work4bike

This sounds kind of interesting, the first I've heard of it, but it's been in planning for at least 4-years. Any New Yorkers have an opinion? Have you read the Environmental Assessment that is available for the public to read? I would think this would result in safer cycling conditions in NYC.

However, it does have one noteworthy detractor in the NJ Gov. Phil Murphy, who agrees with the concept, but says it's not fair to all sides...I don't know the issue well enough to know his point exactly.


https://www.yahoo.com/news/biden-adm...210042710.html

Pratt

Sounds like resorting to the easy stick of charging motorists, rather than the difficult carrot of making public transportation and cycling more inviting.

Steve B.

Its no more a hardship to NJ residents than NY'ers. The goal is to get people to stop using a car to commute or do other business by private automobile in the core of Manhattan. Its a widely used concept all over Europe, has been successful at reducing core city congestion. What they don't talk about much is reducing exhaust gasses, which helps with clean air in a part of the city where a lot of people walk or ride bikes. There is a robust mass transit system in place as an alternative, but many (especially in the borough of Queens) don't like using it, too bad. Its time has come.

Steve B.

NYC is arguably the most pro-active city in the country at developing cycling infrastructure. There are hundreds of miles of on street bike lanes, bike paths, etc..... to the extent that residents complain and community boards try to carve back street space for cars. Mass transit is really just a case of throwing money at the system to improve schedules and equipment. The subways are still using an extremely old switching and train tracking system, as money becomes available, they upgrade the system. Some money comes from tolls on cars, which makes perfect sense as most cars only have one person using it and theres a disproportionate amount of money supporting the infrastructure for cars and trucks. Tax the cars and drivers is a good idea IMO.

Troul 

until the weather can be controlled to not have snow, cold & heavy winds, the whole "plan" is just another legal form of taxation.

I-Like-To-Bike

What "concept" is widely used all over Europe? Other than London, what other city is using a Congestion Pricing Plan concept for directly charging motorists tolls for driving privately owned vehicles into the Central Business District?

Steve B.

[QUOTE=I-Like-To-Bike;22882652]What "concept" is widely used all over Europe? Other than London, what other city is using a Congestion Pricing Plan concept for directly charging motorists tolls for driving privately owned vehicles into the Central Business District?[/QUOTES

Singapore is not Europe, but uses it, Stockholm, Gothenberg, Florence, Milan as well as a number that use higher parking rates at certain times of the day, which is essentially the same thing as charging a toll for entry.

I-Like-To-Bike

Parking fees are NOT the same thing as charging a toll for entering an exclusion area whether or not the vehicle will be parked in the area. Taxis, Uber-type ride hailing vehicles, delivery vehicles driving in or through an area are NOT paying parking fees. People parking their vehicle in private parking spaces, lots, or garages are NOT paying tolls.

Steve B.

Opinion

In my mind when they add significant surcharges to park at certain times of the day, it's a toll as its goal is essentially the same, attempting to discourage private autos entering the urban core. You may disagree.

john m flores 

I support congestion pricing but I will say that from the New Jersey perspective, most of the daily commuter trains (NJ Transit) go through a single pair of tunnels under the Hudson River that are over 100 years old and were badly damaged from Superstorm Sandy. Those tunnels are also used by Amtrak, and there's an equally old and unreliable bridge Portal Bridge) that is also used. When there are issues with either the tunnels or bridge, commuting grinds to a halt, easily turning a 1+ hour commute into 2+ hours.

There are plans to replace both tunnels and the bridge but they haven't even broken ground yet so the fix is likely a dozen years off.

What congestion pricing might do is push a system at its limits over the brink.

New York City's MTA has its own issues as well, but New Jersey's are arguably worse.

Steve B.

Agree with you about this, though you forgot PATH. Still not great. Not sure added tunnels are going to mean more trains, that would require additional infrastructure in NJ to see additional trains, and I've read nothing as to is NJ planning any capacity increases. MTA/LIRR did just open LIRR into Grand Central, that helps and they are planning on changing the cost of LIRR for Queens to Manhattan trips to be the same as subway (I think thats the plan), which opens up some less expensive options for Queens commuters as well as better timing options. I don't foresee a problem, I just see a lot of car commuters spending the bucks to keep using their cars.

Russ Roth

Gotta say I don't know why anyone in general drives into Manhattan except maybe the LIRR needs to get their pricing a little better under control. When heading to the Museum of Natural history we've often driven but that's because the LIRR costs way outweigh driving when dealing with 2 adults and 3 kids even at off peak rate. Between tolls and parking it isn't cheap, usually an easy 40-50 but the LIRR is more like 60.00 plus you still need the subway. But when heading there myself or doing more generalized sightseeing we tend to do the train or drive to the Rockaways and take the train in. Fri I drove to the Rockaways, hopped the A train to 168 street with my fixie, visited someone at the hospital, rode to 98th street and did another hospital visit, then rode to the south end and across the Brooklyn bridge just to say I've done it, hopped back on the A and was home, total time was 6.5hrs, cost 7; checking maps it predicted 1.5hrs to the first hospital, toss in time to find parking, longer walking to the entrance, time between hospitals, more parking and walking and time to home in rush hour I estimate I spent an additional half hour on the trip. Time which was spent sitting and conducting other business and playing games rather then stressing about the other drivers and I saved a lot of money in the process from tolls, gas and possibly parking fees, though with the hospitals, if I can find parking there, they let me park for free.

DorkDisk

I actually live in the city and I'm all for it. Most people who drive in are bridge and tunnellers just driving in to work. Most people in the city do not own cars, most just drive in to take advantage of the city and then leave. I'm fine with charging them more. There is no space here.

rumrunn6

camera technology stinks. my Mom gets tickets for going thru green lights. it comes in the mail, with a photo of her car, w/ a green light! it's ludicrous

livedarklions

LOL! Your examples of vehicles that won't park are almost all vehicles that are highly unlikely to be entering the city during the peak times, so they won't be effected by EITHER the tolls or the parking fees.

Increasing the fees during peak times is designed to discourage traffic during those times. What traffic is discouraged will vary somewhat with what those fees are paid for. Big news flash.

I-Like-To-Bike

Steve claimed that the congestion fee is the same as a toll and is widely used in Europe, it is not. I pointed out this is not the case and the reason why. Taxis, Uber-type ride hailing vehicles, delivery vehicles do drive in large numbers in the "Congestion Area" of NYC in peak hours, do not pay to park, and do not necessarily pay a toll to to do so. They do so while providing services to the people who live, shop and/or work in the area as well as the businesses that provide those services and employment as well.

Your Big news flash is not and nobody questioned what the goal is of the the proponents of this new fee.

Steve B.

I would retract the word "widely" and only state it is currently in use in a few Euro cities as listed above and below. A summary here:

https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing#:~:text=Around%20Europe%20several%20relatively%20small,during%20the%20peak%20tour ism%20season.

They do not list Florence and I know its in use in Florence as our hotel specifically told us they pay the toll to get a car into the downtown area so we could park it as well I remember seeing the toll cameras.

I see 10 cities/town listed, plus Florence, so I would say that its common in Europe and getting used more and more.

livedarklions

He claimed it was "essentially the same thing" not precisely the same thing, and yes it is a congestion pricing plan, so fundamentally the exact same concept and you're just splitting your usual hairs. Steve's original post didn't refer to tolls directly, just the "concept" of congestion pricing.

All I was pointing out was that the examples you gave to show that the two different types of congestion pricing (tolls vs. parking) were fundamentally different really didn't make sense because most of the examples were equally unaffected by both pricing schemes. So yeah, you gave a reason "why" they are different, but it was hilariously wrong.
.

Steve B.

You have stated this already, not sure why you feel the 2nd time is needed. Its your opinion and your are welcome to it, I respectively disagree that charging higher fees for parking during certain hours in the day is intended to have the same function as charging more to drive into a central urban area. They don't want people driving private autos and in this case, parking, so they up the fee. Thats a tax pretty clearly and is intended to have the same effect as an entry fee to reduce the use of private autos in a central urban core area. Yeah, no surcharge to drive, but you get hit up for the money if you choose to park. Not a tax ?. Right. Only thing thing the congestion entry fee does is taxes everybody, including taxis, Uber, trucks, and whomever they choose to target.

And as noted above, there are seemingly 11 cities/towns in Europe that use congestion pricing. Curious as to how many meets your particular threshold for "widely" ?.

livedarklions

I think you were also fundamentally correct when you stated that increasing parking fees is the same concept.

"Widely" is in the eye of the beholder.

FBinNY 

This isn't a surprise to anyone who lives in or near NYC. As mentioned, it's been on and off for 4 years. They took the idea from London, which has had a similar program for years. Since I don't tend to follow London issues closely, I'd be interested to know what, if any issues they had, and how they handled them. I'd also be interested to know whether NYC studied the London example closely, to see the pros and cons, especially the cons.

As it is I see at least one key issue, namely how car owning residents living in the exclusion zone are considered. Under the program as presented, one there and using their car to reverse commute would end up paying the same as someone from the burbs driving in. That seems (to me) way less than fair.

In any case, Since moving out of NYC, I've only a tangential interest is their politics, and in any case, am unaffected because I haven't driven a car into NYC in 20 years. (I use train/bike when I need to go downtown)

scott967

Simply a scheme to let those who can afford the tax pay it and enjoy the benefits while those who can't get pushed into mass transit. I suppose a very few might consider a bicycle (which as far as I can tell is mainly a benefit to delivery peeps on e-bikes). But since they did an EA with FONSI, not a full EIS they will probably be sued.

scott s.
.

Russ Roth

My last two trips through I'd say between a third and half of the riders were delivery people and the rest weren't on the city streets, in central park almost all were recreational or fitness. I've been quite impressed with the number of citibike installations and how many people really were commuting around on them. Lots of millenials and gen Z who are also less likely to own or drive cars were filling the lanes and moving briskly along. Kinda nice that even riding a fixie with an injured knee(had a brake) I could travel 10-12 blocks at a time between red lights. In my view, if it promotes less cars and more bikes and public transport it can't be all that bad.

FBinNY 

Low car ownership rates in NYC is neither new nor generational. The simple fact is that owing a car while living in NYC is both impractical and expensive at the same time. The monthly cost of garaging is staggering, and rivals that for renting a small apartment in most parts of the USA. If you don't garage, it means having to get up early and move your car every day because of alternate side street parking. At the same time, high traffic makes a car a miserable way to get around, so all things considered the only people who kept cars in the city were folks like reverse commuters who needed them to get to work in the burbs, and those few who had either the dough or temperament to put up with the related BS.

blacknbluebikes 

Having worked here in NYC since 1986, the idea that "New York really doesn't want your car here" is pretty old news. Actually, FBinNY , wasn't it Bloomberg who first stuck congestion pricing out there, referencing London? Definitely think it was pre-Deblasio. NY residents with a car are probably paying a minimum of $600 per month for parking in midtown (then add 18% tax). Note this proposed plan is for Manhattan south of 60th street, so we are not talking about a large population of low-income 'must drive to work' residents. The commercial costs will be passed to consumers, which ain't great, but necessity is the mother of invention and people don't change 'till ya hit them in the wallet. If you're telling me that more trucks will do their business in the off-hours, that also makes a better New York for everyone who walks, bikes and takes public transportation.