3 ms·

Residents would largely not have to pay, if they follow the London model. The London congestion zone covers ~150K residents, but above 1 million commuters, not

by lores 2y ago

Residents would largely not have to pay, if they follow the London model. The London congestion zone covers ~150K residents, but above 1 million commuters, not counting trade and tourists.

timr 2y ago
Sensible, but unfortunately, that's not how it was going to work in NYC. Any car entering the zone below 60th would be covered, regardless of residency. Taxis, ride shares, deliveries, etc., were all covered as well. The area in NYC was little more than a new tax on residents, disguised as congestion pricing. I'd personally have little problem with a fee that made carve-outs for the people who actually live here (and I say that as someone who doesn't own a car). Thanks for the numbers on residents in the London area.
- CPLX 2y ago
  You’re just wrong. I live in NYC right next to the congestion zone and it would affect me greatly. I also have lived temporarily in London with a car. They’re very much similar plans. You clearly don’t like the NYC one which is fine, but that wasn’t the topic. As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things. Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highways were exempted. So you very much could transit the area, or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate or the Battery Tunnel to Washington Heights, for example.
  - timr 2y ago
    I live in the congestion zone. It would affect me greatly, even though I don't own a car. That's my point. Nothing you've written addresses that point. > As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things. Any fee on car traffic in the zone that does not exclude residents, is de facto, a tax on residents. Even if you never ever ever take a taxi or ride in a car, the billion dollars in projected annual revenues don't just magically disappear because they're being paid by the people who deliver the goods you need for daily existence, the businesses where you shop, or the services you utilize. They get passed down to you, in the form of higher prices. This is basic economics. > Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highways were exempted. So you very much could transit the area, or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate or the Battery Tunnel to Washington Heights, for example. You're arguing about something I didn't say and isn't relevant to my arugment, so I'm not sure how I'm "factually wrong". Yes, the west side highway and the FDR were exempted. Regardless, if your destination was inside the congestion zone, or you ended up driving there to get somewhere else, you were going to be charged the fee. But I don't care if you can travel upstate from Brooklyn. I live in Manhattan, not upstate. My argument is about people living here. Not incidentally, when you say "or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate" that's some incredibly slippery wording, because, in fact, that's the only direction you can go from the Brooklyn bridge without incurring a fee. Per the MTA [1]: > Vehicles can travel from the FDR Drive to the Brooklyn Bridge, and from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR Drive northbound without hitting the street grid and so will not be tolled. Vehicles traveling from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR southbound, however, will be tolled, as that connection includes hitting the grid at Pearl Street. [1] https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/faqs https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/faqs

by lores 2y ago

Residents would largely not have to pay, if they follow the London model. The London congestion zone covers ~150K residents, but above 1 million commuters, not counting trade and tourists.

timr 2y ago

Sensible, but unfortunately, that's not how it was going to work in NYC. Any car entering the zone below 60th would be covered, regardless of residency. Taxis, ride shares, deliveries, etc., were all covered as well. The area in NYC was little more than a new tax on residents, disguised as congestion pricing. I'd personally have little problem with a fee that made carve-outs for the people who actually live here (and I say that as someone who doesn't own a car). Thanks for the numbers on residents in the London area.

CPLX 2y ago
You’re just wrong. I live in NYC right next to the congestion zone and it would affect me greatly. I also have lived temporarily in London with a car. They’re very much similar plans. You clearly don’t like the NYC one which is fine, but that wasn’t the topic. As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things. Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highways were exempted. So you very much could transit the area, or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate or the Battery Tunnel to Washington Heights, for example.
- timr 2y ago
  I live in the congestion zone. It would affect me greatly, even though I don't own a car. That's my point. Nothing you've written addresses that point. > As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things. Any fee on car traffic in the zone that does not exclude residents, is de facto, a tax on residents. Even if you never ever ever take a taxi or ride in a car, the billion dollars in projected annual revenues don't just magically disappear because they're being paid by the people who deliver the goods you need for daily existence, the businesses where you shop, or the services you utilize. They get passed down to you, in the form of higher prices. This is basic economics. > Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highways were exempted. So you very much could transit the area, or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate or the Battery Tunnel to Washington Heights, for example. You're arguing about something I didn't say and isn't relevant to my arugment, so I'm not sure how I'm "factually wrong". Yes, the west side highway and the FDR were exempted. Regardless, if your destination was inside the congestion zone, or you ended up driving there to get somewhere else, you were going to be charged the fee. But I don't care if you can travel upstate from Brooklyn. I live in Manhattan, not upstate. My argument is about people living here. Not incidentally, when you say "or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate" that's some incredibly slippery wording, because, in fact, that's the only direction you can go from the Brooklyn bridge without incurring a fee. Per the MTA [1]: > Vehicles can travel from the FDR Drive to the Brooklyn Bridge, and from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR Drive northbound without hitting the street grid and so will not be tolled. Vehicles traveling from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR southbound, however, will be tolled, as that connection includes hitting the grid at Pearl Street. [1] https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/faqs https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/faqs