Things that are more inequitable than road pricing • Hacker News Board

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#151

Post by Karrot_Kream » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 7:10 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #123

jacobolus wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> consider raising peak commute throughput instead of devising ways to suppress peak demand Getting rid of most of the cars and putting people on trains does wonders for peak throughput.

> Getting rid of most of the cars and putting people on trains does wonders for peak throughput. Getting people on trains by forcing them out of cars can't actually do that. If you make it more expensive/inconvenient/impossible to drive, at most the same number of people will take the train. In practice fewer will, because some of them will find jobs somewhere else or do their shopping somewhere else etc. So the comb…

> Getting people on trains by forcing them out of cars can't actually do that. If you make it more expensive/inconvenient/impossible to drive, at most the same number of people will take the train.

Why? You seem to have an implicit hierarchy of transportation, and public transit is at the bottom of it.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#152

Post by cuillevel3 » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 7:15 PM UTC

oftenwrong wrote: post #43

robertAngst wrote: post #21

For the people who believe this is fair and just- Should engineers and programmers pay more money for the same laptop as an art student? I'm unsure if this pricing should only exist in the public sector or should extend to private services. Looking to hear your rationale. I'm one of those, treat everyone equal, types. Would like to hear your reason.

In the US, the idea of fairness is basically divided on political lines. On the "right", people think fairness is equality. On the "left", people think fairness is equity. Helpful graphic: http://i2.wp.com/interactioninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads...

I always liked this one about the school system: https://imgur.com/a/aikYqxg

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#153

Post by cptskippy » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 7:21 PM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #136

> Gasoline and gas taxes This seems like a legacy problem that will soon go away. Gas taxes were done because they were a good proxy for both miles driven, when most cars got roughly the same milage. But now you have cars that get a few miles to the gallon while another car that might be heavier is getting 35mpg. And of course electric cars. I suspect gas taxes will switch to milage taxes in the next few years as mor…

In Georgia there's an Alternative Fuel Vehicle fee charged on any vehicle that doesn't pay a fuel tax, or any AFV that does but chooses the AFV vanity plate.

The AFV vanity plate entitles you to drive for free in all Toll lanes.

All zero emissions vehicles are also allowed in HOV lanes regardless of occupancy since the HOV lanes were introduced to curb emissions in Metro Atlanta.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#154

Post by chroma » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 7:24 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #140

electric_muse wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My compelling reason is that I live in Manhattan and frequently make trips to visit family that are not well served by public transportation. And when I'm there, I prefer using a vehicle to get around. I often return to New York with a carful of groceries, luggage, etc. I've tried this via public transit -- it's a miserable affair. The utility of a personal vehicle for me is very high -- perhaps substantially higher…

The argument against here that I find most compelling is that the externalities of you driving your car are so insanely huge that it should be priced into the range of ridiculousness. Things that you have to consider (The numbers attached are completely made up and probably off by multiple orders of magnitude in most cases, but are to make the point that you should be assigning costs to these things. Then you should…

It's circular logic to assume the externalities are ridiculous, therefore we must price cars into the realm of ridiculousness. If you want your argument to be more than cheering against cars, you should actually calculate the externalities and you should do so for competing modes of transportation. Heck if you're talking about noise pollution, someone dribbling a basketball is far more distracting to me than the white noise of cars.

Also note that you are only calculating the costs of cars to others, not the benefits. Cars allow workers to spend less time commuting and be more productive at work, which benefits strangers. They allow people to travel farther to make purchases. They encourage the purchase of larger objects that can't be carried by hand for long distances. Their gas taxes help pay for the roads that people walk and ride bicycles on. Their tolls pay for the maintenance of bridges that bicycles and trains travel on.

I'm a fan of congestion pricing, but the purpose of congestion pricing is to reduce congestion, not to be a sin tax on driving. If people time shift their driving, that's fine.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#155

Post by cptskippy » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 7:25 PM UTC

OtterCoder wrote: post #119

Can I just mention how mind-bogglingly stupid a milage tax on car registration would be? No matter how efficient your new car is, it's less polluting to repair the old one and keep it on the road, than to manufacture a new car.

I think you're missing the point. The tax goes towards infrastructure maintenance. All vehicles damage infrastructure and the amount of damage a single car imposes is a function of their weight and miles driven.

From an environmental view, the tax would be for cleaning storm water run off which contains contamination from the vehicle itself (e.g. oil, brake dust). From that perspective an older car is more likely to polute storm water than a new car.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#156

Post by isoskeles » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 7:28 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #140

electric_muse wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My compelling reason is that I live in Manhattan and frequently make trips to visit family that are not well served by public transportation. And when I'm there, I prefer using a vehicle to get around. I often return to New York with a carful of groceries, luggage, etc. I've tried this via public transit -- it's a miserable affair. The utility of a personal vehicle for me is very high -- perhaps substantially higher…

The argument against here that I find most compelling is that the externalities of you driving your car are so insanely huge that it should be priced into the range of ridiculousness. Things that you have to consider (The numbers attached are completely made up and probably off by multiple orders of magnitude in most cases, but are to make the point that you should be assigning costs to these things. Then you should…

> Noise pollution.

How about we start taxing loud talkers?

> Pedestrian safety. Congestion.

And people who take up the whole sidewalk.

I don’t see people arguing for extreme measures, to the point of “ridiculousness”, to improve the state of walking around cities. So I don’t take this too seriously, it doesn’t seem to be done in good faith so much as, “I don’t like cars and there are some negative externalities, let’s use this as an excuse to really screw over anyone who thinks to use one.”

And of course, this is how a coastal elite most likely feels meanwhile they think traveling by airplane is okay or should even be celebrated.

It’s not in good faith.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#157

Post by nerdponx » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

gpm wrote: post #130

alistairSH wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Modify the original post to "nobody needs to commute in a personal vehicle" and it works. The truck full of plants is a commercial truck (it might be personally owned, but should be getting reimbursed for mileage).

Commercial is the wrong qualifier for two reasons. The first is that you're going to have investment banks declaring their employees cars as commercial. The second is that you don't have to be a business to take a job taking care of a planter (or whatever). You probably are, but it's not required. I agree with the principal that "nobody needs to commute in a personal vehicle", but I find it hard to codify it into a r…

This is literally the point of congestion pricing.

If you really need to drive around in lower Manhattan once in a while (e.g. you are doing a big run to Home Depot), you pay the $5 fee. Unless you are truly destitute, it's not that bad to pay a couple times a year.

The price system isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn efficient at controlling quantity demanded.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#158

Post by seniorsassycat » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

devereaux wrote: post #14

voisin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument isn’t about whether the quantum of taxes is appropriate. It is how a fixed quantum turns a disincentive for some into an irrelevancy to others. If the purpose of the cost is to discourage use (peak period congestion charges), then it should vary with income so as to be a equally discouraging to all to whom it applies. For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater…

> it is reasonable to vary pricing in order to equally apply the disincentive. No, it's not reasonable. The goal is not to discourage use, but to price in the negative externality. > For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater incentive among the poor to reduce their trash production, And that's good, even if we suppose your argument is right. Bear with me: what's the perce…

> Do you think that 20% of the population can create more bags of trash than 80% of the population? I don't think so.

I live in a wealthy household, our discarded amazon packaging, food and meal delivery garbage is easily 4x the garbage produced by a penny pinching household. And so far my housemates and I haven't reduced our consumption because the garbage collection fees do not outweigh the convenience of online shopping.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#159

Post by gpm » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 7:30 PM UTC

briandear wrote: post #146

gpm wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument against here that I find most compelling is that the externalities of you driving your car are so insanely huge that it should be priced into the range of ridiculousness. Things that you have to consider (The numbers attached are completely made up and probably off by multiple orders of magnitude in most cases, but are to make the point that you should be assigning costs to these things. Then you should…

When every subway stop has elevators, then we cannot talk. Until then, try transporting kids or groceries using the subway. When the sidewalks are cleared of construction scaffolding, bike share racks blocking sidewalks or crazy grown adults dressing like Spider-Man, or psychotic homeless harassing people, then maybe we can talk. As far as climate change; if NYC went to zero CO2, it wouldn’t make a single bit of diff…

> try transporting kids or groceries using the subway

Err. I was transported plenty as a kid on the subway without using elevators, so were many other kids.

Groceries... generally you just walk. I live in a less dense city and it's never been a problem walking to the grocery store. Including for my parents when I was a kid.

> sidewalks are cleared of...

I mean, getting rid of cars means more room for sidewalks mean they are defacto cleared of this stuff. The reason it's a problem right now is they are packed into the same 5 feet as the pedestrians.

> As far as climate change; if NYC went to zero CO2...

I suspect you are right. I put what I consider the least compelling reasons at the bottom.

> cars already pay huge costs in NYC. It costs over $10

$10 really isn't that much money... as demonstrated by the number of people who pay it. Understand that when I say the right number might be "ridiculous" I do mean "ridiculous". I'm avoiding saying specific numbers because then I have to justify them, but think thousands, possibly large numbers of thousands.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#160

Post by voisin » Sun, Feb 03, 2019, 7:33 PM UTC

devereaux wrote: post #14

voisin wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument isn’t about whether the quantum of taxes is appropriate. It is how a fixed quantum turns a disincentive for some into an irrelevancy to others. If the purpose of the cost is to discourage use (peak period congestion charges), then it should vary with income so as to be a equally discouraging to all to whom it applies. For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater…

> it is reasonable to vary pricing in order to equally apply the disincentive. No, it's not reasonable. The goal is not to discourage use, but to price in the negative externality. > For your example of trash collection, by having a fixed fee the state creates a greater incentive among the poor to reduce their trash production, And that's good, even if we suppose your argument is right. Bear with me: what's the perce…

The point is not the number of cars or trash bags. It is the incentive to use a vehicle or generate a bag of trash. If a $20/day charge is out of reach for the poor, 100% of the poor will avoid parking and take public transit. If $20/day is meaningless to someone that makes $500k/year, then they will not factor that into their decision to drive versus take public transit. So for those that set prices, does it matter whether demand elasticity is equal across income levels or not?