Proposed Move NY Fair Plan Legislation

The toll cordon zone must extend into the FDR and West Side Highway to reduce the incentive for drivers to utilize them for circumnavigation, adding to pollution in densely populated communites. Currently, many drivers jam up Bronx highways and local streets to utilize the free Third Ave/Willis Ave Bridges in an attempt to dodge tolls on the Tri-boro and Henry Hudson bridges and access the FDR/West Side Highway. This excess congestion creates a dangerous situation where collisions are commonplace, pollution has reached dangerous levels, and the populations most affected are also the most socioeconomically vulnerable. These drivers should utilize higher capacity options and avoid the core of the city entirely.

A variable tolling scheme is most effective at discouraging driving into the city's core. The costs to enter via automobile should be most expensive during times of peak congestion, high levels of air pollution and emergency situations. An app and online website could keep up to date information on the current cost along with recently implemented digital signage along highways.

Dedicated commercial truck lanes would be help. Maybe you could charge a premium toll for use of the dedicated commercial lane.

If the purpose is to reduce traffic, then a part of this plan should be to enforce double parking and require full payment of parking tickets from everyone. No more negotiations to reduce the cost of all the parking tickets that big trucking and delivery companies get for themselves.

We do not need new tolls. Tax and spend is driving the middle class working family out of NYC. Its time to manage. Mange MTA costs of public transportation and construction projects. Like the Eastside access project. Forcast at 1.6 billion; now approaching 10 billion to complete. Its almost criminal.!! What are you doing about this.!! Raise tolls.???

I'm actually a bit glad for this bill. I'm so sick of Manhattan, and charging me money to drive my car into it--into a place that I personally pay for--has just driven me over the edge (no pun intended). I'll not go or pay for worthless place again.

I'm going to have to agree with some of the other folks here who say we should just fix what we already have, not make something new. You want to help NYC finances and transportation, then just fix the agencies we have. Don't make another that we'll just have to fix again in ten years. Or that we'll never fix and will just add to the burden. It's not so hard to deal with NYC traffic. Give trucks special lanes. Enforce parking violations. And make the trains and busses run on time and make them safe. That alone would fix so much of our problem, without new agencies. Maybe you'll need to increase tolls, sure. I don't like it but I get it. But you don't need more bureaucrats. They're the problem, not the solution.

I fully support the efforts to increase tolls into Manhattan while simultaneously lowering the toll burden of the outer boroughs. Before moving to Brooklyn, we lived in Far Rockaway, a part of Queens that is difficult to access without a car. However, I had to be very thoughtful of when I could afford to use my car as I had to go over the Cross Bay Bridge, and subsequently pay a toll, anytime I wanted to drive to the rest of Queens, a borough with a comparatively less dense public transport network.

I think it is important that people who live in places were driving is more of a necessity have limited impediments to do so, whereas people who live in work in Manhattan take advantage of the myriad of transportation links on the island.

At the same time, it is crucial to the continued development of NYC that public transportation density be expanded so that cars are not as necessary in the outer boroughs.

We need to reclaim the streets of our city, the free river crossing on the 59th street bridge has taken away the streets of LIC and Sunnyside, and the impacts can be felt as far away as Maspeth, Woodside, and Astoria.

The logic of this proposal is well structured and honest, but it might need to provide some assistance for neighborhoods in Queens near transit stops where people will inclined to treat as their new park and ride lot while taking a train or express bus to Manhattan. Residential parking permits would help people that live in these communities, and could also start to reflect the true cost of free parking in this city.

I am against the 60th St. toll as there is a potential for Bronx residents to be tolled twice if they try to drive into Manhattan. As a lifelong NYC resident, the outer boroughs have always played second fiddle to Manhattan and this adds to the impression that only Manhattan counts. I have 2 small children and most Sundays, we drive into Manhattan for a family day which includes us getting lunch or dinner. That trip now becomes much more expensive if I have to pay 2 tolls.

Which brings me to my other issues with this. Why do drivers going North at 60th street have to pay toll since they are leaving the area.? Also, if this is implemented, the tolls should only apply during working hours on weekdays.

Finally, trying to get more money out of non-Manhattan NYC residents should only be attempted after trying to get more out of those who chose to leave NYC but work in it. This means bringing back the commuter tax on suburban residents. This could help fund some of these services that this plan intends to.

There are too many flaws in this for me to support and I am a person who lives a green lifestyle and takes mass transit most days and rides my bike for most of my errands. It just seems another Manhattan centric policy at the expense of the rest of the city, which is poorer. Manhattan should not be a gated community.

The MoveNY legislation is an absolute necessity. It is the best plan on the table and there are no other plans that achieve as much in the way of traffic normalization, equity, increased revenue for transit, increased revenue for road infrastructure, and rationalized transportation patterns. However, we need to support better cross-Hudson rail/ferry access to NYC markets. Housing prices are imbalanced across the reason mainly due to unequal access to rail transit to NYC jobs. We must increase access to Rockland County by expanding Haverstraw-Ossining Ferry service and by restoring the West Shore Railroad passenger service from Haverstraw to Secaucus and ultimately to Penn Station New York. https://www.change.org/p/boost-the-economy-expand-the-ferry

The status quo-- (subsidizing traffic over the East River crossings) make no sense at all. The proposal is basic common sense to anyone willing to study it.When I do choose to drive, I would much prefer to not be stuck in traffic. When I don't choose to drive, I would prefer that other drivers pay for what they use, and car-pool when possible.

Related specifically to part 1-- 60th street is obviously a good cut-off point due to Central Park and the Queensboro bridge.

Private cars and driving is a privilege, not a right. Too long have we turned our streets over for the exclusive movement of vehicles instead of people. This plan does not ban private cars (which one could make a decent argument for), instead, the plan gives recognizes that there is not enough supply of roadway to meet demand, and that creating more roadway for cars has far too high of cost to people, the built environment, and the ecosystem. It quantifies, in economic terms, the scarcity of space for each persons' car to get into Manhattan CBD and reflects *some* of the social and environmental costs of deciding to drive into the most densely settled area in the country, rather than utilizing active transportation or our world-class transit system. Further, it recognizes that there isn't great service everywhere in the city - which can be a burden on lower middle class families that have to live farther away from good transit, but can afford a car - by directing the proceeds of the shift in tolls/new tolls to transit investments and expansion.

Is it a perfect plan? Of course not. Will all of us have to continue to engage with policy makers to ensure that the money is spent equitably (i.e. transit expansion in poorer and underserved areas)? Of course. But, this is a massive step toward prioritizing moving people, instead of vehicles. As well as recognizing the roles transit, for hire vehicles, efficient commercial deliveries, active transportation, and intelligent parking policy have in making a vibrant, equitable, thriving, and people-centered city.

While I have a vested self interest as a daily bike commuter in reducing the number of cars in Manhattan (as well as other boros), a toll such a the one proposed is essentially a regressive form of taxation that will disproportionately affect middle- and lower-income people who need to drive into Manhattan. There are already so many economic factors that are creating real hardships for non-wealthy New Yorkers, and this would simply add to the problems of economic inequality that plague our city.

We can and should exempt or heavily discount scooters and motorbikes from these tolls.We should be encouraging people who must travel by motor vehicle to do so using these smaller vehicles. Powered two-wheelers ("PTWs") take 1/6th of the space while parked, and 1/6th of the space on the roadway. An *average* PTW gets 40-80 mpg!If we don't exempt PTWs from these new tolls (or at least match the current EZpass 50% discount) are we encouraging people to take their much-larger cars or trucks, instead of a small, fuel-efficient PTW.The London congestion pricing system (on which MoveNY is based) exempts PTWs from ALL fees. We should follow their lead in this regard, too.

I live at the corner of Broadway and Broome. Broome St is a connector street from the Williamsburg Bridge to the Holland Tunnel. Every day at rush hour and many times over the weekend traffic is 100% gridlock. This means a traffic cop is needed (costly) and ambulances / fire trucks have a very hard time getting through. As Broome St locks up, Broadway does as well - causing mayhem for hours at a time. Plus as Soho is nearly 100% retail stores - there is huge foot traffic further competing for limited surface space.

I FULLY support the Move NY plan and this new bill and very much hope it gets enacted. The explicit benefits are clear - and there are actually many more tangential benefits as well (e.g. an ambulance getting to a hospital faster to save a life).

Thank you.

I am incredibly incensed and upset that there is another attempt to levy a toll on the East River bridges.

I find it completely insulting that I, a long time New Yorker and Queens resident, may effectively be taxed by an additional toll on the East River Bridges, while those who commute from outside the New York area get a massive discount to enter into the city.

I also am vehemently opposed to the idea of congestion pricing below 60th Street in Manhattan, especially for friends who live in East Harlem and the Upper East Side. Once again, interests from OUTSIDE of NYC are trying to influence how monies are raised for their own pet projects rather than thinking about the impact on local citizens.

We do not need another tax on New Yorkers, many like myself, who are already feeling the pressure of rising costs of living here.

This plan will not lessen congestion at all. New York City is the economic, cultural and creative hub of New York State. There will always be traffic regardless of how much additional transport is created or charges are levied. This is just an attempt by persons in Albany to extort more funds from the residents of New York City, rather than spending the tax revenues raised on infrastructure.

The communities surrounding the free bridges are overburdened with automotive traffic that they cannot sustain. The Queensboro, Williamsburg, Manhattan, and Brooklyn Bridges were never designed for current volumes and should be tolled. As automotive volumes decline, moving lanes should be repurposed for buses only to provide for a BRT like experience. This would absorb local residents from the subways, freeing up space for more distant commuters.

So why is it only the East River Bridges get the charges? Why not the Harlem River bridges as well? Also, why should those in Staten Island then get a special discount to use the Verrazano? Shouldn't you remove that exemption as well to maximize the amount of revenue you plan to raise? Why not have the Bronx and Staten Island pay up as well?

We bought a car a number of years ago with the express purpose of making getting out of NYC easier for us. This city takes a huge psychological toll on me and my family and we frequently leave it for the peace and quiet of the Catskills or Bear Mountain.

That said, we continue to work on and support any efforts geared towards making this city a saner, healthier place for people to live, work and play. I believe that, many generations down the road, we will have learned how to make cities a place where people can thrive without feeling the need to flee, but it will take a lot of work and a commitment to efforts like this one.

We all pay a price for the choices that we make, but we are not always in control of the environment in which we live. Some people live next to busy highways or noisy intersections, not because they chose to live there, but because they can't afford to live anywhere else. It is a false argument to suggest that, if you don't like it you should just leave.

I fully support this initiative, both because of its goal of creating fair tolls for use of infrastructure, and because of the way it would lock the money into being spent evenly across all modes of transportation, including cars/roads, keeping it out of the hands of politicians who would like to use the funds elsewhere.

Finally, we must acknowledge that, even today, car owners receive a disproportionate amount of the funds used for transportation. Here in Manhattan, less than 24% of residents own a car, but about 38% of the surface area of Manhattan is given over to them exclusively. Pedestrians, cyclists and public transit users are not being given there due under the current funding formulas being used both nationally and locally. So, this is a step in the right direction.

Kudos to the team of people who have been working so long and hard in putting together this proposal and pushing it in Albany as well as here in NYC. Thank you for all that you do.

I don't this bill is worth the time or effort to even discuss. I came here only because a young earnest fella convinced me it was my duty to at least give my opinion. So, here it is. All of the numbers, the percentages, have to be garbage. There is no way to know what the drafters of this bill claim to know with any degree of certainty. But, assuming they are superstars who actually do know what they're talking about, then it still doesn't much matter still. I like the free Queensboro bridge. And whoever tries to toll it, that one will oppose. Simple.

A great feature of this rebalancing of tolls is that it would no longer encourage truck traffic to pass through Manhattan, making life worse for everyone. Instead, it will encourage trucks that do not have a destination in Manhattan (i.e. coming from JFK and going to the mainland) will use the Verrazano and go through Staten Island, where the infrastructure is more suited to handle such vehicles.

I can't follow the surcharge math. I'd like to know how predictable it'll be and what it'll add to the customer's bill. Drivers don't pay surcharges, customers do.

To make the bill more understandable and supportable, drafters should include a clearer impact on the cost of an average trip, very short trip, very long trip, very slow moving trip, and very fast moving trip. For people like me who are slow on the uptake, it would help me to support this part of the bill, which right now, is not my favorite part.

Would these surcharges apply to ride-sharing services like Uber and Lyft? They should.

The MoveNY plan should provide a more robust parking reform plan. We need a residential parking permit system which requires NYC registration and is priced high enough to discourage ownership in core areas. We need variable parking which adjust to demand, real time information on available spaces and we need more metered spots to increase turnover. Additionally, parking should be priced much higher than it currently is, especially in prime central areas of the city. And we should allocate parking for fixed car share services (e.g. car2go), bike share (more Citi Bike), motorcycles/scooters/bicycle corrals and significantly more loading zones.

I don't see why Manhattan residents should be penalized for owning cars. Again, I have friends who have cars in Manhattan. Some use them to get out of the city or just to transport themselves to the other boroughs. Others actually commute to work in Jersey. It's already expensive to own and park a car in Manhattan. Those I know use parking garages or pay for a space in their coop basements.

I thought the key idea of Move NY was to stop traffic from coming INTO Manhattan, not try to make it more onerous to own a cars by Manhattanites. It's bad enough that if my friends in East Harlem choose to go to Brooklyn to visit family, they will now be charged so many times, it's almost not worth the trip. Either that or they use the Triborough and then they're forced to use the already overloaded BQE. Seems like a lose-lose situation for my friends.

It looks as though this bill is designed to level the playing field as well as incentivize using public transit over private cars as a way to get around the city. Manhattan is an island that is blanketed with many different options when it comes to transit, and we need to do more to improve the quality and accessibility of that service.

For a long time, public transit has been at an unfair disadvantage in its competition with private transit, both in terms of funding and infrastructure. A case in point is the fact that Select Bus Service buses have to compete with turning and double parked cars, rather than having their own, truly dedicated lanes in which to drive.

This bill would help to tear down some of those barriers to good transit by improving funding and also reflecting the true cost of owning and driving a car in the city. Not only does driving more cause our roads to deteriorate faster, but it also negatively affects our health and that of the environment in which we live. Asthma rates are higher, obesity and heart problems are higher, deaths due to crashes are higher, and these are all health issues that are tied directly to the car.

George objects to the notion that people living here should have to pay as much as the rest of those who drive in from off of the island. The fact is, prices for parking and road services are paid for by everybody, not just car owners. And the amount that car owners pay is far too low, especially when one starts to take externalities like the health issues I mentioned above into account. This plan would not make it impossible to own a car, but it would definitely get people to think more consciously about whether or not to drive or even own a car. In the long term, this must be our goal.

Mayors across the United States and the world are starting to put into place various plans that are heavily informed by Vision Zero (zero deaths and serious injuries due to traffic related incidents). They are also, many of them, confronting the effects of Climate Change, from hurricanes to unseasonably high Summer and Winter temperatures, to Ozone Days, when it is recommended that citizens stay inside due to high levels of ozone in the air, to water shortages due to low snow pack. Manhattan is not immune to these realities, and emissions from cars are a part of the overall reason why Climate Change is happening.

I believe that we are facing some difficult choices, among which is the necessity of giving up our society's love affair with the car. We can no longer continue to drive for every visit to a friend or every errand we have to run. We have no excuse to do so here in NYC where we have so many alternatives. MoveNY has put forth a very thoughtful, thoroughly researched plan that is a compromise designed to address the needs of all those who use the roads and public transit in our city. It gets the job done with out raising the gas tax (though that is something that sorely needs to be addressed). It gives money back to walkers, bikers, transit users and, yes, drivers. This is a small price to pay for making sure that future generations have a healthy world in which to live and raise their children.

This is a good start, but New York needs dynamic parking prices along with Parking Benefit Districts. Donald Shoup et al - as well as the city of San Francisco and others - have shown that dynamic pricing that adjusts to maintain 85% occupancy helps make sure everyone who needs parking can get it, and having a PBD ensures that the money raised goes to the local neighborhood.

A good start, but why not also implement dynamic real-time pricing of on-street parking as well?

No more subsidies to wealthy(er) car owners in the most transit rich area in the country!

Hurry up! :)