NYC Congestion Pricing

[hotdogPi]

Makes me wonder if $60k is a physically survivable income over there...

$60k per person and not per household? Probably yes.

[kalvado]

I ride the subway all the time and I don't feel unsafe. It's easy to avoid being pushed onto the tracks if you don't stand at the edge of the platform looking down the tunnel to see whether the train is coming.

The point remains: The whole intent behind the program is to make it expensive to drive into the congestion charging zone to discourage people from doing so. It has nothing to do with the surrounding area. The OP is simply being stubborn in refusing to acknowledge that point because it doesn't fit his agenda.

It's been a while since subway was my daily commute , but I was always pretty comfortable safety-wise. There were some fatal accidents, maybe once a few years with daily ridership in millions
Now it's a 20 mile interstate drive, and serious accidents are pretty common on that stretch, with fatal accidents not being unheard of. Ridership on that stretch is ~100k daily
Long story short, I would estimate that my risk of dying on a highway during commute is probably higher than the risk of dying in subway was.  So far, I managed to survive.
With that, subway being a  target for terrorist attack (e.g. Tokyo, Moscow) is a totally different story. Being in a major city probably means being more of a target anyway. 

[Ellie]

I don't see any issue with this plan. Honestly, I wish more cities had something similar encouraging transit use.

[kalvado]

I don't see any issue with this plan. Honestly, I wish more cities had something similar encouraging transit use.

Convenience should be the main encouragement for transit. If that's too high of a bar, then it's not a fair game to begin with.

[jeffandnicole]

Transit use is good. Unless transit is at capacity. 

In theory, there is no capacity for transit - just keep shoving people in the trains.  Just keep boarding buses. But in reality, people don't want to stand for 30 - 75 minutes on NJ Transit.  People don't want to be sitting with other people's asses in their face.  Sure, it occurs often on a NYC Subway, but the passengers on NJ Transit's rail lines expect something different...especially when they're paying upwards of $16.75/direction for a ride (Trenton - NYC Penn Station.  A monthly pass brings the cost down to about $12/direction).

There's also parking limits - some lots at the smaller stations are already sold out of spaces and/or permits.  There's probably room currently at the larger stations, such as Trenton, Hamilton & Metropark.  Most bus stops don't have any parking, so people will need to walk to get to them.

And when the trains fill, NJ Transit can't simply add more trains to the line.  First, they're not all NJ Transit's lines.  The main track going into NYC is Amtrak's and they get first priority.  There's only so many trains that can travel on the line, and only so many terminals in Penn Station to use. 

Buses also have a finite limit. The buses that enter NYC have to stop somewhere to discharge and load passengers.  The Port Authority Bus Terminal has had issues with capacity problems in the past, and the terminal is going to be replaced soon which will probably temporarily reduce capacity.  The XBL heading into NYC has been bumper-to-bumper for decades.  Current bus usage is probably still down due to the Corona, but it's going to go up again as workers continue to return to the office. 

Before NJ Transit increased capacity, Amtrak allowed NJ Transit to utilize their trains, especially their 'Clockers' which departed about every hour (these trains don't exist anymore).  Amtrak may be willing to assist in that respect again, but there's no guarantee.

So, if the congestion pricing keeps people from driving, and they turn to mass transit instead, how much can the existing mass transit systems absorb?  Everyone cries "just use mass transit", but if there's no parking spaces at the stations, and people are standing in the aisles for an hour or more, that's not exactly a winning solution to the problem.

[RoadRage2023]

Yep, buses are already crammed like sardines. What next, people riding on the roof? Not to mention the average bus speeds in the city are so slow that I've outpaced MTA buses walking, for up to 2 miles. I'd rather walk a long distance than stand up uncomfortably being jostled around going the same speed.

[kalvado]

Yep, buses are already crammed like sardines. What next, people riding on the roof? Not to mention the average bus speeds in the city are so slow that I've outpaced MTA buses walking, for up to 2 miles. I'd rather walk a long distance than stand up uncomfortably being jostled around going the same speed.

That's exactly the problem congestion pricing aims at. Less traffic - faster moving buses - more trips per bus - fewer passengers in a bus.

[jeffandnicole]

Yep, buses are already crammed like sardines. What next, people riding on the roof? Not to mention the average bus speeds in the city are so slow that I've outpaced MTA buses walking, for up to 2 miles. I'd rather walk a long distance than stand up uncomfortably being jostled around going the same speed.

That's exactly the problem congestion pricing aims at. Less traffic - faster moving buses - more trips per bus - fewer passengers in a bus.

While he's referring to intracity, yes that certainly will help speed up buses. 

Intercity (well, inter-state), that's what I was referring to.  I'm not sure how the city and region is currently doing regarding bus capacity.  There may be room here.  I'm also not sure what the goal of the congestion pricing is - are they trying to reduce traffic by 75%? 50%? 25%?  Or do they believe most traffic will continue to come in, maximizing their revenue and minimizing  faster MTA buses?  Do they switch to a variable pricing model, a la 95 and 66 in VA?  Every percent increase/decrease will have an impact on other services. 

Or will 1 or more companies ultimately say, why are we putting up with this BS - already over half our employees live in NJ - we can just move the offices to Jersey City or Newark and work in one of their new office towers there, and NYers can take the PATH or NJ Transit.

[hotdogPi]

A 5% decrease in vehicles per hour is more than a 5% reduction in time lost due to congestion.

[Duke87]

Duke yes I know you could probably just take the Lincoln tunnel and the turnpike. But even $65 would still be a good $1,300-$1,400 a month in fees. EZ pass may knock this down to $1,000, but that's still insane per month

And an NJ Transit monthly pass from Elizabeth to Penn Station is $210.

This is why any sane person commuting to Manhattan takes the train.

Well part of the reason for that might be the risk of losing a literal arm of leg if someone pushes you onto the subway tracks or shoots you.

If you're concerned about your safety, the train is the better option. You're more likely to die in a car crash.

It's not like people who live in Manhattan are going to park their cars in Staten Island.

78% of Manhattan households own zero cars. Sit down.

[RoadRage2023]

How much traffic do they really think they are going to reduce with this plan? What about commuting points trains do not serve?

With the current gridlock in NYC you aren't more likely to die in a car crash. There just isn't enough room to build up any speed for that to happen.

[kalvado]

How much traffic do they really think they are going to reduce with this plan? What about commuting points trains do not serve?

With the current gridlock in NYC you aren't more likely to die in a car crash. There just isn't enough room to build up any speed for that to happen.

So is there any solution you would support?
Yes, big cities have downtowns running well over capacity they were planned for. There are couple of layers of solutions already  implemented, but it's never enough.
Pure whining isn't helping. I certainly understand your frustration, but the only personal advice available is to move elsewhere if things are so unbearable.

[RoadRage2023]

That's why I went looking for a forum on these topics, to see what other people thought the solutions would be. Highways in the city need to be widened signifantly to accommodate the volume.

[kalvado]

That's why I went looking for a forum on these topics, to see what other people thought the solutions would be. Highways in the city need to be widened significantly to accommodate the volume.

Well, given the price of land and real estate in NYC that is highly unlikely. Modern trend is to prioritize walking, biking, and public transportation as the way to move around for daily life. Which isn't
That doesn't mean thoroughfares are not needed, especially since Long Island has minimal  access options other than through NYC proper, often through Manhattan or Staten island.
But reducing car access to lower Manhattan doesn't seem as a very bad idea given all existing constrains. Even if more highways would go to that area, street grid and parking would still limit things.   

[RoadRage2023]

For example, if they do put I-278 in a tunnel, the existing highway should remain there to increase capacity. Maybe an expressway across Brooklyn would help, but there isn't even enough room for many surface streets, let alone new highways. It's amazing how they managed to squeeze the highways they did in here, like the Jackie-Robinson parkway or the FDR.

[kalvado]

For example, if they do put I-278 in a tunnel, the existing highway should remain there to increase capacity. Maybe an expressway across Brooklyn would help, but there isn't even enough room for many surface streets, let alone new highways. It's amazing how they managed to squeeze the highways they did in here, like the Jackie-Robinson parkway or the FDR.

Well, you certainly understand the situation. 
So, may I repeat - if it is so unbearable for you, consider moving out of NYC area...

[MikeTheActuary]

Or will 1 or more companies ultimately say, why are we putting up with this BS - already over half our employees live in NJ - we can just move the offices to Jersey City or Newark and work in one of their new office towers there, and NYers can take the PATH or NJ Transit.

I had hopes that employers would have learned from pandemic lockdowns that they don't need their workers in the office 40 hours a week....or even 40 hours a month.

A permanent change in that regard would have gone a long way towards addressing some of NYC's gridlock, both from the reduced commuting as well as some people moving to more affordable locations.

[jeffandnicole]

Or will 1 or more companies ultimately say, why are we putting up with this BS - already over half our employees live in NJ - we can just move the offices to Jersey City or Newark and work in one of their new office towers there, and NYers can take the PATH or NJ Transit.

I had hopes that employers would have learned from pandemic lockdowns that they don't need their workers in the office 40 hours a week....or even 40 hours a month.

A permanent change in that regard would have gone a long way towards addressing some of NYC's gridlock, both from the reduced commuting as well as some people moving to more affordable locations.

But this also means that office vacancy skyrockets, local businesses that depend on office workers shut down, which means a lot more vacant storefronts, which means unemployment for people not working in offices goes up.  It's a Catch-22.

And for every good employee that works at home, often putting in more time than if they did in the office, there's other employees that if you called them (and they actually answered) you'll hear seagulls in the background or the intercom system requesting a cleanup on aisle 7.  They're the ones that ruin it for the rest of us that truly work at home.

[kalvado]

Or will 1 or more companies ultimately say, why are we putting up with this BS - already over half our employees live in NJ - we can just move the offices to Jersey City or Newark and work in one of their new office towers there, and NYers can take the PATH or NJ Transit.

I had hopes that employers would have learned from pandemic lockdowns that they don't need their workers in the office 40 hours a week....or even 40 hours a month.

A permanent change in that regard would have gone a long way towards addressing some of NYC's gridlock, both from the reduced commuting as well as some people moving to more affordable locations.

But this also means that office vacancy skyrockets, local businesses that depend on office workers shut down, which means a lot more vacant storefronts, which means unemployment for people not working in offices goes up.  It's a Catch-22.

And for every good employee that works at home, often putting in more time than if they did in the office, there's other employees that if you called them (and they actually answered) you'll hear seagulls in the background or the intercom system requesting a cleanup on aisle 7.  They're the ones that ruin it for the rest of us that truly work at home.

WFH is a huge can of worms yet to be sorted. I would not bet on how things would settle in a decade or so

[RoadRage2023]

I'm confused as to how the 60th street perimeter is going to work. Is it that anyone who enters Manhattan from a bridge/tunnel which lands them below 60th street has to pay? Or will someone who is already in Manhattan that goes from 70th to 50th street has to pay? I find it ridiculous that someone who makes a wrong turn or misses a turn near 60th street may get hit with a $10 or $20 fee. I haven't been able to find clarification online about this.

Also how much traffic will this really reduce if drivers who don't enter/exit the zone don't have to pay anything? People who already live within the toll zone and only drive around within it can do so for free. This is only charging drivers for passing through.

[Rothman]

I'm confused as to how the 60th street perimeter is going to work. Is it that anyone who enters Manhattan from a bridge/tunnel which lands them below 60th street has to pay? Or will someone who is already in Manhattan that goes from 70th to 50th street has to pay? I find it ridiculous that someone who makes a wrong turn or misses a turn near 60th street may get hit with a $10 or $20 fee. I haven't been able to find clarification online about this.

You cross the line, you pay.

[Plutonic Panda]

I really hope we see a post in this thread that announces a reversal on this stupid project.

[US 89]

I'm confused as to how the 60th street perimeter is going to work. Is it that anyone who enters Manhattan from a bridge/tunnel which lands them below 60th street has to pay? Or will someone who is already in Manhattan that goes from 70th to 50th street has to pay? I find it ridiculous that someone who makes a wrong turn or misses a turn near 60th street may get hit with a $10 or $20 fee. I haven't been able to find clarification online about this.

You cross the line, you pay.

59th would probably be a better northern boundary given it is a fairly significant cross-island street and the southern boundary of Central Park, but of course one more block north will get everyone driving across the Queensboro Bridge...

[Duke87]

59th would probably be a better northern boundary given it is a fairly significant cross-island street and the southern boundary of Central Park, but of course one more block north will get everyone driving across the Queensboro Bridge...

The funny thing is it actually doesn't. The Manhattan-Bound upper roadway touches down between 61st and 62nd, and if you look at the proposed gantry locations there won't be one there. So it will still be possible to shunpike the Triboro toll from Queens by using the Queensboro Bridge, but only westbound and only using the upper level.

[RoadRage2023]

Will congestion pricing be all of Manhattan south of 60th street? Down to battery park? Or is there a southern limit too? I read online the FDR and West Side Parkway will be exempt, but how will this affect entering those roads? I'm from Brooklyn, so if I cross the Brooklyn Bridge and immediately get on the FDR entrance ramp, will there be cameras immediately after the bridge? In that case you'd still get hit with the toll even for the FDR.