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

291–300 of 700 posts

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#291

Post by Hikikomori »

steveBK123 wrote: post #282

My main concern as NYer is the governments inability to build transit, and not for lack of money. NY will find it relatively easy to institute a new tax on drivers, but will the billions collected actually make transit better in any tangible way? NYC is also hamstrung by having its streets controlled locally by our DOT, but our transit & bridges controlled by a state agency. We just caved (again) entirely to the tran…

>We basically need a modern era Robert Moses to consolidate NYC DOT/MTA/Port Authority and whatever other agencies and bring us into the modern era.

Idk about that, maybe a less racist one.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker

https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#292

Post by nonethewiser »

grumpy_coder wrote: post #227
rileymat2 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rationing by payment is only one strategy though. Choosing that strategy brings in wealth disparities. So it is fair to bring it up when that is the chosen strategy.

The actual dollar amount also matters. London's charge has tripled since it was introduced. The unforeseen consequence of this type of charge is it becomes a lever to reduce traffic by forcing poorer people off the roads everyone pays for.

How could this toll be anything of not that?

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#293

Post by SSLy »

speakfreely wrote: post #255
comte7092 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Drivers always love to make this argument, but it presupposes that everyone already owns and insures a car. Have you ever been to New Jersey? The entire state is set up to make it as difficult as possible to live without a car.

Excuse my European understanding, but isn't it the state's right to make such policy, and isn't it NY's not to care about it too?

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#294

Post by RhysU »

Jolter wrote: post #247
kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The opposition from NJ is the double dipping of already high bridge and tunnel tolls along with the new congestion toll. They also have a really meager fixed discount for motorcycles which has diminished in value as the tolls have risen over the years.

Why should motorcycles have a discount? How big should it be in your opinion, and why?

Motorcycles don't cause congestion. Motorcycles can travel through congestion when permitted to lanesplit.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#295

Post by Reason077 »

jmclnx wrote: post #25
cj wrote: post #12

See also: London congestion charge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge Singapore Electronic Road Pricing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing Stockholm congestion tax: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_congestion_tax

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.

> “But, in the US, I wonder if this will cause another mass migration of people out to the suburbs ?”

If anything, I’d say the opposite is true in London. Reduced traffic levels and cleaner air are making the centre a more desirable place to be than ever. If only it were more affordable!

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#296

Post by nonethewiser »

sigstoat wrote: post #121
tlogan wrote: post #110

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.

if you’re rich enough you just pay somebody else to run the errand or drive you around in an even larger vehicle. stop freaking out about rich people being able to get something nice. they can already afford nice things. look at the overall costs/benefit analysis of the policy.

You bring up a good point. It makes door dash even more expensive and even more a luxury for well off people.

Also, the argument was never that rich people cant afford nice things. So while concluding they can is easy and correct, its not accomplishing anything.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#297

Post by nonethewiser »

mgbmtl wrote: post #114
tlogan wrote: post #110

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.

There are also rich and poor people using the subway. Improving it will improve the situation for everyone. I'm (sincerely) curious though, who are the poor people affected? Parking downtown is crazy expensive, and there are already expensive tolls around Manhattan. There are easy solutions though: charge by the weight/size of the car (the weight should already be on the car registration).

> There are also rich and poor people using the subway. Improving it will improve the situation for everyone.

Exactly. Just like more parking would improve it for everyone.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#298

Post by epc »

griffinkelly wrote: post #281
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…

Does the revenue go to the state of NY, NYC or the federal government? I imagine a split between all if it needed federal approval?

Current plan is for revenue to accrue to the MTA, a public benefit corporation owned by NY State.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#299

Post by Wowfunhappy »

nonethewiser wrote: post #288
Wowfunhappy wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, at least with congestion pricing, those wealthy drivers will be funding the public transit system for the rest of society.

Trickle down?

Quite the opposite, I'd call it a tax on the rich.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#300

Post by mikepurvis »

cogman10 wrote: post #283
ericmay wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yea it also ignores that if everybody stopped riding the $100 train then you’d never actually be able to drive into the city, let alone park anywhere for under $100. Also, this is a deliberate choice. They can improve train services and lower costs. Idk why people who ostensibly are market oriented are so fixated on current prices and assuming they can’t change or be improved upon. Germany is an example $49 for a tic…

Yeah, everyone also ignores that public transport can be supported through taxes and operated at a loss. In the US, we have a weird obsession with all public goods/services paying for themselves. We should ditch that, operate at a loss, and pull the difference out of progressive taxes. There's no reason your CEO or office shouldn't foot part of the bill to transport you into work. Heck, were I king I'd fund public tr…

The weirdness of the obsession is even stranger when you compare it to basically any other public service. Like, are schools supposed to pay for themselves? Airports? City infrastructure like streets, parks, and rec centers? The military?

No, of course not. All of these things are essentials for the which the benefits are felt across the economy, but those benefits are far too diffuse to be individually tallied up and toll-boothed— which is of course why they are (generally) financed out of the general tax base rather than by private industry.

Post reply on HN