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

201–210 of 700 posts

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#201

Post by SllX »

cronix wrote: post #89
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…

There's also the county government layer that cities must adhere to in addition to state/national.

Hmm, depends a lot on the State.

You can generally make two generalizations about local governments in the United States: they are local governments and you can’t make any other generalizations about them because everything depends on the State and sometimes a locality’s specific circumstances.

In California, municipalities do not adhere to the counties they are in, the county is a legal subdivision of the State which might also have a charter and cities are municipal corporations with a monopoly on the land use within their cities. School districts are also a form of local government here, as are special purpose districts like BART.

In some parts of New England, and I’m not going to go into specifics because when I looked into this more than 10 years ago this had changed or some States were changing it, the State is divided into counties and the counties were divided into townships which are the basis of the New England township system. Somewhere in there, there are also cities, and Maine has a couple of severely underpopulated places designated as Plantations.

So, congestion pricing in the US: NYC, LA, San Francisco and probably Seattle absolutely have the power to this if they wanted to, although I’ll say for San Francisco that would have made a lot more sense to try before the pandemic than now, cuz now, well now downtown is dead so what would it really do? Fairly certain Boston could as well. Everywhere else, I’m less certain, like in Texas I’m fairly certain cities there could, but I’m also fairly certain the Texan legislature under their own laws has the power to step in and go “No. None of that. Shame on you.”

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#202

Post by wizofaus »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #130
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…

> I think about cities that have implemented taxes for disposable plastic bags. I find it somewhat hilarious how many people consider these policies to be anti-freedom government money-grabs. They make a libertarian's blood boil! > 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 b…

I never thought reducing emissions was the reason for trying to reduce disposable plastic bag usage, though I don't doubt many might believe it does.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#203

Post by dgacmu »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #196
dgacmu wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, the answer is that this is New York City, not Seattle, where parking is going to cost you $30+ in the areas affected by the congestion charge. So we've already limited the discussion to the pretty well-off. Per the article itself: "But out of a region of 28 million people, just an estimated 16,100 low-income people commute to work via car in Lower Manhattan, according to the MTA." Probably easier to find a wa…

I did an internship at IBM Hawthorn so I’m familiar with parking in the city. It’s actually doable (or was doable?) in midtown near Columbia, and it actually made sense for my girlfriend at the time. The public transit system isn’t that great when you are commuting between West Chester county. And traffic in NYC is weird. Like, going into the city isn’t a problem, especially if you are going in at night. But take one…

Yeah, but - the proposed congestion charge is only below 60th, and Columbia is up around 116th and higher. Much much easier to park near Columbia. Maybe a little more risk of having your car stolen, too. :)

Also (adding this a few minutes later), the evidence is clear that public transit is seriously beneficial for people with lower incomes - and the elderly and folks with disabilities that prevent them from driving.

So we may be taking about something that harms 16k people and benefits about three million other low-income New Yorkers.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#204

Post by amiga386 »

desas wrote: post #101
drdec wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Not really. The West Lothian Question is "why can Scots vote on English laws but not vice-versa?", which wasn't true at the time it was asked (1977), and especially isn't true now.

Firstly, note that all constituent countries elect MPs to the UK's Westminster parliament, because there are many laws that affect the entire country, and are controlled centrally.

Between 1707 and 1997 (20 years _after_ asking the question!), _all_ laws for Scotland were made in Westminster, and voted on by _all_ MPs. Laws for Scotland get their own bills because Scotland retains its own legal system. Likewise Northern Ireland, but _not_ Wales. Wales shares the same legal system as England, which is why the phrase "England and Wales" appears often.

Since Scottish devolution, certain powers were _reserved_ for Westminster, and the rest of the laws for Scotland are now made in a separately elected Scottish parliament. But there are still plenty of laws which affect Scotland, sometimes _exclusively_ affect Scotland due to the reserved powers having the ability to override choices that Scotland has made for itself. Those laws are still made in Westminster, English MPs can still vote on them and easily win, and so Scots still need representation in the Westminster parliament.

The main part of the West Lothian question, which is where there are sometimes laws that _exclusively_ affect England and Wales, why do Scottish MPs get to vote on them?, was handled by the Scottish MPs voluntarily not voting on them. They managed to do this for centuries without any formal process. Then after the 2015 election, the UK government brought in the EVEL process (English Votes for English Laws), which gave English MPs a "veto" on laws that only affected England. Since the pandemic, Westminster chose to drop EVEL, presumably because the voluntary system of Scottish MPs abstaining from voting on England-only bills worked just fine!

What's relevant for this discussion is that _London_ has an elected mayor, which makes it a special case. It has its own autonomy, within England, which supposedly doesn't have any special carve outs unlike Scotland/Wales/NI... in reality, it has quite a few: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directly_elected_mayors_in_Eng...

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#205

Post by RobinL »

satvikpendem wrote: post #161

We should just ban private vehicles in the city as well, bringing back more cyclists, walkers, and generally increasing metro usage.

Banning is equivalent to an infinite price. Better off setting a very high price, such that the revenue is far higher than the negative externality

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#206

Post by BoorishBears »

wcarron wrote: post #163
BoorishBears wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A dynamic charge based on social status/wealth? That's one I like actually, maybe something like the blue book value of the car? I recently moved out of NYC but I remember looking forward to the congestion charge because I loved taking my greyhound to the union square dog run, which was driving distance for me. 20$ wasn't enough to affect my plans to do that, and less traffic would actually make my life way easier…

> That's one I like actually, maybe something like the blue book value of the car? Suppose two people make the same amount of money. One chooses to buy a cheaper car and pays higher rent for a nicer apt. The other, the opposite. Under your pricing scheme, you're unjustifiably charging two persons of equal means different rates. You can adjust this many ways. One person gets a cheaper car but spends more on luxury vac…

You'll always be able to imagine cases where a broad toll doesn't perfectly align with a narrow goal, why even waste energy listing them out?

Instead consider how you get the toll to actually do something: in the case of a congestion charge it's by making driving in Manhattan expensive enough to reduce how much it happens for as many people as possible.

Regardless of the corner cases you can imagine, there are more people who drive an M4 that would be unaffected by a $20 charge rate than there are people who drive an 430i. So increase the cost for the people with M4 and you've made your toll strictly more effective... even if there are people who can afford M4s and chose to drive a 430i.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#207

Post by jimbob45 »

superseeplus wrote: post #172

A big proportion of the opposition is coming from New Jersey where former Governor Chris Christie systematically diverted public transit funding to constructing more roads leaving NJ Transit with a maintenance backlog, inadequate infrastructure and unhappy workers who were poached by the MTA. This resulted in a mismatch where the infrastructure is designed to favor driving on one side of the river and a fee designed…

[flagged]

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#208

Post by whack »

mortenjorck wrote: post #198
jmclnx wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I saw London doing that, I expected cities in the US to start that. I am surprised it took so long. I expected this because of the push of toll roads to make people use EZPASS. Depending upon the City, I think this makes sense. But, in the US, I wonder if this will cause another mass migration of people out to the suburbs ? In the US, people are more addicted to their SUVs than heron addicts are to their drug.

A huge part of of why London could pull it off is the exceptional state of the Underground. It’s not hard to wean off cars when the alternative is a clean, fast, modern train a short walk away. NYC is going to have an uphill battle getting the MTA to anywhere near that level, and the MTA itself is already leagues ahead of any other transit system in the US. I would love to see London-tier transit in the United States…

I've taken both the Underground and the MTA and you're overstating the difference. Aesthetically, the Underground is far better, no question. But most commuters are focused on functionality. And functionally the MTA is just as good, if not better.

The trains run extremely frequently - every few minutes during the day on weekdays. The parallel local-express tracks give the MTA a big speed advantage. And the inside of the MTA trains are extremely spacious compared to the Underground.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#209

Post by comte7092 »

bilalq wrote: post #200
superseeplus wrote: post #172

A big proportion of the opposition is coming from New Jersey where former Governor Chris Christie systematically diverted public transit funding to constructing more roads leaving NJ Transit with a maintenance backlog, inadequate infrastructure and unhappy workers who were poached by the MTA. This resulted in a mismatch where the infrastructure is designed to favor driving on one side of the river and a fee designed…

There's more reason for NJ residents to take issue with this. In central jersey, it costs at least $20/person for a round trip ticket. If you go with your family or a group of friends filling a 5 seat car, the train costs $100 just to get into the city and then get hit with whatever additional costs you have for the next few subway rides. Gas, parking, and carpool bridge/tunnel toll prices don't add up to anywhere ne…

Regressive if you ignore all of the other costs associated with driving.

Drivers always love to make this argument, but it presupposes that everyone already owns and insures a car.

At the end of the day it’s car dependence that is regressive.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#210

Post by dml2135 »

fooker wrote: post #177
okennedy wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NYC, and Manhattan specifically, is one of the rare places in the country where having a car is almost virtually unnecessary. In downtown, cars are already playthings of the rich: Just parking the car during peak hours can run you hundreds dollars of per month. The core of NYC has walkable infrastructure and an amazing public transportation infrastructure (at least compared to much of the rest of the country). For th…

>NYC, and Manhattan specifically, is one of the rare places in the country where having a car is almost virtually unnecessary. As long as you are okay with spending all your time in the city. The medium to long distance public transport for going out of the city is horrible.

Compared to the rest of the world maybe, compared to the rest of the US, I struggle to think of anywhere better.
Post reply on HN