8 ms·
New York approves the first congestion toll in the US: $15 to enter Manhattan
- xenospn 3y agoSurprised it’s not $30 or higher.
- bitshiftfaced 3y agoStep one: get your foot in the door.
- 1letterunixname 3y agoLike carpool lanes, it's a rich people only tax sold with a bill of goods claiming benevolent reasons.
- shipscode 3y agoThis idiocy will only hurt the working class employees who drive in from the outerboros.
- thisgoesnowhere 3y agoWhat is your alternative?
- shipscode 3y agoStatus Quo seems to be working just fine?
- thisgoesnowhere 3y agoHave you ever been in rush hour traffic in NY? You cannot possibly have this opinion if you have.
- shipscode 3y agoYes lived, parked and drove in downtown NYC for 6 years. 4/5 people parking on the streets own or work in local businesses. Throwing a $350-$450/mo congestion tax their way is bs. They’re keeping the city running with their vehicles, not hurting it.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoMy alternative are things that, unfortunately, would never fly politically: 1) Regulate urban business density in coastal cities and cities more generally limited by water. 2) More multi-core metropolises where the highest <edit: business> density is either spread out entirely, or spread to multiple districts sufficiently far away from each other. Edit: The comment by hamandcheese showed I had forgotten this important modifier for point 2.
- lwansbrough 3y agoUrban sprawl is perhaps the most environmentally devastating behaviour that humans do.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoSuburban sprawl with manicured lawns is pretty bad, too. Fortunately there are cultural shifts away from that.
- lwansbrough 3y agoUrban sprawl generally refers to the development of suburbs outside cities. That’s what I was referring to.
- anonymouskimmer 3y agoI thought it was a more general term, and that suburbs were distinct. But it does appear that suburbs are considered a part of urban sprawl. Regardless, manicured lawns are an environmentally bad thing on their own. When you mentioned urban sprawl I first thought of expansion of the urban heat-island effect.
- lwansbrough 3y agoLawns are my least favourite part of America. They’re just so ugly.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- ChrisLTD 3y agoWorking class employees take the train.
- shipscode 3y agoGo hang out on any village street during street parking hours and tell them they aren’t working class to their face.
- lwansbrough 3y agoOh no, if only New York had the best transit system in the country.
- shipscode 3y agoWhich still doesn’t efficiently serve the outerboros? Why should they have to spend 2 hours in a train each way instead of 45 mins in a car?
- ceejayoz 3y agoThey don't. They have to decide if that extra 2.5 hours of life is worth $15.
- lwansbrough 3y agoThe billion dollars a year might help change that. Why should they have to? The case has already been made by the city.
- dbalatero 3y ago> There will also be discounts for low-incomes motorists (below $50,000 per year) who need the car to get around. However, as a 2022 study pointed out, most drivers who enter Manhattan have medium or high incomes, meaning only 4% of drivers will receive a discount I read this as "96% of drivers will be fine." Do you have other information to add here? Would be interested if so.
- shipscode 3y ago$50k in NYC is nothing. $350-$450 month in tolls is enough to break households that pull in way more than that.
- dbalatero 3y agoDoesn't car ownership in NYC break households, between massive parking costs, high insurance, gas, idling in traffic, plus normal maintenance? I'm curious where using a car actually becomes a better deal given the transit options here. I'm sure there's instances, but it's hard to envision. Living way on the edge of an outer borough but working in the middle of Manhattan?
- addicted 3y ago1. The overwhelming majority of outerboro working class people are not driving in NYC. Only about 30% of NYCers even own cars. 2. This only impacts a small part of Manhattan and for certain hours in the day. The only thing it does is encourages those who can move their travel away from peak hours to do so. This will greatly help all the people driving in as well. 3. This will greatly save many lives through reduced pollution and reduced car crashes. 4. This will help bus services etc which service far more working class people from the outer boros than private cars. 5. Congestion pricing has worked very well and been expanded everywhere it’s tried. There’s no evidence of it hurting working class people anywhere. And the parts of Manhattan this affects might be the most densely populated in terms of public transport.
- shipscode 3y ago1. Numbers are close enough to correct 2. This is no longer true, the plan is tolling individuals driving into that area 24 hours a day, and from 5AM-9PM at the full rate. 5. Just because Manhattan has public transit doesn’t mean they’re coming from a neighborhood with accessible public transit. Converting a short drive into a 2 hour each way trip is wrong no matter how poor the person.
- LargeTomato 3y agoSimple, don't drive to Manhattan. If you're truly working class you won't have a car anyway you'll be taking the excellent public transit infrastructure. They should jack the price to >$50. Anyone paying $8000/no for a 1bd in Manhattan can afford an extra 50*30=$1500 for the privilege of congesting everyone else's roads.
- wenc 3y agoYou're right about the majority of people who live in outer boroughs. But my mind went to one demographic in particular -- Halal food carts. Those folks usually live in Queens and they have to haul their carts into Manhattan (unless I'm wrong about that).
- avbanks 3y agoHow can the working class afford to park in NYC? A monthly subscription to a parking lot/garage is $400 + monthly.
- shipscode 3y agoThey street park for free which usually turns over between 9-11AM in all of the villages.
- thisgoesnowhere 3y agoGreat!
- Xeoncross 3y agoThe growth of fines, licenses and taxes in the USA is substantial over the last 100 years. Very few things do not require fees these days (even visiting public lands).
- LargeTomato 3y agoIncentives are powerful and scale. There are 2 kinds of people in the world, those who understand incentives and those who don't.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- joshuamcginnis 3y agoTrue and so too have the expectations of services from the public.
- Xeoncross 3y agoOnly a small portion of the total federal and state budgets go towards education, infrastructure (roads, transit and parks), and healthcare. There is plenty in the budget for public services, we don't use it for that though which is why we add new fines.
- JKCalhoun 3y agoIt seems we have dialed down corporate taxes and taxes on the extremely wealthy. In their place (because these things don't pay for themselves) we have shifted the tax burden elsewhere. If I don't go to National Parks why should my taxes pay for them? Make the visitors pay to enter. Seems to be where we are these days.
- Racing0461 3y agoJust like how lottery is supposed to increase funding for schools but the amount thay got brought in due to lottery was then subtracted from other sources so it was a wash. I'm assuming this is going to be the same thing unless it's earmarked for public transportation by law instead of going into a general fund. Just like gas tax and car tabs in other states that goes to "fixing the roads by people that use it the most".
- Freak_NL 3y agoCongestion charges are not primarily about money. The desired effect is discouraging people from driving there. The income is a nice side effect, but not the goal.
- Ekaros 3y agoIf it was about discouraging why not total ban of all non-emergency vehicles? Or maybe allow busses and trucks, but absolutely nothing else? That would solve problem much more effectively. Or maybe first come first serve system. If too many vehicles are inside border new ones have to wait until one leaves?
- Freak_NL 3y agoProbably because congestion charges are a proven system. You would have to ask the city of New York for their exact reasoning of course.
- nojito 3y agoIt goes directly to the MTA.
- alexchamberlain 3y agoIn London, we have a inner congestion zone, which is surrounded by a ultra low emission zone. The low emission zone only requires your car to be a few years old, though it has a bigger impact on vans and lorries.
- gafage 3y agoLow emission zones should be called instead "no poor people zones" which is what in practice they are.
- alexchamberlain 3y agoThat's not my experience in London tbh; you can get away with a 7 year old diesel car, for example. Also, this is being done where the public transport is second to none, so everyone has an option for local transport 20 hours or so a day.
- sixo 3y agoIt puts a cost on flexibility, optionality, that kind of thing, which tend to increase dramatically with wealth.
- morsch 3y agoFor the record, here are the requirements: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/cars?intcmp=52215 https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/car... Minimum emissions standards Petrol: Euro 4 (NOx) Diesel: Euro 6 (NOx and PM) Petrol cars that meet the ULEZ standards are generally those first registered as new with the DVLA after 2005, although cars that meet the standards have been available since 2001 Diesel cars that meet the standards are generally those first registered with the DVLA as new after September 2015
- throw__away7391 3y agoYou seem oblivious to the irony here—owning a car already puts you in the upper tier of wealth in the world. Talking about Manhattan specifically, this is already about the most expensive place in the world and the only place in the US with this scheme in place, adding more traffic isn’t going to change that so no point in using it as an example of anything. Plenty of countries that are not so car dependent have pedestrian zones in less affluent cities.
- pxeboot 3y agoThis seems like a great start, but unfortunately it will likely be so lucrative, it will make it even less politically acceptable to further reduce/ban cars in the future.
- lwansbrough 3y agoWhen the income pays for more transit and reduces transit times for buses, why would the public want to stop that trend?
- pxeboot 3y agoBecause cars/parking still take up far to much space in dense city centers, making them more loud, dirty and dangerous than they would be without (most) cars.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- shipscode 3y agoBecause the public by and large doesn’t enjoy public transit?
- ZoomerCretin 3y agoMost New Yorkers commute via public transit.
- sgjohnson 3y agoNot because they like it.
- lwansbrough 3y agoIt’s literally the only way to move that many people. What’s your point?
- temporaldebtor 3y agoAs someone who takes public transit into the city and has almost been hit by a car while walking - I support this. Driving comes with negative effects on others and capitalism only works when those externalities are paid by those creating them.
- kylehotchkiss 3y agoAhh New York, let me tell you how Californians get around this without needing a “fake plate”: * just take it off completely, who’s checking? * thick black plastic license plate cover. Everybody’s got them. * front plate optional! * buy one of those “digital” license plates and just set it to show the car logo instead of ID. Teslas do it! I’m just kidding by the way, California really needs to fix this problem too. The punishment for fake plates needs to be having the plate number ground on to your roof or something else permanent and embarrassing. Maybe welding a transponder to your engine block.
- grecy 3y agoJust take the vehicle. Permanently. Sell it and put the money into food banks
- hedora 3y agoI feel I should point out that California has been installing license plate readers and using them for bulk surveillance databases for a long time. A bit over a decade ago, I counted two to four such mandatory checkpoints on my commute depending on the route I took. So, somewhere in a government database, they have a log of when I went to and returned from work that year. I’ve heard such databases go back decades and are widely used to blackmail politicians in the DC area. (Source, a rando that had had a few drinks claimed to work for the state dept. Even if they were full of it, the capability exists.)
- fragmede 3y agoUse of the database is not theoretical, though this was in New York rather than California. https://gizmodo.com/rekor-ai-system-analyzes-driving-patterns-criminals-1850647270 https://gizmodo.com/rekor-ai-system-analyzes-driving-pattern...
- ZoomerCretin 3y agoFrom what I've seen on twitter, all of these things are already present in New York, especially among the openly corrupt placard class, the people who purchase traffic law immunity from the NYPD. Not that anyone was enforcing traffic or parking violations in the city anyway. They have a citizen reporting system, and many violations get marked "Completed" within minutes, despite nothing ever being done about it.
- tiffanyh 3y ago> ’The city will charge $15 to passenger cars that enter the central strip of Manhattan, $24 to vans and $36 to buses and large trucks.’ Shouldn’t they charge progressive less the higher the occupancy is of the vehicle. This pricing seems backwards to me.
- thisgoesnowhere 3y agoThat is progressively less per person even though it's not less per vehicle.
- shipscode 3y agoMore people can fit in a truck than in a car?
- thisgoesnowhere 3y agoTrucks are more expensive because they take up more space. The comment I responded to was asking why higher passenger vehicles cost more.
- haswell 3y agoThat depends on what they’re trying to address. If the issue is primarily the presence of the vehicles themselves, it makes sense that larger vehicles take more space and cause more congestion. If “congestion” also factors in pedestrians, then those larger vehicles are increasing congestion at a higher rate than smaller vehicles, both in terms of space taken by the vehicle, and number of humans entering the area. I get what you’re saying, but I think there are a number of ways to make it make sense depending on what behavior they’re trying to alter.
- junofan 3y agoThe problem they are addressing is the MTA not having enough money. The solution is finding a politically acceptable way to address that. They’ve already raised subway fares.
- philip1209 3y agoAs a Manhattan resident, I’m excited. There should be at least one city in the USA built for people instead of cars. I understand it’s not for everybody, but 75% of the residential space in the county is only zoned for insipid, paved single-family home suburban hellscapes. Leave one city for people who want a European-style walkable city.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- xkekjrktllss 3y agoYou must be joking. Since tyrant Robert Moses, NYC is undeniably built for cars. Maybe if anything had changed since then you would have a point, but the fact is American society is wholly incapable of even maintaining, much leas building, public infrastructure due to its demented obsession with privatization and profit, so NYC's transit system is a clusterfuck of rot and in no way something to be proud of.
- logicchains 3y ago>public infrastructure due to its demented obsession with privatization and profit It's not privatisation that created laws forcing a minimum number of parking spaces. You can bet if there were no zoning laws or mandatory parking space requirements US cities would be a lot more walkable, like Asian cities.
- xkekjrktllss 3y ago>It's not privatisation that created laws forcing a minimum number of parking spaces. It is privatization that renders the government only capable of punitive solutions (regressive fees, etc.) rather than constructive ones (public infrastructure upgrades, etc.). Realize the revenue from these fees will be 99% laundered and swallowed up by private contractors. That ink is already dry. >You can bet if there were no zoning laws or mandatory parking space requirements Nonsense. This is the demented obsession I described above. You aren't making any sense at all. Working people aren't lobbying for parking space requirements; petty business owners are.
- Ekaros 3y agoWhy not just run daily lottery in previous day? With non-transferable licenses to enter. Win one and you get in, don't win one and you are barred from entering?
- DiggyJohnson 3y agoIs this a serious proposal or am I missing how this is a joke?
- LargeTomato 3y agoThis person has never seriously considered a public policy solution and they are still learning what is and isn't going to scale.
- fragmede 3y agoChina has an odd-even solution to this - on even days, cars with even numbered plates can drive in the city and the same for odd days. They did this for gasoline rationing in the US back in the 70's as well.
- sokoloff 3y agoThis would be marginally good for automakers. Some people would decide to buy an extra car to have on-going access.
- Ekaros 3y agoI still don't see what is wrong, it prevents congestion, it is fair and equal for everyone. And if they can charge based on license number, it is no more difficult to implement. Isn't the goal here to have less cars in the zone? Thus goal is preventing them from entering. And giving everyone equal chance to win right of entry is fairest model.
- DiggyJohnson 3y agoBut then you would completely lose the ability to plan ahead. You would not know how you were going to travel until the lottery results.
- varispeed 3y agoNow that's some gaslighting there. Congestion as in there is too many poor entering the Manhattan, so they set the fee so only those who can afford $15 can enter. If it was about actual congestion then the fee would be proportional to one's affluence, otherwise the rich will just come in as if nothing was imposed.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- avbanks 3y agoI'm sorry but this isn't indicative of the reality of driving in NYC. If you drive into NYC, you will have to park. When you park you'll need to pay for a lot or a garage. Daily parking in NYC can cost $50-100, monthly subscriptions can easily run over $500. Even if the unlikely happens and you find a parking meter those are $10 an hour. Poor people aren't driving into NYC, they're commuting on trains like everyone else. It should also be noted the congestion fee is for driving into Manhattan, not around.
- varispeed 3y agoNot sure how this is relevant. There is a point where $100+$15 is too much and simply people can't afford more than that. So this is about pricing people out of coming in. It doesn't matter WHY they need to be there. If you have no money? GTFO. Then if you say this has nothing to do with the poverty, then in that case, how is it going to reduce the congestion?
- avbanks 3y ago"Congestion as in there is too many poor entering the Manhattan, so they set the fee so only those who can afford $15 can enter." You said that will adversely affect the poor but that's not true, what poor person is spending $100 a day on parking? Poor people use trains like nearly everyone else does. The extra $15 will discourage people from making unnecessary trips into the city thus reducing traffic/congestion and improving quality of life for people who live in the city. For instance if someone live in Brooklyn and needs to make a trip to lower Manhattan they'll be more likely to use public transportation.
- e63f67dd-065b 3y agoI would've preferred an auction; institute a cap of x entrances/day, and run an auction the day before to efficiently allocate the limited slots to those who are most willing to pay for it. Last-minute entrants who will need to get in for whatever reason and missed the auction will pay large premium above the market clearing price. Given that vehicle traffic is non-uniform throughout the day, maybe it would make sense to have separate prices per hour, but there reaches a point where the marginal increase in complexity does not drive marginal improvements in allocation.
- wenc 3y agoWhat you're suggesting has a known solution: dynamic (i.e. surge) pricing. There are many variations: you can do dynamic spot pricing (which is determined in real time, like Uber/Lyft surges), or reserved pricing (which is dynamic but can be locked in ahead of time, like the wholesale day-ahead electricity market which is priced by the hour or hotels/airplane tickets). Or some combination of the above. You can do this through a phone app.
- bitshiftfaced 3y agoAn auction would optimize pricing, but at the cost of extra friction on drivers. Who wants to have to think about bidding on a toll everyday? Another way to do it would be to look at historical data and predict demand in advance. You could then do custom prices by day, but scheduled a month in advance or more. You could also split the day into two or three periods with different pricing.
- tamaharbor 3y agoFor those wanting to get from Long Island to points west without paying the extra toll… Good luck on those already congested Bronx and Staten Island highways.
- lechatpito1 3y agoThe toll won’t be applied if you travel on the West Side Highway or FDR drive and do not enter Manhattan streets. Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/nyregion/tolls-congestion-pricing-nyc.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/29/nyregion/tolls-congestion...
- mikewarot 3y agoIt seems to me that NYC has really decided they want to collapse and aren't imploding fast enough. There is no sane reason to deliberately devalue an urban core like this. They already face property tax collapse due to an occupancy crisis. It'll be like Gary, Indiana (just east of me) before you know it. If they want to encourage use of mass transit, they should to address that issue directly, rather than this self-sabotage.
- avbanks 3y agoThis will actually make living here more attractive. Most people who actually live in the city do not drive, we take public transportation. I don't want to sound condescending but we'd prefer our city to be catered to people who actually live here instead of people who are just visiting. Hopefully this will free up more space for pedestrian zones and bike lanes.
- mikewarot 3y agoNYC is currently optimized for extreme density, with a huge flow of commuters into offices that now are mostly empty. If you want it to turn back into lower density housing, you'll have to find a way to trim back expenses to the point where the debt loads of the city are sustainable. Without the tax income from all those offices, and the surrounding shops, etc., NYC is unsustainable. It's been that way for a while, reality is catching up.
- avbanks 3y agoThe vast majority of workers commute on public transportation. NYC is extremely accessible via public transportation. Catering the city to cars isn't scalable.
- windows2020 3y ago"...$2.50 that will be charged to vehicles from ride-hailing platforms such as Uber..." One simple trick can save you $12.50. NYC is out of control with taxes and regulations, but... When I lived downtown, each morning, the glass of water on my nightstand would have a little oil slick of sorts atop it. When everything was shut down at the start of the pandemic, the constant stream of vehicles stopped. My water was then clean in the morning and the sticky feeling I'd get on my hands after a walk through the neighborhood stopped too. I think some people are totally nuts for how much they hate cars. It's as if they don't understand life beyond the island. But it would be nice to reduce pollution there. I doubt they will remove the tax if the day comes where all cars are electric.
- aaomidi 3y ago> I think some people are totally nuts for how much they hate cars. It's as if they don't understand life beyond the island. But it would be nice to reduce pollution there. Manhattan tbh does not need passenger cars at the scale it has. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say, if you wanna come here leave your car outside of the city?
- avbanks 3y agoWhy should we cater our city to people who don't live here?
- areyousure 3y agoBecause many of them work in the city, bringing in a lot of tax revenue for New York (city and state) as well as providing services to the residents.
- avbanks 3y agoWhen those people start paying NYC income tax (which tops at around 4% of income) then I think we should cater more to them BUT they don't. The people who actually in the city and actually have to pay that tax should have their city catered to their likes. No one forces those people to work in NYC an no one forces them to drive. The vast majority of commuters outside of NYC take public transportation. People can either pay the toll or take public transportation.
- ydnaclementine 3y agoLet me know when the congestion toll is actually being applied. How long ago did Congress approve of removing DST? (we still have DST) I feel like I've read these "NYC approves of congestion tolls" articles 10 times in the past 4 years. Constant deja vu
- leotravis10 3y agoAaron Gordon over at Vice says that NYC is going to screw up congestion pricing due to these capital projects that aren't going to be realized for years and it's basically a way to make money plus make up the debt load in the short term. https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy343y/new-york-city-is-about-to-screw-up-congestion-pricing https://www.vice.com/en/article/dy343y/new-york-city-is-abou... Related (now archived) discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37475743 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37475743
- Tommstein 3y agoYou know what else would help with congestion? Not devoting entire lanes of half the roads to people still living in March 2020 who want to go to restaurants but not actually have to go inside the restaurants.
- a_gnostic 3y agoWith those prices, why not just turn Manhattan into an amusement park? Looks like Disney won't be competition for much longer, so now is the time for action.
- up2isomorphism 3y agoIt is just another killing the hen attempt to desperately cover NYC fiscal sinkhole. And bunch of people who celebrate this just have little understanding about NYC's traffic pattern. I did not know any people in NYC go to Manhattan using personal cars more than 5 times a year. Almost all people driving there have to drive there for the business reasons. And if they have to pay the tax it is just falls on all the people using the city's services, regardless if you drive or not. Also because of this, it will not improve the air quality because they still have to drive, and to send vital goods, providing service to the people never drives in the city. So the net effect is using tax payer's money to fund disastrous city fiscal condition which the result of corruption. BTW, we all know wandering Uber/Lyft cars are the most polluting factor these years, but the city does not want to do anything about it.
- citrusx 3y agoKeep an eye on this, because this will do nothing to lower congestion in NYC. It's purely a money grab. The drop in traffic that experts are expecting already happened during the Bloomberg administration, when they made most areas in Lower and Midtown Manhattan "no parking" zones, and jacked up the taxes on parking garages. No one drives into Manhattan unless they have to, and congestion pricing won't change the situation for those people who don't have a choice.