Totally agree with comments like: "Put tolls on all bridges, not just the some, and add extra fees to Lyft and Uber." Spread the joy thoroughly!! Which will raise more money!! Corporations like Lyft, Uber, Amazon, and others should pay fareshare of taxes for the use and abuse of infrastructure!! Limit number of TLC-vehicles!! Add more cameras at intersections to ticket reckless drivers and reckless bikers/e-bikers!! All bikers/e-bikers should have to get licenses!! Hire more traffic workers to ticket construction sites and double parkers!! Really put cameras onto Express Lane buses so they can ticket all vehicles that use the Express Bus Lanes as private loading/unloading lanes!! Residential parking permits renewable annually for all Manhattan streets!! Surely I'm missing some other sensible revenue possibilities!! Why not spread the joy and go for all of it at once? Put portion of all these new revenues towards group that watch-dogs/analyzes MTA spending!! Upgrade subway, bus, and rail systems and add parking hubs for remote transit desert neighborhood and make all mass transit as accessible as possible including free/reduced fares for low income resisdents and elderly!!
12
Whatever happened to the idea of bringing back taxi stands instead of having hackies cruising and clogging the streets?
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
3
"Los Angeles traffic is so bad that buses crawl along at less than 12 miles an hour." Really? I live in Los Angeles and ride buses every day, and have for the last 5 years or so. I have never seen this baldly stated assertion to be factual.
3
Rich people kicking out poor people from roads.
"Congestion Pricing" is a just fancy way of saying that.
10
Who benefits from congestion?
Corporations who have more access to a compact workforce and services.
Who pays the price for congestion?
Employees who are competing for lower wage jobs.
Start taxing corporations for the burdens they place on our infrastructure.
Stop taxing the minimum wage employee who is just a cog in this machine.
I’m pretty sure if the corporate world had to pay the costs of employees getting to and from work,
they’d have this figured out by now. Oh wait, I guess they have.
9
Yet another division between the haves and the have nots. America's continuing erosion towards a society in whic only the wealthy get to enjoy the public infrastructure paid for by all taxpayers.
6
There are many factors which have contributed to the current congestion. Among them are the conversion of busy areas like Times Square into pedestrian malls, thus pushing traffic onto side streets. I cannot pull up a deck chair into the middle of busy streets in other cities, why do we have to put up with it here. It is also killing off the garment center, aside from the rising rents. Other streets, like Broadway in the 30s, have been narrowed to single lanes to allow art work and cafe seats and a bike lane, all charming but it does not allow traffic to pass in busy areas of commerce. West End Avenue in the 80s and 90s has been narrowed to a single lane in each direction with a turning lane in the middle of the street, and everything stops when there is a delivery truck. Is the MTA still keeping 2 sets of books? MTA real estate is the one commodity. How much did they get for Hudsn Yards and other property-- or was that acreage virtually given away to developers. Congestion pricing fees will support public transportation and rising fares on the buses and subways will pay for infrastructure [roads and bridges?], and they will never find the money to complete the second avenue subway. Get the CItybikes off the streets, they block traffic lanes in some places and occupy parking spaces in others.
12
New York and San Francisco have unique problems and vanity keeps pulling people in. Houston is affordable and I recommend it to anyone who wants to move. Houston may or may not get the mass transit it will needs t least but the center of town is becoming only for the wealthy. It's being over developed like everywhere else and years from now who knows what it will be like. Dallas keeps spreading out. Oklahoma City is Becoming part of it. People keep coming in.
To much urban sprawl? Pittsburgh and Nashville even Knoxville are thriving. Cities like Cincinnatti needs a boost. Detroit a Renaissance. It's a big country and NYC might not be the best answer for you.
If your economic future isn't so bright and are of the 40 percent who can't afford it anymore you got to move. I did and I have no regrets.
5
The MTA stinks and throwing more money at it has never solved that problem. Now the "solution" is to implement a poor tax which will just increase MTA waste and create more gridlock at different (but not less) points in the city. This is just leftover from Bloomberg's reign where his goal was to make this city solely for the rich. It's garbage policy
13
@D
Spot on!
4
What a horrific mistake.
6
SF is so poorly managed. This will be just yet another money grubbing boondoggle...
3
Ask any cop who was on duty that day and they will tell you the best day for weekday traffic in the history of NYC was the taxi strike of May 13, 1998*.
It was glorious! It showed what and who were the true culprits of congestion. So then, Bloomberg adds more medallions and now we have Lyft/Uber making things worse.
Empty cars cruising for work are the problem. People in these cars not taking public transportation are the problem.
I don't want to drive to work but I have to, I work 15 hour shifts that end at midnight and public transportation at that time would take 2.75 hours to go 12 miles and I gotta be back at 0900.
During my drive I'm impeded by Manhattan locals who are able to take public trans but choose not to. If you live or in Manhattan, take the bus or the train. Ban the cab.**
*NY Times 5/14/98
Mr. Giuliani, who has denounced the strike as ''a demonstration for the purpose of being able to drive recklessly,'' ... suggesting that perhaps yellow cabs should stay off the streets forever, particularly given yesterday's light traffic in Manhattan.
''We've gotten a surprisingly large number of calls saying this was one of the more pleasant days in a long time,'' the Mayor told reporters at City Hall. ''If they would like to stay home forever, they can stay home forever. The city will function very well without them. It functioned very well today without them.''
**except for the sick and disabled
6
Increasing disparity. Going back more to classes driven society. Rich folks get to use the roads, poor folks do not.
9
My grandfather raised his family with his taxi medallion. If Uber and Lyft are part of the problem, and they refuse to reduce drivers on the road, then get rid of them in major traffic areas. Amszon is now utilizing private delivery drivers. Have legislation that their and other delivery companies deliver at night. They will still make their money. Why tax working people?
5
1. Where's is the hard data of car count, public and private, total trucks, buses, capacities, bicycle usage, package delivery vans. I see no studies over time, I see no facts.
2. Stop building. More floor space = more people and deliveries. The grid system has a saturation point.
3. Deliver at night. Split off that portion of the workforce and traffic to off hours.
4. With the exception of medical appointments and those with special needs, cabs, Uber, Lyft should be idle during both rush hours. Take a bus or the train to get to work. Private cars need to get to work and not be blocked by for-hire drivers who are already AT WORK.
8
I drive through the Lincoln Tunnel and park in the Port Authority, spending about 10 seconds on NYC roads. Will I have to pay the congestion pricing?
Why does it take me like $50 bucks to get 2 people into NYC if i take the train?
Will there be enough parking in Secaucus if everyone drives there and then takes the train from NJ?
5
This is indeed a tax that impacts the lower income New Yorker, since that fee, $10? 12?, represents a larger percentage of their income. The higher the income the less of an impact felt.
10
the failure to mention the epic levels of traffic in the metro DC area staggers me. "dynamic pricing" had gotten so bad in virginia that the tolls had climbed to $47 last year before legislators put a stop to the madness.
please invest more in infrastructure, stop screaming "not in my backyard!" to public transportation plans that don't actually contemplate building the system in your back yard, step up outreach and education efforts to get the public interested in - even excited about - public transportation.
11
Combine this with ample free or reduced-fee public transit and we have a winnah.
7
I think the established rank and file NY politicians and unions are desperately trying to finacially preserve "the way business has been done in NY." In the past, when the cost of living and education was a lot cheaper, the average citizen was not concerned with all of the NY special interests hands in the cookie jars. If you wanted to you could go to college, earn a decent living, and life was good.
Greed, graft, and cronyism, I think, is finally catching up with the city that Tammany Hall built. The conditions of the marketplace are tight right now and those same interests who have gone now for generations without facing much scrutiny are standing in an unfamiliar spotlight.
I am okay with all of the "added fees" of living in NYC but this like similar other ones will have unitentional consequences. Where's the money going? The MTA will now be held accountable for the bloated burreacracy and salries to match. The construction and transit worker unions will be subject to this examination as well. Everything in this society is coming full circle. I'm not trying to be elitist but it just a sad reality. How does a low skilled to no skilled union worker (not all but many) make more and receive better benefits than an ER doctor who spent a house plus on education and over 10 years of training?
The cost of living in this city is out of balance. The ones who have to pay "retail price" to live here receive the least benefit. i.e. See placard abuse I could go on......
5
Years ago (2006-2009), México city built a second level of the Anillo Periférico ("peripheral ring"), the outer beltway connecting the city from north to south; this second level is a tollway, whereas the original first level is free. During peak hours, people who choose to drive on the second floor where there is less traffic pay the tollway, which helps alleviate the traffic jam on the first level.
2
Wish our government would look inward instead of outward so much. We would be able to come up with solutions like Mexico!
@ben-Isnt it wonderful? Better for the animals, our planet and our lives!
2
Bring back the monorail! Why? Because it has almost no narrowing of street lanes, just enough for its posts. It is much cheaper to add to freeways. And buy the land for light rail and mono now before property values along the way are yet higher.
Seattle is shaped like a woman with narrow waist thanks to 22 mile long Lake Washington to the east and Pudget Sound to the west. So no room to widen freeways and roads.
For downtowns, bring back the dancing police officers and turn off the traffic lights!
2
@Ramon Reiser "Seattle is shaped like a woman..." Dude, you really could have found an analogy that doesn't refer to women's bodies.
1
Remember when the lottery was instituted all those years ago and how we were assured that all of the revenue was going to fund education into perpetuity? Remember when legalizing gambling was going to be be a cash cow that would keep states that had it in the black for the foreseeable future?
The Bridges that have tolls now in New York are barely maintained adequately, and now we’re supposed to believe this “windfall” is all going to go to the MTA?
Well, we should probably give New York a little credit, at least they didn’t fall for the fracking con. Yet.
6
This will go down in the annuls of NY history of the biggest and most disastrous ploy to ever manifest itself in civilised society in our lifetime.
Hundreds of millions collected and squandered by the MTA, where were the overlords, the educated overseers for 3, 4,5 decades that failed to understand the core principal of maintenance? Rewarding this continued incompetence is a religion, not just a practice relished by these blooming political incompetents.
Cleverly diverting failure to larger social developments is so easy that it's pathetic yet it has the stickiness that people buy off on. Manhattan might as well build a moat around it to keep the less accomplished and most accomplished ensconced in their monetary towers. Charging an entry fee for the privilege of crossing their sacrosanct borders is a clever manuever and only furthers the territorial psychology that is NYC.
Besides. As a resident of Manhattan, one rarely has the need for having a dedicated car and it's associated costs. Taxis and Ubers are a ok. It's like going to a concert and sitting in nose bleed seats vs lower loge.
Haves vs have nots, wannabes from got it's and dreamers vs realists, somehow it's not a very comforting picture.
5
In L.A. CA, the population has doubled in 40 years while transportation capacity has gone up by about 30%. Now transportation taxes were collected throughout that period but not applied efficiently. So, sure, give them more money without accountability or a historical review of the past failures. I mean it only kills the large percent of Americans whose jobs pay them less and less in constant dollars. Go NYT!
3
So glad NYC finally passed this. To those who are complaining, you should be ashamed of your plain selfishness in the face of global warming. Climate change will impact the poor more than the rich, so ultimately congestion pricing is really about economic justice.
3
Like it or not, you can't build your way out of the problem of congestion, especially not in major cities where land is in short supply, so reducing congestion means dis-incentivizing driving, incentivizing the use of other forms of transit, or both.
3
Congestion is not a simple problem, and will likely require multiple solutions. We have too many people and too many cars competing to live, work, and move around in limited spaces. A congestion tax can bring short term relief, and if the money is absolutely and truly dedicated to transportation, lead to longer term improvements.
I am baffled that companies continue to build offices in congested, high priced areas. I don't buy that they must do this to hire the "best and the brightest" employees. One would think that the "best and the brightest" would be eager to have reasonable house prices and commutes.
I do believe that people are pretty ingenuous, and if we implement things like congestion pricing, they will find solutions. I take Metro North every day to avoid sitting in traffic on 95. It's utilitarian, but gets me to work safely and mostly on time. More commuters need to have this option.
1
If (big IF) the subway is usable, there’s really very little need to take cabs and ride share services except in certain limited circumstances (when one is alone and/or far away from home late at night; to and from LGA). I hope congestion pricing works out as well as they’ve told us it will, and the subway will go back to what it used to be just a decade or so ago.
2
As some one who's commute takes me through the city, I have to wonder what this will do to the GWB? I work in Jersey City. To commute there by mass transit takes two hours one way. It was not my choice to work there, my job was moved there. The fast drive to the office is the west side drive to the Holland tunnel. Congestion pricing takes out 2 crossings leaving the GWB, which already the world's busiest bridge. The east side is given a break if they stay on the FDR. How about a break for the west side.
If mass transportation worked better, I would leave my car home
3
This is really great news for NYC. I just hope it's done correctly. Some are right to point out that using congestion pricing to raise money to improve public transit is not a quick fix. However, a lot can be done in the mean time to improve other modes. More than anything, less cars=safer biking and a lot more needs to be done. For one thing, instead of offering tax incentives for electric cars, it should go to electric bikes. This is a game changer for mobility and is an answer to everyone that complains that biking is only for the young and athletic. Additionally, streetcars and buses need exclusive lanes. These changes can be implemented in a matter of weeks. Removing cars will do nothing to immediately speed along the trains but it significantly improves the quality of bikes, buses and streetcars.
3
Congestion pricing is quite rational for a city like New York. The pity is that it must become yet another dedicated revenue stream for the MTA, whose subway construction/maintenance costs are (as NYT reporting has painfully documented) out of control--600-700% of those in Paris or London.
The congestion pricing seems like a reasonable idea. However, I think that NYC taxis should be exempt as they already paid for a medallion, which Uber and Lyft didn't. Make the NYC taxis the preferred way to go, if you feel you can't walk, take the bus (which runs too infrequently) or inadequate subway.
2
I lived in Singapore in the '90s. Congestion pricing worked, but was a piece of a larger efficiency obsession. The city was also a nation and an island, meaning one monolithic government, a "benevolent" dictatorship run by one highly focused gent for 30+ years.
Lee Kuan Yew knew that making Singapore ever better, more livable and more efficient vs typical Western cities was the key to its success. One only had to visit Jakarta or Bangkok to see the alternative. He was careful to also build out an amazing public transit system, a cheap taxi system and an int'l airport worth a visit unto itself.
If anyone in government was caught taking bribes, stealing taxpayers' money or doing anything illegal, the state summarily convicted them of corruption, stripped them of all their personal assets, subjected them to massive public shaming and slapped them with a prohibition on ever working in gov't or running for office again.
There were also tens of thousands of guest workers paid as little as $7/day doing ALL hard labour, no construction unions, and very high cost barriers to both buying and using a car.
In addition, the city was planned out decades in advance with "New Towns" (clusters of 20 or more residential high-rises and mid-rise"flatted factories", plus markets, food hawker centres, shops, malls and schools) built in former low-density areas, clustered around subways stops. Bus and taxi services kept everyone who didn't drive moving.
So, um, good luck, USA.
6
This article refers to Uber, Lyft, Amazon as responsible parties for the congestion. If that is true, instead of charging ALL vehicles a regressive tax, these companies should be charged additionally for each package delivered to peak locations during peak hours. This also implies that the prices these companies charge is only competitive when they are receiving this hidden subsidy that through congestion pricing, all drivers will be forced to pay. I suggest taxing businesses versus individuals. There are alternatives to congestion pricing and those should be pursued. Policy makers need to be more creative in their solutions.
6
@LM
no
1
Local elections have consequences too! Vote Democrat and expect new innovative and creative ways of taxation.
8
I don't remember "the people" voting for congestion pricing. The people never embraced congestion pricing, it was forced upon us. This is a crisis created by having too many bike lanes and bus only lanes. The politicians will waste all the money, the MTA will remain the mess it has always been and congestion will remain the same in Manhattan. Thank you Gov. Cuomo and Mayor DiBlasio for caring for the working class.
11
people who ride the bus should get priority especially in urban centers. It’s silly that a bus with 50 people would ever wait in traffic behind 10 cars waiting to turn or unable to cram into the next block. If you want to commute in an inefficient private vehicle and take up much much more space than the people sitting on a bus then you get to wait and have an inefficient commute.
1
There is pure cognitive dissonance here. The tax revenue is being relied on by MTA but if the plan works and congestion is reduced the revenue must be replaced by another tax. What am I missing?
2
What a wonderful “problem” that would be!
I can already see the attempts to raid the coffers of this fund by NJ, LI, Westchester, and Connecticut. By diluting the monies the subways will get less and less. Seems that the reason for congestion pricing was to rebuild the subways. That seems less or less likely.
1
I ride my bike all around Denver rather than owning a very expensive car just to sit in traffic. I can pretty easily go 12 miles per hour, making my bike trip faster than most driving trips in most cities. Also, I can adjust my route easier than drivers to avoid traffic, can scoot past all of you drivers sitting in your metal boxes, enjoy my commute more than I ever did when I drove, and only spend about $150-200 per year on bike maintenance.
Even if you can’t or won’t ride, walk, carpool or take transit every day, do it once or twice a week. Very few of us, at least in cities, have a valid excuse to drive everywhere we go. Additionally, drivers need to support biking, walking and transit or the traffic will only get worse. If you drive, you ARE traffic and you ARE part of the problem.
4
"I ride my bike all around Denver ..."
You didn't mention any of the problems:
1. Arriving at work sweaty.
2. Getting dirty riding through mud or water.
3. Riding over debris in the bike lane.
4. Getting cut off or run over by cars or trucks turning into driveways.
5. Getting blocked by cars in the bike lane.
6. Getting sideswiped by cars.
7. Getting hit by junk thrown out of car windows.
3
@DPN
1. Ride slowly, it's not a race. Bring a shirt to change into when you get to work.
2. Fenders.
3. One flat in 5 1/2 years biking in the city. No biggie. Keep tires properly inflated and replace them when worn.
4-7. First of all, these 4 points are all about driver behavior, so how about we talk to you drivers about these? Biking can be dangerous, just as driving can be, just as not chewing well can be, causing choking. I actually feel safer on my bike than when in a car. To hedge my bets, I choose quieter, slower, safer streets with fewer trucks and cars. Stay visible with flashing lights day and night. Ride defensively. Use a loud horn to get drivers' attention. And advocate for more protected bike lanes and enforcement against people parking their dumb cars in bike lanes.
3
@DPN
1. Do you ever sweat while waiting for the A/C to cool your car down? Bike slowly so you don't sweat, or bring a shirt to change into when you get to work.
2. Fenders. Done.
3. I have had one flat tire in 5 1/2 years biking around Denver. No problem. Inflate your tires properly and replace worn tires.
4. This is a big problem which getting more vehicles off the road will really help with. I ride defensively with flashing lights and a very loud horn. But I won't let other drivers force me to be a driver.
5. Yes, these drivers are A-holes that need to have their cars taken away. But that's on them, not on me. Again, fewer cars means fewer drivers blocking bike lanes. Also, police enforcement must happen.
6. Fortunately this hasn't happened to me. Again, ride defensively. And again, getting more cars off the roads will really help here!
7. Once again, this is not on me...it's on the A-hole drivers who might throw stuff.
I find it very interesting that most of these "problems" you point out are caused by people driving vehicles, so you're arguing for my side here. Fewer cars means safer roads for everyone who travels outside of cars, and makes getting out of your car much more pleasant, leading to more people not driving. It's a win-win! Try it...you might like it and find it less scary than you think, especially if you chose quieter roads through neighborhoods rather than riding on busy thoroughfares where all the A-hole drivers are.
2
You can barely walk down a sidewalk in NY either for all the sidewalk congestion. The city is maxed out in more than just street traffic. Look at rent prices. One solution is to leave NY. My company just moved it’s headquarters from Manhattan to a much more affordable city, livable city. Another is for companies to start taking work from home days seriously. Incorporate it into their day to day business model. With internet based video conferencing, powerful mobile devices, soft phones, hoteling software, and a plethora of other affordable, reliable technologies, working from home is a very viable option for many companies and employees.
7
"Another is for companies to start taking work from home days seriously."
That would work for some jobs, but it is easy to list jobs that require on site presence:
1. Janitors.
2. Medical personnel.
3. Restaurant workers.
4. Delivery truck drivers.
Etc.
Newspaper reporters sometimes conduct interviews over the telephone, but it is much better to do interviews in person, so that the subject's manner and environment can be observed.
True it won't work for everyone, but it could reduce the number of people in the city.
3
@DPN
Make change where you can. It’s not a single solution problem. I can’t create a list of jobs that do lend themselves well to work from home. Of the 1500 employees we just moved out of New York, all 1500 of those jobs could support somebody degree of work from home. Some maybe once or twice a month. Some everyday.
1
Congestion pricing absolutely needs to come to Boston; anything that could help should be tried. The city has streets that started as cowpaths and still aren't much wider, yet it continues to allow high rise after high rise condos to be built in the city proper with no traffic remedies. I moved out after being unable to get slightly north to an appointment, due to traffic so thick it didn't move in an hour. This was the same main road that would lead out of the city if there was a terror attack or disaster. Life is too short to live like that; Boston offers almost no quality of life anymore. Boston, THINK about it. Serious attention to traffic law enforcement also should be mandatory.
4
The solution? Put the jobs where the housing is!
The "solution" was in the past for New York and San Francisco: zoning that effectively limited the number of new office buildings in the city. Especially now, when many jobs are done online, there is no need to clump people together for work, other than so upper management of different firms can have lunch together.
Hopefully mid-sized and smaller cities will take the broad view, and instead of planning for future congestion, they will zone to prevent it. Mass transit into the city is a good idea, but in general it still leaves millions of people wasting hours each day commuting, hours better spent with their children, reading, hiking, or pretty much anything else. Yes, put the jobs where the housing is. That is the preemptive "solution" to the problem of urban congestion.
1
This article clearly states that the proliferation of ubers and delivery trucks have caused the increase in NYC traffic. So how does this plan to charge private drivers do anything to address the actual issue? Uber needs to be better regulated - much like there is a cap on taxis, there should be a more realistic cap on ubers (as opposed to the temporary one in place now). While we're at it, we should also remove all those citibikes taking up parking spaces in the city. Has anyone mentioned the fact that all those bikes taking up parking has most likely contributed to increased traffic as well as it takes longer to find a spot?
5
@Maryjane Every single person on a bike, bus or walking is one less vehicle fighting for space on the roads you drive and taking up parking spots. I totally agree that Uber and Lyft should be paying fees and be regulated (limiting the # that can be in any city). But your ire at people who bicycle is misplaced. Let me ask...do you drive everywhere? If so, how many people on bicycles could fit in the same space that your vehicle takes up? You and your vehicle are the actual problem.
4
@WeVo
The elderly and or handicapped are NOT going to be commuting by bike. So your solution effects a very narrow slice of the population. It snows in Denver too, right? Good luck with that.
2
Surveys show that a whopping 60% of people are interested in biking but are concerned, usually for their safety. No, not everyone will ride but many will if we build the infrastructure for it. Look at places like the Netherlands where just about everyone bikes—old, young, wearing skirts and suits, in the snow and cold (I ride year round in Denver, taking the bus when I need to), and very likely even many with handicaps.
3
It's hard to imagine anybody driving in Manhattan who has a choice. Or is so incredibly wealthy that no tax will deter them.
3
"It's hard to imagine anybody driving in Manhattan who has a choice."
If reading about it doesn't dissuade anyone, look at Manhattan in Google Street View. In some views, the buses and trucks make it impossible to see the sidewalk or buildings.
The congestion pricing plan is purportedly designed to increase revenue to fix the MTA's infrastructure. But will the law require that each dollar collected go directly to improving the MTA's services? Will the law require accounting of each dollar? If these questions have not been answered to the public, this should be done immediately.
Moreover, what is the MTA's transition plan when a substantial increase in public transportation commuters occurs over a short amount of time? For instance the LIRR Penn Station and Atlantic Terminal lines are already mired by delays on a daily basis, to say nothing of the trains' insufficient seating during rush hour. Will the MTA immediately account for these issues when trains become saddled with several extra thousand pounds of weight?
We need clearer and more frequent reportage on these questions, among others. Seemingly every NYC public transportation plan which has been announced this decade has been ineffectual, and has ultimately translated to another few years of commuter suffering at higher ticket prices.
1
What will it do to taxi fares? They recently went up by a $2.75 fee on top of an already .80 so just to get in and close the door costs $3.30 before they start moving.
2
In Los Angeles, house prices aren't as outrageous as San Francisco but still bad enough to push homebuyers 25 miles east of Downtown, which is 75 minutes at rush hour and on the way home. If congestion pricing effectively serves as an additional surcharge on those who moved to the suburbs just to find (comparatively) "affordable" housing, then this is another ill-advised and half-baked regressive tax. And all in the name of green clean while China and India pollute indiscriminately? If Newsom rolls this out and Garcetti is complicit, I hope L.A. riots like a Paris Saturday.
6
"And all in the name of green clean while China and India pollute indiscriminately?"
NYC and LA do not have any authority over other countries, so you are comparing apples and oranges. If you really are so concerned about pollution from other countries, complain to your members of Congress about the US withdrawal from international climate change accords.
"If Newsom rolls this out and Garcetti is complicit, I hope L.A. riots like a Paris Saturday."
Car owners are members of the bourgeois, and they don't riot, because they are too busy protecting their own property, including their cars.
1
Should be a lottery. Otherwise, the very wealthiest will always be able to count on using the streets.
2
"Should be a lottery."
That might work if lottery winners could SELL their driving rights.
"Otherwise, the very wealthiest will always be able to count on using the streets."
Uh oh. "Rich" people would buy those driving rights and we can't have that.
The city needs to stop talking out of both sides of its mouth on this issue.
Let's take Chelsea for example: A once quiet neighborhood with tree-lined streets from 6th ave all the way west to the river. Now, all those beautiful brownstones have been torn down and replaced with glass monstrosities, some of which have hundreds of apartments in one building alone. Let's say for the sake of argument that 10% of the people who live in one building own an automobile. That is over 50 cars just for one building on one street.
The city, of course, paints this as progress and that's why they dole out construction permits like candy. They can't wait until that property that once contained a three-family brownstone now houses 100+ different families so they can reassess it and collect the property tax on it.
And that, my friends, is why the city is so congested.
And that is why I left. A nice big house and a swimming pool in NJ is paradise for me.
10
@skater242 High density is actually needed to make a city more bikeable, walkable and transit friendly. Ever been to the suburbs? Transit tends to be awful, if it even exists, because single family homes on wide streets makes travel distances much longer and there simply aren't enough people in one area to support transit. Therefore, everyone drives everywhere, and therefore we have gobs of traffic.
5
Living in the San Francisco Bay Are for the last 30 years has convinced me that a congestion fee is the only answer to the gridlock that we face on a daily basis. A congestion fee coupled with reduced fares on BART and Caltrain will go a long way to reduce the gridlock.
9
I agree and as an Uber driver in sf (sure, everyone can hate me but I do get to see a lot) the biggest, serious traffic I experience in the city is people getting on the Bay Bridge or on the freeways to leave/enter the city. Occasionally there are buildups within the city or around market st but I really don’t encounter soul crushing deadlock traffic much except on and around the 80/280/101. Congestion pricing should really help with that.
Also, even as a driver I would support taxes on uber, I can’t believe the rides perfectly able bodied people request from me to go literally 2 blocks, or from one Bart station to another. It would be complicated but interesting if there was a way to impose a fee on rides that begin and end within a quarter mile of rail. I drove someone from SFO to a hotel by Walnut Creek (I think) Bart in traffic that took 3 hrs and cost them $80 with surge. It takes 1hr10 by BART from the airport. I tried to tell them about it but it didn’t register.
2
It is not like congestion pricing is something new, or a US idea. It was in place when I lived in Singapore in 1982. You bought a 9"x 9" sticker good for a month, or even a day. School kids made money ensuring that vehicles could beat the =tariff by having the requisite number of passengers. The real culprits in the mix are the trucks that double park while unloading. BTW, Singapore has one of the best Metro systems on the planet. The taxis there are spotless. Uber and other ride shares exist, but aren't in the demand they are in the US. As organized as the place is, there must be bike rentals. Like everything else, they just seem to be able to make it work.
4
Mad as heck
Driving a car, is one of the great treats and great freedoms of life, to go wherever you want to leave whenever you want to leave, depending on nobody else, captain of your own destiny. New York is trying its best to take that joy away. First they came out with the Bus lanes and the bike lanes which cut down on the real estate that you had to maneuver. then they came out with red-light cameras, so now whenever you approach a red light, its like a game of mental chicken, do you stop too soon or take the chance you will make it to the other side, then New York doubled down by creating a 25 mile an hour speed limit, also checked by camera, now you feel like you are under the gun all the time. Now they come out with a money grab called congestion pricing, which is added to the parking meter money grabs, 15 minutes for a quarter, and lets not forget those roving bands of dept of finacing brigades called NYPD cruising around like ticket sharks, ready to pull you over with the WHOOP WHOOP, any second of the day. Any wonder why this boy from the Bronx is looking at Florida property.
8
@Lonnie Aww, poor Lonnie doesn't get to drive like he's in a car commercial anymore! I feel way more free when I ride my bike than I will ever feel while cooped up in a car, sitting in traffic, and having to spend $10,000 per year on a car and all the costs that go with it. Come on, you live in a city with gobs of options for getting around. Get on a bike and feel the wind in your hair!
4
@Lonnie
If stopping at a red light is akin to a gam eof "mental chicken", then you probably shouldn't be driving anywhere!
2
Bravo!
Manhattan car owner/street parker here...A responsibility not unlike caring for an infant ...
My question...Will a driver emerging from a Hudson tunnel be able to scoot directly uptown to avoid Midtown and the added congestion fee? Hope so
Call it what it really is. Another way to keep the dirty peasants out of the cities unless they are there to serve the global rich. If anyone thinks they are going to fix the subways then you are delusional. That money will be used to install a system with more golden gates to keep you out.
You know the dystonian movies of the future where he rabble live out in deserted hinterlands and the rich in enclosed shiny communities with all the amenities? Welcome to future times and so called liberals like Cuomo and Deblasio are helping to make a paradise for the rich. This is not your or our land, it's just their land.
11
Drivers get massively subsidized highways; now it's their time to pay their share. If subway riders get charged to use the City's infrastructure, why not charge those who use the roads? It seems only fair to have tolls, congestion pricing, and other fees.
12
Americans mass transit system is pure garbage. Europe does it right but America mass transit is pure junk. I have ridden BART, the San Francisco mass transit system far too many times I also used the Seattle areas system many times. Neither come close to the quality and efficiency of the Paris Metro System. The same goes for Amtrak verses the European train systems. While BART is nominally on time the train cars and track are so inferior that traveling is an ordeal of being bumped, banged and tossed around. Seattle's system is much better, but still inferior to the French systems, which costs less, goes a lot more places and is on time. God help Americans without automobiles who live in rural areas.
7
taking away our meat, guns and now our cars.
1
Now let's introduce resident only street parking like places in Jersey
5
AKA: “Democratic Pols & Union Bosses in NY to Gain More Graft Money Thru Congestion Pricing; other dem cities to follow.”
Finally, with this $20b we can hire more MTA workers to supervise the supervisor of the committee on supervision.
13
The concern that congestion pricing is aimed at the poor is a smoke screen. The New York subway is wonderful if one wants to get around the city. I always take it. The reasons I hear from friends and relatives that they don't want to ride the subways is that they are dirty, and their fellow passengers are dirty, Women in my family complain about the rubbing and pats they get from their fellow passengers. The riders are dark skinned foreigners etc. My answer to them is this is America and we should not have separation of races and economic levels. The bankers should be on the subway and not in their town cars. The subway is one place all New Yorkers get to interact. Congestion pricing makes total sense. Poor people are on the subway and rich people should be there too so they are reminded that the world is not car service and weekends in the Hamptons. Our wealthy would be more concerned with the civic situation if they have to spend some time in the real New York as opposed to a fantasy land created by Wall Street riches....and I am well into the 1%. And if the wealthy to include our politicians like DeBlasio had to ride the subway they might put some pressure on improving it. So the complaints about congestion pricing be retrogressive taxation of the poor is just a smoke screen. The poor are on the subway and if they are not they should be. New York should be an example to the rest of the country. LA would benefit mightily from congestion pricing as well.
9
This has a viable chance of working in larger cities where drivers will still be inclined to drive despite the congestion fee. For instance, cities like NYC and LA have the tourists attractions and amenities to still attract millions to those respective cities. On the hand, cities such as Hartford and Jersey City to name a few may see an adverse effect. Implement a congestion pricing for the later could further exacerbate an already deepening budget deficit where people may not be inclined to continue driving or visiting those cities.
1
Perhaps we should have special two week free tourist sticker passes?!
Good grief. San Francisco is actually considering making certain parts of certain traffic congested streets OFF LIMITS TO CARS! People are very, very displeased. The only thing that will do is make other streets even worse than they are already are. Obviously. How can the boneheads who come up with these schemes not realize this? It's called math.
Also, the toll on the Golden Gate Bridge is probably going to be raised to TEN DOLLARS. The mind truly boggles.
2
A lot of people in San Francisco are also very pleased with the idea of taking away space from cars and giving it to pedestrians and public transit. Where I live you can’t even walk two people next to each other because the sidewalk is so small but there’s 5 lanes of car traffic. the suburbs and rural areas are always there if you want to drive free.
5
Just imagine attempting to find a parking spot north of 60th St once this plan takes effect.
5
The 67,000 Uber and Lyft drivers have ruined traffic in the city of Chicago. Most use a GPS to get around. In other words a ton of mediocre drivers. It's maddening and it's the city's fault for giving those two companies sweetheart start-up deals.
8
There are so many comments to this article by aggrieved and entitled drivers. Sorry, it makes no sense to allow people to drive their private automobiles into one of the most congested cities on earth for free. Street space in New York (and in other major American cities) is a precious commodity and those who wish to monopolize it with their private cars need to pay for the privilege. And the class warfare argument is a joke. If you are wealthy enough to own a car,
you can pay the congestion charge. Cry me a river. Just be honest, you think everyone but you should bear the cost of your carbon-spewing, pollution-causing, street-hogging automobile.
17
@Nicole
Beautifully stated.
Would a commuter tax by any other name smell as sweet?
1
As a progressive democrat why can’t we have a honest discussion on how the MTA is broke?
9
The "solution" was in the past for New York and San Francisco: zoning that effectively limited the number of new office buildings in the city. Especially now, when many jobs are done online, there is no need to clump people together for work, other than so upper management of different firms can have lunch together.
Hopefully mid-sized and smaller cities will take the broad view, and instead of planning for future congestion, they will zone to prevent it. Mass transit into the city is a good idea, but in general it still leaves millions of people wasting hours each day commuting, hours better spent with their children, reading, hiking, or pretty much anything else. Put the jobs where the housing is. That is the preemptive "solution" to the problem of urban congestion.
5
NY and LA are different animals. NY has public transportation that works, and taxis that are everywhere. L.A. does not ...
3
Traffic congestion fees, when smartly designed and implemented, are a promising step to improve transportation efficiency and reduce our dependence on polluting individual vehicles. I applaud those city leaders and city planners who show the courage and the foresight to replicate this idea in our country.
3
NYC already has Select Bus service in Manhattan,and the SF/Bay Area has priced HOV lanes in the suburbs during Weekdays,so what difference does Congestion pricing make?
People wonder why more isn’t being spent on public transportation. It’s simple. Follow the money.
San Francisco used to have regular cable car service into the city, over the Bay Bridge. The cable cars and tracks were removed because tire manufacturers wanted people to buy cars, and those lobbyists had more clout. I think a similar thing happened with the proposed high speed rail.
11
In the spirit of getting answers to the question of is Congestion Pricing the solution , or what would help all cities with congestion problems perhaps it would help non-residents to know that NYC has had the most extensive public transportation system for more than 100 years , but it has not stemmed the growth of congestion since cars became affordable for most . So, suggestions that only point to improvements in public transportation won't help NYC which is very unique .
The problem in Manhattan especially is a gazillion people commuting to a small narrow island with busy and dense commercial activity and the number of people who actually drive mostly come from the outskirts New Jersey , Long Island , Staten Island and Lower NY State that is relatively close to the City. Residents of the 4 boroughs already use public transportation that is already maxed out .
The only solutions that will work in NYC must take into account those realities making New York not the best model for other cities who do not have such infrastructure and a gazillion people .
6
Hooray! The only people that should be upset about this are truck drivers. Nobody who drives into the city for work has a leg to stand on to complain. If you can afford all-day parking, you can afford the toll. Yes, our MTA needs work, but we have an enormous, 24 hour public transit system that works pretty well most of the time. Most people have no need to be driving in NYC during rush hours.
10
Send Uber / Lyft to the suburbs where they are needed.
We don’t need them in Manhattan
Add $1 to the subway / bus cost.
Fix the subways once and for all.
The subways worked much better when they were plastered with graffiti, in the 70s
2
The fight for congestion pricing isn't over yet. All that has been done was just allow for it to be included in the budget for further discussion. However, nothing is final about it yet until the end of 2020. Until then, it can still be stopped as there are politicians from both the outer boroughs and suburbs that aren't too keen on this idea. Some of them still want the idea to be scrapped while others will only be for it if they will get something out of it, otherwise they will just downright oppose the idea altogether. Meanwhile, there are NJ politicians that are pretty much against it because they feel it will give their people a double toll that they feel that whenever they enter the city as of right now, they are already paying a form of congestion pricing. Let's not forget that there will be more hearings for this in the near future and how it should be done, and I suggest anyone who is still against this idea to tell the panel in full force this, "Don't amend it, end it!" Instead, we should have a more thorough audit on the MTA and figure out where are the revenues they already have going to before even thinking about this. However, supporters may not like this if it will make congestion pricing feel both obsolete and unnecessary. More importantly, if this was really about reducing congestion, then a better idea is to enforce traffic laws against double parking and blocking the box as well as capping the ride share app vehicles.
4
It seems to me that the congestion comes from an over reliance on individual vehicles due to a lack of viable alternatives. Even where there are functioning public transit systems they’ve become over-saturated and under-maintained. The auto industry has lobbied against public transit projects across the country for years, essentially manufacturing demand for their vehicles. It’s only now that we see we haven’t been building for the future. And the response matches that philosophy by placing a regressive tax on those who fell victim to that manufactured demand for vehicles without any offer of reasonable alternatives. Failed leadership keeps failing.
5
What gets me is the fact that anyone who has so much as even passively listened to the news in the past two decades in particular, is well aware that population growth and urban populations have been on the rise, with no sign of slowing down. More people = more cars = more congestion = more pollution, etc. And so the fact that state and federal funds have not been invested in our transit systems seems like gross negligence on their part, and in part, somewhat of a shame on us as a whole, for not pushing for this more once we saw where the trends were heading; now, many who have no option but to drive are going to taxed for governmental oversight? Something is not right with this picture at all, but I suppose the same could be said for other necessities like healthcare and education (but I digress).
I recently lived in London and I am perpetually baffled as to why we have not been able to - or simply don't - scale up our infrastructure and adopt a similar transportation system as the folks across the pond.
5
I’m confused about New York’s plan. I understand that if you enter Manhattan below 60th Street there will be a charge. But what if you pass 60th say while, say, going down Second Avenue, or any other downtown avenue? Will that be charged as well?
@Mark
Yes
@Mark
Simply, yes. And hurrah!
congestion is a complicated problem in dense cities across the globe. Tackling the problem will take a multipronged strategy.
Urban planning is a key component of the solution. Property owner rights advocates, NIMBYers, and those that always cry "government overreach" are huge obstacles to solving our transportation issues.
There are some very bright urban planners, designers and architects proposing great concepts. If the country had the political means to rewrite zoning laws to encourage walkable cities with high density mixed use development around transit hubs, we be on our way to solving the problem.
Another sensible and simple zoning change would be to require a housing component in every new retail development. If there were apartments above each of these retail stores, people would walk to shopping rather than drive.
3
Have some kid make a new app, call it Hitch. If you sign up, it will follow your commute and pair you with someone else on a similar route. So you can virtually hitch a ride.
There's already a free community-generated tech-agnostic phenomenon called casual carpool that allows for folks to pick up commuters in Oakland and drop them off in SFs financial district. Cool stuff.
1
I work in lower Manhattan and majority of cars are taxis (including Uber) and commercial vehicles. So the taxes will be hurting them and their business, they still be there, so I do not see how this solves the congestion...
4
Major cities brought this on themselves. By allowing construction of new high rise office and residential towers. Cramming more people into an already congested situation.
Here about an hour outside San Francisco, there is undeveloped land all around, and about one or two high rise buildings in town.
There is plenty of space and room to grow and the center of town needs more residents, and more people to visit our cultural and culinary offerings.
Sadly, but very needed, state governments have to get tough on development. Implement restrictions on new development in congested areas and encourage new hubs for transportation, living and business, in rural areas, and smaller towns.
Everyone cannot live on Manhattan or the San Francisco peninsula or near the beaches.
And office workers should be forced out of their cars and onto the internet highway, close to where they live. No need for administrative and tech workers to drive to gleaming office buildings only to spend their day staring into computers, tablets and smart phones.
Utopian you say? Not so much, but a mere necessity for the survival of our society and our planet.
5
I don’t see that San Francisco is overdeveloped, downtown San Francisco is only a very small section of the city. Most of San Francisco is practically suburban. Go to the western half and the vast majority is single family homes. Even the more urban neighborhoods outside of the downtown area are mostly 6 stories or less. And if we’re talking the whole peninsula including San Mateo county, it’s even less developed. Millbrae, for example, has a huge BART & CalTrain station but the city won’t build up housing around this great resource and it’s very underutilized. The problem of congestion in San Francisco isn’t too many people it’s too many cars.
1
@Andrew B this is a recipe for sprawl and the destruction of what's left of our natural landscape. Promoting density in existing urban cores is the only responsible way to grow.
1
Blame City Planners who allow ongoing Real Estate development, commercial and residential, with utter disregard for highway infrastructure limits regarding how many vehicles are added to transportation needs, and limits.
3
If Dallas or Miami introduce congestion pricing that will be news. Democratic controlled cities continuing their self destructive tax practices? Just another day in the death spiral.
7
Let’s not forget that owning a car in Manhattan or the boroughs is a luxury. It was a enormous luxury that the vast majority of residents couldn’t come close to affording when I lived for 25 years in Manhattan and Brooklyn back in the 70s, 80s and 90s. And it is still a luxury with the exception of those who taxi people or goods from one part of town to the other. People who own cars in the City and the boroughs for their convince should have to pay. They can afford it. And people who come in from outside the City should have to pay more.
8
I own a service business in NYC and have no option but to use cars for product support. People who are so rich that an extra $11 or $12 a day is meaningless to them, in fact it might even make them happier because they will get around easier without dealing with the peasants who can't afford to pay.
6
I may be wrong, but I believe for most service businesses a congestion fee that allows you to visit more customers faster due to less traffic might be a net benefit for you? Just something to consider. Though personally, I think the fee should only apply to personal vehicles as service businesses are providing value to the community with their vehicles. We all need technicians or other services sometimes, and these shouldn’t be viewed as congestion in the same way that commuters who leave their car parked all day and could take transit if they tried just a little.
Most of the comments here seem to be defending the status-quo—that transit should be free to everyone with a car to go wherever whenever.
Our driving infrastructure is already insanely subsidized by taxes that have nothing to do with transportation. Is this the perfect answer? Probably not, but almost no one takes into account the actual cost of our infrastructure before they decide to drive into their city.
This is a good start to tipping the scales.
7
I love the way people blame ride sharing but not all the illegal immigrants using services they don't pay to support. There are consequences when an increasing share of your workforce supports a shadow economy by working off the books and sending money overseas.
It is going to get worse. Legitimate working Americans who pay federal and state taxes are leaving. The difference has to be made up with taxes disguised as fees. Get prepared for more.
9
@Hellen Illegal immigration is a part of this whole problem. LA county has an estimated 1 million plus people living here illegally. And California is gracious enough to give them drivers' licences.
4
@Hellen Believe it or not, those 'illegal immigrants' pay taxes too. Nice try though.
3
@Hellen
Considering the commuter tax was abolished some years ago, Hellen, you're also using services you don't pay to support when you're in NYC, so maybe you (and your deeply un-American thinking) should just stay in Jersey.
2
I love driving. I am an enthusiast. I have 4 cars.
But I DETEST driving in traffic
I am a firm believer that the automobile, as an individual trasnportation device to enter congested cities will go the way of the horse drawn carriage, and rightly so.
More than a congestion tax, some areas should outright ban automobiles and return said streets to pedestrian use, with an emphasis on alternative uses of transport.
Of course, areas outside the city center and in rural areas will still depend on automobiles, and that is fine, but growing cities must take quick and radical action or else the problem will be worse.
I am fine with not driving to work or for mundane things, in fact, a lot of enthusiasts would be too, as no enthusiast enjoys sitting in bumper to bumper traffic.
9
@ducatiluca
How do you plan to get groceries, amazon packages and everything else with your Utopian pedestrian city? The reality is that most of the cars that enter these cities are not necessarily day-day works but rather business related transactions....delivery truck, electrician with tools, taxis dropping people with heavy bags, (note La Guardia is not connected to public transport).
NYC population has not increased dramatically to support the increase in traffic; this is caused by 1) reducing car lanes for bike lanes 2) ride sharing cars which a) encourage more single passenger usage b) they drive poorly and double park
It took me an hour and a half to get to work this morning on the R train from Queens to lower Manhattan. The subways are a disaster, and it's not going to change even if the MTA gets additional funds from congestion pricing.
7
Housing prices in large cities are so high that employees need to move further from their jobs. In many cities, public transportation is either very limited or almost non-existent. Wealthy people -- CEOs and top execs -- live close to work. Lower-level underpaid workers are forced to sit in terrible traffic for hours each day which is harmful to their health individually and the pollution from the traffic is harmful to the global environment. And to add to all that, we now want to further penalize those underpaid workers by adding more cost to their daily commute? If we had clean safe public transportation everywhere and affordable housing, the traffic issues might be lessened. The problem of over-crowding in cities is complex. As jobs in small towns disappear when the one large plant in town closes, communities crumble. I'm hopeful the new green jobs will be spread around so small communities can thrive. We need to rethink cities which right now don't seem like healthy places to live and raise families.
5
No cars at all in the cities, like the walled cities of Europe. No wealth privilege with this solution.
5
The only way to do this fairly is to set the toll based on net worth. The very poorest pay a dollar a day, the very richest pay 10,000 a day. This is how they do it in some Scandinavian countries. A $50 parking ticket is a lot for someone working for min wage but means nothing to a multi-millionaire, charge them $5,000 instead and even they'll start to think twice.
Most people who live in the city or immediately around it and have access to public transit don't need to be driving into town. Those who live outside of it do. I'm on of those. I have to drive because my government doesn't provide timely and cheap alternatives like train service. Oh sure, I can take the train into the city for $25 a day - and it's still slow and overcrowded. Or I can pay $5 a day - I drive a hybrid - work provides parking - and it takes me just as long yet I'm comfy in my car and not being crushed in like a sardine being forced to listen to other peoples music, inane conversations, their smells, etc.
Better still, get governments to decentralize cities. There';s zero reason for the majority of businesses to be in a city. It's a big country and there's a lot of cheap land/housing and COLA for your workers where they wouldn't have to pay the outrageous costs of living there and continue to be part of the problem. Wall St. and the banks can operate from anywhere.
3
I think calling for government to destroy cities is a terrible idea. Cities are efficient in so many ways--think of all the waste that would result from shuffling everyone off to the exurbs. This kind of social engineering created many of the problems we're now dealing with. We'd be far better off if our transit systems had been maintained all along with the money that went to subsidize new highways and cheap housing.
1
I don't think our genius politicians understand "congestion pricing", as they keep focusing on the revenue it will raise rather than the traffic it will deter. The goal of congestion pricing should NOT be to raise revenue. Par for the course.
4
Had a conversation with some good friends who live in TriBeCa. They are thrilled about this. They park their Range Rover in their building’s garage. They keep the car for regular trips to their weekend place and to visit friends in Fairfield County. They tell me they are looking forward to more space on the road for themselves.
Sigh, another nail in the coffin for drivers with fewer means...
5
What needs to be done is to charge Huber and Lyft, and delivery companies such as Amazon, for the use of the streets. The last study published in Oct 2018 indicated that Uber and Lyft are responsible for more than half of the congestion in San Francisco. Over the period 2010-2016 the decline in average traffic speed has been 55%.
1
ive seen this statistic repeated so many times and it’s not true if you look at the study it said 50% of *new* congestion & speeds decreased about 27% at peak times over that period. Which is very different than 50% of all congestion unless there was zero congestion before, which is definitely not the case. I also don’t necessarily think decreasing speed is always bad as I see people speeding thru SOMA at 40 or 45 mph in a 25 zone whenever they have a chance. Trust me I’m no lover of uber either but this stat is just everywhere.
1
I believe a surcharge has already been levied on TNCs as part of congestion pricing "Phase1".
Congestion pricing is an abysmal ideal unless there is reasonable (and reasonably priced) mass transit from inbound urban and suburban locations. I happen to live in Bergen County, NJ and the mass transit options from my town are quite limited - there is bus service, but that is quite slow and erratic. The only other real option is to drive, but that entails paying a steep toll ($12.50 for the GWB or a tunnel), even without the additional congestion pricing. How much will the congestion pricing add? Another $10? That means it will cost $20+ to drive from NJ to Midtown Manhattan (plus the cost of parking). For a one time trip, that's very costly, but for a regular commuter, it is patently unreasonable unless the commuter is given meaningful mass transit alternatives. Given the paucity of mass transit choices available to me, I will just refrain from going to Midtown for work or leisure.
4
The problem is the mismanagement of the MTA, That runs subways with obsolete control systems, (from the 30's of last century), and expend $ 4 billion dollars in the Wold Trade Center transit hub, and more money in the stations in the new super rich areas. Tthe lack of responsibility on the second street subway line, super expensive for only three stations, and many decades behind schedule. In addition to this the removal of traffic space by adding extra wide side walks , for example in 34Th street, or the reduction of traffic lanes by parking cars in the middle of the street. Also if you see what cars are crowding the streets those are Lift, Uber, yellow and green taxis, delivery trucks parked on 2nd and third row, with very few particular cars.
6
Leave it to government to provide better traffic flow for free, but after they make a mess of it and it's congested and all drivers already pay the price in lost time, then they want to charge.
1
Automobiles and cities do not get along well. Cities are meant for people, not cars. Get people out of the cars and the congestion disappears. We spent most of the last century trying to make cities more friendly to automobiles, only to find that the automobile does not fit.
Spreading out is not the solution, that only creates more driving. High population density, public transportation, bicycles, and pedestrian plazas are the keys to sustainable living. Park-and-ride lots and structures on the outskirts of the city are required to give drivers a place to leave their cars when they go to the city.
People talk about 'freedom', yet sitting in traffic is not freedom.
10
For crying out loud, just for once will you put the blame where it belongs ? At the top! Without a reliable safe accessible multi-state transit system, tax the politicians and overpaid upper management who take salaries and don’t produce viable practical results for American citizens.
5
Although this is certainly about reducing congestion on the roads, it would also be great to discourage cars and make bicycle lanes and public transportation much more available. It’s really about our environment. We need to reduce car emissions.
This is a super idea!
3
I live in Vancouver, which struggles with congestion. I spent more to live in a very small one bedroom condo on the edge of downtown because it's on major transit and bike routes, not to mention most everything I need is walkable. Every day the streets around me are a gridlock of commuters cutting through my neighbourhood to and from work. These people live outside the city and rely on my higher city tax rates to fund the infrastructure that they use. Would I like to see these people pay a toll to enter the city? Yes. In addition to paying for the road maintenance that toll could be used to pay for dedicated bus lanes and better public transit solutions.
5
In 2007 they tried the toll below 96th St. I was a driver for a millionaire banker that lived in Chelsea and was paying $20k/mo. rent. His exact words when he heard the news: “Good!! Leave the city to us, who live here!! Leave them out, and make them walk!” -He said in his thickest foreign accent.
NJ crossings had gone up from $3 to $5 to $8.50 in a span of 3 years. Goal is to make it $22 by 2020. This is supposedly to pay the Freedom tower, and that Calatrava monstrosity of WTC station that was supposed to cost $1.5bn but somehow ended in $4.5bn.
Fast forward a few years, and they “added bike lanes, and bus lanes”. I check it out: not exactly added, they just removed regular lanes and repurposed them. Couple of years later: “oh, congestion is at all time high”. Don’t you say! You removed space for traffic flow!!
MTA subway system also has seen increases in fares, 2nd ave line and all that. And meanwhile, trucks, cabs, limos account well beyond the 60% traffic on a regular day.
But none of that matters: the city will get the money one way or another, stealing from people who makes the bad decision to drive to an already over priced city for meters and parking, but somehow they are to blame!! They need to pay the many sins and bad choices of the city management. Streets will still be full of potholes and the subway crowded and delayed while congestion won’t see any improvement.
This is a disgusting sham.
77
@MikeC True about the bus only lane thing. They are doing this in San Francisco and it is a total disaster.
6
@MikeC
That man sounds awful.
I agree with some of what you say but disagree on principle about the bike/bus/walking/other lanes that have taken up space from automobile traffic in NYC. For a long time cities kept expanding and expanding to accommodate motorists. Its a destructive practice. It destroys neighborhoods and it ultimately benefits the oil industry. Look at efforts by the oil/gas, and car industries to scuttle plans for public transit in cities. Yeah, that's right, they don't want good, less polluting forms of transportation. They want people to buy cars. To them its simple(istic) economics.
As perhaps you've noticed, this attitude of accommodating motorists has changed, thankfully in my mind. The public transit in NYC is phenomenal (yes, major problems, but overall its an impressive system). If it takes a driver less time to get into downtown by driving than by taking mass transit they will drive. As frustrating as it may seem, the responsible city-planning choice is to make that car ride more onerous, at least more onerous than hopping on the train, bus, or subway.
As for cities without the public transit infrastructure, like LA...yeah, that's a problem. It means you need to have more $$ to travel and that's bad. Policy-makers will have to be careful how they tailor this to their cities.
13
@MikeC I actively avoid driving in NYC while it's FREE. Now you have to PAY for it?
Wow.
5
Considering people from Staten Island already pay huge tolls to come into the city, I think they should be exempt from congestion pricing.
2
@Sarah
The ferry is free.
1
Hmmmm... This could be a huge blow to the low cost ride sharing model and their impending valuations.
2
Infrastructure infrastructure infrastructure
5
Please ATL next!!! Traffic is insane here. Shut down the cars and use the money to improve MASS TRANSIT and add BIKE LANES!
2
@DM having lived in both places ATL would need to transform the MARTA into something safer and more efficient by a large margin.
1
@David Statistics say MARTA is safe. Are there too many African Americans riding the bus for you? Nonetheless, Georgia needs side walks and bicycle lanes. Instead of black politicians such as Stacy Abrams complaining vacuously about suppressing the African American vote, how about she and others of her ilk, stop pandering to white liberals and build a city where all Georgians can walk to a polling place without being ran over by a car.
They should just tax Uber and Lyft who are causing this problem.
1
Bogota, Colombia introduced this kind of city planningnforn traffic years ago. It works. Check it out.https://www.odi.org/features/securing-safe-roads/road-safety-bogota
As a New Yorker it is obvious that something must be done even though we have the best public transportation in the World with the exceptions being Staten Island and parts of Queens . Because of this infrastructure NYC really does not need to do much to make great improvement , but charging vehicles more to enter Midtown is not sufficient and of course penalizes people with less money including small businesses .
Off the top of my head ( recognizing that more thought might reveal the flaws ) I have always thought this would work :
1- Eliminate private passenger vehicles from Midtown during rush hour and also restrict tractor trailers and large tonnage trucks .
2- Increase shuttle and regular bus service east to west and north to south in midtown and create a network with hubs for commercial delivery in Midtown with curb access and lanes that make commercial deliveries in vans . Large trucks deliver to the hubs outside and small vans bring the goods inside .
3- Increase subway service .
4- Tax huge Suvs and gas guzzling cars and provide incentives to electric and hybrid vehicles .
5- Build a lot of City owned parking lots to handle the new passenger cars that cannot enter Midtown that surround the end points where people can't enter .
6- Eliminate most of the bike lanes from Midtown used by the few that tie up traffic for the many .
All of these suggestions are easy to do and would make dramatic improvement .
2
Manhattan seriously has no room for bike lanes. Inefficient use of space.
3
@Curiouser
Very true not to mention the fact that riding a bike in the type of traffic and the aggressive way people drive in NYC is a recipe for injury or disability . From the very beginning it also penalized the many for the few crazy enough to want to ride a bike in all of that .
Wouldn't better public transportation be win-win for many cities?
3
@Momo
To Momo and others who don't know NYC already has the greatest public transportation on the planet and has for more than 100 years .
1
London has been doing this for over a decade
The city is cleaner and safer
2
@Chicago Paul
Most working class people can't afford to live in London. It is now a globalist paradise and that's the real goal.
1
"Following New York's lead" - how very New Yorker to take credit for an idea that you're taking other cities, and haven't even implemented yet.
3
@Matt
Um, I believe they're talking about here in the U.S.
Besides, wielding the sword, the economic incentive is one of the most powerful tools in changing human behavior. Ottoman Turks, Christendom Spain, and Medieval Europe used tax incentives for religious conversion- Christian to Muslim, Muslim to Christian, Jewish to Christian. The carbon tax, lower tax rate on agricultural land, mortgage interest deduction, earned income credit and etc. are all macroeconomic incentives application.
Maybe for the wealthy this is a godsend since the cost will not be material for them while reducing the number of middle and lower income drivers that are now in their way on the streets.
I thought the Dems were in favor of progressive taxation while this particular tax is regressive as heck.
4
Mayor Durkan outright lies, "...fewer cars..." The quickest, cheapest way to encourage fewer people to drive is to build bicycle facilities that entice people to cycle. People use bike lanes and trails and traffic-calmed routes when they are provided. It happens!
We're not talking about forcing people out of cars. The object is to provide an attractive alternative for those who do not need to drive. Getting a small number of cars off the roads can improve the driving experience for everyone else immensely.
Seattle has an enormous backlog of planned bicycle facilities that were authorized by city ordinance, funded by property taxes, and in some cases are 100% engineered and ready to build. Yet Durkan has delayed all of this work and recently outright canceled one major project. Durkan lies!
1
All those people saving money by registering the car upstate, Vermont or Florida are in for a rude surprise, as will be folks who live in NYC but claim tax residency elsewhere
5
@Casey You know it. None of the Uber and Lyft drivers live in Manhattan. In Boston the streets are full of ride hailing cars registered in New Hampshire and Rhode Island.
I live in L.A. if they ever tried that here, the people would revolt. This is the land of the Freeway. They tried closing a lane or a road recently and adding more parking. The Hue and Cry was so bad, they were forced to change it back.
Never Happen!
1
If they were serious about ending congestion in an egalitarian way they would consider road space rationing, e.g. even license plates can only enter on even days of the month. This is a system at least occasionally practiced by some of the largest and most significant cities in the world: Paris, Beijing, Mexico City, Athens, Rome, Oslo, and the list goes on. Instead this is just a money grab.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_space_rationing
2
There is a proposal to do this in Los Angeles! Absurd. The West Side is very busy and congested ( UCLA. SAINT JOHN's MEDICAL CENTER. THE ENTIRE SILICON VALLEY SOUTH.) Also, Brentwood, Beverly Hills, Pacific Palisades! This area is busy east and west 24/7!
All I can say is I'm glad Lincoln Center is above 60th street.
1
Ha! Good luck getting there. And forget about on-street parking. Oh, and your garage will now cost substantially more. Please try to imagine what the streets in the West 60s will be like after this takes effect. It won’t be pretty.
1
Parking in E Harlem is already bad enough. Now I have to compete with everyone who is going to drive in and park in my neighborhood, hop on the subway and then head downtown? Really. Do I get a resident parking permit? I'm guessing not. I'll probably just get more Muni Meters instead. Thanks a lot.
5
I don't know how much Uber and Lyft contribute to traffic in other cities, but if it's at all comparable to the scale of NY, they (and NY) might just consider putting a stop to their nonsense altogether. There is nothing innovative about what they provide aside from putting its functionality in an app that tracks everything that happens on your phone and mostly likely ends up as another funnel for your data to be monetized in a way you probably will never learn about.
4
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.
5
Having lived in Soho and Queens, plus founding, built up, and run a small business for almost 3 decades in lower Manhattan, I think this is an excellent idea.
We owned a commercial van and a non-commercial minivan. We used the commercial vehicle so we could park in Midtown, plus use it for pickups and delivery of our product and (sometimes) staff.
We used the minivan to take advantage of driving on all Parkways, 5th Avenue, FDR Drive, CPS, CPW, etc. and park on a meter everywhere except midtown.
Even though we received hundreds of tickets totaling several thousand dollars annually, I beat most of them; by mail, then email; including photos.
I did this with a paperback I read named "How To Beat Parking Tickets in NY City". The next day, I saved $100 (now about $125), for a ticket for parking in front of a fire hydrant.
I beat it because the officer forgot to fill out 1 box: How many feet from the hydrant were we parked? This is known as a "defective ticket". I used dozens of methods to beat them.
It got harder during Mayor Bloomberg's term. They started using a device which printed electronic tickets. It would not "complete" the ticket until completed. I still beat them many other ways. You must understand the signs, and know the laws. It's easy; use common sense.
Running a small business with a vehicle in Manhattan (successfully) takes ingenuity. We hired a driver, whose salary was easily paid for by reducing our tickets by about 75%.
Apologies for digressing.
2
Embraced? That title is deceptive, they passed a law days ago that isn't even close to being carried out at this point.
1
wherever there is a revenue stream you create an avenue for corruption. What exactly are they going to do with that money..it all has to be made more transparent.....what a novel idea.
1
As someone who has been driving in Manhattan, in particular that Zone in question, for 40 years, I would say, that Traffic has always been bad, but it really got horrific when they started those bus lanes. Here's what happens. On the vertical avenues, headed north and south, most of those streets are 4 lanes, some are three, most are one way streets. So with the Bus lane you remove one full Lane and say only Bus...but except for fifth ave, most of those avenues get one bus every five minutes or so. so now where you had a 4 lane road you reduce it to three, now because it's Manhattan, you are always going to have a double parked vehicle, usually a cab or a delivery truck, on the other side, so now we are down to a 2 lane road, all that traffic squeezing into two lanes. To make it worse, the Bus lane, guess what happens there...invariably Busses have to move out of that lane into the already clogged road, to get around, parked police cars, ambulances, cars that are turning, and other busses, it's all this shifting lanes because of double parked cars and vehicles in the bus lane that really slows down the traffic. There was never a bus lane till somebody had the bright idea. We now have another bright idea and its going to have the same effect.
6
@Lonnie
Yup, they killed the avenues with the bus lanes.
1
Why are we so congested? Because the politicians allowed 90,000+ inexperienced UBER/LYFT drivers and their vehicles to congest our streets while the fees they paid line the pockets of the city (and probably benefit the politicians). There are only 14,000 or so cabs (and these drivers are now literally killing themselves because they can't make enough to survive). Every time you go into a Cab, you pay a $3.30 congestion surcharge thanks to those UBER/LYFT cars. The Politicians who create this mess, are now going to punish economically challenged people? While the owners of LYFT (which just went public) are multi billionaires and causing our major congestion problem. I'm all for making this city more livable - but the first place to start is revoking the UBER and LYFT licenses. We'll eliminate a huge portion of the congestion problem, make a level playing people for the full time taxi drivers.
168
@Nicole
Amen . Ride sharing has absolutely worsened congestion in Manhattan by an enormous amount. I took a count on my clogged block one day and saw that 75% of the cars had TLC tags and they weren't yellow cabs. That's the chief problem IMHO.
In addition allowing all these inexpensive licenses to the ride share drivers was an unconscionable thing to do to the medallion drivers who spent fortunes for the promise that the number of medallions would be limited ensuring a living wage and a path into the middle class.
55
@Nicole True but these ride-sharing companies have been successful because yellow taxis were not filling the need. Did you every try hailing a cab at 4 pm on a rainy day? Sounds like you never knew that particular misery.
22
This is a most important comment. London has the same issue.
16
Congestion prices? Seriously? After the city allowed Uber and Lyft to flood the streets of Manhattan? And why I should have to pay to fund the incompetence of the MTA? I ride the subway everyday and it is a complete disaster. And every time they raise the fare nothing improves. PLEEEASE!
6
None of the proposals for New York appear to address what should be a glaring issue. Neighborhood streets that border the new congestion zone must require a resistant parking permit. Without this, London’s system would never have worked.
2
Once upon a time, the US was a country where the inconveniences of live were shared equally
Rich and poor equally had to sign up to defend the country. Now serving in the military is optional, and the poor die defending the rich
The burden of 9/11, a National security issue, ought to be carried equally by all, but a federal agency whisks the rich through first class only lines while ordinary American have to stand for half an hour or more.
Congestion pricing, is the logical next step towards a more unequal society.
To me, that is not progress.
The need to move in Manhattan, not the money you have, should control access.
3
Bike lanes (largely unused)
Bus lanes
Pedestrian plazas
Etc.
Many lanes for cars have been eliminated which CREATED more traffic.
This was purposely done to extract more money from the middle class.
6
Will someone please explain why Amazon is welcomed into NYC and suburban Virginia to generate gridlock? If Amazon were really a good citizen, it would seek places in the country that needs growth and would welcome the additional traffic. Trying to figure out how to reduce congestion with plans that hurt the poor will never do. Amazon (Bezos) can afford to lead the way. Instead we see another example of corporate American selfishness.
4
So, we have too many cars, so we will charge the cars more in the hope they will keep driving, to fund public transportation repairs, or that the drivers will stop driving and take public transportation, which is already overcrowded and underserviced. What this does not do is to do anything about reducing the absurd cost of public transportation in New York City. Until the salaries of the MTA employees are reduced, and work rules brought out of the 19th century, nothing will change. The Times ran a major article on the incredible high costs of the system and suddenly the article disappeared. Political or union pressure? That is my guess.
@DickH
The cost of public transportation in New York is not absurdly high. It’s exactly where it should be.
The cost of a subway ride has ALWAYS been ~the same as a slice of pizza.
From 15 cents to 3 bucks, it’s always been the same.
Now let that sink in.
4
In Switzerland cities are designed against through traffic.
Of course there may not be a more famous for running well mass transit system in the world.
What is missing from this article is just how is the fee collected. Can someone enlighten us? I can see that you can raise some of the bridge and tunnel tolls for those points of entry directly into the target zone, but I don't envision toll booths on the Avenues.
1
@Eric Key Probably the same as highways with no toll booths. If you're a local you have an E-Z pass that records your comings and goings. If not a camera takes a picture of your license plate and sends you the bill.
Same as London probably. Online payment system and a network of cameras. No toll booth, no stopping.
@GBP The issue I see with this is folks from out of NYS ignoring the fines. I wonder about this system on the PA Turnpike by us. What data is there on the scofflaw rates?
Just got home from an hour in town. Congestion almost totally due to double-parked trucks, especially Fedex and UPS. Militant enforcement of existing parking regulations would solve most of the problem. But instead of fining the “perps” congestion pricing will punish the victims! And it’s regressive too.
As for using the funds to improve mass transit...been hearing that canard my whole life. But that’s a whole other thing.
4
When you jam 1.7 million people into 22.83 sq mi, not counting visitors or delivery men, etc... you're going to have problems. And congestion pricing isn't going to solve it.
Want to pay for MTA repairs and upgrades that you've been putting off for decades? Stop paying a handful of mechanics over a million dollars per year. Yes, each group of 10 mechanics costs you over one million dollars per year (not counting overtime). And they all got their jobs through the Irish lottery: Their father, grandfather, uncle, brother, sister, etc. You gotta have an IN. And they don't care about or use the system. It's only a paycheck to them, Institute a nepotism clause that NO ONE with any relative already working at the MTA can work at the MTA in any capacity. Freeze wages, freeze overtime, institute comp time, like everyone else has. Let the complainers leave. Get rid of the dead weight and the people who don't do their jobs. Stop running the MTA as if it only exists to benefit the people who work there., because that's the way it's been run for at least the last 50 years.
8
Cars have absolutely no business in city centers. Only commercial vehicles should be allowed. I am a life-long mass transit proponent and while New York and Chicago subway and bus systems are not perfect and need improvement, we should be doing everything possible to raise and allocate money in that direction. This is a quality of life issue. Other countries prohibit cars in their city centers and the residents and visitors are happier. We must reduce pollution, DUIs and road rage. People with legitimate (read: provable) health issues can obtain a special license after a certified physician proves that the person cannot ride public transportation. Those will be the exceptions but they better not go the way of those ridiculous, scam "emotional support animal" licenses.
12
@Melissa Falk Where do visitors park? If I am coming up from Philadelphia I have to take two trains to get to Manhattan or drive to Trenton and take one. For more than 2 people the price of mass transit becomes an issue. And, if you are coming from Binghamton NY say, what do you do?
1
"In New York, drivers would be charged for entering Manhattan below 60th Street, where the average speed for vehicles is down to 4.7 miles per hour, from 6.9 miles per hour in 1994."
Get rid of the inefficient exclusive bus lanes drawn up to (to intentionally ? Get rid of a lot of bike lanes in the most congested areas? It seems like these ideas, while having good intention, also was probably created to get to this congestion price issue.
6
@JT
Don't you understand that the bus lanes were added specifically because of street congestion? That without them, already long bus trips would be interminable? They are not the problem: too many people driving personal cars in the city—clogging our streets and our air—are.
2
With gentrification people are pushed farther and farther from where they work. Nashville made an effort to raise a bond issue to expand public transportation. It got swamped in an anti-tax blitz by the Koch Brothers.
1
How about reduce the need for and distance of commute? Put housing closer to jobs or vice-versa. In Los Angeles (and all of coastal California), putting housing anywhere is notoriously difficult.
Instead, the region can encourage companies to relocate. The jobs don't even have to leave the city or municipality. West LA jobs can move into the Valley, South LA, or east LA. Commutes will be easier and jobs still stay in LA. County, state, and federal-level offices can also relocate to less trendy parts of the region and still benefit the region as a whole.
1
Ban cars with less than five occupants. Put a heavy tax on car sales. Invest in comfortable, safe & fast public transportation.
4
I wonder if some kind of tax on billionaires would help? No, I suppose it wouldn't. (Particularly if I want to get re-elected)
2
How about "prime-time" air prices as well? Or maybe a "going to work" tax?
Like border crossings suddenly being "the worst they've ever been" and at a "crisis point", traffic is suddenly "at the breaking point" as well. Odd how all these extreme crises are happening right now. As if there weren't a multitude of border crossings and traffic jams before now.
I guess in order to enact un-Constitutional and draconian laws against immigrants, and to squeeze the last few dollars from those who have have no say, it's got to be an "emergency!".
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the fact that the rich are paying the lowest rates of taxes in decades. With the super rich paying next to nothing (Kushner got a $4000 check from the IRS, despite being worth over $325,000,000) I'm sure that has nothing to do with the fact that cities will now be gouging everyone else in order to make ends meet.
"Without congestion pricing, we'll have to close all the subways down!" Conveniently forgetting the decades of graft, mismanagement, and tax giveaways to the rich that got us here.
What's next?
How about a "you're alive" fee? Or a "walking down the street tax"? But you know, not for the filthy rich.
14
@Chicago Guy
A popular post that fails to address the problem and espouses agreeable politics though .
Give residents a pass and charge the delivery trucks, uber, lyft and people coming in from out of town. This would make it politically feasible.
7
@Joe
This is always done and does nothing to address the problem yet a lot of people like it . Read my post for real solutions . NYC has been over congested 50 years before Uber for those who don't know .
1
I live in the zone and am all for this plan, even if it means everyday expenses (taxi fares, food costs, etc.) go up. The traffic has become unsustainable and dangerous.
When I delivered a baby last year, it took a full hour to get to the hospital on a Sunday evening because traffic was so bad. The hospital is only 2 miles away!
I tried to bring my 5-year old home from school the other day. His school is not close to the subway and he is not as yet able to walk the longer distances to the subways, so we often end up taking taxi's home from school. His school is 1.5 miles away and it took 45 minutes!
The cars on Hudson Street trying to get to the Holland tunnel get so frustrated sitting in gridlock, they often go the wrong way down one-way streets - at full speed! - to find alternative routes. That is an accident waiting to happen.
If you can afford a car and the gas to drive into the city and the parking garage costs, you can certainly afford to take public transportation.
To those that think commuters shouldn't be taxed, remember those of us who live in Manhattan pay upwards of 4% additional tax (that others don't have to pay) to provide the services and tax credits that enable the businesses that employ all the commuters to have offices in Manhattan.
9
@V
A five year old is certainly capable of walking a mile and a half.
2
@V
Nice personal story that fails to address the problem .
“It only takes one car that doesn’t get through an intersection to block two lanes of traffic,” said Trevor Reed, an INRIX transportation analyst.
And only one car per red light can get through because pedestrians are allowed to go first, and once they start, they never stop, walking anywhere and everywhere whenever they want.
I'm sure that "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz is very pleased with himself, after years of stamping his feet and holding his breath till he turned blue, that he finally got his way on congestion pricing, at the expense of countless numbers of drivers.
3
There's a lot in this article about the inequity of congestion pricing. But where is the equity in the referenced "three decade high" in the "number of pedestrians killed in traffic accidents?" Seniors, children, and low income people are disproportionately likely to be killed in traffic accidents. These are truly the people with no alternatives; many can't drive, could never drive, or can't afford to own a car. Yet instead of properly funding public transit, cities like Los Angeles spend vast amounts of money maintaining and expanding their roads. This massive subsidy to private transit in privately owned cars is the true transit inequity.
3
Is congestion not price enough for those drivers. I hate being stuck in traffic enough as is here. Although we also have tolls which doesn't seem to help with congestion during rush hour.
Incentivizing industry's to stagger schedules rather than taking advantage of commuters for the revenue to keep their jobs is no way to treat people who just may move away.
Dan
2
@Dan By "move away" you mean the people who commute because they already live outside the city?
Staggered hours have been around for years.
I will repeat the comment that Uber and Lyft are the major contributors to congestion, at least where I live in San Francisco. It’s a huge increase in the number of cars on the road, and they tend to block traffic when they are dropping off or picking up a passenger. Most of the drivers don’t come from here and so are completely dependent on often flawed GPS systems. They drive around looking at their screens, then double park while waiting for a ride.
I would be in favor of imposing serious costs on them, in the form of (1) fees directly to the companies based on the number of vehicles deployed in San Francisco during peak times, and (2) fines to drivers for double parking. The companies and drivers place the convenience of their passengers above all other considerations. If they actually bear the cost that imposes on the rest of us, it may start to change.
13
@Douglas Evans Yes they are part of congestion, but the only part. Data will show that roads were congested BEFORE Uber existed.
3
This works for New York because New York has a generally well functioning mass transit system with fairly comprehensive coverage. My concern is that others cities without such extensive mass transit systems will see the revenue generated and get greedy. In Philadelphia, for instance, this would just be another way to fleece the poor whose neighborhoods aren't serviced by light rail and whose only mass transit options are spending hours transferring between bus routes to get anywhere.
2
@Marc I disagree with you about the availability of service provided by SEPTA. The problem with SEPTA is once you get to Center City. If those are the nbhds you refer to, then I do agree with you. Are there combined passes for all SEPTA services? And folks need to remember that ONE CAN WALK!
I think New Jersey should charge all out of state cars entering the state at the Holland, Lincoln, and GWB the same price that NYC charges peak drivers going into the zone, but also after rush hours outbound. NYC Garbage trucks should be charged 200 dollars for each outbound trip 24/7, we don’t want their garbage anymore. The money should all go to NJ Transit, not PATH because we already cover PATH with high Port Authority tunnel tolls. As a New Jersey driver I already pay a high premium to drive on the Henry Hudson, about 4 dollars more than a New York State driver for each crossing north and south between Manhattan and the Bronx. New Jersey needs to fight back!
6
@DJM I think we all know which direction most cars are going. : )
Bob Dylan wrote these words long ago
"And here I sit so patiently waiting to find out what price
I have to pay to get out of doing all these things twice"
so now you have the privilege of paying to sit in traffic....besides the fuel and lost time.
I am so glad I moved away from all that madness(nope I won't tell you where,still the US though)my new city doesn't even have parking meters or congestion to speak of.
2
@mike hailstone these people are only paying for what they damage. Actually, not even.
Even aside from climate damage, combustion engines damage health in multiple ways with pollution, collisions, and obesity. Drivers should pay for all of these and the roads they travel, too.
3
@Multimodalmama
whether you drive or not you are just like the rest of us....like it or not....so it isn't "these people" it's all of us....you included.....and I agree we need to change and quickly. I would like to hear your thoughts on how the world is going to stop burning stuff.
Not one mention of how these congestion pricing fees will impact car owners/operators with disabilities…?
Presently the subway system is only 25% usable. I am a wheelchair user and live in Brooklyn and work in Manhattan. For many people like myself, using a car is not a luxury, it's a necessity…
From my more than 20 years experience and observation of traffic patterns in Manhattan, the problems did not start to occur until the bicycle lanes and Citi Bike installations were created.
12
@T.K. Small There was no congestion before bike lanes? Thats ridiculous. The disabled blaming the cyclists. Classy.
@Scott D Removing lanes wholesale for a few bikes is crazy, especially in a city which sees snow and cold weather 7 months of the year.
One way to do this is to buy klunkers (less than 35mpg) and offer residents an option of free mass transit for 3 years instead of cash, or a 50-50 split for a year and a half. Add that all new personal vehicles sold be minimum 50mpg. Air pollution and climate change should be the first considerations in designing urban traffic solutions.
3
UBER, Lyft, corporate limo services are the main source of congestion. Private cars commuting to work are a very small number, too slow and expensive to park . Were City planners asleep when thousands of new T&L licenses were issued in the past few years? Have they not noticed that taxis and limos never pull to the curb to pick up/unload passengers, thus blocking a lane for as longs they care? That's congestion.
Remove T&L off the streets, we lived fine before they invaded the streets and we can survive with out several thousands of them. Charge corporate (not the driver) UBER/Lyft taxes to operate in NYC; they are reaping profits from the City infrastructure and do not contribute to the upkeep. Congestion fees will be paid by the driver and passed to the passenger, while corporate Uber will get its 40% share of the fare untouched.
13
@L Where can I read the data for your claims? I have no feel for this. In Philadelphia I think the problem is privately owned cars and the mentality that PA stands for Park Anywhere.
@Eric Key My claims are from living in NYC and observing traffic in the streets . As others have mentioned, the largest share of vehicles are T&L plates, followed by delivery trucks. Most New Yorkers don't use their cars to go to work. Probably in Philadelphia is different.
Do you think that more Uber/Lyft is the answer to congestion?
If funds were better managed, congestion pricing would make sense. It is up to the politicians to make sure these funds are used to benefit the transportation system that those who are shut out because of cost will have to use.
1
Why not provide tax rebates for companies that encourage and organize around some or full remote work instead of instituting additional taxes?
3
Think about the New York City driver/citizen. He or she buys a car in NY, paying 4% sales tax on a car (up to $10k, $20k, $30k+). Has to pay for registration about yearly. Has to pay a higher amount of insurance $. Has to pay for a yearly inspection. Has to get deducted from their paycheck for NY state tax, NYC tax, and Federal tax (no many places that impose city tax). Has to pay anywhere from $5.75 to $19+ possibly for out-of-town trips. Has to pay up to $8/hour for some places that are metered. Gets taxed on their gas purchases.
Yes it is a choice to own or lease a vehicle. But that is a ridiculous amount of cash gauging for people that want the freedom of their own vehicle.
And now has to pay another amount of money? When the roads we drive on are horrible are severely underfunded. Yet the money will go somewhere else?
4
Why should citizens have to pay more for transit? Why don’t the rich of the city stop using their vehicles, pay more tax to even out societal needs, and stop increasing pricing or adding charges for the middle class- if we should even be called this. I don’t understand why corporations and the government think that the middle class has to pay more because they use it more- like no how about stop being selfish and money hungry and try to make the city an enjoyable place for everyone including tourist. Why don’t they receive salary cuts instead of trying to waste our limited hard earn money? Look at who is publishing this, I mean I love NYT but look at their salary vs someone who is getting even $18 nevertheless $15 an hour.
2
What is actually more frustrating is how about the people who live in uptown Manhattan like Harlem or Spanish Harlem where people who I have gotten to meet are forced out of their 20 years homes. Where has any changes been implemented? I was on the E train this morning and I was 40 mins late because the trains run behind schedule. Why not fix the rat problem which literally effects anyone who even walks down a street? Why don’t you guys bother about the kids who are smoking pot and doing drugs in the EDU- who has knowledge about this? Why don’t you fix the homeless issue, the kidnapping and prostitution that still occurs in “our modern city”? I mean is this a city for the people or a city to fakely flaunt our minor success even we should even call it that ?
But will other cities funnel their congestion tax revenue into a money sinkhole; an MTA trough?
4
Surely with the technology of Uber/Lyft, GPS, Google map and smartphones we can devise a way to pre-schedule people onto minibuses at a rideshare location outside of a city and drop them off at their workplaces.
3
After all, everybody knows what they are going to be doing indefinitely, why not just let a smart program organize it all?
Uber and Lyft are inherently poor solutions. The more drivers the fewer drivers can make adequate money and it leads to limited service by those services. They will persist but they will not be much of a transportation solution.
In any case, all autos on the roads are part of the problem.
1
In Transportation Planning and Public Policy on transportation issues every couple of decades a new "cause de jure" comes along and everyone in planning and policy circles jump on that band wagon.
Congestion Pricing is the cause de jure today. It will do about as much good as the cause de jure of the 1990's which was light rail.
Why the heck should I have to pay to drive to downtown San Francisco to unclog the streets that are filled up mostly with people who have come INTO San Francisco to work?
The only congestion pricing plan that would make any sense is one based on where the car came from and how often you drive through downtown.
If someone who lives in SF drove downtown once a week, the RATE they are charge should be less that for someone who drives in from 20 miles out of town every day.
Data and GIS models make all things possible in this situation. An algorithm that takes in account of frequency of trips per month in the core areas, where you are coming from, the availability of transit to the core and the cost of housing in the origin zip code should all be in the mix.
Just charging for crossing a line will allow the rich to have red carpet service and the poor to pay for it.
1
With the average speeds cited in the article, it's time to consider the bycicle for transportation, aided by a small electric motor if needed in hilly terrain, for people living 15 miles or less from work. A horse would be nice too, but rather impractical. Boost public transportation for those living further away and award car-pooling (and/or punish driving to work solitary).
5
Yes who needs an auto when one can ride a bicycle. What is it about bicycles that cause people to forget why they knew that they needed autos in the first place?
For the purpose of moving just one person, a bicycle engine requires less energy but to move many people with many engines, the savings goes away. In addition, in order to carry stuff beyond the rider the efficiency of the bicycle rapidly goes to inefficient.
1
@Casual Observer Bakfeits and trailers can carry most things you'd need, if you live in a city. I used a trailer for laundry at the 'mat, groceries, etc. Easy peasy. Been much more difficult since work took me to the burbs.
Congestion pricing might help in Los Angeles, but I can't help thinking it's the lower earners who have moved far out of the city because they can't afford housing closer that are the majority of commuters, and this would certainly hurt their pocketbooks, even with a subsidized rate.
Maybe LA Metro should have invested more in elevating public transportation lines and increasing speeds when possible. We live in Pasadena and my husband just started a job in Santa Monica. Driving in the morning it takes him an hour plus to get there, night time he's lucky if he's home in an hour and 15 minutes. For an 18 mile commute. We checked the Metro options and it would take the same amount of time, plus with Metro he would have to walk or drive to the station (add 15 to 30 mins), transfer to two different trains, and still walk to his office.
LA is too spread out to have all commuters using public transportation, that we know. The city should stop throwing good money after bad to build public options that aren't any faster than sitting in your car on the 10.
5
Our lawmakers in Albany are so out of touch with the realities of NYers.
Why don’t they use the latest toll Increase to fix the subways before implementing congestion pricing so that we, the hardworking middle class people of the outer boroughs and Long Island have a viable way to get into the city?
9
i assume that the key to making congestion pricing work is to subsidize and greatly improve public transportation with all the money collected. make it a win win even for those who cannot afford to pay the congestion pricing.
is this how it done in the pioneering cities?
1
Truly desperate measure that may work in Manhattan but in few other places. The problem of what to do with do many automobiles is a true mystery. The country dice the 1929’s adopted a car culture and developed all the modern cities and suburbs to be based upon automobiles and trucks. The few like New York City that were built upon a plan for a pre-automotive transportation plan can shift to mass transit but the rest cannot.
It seems these days that all influential planners have gone into denial and insist upon getting rid of cars first and then seeing what happens rather than addressing the problems reasonably. In Los Angeles, the strategy is ‘road dieting’. That is remove roadway so that gridlock becomes an existential threat. Yes, not only commuters cannot get to where they need to go on time, but emergency vehicles are delayed. Then let the people choose alternatives to using their cars in a region built for using cars.
What to do with too many autos.
The country since the 1920’s
I hate to spoil the Times’s celebration of New York’s adoption of congestion pricing, but I have to point out that the city’s restaurants, theaters, and other businesses and its cultural institutions aren’t supported solely by Manhattan residents. With a $15 charge to enter Manhattan, on top of the Hudson River crossing toll (currently $15, with frequent increases) people in NJ may be rethinking those discretionary trips to the city.
Manhattanites won’t miss us unseemly bridge-and-tunnel people, but the city’s economy may miss our money.
11
One might hope that the public officials might have considered that consequence.
4
Congestion pricing without adequate and affordable mass transit is a disaster waiting to happen. My son pays more to take a train to and from Manhattan from Harrison then I do on gas. What’s the upside of that?
9
@Richard Sohanchyk. Literally this. Every other city where this has been done already had a first class public system and we get. ... the MTA. In NY this will not change actual traffic one iota, it is just a tax.
4
@Richard Sohanchyk: You also have to consider car payments and depreciation, car insurance and maintenance. It's not just gas.
1
Don't forget the largest expense of all for outside-manhattan commuters: parking.
1
Does anyone know the arithmetic formula and assumptions used to calculate miles per hour for cars in urban areas?
If it's total miles driven for all vehicles divided by total time on the road for all vehicles . . . .what is the time frame?
Seriously, I'd like to know because knowing the math might help us better understand the depth of the problem
2
Issue number 1 with congestion pricing is issue number 1 on all matters political/legislative.
Politicians will squander the money and not solve the problem(s).
Case in point: we already have an infrastructure, road and transit NIGHTMARE in this country.
1
So drivers coming in from New Jersey and Long Island have to pay more so the MTA can continue to spend eight times more on projects then anywhere else in the country and also provide $250,000,000 in free rides for turn stile jumpers? Great way to produce suburban Trump votes.
7
What are they going to do about cars that are already inside the congestion zone (and aren't passing the toll booths or electronic fences at its entry points)? They could stay forever, contributing to congestion every day, without paying any more.
Unless the fee is charged for being in the zone, rather than for entering it. That works if the cars are required to have transmitters, like cell phones.
1
Premature to say anyone has embraced this other then a bunch of politicians that can't balance a budget and look for added ways to tax us all.
3
Not all of us. Some of us use mass transit.
When my metro area implements congestion pricing, I will sell my car and take public transit.
3
@Jason Galbraith Good. You'll be helping to solve the problem.
1
In cities with spread out neighborhoods, limiting traffic in some places will just send the traffic somewhere else. The congestion everyday on I-80E in SF (for over 50 years) is planned. There is ample room to add lanes and an overpass, but it hasn't been done.
The cost of riding BART is also high. Has anyone done a study of how the ever increasing toll money (on Federal highways) is spent? It's not to make mass transit fares attractive.
3
What if all deliveries in Manhattan could only be made from 4am to 8am, and “emergency deliveries” had to pay a large fee. That would significantly reduce daytime bottlenecks.
The fact that the penalties apply to cars below the 60th st bridge mean to penalize traffic coming from Queens. This is part of an active move to keep “cleansing” Manhattan of working families to make room for luxury buildings
In Manhattan, about 41% of working families have been driven out by unaffordable rents ( in a cleansing move) to make room for wealthier people. Can you say Kushner family values? The “congestion” tax, while good in principle penalizes working families
Traffic can be diminished further by enacting a plan of alternate car plates: add and even numbers. Cars that need to come in at any cost any time, then should be charged the “congestion” fee; ditto, cars with single people in them.
5
I like your thinking. Even-odd cuts the traffic in half for people who don’t have an extra car. Congestion pricing is good, too. Best would be a “sky-box” express lane only for those people and businesses that can afford a big premium.
1
So much this!! Truck traffic is insane!! They block lanes, they are hard to make a turn in traffic, they get across the road to pull back for delivery, etc!!
Yet, for the “city that doesn’t sleep”, 9pm traffic is rather low. Make deliveries from 9pm to 5am. No trucks outside those times. See how it goes! I bet it will solve the problem of congestion.
Oh, but no!! That means business owners will have to pay night workers and extra money for this!! God forbid that happens! Let’s pretend the problem is regular cars. Yeah, lets tax them.
@Pete/Ted.....you guys are thinking way to normal..... These Politicians are not trying to solve any problem other then how to extract more taxes out of everyone. Look at the long list of taxes approved..? Shameless bureaucrats with minimal skills......
1
After years of mass transit neglect, the traffic situation has become so bad that now this so-called "congestion pricing" seems like way to fix the problem. All it will do is de-congest the highest priced parts of the city without any plan to make mass transit the priority it must be if everyone in a city will be able to commute to work under two hours.
Politicians and city planners are at fault for not addressing urban congestion sooner. The demographic studies are all there. They knew it was coming and did nothing other than run fares up and do patchwork repairs. My ride on the A train last week was terrible....filthy trains, filthy platforms and litter everywhere.
Who is running this mass transit disaster? There seems to be no-one at that office who knows what to do. Congestion pricing will just add another pile of money to a system without accountability.
The large, excessive wealth tax is a start. People who can pay 1Million a year to own a parking condo can also pay a lot more to have a car in the city in the first place. Use that fund for subway repairs. Absentee ownership must also be heavily taxed to support better mass transit. Owned and unoccupied real estate is pushing many people out of the city, increasing their commute to work and the cars on the road.
Also, if the wealthy had to use the subway, no doubt things will get better very soon. Lastly, no more 80 cop car long escorts for anyone. Let them walk....
3
In places like LA there is virtually no public transportation option. The metro lines don’t come even close to covering our sprawling city. It takes several lines and several hours to go 16 miles!
Wouldn’t it be wiser to approach the congestion problem not with a tax that will anger most people, since there is no viable alternate modes of transportation, but by rewarding companies who encourage telecommuting from home offices by a tax credit? Thus incentivizing companies to create jobs that don’t require people to commute from their homes to a workplace.
3
@Shauna Sinay
I retired in 2014 but the larger companies like the one I worked for did have subsided. I took the Metro from Corona to Glendale, where a bus dropped us off near the company gates. We received subsidies if we rode it 3 out of 4 weeks. They even subsidized cab rides if work forced you to stay over that you missed the train. I am curious if this congestion tax is only for rush hours. At early morning times there was no real congestion.
1
@Shauna Sinay LA has so many Metro and bus options now. Not convenient for everyone, of course, but used in combo with walking/biking/ridesharing, it's easy to live in LA without a car.
Most of my LA friends who drive everywhere think that the only people who take public transit are the domestic workers. But they have never taken transit anywhere, at all, and never sought out ways to do it.
If we're going to implement congestion pricing in San Francisco, then we need to offer our commuters a compelling alternative first. Manhattan has a wealth of ways to get on and off the island via bridges, tunnels, commuter rails, MTA, ferries, bike paths, etc. Manhattan is the best-served city in the US with respect to rush-hour access options. Comparatively, large swaths of the Bay Area are suburban and underserved by transit corridors.
Currently to get into SF during rush hour, we have two bridges, the BART (which can be north of $10 each way depending on where you live), a single commuter line, an expensive ferry, or your car. For many folks, driving is not only the cheapest way to get to work, it's the only way. Politicians would be wise to consider these perspectives before implementing what could be seen as a "poor tax" for the increasingly forced-out working and middle-income commuters with few alternatives. We need to get our public transit options improved before we bring down the hammer on car commuters.
10
City planners have been trying to force people into mass transit for decades. Guess what? People still like their cars. Use the tax revenue to build additional lanes. Yes, you'll have to go up or under and that's expensive. Addiction always cost's more than it's worth, but hey, we're addicted to the automobile and the false freedom it offers.
Get Disney involved. Seriously. Their engineers have creative, problem solving skills. And this is massive. Cities have plumped up, ready to burst.
2
@Pam Harbaugh
What? This isn't a movie. Use common sense. For example, in Manhattan, use the subway. If you have a business which requires a commercial vehicle, hire a smart driver.
In LA, it's much harder; San Francisco, too. The easiest way is to use public transportation; especially in Midtown Manhattan.
My small business in Manhattan was (both) landscape contracting, and a design, installation and maintenance company.
Our driver would drop off or meet the people working to drop off or pickup materiel. The gardeners, laborers, etc. would use the subway (we gave them monthly passes) except when travelling crosstown, when they would take a cab. Time is money, and it is cheaper to do this.
It is a "must do" in Manhattan. There are so many double parked vehicles, the avenues are reduced from 4 to 6 lanes to only 2. Forget Disney. I actually used to maintain their garden at their headquarters in Manhattan (59th Street and Park Avenue). It was a huge, L-shaped terrace; about 15' by 80', with gorgeous trees, shrubs, perennials and annuals (they were replaced seasonally). Due to a window washing system, we had to hand water the terrace; usually 3 times a week depending on rain. In over 90% of the terraces and roof gardens we maintained, electronic drop irrigation was installed, so we only hand watered during strong heat waves (or called the housekeepers, which most people have).
Disney is already involved, look at all the characters running the city and the state.....!
1
NYC's latest method to get me to part with my money! '
How clever. I'm sure the logic is impeccable.
I only see more taxes upon citizens.
3
@Rob
Take the subway. I used to see so many people driving alone from Long Island, Brooklyn or Queens into Manhattan.
I had vehicles at my disposal, and while living in Bayside Queens, it took the Long Island Railroad 20 minutes to Penn Station, then 10 minutes on the subway to our office in the Lower East Side. Counting a 5 minute walk from my home to the station, waiting for a train, it only took about 45 minutes to get to my office. It was between the exits at the 2nd Avenue Subway stop on the "F" train on Forsyth Street at East Houston Street.
Every third car in Manhattan has a T on the license plate.
Uber /Lyft is the problem.
AND, they are the W O R S T drivers.
24
@New World
I couldn't agree more. Uber and Lyft should be banned in large cities with massive transit; especially New York City. This will help. Crosstown traffic (Props to Jimi Hendrix!) averages about 7 mph in Midtown.
We even had a commercial vehicle (which can legally park at designated areas), we avoided Midtown like the Plague, unless there was a big project we were doing there, which was rare. Most were the Upper East and West Sides, Soho, The East and West Village, or Tribeca. Sometimes we had a commercial job in the Financial District. We worked for Goldman Sachs, but only from 6:30 am to 8 am for maintenance; installations had to occur on a Saturday. There is virtually no commercial parking in Manhattan (Garages hate commercial vans), and especially in the Financial District.
1
Make the delivery trucks deliver at night.
Yes, hire someone to receive deliveries at night.
Many drivers would prefer to work at night.
You can make double the deliveries at night.
19
I have long felt that this is an outstanding solution to the congestion problem. If trucks were limited to operating to between 10pm and 6am, traffic congestion would improve substantially in Manhattan.
6
@Marshall Many trucks are operating during off hours ,yet the receivers are not.An extra shift at great expense would be needed by receivers ,then extra police and first responders ect. I used to go in at 3 or 4 am though you can't always get out in time.then there's all the bad roads and road work.there no room left to expand the road ways and the infrastructure is obsolete and deteriorated.
1
I think this is a great idea whose time has come. Congestion pricing wll force many out of their cars or get them to combine trips. People will not willingly curb their personal use of a car unless forced to do so financially.
I live in Mar Vista, a section included in the map of West LA where congestion pricing is being proposed. Will I be charged a fee just to drive in the neighborhood where I live? That makes no sense. I cannot use the bus or metro link to go to work or run errands. As it is, I often delay errands til late in the day after the perpetual rush hour has lessened a bit.
It doesn't help that a massive 1200 unit building is going up smack dab on a main east-west street. Just because it's by a metro link station doesn't mean all those residents will use it.
7
You should pay for what you get. Using public roads costs money. Those that use the roads should pay.
I mean, what is so complicated about this.
2
@J c That's what taxes are. Because we all benefit from the roads and their usage. Even those of us who smugly dismiss concerns of motorists because it's not something that effects them.
2
@J c
The fact that we already pay both NY City and NY State taxes!
And, already high fares for public transit!
@J c Yeah, that money should be for road work. Not to compensate for another system. NYC road conditions are horrible.
1
"The number of pedestrians killed in traffic in the United States is approaching a three-decade high." The number is 6,227 pedestrian deaths in 2018. This seems to be much higher than those killed in mass murders. Maybe we should be trying to completely ban cars instead if we are truly concerned with saving human lives
@bored critic
Maybe try to educate pedestrians more on the dangers of the road. We already have policies in place to inform and fine drivers. Yet there's a lot of pedestrians that walk about dangerously. Ignoring signs, lights, jay walking busy streets, walking while looking as their cellphones, etc.
1
You do actually need to pass a written test and be licensed in order to drive a vehicle.
Is New York City regulate the work hours of midtown employees, or are they planning to soak 9-5 workers?
1
@Kevin They're soaking them. Motorists have been the punching bags of NYC for quite some time now. You should see parking near me, where people give up in frustration, and cars just end up parked near all the hydrants overnight, exposing their owners to tickets. While the less fortunate are still trolling around the neighborhood looking for a spot.
This is like grocery stores discontinuing plastic bags when packaging on the shelves is exponentially more wasteful. The U.S. is too dependent on the automobile. Congestion pricing is a Band-Aid on a mortar wound.
3
Congestion pricing might work in NYC, London, Singapore and Stockholm but not necessarily in all other cities mentioned including Los Angeles, which doesn’t have a core nor enough transit options-although we are rapidly expanding them. Also equity is an issue just not by lowering the price to use mass transit but also viable options for the elderly and handicapped.
Currently carpool lanes are being compromised by allowing people to pay to drive in them with one person as our initial approach to congestion pricing on freeways converging on our downtown.
At the same time there is a reverse flow of traffic away from downtown of service workers very early in the morning going to affluent communities to the west and back in the early afternoon on a freeway without a carpool or bus lane. This is also about land use, real affordable housing and densification in urban areas, which bring on other discussions.
I look forward to comprehensive studies on the impacts and not making decisions just because congestion pricing might be the best next thing. Thanks for the link to Stuart Cohen’s study. This is about social engineering and changing people’s habits.
LA is the image of traffic jams but we solved it once during the ‘84 Olympics with staggered work hours, getting trucks off the road during the day, expanding transit and carpools while many people just left. What we do until the next Olympics should determine what works or whether we should move to rural areas and telecommute.
1
Climate change (rising sea levels) will solve traffic congestion in many of the coastal cities. In the next century many cities will simply be gone.
2
Because city streets are for rich people only!
5
Great idea, because only the rich should be allowed to drive in cities!
5
@Ed Watters
There's an insidious effect to this that corrupts--the idea that wealth is a moral value. If you can afford to pay, you "deserve" things more than others. You see it when full-pay families at private schools complain about financial aid families, when market-rate renters complain about public housing residents, and in general when wealthier people claim they are "subsidizing" the rest of us.
9
Of course the joke will be on all those cities in a few decades when the oceans rise and those congested areas will be under water. What should really happen is a ban on single passenger vehicles altogether in--and into--the most congested cities. And what should really, really happen is to pronounce coastal metropolises "full"; start pushing commerce inward, into midwestern communities that could use a little prosperity; and encourage people (who can't afford the insane rents and prices in the big towns anyway) to move there. Culture will follow; it always follows the money.
1
LA had a viable transit system that was torn out by GM and Firestone in the ‘50s. It currently has a viable rapid transit plan and the funding to implement it—LA even proposed a novel 30/10 plan to accelerate the build from 30 years to 10. But to no avail. It can take 2 hours to go 10 miles in LA. Unless and until people pressure politicians to get this done and until NIMBY forces stand down, LA and other cities will become unlivable. Somehow, like guns, cars have become a birthright and tied to our freedom. Until we realize “we” are more important than “me,” we’ll continue to sit in traffic.
7
A few years ago, I was flying into Heathrow monthly and taking a car service through London streets. The drivers called their Congestion Pricing a real rip off, as we sat in chronic stop-and-go traffic. Just a big money grab.
6
I had a few thoughts:
1. The handling of services like Uber and Lyft needs to consider that they are not truly "rise-sharing" unless multiple riders (who avoid using multiple cars) actually *share* a single vehicle. Uber and Lyft may be merely trading a rider-owned vehicle for a chauffeured vehicle (with no net decrease in congestion). The impacts of this should be factored into who pays in the zone -- and how much.
2. Uber and Lyft drivers are small businesses. If taxis (who they compete with) end up paying a fee, so should Uber and Lyft drivers. If determining who's "on duty" is difficult, assess fees on the parent companies based on registered drivers in the locality.
3. While I don't live in Manhattan, I've been in the city enough to fear needing emergency services given the congestion. No means were mentioned for improving first responder arrival times using these ideas.
4. I know politicians need to get elected -- and no one likes paying the true cost of "free" resources, but maybe $1B in fees isn't ambitious enough.
2
maybe i missed it, but does the article explain how congestion pricing works...i mean on a technical level? how do drivers actually get charged for entering designated toll areas?
3
@rpl Yes, it's similar to the EZ-Pass system in NY, where stations will be set up that either scan the EZ-Pass units in passing vehicles or photograph the vehicles that don't have them to send the owners the bill. I'd buy stock in whoever makes those right now.
2
@DataCrusader
I figured it would work like this but i would have liked more description in the article.
I continue to wonder what provisions will be made for disabled persons, like myself. I see a specialist in. Manhattan, as local doctors are unable to treat me. Using mass transit to get to my physician is quite difficult. Should I've penalized financially because of my handicap? NYC had proceed with the ADA, or be prepared for lawsuits.
2
I've been an advocate of congestion pricing in NYC ever since Bloomberg proposed it, and am glad it's finally here. The revenue will be a much needed boon to the MTA (though the odds are they'll squander it because...well, they're the MTA).
But outside of maybe San Francisco, I don't see how it works in other cities? Despite the sorry state of our subways, NYC has the advantage of a robust public transit and commuter train network. Most other American cities are car-based sprawl with inadequate public transport and long highway commutes. In those cities where the car is king I don't imagine congestion pricing will make much of a dent on traffic. I imagine people will swallow the tax and continue to drive - they have little choice.
4
There's no housing shortage here in California either so long as you have a million dollars to pay for a 500 s.f. condo. Why should getting anywhere around here be any different.
2
All of these cities need to consider a parking space tax of one dollar per day for every private parking and garage space, spaces that are currently 'free'. Increased tax would likewise be levied against parking firms for garage and surface parking lots - as much as $20/day (addition to current taxes).
A driveway would cost the homeowner additional $365/year in tax. A surface parking lot w/ 150 spaces ($10/day/space) would cost the operator $548,000 per year in tax (whether spaces are occupied or not).
Parking tax would raise revenues for transit at the same time shift the increasingly heavy public cost of car ownership to the car owners themselves. Because parking spaces in even highly congested areas are idle for significant parts of every day, the tax would provide incentive to convert spaces for non-auto uses which in turn would reduce available parking. For instance, the 150 space surface lot would be developed into a new building with zero parking. That would eliminate 100+ cars ... and do so by shifting costs onto the owners - where they belongs.
Parking space tax would not need complex infrastructure to identify and bill cars inside the revenue area, only the need to identify places where cars are parked - satellite map. Ultimately, parking would be diminished by way of money incentives: no parking = no cars.
2
@steve from Virginia
There are rarely any free parking spots in NYC, especially Manhattan. Parking tax would just increase rents and housing costs, something already among the highest in the nation here. A lot of metered parking spaces are already up to $8/hour.
When people continue to not want to pay taxes but have everything they want something has to give.
3
One other problem with this plan is that congestion pricing will go into effect long before any improvements in public transportation. The result will be even more over crowding of subways buses that are too full.
4
My parents live in Midtown Manhattan with windows facing 3rd Avenue. When you look out the windows, all you see is a sea of yellow...taxis, that is. How does this proposal influence the many New Yorkers (my parents included) who do not use public transportation but get into single occupancy cabs?
And another thing... Portland? No! Congested traffic occurs mostly during morning and evening rush hours, and pretty much any time on the federal highway, I-5. We have a wonderful and varied (and extensively used by the locals) public transportation system (buses, trains, bicycles, and now, even electric razor scooters). There is absolutely no comparison of the traffic in Portland with New York.
2
@julie i believe your parents and everyone else alighting in a cab below 96 st. are already paying a $2.50 surcharge, which is their contribution toward the congestion pricing pot. it applies whether or not they go below 60 st
3
@julie
Your parents "who don't use public transportation" are a huge part of the problem!
They are not outliers--look around at well-heeled areas of Manhattan, and you'll see every residential building is set up for its residents to take cabs and private cars. Lots of these people turn their noses up at the buses or subways, and it's been that way forever.
The difference is that now almost all of Manhattan is well-heeled. So, we must clear the streets for these people's cars, and tax them so we can pick up the crumbs.
2
@Amv
I agree, and that was my point.
Gee, maybe we could invest in mass transit now? Get cars off the road by making mass transit more convenient all the way around?
4
As member of the 1% who drives within Manhattan from time to time, this is fantastic for me as it will make my travel much quicker and easier, and the tolls will be insignificant. I may even drive more!
But what I can't understand is why the Democratic leaders of a generally liberal city feel that this is fair. I'll take what I can get, however.
7
@DRS, because drivers will no longer be free riding on the backs of transit riders? And because this means more investment in transit, better air quality, and less congestion?
The solution is not to charge congestion fees but to ban Uber, Lift, and other. This will force people to take public transportation and will be a boon to the NYC cab drivers who have been suffering the most. I know of low income transplants who are here taking Uber everywhere because they don’t know the subways. Banning Uber will force themto learn.
1
Why can't this be implemented until 2021? How about the end of 2019? This seems like a pretty exciting and innovative change - or at least a good first start - so why wait two years? It can't possibly take that long to iron out the details.
Additionally, cars should be ticketed, without fail, for entering a crosswalk when it's clear they will be stuck there when the light changes.
One more thing: I am against any more investment in bike lanes unless cyclists learn to obey traffic laws. Why should another cent to tax money go to bike lanes when cyclists drive the wrong way up streets, do not follow traffic laws, ride on the pavement rather than in the streets, etc. As a pedestrian, I feel like I'm taking my life into my hands when I try to cross a street with a lot of bikes around. Maybe bikes should be licensed?
It's so hard to find a yellow cab in NY these days. They are outnumbered 10-1 by Uber & Lyft cars. Uber and Lyft are to blame for congested streets. And yet Uber was sponsoring TV commercials in New York City FOR congestion pricing! If Uber and Lyft got out of town, the streets wouldn't be as congested and more people would take mass transit.
@Carl LaFong
Uber/Lyft should be taxed more. But complete elimination is not the answer. They are very useful for being on demand, and going where Yellow Cabs will not go to. There are so much because the demand is so high because mass transit is so inefficient and dirty. This wont change unless a drastic MTA overhaul is done.
1
Same in Chicago. 75% of the car traffic in the loop is ride-share.
1
I hope Seattle does this.
The automobile can no longer be the freedom-mobile uber alles.
2
Time for Los Angeles and the San Francisco Bay Area to do the same.
1
@PM. Will LA now be installing subways?
LA has been steadily increasing public transit system coverage for decades. And, yes, that includes subways: the Red and Purple lines of Los Angeles Metro Rail.
Not one mention of rail transportation. Many smaller cities are building rail as an alternative to auto traffic. There is an entire new world of communities who are advocating and developing rail infrastructure for their traffic problems.
1
@Aristotle Gluteus Maximus and worse often the rights of way still exist and could easily run trolleys
I'd be in favor of this only if you grandfather in all the people who have been happily and easily commuting into the city for 20 years or more. The rise of the app and gig culture and the massive building (and, yes, jobs) that have been created -- not to mention that every second car has Uber of Lyft stickers (or both) -- is the root of this. I know this is a dumb ridiculous curmudgeonly argument, but oh my god I am so tired of the techies that have taken over San Francisco.
"John Corlett, a lobbyist for AAA in New York, said the new fees could shift gridlock to other parts of the city if drivers bypass the central business district to avoid tolls. “To say this is going to reduce congestion may be a false hope,” he said."
Yet he provides no alternative ...No solutions - The Naysayers are all empty vessels - If you can't suggest a way to address the problem then stay out of the discussion. But then again Lobbyists are just ZOMBIES.
1
If NYC does this they need to reduce the MTA fare and link it with the Path train from NJ. People from New Jersey will take the brunt of this, where a lot of manufacturing and service industry reside. LA's history of getting rid of their public transit program has now caught up with them. Who were those lobbyists from that era? Urban planning was directly effected by these policies. There needs to be public assurances if we are going to tax the people. Resistance to higher taxes is directly related to what we DON'T get. If you tax, public life should feel better.
Seems like a progressive tax to me. The wealthy will be happy to lay out another $15 day to have a significantly shorter commute.
Does congestion pricing guarantee the easing of congestion... I don't think so.
Can the current infrastructure (busses/trains) support increased ridership
3
@Ian Well, congestion pricing has led to easing of congestion in London and Stockholm, the two most high-profile cities where it's been tried. I expect the same to happen in New York - I don't think it will magically clear our streets of gridlock of course, but any kind of decline would be most welcome in a city where congestion is even more of an issue than it was when I arrived twenty years ago.
2
@Vin I flew into London many times 10 years ago. the car service drivers decried congestion pricing as a total rip off. Gridlock was the norm. May have improved recently. I don't know.
The only sustainable transportation in the 21st Century is walking and cycling.
1
You might want to consider that walking and cycling are rather more practical ways (for those who are physically able) to travel if you happen to live in a town with a population of 8,500 people, and with most destinations clustered within about four square miles, than in many other places.
Uber and Lyft are part of the congestion problem, not a solution. One hopes these vehicles are tolled as much or more than other vehicles as they endlessly circle the urban core. Perhaps there should be a tax or fee on every ride they provide within the boundary.
We need means testing for this. It’s a fine initiative. The cost should be tied to wealth and income so we all proportionally support it.
As a New Yorker it is obvious that something must be done even though we have the best public transportation in the World with the exceptions being Staten Island and parts of Queens . Because of this infrastructure NYC really does not need to do much to make great improvement , but charging vehicles more to enter Midtown is not sufficient and of course penalizes people with less money including small businesses .
Off the top of my head ( recognizing that more thought might reveal the flaws ) I have always thought this would work :
1- Eliminate private passenger vehicles from Midtown during rush hour and also restrict tractor trailers and large tonnage trucks .
2- Increase shuttle and regular bus service east to west and north to south in midtown and create a network with hubs for commercial delivery in Midtown with curb access and lanes that make commercial deliveries in vans . Large trucks deliver to the hubs outside and small vans bring the goods inside .
3- Increase subway service .
4- Tax huge Suvs and gas guzzling cars and provide incentives to electric and hybrid vehicles .
5- Build a lot of City owned parking lots to handle the new passenger cars that cannot enter Midtown that surround the end points where people can't enter .
6- Eliminate most of the bike lanes from Midtown used by the few that tie up traffic for the many .
All of these suggestions are easy to do and would make dramatic improvement .
1
@VB You think we have the best transportation in the world in New York? You really ought to get out more. Our subway network might be among the most extensive, but in terms of service and quality we lag far behind all major world cities (and some cities in the developing world too). I would posit that we're closer to having the worst subways of any major world city than we are to being "the best." And our commuter train network is slow and antiquated compared to what one can find in Asia and Europe.
2
@Vin
My comment merely repeated what has been a long standing consensus among many people and did not include commuter trains like the LIRR , so you are not disagreeing with me you are doubted what many including experts for a long time .
What I know is NYC's public transportation is so good it is the lifeblood of the City and unlike everywhere , but Chicago has made NYC the only City residents do not need to buy a car . You and other can get stuck on the minutae of the imperfections and what can be improved .
@VB
Interesting not one comment about the 6 steps I outlined , but instead folks want to debate whether NYC has the best public transportation ?
Great idea when it is coupled with expanded transit service, discounts for low-income people, elimination of parking minimums, and increases in housing near transit. Accessibility isn't about how to get more cars into a particular place, its about a have a density and diversity of location available to as many people as possible. Cars and their required infrastructure (roads and parking) limit accessibility and negatively impact the built environment. Thus cars make all other forms of transportation less viable. We need to focus on freedom and accessibility for people, not space and speed for cars.
1
Will NYC start to see some business moving just north of the congestion zone?
Will some businesses move to NJ so employees don't have to pay to cross the GWB and then to drive into the congestion zone.
Will there be a boom in building parking garages in the areas north of the congestion zone?
Some college professor should be starting a study of the successes of congestion pricing and the unintended consequences of same.
3
@Bob in Pennsyltucky -- Always good to lookout for the law of unintended consequences at work...
“There’s a critical mass forming where people are saying, ‘enough is enough,’”
Yes, like you couldn't pay me enough to live or work in a mess like NY City.
2
London has been doing this for years—
What has taken so long?
1
Congestion pricing embraced?
I really hope tons of people protest this plan put in place by legislators located 150 miles away. This is just another lazy money grab, which will go to a highly inefficient system called the MTA. The roads of NYC are horrible. Where's the money for that? Potholes and broken streets all over, as well as many roads that don't even have proper lane markings. A nice free-for-all on some street sections. Why tax drivers more? They bring business to the city in forms of truck deliveries, other deliveries, and passengers. These drivers already have to pay NY sales tax if they bought in NY. They have to pay ridiculous parking fees. They have to pay ridiculous tolls at times. And they have to deal with congestion, a lot of which is caused by eliminated lanes used for buses and bikes. And those bus lanes are so empty many times. In a town full of great economic minds, there has to be other ways to fund the MTA. But first reboot the whole MTA to a more efficient organization.
1
Congestion pricing fits into the same category as the soda tax and time of day electricity rates. A broad majority of the public, on all sides of the political spectrum, deeply hates them all. Whenever government starts micromanaging a voter’s moment by moment existence throughout the course of their day, it becomes that thing people hate, instead of a helpful entity they look up to. Voters know the wealthy won’t even notice this tax, while average people will be faced with yet another expensive hurdle to plan their already hectic lives around. Congestion pricing still leaves the wealthy with all their money bought freedom of movement, while forcing the average voter to pay for decades of excessively generous tax breaks and set aside’s. When you build a billion dollar skyscraper, you should be the one to pay for most of the infrastructure needed to support it. Voters know this. Politicians should have learned from failed boondoggles like soda taxes just how much voters truly hate it when you use costly fees to micromanage the intimate details of their personal lives. Telling citizens and visitors what specific times of day they are fiscally allowed to pick up a kid, arrive at a job assignment or drop by to help a sick friend is very intimate indeed.
5
I live in the Bronx, and have to attend a meeting in Brownsville, Brooklyn tonight at 8pm for work. So I drove in to my office in Manhattan this morning, because if I took the subway, I'd be lucky to get home before midnight.
Stopped at the light at W56 St ., I took a photo of the cars in front of me. One Tesla, one BMW SUV, one Mercedes SUV, and one Maserati. How many of them do you think will switch to public transit?
And by the way, most days I take the subway.
1
This idea is about as good as using legalization of drugs (you know which one!) to fill budget gaps.
2
LA’s public transit is woefully inadequate compared to other urban areas and not a viable alternative for many.
Congestion pricing that would aim to move commuters to public transit would put a burden on that system it is unprepared to shoulder.
1
Congestion pricing makes sense from an environmental standpoint only if incremental public transportation options are available for people to use. However, there is no commitment to improve or create new transit options as an alternative as part of this plan. NJ to NYC public transit on weekdays is unreliable and very congested already, and weekend options are also unreliable combined with infrequent. NJ should impose congestion pricing too, to find improvements to NJ-NYC transit. Any plan must also come with greater control and accountability on how the funds are used.
2
This doesn't seem like a solution to the problem, it seems like politicians exploiting the problem to make some extra money.
Doesn't seem fair to commuters either. I'd wager most of them would rather not have to drive in a crowded, noisy city but have no choice. I speak from experience. I don't commute into downtown Portland because it's fun, I just happen to work there and public transit is not an option where I live, it would more than triple my commute to wait for a bus.
So basically politicians found some people in a bad situation and decided to make it worse for them instead of thinking of a real solution.
6
If you use something, you have to pay for it. Basically drivers into midtown NYC are competing for a scarce resource, to the point at which the resource is tapped out & the situation is dysfunctional. Suburbanites want to access the benefits and use the streets of NYC, but they don’t want to pay for it. Essentially it’s a deadbeat Republican philosophy of free loading. Use a public service, refuse when you are asked to pay your fair share to maintain it, and then whine and blame someone else when it continues to deteriorate.
5
If anything, this new tax will hurt businesses in this area.
Similar when gas was $4 a gallon, money spent in stores and restaurants will go into the wrong pockets.
Maybe the real idea is to make NY so expensive that people will leave in large numbers.
2
@mrmeat No. Have you ever been to NYC?
1
@MikeBoy
Used to live an hour North. Been there many times.
You couldn't pay me to live there.
I drove into NYC last week with some out-of-town family. We were eight in a minivan, four of whom were children, and it was a trip that would have been all but impossible if we had to coordinate the group and our gear onto public transportation. I don't see how getting on a train only to have to take cabs once we got into Manhattan would be more efficient.
I'm also reminded of the worst moment of the drive, when we were stuck behind a garbage truck on 40th Street that had parked -- blocking all lanes of traffic at 5:00 pm -- while it loaded hundreds of bags from Bryant Park. We ended up turning off the car when we realized what was happening and waited for about 15 minutes. I can't even imagine how many light cycles behind us gridlocked, and how it likely rippled through that entire night's rush hour traffic. When the truck finally moved we drove past the spot and saw that it could have easily pulled into a large open space in front of the garbage pile and allowed traffic to flow normally while they did their work. I hope the plan includes fines for arrogant civil servants who purposely sabotage access.
5
A huge part of SF's congestion problem is due to double parked delivery trucks everywhere. Truck drivers seem to think they have a god-given right to park anywhere they want, and I have yet to see one get a ticket. Of course the double irony is that many of the trucks are delivering packages that are taking away business from local stores, and the stores are harder to get to because of the congestion caused by the delivery trucks.
3
@David -- I've often wondered why delivery services aren't legally mandated between midnight and 0500 daily... Time-shifting the traffic load might work???
1
It’s because the stores that don’t operate during those times don’t have receivers on duty. Adding a whole other shift (and having the building open, maybe security on duty, whatever other expenses are incurred) could be out of reach for many companies.
@David The congestion problem in SF stems from too many people driving. You could also complain that transit-only lanes, bike lanes, and even pedestrians crossing at the corner are a huge part of the "problem."
SF is a very small place and not designed for driving. If more people gave up their suburban "must drive everywhere" attitudes and figured out less destructive ways to travel, the delivery truck problem would be moot.
For the rich ten extra bucks is nothing. They will love congestion pricing. They will be able to use the roads all to themselves. Let the poor figure out how to get to work without their cars.
5
People that have no skin in the game and live the grid life, they’ll love it. Well, that is until the subways are even more overcrowded and dysfunctional and their Uber goes up. The well-off with payed parking basement garages in their towering condos aren’t going to be affected, as they can already afford this plan. It’ll be the elderly going to their doctor from Queens and the small business owner that needs to cart their people or goods through the city that will get hit. Not to mention the occasional street parking reverse commuter that doesn’t have a mass transit option and doesn’t want to leave the city. It has its pluses and minuses. However, as per usual, whoever created and advocated for this congestion pricing isn’t going to be affected.
6
I support congestion taxes. If widening roads reduced traffic, LA would be a paradise and it’s not. We need denser housing not wider roads to solve our traffic and housing problems .
In addition, a huge proportion of the people clogging the roads are Lyft and Uber drivers coming to the city to drive from the Central Valley
If we had congestion pricing and affordable housing those drivers could find meaningful jobs in the Bay Area instead
2
I love Philadelphia, but that city needs a far more extensive public transportation system if they want to be able to sustain something like this. Having subways that only travel along one line of latitude through the center of the city is crazy if they want people to drive through downtown less.
In the Buckhead neighborhood of Atlanta there are plans to develop somewhere between 5000 and 9000 new apartment units in an area where traffic is already impossible. Guess what. When we, the local taxpayers go to the zoning meetings to protest, asking the logical question, where is all of this traffic going to go, we are told that traffic is not a factor taken into consideration when issuing building permits. It is the zoning and development that needs to be controlled. Congestion pricing is just another regressive tax.
4
I hate cars. And if you tell me that's because I have the luxury of not needing one, I lived in Seattle, a town that has even worse public transportation than NYC, without a car. I commuted 1h 40 m each way in order to avoid owning and driving a car.
The choice to expand roads and spend tax dollars to accommodate more cars as opposed to making public transportation that much better and more efficient is one of the worst decisions in urban and infrastructure policy that we have made as a country.
We toil at these half-measure solutions while the planet cooks from CO emissions from cars, road construction, etc. You know the story.
We don't even have a bullet train in the entirety of America.Think about that. My wife just took a train in Shanghai that hit 400 km/h. . This whole argument over congestion is what happens when short-term thinking trumps long term vision.
Looking around at all these eco-minded Seattleites sitting in traffic in single driver cars I finally came to the conclusion that we just don't know any better. We can't make the obvious change to trains, buses, shuttles, etc, because of our ignorance. We just don't know how much better it is to have someone else deliver us to our destination, faster, instead of drive.
Some geographical locations in America require automobility. Big cities and urban areas do not.
Our public transportation grid is a stunning failure of imagination and manipulation by private interests, e.g., real estate, automobile. So sad!
9
@Brendan. Good thoughts, but most people are unwilling to commute 1:40 a day each way.
2
@David
Yes. Of course. But It took an hour by car, so that was the choice.
Many people have families and do not want to lose that precious time , either.
I wrote not to hold up myself as an example, though I guess it does suggest it is possible. My colleagues thought I was pretty crazy.
However, I got a ton of work done , caught up on sleep, contacted relatives, wrote, read and did otherwise very enjoyable things during that time.
Again, I don't think people know what such a comparison is like as their default is driving. A choice which they are pushed towards with almost necessity by our infrastructure.
1
@David -- Especially those with small children...
Has the population of NYC grown over the last decade or two? If so, does this increase reflect increased tax revenues?
1
This will not fix the congestion issues in NY and other cities facing the same problems. People will accept (grudgingly) the new fee because they will still refuse or not be able to use public transportation. The poor are already using public transportation because it's cheaper than paying for gas, and the middle class who largely live outside the city don't use public transportation because it's too unreliable or uncomfortable. Congestion pricing will not solve the problem in the foreseeable future.
However, the revenue gained from congestion pricing can hopefully fund some innovative transportation projects. Exactly what, I don't know. This also presupposes that the government decides to use the money for the plan's intended purpose (as government so often fails to do).
The best solution, although unrealistic, is to incentivize people to move to less populated cities, or to steer our attraction from city life. People so often move to the city for its limitless opportunities at the cost of their mental and physical health, and sometimes to no avail. Is city life and the modern ideal of "success" really what we prop it up to be? Is there anybody left who are content with a median income, and desire a quiet, simple, and fulfilling lifestyle?
4
The problem is precisely that the dream of a median income has become almost impossible, with job compensation landing at the extremes.
NYC uses congestion pricing "as a way to raise money for public transit and to persuade people to abandon their cars" without offering citizens a viable alternative. As all New Yorkers know, the MTA is not a viable alternative.
2
New York's politicians didn't need excuses to take even more of other people's money. This crushing anti-progressive, anti-working man's tax will simply be factored into the already obscene cost of living in New York and things will carry on as before - by which I mean - the infrastructure will continue to crumble, the subways will continue to be a horror, and Manhattan will continue to be a reservation for the rich and privileged.
8
Congestion Pricing and Equity:
The cost of congestion pricing can be done on a sliding scale, based on the financial ability of the driver to pay - as determined by the driver's previous tax filings. For example, somebody whose previous tax filings (say two year's before) shows earnings of $1.2M should pay a large price and somebody whose earnings are $50K would pay significantly less. A similar algorithm is used by Medicare for determining premiums.
4
@MS This is really important. Are there examples of successful implementation?
I think this is a viable option for Northern Virginia and DC Metro area which is strangling on traffic congestion and a failing subway system all the while suburban and exurban highways are constantly widened. Ridership on the Metrorail Orange line is down about 25% over the past 10 years or so; Metrorail is unreliable.
We in DMV should impose a similar congestion pricing scheme and take all the revenues and spend them on Meto rail, and bus. The State of VA refuses to raise the gas tax to help Metro.
We have HOT on I-66 and I-95 and parts of I-495 already, but it has done little so far to curb congestion and encourage single drivers to carpool or take mass transit. But higher congestion pricing and better mass transit along with capools may help. If even half the single driver cars joined a carpool DMV could immediately cut its traffic by 25% and everyone would benefit.
1
The city ought to charge higher fees to all those new and huge black TLC vehicles that jam the streets and add pollution to carry one individual who for some reason requires an SUV like a Chevy suburban or Cadillac Escalade to get crosstown.
6
Another failed measure from Democrats. There is no adequate method of transportation in NYC anymore. Build a new subway line for god’s sake.
9
@Bob They did but the Republicans of the upper east side would not allow the new line to connect to the poor neighborhoods. In effect it was hugely expensive and only gave the wealthy a private subway.
1
@Bob yes, sure, because Republicans are all in favor of public projects and transportation. Remember your pal Christie and the train tunnel?
1
I think tolling the east river crossings would be a better idea.
@skater242
Bad idea. This is one city yo’
Freedom of movement, our ancestors paid for The brooklyn bridge so we have that freedom. One city not just manhattan
1
This is nothing but another middle-class tax. Staten Island has no way to get off the island by car with no toll. All of the other boroughs have untolled car access to Manhattan. We will have to pay to go to doctor's appointments and to visit loved ones in hospitals and to work, or go to dinner and see a show. How about instituting tolls on ALL city bridges and installing 2 way tolling on the Verrezzano. Will residents that cross the Verrezzano be exempt from congestion pricing? It doesn't look that way!
5
Too many people. Close the borders of major cities too.
4
San Francisco is doing a good job with dedicated bus and protected bike lanes bus it needs more. Bridge traffic, Giants traffic and soon Warriors traffic causes gridlock.
Delivery services should be promoted to be off hours when possible. Uberpool and Lyftshare should get benefits. Add parking at Bart stations. Electrify CalTrans and bring it into the Transbay terminal.
@rickrocket And the Giants stadium was built with minimal parking to encourage people to take transit to the stadium. Can you imagine the traffic mess that would occur before and after each game if there was a huge parking lot?
Having very little parking has been a boon for small business in the neighborhoods surrounding the stadium as fans swarm into restaurants and shops.
There's a lesson here!
He added, “We cannot sit idly by and watch it get worse.”
This had to be a pun, right?
4
If you are driving into New York City you are doing it because you have to, the misery of driving in snarled traffic jams would deter you long before congestion pricing. This is nothing more than extortion. I thought we had rights, and something like this couldn't just be jammed down our throats.
6
Reality Check just thought but concidering the cost of what our government spends on defense . Why is it they cant afford to build hyperloop an end need for cars an planes?
1
More smoke and mirrors from New York State.
Watch as the money disappears to fund skyrocketing
medical and pension costs for MTA workers.
5
Just like Europe without any of the benefits.
4
Only in Los Angeles would a politician get away with saying "driving isn't a choice, it's a necessity." Nope, not if your city is properly designed.
3
@WGC
California was built and designed for cars--this isn't the midwest.
I understand "Why".
But I can't figure out "How".
We live on Staten Island, in Tottenville, which is at the extreme southern end of the island. Public transportation? The Staten Island rapid transit line, goes from here to the ferry, 40 minutes. The ferry to Manhattan, another 20. At that point, you're only at South Street. Take a bus? Same roads as cars.
Our Genius of a mayor began some new ferry service in the city a year or so ago. BUT NONE FOR STATEN ISLAND. He wanted to see if it worked.
He needs to call Trump. Even HE knows that this is called an island because it is surrounded by water.
NO, I'm not a Republican.
3
The "this will hurt the poor" argument is a red herring. The people who really don't want it are the rich and upper middle class. They're cheap and they want to keep their artificial convenience.
6
If our cities are too congested, the answer is not to penalize the people who have to drive in every day to see their families and put food on their table. That is just going to discourage them from wanting to live here. The greatest measure of the success or failure of mayors and governors comes every 10 years with the census. Increases in population and investment are good grades, decreases are bad grades. Why do something that drives people away?
American cities in the 21st-century must break the addiction to single-occupant vehicles. The pollution and the congestion are not healthy. We should be expanding our metro systems and establishing them where they don't yet exist. Modern living must have more livable options.
4
Boston and DC are the most obvious candidates. West coast cities are more problematic because public transit is unevenly available, although Portland can probably cope if voters approved the change.
3
The best solution is much more simple than location-based taxing. Slap a $2 per gallon tax on gasoline, rising an additional $.50 each year, and the market will do its magic. Nothing else is going to work.
7
@Eric Yes punish the poor and lower classes even more. The streets will be Lexus and Acura filled while the others walk. Those not traveling into the city will be punished also? High gas prices did what to the economy in the past? Your needed groceries will be how much more?
I work in Jersey City and live in downtown NYC. I spend maybe 12 minutes on the NYC roads, from home to work, and 12 minutes from the Holland tunnel to home. So I should pay for my 24 minutes the same as a car that spend ALL DAY in Manhattan
shuffling passengers in midtown ?
4
Manhattan --- at least a good portion of it ---should be all pedestrian. The only vehicles there should be shuttle buses, police, and fire/medical emergency vehicles. A good shuttle system combined with good subway service would solve the congestion problem in Manhattan.
9
@Puloni Keeping them good, clean and safe has always been the problem.
@Puloni Yeah, and how will all those thousands of stores, shops and restaurants restock themselves? How will office supplies magically appear in all those high rise buildings? Should the electricians, and plumbers and technicians carry their tools and spare parts on their backs? At some point, you need to get real.
3
No mention of overpopulation and the lack of good infrastructure that moves people around, no policies that discourage drivers except for this one? In equality in these large cities have driven up prices so far out of the reach of the middle class and on existence to the poor who probably cannot afford trolleys.
We've not invested in America for years. Excuse me we subsidy fossil fuels, chemicals, big agr, et and tax breaks for wealthy. Our 1945 - 70 infrastructure is just that, it does not meet the demands of today. Let's make Amerika great again and put everyone to work doing so.
Over population is the problem and remember knowing that in the late 60's and it has exploded since the zero population so called zealots. If our politicians would of listened, if the people would of listened.
3
@Julie We are at an 80 year low as to population rate growth. Under 1%. Half of what Canada is though they can handle a much larger growth rate. And we are way lower than the late 60s. The largest segment of population that is growing is those over 80 not those under 2. Our population growth is retirees and the super elderly. By 2025 the elderly population is expected to double while working and children to go up only 15%. The reason nursing home needs are exploding. We are a nation of autos by choice and of longer distances. We live farther from jobs than those of most countries by choice. That house with lawn away from work is still the goal. Unemployment rate is what these days? Politicos do listen at times. Don't spend my tax dollars on train systems I don't use. And don't raise my taxes for anything if possible though it may not be reality.
Banning Uber/Lift in Manhattan would immediately solve most of the problem. Taxi should be enough.
7
What ever happened to population control? The last thing we need is more mega-cities with congestion pricing!
2
As the article alludes:
"Congestion pricing has also been seen as a burden on drivers who are poor and have been displaced from downtown areas by rising housing costs, and now must drive to work because of minimal access to public transit."
Congestion pricing benefits the 1% (the 0.1% use their helicopters or have others come to them.) We should tie pricing, congestion, traffic fines, as a percentage of income and wealth.
We also must tie transport usage to greenhouse gas emissions. What is the effect of gridlock on emissions and how best to lower these same emissions?
3
We need better public transportation! NYC subways have declined in reliability over the past few years. Getting into NYC from Pennsylvania became harder when one of our bus lines went out of business earlier this year. Now, I am more likely than ever to drive into the city. People are always going to flock to a fast and reliable method to get around the city. Right now, that method involves cars.
4
China builds the global $1 trillion belt-and-road project. New York extracts more cash from producers to shovel at unionized $180,000 per year subway ticket takers while roads crumble, admitting to drivers that America just does not do infrastructure any longer. And you wonder why China owns the 21st century.
3
@SHerman, China is a demographic disaster with a ponzi economy and likely won't exist in current political state by mid-century. If the West "loses" to another system it won't because professionals were paid a decent wage.
2
All this will do is give the struggling poor workers another burden to cope with. How about putting work places closer to the workers? Build nearby affordable housing that cannot be gentrified (super unpopular with “city planners”) and start locating workplaces out of city centers. The main reason “congestion” exists is the fact that people are traveling to their workplaces. Building and planning workplaces that are closer to actual workers may be a solution.
5
Of course congestion pricing will work, if we could start from square one, at least according to Nobelist Ronald Coase. He explained the tragedy of the commons. If you give away a free good, it will get overused to point of destruction of the good. The problem is whether you can transitioin to privatization. NYC has a creative proposal not just to privatize, but to redeploy the rental fees to other uses. Whether NYC can actually convince the public that it is not just selling off public assets for miscellenaeous baubles will be the question. If this system amounts to making the public pay twice for something already paid for, it will fail. The devil will be in the execution, and in the ntegrity of people directing re-deployment of the tolls. Can NYC not put its hand in the toll till for non-transportation concerns? We shall see. The temptation for the politicians to skim for non-transportation interests will be hard to resist. Theoretically, sound. Practically, difficult to achieve.
2
@Dave Oedel Having a private, corporate-profit-driven system has worked so well for health care in this country, I don't see why it shouldn't work just a well for transportation systems.
Congestion Pricing: N.Y. Embraced It. Will Other Clogged Cities Follow?
When other cities see what this does to the economy of NYC, they will change their minds...
3
I believe the best answer to this congestion problem is to build a better and very affordable...for the users...transit system that moves people into these congested areas, restricting traffic to only vehicles, such as delivery, buses, etc.
3
It baffles me as to how congestion pricing could be included in the budget without knowing all of the details. This is not how government should run. Present all of the details so that everyone can make a educated decision on the issue. There are so many factors that have lead to the congestion in Manhattan but no one appears to be addressing them. Perhaps these factors should be addressed first before taxing those that need to drive into Manhattan. But no one wants to do this because then congestion pricing may not be necessary and there will not be justification to tax commuters who drive into Manhattan to raise money for the MTA. The reality is that congestion pricing will have its own problems which no one is acknowledging. This includes as some have already pointed out, people parking north of the congestion zone, creating increased congestion in residential neighborhoods such as Washington Heights, the Upper West Side, and the Upper East Side and then taking the subway or bus to their job. Governor Cuomo, Mayor DeBlasio, the Legislature and the MTA need to really reconsider what they are doing. Governor Murphy and Senator Menendez must keep fighting for the people of New Jersey that must commute to Manhattan via auto. Can't wait for the legal challenges.
6
No congestion pricing.
1-Tax private cars and trucks, spend the money on public transit.
2-Tax parking lots to diminish the number and increase the pricing.
3-Give employers an tax credit if they will subsidize employees using public transit and allow them to buy the discounted passes via payroll deduction.
4-Tax private limos, cabs and paid ride shares. Use the money to fund public transit.
5-Use tax incentives to encourage apartments and commercial buildings to have secure bicycle parking and a plus for shower facilities at workplaces for bike commuters.
4
I don't get it. Do they assume that people are entering into these areas just for fun. In Los Angeles no one rides public transportation only because the design of the city makes it impossible. If they feel that this will give the funds to build a working public system then just increase the state income tax and be done with it. Ahhh wait, we can't do that! We have to tax the people who use it. So this "gig" economy is turning into a "gig" taxation system? We no longer do things as a collective society? Lets tax high crime areas for police support. Lets tax fire prone areas for fire fighting support. Lets tax luxury cars for pollution cleanup. Lets tax soda, phone calls, television, tax, tax, tax. Lets create a new government agency for each tax and stock it with workers who we need to pay and provide benefits to. We should have enough money to do that, if not just raise the tax.
7
@joe
So you want to tax some schnook living in Plattsburgh NY to help support the public transit system in New York City? Even if he never has been to New York City, and has no intention of going there?
2
City taxes get sent to Albany and then to Plattsburgh. We are either in it together or not. I mean why does NYS send more in taxes to Washington DC than we get back then? Your logic doesn’t make social sense.
@J.Q.P.
When the local decision to spend money is not matched by having to pay locally, the effect is to overspend, as someone else is paying for it.
Then everyone complains their taxes are too high.
The pricing is really important. If you get the price wrong, the system isn't going to work very well. The system might not work at all actually. I'll give you an example.
There was a time were I was commuting to New York a lot. I had two options. I could either take the GWB and pay the toll or I could take NJ Transit and transfer to the subway.
The economics are interesting. I'd weigh the combined cost of a train or bus ticket versus the toll and the hassle of finding overnight parking. Time didn't really matter. The GWB was sometimes quicker but public transit was usually more relaxing. Driving had a slight advantage if I had something heavy to carry but otherwise they're the same.
You net all that out and the decision was usually a wash. Do you feel like taking the train or do you feel like driving? If either cost had been even slightly higher, I would have preferred one method over the other. As New York had it at the time though, there was no difference.
2
Just who are you talking about when you say New York embraces congestion pricing? And why "embraces" as if there has been some pent up longing to finally achieve taxing thousands of New Yorkers who wish to travel between boroughs in their cars? And what about those who live in the outer boroughs and must go to medical appointments in Manhattan? If politicians owned by real estate interests were really concerned about traffic congestion, there are dozens of steps the city could take to ease the problem without burdening so many with more fees and taxes. They could start with getting all those unused rental bicycles out of our streets. A ride across town on 12th Street in the Village yesterday proved to be a nightmarish experience; the street is now a parking lot for both motorists and the unused rental bikes. We have given over the city to passive aggressive bureaucrats who work at the behest of those who wish to make of Manhattan a gated community. I hope we will see boycotts and other protests soon.
5
@Vincent Amato We don't embrace congestion pricing. We are being choked by it.
1
Congestion pricing makes living in this area more expensive, especially for NYC residents who live in public transportation "deserts."
One of the things to watch for will be the exceptions that will inevitably carved out for politically strong groups. Think unionized City workers for starters.
6
@LennyM And Upper Weat Side residents who will lose more parking.
For sure. Our downtown neighborhood street parking is dedicated to city hall employees. I doubt they will be paying to drive in.
1
@LennyM, no it makes living in NYC cheaper, by funding transit better, thus providing expanded service, alongside cleaner environment and less congestion. Most NYC households have no vehicles, and few need to drive their vehicles into Manhattan, so the majority benefit, while drivers finally pay their fair share.
In Philadelphia, the main culprits seem to be construction and ride sharing. There is no other explanation for the misery of driving in the city that has developed in such a short period of time. I came late to driving and got my license around 2008, and I remember thinking "why do people complain about city driving, it's great!" Now it's a nightmare. I work 2.5 miles from UPenn where my son attends college, and it's on the way for me to swing by when I'm on my way home. The other day I tried to pick something up from him but it the streets were literally vice-locked by non-moving traffic all around University City, and I ended up diverting while he skateboarded from his dorm (while carrying a large picture frame) to meet me on the road. I strongly support congestion charges here. I've already got my Septa Key pass.
3
The flood of “ride sharing” cars brought NYC traffic to a standstill. Unless the city addresses this with caps, I doubt congestion pricing will change things. My guess it is the same in Philadelphia.
We have tolls already, which don’t slow the growth of traffic. How will this really impact the congestion? Looks like another tax on the working class unless there is a miracle and they can deliver a European level mass transit system that integrates fully with regional transit.
1
I think Road Space Rationing based on license numbers is a better evil compared to Congestion Pricing. In either case, compact cars, hybrid and electric vehicles should be exempted from any driving restriction. More lanes and parking locations for bicycles. Provide a more economical Citibike (or something else). Help direct peoples mind to clean air and reduced congestion which equals less stress and anxiety for everyone.
4
The congestion price will be trivial to the well heeled, and probably tax deductible as well. The people who will respond to the price will be people of more modest financial means, for whom the congestion charge will be a significant expense to avoid.
Leona Helmsley would have loved congestion pricing, clearing the streets of the "little people" so that the wealthy, to whom New York rightfully belongs, can travel unimpeded.
A fairer system would be to distribute free "driving rights" to the motoring public in the New York area, regardless of income. Make a market place where these free rights can be bought and sold, and transferred among drivers. Those of modest financial means could sell their rights to the well heeled Leonas of today, pocketing a profit for their decision to forego driving in the City.
Otherwise, its just a decision to economically intimidate the "little people" off the roads, for the benefit of the wealthy. Let them eat cake.
8
I understand the premise here but, it seems like a much more of a burden to, "the working man," who can't afford to live in the city in the first place.
5
You would be happy to go 10 miles an hour in the city. Most of the time you are at stand still watching people walking faster than you. It's always the easiest root putting the bill on the back of the poor. Who will defend them?
8
We need city legislation to prohibit NJ drivers from coming into Washington Heights with their cars, taking up multiple spots in our already crowded neighborhood while they park all day and take trains and busses downtown. Issue parking permits for local residents in those areas near the train/bus stops. It is only fair.
3
Congestion pricing is supposed to reduce the number of vehicles in the city, an admirable goal. But NYC is selling this as a funding mechanism to improve the subway system. Aren’t these two goals in conflict with each other? Reduce the number of vehicles enough and you will never raise sufficient revenue to improve the subway. Keep the congestion toll low enough and you will raise the revenue but not reduce the number of vehicles.
So which one is it that you want NYC?
6
@Bob Jordan They want the money. It's always the money. The reduction in congestion is just a ruse.
4
Bogota, Colombia, permanently closed multiple roads in their downtown area to promote walking and reduce congestion. Guess what, there's no traffic because there are no cars and people actually walk places, improving their health. Is it time to learn from developing countries?
14
@Jorge Pradilla That's because Bogota was serious about reducing congestion. If NYC wanted to reduce congestion, they would do the same thing. Instead, what they really wanted was a new revenue stream, and that's exactly what they have, under the guise of congestion reduction.
1
The weather in Bogota is a lot nicer year around than in New Your City, with our frigid winters and sweltering summers.
1
More lanes, more traffic.
Okay. Try fewer lanes. One lane for single passenger vehicles. The other lane for multiple.
Still no thoughts/comments on the re-structure of the MTA.
All the money raised from this will be going down the tubes to pad pockets and cost.
And why are only drivers paying to fix the subway?
where is the commuter tax?
Where is the tax on 2nd homes in NYC?
Oh wait the real estate industry, showed their true colors
( we want the benefit of a great subway system but don't ant to pay) and stopped that...
3
Yet another reason for me to leave NYC. If income tax wasn't enough. If the MTA needs to make repairs and the cost to do so would cost 20% more on a fare. It sounds like the fare needs to be 20% higher. It's still a great value and people should pay for services they use. They shouldn't say "Let's get those people to pay for our service". Unfortunate/struggling people have legitimate reasons to drive as well. Not everyone has a situation where MTA can reasonably serve their needs.
3
America's love affair of driving one car/one person to work every day should come to an abrupt halt. It is destructive on so many fronts...our environment, our roads, our mental health, our economy and our time.
Congestion pricing is the way to go. Reports state that 90% of New Yorkers do not own cars. Parking costs and sheer inconvenience rule them out for the vast majority.
Buses are a great alternative. Public and private alternatives are available in the city, the suburbs, from NJ and the outer boroughs. The subway is not the only option.
Stop whining folks and do your part. Not driving into the city is not the end of the world. You may still drive...you will just have to pay 20% of your daily parking fee to drive during congestion hours. It's still a very good deal when you consider the roads will be better, the time you spend behind the wheel less, public transportation improved, the air pollution better, and the quality of life in NYC safer for all.
Remember the day many years back when the taxi drivers boycotted one glorious Monday? Like that! A joy for all of us...a quiet, less trafficked city. One could almost hear themselves think.
2
Instead of punishing drivers that are trying to make it to their jobs, how about punishing corporations with real estate and lease fees for keep making their offices in overcrowded and over congested downtown areas. It is not the commuters' decision that their place of work or business that they are trying to get to are all concentrated in one area.
10
@mrpisces My sentiments exactly.
2
The tolls in NYC won’t start until 2021, so it won’t be until at least 2023 that good data can be gathered and analyzed, along with learning from NYC’s bumps along the way. To say they’ve adopted congestion pricing so maybe others will follow suit is a bit premature.
2
It seems so easy to raise the cost of driving to reduce traffic jam problem. Why not limit the days of driving based on the last digit of cars plate number? Why can't the city planners dream of something out of the box? Why can't they limit the kind of business such as non-banking and non financial related companies out of NY city? For example, UN headquarter is not needed in NY city. It is a drag to go to NY city in order to visit UN headquarter. Why can't they rebuild the city rail road? Don't we always talk about the destructive reconstruction. Maybe NY city needs that.
1
Cities which choose to do nothing will eventually have untenable traffic where no vehicles, including ambulances and fire, can move at more than walking speed. Then they will be forced to take action.
Free car storage (aka parking) on the street is some of the most valuable available space but is being wasted.
Cars are destroying cities. Time to take back the streets for people.
5
I live in Brooklyn - own a car and never drive to Manhattan. The congestion itself is already a disincentive; so I have no problem with congestion pricing. Take public transport everyone. I do think the elderly and disabled should be exempt from this surcharge though.
13
@Regular Person
Donald Trump loves you for suggesting that he should be exempt.
2
@Regular Person I live in Queens and never drive to Manhattan either. However I have a family member that must drive a company vehicle into Manhattan to make deliveries for work. His company will just pay the congestion fee...but they will also increase the price of the things they sell, accordingly. Even if we are not driving and not directly paying the fee at the point of crossing, everyone who consumes goods will be paying the fee in increased prices.
1
@Regular Person
Unfortunately, not everyone is physically able to take public transportation let alone have good access to it.
When I was little in Manhattan grocery stores received there-trucking goods at night not all day which is the practice now. Double truck parking has always been an issue but now with deliveries of everything all day long it’s impossiblie to curb abuse.
Streets that actually handled cars had bike lanes implemented that took away valuable lanes.
NYC has never addressed iinfrastructure nor had a plan probably since Robert Moses died and his plans were racist . All the exciting venues of New York City just don’t matter if you have to spend two hours in slow moving traffic to get anywhere in Manhattan. The Boro s are just as difficult to drive in as Manhattan no plan there either for traffic just bike lanes and a subway that is always dirty and late.
At the end of the day unless you were born here there is no reason to visit unless you want to pay attentional fees for nothing.
4
The already incredibly overcrowded subway system is ill prepared to take on all the additional riders that will be forced there because they can't afford these additional tolls. While this plan might relieve congestion above ground, the masses who use below ground transportation will suffer the consequences. You can only stuff so many sardines in a can.
7
The only people that will benefit from this are the wealthy. By imposing a congestion fee, this will discourage the average income person and make the streets more favorable for the wealthy that can easily shrug off this cost and drive their fancy cars to their corporate headquarters.
14
It’s time to start incentivizing companies to adopt work flex and remote cultures. If you have a desk job, there’s no reason to clog the roads just to sit at a desk. I work at a company that has fully embraced this setup and it has been wonderful for both employee retention and recruitment.
16
Our stunning reliance on cars for convenience when other modes of transportation are readily available is going to be our demise. It’s hard to watch wealthy techies commuting an hour plus each way in the Bay Area (I would know— I grew up in a town that has become a bedroom community for Silicon Valley, unhappily, and watched the tech boom and resulting congestion play out while in college at UC Berkeley). The less affluent mentioned in the equity considerations take BART and, in NYC, the subway. It is almost entirely in these cities the independently wealthy who insist on driving, whether it’s from Long Island and New Jersey into Manhattan or from San Francisco, which techies treat as a bedroom community, into Menlo Park. And they are those most resistant to the smallest changes to their lifestyles for the greater good. In 2019 and with climate change progressing as it is, there should be a massive tax on all who own and operate an independently-owned vehicle in addition to congestion pricing and anything else. Sadly, it seems our ability to drive free will supersede our ability to breathe clean air or for our children and grandchildren to enjoy this earth as we have known it.
1
Ride share services and crumbling subway infrastructure are to blame, and this blanket congestion pricing scheme is ill conceived to target these issues... If the funds collected actually go to fix the MTA, I will be pleasantly surprised.
1
Congratulations, New York. You successfully priced me out.
As a former New Yorker, I can no longer afford to even visit my hometown. If I were to take a trip to the city as I used to, to visit my old neighborhood in Brooklyn and then into Manhattan to see the West Village, where I lived until 1995, it would cost over $30 in tolls, and that does not include congestion pricing. (NJ Turnpike $5, Verrazano Bridge $19, Brooklyn Battery Tunnel $6) The anticipated amount of congestion pricing is around $15, bringing the cost of road tolls for a trip back to my hometown to around $45.
Besides this grossly inflated and utterly unjustified cost, there is the added detraction of congestion everywhere- massive traffic jams, crowded sidewalks and subways, and most people utterly oblivious, lost in their phones. A guaranteed headache, and it will cost $45*.
*does not include cost of fuel, vehicle wear & tear or parking
6
@Martin X
Take a train.
2
I have lived in both Manhattan and Singapore. Both cities have extensive mass transit. In Singapore the congestion pricing worked great. Everyone was used to it and it was just a part of life. After the initial grumbling I am sure the same thing will happen in Manhattan. This is an idea whose time has come. It makes sense and it works. Let's just dismiss with the grumbling and get on with it. Or shall we just sit in traffic and stew over it for a few more wasted hours?
7
Just like folks have acquiesced to paying $5 for a cup of coffee, they’ll pay these fees without thinking twice. And the congestion will remain. That’s New York.
10
Yet another article and ensuing comments from people who think it is necessary for everybody to live and work in one of a very few cities and then be entitled to affordable housing and easy commutes.
There are dozens of other cities around the country that provide perhaps 90% of the amenities for 50% of the cost and aggravation. But until the billionaire owners, for whom NYC or SFO is very affordable, decide to locate some of their worker bees elsewhere, not much will change.
4
So let me see if I have this right, a by-product of NY's unique economy is that there are so many successful people, it drives up the prices of EVERYTHING in the city and especially in Manhattan. People can't afford to live in Manhattan-proper, but want to stay in the city, so they move to an outer borough because they have no choice. Now, when they want to come back to the city, by car, they have to pay even more? Translation to all middle and lower income New Yorkers, leave Manhattan and don't come back (by car anyway). Obviously less congested streets are good, but for denizens of New York City, this isn't entirely fair.
5
Perhaps people who live in NYC, LA, Dallas, Houston, SFO and Chicago should be incentivized to live in less densely populated parts of the country.
I was in Mid-Town Manhattan a few years ago and could have walked off the island faster than the cab got me off, on my way to LGA. I had left the hotel at about 10:00 AM to avoid the worst of rush hour traffic. It is remarkable that people can live with this disheartening level of plodding congestion in their daily lives. I just could not do it.
2
How about the city add a small tax to all e-commerce deliveries. As the article mentions the proliferation of e-commerce is adding to congestion of the streets and in NYC our sidewalks. Small Amazon distribution centers spring up on our sidewalks daily, where couriers pick up loads of packages and deliver on foot. While this likely helps take trucks off the street it is a free commercial use of our public space that the city should be compensated for. With increasing rents and the competition of e-commerce small retailers throughout the city are going out of business, drastically transforming the diminishing the character of our neighborhoods. This tax will incentive people to have their packages consolidated so all items in an order arrive in a single filled box reducing the number of delivery trucks (and garbage trucks) on the street needed to support our e-commerce convince addiction. NYC could use this revenue to invest in public transportation making it easier for people to get to stores to pick up the things they need with same day self powered delivery or fund an affordable retail rent space program.
5
Congestion pricing is a worthy first step, but it only manages when vehicles enter, not which vehicles.
We need to start taking ownership of our cities and the air we breathe in every day. It’s time to demand Low Emission Zones. Countless big cities have done it before us, including London.
3
Our nit-wit politicians, who have zero aptitude to do any real jobs, think that they are going to rob us to drive on our own roads which we paid for without a serious court fight? Ot so fast!
5
You havent actually done it yet, it's a bit arrogant to start wondering who's going to "follow" you before you even find out how it's going to work on a day-by-day basis.
6
DeBlasio is doing a good job ruining my neighborhood, the East 90’s. First he allowed the ridiculous Marine Transfer Station to go forward putting hundreds of garbage trucks in the streets. He want to shoehorn a sky scraper into a public housing lot, redirect and reroute traffic and buses on 92nd Street and now congestion pricing. Not to mention the massive building projects going on everywhere including in the near further a full square block on 96th Street. I can’t begin to imagine how many people will get off the FDR at 96th Street, clog up the neighborhood looking for parking and jump on the 6 or the Q to go downtown. This is not progress.
5
I read this article and still have no idea how drivers will be charged this toll, will it be an extension of easy pass? How?
1
This is all about budget shortfalls. STOP SPENDING OTHER PEOPLE'S HARD EARNED MONEY. GOVERNMENTS ONLY SOLUTION IS TO RAISE TAXES. PRIORITIZE SPENDING .
8
I can see it now. Uber and taxis refusing to take people north of 60th to avoid paying the fee on the way back.
10
Taxis will probably be exempt, but the same might not be true for Ubers/Lyfts. If they don’t want to serve parts of the city due to the cost, they are welcome to surrender that portion of their market share. That’s how capitalism works.
@Samuel
Government privileging one class over another is NOT how it works. Rent seeking is the word you're looking for.
2
I hope one day only “Uber Green” cars are allowed for destinations south of 60th or thereabouts.
This is just one aspect of a much larger problem—economic growth. You can alleviate much of it with good public transportation, bicycles, and ride services; though the first two are hard-sells. Unfortunately, neither the environment nor our infrastructure can grow forever, though that’s what is implied in business news. Eventually, the economy and our standard of living have to shrink.
1
Congestion pricing is the increasing isolation and confinement of the wealthy to places of their own making. Will the revenue from the very good, but incomplete idea be applied to create efficiencies for the working poor who work within the space? I would like to think a better form of governance would impose an offset tax paid by the employers of the working poor in the economic exclusion zones that is passed through as non-taxable income to employees.
4
If only someone 200 or so years ago would have said, "Hey, I don't think it's a great idea to build a big city on a narrow island."
2
Just another way for government to steal money from the people and businesses when in fact they NEVER FIX THE SUBWAYS. I'm 60. Was a NY resident for 56 years. I've not seen anything but lies, corruption and mismanagement from the MTA, the State of NY and New York City when it comes to mass transit. I moved to Jersey and say good riddance to the city. Will visit now after hours only and use no doctors, dentists or other professionals there. Similarly, will never step foot into any of their stores or restaurants. Sadly, government has ruined everything when it comes to New York City.
11
@Angel
Hey, it's worse than that. Th city encouraged growth, namely uncontrolled building. About 1/3 of midtown streets are 1/2 closed to allow for construction (read: added congestion). Then they went "green" building dedicated bike lanes, bus lanes and parking lanes on avenues, restricting existing capacity of traffic to flow (read: added congestion). Then they adopted pedestrian safety and extended pedestrian safety zones on intersection and shortened green light signals reducing traffic flow and driver's ability to make turns efficiently (read: added congestion). Then the city smelled money in the Uber, Lyft, Via phenomena and allowed uncontrolled growth in hire cars, most of them with no rules and no clue how to drive in Manhattan (read: added congestion). They they thought biking would be a great idea so they allowed placement of Citi bike stations in places that obstruct traffic...all self made and self inflicted.
All the while, for reasons of municipal and political incompetence, they allowed the transit system to waste its capital on a slow deterioration.
Then, they said, "Oh, we have a problem with congestion! - What a great way to raise more money to cover own stupidity!"
Look at the real estate market recently. People are voting with their feet. Many are saying enough and simply giving up on the city. In the long run, is this the beginning of a self-inflicted death spiral?
1
It hasn't started yet. Will there be exception made for people who drive in and stay in a hotel in circumscribed area? Or returning a rental car? That is the way I have seen it done in Europe. How well thought out is this?
Congestion pricing is a horrible idea. This is my city, where I was born and bred. Now I have to pay a penalty to bring things to my daughter, who happens to work in Soho? Just like the lottery was supposed to fund education, which it never did, this is another regressive tax designed to obliviate what is left of NYC's middle class.
10
Take the subway to soho.
3
@Samuel Kind of hard to do with pots, pans, dishes, and clothing.
1
I am glad I am not a resident of the Upper East or Upper West Side. Actually, anywhere in Manhattan above 60th Street. Those folks are looking forward to massive traffic congestion, fierce competition for parking spots (if you have a car in those neighborhoods forget about ever being able to find on-street parking), and huge price hikes at parking garages. This will be a disaster for them as their streets become impassable.
6
Congestion pricing is OK as long as the commuter/public transportation system is in place for commuters who cannot afford congestion pricing. In Boston the T, especially commuter trains are horrible with less frequency and mechanical issues. Plus getting to the commuter station and parking is another hassle. Do what choice do we have.
2
As an Angeleno, I hope readers were impressed by the quote from our intrepid Mayor . He recently withdrew his consideration for a run for President so we’re stuck with him. His ambition is surpassed only be his ineffectiveness.
3
Charging Donald Trump and his ilk the same congestion pricing as a natural normal human being is an immoral inhumane abomination.
NYC leads the nation in billionaires and sub billionaires.
Let them pay billionaire and sub billionaire congestion pricing rates.
4
The real traffic problem is Uber.
48
The real traffic problem is too many people and not enough space.
6
Sounds like a good way to hamper any infrastructure upgrades. Another race to the bottom.
3
Let’s get this straight. Suburbanites drive into the city because the mass transit system stinks (I offer you the LIRR where I waited 20 minutes at a broken crossing gate last week), so let’s make them pay to drive in, so they are forced to get on an already overcrowded and poorly run mass transit system, with the belief that the MTA and our politicians will fix the mass transit system. This was announced on April Fools’ Day.
50
@Billy Bobby
People driving cars impose costs on society that other modes of transportation do not. They take up far more space per occupant, they are far more dangerous, they create far more pollution, etc. These costs are amplified when you place cars on streets in densely populated areas.
To offset these costs and help support more efficient transit services that serve far more people, paying a fee for the privilege of using your car makes perfect sense.
7
@AGuyInBrooklyn I’m not debating the efficiency of the auto, I’m debating the efficiency of the proposed resolutions and the political entities that have failed to fix it for decades while ridership was flush but now insist they can fix it with my money. To me, the real estate tax is a better tact. The city doesn’t need thousands of vacant high end apartments. I know doormen in NYC and some of their buildings are half empty for most of year except Christmas. That is not healthy for the city and neither is Uber or Lyft, but I bet you use uber and Lyft.
4
@Billy Bobby I agree with AGuyiInBrooklyn. I've never used an Uber, Lyft, etc, take the subway every day to work and all over town to socialize and very grateful to live in a place where there is robust public transport to help live green.
3
Here they go again, putting the cart before the horse. If you want to punish people for driving, you need to increase viable mass transit alternatives. Many NYC neighborhoods and bedroom community suburbs are poorly served by mass transit. The trains and buses there are, are often crowded beyond belief and increasingly unreliable.
9
@Working Mama
Had the IND 2nd System and Tirboro RX been built, more of the city would have had good transit. However, the bad economy is what got the MTA to shelve a lot of that. Unfortunately, many don't look at the causes to why there are those who end up driving and look only on the effects instead. The problem with those areas is that express buses and commuter trains were only designed for those with regular work schedules, but not for those who don't. For example, express buses only go to Manhattan during the morning rush hours while only coming back from there during the evening rush hours making it hard for those who don't go during those times. Meanwhile, commuter trains tend to have sporadic schedules throughout the rest of the day when it's not peak hours only to make driving much faster. There were even studies done that found out that those who who drove from such areas got to the city faster even with heavy traffic rather than those who didn't. Until that is fixed or mass transit is expanded to them, they will resort in driving a lot of times.
I am outraged by this. This is one city. The “outer” boroughs, a term never used until the last ten years, created an addional delineation, separation and class separation and now this? Lyft, Uber and overdevelopment created this mess.
7
I have heard the term “outer boroughs” ever since I was a child. I am 60.
Too many people have created this mess.
4
@Ozma the phrase “outer boroughs” has been in use since at least 1920.
2
I’ve been hearing the term “outer-boroughs” since I was a child in the 80s
1
How about paying people NOT to drive at rush hour. Incentives might work better.
6
I work in the Lincoln Square area and drive from Northern NJ. I exit the Henry Hudson Parkway @ 79th or 59th based upon the Waze data. Since the CP fee would be south of 60th, exiting at 59th is no longer an option since I’ll pay extra to drive that one block.
The 79th street exit will be backed up all the way to Albany by folks looking to park north of 60th str. The traffic light at 79th and Riverside drive is on a three sequence cycle. It takes 3 1/2 minutes to clear it.
Living or commuting through that area will not be pleasant and I see no other option than to expand the CP area to the entire Borough. No matter were the cutoff is the area local to it will have problems. This will have greater impact that previously thought.
13
Hopefully the plan will exempt licensed yellow taxi cabs but not Uber and other private cars.
Currently in place is a NYS Congestion Surcharge, for trips below 96th street in Manhattan, of 2.50 for yellow taxis, 2.75 for green taxis, but only .75 for livery drivers and 0 for private cars and I am not sure for Uber vehicles.
We can work with limits to yellow medallions issues to restrict overall yellow cab contributions to congestion.
Another solution would be to create loading zones for passengers and light freight deliveries such as UPS and Fed Ex. NYC prefers to receive ticket revenue rather than create zones and permits which in the past have been limited by statute on a cost basis to levels below ticketed penalties.
3
Hey Jim, Uber now charges a $2.75 surcharge on all Uber rides below 96th street, but this charge also applies to yellow cabs.
New York City should enforce its no-engine-idling laws. Car drivers routinely sit curbside with car engine running for long periods of time, causing harmful pollution and breaking the law. NYC should clarify and publicize who is responsible for enforcing the 3 minute limit (1 minute next to a school). Citizens can enforce the law with proper documentation and they get a percentage of fines collected. The city should publicize this information. TLC cars, for example, sit outside midtown office buildings and leave car running for extended periods of time. THE MAYOR should take a public stand on this-endorse enforcement or repeal the law. NYTimes has reported on these underlying facts. Enforcement yields revenue and cleaner air. The time is long past to take real action on this.
8
Yay!
I think this is great progress. Congestion pricing applies economic decision making to reflect closer to the real costs of driving and parking in the city. My hope is that the collected fees will be directed towards improving alternate commuting options for bikeways/bus/subway/commuter rail infrastructure.
I pray for success, that other cities may use this to help craft a partial solution to the intractable problem of congestion and that such programs spread to other cities. Namely B O S T O N.
2
@Mark Zieg
Not Boston....the T is horrible...for congestion pricing to work you need alternatives...Boston doesn't have it. Boston needs to extend the T to further out communities and then wrap a loop so that it serves Seaport, Cambridge etc. Seaport is a great example of shortsightedness...zoned and built up over the last 10-years yet no-one thought to extend the T before they built up all the skyscrapers
1
First, Article "forgot" to mention that Manhattan reduced the number of road lanes to make more bike paths (closed Times Sq, Herald Sq).....you would think that reduced travel times....so deliberate policy created this mess and then it gets resolved by tax.
Second, NYC is unique in that it has one of the most extensive subway systems for a large city in the country. London is similar. LA, Boston, Seattle, San Francisco just don't have good alternatives...this is why people drive...you have to go hand in hand.
Third, you know who this will truly impact in NYC? those in Queens, Bronx, Brooklyn...it will make Manhattan less accessible to them. It will also impact the remaining public housing people in Manhattan. The tax is regressive.
I used to live in NYC, enjoyed it when young, happy to get out and truly build wealth elsewhere. Glad didn't move to an NY suburb
8
This plan will create misery AND congestion and outlandish parking prices in upper Manhattan as Cars from New Jersey, Westchester, the Bronx and Queens enter upper Manhattan and park north of 60th Street in order to avoid congestion pricing. I own a car and park north of 100th Street. I have no congestion. At 5pm a couple of times per week, I drive down the upper west side of Manhattan at 20 miles per hour because I cannot manage to go down the stairs into the subway. Seniors who may otherwise be mobile will not be. And, if you think New York is congested, go to London sometime to see a city WITH congestion pricing and WITH far more congestion than I have ever seen in New York. This is not "congestion pricing" but rather a tax - largely on seniors - to support Albany's bloated democracy.
13
Congestion pricing will do nothing to alleviate traffic in NY, just as increased tolls did nothing to decrease traffic at the Lincoln Tunnel and other toll crossings, just as legalized gambling did nothing to lower school taxes, just as increased gas taxes (in NJ) did nothing to fix roads. What it will do is add another revenue stream for politicians to misuse, steal or waste. Given their spectacular inability to use wisely the untold billions they already take from us, why would anyone seriously consider letting them take more?
17
They can spin this all they want. It is just a money grab. They want more money to line the pockets of unions and official of the MTA. How long before the fee goes up after implemented because it is "adequate" to meet the needs? How long before they tell you that the cost of implementing the MTA "fixes" is more than expected? How long before some genius comes up with a new "innovative" way to soak more money out of the general public?
What this "need" for dollars to fix the MTA shows is that either the formula of "economy of scales" does not really work because if it did their would not be a need for all this money or that the MTA is a giant cesspool of corruption.
15
I'm all for lowering congestion in the city, but as someone who ran a construction company out of Brooklyn, and whose work was mostly in Manhattan, I can tell you it's got to be done in a way which doesn't squeeze the small construction company, or sub. Profit margins are very tight in the NY construction industry. I hope this doesn't squeeze out the smaller firms. One thing's for sure, prices are going to rise on rentals and renovations for new buyers, ensuring that only the uber-wealthy can afford to live in Manhattan.
6
Unfortunately, it will not work in Los Angeles. I live here and my 13 mile commute takes, on average, 1:10 in the morning and 1:30 in the evening. But public transport would take 1:40 and biking just as long.
Los Angeles is not a city like these others: we are 6-7 little cities near each other connected by neighborhoods: we’re not headed “downtown” but to 6 or 7 downtowns and everywhere in between.
Congestion pricing will only hurt Angelenos and I know I will fight it to the death.
I think about traffic A LOT and am convinced that self-driving cars are the future: I would gladly ride in one with 2-3 other folks each way everyday if given the opportunity and I know my boss would gladly pay for that instead of parking, especially with WiFi. That is the future of commuting in LA, not congestion pricing.
4
Fix public transit—quality and quantity—before imposing this in Boston!
3
This is what many have to do to get to their creative life's pastime we call work. They say most people won't use mass-trans---but if we tax oil to pay for totally free mass-trans---people will come.
9
Quite possibly the dumbest idea ever? If we continue to think that the solution to everything is to raise prices on it, we are doomed. Pretty soon, only the super-wealthy will be able to go anywhere. As a New Jerseyan, and someone who frequented Manhattan quite a lot when I was younger, I now hardly ever even want to go into New York City. Trust me, one of the major reasons why is because it's so expensive to get around there. And parking there, haha, well you better be ready to pay huge sums of money at a lot.
10
This is a tax to enter a wealthy city. Pay to play. Pay to work.
It will help them cover up decades of inept management of subway taxes, bridge and tunnel taxes, gas taxes, income taxes, state taxes, local taxes and commuter taxes that were all supposed to keep the subways running and bridges in good repair.
NYC is a goose that has been laying golden eggs. Let's cook it, say the politicians. Fine. The congestion will move to Florida. Everyone else has.
12
Most often it's Liberal ideology that slows, or most times stops the construction of new roads or bridges....environmental impact??
Union rates have made construction in the big cities too expensive.
Government regulations supported by Democrats - Liberals have made projects too costly.
1
Union labor also ensures/provides a livable wage. And the city skyline in NYC has been transformed mightily using union labor, particularly within the past five years. All to say, still plenty money to be made in the construction business. And the cost of labor, though a factor, has not inhibited building growth.
7
@JG there could be even more construction if it wasn’t so expensive due to Expensive unions and liberal regulations
New York City has proven it can’t provide more public transportation with its incredible 100 years long multi-billion dollar 3 station Second Avenue subway line construction project. More money for those money wasting scoundrels is throwing good money after bad.
8
One reason Michael Bloomberg was encouraged to implement the restaurant smoking ban was because it was successfully done in Dublin amidst the pub smoking culture. Why don’t I read about the results of Congestion Pricing in London? Is it successful? Does it alleviate congestion? Provide the revenue promised? The fact that neither Andrew Cuomo nor Bill DiBlasio point to good results in London makes me think it was not successful.
11
What a great idea! With the toll money the can build a moat.
Your taxes at work.
5
We keep trying to figure out gimmicks to overpopulation. In this case, of a city. In the larger case, earth.
There are serious consequences to violating the laws of balance and capacity. Which we ignore at our peril.
4
So lower east side residents have to pay to use their cars and upper east side and upper west side residents don’t? Smells like a tax on lower income folks to me.
16
Of course, the solution has to come through money. Those who have difficulty to afford a car they need to go to work will simply stop working. Alleluia!
1
New York makes it more expensive for people who can't afford to live where they work but won't touch the owners of empty mega million dollar apartments bought to launder and hide illegal money.
This is after the city allowed the construction of more such living places in the Hudson Yards for the rich site.
8
I am waiting for the study which accounts for all the extra traffic taken up by "ride sharing" apps like Uber and Lyft. Personalizing your transportation when there are lots of public options in places like NYC seems a luxury the planet really cannot afford.
7
One small part of an overall solution could be to require ride sharing companies to buy a car registered in a city for each car they put on the road in that city. Maybe they pay with free ride credits. At the least it forces an acknowledgement of their impact even if the net benefit is small.
1
Please bring this to Chicago where the response to increased traffic has been to turn multi-lane streets into single-lane streets. (Whose brilliant idea was this?) Add a per ride tariff of $0.50 or $1 to every lyft or uber ride and every dime of revenue goes directly to the CTA to improve public transit. Actually enforce traffic laws by aggressively ticketing double-parking, being a walker or a driver in the intersection when the light turns. Ban ride pickups (including taxis) on major arterials unless the cars are completely outside of traffic flow.
It’s not just that the number of cars on the streets has exploded, it’s that drivers have become increasingly rude and riders absurdly entitled. Give people big big tickets and tickets tied to the price of their cars would get people’s attention. (This system works in Finland.)
The worse traffic gets, the more frustrated we all become, the worse we behave behind the wheel and the worse traffic gets....
1
When it comes to spotting important trends, those to be emulated, I always turn to . . . Finland.
Hopefully if they follow it will be for the right reasons. Because 1. They have a great public transport in place 2. Because they manage livery and taxis correctly 3. Because construction activity is planned and monitored 4. Bike lanes and bus lanes are enforced
Beginning with the Bloomberg administration NYC deciced to tackle congestion without a plan for the subways and busses. Instead bike lanes were installed and pedestrian plazas were created without a plan for the subways. This has continued. And now the solution, after the roads have been narrowed and thousands of ride sharing cars, is to charge and again then fix the subways. As long as the subways are an afterthought, the issue will remain. People will avoid the subway and take a car. This is where London and other cities got it right and we have been getting it wrong.
Residents of the five boroughs should not have to pay this. We pay enough taxes as it is. This is just another tax squeezing the middle class while it will not affect the rich at all.
8
@Stewart
Some of the rich will be affected, but in a different way. Residents of the East and West 60s and 70s in particular, as they will be living in a perpetual parking lot as cars jostle to avoid crossing 60th Street!
1
@stewart Same goes for NJ residents who are already paying NY income tax exorbitant property taxes because NJ does not have the income tax revenue. Furthered by the fact that NY has been completely unwilling to help solve the metropolitan area’s transit woes as a whole! Needs to be a tri-state solution!
The single family house is the biggest contributor to the problem. Changing the land use development patterns has to happen as well so people can live in highest density neighbourhoods that support more rapid transit service. Why not forbid people who live within the urban boundary from owning cars? If they are in the city, they really have no need. Companies could also do more to spread their office facilities around a region so that people can live closer to work. It's astounding how many people don't live in the same city they work in.
1
@mjb being able to afford living in NYC, San Francisco, and other cities is out of reach for many people who must nevertheless work there.
4
Mayor Bloomberg estimated that NYC sends Albany a net amount of $20-30 Billion in tax revenue each year. So the shortfall of Mass Transit money is Albany's fault. Secondly if you believe that money raise from congestion pricing will go solely to mass transit you are delusional. The money from the lottery does not go directly to education, it goes into a giant pot of money that Albany hands out to their cronies. How about picking 100 of the worst intersections, buying cameras from Best Buy and charging $200 for every violation of blocking the box or driving in the bus lane? And no one seems to care about the people who live in Manhattan, how would you like to pay a fee every time you get into your car? I assure you not everyone in Manhattan is rich. The real issue is Uber, Lyft and whomever. We limit yellow cabs but not them. Next time you are walking take a look at the street, look at the plates, a large portion of private cars driving are hailing services. The bottom line is, do you trust our fearless leaders to spend this money wisely?
17
@Gary, NYC
I have for a long time been advocating for red-light, stop-sign, and speed cameras everywhere.
I would even put up noise meters to catch the inconsiderate drivers who think it's funny to blast their sound systems enough to set off car alarms.
If I had $150 dollars for every time I've stopped for a red light and the car behind me swerved into the next lane to pass the red light, I'd be rich. Or for every car that double parks in front of a certain apartment building and blasts the speakers for 20 minutes while waiting for -- what?
4
I live below 60th and have affordable parking provided by the garage owned by the cooperative where I live. My wife and I have 3 kids.
I'm trapped by this plan. The wife commutes to Fort Lee NJ each morning. I will also have to pay $11 to go shopping, help elderly relatives in the other boroughs, take the kids on trips.
You may see this plan as a way to tax a bunch of people who could just take the train instead. But I bet you own a car, and I bet you'd see it differently if someone charged you $11 every time you left your neighborhood.
Exempt the residents!
12
@Andrew
Put tolls on all bridges, not just the some, and add extra fees to Lyft and Uber.
Now that we don't use toll booths but just overhead cameras, the installation of the latter would take very little time.
It doesn't make sense to put tolls around one small section of Manhattan. The idea is to keep the cars out altogether. And obviously, for those who need to take elderly parents to doctors' appointments, why, they pay $25 to park, they can pay a toll to drive in.
2
@B.
Totally agree with your comment and others like it: "Put tolls on all bridges, not just the some, and add extra fees to Lyft and Uber." Spread the joy thoroughly!! Which will raise more money!! Corporations like Lyft, Uber, Amazon, and others should pay fareshare of taxes for the use and abuse of infrastructure!! Limit number of TLC-vehicles!! Add more cameras at intersections to ticket reckless drivers and reckless bikers/e-bikers!! All bikers/e-bikers should have to get licenses!! Hire more traffic workers to ticket construction sites and double parkers!! Really put cameras onto Express Lane buses so they can ticket all vehicles that use the Express Bus Lanes as private loading/unloading lanes!! Residential parking permits renewable annually for all Manhattan streets!! Surely I'm missing some other sensible revenue possibilities!! Why not spread the joy and go for all of it at once? Put portion of all these new revenues towards group that watch-dogs/analyzes MTA spending!! Upgrade subway, bus, and rail systems and add parking hubs for remote transit desert neighborhood and make all mass transit as accessible as possible including free/reduced fares for low income resisdents and elderly!!
1
1. Democratic-managed cities have issues with heavy traffic, fueled by a rise in demographics.
2. Democrats want open borders, sustained high-level legal immigration, sanctuary cities to harbor illegal aliens, and driver's licenses granted to said illegal aliens.
3. Ignoring the obvious link between points 1. and 2., Democrats have found the solution: tax anyone who'd like to use the public roads already paid for and maintained by their taxes. Done. And the fact that Albany is struggling to fund their budget has nothing to do with it, promise.
Congestion pricing sounds a bit like paying for something you already own. People wouldn't be paying for a privately-funded, non-necessary service, but paying on top of something they already pay for through taxes. There are other ways to encourage people to use public transport instead of confronting them with unjust, hostile policies; but that would entail a well-managed system, which seems to elude these particular cities.
7
Would be interesting to understand how this will be implemented without backing up traffic even more...
3
My kids commute 40 and 80 miles round trip each day to go sit at computers, and email the guy in another building. I think the world needs a new work from home approach.
98
Congestion pricing is a tacit admission of the abject political failure of local government to serve the population.
The intense congestion that is used to justify congestion pricing arises because local government has failed miserably to provide sufficient capacity streets and to provide public transportation which is comprehensive, frequent, operates at a reasonable cost, and is not unpleasant to use. The politicians then blame the public for the congestion and punish the public by raising taxes via congestion fees. The result of the additional taxes is that use of their cars becomes the province only of the financially fortunate and the less well off are forced to use the inferior alternatives that the incompetent politicians provide.
15
@Errol you make some very valid points. However I'd be interested to know why it was necessary in London, which has an excellent underground train known as the Tube.
1
@Roberta
My point is that congestion pricing would not be necessary if streets were adequate and if public transportation was desirable and efficient enough to attract sufficient use to relieve enough of the need to use cars on the streets. If London had to resort to congestion fees, then London politicians also have failed to serve their public.
Not only did politicians fail to address the needs of the public, they serve their own selfish interests by using their own failure to justify raising taxes. Those taxes become the source of more money for the politicians to spend on their favored projects and their favored segments of the population.
The failed politicians will usually use some of the added congestion taxes to finance continued very inefficient operation of poor quality public transport. That would usually obtain support for the taxes from the public employee unions and, of course, from environmentalists. It is all a deceitful game that turns attention away from the politicians' failure which produced the congestion in the first place due to the insufficient streets and expensive but poor quality public transport that the politicians provided.
@Errol There simply isn't enough area in a space like Manhattan to provide "sufficient capacity streets" and maintain a quality of life for people who live there.
It is not someone else's "right" to drive through my neighborhood at some high rate of speed. We would like our children to be able to walk outside, play on the sidewalk, without a higher degree of fear than anywhere else. We would like our differently-abled persons, and seniors, to not suffer. We don't want our air more polluted. And living in a dense urban area is a more environmental choice.
You can't build your way out of this situation, excepting effective transit. The US is late to this solution, sadly, left in the dust by cities with great public transit around the world.
1
In my city, we have expressways that are underutilized with neighborhood streets congested by drivers avoiding the tolls on those interstates. After a pedestrian was killed, the city installed laser light crossing lanes, better bike lanes, and a host of other improvements to keep our city walkable and safe. Whereas other cities are going with this new pricing - and I applaud them for doing something - it appears we need to reduce the price on our pristine/modern expressways.
1
Somehow I have lost faith in in this State, as we have such a huge budget ,that anyone knows for certain where these surcharge dollars go and how this money is spent.
This is evidenced by our own NYC Mayor's wife's mental health
supporting services that has over 700 millions of tax dollars assigned to it ,and as reported can not account for several hundred million dollars missing for that social services group.
What happened to accountability and honesty?
11
Nowhere in the article is it explained how "congestion pricing" will be implemented. Putting tool booths around congested areas? That would slow traffic even more. Photograph license plates of cars in the area and send the owners a bill? That would probably be considered an invasion of privacy. How was it done in London? The article doesn't say. This is all too abstract for me.
I notice that my home city of Atlanta, which has huge traffic problems, isn't even mentioned in the article. Is that because it hasn't gotten on the "congestion pricing" bandwagon?
1
Atlanta is sprawling compared to New York. Congestion pricing isn’t apples to apples. People need to drive in metro Atlanta but not Manhattan.
After 100 years of relentlessly advertising personal automobile ownership as a necessary way for Americans to find freedom, power, sex, and personal expression it will be all but impossible to convince people otherwise. Look at the damage to the American psyche caused by the Cold War which only started as recently as 1946. As we have lately seen, millions of Americans still fear and hate Russia. Good luck undoing a century of marketing.
So now, cars are bad.
Ok. Let's try one more time to get commuters to go from personal cars to mass transit. Didn't London seriously encourage and incentivize this by make buses free in their Congestion Zone?
And if the aim is really to get drivers into mass transit, and not just to soak people with a new tax, why will delivery trucks be charged this fee? Do those drivers really have the choice of using a bus or a train to bring in all the food and consumer goods that Manhattan - and the rest of the area - relies on?
Further, if we should have learned one thing from the days of Robert Moses to the present day, it is this: NOTHING we do EVER makes traffic better. Nothing.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
11
One could argue Robert Moses was/is largely responsible for today’s congestion in NYC. His road/bridge projects opened up the city to suburbanites living in the surrounding communities. Suburbanites comprise the majority of those travelling into and through the city for work and/or pleasure. Arguably most of the costs will be shifted to them, and not to locals.
2
@JG: These points may or may not be arguable, meaning subject to refutation. What is inarguable however, is the undeniable fact that nothing has ever eased our traffic. The current NYC traffic situation is, inarguably, the end result of decades of schemes implemented to ease traffic. I agree with you about Robert Moses, because history bears this out.
So why not just ban cars in the city altogether and funnel commuters into mass transit? Then let's watch mass transit crumble.
Funding mass transit with a tax designed to discourage car use makes no sense at all. These are mutually exclusive ideas. Let's call a tax a tax. And we need to remember one bitter truth: All the major traffic (and environmental) problems we now face began as somebody's brilliant idea to make things better. Every Yin has its Yang. Usually, unforeseeable.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
2
@JG
The traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge is pretty awful during rush hour. Most likely it's not suburbanites but Brooklynites driving home.
But let me say this: You can always tell what the new hot neighborhood is.
Decades ago, when coming home from visiting a cousin or taking a weekend points north, I used to exit the BQE in Williamsburg in order to cut through Brooklyn, get to the Brooklyn Museum, and then cut through to Flatbush. Nowadays, the exit to Williamsburg is jammed, and it's almost better to stay on the BQE.
Similarly, I used to get off the Prospect Expressway at Windsor Terrace and then take Coney Island Avenue to Ocean Parkway and thence to Flatbush, but now the Windsor Terrace exit is jammed and it's better to slog along on the Prospect.
Things change. One thing is true: There are a lot more cars on the road, and that's due mostly to Lyft and Uber.
3
Granted, the congestion in our major cities is at a breaking point. But, does anybody truly believe that his tax will have any significant impact on the MTA and the subway system in NYC? If I was going to start a business, NYC would be the last place on earth to do so.
5
London introduced this many years ago. The friends and relatives we have over there said the added cost did nothing to reduce or alleviate the congestion. Traffic is thicker and heavier than ever.
I understand the need to find more revenue sources, but for crying out loud, then just say that instead of masquerading the real intent is.
What will be next, cameras that will ticket cars that run red lights?
12
@Marge Keller
Red light cameras already have made a substantial presence in Providence, RI - and are ruthless.
6
@Marge Keller We already have cameras that ticket cars that run red lights.
3
@Marge Keller
Chicago has the red light cameras too. I should have known you folks had them long before us.
Well, it looks like yet another revenue source is coming your way. Really sorry to read that because congestive taxing has little, is any effect or impact on the amount of traffic that enters the city. I would not be surprised if Chicago will be right behind you. Good luck.
5
It makes sense. As a good walker, I will do well. But , please, when planning the details make provision for wheelchair users and other elderly or handicapped people who will have trouble getting around. I took the train from New Jersey and walked from PennStation to the lower east side on a beautiful Saturday. But when I take my son in to the City with his wheel chair, I simply must drive. Public transportation is simply too hard, at least now. Please don’t make me give up my museum memberships!
7
I love to visit NYC. A great place. But the road congestion is ridiculous. Ban all private autos except licensed taxis and license Uber and Lyft. Only taxis, buses and service/delivery vehicles should be allowed in parts of the city. Experiment by limiting traffic to a core area and see how it works.
1
@Joe But Joe there is no money in that idea. Politicians LOVE money
3
Why not offer companies and employees tax refunds if work is done 2 days a week from home (if that is a possibility for that category of work)?
5
This article makes the assumption that congestion pricing is designed to reduce cars on the roads....its really designed to extort the last few dollars from a beleaguered citizenry.. where that money goes is anybody's guess.
16
@Lonnie No guess, politicians pet re-election graft programs.
2
There is no way to come up with a plan which doesn't hurt the poor? How about what France did well over a decade ago in Paris during pollution alerts? Allow only even numbered plates on even days, odd numbered plates on odd. Voila! 50% of the cars off of the road. Oh wait, that might inconvenience the wealthy.
7
@Gerry Power. Nah, the wealthy just buy another car so they have both even and odd plates available to them.
4
New York embraced congesting pricing? I think not. Just more money to be lost by mismanagement and corruption. Also turning more people to a mass transit system that is unreliable and already overcrowded. due to said mismanagement and corruption. Hmmm.
17
Congestion Pricing : A win for the Rich
That 's what it is. Wake up NY Times
8
The congestion is partially a result from decrepit subway system thats riddled with corruption and wasteful spending. Limit cabbies, limit deliveries during peak hours but above all get a modern day transit system, its pathetic that so little has changed in subways system since turn of the century. The MTA should be wiped out. $2.75 per ride and the system is always delayed, not running, disgusting stations, etc. Mass transit should be nearly free, specially with what we pay in taxes...... do that and you'll see a lot less cars.
7
Gee.
As a cyclist I’ve been arguing for this for the last ten years. Make it $1,000 to drive in alone. That will change things quickly.
Also. Anyone earning above 5 million a year returns 90% to the government. Then those piggies will stop wasting.
Help me out with this. NYC is starting congestion pricing below 60th Street. Why stop there? There is a whole lot of Manhattan above that Street. Your telling me there is no traffic congestion up by Columbia University? Every time I drive up 125th Street in Harlem there is plenty of traffic.
If you have to commit to congestion pricing, do ALL Manhattan not just below 60th street . You know the way NYC politicians think. If they can get away with congestion pricing below 60th street, don't you think all Manhattan is up for grabs. Bite the bullet now and make all Manhattan open to congestion pricing. Otherwise, you will be battling future congestion pricing neighborhood by neighborhood.
4
@Danny
True. The best way to limit cars' coming into Manhattan is putting tolls on all bridges, not just some: the Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg, 59th Street, Second Avenue, and so on should have tolls. Why are Staten Islanders and those living in the Rockaways subject to tolls and not the rest of us?
My commute by subway, one way, every day, for almost 40 years, was 1 1/2 hours. You can get a lot of reading done in three hours a day.
2
Well,40 years of commuting an hour and a half on the subway to work is laudable. I hope you will be able to retire soon. I'm retired and spend half the year in Florida. It is a good gig. Be well
2
Lemme see if I've got this straight. You have a fixed area, say a city, country or even a planet. You keep adding more and more people to the same fixed area and are shocked! Shocked! That it keeps getting more crowded. It doesn't occur to anyone that the basic concept of unlimited growth, especially human population in a fixed area is on the face of it insane?? Would you do this at your home? Just keep adding people without ever facing up to the fact that it's nuts? Until humans realize that we cannot continue to add people to the same sized environment and not face up to the numbers, the environment and our lifestyle will continue to deteriorate. The problem facing NYC and the planet is all the same. Too many people. Until we face this basic fact, no matter how incompatible it is with right and left wing political agendas, nothing will get better. Not crowding, not global warming, not pollution, nothing. Time to stop ignoring the elephant in the room.
48
All these cities mentioned in the byline are Democratic majority in Democratic states. They have benefitted tremendously by the last two decades of economic growth, yet when was the last time any of these cities built a full subway line? Where is all the tax money going? If there was anything to give you doubt that the Democrats have all the answers to our problems, it's their inability to build anything at reasonable cost.
Remember that the vast vast majority of NYC's subways were built when the system was still private.
110
@Jonathan
Oh, good grief.
First of all, "these cities" are all quite distinct. Second, highly congested NE and Central EC cities - as well as LA and SF - have very serious difficulties even beginning to start on major public transportation/road disruption projects. Third, Republicans have hardly been big on public transport. Fourth, city taxes are not designed to support major transportation issues.
Finally, for the most part, this is really not a partisan issue. We USians like our private cars, and we are not terribly good at long range thinking: my commute gets worse for 2 years so that it all gets better for the next 20? horrors, no.
61
Ahem - NYC opened the first section of the 2nd Avenue subway in 2017 - a completely new line.
The cost of subterranean transport is considerable given modern safety procedures. The dig and fill process that built the majority of New York’s ‘private’ system also led to considerable injuries and deaths, not to mention occurred at a time when the immigrant workforce had little to no rights and certainly weren’t making anything close to a living wage.
To your point on red vs. blue - it’s well known that tax funds are funneled from many of the more productive ‘blue’ states to fund improvement projects in many less productive ‘red’ states.
116
@Jonathan. Go ahead. Build more: roads, tunnels, bike lanes, whatever. You are just treating the symptoms , not the disease. Population growth will eventually overwhelm any techno solution. This is just as true for city congestion as it is for GW.
17
New York City did not "embrace" congestion pricing - it was shoved down our throats. Several years ago there was a vote on it, and we voted it down. This time there was no vote at all. Most people driving into midtown NY (from NJ, Westchester, Long Island, etc.) will continue to do so, with one person per car; they're wealthy enough to pay the cost and just shrug it off. So the streets will remain congested. And the money collected will continue to be mismanaged, just as it has been for decades. Will "congestion pricing" fix the MTA's mismanagement of funds? Or will it just give them more funds to mismanage? I think we all know the answer to that one.
238
I believe it’s wrong to assume that everyone driving can afford it and just shrug the heavy fees off. I drive everyday to NY. I am a small business owner with 63 employees. My business depends on vehicles in Manhattan. This proposed fee will Gabe tremendous consequences in me and my employees.
24
@CHN
The funds aren't mismanaged so much as stripped. Politicians, Gov. Cuomo included, routinely steal money from the MTA's budget and tell them to make do. As a result, the MTA suffers an absolutely staggering backlog of deferred maintenance.
Voters are complicit in this arrangement. They'll cheer every ribbon cutting. However, they don't reward politicians when the subway simply works. Politicians have no incentive to invest money in the subway when no one is complaining. Cuomo will only ever pay attention when something breaks. That's not a great strategy for the long term viability of any infrastructure. Look at the collapsing levees in the Midwest.
If you really want more detail, read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-system-failure-delays.html
15
@CHN
As long as the MTA is a dystopian hellhole for the nearly 9 MILLION riders who rely on it every single workday, I couldn't care less about how congested the streets are.
And decades of living here has taught me that no administration, city or state, actually cares about fixing it.
5
London very successfully introduced congestion pricing with a noticeable difference in traffic volume; not sure what they did with the revenue but it certainly does not seem as though they invested it in mass transit, as NY has proposed doing.
Singapore has had a CBD (Central Business District) surcharge for years; without a doubt, traffic moves better there than any other country in Asia.
NY is long overdue in taking this step.
252
@Christine Houston
But if traffic volume goes down so does the revenue from the fee. And this is will be just from people who decide to go elsewhere.
3
London’s ‘decrease’ in traffic attributed to congestion pricing has...decreased.
For awhile traffic speed increases, CO2 emissions decreased, things were going well. They also added 500 buses Judd prior to activating the pricing. No plans to to add buses or subway cars in NYC.
London’s East End rejuvenated (better word?) there are ride share apps...do the math. The congestion pricing doesn’t matter there and it will NOT matter here.
And I reiterate, again and again, the biggest transit system in the world needs improvement absolutely but it’s like no other in the world, has improved over the years, and will get better.
NY already has a transit tax - the NYC MCTMT is a separate tax businesses pay that goes directly towards (or is supposed to?) the transportation system.
If people have to drive, they have to drive...nothing is going to change that. Never has, never will. It’s not folks joy riding or cruising around the city for kicks, its people getting where they got to go. Most people who live here don’t drive in unless they need to.
Nowhere to park these days anyway. Well...there is if you know where/when to look.
And if they had gone ahead with a more realistic pied à terre tax instead it would have been FINE. Cuomo and friends cowing to donors. No one will stop buying property here. Developers keep building. Taxpayers move in ...more revenue to fix things.
11
@Christine Houston
Actually, CP has had little impact on London traffic, which is still awful. Singapore keeps traffic low primarily by charging huge fees to own a car, not CP. With 100k Ubers on the road in NYC and increasing truck traffic, which won’t be impacted by NYC’s CP plan, I doubt we’ll see more than a minimal impact on congestion.
21
I'm OK with congestion pricing as long as:
-- the hole at the bottom of the MTA money bucket is plugged
-- the money from this regressive tax goes into an MTA locked box
-- the number of double-decker tourist buses is capped (at maybe 10)
-- the number of Lyft/Uber cars is capped
-- a use-audit of midtown bike lanes is conducted and unused bike lanes are removed
-- the commuter tax is restored, with all monies from said tax dedicated to the now-repaired MTA bucket
3
About time
We were taught this obvious and simple solution, a move to full-cost pricing, in grad school econ in the late 60s. And Rome undertook the variant of banning private traffic in the City Center in 1970.
Meanwhile, we were too busy getting ready to toss our planned changeover to metric.
Y'know, this used to be the most advanced country in the world. Did something happen?
1
I'm all for trying it, esp. to raise money for public transit. But I'm in London about every other month and if you think it's reduced congestion there significantly, you're delusional. Still, it's worth a try, and I drive into and out of Manhattan often enough that it will cost me.
I do worry about unintended consequences, though, the most recent example being bike lanes, which in my Manhattan neighborhood have enhanced congestion and effectively reduced moving traffic to two lanes on 7th Avenue and increased danger to elderly pedestrians due to lack of enforcement of bikers whizzing up the lane in the wrong direction. I do hope they make it safer for cyclists, but I stop people from crossing dangerous bike lanes a couple times a month (usually food delivery bikes speeding uptown in a downtown lane.)
New York ain't Copenhagen.
1
Gentrifiers are now coming for your cars.
This is just more tolls and taxes for the outer boroughs by those who think that since they don't need to drive, nobody else should do it. This doesn't compensate for decades of city planning designed to make people drive, terrible subway service, removing express bus stops, lack of interborough school buses for citywide schools, or any other lack of viable alternative to driving.
20
Has this idea worked anywhere? Is London less busy traffic wise? Or is this just another tax?
4
I fully support this as we've witness and experienced the congestion rise with ubers etc. We live midtown and spend nearly half our time upstate. Unfortunately my elderly/disabled parents are way out in Brooklyn where I regularly visit them for doctors and dentist appointments involving travel. Will likely cut back a bit on those visits as this makes it too expensive on top of tolls, gas etc. A better solution would be for all neighborhoods to have affordable assisted living so one needs not rely on cars. i'd also rely more on trains and buses if at least some permitted pets. Inaccessible supportive living for my parents and pet rules forces one to use cars. Also congestion rules does hurt low income individuals more but the city needs this. Already, only the wealthy residents can afford the cost of monthly parking the rest compete ruthlessly for street parking. They dedicate days to it. This will hurt the poorer residents.... maybe an article on balancing the burden. Its an imperfect and bias policy but needed.
2
Let’s a price on carbon emissions and ban ICEs in cities while we’re at it. If the downtown is going to be clogged no matter what by people who will shrug off the cost of congestion fees, force them to spend on electric vehicles.
1
Ride a bike, or a Vespa, or a motorcycle even.
Walk, take the bus.
It works in cities like Amsterdam and Copenhagen.
2
Those are self-contained cities. The congestion pricing is for entering the city. Should everyone outside DC ride a bike on the Beltway to get to work?
This is what happens when housing in cities is built only for the wealthy.
6
@Anne Hajduk
Actually, bike trains might not be a bad idea.
Take your bike on a train on the beltway.
Maybe the Times should wait a few years to see what the impacts of congestion pricing turn out to be before they write irresponsible headlines such as this one. As a planner I would recommend that other cities watch our experience in implementation before jumping on the bandwagon. This program may have fiscal, environmental, and economic impacts on the City that are as yet unforeseen or unintended.
NYC is not London and large parts of the City have no access to public transit, which will not be extended by this program. At best, existing transit lines may be improved, but based upon past MTA and NYCT history, it is unlikely that this will occur. It is even less likely that improvements will be made in the far outer borough areas that need them the most.
4
The lack of adequate public transit into and around cities is a major factor that could be addressed by converting at least one lane of traffic in each direction into a light rail transit corridor. The other major new factor adding to congestion are outfits like Uber and Lyft, that have brought many more cars onto city streets than ever before. And, if nothing else, we should look to European cities for successful precedents and be willing to adopt ideas that have worked there.
9
@Karekin And have you estimated how many millions of dollars your light rail would cost?
1
@Jackson Let's not forget, this is the richest country in the world, and NY is the richest city in America. Get a grip. Where there's a will, there's a way....
Why not a simple $3 gas tax. Equitable? sure, all drivers pay. Downsides? the price of food and all delivered items would increase. Upsides? beside lower traffic, it becomes a proxy of carbon tax, approximating the real cost of driving including externalities (environmental costs) as well as infrastructure. It's worked in Europe, though geographically the US is different to be sure.
2
@deedubs
You do realize that this sort of tax is what sparked the Yellow Vest protests in Paris, right?
A $3 gas tax disproportionately burdens lower and middle class individuals. How is that equitable?
An overhaul of public transit infrastructure followed by a congestion tax would be the more equitable solution. The only way to keep people from driving is to make the alternatives to driving cheaper and more convenient.
9
And this approach is inequitable. The problem is midtown//downtown Manhattan traffic. How is it fair to burden someone who never visits that area, much less contributes to the problem. This charge is tailored to the problem it seeks to fix.
1
London has led the way with this.
Stop offering free parking in the congested area too. Ridiculous that people who can afford to own a private car in Manhattan are given a free pass.
11
And what about the abuse of Permit Parking around police precincts.
Free parking in the collective bargaining contracts.
Congestion pricing is nothing more than the old small Southern town speed trap to enrich their coffers by squeezing money out of drivers. The congestion in Manhattan has been manufactured by the myriad so called "improvements" to traffic flow that slow down traffic, such as left turn signals, no turn allowed signs that cause cars to go blocks out of their way, bike lanes, bus lanes, closing off Broadway for pedestrian islands, allowing so many new uber taxis, camera traps, etc. It's all mainly a way to raise revenue without having to raise the taxes of the wealthy.
28
Does congestion pricing effect Trucks and delivery vehicles? How bout Uber or Lyft drivers? Credit for Bronx and Brooklyn drivers but not for queens or NJ commuters? Albany, do it or don’t. When will you elected geniuses ever learn? You’ve just moved the congestion from Manhattan to the outer burrows.
3
Rabbits live in burrows; we live in boroughs
13
This is the wolf of public sector labor costs in the sheep's clothing of less congestion and greener enviros.
4
This sounds like a handout for the Transit Unions.
4
Yeah, the cities have warmed to "congestion" pricing for getting into them. Who's actually responsible for this? Who built the roads and bridges to begin with? Not foresighted enough? Business triumphs over all, but make the plebes pay!! And now we have Trump as POTUS. People will just go to work early to avoid having to pay the "congestion" price. "congestion" will start at 4:30 and noon. Who's kidding whom here?
I once lived in what is now Silly Valley and people used to brag about leaving Watsonville (way south) and driving 2 hours to get to work. Now 101 is even more hopeless.
Population control. Or is that just too radical? Is there really any lack of people or cars anywhere?
5
Face it, governments are going to take, take, take. Now that the high tax Democrat State cant deduct their State taxes from their Fed returns expect these tax and spend States to get ruthless in their quest for more revenue
5
China has come close to finishing connecting all of its mid size towns and cities with bullet trains.
They have highly modern and capable within city train systems.
In the USA?
Our plan is to charge drivers of cars a huge amount of money to sit in traffic and go nowhere.
Maybe that is the fundamental flaw in our system now.
All we can do is charge people a lot for doing nothing.
13
@Michael China also has a billion people.
There's one thing NYC has that most of these other cities do not: robust public transit (ok maybe the subway is currently a bit lackluster, but the point stands). Public transit needs to come first, otherwise congestion pricing is just an easy way out of a complex problem that will eventually blow up in your face with the voters. LA considering congestion pricing at this point is a sad joke.
17
Sure I’d embrace congestion pricing in Philly, but only after the city takes real steps to help traffic, especially in Center City. Every day I see cars blocking the box, which delays other private vehicles and buses. I see cars parking in a lane (in a 2 lane street) causing bottlenecks. I’ve even seen 2 cars parking in parallel lanes causing a total standstill. Hand out some tickets and that box will clear right up.
If traffic is so bad on streets like Walnut and Chestnut, why is there street parking? On a 3 lane street, get rid of parking and turn it into a drop off lane for the uber/Lyfts/service vehicles who park in the lanes. People can park in decks. There are stretches of the day where easy- west blocks totally empty because the bottlenecks are so bad.
Congestion pricing won’t work when it’s bad behavior. It’s a solution, but it won’t fix the whole problem.
10
The NYT in the last few months that there has been a decrease of about 90,000 commuter cars into Manhattan since 2012. Also that most of the MTA's cash problems stem from poor management and fraud. Congestion stems from taxis and delivery vehicles, both on the upswing for the convince of the upper economic dwellers of Manhattan. Yet somehow thee people who are not served by public transportation will be asked to shoulder the cost. Fair and equitable? Not even close!
28
Congestion pricing will merely shift traffic and parking issues into the outer boroughs. Instead of driving in to Manhattan, many already park in Brooklyn or Long Island City and take the last leg via public transportation. These neighborhood within easy reach of Manhattan are already under tremendous pressure from development currently underway. Congestion pricing will increase their traffic and parking issues, lowering the live-ability of these areas, as well as place additional costs on those who work there.
29
Use the money for bike lanes and linear walking parks instead and I’m all for it.
1
THe future is efficient, comfortable public transit. Teenagers are passing on driver licenses in droves. The love affair with cars is an old folks romance. Build efficient, comprehensive metro transportation systems while interest rates are low and infrastructure is desperately needed.
216
@dennob. You mean like Tokyo where they use crowbars to jam more people into their public transportation? When your civilization chooses to live the lifestyle of an ant heap, that's what it will look like. You can sugar coat it, but that won't change anything. Too many people is simply too many people.
10
@Al
Clearly you've never been to Tokyo, where public transportation is inexpensive, comprehensive, spotlessly clean and punctual to the minute. They also have convenient high-speed rail transportation from the two major airports directly into Tokyo, in contrast to the patchwork mess in NYC to get from JFK/LGA/EWR into downtown. That's what a world-class city looks like in 2019.
95
Totally agree. I have traveled many places in the world both poor and rich countries. All of those countries have way better , efficient public transportation systems than USA. I have been trying to live in USA without a car. It is very difficult. Time has changed. Owning a car is really out of trend.
11
It makes perfect economic sense to charge according to demand, so long as there are affordable substitutes. And in New York there are. The problem is the view of driving as a necessity versus driving as a luxury. If you’ve ever been without a car and can get to work in a reasonable amount of time anyway, then your car is a luxury. If you live in a city (suburb) where getting to work without a car is either impossible or ridiculously difficult, a car is a necessity. Where it’s a necessity, road use should be charged like a public utility - reasonable cost-of-service. Where it’s a luxury, price it at what the market will bear. The Maserati and Tesla owners can afford it, and the working poor won’t be forced to pay it because there’s a good substitute.
2
Congestion pricing is a totally unfair response to a problem not created by the people it will punish. It's eminently unjust and discriminatory, literally a flat tax imposed on simply going to work. Those of low and middle income will be taxed heavily compared to their economic status, while for the wealthy it's pocket change.
So the wealthy will be utterly unaffected by this tax - except that they won't have to share space with the lower classes - while the rest of the people pay the price. Of course, that's nothing new in this economy, which has become capitalism run wild.
The improvements in public transit promised by those who are imposing this flat tax are mere fantasy at this point, and even if those promises are kept, they will be a very long time coming.
And meanwhile, those who can least afford it are going to pay, and pay, and pay, while the wealthy won't notice anything - well, except for the removal of more impediments to their enjoyment of life.
I hope New Yorkers rebel against the imposition of yet another slap in the face. At some point, they're going to have to realize that capitalism has to be managed and regulated - controlled - if it's going to be a fair way to run an economy.
36
@William LeGro Very good point! Maybe the 'congestion pricing' should be in the form of a city imposed excise tax on cars, that scales up with value?
2
Except for the fact it won’t, Jeff. Despite the phony reports on CP reducing traffic, it has barely had an impact in London and SG. Our leaders aren’t even pitching it as a traffic reducer any more. It’s purely a money grab to supposedly fix public transport, something that could have been done progressively.
If this was really about traffic, the city and state could have limited car services from the current 100k drivers to 50k drivers and imposed time restrictions and fees on midtown and downtown commercial deliveries.
8
@JeffPutterman why is he wrong? I would say his point that it's a regressive tax is spot on.
4
NYC transit is in dire straits and Congestion pricing is supposedly the savior of with proceeds going directly to fund capital improvements. I hope NYS will properly direct the funds to the MTA and otherwise Congestion pricing will absolutely alter the behavior of commuters into the city. NYC itself must plan and prepare for these changes, but ultimately beyond the implementation of the plan there will positive consequences such as better health through less polluting vehicle - less pedestrian accidents and perhaps more innovations in urban planning that benefit residents, commuters and visitors alike.
1
We have already lived with Congestion Pricing on highways with Diamond Lanes for a long time.
4
@Amy What did you just say? Do we get charged for HOV?
2
@Amy: HOV was the promised savior about 15 years ago or so.
How'd it work out?
Every time I see an HOV lane, it is empty or nearly so.
New Yorker's have not embraced Congestion Pricing, nor have they wanted it nor are they doing it environmental reasons. New Yorker's have had Congestion pricing shoved down their throats on the argument that the Subways will collapse without it. There is no fare increase that can raise the money and nothing else left to tax. Now comes the NIMBY and Environmental lawsuits over the EZ pass gantry's and camera flashes at the tolls - traffic and parking nightmares north of 61st Street. Let's talk in 2025.
6
Wasn't one of the arguments for developing the ride share industry into what it is now reducing cars on the road? Guess that didn't work out too well.
33
@Morgan
Go figure, people who own cars would rather drive themselves instead of waiting to be picked up by some guy navigating by phone. To say nothing of the fact that, per-mile, paying for gas with your own car is less expensive than uber/lyft fare by a ridiculous margin (the price of an uber or lyft to get me to work and back for 1 day would be enough for a full tank of gas, which lasts me more than a week of commuting and running errands).
It seemed obvious to me the intended market was for people who don't own cars.
1
Then Mayor Newsom had seen congestion pricing in cities like Singapore, London and Zurich. And thought it was a great idea for SF. It was then and still is 15 years later a ridiculous proposal as SF, and with it all West Coast cities just don’t have a public transport system to speak of. So commuters don’t even have a choice and congestion pricing is just money grab. In addition traffic jams are on federal highways that the cities don’t have jurisdiction over.
4
I have been it work in European cities. I hated getting that bill from the rental car company 2 months later but I didn't mind that easy driving. America leads the way in a lot of things. America is way behind in a lot of things.
16
What cities? Certainly not London, where traffic is still awful.
3
@dennis
Clearly a tourist when visiting....sure paying an extra toll for short trip is chump change...but imagine the people who will pay this every day....with a lack of alternatives, it doesn't reduce congestion, it just raises prices.
Miami has automatic tolls. You get the bill later. That should work. You could even allow people to drive through once a year or so, making it free and easy for visitors. Also mandate that the profits go exclusively to public transportation. And don't make it excessively punitive.
But of course it cannot be a standalone solution.
5
@Bluestar
"Miami has automatic tolls. You get the bill later"...
We already have the same exact system here. This is not about installing new and revolutionary technology. It's simply a toll increase to generate revenue and, since our train, bus and subway systems are already overcrowded and can't carry more passengers, it will not get vehicles off the road.
Until more mass transit is built, the only real solution to getting cars off the road is to have them carry more than one passenger. Currently, the HOV lanes, where they exist, carry only a fraction of the commuter traffic. If we need more money for mass transit fine, then let's simply state that as the intention.
3
What about those with disabilities and mobility issues who can’t use public transit? This will unfairly tax those folks as well. In addition if cities remove all parking folks with disabilities have nowhere to park that makes downtowns accessible to all.
3
@Lwl
People with disabilities cannot take public transit? If you can't ride the light rail, you probably can't drive. But, in that event, there exists special public transportation vehicles for those who need them. You see them today. Everywhere.
1
@dennob NYC doesn't have light rail. We have lots of overhead and subterranean subways that don't have elevators and are not wheelchair accessible. A person in a wheelchair can drive a retrofitted vehicle much easier than they can navigate those subways. There have been lawsuits about this and it's still not fixed!
1
Safe efficient bike routes (PROTECTED LANES), and DEDICATED bus lanes. Problem solved. Let those who want to waste time and resources sit in traffic, but at least give viable alternatives to others that don’t.
69
@Hmmm. Nope. In the end population growth will overwhelm any solution that doesn't involve facing facts. The fact is, adding ever more people to the same place, NYC, Beijing, Mexico City or Guatemala leads to exactly the same problems. Wishful thinking may change, the laws of physics don't.
7
Have you been to NY?
1
@Hmmm
I don't know about that. I've been to Seattle and seen the bike lanes - completely empty and unused, with traffic backed up in the one or two lanes left for cars.
6
Americans will do it after all else fails. Yet it does work. I noted how it has worked in London, where traffic has marked improved in the past decade.
4
I’d like to see Seattle “embrace” 24/7 bus lanes and congestion pricing for SOV driving peak hours. I don’t understand why parking on major thoroughfares is the priority instead of bus lanes to get folks to work. But yeah, unlikely this’ll take hold in Seattle anytime soon.
2
Build an express elevated road around Manhattan with a few key exits. Stagger delivery times in areas served by the key exits. Why should drivers be penalized to subsidize a transit system that has been poorly managed for decades?
4
"Build an express elevated road"?
We can't even fill potholes.
That's partly why the idea of turning the Brooklyn Heights Promenade temporarily (for about ten years) into a six-lane highway is so horrifying. It'll stay a six-lane highway forever. And there go the irreplaceable 19th-century brownstones and a major tourist draw: the view of Manhattan from the promenade.
As for Brooklyn Bridge Park: At least someone had the sense finally to diversify the space built for basketball, underutilized except when social media called for a happening that, once too often, devolved into violence.
2
I’m enthusiastic to see a policy strategy that prioritizes a safer, healthier, greener, more productive transportation method. This is the right direction - even if the implementation details are challenging.
The equity issue is a red herring. I have lived in Detroit - a place that claims the opposite of this NYC argument - that lack of public transit creates the inequity. Also see Georgetown in DC - well know for limiting public transit to keep out the “poors”.
2
It’s going to be an absolute nightmare. There will be confusion amongst tourists and visitors. And then they’ll be the lost bills in the mail. Like when those geniuses in Albany came out with cashless tolls on the Thruway. Many people lost their registrations and had licenses suspended. It will be a repeat but much worse. I for one won’t go near downtown anymore. Another brilliant NY tax idea!
1
"Lost registrations and had licenses suspended" probably because they didn't pay the bills.
Funny, do they not pay their cable TV bills when they arrive in the mail?
3
@Mike L If it keeps you out of downtown, it will be a raging success.
3
Need the "yes, and" approach here. Yes to congestion pricing. And, yes to eliminating restrictions on dense development near transit so that fewer people need to drive. Yes to bicycle infrastructure that is healthier for humans, not their two-ton electric racing wheelchairs.
8
"Congestion pricing has also been seen as a burden on drivers who are poor and have been displaced from downtown areas by rising housing costs, and now must drive to work because of minimal access to public transit."
This is mentioned as a mere aside, but it is really a major factor. I live well outside Austin, and I commute every day. So do all of my neighbors: Austin school teachers, firemen, police officers, state employees with salaries that can't compete with city housing prices, small business owners with businesses in town. Austin, like most of the widely spread American cities in the West and Southwest, has been built mainly since the advent of the automobile.
Public transit will never solve the traffic problems in cities and situations like this without massive government expenditures. Tolls for entering the city will simply be an added burden for people who can't afford to live there but must be in town for work every day. Working remotely won't fix this either. This is the result of American capitalism's obsession with growth at all costs. There was a time not that long ago when Austin was livable, now its quality of life is nearly shot.
35
@JEB our “growth at all costs” is going to doom us. Put that on our tombstone. We need a new model.
9
@Peak Oiler
Yep. Especially post WWII. Really foolish economic policy. Nuts! So it goes.
3
It would be helpful to hear more about the experience of London: what it was like before; what did the debate look like; how much better is the situation now; and how has it been received over time.
There are so many off the shelf solutions that can be found around the world for our problems. London’s answer to auto congestion in it’s central business district is just one example.
7
I would not be opposed to congestion pricing, as I am, if someone fixed the mismanagement and waste at the MTA, LIRR and MetroNorth. This is adding another burden on NYers that they can ill afford after their state and local tax deductions disappeared. It's just providing a larger bundle of money to be wasted.
39
@Michael
In all honesty, I doubt that they will handle congestion pricing any differently than what they have now, which is why I feel that a more thorough audit will do a lot better.
I am not sure that this kind of "cities like these" analysis is helpful. NYC has a huge daily influx of workers in addition to tourist traffic. A city like Philly has less of the latter, except for special events/occasions. Perhaps a city like Philly would be less attractive to tourists if the in-travel expenses were higher? And, honestly, I have no idea how to compare either city with LA.
Clearly, we do need to fund public transport.
3
No mention in the article about the reason that New York's subways are not in good repair. They didn't get that way over night. Why wasn't the money spent all along to keep them running well?
113
The money instead was used to fulfill union pension contracts. Note that most of the US cities mentioned here are progressive enclaves. This is another example of failed liberal policies.
5
@Len
This is why we need a better audit of the MTA, but I feel that supporters may not like it if it will mean no congestion pricing due to the money going to where it's supposed to be.
I've walked to work for the last 3 jobs/20 years. I refuse to sit in a car for more than an hour a day. I know that everyone can't do what I do, but trust me, its a better way to live.
150
How long is your walk?
2
@Alex
Currently, it is just across the street (which is awesome. I go home for lunch). The previous job (had for 5 years) the walk was about 15 to 20 minutes. The length of walking time in the first job varied, but it was still under 15 minutes.
When I look for a job, how I'm going to get there is very important to me. Its a condition of employment.
1
@sjs I like the ideal, although, as you pointed out, I don't think it's realistic for many (most?) people. Still, I think you raise an interesting point about how we're spending our time, especially if it involves driving for a large portion of the day.
3
New York "embraced" congestion pricing? Nonsense. Albany had a budget deficit, and legislators reverse calculated what the per vehicle charge needed to be to close the gap. No calculus was performed to determine how many drivers of single passenger vehicles needed to be discouraged from entering Manhattan. No study was performed to determine what "success" from this program looks like. And no feedback loop has been put in place to modify the tolls as necessary.
This isn't transportation engineering and sound public policy administration. Like so many other programs from Albany that target drivers (the Driver Responsibility Assessment, for example, that tags on another $500-$800 of fees from a speeding ticket), all the politicians know how to do is tax, tax, tax, then spend, spend, spend.
Same story here in Connecticut with the potential highway tolls.
I won't be holding my breath for the mass transit system improvements that all this extra money is supposed to be earmarked for, or the road improvements in Connecticut.
72
You must be young. I remember when all highways had tolls and often more than one.
Even the Hutch had a toll, near Pelham. I think there's a little stone booth still on the right side of the roadway.
3
@H
Truth, brother, truth watch as the "socialsit policies" turn us into a third world country of haves and have nots
6
@D
It already is
1
While congestion pricing is an idea that will help pay for mass transit, congestion in Manhattan, at least in part, has been made worse in recent years by the the narrowing of our streets by the creation of bike lanes and the closing of Times Square to car traffic. It seems that our city planners have long had an anti car agenda that increasingly has encouraged the less affluent to rely on public transportation for trips into Manhattan.
28
@Dentist New York
While I don’t think bike lanes or walking streets are a bad thing, also consider that NYC has removed shipping ports and cargo trains from its agenda. How do all of the products, food, etc enter the city? Trucks! Imagine the streets without all the trucks, what a delight!
2
@Dentist New York
Cars are killing Manhattan. Pretty simple to understand.
5
@Dentist New York
The same stupidity has been in effect here in Paris. Narrowing streets, widening already empty sidewalks, creating mostly empty bike lanes, putting dangerous speed bumps everywhere, creating one-way street networks forcing you to go miles to circle back to main thoroughfares. All with the aim of making driving so frustrating that people will trade their 20 minute commute for a multi-stop full hour train ride (when they're not on strike, or stopped because someone's wandering on the tracks).
Meanwhile, the city's coffers are empty, essential public services are left underfunded, and public transport is at best, unreliable, dangerous, and in the case of the metro system, more polluted than the streets.
11
Drivers are going to trade traffic congestion for late, unsafe, in need of new infrastructure mass transportation. Don’t bet on it. And don’t compare NYC mass transit to any other country, except perhaps Bangladesh.
39
Have you ever been to Bangladesh? Your comment indicates you likely haven't visited lately. NYC public transportation has a ways to go, but at least it has improved over the last twenty years, is pretty reliable, and sometimes even enjoyable. Bangladesh: simply no words to describe it. " Government" at its absolute worst.
1
@DavidJ - tell me where else in the world the subway runs 24/7.
1
New York has not embraced congestion pricing. New York implemented as a way to tax select commuters to generate revenue for a poorly run and mismanaged MTA. There are so many exemptions to who will and will not pay, the fee will do little to address congestion. We still do not know what the details of the plan will be, but preliminary plans create chaos and unfairness for New Jersey with no exemption for the GWB and no portion of the funding going to resolve the broader transit crisis in the NYC metropolitan region.
If New York truly wanted to have congestion pricing to ease traffic, they would have much higher fees on ride-share services which have taken over the city.
13
@AEWB
I am no longer a New Yorker, but I still wonder how much could have been done with the extra tunnel Christie nixed. At the very least, that tunnel and its own feeder roads would have provided room for renovations to the older pathways.
22
@chris It is really a travesty that Christie cancelled the ARC tunnel. However, the reason he called it off is evidence of the fact that the two states despite making up one metropolitan area have not worked together. NY collects income tax from NJ residents who work in NY, but at that time were unwilling to co tribute fairly to the repair and building of new infrastructure. It is unfortunate for everyone that there is not a task force that brings the region together to come up with a viable solution for everyone.
A change in Washington DC would work better. The idea hurts the average worker but they must try it.
1