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

NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

congestion-pricing-tracker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

431–440 of 653 posts

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#431

Post by CPLX »

blehn wrote: post #424

1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. 2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. 3. There are so many other simple policie…

> Metered parking everywhere. Why is NYC giving away the most valuable real estate in the world for free? Would be a huge revenue stream while discouraging car ownership in Manhattan.

There isn't all that much free parking left in Manhattan south of 60th street.

Not saying it doesn't exist, there still are alternate side streets for sure, but it's a rapidly dwindling thing.

Agree that it should be almost nonexistent though for the most part.

Also the cost of metered parking in most of the city these days is similar to garage parking pricing.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#432

Post by CPLX »

nothrabannosir wrote: post #419
CPLX wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course I do. Ask any person living in New York, they'll tell you the same thing.

Where else have you lived? I live in nyc today and whenever I hear people say that , it turns out they mean “New York City is the greatest city in the world of New York City and Waterloo, Wisconsin.” And even then , I’ve seen photos of Waterloo… looks like the air is nice and breathable there. And apparently you can afford to rent a place on a normal salary. You don’t have to agree but at least try and get out of you…

I mean it's not hard to figure out.

Here's an easy test. Think of the city you currently live in. Ask people where you live if they think this city you're living in is better than New York. They'll have a lot to say about it.

If you ask people in New York if the place you live is better than New York they'll say "Huh, where is that?"

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#434

Post by varelaseb »

blehn wrote: post #424

1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. 2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. 3. There are so many other simple policie…

This is the most econ-brained response possible. Why would the success of a public policy be exclusively defined by revenue generated?

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#436

Post by zzzeek »

Ferret7446 wrote: post #163
scarab92 wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you think that? Congestion pricing is a way to price an externality, which is usually a good thing compared to externalities being free.

The externality is already "priced in" to the traffic. People who can wait in traffic or can't afford not to wait in traffic do so, and people who want to skip out can as well. Congestion pricing, like many fees and regulations, is a regressive tax, because the overhead seeps into all goods and services and it impacts the poor most of all and the rich not at all.

traffic is a crappy externality that harms everyone, drivers, non-drivers. non-drivers are harmed by pollution, slower buses and cabs, noise, slower emergency response times. drivers are harmed by all those things as well plus the stress and inconvenience of extreme traffic. the point of congestion pricing is to reduce the so-called "traffic tax" that everyone pays into one that is just a toll, that only drivers pay. reducing traffic is a direct goal of the toll.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#437

Post by ses1984 »

varelaseb wrote: post #434
blehn wrote: post #424

1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. 2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. 3. There are so many other simple policie…

This is the most econ-brained response possible. Why would the success of a public policy be exclusively defined by revenue generated?

Because it’s based on the assumption that congestion didn’t actually go down, see number 1 posted by op.

If you want congestion to go down, keep raising the price. It will eventually go down and revenue could go up a lot.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#438

Post by wnolens »

awkward wrote: post #390
jdlyga wrote: post #370

Taking the bus from Weehawken into midtown is super smooth now. It's a super cold Tuesday, but normally it's a honking mess.

The subway was insane. Could be the snow, though.

Yea, not sure if it was a post-holiday thing or weather thing, but shit the trains have been rammed.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#439

Post by bluGill »

ihuman wrote: post #425
blehn wrote: post #424

1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much. 2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers. 3. There are so many other simple policie…

> So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. I thought the point of the policy is to get people to use the train instead of cars, freeing up the roads for people that actually need it?

There are several points. Some want it to get people to not drive, but work from home or drive elsewhere instead is fine with them. Some want it to get more people on transit. Some want it to fund transit expansion. You can belong to more than one of the above groups. Nobody belongs to them all.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#440

Post by CPLX »

gruez wrote: post #414
CPLX wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Once the Uber drops you off, it's available to take someone else somewhere they need to go. Car services are an essential part of a total system that enables people not to have to drive. Personal cars are the opposite of that. It's one of those things about the way Americans think about transit that makes me insane, they try to assess the ROI of every single individual leg of a transit system rather than assess the s…

>For example they'll cancel late night bus service because very few people use it. Except that the people who do, are people who occasionally are forced to stay late at their job and rely on the bus running late. Once it's cancelled they have to drive to work every single day since they're not sure they won't be stranded. The 3-4 bus rides a month they used to take are exchanged for 22 private car trips because you c…

My empirical evidence is going to Europe and looking around.

I'm being somewhat argumentative on purpose but the concept I'm explaining actually is important. There's something similar to a phase change when a city/area becomes sufficiently well connected so that transit can basically solve every problem.

You go to somewhere like Switzerland and it just jumps out at you. There's a fundamental approach that everywhere someone wants to go should be accessible by transit in a way that's workable. There's also a fundamental decision that being able to bring a car somewhere isn't necessarily something that has to be supported.

It's just a different way of looking at things.

Can you envision an American town that literally does not allow cars anywhere near the actual town, like at all?

If that seems utterly impossible to visualize then you're starting to see what I mean. Now try to visualize a Swiss town that literally has no ability to connect to the broader transit system.

Post reply on HN