NYC Congestion Pricing Reduced Traffic, Hits Revenue Goals

[iluvatar5150]

But it will get them the revenue they need to undertake their improvement projects, which was one of the stated "perks" do doing the congestion pricing was it not?

It seems to me as if they may be targeting the wrong initiative anyway.

If there's too many people in the area for the square acreage of available space, it seems like they're trying to "support the congestion" rather than alleviate it.

Seems like what some of these cities really need is for some people to move elsewhere. And with things like remote work now being much more prevalent, it seems like that's more of an option now that it used to be.

An interesting stat:
As of May 2024, approximately 16% of NYC residents work fully remote, meaning they do not attend the office at all. Additionally, nearly 50% of employers have adopted hybrid schedules, allowing employees to split their time between remote work and in-office presence.

Seems like there's a lot of people wanting to live in NYC for "the vibe" that don't necessarily need to be there adding to the congestion.

I think at this point you're arguing just to argue.

I suppose I didn't articulate it because I thought it was understood, but congestion pricing is supposed to combat traffic congestion. If you're living there and taking the subway everywhere, you're not contributing to traffic. If you're living there and working from your bedroom, you're not contributing to traffic.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Doesn't that tie in with what some of what I was saying, about the New England cities have a lot of their development before cars were widely used?

I don't know about the rest of New England, but some of Boston's inner core has the problem of little organization or regularity to the streets. Manhattan (the subject of this thread) is laid out an a grid with big wide avenues running the length of it from 1st street north (you know 60 blocks into the congestion zone), and regular orthogonal cross streets. Only lower Manhattan, especially the old, old New Amsterdam part has the tangle of streets that make traffic messy.

And cities that had that main development period with cars in mind do have lighter traffic. Obviously, every major city is going to have some traffic.

For example see "LA" that famously light traffic car-oriented place, largely built after automobiles were common.

Another distinct feature of NYC is that there are no real "suburbs" or "rural" areas nearby for people to move to un-congest the city.

NYC has plenty of suburbs. What do you think Long Island, Staten Island, Westchester, western Connecticut, north New Jersey are? (Mostly suburban.)

For instance, if someone works in Pittsburgh, they can easily live in a suburb or somewhat more rural area, and be to downtown in 20 minutes.

And when exactly were these suburbs and "more rural areas" 20 minutes from downtown Pittsburgh developed as housing areas (ie, not actual farms or woods anymore)? Any recent ones?

Some of those older cities with their major population booms and major development happening earlier on, as you mentioned, basically stick people with having to live, work, and shop in "the big city".

All of those "high density" old cities have *lots* of suburbs. The first suburbs for commuters developed around the turn of the century with commuters riding "interurban" commuter trains. Then car suburbs in the 20s. Then the post-war suburbs in the 40s-50s-60s.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I think at this point you're arguing just to argue.

I suppose I didn't articulate it because I thought it was understood, but congestion pricing is supposed to combat traffic congestion. If you're living there and taking the subway everywhere, you're not contributing to traffic. If you're living there and working from your bedroom, you're not contributing to traffic.

What I'm suggesting is that the companies within NYC (when possible) could alleviate traffic by expanding remote work.

If 50% of the employers are already offering "hybrid work", that means that most could just do complete remote work. If the job can be done "hybrid", it can be done fully remote in most cases.

And there's certainly other companies that could do the same for a lot of positions, but are just being stubborn because "putting on a suit and going to the office is how it's always been done. harrumph!!!"


That would alleviate traffic congestion, would it not?

And how it ties in with my previous post was that there would certainly be people who'd probably prefer to get a bigger place, for half the price, somewhere further away from NYC, but can't move because their boss is making them come into the office 2 days a week (if they're hybrid) or all the time (if it's an old school company).

My cousin (and several of his co-workers followed suit) was one of the ones who migrated away from LA when his company went full remote. Still got the LA wages, and that money went a lot farther when he was living somewhere that wasn't LA.

 

[iluvatar5150]

What I'm suggesting is that the companies within NYC (when possible) could alleviate traffic by expanding remote work.

yep

And there's certainly other companies that could do the same for a lot of positions, but are just being stubborn because "putting on a suit and going to the office is how it's always been done. harrumph!!!"

yep

That would alleviate traffic congestion, would it not?

yep

 

[ThatRobGuy]

yep


yep


yep

Okay, so I guess they should probably consider more creative ideas like that (combined with increased MTA enforcement) instead of charging people $13 to cross a bridge lol.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

NYC has plenty of suburbs. What do you think Long Island, Staten Island, Westchester, western Connecticut, north New Jersey are? (Mostly suburban.)

I guess when I think "suburb", I don't typically think of something that's an hour long drive

Maybe it's a "midwestern" thing, but when I think of "suburbs", I typically don't think of something that's an hour+ away from the major city. Wouldn't the western Conn area suburbs be suburbs of Stamford?

With those kind of drive times, northern Columbus would be a suburb of Cleveland lol.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Okay, so I guess they should probably consider more creative ideas like that (combined with increased MTA enforcement) instead of charging people $13 to cross a bridge lol.

Why "instead of"?

I guess when I think "suburb", I don't typically think of something that's an hour long drive

View attachment 361709
View attachment 361711

Maybe it's a "midwestern" thing, but when I think of "suburbs", I typically don't think of something that's an hour+ away from the major city. Wouldn't the western Conn area suburbs be suburbs of Stamford?

With those kind of drive times, northern Columbus would be a suburb of Cleveland lol.

You did skip a lot of other suburbs in between.

But yeah, NYC is big. It's 40+ minutes just from Manhattan to the outer edge of Queens.

 

[durangodawood]

What I'm suggesting is that the companies within NYC (when possible) could alleviate traffic by expanding remote work.

If 50% of the employers are already offering "hybrid work", that means that most could just do complete remote work. If the job can be done "hybrid", it can be done fully remote in most cases.

And there's certainly other companies that could do the same for a lot of positions, but are just being stubborn because "putting on a suit and going to the office is how it's always been done. harrumph!!!"


That would alleviate traffic congestion, would it not?
....

Cities are a little wary of this. They want less vehicle congestion. But not less people..... lest they end up like San Francisco's tech heavy downtown which has been decimated by (among other things), remote work.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Cities are a little wary of this. They want less vehicle congestion. But not less people..... lest they end up like San Francisco's tech heavy downtown which has been decimated by (among other things), remote work.

Well, then they need to pick their battles it sounds like lol.

Sounds like they want some sort of unicorn situation where they can have millions of people there in order to prop up their tax & spend economy, yet not have the various forms of congestion that go along with it.

Perhaps trying to cram 20 million people into 400 square miles isn't optimal.


How does that old saying go.

It's like wanting to throw a picnic at the beach and then getting mad because the seagulls showed up...


And...
With regards to the bay area, I suspect they had some other problems that made people want to get out of town. There was definitely a pattern with regards to various locales when places went to remote work arrangements. People who were already living in more affordable, lower-crime areas weren't chomping at the bit to pack up move 200 miles away.

Perhaps some of these major cities are concerned that remote work may "expose" something about their city that may break the facade.

For so long, we heard defenses of "well if it's that bad, then why do X million people choose to live there??", it'd be a big of a "egg on the face moment" if it turns out, that people didn't love living there as much as advertised, and were instead, only there because their job was anchoring them there.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Why "instead of"?

Because working with the money you already have is always preferable to trying to grab more money. (with regards to tax dollars)

Especially with that thing I mentioned about commissioning an NYC/Columbia University psychology study to "understand why people feel compelled to engage in fare avoidance". I mean, c'mon, we all know the "dodge" they were engaging in there.

They had started to ramp up enforcement when the problem started getting bad right after covid, and per the NY Times article, had temporarily reduced the problem by 40% (which would translate to almost $100 million over the course of a year). But as soon as it was reported that the arrests/fines were disproportionately impacting communities of color, the social justice types got involved, and the writing was on the wall.

You did skip a lot of other suburbs in between.

But yeah, NYC is big. It's 40+ minutes just from Manhattan to the outer edge of Queens.

That was my point to the other poster... They're basically stuck living/working/shopping "in the big city".

Someone who lives 20-25 minutes from a regular major city doesn't have to add to the traffic congestion when they want to go shopping or go to a restaurant.

 

[durangodawood]

Sounds like they want some sort of unicorn situation where they can have millions of people there in order to prop up their tax & spend economy, yet not have the various forms of congestion that go along with it.

Like Tokyo! Gosh how ever did they do it???

Its a mystery that probably no one will ever solve!

Perhaps trying to cram 20 million people into 400 square miles isn't optimal.

Optimal for what?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Like Tokyo! Gosh how ever did they do it???

Its a mystery that probably no one will ever solve!

• Strict Laws & Enforcement: Japan has strict laws and a high conviction rate, discouraging crime.
• Cultural Norms: There’s a strong societal emphasis on order, politeness, and community responsibility.
• Transit-Oriented Development in the post-war rebuild: Tokyo rebuilt with a transport-first mindset by building transport stations first, then developing around it, making public transport the preferred way to travel.
• Zoning Flexibility: Unlike American cities, Tokyo has looser zoning laws, allowing for a mix of residential and commercial areas. This helps with housing affordability and prevents the kind of extreme rent spikes seen in NYC.
• Corporate Culture & Work Ethic: Japan has a strong work culture, contributing to lower unemployment rates.

Oh, it's not a mystery, but the answers are a combination of things that wouldn't be feasible or answers that leadership in NY/NYC wouldn't like and would likely face public criticism from the more progressive-minded types.


Unless NYC has plans of getting destroyed during a war (or knocking down all of their buildings) so that they can redesign the city from scratch by building the transportation infrastructure first, completely changing their zoning laws, strictly enforcing their criminal code, redevelop the social order with an emphasis on politeness and civic duty, and instill a strong corporate work ethic...

Then I don't see how NYC would follow Tokyo's lead on that.

"We need do less enforcement and just throw more tax dollars at the issue if enforcement could lead to more minorities getting arrested" isn't going to fly if they want to be like Tokyo.

"We're not going to subsidize 'starving artists', we use our government money prudently" is another thing they'll have to make peace with.

And NYC folks will have to get used to the culture of "you respect your boss, you do what they say, you don't whine about things not being fair...you show up on time and leave the 'we are the 99%' crap at the door"

 

[iluvatar5150]

• Strict Laws & Enforcement: Japan has strict laws and a high conviction rate, discouraging crime.
• Cultural Norms: There’s a strong societal emphasis on order, politeness, and community responsibility.
• Transit-Oriented Development in the post-war rebuild: Tokyo rebuilt with a transport-first mindset by building transport stations first, then developing around it, making public transport the preferred way to travel.
• Zoning Flexibility: Unlike American cities, Tokyo has looser zoning laws, allowing for a mix of residential and commercial areas. This helps with housing affordability and prevents the kind of extreme rent spikes seen in NYC.
• Corporate Culture & Work Ethic: Japan has a strong work culture, contributing to lower unemployment rates.

Oh, it's not a mystery, but the answers are a combination of things that wouldn't be feasible or answers that leadership in NY/NYC wouldn't like and would likely face public criticism from the more progressive-minded types.


Unless NYC has plans of getting destroyed during a war (or knocking down all of their buildings) so that they can redesign the city from scratch by building the transportation infrastructure first, completely changing their zoning laws,

What are you talking about? Have you ever been to NYC?

 

[ThatRobGuy]

What are you talking about? Have you ever been to NYC?

Which bullet point is this in response to?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I guess when I think "suburb", I don't typically think of something that's an hour long drive

View attachment 361709
View attachment 361711

You're route keeps driving right past actual suburbs to get to your "hour away destinations". See that town on your LI map below Oyster Bay called Levittown? It is the stereotypical "cookie-cutter" post-war suburb built in the late-40s early 50s (like my neighborhood).

Maybe it's a "midwestern" thing, but when I think of "suburbs", I typically don't think of something that's an hour+ away from the major city. Wouldn't the western Conn area suburbs be suburbs of Stamford?

Stamford is basically a suburb of NYC, and certainly all of those town your route went through before you got to Stamford are NYC suburbs. Perhaps you aren't familiar with Chicago. South Bend, Kenosha, and Rockford are all essentially Chicago suburb at this point (and like your two endpoints, the first two are served by commuter trains to the CBD of the great metropolis they are near).

With those kind of drive times, northern Columbus would be a suburb of Cleveland lol.

Columbus is a rather odd duck, unlike most other large midwestern urban cores, Columbus has been growing. Most of the rest are stagnant or have shrunk in the last 50 years.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Which bullet point is this in response to?

Mainly the last paragraph where you talk about zoning laws and building infrastructure first. It sounds like you’ve never been to Manhattan.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Mainly the last paragraph where you talk about zoning laws and building infrastructure first. It sounds like you’ve never been to Manhattan.

The first significant wave of building in NYC happened between 1880 and 1930. (I'm led to believe that just under half of NYC's buildings that are still currently there were built before 1930)

When was their subway system and public transportation infrastructure really ramped up? (that's an honest question...I know their subway was built pretty early in 1900's, but it was just a 2-line subway system to start, when did it go through it's major expansion phase)


As where, most of Tokyo's transportation planning stuff all kind happen in the post WWII boom, and their big building development boom ramped up in the 70's coinciding with their economic boom.

There's a big difference between "planning for a bunch of buildings and public transport on the drawing board" vs. "we've already got a ton of buildings to work around"

Tokyo had the luxury of observing the situations other major cities were already in during their city planning phase. That's a big leg up.

It's easier to build a rail/transport system first, and build around it, than it is to have a bunch of huge buildings "in the way", and then try to construct a rail system through it.



As far as the zoning laws aspect:

Why Is Japanese Zoning More Liberal Than US Zoning? - Market Urbanism

Over the past few years, Japanese zoning has become popular among YIMBYs thanks to a classic blog post by Urban kchoze. It’s easy to see why: Japanese zoning is relatively liberal, with few bulk and density controls, limited use segregation, and no regulatory distinction between apartments and...

marketurbanism.com

 

[iluvatar5150]

The first significant wave of building in NYC happened between 1880 and 1930. (I'm led to believe that just under half of NYC's buildings that are still currently there were built before 1930)

When was their subway system and public transportation infrastructure really ramped up? (that's an honest question...I know their subway was built pretty early in 1900's, but it was just a 2-line subway system to start, when did it go through it's major expansion phase)

The first underground line opened in 1905, but the first elevated line opened in 1868. Scanning wikipedia, it looks like there was a lot of expansion up through the 1930's, coinciding with the building above ground.

As far as the zoning laws aspect:

Why Is Japanese Zoning More Liberal Than US Zoning? - Market Urbanism

Over the past few years, Japanese zoning has become popular among YIMBYs thanks to a classic blog post by Urban kchoze. It’s easy to see why: Japanese zoning is relatively liberal, with few bulk and density controls, limited use segregation, and no regulatory distinction between apartments and...

marketurbanism.com

I'm aware of the zoning problems around the country. We were talking specifically about NYC. I'm not familiar with the outer boroughs where, who knows, maybe there are a lot of nimby zoning rules in Staten Island or eastern Queens. But in Manhattan, where the congestion surcharges are in place, public transportation and buildings are both everywhere. Residential and commercial areas are intermixed. Single family homes in Manhattan are exceedingly rare - basically just some historic mansions and a couple of tiny enclaves on the northern end.

 

[Hans Blaster]

As where, most of Tokyo's transportation planning stuff all kind happen in the post WWII boom, and their big building development boom ramped up in the 70's coinciding with their economic boom.

There's a big difference between "planning for a bunch of buildings and public transport on the drawing board" vs. "we've already got a ton of buildings to work around"

Tokyo had the luxury of observing the situations other major cities were already in during their city planning phase. That's a big leg up.

Someone had already done the demolition of Tokyo for them. It cleared out all the old wooden buildings.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Stamford is basically a suburb of NYC, and certainly all of those town your route went through before you got to Stamford are NYC suburbs.

Columbus is a rather odd duck, unlike most other large midwestern urban cores, Columbus has been growing. Most of the rest are stagnant or have shrunk in the last 50 years.

Some of the burbs you're referring to...I would imagine that for the areas you're describing, it probably lacks that dynamic that exists in the Midwest, where you can save a considerable amount of money on housing by moving 20 minutes outside the "big city"

So it doesn't really incentivize someone moving out of the city and exchanging housing costs for some additional commute time like it would in other places.

For instance, when I look at some home prices in Stamford...sheesh.

3/4 of a million for 2500sqft...ouch lol.

meanwhile, a suburb of Cleveland you can snag this:

If there's not a huge cost savings between living in the city and living in the "burbs", then that could explain another reason why some just choose to "stick it out" in the city. If their boss won't let them be remote, picking up and moving isn't as appealing if you're not going to save some $$$ and will be adding a bunch of time to your commute.