3 ms·

> 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

• 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.
  • ars 2y ago
    > 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. Is this also true: If you want to live in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it's going to cost you? > It would be nice for drivers (not for residents) if there were through-highways in Manhattan’s CBD What's with the distinction? Things that are nice for drivers are also nice for residents. But in any case, if you say a road above Canal St is impossible I'll believe you. It's unfortunate because I think it would be nice for everyone. > or easement logistics I would reduce Canal st from 6 lanes to 5, and put piers in the middle lane - like the elevated train in Borough Park. New Utrecht maybe? I forget the exact street it goes over. > we’re talking about half a million people who would riot It would dramatically reduce traffic on Canal St making it mainly for residents. Would that not be worth it? But I do get your point though, it would be unpleasant to have a road instead of sky above you. I have to ask - is Canal St frontage mainly residents or is it businesses? > the improvements may just not have been legible to you. You are correct. To me Manhattan is a kind of "flyover" area, except it's "drive through", it's in my way when I want to get elsewhere. I don't think I am alone in this, and the congestion pricing could have been remade to make additional people happy. It's would be easy: Just take all bridge and tunnel tolls and apply them 100% to congestion pricing, instead of the tiny amount they proposed. After all, those tolls already act as a congestion pricing, you don't need to do it twice. I think that one single change would have made this way more palatable to the rest of the state voters. I'm curious what your thoughts are on making that change, as a resident.
    • woodruffw 2y ago
      > Is this also true: If you want to live in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it's going to cost you? Of course. But also: it’s why big, expensive cities build mass transit, and why everybody takes it. Most residents in NYC, especially Manhattanites, are not regular drivers. The majority don’t even own cars. This is the demographic we’re talking about; they don’t want infrastructure that they don’t use taking up already-precious space, with more air pollution to boot. I also don’t think it would reduce traffic; induced demand is at play here. We’ve seen that with other highways in the city: if you build a certain amount of highway capacity, demand grows to fill it. That’s why congestion pricing is so appealing: it changes the incentive structure away from highway sprawl and grid congestion to efficient roads for those who need to drive and cleaner, quieter streets for everyone else. Canal Street’s frontage is a mixture of business and residential, varying by the neighborhoods it crosses through. I’d say it leans more commercial on the western part and more residential on the eastern part, subjectively. > It's would be easy: Just take all bridge and tunnel tolls and apply them 100% to congestion pricing, instead of the tiny amount they proposed. After all, those tolls already act as a congestion pricing, you don't need to do it twice. The important bit here is not just charging drivers a bunch of money, but actually reducing congestion. Higher tolls go a long way, but it’s equally important to incentivize drivers off of city streets and onto highways, where possible. Or in other words: if the goal was just to collect money, charging higher tolls would be fine. But there’s an additional virtue at play, which is making the city itself more livable.