So, people seem to be mad about having to pay extra tolls to come into the city to work because the trains to way out in the boroughs are shitty so they have to drive in and they shouldn’t have to shoulder another tax for the ridiculously wealthy who live in Manhattan. True.
But what if Bloomberg instituted a universal “pass” to have on your car if it’s in his preferred areas? Not an in-or-out toll, just a pass to be there. That way, the rich with their black SUVs would have to pay it too. You could opt to get a long-term pass or a day or week pass, like a Metrocard. In an ideal world, the cost could be adjusted based on an algorithm taking into account the price of the vehicle and the fuel mileage it gets, but in the real world, it would still be better than having people who drive in and out pay a higher price than people who can afford to locate their vehicles in the city.
I might be missing something obvious (other than potential political damages to Bloomberg and Co.) but what would be the downside?
First off, I’m pretty sure that’s not legal. AFAIK, cities can no more than states wall themselves off (fiscally orotherwise) or generally screw visitors over. Just as they can’t stop anyone coming in from Jersey to see if they have cigarettes. Cities are created under the auspces of states and can’t have any powers the States don’t.
There’s a $6 toll to cross the Holland Tunnel into New York, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
I think dart also needs a reality check about what “ridiculously wealthy” means, because everyone who lives in Manhattan isn’t.
Alos, I’m not sure how the budget for the MTA or Port Authority is structured, but I’m sure a lot of the tax money goes into supporting the trains and subways and whatnot.
msmith537 They were talking about raising the rate for the subway/bus by about .40, but with that hike it would only handle their current expenses and not upgrades, so part of the justification for the congestion pricing is to pay for mass transit upgrades.
Personally I’m all for it, fewer cars in Manhattan is a good thing.
As long as they wait until my current consulting gig is up. I’m traveling from Queens to central(ish) Jersey for my current client. Going through the Bronx or Staten Island adds a good 30 minutes to the commute. Mass transit is not an option; that adds well over an hour to my trip.
mswas, I had heard that Congestion Pricing would alleviate the need for a 20% fare increase (or at least drastically lower it), as the proceeds would go to the MTA.
Congestion pricing is for lower Manhattan. You could still use the TriBoro and GWB.
Not according to the New York Press article I read about it yesterday.
Where I go is pretty much a straight shot across the Holland, so Verazanno might be the better of bad choices - going through the Bronx being the other bad choice. Either way, to avoid congestion pricing (if I’m still traveling out here if and when it gets implemented) would significantly add to an already shitty commute.
My source was WNYC.
If you are interested, last week’s New York Press had this issue as their feature with numerous articles on the subject.
The articles basically were talking about how the attempt was to split the difference. I expect fares to go up. They are going to shaft the poor and middle-class as usual, nothing to see here really. I’m sorry for your commute, but I really do like the idea of not having cars in Manhattan.
Well, if it got rid of cars in Manhattan then the congestion fees wouldn’t cover the short-fall in the MTA budget. I imagine making up that shortfall is based on the city collecting a congestion fee on the level of traffic it has now, if the fee removes said traffic, the city won’t make its money and then the system becomes kind of pointless.
Unless the system is being developed to get rid of cars in Manhattan, which I don’t believe it is, it’s being suggested as another source of revenue.
I kinda doubt the congestion fee would get rid of cars anyway. A friend of mine in London where they have a congestion charge said it helped noticeably when it was implemented but traffic is still pretty terrible most of the time
I think the problems with the targeted area congestion charge like they implemented in London and is being proposed in New York City is two fold:
-
It actually will probably decrease traffic in the area under the charge, but it could very likely increase congestion in areas outside the charge as people deliberately drive their cars in different ways to avoid the charge.
-
It will probably have a negative impact on retailers in the area where the charge applies, which will have an indirectly negative impact on the city coffers
-
If it actually drastically reduces traffic, the funding it was supposed to create shrinks up, and then you’re still going to need to hike fares to cover stuff like the MTA short-fall.
I’d be hit pretty hard by it - I live in Queens and my parents live in lower Manhattan - but I understand the rationale behind it, and I don’t object in principle. The only thing I have against it is that it penalizes people anywhere on geographical Long Island (i.e., Queens and Brooklyn as well) if they want to get somewhere beyond Manhattan - that’s unfair. One thing that could make it fair would be a dedicated road from the Brooklyn Battery Tunnel to the Holland Tunnel, and one from the Queens Midtown Tunnel to the Lincoln Tunnel that would bypass the “Congestion Pricing Zone” for that purpose. Kind of the thing that would help D_Odds.
Only somewhat. Manhattan doesn’t readily lend itself to people passing through.
It will have a good deal of impact on certain businesses…not so much retailers (no one drives to shop in Manhattan), but other types of businesses will be affected.
This also plays into Bloomberg’s plan for a greener NYC. I don’t know what assumptions are being made for the revenue forecasting.
But then I’d have to pay for the BBT. I use the Williamsburg because it is free (and more convenient for me). I agree on principal, but I’d say they need to dedicate a route from all the East River crossings to the nearest Hudson crossing - somehow funnel the Manhattan / Brooklyn / Williamsburg / BBT crossings into the Holland. (I’d still get nailed, as I pick up people to car pool, but we should be out of here by the end of July).
Unless you absolutely have to be in Manhattan, there’s going to be people who won’t go onto the island just to avoid the charge.
I think you’d probably be surprised. I knew a lot of people from upstate and mid-Jersey that used to drive into Manhattan to shop. My aunt and uncle did it for years, he’d drop her off and then drive out to Brooklyn and hang out with some of his retired buddies for the day, then pick her up in the evening. When London implemented its congestion charge changes retailers noticed a decline in sales (although the London Mayor denies this has anything to do with the charge.)
Having lived in the NY myself I noticed that in comparison to say, London, Manhattan’s traffic has a much higher percentage of vehicles like taxis and etc than London does. Taxis would, I’m assuming, be exempt from the congestion charge.
Perhaps, however if the OP is correct in his assumption that anyone who drives in Manhattan is a rich SUV owner, I don’t see it having a significant impact on the number of cars in Manhattan. If you’re rich, a congestion charge isn’t going to make you change your habits anymore than $3.50/gal gas is.
Here are some details of the plan from Wikipedia:
If I weren’t commuting by car for the first time in nearly two decades, I’d be cheering the plan. As I hope to soon return to the ranks of the subway rats, this probably won’t affect me adversely, and if the money does go into the MTA coffers, it will hopefully benefit me.
D_Odds:
Theoretically, that would be nice - I go out of my way to use the free East River crossings - but I can’t see how it could work out practically. If the goal is to reduce congestion, earmarking roads to connect three bridges that empty onto the middle streets (and not the FDR or West Side Highway) to the Holland Tunnel can’t possibly work. At best, I’d love to see a connecting tunnel between those two pairs of tunnels (though of course, the costs would be astronomical); at worst, the BBT at least empties onto a highway along the river rather than in the middle of through traffic. A non-tunnel connection along 34th street would also be disruptive, but I can at least see a dedicated elevated roadway, or a series of overpasses for north/south traffic as a potential solution there.
The cost would be astronomical, but they really should consider building a highway (tunnel?) linking 495 in Queens to 495 in New Jersey. If you look at the exit numbers, you can see that was contemplated back in the day.
Mid-Manhattan Expressway (I-495, unbuilt) - info the scotched mid-manhattan highway.
The plan would affect me, since I live on 83rd and will more likely than not be working in NJ in the near future. If I want the priviledge of getting home to my wife and kids before 6:00 I get to pay extra. Super.
Thanks for the link. Wow…a detailed web site dedicated to a road that was planned but never came into existence.
Is there ANYTHING you can’t find on the internet???
I think the proposed congestion pricing was ridiculously high. What we should do instead is make all bridges toll bridges, but keep them about the same price they cost now.
I don’t see why it’s unfair to tax people from Long Island but just fine to tax people from New Jersey. Someone has to pay for it, and I’d rather people driving cars pay for it, than see my MTA price go up by 50%, because that is truly shafting the poor and the middle-class. It’s a great revenue model by $ 21 is extreme.
As for loss of retail revenue. Supposedly revenue at bars and restaurants went down when Giuliani started his gestapo quality of life campaign targetting the clubs, and thus reducing New York’s status as a nightlife hotspot. Things change all the time, it affects the economy in different ways, and then it readjusts. There are just too damn many cars in New York. I say this living in Brooklyn.