Live data from Hacker News

Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

nytimes.com

51–60 of 735 posts

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#51
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> people's preferred method You have some evidence of this?

To be fair, I think this is just definitional? If you would normally do one behavior, but an increased cost to it causes you to do something else; I think it is fair to say the first would be your preference? Now, if it was claimed as a superior method, that would be different. I could easily see it being people's preference as much from habit and availability as from any active preference. Certainly few people want…

Example of the "force of habit" factor:

Every time my mom comes to visit us in the city, at some point she says she could never live here because she couldn't imagine having to drive in city traffic every day. And every time she does that, I remind her that her car hasn't moved even once since she first arrived a week ago. Mostly we walk everywhere. And every time she responds, "Oh, you're right. You know, that's been really nice."

She's lived in suburban and rural areas her entire life. The idea that she simply has to get in a car to go anywhere is so ingrained into her psyche that even a solid week of not driving is insufficient to dislodge it.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#52
post #32
post #7

Not to settle on "It's bad" but their so called "results" seems completely obvious. The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some. We already know that we can use policy to push people away from their preferred to a less preferred method. The items listed in green are mostly obvious as people seek alternatives. It's like high…

> $45M per year Well, in a hundred years they should be able to afford a couple of new subway stations. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...

Maybe 10 years, because $45M is per month.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#53

The increased speeds are excellent for those who can afford the toll. This is a universal benefit of toll roads for those people.

wealthy people do not need to travel as much as pleb....

Let travel for royalty be unimpeded and force the peasants to bike in the rain...

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#54
post #21
post #4

Wouldn't it be nice if policy changes were accompanied by an A/B testing plan to evaluate their impact? I have always thought so. I have also seen a major pitfall of A/B testing that real humans can hand-pick and slice data to make it sound as positive or negative as wanted. Nonetheless, the more data the better.

We already had A/B testing of congestion pricing. The A test was without congestion pricing in NYC, and has been tested for decades.

An important part of testing is establishing assessment criteria and collecting data.

I wish more laws would pre-state what their intended outcome and success would look like.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> IMO what they should be keeping a careful eye on and tracking is how many fewer trips happen to businesses in those areas. There’s a section dedicated to this which indicates visitors to business zones are up and OpenTable reservations are up. If anything, the reduced congestion should be a boon for business deliveries and the congestion pricing should be a rounding error for those users. IMO, people think driving…

It would be really interesting if it turns out that something like this improves the city's overall economy by encouraging people to go to neighborhood businesses instead of driving all the way across town to go to whatever place is currently trending. I'm thinking here of when I lived in Milwaukee, WI. Milwaukee has a strong culture of driving across town to a small number of trendy neighborhoods. Which leads to hyp…

> extreme neighborhood-to-neighborhood prosperity disparities.

It may also make running a business more expansive. It limits locations and pushes rent up.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#56
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already had A/B testing of congestion pricing. The A test was without congestion pricing in NYC, and has been tested for decades.

That's not an A/B test because it has no way of controlling for broader economic trends over time. How do you figure out if what you're seeing is because of that one thing that changed, or the enormous list of other things that also changed around the same time? A more valid design would be randomly assigning some cities to institute congestion pricing, and other cities to not have it. Obviously not feasible in pract…

That would be a bad design for an A/B study (and NYC congestion pricing is not a “study” anyway), because cities are few and not alike and have an enormous list of other things that are different. What NYC equivalent would you pick?

In any case, not every policy change needs to be an academic exercise.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#57
Congestion isn't limited to cars.

My pregnant wife was hit yesterday in SoHo in broad daylight by a delivery driver on an e-bike. He ran a redlight. He hit her in a crosswalk. She was wearing a bright orange dress. She was not on a phone or listening to music. She went flying ass over teakettle. We spent 6 hours in the ER yesterday evening to make sure our unborn baby was okay. Fortunately, everyone is OK despite her being banged up.

The goddamn lawlessness of electric bikes is a consequence of NYC implicitly encouraging their illegal use. Meanwhile, I get to pay $9 MORE to drive my licensed, registered, insured vehicle on increasingly narrow roads filled with increasingly negligent 2-wheeled asshats because it's the preferred business model.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#59
post #19
post #7

Not to settle on "It's bad" but their so called "results" seems completely obvious. The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some. We already know that we can use policy to push people away from their preferred to a less preferred method. The items listed in green are mostly obvious as people seek alternatives. It's like high…

I'm a little unsure how to read you. These results look, frankly, amazing. The benefits to schools and busses alone would have been good. That traffic is faster everywhere is a cherry on top of it all. And you did see that they had a section on restaurants, right? Those are up. They polled stores and found only 25% that report a negative impact. That looks concerning, I agree. Would love more polling on it with quant…

Getting business stats is fraught. If a business is struggling, the owners opinion on the cause is important, but is it accurate?

In Wellington, New Zealand, failing business love to blame cycle lanes for their woes. The government sacking a significant number of people and an economic downturn is apparently not the cause.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#60
post #7

Not to settle on "It's bad" but their so called "results" seems completely obvious. The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some. We already know that we can use policy to push people away from their preferred to a less preferred method. The items listed in green are mostly obvious as people seek alternatives. It's like high…

Every study I've ever seen showed that people on foot and on bikes are _much_ more likely to stop and shop or eat during their journey.
Post reply on HN