Congestion pricing is an admission that the fuel taxes are being used for other purposes than roads.
It is more an admission that fuel taxes are way too low to make any meaningful difference in changing behavior.
The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain
261–270 of 375 posts
Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain
#262Earlier quoted context omitted.
maybe just speak for yourself? the seniors i know walk more than the juniors i know. senior folks will happily share their opinions with you, so no need to speak for them.
Your comment is interesting because it hadn't even occurred to me that the parent comment might be being sarcastic. I thought the emphasis on love was being serious. My experience is older folks (maybe 80 and up? Not really sure) start to lose confidence or ability with driving and give it up. Hence need to walk and take public transport. So less cars and a more walkable neighborhood is a win for them as well as ever…
yes, as i understand it, high walkability promotes self-reliance/independence, which correlates highly with quality of life and longevity.
since "love" is an intensified term already, the italics seemed to imply sarcasm to me, but i'm open to being told i misread the prior comment. =)
Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain
#263A few comments have mentioned different levels or road damage caused by different vehicles, with heavier vehicles causing more damage. How much does tire pressure matter in that? If two vehicles have the same weight and number of tires taking the load, evenly distributed among the tires, but one of them runs with higher tire pressure, it will have a proportionately smaller contact area, and so a proportionately highe…
My guess (since I really know nothing about the physics) is that it is not strictly PSI, and that there is some lower limit of weight where it doesn't apply.
I know that the folks who actually do this work calculate weight per axle rather than weight per square inch. Why they do it that way I don't know.
Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain
#264Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you ever order something online or get food delivery or take a taxi or uber you do use the roads, and the number of people who do those things somewhat regularly is a lot closer to 100%. But you might still be using the roads a lot less than someone who drives to and from work every day. So some combination of tax money and tolls/congestion pricing seems to make the most sense from this usage based angle.
So some combination of tax money and tolls/congestion pricing seems to make the most sense from this usage based angle. No, it doesn't. Paying through general revenue doesn't make any sense at all. Congestion pricing is beautiful because only the people who use it will pay it, and that includes your examples. People who take Ubers or order something online or get food delivery will still pay congestion pricing, but t…
Everyone uses the roads. There's no one who doesn't either use them for transportation, or receive goods brought in on them.
You're not going to avoid these fees because you don't drive, you'll just be paying for them through higher prices on the goods you buy.
Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain
#265Congestion 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
I don't think fuel taxes are enough to pay for road maintenance anywhere in the US. It's always supplemented by some amount of general fund dollars.
Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain
#266Earlier 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.
Sorry, but are you suggesting you don't benefit from roads if you don't personally drive on them? I haven't had my morning coffee yet but that's how I read your post.
No, sorry. I'm suggesting that there are vastly varying degrees of road use. A daily commuter benefits from (and causes more damage to) roads than a non-car owner. Both of these people benefit from deliveries to grocery stores, mail trucks, etc, and they will pay for them through the congestion pricing
Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain
#267Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
>Taxing trucks, used for transporting groceries, goods, and packages to the city, will increase the cost of each of these goods. The increase in grocery prices serves as a regressive tax on all people living within the congestion pricing zone. You're already effectively paying a premium to account for the extra time the drivers have to spend in traffic. It's not clear whether the congestion charges will be more than…
Until the subway can transport packaged goods, i think its pretty unfair to tax UPS / FedEx etc
Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain
#268Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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.
Aren't they though? You drive to work, you stop at a coffee shop for a coffee and a muffin, you go to work, on the way home you stop somewhere and pick up dinner.
The bus isn't going to stop at the coffee shop and wait there for you to get your coffee, and if you didn't drive in then you don't have your car at work to go anywhere on your lunch break either.
> 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?
Options that are worse, by definition, or they would already have chosen them. And one of those options is to not go to work -- you take a job closer to where you live at the cost of lower pay, because you've been priced out of the one you had before. That is not a social benefit.
Compare this to improving the alternatives. Build more housing in the city, so that the density is higher, people don't have to travel such distances to begin with, and you can justify running buses and trains every ten minutes instead of every half hour. Which makes them quick and convenient enough that you can reasonably step off the bus to get a coffee and just catch the next one. Make things better instead of worse.
Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain
#269Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 c…
So, what is the better alternative? Doubling the number of roads? Building ten or so elevated highways crisscrossing Manhattan?
Making the MTA suck less sounds like a good alternative.
Re: The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain
#270The 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…
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.
Yeah, and the other 55% use the sidewalks and the subway which the entire city helps subsidize.
If we're going to cut funding for things that you don't personally use, we should cut public education before the roads. The roads are absolutely critical to the economy. Your kid learning Shakespeare is not.