3 ms·
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 peop
by 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 agoMost 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 agoIt'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.