The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain • Hacker News Board

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

#161

Post by SilasX » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

nickles wrote: post #71

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…

> 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 unusability of our streets, this seems closer to an economic reckoning than a political money grab. Taxis and Ubers are forms of public transportation, and likely reduce the overall number of cars on the road. Simultaneously, they reduce the incidences of drunk driving, providing posi…

>Taxing trucks, used for transporting groceries, goods, and packages to the city, will increase the cost of each of these goods. The increase in grocery prices serves as a regressive tax on all people living within the congestion pricing zone.

You're already effectively paying a premium to account for the extra time the drivers have to spend in traffic. It's not clear whether the congestion charges will be more than the labor-time saved.

Also, a general point: typical market goods are, by default, "regressively priced", because most of them don't look at your income to determine the price. This is generally a good thing, because if every good's price scaled with income, there would be no material gain to earning an extra dollar.

Any time you recognize a real scarcity and ensure it's priced explicitly rather than allocated by an ever-choked queue, it's going to be regressive in this sense. That shouldn't be a deal-breaker by itself.

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

#162

Post by bobthepanda » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:36 PM UTC

scottie_m wrote: post #90

CalRobert wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, how about "it's a way to make sure people who need the road most are the ones who get to use it" Kind of how parking meters are FANTASTIC because they mean I can finally get a damn space for the rare occasion when I rent a van or car and need to park in front of my flat. I just wish they'd raise prices on my street because it's still tough sometimes.

If I’m wealthy and want my SUV motorcade to drive through NYC all day I can trivially afford it, even if my need asymptotically approaches zero. If I’m a desperate person working three jobs to support my family, I have a great need, and yet the tax is a hardship.

Poor people in NYC do not even really own cars, and if they do they certainly don’t drive in Manhattan, where the cost of a parking spot is horrendous.

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

#163

Post by mc32 » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:38 PM UTC

nickles wrote: post #71

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…

> 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 unusability of our streets, this seems closer to an economic reckoning than a political money grab. Taxis and Ubers are forms of public transportation, and likely reduce the overall number of cars on the road. Simultaneously, they reduce the incidences of drunk driving, providing posi…

Trucks cause the most wear and tear on roads so I’m not entirely against capturing some of that via gross tonnage (or weight per wheel) tax of some sort.

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

#164

Post by maxsilver » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #3

It's sad to see congestion pricing in America. I had hoped that the long-lived cultural freedom of driving would keep it at bay for longer, but I guess not anymore. I live in Sydney. It takes a 45 minute drive to visit a family member, who is sick and homebound. To do so in the shortest and least congested route, I must pay 3 tolls: $14.85 total, one way; $30 dollars a trip. Public transport is not a suitable option.…

It's going to die. Urbanists have killed this freedom, it's only a matter of time. Everyone has forgotten all the benefits cars provide, and has focused solely on the drawbacks, just as cars became advanced enough to eliminate all of their problems in the first place.

Today, in 2019, I drive a car that generates absolutely no pollution, makes no noise, is powered entirely by renewable wind electricity, and can drive itself in many (but not quite all) situations. This should be the best thing ever. This is the cleanest, safest, most reliable, most convenient, and cheapest public transit that has ever been invented. There should be cities filled with skyscrapers full of these things.

But instead, urbanists have convinced everyone that 19th century Europe was the pinnacle of humanity, and they are attempting (and succeeding) at removing/eliminating all of our best public transportation infrastructure. Gone are public parking structures, gone are public freeways. Gone is clean affordable housing. Gone are inclusive communities. The lessons we learned and progress we've made is all being lost.

Now you should take a tram or bus, wait 80% longer on every trip, always deal with weather directly, have to plan every trip on routes and timetables, and only live/work in the (super expensive) places their routes allow for it. They want all transportation to be long, frustrating, and limited. Because that was good enough for your great-grandfather, it should be good enough for you too.

---

I get why it's happening. If you limit transportation and freedom, you can further artificially inflate property values, and further monopolize people's finances. (They have less options on where to live, less options on where to shop, less options on where to send children to school, less options to simply consume less and spend less on anything at all).

But it's so incredibly frustrating because there is not a single valid reason for it, and it's so disheartening to see such huge regressions happening throughout our cities today. To the extreme that cities today are basically not even for real people anymore, just capital.

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

#165

Post by test6554 » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #3

It's sad to see congestion pricing in America. I had hoped that the long-lived cultural freedom of driving would keep it at bay for longer, but I guess not anymore. I live in Sydney. It takes a 45 minute drive to visit a family member, who is sick and homebound. To do so in the shortest and least congested route, I must pay 3 tolls: $14.85 total, one way; $30 dollars a trip. Public transport is not a suitable option.…

I have immediate family that is a minimum 15-20 hour drive away in 3 different directions, but I have the option to fly and get there much faster for a price. If flying was free, how long do you think the lines would be to board planes?

The same principle applies here. Do you have an option to drive there and avoid toll roads? If so, how much extra time would it take you? Surely not 15-20 hours like it takes to see my family.

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

#166

Post by francisofascii » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:41 PM UTC

dec0dedab0de wrote: post #12

When I worked in a major city I would go on a half-joke rant anytime someone brought up traffic, parking,or obesity. If I were somehow the king of a major city, I would have a giant parking lot on the outside, and ban all cars. You could buy day passes if you need access to the roads to move or something, but it would be discouraged. People would walk more, and be healthier, The air would be higher quality, and most…

Oslo created or is creating a car free section of the city.

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

#167

Post by a_c_s » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

dcosson wrote: post #72

the_gastropod wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind only ~45% of NYC residents own cars. Yet, we all pay taxes to pay for maintaining their infrastructure. Everyone paying taxes to support some is fine when that thing is beneficial to society at large (e.g., public education, fire departments, welfare, etc.) I don't think driving counts as an activity that should be subsidized by the taxpayer.

If you ever order something online or get food delivery or take a taxi or uber you do use the roads, and the number of people who do those things somewhat regularly is a lot closer to 100%. But you might still be using the roads a lot less than someone who drives to and from work every day. So some combination of tax money and tolls/congestion pricing seems to make the most sense from this usage based angle.

In NYC (at least in Manhattan where congestion pricing is being implemented) food delivery is primarily done via bicycle, sometimes via subway or walking, very rarely by vehicle.

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

#168

Post by moorhosj » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:43 PM UTC

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?

You are getting lots of comments, but the most obvious reason is that the act of driving on a road degrades it much faster than walking on a sidewalk. Thus, it needs to be repaired more frequently. Increase the number of cars and the frequency of repair (i.e. costs) increases.

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

#169

Post by jaxbot » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:44 PM UTC

I think about this a lot when considering China's extensive High-Speed Rail network. China's government operates it at a loss, and the capital expense must have been enormous, even with their wages. But the government had enough social good and political reasons to bite the cost.

The USA and our interstate system are the same way. The cost was enormous, the maintenance burden continues to outpace the money we make on gas tax and registration, yet we had political and social good reasons for building it. The interstate was a massive investment, and investments of similar scale could give us a HSR network at least on major corridors. But for some reason, we have a social good attitude towards highways and a social waste attitude towards subsidizing rail.

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

#170

Post by beefman » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:45 PM UTC

torpidor wrote: post #102

dannyw wrote: post #3

It's sad to see congestion pricing in America. I had hoped that the long-lived cultural freedom of driving would keep it at bay for longer, but I guess not anymore. I live in Sydney. It takes a 45 minute drive to visit a family member, who is sick and homebound. To do so in the shortest and least congested route, I must pay 3 tolls: $14.85 total, one way; $30 dollars a trip. Public transport is not a suitable option.…

The average traffic speed in Sydney is 55kph, so a 45 minute drive covers a distance of 25 miles. Taking the IRS standard deduction for gas and depreciation, you pay about $1 in operational costs for every $1 you spend in tolls. I understand that you would rather pay x than 2x, but this is not “cultural freedom”, it is haggling over a price. But the fact that we ignore the $1 in wear on the drive belt because that wo…

The standard deduction ($0.58/mi) is very high. The marginal cost of driving depends on how much you drive. Driving the US average 15,000mi/yr, you can buy a nicely-equipped Mazda 3, insure it, fuel it (at CA gas prices), and throw it away when the standard warranty expires every 5 years for $0.53/mi.

This cost is dominated by the production of the car and goes down almost linearly to something like $0.25/mi before maintenance would even be an issue.

This is cheaper than almost any other form of transport.

The road system is essentially free at this scale.

There are no significant subsidies that make this possible. It's just that cheap. And most of the cost is production – a positive-sum activity.

A congestion charge is a transfer payment (zero-sum). In general these should not be expected to significantly impact the value of civilization.

For one thing, the economy tends to route around them. A mortgage interest tax deduction causes house price inflation, for example. It's not clear there should be any long-run sensitivity of commuting times to commuting taxes. People are already paying their hourly wage to commute, and they will pay any tax on it also with that wage...