Open Proposal

Proposed Move NY Fair Plan Legislation

Summary

A new bill is now being considered in Albany to reduce NYC traffic congestion and provide reliable new revenue for public transit improvements and road and bridge maintenance. On this site, you can learn about and discuss this legislation. Legislators, the Governor, and other key officials will be urged to read your input as the bill moves through the legislative process.

The bill was introduced on March 24, 2016 by Assemblyman Robert J. Rodriguez (East Harlem), who chairs the Subcommittee on Infrastructure. The initial coalition of 14 cosponsors includes Assemblymembers from the Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan and Queens. It would impose new tolls for the four East River bridges and for vehicles crossing 60th St. in Manhattan. These tolls would be same as what drivers now pay to enter Manhattan through the Brooklyn Battery and Queens Midtown tunnels. Special rules would apply to commercial vehicles, taxis and FHVs. Tolls on the 7 MTA bridges would be lowered at the same time -- and the new tolls can't be implemented unless the outer bridge tolls are lowered. The new revenue would be dedicated to specific transportation-related purposes (e.g., public transit expansion, road and bridge repair, fare decreases) in all of the 5 boroughs and nearby counties. Most important, the new money would be legally protected from diversion to other uses, and transparency measures are included so the public can confirm this.

Proposed Legislation 1. Move New York Toll Swap - 93

Select other topics

Subtopics

1|New toll for crossing 60th St. in Manhattan - 45

What the bill does: (i) Imposes a new toll on northbound or southbound vehicles crossing 60th St. in Manhattan, including where 60th St. would cross FDR Drive (if it extended east to the East River) and Route 9A (if it extended west to the Hudson River). Revenue will go to a special Move NY Mobility Fund (Topic 2.1) to pay for public transit and other transportation infrastructure improvements (Topic 3).

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1701(5); 1702(1); 1703(1), 1703(2).

(ii) Sets the toll amount according to tolls charged for the Queens Midtown or Brooklyn Battery Tunnels but tells NYC-DOT to devise a variable, demand-based pricing schedule, so that actual tolls are higher at peak times and lower off-peak. This variable schedule must raise at least as much money, overall, as would be raised if the tolls were a constant price.

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1701(5); 1703(2), 1703(10).

(iii) Directs that tolls be collected electronically (e.g., EZ Pass system) or by mail based on license-plate camera recordings. Cash can't be used, to avoid toll plaza slowdowns. Electronic toll rates will be much cheaper than tolls billed by mail.

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1701(3), 1701(9); 1703(1), 1703(9).

(iv) Imposes tolls on all vehicles and vehicle classes with the following exceptions:

  1. Taxis and other for-hire vehicles (FHVs) that pay the surcharge described in subtopic 3 below are exempt from the tolls.
  2. Other commercial vehicles would pay for only one round-trip per 24-hour period, no matter how often they cross the tolled perimeter, so long as they are equipped with a commercial EZ Pass.
  3. Emergency vehicles and NYC government vehicles are exempt if the newly created Move NY Highway & Transit Authority (see Topic 4.1) sets these exemptions by rulemaking.

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1703(7)(d), 1703(8).

(v) Conditions the new tolls on TBTA reducing tolls on the 7 MTA bridges (subtopic 2), and withdraws NYSDOT's authority to continue perimeter tolling if TBTA doesn't maintain the required reduction;

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1703(4), 1703(5), 1703(6).

Rationale: The most recent traffic census (PDF Table 23A) shows that over 735,000 private vehicles enter the Manhattan hub every workday, for nearly 1.5 million total entries and exits. According to NYC-DOT, average traffic speed has decreased to about 8.5 mph. According to the NYC Comptroller (PDF), New Yorkers have the longest commuting time of any large U.S. city. Researchers calculate that the average NYC area commuter wastes 53 hours a year in congestion delays, and one study (PDF) estimates that congestion costs NYC about $16 billion a year in productive time lost during commuting. Also, this much traffic increases pollution and accidents, interferes with emergency vehicles, and slows public transit.

The predicted effects of the new tolls are 100,000 fewer auto trips daily into the congested area below 60th St., with average traffic speed increasing 15%-20%. The new revenue will be used to improve public transit and other transportation infrastructure (see Topics 2 and 3), which the City and State have been struggling to find the money for.

To learn more about the rationale for this part of the bill, see NY Congestion Discussion Topics 1.1, 1.2, 4.1, 4.2 and Move NY Fair Plan (PDF pp. 9,17-21).

Comments45

Commenting is now closed.

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.

Hello, Nick, thank you for sharing your thoughts. You mentioned the toll zone should extend into the FDR and the West Side Hwy (9A). If I understand you correctly, you agree with this part of the proposed bill.

The 60th St. toll border does extend into the FDR and West Side Hwy where 60th St. would cross those routes if 60th St. extended to the east and west edges of the island (see "What the bill does: (i)," in the pane to the left).

With few exceptions, if someone is south of 60th St. in a car, they paid a toll to get there and they'll pay a toll to get out, including if they came in or out on the FDR or the West Side Hwy. How do you feel about the proposed toll collection system (i.e., ez pass or by mail only--no cash)?

Thank you for the clarification. The first paragraph reads as though it may extend to the Hudson River, not that it will.

And yes I support a cordon extending from river to river.EZPass does make sense. Might as well use a common form of payment in the metropolitan area, as does camera enforcement with higher fees for those without transponders. This system will be far cheaper to set up than what is currently implemented in London.

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

Welcome to the discussion and thank you for your comment, TomRider. The bill uses a reverse strategy of charging all vehicles, but giving a break to commercial vehicles that make multiple trips. Supporters think this will eventually reduce the number of vehicles without too great a burden on delivery and service providers. What do you think of this strategy?

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.

Welcome DriverofTrucks, in Topic 3.4 of the online discussion that happened before this bill was introduced, a lot of people complained about how existing traffic laws are enforced, but no one made this exact point. The bill itself doesn’t do anything about enforcement. Do you think the state legislature should tell NYC how to enforce its parking laws, or is this something that people should complain about directly to City officials?

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.???

Welcome back, cferrejo. The new money is supposed to go road and bridge repair and to community transportation needs, as well as to big MTA projects, but MTA costs have definitely gotten a lot of attention. Do you have suggestions for what the legislature in Albany should do about this?

Albany has not demonstrated any ability or desire to control costs. Its so easy to raise tolls and say its for bridge and road repair. The public just goes along with it.No questions asked. There are no metric to measure;no funding details with time lines. Just spend the money. These next so called transportation funds have already been raised in the form of tolls and taxes. Unfortunately those funds have been mismanaged so they say they need more. The public needs 100% transparency. Albany should present on-line a full MTA expenditure summery and budget with metrics of cost and funding; every quarter. Where do the billions go.??? Let the public investigate and figure out a solution. N.Y.S. politicians are useless...

Most New Yorkers (including the middle class) do not drive into the Manhattan CBD district on a regular basis.The middle class instead suffers from slow buses, pollution, and increased prevalence of collisions due to congestion.Tolls would reduce congestion in the core and along all paths into the core.

Hello Nick great to hear from you again. I understand you support the proposed tolls. What do you think about the way the proposed plan would toll e-hail services and commercial vehicles? E-hail vehicles would be subject to the surcharge (in lieu of tolls) described in Topic 1.3 and commercial vehicles would only pay once in each direction within a 24 hour period.

Manhattan is only one of the five boro's and yes we absolutely have to drive from Queens or Brooklyn to Long Island daily. Increasing tolls only funds and facilitates MTA waste ,fraud and corruption. High tolls on trucking only increases the cost of goods; sold like food. The tolls should be reduced.

A car is a personal choice that has so many impacts on those around you and an extensive network of social costs. To say that you shouldn't share in the cost of your decision is to pass the costs of your personal choices onto the larger public. What is really criminal is that I'm subsidizing your use of an automobile that is one of the greatest sources of carbon emissions in this country, occupies the majority of our road space-both in travel and in parking, all while giving me no benefit. Please start paying your fare share!

Agreed@John Maler.

And cferrejo, the MoveNY plan does not impact drivers traveling to Brooklyn or Long Island from Queens. In fact, outer tolls would decrease in price, for example between Queens and the Bronx via the Throgs Neck Bridge. The new tolls would only affect drivers traveling into the Manhattan Central Busines District.Additionally, congestion pricing in other cities has not led to an increase in the cost of goods. In fact, deliveries are expedited thanks to reduced automotive traffic which saves businesses money.

When the public cares enough about my safety to provide a guarantee against further sexual assaults, I will go back to taking the train. As it stands, after 25 years and dozens of offensives I changed careers so I could drive to work, pay for my own parking and drive home. I have not been assaulted since then. Don't you dare call me criminal again! Calling people who drive lazy, wasteful or selfish makes you look like a self-righteous jerk. You don't know what you are talking about.

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.

Welcome to the discussion, ihavecars. Sounds like cost of driving into Manhattan is your number one concern. Do you think congestion is big issue? If so, what would your suggestions be on how to reduce it?

Reduce congestion by cutting the number of taxi's and Uber cars unleashed in the last several years. Cut congestion by having traffic engineers take a reasonable look at the timing of street lights and adding turning signals. No one wants to here it but when a combustion engine runs at 10-20 mph the pollution is 60% higher than when it runs at 30-35 mph and the more run hours a car runs on the street due to deliberate efforts to stall traffic the polution increases accordingly. Just take a look at the numbers with traffic flow.

Take the subway or just pay the toll.

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.

Welcome to the discussion FreeTrucks9. Others in the discussion have agreed with your opposition to a new agency (MNYHTA) because they thought it was unnecessary.

Under the proposed bill, the MNYHTA would disburse funds—limited to specified transportation investments only to three different transportation agencies (MTA, TBTA, NYC-DOT (see Topic 3.1) and would be subject to transparency measures (for example, annual public reports on disbursements; see Topic 4.1).

What alternative would you offer to people who feel that creating the MNYHTA is needed to make sure it stays outside the regular Albany budget process and gets directly to transportation purposes?

New agencies will always make people nervous. Why not just repurpose and existing agency? Give it a new charter, etc. Wouldn't that have the same effect but without the political discomfort of creating a whole new agency? I'm sure there is at least one agency in the state that isn't doing much and could use something to justify it's existence.

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.

Hello, ericamukh, thank you for joining in. You make an interesting point. If I understand correctly, you have a car, live in Brooklyn, and originally hail from Queens, and also feel that the bill's toll reform effort will benefit you as a driver in the boroughs.

Supporters of the bill feel that the toll reform element will reduce traffic congestion, raise funds for improved transit, and also make driving in the City more equitable.

Do you have any hypothetical examples of how a Brooklyn-to-midtown commuter or maybe a Queens to Brooklyn commuter, for example, will be better off in her daily commute under the proposed toll reform?

Moderator, hypothetically I imagine that the proposed toll system would speed up express buses. I imagine that if I had to drive into midtown from Brooklyn (as I did several times when I helped out with jewelry sales at a street fair and needed a van to transport the merchandise) it would be easier to find parking for said van. Hypothetically, I would imagine that it would be an easier choice to drive out to the Rockaways for a summer day on the beach.

Overall, my support of this proposal stems from the idea that when one has to drive one should not be penalized, but when public transit options are readily available one should use them first. A proposal that helps to fund public transit improvements while decreasing the cost of driving in areas without easily available transit links has my support.

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.

Thank you for your comment, John Maier. Can you think of any means the state gov't could use to implement protections on your concern about unauthorized Queens park and rides?

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 plan prevents you from being tolled twice. Please read the bill. You are tolled a maximum amount in a 24-hour period.

Hello, jarod213, thank you for your comments. Actually, I believe the one-round-trip-24-hour toll limitation is an exception that applies to commercial vehicles, only. The summary in the window pane to the right notes this in point (iv)(1), about halfway down the summary. Does that change your view of the bill at all?

Moderator, no it does not change my view/opinion.

Hello, oils21, thank you for joining the discussion. Because the plan uses a demand-based variable pricing structure, Sunday tolling would be significantly reduced, compared to mid-week tolls.

Tolling to get into and then out of the tolling area is to prevent gaming the tolls. Keep in mind that the toll-in is a bit like paying one-half of the overall toll. The toll-out is a bit like paying the other half of the overall toll.

That said, I see your point and your concern. Do you have any alternatives in mind that could achieve the same attempted goals as the bill while better meeting your needs?

Are tolls going to be half the cost they are now so I pay half coming in and half going out? I did not get that impression. Plus I am not sure how one games the toll at this point? If I want to avoid it, I cant go into Queens since I still have to use the Triborough to get back,.

Anyway, I think a compromise on this is to have the plan only apply on weekdays between 8am and 6pm and no tolls leaving the area since one leaving helps solve the issue by reducing congestion. I agree that weekday congestion is horrible and needs to be addressed (I never drive in on weekdays as I subway to work every day) but, honestly, my weekend drives in with my small children are not that bad. I am able to park easily. I don't think my right to come into Manhattan is any less valid than those living there wanting to have emptier streets. Keep in mind the 6 train runs local in the Bronx weekends so a mass transit trip is way longer (unless MoveNY wants to recommend express service in the Bronx on weekends as well).

Finally, I think this should also be looked at after consideration is given to bringing back the commuter tax for non-NYC residents who work in NYC but live outside.

Hello, again, oils21. Thank you for putting forth an alternative measure. It's helpful--particularly your point about having no tolls to leave the tolled area may incentive less traffic within the tolled area south of 60th.

As to your question, the tolls won't be half of what they are now. What I was attempting to convey was that the thought process for the new toll system is that you'd essentially be paying half of the new toll as you enter the tolled area and paying half as you leave the tolled area.

From Topic 2.2--Here's a map showing the current toll system (i.e., what thruways are currently tolled) versus the proposed new toll system with proposed dollar amounts. How do you feel about these actual proposed dollar amounts, keeping in mind that they don't reflect likely decreases for low demand periods--like Sundays?

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.

Thank you, DrewG, for your nuanced and helpful comment. Another commenter has expressed a concern similar to your concern for the effect the new tolling system might have on those who are less financially privileged.

Assuming that traffic congestion in Manhattan and transit funding has gotten so bad that something must be done, could you think of a reasonable alternative that would accomplish the bill's goals and also better serve the whole of NYC?

The one thing that comes to mind is reducing the number of rides originating within the affected area. I don't have figures to cite in this regard, but based on 30+ years of observation, taxi and car service rides (now with uber) represent a very significant volume of traffic that is, in my opinion, the least necessary (barring age/disability) as these areas are the best served by public transportation and are largely very walkable and have access to CitiBike.

One can see the necessity of driving into Manhattan for deliveries or to perform services that require some amount of equipment that can't reasonably be carried on the subway, etc. I would be more likely to favor the banning of all traffic that doesn't fall into one of these categories. The need to commute by car simply to avoid taking public transport is practically nil (again, barring age/disability and taking into account areas that are underserved by the MTA).

The current proposals present no actual disincentive to those individuals who may already fall into the category of commuting via car service/uber in order to avoid the subway; the highest priced neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens are very well served by public transport, but those who can afford to live in these areas would be the least affected by paying tolls.

"“…The truth is that just 5 percent of commuters in Brooklyn, Queens,Staten Island and the Bronx travel to Manhattan by private car. Peoplewho drive their cars to work also earn 30 percent more a year than thoseof us who use mass transit. It is our poor and middle-class families whowould benefit from congestion pricing—as the fees charged to driverswould be used to improve the bus and subway system. ""Of all New York City residentswhocommute to work, only 5 percent drive to theCBD. Of that 5 percent, most (80 percent) have afeasible transit alternative to get to work that wouldtake no more than 15 minutes longer than theirauto trip. Therefore, only 1 percent of Manhattanworkers lack a viable alternative to paying a congestionfee or toll. The low- and moderate-incomeworkers disproportionately impacted by a fee or atoll represent a further subgroup within this 1 percent.Legislation that was proposed for considerationby the State legislature would have providedtax credits to compensate low-income motorists foramounts that they would have to pay in excess ofthe round-trip transit fare

A large number of low- and moderate-income residents would benefit from improved transit services under any of the three revenue-generating plans: As a group, low- and moderate-income New York City residents rely more on transit for their travel needs when compared with higher income residents. Therefore, these low- and moderate-income residents would benefit more from the shortterm transit enhancements that would precede a toll or fee imposition and from the expansion of the transit system made possible by increased revenues for transit investment."

http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08040/fhwahop08040.pdf

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.

Agreed, motorcycles and scooters should get a discount.

2|New tolls and reduced tolls at bridge crossings - 26

What the bill does: (i) Creates new tolls on the Brooklyn, Ed Koch Queensboro, Manhattan and Williamsburg Bridges, based on the toll rate at the Brooklyn Battery and Queens Midtown Tunnels but using the same variable, demand-based rates set the for new roadway tolls (Subtopic 1).

As with the avenue tolls, collection will be electronic or by mail with no toll-plaza cash collection; electronic direct-pay rates will be cheaper. The treatment of taxis and FHVs, commercial vehicles, and emergency and NYC government vehicles is the same as with the roadway tolls, and revenue from the new tolls will go to a special Move NY Mobility Fund (Topic 2.1) to pay for public transit and other transportation infrastructure improvements (Topic 3).

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1703(1), 1703(2), 1703(3), 1703(6), 1703(7)(d), 1703(8), 1703(10).

(ii) Reduces tolls on the 7 MTA bridges operated by the TBTA, using the following percentages of the new East River bridge and avenue tolls:

  • Henry Hudson: no more than 28% of electronic rate (56% of pay-by-mail rate)
  • Triborough, Whitestone, Throgs Neck, and Verrazano: no more than 55% of electronic rate (60% of pay-by-mail rate)
  • Cross Bay Veterans and Marine Parkway-Gil Hodges: no more than 20% of electronic rate (34% of pay-by-mail rate)

These reductions must happen for the new tolls to go into effect and if, in the future, TBTA doesn't keep these tolls in the statutory ratios to the new avenue and East River bridges tolls, then NYC-DOT loses the power to continue the new tolls .

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1703(4), 1703(5).

(iii) Creates 3 special toll rules:

  1. Westbound traffic using the northbound exit of Ed Koch Queensboro will pay 55% of the new toll rate.
  2. Residents of Staten Island and Rockaway/Broad Channel now receiving a resident toll discount will pay 55% of the new tolls for cars equipped for electronic direct pay (e.g., E-Z Pass). This reduction is good through 2024; after that, renewal has to be approved through MTA's capital program budget process.
  3. Vehicles registered in Staten Island and equipped for electronic direct pay will not be double tolled for crossing both the Verrazano Narrows bridge and 60th St. or one of the East River Bridges, so long as the second crossing is in the same direction as the first and happens within 2 hours.

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. § § 1703(2-a),1703(5)(d),1703(6).

Rationale: Tolls should reflect the level of congestion and the availability of public transit alternatives to driving. Under the new system, drivers using the East River bridges would pay the same tolls as those using the Queens Midtown and Brooklyn Battery tunnels or the roadways crossing 60th St. Drivers using the outer-bridge crossings that don't directly feed Manhattan congestion also tend to have fewer transit options, so these drivers should get toll relief.

See a map showing the current toll system versus the proposed new tolls.

The current toll system encourages "bridge shopping"-- when drivers use roads not designed to handle heavy traffic and large vehicles in order to avoid paying tolls. For example, trucks headed to Jersey from Long Island use the free Manhattan bridge and Canal Street, rather than the most direct route over the Verrazano Bridge. In Queens, thousands of drivers exist highways and jam city streets to use the free Queensboro bridge rather than the tunnel or Triborough Bridge.

See a map showing current "bridge shopping"

Congestion, air quality problems, and accident rates are higher in areas around the free bridges. When the toll swap takes away the economic incentive to bridge shop, safety and quality of life will greatly improve in areas like Williamsburg, Downtown Brooklyn, Chinatown, the Upper and Lower East Sides, and Long Island.

To learn more about the rationale for this part of the bill, see NY Congestion Discussion Topic 4.1 and Move NY Fair Plan (PDF pp. 17-20).

Comments26

Commenting is now closed.

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.

Thanks for your comment, PaulMiller. You may be interested in section 3.2, which describes a new Transit Gap Investment Fund, that could be used to alleviate congestion more generally.

Agreed. There are so many negative externalities associated with congestion. The sooner we begin to mitigate the problem, the better. Toll balancing and a congestion charge should have been instituted long ago.

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.

First of all, most New Yorkers do not commute via automobile into the Manhattan Central Business District. The vast majority use public transportation, walk and bike. New Yorkers have a lot to gain from increased revenue for mass transportation improvements and reduced congestion.

Residents of the communities surrounding the free bridges and feeder roads/highways suffer from excess pollution, noise, and collisions.

If you drive into the Manhattan CBD, you currently do so at the expense of others. Local residents pay a price far higher than what you would be expected to once these tolls are enacted if you continue your habits.

Congestion pricing has proven successful internationally.

I know plenty of New Yorkers who own cars either in Manhattan or in the boroughs. Perhaps they do not use them to commute to their jobs, but I do know of one man who drives from Battery Park City to Jersey for his job because he has too many problems with public transportation for it to be feasible. Also Nick, I don't know if you actually live in Manhattan, or even New York, but no New Yorker actually calls anything in Manhattan a "Central Business District." There is Midtown or the Financial Districts, and there are plenty of areas inbetween with commercial office space.

As for this increased revenue, how long will these improvements take, exactly? I live on the 7 line, which is being upgraded with the CBTC system. When I first started taking the line, it was incredible, but now the service has degraded since the multiple years of work, with what seems to be no end in sight. And once the system is in place and running, we will be blessed with 2 more trains per hour, which won't offset the current congestion on the line whatsoever, especially with all the new building going on. So Nick, I have very little faith in Move NY helping the MTA to do anything more than barely keep the systems running. In fact, if Governor Cuomo would get off his high horse and appropriate the monies needed for the MTA Capital Plans, we wouldn't be having these issues.

As for international plans for congestion, London was initially successful, but 10 years on, they are facing the same level of traffic as there had been initially. I wouldn't exactly call that a success.

And for those living near the East River crossings, let me tell you, it's a choice. It's a choice for anyone to live where they live. How does a collision affect a person who, as you blithely put it, just walks, bikes or uses the subway to get to work? I live not far from the junction of the BQE and ***, is there some noise? Yes. But I don't try to get legislation passed to divert or stop traffic on these important arteries because me and thousands of other people live by them. Perhaps you should also be advocating for that as well. The number of new buildings that have gone up around the BQE in Williamsburg must affect those citizens as well, yet they choose to live there.

This plan is misguided and overall, won't affect the quality of life in Manhattan but ruin it for all the boroughs with very little payoff. The idea that Move NY will be able to somehow do more than provide money to the current black holes of projects which take years to implement with limited success is not worth it.

georgeberberian, I cannot reply to your response on 0/28/16@7:48pm directly so I will post here.

Plenty of New Yorkers own automobiles but that is no excuse for the current tolling setup, where free bridges encourage toll shopping. Additionally, the externalities of excess automobile usage have been taking a toll on communities surrounding entry points, or even connecting highways. A small price to pay in a city where most people do not own or lease an automobile, yet suffer the ill effects of congestion.

Reverse commuting can be a hassle, but if someone lives in Battery Park City and commutes to Jersey, then they made a choice. It's highly unlikely that an automobile owner living in that area is too impoverished to afford this tolling setup.

CBTC will also improve 7 train service by increasing the number of trains per hour, and allowing the MTA to know where those trains are exactly. That 2 additional trains an hour you mention is the current estimate, but the system will be able to run even more trains in the future. Faster too.

As for London. Keep in mind that in London, congestion pricing was and still is successful. In London, officials decided to reallocate road space to pedestrians, mass transportation and bicyclists after decreases in automotive volume. So while travel times have increased since implementation, this is largely due to less space for people to drive. An increase in travel time was seen as a worthy compromise for faster transit, safety and increased pedestrianized public space. Congestion pricing has proven successful where ever implemented.

Finally collisions cause death, serious injury and monetary loss. They also create increased congestion and reduce economic activity in totality.

I'm sorry but it doesn't matter what most New Yorkers do. It matters what 'all' New Yorkers do. Just cause you're a majority group doesn't mean you get to have whatever you want. New York has a decent history of concern for minority populations, what ever type of minority population it may be. I hope it continues that history by thinking about what this bill do to everyone in the City. Even us out here in Queens. People like me who aren't rich, or well educated, who don't have time to care about all of the extras in life that privledged people do. I have time to work, play with my kids, and drive into Manhattan once in a while to show my kids something nice. And your stupid bill wants to take one of those things away from me. Not very nice

Plenty of interests inside NYC believe in this plan (as do I). This isn't "another tax on New Yorkers." It's a first step toward making drivers pay for their own chosen method of transportation, instead of everyone else doing that for you (as we all do). You're operating on the assumption that roads don't have to be income-generating in the way that the MTA does. That's unfair, and *I'm* tired of paying higher consumer prices so *you* can sit in your car. If you don't like paying to drive, join the rest of us in other methods of transportation - you'll be more than welcome!

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.

Nick, I'm not sure what world you live in, but it isn't New York. BRT? So lanes suddenly free up because everyone is taking buses from places out in Long Island? Somehow there will be more trains added to all the LIRR lines to deal with the current overcrowding, or that magically, trains like the L will no longer be filled to the brim with people?

In the end, people are frustrated with the MTA's lack of better service and Governor Cuomo and Albany pushing the MTA to the brink financially.

Most Manhattan CBD workers commute via mass transportation, even from the suburbs.It will take time to expand and improve mass transportation, but we need to start somewhere. Tolling automobile trips which enter the Manhattan CBD provides a new revenue source, one which could facilitate substantial projects.

The status quo does not work and is only going to get worse. The alternative is ever worsening commutes for everyone, increased travel times, pollution, road maintenance expenditure, and more collisions. The MoveNY plan is inevitable.

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?

Thank you again for your comment, georgeberberian. The number of crossings can make this confusing, but the basic idea is to charge all vehicles that directly enter the congested area below 60th St. the same toll, no matter what route they use. You can see this by comparing this map of the current system (pg 10) with the proposed system (pg 18). The East River bridges are now the only free route that feeds directly into the congested area. Drivers who cross on any of the other bridges (including a Harlem bridge) will pay the new toll if they also cross 60th. St. By establishing new tolls on East River Bridges, the Plan will prevent the bridge-shopping.

This plan proposes to cordon the entirety of Manhattan south of 60th St. It doesn't matter where your trip originates, you will be charged if you enter that area from all directions. This includes new electronic, overhead transponders installed at all East River crossings and across 60th St from river to river.

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.

Thank you, martinwalrus, for providing some insight as someone who both owns a car owner and uses alternative transportation. It sounds like you live in Manhattan. You may be able to provide some particularly helpful insight on the part of the bill that repeals the parking tax exemption (Topic 1.4).

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.

meant to say 'I will oppose' in the previous statement.

Welcome to the discussion, ConFed12. Do you usually take the Queensboro bridge for work? What do you think of supporters arguments that less congestion will lower the costs for businesses because more trips can be faster?

I'm going to jump in here, if that's ok. I don't take the Queensboro for work. I live and work in Queens. But, do like to go downtown in Manhattan with my kids for fun. We have a few little weekly traditions that we like to do there. When I go, I drive. Even if we had great public tranpsortation here Queens, I'd still drive. Why? because I don't want to be on public transport with my three little ones. I'd have to keep track of them, keep people away from them, make sure they don't fall onto tracks, or on the road in front of cars, etc. Plus, this is Queens not Manhattan. It's just not as safe as Manhattan is. It's not horrible, but it's not like lower Manhattan. And it's dangerous enough that I prefer to keep my kids in my car so I can control them and keep them safer. That means far more to me than traffic congestion or anything else. I'm also not wealthy. Not even close. I can barely afford the trips I do take with my kids into Manhattan. So, what your asking me to support is something that is harmful to the wellbeing of my family. I will not do it. I had no idea this was even something in the works. I had to find out from someone who traveled from afar to let me and others in the neighborhood know about and that we could something about it here. Maybe it will or won't make a difference, but here I am saying it now. Thanks.

Tolling the Manhattan CBD means less congestion and more funding for transportation improvements. Imagine less pollution, collisions, and road expenditures from wear. Imagine cheaper tolls on the outer crossings.Why would anyone oppose this plan? To save a couple bucks every once and a while, but deal with all the problems mentioned (which will only get worse BTW).

Geez, man. I agree with what you say generally, but have to say that your response to RideTheClock is a bit callous and illustrates her point. I'm not sure you helped your position here.

RideTheClock also mentioned kids' safety. And I think also made it clear that its more than just a couple of bucks as far as he/she's concerned. As in already stretched to the limit it sounds like. If you can't understand the immediate need of safety and income over pollution, road expenditures, etc., then I'm sure what to say.

I will say that I do support Move NY generally. But I agree that until we address the effect on less secure populations that have found a way to make it under the current transportation structures, we shouldn't just drink the koolaid and push it through like it's perfect and anyone who doesn't support it is not. It's not perfect and there are some valid arguments against. From where I sit, Move NY is good, but not perfect.

What about populations that may sacrifice the safety of their car? Valid criticism, RideTheClock. And the income effect is valid to.

Is there some way we can work through it or figure out the effects on specific populations?

@HaanCenter (04/01/16/3:42PM),

The dangers of mass transportation in NYC are highly exaggerated. You are more likely to be seriously injured or killed driving a personally owned automobile in this city. Fear of people is irrational, and NYC is the wrong place to live if you feel that way.

I'm not going to support an existing system which negatively impacts millions so that one person could drive into Manhattan for free from time to time for recreation. Think about all the people who are injured and killed due to excess congestion (especially the over-represented children, seniors, and people of color). Think about the people suffering from respiratory illness due to emission from these vehicles. Think about the vast majority of New Yorkers who do travel via mass transportation into the core and would benefit from increased funding. Think about those who commute between the Bronx<->Queens, SI<->Brooklyn who have more limited mass transportation options and would benefit from lower tolls and mass transportation improvements along those routes. Think about the people who need to access the core on a regular basis and benefit from reduced congestion.

The reason I oppose this plan is that it's a form of regressive taxation for middle- and lower-income New Yorkers, who are often underserved by public transportation. The tolls as proposed do not create a disincentive for the portion of the population that can easily afford $35/week to commute via personal car, uber, or other car service.

This also does not address the number of rides originating within the affected area which presents a significant volume of traffic. Maybe limiting the number of cabs/uber cars operating within the areas with the highest congestion? Of course, this would involve the necessity of improving subway service that is already at capacity on certain lines at times.

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.

3|Taxi & FHV surcharges - 5

What the bill does: (i) Directs the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) to impose sand collect a new surcharge on taxis and FHVs that pick up or discharge people within the part of the "hail exclusionary zone" that is Manhattan south of East 96th St. and West 110th St. Revenue from the surcharge must be transferred to the Move NY Mobility Fund (Topic 2.1) and used for improvements in public transit and other transportation infrastructure (Topic 3).

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1703(7).

(ii) Sets the basic surcharge, initially, at 12¢ per 2/10 mile at 6 MPH or more, plus 20¢ per 2/10 mile at less than 6 MPH, but directs that the actual surcharge will vary with demand like the new roadway and bridge tolls. (Subtopics 1 and 2) The TLC can increase the surcharge in the future.

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1703(7)(b), 1703(10).

(iii) Exempts taxis and FHVs that pay the surcharge from also paying the new roadway and bridge tolls.

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1703(7)(d).

Rationale: Taxis and FHVs are a middle ground between public transit and private autos. The surcharge approach--which combines distance traveled within the Manhattan hail exclusionary zone, plus an adjustment for congestion wait-time--makes sure that riders pay their fair share. At the same time, taxis and FHVs will benefit from less congestion from private vehicles. Increased traffic speed means greater fare turnover, which should more than offset any drop-off from the price increase. Also, the surcharge approach should avoid "gaming" on either side of 60th St. -- that is, passengers taking a trip right to the toll line, then getting out and completing their trip from the other side.

To learn more about the rationale for this part of the bill, see NY Congestion Discussion Topic 4.2 and Move NY Fair Plan (PDF pp. 19-20).

Comments5

Commenting is now closed.

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.

Hello, Za45, thank you for your comment. If I'm correct, then I think you'd like to see an actual range of price increases for various types of trips before you decide whether or not you support this part of the bill. The actual price increases would depend on the type of ride, as you've already noted, and also on a given company's pricing structure, Uber vs Lyft for example. I don't have that information immediately available, unfortunately.

However, could you think of an alternative surcharge formula that would make it easier for e-hail users to predict their actual increased price?

Of course, it'd have to bring the same amount of revenue as the proposed formula.

I know you said you'd prefer not to do the math, but I just thought I'd ask anyway in case you or anyone else viewing might like to try.

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

Hi, again, Quinn Raymond. They would apply to services like Uber and Lyft because those type of e-hail car services fall within the for-hire-vehicle category (FHV). You see the treatment of FHV's in the summary of the bill in the pane just to the right.

Thank you, just confirming!

4|Repeal of parking tax exemption - 16

What the bill does: Removes Manhattan residents' exemption from the City surtax on monthly parking fees. The amount of additional taxes will be added to the Move NY Mobility Fund (Topic 2.1) and used for public transit and other transportation needs (Topic 3).

Read the legislative language: T.L. § 1212-A (a)¶1.

Rationale: To reduce government subsidies of car ownership in Manhattan, and ensure that all residents share the responsibility for contributing to NYC transportation infrastructure.

To learn more about the rationale for this part of the bill, see NYC Congestion Discussion Topic 1.4 and Move NY Fair Plan (PDF p. 23).

Comments16

Commenting is now closed.

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.

Residential parking permit systems have a lot of problems (witness DC, where there's a vigorous private market for permits) and every time I've brought them up in NYC, I've been told that they'll never happen.Taxing monthly parking fees is a start, but it'll hit garages hard, and keep people cruising for free or virtually free on-street spots. In concert with this tax rise, what is the city going to do that will reduce the cruising behaviors that create ~70% of NYC traffic? I think anything that raises parking prices in the city is probably a good thing, but the focus should perhaps be on-street, not off; the city has way more control there anyway.

If on-street parking were priced properly, it would be at LEAST as expensive as a garage.Think about it: It's more valuable. You get to park close to where you live or work. You can access your car at any time. A garage requires you walk a distance from where you are, and wait for an attendant. While I understand that most New Yorkers (of which I am a lifelong resident) believe free on-street parking is their god-given right, it isn't.I agree with the problems of "Residential" passes, too. There aren't enough spots for everybody. How do you intend to accommodate the five families who live in a brownstone which is only as wide as one car?

Hello, jerlbaum, thank you for your comment. Keeping in mind the limitations of state regulation and enforcement on city parking, how do you feel about the repeal of the exemption as a start?

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.

Manhattan residents should be discouraged from automobile ownership. The borough is too densely populated to even support the current automotive volume. Manhattan residents also have excellent mass transportation options, considering our subway and metropolitan commuter rail system radiates out from Midtown.

If your friends must drive, they can either pay the toll. Alternatively, they can take mass transportation, a car share service, or bike.

You aren't being penalized for owning cars. The space those cars take up is heavily subsidized by the public. For comparison, a square foot of the Empire State Building gift shop costs over $830 a month, but an entire 250 sq ft parking spot a few feet away would be lucky to make the city $300 a month. Why does city land somehow become hundreds of times less important or valuable when you need to store your car?

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.

I don't live in Manhattan, but I do have a car that I drive fairly regularly. Obviously I park the car as well. I can imagine what facing the repeal of the tax exemption in Manhattan would be like. I agree that this is a more complicated and difficult decision that many on both sides of it would like to admit. Generally, I favor the repeal painful though it may be to some folks in Manhattan. Maybe some of those in Manhattan would consider coming out to the boroughs. It can be nice, and it would reduce the number of cars in Manhattan. Plus, if transit is going to improve as much as this bill claims, it should be relatively easy to get back in and out of the city whenever we want.

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.

Hello, cwlumm, thank you for your comment. The dynamic parking and parking benefit district ideas are definitely interesting.

However, would these be City government issues as opposed to state government issues? If so, could you think of a politically viable way that a state bill could increase parking revenue further than the tax exemption proposal currently does?

The state could require any congressional district (or, better yet, each voter precinct) over a certain level of density to offer citizens in that district the option to institute dynamic parking with state funds. Increased parking revenue in the PBD can be used to institute immediate amenities, like free Wifi/parklets/better street cleaning, and a portion gets used to pay the state back gradually. It can function like a neighborhood-level loan from the state, but PBDs stand to reduce congestion, asthma rates, and car fatality rates, which all have economic impacts, too. And if precincts don't want it, they can just say no. I know state transportation funds are hotly contested, but I don't see how at least offering crowded neighborhoods the choice hurts anyone besides creating a bit of money-shuffling in the short term.

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

Wait, I get that that's a City issue... nevermind.

Hello, Quinn Raymond, thanks for joining the discussion. It's probably not something that could be added to the bill at this point. However, cwlumm (commenter who posted a few posts up in this thread has some interesting thoughts and workaround on this exact issue. You may be interested in that.

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

5|When all this takes effect - 1

What the bill does: Sets January 1, 2019 as the latest date that the new tolls and surcharges can go into effect (so long as tolls are reduced on the 7 MTA bridges at the same time.) NYC-DOT, TBTA and TLC can decide to implement the tolls and surcharges earlier than this date.

Read the legislative language: V.T.L. §§ 1701(6); 1703(4), 1703(7).

Removal of the Manhattan resident parking tax exemption will take effect on January 1 of the year after the legislation is enacted.

Read the legislative language: Bill § 10

Comments1

Commenting is now closed.

Hurry up! :)

All topics