14 ms·

Congestion pricing is cutting off the nose to spite the face. It's dumb, but it does "stop the problem", the same way charging 5x more for petrol would, or clo

Congestion pricing is cutting off the nose to spite the face. It's dumb, but it does "stop the problem", the same way charging 5x more for petrol would, or closing all the highways into the city.... whilst also hurting a bunch of people.

woodruffw 2y ago
This hasn't played out in other cities, so I don't know why you think this. Notably, NYC congestion pricing does not affect the highways into the city: if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged. The charge is only for entering the city grid, where the (reasonable) argument is that the transportation system is more than sufficient and the traffic, noise, and tailpipe emissions of your car do more harm to local residents than they fairly benefit you.
- evanelias 2y ago
  > if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged. The charge is only for entering the city grid That's technically true, but it ignores the fact that both the Lincoln Tunnel (495) and Holland Tunnel (78) require you to enter the city grid. With the way the congestion pricing was designed, if you take either of those tunnels, there's no way to avoid the congestion pricing fee -- this was confirmed multiple times in FAQs and Q+A's. I'm mostly in favor of congestion pricing, but I really think they need to figure out a better solution for that tunnel issue.
  - detourdog 2y ago
    I think you should take either the Verrazano bridge exit off 95 or continue north to 87. The idea is to avoid driving through Manhattan planning one's trip accordingly should work. The only reason to take either tunnel is to reach Manhattan.
    - spyspy 2y ago
      I really wish there was a tunnel between jersey and Brooklyn. Every option sucks for that. You either end up stuck in traffic in Staten Island, manhattan, or queens.
      - pc86 2y ago
        I'm looking at a map and really confused about how from New Jersey you can end up in Queens while trying to get to Staten Island.
        detourdog 2y ago
        Crossing the Verranzo Bridge and coninueing on the Brooklyn Queens expressway or 278.
        CryptoBanker 2y ago
        Ok, sure if you’re an idiot and you go past Brooklyn you could end up in Queens
        selimthegrim 2y ago
        Starting in Ft. Lee?
        detourdog 2y ago
        going where?
      - detourdog 2y ago
        Remember when Chris Christie said a modern tunnel was not worth the cost to NJ?
    - evanelias 2y ago
      That's absolutely incorrect. Over a million NJ residents live closer to the tunnels, myself included. Every route I plan on google maps to various destinations in parts of Brooklyn and Queens puts the tunnels as being faster.
  - macNchz 2y ago
    A lot of really terrible congestion comes from people who are only passing through Manhattan on their way to/from other places, because the toll structure incentivizes that vs going around. I worked in the general vicinity of the Holland Tunnel entrance for years and it was miserable for basically all users of the streets every afternoon.
    - spyspy 2y ago
      Toll optimization aside, there’s often a huge backup of the BQE or in Staten Island that makes the tunnel the next best option. I’ve faced that scenario probably 1/3 of the time trying to visit family in PA/NJ from Brooklyn.
    - evanelias 2y ago
      > the toll structure incentivizes that vs going around How so? The toll rate is identical between the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, the Bayonne Bridge, the Goethals Bridge, and the Outerbridge Crossing: https://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/en/tolls.html https://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/en/tolls.html
      - macNchz 2y ago
        Well three of those involve a toll on the Verrazzano unless you're starting or ending your trip on Staten Island itself, whereas the East River bridges into Manhattan are free. The GWB can be done without a toll, but if you're shopping for a cheaper route to avoid the Verrazzano toll it's likely way out of your way. Ideally the toll structure should incentivize through traffic to stay on highways and out of the most gridlocked streets in the country, and I'm saying this as a longtime car owner in Brooklyn who has driven through the Holland Tunnel hundreds of times. Manhattan streets are a tragedy of the commons in action.
        evanelias 2y ago
        Ah, I see, that makes sense. But even with congestion pricing, assuming a same-day round-trip with a non-NY EZ-Pass, the combined cost of (Holland or Lincoln Tunnel toll + congestion pricing toll) is still a bit less than the cost of (Goethals or Bayonne Bridge toll + Verrazzano Bridge toll)... because the Verrazzano charges in both directions. So even congestion pricing doesn't fix those incentives :/
- seoulmetro 2y ago
  I think this because that's what it is. It has played out in other cities, there is only one way for it to play out. It's okay if you disagree with the facts, but it's fairly easy to understand how pricing people out is a poor attempt at a solution, but solves the problem by brute force anyway. >where the (reasonable) argument is that the transportation system is more than sufficient and the traffic, noise, and tailpipe emissions of your car do more harm to local residents than they fairly benefit you. Yes. I never said that less cars is not beneficial. I understand this, that's why I said what I said. There's no such thing as "fairly benefiting from other residents"... You're still not solving the problem by slapping a $ figure to the entrance of cars. It's just a lazy and bad solution.
  - frereubu 2y ago
    It is a bit of a blunt instrument, but presuming you agree that it's a problem that needs to be solved, what other alternative would you suggest?
    - seoulmetro 2y ago
      Not doing that? I'm not here to give alternative solutions, I'm here to tell you the current solution is slightly worse than nothing. You would have to make the solution fairly complex for it to be beneficial. But I'd start with quantifying why people are in the city, rather than treating them all the same. If it were my job, I'd have a better solution than congestion charges, that's for damn sure.
      - portaouflop 2y ago
        If it were your job you would think differently because you knew all the facts, constraints and trade offs. Contrary to popular belief most people make reasonable decisions and want to do a good job
        enriquec 2y ago
        corruption and incompetence exist.
timr 2y ago
I keep saying it and getting savaged, but as someone who lives here and doesn't own a car, it's been obvious to me that "congestion pricing" was a lot more about collecting an additional tax from residents, and a lot less about "congestion", than anyone in power was letting on. The entire thing was heavy handed and dumb, but branded just well enough to capture the passions of NYC city people who really really really hate cars (and New Jersey) and don't think too deeply about it beyond that. The plan was structured in a way that it would affect every resident of the city via higher prices on goods and services, surcharges on delivery, taxis, construction, etc. Setting aside the issue of local residents with cars (which I could care less about), the planners refused to make sensible carve-outs for things like cargo trucks, construction vehicles, and so on. They could have done it, they just didn't. It was about maximizing revenue for the MTA, not about making sensible policy. Maybe the fees would be small when amortized over a truck full of groceries or a tanker full of oil, but that didn't change the fact that it was a regressive tax on everyone who lives here, and taxes here are already amongst the highest in the country. This stuff adds up.
- afavour 2y ago
  > it would affect every resident of the city via higher prices on goods and services I find the math on that claim highly dubious. The toll for a truck is set to be $36 at peak times. $9 non peak. And they get up to $20 credit towards that when travelling through one of the tunnels, as many do. When I think about the amount of goods that can be carried in a truck and divide the $36 minus $20 or $9 across all those items… how much are we really talking about here? I ask the question earnestly because I don’t know, but at a cursory glance it just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. Some drivers might even be quite happy to pay if it means they don’t spend hours stuck in traffic!
  - timr 2y ago
    What part is "dubious", exactly? There's a tax. It applies to all vehicles. You think that doesn't get passed on to consumers? I have a bridge to sell you (don't worry, it's a toll bridge). You're just repeating the last part of what I wrote -- that the taxes would be low when amortized over a large number of items -- but ignoring the rest. The point is, New York does this all the time: yesterday a surcharge on food delivery, today a "congestion tax", tomorrow a "global warming fee" on electricity consumption, a "save the whales" fee on straws, or whatever else. The number of sneaky fees and surcharges and social-engineering taxes in NYC is enough to make even the most ardent liberal begin to resist. Eventually, you're paying $25 for a hamburger and wondering why you can't find staff for your store. Look, I have no problem with taxes. Just be honest. Don't sneak them in and lie about them and pretend that they're punishment for New Jersey car commuters when most of the revenue will come from the people who live here, directly or indirectly. If the people want to vote in another billion-dollar sales tax for the MTA, great. Go for it.
tim333 2y ago
>Congestion pricing is cutting off the nose to spite the face. It's dumb, but it does "stop the problem"... I live in London they brought it in and it's been ok overall. It doesn't stop congestion but reduces it a bit. For commuters it's probably a bit better as they mostly use the train/bus etc and benefit from less traffic. For workmen needing to deliver and fix things it's a bit of a pain. For me living in the center I'd probably take the plus of less traffic over the minus of getting a plumber to visit being expensive. Re the tax grab - yeah but they have to get tax money from somewhere to pay for services and the like.
- tgeorge 2y ago
  I'm curious, in London did they cut the fares for subways when they implemented the tolls? The one thing that has been bothering me about NYC congestion toll is I figured there was be a cut in the fares for subways and rail to entice more riders. But I don't see that mentioned; just for capital projects it seems.
  - woodruffw 2y ago
    My understanding is that OMNY's weekly fare cap[1] was created for exactly this reason (along with incentivizing people to switch from MetroCard to OMNY). That being said, NYCT's fare ($2.90 without zones or times) is markedly cheaper than even the cheaper London Underground off-peak same-zone fare. I don't particularly want to pay more for the subway, but the fare also really hasn't kept up with inflation. [1]: https://omny.info/fares https://omny.info/fares
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    It's a long time ago, but I think the main benefit from the congestion charge money in London was improving the service. More buses, especially at night, which helped the poorest people (cleaners, security, etc).
    - tim333 2y ago
      Yeah I don't remember them dropping the fares although it was a while ago.
FooBarBizBazz 2y ago
Congestion pricing is good IFF the money is used to fund transit in some way that eases said congestion. (Personally I believe this should mean mass transit and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure, but that's not the main "theoretical issue" I'm trying to address here.) Otherwise you're just replacing a more egalitarian form of backpressure (the traffic itself) with a less egalitarian one (prices).
pjc50 2y ago
Charging 5x more for petrol would also be a good idea. NYC isn't Florida, but it's still exposed to the risks of climate change.
- baggy_trough 2y ago
  It would in fact be a very bad idea.

woodruffw 2y ago

This hasn't played out in other cities, so I don't know why you think this. Notably, NYC congestion pricing does not affect the highways into the city: if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged. The charge is only for entering the city grid, where the (reasonable) argument is that the transportation system is more than sufficient and the traffic, noise, and tailpipe emissions of your car do more harm to local residents than they fairly benefit you.

evanelias 2y ago
> if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged. The charge is only for entering the city grid That's technically true, but it ignores the fact that both the Lincoln Tunnel (495) and Holland Tunnel (78) require you to enter the city grid. With the way the congestion pricing was designed, if you take either of those tunnels, there's no way to avoid the congestion pricing fee -- this was confirmed multiple times in FAQs and Q+A's. I'm mostly in favor of congestion pricing, but I really think they need to figure out a better solution for that tunnel issue.
- detourdog 2y ago
  I think you should take either the Verrazano bridge exit off 95 or continue north to 87. The idea is to avoid driving through Manhattan planning one's trip accordingly should work. The only reason to take either tunnel is to reach Manhattan.
  - spyspy 2y ago
    I really wish there was a tunnel between jersey and Brooklyn. Every option sucks for that. You either end up stuck in traffic in Staten Island, manhattan, or queens.
    - pc86 2y ago
      I'm looking at a map and really confused about how from New Jersey you can end up in Queens while trying to get to Staten Island.
      - detourdog 2y ago
        Crossing the Verranzo Bridge and coninueing on the Brooklyn Queens expressway or 278.
        CryptoBanker 2y ago
        Ok, sure if you’re an idiot and you go past Brooklyn you could end up in Queens
      - selimthegrim 2y ago
        Starting in Ft. Lee?
        detourdog 2y ago
        going where?
    - detourdog 2y ago
      Remember when Chris Christie said a modern tunnel was not worth the cost to NJ?
  - evanelias 2y ago
    That's absolutely incorrect. Over a million NJ residents live closer to the tunnels, myself included. Every route I plan on google maps to various destinations in parts of Brooklyn and Queens puts the tunnels as being faster.
- macNchz 2y ago
  A lot of really terrible congestion comes from people who are only passing through Manhattan on their way to/from other places, because the toll structure incentivizes that vs going around. I worked in the general vicinity of the Holland Tunnel entrance for years and it was miserable for basically all users of the streets every afternoon.
  - spyspy 2y ago
    Toll optimization aside, there’s often a huge backup of the BQE or in Staten Island that makes the tunnel the next best option. I’ve faced that scenario probably 1/3 of the time trying to visit family in PA/NJ from Brooklyn.
  - evanelias 2y ago
    > the toll structure incentivizes that vs going around How so? The toll rate is identical between the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, the Bayonne Bridge, the Goethals Bridge, and the Outerbridge Crossing: https://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/en/tolls.html https://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/en/tolls.html
    - macNchz 2y ago
      Well three of those involve a toll on the Verrazzano unless you're starting or ending your trip on Staten Island itself, whereas the East River bridges into Manhattan are free. The GWB can be done without a toll, but if you're shopping for a cheaper route to avoid the Verrazzano toll it's likely way out of your way. Ideally the toll structure should incentivize through traffic to stay on highways and out of the most gridlocked streets in the country, and I'm saying this as a longtime car owner in Brooklyn who has driven through the Holland Tunnel hundreds of times. Manhattan streets are a tragedy of the commons in action.
      - evanelias 2y ago
        Ah, I see, that makes sense. But even with congestion pricing, assuming a same-day round-trip with a non-NY EZ-Pass, the combined cost of (Holland or Lincoln Tunnel toll + congestion pricing toll) is still a bit less than the cost of (Goethals or Bayonne Bridge toll + Verrazzano Bridge toll)... because the Verrazzano charges in both directions. So even congestion pricing doesn't fix those incentives :/
seoulmetro 2y ago
I think this because that's what it is. It has played out in other cities, there is only one way for it to play out. It's okay if you disagree with the facts, but it's fairly easy to understand how pricing people out is a poor attempt at a solution, but solves the problem by brute force anyway. >where the (reasonable) argument is that the transportation system is more than sufficient and the traffic, noise, and tailpipe emissions of your car do more harm to local residents than they fairly benefit you. Yes. I never said that less cars is not beneficial. I understand this, that's why I said what I said. There's no such thing as "fairly benefiting from other residents"... You're still not solving the problem by slapping a $ figure to the entrance of cars. It's just a lazy and bad solution.
- frereubu 2y ago
  It is a bit of a blunt instrument, but presuming you agree that it's a problem that needs to be solved, what other alternative would you suggest?
  - seoulmetro 2y ago
    Not doing that? I'm not here to give alternative solutions, I'm here to tell you the current solution is slightly worse than nothing. You would have to make the solution fairly complex for it to be beneficial. But I'd start with quantifying why people are in the city, rather than treating them all the same. If it were my job, I'd have a better solution than congestion charges, that's for damn sure.
    - portaouflop 2y ago
      If it were your job you would think differently because you knew all the facts, constraints and trade offs. Contrary to popular belief most people make reasonable decisions and want to do a good job
      - enriquec 2y ago
        corruption and incompetence exist.

timr 2y ago

I keep saying it and getting savaged, but as someone who lives here and doesn't own a car, it's been obvious to me that "congestion pricing" was a lot more about collecting an additional tax from residents, and a lot less about "congestion", than anyone in power was letting on. The entire thing was heavy handed and dumb, but branded just well enough to capture the passions of NYC city people who really really really hate cars (and New Jersey) and don't think too deeply about it beyond that. The plan was structured in a way that it would affect every resident of the city via higher prices on goods and services, surcharges on delivery, taxis, construction, etc. Setting aside the issue of local residents with cars (which I could care less about), the planners refused to make sensible carve-outs for things like cargo trucks, construction vehicles, and so on. They could have done it, they just didn't. It was about maximizing revenue for the MTA, not about making sensible policy. Maybe the fees would be small when amortized over a truck full of groceries or a tanker full of oil, but that didn't change the fact that it was a regressive tax on everyone who lives here, and taxes here are already amongst the highest in the country. This stuff adds up.

afavour 2y ago
> it would affect every resident of the city via higher prices on goods and services I find the math on that claim highly dubious. The toll for a truck is set to be $36 at peak times. $9 non peak. And they get up to $20 credit towards that when travelling through one of the tunnels, as many do. When I think about the amount of goods that can be carried in a truck and divide the $36 minus $20 or $9 across all those items… how much are we really talking about here? I ask the question earnestly because I don’t know, but at a cursory glance it just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. Some drivers might even be quite happy to pay if it means they don’t spend hours stuck in traffic!
- timr 2y ago
  What part is "dubious", exactly? There's a tax. It applies to all vehicles. You think that doesn't get passed on to consumers? I have a bridge to sell you (don't worry, it's a toll bridge). You're just repeating the last part of what I wrote -- that the taxes would be low when amortized over a large number of items -- but ignoring the rest. The point is, New York does this all the time: yesterday a surcharge on food delivery, today a "congestion tax", tomorrow a "global warming fee" on electricity consumption, a "save the whales" fee on straws, or whatever else. The number of sneaky fees and surcharges and social-engineering taxes in NYC is enough to make even the most ardent liberal begin to resist. Eventually, you're paying $25 for a hamburger and wondering why you can't find staff for your store. Look, I have no problem with taxes. Just be honest. Don't sneak them in and lie about them and pretend that they're punishment for New Jersey car commuters when most of the revenue will come from the people who live here, directly or indirectly. If the people want to vote in another billion-dollar sales tax for the MTA, great. Go for it.

tim333 2y ago

>Congestion pricing is cutting off the nose to spite the face. It's dumb, but it does "stop the problem"... I live in London they brought it in and it's been ok overall. It doesn't stop congestion but reduces it a bit. For commuters it's probably a bit better as they mostly use the train/bus etc and benefit from less traffic. For workmen needing to deliver and fix things it's a bit of a pain. For me living in the center I'd probably take the plus of less traffic over the minus of getting a plumber to visit being expensive. Re the tax grab - yeah but they have to get tax money from somewhere to pay for services and the like.

tgeorge 2y ago
I'm curious, in London did they cut the fares for subways when they implemented the tolls? The one thing that has been bothering me about NYC congestion toll is I figured there was be a cut in the fares for subways and rail to entice more riders. But I don't see that mentioned; just for capital projects it seems.
- woodruffw 2y ago
  My understanding is that OMNY's weekly fare cap[1] was created for exactly this reason (along with incentivizing people to switch from MetroCard to OMNY). That being said, NYCT's fare ($2.90 without zones or times) is markedly cheaper than even the cheaper London Underground off-peak same-zone fare. I don't particularly want to pay more for the subway, but the fare also really hasn't kept up with inflation. [1]: https://omny.info/fares https://omny.info/fares
- Symbiote 2y ago
  It's a long time ago, but I think the main benefit from the congestion charge money in London was improving the service. More buses, especially at night, which helped the poorest people (cleaners, security, etc).
  - tim333 2y ago
    Yeah I don't remember them dropping the fares although it was a while ago.

FooBarBizBazz 2y ago

Congestion pricing is good IFF the money is used to fund transit in some way that eases said congestion. (Personally I believe this should mean mass transit and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure, but that's not the main "theoretical issue" I'm trying to address here.) Otherwise you're just replacing a more egalitarian form of backpressure (the traffic itself) with a less egalitarian one (prices).

pjc50 2y ago

Charging 5x more for petrol would also be a good idea. NYC isn't Florida, but it's still exposed to the risks of climate change.

baggy_trough 2y ago
It would in fact be a very bad idea.