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

141–150 of 735 posts

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#141

Post by potato3732842 »

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…

I'm fundamentally against any measure that intentionally increases the cost at use of any form of transportation service whatsoever. Public transit? Free. Gas tax? Kill it.

I grew up on a goddamn island, I've seen what an inability for people to travel easily or when the cost of doing so has to be seriously weighed does to an economy and it's not good for anyone or anything except a very select lucky few who are well positioned to take advantage.

While the NY government can probably extract this rent from this area without damaging anything serious but it is not something that should be allowed to proliferate.

INB4 environment/pollution, the richer we all are the better custodians we will be of the environment. Nobody cares if their energy is clean when they can barely make ends meet.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#142

Post by highpost »

fundaThree wrote: post #111
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.

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

My guess is that she lacks the essential political skill of reading the room. It's not like NYC is the first city to attempt congestion pricing. Anyone who has spent any time in London can see its benefits. So I think Hochul had her political focus on the wrong things.

It took a lot of time and effort to bring the stakeholders together for congestion pricing. And to withhold her approval at the last moment was shocking. It's hard to imagine what she was really thinking and even harder to understand how she felt she would be rewarded for it. That's not a real answer to your question, but her reasoning on both congestion pricing and Eric Adams just seems opaque.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#143

Post by vkou »

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…

The perpetrators of most vehicular homicides face little to no consequences.

You'd have to be an utter asshole (like a kid totaling three cars in a year, all going 70-100+ mph on urban streets), or the world's dumbest criminal (motorcyclist out on parole running a red, killing a pedestrian, fleeing the scene, and ditching the motorcycle in a field) for killing someone with a car to be more than a 'whoopsie daisies, at least nobody important got hurt'.

In my town, just last year, a cop running down a young woman when she had right of way in a crosswalk, while doing 74 mph in a 25 mph zone at night, with no sirens, got a $5,000 fine for it.

That's how much the life of a grad student is worth.

---

Look, I'm all for traffic enforcement, but anyone who thinks that bikes are the big problem on the road is nuts.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#144

Post by zahlman »

digbybk wrote: post #44
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.

Also excellent for those public transport riders who can't afford car ownership.

(Or who would prefer to spend the money elsewhere.)

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#145

Post by mikeyouse »

jacksnipe wrote: post #38
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…

There are plenty of places where consumption taxes DON’T have a strong effect, like vice taxes on tobacco and alcohol. It’s absolutely worth actually testing it.

Vice taxes on tobacco have an incredibly strong direct effect.. especially on preventing youths from starting to smoke and on poor people continuing to smoke…. It’s something like a 7% reduction in the number of youth smokers for every 10% increase in price.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#146

Post by andrepd »

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?

I'm already imagining what kind of arguments you are preparing. Kids are infinitely better off somewhere they can just bike places with their friends, compared to a car-centric hellhole: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHlpmxLTxpw

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#147

Post by graeme »

potato3732842 wrote: post #141
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…

I'm fundamentally against any measure that intentionally increases the cost at use of any form of transportation service whatsoever. Public transit? Free. Gas tax? Kill it. I grew up on a goddamn island, I've seen what an inability for people to travel easily or when the cost of doing so has to be seriously weighed does to an economy and it's not good for anyone or anything except a very select lucky few who are well…

Time is a cost though. You're looking only at monetary cost.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#148

Post by zzzbra »

potato3732842 wrote: post #141
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…

I'm fundamentally against any measure that intentionally increases the cost at use of any form of transportation service whatsoever. Public transit? Free. Gas tax? Kill it. I grew up on a goddamn island, I've seen what an inability for people to travel easily or when the cost of doing so has to be seriously weighed does to an economy and it's not good for anyone or anything except a very select lucky few who are well…

This is a curious form of fundamentalism. "All motion is good, and damn any effort to coordinate it."

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#149

Post by andrepd »

potato3732842 wrote: post #141
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…

I'm fundamentally against any measure that intentionally increases the cost at use of any form of transportation service whatsoever. Public transit? Free. Gas tax? Kill it. I grew up on a goddamn island, I've seen what an inability for people to travel easily or when the cost of doing so has to be seriously weighed does to an economy and it's not good for anyone or anything except a very select lucky few who are well…

Excessive car use lowers mobility for EVERYONE. Restrictions to car use, lower speeds via traffic calming, removing car lanes and adding bike and bus lanes, all of this IMPROVES transportation times including for cars!
Post reply on HN