The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain • Hacker News Board

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#181

Post by ls612 » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:55 PM UTC

rsync wrote: post #97

l1ambda wrote: post #68

I post something like this every time the congestion pricing subject comes up. We have congestion pricing in Minneapolis / St Paul and it just works. If I'm in a hurry, I have the option to choose to use the priced lane. We're rolling it out to all of the major highways (it's on 3 of them so far). I wish we had it on more lanes on all highways already, because what is the point of having a 60mph road if most of the t…

"We have congestion pricing in Minneapolis / St Paul and it just works. We're rolling it out to all of the major highways." Aren't these two very different things ? I own a home in MPLS and I don't know anything about congestion pricing there. I think you must be talking about the lane restrictions on the freeways ? Congestion pricing, as it is in London, and as is being discussed for NYC, is the concept of the city…

He’s probably talking about the HOV lanes on 35W and 394. Which aren’t even remotely the same as what is being proposed for manhattan.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#182

Post by scrose » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

C1sc0cat wrote: post #139

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic reckoning” In New York, low-income New Yorkers who own a car (or live in the zone) will be eligible for a waiver [1]. People with disabilities, too, will probably be eligible for a waiver. (Some carve-outs are still being pinned down.) Taxis, Ubers, trucks and cars owned by people who opt to pay hundreds of dollars a month in parking are who will be taxed. Given the u…

So why are you penalising those with off street parking ?

Parking, whether on street or off-street doesn't relate to congestion pricing. Congestion pricing charges for the luxury of driving into one of the most densely populated and well-served areas of transit in the country.

Charging people to offset a negative externality they are entirely responsible for should not be conflated with penalization.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#183

Post by plafl » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 4:58 PM UTC

nickles wrote: post #71

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic reckoning” In New York, low-income New Yorkers who own a car (or live in the zone) will be eligible for a waiver [1]. People with disabilities, too, will probably be eligible for a waiver. (Some carve-outs are still being pinned down.) Taxis, Ubers, trucks and cars owned by people who opt to pay hundreds of dollars a month in parking are who will be taxed. Given the u…

> Taxis, Ubers, trucks and cars owned by people who opt to pay hundreds of dollars a month in parking are who will be taxed. Given the unusability of our streets, this seems closer to an economic reckoning than a political money grab. Taxis and Ubers are forms of public transportation, and likely reduce the overall number of cars on the road. Simultaneously, they reduce the incidences of drunk driving, providing posi…

There was a taxi strike in Madrid recently and it seems it improved traffic, according to this:

https://elpais.com/elpais/2019/01/31/inenglish/1548938901_32...

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#184

Post by gpm » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 5:08 PM UTC

nickles wrote: post #71

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic reckoning” In New York, low-income New Yorkers who own a car (or live in the zone) will be eligible for a waiver [1]. People with disabilities, too, will probably be eligible for a waiver. (Some carve-outs are still being pinned down.) Taxis, Ubers, trucks and cars owned by people who opt to pay hundreds of dollars a month in parking are who will be taxed. Given the u…

> Taxis, Ubers, trucks and cars owned by people who opt to pay hundreds of dollars a month in parking are who will be taxed. Given the unusability of our streets, this seems closer to an economic reckoning than a political money grab. Taxis and Ubers are forms of public transportation, and likely reduce the overall number of cars on the road. Simultaneously, they reduce the incidences of drunk driving, providing posi…

> Taxis and Ubers are forms of public transportation, and likely reduce the overall number of cars on the road.

This doesn't make sense to me.

IME - the vast majority of time there is a single customer or group in a taxi or uber. Assuming this is in fact the case. Taxis and ubers increase the number of trips taken by vehicle, but let's pretend in their favor that they leave that number flat. While they have a passenger in them they are trading 1-1 for a private vehicle to a "public" vehicle. While they don't have a passenger in them they are trading 0-1 for private vehicles to "public" vehicles. That results in a net increase in vehicles.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#185

Post by scrose » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 5:09 PM UTC

kevin_thibedeau wrote: post #138

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Too many people on sidewalks in NYC making them almost unusable One, pedestrian congestion doesn't exhibit traffic congestion's negative externalities. (You have to get to trampling-risk densities before that occurs.) Two, "sidewalk passes" have no precedent. Congestion pricing has lots of precedent [1]. Three, this is a problem getting attention [2]. America has spent decades throwing lanes at traffic. Not all of…

The area around Penn station reaches trampling risk densities five days a week.

Funnily enough, the area around Penn station allocates nearly 80% of the space there to cars, which carry only a tiny fraction of the people traveling through daily. For anyone not familiar with the Penn area, check out this Streetfilms video to get an idea of how lopsided the street allocation is: https://vimeo.com/268616894.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#186

Post by zjaffee » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 5:11 PM UTC

nickles wrote: post #71

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic reckoning” In New York, low-income New Yorkers who own a car (or live in the zone) will be eligible for a waiver [1]. People with disabilities, too, will probably be eligible for a waiver. (Some carve-outs are still being pinned down.) Taxis, Ubers, trucks and cars owned by people who opt to pay hundreds of dollars a month in parking are who will be taxed. Given the u…

> Taxis, Ubers, trucks and cars owned by people who opt to pay hundreds of dollars a month in parking are who will be taxed. Given the unusability of our streets, this seems closer to an economic reckoning than a political money grab. Taxis and Ubers are forms of public transportation, and likely reduce the overall number of cars on the road. Simultaneously, they reduce the incidences of drunk driving, providing posi…

Ubers have been shown to increase vehicle miles driven, which in turn means a decline in the use of public transit. Historically the big tax on cars was an 18% tax on parking in NYC, but considering that more and more people are taking Ubers instead of driving themselves, we are still effectively subsidizing uber use in a way we aren't for regular driving.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#187

Post by crooked-v » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 5:11 PM UTC

maxsilver wrote: post #164

dannyw wrote: post #3

It's sad to see congestion pricing in America. I had hoped that the long-lived cultural freedom of driving would keep it at bay for longer, but I guess not anymore. I live in Sydney. It takes a 45 minute drive to visit a family member, who is sick and homebound. To do so in the shortest and least congested route, I must pay 3 tolls: $14.85 total, one way; $30 dollars a trip. Public transport is not a suitable option.…

It's going to die. Urbanists have killed this freedom, it's only a matter of time. Everyone has forgotten all the benefits cars provide, and has focused solely on the drawbacks, just as cars became advanced enough to eliminate all of their problems in the first place. Today, in 2019, I drive a car that generates absolutely no pollution, makes no noise, is powered entirely by renewable wind electricity, and can drive…

> This is the cleanest, safest, most reliable, most convenient, and cheapest public transit that has ever been invented.

But it's not public transit. It's private transit, because it's your car. Actual public transit will either not be subject to the congestion fees (buses) or will be able to split the fee across enough riders to make its effects negligible (taxis, Uber).

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#188

Post by kevin_thibedeau » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 5:13 PM UTC

vidro3 wrote: post #94

patrickg_zill wrote: post #60

Congestion pricing is an admission that the fuel taxes are being used for other purposes than roads.

or that the taxes are far too low to support the cost of road maintainance

New York's problem is that its fuel consumption has been flat for 50 years because of increasing fuel efficiency and low population growth. Meanwhile, everything else is more expensive to maintain so it must make up the difference with other funding sources or higher taxes. The latter is is difficult political issue when they are already near the top for state fuel taxation.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#189

Post by maxsilver » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 5:14 PM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #187

maxsilver wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's going to die. Urbanists have killed this freedom, it's only a matter of time. Everyone has forgotten all the benefits cars provide, and has focused solely on the drawbacks, just as cars became advanced enough to eliminate all of their problems in the first place. Today, in 2019, I drive a car that generates absolutely no pollution, makes no noise, is powered entirely by renewable wind electricity, and can drive…

> This is the cleanest, safest, most reliable, most convenient, and cheapest public transit that has ever been invented. But it's not public transit. It's private transit, because it's your car. Actual public transit will either not be subject to the congestion fees (buses) or will be able to split the fee across enough riders to make its effects negligible (taxis, Uber).

You own your shirt and shoes, does that make a Bus "private transit"?

Cars are a form of public transportation whenever the public drives them on public roads and freeways. Public infrastructure does not become "private", just because a private individual is in it.

Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain

#190

Post by AnthonyMouse » Thu, Apr 04, 2019, 5:15 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #177

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> On the risk of regressive taxation, I agree. But it's a risk, not a certain outcome. Properly varying the charge throughout the day will incentivize deliveries when the roads are less crowded. Better utilizing our freight rail infrastructure may also dampen the effect. The congestion already does that. The issue is that it's a hard problem. You can't make deliveries to shops at 3AM because there is no one there to…

> Congestion pricing doesn't actually fix any of that, it just squeezes even harder on the people who the lack of alternatives Every other city's experience with congestion pricing shows decreased car use in favor of alternatives. Effects on local grocery prices were minimal. And in the end, revenues paled in comparison to the health, infrastructure, policing, quality of life and economic costs of traffic congestion.

> Every other city's experience with congestion pricing shows decreased car use in favor of alternatives.

Suppose the forest is on fire and instead of spending money to put the fire out, we just ignore it. Then a bunch of wolves come into the city to flee from the fire.

Someone suggests that we introduce bears to the city in order to drive out the wolves. Many people point out what a terrible idea that is, but some cities do it anyway. Then the proponents point out that some of the wolves have fled back to the forest.

But now your city is full of bears. And the surrounding forest is still on fire.

> Effects on local grocery prices were minimal.

This is cost disease in a nutshell. "We did this one thing that was a bad idea, but the net effect was small, so that makes it alright." What's the cumulative effect of using that logic as a general principle?

> And in the end, revenues paled in comparison to the health, infrastructure, policing, quality of life and economic costs of traffic congestion.

Compared to the untenable status quo, or compared to the better alternatives?

When the status quo is a dumpster fire, "this is better than a dumpster fire" is not a very high bar.