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

Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

cityobservatory.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 276 posts

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#191

Post by gpm »

chroma wrote: post #166
gpm wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's circular logic to assume the externalities are ridiculous, therefore we must price cars into the realm of ridiculousness. You're missunderstanding me, I'm just stating the possible conclusion that makes this an interesting argument (that it's ridiculously high and no one would pay it except on rare occasion) before the logic (look at all these externalities). > you should actually calculate the externalities T…

Instead of nitpicking, we can just look up the actual calculations.[1] They're on the order of 20 cents per mile traveled. Half of that is crashes, which insurance already covers. Most of the rest is congestion costs. Air pollution and global warming costs are actually quite low compared to the harm caused by crashes and congestion. Noise is also a rounding error. Of course this is aggregate data. Congestion costs ar…

The study your citing doesn't say what you are claiming it does.

> It is also important to recognize that the five external costs calculated in this analysis do not encompass all possible external costs associated with vehicle ownership and use. For example, noise pollution imposes significant costs.

Not only does it not even attempt to put a total cost per mile - which I read as the main reason why you cited it. It directly contradicts you when you say "Noise is also a rounding error".

It specifically excludes some of the biggest costs

> Based on his review of the transport-cost literature, Litman (2002) believes that the largest external costs of automobile ownership and use relate to land use impacts [...] However, these costs are, to a large extent, indirect. In other words, they are a result of auto-oriented travel patterns and will not vary much by vehicle type, make and model. Thus, they are not examined here.

Another quote to make it extra clear that this study really doesn't say what you are claiming it does

> Many other external costs associated with driving exist, and many of these have been characterized at an aggregate scale, rather than by make and model. For instance, [...] disposal costs. Water contamination [...]. However, like the noise and land use costs described above, these other costs are difficult to distinguish by make and model. Thus, they are not covered here

A quote explaining what the study is about

> While certain studies have analyzed other types of external cost, beyond the five quantified here, these studies have been aggregate in nature, focusing on passenger vehicles as a whole, or cars versus light-duty trucks. In contrast, this work looks at likely variations across specific makes and models.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#192

Post by chroma »

jacobolus wrote: post #190
chroma wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Life in a place where all or nearly all trips can be made without needing to drive a car is very pleasant, especially for anyone who isn’t an able-bodied high-income adult. I've found the exact opposite to be true. Cars are great because they mean you'll never come in contact with crazy vagrants. For a few years I tried taking public transportation in the bay area, but I gave up because I had too many encounters wi…

In practice, cars are dramatically more dangerous (both for their occupants and for bystanders) than transit. But the widespread use of transit by the poor which you note here is great evidence for my claim that cars are not an effective means of transportation for low-income people. If people are screaming at you or smoking meth on the bus, that’s indicative of broader social problems which aren’t really solved by c…

> If people are screaming at you or smoking meth on the bus, that’s indicative of broader social problems which aren’t really solved by changing the transportation system.

Knowing the proximate cause doesn't help me avoid crazy people on public transportation. The problem of crazy people in the bay area won't be fixed any time soon, so it's still in my best interests to avoid public transportation. Also, it's not clear to me that many of these people can be fixed. The bay area spends enormous amounts of money on mental health and homelessness, but the problem is far worse here than it is in Boston.

> For what it’s worth, I ride buses, trams, the subway, etc. all around San Francisco on a daily basis with my 2-year-old, and haven’t ever felt threatened.

There's no nice way to say this but... I don't believe you. Every single one of my coworkers has a horror story about public transportation in the bay area. Robbery, theft, stalking, threats, harassment, catcalling, etcetera. There is only one woman at my work who commutes via BART, and she's only been doing it for 3 weeks. The rest drive or take Uber/Lyft because they've been robbed or threatened in the past. I think it's much more likely that my friends & coworkers are telling the truth than that you are. Either that or your threshold for feeling unsafe is incredibly high.

If you regularly take public transportation in the bay area, you will encounter mentally ill people, and some of them will engage in violent behavior without provocation.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#193

Post by Zarel »

chroma wrote: post #166
gpm wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's circular logic to assume the externalities are ridiculous, therefore we must price cars into the realm of ridiculousness. You're missunderstanding me, I'm just stating the possible conclusion that makes this an interesting argument (that it's ridiculously high and no one would pay it except on rare occasion) before the logic (look at all these externalities). > you should actually calculate the externalities T…

Instead of nitpicking, we can just look up the actual calculations.[1] They're on the order of 20 cents per mile traveled. Half of that is crashes, which insurance already covers. Most of the rest is congestion costs. Air pollution and global warming costs are actually quite low compared to the harm caused by crashes and congestion. Noise is also a rounding error. Of course this is aggregate data. Congestion costs ar…

Your study is based on a land value of $2 million per acre.

My first Google result shows that Manhattan is, at its most expensive, $90 million per acre: https://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/2100-a-square-...

This matches my intuition that cars are much more massively subsidized in city centers (where they should be heavily discouraged) than in suburbs (where they're mostly fine).

I also think roads have way higher value than other land, because they connect spaces. Think of it this way: you can build 99% of a wall, and I can still cross from one side to the other, but if you build 100% of a wall, I can't. So that last 1% of a wall has significantly higher externality cost than the first 99% of a wall.

Similarly, the existence of a road makes it impossible to cross a street without waiting. It's the last 1% of the land necessary for going from one part of a city to another, and so it's way more valuable than the price per acre would suggest.

Your study also doesn't include infrastructure costs, and also costs in inconvenience to pedestrians.

Your study also estimates congestion cost based on the assumption that 10% of travel is under congested conditions, but in Manhattan this is closer to 100%.

All your study's costs are conservative estimates.

In conclusion, I completely agree with the overall conclusion that car usage in most of the US has relatively low externality costs. I just massively disagree that car usage in a superdense city center like Manhattan also has relatively low externality costs.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#194

Post by _wp3r »

cptskippy wrote: post #153
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.

Not directly related but Georgia also has a pay to carpool/alternative commute program. http://gacommuteoptions.com/

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#195

Post by thoughtfunction »

jefftk wrote: post #188
nihonde wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in lower Manhattan. My feeling is that every vehicle other than delivery trucks should be banned from the city. There is no compelling reason for anyone to drive in Manhattan. If people are commuting into Manhattan, they should take public transit to and from parking lots in Brooklyn/Queens/New Jersey. You will never convince me that there are low income workers who need to drive in the city as an essential pa…

> My feeling is that every vehicle other than delivery trucks should be banned from the city. There is no compelling reason for anyone to drive in Manhattan. I recently played for a contra dance in Manhattan. My band members and I drove in a small car, with a sound system, keyboard, and other instruments. I would have been happy to pay some sort of toll/charge/fee/tax but any other way of getting our equipment to and…

That is a form of delivery vehicle in a way, right?

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#196

Post by michaelcampbell »

nihonde wrote: post #95
bradleyjg wrote: post #34

I don't know about other cities, but to understand the strong political push back against congestion pricing in NYC requires a bunch of local context. Neither the rich+, nor the poor, nor the vast majority of the middle class regularly commute into Manhattan by car. The poor and the lower/middle middle class because parking is prohibitively expensive. The upper middle class and the rich because they either live in Ma…

I live in lower Manhattan. My feeling is that every vehicle other than delivery trucks should be banned from the city. There is no compelling reason for anyone to drive in Manhattan. If people are commuting into Manhattan, they should take public transit to and from parking lots in Brooklyn/Queens/New Jersey. You will never convince me that there are low income workers who need to drive in the city as an essential pa…

Because everyone in Manhattan is like you; a young, perhaps single, with no kids; especially not many, and none with special needs, who doesn't need to routinely carry or cart anything around.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#197

Post by coryrc »

throwaway2048 wrote: post #189
jdavis703 wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What kind of disabilities are we talking about? Because I’m pretty certain that to a blind person a car won’t help them much, and in fact probably makes life in general more dangerous. Further poor people who have a mobility impairment are often forced into dangerous situations, such as operating a motorized wheel chair in mixed automobile traffic instead of being able to use a dedicated bike lane (yes I’ve seen this…

You realize other people can drive the car?

It's called a bus

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#198

Post by hatchnyc »

michaelcampbell wrote: post #196
nihonde wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in lower Manhattan. My feeling is that every vehicle other than delivery trucks should be banned from the city. There is no compelling reason for anyone to drive in Manhattan. If people are commuting into Manhattan, they should take public transit to and from parking lots in Brooklyn/Queens/New Jersey. You will never convince me that there are low income workers who need to drive in the city as an essential pa…

Because everyone in Manhattan is like you; a young, perhaps single, with no kids; especially not many, and none with special needs, who doesn't need to routinely carry or cart anything around.

People were living in cities for many years before cars were invented, presumably at least some of them had children and were not young. Hell, people still live in modern cities around the world outside of the United States where car ownership rates are extremely low.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#199

Post by gambiting »

coryrc wrote: post #197
throwaway2048 wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize other people can drive the car?

It's called a bus

A bus will not drop you off right in front of a specialist clinic for your weekly appointment. Also buses are incredibly hostile for wheelchair bound people, even if they are not meant to be. Seriously try boarding a bus during rush hour on a wheelchair - the driver has to help you and people have to move to give space for you, but in general it's an unpleasant and humiliating experience(people who are usually already late are suddenly even more late because of you, and sometimes even comment on it - you need to grow some proper thick skin to not give a damn).

Besides, even if you are on a wheelchair with lower body paralysis you can still drive with hand controls.

Re: Things that are more inequitable than road pricing

#200

Post by casefields »

hatchnyc wrote: post #198
michaelcampbell wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because everyone in Manhattan is like you; a young, perhaps single, with no kids; especially not many, and none with special needs, who doesn't need to routinely carry or cart anything around.

People were living in cities for many years before cars were invented, presumably at least some of them had children and were not young. Hell, people still live in modern cities around the world outside of the United States where car ownership rates are extremely low.

And people used to die from infection before antibiotics. What's your point?
Post reply on HN