Congestion Pricing 2.0
Comments
-
@whynot_31Its tried and true and actually fairly factual at least in terms as how Albany woefully exploits NYC. Will shaming Cuomo work however is the real question? My money is on a definite probably not.
-
It should be interesting to see where the MTA cuts back if CP (congestion pricing) does not pass.
They are already increasing the fare, so the misinformed are already going to think service should be getting better ...nope. -
I'm so happy to hear that, newguy, since your opinions are of no value or consequence whatsoever.The only thing you've mastered is the technique of accusing others of exactly what you do.
-
Okay, You guys have had a long leash, but it's time to give it a rest. You can vigorously debate congestion pricing (and who wouldn't want to!) but let's keep the personal attacks out of it. No reason we can't agree to disagree without name calling.
-
I don't see how this would greatly reduce traffic since DeBlasio and Polly T. seem intent on narrowing streets
Which doesn't increase commute times. -
How can narrowing streets (as in reducing the number of usable lanes) not increase commute times for car drivers and passengers?
-
How can narrowing streets (as in reducing the number of usable lanes) not increase commute times for car drivers and passengers?
Right. Its pretty basic. While reducing the number of usable lanes to make way for, say, designated bus lanes, may mean faster transportation times for those on buses, it doesn't mean that for people riding in private vehicles. Hence, London, which some continue to dubiously cite as a congestion pricing success story, continues to have terrible traffic. -
How can narrowing streets (as in reducing the number of usable lanes) not increase commute times for car drivers and passengers?
http://www.autoblog.com/2014/09/05/bike-lanes-may-actually-reduce-commute-times/
"A report from the New York City Department of Transportation found that travel times for traffic in places where protected bike lanes have been built either stayed steady or improved. Commutes on 8th Avenue, for example, now take 14 percent less time than before bike lanes were built.
"Columbus Avenue has seen travel times dramatically improve as well. In 2010, Columbus Avenue between 96th and 77th streets originally had five lanes; three lanes for traffic, one for both parking and A.M traffic and one dedicated to parking. By narrowing each lane 1-2 inches, a buffer zone and a protected bike lane were built without sacrificing lanes for traffic. The same amount of cars traverse the narrower lanes daily, but travel times between the two streets dropped 35 percent from four and a half minutes to three minutes." -
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge
Right. Its pretty basic. While reducing the number of usable lanes to make way for, say, designated bus lanes, may mean faster transportation times for those on buses, it doesn't mean that for people riding in private vehicles. Hence, London, which some continue to dubiously cite as a congestion pricing success story, continues to have terrible traffic.
"A report by TfL in early 2007 indicated that there were 2.27 traffic delays per kilometre in the original charging zone. This compared with a figure of 2.3 before the introduction of the congestion charge. After the scheme was introduced they had measured an improvement in journey times of 0.7 minutes per km, or 30%."
Even had traffic times not decreased, the cost of the infrastructure has more fairly shifted to the people using it least efficiently. That's a good thing. -
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/transport/congestion-charge-has-cost-drivers-26bn-in-decade-but-failed-to-cut-traffic-jams-8496627.html
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge
Right. Its pretty basic. While reducing the number of usable lanes to make way for, say, designated bus lanes, may mean faster transportation times for those on buses, it doesn't mean that for people riding in private vehicles. Hence, London, which some continue to dubiously cite as a congestion pricing success story, continues to have terrible traffic.
"A report by TfL in early 2007 indicated that there were 2.27 traffic delays per kilometre in the original charging zone. This compared with a figure of 2.3 before the introduction of the congestion charge. After the scheme was introduced they had measured an improvement in journey times of 0.7 minutes per km, or 30%."
Even had traffic times not decreased, the cost of the infrastructure has more fairly shifted to the people using it least efficiently. That's a good thing."The congestion charge has “sucked” about £2.6 billion from drivers in its first decade while failing to cut congestion, the AA claimed today.It said 57 per cent of the cash paid by motorists had been eaten up in administration charges, but speeds had failed to rise above those of a “horse and cart”. Transport for London hit back, saying it had raised £1.2 billion to improve public transport, including £960 million on a better bus service."
"Research by the AA found that despite traffic volumes falling within the zone, speeds became slower over the decade, as a result of road space being turned into bus lanes, cycle and pedestrian safety measures, and roadworks.""It said that roads were now so clogged, emissions of PM10 soot particles from car tyres and brakes were greater than from exhausts because of the amount of starting and stopping. AA president Edmund King said: “Drivers have paid a heavy price for slower journeys over the last decade. Some have argued that without charging, traffic speeds would have been even worse. But speeds in central London have remained fairly constant since the days of the horse and cart some 100 years ago.”Even with fewer cars on the road, traffic in London is still a disaster (and as I pointed out above, London remains the most congested city in North America/Europe). And it makes sense for the reasons I outlined above.And if I had to take a guess, drivers in London were already paying more than their fair share towards infrastructure upkeep via high gas taxes and automobile related fees. These aren't exactly freeloaders in what many would describe as an already overtaxed society.More fundamentally, though, I and others will remain steadfastly opposed to paying a significant amount of money when we are already taxed enough (from income, including city, state and federal, to sales to property to gas taxes) and made to pay high tolls on several crossings, especially if traffic is still going to be a disaster/be only potentially minimally improved under the scheme. These fees and taxes affect real people, hardworking people. These are people who have options and NYC will come to learn that it cannot keep taxing its way out of trouble.By the way, I assume that "C" on your hat means Cornell (it looks like a Cornell "C" to me). If that's the case, good to have another Cornellian in the forum! -
"TfL established that the primary reason for the continued reductions to traffic speed, which would otherwise have been unexpected given falling traffic levels, was a substantial increase in interventions that reduced the effective capacity of the road network for general traffic. These interventions ranged widely, including policies to increase road safety, improve the urban realm, and prioritise public transport, pedestrian and cycle traffic, as well as a large-scale increase in road works by utilities and general development activity. (Travel in London, Report 5 [pdf], p. 77)"Basically, London used the headroom in increased traffic speeds to prioritize improving the city, instead of moving cars quickly, which made things better for the vast majority of people who don't drive there. Engineering is about choosing the best tradeoff given your constraints, and London's choice of tradeoffs sure sounds good to me.More here:Lower Manhattan and London are such dense and popular places that traffic has been a 'disaster' since before the days of the automobile, such that a hatter built a bridge over Broadway to enable his customers to cross the street safely:It would take a truly enormous congestion charge to prevent traffic congestion in Lower Manhattan. What Sam Schwarz is proposing is, instead, lower tolls to less-congested areas where there are few transit alternatives, and raising tolls to congested areas where there are alternatives.
-
Given how "over capacity" the trains are, I have a hard time believing that tolling the East River Bridges stems from Sam's advice.....I also have a hard time believing that tolls we be lowered on any of the presently tolled bridges; The various transportation authorities do not share their revenue like that.
-
Sam Schwarz is a political actor running a political campaign, as he must to get this passed. Transportation authorities are creatures of the state, and they do what the state legislature tells them to do.
-
So far, it seems the state has told the authorities: "We are not going to give you the amount of $ you lost from the feds, or allow you to issue more bonds. Good luck. Good bye."
-
The 21st version century of "Drop dead" New York.
-
So far, it seems that Sam and proponents of the MTA are the only vocal proponents of Congestion Pricing 2.0: A forum for transportation geeks: February 19thSo far, the local politicians (including DeBlasio) have been absent from the press and forums (aka sales pitches)....were are just hearing from Sam and unelected advocate organizations that represent property owners in Brooklyn's very fortunate neighborhoods.I assume the goal of these forums is to build popular support, which will then get the politicians to realize that supporting this tax/fee (east river bridge tolling) won't come back to bite them.
-
Why would property owners in Brooklyn neighborhoods want to tax themselves when they enter Manhattan?
-
Many of them do not.
Others believe the tax will be substantial enough to reduce traffic, or "price out riff raff drivers". I think they believe CP will move their neighborhoods and commute toward being like Germany, where driving is expensive and very orderly.
Vision Zero proponents are certainly among the proponents of CP. Some may believe that less private vehicle traffic equates to fewer deaths.
It would also not surprise me if some held a neighborhood patriotism view, which allows them believe drivers from outside their neighborhood are worse than those from within it.
Regardless of whether they share such beliefs, the proponents of the MTA need to tacitly allow said beliefs to florish to be successful; People are not going to support the MTA unless they believe there is something in this for them.
Manhattan residents are reportedly "already" ok with CP because comparitively few of them cross into Brooklyn regularly. -
Why would property owners in Brooklyn neighborhoods want to tax themselves when they enter Manhattan?
Who actually drives to Lower Manhattan? Maybe on the FDR to dodge the Triboro toll, but that's about it, and that'd change with this plan anyway. Brooklyn property prices are very highly correlated to the length of a subway ride to Manhattan (hence ugly-ass Williamsburg becoming a luxury enclave), and Manhattan parking is obscenely expensive anyway. -
You're kidding, right? Brooklynites drive the Manhattan Bridge to cross Canal Street on their way to the Holland Tunnel, when they head south to the Jersey Shore, Philly, Washington, D.C., etc. They drive the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR when going anywhere from Midtown to Harlem to the GW Bridge to points north and west.
Congestion pricing will make it very expensive for Brooklynites to leave Brooklyn via car. It disadvantages Brooklyn residents versus Manhattan residents. -
It seems Manhattanites would also be tolled at 60th Street.
Today's NYT states tolls would be allocated as follows:
"A $5.54 E-ZPass toll would be introduced on the Ed Koch Queensboro, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges. The same toll would apply at each road that crosses 60th Street in Manhattan, including the West Side Highway and Franklin D. Roosevelt Drive. E-ZPass tolls would be lowered to $3.04 in each direction on several bridges, including the Robert F. Kennedy Bridge and the Throgs Neck Bridge."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/nyregion/group-seeks-new-tolls-in-manhattan-to-pay-for-regions-transportation-needs.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0
BTW, the proponents of this plan would prefer that we call it "the MOVE NY Fair Plan", as opposed to Congestion Pricing. -
The thing is, NYers have been living with toll free East River bridges since they were built. According to CBS radio this morning this plan would raise a billion for mass transit so it seems to have little to do with easing traffic and more to do with subsidizing buses and trains. This may even make mass transit more crowded and who knows if they'll restore what was taken away in service cuts. As for driving to lower Manhattan, there are times I'll drive there on a Sunday and park on the street because it's free and then the wife and I will walk up to midtown if it's a nice day. Last time we were in the city we clocked 11 miles.
-
If this was a sincere effort to "equalize tolls," I would support that. It would be much easier and faster for us to get to NJ and Westchester to visit our family via the RFK Bridge or the Verrazanno. However, we almost never do because the bridge tolls are SO high. If every bridge was $3-$6 to cross, I would support that. And my car would be one of many re-routed off the streets of Downtown Brooklyn or Lee Street in Williamsburg.
-
Equalizing tolls implies that the total amount of money collected will be a wash. This won't be a wash.
If passed, this will increase the subsidy to the MTA. The MTA is supporting this because it wants more more money.
"Organizers say the new proposal would generate $1.5 billion in annual revenue."
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/17/nyregion/group-seeks-new-tolls-in-manhattan-to-pay-for-regions-transportation-needs.html?ref=nyregion&_r=0
-
You're kidding, right? Brooklynites drive the Manhattan Bridge to cross Canal Street on their way to the Holland Tunnel, when they head south to the Jersey Shore, Philly, Washington, D.C., etc. They drive the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR when going anywhere from Midtown to Harlem to the GW Bridge to points north and west.
I mean driving to Lower Manhattan, not using it as a cut-through.
Congestion pricing will make it very expensive for Brooklynites to leave Brooklyn via car. It disadvantages Brooklyn residents versus Manhattan residents.
Sam Schwarz' plan, which is the only one getting political play right now and the one we're talking about in this thread, would have the Verazzano toll cut significantly in exchange for the tolls on the East River Bridges, which would make the shorter, faster, all-highway route a preferable choice to driving through the one of the most congested areas in the United States.
Likewise, it would cut the Triboro toll to the Bronx/Queens.
In addition to generating money to keep the transit system running, the goal is to move traffic from surface streets to highways.
-
As a frequent user of the Verazzano, I can testify that it is not a particularly short or fast way to get to NJ. It's usually only 5-10 minutes faster and slightly less annoying than battling your way across Canal street, but I'm concerned that reducing the tolls would increase traffic and effectively make it even less desirable.
-
ehgee, I am all for an "inexpensive" all-highway route to NJ and Bronx/Westchester. Would probably contribute to safer streets for pedestrians and bikers, as well, if all the drivers filled with road rage could get funnelled to highways or high-way like corridors. It would probably keep our streets in better condition, as well.
-
There is nothing fast about the Staten Island route to New Jersey, except perhaps at 6:00 AM. It is like a giant parking lot on Friday afternoons and Sunday evenings.
-
There is also nothing fast about the BQE, to the Triboro, to the Major Degan, to the GWB.
I find that it takes me a similar amount of time to take the Brooklyn Bridge to Chambers, to the Westside Highway, to the GWB.
...and I save several dollars. -
Driving in NYC will never be easy or convenient, seeing as even the car-owning minority consists of several million people, and there are not very many lanes for them to share. They also need to share those few lanes with the millions more on Long Island that need to get through the NYC bottleneck.
But it can be made more reasonable, so that if one wants a route that saves a few dollars, they take the BQE to the Triboro to the Deegan to the GWB, rather than clogging up neighborhood streets in Lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn.
I see Sam Schwarz' actual presentation is missing from this thread. It is here:
http://www.samschwartz.com/Portals/0/PDF/MNY112613.pdf
The crux is these two slides:
Howdy, Stranger!
Categories
- 40K All Categories
- 27.1K Neighborhoods
- 5.1K Crown Heights/Prospect Lefferts Gardens
- 7.1K Prospect Heights
- 2.3K Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, Bed-Stuy
- 8K Park Slope
- 549 Williamsburg, Greenpoint, Bushwick
- 442 Flatbush/Midwood/Ditmas Park
- 657 BoCoCa (Boerum Hill, Cobble Hill, Carroll Gardens)
- 151 Red Hook
- 104 Gowanus
- 304 Bay Ridge/Bensonhurst
- 130 Coney Island, Brighton Beach, Sheepshead Bay
- 270 Brooklyn Heights, DUMBO and Downtown
- 598 Windsor Terrace / Kensington
- 673 Greenwood Heights and Sunset Park
- 749 Brooklyn and Beyond
- 6.3K Stuff
- 86 Brooklyn Back When
- 1.2K Brooklyn Pets
- 257 Brooklyn Kids
- 241 Brooklyn Eats
- 51 Brooklyn Booze
- 3.6K The Lounge / Random Stuff
- 611 Brooklyn Politics
- 122 Brooklyn Sports and Fitness
- 111 Brooklyn Photos
- 339 Site Issues
- 8 Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
- 6.2K Listings
- 1.1K APARTMENTS and REAL ESTATE
- 1.3K Sales Openings Events
- 2.3K The Classifieds