Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 375 posts

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

#211

Post by [deleted] »

pokeymcsnatch wrote: post #140
bparsons wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people use the roads a lot more than others. Those people should pay their fair share. Someone who commutes in an SUV from Fairfield to Manhattan every day should have to pay much, much higher fees than someone who rides their bike from Greenpoint to Brooklyn heights. Once (particularly wealthy) people are made to incur the true cost of their lifestyle choices, the hope is that better choices are made.

That's the cost of having a functioning society. I don't have kids, yet I still pay school taxes because even though I'm not participating in that particular aspect of society, I still benefit from it. Public biking infrastructure wouldn't be possible without the roads and right-aways we already have for cars and pedestrians; someone only using a mile of roadway on their daily commute is benefiting from the entirety…

[deleted]

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

#212

Post by madrox »

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #31

The streets were never free. We paid for it with our tax money. (Not to mention our 22 trillion dollar public debt) I don’t think people expect streets to be free in the same way you don’t expect the police department to be free, the fire department to be free, public schools, etc. In any case, my point is, we paid for the streets with our tax money and our debt, so don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic rec…

This is true, yet it seems there is an economic recking. It just isn't this straightforward.

Tax money does pay for it, but taxes are created by people who get in that position by being popular with the people they're taxing. It's in their best interest to keep taxes as low as possible. This can create races to the bottom where we are, as you say, running at a deficit just to keep the lights on. The people running the budget have been kicking this can down the road (no pun intended) for a while.

Simply put, our taxes are paying for it, but they're underfunded for the level of planning and improvement needed. Congestion is a failure to scale.

Something to think about as Tax Day approaches...especially if you think your taxes are too high.

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

#213

Post by bparsons »

pokeymcsnatch wrote: post #140
bparsons wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people use the roads a lot more than others. Those people should pay their fair share. Someone who commutes in an SUV from Fairfield to Manhattan every day should have to pay much, much higher fees than someone who rides their bike from Greenpoint to Brooklyn heights. Once (particularly wealthy) people are made to incur the true cost of their lifestyle choices, the hope is that better choices are made.

That's the cost of having a functioning society. I don't have kids, yet I still pay school taxes because even though I'm not participating in that particular aspect of society, I still benefit from it. Public biking infrastructure wouldn't be possible without the roads and right-aways we already have for cars and pedestrians; someone only using a mile of roadway on their daily commute is benefiting from the entirety…

Subsidizing harmful and stupid behavior is the cost of living in a non-functioning society.

There is nothing wrong with having road infrastructure to move people and goods between urban centres.

There is however, a lot wrong with designing cities around the use of the most inefficient form of transportation, which increasingly looks like one person in a giant gas powered SUV or pickup truck going to work or the grocery store.

There is a reason that cities with functioning political systems are tearing down urban freeways and moving toward narrower, human centred street design. These are highly desirable places to live, and people are clamoring to move to these communities.

If you ever have the pleasure of riding on a properly funded and maintained rapid transit system (of which there are very few in the US), you will know that it is preferable to being stuck in traffic in a private vehicle.

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

#214

Post by hannasanarion »

C1sc0cat wrote: post #142
the_gastropod wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bear in mind only ~45% of NYC residents own cars. Yet, we all pay taxes to pay for maintaining their infrastructure. Everyone paying taxes to support some is fine when that thing is beneficial to society at large (e.g., public education, fire departments, welfare, etc.) I don't think driving counts as an activity that should be subsidized by the taxpayer.

Would you allow card drivers to opt out of paying for the metro or busses then

They can already do that, by not buying tickets.

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

#215

Post by seattle_spring »

Jorge1o1 wrote: post #31

The streets were never free. We paid for it with our tax money. (Not to mention our 22 trillion dollar public debt) I don’t think people expect streets to be free in the same way you don’t expect the police department to be free, the fire department to be free, public schools, etc. In any case, my point is, we paid for the streets with our tax money and our debt, so don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic rec…

> We paid for it with our tax money.

I hate this argument so much. It comes up all of the time when chronically underfunded national and state parks say they need to raise prices. "buT muH taX doLLarS alReaDy PaY for MAH PARKS!!" Doubly true for places that add quotas and lotteries to curb overcrowding delicate areas.

This is the exact same situation: Your tax dollars paid for part of it, sure, but not close to enough to support what is needed. Therefore you either need to pay more to either increase capacity or reduce impact.

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

#216

Post by hannasanarion »

GuiA wrote: post #63
jrockway wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No food delivery in New York uses cars and trucks. They all use ebikes. (Which were illegal for years, but that stopped nobody from using them.)

How do the ingredients get to the restaurant for preparation?

During special hours of the night when delivery trucks are allowed to use the street.

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

#217

Post by imgabe »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #172
komali2 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your op was arguing against roads, I think they were more arguing that the cost algorithm is wonky for those roads - for some reason, people that chose the significantly more road- and space- and environmentally- damaging option of the SUV while on that road are paying the same to use it as the bicyclist.

The cost structure of most roads is that the cost is in having them exist independent of how much they're used. Most of what causes road maintenance to be required is weather rather than traffic. Moreover, if you have an empty road that nobody is using, you can't save up the unused capacity and use it later. And as for the environmental damage, that is clearly the bailiwick of fuel taxes rather than congestion pricin…

>. But you don't want to suppress demand -- you don't want people to stay home instead of patronizing local businesses etc. The problem isn't too much demand. Demand is good. The problem is insufficient supply.

This is not a choice between people staying home and patronizing local businesses. People are not driving into the congestion zone in Manhattan during rush hour to patronize local businesses. They're going to work. They are going to go to work one way or another. You realize there are other options besides driving alone in a car and sitting at home, right? If people have to pay the full cost of driving by themselves, they might instead choose to carpool, take public transportation, bike, telecommute, or other options.

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

#218

Post by Spooky23 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #41
Jorge1o1 wrote: post #31

The streets were never free. We paid for it with our tax money. (Not to mention our 22 trillion dollar public debt) I don’t think people expect streets to be free in the same way you don’t expect the police department to be free, the fire department to be free, public schools, etc. In any case, my point is, we paid for the streets with our tax money and our debt, so don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic rec…

> 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…

You'll have less congested streets when the utility of being in Manhattan is less valuable than dealing with Manhattan.

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

#219

Post by dv_dt »

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…

> The failings of the subway and train infrastructure are due to mismanagement on the part of the MTA and untenable, collectively bargained contracts.

Arguably the problems are from systemic austerity:

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/18/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

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

#220

Post by entropicdrifter »

carapace wrote: post #180
komali2 wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think your op was arguing against roads, I think they were more arguing that the cost algorithm is wonky for those roads - for some reason, people that chose the significantly more road- and space- and environmentally- damaging option of the SUV while on that road are paying the same to use it as the bicyclist.

> I think they were more arguing that the cost algorithm is wonky for those roads The cost algorithm is wonky because the value algorithm is wonky. Actually, there IS no value algorithm. Even if the data were available (and it wasn't Big Brotherly for the gov to collect and keep it) there's no way to calculate the individual value extracted per person, it's NP-ish yeah?

All motor vehicles are already registered with the state. The dimensions of unmodified vehicles are already a matter of public record, easily looked up based on make and model. Seems to me that all you'd have to do is a simple cross-check of the person's vehicle size before charging them. Bikes and motorcycles would only need a separate fixed cost for each.

Honestly, it seems like a pretty simple matter to look up a car's make and model from its license plate/EZ-Pass registration. You could do it on the spot before charging the toll.

You could even just base it on the class of license you need to operate the vehicle, if you wanted to keep it very efficient.

Post reply on HN