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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 :/
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.
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.
You can create bus and emergency lanes you know, with less detriment.
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.
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.
Artificial, organic, lab grown or otherwise - does the price of a good or service capture the cost of its production.
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.
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.
>"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.
You may or may not be stupid. I don't know.
Do you have anything to reply? I think you're running afoul of guidelines too.