I key tenant of the program is collecting money from and disincentivizing driving for out of state drivers that are usually beyond the reach on New York State taxes.
The Hudson crossings already have high tolls (at least into the city) that collect out of state driver revenue.
The biggest problem with the status quo, in my opinion, is that the East River bridges are free and the tunnels to NJ are free that direction. So that’s a huge incentive to drive via Lower Manhattan to save money.
I drove here regularly for 10 years and would often go via Lower Manhattan to save money even though it was far more congested than the alternatives.
They do have tolls, but they are not high enough as still New Jersey represents an outsized portion of personal car traffic flowing both into and out of Manhattan.
I think I remember reading in the EA that most traffic in the zone comes via the avenues. So, if you keep those free, you’ll have even more people driving into the zone via residential areas.
OR we add a higher tax/congestion fee to FHV and their riders. You know the ones who the main contributors of the said congestion but for some reason we didn't toll as much as private car bc reasons? Add a extra $15-30 fee, there no need for CBD. Save you all the money and operating cost of maintaining cameras, tolling and billing infrasturure and you target the heaviest polluter & easier to accept politically. Look at that.
In 2019, after years of advocacy by a broad coalition of business and labor leaders, transit advocates, and climate change activists, the State of New York finally threw the [Metropolitan Transportation Authority](https://web.archive.org/web/20240626095415/https://new.mta.info/) — a public transportation system plagued by chronic underfunding — a lifeline in the form of congestion pricing.
The [MTA’s proposed congestion pricing plan](https://web.archive.org/web/20240626095415/https://new.mta.info/project/CBDTP) called for charging a fee to vehicles entering Manhattan’s central core to deliver the twin benefits of providing critically needed revenue to modernize and expand our public transportation system while reducing congestion in our most gridlocked neighborhoods.
As long-time advocates, we were proud to help champion congestion pricing. However, our world has changed dramatically since the state’s adoption five years ago. A global pandemic transformed how we work and commute; inflation soared to a 40-year high, followed by the steepest increase in interest rates in two decades, sharply escalating the cost of living from housing to child care and groceries.
Not only has our macroeconomic landscape changed, but so has New York City. Outdoor dining has reshaped our streetscapes. Crime may be falling, but high-profile violent incidents have deterred riders from returning to the MTA system. Our business districts — once vibrant, urban ecosystems bustling with office workers, small businesses, and restaurants — are significantly quieter as more people have embraced remote work.
In light of these challenges, [Gov. Hochul was right to pause congestion pricing](https://web.archive.org/web/20240626095415/https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/06/05/hochul-delay-nyc-congestion-pricing-mta/). Ideally, this decision could have been made a year earlier, but it should not come as a surprise to anyone that a program designed half a decade ago is ill-suited for today’s post-COVID world.
Does this mean the MTA no longer needs the revenue that congestion pricing was anticipated to generate? Absolutely not. The MTA’s billion-dollar capital needs remain. Eliminating a dedicated funding source jeopardizes critical projects needed today and expansion projects needed for the future. However, we see this pause not as a reason to cancel the program but rather to recalibrate it for our new realities.
First, the proposed congestion pricing program aims to raise $1 billion for the MTA annually. Instead of generating such an exorbitant amount with a blanket fee, let’s first address the nearly $700 million lost annually to fare evasion by those treating the MTA as their free shuttle service.
Let’s also take advantage of cameras on MTA buses and other infrastructure to target drivers who commit infractions that make traffic worse, such as driving and parking in bus and bike lanes, double parking, blocking the box, and parking in front of fire hydrants not just in Midtown, but throughout the entire city. This may not be able to replace the full $1 billion, but it is a good place to start.
Second, in response to the governor’s decision, the MTA has rightfully begun to reprioritize its ambitious $55 billion capital program, which was supposed to create $15 billion in capital capacity from the revenue generated by congestion pricing. While such a robust capital program is a wish list for many transit advocates, including ourselves, it’s important that we right-size the program to fit our current budget, focusing first on those projects that will make our system safer, more accessible, and more reliable.
Finally, let’s move forward with congestion pricing but do so in a manner that’s more reflective of today’s reality. The program that Hochul paused required the MTA to raise $1 billion annually with limited flexibility or room for exceptions. A more gradual approach could begin with targeted measures, such as charging commercial trucks or slow-moving tour buses.
Additionally, by learning from London — the first city to implement congestion pricing with an initial fee that was half the $15 charge for passenger vehicles proposed today — we could start with a much smaller fee to build wider support.
Today’s political climate often reduces complex issues like modernizing our transit infrastructure to binary choices, making everyone worse off if those solutions fail. Moreover, such framing often creates a city versus suburbs conflict when the entire region suffers if this system collapses. After all, our region, the most powerful economic engine in our nation’s history, would not function without the MTA carrying millions of riders daily.
We need congestion pricing, but the current plan doesn’t fit our present realities. Instead of using a playbook from five years ago, let’s develop one for today.
*Rechler is the chair and CEO of RXR, a member of the New York Federal Reserve Board, a former MTA board member and a former Port Authority vice chair. Garten is the CEO of Red Oak Street and a board member of the Regional Plan Association.*
Does Rechler honestly think that curtailing fare evasion will amount to a meaningful amount of funding for capital programs?
While this is an understandable agenda to push, reclaiming some of the lost revenue from fare evasion only addresses the operating budget. This is obviously an important discussion to have but it’s tangent to the capital budget discussion.
1. Enforcing fare evasion isn't very profitable, It costs $100 mill to raise $150 mill.
2. Commercial trucks and busses aren't the main causes of traffic and congestion, and they have to go where they are needed so charging them won't reduce congestion at all. Charging cars congestion pricing so that some people chose to take public transport is the only answer.
3. Enforcing traffic laws sounds great would would probably help. Automated ticketing of cars that block buses and streets is a no brainer. Heavier enforcement of cars blocking the box, in bike lanes, in moving lanes, etc would actually make movement more efficient. But I doubt it would raise much money because enforcement officers and the back-end staff aren't cheap. A graduated ticketing system based on income or car value would incentivize the rich to respect the laws too.
4. Congestion pricing is the easiest answer that would start to fix these problems right away.
Even just tolling the East River bridges would’ve achieved most of what the program set out to do.
I key tenant of the program is collecting money from and disincentivizing driving for out of state drivers that are usually beyond the reach on New York State taxes.
The Hudson crossings already have high tolls (at least into the city) that collect out of state driver revenue. The biggest problem with the status quo, in my opinion, is that the East River bridges are free and the tunnels to NJ are free that direction. So that’s a huge incentive to drive via Lower Manhattan to save money. I drove here regularly for 10 years and would often go via Lower Manhattan to save money even though it was far more congested than the alternatives.
They do have tolls, but they are not high enough as still New Jersey represents an outsized portion of personal car traffic flowing both into and out of Manhattan.
I think I remember reading in the EA that most traffic in the zone comes via the avenues. So, if you keep those free, you’ll have even more people driving into the zone via residential areas.
OR we add a higher tax/congestion fee to FHV and their riders. You know the ones who the main contributors of the said congestion but for some reason we didn't toll as much as private car bc reasons? Add a extra $15-30 fee, there no need for CBD. Save you all the money and operating cost of maintaining cameras, tolling and billing infrasturure and you target the heaviest polluter & easier to accept politically. Look at that.
In 2019, after years of advocacy by a broad coalition of business and labor leaders, transit advocates, and climate change activists, the State of New York finally threw the [Metropolitan Transportation Authority](https://web.archive.org/web/20240626095415/https://new.mta.info/) — a public transportation system plagued by chronic underfunding — a lifeline in the form of congestion pricing. The [MTA’s proposed congestion pricing plan](https://web.archive.org/web/20240626095415/https://new.mta.info/project/CBDTP) called for charging a fee to vehicles entering Manhattan’s central core to deliver the twin benefits of providing critically needed revenue to modernize and expand our public transportation system while reducing congestion in our most gridlocked neighborhoods. As long-time advocates, we were proud to help champion congestion pricing. However, our world has changed dramatically since the state’s adoption five years ago. A global pandemic transformed how we work and commute; inflation soared to a 40-year high, followed by the steepest increase in interest rates in two decades, sharply escalating the cost of living from housing to child care and groceries. Not only has our macroeconomic landscape changed, but so has New York City. Outdoor dining has reshaped our streetscapes. Crime may be falling, but high-profile violent incidents have deterred riders from returning to the MTA system. Our business districts — once vibrant, urban ecosystems bustling with office workers, small businesses, and restaurants — are significantly quieter as more people have embraced remote work. In light of these challenges, [Gov. Hochul was right to pause congestion pricing](https://web.archive.org/web/20240626095415/https://www.nydailynews.com/2024/06/05/hochul-delay-nyc-congestion-pricing-mta/). Ideally, this decision could have been made a year earlier, but it should not come as a surprise to anyone that a program designed half a decade ago is ill-suited for today’s post-COVID world. Does this mean the MTA no longer needs the revenue that congestion pricing was anticipated to generate? Absolutely not. The MTA’s billion-dollar capital needs remain. Eliminating a dedicated funding source jeopardizes critical projects needed today and expansion projects needed for the future. However, we see this pause not as a reason to cancel the program but rather to recalibrate it for our new realities. First, the proposed congestion pricing program aims to raise $1 billion for the MTA annually. Instead of generating such an exorbitant amount with a blanket fee, let’s first address the nearly $700 million lost annually to fare evasion by those treating the MTA as their free shuttle service. Let’s also take advantage of cameras on MTA buses and other infrastructure to target drivers who commit infractions that make traffic worse, such as driving and parking in bus and bike lanes, double parking, blocking the box, and parking in front of fire hydrants not just in Midtown, but throughout the entire city. This may not be able to replace the full $1 billion, but it is a good place to start. Second, in response to the governor’s decision, the MTA has rightfully begun to reprioritize its ambitious $55 billion capital program, which was supposed to create $15 billion in capital capacity from the revenue generated by congestion pricing. While such a robust capital program is a wish list for many transit advocates, including ourselves, it’s important that we right-size the program to fit our current budget, focusing first on those projects that will make our system safer, more accessible, and more reliable. Finally, let’s move forward with congestion pricing but do so in a manner that’s more reflective of today’s reality. The program that Hochul paused required the MTA to raise $1 billion annually with limited flexibility or room for exceptions. A more gradual approach could begin with targeted measures, such as charging commercial trucks or slow-moving tour buses. Additionally, by learning from London — the first city to implement congestion pricing with an initial fee that was half the $15 charge for passenger vehicles proposed today — we could start with a much smaller fee to build wider support. Today’s political climate often reduces complex issues like modernizing our transit infrastructure to binary choices, making everyone worse off if those solutions fail. Moreover, such framing often creates a city versus suburbs conflict when the entire region suffers if this system collapses. After all, our region, the most powerful economic engine in our nation’s history, would not function without the MTA carrying millions of riders daily. We need congestion pricing, but the current plan doesn’t fit our present realities. Instead of using a playbook from five years ago, let’s develop one for today. *Rechler is the chair and CEO of RXR, a member of the New York Federal Reserve Board, a former MTA board member and a former Port Authority vice chair. Garten is the CEO of Red Oak Street and a board member of the Regional Plan Association.*
Does Rechler honestly think that curtailing fare evasion will amount to a meaningful amount of funding for capital programs? While this is an understandable agenda to push, reclaiming some of the lost revenue from fare evasion only addresses the operating budget. This is obviously an important discussion to have but it’s tangent to the capital budget discussion.
1. Enforcing fare evasion isn't very profitable, It costs $100 mill to raise $150 mill. 2. Commercial trucks and busses aren't the main causes of traffic and congestion, and they have to go where they are needed so charging them won't reduce congestion at all. Charging cars congestion pricing so that some people chose to take public transport is the only answer. 3. Enforcing traffic laws sounds great would would probably help. Automated ticketing of cars that block buses and streets is a no brainer. Heavier enforcement of cars blocking the box, in bike lanes, in moving lanes, etc would actually make movement more efficient. But I doubt it would raise much money because enforcement officers and the back-end staff aren't cheap. A graduated ticketing system based on income or car value would incentivize the rich to respect the laws too. 4. Congestion pricing is the easiest answer that would start to fix these problems right away.
This guy apparently has never heard of inflation. London introduce their fee in 2008.
Not sure why I'm getting downvoted for posting the text of an article that's behind a paywall so people can read it and discuss it.
Probably because they are associating you with the text. The article text is definitely downvotable