Live data from Hacker News

Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

nytimes.com

231–240 of 267 posts

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Surprised that NYC doesn't have service in tunnels. They don't? Damn, then the internet and telecom and providers in the States are really f*cking their customers up, pardon my French, but that's the gentlest way to put it. Let's say that I can understand that the US is a big country and that you cannot lay fiber over such big of an area as dense as it happens in certain parts of Europe, but to not have metro tunne…

> The Eastern European capital from where I'm writing this comment has had such a service for at least 5 years, if not more. I won't deny that the agency responsible for New York transit is incorrigibly corrupt, along with the New York State government that is ostensibly responsible for holding them accountable. That said, there is cell service in most stations (I think they finished the rollout recently, so it may b…

London will have phone service next year. The previous time public negotiations were discussed, something like 5-8 years ago, the phone companies weren't willing to pay the installation cost Transport for London (i.e. the government) demanded.

I can see the price to install the equipment being very high — confined space, only a few hours overnight in which to work, and many metal-lined tunnels which probably mean a custom solution is necessary.

https://www.ft.com/content/3cead702-4530-11e7-8d27-59b4dd629...

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#232
post #7

Congestion pricing is one of the most economically literate ways to improve traffic, and those funds can be used to improve infrastructure. It isn't so different from surge pricing in ridesharing apps. There is a narrowmindedness on the part of opponents of both congestion pricing and surge pricing, because they are ignoring the obvious point that if they weren't paying the fees they'd be paying in terms of time. Not…

The objection to this line of thinking has to do with fairness. Time is much more evenly distributed than money.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're driving in so that the people living there don't have to drive out.

??? They NEED to drive in from NJ CT etc instead of taking public transit?

From my parent's house in CT you can get to Grand Terminal in NYC by:

- Taking public transport only: 30 minutes of walking to the nearest bus stop (bus only on the hour btw). 20 minutes on the bus. 2 hrs 30 minutes on a train to Grand Central. All assuming bus and train time line up (they won't since the bus is hourly).

- Driving and taking a train: Drive for 30 minutes and take a 2 and a half hour train ride to Grand Central.

- Drive: 2 h 20 min at 5 o'clock on a Friday. Google maps shows 1.5 - 2hrs is average.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The immediate problems of infrastructure are two-fold: funding and the matching of supply and demand. Ignore the environmental ramifications for the moment and kick that can to your kids like everyone else does. Supply and demand solves itself. The solution is staring right back at you any time you drive around a city at 5PM local. The funding could be solved by taking more money out of general revenue from income an…

Building more roads creates more traffic i.e. more “demand”. This is the unforeseen problem with road building schemes. The solution is mass transit and city planning to reduce road commuting.

I was working in the frame of parent's comment to show that delays and congestion are another solution to the problem. It's certainly not the one I'd choose, but I was trying hard to give an unaffected discussion of the tradeoffs (until the sarcasm in the last paragraph.)

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#235
post #7

Congestion pricing is one of the most economically literate ways to improve traffic, and those funds can be used to improve infrastructure. It isn't so different from surge pricing in ridesharing apps. There is a narrowmindedness on the part of opponents of both congestion pricing and surge pricing, because they are ignoring the obvious point that if they weren't paying the fees they'd be paying in terms of time. Not…

I'm always surprised by the only-in-this-circumstance libertarian philosophy of people who support congestion pricing. I think if you took the exact same logic and applied it to say, schools, supporters would feel completely differently about it. Example: It's really hard to get your child into certain public schools in NYC. Why not start charging $3k a year per child (much less than private schools) at high demand s…

I think the reason is that we associate driving with negative externalities (pollution, renewable resource usage, etc.) and so if the response to congestion pricing is that people drive less and seek alternative means (using public transportation, telecommuting, etc) then that is an additional win.

Whereas we associate having children and schooling with positive externalities -- the creation of an educated workforce that will keep our country strong and prosperous in the next decades. So we intuit that if people responded to the tax by having fewer kids or unschooling the kids, that would be bad for society. (I personally don't actually think that public school produces positive externalities but I'm extremely unusual in that belief).

The other complication is that "good schools" are really the schools with the best students and best parents. With road congestion toll you are paying for an inherently limited resource -- wide, paved right-of-ways enabling leading connecting population hubs. Whereas with the limited number of "good" schools in NYC, the inherently limited resource is the good students themselves. So a "good school" tax is essentially charging good students to be around people like themselves, which is kind of a weird thing todo.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd actually wager that the vast majority of people commuting in from Jersey work in Manhattan, rather than the other boroughs. I grew up in central Jersey, and everyone I knew who commuted in on NJ Transit (along the Northeast Corridor line) were commuting into Manhattan. If you worked in Queens or Brooklyn, you'd live somewhere on Long Island. If you worked in the Bronx, you'd live in Westchester (or north). Some f…

Don't forget the other direction. I commute from Queens to Jersey daily so my perspective might be biased. While I don't have to pay the GWB going towards Jersey, I still have to pay the toll going home (along with RFK or Whitestone). Looks like I pay between $400-$600 per month just in tolls.

My apologies on the commute, can't be pleasant to go through all that traffic. I don't think the the GWB tolls are congestion-based though, they're more for maintenance of the infrastructure that hundreds of thousands of people drive over daily. From my understanding of business in NJ, there are relatively few people doing your sort of commute, so perhaps with congestion prices in Manhattan, the amount of wear on the GWB and related infrastructure (along with maintenance costs) might decrease, which could result in reduced GWB tolls.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Wouldn't libertarian philosophy, taken to its logical end, imply private schools and private roads, where you pay whoever owns the school/road to use it? That is correct, though the government still has a major role to play in enforcing their citizens rights. If a private company were to build a poor-quality and dangerous road, this would amount to an act of violence towards the drivers, thus the government would ne…

I can't tell if we disagree, but I would attack this from a different angle. Libertarians clearly want less power concentrated at a central level, but it's not clear why that should carry down to every single entity that can be called government. If kids call their parents the government for the home, should libertarians be opposed to parental authority? I think it would be a fair statement that libertarians favor a…

First of all, thank you for the thoughtful response; I imagine we would have to converse at length to full establish what we agree on, but anyway the real value is in the process. I by no-means identify as a "libertarian", but I am familiar with some of the principles and give them consideration when pondering political issues.

>Libertarians clearly want less power concentrated at a central level

The phrase "less power" is a little vague; to be precise, libertarians want the government to enforce the rights of the citizens, and to otherwise leave them alone. The population does this by collectively granting authority to the government to deal out force legally; the only exception, for the most part, is an individual using force in self-defence. This is the fundamental principle, I believe, on which libertarians base their thinking.

>I think it would be a fair statement that libertarians favor a strong family unit

Absolutely. Though, at the same time, I would wager than purists would not support government legislation that specifically favours the traditional family unit, tax-breaks etc.

>Households run in ways that are almost entirely communist. So why should this non-profit collaboration stop at the front door?

In order for a society to even attempt to be unified, we must first agreed on a set of axioms, shared-truths. We may take for granted that the bond an individual has with their own kin is stronger than that with others. While we can imagine an entirely communistic network where one's personal wealth is equally shared amongst all, it practically cannot work because humans are simply not built that way. There is enough historical data to suggest that it cannot be done. It is morally untenable because it relies on forcefully compelling people to share their resources, where it is given voluntarily in a healthy family setting.

Furthermore, it is debatable wether or not libertarians recuse themselves from their responsibility to be a force for good in the world, and to be charitable; they merely ask to not be forcefully compelled to do so, as this violates the non-aggression principle. The success of the libertarian approach to charity hinges on lessened taxation and regulation creating an environment of unparalleled prosperity and abundance, in which communities will humanely seek to better the world around them.

I think my above points about the governments role in dealing out force legally, which addresses much of the rest of your post. Empowering local and state government is certainly and immediate goal of the libertarian movement.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#238
I won't take a position on this plan until I see the details. There are plenty of neighborhoods south of 60th that aren't congested. And congestion varies greatly by time of day. It would be pretty unfortunate if entities which aren't actually contributing to congestion get swept into this scheme. Delivery trucks need to service businesses in busy areas, but they usually operate in the early morning when traffic is light. Likewise, taxis and rideshares that operate during off-off hours are filling in for the reduced service of the MTA without actually contributing to congestion.

A congestion pricing scheme that increases the efficiency of the total transportation system would be excellent, but I am skeptical. Congestion, whether on the subway or the road (or even the sidewalk), is already a negative feedback loop that encourages seeking alternate routes/times. If people are taking congested roadways, they are doing so _in spite_ of all the other options available to them in a city with extensive public transit. I am curious what kind of data informs this plan and whether it is primarily a solution to transit times or just another source of revenue for the MTA.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#239
post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is that too high? Then kindly don't drive in Manhattan.

$100 to commute a week isn't to high? When the train cost $27 round trip (off peak) or $38.50 (peak) it is a pain. Also if you have business in NYC you are stuck with either losing the whole day or half a day just to get there. Now Chicago, Atlanta and LA have bad traffic it doesn't cost you a hundred bucks to commute for a week.

> $100 to commute a week isn't to high?

That's what you get when you want to live that far out. I pay $50/week to go from Essex County, NJ. That was about what my commute cost me (driving) in Dallas.

> When the train cost $27 round trip (off peak) or $38.50 (peak) it is a pain. Also if you have business in NYC you are stuck with either losing the whole day or half a day just to get there.

What train costs this much? The closest I can find is the Port Jervis Metro-North line, coming all the way from Port Jervis (which is way the fuck out there). I wouldn't do that commute for any price unless I had to. If I did, I sure as hell wouldn't buy per-day tickets; I'd get the monthly pass for $488.

Re: Driving a Car in Manhattan Could Cost $11 Under Congestion Plan

#240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's amazing how habit-forming driving seems to be. A friend was recently talking about a colleague of his who lives right next to a tram stop and works right next to another stop on the same tram line. 20 minute tram journey, tram every five minutes at peak time. And instead they drive an hour to work at rush hour, because they're from a rural area and are used to driving. Makes no sense to me at all...

I think you have to live in big city and have taken public transportation on a daily basis, to understand the frustations, the dalays, the insecurity, the smell, the crowdness, and the freedom reducing of it.

You have to live in a dysfunctional city for that to be a reality. In cities that are functional, you only have to deal with occasional crowding.
Post reply on HN