I think you should take either the Verrazano bridge exit off 95 or continue north to 87. The idea is to avoid driving through Manhattan planning one's trip accordingly should work. The only reason to take either tunnel is to reach Manhattan.

I really wish there was a tunnel between jersey and Brooklyn. Every option sucks for that. You either end up stuck in traffic in Staten Island, manhattan, or queens.

Remember when Chris Christie said a modern tunnel was not worth the cost to NJ?

I'm looking at a map and really confused about how from New Jersey you can end up in Queens while trying to get to Staten Island.

Crossing the Verranzo Bridge and coninueing on the Brooklyn Queens expressway or 278.

Ok, sure if you’re an idiot and you go past Brooklyn you could end up in Queens

Starting in Ft. Lee?

going where?

That's absolutely incorrect. Over a million NJ residents live closer to the tunnels, myself included. Every route I plan on google maps to various destinations in parts of Brooklyn and Queens puts the tunnels as being faster.

Right, that's part of the problem. During the work hours the temporary population of Manhattan grows about threefold. They contribute to immense gridlock and then disappear to their suburbs in another state. Why must the residents bear the brunt of the externalized traffic impact? It is only fair to treat available street space as a limited resource.

That's tangential to the issue being discussed in this subthread, which is that there's physically no way to stay on highways when coming from the tunnels, even when attempting to reach non-Manhattan destinations in outer boroughs.

So the only relevant congestion for this specific issue is between the tunnels and the highways. Manhattan residents living near the tunnels know what they're signing up for. The tunnels opened in 1927 and 1937. The traffic isn't exactly a new problem.

Also, the parts of NJ in question (where the tunnels are closer than bridges) are largely urban in character. You make it sound like people are coming from some far-away leafy suburb, that's not the case for the majority of this population.

People in NJ know what they are signing up for. The outer boroughs have existed in the same locations for decades. Traveling by automobile through Manhattan isn't exactly a new problem.

Being charged $15 to travel literally two blocks between the tunnel and the West Side Highway is a new problem. That's the point. There's no way to avoid the city grid, due to bad highway design that doesn't directly connect either 495 or 78 with 9A.

Any congestion pricing plan which ignores that problem is going to be met with mass outrage, to an extent that will swing elections against incumbents. Especially when said incumbents promote this "no charge if you stay on highways" BS without explaining the fine print.

Again, I'm saying this as someone who only ever takes public transit and is generally in favor of congestion pricing as a concept.

I was assuming traffic from Florida to Boston or Albany. Local traffic is local traffic and I thought about the Holland tunnel->Kenmare->Williamsburg Bridge route. Which I found too exceptional to mention and likely only used by people that live in the region and should be using public transit for such trips.

Due to the layout of the northern Brooklyn subway lines (no direct connection to PABT or Penn Station), some trips can easily take 2x-3x as long using public transit on a good day, let alone when there's some incident affecting the subways.

Personally I always take public transit into NYC, but I can completely understand why it isn't a reasonable option for many people. Especially when both NJT rail and Amtrak have daily meltdowns whenever the temperature is above average.

Edit to add: I'm completely puzzled by your comment about "traffic from Florida to Boston or Albany". Boston is on the I-95 corridor, which means going over the GWB -- there's already no reason for any sane driver to enter the congestion zone for that route. And routes to Albany don't need to cross the Hudson at all. I don't see how congestion pricing or these two tunnels have any connection to those routes.

Anyway, my overall point here is that the upthread comment of "if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged" is true but worthless, because for one million people here there's no way to actually do that without driving massively out of your way to a bridge crossing.

I agree with points more or less and have plenty experience moving around the region to understand what you are saying.

The through traffic comment was a response to my original comment that a person wanted to use the Hudson River tunnels to pass through NYC onto their destination. I picked the Varanzono bridge route as the southern route around the city and 87 for the northern route. I usually go further north than the GWB to crossover.

The massively out of your way I might prefer to NYC city traffic.

> The through traffic comment was a response to my original comment that a person wanted to use the Hudson River tunnels to pass through NYC onto their destination.

Which parent comment are you referring to? I don't see any talking about non-NYC destinations besides yours.

In any case, the only highways that are exempt are the West Side Highway and the FDR. These are the only highways in the zone. And generally you don't take either of those highways for anything other than "local traffic" as you said. So I'm just not understanding your point about routes outside of NYC, that doesn't make any sense in the context of congestion pricing and the exempted highways in the first place.

Maybe I only perceived it. Funnily enough it was your comment from someone discussing maintaining traveling while on 495 or 78.

My comment was that travelers not going to Manhattan should choose a route that avoids the tunnels.

I'm only now beginning to understand the point you are trying to make is that political outrage makes good policies tougher. I thought this sub-thread was regarding driving into Manhattan to get somewhere else is inconvenient and adding extra costs makes sense.

A lot of really terrible congestion comes from people who are only passing through Manhattan on their way to/from other places, because the toll structure incentivizes that vs going around. I worked in the general vicinity of the Holland Tunnel entrance for years and it was miserable for basically all users of the streets every afternoon.

> the toll structure incentivizes that vs going around

How so? The toll rate is identical between the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, the Bayonne Bridge, the Goethals Bridge, and the Outerbridge Crossing: https://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/en/tolls.html

Well three of those involve a toll on the Verrazzano unless you're starting or ending your trip on Staten Island itself, whereas the East River bridges into Manhattan are free.

The GWB can be done without a toll, but if you're shopping for a cheaper route to avoid the Verrazzano toll it's likely way out of your way.

Ideally the toll structure should incentivize through traffic to stay on highways and out of the most gridlocked streets in the country, and I'm saying this as a longtime car owner in Brooklyn who has driven through the Holland Tunnel hundreds of times. Manhattan streets are a tragedy of the commons in action.

Ah, I see, that makes sense.

But even with congestion pricing, assuming a same-day round-trip with a non-NY EZ-Pass, the combined cost of (Holland or Lincoln Tunnel toll + congestion pricing toll) is still a bit less than the cost of (Goethals or Bayonne Bridge toll + Verrazzano Bridge toll)... because the Verrazzano charges in both directions. So even congestion pricing doesn't fix those incentives :/

Toll optimization aside, there’s often a huge backup of the BQE or in Staten Island that makes the tunnel the next best option. I’ve faced that scenario probably 1/3 of the time trying to visit family in PA/NJ from Brooklyn.