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

441–450 of 700 posts

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#441

Post by Spooky23 »

nimbleplum40 wrote: post #325
Spooky23 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s going to kill the city. It’s just going to push businesses out at a bad time. This doesn’t have anything to do with traffic - it’s a way to try to extract more money for the MTA. Money won’t fix the MTA’s money woes; the unions will just slurp any available cash.

I think you’re vastly overestimating how many people commute into lower manhattan via car.

If nobody is driving, why is it congested? New York City is the hub of a region that represents like a quarter of the US population. Like many other regions, you start cutting off the hub and the central business district dies.

Commuting is one aspect. Tourism. Business meetings. Medical care. I live in Queens. Getting a family member to MSK for treatment or getting a meeting in the city via public transit is a 4 hour odyssey.

End of the day, folks are gonna say “fuck it” and move to Jersey.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#443

Post by fy20 »

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

It's worth mentioning that London has three types of road user fees:

- Congestion charge, which applies to everyone, except residents, driving in the centre of London during weekdays

- Low Emissions Zone charge, which applies to everyone driving a vehicles older than emissions class Euro 5 (2009) inside nearly all of London

- Ultra Low Emissions Zone charge, which applies to everyone driving a vehicle older than emissions class Euro 6 (2015) inside the centre of London

And to make things even more fun: If you do not have automatic billing setup you are required to pay online on the day you trigger the fee. If you are even a day late, you will face penalties of hundreds or thousands of pounds, depending on your vehicle class.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#444

Post by Spooky23 »

xen2xen1 wrote: post #417
miley_cyrus wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's saying it's not going to finance any "investments" - the extra money is just going to the unions.

Hasn't the state also been directly taking money meant for mass transit in general for years?

Lol no. The State through various schemes has been propping up the MTA for years. The bridges and tunnels (rightly) subsidize the mass transit. The state also imposed an additional sales tax for people 100 miles away to raise more revenue.

The MTA’s woes are death from a thousand cuts.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#445

Post by pkulak »

steveBK123 wrote: post #422
QIYGT wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even if the money is lit on fire, the reduction in cars entering the city will be a huge benefit.

I just don't think the pricing is going to meaningfully impact the cars entering the city, nor is it going to reduce the main congestion of ride hailing vehicles on every inch of Manhattan street. The charge is $23 peak / $17 off-peak. Existing city tunnel tolls are already $17ish. The fact that Uber publicly supports congestion pricing tells you everything you need to know about how it's going to impact ride hail co…

Pricing always effects demand. If it’s not enough, double it next year. Keep doing it until you can have conversation in the greatest city in NA without being drowned out by car horns.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#446

Post by steveBK123 »

master_crab wrote: post #427
steveBK123 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is no one is proposing tenable truck infrastructure when proposing "knock it down". We have dangerous enough roads all over the city, especially Brooklyn & Queens. Look at the tragedy recently in south Brooklyn. Keeping trucks/trade vans/people transiting the borough on a highway and off surface streets is beneficial. There's lot of infrastructure & services I don't directly use that I don't demand be tor…

No one is asking for bridges to be torn down. But asking to maintain a 60 year old (at its youngest) 6 lane elevated highway through a city is costly (both in dollars and quality of life). So you need to examine what the end goal is. Elevating (both literally and figuratively) car culture ain’t it. Also, you aren’t getting rid of truck traffic on surface streets. They still need that last mile. Better traffic control…

I fail to see the distinction between tearing down urban highways and tearing down urban bridges used by cars.

Obviously, the last mile is always going to be on the local road.. but do we want all those trucks going local surface road from the Verrazano to say Greenpoint or Bushwick?

Further, it seems a little too convenient to want highways you live near to be torn down but concede that the other highways far from your neighborhood are necessary, good and in fact.. need expansion?

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#447

Post by master_crab »

master_crab wrote: post #427
steveBK123 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is no one is proposing tenable truck infrastructure when proposing "knock it down". We have dangerous enough roads all over the city, especially Brooklyn & Queens. Look at the tragedy recently in south Brooklyn. Keeping trucks/trade vans/people transiting the borough on a highway and off surface streets is beneficial. There's lot of infrastructure & services I don't directly use that I don't demand be tor…

No one is asking for bridges to be torn down. But asking to maintain a 60 year old (at its youngest) 6 lane elevated highway through a city is costly (both in dollars and quality of life). So you need to examine what the end goal is. Elevating (both literally and figuratively) car culture ain’t it. Also, you aren’t getting rid of truck traffic on surface streets. They still need that last mile. Better traffic control…

Actually I’m advocating the removal of the cross-Bronx and something in a less dense area or a truck-only traffic pattern.

So not quite the same thing as what you are alluding too.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#448

Post by websap »

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…

Yup the state of the subway infrastructure is worrisome.

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#449

Post by lotsoweiners »

tshaddox wrote: post #421
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…

> Another thing while I’m at it - how much does your car, insurance, gas, maintenance, tires, and other things cost? How much money per month are you paying to pay for the roads and highways? Not to mention the driver’s costs are artificially reduced because they benefits from externalities that are distributed across everyone, particularly pollution and climate change. Driving would be a tad more expensive if you ha…

Even better would be if office workers whose jobs can be done from home could fill out paperwork to pass along that carbon sequestration to their employer when they are required to come into the office. Why let the companies that are responsible for all of the transport and traffic off the hook?

Re: New York City will charge drivers going downtown

#450

Post by Spooky23 »

Jolter wrote: post #250
Spooky23 wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s going to kill the city. It’s just going to push businesses out at a bad time. This doesn’t have anything to do with traffic - it’s a way to try to extract more money for the MTA. Money won’t fix the MTA’s money woes; the unions will just slurp any available cash.

I suppose you have a better idea for financing the investments, instead of congestion tax?

Few ideas:

Structure the fares to charge a premium for low volume riders. Work two days a week? Pay for 5.

Collect fares.

Raise bridge tolls.

Drop construction cost drivers. Change liability laws, reduce MWBE requirements, mandated staffing levels, etc.

There’s lots of potential areas. Just politically expensive to do.

Post reply on HN