As a resident of New York City I am appalled at the traffic congestion I experience on a regular basis when I cross the Hudson River into New York. I always have to listen to the radio to see which of the two tunnels*, the Holland or Lincoln has the least congestion. It varies, but they could be as much as one hour to cross through! I can’t take it! There hasn’t been a new vehicular crossing built in over 75 years**.
So, why not build a new crossing to relieve congestion? It is widely known that delays on the road contribute to billions of dollars in loss productivity each year. Or maybe there is a reason to why no new crossing has been built. Maybe the government wants people to stop driving into the city and cut down on pollution, but there hasn’t been a new train crossing in almost a century. That is overly congested too and it doesn’t make sense. A new crossing must be built to accommodate the new demand.
*There are a total of three crossings between New York City which includes the two tunnels aforementioned and the George Washington Bridge.
**A new lower level was added to the George Washington Bridge in 1962 to accommodate its increasing demand. (http://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/gwb-facts-info.html)
Traffic backup to go to New York City through the Holland Tunnel during rush hour. The Holland Tunnel sign is seen 1/2 mile ahead.
Perhaps a new crossing isn’t built because the billions lost in productivity aren’t as visible to voters as the hundreds of millions needed to be raised from taxes, cut from schools or borrowed to build it. Or maybe the city doesn’t expect to be able to tax the gains enough to break even. Both are possibilities, the latter being supported by the fact that no private party has seen the opportunity to build a toll bridge (which is done here, if rarely) and the former by politicians decrying more borrowing when U.S. bond yields are negative (meaning people pay the Fed to “borrow” money). Either way there are too many such bottlenecks in the transportation system and like you I am appropriately engaged when I encounter them.
I would have to agree with both of you. There is certainly a need for a faster way to cross into the city. But I do not know if just adding another crossing (i.e. bridge/tunnel/personal/mass transit) or adding lanes would actually help though. If you read the below posted article in the Seattle Times, there is a relatively new theory called “induced travel.” This is when more lanes/crossings are added and the congestion does not go down, the traffic simply increases. Simply put, if you build it, they will come. So if there is another crossing added, congestion on each crossing may decrease only slightly and congestion at each destination may increase. I for one certainly would go into the city more if I lived anywhere near a new bridge built into one of the most popular cities in the world.
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/date=20030123&slug=induced23m
You are correct Carson. If you build it, they will come. However, I am not only promoting a vehicular crossing, but a mass transit one as well. I think that there needs to be both.
New York City is very dependent on trucks to transport goods. There is no other method of transportation for goods and products and if we are stuck with a congested system for over half the day (including weekends), then that increases prices. There is a reason that prices are much higher in the center city.
I believe that as transportation demand increases, we need to accommodate it with more supply. Our system must grow as our population grows. There is also another rationale for this. We can apply incentives for people to take mass transit reducing congestion on the road, but when that system is congested too, then people would rather drive on a crowded street than stand on a crowded subway.