Changes since congestion pricing started in New York • Hacker News Board

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#131

Post by oceanplexian » Wed, May 14, 2025, 10:29 PM UTC

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.

If public transit even remotely resembled anything in China or Japan, Americans would ditch their cars in a heartbeat. But every train ride I've been on to Manhattan is like commuting through an open sewer while being harassed by strangers doing an obnoxious dance with a bluetooth speaker in my face, dodging puddles of urine, and wondering if today's the day I'll be thrown off the platform.

Of course people would rather commute in a gas guzzling SUV. I don't even know how it's controversial. It must be a form of Stockholm syndrome to think that this would be attractive to any normally adjusted human being.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#132

Post by lesuorac » Wed, May 14, 2025, 10:29 PM UTC

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…

I think the slippery slope has long happened and also gone away.

There are a ton of roads with "turnpike" or "pike" in their name. Some cost money [1] others are free. What's the big difference between NYC's congestion pricing and the Florida Pike?

I guess you can fight congestion pricing in order to slow the spread of toll roads but it's not the beginning of a slipper slope. Usage fees are a very old concept (price discrimination by time is pretty old as well).

[1]: https://floridasturnpike.com/system-maps/

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#133

Post by czzr » Wed, May 14, 2025, 10:31 PM UTC

listenallyall wrote: post #105

aclatuts wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The real world isn't A/B tests. No government is going to spend millions on equipment and infrastructure on a congestion zone because some engineers are like "Let's just test this out. I have done zero research on what could possibly happen, but it would be fun to see what the results are."

When you write it out like that, it seems to make total sense! But then you read grant proposals that get funded - in things like the social sciences and humanities, and even conventional science and health - millions of dollars essentially just throwing darts to see what sticks.

Surely you see the difference between working in a development environment and working in production?

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#134

Post by singleshot_ » Wed, May 14, 2025, 10:31 PM UTC

Demiurge wrote: post #121

fundaThree wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I live in DC

That's interesting. It must be that I associate rats with NYC. You used some terms that not everyone is familair with, I jump to the wrong conclusion, taking some guesses as to what you're talking about, and here we are.

ratfucking as a term in political context was dramatically popularized by the movie All the President’s Men, where a (historical) character describes his covert political actions thusly.

Accordingly, it’s a dc

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#135

Post by gotoeleven » Wed, May 14, 2025, 10:32 PM UTC

It's nice that all those numbers are up, but it would be great also to see some metrics that attempted to measure the overall utility of the change. Something like avg time spent commuting, or really commute_time * dollars_spent_commuting^B where B is some parameter for the relative utility of time and money. Of course B is different for everyone but something like this could be attempted.

Stated another way, if they made congestion pricing $1000 instead of $15 or whatever it is, all those numbers mentioned in the article would go way way up and it would look like a smashing success. The article doesn't make any attempt to measure anything that could potentially be a downside.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#136

Post by timewizard » Wed, May 14, 2025, 10:33 PM UTC

lokar wrote: post #13

bryanlarsen wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And the investments in public transit and bike paths are excellent for those who can't. Such unalloyed win-wins are hard to find.

I lived in Manhattan, and was very well paid. I did not own a car, and loved it. This would have been great for me as well.

Did you have children or did you live alone?

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#137

Post by epistasis » Wed, May 14, 2025, 10:40 PM UTC

timewizard wrote: post #136

lokar wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived in Manhattan, and was very well paid. I did not own a car, and loved it. This would have been great for me as well.

Did you have children or did you live alone?

As someone with children, I can not imagine the bliss of living in Manhattan and being able to do things without needing a car.

Car-centric urban planning is hell with kids. You have to load them up into the car for any small trip. You can't walk or bike anywhere because cars make it so dangerous.

My only regret about living in the US is this car hellscape that is so hard to avoid. It's mandated by law, not chosen by the market.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#138

Post by Symbiote » Wed, May 14, 2025, 10:43 PM UTC

listenallyall wrote: post #126

woodruffw wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These would be examples of normalization, not a slippery slope. The OP's example makes this clear (from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car," not "congestion pricing in NYC" to "congestion pricing elsewhere"). (Regardless, I think the answer is simple: congestion pricing is only economically viable when an area is simultaneously congested and has alternative transportation methods that would…

Numerous politicians and advocates have suggested exempting electric vehicles from the NYC congestion pricing. Such vehicles are exempt in London. It isnt unusual for governments to start a program with one goal or purpose, then expand it (or use as a launching point) to achieve further goals, such as banning ICE vehicles. This is currently happening with cigarettes. Banning them at workplaces and other public places…

Note that from 2026, electric vehicles will no longer be exempt from the London congestion charge.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#139

Post by mikeyouse » Wed, May 14, 2025, 10:47 PM UTC

SoftTalker wrote: post #89

horv wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 hab…

The cool thing about pricing is you can make the pricing variable to achieve whatever ends you want… if you’re desperate for more cars for some reason you can just lower the cost and the ‘market’ will respond. You can have lower costs in the afternoon or at night, or no cost on weekends.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#140

Post by ackfoobar » Wed, May 14, 2025, 10:47 PM UTC

gjsman-1000 wrote: post #125

listenallyall wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different? The answer is actually quite simple: It won't be different. Prove to me it won't spread, because almost every new tax spreads. When is the last time a tax has existed in one state, and not spread to other states within 5 years?

I'm generally sympathetic to arguments that are "we will fall down the slippery slope." But as someone who has spent too much time stuck in traffic, I WANT congestion pricing to spread. It's just basic economics that people end up paying for a "free" resource with time - grossly inefficient.