Enforcement is chemotherapy. Congestion pricing is preventative medicine.

You guys are funny. You need to stop thinking that everyone who disagrees with you is engaged in some kind of cynical ploy.

"But I still don't understand the soft treatment of some drivers as opposed to others."

Spud, really. Don't play this game. The treatment for NJ started a long time ago, and it has not been comparatively soft.

The problem with shifting more of the planned burden to New Jersey is that it will then be lifted elsewhere. The congestion and funding goals would not change. You know this, and that's why you want it to happen and ease your own potential burden. The practical bad effect is that the city would continue to kowtow to New York State drivers instead of finally calling them out. We can build the automobile wall on our west bank ever higher but we'll never solve the problem until we stand up to NYS drivers.

Abstract thought warning: high PA tolls not deducted from the zone entrance fee create heavy downward pressure on that fee to avoid causing a shock in existing interstate commercial routes.

Regarding toll shopping, I responded to that above.

Finally, I find it odd you'd say the above because I thought one of the central tenets of Streetsblog is that no driver has ever come close to paying the full cost for his activities.

Can you please cut it with the strawmen, Spud? I'm getting really sick of it. I don't know what you get out of it, but can you get it somewhere else?

I also do not understand the influence that East River tolls have on Hudson River tolls, except for the small percentage of people who might toll shop their way from NJ through Staten Island and then to an East River crossing. The two separate entities that control the river crossings already charge different amounts to use them and the sky isn't falling and those scary New Jersey residents aren't shooting Katyusha rockets over the border or anything.

With the price of gas being what it is there won't be many people toll shopping anyway. And if you want to stop it just reverse the $9 toll on the Verrazano so that you pay going into B'klyn. Again, problem solved. This stuff isn't so difficult -- eliminate East River tolls during CP times, charge everyone the same $8 when they enter the zone and reverse the Verrazano toll. Presto, a politically viable solution that does a better job of decreasing traffic, collects more money for transit and solves the toll shopping issues both east and west of Manhattan. Ta-da.

JF:

"We want to stick it to all drivers, but in proportion to the damage they do. Irrationally clobbering drivers who've been paying some of their share for the past hundred years is a good way to produce bitter, vindictive enemies."

First, regarding making enemies, please see above. Second, I don't think it's irrational to increase the cost of driving for everyone equally at the same time, especially when it's a more effective way to achieve intended results. Third, I like Jersey too -- I can see it out my window, it has the cheapest gas in the country, I like going to Seaside Heights in the summer and they've done a pretty good job of eliminating the smells along the Turnpike. Finally, I find it odd you'd say the above because I thought one of the central tenets of Streetsblog is that no driver has ever come close to paying the full cost for his activities.

I skipped 7th grade.

The [sic] was there because I couldn't tell for sure whether you meant "charge" or "change" (with something missing from the sentence), though I assume "charge". As for the poetic justice of the grammar flamer being hoist on his own petard, it is inevitable. Touche, nevertheless.

Still, what the heck were you talking about with respect to incentives to UES drivers, cutting off NJ and lopsided regulators? Grammar aside, what you wrote is completely obscure to me. Respond or not, but I am genuinely curious as to why you think the fact that one person pays more than another will act as an incentive for the one paying less to drive more (even though he is paying more than he used to), which is what what you wrote seems to mean. Further, I don't understand how ER tolls (or lack thereof) influence people who have to cross the Hudson.

And I'm not an ornery 5th grader. I'm in 7th grade, thank you very much.

"ornery"

Leaving out the 'r' is my calling card. Deal with it.

I think you do understand it Spud, because we've explained it several times and you're pretty clever. There's no need to go over again, though I'm sorry to see you regressed to talking about the need to affect everyone equally. As you know, the current situation tolling situation is pretty screwed up, and to fix it we must affect people unequally. I'm open to less than ideal solutions that cave to political necessity, but I'm not going to pretend that they are ideal.

MaybeNot, you inserted a [sic] because I left out an 'r' and you parsed like an onery fifth grader. (All of that after ending your message prior with a mysterious comma.) You do not get any further response.

One of the main inhibitors for driving is congestion itself. Lots of people could drive right now but don't because of traffic. CP will supposedly reduce congestion. Reduce congestion and you increase the incentive to drive.

That's easy to take care of, just increase the fee. I'd rather have everyone paying $12 than have people driving through my neighborhood so that they can pay $8 on the Queensborough Bridge instead of $16 on the Midtown Tunnel.

Where in the Book of Fairness is it written that Jersey drivers have to have the same access to New York streets that NY drivers do?

It may not be in the Book of Fairness, but it is in the Book of Regionalism. I go hiking in Jersey fairly frequently, and I travel through it to get upstate. I like Jersey so much I have no idea why it's a separate state.

Why all the concern and sympathy for NJ drivers, whose cars are just as big and dirty as everyone else's? They want to drive across state lines to bring their cars into our town, even though there are public transit options, and you guys want to make it easier for them? It doesn't make sense. Don't you want to stick it to all drivers?

We want to stick it to all drivers, but in proportion to the damage they do. Irrationally clobbering drivers who've been paying some of their share for the past hundred years is a good way to produce bitter, vindictive enemies.

We don't _have to_ do either of those things. I do think the most sensible thing (from a driving discouragement and revenue standpoint), though, would be to toll the ER and HR bridges. But I think we should do this regardless of whether there's a CP program.

"Lots of car owners in that nabe, and they'd be paying far less to drive into the congestion zone than drivers from other boroughs."

And? They'd still be paying more than they're paying now (zip). I cannot imagine someone saying "Those guys coming in from Queens have to pay $12.50, and I'm "only" paying $8. Let's drive baby!"

"Alternatively, say we make all those MTA tolled entrances free. This is known as the Screw Jersey plan."

By whom?

"Then, we're charging much more to come into the zone from one direction than the other, creating a lopsided regulator that can't reduce traffic significantly without cutting off NJ / the-rest-the-country autos entirely. That can't happen, so we'd be left to coddle our compatriot NY motorists (don't run over me, bro!) with low prices indefinitely."

What the heck are you talking about? How are people from NJ supposed to enter Manhattan from Queens? How is Manhattan "cut off" from the rest of the country because the CP charge was added to tolls from NJ? Those who are willing and able to pay the the higher cost will. Those who aren't have mass transit alternatives. There is potentially an impact on the prices for various goods and services dependent on cross-river transport costs, but that should in theory be offset by reduced travel time.

"Both of those options suck."
Wasn't that three options?

"That is why both the mayor's plan and the commission's have a toll deduction: they thought it through."

My sense is that the toll offset issue was not thought through very much. It was very much a "hey this seems more fair" decision, without any real calculation. As is obvious from the alternative scenarios presented to the commission, if the goal is to maximize revenue and minimize vehicles entering the CBD, not offsetting the tolls makes the most sense. The offset is a not very well considered political calculation that we shouldn't piss off the Port Authority too much, and a hunch that it might drive some business away.

Again, I don't understand why people here wouldn't jump at the chance to stick it to anyone with a car anywhere any time, especially since it would make the plan more likely to actually be adopted. The simple fact is that with $8 PA tolls being exempted the $8 CP fee does NOTHING to discourage NJ commuters, and in fact may possibly result in even more cars coming over the Hudson. If the Mayor/Commission (same thing really minus two dissenters) have thought it through, they haven't thought through the politics. Ditch the toll exemption and the MTA's East River tolls during CP times and this might actually pass (if Bloomberg stops supporting Senate Republicans).

Someone who paid the PA $8 to get from NJ to the UES could then drive downtown for free, but someone who already lives on the UES should pay $8 for the same right? Yeah, sure. BTW, with a toll exemption wouldn't someone who took the GWB into the city but who normally wouldn't drive downtown then have an incentive to do so? It's silly, just charge everyone $8 at the CP line. Then you've affected everyone equally.

Finally, a challenge to the fairness of the commission's plan that does not ignore existing conditions! But for me it is not persuasive. In my book of fairness, if you look at what people from NJ are paying, compared to people in Long Island and parts north, to drive into the city, and also how much all these different groups are contributing to the city's finances, NJ drivers are paying more than their fair share compared to other drivers. The degree is debatable, but with the free ride that other drivers have gotten for so long it wouldn't be a tragedy if pricing overcorrected it for a few years.

As for why I'm not all for charging all "dirty" drivers more, I am but not in a scattershot way that jeopardizes future progress or prolongs toll shopping. I want to see the price of driving into the city go higher incrementally, without an enraged debate about New Jersey every time it comes up. If we can pass a policy that establishes a universal charge for driving into the zone, that's the one I want. If we can't, I'll take what I can get.

MN: "All in all, I find the 'fairness' discussion to be largely a red herring."

Tell that to the city council. Now that we've beaten their herring to a pulp perhaps they don't want it anymore.

MN: "I would add that failing to toll the East River and Harlem River bridges has the same flaw,"

Say we drop the toll deduction. Then we have to either change for the free bridges or make their nearby tolled entrances free. If we charge for them, the upper east side has an unacceptable avantage. Lots of car owners in that nabe, and they'd be paying far less to drive into the congestion zone than drivers from other boroughs. Alternatively, say we make all those MTA tolled entrances free. This is known as the Screw Jersey plan. Then, we're charging much more to come into the zone from one direction than the other, creating a lopsided regulator that can't reduce traffic significantly without cutting off NJ / the-rest-the-country autos entirely. That can't happen, so we'd be left to coddle our compatriot NY motorists (don't run over me, bro!) with low prices indefinitely.

Both of those options suck. That is why both the mayor's plan and the commission's have a toll deduction: they thought it through.

JF @ 29 - The answer is, they do not vote in NY elections. It may not be fair (debatable), but that appears to be the reality of getting it passed.

If anything, however, eliminating the toll credit would mean an increase in CP collections, which means more money for transit. Hard for me to get upset about that.

JF Wrote: "Gary, please reread my comment #23, which addresses all these issues. Please tell me why the people who already have a disincentive should be given an extra-large disincentive just because we're giving a small disincentive to other people."

The answer is that the disincentive they're being given (regardless of its size compared to others' current or prospective ones) is insufficient. Too many people drive into NYC from NJ. The toll offset won't change this behavior.

All in all, I find the "fairness" discussion to be largely a red herring. First, all fees for everything (from taxes, to the price of milk) are "unfair" in some way. At best "fairness" is only one of the values that goes into how a price or a tax or a fee is set. Other values, such as maximization of revenue, or balancing supply and demand, or redistributing a resource, are much more important purposes of prices, taxes, rates etc. So harping on the ways in which CP could be construed as fair or unfair is of at best limited relevance. CP is supposed to change behavior by changing the incentive/disincentive scheme surrounding driving into the CBD. Setting the prices so that a large portion of drivers see no change seems to work at cross purposes with this goal. I would add that failing to toll the East River and Harlem River bridges has the same flaw,