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

141–150 of 228 posts

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

#141

Post by starspangled »

jonathan_landy wrote: post #73
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

Everybody likes to drive. It's far more private, personal, and free than even the best public transport, which is why a country like Japan with some of the best public transport on earth has a car ownership rate of 1 per household, and even in Tokyo it's 33% of households, with a large taxi industry.

It astounds me that so many on the left seem to be converging on the opinion that it should be a goal to reduce, eliminate, tax private transportation for the common person.

Public transport is great and should be improved or encouraged, and road area usage should be as efficient as possible. But private transportation should be made cheaper and more convenient and accessible to as many people as possible. That is a great way to improve quality of life and expand opportunities for people.

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

#142

Post by smcin »

smcin wrote: post #124
vlovich123 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is kind of like an argument-by-consequences since SF funding for transit and roads has viability problems due to SF's comparatively low residential density, as the funding from Covid, federal and then CA state emergency funding that replaced those disappear in 2025. This will cause big service reductions in SF MUNI [0], BART and Caltrain, starting this year. And it wasn't about "the will of the Outer Sunset" [1]…

One extreme approach to that would be to pick some line in western SF neighborhoods, close all roads west of it, declare everything west of that a park, and reroute Highway 1 slightly eastwards. And compensate people affected by the change.

Or close that to regular car traffic but keep SF Muni buses and trams and maybe high-occupancy taxis/ shuttles/ rideshares.

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

#143

Post by CuriousCosmic »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #122
wongarsu wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In any city that isn't hopelessly car-dependent there is some kind of rail to bring in commuters. A subway, tram, light rail, passenger rail, often a combination of all of them. Once you have a stable system to bring in commuters, adding a couple parking lots to stops on the outskirts for "out of towners" is pretty easy. The rest is just about not removing all the streets. You also need enough roads for emergency veh…

One-lane road in a city means any car can block the whole road. So if an ambulance needs this road to save you, you're out of luck.

Just because a street is one way does not mean it is so narrow that only one vehicle can fit through.

Streets may be one way because it discourages unnecessary automotive traffic and it allows the rest of the space to be dedicated to bicyclist or use for residential and commercial purposes (outdoor seating, space for games, etc).

So even if the streets are one way, there will often be space for the ambulance to maneuver around blocked vehicles. And if there's not, the ambulance can take another street or road. If it's the only route that can access that location, then with any sane amount of urban planning then the ambulance will be within a short walking distance to the location (and more often than not within eyesight).

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

#144

Post by redox99 »

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…

This line of thought is pretty silly. Claiming that the city is subsidizing X billions because some public space is free.

The land there is so valuable because it's desirable. Sure, NYC could sell central park for a bazillion dollars. But the land there is so expensive because central park exists. If it were sold and became buildings, the price of sq ft in Manhattan would massively drop.

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

#145

Post by digdugdirk »

steele wrote: post #129
Qwertious wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abolish free parking, and raise prices on the parking meter until the parking spots are only ~80% occupied (if they're less than 80% occupied, lower the price). If there's not enough parking, let the market fix that problem - if private parking lots are profitable use of land, then people will build them. But people will never be satisfied with private parking lots if they could have used free public parking instead…

Any other innovative ways to disproportionately tax the wage class?

Sure - create urban and suburban environments where a car is a necessity for daily function. Financing, insurance, maintenance, repairs, fuel...

Cars aren't cheap. Reducing the overall space devoted to them and utilizing that space for useful purposes would be a net benefit. Providing public transport services with that increased revenue would leave the vast majority better off financially, not to mention the quality of life improvements.

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

#146

Post by pclmulqdq »

wk_end wrote: post #125
pclmulqdq wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$500M/year was the magical thinking that applies any time the NY government wants to create a tax. The revenue projected is always huge so they can spend big somewhere else while pretending to be revenue neutral. The soda tax had the same ridiculous overestimation.

If I’m reading OP’s math correctly, you’ve got it backwards. They’re saying NYC should be in practice making significantly more than $500M/yr.

OP's math doesn't account for the fact that a small fraction of trips into the city are personal vehicles, and many more are cabs/rideshare cars (which pay differently) and trucks making deliveries (which may be exempt).

In any case, there is also going to be widespread toll fraud here just like with every other toll in NYC.

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

#147

Post by wat10000 »

fooker wrote: post #136
wat10000 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funny how you don’t see articles about people dying in fires because they live on a suburb that’s 10% as dense as it should be and so the fire station is 3x farther away than it should be. No real surprise, though. People love stories where you can point to a few people and say, they’re the ones who did this. It’s much less fun when it’s systemic and no one person or group can be blamed.

As a rule of thumb, you can't design anything trying to account for black swan events. Optimizing for the regular, daily use case is hard enough. It would help to think of this as a smart but random person reading about a security issue like spectre and offering you software design advice. Common sense arguments are only useful to an extent, the devil is in the details.

I’m not sure how to apply this here. What does optimizing for regular daily use and not black swan events look like when it comes to fire and ambulance services? It seems to me that black swans are a major purpose for them. That’s why the local fire station tends to have a lot of time where the firefighters are sitting around, and why simple calls often get 3x more response than they need. The services are greatly overprovisioned for daily needs because they also exist for the times when an entire apartment building burns down, or some maniac bombs the subway.

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

#148

Post by redserk »

dottjt wrote: post #40

I 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 think this policy is only feasible in cities with decent public transportation. I’d struggle to list any more than 1-2 other American cities where this could be done though.

A lot of cities that do have public transportation seem to have extremely frustrating (i.e. multiple transfers) gaps if you aren’t using the system to-and-from work.

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

#149

Post by chabska »

etchalon wrote: post #17

"We made something more expensive to do and you'll never believe that fewer people did it!"

It needs to be said, since there is such a big vocal group of people that are outright denying economic laws. Regarding rent control, minimum wage, price control etc.

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

#150

Post by steele »

wat10000 wrote: post #133
steele wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any other innovative ways to disproportionately tax the wage class?

Charging money for services is “innovative”? I know the hacker set likes to reinvent other industries and call it new, but this is rather extreme.

Just say you're a landlord
Post reply on HN