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

43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on

gothamist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 228 posts

Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on

#71

Post by whatever1 »

bdzr wrote: post #54
whatever1 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not lottery my dude (based on dob, license plate, whatever) ? Didn’t I equally pay for the infrastructure? I would argue that I paid even more than the millionaires, because I cannnot cheat on my taxes.

Oh god. Didn't they try to do something like this in Mexico City and it resulted in no change? Clever policy is always rife with unintended consequences; prices are good.

This is how China and most Europe does it for their big cities. Identical effectiveness minus the regressivity for the poor.

If the city wants to buy more buses they can always send higher tax bills to their residents

Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on

#72

Post by jon_richards »

nine_k wrote: post #25
jefftk wrote: post #8

When 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…

I think B39 is a good example of an improvement most affected by the congestion pricing. It's a very short route, with very few stops, and the principal part of the route being the Williamsburg bridge. The rest of both Brooklyn and Manhattan traffic affects it rather little. I think that "cherry-picking" is when you find outliers and show them off pretending they are typical examples. What I would call this is maybe…

I’d say a cherry picked example is backed by random chance (possibly counter to the trend) while a poster child example has an explanation (not necessarily correct) for being the most sensitive to the variable being changed.

Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on

#73

Post by jonathan_landy »

jmward01 wrote: post #38

Roads 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…

I like to drive. Edit: see also this pro-car, pro-toll note by Bryan Caplan.

https://www.betonit.ai/p/cars-could-be-even-more-convenient

Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on

#76

Post by ekianjo »

jmward01 wrote: post #38

Roads 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…

Downtown only exists in the first place because roads go there. You know the old saying? All roads lead to Rome. Cities concentrate people and need a lot of resources to be sustainable, and roads are what bring these resources.

Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on

#77

Post by modeless »

jmward01 wrote: post #38

Roads 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…

Roads are useful, but what I really think we should get rid of is parking lots. When cars can drive themselves we should build over all the lots and knock down the garages. The cars can spend the day on the road and the night parked outside the city. There should be zero parked inside the city.

Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on

#78

Post by mensetmanusman »

jmward01 wrote: post #19
knowitnone wrote: post #3

[flagged]

They can have it. I'd rather amazing transit oriented development and to enjoy the world on my feet than stuck in a box on an ugly road. Done right, cities designed for people are harder to get around by car even with a personal driver.

[flagged]

Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on

#79

Post by geogod42 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #56
jmward01 wrote: post #38

Roads 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…

You’re not incorrect per se, but it’s important to note that deliveries into downtown would be important for it to be a thriving destination for shopping, residential or business. Not to mention space for heavy equipment to come in to do repairs and construction. Minimal maintenance corridors may not be enough. You also need public transit options into it as well as transportation solutions for “out of towners” who d…

[dead]

Re: 43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on

#80

Post by mensetmanusman »

breadwinner wrote: post #37
redandblack wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this is totally true - subsidizing the rich by the poor I always thought congestion pricing was always mis-priced, and it should be tied to income/wealth. The only way to do this is to let the poor apply and get free electronic tokens and get that missing 43k back. fyi - my MD can easily manage a 10x the mid-town tolls

Should everything be tied to income/wealth? Taxes and college tuition are already tied to income/wealth. Why not food, housing, travel, clothes, healthcare, even drinking water? At that point wealth will stop to have any meaning.

Yes, e ink displays in the super market following you around with prices dependent on how many bitcoins in your cold wallet.
Post reply on HN