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

Congestion Pricing in Manhattan Close to Approval

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 114 posts

Re: Congestion Pricing in Manhattan Close to Approval

#61

Post by viscanti »

roywiggins wrote: post #41
ams6110 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More like decades of incompetence and corruption.

Very likely, but you can chart the actual funding over time, whereas a sudden spike in incompetence and corruption seems somewhat unlikely. There has to be some causal reason why everything is hitting the fan now, not ten years ago or ten years from now.

> Very likely, but you can chart the actual funding over time, whereas a sudden spike in incompetence and corruption seems somewhat unlikely.

Sure. There are likely many reasons why it's so bad. But the solution is to fix it, not penalize people because they use the obvious alternatives that are much better.

Re: Congestion Pricing in Manhattan Close to Approval

#62

Post by dymk »

baddox wrote: post #54
jchanimal wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally you want to tax things you want less of and subsidize what you want more of. Hence taxing car traffic and subsidizing transit.

I don’t know if I like your model. I would say tax things in order to remove negative externalities, then people will decide what they want more of.

People elect leaders to pass laws to incentivize things they want more of, and disincentivize things they want less of.

Re: Congestion Pricing in Manhattan Close to Approval

#63

Post by fabianhjr »

baddox wrote: post #54
jchanimal wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generally you want to tax things you want less of and subsidize what you want more of. Hence taxing car traffic and subsidizing transit.

I don’t know if I like your model. I would say tax things in order to remove negative externalities, then people will decide what they want more of.

Good thing incentivizing walking, biking, and transit line up with removing negative externalities:

https://www.thediscourse.ca/scarborough/full-cost-commute

Re: Congestion Pricing in Manhattan Close to Approval

#64

Post by baddox »

dymk wrote: post #62
baddox wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if I like your model. I would say tax things in order to remove negative externalities, then people will decide what they want more of.

People elect leaders to pass laws to incentivize things they want more of, and disincentivize things they want less of.

That might be true, but what people actually want may not be the same as the most proximate cause of what they want. For instance, if all carbon emissions were required to be carbon-neutral, then carbon emission on its own isn’t so bad. If the cost of every gallon of gas includes the cost of sequestering the same amount of carbon that the gas will emit, then who really cares how much gas is burned?

Re: Congestion Pricing in Manhattan Close to Approval

#65

Post by dymk »

baddox wrote: post #64
dymk wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People elect leaders to pass laws to incentivize things they want more of, and disincentivize things they want less of.

That might be true, but what people actually want may not be the same as the most proximate cause of what they want. For instance, if all carbon emissions were required to be carbon-neutral, then carbon emission on its own isn’t so bad. If the cost of every gallon of gas includes the cost of sequestering the same amount of carbon that the gas will emit, then who really cares how much gas is burned?

I don't think we're disagreeing on anything quite yet - if gas included the cost to offset all externalities from burning (not just carbon cost), but nox, ecological damage from drilling, transportation impact, sequestering airborne carbon near where it's burned, we'd probably be fine.

But gas isn't priced that way, because we don't do all of the above to offset its effect on our cities and the environment. So we're continuing to impose more disincentives to burn gas.

Re: Congestion Pricing in Manhattan Close to Approval

#67

Post by cylinder »

snissn wrote: post #59

I literally don't understand what this is and how it will work. It's like ez pass for certain zones of nyc? Will it only be for certain hours? Will they bill from traffic cameras? "Congestion pricing" is a brand new term to me and I don't see a clean definition.. Sorry if I missed it in the article

You put cashless toll points above the roads. Cameras capture the license plates for those without toll passes. They can go online and pay within a few days or get fined. Not a new concept.

Re: Congestion Pricing in Manhattan Close to Approval

#68

Post by baddox »

fabianhjr wrote: post #63
baddox wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know if I like your model. I would say tax things in order to remove negative externalities, then people will decide what they want more of.

Good thing incentivizing walking, biking, and transit line up with removing negative externalities: https://www.thediscourse.ca/scarborough/full-cost-commute

Absolutely. I have no trouble with indirectly charging for negative externalities. As technology and processes improve that enable charging more directly for negative externalities, I approve of that.

Re: Congestion Pricing in Manhattan Close to Approval

#69

Post by baddox »

dymk wrote: post #65
baddox wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That might be true, but what people actually want may not be the same as the most proximate cause of what they want. For instance, if all carbon emissions were required to be carbon-neutral, then carbon emission on its own isn’t so bad. If the cost of every gallon of gas includes the cost of sequestering the same amount of carbon that the gas will emit, then who really cares how much gas is burned?

I don't think we're disagreeing on anything quite yet - if gas included the cost to offset all externalities from burning (not just carbon cost), but nox, ecological damage from drilling, transportation impact, sequestering airborne carbon near where it's burned, we'd probably be fine. But gas isn't priced that way, because we don't do all of the above to offset its effect on our cities and the environment. So we're…

I’m in agreement. I just also approve of moving the externality adjustment closer and closer to its direct source as technology and processes make it efficient to do so.

Re: Congestion Pricing in Manhattan Close to Approval

#70

Post by forgotmypw3 »

imgabe wrote: post #47
ARandomerDude wrote: post #39

Unintended consequence: driving in Manhattan will be de facto off-limits to the poor.

Have you seen the price of parking in Manhattan? How many poor people do you imagine there are currently driving around Manhattan?

Parking policy in New York City, including Manhattan, is actually designed quite thoughtfully to make parking accessible to everyone. It is certainly easier if you have money, but you could be living in a van on close to $0/day in Manhattan and still find a spot to park somewhere every day, even if it takes a while.
Post reply on HN