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

111–120 of 735 posts

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#111

Post by fundaThree »

listenallyall wrote: post #107
fundaThree wrote: post #90

I thought Hochul ratfucked this initiative for no apparent reason. What was the reason she gave for not ratfucking it a second time?

This guy is so cool, he uses the word "ratfucked"! Twice! Not just "fucked", but "ratfucked". Of course, congestion pricing was in fact implemented and remains in effect, so maybe not entirely "ratfucked"? Guess I'm not cool enough to understand. And because of his choice of words, people who are unfamiliar with this project don't even know what action(s) Kathy Hochul actually took that was/were detrimental.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratfucking

I honestly have no clue what beef you have with me, or if you even disagree, but thanks for calling me cool.

> What was the reason she gave for not ratfucking it a second time?

Still waiting on an answer that it seems you might be capable of providing rather than acting like a dick

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#112

Post by [deleted] »

jcranmer wrote: post #104
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…

Were that delivery driver using a car instead of a bike, then your wife would likely be dead instead of in the ER. (At least in the US, having a driver's license is in no way, shape, or form an indication that the driver is capable of driving correctly, much less their willingness to do so.)

[deleted]

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#113

Post by njarboe »

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.

Go one step further and ban mechanized transport all together. Streets will have very little congestion. We can just go back to footpaths.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#114

Post by Demiurge »

listenallyall wrote: post #107
fundaThree wrote: post #90

I thought Hochul ratfucked this initiative for no apparent reason. What was the reason she gave for not ratfucking it a second time?

This guy is so cool, he uses the word "ratfucked"! Twice! Not just "fucked", but "ratfucked". Of course, congestion pricing was in fact implemented and remains in effect, so maybe not entirely "ratfucked"? Guess I'm not cool enough to understand. And because of his choice of words, people who are unfamiliar with this project don't even know what action(s) Kathy Hochul actually took that was/were detrimental.

Perhaps it's a social sign for being one of the NYC local. They also referred to a person by a single name, further emphasizing they were speaking to the select few who would know what they were talking about.

If only they could also write with a heavy NYC accent, their comment would be even cooler. Forget about it.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#115

Post by crote »

SoftTalker wrote: post #86
neves wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It works really well in quite a few other cities, actually.

Car infrastructure takes up a huge amount of space and is incredibly hostile to any kind of mixed use. Having near-zero cars means there is suddenly space available for an order of magnitude more pedestrians. It's why reducing car traffic almost always results in a significant increase in revenue for local shops and restaurants - which means more taxes are being paid.

Converting all of NYC into a huge pedestrian-only zone obviously isn't going to work, but having a few pedestrianized superblocks could greatly improve the quality-of-life.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#116

Post by burkaman »

fundaThree wrote: post #102
burkaman wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She delayed it by 6 months because she thought it would hurt some candidates in House elections, and then she reduced the fee by a significant amount when it did go into effect in January, but it's still working incredibly well.

> She delayed it by 6 months because she thought it would hurt some candidates in House elections Did she think that New Jersey residents vote for New York candidates? Do you have a link to the narrative?

I don't think it made sense either, especially because cutting the congestion pricing revenue last-second meant she had to start talking about raising taxes on the entire state instead, but that is the consensus on what she was thinking.

Here's an article about it, she hasn't admitted the election considerations so we can't know for sure: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/09/nyregion/hochul-congestio...

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#117

Post by fundaThree »

Demiurge wrote: post #114
listenallyall wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This guy is so cool, he uses the word "ratfucked"! Twice! Not just "fucked", but "ratfucked". Of course, congestion pricing was in fact implemented and remains in effect, so maybe not entirely "ratfucked"? Guess I'm not cool enough to understand. And because of his choice of words, people who are unfamiliar with this project don't even know what action(s) Kathy Hochul actually took that was/were detrimental.

Perhaps it's a social sign for being one of the NYC local. They also referred to a person by a single name, further emphasizing they were speaking to the select few who would know what they were talking about. If only they could also write with a heavy NYC accent, their comment would be even cooler. Forget about it.

I live in DC

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#118

Post by KennyBlanken »

epistasis wrote: post #94
fundaThree wrote: post #90

I thought Hochul ratfucked this initiative for no apparent reason. What was the reason she gave for not ratfucking it a second time?

She delayed it by many months and lowered the fee, but eventually it went through. There was a theory that she wanted to delay it to win some contested seats in the November election, but that did not bear fruit. Now those voters still hate her, as do all the people that wanted congestion pricing. She was not well liked at the Democratic National Convention.

The reason she's not well liked is because she did absolutely nothing about probably one of the most corrupt mayors in the history of NYC.

The congestion charge is nowhere on the DNC's radar nationally. The mayor of the largest city in the country engaging in blatant quid pro quo with a president from another party, certainly is.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#119

Post by mvid »

RhysU wrote: post #103
Vinnl wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Yeah, just imagine. I did. For hours yesterday evening I imagined. Had a car killed my wife or unborn child, there would have been a legal trail and insurance. Had the e-bike killed my wife or unborn child, there was neither. I doubt I could ever find the killer of the unborn child if the baby died later due to injuries-- there's neither license nor registration on an e-bike. Pushing powered transportation into the u…

You would likely be unhappy if you saw the outcomes of almost all vehicle manslaughter cases. It’s the easiest way to kill someone and get away with it consequence free

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#120

Post by zuminator »

listenallyall wrote: post #101
jmyeet wrote: post #33

I was living in London when congestion pricing was introduced and went into the West End the day before and the first day of and the difference was night and day. The difference along Oxford Street, Regent's Street, Green Street, etc was astounding. And in the 20+ years the evidence seems to back up how much of a net positive it has been. NYC congestion pricing took way too long because the New York Democratic Party…

Why does the slippery slope concept surprise you? It actually happens often - banning smoking indoors, for example - started in just one city, once they tweaked the model and overcame the legal challenges, it spread rather quickly. Legalized casinos, same thing. Uber, drinking age, pot legalization, more. Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different? (Idaho's Sun Valley probably already implements somethin…

The argument that because a few things have spread, things in general are likely to spread is itself a slippery slope argument.
Post reply on HN