Hacker News Reader

Comment by ars | Hacker News Reader

I think this would have been more likely to be politically viable if the credit for entering via a tunnel or bridge was dramatically increased, after all a bridge or tunnel toll is already a form of congestion pricing. Double charging is just a money grab rather than a form of congestion pricing.

They should have also given a credit for exiting immediately and not staying in the city, i.e. transiting through the city. This would have made New Jersey considerably more likely to be in support.

Without both of those things New Jersey has it right: everyone would just travel through New Jersey to avoid that part of Manhattan when they're just trying to get through Manhattan.

View on HN

> They should have also given a credit for exiting immediately and not staying in the city, i.e. transiting through the city. This would have made New Jersey considerably more likely to be in support.

Which NJ residents do you think are through-transiting via the Manhattan's streets? The core demographic being targeted here is driving onto the streets to park and go to work, not to drive into Brooklyn, Queens, or LI.

(To my understanding, the plan with the congestion charge is to waive the charge when drivers stay on highways and freeways, i.e. don't enter the grid. So a NJ resident who takes the GWB and drives down HHP and then Brooklyn via 478 would never pay the congestion fare.)

> The core demographic being targeted here is driving onto the streets to park and go to work, not to drive into Brooklyn, Queens, or LI.

Charging them is fine, but that is not the basis of the lawsuit from NJ. NJ is complaining about people using NJ to go around Manhattan.

> To my understanding, the plan with the congestion charge is to waive the charge when drivers stay on highways and freeways

Can you show me that policy or map? Because when I checked that was NOT the case. The only time charges are waived are the two coastline roads that go around Manhattan. All other transit traffic is charged at full rates. When you enter from NJ you do not go on those coastline roads, you go through Manhattan.

This pricing should have been coupled with some new transit roads that do not have any exits in the city.

From your comment I wonder if part of the reason she stopped the project is people not actually understanding what the real charges are.

> Charging them is fine, but that is not the basis of the lawsuit from NJ. NJ is complaining about people using NJ to go around Manhattan.

I can't think of a single sane route via which you'd go around Manhattan, via NJ, to get to something in another borough. If you're in the Bronx, you'll go to Queens or Brooklyn via non-Manhattan bridges, and vice versa.

> The only time charges are waived are the two coastline roads that go around Manhattan. All other transit traffic is charged at full rates.

Yes, that's the point. The coastline routes are the highways; there are no highways through central Manhattan's city grid, and there never will be. You can see the highways, which are all exempted, on the MTA's map[1].

I gave you an NJ to Brooklyn route that does not involve the city grid: you can take the George Washington Bridge (above the congestion zone) onto the Henry Hudson Parkway, which will then take you directly to the Hugh L. Carey tunnel, which is I-478, which will take you directly into Brooklyn. This is also in practice already the fastest route into Brooklyn from NJ, since it doesn't involve the city grid at all.

Similarly for North Brooklyn and Queens: if you want to avoid congestion pricing, take the GWB and stay on I-95, and you'll be comfortably outside of the congestion zone the entire time.

[1]: https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/

> NJ to Brooklyn route

Your route is decent - as a route. But it costs almost $30 in tolls!

For example Holland Tunnel to Manhattan bridge and Brooklyn Bridge without paying congestion pricing is a route that should exist. I think those are like half the price of your route (not 100% sure of the price).

> there are no highways through central Manhattan's city grid, and there never will be

There should be a direct connection, with no exits to city roads, between the Lincoln Tunnel and FDR Dr. Same with the Holland tunnel - that should be directly connected to the two coastal freeways, without going in city streets.

From looking at a map those are the biggest gaps in regards to congestion pricing.

If you want wondering how to do it, add an elevated express roadway above Canal street. Because it has no connection to city roads in Manhattan - it would go directly in the air to the Manhattan bridge, it would not be unfeasibly complex to build.

See, they added the "annoyance" first, and didn't also connect it with any improvements, and I think that was their biggest mistake.

I've noticed this very frequently with transit advocates - they only want to harm car driving, but give zero thought to making travel better for people. They forget the goal: Make travel better. The goal is not getting rid of cars.

All of the routes are tolled. These are some of the most heavily trafficked bridges and tunnels in the world, and their upkeep is consequently expensive (both in maintenance and off-hours labor costs).

This is a basic maxim for NYC: if you want to drive on some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it’s going to cost you. Congestion pricing was intended to further equalize that cost, by incentivizing drivers away from the city grid and onto the highways intended to facilitate their transit around the city center.

It would be nice for drivers (not for residents) if there were through-highways in Manhattan’s CBD. But as I said, this is a non-starter: not only would it be a multi-billion dollar project that nobody wants to pay for, but it would also actively devalue or preempt hundreds of billions of dollars of prime Manhattan real estate. Robert Moses, famous for getting whatever he wanted w/r/t highways, tried a similar plan over 70 years ago, and failed miserably.

(I don’t know if you’ve ever been to or lived in NYC, but you can’t just build a mega highway over Canal Street — it runs through four of the densest neighborhoods in the borough, plus two of the highest income ones. That’s before construction or easement logistics, even — we’re talking about half a million people who would riot if the city tried to put an elevated highway by their windows.)

And as a final thing: congestion pricing was slated to raise $15 billion for the MTA, which in turn was allocated for improvements to the actual backbone for the city: the subway, LIRR, and Metro-North. There were key schedule, maintenance, and capital improvements planned that would have made life better for millions of city residents (myself included) that are now in limbo. So it isn’t accurate to say that this wasn’t connected to improvements; the improvements may just not have been legible to you.

> This is a basic maxim for NYC: if you want to drive on some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it’s going to cost you.

Is this also true: If you want to live in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it's going to cost you?

> It would be nice for drivers (not for residents) if there were through-highways in Manhattan’s CBD

What's with the distinction? Things that are nice for drivers are also nice for residents. But in any case, if you say a road above Canal St is impossible I'll believe you. It's unfortunate because I think it would be nice for everyone.

> or easement logistics

I would reduce Canal st from 6 lanes to 5, and put piers in the middle lane - like the elevated train in Borough Park. New Utrecht maybe? I forget the exact street it goes over.

> we’re talking about half a million people who would riot

It would dramatically reduce traffic on Canal St making it mainly for residents. Would that not be worth it? But I do get your point though, it would be unpleasant to have a road instead of sky above you.

I have to ask - is Canal St frontage mainly residents or is it businesses?

> the improvements may just not have been legible to you.

You are correct. To me Manhattan is a kind of "flyover" area, except it's "drive through", it's in my way when I want to get elsewhere. I don't think I am alone in this, and the congestion pricing could have been remade to make additional people happy.

It's would be easy: Just take all bridge and tunnel tolls and apply them 100% to congestion pricing, instead of the tiny amount they proposed. After all, those tolls already act as a congestion pricing, you don't need to do it twice.

I think that one single change would have made this way more palatable to the rest of the state voters. I'm curious what your thoughts are on making that change, as a resident.

> Is this also true: If you want to live in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it's going to cost you?

Of course. But also: it’s why big, expensive cities build mass transit, and why everybody takes it.

Most residents in NYC, especially Manhattanites, are not regular drivers. The majority don’t even own cars. This is the demographic we’re talking about; they don’t want infrastructure that they don’t use taking up already-precious space, with more air pollution to boot.

I also don’t think it would reduce traffic; induced demand is at play here. We’ve seen that with other highways in the city: if you build a certain amount of highway capacity, demand grows to fill it. That’s why congestion pricing is so appealing: it changes the incentive structure away from highway sprawl and grid congestion to efficient roads for those who need to drive and cleaner, quieter streets for everyone else.

Canal Street’s frontage is a mixture of business and residential, varying by the neighborhoods it crosses through. I’d say it leans more commercial on the western part and more residential on the eastern part, subjectively.

> It's would be easy: Just take all bridge and tunnel tolls and apply them 100% to congestion pricing, instead of the tiny amount they proposed. After all, those tolls already act as a congestion pricing, you don't need to do it twice.

The important bit here is not just charging drivers a bunch of money, but actually reducing congestion. Higher tolls go a long way, but it’s equally important to incentivize drivers off of city streets and onto highways, where possible.

Or in other words: if the goal was just to collect money, charging higher tolls would be fine. But there’s an additional virtue at play, which is making the city itself more livable.

Thanks for the reply!

> induced demand is at play here

Pretty sure it's actually pent-up demand, not induced demand. It's clear NY needs more ways for people to get through Manhattan without going into Manhattan and troubling the residents.

Even mass transit isn't good - for example to get from Bay Ridge to New Jersey airport, you need to go through Manhattan. The current design of NY runs everything through Manhattan, with a pretty self explanatory result.

> to incentivize drivers off of city streets and onto highways

So don't people already do that because highways are faster? I have an issue with the goal of getting traffic away from one place by just making life worse for people. Just not a nice thing to do. If you want to change incentive make things better and people will automatically change.

Basically my point is: Instead of adding a Congestion Charge to try to keep people away from Manhattan, work on roads - and transit! - that lets people avoid it.

>If you want wondering how to do it, add an elevated express roadway above Canal street. Because it has no connection to city roads in Manhattan - it would go directly in the air to the Manhattan bridge, it would not be unfeasibly complex to build.

That was actually a plan back in the late 1950s/early 1960s, along with similar elevated roads above 42nd and 125th streets.

Thankfully, NYers stopped that insanity, as it would have destroyed many vibrant neighborhoods in NYC, as it did[0] in the Bronx.

We will not destroy our city at the altar of making things more convenient for cars. Insist on driving your car everywhere? Do it somewhere else -- we don't want you here.

[0] https://pages.vassar.edu/realarchaeology/2019/11/10/the-cros...

By the same argument paying a toll both on one of the tunnels and the New Jersey turnpike is also double charging. Those charges are for fundamentally different things - just like the tunnel toll and congestion charge are for different things.

> congestion charge are for different things

The congestion charge is to make people go away and not go to Manhattan. So any kind of charge that's placed in the way of traffic to there counts.

Also the toll on the tunnel is just a cash grab, and the congestion charge has that as a secondary goal, so they are not actually for different things.

I mean if you define everything as a "cash grab" then, yeah, every payment you make is for the same thing. I just went to the movies and paid $17.50 for the ticket. I didn't realize that cash grab had the same purpose as the Holland Tunnel toll!

Would you prefer the term "Rent Seeking"?

i.e. New York is saying: "Go away we don't want you here, but if you are going to come anyway pay up".

You aren't paying for a service (like a movie) you are paying to be allowed to go somewhere.

Wait are you also against paying for tickets for NJ Transit trains to NYC? In theory an NJ Transit ticket is "paying to be allowed to go somewhere". It's exactly analogous - it costs money to keep the trains going, just like it costs money to keep the tunnels going (and to pay for their original construction with bonds, though maybe that's not relevant today).

You're not paying for permission to go somewhere; you're paying for all the stuff that needs to happen to make your journey possible in the first place.

Most of the cost for NJ Transit is to pay the driver.

> just like it costs money to keep the tunnels going

No it doesn't. The toll is just rent seeking, it's not used to keep the tunnel going. The tunnel costs are just a tiny fraction of the tolls. See: https://www.nj.com/news/2017/12/gwb_jfk_and_ewr_bring_home_t... (and make sure to distinguish capital costs from operation costs, the article mostly will mention it).

It's even worse in some ways because this is basically a jobs program for NY/NJ, they could automate a lot of stuff that isn't because the unions won't let: https://unionlabel.org/2022/08/02/twu-fighting-back-against-...

The unions also control the unbelievably expensive construction costs from the first article I linked.

This is why I called it a cash grab, because that's what it is.

> Most of the cost for NJ Transit is to pay the driver.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but are you actually claiming that a majority of NJ Transit costs are paying bus and train drivers?

Shifting traffic to jersey is a good thing because theres more road infrastructure there than in manhattan

If that was the goal (was it? I have not seen anyone say something like that) but if it was, then they should share the money too. Manhattan can't take all the money and shift all the expenses to New Jersey.

It's NY State, not Manhattan. Neither NYC nor any individual borough "sees" any of the money from congestion pricing; it's handled at the state level.

But for the state, certainly they can: it's state roads and state transit infrastructure, maintained and paid for by the state. NY didn't tell NJ to kneecap NJT's budget[1], or to develop car-dependent cities and suburbs.

[1]: https://www.nj.com/news/2024/04/nj-transit-study-targets-600...

NY State collects billions of tax dollars every year from NJ residents that work in New York. Every mass transit NJ commuter to NYC is subsidized by NJ and subsidizes the NYS budget. That structural dynamic, in effect, kneecaps NJ and by virtue NJT's budget.

Framing it as a one-sided collection is a little silly, given that NJ residents driving into NYC are (1) generally affluent suburbanites from bedroom communities, and (2) living in NJ in part to avoid city taxes.

NJ isn't exactly a cheap state either in terms of taxation, but it's also one of the most affluent in the country. It's hard to believe that NY's payroll tax can be unilaterally blamed for NJ's inability to maintain and further develop NJT.

(This is besides the larger contradiction, which is that NJ would have ~no taxes to collect on these residents at all, were it not for NYC's proximity.)

Again, every NJT commuter to NYC from NJ is subsidized by NJ to earn money in NYC and pay taxes to NYS. NJ's subsidization of NJT reduces the number of car trips into Manhattan dramatically. NJ commuters to NYC/NYS pay income tax to NYS and virtually nothing to NJ. The balance of payments deficit to NYS from NJ is in the range of $4 billion annually. I don't remember exactly what kind of operating subsidy NJT needs, but it's a heck of a lot less than $4 billion. NJ's entire state budget is around $50 billion. This is not a small, inconsequential issue, and downplaying its consequences is a little silly, to use your phrase.

Also, NJ residents commuting to NYC don't just "do it to avoid city taxes". There are more commuters from NJ than there are open housing units in the 5 boroughs. NJ's housing stock and commuting infrastructure is a massive pressure relief valve on housing costs in NYC. Heck, NJ commuters would saturate every open housing unit in the boroughs, Long Island, Westchester, Southern Connecticut, and then some.

Last thought. Manhattan is a massive job center in no small part because of its enormous access to talent inside and outside of the city - the outside the city talent uses mass transit on an enormous scale. NJ might look different without Manhattan there, but NYC would also look different if NJ wasn't there.

> Again, every NJT commuter to NYC from NJ is subsidized by NJ to earn money in NYC and pay taxes to NYS. NJ's subsidization of NJT reduces the number of car trips into Manhattan dramatically.

Agreed, and agreed. But the "why" is important: NJ subsidizes NJT because it keeps people living in the state, which has its own taxes.

I don't mean to come off as stridently anti-NJ here -- I agree that the two are mutually interdependent, and that an abstractly fair congestion pricing deal would include funding for NJT as well (and not just MTA). But that's only half the story: NJ's pols have dug themselves into an "over our dead bodies" position on any amount of congestion charging, have failed to move NJT/MTA collaborative projects forwards, have fought NYS tooth and nail over Gateway's funding[2], and torpedoed their own NJT modernization and expansion projects[1].

In the status quo, my perspective as a NYer is that the MTA is (shambolically) moving towards a better status quo, while NJ digs in on a position that's ultimately incompatible with the region's long term livability and economic growth. I can't think of a good reason why it should be this way since, even at a deficit, both sides ultimately benefit from better commuter networks.

(On a related note: I checked the 2025 NJ budget[3], and there's a $6B surplus forecasted. So I don't wholly understand why NJ is considering cutting NJT's budget by $600M[4], or why maintenance has been deferred for so long.)

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Access_to_the_Region%27s_Core

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gateway_Program_(Northeast_Cor...

[3]: https://www.njlm.org/1280/2025-NJ-State-Budget

[4]: https://www.nj.com/news/2024/04/nj-transit-study-targets-600...

Few points but overall agree.

1. ARC was a bad project. Gateway was always going to be necessary even if ARC was completed. I'm skeptical that the region would get a second bite at the federal funding apple for Gateway if ARC was built. It's not even clear to me that Gateway's alignment would have been possible if ARC was built.

2. NJT defers maintenance because it funds its operating subsidy through the capital budget. It has at least since Chris Christie slashed the operating subsidy during the financial crisis (NJ budget was massively strained).

3. There were stories a few years ago about NJT problems holding onto train engineers. Trainees would generally leave for jobs at MTA, LIRR, and Amtrak that paid 30%+ more. Going back to that $2+ billion that commuting NJ residents pay to NYS - which presumably subsidizes MTA operations - it sort of looks like that structural tax issue is causing NJ residents to subsidize MTA salaries to the detriment of NJT.

4. Going back to the tax issue. NYS and NYC benefit from NJ commuter access. Building ARC or Gateway make it so NJ can send more commuters to NYC to pay taxes to NYS. Why should NJ pay anything for its construction?

I'm generally supportive of congestion pricing. But I think NYC/NYS have a long history of treating NJ like a bedroom community that it has no responsibility toward. It doesn't have to after all - no votes, politicians will never care about non-constituents. But like, to impose another tax that meaningfully impacts NJ residents resides in the context of a deeply toxic, dysfunctional dynamic. NJ residents should rightfully be bothered.

> ARC was a bad project. Gateway was always going to be necessary even if ARC was completed. I'm skeptical that the region would get a second bite at the federal funding apple for Gateway if ARC was built. It's not even clear to me that Gateway's alignment would have been possible if ARC was built.

This is a fair point, but was ARC actually canceled with the expectation that Gateway was going to be announced? That may have been what happened behind the scenes, but it isn't how it looked on the public side at the time: what I remember thinking at the time was that Chrisie unilaterally pulled NJ out of a joint project with no alternative.

> There were stories a few years ago about NJT problems holding onto train engineers. Trainees would generally leave for jobs at MTA, LIRR, and Amtrak that paid 30%+ more. Going back to that $2+ billion that commuting NJ residents pay to NYS - which presumably subsidizes MTA operations - it sort of looks like that structural tax issue is causing NJ residents to subsidize MTA salaries to the detriment of NJT.

I hadn't heard those stories about NJT struggling to hold on to talent, that's helpful context. That being said, I don't think that $2B+ is going directly to the MTA -- my understanding is that the MTA's tax inflows mostly come from the MCTMT[1], which is levied against employers. So it's not as though MTA money is coming directly out of NJ residents' pockets, although you could argue that a payroll tax indirectly suppresses their wages.

> Going back to the tax issue. NYS and NYC benefit from NJ commuter access. Building ARC or Gateway make it so NJ can send more commuters to NYC to pay taxes to NYS. Why should NJ pay anything for its construction?

IMO, the simplest reason is that it still makes NJ wealthier: good transit between NJ and NYC means further incentives for NYC residents to move across the river, and retains people already living in NJ (where they pay sales tax, real estate taxes, etc.). It also enables reverse flow: strong transit between the two brings NYers into Northern NJ for tourism and shopping (I have places that I want to go in Fort Lee, Hackensack, etc. that I don't bother with because NJT is a hassle).

I think you're right about how NYC treats Northern NJ. But I also think this doesn't get better, for the reasons you've mentioned. Maybe that could be ameliorated over time by eliminating the state boundaries in the twos' transit networks, but I don't think either has any immediate political appetite for that beyond what already exists with PANYNJ.

[1]: https://www.tax.ny.gov/bus/mctmt/emp.htm

The cynical argument is that Christie pulled out of ARC to win points with conservative voters ahead of a presidential run. That is probably where I land. However, construction started in 2009 (when NJ budget was massively strained) and NJ's public pension underfunding was a growing and looming crisis. Christie was the first governor to start making large payments to the pension in an effort to catch up. It is possible that he made a "pragmatic" decision of something easy to cut in the moment given the shrinking revenue and ballooning obligations. In other words, he could kick the can down the road on ARC but pension was a requirement.

https://new.mta.info/document/101141

It looks like the MCTMT tax is about $2 billion out of $9 billion of operating subsidies. It isn't clear to me whether that is levied on nonresident employees. The Metropolitan Mass Transportation Operating Assistance (MMTOA)is the biggest contributor to subsidy (which sounds like sales tax and a few others), along with the gas tax, property transfer, and a few others. All in all, I think it's fair to say that the NYS budget isn't meaningfully contributing to the MTA relative to other sources.

Personally, I wish the federal government would do more to help with the NY/NJ dynamics. Be the go between, manage the conflicting interests. We can do so much better with harmonization of transit networks, and the region already gives so much to the rest of the country. But I also think voters in both states need to be more aware of the actual issues we have been talking about here. There seems to be so little understanding of how things work and why things are the way they are. Maybe informed voters could tip the scales enough for NY/NJ politicians to play better together, or at least talk to these real issues.

>NY State collects billions of tax dollars every year from NJ residents that work in New York.

And NJ collects billions of tax dollars every year from NY residents that work in New Jersey[0]

[0] https://www.sapling.com/8676392/taxes-city-work-new-jersey

I don't see anything in that link which indicates the total value of taxes paid by NYS residents to NJ or the net. That said, I think it only takes a casual observation of bridge, tunnel, and mass transit hubs during rush hours that illustrate the balance. The overwhelming majority of "human capital" flows into NYC for work, not out, which should reasonably predict the difference in tax collections on non-residents between states.

This. I'm glad the current implementation has been cancelled solely because New Jersey, the neighboring state that will see a massive impact on their transit and infrastructure due to this wasn't going to see a single cent.

Considering the federal interstate project funds a lot of the roads in question in new jersey already I’d say bills are being paid sufficiently already. Not to mention that new jersey also benefits in countless other ways from proximity to nyc. If not for nyc what might the state look otherwise: Maine or Vermont? Nyc has afforded much already for the garden state.

Yeah, I never understood why some of the cogestion pricing revenue wasn't shared with NJ.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com