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

151–160 of 735 posts

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#151

Post by zzzbra »

graeme wrote: post #147
potato3732842 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This is precisely the reasoning I bring up. In essence traffic congestion is an externality not unlike pollution. What society now pays in the form of a financial levy it formerly paid in the form of a wasted time. We've made explicit a cost that was already there, and by doing so the system can respond to it and behave more intelligently.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#152

Post by daedrdev »

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.

we still need roads for ambulances and deliveries and bikes and shared cars / busses, and there obviously would be enormous costs to peoples time for what already is one of the biggest cities in the world.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#153

Post by blackguardx »

ars wrote: post #124
neves wrote: post #36

Impressive how cars are harmful to society. This is just a small example. We should be more radical in preventing the use of individual automobiles. If it works in a country where the auto is so ingrained in the culture and lifestyle, it can work anywhere.

Cars are only harmful in dense cities. They work just fine everywhere else. For example in small cities kids can play in the road without fear of cars. It's only in dense cities where they can not. Dense cities are also the only places where public transit works, so it kind of balances out. > This is just a small example. New York city is a small example? New York city is the largest city in the US, and pretty much t…

I live in a low density city and my neighbors are constantly complaining about how fast cars speed by and how it makes it unsafe for their kids.

Dense cities are too congested for speeds to get that high. As an example, I felt safer biking in downtown San Francisco than I do on the country roads near me because people are constantly speeding and on their phones.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#154

Post by dcre »

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…

I’m impressed. This is one of the strangest opinions I’ve ever seen. What is special about “at use”? Presumably because it lets you avoid the question of whether everyone should get a free car. Does a monthly car payment count as “at use”? Why not if a monthly transit pass does?

The other replies point out that different forms of transit compete with each other, so the more cars we have, the fewer bikes and trains.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#155

Post by potato3732842 »

paddy_m wrote: post #83
ramesh31 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 th…

While I am sympathetic to the general gist of the "poors aren't the subject of this tax" argument but the change in denominator "85% in this zone" to "2% of the city's working poor" is obvious and it's kind of concerning that with the huge efforts that went into quantifying this they couldn't come up with something more precise.

It's not like NYC doesn't have cameras everywhere and couldn't probably figure it pretty easily in an afternoon by crossing the ALPR DB with the tax DB (after spending 48mo of political wrangling to allow that to happen).

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#156

Post by daedrdev »

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…

No, people always value convenience, all you need is those money to value the convenience of driving in more than the price of the toll.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#157

Post by tonymet »

sc68cal wrote: post #21
explodes wrote: post #4

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.

We already had A/B testing of congestion pricing. The A test was without congestion pricing in NYC, and has been tested for decades.

you haven't described the observations or the sample

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#158

Post by potato3732842 »

dcre wrote: post #154
potato3732842 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m impressed. This is one of the strangest opinions I’ve ever seen. What is special about “at use”? Presumably because it lets you avoid the question of whether everyone should get a free car. Does a monthly car payment count as “at use”? Why not if a monthly transit pass does? The other replies point out that different forms of transit compete with each other, so the more cars we have, the fewer bikes and trains.

Because once an investment has been made in a car and roads or in a train line or whatever there should be no artificial distinctive for people to use it as they deem appropriate.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#159

Post by grugagag »

epistasis wrote: post #137
timewizard wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Having a dinky appartment that is still expensive is not worth it unless you’re young and don’t have kids and want to be around everything you care about. Or you’re rich and don’t mind paying a fortune to live in a nicer appartment in Manhattan. If I had the money I would still prefer something outside Manhattan just to be able to avoid the noise pollution, the crowds and all that Manhattan commotion.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#160

Post by donohoe »

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 live in Brooklyn with kids and do not have a car. Equally possible in Manhattan - have car-less friends with kids there too.

Just saying it is possible, and certainly not everyone’s choice.

Post reply on HN