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

New York City will charge drivers going downtown

cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 700 posts

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#101

Post by desas »

drdec wrote: post #100
bobthepanda wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government above it is the national one. Cities in the US are creatures of their respective states, and the swing votes in states are usually the suburban voters who would be most impacted by a charge like this. —- It also helps that TfL has a track record of delivering many miles of projects and a future expansion plan. MTA is planning on using this to keep the lights…

> London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government above it is the national one. Is that actually true? I mean, are there no vestiges of England, Scotland and Wales in the UK?

Yes for Scotland and Wales but not for England. The discrepancy is known as The West Lothian Question

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#102

Post by ghaff »

bequanna wrote: post #20
fellowmartian wrote: post #14

When I moved to NYC from Kyiv, I was actually surprised by how chill the traffic in New York is. Obviously it can get annoying around bridges and tunnels, but outside those areas it’s pretty easy to get around, and I live on the west side of FiDi. Not against this legislation, I think it’s a good idea, but I personally spent more time in traffic on Long Island, and upper Manhattan. I don’t own a car though, I just re…

I guess I always thought the two challenges in the city were entering/leaving and parking. There doesn’t seem to consistently be TOO much traffic when you’re just trying to get around Manhattan.

It depends a bit on when and where. But, yeah, all the choke points in and out and then finding/paying for parking are at least among the biggest pain points. I almost never drive to Manhattan from Massachusetts even though it would be faster from my house and that's driven in no small part by the pain of driving into Manhattan from the north.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#103

Post by cyberax »

creato wrote: post #94
cyberax wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m a fan of charging market efficient rates for shared goods. Are you a fan of charging market rates for transit as well?

Sure, as long as you consider externalities like congestion. That would suggest charging for passage through congested areas (the subject of this thread), and subsidizing mass transit in congested areas.

[flagged]

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#105

Post by CydeWeys »

tacticalturtle wrote: post #96

Why did the federal government have to sign off on this? Assuming the tolls aren’t on federal highways, shouldn’t a state be free to decide where to enact tolls on its own roads?

Because there are Federal highways in the impacted zone.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#106

Post by jffry »

tacticalturtle wrote: post #96

Why did the federal government have to sign off on this? Assuming the tolls aren’t on federal highways, shouldn’t a state be free to decide where to enact tolls on its own roads?

AFAICT there are highways affected by this congestion charge. Federal Highway Administration's Value Pricing Pilot Program [1] is the means for state/regional/local governments to institute programs like this. The specific signoff was for an environmental assessment [2] showing that the proposed program complies with relevant environmental laws.

[1] https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestionpricing/value_pricing/ind...

[2] https://new.mta.info/project/CBDTP/environmental-assessment

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#107

Post by cyberax »

zip1234 wrote: post #98
cyberax wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m a fan of charging market efficient rates for shared goods. Are you a fan of charging market rates for transit as well?

For sure, let's charge methods of transportation based on negative externalities such as how much space they take, safety, and noise/particulate pollution.

I'm all for it! It would suck for transit, though:

1. It has a higher CO2 footprint than small/medium EVs.

2. Transit forces people into smaller and denser housing, resulting in suboptimal living conditions.

3. Buses in particular result in excessive road wear&tear.

It's really amazing that people say things like "car owners should not get subsidized" (by whom?), while talking about transit that is literally infeasible without massive subsidies.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#108

Post by eynsham »

drdec wrote: post #100
bobthepanda wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government above it is the national one. Cities in the US are creatures of their respective states, and the swing votes in states are usually the suburban voters who would be most impacted by a charge like this. —- It also helps that TfL has a track record of delivering many miles of projects and a future expansion plan. MTA is planning on using this to keep the lights…

> London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government above it is the national one. Is that actually true? I mean, are there no vestiges of England, Scotland and Wales in the UK?

Scotland and Wales have devolved governments. England does not. There is no English parliament; there are no English courts—there are English and Welsh courts; there are many English ministers but no ministers in right of England.

The once-English institutions of parliament, the crown, and its ministers became those of Great Britain first and the United Kingdom subsequently. But the remit of the UK government in devolved matters is limited in some cases to some subset of {England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland}, e.g., the first two and the fourth. Those powers are exercised qua the British government, not qua some English, English and Welsh, or English, Welsh, and Northern Irish (i.a.) government, none of which exist.

There is a body of law peculiar to England. It is administered by the English and Welsh courts, from which an appeal may lie to the UK Supreme Court or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the case may be.

A large exception to these remarks is the Church of England; the Churches of Ireland and Wales were disestablished in 1869 and 1914 respectively.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#109

Post by ghaff »

dangus wrote: post #42

There's an important concept to the success of city planning: the alignment of incentives. When transit is faster and cheaper than driving, people don't drive as much. The individualistic personal freedom of the automobile doesn't outweigh those practical aspects of getting around. People generally make pretty logical decisions about what they want to do. I'm definitely in favor of congestion charges in certain areas…

>Even assuming those folks are correct, it doesn't really matter, because these taxes are incredibly effective. It's eye-opening to see how a nearly insignificant tax (literal pennies per bag) changes the behavior of everyone.

Yep. People have discovered that it's pretty easy to make it a habit to carry a small bag if you live in a city and just keep some bags in the car if you're driving to the store--and it's generally a lot nicer tote than a pile of thin plastic bags. Yeah I forget every now and then if I'm walking in a city, but I still don't need plastic 95% of the time and it's a better experience once you get used to it.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#110

Post by tlogan »

So rich people (who really do not care about few dollars) will be able to drive to downtown just for fun. while poor people who truly need to come to downtown by car will struggle.

This is an unfortunate reality of life: wealth equates to more available time.

Post reply on HN