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

I know that this would be pure speculation at this point, but what do you think would be the effect of the congestion charge, if implemented, on NJT operations? Would more trains need to be scheduled? Should the waterfront connection be used in regular service to add more NEC trains?

Also, would this have an effect on expansion projects such as the MOM? I know of at least two people live in Monmouth Junction (South Brunswick) who currently drive into the city. Would it be enough of a charge to encourage people like them to demand alternatives, even if it went through their "back yard?"

Likely more people will take NJT. I don't think NJT will make any anticipatory changes, however.

I'm a little sick of people complaining about the congestion pricing. "Oh no, I'll have to take the train, I can't afford the fee!" Please -- not exactly a fate worse than death. Plenty of people don't think that mass transit is beneath them. Personally, I think $8 is not enough.

In the overall, people should just be less clingy to their cars. If I have to go someplace, I always see if mass transit (train or bus) can get me there instead. If it is not feasible or possible, then I resort to driving.

I recently talked with a good friend of mine whose dad works in NY and drives there for the commute. It turns out, that he would save over $50 per month (just calculating gas, not including depreciation, repairs, maintenance, etc) if he took the train + subway instead, and also headaches that arise from sitting in traffic and tiredness of driving 70+ miles every day. Now the question is, locating his company so I can find a subway or bus station close enough.

Sorry for this "rant" that eventually became off-topic. Moderators, please handle at your discretion.

No, good points. It's a matter of personal choices one makes in their commute. I'm with you F40, but not everyone is, and this is America. We have the right to chose to do things that helps save the environment and doesn't just as we have the right to take care of our bodies or abuse them.

nick11a wrote:No, good points. It's a matter of personal choices one makes in their commute. I'm with you F40, but not everyone is, and this is America. We have the right to chose to do things that helps save the environment and doesn't just as we have the right to take care of our bodies or abuse them.

Although this is slightly off-topic, but I'd point out that your analogy is not quite right. In the case of your body, you are talking about your own individual self whereas in the case of the environment, it is something that we all share.

Secondly, I wouldn't frame it as "helping" the environment per se because in reality, neither taking mass transit or driving "help" the environment. However, when it comes to the harm committed, mass transit causes much less than automobiles.

Finally, I think it is important to remember the amount of subsidization that cars receive. The gas tax only pays for a portion of highway funding. Most funding for road construction, operation (think police) and maintenance comes from other sources such as property taxes. In the book Suburban Nation by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk and Jeff Speck, the authors noted that "government subsidies for highways and parking alone amount to between 8 and 10 percent of our gross national product, the equivalent of a fuel tax of approximately $3.50 per gallon." (p. 94)

So I would put it a different way: Should we subsidize people to make a choice that takes a larger toll on the environment (driving) than another one (transit)?

While congestion pricing has been fairly successful in London at traffic and increasing travel speeds for buses in the areas in which the pricing in effect it has led to an increase in congestion in the ring just outside the congestion pricing zone (which has in part led to an enlargement of the congestion pricing zone)

I think it would have an impact on NJT, for instance increasing the pressure to have parking in the area of the Secaucus station (possibly build by a private operator) and other potential points to get on mass transit close to the city for people who continue to drive most of the way but not go all the way into Manhattan.

Nick's rant is right on target. Such automobile operting costs (plus insurance costs) along with the physical and emotional drain on the driver have been points to be considered for taking public transit right along. Since those points have been brushed off by the driver-commuter the congestion charge becomes a reality. It is noted that London, I believe, has had such a charge for several years.

As do Oslo, Singapore and several other cities.

However, from a practical standpoint, I'd really like to see how it's proposed to manage this.

With a docile population that's used to a Nanny-state mentality, and a natural perimeter or defined points of access, it works.

Manhattan?

Fuggettaboutid.

Wasn't there a movie several, maybe 10--15-20!--years ago about Manhatten Island becoming a seal off prison or something like that?

Escape From New York, and even there the escape required a 4-wheeled motor vehicle (taxi cab).

Where is Ernest Bourgnine when we really need him?

The mere possibility of Manhattan employing congestion pricing might suggest that the "Escape" metaphor or analogy is the opposite of what's happening in the real world. Too many people want into Manhattan.

U.S. suburban/other mythos notwithstanding, the much-maligned "dinosaur" refuses to die -- indeed, appears quite healthy in many respects.

NJ-ARP is impressed by how seriously the idea is being debated, with naysayers scrambling to offer something different or better -- and not getting away with sheer dismissal. That's progress.

And if anyplace in the U.S. can regulate or monitor entry, it's the smallest county in the U.S. -- New York County -- with all the readymade "checkpoints" already extant for automotive travel.

We won't challenge the stereotype of "Nanny state" directly. But NJ-ARP would argue that when it comes to auto costs, it's the U.S., not Europe, that appears to require some motivation, self-driven or otherwise, beyond being an oil junkie. That old individualistic, enlightened self-interest can-do capitalism just doesn't seem to be cutting it in the U.S. transport sector.

We'd be glad be proven wrong on this, of course.

henry6 wrote:Nick's rant is right on target. Such automobile operting costs (plus insurance costs) along with the physical and emotional drain on the driver have been points to be considered for taking public transit right along. Since those points have been brushed off by the driver-commuter the congestion charge becomes a reality. It is noted that London, I believe, has had such a charge for several years.

I wouldn't call it a rant, but thanks anyway.

Douglas John Bowen wrote:And if anyplace in the U.S. can regulate or monitor entry, it's the smallest county in the U.S. -- New York County -- with all the readymade "checkpoints" already extant for automotive travel.
.

The radio personality Jean Shepherd used to point out from time to time that New York City (meaning Manhattan) was the only city in the US that charged admission. <g>

Doug, I normally agree with you posts, but I would challenge the assumption that there are check points in place. Perhaps the toll bridges and tunnels from the NJ side fit that model, but there are a larger number of free crossings that lack any infrastructure to support even a slow-down in average commuting times without a huge backup into Brooklyn, Queens or the Bronx.

I also object to what can be a revenue generation tool to fund exactly what, other than another government agency?

Seems to me there are other concepts out there that have been proposed... put the penalty into the parking fee tax, and increased crossing tolls, and restrict street parking to residents and permit holders.

How about we go back to trains?

Excellent ideas, all -- and look how many from just one informed individual!

And that, we immodestly note, affirms our take on the matter. Look at just how the debate is being handled, even here (but not just here). The whining and wailing of "we're not gonna do it" Oil Junkie Nation is not the driving force -- not this time. We've got ideas to banter about.

RichM advances one paradox (we won't say he's mistaken): He worries about traffic backups caused by new toll facilities or checkpoints at the (at present) "free" access points to Manhattan. Assuming technology can't surmount slowdowns or backups: If there's less traffic entering The Rock due to higher costs, is that a given? Or (conversely), is the argument being made that the congestion pricing plan will make no difference (except generate revenue)?

That said, we concur with RichM that there's more than one approach to this matter. We're just thrilled it's actually being approached.