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

161–170 of 735 posts

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#161

Post by potato3732842 »

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.

Exactly. The janitor has every right to sit in gridlock beside the CEO. If either doesn't like it they can adjust things but realistically the CEO's got the most ability and incentive to do so.

These artificial price distortions wind up most benefiting the people who were in the best position to alter their behavior.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#162

Post by weeksie »

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 Manhattan with a kid and I love not needing a car. I walk my daughter to school and I walk to work from there. It's great.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#163

Post by jmyeet »

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…

Gas taxes (partially) pay for the roads. Get rid of those and you've just decreased your tax base, which means you're going to have to pay for it from another tax. It's just shifting the tax burden. We can argue about what's a better tax policy, if a certain tax is progressive or regressive and so on but wherever the money comes, somebody needs to pay for the roads.

NYC is one of about 2 places in the US that actually has usable public transit, barring certain outer boroughs where car ownership dominates. It's largely a hub and spoke model though so it's good for going into and out of Manhattan but not so good for, say, getting from Red Hook to Flushing so driving will dominate that kind of travel.

But that's why congestion pricing is targeted at Lower Manhattan and can't really spread beyond it. Like see how far you get trying congestion pricing in Houston or Dallas, let alone Bakersfield, Boise or Lexington (KY).

Economic incentives work. They're probably most responsible for the drop in smoking. Congestion pricing consistently changes people's behavior and every metric shows it. Some bus lines in NYC now move nearly 30% faster.

I don't know what island you're talking about and what happened but will generally agree that people are struggling all over. It's well-known that real wages have largely been stagnant for 40-50 years.

But that's not a problem caused by gas taxes. It's caused by capitalism.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#164

Post by zahlman »

bunderbunder wrote: post #51
taeric wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, I think this is just definitional? If you would normally do one behavior, but an increased cost to it causes you to do something else; I think it is fair to say the first would be your preference? Now, if it was claimed as a superior method, that would be different. I could easily see it being people's preference as much from habit and availability as from any active preference. Certainly few people want…

Example of the "force of habit" factor: Every time my mom comes to visit us in the city, at some point she says she could never live here because she couldn't imagine having to drive in city traffic every day. And every time she does that, I remind her that her car hasn't moved even once since she first arrived a week ago. Mostly we walk everywhere. And every time she responds, "Oh, you're right. You know, that's bee…

>She's lived in suburban and rural areas her entire life. The idea that she simply has to get in a car to go anywhere is so ingrained into her psyche that even a solid week of not driving is insufficient to dislodge it.

I'm in a suburban area. When I was a child, I got driven everywhere - until I was old enough to take public transit by myself.

I'm about to walk ~3km (2mi) each way to a grocery store, something I do regularly. I save thousands of dollars annually like this. I could feed myself several times over with that money.

It will never stop being strange to me that people actually get that car-dependent mindset ingrained into them.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#165

Post by potato3732842 »

blackguardx wrote: post #153
ars wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Suburbanites baselessly complaining about traffic is like old men complaining about kids these days. I don't take it too seriously

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#166

Post by potato3732842 »

RhysU wrote: post #64
bryanlarsen wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In other forums there are lots of complaints about the NYC crackdown on e-bikes. NYC has taken steps to discourage their use. Maybe not enough, but definitely more than in most other parts of the country.

Stand on a corner in NYC and count the moving violations the e-bikes commit. Running lights and stops. Going the wrong way. Etc. These aren't subtle infractions of the law. Tell me why automated traffic enforcement cameras don't target them. As a motorcyclist, e-bikes piss me off to no end.

>These aren't subtle infractions of the law. Tell me why automated traffic enforcement cameras don't target them.

Lawyers have a saying about blood and stones. Government doesn't like to talk in those terms because they know it's bad optics but...

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#167

Post by zahlman »

w0m wrote: post #31
shermantanktop wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How high would the tax have to be to get you to stop eating so much meat?

Think about it more; if the vegan and steak options were ~equivalently priced - more would choose vegan than if it wasn't more expensive. The idea isn't to make it prohibitive; insofaras don't make the most environmentally-expensive choice also the cheapest. To compare it to traffic; everyone is miserable sitting in traffic; so giving people an excuse for a bit more WFH is a WinWin.

> more would choose vegan than if it wasn't more expensive.

If?

Getting protein from vegan sources can already be done much more cheaply than getting it from steak, though the quality of the amino acid profile may be lower.

Getting protein from "the vegan option to a steak" - i.e. something marketed to be a direct substitute for a steak, with its vegan nature as an explicit selling point - is a different story.

I presume that, generally, people eat steak because they subjectively enjoy the experience of eating steak, and perhaps because they don't enjoy a carefully planned out plate of legumes and whole grains in the same way. But some seem to be much more extreme about this than others.

I personally eat meat (and dairy) regularly - but probably overall less than the local average, and usually not beef.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#168

Post by zahlman »

vidarh wrote: post #123
aziaziazi wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well most raw vegan food is already way cheaper that raw meat: Quality organic dry chickpeas, lentils, beans, soy etc… already are around 2€/kg where I live and when you add water they double/triple in weight so you end up at 1€/kg. You’ll probably eat a bit more weight than meat but still the price is nowhere comparable. Add some whole cereals instead of white bread for nutrition and better satiety: they’re more exp…

Missing the point, which was that you're not going to convince people like me who ignore the vegan options just by having them be cheaper than meat, because I won't look. The only thing that would make me look at the vegan options would be if I felt I couldn't afford the meat options.

Okay, but why is that?

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#169

Post by gjsman-1000 »

ackfoobar wrote: post #140
gjsman-1000 wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[flagged]

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#170

Post by woodruffw »

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…

People suggest all kinds of things. Just about every special interest group in the city wanted a congestion exemption; most did not get it. I don’t think this itself makes for good evidence of a slippery slope.
Post reply on HN