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

The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 375 posts

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#91

Post by Analemma_ »

bluescrn wrote: post #40
matt4077 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You’re arguing against congestion pricing in lower Manhattan by citing the inadequacy of public transport in Sydney? In any case: in high density environments such as NY and, yes, Sydney, public transport is the obviously superior option. In Manhattan it is so de facto: current subway trouble nonewithstanding, it is still superior to taking your car into the center. Car traffic in MH moves at about pedestrian streets…

If you introduce high enough congestion charging (to significantly reduce congestion), those rich bankers will get back in their cars and small businesses relying on the roads will be forced to close. We really do risk heading into a ‘roads are for the richest’ future. We need to accept that the car isn’t going away, that public transport cannot work well in many situations, and build more road capacity for an electr…

Building more road capacity to fix congestion never works. Ever. This is highway planning 101: more roads/lanes creates induced demand until travel times are exactly what they were before construction, and so you just spent a billion dollars to go nowhere.

For an illustrative example, look at what Houston did to the I-10: they thought like you did and decided to just build and build until the traffic went away. There’s a stretch of I-10 outside Houston that is now twenty-six lanes wide, and it didn’t work: within a few years of completion, travel times returned to what they were before the buildout. Exactly how many lanes do you think will fix the problem if 26 won’t?

(And even if it did, there’s no more room in Manhattan for more roads. There is no way to increase supply even if we wanted to.)

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#92

Post by otikik »

hourislate wrote: post #53
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic reckoning” In New York, low-income New Yorkers who own a car (or live in the zone) will be eligible for a waiver [1]. People with disabilities, too, will probably be eligible for a waiver. (Some carve-outs are still being pinned down.) Taxis, Ubers, trucks and cars owned by people who opt to pay hundreds of dollars a month in parking are who will be taxed. Given the u…

How do people feel on a congestion fee for sidewalks. Too many people on sidewalks in NYC making them almost unusable. If you want to walk on a sidewalk during the busiest times you should pay a congestion fee. Why would we stop at just roads?

My understanding is that these are not "congestion fees", but "pollution fees". They are there to make air less unhealthy, not to make traffic more fluid.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#93

Post by dsfyu404ed »

l1ambda wrote: post #68

I post something like this every time the congestion pricing subject comes up. We have congestion pricing in Minneapolis / St Paul and it just works. If I'm in a hurry, I have the option to choose to use the priced lane. We're rolling it out to all of the major highways (it's on 3 of them so far). I wish we had it on more lanes on all highways already, because what is the point of having a 60mph road if most of the t…

When you go to an expensive you're not just paying for the meal. You're paying for the fact that they have to over provision so you can be seated quickly. You're paying for the fact that almost everybody who isn't high class will elect to go somewhere else.

Roads (nor rails, nor buses, nor sidewalks, nor any other bit of government infrastructure) should be a restaurant that charges $50 for a $20 meal because keeping the masses of poors out makes for a better customer experience for those left who can justify the cost.

I understand why NYC is doing this. NYC has other options. You can and most people do live there without a car. Other cities, cities where you can't live without a car without making massive sacrifices should not be implementing toll lanes and congestion pricing. Kicking the poors off the system so that people rich enough to justify the daily tolls can have a good experience. If the well off don't want to deal with gridlock on the streets and packed train cars below the streets during rush hour and aren't willing to travel early/late then then they should be willing to do what is necessary to improve the system as a whole.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#95

Post by bhupy »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #93
l1ambda wrote: post #68

I post something like this every time the congestion pricing subject comes up. We have congestion pricing in Minneapolis / St Paul and it just works. If I'm in a hurry, I have the option to choose to use the priced lane. We're rolling it out to all of the major highways (it's on 3 of them so far). I wish we had it on more lanes on all highways already, because what is the point of having a 60mph road if most of the t…

When you go to an expensive you're not just paying for the meal. You're paying for the fact that they have to over provision so you can be seated quickly. You're paying for the fact that almost everybody who isn't high class will elect to go somewhere else. Roads (nor rails, nor buses, nor sidewalks, nor any other bit of government infrastructure) should be a restaurant that charges $50 for a $20 meal because keeping…

> Other cities, cities where you can't live without a car without making massive sacrifices should not be implementing toll lanes and congestion pricing. Kicking the poors off the system so that people rich enough to justify the daily tolls can have a good experience. If the well off don't want to deal with gridlock on the streets and packed train cars below the streets during rush hour and aren't willing to travel early/late then then they should be willing to do what is necessary to improve the system as a whole.

FTA:

> Where there are few other choices, like reliable bus routes, congestion pricing risks burdening poorer drivers in particular. But that is a problem we’ve thought about before, too, Mr. Manville said, if we’re now willing to treat roads as we do other infrastructure. He pointed to “lifeline” utility services: subsidized rates for electricity and gas offered to users with fewer resources.

> “Fortunately, congestion pricing comes with its own built-in solution,” he said, “which is that it raises a ton of money.”

Congestion pricing policies can (and should) also include bonds to fund immediate construction of public transportation infrastructure, be it via bus or rail.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#96

Post by mshkreli »

vidro3 wrote: post #94
patrickg_zill wrote: post #60

Congestion pricing is an admission that the fuel taxes are being used for other purposes than roads.

or that the taxes are far too low to support the cost of road maintainance

Doubtful - we're talking about New York, after all.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#97

Post by rsync »

l1ambda wrote: post #68

I post something like this every time the congestion pricing subject comes up. We have congestion pricing in Minneapolis / St Paul and it just works. If I'm in a hurry, I have the option to choose to use the priced lane. We're rolling it out to all of the major highways (it's on 3 of them so far). I wish we had it on more lanes on all highways already, because what is the point of having a 60mph road if most of the t…

"We have congestion pricing in Minneapolis / St Paul and it just works. We're rolling it out to all of the major highways."

Aren't these two very different things ?

I own a home in MPLS and I don't know anything about congestion pricing there. I think you must be talking about the lane restrictions on the freeways ?

Congestion pricing, as it is in London, and as is being discussed for NYC, is the concept of the city center being an island of paid entrance. As if you could not enter downtown MPLS without paying a fee.

I don't have any comment on your broad, economic analysis - just that the lane restrictions on 35 are really not the same thing as the congestion pricing being discussed here...

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#98

Post by Sharlin »

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #16
Xylakant wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your freedom to drive where ever you choose on the fastest route infringes on freedoms of others, for example: * their freedom to drive on the fastest route possible * their freedom not to have a large road in front of their home * their freedom not to have their taxes invested in a road infrastructure ballooned to a level that they might not need * their freedom to live in a world that is not inflicted by global war…

I don't think your examples really count as freedoms. I agree with your point, but I don't think you need to stretch the definition of a word to make it.

But how is the right to drive anywhere more of a freedom than those other things?

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#99

Post by csours »

yardie wrote: post #69
i_am_proteus wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, there wouldn't be many lunch options because delivery services wouldn't be able to use cars and trucks.

So restaurants, bars, and taverns didn't exist until after the automobile was invented. Got it!

I think this comment deserves a Michelin Star!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Guide

Hint: Why would a tire company put out a restaurant guidebook?

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#100

Post by pavelmark »

jiggliemon wrote: post #27
jdavis703 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know the situation in Sydney as I’ve never been there. But in NYC, which is what the article is about, the funds will go to transportation improvements that make it easier for people to get around. There’ll be more freedom of choice because the subways will be better (and hopefully they’ll add more bike lanes and wider sidewalks).

Any new money for public spending is typically used to pay down the ballooning public pension liabilities. And if it doesn’t go towards pensions, it’s diverted away to other welfare projects, or education. Point is these new funds won’t make transportation better in any significant way.

Budget will go to capital construction costs [0], particularly for MTA, buses, and underserved areas of NYC. This was layout in the NYS 2020 budget place.

Source: https://congestion-pricing.com/

Post reply on HN