NYC Congestion Pricing

[1995hoo]

How does congestion pricing right the wrongs of the Moses era? Are we going to start tolling the parkways too? I don't quite understand the relevance here. Manhattan south of 60th street is majority non-hispanic white as of the latest census, The outer boroughs sans Staten Island are all majority non-white...see the pattern here. If you drive in the wealthy white areas in Manhattan you will be tolled, the outer boroughs get the shaft in regards to more pollution/more traffic...as usual.

Who said it's intended to "right" any alleged "wrongs"?

[TheDon102]

How does congestion pricing right the wrongs of the Moses era? Are we going to start tolling the parkways too? I don't quite understand the relevance here. Manhattan south of 60th street is majority non-hispanic white as of the latest census, The outer boroughs sans Staten Island are all majority non-white...see the pattern here. If you drive in the wealthy white areas in Manhattan you will be tolled, the outer boroughs get the shaft in regards to more pollution/more traffic...as usual.

Who said it's intended to "right" any alleged "wrongs"?

Whats the point of mentioning moses in this thread unless its to bring up a larger discussion on past nyc car centric planning?

[TheDon102]

How does congestion pricing right the wrongs of the Moses era? Are we going to start tolling the parkways too? I don't quite understand the relevance here. Manhattan south of 60th street is majority non-hispanic white as of the latest census, The outer boroughs sans Staten Island are all majority non-white...see the pattern here. If you drive in the wealthy white areas in Manhattan you will be tolled, the outer boroughs get the shaft in regards to more pollution/more traffic...as usual.

What kind of routings you have in mind saying "the outer boroughs get ...more traffic"? Manhattan is the destination as a center of a  very high-profile city. Outer boroughs are much less so.

The Bronx for example will see worse traffic congestion (esp. on the cross bronx expressway) as a result of congestion pricing according to the MTA

[Max Rockatansky]

Not "MMM" hasn't popped back into this thread since the forum went into maintenance mode?

[hotdogPi]

Not "MMM" hasn't popped back into this thread since the forum went into maintenance mode?

He got banned.

[Max Rockatansky]

Not "MMM" hasn't popped back into this thread since the forum went into maintenance mode?

He got banned.

[TheDon102]

How does congestion pricing right the wrongs of the Moses era? Are we going to start tolling the parkways too? I don't quite understand the relevance here. Manhattan south of 60th street is majority non-hispanic white as of the latest census, The outer boroughs sans Staten Island are all majority non-white...see the pattern here. If you drive in the wealthy white areas in Manhattan you will be tolled, the outer boroughs get the shaft in regards to more pollution/more traffic...as usual.

That's a much better question and no, it doesn't.

That's right, it doesn't. Here's the true relevance, though -- Congestion pricing is an attack on drivers, and limited-access highways aren't. Plus, south of 60th Street isn't dominated by one class of people. The "wealthy white areas" are all north of 60th Street, until you get to Harlem.

I must of forgotten that the west village, tribeca, murray hill, kips bay, battery park, stuy town were north of 60th street

[Alps]

Congestion pricing is in compliance with the pleas of the Manhattan rich people (not just whites, there are Asians there too). You don't get that plea elsewhere because other boroughs actually value having people visit.

[D-Dey65]

How does congestion pricing right the wrongs of the Moses era? Are we going to start tolling the parkways too? I don't quite understand the relevance here. Manhattan south of 60th street is majority non-hispanic white as of the latest census, The outer boroughs sans Staten Island are all majority non-white...see the pattern here. If you drive in the wealthy white areas in Manhattan you will be tolled, the outer boroughs get the shaft in regards to more pollution/more traffic...as usual.

That's a much better question and no, it doesn't.

That's right, it doesn't. Here's the true relevance, though -- Congestion pricing is an attack on drivers, and limited-access highways aren't. Plus, south of 60th Street isn't dominated by one class of people. The "wealthy white areas" are all north of 60th Street, until you get to Harlem.

I must of forgotten that the west village, tribeca, murray hill, kips bay, battery park, stuy town were north of 60th street

The lower east side is still not a wealthy neighborhood.

[kalvado]

Congestion pricing is in compliance with the pleas of the Manhattan rich people (not just whites, there are Asians there too). You don't get that plea elsewhere because other boroughs actually value having people visit still have some parking available

FTFY

[1995hoo]

How does congestion pricing right the wrongs of the Moses era? Are we going to start tolling the parkways too? I don't quite understand the relevance here. Manhattan south of 60th street is majority non-hispanic white as of the latest census, The outer boroughs sans Staten Island are all majority non-white...see the pattern here. If you drive in the wealthy white areas in Manhattan you will be tolled, the outer boroughs get the shaft in regards to more pollution/more traffic...as usual.

Who said it's intended to "right" any alleged "wrongs"?

Whats the point of mentioning moses in this thread unless its to bring up a larger discussion on past nyc car centric planning?

It looks like the original point of mentioning him was in the context of a post commenting that people might wind up wishing some of the expressways (which don't have the low overpasses and the commercial vehicle restrictions) he proposed had actually been built, which is a point that has nothing to do with race. You still haven't explained why you think congestion pricing is intended to, or even should be intended to, "right" any perceived past "wrongs" against black people. I think it's mostly about two things—discouraging traffic and mining a new source of revenue.

[TheDon102]

How does congestion pricing right the wrongs of the Moses era? Are we going to start tolling the parkways too? I don't quite understand the relevance here. Manhattan south of 60th street is majority non-hispanic white as of the latest census, The outer boroughs sans Staten Island are all majority non-white...see the pattern here. If you drive in the wealthy white areas in Manhattan you will be tolled, the outer boroughs get the shaft in regards to more pollution/more traffic...as usual.

Who said it's intended to "right" any alleged "wrongs"?

Whats the point of mentioning moses in this thread unless its to bring up a larger discussion on past nyc car centric planning?

It looks like the original point of mentioning him was in the context of a post commenting that people might wind up wishing some of the expressways (which don't have the low overpasses and the commercial vehicle restrictions) he proposed had actually been built, which is a point that has nothing to do with race. You still haven't explained why you think congestion pricing is intended to, or even should be intended to, "right" any perceived past "wrongs" against black people. I think it's mostly about two things—discouraging traffic and mining a new source of revenue.

The post was mostly about congestion pricing pushing traffic to less affluent boroughs, which is irrefutable. My intepertation is that once again less affluent people in the outer boroughs are going to get screwed because of manhattan centric thinking. Congestion pricing isn't righting any wrongs in my opinion its only going to exacerbate income inequality. 

[kalvado]

How does congestion pricing right the wrongs of the Moses era? Are we going to start tolling the parkways too? I don't quite understand the relevance here. Manhattan south of 60th street is majority non-hispanic white as of the latest census, The outer boroughs sans Staten Island are all majority non-white...see the pattern here. If you drive in the wealthy white areas in Manhattan you will be tolled, the outer boroughs get the shaft in regards to more pollution/more traffic...as usual.

Who said it's intended to "right" any alleged "wrongs"?

Whats the point of mentioning moses in this thread unless its to bring up a larger discussion on past nyc car centric planning?

It looks like the original point of mentioning him was in the context of a post commenting that people might wind up wishing some of the expressways (which don't have the low overpasses and the commercial vehicle restrictions) he proposed had actually been built, which is a point that has nothing to do with race. You still haven't explained why you think congestion pricing is intended to, or even should be intended to, "right" any perceived past "wrongs" against black people. I think it's mostly about two things—discouraging traffic and mining a new source of revenue.

The post was mostly about congestion pricing pushing traffic to less affluent boroughs, which is irrefutable. My intepertation is that once again less affluent people in the outer boroughs are going to get screwed because of manhattan centric thinking. Congestion pricing isn't righting any wrongs in my opinion its only going to exacerbate income inequality.

There may be some through traffic that would choose other roads, like Cross Bronx you mentioned.
There will also be some Manhattan bound traffic switching to public transportation, reducing the flow on Cross Bronx. I am not sure how big those two components are, and which one will be larger
Basically expected result is traffic reduction, so other boroughs may be net positive after all

[1995hoo]

Not "MMM" hasn't popped back into this thread since the forum went into maintenance mode?

If you mean the latest (suspected) sockpuppet, he was online tonight but didn't post anything.

[roadman65]

I agree we are way too dependent on cars and NYC is way too overrated on autos.


However, this is not the solution as it's not going to end excessive driving as motorists will pay it and bitch later. Just offer the alternatives instead of the proposals of the other means through legislation. If you want alternative transportation it needs to be introduced through the private sector. People like those elected need to stop using governments ( divided by a two party system) to get new ideas introduced and just market it.

End rant.

[hotdogPi]

I don't think a private MBTA would work well nearly as well as the current state-run one. For one, it would need to financially at least break even, which would drive prices up and decrease ridership.

[Rothman]

I don't think a private MBTA would work well nearly as well as the current state-run one. For one, it would need to financially at least break even, which would drive prices up and decrease ridership.

Where'd Boston come from?

[hotdogPi]

I don't think a private MBTA would work well nearly as well as the current state-run one. For one, it would need to financially at least break even, which would drive prices up and decrease ridership.

Where'd Boston come from?

I was just using a local example. I think it would be the same everywhere.

[1995hoo]

The New York subway was originally constructed and operated by two private companies (the IRT and the BMT) under contracts with the city. The city, which by then had constructed some lines of its own (the IND) bought them out in mid-1940. One reason you sometimes see some oddities in where the lines go and in particular construction is that the operators, and the IND, were competing with each other. The now-closed (and partially demolished) lower level of the IND's 42 Street stop is said to be an example of that—it's widely thought the IND built it simply to stop the IRT from extending the 7 train further west (and when that eventually happened, they had to demolish part of said lower-level platform to do it).

I tend to suspect that nowadays there would be much stronger noncompete clauses written into any contracts if a private company were to be operating subway lines. No doubt the fact that the BMT was originally the BRT, operating in the separate City of Brooklyn prior to consolidation, was part of why things evolved the way they did 120 years ago.

[The Ghostbuster]

I believe a lot of transit companies were privately-owned prior to the passage of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, when most of those private companies were converted into public transit agencies.

[roadman65]

I don't think a private MBTA would work well nearly as well as the current state-run one. For one, it would need to financially at least break even, which would drive prices up and decrease ridership.

In New Jersey the state there managed to get Academy Bus Lines to take over bus transit. That, I'm sure is a private company. And if they didn't take over all of NJ Transit Bus routes, they sure have a lot of bus routes in New Jersey.

So it's plausible to get private companies to invest in public transportation.

[NoGoodNamesAvailable]

I don't think a private MBTA would work well nearly as well as the current state-run one. For one, it would need to financially at least break even, which would drive prices up and decrease ridership.

In New Jersey the state there managed to get Academy Bus Lines to take over bus transit. That, I'm sure is a private company. And if they didn't take over all of NJ Transit Bus routes, they sure have a lot of bus routes in New Jersey.

So it's plausible to get private companies to invest in public transportation.

Academy got cut off from running the local routes because they were not actually running all the trips that they were contractually supposed to be running and the state got sick of the scam.

Other private operators like Decamp and Coach USA (aka ONE Bus) are in the process of ending all their public bus routes and now only doing charter routes, because they're not profitable for them anymore. They also received state subsidies in the form of free leased buses to use on their commuter routes.

The only reason they lasted so long was receiving government subsidies, which were only given in the first place because NJ Transit is legally prohibited from competing with private bus companies.

[kphoger]

Academy got cut off from running the local routes because they were not actually running all the trips that they were contractually supposed to be running and the state got sick of the scam.

Other private operators like Decamp and Coach USA (aka ONE Bus) are in the process of ending all their public bus routes and now only doing charter routes, because they're not profitable for them anymore. They also received state subsidies in the form of free leased buses to use on their commuter routes.

The only reason they lasted so long was receiving government subsidies, which were only given in the first place because NJ Transit is legally prohibited from competing with private bus companies.

The very fact that there are "trips that they were contractually supposed to be running" diminishes the private-ness of the business model.

It's a sticky situation.  Heavy government investment seems to be the only way to make a public transit network actually work well.  But, as soon as the government takes the reins, it becomes responsible to the public for how it spends their money, therefore it seeks to trim the budget as much as it can.  So the government shares a bed with private enterprise, and in the process limiting the very freedom and flexibility that makes private enterprise an attractive solution in the first place.

Amtrak anyone?

I still remember when certain Pace bus routes (Chicago suburban bus service) started getting contracted out to Laidlaw and First Student, and they ran a lot of those schedules with yellow school buses.  The paper timetables said all Pace buses had bike racks, yet none of those yellow buses had bike racks.

[mrsman]

There's a lot about this plan that I don't like.

I can accept a charge to encourage long distance traffic to stay away from Manhattan, by charging more for driving within the perimeter, but there is a lot of this that does not seem at all fair.

The entire region's tolling structure must change in order for this to work.  A fair system would be one where everyone driving to Manhattan will pay the same amount regardless of where they are coming from.

And AFAIK, the plan is to institute the charge both for entrance and exit from the charge zone (with special allowances for vehicles that will make multiple trips crossing the zone like taxis).  With this being the case, all tolls in the region should be bi-directional.

Let's look at Hudson River crossings.  Right now, Port Authority charges peak EZ-Pass $14.75, Tappan Zee charges non-NY $6.61, and NYSBA (Bear Mountain and other bridges north of Tappan Zee until just before Albany) charges $1.65.   This does seem to correllate to charge more for crossings that are closer to the city, even though PANYNJ is way overboard given the pricing of the other crossings.  Plus, currently there does not appear to be any discount or incentive within the PANYNJ crossings for avoiding Lower Manhattan.

So that these tolls correllate better with congestion charging, and given that all crossings are all-electronic-tolling, each crossing should charge half of their current amount, but in both directions.

A toll crossing to cross a body of water should be fully credited to the congestion charge.  A toll crossing that simply moves people along quicker should not be credited, since there is a free option available.  This means that if a driver crosses the Hudson and within 2 hours (before or after) crosses into Lower Manhattan, the congestion charge that is charged to the driver should be reduced by the amount of toll that the driver paid to PANYNJ, NYSBA, or Tappan Zee.  But tolls on the Thruway (even in Westchester County) would not be credited.

The MTA toll crossings (except Henry Hudson) are $6.94 with NY EZ-Pass.  This is the charge to cross between Queens and Bronx or between Brooklyn and Staten Island.  The congestion charge to cross into Manhattan is likely higher, but the toll on any MTA crossing should be credited to the congestion charge.  This means that a driver from Brooklyn to Manhattan will pay more than a driver from Brooklyn to Staten Island, but will be paying the exact same amount as a driver from NJ to Manhattan.  And like he Hudson crossings, a toll can be credited to the congestion charge if made within 2 hours.  So regardless if a driver drives into/out of Lower Manhattan on the Midtown Tunnel, Williamsburg Bridge, or Triboro Bridge (and then drives in south of 60th), the charge is the same.  The toll on the Henry Hudson bridge, while lower than the other crossings, should also be creditable to the congestion charge.

West Side Highway and FDR drive should be free, in every sense of the word.  In order to allow for this practically speaking, this means that travel on the Brooklyn Bridge to FDR should be free, the toll on the Battery Tunnel should be removed completely, and the congestion charging boundary should be moved to between 57th and 58th east of 3rd Ave.  This would mean that the Queensboro Bridge touches Manhattan outside of the congestion zone, and regardless of using the lower or upper level of the bridge, there is free access to the Upper East Side via 1st and 2nd Avenues and also free access to the FDR (via 61st, 62nd, or 63rd).

What would all of this mean practically speaking?

NJ to Lower Manhattan.  Since the price would be the same regardless, no one crossing would be favored.  Each driver pays the congestion charge amount, and tolls are credited.

NJ to Upper Manhattan/Bronx/Westchester.  The congestion charge would redirect drivers away from Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and more would take GWB.

NJ to Brooklyn/Queens/LI.  The congestion charge would redirect drivers away from Lincoln and Holland Tunnels, and more would take GWB or Staten Island crossings and then cross again with an East River crossing (Triboro, Whitestone, Throgs Neck) or Verrazanno.   So each driver will face two tolls, but the price of the combination will always be the same, assuming they avoid Lower Manhattan local streets.

Bronx/Westchester to Manhattan.  Free Harlem river bridges are preferred over Triboro or Henry Hudson because of tolling.  However, if the ultimate destination is below 60th, there would be no preference in crossings, since the tolls would be credited to the congestion charge.

Upper Manhattan/Bronx/Westchester to Brooklyn/Queens/LI.  The free option via FDR or West Side Highway will be available if using Battery Tunnel, Brooklyn Bridge, or Queensboro Bridge.  The normal tolls apply if using Triboro, Whitestone, or Throgs Neck.  Traveling through Lower Manhattan streets to make connections to FDR or West Side Highway will be most expensive and discouraged.

Lower Manhattan to Brooklyn/Queens/LI.  Every driver will face the congestion charge once they reach or leave a local Manhattan street.  The charge is exactly the same regardless of which crossing is used, whether you use a crossing that puts you directly in Lower Manhattan like Williamsburg Bridge, or whether you use a crossing that crosses outside the zone (like Queensboro or Triboro) and then cross into the zone, or whether you use the Brooklyn Bridge or Battery Tunnel to FDR or West Side Highway and then cross into the zone from the expressways.

[1995hoo]

And AFAIK, the plan is to institute the charge both for entrance and exit from the charge zone (with special allowances for vehicles that will make multiple trips crossing the zone like taxis).  With this being the case, all tolls in the region should be bi-directional.

Having it charge exiting vehicles makes sense because how else would you account for trips that originate within the charging zone? My office is in Lower Manhattan. While I normally take Amtrak and the subway to get there, suppose I drove up, parked there, left the car there for three days, then left to drive back to Virginia. I should be charged the congestion charge on two days—the day of my arrival and the day of my departure—but if they don't have something detecting when you exit the zone, how would I be charged on the departure day?