Comparing to previous Januarys seems dishonest given the vast number of layoffs that have occurred over the past year. Doesn't appear as though they're controlling for this number at all..
43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on
41–50 of 228 posts
Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on
#42Roads in cities are such a waste of space. A long time ago I did a quick survey of SF and found something like 20% of the land was dedicated to cars. Some articles from people here that talk about this [1] [2] [3]. That is the most subsidized land on the planet but people don't think of it that way. They think roads are free so any tax to use them is wrong. That space could be helping out the city in so many ways but…
[dead]
Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on
#43Roads in cities are such a waste of space. A long time ago I did a quick survey of SF and found something like 20% of the land was dedicated to cars. Some articles from people here that talk about this [1] [2] [3]. That is the most subsidized land on the planet but people don't think of it that way. They think roads are free so any tax to use them is wrong. That space could be helping out the city in so many ways but…
[dead]
Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on
#44Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment is a good example of the type of narrow minded progressive thinking that has held back good public policy like congestion pricing and carbon taxes. Both of these programs are criticized as being regressive. The criticism neglects to take into consideration the society wide benefits like more efficient bus travel or cleaner air that preferentially help the less well off.
I agree with your rebuttal in response to that other person's comment, but ultimately I do think those programs are regressive for the poor, at this very point in time. I guess the question becomes, should those poorest suffer for the betterment of all future generations? I would personally say no.
Give the poorest a discount for parking outside the congestion pricing area, and a discount for mass transit (if they haven't already applied for it).
The point of congestion pricing is to make the correct behavior also a better financial choice. Discounted transit ticket achieve the same goal.
Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on
#45This seems to be the goto method for most cities now. Got something that isn’t working anymore or the public needs more of it? Just start charging for it and make it a revenue source!
Internalizing externalities is good, actually.
Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on
#46Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on
#47When I see things like: > Bus speeds also increased after the tolls were turned on. The Manhattan-bound B39 bus, which crosses the Williamsburg Bridge, ran 28% faster compared to a similar January week last year. Other buses like the SIM24 and and the M50 saw increases in speeds, as well. I wonder how much cherry picking there is. Did they give the B39 because it's the most improved? Or for some other reason (especia…
Not sure if NYC would do the same stunt, but London saw an amazing improvement in traffic flow after congestion charge was introduced. Turned out for several months prior to it they'd been slowly shifting the timing of lights to make things less optimal, and then reverted the day congestion charge went live.
Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
This comment is a good example of the type of narrow minded progressive thinking that has held back good public policy like congestion pricing and carbon taxes. Both of these programs are criticized as being regressive. The criticism neglects to take into consideration the society wide benefits like more efficient bus travel or cleaner air that preferentially help the less well off.
I agree with your rebuttal in response to that other person's comment, but ultimately I do think those programs are regressive for the poor, at this very point in time. I guess the question becomes, should those poorest suffer for the betterment of all future generations? I would personally say no.
Thank you for letting me clarify my point with two examples of how these seemingly regressive policies ultimately help the poorer among us: 1. carbon taxes will improve poor air quality which currently impacts the poor more than the wealthy who can afford to live in cleaner areas. The poor will enjoy significant health benefits that far outweighs the small regressive tax they pay know. 2. A Congestion pricing stands to dramatically improve mass transit options like buses, which the working class rely on far more than the wealthy to get to work on time and will even expand the job options they have available to them.
Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on
#49I think an issue with this kind of policy (not necessarily in Manhattan) but in other cities is that often there is no alternative other than to drive to the city. For example, my partner needs radiation for her cancer and the hospital is located in the city. There is no other option than to drive. I feel like this type of policy negatively affects people in this situation, with no other alternative.
I'm sorry to hear your partner needs cancer treatment. But also, you can still use the roads.
Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on
#50[flagged]
Driving in lower Manhattan should be a rich person only thing. The externalities are massive and they can pay it.