NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker • Hacker News Board

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#651

Post by resters » Tue, Jan 14, 2025, 2:17 AM UTC

pclmulqdq wrote: post #157

resters wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suppose a non-rich person needs to use the highways for work and can make twice as many stops during the day because of congestion pricing. Imagine a group of non-rich people who decide to carpool because of congestion pricing and end up spending half the time in traffic every day and as a result get more leisure time. Considering that a parking spot in Mahnattan costs close to $1K per month, most of the cars are dri…

Free/cheap street parking exists in Manhattan. A lot of it.

then why do people pay over $600 per month for a spot?

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#652

Post by yyyyz » Tue, Jan 14, 2025, 5:54 PM UTC

KevinGlass wrote: post #521

steveBK123 wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[dead]

Re: NYC Congestion Pricing Tracker

#653

Post by ufmace » Sat, Jan 18, 2025, 3:31 AM UTC

RHSeeger wrote: post #650

ufmace wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Out of about 3.5 million riders a day. Meanwhile, nobody pays any attention to the roughly 250 people who die in car crashes every single year in the NYC metro area. If you're so worried about safety, we should ban cars entirely instead of just taxing them a little.

Oh, ffs. I was replying the comment that the subways stays are "fine". They're not fine, they're more dangerous than they were 20 years ago; more dangerous than they should be. The subway system in NYC is of great benefit to the city and it's residents. But it could certainly stand a fair amount of improvement. And banning cares from the city completely would be moronic, causing incredible harm to pretty much every a…

It was snarky and ridiculous, yes. But then, so is the implication that subways aren't sufficiently safe due to emotional appeals to incidents that happen a single-digit number of times a year versus the millions of riders every day.

Getting rid of cars entirely may not be practical, but it is objectively true that many more people are killed and injured in car accidents in the same area over any particular length of time you could name compared to subway crime. What is the objective reason why subways are "scary" but cars aren't?

For that matter, what is the objective source for such statements as that stations are "getting dangerous enough" or that "people are avoiding them"? Is any of that backed up by actual crime statistics or ridership numbers, or just sensationalized headlines?