Changes since congestion pricing started in New York • Hacker News Board

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#631

Post by Sohcahtoa82 » Thu, May 15, 2025, 6:40 PM UTC

WalterBright wrote: post #575

Thlom wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only life advise I've ever taken seriously is to always take the stairs.

A friend of mine when I worked at Boeing advised me to always take the elevator, because one is only allocated so many heartbeats, and he wanted to conserve his. He passed away from a heart attack.

That line of logic to me was always just absolute wild.

Like, yeah, eventually you will die, so yes, the number of heartbeats you'll have is finite. But it's not like you get some limited allocation and when you consume them all, you're toast.

The reality is the opposite which is counterintuitive to those folks: The more heartbeats you use, the more you get. At least, that's true if your extra heartbeat usage is from aerobic exercise, not just being unhealthy and having a high resting heart rate.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#632

Post by [deleted] » Thu, May 15, 2025, 6:40 PM UTC

windowshopping wrote: post #625

kazinator wrote: post #606

> Evidence has mounted that the program so far is achieving its two main goals — reducing congestion It's reducing congestion by removing the people who don't want to pay $9 to drive to town. Paying to be there: what a lovely concept! It works wonders for reducing density, too. Fewer people live in a desirable area, and they are richer and more pleasant, what are the downsides? Maybe it should not be linked to afford…

Obviously we would like to have high quality public transportation that makes the city easily accessible to people of all economic classes. See European cities for examples. Our infrastructure isn't there yet. We are doing poorly. This is a first step. Yes, it will favor the wealthy for now. But its longterm effects will be to favor everyone. Stop being shortsighted. I don't believe that the ends always justify the m…

[deleted]

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#633

Post by soperj » Thu, May 15, 2025, 6:41 PM UTC

genewitch wrote: post #626

soperj wrote: post #552

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And they can manage it, why can't New York?

New York City has more people in it than the 4 most populated metro areas in Italy. Italy has ~3x the population of the state of New York, half the population of the state lives in NYC area .

So they need it more than Italy. You can handle wayyy more traffic without cars on the road than you can with.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#634

Post by toss1 » Thu, May 15, 2025, 6:46 PM UTC

kazinator wrote: post #606

> Evidence has mounted that the program so far is achieving its two main goals — reducing congestion It's reducing congestion by removing the people who don't want to pay $9 to drive to town. Paying to be there: what a lovely concept! It works wonders for reducing density, too. Fewer people live in a desirable area, and they are richer and more pleasant, what are the downsides? Maybe it should not be linked to afford…

Operating as designed.

If you have a car, you can already afford purchase/lease, insurance, registration, fuel, maintenance, etc., so affording a reasonable and variable toll is not an issue. If your need to take that vehicle into that zone at that specific time is so great, a $9 toll will not be a deterrent, and if it is just convenience, then rearrange your schedule or transport mode to a time/mode that balances the cost and convenience.

Sure it sounds nice to have it done by lottery system (e.g., plates with the rightmost numeral = "3" are banned next Tuesday), but that is much harder to tune and could present a far more serious impediment.

Far easier to tune it with price: Tuesday mornings have an extra-high traffic spike, ok, "Fee increases to $11 Tuesdays 0:830-13:30". We want to get to 15% less traffic instead of 10%, now we need to say "plates with the rightmost numerals in the range '00'-'15' banned Tuesdays", etc. etc.. Every time they make a change, everyone must check... what a mess.

And for people who MUST be there at a specific time, e.g., your cancer treatment center has only a Tuesday 10:20 AM slot for you, being banned because of a license plate is a real hardship, whereas an extra $2 toll is a trivial inconvenience compared to the reason for the trip.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#635

Post by munificent » Thu, May 15, 2025, 6:52 PM UTC

cmeacham98 wrote: post #614

munificent wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking. * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive. * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain. * Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups tha…

> You are much safer being in a car when hit by another car than when not being in a car. The solution to this problem is not to have more cars, it is to have less (and probably stricter standards on obtaining and maintaining a driver's license).

I don't have data, but I'm pretty sure you're even safer in a low speed car-to-car accident than in a low speed bike-to-bike accident.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#636

Post by munificent » Thu, May 15, 2025, 6:53 PM UTC

abdullahkhalids wrote: post #623

munificent wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I support this policy and was a bike commuter for several years, but just to play devil's advocate: Speed is not the only reason people prefer a car over walking and biking. * Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive. * Cars give you environment isolation when it's freezing, sweltering, or pouring rain. * Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups tha…

> Some people have mobility issues and can't bike or walk but can drive. People with mobility issues have every right to use motorized forms of transport. That could be cars or other smaller vehicles (like motorized wheelchairs). However, we should recognize that the number of people with mobility issues in a society where everyone grows up walking and biking a lot is less than one in which everyone travels by car. T…

I currently have a mobility issue because I biked to work.

But, yes, obviously everyone generally being healthier because they walk more is good.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#637

Post by munificent » Thu, May 15, 2025, 6:54 PM UTC

jkubicek wrote: post #628

dlivingston wrote: post #624

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cars isolate you from other people, which can be important especially for groups that are more likely to be on the receiving end of unwanted interactions. Does this refer to celebrities / public figures? Or what's the subtext here?

My assumption was that the OP meant “women traveling late at night”

Yes, or rich people in poor areas, or gay and trans people in conservative areas, or Black people in racist areas, etc.

Anyone at a greater risk of being harrassed/mugged/assaulted/etc.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#638

Post by kazinator » Thu, May 15, 2025, 7:00 PM UTC

windowshopping wrote: post #625

kazinator wrote: post #606

> Evidence has mounted that the program so far is achieving its two main goals — reducing congestion It's reducing congestion by removing the people who don't want to pay $9 to drive to town. Paying to be there: what a lovely concept! It works wonders for reducing density, too. Fewer people live in a desirable area, and they are richer and more pleasant, what are the downsides? Maybe it should not be linked to afford…

Obviously we would like to have high quality public transportation that makes the city easily accessible to people of all economic classes. See European cities for examples. Our infrastructure isn't there yet. We are doing poorly. This is a first step. Yes, it will favor the wealthy for now. But its longterm effects will be to favor everyone. Stop being shortsighted. I don't believe that the ends always justify the m…

You're not explaining why my idea doesn't have long-term effects compared to the currently implemented idea, only arbitrarily calling it short-sighted.

Or do you mean that declining any opportunity for a rent-seeking cash-grab is categorically short-sighted? I can accept that.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#639

Post by kazinator » Thu, May 15, 2025, 7:06 PM UTC

toss1 wrote: post #634

kazinator wrote: post #606

> Evidence has mounted that the program so far is achieving its two main goals — reducing congestion It's reducing congestion by removing the people who don't want to pay $9 to drive to town. Paying to be there: what a lovely concept! It works wonders for reducing density, too. Fewer people live in a desirable area, and they are richer and more pleasant, what are the downsides? Maybe it should not be linked to afford…

Operating as designed. If you have a car, you can already afford purchase/lease, insurance, registration, fuel, maintenance, etc., so affording a reasonable and variable toll is not an issue. If your need to take that vehicle into that zone at that specific time is so great, a $9 toll will not be a deterrent, and if it is just convenience, then rearrange your schedule or transport mode to a time/mode that balances th…

> If you have a car, ...

Sounds vaguely like, why are you begging, and why should I give you anything, if you can afford cigarettes?

A lot of low-income Americans drive cars, and would be way more fucked without them, because of the way things are.

> that is much harder to tune and could present a far more serious impediment.

What impediment, and how is it harder to tune?

In principle, you can tune the system to such a fine granularity that, for instance, one specific license plate is permitted to enter the city, every four years on February 29th. And that is no easier to declare than any other tuning, like alternating daily between two halves of the license plate space.

Re: Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

#640

Post by dahart » Thu, May 15, 2025, 7:30 PM UTC

Chris2048 wrote: post #607

dahart wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I heard about that one too, very unique and weird for sure! But we could go through the stories of each of the few hundred fatalities that happened on public transit last year, and it wouldn’t even be a blip compared to the tens of thousands of people killed in gruesome accidents in cars. Incidentally I still remember the description of Paul Walker’s death for kinda the same reason that subway chainsaws and necrophil…

Except that wasn't a fatality. How often do people get robbed while driving in the highway. For that matter, how many who came to harm on the highway were speeding vs random subway assaults.

People get robbed at gas stations, convenience stores, parking lots, and streets at fairly high numbers. I’m not sure what we’re comparing or debating here, but does your example actually count as a “robbery” if they died first? Would it not have happened if they hadn’t died? The anecdote you brought doesn’t seem to reflect on safety at all, it’s unclear what relevance it has.

Speed is absolutely a huge factor in driving injuries, one of the biggest. Again not sure how or even why to compare that to assaults on the subway, but googling briefly, the result I got suggests there were around 2k reported assaults of any kind. It’s a drop next to the nearly 3M ER visits, which may leave out large numbers of unreported, uninsured, or less serious injuries.