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

Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 735 posts

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#401

Post by socalgal2 »

aynyc wrote: post #271

As a long time NYC resident who moved out during Covid but commute to work in the city. I definitely noticed less traffic on the streets and less noise. I see a lot of talk of other cities that don't have good public transportation. For example, between Flushing in Queens to 8th Ave in Brooklyn, there are privately run buses at affordable rate and get you there at half the time of trains. There are buses from a lot o…

In Japan there are almost only private buses. many are run by and around the private train companies as a way to get their trains to be more useful to more people like when a 25 minute walk from the closest station is a 10 minute bus ride and the busses come often enough to be convenient

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#402

Post by RhysU »

mvid wrote: post #119
RhysU wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, just imagine. I did. For hours yesterday evening I imagined. Had a car killed my wife or unborn child, there would have been a legal trail and insurance. Had the e-bike killed my wife or unborn child, there was neither. I doubt I could ever find the killer of the unborn child if the baby died later due to injuries-- there's neither license nor registration on an e-bike. Pushing powered transportation into the u…

You would likely be unhappy if you saw the outcomes of almost all vehicle manslaughter cases. It’s the easiest way to kill someone and get away with it consequence free

This can change.

Having been a juror on a civil trial against the MTA, I assure you that the New York public is perfectly willing to hold people accountable for injury.

Drunk driving was reduced over my lifetime [1] by calling attention to it (e.g. MADD), shaming the practice, lowering BAC thresholds, and increasing enforcement.

Similar approaches could be done for pedestrian injury by vehicles. Sure, it takes more time (and does not scam $9 from my pocket in the meantime) but public behavior can be changed.

[1] https://www.responsibility.org/alcohol-statistics/drunk-driv...

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#403

Post by literalAardvark »

PaulRobinson wrote: post #370
aynyc wrote: post #271

As a long time NYC resident who moved out during Covid but commute to work in the city. I definitely noticed less traffic on the streets and less noise. I see a lot of talk of other cities that don't have good public transportation. For example, between Flushing in Queens to 8th Ave in Brooklyn, there are privately run buses at affordable rate and get you there at half the time of trains. There are buses from a lot o…

A lot of the UK did this in the 1980s and it’s turned into such a disaster, most mayors and local authorities are trying to move to the London model: companies can bid a flat rate to deliver a bus service (effectively, they commit to providing drivers to deliver the timetable). TfL collects all fares. They also - I think - supply most of the buses to ensure they are of a certain standard, but the companies need to le…

That sounds divine. Does it also work in practice?

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#404

Post by Vinnl »

socalgal2 wrote: post #401
aynyc wrote: post #271

As a long time NYC resident who moved out during Covid but commute to work in the city. I definitely noticed less traffic on the streets and less noise. I see a lot of talk of other cities that don't have good public transportation. For example, between Flushing in Queens to 8th Ave in Brooklyn, there are privately run buses at affordable rate and get you there at half the time of trains. There are buses from a lot o…

In Japan there are almost only private buses. many are run by and around the private train companies as a way to get their trains to be more useful to more people like when a 25 minute walk from the closest station is a 10 minute bus ride and the busses come often enough to be convenient

That's interesting - the main Dutch train company provides dirt cheap bike rentals for the same reason. (For arrivals only; people can use their own bikes to get to the station.)

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#405

Post by jampekka »

pirate787 wrote: post #388
jampekka wrote: post #384

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Travel of low-income people also declined significantly while high-income travel did not. So quite literally the London congestion pricing got the poor off the zones. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03611981221138801

From the report: "the highest income earners contributed to more of the revenue than the lowest income earners, making the scheme progressive in the scale of its equity impact" It is quite likely that the lower income users are mostly retired people, and students, and they shouldn't be crowding the system at peak times unless willing to pay.

If you price out low-income people, you do get relatively more revenue from high-income earners. But the low-income people also get less service.

The non-charge eligible trips of the low earners declined as well. The paper did not differentiate between sources of income, and I'm not sure how relevant that is.

So the "poor off the zones" stands. Of course it's a matter of opinion whether this is desirable or not.

The paper is available without paywall here: https://www.mit.edu/~hamsa/pubs/Craik-Balakrishnan-TRR2022.p...

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#406

Post by potato3732842 »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #248
potato3732842 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

While I am sympathetic to the general gist of the "poors aren't the subject of this tax" argument but the change in denominator "85% in this zone" to "2% of the city's working poor" is obvious and it's kind of concerning that with the huge efforts that went into quantifying this they couldn't come up with something more precise. It's not like NYC doesn't have cameras everywhere and couldn't probably figure it pretty…

> I am sympathetic to the general gist of the "poors aren't the subject of this tax" argument but the change in denominator "85% in this zone" to "2% of the city's working poor" is obvious and it's kind of concerning Why? Do you want to know something other than the second statistic?

Why the heck wouldn't I want to know what fraction of people actually subject to the new policy fall with in the group of interest?. There's nothing that says the 2% of the overall group aren't the same 15% who will be taxes. Now, obviously we know from common sense and observable reality that that's not the case but it still begs the question what the number is. Saying "85% of people in the affected area are not subject" and then "2% of the interest group city wide is subject to the policy" implies some upper and lower bound but it doesn't actually say much about what percent of those subject to the tax are subject to it.

Like, it's 20-goddamn-25, everyone with an IQ above room temperature should be instantly red flagging these sorts of minor but potentially very meaningful omissions.

Like maybe the number is 10% of something instead of 2%, IDK, but with the surveillance dragnet and statistics firehose NYC policymakers have access to it's hella sus that they didn't just give an outright or more preciously bounded answer.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#407

Post by Vinnl »

choeger wrote: post #345

I wonder if this will eventually lead to increased density and if that then leads to congested bike lanes. Will the cities of tomorrow regulate traffic between individual buildings? Make no mistake, bikes are much, much, better for urban centers than cars. But the overall problem isn't cars, it's individual traffic in densely populated areas. Certain policy here in Europe simply assumes that people stay in their surr…

There are a couple of places in the Netherlands with congested bike lanes, which is a great problem to have. It's crazy to imagine all those people in individual cars; we'd have reached congestion so much sooner. (Note that this is after decades of continuously improving bicycle infrastructure; basically everywhere else won't run into this problem any time soon.)

The problem isn't so much density (I think NYC is much denser), as much as it is the existence of really popular destinations; you'll see this close to some big train stations in rush hour, for example. Solutions are smarter road layout, and providing more and more attractive alternative routes, and alternative destinations (e.g. more train stations nearby).

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#408

Post by Vinnl »

HPsquared wrote: post #400
BlackFly wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bikes just don't take up nearly as much space as cars and don't really block each other as much: gridlock is a problem for cars but not really for bikes. In the Netherlands there are a number of famous intersections where there are no signs nor right of way rules and people on bikes and pedestrians just pass through each other by slowing down and taking turns. These intersection rules were chosen because of the high…

How are e-bikes doing in NL?

They're really popular as well, and indeed increasing the distance people are willing to cycle.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#409

Post by vladvasiliu »

lazide wrote: post #358
vladvasiliu wrote: post #352

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And, of course, public transportation is often lacking quality compared to individual traffic. (Taking a bike across a bicycle road vs. getting into a crammed subway train in July, for instance.) Well, it doesn't have to be like that. Riding a bike in July is atrocious where I live, even with an electrical one. I'll end up drenched after my 20-minute commute, even though it's mostly flat. Cars didn't use to have AC…

It doesn’t have to hurt when I hit my hand with a hammer. In fact, there are hammers out there that if I hit my hand with them wouldn’t hurt! But damn, every time I hit my hand with the hammer I have, it hurts like hell.

I get your point, but mine is that transit isn't all that bad. For my needs, it works better than private transportation. I don't have space to store a bike at work nor at home, and theft is rampant where I live. Bike sharing is nice, but it can be hit and miss, especially if you need to get somewhere at a specific time. I also sometimes like to grab a drink with colleagues after work and would rather not ride a bike afterwards.

I'm not saying there should only be transit and no bikes. I think each means has its own merits, but my point is that these should be improved such that we can take full advantage of them. Just like bikes require infrastructure, or else they're much too dangerous, so do trains require maintenance and being kept up to date, or else they're a PITA to use.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#410

Post by jampekka »

an_account wrote: post #312
efavdb wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For completeness, might as well add not excellent for those who have a car, find driving more convenient, but can’t afford the toll.

If you can afford a car in NYC then you can afford the toll. Cars are very expensive to own.

If you could afford the car only just, it's quite obvious you can't afford it if you now have to pay congestion charges on top.
Post reply on HN