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

#361

Post by throwaway284721 » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:25 PM UTC

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #31

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…

How much you pay in taxes does not depend on how much you use roads. So it doesn't incentivise people to use roads less. That's the point of road congestion pricing.

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

#362

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 3:28 PM UTC

throwaway284721 wrote: post #361

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #31

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…

How much you pay in taxes does not depend on how much you use roads. So it doesn't incentivise people to use roads less. That's the point of road congestion pricing.

> How much you pay in taxes does not depend on how much you use roads

It's certainly not unrelated to what you pay in gas taxes.

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

#363

Post by dondawest » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

clairity wrote: post #262

CaptainDecisive wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is interesting because it hadn't even occurred to me that the parent comment might be being sarcastic. I thought the emphasis on love was being serious. My experience is older folks (maybe 80 and up? Not really sure) start to lose confidence or ability with driving and give it up. Hence need to walk and take public transport. So less cars and a more walkable neighborhood is a win for them as well as ever…

yes, as i understand it, high walkability promotes self-reliance/independence, which correlates highly with quality of life and longevity. since "love" is an intensified term already, the italics seemed to imply sarcasm to me, but i'm open to being told i misread the prior comment. =)

I was being sarcastic. The other comments on here are quite illuminating, discussing how many senior citizens love walking. That’s cool.

The problem with the car-free plan is that many senior citizens literally do not have the ability to walk unassisted. And the car-free plan seems to exclude these people in a dramatic way. That’s why I intended the parent comment to be sarcastic.

I get that some old people love to walk. But some old people LITERALLY ARE UNABLE to walk, and those are the ones who would love this plan the most. (I AM BEING SARCASTIC HERE).

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

#364

Post by dondawest » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 4:59 PM UTC

qmanjamz wrote: post #272

clairity wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

maybe just speak for yourself? the seniors i know walk more than the juniors i know. senior folks will happily share their opinions with you, so no need to speak for them.

Congratulations. You must be so proud of your seniors. Unfortunately, many seniors physically can't walk long distances. The fact that you don't personally know them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Exactly. The car-free plan discriminates against these people

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

#365

Post by strictnein » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 8:41 PM UTC

austhrow743 wrote: post #338

strictnein wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone uses the roads. There's no one who doesn't either use them for transportation, or receive goods brought in on them. You're not going to avoid these fees because you don't drive, you'll just be paying for them through higher prices on the goods you buy.

You wont be paying them equally on all goods. The small good will gain a cost advantage over the large good. The digital good will gain a cost advantage over the physical good. The good delivered during non peak hours will gain a cost advantage over the good delivered during rush hour. The good delivered by drone will gain a cost advantage over the good delivered by land vehicle.

The "digital good"? Drone delivery? We're talking real life here, not a William Gibson novel.

You're basically saying that the lower/middle class folks driving those delivery trucks will simply have to work at night, so you can avoid paying for your plan.

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

#366

Post by e1ven » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 10:15 PM UTC

CalRobert wrote: post #326

e1ven wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm all for reducing the traffic, but I think having the streets be only for the wealthy is among the worst ways to solve that problem. In a way it's analogous to any other resource allocation problem. There are lots of approaches other than "richest wins"

"but I think having the streets be only for the wealthy" but that's basically what they are now, in as much as they are catering for the most expensive form of transport (aircraft and tanks notwithstanding). Having the streets for everyone means having them be for walking, cycling, scooters, bikes, buses, etc. Hell, donkeys while we're at it.

Yes, but why should the debate be framed in terms of only looking at fees or living with congestion? There are other approaches to what is essentially distributing limited resources.

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

#367

Post by sjy » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 10:50 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #239

jellicle wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Your confusing analogy about bears and wolves was the counterargument. I didn't find it a persuasive response to the original argument: "Every other city's experience with congestion pricing shows decreased car use in favor of alternatives. Effects on local grocery prices were minimal. And in the end, revenues paled in comparison to the health, infrastructure, policing, quality of life and economic costs of traffic congestion."

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

#368

Post by dondawest » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 1:01 AM UTC

wccrawford wrote: post #253

CaptainDecisive wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment is interesting because it hadn't even occurred to me that the parent comment might be being sarcastic. I thought the emphasis on love was being serious. My experience is older folks (maybe 80 and up? Not really sure) start to lose confidence or ability with driving and give it up. Hence need to walk and take public transport. So less cars and a more walkable neighborhood is a win for them as well as ever…

It was sarcastic because many seniors can't walk long distances. The idea that if they want something they "walk to get it" is ridiculous. The missing component is that when you ban cars, you have to have good public transit to replace them, especially for the elderly and disabled.

Yes and yes :)

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

#369

Post by test6554 » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 3:10 AM UTC

aqme28 wrote: post #61

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Free as in speech" is very, very close to "free as in beer". For all practical purposes it doesn't cost me anything more than my time to exercise my free speech rights. Something that's nominally "free" from direct government control but the government gets to dictate the monetary cost of using it is not free by either definition. Anything that increases the monetary cost of freedom of movement (time is not such a b…

The freedom of speech analogy is pretty good. Yes you can talk freely, but if you want to say something louder than everyone else, you typically have to pay for advertising or a platform. You can move freely, but if you want to move faster/farther than others, you have to pay for it.

Not to mention that if you say the wrong thing, you can get fired, costing you a whole lot of money.

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

#370

Post by test6554 » Sat, Apr 06, 2019, 3:14 AM UTC

ch4s3 wrote: post #11

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.…

Congestion pricing is essentially a usage fee, and is highly efficient from an economic perspective. Without charging drivers for roads they get paid for out of general funds. There’s nothing free about non-drivers subsidizing private transportation. Furthermore, at artificially low prices, more people drive until congestion is unmanageable. Without that pricing your 45 minute drive might balloon to twice that amount…

Adding to this: Non-drivers who cause others to drive on their behalf such as a pizza delivery do pay for the roads indirectly. They pay the company which pays the usage fee.

So nobody can say they benefit indirectly without paying.