Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 267 posts

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#121

Post by Symbiote »

lclarkmichalek wrote: post #47

London has something similar, the congestion charge. Has helped somewhat, and def makes regular driving in central London a 'you did what?' thing. It's lifted on the weekend, which is nice if you want to pop to IKEA or whatever. I think they're planning on pushing something similar all the way out to the north circular, and maybe the M25 for heavily polluting traffic.

The limit for polluting traffic has been in place for a few years, it's called the Low Emission Zone. Only some larger vehicles are affected, and the fee is either £100 or £200 — I assume the idea is that you can move your rarely-used special construction equipment, but for pretty much everything else one should either upgrade or replace the vehicle: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/low-emission-zone

But the additional charge for the worst diesel cars is new: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/emissions-surcharge

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#122

Post by walshemj »

chimeracoder wrote: post #111
baldfat wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100 to commute a week isn't to high? When the train cost $27 round trip (off peak) or $38.50 (peak) it is a pain. Also if you have business in NYC you are stuck with either losing the whole day or half a day just to get there. Now Chicago, Atlanta and LA have bad traffic it doesn't cost you a hundred bucks to commute for a week.

> $100 to commute a week isn't to high? So move to the city and enjoy a shorter (and cheaper) commute. Of course, since you're currently living 50 miles outside the city, the increase in rent would be much more than $100, so you're still enjoying the cheaper end of the bargain. > Now Chicago, Atlanta and LA have bad traffic it doesn't cost you a hundred bucks to commute for a week. With parking, you could easily pay…

Well id like to move to central London and cut my commute but I could not afford say a two bed ex council flat on red lion square.

And neither could my boss (a director) or his boss (the MD of a subsidiary of RELEX)

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#123

Post by chimeracoder »

jimmaswell wrote: post #48
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The “fair” answer is get on a train. There are plenty of affordable communities on the Metro North, LIRR and NJ Transit.

Tax funded roads being gated off to those without higher incomes doesn't sound fair to me in any case, even if there are alternatives.

> Tax funded roads being gated off to those without higher incomes doesn't sound fair to me in any case, even if there are alternatives.

Okay, so as a solution to that, let's stop paying for roads with taxpayer money, and instead let roads in Manhattan be funded entirely from private funds, collected from those who use the roads instead (either individuals who don't mind paying, or businesses who pay fees on the deliveries, the same way ships pay fees at port).

That way, taxpayer funds can go entirely to public transit instead, so (assuming we solve the problem of rampant corruption and fraud within the MTA and NYS government[0]) it's a win-win for all!

I'm being half-facetious here, but those are the implications of the argument you're making, and I'm not going to say they're necessarily a bad idea.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#124

Post by nogridbag »

beisner wrote: post #55
jimmaswell wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just recently learned about this. It's unbelievable. How can anyone defend a $15 toll? I'm glad I don't have any business in NYC.

Because cars in Manhattan are a blight on livability and safety. There are only a handful of reasons to legitimately have a car in Manhattan; off the top of my head: moving large items, transporting those with mobility issues, getting from specific subway dead zones to other parts, and leaving manhattan altogether. There is an enormous (albeit overloaded and dilapidated) public transit infrastructure allowing people…

Everyone keeps talking about Manhattan, but the GWB bridge serves more than Manhattan. I don't have any numbers to back this up, but I would guess the vast amount of traffic over the bridge serves commuters between Jersey and the other boroughs.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#125

Post by chimeracoder »

ghaff wrote: post #101
flgr wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's not any more fair than a direct charge. Or am I missing something? From what I've heard well off families in Beijing will then just have multiple cars, one with an odd license plate and one with an even one.

I can't speak specifically to the Beijing system but rationing (or lotteries) as a general approach are often seen as a fairer way to distribute a limited good than letting whoever has the most money have it. That said, especially given the circumstances of Manhattan, congestion charging probably makes the most sense and also has the virtue of bringing in additional money that can theoretically be used to improve pub…

> I can't speak specifically to the Beijing system but rationing (or lotteries) as a general approach are often seen as a fairer way to distribute a limited good than letting whoever has the most money have it.

Lotteries are an absolutely terrible system. They fail the basic test of Pareto efficiency. Or in other words: lotteries result in outcomes in which one person could be made better off without making anybody else worse off. The only way to avoid this with a lottery is provide a secondary market, and that defeats the whole purpose of a lottery - at that point, you might as well skip the lottery and use a direct market.

Not all Pareto-efficient scenarios are good, but all scenarios that are not Pareto-efficient are bad, by definition. If Alice could be made better off without making Bob or Eve (or anyone else) any worse off, we know there's a problem.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#126

Post by paganel »

cozzyd wrote: post #115
Nav_Panel wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> zone out, or read a book, or go on Reddit Kind of? It can get pretty tight to the point where holding a book up is uncomfortable or not possible due to lack of space. You only get internet at station stops and not in the tunnels, so it's a little bit tough to read Reddit. I usually get around this by pre-loading a bunch of essays I want to read. Yeah, you can put on your earbuds and zone out. But it's dark down the…

Surprised that NYC doesn't have service in tunnels. CTA has LTE everywhere nowadays. Granted, most of CTA's network is above ground and there are only ~20 miles of underground tracks...

> Surprised that NYC doesn't have service in tunnels.

They don't? Damn, then the internet and telecom and providers in the States are really f*cking their customers up, pardon my French, but that's the gentlest way to put it. Let's say that I can understand that the US is a big country and that you cannot lay fiber over such big of an area as dense as it happens in certain parts of Europe, but to not have metro tunnel coverage for biggest cities in the world is just laughable. The Eastern European capital from where I'm writing this comment has had such a service for at least 5 years, if not more.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#127

Post by chimeracoder »

paganel wrote: post #126
cozzyd wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Surprised that NYC doesn't have service in tunnels. CTA has LTE everywhere nowadays. Granted, most of CTA's network is above ground and there are only ~20 miles of underground tracks...

> Surprised that NYC doesn't have service in tunnels. They don't? Damn, then the internet and telecom and providers in the States are really f*cking their customers up, pardon my French, but that's the gentlest way to put it. Let's say that I can understand that the US is a big country and that you cannot lay fiber over such big of an area as dense as it happens in certain parts of Europe, but to not have metro tunne…

> The Eastern European capital from where I'm writing this comment has had such a service for at least 5 years, if not more.

I won't deny that the agency responsible for New York transit is incorrigibly corrupt, along with the New York State government that is ostensibly responsible for holding them accountable.

That said, there is cell service in most stations (I think they finished the rollout recently, so it may be in all stations now). You don't get cell service in all tunnels, but that's because the New York subway system is very old. For comparison, that's the case in London as well: you get cell service in most of the below-ground stations on the Underground, but not necessarily in all of the tunnels.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#128

Post by herbturbo »

ben_jones wrote: post #70
nwah1 wrote: post #7

Congestion pricing is one of the most economically literate ways to improve traffic, and those funds can be used to improve infrastructure. It isn't so different from surge pricing in ridesharing apps. There is a narrowmindedness on the part of opponents of both congestion pricing and surge pricing, because they are ignoring the obvious point that if they weren't paying the fees they'd be paying in terms of time. Not…

While I agree in principle poor people are going to be hit by this the hardest and that's something that has to be taken into account in public policy.

Poor people in NYC don't typically drive into Manhattan.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#129

Post by alkonaut »

lazerpants wrote: post #58
nwah1 wrote: post #7

Congestion pricing is one of the most economically literate ways to improve traffic, and those funds can be used to improve infrastructure. It isn't so different from surge pricing in ridesharing apps. There is a narrowmindedness on the part of opponents of both congestion pricing and surge pricing, because they are ignoring the obvious point that if they weren't paying the fees they'd be paying in terms of time. Not…

I'm always surprised by the only-in-this-circumstance libertarian philosophy of people who support congestion pricing. I think if you took the exact same logic and applied it to say, schools, supporters would feel completely differently about it. Example: It's really hard to get your child into certain public schools in NYC. Why not start charging $3k a year per child (much less than private schools) at high demand s…

I see the point but I don’t fully agree. There may be better examples than schools though.

Congestion pricing is hopefully geared to be lower or zero at non peak-hours. That is, people who must drive at 8am can do that for a fee, and those that can leave it until 10am get it cheaper. In the school comparison it’s not a privilege but a right, and also you don’t just “do it later” you only get one education which can be really important for your future life. That said, to really ensure social mobility you also can’t have “school districts” where land/house prices depend on school quality.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#130

Post by paulgb »

rayiner wrote: post #100
lazerpants wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm always surprised by the only-in-this-circumstance libertarian philosophy of people who support congestion pricing. I think if you took the exact same logic and applied it to say, schools, supporters would feel completely differently about it. Example: It's really hard to get your child into certain public schools in NYC. Why not start charging $3k a year per child (much less than private schools) at high demand s…

> I'm always surprised by the only-in-this-circumstance libertarian philosophy of people who support congestion pricing. We have congestion pricing for schools. Try buying a house near one of the good elementary schools in DC or Chicago.

That may act functionally as a congestion tax for the home buyer, but instead of the tax going to the state where it can be used to fund other schools it ends up being an arbitrary transfer of wealth to homeowners who bought before the school was built.
Post reply on HN