Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

231–240 of 375 posts

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

#231

The streets were never free. We paid for it with our tax money. (Not to mention our 22 trillion dollar public debt) I don’t think people expect streets to be free in the same way you don’t expect the police department to be free, the fire department to be free, public schools, etc. In any case, my point is, we paid for the streets with our tax money and our debt, so don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic rec…

> We paid for it with our tax money. I hate this argument so much. It comes up all of the time when chronically underfunded national and state parks say they need to raise prices. "buT muH taX doLLarS alReaDy PaY for MAH PARKS!!" Doubly true for places that add quotas and lotteries to curb overcrowding delicate areas. This is the exact same situation: Your tax dollars paid for part of it, sure, but not close to enoug…

Sure, personally I think it's worth increasing taxes nearly any amount to keep public roads freely available to everyone.

Rather than charging everyone and giving some people waivers, increase the taxes with a progressive tax rate, where low-wage people pay less.

If you want to take them out and force everyone to use public transportation that's one thing - But if they exist they ought to be subsidized to ensure everyone can use them.

We need more economic equality, not less, particularly when to comes to such important things as basic infrastructure.

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

#232

The streets were never free. We paid for it with our tax money. (Not to mention our 22 trillion dollar public debt) I don’t think people expect streets to be free in the same way you don’t expect the police department to be free, the fire department to be free, public schools, etc. In any case, my point is, we paid for the streets with our tax money and our debt, so don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic rec…

[deleted]

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

#233
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.

My parent made that stretch. I explicitly included other people’s freedom to do the same thing as they want to do in the list of freedoms that their freedom collides with. So call them out.

I agree with your more general point though: framing the entire matter in terms of freedom is detrimental to the debate. However, it’s almost always initially done by the side that wants to retain the status quo.

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

#234
It's interesting that Americans (as we see in most of the comments) feel so entitled to let taxes pay for their right to take their car everywhere, but feel so strongly against having taxes pay for universal healthcare.

In Europe, we do the opposite.

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

#235
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The carve-outs are precisely the problem with the congestion pricing. If everyone in mid-town just had to pay a flat fee, fine, that seems somewhat fair. But now every interest group is rent-seeking and going to lobby to be exempt. That's the unfair and corrupt part, not the fee. NYC having congestion pricing isn't the most unreasonable thing in the world. Some might say it's long overdue. But the legislature doesn't…

"Rent-seeking" is not a very descriptive label. This (like most other flat consumption taxes) is a regressive tax. It is a stated policy goal of the ruling party to reduce income inequality, not increase it. The disabled are a group with very inflexible transportation demand, in that they are very unlikely to change their behavior in response to higher prices (because they can't ); we already make a whole ton of lega…

It's not like having carve outs makes it any less regressive. It just allows the government to paper over a very complex problem with a naive and simple "solution".

Unfortunately, this sort of thinking has been the dominant mode in politics and legislation since, I dunno, the Roman empire? Riddle your laws and regulations and tax-codes with exemptions and deductions and carve-outs so you can please the people who put you in power and who will keep your in power. And since almost everyone is part of some random interest group (and many, part of a lot interests groups like married home-owning couples with kids), it usually works.

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

#236
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Rent-seeking" is not a very descriptive label. This (like most other flat consumption taxes) is a regressive tax. It is a stated policy goal of the ruling party to reduce income inequality, not increase it. The disabled are a group with very inflexible transportation demand, in that they are very unlikely to change their behavior in response to higher prices (because they can't ); we already make a whole ton of lega…

It's not like having carve outs makes it any less regressive. It just allows the government to paper over a very complex problem with a naive and simple "solution". Unfortunately, this sort of thinking has been the dominant mode in politics and legislation since, I dunno, the Roman empire? Riddle your laws and regulations and tax-codes with exemptions and deductions and carve-outs so you can please the people who put…

If "poor people" is your interest group, then by definition it makes the tax less regressive!

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

#237
post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The carve-outs are precisely the problem with the congestion pricing. If everyone in mid-town just had to pay a flat fee, fine, that seems somewhat fair. But now every interest group is rent-seeking and going to lobby to be exempt. That's the unfair and corrupt part, not the fee. NYC having congestion pricing isn't the most unreasonable thing in the world. Some might say it's long overdue. But the legislature doesn't…

Can you explain how a flat fee is fair to someone making minimum wage versus someone making 90k+ per year? A flat fee would be a larger portion of their income which would be decidedly unfair. There's also that not all vehicles are going to tear up roads in the same way. Why would it be fair for trucks and what not to pay the same flat fee despite causing far more wear and tear on the roads? Your argument would resul…

To be clear, I don't think there should be a congestion tax in the first place. But flat prices are how everything else works in a free market, so it seems fairer than carve-outs or god-forbid, a progressive congestion tax.

Which sounds fairer to you: a movie theater that charges $5 for a ticket, or one that charges a percentage of your income?

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

#238

All markets have congestion controls, they're called prices. The only reason roads and traffic don't function well is because they don't have prices. Traffic on roads* is the 21st equivalent of Soviet breadlines. *(particularly in the US where they are cross subsidized the most)

Wow, I never thought of it that way, but it's a great point.

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

#239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Every other city's experience with congestion pricing shows decreased car use in favor of alternatives. Suppose the forest is on fire and instead of spending money to put the fire out, we just ignore it. Then a bunch of wolves come into the city to flee from the fire. Someone suggests that we introduce bears to the city in order to drive out the wolves. Many people point out what a terrible idea that is, but some c…

Yes, urging people to walk/cycle/bus instead of driving around in single-passenger cars is exactly the same as filling your city with bears.

> Yes, urging people to walk/cycle/bus instead of driving around in single-passenger cars is exactly the same as filling your city with bears.

If someone says that managing programmers is like herding cats, retorting that programmers are not exactly the same as cats is not very helpful.

What is your actual counterargument? Why should we make driving worse instead of making alternatives to driving better?

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

#240
The thing that this article doesn't discuss is the fact that Uber spent $2M on lobbying to help push through congestion pricing. [0]

>“Over the past several years, we’ve been proud to work with a diverse coalition to fight for comprehensive congestion pricing, and we’re excited to see Albany take action to reduce congestion and invest in mass transit,” said Harry Hartfeld, an Uber spokesman.

>Roughly $1 million went to some of the top city lobbyists, including Stu Loeser, a onetime senior aide to former Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

>Another $700,000 went to fund the Fix Our Transit coalition’s ad campaign that targeted undecided Albany ­politicians.

[0] https://nypost.com/2019/04/03/uber-spent-2m-to-help-push-thr...

Post reply on HN