4 ms·

I just recently learned about this. It's unbelievable. How can anyone defend a $15 toll? I'm glad I don't have any business in NYC.

matchbok 9y ago
The millions of people who do live in NYC thank you. The toll is working as expected.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  So you'd rather have less people spend money at your establishments and visit tourist destinations (which is surely more than $15 spent per trip per vehicle). Whatever you say. Why not go full enclave and get rid of all bridges and tunnels in and out?
  - freehunter 9y ago
    If New York was hurting for tourists and customers, they'd lower the toll. The defense for what people are calling "indefensible" is that enough people pay the toll that traffic is still a nightmare. If it was indefensible, no one would pay it.
  - jimktrains2 9y ago
    NYC isn't exactly hurting in terms of the number of people there or foot traffic.
  - IkmoIkmo 9y ago
    As I understand it, public transport is a viable (toll-free) alternative for (less-affluent) locals. Such that this toll primarily targets the more affluent class and tourists. Given there are limits to capacity for tourists, driving up costs increases revenue per unit of capacity and as it's limited, that's probably a good choice. Not dissimilar to raising prices if you're selling 100% of your production/inventory. It's probably a pretty good deal for the average new yorker.
bryanlarsen 9y ago
It's unbelievable. How can anyone justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a bridge or a tunnel just for car usage when many New Yorkers don't even own a car? That's tens of thousands of dollars per resident. I'm glad I don't live in NYC.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  Those tunnels are also used by buses and taxis, aren't they?
beisner 9y ago
Because cars in Manhattan are a blight on livability and safety. There are only a handful of reasons to legitimately have a car in Manhattan; off the top of my head: moving large items, transporting those with mobility issues, getting from specific subway dead zones to other parts, and leaving manhattan altogether. There is an enormous (albeit overloaded and dilapidated) public transit infrastructure allowing people to both move throughout the city and come into the city from basically anywhere in the tri state area. And even if direct transit options into the city aren’t spectacular, you can drive to any of the thousands of park-and-ride locations on the cheap and take public transit from there. There are legitimate life circumstances that necessitate driving around manhattan, and I would be more than happy to exempt those from congestion pricing. And I have no problem with Taxis and buses and delivery vans operating, as they have high utilization. But private cars cause so many problems in manhattan, including danger to pedestrians (which make up the bulk of people in the city at any given time), noise pollution, air pollution, and inefficiency for legitimate ground transport/logistics, that I have no problem disincentivizing the use of them in Manhattan with large tolls. There’s a certain hubris required to be the only occupant in a vehicle in manhattan when the public transit infrastructure is so expansive and affordable. And don’t even get me started on all the wasted space dedicated to parking that could be used for public space, business, bicycle lanes, etc...
- nogridbag 9y ago
  Everyone keeps talking about Manhattan, but the GWB bridge serves more than Manhattan. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I would guess the vast amount of traffic over the bridge serves commuters between Jersey and the other boroughs.
  - beisner 9y ago
    I'd actually wager that the vast majority of people commuting in from Jersey work in Manhattan, rather than the other boroughs. I grew up in central Jersey, and everyone I knew who commuted in on NJ Transit (along the Northeast Corridor line) were commuting into Manhattan. If you worked in Queens or Brooklyn, you'd live somewhere on Long Island. If you worked in the Bronx, you'd live in Westchester (or north). Some fraction of people have longer commutes, but my guess is that it would be a tiny one. You are correct, the GWB serves a diverse set of areas (I only take the GWB to get from Jersey to Westchester), but it's not the only means by which cars get into NYC. Regarding why everyone talks about Manhattan, it's because it's where a huge fraction of people in NYC live and work. While there are only 1.6 million permanent residents of Manhattan, the population during the day swells to around 4 million due to commuters and visitors. The outer boroughs, while busy in their own right, operate on a completely different scale (population actually decreases during the day), because they're so spread out.
rthomas6 9y ago
They can defend it by having good enough public transportation to not need a car in Manhattan. Unless you're carrying something large/heavy, there's no reason to go to Manhattan via car. It's something we Americans aren't used to and don't think about, but basing cities around cars instead of people is a bad idea. In NYC, it's often faster to take the subway instead of drive.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  Was Manhattan "based around cars"? I don't know the specifics but I thought NYC mostly just grew from its roots from a time quite a while before cars. I imagine a city truly based around cars could be made to have much less congestion while still accommodating walkers/bicyclists. More lanes between buildings, with sidewalks replaced by pedestrian bridges so traffic flows with less obstruction, for example. Less intersections and more straight stretches.
  - rthomas6 9y ago
    No, Manhattan was not based around cars, and that's a good thing. It's what allows for such high population density, and so many unique neighborhoods. Allowing so many people to live comfortably and efficiently in its limited space is what give Manhattan many of its most sought-after features: The food, the diversity, the infrastructure, the walkability. We shouldn't design for cars and accommodate for pedestrians, we should design for pedestrians and accommodate for cars. There are many cities based around cars exactly as you describe. They're okay, and there are great places in them that you can drive. But it sort of necessitates driving. In these cities, it's harder to just walk out of your apartment and get groceries, or eat at a restaurant, or watch a movie, or go to a pub, because things are much farther away, because of the scale of roads and parking needed for fast car transportation. And that, in turn, decreases population density, increases isolation, and destroys any sense of a neighborhood. It make far, far, far more sense to make places easy to walk to first, and worry about cars second. I don't think you realize what NYC would be giving up if it were designed the way you suggest. Less intersections and faster traffic + all the parking needed would mean less people, less shops, and most of all less culture. Those roads have to go somewhere. It doesn't matter how many pedestrian bridges you build, designing things around cars means that you need to design everything at the scale of cars. Imagining Manhattan designed around cars and every attraction having individual parking so people can drive there is a nightmare scenario. Times Square: Gone. Street food on every corner: Gone. Small niche shops and restaurants: gone. Because people couldn't walk there easily anymore. Look at these two satellite images [0]. One is downtown Florence, Italy. The other is an interstate interchange in Atlanta. These two images are at the same scale. Which makes more sense? Which would you rather live in? How much does it matter that driving is hard in the first picture? [0]: https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2014/06/sprawl.jpg.662x0_q70_crop-scale.jpg https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2014/06/sprawl.jp...
Nav_Panel 9y ago
> How can anyone defend a $15 toll? Lots of downvotes but this is actually a decent question. Why is the toll so high, and why don't east river bridges have tolls at all? The answer has to do with the bridge construction process and ownership. The George Washington bridge was built by a "public authority": The Port Authority of NY & NJ. As explained in Robert Caro's The Power Broker, the concept of a public authority was to allow a public entity to issue bonds for and manage the construction of a particular project, such as a bridge, with intent to turn the project over to the city once paid off. Other bridges were constructed via authorities that are now owned by the city, and the city chooses not to toll them. Robert Moses, master governmental hacker of New York State, manipulated the concept of the authority by "renewing" bond issues the year before they expire, giving a single authority (in his case, the Triborough Bridge Authority) large amounts of money, which he then used to complete more public works projects, which could issue more bonds, and so on. The result is that this authority never dissolved, the works were never handed over to the city, and the tolls remain high, basically subsidizing the authority's other projects. He effectively created a public body with huge amounts of money that he could spend however he pleased, resulting in travesties like the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. The Port Authority of NY & NJ, who collects the extortionate $15 toll on the GW Bridge, runs every bridge between NY and NJ, every airport, the PATH train, the airport Airtrains, and One World Trade Center, among other investments. Effectively, the extremely high GW bridge tolls are subsidizing the PA of NY/NJ's massive losing bet on 1 WTC. And that's why it costs $15.

matchbok 9y ago

The millions of people who do live in NYC thank you. The toll is working as expected.

jimmaswell 9y ago
So you'd rather have less people spend money at your establishments and visit tourist destinations (which is surely more than $15 spent per trip per vehicle). Whatever you say. Why not go full enclave and get rid of all bridges and tunnels in and out?
- freehunter 9y ago
  If New York was hurting for tourists and customers, they'd lower the toll. The defense for what people are calling "indefensible" is that enough people pay the toll that traffic is still a nightmare. If it was indefensible, no one would pay it.
- jimktrains2 9y ago
  NYC isn't exactly hurting in terms of the number of people there or foot traffic.
- IkmoIkmo 9y ago
  As I understand it, public transport is a viable (toll-free) alternative for (less-affluent) locals. Such that this toll primarily targets the more affluent class and tourists. Given there are limits to capacity for tourists, driving up costs increases revenue per unit of capacity and as it's limited, that's probably a good choice. Not dissimilar to raising prices if you're selling 100% of your production/inventory. It's probably a pretty good deal for the average new yorker.

bryanlarsen 9y ago

It's unbelievable. How can anyone justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars on a bridge or a tunnel just for car usage when many New Yorkers don't even own a car? That's tens of thousands of dollars per resident. I'm glad I don't live in NYC.

jimmaswell 9y ago
Those tunnels are also used by buses and taxis, aren't they?

beisner 9y ago

Because cars in Manhattan are a blight on livability and safety. There are only a handful of reasons to legitimately have a car in Manhattan; off the top of my head: moving large items, transporting those with mobility issues, getting from specific subway dead zones to other parts, and leaving manhattan altogether. There is an enormous (albeit overloaded and dilapidated) public transit infrastructure allowing people to both move throughout the city and come into the city from basically anywhere in the tri state area. And even if direct transit options into the city aren’t spectacular, you can drive to any of the thousands of park-and-ride locations on the cheap and take public transit from there. There are legitimate life circumstances that necessitate driving around manhattan, and I would be more than happy to exempt those from congestion pricing. And I have no problem with Taxis and buses and delivery vans operating, as they have high utilization. But private cars cause so many problems in manhattan, including danger to pedestrians (which make up the bulk of people in the city at any given time), noise pollution, air pollution, and inefficiency for legitimate ground transport/logistics, that I have no problem disincentivizing the use of them in Manhattan with large tolls. There’s a certain hubris required to be the only occupant in a vehicle in manhattan when the public transit infrastructure is so expansive and affordable. And don’t even get me started on all the wasted space dedicated to parking that could be used for public space, business, bicycle lanes, etc...

nogridbag 9y ago
Everyone keeps talking about Manhattan, but the GWB bridge serves more than Manhattan. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I would guess the vast amount of traffic over the bridge serves commuters between Jersey and the other boroughs.
- beisner 9y ago
  I'd actually wager that the vast majority of people commuting in from Jersey work in Manhattan, rather than the other boroughs. I grew up in central Jersey, and everyone I knew who commuted in on NJ Transit (along the Northeast Corridor line) were commuting into Manhattan. If you worked in Queens or Brooklyn, you'd live somewhere on Long Island. If you worked in the Bronx, you'd live in Westchester (or north). Some fraction of people have longer commutes, but my guess is that it would be a tiny one. You are correct, the GWB serves a diverse set of areas (I only take the GWB to get from Jersey to Westchester), but it's not the only means by which cars get into NYC. Regarding why everyone talks about Manhattan, it's because it's where a huge fraction of people in NYC live and work. While there are only 1.6 million permanent residents of Manhattan, the population during the day swells to around 4 million due to commuters and visitors. The outer boroughs, while busy in their own right, operate on a completely different scale (population actually decreases during the day), because they're so spread out.

rthomas6 9y ago

They can defend it by having good enough public transportation to not need a car in Manhattan. Unless you're carrying something large/heavy, there's no reason to go to Manhattan via car. It's something we Americans aren't used to and don't think about, but basing cities around cars instead of people is a bad idea. In NYC, it's often faster to take the subway instead of drive.

jimmaswell 9y ago
Was Manhattan "based around cars"? I don't know the specifics but I thought NYC mostly just grew from its roots from a time quite a while before cars. I imagine a city truly based around cars could be made to have much less congestion while still accommodating walkers/bicyclists. More lanes between buildings, with sidewalks replaced by pedestrian bridges so traffic flows with less obstruction, for example. Less intersections and more straight stretches.
- rthomas6 9y ago
  No, Manhattan was not based around cars, and that's a good thing. It's what allows for such high population density, and so many unique neighborhoods. Allowing so many people to live comfortably and efficiently in its limited space is what give Manhattan many of its most sought-after features: The food, the diversity, the infrastructure, the walkability. We shouldn't design for cars and accommodate for pedestrians, we should design for pedestrians and accommodate for cars. There are many cities based around cars exactly as you describe. They're okay, and there are great places in them that you can drive. But it sort of necessitates driving. In these cities, it's harder to just walk out of your apartment and get groceries, or eat at a restaurant, or watch a movie, or go to a pub, because things are much farther away, because of the scale of roads and parking needed for fast car transportation. And that, in turn, decreases population density, increases isolation, and destroys any sense of a neighborhood. It make far, far, far more sense to make places easy to walk to first, and worry about cars second. I don't think you realize what NYC would be giving up if it were designed the way you suggest. Less intersections and faster traffic + all the parking needed would mean less people, less shops, and most of all less culture. Those roads have to go somewhere. It doesn't matter how many pedestrian bridges you build, designing things around cars means that you need to design everything at the scale of cars. Imagining Manhattan designed around cars and every attraction having individual parking so people can drive there is a nightmare scenario. Times Square: Gone. Street food on every corner: Gone. Small niche shops and restaurants: gone. Because people couldn't walk there easily anymore. Look at these two satellite images [0]. One is downtown Florence, Italy. The other is an interstate interchange in Atlanta. These two images are at the same scale. Which makes more sense? Which would you rather live in? How much does it matter that driving is hard in the first picture? [0]: https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2014/06/sprawl.jpg.662x0_q70_crop-scale.jpg https://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2014/06/sprawl.jp...

Nav_Panel 9y ago

> How can anyone defend a $15 toll? Lots of downvotes but this is actually a decent question. Why is the toll so high, and why don't east river bridges have tolls at all? The answer has to do with the bridge construction process and ownership. The George Washington bridge was built by a "public authority": The Port Authority of NY & NJ. As explained in Robert Caro's The Power Broker, the concept of a public authority was to allow a public entity to issue bonds for and manage the construction of a particular project, such as a bridge, with intent to turn the project over to the city once paid off. Other bridges were constructed via authorities that are now owned by the city, and the city chooses not to toll them. Robert Moses, master governmental hacker of New York State, manipulated the concept of the authority by "renewing" bond issues the year before they expire, giving a single authority (in his case, the Triborough Bridge Authority) large amounts of money, which he then used to complete more public works projects, which could issue more bonds, and so on. The result is that this authority never dissolved, the works were never handed over to the city, and the tolls remain high, basically subsidizing the authority's other projects. He effectively created a public body with huge amounts of money that he could spend however he pleased, resulting in travesties like the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway. The Port Authority of NY & NJ, who collects the extortionate $15 toll on the GW Bridge, runs every bridge between NY and NJ, every airport, the PATH train, the airport Airtrains, and One World Trade Center, among other investments. Effectively, the extremely high GW bridge tolls are subsidizing the PA of NY/NJ's massive losing bet on 1 WTC. And that's why it costs $15.