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

#341

Post by atoav » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 12:01 AM UTC

DamnYuppie wrote: post #331

CydeWeys wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a Manhattan resident, I'm paying a LOT of my tax money for the streets. And I barely get to use them, because like the majority of my fellow Manhattanites, I don't own a car. If the public space were reconfigured to accurately reflect the taxpayer makeup, then you would see a lot less space dedicated to cars and a lot more dedicated to pedestrians, mass transit, and non-automobile transportation options like bicyc…

You do realize that most of the streets in Manhattan were laid down well in advance of the rise of automobiles. In fact they were laid out when carriage and pedestrian traffic were the only options! I believe this map is from 1821! https://www.loc.gov/resource/g3804n.ct001389/

Yet in terms of space usage the streets take HP far more space for far less people.

There is necessary traffic within highly populated areas (deliveries, public transport, locals, ...) and there is totally unnecessary traffic e.g. a single person in a SUV taking up the space of half a bus or 20 pedestrians.

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

#342

Post by FakeComments » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 12:13 AM UTC

yonran wrote: post #334

FakeComments wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This assumes that either: 1. People can arbitrarily convert time into money, ie, there’s not a reason they’d prefer to pay some expenses in time. 2. People are free to change their travel times, and aren’t being coerced into traveling at a particular time. If travel time is a monopsony, then this is mere rent extraction because people can’t adjust behavior in response to economic pressures.

Yes, and in my opinion those are both valid assumptions to make. 1. You’re right, congestion pricing forces drivers to reveal the marginal price for time. In a congested road, what makes the marginal driver decide not to drive at a specific time? Because he knows that it will take too much time due to traffic (or because he is simply forced to queue). In a toll road, what makes the marginal driver decide not to drive…

I’m not sure I follow your argument on 2.

If people aren’t free to adjust their driving habits, congestion pricing merely raises the cost for them, because the time to commute doesn’t go down (appreciably) — everyone is still on the road at the same time.

It then effectively becomes a regressive tax: those least free to change their schedule are those in the lowest earning jobs, and hence those most coerced to pay the cost.

I’m not sure I believe that’s an effective way to raise money for government.

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

#343

Post by megy » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 12:20 AM UTC

arrty88 wrote: post #267

SilasX wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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

Why? They cause congestion, the take up space, they need to be taxed.

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

#344

Post by chrisdhoover » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 12:51 AM UTC

closeparen wrote: post #273

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…

Progresssive taxation means low income people already pay less for roads.

Except the funding that comes from gas taxes.

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

#345

Post by trophycase » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:18 AM UTC

megy wrote: post #337

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, but only drivers get to use it. And when they aren't using it, they are off limits. And on top of that, they are incredibly dangerous, with a million direct deaths a year. And in a lot of cities, roads take up more space than private residences. Such a huge waste.

Oh and cause sprawl and are harmful to development of cities.

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

#346

Post by yonran » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 1:24 AM UTC

FakeComments wrote: post #342

yonran wrote: post #334

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and in my opinion those are both valid assumptions to make. 1. You’re right, congestion pricing forces drivers to reveal the marginal price for time. In a congested road, what makes the marginal driver decide not to drive at a specific time? Because he knows that it will take too much time due to traffic (or because he is simply forced to queue). In a toll road, what makes the marginal driver decide not to drive…

I’m not sure I follow your argument on 2. If people aren’t free to adjust their driving habits, congestion pricing merely raises the cost for them, because the time to commute doesn’t go down (appreciably) — everyone is still on the road at the same time. It then effectively becomes a regressive tax: those least free to change their schedule are those in the lowest earning jobs, and hence those most coerced to pay th…

I disagree with your premise. There are people on the margin who decide to drive or not because of the traffic (or who are forced to queue unexpectedly). If the roads and parking garages had infinite capacity, then there would be hundreds of thousands more cars on the road in Manhattan. It’s implausible that all the people who remain on the road today are purely inelastic.

I also disagree that the tax would be incident on those with the lowest paying jobs. Higher-paying workers are more likely to pay more, since people with price-inelastic demand for driving are more likely to be those who value their time more highly.

Finally, I don’t think the primary purpose is to raise money for the government, but instead to manage the road resource so that the throughput is high.

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

#347

Post by superkuh » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 2:18 AM UTC

This is understandable for high density urban areas but makes no sense for most of the country.

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

#348

Post by simplesleeper » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 2:19 AM UTC

Congestion does not necessarily mean a shortage of roads. Sometimes roads make congestion worse. Braess' Paradox has shown to occur as often as not.

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

#349

Post by closeparen » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 2:31 AM UTC

kadendogthing wrote: post #333

maxsilver wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why does having less cars create less usable land? Not "usable-as-in-present", but "usable-as-in-available". Having less cars drives up the value of land, making land more expensive for everyone, and making that land less usable for any one person specifically.

>Having less cars drives up the value of land, making land more expensive for everyone You just repeated what he said... while also repeating it again. I want to know how having less cars drives up the value of land.

The N-minute radius around a destination is a lot smaller when you are walking to transit vs. driving. People who can afford to will spend to keep their door to door times low.

A huge chunk of American housing supply is in places that only made sense to settle because they were connected by freeways to downtown parking. Take that away and there will be just as much money, chasing less land.

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

#350

Post by SamReidHughes » Fri, Apr 05, 2019, 2:49 AM UTC

tzs wrote: post #227

A 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…

It seems to me like road damage involves processes that happen deeper, for example those that create tire ruts in the lane. I'd guess the area should be counted as larger the deeper you go.

It seems plausible to me that if you drove trucks over an unlined parking lot completely randomly, then it would last much longer than when you run the same trucks on a highway lane.