 338 331 410
9,339 9,324 8,242 5,590 5,382 5,397 5,701 7,298
4,500 4,493 3,972 2,694 2,593 2,601 2,747 3,517

4,839 4,831 4,270 2,896 2,789 2,797 2,954 3,781
345,813 539,589 354,568 191,419 151,545 151,900 160,743 200,220
166,638 260,013 170,857 92,240 73,025 73,196 77,458 96,481

179,175 279,576 183,711 99,179 78,519 78,703 83,286 103,740
(1,388) (1,388) (1,231) (993) (993) (993) (993) (1,074)
(669) (669) (593) (478) (478) (478) (478) (517)

(719) (719) (638) (514) (514) (514) (514) (556)
344,426 538,201 353,337 190,426 150,552 150,907 159,751 199,147
165,969 259,344 170,263 91,761 72,547 72,718 76,979 95,963
178,456 278,857 183,073 98,665 78,005 78,189 82,771 103,183
22,534 30,918 22,240 12,926 10,940 10,971 11,689 14,992
7% 6% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8%
7.5% 11.8% 7.7% 4.2% 3.3% 3.3% 3.5% 4.4%
$502,870 $792,494 $517,250 $277,297 $218,107 $218,614 $231,307 $287,692
$354,527 $553,986 $363,700 $196,011 $154,967 $155,333 $164,436 $204,987
$183,546 $286,810 $188,295 $101,479 $80,230 $80,419 $85,132 $106,126
$538,073 $840,796 $551,995 $297,491 $235,197 $235,752 $249,568 $311,114
7% 6% 7% 7% 8% 8% 8% 8%
2006 data -- not used, shown for comparison only.
6,508 1.9% 28,324 9.9% 34,832

3,690 1.1% 13,413 4.7% 17,103
2,891 0.8% 5,708 2.0% 8,599
3,221 0.9% 3,694 1.3% 6,915
7,832 2.3% 4,123 1.4% 11,955
34,396 9.9% 9,366 3.3% 43,762
98,487 28.3% 36,050 12.6% 134,537
223,189 64.2% 83,015 28.9% 306,204
347,502 100.0% 92,245 32.1% 439,747
214,633 61.8% 61,662 21.5% 276,295
108,778 31.3% 42,556 14.8% 151,334
76,923 22.1% 47,425 16.5% 124,348
73,718 21.2% 55,113 19.2% 128,831
70,498 20.3% 62,526 21.8% 133,024
80,180 23.1% 84,450 29.4% 164,630
97,725 28.1% 119,105 41.5% 216,830
108,354 31.2% 172,728 60.2% 281,082
122,197 35.2% 287,046 100.0% 409,243
90,013 25.9% 258,759 90.1% 348,772
55,222 15.9% 167,902 58.5% 223,124
40,532 11.7% 122,422 42.6% 162,954
30,544 8.8% 81,935 28.5% 112,479
28,326 8.2% 65,679 22.9% 94,005
18,764 5.4% 49,350 17.2% 68,114
1,944,123 1,954,596 3,898,719
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
3 p.m. 4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 7 p.m. 8 p.m. 9 p.m. 10 p.m.
238,277 313,971 435,552 359,100 236,898 165,084 120,710 99,109

5.6% 7.4% 10.2% 8.4% 5.6% 3.9% 2.8% 2.3%
0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.60 0.60 0.60
45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 36% 36% 36%

45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 40% 35% 30%
107,225 141,287 195,998 161,595 106,604 66,034 42,249 29,733

51,669 68,082 94,446 77,868 51,370 31,820 20,358 14,327
55,556 73,205 101,552 83,727 55,235 34,214 21,890 15,405
131,052 172,684 239,554 197,505 130,294 99,050 78,462 69,376

63,150 83,212 115,434 95,172 62,785 47,730 37,809 33,430
67,902 89,472 124,119 102,333 67,509 51,321 40,653 35,946
114,819 151,294 209,881 173,040 114,155 79,549 58,167 47,758

123,458 162,677 225,671 186,059 122,743 85,535 62,543 51,351
$1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56 $1.56
$2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
$2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14 $2.14
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
$1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03
$1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03 $1.03

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% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%
-8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4%
0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

-8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4% -8.4%
4,833 6,368 8,834 7,284 4,805 2,976 1,904 1,340
6,512 8,581 11,904 9,814 6,474 4,922 3,899 3,447
11,345 14,949 20,738 17,098 11,279 7,898 5,803 4,788
5,467 7,204 9,993 8,239 5,435 3,806 2,796 2,307

5,878 7,746 10,745 8,859 5,844 4,092 3,007 2,481
4,833 6,368 8,834 7,284 4,805 2,976 1,904 1,340
6,512 8,581 11,904 9,814 6,474 4,922 3,899 3,447
11,345 14,949 20,738 17,098 11,279 7,898 5,803 4,788

ated trips, to full-system trips.
11,345 14,949 20,738 17,098 11,279 7,898 5,803 4,788
5,467 7,204 9,993 8,239 5,435 3,806 2,796 2,307

5,878 7,746 10,745 8,859 5,844 4,092 3,007 2,481
4,833 6,368 8,834 7,284 4,805 2,976 1,904 1,340

6,512 8,581 11,904 9,814 6,474 4,922 3,899 3,447
4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
249,622 328,921 456,290 376,198 248,178 172,982 126,514 103,896
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
1.29 1.32 1.39 0.82 0.66 0.70 0.73 0.82
0.76 0.72 1.21 1.52 1.43 1.37 1.22 1.58
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
-16.9% -16.9% -16.9% -16.9% -16.9% -17.6% -18.4% -19.1%
-72.0% -72.0% -72.0% -72.0% -72.0% -74.0% -76.0% -78.0%
-26.0% -26.0% -26.0% -26.0% -26.0% -26.4% -26.7% -27.1%

-7.0% -7.0% -7.0% -7.0% -7.0% -7.1% -7.2% -7.3%
48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2% 48.2%
-12.5% -12.5% -12.5% -12.5% -12.5% -12.7% -12.9% -13.0%
-3.4% -3.4% -3.4% -3.4% -3.4% -3.4% -3.5% -3.5%
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
1.29 1.32 1.39 0.82 0.66 0.70 0.73 0.82
0.76 0.72 1.21 1.52 1.43 1.37 1.22 1.58
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
11,345 14,949 20,738 17,098 11,279 7,898 5,803 4,788
249,622 328,921 456,290 376,198 248,178 172,982 126,514 103,896
4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8% 4.8%
5.6% 7.4% 10.2% 8.4% 5.6% 3.9% 2.8% 2.3%
107,313 126,305 132,592 95,898 63,957 47,615 30,570 26,566
48,291 56,837 59,667 43,154 28,781 19,046 10,700 7,970
59,022 69,468 72,926 52,744 35,177 28,569 19,871 18,596

45.0% 40.2% 30.4% 26.7% 27.0% 28.8% 25.3% 26.8%
2,177 2,562 2,689 1,945 1,297 858 482 359
2,933 3,452 3,624 2,621 1,748 1,420 987 924
1,964 2,312 2,427 1,755 1,171 775 435 324
1,393 1,640 1,721 1,245 830 674 469 439
1,708 2,010 2,111 1,526 1,018 674 378 282
929 1,093 1,148 830 554 450 313 293
2,637 3,104 3,258 2,356 1,572 1,123 691 575
103 122 128 92 62 41 23 17
76 89 93 67 45 37 25 24
74 87 91 66 44 29 16 12
54 63 67 48 32 26 18 17
128 150 158 114 76 55 35 29
(13,736) (3,925)
(15,797) (4,513)
(13,072) (4,936)
(19,608) (7,404)
(2,661) (2,731) (2,799) (2,669) (2,386) (1,633) (1,492) (1,389)
(3,303) (3,390) (3,474) (3,313) (2,962) (2,679) (2,447) (2,278)

2,402 2,465 2,526 2,409 2,154 1,474 1,346 1,253
1,569 1,610 1,650 1,574 1,407 1,272 1,162 1,082
(3,662) (3,945) (3,934) (3,693) (3,428) (3,134) (2,837) (2,616)
(2,546) (2,742) (2,734) (2,567) (2,383) (2,178) (1,972) (1,819)
3,305 3,560 3,550 3,333 3,094 2,828 2,560 2,361

1,209 1,302 1,299 1,219 1,132 1,035 937 864
3,971 4,075 4,176 3,983 3,561 2,746 2,509 2,335

4,515 4,863 4,849 4,552 4,225 3,863 3,497 3,225
8,485 8,938 9,025 8,535 7,786 6,609 6,006 5,560
4,479 3,420 3,320 2,599 1,731 1,233 977 793
107,313 126,305 132,592 95,898 63,957 47,615 30,570 26,566
4.0% 2.6% 2.4% 2.6% 2.6% 2.5% 3.1% 2.9%

1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3
5.2% 3.4% 3.2% 3.4% 3.4% 3.3% 4.0% 3.8%
441 306 286 292 266 217 241 209
8,044 8,632 8,738 8,243 7,520 6,392 5,764 5,351
3,876 4,159 4,211 3,972 3,624 3,080 2,778 2,578

4,168 4,472 4,528 4,271 3,896 3,312 2,987 2,772
257,665 337,552 465,028 384,440 255,697 179,374 132,278 109,247
124,162 162,657 224,084 185,251 123,213 86,436 63,741 52,643

133,504 174,895 240,944 199,189 132,484 92,939 68,537 56,604
(1,074) (1,074) (1,074) (1,074) (1,074) (746) (746) (746)
(517) (517) (517) (517) (517) (360) (360) (360)

(556) (556) (556) (556) (556) (387) (387) (387)
256,592 336,479 463,955 383,366 254,624 178,628 131,531 108,501
123,645 162,140 223,567 184,734 122,696 86,076 63,381 52,284
132,947 174,339 240,388 198,633 131,927 92,552 68,150 56,217
18,315 22,507 28,403 24,267 17,725 13,544 10,821 9,392
8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% 9%
5.6% 7.4% 10.1% 8.4% 5.6% 3.9% 2.9% 2.4%
Change in Subway Trips in All Hours Except 8-9 a.m. and 5-6 p.m.
$372,244 $490,497 $680,434 $560,998 $370,090 $257,900 $188,578 $154,831
$264,117 $346,347 $477,562 $394,610 $262,091 $183,867 $135,389 $111,683
$136,739 $179,311 $247,244 $204,298 $135,690 $95,192 $70,094 $57,821
$400,857 $525,659 $724,806 $598,908 $397,782 $279,059 $205,483 $169,504
8% 7% 7% 7% 7% 8% 9% 9%
7.9% 0.8%
3.9% 0.4%
2.0% 0.2%
1.6% 0.2%
2.7% 0.3%
10.0% 1.0%
30.6% 3.2%
69.6% 7.2%
100.0% 10.3%
62.8% 6.5%
34.4% 3.6%
28.3% 2.9%
29.3% 3.0%
30.3% 3.1%
37.4% 3.9%
49.3% 5.1%
63.9% 6.6%
93.1% 9.6%
79.3% 8.2%
50.7% 5.2%
37.1% 3.8%
25.6% 2.6%
21.4% 2.2%
15.5% 1.6%
91.6%
24
11 p.m.
62,656 4,256,834
1.5% 100.0%
0.40
24%
24%
15,037 2,555,157
7,246 1,231,260
7,791 1,323,897
47,619 1,701,677
22,946 819,991
24,673 881,686
30,192 2,051,251
32,464 2,205,583
$1.56
$2.14
$2.25
$2.14
0.0%
0.0%
- -
- -
0 0
$1.03
$1.03
0.0%
0.0%
- -
- -
0 0
0 0
0.0%
-8.4%
Mean duration change is

calculated as unweighted
average of the 24 hourly
values. Is used as input into
0.0% Sub v. Bus worksheet.
-8.4% -8.4% Ideally, the 24 hourly values
should be weighted by
volume.
678 115,169
2,366 84,558
3,044 199,727
1,467 96,243
1,577 103,484
678 115,169
2,366 84,558
3,044 199,727
3,044 199,727
1,467 96,243
1,577 103,484
678 115,169
2,366 84,558
4.9% 4.7%
65,700 4,456,561
$0.00
$0.00
0.63
1.63
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
-19.9%
-80.4%
-27.5%
-7.4%
48.2%
-13.2%
-3.6%
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.63
1.63
- -
- -
- -
- -
3,044 199,727
65,700 4,456,561
4.9% 4.7%
1.5% 100.0%
15,864 2,205,556
3,807 1,514,771
12,057 690,786
25.3% 51.8%
172 68,276
599 34,326
155 61,619
285 16,305
135 53,582
Truncated sums, to avoid double-

190 10,870 counting 11 p.m. with 12-4 a.m.
324 64,451
8 3,243
15 884
6 2,316
11 631
17 2,948
349 (51,568)
401 (59,303)
(2,065) (27,478) Note

agreements
between like-
(3,098) (41,218) colored cells;
lower rows
allocate "bin"
figures in upper
rows to
individual
118 (59,303) hours.
(911) (41,218)
(106) 53,521
433 19,578
(2,241) (59,303)
(1,557) (41,218)
2,022 53,521
740 19,578
326 73,099
2,762 73,099
3,088 146,198
720 104,061
15,864 2,205,556
4.3% 4.5%
1.3
5.6% 5.4%
174 7,863
2,914 138,335
1,404 66,660
1,510 71,675
68,614 4,594,895
33,063 2,214,154
35,551 2,380,742
(299) (20,558)
(144) (9,906)
(155) (10,652)
68,316 4,574,337
32,920 2,204,247 48.2%
35,396 2,370,090 51.8%
5,660 317,504
9% 7.5%
1.5% 100.0%
xcept 8-9 a.m. and 5-6 p.m. 7.6%
$97,884 $6,650,171
$70,319 $4,708,497
$36,406 $2,437,689
$106,725 $7,146,186
9% 7%
Subway vs. Bus 1/6/2012###
###
###
###
This worksheet develops an algorithm for assigning new CBD-bound transit trips between subway and ###
bus modes. The premise is that transit trips' fare costs and time costs can be combined into total costs,
and that distributions of these costs conform to the Gaussian "normal" distribution. The mode selected for###
that trip is the one with the lower total cost (subway vs. bus). ###
###
###
###
Below we have selected baseline values for subway and bus trip parameters that cause the respective
distributions to be such that the bus cost is less than subway cost in only 5% of cases, which matches ###
the bus share of transit trips into the CBD for trips originating in NYC (which may be calc'd by comparing ###
weekday bus trips into the CBD in Buses worksheet w/ the parallel figure for subways in Subways
###
worksheet).
###
###
Before ###
###
One Way Subway Bus Both###
###
Time to access mode, minutes (at start + finish) 10 10 ###
Increase in transit speeds w/ our plan ###
For subways: Reciprocal-complement of additive inverse of figure in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 207. ###
For buses: Reciprocal-complement of product of (i) figure in 'Bus Boarding' worksheet, Row 147, reflecting faster ###
traffic, and (ii) figure in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 335, reflecting investment in increased service. Note that impact ###
of fare-free boarding isn't reflected unless plan includes free buses.
###
Travel time on mode for commuting, minutes 25.6 60.3 ###
For subways: Quotient of mean subway commute-trip distance in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 273, to mean subway ###
speed in Row 275. For buses: same, except subway distance is used instead of bus, to put comparison on equal ###
footing.
###
Adjustment to commute travel time, to reflect all trips -33.3% -33.3% ###
Travel time on mode for all trips, minutes 17.0 40.2 ###
% in Row 30 is Komanoff assumption. Row 31 equals Row 26 times one plus Row 30. ###
Bus travel times if used bus instead of subway trip lengths 18.8 ###
Prorates Row 31 figures by ratio of bus to subway trips (in miles) in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 273. Will be used in ###
'Cost-Benefit' worksheet in estimating amount and value of bus riders' saved time. ###
Fare, baseline $1.56 $1.51 ###
From Subways worksheet. Approximate 2008 NYC Transit averages for subways and buses combined, reflecting ###
free transfers, discounts, etc. ###
Value of travel/access time, per hour (derived in box immediately below) $21.80 ###
Avg auto time value/hr (excl. trucks, buses; from Value of Time) $29.08 ###
Discount, to reflect sub-sample "tolled" into transit (CK assmpn) 25% ###
Total time cost $9.83 $18.24 ###
Calculated by multiplying value of time by total trip time (access + travel). ###
Total trip cost, mean $11.39 $19.74 ###
Sum of fare cost + time cost. ###
Total trip cost, standard deviation $2.74 $4.76 ###
Komanoff assumption, that st dev = following percentage of respective mean: 24% ###
Mean of the difference in cost between subway and bus $8.36 ###
Standard deviation of the difference in cost between subway and bus $5.49 ###
Uses mathematical formula for standard deviation of difference between two normal distributions. ###
###
Share of trips for which bus cost is less than subway cost 6.4% ###
Uses mathematical formula for probability that observation in one distribution will be less than observation in ###
other. ###
Hour-by-hour estimation of changes in bus shares of new transit trips ###
###
Subway trip cost (fare component) from new pricing ###
Bus trip cost (fare component) from new pricing ###
###
Subways values are from 'Subways' worksheet, Row 159; bus values are from constant fare selected in
'Summary' worksheet. ###
Total subway cost (fare + time) ###
Total bus cost (fare + time) ###
Total costs add hourly bus & subway fares to total time costs calculated in "After" columns, above. ###
Mean of the difference in cost between subway and bus ###
Standard deviation of the difference in cost between subway and bus ###
Uses mathematical formula for standard deviation of difference between two normal distributions. ###
Bus share of trips, with bus speed gain and new fares factored into trip costs ###
Uses probabilistic formula referenced, but with new transit costs (both mean and std dev) due to change in bus ###
speeds, bus fare and subway fare. ###
Ratio of bus trip share to baseline share, if each hour's share equaled 24-h average ###
###
These ratios will be called on in Subways worksheet to adjust buses' hourly shares of baseline transit trips, to
account for the fact that these shares vary by hour (i.e., they are not all equal to the 5.0% average). ###
###
After
Subway Bus Both
10 10
9.2% 4.9%
23.4 57.5
Reflects applicable changes in speeds.
15.6 38.3
17.9
$1.56 $ 1.51
$21.80
$9.30 $17.56 Note: Baseline fares are used here in "After" columns as
well as "Before." New fares are inputted further below, for
each hour.
$10.87 $19.07
Midnight 1 a.m. 2 a.m. 3 a.m. 4 a.m. 5 a.m. 6 a.m. 7 a.m.
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25

$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
$12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08

$19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81
$7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74

$5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59
8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3%
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

8 a.m. 9 a.m. 10 a.m. 11 a.m. Noon 1 p.m. 2 p.m. 3 p.m.
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25

$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
$12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08

$19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81
$7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74

$5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59
8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3%
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 7 p.m. 8 p.m. 9 p.m. 10 p.m. 11 p.m.
$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25

$2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25 $2.25
$12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08 $12.08

$19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81 $19.81
$7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74 $7.74

$5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59 $5.59
8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3%
1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3 1.3

Park-and-Ride
This worksheet applies quantitative analysis to the oft-expressed concern among New Yorkers living in "gateway" neighborh
the Manhattan Central Business District, that a cordon toll will lead commuters to park their auto near a rapid-transit stop ou
CBD in order to avoid paying the new toll.
The first scenario analyzed, starting in Row 57, is the standard park-and-ride model. We assess the likelihood that someon
now drives from home to a work destination in the CBD will instead divide her trip into two sections: (i) drive from home to a
outside the CBD and park there, either curbside or in a parking lot; (ii) take the subway from that location to the work destin
the CBD.
The second scenario, shown at Row 213, is one that might be prompted if the LIRR or Metro-North were to reduce fares for
city trips. It is hypothesized that someone who now travels by train to a work destination in the CBD will instead divides her
two sections: (i) drive from home to a location just across the NYC line and park there, either curbside or in a parking lot; (ii
now-discountedLIRR or Metro-North from that location to the work destination in the CBD.
The premise in both analyses is that commuters' out-of-pocket costs and time costs can be combined into total costs, and t
distributions of these costs conform to the Gaussian "normal" distribution. The commute mode chosen by the commuter wil
one with the lower total cost. In the analysis we assume that all trips benefit from the increased travel speeds resulting from
cordon toll — not just the improved highway speeds, but improved subway speeds stemming from investing toll revenues in
upgrades.
Assumptions With Large Bearing on Results (User May Vary by Inputting Other Values in Magenta-colored Cells)
Discomfort / Inconvenience Cost of Switching to Park-n-Ride

Komanoff assumption, intended to capture drivers' attachment to "their cars" and hassle factor of mode-switching.
One-way distance from "portal" to CBD at which option to park-n-ride appears (in miles)
Assumptions That Apply to All Trips Analyzed in this Scenario
Distance from highway to parking lot, miles (Komanoff)

Distance from highway to prospective on-street parking area, miles (same as from highway to parking lot)
Time spent cruising neighborhood in search of eventual on-street parking space, minutes
Above figure is adapted from figures in Shoup, D., 2006. Cruising for Parking. Transport Policy. Vol. 13 (2006). At p. 480, Shoup cites average cruising
7.9 minutes and 13.9 minutes reported in original research in: Falcocchio, J., Jose, D., Elena, P., 1995. “An inquiry on the traffic congestion impacts of
and pricing policies in the Manhattan CBD,” prepared for NYCDOT Division of Parking and the University Transportation Research Center, Region II. P
University of New York Transportation Training and Research Center, New York, Feb. 1995. We have taken one-half of the average of those two value
conservatism.
Above figure is adapted from figures in Shoup, D., 2006. Cruising for Parking. Transport Policy. Vol. 13 (2006). At p. 480, Shoup cites average cruising
7.9 minutes and 13.9 minutes reported in original research in: Falcocchio, J., Jose, D., Elena, P., 1995. “An inquiry on the traffic congestion impacts of
and pricing policies in the Manhattan CBD,” prepared for NYCDOT Division of Parking and the University Transportation Research Center, Region II. P
University of New York Transportation Training and Research Center, New York, Feb. 1995. We have taken one-half of the average of those two value
conservatism.
Average parking-cruising speed, mph (Komanoff)

Distance spent cruising neighborhood in search of eventual on-street parking space, miles
Product of Rows 40 and 45, divided by 60.
Nominal value of time within CBD for a solo driver on a work trip
Nominal value of time outside of CBD for a solo driver on a work trip
Both above figures are from 'Value of Time' worksheet, Rows 63 and 101, and pertain to auto trips for work by solo drivers.
Weight assigned to in-CBD value of time for estimating combined-average value of time for this driver
Komanoff assumption. Note that weight assigned to non-CBD value is complement of this percent.
Average value of time used in this analysis
Simple math weighting on Rows 48, 49 and 51.
Park-and-Ride Scenario #1: Drive to CBD, vs. Park-and-Ride (via Subway to CBD)
Results
Calculated change in probability that an incoming driver who experiences costs (including travel time) as assumed here will
find leaving the highway to park in an off-street parking lot and continue the journey to the CBD via subway to be less
costly than driving all the way into the CBD:
Calculated change in probability that an incoming driver who experiences costs (including travel time) as assumed here will
find leaving the highway to park curbside and continue the journey to the CBD via subway to be less costly than driving all
the way into the CBD:
Note: The analysis is done for two directions of travel (round-trip) and assumes that trips are done for work purposes. It's a
predicated on trips entering CBD during 6-9 a.m. morning peak and departing during 2-8 p.m. evening peak.
The Calculations
Baseline (before Cordon Toll
Park-n-Ride
off-street
(lot or garage)
Time Parameters (in minutes)
Inbound
A. Parking
Time to drive from hwy to parking lot or area to cruise for on-street parking (minutes) 2.6
Park-n-Ride Baseline figures apply distances in Rows 38 or 39 to 'All Drive' speed in Row 96. Note that both roughly match figure from WE ACT repor
'Congestion Pricing and Northern Manhattan', <http://bit.ly/fqtZXs>, p. 16. 'After' figures add factor equal to one plus percents in Row 84.
Percent increase in distance from highway exit to parking lot or curbside space after implementing cordon toll
Komanoff assumptions, intended to reflect (i) greater competition for both off- and on-street parking from switches to Park-n-Ride, and (ii) lesser dema
Time to park auto in (park-n-ride) neighborhood, minutes 2.0
Komanoff assumptions, except that 'On-street Baseline', which reflects cruising, is from Row 40. Park-n-Ride After figures incorporate percents in Row
Time to walk from parking space to subway station, minutes 5.0
Off-street Baseline is assumed to be 1/2 of that in WE ACT report cited in Row 82, p. 16. We assume On-street Baseline is same, though it could be g
street parking is hard to find. 'After' figures add percents in Row 84 on premise that competition moves parking further from subway.
B. Traveling from Highway Exit or Park-n-Ride Spot, to CBD

Time between reaching subway station and arrival of train to CBD, minutes 5.0
Figures are intended to include interval from station entrance to platform. 'Park-n-Ride After' figures incorporate anticipated improvement in transit ser
Distance from highway exit point (park vs. drive) to cordon, miles 5
From Row 33 above. via subway
Speed to cover that distance, mph 21.9
Baseline Park-n-Ride is systemwide average, from 'Transit' worksheet, Row 125. After Park-n-Ride is Before figure divided by complement of subway
time saving percent estimated in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 210. Baseline All Drive is baseline speed for A.M. Peak from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 200
Drive is final speed for A.M. Peak from same worksheet, Row 870.
Time to cover distance from highway exit point or subway platform to cordon, minutes 13.7
Algebra on Rows 94 and 96.
C. Traveling from CBD Entry Point to Destination
Distance from cordon crossing to destination, miles 1.25
From 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 85. via subway
Speed to cover that distance, mph 21.9
Baseline: Park-n-Ride is systemwide average, from 'Transit' worksheet, Row 396. All Drive is baseline speed for A.M. Peak from 'Motor Vs' worksheet,
All Drive, after, is final speed for A.M. Peak from same worksheet, Row 869.
Time to cover distance from cordon to trip terminus, minutes 3.4

Time to park auto in CBD parking lot, minutes 0.0
Baseline All-Drive is Komanoff assumption. After All-Drive incorporates Row 84 change reflecting less competition for off-street CBD parking.
Time to walk from trip terminus (subway or garage/lot) to destination, minutes 5.0
Komanoff assumptions.
D. Inbound Trip Legs, Combined 36.8
Total time for this leg of journey (following highway 'exit point'; one way). Is sum of 8 different 'time' entries between Rows 80 and 114.

Park-n-Ride
off-street
Outbound (explanations for entries and calculations are mostly omitted, for brevity; they should (lot or garage)
be evident from Inbound section, above)
A. Traveling from Destination to CBD Exit Point

Time to walk from workplace to subway or garage/lot to begin reverse trip, minutes 5.0
Time to retrieve car from CBD parking lot and begin drive out of CBD, minutes 0.0
Time between reaching subway station and arrival of train from CBD, minutes 5.0
Distance from beginning of reverse trip to cordon boundary, miles 1.25
Speed to cover distance, mph (same as Row 105 except auto speeds are p.m. peak) 21.9
Time to cover trip leg within cordon, minutes 3.4
B. Traveling from CBD to Highway Exit or Park-n-Ride Spot
Distance from cordon to highway exit point (park vs. drive), miles 5
Speed to cover distance, mph (same as Row 96 except auto speeds are p.m. peak) 21.9
Time to cover distance from cordon exit to highway exit point, minutes 13.7
C. Final Leg, from Park-n-Ride Spot to Home
Time to walk from subway station to parking space, minutes 5.0
Time to pick up car from curbside space or parking lot, minutes 2.0
Time to drive from parking space to hwy entr. to begin final leg of return journey (minutes) 2.6
D. Outbound Trip Legs, Combined 36.8
Total time for this leg of journey (following highway "exit point"; one way)
Inbound and Outbound Legs, Combined (total time, minutes) 73.5
Value of time for trip (per hour) $24.11

Derived in Row 53.
Time cost for this leg of journey $29.54
Park-n-Ride
off-street
Out-of-Pocket Cost Parameters (lot or garage)
Percent increase in cost to park after cordon toll

Komanoff assumptions, intended to reflect greater competition for off-street parking outside CBD, and less competition inside.
Parking $10.00
Park-n-Ride Off-street is based on Josef Szende observations, TK. Park-n-Ride On-street assumes no charge to park curbside in gateway districts. Al
from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 244, Work trips, 6-9 a.m., and assumes commuter pays to park in CBD lot or garage.
Distance driven inside cordon, miles, both ways 0.0

Distance traveled outside cordon on inbound trip, miles 0.8
Park-n-Ride figures, Before, are Row 38 (Off-street), and sum of Rows 39 and 46 (On-street). Park-n-Ride, After, reflect percent additions from Row 8
only to cruising portion of On-Street). All Drive figures are from Rows 94 and 103, above.
Distance traveled outside cordon on outbound trip, miles 0.8

Same as Row 156 except that On-street Park-n-Ride excludes cruising.
Total distance traveled outside cordon, miles 1.5
Gasoline cost, inside cordon $0.00
Gasoline cost, outside cordon $0.34
Both rows above reflect distances in Rows 155 & 159, fuel economy figures from 'Motor Vs' sheet, Rows 229 & 230, and per-gallon fuel cost from 'Mo
Row 259. Note: we haven't changed fuel economies to reflect lesser traffic -- a minor oversight.
Tolls $0.00
We assume zero except for Drive to CBD, After, which assumes peak toll reduced by MTA and PA factors but surcharged for non-E-ZPass drivers, from
Subway Fare (both ways) $4.21
Assumes pay-per-ride, bought in bulk to provide bonus rides. 'Before' price reflects current (2011) bonus, from Row 42 of 'Transit' tab, while 'After' pric
prospective return to 2010 bonus, from Row 45 of same tab.
Other Costs (incremental costs for parking tkts, traffic tkts, damage to vehicle, insurance) $0.12
Product of per-mile 'other costs' as specified in 'Trip-Price (Hist.)' tab, times total distance as given by summing Rows 155 and 161.
Total Out-of-pocket cost for this leg of journey $14.66
Sum of Rows 163 through 172, plus Row 152.
Discomfort / Inconvenience Cost of Switching to Park-n-Ride $10.00

See Row 30.
Park-n-Ride
off-street
(lot or garage)
Total Cost for Journey $54.20
Increase from "Before" Cost
Distributional Comparison of Park-n-Ride (off street) to All Drive
Mean costs being compared $54.20

Mean of cost difference ($0.56)
Standard Deviation Assumes standard deviation's % of mean = 25% $13.55
Standard Deviation of cost difference $19.26
Share of trips for which park-n-ride cost is less than all-drive cost 51%
Uses mathematical formula for probability that observation in one distribution will be less than observation in other.
Distributional Comparison of Park-n-Ride (on street) to All Drive

Mean of cost difference ($9.40)
Trip Figures (for eventual estimation of numbers of trips affected rather than simply percents)
Percent of all auto work trips to CBD "captured" in period being studied
Ratio of sum of percent of all inbound auto trips that are 6-9 a.m. work trips, to all work trips' share of all inbound auto trips. Mathematically, is ratio of
Rows 37-39 to Row 55 from Column P of worksheet 'Weekday Hours'.
Number of auto work trips to CBD "captured" in period being studied

Product of percent in Row 52 and total number of 24-h work trips to CBD in Motor Vs worksheet, Row 68.
Park-and-Ride Scenario #2: LIRR Commuter from Nassau or Suffolk to Penn Station
Results
Estimated change in probability that an LIRR commuter who experiences costs and travel time as assumed here will find it less
costly to drive across the Nassau-Queens line and park in an off-street lot and take the LIRR the rest of the way to the CBD
rather than taking the LIRR all the way to the CBD:
Estimated change in probability that an LIRR commuter who experiences costs and travel time as assumed here will find it less
costly to drive across the Nassau-Queens line and park curbside and take the LIRR the rest of the way to the CBD rather
than taking the LIRR all the way to the CBD:
The analysis considers whether a CBD worker who lives in Babylon, LI and who now takes the LIRR straight through to Pen
Station, might be tempted by the stick of a cordon toll and the carrot of discounted intra-city LIRR fares to drive only to Rose
Queens, park there, and then catch the LIRR to Penn. It covers both directions of travel.
The Calculations
Park-n-Ride
off-street
(lot or garage)
Time Parameters (in minutes)
Inbound
A. Traveling from Home in Babylon to Park-n-Ride Target Area

Distance from home in Babylon to Rosedale, miles 25
Park-n-Ride distances are via Mapquest ("Babylon, NY to Sunrise Hwy & 243rd St, Rosedale, NY 11422,") approximate location of LIRR Rosedale sta
LIRR distances are Komanoff assumption for trip from home to parking lot for LIRR Babylon station.
Speed to drive that distance, mph 30
Baseline speeds are Komanoff assumption, w/ Park-n-Ride fig. reflecting morning peak speeds on Southern State Pkwy and local roads, and All LIRR
reflecting just local roads. After Park-n-Ride speed increases baseline speed by morning peak non-cordon speed improvement in 'Motor Vs' workshee
Time to drive distance from home to park-n-ride target area, minutes 50.0
B. Parking near LIRR Station
Percent increase in distance from highway exit to parking lot or curbside space after implementing cordon toll
Komanoff assumptions, intended to reflect (i) greater competition for both off- and on-street parking from switches to Park-n-Ride, and (ii) lesser dema
Time to park auto in (park-n-ride) neighborhood, minutes 2.0
Komanoff assumptions, except that 'On-street Baseline', which reflects cruising, is from Row 40. Park-n-Ride After figures incorporate percents in Row
Time to walk from parking space to LIRR station, minutes 5.0
Assumed to be same as for walk to subway station in Scenario #1, above (Row 88).
C. Traveling from LIRR Station to Penn Station
Time to access train (includes wait time) 7
Park-n-Ride figures are one-half of 14, which is the average interval, in minutes, between departures of the 8 westbound trains leaving Rosedale on w
between 6:53 and 8:45 a.m. All-LIRR figure is Komanoff estimate, and assumes that commuters are adept at keying arrival at Babylon platform to LIR
LIRR travel time, minutes 33.6
Baseline All-Drive is Komanoff assumption. After All-Drive incorporates Row 248 change reflecting less competition for off-street CBD parking.
D. Inbound Trip Legs, Combined 97.6
Total time for inbound journey (home to Penn Station) is sum of 5 'time' entries in Rows 245-259.

Park-n-Ride
off-street
Outbound (explanations for entries and calculations are mostly omitted, for brevity; they should (lot or garage)
be evident from Inbound section, above)
A. Traveling from Penn Station to LIRR Station

LIRR travel time, minutes 33.6
B. Transition from LIRR Station to Auto
Time to walk from LIRR station to parking space, minutes 5.0
C. Final Leg, from LIRR Station to Home, via Auto
Speed to drive that distance, mph 30
Same assumptions as in Row 242, except that afternoon peak speed improvement is used.
Time to drive from park-n-ride target area to home, minutes 50.0
D. Outbound Trip Legs, Combined 88.6
Total time for this leg of journey (following highway "exit point"; one way)
Inbound and Outbound Legs, Combined (total time, minutes) 186.3
Value of time for trip (per hour) $24.11

Copied from Row 53.
Time cost for this leg of journey $74.83
Park-n-Ride
off-street
Out-of-Pocket Cost Parameters (lot or garage)
Percent increase in cost to park after cordon toll

Komanoff assumptions, intended to reflect greater competition for off-street parking outside CBD, and less competition inside.
Parking $10.00
Park-n-Ride Off-street is based on Josef Szende observations, TK. Park-n-Ride On-street assumes no charge for curbside space in gateway districts.
amortizes Babylon residents' annual station parking fee ($25, per Village Clerk, 631-669-1500, 6-April-2011) over wkdays in yr.
Distance driven, both ways, miles 50

Gasoline cost $11.26
Figures reflect non-cordon mpg figures from 'Motor Vs' sheet, Row 230 and per-gallon fuel cost from 'Motor Vs' tab, Row 259. Note: we haven't chang
economies to reflect lesser traffic -- a minor oversight.
LIRR Fare (both ways) $9.26

Baseline Park-n-Ride and all All Drive figures amortize LIRR monthly fares over number of weekdays in average month. After Park-n-Ride figures ass
one-way LIRR fare is reduced to current subway fare shown in Row 40 of 'Transit' tab.
Other Costs (incremental costs for parking tkts, traffic tkts, damage to vehicle, insurance) $4.00
Product of per-mile 'other costs' as specified in 'Trip-Price (Hist.)' tab, times total distance driven from Row 295.
Total Out-of-pocket cost for this leg of journey $34.52
Sum of Rows 296 through 302, plus Row 292.
Discomfort / Inconvenience Cost of Switching to Park-n-Ride $10.00

See Row 30.
Total Cost for Journey $119.36
Increase from "Before" Cost
Distributional Comparison of Park-n-Ride (off street) to All Drive

Mean of cost difference $40.60
Distributional Comparison of Park-n-Ride (on street) to All Drive

Mean of cost difference $31.79
Trip Figures (for eventual estimation of numbers of trips affected rather than simply percents)
Percent of all LIRR work trips to CBD "captured" in period being studied
TK
Number of work trips to CBD "captured" in period being studied

TK
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
###
rkers living in "gateway" neighborhoods to ###
eir auto near a rapid-transit stop outside the ###
###
###
###
assess the likelihood that someone who
o sections: (i) drive from home to a location ###
om that location to the work destination in ###
###
###
###
etro-North were to reduce fares for intra- ###
n the CBD will instead divides her trip into
###
her curbside or in a parking lot; (ii) take the
. ###
###
###
###
be combined into total costs, and that
mode chosen by the commuter will be the ###
eased travel speeds resulting from the ###
ming from investing toll revenues into transit ###
###
###
###
genta-colored Cells) ###
###
$10 ###
###
###
5 ###
###
###
###
###
0.75 ###
0.75 ###
5.0 ###
6). At p. 480, Shoup cites average cruising times of ###
nquiry on the traffic congestion impacts of parking ###
ansportation Research Center, Region II. Polytechnic
one-half of the average of those two values, for ###
###
15 ###
1.24 ###
###
$32.14 ###
$21.43 ###
###
25% ###
###
$24.11 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
time) as assumed here will ###

CBD via subway to be less 5% ###
A negative result indicates that cordon pricing ###
should be expected to cause a decrease in the
number of commuters to the CBD who currently###
park-and-ride. ###
time) as assumed here will
be less costly than driving all 6% ###
###
###
are done for work purposes. It's also ###
p.m. evening peak. ###
###
###
Baseline (before Cordon Toll) After (with Cordon Toll) ###
Park-n-Ride Park-n-Ride Park-n-Ride ###
on-street Drive to CBD and off-street on-street Drive to CBD and
(curbside) park there (lot or garage) (curbside) ###
park there
###
###
###
###
###
2.6 0 2.9 3.3 #
0##
h roughly match figure from WE ACT report, ###
one plus percents in Row 84.
###
10% 25% -10%
###
itches to Park-n-Ride, and (ii) lesser demand for parking in CBD, after tolling. ###
5.0 0.0 2.2 6.2 0.0
###
e After figures incorporate percents in Row 84. ###
5.0 0.0 5.5 6.3 0.0
###
eet Baseline is same, though it could be greater if on- ###
ing further from subway.
###
###
5.0 0.0 4.7 4.7 0.0
###
rate anticipated improvement in transit service from 'Transit' tab, Row 210. ###
5 5 5 5 #
5##
via subway via auto via subway via auto
###
21.9 17.1 23.2 23.2 18.3
###
e figure divided by complement of subway-average

###
Peak from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 200. After All ###
###
13.7 17.6 12.9 12.9 16.4
###
###
###
1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
###
via subway via auto via subway via auto
###
21.9 9.2 23.2 23.2 11.0
###
d for A.M. Peak from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 184. ###
###
3.4 8.2 3.2 3.2 6.8
###
###
0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.8
###
etition for off-street CBD parking. ###
5.0 2.5 5.0 5.0 2.5
###
###
39.7 30.2 36.5 41.6 27.6
###
etween Rows 80 and 114. ###
###
park there
###
###
###
5.0 2.5 5.0 5.0 2.5
###
0.0 2.0 0.0 0.0 1.8
###
5.0 0.0 4.7 4.7 0.0
###
1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25
###
21.9 8.2 23.2 23.2 9.9
###
3.4 9.2 3.2 3.2 7.6
###
###
5 5 5 5 #
5##
21.9 15.5 23.2 23.2 16.5
###
13.7 19.4 12.9 12.9 18.2
###
###
5.0 0.0 5.5 6.3 0.0
###
1.0 0.0 2.2 1.0 0.0
###
2.6 0.0 2.9 3.3 0.0
###
35.8 33.0 36.5 36.4 30.1
###
###
###
75.5 63.3 72.9 78.0 57.7
###
###
$24.11 $24.11 $24.11 $24.11 $24.11###
###
$30.32 $25.43 $29.31 $31.35 $23.18###
###
park there
###
25% 0% -10%
###
ompetition inside. ###
$0.00 $25.00 $12.50 $0.00 $22.50###
ge to park curbside in gateway districts. All Drive is ###
or garage.
###
0.0 2.5 0.0 0.0 2.5
###
2.0 5.0 0.8 2.3 5.0
###
After, reflect percent additions from Row 84 (applied ###
###
0.8 5.0 0.8 0.9 5.0
###
###
2.7 10.0 1.7 3.2 10.0
###
###
$0.00 $1.08 $0.00 $0.00 $1.08###
$0.62 $2.25 $0.37 $0.73 $2.25###
9 & 230, and per-gallon fuel cost from 'Motor Vs' tab, ###
###
$0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $8.23###
ut surcharged for non-E-ZPass drivers, from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 287. ###
$4.21 $0.00 $3.91 $3.91 $0.00###
om Row 42 of 'Transit' tab, while 'After' price reflects ###
###
$0.22 $1.00 $0.13 $0.26 $1.00###
ing Rows 155 and 161. ###
$5.04 $29.33 $16.92 $4.90 $35.06###
###
###
$10.00 $0.00 $10.00 $10.00 $0.00###
###
park there
$45.37 $54.76 $56.22 $46.25 $58.24###
###
$2.02 $0.88 $3.47###
###
###
###
$54.76 $56.22 $58.24###
($0.56) ($2.01) ###
$13.69 $14.06 $14.56###
$19.26 $20.24 ###
51% 54% ###
###
###
###
###
$54.76 $46.25 $58.24###
($9.40) ($11.99) ###
$13.69 $11.56 $14.56###
$17.78 $18.59 ###
70% 74% ###
###
###
###
###
32.3% ###
ound auto trips. Mathematically, is ratio of sum of ###
###
84,300 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
s assumed here will find it less ###

he rest of the way to the CBD 15% ###
A negative result indicates that cordon pricing ###
should be expected to cause a decrease in the
number of commuters to the CBD who currently###
park-and-ride. ###
s assumed here will find it less
the way to the CBD rather 21% ###
###
###
es the LIRR straight through to Penn ###
ty LIRR fares to drive only to Rosedale, ###
###
###
###
Park-n-Ride Take LIRR Park-n-Ride Park-n-Ride Take LIRR ###
on-street full distance off-street on-street full distance
(curbside) to CBD (lot or garage) (curbside) to CBD###
###
###
###
###
###
25 2 25 25 #
2##
approximate location of LIRR Rosedale station. All ###
###
30 20 32.1 32.1 20
###
###
n State Pkwy and local roads, and All LIRR fig.
peed improvement in 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 924. ###
###
50.0 6.0 46.7 46.7 6.0
###
###
###
10% 25% -10%
###
itches to Park-n-Ride, and (ii) lesser demand for parking in CBD, after tolling. ###
5.0 0.0 2.2 6.2 0.0
###
e After figures incorporate percents in Row 248. ###
5.0 2.0 5.5 6.3 1.8
###
###
###
7 3 7 7 #
3##
###
8 westbound trains leaving Rosedale on weekdays
at keying arrival at Babylon platform to LIRR schedule. ###
###
33.6 69.0 33.6 33.6 69.0
###
petition for off-street CBD parking. ###
100.6 80.0 95.2 100.0 79.7
###
###
###
###
###
###
33.6 69.0 33.6 33.6 69.0
###
###
5.0 2.0 5.5 6.3 1.8
###
###
30 20 31.9 31.9 20
###
###
50.0 6.0 47.0 47.0 6.0
###
88.6 77.0 86.2 86.9 76.8
###
###
###
189.2 157.0 181.3 187.0 156.5
###
###
$24.11 $24.11 $24.11 $24.11 $24.11###
###
$76.02 $63.08 $72.85 $75.12 $62.88###
###
###
25% 0% -10%
###
ompetition inside. ###
$0.00 $0.10 $12.50 $0.00 $0.10###
ge for curbside space in gateway districts. LIRR figure ###
) over wkdays in yr.
###
50 4 50 50 #
4##
$11.26 $0.90 $11.26 $11.26 $0.90###
Vs' tab, Row 259. Note: we haven't changed fuel ###
###
$9.26 $14.35 $4.50 $4.50 $14.35###
rage month. After Park-n-Ride figures assume in-city ###
###
$4.00 $0.32 $4.00 $4.00 $0.32###
###
$24.52 $15.67 $32.26 $19.76 $15.67###
###
###
$10.00 $0.00 $10.00 $10.00 $0.00###
###
###
$110.54 $78.75 $115.11 $104.88 $78.55###
###
($4.24) ($5.66) ($0.20)
###
###
###
###
$78.75 $115.11 $78.55###
$40.60 $36.56 ###
$19.69 $28.78 $19.64###
$35.75 $34.84 ###
13% 15% ###
###
###
###
###
$78.75 $104.88 $78.55###
$31.79 $26.33 ###
$19.69 $26.22 $19.64###
$33.93 $32.76 ###
17% 21% ###
###
###
###
###
TK ###
###
###
TK ###
###
Travel Time Switching 1/6/2012
This worksheet is text-only and so is not computationally linked to the rest of the spreadsheet. Its purpose is to
explain and source the modeling by which the BTA calculates the number of auto trips into the CBD, and the
number of subway trips, that are expected to switch to different hours of the day in response to differential pricing
(time-of-day-varied cordon tolls and subway fares). It is intended to help travel modelers and other interested
users follow the logic flow and algorithms for time-switching that are invoked in the Motor Vs and Subways
worksheets.
To our knowledge, only two studies have measured the propensity of U.S. drivers to change the time at which
they travel in response to road tolls that vary according to the time at which the trip is taken. We have drawn on
both studies to develop algorithms by which the BTA may estimate the percentages of cordon-crossing auto trips
that would be rescheduled to adjacent time periods in response to differential tolling is adopted in New York City.
We have also applied our methodology to estimate the extent to which subway trips would be similarly
rescheduled in the event that NYC Transit institutes fare premiums and/or discounts for the city’s subways.
One study, commissioned by the Port Authority, analyzed drivers’ responses to the differential tolling regime that
the P.A. instituted on its six Hudson River vehicular crossings in 2001. “Congestion Pricing as a Traffic
Management Tool: Evaluating The Impacts At New York City’s Interstate Crossings,” was written by Carolyn Wolff
and Pierre Vilain of Louis Berger Associates and was submitted for presentation at the TRB 2007 annual meeting
of the Transportation Research Board.
The other study was undertaken by the Puget Sound Regional Council in 2005-07 and published by the Council
in 2008. In this “Traffic Choices Study,” 270 demographically representative households in the Seattle
metropolitan area were charged time-varied tolls for all trips taken on area highways over a six-month period.
(The households were first given equal cash awards intended to defray the toll costs.) The households’ travel
choices — essentially, the number, length and timing of their trips — were then compared against baseline
values, and the results distilled into estimates of price elasticities and time-switching propensities.
Because the Wolff-Vilain paper concerns New York City and environs, we made it our primary source for price-
elasticity. We also employ its findings in a parallel algorithm that estimates time-switching by subway riders in
response to possible differential transit fares. In several instances we supplemented these results with
relationships derived in the Puget Sound study.
Drivers
Wolff and Vilain compared “before” (uniform tolls) trip volumes and “after” (with time-varied tolls) volumes, and
derived these results:
From period To period Elasticity

Morning Peak (6-9 a.m.) Morning Before Peak -0.60
Morning Peak (6-9 a.m.) Morning After Peak -0.13
Evening Peak (4-7 p.m.) Evening Before Peak -0.22
Evening Peak (4-7 p.m.) Evening After Peak -0.09
See text for meaning of elasticity figures in table.
The table indicates that drivers are considerably more likely to time-switch earlier than later, particularly in the
morning. This finding is consistent with anecdotal evidence as well as basic observations about time sensitivity
and worker obligations, and we employ it in both our driver and subway analyses.
The elasticities in the table are not conventional elasticities that operate on price changes to yield demand
changes. Rather, each elasticity operates on the ratio of the toll in the period being switched “from,” to the toll in
the period switched “into,” as shown in this example.
Consider a road system and region with non-variable tolls, with 3 times as many trips in the morning peak as in
the pre-peak period. Now posit a time-differentiated toll regime that increases the ratio of tolls between the
respective periods by 50%. The new ratio of peak trips to pre-peak trips would be the product of 3 (the prior ratio)
times 1.5 (the factor denoting the increase in the toll ratio) raised to the -0.60 power (the applicable elasticity, as
shown in the table). Since the product of (i) 3 and (ii) 1.5 raised to the -0.6 power, is 2.35, enough trips in the
peak would resettle to the pre-peak to reduce the ratio of the number of trips between the two periods from 3
previously, to 2.35.
Following are the assumptions and methods we used to operationalize the elasticities in the table for our time-
varying cordon tolls.
Current Tolls — As of 2008, the only portals into the cordon with time-varied tolls are the Port Authority crossings,
which charge $6 off-peak (with E-ZPass) and $8 peak (6-9 a.m. and 4-7 p.m. on weekdays). By weighting the
percentages of vehicles using those crossings with and w/o E-ZPass, as well as trips into the CBD via P.A.
crossings vis-à-vis trips on other CBD portals, we estimate that the current (baseline) ratio of peak to off-peak
tolls for all trips into the CBD is approximately 1.08 (see By Hour worksheet for details). That is, the average toll
on all peak-period vehicle trips into the CBD is 8% greater than the average toll on such trips occurring before or
after the peak.
Future Tolls — The ratio of tolls with new tolling between peak periods and adjacent off-peak may be calculated
from the toll levels shown in the By Hour worksheet. For example, with tolls of $10 during 5-6 a.m. and $25
during 6-9 a.m., the ratio of new tolls between the two periods is 2.5. If the new tolls are additive to existing tolls
(i.e., if they increment rather than replace them), then the ratio of the new toll to the old would be the product of
(i) the ratio of new tolls just noted (2.5 in this case) times (ii) the ratio of the prior tolls.
Ratio of Toll Ratios — Continuing with this example, which concerns drivers’ propensity to time-switch from the 6-
9 a.m. peak to the 5-6 a.m. pre-peak: if the new tolls increment the prior tolls, then the ratio of the new toll ratio to
the old toll ratio (yes, we're calculating a ratio of ratios) is the quotient of (i) 2.5 x 1.08, and (ii) 1.08, which of
course if 2.5. However, if the new tolls replace the prior tolls, the ratio is the quotient of 2.5 and 1.08, or 2.31.
Propensity to Time-Switch Earlier — From the Wolff-Vilain paper discussed earlier (shown in the table above),
the elasticity to time-switch from the morning peak to the immediately earlier pre-peak period is -0.60. Our
procedure then takes 2.31 (the ratio just shown) and raises it to the -0.6 power, yielding 0.6 (actually, 0.604 —
the two 0.6’s are coincidental). This result is then multiplied by the ratio of peak trips to pre-peak trips, which, in
this example, is 6.15 (from the fact that 6.15 times as many cars currently enter the cordon during the three-hour
6-9 a.m. period as during the one-hour 5-6 a.m. period). The product, 3.71, indicates that enough trips must
“redistribute” from 6-9 a.m. to 5-6 a.m. to result in a 3.71 ratio of trip frequencies, down from 6.15 before the
cordon tolls.
Propensity to Time-Switch, Adjusted for Duration of Period — Both peak toll periods in the Port Authority analysis
last three hours — 6-9 a.m. for morning, 4-7 a.m. for evening. But only two of the seven toll periods as modeled
by the BTA are exactly three hours long (6-9 a.m. peak, and 8-11 p.m. “post peak”). It stands to reason that the
probability of a trip’s shifting out of a period is inversely related to the period’s length, since trips are less likely to
shift over a longer time interval. We therefore need to adjust the P.A. elasticities for periods whose duration
differs from three hours.
An excellent adjustment “metric” is available from the Puget Sound Regional Council study. From analyzing
travel changes by the toll-paying households in their pricing experiment, the PSRC researchers derived an
equation relating the probability of shifting a trip to a lower-toll period to the time interval over which the trip would
have to be shifted. For example, the probability that a trip would be shifted for up to three hours turned out to be
a little more than half as great as the probability of shifting a trip for up to an hour. The PSRC modelers
generously shared the coefficients of their empirically derived equation with us (see By Hour worksheet), and we
apply it in the Motor V’s worksheet to adjust the Port Authority’s elasticity results upward (when the period being
shifted out of is under three hours) or downward (when the period is longer).
Elasticities — The Port Authority elasticities in the table cover time-shifting from only the morning and evening
peaks. For other periods, e.g., time-shifting from (rather than to) the 5-6 a.m. pre-peak to the 11 p.m. – 5 a.m.
graveyard shift, we specified the elasticities to be the mean of the corresponding peak elasticities. That is, for
“pre-shiftng” (time-shifting earlier), we took the mean of (i) the -0.60 elasticity for pre-shifting out of the morning
peak and (ii) the -0.22 elasticity for pre-shifting from the evening peak, or -0.41. Similarly, post-shifting from non-
peak periods is assigned an elasticity of -0.11, since that is the mean of the -0.13 and -0.09 post-shifting
elasticities.
Once the new ratio of trips between the respective periods is calculated, the number of trips that are shifted is
calculated easily using algebra. As is clear from the Motor V’s worksheet, the numbers are not huge,
notwithstanding the impressive savings available from switching to lower-toll periods. This comports with the
intuitive sense that through some combination of preference and necessity, people are strongly attached
to their time of travel.
Under the Kheel-Komanoff Plan, the largest predicted switch is 4,669 cordon trips from the 5-6 a.m. pre-peak to
the preceding 11 p.m. - 5 a.m. “graveyard” period. This shift constitutes 15% of the 30,533 auto trips now
entering the cordon during the morning pre-peak. Of course, it is offset by the 4,757 trips predicted to switch into
the one-hour pre-peak from the 6-9 a.m. peak period.
Subway Passengers
Time-switching of subway trips into the CBD is handled similarly to that for auto trips, with two adjustments to
account for differences between the price-sensitivities of the respective populations:
Overall price-sensitivity — Auto use is considerably more price-sensitive than subway use. We employ total
price-elasticities (parameters that relate percent changes in demand to to changes in total trip price) of
(negative) 0.5 and 0.9 for auto trips (work and non-work trips, respectively) but only 0.09 and 0.234 for transit
trips. (See the Elasticities worksheet in the BTA.) That is, on average, demand for subway use is only 20-
25% as price-sensitive as demand for auto travel. We reflect this difference by dampening, for the subways,
the observed elasticity for time-switching auto trips on the Port Authority crossings four-to-five-fold.
Income — Conversely, subway passengers have lower incomes than car users who drive into the CBD, on
average. We estimate the income ratio to be approximately 1.5 to 1. We reflect this for subway riders by
increasing the propensity to switch travel times observed for drivers in the study of Port Authority crossings, by
50%.
With these adjustments, the $0.50 price premiums in the Kheel-Komanoff Plan for using the subway system
during peak hours (8-9 a.m. and 5-6 p.m.) vis-a-vis prior or subsequent hours are predicted to engender a
roughly 2% shift of trips to the next earlier hour and a 0.5% shift to the next later hour. These differences are
modest in percentage terms but significant in absolute terms. Compared to the 8-9 a.m. baseline figure of
470,000, the 7,500 subway trips into the CBD that are projected to shift to the preceding 7-8 a.m. period amount
to roughly 50 “B” cars or 70 “A” cars -- a considerable amount of freed capacity.
Buses 1/6/2012
This worksheet estimates changes in bus ridership that would be expected to result from changes in fares and service quality.
Further below, it develops metrics for estimating system-wide average time savings and ridership increases per different expenditure
levels to increase bus service.
1. Changes in Bus Ridership (Citywide) from Changes in Fares, Tolls and Service
A. Derive Baseline Average Bus Fare
NYC Transit ridership, 2011, projected (millions)
<http://bit.ly/eH4JCA>. Earlier site contained note: "Ridership is the number of passengers for whom the agency receives a
fare, either through direct fare payment (e.g., cash, Pay-Per-Ride MetroCards, Unlimited Ride MetroCards, etc.) or fare
reimbursements (senior citizens, school children, the physically disabled). Passengers that use free transfers (either train-to-
bus, bus-to-train or bus-to-bus) are counted as additional passengers even though they are not paying additional fares."

Komanoff estimate. Figure in 'Transit' worksheet, Row 106 is slightly lower.
Adjusted (full-fare equivalent) bus ridership, 2011, projected, millions:
Bus revenue, 2011, projected, millions
<http://bit.ly/eH4JCA>.
Current (2011) normalized bus fare, all trips (no distinction betw work and non-work trips)
B. Estimate Ridership Changes due to Bus Fare and Service Changes
Elasticities Work Non-work

Breakdown of bus trips between work and non-work trips. 40% 60%
Komanoff estimates. Note that percentages pertain to all bus trips, not merely bus trips into CBD.
Price-elasticity First two columns draw on parameters specified in -0.09 -0.234
Elasticities tab. Third column is weighted averages.
Time-elasticity -0.50 -0.55
7 Days Weekdays
2011 Projected Ridership, millions 707.5 568.5

Of which this many pay on pay-per-ride basis 364.3 292.7
And of which this many pay with Unlimited Farecards 343.2 275.8
2011 Projected Paying Ridership, millions 566.0 454.8
7 Days figures are from Rows 15 and 23. Weekdays and Weekends figures apply weekday/all days ratio from Row 188. Saturdays/Sundays apply
worksheet, Row 49. Splits to Pay-Per-Ride and Unlimiteds use Bus fare media splits in 'Transit' tab, Row 20.
7 Days figures are from Rows 15 and 23. Weekdays and Weekends figures apply weekday/all days ratio from Row 188. Saturdays/Sundays apply
worksheet, Row 49. Splits to Pay-Per-Ride and Unlimiteds use Bus fare media splits in 'Transit' tab, Row 20.
2011 Baseline Fare $1.51 $1.51

From Row 28.
Pay Per Riders: Impact of Fare Changes

2011 Baseline Fare as experienced by Bus Riders who pay on per-ride basis $2.16 $2.16
Average of nominal and discounted fares, wghtd by share of pay-per-riders who do/don't use discounted media, from Row 51 of 'Transit' workshee
discount for qualifying pay-per-ride Metrocards shown in Row 42 of 'Transit' sheet. Both shares pivot off nominal per-ride fare shown in Row 40 of
Proposed Nominal Fare $2.25

From 'User Inputs,' Rows 135, 137 and 139.
Proposed Fare to be experienced by Bus Riders who pay on per-ride basis $2.16
Adjusts nominal fare from Row 54 w/ pay-per-ride discount inputted in 'User Inputs' Row 115 and % of pay-per-rides recv'ing discount from 'Transi
Estimated ridership change among Pay-Per-Riders, from fare change 0.0%
Results in Row 58 draw on wghted-avg price-elasticities in Row 36. Mathematical function uses 'IF' statement to accommodate possible zero valu
Change in Pay-Per-Riders, resulting from fare change, millions 0.0
Product of % increase in Row 58 and baseline pay-per-rides figures in Row 42.
Unlimited Farecard Riders: Impact of Fare Changes

2011 Baseline Fare as experienced by Riders who pay with Unlimiteds $0.81 $0.81
Solved algebraically with Rows 47 and 51 and % of riders who pay on per-ride basis from Row 20 of 'Transit' worksheet.
Proposed Fare to be experienced by Bus Riders who pay with Unlimiteds $0.81
Product of Row 64 and factor calculated from assumed percentage change in unlimited fares from 'User Inputs' tab, Row 112.
Estimated ridership change among Unlimited Fare Riders, from fare change 0.0%
Results in Row 68 draw on wghted-avg price-elasticities in Row 36. Mathematical function uses 'IF' statement to accommodate possible zero valu
Change in Unlimited-Fare Riders, resulting from fare change, millions 0.0
Product of % increase in Row 68 and baseline unlimited rides figures in Row 43.
All Riders: Impact of Travel-Time (Service) Changes

Projected reduxn in bus travel time from (i) lesser traffic, (ii) free fare if app.), (iii) more service 4.6%
Results in Row 74 draw on (i)+(ii) combined traffic and free-fare (if applicable) results calculated in 'Bus Boarding' worksheet, Row 147 and (iii) es
change from 'Transit' worksheet, Row 340. Calculation uses complements to avoid possible double-counting.
Estimated ridership change due to reduced bus travel times (pertains to all riders) 2.5%
Standard elasticity calculation, with one minus Row 74,exponentiated to the wghtd-avg time-elasticity power in Row 37.
Change in All Bus Riders, resulting from service changes, millions 14.5
Product of % increase in Row 77 and baseline all rides figures in Row 41.
Of which this many changes are rides paid on pay-per-ride basis 7.4
And of which this many changes are rides paid with Unlimited Farecards 7.0
Splits to Pay-Per-Ride and Unlimiteds use Bus fare media splits in 'Transit' tab, Row 20.
Aggregate the Above Changes in Bus Ridership

Change in Pay-Per-Rides, millions 9.3 7.4
Sum of changes from fare change in Row 60 and from service changes in Row 81.
Change in Unlimited Farecard Rides, millions 8.7 7.0
Sum of changes from fare change in Row 70 and from service changes in Row 82.
Changes in All Fare-Media Rides, millions 18.0 14.5
Sum of changes from pay-per-rides in Row 86 and from unlimiteds in Row 88.
C. Add Further Increase due to Auto and Taxi Trips Tolled off the Road 7 Days Weekdays
New transit trips due to cordon toll that will be accommodated on buses, per day 7,863
Weekday fig. is from 'Subways', Row 393, derived in section est'ing new transit trips from 'tolled-off' car trips (lion's share of which are assigned to
prorates that by ratio of tolled-off m.v. trips on wknds to that on wkdays, using Row 891 figures from 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs Weekends' tabs.
New bus trips due to changes in taxi fares, per day (15,076)
Derived in 'Taxis' worksheet, Row 441.
New bus trips due to combined cordon toll and changes in taxi fares, per day (7,213)
New bus trips due to cordon toll & changes in taxi fares, per year (millions) (1.8)
Product of Row 100 and applicable # of days in year from 'Constants' worksheet.
Of which this many changes are rides paid on pay-per-ride basis (0.9)
And of which this many changes are rides paid with Unlimited Farecards (0.9)
Splits to Pay-Per-Ride and Unlimiteds use Bus fare media splits in 'Transit' tab, Row 20.
D. Total Change in Bus Ridership (millions) 16.2 12.7

Change in ridership, % 2.3% 2.2%
Changes for Weekdays, Sat and Sun are sum of Rows 90 and 102. Changes for 7 Days and Weekends are sums of applicable columns.
Of which these amounts are attributable to the changed bus fares, millions 0.0 0.0
And of which these amounts are attributable to other factors 16.2 12.7
Difference between total changes in Row 108 and changes allocable to changed bus fares in Row 111.
Of which these percents are attributable to the changed bus fares 0%
Quotient of Row 111 to Row 114.
Total projected ridership, millions 723.7 581.1

Of which this many rides will be paid on pay-per-ride basis 372.6 299.2
Sum of Rows 42, 60, 81 and 104.
And of which this many rides will be paid with Unlimited Farecards 351.1 281.9
Sum of Rows 43, 70, 82 and 105.
E. Bus Farebox Revenue 7 Days Weekdays
Baseline ($ millions) $851.9 $684.5

7 Days figure could have been copied from Row 25 but was instead calc's as product of Rows 23 and 28, as check. That figure is subdivided into W
latter into Sat / Sun, by prorating from breakdowns in Row 41.
Baseline fares paying on per-ride basis (normalized), millions 291.4 234.2

Product of 'Transit' worksheet Row 20 denoting % bus riders who pay on per-ride basis, and applicable figure from Row 44.
Baseline revenue from per-ride-paying fares, millions $628.6 $505.1
Product of fare quantities in Row 130 and fare levels in Row 51.
Baseline fares paying w/ unlimited cards (normalized), millions 274.6 220.6
Product of complement of figure in 'Transit' worksheet Row 20 and applicable figure from Row 44.
Baseline revenue from non-per-ride-paying fares, millions $223.3 $179.4
Product of fare quantities in Row 134 and baseline fare in Row 64.
Total baseline revenue, millions $851.9 $684.5
Projected fares paying on per-ride basis (normalized), millions 293.3 239.4
Product of pay-per-riders in Row 120 and normalizing factor in Row 21.
Projected revenue from per-ride-paying fares, millions $643.0 $516.3
Product of fare quantities in Row 140 and fare levels to be experienced by those riders, shown in Row 56.
Projected fares paying w/ unlimited cards (normalized), millions 280.9 225.5
Product of unlimited farecard riders in Row 122 and normalizing factor in Row 21.
Projected revenue from non-per-ride-paying fares $228.4 $183.4
Product of fare quantities in Row 144 and fare levels to be experienced by those riders, shown in Row 66.
Projected total revenue $871.4 $699.7
Sum of two revenue components, from Rows 142 and 146.
Of which this is from new rides attracted by changed per-ride fares, millions $0.0 $0.0
Product of increased pay-per-ridership due to fare change in Row 60 and fare levels for those riders, shown in Row 56.
Of which this is from new rides attracted by changed unlimited fares, millions $0.0 $0.0
Product of increased unlimited rides due to fare change in Row 70 and fare levels for those riders, shown in Row 66.
And of which these are from all new rides attracted by changed fares, millions $0.0 $0.0
Of which this is from new pay-per-rides attracted by changed service, millions $20.0 $16.1
Product of increased pay-per-ridership due to service changes in Row 81 and fare levels for those riders, shown in Row 56.
Of which this is from new unlimited rides attracted by changed service, millions $7.1 $5.7
Product of increased unlimited rides due to service changes in Row 82 and fare levels for those riders, shown in Row 66.
And of which these are from all new rides attracted by changed service, millions $27.1 $21.8
Total revenue acct'd for by new rides attracted by all changes, millions $27.1 $21.8
Sum of two revenue components, from Rows 154 and 160.
Projected average fare (uses actual riders, i.e., not normalized) $1.20 $1.20
Ratio of Rows 148 (projected revenue) and 118 (actual ridership).
Projected average fare, normalized $1.51 $1.51
Ratio of Rows 166 (average fare for all riders) and 21 (normalizing factor).
2. Allocation of Baseline Bus Trips into Weekday vs. Weekend (needed for Part 1, above; uses 2008 data)
("Weekend" includes holidays)
Average weekday bus ridership (local buses) 'Subways' tab, Row 22.
Average weekday bus ridership (express buses) Find source!
Average weekday bus ridership (local + express)
Source: MTA data, annotated in Row 16 (excludes express buses). 2-day tot.
Average weekend bus ridership (local buses) 'Subways' tab, Rows 23 + 24. 2,566,990
Average weekend bus ridership (express buses) 10,000
Average weekend bus ridership (local + express)
Source: MTA data, annotated in Row 16 (excludes express buses).
From 'Subways' tab
Total bus ridership
Discrepancy from official figure in Section 3A, above
Bus Ridership, Ratio of Annual Amount to Average Weekday (One-Day) Amount
Calculated as ratio of total annual bus ridership directly above, to daily weekday local + express ridership earlier in this section.
Bus Ridership, Ratio of Annual Amount to Average Weekend One-Day Amount
Calculated as ratio of total annual bus ridership directly above, to daily weekend local + express ridership earlier in this section.
% of Bus Ridership on Weekdays
% of Bus Ridership on Weekends and Holidays
3. Baseline Data: Persons Arriving in Manhattan CBD by Bus, Weekdays, 2007
Hour beg. 60th St. Bklyn Queens NJ Total Just NYC
Midnight 347 0 151 1,357 1,854 498

1 a.m. 82 20 44 784 929 146
2 a.m. 26 32 43 85 186 101
3 a.m. 30 0 43 76 149 73
4 a.m. 95 145 43 1,170 1,453 283
5 a.m. 511 1,523 73 5,712 7,819 2,107
6 a.m. 2,241 4,779 1,704 18,701 27,426 8,724
7 a.m. 5,967 10,135 4,622 32,757 53,480 20,724
8 a.m. 8,981 8,327 6,991 35,152 59,451 24,299
9 a.m. 4,617 2,171 1,679 17,514 25,980 8,467
10 a.m. 2,635 608 1,130 7,698 12,071 4,373
11 a.m. 2,397 360 951 5,190 8,897 3,708
12 noon 2,535 365 886 4,007 7,793 3,786
1 p.m. 2,308 347 967 4,153 7,775 3,622
2 p.m. 2,714 301 863 4,873 8,750 3,878
3 p.m. 3,068 443 968 6,655 11,134 4,479
4 p.m. 2,802 220 398 8,937 12,356 3,420
5 p.m. 2,795 150 375 6,775 10,095 3,320
6 p.m. 2,194 112 293 6,898 9,497 2,599
7 p.m. 1,215 113 403 5,633 7,364 1,731
8 p.m. 938 49 246 3,725 4,958 1,233
9 p.m. 715 32 230 2,741 3,718 977
10 p.m. 562 20 211 3,550 4,343 793
11 p.m. 484 5 231 2,695 3,415 720
TOTAL 50,259 30,257 23,545 186,838 290,893 104,061
Source: NYMTC, Hub-Bound Travel Report 2007, Tables, Subway By Sector, MTA NYC Transit Summary, 2007-Inbound and 200
(p 61 of 104), available via http://www.nymtc.org/data_services/HBT.html.
Row totals are from source and differ by 1 or 2 from some sums. Column totals are sums.
4. Improving Frequency of Bus Service: Cost-Benefit Calculations
This analysis, performed in late 2010 by urban planner (MS, Columbia Univ.) Josef Szende, develops metrics for estimating (i) the cos
increasing the frequency of NYC Transit bus service on selected lines, and (ii) the associated average reductions in waiting and travel
The product of the analysis is a means of estimating average system-wide time savings and ridership increases per a given commitme
$100 million/year) in increased bus operations.
A. NYC Transit Bus Routes With Highest Annual Ridership
20 routes shown are most heavily used of the 194 local routes operated by NYC Transit excluding current BRT routes.
Routes are sorted by Col. AG: Estimated weekday hrs saved per yr, from spending $1M/yr to expand service.
Ridership data are for 2009 and were extracted from MTA/NYCT website:
http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_bus.htm#top . Trips per weekday are calculated based on MTA 1/2 of Col. G
NYCT schedules available at: http://mta.info/nyct/service/bus/bussch.htm. div. by Col. /H
Riders on Riders on Riders on Trips Per Hours of Buses per

Average Average Average Weekday, both service per weekday hr, 1
Route Annual Riders Weekday Saturday Sunday ways day direction
Bx19 10,592,126 32,911 23,150 17,543 308 20 7.7

Bx15 7,940,575 23,903 19,153 14,835 239 20 6.0
Bx40/42 8,711,111 28,208 16,152 11,988 276 20 6.9
B8 7,246,154 22,420 15,385 12,879 241 20 6.0
Bx41 8,868,415 27,383 20,413 14,295 341 20 8.5
M86 8,490,733 27,380 15,485 12,566 387 20 9.7
B82 8,914,278 27,945 17,552 15,344 309 20 7.7
Q58 9,172,908 27,635 21,787 17,408 379 20 9.5
B41 12,693,709 38,658 31,884 20,858 528 20 13.2
Bx9 8,629,476 26,914 18,017 14,590 395 20 9.9
Bx36 9,803,254 30,521 20,671 16,571 407 20 10.2
M101 10,620,992 34,329 20,498 14,240 324 20 8.1
B35 12,853,601 38,864 31,216 23,241 541 20 13.5
B15 7,571,819 23,010 16,969 14,353 306 20 7.7
Q44/20 8,332,419 25,359 18,228 16,055 325 20 8.1
B6 14,046,274 44,035 29,345 22,624 556 20 13.9
B44 13,391,324 41,723 28,642 22,269 568 20 14.2
M14 12,036,852 37,913 24,531 19,363 651 20 16.3
Bx1/2 12,586,548 40,188 25,347 17,941 494 20 12.4
B46 16,816,652 51,745 39,201 27,823 792 20 19.8
ALL 20 209,319,220 651,044 453,626 346,786 8,367

###
###
###
###
###
s and service quality. ###
es per different expenditure ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
707.5 ###
###
###
###
###
###
80% ###
###
566.0 ###
###
$851.9 ###
###
###
$1.51 ###
###
###
###
###
Combined ###
(We'll use ###
these.) ###
-0.176 ###
-0.530 ###
###
Weekends Saturdays Sundays ###
###
139.0 71.5 67.5 ###
71.6 36.8 34.8 ###
67.4 34.7 32.8 ###
111.2 57.2 54.0 ###
Row 188. Saturdays/Sundays apply split from 'Subways' ###
###
$1.51 $1.51 $1.51 ###
###
###
###
$2.16 $2.16 $2.16 ###
a, from Row 51 of 'Transit' worksheet. Former enjoy fare ###
nal per-ride fare shown in Row 40 of that sheet. ###
$2.25 $2.25 ###
###
$2.16 $2.16 $2.16 ###
r-rides recv'ing discount from 'Transit' Row 51. ###
0.0% 0.0% ###
to accommodate possible zero value (if free fare). ###
0.0 0.0 ###
###
###
###
$0.81 $0.81 $0.81 ###
###
$0.81 $0.81 ###
s' tab, Row 112. ###
0.0% 0.0% ###
to accommodate possible zero value (if free fare). ###
0.0 0.0 ###
###
###
###
4.6% 4.6% ###
ing' worksheet, Row 147 and (iii) est'd system-avg duration ###
###
2.5% 2.5% ###
###
1.8 1.7 ###
###
0.9 0.9 ###
0.9 0.8 ###
###
###
###
0.9 0.9 ###
###
0.9 0.8 ###
###
1.8 1.7 ###
###
###
###
6,142 6,142 ###
ion's share of which are assigned to subways). Weekend fig. ###
and 'Motor Vs Weekends' tabs. ###
(5,840) (5,840) ###
###
303 303 ###
###
0.0 0.0 ###
###
0.0 0.0 ###
0.0 0.0 ###
###
###
3.6 1.8 1.7 ###
2.6% 2.6% 2.6% ###
ums of applicable columns. ###
0.0 0.0 0.0 ###
###
3.6 1.8 1.7 ###
###
0% 0% 0% ###
###
###
142.6 73.3 69.3 ###
###
73.4 37.8 35.7 ###
###
69.2 35.6 33.6 ###
###
###
###
$167.4 $86.1 $81.3 ###
check. That figure is subdivided into Weekdays / Weekends, and ###
###
57.3 29.4 27.8 ###
###
$123.5 $63.5 $60.0 ###
###
54.0 27.7 26.2 ###
###
$43.9 $22.6 $21.3 ###
###
$167.4 $86.1 $81.3 ###
###
54.0 30.2 28.5 ###
###
$126.7 $65.1 $61.6 ###
###
55.3 28.5 26.9 ###
###
$45.0 $23.1 $21.9 ###
###
$171.7 $88.3 $83.4 ###
###
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ###
###
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ###
###
$0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ###
###
$3.9 $2.0 $1.9 ###
###
$1.4 $0.7 $0.7 ###
###
$5.3 $2.7 $2.6 ###
###
$5.3 $2.7 $2.6 ###
###
$1.20 $1.20 $1.20 ###
###
$1.51 $1.51 $1.51 ###
###
###
###
###
Annual
Daily (000,000) ###
2,377,320 594.3 ###
46,000 11.5 ###
2,423,320 605.8 ###
###
1,283,495 147.6 ###
5,000 0.6 ###
1,288,495 148.2 ###
###
Small discrepancy
From 'Subways' tab Calculated indicates OK to use MTA ###
data to apportion annual
bus ridership into
weekday/weekend.
Small discrepancy
indicates OK to use MTA
747.0 754.0 data to apportion annual ###
bus ridership into
-0.9% weekday/weekend. ###
311.1 ###
er in this section. ###
585.2 ###
ier in this section. ###
80.3% ###
19.7% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
These data are hourly bus ridership (# of
###
passengers) entering CBD on weekdays.
Since these hourly splits apply to CBD- ###
bound trips only, they're not ideal for
estimating revenue impacts for the system ###
as a whole. For that, it would be helpful to ###
have systemwide hourly splits. Pending
those, we employ these. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
sit Summary, 2007-Inbound and 2007-Outbound ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Calculated ###
metrics for estimating (i) the cost of
as ###
e reductions in waiting and travel times.
difference
increases per a given commitment (e.g., ###
between
scheduled ###
end and Difference btw
start times sched'd end & ###
for tour start times for ###
starting at weekday tour
with closest ### Sum of avg
or closest start time to 9 wait time from
rent BRT routes. to 9 a.m., ###
a.m. Fig. Col. J and
weekdays shown is avg ### actual travel
for both time, which is
directions. ### calc'd/ w/ est'd
From NYCT: Premise is that ### distance from
"2010 NYC 9-10 a.m. 'Transit'
Transit Bus period most ### worksheet
Route Miles, as closely Col. L div. by### (Row 273) and
1/2 of 60 div. by Col. D x Col. J of June 29, matches 24-h Col. M div. by speed from Col. D x Col. P Col. M div. by
Col. I div. by 60 2010" wghtd avg. 60 ### Col. N, here. div. by 60 Col. L
###
Aggregate Rte duration ### Average trip Aggregate trip
wait time Route length (one way), ### duration, time (hrs), 1-way tours
Avg wkdy wait (hrs), typical (one way), wkdays, Weekday before, typical made per bus
time, minutes weekday miles ###
minutes speed, mph minutes weekday per hr
###
3.9 2,137 5.49 68.0 4.8
### 48.9 26,822 0.9
5.0 2,000 7.10 74.0 5.8
### 42.9 17,083 0.8
4.3 2,044 8.11 73.0 6.7
### 37.0 17,415 0.8
5.0 1,861 9.40 79.5 7.1
### 35.7 13,332 0.8
3.5 1,606 5.49 46.5 7.1
### 34.3 15,638 1.3
3.1 1,415 2.43 30.0 4.9
### 47.9 21,865 2.0
3.9 1,809 10.30 74.0 8.3
### 30.0 13,961 0.8
3.2 1,458 8.12 66.0 7.4
### 32.7 15,048 0.9
2.3 1,464 7.85 68.0 6.9
### 33.7 21,724 0.9
3.0 1,363 6.22 58.0 6.4
### 36.9 16,558 1.0
2.9 1,500 7.51 69.5 6.5
### 36.5 18,588 0.9
3.7 2,119 10.51 105.0 6.0
### 40.0 22,868 0.6
2.2 1,437 6.65 46.5 8.6
### 27.6 17,878 1.3
3.9 1,504 13.96 74.0 11.3
### 23.2 8,883 0.8
3.7 1,561 14.01 80.5 10.4
### 24.6 10,379 0.7
2.2 1,584 10.58 65.0 9.8
### 24.5 17,951 0.9
2.1 1,469 9.93 64.5 9.2
### 25.7 17,865 0.9
1.8 1,165 3.75 42.0 5.4
### 42.6 26,889 1.4
2.4 1,627 7.80 64.0 7.3
### 32.2 21,590 0.9
1.5 1,307 7.87 49.5 9.5
### 24.4 21,010 1.2
###
32,429 ### 363,349
###
### Percent of trip time (t
###
### Percent of year-round trip time (t
###
Rough
Number of allocation
vehicle-hours intended to
that could be distribute $50
purchased for million (an
one million arbitrary total)
dollars, from among bus Col. T
'Transit' lines so as to multiplied
worksheet (Cell maximize allocation
Reciprocal of Col. H x Col. R K305) div. by Col. I plus Col. 1/2 of 60 div. by Col. J less Col. improvements shown in by
Col. Q x weekdays/yr Col. S, here. T Col. U V in trip time. Col. X.
Annual veh-
# new buses hrs needed to Buses per hr, Wait time, Reduxn in Tours
needed to add add 1 tour per Tours/hr that 1 direxn, w/ minutes, w/ wait time w/ $$ allocated allocation
1 tour per hr hr $1M could add $1M $1M the $1M (millions) could add
1.1 5,667 1.0 8.7 3.4 0.46 $6.0 6.2

1.2 6,167 0.9 6.9 4.3 0.68 $5.0 4.7
1.2 6,083 1.0 7.9 3.8 0.53 $4.0 3.8
1.3 6,625 0.9 6.9 4.3 0.63 $3.0 2.6
0.8 3,875 1.5 10.0 3.0 0.53 $3.0 4.5
0.5 2,500 2.3 12.0 2.5 0.60 $3.0 7.0
1.2 6,167 0.9 8.7 3.5 0.42 $3.0 2.8
1.1 5,500 1.1 10.5 2.8 0.32 $3.0 3.2
1.1 5,667 1.0 14.2 2.1 0.16 $3.0 3.1
1.0 4,833 1.2 11.1 2.7 0.33 $2.0 2.4
1.2 5,792 1.0 11.2 2.7 0.27 $2.0 2.0
1.8 8,750 0.7 8.8 3.4 0.28 $2.0 1.3
0.8 3,875 1.5 15.0 2.0 0.22 $2.0 3.0
1.2 6,167 0.9 8.6 3.5 0.43 $2.0 1.9
1.3 6,708 0.9 9.0 3.3 0.36 $2.0 1.7
1.1 5,417 1.1 15.0 2.0 0.15 $1.0 1.1
1.1 5,375 1.1 15.3 2.0 0.15 $1.0 1.1
0.7 3,500 1.7 17.9 1.7 0.17 $1.0 1.7
1.1 5,333 1.1 13.4 2.2 0.20 $1.0 1.1
0.8 4,125 1.4 21.2 1.4 0.10 $1.0 1.4
$50 Million
Percent of trip time (travel + wait) saved (avoided) for users of these 20 lines, if amount shown above is spent annually to expand fr
Calculated as passengers' saved hours in Cell AD270, divided by all passenger hours
Percent of year-round trip time (travel + wait) saved (avoided) for entire NYC Bus system, if amount shown above is spent annually to expand fr
Percent shown in Row 272, prorated by ratio of annual passengers for those bus lines in Row 270 to annual passen
Col. AB x Col.
Dx
Col. I plus Col. 1/2 of 60 div. by Col. J less Col. Col. AB div. by Col. AE x weekdays/yr
Y Col. Z AA Col. P Col. C div. by 60
Reduxn in Aggregate
Wait time, wait time savings X-Product: time- Wkday hrs Wkday hrs
Buses per hr min., with minutes with (hrs), typical saving %, x saved per yr saved per yr
with allocation allocation allocation weekday riders w/ allocation per $1M
13.9 2.2 1.73 950 305,777 237,521 39,587

10.7 2.8 2.22 883 293,240 220,680 44,136
10.7 2.8 1.55 729 225,217 182,323 45,581
8.7 3.5 1.52 566 183,012 141,562 47,187
13.0 2.3 1.22 555 179,871 138,847 46,282
16.7 1.8 1.30 593 183,973 148,314 49,438
10.6 2.8 1.04 485 154,768 121,294 40,431
12.6 2.4 0.79 366 121,492 91,504 30,501
16.3 1.8 0.43 277 91,005 69,287 23,096
12.3 2.4 0.60 267 85,676 66,802 33,401
12.2 2.5 0.49 247 79,467 61,852 30,926
9.4 3.2 0.52 299 92,496 74,741 37,370
16.5 1.8 0.40 261 86,366 65,284 32,642
9.5 3.1 0.78 298 97,954 74,418 37,209
9.9 3.0 0.65 275 90,245 68,663 34,331
15.0 2.0 0.15 114 36,259 28,418 28,418
15.3 2.0 0.15 104 33,412 26,025 26,025
17.9 1.7 0.17 108 34,285 26,997 26,997
13.4 2.2 0.20 132 41,376 33,028 33,028
21.2 1.4 0.10 87 28,251 21,732 21,732
Time value of savings: $12 Million 7,597

bove is spent annually to expand frequency of service 2.09%
ell AD270, divided by all passenger hours for those bus lines in Cell Q270.
bove is spent annually to expand frequency of service 0.62%
se bus lines in Row 270 to annual passengers for all bus lines in Row 15.
Bus Routes
This worksheet apportions annual ridership on NYC Transit buses among the five boroughs.
All ridership data in this worksheet are from 2009. They were extracted from the MTA/NYCT website:
<http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/ridership_bus.htm>.
Borough apportionments of interborough route lengths between borough (Columns E, F, and G) are from a visual analysis by Josef Szend
based on MTA maps available at: <http://www.mta.info/maps/>. Borough Population figures are from US Census
<http://www.census.gov/popest/cities/tables/SUB-EST2009-05-36.xls>.
A. Summary Data All figures are annu
(Figures in table are drawn from Individual Route Data in Part B.)
Borough
Ridership from
Interborough Routes That
Borough % of Ridership Are Classified
Intraborough Intraborough allocable to Under Other
Borough Ridership Ridership this borough Boroughs
Bronx 100,271,192 17% 61,928,303 2,499,726
Brooklyn 208,344,217 35% 15,770,695 4,478,928
Manhattan 161,600,574 27% 2,710,239 10,724,905
Queens 95,361,299 16% 14,233,856 5,960,847
Staten Island 24,020,788 4% 6,098,683 N/A
TOTAL 589,598,070 100,741,775 23,664,405
agrees with total in Row 290 calculated from summing

borough data.
B. Individual Route Data, organized by borough
Route Rank Among All Local Routes Annual Differs from 2007 NYCT bus ridership figure shown in
'Buses' worksheet at Row 15 by just 1 percent.
Bronx
Intraborough
Bx1/2 8 12,586,548
Bx4 65 4,275,737
Bx5 69 4,114,184
Bx8 118 2,050,518
Bx9 17 8,629,476
Bx10 92 3,081,750
Bx14 166 796,818
Bx16 117 2,054,349
Bx17 80 3,577,948
Bx18 178 491,616
Bx21 49 4,843,440
Bx22 42 5,319,315
Bx25/26 99 2,779,176
Bx27 112 2,337,885
Bx28 41 5,367,467
Bx29 164 838,648
Bx30 103 2,615,215
Bx31 83 3,540,824
Bx32 124 1,938,438
Bx33 153 1,091,211
Bx34 139 1,502,469
Bx39 67 4,145,693
Bx40/42 16 8,711,111
Bx41 15 8,868,415
Bx55 53 4,712,941
Total 100,271,192
Other Borough
% In % Outside into which This
Interborough Borough Borough Route Carries
Bx3 44 5,259,590 90% 10% Manhattan
Bx6 27 6,885,145 85% 15% Manhattan
Bx7 58 4,493,954 50% 50% Manhattan
Bx11 57 4,496,405 90% 10% Manhattan
Bx12Lcl/SBS 3 14,736,515 95% 5% Manhattan
Bx13 89 3,189,605 80% 20% Manhattan
Bx15 20 7,940,575 70% 30% Manhattan
Bx19 11 10,592,126 85% 15% Manhattan
Bx20 172 540,259 70% 30% Manhattan
Bx35 52 4,715,780 90% 10% Manhattan
Bx36 12 9,803,254 95% 5% Manhattan
Total Total: 72,653,208 61,928,303 Total Allocable to this Borough
Ridership from Other Borough's Routes 2,499,726
Bronx Grand Total 164,699,221
Brooklyn
Intraborough
B1 30 6,291,932
B2 161 865,460
B3 50 4,814,152
B4 127 1,845,977
B6 4 14,046,274
B7 119 2,035,784
B8 22 7,246,154
B9 48 4,845,043
B11 74 3,953,165
B12 25 6,920,765
B14 107 2,544,156
B16 111 2,371,059
B17 61 4,431,860
B20 101 2,666,832
B23 180 446,210
B25 66 4,173,748
B26 82 3,558,444
B31 165 818,589
B35 6 12,853,601
B36 45 5,124,070
B37 158 978,012
B39 181 400,660
B41 7 12,693,709
B42 141 1,482,165
B43 75 3,899,276
B44 5 13,391,324
B45 97 2,796,785
B46 1 16,816,652
B47 68 4,141,297
B48 131 1,671,189
B49 38 5,464,059
B51 189 225,769
B52 60 4,455,699
B54 76 3,835,588
B60 55 4,584,501
B61 39 5,423,524
B63 56 4,500,359
B64 114 2,208,096
B65 142 1,479,566
B67 123 1,962,007
B68 32 6,011,680
B69 168 685,494
B70 136 1,509,235
B71 183 335,157
B74 147 1,338,203
B75 155 1,036,235
B77 150 1,268,247
B82 14 8,914,278
B83 94 2,982,176
Total 208,344,217
Other Borough
into which This
Route Carries
Other Borough
Interborough
Borough Borough Route Carries
B13 122 1,968,513 70% 30% Queens
B15 21 7,571,819 80% 20% Queens
B24 157 987,968 70% 30% Queens
B38 28 6,853,080 90% 10% Queens
B57 132 1,639,923 90% 10% Queens
Ridership from Other Boroughs' Routes 4,478,928
Brooklyn Grand Total 228,593,840
Manhattan
Intraborough
M1 51 4,747,390
M2 64 4,281,757
M3 37 5,547,407
M4 26 6,887,897
M5 72 4,005,787
M6 143 1,479,383
M7 34 5,730,503
M8 163 847,265
M9 128 1,814,151
M10 81 3,576,627
M11 63 4,328,650
M14 9 12,036,852
M15 2 16,541,900
M16 108 2,492,402
M18 186 286,422
M20 149 1,294,431
M21 171 561,567
M22 151 1,259,993
M23 43 5,312,535
M27 167 771,916
M30 182 336,313
M31 78 3,740,370
M34 102 2,658,414
M35 162 851,898
M42 79 3,702,675
M50 152 1,112,610
M57 106 2,582,016
M66 70 4,102,459
M72 121 1,975,951
M79 33 5,817,539
M86 18 8,490,733
M96 54 4,608,235
M98 160 882,720
M100 35 5,588,031
M101 10 10,620,992
M102 36 5,566,183
M103 46 4,910,896
M104 24 7,095,457
M106 173 537,478
M116 104 2,614,769
Total 161,600,574
Other Borough
Interborough
Borough Borough Route Carries
M60 40 5,420,477 50% 50% Queens
Manhattan Grand Total 175,035,717
Queens
Intraborough
Q1 138 1,502,578
Q2 120 1,988,743
Q3 93 3,075,638
Q4 84 3,451,666
Q5 71 4,077,646
Q12 86 3,331,765
Q13 100 2,740,448
Q14 170 587,634
Q15 145 1,419,377
Q16 154 1,086,780
Q17 31 6,032,270
Q20 62 4,344,178
Q26 175 518,840
Q27 23 7,144,821
Q28 91 3,106,805
Q30 98 2,786,536
Q31 130 1,716,906
Q32 59 4,457,583
Q36 129 1,777,463
Q42 185 330,542
Q43 47 4,890,266
Q46 29 6,466,673
Q48 159 917,382
Q55 110 2,478,876
Q58 13 9,172,908
Q74 179 475,738
Q75 187 239,161
Q76 133 1,547,586
Q77 125 1,883,597
Q79 192 159,361
Q83 95 2,932,063
Q84 135 1,512,803
Q85 73 3,960,425
Q88 87 3,246,241
Total 95,361,299
Other Borough
Interborough Borough Borough Route Carries
Q24 85 3,400,958 60% 40% Brooklyn
Q44 19 8,332,419 70% 30% Bronx
Q54 77 3,806,720 70% 30% Brooklyn
Q56 88 3,233,508 75% 25% Brooklyn
Q59 116 2,117,921 60% 40% Brooklyn
Queens Grand Total 115,556,002
Staten Island
Intraborough
S40/90 140 1,484,564
S42 169 591,636
S44/94 113 2,280,884
S46/96 109 2,481,664
S48/98 105 2,611,087
S51/81 144 1,449,870
S52 156 1,017,248
S54 174 530,531
S55 193 139,897
S56 190 209,943
S57 176 516,996
S59 148 1,323,294
S60 194 44,901
S61/91 146 1,370,877
S62/92 134 1,535,287
S66 177 506,283
S67 191 176,531
S74/84 126 1,872,853
S76/86 137 1,507,278
S78 115 2,136,097
S89 188 233,067
Total 24,020,788
Other Borough
Intraborough Borough Borough Route Carries
S53 90 3,156,634 95% 5% Brooklyn
S79 96 2,931,560 95% 5% Brooklyn
S93 184 331,472 95% 5% Brooklyn
Ridership from Other Borough's Routes N/A
Staten Island Grand Total 30,119,471
New York City Grand Total 714,004,250
Express Buses Rank among all Express Bus Routes Annual

X1 1 1,891,632
X2 9 346,392
X3 25 127,990
X4 22 166,864
X5 7 471,689
X6 14 231,937
X7 15 211,396
X8 12 293,237
X9 19 191,585
X10 5 856,895
X11 13 243,281
X12/42 6 569,863
X13 28 88,957
X14 20 182,119
X15 10 322,173
X16 29 88,297
X17 2 1,454,602
X18 30 77,089
X19 11 310,987
X20 31 15,012
X22 8 459,943
X30 16 209,548
X31 17 195,459
X27/37 3 935,561
X28/38 4 890,093
X29 24 135,765
X25 33 5,641
X90 21 169,146
X32 32 12,787
X51 27 93,090
X63 18 193,051
X64 26 112,997
X68 23 165,705
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
ual analysis by Josef Szende, ###

us ###
###
###
###
i g u r e s a r e a n n u a l. ###
###
###
###
###
###
Total Ridership
###
(Intraborough + Borough % of Borough Total Ridership
Interborough) Total Ridership Population per Capita
###
164,699,221 23.1% 1,391,903 118.3
###
228,593,840 32.0% 2,567,098 89.0
###
175,035,717 24.5% 1,629,054 107.4
###
115,556,002 16.2% 2,306,712 50.1
###
30,119,471 4.2% 491,730 61.3
###
714,004,250 100% 8,386,497 85.1
###
###
w 290 calculated from summing ###
rough data.
These data columns, from same MTA source, ###
aren't used in the analysis but are kept for ###
possible future use.
CT bus ridership figure shown in ###
at Row 15 by just 1 percent.
###
###
Average Average Average
Weekday Saturday Sunday ###
###
40,188 25,347 17,941 ###
13,153 10,041 7,080 ###
13,266 7,767 5,706 ###
7,303 2,204 1,362 ###
26,914 18,017 14,590 ###
10,162 4,959 4,102 ###
2,700 1,214 806 ###
7,159 2,704 1,603 ###
11,434 6,813 5,400 ###
1,681 674 492 ###
15,936 8,456 5,993 ###
17,166 10,050 7,371 ###
8,777 5,926 4,102 ###
7,433 4,738 3,396 ###
16,759 11,766 8,475 ###
2,447 2,181 1,750 ###
8,681 4,488 2,939 ###
11,729 6,004 4,199 ###
6,709 2,615 1,645 ###
3,604 1,884 1,325 ###
4,937 2,616 1,892 ###
12,996 8,962 6,410 ###
28,208 16,152 11,988 ###
27,383 20,413 14,295 ###
16,170 6,312 4,647 ###
###
###
###
16,524 10,830 8,473 ###
22,492 11,942 9,256 ###
14,154 8,911 7,451 ###
14,061 9,378 7,353 ###
45,773 32,030 24,143 ###
10,174 6,222 4,741 ###
23,903 19,153 14,835 ###
32,911 23,150 17,543 ###
1,910 1,058 0 ###
14,724 9,852 7,804 ###
30,521 20,671 16,571 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
20,017 12,404 9,627 ###
2,847 1,441 1,135 ###
14,498 11,299 9,302 ###
5,825 3,756 2,915 ###
44,035 29,345 22,624 ###
6,736 3,382 2,487 ###
22,420 15,385 12,879 ###
15,150 9,019 9,015 ###
12,829 5,287 7,114 ###
21,609 14,523 11,508 ###
7,907 5,880 3,906 ###
7,642 4,079 3,713 ###
14,212 8,480 6,470 ###
8,653 4,841 3,668 ###
1,474 576 706 ###
12,983 9,666 6,413 ###
10,811 8,690 6,154 ###
2,785 1,119 884 ###
38,864 31,216 23,241 ###
16,909 8,229 6,740 ###
3,197 1,844 1,194 ###
1,202 980 765 ###
38,658 31,884 20,858 ###
4,763 2,930 1,991 ###
12,025 9,015 6,432 ###
41,723 28,642 22,269 ###
8,627 6,629 4,448 ###
51,745 39,201 27,823 ###
12,643 10,191 6,770 ###
5,548 2,681 2,087 ###
17,586 10,051 8,164 ###
889 0 0 ###
14,050 9,467 6,719 ###
12,249 7,664 5,489 ###
14,418 9,632 7,189 ###
17,583 10,197 7,218 ###
13,161 12,050 9,193 ###
6,666 5,293 4,091 ###
4,754 2,923 2,054 ###
6,560 3,149 2,274 ###
17,988 13,368 12,783 ###
2,286 1,089 830 ###
4,770 2,967 2,472 ###
1,044 716 579 ###
4,278 2,525 2,022 ###
3,331 2,154 1,336 ###
3,983 2,721 1,928 ###
27,945 17,552 15,344 ###
9,419 6,027 4,707 ###
###
###
###
###
6,373 3,660 2,711 ###
23,010 16,969 14,353 ###
3,210 1,805 1,333 ###
22,043 13,362 9,515 ###
5,471 2,688 1,830 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
15,898 7,549 5,428 ###
13,923 7,755 5,900 ###
17,410 11,946 8,608 ###
22,499 11,872 9,580 ###
11,947 10,122 7,675 ###
4,479 3,559 2,658 ###
17,398 13,218 10,785 ###
2,811 1,353 1,076 ###
5,844 3,197 2,795 ###
10,903 8,316 6,439 ###
13,823 7,862 7,066 ###
37,913 24,531 19,363 ###
53,358 29,533 24,972 ###
8,376 3,719 2,932 ###
950 416 412 ###
4,014 2,953 2,082 ###
1,923 792 551 ###
4,250 1,943 1,334 ###
17,671 8,993 6,131 ###
2,813 637 404 ###
1,324 0 0 ###
12,444 6,124 4,464 ###
8,963 3,904 3,077 ###
2,553 2,012 1,690 ###
12,847 4,501 3,418 ###
3,914 1,179 959 ###
8,488 4,594 3,202 ###
14,056 5,631 4,091 ###
6,573 3,106 2,491 ###
18,920 10,232 8,290 ###
27,380 15,485 12,566 ###
15,340 7,000 5,989 ###
3,475 0 0 ###
17,548 11,473 9,160 ###
34,329 20,498 14,240 ###
17,104 12,691 9,665 ###
15,032 11,068 8,909 ###
21,233 17,460 13,810 ###
1,890 546 500 ###
8,647 4,333 3,277 ###
###
###
###
###
16,356 12,251 10,648 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
4,847 2,882 2,043 ###
6,340 3,969 2,891 ###
9,538 6,649 5,202 ###
11,186 6,389 4,699 ###
12,750 9,081 6,197 ###
10,251 7,293 5,941 ###
8,516 6,306 4,202 ###
1,957 951 697 ###
4,685 2,567 1,602 ###
3,666 1,665 1,164 ###
18,819 12,597 10,163 ###
13,756 8,770 6,717 ###
2,043 0 0 ###
23,345 12,605 9,526 ###
10,103 5,541 4,271 ###
9,674 3,651 2,360 ###
6,254 1,450 902 ###
13,545 10,545 8,121 ###
5,659 3,589 2,596 ###
1,301 0 0 ###
16,290 7,789 5,868 ###
21,711 9,910 7,404 ###
2,766 2,183 1,714 ###
7,983 4,762 3,450 ###
27,635 21,787 17,408 ###
1,873 0 0 ###
942 0 0 ###
5,707 1,884 0 ###
6,939 2,333 0 ###
598 145 0 ###
9,523 5,376 3,923 ###
5,109 2,283 1,603 ###
12,858 7,342 5,281 ###
10,913 5,490 3,201 ###
###
###
###
10,585 7,474 5,535 ###
25,359 18,228 16,055 ###
12,125 7,849 5,403 ###
9,933 7,762 5,242 ###
6,725 4,481 2,994 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
4,825 2,623 2,054 ###
2,017 778 665 ###
7,216 4,633 3,500 ###
8,058 4,499 3,385 ###
8,204 5,619 3,985 ###
4,723 2,513 1,985 ###
3,314 1,742 1,431 ###
1,856 679 392 ###
551 0 0 ###
827 0 0 ###
1,690 915 684 ###
4,186 2,928 1,842 ###
165 33 25 ###
4,318 2,865 2,114 ###
4,942 3,004 2,115 ###
1,993 0 0 ###
695 0 0 ###
5,889 4,014 2,826 ###
5,094 2,245 1,626 ###
6,856 4,112 3,070 ###
918 0 0 ###
###
###
###
9,650 7,198 5,616 ###
8,841 7,263 5,241 ###
1,305 0 0 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
6,406 2,994 1,825 ###
1,364 0 0 ###
504 0 0 ###
657 0 0 ###
1,857 0 0 ###
913 0 0 ###
832 0 0 ###
1,154 0 0 ###
754 0 0 ###
2,849 1,436 982 ###
958 0 0 ###
2,244 0 0 ###
350 0 0 ###
717 0 0 ###
1,269 0 0 ###
348 0 0 ###
5,529 958 0 ###
304 0 0 ###
1,224 0 0 ###
59 0 0 ###
1,811 0 0 ###
825 0 0 ###
770 0 0 ###
3,462 617 415 ###
3,352 438 271 ###
535 0 0 ###
22 0 0 ###
666 0 0 ###
50 0 0 ###
367 0 0 ###
760 0 0 ###
445 0 0 ###
652 0 0 ###
Bus Boarding
This worksheet estimates impacts on bus trip times from (i) fare-free boarding and (ii) improved traffic flow. The fare-free boarding analysis
heavily on a spreadsheet created by NYC Transit staff as part of their early planning effort for Bus Rapid Transit, which was provided to the
Team in 2007. (Copy available on request.) Among NYCT's twelve modeled scenarios were several involving fare prepayment, of which th
most analogous to free transit is reproduced further below.
Methodology: For a specific NYC Transit bus route, we net, from actual travel times clocked by NYCT, the estimated reductions in "dwell tim
(curbside stops to admit and remove passengers) that would be achieved by eliminating the time expended by passengers swiping their M
as they board. Although actual dwell times were measured for current conditions (Metrocard payment), NYCT calculated the "new" (pre-pa
dwell times using standard industry time factors for boarding and departing. Moreover, NYCT did these calculations for a three-door (articu
whereas most NYCT buses are conventional two-door models. We therefore adjusted the calculations to a two-door model.
Section A presents the NYCT time measurements for current conditions and estimated times for a three-door scenario.
Section B adjusts the NYCT time three-door scenario to a two-door scenario.
Sections C and D combine trip time savings from pre-payment with time savings from reduced traffic due to the tolls.
A. NYC Transit Bus Boarding Spreadsheet: A 3-Door Scenario
The NYCT spreadsheet draws on the authority's stopwatch measurements of time consumed by passenger boardings and departures ("ali
at all 19 stops on the Bx12, from Broadway and W 207th St in Manhattan, to Bay Plaza Blvd in front of the JC Penney store in the Bronx. T
times between stops were calculated as well (including traffic-signal stops), and the dwell times (curb stops) and travel times were summed
MTA then applied "standard" transit-industry boarding and alighting times for a range of different scenarios, of which we present one in this
a modification in Part B, below. Please note that these times are posited (based on standard factors -- see below), rather than measured fo
Bx12.
Actual Travel Time, Dwell Time, and Passenger Data

These six columns are reproduced verbatim from MTA's spreadsheet
Note: first row below, w/ 17 boarders in 19 seconds, strains credulity.
Loading Number of Number of

Com-pletion Departure Total Dwell Riders Riders
Bus Stop Arrival Time Time Time Time mm:ss Boarding Alighting
Broadway and W 207th St 9:22:01 9:22:19 9:22:20 00:19 17 0
W 207th St and Sherman Av 9:25:07 9:25:56 9:26:02 00:55 8 0
W 207th St and 10th Av 9:27:33 9:28:26 9:28:31 00:58 11 1
W Fordham Rd and Cedar Av 9:30:01 n/a 9:30:02 00:01 0 0
W Fordham Rd and Sedgwick Av 9:31:18 9:32:13 9:32:17 00:59 9 1
W Fordham Rd and University Av 9:34:20 9:35:26 9:35:32 01:12 14 3
E Fordham Rd and Jerome Av 9:36:53 9:38:24 9:38:32 01:39 24 10
E Fordham Rd and Valentine Av 9:40:08 9:41:43 9:41:45 01:37 19 17
E Fordham Rd and Fordham Plz 9:43:55 9:46:09 9:46:14 02:19 23 30
E Fordham Rd and Southern Bl 9:50:52 9:51:15 9:51:17 00:25 3 5
Pelham Pky and White Plains Rd 9:56:47 9:57:44 9:57:50 01:03 16 15
Pelham Pky and Williamsbridge Rd 10:00:45 10:01:40 10:01:41 00:56 7 13
Pelham Pky and Jacobi Hosp 10:04:03 10:04:38 10:04:47 00:44 0 20
Pelham Pky and Eastchester Rd 10:05:47 10:06:18 10:06:18 00:31 3 7
Pelham Pky and Stillwell Av 10:07:15 10:07:29 10:07:31 00:16 1 1
Pelham Pky and St. Paul Av 10:09:06 10:09:13 10:09:17 00:11 7 1
Charels Crimi Rd and Subway Overpass 10:10:40 10:11:32 10:11:33 00:53 0 15
Baychester Av and N.E. Thruway Exit Ra 10:16:21 10:16:43 10:16:44 00:23 0 0
Bay Plaza Bl and Opp Barnes & Nobles 10:17:00 n/a 10:17:35 00:35 0 8
Bay Plaza Bl and IFO JC Penney 10:17:58 10:18:18 Terminus 00:20 0 18
TOTALS Total Actual Trip Time: 56:17 16:16 162 165
TOTALS converted to seconds 976
% Reduction in Total Dwell Time for (one minus ratio of total dwell time in
82.8%
Scenario E2 column AE to dwell time in column F)
NYCT time factors; are inputted into columns O, Q, S, U, W, Y and AA

min max
Boarding (all doors) 0.88 1.06
Alighting (front door) seconds per 1.28 1.54
Alighting (rear&middle door) passenger 0.68 0.82
Door Closure 2.00 2.00
B. NYC Transit Bus Boarding Spreadsheet: A 2-Door Scenario Constructed by Komanoff
The data in Part A assume a bus with three doors. This assumption tends to overstate the savings in dwell time from eliminating fare collec
buses have two doors. (The three-door scenario presumably was constructed to model a Bus Rapid Transit system with pre-payment that
Below, we have modified the NYCT three-door scenario for two doors only. Accordingly, what follows is our own rendition of the NYCT spre
have strived to make as reasonable as possible.
Actual Travel Time, Dwell Time, and Passenger Data

These six columns are reproduced exactly from the MTA's spreadsheet
Note: Row 77, below, w/ 17 boarders in 19 seconds, strains credulity.
Loading Number of Number of

Com-pletion Departure Total Dwell Riders Riders
Bus Stop Arrival Time Time Time Time mm:ss Boarding Alighting
Broadway and W 207th St 9:22:01 9:22:19 9:22:20 00:19 17 0
W 207th St and Sherman Av 9:25:07 9:25:56 9:26:02 00:55 8 0
W 207th St and 10th Av 9:27:33 9:28:26 9:28:31 00:58 11 1
W Fordham Rd and Cedar Av 9:30:01 n/a 9:30:02 00:01 0 0
W Fordham Rd and Sedgwick Av 9:31:18 9:32:13 9:32:17 00:59 9 1
W Fordham Rd and University Av 9:34:20 9:35:26 9:35:32 01:12 14 3
E Fordham Rd and Jerome Av 9:36:53 9:38:24 9:38:32 01:39 24 10
E Fordham Rd and Valentine Av 9:40:08 9:41:43 9:41:45 01:37 19 17
E Fordham Rd and Fordham Plz 9:43:55 9:46:09 9:46:14 02:19 23 30
E Fordham Rd and Southern Bl 9:50:52 9:51:15 9:51:17 00:25 3 5
Pelham Pky and White Plains Rd 9:56:47 9:57:44 9:57:50 01:03 16 15
Pelham Pky and Williamsbridge Rd 10:00:45 10:01:40 10:01:41 00:56 7 13
Pelham Pky and Jacobi Hosp 10:04:03 10:04:38 10:04:47 00:44 0 20
Pelham Pky and Eastchester Rd 10:05:47 10:06:18 10:06:18 00:31 3 7
Pelham Pky and Stillwell Av 10:07:15 10:07:29 10:07:31 00:16 1 1
Pelham Pky and St. Paul Av 10:09:06 10:09:13 10:09:17 00:11 7 1
Charels Crimi Rd and Subway Overpass 10:10:40 10:11:32 10:11:33 00:53 0 15
Baychester Av and N.E. Thruway Exit Ra 10:16:21 10:16:43 10:16:44 00:23 0 0
Bay Plaza Bl and Opp Barnes & Nobles 10:17:00 n/a 10:17:35 00:35 0 8
Bay Plaza Bl and IFO JC Penney 10:17:58 10:18:18 Terminus 00:20 0 18
TOTALS Total Actual Trip Time: 56:17 16:16 162 165
TOTALS converted to seconds 976
% Reduction in Total Dwell Time for (one minus ratio of total dwell time in
Scenario E2 modified to two doors column AE to dwell time in column F)
76.6%
NYCT time factors; are inputted into columns O, Q, S, U, W, Y and AA

min max
Boarding (all doors) 0.88 1.06
Alighting (front door) seconds per 1.28 1.54
Alighting (rear&middle door) passenger 0.68 0.82
Door Closure 2.00 2.00
C. Estimated Impact of Fare-Free Boarding (based on our distillation of NYCT Spreadsheet)

This part assumes fare-free boarding
Fare-Free Boarding Impact Only

Total Observed Time for 'A' (in minutes and seconds, from Row 97).
Total Trip Time Observed for "A" (above value, in seconds)
Dwell Times (in minutes and seconds, also from Row 97).
Dwell Time (above values, in seconds)
Dwell Time, % of total trip time (not used in any subsequent calculation, but an interesting figure)
Saved Dwell Time from eliminating fare payment (in seconds) (difference betw Cols A & B dwell times)
% of Dwell Time saved by eliminating fare payment
Implied Traveling Time in any scenario (in seconds; difference between Rows 118 and 120).
% of Total Trip Time Eliminated by Saved Dwell Time (Row 122 'B' Col. divided by Row 118 'A' Col.)
Implied Improvement in Bus Speeds (one less than reciprocal of complement of Row 125 figure)
Add Impact of Reduced Traffic

% Change in Auto Travel due to traffic plan selected (in Results worksheet) by user (from VMT worksheet)
Autos' share of citywide VMT (Schaller, "City in Flux," 2007, p. 5: "Autos account for est' 75% of VMT in the 5 boroughs")
% Reduction in non-auto travel (cabs, trucks, buses), relative to auto VMT reduction (Komanoff est.)
% Change in non-auto travel due to traffic plan selected (product of Rows 129 and 131).
% Change in citywide VMT due to traffic plan selected by user (wghtd avg using above %'s)
% Reduction in Bus Travel Time due to traffic plan (excludes wait time) Here we assume 1-to-1 relation betw %
Saved Time (in seconds) from Reduced traffic (prior % x Row 124) changes in VMT and travel times
Travel Time w/ selected traffic plan VMT (in seconds) (Row 124 less Row 135)
Total Trip Time, in seconds, with traffic plan (sum of Rows 136 and 120)
Total Time Saved, in seconds, w/ traffic plan (difference betw Rows 118 and 137; is also sum of Rows 122 and 135)
Above, as % of baseline bus travel time
D. Reduce for Conservatism (Bx12 used as basis has greater-than-average dwell time (is system's 5th busiest); and also on general principles)
This part does not assume fare-free boarding, since that applies if and only if the user-chosen scenario includes free NYCT
Percentage by which we elect to reduce the savings in dwell time shown in Row 122, for conservatism
Adjusted savings in dwell time, seconds (product of Row 122 and complement of Row 144)
Adjusted total savings in travel time (sum of Rows 145 and 135)
Total time savings as % of baseline bus travel time (Row 146 divided by Row 118)
Same as above, from dwell time only (excludes effect of lighter traffic) (Row 145 divided by Row 118)
Note: For NYCDOT's video documentation of boarding-time savings from prepaying bus fares, see: http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/html/ferrybus/select
Note: Daily News May 26, 2009 has article re new buses w/ easier exit-door operation which should reduce boarding gridlock and, hence, time savi
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2009/05/26/2009-05-26_new_buses_feature_exit_sensors.html
1/6/2012
he fare-free boarding analysis draws

nsit, which was provided to the Kheel
fare prepayment, of which the one
timated reductions in "dwell times"

by passengers swiping their Metrocards
T calculated the "new" (pre-payment)
lations for a three-door (articulated) bus,
wo-door model.
boardings and departures ("alightings")

C Penney store in the Bronx. Travel
and travel times were summed. The
f which we present one in this part and
elow), rather than measured for the
Scenario E2: Low Floor Vehicle, Three Doors, Boarding All Doors, Alighting All Doors, Pre-Pay Fare Pay
These cols. are from MTA spreadsheet, worksheet "tab" E2, reformatted for clarity.
Assumed Boarding and Alighting Distribution Enter min or max in cell at right to choose MTA's "min
# of Riders # of Riders # of Riders # of Riders # of Riders # of Riders

Boarding Boarding Boarding Alighting Alighting Alighting
thru Front thru Middle thru Rear thru Front thru Middle thru Rear Boarding Estimated Alighting
Door Door Door Door Door Door Front Door Boarding Front Door
[assumed to [assumed to [assumed to [assumed to [assumed to [assumed to Factor, Front Door Factor,
be 40% of be 30% of be 30% of be 10% of be 50% of be 40% of Seconds / Time Seconds /
Total] Total] Total] Total] Total] Total] Rider [seconds] Rider
7 5 5 0 0 0 1.06 7.42 1.54
3 3 2 0 0 0 1.06 3.18 1.54
4 4 3 0 1 0 1.06 4.24 1.54
0 0 0 0 0 0 1.06 0.00 1.54
4 3 2 0 1 0 1.06 4.24 1.54
6 4 4 0 2 1 1.06 6.36 1.54
10 7 7 1 5 4 1.06 10.60 1.54
8 6 5 2 8 7 1.06 8.48 1.54
9 7 7 3 15 12 1.06 9.54 1.54
1 1 1 0 3 2 1.06 1.06 1.54
6 5 5 1 8 6 1.06 6.36 1.54
3 2 2 1 7 5 1.06 3.18 1.54
0 0 0 2 10 8 1.06 0.00 1.54
1 1 1 0 4 3 1.06 1.06 1.54
1 0 0 0 1 0 1.06 1.06 1.54
3 2 2 0 1 0 1.06 3.18 1.54
0 0 0 1 8 6 1.06 0.00 1.54
0 0 0 0 0 0 1.06 0.00 1.54
0 0 0 1 4 3 1.06 0.00 1.54
0 0 0 2 9 7 1.06 0.00 1.54
66 50 46 14 87 64 69.96
Assumed Boarding and Alighting Distribution (text reproduced from NYCT spreadsheet)
Boarding distribution assumes 40% of passengers board through front door, 30% through middle door, and 30%
through rear door. Alighting distribution assumes 10% of passengers exit from front door, 50% from middle door, and The model is based on factors for low
40% from rear door. Boarding, through all doors, is based
1.28 seconds per passenger, increas
by 20% to .82 when significant board
me from eliminating fare collection, since all NYCT

system with pre-payment that mimics subway cars.)
wn rendition of the NYCT spreadsheet, which we
Scenario CK: Low Floor Vehicle, Two Doors, Boarding All Doors, Alighting All Doors, Pre-Pay Fare Pay
Assumed Boarding and Alighting Distribution Enter min or max in cell at right to choose MTA's "min
# of Riders # of Riders
Boarding # of Riders # of Riders Alighting # of Riders # of Riders
thru Front Boarding Boarding thru Front Alighting Alighting Boarding Estimated Alighting
Door thru Middle thru Rear Door thru Middle thru Rear Front Door Boarding Front Door
[assumed to Door Door [assumed to Door Door Factor, Front Door Factor,
be 60% of [assumed to [remaining be 20% of [assumed to [remaining Seconds / Time Seconds /
Total] be zero] 40% of Total] Total] be zero] 80% of Total] Rider [seconds] Rider
10 0 7 0 0 0 1.06 10.60 1.54
5 0 3 0 0 0 1.06 5.30 1.54
7 0 4 0 0 1 1.06 7.42 1.54
0 0 0 0 0 0 1.06 0.00 1.54
5 0 4 0 0 1 1.06 5.30 1.54
8 0 6 1 0 2 1.06 8.48 1.54
14 0 10 2 0 8 1.06 14.84 1.54
11 0 8 3 0 14 1.06 11.66 1.54
14 0 9 6 0 24 1.06 14.84 1.54
2 0 1 1 0 4 1.06 2.12 1.54
10 0 6 3 0 12 1.06 10.60 1.54
4 0 3 3 0 10 1.06 4.24 1.54
0 0 0 4 0 16 1.06 0.00 1.54
2 0 1 1 0 6 1.06 2.12 1.54
1 0 0 0 0 1 1.06 1.06 1.54
4 0 3 0 0 1 1.06 4.24 1.54
0 0 0 3 0 12 1.06 0.00 1.54
0 0 0 0 0 0 1.06 0.00 1.54
0 0 0 2 0 6 1.06 0.00 1.54
0 0 0 4 0 14 1.06 0.00 1.54
97 0 65 33 0 132 102.82
A
Assumed Boarding and Alighting Distribution (per Komanoff)
Boarding distribution, est'd by Komanoff, assumes 60% of passengers board through front door and 40% through rear
The model is based on factors for low
door. Alighting distribution assumes 20% of passengers exit from front door and 80% from rear door.
Boarding, through all doors, is based
1.28 seconds per passenger, increas
by 20% to .82 when significant board
Current
NYCT's "Scenario E2: Low
situation,
Floor Vehicle, Three Doors,
measured by
Boarding All Doors, Alighting
MTA, shown
All Doors, Pre-Pay Fare
in "Actual
Payment" modified to two
Travel Time"
doors in Part B, above, with
columns in
boarding/alighting factors set
Parts A and B,
to min or max
above.
A B
max
56:17
3,377
16:16 3:48
976 228
28.9%
748
76.6%
2,401
22.1%
28.4%
-4.39%
75%
50%
-2.19%
-3.8%
3.8%
92
2,309
2,537
840
24.9%
and also on general principles)

scenario includes free NYCT buses
20%
0
92
2.7%
0.0%
.gov/html/dot/html/ferrybus/selectbusservice.shtml (last accessed 24-April-2009).
ng gridlock and, hence, time savings from fare elimination. See link:
lighting All Doors, Pre-Pay Fare Payment
in cell at right to choose MTA's "minimum" or "maximum" boarding times. max
Estimated Boarding Estimated Alighting Estimated Boarding Estimated Alighting Estimated

Alighting Middle Door Boarding Middle Door Alighting Rear Door Boarding Rear Door Alighting
Time Front Factor, Middle Door Factor, Middle Rear Factor, Rear Door Factor, Time Rear
Door Seconds / Time Seconds / Door Seconds / Time Seconds / Door
[seconds] Rider [seconds] Rider [seconds] Rider [seconds] Rider [seconds]
0.00 1.06 5.30 0.82 0.00 1.06 5.30 0.82 0.00
0.00 1.06 3.18 0.82 0.00 1.06 2.12 0.82 0.00
0.00 1.06 4.24 0.82 0.82 1.06 3.18 0.82 0.00
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00
0.00 1.06 3.18 0.82 0.82 1.06 2.12 0.82 0.00
0.00 1.06 4.24 0.82 1.64 1.06 4.24 0.82 0.82
1.54 1.06 7.42 0.82 4.10 1.06 7.42 0.82 3.28
3.08 1.06 6.36 0.82 6.56 1.06 5.30 0.82 5.74
4.62 1.06 7.42 0.82 12.30 1.06 7.42 0.82 9.84
0.00 1.06 1.06 0.82 2.46 1.06 1.06 0.82 1.64
1.54 1.06 5.30 0.82 6.56 1.06 5.30 0.82 4.92
1.54 1.06 2.12 0.82 5.74 1.06 2.12 0.82 4.10
3.08 1.06 0.00 0.82 8.20 1.06 0.00 0.82 6.56
0.00 1.06 1.06 0.82 3.28 1.06 1.06 0.82 2.46
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.82 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00
0.00 1.06 2.12 0.82 0.82 1.06 2.12 0.82 0.00
1.54 1.06 0.00 0.82 6.56 1.06 0.00 0.82 4.92
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00
1.54 1.06 0.00 0.82 3.28 1.06 0.00 0.82 2.46
3.08 1.06 0.00 0.82 7.38 1.06 0.00 0.82 5.74
21.56 53.00 71.34 48.76 52.48
Scenario E2 (text reproduced from NYCT spreadsheet)
The model is based on factors for low-floor vehicles cited in TCRP's Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. These factors assume pre-pay boarding through all thre
Boarding, through all doors, is based on a factor of .88 seconds per passenger, increased by 20% to 1.06 when significant alighting occurs through the same door. Alightin
1.28 seconds per passenger, increased by 20% to 1.54 when significant boarding occurs through the same door. Alighting Middle and Rear Door is based on a factor of .6
by 20% to .82 when significant boarding occurs through the same door. Door Closure time of 2 seconds is based on TCRP statistics as well as a review of original NYCT da
ighting All Doors, Pre-Pay Fare Payment

See Rows 103-106 for MTA factors.
in cell at right to choose MTA's "minimum" or "maximum" boarding times. max
Estimated Boarding Estimated Alighting Estimated Boarding Estimated Alighting Estimated

Alighting Middle Door Boarding Middle Door Alighting Rear Door Boarding Rear Door Alighting
Time Front Factor, Middle Door Factor, Middle Rear Factor, Rear Door Factor, Time Rear
Door Seconds / Time Seconds / Door Seconds / Time Seconds / Door
[seconds] Rider [seconds] Rider [seconds] Rider [seconds] Rider [seconds]
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 7.42 0.82 0.00
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 3.18 0.82 0.00
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 4.24 0.82 0.82
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 4.24 0.82 0.82
1.54 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 6.36 0.82 1.64
3.08 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 10.60 0.82 6.56
4.62 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 8.48 0.82 11.48
9.24 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 9.54 0.82 19.68
1.54 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.82 3.28
4.62 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 6.36 0.82 9.84
4.62 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 3.18 0.82 8.20
6.16 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 13.12
1.54 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 1.06 0.82 4.92
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.82
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 3.18 0.82 0.82
4.62 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 9.84
0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00
3.08 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 4.92
6.16 1.06 0.00 0.82 0.00 1.06 0.00 0.82 11.48
50.82 0.00 0.00 68.90 108.24
ASSUMPTIONS
Scenario E2 (text reproduced from NYCT spreadsheet)
The model is based on factors for low-floor vehicles cited in TCRP's Transit Capacity and Quality of Service Manual. These factors assume pre-pay boarding through all thre
Boarding, through all doors, is based on a factor of .88 seconds per passenger, increased by 20% to 1.06 when significant alighting occurs through the same door. Alightin
1.28 seconds per passenger, increased by 20% to 1.54 when significant boarding occurs through the same door. Alighting Middle and Rear Door is based on a factor of .6
by 20% to .82 when significant boarding occurs through the same door. Door Closure time of 2 seconds is based on TCRP statistics as well as a review of original NYCT da
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Front Door Middle Door Rear Door Max. Dwell Time

Dwell Time Dwell Time Dwell Time for all doors
(Boarding + (Boarding (Boarding + (Front, Middle,
Alighting + Alighting + Alighting + Rear) [seconds]
Door Closure Door Door Door A new data
Time Closure) Closure) Closure) column by
[seconds] [seconds] [seconds] [seconds] Komanoff ###
2.00 9.42 7.30 7.30 9.42 ###
2.00 5.18 5.18 4.12 5.18 ###
2.00 6.24 7.06 5.18 7.06 ###
2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 ###
2.00 6.24 6.00 4.12 6.24 ###
2.00 8.36 7.88 7.06 8.36 ###
2.00 14.14 13.52 12.70 14.14 ###
2.00 13.56 14.92 13.04 14.92 ###
2.00 16.16 21.72 19.26 21.72 ###
2.00 3.06 5.52 4.70 5.52 ###
2.00 9.90 13.86 12.22 13.86 ###
2.00 6.72 9.86 8.22 9.86 ###
2.00 5.08 10.20 8.56 10.20 ###
2.00 3.06 6.34 5.52 6.34 ###
2.00 3.06 2.82 2.00 3.06 ###
2.00 5.18 4.94 4.12 5.18 ###
2.00 3.54 8.56 6.92 8.56 ###
2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 ###
2.00 3.54 5.28 4.46 5.28 ###
2.00 5.08 9.38 7.74 9.38 ###
131.52 164.34 141.24 168.28 ###
168.28 ###
2 Minutes, 48.28
Seconds ###
###
###
ume pre-pay boarding through all three doors of a low floor vehicle. ###
ccurs through the same door. Alighting Front Door is based on a factor of
d Rear Door is based on a factor of .68 seconds per passenger, increased ###
as well as a review of original NYCT data. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Front Door Middle Door Rear Door Max. Dwell Time

Dwell Time Dwell Time Dwell Time for all doors
(Boarding + (Boarding (Boarding + (Front, Middle,
Alighting + Alighting + Alighting + Rear) [seconds]
Door Closure Door Door Door A new data
Time Closure) Closure) Closure) column by
[seconds] [seconds] [seconds] [seconds] Komanoff ###
2.00 12.60 2.00 9.42 12.60 ###
2.00 7.30 2.00 5.18 7.30 ###
2.00 9.42 2.00 7.06 9.42 ###
2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 ###
2.00 7.30 2.00 7.06 7.30 ###
2.00 12.02 2.00 10.00 12.02 ###
2.00 19.92 2.00 19.16 19.92 ###
2.00 18.28 2.00 21.96 21.96 ###
2.00 26.08 2.00 31.22 31.22 ###
2.00 5.66 2.00 6.34 6.34 ###
2.00 17.22 2.00 18.20 18.20 ###
2.00 10.86 2.00 13.38 13.38 ###
2.00 8.16 2.00 15.12 15.12 ###
2.00 5.66 2.00 7.98 7.98 ###
2.00 3.06 2.00 2.82 3.06 ###
2.00 6.24 2.00 6.00 6.24 ###
2.00 6.62 2.00 11.84 11.84 ###
2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 ###
2.00 5.08 2.00 6.92 6.92 ###
2.00 8.16 2.00 13.48 13.48 ###
193.64 40.00 217.14 228.30 ###
228.30 ###
3 Minutes, 48.3
Seconds ###
###
###
ume pre-pay boarding through all three doors of a low floor vehicle. ###
ccurs through the same door. Alighting Front Door is based on a factor of
d Rear Door is based on a factor of .68 seconds per passenger, increased ###
as well as a review of original NYCT data. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
1-hr period, % of Daily Hourly Vol., % of Hourly % of Daily Work-trip % of
starting: Hourly Volume Total Rank Mean Hour Rate Class Toll "Bin" Toll Volume Total ### Daily Total
Midnight 16,324 1.71% 20 41% Graveyard 1 $3.00 27,096 2.85% ### 1.7% 0.31%
1 a.m. 10,588 1.11% 22 27% Graveyard 1 $3.00 17,911 1.88% ### 1.1% 0.20%
2 a.m. 8,443 0.88% 24 21% Graveyard 1 $3.00 12,609 1.33% ### 0.9% 0.16%
3 a.m. 9,014 0.94% 23 23% Graveyard 1 $3.00 10,784 1.13% ### 0.9% 0.17%
4 a.m. 14,408 1.51% 21 36% Graveyard 1 $3.00 13,328 1.40% ### 1.5% 0.28%
5 a.m. 33,547 3.51% 17 84% A.M. Pre-peak 2 $7.00 21,317 2.24% ### 3.5% 2.40%
6 a.m. 61,130 6.40% 3 154% A.M. Peak 5 $9.50 35,615 3.74% ### 6.4% 4.67%
7 a.m. 68,198 7.14% 1 171% A.M. Peak 5 $9.50 43,227 4.54% ### 7.1% 5.21%
8 a.m. 64,188 6.72% 2 161% A.M. Peak 5 $9.50 44,008 4.63% ### 6.7% 4.91%
9 a.m. 57,231 5.99% 4 144% A.M. Post-peak 4 $9.50 39,189 4.12% ### 6.0% 3.55%
10 a.m. 49,527 5.18% 9 124% Midday Peak 3 $7.00 38,318 4.03% ### 5.2% 2.60%
11 a.m. 46,099 4.82% 11 116% Midday Peak 3 $7.00 38,714 4.07% ### 4.8% 2.42%
12 noon 44,220 4.63% 14 111% Midday Peak 3 $7.00 40,968 4.31% ### 4.6% 2.32%
1 p.m. 44,721 4.68% 13 112% Midday Peak 3 $7.00 44,445 4.67% ### 4.7% 2.35%
2 p.m. 48,353 5.06% 10 121% P.M. Peak 4 $9.50 50,787 5.34% ### 5.1% 1.73%
3 p.m. 50,444 5.28% 8 127% P.M. Peak 4 $9.50 58,761 6.18% ### 5.3% 1.81%
4 p.m. 51,772 5.42% 6 130% P.M. Peak 4 $9.50 63,294 6.65% ### 5.4% 1.85%
5 p.m. 53,050 5.55% 5 133% P.M. Peak 4 $9.50 63,113 6.63% ### 5.6% 1.90%
6 p.m. 50,597 5.29% 7 127% P.M. Peak 4 $9.50 59,255 6.23% ### 5.3% 1.81%
7 p.m. 45,237 4.73% 12 114% P.M. Peak 4 $9.50 54,997 5.78% ### 4.7% 1.62%
8 p.m. 37,660 3.94% 15 95% P.M. Post-peak 2 $7.00 50,276 5.28% ### 3.9% 1.08%
9 p.m. 34,404 3.60% 16 86% P.M. Post-peak 2 $7.00 45,518 4.78% ### 3.6% 0.99%
10 p.m. 32,024 3.35% 18 80% P.M. Post-peak 2 $7.00 41,978 4.41% ### 3.4% 0.92%
11 p.m. 24,483 2.56% 19 61% Graveyard 1 $3.00 35,948 3.78% ### 2.6% 0.47%
24 hrs 955,662 100.0% $8.09 951,456 100.0% ### 100.0% 45.7%
### Sums of figures in colu
avg hour 39,819 ### almost pe
Wghtd avg toll (before trip
resettlements to lower-toll ###
periods)
###
Non-work-trip % Thru-trip % Daily Work-trip % of Daily Non-wk trip% of Thru trip% of Thru
Daily Total Total Work Tot. Non-wk Tot. Tot.
0.64% 0.76% 0.68% 1.98% 3.42%
0.41% 0.49% 0.44% 1.29% 2.22%
0.33% 0.39% 0.35% 1.03% 1.77%
0.35% 0.42% 0.38% 1.10% 1.89%
0.56% 0.67% 0.60% 1.75% 3.02%
0.33% 0.78% 5.25% 1.02% 3.52%
0.87% 0.85% 10.21% 2.72% 3.85%
0.97% 0.95% 11.39% 3.03% 4.29%
0.91% 0.90% 10.72% 2.85% 4.04%
1.64% 0.80% 7.77% 5.10% 3.60%
1.66% 0.92% 5.69% 5.17% 4.15%
1.54% 0.86% 5.29% 4.81% 3.87%
1.48% 0.82% 5.08% 4.62% 3.71%
1.50% 0.83% 5.14% 4.67% 3.75%
2.20% 1.13% 3.79% 6.87% 5.07%
2.30% 1.17% 3.95% 7.17% 5.29%
2.36% 1.21% 4.05% 7.36% 5.43%
2.42% 1.24% 4.15% 7.54% 5.56%
2.30% 1.18% 3.96% 7.19% 5.31%
2.06% 1.05% 3.54% 6.43% 4.74%
1.55% 1.32% 2.36% 4.82% 5.92%
1.41% 1.20% 2.16% 4.41% 5.41%
1.31% 1.12% 2.01% 4.10% 5.04%
0.95% 1.14% 1.02% 2.98% 5.13%
32.1% 22.2% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
igures in columns match actual 24-h totals
almost perfectly.
Work Non-Work Thru
Each array element is respective share of inbound auto

trip types (work, non-work, thru) occurring in the
1-hr period, % of Daily Hourly Vol., % of Hourly % of Daily Work-trip % of
starting: Hourly Volume Total Rank Mean Hour Rate Class Toll "Bin" Toll Volume Total ### Daily Total
Midnight 22,571 2.77% 67% Graveyard 1 $5.00 36,774 4.52% ### 2.8% 0.67%
1 a.m. 18,857 2.32% 56% Graveyard 1 $5.00 31,966 3.93% ### 2.3% 0.56%
2 a.m. 15,828 1.95% 47% Graveyard 1 $5.00 26,369 3.24% ### 1.9% 0.47%
3 a.m. 13,857 1.70% 41% Graveyard 1 $5.00 24,843 3.05% ### 1.7% 0.41%
Toll levels
4 a.m. 13,184 1.62% 39% Graveyard 1 $5.00 at left are 16,629 2.04% ### 1.6% 0.39%
5 a.m. 13,665 1.68% 40% Graveyard 1 $5.00 generated 13,944 1.71% ### 1.7% 0.40%
from levels
6 a.m. 19,542 2.40% 58% Graveyard 1 $5.00 specified in 17,021 2.09% ### 2.4% 0.58%
7 a.m. 22,009 2.71% 65% box above. 21,364 2.63% ### 2.7% 0.65%
Graveyard 1 $5.00
DO NOT
8 a.m. 25,080 3.08% 74% Graveyard 1 $5.00 CHANGE 27,080 3.33% ### 3.1% 0.74%
FROM
9 a.m. 28,299 3.48% 83% Graveyard 1 $5.00 HERE. 31,100 3.82% ### 3.5% 0.84%
10 a.m. 35,690 4.39% 105% Early Shoulder 2 $5.00 34,230 4.21% ### 4.4% 0.97%
11 a.m. 39,164 4.81% 116% Early Shoulder 2 $5.00 37,202 4.57% ### 4.8% 1.07%
12 noon 44,495 5.47% 131% Shoulder 3 $5.00 37,452 4.60% ### 5.5% 1.01%
1 p.m. 47,336 5.82% 140% Shoulder 3 $5.00 37,199 4.57% ### 5.8% 1.08%
2 p.m. 48,180 5.92% 142% Shoulder 3 $5.00 40,479 4.98% ### 5.9% 1.10%
3 p.m. 46,591 5.73% 137% Shoulder 3 $5.00 46,355 5.70% ### 5.7% 1.06%
4 p.m. 48,646 5.98% 144% Shoulder 3 $5.00 48,916 6.01% ### 6.0% 1.11%
5 p.m. 51,707 6.36% 153% Peak 4 $5.00 47,992 5.90% ### 6.4% 0.71%
6 p.m. 50,179 6.17% 148% Peak 4 $5.00 43,582 5.36% ### 6.2% 0.68%
7 p.m. 49,763 6.12% 147% Peak 4 $5.00 41,918 5.15% ### 6.1% 0.68%
8 p.m. 45,720 5.62% 135% Shoulder 3 $5.00 40,120 4.93% ### 5.6% 1.04%
9 p.m. 43,812 5.39% 129% Shoulder 3 $5.00 35,088 4.31% ### 5.4% 1.00%
10 p.m. 38,329 4.71% 113% Late Shoulder 2 $5.00 33,681 4.14% ### 4.7% 0.70%
11 p.m. 30,964 3.81% 91% Late Shoulder 2 $5.00 42,165 5.18% ### 3.8% 0.56%
24 hrs 813,468 100.0% $5.00 813,468 100.0% ### 100.0% 18.5%
### Sums of figures in col
avg hour 33,895 24-h total
Wghtd avg toll (before trip Sum of hourly volumes was 6.6% greater than inbound sum at left, due to###
resettlements to lower-toll preponderance of high weighting factors in high-volume hours. Solution ###
periods) was to normalize each entry by reciprocal of ratio of sums.
###
Non-work-trip % Thru-trip % Daily Work-trip % of Daily Non-wk trip% of Thru trip% of Thru
Daily Total Total Work Tot. Non-wk Tot. Tot.
1.17% 0.94% 3.61% 2.11% 3.59%
0.98% 0.78% 3.02% 1.76% 3.00%
0.82% 0.66% 2.53% 1.48% 2.52%
0.72% 0.58% 2.22% 1.30% 2.21%
0.68% 0.55% 2.11% 1.23% 2.10%
0.71% 0.57% 2.19% 1.28% 2.18%
1.01% 0.81% 3.13% 1.83% 3.11%
1.14% 0.91% 3.52% 2.06% 3.50%
1.30% 1.04% 4.02% 2.34% 3.99%
1.47% 1.18% 4.53% 2.64% 4.51%
2.04% 1.37% 5.28% 3.69% 5.24%
2.24% 1.50% 5.79% 4.05% 5.76%
3.18% 1.28% 5.48% 5.73% 4.90%
3.38% 1.36% 5.83% 6.10% 5.22%
3.44% 1.39% 5.93% 6.21% 5.31%
3.33% 1.34% 5.74% 6.00% 5.14%
3.47% 1.40% 5.99% 6.27% 5.36%
4.33% 1.32% 3.82% 7.81% 5.07%
4.20% 1.28% 3.71% 7.58% 4.92%
4.17% 1.27% 3.68% 7.51% 4.88%
3.27% 1.32% 5.63% 5.89% 5.04%
3.13% 1.26% 5.40% 5.64% 4.83%
2.91% 1.10% 3.78% 5.25% 4.22%
2.35% 0.89% 3.05% 4.24% 3.41%
55.4% 26.1% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
igures in columns match actual
24-h totals almost perfectly.
Work Non-Work Thru
Each array element is respective share of inbound auto

trip types (work, non-work, thru) occurring in the
Weekends 1/6/2012
The purpose of this worksheet is primarily to estimate weekend traffic volumes into the CBD relative to weekday volumes, to assist in ada
traffic analysis in Motor Vs into the stand-alone weekend analysis shown in Motor Vs Weekends. This is done in Part 2, below, by comp
weekday volumes provided by MTA Bridges & Tunnels for the Triborough Bridge and Queens Midtown Tunnel. Part 1 recapitulates that da
otherwise used in the spreadsheet.
The findings of this worksheet -- that weekend/holiday trips into the CBD are now approximately 85% as great as weekday volumes, and
holiday trips account for approximately 28% of CBD-bound trips on an annual basis -- led us to undertake the separate treatment of week
that now appears in Motor Vs Weekends.
Part 1 -- Relative Impacts of Weekdays vs. Weekends (and Holidays)

Normalized
1. Weekdays in year 250 68% 1.00
2. Weekends/Holidays in year 115 32% 0.46
3. Total 365 100%
4. Weekday trips into the CBD, "normalized" per weekday 1.00

5. Weekend trips into the CBD, "normalized" per weekday 0.85
6. Weekday trips into the CBD, share of annual total 72% 1.00
7. Weekend trips into the CBD, share of annual total 28% 0.39
8. Total 100% 1.39
Part 2 -- Relative Daily Volumes into the CBD, Weekdays vs. Weekends (and Holidays)
This section derives a set of 24 hourly ratios of weekend to weekday travel that we use to estimate hourly inbound cordon trips on weeken
choose toll rates for weekends.
It is presented in three sets of rows. The first set, directly below, displays and calculates ratios on Manhattan-bound trips using the Queen
two sample months (March and Sept 2007). The second set does the same on trips crossing into Manhattan via the Triborough Bridge. Th
sums the first two. The QMT and TB(M) were chosen because they are the main crossings into Manhattan for which accurate daily data w
(courtesy of the MTA, through the efforts of Brian T. Ketcham). The two months were chosen more or less at random; other months proba
similar results.
The column (vector) of results appears in the 22nd column, beginning in Row 120. These numbers are called upon in the By Hours works
March 07 Sept 07
Weekday Weekend Wkend / Wkday Weekday
Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound
QMT (Queens Midtown Tunnel)
Hour Ending
12:00 AM 1,021 1,552 1,333 1,771 1.31 1.14 1,198 1,413
1:00 AM 675 1,066 938 1,367 1.39 1.28 756 950
2:00 AM 324 552 517 954 1.60 1.73 279 499
3:00 AM 167 317 233 656 1.40 2.07 149 301
4:00 AM 155 229 195 652 1.26 2.85 166 228
5:00 AM 309 447 244 737 0.79 1.65 330 425
6:00 AM 983 781 420 649 0.43 0.83 1,088 798
7:00 AM 2,458 1,218 997 688 0.41 0.56 2,609 1,306
8:00 AM 3,644 1,370 1,401 794 0.38 0.58 3,718 1,341
9:00 AM 3,982 1,338 1,638 971 0.41 0.73 3,905 1,288
10:00 AM 3,827 1,315 1,857 1,159 0.49 0.88 3,606 1,276
11:00 AM 2,744 1,602 1,806 1,304 0.66 0.81 2,839 1,621
12:00 PM 2,717 1,705 2,171 1,510 0.80 0.89 2,613 1,849
1:00 PM 2,351 2,006 2,347 1,654 1.00 0.82 2,394 2,098
2:00 PM 2,104 2,311 2,275 1,753 1.08 0.76 2,236 2,436
3:00 PM 2,307 2,637 2,219 1,991 0.96 0.75 2,345 2,705
4:00 PM 2,399 2,781 2,238 2,320 0.93 0.83 2,474 2,842
5:00 PM 2,509 2,773 2,341 2,374 0.93 0.86 2,571 2,873
6:00 PM 2,675 2,803 2,520 2,256 0.94 0.80 2,652 2,766
7:00 PM 2,522 2,722 2,429 2,020 0.96 0.74 2,415 2,662
8:00 PM 2,019 2,258 2,206 1,744 1.09 0.77 2,179 2,315
9:00 PM 1,629 2,216 1,913 1,582 1.17 0.71 1,811 2,095
10:00 PM 1,425 2,195 1,658 1,411 1.16 0.64 1,559 2,094
11:00 PM 1,355 2,099 1,592 1,420 1.17 0.68 1,521 1,887
Daily Avg. 46,300 40,293 37,486 33,737 0.81 0.84 47,409 40,069
Same as March except files were AvgWkndTraf_QMT

Source: AvgWkndTraf_QMT_Mar07.xls, and AvgWkdyTraf_QMT_Mar07.xls, files provided by anomalously named Peak_QMT_Sep07.xls
MTA to Brian Ketcham, Sept 1, 2008. Data above are from "InBound" and "OutBound"
worksheet tabs, columns headed "Direction Total." Ratios are by Komanoff.
TBM (Triborough Bridge, to Manhattan)
Hour Ending
12:00 AM 1,193 1,019 1,395 1,383 1.17 1.36 1,255 988

1:00 AM 730 611 970 963 1.33 1.58 732 582
2:00 AM 349 322 565 620 1.62 1.93 277 292
3:00 AM 151 194 287 391 1.90 2.01 147 176
4:00 AM 150 199 269 408 1.80 2.05 134 186
5:00 AM 301 559 340 622 1.13 1.11 313 502
6:00 AM 1,001 1,123 431 773 0.43 0.69 1,105 1,119
7:00 AM 3,086 1,821 834 950 0.27 0.52 3,391 1,886
8:00 AM 4,273 2,383 1,217 1,162 0.28 0.49 4,252 2,303
9:00 AM 4,079 2,409 1,497 1,348 0.37 0.56 4,089 2,347
10:00 AM 3,687 2,184 1,769 1,596 0.48 0.73 3,596 2,221
11:00 AM 3,032 1,988 2,142 1,831 0.71 0.92 2,893 2,137
12:00 PM 2,669 2,018 2,300 2,088 0.86 1.03 2,760 2,173
1:00 PM 2,463 2,154 2,575 2,274 1.05 1.06 2,600 2,261
2:00 PM 2,549 2,309 2,592 2,301 1.02 1.00 2,594 2,433
3:00 PM 2,850 2,636 2,807 2,492 0.98 0.95 2,719 2,763
4:00 PM 3,186 3,049 2,942 2,740 0.92 0.90 3,236 3,135
5:00 PM 3,198 3,146 2,929 2,695 0.92 0.86 3,205 3,307
6:00 PM 3,300 3,004 3,132 2,579 0.95 0.86 3,174 3,178
7:00 PM 3,127 2,775 2,937 2,383 0.94 0.86 3,130 2,972
8:00 PM 2,508 2,450 2,604 2,133 1.04 0.87 2,615 2,459
9:00 PM 1,986 2,077 2,224 1,919 1.12 0.92 2,113 2,050
10:00 PM 1,679 1,741 2,008 1,626 1.20 0.93 1,858 1,790
11:00 PM 1,553 1,453 1,762 1,442 1.13 0.99 1,790 1,502
Daily Avg. 53,100 43,623 42,527 38,719 0.80 0.89 53,978 44,763
Source: AvgWkndTraf_TBM_Mar07.xls, and AvgWkdyTraf_TBM_Mar07.xls, files provided by Same as for March except files were AvgWkndTraf_Q
MTA to Brian Ketcham, Sept 1, 2008. Data above are from "InBound" and "OutBound" AvgWkdayTraf_TBM_Mar07.xls.
worksheet tabs, columns headed "Direction Total." Ratios are by Komanoff.
QMT + TBM (Summed, not averaged)
Hour Ending
12:00 AM 2,214 2,571 2,727 3,153 1.23 1.23 2,453 2,401

1:00 AM 1,405 1,677 1,908 2,330 1.36 1.39 1,487 1,532
2:00 AM 672 873 1,082 1,574 1.61 1.80 556 791
3:00 AM 318 511 520 1,046 1.64 2.05 295 477
4:00 AM 304 428 463 1,060 1.52 2.48 300 415
5:00 AM 610 1,006 583 1,359 0.96 1.35 644 927
6:00 AM 1,984 1,904 850 1,422 0.43 0.75 2,193 1,917
7:00 AM 5,544 3,040 1,831 1,638 0.33 0.54 5,999 3,192
8:00 AM 7,918 3,753 2,618 1,957 0.33 0.52 7,970 3,644
9:00 AM 8,060 3,746 3,135 2,319 0.39 0.62 7,993 3,635
10:00 AM 7,515 3,499 3,626 2,755 0.48 0.79 7,201 3,497
11:00 AM 5,777 3,589 3,948 3,135 0.68 0.87 5,732 3,758
12:00 PM 5,386 3,723 4,472 3,599 0.83 0.97 5,373 4,022
1:00 PM 4,814 4,161 4,922 3,928 1.02 0.94 4,994 4,360
2:00 PM 4,654 4,619 4,867 4,054 1.05 0.88 4,830 4,869
3:00 PM 5,157 5,273 5,026 4,484 0.97 0.85 5,063 5,468
4:00 PM 5,585 5,829 5,180 5,060 0.93 0.87 5,710 5,977
5:00 PM 5,707 5,920 5,270 5,069 0.92 0.86 5,776 6,180
6:00 PM 5,975 5,807 5,652 4,835 0.95 0.83 5,826 5,944
7:00 PM 5,649 5,498 5,366 4,403 0.95 0.80 5,545 5,635
8:00 PM 4,527 4,707 4,809 3,876 1.06 0.82 4,794 4,774
9:00 PM 3,615 4,293 4,136 3,501 1.14 0.82 3,924 4,145
10:00 PM 3,105 3,936 3,666 3,037 1.18 0.77 3,416 3,884
11:00 PM 2,908 3,552 3,354 2,862 1.15 0.81 3,311 3,389
Daily Avg. 99,401 83,916 80,013 72,456 0.80 0.86 101,387 84,832
###
###
###
###
to weekday volumes, to assist in adapting the weekday
This is done in Part 2, below, by comparing weekend to ###
wn Tunnel. Part 1 recapitulates that data but is not ###
###
###
% as great as weekday volumes, and that weekend and ###
ertake the separate treatment of weekend cordon traffic ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
1 and 2 are from ###
Constants worksheet. ###
5 is derived in this
worksheet, at end of ###
Part 3. 7 (normalized) is ###
product of normalized
values for 2, 5 and 6. ###
Remaining figures
(percentages and
###
ratios) are calculated ###
from them.
###
###
###
###
###
###
hourly inbound cordon trips on weekends, and, in turn to ###
###
###
anhattan-bound trips using the Queens Midtown Tunnel in
anhattan via the Triborough Bridge. The third set of rows ###
hattan for which accurate daily data were available ###
r less at random; other months probably would yield
###
###
are called upon in the By Hours worksheet. ###
###
Sept 07 March & Sept 07, averaged ###
Weekend Wkend / Wkday Weekday Weekend Wkend / Wkday ###
Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound Inbound Outbound###
###
###
###
###
###
1,490 1,695 1.24 1.20 1,109 1,483 1,411 1,733 1.27 1.17###
1,016 1,383 1.34 1.46 715 1,008 977 1,375 1.37 1.36###
540 966 1.94 1.94 301 525 529 960 1.75 1.83###
300 733 2.02 2.44 158 309 266 694 1.69 2.25###
201 625 1.21 2.74 160 229 198 638 1.24 2.79###
229 680 0.69 1.60 320 436 236 709 0.74 1.63###
403 592 0.37 0.74 1,035 790 411 621 0.40 0.79###
977 691 0.37 0.53 2,533 1,262 987 689 0.39 0.55###
1,285 828 0.35 0.62 3,681 1,356 1,343 811 0.36 0.60###
1,559 1,055 0.40 0.82 3,943 1,313 1,599 1,013 0.41 0.77###
1,736 1,352 0.48 1.06 3,716 1,295 1,797 1,256 0.48 0.97###
1,957 1,600 0.69 0.99 2,792 1,611 1,881 1,452 0.67 0.90###
2,083 1,753 0.80 0.95 2,665 1,777 2,127 1,632 0.80 0.92###
2,306 1,781 0.96 0.85 2,373 2,052 2,326 1,717 0.98 0.84###
2,300 1,870 1.03 0.77 2,170 2,373 2,287 1,811 1.05 0.76###
2,202 2,009 0.94 0.74 2,326 2,671 2,211 2,000 0.95 0.75###
2,184 2,176 0.88 0.77 2,436 2,811 2,211 2,248 0.91 0.80###
2,334 2,231 0.91 0.78 2,540 2,823 2,337 2,302 0.92 0.82###
2,535 2,153 0.96 0.78 2,663 2,784 2,528 2,205 0.95 0.79###
2,514 1,942 1.04 0.73 2,468 2,692 2,471 1,981 1.00 0.74###
2,461 1,691 1.13 0.73 2,099 2,286 2,333 1,717 1.11 0.75###
2,246 1,636 1.24 0.78 1,720 2,155 2,079 1,609 1.21 0.75###
2,122 1,501 1.36 0.72 1,492 2,145 1,890 1,456 1.27 0.68###
1,959 1,508 1.29 0.80 1,438 1,993 1,775 1,464 1.23 0.73###
###
38,937 34,449 0.82 0.86 46,854 40,181 38,211 34,093 0.82 0.85###
###
###
arch except files were AvgWkndTraf_QMT_Sep07.xls, and the ###
ly named Peak_QMT_Sep07.xls ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
1,685 1,372 1.34 1.39 1,224 1,004 1,540 1,377 1.26 1.37###
1,075 930 1.47 1.60 731 596 1,022 947 1.40 1.59###
565 628 2.04 2.15 313 307 565 624 1.81 2.03###
330 423 2.25 2.40 149 185 308 407 2.07 2.20###
264 386 1.97 2.07 142 193 266 397 1.88 2.06###
335 533 1.07 1.06 307 530 338 577 1.10 1.09###
449 652 0.41 0.58 1,053 1,121 440 712 0.42 0.64###
883 847 0.26 0.45 3,238 1,854 858 899 0.27 0.48###
1,224 1,114 0.29 0.48 4,263 2,343 1,221 1,138 0.29 0.49###
1,579 1,470 0.39 0.63 4,084 2,378 1,538 1,409 0.38 0.59###
1,915 1,813 0.53 0.82 3,642 2,203 1,842 1,704 0.51 0.77###
2,389 2,264 0.83 1.06 2,963 2,063 2,265 2,047 0.76 0.99###
2,586 2,586 0.94 1.19 2,715 2,096 2,443 2,337 0.90 1.12###
2,642 2,598 1.02 1.15 2,531 2,208 2,608 2,436 1.03 1.10###
2,871 2,545 1.11 1.05 2,572 2,371 2,732 2,423 1.06 1.02###
2,955 2,636 1.09 0.95 2,784 2,699 2,881 2,564 1.03 0.95###
3,068 2,696 0.95 0.86 3,211 3,092 3,005 2,718 0.94 0.88###
3,186 2,672 0.99 0.81 3,202 3,227 3,057 2,684 0.95 0.83###
3,315 2,540 1.04 0.80 3,237 3,091 3,224 2,559 1.00 0.83###
3,221 2,386 1.03 0.80 3,129 2,874 3,079 2,385 0.98 0.83###
2,983 2,139 1.14 0.87 2,562 2,454 2,793 2,136 1.09 0.87###
2,771 2,043 1.31 1.00 2,049 2,064 2,497 1,981 1.22 0.96###
2,516 1,889 1.35 1.06 1,768 1,765 2,262 1,758 1.28 1.00###
2,130 1,569 1.19 1.04 1,671 1,477 1,946 1,506 1.16 1.02###
###
46,935 40,728 0.87 0.91 53,539 44,193 44,731 39,724 0.84 0.90###
###
###
###
r March except files were AvgWkndTraf_QMT_Sep07.xls, and
Traf_TBM_Mar07.xls. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
### ###
3,175 3,067 1.29 1.28 2,333 2,486 2,951 3,110 1.26 1.25###
2,091 2,314 1.41 1.51 1,446 1,604 1,999 2,322 1.38 1.45###
1,105 1,593 1.99 2.01 614 832 1,093 1,584 1.78 1.90###
629 1,156 2.13 2.43 307 494 575 1,101 1.87 2.23###
465 1,010 1.55 2.44 302 421 464 1,035 1.54 2.46###
564 1,213 0.88 1.31 627 966 574 1,286 0.92 1.33###
851 1,244 0.39 0.65 2,089 1,911 851 1,333 0.41 0.70###
1,859 1,538 0.31 0.48 5,772 3,116 1,845 1,588 0.32 0.51###
2,509 1,942 0.31 0.53 7,944 3,698 2,564 1,949 0.32 0.53###
3,138 2,524 0.39 0.69 8,027 3,691 3,136 2,422 0.39 0.66###
3,651 3,165 0.51 0.91 7,358 3,498 3,638 2,960 0.49 0.85###
4,346 3,864 0.76 1.03 5,754 3,674 4,147 3,499 0.72 0.95###
4,669 4,339 0.87 1.08 5,379 3,873 4,570 3,969 0.85 1.02###
4,947 4,378 0.99 1.00 4,904 4,260 4,935 4,153 1.01 0.97###
5,171 4,414 1.07 0.91 4,742 4,744 5,019 4,234 1.06 0.89###
5,158 4,646 1.02 0.85 5,110 5,371 5,092 4,565 1.00 0.85###
5,252 4,872 0.92 0.82 5,648 5,903 5,216 4,966 0.92 0.84###
5,519 4,903 0.96 0.79 5,741 6,050 5,395 4,986 0.94 0.82###
5,850 4,693 1.00 0.79 5,901 5,875 5,751 4,764 0.97 0.81###
5,736 4,328 1.03 0.77 5,597 5,566 5,551 4,366 0.99 0.78###
5,444 3,830 1.14 0.80 4,661 4,741 5,127 3,853 1.10 0.81###
5,016 3,679 1.28 0.89 3,770 4,219 4,576 3,590 1.21 0.85###
4,638 3,390 1.36 0.87 3,260 3,910 4,152 3,214 1.27 0.82###
4,089 3,077 1.24 0.91 3,109 3,471 3,721 2,970 1.20 0.86###
###
85,872 75,177 0.85 0.89 100,394 84,374 82,942 73,816 0.83 0.87###
###
mean: 0.851 ###
Delays
Note: The analysis in this worksheet forms the analytical backbone of "Time Thieves," an article by Charles Komanoff and Will Fisher
edition of the New York Transportation Journal, published by the NYU-Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management.
accessed via this link: <http://bit.ly/hOVn9G>. The same text, with a slightly clearer format, is available at this link:
<http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/Time_Thieves.pdf>.
This worksheet estimates the aggregate delays borne by all 'current' motor vehicle users as a result of a single additional vehic
weekday. See result in Row 140. See 'Delays Weekends' worksheet for analogous calculations for weekends.
It operates by duplicating the initial stage of the Motor Vs worksheet, which calculates average vehicle speeds for the different weekday p
increments the number of vehicle trips into the CBD (or 'cordon') by a small number, such as 100. The speeds for this (slightly) greater nu
baseline speeds calculated in Motor Vs. Comparing the two sets of speeds reveals the additional hours in traffic caused by the additiona
In performing these calculations, we have taken care to calculate total traffic delays, in the section beginning in Row 117, for 'baseline veh
posited additional trips for the delays they themselves experience.
Trips added to 'merged cell' (autos-thru trips-taxis) in Row 28 to estimate delay impact per trip:
Note: this figure could be virtually any number, since delay costs in Row 135 are calculated per trip, and the ratio is nearly constant ov
A. General Traffic Estimates (on 24-hour weekday basis, calculated with the trips added via cell directly above)
1. Breakout of m.v. trips into cordon (will also apply to trips leaving zone) Auto Work
Figure = corresponding figure in Motor Vs works
Daily motor vehicle trips into cordon 673,100
First four categories are from Hub-Bound worksheet, based on NYMTC data. Trucks are also from Hub-Bound worksheet. Bus is Komanoff estimate
some of truck and bus trips shown are allocated (below) to through-trips.
Share of each mode's trips that are est'd to be through-trips 34%
Komanoff estimates, seeking to reflect substantial percentage of auto trips that are through-trips as reported in Schaller, "Necessity or Choice? Wh
Redistribution of trips after allocating through-trips to own column 444,246
Percent of (non-taxi) auto trips that are work trips (derived in H.I.S. Worksheet) 59%
Final breakout without added cars (taken from Motor Vs) 260,770
Final breakout with added cars 0% 260,819
Difference 49
Trip Distances for trips into cordon
Cordon miles for average trip (one way) 1.25 miles
Non-Cordon miles for average trip (one way) (total miles minus cordon miles) 16.90 miles
Both rows are taken from Motor Vs.
2. Cordon-crossing VMT Auto Work

Daily weekday cordon VMT of m.v. trips into and out of cordon 652,047
Calculated as 2x cordon entries times cordon miles per entry (all figures are doubled to account for return journeys, except that taxicabs use an ou
Percentage breakdown 32%
3. Intra-Cordon VMT
Additional intra-cordon VMT, as a percentage of crossing-cordon VMT 14%
Komanoff ests. Note that 7 in 8 auto trips in Cordon are either inbound or outbound, while 1 in 8 are intra-Cordon trips (Schaller, "Necessity or Cho
Daily weekday VMT of all m.v. trips occuring entirely within cordon 93,132
From sums of respective column-blocks in 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 143.
4. Total weekday VMT inside cordon (sum of VMT's in rows 44 and 51) 745,179
B. Traffic Estimates From Part "A" Disaggregated Into Different Weekday Time Periods
Select period ALL MOTO
via pull-down Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk
menu on cell 11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am
below.
Hours in period See By Hours worksheet. 6 hour(s) 1 hour(s)
Active period for time-dependent delay calculations P.M. Post-pk 0 0
Switch in next cell to right must be set = 0 0 1 1
1. Auto Cordon Crossings, inbound -- Trips and VMT (calculated with the 'incremented' number of trips set in the box in Row 21
Daily cordon auto entries (figures are vehicles, not persons) 59,816 24,061
Each figure in first column block is sum of respective figures in subsequent column blocks for the six trip types. Sources for those figures are show
Cordon VMT from cordon entries 93,357 36,000
Daily cordon entries in Row 66 times Cordon VMT per entry in Row 39.
2. Auto Cordon Crossings, outbound -- Trips and VMT 82,460 16,194

Daily cordon auto return trips (figures are vehicles, not persons) 82,472 16,196
Cordon VMT from cordon return trips 119,338 23,502
Daily cordon return trips in Row 72 times Cordon VMT per entry [which is same as per return] in Row 39.
3. Auto Travel in Cordon that Doesn't Cross Cordon -- VMT

% of 24-h volume that occurs in respective period 10.5% 2.9%
Calculated as mean of inbound and outbound percentages for respective periods, in By Hours worksheet.
Cordon VMT from motor vehicle trips that didn't cross cordon 234,149 29,286
Each entry is sum of respective entries for the six trip types.
4. Total VMT in Cordon

VMT in period 446,844 88,788
Each entry is sum of respective VMT's in Rows 68, 74 and 103.
Hourly VMT (period VMT divided by hrs) 74,474 88,788
Period VMT in Row 84 divided by hours in period in Row 61.
5. Total VMT Outside Cordon (for cordon-bound trips)

A. Non-cordon VMT for trips that ultimately enter the cordon
Non-cordon VMT in period, inbound leg of trips 1,122,609 413,862
Non-cordon VMT in period, outbound leg of trips 1,444,902 269,279
VMT in period (sum of figures in two previous rows) 2,567,510 683,141
B. Non-cordon VMT for trips that do not enter the cordon 4,887,770 1,283,302
C. Total (Sum of "A" + "B") 7,455,281 1,966,444

Hourly VMT (period VMT divided by hrs) 1,242,547 1,966,444
6. Speeds
A. Cordon Speeds 21.07 20.20
Reciprocal of Cordon Speeds (needed to calc avgs in Rows 105 & 106) 0.05 0.05
Are calculated using speed-vol. relationship in Speed-Volume Cordon wksheet, operating on Vk value derived there and shown in Motor Vs wkshe
Traffic-weighted avg speeds, 6am - 6pm
Traffic-weighted avg speeds, 24 hour
B. Non-cordon speeds
Baseline non-cordon speeds, i.e., on approaches to (and from) CBD in NJ, Bklyn, Queens, Bronx and Upper Manhattan, are derived d
Whereas our cordon equation is derived from observations made on urban streets, our non-cordon equation is based on data for freew
Volume, non-Cordon, for details.
Non-Cordon Speeds, uncapped 65.88 44.21
Non-Cordon Speeds, capped 55.00 44.21
C. Final Calculations
1. Vehicle Hours in Traffic Within Cordon 21,207.0 4,395.6

Calculated as quotient of Row 147 VMT figures in Motor Vs worksheet by Row 123 speeds in this worksheet. Numerator uses Motor Vs VMT figures t
'baseline' vehicle volumes only and do not [spuriously] reflect delays experienced by the hypothesized additional vehicles.
Baseline vehicle hours in traffic within cordon 21,206.9 4,395.6
Taken from corresponding entry in Motor Vs, Row 190
Difference in number of hours in traffic within cordon, as a result of hypothesized additional vehicles
2. Outside Cordon 135,546 44,479

Calculated as quotient of Row 167 VMT figures in Motor Vs worksheet by Row 112 speeds in this worksheet. Numerator uses Motor Vs VMT figures to
Baseline vehicle hours in traffic outside cordon 135,546 44,478
Difference in number of hours in traffic outside cordon, as a result of hypothesized additional vehicles
3. Within and Outside Cordon, combined Note: figures in next row apply to trips whose inbound leg is
Differences in hours in traffic per time period, combined 0.001 0.011
Delay time attributable to each additional vehicle trip into the cordon (whose inbound leg is taken in the period selected in R
Represents aggregate delays to all drivers due to one driver's additional trip into CBD.
In cordon Out Cordon
Share of delay experienced in area: 41% 59% 100%
Traffic-weighted average delay
Method 1 for Displaying Results: Delays (due to one additional cordon trip) broken down by time periods in which delays are ca
Delay figures in array are in hours and are totals for each period.
Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk
Array shows Row 134 results 6 hour(s) 1 hour(s) 3 hour(s) 1 hour(s)
when all addit'l trips are
assigned to respective periods
chosen via Switch in Row 62. Graveyard 0.012 0.011 0.325 0.081
A.M. Pre-pk 0.001 0.481 0.325 0.081
A.M. Peak 0.001 0.011 2.844 0.081
Example: Highlighted fig. in A.M. A.M. Post-pk 0.001 0.011 0.325 2.061
Peak col. in Row 153 is delay hrs
experienced in A.M. Peak period
Midday Pk 0.001 0.011 0.325 0.081
per extra trip in Midday Peak. P.M. Peak 0.001 0.011 0.325 0.081
P.M. Post-pk 0.001 0.011 0.325 0.081
TOTAL 0.02 0.78 4.13 3.33
(delay hrs experienced in period in column, due to one extra random trip)
Method 2 for Displaying Results: Delays broken down by amounts that the other travelers experienced on inbound or outbound
Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk
Total Delay based on time of entry 1.96 2.42 4.46 3.93
Delays caused by inbound leg 0.01 0.47 2.52 1.98
Delays caused by outbound leg 1.95 1.95 1.95 1.95
Inbound values Outbound values
1.998 1.946
Method 3 for Displaying Results: Delays: Same as Method 1, but disaggregated between in-cordon and out-of-cordon, and show
Cols. B&C depend on Col. P. See
Col. Q for method.
Same as Col. Cost of delays Delay figures in array are in hours and are totals for each period.
M, but in- from one in- Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk
bound only, in bound mile in 6 1 3 1
pd. shown period shown
Delay Hours Experienced Within The Cordon
0.4 $0.30 Graveyard 0.01 0.00 0.14 0.04
0.4 $0.30 A.M. Pre-pk 0.00 0.16 0.14 0.04
10.9 $7.55 A.M. Peak 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.04
10.0 $6.89 A.M. Post-pk 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.92
7.4 $5.08 Midday Pk 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.04
17.5 $12.11 P.M. Peak 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.04
9.4 $6.47 P.M. Post-pk 0.00 0.00 0.14 0.04
10.80 $7.46 TOTAL 0.02 0.27 1.80 1.49
All figures in these arrays are for average motor vehicle
To convert to average truck, multiply by: 2.26
To convert to avg passenger car, mult. by: 0.90
Delay Hours Experienced Outside The Cordon
0.0 $0.00 Graveyard 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.05
1.3 $0.64 A.M. Pre-pk 0.00 0.32 0.18 0.05
6.2 $3.09 A.M. Peak 0.00 0.01 1.60 0.05
4.9 $2.45 A.M. Post-pk 0.00 0.01 0.18 1.14
4.3 $2.11 Midday Pk 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.05
9.6 $4.75 P.M. Peak 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.05
4.7 $2.31 P.M. Post-pk 0.00 0.01 0.18 0.05
5.94 $2.94 TOTAL 0.00 0.51 2.32 1.85
Col. M per-mile figures are for round-trips begun in period corresponding to each row, the return legs Trip-weighted average miles drive
of which are randomly distributed among the seven periods. Col. C figures are for entry legs only Trip-weighted average miles driven
and do not reflect return legs.
Toll Design: Let toll proportions correspond to congestion causation for trips taken at different times
Note correspondence between proposed weekday toll rate in chart on left, and delays caused p
Proposed Car Toll to Drive Delays Caused by One Additional Trip

into CBD (weekdays) 5.5
$10 5
Delay (hours)
4.5
$8 4
3.5
$6 3
2.5
$4 2
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$10
11 p.m.
Midnight
1 a.m.
2 a.m.
3 a.m.
4 a.m.
5 a.m.
6 a.m.
7 a.m.
8 a.m.
9 a.m.
10 a.m.
11 a.m.
12 noon
1 p.m.
into CBD (weekdays)
2 p.m.
3 p.m.
4 p.m.
5 p.m.
6 p.m.
7 p.m.
8 p.m.
9 p.m.
10 p.m.
Delay (hours)
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
4.5
5.5
0
1
2
3
4
5
G ra
ve
yar
d
A .M
.
Pre
-p
k
A .M
. Pe
ak
A .M
. Po
-pkst
Time Period in which Vehicl

###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
icle by Charles Komanoff and Will Fisher in the Winter 2010 ###
for Transportation Policy & Management. The article may be
available at this link: ###
###
###
###
as a result of a single additional vehicle trip into the CBD on a ###
tions for weekends. ###
###
###
vehicle speeds for the different weekday periods; but with one difference: it ###
0. The speeds for this (slightly) greater number of entries will be less than the
al hours in traffic caused by the additional entries. ###
###
###
on beginning in Row 117, for 'baseline vehicles' only, to avoid 'charging' the ###
###
###
100 ###
er trip, and the ratio is nearly constant over a fairly wide range. ###
###
d via cell directly above) ###
###
Auto Non-Wk Thru Trips Taxicab Truck Bus Total ###
gure = corresponding figure in Motor Vs worksheet + increment number in Row 21. ###
673,100 0 65,000 45,000 12,000 795,100
###
b-Bound worksheet. Bus is Komanoff estimate. Note, however, that ###
###
34% N.A. 0% 34% 10% ###
reported in Schaller, "Necessity or Choice? Why People Drive in Manhattan." ###
444,246 245,354 65,000 29,700 10,800 795,100
### Dat
41% ###
183,410 127,122 65,000 38,200 11,432 685,934
###
183,444 127,139 65,000 38,200 11,432 686,034
###
34 17 0 0 0 100
###
###
1.25 1.6 2.0 3.0 2.0 ###
16.9 25.4 6.0 12.5 17.4 ###
###
###
458,610 406,846 227,500 229,200 45,726 2,019,929
###
return journeys, except that taxicabs use an outgoing-trip factor less than one (see Taxis). ###
23% 20% 11% 11% 2% 100%###
###
###
14% 0% N.A. 20% 50% ###
intra-Cordon trips (Schaller, "Necessity or Choice," p. 25). ###
65,504 0 1,187,062 45,840 22,863 1,414,400
###
###
###
524,114 406,846 1,414,562 275,040 68,589 3,434,330###
Baseline figure: 3,434,068###
Change: 262
###
###
ALL MOTOR VEHICLE TRIPS ###
A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals ### Graveyard
6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm ### 11 pm - 5 am
3 hour(s) 1 hour(s) 4 hour(s) 6 hour(s) 3 hour(s) 24 hour(s) ### 6 hours
0 0 0 0 1 ###
1 1 1 1 1 ### Inbounds follow shap
###
umber of trips set in the box in Row 21) ###
138,774 41,059 132,454 215,013 74,856 686,034### 9,068
trip types. Sources for those figures are shown further to right. ### Product of total auto work trips above, times
204,028 60,362 196,437 321,646 114,384 1,026,215### 11,335
###
###
93,336 29,468 118,567 248,918 96,992 ###
93,349 29,472 118,584 248,954 97,006 686,034### 32,258
135,461 42,753 171,844 360,425 140,392 993,715### 40,323
###
###
###
16.6% 5.1% 18.2% 34.1% 12.7% 100%### 10.5%
### Same as for this column block in 'Motor Vs' t
190,275 68,551 250,107 429,319 212,713 1,414,400### 9,816
### Each entry is product of %'s in row 78 times
###
###
529,763 171,666 618,388 1,111,390 467,490 3,434,330### 61,474
###
176,588 171,666 154,597 185,232 155,830 ###
###
###
###
###
2,299,787 680,448 2,236,663 3,698,245 1,346,249 11,797,864 ### 153,252
1,551,932 493,228 2,023,020 4,321,153 1,694,350 11,797,864 ### 545,163
3,851,719 1,173,676 4,259,683 8,019,398 3,040,600 23,595,728 ### 698,415
###
7,228,959 2,205,391 8,039,062 15,207,012 5,776,518 44,628,015 ### 1,363,746
###
11,080,678 3,379,067 12,298,745 23,226,410 8,817,118 68,223,743 ###
3,693,559 3,379,067 3,074,686 3,871,068 2,939,039 ###
###
###
###
9.18 9.79 12.09 8.18 11.92 ###
0.11 0.10 0.08 0.12 0.08 ###
ue derived there and shown in Motor Vs wksheet in Row 181, and on hourly VMT figs in Row 86. ###
raffic-weighted avg speeds, 6am - 6pm 9.499 Change from baseline: (0.0008)
###
raffic-weighted avg speeds, 24 hour 10.501 Change from baseline: (0.0015)
###
###
Delta(fromprio #cordon entries)

ronx and Upper Manhattan, are derived differently than cordon speeds. ###
ordon equation is based on data for freeways and expressways. See Speed- ###
###
17.07 20.30 24.01 15.48 25.87 ###
17.07 20.30 24.01 15.48 25.87 ###
0.06 0.05 0.04 Delta(fromprio #cordon entries)
0.06 0.04 ###
raffic-weighted avg speeds, 6am - 6pm 18.22 Change from baseline: (0.0009)###
raffic-weighted avg speeds, 24 hour 20.78 Change from baseline: (0.0017)###
###
Delay (hrs) due to one trip

###
###
57,681.7 17,527.1 51,148.9 135,858.5 39,218.8 327,037###
heet. Numerator uses Motor Vs VMT figures to ensure that delays are calculated on ###
Imposed Delay Varies
dditional vehicles. ### 5.0
57,677.4 17,525.9 51,145.6 135,843.7 39,195.7 326,991###
### 4.5
47### 4.0
###
649,084 166,448 512,284 1,500,331 340,743 3,348,916### 3.5
3.0
dditional vehicles. ###
649,056 166,442 512,262 1,500,238 340,612 3,348,634### 2.5
###
2.0
283###
### 1.5
xt row apply to trips whose inbound leg is taken in the period 'selected' in Row 62. ###
0.325 0.081 0.254 1.078 1.544 329### 1.0
leg is taken in the period selected in Row 62). 3.29 hours ### Change
###
% C h a n g e in D e la y s D u e t o 1 Ve h ic le
###
###
2.02 ###
3.94 hours ###
= 237 minutes ###
###
by time periods in which delays are caused and experienced ###
###
s and are totals for each period. ###
Delay Amount is Se
Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk TOTAL ### 40%
4 hour(s) 6 hour(s) 3 hour(s) (delay hrs caused by one Baseline trips ###
30%
extra trip in row shown) (from Motor Vs)###
20%
0.254 1.078 0.195 1.96 59,816###
10%
0.254 1.078 0.195 2.42 24,061###
0%
0.254 1.078 0.195 4.46 138,774###
0.254 1.078 0.195 3.93 41,059### -10%
1.743 1.078 0.195 3.43 132,454### -20%
0.254 4.007 0.195 4.87 215,013### -30%
0.254 1.078 1.544 3.29 74,756### -40%

2.80 6.37 3.14 3.94 685,934### -50%
###
### % Change in
###
###
s experienced on inbound or outbound leg of their trips ###
###
Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk ###
3.43 4.87 3.29 ###
1.49 2.93 1.35 ###
1.95 1.95 1.95 ###
Outbound values ###
1.946 ###
###
n-cordon and out-of-cordon, and shown per trip mile ###
###
T O T A L S (in cordon) ###
s and are totals for each period. Delay hrs from ### Delay hrs, rnd-
Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk one xtra round- Delay minutes ### trip but cordon
per mile from
4 6 3 trip in row Baseline trips ### only, in period
round-trip
shown shown
perienced Within The Cordon (from Motor Vs)###
0.11 0.43 0.07 0.80 16.1 59,816### 0.022
0.11 0.43 0.07 0.95 19.1 24,061### 0.022
0.11 0.43 0.07 1.89 38.0 138,774### 0.545
0.11 0.43 0.07 1.68 33.6 41,059### 0.497
0.72 0.43 0.07 1.41 28.2 132,454### 0.367
0.11 1.60 0.07 1.97 39.4 215,013### 0.874
0.11 0.43 0.59 1.30 26.2 74,756### 0.467
1.16 2.55 1.19 1.62 32.4 685,934###
###
### Delay hrs, rnd-
### trip but non-
### cordon only, in
period shown
perienced Outside The Cordon T O T A L S (out cordon) ###
0.15 0.65 0.12 1.15 2.0 59,816### 0.000
0.15 0.65 0.12 1.46 2.6 24,061### 0.735
0.15 0.65 0.12 2.57 4.5 138,774### 3.580
0.15 0.65 0.12 2.25 3.9 41,059### 2.836
1.02 0.65 0.12 2.03 3.5 132,454### 2.438
0.15 2.40 0.12 2.91 5.1 215,013### 5.493
0.15 0.65 0.96 1.99 3.5 74,756### 2.670
1.65 3.82 1.95 2.33 4.1 685,934###
###
###
Trip-weighted average miles driven within the cordon: 1.5 ###
Trip-weighted average miles driven outside the cordon: 17.2 ###
###
###
###
###
n chart on left, and delays caused per trip in chart on right. ###
###
###
###
ys Caused by One Additional Trip Outbound Inbound
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
rd k ak -pk k k -pk
###
Pre
-p . Pe st ay P . Pea st
A .M
. A .M . Po Mid
d P.M . Po ###
A .M P.M
Time Period in which Vehicle Enters Cordon ###
###
AUTO TRIPS FOR WORK
Data will appear in this 'column block' after Row 59

A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals
5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm
1 hours 3 hours 1 hours 4 hours 6 hours 3 hours 24 hours
Inbounds follow shape for inbound work trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trips.
13,701 84,306 20,258 55,280 61,152 17,054 260,819

Product of total auto work trips above, times percentages of total daily inbound work trips in respective periods in By Hours worksheet.
17,127 105,382 25,322 69,100 76,440 21,317 326,024
5,844 33,676 10,743 44,530 96,001 37,767 260,819

Product of total auto work trips above, times percentages of total daily outbound trips in respective periods in By Hours worksheet.
7,304 42,095 13,428 55,663 120,001 47,209 326,024
2.9% 16.6% 5.1% 18.2% 34.1% 12.7% 100.0%

Same as for this column block in 'Motor Vs' tab, Row 141.
2,678 15,442 4,707 16,944 31,731 11,815 93,132
Each entry is product of %'s in row 78 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in row 51.
27,109 162,920 43,457 141,707 228,172 80,340 745,179
231,555 1,424,773 342,360 934,234 1,033,472 288,206 4,407,853

98,756 569,133 181,553 752,566 1,622,420 638,263 4,407,853
330,311 1,993,906 523,913 1,686,800 2,655,892 926,469 8,815,707
645,033 3,893,722 1,023,092 3,293,903 5,186,140 1,807,474 17,213,109
=(SUMPRODUCT(I109:K109,I78:K78)+L109*4)/(SUMPRODUCT(I109:K109,I78:K78,I145:K145)+L109*4*L145)
9.4992
TimSpe Sae dvIendcr- emoasteorduve htoicTloelhours

Delay (hrs) due to one trip
Imposed Delay Varies with Baseline Traffic Volume

5.0
4.5
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
Change in Traffic Volume

% C h a n g e in D e la y s D u e t o 1 Ve h ic le
Delay Amount is Sensitive to Traffic Volume

40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
5% less traffic
-10%
means 14% less
-20% delay
-30%
-40%
-50%
% Change in Traffic Volume

Derivation of Col. P figures to left: To eliminate non-cordon delays, non-cordon baseline hours in
Row 126 were temporarily set equal to 'incremented' non-cordon hours in Row 129. The array in
Rows 149-156 was then recalculated (reflecting cordon delays only) via the 'usual' procedure of
consecutively selecting the respective periods via the switch in Row 62, and inputting the vector
in Row 134 into the array. The column sums in Row 156 were then manually inputted into the
column at left.
The figures in column of figures to left were calculated through the same procedure as described
above (for Rows 177-182) except that cordon hours rather than non-cordon hours zeroed out by
equating Row 119 to Row 122.
AUTO TRIPS FOR NON-WORK

Inbounds follow shape for inbound non-work trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trips.
0 0 0 0 0 34.2721924449
18,566 1,864 15,780 9,360 35,355 78,029 24,490
Product of total auto non-work trips above, times %'s of total daily inbound non-work trips in respective periods in By Hours worksheet.
23,208 2,331 19,725 11,699 44,194 97,536 30,612
22,688 4,110 23,686 7,556 31,320 67,521 26,563

Product of total auto non-work trips above, times percentages of total daily outbound trips in respective periods in By Hours worksheet.
28,360 5,137 29,607 9,445 39,150 84,401 33,204
10.5% 2.9% 16.6% 5.1% 18.2% 34.1% 12.7%

Same as for this column block in 'Motor Vs' tab, Row .
6,904 1,883 10,861 3,310 11,917 22,318 8,310
58,473 9,352 60,193 24,455 95,261 204,256 72,126
313,774 31,510 266,679 158,177 597,503 1,318,697 413,878

383,435 69,459 400,294 127,693 529,310 1,141,112 448,915
697,208 100,969 666,973 285,870 1,126,812 2,459,809 862,793
1,361,449 197,158 1,302,395 558,234 2,200,376 4,803,382 1,683,666

Change in Traffic Changed Delay Change in Wghtd
Volume (Wghtd Avg) Avg vs. Original
10.0% 4.40 35%
9.5% 4.33 33%
9.0% 4.27 31%
8.5% 4.21 29%
8.0% 4.15 27%
7.5% 4.09 25%
7.0% 4.02 24%
6.5% 3.97 22%
6.0% 3.91 20%
5.5% 3.85 18%
5.0% 3.79 16%
4.5% 3.73 15%
4.0% 3.68 13%
3.5% 3.62 11%
3.0% 3.57 10%
2.5% 3.52 8%
2.0% 3.46 6%
1.5% 3.41 5%
1.0% 3.36 3%
0.5% 3.31 2%
0.0% 3.26 0%
-0.5% 3.21 -2%
-1.0% 3.16 -3%
-1.5% 3.11 -5%
-2.0% 3.06 -6%
-2.5% 3.02 -7%
-3.0% 2.97 -9%
-3.5% 2.92 -10%
-4.0% 2.88 -12% -15.0% 2.02 -38%
-4.5% 2.83 -13% -15.5% 1.99 -39%
-5.0% 2.79 -14% -16.0% 1.96 -40%
-5.5% 2.75 -16% -16.5% 1.92 -41%
-6.0% 2.70 -17% -17.0% 1.89 -42%
-6.5% 2.66 -18% -17.5% 1.86 -43%
-7.0% 2.62 -20% -18.0% 1.83 -44%
-7.5% 2.58 -21% -18.5% 1.80 -45%
-8.0% 2.54 -22% -19.0% 1.77 -46%
-8.5% 2.50 -23% -19.5% 1.73 -47%
-9.0% 2.46 -25% -20.0% 1.70 -48%
-9.5% 2.42 -26% -20.5% 1.67 -49%
-10.0% 2.38 -27% -21.0% 1.64 -50%
-10.5% 2.34 -28% -21.5% 1.61 -50%
-11.0% 2.30 -29% -22.0% 1.59 -51%
-11.5% 2.27 -30% -22.5% 1.56 -52%
-12.0% 2.23 -32% -23.0% 1.53 -53%
-12.5% 2.19 -33% -23.5% 1.51 -54%
-13.0% 2.16 -34% -24.0% 1.48 -55%
-13.5% 2.12 -35% -24.5% 1.45 -55%
-14.0% 2.09 -36% -25.0% 1.43 -56%
-14.5% 2.06 -37%
THROUGH-TRIPS (AUTOS ONLY)

Totals Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak
11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm
tbound trips. Inbounds follow shape for inbound through trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trips
183,444 22,195 4,471 15,476 4,577 19,680 39,913

Hours worksheet. Product of total thru-trips above, times %'s of daily thru-trips in respective periods in By Hours worksheet.
229,305 35,512 7,154 24,761 7,323 31,488 63,861
183,444 15,725 2,849 16,416 5,237 21,707 46,797

Hours worksheet. Figures in preceding row are made equal to corresponding figues in row 66, since thru-trips leave cordon shortly after entering.
229,305 25,159 4,558 26,266 8,379 34,731 74,875
100.0% 10.5% 2.9% 16.6% 5.1% 18.2% 34.1%

65,504 0 0 0 0 0 0
524,114 60,671 11,712 51,027 15,702 66,219 138,736
3,100,217 562,641 113,349 392,313 116,024 498,894 1,011,797

3,100,217 398,619 72,210 416,146 132,750 550,271 1,186,302
6,200,435 961,260 185,559 808,459 248,774 1,049,166 2,198,099
12,106,660 1,877,155 362,362 1,578,743 485,799 2,048,787 4,292,390

TAXICABS (MEDALLION TAXIS ONLY)
Row 59 Data will appear in this 'column block' after Row 59

P.M. Post-pk Totals Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk
8 pm - 11 pm 11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm
shape for all outbound trips. Inbounds follow shape for all inbound trips; outbounds follow shape for all o
20,827 127,139 5,663 2,282 13,162 3,893 12,553
33,324 203,423 11,326 4,563 26,324 7,785 25,107
18,410 127,139 5,663 2,282 13,162 3,893 12,553

cordon shortly after entering. Taxicab outbound trips are assumed to follow same distribution as inbound.
29,456 203,423 8,494 3,423 19,743 5,839 18,830
12.7% 100.0% 17.7% 1.9% 12.9% 4.8% 17.6%

0 0 210,187 22,749 152,581 57,062 208,747
oss cordon) shown in row 51. Each entry is product of %'s in row 78 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) s
62,779 406,846 230,008 30,735 198,648 70,686 252,684
527,972 3,222,990 33,978 13,690 78,973 23,356 75,321

466,693 3,222,990 33,978 13,690 78,973 23,356 75,321
994,665 6,445,981 67,956 27,381 157,945 46,711 150,641
1,941,533 12,586,769 6,796 2,738 15,795 4,671 15,064

ON TAXIS ONLY) TRUCKS
mn block' after Row 59 Data will appear in this 'column block'

P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk
2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm 11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am
ounds follow shape for all outbound trips. Inbounds follow shape for all inbound trips; outbounds follo
20,367 7,080 65,000 3,328 1,341 7,735 2,288
40,735 14,159 130,000 9,984 4,023 23,206 6,863
20,367 7,080 65,000 4,725 856 4,932 1,573
30,551 10,619 97,500 14,174 2,568 14,797 4,720
29.6% 15.5% 100.0% 10.5% 2.9% 16.6% 5.1%

351,863 183,873 1,187,062 4,832 1,318 7,601 2,317
on (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in row 51. Each entry is product of %'s in row 78 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that d
423,149 208,652 1,414,562 28,990 7,909 45,603 13,900
Taxi % of all cordon VMT: 41%
122,205 42,478 390,000 41,668 16,789 96,847 28,642

122,205 42,478 390,000 59,153 10,715 61,753 19,699
244,410 84,955 780,000 100,821 27,504 158,601 48,341
24,441 8,496 78,000 196,895 53,714 309,734 94,406

TRUCKS BU
ar in this 'column block' after Row 59 Data will appear in this '
Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak
10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm 11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am
ound trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trips. Inbounds follow shape for all inbound trips;
7,378 11,970 4,161 38,200 996 401 2,315
22,133 35,909 12,482 114,600 1,992 803 4,630
6,522 14,060 5,531 38,200 1,414 256 1,476
19,566 42,181 16,594 114,600 2,828 512 2,952
18.2% 34.1% 12.7% 100.0% 10.5% 2.9% 16.6%

8,340 15,618 5,815 45,840 2,410 657 3,791
m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in row 51. Each entry is product of %'s in row 78 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within
50,038 93,709 34,891 275,040 7,229 1,972 11,373
92,369 149,865 52,092 478,272 17,297 6,969 40,201

81,657 176,040 69,254 478,272 24,554 4,448 25,634
174,025 325,904 121,346 956,543 41,851 11,417 65,835
339,857 636,463 236,979 1,868,048 81,731 22,297 128,571

BUSES

A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals
9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm
1 hours 4 hours 6 hours 3 hours 24 hours
shape for all inbound trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trips.
685 2,208 3,582 1,245 11,432
1,369 4,416 7,164 2,490 22,863
471 1,952 4,208 1,655 11,432
942 3,903 8,415 3,311 22,863
5.1% 18.2% 34.1% 12.7% 100.0%
1,155 4,160 7,790 2,900 22,863

mes est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in row 51.
3,466 12,479 23,369 8,701 68,589
11,889 38,342 62,209 21,623 198,531

8,177 33,896 73,074 28,748 198,531
20,066 72,238 135,283 50,371 397,062
39,188 141,075 264,197 98,370 775,429

Delays Weekends
[Space has been added here to maintain consistency with Delays worksheet.]
This worksheet estimates the aggregate delays borne by all 'current' motor vehicle users as a result of a single additional vehic
weekend or holiday. See result in Row 140. See 'Delays' worksheet for analogous calculations for weekdays.
It operates by duplicating the initial stage of the Motor Vs Weekends worksheet, which calculates average vehicle speeds for the differen
difference: it increments the number of vehicle trips into the CBD (or 'cordon') by a small number, such as 100. The speeds for this (slight
less than the baseline speeds calculated in Motor Vs Weekends. Comparing the two sets of speeds reveals the additional hours in traffic
In performing these calculations, we have taken care to calculate total traffic delays, in the section beginning in Row 117, for 'baseline veh
additional trips for the delays they themselves experience.
Trips added to 'merged cell' (autos-thru trips-taxis) in Row 28 to estimate delay impact per trip:
Note: this figure could be virtually any number, since delay costs in Row 135 are calculated per trip, and the ratio is nearly constant ov
A. General Traffic Estimates (on 24-hour weekday basis)
Figure = corresponding figure in Motor Vs works
First four categories are from Hub-Bound worksheet, based on NYMTC data. Trucks are also from Hub-Bound worksheet. Bus is Komanoff estimate
some of truck and bus trips shown are allocated (below) to through-trips.
Komanoff estimates, seeking to reflect substantial percentage of auto trips that are through-trips as reported in Schaller, "Necessity or Choice? Wh
Difference 20
CBD miles for average trip (one way) 1.50 miles
Non-CBD miles for average trip (one way) (total miles minus CBD miles) 16.90 miles
Both rows are taken from Motor Vs.

3. Intra-Cordon VMT
Komanoff ests. Note that 7 in 8 auto trips in CBD are either inbound or outbound, while 1 in 8 are intra-CBD trips (Schaller, "Necessity or Choice,"
Products of percentages in row 49 and miles in row 44, except taxi figure is from Taxis worksheet.
4. Total weekday VMT inside cordon (sum of VMT's in rows 44 and 51) 316,647
B. Traffic Estimates From Part "A" Disaggregated Into Different Weekday Time Periods
Select period ALL MOTO
via pull-down Graveyard Early Shoulder
menu on cell Midnight-10 am 10 am-Noon
below.
Active period for time-dependent delay calculations Shoulder 2 0 0
1. Auto Cordon Crossings, inbound -- Trips and VMT

2. Auto Cordon Crossings, outbound -- Trips and VMT



VMT in period 966,403 276,103

VMT in period (sum of figures in two previous rows) 5,558,603 1,852,696
C. Total (Sum of "A" + "B") 16,070,261 5,337,478

6. Speeds
Reciprocal of cordon speeds 0.05 0.07
Volume, non-Cordon, for details.
C. Final Calculations
1. Vehicle Hours in Traffic Within Cordon 49,423.2 19,090.6

Baseline vehicle hours in traffic within cordon 49,421.9 19,088.8
Taken from corresponding entry in Motor Vs Weekends, Row 190
Difference in number of hours in traffic within cordon, as a result of hypothesized additional vehicles
2. Outside Cordon 298,188 177,765

Calculated as quotient of Row 167 VMT figures in Motor Vs worksheet by Row 112 speeds in this worksheet. Numerator uses Motor Vs VMT figures to
Taken from corresponding entry in Motor Vs Weekends, Row 966
Difference in number of hours in traffic outside cordon, as a result of hypothesized additional vehicles
3. Within and Outside Cordon, combined Note: figures in next row apply to trips whose inbound leg is
Differences in hours in traffic per time period, combined 0.106 0.114
Delay time attributable to each additional vehicle trip into the cordon (whose inbound leg is taken in the period selected in R
Represents aggregate delays to all drivers due to one driver's additional trip into CBD.
In cordon Out Cordon
Share of delay experienced in area: 31% 69% 100%
Traffic-weighted average delay
Method 1 for Displaying Results: Delays (due to one additional cordon trip) broken down by time periods in which delays are ca
Delay figures in array are in hours and are totals for each period.
Graveyard Early Shoulder Shoulder 1 Peak
Array shows Row 134 results
when all addit'l trips are 10 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 5 hour(s) 3 hour(s)
assigned to respective periods
chosen successively via Switch Graveyard 0.443 0.114 0.507 0.266
in Row 62.
Early Shoulder 0.106 1.160 0.507 0.266
Shoulder 1 0.106 0.114 2.233 0.266
Example: Highlighted fig. in Peak 0.106 0.114 0.507 2.327
Shoulder 1 column in Row 152 is
delay hours experienced in Shoulder 2 0.106 0.114 0.507 0.266
Shoulder 1 per extra trip in Peak. Late Shoulder 0.106 0.114 0.507 0.266
TOTAL 0.78 2.29 3.48 3.49

Method 2 for Displaying Results: Delays broken down by amounts that the other travelers experienced on inbound or outbound
Graveyard Early Shoulder Shoulder 1 Peak
Total Delay based on time of entry 1.562 2.271 2.951 3.286
Delays caused by inbound leg 0.339 1.049 1.743 2.076
Delays caused by outbound leg 1.223 1.222 1.208 1.211
Inbound values Outbound values
1.112 1.032
Method 3 for Displaying Results: Delays: Same as Method 1, but disaggregated between in-cordon and out-of-cordon, and show
Cols. B&C depend on Col. P. See
Col. Q for method.
Same as Col. Cost of delays Delay figures in array are in hours and are totals for each period.
M, but in- from one in- Graveyard Early Shoulder Shoulder 1 Peak
bound only, in bound mile in 10 2 5 3
pd. shown period shown
Delay Hours Experienced Within The Cordon
1.7 $0.70 Graveyard 0.12 0.03 0.16 0.10
6.4 $2.66 Early Shoulder 0.03 0.31 0.16 0.10
11.5 $4.75 Shoulder 1 0.03 0.03 0.68 0.10
12.5 $5.18 Peak 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.75
9.6 $3.97 Shoulder 2 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.10
6.0 $2.50 Late Shoulder 0.03 0.03 0.16 0.10
8.20 $3.40 TOTAL 0.21 0.61 1.07 1.18

All figures in these arrays are for average motor vehicle
To convert to average truck, multiply by: 2.26
To convert to avg passenger car, mult. by: 0.90
Delay Hours Experienced Outside The Cordon
1.2 $0.35 Graveyard 0.33 0.08 0.35 0.17
3.3 $0.99 Early Shoulder 0.08 0.86 0.35 0.17
4.9 $1.47 Shoulder 1 0.08 0.08 1.56 0.17
4.9 $1.45 Peak 0.08 0.08 0.35 1.58
4.0 $1.18 Shoulder 2 0.08 0.08 0.35 0.17
2.7 $0.81 Late Shoulder 0.08 0.08 0.35 0.17
3.60 $1.07 TOTAL 0.57 1.67 2.41 2.31

Col. M per-mile figures are for round-trips begun in period corresponding to each row, the return legs Trip-weighted average miles drive
of which are randomly distributed among the seven periods. Col. C figures are for entry legs only Trip-weighted average miles driven
and do not reflect return legs.
Note correspondence between proposed weekday toll rate in chart on left, and delays caused p
Proposed Price to Drive into Delays Caused by One Additional Tri

CBD (weekends) 3.5
$6
Delay (hours)
3
$5
2.5
$4
2
$3
1.5
Proposed Price to Drive into Delays Caused by One Additional Tri
CBD (weekends) 3.5
$6
Delay (hours)
3
$5
2.5
$4
2
$3
1.5
$2 1
$1 0.5
$0 0
d r r1
yar ld e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
ve h ou u ld e
G ra ly S Sh o
Ear
Time Period in which Vehicle E
Change
inTraffic
Volume
D e la y ( h rs ) d u e t o o n e t rip
10.0%
9.5%
9.0%
8.5%
8.0%
Imposed Delay Varies with Baseline Traffic Volume
7.5%
2.8
7.0%
"Skip" is caused by our 55 mph
2.6
cap for non-cordon speeds, since 6.5%
2.4 it creates a small "window" in which 6.0%
2.2 adding volume doesn't slow traffic. 5.5%
2.0
5.0%
4.5%
1.8
4.0%
1.6
3.5%
1.4 3.0%
1.2 2.5%
1.0 2.0%
1.5%
Change in Traffic Volume 1.0%
0.5%
0.0%
-0.5%
-1.0%
-1.5%
-2.0%
-2.5%
-3.0%
-3.5%
-4.0%
-4.5%
-5.0%
-5.5%
-6.0%
-6.5%
-7.0%
-7.5%
-8.0%
-8.5%
-9.0%
-9.5%
-10.0%
-10.5%
-11.0%
-11.5%
-12.0%
-12.5%
-13.0%
-13.5%
-14.0%
-14.5%
-15.0%
-15.5%
-16.0%
-16.5%
-17.0%
-17.5%
-18.0%
-18.5%
-19.0%
-19.5%
-20.0%
-20.5%
-21.0%
-21.5%
-22.0%
-22.5%
-23.0%
-23.5%
-24.0%
-24.5%
-25.0%
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
as a result of a single additional vehicle trip into the CBD made on a ###
ions for weekdays. ###
###
###
es average vehicle speeds for the different weekend periods; but with one ###
r, such as 100. The speeds for this (slightly) greater number of entries will be
eeds reveals the additional hours in traffic caused by the additional entries. ###
###
###
on beginning in Row 117, for 'baseline vehicles' only, to avoid 'charging' the ###
###
###
100 ###
er trip, and the ratio is nearly constant over a fairly wide range. ###
###
###
###
gure = corresponding figure in Motor Vs worksheet + increment number in Row 21. ###
590,100 0 65,000 15,000 6,000 676,100
###
b-Bound worksheet. Bus is Komanoff estimate. Note, however, that ###
###
37% N.A. 0% 37% 11% ###
reported in Schaller, "Necessity or Choice? Why People Drive in Manhattan." ###
369,403 226,967 65,000 9,390 5,340 676,100
### Dat
75% ###
277,005 129,800 65,000 12,690 5,707 ###
277,066 129,819 65,000 12,690 5,707 582,637
###
61 19 0 0 0 100
###
###
1.50 1.4 2.0 3.0 2.0 ###
16.9 25.4 6.0 12.7 17.4 ###
###
###
831,198 363,492 227,500 76,140 22,827 1,798,223
###
46% 20% 13% 4% 1% 100%###
###
###
14% 0% N.A. 20% 50% ###
ra-CBD trips (Schaller, "Necessity or Choice," p. 25). ###
118,743 0 1,187,062 15,228 11,413 1,372,026
###
###
###
949,940 363,492 1,414,562 91,368 34,240 3,170,249###
Change: 331
###
###
Shoulder 1 Peak Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder Totals ### Graveyard
Noon-5 pm 5 pm-8 pm 8 pm-10 pm 10 pm-Midnight ### Midnight-10 am
5 hour(s) 3 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 24 ### 10 hour(s)
0 0 1 0 ###
1 1 1 1 ### Inbounds follow shap
###
###
168,483 108,616 64,223 49,625 582,637### 28,522
265,088 171,134 101,038 78,080 915,361### 42,783
###
###
###
152,685 97,058 55,013 53,798 582,637### 28,053
231,331 147,049 83,342 81,528 882,861### 42,079
###
###
###
27.4% 17.5% 10.1% 8.9% 100%### 27.0%
### Same as for this column block in 'Motor Vs W
318,118 201,430 127,843 121,762 1,372,026### 10,704
### Each entry is product of %'s in row 78 times
###
###
814,537 519,613 312,223 281,370 3,170,249### 95,566
162,907 173,204 156,112 140,685 Change: 331
###
###
###
###
###
2,912,463 1,857,201 1,110,302 857,845 10,185,263### 482,026
2,646,346 1,680,046 948,552 946,472 10,185,263### 474,094
5,558,810 3,537,247 2,058,854 1,804,317 20,370,526### 956,119
###
10,436,899 6,638,071 3,857,700 3,400,303 38,329,413### 1,867,016
###
15,995,709 10,175,318 5,916,554 5,204,620 58,699,939###
3,199,142 3,391,773 2,958,277 2,602,310 Baseline figure: 58,696,243###
Change: 3,696
###
###
###
10.94 9.60 11.88 14.08 ###
0.09 0.10 0.08 0.07 ###
raffic-weighted avg speeds, 24 hour 13.03 Change from baseline: (0.0025)
###
###
###
Delta(fromprio #cordon entries)

ronx and Upper Manhattan, are derived differently than cordon speeds. ###
ordon equation is based on data for freeways and expressways. See Speed- ###
###
22.42 20.16 25.60 31.14 ###
22.42 20.16 25.60 Delta(fromprio #cordon entries)
31.14 ###
0.04 0.05 0.04 0.03 ###
raffic-weighted avg speeds, 24 hour 28.70 Change from baseline: (0.0031)###
###
###
###
###
74,442.1 54,121.4 26,274.5 19,978.5 243,330###
74,432.6 54,115.7 26,248.6 19,977.0 243,285###
###
46###
###
713,559 504,744 231,061 167,113 2,092,430###
713,518 504,723 230,930 167,107 2,092,212###
###
217###
###
xt row apply to trips whose inbound leg is taken in the period 'selected' in Row 62. ###
0.507 0.266 1.561 0.076 263###
leg is taken in the period selected in Row 62). 2.63 hours ###
###
###
###
###
2.52 hours ###
= 151 minutes ###
###
by time periods in which delays are caused and experienced ###
###
s and are totals for each period. ###
Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder TOTAL Baseline trips ###
2 hour(s) 2 hour(s) (delay hrs caused by one (from Motor Vs###
extra trip in row shown) Weekends) ###
0.156 0.076 1.56 138,095###
0.156 0.076 2.27 53,595###
0.156 0.076 2.95 168,483###
0.156 0.076 3.29 108,616###
1.561 0.076 2.63 64,123###
0.156 1.079 2.23 49,625###
###
2.82 1.90 2.52 582,537###
###
###
###
###
s experienced on inbound or outbound leg of their trips ###
###
Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder Totals ###
2.630 2.228 ###
1.411 1.006 ###
1.220 1.222 ###
Outbound values ###
1.032 ###
###
n-cordon and out-of-cordon, and shown per trip mile ###
###
T O T A L S (in cordon) ###
s and are totals for each period. Delay hrs from ### Delay hrs, rnd-
Delay minutes
Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder one xtra round- ### trip but cordon
per mile from
2 2 trip in row Baseline trips ### only, in period
round-trip
shown shown
d Within The Cordon (from Motor Vs)###
0.05 0.03 0.49 9.3 138,095### 0.088
0.05 0.03 0.67 12.8 53,595### 0.336
0.05 0.03 0.91 17.4 168,483### 0.6
0.05 0.03 1.05 20.0 108,616### 0.654
0.49 0.03 0.83 15.9 64,123### 0.502
0.05 0.33 0.71 13.5 49,625### 0.316
###
0.90 0.61 0.79 15.0 582,537###
###
### Delay hrs, rnd-
### trip but non-
### cordon only, in
period shown
d Outside The Cordon T O T A L S (out cordon) ###
0.11 0.05 1.08 1.8 138,095### 0.696
0.11 0.05 1.60 2.7 53,595### 1.949
0.11 0.05 2.04 3.5 168,483### 2.881
0.11 0.05 2.24 3.8 108,616### 2.834
1.08 0.05 1.80 3.1 64,123### 2.321
0.11 0.75 1.52 2.6 49,625### 1.579
###
1.92 1.28 1.74 3.0 582,537###
###
###
Trip-weighted average miles driven within the cordon: 1.6 ###
Trip-weighted average miles driven outside the cordon: 17.5 ###
###
n chart on left, and delays caused per trip in chart on right. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
r r ###
ard ld e r1 Pea
k r2 ld e
h ou u ld e u ld e h ou ###
ly S Sh o Sh o te S
Ear La ###
Time Period in which Vehicle Enters Cordon
###
Change in
New Weighted Wghtd Avg
Average over Original
2.71 31%
2.68 29%
2.64 27%
2.60 25%
2.57 24%
2.53 22%
2.50 20%
2.46 19%
2.43 17%
2.39 15%
2.36 14%
2.33 12%
2.29 10%
2.26 9%
2.23 7%
2.20 6%
2.17 4%
2.14 3%
2.11 1%
2.08 0%
2.05 -1%
2.02 -3%
1.99 -4%
1.96 -6%
1.93 -7%
1.90 -8%
1.88 -10%
1.85 -11%
1.82 -12%
1.80 -13%
1.65 -20%
1.63 -22%
1.61 -23%
1.58 -24%
1.56 -25%
1.53 -26%
1.51 -27%
1.49 -28%
1.47 -29%
1.44 -30%
1.42 -32%
1.40 -33%
1.38 -34%
1.36 -35%
1.34 -36%
1.32 -37%
1.30 -38%
1.28 -39%
1.26 -40%
1.24 -40%
1.22 -41%
1.20 -42%
1.18 -43%
1.16 -44%
1.14 -45%
1.12 -46%
1.11 -47%
1.09 -48%
1.07 -48%
1.05 -49%
1.04 -50%
1.02 -51%
1.00 -52%
0.99 -52%
0.97 -53%
0.96 -54%
0.94 -55%
0.92 -55%
0.91 -56%
0.89 -57%
0.88 -58%
AUTO TRIPS FOR WORK

Early Shoulder Shoulder 1 Peak Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder Totals
10 am-Noon Noon-5 pm 5 pm-8 pm 8 pm-10 pm 10 pm-Midnight
2 hour(s) 5 hour(s) 3 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 24
10,217 26,758 10,349 10,204 6,305 92,355

15,326 40,136 15,524 15,306 9,458 138,533
8,110 23,887 15,156 8,539 8,611 92,355

12,165 35,831 22,733 12,808 12,917 138,533
9.0% 27.4% 17.5% 10.1% 8.9% 100.0%

Same as for this column block in 'Motor Vs Weekends' tab, Row 141.
3,559 10,842 6,937 4,008 3,531 39,581
31,049 86,809 45,195 32,122 25,905 316,647
172,668 452,205 174,905 172,448 106,558 1,560,810

137,058 403,699 256,132 144,302 145,526 1,560,810
309,726 855,904 431,037 316,750 252,085 3,121,621
604,810 1,671,334 841,668 617,852 492,237 6,094,918

Derivation of Col. P figures to left: To eliminate non-cordon delays, non-cordon baseline hours in
Row 126 were temporarily set equal to 'incremented' non-cordon hours in Row 129. The array in
Rows 149-156 was then recalculated (reflecting cordon delays only) via the 'usual' procedure of
consecutively selecting the respective periods via the switch in Row 62, and inputting the vector
in Row 134 into the array. The column sums in Row 156 were then manually inputted into the
column at left.
The figures in column of figures to left were calculated through the same procedure as described
above (for Rows 177-182) except that cordon hours rather than non-cordon hours zeroed out by
equating Row 119 to Row 122.
AUTO TRIPS FOR NON-WORK

Graveyard Early Shoulder Shoulder 1 Peak Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder
10 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 5 hour(s) 3 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 2 hour(s)
Inbounds follow shape for inbound non-work trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trips.
49,937 21,425 83,953 63,435 32,013 26,303

Product of total auto non-work trips above, times %'s of total daily inbound non-work trips in respective periods in By Hours worksheet.
74,906 32,138 125,930 95,152 48,019 39,455
84,159 24,331 71,664 45,464 25,617 25,831

Product of total auto non-work trips above, times percentages of total daily outbound trips in respective periods in By Hours worksheet.
126,238 36,497 107,496 68,196 38,425 38,747
27.0% 9.0% 27.4% 17.5% 10.1% 8.9%

Same as for this column block in 'Motor Vs Weekends' tab, Row .
32,112 10,677 32,526 20,811 12,024 10,593
233,256 79,311 265,952 184,159 98,468 88,795
843,942 362,087 1,418,811 1,072,048 541,015 444,527

1,422,286 411,198 1,211,129 768,341 432,923 436,554
2,266,229 773,285 2,629,940 1,840,390 973,938 881,081
4,425,130 1,509,938 5,135,466 3,593,899 1,899,784 1,720,538

THROUGH-TRIPS (AUTOS ONLY)

Totals Graveyard Early Shoulder Shoulder 1 Peak Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder
24 10 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 5 hour(s) 3 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 2 hour(s)
tbound trips. Inbounds follow shape for inbound through trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trips
277,066 39,860 14,278 33,655 19,285 12,827 9,913

Hours worksheet. Product of total thru-trips above, times %'s of daily thru-trips in respective periods in By Hours worksheet.
415,599 55,804 19,990 47,117 26,998 17,958 13,878
277,066 39,432 11,400 33,578 21,302 12,002 12,104

Hours worksheet. Figures in preceding row are made equal to corresponding figues in row 66, since thru-trips leave cordon shortly after entering.
415,599 55,205 15,960 47,009 29,823 16,803 16,945
100.0% 27.0% 9.0% 27.4% 17.5% 10.1% 8.9%

118,743 0 0 0 0 0 0
Intra-cordon VMT is zero for thru-trips, by definition.
949,940 111,010 35,950 94,126 56,822 34,762 30,823
4,682,431 1,010,461 361,961 853,154 488,866 325,176 251,298

4,682,431 999,613 288,993 851,200 540,020 304,263 306,826
9,364,862 2,010,074 650,954 1,704,354 1,028,887 629,439 558,124
18,284,755 3,925,217 1,271,156 3,328,190 2,009,224 1,228,213 1,089,905

TAXICABS (MEDALLION TAXIS ONLY)

Totals Graveyard Early Shoulder Shoulder 1 Peak Shoulder 2
Midnight-10 am 10 am-Noon Noon-5 pm 5 pm-8 pm 8 pm-10 pm
24 10 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 5 hour(s) 3 hour(s) 2 hour(s)
shape for all outbound trips. Inbounds follow shape for all inbound trips; outbounds follow shape for all o
129,819 15,413 5,981 18,797 12,117 7,154
181,746 30,826 11,963 37,595 24,235 14,308
129,819 15,413 5,981 18,797 12,117 7,154

cordon shortly after entering. Taxicab outbound trips are assumed to follow same distribution as inbound.
181,746 23,120 8,972 28,196 18,176 10,731
100.0% 37.0% 8.2% 22.5% 14.2% 9.2%

0 438,657 97,564 267,453 169,012 109,114
Each entry is product of %'s in row 78 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) s
363,492 492,602 118,498 333,244 211,423 134,154
3,290,915 92,478 35,888 112,784 72,705 42,924

3,290,915 92,478 35,888 112,784 72,705 42,924
6,581,831 184,956 71,775 225,568 145,410 85,849
12,851,905 18,496 7,178 22,557 14,541 8,585

ON TAXIS ONLY) TRUCKS

Late Shoulder Totals Graveyard Early Shoulder Shoulder 1 Peak
10 pm-Midnight Midnight-10 am 10 am-Noon Noon-5 pm 5 pm-8 pm
2 hour(s) 24 10 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 5 hour(s) 3 hour(s)
ounds follow shape for all outbound trips. Inbounds follow shape for all inbound trips; outbounds follo
5,537 65,000 3,009 1,168 3,670 2,366

Uses same inbound %'s as auto work-trips; may want to modify to put more entries in a.m. p
11,074 130,000 9,027 3,503 11,009 7,097
5,537 65,000 3,855 1,114 3,282 2,082

Uses same outbound %'s as autos; may want to modify to reflect possible tilt toward morning
8,305 97,500 11,564 3,343 9,847 6,247
8.9% 100.0% 27.0% 9.0% 27.4% 17.5%

105,262 1,187,062 4,118 1,369 4,171 2,669
on (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in row 51. Each entry is product of %'s in row 78 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that d
124,641 1,414,562 24,709 8,215 25,027 16,013
45%
33,221 390,000 38,311 14,867 46,723 30,119

33,221 390,000 49,075 14,187 41,788 26,513
66,442 780,000 87,386 29,054 88,511 56,632
6,644 78,000 170,657 56,741 172,855 110,598

TRUCKS BU
Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder Totals Graveyard Early Shoulder Shoulder 1
8 pm-10 pm 10 pm-Midnight Midnight-10 am 10 am-Noon Noon-5 pm
2 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 24 10 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 5 hour(s)
1,397 1,081 12,690 1,353 525 1,650

odify to put more entries in a.m. periods, fewer in p.m. Uses same inbound %'s as auto work-trips.
4,190 3,243 38,070 2,706 1,050 3,301
1,173 1,183 12,690 1,733 501 1,476

eflect possible tilt toward morning, esp'ly early morning, and away from evening Uses same outbound %'s as autos; may want to modify to reflect possibl
3,520 3,550 38,070 3,467 1,002 2,952
10.1% 8.9% 100.0% 27.0% 9.0% 27.4%

1,542 1,358 15,228 3,087 1,026 3,126
m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in row 51. Each entry is product of %'s in row 78 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within
9,252 8,151 91,368 9,260 3,079 9,379
17,782 13,762 161,565 23,604 9,160 28,786

14,937 15,064 161,565 30,236 8,741 25,746
32,719 28,826 323,129 53,839 17,901 54,532
63,898 56,295 631,044 105,143 34,958 106,497

BUSES

Peak Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder Totals
5 pm-8 pm 8 pm-10 pm 10 pm-Midnight
3 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 2 hour(s) 24
shape for all inbound trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trips.
1,064 628 486 5,707
2,128 1,256 972 11,413
936 528 532 5,707

y want to modify to reflect possible tilt toward morning, esp'ly early morning, and away from evening
1,873 1,055 1,064 11,413
17.5% 10.1% 8.9% 100.0%

Vs Weekends' tab, Row .
2,000 1,156 1,018 11,413
mes est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in row 51.
6,001 3,467 3,055 34,240
18,557 10,956 8,479 99,541

16,335 9,203 9,281 99,541
34,892 20,159 17,760 199,083
68,140 39,368 34,684 388,792

Delay Costs
Note: The analysis in this worksheet forms the analytical backbone of "Time Thieves," an article by Charles Komanoff and Will Fishe
New York Transportation Journal, published by the NYU-Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management. The article m
<http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/journal/2010/02/time-thieves-a-new-computer-driven-traffic-model-reveals-the-%E2%80%9Ctime-
same text, with a slightly clearer format, is available at this link: <http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/Time_Thieves.pdf>.
This worksheet combines delay durations (measured in hours) per additional vehicle trip into the CBD, as estimated in the Delays and D
Weekends worksheets, with estimates of the per-hour values of drivers' time derived in the Value of Time and Cost-Benefit worksheets
the dollar cost of aggregate delays imposed on other vehicle users due to one vehicle trip.
We perform two sets of calculations:

Part A treats all motor vehicles entering the CBD as having equal congestion "causation."
Part B attempts to adjust for the lesser per-vehicle congestion "causation" of autos vis-à-vis larger vehicles (trucks and buses).
A. Calculations for all vehicles (i.e., no differentiation between cars' and trucks' delay causation)
Weekdays
Delays caused per Avg value of a Delay costs per trip
Period trip, hours driver's hour (rounded)
Graveyard 11 pm - 5 am 1.96 $34.53 $68.00
A.M. Pre-pk 5 am - 6 am 2.42 $34.53 $83.00
A.M. Peak 6 am - 9 am 4.46 $34.53 $154.00
A.M. Post-pk 9 am - 10 am 3.93 $34.53 $136.00
Midday Pk 10 am - 2 pm 3.43 $34.53 $119.00
P.M. Peak 2 pm - 8 pm 4.87 $34.53 $168.00
P.M. Post-pk 8 pm - 11 pm 3.29 $34.53 $114.00
TOTAL 3.94 $34.53 $136.00
from Delays sheet wghtd avg of $ below prod. of 2 prev cols.
Average time value of a vehicle-hour, within cordon $41.45 Figs are from 'Value of Time' worksheet,
Average time value of a vehicle-hour, outside cordon $29.72 Rows 91 and 127.
Share of delay hours experienced within CBD 41%
Share of delay hours experienced outside CBD 59% These figures are from Delays worksheet.
Weekends
Period
Graveyard Midnight-10 am 1.56 $20.03 $31.00
Early Shoulder 10 am-Noon 2.27 $20.03 $45.00
Shoulder 1 Noon-5 pm 2.95 $20.03 $59.00
Peak 5 pm-8 pm 3.29 $20.03 $66.00
Shoulder 2 8 pm-10 pm 2.63 $20.03 $53.00
Late Shoulder 10 pm-Midnight 2.23 $20.03 $45.00
TOTAL 2.52 $20.03 $51.00
from Delays Wknds wghtd avg of $ below prod. of 2 prev cols.
Average time value of a vehicle-hour, within cordon $24.87 Figs apply wknd/wkday ratio from 'Cost-
Average time value of a vehicle-hour, outside cordon $17.83 Benefit' tab, Row 103, to Rows 31 and 32.
Share of delay hours experienced within CBD 31% These figures are from Delays Weekends
Share of delay hours experienced outside CBD 69% sheet.
B. Calculations for passenger cars (i.e., reflecting the difference in congestion causation between cars and trucks)
1. We derive an equation that recalculates the delay hours caused by one additional car trip into the CBD, based on an
assumed ratio of truck-to-car congestion causation.
Nomenclature
Congestion causation by one truck or bus = T
Congestion causation by one auto = C
Ratio of one truck's congestion causation to one auto's congestion causation = T/C, which we'll call F.
Trucks (and buses) percentage share of traffic volume = Tshare
Cars percentage share of traffic volume = Cshare
We have the identity: Tshare + Cshare = 1

We also have (weekdays) Tshare x T + Cshare x C = 3.94 (That's the 24-hr wghtd avg weekday delay costs, in ho
Substituting: Tshare x T + (1 - Tshare) x C = 3.94
Divide both by C: (Tshare x T + C - C x Tshare) / C = 3.94/C
Simplify: Tshare x T/C + 1 - Tshare = 3.94/C
Simplify more: Tshare x F + 1 - Tshare = 3.94/C
Invert and reverse: C / 3.94 = 1 / (Tshare x F + 1 - Tshare)
Multiply: C= 3.94 / (Tshare x F + 1 - Tshare)
For weekdays, we have these values:

Tshare 7.2%
Cshare 92.8%
If F (i.e., T/C) = 2.5 (This is a Komanoff assumption, which the reader is free to vary.)
then the equation above for C yields: C = 3.56 hours
and: T = 8.90 hours
The value just derived for C, 3.56, equals 90% of the value of 3.94 for all vehicles
Thus, the delay costs in Part A must be multiplied by 90% to yield delay costs for autos alone
Or, conversely, must be multiplied by 226% to yield delays for trucks alone
We do this directly below.
Weekdays
Delays caused per Avg value of a Delay costs per trip
Period trip, hours driver's hour (rounded)
Graveyard 11 pm - 5 am 1.77 $34.53 $61.00
A.M. Pre-pk 5 am - 6 am 2.18 $34.53 $75.00
A.M. Peak 6 am - 9 am 4.03 $34.53 $139.00
A.M. Post-pk 9 am - 10 am 3.54 $34.53 $122.00
Midday Pk 10 am - 2 pm 3.10 $34.53 $107.00
P.M. Peak 2 pm - 8 pm 4.40 $34.53 $152.00
P.M. Post-pk 8 pm - 11 pm 2.97 $34.53 $103.00
TOTAL 3.56 $34.53 $123.00
Weekends
Period
Graveyard Midnight-10 am 1.41 $20.03 $28.00
Early Shoulder 10 am-Noon 2.05 $20.03 $41.00
Shoulder 1 Noon-5 pm 2.66 $20.03 $53.00
Peak 5 pm-8 pm 2.97 $20.03 $59.00
Shoulder 2 8 pm-10 pm 2.37 $20.03 $48.00
Late Shoulder 10 pm-Midnight 2.01 $20.03 $40.00
TOTAL 2.28 $20.03 $46.00
Delay Costs due to One Additional Auto (Round) Trip to CBD
By time of entry (weekdays)
$160
$140
$120
$100
$80
$60
$40
$20
$0
Proposed Auto Toll vs. Delay-Cost (weekdays)

Delay cost, minus $180
toll. This column is
for sole purpose of $160
graph at right. It
allows top of blue $140
bar to match delay
$120
cost instead of
appearing as $100
"added" to toll.
$80
$58
$60
$69
$132 $40
$115
$101 $20
$145 $0
$97
y a rd
-pk
ak
ak
t-pk
st-p
P
. Pe
Pe
. Pr e
day
Pos
ve
. Po
P.M.
A.M
Mid
Gra
A.M
P.M.
Delay-C
A.M
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
ticle by Charles Komanoff and Will Fisher in the Winter 2010 edition of the ###
ation Policy & Management. The article may be accessed via this link:
###
fic-model-reveals-the-%E2%80%9Ctime-costs%E2%80%9D-of-traffic/>. The
lan/Time_Thieves.pdf>. ###
###
###
e CBD, as estimated in the Delays and Delays ###
ue of Time and Cost-Benefit worksheets, to calculate ###
###
###
###
###
ger vehicles (trucks and buses). ###
###
###
###
###
Proposed Cordon Proposed Toll, % ###
Toll of Delay Costs ###
$2.77 4% ### 54,285
$5.67 7% ### 17,442
$7.39 5% ### 115,493
$7.39 5% Note to reader: ### 34,090
$5.67 5% Column to left has a ### 117,363
$7.47 4% slight apples-to- ### 178,307
$5.67 5% oranges quality ### 59,800
insofar as it
$6.40 4.7% compares proposed ###
from Weekday Hrs quot. of 2 prev cols. cordon entry fees for ###
are from 'Value of Time' worksheet, autos with delay ###
s 91 and 127. costs for an average ###
vehicle rather than ###
e figures are from Delays worksheet.
an average auto. ###
This slight
discrepancy is ###
corrected in Part B, ###
further below. We ###
thus suggest that ###
you use the
$4.30 14% comparison of fees ### 108,802
$4.30 10% to delay costs in ### 46,463
$4.30 7% Part B rather than ### 151,119
$4.30 7% those shown here. ### 99,626
$4.30 8% ### 54,813
$4.30 10% ### 36,563
$4.30 8.4% ###
from Weekday Hrs quot. of 2 prev cols. ###
apply wknd/wkday ratio from 'Cost- ###
fit' tab, Row 103, to Rows 31 and 32. ###
e figures are from Delays Weekends ###
t. ###
###
###
###
tion between cars and trucks) ###
###
rip into the CBD, based on an ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
he 24-hr wghtd avg weekday delay costs, in hours, of one vehicle trip into the CBD) ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
that was derived in Delays and is shown above. ###
delay costs for autos alone (based on value of 'F' in Row 78). ###
delays for trucks alone (based on value of 'F' in Row 79). ###
###
###
###
Proposed Cordon Proposed Toll, % ###
Toll of Delay Costs ###
$2.77 5% ###
$5.67 8% ###
$7.39 5% ###
$7.39 6% ###
$5.67 5% ###
$7.47 5% ###
$5.67 6% ###
$6.40 5.2% ###
from Weekday Hrs Col. G div. by Col. F ###
###
###
###
$4.30 15% ###
$4.30 10% ###
$4.30 8% ###
$4.30 7% ###
$4.30 9% ###
$4.30 11% ###
$4.30 9.4% ###
from Weekday Hrs Col. G div. by Col. F ###
###
###
###
###
###
uto (Round) Trip to CBD ###
kdays) ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
st (weekdays) ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
k
ak
t-pk
P
###
Pe
day
Pos
###
P.M.
Mid
###
P.M.
Delay-Cost Auto Toll

###
###
###
###
Speed-Volume (Cordon)
Issue and Approach
Higher traffic volumes generally result in lower traffic speeds, and vice-versa. Speed-Volume relationships are the mathematical
expressions of that phenomenon. They are central to the BTA, since they are used to translate the predicted changes in traffic
volumes from congestion pricing (and new transit fares) into estimated time savings. They also are used to establish baseline
estimates of traffic speeds in the CBD.
For the speed-volume relationship we apply to traffic within the CBD, we relied on modeling by renowned U-C Irvine economics
professor and director emeritus of U-C Irvine's Institute for Transportation Studies, Kenneth A. Small
<http://www.faculty.uci.edu/scripts/UCIFacultyProfiles/DetailDept.CFM?ID=2431>.
In his 1992 book, Urban Transportation Economics (Harwood Academic Publishers, 1992, now distributed by Routledge), Prof.
Small fitted the following curve to speed data observed by University of Toronto economics professor Donald DeWees in a corridor
in Toronto that he describes as somewhat urban and somewhat suburban. (The Dewees article, which is not Internet-available, is
Dewees, Donald N. (1978) "Simulations Of Traffic Congestion In Toronto," Transportation Research, Vol. 12, pp. 153-161. See Table
7.)
The equation is as follows:
60/S = 2.48 + 0.254(V/VK)4.08 (Equation 1)
where S = speed, V = vehicle volume (in vehicles per hour) and V_sub_k is a situation-specific parameter (arbitrarily taken at 1000
in this case).
Prof. Small approximated Equation 1 as follows:
60/S = 2.5 * [1 + 0.1*(V/VK)4] (Equation 2)
We elected, however, to work with Equation 1, which can be translated algebraically into Equation 3:
S = 24.2 / [1 + 0.1*(V/VK)4.08] (Equation 3)
Note that the maximum speed allowed by this formulation is 24.2 mph, which appeared to fit well with CBD (nighttime) traffic
(allowing for traffic signals).
Once we estimated V_sub_k, we could calculate the traffic speed S associated with any vehicle volume V. And we did so (estimated
V_sub_k), taking advantage of (i) the estimate in PlaNYC that the average weekday 6 a.m. 6 p.m. traffic speed in the CBD was 8
mph, and (ii) our estimates in the Motor Vs worksheet of CBD traffic volumes during those hours. The estimated value of V_sub_k
was 83263.9057518586.
1. Estimating "V_sub_k" from CBD Traffic volumes and speeds -- original inputs and results
(These calculations were applied to BTA until May 6, 2011.)
Estimated average traffic speed in Manhattan CBD, weekdays, 6 a.m. - 6 p.m. (mph)
PlaNYC document, "NYC Mobility Needs Assessment, 2007-2030," Fig. 5.10.9 - Average Daily Speed at 2007 Baseline (without Congestion
Pricing), p. 147. See also, "Report to the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission & Recommended Implementation Plan," Jan. 31, 2008, p. 6:
"GPS data for October 2007 show that taxi trips average 6 mph within Midtown Manhattan and 8 mph within the CBD as a whole (below 60th
Street), between 8 am and 6 pm."
Estimated vehicle volumes (expressed as hourly VMT) in Manhattan CBD, weekdays
6-9 a.m. 9-10 a.m. 10am-2pm 2-6 p.m.
Hourly VMT 176,582 171,660 154,591 185,224
From Motor Vs worksheet, Row 149. Note that figures are total VMT rather than merely entries into cordon.
Number of hours in period 3 1 4 4
From Motor Vs worksheet, Row 118 except that 2-8 p.m. value has been changed to 4 (hours) to match PlaNYC datum.
Total Period VMT 529,746 171,660 618,366 740,895
V_sub_k required to yield average traffic speed shown above
Speeds 7.69 8.30 10.76 6.70

Reciprocals of Speeds 0.13 0.12 0.09 0.15
Used for calculation of V_sub_k 6.1E+13 5.5E+13 3.6E+13 7.4E+13 4.17E+07
V_sub_k was derived via trial-and-error. Note that speed figure is weighted by period VMT and employs reciprocals to properly calculate
average (i.e., via harmonic mean).
2. Estimating "V_sub_k" from CBD Traffic volumes and speeds -- current inputs and results
(These calculations were applied to BTA on May 6, 2011, and are still current, w/ a modification applied June 10, 2011.)
In early 2011, NYC DOT advised us that new data available since 2007 indicated that Manhattan CBD travel speeds were higher
than the figures published in PlaNYC documents in 2007 and adopted by the Traffic Congestion & Mitigation Commission in its Jan.
2008 report. (See citations in Rows 50-53, above.)
The new data are drawn from GPS records maintained by NYC medallion taxicabs, and appear in DOT's "Sustainable Street Index"
reports for 2009 (<http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/sustainable_streets_index_09.pdf>) and 2010
(<http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/sustainable_streets_index_10.pdf>) . As DOT notes:
The taxi GPS dataset provides the first comprehensive view of network-wide traffic speeds in Manhattan. The taxi speed data are based on the
distance and duration of the entire trip for customer-carrying taxi rides. Speeds reflect both time in motion and time spent stopped in traffic or at
red lights. (2010 report, p. 16)
Following are key CBD traffic speed data from the two reports:
* Weekday speeds average 9.3 mph for CBD trips between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. in 2010. (2010 report, p. 16)
* Weekday speeds average 9.1 m.p.h. for CBD trips between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m., and 9.5 m.p.h. for CBD trips between 6 a.m. and 6
p.m., for the 12 months ending in October 2009. (2009 report, p. 16)
* Within the CBD, weekday traffic speeds peak [for 12 mos. ending Oct. 2009) at 16 m.p.h. for 5-6 a.m. (2009 report, p. 16)
We sift and apply these data as follows:
Estimated average traffic speed in Manhattan CBD, weekdays, 6 a.m. - 6 p.m. (mph):
Drawn from 2009 report. Though 2010 datum is slightly higher, CBD travel speeds appear likely to dip as economic activity increases. And in
fact a graph of year-on-year speed differences in the 2010 report (p. 16) shows 2010 speeds dipping slightly below 2009 speeds in the latter
part of the year after having increased in the earlier part.)
However, we regard the 16 mph speed for 5-6 a.m. as too low, based on anecdotal observation. Thus, we have not modified Ken
Small's parameters (except for minor rounding) to fit that value.
We now modify the Ken Small equation so that the CBD traffic volumes for the various time periods 'yield' the average speed shown
in Cell K95. This is done by trial-and-error, so we go directly to the results:
S = 24.2 / [1 + 0.1*(V/VK)4.08] (We repeat Equation 3, above)
We name the 24.2 parameter KSC (Ken Small constant term)

We name the 4.08 parameter KSE (Ken Small exponent)
S = KSC / [1 + 0.1*(V/VK)KSE] (Eqn 3 with range-names substituted for Ken Small's constants)
Value of KSC which (in conjunction with revised KSE) yields speed in Cells K95: 22
Value of KSE which (in conjunction with revised KSC) yields speed in Cells K95 (rounded): 4.00
Estimated vehicle volumes (expressed as hourly VMT) in Manhattan CBD, weekdays

11pm-5am 5am-6am 6-9 a.m. 9-10 a.m. 10am-2pm 2-6 p.m.
Hourly VMT 74,471 88,785 176,582 171,660 154,591 185,224
From Motor Vs worksheet, Row 209. Note that figures are total VMT rather than merely entries into cordon.
Number of hours in period 6 1 3 1 4 4
From Motor Vs worksheet, Row 178 except that 2-8 p.m. value has been changed to 4 (hours) to match PlaNYC datum.
Total Period VMT 446,828 88,785 529,746 171,660 618,366 740,895
V_sub_k required to yield average traffic speed shown in Cell K95.
Speeds 21.07 20.20 9.18 9.79 12.09 8.18

Reciprocals of Speeds 0.05 0.05 0.11 0.10 0.08 0.12
Used for calculation of V_sub_k 2.3E+13 2.1E+13 1.4E+13 2.8E+13
Important Note
The worksheet that 'drives' the BTA, Motor Vs, operates properly if and only if the average motor vehicle speed shown in Row 187 of
that worksheet matches the value shown directly above in Row 127 when the Baseline Traffic Reduction 'switch' in the 'Summary'
and 'User Inputs' worksheets is set to zero.
If, for some reason, the two values are different, then the value of V_sub_k shown directly above in Row 124 must be re-set, by trial
and error, to equate the two -- again, with the Baseline Traffic Reduction set to zero.
Graph of Equation 3
S = 24.2 / [1 + 0.1*(V/VK)4.08] (Equation 3)
S = 24.2 / [1 + 0.1*(X4.08] 24.2 0.1 4.08
X V/1000 S
0.20 18 24.20
0.25 23 24.19
0.30 27 24.18 Cordon Speeds: Variation with Traffic Volume
0.35 32 24.17
0.40 37 24.14 30
0.45 41 24.11
0.50 46 24.06
0.55 50 23.99 25
0.60 55 23.90
0.65 59 23.79
0.70 64 23.65 Baseline A.M. and P.M. peak valu
20
0.75 69 23.47 are approximately 220 thousand
MPH
0.80 73 23.26
'Graveyard' shift value is roughly
0.85 78 23.01
thousand.
15
0.90 82 22.72
0.95 87 22.38
1.00 91 22.00 10
0
20
MPH
15
10
1.05 96 21.57
1.10 101 21.09
1.15 105 20.56
5
1.20 110 19.99
1.25 114 19.38
1.30 119 18.74
0
1.35 123 18.06
20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 3
1.40 128 17.35
1.45 132 16.63 CBD Traffic (Thousands of Vehicles per Hour)
1.50 137 15.89
1.55 142 15.15
1.60 146 14.40
1.65 151 13.66
1.70 155 12.93
1.75 160 12.22
1.80 164 11.52
1.85 169 10.85
1.90 174 10.20
1.95 178 9.58
2.00 183 8.99
2.05 187 8.43
2.10 192 7.90
2.15 196 7.40
2.20 201 6.92
2.25 206 6.48
2.30 210 6.06
2.35 215 5.67
2.40 219 5.31
2.45 224 4.97
2.50 228 4.65
2.55 233 4.35
2.60 238 4.08
2.65 242 3.82
2.70 247 3.58
2.75 251 3.36
2.80 256 3.15
2.85 260 2.96
2.90 265 2.78
2.95 270 2.61
3.00 274 2.46
3.05 279 2.31
3.10 283 2.18
3.15 288 2.05
3.20 292 1.93
3.25 297 1.83
3.30 302 1.72
3.35 306 1.63
3.40 311 1.54
3.45 315 1.45
3.50 320 1.38
3.55 324 1.30
3.60 329 1.23
3.65 333 1.17
3.70 338 1.11
3.75 343 1.05
3.80 347 1.00
3.85 352 0.95
3.90 356 0.90
3.95 361 0.86
4.00 365 0.82
1/6/2012###
###
###
###
###
s are the mathematical ###
ted changes in traffic ###
o establish baseline ###
###
###
###
U-C Irvine economics ###
###
###
###
###
d by Routledge), Prof.
nald DeWees in a corridor ###
not Internet-available, is ###
12, pp. 153-161. See Table ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
r (arbitrarily taken at 1000 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
D (nighttime) traffic ###
###
###
V. And we did so (estimated ###
speed in the CBD was 8 ###
imated value of V_sub_k ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
8.00###
###
seline (without Congestion ###
ion Plan," Jan. 31, 2008, p. 6:
BD as a whole (below 60th ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
2,060,667###
###
83,264### 83,264
###
###
8.0000###
###
s to properly calculate ###
###
###
###
###
une 10, 2011.) ###
###
vel speeds were higher ###
ion Commission in its Jan. ###
###
###
"Sustainable Street Index" ###
###
###
speed data are based on the ###
e spent stopped in traffic or at ###
###
###
###
###
###
rips between 6 a.m. and 6 ###
###
009 report, p. 16) ###
###
###
###
9.50###
c activity increases. And in ###
w 2009 speeds in the latter ###
###
###
e have not modified Ken ###
###
###
' the average speed shown ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
2,060,667###
###
91,365###
###
###
9.5000###
###
###
###
###
###
###
speed shown in Row 187 of###
switch' in the 'Summary' ###
###
###
124 must be re-set, by trial ###
###
91,365
Traffic Volume
line A.M. and P.M. peak values

pproximately 220 thousand.
eyard' shift value is roughly 70
sand.
220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360
s per Hour)
Speed-Volume (non-Cordon) 1/6/2012
This worksheet distills data "pairs" of traffic densities and traffic speeds gathered by the Santa Clara Valley (Calif.) Transportation
Authority (SCVTA) into mathematical relationships that are used elsewhere in the spreadsheet (particularly in the all-important Motor V's
worksheet) to translate changes in traffic volumes due to tolling, into changes in traffic speeds.
The data source is a set of several hundred such data pairs of freeway speeds (mph) and densities (vehicles per lane-mile) observed by
SCVTA and published in its May 2006 "2006 Monitoring and Conformance Report" (Table 4.5). We copied those data here (using the
"2007 AM" tab in the data spreadsheet provided to use by SCVTA) and sorted them to simplify constructing scatterplots, using Excel's
chart function. Following the lead of Ed Pike of the International Council on Clean Transportation, who suggested this approach for KEA-
ICCT's 2008 study of road pricing for California, I used data for HOV lanes as well as regular mixed lanes.
I developed three equations: (1) a 5th order polynomial equation, shown first, using observations for which density is less than 31 and
greater than 125; (2) a power-law equation, using observations for which speed is 35 mph or less; and (3) an alternative power-law
equation, using observations for which speed is 20 mph or less (intended to reflect cordon conditions). For conservatism, I apply the
results of #2 in this spreadsheet.
Imported directly from SC Fwy AM data Same, but both types of Same, sorted by Same, excluding
lanes combined ascending Density Density 0-30
Max Density Speed Density Speed Density Speed Density
Mixed HOV Mixed HOV Both Both
72 25 72 25 0 67 31
94 16 94 16 0 67 31
70 26 70 26 1 67 32
63 31 63 31 1 67 32
44 50 44 50 1 67 32
78 22 78 22 1 67 32
100 14 100 14 2 67 32
17 8 67 67 17 67 2 67 32
26 17 66 67 26 66 3 67 32
34 30 63 65 34 63 3 67 32
106 88 12 18 106 12 4 67 32
68 49 27 43 68 27 4 67 32
73 40 25 55 73 25 4 67 32
53 30 39 65 53 39 4 67 32
55 44 37 50 55 37 4 67 32
81 92 21 16 81 21 4 67 32
70 44 26 50 70 26 5 67 33
35 21 62 66 35 62 5 67 33
46 20 47 66 46 47 5 67 33
109 36 12 61 109 12 5 67 33
99 95 14 15 99 14 6 67 33
100 74 14 24 100 14 6 67 33
56 52 36 40 56 36 6 67 33
37 29 59 65 37 59 6 67 33
33 25 64 66 33 64 6 67 34
31 22 65 66 31 65 6 67 34
68 6 27 67 68 27 6 67 34
84 25 19 66 84 19 7 67 34
87 5 18 67 87 18 7 67 34
73 9 25 67 73 25 7 67 34
52 3 40 67 52 40 7 67 34
106 16 12 67 106 12 7 67 34
88 13 18 67 88 18 8 67 34
70 29 26 65 70 26 8 67 35
43 17 51 67 43 51 8 67 35
56 7 36 67 56 36 8 67 35
15 67 15 67 8 67 35
18 67 18 67 8 67 36
17 67 17 67 9 67 36
18 67 18 67 9 67 36
13 67 13 67 10 67 36
19 66 19 66 10 67 36
20 66 20 66 10 67 36
30 65 30 65 10 67 37
37 59 37 59 10 67 37
59 34 59 34 10 67 37
71 26 71 26 10 67 37
47 46 47 46 10 67 37
34 18 63 67 34 63 10 67 37
26 22 66 66 26 66 11 67 37
28 26 66 66 28 66 11 67 38
27 17 66 67 27 66 11 67 38
36 10 61 67 36 61 11 67 38
68 15 27 67 68 27 11 67 38
75 23 24 66 75 24 11 67 38
75 48 24 45 75 24 11 67 39
73 35 25 62 73 25 12 67 39
87 73 18 25 87 18 12 67 39
43 34 51 63 43 51 12 67 39
68 21 27 66 68 27 12 67 40
97 65 15 29 97 15 12 67 40
73 69 25 27 73 25 12 67 40
85 59 19 34 85 19 12 67 40
97 46 15 47 97 15 13 67 40
105 44 13 50 105 13 13 67 40
108 97 12 15 108 12 13 67 41
77 82 23 20 77 23 13 67 41
103 79 13 22 103 13 13 67 41
50 40 42 55 50 42 13 67 42
45 32 48 64 45 48 13 67 42
32 27 64 66 32 64 14 67 42
47 30 46 65 47 46 14 67 42
67 30 28 65 67 28 14 67 42
75 34 24 63 75 24 14 67 43
85 30 19 65 85 19 14 67 43
123 28 9 66 123 9 14 67 43
73 57 25 36 73 25 15 67 43
111 74 11 24 111 11 15 67 44
72 42 25 52 72 25 15 67 44
45 38 48 58 45 48 15 67 44
41 33 54 64 41 54 15 67 44
21 66 21 66 15 67 44
60 33 60 33 15 67 44
40 55 40 55 15 67 45
50 42 50 42 15 67 45
64 30 64 30 16 67 45
42 20 52 66 42 52 16 67 45
63 23 31 66 63 31 16 67 45
74 37 24 59 74 24 16 67 46
58 30 35 65 58 35 16 67 46
57 30 36 65 57 36 16 67 46
26 38 66 58 26 66 16 67 47
22 66 22 66 17 67 47
27 66 27 66 17 67 48
23 66 23 66 17 67 48
32 64 32 64 17 67 48
23 66 23 66 17 67 49
25 8 66 67 25 66 17 67 49
42 41 52 54 42 52 17 67 49
27 10 66 67 27 66 17 67 49
32 20 64 66 32 64 17 67 50
22 12 66 67 22 66 18 67 50
38 19 58 66 38 58 18 67 50
43 19 51 66 43 51 18 67 51
27 23 66 66 27 66 18 67 51
23 15 66 67 23 66 18 67 52
44 50 44 50 18 67 52
32 64 32 64 18 67 52
21 66 21 66 18 67 53
28 66 28 66 19 66 55
25 66 25 66 19 66 56
23 66 23 66 19 66 56
32 64 32 64 19 66 56
60 33 60 33 19 66 57
64 30 64 30 19 66 57
51 41 51 41 19 66 58
39 57 39 57 19 66 58
35 62 35 62 19 66 59
34 63 34 63 20 66 59
28 66 28 66 20 66 60
48 45 48 45 20 66 60
32 64 32 64 20 66 60
45 48 45 48 20 66 60
96 15 96 15 20 66 60
99 14 99 14 20 66 63
83 20 83 20 20 66 63
104 13 104 13 20 66 64
92 16 92 16 20 66 64
60 33 60 33 21 66 65
76 23 76 23 21 66 65
58 35 58 35 21 66 65
34 63 34 63 21 66 67
28 66 28 66 21 66 67
29 65 29 65 21 66 67
20 11 66 67 20 66 21 66 68
28 66 28 66 21 66 68
19 66 19 66 21 66 68
26 66 26 66 21 66 68
21 66 21 66 21 66 68
34 63 34 63 21 66 69
24 66 24 66 22 66 70
15 67 15 67 22 66 70
37 8 59 67 37 59 22 66 70
12 10 67 67 12 67 22 66 70
18 14 67 67 18 67 22 66 71
28 6 66 67 28 66 22 66 72
32 7 64 67 32 64 22 66 72
14 4 67 67 14 67 22 66 73
12 6 67 67 12 67 22 66 73
19 3 66 67 19 66 23 66 73
23 7 66 67 23 66 23 66 73
28 6 66 67 28 66 23 66 73
21 6 66 67 21 66 23 66 73
11 11 67 67 11 67 23 66 74
27 8 66 67 27 66 23 66 74
26 7 66 67 26 66 23 66 74
24 9 66 67 24 66 23 66 74
30 20 65 66 30 65 23 66 75
33 4 64 67 33 64 23 66 75
28 8 66 67 28 66 23 66 75
18 4 67 67 18 67 23 66 76
21 2 66 67 21 66 24 66 77
19 1 66 67 19 66 24 66 78
21 2 66 67 21 66 24 66 79
18 0 67 67 18 67 24 66 81
13 1 67 67 13 67 25 66 81
14 1 67 67 14 67 25 66 82
28 0 66 67 28 66 25 66 83
21 1 66 67 21 66 25 66 84
16 4 67 67 16 67 25 66 84
27 4 66 67 27 66 25 66 85
67 38 28 58 67 28 25 66 85
51 36 41 61 51 41 25 66 86
32 39 64 57 32 64 25 66 87
40 40 55 55 40 55 26 66 87
28 20 66 66 28 66 26 66 88
42 21 52 66 42 52 26 66 88
39 23 57 66 39 57 26 66 90
25 25 66 66 25 66 26 66 92
32 18 64 67 32 64 26 66 92
32 14 64 67 32 64 26 66 94
46 27 47 66 46 47 27 66 94
28 22 66 66 28 66 27 66 95
25 11 66 67 25 66 27 66 96
25 16 66 67 25 66 27 66 97
19 4 66 67 19 66 27 66 97
21 8 66 67 21 66 27 66 97
13 6 67 67 13 67 27 66 99
16 5 67 67 16 67 27 66 99
20 10 66 67 20 66 28 66 99
15 7 67 67 15 67 28 66 100
17 5 67 67 17 67 28 66 100
15 10 67 67 15 67 28 66 102
23 6 66 67 23 66 28 66 103
37 10 59 67 37 59 28 66 104
14 10 67 67 14 67 28 66 105
33 13 64 67 33 64 28 66 106
19 11 66 67 19 66 28 66 106
20 29 66 65 20 66 28 66 106
25 5 66 67 25 66 28 66 108
15 41 67 54 15 67 28 66 109
17 16 67 67 17 67 28 66 109
17 16 67 67 17 67 29 65 111
14 67 14 67 29 65 111
15 67 15 67 29 65 119
13 67 13 67 29 65 123
10 67 10 67 29 65 125
15 67 15 67 30 65 145
11 67 11 67 30 65
12 67 12 67 30 65
12 67 12 67 30 65
10 67 10 67 30 65
16 67 16 67 30 65
12 67 12 67 30 65
12 67 12 67 30 65
11 67 11 67 30 65
145 6 145 6 30 65
102 65 13 29 102 13 30 65
56 37 36 59 56 36 31 65
49 31 43 65 49 43 31 65
36 22 61 66 36 61 32 64
37 26 59 66 37 59 32 64
45 48 45 48 32 64
45 48 45 48 32 64
29 65 29 65 32 64
17 67 17 67 32 64
24 66 24 66 32 64
18 67 18 67 32 64
106 12 106 12 32 64
111 11 111 11 32 64
84 19 84 19 32 64
109 12 109 12 32 64
86 19 86 19 32 64
119 70 9 26 119 9 32 64
94 67 16 28 94 16 33 64
65 48 29 45 65 29 33 64
74 49 24 43 74 24 33 64
68 42 27 52 68 27 33 64
50 43 42 51 50 42 33 64
60 24 33 66 60 33 33 64
90 60 17 33 90 17 33 64
44 52 50 40 44 50 33 64
34 63 34 63 34 63
32 64 32 64 34 63
33 64 33 64 34 63
22 66 22 66 34 63
34 22 63 66 34 63 34 63
33 13 64 67 33 64 34 63
33 64 33 64 34 63
39 57 39 57 34 63
23 66 23 66 34 63
19 66 19 66 35 62
23 66 23 66 35 62
22 66 22 66 35 62
30 65 30 65 35 62
99 14 99 14 36 61
81 21 81 21 36 61
125 8 125 8 36 61
28 20 66 66 28 66 36 61
40 55 40 55 36 61
33 64 33 64 36 61
32 64 32 64 37 59
32 64 32 64 37 59
38 58 38 58 37 59
30 65 30 65 37 59
35 62 35 62 37 59
36 61 36 61 37 59
36 61 36 61 37 59
49 43 49 43 38 58
21 66 21 66 38 58
38 58
38 58
38 58
39 57
39 57
39 57
39 57
40 55
40 55
40 55
40 55
40 55
40 55
41 54
41 54
41 54
42 52
42 52
42 52
42 52
42 52
43 51
43 51
43 51
43 51
44 50
44 50
44 50
44 50
44 50
44 50
45 48
45 48
45 48
45 48
45 48
46 47
46 47
46 47
47 46
47 46
48 45
48 45
48 45
49 43
49 43
49 43
49 43
50 42
50 42
50 42
51 41
51 41
52 40
52 40
52 40
53 39
55 37
56 36
56 36
56 36
57 36
57 36
58 35
58 35
59 34
59 34
60 33
60 33
60 33
60 33
60 33
63 31
63 31
64 30
64 30
65 29
65 29
65 29
67 28
67 28
67 28
68 27
68 27
68 27
68 27
68 27
69 27
70 26
70 26
70 26
70 26
71 26
72 25
72 25
73 25
73 25
73 25
73 25
73 25
73 25
74 24
74 24
74 24
74 24
75 24
75 24
75 24
76 23
77 23
78 22
79 22
81 21
81 21
82 20
83 20
84 19
84 19
85 19
85 19
86 19
87 18
87 18
88 18
88 18
90 17
92 16
92 16
94 16
94 16
95 15
96 15
97 15
97 15
97 15
99 14
99 14
99 14
100 14
100 14
102 13
103 13
104 13
105 13
106 12
106 12
106 12
108 12
109 12
109 12
111 11
111 11
119 9
123 9
125 8
145 6
f.) Transportation
e all-important Motor V's
r lane-mile) observed by
data here (using the
terplots, using Excel's
d this approach for KEA-
sity is less than 31 and

ernative power-law
ervatism, I apply the
Same, excluding Formula 1: Formula 2:

Density 0-30 power law exponential
Speed Speed Speed
65 (Page Down for values)

65 formula 1: power law
64 coefficient for speed-density formula
64 Speed-density "elasticity" (power-law exponent) for speeds of 35 mph or less:
64 Rounded to nearest 1/4
64 Conservative value for cordon -- could easily have been >=2 (see alt power law graph below)
64 Max value for cordon speeds in NYC (reflecting traffic signals)
64 Max value for non-cordon speeds in NYC
64
64
Speed-Density Relationship
64 (power law) on Speeds <= 35 mph
Speed (mph)
64
40
64
64 35 f(x) = 51621.4852058706 x^-1.78
64
64 30 R² = 0.9911963751
64 25
64
64 20
64
15
64
64 10
5
0
40 50 60 70 80 90 1
Density (vehicles per lane-mile)

25
20
15
10
64
5
64
63 (Page Down for values) 0
63 40 50 60 70 80 90 1
63
63 Density (vehicles per lane-mile)
63
63
63
63 formula 2: exponential
63 Constant (alpha)
62 Density coefficient (beta)
62
62
62 Speed Density Relationship - exponential f
Speed < 55 MPH
61 60
61
Speed (mph)
61
61 50 f(x) = 130.631223526 exp( - 0.0225443337 x )
61 R² = 0.9971097477
61
59 40
59
59
59 30
59 (Page Down for values)

59
20
59
58
58
10
58
58
58
0
57 40 60 80 100
57
57 Density (vehicles per lane-mile)
57
55
55
55
55
55 Scaling Constant Derivations
55 81.1 53.1 Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak
54 77.7 51.9 Hourly VMT 1,242,509 1,966,403 3,693,480
54 77.7 51.9 Non-cordon speeds 65.88 44.21 17.07
54 77.7 51.9 Capped non-cordon speeds 55.00 44.21 17.07
52 74.5 50.8 Reciprocals 0.0182 0.0226 0.0586
52 74.5 50.8 Baseline total VMT 74,471 88,785 176,582
52 74.5 50.8
52 74.5 50.8 Hours in period for below calculation purposes 3
52 74.5 50.8 Traffic-weighted avg mph, 6 a.m. - 6 p.m.
51 71.5 49.6
51 71.5 49.6 Constant
51 71.5 49.6 40838
51 71.5 49.6
50 68.7 48.5 Directly below, we "recreate
50 68.7 48.5 fitting. The graph below will
50 68.7 48.5
50 68.7 48.5
50 68.7 48.5 x y
50 68.7 48.5 30 66.5
48 66.0 47.5 31 65.0
48 66.0 47.5 32 63.6 Non-
70
48 66.0 47.5 33 62.2
48 66.0 47.5 34 60.8
60
48 66.0 47.5 35 59.4
47 63.5 46.4 36 58.1
47 50
63.5 46.4 37 56.8
47
MPH
63.5 46.4 38 55.6
46 61.2 45.4 39 54.3 40
46 61.2 45.4 40 53.1
45 59.0 44.4 41 51.9 30
45 59.0 44.4 42 50.8
45 59.0 44.4 43 49.6 20
43 56.9 43.4 44 48.5
43 56.9 43.4 45 47.5 10
43 56.9 43.4 46 46.4
43 56.9 43.4 47 45.4 0
42 54.9 42.4 48 44.4 20
42 54.9 42.4 49 43.4
42 54.9 42.4 50 42.4
41 53.0 41.5 51 41.5
41 53.0 41.5 52 40.5
40 51.3 40.5 53 39.6
40 51.3 40.5 54 38.8
40 51.3 40.5 55 37.9
39 49.6 39.6 56 37.1
37 46.5 37.9 57 36.2
36 45.0 37.1 58 35.4
36 45.0 37.1 59 34.6
36 45.0 37.1 60 33.9
36 43.7 36.2 61 33.1
36 43.7 36.2 62 32.4
35 42.3 35.4 63 31.7
35 42.3 35.4 64 30.9
34 41.1 34.6 65 30.3
34 41.1 34.6 66 29.6
33 39.9 33.9 67 28.9
33 39.9 33.9 68 28.3
33 39.9 33.9 69 27.7
33 39.9 33.9 70 27.0
33 39.9 33.9 71 26.4
31 36.6 31.7 72 25.9
31 36.6 31.7 73 25.3
30 35.6 30.9 74 24.7
30 35.6 30.9 75 24.2
29 34.7 30.3 76 23.6
29 34.7 30.3 77 23.1
29 34.7 30.3 78 22.6
28 32.9 28.9 79 22.1
28 32.9 28.9 80 21.6
28 32.9 28.9 81 21.1
27 32.1 28.3 82 20.6
27 32.1 28.3 83 20.2
27 32.1 28.3 84 19.7
27 32.1 28.3 85 19.3
27 32.1 28.3 86 18.9
27 31.2 27.7 87 18.4
26 30.5 27.0 88 18.0
26 30.5 27.0 89 17.6
26 30.5 27.0 90 17.2
26 30.5 27.0 91 16.9
26 29.7 26.4 92 16.5
25 29.0 25.9 93 16.1
25 29.0 25.9 94 15.8
25 28.3 25.3 95 15.4
25 28.3 25.3 96 15.1
25 28.3 25.3 97 14.7
25 28.3 25.3 98 14.4
25 28.3 25.3 99 14.1
25 28.3 25.3 100 13.8
24 27.6 24.7 101 13.5
24 27.6 24.7 102 13.2
24 27.6 24.7 103 12.9
24 27.6 24.7 104 12.6
24 27.0 24.2 105 12.3
24 27.0 24.2 106 12.0
24 27.0 24.2 107 11.8
23 26.4 23.6 108 11.5
23 25.8 23.1 109 11.2
22 25.2 22.6 110 11.0
22 24.7 22.1 111 10.7
21 23.6 21.1 112 10.5
21 23.6 21.1 113 10.3
20 23.1 20.6 114 10.0
20 22.6 20.2 115 9.8
19 22.1 19.7 116 9.6
19 22.1 19.7 117 9.4
19 21.7 19.3 118 9.2
19 21.7 19.3 119 9.0
19 21.3 18.9 120 8.8
18 20.8 18.4 121 8.6
18 20.8 18.4 122 8.4
18 20.4 18.0 123 8.2
18 20.4 18.0 124 8.0
17 19.6 17.2 125 7.8
16 18.9 16.5
16 18.9 16.5
16 18.2 15.8
16 18.2 15.8
15 17.9 15.4
15 17.5 15.1
15 17.2 14.7
15 17.2 14.7
15 17.2 14.7
14 16.6 14.1
14 16.6 14.1
14 16.6 14.1
14 16.3 13.8
14 16.3 13.8
13 15.8 13.2
13 15.5 12.9
13 15.2 12.6
13 15.0 12.3
12 14.7 12.0
12 14.7 12.0
12 14.7 12.0
12 14.3 11.5
12 14.0 11.2
12 14.0 11.2
11 13.6 10.7
11 13.6 10.7
9 12.0 9.0
9 11.4 8.2
8 11.0 7.8
6 8.5 5.0
51,621
ds of 35 mph or less: -1.7865
-1.75
2 (see alt power law graph below)
25
55
ty Relationship
Speeds <= 35 mph
852058706 x^-1.7864852542
3751
80 90 100 110 120 130
ehicles per lane-mile)

80 90 100 110 120 130
130.63
-0.0225
ionship - exponential fit

< 55 MPH
0.0225443337 x )
100 120 140
onstant Derivations
A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk
3,378,992 3,074,608 3,870,956 2,938,340
20.30 24.01 15.48 25.88
20.30 24.01 15.48 25.88
0.0493 0.0417 0.0646 0.0386
171,660 154,591 185,224 155,780
1 4 4
18.220
Directly below, we "recreate" the exponential graph above, using the equation derived via curve-
fitting. The graph below will be used in BTA visual presentations.
Constant (alpha) 130.63
Density coefficient (beta) -0.0225
Non-Cordon Speeds: Variation with Traffic Volume

70
60
50
MPH
40
30
20
10
0
20 40 60 80 100 120 140
Traffic Density (Vehicles per Lane-Mile)

Speed-Density Relationship (5th-order polynomial),
on (30 < Density < 126)
70
f(x) = 0.000000054x^5 - 2.09663224893544E-05x^4 + 0.0030537955x^3 - 0.198766833x^2 + 4.6458648174x + 39.8284486353
Speed(mph)
R² = 60
0.999154143
50
40
30
20
10
0
30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Density (vehicles per lane-mile)
Alt. Speed-Density Relationship

(power law) on Speeds <= 20 mph
peed (mph)
25
20 f(x) = 178454.148017234 x^-2.0571565557

Alt. Speed-Density Relationship
(power law) on Speeds <= 20 mph
Speed (mph)
25
20 f(x) = 178454.148017234 x^-2.0571565557

R² = 0.9863312926
15
10
0
80 85 90 95
Density100 105
(vehicles 110
per lane-mile) 115 120 125 130
5.400E-08 x^5
-2.097E-05 x^4
3.054E-03 x^3
-1.988E-01 x^2
4.646E+00 x
648174x + 39.8284486353 3.983E+01 Constant
20 125 130
VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled)
This worksheet estimates changes in citywide VMT from the traffic-pricing, transit-pricing and transit-improvement measu
"plan" selected by the user in Results worksheet.
VMT Changes: Summary Table 1 — All VMT (within and outside NYC
All VMT Changes, including

those occurring beyond NYC li
Source of Change to VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled)

Cordon Pricing (VMT within CBD only)
Cordon Pricing (VMT outside CBD only)
Change in Bus Usage (Weekdays + Weekends, CBD + non-CBD)
Change in Subway Usage (Weekdays + Weekends, non-CBD only)
Changes in subway usage that relate to CBD are already captured in Subways, Motor Vs and Motor Vs Weekends worksheets.
TOTAL
VMT Changes: Summary Table 2 — NYC VMT Changes disaggregated between CBD
Manhattan Central Business Di
Annual VMT
Source of Change to VMT (Vehicle Miles Traveled) (000,000)
Cordon Pricing (86)

Change in Bus Usage (Weekdays + Weekends, CBD + non-CBD) (3)
Somewhat arbitrarily assigning this share to CBD, rest outside: 10%
Change in Subway Usage (Weekdays + Weekends, non-CBD only)* 0
TOTAL (89)
1. Baseline Data
A. NYC and Manhattan VMT
VMT, 2005 (million miles) Manhattan NYC

Interstates 324 4,582
Expwys 920 4,451
Principal Arterials 1,026 5,650
Minor Arterials 839 4,137
Major Collectors 646 1,934
Local 354 3,327
Total 4,110 24,082
W/o Interstates or Expwys (i.e., streets) 2,865 Not relevant
Source: KEA file, Emissions Master File _ 16 Nov 2005.xls (worksheet tab: "2005 Emissions"), from a 2004 project with Synapse Energy
Economics, Inc. These data were drawn from NYS DEC database and represent projections for year 2005 by DEC. Notwithstanding long
interval to the present, the figures are probably reasonably accurate for today, given lack of pronounced growth in driving in NYC.
Autos' share of above VMT 75%
Source: Schaller, "City in Flux," 2007, p. 5: "Autos account for an estimated 75% of vehicle miles traveled in the five boroughs" (referenced
to "NYMTC Best Practices Model data").
Auto VMT, NYC (millions, annual) 18,061
B. Central Business District VMT (weekdays)
New York (Manhatt

Table at right reproduces Excel table, "NY CBD BELOW 60 ST summary," provided by NYMTC on 1 2005 "Build VMT
Nov 2007. Each column represents a different time interval. Total gives avg CBD VMT on a typical
weekday. Based on companion spreadsheets from NYMTC, Total would decline by ~15% if highways AM
(e.g., FDR Drive, bridge/tunnel ramps, entrances, exits) were deducted. 692,372
For comparison: Baseline cordon VMT estimated here (in Motor V's worksheet)
From 'Motor Vs', Row 147.
Annual CBD VMT (in millions of miles)

Calculated by multiplying Total from box in Row 67 by factor from 'Constants' worksheet denoting equivalent full weekdays in a year.
Annual non-CBD NYC VMT (in millions of miles)

Difference between Box in Row 72 and figure in Cell G50.
C. CBD VMT broken down between trips entering CBD and other trips
This section presents a reality check: the final item, % Other CBD VMT, should probably be
between one-fifth and one-fourth.
Daily VMT within CBD, all trips 3,338,030
Daily auto trips into CBD (incl. medallion taxis, excl. bus/truck) 738,000
Assumed miles that each such trip travels within CBD (one way) 1.30
Daily VMT within CBD from auto trips into charging zone 1,912,144
% of CBD VMT accounted for by auto trips crossing into CBD 57%
% Other CBD VMT (trucks, buses, taxi circulation, non-cordon-crossing autos) 43%
D. Speed Data for weekdays 6 a.m. - 6 p.m., mph (from PlaNYC) mph % of VMT
Manhattan South of 86th Street 8 NA
Brooklyn 14 30%
Other Manhattan + Queens 17 25%
Staten Island 20 3%
Bronx 22 10%
New Jersey + Long Island 23 20%
Westchester + Connecticut 30 12%
Totals (excluding Manhattan South of 86th St.) 18.22 100%
MPH: "NYC Mobility Needs Assessment, 2007-2030," Figure 5.10.9 - Average Daily Speed at 2007 Baseline (without Congestion Pricing), p. 1
breakdowns: Komanoff ests. MPH Total (Avg): calculated as harmonic mean of weighted mph's (thus, the need for mph reciprocals).
2. VMT Changes from Cordon Fee and Transit Policies Inputted into this Model)
A. Change in Auto Trips due to New Bus Trips (citywide)
Annual change in bus trips due to reduced fare + faster and better service
From 'Buses' worksheet, Row 108.
A1. Weekday Changes in Auto Trips and VMT due to Changes in Bus Trips shown directly above
Trips
Ratio of Annual Bus Ridership to Average Weekday Ridership (from Buses, Section 5)
Change in wkday bus trips Daily fig. = 'Annual fig. in Row 105 div. by year/day ratio in Row
111. Annual fig. multiplies that by weekdays in year.
Work
Split these bus trips betw work and non-work (baseline proportions in Buses) 40%
Split change in weekday bus trips above (per above proportions) 20,800
Cross-elasticities (Change in Auto Volume per Change in Transit Volume) 95%
Calculated as means of respective cross-elasticities due to changes in transit time and price, in Elasticities worksheet (rounded to 5%). We u
unmodified TSRPC cross-elasticities, since split of auto into private vs. taxi is not of concern for calculating VMT.
Change in auto trips (persons) (x-elasticities times resp. changes in work/non-work) (19,760)
Change in auto trips (vehicles) (preceding figs div. by auto occupancies from H.I.S. tab) (17,183)
VMT
Miles per auto trip that switch to bus
Komanoff calculated mean of 3.63 miles for average one-way bus commute in his analysis of Schaller data in 'Rolling Carbon' project for Trans
Alternatives, 2007. Average here could be higher since auto trips (which are switching to bus in this section) average almost 2x length of bus tr
but it could also be shorter, since average shown is for work trips, which almost certainly are longer. We assume the two influences are offsetti
that same figure appears in Transit worksheet.
Change in average citywide weekday auto miles due to change in bus trips
Calculated as product of Row 120 daily or yearly trip figures and miles-per-trip figure in Row 123.
A2. Weekend Changes in Auto Trips and VMT due to Changes in Bus Trips shown directly above
Trips
Ratio of Annual Bus Ridership to Average Weekend Ridership (from Buses, Section 5)
Change in wkend bus trips Daily fig. = 'Annual fig. in Row 105 div. by year/day ratio in Row 134.
Annual fig. multiplies that by wknd days in yr.
Work
Split bus trips betw work and non-work (baseline proportions in Buses) 20%
Split change in weekend bus trips above (per above proportions) 5,600
Cross-elasticities (Change in Auto Volume per Change in Transit Volume; same as above) 95%
Change in auto trips (vehicles) (preceding figures div. by auto occupancies from H.I.S. tab) (4,626)
VMT
Miles per auto trip that switch to bus (as noted directly above)
Change in average citywide weekend auto miles due to increase in bus trips
Change in Auto VMT due to Changes in Bus Trips, Weekdays and Weekends Combined
As percentage of Citywide VMT, all vehicles
Ratio of Auto VMT change in Row 148 to baseline citywide VMT in Row 50.
As percentage of Citywide VMT, autos only
Ratio of Auto VMT change in Row 148 to baseline auto citywide VMT in Row 60.
B. Change in Auto Trips due to New Subway Trips That Don't Relate to Manhattan CBD
VMT impacts from weekday and weekend CBD-related subway trips have been est'd in Subways worksheet and "handed
off" to Motor Vs and Motor Vs Weekends worksheets. They are reflected in Part C of this worksheet.
B1. Weekday Changes in Auto Trips and VMT due to Changes in non-CBD Subway Trips
Basic Data
CBD subway trips (inbound + unbound + intra) as % of subway trips (weekdays)

Taken directly from Subways worksheet, Row 53.
Percent of subway trips that don't relate to CBD (weekdays)
Complement of Row 164.
Weekday Subway Trips That Don't Relate to CBD
Product of percent in Row 166 and average weekday subway rides in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 47.
Average Increase in Weekday Subway Fare due to Pricing, expressed as a multiple
Derived in 'Subways' worksheet and shown there in Row 553.
Average Reduction in Subway Trip Duration due to Subway Investments, expressed as a multiple
Derived in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 202, as sum of impacts from (i) capital investment and (ii) operational expenditures.
Trips Work
Split subway trips betw work and non-work (baseline proportions in subways) 60%
Split, Weekday Subway Trips That Don't Relate to CBD 601,264
Factor for such Subway Trips due to Price Change 1.000
Applies standard elasticity exponentiation from transit price-elasticities in 'Elasticity' worksheet, to factor in Row 170.
Factor for such Subway Trips due to Trip Duration Change 1.045
Combined Factor for Price and Duration Changes 1.045
Change in non-CBD Transit Trips 27,355
Product of Row 177 and complement of Row 181.
Change in auto trips (vehicles) (preceding figures div. by auto occupancies) (22,597)
VMT
Miles per auto trip that switch to subway
Mean value for average one-way subway commute, calculated by Komanoff in his analysis of Schaller data as described (w/
cautionary note) in Row 124.
Change in avg citywide weekday auto miles due to change in weekday subway trips unrelated to CBD
B1. Weekend Changes in Auto Trips and VMT due to Changes in non-CBD Subway Trips
Basic Data
CBD subway trips (inbound + unbound + intra) as % of subway trips (weekends)

Taken directly from Subways worksheet, Row 53.
Percent of subway trips that don't relate to CBD (weekends)
Weekend Subway Trips That Don't Relate to CBD
Product of percent in Row 201 and average weekend subway rides in 'Subways' worksheet, Row 47.
Change in Weekend Subway Fare due to Pricing, expressed as a factor
Derived in 'Subways' worksheet and shown there in Row 553.
Average Change in Subway Trip Duration due to Subway Investments, expressed as a multiple
Derived in 'Transit' worksheet and shown there in Row 206.
Trips Work
Split subway trips betw work and non-work (baseline proportions in subways) 20%
Specified in 'Subways' worksheet and shown there in Row 469.
Split, Weekend Subway Trips That Don't Relate to CBD 101,459
Factor for such Subway Trips due to Price Change 1.000
Applies standard elasticity exponentiation from transit price-elasticities in 'Elasticity' worksheet, to factor in Row 205.
Factor for such Subway Trips due to Trip Duration Change 1.030
Combined Factor for Price and Duration Changes 1.030
Change in non-CBD Transit Trips 3,045
Product of Row 213 and complement of Row 217.
Change in auto trips (vehicles) (preceding figures div. by auto occupancies) (2,516)
VMT
Miles per auto trip that switch to subway
From mean of 7.76 miles for average one-way subway commute, calculated by Komanoff in his analysis of Schaller data as described
(w/ cautionary note) in Row 132.
Change in avg citywide weekend auto miles due to change in weekend subway trips unrelated to CBD
Change in Auto VMT due to Changes in Subway Trips, Weekdays + Weekends Combined (non-CBD trips only)
As percentage of Citywide VMT, all vehicles
Ratio of Auto VMT change in Row 232 to baseline citywide VMT in Row 50.
As percentage of Citywide VMT, autos only
Ratio of Auto VMT change in Row 232 to baseline auto citywide VMT in Row 60.
C. Estimation of Change in Motor Vehicle Trips due to Cordon Pricing
1. Within Cordon
Weekday Weekend
Daily Annual, 000 Daily Annual, 000
Baseline 3,434,068 859 3,169,918 365
Daily figures are from 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs Weekends' worksheets, Row 147. Annual figures draw on 'Constants' worksheet. Combined
With Pricing 3,192,349 798 2,947,647 339
Change (241,719) (60) (222,272) (26)
2. Outside Cordon
Weekday Weekend
Daily Annual, 000 Daily Annual, 000
Baseline 68,220,076 17,055 58,696,243 6,750
With Pricing 65,765,443 16,441 56,343,998 6,480
Change (2,454,633) (614) (2,352,245) (271)
3. Adjust "Outside Cordon" VMT (Section C2 immediately above) to reflect only VMT occurring within New York City
Percent of cordon-bound vehicle trips made by NYC residents (pertains to "into" + "thru" CBD trips alike)
From Incidence worksheet, Part C. Note: a column referenced by this cell may be hidden (to make column summations easier).
Percent of VMT occurring within city limits, for cordon-bound vehicle trips made by NYC residents
Percent of cordon-bound vehicle trips made by non-NYC residents
Percent of VMT occurring within city limits, for cordon-bound vehicle trips made by non-NYC residents
Komanoff assumption; intended to reflect average one-way non-cordon distance for CBD auto-commute trips of 16.9 miles, derived in 'Dist
Percent of outside-cordon VMT in all cordon-bound vehicle trips that occurs within the city limits
Sum of applicable cross-products in Rows 261-267.
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
###
g and transit-improvement measures included in the ###
###
###
###
l VMT (within and outside NYC) ###
###
All VMT Changes, including VMT Changes ###
those occurring beyond NYC limits occurring within NYC limits only ###
###
Annual VMT Annual VMT % All % Auto ###
(000,000) (000,000) NYC VMT NYC VMT
###
(86) (86) -0.4% -0.5% ###
(884) (606) -2.5% -3.4% ###
(30) (30) -0.1% -0.2% ###
(70) (70) -0.3% -0.4% ###
s Weekends worksheets. ###
(1,071) (792) -3.3% -4.4% ###
###
###
s disaggregated between CBD and outside-CBD ###
###
New York City, outside the ###
Manhattan Central Business District
Manhattan Central Business District ###
###
% All % Auto Annual VMT % All NYC % Auto NYC ###
CBD VMT CBD VMT (000,000) non-CBD VMT non-CBD VMT
###
-7.8% (606) -2.6% ###
-0.3% To come,
(27) -0.1% To come,
###
hopefully in hopefully in ###
March 2011 March 2011
0.0% (70) -0.3% ###
-8.1% (703) -3.1% ###
###
###
###
VMT Changes Excluded from Analysis ###
###
###
1. Fewer households owning cars (due to
higher driving costs and lower transit fares), ###
eliminating the "casual" driving associated
with easy car availability.
1. Fewer households owning cars (due to
higher driving costs and lower transit fares),
eliminating the "casual" driving associated ###
with easy car availability.
###
###
2. More cycling and walking. Though we
estimate the increase in bicycling (in the ###
Bicycles worksheet), we don't translate that ###
into decreased driving.
###
3. "Ripple" effects such as safety in ###

numbers (increased cycling reduces its ###
dangers, thus attracting more cycling).
###
4 project with Synapse Energy ###
5 by DEC. Notwithstanding long
rowth in driving in NYC. 4. "Tipping points" such as lesser ###
valorization of driving as driving becomes
costlier and less common. ###
###
###
n the five boroughs" (referenced
###
###
###
###
###
###
New York (Manhattan) CBD Below 60th St ###
2005 "Build VMTs" From NYBPM Run ###
MD PM NT TOTAL ###
1,083,228 875,679 686,751 3,338,030 ###
###
3,434,068 Needs true-up w/ H105 from###
Ratio: 0.9720 'Motor Vs' tab. ###
###
1,102 ###
valent full weekdays in a year. ###
###
22,980 ###
###
###
###
###
###
From NYMTC table directly above ###
From 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 27. ###
Wghtd avg of miles for applicable trips, in Motor Vs worksheet. ###
Product of two previous figures x 2 (to count inbound + outbound). ###
Ratio of previous VMT to VMT at top of this stack ###
One, minus previous percentage ###
###
mph reciprocal cross-products ###
###
0.071 0.021 ###
0.059 0.015 ###
0.050 0.002 ###
0.045 0.005 ###
0.043 0.009 ###
0.033 0.004 ###
0.055 ###
###
seline (without Congestion Pricing), p. 147. VMT
s, the need for mph reciprocals). ###
###
###
###
###
###
Annual
Daily (000,000) ###
16.2 ###
###
###
###
###
###
311.1 ###
52,000 13.0 ###
Non-work Total ###
60% ###
31,200 ###
50% ###
cities worksheet (rounded to 5%). We use the ###
ating VMT.
###
(15,600) (35,360) (8.8) ###
(10,400) (27,583) (6.9) ###
###
###
3.63 ###
###
data in 'Rolling Carbon' project for Transportation
ction) average almost 2x length of bus trip (Ibid.); ###
e assume the two influences are offsetting. Note
###
###
(100,125) (25.0) ###
###
###
###
###
Annual
Daily (000,000) ###
585.2 ###
28,000 3.2 ###
Non-work Total ###
80% ###
22,400 ###
50% ###
(11,200) (16,520) (1.9) ###
(7,467) (12,093) (1.4) ###
###
###
3.63 ###
(43,897) (5.1) ###
###
(000,000) ###
(30.1) ###
###
-0.1% ###
###
-0.2% ###
###
###
###
###
ays worksheet and "handed ###
ksheet. ###
###
###
Annual
Daily (000,000) ###
###
###
80.3% ###
###
19.7% ###
###
1,002,106 ###
###
1.00 ###
###
8.44% ###
tional expenditures. ###
###
Non-work Total ###
40% ###
400,842 1,002,106 ###
1.001 ###
###
1.050 ###
1.051 ###
###
20,360 47,715 ###
###
50% ###
(10,180) (36,167) (9.0) ###
(6,787) (29,384) (7.3) ###
###
###
7.74 ###
data as described (w/ ###
###
elated to CBD (227,334) (56.8) ###
###
###
Annual
Daily (000,000) ###
###
###
80.3% ###
###
19.7% ###
###
507,293 ###
###
1.00 ###
###
-5.74% ###
###
###
Non-work Total ###
80% ###
###
405,835 507,293 ###
1.000 ###
###
1.033 ###
1.033 ###
###
13,419 16,464 ###
###
50% ###
(6,710) (9,603) (2.4) ###
(4,473) (6,989) (1.7) ###
###
###
7.76 ###
sis of Schaller data as described ###
###
elated to CBD (54,232) (13.6) ###
###
(000,000) ###
d (non-CBD trips only) (70.4) ###
###
-0.3% ###
###
-0.4% ###
###
###
###
###
###
Combined ###
Daily Annual, 000 ###
1,223 ###
raw on 'Constants' worksheet. Combined figure sums prior two annual figures. ###
1,137 ###
(86) ###
###
###
Combined ###
Daily Annual, 000 ###
23,805 ###
22,921 ###
(884) ###
###
occurring within New York City ###
###
57% ###
e column summations easier). ###
75% ###
###
43% ###
###
60% ###
mmute trips of 16.9 miles, derived in 'Distances' tab, Row 185. ###
69% ###
Elasticities
A. Price-elasticity (and other elasticities): definitions and roles in this spreadsheet model
Price-elasticity refers to the extent to which demand for a product or service or commodity changes as a result of changes in price. An
considered price-elastic if price swings evoke wider swings in demand — and inelastic if they don’t. Mathematically, price-elasticity is t
percentage change in demand or usage associated with a one percent change in the price.
Price-elasticities play a major role in the BTA. They underlie the algorithms and formulae that predict (or calculate) changes in auto us
transit ridership in response to initiation of congestion pricing and possible changes in transit fares.
Allied with price-elasticities in the BTA are time-elasticities — the percentage change in demand or usage associated with a one perce
change in the travel time required for a trip. Time-elasticities determine the "rebound effect" by which new trips materialize (or current
initially "tolled off" the roads re-materialize) to take advantage of improved travel times. They also underlie the method by which the BT
predicts changes in bus ridership in response to elimination of time-consuming fare payment, as well as changes in subway usage in r
to possible service cuts or enhancements.
There are also time-switching elasticities. These relate drivers' propensity to switch their time of travel to monetary savings that result
switch. These are described and sourced in considerable detail in the Time Switching worksheet.
Finally, there are "cross-elasticities." These express the rate at which trips that are stripped from one mode (e.g., auto) due to increase
or duration reappear in another mode (e.g., transit).
B. Elasticity values used in the BTA
Some of the elasticity values employed in the BTA are taken from a 1977 report by the Tri-State Regional Planning Commission (TSRP
"Short Term Effects of Transportation Policy Changes on Auto and Transit Ridership" (Interim Technical Report 5303; not Web-availab
However, the report's non-work-trip time-elasticity of minus 124% has been replaced here by the work-trip time-elasticity value of minu
The TSRPC report compiled and distilled the available literature into estimates of elasticities for transit and auto modes in NYC. It is th
professional and credible. It is also three decades removed from the present. However, elasticities are relative measures (percentage
in parameter Y relative to percentage changes in parameter X), and there is no a priori reason to expect that these relationships shoul
changed over time. Moreover, the most important elasticities in our model -- pertaining to the price-elasticity of driving -- are "backstop
more recent studies, as discussed further below. A further backstopping arises from the rebound effect noted above, which effectively
the impact of tolls on traffic as a pendulum rather than a push in one direction; the greater the first swing of the pendulum, the greater
rebound.
The TSRPC report did not treat medallion taxis. These are a major mode of travel within the Manhattan CBD. Demand for taxi service
not be expected to duplicate that for private autos. For medallion taxi usage price-elasticity, we relied on a published estimate derived
expert (and current NYCDOT Deputy Commissioner for Policy and Planning) Bruce Schaller. As noted below, we relied on informal gu
from Schaller to derive the time-elasticity for taxi use.
Direct Elasticities
Following are the "direct" elasticity figures used in the BTA, along with their sources.
Each figure denotes the percent change in the first variable per 100 percent change in the second. Trips are classified as either work
(commute) trips, non-work trips, or trips that travel through the CBD en route to an outside destination.
Type of Elasticity
For Work For Non-work
Trips Trips
Transit Volume w/r/t Transit Cost -9.0% -23.4%
from TSRPC
Transit Volume w/r/t Transit Time -50.0% -55.0%
Auto Volume w/r/t Auto Cost See box, Rows 37-44. -50.0% -90.0%
Auto Volume w/r/t Auto Time -100.0% -100.0%
Taxi Volume w/r/t Taxi Cost (one value for all trips) based on -22.0%
Schaller
Taxi Volume w/r/t Taxi Time (one value for all trips) -80.0%
Thru-trips elasticities are weighted averages of elasticities for auto work, auto non-work, taxi, truck and bus. The weights are derived in Rows 67-71 (f
weekdays) and Rows 73-77 weekends).
Taxi price-elasticity is from Bruce Schaller, “Elasticities for Taxicab Fares and Service Availability,” in Transportation, Aug. 1999, pp. 283-97
<http://www.schallerconsult.com/taxi/elastic.pdf>. For taxi time-elasticity, we follow Schaller suggestion (oral comm., Nov. 2009) that it should fall in sa
as that of transit work, transit non-work, auto work, and auto non-work, and therefore calculate it as mean of those four values.
Truck price-elasticity as a % of that for auto work trips

Bus price-elasticity as a % of that for auto work trips These factors (by Komanoff) are applied to elasticities in Rows
49-52 to calculate truck and bus elasticities that are then inputted
Truck time-elasticity as a % of that for auto work trips into 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs Weekends' worksheets.
Bus time-elasticity as a % of that for auto work trips
Weekday Breakdown of baseline (pre-pricing) thru trips

(needed to calculate thru trip elasticities in Rows 51 and 52)
Auto work Auto non-wk Taxi Truck Bus Total
Number 74,631 52,491 0 6,800 568 134,491
Share 55.5% 39.0% 0.0% 5.1% 0.4% 100.0%
Weekend/Holiday Breakdown of baseline (pre-pricing) thru trips

(needed to calculate thru trip elasticities in Rows 57 and 58)
Auto work Auto non-wk Taxi Truck Bus Total
Number 31,799 95,398 0 2,310 293 129,800
Share 24.5% 73.5% 0.0% 1.8% 0.2% 100.0%
Cross Elasticities
These are the percent of lost trips in one mode (due to changes in time or cost) that is "captured" by the other mode
(figures given are absolute values)
As given in the TSRPC report
Work Non-work
Change in Transit Volume per Change in Auto Volume 95% 40%

caused by change in Auto Time
Change in Transit Volume per Change in Auto Volume 95% 50%
caused by change in Auto Cost
Change in Taxicab Volume per Change in Auto Volume The TSCRP report did not
caused by change in Auto Time or Cost provide values for these.
Change in Auto Volume per Change in Transit Volume 95% 50%

caused by change in Transit Cost
Change in Auto Volume per Change in Transit Volume 95% 53%

caused by change in Transit Time Note that means of Rows 97 & 100 added to Row 1
values in Rows 97 and 100 a
Change in Taxi Volume per Change in Transit Volume The TSCRP report did not
provide values for these.
caused by change in Transit Time or Cost
Explanation: The Tri-State report did not specify parameters for replacement of transit or auto trips by medallion taxicabs. Nevertheless, it is reasona
assume that at least a small share of the mode shifts in either direction would be captured by medallion taxis. We have applied a rough estimate here
proviso that the total number of mode-shifted trips remains unchanged.
Assumptions used to modify the "TSRPC" elasticities shown above to the values "applied" here
Percentage of mode-shifted trips assumed to go to medallion taxis: 5% % to transit or auto:
Explanation: Schaller states, "Cabs transport 11% of fare-paying passengers traveling by taxi, bus, subway, car service or black car in New York City,
of those traveling within Manhattan." (NY Taxicab Fact Book, p. 1.) At the margin, these shares would be smaller. A 5% shift to taxis seems reasonable
10% would also be plausible.
Time Switching Elasticities -- See note in Section A, above.
C. Support for the TSRPC elasticity values from other sources
As noted in the Time Switching worksheet, during 2005-07 the Puget Sound Regional Council conducted a real-world road-pricing
experiment involving 270 demographically representative households in the Seattle metropolitan area. These households were charge
varied tolls for all trips taken on area highways over a six-month period. The households’ travel choices — essentially, the number, len
timing of their trips — were then compared against baseline values, and the results distilled into estimates of price elasticities and time
switching propensities. The PSRC's "Traffic Choices Study, Summary Report" is available at
<http://www.psrc.org/assets/37/summaryreport.pdf>.
Along with the summary report, the PSRC published 21 volumes detailing and analyzing every aspect of the study design and findings
the findings is a price-elasticity of negative 0.691 for auto vehicle miles traveled. This value is shown in the last part of the last tab
(under “Model 4” for “All Tours”) of Appendix 19, Toll Impact Models, p. 11 of 27, and was confirmed in communications with PSRC per
in the Spring of 2008. It applies to the "all-in" cost of driving an additional mile.
This price-elasticity value for driving (negative 0.691) is midway between the values taken from the TSRPC report and used i
study: negative 0.5 for work trips and negative 0.9 for non-work trips.
Further support for the TSRPC price-elasticity values for auto use is provided in work we carried out prior to development of the BTA,
documented in the worksheet tab, Regressions. In this work, we applied standard statistical “linear regression” techniques to 1978-20
travel data to infer the price-elasticity of motor vehicle trips across the East River. We “regressed” (correlated) the annual volume of tri
East River crossings (both tolled and untolled) against that year’s average round-trip cost, which in turn was estimated as the weighte
average of gasoline, parking and tolls. To avoid confounding the analysis with variations in economic activity, we controlled for the num
Manhattan jobs in each year. (We also “smoothed” the data by using two-year running averages, along with a single five-year average
2001-2005 to level out 9/11 impacts.) The result was an estimated price-elasticity of 0.7, which happens to equal the mean of the
TSRPC’s estimated elasticities for work and non-work trips to the CBD.
Further support for the TSRPC price-elasticity values for auto use is provided in work we carried out prior to development of the BTA,
documented in the worksheet tab, Regressions. In this work, we applied standard statistical “linear regression” techniques to 1978-20
travel data to infer the price-elasticity of motor vehicle trips across the East River. We “regressed” (correlated) the annual volume of tri
East River crossings (both tolled and untolled) against that year’s average round-trip cost, which in turn was estimated as the weighte
average of gasoline, parking and tolls. To avoid confounding the analysis with variations in economic activity, we controlled for the num
Manhattan jobs in each year. (We also “smoothed” the data by using two-year running averages, along with a single five-year average
2001-2005 to level out 9/11 impacts.) The result was an estimated price-elasticity of 0.7, which happens to equal the mean of the
TSRPC’s estimated elasticities for work and non-work trips to the CBD.
As for the other elasticity values from TSRPC that are used here: Although no subsequent work is available to confirm or alter the TSR
values for time-elasticity and cross-elasticity, there is a strong common-sense basis to the TSRPC values. For one thing, the time-elas
are higher for auto use than transit; this fits with the greater affluence and, hence, value of time for the average driver vs. the average
user. For another, work trips are less elastic than non-work trips for both types of travel.
The foregoing suggest that the elasticity values used in the BTA are reasonable. The user is invited to test the robustness of the key re
(revenue generation, mode switching, travel speeds) by substituting his or her own elasticity estimates. We believe this will show the b
results holding up across a fairly broad range of elasticities. One reason for this stability is the "rebound effect" already noted, whereby
road travel invites more trips that then use up some of the increased speed.
For more discussion of elasticities in the BTA, see our Jan. 2008 report, "Balancing Congestion Pricing and Free Transit in New York C
<http://bit.ly/ud4zux>, particularly the Traffic Analysis section beginning at p. 17.
See also the new (Dec. 5, 2011) discussion of Port Authority data, in Section X, beginning at Row 324.
D. Elasticity Formulae
Convex Elasticity (this is used throughout the BTA, except where a zero price would result in a "singularity," in which case Point Elasticity must b
embodies the Law of Diminishing Returns, whereby each successive increment in price yields a lesser quantity response.
Q2 = Q1 * (P2/P1)^e Q denotes auto use or transit ridership
P denotes fare or toll (i.e., "price")
Point Elasticity (used when either the starting or final price is zero) e denotes elasticity
Q2 = e*Q1*(P2-P1)/P1 + Q1 1 denotes starting ridership and price
2 denotes new ridership and price
Mid-point Elasticity (not used here)
e = ((Q2-Q1)/(Q1+Q2)/2)/((P2-P1)/(P1+P2)/2) or Q2 = Q1*(e*((P2-P1)+(P1+P2))/((P1+P2)-e*(P2-P1))
F. Sensitivity Analysis
The graph below shows the effect of raising or lowering the assumed elasticities on a key BTA indicator: the number of weekday moto
trips into the cordon (CBD). It indicates that changes in both time-elasticities have only a small impact, and that even the most sensitiv
parameter -- auto price-elasticity -- exerts only around a 1-for-2 effect.
The graph below shows the effect of raising or lowering the assumed elasticities on a key BTA indicator: the number of weekday moto
trips into the cordon (CBD). It indicates that changes in both time-elasticities have only a small impact, and that even the most sensitiv
parameter -- auto price-elasticity -- exerts only around a 1-for-2 effect.
Elasticity Sensitivities
30%
Change in Cordon Entries
Transit Price Transit Time Auto Price
20%
Auto Time All Together
10%
0%
0% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% -8% -6% -4% -2% 1% 3% 5% 7% 9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25% 27% 29
-3 -2 -2 -2 -2 -2 -1 -1 -1 -1 -1
-10%
Changes in elasticity are in percents, not percentage points.
For example, "10%" denotes a 1.10 multiple to the assumed
elasticity; similarly, "-20%" denotes a 0.80 multiple.
-20%
-30%
-40%
Change in Elasticity
G. Example of Price-Elasticity Impact on Demand

e e e
-0.7 -0.4 -1.0
x y y y
0.5 -50% 62% 32% 100%
0.52 -48% 58% 30% 92%
0.54 -46% 54% 28% 85%
0.56 -44% 50% 26% 79%
0.58 -42% 46% 24% 72%
0.6 -40% 43% 23% 67%
0.62 -38% 40% 21% 61%
0.64 -36% 37% 20% 56%
0.66 -34% 34% 18% 52%
0.68 -32% 31% 17% 47%
0.7 -30% 28% 15% 43%
0.72 -28% 26% 14% 39%
0.74 -26% 23% 13% 35%
0.76 -24% 21% 12% 32%
0.78 -22% 19% 10% 28%
0.8 -20% 17% 9% 25%
0.82 -18% 15% 8% 22%
0.84 -16% 13% 7% 19%
0.86 -14% 11% 6% 16%
0.88 -12% 9% 5% 14%
0.9 -10% 8% 4% 11%
0.92 -8% 6% 3% 9%
0.94 -6% 4% 3% 6%
0.96 -4% 3% 2% 4%
0.98 -2% 1% 1% 2%
1 0% 0% 0% 0%
1.02 2% -1% -1% -2%
1.04 4% -3% -2% -4%
1.06 6% -4% -2% -6%
1.08 8% -5% -3% -7%
1.1 10% -6% -4% -9%
1.12 12% -8% -4% -11%
1.14 14% -9% -5% -12%
1.16 16% -10% -6% -14%
1.18 18% -11% -6% -15%
1.2 20% -12% -7% -17%
1.22 22% -13% -8% -18%
1.24 24% -14% -8% -19%
1.26 26% -15% -9% -21%
1.28 28% -16% -9% -22%
1.3 30% -17% -10% -23%
1.32 32% -18% -11% -24%
1.34 34% -19% -11% -25%
1.36 36% -19% -12% -26%
1.38 38% -20% -12% -28%
1.4 40% -21% -13% -29%
1.42 42% -22% -13% -30%
1.44 44% -23% -14% -31%
1.46 46% -23% -14% -32%
1.48 48% -24% -15% -32%
1.5 50% -25% -15% -33%
1.52 52% -25% -15% -34%
1.54 54% -26% -16% -35%
1.56 56% -27% -16% -36%
1.58 58% -27% -17% -37%
1.6 60% -28% -17% -38%
1.62 62% -29% -18% -38%
1.64 64% -29% -18% -39%
1.66 66% -30% -18% -40%
1.68 68% -30% -19% -40%
1.7 70% -31% -19% -41%
1.72 72% -32% -20% -42%
1.74 74% -32% -20% -43%
1.76 76% -33% -20% -43%
1.78 78% -33% -21% -44%
1.8 80% -34% -21% -44%
1.82 82% -34% -21% -45%
1.84 84% -35% -22% -46%
1.86 86% -35% -22% -46%
1.88 88% -36% -22% -47%
1.9 90% -36% -23% -47%
1.92 92% -37% -23% -48%
1.94 94% -37% -23% -48%
1.96 96% -38% -24% -49%
1.98 98% -38% -24% -49%
2 100% -38% -24% -50%
Increase in Trip Volume
Price-Elasticity: Illustrative Effect of Travel Price on Demand
60% Each curve corresponds to a particular price-elasticity. Their

non-linearity captures the exponential character of elasticity
functions, which in turn reflects the underlying Law of
Diminishing Returns.
40%
e = - 0.4
20% e = - 0.7
e = - 1.0
0%
-20%
-40%
Increase in Trip Price

0%
-20%
-40%
Increase in Trip Price
H. Sifting the 2011 Port Authority Toll Hike for Elasticity "Clues" Based in part on Chrstine Haughney's Dec. 3, 2011
into Manhattan," <http://nyti.ms/sZ7J1N>.
In September 2011, the Port Authority implemented a steep toll hike on its Hudson River crossings. On Dec. 3, 2011, the Times ran a s
number of crossings had fallen by 4% compared to a year earlier. In addition, "about 3.5 percent more riders" [we take that to mean a
ZPass, while the Port Authority received 20 percent more in toll revenue than it did the year before.
Though the Times story didn't mention it, the Port Authority also broadened the periods in which it charges peak rates for tolls and shra
The net result of the changes is, by my estimate, a 31% rise in the average toll paid by car drivers. Curiously, this would imply a 25-26
20% figure in the Times article (since 1.31 times (1-4%) equals 1.26.)
Leaving that anomaly aside, I estimate below that, with the toll hike, the average driver's cost of a round-trip using a Hudson River cro
implied total-trip price-elasticity, -0.32, is shown in Row 380.
2008
Effecctive Date 2-Mar-08
Peak Hours 6-9am, 4-7pm

# Peak Hours per day 6
Peak Hours, % of weekday 0.25
Peak Hours, % of weekday crossings 36.5%
Other Hours, % of weekday crossings 63.5%
E-ZPass Penetration, peak crossings 80.0%
E-ZPass Penetration, off-peak crossings 75.0%
Off-Peak Toll w/ E-ZPass $6.00

Off-Peak Toll w/o E-ZPass $8.00
Peak Toll w/ E-ZPass $8.00
Peak Toll w/o E-ZPass $8.00
% Wkday crossings off-peak + E-ZPass 47.6%

% Wkday crossings off-peak w/o E-ZPass 15.9%
% Wkday crossings peak w E-ZPass 27.4%
% Wkday crossings peak w/o E-ZPass 9.1%
100.0%
Weighted average toll $7.05
Increase, $
Increase, %
Increase, factor
Total Trip Costs

Miles, typical round-trip (Komanoff est.) 25
Per-gallon gasoline cost (Komanoff est.) $2.80
Cost of fuel (gasoline) per trip on these crossings $3.89
Other costs (than gasoline + tolls) for round-trip on these facilities $12.00
Average current toll for these trips $7.05
Total trip cost $22.94
Increase, $
Increase, %
Increase, factor
Number of motor vehicle trips (normalized) 100
Implied Elasticity (based on entire trip cost)

###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
###
###
y changes as a result of changes in price. An item is ###
they don’t. Mathematically, price-elasticity is the ###
ce.
###
that predict (or calculate) changes in auto use and ###
ansit fares. ###
###
demand or usage associated with a one percent
ct" by which new trips materialize (or current trips ###
hey also underlie the method by which the BTA ###
ment, as well as changes in subway usage in response
###
###
time of travel to monetary savings that result from the ###
worksheet. ###
ed from one mode (e.g., auto) due to increased price ###
###
###
###
###
###
ri-State Regional Planning Commission (TSRPC), ###
erim Technical Report 5303; not Web-available).
e by the work-trip time-elasticity value of minus 100%. ###
###
###
ties for transit and auto modes in NYC. It is thoughtful, ###
elasticities are relative measures (percentage changes
eason to expect that these relationships should have ###
the price-elasticity of driving -- are "backstopped" by ###
ebound effect noted above, which effectively treats
###
er the first swing of the pendulum, the greater the
###
###
###
the Manhattan CBD. Demand for taxi service should
ty, we relied on a published estimate derived by taxi ###
aller. As noted below, we relied on informal guidance ###
Note: Auto price-elasticities are 'all-in,' i.e., they ###
apply not to the (relatively small) current toll ###
levels, but to the total incremental cost of a CBD
auto trip, which includes parking, gasoline, etc. ###
(as estimated in Rows 219-257 of the 'Motor Vs' ###
worksheet). Thus, what may appear to be high
values (in a tolls-only context) are far more ###
modest as all-in values.
###
e second. Trips are classified as either work
e destination. ###
###
###
###
For Auto Thru Trips For Auto Thru Trips Worksheet(s) in which
(weekdays) (weekends) elasticity is applied ###
Subways, Buses ###
Subways ###
-66.5% -80.0% Motor Vs, Subways (in calculating time-switching) ###
-100.0% -100.0% Motor Vs ###
-22.0% Taxis, Motor Vs ###
-80.0% Taxis, Motor Vs ###
###
and bus. The weights are derived in Rows 67-71 (for ###
###
###
n Transportation, Aug. 1999, pp. 283-97 ###
tion (oral comm., Nov. 2009) that it should fall in same range
mean of those four values. ###
###
33% ###
are applied to elasticities in Rows 20% ###
us elasticities that are then inputted
or Vs Weekends' worksheets. 33% ###
NA (subsumed in transit time-elasticity) ###
###
###
Truck and bus numbers are differences between total cordon entries and 'final' entries in Rows 30 ###
and 68 of 'Motor Vs' worksheet. Auto figures were calculated in Row 43 of 'Motor Vs' worksheet' ###
and are taken directly from there.
###
###
###
###
###
Note from Rows 67-71 applies here, except that data are from 'Motor Vs Weekends' worksheet. ###
###
###
###
###
###
aptured" by the other mode ###

###
###
###
As modified + applied in this spreadsheet
###
Worksheet(s) in which
Work Non-work elasticity is applied ###
Not used. Auto time impacts are subsumed ###
in rebound effect and captured via ###
parameters in next row.
###
###
90.25% 47.5% Subways ###
Note that sums of values in Rows 91 & 94 ###
equal resp. values in Row 91 at left. ###
4.75% 2.5% Motor Vs ###
###
###
90.25% 47.5% Motor Vs, via Subways ###
###
###
90.25% 50.4% Not yet incorporated ###
Note that means of Rows 97 & 100 added to Row 103 equals resp. means of ###
values in Rows 97 and 100 at left. ###
4.75% 2.6% Subways ###
###
###
###
by medallion taxicabs. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to ###
llion taxis. We have applied a rough estimate here, with the
###
###
###
% to transit or auto: 95% ###
###
, subway, car service or black car in New York City, and 25% ###
ld be smaller. A 5% shift to taxis seems reasonable, though ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Council conducted a real-world road-pricing
###
opolitan area. These households were charged time-
travel choices — essentially, the number, length and ###
ed into estimates of price elasticities and time- ###
e at
###
###
###
every aspect of the study design and findings. Among ###
s value is shown in the last part of the last table
confirmed in communications with PSRC personnel ###
###
###
s taken from the TSRPC report and used in this ###

###
###
###
carried out prior to development of the BTA, which is
tical “linear regression” techniques to 1978-2005
gressed” (correlated) the annual volume of trips on all
t, which in turn was estimated as the weighted
in economic activity, we controlled for the number of
verages, along with a single five-year average for
7, which happens to equal the mean of the
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
nt work is available to confirm or alter the TSRPC ###
e TSRPC values. For one thing, the time-elasticities
of time for the average driver vs. the average transit- ###
###
###
###
er is invited to test the robustness of the key results
city estimates. We believe this will show the basic ###
s the "rebound effect" already noted, whereby faster ###
###
gestion Pricing and Free Transit in New York City" ###

###
###
g at Row 324. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
"singularity," in which case Point Elasticity must be used). It
ser quantity response. ###
Q denotes auto use or transit ridership ###
P denotes fare or toll (i.e., "price") ###
e denotes elasticity ###
1 denotes starting ridership and price ###
2 denotes new ridership and price ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
y BTA indicator: the number of weekday motor vehicle
small impact, and that even the most sensitive
###
###
###
###
###
s ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
9% 11% 13% 15% 17% 19% 21% 23% 25% 27% 29%
###
###
s, not percentage points. ###
multiple to the assumed
a 0.80 multiple.
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Demand
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
e = - 0.4
###
e = - 0.7 ###
e = - 1.0 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Based in part on Chrstine Haughney's Dec. 3, 2011 NYT article, "After Tolls Rise, Less Traffic and More Train Riders ###
nto Manhattan," <http://nyti.ms/sZ7J1N>. ###
crossings. On Dec. 3, 2011, the Times ran a story indicating that in the two months following the hike, the ###
percent more riders" [we take that to mean a 3.5 percentage point increase, among drivers] switched to E- ###
ear before.
###
###
n which it charges peak rates for tolls and shrank the off-peak periods. ###
###
ar drivers. Curiously, this would imply a 25-26 percent increase in revenue rather than the ###
###
###
cost of a round-trip using a Hudson River crossing increased in Fall 2011 by 14%. The ###
###
###
2011 ###
###
18-Sep-11 ###
###
6-10am, 4-8pm ###
8 ###
0.33 ###
47.2% From applicable cells in Weekday Hours worksheet tab. ###
52.8% Complement of percentage in prior row. ###
83.5% Komanoff guesstimates, with 2008/2011 delta from NYT 3-Dec-2011 story saying "about ###
3.5 percent more riders [sic] started using E-Zpass")
78.5% ###
###
$7.50 ###
$12.00 ###
$9.50 ###
$12.00 ###
###
41.4% ###
11.3% Algebra from ###
Rows 355-
37.1% 358. ###
10.2% ###
100.0% ###
###
$9.21 SumProduct function on Rows 350-353 and 355-358. ###
$2.16 ###
30.7% ###
1.307 ###
###
###
25 ###
$3.50 ###
$4.86 Assumes 18 mpg. ###
$12.00 Komanoff est. ###
$9.21 Row 361. ###
$26.07 Sum of Rows 369-371. ###
$3.13 ###
13.7% ###
1.137 ###
###
96 ###
Year-on-year drop in crossings, from NYT story cited at Row 324.
0.96 ###
###
-0.32 Calculated on Rows 375 and 378, using logarithms. ###
Script Area - Don't Touch
-9.0% -23.4%
-50.0% -55.0%
-50.0% -90.0% -66.5%
-100.0% -100.0% -100.0%
-30% -40.4% -45.0% -37.4% -46.3% -33.1%

-29% -40.6% -45.0% -37.7% -46.3% -33.5%
-28% -40.7% -45.0% -38.0% -46.3% -33.9%
-27% -40.9% -45.0% -38.3% -46.2% -34.3%
-26% -41.1% -45.0% -38.5% -46.2% -34.7%
-25% -41.2% -45.1% -38.8% -46.2% -35.2%
-24% -41.4% -45.1% -39.1% -46.1% -35.6%
-23% -41.6% -45.1% -39.4% -46.1% -36.0%
-22% -41.7% -45.1% -39.6% -46.1% -36.4%
-21% -41.9% -45.1% -39.9% -46.0% -36.8%
-20% -42.1% -45.1% -40.2% -46.0% -37.2%
-19% -42.2% -45.1% -40.5% -46.0% -37.6%
-18% -42.4% -45.2% -40.7% -45.9% -38.0%
-17% -42.6% -45.2% -41.0% -45.9% -38.4%
-16% -42.7% -45.2% -41.3% -45.9% -38.9%
-15% -42.9% -45.2% -41.5% -45.9% -39.3%
-14% -43.1% -45.2% -41.8% -45.8% -39.7%
-13% -43.2% -45.2% -42.1% -45.8% -40.1%
-12% -43.4% -45.3% -42.3% -45.8% -40.5%
-11% -43.6% -45.3% -42.6% -45.7% -40.9%
-10% -43.7% -45.3% -42.9% -45.7% -41.3%
-9% -43.9% -45.3% -43.1% -45.7% -41.7%
-8% -44.1% -45.3% -43.4% -45.7% -42.1%
-7% -44.3% -45.3% -43.6% -45.6% -42.6%
-6% -44.4% -45.3% -43.9% -45.6% -43.0%
-5% -44.6% -45.4% -44.2% -45.6% -43.4%
-4% -44.8% -45.4% -44.4% -45.5% -43.8%
-3% -44.9% -45.4% -44.7% -45.5% -44.2%
-2% -45.1% -45.4% -44.9% -45.5% -44.6%
-1% -45.3% -45.4% -45.2% -45.5% -45.0%
1% -45.6% -45.5% -45.7% -45.4% -45.9%
2% -45.8% -45.5% -45.9% -45.4% -46.3%
3% -46.0% -45.5% -46.2% -45.4% -46.7%
4% -46.1% -45.5% -46.5% -45.3% -47.1%
5% -46.3% -45.5% -46.7% -45.3% -47.5%
6% -46.5% -45.5% -46.9% -45.3% -47.9%
7% -46.6% -45.6% -47.2% -45.3% -48.3%
8% -46.8% -45.6% -47.4% -45.2% -48.8%
9% -47.0% -45.6% -47.7% -45.2% -49.2%
10% -47.2% -45.6% -47.9% -45.2% -49.6%
11% -47.3% -45.6% -48.2% -45.2% -50.0%
12% -47.5% -45.6% -48.4% -45.1% -50.4%
13% -47.7% -45.6% -48.7% -45.1% -50.8%
14% -47.8% -45.7% -48.9% -45.1% -51.3%
15% -48.0% -45.7% -49.2% -45.0% -51.7%
16% -48.2% -45.7% -49.4% -45.0% -52.1%
17% -48.4% -45.7% -49.6% -45.0% -52.5%
18% -48.5% -45.7% -49.9% -45.0% -52.9%
19% -48.7% -45.7% -50.1% -44.9% -53.4%
20% -48.9% -45.8% -50.3% -44.9% -53.8%
21% -49.1% -45.8% -50.6% -44.9% -54.2%
22% -49.2% -45.8% -50.8% -44.9% -54.6%
23% -49.4% -45.8% -51.1% -44.8% -55.0%
24% -49.6% -45.8% -51.3% -44.8% -55.5%
25% -49.8% -45.8% -51.5% -44.8% -55.9%
26% -49.9% -45.8% -51.8% -44.8% -56.3%
27% -50.1% -45.9% -52.0% -44.8% -56.7%
28% -50.3% -45.9% -52.2% -44.7% -57.2%
29% -50.5% -45.9% -52.4% -44.7% -57.6%
30% -50.6% -45.9% -52.7% -44.7% -58.0%
0% -45.4% -45.4% -45.4% -45.4% -45.4%
-30% -11.1% -1.0% -17.7% 1.9% -27.2%
-29% -10.7% -1.0% -17.0% 1.9% -26.2%
-28% -10.4% -1.0% -16.4% 1.8% -25.3%
-27% -10.0% -0.9% -15.8% 1.7% -24.4%
-26% -9.6% -0.9% -15.2% 1.6% -23.5%
-25% -9.3% -0.9% -14.6% 1.6% -22.6%
-24% -8.9% -0.8% -14.0% 1.5% -21.7%
-23% -8.5% -0.8% -13.4% 1.4% -20.8%
-22% -8.2% -0.8% -12.8% 1.4% -19.9%
-21% -7.8% -0.7% -12.2% 1.3% -19.0%
-20% -7.4% -0.7% -11.6% 1.2% -18.1%
-19% -7.1% -0.7% -11.0% 1.2% -17.2%
-18% -6.7% -0.6% -10.4% 1.1% -16.3%
-17% -6.3% -0.6% -9.8% 1.0% -15.4%
-16% -6.0% -0.6% -9.2% 1.0% -14.5%
-15% -5.6% -0.5% -8.6% 0.9% -13.6%
-14% -5.2% -0.5% -8.0% 0.8% -12.7%
-13% -4.8% -0.4% -7.4% 0.8% -11.8%
-12% -4.5% -0.4% -6.8% 0.7% -10.9%
-11% -4.1% -0.4% -6.3% 0.7% -10.0%
-10% -3.7% -0.3% -5.7% 0.6% -9.1%
-9% -3.4% -0.3% -5.1% 0.5% -8.2%
-8% -3.0% -0.3% -4.5% 0.5% -7.3%
-7% -2.6% -0.2% -4.0% 0.4% -6.4%
-6% -2.2% -0.2% -3.4% 0.4% -5.4%
-5% -1.9% -0.2% -2.8% 0.3% -4.5%
-4% -1.5% -0.1% -2.3% 0.2% -3.6%
-3% -1.1% -0.1% -1.7% 0.2% -2.7%
-2% -0.7% -0.1% -1.1% 0.1% -1.8%
-1% -0.4% 0.0% -0.6% 0.1% -0.9%
1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.6% -0.1% 0.9%
2% 0.8% 0.1% 1.1% -0.1% 1.8%
3% 1.1% 0.1% 1.7% -0.2% 2.7%
4% 1.5% 0.1% 2.2% -0.2% 3.6%
5% 1.9% 0.2% 2.8% -0.3% 4.6%
6% 2.3% 0.2% 3.3% -0.3% 5.5%
7% 2.6% 0.2% 3.9% -0.4% 6.4%
8% 3.0% 0.3% 4.4% -0.5% 7.3%
9% 3.4% 0.3% 5.0% -0.5% 8.2%
10% 3.8% 0.3% 5.5% -0.6% 9.1%
11% 4.1% 0.4% 6.0% -0.6% 10.0%
12% 4.5% 0.4% 6.6% -0.7% 11.0%
13% 4.9% 0.4% 7.1% -0.8% 11.9%
14% 5.3% 0.5% 7.6% -0.8% 12.8%
15% 5.7% 0.5% 8.2% -0.9% 13.7%
16% 6.0% 0.6% 8.7% -0.9% 14.6%
17% 6.4% 0.6% 9.2% -1.0% 15.6%
18% 6.8% 0.6% 9.7% -1.0% 16.5%
19% 7.2% 0.7% 10.3% -1.1% 17.4%
20% 7.6% 0.7% 10.8% -1.1% 18.3%
21% 8.0% 0.7% 11.3% -1.2% 19.3%
22% 8.3% 0.8% 11.8% -1.3% 20.2%
23% 8.7% 0.8% 12.3% -1.3% 21.1%
24% 9.1% 0.8% 12.9% -1.4% 22.1%
25% 9.5% 0.9% 13.4% -1.4% 23.0%
26% 9.9% 0.9% 13.9% -1.5% 23.9%
27% 10.3% 0.9% 14.4% -1.5% 24.9%
28% 10.6% 1.0% 14.9% -1.6% 25.8%
29% 11.0% 1.0% 15.4% -1.6% 26.7%
30% 11.4% 1.0% 15.9% -1.7% 27.7%
Gini (Coefficient)
This worksheet calculates the Gini Coefficient for hourly subway travel as a way of distilling the effect of transit fare pricing on the
"even-ness" (or unevenness) of the temporal distribution of subway ridership.
The Gini Coefficient is a measure of population inequality ranging from zero to one. A completely equal distribution (all periods have
the same number of rides) gives 0, while completely unequal distribution (all rides fall in a single period) gives 1. A 2008 article, from
Harvard Magazine <http://harvardmagazine.com/2008/07/p3-unequal-america.html> includes a timely discussion of the Gini
Coefficient's use in tracking income inequality (which was the focus of its creator, Corrado Gini, in the early 20th Century). For more
info, try Wikipedia: <http://www.answers.com/topic/gini-coefficient>
Here the Gini Coefficient is calculated as half the relative mean difference.
pre-Kheel subway travel
time period (start) Midnight 1 a.m. 2 a.m. 3 a.m. 4 a.m. 5 a.m. 6 a.m.
rides/hr 38,518 17,692 10,223 7,195 11,048 44,176 147,089
Midnight 38,518 0 20,826 28,295 31,322 27,470 5,658 108,571
1 a.m. 17,692 20,826 0 7,469 10,496 6,644 26,484 129,397
2 a.m. 10,223 28,295 7,469 0 3,028 825 33,953 136,866
3 a.m. 7,195 31,322 10,496 3,028 0 3,852 36,980 139,893
4 a.m. 11,048 27,470 6,644 825 3,852 0 33,128 136,041
5 a.m. 44,176 5,658 26,484 33,953 36,980 33,128 0 102,913
6 a.m. 147,089 108,571 129,397 136,866 139,893 136,041 102,913 0
7 a.m. 321,891 283,374 304,200 311,668 314,696 310,843 277,716 174,803
8 a.m. 507,283 468,765 489,591 497,060 500,087 496,235 463,107 360,194
9 a.m. 331,097 292,579 313,405 320,874 323,901 320,049 286,921 184,008
10 a.m. 177,501 138,983 159,809 167,278 170,305 166,453 133,325 30,412
11 a.m. 139,612 101,094 121,920 129,389 132,417 128,564 95,436 7,477
Noon 139,937 101,419 122,245 129,714 132,741 128,889 95,761 7,152
1 p.m. 148,061 109,544 130,370 137,838 140,866 137,014 103,886 973
2 p.m. 184,154 145,637 166,463 173,931 176,959 173,106 139,979 37,066
3 p.m. 238,277 199,759 220,585 228,054 231,081 227,229 194,101 91,188
4 p.m. 313,971 275,454 296,280 303,748 306,776 302,924 269,796 166,883
5 p.m. 435,552 397,034 417,860 425,329 428,357 424,504 391,376 288,463
6 p.m. 359,100 320,582 341,408 348,877 351,904 348,052 314,924 212,011
7 p.m. 236,898 198,381 219,206 226,675 229,703 225,850 192,722 89,809
8 p.m. 165,084 126,566 147,392 154,861 157,889 154,036 120,908 17,995
9 p.m. 120,710 82,193 103,019 110,487 113,515 109,662 76,535 26,378
10 p.m. 99,109 60,591 81,417 88,886 91,913 88,061 54,933 47,980
11 p.m. 62,656 24,139 44,964 52,433 55,461 51,608 18,481 84,433
avg riders/hr 177,368
periods 24
Gini coefficient 0.450
post-Kheel subway travel
time period (start) Midnight 1 a.m. 2 a.m. 3 a.m. 4 a.m. 5 a.m. 6 a.m.
rides/hr 42,543 20,004 11,761 8,466 12,726 51,744 161,958
Midnight 42,543 0 22,539 30,783 34,077 29,817 9,201 119,414
1 a.m. 20,004 22,539 0 8,243 11,538 7,278 31,740 141,954
2 a.m. 11,761 30,783 8,243 0 3,295 966 39,984 150,197
3 a.m. 8,466 34,077 11,538 3,295 0 4,260 43,278 153,492
4 a.m. 12,726 29,817 7,278 966 4,260 0 39,018 149,231
5 a.m. 51,744 9,201 31,740 39,984 43,278 39,018 0 110,213
6 a.m. 161,958 119,414 141,954 150,197 153,492 149,231 110,213 0
7 a.m. 345,813 303,270 325,809 334,053 337,347 333,087 294,069 183,856
8 a.m. 539,589 497,046 519,585 527,828 531,123 526,863 487,845 377,631
9 a.m. 354,568 312,025 334,564 342,807 346,102 341,842 302,824 192,610
10 a.m. 191,419 148,876 171,415 179,659 182,953 178,693 139,675 29,461
11 a.m. 151,545 109,001 131,541 139,784 143,079 138,818 99,800 10,413
Noon 151,900 109,357 131,896 140,139 143,434 139,174 100,156 10,058
1 p.m. 160,743 118,200 140,739 148,983 152,278 148,017 108,999 1,214
2 p.m. 200,220 157,677 180,216 188,460 191,755 187,494 148,476 38,263
3 p.m. 257,665 215,122 237,662 245,905 249,200 244,939 205,921 95,708
4 p.m. 337,552 295,009 317,549 325,792 329,087 324,826 285,808 175,595
5 p.m. 465,028 422,485 445,024 453,268 456,563 452,302 413,284 303,071
6 p.m. 384,440 341,897 364,436 372,680 375,974 371,714 332,696 222,483
7 p.m. 255,697 213,154 235,693 243,937 247,232 242,971 203,953 93,740
8 p.m. 179,374 136,831 159,371 167,614 170,909 166,648 127,630 17,417
9 p.m. 132,278 89,735 112,274 120,517 123,812 119,552 80,534 29,680
10 p.m. 109,247 66,704 89,243 97,487 100,782 96,521 57,503 52,710
11 p.m. 68,614 26,071 48,610 56,854 60,149 55,888 16,870 93,343
avg riders/hr 191,454
periods 24
Gini coefficient 0.444
Change -1.3%
1/6/2012
nsit fare pricing on the
ribution (all periods have

es 1. A 2008 article, from
ussion of the Gini
20th Century). For more
7 a.m. 8 a.m. 9 a.m. 10 a.m. 11 a.m. Noon 1 p.m. 2 p.m. 3 p.m.

321,891 507,283 331,097 177,501 139,612 139,937 148,061 184,154 238,277
283,374 468,765 292,579 138,983 101,094 101,419 109,544 145,637 199,759
304,200 489,591 313,405 159,809 121,920 122,245 130,370 166,463 220,585
311,668 497,060 320,874 167,278 129,389 129,714 137,838 173,931 228,054
314,696 500,087 323,901 170,305 132,417 132,741 140,866 176,959 231,081
310,843 496,235 320,049 166,453 128,564 128,889 137,014 173,106 227,229
277,716 463,107 286,921 133,325 95,436 95,761 103,886 139,979 194,101
174,803 360,194 184,008 30,412 7,477 7,152 973 37,066 91,188
0 185,391 9,205 144,391 182,279 181,955 173,830 137,737 83,615
185,391 0 176,186 329,782 367,671 367,346 359,221 323,128 269,006
9,205 176,186 0 153,596 191,485 191,160 183,035 146,942 92,820
144,391 329,782 153,596 0 37,889 37,564 29,439 6,654 60,776
182,279 367,671 191,485 37,889 0 325 8,449 44,542 98,665
181,955 367,346 191,160 37,564 325 0 8,125 44,218 98,340
173,830 359,221 183,035 29,439 8,449 8,125 0 36,093 90,215
137,737 323,128 146,942 6,654 44,542 44,218 36,093 0 54,122
83,615 269,006 92,820 60,776 98,665 98,340 90,215 54,122 0
7,920 193,311 17,125 136,471 174,359 174,035 165,910 129,817 75,695
113,661 71,731 104,456 258,052 295,940 295,616 287,491 251,398 197,275
37,208 148,183 28,003 181,599 219,488 219,163 211,038 174,945 120,823
84,993 270,385 94,198 59,398 97,286 96,962 88,837 52,744 1,379
156,807 342,199 166,012 12,416 25,472 25,147 17,023 19,070 73,193
201,181 386,572 210,386 56,790 18,902 19,226 27,351 63,444 117,566
222,783 408,174 231,988 78,392 40,503 40,828 48,953 85,046 139,168
259,235 444,627 268,440 114,844 76,956 77,280 85,405 121,498 175,621
7 a.m. 8 a.m. 9 a.m. 10 a.m. 11 a.m. Noon 1 p.m. 2 p.m. 3 p.m.
345,813 539,589 354,568 191,419 151,545 151,900 160,743 200,220 257,665
303,270 497,046 312,025 148,876 109,001 109,357 118,200 157,677 215,122
325,809 519,585 334,564 171,415 131,541 131,896 140,739 180,216 237,662
334,053 527,828 342,807 179,659 139,784 140,139 148,983 188,460 245,905
337,347 531,123 346,102 182,953 143,079 143,434 152,278 191,755 249,200
333,087 526,863 341,842 178,693 138,818 139,174 148,017 187,494 244,939
294,069 487,845 302,824 139,675 99,800 100,156 108,999 148,476 205,921
183,856 377,631 192,610 29,461 10,413 10,058 1,214 38,263 95,708
0 193,776 8,755 154,394 194,269 193,913 185,070 145,593 88,148
193,776 0 185,021 348,170 388,044 387,689 378,845 339,368 281,923
8,755 185,021 0 163,149 203,023 202,668 193,825 154,348 96,902
154,394 348,170 163,149 0 39,875 39,519 30,676 8,801 66,246
194,269 388,044 203,023 39,875 0 355 9,199 48,676 106,121
193,913 387,689 202,668 39,519 355 0 8,844 48,320 105,766
185,070 378,845 193,825 30,676 9,199 8,844 0 39,477 96,922
145,593 339,368 154,348 8,801 48,676 48,320 39,477 0 57,445
88,148 281,923 96,902 66,246 106,121 105,766 96,922 57,445 0
8,261 202,036 17,015 146,133 186,008 185,653 176,809 137,332 79,887
119,215 74,560 110,460 273,609 313,484 313,128 304,285 264,808 207,363
38,627 155,149 29,872 193,021 232,896 232,540 223,697 184,220 126,775
90,116 283,892 98,871 64,278 104,153 103,797 94,954 55,477 1,968
166,439 360,214 175,193 12,045 27,830 27,475 18,631 20,846 78,291
213,535 407,311 222,290 59,141 19,267 19,622 28,466 67,942 125,388
236,566 430,341 245,320 82,172 42,297 42,652 51,496 90,973 148,418
277,199 470,974 285,954 122,805 82,930 83,285 92,129 131,606 189,051
4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 7 p.m. 8 p.m. 9 p.m. 10 p.m. 11 p.m. sum
313,971 435,552 359,100 236,898 165,084 120,710 99,109 62,656
275,454 397,034 320,582 198,381 126,566 82,193 60,591 24,139 3,548,236
296,280 417,860 341,408 219,206 147,392 103,019 81,417 44,964 3,881,449
303,748 425,329 348,877 226,675 154,861 110,487 88,886 52,433 4,017,537
306,776 428,357 351,904 229,703 157,889 113,515 91,913 55,461 4,084,142
302,924 424,504 348,052 225,850 154,036 109,662 88,061 51,608 4,001,038
269,796 391,376 314,924 192,722 120,908 76,535 54,933 18,481 3,469,023
166,883 288,463 212,011 89,809 17,995 26,378 47,980 84,433 2,580,905
7,920 113,661 37,208 84,993 156,807 201,181 222,783 259,235 4,159,491
193,311 71,731 148,183 270,385 342,199 386,572 408,174 444,627 7,917,953
17,125 104,456 28,003 94,198 166,012 210,386 231,988 268,440 4,306,773
136,471 258,052 181,599 59,398 12,416 56,790 78,392 114,844 2,664,616
174,359 295,940 219,488 97,286 25,472 18,902 40,503 76,956 2,596,508
174,035 295,616 219,163 96,962 25,147 19,226 40,828 77,280 2,595,209
165,910 287,491 211,038 88,837 17,023 27,351 48,953 85,405 2,580,905
129,817 251,398 174,945 52,744 19,070 63,444 85,046 121,498 2,704,539
75,695 197,275 120,823 1,379 73,193 117,566 139,168 175,621 3,140,275
0 121,581 45,128 77,073 148,887 193,261 214,863 251,315 4,048,612
121,581 0 76,452 198,654 270,468 314,842 336,443 372,896 6,339,877
45,128 76,452 0 122,202 194,016 238,389 259,991 296,443 4,810,830
77,073 198,654 122,202 0 71,814 116,188 137,789 174,242 3,126,489
148,887 270,468 194,016 71,814 0 44,374 65,975 102,428 2,614,950
193,261 314,842 238,389 116,188 44,374 0 21,602 58,054 2,709,917
214,863 336,443 259,991 137,789 65,975 21,602 0 36,453 2,882,729
251,315 372,896 296,443 174,242 102,428 58,054 36,453 0 3,247,256
88,029,259
4 p.m. 5 p.m. 6 p.m. 7 p.m. 8 p.m. 9 p.m. 10 p.m. 11 p.m. sum
337,552 465,028 384,440 255,697 179,374 132,278 109,247 68,614
295,009 422,485 341,897 213,154 136,831 89,735 66,704 26,071 3,808,292
317,549 445,024 364,436 235,693 159,371 112,274 89,243 48,610 4,168,921
325,792 453,268 372,680 243,937 167,614 120,517 97,487 56,854 4,319,232
329,087 456,563 375,974 247,232 170,909 123,812 100,782 60,149 4,391,719
324,826 452,302 371,714 242,971 166,648 119,552 96,521 55,888 4,299,920
285,808 413,284 332,696 203,953 127,630 80,534 57,503 16,870 3,679,479
175,595 303,071 222,483 93,740 17,417 29,680 52,710 93,343 2,751,754
8,261 119,215 38,627 90,116 166,439 213,535 236,566 277,199 4,425,365
202,036 74,560 155,149 283,892 360,214 407,311 430,341 470,974 8,355,235
17,015 110,460 29,872 98,871 175,193 222,290 245,320 285,954 4,565,441
146,133 273,609 193,021 64,278 12,045 59,141 82,172 122,805 2,834,766
186,008 313,484 232,896 104,153 27,830 19,267 42,297 82,930 2,770,862
185,653 313,128 232,540 103,797 27,475 19,622 42,652 83,285 2,769,441
176,809 304,285 223,697 94,954 18,631 28,466 51,496 92,129 2,751,754
137,332 264,808 184,220 55,477 20,846 67,942 90,973 131,606 2,887,573
79,887 207,363 126,775 1,968 78,291 125,388 148,418 189,051 3,351,072
0 127,476 46,888 81,855 158,178 205,275 228,305 268,938 4,309,716
127,476 0 80,588 209,331 285,654 332,750 355,781 396,414 6,714,904
46,888 80,588 0 128,743 205,066 252,162 275,193 315,826 5,103,141
81,855 209,331 128,743 0 76,323 123,419 146,450 187,083 3,331,389
158,178 285,654 205,066 76,323 0 47,097 70,127 110,760 2,786,588
205,275 332,750 252,162 123,419 47,097 0 23,030 63,663 2,886,463
228,305 355,781 275,193 146,450 70,127 23,030 0 40,633 3,070,706
268,938 396,414 315,826 187,083 110,760 63,663 40,633 0 3,477,036
93,810,768
Cordon
This worksheet estimates the costs to build, operate and administer the cordon charging system. It also estimates the
effective new lane-miles and car-free public space "created" by reducing VMT within the CBD.
1. Capital Costs for Cordon-Tolling System
A. Cost Basis from 2007-08 NYC Congestion Pricing Plans
Estimated cost to design and install original Bloomberg plan (w/ intra-cordon tolling)
Interim Report to the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, at Table 13, reports capital costs of $224 million for the "Mayor's
Plan," which required 340 charging stations across the Manhattan CBD, each with E-ZPass readers and LPR (License Plate
Recognition) cameras; and $73 million for an "Alt. Pricing Plan" based on the 60th Street cordon and with no intra-cordon tolling.
Page 35 (56/94 of the pdf, which is available at: <https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/repository/TCMC-Final-Report.pdf>).
Share of above cost allocable to administration (legal, system engineering, etc.)

Share of above cost allocable to procuring and installing system hardware
Cost allocable to procuring and installing system hardware
Number of locations on which hardware cost was predicated
Same TCMC document and statement.
Calculated Cost per Location (rounded)
B. Apply Cost Basis Above to Future Cordon Pricing
Adder for indirect costs (design, contracting, public consultation) (Komanoff)

Further adder for foregone "scale economies" from reduced size (Komanoff)
Revised Cost per Location
Row 27 times one plus Row 32 times one plus Row 33.
Is Tolling Done in one direction or two?
Taken from 'User Inputs' worksheet, Row 38.
Adder for bi-directional tolls Komanoff; uses 'IF' statement on value in Row 36.
Further Revised Cost per Location (reflecting number of tolld directions)
Row 34 times one plus Row 38.
Number of Locations for plan now being costed
Avenues (FDR, Sutton/York, 2nd, Lex, Park, 5th, 7th, CPW, B'way, Col., 11th Ave, WS Hwy)
Bridges (2 ea. Manhattan + Qboro, 1 ea. Bklyn + Wburg; 8 for Harlem River bridges)
Tunnels (Lincoln, Holland, Bklyn-Battery, Queens-Midtown)
Total (rounded)
Cost for all Locations (Product of Rows 40 and 45).
C. Cost for administration (legal, system engineering, etc.)

D. Total Capital Cost for Tolling System (admin, engineering, equipment, installation)
Amortization period, years

Annualized capital cost
2. Operating Costs for Cordon-Tolling System
A. Weekdays
Weekday Vehicle Entries to CBD to be tolled (in-bound only)

Cordon figure is from Motor V's, Row 848, with taxi entries substracted from total. Other figures prorate first figure by bridges'
shares of pre-toll cordon entries, from 'River Crossings' worksheet, and are only an approximation.

Adjusted Wkday Vehicle Entries to CBD to be tolled (in-bound + out-bound, as applicable)
Percent now using E-ZPass (may be conservatively low)
Daily News reported figure of 70% in "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 now using other payment mechanisms
Increment to percent using E-ZPass if cash payments are surcharged

Komanoff assumption. (Ideally would be parametrized based on magnitude of cash payment.)
Applicable Increment to percent using E-ZPass
Uses 'IF' statement keyed to Row 67 of 'User Inputs' worksheet to indicate whether conditional increment in Row 72 actually
applies.
Percent of toll transactions expected to use E-ZPass

Sum of Rows 67 (existing percent) and 74 increment due to possible cash surcharge, if applicable.
Percent of toll transactions not expected to use E-ZPass
Charging Costs per transaction

E-ZPass $0.15
Other (cash) $0.50
Per vehicle costs are adapted loosely and, we hope, conservatively, from Daily News article cited above: "Every time the system
reads an E-ZPass 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 costs are adapted loosely and, we hope, conservatively, from Daily News article cited above: "Every time the system
reads an E-ZPass 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."
Number of toll transactions using E-ZPass, per weekday

Number of toll transactions using other payment mechanisms, per weekday
Charging costs per day using E-ZPass, per weekday
Charging costs per day using other mechanisms, per weekday
Charging costs per year using E-ZPass
Charging costs per year using other mechanisms
Total Charging Costs, Weekdays
Total Charging Costs, Weekdays (rounded)
B. Weekends and Holidays
Weekend Vehicle Entries to CBD to be tolled (in-bound only)

Cordon figure is from Motor V's Weekends, Row 848, with taxi entries substracted from total. Other figures prorate first figure by
bridges' shares of pre-toll cordon entries, from 'River Crossings' worksheet, and are only an approximation.

Adjusted Wkend Vehicle Entries to CBD to be tolled (in-bound + out-bound, as applicable)
Percent using E-ZPass (5 percentage points less than for weekday entries, above)
Reduces Row 77 figure by 5 percentage points.
Percent using other payment mechanisms
Number of toll transactions using E-ZPass, per weekend day
Number of toll transactions using other payment mechanisms, per weekend day
Charging costs per day using E-ZPass, per weekend day
Charging costs per day using other mechanisms, per weekend day
Charging costs per year using E-ZPass
Charging costs per year using other mechanisms
Total Charging Costs, Weekends
Total Charging Costs, Weekends and holidays (rounded)
C. Annual Administrative Costs

Komanoff assumption. Is intended to cover office space, computer, legal, administration and other costs not included in the per-
transaction cost figures in Rows 82 and 83.
3. Cordon-Tolling Total Costs

Sum of Rows 48, 97 and 119 with 'IF' statement to indicate that some toll option is invoked.
4. Cordon-Tolling Total Costs included in 'Results' worksheet

Chosen according to which toll plan has been selected in User Inputs worksheet.
5. Spatial Implications of Reduced VMT w/i CBD -- using Times Square as a metric
Definition of Times Square, from Wikipedia: Times Square is a major intersection in Manhattan, New
York City at the junction of Broadway and Seventh Avenue and stretching from West 42nd to West
47th Streets.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Times_Square (accessed 12-14-2008)
We measure the acreage of Times Square as the sum of the square footage of five trapezoids, each
bounded by Broadway and 7th Avenue, and by successive streets (e.g., 47th to 46th Street), using the
"outer" dimensions. "Base 1" and "Base 2" denote the bases of the respective trapezoids.
Figures in cols. at right are inches on a map Base 1 Base 2 Height

Top of 47th to top of 46th Street 0.688 0.500 1.000
Top of 44th to top of 43rd Street 0.406 0.531 1.000
Top of 43rd to bottom of 42nd Street 0.531 0.781 1.156
Figures in cols. are in feet
Top of 47th to top of 46th Street 183 133 267
Top of 44th to top of 43rd Street 108 142 267
Top of 43rd to bottom of 42nd Street 142 208 308
Respective areas in feet and acres Square feet Acres

Top of 47th to top of 46th Street 42,222 0.97
Top of 44th to top of 43rd Street 33,333 0.77
Top of 43rd to bottom of 42nd Street 53,958 1.24
Totals, denoting all of "Times Square" 183,958 4.22
Times Sq's acreage as % of street space in entire CBD 0.33%
calculated as ratio of Times Square acres just above, to total CBD acres est'd in Part 5.
One lane-mile's acreage as % of CBD's street space 0.11%

Reciprocal of figure in Row 187.
6. Acreage of Street Space for the Entire CBD Cordon
Lane-Miles in the CBD (Manhattan south of 60th Street) (Note: "BTK" cite denotes transportation engineer Brian T. Ketcham.)
Avenues Source
North-South miles south of 60th St. 5 CK
Number of lanes @ 60th St. (excludes W Side Hwy, FDR) 91 BTK
Number of avenues @ 60th St. (excludes W Side Hwy, FDR) 15 BTK
Implied lanes per avenue @ 60th St. 6.1 BTK
Adjusted lanes/ave. reflecting narrowing in south 5.2 CK
Implied lane-miles south of 60th St. 387
Avenue miles south of 60th St. (may be useful for redesign) 75
Streets
Number of lane-miles 165 BTK
Lanes per street 3.5 BTK
Adjusted lanes per street reflecting narrowing in south 3.15 CK
Implied lane-miles south of 60th St. 520
Street miles south of 60th St. (may be useful for redesign) 165
Total Lane-Miles, Streets + Avenues Combined 907

Same as above, but expressed in acres 1,272
Total acres, CBD Streets and Avenues (rounded) 1,270
7. Cordon VMT breakdowns (all VMT figures are 24-hour weekdays, from Motor V's worksheet)
Baseline % of B With Pricing

Total VMT 3,434,068 3,192,349
Intra-cordon VMT 1,414,400 41% 1,441,957
Cordon VMT by medallion taxis 1,414,562 41% 1,478,865
VMT other than intra-cordon 2,019,667 59% 1,750,392
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
system. It also estimates the
CBD. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
$224,000,000 ###
###
s of $224 million for the "Mayor's ###
ders and LPR (License Plate
and with no intra-cordon tolling. ###
CMC-Final-Report.pdf>). ###
###
25% ###
###
75% ###
###
$168,000,000 ###
###
340 ###
###
$500,000 ###
###
###
Cordon Bridges (E & H Riv) E Riv only ###
###
100% 100% 100% ###
100% 120% 150% ###
$2,000,000 $2,200,000 $2,500,000 ###
###
1 1 1 ###
###
0% 0% 0% ###
###
$2,000,000 $2,200,000 $2,500,000 ###
###
12 ###
6 14 6 ###
4 ###
22 14 6 ###
$44,000,000 $30,800,000 $15,000,000 ###
###
$56,000,000 $56,000,000 $56,000,000 ###
###
###
$100,000,000 $87,000,000 $71,000,000 ###
###
5 5 5 ###
$20,000,000 $17,000,000 $14,000,000 ###
###
###
###
###
500,600 304,500 158,200 ###
prorate first figure by bridges' ###
on.
###
1 1 1 ###
###
500,600 304,500 158,200 ###
###
75% 70% 70% ###
nsit," Oct. 22, 2007, ###
aise_39-4.html.
###
25% 30% 30% ###
###
5% 5% 5% ###
###
5% 5% 5% ###
ncrement in Row 72 actually ###
###
80% 75% 75% ###
###
20% 25% 25% ###
###
###
###
###
###
d above: "Every time the system
-ZPass transactions cost far less ###
pects cameras will be able to
ts." ###
###
400,500 228,400 118,700 ###
100,100 76,100 39,600 ###
$60,100 $34,300 $17,800 ###
$50,100 $38,100 $19,800 ###
$15,025,000 $8,575,000 $4,450,000 ###
$12,525,000 $9,525,000 $4,950,000 ###
$27,550,000 $18,100,000 $9,400,000 ###
100% 100% 100% ###
$55,100,000 $36,200,000 $18,800,000 ###
###
###
425,800 259,000 134,600 ###
her figures prorate first figure by ###
roximation.
###
1 1 1 ###
###
425,800 259,000 134,600 ###
###
75% 70% 70% ###
###
25% 30% 30% ###
319,400 181,300 94,200 ###
106,500 77,700 40,400 ###
$47,900 $27,200 $14,100 ###
$53,300 $38,900 $20,200 ###
$5,508,500 $3,128,000 $1,621,500 ###
$6,129,500 $4,473,500 $2,323,000 ###
$11,638,000 $7,601,500 $3,944,500 ###
100% 100% 100% ###
$23,300,000 $15,200,000 $7,900,000 ###
###
$20,000,000 $20,000,000 $20,000,000 ###
er costs not included in the per- ###
###
###
$118,000,000 $88,000,000 $61,000,000 ###
###
###
$118,000,000 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
One inch (in grid at left) = feet: 267 ###
###
###
Numbers at length are fractions of an inch read from a non- ###

replicable Google Maps image of the Times Square area in ###
which 3/4 inch on a ruler equals approximately 200 feet. The
numbers are converted to feet and square feet below. ###
###
###
Used to calculate number of acres per lane-mile: ###
feet per mile 5,280 ###
Street lane width, ft 12 CK ###
Avenue lane width, ft 11 CK ###
CBD lane, avg ft 11.6 ###
Wghtd by number of strt. and
lane miles 1 ###
lane width, miles 0.00219 ###
lane-mile area, mi sq 0.00219 ###
sq feet per acre 43,560 acres per lane miles ###
sq feet per sq mile 27,878,400 ###
sq miles per acre 0.00156 ###
lane-mile area, acres 1.40 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
ortation engineer Brian T. Ketcham.) ###
###
###
[BTK implies 6, but Mapquest shows 5] ###
###
###
###
[take 15% off BTK figure) ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
[take 10% off BTK figure) ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
V's worksheet) ###
###
% of After % Change Delta ###
-7% -241,719 ###
45% 2% 27,557 ###
46% 5% 64,304 ###
55% -13% -269,276 ###
###
Emissions
This worksheet calculates changes in emissions of CO2, Total Organic Gases, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen Oxides, and PM10 that
will result from the pricing measures. Emissions will change due to changes in both VMT (vehicle miles traveled) and traffic speeds.
The worksheet captures both phenomena. The calculations are performed separately (in parallel) for weekdays and weekends-
holidays.
Methodology: We estimate emissions of each of the five pollutants under (i) baseline conditions and (ii) with the pricing regime
selected in the Results worksheet. Emissions are calculated by multiplying VMT for each time period by the emission factors
applicable to the average speed for the period. Emission factors are calculated using the most recent (2007) edition of the California
Air Resources Board's (CARB) EMission FACtors model, EMFAC2007. (See http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm.)
Calculations are done separately for light-duty vehicles (cars, including SUV's and taxicabs), trucks and buses, and per weekday or
weekend day. The emission factors for each vehicle class are means of a fairly wide range encompassing the different vehicle
characteristics within each class. The resulting daily figures are converted to annual values at far right. Changes (differences
between baseline and final values) are shown at bottom.
Weekdays (pe
Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak

11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am
A. Baseline emissions
1. Within Cordon
Average Baseline Cordon Speeds (mph) 21.07 20.20 9.18
From Motor Vs (Motor Vs Weekends) worksheet, Row 184.
Baseline VMT in Cordon (miles per day)
Light duty vehicles - (autos and taxicabs) 410,609 78,904 472,771
Trucks 28,990 7,909 45,603
Buses 7,229 1,972 11,373
Barth formula for CO2 emissions (grams per mile) 410 422 761
Derived in Speed-CO2 worksheet, using an exponential polynomial equation drawn from work by Barth and Boriboonsomsin at U-C Riverside
Emission Rates (grams per mile)

LDV
CO2 492 506 912
TOG 0.242 0.255 0.482
CO 4.143 4.240 5.754
NOx 0.492 0.500 0.634
PM10 0.047 0.049 0.077
Trucks
CO2 1279 1314 2372
TOG 0.492 0.519 0.943
CO 4.974 5.246 9.696
NOx 4.171 4.232 5.377
PM10 0.164 0.169 0.247
Buses
CO2 1677 1724 3111
TOG 1.289 1.358 2.459
CO 10.640 11.250 21.257
NOx 14.922 15.269 21.561
PM10 0.410 0.426 0.670
Emissions (kg)
LDV
CO2 201,921 39,891 431,323
TOG 99 20 228
CO 1,701 335 2,720
NOx 202 39 300
PM10 19 4 37
Trucks
CO2 37,065 10,395 108,174
TOG 14 4 43
CO 144 41 442
NOx 121 33 245
PM10 5 1 11
Buses
CO2 12,122 3,400 35,379
TOG 9 3 28
CO 77 22 242
NOx 108 30 245
PM10 3 1 8
All Vehicles
CO2 251,108 53,686 574,875
TOG 123 27 299
CO 1,922 398 3,404
NOx 431 103 790
PM10 27 6 55
2. Outside Cordon
Average Baseline Non-Cordon Speeds (mph) 55.00 44.21 17.07
From Motor Vs (Motor Vs Weekend) worksheet, Row 200.
Baseline VMT Non Cordon (miles per day)
Light duty vehicles - (autos and taxicabs) 7,033,756 1,851,470 10,417,701
Trucks 297,716 81,218 468,334
Buses 123,582 33,714 194,406

LDV
CO2 328 323 475
TOG 0.173 0.095 0.310
CO 2.997 2.807 4.615
NOx 0.445 0.402 0.532
PM10 0.039 0.029 0.056
Trucks
CO2 852 840 1235
TOG 0.252 0.161 0.623
CO 3.542 2.062 6.318
NOx 5.093 4.098 4.488
PM10 0.099 0.092 0.188
Buses
CO2 1117 1102 1620
TOG 0.685 0.437 1.627
CO 7.604 4.189 13.658
NOx 18.682 13.838 16.695
PM10 0.236 0.200 0.486
Emissions (kg)
LDV
CO2 2,304,055 598,349 4,947,993
TOG 1,216 177 3,230
CO 21,083 5,197 48,076
NOx 3,127 744 5,546
PM10 278 54 581
Trucks
CO2 253,560 68,244 578,344
TOG 75 13 292
CO 1,054 167 2,959
NOx 1,516 333 2,102
PM10 29 7 88
Buses
CO2 138,037 37,152 314,848
TOG 85 15 316
CO 940 141 2,655
NOx 2,309 467 3,246
PM10 29 7 94
All Vehicles
CO2 2,695,651 703,745 5,841,185
TOG 1,375 204 3,838
CO 23,077 5,505 53,690
NOx 6,952 1,543 10,893
PM10 336 69 764
3. Cordon + Non-cordon baseline emissions

Emissions (kg)
LDV
CO2 2,505,975 638,240 5,379,315
TOG 1,315 197 3,458
CO 22,784 5,531 50,796
NOx 3,329 783 5,846
PM10 297 58 618
Trucks
CO2 290,625 78,640 686,518
TOG 89 17 335
CO 1,199 209 3,401
NOx 1,637 366 2,347
PM10 34 9 99
Buses
CO2 150,159 40,552 350,227
TOG 94 17 344
CO 1,017 163 2,897
NOx 2,417 497 3,491
PM10 32 8 102
All Vehicles
CO2 2,946,760 757,431 6,416,060
TOG 1,498 231 4,137
CO 24,999 5,904 57,094
NOx 7,383 1,646 11,684
PM10 363 75 819
B. Final emissions
1. Within Cordon
Average Cordon Speeds (mph) 21.21 20.95 10.96
VMT in Cordon (miles)
Light duty vehicles - (autos and taxicabs) 391,079 67,865 432,340
Trucks 29,582 7,121 44,163
Buses 7,530 1,899 11,693
Derived in Speed-CO2 worksheet, using an exponential polynomial equation drawn from work by Barth and Boriboonsomsin at U-C Riverside.

LDV
CO2 490 494 800
TOG 0.239 0.244 0.439
CO 4.128 4.156 5.473
NOx 0.490 0.493 0.609
PM10 0.047 0.047 0.072
Trucks
CO2 1273 1283 2080
TOG 0.488 0.496 0.863
CO 4.932 5.011 8.849
NOx 4.161 4.179 5.146
PM10 0.163 0.165 0.232
Buses
CO2 1670 1683 2728
TOG 1.278 1.298 2.252
CO 10.544 10.723 19.351
NOx 14.868 14.969 20.304
PM10 0.408 0.412 0.625
Emissions (kg)
LDV
CO2 191,499 33,497 345,879
TOG 94 17 190
CO 1,614 282 2,366
NOx 192 33 263
PM10 18 3 31
Trucks
CO2 37,662 9,139 91,860
TOG 14 4 38
CO 146 36 391
NOx 123 30 227
PM10 5 1 10
Buses
CO2 12,573 3,195 31,896
TOG 10 2 26
CO 79 20 226
NOx 112 28 237
PM10 3 1 7
All Vehicles
CO2 241,733 45,831 469,636
TOG 118 23 254
CO 1,839 338 2,983
NOx 427 92 728
PM10 26 5 49
2. Outside Cordon
Average Non-Cordon Speeds (mph) 54.99 47.59 18.26
Final VMT Non Cordon (miles per day)
Light duty vehicles - (autos and taxicabs) 6,599,779 1,729,900 10,090,188
Trucks 279,365 72,250 433,745
Buses 115,963 30,364 182,083

LDV
CO2 328 324 452
TOG 0.173 0.110 0.288
CO 2.997 2.811 4.467
NOx 0.445 0.409 0.519
PM10 0.039 0.031 0.053
Trucks
CO2 852 842 1176
TOG 0.252 0.172 0.582
CO 3.540 2.332 5.891
NOx 5.092 4.340 4.384
PM10 0.099 0.091 0.181
Buses
CO2 1117 1104 1542
TOG 0.684 0.471 1.520
CO 7.601 4.820 12.699
NOx 18.678 14.991 16.117
PM10 0.236 0.202 0.462
Emissions (kg)
LDV
CO2 2,161,868 560,150 4,562,104
TOG 1,140 190 2,909
CO 19,780 4,862 45,068
NOx 2,934 708 5,241
PM10 261 54 536
Trucks
CO2 237,927 60,827 509,887
TOG 70 12 252
CO 989 168 2,555
NOx 1,423 314 1,901
PM10 28 7 78
Buses
CO2 129,525 33,526 280,717
TOG 79 14 277
CO 881 146 2,312
NOx 2,166 455 2,935
PM10 27 6 84
All Vehicles
CO2 2,529,320 654,502 5,352,708
TOG 1,290 216 3,438
CO 21,651 5,177 49,936
NOx 6,523 1,477 10,077
PM10 315 67 698
3. Cordon + Non-cordon final emissions

Emissions (kg)
LDV
CO2 2,353,367 593,647 4,907,984
TOG 1,234 206 3,099
CO 21,394 5,145 47,434
NOx 3,126 742 5,505
PM10 279 57 567
Trucks
CO2 275,589 69,966 601,747
TOG 85 16 290
CO 1,135 204 2,946
NOx 1,546 343 2,129
PM10 32 8 89
Buses
CO2 142,097 36,721 312,613
TOG 89 17 303
CO 961 167 2,539
NOx 2,278 484 3,172
PM10 30 7 91
All Vehicles
CO2 2,771,053 700,333 5,822,343
TOG 1,408 239 3,693
CO 23,490 5,515 52,919
NOx 6,949 1,569 10,805
PM10 342 72 747
C. Change in Motor Vehicle Emissions (Final Emissions, in Part B, less Baseline Emissions, in Part A)
Weekday
1. Cordon v Non-cordon
Cordon
kg percent
CO2 -523,070 -16%
TOG -229 -13%
CO -2,222 -11%
NOx -311 -7%
PM10 -35 -11%
2. Light Duty Vehicles v Trucks and Buses
Light duty vehicles

kg percent
CO2 -2,308,076 -8%
TOG -1,713 -10%
CO -17,714 -6%
NOx -1,863 -5%
PM10 -256 -8%
D. Change in Motor Vehicle Emissions, Adjusted to Reflect "Indirect" Reductions in VMT, Hence, Emissions, from "Attraction" to
Scroll to Far Right

1/6/2012
gen Oxides, and PM10 that Truck and bus fuel-use factors relative to light duty vehicles (used to determine relative CO2 emissions factor
traveled) and traffic speeds. LDV fuel economy
eekdays and weekends- Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2008 <http://www.epa.gov/oms/fetren
Medium Truck fuel economy (10,000 - 26,000 lbs)
Transportation Energy Data Book, Edition 27, Table 5.4 (http://www-cta.ornl.gov/data/chapter5.shtml)
Bus fuel economy
FHWA Highway Statistics 2007, table VM-1 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2007/vm1.cfm)
) with the pricing regime
y the emission factors
2007) edition of the California Cordon fuel-inefficiency factor (due to more stop-and-go traffic within cordon than outside cordon)
ei/onroad/latest_version.htm.) LDV fuel economy - adjusted combined cycle, MY 2008
LDV fuel economy - adjusted city cycle, MY 2008
buses, and per weekday or Light-Duty Automotive Technology and Fuel Economy Trends: 1975 Through 2008 <http://www.epa.gov/oms/fetren
ng the different vehicle Approximating the driving cycle in the non-cordon by the combined city/highway EPA driving cycle and in the cordon by the
Changes (differences
Weekdays (per day) W
A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals Graveyard Early Shoulder
9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm Midnight-10 am 10 am-Noon
9.79 12.09 8.18 11.92 19.55 14.46
154,294 555,849 994,264 423,747 3,090,438 932,379 264,790

13,900 50,038 93,709 34,891 275,040 24,709 8,215
3,466 12,479 23,369 8,701 68,589 9,260 3,079
726 619 825 626 431 539

and Boriboonsomsin at U-C Riverside.
871 742 990 750 517 646

0.467 0.413 0.508 0.417 0.266 0.362
5.656 5.302 5.919 5.327 4.314 4.961
0.625 0.593 0.649 0.596 0.506 0.563
0.075 0.069 0.081 0.069 0.050 0.062
2263 1930 2573 1951 1344 1679

0.915 0.815 0.990 0.822 0.539 0.719
9.400 8.340 10.195 8.414 5.455 7.329
5.296 5.009 5.516 5.029 4.280 4.743
0.242 0.223 0.255 0.225 0.173 0.206
2968 2531 3375 2558 1762 2203

2.387 2.127 2.581 2.146 1.411 1.878
20.591 18.204 22.380 18.371 11.719 15.930
21.120 19.557 22.311 19.666 15.540 18.103
0.654 0.597 0.697 0.601 0.437 0.542
134,324 412,591 984,063 317,932 2,522,044 481,857 171,041

72 230 505 177 1,331 248 96
873 2,947 5,885 2,257 16,718 4,022 1,314
96 330 646 252 1,865 472 149
12 38 80 29 219 47 16
31,462 96,570 241,144 68,064 592,874 33,202 13,798

13 41 93 29 236 13 6
131 417 955 294 2,425 135 60
74 251 517 175 1,416 106 39
3 11 24 8 64 4 2
10,290 31,584 78,867 22,261 193,903 16,318 6,781

8 27 60 19 154 13 6
71 227 523 160 1,322 109 49
73 244 521 171 1,393 144 56
2 7 16 5 43 4 2
176,075 540,744 1,304,074 408,257 3,308,821 531,376 191,620

93 297 658 224 1,721 275 107
1,075 3,592 7,363 2,711 20,465 4,265 1,423
243 825 1,684 599 4,675 722 244
17 57 120 42 325 55 20
20.30 24.01 15.48 25.88 53.89 30.03
3,176,990 11,571,237 21,863,887 8,307,953 64,222,993 15,652,667 5,198,627

142,747 513,882 962,368 358,325 2,824,591 258,043 85,795
59,255 213,313 399,480 148,741 1,172,492 158,982 52,859
420 379 511 365 327 343
420 379 511 365 327 343

0.254 0.199 0.341 0.176 0.161 0.134
4.228 3.841 4.822 3.669 2.954 3.343
0.499 0.467 0.551 0.453 0.438 0.428
0.049 0.042 0.060 0.039 0.038 0.034
1093 986 1329 949 850 892

0.516 0.410 0.681 0.364 0.235 0.279
5.213 4.145 6.922 3.686 3.307 2.863
4.225 3.995 4.639 3.908 4.961 3.786
0.168 0.148 0.199 0.139 0.097 0.122
1433 1293 1743 1244 1114 1170

1.350 1.076 1.777 0.957 0.640 0.736
11.177 8.780 15.015 7.752 7.066 5.915
15.227 13.917 17.530 13.409 18.028 12.647
0.424 0.362 0.519 0.334 0.228 0.282
1,335,072 4,389,310 11,178,414 3,031,303 27,784,495 5,115,783 1,783,485

806 2,308 7,452 1,464 16,652 2,514 699
13,432 44,448 105,434 30,483 268,153 46,238 17,381
1,585 5,399 12,038 3,760 32,199 6,852 2,222
155 486 1,304 325 3,183 593 176
155,966 506,820 1,279,285 339,928 3,182,146 219,275 76,527

74 211 655 131 1,450 61 24
744 2,130 6,661 1,321 15,037 853 246
603 2,053 4,465 1,400 12,472 1,280 325
24 76 191 50 467 25 10
84,907 275,910 696,437 185,055 1,732,345 177,177 61,835

80 230 710 142 1,578 102 39
662 1,873 5,998 1,153 13,423 1,123 313
902 2,969 7,003 1,994 18,889 2,866 668
25 77 208 50 490 36 15
1,575,945 5,172,039 13,154,135 3,556,286 32,698,986 5,512,234 1,921,847

960 2,748 8,817 1,736 19,680 2,676 762
14,839 48,451 118,094 32,957 296,613 48,214 17,939
3,090 10,420 23,505 7,155 63,560 10,998 3,216
204 639 1,703 424 4,140 655 202
1,469,395 4,801,901 12,162,477 3,349,236 30,306,539 5,597,640 1,954,526

878 2,538 7,957 1,640 17,983 2,762 795
14,305 47,396 111,319 32,741 284,872 50,259 18,695
1,682 5,728 12,683 4,013 34,064 7,324 2,371
167 524 1,384 354 3,402 640 193
187,428 603,389 1,520,428 407,992 3,775,020 252,476 90,325

86 252 748 159 1,686 74 30
875 2,547 7,617 1,614 17,462 988 306
677 2,303 4,981 1,576 13,888 1,386 364
27 87 215 58 530 29 12
95,197 307,494 775,304 207,316 1,926,248 193,494 68,616

88 256 770 161 1,731 115 45
734 2,100 6,521 1,313 14,745 1,232 362
975 3,213 7,524 2,166 20,282 3,010 724
27 85 224 55 532 40 17
1,752,020 5,712,784 14,458,209 3,964,543 36,007,807 6,043,610 2,113,467

1,053 3,045 9,475 1,960 21,401 2,951 869
15,914 52,043 125,457 35,668 317,078 52,479 19,362
3,334 11,245 25,189 7,754 68,234 11,720 3,459
221 696 1,823 467 4,465 710 222
11.46 13.39 9.89 13.57 20.16 15.82
142,219 519,587 909,878 389,916 2,852,883 859,940 245,729

13,335 49,403 91,393 33,868 268,865 23,946 8,031
3,533 12,869 24,177 8,900 70,601 9,296 3,132
645 572 721 566 422 503

and Boriboonsomsin at U-C Riverside.
773 686 864 679 506 603

0.428 0.384 0.465 0.380 0.256 0.334
5.397 5.112 5.641 5.086 4.244 4.777
0.602 0.576 0.624 0.574 0.500 0.547
0.071 0.065 0.075 0.065 0.049 0.059
2011 1783 2247 1764 1316 1568

0.842 0.762 0.911 0.754 0.520 0.668
8.621 7.774 9.355 7.698 5.259 6.790
5.085 4.859 5.284 4.839 4.235 4.606
0.228 0.214 0.241 0.212 0.169 0.197
2637 2338 2947 2314 1726 2056

2.197 1.988 2.376 1.969 1.361 1.745
18.838 16.930 20.488 16.761 11.279 14.718
19.969 18.738 21.052 18.630 15.285 17.346
0.612 0.566 0.652 0.562 0.426 0.512
109,985 356,234 786,457 264,598 2,088,148 435,331 148,171

61 200 423 148 1,132 220 82
768 2,656 5,133 1,983 14,802 3,650 1,174
86 299 568 224 1,665 430 134
10 34 68 25 190 42 14
26,814 88,065 205,389 59,756 518,684 31,518 12,591

11 38 83 26 214 12 5
115 384 855 261 2,187 126 55
68 240 483 164 1,335 101 37
3 11 22 7 59 4 2
9,318 30,086 71,256 20,594 178,918 16,046 6,440

8 26 57 18 147 13 5
67 218 495 149 1,255 105 46
71 241 509 166 1,364 142 54
2 7 16 5 41 4 2
146,116 474,385 1,063,101 344,948 2,785,751 482,895 167,201

80 263 564 191 1,492 245 93
949 3,258 6,483 2,393 18,244 3,880 1,275
224 781 1,560 554 4,364 674 226
15 52 106 37 291 50 18
21.65 25.23 16.45 27.51 54.48 31.47
3,072,535 11,250,228 21,278,030 8,009,577 14,551,478 5,036,430

132,310 483,659 899,342 331,914 238,133 80,621
55,508 202,399 377,147 139,159 146,987 50,052
403 370 488 355 327 338
403 370 488 355 327 338

0.233 0.184 0.322 0.158 0.167 0.123
4.080 3.728 4.694 3.532 2.976 3.248
0.486 0.457 0.539 0.442 0.441 0.421
0.046 0.040 0.057 0.037 0.039 0.033
1048 961 1269 923 851 879

0.475 0.380 0.645 0.328 0.244 0.254
4.799 3.840 6.548 3.331 3.430 2.638
4.132 3.936 4.545 3.848 5.031 3.766
0.161 0.142 0.192 0.132 0.098 0.117
1375 1260 1665 1210 1116 1152

1.244 0.997 1.685 0.863 0.664 0.673
10.247 8.097 14.175 6.959 7.348 5.415
14.703 13.575 17.011 13.050 18.373 12.499
0.400 0.343 0.499 0.312 0.232 0.267
1,238,541 4,157,349 10,388,168 2,842,134 25,910,315 4,761,512 1,702,231

715 2,070 6,847 1,267 15,138 2,430 620
12,536 41,936 99,882 28,291 252,356 43,312 16,357
1,494 5,145 11,475 3,539 30,537 6,422 2,118
142 451 1,219 295 2,957 564 164
138,670 464,695 1,141,579 306,220 2,859,803 202,596 70,846

63 184 580 109 1,270 58 20
635 1,857 5,889 1,106 13,200 817 213
547 1,904 4,088 1,277 11,453 1,198 304
21 69 173 44 420 23 9
76,296 255,033 627,844 168,376 1,571,316 164,002 57,683

69 202 635 120 1,397 98 34
569 1,639 5,346 968 11,862 1,080 271
816 2,748 6,416 1,816 17,351 2,701 626
22 70 188 43 441 34 13
1,453,507 4,877,077 12,157,591 3,316,730 30,341,434 5,128,111 1,830,761

847 2,455 8,063 1,496 17,805 2,586 675
13,740 45,432 111,118 30,365 277,418 45,209 16,841
2,857 9,796 21,978 6,632 59,341 10,321 3,048
185 589 1,580 383 3,817 621 187
1,348,526 4,513,583 11,174,625 3,106,732 27,998,463 5,196,844 1,850,402

776 2,269 7,270 1,415 16,270 2,651 702
13,303 44,592 105,015 30,275 267,157 46,962 17,531
1,580 5,444 12,043 3,763 32,202 6,852 2,253
152 485 1,287 320 3,147 606 178
165,483 552,760 1,346,967 365,976 3,378,488 234,113 83,437

74 221 663 134 1,484 71 26
750 2,241 6,744 1,366 15,387 943 267
614 2,144 4,570 1,441 12,788 1,299 341
24 79 195 51 479 27 11
85,614 285,119 699,100 188,970 1,750,234 180,049 64,123

77 227 693 138 1,544 110 39
635 1,857 5,841 1,118 13,117 1,185 317
887 2,989 6,925 1,982 18,715 2,843 680
24 77 204 48 482 38 15
1,599,624 5,351,462 13,220,692 3,661,678 33,127,185 5,611,006 1,997,963

927 2,718 8,626 1,687 19,298 2,831 767
14,689 48,690 117,600 32,758 295,661 49,090 18,115
3,081 10,577 23,538 7,186 63,705 10,994 3,273
200 641 1,686 420 4,108 671 204
Weekend
Non-cordon Total Annual Total Cordon

kg percent kg percent tonnes kg
-2,357,552 -7% -2,880,622 -8% -720,156 CO2 -313,362
-1,874 -10% -2,103 -10% -526 TOG -163
-19,195 -6% -21,417 -7% -5,354 CO -1,678
-4,219 -7% -4,530 -7% -1,132 NOx -204
-323 -8% -358 -8% -89 PM10 -25
Trucks and Buses Total Annual Total Light duty vehicles

kg percent kg percent tonnes kg
-572,546 -10% -2,880,622 -8% -720,156 CO2 -1,453,851
-390 -11% -2,103 -10% -526 TOG -1,021
-3,703 -11% -21,417 -7% -5,354 CO -13,106
-2,667 -8% -4,530 -7% -1,132 NOx -1,469
-102 -10% -358 -8% -89 PM10 -170
Emissions, from "Attraction" to Transit via Fare Discounts and Service Improvements
croll to Far Right to See Results Scroll to Far

o determine relative CO2 emissions factors) Avg MPG CO2 Ratios
20.8 1.0
ugh 2008 <http://www.epa.gov/oms/fetrends.htm>
8.0 2.6
nl.gov/data/chapter5.shtml)
6.1 3.4
cyinformation/statistics/2007/vm1.cfm)
on than outside cordon) 1.20

24.1
20.1 1.20
ugh 2008 <http://www.epa.gov/oms/fetrends.htm>
EPA driving cycle and in the cordon by the EPA city cycle. This is rough, but gives us a ratio of CO2 (or gasoline emissions) of vehicles driving in the cordon vs non-cordon.
Weekends (per day) (per year)
Shoulder 1 Peak Shoulder 2 Late Shoulder (none) Totals Weekdays,

annualized
Noon-5 pm 5 pm-8 pm 8 pm-10 pm 10 pm-Midnight
10.94 9.60 11.89 14.08
780,079 497,574 299,337 270,150 3,044,310 772,609,591

25,027 16,013 9,252 8,151 91,368 68,760,000
9,379 6,001 3,467 3,055 34,240 17,147,368
668 737 627 550
801 883 752 659

0.440 0.472 0.418 0.370
5.476 5.687 5.332 5.014
0.609 0.628 0.596 0.568
0.072 0.076 0.069 0.063
2083 2297 1955 1714

0.864 0.924 0.824 0.734
8.860 9.494 8.430 7.484
5.149 5.322 5.033 4.784
0.232 0.243 0.225 0.209
2732 3012 2564 2248

2.255 2.410 2.149 1.917
19.374 20.801 18.406 16.280
20.319 21.259 19.688 18.324
0.625 0.659 0.602 0.550
625,042 439,556 225,095 178,131 2,120,723 630,511,102

343 235 125 100 1,147 332,699
4,272 2,830 1,596 1,355 15,388 4,179,605
475 313 178 153 1,740 466,353
56 38 21 17 195 54,785
52,139 36,780 18,088 13,974 167,980 148,218,430

22 15 8 6 69 59,080
222 152 78 61 708 606,195
129 85 47 39 444 354,046
6 4 2 2 19 15,900
25,625 18,076 8,890 6,868 82,558 48,475,687

21 14 7 6 68 38,443
182 125 64 50 578 330,563
191 128 68 56 642 348,239
6 4 2 2 19 10,665
702,806 494,412 252,073 198,973 2,371,261 827,205,219

386 264 140 112 1,284 430,222
4,675 3,107 1,738 1,465 16,673 5,116,363
795 525 293 248 2,827 1,168,638
68 46 25 20 234 81,350
22.42 20.16 25.61 31.14
15,572,788 9,904,830 5,758,364 5,066,920 57,154,196 16,055,748,294

261,366 167,230 96,617 85,121 954,173 706,147,769
161,030 103,032 59,527 52,444 587,874 293,122,898
395 422 367 339
395 422 367 339

0.221 0.256 0.179 0.126
4.000 4.244 3.693 3.269
0.480 0.500 0.455 0.422
0.045 0.049 0.039 0.033
1026 1098 954 882

0.453 0.520 0.371 0.259
4.577 5.258 3.748 2.686
4.084 4.235 3.919 3.769
0.157 0.169 0.141 0.118
1346 1440 1251 1156

1.188 1.361 0.973 0.686
9.749 11.278 7.892 5.522
14.430 15.285 13.475 12.527
0.387 0.426 0.338 0.270
6,145,140 4,181,806 2,111,790 1,717,896 21,055,900 6,946,123,710

3,448 2,537 1,033 636 10,867 4,163,059
62,288 42,036 21,265 16,562 205,769 67,038,294
7,470 4,955 2,617 2,139 26,255 8,049,733
697 486 227 166 2,346 795,803
268,156 183,572 92,126 75,035 914,690 795,536,571

119 87 36 22 348 362,450
1,196 879 362 229 3,765 3,759,234
1,067 708 379 321 4,080 3,117,908
41 28 14 10 128 116,685
216,673 148,328 74,439 60,629 739,080 433,086,309

191 140 58 36 566 394,412
1,570 1,162 470 290 4,927 3,355,640
2,324 1,575 802 657 8,892 4,722,283
62 44 20 14 192 122,446
6,629,969 4,513,706 2,278,354 1,853,561 22,709,670 8,174,746,590

3,758 2,764 1,126 694 11,781 4,919,921
65,054 44,078 22,097 17,080 214,462 74,153,169
10,861 7,239 3,798 3,117 39,228 15,889,924
800 558 261 191 2,666 1,034,934
6,770,182 4,621,362 2,336,885 1,896,028 23,176,623 7,576,634,812

3,791 2,772 1,158 736 12,014 4,495,758
66,560 44,866 22,861 17,916 221,157 71,217,900
7,945 5,268 2,796 2,292 27,996 8,516,086
753 524 248 183 2,541 850,588
320,294 220,352 110,214 89,009 1,082,670 943,755,001

140 102 43 28 417 421,530
1,418 1,031 440 290 4,473 4,365,429
1,196 793 425 360 4,524 3,471,954
47 32 16 12 148 132,585
242,298 166,404 83,329 67,497 821,638 481,561,996

212 155 65 42 634 432,855
1,752 1,287 534 339 5,505 3,686,203
2,514 1,702 870 713 9,534 5,070,521
68 48 22 16 211 133,111
7,332,775 5,008,118 2,530,428 2,052,534 25,080,931 9,001,951,809

4,144 3,028 1,266 806 13,065 5,350,144
69,729 47,184 23,835 18,545 231,135 79,269,532
11,655 7,764 4,091 3,365 42,054 17,058,562
868 604 286 211 2,900 1,116,284
12.34 10.86 13.48 16.07
729,771 468,674 277,133 242,134 2,823,379 713,220,824

24,585 15,743 9,089 8,005 89,398 67,216,305
9,603 6,147 3,555 3,135 34,869 17,650,138
609 672 569 497
730 806 682 596

0.407 0.442 0.382 0.329
5.264 5.489 5.100 4.744
0.590 0.610 0.575 0.544
0.068 0.072 0.065 0.058
1899 2096 1774 1549

0.805 0.868 0.758 0.659
8.227 8.899 7.738 6.694
4.979 5.159 4.850 4.582
0.222 0.233 0.213 0.195
2491 2748 2327 2032

2.100 2.264 1.979 1.721
17.950 19.462 16.851 14.503
19.393 20.377 18.688 17.213
0.591 0.627 0.564 0.507
533,033 377,733 189,094 144,284 1,827,647 522,037,032

297 207 106 80 992 282,972
3,842 2,573 1,413 1,149 13,800 3,700,421
431 286 159 132 1,572 416,241
50 34 18 14 172 47,545
46,688 32,989 16,124 12,402 152,312 129,671,087

20 14 7 5 63 53,439
202 140 70 54 647 546,766
122 81 44 37 423 333,690
5 4 2 2 18 14,764
23,918 16,894 8,272 6,371 77,940 44,729,574

20 14 7 5 65 36,686
172 120 60 45 548 313,743
186 125 66 54 628 341,065
6 4 2 2 19 10,342
603,639 427,617 213,490 163,057 2,057,899 696,437,692

337 235 120 90 1,120 373,097
4,216 2,832 1,544 1,248 14,995 4,560,930
739 492 270 222 2,623 1,090,996
61 41 22 17 209 72,651
23.44 21.02 27.02 33.12
15,188,632 9,690,799 5,573,461 4,854,448

247,654 159,254 90,328 78,350
153,690 98,785 56,137 48,759
384 411 358 333
384 411 358 333

0.207 0.242 0.163 0.112
3.896 4.149 3.572 3.150
0.471 0.492 0.445 0.414
0.043 0.047 0.037 0.031
999 1068 930 867

0.425 0.494 0.338 0.230
4.294 4.991 3.432 2.422
4.025 4.174 3.864 3.757
0.151 0.164 0.134 0.112
1311 1401 1219 1137

1.115 1.293 0.890 0.610
9.114 10.677 7.185 4.936
14.091 14.943 13.148 12.405
0.370 0.411 0.318 0.252
5,838,704 3,981,160 1,993,051 1,618,466 19,895,125 6,477,578,709

3,145 2,350 910 545 10,000 3,784,522
59,179 40,205 19,906 15,291 194,251 63,088,950
7,155 4,770 2,480 2,010 24,955 7,634,212
652 459 209 152 2,199 739,128
247,523 170,104 83,982 67,917 842,968 714,950,826

105 79 31 18 311 317,624
1,063 795 310 190 3,387 3,299,913
997 665 349 294 3,807 2,863,199
37 26 12 9 117 104,901
201,455 138,380 68,450 55,431 685,402 392,829,019

171 128 50 30 510 349,203
1,401 1,055 403 241 4,451 2,965,577
2,166 1,476 738 605 8,311 4,337,738
57 41 18 12 175 110,212
6,287,682 4,289,643 2,145,484 1,741,814 21,423,495 7,585,358,554

3,421 2,556 991 593 10,821 4,451,349
61,643 42,054 20,620 15,722 202,089 69,354,440
10,317 6,911 3,567 2,909 37,072 14,835,148
746 526 239 173 2,491 954,241
6,371,738 4,358,892 2,182,145 1,762,751 21,722,772 6,999,615,741

3,442 2,557 1,016 625 10,993 4,067,493
63,021 42,777 21,320 16,440 208,051 66,789,371
7,586 5,056 2,639 2,141 26,527 8,050,452
702 493 227 166 2,371 786,672
294,211 203,093 100,106 80,318 995,280 844,621,913

125 92 37 23 375 371,063
1,266 935 380 243 4,034 3,846,679
1,119 746 393 331 4,229 3,196,889
43 30 14 10 136 119,665
225,372 155,275 76,722 61,801 763,342 437,558,593

192 142 57 35 575 385,890
1,573 1,174 463 286 4,999 3,279,320
2,352 1,601 805 659 8,939 4,678,803
63 44 20 14 194 120,554
6,891,321 4,717,260 2,358,974 1,904,870 23,481,394 8,281,796,247

3,758 2,791 1,111 683 11,942 4,824,446
65,860 44,887 22,163 16,970 217,084 73,915,370
11,057 7,403 3,837 3,131 39,695 15,926,144
807 567 261 190 2,701 1,026,892
Annual
Non-cordon Total Annual Total

percent kg percent kg percent tonnes
-13% -1,286,175 -6% -1,599,537 -6% -183,947 CO2
-13% -960 -8% -1,123 -9% -129 TOG
-10% -12,373 -6% -14,051 -6% -1,616 CO
-7% -2,156 -5% -2,359 -6% -271 NOx
-11% -175 -7% -199 -7% -23 PM10
ght duty vehicles Trucks and Buses Total Annual Total

percent kg percent kg percent tonnes
-6% -145,686 -8% -1,599,537 -6% -183,947 CO2
-8% -102 -10% -1,123 -9% -129 TOG
-6% -945 -9% -14,051 -6% -1,616 CO
-5% -890 -6% -2,359 -6% -271 NOx
-7% -29 -8% -199 -7% -23 PM10
Unadjusted (reflect direct impact of to
Scroll to Far Right to See Results CO2

TOG
CO
NOx
PM10
Figures above are calculated from earli
Adjusted (also reflect impact of transit
Adj. factor to light-veh emissions, to re

From 'VMT' worksheet. Is ratio of all ligh
(Row 17 plus Row 18). We assume 100
CO2
TOG
CO
NOx
PM10
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
driving in the cordon vs non-cordon. ###
###
###
###
###
###
Weekends, Annual Totals ###
annualized
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
350,095,663 1,122,705,254 ###
10,507,320 79,267,320 ###
3,937,600 21,084,968 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
243,883,166 874,394,268 ###
131,858 464,557 ###
1,769,602 5,949,207 ###
200,152 666,505 ###
22,456 77,241 ###
###
19,317,698 167,536,128 ###
7,966 67,046 ###
81,391 687,586 ###
51,103 405,149 ###
2,237 18,137 ###
###
9,494,130 57,969,817 ###
7,793 46,236 ###
66,429 396,992 ###
73,831 422,070 ###
2,220 12,886 ###
###
272,694,994 1,099,900,213 ###
147,617 577,839 ###
1,917,422 7,033,785 ###
325,085 1,493,723 ###
26,913 108,264 ###
###
###
###
###
###
6,572,732,559 22,628,480,854 ###
109,729,874 815,877,643 ###
67,605,539 360,728,437 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
2,421,428,445 9,367,552,155 ###
1,249,714 5,412,773 ###
23,663,476 90,701,770 ###
3,019,375 11,069,108 ###
269,790 1,065,593 ###
###
105,189,404 900,725,975 ###
40,027 402,477 ###
433,013 4,192,247 ###
469,197 3,587,105 ###
14,762 131,447 ###
###
84,994,250 518,080,559 ###
65,106 459,518 ###
566,635 3,922,275 ###
1,022,609 5,744,891 ###
22,044 144,490 ###
###
2,611,612,099 10,786,358,689 ###
1,354,848 6,274,769 ###
24,663,123 98,816,291 ###
4,511,180 20,401,105 ###
306,597 1,341,531 ###
###
###
###
###
2,665,311,611 10,241,946,423 ###
1,381,573 5,877,331 ###
25,433,078 96,650,978 ###
3,219,527 11,735,613 ###
292,246 1,142,834 ###
###
124,507,102 1,068,262,103 ###
47,993 469,523 ###
514,404 4,879,833 ###
520,299 3,992,254 ###
16,999 149,585 ###
###
94,488,380 576,050,376 ###
72,899 505,755 ###
633,063 4,319,266 ###
1,096,440 6,166,961 ###
24,265 157,376 ###
###
2,884,307,092 11,886,258,902 ###
1,502,465 6,852,608 ###
26,580,545 105,850,077 ###
4,836,266 21,894,827 ###
333,510 1,449,794 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
324,688,631 1,037,909,456 ###
10,280,777 77,497,082 ###
4,009,942 21,660,080 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
210,179,374 732,216,406 ###
114,123 397,095 ###
1,587,023 5,287,444 ###
180,796 597,037 ###
19,803 67,347 ###
###
17,515,847 147,186,933 ###
7,295 60,734 ###
74,373 621,139 ###
48,620 382,311 ###
2,098 16,862 ###
###
8,963,128 53,692,701 ###
7,433 44,119 ###
63,060 376,803 ###
72,257 413,322 ###
2,150 12,492 ###
###
236,658,348 933,096,040 ###
128,851 501,948 ###
1,724,456 6,285,386 ###
301,674 1,392,670 ###
24,051 96,702 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
2,287,939,360 8,765,518,069 ###
1,150,026 4,934,547 ###
22,338,883 85,427,833 ###
2,869,772 10,503,984 ###
252,895 992,023 ###
###
96,941,357 811,892,183 ###
35,788 353,412 ###
389,549 3,689,462 ###
437,750 3,300,949 ###
13,484 118,386 ###
###
78,821,219 471,650,238 ###
58,653 407,856 ###
511,822 3,477,398 ###
955,764 5,293,502 ###
20,140 130,352 ###
###
2,463,701,935 10,049,060,490 ###
1,244,467 5,695,816 ###
23,240,253 92,594,693 ###
4,263,287 19,098,435 ###
286,520 1,240,760 ###
###
###
###
###
2,498,118,734 9,497,734,475 ###
1,264,149 5,331,642 ###
23,925,906 90,715,277 ###
3,050,569 11,101,021 ###
272,698 1,059,370 ###
###
114,457,203 959,079,116 ###
43,083 414,146 ###
463,922 4,310,601 ###
486,371 3,683,260 ###
15,583 135,248 ###
###
87,784,346 525,342,939 ###
66,086 451,975 ###
574,881 3,854,201 ###
1,028,021 5,706,824 ###
22,290 142,844 ###
###
2,700,360,283 10,982,156,530 ###
1,373,318 6,197,764 ###
24,964,709 98,880,079 ###
4,564,961 20,491,105 ###
310,570 1,337,462 ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Cordon Non-cordon Total ###
tonnes percent tonnes percent tonnes percent ###
-166,804 -15% -737,298 -7% -904,102 -8% ###
-76 -13% -579 -9% -655 -10% ###
-748 -11% -6,222 -6% -6,970 -7% ###
-101 -7% -1,303 -6% -1,404 -6% ###
-12 -11% -101 -8% -112 -8% ###
###
###
###
###
Light duty vehicles Trucks and Buses Total ###
tonnes percent tonnes percent tonnes percent ###
-744,212 -7% -159,890 -10% -904,102 -8% ###
-546 -9% -109 -11% -655 -10% ###
-5,936 -6% -1,034 -11% -6,970 -7% ###
-635 -5% -769 -8% -1,404 -6% ###
-83 -7% -29 -9% -112 -8% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
djusted (reflect direct impact of toll only) ###
###
Cordon Non-Cordon ###
LDV's Trucks / Buses LDV's Trucks / Buses ###
tonnes tonnes tonnes tonnes ###
-142,178 -24,626 -602,034 -135,264 ###
-67 -8 -478 -101 ###
-662 -87 -5,274 -948 ###
-69 -32 -565 -738 ###
-10 -2 -74 -27 ###
igures above are calculated from earlier data, and match to figures in Rows 332 to 336. ###
###
usted (also reflect impact of transit attraction via lower fares and increased service) ###
###
factor to light-veh emissions, to reflect non-toll reduxns in VMT (due to transit "attraction"): 1.145 ###
rom 'VMT' worksheet. Is ratio of all light-vehicle VMT reduction (Row 22) to reductions due directly to cordon toll ###
Row 17 plus Row 18). We assume 100% of impact is non-cordon, though tiny fraction may be w/i CBD. ###
###
Cordon Non-Cordon Cordon Non-Cord. ###
LDV's Trucks / Buses LDV's Trucks / Buses All Veh All Veh ###
tonnes tonnes tonnes tonnes tonnes tonnes ###
-142,178 -24,626 -689,459 -135,264 -166,804 -824,723 ###
-67 -8 -548 -101 -76 -648 ###
-662 -87 -6,040 -948 -748 -6,987 ###
-69 -32 -647 -738 -101 -1,385 ###
-10 -2 -84 -27 -12 -111 ###
EMFAC results
This worksheet displays the outputs of EMFAC runs for a range of vehicle speeds and vehicle types that apply to California highway and
As reported by CARB, "The EMission FACtors (EMFAC) model is used to calculate emission rates from all motor vehicles, such as passe
heavy-duty trucks, operating on highways, freeways and local roads in California. EMFAC2007 is the most recent version of this model."
http://www.arb.ca.gov/msei/onroad/latest_version.htm.)
For the running exhaust emissions, a second-degree polynomial fits to the array of emissions as a function of vehicle speeds for four pol
Carbon Monoxide, Oxides of Nitrogen, and PM-10.
EMFAC2007 V2.3
Scenario Year: 2009 - All Model Years 1965-2009
Temperature 50F, Humidity 50%
A. Running exhaust emissions in grams/mile
Light duty vehicles - includes cars and trucks up to 8500 lbs

PM10 - Tire PM10 -
Speed (MPH) TOG CO NOx PM10
wear Brake wear
3 0.735 7.118 0.754 0.089 0.008 0.013
6 0.575 6.327 0.687 0.068 0.008 0.013
9 0.458 5.689 0.631 0.053 0.008 0.013
12 0.371 5.167 0.584 0.042 0.008 0.013
15 0.306 4.735 0.545 0.034 0.008 0.013
18 0.257 4.374 0.512 0.028 0.008 0.013
21 0.22 4.07 0.485 0.023 0.008 0.013
24 0.191 3.812 0.464 0.02 0.008 0.013
27 0.169 3.592 0.446 0.017 0.008 0.013
30 0.152 3.406 0.432 0.015 0.008 0.013
33 0.139 3.248 0.421 0.014 0.008 0.013
36 0.129 3.115 0.414 0.013 0.008 0.013
39 0.122 3.006 0.409 0.012 0.008 0.013
42 0.117 2.92 0.407 0.011 0.008 0.013
45 0.115 2.857 0.408 0.011 0.008 0.013
48 0.114 2.817 0.411 0.011 0.008 0.013
51 0.115 2.802 0.417 0.011 0.008 0.013
54 0.118 2.815 0.427 0.011 0.008 0.013
Fit to 2nd order polynomial: coefficients

Done using the LINEST function. Least Squares fit.
x^2 x^1 x^0

TOG 0.00039784 -0.032291946 0.745409314
CO 0.002222315 -0.202810952 7.429458333
NOx 0.000231438 -0.018993851 0.789161765
PM10 5.03741E-05 -0.004060522 0.110438725
B. Starting emissions in grams/trip

Light duty vehicles - includes cars and trucks up to 8500 lbs
Vehicle resting
Total Organic Carbon Oxides of Carbon
time before trip PM10
Gases Monoxide Nitrogen Dioxide
(mins)
5 0.177 1.486 0.348 12.797 0.001

10 0.284 2.636 0.401 15.527 0.002
20 0.482 4.817 0.496 21.38 0.004
30 0.664 6.837 0.575 27.755 0.005
40 0.828 8.697 0.637 34.653 0.006
50 0.974 10.397 0.683 42.073 0.008
60 1.096 11.935 0.713 50.016 0.009
120 1.256 15.329 0.754 104.372 0.013
180 0.837 9.599 0.804 119.354 0.014
240 0.888 10.211 0.798 134.026 0.015
300 0.937 10.773 0.789 148.391 0.016
360 0.985 11.286 0.777 162.447 0.016
420 1.032 11.751 0.762 176.194 0.017
480 1.078 12.166 0.744 189.632 0.018
540 1.123 12.532 0.724 202.763 0.018
600 1.167 12.849 0.7 215.584 0.019
660 1.21 13.118 0.673 228.097 0.019
720 1.252 13.337 0.644 240.302 0.019
1/6/2012
types that apply to California highway and road conditions.
ates from all motor vehicles, such as passenger cars to

7 is the most recent version of this model." (See
as a function of vehicle speeds for four pollutants: Total Organic Gases,
8500 lbs Heavy Duty Trucks - up to 33,000 lbs

PM10 - Tire PM10 -
Total PM10 TOG CO NOx PM10 Total PM10
wear Brake wear
0.110 1.283 13.416 6.234 0.276 0.012 0.013 0.301
0.089 1.186 12.333 6.011 0.262 0.012 0.013 0.287
0.074 0.948 9.705 5.437 0.225 0.012 0.013 0.250
0.063 0.769 7.783 4.982 0.195 0.012 0.013 0.220
0.055 0.634 6.363 4.623 0.17 0.012 0.013 0.195
0.049 0.53 5.301 4.345 0.15 0.012 0.013 0.175
0.044 0.449 4.502 4.132 0.133 0.012 0.013 0.158
0.041 0.386 3.896 3.977 0.12 0.012 0.013 0.145
0.038 0.336 3.437 3.872 0.108 0.012 0.013 0.133
0.036 0.297 3.09 3.811 0.099 0.012 0.013 0.124
0.035 0.265 2.831 3.794 0.091 0.012 0.013 0.116
0.034 0.24 2.643 3.817 0.084 0.012 0.013 0.109
0.033 0.22 2.516 3.882 0.079 0.012 0.013 0.104
0.032 0.204 2.441 3.991 0.074 0.012 0.013 0.099
0.032 0.192 2.413 4.146 0.071 0.012 0.013 0.096
0.032 0.182 2.432 4.355 0.068 0.012 0.013 0.093
0.032 0.175 2.498 4.625 0.065 0.012 0.013 0.090
0.032 0.17 2.616 4.966 0.064 0.012 0.013 0.089
x^2 x^1 x^0

TOG 0.000672493 -0.058241981 1.421085784
CO 0.00774985 -0.631756557 14.84484559
NOx 0.002809598 -0.186539216 6.853647059
PM10 0.000109542 -0.010256944 0.331477941
8500 lbs Heavy Duty Trucks - up to 33,000 lbs

PM10
0.638 6.006 1.061 14.836 0.001

0.908 10.225 1.366 19.699 0.001
1.415 18.167 1.905 29.628 0.002
1.879 25.45 2.346 39.826 0.003
2.3 32.072 2.69 50.294 0.004
2.679 38.035 2.936 61.032 0.005
2.979 43.338 3.086 72.039 0.006
2.317 28.335 3.205 133.379 0.008
2.336 26.633 3.204 153.351 0.009
2.477 28.195 3.184 172.534 0.009
2.614 29.665 3.154 190.928 0.009
2.749 31.043 3.116 208.533 0.01
2.88 32.329 3.07 225.349 0.01
3.009 33.523 3.014 241.376 0.01
3.134 34.626 2.95 256.614 0.011
3.255 35.636 2.878 271.063 0.011
3.374 36.555 2.796 284.723 0.011
3.489 37.382 2.706 297.595 0.012
Buses
PM10 - Tire PM10 -
TOG CO NOx PM10 Total PM10
wear Brake wear
3.34 29.749 26.433 0.827 0.01 0.013 0.850
3.091 27.249 25.112 0.779 0.01 0.013 0.802
2.475 21.223 21.785 0.656 0.01 0.013 0.679
2.011 16.866 19.229 0.558 0.01 0.013 0.581
1.658 13.674 17.264 0.48 0.01 0.013 0.503
1.387 11.31 15.762 0.418 0.01 0.013 0.441
1.177 9.543 14.628 0.367 0.01 0.013 0.390
1.013 8.214 13.796 0.326 0.01 0.013 0.349
0.884 7.212 13.219 0.293 0.01 0.013 0.316
0.782 6.458 12.864 0.266 0.01 0.013 0.289
0.701 5.9 12.712 0.243 0.01 0.013 0.266
0.637 5.497 12.755 0.225 0.01 0.013 0.248
0.587 5.224 12.993 0.211 0.01 0.013 0.234
0.547 5.063 13.436 0.199 0.01 0.013 0.222
0.518 5.006 14.108 0.19 0.01 0.013 0.213
0.496 5.048 15.042 0.184 0.01 0.013 0.207
0.481 5.193 16.289 0.179 0.01 0.013 0.202
0.473 5.449 17.92 0.176 0.01 0.013 0.199
x^2 x^1 x^0

TOG 0.001760549 -0.15173624 3.704539216
CO 0.017544784 -1.424098792 32.85684069
NOx 0.014610961 -1.000648284 29.5193848
PM10 0.000365662 -0.032956592 0.942061275
Buses

PM10
0.416 3.727 0.377 4.242 0

0.564 6.175 0.562 5.972 0.001
0.841 10.774 0.886 9.392 0.001
1.096 14.975 1.149 12.76 0.001
1.328 18.779 1.354 16.077 0.002
1.537 22.186 1.498 19.342 0.002
1.697 25.195 1.582 22.556 0.002
1.175 14.309 1.619 36.608 0.003
1.252 15.215 1.613 42.015 0.003
1.328 16.08 1.603 47.104 0.003
1.402 16.904 1.59 51.873 0.003
1.474 17.686 1.573 56.324 0.003
1.545 18.426 1.554 60.456 0.004
1.613 19.125 1.53 64.269 0.004
1.68 19.782 1.504 67.764 0.004
1.745 20.397 1.474 70.939 0.004
1.807 20.971 1.441 73.796 0.004
1.868 21.504 1.405 76.334 0.004
Speed-CO2 1/6/2012
This worksheet presents the exponential polynomial equation (and graphic visualization) of the
empirically derived relationship between vehicle speeds and vehicle mpg's observed on California
freeways, to convert calculated different average speeds into mpg estimates and CO2 emissions.
Coefficients and graphs are taken from:
Matthew Barth and Kanok Boriboonsomsin, College of Engineering, Center for Environmental Research and
Technology, University of California at Riverside, Real-World CO2 Impacts of Traffic Congestion (TRB 2008).
Barth: (951) 781-5782, barth@cert.ucr.edu
Boriboonsomsin, (951) 781-5792, kanok@cert.ucr.edu
"Note that we have weighted the results of the different vehicle types based on a typical light-duty fleet found in
Southern California (based on the fleet mix of 2005)." (p. 8)
Equation: y= exp-(b0 + b1 x + b2 x^2 + b3 x^3 + b4 x^4)

x is in miles per hour
y is CO2 emissions in grams, per mile
b0 b1 b2 b3 b4
"Real-World" 7.613535 -0.138565 3.915E-03 -4.945E-05 2.386E-07
"Steady-State" 7.362867 -0.149814 4.218E-03 -4.925E-05 2.172E-07
Adjustment factors for NYC conditions, including arterials and local streets with stop-and-go driving (to be applied to values give
MPG factor for driving within cordon: 0.75
MPG factor for driving outside cordon: 0.90
Adjustment factors for trucks and buses

MPG factor for trucks relative to autos (non-taxicabs) 0.50 Both factors are Komanoff estimates and are placehold
MPG factor for buses relative to autos (non-taxicabs) 0.33 more exacting derivations.
"Real-World" "Steady-State"
MPH Grams/mi MPG Grams/mi MPG
1 1,770.18 5.03 1,362.70 6.53
2,000.00
2 1,558.80 5.71 1,187.64 7.50
3 1,382.65 6.44 1,043.23 8.54 1,800.00
4 1,234.98 7.21 923.35 9.64
1,600.00
CO2 (g/mi)
5 1,110.49 8.02 823.23 10.82

6 1,004.97 8.86 739.14 12.05 1,400.00
7 915.09 9.73 668.14 13.33 1,200.00
8 838.18 10.62 607.90 14.65
9 772.07 11.53 556.55 16.00 1,000.00
10 715.03 12.45 512.60 17.37 800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
1,400.00
CO2 (
1,200.00
1,000.00
800.00
11 665.61 13.38 474.84 18.75
12 622.67 14.30 442.28 20.13
600.00
13 585.23 15.21 414.14 21.50 400.00
14 552.49 16.12 389.74 22.85
200.00
15 523.81 17.00 368.55 24.16
16 498.61 17.86 350.11 25.43 -
17 476.44 18.69 334.06 26.65 0 10 20
18 456.91 19.49 320.07 27.82
19 439.68 20.25 307.89 28.92
20 424.46 20.98 297.29 29.95
21 411.02 21.66 288.08 30.91
22 399.14 22.31 280.09 31.79
23 388.66 22.91 273.21 32.59
F u el Eco n o my (mp g )
24 379.40 23.47 267.30 33.31
25 371.24 23.99 262.26 33.95
26 364.05 24.46 258.00 34.51
27 357.74 24.89 254.46 34.99
40
28 352.21 25.28 251.55 35.40
29 347.38 25.63 249.23 35.73 35
30 343.17 25.95 247.44 35.98
31 339.53 26.23 246.13 36.18 30
32 336.39 26.47 245.27 36.30
25
33 333.70 26.68 244.81 36.37
34 331.42 26.87 244.73 36.38 20
35 329.49 27.02 244.99 36.34
36 327.90 27.16 245.57 36.26 15
37 326.59 27.26 246.44 36.13
38 325.54 27.35 247.57 35.97 10
39 324.71 27.42 248.95 35.77

5
40 324.09 27.47 250.56 35.54
41 323.65 27.51 252.38 35.28 0
42 323.36 27.54 254.39 35.00 0 10 20
43 323.20 27.55 256.58 34.70
44 323.17 27.55 258.93 34.39
45 323.24 27.55 261.42 34.06
46 323.40 27.53 264.05 33.72
47 323.63 27.51 266.80 33.37
48 323.94 27.49 269.67 33.02
49 324.30 27.46 272.63 32.66
50 324.72 27.42 275.68 32.30
51 325.19 27.38 278.82 31.93
52 325.71 27.34 282.04 31.57
53 326.28 27.29 285.32 31.21
54 326.90 27.24 288.67 30.84
55 327.57 27.18 292.09 30.48
56 328.30 27.12 295.56 30.13
57 329.10 27.06 299.10 29.77
58 329.97 26.99 302.69 29.42
59 330.92 26.91 306.35 29.07
60 331.98 26.82 310.08 28.72
61 333.15 26.73 313.88 28.37
62 334.46 26.62 317.76 28.02
63 335.92 26.51 321.73 27.68
64 337.56 26.38 325.80 27.33
65 339.40 26.24 330.00 26.98
66 341.47 26.08 334.32 26.63
67 343.80 25.90 338.80 26.28
68 346.42 25.70 343.46 25.93
69 349.38 25.49 348.31 25.56
70 352.71 25.25 353.40 25.20
71 356.46 24.98 358.75 24.82
72 360.69 24.69 364.39 24.44
73 365.44 24.37 370.37 24.04
74 370.79 24.01 376.74 23.63
75 376.80 23.63 383.53 23.22
76 383.56 23.21 390.82 22.78
77 391.14 22.76 398.65 22.34
78 399.67 22.28 407.10 21.87
79 409.24 21.76 416.25 21.39
80 419.99 21.20 426.18 20.89
81 432.06 20.61 436.99 20.38
82 445.63 19.98 448.79 19.84
83 460.90 19.32 461.71 19.29
84 478.09 18.62 475.89 18.71
85 497.47 17.90 491.49 18.12
86 519.35 17.14 508.69 17.50
87 544.08 16.37 527.71 16.87
88 572.10 15.56 548.78 16.23
89 603.91 14.74 572.18 15.56
90 640.12 13.91 598.25 14.88
91 681.43 13.07 627.35 14.19
92 728.71 12.22 659.92 13.49
93 783.00 11.37 696.49 12.78
94 845.56 10.53 737.66 12.07
95 917.91 9.70 784.15 11.36
96 1,001.94 8.89 836.81 10.64
97 1,099.96 8.10 896.67 9.93
98 1,214.82 7.33 964.94 9.23
99 1,350.10 6.60 1,043.10 8.54
100 1,510.26 5.90 1,132.94 7.86
"Real World" referes to on-road traffic conditions on CA highways
"Steady State" refers to idealized condition that all vehicles travel at constant velocity
iving (to be applied to values given by real-world equation)
anoff estimates and are placeholders, pending

tions.
"Steady-State"
2,000.00
"Real-World"
1,800.00
1,600.00
1,400.00
1,200.00
1,000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
1,400.00
1,200.00
1,000.00
800.00
600.00
400.00
200.00
-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Speed (m.p.h.)
40
35
"Steady-State"
30 "Real-World"
25
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Speed (m.p.h.)
Fare Collection 1/6/2012
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 3,834

Number of stations in 1985 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 468

MTA 2007 Budget, section entitled NYC Transit (see full cite above for Farebox Revenues), p. V-231.
Personnel to staff NYC Transit token booths currently, if 1985 relationships pertain 3,875
NYC Transit total personnel cost, 2007 $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 $98,400
Implied cost of personnel to staff NYC Transit token booths in 2007 $381,000,000
Method 3: More Realistic Estimates of Number of Station Agents and Their Salaries
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 $15.46
After 3 years $21.64
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.
Inflation factor to 2007 1.125
CPI ratio, July 2007 vs. Jan. 2004.
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 $36.64

Calculated as 2007-adjusted per-hour salary, times ratio of Labor Total to Payroll
Hours worked (Komanoff assumptions: 50 weeks, 40 hrs/wk) 2,000
2007-adjusted, all-in per-hour salary (After 3 Years only) $73,000
This figure matches a "data point" in New York magazine, Sept. 18, 2005:
Annual Salary, station agent Annette Sutton-Epps $46,363
"Who Makes How Much," http://nymag.com/guides/salary/14497/index5.html.
Inflation adjustment, 2005 to 2007 (using CPI) 1.066
Salary, adjusted to 2007 $49,424
Adjustment for Fringe Benefits (ratio of Labor Total to Total Salary and Wages, above) 1.46
All-in Salary, adjusted to 2007 $72,000
Now calculate token booth staffing points @ reduced salary & reduced number of personnel
Personnel to staff NYC Transit token booths currently, incorporating above reduxn 3,294
Est'd annual all-in personnel cost (average of two methods above) $ 72,500
Product of these two figures $ 238,821,765
Above, rounded $ 239,000,000
4. Savings from Eliminating Subway Fare
% of current fare collection cost that could be retained as savings, if fare eliminated 50%
Komanoff assumption, in lieu of input from NYC Transit, intended to balance ability to eliminate many positions with real-
world 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.
B. Maintenance of Subway & Bus Fare Collection Machinery
1. Subway Machinery Annual Maintenance $20,000,000

Komanoff assumption. Primarily for vending machines, gates, etc. Turnstiles are assumed to be kept, for data purposes.
Maintenance Savings from Eliminating Subway Fare $ -
2. Bus Machinery Annual Maintenance (derived directly below) $29,000,000

Number of NYC Transit buses 4,518
2006 figure, from http://www.mta.info/nyct/facts/ffbus.htm.
Number of MTA Bus Co. buses 1,250
http://mta.info/mta/budget/nov2007/part7.pdf.
Total number of buses whose fare-collection machinery must be maintained by MTA 5,768
Assumed annual maintenance cost per bus $ 5,000
Maintenance Savings from Eliminating Bus Fare $ -
C. MTA Administrative Costs Associated with Fare Collection $5,000,000

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 $ -

Population & Employment 1/6/2012
This worksheet is drawn from two NYMTC spreadsheets: New York Urban Region Employment by County, 1970-2030; and New York Urb
County, 1970-2030. Those spreadsheets contain actual data for 1970, 1980, 1990, 2000 and 2002, and projections for 5-year periods from
eliminated most columns, in order to focus on the 2002 data and 2010 projections that we use in Reassignments to bring NYMTC 2004
present (2007). All rows past those for New York City could be eliminated as well.
POPULATION (000) EMPLOYMEN

AREANAME 1990 2000 2002 2005 2010 1990
NEW YORK CITY 7,322.6 8,008.3 8,072.0 8,209.3 8,411.7 3,966.1
Bronx 1,203.8 1,332.7 1,358.4 1,367.5 1,391.1 237.8
Kings 2,300.7 2,465.3 2,475.7 2,515.3 2,565.9 504.5
New York 1,487.5 1,537.2 1,555.4 1,583.0 1,625.8 2,565.1
Queens 1,951.6 2,229.4 2,227.2 2,272.7 2,334.3 567.3
Richmond 379.0 443.7 455.4 470.9 494.7 91.6
LONG ISLAND 2,609.2 2,753.9 2,795.0 2,837.2 2,923.1 1,329.8

Nassau 1,287.4 1,334.5 1,339.3 1,357.4 1,377.7 716.8
Suffolk 1,321.8 1,419.4 1,455.7 1,479.8 1,545.4 613.0
MID HUDSON 2,026.0 2,179.2 2,225.3 2,312.8 2,422.4 1,009.2

Dutchess 259.5 280.2 287.7 300.1 328.0 140.4
Orange 307.6 341.4 355.8 375.6 408.9 128.3
Putnam 83.9 95.7 98.5 101.9 110.0 26.3
Rockland 265.5 286.8 291.2 298.9 315.7 122.7
Sullivan 69.3 74.0 74.1 79.1 90.3 31.8
Ulster 165.3 177.7 180.1 188.8 195.2 76.2
Westchester 874.9 923.5 937.9 968.2 974.2 483.6
NEW JERSEY 6,097.1 6,661.8 6,790.2 6,927.0 7,095.9 3,403.9

Bergen 825.4 884.1 894.5 905.4 907.4 533.8
Essex 778.0 793.6 795.9 809.8 818.0 436.2
Hudson 553.1 609.0 609.9 622.1 648.6 273.5
Hunterdon 107.9 122.0 126.7 130.0 136.1 51.4
Mercer 325.8 350.8 358.2 366.5 388.4 223.6
Middlesex 671.7 750.2 772.4 785.6 813.5 407.5
Monmouth 553.2 615.3 627.7 652.0 665.0 265.5
Morris 421.3 470.2 478.6 494.8 500.4 288.4
Ocean 433.2 510.9 536.8 552.9 574.1 146.1
Passaic 470.9 489.0 496.5 498.8 503.8 225.0
Somerset 240.2 297.5 307.7 314.9 330.4 166.1
Sussex 130.9 144.2 148.9 152.0 156.1 42.0
Union 493.8 522.5 528.9 530.8 538.8 303.0
Warren 91.7 102.4 107.5 111.4 115.4 41.9
CONNECTICUT 1,806.0 1,888.8 1,916.7 1,958.4 2,016.5 1,028.0

Fairfield 827.7 882.6 894.6 916.1 945.7 509.6
Litchfield 174.1 182.2 186.4 191.9 206.9 83.0
New Haven 804.2 824.0 835.7 850.4 863.9 435.4
REGION 19,860.8 21,491.9 21,799.2 22,244.7 22,869.6 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
County, 1970-2030; and New York Urban Region Population by
and projections for 5-year periods from 2005 to 2030. I have
eassignments to bring NYMTC 2004 hub-bound travel data to the
Annualized Annualized
Population Employment
EMPLOYMENT (000) Increase Increase
2000 2002 2005 2010 2002-2010 2002-2010
4,277.3 4,145.2 4,177.1 4,460.4 0.52% 0.92%
269.4 274.3 282.0 295.5 0.30% 0.93%
584.6 588.2 590.5 621.6 0.45% 0.69%
2,682.2 2,548.8 2,545.8 2,737.7 0.55% 0.90%
624.1 617.5 635.4 668.3 0.59% 0.99%
116.9 116.3 123.4 137.4 1.04% 2.10%
1,457.5 1,464.1 1,488.8 1,565.7 0.56% 0.84%

743.3 742.6 742.7 767.3 0.35% 0.41%
714.2 721.5 746.0 798.4 0.75% 1.27%
1,079.6 1,094.2 1,123.8 1,170.9 1.07% 0.85%

139.4 142.1 145.8 154.8 1.66% 1.08%
149.8 152.2 160.4 171.4 1.75% 1.50%
32.9 34.0 36.5 38.3 1.39% 1.50%
133.7 137.7 142.0 148.7 1.01% 0.96%
33.1 33.8 34.8 36.3 2.50% 0.90%
81.6 81.7 86.1 88.5 1.01% 1.00%
509.2 512.7 518.1 532.9 0.48% 0.48%
3,748.3 3,766.5 3,882.0 4,079.5 0.55% 1.00%

570.2 566.9 581.3 593.1 0.18% 0.57%
451.1 447.1 442.3 456.6 0.34% 0.26%
287.6 289.4 286.6 300.4 0.77% 0.47%
68.8 71.7 75.3 83.4 0.90% 1.90%
244.3 252.8 260.0 271.5 1.02% 0.89%
474.4 474.2 503.0 528.1 0.65% 1.35%
306.6 315.1 332.4 357.8 0.72% 1.60%
342.6 344.2 367.0 392.0 0.56% 1.64%
179.4 189.4 199.7 216.4 0.84% 1.68%
218.8 213.6 217.7 220.0 0.18% 0.37%
217.7 213.4 233.2 262.7 0.89% 2.63%
53.1 54.9 58.8 63.6 0.59% 1.86%
289.2 287.9 278.2 284.2 0.23% -0.16%
44.3 45.9 46.6 49.7 0.89% 0.99%
1,064.9 1,056.2 1,072.2 1,135.3 0.64% 0.91%

536.9 530.1 534.8 568.3 0.70% 0.87%
89.5 89.7 93.6 100.2 1.31% 1.40%
438.6 436.5 443.8 466.8 0.42% 0.84%
11,627.7 11,526.2 11,743.9 12,411.8 0.60% 0.93%
u of Economic Analysis
Parking
This worksheet has five purposes, each with its own part:
1. Specify cost to park within the CBD, for use in developing baseline parking costs in Motor Vs worksheet.
2. Estimate potential revenue from raising curbside parking rates to market-clearing levels.
3. Estimate congestion impact of several bills intended to constrain issuance of parking tickets and otherwise increase provision of free
parking, passed by NY City Council over a mayoral veto, in late 2009 .
4. Facilitate in estimating the impact of parking costs on trip entries into the Manhattan CBD, by calculating the average amounts that are
paid for parking for work and non-work trips, during the various time periods on weekdays.
5. Estimate congestion costs from double-parking within the Manhattan CBD.
1. Specify cost to park within the CBD
This part draws heavily on a March 1, 2007 report by Schaller Consulting for Transportation Alternatives, "Free Parking, Congested
Streets: The Skewed Economic Incentives to Drive in Manhattan." (Henceforth, Schaller 2007.)
<http://www.transalt.org/files/newsroom/reports/freeparking_traffictrouble.pdf>
Schaller (early 2007) Komanoff (2011)
Share of CBD Share of CBD

commuters Daily parking commuters Daily parking
falling in this cost for these falling in this cost for these
CBD car commutes, classified by parking situation category commuters category commuters
1. Pay to park in lot or garage 38% $24.42 39.7% $25.00
2. Park on street, pay via meter 5% $1.73 5.2% $2.00
3. Parking is provided at no cost or is reimbursed 38% $0.00 38.0% $6.11
4. Park on street without paying 19% $0.00 17.1% $0.00
Total 100% $9.37 100% $12.34
Source for Schaller: Schaller 2007, pp. 9-10. Note: his weighted avg of $8.89 (p. 10) is slightly less than total shown above.
Source for Komanoff: Share for "park on street w/o paying" (#4) was reduced by one-tenth to reflect presumed decrease in placard parking by
Bloomberg administration; change has been allocated proportionally to #1 and #2. Cost for #3, which Schaller counts as zero, is assumed to be a
percentage of Schaller #1 cost, with the % shown in box directly below at right, on premise that the party bankrolling "free" parking recognizes direct
and/or opportunity cost of providing space. Percentage is Komanoff assumption, discussed below. I also raised costs for #1 and #2 very slightly to reflect
2008 conditions vs. 2006.
1/6/2012
Go to Row 21.
Go to Row 58.
Go to Row 161.
Go to Row 304.
Go to Row 347.
Note: Daily parking costs shown immediately at left are used to guide
specification of baseline parking costs in 'Motor Vs' worksheet (Rows 244-
246, rather than being inputted directly into those rows.
Note: Daily parking costs shown immediately at left are used to guide
specification of baseline parking costs in 'Motor Vs' worksheet (Rows 244-
246, rather than being inputted directly into those rows.
###
Hub-Bound Travel 1/6/2012
###
###
###
This worksheet was created by C. Komanoff on 16 Jan 2011. It replaces an earlier version that used
NYMTC draft figures (from 2006), which overstated actual vehicle entries to the Manhattan CBD. ###
###
###
Further below, we calculate adjustment factors to apply to average cordon toll in the event that lesser###
increments are applied to cordon tolls for Hudson and/or East River tunnels. ###
###
1. Motor Vehicles ###
###
A. Hub-Bound Data, 2007 ###
###
All figures here are from NYMTC "Hub-Bound Travel Report, 2007," Table 16, "Where and When Motor###
Vehicles Entered the Hub on a Fall Business Day in 2007" (p. 48 of 104). ###
###
Autos-Taxis-
Vans-Trucks Buses Total ###
###
60 Street Sector
th
###
Southbound - Inbound ###
FDR Drive 84,528 - 84,528###
York Avenue 20,287 145 20,432###
Second Avenue 47,207 312 47,519###
Queensboro Bridge Ramp - - -###
Lexington Avenue 26,880 416 27,296###
Park Avenue 22,997 - 22,997###
Fifth Avenue 26,155 934 27,089###
Central Park Drive & 7th Ave. 2,442 - 2,442###
Broadway between 60th & W 61st Street 17,915 596 18,511###
Columbus Avenue 25,055 113 25,168###
West End Avenue 15,987 97 16,084###
West Side Highway 63,582 - 63,582###
60th Street Sector Subtotals 353,035 2,613 355,648### 44.8%
###
###
Brooklyn Sector ###
Westbound - Inbound ###
Williamsburg Bridge 58,365 67 58,432###
Manhattan Bridge 35,610 33 35,643###
Brooklyn Bridge 67,595 - 67,595###
Brooklyn Battery Tunnel 29,938 791 30,729###
Brooklyn Sector Subtotals 191,508 891 192,399### 24.2%
###
###
Queens Sector ###
Westbound - Inbound ###
Queens Midtown Tunnel 46,668 524 47,192###
Queensboro Bridge 89,196 319 89,515###
Queens Sector Subtotals 135,864 843 136,707### 17.2%
###
###
New Jersey Sector ###
Eastbound - Inbound ###
Holland Tunnel 47,437 789 48,226###
Lincoln Tunnel 54,879 6,740 61,619###
New Jersey Sector Subtotals 102,316 7,529 109,845### 13.8%
###
###
Total vehicle entries to CBD 782,723 11,876 794,599### 100.0%
###
###
Entries to Hub on the four East River bridges: 251,185###
Share of entries to Hub that are on the four East River bridges: 31.6%###
###
Entries to Hub on the two East River tunnels: 77,921###
Share of entries to Hub that are on the two East River tunnels: 9.8%###
###
###
B. Adjustment Factors to Cordon Toll (if lesser increments are applied to cordon tolls for ###
Hudson and/or East River tunnels, in move toward toll equalization) ###
###
1. PANYNJ Lincoln & Holland Tunnels ###
Two tunnels' share of hub-bound total crossings 13.8%
###
Taken directly from Row 57. ###
###
2. MTA Brooklyn-Battery & Queens-Midtown Tunnels ###
This adj'ment is programmed directly into the cells in Row 278 of the 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs Weekends' ###
worksheet tabs.
###
###
2. Commuter Rail (2009 data) ###
###
All figures here are from NYMTC "Hub-Bound Travel Report, 2009," Table 16, "Where and When Motor###
Vehicles Entered the Hub on a Fall Business Day in 2009" (p. 57 of 130). ###
###
Metro-North 99,866###
LIRR 115,958###
NJ Transit + Amtrak from West 83,152###
Amtrak from North 1,804###
Commuter Rail Total 300,780###
###
3. Bicycle (same source as Commuter Rail) 21,792###
###
4. Ferry (same source as Commuter Rail; includes some bicycle-riders) 52,630###
of Hub-Bound total
of Hub-Bound total
of Hub-Bound total
of Hub-Bound total
of Hub-Bound total
Trip Price
This worksheet was created during early development of the BTA, in 2007, to estimate historical (late 1970s to 2005) out-of-pocket cos
for CBD-bound round-trips by auto via East River crossings, as part of estimating the price-elasticity of such trips. Although that analys
has been somewhat superseded -- see Elasticity worksheet -- several of the data points here are still used as inputs into the Motor V
tab.
Constants
NYC fuel-economy penalty (vs. US average)

KEA estimates.
NYC gasoline price premium
Historical: KEA estimate. Forward: Based on 2011 NYC premiums over USA shown at right.
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 estimates. Forward figure is intended to reflect NYC efforts to reduce free parking via placards.
Per-mile Cost (perceived by drivers) of insurance, wear, maint. (1975)
Per-mile Cost (perceived by drivers) of insurance, wear, maint. (2005)
KEA estimates. Reduced 2005 Forward figure reflects Komanoff 2008 reappraisal of drivers' perceptions of insurance, wear-and-tear and "adv
events" (crash, summons) probabilities. In mid-2008 work on Calif. road pricing, Komanoff assumed approximately $0.04. Higher figure here
reflects NYC conditions.
US Gas NYC Gas Avg Car Avg Lt Trk Lt Trk % Avg Veh
Year Price Price MPG, EPA MPG, EPA NYC VMT MPG, EPA
1970
1971
1972
1973 13.4 10.5 0% 13.4
1974 13.6 11.0 0% 13.6
1975 14.0 10.5 0% 14.0
1976 13.8 10.8 0% 13.8
1977 14.1 11.2 0% 14.1
1978 65.2 75.0 14.3 11.6 0% 14.3
1979 88.2 101.4 14.6 11.9 0% 14.6
1980 122.1 140.4 16.0 12.2 0% 16.0
1981 135.3 155.6 16.5 12.5 1% 16.5
1982 128.1 147.3 16.9 13.5 2% 16.8
1983 122.5 140.9 17.1 13.7 3% 17.0
1984 119.8 137.8 17.4 14.0 4% 17.3
1985 119.6 137.5 17.5 14.3 5% 17.3
1986 93.1 107.1 17.4 14.6 6% 17.2
1987 95.7 110.1 18.0 14.9 7% 17.8
1988 96.3 110.7 18.8 15.4 8% 18.5
1989 106.0 121.9 19.0 16.1 9% 18.7
1990 121.7 140.0 20.2 16.1 10% 19.8
1991 119.6 137.5 21.1 17.0 11% 20.6
1992 119.0 136.9 21.0 17.3 12% 20.6
1993 117.3 134.9 20.5 17.4 13% 20.1
1994 117.4 135.0 20.7 17.3 14% 20.2
1995 120.5 138.6 21.1 17.3 15% 20.5
1996 128.8 148.1 21.2 17.2 16% 20.6
1997 129.1 148.5 21.5 17.2 17% 20.8
1998 111.5 128.2 21.6 17.2 18% 20.8
1999 122.1 140.4 21.4 17.0 19% 20.6
2000 156.3 179.7 21.9 17.4 20% 21.0
2001 153.1 176.1 22.1 17.6 21% 21.2
2002 144.1 165.7 22.0 17.5 22% 21.0
2003 163.8 188.4 22.2 16.2 23% 20.8
2004 192.3 221.1 22.5 16.2 24% 21.0
2005 233.8 268.9 22.9 16.2 25% 21.2
2006
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. Bo
Miles per gallon (US) columns are from Monthly Energy Review, Table 1.9.
Light truck % of NYC VMT refers to share of "passenger vehicle" VMT by minivans, pickups and SUV's. Figures are KEA estimates.
Average vehicle miles, EPA, denotes EPA-rated average mpg for passenger vehicles in NYC, weighted by 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.
1/6/2012
cal (late 1970s to 2005) out-of-pocket costs

asticity of such trips. Although that analysis
e are still used as inputs into the Motor Vs
Used in Used going

historical forward (traffic
analysis analysis) Weekly U.S. Retail Gasoline Prices, Regular Grad
USA NYS
22.5% NA 22-Aug-11 $3.581 $3.829
29-Aug-11 $3.627 $3.801
15% 5% 5-Sep-11 $3.674 $3.858
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oil_gas/petroleum/data_publications/wrgp
11.3 11.3
40% 50%
$0.05 N.A. Graveyard Shift

$0.15 $0.08 $0.04
ceptions of insurance, wear-and-tear and "adverse
ed approximately $0.04. Higher figure here
Miles per Gasoline Price to Price to Other Toll Trip CPI (82-
Gal., NYC Cost Park (mkt) Park (avg) costs Cost Cost 84=100)
$0.21
$0.22 calculated
$0.38 as sum of
10.4 $0.38 green cols.
10.5 $0.37
10.9 $5.00 $2.00 $1.13 $0.38 53.8
10.7 $5.40 $2.16 $1.21 $0.48 56.9
10.9 $5.80 $2.32 $1.28 $0.50 60.6
11.1 $1.53 $6.20 $2.48 $1.36 $0.51 $5.88 65.2
11.3 $2.03 $6.60 $2.64 $1.43 $0.55 $6.64 72.6
12.4 $2.56 $7.00 $2.80 $1.51 $0.66 $7.52 82.4
12.8 $2.76 $7.40 $2.96 $1.58 $0.74 $8.04 90.9
13.0 $2.55 $7.80 $3.12 $1.66 $0.91 $8.24 96.5
13.2 $2.42 $8.20 $3.28 $1.73 $1.03 $8.46 99.6
13.4 $2.33 $8.60 $3.44 $1.81 $1.04 $8.62 103.9
13.4 $2.31 $9.00 $3.60 $1.88 $0.99 $8.79 107.6
13.4 $1.81 $9.40 $3.76 $1.96 $1.14 $8.67 109.6
13.8 $1.80 $9.80 $3.92 $2.03 $1.34 $9.10 113.6
14.4 $1.74 $10.20 $4.08 $2.11 $1.36 $9.30 118.3
14.5 $1.90 $10.60 $4.24 $2.18 $1.46 $9.78 124.0
15.3 $2.06 $11.00 $4.40 $2.26 $1.70 $10.42 130.7
16.0 $1.94 $11.40 $4.56 $2.34 $1.74 $10.58 136.2
15.9 $1.94 $11.80 $4.72 $2.41 $1.76 $10.84 140.3
15.6 $1.96 $12.20 $4.88 $2.49 $2.04 $11.37 144.5
15.7 $1.95 $12.60 $5.04 $2.56 $1.88 $11.43 148.2
15.9 $1.97 $13.00 $5.20 $2.64 $1.99 $11.79 152.4
15.9 $2.10 $13.40 $5.36 $2.71 $2.22 $12.39 156.9
16.1 $2.08 $13.80 $5.52 $2.79 $2.13 $12.52 160.5
16.1 $1.80 $14.20 $5.68 $2.86 $2.17 $12.51 163.0
15.9 $1.99 $14.60 $5.84 $2.94 $2.24 $13.01 166.6
16.3 $2.50 $15.00 $6.00 $3.01 $2.27 $13.78 172.2
16.4 $2.43 $16.00 $6.40 $3.09 $2.40 $14.32 177.1
16.3 $2.30 $17.00 $6.80 $3.16 $2.34 $14.60 179.9
16.1 $2.64 $18.00 $7.20 $3.24 $2.46 $15.54 184.0
16.3 $3.07 $19.00 $7.60 $3.31 $2.56 $16.55 188.9
16.4 $3.69 $20.00 $8.00 $3.39 $2.76 $17.84 195.3
201.6
o KEA). 1998-2000 are from on-line MER. Both sets use Table 9.4, Motor Gasoline Retail Prices, U.S. City Average.
's. Figures are KEA estimates.

ed by shares of sedans and light trucks.
umers," 1982-84=100.
oline Prices, Regular Grade (incl. all taxes), 2008
NYC NYS prem. NYC prem.
$3.708 6.9% 3.5%
$3.708 4.8% 2.2%
$3.737 5.0% 1.7%
troleum/data_publications/wrgp/mogas_home_page.html
Trip Cost
2000 $
(adjusted
for
inflation)
$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
$15.09
$15.73
H.I.S. (Household Interview Survey)
This worksheet presents data from the NYMTC 1997-98 Household Interview Survey that informs some of the parameter estimates used
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 with
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
Mass Transit
Bus Rail/Ferry Auto Taxi
Total
Long Island 1,360 131,836 133,196 211,672 3,127

North of NYC 4,982 102,511 107,493 110,661 3,354
West of Hudson R. 87,386 143,615 231,001 185,355 8,515
Total 93,728 377,962 471,690 507,688 14,996
Source: NYMTC 1997/98 Household Interview Survey
Same data reformatted to estimate tolls now paid by drivers

(taxis excluded)
Work Non-work Combined
Long Island 211,672 339,181 550,853
North of NYC 110,661 128,082 238,743
West of Hudson R. 185,355 175,650 361,005
TOTAL 1,150,601
Average:
Ratio, average to L.I. figure
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
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 Work Non-Work Total
12-6a 21,561 1.5% 18,214 2.4% 39,775
6-10a 1,064,813 72.6% 243,745 31.8% 1,308,558
10a-4p 240,448 16.4% 295,228 38.5% 535,676
4-8p 112,047 7.6% 154,093 20.1% 266,140
8p-12a 28,363 1.9% 55,483 7.2% 83,846
Total 1,467,232 100.0% 766,763 100.0% 2,233,995
Source: NYMTC 1997/98 Household Interview Survey. Manhattan Crossings figures are from NYCDOT data in By Hour.
Same data reformatted to compare work to non-work trips.
Totals Totals Re-apportioned to squeeze into:

Work trips 1,467,232 66%
Non-work trips 766,763 34%
Total 2,233,995 100%
Re-apportionment is done to divide trips among work, non-work and taxi, in Traffic worksheet. Percentages are then rounded to nearest 5%.
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 389,098 220,662 89,883 310,545
To and from CBD 3,139,528 1,320,725 644,776 1,965,501
Non-CBD 1,087,587 554,194 928,845 1,883,701
Total 4,616,213 2,094,067 1,660,962 3,755,029
CBD-related % 76% 52%

Half of above 38% 26%
Rounded down 30%
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
Revised
Bus
Rail/Ferry
Transit Auto
Total
Manhattan CBD 34,389 220,662 255,051 58,945

Upper Manhattan 18,543 165,365 183,908 18,784
Queens 8,152 206,218 214,370 44,619
Bronx 4,684 82,905 87,589 5,112
Brooklyn 4,148 226,462 230,610 40,819
Staten Island 11,894 18,247 30,141 11,427
Bklyn-Qns 12,300 432,680 444,980 85,438
Upper Man.-Bronx 23,227 248,270 271,497 23,896
NYC no CBD 47,421 699,197 746,618 120,761
Total NYC 81,810 919,859 1,001,669 179,706
Nassau - 86,727 86,727 30,271
Suffolk 304 27,816 28,120 10,533
Total LI 304 114,543 114,847 40,804
Westchester 1,752 53,486 55,238 23,163
Putnam - 3,049 3,049 248
New Haven - 258 258 -
Dutchess 272 2,087 2,359 164
Area of Origin
Fairfield - 26,007 26,007 3,167

Total N. of NYC 2,024 84,887 86,911 26,742
Bergen 24,307 11,454 35,761 14,820
Rockland 2,005 3,355 5,360 2,868
Orange 3,232 2,719 5,951 1,267
Passaic 5,073 1,827 6,900 3,018
Hudson 9,271 41,976 51,247 11,559
Essex 5,344 19,325 24,669 5,776
Union 1,070 10,241 11,311 3,858
Morris 2,687 5,709 8,396 4,219
Somerset 1,029 2,122 3,151 1,189
Middlesex 4,806 7,076 11,882 5,142
Monmouth 7,711 5,447 13,158 3,885
Ocean - 172 172 2,057
Hunterdon 310 634 944 -
Warren - - - 429
Sussex - 435 435 450
Mercer - 3,408 3,408 2,510
Total W. of Hudson R. 66,845 115,900 182,745 63,047
Total Suburbs 69,173 315,330 384,503 130,593
Total Non-CBD 116,594 1,014,527 1,131,121 251,354
Grand Totals 150,983 1,235,189 1,386,172 310,299
Extracted from the Above table, for non-CBD trips into the CBD
Work Auto
Number of trips 251,354
These numbers are from above table.
Previous data row, as % 52.2%
These percentages will be used in Assignment worksheet.
Car Occupancy Rates 1.15
These numbers are Komanoff assumptions
Number of Cars 218,569
% of Combined 59%
% of Combined, re-apportioned to squeeze into: 50%
Rounded 50%
Work Bus
Number of trips (careful, incl. express buses) 116,594
Work Rail
Number of trips 1,014,527
1/6/2012
rms some of the parameter estimates used in this
he average agrees with the L.I. figure to within 10%,

directions.
NON-WORK
Mass
% Mass Auto+Taxi
Auto+Taxi Total Work Totals
Transit
Bus Rail/Ferry Transit Auto Taxi
Total
Total
214,799 347,995 38.3% 22,684 24,530 47,214 339,181 5,540 344,721

114,015 221,508 48.5% 9,586 24,239 33,825 128,082 2,971 131,053
193,870 424,871 54.4% 29,340 46,311 75,651 175,650 6,478 182,128
522,684 994,374 47.4% 61,610 95,080 156,690 642,913 14,989 657,902
Estimated Cross
Toll (2005) Products
$2.76 1,518,288
$0.50 119,372
$5.00 1,805,025
3,442,685
$2.99
1.09
n amount for NYS Thruway, CT Pike and Harlem Riv crossings.

Total Manh X-ings
1.8% 9.7%
58.6% 26.2%
24.0% 29.7%
11.9% 21.0%
3.8% 13.5%
100.0% 100.0%
ata in By Hour.
56% Rounded
37% 35%
19% 20%
56%
ntages are then rounded to nearest 5%.
by Mode of Travel NON-WORK by Mode of Travel
Mass
Auto + Taxi Work Revised
Taxi Bus
Rail/Ferry
Transit Auto Taxi
Total Totals
Total
75,077 134,022 389,073 61,746 89,883 151,629 86,727 54,345

21,478 40,262 224,170 34,034 118,830 152,864 36,227 18,746
9,560 54,179 268,549 2,066 86,780 88,846 17,426 3,016
822 5,934 93,523 2,051 40,741 42,792 17,268 -
1,355 42,174 272,784 7,495 68,351 75,846 54,523 5,275
904 12,331 42,472 1,136 6,107 7,243 7,283 591
10,915 96,353 541,333 9,561 155,131 164,692 71,949 8,291
22,300 46,196 317,693 36,085 159,571 195,656 53,495 18,746
34,119 154,880 901,498 46,782 320,809 367,591 132,727 27,628
109,196 288,902 1,290,571 108,528 410,692 519,220 219,454 81,973
1,594 31,865 118,592 - 11,155 11,155 25,217 -
1,533 12,066 40,186 - 5,324 5,324 2,367 -
3,127 43,931 158,778 - 16,479 16,479 27,584 -
- 23,163 78,401 2,254 10,447 12,701 6,458 -
- 248 3,297 - 677 677 206 -
- - 258 - 450 450 1,738 -
548 712 3,071 - 208 208 600 -
1,595 4,762 30,769 772 8,133 8,905 2,484 -
2,143 28,885 115,796 3,026 19,915 22,941 11,486 -
1,260 16,080 51,841 6,113 1,764 7,877 17,916 304
147 3,015 8,375 548 595 1,143 - -
- 1,267 7,218 1,465 583 2,048 7,948 -
- 3,018 9,918 305 - 305 3,695 -
1,735 13,294 64,541 8,322 15,860 24,182 10,947 1,290
726 6,502 31,171 1,008 3,601 4,609 5,192 -
288 4,146 15,457 - 990 990 2,546 -
- 4,219 12,615 - 601 601 885 280
410 1,599 4,750 - - - 469 -
- 5,142 17,024 - 3,575 3,575 2,245 -
- 3,885 17,043 1,702 6,550 8,252 1,048 -
- 2,057 2,229 - - - 2,984 -
- - 944 - 1,587 1,587 522 -
- 429 429 - 421 421 609 -
158 608 1,043 334 - 334 158 -
1,130 3,640 7,048 - 1,095 1,095 1,631 -
5,854 68,901 251,646 19,797 37,222 57,019 58,795 1,874
11,124 141,717 526,220 22,823 73,616 96,439 97,865 1,874
45,243 296,597 1,427,718 69,605 394,425 464,030 230,592 29,502
120,320 430,619 1,816,791 131,351 484,308 615,659 317,319 83,847
N-Wk Auto Combined

230,592 481,946
47.8% 100.0%
1.50
153,728 372,297
41% 100%
35% 85%
35%
N-Wk Bus Combined

69,605 186,199
37.4% 100.0%
N-Wk Rail Combined

394,425 1,408,952
28.0% 100.0%
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Grand
Non-Work % Mass Total by % Mass
Totals Transit Mode of Transit
Travel
###
391,935 12.0% 739,930 24.4% ###
164,878 20.5% 386,386 36.6% ###
257,779 29.3% 682,650 44.9% ###
814,592 19.2% 1,808,966 34.7% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
de of Travel TOTALS ###
Grand
Auto +
Non-Work Total by % Mass
Taxi
Totals Mode of Transit
Total
Travel
###
141,072 292,701 681,774 59.7% ###
54,973 207,837 432,007 78.0% ###
20,442 109,288 377,837 80.3% ###
17,268 60,060 153,583 84.9% ###
59,798 135,644 408,428 75.0% ###
7,874 15,117 57,589 64.9% ###
80,240 244,932 786,265 77.5% ###
72,241 267,897 585,590 79.8% ###
160,355 527,946 1,429,444 77.9% ###
301,427 820,647 2,111,218 72.0% ###
25,217 36,372 154,964 63.2% ###
2,367 7,691 47,877 69.9% ###
27,584 44,063 202,841 64.7% ###
6,458 19,159 97,560 69.6% ###
206 883 4,180 89.1% ###
1,738 2,188 2,446 28.9% ###
600 808 3,879 66.2% ###
2,484 11,389 42,158 82.8% ###
11,486 34,427 150,223 73.1% ###
18,220 26,097 77,938 56.0% ###
- 1,143 9,518 68.3% ###
7,948 9,996 17,214 46.5% ###
3,695 4,000 13,918 51.8% ###
12,237 36,419 100,960 74.7% ###
5,192 9,801 40,972 71.5% ###
2,546 3,536 18,993 64.8% ###
1,165 1,766 14,381 62.6% ###
469 469 5,219 60.4% ###
2,245 5,820 22,844 67.7% ###
1,048 9,300 26,343 81.3% ###
2,984 2,984 5,213 3.3% ###
522 2,109 3,053 82.9% ###
609 1,030 1,459 28.9% ###
158 492 1,535 50.1% ###
1,631 2,726 9,774 46.1% ###
60,669 117,688 369,334 64.9% ###
99,739 196,178 - 722,398 66.6% ###
260,094 724,124 2,151,842 74.1% ###
401,166 1,016,825 2,833,616 70.6% ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
River Crossings
A. East River bridge crossings vs. all crossings into Manhattan CBD (to estimate impacts of tolling only East River bridges)
2007 Inbound m.v. crossings via E Riv. Bridges (from Row 131, below)
2007 all m.v. crossings into CBD (from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 27)
East River bridges share of all inbound crossings into CBD (Row 8 divided by Row 9)
East River bridges share of inbound crossings, more precise figure derived in Hub-Bound worksheet (at bottom).
B. 2007 Harlem River bridge crossings (inbound only) (to estimate impacts of tolling Harlem River bridges, as some public figures
Triborough 3rd Avenue Madison Ave 145th Street Mac Dam

53,827 59,712 21,920 10,613 21,041
Source: NYCDOT, Manhattan River Crossings, 2007. Need to make sure Triborough crossings belong in total.
Ratio of 2007 Harlem River bridge crossings (inbound only) to all inbound crossings into CBD (Row 16 divided by Row 9)
Harlem River total divided by all m.v. crossings. Note: This figure is a construct, since Harlem Riv crossings are not a subset of all CBD crossin
Assumed ratio of Harlem River toll level to East River toll level, for scenarios with Harlem Riv tolls
Effective ratio of Harlem River inbound crossings to all CBD inbound crossings (adjusted for toll level)
East and Harlem River bridges effective share of inbound crossings
Sum of East River bridge share in Row 11 and effective Harlem River bridge share in Row 21)
C. Average Toll Paid for Auto Crossings into CBD, 2007-08 Used to calculate baseline tolls -- a key input in 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor
(1) (2) (3)
Travelers to or
through CBD on % paying a
typical weekday PANYNJ toll that is % paying an MTA
(24h): where do charged at toll that is charged
Place of residence they live? entrance to CBD at entrance to CBD
Peak
NYC 57% 7% 20%
Nassau/Suffolk 11% 0% 20%
5 Hudson Valley "MTA counties" 10% 9% 0%
New Jersey 20% 65% 0%
Connecticut 2% 0% 0%
Other 1% 40% 0%
TOTAL 100%
Off-Peak
NYC 57% 7% 20%
Nassau/Suffolk 11% 0% 20%
5 Hudson Valley "MTA counties" 10% 9% 0%
New Jersey 20% 65% 0%
Connecticut 2% 0% 0%
Other 1% 40% 0%
TOTAL 100%
New Jersey tolls

Peak 95%
Off-peak 95%
Sources: (1), (2) & (3) are taken directly from Incidence tab, except that 3 percentage points have been added to PANYNJ and MTA toll percents
percent values to nearest 5%. PA and MTA toll rates in (4) & (5) are from this sheet and are weighted by estimated shares of trips paid with E-ZPa
product of county/state shares in (1) and averaged tolls in (6).
D. Non-Revenue Vehicles on Selected MTA Crossings, 2008
Toll-Paying Vehicles (millions)

Non-Revenue Vehicles (millions)
Total Vehicles (millions)
Non-Revenue Vehicles, % Total Vehicles
Source: MTA, "Supplement to Final MTA 2009 Combined Continuing Disclosure Filing, Dated June 22, 2009," available via <http://bit.ly/h8443R
Vehicle Class, 2008," p. 508 of 558. Note to table identifies non-revenue vehicles: "Includes police, fire and other emergency vehicles and TBT
appear similar, based on TBTA statement that "In 2009 [our] facilities carried 294.6 million total vehicles, of which 291.2 million were toll paying
include police, emergency and TBTA vehicles.)" The implied percent of non-revenue vehicles is 1.154%, i.e., 1.2%. Source: "Appendix E, Histo
Revenues and Expenses adn Review of Physical Conditions of the Facilities of Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority," April 30, 2010, URS C
available at: <http://bit.ly/eNWmOl>.
E. MTA Bridge & Tunnel Toll Rates

2011 toll rate for BBT, QMT, Trib (cash) $6.50
2011 toll rate for BBT, QMT, Trib (E-ZPass) $4.80
MTA Bridges & Tunnels, Current Crossing Rates, http://www.mta.info/bandt/traffic/btmain.html, accessed 26-Feb-2011.
Estimated % of drivers using E-ZPass 75%
E-ZPass Participation Rates were 74.0% in 2008 and 73.9%, according to URS report cited in Row 66, Table 2, p. 12 of 69. Note. Rates were
82.0% for BBT and 78.1% for QMT.
2011 average toll paid for BBT, QMT, Trib, one-way $5.23
Sum of cross-products of toll rates in Rows 74 and 75 and percentages of weekday drivers using E-ZPass indicated in Row 77.
% of E. River crossings that paid toll in 2005 31.3%
Last column of Row 126. Note that Brian Ketcham estimated that 29.5% of all m.v. trips into the CBD pay a toll. See his spreadsheet, 'Vehicles
Effective round-trip toll per East River trip $3.27
Calculated as 2x average 2011 toll in Row 80, times % of E. Riv crossings paying toll in Row 82. Toll is doubled to reflect both-way charging.
F. Average Daily Crossings (source: NYC DOT, "Manhattan River Crossings," various years, various tables)
Note: All 1970-2005 figures below are sum of inbound + outbound trips.
BBT QMT Trib Manh MTA total BB

1970 62,042 77,180 85,121 224,343 100,050
1971 64,032 81,747 90,372 236,151 102,535
1972 52,065 74,936 80,052 207,053 103,815
1973 49,916 74,214 85,592 209,722 102,834
1974 46,620 75,219 82,676 204,515 99,959
1975 45,636 65,315 72,566 183,517 103,750
1976 52,444 65,881 68,325 186,650 102,590
1977 53,500 71,150 73,276 197,926 104,532
1978 58,252 72,696 76,572 207,520 104,848
1979 60,445 69,827 87,885 218,157 91,319
1980 62,386 73,216 88,439 224,041 103,954
1981 58,657 81,211 93,361 233,229 102,572
1982 56,189 78,229 88,158 222,576 110,991
1983 61,130 78,134 92,967 232,231 115,825
1984 58,032 74,808 95,247 228,087 110,432
1985 63,469 76,065 94,644 234,178 116,929
1986 60,778 71,478 93,432 225,688 126,555
1987 63,256 77,813 95,795 236,864 123,523
1988 62,959 76,243 99,438 238,640 129,153
1989 59,254 72,828 92,720 224,802 131,951
1990 60,512 71,186 99,840 231,538 129,626
1991 63,883 80,616 94,487 238,986 128,491
1992 62,510 81,835 97,198 241,543 125,643
1993 57,561 77,288 92,660 227,509 134,793
1994 57,013 68,511 79,536 205,060 134,837
1995 61,097 73,882 95,696 230,675 131,883
1996 57,091 72,285 92,981 222,357 131,872
1997 54,690 78,023 91,313 224,026 147,898
1998 61,091 79,697 93,863 234,651 144,131
1999 63,307 80,941 98,553 242,801 127,065
2000 63,242 80,879 103,079 247,200 147,767
2001 48,059 72,864 102,224 223,147 95,586
2002 56,976 82,834 94,759 234,569 121,145
2003 56,271 85,377 93,177 234,825 134,444
2004 54,488 86,599 97,958 239,045 137,563
2005 49,043 86,063 91,898 227,004 132,210
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
volume for 1-Jan-01 through 10-Sept-01. Other crossings have not been recalculated since they were only modestly less than 2000 volumes.
2006 Inbound Only 64,107

2007 Inbound Only 67,595
1/6/2012
of tolling only East River bridges)
Note added 22-March-2010: The bold % in Row 10 is 251,185

superseded by the more precise figure from 'Hub-Bound' 795,000
worksheet shown in Row 11.
31.6%
orksheet (at bottom). 31.6%
River bridges, as some public figures urge from time to time)
Washington Univ Hghts Broadway Total

22,949 23,729 18,432 232,223
D (Row 16 divided by Row 9) 0.29

ossings are not a subset of all CBD crossings.
Chosen by user, and entered in Row 47 of 'User Inputs' worksheet. 50%
14.6%
46.2%
tolls -- a key input in 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs' Weekends' worksheets, Row 256
(4) (5) (6) (7)
X-product of
Column (1) --
Avg PANYNJ toll Avg MTA toll to Toll to enter CBD, shares of CBD
to enter CBD (for enter CBD (for avg'd across all trips -- and (6) avg
trips that pay it) trips that pay it) trips to CBD effective toll
$8.00 $5.23 $1.61 $0.92

$8.00 $5.23 $1.05 $0.11
$8.00 $5.23 $0.72 $0.07
$8.00 $5.23 $5.20 $1.03
$8.00 $5.23 $0.00 $0.00
$8.00 $5.23 $3.20 $0.03
$2.16
$8.00 $5.23 $1.61 $0.92

$8.00 $5.23 $1.05 $0.11
$8.00 $5.23 $0.72 $0.07
$6.50 $5.23 $4.23 $0.84
$8.00 $5.23 $0.00 $0.00
$8.00 $5.23 $3.20 $0.03
$1.96
$8.00 $8.00 75% $8.00 $7.60

$6.00 $8.00 75% $6.50 $6.18
n added to PANYNJ and MTA toll percents for NYC to allow for possible undercounts there due to convention of rounding
estimated shares of trips paid with E-ZPass. (6) is sum of cross-products of (2) & (4), and (3) and (5). (7) is cross-
Triborough Q-Mid Tunn Bklyn-Batt Tunn Subtotal All TBTA

59,741 28,620 16,899 105,260 295,680
1,205 421 492 2,118 3,564
60,946 29,041 17,391 107,378 299,244
2.0% 1.4% 2.8% 2.0% 1.2%
This figure,
22, 2009," available via <http://bit.ly/h8443R>, Table, "Traffic by Facility and This figure is shown
doubled, is
ire and other emergency vehicles and TBTA vehicles." Note that 2009 data for illustration
entered in 'User
cles, of which 291.2 million were toll paying … (Non-revenue transactions purposes only.
Inputs,' Row 64
54%, i.e., 1.2%. Source: "Appendix E, History and Projection of Traffic, Toll
nd Tunnel Authority," April 30, 2010, URS Corp., p. 4 of 69. Document is
ssed 26-Feb-2011.
66, Table 2, p. 12 of 69. Note. Rates were higher for crossings into CBD:
sing E-ZPass indicated in Row 77.
D pay a toll. See his spreadsheet, 'Vehicles Ent[tering] CBD by Hour Tolled and Free 3-25-08.'
is doubled to reflect both-way charging.
MB WB QB ER br tot All crossings MTA %

72,077 73,062 126,554 371,743 596,086 37.6%
68,681 72,299 120,555 364,070 600,221 39.3%
73,803 76,219 136,455 390,292 597,345 34.7%
73,401 79,989 138,066 394,290 604,012 34.7%
77,198 78,914 138,560 394,631 599,146 34.1%
74,320 82,057 144,252 404,379 587,896 31.2%
68,057 82,471 145,130 398,248 584,898 31.9%
64,835 82,490 146,283 398,140 596,066 33.2%
74,257 82,626 138,415 400,146 607,666 34.2%
75,403 81,340 133,966 382,028 600,185 36.3%
77,914 82,663 127,929 392,460 616,501 36.3%
79,589 85,100 127,864 395,125 628,354 37.1%
87,760 79,369 136,864 414,984 637,560 34.9%
85,222 86,947 125,158 413,152 645,383 36.0%
89,104 94,898 134,107 428,541 656,628 34.7%
100,825 107,386 150,892 476,032 710,210 33.0%
77,784 107,181 158,191 469,711 695,399 32.5%
77,519 107,362 151,688 460,092 696,956 34.0%
75,221 102,643 153,841 460,858 699,498 34.1%
68,593 107,967 152,591 461,102 685,904 32.8%
69,550 109,474 140,063 448,713 680,251 34.0%
72,695 115,345 131,438 447,969 686,955 34.8%
78,117 98,307 141,078 443,145 684,688 35.3%
74,526 86,591 135,964 431,874 659,383 34.5%
78,418 83,525 151,483 448,263 653,323 31.4%
75,126 100,588 157,306 464,903 695,578 33.2%
81,075 88,570 161,965 463,482 685,839 32.4%
83,209 96,124 184,179 511,410 735,436 30.5%
78,172 109,268 192,119 523,690 758,341 30.9%
92,311 107,941 189,190 516,507 759,308 32.0%
75,684 108,376 182,940 514,767 761,967 32.4%
73,064 82,202 176,469 427,321 650,468 34.3%
66,152 103,364 176,419 467,080 701,649 33.4%
73,767 100,243 184,964 493,418 728,243 32.2%
79,129 110,528 180,369 507,589 746,634 32.0%
80,363 107,030 178,610 498,213 725,217 31.3%
to post-9/11 restrictions. I have estimated that datum here as average of that figure from 11-Sept-01 through 31-Dec-31, and of year-2000
nly modestly less than 2000 volumes.
37,298 54,459 93,791 249,655

35,643 58,432 89,515 251,185
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Value of Time
This worksheet estimates the values that vehicle users and transit users place on an hour of time spent traveling. (For vehicles, it estim
and thus encompasses passengers in addition to drivers, as well as the implied value of cargo in the case of trucks.)
The resuting figures will have four uses: (i) placing a monetary value on increases in travel speeds for vehicle users attributable to traf
Benefit worksheets); (ii) placing a value on expenditures and investments that improve travel times for transit users (also see Results
calculating current costs of delays due to adding an incremental or "marginal" vehicle to the traffic mix (see various Delays worksheet
which drivers' travel-time savings will offset their toll costs (see Breakeven worksheet).
The "root" time-value for our estimates is an estimate by two widely published transportation specialists from Northeastern University a
value of air travelers' time, which they developed for a Dec. 2007 study of air traffic delays for the NYC Comptroller's Office. (All docum
value, approximately $48 per hour in 2005 dollars, has been (i) updated here to 2010 dollars, (ii) adjusted from national averages to th
reflect different values of time for different types of road users in and en route to the Manhattan Central Business District. For example
relative to air travelers, for a driver commuting to work in the CBD; a time value of 3/8 for an individual driving into the CBD for non-wo
of medallion taxis; lesser values for passengers, etc.
To estimate the value of time savings for vehicle users, we weight each vehicle type's value of time by its share of the mix of traffic, wi
travel, and another for non-CBD travel. The resulting weighted averages are then applied elsewhere in the BTA, especially in the Cost
savings from re-optimizing traffic are calculated, and in the various Delay worksheets where the delay costs from incremental vehicles
Part 1: Value of an hour of saved time for airline passengers
Median Value (2005 $/hour) (from Brookings study, see below)

This is a nationwide figure. In Part 2, we adjust for NYC-area air passengers.
Inflation adjustment, 2005 to 2010
Calculated as ratio of 2010-average to 2005-average Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers
Median Value (2010 $/hour)
Median value of airline passengers' time (first row in block of rows above) was estimated in "Grounded: The Impact of Mounting Flight
Economy and Environment," Office of the New York City Comptroller, Dec. 2007. Page 18 of that report states: "In a soon-to-be publis
of airport congestion, economists Steven A. Morrison and Clifford Winston have estimated that for pleasure and business travelers, “p
dollars ranged from $27.13 to $79.16 per hour with a median of $47.97.”
A preliminary version of the study, published in Aug. 2006 as "Another Look at Airport Congestion Pricing," by Steven A. Morrison, Nor
Brookings Institution, is avail. at <http://www.economics.neu.edu/activities/seminars/documents/Another_Look_at_Airport_Congestion_Pricing.pdf
"Passengers’ time costs depend on their value of travel time, which varies by trip purpose, and the number of passengers on each flight. For each
the U.S. Department of Transportation’s National Household Travel Survey to calculate the percentage of trips whose purpose was business and t
pleasure and the average household income for business and pleasure travelers. Consistent with the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (1997)
travel time at 100 percent of the wage and pleasure travelers’ travel time at 70 percent of the wage. Passengers’ values of time in 2005 dollars ran
with a median of $47.97."
See Part 8 of this worksheet for details on the USDOT guidelines.

Part 2: Adjust U.S. airline passengers' value of saved time to NYC region
The median values above apply to the 74 airports in the Morrison-Winston study (see Table 1). Here, we adjust that average to the
Mean Hourly Earnings, All workers, U.S., Dec. 2007 - Jan. 2009 (mean ref. date: July 2008)
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/nctb0715.txt (Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey)
Mean Hourly Earnings, New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA, same time period
http://www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/ncbl1197.txt (Bureau of Labor Statistics, National Compensation Survey)
Ratio, NYC-area wage rates to US average
Adjustment factor used here (above ratio, rounded down for conservatism)
Median Value for NYC-area airline passengers (2010 $/hour)
Product of U.S. median value in Row 29 and US-to-NYC adjustment factor in Row 54.
Part 3: Basic Parameters for Time Value, Vehicle Occupancy, etc. for vehicle travel within the Manhattan Centra
Figures in Driver's Time Passenger

this column Value, vis-à- Value, vis-à-vis
were used vis air driver of the
until Feb-2011 passenger vehicle
Auto work-trip 0.75 0.50 0.75
Auto non-work-trip 0.38 0.25 0.50
Auto thru-trip 0.56 0.38 0.63
Van or small truck
Large truck
Bus pass. v.
Big Rig (18-wheeler) airline pass.
Bus 0.50 0.50 0.15
Medallion Taxi, occupied (first entry refers to first passenger) 0.90 0.67 0.75
Medallion Taxi, cruising 0.25 0.20 2nd taxi pass.
v. 1st.
All time values relative to air passenger are Komanoff assumptions. See Taxis worksheet for data on taxi passenger income levels.
Passenger numbers per vehicle are from H.I.S. worksheet (for auto work and non-work trips) and Taxis worksheet (for medallion taxis). Auto th
is mean of auto work and auto non-work. Bus is Komanoff assumption.
Bizarre formula in Cell F70 (multiplying by one trillion, rounding, and then dividing by one trillion) allows cell reference in 'Assumptions' worksh
Part 4: Apportion VMT within the Manhattan CBD by Vehicle Type and Calculate Weighted Average Value of CBD
VMT
In-Cordon Weekday VMT (Baseline) Thru-Trips (#, not VMT) VMT w/ Thru Trips Assigned
Work trips (car) 630,082 Car work
119,754 94%
Non-work trips (car) 465,139 Car non-wk
Through trips 278,797 Car thru
Medallion taxicabs 1,478,865 - 0% Taxi
Trucks 268,865 6,800 5% Truck
Buses 70,601 568 0% Bus
Total 3,192,349 127,122 Total
Further division of trucks into three subgroups: Big rigs: 5% Large: 10%
Further division of taxis into two subgroups: Cruising: 35% Occupied: 65%
Vehicle Miles Traveled are final (not baseline) figures and are from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 883.
Through-trips are subdivided to allocate truck and bus through-trips. Percents in first box are multiplied by through-trips VMT, and the products
Part 5: Basic Parameters for Time Value, Vehicle Occupancy, etc. for vehicle travel outside the Manhattan Centr
Driver's Time Passenger

Value, vis-à- Value, vis-à-vis
vis air driver of the
Autos Van-Truck-Rig passenger vehicle
Auto work-trip 0.33 0.75
Auto non-work-trip 0.17 0.50
Auto thru-trip Nominal ratio, Nominal ratio, 0.25 0.63
non-CBD to non-CBD to
Van or small truck CBD values CBD values
Large truck 0.67 0.90
Bus pass. v.
Big Rig (18-wheeler) (Komanoff) (Komanoff) airline pass.
Bus 0.50 0.15
Medallion Taxi, occupied (entry to right refers to first passenger, not driver) 0.67 0.75
Medallion Taxi, cruising 0.20 2nd taxi pass.
v. 1st.
Notes from Part 2 apply here.
Part 6: Apportion VMT outside the Manhattan CBD by Vehicle Type and Calculate Weighted Average Value of no
VMT
In-Cordon Weekday VMT (Baseline) Thru-Trips (#, not VMT) VMT w/ Thru Trips Assigned
Work trips (car) 26,027,169 Car work
77,491 61%
Non-work trips (car) 18,305,936 Car non-wk
Through trips 19,031,888 Car thru
Medallion taxicabs 858,000 - 0% Taxi
Trucks 2,824,591 38,200 30% Truck
Buses 1,172,492 11,432 9% Bus
Total 68,220,076 127,122 Total
Further division of trucks into three subgroups: Big rigs: 5% Large: 10%
Further division of taxis into two subgroups: Cruising: 35% Occupied: 65%
Baseline Vehicle Miles Traveled is from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 167.
Through-trips are subdivided to allocate truck and bus through-trips. Percents in first box are multiplied by through-trips VMT, and the products
Part 7: Derivation of value of an hour of saved time for transit users
Auto (Driver Taxi or Car Subway User

or Passng'r) Service User (only)
NYC Travelers Median HH Income, by Mode $72,200 $84,600 $58,300
Source: MTA Travel Survey 2008. Results published: June 17, 2009. A
W EEKDAYS
Hourly value of in-CBD time for auto user, weekday Work Trip Non-wk Trip Thru Trip
$32.14 $16.07 $24.11
Copied from Cells J63, J64 and J65.
Weighted Avgs apply respective # of weekday trips into cordon from Ro

W EEKDAYS
Subway
Hourly value of in-CBD time for transit user, weekday $20.34
Prorates Cell H140 by ratios of respective values in Row 136 to Cell E136.
Hourly value of out-CBD time for transit user, weekday $13.56
Applies Cell C105 to respective values in Row 146.
Part 8: Further documentation for deriving value of an hour of saved time for airline passengers
The US DOT 1997 guidelines document on which the Morrison-Winston figures are based are contained in the document, The Value o
Guidance for Conducting Economic Evaluations, <http://ostpxweb.dot.gov/policy/Data/VOT97guid.pdf>. The following excerpts are fro
Briefly, the values adopted herein are: 50 percent of the wage for all local personal travel, regardless of the mode employed, 70 percent of the wage fo
percent of the wage (plus fringe benefits) for all local and intercity business travel, including travel by truck drivers. These figures are a synthesis of m
values and are broadly consistent with the empirical research. In special cases where out-of-vehicle time (access, waiting, and transfer time) on transi
analysis, the value of 100 percent of the wage is adopted.
The hourly wages to which they are applied are derived from several sources. For personal travel by surface modes, the standard adopted is median
by the Bureau of the Census, divided by 2,000 hours. This figure amounted to $17.00 in 1995. For business travel, the source employed was employe
Bureau of Labor Statistics. For all surface travelers on business except truck drivers, the hourly wage figure, including the hourly value of fringe benef
combined wages and benefits of $16.50. Because air travel is a higher-cost service used by higher-income passengers, incomes were based on a su
yielding figures of $27.80 for personal travel and $34.50 for business travel. In special cases where general aviation travelers represent a large share
average income may be used, incorporating the wage of $37.50 for these travelers. This figure is derived from a survey of its members by the Aircraft
The hourly wages to which they are applied are derived from several sources. For personal travel by surface modes, the standard adopted is median
by the Bureau of the Census, divided by 2,000 hours. This figure amounted to $17.00 in 1995. For business travel, the source employed was employe
Bureau of Labor Statistics. For all surface travelers on business except truck drivers, the hourly wage figure, including the hourly value of fringe benef
combined wages and benefits of $16.50. Because air travel is a higher-cost service used by higher-income passengers, incomes were based on a su
yielding figures of $27.80 for personal travel and $34.50 for business travel. In special cases where general aviation travelers represent a large share
average income may be used, incorporating the wage of $37.50 for these travelers. This figure is derived from a survey of its members by the Aircraft
The hourly values of time corresponding to these percentages and hourly wage rates are: $8.50 for personal local travel by all modes, $11.90 for pers
business surface travel; $16.50 for truck drivers; $19.50 for personal air travel; and $34.50 for business air travel. The Office of the Assistant Secretary
periodic revisions of these figures, based on income data from the Bureau of the Census, the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Air Transport Associa
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
spent traveling. (For vehicles, it estimates the values of "vehicle-hours" ###
the case of trucks.) ###
###
###
s for vehicle users attributable to traffic-pricing (see Results and Cost-
es for transit users (also see Results and Cost-Benefit sheets); ; (iii) ###
mix (see various Delays worksheets; and (iv) estimating the extent to ###
###
###
cialists from Northeastern University and the Brookings Institution, of the ###
NYC Comptroller's Office. (All documents are referenced below.) Their ###
adjusted from national averages to the NYC area, and (iii) modified to
entral Business District. For example, we impute a time value of 3/4, ###
idual driving into the CBD for non-work purposes; a 9/10 factor for users ###
###
###
###
e by its share of the mix of traffic, with one set of calculations for CBD ###
ere in the BTA, especially in the Cost-Benefit worksheet where the
delay costs from incremental vehicles are calculated. ###
###
###
###
###
$47.97 ###
###
1.117 ###
###
$53.57 ###
###
###
nded: The Impact of Mounting Flight Delays on New York City's
report states: "In a soon-to-be published study of the economic impact ###
r pleasure and business travelers, “passengers’ values of time in 2005 ###
###
###
###
Pricing," by Steven A. Morrison, Northeastern Univ., & Clifford Winston,
Look_at_Airport_Congestion_Pricing.pdf>. They wrote, at p. 9: ###
###
er of passengers on each flight. For each of the airports in our sample, we used ###
trips whose purpose was business and the percentage whose purpose was ###
S. Department of Transportation’s (1997) guidelines, we value business travelers’
engers’ values of time in 2005 dollars ranged from $27.13 to $79.16 per hour ###
###
###
###
###
###
. Here, we adjust that average to the NYC metro region. ###
###
$20.62 ###
###
26.09 ###
###
1.265 ###
1.20 ###
$64.28 ###
###
###
el within the Manhattan Central Business District ###
###
Time Value, Number of ###

relative to an passengers (2010 $) Time (2010 $) Time (2010 $) Time ###
auto-work other than Value of driver Value of Value of
driver driver passengers vehicle-hr ###
0.15 $32.14 $3.62 $35.76 ###
0.50 $16.07 $4.02 $20.09 ###
0.33 $24.11 $4.90 $29.00 ###
1.50 passngr's are
$48.21 $48.21 ###
2.50 encompassed $80.36 $80.36 ###
in figures to left
5.00 $160.71 $160.71 ###
Bus passgr's 20 $32.14 $192.85 $224.99 ###
time is thus 0.40 $43.07 $12.92 $55.99 ###
valued at 20%
of a car $12.86 $0.00 $12.86 ###
commuter's.
###
taxi passenger income levels. ###
Implied per-hour value of
is worksheet (for medallion taxis). Auto thru-trip bus passengers' time: $9.64 ###
###
ws cell reference in 'Assumptions' worksheet, Row 747 to be limited to two decimal places. ###
###
Weighted Average Value of CBD Travel Time ###
###
###
% of CBD Value of veh-
VMT w/ Thru Trips Assigned VMT hour Value of###
veh-hour,
630,082 20% Car work 19.7% $35.76 cars only ###
465,139 15% Car non-wk 14.6% $20.09 ###
262,637 8% Car thru-trip 8.2% $29.00 ###
(Is used for a
1,478,865 46% Van / small truck 7.6% $48.21 calc. in Sub###
283,779 9% Large truck 0.9% $80.36 vs. Bus###
sheet, and
has interest
for illustrative
purposes.)
(Is used for a
calc. in Sub
vs. Bus
sheet, and
71,847 2% Big Rig 0.4% $160.71 has interest###
for illustrative
3,192,349 100% Bus 2.3% $224.99 purposes.)###
Taxi, occup. 30.1% $55.99 ###
Van/small trucks: 85% Taxi, cruis. 16.2% $12.86 ###
Cruising % is from Taxis worksheet. Total 100.0% $41.45 $29.08 ###
###
###
ed by through-trips VMT, and the products are applied to each category in second box. ###
###
el outside the Manhattan Central Business District ###
###
Time Value, Number of ###

relative to an passengers (2010 $) Time (2010 $) Time (2010 $) Time ###
auto-work other than Value of driver Value of Value of
driver driver passengers vehicle-hr ###
0.15 $21.43 $2.41 $23.84 ###
0.50 $10.71 $2.68 $13.39 ###
Ratio at left applies to
0.33 $16.07 $3.26 $19.34 ### all travelers except bus
drivers and medallion
2.03 $43.39 $43.39 ### taxi passengers.
3.38 $72.32 $72.32 ###
6.75 $144.64 $144.64 ###
20 $32.14 $128.57 $160.71 ###
Values above
prorate Rows 0.40 $43.07 $12.92 $55.99 ###
66-68 values $12.86 $0.00 $12.86 ###
by ratio of Col.
D to Col. C ###
factors in Row
105. ###
Implied per-hour value of
bus passengers' time: $6.43 ###
###
Weighted Average Value of non-CBD Travel Time ###
###
###
% of non- Value of veh-
VMT w/ Thru Trips Assigned CBD VMT hour ###
26,027,169 38% Car work 38.2% $23.84 ###
18,305,936 27% Car non-wk 26.8% $13.39 ###
11,601,381 17% Car thru-trip 17.0% $19.34 ###
858,000 1% Van / small truck 10.6% $43.39 ###
8,543,639 13% Large truck 1.3% $72.32 ###
2,883,951 4% Big Rig 0.6% $144.64 ###
68,220,076 100% Bus 4.2% $160.71 ###
Taxi, occup. 0.8% $55.99 ###
Van/small trucks: 85% Taxi, cruis. 0.4% $12.86 ###
Cruising % is from Taxis worksheet. Total 100.0% $29.72 ###
###
###
ed by through-trips VMT, and the products are applied to each category in second box. ###
###
Other Transit ###
(PATH,
Paratransit, ###
Private Bus, ###
Subway & Bus User Commuter Suburban bus
Bus User (only) Rail lines) ###
$46,300 $39,600 $96,500 $33,700 ###
008. Results published: June 17, 2009. Available at: <http://bit.ly/vfU9jt>. ###
W EEKDAYS WEEKENDS ###
Wghtd Avg ###
$25.19 $19.29 $9.64 $14.46 $19.16 ###
Applies weekend/weekday ratio from 'Cost-Benefit' tab, Cell M 103 to cells ###
in Weekday array here.
###
ve # of weekday trips into cordon from Row 76 of 'Motor Vs' and 'Motor Vs Weekends tabs. ###
W EEKDAYS WEEKENDS ###
Subway/Bus Bus Subway Subway/Bus Bus ###
$16.16 $13.82 $15.47 $12.29 $10.51 ###
spective values in Row 136 to Cell E136. Prorates Cell N140 by ratios of resp. #'s in Row 136 to Cell E136. ###
$10.77 $9.21 $10.31 $8.19 $7.01 ###
alues in Row 146. Applies Cell C105 to respective values in Row 146. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
ne passengers ###
###
ntained in the document, The Value of Saving Travel Time: Departmental ###
d.pdf>. The following excerpts are from p. 3 of doc (4 of 33): ###
###
###
mode employed, 70 percent of the wage for all intercity personal travel, and 100
ivers. These figures are a synthesis of mode-specific and distance-specific ###
cess, waiting, and transfer time) on transit trips is isolated as an object of
###
###
###
###
modes, the standard adopted is median annual household income, as reported
ravel, the source employed was employee compensation figures supplied by the ###
including the hourly value of fringe benefits, was $18.80. Truck drivers received
assengers, incomes were based on a survey by the Air Transport Association ###
aviation travelers represent a large share of the affected traffic, a weighted ###
m a survey of its members by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA).
###
###
###
local travel by all modes, $11.90 for personal intercity surface travel; $18.80 for ###
avel. The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy will publish
or Statistics and the Air Transport Association. ###
###
Ratio at left applies to
all travelers except bus
drivers and medallion
taxi passengers.
Toll Rates
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 Base Passenger Car Toll X-Products

Triboro
BBT QMT Manh. Totals BBT QMT Trib M Totals BBT QMT TMP
1948 26,462 26,465 52,927 $0.25 $0.25
1949 30,045 32,554 62,599 $0.25 $0.25
1950 37,258 34,044 36,995 108,297 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 13,040 8,511 9,249
1951 41,253 36,680 44,639 122,572 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 14,439 9,170 11,160
1952 45,366 38,866 48,503 132,735 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 15,878 9,717 12,126
1953 47,999 38,509 48,595 135,103 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.29 16,800 9,627 12,149
1954 45,120 38,185 52,286 135,591 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 15,792 9,546 13,072
1955 45,843 39,839 59,913 145,595 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 16,045 9,960 14,978
1956 48,054 49,544 64,460 162,058 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 16,819 12,386 16,115
1957 54,490 54,311 64,677 173,478 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 19,072 13,578 16,169
1958 53,789 58,321 62,982 175,092 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 18,826 14,580 15,746
1959 49,468 61,115 64,389 174,972 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 17,314 15,279 16,097
1960 48,970 62,008 63,115 174,093 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 17,140 15,502 15,779
1961 48,197 62,301 59,603 170,101 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 16,869 15,575 14,901
1962 48,173 65,038 60,251 173,462 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 16,861 16,260 15,063
1963 48,271 63,038 60,988 172,297 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 16,895 15,760 15,247
1964 51,893 67,713 66,139 185,745 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 18,163 16,928 16,535
1965 56,455 69,386 69,755 195,596 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 19,759 17,347 17,439
1966 57,674 69,850 71,540 199,064 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 20,186 17,463 17,885
1967 57,611 69,416 73,602 200,629 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 20,164 17,354 18,401
1968 60,652 66,432 75,932 203,016 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 21,228 16,608 18,983
1969 62,116 68,884 78,481 209,481 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 21,741 17,221 19,620
1970 62,042 77,180 85,121 224,343 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 21,715 19,295 21,280
1971 64,032 81,747 90,372 236,151 $0.35 $0.25 $0.25 $0.28 22,411 20,437 22,593
1972 52,065 74,936 80,052 207,053 $0.70 $0.50 $0.50 $0.55 36,446 37,468 40,026
1973 49,916 74,214 85,592 209,722 $0.70 $0.50 $0.50 $0.55 34,941 37,107 42,796
1974 46,620 75,219 82,676 204,515 $0.70 $0.50 $0.50 $0.55 32,634 37,610 41,338
1975 45,636 65,315 72,566 183,517 $0.72 $0.58 $0.58 $0.62 32,706 38,100 42,330
1976 52,444 65,881 68,325 186,650 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 39,333 49,411 51,244
1977 53,500 71,150 73,276 197,926 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 40,125 53,363 54,957
1978 58,252 72,696 76,572 207,520 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 43,689 54,522 57,429
1979 60,445 69,827 87,885 218,157 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 $0.75 45,334 52,370 65,914
1980 62,386 73,216 88,439 224,041 $0.91 $0.91 $0.91 $0.91 56,463 66,264 80,042
1981 58,657 81,211 93,361 233,229 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 $1.00 58,657 81,211 93,361
1982 56,189 78,229 88,158 222,576 $1.18 $1.35 $1.35 $1.31 66,080 105,770 119,194
1983 61,130 78,134 92,967 232,231 $1.25 $1.50 $1.50 $1.43 76,413 117,201 139,451
1984 58,032 74,808 95,247 228,087 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 87,048 112,212 142,871
1985 63,469 76,065 94,644 234,178 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 95,204 114,098 141,966
1986 60,778 71,478 93,432 225,688 $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 $1.75 106,362 125,087 163,506
1987 63,256 77,813 95,795 236,864 $1.98 $1.98 $1.98 $1.98 124,952 153,707 189,228
1988 62,959 76,243 99,438 238,640 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 125,918 152,486 198,876
1989 59,254 72,828 92,720 224,802 $2.23 $2.23 $2.23 $2.23 132,226 162,516 206,905
1990 60,512 71,186 99,840 231,538 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 151,280 177,965 249,600
1991 63,883 80,616 94,487 238,986 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 159,708 201,540 236,218
1992 62,510 81,835 97,198 241,543 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 $2.50 156,275 204,588 242,995
1993 57,561 77,288 92,660 227,509 $2.96 $2.96 $2.96 $2.96 170,317 228,688 274,172
1994 57,013 68,511 79,536 205,060 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 171,039 205,533 238,608
1995 61,097 73,882 95,696 230,675 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 $3.00 183,291 221,646 287,088
1996 57,091 72,285 92,981 222,357 $3.42 $3.42 $3.42 $3.42 195,061 246,974 317,685
1997 54,690 78,023 91,313 224,026 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 191,415 273,081 319,596
1998 61,091 79,697 93,863 234,651 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 213,819 278,940 328,521
1999 63,307 80,941 98,553 242,801 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 221,575 283,294 344,936
2000 63,242 80,879 103,079 247,200 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 221,347 283,077 360,777
2001 48,059 72,864 102,224 223,147 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 168,207 255,024 357,784
2002 56,976 82,834 94,759 234,569 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 $3.50 199,416 289,919 331,657
2003 56,271 85,377 93,177 234,825 $3.81 $3.81 $3.81 $3.81 214,524 325,485 355,221
2004 54,488 86,599 97,958 239,045 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00 217,952 346,396 391,832
2005 49,043 86,063 91,898 227,004 $4.40 $4.40 $4.40 $4.40 215,924 378,913 404,603
2006 $4.50 $4.50 $4.50
E-Z Pass Rates Cash Rates
Majors Rockwy HH VZNB Majors Rockwy HH
2007
2008
2009
2010 $ 4.57 $ 1.71 $ 2.09 $ 9.14 $ 5.50 $ 2.75 $ 3.00
2011 $ 4.80 $ 1.80 $ 2.20 $ 9.60 $ 6.50 $ 3.25 $ 4.00
Toll rates for 2010 and 2011 are from NY Post and amNewYork (both Oct 28, 2010). Rates shown for 2011 go into effect Dec. 30, 2010. Staten Isla
residents using E-ZPass get $2.88 Verrazano discount. "Majors" are RFK, Throgs, Whitestone, BBT & QMT.
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, Bureau of Labor Statistics, on July 5, 2
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
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.
1/6/2012
dges & Tunnels
Drive worksheet.
prepared as part of
Manhat- Manhat- Manhattan
MTA % of Effective tan Jobs tan Wages Wages / CPI
-Products E Riv X'ings 1-way toll 000 000,000 (82-84=100)
Totals
30,800
34,768
37,720
38,576
38,410
40,983
45,320
48,819
49,152
48,690
48,420
47,345
48,183
47,901
51,626
54,545
55,533
55,918
56,819
58,582
62,290 37.6% $0.10
65,441 39.3% $0.11
113,940 34.7% $0.19
114,844 34.7% $0.19
111,582 34.1% $0.19
113,136 31.2% $0.19 $23,582 $43,833
139,988 31.9% $0.24 $24,976 $43,895
148,445 33.2% $0.25 $26,642 $43,963
155,640 34.2% $0.26 2,178 $34,986 $53,660
163,618 36.3% $0.27 2,181 $37,345 $51,440
202,769 36.3% $0.33 2,205 $41,513 $50,380
233,229 37.1% $0.37 2,247 $46,426 $51,073
291,044 34.9% $0.46 2,237 $50,787 $52,629
333,064 36.0% $0.52 2,245 $54,854 $55,074
342,131 34.7% $0.52 2,287 $59,693 $57,452
351,267 33.0% $0.49 2,320 $64,270 $59,730
394,954 32.5% $0.57 2,353 $70,566 $64,385
467,888 34.0% $0.67 2,391 $77,553 $68,269
477,280 34.1% $0.68 2,386 $84,897 $71,764
501,647 32.8% $0.73 2,376 $87,142 $70,276
578,845 34.0% $0.85 2,343 $91,839 $70,267
597,465 34.8% $0.87 2,206 $90,002 $66,081
603,858 35.3% $0.88 2,125 $98,550 $70,242
673,177 34.5% $1.02 2,109 $99,554 $68,895
615,180 31.4% $0.94 2,118 $100,990 $68,145
692,025 33.2% $0.99 2,104 $108,058 $70,904
759,720 32.4% $1.11 2,142 $118,465 $75,504
784,091 30.5% $1.07 2,263 $129,431 $80,643
821,279 30.9% $1.08 2,306 $142,242 $87,265
849,804 32.0% $1.12 2,382 $151,723 $91,070
865,200 32.4% $1.14 2,287 $172,880 $100,395
781,015 34.3% $1.20 2,342 $175,402 $99,041
820,992 33.4% $1.17 2,249 $162,963 $90,585
895,230 32.2% $1.23 2,212 $162,549 $88,342
956,180 32.0% $1.28 2,214 $176,835 $93,613
999,440 31.3% $1.38 2,249 $189,341 $96,949
2,296 $210,431 $104,381
ash Rates
VZNB
$ 11.00
$ 13.00
o effect Dec. 30, 2010. Staten Island
ge-and-tunnel-authority, or
eau of Labor Statistics, on July 5, 2005: "I

Data from 1975 to 1977 are not
data for 2006 are not yet available from
se let us know. Solidelle Wasser,
Constants
This worksheet compiles numerical parameters (constants) that figure in the various analyses in this spreadsheet. It also
includes important and helpful facts about NYC transportation -- baseline (2008) values.
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 pound of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)
Feet per mile
Square feet per acre
Pounds of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) per gallon of gasoline combusted
Standard literature value; to be sourced via other CK spreadsheets.
Grams per pound
tons per tonne
Kilograms of Carbon Dioxide (CO2) per gallon of gasoline combusted
Gallons per barrel
Acres per square mile
(from CK's ICCT work in Calif.)

Day-to-Year Multiplier
Subtract weekends
Subtract holidays (Komanoff counted 10)
Day-to-Year Multiplier (number of weekdays in a year)
Round to
Weekdays per month
Weekend days and holidays per year (rounded)
of which Saturdays are
and Sundays and Holidays are
Weekend days and holidays per month
Hours per day
Important/Helpful Facts About NYC Transportation (compiled for easy reference and comparability)
Figures are baseline (mostly 2007 conditions). Revenues are annual and in millions of dollars. Trips are weekdays.
Item Worksheet Source

Daily motor vehicle trips into the CBD Motor Vs
Daily yellow-cab (medallion taxi) fare trips Taxis
Daily subway trips may warrant update, a/o 2-Feb-2011 Subways
Daily bus trips (excludes express buses) Buses
Subway revenue Revenue
Bus revenue Revenue
Number of people traveling to CBD Travel
Toll revenue from vehicle trips entering (or leaving) CBD Revenue
1/6/2012
in this spreadsheet. It also
330
365
0.273
5,280
43,560
19.63
453.6
1.102
8.904
42
640
365.25
104.4
10
250.9
250
20.8
115
52
63
9.6
24
e and comparability)
ars. Trips are weekdays.
Figure
795,000
471,200
5,086,833
2,377,320
$2,435
$852
3,483,000
$536
Regressions 1/6/2012
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 Manhattan Price to % Changes from Prior Period

Crossings Jobs, 000 Cross E Riv Crossings Jobs
1978 607,666 2,178 $15.52
1979-80 608,343 2,193 $15.74 0.1% 0.7%
1981-82 632,957 2,242 $14.97 4.0% 2.2%
1983-84 651,006 2,266 $14.46 2.9% 1.1%
1985-86 702,805 2,337 $13.84 8.0% 3.1%
1987-88 698,227 2,388 $13.66 -0.7% 2.2%
1989-90 683,078 2,359 $13.66 -2.2% -1.2%
1991-92 685,822 2,165 $13.34 0.4% -8.2%
1993-94 656,353 2,113 $13.41 -4.3% -2.4%
1995-96 690,709 2,123 $13.46 5.2% 0.5%
1997-98 746,889 2,285 $13.32 8.1% 7.6%
1999-2000 760,638 2,335 $13.61 1.8% 2.2%
2001-2005 710,442 2,253 $14.65 -6.6% -3.5%
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
Multiple R 83% ANOVA
R Square 69% df SS
Adj R Square 62% Regression 2 0.0157384421
Std Error 0.03 Residual 9 0.0071000773
Obsrvtns 12 Total 11 0.0228385194
Coefficients Std Error t Stat P-value

Intercept 0.9% 0.8% 1.084 0.306
X Var 1 (% change jobs) 60.7% 22.4% 2.715 0.024
X Var 2 (% change price) -70.0% 26.0% -2.689 0.025
RESIDUAL OUTPUT
Observation Predicted Y Residuals

1979-80 0.3% -0.2%
1981-82 5.7% -1.6%
1983-84 3.9% -1.1%
1985-86 5.8% 2.2%
1987-88 3.1% -3.8%
1989-90 0.2% -2.3%
1991-92 -2.4% 2.8%
1993-94 -1.0% -3.3%
1995-96 0.9% 4.3%
1997-98 6.2% 1.9%
1999-2000 0.7% 1.1%
2001-2005 -6.6% 0.0%
Note: In an alternative analysis excluding the Triborough Bridge (i.e., with TB Manhattan Plaza crossings zeroed-out in River 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 SS MS F Significance F
Regression 2 0.017828697 0.008914348 8.14835857 0.009556581
Residual 9 0.009846049 0.001094005
Total 11 0.027674746
Coefficients Standard Error t Stat P-value Lower 95%

Intercept 0.6% 1.0% 0.663 0.524 -1.6%
X Variable 1 64.9% 26.4% 2.461 0.036 5.2%
X Variable 2 -69.9% 29.0% -2.411 0.039 -135.6%
y of motor vehicle trips across the East
ne-time but severe changes in travel

ine five years of data (2001-2005) into a
mber of Manhattan jobs is associated with

ice to drive across the E. River is
70%, indicating that East River
ate Regional Planning Commission

or non-work trips.
from Prior Period

Price
1.4%
-4.9%
-3.4%
-4.3%
-1.3%
0.0%
-2.4%
0.6%
0.4%
-1.0%
2.2%
7.6%
MS F Signif F
0.007869221 9.974960248 0.0052081
0.000788897
Lower 95% Upper 95%
-1.0% 2.7%
10.1% 111.4%
-129.0% -11.1%
ings zeroed-out in River Crossings
Upper 95%
2.8%
124.6%
-4.3%
FreshDirect
Note: The analysis in this worksheet forms the analytical backbone of "Time Thieves," an article by Charles Komanoff and Will Fisher
edition of the New York Transportation Journal, published by the NYU-Wagner Rudin Center for Transportation Policy & Management.
accessed via this link: <http://wagner.nyu.edu/rudincenter/journal/2010/02/time-thieves-a-new-computer-driven-traffic-model-reveals-th
%E2%80%9Ctime-costs%E2%80%9D-of-traffic/>. The same text, with a slightly clearer format, is available at this link:
<http://www.nnyn.org/kheelplan/Time_Thieves.pdf>.
This worksheet estimates the delays imposed on other vehicle users as a result of operations of FreshDirect Co. trucks delivering groc
in the Manhattan Central Business District (CBD). The first part, Delay Estimates due to Driving, uses the form of the BTA's Delays wo
calculate delays due to the movement of the trucks between the company's depot in Long Island City and customers in the CBD. The
Estimates due to Parking, estimates the loss of street space due to the trucks' double-parking, and applies speed-volume relationship
Motor Vs worksheet to estimate the resulting slowing of traffic and drivers' lost time. The third part summarizes the results. The fourth
assumptions.
Part One: Delay Estimates due to Driving FreshDirect Trucks to, within and back from the Manhattan Central Busin
1A. General Traffic Estimates (24-hour weekday basis)
This section recapitulates the Motor Vs and Delays worksheets. It maintains that structure, rather than simply importing the data from those works
preserve the ability to invoke the 'Baseline Traffic Reduction' parameter in User Inputs, to reflect lower (or higher) traffic levels.
Difference 0
Cordon miles for average trip (one way) 1.3 miles
Non-Cordon miles for average trip (one way) (total miles minus cordon miles) 16.9 miles
Both rows are taken from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, except that miles for FD are from this worksheet, Rows 235 and 236, with circulating miles divided

3. Intra-Cordon VMT
Komanoff ests. Note that 7 in 8 auto trips in Cordon are either inbound or outbound, while 1 in 8 are intra-Cordon trips (Schaller, "Necessity or Cho
Products of percentages in row 44 and miles in row 39, except taxi figure is from Taxis worksheet.
1B. Traffic Estimates From Part "1A" Disaggregated Into Different Weekday Time Periods
Select period ALL
via pull-down
menu on cell
below.
Select period
via pull-down Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk
menu on cell 11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am
below.
Active period for time-dependent delay calculations Graveyard 1 0
1. Auto Cordon Crossings, inbound -- Trips and VMT

2. Auto Cordon Crossings, outbound -- Trips and VMT



VMT in period 655,316 92,294

VMT in period (sum of figures in two previous rows) 5,909,447 743,481
C. Total (Sum of "A" + "B") 10,797,217 2,026,783

6. Speeds
Speed-Volume, non-Cordon, for details.
1C. Final Calculations
1. Vehicle Hours in Traffic Within Cordon 22,289 4,051

Calculated as quotient of Row 147 VMT figures in Motor Vs worksheet by Row 93 speeds. Numerator uses Motor Vs VMT figures to ensure that delay
volumes only and do not [spuriously] reflect delays experienced by the hypothesized additional vehicles.
Baseline vehicle hours in traffic within cordon 21,207 4,396
Preliminary difference in number of hours in traffic within cordon, as result of FreshDirect trucks (difference between rows 109 and 112
Adj. difference in hours in traffic w/i cordon, as result of FreshDirect trucks (multiplies truck delay factor from 'Delay Costs' worksheet,
2. Outside Cordon 153,814 45,983

Preliminary difference in number of hours in traffic outside cordon, as result of FreshDirect trucks (difference between rows 117 and 12
Adj. difference in hours in traffic outside cordon, as result of FreshDirect trucks (multiplies truck delay factor from 'Delay Costs' worksh
3. Within and Outside Cordon, combined

Delay time attributable to driving FreshDirect trucks into, within and back from CBD (multiplied by truck factor)
Part Two: Delay Estimates due to Parking FreshDirect Trucks within Manhattan CBD (weekdays)
Parked Truck Parameters

Fresh-Direct trucks rarely if ever park at curbside. Rather they are invariably double-parked, which means they take a lane out of
service for some distance. We assume that one (double-)parked truck effectively removes from service one lane for one-half of
a short block. We thus take the number of acres in a lane-mile (from Cordon worksheet), divide by 20 (to reflect 20 short blocks to a
mile) and then halve that.
Street space appropriated by one truck (acres) 0.035
Acres per lane-mile (from Cordon), halved (1/2 block impact) and div'd by 20 (blocks/mile).
Area used by entire CBD fleet if parked 24-7 (acres) 2.63
Product of acres per truck in Row 136 and fleet size in Row 250.
Street area of entire CBD (acres) 1,270
From Cordon worksheet
% of street area removed from service if FD trucks parked 24-7 0.21%
Delay Calculations due to parked trucks

Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk
11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am
Baseline Speeds in CBD 21.07 20.20
Baseline values in Motor Vs worksheet, Row 184
Coincidence of period with FD delivery schedule 0.00 0.00
Komanoff assumptions, predicated on 2-10 p.m. delivery schedule
Hours in which FD trucks are parked, upper limit 0.0 0.0
Miles driven by FD trucks in CBD in period 0.0 0.0
Apportions cordon miles in Row 34 per hours shown in Row 152.
Hours in which FD trucks are driven in period 0.00 0.00
Actual hours FD trucks are parked in period 0.0 0.0
Percentage of period in which FD trucks are parked 0% 0%
Ratio of Row 157 to actual hours in period.
Effective % of CBD street area removed from service in period due to
parked FD trucks 0.000% 0.000%
Effective factor increase in traffic vol. from FD trucks parked 1.0000 1.0000
Complement of percents in Row 161.
Speeds w/ FD truck space unavailable for other veh's 20.05 21.92
Calculated for P.M. Peak and P.M. Post-Peak by applying baseline traffic volumes in Row 78 by factor incrs in Row 164 and inputting product into
'VsubK' algorithm detailed in 'Speed-Vol., Cordon' worksheet. Speeds for other periods are same as in Row 148.
Hours spent in traffic with new speeds 22,289 4,051
Baseline hours in traffic (from 'Motor Vs' worksheet, Row 190).
Number of hours of delay due to parked trucks
Multiply by truck delay factor (which is one because truck size is already taken into account in estimating lane-miles removed from service per dou
Delay time attributable to parking FreshDirect trucks within CBD (multiplied by truck factor)
Part Three: Weekday Summary and Extrapolation to Weekends
Weekday Summary Hours of

Cost per each Cost of delays
delays due to
delay-hour due to FD
FD
Delays (hours), per day
Caused by FD trucks driving w/i CBD 33950 $41.45 $1,407,260
Caused by FD trucks driving outside CBD 634949 $29.72 $18,867,853
Caused by FD trucks parked w/i CBD 15,926 $41.45 $660,152
Delay hours are copied from results derived in Parts One & Two, above. Cost per delay hour are
shown in Cost-Benefit worksheet, Part A.
Total daily delay due to FD deliveries to CBD, hrs 684,826 $20,935,265
Daily delay per FD truck delivering to CBD, hrs 9131.0 $279,137
Delay from one FD delivery in CBD, minutes / $ 11739.9 $5,981.50
Extrapolation to Weekends
We prorate weekend impacts from weekday impacts above. This obviates the need for a similarly
complex calculation and fits both the approximate nature of the exercise and the smaller impacts on
weekends (due to lesser weekend traffic and fewer weekend days).
Ratio of weekend to weekday CBD delay impacts from additional trip into CBD 0.62
Ratio of respective Row 124 figures from 'Delays Weekends' and 'Delays Weekends'
worksheeet, when former is set to Midday Peak and latter to Shoulder 1.
Ratio of weekend to weekday non-CBD delay impacts from additional trip into CBD 0.96
Same note as in Row 196, except that Row 131 figures are used.
Weekend Summary Hours of

Cost per each Cost of delays
delays due to
delay-hour due to F. Direct
F. Direct
Delays (hours), per day
Caused by FD trucks driving w/i CBD 20976 $24.87 $521,681
Caused by FD trucks driving outside CBD 608972 $17.83 $10,857,556
Caused by FD trucks parked w/i CBD 9840 $24.87 $244,723
Delay hours are calculated by multiplying results in Rows 181-183 by respective
weekend/weekday ratios in Rows 196 and 199.
Total daily delay due to FD deliveries to CBD, hrs 639,788 $11,623,961

Daily delay per FD truck delivering to CBD, hrs 8530.5 $154,986
Delay from one FD delivery in CBD, minutes / $ 10967.8 $3,321.13
Annual Summary
Weekdays Weekends Avg or Total
Per delivery
Total delay from one FD delivery in CBD, minutes 11739.9 10967.8 11496.6
Number of applicable days per year 250 115 365
Delay cost from one FD delivery in CBD $5,981.50 $3,321.13 $5,143.30
For all deliveries, per day
Total delays from all FD deliveries in CBD, hours 684,826 639,788 670,636
Delay cost from all FD deliveries in CBD $20,935,265 $11,623,961 $18,001,566
For all deliveries, per year, millions of dollars $5,233.8 $1,336.8 $6,570.6
Part Four: Our Assumptions re FreshDirect Operations
Deliveries Sources
Deliveries per day 7,000 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/25/nyregion/25fresh.html
Number of vehicles (trucks) 150 Same as above. Note that 25-June-2009 email from PR firm re
Deliveries per vehicle (calculated) 46.7 Divide first figure by second.
Percent of deliveries made w/i CBD 50% To come.
Route Miles (Komanoff estimates) QMT Williansburg Manhattan Mean

1. Outside cordon (1-way) 2.0 4.8 8.1 5.0
2. Distance to delivery region (1-way) 2.1 1.8 1.2 1.7
3. Miles hovering/delivering (total) 3.5 3.0 2.5 3.0
Total (#3 plus twice #1 and #2) 11.7 16.2 21.1 16.3
Note that we have used the arithmetic mean of the three routes, absent more detailed information from
FreshDirect. Interestingly, one driver whom we interviewed at Lexington Ave. and East 29th Street said that he
never uses the Queens Midtown Tunnel, despite its being a more direct route than the toll-free Queensboro
bridge that he is instructed to use. Substituting the QBB for some or all QMT traffic would increase our delay
estimates, since the FreshDirect depot is much closer to the QMT.
CBD Crossing Times Enter Leave

Weekday 1:30pm 12pm
Weekend 7am 9pm
Acres in cordon 5,040

Manhattan delivery trucks 75
Average size of truck's region (acres) 67.2
2008 sales $215 million

2009 sales $240 million
# of frequent users 35,000
% of revenue from frequent users 60%
Average purchase $160
Crain's "Book of Lists, 2010" special issue, published Dec. 2009, ranked FreshDirect at #102 among the NY area's privately held comp
same 2008 and 2009 sales figures shown directly above, and 1,800 employees.
###
1/6/2012 ###
###
###
###
rticle by Charles Komanoff and Will Fisher in the Winter 2010
for Transportation Policy & Management. The article may be ###
w-computer-driven-traffic-model-reveals-the- ###
mat, is available at this link:
###
###
###
###
s of FreshDirect Co. trucks delivering groceries to customers ###

ving, uses the form of the BTA's Delays worksheet to ###
land City and customers in the CBD. The second part, Delay
ng, and applies speed-volume relationships shown in the ###
rd part summarizes the results. The fourth part presents input ###
###
###
###
k from the Manhattan Central Business District ###
###
###
###
Auto Non-Wk Thru Trips Taxicab Truck Bus FreshDirect Total ###
han simply importing the data from those worksheets, in order to ###
wer (or higher) traffic levels. From Row 250 ###
673,000 0 65,000 45,000 12,000 75 795,075
###
34% N.A. 0% 34% 10% 0% ###
444,180 245,320 65,000 29,700 10,800 75 795,075
###
41% ###
183,410 127,122 65,000 38,200 11,432 0 685,934
###
183,410 245,320 65,000 29,700 10,800 75 795,075
###
0 118,198 0 -8,500 -632 75 109,141
###
Rows 235-237 ###
1.25 1.6 2.0 3.0 2.0 3.2 ###
16.9 25.4 6.0 12.5 17.4 5.0 ###
ows 235 and 236, with circulating miles divided by two to produce one-way values. ###
###
458,525 785,024 227,500 178,200 43,200 2,344,374
###
20% 33% 10% 8% 2% 100%###
###
###
14% 0% N.A. 20% 50% ###
e intra-Cordon trips (Schaller, "Necessity or Choice," p. 25). ###
65,504 0 1,187,062 35,640 21,600 1,402,937
###
###
###
###
A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals ###
6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm ###
3 hour(s) 1 hour(s) 4 hour(s) 6 hour(s) 3 hour(s) 24 hour(s) ###
0 0 0 0 0 ###
1 1 1 1 1 ###
###
###
136,925 40,512 130,765 212,152 73,761 795,075###
x trip types. Sources for those figures are shown further to right. ###
198,609 58,759 191,508 313,260 111,338 1,188,677###
###
###
###
107,418 33,960 137,189 289,062 112,860 795,075###
x trip types. Sources for those figures are shown further to right. ###
162,987 51,381 205,817 430,319 167,662 1,188,677###
###
###
###
16.6% 5.1% 18.2% 34.1% 12.7% 100% ###
###
188,374 67,971 248,022 425,414 211,259 1,402,937###
###
###
###
549,970 178,112 645,347 1,168,992 490,259 3,780,291###
###
183,323 178,112 161,337 194,832 163,420 ###
###
###
###
###
2,276,016 673,418 2,214,364 3,661,461 1,331,630 14,675,337###
1,923,417 611,731 2,514,236 5,380,141 2,111,331 14,675,337###
4,199,434 1,285,150 4,728,600 9,041,602 3,442,961 29,350,674###
###
7,228,959 2,205,391 8,039,062 15,207,012 5,776,518 44,628,015###
###
11,428,392 3,490,540 12,767,662 24,248,614 9,219,479 73,978,688###
3,809,464 3,490,540 3,191,916 4,041,436 3,073,160 ###
###
###
8.92 9.59 11.99 7.57 11.68 ###
0.11 0.10 0.08 0.13 0.09 ###
raffic-weighted avg speeds, 6am - 6pm 9.08 ###
raffic-weighted avg speeds, 24 hour 10.29 ###
###
Bronx and Upper Manhattan, are derived differently than cordon speeds. ###
cordon equation is based on data for freeways and expressways. See ###
###
16.01 19.09 22.51 14.09 24.03 ###
16.01 19.09 22.51 14.09 24.03 ###
0.06 0.05 0.04 Delta(fromprior #cordon entries)
0.07 0.04 ###
raffic-weighted avg speeds, 6am - 6pm 16.87 ###
raffic-weighted avg speeds, 24 hour 19.75 ###
###
###
59,405 17,900 51,554 146,817 40,019 342,035###
uses Motor Vs VMT figures to ensure that delays are calculated on 'baseline' vehicle ###
s. ###
57,677 17,526 51,146 135,844 39,196 326,991###
###
cks (difference between rows 109 and 112) 15,044
###
elay factor from 'Delay Costs' worksheet, Row 83, times Row 114 figure) 33,950
###
###
691,885 176,992 546,464 1,647,981 366,876 3,629,995###
sheet. Numerator uses Motor Vs VMT figures to ensure that delays are calculated on ###
additional vehicles. ###
649,056 166,442 512,262 1,500,238 340,612 3,348,634###
###
ucks (difference between rows 117 and 120) 281,361
###
uck delay factor from 'Delay Costs' worksheet, Row 83, times Row 122 figure) 634,949
###
###
###
multiplied by truck factor) 668900 hours ###
###
###
CBD (weekdays) ###
###
###
ans they take a lane out of ###
ervice one lane for one-half of ###
(to reflect 20 short blocks to a ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Total ###
6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm ###
9.18 9.79 12.09 8.18 11.92 ###
###
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.67 ###
###
0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 2.0 ###
0.0 0.0 0.0 4.8 1.6 ###
###
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.59 0.13 ###
###
0.0 0.0 0.0 5.4 1.9 ###
###
0% 0% 0% 90% 62% ###
###
###
0.000% 0.000% 0.000% 0.187% 0.129% ###
###
1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0019 1.0013 ###
###
8.92 9.59 11.99 7.53 11.65 ###
or incrs in Row 164 and inputting product into ###
s in Row 148. ###
59,405 17,900 51,554 147,590 40,128 342,917 ###
326,991 ###
15,926 ###
ating lane-miles removed from service per double-parked truck) 15,926 ###
15926 hours ###
###
H o u rs o f D e lay ( p e r d a y )
###
###
###
###
Delays caused by Fresh Direct
Deliveries to Manhattan CBD ###
###
###
###
Caused by FD trucks parked w/i CBD Caused by FD trucks driving outside CBD ###
###
Caused by FD trucks driving w/i CBD
###
###
###
###
Weekdays ###
###
###
###
###
###
For Script Do Not Touch ###
0.97 0.77 ###
###
Run Script! ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
mes.com/2009/04/25/nyregion/25fresh.html ###
. Note that 25-June-2009 email from PR firm representing FreshDirect reported 140 trucks, 6,000-7,000 deliveries/day. ###
###
###
###
###
Google Maps, using major highways from FD depot, through bridge or tunnel to Manhattan portal. ###
Mapped by KEA, from Manhattan side of portal to each respective delivery zone. ###
Estimated by KEA; reflects miles circulating within the delivery zone. ###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
Based on FreshDirect Website guidelines for delivery times (weekdays, 2-11 pm; weekends, 7:30 am ###
- 9 pm) ###
###
Google Maps ###
KEA estimate, on premise that one-half of deliveries are within Manhattan CBD. ###
###
###
Crain's New York Business, June 1, 2009, "Defying Odds, FreshDirect Delivers Gains" ###
(same) ###
(same) ###
(same) ###
(same, although several drivers interviewed indicated that the average for all users is appreciably ###
less, perhaps in the $120 range) ###
###
2 among the NY area's privately held companies, with the ###
###
0
9,068 13,701 84,306 20,258 55,280 61,152 17,005

11,335 17,127 105,382 25,322 69,100 76,440 21,256
32,252 5,842 33,670 10,741 44,522 95,983 37,760

40,315 7,303 42,088 13,426 55,653 119,979 47,200
10.5% 2.9% 16.6% 5.1% 18.2% 34.1% 12.7%

9,816 2,678 15,442 4,707 16,944 31,731 11,815
61,466 27,108 162,912 43,455 141,696 228,150 80,271
153,252 231,555 1,424,773 342,360 934,234 1,033,472 287,383

545,061 98,738 569,026 181,519 752,426 1,622,117 638,143
698,313 330,293 1,993,800 523,879 1,686,660 2,655,589 925,526
1,363,746 645,033 3,893,722 1,023,092 3,293,903 5,186,140 1,807,474
TimSpe Sae dveIndc-rmoeasteorduvehtoicTloelhours

0
Totals Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak
11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm
ound trips. Inbounds follow shape for inbound non-work trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trip
0 0 0 0 0
260,770 18,566 1,864 15,780 9,360 35,355 78,029
Hours worksheet. Product of total auto non-work trips above, times %'s of total daily inbound non-work trips in respective periods in By Hours worksh
325,963 23,208 2,331 19,725 11,699 44,194 97,536
260,770 22,684 4,109 23,682 7,554 31,314 67,509

Product of total auto non-work trips above, times percentages of total daily outbound trips in respective periods in By Hours worksh
325,963 28,355 5,137 29,602 9,443 39,143 84,386
100.0% 10.5% 2.9% 16.6% 5.1% 18.2% 34.1%

93,132 6,904 1,883 10,861 3,310 11,917 22,318
n) shown in row 46. Each entry is product of %'s in row 70 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in
745,057 58,467 9,351 60,187 24,453 95,254 204,240
4,407,030 313,774 31,510 266,679 158,177 597,503 1,318,697

4,407,030 383,363 69,446 400,219 127,669 529,211 1,140,899
8,814,060 697,137 100,956 666,898 285,847 1,126,713 2,459,596
17,213,109 1,361,449 197,158 1,302,395 558,234 2,200,376 4,803,382
TimSpe Sae dveIndc-rmoeastoerdvuehtioclTeolhours

0
P.M. Post-pk Totals Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk
8 pm - 11 pm 11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm
shape for all outbound trips. Inbounds follow shape for inbound through trips; outbounds follow shape for a
0
24,455 183,410 140,393 4,471 15,476 4,577 19,680
ctive periods in By Hours worksheet. Product of total thru-trips above, times %'s of daily thru-trips in respective periods in By Hours worksheet.
30,569 229,262 224,628 7,154 24,761 7,323 31,488
26,558 183,410 30,341 5,496 31,675 10,104 41,884

ctive periods in By Hours worksheet. Figures in preceding row are made equal to corresponding figues in row 58, since thru-trips leave cordon shortly
33,197 229,262 48,546 8,794 50,680 16,167 67,015
12.7% 100.0% 10.5% 2.9% 16.6% 5.1% 18.2%

8,310 65,504 0 0 0 0 0
don't cross cordon) shown in row 46. Intra-cordon VMT is zero for thru-trips, by definition.
72,077 524,028 273,174 15,948 75,442 23,490 98,503
413,298 3,099,638 3,558,965 113,349 392,313 116,024 498,894

448,831 3,099,638 769,151 139,332 802,969 256,146 1,061,769
862,130 6,199,276 4,328,116 252,681 1,195,282 372,170 1,560,664
1,683,666 12,106,660 1,877,155 362,362 1,578,743 485,799 2,048,787

0
P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk
2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm 11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am
utbounds follow shape for all outbound trips. Inbounds follow shape for all inbound trips; outbounds follo
39,913 20,810 245,320 5,663 2,282 13,162 3,893

ds in By Hours worksheet.
63,861 33,296 392,512 11,326 4,563 26,324 7,785
90,296 35,523 245,320 5,663 2,282 13,162 3,893

nce thru-trips leave cordon shortly after entering. Taxicab outbound trips are assumed to follow same distribution as inbound.
144,474 56,836 392,512 11,326 4,563 26,324 7,785
Taxicab outbound cordon VMT is calculated as trips times cordon VMT per trip times one-ha
34.1% 12.7% 100.0% 17.7% 1.9% 12.9% 4.8%

0 0 0 210,187 22,749 152,581 57,062
Each entry is product of %'s in row 70 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips
208,335 90,133 785,024 232,839 31,876 205,229 72,632
1,011,797 527,541 6,218,884 33,978 13,690 78,973 23,356

2,289,014 900,502 6,218,884 33,978 13,690 78,973 23,356
3,300,811 1,428,043 12,437,767 67,956 27,381 157,945 46,711
4,292,390 1,941,533 12,586,769 6,796 2,738 15,795 4,671

0
Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak
10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm 11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am
12,553 20,367 7,080 65,000 2,588 1,043 6,014
25,107 40,735 14,159 130,000 7,763 3,128 18,042
12,553 20,367 7,080 65,000 3,673 665 3,835

ution as inbound.
25,107 40,735 14,159 130,000 11,020 1,996 11,504
cordon VMT per trip times one-half, to reflect lesser circulation on final trips.
17.6% 29.6% 15.5% 100.0% 10.5% 2.9% 16.6%

208,747 351,863 183,873 1,187,062 3,757 1,025 5,909
of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in row 46. Each entry is product of %'s in row 70 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips w
258,961 433,333 212,192 1,447,062 22,539 6,149 35,456
Taxi % of all cordon VMT: 38%
75,321 122,205 42,478 390,000 32,397 13,053 75,297

75,321 122,205 42,478 390,000 45,990 8,331 48,012
150,641 244,410 84,955 780,000 78,387 21,384 123,310
15,064 24,441 8,496 78,000 196,895 53,714 309,734

0
Data will appear in this 'column block' after Row 51 Data will
A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals Graveyard A.M. Pre-pk
9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm 11 pm - 5 am 5 am - 6 am
shape for all inbound trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trips. Inbounds follow shape for a
1,779 5,736 9,306 3,235 29,700 941 379
5,336 17,208 27,919 9,705 89,100 1,882 758
1,223 5,071 10,932 4,301 29,700 1,336 242
3,670 15,212 32,795 12,902 89,100 2,671 484
5.1% 18.2% 34.1% 12.7% 100.0% 10.5% 2.9%

Vs' tab, Row 141. Same as for this column block in 'Motor Vs' tab, Row
1,801 6,484 12,143 4,521 35,640 2,277 621
times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in row 46. Each entry is product of %'s in row 70 times est'd V
10,807 38,904 72,858 27,128 213,840 6,830 1,863
22,269 71,815 116,518 40,501 371,850 16,341 6,584

15,316 63,487 136,869 53,844 371,850 23,198 4,202
37,585 135,302 253,386 94,345 743,700 39,539 10,786
94,406 339,857 636,463 236,979 1,868,048 81,731 22,297

0
A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals Graveyard
6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm 11 pm - 5 am
Inbounds follow shape for all inbound trips; outbounds follow shape for all outbound trips.
2,187 647 2,086 3,384 1,176 10,800 0
4,374 1,294 4,172 6,768 2,353 21,600 0
1,394 445 1,844 3,975 1,564 10,800 0
2,789 890 3,688 7,950 3,128 21,600 0
16.6% 5.1% 18.2% 34.1% 12.7% 100.0% 0

umn block in 'Motor Vs' tab, Row 141.
3,581 1,092 3,930 7,359 2,740 21,600 0
of %'s in row 70 times est'd VMT of m.v. trips within cordon (trips that don't cross cordon) shown in row 46.
10,744 3,275 11,789 22,078 8,220 64,800 0
37,980 11,232 36,224 58,772 20,429 187,563 0

24,218 7,725 32,023 69,037 27,159 187,563 0
62,198 18,958 68,247 127,809 47,588 375,125 0
128,571 39,188 141,075 264,197 98,370 775,429

A.M. Pre-pk A.M. Peak A.M. Post-pk Midday Pk P.M. Peak P.M. Post-pk Totals
5 am - 6 am 6 am - 9 am 9 am - 10 am 10 am - 2 pm 2 pm - 8 pm 8 pm - 11 pm
0 0 0 75 0 0 75
0 0 0 240 0 0 240
0 0 0 0 0 75 75
0 0 0 0 0 240 240
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 240 0 240 480
0 0 0 372.5 0 0 372.5
0 0 0 0 0 372.5 372.5
0 0 0 372.5 0 372.5 745
BTA 1.0 1/6/2012
Important technical note 1 for BTA 1.0: As "Balancing Congestion Pricing and Free Transit in New York
City," the report based on the prior spreadsheet, went to press in Jan. 2008, we noticed several anomalies
in the Summary results (and in the Cost-Benefit figures on which the Summary results are based):
When the 10 "policy choices" are set to 2007 conditions, some results don't match current conditions;
most notably, "Increase in Funds Available to Agencies," which should be zero, is $180 million.
We traced this anomaly to a gain of $170 million in "Motor Vehicle Tolls" in the Cost Benefit
worksheet. (The other $10 million "increase" was due to an error in converting daily transit revenues to
annual.) It arose because the $2.76 figure for current tolls, which underlay the calculation of toll revenues,
was overstated, causing toll revenues in the "Revenue" worksheet to be calculated in the third column
block as $723 million, rather than their then-current (2006) value of $550 million. The difference (rounded)
was $170 million.
The $2.76 average toll rate was calculated from East River entries to the CBD rather than from all portals.
Correcting this figure, to a value around $2.10, will slightly increase the impact of the cordon fee, and,
consequently, increase the traffic reduction while slightly reducing the revenue gain. This correction has
been made in BTA 1.1.
Important technical note 2: After we released the Jan. 2008 report noted above, a Grist commenter
pointed out that we hadn't linked parking pricing revenues to the reduction in CBD crossings that parking
pricing would evoke. We had taken credit for new parking revenues without reflecting the drop in toll
revenues due to trips eliminated by charging for parking. Our inadvertent double-counting probably led us
to overstate annual revenue by $160 million. (See discussion here: <http://bit.ly/fHCDi5>. This defect does
not occur in BTA 1.1, which does not analyze (or take credit for) parking revenues.
We remain confident in the original spreadsheet's (BTA 1.0) overall accuracy and consistency and its
capacity to reasonably predict policy outcomes. At this point, however, BTA 1.0 is useful primarily as an
historical artifact. For transport-policy debates in New York City and elsewhere, the reader should use the
present spreadsheet, BTA 1.1.
For a copy of BTA 1.0, released 24-Jan-2008, go to www.kheelplan.org, where you'll find a link for
downloading the original spreadsheet.

Bta 1.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bta 1.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Bta 1.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What are some unique features captured in the BTA?

What are some unique features captured in the BTA?

What organizations sponsored the development of the BTA?

What organizations sponsored the development of the BTA?

Welcome to ...

. . . the Balanced Transportation Analyzer (Version 1.1)

An integrated spreadsheet model to assess revenue gains, traffic improvements and

Requires Excel 2007 or later (PC) • or Excel 2008 or later (Mac)

1. Dual Purpose of the BTA

2. Sustainable Transit Plans

3. Unique Features of the BTA

Among the interactivities captured (reflected) in the BTA are:

4. Sponsorship of the Balanced Transportation Analyzer

5. A prior version of the Balanced Transportation Analyzer (BTA 1.0) …

6. BTA 1.1 – Major advances vis-à-vis Version 1.0

Important new features of BTA 1.1 include:

improvements and ON THE INTERNET

8 or later (Mac) Since we are continually upgrading the BTA, we encourage

sure that your

Try Out Your Own Toll Ideas!

Go to User Inputs worksheet ― it's the sixth "tab" in the list

s worksheet and the next three (Index,

... a computer file that performs calculations and other

For more info on spreadsheets:

Because large spreadsheets can be tricky to navigate, we

For more info on spreadsheets:

York City, each of which charges a toll to

apturing the crucial transportation A "Macro" Is . . .

ansit users to shift travel times to take

ork's Nature, a non-profit founded by Manhattan Central Business District (CBD)

ongestion Pricing in New York City." The

Read about the BTA in ''Wired" Magazine

The June 2010 issue of "Wired" has an extensive article on

For full article, follow this link:

cluding apparent reductions after 2008

Links to BTA Slide Show, Video, Paper

The slide presentation itself (35 slides) may be downloaded

Linked tab or page Description

ng the BTA, including the Move NY plan.

edicted by any chosen plan.

ach additional trip into the CBD.

alue of drivers' time in traffic.

estimated price-elasticity of auto across East River.

This is a more revenue-intensive version of the Move NY Plan shown above.

Links pertaining to the Kheel-Komanoff Plan (all are from 2009)

Links pertaining to the original Kheel Plan

Links pertaining to the Kheel II Plan

g the Move NY Plan.

See Rows 16 to 33.

Key Plan Policies

harging for each CBD- $5.00

BTA, enter '3' in Cell H25 of 3 p.m.

Key Plan Policies

To activate this plan in the $0.00

Key Plan Policies

4 & 5. Baseline Plans

To activate these plans in the

Kheel Plan, Kheel Plan II, and an MTA Rescue Plan.

BD Weekend Auto Toll to Enter CBD Weekday S