NYC Roads

[cpzilliacus]

Of course, the same anti-pricing arguments were used in Stockholm when they first introduced congestion pricing. Support was around 35% just before implementation. It had majority support almost immediately and increased to 70% by 2014. Plenty of papers backing that up and this is an area I do research in.

Of course, the same anti-pricing arguments were used in Stockholm when they first introduced a congestion tax.

FTFY. 

Swedish law does not allow congestion pricing or tolling.  But it does allow their version of the Internal Revenue Service (Skatteverket) to impose a congestion tax.

Otherwise, your statement is absolutely correct.

What you may not know is that the revenue collected is being used to build a long western bypass highway for route E4, called Förbifart Stockholm (Stockholm Bypass), which  will be about 21 kilometers (13 miles) in length.  Of the 21 kilometers, about 18 kilometers (about 11.1 miles) will be in tunnel.  This is similar in scale to what would be needed to get from the New Jersey Turnpike to Queens or Brooklyn in tunnel. More information can be found in English on the Swedish National Transportation Administration's Web site here (some of the content seems a little dated, as construction is now well under way).

The reduction in traffic doesn't have to be large for there to be major savings. Yes, research into this has been done but, as far as New York, I do not have actual numbers. The reality of the matter is that relatively few people need to drive to a destination in Manhattan unless they're making a delivery. And the congestion charge is a drop in the bucket relative to what parking in Manhattan actually costs.

Agree about reduction in traffic. 

But on the other hand, Steve has a valid point - is it fair to ask drivers going from points in North Jersey to places in Queens or Brooklyn (or east to Nassau or Suffolk Counties) to pay a congestion toll to cross the island of Manhattan?  That's not a trip that is especially easy or convenient by transit, as transit is very much oriented to Manhattan, not for "through" movements across the island.

As far as "but what if someone needs to go through Manhattan": proposals generally place Upper Manhattan outside of the cordon area and some reduce the charge for vehicles just passing from one of the tunnels to Long Island. Tolls outside the cordon area would be reduced.

The correct (but expensive) way is not to divert them (what are the two viable routes - I-95 via the GWB, Trans-Manhattan Expressway and (in some cases) the Cross-Bronx Expressway - or the I-278 corridor via Goethals, V-Z, Gowanus and so on (very congested)), but to revive the proposal by Robert Moses for Lower Manhattan Expressway (Lomex) as a set of bored tunnels, possibly with no access to Manhattan except for vent shafts.  That allows most traffic (presumably not HAZMATs) wanting to make the trip to do so without using the crowded streets of Manhattan.

[Rothman]

Forcing people onto public transit by increasing the cost of vehicular traffic has never set right with me.  Seems very myopic to living as a single.  Families need to run around picking things and other people up.  Public transit can be a horrible replacement.

I know NYC has grocery delivery and whatnot in more places than most, but the restriction on freedom through congestion pricing is intolerable to me.

[cpzilliacus]

Forcing people onto public transit by increasing the cost of vehicular traffic has never set right with me.  Seems very myopic to living as a single.  Families need to run around picking things and other people up.  Public transit can be a horrible replacement.

Though IMO pricing is better than the current "method," which  to allow road traffic congestion to be severe for many hours each day.

I know NYC has grocery delivery and whatnot in more places than most, but the restriction on freedom through congestion pricing is intolerable to me.

Given the alternative (which is leaving things as they are), I think pricing is a better way to go.  We would not have had MD-200 (of which I am a frequent user) without the road being priced.

[cl94]

There is no perfect solution here. But pricing certainly wins the cost-benefit analysis with minimal impacts to residents/businesses along major highway corridors. This might also pump some much-needed funding into commuter rail and subway improvements (like actually building 2 new tunnels under both the Hudson and East Rivers for Amtrak/NJ Transit and new signals on busy subway lines that allow for more trains).

I think we can all agree that the current situation cannot be sustained and expanding highway capacity is unrealistic for many reasons (most importantly lack of ROW). Expand park-and-rides at commuter rail stations, build a few on the subway, replace/expand the damn North River Tunnels so NJ Transit can send more trains into Penn, and finish East Side Access so LIRR can divert half their trains to Grand Central and greatly increase capacity there. Vehicle capacity in Manhattan is virtually impossible to increase at this point and, thanks to online shopping, UPS/FedEx are sending in more trucks than ever.

It is also worth mentioning that 76.6% of Manhattan households lack a vehicle (source). Nobody in the outer boroughs does shopping that requires a car in Manhattan.

If I were setting prices, I'd place a relatively low cost on cars/trucks and a VERY high per-hour cost on tour buses. IMO, those stupid things are the biggest problem with driving in Manhattan. Also place a surcharge on intra-Manhattan taxi trips (this could also encourage cab drivers to start servicing the outer boroughs), as virtually every trip you could take in Manhattan is no slower on transit.

[The Ghostbuster]

I believe congestion pricing in New York is long overdue. However, I would implement time-of-day congestion pricing. Charging one flat pricing fee wouldn't be enough. And all revenues from the congestion pricing plan would go to maintaining the roads that are priced (and reconstructing them when the time comes).

[vdeane]

If I were setting prices, I'd place a relatively low cost on cars/trucks and a VERY high per-hour cost on tour buses. IMO, those stupid things are the biggest problem with driving in Manhattan. Also place a surcharge on intra-Manhattan taxi trips (this could also encourage cab drivers to start servicing the outer boroughs), as virtually every trip you could take in Manhattan is no slower on transit.

Don't forget about Uber/Lyft, which has been a factor in congestion in recent years.  And could render your attempt to have intra-Manhattan trips take transit irrelevant.

[empirestate]

Of course, the same anti-pricing arguments were used in Stockholm when they first introduced congestion pricing. Support was around 35% just before implementation. It had majority support almost immediately and increased to 70% by 2014. Plenty of papers backing that up and this is an area I do research in.

Apologies if you thought I was making an argument against (or for) congestion pricing–I was literally just wondering what percentage of "people driving into Manhattan...could be taking the train." That phrase struck me as something difficult to quantify, yet surely it must've been looked at if it's an argument in favor of the plan.

Even without knowing the actual numbers, then, how would one go about establishing that number? How would you decide what constitutes "could have taken the train", and how would you pick out which drivers fit that category and which actually "need" to drive?

[J N Winkler]

Apologies if you thought I was making an argument against (or for) congestion pricing–I was literally just wondering what percentage of "people driving into Manhattan...could be taking the train." That phrase struck me as something difficult to quantify, yet surely it must've been looked at if it's an argument in favor of the plan.

Even without knowing the actual numbers, then, how would one go about establishing that number? How would you decide what constitutes "could have taken the train", and how would you pick out which drivers fit that category and which actually "need" to drive?

One method of coming up with numbers is to do a household survey.  It is inevitable that many assumptions would have to be made about the characteristics of trips that could be diverted to transit, but these qualifications would almost inevitably be stripped off when quoting the headline numbers in advocacy contexts.

I have my own reservations about congestion pricing, but Manhattan is no place to try to structure a day without feeling like a prisoner of congestion.

[mrsman]

I think congestion pricing would be very successful at reducing traffic overall and raising needed funds to pay for local roads and transit projects (both capital intensive projects like new tunnels and more mundane but useful projects like express buses to better serve the outer boroughs).  Since it is targeting crossing 60th street or crossing the East River, many people who make those trips could a) take a commuter train or a subway instead, b) take the trip at off-peak times, or c) bypass Manhattan altogether.

Let's look at some specific issues:

Right now, as most people familiar with the area know, the northbound Gowanus is bumper to bumper. The left two lanes lead to the toll [Hugh Carey] Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (BBT) (and traffic moves pretty well) and the right lanes towards the BQE are at a standstill.  Yet, a significant amount of the traffic on the BQE is actually headed toward the free Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, or Williamsburg Bridge crossings.  If the cost to cross into Manhattan at the BBT is the same as the bridges, then a lot of the traffic on the Gowanus will take the BBT instead of the bridges and relieve traffic on the BQE as well as the bridges.

Further, if the toll on the bridges and tunnels is equalized, we will see fewer people divert to take the free crossing and just take the most direct crossing.  This impacts a lot of surface street traffic, especially in Brooklyn and Queens.  The toll tunnels are largely connected to the expressway system and the bridges are largely connected to surface streets.  In Queens, especially, there is a significant amount of traffic that leaves the LIE to take the free Queensboro Bridge, even though a trip on the QMT is shorter.  If the toll is equalized, this traffic stays on the expressway.

For those who would have taken the free bridges and are now going to take a lower toll and bypass the CBD, the proposed scheme is also helpful.  All non-CBD crossings will now have a lower toll than before.*  So if you are going from Secaucus-Queens or Jersey City-Brooklyn you can drive through Manhattan local streets and pay a high toll or bypass (GWB/Triboro or via  Staten Island) at a reduced rate.  For those taking the direct routing, while they will pay more, they will also have the benefit of significantly less congestion through Manhattan.

* From what I understand, the ratio of tolls proposed will be locked in by legislation.  So if the new toll on the Triboro Bridge is $3 and the new toll on the Queensboro Bridge is $5, that 3 to 5 ratio will continue even as the toll increases over time.

[Rothman]

Pfft.  NYCDOT can't spend the FHWA funds it gets in any sort of reasonable amount of time.  More money?  Mo' problems!

(personal opinion expressed)

[Alps]

I think congestion pricing would be very successful at reducing traffic overall and raising needed funds to pay for local roads and transit projects (both capital intensive projects like new tunnels and more mundane but useful projects like express buses to better serve the outer boroughs).  Since it is targeting crossing 60th street or crossing the East River, many people who make those trips could a) take a commuter train or a subway instead, b) take the trip at off-peak times, or c) bypass Manhattan altogether.

Let's look at some specific issues:

Right now, as most people familiar with the area know, the northbound Gowanus is bumper to bumper. The left two lanes lead to the toll [Hugh Carey] Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (BBT) (and traffic moves pretty well) and the right lanes towards the BQE are at a standstill.  Yet, a significant amount of the traffic on the BQE is actually headed toward the free Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, or Williamsburg Bridge crossings.  If the cost to cross into Manhattan at the BBT is the same as the bridges, then a lot of the traffic on the Gowanus will take the BBT instead of the bridges and relieve traffic on the BQE as well as the bridges.

Further, if the toll on the bridges and tunnels is equalized, we will see fewer people divert to take the free crossing and just take the most direct crossing.  This impacts a lot of surface street traffic, especially in Brooklyn and Queens.  The toll tunnels are largely connected to the expressway system and the bridges are largely connected to surface streets.  In Queens, especially, there is a significant amount of traffic that leaves the LIE to take the free Queensboro Bridge, even though a trip on the QMT is shorter.  If the toll is equalized, this traffic stays on the expressway.

For those who would have taken the free bridges and are now going to take a lower toll and bypass the CBD, the proposed scheme is also helpful.  All non-CBD crossings will now have a lower toll than before.*  So if you are going from Secaucus-Queens or Jersey City-Brooklyn you can drive through Manhattan local streets and pay a high toll or bypass (GWB/Triboro or via  Staten Island) at a reduced rate.  For those taking the direct routing, while they will pay more, they will also have the benefit of significantly less congestion through Manhattan.

* From what I understand, the ratio of tolls proposed will be locked in by legislation.  So if the new toll on the Triboro Bridge is $3 and the new toll on the Queensboro Bridge is $5, that 3 to 5 ratio will continue even as the toll increases over time.

You're equating congestion pricing with bridge tolls. Two separate issues. If NY "sells" its free bridges to the MTA for tolling, that is not a congestion charge. It seems that it has a decent chance of actually happening now that MTA has gone all-electronic, at least as far north as the Queensboro.

[mrsman]

I think congestion pricing would be very successful at reducing traffic overall and raising needed funds to pay for local roads and transit projects (both capital intensive projects like new tunnels and more mundane but useful projects like express buses to better serve the outer boroughs).  Since it is targeting crossing 60th street or crossing the East River, many people who make those trips could a) take a commuter train or a subway instead, b) take the trip at off-peak times, or c) bypass Manhattan altogether.

Let's look at some specific issues:

Right now, as most people familiar with the area know, the northbound Gowanus is bumper to bumper. The left two lanes lead to the toll [Hugh Carey] Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (BBT) (and traffic moves pretty well) and the right lanes towards the BQE are at a standstill.  Yet, a significant amount of the traffic on the BQE is actually headed toward the free Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge, or Williamsburg Bridge crossings.  If the cost to cross into Manhattan at the BBT is the same as the bridges, then a lot of the traffic on the Gowanus will take the BBT instead of the bridges and relieve traffic on the BQE as well as the bridges.

Further, if the toll on the bridges and tunnels is equalized, we will see fewer people divert to take the free crossing and just take the most direct crossing.  This impacts a lot of surface street traffic, especially in Brooklyn and Queens.  The toll tunnels are largely connected to the expressway system and the bridges are largely connected to surface streets.  In Queens, especially, there is a significant amount of traffic that leaves the LIE to take the free Queensboro Bridge, even though a trip on the QMT is shorter.  If the toll is equalized, this traffic stays on the expressway.

For those who would have taken the free bridges and are now going to take a lower toll and bypass the CBD, the proposed scheme is also helpful.  All non-CBD crossings will now have a lower toll than before.*  So if you are going from Secaucus-Queens or Jersey City-Brooklyn you can drive through Manhattan local streets and pay a high toll or bypass (GWB/Triboro or via  Staten Island) at a reduced rate.  For those taking the direct routing, while they will pay more, they will also have the benefit of significantly less congestion through Manhattan.

* From what I understand, the ratio of tolls proposed will be locked in by legislation.  So if the new toll on the Triboro Bridge is $3 and the new toll on the Queensboro Bridge is $5, that 3 to 5 ratio will continue even as the toll increases over time.

You're equating congestion pricing with bridge tolls. Two separate issues. If NY "sells" its free bridges to the MTA for tolling, that is not a congestion charge. It seems that it has a decent chance of actually happening now that MTA has gone all-electronic, at least as far north as the Queensboro.

From what I understand, the MoveNY plan implements a toll that does not change based on time of day or congestion on the ground.  Tolls on the QB, BB, MB, and WB will match the tolls on the QMT and the BBT.  Tolls that do not head to the CBD (Throgs Neck, Whitestone, Triboro) will be reduced by a specific ratio.  Crossing 60th street will incur a toll that is simialr to the toll on the East River bridges.

A true variable toll would be amazing - tolls would raise or fall based on actual traffic levels. I don't believe such a thing will ever get passed in NYC for existing infrastructure (but there may be support for express lanes that take over underutilized HOV lanes

[mrsman]

I'm not a fan of the bus lanes on the main crosstown streets like 23rd and 34th.

Take a look at this picture of 23rd looking eastbound, between 7th and 8th.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7449239,-73.9975664,3a,75y,134.1h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCL5cNRUotKR7ZCbPuCnCRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Westbound, there are two lanes.  A bus lane along the curb and another lane.  The bus lane is not 24 hours and cars/trucks frequently block the lane to drop off passengers and make deliveries.  Eastbound, there are three lanes: general traffic, buses, parking.

What really bothers me is the orientation of the street.  If you look at an older image (or look carefully on the current image to where the paint lines used to be) you will see that the street used to be 2 lanes in each direction and parking on both sides.  Each general lane was wide enough for most trucks and buses.  Why is it that the addition of bus lanes caused the street to lose a whole lane for traffic.  It would have been a lot better if the street were kept at 6 lanes with 1 general lane, 1 bus lane, and 1 parking lane in each direction.  THe parking regulations should be adjusted to make sure there are plenty of loading zones, to avoid double parking in the bus lane.

[Hurricane Rex]

I'm not a fan of the bus lanes on the main crosstown streets like 23rd and 34th.

Take a look at this picture of 23rd looking eastbound, between 7th and 8th.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7449239,-73.9975664,3a,75y,134.1h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCL5cNRUotKR7ZCbPuCnCRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Westbound, there are two lanes.  A bus lane along the curb and another lane.  The bus lane is not 24 hours and cars/trucks frequently block the lane to drop off passengers and make deliveries.  Eastbound, there are three lanes: general traffic, buses, parking.

What really bothers me is the orientation of the street.  If you look at an older image (or look carefully on the current image to where the paint lines used to be) you will see that the street used to be 2 lanes in each direction and parking on both sides.  Each general lane was wide enough for most trucks and buses.  Why is it that the addition of bus lanes caused the street to lose a whole lane for traffic.  It would have been a lot better if the street were kept at 6 lanes with 1 general lane, 1 bus lane, and 1 parking lane in each direction.  THe parking regulations should be adjusted to make sure there are plenty of loading zones, to avoid double parking in the bus lane.

Sounds a lot like what Portland is doing for their MAX lines and bus mall. For whatever reason, city planners are giving extra lane space for these busses therefore dropping the amount of total lines and occasionally parking spots.

If this is out of place, I apologize, I'm just trying to compare and relate it to something else to make a little more sense out of it.

[mrsman]

I'm not a fan of the bus lanes on the main crosstown streets like 23rd and 34th.

Take a look at this picture of 23rd looking eastbound, between 7th and 8th.

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.7449239,-73.9975664,3a,75y,134.1h,86.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCL5cNRUotKR7ZCbPuCnCRA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Westbound, there are two lanes.  A bus lane along the curb and another lane.  The bus lane is not 24 hours and cars/trucks frequently block the lane to drop off passengers and make deliveries.  Eastbound, there are three lanes: general traffic, buses, parking.

What really bothers me is the orientation of the street.  If you look at an older image (or look carefully on the current image to where the paint lines used to be) you will see that the street used to be 2 lanes in each direction and parking on both sides.  Each general lane was wide enough for most trucks and buses.  Why is it that the addition of bus lanes caused the street to lose a whole lane for traffic.  It would have been a lot better if the street were kept at 6 lanes with 1 general lane, 1 bus lane, and 1 parking lane in each direction.  THe parking regulations should be adjusted to make sure there are plenty of loading zones, to avoid double parking in the bus lane.

Sounds a lot like what Portland is doing for their MAX lines and bus mall. For whatever reason, city planners are giving extra lane space for these busses therefore dropping the amount of total lines and occasionally parking spots.

If this is out of place, I apologize, I'm just trying to compare and relate it to something else to make a little more sense out of it.

I think your comment is on point.  It is clearly a case of following design standards blindly without thought as to whether something else can work.  Basically nycdot is telling the car driving public that you must sacrifice 3 lanes for buses.  That doesn't seem practical or reasonable.

[Duke87]

What really bothers me is the orientation of the street.  If you look at an older image (or look carefully on the current image to where the paint lines used to be) you will see that the street used to be 2 lanes in each direction and parking on both sides.  Each general lane was wide enough for most trucks and buses.

Ehhh... It was striped as 2 lanes each way but it wasn't really wide enough for it. An example of said older imagery. Note how traffic is driving single file despite the striping. And it's easy to see why - could you fit your car in that right lane around that parked truck?

[D-Dey65]

What also should happen once work is finished is that the onramp from Harding Ave should be open 24/7, since the reason for closing it rush hours and weekends in the first place (prevent people from driving through the neighborhood to jump the queue at the toll plaza) will no longer exist.

I decided to check out this area on Google Street View, since I've only seen it from the end of the Cross Bronx. What I found is when you don't use the Harding Avenue on-ramp and turn right onto Longstreet Avenue, it briefly ends for one block between Chaffee Avenue and Hatting Place, and between Hatting and Glennon Places becomes... (Brace Yourself).. A DIRT ROAD!!!!

The Whitestone is slated to be converted to all electronic tolling in October.

I waived at the toll camera gantry as I passed under it in November. I'm still waiting for the bill from this.

[Alps]

The Whitestone is slated to be converted to all electronic tolling in October.

I waived at the toll camera gantry as I passed under it in November. I'm still waiting for the bill from this.

Aren't you from NJ? I could be misremembering because you don't post your location. MTA may not have reciprocity with a lot of states - they may have focused on the closest few contributing the most traffic to their bridges.


Edit: Appears you were once from the NY metro area but now live well to the south of here, so yeah, that's probably why.

[D-Dey65]

When my mother an I drove up in September, she got a bill a couple of months later. Judging by that I should be getting mine this month, even with the snow delays.

Funny that you should associate me with New Jersey, though. I've heard people claim I have a New Jersey accent despite being raised on Long Island.

I could never figure that out.

[cpzilliacus]

N.Y. Times op-ed: How to Get New York Moving Again

The next time you're in Midtown Manhattan on a weekday afternoon, I encourage you to try a little game: Take a brisk crosstown walk, and look around.

For starters, it's a nice way to take in the city while getting some exercise. It will also give you a sense for one of New York's pressing problems. If you watch the vehicles around you, you will probably notice that you are traveling faster than some of them.

Despite having internal combustion engines – which I'm pretty sure are more powerful than your body – the vehicles will crawl forward at a few miles an hour. Then they will stop and wait for a light to turn green or a gridlocked intersection to clear. Meanwhile, you will keep moving. When I'm walking across Manhattan, I often find that I can outrace a car.

The average vehicle speed in Midtown today is just 4.7 miles an hour. That's 28 percent slower than five years ago. Given that most people can walk up to 4 miles an hour, the human body is sometimes Manhattan's fastest mode of transportation.

[ixnay]

N.Y. Times op-ed: How to Get New York Moving Again

The next time you're in Midtown Manhattan on a weekday afternoon, I encourage you to try a little game: Take a brisk crosstown walk, and look around.

For starters, it's a nice way to take in the city while getting some exercise. It will also give you a sense for one of New York's pressing problems. If you watch the vehicles around you, you will probably notice that you are traveling faster than some of them.

Despite having internal combustion engines – which I'm pretty sure are more powerful than your body – the vehicles will crawl forward at a few miles an hour. Then they will stop and wait for a light to turn green or a gridlocked intersection to clear. Meanwhile, you will keep moving. When I'm walking across Manhattan, I often find that I can outrace a car.

The average vehicle speed in Midtown today is just 4.7 miles an hour. That's 28 percent slower than five years ago. Given that most people can walk up to 4 miles an hour, the human body is sometimes Manhattan's fastest mode of transportation.

I'd love to see the average speeds through central London before and after congestion pricing was implemented there.

ixnay

[empirestate]

I do an awful lot of crosstown walking, since I commute into Grand Central but almost always work somewhere on the West Side. And I never use the subway to make the trip–now granted, that's mainly because I don't want to pay another fare to get someplace I can walk to in 20 minutes. But it's also because I don't think I can get there any faster: by the time I navigate the corridors and concourses to the subway shuttle platform, add in dwell time, and the subsequent navigation out of Times Square station, and the remaining blocks' walk to my destination, I gain no time. (And if I'd have to take a connecting subway, forget it!)

[Alps]

http://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=1709698&GUID=9518C471-1983-4D22-82B5-15CE7EF4D9A4

177th Street replacing Cross Bronx Expressway frontages.
My question - where? Anywhere west of the Sheridan, I-95 is down by 175th St., so I assume it's east of there. Well, pretty much as soon as 177th and I-95 come together, the Bronx ceases to have a numbered street grid. That'll stick out like a sore thumb. Should have been named to blend into the other streets if that's what they were really after.

[Duke87]

Per the text of the act itself, it is (in less complex terms) between the Bronx River Pkwy and the Bruckner Interchange.

This is actually a revert to the street's original name - E. 177th St was extended eastward to Bruckner Blvd several decades before the Cross Bronx Expressway was built along the same alignment. And, of course, people kept referring to that stretch of road as E. 177th St even after the change.

Also note the name of a particular station on the IRT #6 train, which is directly over this section of the Cross Bronx: "Parkchester - E. 177th St". It was never renamed after the highway was built. With this change, that station's name and the street's name will match again.

Oh, and who says The Bronx has no numbered street grid east of there?

[MikeCL]

Hey I drive to Weehawken about 3 Times a week when going back into Manhattan how come the ezpass lane does not show if it read my pass or not but at the new Rochelle toll it does show