6 ms·

1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. 2.

by blehn 2y ago

1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. 2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. 3. There are so many other simple policies that would benefit quality of life in NYC: - Daylighting — Don't allow cars and trucks to park at the corners of intersections. Huge safety benefits. - Metered parking everywhere. Why is NYC giving away the most valuable real estate in the world for free? Would be a huge revenue stream while discouraging car ownership in Manhattan. - Close more streets to car traffic. This is already true on 14th street and it's fantastic. Close Houston, 34th, 42nd, 59th, 125th. This would make buses much more efficient and further discourage passenger car usage

ihuman 2y ago
> So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. I thought the point of the policy is to get people to use the train instead of cars, freeing up the roads for people that actually need it?
- bluGill 2y ago
  There are several points. Some want it to get people to not drive, but work from home or drive elsewhere instead is fine with them. Some want it to get more people on transit. Some want it to fund transit expansion. You can belong to more than one of the above groups. Nobody belongs to them all.
  - barnabee 2y ago
    > Nobody belongs to them all. Why not? IMO, ideally: - Some people work from home or drive elsewhere - Others take transit instead of driving - The remainder pay a fee that they didn't previously, which can fund more transit
    - bluGill 2y ago
      I didn't give anywhere close to all the different interests here.
- jacobgkau 2y ago
  The first sentence they said was: > 1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. I'm not saying that's correct or incorrect, but the person you replied to already considered what you brought up and responded to it. The primary "point" seems not to have worked, so the in-practice reason to keep the policy becomes other benefits, which for the city would include revenue being raised. (I guess you can argue it's not a "success" if the main point wasn't achieved, but good luck convincing the city to give up the additional revenue.)
CPLX 2y ago
> Metered parking everywhere. Why is NYC giving away the most valuable real estate in the world for free? Would be a huge revenue stream while discouraging car ownership in Manhattan. There isn't all that much free parking left in Manhattan south of 60th street. Not saying it doesn't exist, there still are alternate side streets for sure, but it's a rapidly dwindling thing. Agree that it should be almost nonexistent though for the most part. Also the cost of metered parking in most of the city these days is similar to garage parking pricing.
varelaseb 2y ago
This is the most econ-brained response possible. Why would the success of a public policy be exclusively defined by revenue generated?
- Rastonbury 2y ago
  Big econ brained is thinking about whether the congestion pricing is approximately captures the negative externalities of traffic
- ses1984 2y ago
  Because it’s based on the assumption that congestion didn’t actually go down, see number 1 posted by op. If you want congestion to go down, keep raising the price. It will eventually go down and revenue could go up a lot.
  - bluGill 2y ago
    Or you get voted out of office and your charges reversed down to zero - or perhaps negative as the people are so mad they take it out on the transit this was supposed to fund. Politics is tricky, don't take so much you make people affected mad enough to undo what you wanted.
    - ses1984 2y ago
      Both parties like money so one party may be voted out if people are angry, but it’s unlikely to result in the charge going away. It’s also nyc primarily in charge of it and nyc constituents probably are in favor of less congestion and more money.
      - bluGill 2y ago
        Politicians like votes more than money. If this is seen as the standard change of hands that happens once in a while in a good democracy then the charge will stay because $$$. However if this is seen as a rejection of the charges they will go away to prove your vote for the new people wasn't wasted. Seen is the key here - while surveys and such influence this, there is emotion there as well. Note too that it only needs a small vocal percentage in some cases to change perception.
woodruffw 2y ago
> The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. Many of the entries in question are not tolled: the Brooklyn/Manhattan/Williamsburg/QBB are all toll-free, but are included in congestion pricing. Similarly, the street-level entries to the congestion zone were never tolled. I think the state's calculations probably conclude that these more than offset the drop in toll revenue. (Or, more nuanced: much of the previous toll revenue went to PANYNJ, whereas congestion pricing funds go directly to the MTA/NYCT.)
jimbob45 2y ago
Metered parking everywhere. Please no. Just tax me at the end of the year if you really need more money. Stop paywalling everything.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- jacobgkau 2y ago
  The point wasn't supposed to be to raise more money, it was to decrease the amount of people using the roads. Taxing more would, if anything, incentivize people to use those parking spots to "get their money's worth." More realistically, it would not add a barrier to actually parking on a day-to-day basis. Making you think about and reconsider it every time you go to do it with the paywall is what they want (and what is arguably necessary in order to fix the underlying problem, unless those tax dollars are going to go towards multi-level parking garages that add spaces and not just the existing roads).
- fnfjfk 2y ago
  Why should everyone pay equally, rather than people that currently store their private property for free on public land in some of the most expensive real estate in the country?
- asoneth 2y ago
  Others have mentioned the unfairness of asking taxpayers to subsidize drivers. This is particularly egregious in Midtown Manhattan where many taxpayers are not drivers and many drivers are not (local) taxpayers. But even as a driver I prefer when cities place an efficient price on parking. Otherwise, if parking is too cheap compared to demand it costs time and stress circling the block to find a place to park. Market pricing, where the city sets whatever prices are necessary to maintain an empty spot or two on each block, seems more fair, efficient, and pleasant.
  - dleink 2y ago
    Any examples of cities that have done a good job on this?
spamizbad 2y ago
You also have to factor in any reduction (or increase) in traffic fatalities and injuries. 34 traffic deaths and roughly 7500 injuries occurred in Manhattan in one of the nation's highest GDP-per-capita area, so the loss of economic output from these fatalities and injuries is likely fairly high.
- adamc 2y ago
  Not to mention the costs of treating them.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jakelazaroff 2y ago
Advocates did worry that reducing it from $15 to $9 would create a sort of "no-mans land" — not quite high enough to deter traffic but high enough to annoy people. I'm not sure how to reconcile the significant drop in the bridge and tunnel commute times with the apparent non-effect on commute times within the congestion relief zone.
- sethhochberg 2y ago
  Most of the bridges and tunnels have their own tolls, with a few exceptions like the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges. One possible explanation is that the advocates were right and the combined bridge/tunnel + congestion toll is enough to dissuade driving into the zone entirely for people arriving via bridge/tunnel, but the lower congestion toll on its own isn't as much of a deterrent if you have access to a free crossing into Manhattan from other boros or were already in Manhattan (outsize of the zone) to begin with.
- blehn 2y ago
  > I'm not sure how to reconcile the significant drop in the bridge and tunnel commute times with the apparent non-effect on commute times within the congestion relief zone. Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that either but it'll be interesting to see when more/better data comes available. Maybe car traffic getting to Manhattan is reduced but those people are using more taxis and Ubers to get around once they're in
- eru 2y ago
  It's a bit silly to set a fixed rate. Here in Singapore, the congestion charging pioneer, we adjust the fee dynamically to keep traffic flowing.

by blehn 2y ago

ihuman 2y ago

> So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. I thought the point of the policy is to get people to use the train instead of cars, freeing up the roads for people that actually need it?

bluGill 2y ago
There are several points. Some want it to get people to not drive, but work from home or drive elsewhere instead is fine with them. Some want it to get more people on transit. Some want it to fund transit expansion. You can belong to more than one of the above groups. Nobody belongs to them all.
- barnabee 2y ago
  > Nobody belongs to them all. Why not? IMO, ideally: - Some people work from home or drive elsewhere - Others take transit instead of driving - The remainder pay a fee that they didn't previously, which can fund more transit
  - bluGill 2y ago
    I didn't give anywhere close to all the different interests here.
jacobgkau 2y ago
The first sentence they said was: > 1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. I'm not saying that's correct or incorrect, but the person you replied to already considered what you brought up and responded to it. The primary "point" seems not to have worked, so the in-practice reason to keep the policy becomes other benefits, which for the city would include revenue being raised. (I guess you can argue it's not a "success" if the main point wasn't achieved, but good luck convincing the city to give up the additional revenue.)

CPLX 2y ago

> Metered parking everywhere. Why is NYC giving away the most valuable real estate in the world for free? Would be a huge revenue stream while discouraging car ownership in Manhattan. There isn't all that much free parking left in Manhattan south of 60th street. Not saying it doesn't exist, there still are alternate side streets for sure, but it's a rapidly dwindling thing. Agree that it should be almost nonexistent though for the most part. Also the cost of metered parking in most of the city these days is similar to garage parking pricing.

varelaseb 2y ago

This is the most econ-brained response possible. Why would the success of a public policy be exclusively defined by revenue generated?

Rastonbury 2y ago
Big econ brained is thinking about whether the congestion pricing is approximately captures the negative externalities of traffic
ses1984 2y ago
Because it’s based on the assumption that congestion didn’t actually go down, see number 1 posted by op. If you want congestion to go down, keep raising the price. It will eventually go down and revenue could go up a lot.
- bluGill 2y ago
  Or you get voted out of office and your charges reversed down to zero - or perhaps negative as the people are so mad they take it out on the transit this was supposed to fund. Politics is tricky, don't take so much you make people affected mad enough to undo what you wanted.
  - ses1984 2y ago
    Both parties like money so one party may be voted out if people are angry, but it’s unlikely to result in the charge going away. It’s also nyc primarily in charge of it and nyc constituents probably are in favor of less congestion and more money.
    - bluGill 2y ago
      Politicians like votes more than money. If this is seen as the standard change of hands that happens once in a while in a good democracy then the charge will stay because $$$. However if this is seen as a rejection of the charges they will go away to prove your vote for the new people wasn't wasted. Seen is the key here - while surveys and such influence this, there is emotion there as well. Note too that it only needs a small vocal percentage in some cases to change perception.

woodruffw 2y ago

> The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. Many of the entries in question are not tolled: the Brooklyn/Manhattan/Williamsburg/QBB are all toll-free, but are included in congestion pricing. Similarly, the street-level entries to the congestion zone were never tolled. I think the state's calculations probably conclude that these more than offset the drop in toll revenue. (Or, more nuanced: much of the previous toll revenue went to PANYNJ, whereas congestion pricing funds go directly to the MTA/NYCT.)

jimbob45 2y ago

Metered parking everywhere. Please no. Just tax me at the end of the year if you really need more money. Stop paywalling everything.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
jacobgkau 2y ago
The point wasn't supposed to be to raise more money, it was to decrease the amount of people using the roads. Taxing more would, if anything, incentivize people to use those parking spots to "get their money's worth." More realistically, it would not add a barrier to actually parking on a day-to-day basis. Making you think about and reconsider it every time you go to do it with the paywall is what they want (and what is arguably necessary in order to fix the underlying problem, unless those tax dollars are going to go towards multi-level parking garages that add spaces and not just the existing roads).
fnfjfk 2y ago
Why should everyone pay equally, rather than people that currently store their private property for free on public land in some of the most expensive real estate in the country?
asoneth 2y ago
Others have mentioned the unfairness of asking taxpayers to subsidize drivers. This is particularly egregious in Midtown Manhattan where many taxpayers are not drivers and many drivers are not (local) taxpayers. But even as a driver I prefer when cities place an efficient price on parking. Otherwise, if parking is too cheap compared to demand it costs time and stress circling the block to find a place to park. Market pricing, where the city sets whatever prices are necessary to maintain an empty spot or two on each block, seems more fair, efficient, and pleasant.
- dleink 2y ago
  Any examples of cities that have done a good job on this?

spamizbad 2y ago

You also have to factor in any reduction (or increase) in traffic fatalities and injuries. 34 traffic deaths and roughly 7500 injuries occurred in Manhattan in one of the nation's highest GDP-per-capita area, so the loss of economic output from these fatalities and injuries is likely fairly high.

adamc 2y ago
Not to mention the costs of treating them.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

jakelazaroff 2y ago

Advocates did worry that reducing it from $15 to $9 would create a sort of "no-mans land" — not quite high enough to deter traffic but high enough to annoy people. I'm not sure how to reconcile the significant drop in the bridge and tunnel commute times with the apparent non-effect on commute times within the congestion relief zone.

sethhochberg 2y ago
Most of the bridges and tunnels have their own tolls, with a few exceptions like the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges. One possible explanation is that the advocates were right and the combined bridge/tunnel + congestion toll is enough to dissuade driving into the zone entirely for people arriving via bridge/tunnel, but the lower congestion toll on its own isn't as much of a deterrent if you have access to a free crossing into Manhattan from other boros or were already in Manhattan (outsize of the zone) to begin with.
blehn 2y ago
> I'm not sure how to reconcile the significant drop in the bridge and tunnel commute times with the apparent non-effect on commute times within the congestion relief zone. Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that either but it'll be interesting to see when more/better data comes available. Maybe car traffic getting to Manhattan is reduced but those people are using more taxis and Ubers to get around once they're in
eru 2y ago
It's a bit silly to set a fixed rate. Here in Singapore, the congestion charging pioneer, we adjust the fee dynamically to keep traffic flowing.