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

Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 735 posts

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#81

Post by sc68cal »

stemlord wrote: post #69
aidenn0 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Wouldn't it be nice if policy changes were accompanied by an A/B testing plan to evaluate their impact? I have always thought so. I have also seen a major pitfall of A/B testing that real humans can hand-pick and slice data to make it sound as positive or negative as wanted. Nonetheless, the more data the better. Policies have different effects depending on how likely people judge them to be long-term changes. Cons…

please don't quote the entire comment you're replying to

sometimes people edit their post after the fact. It is important sometimes to quote it, to ensure that context is preserved

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#82

Post by miki123211 »

My problem with congestion pricing is that it still doesn't provide great incentives for cities to improve walkability and public transit.

"What do you mean our transit is bad, look, our ridership numbers are 3x higher than all our neighbors combined!" *Does not mention the fact that congestion pricing in neighboring cities is 3x lower.*

In the worst cases, it could even become a regressive tax of sorts. If your city has safe districts with good transit where rich people live, and unsafe districts with terrible transit where poor people live, congestion pricing will allow rich people to choose between the convenience of taking a car with no traffic jams versus the cheapness of transit, while forcing poor people to choose between a car they can't afford versus walking down a street where they may be assaulted.

It's even worse if you have rich people living in the city center where they work, and poor people who also work there living in towns much further away. Then, only the rich are able to vote on congestion pricing.

This probably doesn't apply to New York specifically (not an American, have never been), but it's definitely something to have in mind in general.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#83

Post by paddy_m »

ramesh31 wrote: post #28
philipallstar wrote: post #9

The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.

>The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people. Anecdotally that seems to be the case. The largest burden of this tax is falling on low income commuters who live off the train lines and have to drive into Manhattan, yet all of the money is going to... the train lines (MTA). Understandably they're not too happy.

Those people simply don't drive into Manhattan, parking is already $30-$40 a day, driving from Jersey means you are already paying at least a $15 toll (you can drive from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx without paying a toll). An extra $9 simply doesn't matter.

Already 85% of commuters to lower Manhattan take public transit. Of the remaining 15%. An analysis found that only 2% of working poor New Yorkers would pay the charge. Otherwise low income New Yorkers would overwhelmingly benefit from the better transit funding

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/eric-goldstein/busting-myths-new-yo...

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#84

Post by marinmania »

neves wrote: post #78
HonestOp001 wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The converse is how helpful cars are. It allows people to have the ability commute from areas they live at to where they work. It brings down the cost of living by expanding the commute availability circle, instead of driving up land values for the desirable areas.

The dispute isn't between walking and cars, or between stone age and modernity. Just that individual cars have a terrible externalities. Impressive how public transport does not enter the mind of Americans.

I feel like its often people talking past each other.

I currently live in NYC and am very congestion pricing. Cars are a major negative to most people in the city.

But I have also lived in rural parts of America. Yes, it is annoying you can't walk to a corner store, but cars are not that big of a deal. You can bike or run in the streets without concern that cars will come by. And housing is so cheap it makes it so worth it.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#85

Post by perching_aix »

nurettin wrote: post #79
toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Great comment from that video: "When cars were banned from Central Park drivers whined and now we can't imagine it any other way." Everything is impossible until it is done.

It is fun to observe everything come to an equilibrium with positive outcomes until someone lights the atmosphere on fire.

Getting a bit lost in the metaphor, could you clarify?

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#86

Post by SoftTalker »

neves wrote: post #40
philipallstar wrote: post #9

The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.

The best decision would be to completely forbid individual transport. Now the common space dedicated to streets is for who can pay extra. Forbid individual transport and create some parks and pedestrian streets.

Extremes rarely work out well. The people paying for the luxury are funding improvements for everyone.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#87

Post by Analemma_ »

miki123211 wrote: post #82

My problem with congestion pricing is that it still doesn't provide great incentives for cities to improve walkability and public transit. "What do you mean our transit is bad, look, our ridership numbers are 3x higher than all our neighbors combined!" *Does not mention the fact that congestion pricing in neighboring cities is 3x lower.* In the worst cases, it could even become a regressive tax of sorts. If your city…

Did any of these things happen in the other cities which have had congestion pricing for years?

Speculation based on incentives is all fine and good, but empirical results beat it every time.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#88

Post by SoftTalker »

Vinnl wrote: post #80
RhysU wrote: post #57

Congestion isn't limited to cars. My pregnant wife was hit yesterday in SoHo in broad daylight by a delivery driver on an e-bike. He ran a redlight. He hit her in a crosswalk. She was wearing a bright orange dress. She was not on a phone or listening to music. She went flying ass over teakettle. We spent 6 hours in the ER yesterday evening to make sure our unborn baby was okay. Fortunately, everyone is OK despite her…

Oof, that sucks. Glad that delivery driver wasn't in a car though! Could've ended much worse.

Anything could be worse. Doesn't mean it's an excuse for bad behavior.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#89

Post by SoftTalker »

horv wrote: post #62
maerF0x0 wrote: post #7

Not to settle on "It's bad" but their so called "results" seems completely obvious. The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some. We already know that we can use policy to push people away from their preferred to a less preferred method. The items listed in green are mostly obvious as people seek alternatives. It's like high…

> In the long run, yes, maybe things will be net better for all, when the $45M per year has had a chance to make alternative transportation methods to be not just policy enforced, but truly _preferred_ option. The article highlights that was $45 million in the month of March alone: "In March, the tolls raised $45 million in net revenue, putting the program on track to generate roughly $500 million in its first year."

It's sort of weird, because taken to its logical conclusion (nobody drives into lower Manhattan) they would be collecting nothing. They are disincentivizing the thing that they are counting on to provide revenue.

Of course, practically that will not happen, but it could be that they are overestimating the long term revenue stream. As more and more people get used to not driving into downtown, that will become the habit, and then their kids won't be used to it and they won't do it either.

Post reply on HN