I think that in this case the third rail is on the other foot.

That's interesting Captain. Funny how not one word of any of that or anything about the Port Authority was mentioned in today's news stories about the CP proposal, some of which specifically focused on the NJ issue. I still think it's a political third rail though that could likely be resolved by Corzone stepping in and vowing more support for Port Authority investments on this side of the river.

There is nothing I can recall to indicate that the PA is raising tolls in order to help alleviate mass transit or environmental concerns in NYC. Or that it's planning to give some of that increased toll money to the MTA. (If I'm wrong someone will surely let me know.)

Okay, here you go:

http://www.panynj.gov/abouttheportauthority/presscenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=831
http://www.panynj.gov/abouttheportauthority/presscenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=988
http://www.panynj.gov/abouttheportauthority/presscenter/PressReleases/PressRelease/index.php?id=1002

With the increased tolls, the Port Authority will contribute $3 billion to the Hudson River rail tunnel and $3.3 billion to increase capacity on PATH trains by 20%. Even if they don't say they're raising tolls in order to help alleviate mass transit and environmental concerns in NYC, that's what they're doing.

The PA took the initiative to raise tolls because they want to use the money for trans-Hudson transit projects. I have no problem with this.

And the agency planning to charge NJ residents $8 to get into NY is the Port Authority, which is raising the toll. CP is a totally different issue. There is nothing I can recall to indicate that the PA is raising tolls in order to help alleviate mass transit or environmental concerns in NYC. Or that it's planning to give some of that increased toll money to the MTA. (If I'm wrong someone will surely let me know.)

The discrepancy here in the treatment of the two different sets of commuters is caused by differences in the administration of the NJ crossings vs. the administration of the East River and other in-City crossings. If NJ residents have a problem with that they should take it up with the PA. But nothing the PA has done is in any way congestion pricing related.

And even if you believe that NJ residents should have the inherent right to drive into another state as easily as NY residents drive into another county, why on earth would any CP supporter want to basically exempt NJ drivers from congestion pricing? Are their cars not also dangerous and causing pollution and congestion here in NYC? Don't you want to get rid of NJ cars just as much as you want to get rid of NY cars? Well, giving them a total CP free pass isn't going to do that.

Besides, it's a political third rail. There aren't any NJ politicians voting on the CP plan, and NY politicians aren't going to approve a plan that gives NJ residents a free ride. Which is exactly what they would be getting if they pay $8 to the Port Authority and nothing else.

Harlan makes a fair point above about getting SOMETHING in place and tweaking the numbers later, which certainly could be done.

Clearly plenty of commuters from NJ ARE driving into the city as it stands, so calling the money they pay a "congestion charge" instead of a "tunnel toll" is just semantics. Unless they're paying $8 on top of the bridge/tunnel tolls (rather than $8 minus the existing tolls) there isn't going to be any behavioral change.

Spud, Josh, look at it this way: there *already* is a congestion fee to drive into Manhattan from NJ. It is the toll you pay to cross the river. You're right: plenty of people in fact do drive through the tunnel and pay the toll, just as after the congestion-pricing plan is put into effect, plenty of people are going to drive across the East River bridges into Manhattan.

The idea isn't that ALL the traffic goes away (though that would be nice!), but that some percentage (5% 10%?) finds another way. If you live in Newark and it's going to cost you $5 or $8 to drive through the tunnel, you might be more likely to hop on the PATH. If you live in Brooklyn and it's going to cost you $8 to cross the bridge, taking the subway makes more sense.

It's not the *name* of the charge that discourages the driving (or more correctly, shifts the mode of the trip), it's the existence of the charge. Would I prefer that more of the revenue from the Hudson toll/congestion-charge ended up benefiting public transit? Yes! (Of course, maybe it will be applied to PATH services... I don't know.) But as far as congestion mitigation - it's the same effect.

And don't tell me that it's OK because this would "equalize" the cost for people throughout the area. That argument will not fly politically (nor should it). If the goal here (besides revenue collection) is to change people's behavior then it has to change everyone's behavior -- not just the people who actually live here but those who live out of state as well. And the only way to do that is to raise the cost for everyone.

Sorry, Spud, you're just wrong here. In my neighborhood there is severe congestion on all the streets leading to the "free" bridge, to the point where buses are impractical at certain hours. Much of this congestion is on Van Dam Street, the main way for drivers to get from the "tolled" Queens Midtown tunnel to the "free" Queensborough bridge. In an effort to minimize this congestion, the roads have been designed to speed cars through residential neighborhoods, resulting in numerous injuries and fatalities.

Congestion pricing or tolls would decrease the demand for the bridge, resulting in less congestion and allowing us to reconfigure the streets for greater safety. But the plans that would equalize the charges on the bridges and tunnels would have the greatest effect. If people going to the Queensborough Bridge pay $6 and people going to the Tunnel pay $10, we'd still see people driving on Skillman Avenue and Van Dam Street instead of staying on the BQE and LIE to the tunnel.

We may want to "change everybody's behavior," but we want to concentrate on those whose behavior causes the most damage.

I agree completely. Clearly plenty of commuters from NJ ARE driving into the city as it stands, so calling the money they pay a "congestion charge" instead of a "tunnel toll" is just semantics. Unless they're paying $8 on top of the bridge/tunnel tolls (rather than $8 minus the existing tolls) there isn't going to be any behavioral change.

I really am infuriated by the opposition to tolling the free bridges. The incentive for drivers from all over the place to flock to those spots is a HUGE source of traffic and congestion.

Spud, everything is DOA in Albany except lower taxes, more spending, and richer pensions after shorter careers. But the future they have destroyed has arrived. So lots of things that were DOA are going to come to life. Silver understands this. The rest either don't, or don't care.

But it definitely is not going forward if it gives a free ride to NJ drivers. No way Albany passes a plan that allows NJ drivers to enter the City for no extra charge but jacks up the cost for City residents from zero to $8.

And don't tell me that it's OK because this would "equalize" the cost for people throughout the area. That argument will not fly politically (nor should it). If the goal here (besides revenue collection) is to change people's behavior then it has to change everyone's behavior -- not just the people who actually live here but those who live out of state as well. And the only way to do that is to raise the cost for everyone.

Perhaps give each state legislator 500 "permits" to avoid the fee, to hand out to their contributors?

If they don't want congestion pricing, fine. Fund the ongoing replacement portion of the MTA Capital plan with ongoing revenues, over and above the revenues needed to pay interest due to the failure to do so in the past. Same with the roads. I want $3 billion in year one, adjusting upward from there.

What did Silver mean by "They"? The problems can be dealt with OR the rest of the Assembly Dems can be dealt with?

That's just funny.