They do, by buying things in Manhattan and paying an 8.8% sales tax. Now many of them won't.
The straightforward answer is to add tolls. Another solution I could see working is adding special sales taxes on parking garages in the congestion pricing zone, but then this wouldn't capture tolls on trucks, and make it harder to implement exceptions for low-income drivers or drivers with disabilities.
This is social engineering in tax form, intended to redirect traffic (or really...just to raise money for the MTA), without a great deal of thought about how it will impact the people actually living here (beyond "cars are bad", or, "New Jersey sucks", in any case). It is not "having drivers take ownership of the costs the produce" -- that would be, I dunno...raising the gas tax or tag fees or something. And don't forget that drivers already pay a toll to use the bridges or tunnels into Manhattan.
I'm generally in favor of making externalities real and specific, but this plan sucks. One nice thing about congestion is that it is inherently self-limiting, so the stated problem was already captured in existing economic incentives.
Gas taxes or registration fees don't reimburse Manhattan for the space and infrastructure costs of cars driving into and parking in Manhattan for cars that are registered and buy fuel outside of Manhattan.
You can toll drivers for driving on those specific roads, or add a significant parking tax.
Or reduce parking in general and let prices naturally rise, but then you'll also probably have more people driving in and then violating parking rules and need more parking enforcement. Parking fees/taxes also wouldn't capture the costs of traffic that doesn't necessarily park in Manhattan, such as ride share drivers.
The tolls on every bridge and tunnel into Manhattan do. Raise those. But now you're tipping your hand: this isn't about "having drivers take ownership of the costs they produce", it's about punishing people who drive in Manhattan (below 60th, excepting FDR and West Side Highway, because those don't have externalities, I guess.)
> You can toll drivers for driving on those specific roads, or add a significant parking tax.
I don't have a problem with charging for parking. But the toll roads thing, again...that has little to do with "having drivers take ownership of the costs they produce". It's just social engineering via taxes, because people will avoid those roads, and drive on other ones instead.
This is just another tier of toll in another congested subsection.
If your argument is that all vehicles driving and parking in all places should appropriately pay for their externalities (infrastructure cost, driving and parking space, noise, and emissions) then we agree.
Gas taxes or registrations fees paid in another state as you suggested don't really accomplish that though.
You don't want the general recapture of externalities. You want specific things to be punished.
> This is just another tier of toll in another congested subsection.
Yes, exactly. And unless you have some practical alternative for the thing you're taxing, this is just another tax. Those of us who live here don't have an alternative to buying groceries or getting deliveries, so this is just one more tax on life. I don't own a car, and I take the subway most of the time, but this will make my life more expensive. That's wrong.
I'm not the one levying this toll, I don't super care either way about it. I replied because your suggestions for capturing externalities did not seem to be equivalent or direct those costs to the correct place.
But I think this all depends on what you consider externalities worth charging for. I'm thinking of it as more than the simple dollar cost of building and maintaining roads and parking. There are other costs to dedicating space for those things that cities may want to avoid.
I've already said that I do. So no, I'm making a more specific argument than the one you're trying to have.
Capturing externalities is fine, but this is dumb rule dressed up in the clothing of anti-car rhetoric. It's a little more than a politically acceptable cash grab by MTA.
My point is which externalities you are considering, and which ones a city is trying to account for.
Cost of building and maintaining asphalt is one externality.
A city might consider other things like congestion, noise, and emissions. Pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Green space. Space allocated to parking vs additional homes and businesses.
You can call this considering the externalities of car traffic, or you can call it social engineering because the city wants fewer cars. I'm saying the distinction isn't super important, they are both the result of recognizing negative effects and trying to reduce them.
Yes, yes. I understand that you don't like cars. You keep ignoring the part where I say that I'm not opposed to capturing externalities. Those things are, in fact, externalities.
You have to do it fairly. When your rule ends up impacting everyone who lives in Manhattan, even if they don't own a car, then your rule is either not about capturing externalities, or it's badly designed.
In this particular case, the MTA is not concerned about what you're concerned about. The MTA is concerned about getting more money for the MTA, and this is a somewhat craven way for them to do it without huge political backlash. They know that left-wing Manhattanites will throw their lower-Manhattan neighbors under the bus in the guise of "reducing cars", and otherwise won't think very deeply about how this is a general purpose tax on everyday life.
- I drive a car. I like my car. I like driving my car places. You seem to be trying to find some personal sinister motivation on my part, or using me as a stand in for the MTA, and I don't think either are fair.
- You suggested that gas and registration taxes cover or could cover the externalities. I disagree because the externalities of specifically driving and parking in a city center are not covered fairly by taxes levied on vehicles buying gas or being registered outside of that city center. This is the point I originally responded to, and the one you seem to have moved on from to argue other things.
- You agree that cars should pay for their externalities if done so fairly. I agree.
- I don't think that cars used for personal transportation adequately or fairly pay for all of their externalities in any US cities. Especially compared to the relative costs per person transported by other means of urban transportation.
- I don't live in Manhattan and can't speak to the motivations and politics of this specific toll being levied by the MTA. The MTA may not be doing it for fair reasons of capturing externalities. That's perfectly valid and I won't (and haven't meant to) dispute it.
- Levying taxes, fees, or tolls on personal vehicles can have regressive costs for people living in the area, even if they don't own a personal vehicle. Absolutely, I agree with this. There are other ways to solve problems like getting groceries or deliveries, but if there aren't good alternatives in place then that is going to be an unfair cost added to those living there. Consideration and mitigation of these costs, and providing good alternatives, should be part of good policy.
There, I think that's a fairly accurate summary of my positions. Is there anything else you have questions on per my personal positions, or the arguments I have made in this thread?
Toll roads are direct use tax on using that infrastructure. 100% of roads being toll roads that cover their own costs is the libertarian ideal, isn't it?
Which roads will people take instead, if all roads into Manhattan have tolls?
And I agree it is social engineering. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. What reasons would a city have for wanting to encourage people not to drive or park in sections of that city? Perhaps there are negative externalities of that car traffic that they want to reduce. Why is social engineering via levying costs not a valid way to handle that?
Yes, exactly.
Also: they already do. So consider that for a second.
The Brooklyn Bridge, Queensboro, Manhattan, GW (heading to NJ only), and Williamsburg bridges are the only bridges that do not currently have tolls. All cross the East River. With this plan, you will have to enter the congestion area to use all of those but the GW -- but that's already tolled heading into Manhattan. They even defined the "zone" to be sure to catch the Queensboro onramps. It's intentional.
As for NJ (which is every New Yorker's favorite scapegoat when imagining car commuters): every crossing of the Hudson south of Albany has a toll.
I guess you can count the tiny bridges over the Harlem river if you really want to be pedantic about it, but this is essentially a new tax on NYC residents, whether you own a car or not. Literally every truck entering Manhattan by a major artery will be tolled in one form or another -- in many cases, twice.
California wants to put in a per mile road charge. Why should I drive to go buy something and pay a mile tax when I can buy it cheaper online, get it delivered, and probably after factoring in higher pricing due to the road tax it will still be cheaper. These sort of things ruin businesses.
Also, "the costs they produce" is way, way too flimsy of a definition. Are you talking about damage to roads? That's heavy trucks, not passenger vehicles.
Many more cities have started severely restricting access to vehicles, turning many downtown areas that had previously been roads into pedestrian malls. Indeed, NYC has done this to many roads (parts of Fulton Street, Delancey Street, and both Broadway and Times Square).
Do you have any evidence that those schemes have resulted in lower sale tax revenue for those locations?
Parking is only really a problem below 59th st or so. You can usually get street parking by driving in circles for 20 minutes, or go to a parking garage and pay ~$8/hr to park.
(I mean, there are also more traditional parking garages, both above- and below-ground, but the premium on real estate is high enough to justify more expensive solutions to maximize land value also).
But outside of rush hours and especially a few places like the tunnel approaches it's not a big deal. People do it constantly, it's totally normal for people from NJ or Westchester or LI to drive in for dinner and park, that kind of thing.
The random chance of winding up in standstill gridlock is just way too high. I can’t even count all of the times it has taken me over an hour to go like five blocks. Every time I’ve had the bad idea drive to the office to get a head start on an after-work trip, my mind is blown that some people actually do it every day, by choice.
I imagine all the congestion toll will do is swap the cost of congestion from time to something more palatable like money. And a windfall for people that own real estate just outside of the tolled boundary (yay brooklyn)
Driving in Manhattan is actually pretty pleasant, all things considered. Wouldn't even make a top 10 list for me of worst places to drive in the US. I think in part because there's a weird selection bias where people think it will be bad, so bad drivers don't even attempt, and you're left with a cohort that, on average, has above-average driving skills.
Seattle on the other hand? Worst driver's in the US by a country mile.
Owning a car isn't enormously expensive except in online discussions where people quote the MSRP of $year+1 models and act like folks making minimum wage are actually paying that. My primary car is a 2012 Honda Fit that was $6000 when I bought it at 30k miles and is now pushing 120k. I bought it in cash, but the monthly payment with insurance would have been 15% of my rent.
You or your city may be exceptions, you might drive only on city roads, but the parent comment's point about subsidies is broadly correct.
Even the fuel taxes come from ... citizens.
There's not some magical source of funding that doesn't eventually come from taxes.
It's within 2/3rds (and frankly lower than I thought, $60 billion doesn't get you @#@^ these days).
All US dollars are created by the US government, the ability of the US government to create valuable dollars comes from the tax base, so of course everything eventually goes back to taxes.
But it's not really relevant to the point.
The city also has to pay for utility lines, which are much more expensive in suburban sprawl than the urban center. Also, zoning laws make it more expensive to build apartments, so you really only get single-family houses in the suburbs and apartments in the inner city. If you use property taxes to pay for infrastructure, the inner-city residents (living in apartments, and likely poorer) are paying most of the money for infrastructure they never use.
You're really just arguing that suburbia is a drain on city budgets and I can agree with that, it's a drain on a lot of things. I think the reason it persists and gets special treatment is because a significant number of people consider it the goal and see themselves moving out of the city eventually.
But more generally people get so stuck in the idea that tax dollars will be spent on things that aren't for you. Am I the weird one that's unbothered by this? If your vegan you're paying for meat and dairy subsidies you don't use, if you don't have kids you're paying for schools you don't use, if your house is all electric you're paying for gas subsidies you don't use, if you're not outdoorsy you're paying for parks you don't use, if you're acab you're paying for police you don't want, if you believe that caging people is immoral you're paying for whole prison systems you don't want.
It costs more to build a road that supports a bus than it does to build a road that only supports cars. OTOH, the roads also need to support fire engines, so there's that. Certainly stores devote more real estate to parking than they would if I didn't live in a car dependent infrastructure, but I'm paying for that in some way or another.
Otherwise, what infrastructure do you think I'm getting subsidized? I don't have muni water or sewer, and the power and telco utilities certainly pass along their costs to me.
This isn’t true and it’s also missing a bigger point: you need many more lanes for cars than buses. That space is not providing economic value and has to be subsidized using general fund revenue when it could be used by businesses or for housing.
In the city I live in, nearly all roads are one lane in each direction. Even if we had a lot more busses, I don't see how we would have fewer lanes. If we had a lot less traffic, one lane roads could work.
The minimum infrastructure for busses is more than the minimum infrastructure for cars. Although, if you're getting municipal roads, it makes sense to build them to standards so you can use busses.
Re: lanes, yes, rural areas are different but if you look around suburban or urban environments there are a ton of 4-8 lane roads, complex interchange ramps, etc. which exist only because people drive solo and the resulting congestion leads to a massive amount of dedicated space. If you count the number of people on a given block, it’s usually an amount which will fit on a single bus. This is really eye-opening if you’ve ever driven in New Jersey where there are these huge congested roads full of cars and a single train goes by with more people than every car in eyesight.
> If you are living in a place that forces you into car ownership as a means of transportation,
Which I felt moved the topic out of NYC. Lots of people live in NYC without car ownership.
The city you drive into is subsidizing your ability to drive into the city, the space to park in the city (which could be used for more housing), paying the cost of your emissions and noise, so that you can live a cheaper life in an area that's generally more expensive to sustain per-capita.
> I don't have muni water or sewer, and the power and telco utilities certainly pass along their costs to me.
The power and telcos generally do not pass these costs onto you. The costs are spread across the entire user-base, and it's more expensive to support you because it's more infrastructure for less people. Streets/roads/highways are also generally subsidized.
Suburbs and extreme white-flight areas are heavily subsidized by cities, especially if you're commuting into them for work. If the costs of sustaining your living situation were truly passed onto you, you wouldn't be able to afford to live there.
> Glad I avoided working and living in NY.
Seems like an unequivocal win-win :)
One or two people per car each taking up 320 sqft of road space and parking space imposes a lower human density limit than most other ways of getting around. And the infrastructure to support it is more expensive on a per-human basis.
Why on Earth would people living in New Jersey drive into (paying bridge/tunnel toll) and park in Manhattan to do their shopping when there are so many malls with free parking available in NJ?
There's a reason the big NYC area malls are in Paramus and Elizabeth.
In addition to the giant malls you mentioned, there's American Dream in East Rutherford. Parking isn't free there though. And all its clothing stores are closed on Sundays. (Ditto for the Paramus malls re: Sunday.)
I think the reason is that malls are just out-of-fashion.
If we consider the SoHo area to be the equivalent of a mall, or the North Williamsburg/Greenpoint area to be a mall, I'd bet they dwarf the Paramus & Elizabeth malls in GMV sold and foot traffic.
It's apparently back and better than ever though [2].
And anecdotally, everyone I know shops much more in SoHo than they did a decade ago, even if the center has shifted to Williamsburg/Greenpoint and more thrifting / vintage stores.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/23/nyregion/soho-empty-store... [2] https://equicapmag.com/real-estate/soho-retail-rebounds/#:~:....
My ex's family lived in NJ and we'd always commute in for a fun day in the city. There's way better food, better shopping, better energy. I'm not surprised people come to the city.
Even while living in midtown manhattan. This is still true for me living out in the rural south.
Drivers are using a limited resource, why not pay for it. Be happy it's a fixed fee and not a proper market.
That's the point of congestion pricing.
Because the selection and quality are unlike almost any place in the world.
I would be willing to wager that the increased sales / foot traffic from one fewer car trying to make its loud and carcinogenic way through manhattan is well worth the decreased foot traffic from that car's passenger(s)
It’s $15 creditable against other tolls. If whatever you’re doing in downtown Manhattan during peak hours isn’t worth $15, its replacement by other activity happening faster is likely a net positive.