6 ms·

I think this would have been more likely to be politically viable if the credit for entering via a tunnel or bridge was dramatically increased, after all a brid

by ars 2y ago

I think this would have been more likely to be politically viable if the credit for entering via a tunnel or bridge was dramatically increased, after all a bridge or tunnel toll is already a form of congestion pricing. Double charging is just a money grab rather than a form of congestion pricing. They should have also given a credit for exiting immediately and not staying in the city, i.e. transiting through the city. This would have made New Jersey considerably more likely to be in support. Without both of those things New Jersey has it right: everyone would just travel through New Jersey to avoid that part of Manhattan when they're just trying to get through Manhattan.

kjkjadksj 2y ago
Shifting traffic to jersey is a good thing because theres more road infrastructure there than in manhattan
- ars 2y ago
  If that was the goal (was it? I have not seen anyone say something like that) but if it was, then they should share the money too. Manhattan can't take all the money and shift all the expenses to New Jersey.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    It's NY State, not Manhattan. Neither NYC nor any individual borough "sees" any of the money from congestion pricing; it's handled at the state level. But for the state, certainly they can: it's state roads and state transit infrastructure, maintained and paid for by the state. NY didn't tell NJ to kneecap NJT's budget[1], or to develop car-dependent cities and suburbs. [1]: https://www.nj.com/news/2024/04/nj-transit-study-targets-600m-in-budget-cuts-expansion-and-reform.html https://www.nj.com/news/2024/04/nj-transit-study-targets-600...
    - leetnewb 2y ago
      NY State collects billions of tax dollars every year from NJ residents that work in New York. Every mass transit NJ commuter to NYC is subsidized by NJ and subsidizes the NYS budget. That structural dynamic, in effect, kneecaps NJ and by virtue NJT's budget.
      - nobody9999 2y ago
        >NY State collects billions of tax dollars every year from NJ residents that work in New York. And NJ collects billions of tax dollars every year from NY residents that work in New Jersey[0] [0] https://www.sapling.com/8676392/taxes-city-work-new-jersey https://www.sapling.com/8676392/taxes-city-work-new-jersey
        leetnewb 2y ago
        I don't see anything in that link which indicates the total value of taxes paid by NYS residents to NJ or the net. That said, I think it only takes a casual observation of bridge, tunnel, and mass transit hubs during rush hours that illustrate the balance. The overwhelming majority of "human capital" flows into NYC for work, not out, which should reasonably predict the difference in tax collections on non-residents between states.
      - woodruffw 2y ago
        Framing it as a one-sided collection is a little silly, given that NJ residents driving into NYC are (1) generally affluent suburbanites from bedroom communities, and (2) living in NJ in part to avoid city taxes. NJ isn't exactly a cheap state either in terms of taxation, but it's also one of the most affluent in the country. It's hard to believe that NY's payroll tax can be unilaterally blamed for NJ's inability to maintain and further develop NJT. (This is besides the larger contradiction, which is that NJ would have ~no taxes to collect on these residents at all, were it not for NYC's proximity.)
        leetnewb 2y ago
        Again, every NJT commuter to NYC from NJ is subsidized by NJ to earn money in NYC and pay taxes to NYS. NJ's subsidization of NJT reduces the number of car trips into Manhattan dramatically. NJ commuters to NYC/NYS pay income tax to NYS and virtually nothing to NJ. The balance of payments deficit to NYS from NJ is in the range of $4 billion annually. I don't remember exactly what kind of operating subsidy NJT needs, but it's a heck of a lot less than $4 billion. NJ's entire state budget is around $50 billion. This is not a small, inconsequential issue, and downplaying its consequences is a little silly, to use your phrase. Also, NJ residents commuting to NYC don't just "do it to avoid city taxes". There are more commuters from NJ than there are open housing units in the 5 boroughs. NJ's housing stock and commuting infrastructure is a massive pressure relief valve on housing costs in NYC. Heck, NJ commuters would saturate every open housing unit in the boroughs, Long Island, Westchester, Southern Connecticut, and then some. Last thought. Manhattan is a massive job center in no small part because of its enormous access to talent inside and outside of the city - the outside the city talent uses mass transit on an enormous scale. NJ might look different without Manhattan there, but NYC would also look different if NJ wasn't there.
  - kjkjadksj 2y ago
    Considering the federal interstate project funds a lot of the roads in question in new jersey already I’d say bills are being paid sufficiently already. Not to mention that new jersey also benefits in countless other ways from proximity to nyc. If not for nyc what might the state look otherwise: Maine or Vermont? Nyc has afforded much already for the garden state.
  - mikeweiss 2y ago
    This. I'm glad the current implementation has been cancelled solely because New Jersey, the neighboring state that will see a massive impact on their transit and infrastructure due to this wasn't going to see a single cent.
woodruffw 2y ago
> They should have also given a credit for exiting immediately and not staying in the city, i.e. transiting through the city. This would have made New Jersey considerably more likely to be in support. Which NJ residents do you think are through-transiting via the Manhattan's streets? The core demographic being targeted here is driving onto the streets to park and go to work, not to drive into Brooklyn, Queens, or LI. (To my understanding, the plan with the congestion charge is to waive the charge when drivers stay on highways and freeways, i.e. don't enter the grid. So a NJ resident who takes the GWB and drives down HHP and then Brooklyn via 478 would never pay the congestion fare.)
- ars 2y ago
  > The core demographic being targeted here is driving onto the streets to park and go to work, not to drive into Brooklyn, Queens, or LI. Charging them is fine, but that is not the basis of the lawsuit from NJ. NJ is complaining about people using NJ to go around Manhattan. > To my understanding, the plan with the congestion charge is to waive the charge when drivers stay on highways and freeways Can you show me that policy or map? Because when I checked that was NOT the case. The only time charges are waived are the two coastline roads that go around Manhattan. All other transit traffic is charged at full rates. When you enter from NJ you do not go on those coastline roads, you go through Manhattan. This pricing should have been coupled with some new transit roads that do not have any exits in the city. From your comment I wonder if part of the reason she stopped the project is people not actually understanding what the real charges are.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    > Charging them is fine, but that is not the basis of the lawsuit from NJ. NJ is complaining about people using NJ to go around Manhattan. I can't think of a single sane route via which you'd go around Manhattan, via NJ, to get to something in another borough. If you're in the Bronx, you'll go to Queens or Brooklyn via non-Manhattan bridges, and vice versa. > The only time charges are waived are the two coastline roads that go around Manhattan. All other transit traffic is charged at full rates. Yes, that's the point. The coastline routes are the highways; there are no highways through central Manhattan's city grid, and there never will be. You can see the highways, which are all exempted, on the MTA's map[1]. I gave you an NJ to Brooklyn route that does not involve the city grid: you can take the George Washington Bridge (above the congestion zone) onto the Henry Hudson Parkway, which will then take you directly to the Hugh L. Carey tunnel, which is I-478, which will take you directly into Brooklyn. This is also in practice already the fastest route into Brooklyn from NJ, since it doesn't involve the city grid at all. Similarly for North Brooklyn and Queens: if you want to avoid congestion pricing, take the GWB and stay on I-95, and you'll be comfortably outside of the congestion zone the entire time. [1]: https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/ https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/
returningfory2 2y ago
By the same argument paying a toll both on one of the tunnels and the New Jersey turnpike is also double charging. Those charges are for fundamentally different things - just like the tunnel toll and congestion charge are for different things.
- ars 2y ago
  > congestion charge are for different things The congestion charge is to make people go away and not go to Manhattan. So any kind of charge that's placed in the way of traffic to there counts. Also the toll on the tunnel is just a cash grab, and the congestion charge has that as a secondary goal, so they are not actually for different things.
  - returningfory2 2y ago
    I mean if you define everything as a "cash grab" then, yeah, every payment you make is for the same thing. I just went to the movies and paid $17.50 for the ticket. I didn't realize that cash grab had the same purpose as the Holland Tunnel toll!
    - ars 2y ago
      Would you prefer the term "Rent Seeking"? i.e. New York is saying: "Go away we don't want you here, but if you are going to come anyway pay up". You aren't paying for a service (like a movie) you are paying to be allowed to go somewhere.
      - returningfory2 2y ago
        Wait are you also against paying for tickets for NJ Transit trains to NYC? In theory an NJ Transit ticket is "paying to be allowed to go somewhere". It's exactly analogous - it costs money to keep the trains going, just like it costs money to keep the tunnels going (and to pay for their original construction with bonds, though maybe that's not relevant today). You're not paying for permission to go somewhere; you're paying for all the stuff that needs to happen to make your journey possible in the first place.
SJetKaran 2y ago
Yeah, I never understood why some of the cogestion pricing revenue wasn't shared with NJ.

by ars 2y ago

kjkjadksj 2y ago

Shifting traffic to jersey is a good thing because theres more road infrastructure there than in manhattan

ars 2y ago
If that was the goal (was it? I have not seen anyone say something like that) but if it was, then they should share the money too. Manhattan can't take all the money and shift all the expenses to New Jersey.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  It's NY State, not Manhattan. Neither NYC nor any individual borough "sees" any of the money from congestion pricing; it's handled at the state level. But for the state, certainly they can: it's state roads and state transit infrastructure, maintained and paid for by the state. NY didn't tell NJ to kneecap NJT's budget[1], or to develop car-dependent cities and suburbs. [1]: https://www.nj.com/news/2024/04/nj-transit-study-targets-600m-in-budget-cuts-expansion-and-reform.html https://www.nj.com/news/2024/04/nj-transit-study-targets-600...
  - leetnewb 2y ago
    NY State collects billions of tax dollars every year from NJ residents that work in New York. Every mass transit NJ commuter to NYC is subsidized by NJ and subsidizes the NYS budget. That structural dynamic, in effect, kneecaps NJ and by virtue NJT's budget.
    - nobody9999 2y ago
      >NY State collects billions of tax dollars every year from NJ residents that work in New York. And NJ collects billions of tax dollars every year from NY residents that work in New Jersey[0] [0] https://www.sapling.com/8676392/taxes-city-work-new-jersey https://www.sapling.com/8676392/taxes-city-work-new-jersey
      - leetnewb 2y ago
        I don't see anything in that link which indicates the total value of taxes paid by NYS residents to NJ or the net. That said, I think it only takes a casual observation of bridge, tunnel, and mass transit hubs during rush hours that illustrate the balance. The overwhelming majority of "human capital" flows into NYC for work, not out, which should reasonably predict the difference in tax collections on non-residents between states.
    - woodruffw 2y ago
      Framing it as a one-sided collection is a little silly, given that NJ residents driving into NYC are (1) generally affluent suburbanites from bedroom communities, and (2) living in NJ in part to avoid city taxes. NJ isn't exactly a cheap state either in terms of taxation, but it's also one of the most affluent in the country. It's hard to believe that NY's payroll tax can be unilaterally blamed for NJ's inability to maintain and further develop NJT. (This is besides the larger contradiction, which is that NJ would have ~no taxes to collect on these residents at all, were it not for NYC's proximity.)
      - leetnewb 2y ago
        Again, every NJT commuter to NYC from NJ is subsidized by NJ to earn money in NYC and pay taxes to NYS. NJ's subsidization of NJT reduces the number of car trips into Manhattan dramatically. NJ commuters to NYC/NYS pay income tax to NYS and virtually nothing to NJ. The balance of payments deficit to NYS from NJ is in the range of $4 billion annually. I don't remember exactly what kind of operating subsidy NJT needs, but it's a heck of a lot less than $4 billion. NJ's entire state budget is around $50 billion. This is not a small, inconsequential issue, and downplaying its consequences is a little silly, to use your phrase. Also, NJ residents commuting to NYC don't just "do it to avoid city taxes". There are more commuters from NJ than there are open housing units in the 5 boroughs. NJ's housing stock and commuting infrastructure is a massive pressure relief valve on housing costs in NYC. Heck, NJ commuters would saturate every open housing unit in the boroughs, Long Island, Westchester, Southern Connecticut, and then some. Last thought. Manhattan is a massive job center in no small part because of its enormous access to talent inside and outside of the city - the outside the city talent uses mass transit on an enormous scale. NJ might look different without Manhattan there, but NYC would also look different if NJ wasn't there.
- kjkjadksj 2y ago
  Considering the federal interstate project funds a lot of the roads in question in new jersey already I’d say bills are being paid sufficiently already. Not to mention that new jersey also benefits in countless other ways from proximity to nyc. If not for nyc what might the state look otherwise: Maine or Vermont? Nyc has afforded much already for the garden state.
- mikeweiss 2y ago
  This. I'm glad the current implementation has been cancelled solely because New Jersey, the neighboring state that will see a massive impact on their transit and infrastructure due to this wasn't going to see a single cent.

woodruffw 2y ago

> They should have also given a credit for exiting immediately and not staying in the city, i.e. transiting through the city. This would have made New Jersey considerably more likely to be in support. Which NJ residents do you think are through-transiting via the Manhattan's streets? The core demographic being targeted here is driving onto the streets to park and go to work, not to drive into Brooklyn, Queens, or LI. (To my understanding, the plan with the congestion charge is to waive the charge when drivers stay on highways and freeways, i.e. don't enter the grid. So a NJ resident who takes the GWB and drives down HHP and then Brooklyn via 478 would never pay the congestion fare.)

ars 2y ago
> The core demographic being targeted here is driving onto the streets to park and go to work, not to drive into Brooklyn, Queens, or LI. Charging them is fine, but that is not the basis of the lawsuit from NJ. NJ is complaining about people using NJ to go around Manhattan. > To my understanding, the plan with the congestion charge is to waive the charge when drivers stay on highways and freeways Can you show me that policy or map? Because when I checked that was NOT the case. The only time charges are waived are the two coastline roads that go around Manhattan. All other transit traffic is charged at full rates. When you enter from NJ you do not go on those coastline roads, you go through Manhattan. This pricing should have been coupled with some new transit roads that do not have any exits in the city. From your comment I wonder if part of the reason she stopped the project is people not actually understanding what the real charges are.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  > Charging them is fine, but that is not the basis of the lawsuit from NJ. NJ is complaining about people using NJ to go around Manhattan. I can't think of a single sane route via which you'd go around Manhattan, via NJ, to get to something in another borough. If you're in the Bronx, you'll go to Queens or Brooklyn via non-Manhattan bridges, and vice versa. > The only time charges are waived are the two coastline roads that go around Manhattan. All other transit traffic is charged at full rates. Yes, that's the point. The coastline routes are the highways; there are no highways through central Manhattan's city grid, and there never will be. You can see the highways, which are all exempted, on the MTA's map[1]. I gave you an NJ to Brooklyn route that does not involve the city grid: you can take the George Washington Bridge (above the congestion zone) onto the Henry Hudson Parkway, which will then take you directly to the Hugh L. Carey tunnel, which is I-478, which will take you directly into Brooklyn. This is also in practice already the fastest route into Brooklyn from NJ, since it doesn't involve the city grid at all. Similarly for North Brooklyn and Queens: if you want to avoid congestion pricing, take the GWB and stay on I-95, and you'll be comfortably outside of the congestion zone the entire time. [1]: https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/ https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/

returningfory2 2y ago

By the same argument paying a toll both on one of the tunnels and the New Jersey turnpike is also double charging. Those charges are for fundamentally different things - just like the tunnel toll and congestion charge are for different things.

ars 2y ago
> congestion charge are for different things The congestion charge is to make people go away and not go to Manhattan. So any kind of charge that's placed in the way of traffic to there counts. Also the toll on the tunnel is just a cash grab, and the congestion charge has that as a secondary goal, so they are not actually for different things.
- returningfory2 2y ago
  I mean if you define everything as a "cash grab" then, yeah, every payment you make is for the same thing. I just went to the movies and paid $17.50 for the ticket. I didn't realize that cash grab had the same purpose as the Holland Tunnel toll!
  - ars 2y ago
    Would you prefer the term "Rent Seeking"? i.e. New York is saying: "Go away we don't want you here, but if you are going to come anyway pay up". You aren't paying for a service (like a movie) you are paying to be allowed to go somewhere.
    - returningfory2 2y ago
      Wait are you also against paying for tickets for NJ Transit trains to NYC? In theory an NJ Transit ticket is "paying to be allowed to go somewhere". It's exactly analogous - it costs money to keep the trains going, just like it costs money to keep the tunnels going (and to pay for their original construction with bonds, though maybe that's not relevant today). You're not paying for permission to go somewhere; you're paying for all the stuff that needs to happen to make your journey possible in the first place.

SJetKaran 2y ago

Yeah, I never understood why some of the cogestion pricing revenue wasn't shared with NJ.