5 ms·

> 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

• 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/
  • ars 2y ago
    > NJ to Brooklyn route Your route is decent - as a route. But it costs almost $30 in tolls! For example Holland Tunnel to Manhattan bridge and Brooklyn Bridge without paying congestion pricing is a route that should exist. I think those are like half the price of your route (not 100% sure of the price). > there are no highways through central Manhattan's city grid, and there never will be There should be a direct connection, with no exits to city roads, between the Lincoln Tunnel and FDR Dr. Same with the Holland tunnel - that should be directly connected to the two coastal freeways, without going in city streets. From looking at a map those are the biggest gaps in regards to congestion pricing. If you want wondering how to do it, add an elevated express roadway above Canal street. Because it has no connection to city roads in Manhattan - it would go directly in the air to the Manhattan bridge, it would not be unfeasibly complex to build. See, they added the "annoyance" first, and didn't also connect it with any improvements, and I think that was their biggest mistake. I've noticed this very frequently with transit advocates - they only want to harm car driving, but give zero thought to making travel better for people. They forget the goal: Make travel better. The goal is not getting rid of cars.
    • nobody9999 2y ago
      >If you want wondering how to do it, add an elevated express roadway above Canal street. Because it has no connection to city roads in Manhattan - it would go directly in the air to the Manhattan bridge, it would not be unfeasibly complex to build. That was actually a plan back in the late 1950s/early 1960s, along with similar elevated roads above 42nd and 125th streets. Thankfully, NYers stopped that insanity, as it would have destroyed many vibrant neighborhoods in NYC, as it did[0] in the Bronx. We will not destroy our city at the altar of making things more convenient for cars. Insist on driving your car everywhere? Do it somewhere else -- we don't want you here. [0] https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2019/11/10/the-cross-bronx-expressway-and-the-ruination-of-the-bronx/ https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2019/11/10/the-cros...
    • woodruffw 2y ago
      All of the routes are tolled. These are some of the most heavily trafficked bridges and tunnels in the world, and their upkeep is consequently expensive (both in maintenance and off-hours labor costs). This is a basic maxim for NYC: if you want to drive on some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it’s going to cost you. Congestion pricing was intended to further equalize that cost, by incentivizing drivers away from the city grid and onto the highways intended to facilitate their transit around the city center. It would be nice for drivers (not for residents) if there were through-highways in Manhattan’s CBD. But as I said, this is a non-starter: not only would it be a multi-billion dollar project that nobody wants to pay for, but it would also actively devalue or preempt hundreds of billions of dollars of prime Manhattan real estate. Robert Moses, famous for getting whatever he wanted w/r/t highways, tried a similar plan over 70 years ago, and failed miserably. (I don’t know if you’ve ever been to or lived in NYC, but you can’t just build a mega highway over Canal Street — it runs through four of the densest neighborhoods in the borough, plus two of the highest income ones. That’s before construction or easement logistics, even — we’re talking about half a million people who would riot if the city tried to put an elevated highway by their windows.) And as a final thing: congestion pricing was slated to raise $15 billion for the MTA, which in turn was allocated for improvements to the actual backbone for the city: the subway, LIRR, and Metro-North. There were key schedule, maintenance, and capital improvements planned that would have made life better for millions of city residents (myself included) that are now in limbo. So it isn’t accurate to say that this wasn’t connected to improvements; the improvements may just not have been legible to you.