Congestion Pricing for Manhattan

https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2019/03/31/nys-budget-deal-passes-congestion-pricing/

Gov. Andrew Cuomo and leaders of the New York State Legislature say they’ve reached a $175.5 billion state budget agreement.

The deal includes congestion pricing, a controversial plan to charge drivers below 60th Street in Manhattan.

A panel of experts will set the surcharges by the end of 2020, but sources tell CBS2 drivers in cars will pay around $11.50 and truck drivers will pay about $25. Possible discounts for some are still being worked out.

Lawmakers say the money will be spent to fix the MTA.

A statewide ban on most single-use plastic bags is also poised for approval.

The ban would take effect in March 2020 and calls for allowing local governments the option to impose a five-cent fee on paper bags. . . .

Click to expand...

Long overdue, and Portland, Seattle, L.A., S.F. and D.C. may follow suit, although there will undoubtedly be a lot of resistance. but it's essential to do this, lest AVs add even more to congestion than ride-shared vehicles do now. For more on the advantages and disadvantages of AVs, see Sam Schwartz's book "No One at the Wheel: Driverless Cars and the Road of the Future": https://www.amazon.com/No-One-Wheel-Driverless-Future/dp/1610398653 I'd also recommend Larry Burns "Autonomy: The Quest to Build the Driverless Car—And How It Will Reshape Our World" https://www.amazon.com/Autonomy-Que...coding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=FSWQWDZGYPX52YKMGFTS

I've read both (I just finished Schwartz's book). Burns is ex head of R&D at GM, and deals more with the technical end; Schwartz is former Chief Transportation Engineer and then Transportation Commissioner of NYC (and coined the term 'Gridlock'), and deals more with the operational and ethical side of things, although both books cover all areas. Schwartz had tried to implement Congestion Pricing and/or car bans going back many years (John Lindsay was mayor in the first attempt)!

Why just below 60th St? Why not all of Manhattan, since by doing so you are severely limiting the number of entrance/exit points (since it's an island) on which to install tolling equipment? Or is this one of those "this will disproportionately affect the people of Harlem" kind of things? In which case they can do what London has done and offered discounts to those who live "in the zone" (and BTW that includes "Liz" and her extended family).

Also by including the entire island, woudn't it be easier to just raise the existing tolls in the bridges and tunnels (not that it's cheap now)? Or is this another set of politics, since those crossings I believe are all Port Authority owned?

Just another tax. I'm sure New York will waste the money. Or worse, they will use it to advance causes with a negative value.

Now that the technology exists to erect toll collectors anywhere without disrupting the flow of traffic, governments the world over will be installing these "revenue generators" everywhere.

"Pay $4 to drive to the Westside? Congestion pricing could cut traffic gridlock, report says"

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow...ing-toll-traffic-westside-20190328-story.html

"Charging drivers a fee to reduce traffic jams has worked in London, Milan and Stockholm, and the idea is gaining ground in New York.

But in Southern California, elected officials have approached the question of congestion pricing with trepidation, saying that such a dramatic shift in a driving-dependent region would require detailed study of its impacts.

The region’s first such study, released Thursday by the Southern California Assn. of Governments, suggests that charging drivers to enter an area of West Los Angeles and Santa Monica just west of the 405 Freeway and north of the 10 Freeway could significantly smooth out rush-hour traffic jams and speed commute times.

A $4 fee to drive into the 4.3-square-mile area during weekday rush hour could almost immediately reduce traffic delays and miles driven there by more than 20%, the analysis found."

RonDawg said:

Why just below 60th St?

Click to expand...

Most of the major tunnels/bridges are south of 60th, so I suspect this will be implemented by a surcharge on all of those. (e.g,. the northmost of them is the Queensboro Bridge, which has exits inbetween 59th and 60th). North of 60th, the next bridge into Manhattan is at 125th St.

KeiJidosha said:

"Pay $4 to drive to the Westside? Congestion pricing could cut traffic gridlock, report says"

https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow...ing-toll-traffic-westside-20190328-story.html

"Charging drivers a fee to reduce traffic jams has worked in London, Milan and Stockholm, and the idea is gaining ground in New York.

But in Southern California, elected officials have approached the question of congestion pricing with trepidation, saying that such a dramatic shift in a driving-dependent region would require detailed study of its impacts.

The region’s first such study, released Thursday by the Southern California Assn. of Governments, suggests that charging drivers to enter an area of West Los Angeles and Santa Monica just west of the 405 Freeway and north of the 10 Freeway could significantly smooth out rush-hour traffic jams and speed commute times.

A $4 fee to drive into the 4.3-square-mile area during weekday rush hour could almost immediately reduce traffic delays and miles driven there by more than 20%, the analysis found."

Click to expand...

This is going to be problematic given the numerous streets and alleys. Drivers will use these as ways to get around any toll detectors, and there are simply too many of them to install detectors. They would have to find a hard border with few crossings...basically, the 405 and 10 Freeways. Sepulveda Pass would provide a natural barrier to the north, and along the coast you could set up something at say Topanga Canyon and PCH to cover that entrance.

This is also a relatively well-to-do area, with politically active residents. Good luck to ya, MTA.

RonDawg said:

This is going to be problematic given the numerous streets and alleys...

Click to expand...

Agreed. Well beyond weighing the merits of the idea, the mechanics of implementation are daunting.

RegGuheert said:

Just another tax. I'm sure New York will waste the money. Or worse, they will use it to advance causes with a negative value.

Now that the technology exists to erect toll collectors anywhere without disrupting the flow of traffic, governments the world over will be installing these "revenue generators" everywhere.

Click to expand...

Here are some of the specifics from the bill:

• The new tolling program will be established and administered by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), in collaboration with the city’s DOT; that includes signage notifying drivers of the tolls, the infrastructure to collect fares, and more.
  
  Of the funds collected, 80 percent will go towards capital projects (including improving accessibility and upgrading outdated signals) on subways and buses; 20 percent will be split evenly between Metro-North and the Long Island Rail Road.
  
  The area where the new toll will apply includes all of Manhattan below 60th Street—with the exception of the West Side Highway, FDR Drive, and the Battery tunnel including “any surface roadway portion of the Hugh L. Carey Tunnel connecting 14 to West St.”
  
  Drivers will only be tolled once on any given day.
  
  The plan includes some carve-outs—for emergency vehicles, and for drivers with disabilities—and will offer credits for some New Yorkers, including those who live below 60th Street and people making $60,000 or less per year. The Traffic Mobility Review Board will be responsible for recommending any other carve-outs or exemptions.
  
  The TBTA and the DOT will issue regular reports on the effects of congestion pricing, including how it impacts traffic and air quality.

Click to expand...

https://ny.curbed.com/2019/4/1/18290323/nyc-traffic-congestion-pricing-state-budget

ISTR reading somewhere that they will make use of EZ-Pass transponders, which are already in use for bridge tolls. Hardly seems like a waste, let alone a negative value - during commute hours the average traffic speed in Manhattan is now down to 4.7 mph. Sam Schwartz likes to point out that given the authority he could end most congestion in U.S. cities tomorrow, simply by requiring all privately-owned passenger vehicles to have at least two people onboard during high congestion times (IIRR, average private passenger vehicle occupancy during commutes in the U.S. is 1.07. The sheer number of cars is responsible for 35% of congestion; other causes are accidents, roadwork, too busy signs, etc.). That's the reason why I'm not terribly enthusiastic about SO HOV stickers for AFVs, as it incentives the very practice that is responsible for most of the congestion.

RegGuheert said:

Just another tax. I'm sure New York will waste the money. Or worse, they will use it to advance causes with a negative value.

Now that the technology exists to erect toll collectors anywhere without disrupting the flow of traffic, governments the world over will be installing these "revenue generators" everywhere.

Click to expand...

Congestion has a price. Or more correctly a cost.

If you could, without congestion, drive someplace in an hour, and with congestion it takes two hours, how much is an hour worth to you?

So this congestion "taxes" everyone. A complete waste at best.

As traffic slows with congestion, it is worse than a complete waste. A road has a given capacity at an ideal speed. Less traffic often means speeds higher than ideal for capacity, which isn't necessarily a problem. More traffic slows down speeds. As speeds slow, fewer cars pass a given point per hour. So removing some traffic would make the rest not only faster, but more traffic could be handled by the roads.

So even if New York wastes the tax collections, it is probably better than congestion wasting people's time. Even if NY manages to do harm spending the receipts, it might be better than congestion. Even if NY gave away the rights to collect tolls to some crazy orange faced millionaire pretending to be a billionaire, it might be better than congestion.

Road capacity is an Commons. Everyone can use it, at any time. Which is a good way when there is lots of capacity relative to demand. And a bad way when there more demand than capacity.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full

Just for giggles, the average daily ridership of NYC subways has been at or above 5.5 million from 2014 through 2017 (http://web.mta.info/nyct/facts/ridership/). Even if we assume that 3/4 of those rides are for people who don't drive because they're too young, too old, disabled or don't own a car (only 45% of NYC households own cars, varying from 22% in Manhattan to 83% in Staten Island), that's still an extra 1 million+ cars on NYC's roads if they're SO. Just imagine the effect of 20% of them in Manhattan - never mind average travel speed, they could just turn them all off and rent them out for housing, given that they won't be moving anywhere any time soon.

For much more, see

New York City
Mobility Report
NYC Department of Transportation June 2018

Click to expand...

http://www.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/mobility-report-2018-screen-optimized.pdf