This is why I left Manhattan. It's one giant traffic jam, getting anything to or from your apartment is just about impossible.
Opposing the congestion price "because it will hurt the poor" reminds me of the rationale for proposition 13 in California that was promoted as "protecting the elderly". However, prop 13 benefitted primarily corporation and commercial real estate owners, the same way that avoiding congestion pricing benefits mostly the rich in Manhattan (I visited in November and saw the cars - they were mostly very large SUVs in the $50k+ price range - hardly a typical 4 wheel for the low-income...). Funny how economic principles are always promoted to benefit the same people (see arguments agains minimum wage or against regulations).
if traffic time is so terrible why are people taking Uber and taxis ? it sounds like nyt. in its usual manner, is offering solutions, in search of a problem.
ps walking is one of the healthiness exercises.
1
"...the human body is sometimes Manhattan’s fastest mode of transportation."
Only if that human body is astride a bike.
By chance, I heard an old TV documentary (PBS - Gabe Pressman front & center) about Ed Koch yesterday. Of course, that Mayor had no bigger fan than himself, but there was enough commentary from historians and journalists to make me think that - probably to a very real extent - he DID make some tough choices, ... and the City benefitted as a result.
Mr. Leonhardt has it do right - political courage (LEADERSHIP) is what's called for here, and the pity is that - different as they are in many respects - Andy & Bill are peas in the pod when it comes to "courage" - hard to spot many instances where they've shown any ... and easy to come up with examples where they've "wimped out."
Add to that the multiple failures each has on the "public transp" front ... and it's a kind of miracle that the city isn't in terrible shape. But we ALL do pay a price - Mr. L. doesn't talk about consequences like food prices in supermarkets. Figure it out - if you can keep a suburban supermarket fully stocked by dedicating bigger trucks for much shorter periods of time, you've built in a HUGE pricing disadvantage to NYC.
The only thing I disagree with Mr. L. on is his skepticism on socking it to Uber. Obviously, its users are better able to take a hit than the folks who ride mass transit because it's their only affordable choice. It's VERY dubious that car ownership would increase if Uber's prices even doubled. Likely, Mr. L. does not live in the 5 boros - if he did, he wouldn't have made that error.
An Idea I had decades ago , after repeated travel up and down both the No.1 and #6 lines in Manhattan , which can extend deep into (-far up into?), the emptier and more spacious Bronx , Brooklyn and Queens, was to use the IRT and other subway or El rails-which the city is threatening to shut down at night, now-to deliver some, or at least a portion of the goods which could be relatively easily moved up and down from the stations to street level. Perhaps with special freight elevators installed for said purpose. But the point is that at Circa 2 AM or thereabouts-the lines and trains are greatly underused-garbage collection most often takes place then- aslow, labor intensive on and off collection. Only small parts of immensely long, empty stations are then considered safe for passengers. This has created a 'vacuum' in the main N/S lines of the IRT. Perhaps the vacuum might be filled by moving of material goods on either flatcars, or older, chopped redbirds(if any are left). Rather then losing even more jobs to an empty system a la Bostons T , where all transport is rolled up like a "runner" at 11.30pm. NYC, city now HAS a ready made and all but empty functioning rail system, with several empty hours of the day and perfect for freight moving. This would be a huge shot of vitamins muscle and money and would make the trains useful and robust all over again with a new set of jobs to do , instead of sitting almost silently for 5 hours after midnight.
1
NYC already has some congestion pricing: the $15 tolls to cross the Hudson to Manhattan. You can’t trust politicians. I remember when the Henry Hudson Bridge toll (linking northern Manhattan and the Bronx) was 30 cents. Now it’s $6. Please, no more tolls.
1
Taxiis and buses - free; everyone else $6. add $2 each hour during the rush.
Then every penny ought to be dedicated to expanding and renovating the subway: tracks, cars and stations.
The construction Unions that essentially hold the city to ransom every time there's a new subway project don't help with Modernisation and Expansion of the system either. Prices to build track in NY are about 5x higher than almost anywhere else in the world due to the power the Unions hold to essentially set their own prices. Bust the unions, you could build 5x the infrastructure with the same amount of capital, funded in part by a congestion tax and higher Gas taxes. London/most of Europe pays about twice the Gas price the US does, and those extra billions could fund the subway overhaul. The other big issue with the Subway is that it is extremely susceptible to flooding with any future sea level rise or storm surge, which would essentially wipe out any new investment. Maybe build more El lines, at least these can't flood.
1
Subways can be modified to become more resilient towards flooding, it just takes money.
As a former long time resident of NYC, I have long thought that NYC could get its people moving again in Manhatta if it just changed how it operated its street lights. Instead of setting them so one can drive from say 14th street to 90th street or so without stopping provided you are traveling at 3 in the morning when you had rather be sleeping, it should set them so that all the lights on all the avenues change from red to green at the same time or nearly the same time and consequently ditto for all the streets. Then when a light changes for you it changes for everyone ahead of you so you should be able to travel several blocks, maybe 10, maybe 15, before they change again. And then one should be able to travel 80 blocks up town or down town on as maybe as 6 light changes. And maybe all the way across town on a couple. You should try it NY
1
The lights on the Avenues in the Manhattan central business district are timed at least to maintain vehicles speeds of 25 MPH.
Listen, NY is trying to jumpstart NY by purging the poor. You do it through taxes, limits on constitutional rights and force. Unfortunately, your detritus is being shoveled into the rest of America. We need a border wall around NY. Funny, it would cost ten-times the one in the South.
There is only one remedy that can cure NYC from the most anal, constipated and mentally compromised Federal government on the planet and that is a complete purge.
NYC needs to declare itself the first City State of the 21st century. Great cities have no future in GOP America. Maybe Bloomberg and De Blasio are 21st century De Medicis. Washington is the problem not the solution.
2
Generally in favor of the idea, however I'm really worried they will enact congestion pricing and not improve the subway. What happens when everyone who has been taking taxis and ubers moves to the subway?
1
Taxes would most likely be earmarked for transportation. Either way, the city would benefit from reduced congestion, revenue or not. And most people will not be switching from the for-hires to the subway, and their total numbers would be rather minuscule. The city could counter with many more bus only and bike lanes in the core. Congestion pricing is going to work best for keeping unnecessary vehicles out of the CBD.
Of course they will bungle it, they are Dems.
2
To avoid the problem of left turn drivers being delayed by late-crossing pedestrians, consider opting for X-crossings, where pedestrians can cross streets diagonally--a time saver for pedestrians. Then, actually enforce the law that prohibits stepping off the curb after the flashing red hand.
3
The city has a couple diagonal crossings at certain intersections, but the NYCDOT has determined that a better solution for overall mobility is delayed turn signals. Also, more pedestrianized streets, more bus and bike lanes would improve mobility for more people in a lot of areas.
Nope. I already have a $200 per month ez pass bill and my job requires travel off peak and way off public transit. This so the subway can eat yet more money ? I paid already
If you're way off transit then you're not going to be affected by a congestion charge in the Manhattan central business district.
I took the M31 bus for 10 yrs up til Sept. 2017 down 57th Street and onto York & returned via the M31.
Some comments from 10 years of travelling/observation:
1) approximately 15 express buses to Queens turn right from 6th Ave onto 57th Street & turn onto the Ed Koch/Queensboro Bride btw. 1st & 2nd. The return from York for the M31 onto 57th is a problem as traffic is turning from all lanes-even the outer lane-for the Bridge & the bus & through-traffic have nowhere to go.
2) These Queens express buses are in addition to the SI & Bklyn express buses. (Keep in mind that there are no bus lanes on 57th, 6th or York. Also, of course, no bike lanes and new competing bike cos. to Citibank have opened-and the riders use the sidewalks on 6th as their path to/from Central Park resulting in sidewalk congestion.)
3) The lawless pedicabs which weave in & out of traffic, drive the wrong way on one-way streets, drive on the sidewalks, block the box, & devour all available parking spaces, parking perpendicular to the curb & then double-parking. The result - delivery trucks which are lifelines to all the businesses - must double-park.
4) Huge increase in deliveries for online orders - Amazon, groceries, etc. .
5) Uber, Lyft, Via.
6) The never-ending tourist coach buses.
7) Vendors - especially the ice cream trucks which park in loading zones of hotels - which have no loading docks causing double-parking & sidewalk congestion.
8) vehicles with 1 passenger.
2
Manhattan car and truck traffic is a disaster. In rush hour, it often takes over an hour for cars to travel from one end to the other of our building - less than 4 hundredths of a mile per hour! Millions lose much of their productive lives stuck in slow moving cars. The City must act now to solve this crisis Traffic cops must ticket intersection blockers. Traffic lights should be computerized to facilitate morning and evening speed flow. Uber traffic must be restricted. Double parking and delivery times must be modified by time and location. Tunnel and bridge traffic must be restricted when streets are congested. If NY State continues to impede MTA improvement the City may need to succeed!!!
Unfortunately, it will likely take a disaster like a major fire or terrorist event to make congestion pricing happen. When emergency vehicle don’t get to people who need help, then the political powers will be forced to do something.
I think congestion pricing needs to happen.
But it can’t be rushed like Bloomberg tried to do. Things like borough parking and accountability of the revenue need to be carefully thought out. Our mayor and governor are not very good at this.
1
If congestion pricing is not simply a money grab by the government, the target group has to be the middle and upper middle class. Poor people do not drive. Rich people either pay it and enjoy the quicker trips or charge it to businesses where it becomes tax deductible as a bona fide expense. If success is getting cars off the streets, the numbers are not in the rich or poor. Since goring the ox of the middle and upper middle class seems to be the only way for a Democrat to lose in NYC, the governor and Mayor rightly tread very lightly on this measure.
Out here in the provinces we keep hearing about how hip and progressive NYC is on mass transit. Stories like this one and the continuing saga of the subway disrepair show you are no different than the rest of us. Many of you simply cannot afford to drive. If you could afford it, you would do the same as the flyover states.
1
It's not so much about affordability, it's about convenience. The subway has its issues, but it works. If you are trying to get into or around the Manhattan central business district or similar areas of the outer boroughs, driving is a real inconvenience.
Two words: subway. I don’t know why subways get the reputation they have. Can you eat off the floor? No. Are they crowded at rush hour? Oh, yes. Do they break down occasionally? Yep. But if you rode them, as I did, in the 70’s and 80’s, when they were rickety, covered in graffiti, and never ever air conditioned, you’d be grateful for what you’ve got now. By the way, you get around New York much faster on the subway than any other mode of transportation unless you are a pigeon.
5
I like visiting NYC. I grew up there and took buses and subways then and now. It was and is the only sensible way to navigate NYC, London, or Paris.
Please Gov. Cuomo and Mayor DeBlasio find the money for the subways and buses. The new rail tunnel under the Hudson should be revised.
How about higher tolls on the bridges and tunnels into Manhattan as well as congestion pricing??
2
Another idea: charge for on-street parking. Two of the three lanes of most residential streets are given over to free parking for the minority of people who have cars. These streets are maintained entirely at taxpayer expense (whereas the sidewalks are for the most part maintained at the expense of property owners). Real estate is at a premium. Why is two-thirds of nearly every residential street given away to car owners for free?
2
Agreed, a more comprehensive plan should reform parking citywide.
Another tax is the solution? Really? Because it's not like it's expensive living in NYC especially now that the state and local taxes can no longer be deducted. I'm all for hitting the app-based drivers with some sort of fee that makes them rethink driving around without passengers, but it seems to me the state and local governments should be figuring out how to reduce taxes, not increase them. Also, it's apparently an accepted fact that the NYC subway system is in shambles...as a recent transplant my perspective is the exact opposite: I've never seen a public transportation system that was comparable or even close in any city I've lived in, and I've lived all over the country.
It's a user fee for an amenity that is being overused (space). And yes the subway works, but there are things that should improve.
I Though I live in Denver, I've spent a lot of time living and working in Manhattan for months-at-a-time stretches. My non-scientific, eyeball-measured data tells me that most of Manhattans traffic consists of taxis, black-car service limos, lyft/uber vehicles, delivery trucks, and busses/jitneys (licensed or otherwise). As a percentage, it seems that personal automobiles make up far less of the traffic problem than in, say, Denver or pretty much any other North American city. One of my clients, a national parcel delivery company, pays hundreds of thousands of dollars to the City every year in parking fines and other violations just associated with normal business. Switch that to congestion pricing, perhaps add a surcharge to make a certain number of dedicated delivery spaces available per block and as long as it less than or equal to what's currently being paid in fines, most businesses will welcome the increased efficiency without increased cost (that are also more predictable and manageable).
3
I believe that congestion pricing is, in fact, a tax on the rich. As Mr. Leonhardt points out, only a small percentage of the poor drive into the city. The money raised by congestion pricing should go directly to improving the subways and other mass transit that services the city. As such, congestion pricing is, in effect, a wealth transfer - from the rich who drive to the masses, who take mass transit. In addition to congestion pricing, I believe that the politician should consider raising the cost of on the street parking.
Finally, I do believe that residents of the area in which congestion parking will be put into effect should, should be exempted from it.
1
I disagree with an exemption for the Manhattan core for residents. If anything the city needs to convert more road space into pedestrian only and bike/bus lanes. Most people in the CBD especially do not have access to a personal auto.
If the subways were clean, fast, and reliable, then more people would use them instead of driving their cars or using ride-hailing apps. It's really simple. If you have a choice between shoving your way into a jammed subway car in the hope that it will actually make its scheduled stops and driving a car, what rational person would put up with the subway?
"what rational person would put up with the subway?"
One who doesn't want to worry about parking? One who wants to make more than one stop? One who doesn't want to travel at 5.4 miles per hour? One who doesn't want to move a ton on steel from one place to another just to get their 200 lb self there? My question is, What rational person would want to drive in Manhattan if they didn't 100% have to?
5
I have a car but I rarely drive into the Manhattan core because of traffic and parking. Faster and cheaper to take the subway.
P.S. the subway is not that bad.
1
Put tolls on all of the bridges into manhattan, the east side bridges, 59th, Williamsburg, Manhattan and Brooklyn, and also the bridges from the Bronx. With easy pass now it is-well, easy. No more toll boothes or collectors. Just a sensor that can read the pass at speed.
And-combine with some sort of tax for high end properties that get advantages of Uber etc and parking and a nice view etc.
The money really has to go for meaningful transit work. The gateway tunnel, east side access, etc. And perhaps shore up some of the options in Brooklyn Queens and Bx to make taking transit into Manhattan more appealing, and effective
3
There are two issues the come glaringly to mind in this scenario....
1. If you upgraded the subways and made them reliable, people wouldn't be forced to use their cars!
2. I occasionally drive in Manhattan and the majority of cars I see on the road are services like Uber and Lyft. HELLO???? What about taxing them the way medallion cabs are taxed? Please don't tell me they are an "app". They are a TAXI SERVICE and should be treated as such.
In the meantime, in a world where most employees are barely scraping by, burdening them further on a problem that isn't of their making is disgusting.
Most are using their cars because the subway system is such a mess. Being late for work over repeated subway problems is a good way to lose a job - and jobs don't grow on trees.
Another answer is to strengthen incentives for employers to let employees work from home. There are many jobs that could be done just as effectively by a telecommuter. The trouble is that employers want to keep employees under their thumb. Maybe some tax incentives for those who will create telecommuting options for 10%-20% or more of their employees would bring some relief to the commuter congestion both on the subways and the road.
3
The subways are not reliable, yet you get >stuck< in traffic when you drive into the core of the city?
The subways have their issues, but it isn't that bad. The vast majority of CBD workers use it to get to and from.
Nobody is talking about the main benefit of congestion pricing to those actually paying the charge. Imposition of a congestion charge will, ahem, reduce congestion. You can walk across Midtown faster than someone can drive, fair enough. How about pointing out that with congestion pricing, they will be able to get there faster by car. Is that worth nothing to the driver? It's not as if they can get there faster for free now. It's the direct benefit of congestion pricing.
3
Paris (France)
Ms. Hidalgo, upon taking office of major of Paris noted that 80% of the vehicles clogging the streets of Paris and polluting its air carried just one passengers. And she acted, thusly
"THE quayside roads that wind along the Seine used to throb with hurtling traffic. Today, potted palm trees have been ranged along the tarmac. Joggers and cyclists enjoy the waterside calm. On a stretch of the right bank opposite the Eiffel Tower formerly used as a convenient express route, cars have been squeezed into a single lane, leaving the other to bicycles"
" it (the plan) is also part of a broader rethink of how the city should adapt to an age that will be shaped by electric vehicles and driverless transport. “It’s a revolution that will be as great as the transition from horse-drawn carriages to the motor car"
Read more how Anne Hildago, is transforming traffic in Paris, at
https://www.economist.com/news/europe/21728997-motorists-denounce-hipste...
3
Park Uptown and pay $30 for the garage instead of $40 midtown. The $10 you save pays for the Uber/lyft/cab downtown.
Surprise NYC has allowed over 100,000 more vehicles in Manhattan (Uber,Lyft, Juno, Via etc) Add to that the number of streets constricted by Construction sites and access streets that are only one lane due to parking no wonder nothing moves!
Most low income individuals can’t afford a car or pay to park in the City.
Our Mayor rode the Subway to his Innauguration a very rare ride indeed.
He spends too much time bickering with the Governor who I’m sure isn’t a Subway rider except for Photo Ops.
Give the new man from Toronto a shot but I’ll give him a year and the Politics will send him running.
1
New York is 30 years behind the times for transportation infrastructure. Look at what happened at JFK yesterday.
The world is growing and New York infrastructure is not. It is a total failure of planning and public funding.
5
Let's just abolish poor people.
Has any one considered the possibility of getting cars off the street and reducing congestion by providing more parking?
On the Lower East Side new construction is adding hundreds, perhaps thousands, of new units without any additional parking space provided. Not only that, the new construction removes existing parking space as do the numerous Citi Bike locations and extended bus stops.
The argument that people will use mass transit holds no water if there is no improvement of mass transit. There are simply not enough buses or space on subways for everyone who wishes to abandon the motor vehicle to do so.
As for walking, I'm faster, on foot, than the M14A bus; and have been for years. I can also make the trek from Union Square to Grand Street on a weekday evening or a weekend afternoon without even catching sight of a bus going in my direction. But I am fairly fit for my age; what about those who must wait in heat or cold until someone comes for them? It is not a convenient system.
There may be considerably less congestion on the streets if those who need to use cars to get around the city could simply park them, get out, take care of business, and then leave. More municipal parking facilities, strategically located, could make a difference.
3
Adding parking only entices more people to drive. It's called induced demand.
And non-automotive transportation could be improved relatively rapidly with the political will. You can designate Lexington Ave to buses, run center-running bus lanes on the major crosstown streets physically separated from traffic. More protected bike lanes, an actual network, to encourage more biking. A lot easier when you reduce auto volumes after implementing a cordon charge.
There is an elephant in the room no one is talking about, and it does to a certain extent have to do with economic class. The subway system is having problems both because of hyper increased ridership (it has tripled or more since the 1970's) with a system that has not been expanded to handle it (the 2nd ave subway and the 7 line are drops in the bucket), but more importantly even as the city since the 1990's became "go to city", with its population exploding, maintainance and funding for upgrades or expansion have been cut back, mostly by the state, while fares have gone up.
You would figure with all the wealth in NYC, that has driven a lot of this expansion, should be no big deal. The problem is that the people buying luxury housing, the 40 million dollar apartments and the like, basically refuse to help pay for transit. The luxury buildings, for example, often are tax abated, and when there is a land grab, like the Hudson yards project, the MTA sold the rights for a fraction of what they were worth to developers who will make billions, and you wonder how much of the money gotten went to transit. Cuomo wants to keep his political base and not appear NYC-centric, despite the amount of state tax revenue generated here, so he puts billions into projects of dubious value upstate, while short shifting transit. One of the reasons the streets are crowded is the 'beautiful' people don't use transit, they use cabs and ubers and limousines, add them to tourist buses, and you have it
7
I live in midtown Manhattan and own a car that I very seldom drive unless I'm going out of town because the subway is much faster and you don't have to worry about parking when you get off the train. If congestion pricing can be used to fix the subway's problems, I'm all for it.
I think one cause of increased traffic congestion that is seldom if ever mentioned, however, is the huge number of driving lanes that are closed to traffic because of building construction. There is probably not a crosstown street in midtown that doesn't have at least one block with a lane closed for two or three years because a building is going up. The construction project takes over the sidewalk, the temporary (does three years really qualify as temporary?) sidewalk is pushed into a driving lane, and the narrowed street creates a bottleneck that extends back into the intersection of the perpendicular avenue. I see this from my living room window every day, and all over midtown when I'm going around town. It's unlikely anything can be done about this, but its contribution to congestion should be acknowledged. Perhaps developers who take over a lane in a city street should be required to pay into the congestion pricing fund as well.
3
Congestion Pricing or Eliminate Double Parking
There is a cheaper and more effective remedy for New York City’s traffic problem. Ban all double parking and double standing, even for deliveries. Provide a ‘No Standing Zone’ every block for deliveries etc where a driver must remain in the vehicle. This No Standing Zone will eliminate some parking places. Ban all day parking by having a No Standing Zone on all blocks every day between 10 and 4.
2
The city does need significantly more loading/drop off areas. We could do so by adding more metered parking and raising the rates in addition.
Much of the congestion in lower Manhattan is caused by trucks going from Long Island to New Jersey via the East River Bridges and the Hudson River Crossings - taking advantage of Senator D'Amato's legacy that one-way tolls are collected westbound on the Verrazano Bridge and eastbound on the Hudson River crossings.
First put a toll on trucks using the East River Bridges (exempt cars for now). Second, seriously consider a rail tunnel for freight to Long Island to take these trucks off the Manhattan streets.
3
Personally, I prefer the Nordic Model. Paris is adopting it
"Can Paris become the world's bicycle capital?
Mayor Anne Hidalgo wants to make Paris the world’s most bikeable city. But the congested and polluted capital still has a long way to go before it can rival the likes of Amsterdam and Copenhagen."
http://www.france24.com/en/20170905-france-paris-cycling-bikes-transport...
But know, we are not Denmark
3
In 20 years from now, Manhattan is either going to be jam packed gridlocked or become substantially different in regards to how street space is allocated. CP is probably inevitable, unless the city just bans driving in large swaths period.
One should be careful when comparing London's gains in the 2000s to the potential gains from a congestion charge in NYC today, due to the rise in ride-hailing services. These account for a tremendous and unchecked rise in the number of vehicles on Manhattan streets, and they did not exist when London implemented its congestion charge.
The other big change is the increase of bike and bus lanes on all major Manhattan streets, reducing the lanes available to general traffic. It is these two changes - more cars through ride-hailing and fewer lanes available to cars - that account for almost the entire increase in traffic in Midtown Manhattan over the past few years.
9
Even a small change in traffic volumes goes a long way. And yes, a for-hire vehicle surcharge is necessary. And a cap.
Today's technology allows to link congestion charges to the ability to pay.
Reading of (aka EZ pass) and linking it to income is the way to implement a more equal system.
Fixed congestion charges tempt politicians (that run for office on contributions from the rich) to up them until the rich happily zip along.
A quibble. Healthy people can walk four miles an hour, but few do. I am a daily brisk walker, but my normal pace is just over three and a half. And that is on clear ground with no intersections, lights and street obstructions. I would expect anyone in Manhattan to max out at three miles an hour. Other than this I agree with the article.
2
And the revenues from congestion pricing will be used to improve alternate methods of transportation when?
2
Manhattan streets are crazy. All those HUGE black suburbans especially need to go. Can't the city regulate the kind of vehicle used by the pay per ride companies? How about imposing an extra tax on vehicles over a certain size.
Congestion pricing is one way to go. However, to make this work and to build support among residents in the outer boroughs, the city will need to adopt permit parking in the outer borough neighborhoods. Those of us "out here" who live near subway stops are concerned that we will see all our parking disappear if drivers have to pay to enter Manhattan. People will drive into the nearer outer borough neighborhoods, park and then ride the subway. The city should be prepared to follow the examples of DC and Boston and other cities that have permit parking.
4
It's unlikely that your neighborhood would get overrun with "foreign" autos if CP was enacted, but parking reform is another item that needs to occur.
"I look forward to the day when I can no longer keep up with New York’s cars."
It's a question of whether you age quicker than our traffic infrastructure. There's nothing like putting thirty or forty years to slow you down to the speed of traffic. On the other hand, the city's infrastructure and traffic management systems are also aging and traffic may slow down more than you do over the next thirty years.
So, it all depends.
One secondary benefit of congestion pricing would be the potential reduction in noise - especially from honking. Honking seems to invite followers, i.e. when one driver honks there is cacophony that generally follows. And, from my experience while walking the streets, the majority of honking is anxiety/rage triggered and not safety based. An increase in tunnel/bridge fares, additional congestion pricing, and special access pricing during periods of construction on city streets would all contribute to a less congested, less polluted and possibly less-anxious and quieter city.
5
if public transportation were affordable efficent and acsessable to all it would help. stockholm, london and most european countries havex excellent trains that are affordable, clean and on time. nj transit costs 14.50 ft from here and the there is subway costs and delays. let us start with good,public transportaion
1
Congestion pricing working in London? Tell that to the Scottish drivers who have never been there but find their cars being detected by the "foolproof" systems around the central London district.
I recently went on vacation to Italy, where Milan and Florence have congestion fees to enter the central business district. The areas are well marked with signs, and the hotels I stayed at gave instructions about where and when too park to avoid the fees. It actually works if you are paying enough attention to be able to drive at all. It takes willful ignorance to drive into London and not know about the fee. I don't speak Italian.
1
21st Century needs, mid 20th Century infrastructure. All talk no systematic thinking our plan. We live in everyday multi-crisis management, a structure of government that has long been obsolete. But there are too many sacred cows for anyone to admit it. It is how civilizations tend to vanish.
2
1. Remove guaranteed free personal parking for police, fire-fighters, teachers, doctors, DAs, municipal workers, politicians, etc. If they wish to drive to work, let them pay for parking like everyone else. Mostly they will look for public transportation.
2. Stop treating drivers like second class citizens. Those without free parking, as above, drive in because they must.
3. Do regulate all vehicles for hire.
4. There's precious little public transportation where I live in the City. Unfair in the extreme when driving (as in tolls) has to subsidize subways unavailable to us.
1
I agree to drop the placards, and to cap/surcharge all for gires.
But most people in Bayside take mass transportation to the Manhattan CBD if they must access it on a regular basis. You have express bus options, a bus to subway and LIRR.
Congestion is simply the price one must pay for trying to squeeze ten pounds of stuff into the five pound sack that New York City is.
Everybody will be better off when people realize that things can be done just as well, and much more easily, elsewhere around the country,
2
Sorry to be politically incorrect, but too much of our Manhattan streets are given over to bikes, much too much!
3
Mr. Leonhardt obviously does not live in Queens where there are only two subway lines, one of which, the Queens Blvd line, the MTA has admitted is often dangerously overcrowded. Maybe if the MTA and our elected officals could stop spending on shiny bright things (for example: literally Cuomo's proposal to spend 140m on led lights on bridges, the 7 line extension which no one uses, 1.4 billion dollars for a new Fulton Street subway station and Hizzoners proposal for more than 2 Billion dollars for a "trolley" along the Brooklyn/Queens waterfront (which will benefit his real estate development donors) we could replace the signal system built by the ancient Romans and add more new trains to the system--this might relieve congestion..
5
The whole point is that congestion pricing can improve mass transit in Queens. The vast majority of Queens residents already rely on mass transit to access the core on a regular basis.
Freedom and Free stuff is no longer a primary concern. The simple fact of the matter is there are too many people and too many cars. When is enough enough?
3
Has anyone considered the inefficiencies and consequences of having every item delivered to our homes via some large chuffing vehicle? What Uber, Amazon and Fresh Direct have in common is that they bring the world to your door at the expense of stigmatizing communal venues like public transit and markets. A city comprised of nine million hermits is not a city, but something completely new and frightening.
5
all my wealthy pals have moved to Fla 6 months a year
to avoid the taxes
when in the city
we all UBER
life is good
1
"The good news is that modern societies have developed a solution to the tragedy: Charge money to use the commons." why not just execute the poor, so you won't have to see us.
3
People need to realize that they must pay for what they use. Higher gas taxes, congestion pricing, mileage taxes, etc., are all useful solutions to the problem of paying for transportation infrastructure. Leonhardt is exactly right when he says that political leaders are cowards. They care about getting reelected more than they care about doing what's right for the community.
28
A friend of mine caustically observed that New York's traffic congestion could be solved once and for all by making all the crosstown streets one way, east to west. And he had lived for a while in New Jersey.
Congestion pricing increases revenue. I don't see how it reduces traffic congestion. Aren't people in their cars during congested times for a reason? Surely they don't just decide to go for a drive for the fun of it. Surely they are in their cars trying to accomplish something like commuting to or from their employment, going to a scheduled appointment of some sort.
2
New York has a 24 hour transit system. Most people absolutely do have a choice not to drive into Manhattan. There's a big parking lot in Secaucus.
1
Add Milan, Vancouver, and Stockholm to that list.
1
Much of the surface congestion could be eliminated or at least made irrelevant by making the subway more functional.
Congestion pricing applied to the subway would mean charging the most -- say $5 a ride -- for rush hour, nearly as much -- say $4 -- for shoulder hours, and the least -- say $1 -- for graveyard hours, with $2 and $3 periods in between.
Meanwhile, seniors like myself take the same space as anyone else, and should pay the same fare as everyone else.
3
Those two "statistics" do not properly measure traffic flow in NYC: "average" speed and crosstown traffic flow. Moreover, determining just which vehicles can be removed from the roads to make it better for others is an impossible task. So long as the Avenues continue to flow with NYC-savvy drivers (taxis, limos, buses, delivery trucks, etc.), and "blocking the boxes" doesn't make a comeback, getting around is okay. Walking and public transportation continue to be acceptable alternatives. Subway ills? Try going back to the 1960's IRT Lexington Avenue experience to/from Wall Street!
1
You're kidding right? You truly expect the current clown car of Governor-Mayor, what with their outsized egos, and incompetent apparatchik staffs to even have a clue let alone a promising policy forward? Get real sonny. You've had eight years of Fredo on Eagle Steet - billions wasted on "job creation" boondoggles, a DEC that can't find municipal toxic water supplies despite decades of job-killing regulations hunting for every last single atom of pollutant, an income tax structure wholly dependant on the uber-wealthy...who'll be departing shortly, btw - and now you are about to get eight years of that luminescent loon in Gracie Mansion. It's a hoot! So long as one doesn't care, need or depend on a service run by NY governments. Hey - how was that holiday flight out of JFK, btw? Just another NY government agency-run operation. Smooth, huh?
4
There's no easy to answer to remedy the problem of too much traffic with no plan on how to handle the associated problems. Double parked cars and trucks, limited parking, deliveries, too many commercial, business and social activities for cities that were never designed to accommodate such a large flow of traffic. Manhattan and all major population areas need to develop master plans to accommodate the traffic overflow. The question is how to move people, auto's, trucks, emergency vehicles in a timely and efficient manner. As it stands now, the auto or truck driver entering the city is screwed. They never know how long their trip will take and, between tolls and parking fees, they better have made a deposit in their checking account to cover the cost (lol). Surely if we can put a man on the moon and start exploring deep space we can develop a system to move people, auto's, trucks and emergency vehicles in a timely manner. The idea of congestion pricing may cause people to stay away from the city rather than visit. This isn't the answer. We need our cities to be inviting. God, just thinking about the vibrancy of Manhattan, the culture, museums, Broadway shows makes me long to visit. Many years ago while traveling overseas, I saw a unique and novel way to park cars. The parking lot, so to speak, was designed as a ferris wheel. Again, a bandaid on a problem rather than a master plan with the proper funding.
2
I don't think more cars in Manhattan will make the city more inviting for Tourists.
2
Congestion pricing has not led to any reduction in economic activity for any city where implemented. If anything, the cities have become more vibrant.
1
As a pedestrian, I am assaulted by both the angry drivers and the idiots on bikes. Time for congestion pricing and more watchdog presence for inconsiderate bicyclists
3
The israelis have the only answer they have an overhead pod system that can be placed above existing roads. Everything else is overloaded. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FIa4i2U0NKk
"Should we walk, or do we have time to take a taxi?" has been a calculation everyone with experience in Manhattan makes at every turn in enjoying a day in that borough. Congestion pricing seems to have bought a few years of improvement in London and might be worth trying, but so might better engineering and stricter control of construction sites, both on road and off. Mr. Leonhardt's statistic of "average vehicle speed . . . [is] 28% slower than five years ago" may seem alarming in isolation, but that means previous speed was only 6.5 mph.
2
Let them crawl. I’ll zip past them on 2 wheels.
6
Like so many other American problems, transportation in Manhattan is a tangled political, financial, and engineering mess, not amenable to simple piecemeal “fixes”.
Congestion pricing in London works because the London Underground is a reliable, convenient alternative to driving a car in Central London. The Underground provides extensive coverage of the metropolitan area. A spectacular new $20 billion express line is nearing completion. Regular commuters travel by Underground, while limousines, taxis, buses, and delivery vehicles ply the streets above.
The New York Subway is not a reliable, convenient alternative to driving in Manhattan. The train lines under Manhattan are obsolete and difficult to maintain. The stations are primitive and dangerously congested. Subway management is fractured between city and state, and federal assistance is dwindling. Billions of dollars have been squandered on studies, proposals, false starts, and half measures on a replacement for the 3rd Ave El, which ceased operation more than 60 years ago, leaving the Eastside severely underserved.
Transport in Manhattan is difficult and costly because of the inadequacies of the Subway. Perhaps, fleets of jitneys might be better than congestion pricing. New York City avenues already look more like Manila or Jakarta than London or Paris.
38
You said everything I was going to say. Congestion pricing will not work unless people have a real alternative. Even before congestion pricing no one sane drove a car into Central London. The Underground is just too good. When the NY subways are fixed that in itself will solve a lot of this problem.
4
Have you ever talked to anyone who rides the London underground? If so, I think you might want to rethink using it as a comparison, the underground has many of the same problems NY's does, equipment breaking down, congestion, fares going up but services going down. One of the other things with London is you pay more for how far you go, and that hurts people who have been forced to move further out to be able to afford a place to live, NYC's subway is a lot more egalitarian that way.
The real problem with the NY subway is simply that after the massive rebuilds that happened in the 80's and 90's to overcome decades of neglect, the city started growing again, from just over 7 million in the late 70's to 8.5 today, and during that time post Guiliani spending on the subways has been cut back, even as fares have gone up. The state has shifted money from the MTA to upstate NY to curry political favor, and needed improvements like the 2nd ave subway (the full version), upgrading the signals to a modern system, and even maintainance, has been cut back. Andrew Cuomo has been playing politics with this, he refuses to pay into the MTA budget, then blames de Blasio. In a city where even places I never dreamed would gentrify, like the south bronx, and other places like LIC and good parts of brooklyn have been flooded with new housing, nothing was done.
4
I should add that congestion pricing works in London because a major drop in traffic makes a fast, frequent bus network possible (and a real alternative to the crowded Underground). The same is possible in Manhattan, but it will require that we demand it from our leaders.
3
Forgive me, for I am young. But have our politicians always been such cowards?
6
The author has obviously never heard the decades-old joke: One person to another on NYC street: "Do you want to walk, or do we have time to take a cab?"
8
If you tax the rich too much, they will just leave, with their businesses and money. Not sure that is what de Blasio wants.
Socialists always run out of other people's money. (M. Thatcher)
1
I'm sure the wealthy will go packing to Kansas.
If anything they are making a killing here.
NYC has a problem with bloated bureaucracy and union corruption......and that is why the streets no longer work.........
2
Congestion pricing alone won't be in help, unless NY rigorously renovates resources for integrated corridor movement!
2
You know a lot more people live in the borough of Queens than in Manhattan. We have got a heck of lot traffic now that we did not have ten years ago. Drive in Astoria during the daytime. Crawl on The Van Wyck anytime. Limp along Crossbay Blvd with crazy new Bus Lanes that zigzag arose the road.
My guess that is these drivers are not all "Queens People". So let's consider congestion pricing in Queens. Why not charge a ten dollars surcharge to take The Van Wick to JFK?. It will cut down on traffic and make all our lives easier. I am sure it would benefit the city to tax the road ways leading to Citifield and the US Tennis Open. Their are many other ares with massive congestion could monetized.
We share the city with those poor Manhattanites. Let there share some of our traffic pain. I am a bit tired of listening to their jaded complaints. You tax us we will find away to tax you
19
Daniel, a surcharge on the Van Wyck to Kennedy will only increase traffic through the streets of Queens. Much of the new surge in Queens traffic is precisely because fewer taxi drivers are taking the Van Wyck to Kennedy and are being rerouted by the Waze app to get there by side streets. Queens has more traffic because there are more and more people moving into ever more new buildings.
Do you really want to charge New York residents a surcharge to assist the real estate developers who are over-building?
3
CP for the Manhattan CBD would reduce traffic in Queens too, especially around LIC.
Why I left NYC 18 years ago.
3
SMART! you win the internet today!
2
Everyone should be biking around the city and the City should be prioritizing making bike traffic safe and easy. It's good for traffic, it's good for health, it's good for the environment.
Barring improvements in the subway this is the easiest, fastest, and cheapest solution to road congestion.
7
Mr. Leonhardt presents a solid argument for congestion pricing. New York residents should embrace it and put pressure on de Blasio and Cuomo to show leadership and get it done in full - not in some half-measure compromise that will render it ineffective.
But there is one legitimate worry that Mr. Leonhardt does not mention in the article. How do you guarantee the money made from congestion pricing will be used in a dedicated and efficient and successful manner. Think Lotto and the New York public school system. There must be strict accountability written into any congestion pricing program.
21
Earmark the money. But either way, the city will benefit from reduced traffic.
I am 15 minutes away from work (by car) and 15 minutes away from farm country (opposite direction by car). Can't imagine myself live in Silicone Valley or NY city. Why? Cultural activities? Nothing is more enjoyable and relaxing than seeing open space and farm land. I feel so close to God (although I am an atheist). It is so ironic that coastal cities are "blue" even though they create more pollution from their life styles. It is quite laughable that some coastal states claim to be environmental leaders even though they have the most urban sprawling, traffic jams and misuse of valuable water resource. The hypocrisy is obvious to everyone else. I believe it is the reason why the rest of the country looked down upon those liberals. Oh, don't forget they also practice "segregated but equal".
NYT really needs to wise up. News report must be neutral. It cannot be tailored to certain types of readers. Sadly, NYT is a place for liberals to make fuss. Unfortunately, they merely talk the talk but not walk the walk.
1
In New York at least, the average resident pollutes much, much less than the average American.
4
On the other hand, you and those around you could move to a dense place and allow your farm/suburb to become a natural environment.
Commercial vehicle users will pass along the congestion pricing costs to consumers - a regressive tax .... unmentioned in the op ed, the immense increase in for hire vehicles, Uber, Lyft, Via and others - take a loof, every third vehicle has a "T" beginning their license.
Place a substantial tax on for hire vehicles and limit the number of permits ....
2
I believe that ride sharing services like Uber and Lyft over the past 5 years have greatly worsened the existing problem....putting people who used to take subways and buses, into private for-hire cars instead.
1
Eh, hasn't occurred elsewhere (the pass along).
And yes, a surcharge for for-hire vehicles is likely. A cap not so much but needed.
"How to Get New York Moving Again"
get a another governor or NY mayor.
3
In Roman times, all heavy-vehicle delivery had to be done at night. What's old is new.
3
What about a car-free Manhattan like many European inner cities?
3
the cause of congestion are: too many taxis (of all stripes); delivery trucks double-parking; blankey-blank double decker tourist buses; oversize buses to Atlantic City and other resorts; cars taking in/discharging passengers without pulling over to the side; and underused bike lanes. You can shoot a rocket down many bike lanes and not hit a thing. Rip them up. Improved subway rolling stock and routine maintenance + better (on-time) buses + heavy fines for double-parked vehicles/spillback + elimination of bike lanes = improved flow.
25
That's right! It's the bicycles! All the bicycles' fault! Get rid of the bicycles and the city will be a paradise! Really Bicycles cause gridlock? I'd like to see that study.
7
Re:"You can shoot a rocket down many bike lanes and not hit a thing." Just get on a bike. When visiting Copenhagen, a city with bike lanes everywhere and also quite flat, a local said: "You can get anywhere in the City faster on a bike than any other way. Don't even thin about a car."
6
The experience of European countries has shown that bike lanes improve local business revenues, and make the city more livable by livability rating.
Yes, I have a car, but I never park in a bike lane.
6
Why don't they just close all the streets to the public and only allow delivery trucks, taxis and buses and limit them.
1
Tougher to pass than congestion pricing.
Guess it's time to bring back sedan chairs.
5
Perhaps the “superblocks” used in Barcelona could be part of the solution.
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/may/17/superblocks-rescue-barcel...
3
City is experimenting with it at Broadway and 5th Ave.
$8.00 is nothing. It should be $20 for commercial and $40 for all Taxi and Limousine vehicles. Who better to pay for mass transit than automobiles. Our neighborhood has become hellish at all hours of the night as Uber drivers idle in every available space and clog up the streets double-parked waiting for their fares. In the morning they're lined up again waiting for the the lazy entitled brats who take them to their internships. We don't need cars! We've got mass transit!
7
Congestion pricing based on “south of 60th street” is a ridiculous and unfair concept for Residents who live south of 60th street and need to use a car occasionally. This article implies that people who own cars in the city are the cause of increased congestion - highly doubtful! One pays a fortune to Garage the car and another fortune to insure it; but the lack of public parking makes actually using a car nearly impossible. Why should any resident living in midtown then also have to pay $8, for any occasional use of their car such as driving out of the city or going to Costco in queens once a week, while residents living on the upper east side could use their cars all day for the same purposes for free? Resident use is not the problem but lopsided implementation would be absolutely discriminatory.
The real causes of increased congestion in the past five years are 1) the 100,000 ride-hailing vehicles since Uber appeared and 2) the chokehold and bottlenecks caused by taking lanes away on every street and avenue, and re-engineering flow so many times that no one knows where to turn anymore. Millions have been spent painting and repainting the pavement, not solving any problems. And the eco-terrorists who want cars banned from the city altogether are the ones who call Uber all the time to run back and forth to williamsburg.
23
I applaud all the chokeholds and bottlenecks on roads, as they make a city more livable. Less convenient for cars, but much more livable.
And I actually bike to Williamsburg - it is faster than Lyft/Uber because of the congestion.
5
This is commits the same mistake a lot of people who blindly oppose change make - it focuses 100% on the costs while ignoring any of the benefits. Yes, people who live below 60th St would need to pay a fee. But in return they can drive on streets that are actually usable and not clogged with other people. I think a lot of people would be happy to pay for that.
2
For people who only make occasional forays out in their car a ride share like Car 2 Go is surely the better option. Why even own a car if you rarely use it? Join a ride share and just pay for the times you actually need a car for things like shopping? If going out of the area it's still cheaper on an annual basis to then rent a car. Owning a car in most cities is an expensive proposition so why own one unless one truly needs to use it frequently?
3
Mr. Leonhardt. It is very nice of you to advocate congestion pricing as a presumed-all-out solution to all NYC traffic problems. But what is the value of this solution without analyzing and understanding its root problems? Your opinion is just that, otherwise.
In classical problem solving, one needs to understand root problems and to be able to analyze the cost/benefit of alternative solutions - one does not just leap at solutions.
If one has done that properly, one would notice that NYC Administration's and DOT's own actions were largely responsible for most of the mess we observe. If you constrict access (driving) space, for a constant traffic flow, you will increase congestion - a simple natural relationship that seems to have escaped your comments.
Instead of walking the streets, why don't you get behind a wheel and drive around a bit. Maybe, just maybe, you will have an AHA! moment?
2
The cause of traffic:
Too many autos in too small in area.
Charge for that space and all of a sudden the number of people using that space vanish.
Congestion pricing assures that the streets will be clogged with rich people rather than poor people.
3
The real reason New York politicians fear Congestion Pricing is the outer borough voters and the small fry assembly people who back them. Some working class stiff from Queens can care less about the people suffering in Manhattan. All he cares is about making his deliveries and not paying extra money.
2
Not really the outer boroughs. More the outer fringe. The last time CP went up for vote in the city it passed. Failed at the state level.
Congestion pricing has to be part of the answer. The arguments about fair treatment for the poor are nonsense as the article makes clear. Poor people don’t drive into central cities like Manhattan or the City of London they take public transport. And they face the burden of being slowed down in their buses by traffic congestion and delayed in their under invested subway / tube. Furthermore car drivers do not pay anywhere near the full costs they impose on others through congestion and pollution, where they literally get away with murder by killing pedestrians and other no car users with their exhaust. Congestion charging and pro public transport policies are better for everyone.
2
I have a much better idea, David.
This idea is based in the reality that both New York City and London are net negatives for their countries. Both need to be shrunk massively. We don't need traffic taxes, we need financial taxes. Huge ones.
No New York mayor is ever going to be an economic progressive leader.
We simply don't care about New York anymore. Go away.
1
very helpful, Dave
1
At one point, the amateur Mayor-in-Training reportedly had every east-west street in Midtown blocked for repairs or construction. Seems like if you switched mayors, much of that problem would have gone away.
No wonder the cabbies are all getting ulcers.
1
You can't be serious. First of all, how is NYC traffic any worse now than it has been in the last 30 years? I've been driving or taking cabs in this City for 30 years and, newsflash, it's always been congested. And, "congestion pricing" is always held up as the panacea. But, that's just a simpleminded solution in search of a problem. First of all, this this piece was published on the same day as the Editorial entitled "New York Leaders Are Failing Its Subway Riders." How could you suggest the solution to above-ground congestion is to push even more people below ground into an overburdened, overcrowded and ancient subway system? Second, if we want to get traffic moving, then let's solve the traffic problem. For a period of time in the 1990s the City started whacking drivers with $125 tickets for gridlock. Guess what? In about 2 weeks, gridlock disappeared. Intersections started moving again. Third, to the extent there is an increase in vehicles on the city's roads, that is due to increase of ride-sharing services like Uber/Lyft/Juno, etc. One of the reasons the City started taxi medallions was to regulate the number of taxis. But, we've allowed these independent services to double or triple the number of taxis without regulation. So, how about regulating them? Third, how much of our traffic jams are due to taxi stops? Here's a simple solution:
Have a designated taxi standing spot on every block. And ticket drivers who stop elsewhere. I could go on...
51
Just read the article and you'll find answers to your questions.
How is traffic worse than before? Answer: The average vehicle speed has dropped 28% in 5 years.
How would a congestion charge solve anything? Answer: There'd be less traffic above ground, and more $ to modernize the subway system.
4
You realize that fines for blocking the box is a very specific form of congestion pricing. It regulates travel in a specific area. If you don't want to pay you don't go in. If you do you pay.
3
If you regulate Uber/Lyft, and have fair wages and oversight and pay time-and-a-half and benefits -- treat it like a real job -- then it won't be "cheap" anymore.
3
Congestion pricing is a must and so is restricting truck traffic to between 12am to 6:00 am, Monday thru Friday and 12:00 am to 12:00 pm on the weekends. Lastly, all Uber and other internet cabs must obtain a medallion from the TLC with all cost earmarked for MTA.
4
When I’m walking across Manhattan, I often find that I can outrace a car.
Try biking. You will really outrace all of the traffic.
More bikes, less cars.
2
It doesn’t make matters better when people who work basic jobs can’t afford to live in the same city they work in. Having to depend on mass transit to get to your job at Walgreens or the bagel shop on the corner from outer boroughs is tough with all the train delays.
Rents are unaffordable in the city.
30 years ago it wasn’t the case. You could work and live within a 15 to 20 min walk, bus or subway ride.
I did.
4
I was in Madrid a few months back and they are renting electric bikes that and a lot of bike lanes would help solve the problem.The tax would help as well to bad NY cannot figure how to build a reasonably priced Subway.Your local and State government are about as wasteful as the federal government.To many sweet heart deals with labor unions in both the public and private sectors.
2
Don't overlook gridlock. It costs me nothing to block the box, but it costs others a full light cycle. The way to change this is with police enforcement, something we stopped doing long ago in Boston.
4
Something which has become a problem is when cars keep going even though there is no room for them across the light. Then they end up blocking the cross traffic. Another side effect is that they block pedestrian crossings. Pedestrians in New York do not seem to be aware that they have rights.
Has New York forgotten that traffic tickets exist exactly to regulate the flow of traffic?
Sometimes I see an officer standing at the intersection while cars are acting like wild animals and she (or he) does not bother to give any of them a ticket. "Why are you here if you are not actually regulating traffic and why am I paying your salary?" I want to ask.
Think of it this way. If every car which blocks traffic gets a $50 ticket, the revenue would allow the New York Public library to be open on Sundays.
3
In Boston, I can also beat most cars traveling through my neighborhod and a few others at certain times of day.
In this city it is too easy to use a car for short distances, not enough disincentives to driving.
- Certain streets in rush hours need to be dedicated only to pubic transportation and bicycles.
- Employers need to stop subsidizing parking costs for their employees.
- Universities and/or the city need to tax students for bringing cars into the city.
- Ubers, Lyfts, delivery vans need to be taxed . The great increase in their numbers on the streets turn every hour into rush hour.
5
I am aware that I live in a "socialist" country (still) from the American POV, but I think the most serious problem of NY today is, that there is only negligible public transport. In addition the car-cow is nowhere more saint than in the US, I guess. Trams, busses and underground for a reasonable price, more modern than nowadays and most of the problems will be banned. But yeah, that's "socialist" :) Meanwhile check this out: https://understandingsocietyglobaledition.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/9b...
I am 64. My two brothers and I grew up in the NYC Westchester burbs and we all still have yet to pay any toll for even one of the countless times we continue to drive right into Manhattan. That's ridiculous but don't blame us.
3
Those opposing congestion pricing because it is unfair to the poor seem hypocritical to me from my experience with that kind of pro-motorist thinking in Rhode Island where such folks oppose car excise taxes or gas tax increases but are never around to oppose bus fare increases (or subway fare increases in NY) which really do impact low income people the most. These critics just don't want to pay for the road space they want to use. DeBlasio's opposition to congestion pricing shows that so-called progressive politicians pandering to the motorists are no better on this than the Republicans in Congress that also pander to motorists in opposing any gas tax increase even while roads and bridges, and subways, deteriorate. All this seems a recipe for economic and environmental decline.
83
Fine, but I'll take DiBlasio over the congressional Republicans any day. There is still a big difference between them.
If we get congestion pricing, make sure there are no exceptions. The mayor has to pay it. The police and other municipal workers, who drive to work and park in municipal lots have to pay it.
Make sure it's per hour, not per entrance, and rebate the time in parking garages. You're trying to fix a price on using the street, not on GPS coordinates.
2
In part, the bicycle lanes are to blame for congestion. Never has so much right-of-way been dedicated to the benefit of so few and the detriment of so many. and, twisting midtown traffic patterns into a medieval version of London as Mayor Bloomberg attempted was misguided policy. There are virtues to a free-flowing grid.
1
Nonsense. The issues stem from the fact that the subways and commuter rails have become so unpredictable. Promoting bicycle use is a cheap solution if you consider how much of the extra traffic is people using ride share services instead of public transit.
3
For the most part, the bike lanes are hardly ever used even on days where the weather outside is actually good, and a flash mob from Transportation Alternatives for that day doesn't count. The claim for that comes from those who are looking at them on a regular basis. What was the point of placing lanes for a group that isn't going to use them regularly? This is why they are seen as a waste of space and money, and the costs for them do add up. At least what is spent to improve roads and highways are used by motor vehicles on a regular basis even if they cost more. My guess is that it's part of the idea to help promote congestion pricing by creating it in taking away a lane hence the Bloomberg Way. Also, there are a good number of cyclists who tend to use the bike lanes as their get out of jail free card when it comes to traffic laws even though it doesn't imply that, which is why any new bike lanes that are being placed are being opposed heavily by those living in such areas.
1
Uh,
Too many autos in limit space = congestion
There was heavy traffic in the CBD long before the bike lanes (and despite being few, most are curbside and don't even remove a single lane. Bikes lanes account for very little road space.
Citibike and bikes/ bike lanes in general are a godsend, oddly not mentioned here. You can go the entire width of the island in 15 minutes, four times faster than walking, without contribution to or effect from vehicular traffic. With perhaps the exception of snow days which also greatly disadvantages vehicular traffic.
Those coming in with vehicles are already paying some of the highest tolls and parking fees in the land. (EG $105. for a trailer over the GWB, $60+ to park a sedan for a day in midtown.) They do so mainly out of necessity. You can't carry gear for work or deliver goods on public transport. No need to increase the pain with added arbitrary fees. New Yorkers can (and do!) enjoy the freedom of the bike lanes, and do not need to pay the added costs to all goods and services that would be tacked on to compensate for the added cost of commerce and delivery of everything that these fees would incur.
Find another way besides added gouging.
2
If only cyclists would remember that a sidewalk is not a "bike lane" and that they do have to respect the rights of pedestrians. I have often been almost run over by a bike, NEVER by a car.
For the record, I don't have anything against those that like to use bicycles, because that is a choice that people are entitled to have. However, I don't like the fact that they have the tendency to flout traffic laws while at the same time claim that motorists should follow every letter of the law with strict enforcement. Can you say double standard on that? The truth is that that their constant acting like victims to the rules is why they are getting met with opposition. When they start behaving more appropriately, they will start getting more respect. Until then, this is how they will get treated. Another reason they are hated on is that they claim that because motorists flout more laws and hit more people it gives them an excuse to do what they do when it really doesn't.
1
Yes, bikers need to be deferential to and respectful of pedestrians. Some, particularly delivery people, are prone to going opposite the legal direction of traffic (which as a biker annoys greatly), and are not. Riding on the sidewalk is a big no. I apologize on behalf of those who are not obeying the rules, and hope more learn or are forced to.
On the other hand, some pedestrians obliviously step into the bike lanes without regard for the reality that they are legitimate traffic lanes, with their own traffic signals in many places. A bike at speed can do harm to both parties. My greatest fear, for which I am constantly alert, is the random pedestrian who fails to respect the bikes, as they do the cars, wandering right into my bike lane path, without regard to traffic signals and in the middle of the block. With thousands of pedestrians, a careless one in a thousand happens regularly. There needs to be better awareness on both sides.
That said, the lanes are an incredible advance over the NYC I was born into and rode around in the 70's-90's. Totally opens up the city, zone to zone above ground, to natives and visitors alike. There is no better or faster way to go cross town. There were bikes before the lanes, but the introduction of lanes has advanced civility greatly.
Bikes will hopefully continue to evolve as an alternative system here, as they have in Europe, with better understanding by all, for the good of all.
2
You mention driving in midtown is slower. I do not travel on the surface there, but I'll take your word.
But I can't help thinking about all those pedestrian plazas. In Times Square, Herald Square, to name a couple. They keep saying they ease congestion, which is counter-intuitive. And now you cite evidence to the contrary.
1
They ease congestion because they simplify the intersection or in some cases reduce the number of lanes, reducing collisions and confusion.
Bicycles, bicycles, bicycles. Electric bicycles. Cycle tracks. A tax credit for buying a bicycle to commute on.
37
Before shifting everyone to bikes please consider some form of registration and insurance for all adult riders. Please start with ebikes used for commercial purposes!
1
A couple of observations.
It was Aristotle who articulated the idea of the tragedy of the commons, in a pithy formulation that two sentences, not a whole book, suffice to make clear.
As for what to do about midtown congestion--go back in time and build multilevel streets as they did in downtown Chicago
2
Why do you always like higher taxes on the rich? Nevertheless congestion pricing is an idea whose time has come.
1
A lot of us "like higher taxes on the rich" because we consider higher taxes on the rich to be a "Stable Society User Fee"--as in, the rich get to make oodles of money because they are living in a peaceful and stable society. If you like the idea of revolution, burning in the streets, murder and mayhem, heads rolling and all that, by all means oppose higher taxes on the rich.
Taxing the poor doesn't get you much. That's why Willie Sutton robbed banks -- they've got money.
Congestion pricing with improved and cleaner mass transit is the answer.
7
This is a no-brainer, Econ 101. And as you know (but somehow didn't mention), Mayor Bloomberg tried to do it a decade ago, stymied by the legislature. de Blasio is simply wrong. And what's he worried about? He just got re-elected.
6
I would put body cams on the alleged traffic agents texting while in duty in midtown. When hooked up to proper setup at headquarters, this would enable tickets to be issued to T-licensed vehicles driving illegally all over midtown. Revenue would complement that raised from implementation of congestion pricing.
2
What we have here is a "tragedy of the uncommons". Who's Ubering around Manhattan? It sure ain't people from the outer boroughs, its those wealthy "winners" who live in Manhattan and wouldn't deign to take the subway. We also have an enormous amount of very expensive property owned by people who are an extradition treaty away from jail, yet increasingly monopolize "amenities" like sunlight, space, and interesting, walkable neighborhoods. De Blasio is right in wanting to make these people pay for the privilege of being privileged rather than essentially subsidizing the subway by a renter in Bensonhurst. Cuomo is against this plan not just because of his reflexive antipathy towards anything de Blasio, but also because he fears it will alienate his wealthy donor base (the only people giving him money btw) in his comically delusional presidential aspirations.
23
21st Century America; where common sense needs to be teamed with political heroism to get anything done.
6
expecting DeBlasio to make a courageous decision such as congestion pricing is like waiting for Godot. It ain't gonna happen!
6
I disagree. Banning cars is the better solution. The last thing we want are people driving cars faster as they feel entitled for having paid for it. Crowded areas of the city should be traveled via foot,bicycle,subway,tram, or bus. Only delivery vehicles should be allowed. This would not only be safer and more efficient but also healthier for all concerned!
18
Better, but tougher to pass than congestion pricing. It's happening gradually.
NYC is at full capacity, population-wise. The building of new living spaces continues, unabated. Now with the opportunities to work remotely, the ability to distribute the population to 2nd and 3rd tier cities is a real possibility. The last time I was in NYC, I spent the night in Korea town.We left for LGA at about 10:00 AM and yes, I figured we could have walked off Manhattan faster than the cab got us to the freeway. The quality of life, because of congestion, has diminished to a point where I find it hard to understand why people live there, voluntarily.
3
NYC is not at full capacity. If we had congestion pricing we could have way faster bus service and safer bike lanes. Not to mention funding to improve the subway.
Of course congestion pricing would work. But don't kid yourself: the price would be vastly higher than $8 and would go up every year. Virginia's recent congestion-based toll rates hit $67, which sounds like the lower limit of plausibility for any congestion pricing scheme that would have a material effect in Manhattan. There would be an offset, however: $100 tolls would surely put a dent in $75 parking spaces.
3
Congestion pricing is a fancy way of saying we'd like to treat roads like a utility. Peak hours anyone? Somehow this is a huge problem when it comes to internet but the worlds most congested streets aren't a problem. Go figure.
Using the tragedy of the commons is the wrong analogy. The argument is theoretically correct but the theory was used as a justification for privatizing public lands that were traditionally governed by British common law. The same common law that more or less predecessed the entire US legal system. There was no public tragedy because informal social institutions backed by formal legal authority combined to prevent the tragedy.
New York is no different. You don't need a police officer to tell off a driver parked on the sidewalk. There are rules people. Remember the Seinfeld episode where George gets into an argument about pulling into a parallel space? You don't need to write down the laws. Most people just know. If someone does the wrong thing, they're socially punished. That's how common law works.
I'd prefer to see New York develop an subterranean urban logistics system. Trucks don't even need to be on the road. Give the subway to delivery. Pedestrians can ride the surface instead. You'd have a nicer walk.
2
Congestion pricing needs to be tied to a readily perceivable benefit that will make millions of people into supporters.
Charge the fee and use the proceeds to lower subway/bus fare by 25 cents.
7
Congestion pricing injures the people who must come in from the boroughs by vehicle— this includes virtually all contractors. Nobody examines comparatively all the causes of congestion in Manhattan. The taking away of lanes for bicycles is one of the main reasons for the increase in congestion, but this is considered so virtuous as not to be evaluated, even though buses carry find more people than bicycles and could use those lanes. Billions are being invested in the Eastside access and were sunk into the downtown Calatrava transit mall. Nobody seems to have thought about linking Penn Station with the Times Square Station directly. In the meanwhile commuters from Queens and parts of Brooklyn have little subway access and extraordinarily lengthy trips to work. Other billions are being used to build the Moynihan station while Penn station itself will remain as horrible as ever. The new station will look nice but is far away from most of the subways. The problem in New York is not lack of money as much as disastrous transportation planning.
5
Congestion pricing benefits the vast majority of New Yorkers.
And bike lanes account for a small percentage of road space. Stop scapegoating the bikes already, it's like beating a dead horse.
Thank you! Yes for congestion pricing.
And perhaps NYC should regulate all the taxi/livery drivers- Uber, Lyft, etc as there are way too many of them. (Also I wish we could emulate London cabbies in this regard and make all livery drivers take tests and only after three years of driving practice would they be able to get a license.) Take a look at the license plates of all of those cars when walking by them - most of them start with “T.”
And can we get rid of some of those seating areas blocking the avenues and intersections; that plan ran amuck and who really wants to or needs to sit in the middle of the street?
Oh and why not make Broadway into a bike only avenue? So Broadway would be restricted to bikes and would be the sole thoroughfare for all North/South bike traffic in Manhattan; no cars would be permitted. Broadway, once the main avenue for downtown traffic in Manhattan and which spans the island from North to South has already been entirely marginalized as what used to be three lanes is now one. If we separate bikes and cars at least for all North/South traffic, wouldn’t that reduce both congestion and accidents?
5
There is zero investment in roads or building more, there is zero investment in a decent ferry system. All my taxes go to endless feel good programs that politicians do to garner votes, now with the state deduction cap on fed taxes hopefully spending will be reigned in.
6
What are you talking about? The city and state has been investing into infrastructure all over. They just opened a new bridge connecting BK and QNS for example.
The congestion issue is not just in precious Midtown. Since the city began carving up streets, traffic is at a standstill in more than just Midtown. St. Nicholas Ave in Harlem between 125 and 145 is a parking lot at 4pm since it was reduced to one lane in each direction. Queens boulevard is a disaster since the new bus lanes were rearranged.
Why aren't we mandating affordable municipal parking and taking parked cars off the streets thereby making more room for bikes, pedestrians and the moving traffic?
Why is Citibike still not available in Upper Manhattan and other less affluent neighborhoods?
Why is the subway so increasingly dysfunctional? The commute to FIDI in the am can be 35 to 75 minutes on any given morning.
On Sunday morning, when there is little traffic, I can walk from 181st to 155th street and never see an M3 bus.
Public transportation has failed.
Congestion pricing is just another tax that will not solve the bigger issue of failed public transportation.
10
One more fee that the 1% can easily pay, while the rest of us can't afford it. Make it a structured ban across the board, not another class divider.
1
“Given that most people can walk up to 4 miles an hour, the human body is sometimes Manhattan’s fastest mode of transportation.”
Let’s not forget biking. Prioritizing it further is by far the best and cheapest way to get NY moving.
5
Easiest meaure is to charge for Use of scarce resources - it is actually incredible that there is only handful of cities around the world that tried it. Human nature - we all immediately respond to pricing mechanism.
2
as a resident of nyc's "outer Burroughs" I am sick and tired of this idea of congestion pricing. I don't believe it will do anything to lessen the congestion while forcing me to pay to go over bridges which have been paid for many times over and which my taxes pay to maintain. why should I now have to pay to drive into Manhattan or to drive from my home to get out of NYC? also, what is often left out of the "congestion pricing" schemes are the "exceptions" given to everyone within the zone... so there's a nice "keep out" program.
as a previous commentor stated, why not enforce current parking regulations, stiffen the fines for double parking and while I am a fan of jaywalking, I've seen people walk across the intersection as if they owned it causing even more traffic, these people should be ticketed.
one other fundamental issue with nyc is that truck traffic has to go from "south of the city" to"north of the city"(and vice versa), they should build a dedicated road for this kind of traffic instead of the way the toll systems encourage this traffic to go through the city itself.
3
Please count -- count -- how many times you drove in Manhattan south of 60th street during the workday. Was it 3 times last year? To leave NYC doesn't require driving through midtown or taking the Brooklyn-Battery tunnel.
I submit your complaint is irrational and contrary to your own interest. The people who do drive frequently in midtown would pay the tax, and your taxes would be lower as a result. Or, maybe, better services. The money has to go somewhere.
2
This is a true story. A good number of years ago I took a taxi in midtown and, after a few blocks of creeping along, I told the driver to let me out as I was in a hurry.
4
I come to New York on business about five times a year, and I and my colleagues never drive an automobile; however, Manhattan's streets are dominated by aggressive drivers and the sidewalks are terribly crowded with pedestrians. Congestion pricing is a no brainer and will begin to make Manhattan more livable. New York should go even further and ban cars in more areas. Let's end this typical American baby boomer idea that we should allow unfettered driving everywhere.
6
This is not unlike San Francisco. I have no idea what the solution is for this Tale of Two Cities and Others. Car pooling? Walking more when feasible? Think of our bodies! But realistically SF's 24/7 fog is more acceptable and doable than either freezing temperatures or sweltering heat.
At any rate, be assured you are not alone in this frustration. Here in our city we also contend with sharing our narrow, steep hills with bicyclers and double parking. Where are our police when needed? Yet they never fail to appear when we forget to move our cars on garbage pick-up days. And left-hand turns? Forget it..either legally we can't or we just can't. Impossible. As someone once said, and I quote: "Commuters from the Bay Area decide to live and stay in the City because they can't figure out how to leave." Good luck, New Yorkers. Wish I could be of help..
2
If we charge for everything including the use of the streets, then what do taxes pay for? If it gets so bad, fewer people will drive. It’s that simple. Instead, you want to put a fee on using the streets so that congestion will persist but it will only be the wealthiest among us who will have the privilege to sit there.
2
"Only 3 percent of poor and near-poor outer-borough workers drive into Manhattan for their jobs, the Community Service Society of New York found. A whopping 61 percent take the subway or bus."
The other 36% walk? helicopter? submarine?
1
Hard-Left in NYC should increase car/road taxes by 10,000%. That will fix it.
2
I am confused. It is clear to a New York commuter that Uber (and the others) came and NYC traffic stopped. There were 14K yellow cabs. Uber type services added 60K per day (46K Uber).
Survey the cars in gridlock, more than half are Uber service cars. Most are empty with drivers cruising. Others double park and block traffic on side streets. Another gift of unscrupulous internet enabled companies. These "services" have crippled public bus transportation and taxi rides.
"For the benefit of the individual society suffers." Seems to define the internet these days. "Social" internet "services" are ripping our society apart and internet connect ride "services" are destroying our ability to actually commute.
Ban the "services" from NYC. Modernize and expand the regulated Taxi industry.
10
1 ) As someone who walked to elementary school in Manhattan in the 20th century, I can assure you this is not a new phenomenon.
2 ) If "liberal" NY is sooooo bad, why do so many people insist on living and working there ?
Conclusion: "Liberal" NYC is a great place that people WANT to live and work in. Sadly, the Republican run state Senate ( run by Nixon's son-in-law - you can't make it up ), has refused to invest in the MTA.
If Democrats controlled the NY state senate, this problem would disappear in 2 years tops. Guaranteed.
@Former Republican
Ed Cox, Chairman of the NYS Republican Party, is Nixon's son-in-law. He does not "run" the NYS Senate.
1
Sure he doesn't ...
OK, I accept that congestion pricing (CP) will reduce vehicle traffic and increase vehicle speeds in the proposed CP zone south of 60 St in Manhattan.
But what alternatives will the people who no longer drive to the congestion zone choose? Some will find an alternate driving route that avoids the zone. Others will decide not to make the trip at all. But many will switch to mass transit, even though it's not at all clear that transit can handle the surge in ridership, especially during peak periods. The Times has already documented the subway's inability to handle its current load of nearly 6 million daily riders. How can it accommodate the new demand CP will generate?
Advocates point to the new revenue stream that CP will generate for public transit, suggesting that it can pay for improvements the subway badly needs to reverse the ongoing deterioration in service quality. But first call on the new funding will be the added service MTA will have to run for its new riders. The likely result is that even if MTA could solve the current service quality crisis with more money wisely spent, the money won't be there, having been diverted to new services. Bottom line? Be very wary of promises regarding what CP-generated revenue will be able to pay for.
And because Gov Cuomo is pro-CP, don't expect to hear any of this from MTA, as he'll undoubtedly impose a gag order on anything other than the rosiest of projections from them.
2
Devil's Advocate here: "People cling to the idea that driving should be free."
I think drivers 'cling' to the idea that it's already costing them too much with gas, license, various stickers, insurance costs etc. and they feel like they just can't take anymore. They feel like the have been 'bled' enough.
3
Unfortunately all those driving-related fees don’t actually cover the cost of building & maintaining our system of roads and highways. (As just one example, we haven’t raised the federal gas tax since the early 1990s. It’s not a percentage, so it needs to be raised or else its value will continually drop. )
If you want the “freedom” to drive you need to pay the full cost of the facilities required to make that possible.
2
Really. Have you considered the ecological cost of driving? How much have you paid for the carbon and noxious gases you've dumped in the atmosphere?
Driving is subsidized. Congestion pricing wouldn't eliminate the subsidy, but it's a step in the right direction.
1
James K. Lowdon: the problem with your theory is that congestion pricing falls on the POOR and working classes -- who can't afford it -- so they are forced out of the city (even more than already so by high real estate prices, and by crowded roads).
It is not a deterrent WHATSOEVER on the very rich, for whom Manhattan is a "cool playground" -- $20? do you think Donald Trump cares whether he drops $20 to go to and fro on his daily errands, in his limo driven by a chauffeur????
1
Ban private cars outright from Manhattan (including Uber). Bikes, subways, electric & hybrid buses and walking can take us everywhere we need to go on this little island. And all those choice work much better without cars clogging up the joint and getting in the way.
Car people have every other city in the country at their disposal, it is time for non-car folks to have at least one city of our own. Manhattan is a perfect candidate.
1
Imagine the transportation investments that could have been made had congestion pricing been in place since Mayor Bloomberg first proposed it. Too bad the current mayor is myopic.
1
What strikes me about the photo that leads the article is that nearly all of the vehicles visible are delivery trucks. That alone makes a strong case for congestion pricing.
Although I consider myself to pretty progressive, there are reasons to why I'm very skeptical on congestion pricing. One of the first reasons is that it feels like a regressive tax to those who can't afford it while those that can won't be deterred by it at all. Another is that it will feel like a punishment to those who have hardly any viable alternatives to driving and forcing them to pay. More importantly, delivery services that have to pay when they drive may have to raise their prices just to meet up with it, which will hurt their customers. The truth is that transit deserts exist even within what defines NYC, and many have to understand that its boundaries aren't where the subway lines stop. There are more realistic ways to ease traffic especially in Manhattan by enforcing the existing traffic laws not just on motorists, but on pedestrians and cyclists as well. For the record, we motorists are already giving to the MTA by already paying taxes and existing tolls to them, plus the roads and crossings we use are already paid for via taxes for infrastructure, so in a way, we are already paying for them even if it's not on the spot. The claim that it can be removed if it fails its pilot program is more easily said than done, because supporters will most likely fudge data to make it look like a success even when it really isn't. Keep in mind that this isn't the first time such an idea was brought as it goes as back to as early as the 1970's and was hated even then.
2
Another way to make life nicer for the rich, what's 8 dollars to someone making 100 dollars an hour? I think the sidewalks should be enlarged, more protection for bikes, more streets closed to cars and better public transit all around-- If it is very time consuming to drive, maybe the rich will decide it is a good idea to have well run, well financed, mass transit and they will use it along with all of us riff raff. Can we get a new train tunnel please?
4
An idea could be to alternate the day you can drive to Manhattan based on your plate numbers , my business truck will be ok to deliver 3 days a week
It's like the no smoking in Bars and Restaurants. Everyone had their hair on fire about it and now everyone takes it for granted. Or the tax on the price of cigarettes.
Shift the paradigm. Don't make it look like you are targeting "bad" drivers who chose to drive into the City. Flip it say that you can now get across the City at 10 miles an hour. Wouldn't you spend the eight dollars to actually get to where you want to go on time?
2
I appreciate the fact that you are writing about this. I would add to the mix our oft ignored and much maligned bus system. The city and state recently completed 3 stops on the 2nd Ave. subway for roughly 4.5 billion dollars. That's about 1.5 billion dollars per stop. We could have a series of Rapid Transit Bus lines, running as fast as trains, for a fraction of the cost and reaching a much larger (and poorer) percent of the population. My hope is that our bus system will become a larger part of this conversation because, otherwise, we will bankrupt the city before even beginning to tackle this difficult problem.
29
Mr. Leonhard, a decade ago this New Yorker found herself on Third Avenue in the 60s, staring at the traffic, noting the infernal noise, and on reaching home, sent word to a friend at work in the humanitarian community with 'New York is a Third World Country'. She is the one who has traveled the Globe, and was taken aback by my grousing.
Another friend, who is trying to go on a visit to the Middle East, a seasoned tour operator in America, tells me New York does have the look of a Third World Country. She is addressing the permanent traffic jam, and not the variety of nations that populate this unique City.
My boss, now a retired public official, raised the alarm more than thirty years ago, pointing to the need for infrastructure which he brought to the attention of Washington, D.C. at the time and this was applauded into the dump.
Our antiquated train system, our subway transit system unable to sustain with safety our commuters, the restoration of bridges and tunnels, our pot-holed roads in need of repaving and more, offer those capable and fit, the possibility and creation of jobs.
Tending my respect to Senator Schumer and Mayor de Blasio, Governor Cuomo, to unite again in an effort to reinforce New York City, while understanding that it is a taxing matter, but a worthy challenge, with the support of those whose livelihood and welfare rest in The City that rarely sleeps.
4
Well, if it’s a taxing matter, you’ve named the clowns that will be involved! LOL
1
A fine article. I propose $15. I would gladly pay it, and be glad to see others using an improved subway.
7
I left NYC--Brooklyn--and my rent controlled apartment because I stopped utilizing NYC's amazing features, commodities. I stopped using them because driving into NYC was painful: traffic, parking, and car-vandalism; additionally, taking mass transit often meant waiting 1-2 hours for a train to take me home after an evening of entertainment.
I am fortunate there is a direct bus from Portland, Maine to NYC--in front of the UN-- in five or so hours. No car, no hassle except shacking up with a relative or friend for my visit.
NYC, make the tough choice: congestion pricing and improved subway.
20
I've driven in Manhattan for over 50 years, starting behind the wheel of a taxi to pay for college. I still do. There have always been times and places when one could walk faster than the traffic. So what? A lot of today's traffic is down to the current economic boom. All those Ubers, et. al. What slows traffic down the most? Deliveries and pickups, construction, the constant picking up and dropping off of people going about their daily activities. Just like pedestrians and bike riders. Not to mention the growth of bike lanes and other repurposing of driving space. Analyze it all you want, congestion pricing is, at bottom, a just another way to make Manhattan even more of a an elite enclave than it already is.
15
Manhattan has been a mess to get around in for all the time I’ve known it, over forty years. But I’ve seen many of the world’s great cities, and no other city tears itself down and reinvents itself with such persistence and regularity as New York City. I love that about the city – while it’s not America, it’s VERY American in that regard: constantly revitalizing itself to remain relevant to the living.
For all the time I’ve known it, David’s image of the pedestrian moving faster than vehicular traffic has been common during the busiest times of the day. His call to imagine the sensation was as valid decades ago as it is today. The biggest problems are buses and, particularly, trucks.
Congestion pricing, apart from being politically distasteful and possibly unattainable given the interests of the outer boroughs and the lack of reach of mass transit to much of their areas, could also be an enormous waste of time, effort and political capital on an initiative that is as likely to fail this time as it always has. Beyond that, it is at least partially duplicitous, as it seeks to open a new source of revenue for the city and possibly the state, without providing the slightest benefit to those who would pay the freight and who would be economically damaged by it. It also reinforces this building and destructive trend that we downsize everything and live with less growth, less expansion.
Time for a quantum-leap in imagination, I think.
We need to get rid of the trucks.
7
However, NYC’s distribution-chain for food and other materials that drive the city’s existence and economy is such that if you can’t get materials in at the pace and volume of today, Manhattan would starve. So, how might this be done?
Perhaps by a generational effort that would excavate around and through Manhattan Island, honeycombing it with access tunnels through which materials could travel on conveyors to specific GPS locations that allow buildings to retrieve the materials through accesses to the tunnels. Trucks would off-load materials, coded for their ultimate destinations, all around Manhattan, to stations where the materials would be sent on their way through tunnels under the rivers and into the conveyance system. Products headed the other way could be exported by the same means, perhaps using the same tunnels but timed during the day. Materials could be moved intra-Manhattan by the same means.
No more trucks. 60%-80% of the surface traffic problem disappears. No more double-triple parking that so congests the streets, and immensely less pollution. And people could get around again.
All kinds of problems to overcome, of course. As an example, this solution would require an immense investment, and to make it even partially wearable most of the labor would need to be automated – in a heavily unionized framework that still requires humans manning trains and subways, one of the increasingly few such systems in the world.
But it’s doable. It should be considered.
2
Mr. Luettgen,
We do not need to get 'rid of the trucks'. According to a now retired worker with a long career in Queens safeguarding electrical power, he continues to take passengers into the City. and waits for arrivals from homecoming residents and tourists at our major airports.
His view is that the clear passage of trucks, with our produce and products, should be set on a different time schedule, but whether this is in the realm of possibilities, our transportation public officials may be in possession of the key, and for the more fortunate of us, some of us are still able to commute on foot, although this is becoming a rarity, one at a costly, if not astronomical price.
2
Miss Ley:
Trucks deliver merchandise as well as transport it. Is the entire city going to up at 2:30 AM to receive and put away that merchandise? Are all buildings going to be open? Can you imagine the NOISE?
My solution could be a true 24-hour operation, because subterranean deliveries could be left on sidings for pickup until people ARE up and buildings ARE open.
1
When I recently visited NY by car on a Sunday, it was disheartening to experience the 2 1/2 hour commute into the City and another 2 1/2 hour commute out. Many streets were clogged with cars parked on both sides of the road. Why can't NY improve the congestion by building multi-storied parking lots every so many blocks and do away with parking on both sides of the street? The rates for indoor parking should be small for short term and larger for long term.
2
Good idea. We used to have many municipal parking garages all over the city. 25 years ago I would often use them when I had to drive into Manhattan. Then they disappeared, sold to developers I suppose. I still drive into Manhattan once or twice a year, but it's a horrid experience. As public transportation continues to worsen, it's getting harder and harder to work there.
1
Better still, drive or walk to your nearest public transport and take a train or a bus into the city. Our cities' valuable public space is already overtaken by too many cars. Your suggestion of creating even more parking spaces in our cities would only clog the roads even more! I lived in NYC 2992-2012, and Sydney suffers from the same car-owner blindness!
2
The parking lots should be in New Jersey at public transportation hubs. Then you can leave your car there, rather than fill up the west side of Manhattan with parking lots for cars from New Jersey.
I definitely agree, however, with your plan to get rid of parking on both sides of the streets. The best use of that space is not for speeding cars, however.. It is for bike lanes.
1
Whenever I hear about congestion pricing, I wonder how it is supposed to affect those who are not regular travelers through or in the city. Someone, say, who is traveling from New Haven to Trenton and is not familiar with the New York City regulations and knows nothing about how to get the necessary permits, passes, etc.
A big underlying problem, to which there is no obvious solution, is that Manhattan lies athwart a number of transit corridors. That probably had a lot to do with its growth. Robert Moses's idea of the Cross-Manhattan Expressway from the 1950s would have helped, but only at the cost of a terrible disruption of the social fabric of Lower Manhattan. Perhaps some day in the future it will be feasible to construct one or more tunnels from the outer boroughs straight across Manhattan through the bedrock, without disturbing life in the city above. $500 billion, perhaps?
2
Whenever I hear about congestion pricing, I wonder how it is supposed to affect those who are not regular travelers through or in the city.
"Presumably this also would have been the case for the other large cities that already adopted congestion pricing, so NYC could learn from their experiences."
Let us keep in mind that at last count, Trump and this Administration has set aside $1 trillion for infrastructure in restoring the entirely of our Country.
1
A person traveling from New Haven to Trenton wouldn't pay the toll. They can either use the northern 287 route or the Cross County to Saw Mill/Henry Hudson and GWB.
Manhattan didn't grow because of traffic routes, the outer boroughs grew as mass transit permitted workers to live first in Brooklyn and the Bronx (then part of Westchester county) and later in Queens, Staten Island, Hoboken and Westchester.
Mass transit reduced Manhattan population.
Paradoxically, one of the reasons for the traffic slowdown is a measure designed to relieve congestion; namely, bicycle lanes. On many streets, cars are now squeezed into fewer lanes, and double-parking can reduce the flow to a single lane. Rather than charging drivers for the consequences of this misguided policy, it might be better to either restrict bicycle use to fewer streets or more aggressively ticket double-parking.
17
Which are now carrying arguably more people at a faster pace. So your point?
1
You live in Brooklyn! Use public transport!!
1
NY problems with traffic are special because as a metropolis ,NYC is the most concentrated and condensed of any geographically. In addition it grows with multiples which compare to regions with magnitudes more space. Considering the growth does not subside and there is no room for strategic expansion,drastic and possibly economically unrealistic theories prevail.Science fiction comes to mind with towering structures and air mobiles ,delivery by city wide conveyor tracks eliminating trucks and parking. Really a global problem now civilization has out grown its means simply because of reproduction caused overpopulation.Long before climate change affects us gradually ,overpopulation alone will prove to be our demise.
4
Support Negative Population Growth (NPG.org). They are working to solve the problem.
2
Anthropologist Stephen Gudeman has written extensively about "commons" and applied Ricardian economic theory in his analysis. The commons is a distribution theory not mediated by money but by values. Users perceive and protect that which has common value for the group. Almost by definition, cars and their drivers ignore common value to emphasize individual value. Smith over Ricardo. Our love of cars is linked to economic systems and the theories that support them. Congestión charging falls outside of the commons logic. It is ironic that intentionally getting out of the car to alleviate traffic and walking or cycling in particular annoys drivers and yet they are the major beneficiaries of such "commons" behavior. Go figure.
6
I used to live in Bergen County and often drove to Manhattan. Driving was the least bad of a series of very bad alternatives.
The local train station had a multi year wait for parking permits. Taking the Port Authority bus meant traffic delays in the tunnel and landing in a dirty combo bus / homeless shelter. The buses to 178 Street provided a better experience, but with bridge traffic delays and a long subway ride to midtown. Driving was the most comfortable but frustrating, very expensive and saved hardly any time.
When congestion pricing was proposed during the Bloomberg administration the justification was that the sums collected would be used to improve transit. The plan however was vague - some expresses buses for the outer boros, some funds diverted to the subways.
How about identifying some rail projects - the best way to move lots of people in our dense metropolitan area - and dedicating the proceeds from congestion pricing to pay for them. Otherwise it’s simply a tax on people without access to some form of rail (ie efficient) transit (subway, PATH, suburban trains).
47
Congestion pricing now, with the BQE in its current state of disrepair, is madness. It would drive a huge amount of interborough traffic to what is already an extremely clogged road, much like the ill-considered toll system that drives traffic counterclockwise through Brooklyn and out the Holland Tunnel does. So residents of these boroughs would experience completely clogged local roads, while richer residents of Manattan, who already live better than the service class in the outer boroughs, experience a more pleasant environment. As they do in many other respects. No, get the order right: no congestion pricing until the subway is fixed, and all its funds must go to subsidize fares.
14
Congestion pricing would do exactly nothing to solve New York's traffic problems. Traffic is what it is because all goods and services from most of the US must be delivered to Brooklyn Queens and Long Island by motor vehicle through Manhattan. Any improvement to New York's traffic problem can only be delivered by the construction of a new freight tunnel from New Jersey to Brooklyn and the development of port facilities in Brooklyn.The photograph accompanying this article proves that. The majority of vehicles in that picture are trucks and express buses delivering goods and people to the outer boroughs. Since most, even almost all, personal vehicular traffic in NY is undertaken for the lack of alternatives, congestion pricing would be simply a robber baron tax on the same middle and lower middle classes who are ultimately the victims of all such schemes hatched within inches of Park avenue by individuals for some reason envious of European solutions with no acknowledgement of the fact that those solutions work because of the unique geographies of their theaters of application. London for example is spread out longitudinally along the Thames. Congestion pricing at one point simply reroutes traffic around that spot. Here there is no alternative to passing through Manhattan.
53
The only reason vehicles going to geographic Long Island need enter Manhattan is congestion on the other bridges to the island. Provide better bridges and connecting highways and solve Manhattan congestion - if necessary financed by congestion pricing.
4
Yeah, wow, London is so different from New York in that it developed according to the local geography and waterways...
2
Can't think of a better way to help the rich get around easier, than to prevent the average New Yorker from getting access to roads.
Trump would like this. He will just have his accountant write off a few bucks a trip from his taxes, something only the wealthy can do anyway. One equitable option is to pick license plate numbers or plate expiration dates, or something of this order. But then the officials won't be able to capture a new revenue source to divvy up for personal gain.
8
Congestion pricing is the only proposal that is likely to work - a charge to enter or drive in Manhattan south of 60th Street between 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. on weekdays. It should be applied uniformly, with no exemptions other than for government-owned vehicles. On-street parking in the area just north of the congestion zone (perhaps from 60th to 86th Street) should be restricted to local resident permits and timed (ie., one or two hours or less) parking.
And we should eliminate the subsidized parking lots in public housing.
12
I'm going to challenge the concept of eliminating subsidized parking lots in public housing full blast in lieu of keeping them for the disabled, wheel-chair bound, sick members of the housing projects.
1
Wny does congestion pricing comes to mind for many middle-class commentators lamenting overcrowded roads? (let's leave London's 'Red Ken' Livingston out of this for now). Traffic has been the "urban scourge" for probably several times as long as the writer has been alive and the subject of "brilliant" solutions for just as long. But charging some for access to the common roads is manifestly unfair, privileging those for whom a fee is trivial or those living close enough to public transport to avoid the issue. It puts the cost for access upon individuals rather than finding a universally equitable solution. The mayor's idea of increasing subway funding wih a millionaire's tax at least avoids the regressive tax that congestion pricing inarguably amounts to. We ought to acknowledge the role of gentrification in upping the number of car owners in the city, and the role of online shopping; why not look for some solutions there?— rich residents pay more, and deliveries to the hotzone incur a surtax. And let's return to a suburban commuter (income) tax, if you like—maybe the New Jersey portion of which should be paid personally by Chris Christie for axing the Gateway Tunnel and for poor stewardship of NJ Transit, both further stressing NYC's roads.
Finally, have you considered that traffic calming measures have intentionally slowed traffic down?
18
The truth is that the anti-car fanatics over on Transportation Alternatives are apathetic to anyone who drives and will do anything to give us motorists the royal screw job no matter what. It would be nice to live near good transportation, but not everyone has the luxury to do so. According to realtors, it costs more to live in such areas making it difficult for someone such as myself to live there. Meanwhile, it costs less to live in a transit desert. Most of those who support congestion don't drive on a regular basis, so they don't know what anyone such as myself goes through. The truth is that we motorists are already paying a lot to drive by paying for the roads and crossings that we use. If they aren't paid for with tolls on the spot, they are given via taxes for infrastructure. Also, we pay a number of fees for our vehicles almost annually or we get fined for missing on such. I find congestion pricing or even just tolling in itself to be form of double tipping. By that, I mean when you pay the check at a restaurant, and you're told to leave a tip even though it's already included in the bill itself. Another thing is that a good part of the revenue from the existing tolls don't even seem to be going to where it's supposed to, which is what I fear the same will happen with congestion pricing along with it constantly hiking almost annually along with those said tolls, which gives even more of a reason to oppose it.
3
Lyft, Uber, and related companies WILL NOT make "The New York of the future should have fewer space-clogging cars, not more". They may reduce the need for parking, but will increase the numbers of cars on the streets. They will be driving around even when no passengers are inside, either waiting for someone or going somewhere to pick someone up. This HAS to increase the amount of traffic. For everyone who would otherwise drive somewhere and park for a while, Uber will drive in and drive out for that one trip. Same for the exit trip.
11
Even if Uber and Lyft don't have their own fleet, they should still be subject to the same rules that the TLC has to follow especially if they tend to operate as such.
3
Bike lanes, bus lanes, and pedestrian plazas in the busiest areas of midtown have shrunk drivable space considerably. As someone who drives in midtown regularly I rarely see anyone biking in the lanes.
Driving south on Broadway is mostly prohibited.
34th St. affords only one lane each way for cars.
Before we burden already burdened taxpayers with yet another fee we must open up more space for traffic to flow.
18
no- regressive policy and will only lead to more traffic.
No, we need far more people to leave their car at home.
1
We need do no such thing. New York City wasn’t built for cars.
1
Before taking such drastic measures we should figure out the source of the rather shocking slowdown over the past five years. Only a few things have changed so much in recent years that they could have played a significant role in this. One is the radical reduction in traffic lanes and permissible turns on midtown streets. Do we have any good information as to the effect of those changes?
Do we have any thorough studies of the impact congestion pricing would have? What would be the consequences for cultural and educational institutions? In the absence of much improved public transit, would it simply shut out suburbanites from much of the City's commercial and other activities? Our limited experiment some years back in limiting access to midtown and downtown was not encouraging. While the economic fairness argument is perhaps not compelling, there are other significant, if less tangible, adverse consequences which would likely follow from congestion pricing. We need to explore more alternatives that are developed with New York's geography and needs in mind, not those of some other city. Congestion pricing sounds green and trendy, but we need to go beyond that.
10
Perhaps we could envision a double- decker (the current one plus an upper level) in NYC roads, so those trying to go farther and/or faster, can do so uninterrupted. I'm afraid that a 'gas' tax will be coming soon, at least for road maintenance. In Bolivia, we assigned certain days where cars with a given last number aren't allowed to circulate in town, effectively decongesting the city. Quite frankly, still hoping to live in a city where walking and, at most, bikes, are the standard 'fare'.
4
NYC should charge cars more, create car free streets and create 2 way bicycle and pedestrian roads (maybe where existing bike lanes are now. It should also cost $100 to cross the Hudson and East River within 3 hours. People passing through should do so on bypass routes, not where the densest population lives. Of course, there needs to be funding for mass transit, which is only useful if it is good enough that even the wealthy prefer it. On street parking is also a drain in such a desirable area. It is instead of additional travel lanes, people circling to find spots cause significant traffic, and a public giveaway at a cost to the community.
34
An idea such as your's will really make the main part of Manhattan feel like a playground for the rich, and will have many opposing it especially from whoever is outside of it be it the outer boroughs or even the suburbs.
There should be analysis of the increased traffic generated by ecommerce/delivery (Amazon, Fresh Direct etc), Uber, tour buses as well as the congestion caused by construction/development. Traffic is not just suburbanites driving in.
77
Yes, in fact look at the picture induced with this article, the vast majority of the vehicles in the picture are trucks and vans (and buses). Certainly not a valid sampling, but perhaps an indicator.
Sure, but that's a bit beside the point, isn't it? We should separate congestion caused by valuable services and congestion caused by discretionary driving. That's what a congestion charge will do. Uber was studied a few years back, by the way.
1
If every one of these services is subject to the same congestion pricing, they will also reduce their use of roads during peak hours
1
- Strictly enforce the rules against double parking and stopping in the middle of the street (and yes, these rules are for for-hire vehicles as well)
- Time the pedestrian crossing lights in a way that allows at least some cars to make left and right turns at the intersections quickly, freeing the traffic flow; ticket pedestrians for crossing on red
- Reduce the cost of parking outside the "red" zone and raise it within the "red" zone so that it makes sense financially to park and then take subway/bus or, yet better, walk
- Create incentive system for the construction work and utilities repair teams to have their projects completed quickly
- While congestion pricing will raise revenue, its effect on actual congestion will be minor unless the charge is very high (say, upwards of $20)
54
You missed an item:
- Institute a raft of policies — there are many proven, available solutions, including congestion fees — to REDUCE the overall number of vehicles on NYC roads. I’m not saying this will be easy: so many Americans are welded to the seats of their oversize cars. But cities that have strong multi-modal transportation infrastructure do not have these problems. Stated another way, encourage NYC to enter the 21st century. based
"ticket pedestrians for crossing on red"
I hope not.
LAbsolutely “yes”! $100 a throw!
Thank you David! We need more people brave enough to suggest solutions like this that are big and bold enough to have a significant impact on one of society’s biggest environmental, safety, and quality of life problems.
38