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

151–160 of 228 posts

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

#151

Post by HDThoreaun »

nine_k wrote: post #106
HDThoreaun wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You have Manhattan traffic death numbers?

Yes. They are basically zero: https://www.nyc.gov/site/nypd/stats/traffic-data/traffic-fat... Citywide car fatalities were like 12 / year. Subway fatalities, from crime or otherwise, seem too rare to have actual stats; I found only one article saying about a fatal attack in March 2024, and none for prior years. In general, crime on the subway seems rather low, though apparently growing: https://www.vitalcitynyc.org/a…

At the end of the day this is a political problem. People care more about feeling safe than actually being safe. Random acts of violence make people feel extremely unsafe in a war that car accidents just don’t.

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

#152

Post by pclmulqdq »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #111
pclmulqdq wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cities have had roads long before there were cars. So many people like to pretend that before "car culture" there were no roads in cities or that before cars there were no big roads. There were huge roads in cities in the 1800s to accommodate carriages, streetcars, and all the extra people on the road because a 5 minute trip by car takes 20 minutes on foot. Cities in 1000 AD had roads, and a lot of them were pretty d…

Cars need a disproportionate amount of space for the number of people that they serve compared to every other means of transport. Bicycles, e-scooters, buses, etc serve many more people per square foot compared to mostly empty cars.

You can certainly pack more bicycles/e-scooters per square mile, but they also move a lot slower. Not to mention cargo capacity of trucks vs. things like e-scooters. Buses and trains also don't go everywhere. If you banned cars and expanded bus routes to compensate, you would get much less utilization of space for your buses. In other words, buses are dense because other modes of transport allow you to only put a bus route on very common paths.

The point still stands, though. The roads that they are complaining about were largely planned and built before cars. Downtown SF had roads that were very similar in size in 1900 as they are in 2025. The roads didn't magically get wider when cars came in. If they weren't a waste of space with no cars, they aren't magically a waste of space now.

Many other cities that were built up much later have huge parking lots in their city centers, which are a massive waste of space. Roads, on the other hand, are not.

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

#153

Post by BenFranklin100 »

whatever1 wrote: post #30
BenFranklin100 wrote: post #24

Earlier 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.

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.

You paid far less. The top half of American pay almost 98% of federal taxes. The top 10% pay nearly three quarters. The American tax system is very progressive.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/tax-irs-income-taxes-who-pays-t...

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

#154

Post by undersuit »

starspangled wrote: post #141
jonathan_landy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, elimi…

I hate driving but every time I get on my bicycle I remember how fun it is... until a car starts driving behind me impatient to get somewhere a few seconds faster. I can bike to many places in my town faster than the drivers can drive if I put some effort into pedaling.

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

#155

Post by dottjt »

lostdog wrote: post #137
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.

A $9 congestion charge is probably a huge help to you. For just $9 per visit, you get much lower traffic and easier parking. Your very high priority trip is easier because lots of lower priority trips either didn't happen, or used transit instead.

Not if you're poor. $9 daily would be quite a lot for poor people, especially since radiation is daily. Furthermore you often have no choice but to use paid hospital parking due to mobility issues, as opposed to cheaper parking near the hospital.

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

#156

Post by starspangled »

Daishiman wrote: post #90
jonathan_landy wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a non-informational take which is just ahistorical, as evidenced by the fact that just 30 years a lot of European cities were very much car-centric and were much more awful by pretty much every metric than they are today.

About one in every two households in Amsterdam own a car. I would bet many that don't use taxi services themselves now and again, and almost everybody would indirectly rely on roads used for deliveries, workmen, emergency services. And that's about the best case for a European city. It's comparable to New York City.

Paris, London, Prague -- higher.

The reality is that these romantic notions people have of cities not relying on cars or roads is an unrealistic fantasy. Yes it's certainly nice if you have good public transport that many people can use for most of their transport. The reality is though that even in the very best cases of those like Amsterdam and Tokyo, personal car ownership rates are still enormous, and the cities would cease to function without small private vehicles for commercial operations, let alone removing the roads for garbage collections, busses, emergency vehicles, etc.

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

#157

Post by dottjt »

redserk wrote: post #148
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.

Again, public transport is usually not feasible if you have a severe medical condition.

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

#158

Post by starspangled »

undersuit wrote: post #154
starspangled wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, elimi…

I hate driving but every time I get on my bicycle I remember how fun it is... until a car starts driving behind me impatient to get somewhere a few seconds faster. I can bike to many places in my town faster than the drivers can drive if I put some effort into pedaling.

I don't mean everybody likes the act of driving, I mean everybody likes what driving [a private vehicle] can do for them. I didn't mean even that in the absolute literal sense either, but anecdotes from people who don't have a car or get driven by friends and never take taxis or uber anywhere would be interesting and will probably help us to understand why virtually everybody likes driving.

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

#159

Post by steele »

digdugdirk wrote: post #145
steele wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't disagree with the objective you describe, but I disagree with the Jonathan Swift-esque idea of abolishing free parking and increasing meters. That would increase the burden on the already-burdened and only nominally affect cost of convenience to the wealthy. I suppose everyone can tip their wait staff by letting them use their residential parking spot-- because without that pre-existing transportation infrastructure, employer provided transport/parking, affordable cost of living, and a living wage for all, I'm not sure how people are getting to work in dense urban areas. Although I love the idea of abandoned luxury vehicles lining the streets with boots on their wheels-- like a broken window theory for late stage capitalism.

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

#160

Post by asdasdsddd »

redox99 wrote: post #144
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.

Except in downtown SF there are dozens of giant empty lots, some are just abandoned, some are flat lots used for 6hrs a week for event parking.
Post reply on HN