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

521–530 of 653 posts

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#521

Post by KevinGlass »

steveBK123 wrote: post #349
gregshap wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The uber/taxi fee is charged per ride, whereas private passenger cars pay once per day. Seems like a reasonable tradeoff.

Private passenger car driver is paying 12x Taxi toll / 6x Uber toll. Taxi/Uber toll is passed directly onto he rider. Why should it be cheaper to be chauffeured? Also your average Taxi may not even cross into the CPZ 12x per day, so unclear we are making it up on volume either.

It should be cheaper. No circling the block looking for parking, no space needed at all for that matter. That alone is worth giving taxis/ubers at least a different pricing structure.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#522

Post by chimeracoder »

CPLX wrote: post #326
steveBK123 wrote: post #296

I think the biggest thing CP is going to do in NYC is end toll shopping. There were previously some pretty obvious arbs available to people trying to get off LI. The biggest policy failure of CP though to me is that they left taxi/uber relatively unscathed. Often the majority of traffic is taxi/uber, so make the surcharge on them a fraction of what individual drivers pay is kind of nonsensical. Are we trying to minim…

How do you figure that? The amount of the surcharge for the average taxi/uber driver per day will be many many multiples of the cost for a regular driver. In the case of a regular driver you you have someone paying $9 to bring a car into the congested area, probably serving one trip by one person. In the case of a TLC driver you'll have them paying probably well over $100 a day (assuming the $2.75 charge x 4-5 trips…

> In the case of a TLC driver you'll have them paying probably well over $100 a day (assuming the $2.75 charge x 4-5 trips an hour give or take) and aiding in the transport of probably dozens of people to their destination.

This is completely wrong.

First, the fee for cabs is different from the fee for private cars, and in fact, it was set at the value which is the private car fee divided by the average number of trips into the Congestion Relief Zone that cabs make each day.

Second, passengers are the ones paying the fee, not cab drivers. It's one of the fees tacked on to your receipt.

Third, this fee has already been charged on cab fares since 2019. The only difference is it's now being applied to all vehicles except taxis/FHVs. For cab drivers, there's no difference - it was the one part of the program that has already been in effect for years!

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#523

Post by jakelazaroff »

np- wrote: post #371
steveBK123 wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a car and live in Brooklyn. I usually take an Uber anyway because parking is a pain and/or expensive. So I was previously comparing: $0 car toll + $20-50 parking vs $0 car toll + $50 Taxi/Uber fare Now I am comparing: $9 car toll + $20-50 parking vs $1.50 Uber toll + $50 Uber fare That is - the fee is being passed onto riders anyway, so why should I pay a lower toll sitting in the back of an Uber than when dri…

Think of the congestion charge as a charge on the vehicle, rather than on the person, as the stated policy goal is to reduce the number of vehicles in the CBD, not the number of people overall. The Uber is very likely going to continue to be used to service other passengers after dropping you off within the same calendar day, so one potential "fair" solution is to split the congestion charge among the many passengers…

The rideshare toll is already a charge on the vehicle and not the riders. If you share an Uber with two other people, the per-person congestion fee for the trip drops to $0.50.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#524

Post by gosub100 »

The-Bus wrote: post #470
gosub100 wrote: post #386

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what good it would do to have a car that can only travel in lower Manhattan. Yeah the few people who live there, own a car, and are lazy or use it for going to get groceries 2x a week might slip through, but that's nothing significant in my book. What would worry me is if it leads to more license plate theft. Criminals get to ride for free, while legally registered owners have to fight the fines and clear…

Where are you driving your own car to get groceries easily in lower Manhattan... twice a week?

If you had a friend or SO, one could drop off the other, then circle around a while and pick them up later. But that further reinforces my point that there's little to gain from "cheating" this way.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#525

Post by chimeracoder »

kittikitti wrote: post #161

Good, I was hit by a car in NYC while on a bike and it caused a fracture. If this reduces congestion, then I support it because I could have easily died. However, this was accompanied by hikes in public transit pricing. I don't think transit officials are acting in good faith when it comes to their moral arguments and just want to justify raising taxes for the poor.

> However, this was accompanied by hikes in public transit pricing.

It was not. Public transit pricing is completely independent and did not change with the implementation of congestion pricing.

> I don't think transit officials are acting in good faith when it comes to their moral arguments and just want to justify raising taxes for the poor.

The only person who has acted in bad faith is Kathy Hochul, who bent over backwards to water down the policy by having poorer people subsidize wealthy car commuters.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#526

Post by chimeracoder »

supernova87a wrote: post #476
rtkwe wrote: post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The number of people who entirely live and work and drive inside the zone is going to be vanishingly small in comparison to the people who transit the zone border so I'm not sure it's going to be that big of a deal.

I just wonder why they choose not to enforce this aspect of it when it can be a significant population (in a statistical sense) of the car traffic as well as revenue. Manhattan inside the highways is a big place. Maybe it's the cost of the cameras to be installed.

> I just wonder why they choose not to enforce this aspect of it when it can be a significant population (in a statistical sense) of the car traffic as well as revenue.

It's not. 85% of Manhattan households don't own a car at all. The number is even higher inside the Congestion and Relief Zone. Almost all car traffic within the zone is from people who do not live within the zone.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#527

Post by yt-sdb »

polon wrote: post #341
occz wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can already extrapolate from the results from other cities who have implemented the policy, where it has been wildly successful at reducing congestion.

So far, none of the data provided by the linked site would suggest Manhattan will see a reduction in transportation times. This is with the Monday snow however, which I'd imagine caused delays by itself. I will say, being in Manhattan, their seems to be less traffic on the road. I wonder if Google Maps traffic data is using a rolling average of ~7 days or something

Are you sure? Compare before/after for the main affected regions (Holland Tunnel, Queensboro) versus the unaffected regions. We definitely need more data, but I think there's an immediate reduction in the obvious places.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#528

Post by chimeracoder »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #33

Note that a gimped version of congestion pricing was actually implemented, putting it closer to being an annoyance more than an actual deterrence. Originally it was meant to be $15, but was ultimately lowered to $9.

> Originally it was meant to be $15, but was ultimately lowered to $9.

It was originally supposed to be $27. $15 was the lower price that Hochul fought for and issued a press release boasting that it was the correct price.

Then she just unilaterally decided to cancel the entire program before bringing it back at $9.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#529

Post by chimeracoder »

throwaway48476 wrote: post #66
Workaccount2 wrote: post #33

Note that a gimped version of congestion pricing was actually implemented, putting it closer to being an annoyance more than an actual deterrence. Originally it was meant to be $15, but was ultimately lowered to $9.

It wasn't gimped, it was a PR play so the governor could claim to be saving citizens costs by 'lowering' it. Like when people buy things they otherwise wouldn't have because it was 'on sale' so they're really saving money if you think about it.

> It wasn't gimped, it was a PR play so the governor could claim to be saving citizens costs by 'lowering' it.

That doesn't make sense, because $15 was already the lower price that she fought for.

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#530

Post by gradschool »

gruez wrote: post #406
gradschool wrote: post #395

Congestion charging started in London in 2003. I'm skeptical about the justification that it's intended to disincentivize unnecessary driving because people who drive frequently get a bulk discount rather than a surcharge as one might expect if that were the actual intention. A bulk discount is more indicative of a policy intended to maximize revenue. I'm also skeptical about the justification that it's intended to r…

>I have a moral issue with it as well because the roads are financed by everyone's taxes Mind elaborating on how this is a "moral issue"? Public transit is funded by "everyone's taxes" as well, but you still have to pay a fare to use it. Do you get similarly aggrieved? >Around the time the charge was starting it was easy to find supporters for it on tv chat shows but I never met one in real life. It's trivial to find…

Your points are well taken. I wasn't aware of the Guardian poll and I stand corrected about my implication that the charge lacks public support. With regard to the moral issue, I have less of a problem with tickets that are paying for something like running a train, or for that matter a bridge toll paying off the bonds that enabled the bridge to be built. I have more of a problem with someone demanding money for nothing. I haven't heard it claimed even by its supporters that road maintenance depends on the congestion charge. To my knowledge the main justification has always been that the charge funds the payer's behavior modification. Is it for the payer's own good? Is it for the greater good? You may well differ, but something about that doesn't sit right with me however noble, especially when it pertains to law abiding citizens acting within their rights.
Post reply on HN