NYC MTA Congestion Pricing Effects on NYCT, NJT, MNRR, and LIRR

New York does not need any more road capacity. Attempts to solve congestion problems by adding more capacity (widening, grade separation, etc.) are counterproductive because they will just induce more vehicle trips during peak which would not have normally occurred. You can keep on expanding and expanding, but especially in a region like NY, you will never end congestion. Moreover, those additional vehicles have to go somewhere which causes traffic region wide.

If you are going from the Holland Tunnel to the free east river bridges, you can take west street and the FDR to avoid the charge. If you are willing to pay the extra $2, you can go down canal street with less traffic because you will have fewer people taking that route or using it to enter Manhattan.

Building an elevated highway through Manhattan would destroy the quality of life through that area and substantially decrease tax revenues to the city through lowered property values. With the price of Manhattan real estate, it would also be extremely expensive with land acquisition. A below grade (or ground) highway would be astronomical. Not only would takings be expensive, but do you realize how much infrastructure you would have to relocate? Subways, piping, electrical, etc. To give you an idea, the first phase (from 63rd st to 96th st, about 1.7 miles) of the second avenue subway will cost about $3.8 billion dollars. That for two single track bored tunnels. Subways do not require as heavy duty ventilation system as vehicle tunnels do. The right of way is also much smaller.

It really doesn't matter though, because it won't improve regional congestion.

Vehicle routes got their "improvements" with Robert Moses. They've had quite enough.

By the way, there are mass transit options available to get to Long Island from NJ. They're not great and definitely need to be improved, but they do exist.

Thanks JCGuy.

finsuburbia wrote: New York does not need any more road capacity. Attempts to solve congestion problems by adding more capacity (widening, grade separation, etc.) are counterproductive because they will just induce more vehicle trips during peak which would not have normally occurred.

More trips mean more business as long as the trip go where they are supposed to be going.

finsuburbia wrote: You can keep on expanding and expanding, but especially in a region like NY, you will never end congestion. Moreover, those additional vehicles have to go somewhere which causes traffic region wide.

I do acknowledge that. That is a reason for better roads whereever the traffic goes.

finsuburbia wrote: If you are going from the Holland Tunnel to the free east river bridges, you can take west street and the FDR to avoid the charge. If you are willing to pay the extra $2, you can go down canal street with less traffic because you will have fewer people taking that route or using it to enter Manhattan.

How is canal street an extra $2? During the day it is crowded mostly with too many people.

finsuburbia wrote: Building an elevated highway through Manhattan would destroy the quality of life through that area and substantially decrease tax revenues to the city through lowered property values.

Quite the opposite. With less polution and drivers honking their horns every minute, quality of life would go up. Property values are too high right now, so lower property values are a good thing. It would mean that decent working residents could afford places to live.

finsuburbia wrote: With the price of Manhattan real estate, it would also be extremely expensive with land acquisition.

The best route for an interstate through the city would probably to through somewhere in Harlem. The city wastes a lot of tax money on all those public housing buildings. Inevitable some buildings that the state does not own would have to be demolished through eminant domain, but once built, it is possible to build above a highway, like some of the buildings over the FDR drive have been built.
And yes, those people can be relocated from public housing to other cities where they can afford to actually pay rent from whatever jobs they can find.

blockss wrote:Thanks JCGuy.

finsuburbia wrote: New York does not need any more road capacity. Attempts to solve congestion problems by adding more capacity (widening, grade separation, etc.) are counterproductive because they will just induce more vehicle trips during peak which would not have normally occurred.

More trips mean more business as long as the trip go where they are supposed to be going.

Not car trips in a place NYC (especially in Manhattan). Most business in Manhattan is done on foot. People are not likely to frequent local businesses because there is the issue of parking and retrieving cars (and no, more parking will not help, it will just cause more traffic). That's why post WWII (read car oriented) development has been largely centered around (strip-) malls rather than main streets.

finsuburbia wrote: You can keep on expanding and expanding, but especially in a region like NY, you will never end congestion. Moreover, those additional vehicles have to go somewhere which causes traffic region wide.

I do acknowledge that. That is a reason for better roads whereever the traffic goes.

Its a never ending cycle. The more you increase capacity in one place, the more you have to increase it elsewhere. This in turn causes you to have to increase capacity elsewhere and eventually you have to increase capacity in the original location. And it never solves the congestion problem. Think about the amount of freeways in LA or atlanta. Now think about their congestion. Its worse than NYC.

finsuburbia wrote: If you are going from the Holland Tunnel to the free east river bridges, you can take west street and the FDR to avoid the charge. If you are willing to pay the extra $2, you can go down canal street with less traffic because you will have fewer people taking that route or using it to enter Manhattan.

How is canal street an extra $2? During the day it is crowded mostly with too many people.

Because canal street would be in the charge zone. You could pay the extra two dollars ($8 congestion charge - $6 Holland tunnel toll) and use canal street. If you don't want to pay, you can circumvent it on west street and the FDR.

finsuburbia wrote: Building an elevated highway through Manhattan would destroy the quality of life through that area and substantially decrease tax revenues to the city through lowered property values.

Quite the opposite. With less polution and drivers honking their horns every minute, quality of life would go up. Property values are too high right now, so lower property values are a good thing. It would mean that decent working residents could afford places to live.

Absolutely not. Firstly, an elevated highway would have even more pollution because it would increase the number of vehicles through the area. Putting vehicles through faster does not improve air quality if there are just going to be more vehicles overall. Throughout the city, it is areas near highways that have the highest asthma rate. Secondly, like or not, the city relies on property tax revenues of the wealthy to pay for city services. If you do something like this, you are going to put the city in another fiscal crisis like the 1970s (you know, the one that stopped the second ave subway). Also, the MTA relies on the real estate transfer tax for much of its funding. You lower property values, you kill the MTA.

I don't know about you, but I would never willingly want to live next to a highway. I used to live next to the NEC and even with Amtrak trains shaking my room all night, I would still prefer it to a highway.

There should be a lot more affordable housing in city, but this a terrible way to achieve that goal.

finsuburbia wrote: With the price of Manhattan real estate, it would also be extremely expensive with land acquisition.

The best route for an interstate through the city would probably to through somewhere in Harlem. The city wastes a lot of tax money on all those public housing buildings. Inevitable some buildings that the state does not own would have to be demolished through eminant domain, but once built, it is possible to build above a highway, like some of the buildings over the FDR drive have been built.
And yes, those people can be relocated from public housing to other cities where they can afford to actually pay rent from whatever jobs they can find.

Firstly, there's already a highway through northern Manhattan (the Trans-Manhattan Expressway).

Secondly, how can you advocate for affordable housing for some people but tell other people that they should relocate to other cities?

Secondly, you can't really build above a highway (especially in a city) unless it is below grade. As I said, if you want to build a below grade highway in Manhattan, you have an incredible amount of infrastructure relocation that would make the project cost billions and billions of dollars. Even if it was going to be useful (which its not), where are you going to get the funding for such a project?

finsuburbia wrote:Not car trips in a place NYC (especially in Manhattan). Most business in Manhattan is done on foot.

Most of the business depends on supplies which require vehicles of some sort to bring in. These are the vehicles that I want to make life easier for.

finsuburbia wrote:It's a never-ending cycle. The more you increase capacity in one place, the more you have to increase it elsewhere.

In this case there are two types of capacity. Housing and road. In this case I'm advocating that housing capacity is reduced for more road capacity. Our country has miles and miles of land from sea to shining sea, and some areas desperately need people while New York City is overcrowded.

finsuburbia wrote:Absolutely not. Firstly, an elevated highway would have even more pollution because it would increase the number of vehicles through the area. Putting vehicles through faster does not improve air quality if there are just going to be more vehicles overall.

There would be more vehicles, but they would generate less population a piece. Keep in mind that a vehicle has a fuel economy of zero mpg when it is stopped in traffic.

finsuburbia wrote:Throughout the city, it is areas near highways that have the highest asthma rate.

Probably because that's the only place where trees and plants have a place to grow.

finsuburbia wrote:Secondly, like or not, the city relies on property tax revenues of the wealthy to pay for city services.

I'll have to say that I don't like it, because that is money that is taken away from the working class for city services that go to people who don't work. Some taxes are necessary to run the city, but there is a point when taxation becomes unethical.

finsuburbia wrote:If you do something like this, you are going to put the city in another fiscal crisis like the 1970s (you know, the one that stopped the Second Avenue Subway).

Quite the opposite. If you clean out the bad, it will create room for the good. Businesses will prosper and so will the city.

finsuburbia wrote:Also, the MTA relies on the real estate transfer tax for much of its funding. You lower property values, you kill the MTA.

A different topic, but the MTA is in the financial situation it is in because of incompetent employees. There used to be a day when you could get change from a bus driver. Now you cant even buy a fare (Metrocard) from some of the token clerks (or is it all) even when the electronic dispensers are broken.

finsuburbia wrote:There should be a lot more affordable housing in city, but this a terrible way to achieve that goal.

Someone has to pay for it. The only thing that I can think of as fair is for the resident to be the one paying for it. The resident should not get a handout and should not have to subsidize anyone else's housing.

finsuburbia wrote:Secondly, how can you advocate for affordable housing for some people but tell other people that they should relocate to other cities?

Easily. Housing is something that needs to be earned and New York City is not the best place for some people to be living while it is for others…

finsuburbia wrote:Secondly, you can't really build above a highway (especially in a city) unless it is below grade. As I said, if you want to build a below grade highway in Manhattan, you have an incredible amount of infrastructure relocation that would make the project cost billions and billions of dollars.

Elevated highways do exist and can be built.

finsuburbia wrote:Even if it was going to be useful (which it's not), where are you going to get the funding for such a project?

From the taxes and tolls that are already collected (though they would be reduced) and are higher than other areas which manage to maintain their roads without the problems that New York has. I would just not waste them on other things such as public housing and a large list of other non-essential city services.

blockss wrote:

finsuburbia wrote:Not car trips in a place NYC (especially in Manhattan). Most business in Manhattan is done on foot.

Most of the business depends on supplies which require vehicles of some sort to bring in. These are the vehicles that I want to make life easier for.

Getting supplies is not the real issue.
I was responding to your statement that "More trips mean more business." That generally does not refer to supplying trips but bringing customers to stores.
For retail businesses in a city environment, foot traffic is a must. If you prioritize vehicle traffic over peds, they will lose business. You cannot adequately serve city businesses with cars.

finsuburbia wrote:It's a never-ending cycle. The more you increase capacity in one place, the more you have to increase it elsewhere.

In this case there are two types of capacity. Housing and road. In this case I'm advocating that housing capacity is reduced for more road capacity. Our country has miles and miles of land from sea to shining sea, and some areas desperately need people while New York City is overcrowded.

So you're advocating sprawl? One of New York's greatest assets is its density. This is the number one reason why the NY metro area has the majority of rail riders in the country. Transit is feasible only when there are people to use it. The frequency of transit headways is proportional to the density of the area. It also is most efficiently used if its connected to walkable environments. This is exactly why you cannot serve sprawl effectively with transit. Each stop that you have in a low density setting can only serve a few people. There are also a limited number of businesses that are within walkable distance of a transit stop in sprawl, making that stop less effective.

If you want less density in NYC, fine, but be prepared to see NJT turn into SEPTA.

Land does not need people. There is no reason why all areas "need more people."

finsuburbia wrote:Absolutely not. Firstly, an elevated highway would have even more pollution because it would increase the number of vehicles through the area. Putting vehicles through faster does not improve air quality if there are just going to be more vehicles overall.

There would be more vehicles, but they would generate less population a piece. Keep in mind that a vehicle has a fuel economy of zero mpg when it is stopped in traffic.

No. Firstly, as I said before, you're never going to solve congestion through road capacity expansion. I recommend you look up the concept of Induced demand.

Secondly,
Highways do not improve air quality. That idea that they do is a complete myth. In fact, they reduce air quality.

finsuburbia wrote:Throughout the city, it is areas near highways that have the highest asthma rate.

Probably because that's the only place where trees and plants have a place to grow.
[/quote]
???

finsuburbia wrote:Secondly, like or not, the city relies on property tax revenues of the wealthy to pay for city services.

I'll have to say that I don't like it, because that is money that is taken away from the working class for city services that go to people who don't work. Some taxes are necessary to run the city, but there is a point when taxation becomes unethical.

Give me a break. NYC's unemployment rate is the same as the rest of the country, so its not like the situation is any different there. Public housing and housing assistance is not just for the unemployed, but also for low and moderate income families.

finsuburbia wrote:If you do something like this, you are going to put the city in another fiscal crisis like the 1970s (you know, the one that stopped the Second Avenue Subway).

Quite the opposite. If you clean out the bad, it will create room for the good. Businesses will prosper and so will the city.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here

finsuburbia wrote:Also, the MTA relies on the real estate transfer tax for much of its funding. You lower property values, you kill the MTA.

A different topic, but the MTA is in the financial situation it is in because of incompetent employees. There used to be a day when you could get change from a bus driver. Now you cant even buy a fare (Metrocard) from some of the token clerks (or is it all) even when the electronic dispensers are broken.

Blaming the MTA's financial troubles on incompetence is a complete canard. Yes there is incompetence and corruption in the MTA, but that happens in every organization as large as the MTA, and yes in the private sector as well.

finsuburbia wrote:There should be a lot more affordable housing in city, but this a terrible way to achieve that goal.

Someone has to pay for it. The only thing that I can think of as fair is for the resident to be the one paying for it. The resident should not get a handout and should not have to subsidize anyone else's housing.

Umm... Pricing is based on markets. If you want to have everyone "pay for their own" housing in a high demand area like Manhattan, then you will have only rich people living there. The market price (i.e. not subsidized) for housing in Manhattan is way above the means of most low and moderate income families.

finsuburbia wrote:Secondly, how can you advocate for affordable housing for some people but tell other people that they should relocate to other cities?

Easily. Housing is something that needs to be earned and New York City is not the best place for some people to be living while it is for others…

I don't know what type of economy you're living in, but see my previous statement.

finsuburbia wrote:Secondly, you can't really build above a highway (especially in a city) unless it is below grade. As I said, if you want to build a below grade highway in Manhattan, you have an incredible amount of infrastructure relocation that would make the project cost billions and billions of dollars.

Elevated highways do exist and can be built.

I said building above highways and of course I meant elevated (there's pretty much no way to build an at grade highway through a city without cutting a city in half). Besides, by the accounts that I've heard, the quality of life is terrible living in "The Apartments" above the Trans-Manhattan Expressway.

finsuburbia wrote:Even if it was going to be useful (which it's not), where are you going to get the funding for such a project?

From the taxes and tolls that are already collected (though they would be reduced) and are higher than other areas which manage to maintain their roads without the problems that New York has. I would just not waste them on other things such as public housing and a large list of other non-essential city services.

So you're advocating spending billions of city tax dollars on a project that will lower tax revenue, displace thousands of city residents and won't serve most of them (53% of city households do not have a car, 75% in Manhattan). And you threw in "they [the tolls] would be reduced?" How? By getting rid of the subways? By letting the bridges and tunnels fall into disrepair?

Can you please stop with the public housing canard. Out of the city's $15.3 billion capital budget for fy2008, public housing accounts for about 0.53%. Out of the nearly $59 billion expense budget adopted by the city, expenses for fy2008 represents 0.8% of the budget and most of that money does not come from city funds. The amount that comes from city funds is equal to roughly 0.141% of the city budget. Don't believe me? Check out the figures yourself here.

Oh and while you're at it, please should me what those other non-essential services are...

This seems to have digressed too far from the railroad and such. I'm gonna lock it. If you feel this thread has more life in it that is on topic, you can always contact me or the Chief and we can re-open.

I think that one of the frustrating things about Bloomberg's plan is that it really doesn't seek to put in place truly bold transformative infrastructure projects. There's a commitment in there to bring up the current system to good repair and some positive noises about getting ESA, 2nd ave. subway and THE Tunnel done, but all of these were on the table apart from the plan and don't require congestion pricing or any city revenue source at all for financing.

The "congestion pricing" plan will not in anyone's wildest dreams raise near enough money to build a subway line. The thing needs a huge federal subsidy simply to begin operations without substantial loss-making. It is basically an anti-car plan, which is wildly popular among anti-car types. The mayor has quite clearly bought into the anti-car ethos of the past 40 years (I'm sure he pats himself on the back while taking his SUV caravan to the subway stop in the morning). The main transport initiatives attached to the congestion pricing plan, however loosely, seem to revolve around express buses.

Link to website containing plan:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/planyc2030/html/home/home.shtml

If he really wanted to be bold, he'd recommend allowing private companies to build new capacity to jump start or complete much needed projects, like the 2nd ave. subway (full line Bronx to Hanover Square), a line on the far west side, solid express service into Queens and Brooklyn, extensions of Queens and Brooklyn lines, replacement or augmentation of Queens and Brooklyn elevated lines with fast modern below ground lines.

No dice. We get a new tax replete with hundreds of surveillance cameras in exchange for some "express" buses.

Re-opened as per request. Just keep it on topic with its relation to NJT otherwise I will close it again.

Sigh, private companies would not want to build a new subway in NYC because they would not break even, much less make enough to pay off the capital investment. They could not raise fares high enough in order to pay for it because then no one will ride it.

They would never be able to compete as long as automobile transportation is subsidized.

I would like to see a more ambitious plan, but the funding is not there for such. These projects may be on the table but, the full funding is not in place yet, especially for the second avenue subway.

Why do you think they are doing it in stages and won't be finished until 2020? Because the funding is not guaranteed and moreover, will not be available fast enough. Last time they tried to get it done all at once and funding ran out so they are not going to repeat that mistake.

As far as express buses are concerned, there is no way you are going to add any significant subway capacity for $354 million, especially in 18 months. Express buses are a good short term solution so that C.P. can be fairly implemented and established as a dedicated, stable revenue stream for larger projects like the SAS, ESA, ARC etc.

So Kolluri said that 10-11 more rail cars are needed to meet the 14,500 new commuters that he estimates. Where do you think that these would be most needed? I would guess the M/B/PVL would see some of the highest increases in ridership because Rockland and Bergen commuters would see some of the highest increases for their crossings ($3 dollars more for GWB commuters and $4 for Tappan Zee vs. $2 more for the tunnels).

I would think that within 18 months there would be more than enough deliveries of multilevels to meet this demand.

Would it make more sense to increase train lengths or to add more trains at least to Hoboken and Newark where (I believe) there are available slots?

I'm not as skeptical that a private subway system could work in NYC. I think the 2nd avenue line is an obvious candidate for this approach in that the demand is clearly there, and it runs through wealthy residential and key commercial districts. You obviously don't need to involve the private sector if the feds are dropping mana from heaven onto the project, but to the extent that money could be deployed for other purposes, such as restoring other lines or expanding the system in more marginal areas, it would be a great win. It might be the case that a company would have to charge, say $6 a ride to make the numbers work. In that case the government could kick in enough so that the cost came down to say, $4. The government is still deploying less capital than it would and, though the fare is higher than the fully subsidized fare, it still adds a new option for transport that you weren't getting otherwise. Or the government could allow the private company to charge a fare that fully takes into account all start-up and operations costs plus a regulated profit, and maybe that is $6 or $8, but the government subsidizes those riders who are low income with reduced price fare cards, like it does now for senior citizens and students. All I'm saying is that in the interest of getting up a system that doesn't pack us in like cattle and getting that system up and running in a useful time frame, it makes sense to me to get hold of capital from whatever source has it handy, and infrastructure projects are huge with investors these days. Fluor is about to sign on to a $1.7 billion project to build 22 miles of HOV lanes in Virginia -- the money and project management talent is there. Anyway, the point is academic to the extent the MTA is getting free money for this from the feds, but I think it's worth making the point that such a system could work, even next to fully subsidized lines, under the right conditions. Btw., they have fully private subway lines running as we speak in Japan and in Hong Kong. From my limited trips on those lines they seem as nice as anything we have in NYC.

Hong Kong is different than NYC. There are 517,000 (only about 330,880 privately owned) cars in Hong Kong which has a population of about 6.9 million. There are roughly 7,000,000 cars in NYC with a population of 8.2 million.

Cars in Hong Kong are subjected to a 35% to 100% registration fee that was specifically designed to discourage car ownership. Gas is also about $6 per gallon.

All of these factors combined make driving very expensive and makes mass transit the more economical option for some, the only option for others. By contrast, driving in NYC is very inexpensive. If you make public transit more expensive, more people will drive instead.

The Upper East Side probably would not provide enough riders overall (especially with the planned 1st/2nd Ave BRT) to make it worth the investment if you were to charge fares that could pay off the capital costs. The lack of full integration into the subway system would also deter use.

Also one of the reasons why MTR (Hong Kong Subway) is able to do so well is that it has large stakes in real estate adjacent to the subways which rise considerably when the lines open. I seriously doubt a company would able to buy out enough adjacent real estate in the Upper East Side and be able to flip it when construction is done to make any considerable profit.

Besides, all current MTR lines, with the exception of the single tracked, two station, mostly above ground, non-urban Disney resort line were begun before MTR was privatized. A plan put forth to construct two more lines, the West Island Line and the South Island Line still has the government paying half the tab.

Lest not forget that Hong Kong has a huge income gap and may be able to capitalize on even cheaper labor from China.

Aside from that, I find it ironic that you are appalled by the idea of charging more for driving but you find absolutely no problem with pricing people out of mass transit.

finsuburbia: 1st/2nd Av BRT?

rcervel wrote:finsuburbia: 1st/2nd Av BRT?

Yup, its one of the bus improvements that is supposed to be implemented with congestion pricing. The MTA is planning to move on it anyhow without C.P., but slower.

While in no means do I think that BRT is a substitute for a subway, its availability as an alternative would lessen people's incentive to pay extra for a private subway.

There is no way you would get enough ridership to justify this at that price. You could grab a BRT. If the price of the private subway is high enough and you are not going to a really congested area, a taxi might be a more attractive alternative.

My narrow point on the mayor's plan is that by it's own terms, assuming it's aspirations come to full fruition, it achieves a very small reduction in driving, while instituting a rather large tax, the proceeds of which do very little to fund the yawning gap in transit needs. I understand full well that Hong Kong and New York are different, but that does not mean a public-private partnership can't work to fund an infrastructure project. You want the government to do it -- fine, it is taking generations and generations for the government to accomplish anything. A public-private partnership in some form, any form, could possibly actually build a project in some practical time-frame. Maybe that is possible, maybe not, but I think the notion should be explored. Riding the Lex line is a brutal commuting experience, and waiting for what amounts to governmental charity to get a line built while I'm still breathing has been a fairly dispiriting slog.

I don't believe in charging more for driving, that's correct. I drove from Jersey City to Long Island recently. I traveled with children and made multiple stops along the way -- this was a trip that would occur via a car or would simply not occur at all. I paid over $10 in tolls and probably another couple bucks in gas taxes for the 50 mile round trip. In part those taxes subsidize . . . me. I take the PATH line for $1.50, $1.20 when bought in bulk, then purchased with pre-tax dollars via my employer -- maybe 75 cents a ride. For a typical middle class person with a job in Manhattan that's getting close to essentially free. I pay for my "free" ride by enduring infrastructure that desperately needs capacity enhancements and isn't getting them. I'd rather pay the full freight for my subway rides, have the government subsidize directly riders that need it, not all of us regardless of need, and get required capacity enhancements actually built. Some trips are best done by rail, some by car, if you believe in forcing the middle class onto trains for it's own sake, that's one thing. I believe in enhanced mobility, which means sometimes better trains and sometimes -gasp!- enhanced road capacity. It does not mean beating people about the head to make them travel in some way that I believe best (or not travel at all) due to my own personal preferences.