This hasn't played out in other cities, so I don't know why you think this.
Notably, NYC congestion pricing does not affect the highways into the city: if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged. The charge is only for entering the city grid, where the (reasonable) argument is that the transportation system is more than sufficient and the traffic, noise, and tailpipe emissions of your car do more harm to local residents than they fairly benefit you.
> if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged. The charge is only for entering the city grid
That's technically true, but it ignores the fact that both the Lincoln Tunnel (495) and Holland Tunnel (78) require you to enter the city grid. With the way the congestion pricing was designed, if you take either of those tunnels, there's no way to avoid the congestion pricing fee -- this was confirmed multiple times in FAQs and Q+A's.
I'm mostly in favor of congestion pricing, but I really think they need to figure out a better solution for that tunnel issue.
I think you should take either the Verrazano bridge exit off 95 or continue north to 87. The idea is to avoid driving through Manhattan planning one's trip accordingly should work. The only reason to take either tunnel is to reach Manhattan.
I really wish there was a tunnel between jersey and Brooklyn. Every option sucks for that. You either end up stuck in traffic in Staten Island, manhattan, or queens.
That's absolutely incorrect. Over a million NJ residents live closer to the tunnels, myself included. Every route I plan on google maps to various destinations in parts of Brooklyn and Queens puts the tunnels as being faster.
Right, that's part of the problem. During the work hours the temporary population of Manhattan grows about threefold. They contribute to immense gridlock and then disappear to their suburbs in another state. Why must the residents bear the brunt of the externalized traffic impact? It is only fair to treat available street space as a limited resource.
That's tangential to the issue being discussed in this subthread, which is that there's physically no way to stay on highways when coming from the tunnels, even when attempting to reach non-Manhattan destinations in outer boroughs.
So the only relevant congestion for this specific issue is between the tunnels and the highways. Manhattan residents living near the tunnels know what they're signing up for. The tunnels opened in 1927 and 1937. The traffic isn't exactly a new problem.
Also, the parts of NJ in question (where the tunnels are closer than bridges) are largely urban in character. You make it sound like people are coming from some far-away leafy suburb, that's not the case for the majority of this population.
People in NJ know what they are signing up for. The outer boroughs have existed in the same locations for decades. Traveling by automobile through Manhattan isn't exactly a new problem.
Being charged $15 to travel literally two blocks between the tunnel and the West Side Highway is a new problem. That's the point. There's no way to avoid the city grid, due to bad highway design that doesn't directly connect either 495 or 78 with 9A.
Any congestion pricing plan which ignores that problem is going to be met with mass outrage, to an extent that will swing elections against incumbents. Especially when said incumbents promote this "no charge if you stay on highways" BS without explaining the fine print.
Again, I'm saying this as someone who only ever takes public transit and is generally in favor of congestion pricing as a concept.
I was assuming traffic from Florida to Boston or Albany. Local traffic is local traffic and I thought about the Holland tunnel->Kenmare->Williamsburg Bridge route. Which I found too exceptional to mention and likely only used by people that live in the region and should be using public transit for such trips.
Due to the layout of the northern Brooklyn subway lines (no direct connection to PABT or Penn Station), some trips can easily take 2x-3x as long using public transit on a good day, let alone when there's some incident affecting the subways.
Personally I always take public transit into NYC, but I can completely understand why it isn't a reasonable option for many people. Especially when both NJT rail and Amtrak have daily meltdowns whenever the temperature is above average.
Edit to add: I'm completely puzzled by your comment about "traffic from Florida to Boston or Albany". Boston is on the I-95 corridor, which means going over the GWB -- there's already no reason for any sane driver to enter the congestion zone for that route. And routes to Albany don't need to cross the Hudson at all. I don't see how congestion pricing or these two tunnels have any connection to those routes.
Anyway, my overall point here is that the upthread comment of "if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged" is true but worthless, because for one million people here there's no way to actually do that without driving massively out of your way to a bridge crossing.
I agree with points more or less and have plenty experience moving around the region to understand what you are saying.
The through traffic comment was a response to my original comment that a person wanted to use the Hudson River tunnels to pass through NYC onto their destination. I picked the Varanzono bridge route as the southern route around the city and 87 for the northern route. I usually go further north than the GWB to crossover.
The massively out of your way I might prefer to NYC city traffic.
> The through traffic comment was a response to my original comment that a person wanted to use the Hudson River tunnels to pass through NYC onto their destination.
Which parent comment are you referring to? I don't see any talking about non-NYC destinations besides yours.
In any case, the only highways that are exempt are the West Side Highway and the FDR. These are the only highways in the zone. And generally you don't take either of those highways for anything other than "local traffic" as you said. So I'm just not understanding your point about routes outside of NYC, that doesn't make any sense in the context of congestion pricing and the exempted highways in the first place.
Maybe I only perceived it. Funnily enough it was your comment from someone discussing maintaining traveling while on 495 or 78.
My comment was that travelers not going to Manhattan should choose a route that avoids the tunnels.
I'm only now beginning to understand the point you are trying to make is that political outrage makes good policies tougher. I thought this sub-thread was regarding driving into Manhattan to get somewhere else is inconvenient and adding extra costs makes sense.
A lot of really terrible congestion comes from people who are only passing through Manhattan on their way to/from other places, because the toll structure incentivizes that vs going around. I worked in the general vicinity of the Holland Tunnel entrance for years and it was miserable for basically all users of the streets every afternoon.
> the toll structure incentivizes that vs going around
How so? The toll rate is identical between the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, the Bayonne Bridge, the Goethals Bridge, and the Outerbridge Crossing: https://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/en/tolls.html
Well three of those involve a toll on the Verrazzano unless you're starting or ending your trip on Staten Island itself, whereas the East River bridges into Manhattan are free.
The GWB can be done without a toll, but if you're shopping for a cheaper route to avoid the Verrazzano toll it's likely way out of your way.
Ideally the toll structure should incentivize through traffic to stay on highways and out of the most gridlocked streets in the country, and I'm saying this as a longtime car owner in Brooklyn who has driven through the Holland Tunnel hundreds of times. Manhattan streets are a tragedy of the commons in action.
But even with congestion pricing, assuming a same-day round-trip with a non-NY EZ-Pass, the combined cost of (Holland or Lincoln Tunnel toll + congestion pricing toll) is still a bit less than the cost of (Goethals or Bayonne Bridge toll + Verrazzano Bridge toll)... because the Verrazzano charges in both directions. So even congestion pricing doesn't fix those incentives :/
Toll optimization aside, there’s often a huge backup of the BQE or in Staten Island that makes the tunnel the next best option. I’ve faced that scenario probably 1/3 of the time trying to visit family in PA/NJ from Brooklyn.
It has played out in other cities, there is only one way for it to play out.
It's okay if you disagree with the facts, but it's fairly easy to understand how pricing people out is a poor attempt at a solution, but solves the problem by brute force anyway.
>where the (reasonable) argument is that the transportation system is more than sufficient and the traffic, noise, and tailpipe emissions of your car do more harm to local residents than they fairly benefit you.
Yes. I never said that less cars is not beneficial. I understand this, that's why I said what I said.
There's no such thing as "fairly benefiting from other residents"...
You're still not solving the problem by slapping a $ figure to the entrance of cars. It's just a lazy and bad solution.
"Poor people" or rather "people who actually need to drive in this particular moment"?
It's really nice to be able to pay for better facilities _when you need them_. The person who is late for a flight or a job interview, or who just found out their kid got hurt at school and is heading to the hospital, benefits massively from congestion pricing. They have the ability to access faster transportation when they need it, and to choose the slower alternative when they don't.
It's nice to be able to pay for better facilities. It's even nicer if they are just better, without paying. Payment can create perverse incentives as well.
It’s impossible for free city streets to both be fast and scale to the density of NYC. Congestion pricing allows them to be fast by removing traffic. Thus allowing busses or people with significant need to travel quickly.
Where it fails is an Uber/taxi drivers add a lot more congestion than an average person and the fees don’t get adjusted for this issue.
So does banning people from driving. But obviously people are smart enough to realise that's dumb. I guess not smart enough to realise that pricing them out is the same thing and also incredibly dumb.
The thing about congestion is that you can't “make it better” (in a densely populated place like Manhattan's CBD) without removing cars somehow. The only other real approach to this is rationing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_space_rationing), which leads to economic inefficiencies and doesn't raise money that will be used to make transit better for everyone who choses not to drive.
Clear accurate pricing is how people decide what to do with their resources.
Pricing things correctly is basically the reason we have a modern economy.
Externalities are one of the thornier issues and making those prices clear to people is how we get people to decide whether they actually want to pay the full price of a good or service.
pricing people out is a poor attempt at a solution
No, it's a good solution to negative externalities. In the status quo, drivers do not bear the full cost of driving (noise, pollution, opportunity cost of time lost in traffic). Congestion pricing address that by imposting a fee equal to the societal cost of those externalities.
Grocery shoppers don't either. What's your point? Do we charge people to enter the grocery store, or if they buy too much?
It's not a good solution in any sense of the word. There are reasons we don't charge for some things. Do you charge people extra who use their entire bin on bin day?
It's weird how many people here are not smart enough to realise how backwards this solution is.
I'm not here to give alternative solutions, I'm here to tell you the current solution is slightly worse than nothing.
You would have to make the solution fairly complex for it to be beneficial. But I'd start with quantifying why people are in the city, rather than treating them all the same.
If it were my job, I'd have a better solution than congestion charges, that's for damn sure.
Given your username one might hope "implement a world class public transport system" or better yet "convert an urban highway into a beautiful linear park and waterway" (like Seoul) would come to mind.
Yes. Except I don't believe they're capable of that...
>"convert an urban highway into a beautiful linear park and waterway"
They converted an inner urban highway and other highways in the sky (in the immediate city centre) to walking paths while adding extra highways to the pool further out from the city centre. Removing the inner highways added to congestion, adding the outer highways reduced congestion.
They did not add congestion charges and the city handles it fine. They are not stupid like a lot of people here are.
If it were your job you would think differently because you knew all the facts, constraints and trade offs.
Contrary to popular belief most people make reasonable decisions and want to do a good job
you're right but judgmental statists get high off the feeling of control and "fairness" - effectiveness be damned. I thought we absolutely needed the government and taxes for the roads because paying for use would be so "unfair" and "hard" - oh wait, now they want to control what you do because they like bikes so its totally reasonable. Hard to find more statists than in New York
Notably, NYC congestion pricing does not affect the highways into the city: if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged. The charge is only for entering the city grid, where the (reasonable) argument is that the transportation system is more than sufficient and the traffic, noise, and tailpipe emissions of your car do more harm to local residents than they fairly benefit you.