11 ms·
For me at least, it will also make driving to Manhattan and parking actually more expensive than taking the train, which it should be. The fact that both option
by rcthompson 3y ago
For me at least, it will also make driving to Manhattan and parking actually more expensive than taking the train, which it should be. The fact that both options are currently about the same price for me has had me thinking that something somewhere is deeply wrong.
- bogota 3y agoBetter/cheaper train solutions would seem to be the desired fix though not just raising prices to random high numbers. I agree that this will likely have a good outcome in the end but something about it just seems wrong to me.
- KptMarchewa 3y agoIt's hard to exactly tax externalities.
- bobthepanda 3y agoThe high tolls are going to subsidize the trains.
- bogota 3y agoSo are train tickets going down in price or more seats being added?
- anotherhue 3y agoMore bag searches obviously.
- bradleyjg 3y agoThey’ll be six workers standing around not doing anything while one works, up from five.
- selcuka 3y agoNothing goes down in price. Ticket prices will remain the same, but salaries will increase because of inflation, so yes, they will become more affordable. At least that's the theory.
- roywiggins 3y agoCapital projects on the subway: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/nyregion/mta-congestion-pricing-nj-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/nyregion/mta-congestion-p...
- Reason077 3y ago> "So are train tickets going down in price or more seats being added?" You can answer this question by looking at the existing service. Are the trains crowded, unreliable, and/or running over capacity? In that case it would be better to spend the extra money on upgrading the service. Or is the service good but not enough people are using it? In that case it may be better to use the money to reduce ticket prices. Whatever gets more people to ride the trains is going to be the best solution.
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoIt's actually "neither of the above": the congestion funding is simply going to replace federal funding (mostly Covid relief stuff) that is due to roll off.
- lkbm 3y agoThe article links to another article[0] (way down in the final paragraph) about how some transit upgrades were put on hold because they were 50% funded by the congestion pricing: > The MTA said money from congestion pricing makes up more than 50% of funding for the agency’s capital program Presumably, those specific things can now get back underway: > Projects that rely on the funding include modern signaling on the A train to Far Rockaway, more ADA-accessible stations and phase two of the Second Avenue subway. [0] https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2024/02/16/mta-halts-contracts-amid-congestion-pricing-litigation https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2024/02/16/mta-halt...
- NovemberWhiskey 3y agoI mean, sure, that's obviously the way the MTA wants you to look at this; and indeed the congestion pricing funds are restricted to be used on the capital budget. But that's meaningless; since capital funding from the congestion pricing lockbox will just displace debt issuance, so it's effectively just taking pressure off the operating budget, which is where the current federal funding is going.
- exegete 3y agoSubsidize which trains? Not the ones from NJ (NJTransit). These tolls will only be used for MTA (NY). I’m for congestion pricing but NJ trains and buses are not going to benefit from this.
- emeril 3y agoNJTransit will benefit by increased ridership I will benefit personally as a NJTransit bus rider by, I hope, having a shorter bus ride (more time to do work and see family) since I sit in 1-2 hours of commuter car induced traffic several days a week As an NJ resident, I very much look forward to this congestion pricing and wish it were $50 instead of $15...
- DaveExeter 3y ago[flagged]
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y agoFor obvious reasons, the vast majority of public transport systems long for increased patronage above all else.
- moate 3y agoNah. Those tolls go to new york. The people being taxed are predominantly from NJ. Our gov just raised the gas tax to help fund the transit system here, and he’s also suing NY over these tolls. Feel however you want about this, it’s a complicated issue because of our patchworks of states vs federal control.
- harimau777 3y agoIf the people paying the tolls work everyday in New York, then I think it would be reasonable to consider them to effectively be New Yorkers as much as they are New Jersiers (New Jersites?). Like you say though, it's complicated. Especially when you have New York and Jersey City that in a lot of ways are almost one city that happens to be in two states.
- r00fus 3y agoIncome tax is often divided into where you live AND where you work (ie unemployment is typically work-state dependent). However the where you live part is over-emphasized IMHO.
- bobthepanda 3y agoI mean this also hits anyone coming from an outer borough. It’s hardly only a tax on NJ residents
- seoulmetro 3y agoCar congestion fees are touted but they are rarely effective, except at keeping poor people from moving around. It's just another dial the lazy can inflict on the population to pretend like they're solving the issue. Reminds me of ye olde window tax.
- kelnos 3y agoYep. I don't know the situation around NYC, but in the bay area, lower-income folks have been getting pushed out of SF and most of the peninsula, and have moved farther out. Something like this (e.g. if they were to analogously increase the Bay Bridge toll) just hurts lower-income folks even more. They have no choice: they need to drive to where the jobs are, but can't afford to live where the jobs are. And the transit options are laughable. It's great for the people served by BART or Caltrain, but there are a lot of people far enough from a station to make it less than useful for them. So even with the traffic, they make the entirely logical choice to spend 2 hours commuting rather than 4.
- nostrebored 3y agoThis is a NIMBY induced problem. If upward construction had been allowed, this wouldn’t be the case.
- inpdx 3y agoWho to blame probably does not matter one whit to those affected.
- macNchz 3y agoIn NYC, the overwhelming majority of low-income workers commute by public transit.
- seoulmetro 3y agoIt's easier to place the blame on something when you eliminate all casual or affordable use of that thing. You can stand back and say "see, it is this thing". Not mentioning the problems that eliminating and enforcing the ban of casual use brings about on required use. Lazy weapons against problems are just barely better than sort-of-bad solutions. But if you look in the long term, the lazy weapons scorch the earth so that better solutions can't come along.
- kelnos 3y agoA better fix would be to just make transit more attractive, not make driving less attractive. Reduce the price of the train by $15 and, without this new toll, voila, your commute is cheaper by transit. On top of that, make transit faster and more frequent so people look at driving & transit directions side-by-side and see that there's not much difference time-wise. This is already true for many trips inside NYC.
- rcthompson 3y ago> A better fix would be to just make transit more attractive, not make driving less attractive. I agree, but at least this makes them relatively correct, if not absolutely.
- Larrikin 3y agoWould you be happy if they used the money by making driving less attractive to make taking the train more attractive?
- teaearlgraycold 3y agoPlease do it!
- SECProto 3y agoThis is just putting them on a similar model (user pays). Currently, a train ticket has to cover the capital and operating costs of both the vehicle (train, driver) and tracks. For driving, the driver pays the operating and capital cost of the vehicle only - the road budget comes out of general revenue (of the city, state, etc). Your suggestion of dropping the cost just means the transit agency would have to make up the cost elsewhere - any suggestions? General revenues backed by a tax hike? Shifting burden of track construction and maintenance fully to tax-funded?
- Powdering7082 3y agoI agree directionally, but fares only make up 23% of MTA's operating budget https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics
- IG_Semmelweiss 3y agoI think instead the train ride is too expensive. Id rather have the train ride cost be lowered. Its too high now. Have you factored the price of riding late to work? Or maybe new clothes due to a car with a homeless stink that wont go ? What about the cost of a hospital bill after getting sucker punched in the face? Sorry. Train is too expensive. Driving is irrelevant.
- feoren 3y ago> What about the cost of a hospital bill after getting sucker punched in the face? I'd be very surprised if the risk of an expensive injury wasn't significantly when higher driving vs. taking the train. Surely driving must be riskier? It's one of the riskiest things modern humans do. Maybe the NYC traffic is bad enough that you're never going a dangerous speed?
- scarby2 3y ago> Maybe the NYC traffic is bad enough that you're never going a dangerous speed? Inside Manhattan this is almost certainly true. In a modern car you're going to walk away from almost all crashes under about 40 mph.
- slyrus 3y agoThe pedestrian not so much, though.
- mlrtime 3y agoA pedestrian just had they're legs ran over 2 weeks ago by a subway train because they go pushed on the tracks. Maybe that is a 1/1000000 shot, but it is MUCH more horrifying than thinking about getting in a car crash at 40 mph.
- vel0city 3y agoYou've heard about a pedestrian who you don't even know had an accident and determine its too unsafe. Meanwhile I personally know multiple people who died, mangled in a car after an accident. I know multiple people who have survived but were in bad accidents where at least one person was injured. I know multiple people who were pedestrians and cyclists who were properly using the streets and were hit by cars requiring hospital visits, and indirectly know of several people who have died being legally in the right cycling on the streets. You're way more likely to be seriously harmed or killed even just being around a car than you are riding a train or subway.
- postepowanieadm 3y agoPreferred way would be to make trains cheaper and more effective/safer than cars. But it's also the hard way.
- lenkite 3y agoHow will you take care of your personal safety ? Harassment/Assaults/Muggings/Slashings are becoming rather common in the subway there right ? There appear to be several incidents reported weekly - and these are only the ones that get views.
- hunter2_ 3y agoWhen you say "common," can you be more specific? I believe the actual rate, in the form of trips with an incident over trips without an incident, would be described as extremely uncommon. Perhaps there's been an uptick, and perhaps it's even more common in NY than other large cities, but probably less common than being a victim of similarly bad circumstances (plus collision risk) inside a car.
- lenkite 3y agoThere are severe crimes reported weekly this year - you can simply just check the news for that along with regular assaults and hundreds of harassment cases. I am not sure I would quantify the rate as "extremely uncommon".
- hunter2_ 3y agoThis got me double checking myself, but it does seem that a typical "common versus rare" threshold is a rate of 5%, though other values like 1% and 10% are sometimes used. Based on this, I'll concede that it might be common for an incident to make the daily news (if there's one a week, so 1/7 chance) but I stand by my claim that trips with such incidents are extremely uncommon relative to all trips.
- skytbest 3y agoThere's 8 million+ people in NYC. So even if there are 8 severe crimes in a period of time that is still a one in a million chance. Seems extremely uncommon to me. Though I do agree, the uptick in crime is not great.
- thedrbrian 3y ago
- orbisvicis 3y agoWhere are you parking? Public street parking is impossible to find, public parking lots are at least $20-40/hour. I'd assume apartment parking would be at least $200/month. That leaves corporate parking garages, which are probably free.