[HN Gopher] New York City will charge drivers going downtown
___________________________________________________________________
 
New York City will charge drivers going downtown
 
Author : rntn
Score  : 185 points
Date   : 2023-06-10 14:09 UTC (8 hours ago)
 
web link (www.cnn.com)
w3m dump (www.cnn.com)
 
| shrubble wrote:
| So despite the massive ridership of the subway and the fully paid
| infrastructure and rights of way from 100 years ago, it can't
| throw off enough cash for modernization of its systems?
| 
| And instead politicians decide to tax the successful mode of
| transportation, which is cars. Note that given the density and NY
| gas taxes, it is a certainty that cars in this area generate
| surplus cash.
 
  | elijaht wrote:
  | Have you been to New York? The subway is the mode of
  | transportation for nearly everyone and it works great. I
  | wouldn't say cars are the successful mode of transportation in
  | New York at all
 
    | dotnet00 wrote:
    | Describing the NYC subway as "working great" is an amazing
    | twisting of the truth. The only thing good about it is that
    | it isn't as bad as public transport in Long Island.
    | Otherwise, good luck going anywhere on time without having to
    | add 30 minutes - an hour of waste just standing around.
    | 
    | The discomfort and cost of public transportation would be at
    | least somewhat tolerable if there was anywhere near as much
    | of an emphasis on timeliness as there is in, say, Japan. As
    | it stands though, the public transport is the one thing I
    | miss least and hate most about the city.
 
      | ricktdotorg wrote:
      | > Describing the NYC subway as "working great" is an
      | amazing twisting of the truth. The only thing good about it
      | is that it isn't as bad as public transport in Long Island.
      | Otherwise, good luck going anywhere on time without having
      | to add 30 minutes - an hour of waste just standing around.
      | 
      | just to add some real numbers, we can look at the actual
      | NYC subway data from MTA's march 2023 report[0] page 12:
      | 
      | * ~3.7m subway riders in march 2023
      | 
      | * 84.7% of riders arrived at their destinations within 5min
      | of schedule
      | 
      | * 83.3% weekday on-time performance
      | 
      | * 85.6% weekend on-time performance
      | 
      | [0] https://new.mta.info/document/109346
 
        | dotnet00 wrote:
        | I highly doubt the accuracy of that, the ~one time per
        | month during weekends that I have to travel to the city,
        | the subway and busses were so unreliable with timing that
        | it's easier to just take the LIRR to the nearest place to
        | my destination, ignore the busses and walk the remaining
        | miles.
 
        | tick_tock_tick wrote:
        | Give me p90, p95, etc. While less frequent those are the
        | events people remember not the other 3 days it worked.
 
        | estebank wrote:
        | Let's say you travel every week day once on each
        | direction (480 trips). The average person will be off
        | their expected arrival time by more than 5 minutes on 72
        | trips. Of those 72, how many are over, let's say, half an
        | hour? In Buenos Aires I could say that those kind of
        | delays are something that I would experience maybe 12
        | times a year. They happen, they stand out, they are
        | annoying, but I've also been stuck in traffic for that
        | long, about as often.
 
    | shrubble wrote:
    | In terms of paying enough taxes to sustain further use, is
    | how I should have phrased it. Why can't the subway fund its
    | own improvements?
 
      | zip1234 wrote:
      | Road user fees don't even cover half of the cost of roads
      | let alone make up for all the negative externalities.
 
        | dotnet00 wrote:
        | If we're complaining about the costs of negative
        | externalities, are we also considering the value of the
        | positive externalities?
 
        | zip1234 wrote:
        | The benefits are why people would pay the price of the
        | negative externalities. If not deemed to be worthwhile,
        | there are other means of transportation that have less
        | negative externalities.
 
  | nimbleplum40 wrote:
  | How much money do freeways make directly? How about local
  | roads? Last I checked local roads produce zero revenue. Should
  | we get rid of them?
 
  | colejohnson66 wrote:
  | I see ads on the LIRR all the time from NYC saying "we love
  | having a driver's license for everything but driving". The city
  | doesn't hide that it wants to get rid of cars. I don't blame
  | them; cars in the business district are a nightmare for
  | pedestrians _and_ drivers.
 
  | wussboy wrote:
  | Cars don't and can't scale and we waste staggering amounts of
  | space and infrastructure on what would be better utilized and
  | more profitably spent on walkability.
 
  | bootwoot wrote:
  | Pedestrian and bike deaths are climbing [0]. 44% of New Yorkers
  | are considered rent burdened [1] and sure as fuck can't afford
  | a car in the city. Cars can only be considered a successful
  | mode of transportation from a fairly wealthy and elite
  | perspective of a car owner in New York. If you have the cash
  | for the car itself and off-the-street parking, sure, it's
  | probably great. But for everyone else it makes daily life of
  | walking and biking in the street significantly more dangerous
  | with no clear reciprocal benefit.
  | 
  | [0] https://www.curbed.com/2023/04/its-already-been-a-deadly-
  | yea....
  | 
  | [1] https://wherewelive.cityofnewyork.us/explore-data/housing-
  | co...
 
  | raldi wrote:
  | Driving is hugely subsidized. This proposal is simply to
  | slightly reduce that subsidy, which will continue to be hefty.
 
  | MAGZine wrote:
  | wut? in manhattan, calling 'cars' the successful more of
  | transportation is very weird. the train is almost always
  | faster, cheaper, and more consistent. The pitfalls are
  | accessibility sucks (most stations are not ADA compliant), and
  | frequency drops off later at night, but if you just plan a
  | little it's not a big deal.
 
  | lom wrote:
  | I'm sorry what? Cars are the most subsidized thing in America
  | today, you can't speak of success when they get billions of
  | blank checks handed to them in many different ways. See here:
  | https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S092180092...
  | 
  | Meanwhile public transit: https://www.apta.com/research-
  | technical-resources/research-r...
 
    | bequanna wrote:
    | From your first link:
    | 
    | > The true scale of social costs is rarely considered...
    | 
    | Yep, that is pretty much what I was expecting. Some hand
    | waving and lecturing about qualitative, subjective
    | externalities.
    | 
    | This is social commentary and opinion pretending to be
    | science.
 
| giantg2 wrote:
| Nobody really _wants_ to drive or park in that sort of
| congestion. If they would just make public transit better, then
| there would be less congestion naturally.
 
  | paulgb wrote:
  | I agree, but it goes both ways -- you need to reduce congestion
  | to improve transit. In the past NYC has even suspended service
  | around the Holland Tunnel because of gridlock[1]
  | 
  | [1] https://www.amny.com/news/mta-bus-traffic-holland-tunnel-
  | con...
 
    | giantg2 wrote:
    | Unless they use other methods or restructure the current
    | infrastructure.
 
  | booleandilemma wrote:
  | * * *
 
  | insanitybit wrote:
  | How could it be better?
 
    | giantg2 wrote:
    | Cheaper, cleaner, on-time, expanded service (times and
    | locations), and better safety (either real or precieved).
 
| fellowmartian wrote:
| When I moved to NYC from Kyiv, I was actually surprised by how
| chill the traffic in New York is.
| 
| Obviously it can get annoying around bridges and tunnels, but
| outside those areas it's pretty easy to get around, and I live on
| the west side of FiDi.
| 
| Not against this legislation, I think it's a good idea, but I
| personally spent more time in traffic on Long Island, and upper
| Manhattan.
| 
| I don't own a car though, I just rent when necessary.
 
  | bequanna wrote:
  | I guess I always thought the two challenges in the city were
  | entering/leaving and parking.
  | 
  | There doesn't seem to consistently be TOO much traffic when
  | you're just trying to get around Manhattan.
 
    | ghaff wrote:
    | It depends a bit on when and where. But, yeah, all the choke
    | points in and out and then finding/paying for parking are at
    | least among the biggest pain points. I almost never drive to
    | Manhattan from Massachusetts even though it would be faster
    | from my house and that's driven in no small part by the pain
    | of driving into Manhattan from the north.
 
    | fellowmartian wrote:
    | Yes, that's been my experience as well.
 
  | dangus wrote:
  | This anecdote is basically another way of saying the incentives
  | of urban design align and become self-fulfilling prophecies.
  | 
  | Suburban dwellers stuck in the automobile mindset automatically
  | assume that big cities must have the most horrendous traffic.
  | It's seems like a logical conclusion: if traffic in my 50,000
  | person suburb is horrendous, it must be downright horrific in
  | the big city.
  | 
  | But that's not really how it works. In NYC one two track subway
  | tunnel can handle 15 lanes-worth of car occupants.
  | 
  | Ironically, making transit, cycling, and walking more
  | convenient than driving and "punishing" the automobiles
  | actually makes traffic and driving more pleasant.
  | 
  | I think a lot of suburban folks would be really surprised that
  | a two-lane 25mph road can comfortably handle traffic for
  | neighborhoods that have 10x the density of a typical
  | automobile-designed connected with large arterial roadways.
  | When you design a place to only accommodate vehicles, vehicles
  | are what you get.
 
    | cyberax wrote:
    | > Suburban dwellers stuck in the automobile mindset
    | automatically assume that big cities must have the most
    | horrendous traffic.
    | 
    | Have you driven in Manhattan?
 
    | toast0 wrote:
    | I've not driven in NYC. But I've driven in LA, SF, San
    | Francisco, Seattle, Chicago, Milwaukee, maybe a bit in
    | Dallas.
    | 
    | Big cities _do_ have horrendous traffic in high density
    | areas. Even if it 's free flowing, there are intersections so
    | often and pedestrians everywhere and so speeds are
    | necessarily quite low. You wouldn't drive through there
    | unless you don't have a choice; maybe the ferry lets off
    | downtown and you need to get to the freeway from there, but
    | usually you're driving through downtown to get to somewhere
    | downtown, which means you need to park, which is also
    | terrible.
    | 
    | Of course, NYC is bigger than I think, and there might be
    | some parts where density is relatively less, but the only
    | reasons to have a car there are if you're a cab/limo driver
    | or if you're doing the cannonball run.
 
      | sylens wrote:
      | To be fair, none of those cities have the transit
      | infrastructure that NYC has. In fact some of them (LA,
      | Dallas, maybe even Seattle) are cities I would classify as
      | "car first"
 
      | CSMastermind wrote:
      | I have driven in pretty much every major North American
      | city and NYC isn't even in the top 10 of worst traffic or
      | places to drive, there are some times and specific areas
      | where it can get bad but I'd happily drive in NYC every day
      | than have commute in Seattle.
      | 
      | I think at least in part that's due to the fact that bad
      | drivers are scared away by New York so don't even attempt
      | to drive there, or if they do they give up quickly.
      | 
      | NYC also has the only public transit system in the US that
      | I don't mind taking so I'm sure that play a role as well.
 
| steveBK123 wrote:
| My main concern as NYer is the governments inability to build
| transit, and not for lack of money.
| 
| NY will find it relatively easy to institute a new tax on
| drivers, but will the billions collected actually make transit
| better in any tangible way?
| 
| NYC is also hamstrung by having its streets controlled locally by
| our DOT, but our transit & bridges controlled by a state agency.
| 
| We just caved (again) entirely to the transit unions in the last
| contract negotiation. We have subway lines & trains wired up for
| 1 man operation but run them staffed with 2 due to union work
| rules.
| 
| We have for years instead of building elevators, paid 3rd party
| access-a-ride minibus/van drivers to provide Uber-like service to
| anyone in need.
| 
| We are planning to spend something like $3B/mile to expand a
| single train line a few stops further north.
| 
| The MTA estimates they can put in platform doors like other
| developed world cities in only 1/3 of stations, at an average
| cost of $50M/station.
| 
| We spent something close to $10B building an entire new terminal
| for LIRR underneath an existing Metro North terminal when there
| was enough capacity to serve both out of the existing station.
| Bureaucratic squabbles between divisions of MTA serving LI &
| NY/CT were mitigated by spending $10B. Oh and for the average
| LIRR rider, despite having 2 Manhattan terminals they can get a
| train to, the net service has actually been reduced in terms of
| trains per day.
| 
| We basically need a modern era Robert Moses to consolidate NYC
| DOT/MTA/Port Authority and whatever other agencies and bring us
| into the modern era.
 
  | agotterer wrote:
  | Quite a few of our transit problems today are actually because
  | of the choices Robert Moses made. However, he certainly is
  | responsible for the rapid growth of the transit system and did
  | a great job consolidating power and getting stuff done.
  | 
  | * He had the chance to buy the land and put transit along many
  | highways in queens and Long Island but said that people would
  | prefer to drive so he passed on the opportunity. Acquiring
  | those rights today would be unaffordable and likely impossible.
  | 
  | * Moses didn't want black people going to Jones Beach (his
  | pride and joy). To prevent them from visiting he built the
  | overpasses on the highways that go to the beach lower so that
  | buses from the city couldn't fit.
  | 
  | I highly recommend the book The Power Broker which is a deep
  | dive on the history of Robert Moses. The book is very long and
  | can be a bit dry at times. But I learned a lot about the
  | history of New York and why some things that we enjoy and
  | suffer through today are the way they are.
 
  | Reason077 wrote:
  | To be fair, London has looked at the platform screen doors
  | thing a few times too and dismissed it as unaffordable.
  | 
  | New lines get PSDs but there doesn't seem to be a realistic
  | prospect of retrofitting existing ones any time soon.
 
    | steveBK123 wrote:
    | And yet NYC having built only a handful of stations in the
    | last 40 years, couldn't be bothered to include them even
    | there.
 
  | Hikikomori wrote:
  | >We basically need a modern era Robert Moses to consolidate NYC
  | DOT/MTA/Port Authority and whatever other agencies and bring us
  | into the modern era.
  | 
  | Idk about that, maybe a less racist one.
  | 
  | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_Broker
  | 
  | https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236...
 
    | steveBK123 wrote:
    | Yeah, he was a terrible guy and all.
    | 
    | But stuff got built.
    | 
    | The current inability to build anything is almost a direct
    | result. They delegated decision making to an alphabet soup of
    | agencies at different levels of jurisdiction so it's
    | impossible to get anything done.
    | 
    | Because there are so many agencies, you can't for example
    | easily put in a busway because you need NYC DOT, MTA, NYS
    | DOT, city council and mayor to all be on board.
    | 
    | Too many people have veto, so nothing gets done.
    | 
    | Living in NYC for long, it quickly becomes apparently the
    | vast majority of our built infrastructure was built from
    | 1930-1960 and has frozen in time since.
 
      | steveBK123 wrote:
      | Another great example is the fact that the BQE cantilever
      | is probably going to collapse before anyone can agree on
      | how to replace it and do so.
      | 
      | So far we have reduced a lane to minimize wear & tear,
      | reduced max tonnage for trucks going over it, and are
      | installing advanced automated ticketing to ticket big
      | trucks attempting to go over it.
      | 
      | That's well and good, but salt water corrosion and
      | bureaucratic inertia are going to get some people killed at
      | this rate. And let's not pretend it can simply be done away
      | with. Where do we expect all the goods & services flowing
      | in/out of the city via truck to go otherwise.. local roads
      | through city streets.. how is this not a significantly
      | worse outcome?
      | 
      | Right now we have a lot of vetos with different agendas -
      | anti-car degrowrethers, NIMBY rich BK Heights owners
      | praying on their lottery ticket if their park expands &
      | view improves, and bureaucrats happy to not have to spend
      | $BBillions to replace the thing.
      | 
      | Sometimes living in NYC feels like the opposite of an
      | headline I once saw re: Japan & Italy, where their strategy
      | was described as "Beautiful decline"... for NYC its Ugly
      | Decline.
      | 
      | "I don't own a car" is often a mantra of folks who think we
      | can simply do away with infra like the BQE for example.
      | People live frictionless lives in their apps, clicking
      | buttons and goods just magically appear at their doorstep.
      | The gritty truth of how those goods get there is another
      | story.
      | 
      | On another note, we apparently are incapable of putting
      | trash in bins, for many reasons. One of which is that the
      | DSNY unions would need to be negotiated with. So for our
      | great push to reduce the rat infestation in the city, we've
      | done the dumbest, least effective, most costliest stuff
      | instead.
      | 
      | Rather than mandating containerized garbage or moving up
      | trash collection times to be overnight, what did the city
      | do? Mandate buildings put out trash after 8pm instead of
      | 6pm. Mind you it's not picked up until 6am. So the rats
      | have a 10 hour feast instead of a 12 hour feast, how does
      | this make a difference?
      | 
      | And what is the cost? Every single building in the city now
      | needs staff schedules shifted or expanded such that their
      | super/porter/maintenance guy is around after 8pm to take
      | out trash. For the city, it's "free", they don't have to
      | budget anything. But for residents, its yet another cost of
      | living with really no benefit.
 
| automatoney wrote:
| For those unfamiliar with NYC, street parking is free basically
| everywhere so the space cars take up is already heavily
| subsidized.
 
  | NovemberWhiskey wrote:
  | That's true in the outer boroughs, and on a lot of the streets
  | above 59th but it's not at all true for downtown.
 
  | dgrin91 wrote:
  | In the city, especially downtown its basically not free
  | anywhere. It's always metered. Only free at nights and weekends
 
    | automatoney wrote:
    | Maybe I'm oblivious to them, but I don't think I've seen
    | meters in Soho/Chinatown/LES and I definitely don't remember
    | them in the East Village. Are they more in the Tribeca/Fidi
    | area?
 
      | silverlake wrote:
      | $4.50 for 1 hr, $12 for 2 hr street parking.
 
        | pests wrote:
        | You can continue to buy in one hour increments to save a
        | little too if you remember to keep checking the app.`
 
      | marcja wrote:
      | The classic meters at every spot are largely gone and have
      | been replaced by block-based, app-enabled meters run by
      | ParkNYC [https://www.parknycapp.com/].
 
  | tarikjn wrote:
  | This 100%. Free public parking in NYC is the elephant in the
  | room that no one wants to address. Tolls won't fix that. In
  | some areas of the outer boroughs, 40% of the traffic at any
  | given time are people looking for a spot. The city also still
  | hasn't figured out utilization of the curb for deliveries and
  | drop offs resulting in normalized double-parking almost
  | everywhere. Curb space need to be efficiently priced and this
  | would fix a host of issues -- same goes for outdoor dinning,
  | otherwise its value will be captured by landlords anyways.
 
    | macNchz wrote:
    | I anticipate the rollout of congestion pricing will wind up
    | accelerating some changes to the way parking works: areas on
    | the margins of the congestion zone will likely see a surplus
    | of commuters looking to park where they can avoid the toll,
    | which will have the effect of making proposals like paid
    | resident parking permits much more palatable to car owners
    | who currently oppose them.
 
    | seanmcdirmid wrote:
    | They really need to eliminate free street parking, especially
    | in dense neighborhoods like midtown.
 
| satvikpendem wrote:
| We should just ban private vehicles in the city as well, bringing
| back more cyclists, walkers, and generally increasing metro
| usage.
 
  | RobinL wrote:
  | Banning is equivalent to an infinite price. Better off setting
  | a very high price, such that the revenue is far higher than the
  | negative externality
 
    | rightbyte wrote:
    | For practical reasons I guess you want to be able to move
    | furniture etc. That is about the only time you need a motor
    | transport in dense cities?
 
    | HWR_14 wrote:
    | Banning means you don't need to maintain the infrastructure.
    | You can let people walk all down the street. The pavement
    | doesn't need to withstand thousands of pounds of vehicles.
    | And so on.
 
  | hnboredhn wrote:
  | I sorta hope they find some streets or avenues to convert to
  | bike lanes. I do sorta feel like having a congestion fee
  | without much added ways to get around for pedestrians leaves
  | the typical person unchanged from this.
 
| tacticalturtle wrote:
| Why did the federal government have to sign off on this?
| 
| Assuming the tolls aren't on federal highways, shouldn't a state
| be free to decide where to enact tolls on its own roads?
 
  | CydeWeys wrote:
  | Because there are Federal highways in the impacted zone.
 
  | jffry wrote:
  | AFAICT there are highways affected by this congestion charge.
  | Federal Highway Administration's Value Pricing Pilot Program
  | [1] is the means for state/regional/local governments to
  | institute programs like this. The specific signoff was for an
  | environmental assessment [2] showing that the proposed program
  | complies with relevant environmental laws.
  | 
  | [1]
  | https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/congestionpricing/value_pricing/ind...
  | 
  | [2] https://new.mta.info/project/CBDTP/environmental-assessment
 
| GartzenDeHaes wrote:
| First we had segregated roads for the rich, then airports and and
| terminals, and now it's full on cities. Welcome to dystopia.
 
  | coin wrote:
  | The part about airports is valid
 
  | digbybk wrote:
  | You're allowed to come to New York. Just leave your car at
  | home.
 
    | GartzenDeHaes wrote:
    | You're allowed to drive on the $10 a mile toll road, just use
    | your credit card.
 
  | nimbleplum40 wrote:
  | Ironically, public transit (which congregation pricing
  | encourages!) is way less segregated, at least in NYC. Subway
  | cars into Manhattan are filled with everyone from low-income
  | workers to high paid investment bankers. Moms with kids,
  | elderly. Immigrants from all kinds of countries speaking many
  | languages.
 
| DirectorKrennic wrote:
| [flagged]
 
  | thx-2718 wrote:
  | " At the same time, cities should develop bike stations and
  | tramways for people to move around quickly in car-free areas,
  | paid for by gas taxes, which should be raised, and road tolls,
  | which should also be raised."
  | 
  | Huh? If no one is driving who is paying gas taxes? Road tolls
  | everywhere?
 
    | raldi wrote:
    | If no one is driving, we can take the unbelievable amount of
    | public spending currently going into subsidizing automobile
    | traffic and redirect it to fund public transit.
 
      | thx-2718 wrote:
      | I don't have a problem with doing that. Of course how you
      | get public transportation into rural communities is a
      | bigger challenge but we don't have to have society be based
      | around the car.
      | 
      | My issue is that the previous post said they would pay for
      | public transportation and walkable carless cities through
      | increase gas taxes and road tolls.
 
        | raldi wrote:
        | An increase in gas taxes and road tolls would make people
        | drive less, requiring less road maintenance, traffic
        | policing, etc, and allow buses to move more efficiently,
        | freeing up funding that can then go into improving
        | transit.
 
        | thx-2718 wrote:
        | If your over all take home is lowering though eventually
        | you don't have money to repair the sidewalks and the bike
        | racks and so forth because no one is driving anymore to
        | pay for it.
        | 
        | Or you raise the cost to ride public transportation or
        | pay for those things from somewhere else (like property
        | taxes).
 
        | raldi wrote:
        | You seem to think the government makes money when someone
        | drives a mile, but in fact it loses money --
        | significantly more than if that person had taken transit
        | instead.
        | 
        | The fewer miles people drive, the more money the
        | government has available for other things.
 
        | thx-2718 wrote:
        | > The fewer miles people drive, the more money the
        | government has available for other things.
        | 
        | Yes if everything else is kept the same. People's income.
        | Business profits. Etc.
        | 
        | However you're overlooking the point spending on
        | transportation infrastructure which is to get resources
        | from one location to another.
        | 
        | People drive to work where their income is taxed.
        | Businesses have things delivered to them to sell and have
        | ways to get customers to them. So now the business is
        | paying taxes. And people use that income they earned to
        | pay for rent or own a home so there's property taxes.
        | 
        | Now let's just remove the way people get about to doing
        | all those things because that would save the government
        | money from spending money on transportation.
        | 
        | Oh great no one is going in to work. No one is going to
        | business or shop. No one is paying taxes. But hey we
        | saved a bunch of money by not building roads.
        | 
        | Please read that I am not opposed to changing our society
        | to be less car dependent (obviously for the environment
        | it is better)
        | 
        | I am objecting to the notion that you can pay for a
        | carless society by just not paying for roads or by
        | imposing taxes on cars more without raising taxes or fees
        | elsewhere.
 
        | raldi wrote:
        | > Now let's just remove the way people get about to doing
        | all those things
        | 
        | No, congestion pricing removes the obstacles slowing
        | people down from doing all those things. Take for
        | instance a plumber who still has to drive around. Yes,
        | they have to pay the congestion charge, but they also
        | spend way less time stuck in traffic and can probably
        | bill an extra job or two that day. Same for UPS drivers,
        | etc.
        | 
        | > No one is going to business or shop.
        | 
        | Actually, studies from all over the world consistently
        | show that when you make driving less attractive, it's a
        | net positive for merchants:
        | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-13/every-
        | stu...
 
        | thx-2718 wrote:
        | Except those plumbers are not going to get anywhere
        | faster now because there's pedestrians and bikes
        | everywhere but I digress since it's not relevant.
        | 
        | Regardless what you're saying completely ignores my
        | actual objection here. Which is paying for infrastructure
        | through something that you just eliminated.
 
        | raldi wrote:
        | It's paying for infrastructure through cost reduction.
 
    | ZoomerCretin wrote:
    | People will still drive, just not in downtown areas.
 
      | thx-2718 wrote:
      | If you raise the price of driving higher the the number of
      | drivers lower. Will the increase revenue from the pricehike
      | overshoot the loss in revenue from less drivers on the
      | road?
      | 
      | You've also effectively eliminated owning a car in the
      | city. So now you're asking rural residents to pay for more
      | expensive gas and more expensive toll roads while giving
      | all that money to people living in the city.
      | 
      | I have a feeling politically that would be rather
      | unpopular.
 
        | ZoomerCretin wrote:
        | There's not a single state in the country where tolls and
        | taxes pay for all road upkeep expenses. There's not a
        | single state in the country that raises taxes and tolls
        | automatically when revenue drops.
        | 
        | Very few people drive in the NYC area anyway. I think 30%
        | of people? It's not a big deal.
 
        | thx-2718 wrote:
        | But we want to pay for tramways and bike stations and our
        | nice carless city through raising taxes on automobile
        | transportation (which just plummeted because of above
        | policies).
 
  | elmerfud wrote:
  | Yes I agree let's fundamentally eliminate the right of free
  | travel from place to place through the public thoroughfares on
  | the conveyance of your choice. Because it's that pesky
  | fundamental concept that we have of freely moving about through
  | cities through county borders through state borders without
  | being stopped and harassed that's actually the fundamental
  | problem of it all. So instead of just pissing around and
  | banning cars from using the roads that their taxes pay for
  | let's just eliminate the entire concept of allowing people to
  | move from place to place without permits and papers. Because
  | that is a great model for a country to have.
  | 
  | But we're talking about New York city so you've already granted
  | the port authority wide latitude and restricting your movements
  | and controlling the population.
 
    | zeroonetwothree wrote:
    | This is a gigantic strawman. Having some limited car free
    | areas like downtown cores has nothing to do with free travel.
    | There are already plenty of areas you aren't allowed to
    | drive. And car-free areas can make a downtown area so much
    | more pleasant, for example Mountain View closed down just a
    | few blocks on one street in its downtown and that alone makes
    | it 10x better to visit.
 
    | jazzyjackson wrote:
    | weird take
    | 
    | I am free to move across borders, it's my car that requires
    | paperwork and requires that I submit to detainment and
    | harassment by any cop I happen to pass by.
    | 
    | Having a car is great for doing your own thing on your own
    | schedule, but it's also an expensive liability. I'd rather
    | live in a world where I'm not compelled to take on this
    | liability just to get across town.
 
    | pierat wrote:
    | Common American reply. It's turned into "freedom".
    | 
    | Public transit can easily be 1st class transit with freedom,
    | as long as it's prioritized as such. When transit has to
    | fight with vehicles, it's strictly worse, and discourages
    | usage.... Unless you're in the poverty class and have to.
    | 
    | Roads are high speed infrastructure to get from 1 area to the
    | next. We call them highways and interstates. WE NEED THOSE.
    | 
    | Streets are the downtown, slow speed where human scale stuff
    | happens. It's also where transit should be. These are also
    | needed.
    | 
    | Those 2 or 4 lane highish speed abominations where businesses
    | are loosely connected by asphalt oceans are "stroads". They
    | do both a street and a road terribly, induce sprawl, and are
    | terrible for anyone not in a vehicle.
    | 
    | And sheesh, with your polemic, depriotizing motor vehicles
    | doesn't cause you to lose freedom... AS LONG AS OTHER MODES
    | OF TRANSIT ARE EASIER/BETTER.
 
    | MrMan wrote:
    | [dead]
 
    | digbybk wrote:
    | Years of auto and oil industry propaganda has deluded people
    | into equating freedom of movement with car ownership. My
    | freedom of movement is violated when the subway isn't moving.
    | For people on a bus stuck in traffic, their freedom of
    | movement is violated by a government that incentivizes car
    | ownership and creates gridlock. As a cyclist, my freedom of
    | movement is violated by reckless drivers putting my life at
    | risk, supported by a government captured by the auto
    | industry, failing to build real infrastructure that enables
    | that freedom the way it does for car owners. Not only car
    | owners pay taxes, by the way. Particularly in Manhattan.
 
    | wussboy wrote:
    | Your free travel is free only because its true cost is
    | heavily subsidized and carefully hidden. Pay what it costs
    | and you can travel all you want. I'm done with my tax dollars
    | paying for your bad habits. "Free" my ass.
 
      | jazzyjackson wrote:
      | Given "using the roads that their taxes pay for", OP seems
      | to be under the impression that gas tax just about covers
      | it. Difficult to find an unbiased source but iirc gas tax
      | covers 30-50% of whats spent on roads
      | 
      | Of course, like other infrastructure, its not necessarily
      | meant to pay for itself directly, so long as economic
      | growth makes up for it, but I think there's many cases
      | where adding another lane to thr highway costs more than it
      | enables. Frankly a lot of the road construction seems like
      | a grift to me - how many hours can we take to resurface
      | this section of the interstate ? Easy place to pour money -
      | the roads always need repair, and yet, with all the bridges
      | and tunnels failing with inadequate upkeep, one wonders if
      | the money ever touches the ground.
 
        | zeroonetwothree wrote:
        | The real cost of roads is in the space you take up that
        | other cars cannot (at least in any area with significant
        | population density). And that's not paid for at all.
 
      | pierat wrote:
      | How are motor vehicles subsidized?
      | 
      | ----------------------
      | 
      | Loosely enforced speed limits
      | 
      | Arbitrary setting of speed limits
      | 
      | Free, off-street parking mandated in building codes
      | 
      | Low Housing density induced sprawl and car requirement
      | 
      | Exempting pickup trucks and SUVs from emissions laws
      | 
      | Lack of vehicle safety laws to protect pedestrians and
      | cyclists
      | 
      | Aftermarket products exploit a lack of regulations
      | 
      | Mandatory Insurance law: payout requirements
      | 
      | A mortgage interest deduction drives suburban sprawl
      | 
      | Tax laws favor car ownership
      | 
      | Tax formulas favor car commuting over public transit,
      | biking, and employer van pools
      | 
      | Pedestrians have limited ability to sue drivers
      | 
      | Pedestrians can't sue car makers for defects
      | 
      | Hit and runs are rarely prosecuted
      | 
      | Out-of-pocket car expenses don't cover the cost of roads
      | 
      | .... Is this a good start, wussboy?
 
        | zeroonetwothree wrote:
        | I would say the two factors of free parking and free road
        | use far eclipse the rest.
 
    | nkrisc wrote:
    | But you're still free to travel there as often as you like,
    | for however long you like, any reason you like, and you don't
    | have to tell anyone about it.
    | 
    | I'm not allowed to drive my car on sidewalks or bike paths,
    | but that doesn't mean we live in some dystopian nightmare
    | where the right to free travel is restricted and I have to
    | show papers everywhere I go.
 
      | kodah wrote:
      | > The first step to rid ourselves of our, dare I say,
      | enslavement to our car-centric way of life is to make car
      | ownership as expensive and inconvenient as possible. I hope
      | more cities follow. Start closing off entire areas to cars.
      | 
      | I'm pretty sure GP is responding to this, which while I
      | appreciate the transparency, is atrocious. Creating
      | negative incentives just makes people angry, and generally
      | surfaces a lot of inequality.
      | 
      | I just went on a long haul train ride with my dad who is
      | heavily disabled. The people on the train were nice but
      | trains are very clearly built around the concept of able
      | bodied people. There's a single bathroom for disabled
      | people and it's _inside_ one of the sleeper rooms. He
      | basically had to sequester himself in his room for 24
      | hours. Meanwhile, my dad _can_ drive a car.
      | 
      | Maybe before we go making hyperbolic statements that are
      | sure to encourage decision making that results in gross
      | inequality we should think about the basics of a problem
      | first.
 
        | zeroonetwothree wrote:
        | I think cars have a lot of advantages like the one you
        | mention (and others, eg much less crime risk). But we can
        | pull back on the car obsession a little bit, we've gone
        | kind of crazy the past 100 years and made some awful
        | cities. I think cars should be an option, they just
        | shouldn't be the only reasonable one.
 
        | kodah wrote:
        | I agree. I walk, take the train, ride my bike, or ride
        | the bus whenever possible. I've adapted a good portion of
        | my life to that thinking, including buying a more
        | expensive house that I could do those things.
        | 
        | But a lot of folks in this thread came to defend someone
        | who analogs cars to enslavement and championed making
        | them so expensive people can't afford them.
 
    | alexwennerberg wrote:
    | > But we're talking about New York city so you've already
    | granted the port authority wide latitude and restricting your
    | movements and controlling the population.
    | 
    | This is a bizarre argument. Cars are heavily policed: they
    | must be registered and licensed. The state tells you where
    | you can park it, and your ability to operate it is completely
    | controlled by the state and can be taken away from you. In
    | order for car infrastructure to function, there is a huge
    | increase in police presence in people's lives to enforce
    | traffic rules, parking, etc. None of this is true of, say,
    | walking, biking, or taking transit, all of which are pretty
    | unregulated, even in New York City.
 
    | [deleted]
 
  | metalforever wrote:
  | What about people with disabilities.
 
    | robin_reala wrote:
    | Put an exemption in place: see
    | https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-
    | charge/discounts...
 
      | jmclnx wrote:
      | I do not know about London (UK), but there is a lot of
      | corruption here in the US with handicap plates. So I can
      | see a lot of people (like politicians and maybe
      | police/fire) families getting this special exemption.
 
    | occz wrote:
    | People with disabilities thrive in areas with reduced car
    | traffic. Many people with disabilities are unable to drive
    | and as such benefit from prioritized public transportation,
    | and many small electric vehicles that are appropriate for
    | people with disabilities can use bicycle infrastructure. This
    | covers the vast majority of the needs of people with
    | disabilities - the small remainder can be granted exceptions.
    | 
    | No yank-tanks are required to accommodate people with
    | disabilities - quite the opposite, car-oriented
    | infrastructure limits their agency in society.
 
    | giraffe_lady wrote:
    | What about them? Many of them can't drive, how are you
    | working to address the inequalities caused by that? Because
    | of regressive asset cap laws many of them can't own a
    | personal vehicle that suits their needs without losing access
    | to their critical health care.
    | 
    | Disabled people have lots of current issues with the
    | _current_ system. It 's possible you're already working to
    | address those but if not this doesn't seem like an honest
    | concern.
 
    | ericmay wrote:
    | Exceptions are a thing. Also how do people with disabilities
    | live in other countries and move around? These are easy
    | scenarios to address.
    | 
    | We also shouldn't force _everybody_ to drive a car everywhere
    | they need to go just because some tiny percentage of people
    | may need a car to drive around. Frankly, we 'd probably have
    | fewer disabled people in the first place if they had to move
    | around more.
 
| Jemm wrote:
| What if you live in the toll area? Do you have to pay everytime
| you drive?44
| 
| Toronto has considered putting in a congestion tax, but no one
| wanted to way in on how that tax would affect people living
| downtown.
 
| NovemberWhiskey wrote:
| Living in the part of Manhattan that's covered by this, I'm
| absolutely looking forward to paying $17 to drive a quarter-mile
| to the FDR early on a Sunday morning /s.
| 
| The thing that's interesting is that the average vehicle on the
| roads in lower Manhattan (in my experience) is not a luxury car.
| It's a taxi or a ride share or a delivery truck (or other
| commercial vehicle: contractors etc) or what is essentially an
| economy or mid-tier private vehicle.
| 
| EDIT: not a popular observation apparently.
 
| tlogan wrote:
| So rich people (who really do not care about few dollars) will be
| able to drive to downtown just for fun. while poor people who
| truly need to come to downtown by car will struggle.
| 
| This is an unfortunate reality of life: wealth equates to more
| available time.
 
  | jupp0r wrote:
  | Not sure how familiar you are with the realities of driving a
  | car in Lower Manhattan, but as somebody who has visited the
  | place a few times, I can assure you that poor people cannot
  | afford parking there on a regular basis already.
 
    | seanmcdirmid wrote:
    | Midtown when I was there had free street parking (maybe it
    | still does?), and it made more sense financially for my
    | girlfriend at the time to drive rather than grab a train from
    | Harlem to Hawthorne (north of white plains, the office wasn't
    | near the train station so that last link wasn't really
    | covered). I was honestly surprised driving was...so
    | convenient in that part of NYC at least, but midtown is
    | definitely not Manhattan, and also a reverse commute.
 
  | lotsofpulp wrote:
  | This "poor people will be affected more" is a tired refrain.
  | That is always obviously true, given the consequences of being
  | poor.
  | 
  | Not every solution can or has to solve the wealth/income gap.
  | Solve congestion with one solution, solve wealth redistribution
  | with another.
 
    | paganel wrote:
    | > is a tired refrain.
    | 
    | Only non-poor people can say something as reactionary as
    | that. Or people who are not friends or relatives with poor
    | people. A populist backlash that will bring some of the
    | middle-class egoism down is long over-due, and not only in
    | the States.
 
      | ethanbond wrote:
      | I grew up quite poor in rural Arizona, now live in NYC, and
      | I think they should congestion charge the absolute
      | daylights out of anyone driving through Midtown. "This will
      | hurt poor people" is a very very bad argument in this case.
      | 
      | There you go, point disproven.
 
    | Wowfunhappy wrote:
    | Also, at least with congestion pricing, those wealthy drivers
    | will be funding the public transit system for the rest of
    | society.
 
      | nonethewiser wrote:
      | Trickle down?
 
        | Wowfunhappy wrote:
        | Quite the opposite, I'd call it a tax on the rich.
 
    | nonethewiser wrote:
    | It's obviously true though, isnt it? Poor people cant afford
    | the ~$20 toll like a rich person can.
 
      | Wowfunhappy wrote:
      | If you're poor, you probably aren't driving in Manhattan in
      | the first place.
      | 
      | And in all honesty, if you _are_ driving in Manhattan, you
      | should probably stop doing that.
 
    | rileymat2 wrote:
    | Rationing by payment is only one strategy though. Choosing
    | that strategy brings in wealth disparities. So it is fair to
    | bring it up when that is the chosen strategy.
 
      | lotsofpulp wrote:
      | Everything brings in wealth disparities, except for
      | redistributing wealth. That's an inherent part of one
      | person having more wealth than another, it allows them to
      | buy more.
      | 
      | It is a waste of time to bring it up every single time. We
      | know being poor sucks, but that is its own issue with its
      | own solution separate from solving too many vehicles in
      | certain parts of Manhattan at certain times.
 
        | nonethewiser wrote:
        | How does increasing free parking bring in a wealth
        | disparity? Or increasing capacity or lowering the price
        | of public transit?
 
      | grumpy_coder wrote:
      | The actual dollar amount also matters. London's charge has
      | tripled since it was introduced. The unforeseen consequence
      | of this type of charge is it becomes a lever to reduce
      | traffic by forcing poorer people off the roads everyone
      | pays for.
 
        | nonethewiser wrote:
        | How could this toll be anything of not that?
 
    | jeroenhd wrote:
    | Setting the price based on income can help prevent the
    | problem without disparaging the poor. It works for traffic
    | tickets in vaeious countries so it may just as well work in
    | anti congestion systems. That's just one approach. You can
    | also use monthly quotas that you can't buy your way around or
    | other restrictions.
    | 
    | Of course I don't expect such approaches to be a very popular
    | approach in America, but there are ways to do it. All you
    | need to do is let go of the idea that anything can be gained
    | through purely monetary means.
 
      | lotsofpulp wrote:
      | That is needlessly convoluted and leads to many
      | externalities and unintended consequences.
      | 
      | Straight forward, simple, easy to implement and audit
      | solutions are best for society.
      | 
      | Sure, let's take wealth from richer people and give it to
      | poorer people, but handle that via taxes, not via the road
      | congestion pricing in certain parts of Manhattan.
 
  | sigstoat wrote:
  | if you're rich enough you just pay somebody else to run the
  | errand or drive you around in an even larger vehicle.
  | 
  | stop freaking out about rich people being able to get something
  | nice. they can already afford nice things. look at the overall
  | costs/benefit analysis of the policy.
 
    | nonethewiser wrote:
    | You bring up a good point. It makes door dash even more
    | expensive and even more a luxury for well off people.
    | 
    | Also, the argument was never that rich people cant afford
    | nice things. So while concluding they can is easy and
    | correct, its not accomplishing anything.
 
  | dragontamer wrote:
  | Every time I go to NYC, I say F### the traffic, I'm taking the
  | subway.
  | 
  | Traffic is horrible, subway is more than usable. Just walk.
 
  | m3kw9 wrote:
  | If you are so poor with a car but can afford gas that a few
  | dollar toll will wreck you, you really should just take public
  | transportation. There will be rare legit cases but when was the
  | last time they made everyone happy with decisions?
 
  | paulcole wrote:
  | Yes, rich people do things for fun. Poor people struggle.
  | 
  | It's not a particularly deep or useful insight.
  | 
  | What do you think should happen here instead since you're so
  | disappointed with the current plan? No charge for drivers going
  | downtown? A dynamic charge based on social status/wealth?
 
    | BoorishBears wrote:
    | > A dynamic charge based on social status/wealth?
    | 
    | That's one I like actually, maybe something like the blue
    | book value of the car?
    | 
    | I recently moved out of NYC but I remember looking forward to
    | the congestion charge because I loved taking my greyhound to
    | the union square dog run, which was driving distance for me.
    | 20$ wasn't enough to affect my plans to do that, and less
    | traffic would actually make my life way easier when I took
    | him there.
    | 
    | There were plenty of people like that: totally unaffected by
    | whatever a reasonable toll is, and actually more likely to
    | drive if they enact it.
    | 
    | -
    | 
    | At the end of the day I don't buy that in a city like NYC
    | we'll see the type of effect congestion pricing has had in
    | other less connected cities. Here owning a car is already
    | expensive, parking already cost more than people pay in rent
    | in some places, etc. It's like stacking a regressive tax on a
    | regressive tax, it doesn't really have the same effect.
 
      | wcarron wrote:
      | > That's one I like actually, maybe something like the blue
      | book value of the car?
      | 
      | Suppose two people make the same amount of money. One
      | chooses to buy a cheaper car and pays higher rent for a
      | nicer apt. The other, the opposite. Under your pricing
      | scheme, you're unjustifiably charging two persons of equal
      | means different rates.
      | 
      | You can adjust this many ways. One person gets a cheaper
      | car but spends more on luxury vacations or invests more
      | aggressively or spends large sums eating at nice
      | restaurants often or buys expensive clothes or or or etc.
      | 
      | Edit: Lastly, why should we be charging expensive cars
      | more? A BMW M4 is, by all measures, much less irritating to
      | have to share the road with than a large SUV or Ford F-250
      | (god forbid it's also lifted). Tolls should scale with
      | vehicle size and weight and when vehicles have poor fuel
      | efficiency, not the sticker price.
 
        | BoorishBears wrote:
        | You'll always be able to imagine cases where a broad toll
        | doesn't perfectly align with a narrow goal, why even
        | waste energy listing them out?
        | 
        | Instead consider how you get the toll to actually do
        | something: in the case of a congestion charge it's by
        | making driving in Manhattan expensive enough to reduce
        | how much it happens _for as many people as possible._
        | 
        | Regardless of the corner cases you can imagine, there are
        | more people who drive an M4 that would be unaffected by a
        | $20 charge rate than there are people who drive an 430i.
        | So increase the cost for the people with M4 and you've
        | made your toll strictly more effective... even if there
        | are people who can afford M4s and chose to drive a 430i.
 
        | wcarron wrote:
        | One could also just make the base rate $150/day and then
        | you'll definitely make it untenable for as many people as
        | possible, which is apparently the goal. This leads to an
        | outcome which is you think is an unfair distribution. But
        | luxuries are necessarily for those who can afford them.
        | 
        | The 'cost' of the action is the same. A vehicle in the
        | city is a vehicle is a vehicle and therefore the toll
        | should be flat, unless _that type of vehicle in
        | particular_ causes more damage to roads or empirically
        | worsens outcomes like traffic or pollution relative to
        | other types of vehicle. Charging people more because they
        | are wealthier is unfairly discriminatory.
 
        | BoorishBears wrote:
        | Their goal isn't to make it impossible, it's to reduce
        | it. They want you to really need to drive, not just do it
        | because it's convenient.
        | 
        | It seems you might not familiar the actual toll to start,
        | it carves out a lot of special cases for that reason:
        | people with certain incomes are exempt if they already
        | live in the area, ride-shares have special rules, they
        | excluded corridors around the edges of the city, etc.
        | 
        | You're also confused on cost here. It's not cost to the
        | city they're trying to change with a toll (that'd be
        | nonsensical) it's cost to the _driver_. If cost is hard
        | for you to follow, think of it as  "attractiveness".
        | 
        | They want driving to be unattractive, not impossible, not
        | untenable... just unattractive.
 
      | TheCleric wrote:
      | > regressive tax
      | 
      | I don't think that word means what you think it means.
 
        | BoorishBears wrote:
        | It does, but if you'll elaborate on your incorrect
        | understanding I'd be happy to educate you: https://ops.fh
        | wa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08040/cp_prim5_...
        | 
        | > most forms of transportation finance--fuel taxes, sales
        | taxes, and tolls--are regressive forms of taxation in
        | that they burden the poor more than they do the rich.
 
  | nonethewiser wrote:
  | It is literally this. Decongesting the streets for rich people.
 
  | bradleyjg wrote:
  | Where are these poor people who truly need to come downtown by
  | car parking?
 
    | MengerSponge wrote:
    | I imagine there are literally thousands of them (/s)
 
  | krasin wrote:
  | > So rich people (who really do not care about few dollars)
  | will be able to drive to downtown just for run while poor ones
  | which need it will suffer.
  | 
  | The first part is true, the second part not necessarily so, if
  | combined with improved subway. Theoretically, it should be even
  | possible to setup the system, where these taxes on cars to
  | downtown directly fund subway expansion and modernization.
 
  | kepler1 wrote:
  | What's your point?
  | 
  |  _Everything_ with a price is unkind to poor people.
  | 
  | So you can't do anything that affects poor people? What
  | rule/principle are you suggesting then, to get anything done?
 
  | aqme28 wrote:
  | Public transit has always been the cheaper option. This just
  | makes the difference a little larger.
 
    | tharne wrote:
    | > Public transit has always been the cheaper option.
    | 
    | Only if don't value your time.
 
      | [deleted]
 
  | mgbmtl wrote:
  | There are also rich and poor people using the subway. Improving
  | it will improve the situation for everyone.
  | 
  | I'm (sincerely) curious though, who are the poor people
  | affected? Parking downtown is crazy expensive, and there are
  | already expensive tolls around Manhattan.
  | 
  | There are easy solutions though: charge by the weight/size of
  | the car (the weight should already be on the car registration).
 
    | nonethewiser wrote:
    | > There are also rich and poor people using the subway.
    | Improving it will improve the situation for everyone.
    | 
    | Exactly. Just like more parking would improve it for
    | everyone.
 
  | okennedy wrote:
  | NYC, and Manhattan specifically, is one of the rare places in
  | the country where having a car is almost virtually unnecessary.
  | In downtown, cars are already playthings of the rich: Just
  | parking the car during peak hours can run you hundreds dollars
  | of per month.
  | 
  | The core of NYC has walkable infrastructure and an amazing
  | public transportation infrastructure (at least compared to much
  | of the rest of the country). For those commuting in from
  | suburbs, park-and-rides are already a far more cost-efficient
  | option.
 
    | fooker wrote:
    | >NYC, and Manhattan specifically, is one of the rare places
    | in the country where having a car is almost virtually
    | unnecessary.
    | 
    | As long as you are okay with spending all your time in the
    | city.
    | 
    | The medium to long distance public transport for going out of
    | the city is horrible.
 
      | MisterTea wrote:
      | Greyhound Buses and Amtrak don't count? I take the Amtrak
      | to visit friends update and Maryland all the time. There's
      | boat loads of stuff on long island as well, LIRR get you
      | out there but it's not very walk friendly but awesome for
      | biking.
 
      | dml2135 wrote:
      | Compared to the rest of the world maybe, compared to the
      | rest of the US, I struggle to think of anywhere better.
 
      | insanitybit wrote:
      | > The medium to long distance public transport for going
      | out of the city is horrible.
      | 
      | Airports are far, but we have tons of buses and trains that
      | take you out of the city (including a train that takes you
      | to the airport).
 
    | pclmulqdq wrote:
    | It is now over a thousand per month for a dedicated space in
    | Manhattan, and that seems to be about the right price.
 
      | _rs wrote:
      | There are plenty of garages in Manhattan with monthly rates
      | around 500. It really depends on neighborhood
 
      | jcranmer wrote:
      | A parking space takes up about 200 ft2 (not counting things
      | like the width of the travel lane between parking spaces),
      | and office rent in Manhattan runs about $7-8/ft2 each
      | month.
      | 
      | Chances are, even at well over $1000/month, the parking
      | infrastructure is _still_ effectively below the cost of the
      | space it takes up.
 
        | NovemberWhiskey wrote:
        | On the other hand, a parking space is a bare concrete
        | slab, or even a lift holding several cars over a bare
        | concrete slab; and an office building is ... not.
 
| Reason077 wrote:
| Good move. London has done this for many years with its
| congestion charge zone (and, more recently, the T-charge for
| high-emissions vehicles). Helps cut down on traffic congestion,
| reduces air pollution, _and_ helps raise funds for transport
| projects.
 
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| Hopefully this money goes to policing the subway too, people have
| a lot of valid safety concerns leading them to take their car or
| a cab.
| 
| In India, you have to pass through a metal detector to ride the
| metro. It seems like in US, we are trending towards needing to do
| the same thing.
 
  | o1y32 wrote:
  | Sorry to break the news, that's not going to happen in the
  | foreseeable future.
 
  | itsmartapuntocm wrote:
  | I feel safer riding MARTA here in Atlanta than driving with the
  | other lunatics on the highway.
 
  | woodruffw wrote:
  | It's hard to imagine a scenario in which a metal detector on
  | the NYC subway is useful in a way that isn't _extremely_
  | annoying to the millions of people who carry their laptops,
  | phones, etc. with them to work each day.
  | 
  | (My only experience with a "metal detector" on a metro system
  | is Bangkok's metro. The detector was unplugged at the first
  | station, and everybody was waved past it at the second
  | station.)
 
  | insanitybit wrote:
  | What would a metal detector accomplish? There's something like
  | 5-10 murders on the subway per year and those numbers are
  | fairly stable, with small spikes around the pandemic when
  | ridership went down drastically.
  | 
  | I'm all for a safer subway but your tone seems to imply that
  | this is some out of control thing whereas it's extremely
  | unlikely, statistically, that you will have any problem
  | whatsoever on the subway.
 
  | brailsafe wrote:
  | I would assume you're right in NYC, but I feel like this claim
  | is made A LOT to sort of excuse car driving in many cities with
  | different degrees of transit availability and threat risk. I
  | feel like most of the time it's more accurate to say "people
  | fear for their safety" rather than that their concerns are
  | actually valid.
  | 
  | Fear can be driven by only a few extreme examples that get a
  | lot of coverage, meanwhile a lot of the time it would be much
  | more likely to be concerned for the likelihood you'll get into
  | a terrible car accident.
  | 
  | I'd doubtful that there's some sufficient level of policing
  | that would make fearful people change their mind, because
  | they're not jsut overcoming what they perceive to be extreme
  | risk, but also overcome what they perceive to be very
  | comfortable travel. Much like how to lose weight, you can't
  | just go and do a bicep curl once in a while, you have to
  | totally change your diet and habits for the long-term.
 
| dangus wrote:
| There's an important concept to the success of city planning: the
| alignment of incentives.
| 
| When transit is faster and cheaper than driving, people don't
| drive as much. The individualistic personal freedom of the
| automobile doesn't outweigh those practical aspects of getting
| around. People generally make pretty logical decisions about what
| they want to do.
| 
| I'm definitely in favor of congestion charges in certain areas of
| NYC. If you're downtown in a car you are taking up some
| incredibly valuable real estate that could be alternatively
| dedicated to space for human beings.
| 
| I think about cities that have implemented taxes for disposable
| plastic bags. I find it somewhat hilarious how many people
| consider these policies to be anti-freedom government money-
| grabs. They make a libertarian's blood boil!
| 
| Even assuming those folks are correct, it doesn't really matter,
| because these taxes are incredibly effective. It's eye-opening to
| see how a nearly insignificant tax (literal pennies per bag)
| changes the behavior of _everyone_.
| 
| In cities with bag taxes, cashiers don't default to throwing your
| stuff in a bunch of bags, they ask you what you want first.
| Without the bag tax, some people who don't even have a strong
| preference to receive bags will end up with them just because the
| cashier put their items inside automatically. Then, customers
| start bringing their own reusable bags, use their existing
| backpacks and totes that they already own, and/or people will
| just carry a few items without a bag. The end result that the tax
| was going for has occurred regardless of how mad the
| individualists get: thousands of single-use disposable items stay
| out of landfills.
| 
| This is the same idea for congestion charges: people in NYC who
| might default to taking an Uber or taxi to get somewhere that's
| often the same speed or faster to get to on a subway or bus are
| going to think twice, because there's the psychological knowledge
| that their behavior is being punished, even if only by a few
| dollars or cents.
 
  | ghaff wrote:
  | >Even assuming those folks are correct, it doesn't really
  | matter, because these taxes are incredibly effective. It's eye-
  | opening to see how a nearly insignificant tax (literal pennies
  | per bag) changes the behavior of everyone.
  | 
  | Yep. People have discovered that it's pretty easy to make it a
  | habit to carry a small bag if you live in a city and just keep
  | some bags in the car if you're driving to the store--and it's
  | generally a lot nicer tote than a pile of thin plastic bags.
  | Yeah I forget every now and then if I'm walking in a city, but
  | I still don't need plastic 95% of the time and it's a better
  | experience once you get used to it.
 
    | bdw5204 wrote:
    | Or you just don't bother shopping in stores and just order
    | from Amazon instead? Or you take the train/drive to somewhere
    | where they still have free bags?
    | 
    | Since the area where I live put in a paper bag fee and banned
    | plastic bags a few months ago, I make far fewer shopping
    | trips and I definitely don't go on a random shopping trip
    | while I'm out walking because I'm not paying the bag fee as a
    | matter of principle. Every single additional barrier you put
    | up to people shopping in physical stores whether it's a bag
    | fee or "you must wear a mask to shop in this store" or
    | whatever just drives more people to online shopping and
    | accelerates the death of physical stores.
 
    | pclmulqdq wrote:
    | That nice bag also accounts for >300x more CO2 than the
    | plastic bag it replaced.
 
      | ghaff wrote:
      | Well, that's not the only metric. But, yes, cotton bags in
      | particular are generally considered to have the most
      | impact. (Somewhat ironically my nicest ones come from an
      | environmental organization I belong to.)
      | 
      | It probably, in general, falls into the category of
      | performative environmentalism even if it led me to change
      | behavior in a way I personally prefer most of the time. (It
      | doesn't apply immediately around where I live and mostly
      | use recyclable bags out of preference.)
 
        | pclmulqdq wrote:
        | Yeah, I'm not sure cities should be legislating you to
        | behave in a way that you personally prefer. They should
        | be legislating things that are beneficial for the city
        | and aren't preferable to people.
        | 
        | Also, cotton bags emit about 7000-10000x as much CO2 as
        | plastic bags, while the re-usable bags made from recycled
        | plastic are in the hundreds - you can actually break even
        | on CO2 with those bags if you are careful with them and
        | make sure they don't break before the ~300th use.
 
        | beebeepka wrote:
        | Do cotton bags (not the only option but you seem to enjoy
        | this example) end up being thrown away after a single
        | use? Are they often blown away by the wind and get stuck
        | on trees? Do sea turtles mistake them for food?
        | 
        | We've been using the same bags (less than 10) for at
        | least a decade.
 
        | pclmulqdq wrote:
        | If you're the kind of person who throws away plastic bags
        | and doesn't re-use them as trash bags, please have the
        | decency to cut the handles.
        | 
        | Do your cotton bags have over 5000 trips to the grocery
        | store over the last decade? If not, you may be carbon
        | negative compared to single-use plastic bags (not
        | counting the re-usability as trash bags).
 
        | George83728 wrote:
        | Pros and cons for cotton bags:
        | 
        | Pros: Never spills my groceries onto the sidewalk when
        | I'm walking home. Looks nice.
        | 
        | Cons: The CO2 emissions of producing... one square yard
        | of cotton cloth. (Btw, how many pairs of pants do you
        | own? Probably more than you need, I bet.)
        | 
        | Yeah, looks like I'll be sticking with my cotton bag.
 
        | pclmulqdq wrote:
        | You do you. Just don't try to force people through
        | legislation to adopt your style. Nobody wants to ban your
        | cotton bag.
 
        | estebank wrote:
        | In a lot of places, the push for alternatives to single
        | use plastic bags go beyond their carbon footprint at
        | manufacture. Disposable bags end up littering cities,
        | which can block drains and cause other issues. Is banning
        | them heavy handed? Maybe. Does it work? I'd say so.
 
        | pclmulqdq wrote:
        | If only that sort of littering weren't already illegal...
        | 
        | How about we enforce that law?
        | 
        | Where I live now, plastic bags are very common at the
        | grocery store, and yet none of them end up on the street.
        | I have also seen police pull someone over for throwing
        | trash out their car window. When I lived in New York
        | City, even the cops threw their trash onto the street,
        | and practically nobody gets a ticket for littering. That
        | is why there is so much litter. It's not the bags.
 
  | pclmulqdq wrote:
  | > I think about cities that have implemented taxes for
  | disposable plastic bags. I find it somewhat hilarious how many
  | people consider these policies to be anti-freedom government
  | money-grabs. They make a libertarian's blood boil!
  | 
  | > Even assuming those folks are correct, it doesn't really
  | matter, because these taxes are incredibly effective. It's eye-
  | opening to see how a nearly insignificant tax (literal pennies
  | per bag) changes the behavior of everyone.
  | 
  | I am a libertarian-minded person who takes issues with these
  | taxes and related plastic bag bans. My gripe is that the
  | alternatives to plastic bags are pretty much universally less
  | green, and both plastic pollution and total CO2 spent on
  | grocery bags go up when a bag tax/ban enters. Flimsy plastic
  | grocery bags get re-used as garbage bags. Paper bags, and god
  | forbid reusable cotton bags, emit much more CO2 per use than
  | single-use plastic bags, even if you re-use your paper bags a
  | few times and re-use your cotton bag 100 times. They make no
  | sense, from an environmental perspective.
  | 
  | They are effective at changing behavior, which could be what
  | you mean by "effective," but they do not change behavior in an
  | environmentally positive direction.
 
    | wizofaus wrote:
    | I never thought reducing emissions was the reason for trying
    | to reduce disposable plastic bag usage, though I don't doubt
    | many might believe it does.
 
      | pclmulqdq wrote:
      | The messaging I saw in NYC when the ban was coming in was
      | all about carbon footprint. Do you think the reason is
      | reducing plastic pollution? Because it went up in Australia
      | after their plastic bag ban, since those plastic bags were
      | replaced by heavier plastic bin liners:
      | 
      | https://www.news.com.au/finance/business/retail/plastic-
      | bag-...
      | 
      | I think the "bailey" of plastic bag ban proponents is the
      | sea life that gets stuck in plastic bags, but there is no
      | way they would have gotten a ban passed on the back of the
      | impact to sea life.
 
        | wizofaus wrote:
        | I wouldn't exactly pay to much attention to news.com.au
        | as a reliable source for whether a pro-environmental
        | policy has been effective. I'm personally skeptical about
        | the likely overall effectiveness of plastic bag bans, but
        | I've seen no evidence that increased use of bin liners
        | has somehow made plastic pollution worse here- and for me
        | it is absolutely the blight of seeing loose bits of
        | plastic ending up in the natural environment (both in and
        | out of the ocean) that I'm most keen to see reduced.
 
  | zeroonetwothree wrote:
  | Libertarians are usually much more in favor of taxes to on
  | externalities rather than outright bans. So I dispute your
  | characterization.
  | 
  | I agree with the rest of the post though, I think taxing
  | externalities is the right thing to do. Cars have gotten a
  | gigantic subsidy for far too long. A car is allowed to take up
  | 140 sq ft of land for free in one of the most expensive places
  | on earth.
 
    | dangus wrote:
    | In my experience people who claim they are libertarians are
    | against all forms of government regulation and taxation.
    | 
    | But it doesn't really matter to me if my characterization of
    | libertarians isn't 100% accurate because I have no respect
    | for anyone who calls themselves libertarian in any way.
    | 
    | That ideology is a swirling bag of contradictions and people
    | who claim to be libertarian usually just circle back around
    | to being anti-regulation, pro-laissez faire capitalist, pro-
    | consumption, anti-worker conservatives who don't want to
    | admit that they share a bed with the more ugly side of that
    | ideology.
 
      | pclmulqdq wrote:
      | > In my experience people who claim they are libertarians
      | are against all forms of government regulation and
      | taxation.
      | 
      | > But it doesn't really matter to me if my characterization
      | of libertarians isn't 100% accurate because I have no
      | respect for anyone who calls themselves libertarian in any
      | way.
      | 
      | Tell me you've never spoken to a libertarian without
      | telling me you've never spoken to a libertarian.
 
| kazinator wrote:
| Charging drivers for going downtown is effectively a thing in
| most cities everywhere due to parking. The only drivers not
| paying to go a downtown just about anywhere are ones just going
| for a cruise, without stopping to do any business for any length
| of time.
| 
| Here is a better idea: ban driving from downtown entirely, except
| for certain service vehicles.
 
  | NovemberWhiskey wrote:
  | Placards.
 
| Slava_Propanei wrote:
| [dead]
 
| superseeplus wrote:
| A big proportion of the opposition is coming from New Jersey
| where former Governor Chris Christie systematically diverted
| public transit funding to constructing more roads leaving NJ
| Transit with a maintenance backlog, inadequate infrastructure and
| unhappy workers who were poached by the MTA. This resulted in a
| mismatch where the infrastructure is designed to favor driving on
| one side of the river and a fee designed to discourage driving
| and encourage public transit on the other side.
 
  | kevin_thibedeau wrote:
  | The opposition from NJ is the double dipping of already high
  | bridge and tunnel tolls along with the new congestion toll.
  | They also have a really meager fixed discount for motorcycles
  | which has diminished in value as the tolls have risen over the
  | years.
 
    | Jolter wrote:
    | Why should motorcycles have a discount? How big should it be
    | in your opinion, and why?
 
      | kevin_thibedeau wrote:
      | For motorcycles, London gives 100% off the congestion
      | charge. The NY thruway is half off but PANYNJ tolls are
      | just $1 off.
 
      | RhysU wrote:
      | Motorcycles don't cause congestion. Motorcycles can travel
      | through congestion when permitted to lanesplit.
 
        | acdha wrote:
        | They're not as bad as cars but they still take up a fair
        | amount of space and pollute (noise, fumes) heavily. A
        | modest discount seems appropriate but they definitely
        | should still cost more than transit.
 
      | joecool1029 wrote:
      | Less wear on the roads (due to dramatically lower weight).
      | Less space taken up, more efficient in urban scenarios.
      | Tolls, especially bridge tolls, should scale with the
      | weight of the vehicle.
 
      | chrisweekly wrote:
      | Not OP but: mcycles don't contribute as much to congestion
      | given their smaller size and maneuverability. Also they get
      | about 50mpg.
 
        | throw__away7391 wrote:
        | Motorcycles should be charged according to the decibel
        | volume of their engine.
 
        | acdha wrote:
        | That's lower mileage than the car I bought 25 years ago,
        | and it made far less noise pollution.
 
  | bilalq wrote:
  | There's more reason for NJ residents to take issue with this.
  | In central jersey, it costs at least $20/person for a round
  | trip ticket. If you go with your family or a group of friends
  | filling a 5 seat car, the train costs $100 just to get into the
  | city and then get hit with whatever additional costs you have
  | for the next few subway rides. Gas, parking, and carpool
  | bridge/tunnel toll prices don't add up to anywhere near that
  | amount.
  | 
  | The reality is that this ends up being a regressive plan where
  | high income earners benefit and everyone else just has to deal
  | with increased burdens.
 
    | jccalhoun wrote:
    | that would be true if it was all of New York City and not
    | just part of Manhattan and only during certain times.
 
    | jasonpbecker wrote:
    | Managing to leave out parking costs, which could easily be
    | $50 in a garage is very convenient.
    | 
    | Also, I'd eat my shoe if more than 5% of cars entering
    | Manhattan had 5 people in them. I'd guess the number is sub
    | 0.5%.
 
      | paulgb wrote:
      | Yep. I used to work next to the Holland tunnel and the
      | vast, vast majority of cars leaving the city at rush hour
      | have exactly one occupant.
 
    | superseeplus wrote:
    | But if there are 5 people in a car, the congestion pricing
    | ends up costing each person less than it would cost someone
    | driving alone. In a way, this discourages people using the
    | road space inefficiently in favor of people like you and your
    | friends who are using it more efficiently.
 
    | woodruffw wrote:
    | In addition to what others have said: everything you've said
    | is a reason to lower end-user public transit costs, not lower
    | car tolls. A well-structured scheme here would simultaneously
    | disincentivize individual car traffic _and_ use some of the
    | funds from that disincentivization to subsidize public
    | transit.
 
    | np- wrote:
    | You really think traffic is filled with 5 people in a car?
    | Try looking around in a traffic jam, it's like 95% 1-2 people
    | occupancy. At 5 people, just paying the congestion charge
    | starts to make sense. Also you could always split the
    | difference, driving some of the way and parking along the
    | PATH line, ie at Harrison parking is $10-15 per day and PATH
    | fare is $2.75 per person, it's still possible to get in
    | cheaper and faster by public transit even in contrived
    | situations like this.
 
      | Waterluvian wrote:
      | Heyyyyyy!... It should be $100 minus $20 per extra person
      | in the car.
 
    | comte7092 wrote:
    | Regressive if you ignore all of the other costs associated
    | with driving.
    | 
    | Drivers always love to make this argument, but it presupposes
    | that everyone already owns and insures a car.
    | 
    | At the end of the day it's car dependence that is regressive.
 
      | ericmay wrote:
      | Yea it also ignores that if everybody stopped riding the
      | $100 train then you'd never actually be able to drive into
      | the city, let alone park anywhere for under $100.
      | 
      | Also, this is a deliberate choice. They can improve train
      | services and lower costs. Idk why people who ostensibly are
      | market oriented are so fixated on current prices and
      | assuming they can't change or be improved upon. Germany is
      | an example $49 for a ticket for all (I think) transit.
      | 
      | Another thing while I'm at it - how much does your car,
      | insurance, gas, maintenance, tires, and other things cost?
      | How much money per month are you paying to pay for the
      | roads and highways? Etc. It's hard to do a fair apples to
      | apples comparison here either way.
 
        | cogman10 wrote:
        | Yeah, everyone also ignores that public transport can be
        | supported through taxes and operated at a loss.
        | 
        | In the US, we have a weird obsession with all public
        | goods/services paying for themselves. We should ditch
        | that, operate at a loss, and pull the difference out of
        | progressive taxes.
        | 
        | There's no reason your CEO or office shouldn't foot part
        | of the bill to transport you into work.
        | 
        | Heck, were I king I'd fund public transport 100% from
        | taxes and do away with ticketing. Imagine how much less
        | money we'd pay on road maintenance, police doing traffic
        | duty, running ticket stands/etc. Not to mention the air
        | quality improvements and environmental impacts.
 
        | mikepurvis wrote:
        | The weirdness of the obsession is even stranger when you
        | compare it to basically any other public service. Like,
        | are schools supposed to pay for themselves? Airports?
        | City infrastructure like streets, parks, and rec centers?
        | The military?
        | 
        | No, of course not. All of these things are essentials for
        | the which the benefits are felt across the economy, but
        | those benefits are far too diffuse to be individually
        | tallied up and toll-boothed-- which is of course why they
        | are (generally) financed out of the general tax base
        | rather than by private industry.
 
        | jrockway wrote:
        | I've heard an argument that schools are supposed to pay
        | for themselves. The idea is that people who go to school
        | end up in a higher tax bracket, so it's an investment,
        | not merely public good. Similar arguments are made for
        | parks and recreation; more open space, less noise, so
        | less stress-induced heart attacks, which means more years
        | being a taxpayer.
        | 
        | I think this is a toxic way of thinking of things, but I
        | guess it allows even the most greedy politician to live
        | with himself for not opposing schools.
 
        | [deleted]
 
      | mrkstu wrote:
      | That doesn't address the underlying issue of family groups
      | being priced out of transportation options altogether.
 
        | superseeplus wrote:
        | NJ Transit allows kids under 11 to travel free with a
        | fare paying adult on weekends and holidays. MTA charges
        | them $1 but makes the discount always available.
 
      | speakfreely wrote:
      | > Drivers always love to make this argument, but it
      | presupposes that everyone already owns and insures a car.
      | 
      | Have you ever been to New Jersey? The entire state is set
      | up to make it as difficult as possible to live without a
      | car.
 
        | comte7092 wrote:
        | That's the point.
        | 
        | Why does New York have to accommodate New Jersey and not
        | the other way around?
 
        | SSLy wrote:
        | Excuse my European understanding, but isn't it the
        | state's right to make such policy, and isn't it NY's not
        | to care about it too?
 
        | knorker wrote:
        | And that's the problem. Not any fees NY may introduce.
 
    | lwhi wrote:
    | Congestion charges work.
    | 
    | They discourage journeys taken by car; reducing traffic,
    | easing pollution and improving health.
 
  | jimbob45 wrote:
  | [flagged]
 
    | deepsquirrelnet wrote:
    | Until primaries are over, primary candidates of national
    | parties mostly attack their opponents... (hint: their
    | opponents are other candidates in their primary)
 
    | hooverd wrote:
    | That just sounds like recency bias. Plus before announcing
    | they're more likely to have not been in the news.
 
    | insanitybit wrote:
    | > Nobody was talking about Christie at all for years
    | 
    | I've been hearing about Christie for absolute ages, no clue
    | at all what you're on about.
 
    | Brian_K_White wrote:
    | It is entirely explicable why anyone is talking about
    | Christie this week and not last week.
 
    | HWR_14 wrote:
    | You are being paranoid.
    | 
    | If nobody was talking about Christie, it's because 95% of
    | what he did only impacted NJ. This is a spillover, because it
    | happens to be related to a megacity doing something for the
    | first time in North America.
    | 
    | But, beyond that, when people start running for president,
    | people start talking about them. Criticisms or not. No one
    | talked about Joe Biden doing anything from the start of the
    | 2016 election until he announced in 2020, in spite of having
    | been a major political player for decades.
 
    | woodruffw wrote:
    | Christie's buffoonery around transit[1] is a somewhat staid
    | topic in NYC politics, and this is an article about NYC.
    | 
    | [1]:
    | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Lee_lane_closure_scandal
 
    | gbear605 wrote:
    | A more charitable interpretation is people have suddenly been
    | reminded that he exists and of what he did. I don't think
    | that anyone is getting paid to do propaganda against
    | Republican primary candidates on Hacker News. That goes
    | doubly so for candidates that have a functionally zero
    | percent chance of winning (Christie knows that - he's just
    | there to attack Trump).
 
    | iambateman wrote:
    | I think it's availability heuristic. There are lots of people
    | I don't criticize because they're irrelevant. As soon as they
    | make themselves relevant...they are opened up to both more
    | enthusiasm and critique.
 
    | superseeplus wrote:
    | Talking about the decline of NJ Transit and the specific
    | gubernatorial policies that led to it is relevant in a debate
    | about congestion pricing. This would have been the case even
    | if he was not a presidential candidate.
 
| Eumenes wrote:
| Hopefully this comes to NYC:
| https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12011507/ULEZ-Blade...
 
| Tinyyy wrote:
| I'm a fan of charging market efficient rates for shared goods.
| The congestion situation in the Holland Tunnel is awful and
| bleeds out into various streets of Manhattan as well. The cost of
| sitting in crawling traffic with aggressive drivers cutting
| around is probably much more than an extra $20.
 
  | DaveExeter wrote:
  | I agree! Let's get the poors off the roads.
  | 
  | The peasant class belongs on public transport, not on taxpayer-
  | funded roads.
 
    | Tinyyy wrote:
    | I grew up in a city with insanely high taxes on cars and
    | roads (Singapore). But you could get anywhere easily with the
    | bus or MRT. In a rush? Your Grab taxi can get you there
    | quickly and efficiently. I'm not sure why it'd be better to
    | make everyone's day worse instead. Does that really make the
    | world a fairer place?
 
    | ZoomerCretin wrote:
    | There's nothing wrong with public transport. The subway is
    | frequently faster than driving anyway.
 
    | bombcar wrote:
    | Discrimination is much easier once you take a racial aspect
    | out and just use socioeconomic status instead.
 
      | pierat wrote:
      | Absolutely true. In fact this was the 1980s republican
      | plan. Lee Atwater has a great hot mic moment about this.
      | 
      | You start out in 1954 by saying, "Ni*er, ni*er, ni*er." By
      | 1968 you can't say "ni*er"--that hurts you, backfires. So
      | you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states' rights, and
      | all that stuff, and you're getting so abstract. Now, you're
      | talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're
      | talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct
      | of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.... "We want
      | to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing
      | thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Ni*er,
      | ni*er."
      | 
      | https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-
      | atwa...
      | 
      | ---------------
      | 
      | And you also have New York City and the racist/classist
      | bridges. Bridges were built too low for public transit to
      | get out to Long Island. It did a VERY effective job at
      | keeping black people and poor people away from the middle
      | class and higher areas.
      | 
      | " In one of the book's most memorable passages, Caro
      | reveals that Moses ordered his engineers to build the
      | bridges low over the parkway to keep buses from the city
      | away from Jones Beach--buses presumably filled with the
      | poor blacks and Puerto Ricans Moses despised. The story was
      | told to Caro by Sidney M. Shapiro, a close Moses associate
      | and former chief engineer and general manager of the Long
      | Island State Park Commission."
      | 
      | Who would have thought that building a bridge could be
      | racist and classist?
      | 
      | https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-09/robert-
      | mo...
 
    | raldi wrote:
    | Lower-income Americans already take the bus far more than
    | wealthy ones, who are much more likely to be driving.
    | 
    | A congestion charge will fall disproportionately on the
    | wealthy, and allow the buses carrying lower-income folks to
    | move throughout the city faster.
 
      | seanmcdirmid wrote:
      | This isn't exactly true. Rich people have the resources to
      | live closer to where they work, they are more likely to
      | WFH, they can ride a bike to work often, or maybe even
      | walk. Poor people often live farther away from their jobs,
      | they have worse commutes, and the likelihood of
      | accomplishing that long commute by mass transit in many
      | American isn't that great.
      | 
      | Anecdotally, we are well to do, chose our house location to
      | minimize our commute and make it easy by bus (and ensure we
      | can go to the grocery store by foot). Then I got the
      | opportunity to work from home, my wife has a straight shot
      | from bus to her office downtown, the kid's schools (even
      | high school) are all within walking distance. There is no
      | way we could have set all that up without money.
 
        | mc32 wrote:
        | I was poor, I took the bus to college and work (there
        | were times I'd have to add 30 minutes where I knew I'd
        | have to leg it). It was an hour and a half with
        | transfers. It's doable --you get used to it, just like
        | tech workers get used to driving in from the East Bay
        | into the Peninsula. It's no biggie. On the way home,
        | sometimes you get off at a different stop to pick up
        | groceries and then you're the one walking home with two
        | plastic bags -at first your arms ache. Again, you get
        | used to it.
 
        | seanmcdirmid wrote:
        | There are multiple levels of poor, like there are
        | multiple levels of rich. Plenty of people are rich enough
        | to drive, but not rich enough to live in convenient
        | locations. It's weird that, when I was going to
        | university, many people would save money by living far
        | off campus and driving to pay $5 for parking. The richer
        | kids were living on or next to campus, and didn't even
        | need cars. Housing is expensive, and the American system
        | has made driving unnaturally cheap.
 
        | pessimizer wrote:
        | > Plenty of people are rich enough to drive, but not rich
        | enough to live in convenient locations.
        | 
        | Now they're not rich enough to drive, they're become poor
        | enough to use public transportation. Maybe their votes
        | will improve the convenience of public transportation.
        | 
        | To somebody who can afford to live in Manhattan, you'd
        | have to charge $200 a trip to bother them. Just tax them,
        | and use that money to build out public transportation.
        | 
        | Very weird to crusade for the right of people who can
        | barely afford their cars to be better than those who
        | can't afford cars.
 
        | analognoise wrote:
        | Hour and a half is no biggie? Is that one way?
        | 
        | That sucks more than having a car does by far. Even the
        | last part about "your arms ache but you get used to it" -
        | how is that for disabled people? How is it for the
        | elderly? An extra hour and a half - what about if you
        | have kids at home?
        | 
        | Honestly that... Blows?
        | 
        | If the options are to destroy the environment or to have
        | to take an extra three hours daily to commute, I choose
        | destroy the environment - smart people will probably fix
        | it with science.
        | 
        | I thought about it - why would I rather destroy the
        | environment than reduce cars? Because it's a lie -
        | there's clearly no shared burden. Like as soon as
        | humanity bans all privat jets, the entire cruise
        | industry, etc, then maybe I'd consider it. But as it is,
        | it's just one more "eh the poors will get used to it" -
        | meanwhile we don't ban major contributions from sources
        | that are rich people's enjoyment or profits.
 
        | wussboy wrote:
        | 3 hours commutes or destroying the environment aren't the
        | only two options. By changing the way we build cities,
        | and by retrofitting the ones we've already built, we can
        | make places where the walked/biked commute is less than a
        | half hour and the environmental impact is slashed
        | dramatically.
 
        | seanmcdirmid wrote:
        | A lot of problems can be solved via better urban
        | planning, but most of us have little control over that.
        | What we do have control over leaves us with a couple of
        | options, but we have hope that maybe our grandkids will
        | have more choices.
 
        | wussboy wrote:
        | Agreed. And I'm in the same boat. But I've taken the
        | "best time to plant a tree was 40 years ago" approach and
        | have started working in my community to bring about those
        | changes.
 
        | pessimizer wrote:
        | To people who can't afford to drive, this just sounds
        | like relatively wealthy people whining about being
        | reduced to living like they have been the entire time.
        | 
        | If you want to reduce the relative privileges of wealthy
        | people, _tax them_ and redistribute or do a socialist
        | revolution. Never crusade for the privileges of people
        | with _some_ money while ignoring the situation of the
        | people with _less_ money. In the limit, you 'll end up
        | crusading for the privileges of billionaires against the
        | privileges of multi-billionaires. As activism, imo it's
        | silly.
 
        | raldi wrote:
        | Do you have a citation for that claim? Here are a few
        | refuting it:
        | 
        | https://bikeportland.org/2016/01/25/low-income-
        | households-dr...
        | 
        | https://medium.com/100-hours/is-congestion-pricing-fair-
        | to-t...
        | 
        | https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/3/7/toll-roads-
        | hurt...
 
        | seanmcdirmid wrote:
        | I didn't make a quantitative claim, just a qualitative
        | one based on anecdotal evidence. I put about 1000 miles a
        | year on my car, but I paid a lot of money to get to the
        | point that I could do feasibly that. I'm not unusual in
        | this either, a lot of rich techies go for urban car-light
        | lifestyles if they can afford it.
        | 
        | The above studies seem to only focus on the poorest of
        | the poor, and not the lower middle class. Congestion
        | charges are going to hit people who are rich enough to
        | drive but not rich enough to live in convenient places
        | the most. There isn't a binary distinction between rich
        | and poor after all. Those links are pretty embarrassing
        | actually, surely there are better arguments that this
        | will impact rich the most than using the poorest of the
        | poor as an example?
 
        | dgacmu wrote:
        | I mean, the answer is that this is New York City, not
        | Seattle, where parking is going to cost you $30+ in the
        | areas affected by the congestion charge. So we've already
        | limited the discussion to the pretty well-off.
        | 
        | Per the article itself: "But out of a region of 28
        | million people, just an estimated 16,100 low-income
        | people commute to work via car in Lower Manhattan,
        | according to the MTA."
        | 
        | Probably easier to find a way to meet the needs of 16k
        | exceptions. And having a safe fast public transit system,
        | which the connection charge funds, is part of that.
        | 
        | (Hi, Sean! Hope you're well!)
 
        | seanmcdirmid wrote:
        | I did an internship at IBM Hawthorn so I'm familiar with
        | parking in the city. It's actually doable (or was
        | doable?) in midtown near Columbia, and it actually made
        | sense for my girlfriend at the time. The public transit
        | system isn't that great when you are commuting between
        | West Chester county. And traffic in NYC is weird. Like,
        | going into the city isn't a problem, especially if you
        | are going in at night. But take one step out to Long
        | Island...and you are snarled in traffic for hours.
        | 
        | My comment about poorer people being more affected I
        | believe is still valid even if it's the right thing to
        | do. The people who are forced to commute by car generally
        | don't have better options.
        | 
        | It would be much worse if they tried this in Seattle, but
        | we also need it as well, it just won't be something only
        | the rich are suffering (like in NYC).
 
        | dgacmu wrote:
        | Yeah, but - the proposed congestion charge is only below
        | 60th, and Columbia is up around 116th and higher. Much
        | much easier to park near Columbia. Maybe a little more
        | risk of having your car stolen, too. :)
        | 
        | Also (adding this a few minutes later), the evidence is
        | clear that public transit is seriously beneficial for
        | people with lower incomes - and the elderly and folks
        | with disabilities that prevent them from driving.
        | 
        | So we may be taking about something that harms 16k people
        | and benefits about three million other low-income New
        | Yorkers.
 
        | seanmcdirmid wrote:
        | Again, I'm not against congestion charging, I'm against
        | the thinking that most of the immediate downsides are
        | born by the rich. It is politically naive to think like
        | this given that plenty of people who are taking advantage
        | of driving (for better or worse) are not people who would
        | be considered rich. Actually it's worse than that since
        | rich people aren't going to think much about a $5 or $10,
        | $20 fee while poorer drivers definitely are.
        | 
        | As for it not encompassing midtown, that sounds a bit
        | weird to me, but ok. I'm not sure it will have much
        | impact on overall region traffic since most trips
        | probably don't involve that area in the first place.
 
        | aqme28 wrote:
        | [flagged]
 
    | anotherhue wrote:
    | > out of a region of 28 million people, just an estimated
    | 16,100 low-income people commute to work via car in Lower
    | Manhattan, according to the MTA
 
      | pessimizer wrote:
      | Exactly. If those 16K really concern somebody, they should
      | just issue them a pass based on income. And if capitalism
      | means anything, the employers of those 16K will have to
      | raise pay to attract people.
 
    | bradleyjg wrote:
    | The "poors," as you so delightfully put it have nowhere to
    | park in those parts of Manhattan. So they won't be going
    | there (leaving aside deliveries and taxis, but then the fee
    | is a cost of doing business.)
    | 
    | The group this will hit the hardest are those with de facto
    | immunity from parking tickets. Cops, teachers, members of
    | certain trade unions, and so on.
    | 
    | However, lest you worry too much about these folk in light of
    | automated speed and red light cameras they've taken to
    | obscuring their license plates or buying fraudulent paper
    | plates on the internet. Of course nothing is done about these
    | effectively untraceable vehicles.
 
    | [deleted]
 
    | zeroonetwothree wrote:
    | Having more money lets you buy more of everything. Yet you
    | are only concerned about roads (which aren't even used by the
    | poorest segment since they can't afford a car)? Why not focus
    | on making something more fundamental to existence free, like
    | food or shelter?
    | 
    | Oh right it's because it creates poor incentives and overuse
    | (tragedy of the commons) exactly like we see with roads (and
    | parking). If car drivers had to pay the full cost of the
    | resources they use it would reduce wasteful driving
    | substantially. And we could use money collected in that way
    | to pay for transit (or just give it as a tax rebate to low
    | income people if you prefer).
 
      | Tinyyy wrote:
      | Yea you're exactly right, there's a tragedy of the commons
      | situation right now. You could either decrease the demand
      | or increase the supply to fix this problem, and it seems
      | pretty impossible to increase the supply (build a bridge
      | across the Hudson? That's crazy). So here we are.
 
        | aqme28 wrote:
        | Encouraging transit ridership does actually increase the
        | supply. You get far far far more people moved via buses
        | and trains.
        | 
        | Buses account for about 73% of people moved in the
        | Lincoln tunnel, but only 10% of vehicles.
        | 
        | http://www.nymtc.org/data_services/HBT.html
 
        | zip1234 wrote:
        | The average speed driving in Manhattan is something like
        | 7mph. There is not enough space for cars. Congestion
        | charge is such a no-brainer easy solution here.
 
        | nimbleplum40 wrote:
        | Another bridge wouldn't do much to fix supply since
        | you're still dumping cars into one of the most dense
        | urban environments in the world.
        | 
        | The only sustainable way to increase the supply of trips
        | into lower manhattan is increased public transit.
 
        | fellowmartian wrote:
        | Unironically I'd hate a new bridge across the Hudson
        | around the Holland Tunnel, that area is the crown jewel
        | of Manhattan and its seafront should be protected.
        | 
        | It's also one of the few safe bike paths in the city
        | where casual bikers would feel comfortable biking.
        | 
        | Additionally, we already have one Canal St in the area,
        | we don't need another.
        | 
        | Sorry for this small NIMBY rant.
 
        | bobthepanda wrote:
        | NIMBYism is not inherently a bad thing; it was originally
        | coined by the waste management industry to describe
        | opposition to local landfills and toxic waste dumps,
        | which any sane person doesn't actually want to live next
        | to.
        | 
        | (Yes, I know Europe and Japan build fancy incinerators
        | with parks and whatnot that are very pleasant, but the
        | odds of that being built in the US by penny-pinching
        | private industry is nil.)
 
    | renewiltord wrote:
    | Yep, given sufficient externalities, this is true. As an
    | example, watch this fictional response to the fact that
    | better cars cost more:
    | 
    | Let's get the poors out of safe cars. The peasant class
    | belongs in beaters, while the rich ride safe.
    | 
    | Consider the choices necessary to make that statement untrue.
 
      | lotsofpulp wrote:
      | You mean how the richer you are, the bigger (and safer) the
      | vehicle you can afford?
      | 
      | I drive by many parents taking their kids wherever in old
      | corollas or kias or other small car, and I see many parents
      | at my kids' daycare dropping their kids off in large
      | suburbans/F150/Sequoia/etc.
 
        | beerandt wrote:
        | If you want safer vehicles across the board, get rid of
        | cafe and other efficiency regulations.
        | 
        | At this point in the current regulatory framework, safety
        | and efficiency are in direct competition.
 
        | renewiltord wrote:
        | Certainly. That's one way, but also poorer people own
        | older cars.
        | 
        | An argument that rests on equality should support the
        | idea that all people deserve the same car irrespective of
        | how much money they have.
 
        | estebank wrote:
        | Equality would be to be able to go where you need to go,
        | in reasonable time, cost and accomodation, regardless of
        | class, race, gender or disability. Focusing on _cars_ is
        | over-indexing on one potential solution.
        | 
        | People want to move around. Cars are only one way of
        | doing so.
 
    | mc32 wrote:
    | Yes, they do! Everyone should be taking public transit, the
    | poor as well --and if they prefer private transport, then
    | it's time to pay up!
 
  | cyberax wrote:
  | > I'm a fan of charging market efficient rates for shared
  | goods.
  | 
  | Are you a fan of charging market rates for transit as well?
 
    | creato wrote:
    | Sure, as long as you consider externalities like congestion.
    | That would suggest charging for passage through congested
    | areas (the subject of this thread), and subsidizing mass
    | transit in congested areas.
 
      | cyberax wrote:
      | > Sure, as long as you consider externalities like
      | congestion.
      | 
      | The thing is, transit increases congestion.
      | 
      | No, I'm not joking. Transit promotes denser housing that
      | always results in higher congestion.
      | 
      | So, are you proposing making transit even more expensive?
      | 
      | I'm all for it, btw.
 
        | Eisenstein wrote:
        | You logic is completely backwards.
        | 
        | Dense housing doesn't result in traffic congestion. If
        | more people live closer together there is more population
        | density, but as long as they can access commercial areas
        | easily then they can do their shopping and work and
        | recreational tasks without cars. When you remove cars
        | then you suddenly have much more living space because a
        | car takes up a large amount of room to store and there
        | must be extra space for commuters and visitors.
        | 
        | Are you seriously arguing that adding more space for cars
        | makes cities less congested? For every one parking space
        | you add you remove a large amount of useful space for
        | other things.
 
        | cyberax wrote:
        | > Dense housing doesn't result in traffic congestion.
        | 
        | Yes, it does. And the relationship is causal.
        | 
        | > If more people live closer together there is more
        | population density, but as long as they can access
        | commercial areas easily then they can do their shopping
        | and work and recreational tasks without cars.
        | 
        | What a bunch of bullshit.
        | 
        | > Are you seriously arguing that adding more space for
        | cars makes cities less congested?
        | 
        | Not quite. Nothing can help hellscapes like Manhattan.
        | They just need to be slowly de-densified, it'll take
        | generations, but it will be done eventually.
        | 
        | Cities should make sure that they don't rely on transit,
        | and the rest will follow.
 
        | paulgb wrote:
        | I'm suspicious of that. LA is famous for low use of
        | transit (relative to population) and is also famous for
        | having bad congestion.
 
        | cyberax wrote:
        | You can screw up everything if you try hard enough. LA is
        | an example of that.
        | 
        | On the other hand, the Greater Houston Area has a similar
        | population to NYC, yet it has 26-minute commutes versus
        | 36 minutes for NYC.
 
    | zip1234 wrote:
    | For sure, let's charge methods of transportation based on
    | negative externalities such as how much space they take,
    | safety, and noise/particulate pollution.
 
      | cyberax wrote:
      | I'm all for it! It would suck for transit, though:
      | 
      | 1. It has a higher CO2 footprint than small/medium EVs.
      | 
      | 2. Transit forces people into smaller and denser housing,
      | resulting in suboptimal living conditions.
      | 
      | 3. Buses in particular result in excessive road wear&tear.
      | 
      | It's really amazing that people say things like "car owners
      | should not get subsidized" (by whom?), while talking about
      | transit that is literally infeasible without massive
      | subsidies.
 
        | kelnos wrote:
        | Car owners are already hugely subsidized. Toll roads
        | cover only a tiny fraction of road maintenance. The rest
        | is paid by taxpayers, even those who do not drive.
 
        | cyberax wrote:
        | > Car owners are already hugely subsidized
        | 
        | Around 80% of all commutes in the US are by car. You
        | can't subsidize 80% of the population.
        | 
        | Drivers simply pay for their road use through various
        | taxes, and not directly.
 
        | ApolloFortyNine wrote:
        | Could easily make the same argument when some city spends
        | 3 billion to build a 4 mile subway extension.
        | 
        | The fare recovery rate is absolutely terrible in the US.
        | Expecting 100% isn't exactly necessary, but NYC is at
        | 20%.
        | 
        | https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio
 
        | klipt wrote:
        | Transit is completely feasible without subsidies if the
        | transit company owns the land near the stations, which
        | generate generous rents.
        | 
        | Of course if the land is owned by other people, the
        | increase in value provided by transit should be
        | recaptured through a Land Value Tax which is then used to
        | fund the transit.
 
        | cyberax wrote:
        | > Transit is completely feasible without subsidies if the
        | transit company owns the land near the stations, which
        | generate generous rents.
        | 
        | So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the
        | transport authority be a slumlord. Got it.
        | 
        | There are no unsubsidized urban transit services in the
        | US. Even operating costs are not paid from fares. And new
        | transit construction is COMPLETELY subsidized.
        | 
        | I live in Seattle and I will have paid around $20k in car
        | tab fees alone by the time the choo-choo subway train
        | expansion here is done. It won't go anywhere near me and
        | it will make my life worse, by inducing even more
        | traffic.
 
        | zip1234 wrote:
        | > It's really amazing that people say things like "car
        | owners should not get subsidized" (by whom?), while
        | talking about transit that is literally infeasible
        | without massive subsidies.
        | 
        | If road usage fees cover less than half the cost of roads
        | then clearly someone is subsidizing roads.
 
        | alphanullmeric wrote:
        | Sounds like roads should be paid for only by their users,
        | and proportionally to their use. Then it would be
        | irrelevant whether it's a sedan or bus since everyone
        | pays their fair share. But of course, such solutions are
        | not acceptable to those that do not intend to pay their
        | fair share.
 
        | pessimizer wrote:
        | > 1. It has a higher CO2 footprint than small/medium EVs.
        | 
        | This is too misleading to be unintentional. I don't know
        | if you're comparing buses to small/medium EVs 1:1, but
        | even if you aren't, the environmental footprint of
        | replacing all bus services with EVs would be
        | extraordinary.
        | 
        | > 2. Transit forces people into smaller and denser
        | housing, resulting in suboptimal living conditions.
        | 
        | Transit doesn't force people into housing. It creates new
        | housing options that previously were not tenable. Rivers
        | don't create port congestion, rivers create ports. Not
        | having enough ports, or enough rivers, creates port
        | congestion.
        | 
        | > 3. Buses in particular result in excessive road
        | wear&tear.
        | 
        | In proportion to human-miles, or is this a 1:1
        | comparison?
 
        | cyberax wrote:
        | > This is too misleading to be unintentional.
        | 
        | It's not misleading. On average, buses in the US carry
        | around 15 people. A car carries around 1.5, so the raw
        | multiplier is just 10.
        | 
        | But wait, there's more!
        | 
        | ALL buses have an incredibly polluting component that is
        | fundamental to their functionality: the driver. You need
        | around 3 drivers to cover the useful service time (from
        | 5am to midnight). And drivers are POLLUTING AS HELL.
        | 
        | > I don't know if you're comparing buses to small/medium
        | EVs 1:1
        | 
        | Yes, I do. Here ya go: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-
        | carbon-footprint
        | 
        | > Transit doesn't force people into housing.
        | 
        | It does, via market forces.
        | 
        | > It creates new housing options that previously were not
        | tenable.
        | 
        | No. It _destroys_ affordable housing to pack people into
        | smaller and smaller footprints. Tokyo is a _great_
        | example of that.
        | 
        | > In proportion to human-miles, or is this a 1:1
        | comparison?
        | 
        | In proportion to passenger-miles. Road wear scales
        | approximately as the 4-th power of the axle weight, and
        | under-loaded buses still have to haul around their
        | massive bulks even if there's just one passenger inside.
        | 
        | Honestly, it's amazing how bad public transit turns out
        | to be when you actually start looking at its negative
        | sides.
 
    | superseeplus wrote:
    | To be fair, that is how commuter trains in the NYC
    | metropolitan area work. The fares are higher during rush hour
    | to discourage people who can shift their schedule from
    | traveling during rush hour.
 
  | [deleted]
 
| cj wrote:
| See also:
| 
| London congestion charge:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge
| 
| Singapore Electronic Road Pricing:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing
| 
| Stockholm congestion tax:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_congestion_tax
 
  | jmclnx wrote:
  | When I saw London doing that, I expected cities in the US to
  | start that. I am surprised it took so long.
  | 
  | I expected this because of the push of toll roads to make
  | people use EZPASS. Depending upon the City, I think this makes
  | sense.
  | 
  | But, in the US, I wonder if this will cause another mass
  | migration of people out to the suburbs ? In the US, people are
  | more addicted to their SUVs than heron addicts are to their
  | drug.
 
    | dataviz1000 wrote:
    | Mass migration to Statin Island, Brooklyn, and Flushing.
    | 
    | I've been interested in cities with rail trails and the like.
    | For example, San Antonio with the many mile extension of the
    | Riverwalk along the San Antonio river and Atlanta with the
    | Belt Line have created non motorized vehicle corridors
    | through the respective cities which have spurred incredible
    | amounts of mixed use development for miles on each side of
    | the walking, peddle biking pathways. The most expensive real
    | estate butting the pathway with bars, restaurants, yoga
    | studies in the lower levels of the new buildings and with
    | less and less expensive real estate pushing away from the
    | sides of the path ways out words. Rather than having
    | concentration of wealth at a circular center, the
    | concentration is linear which has a side effect of having
    | lower income house available in closer proximity to the
    | wealthy areas.
 
    | milsorgen wrote:
    | You sir, know nothing of heroin and it's work.
 
      | beebeepka wrote:
      | Or maybe you underestimate the addiction to cars? Because
      | I've seen plenty of both and I find the comparison apt
 
    | mortenjorck wrote:
    | A huge part of of why London could pull it off is the
    | exceptional state of the Underground. It's not hard to wean
    | off cars when the alternative is a clean, fast, modern train
    | a short walk away. NYC is going to have an uphill battle
    | getting the MTA to anywhere near that level, and the MTA
    | itself is already leagues ahead of any other transit system
    | in the US.
    | 
    | I would love to see London-tier transit in the United States,
    | but until our bureaucracies can solve about a dozen or so
    | hard problems, plans like this will remain all stick, no
    | carrot.
 
      | whack wrote:
      | I've taken both the Underground and the MTA and you're
      | overstating the difference. Aesthetically, the Underground
      | is far better, no question. But most commuters are focused
      | on functionality. And functionally the MTA is just as good,
      | if not better.
      | 
      | The trains run extremely frequently - every few minutes
      | during the day on weekdays. The parallel local-express
      | tracks give the MTA a big speed advantage. And the inside
      | of the MTA trains are extremely spacious compared to the
      | Underground.
 
        | Reason077 wrote:
        | > _"MTA trains are extremely spacious compared to the
        | Underground"_
        | 
        | Depends what line you're talking about. Deep tube lines
        | are indeed pretty small due to the narrow tubes they run
        | in. But the sub-surface lines (District, Circle,
        | Metropolitan, etc) are comparable to NYC subway
        | dimensions.
        | 
        | And have you tried our new 200m long Elizabeth line
        | trains?
 
        | muh_gradle wrote:
        | I live in NYC, have taken the tube when I lived in
        | London. I've also lived in other cities like Seoul, Tokyo
        | with superior public transportation. The "aesthetics"
        | aspect that you describe is an incredible understatement.
        | The nearest MTA station is covered in feces and used
        | syringes and I'm not exaggerating. Trains are constantly
        | late. Apparently building a barrier and a gate on the
        | platform is a 10 year, trillion dollar project. I have to
        | put my back to a wall because I'm worried some crazy
        | person will push me onto the track. Yeah, I wouldn't
        | concur with the statement on MTA being so functional.
 
        | nimbleplum40 wrote:
        | Huh, what station? I also live in NYC but haven't seen
        | any subway stations nearly that bad. Grimy, definitely.
        | But never what you're describing.
 
    | bobthepanda wrote:
    | London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government
    | above it is the national one.
    | 
    | Cities in the US are creatures of their respective states,
    | and the swing votes in states are usually the suburban voters
    | who would be most impacted by a charge like this.
    | 
    | ---
    | 
    | It also helps that TfL has a track record of delivering many
    | miles of projects and a future expansion plan. MTA is
    | planning on using this to keep the lights on for another five
    | years, at which point a new source of money has to be found
    | to pay for capital investment. (The plan is currently to bond
    | out the future congestion revenue to pay for today's capital
    | investments.)
 
      | griffinkelly wrote:
      | Does the revenue go to the state of NY, NYC or the federal
      | government? I imagine a split between all if it needed
      | federal approval?
 
        | epc wrote:
        | Current plan is for revenue to accrue to the MTA, a
        | public benefit corporation owned by NY State.
 
      | cronix wrote:
      | There's also the county government layer that cities must
      | adhere to in addition to state/national.
 
        | SllX wrote:
        | Hmm, depends _a lot_ on the State.
        | 
        | You can generally make two generalizations about local
        | governments in the United States: they are local
        | governments and you can't make any other generalizations
        | about them because everything depends on the State and
        | sometimes a locality's specific circumstances.
        | 
        | In California, municipalities do not _adhere_ to the
        | counties they are in, the county is a legal subdivision
        | of the State which might also have a charter and cities
        | are municipal corporations with a monopoly on the land
        | use within their cities. School districts are also a form
        | of local government here, as are special purpose
        | districts like BART.
        | 
        | In some parts of New England, and I'm not going to go
        | into specifics because when I looked into this more than
        | 10 years ago this had changed or some States were
        | changing it, the State is divided into counties and the
        | counties were divided into townships which are the basis
        | of the New England township system. Somewhere in there,
        | there are also cities, and Maine has a couple of severely
        | underpopulated places designated as Plantations.
        | 
        | So, congestion pricing in the US: NYC, LA, San Francisco
        | and probably Seattle absolutely have the power to this if
        | they wanted to, although I'll say for San Francisco that
        | would have made a lot more sense to try before the
        | pandemic than now, cuz now, well now downtown is dead so
        | what would it really do? Fairly certain Boston could as
        | well. Everywhere else, I'm less certain, like in Texas
        | I'm fairly certain cities there could, but I'm also
        | fairly certain the Texan legislature under their own laws
        | has the power to step in and go "No. None of that. Shame
        | on you."
 
        | Spooky23 wrote:
        | NYC can only do it if granted the home rule authority by
        | the state legislature - which it has.
        | 
        | In general, counties are pretty weak in New York.
 
        | bpye wrote:
        | London and unitary authorities don't have a county above
        | them.
 
        | ghaff wrote:
        | I assumed that was in the context of the US. Country
        | governments in the US vary a lot in how powerful they are
        | from being mostly a judicial unit or organization to
        | being pretty powerful (e.g. parishes in Louisiana).
 
        | bobthepanda wrote:
        | New York City, which is implementing this, is a bit of a
        | weird case in that it actually sits above the counties,
        | not below them. New York's five boroughs are technically
        | five counties.
 
      | drdec wrote:
      | > London has it relatively easy; the only layer of
      | government above it is the national one.
      | 
      | Is that actually true? I mean, are there no vestiges of
      | England, Scotland and Wales in the UK?
 
        | desas wrote:
        | Yes for Scotland and Wales but not for England. The
        | discrepancy is known as The West Lothian Question
 
        | amiga386 wrote:
        | Not really. The West Lothian Question is "why can Scots
        | vote on English laws but not vice-versa?", which wasn't
        | true at the time it was asked (1977), and especially
        | isn't true now.
        | 
        | Firstly, note that all constituent countries elect MPs to
        | the UK's Westminster parliament, because there are many
        | laws that affect the entire country, and are controlled
        | centrally.
        | 
        | Between 1707 and 1997 (20 years _after_ asking the
        | question!), _all_ laws for Scotland were made in
        | Westminster, and voted on by _all_ MPs. Laws for Scotland
        | get their own bills because Scotland retains its own
        | legal system. Likewise Northern Ireland, but _not_ Wales.
        | Wales shares the same legal system as England, which is
        | why the phrase "England and Wales" appears often.
        | 
        | Since Scottish devolution, certain powers were _reserved_
        | for Westminster, and the rest of the laws for Scotland
        | are now made in a separately elected Scottish parliament.
        | But there are still plenty of laws which affect Scotland,
        | sometimes _exclusively_ affect Scotland due to the
        | reserved powers having the ability to override choices
        | that Scotland has made for itself. Those laws are still
        | made in Westminster, English MPs can still vote on them
        | and easily win, and so Scots still need representation in
        | the Westminster parliament.
        | 
        | The main part of the West Lothian question, which is
        | where there are sometimes laws that _exclusively_ affect
        | England and Wales, why do Scottish MPs get to vote on
        | them?, was handled by the Scottish MPs voluntarily not
        | voting on them. They managed to do this for centuries
        | without any formal process. Then after the 2015 election,
        | the UK government brought in the EVEL process (English
        | Votes for English Laws), which gave English MPs a "veto"
        | on laws that only affected England. Since the pandemic,
        | Westminster chose to drop EVEL, presumably because the
        | voluntary system of Scottish MPs abstaining from voting
        | on England-only bills worked just fine!
        | 
        | What's relevant for this discussion is that _London_ has
        | an elected mayor, which makes it a special case. It has
        | its own autonomy, within England, which supposedly
        | doesn't have any special carve outs unlike
        | Scotland/Wales/NI... in reality, it has quite a few: http
        | s://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directly_elected_mayors_in_Eng.
        | ..
 
        | eynsham wrote:
        | Scotland and Wales have devolved governments. England
        | does not. There is no English parliament; there are no
        | English courts--there are English and Welsh courts; there
        | are many English ministers but no ministers in right of
        | England.
        | 
        | The once-English institutions of parliament, the crown,
        | and its ministers became those of Great Britain first and
        | the United Kingdom subsequently. But the remit of the UK
        | government in devolved matters is limited in some cases
        | to some subset of {England, Wales, Scotland, Northern
        | Ireland}, e.g., the first two and the fourth. Those
        | powers are exercised _qua_ the British government, not
        | _qua_ some English, English and Welsh, or English, Welsh,
        | and Northern Irish (i.a.) government, none of which
        | exist.
        | 
        | There is a body of law peculiar to England. It is
        | administered by the English and Welsh courts, from which
        | an appeal may lie to the UK Supreme Court or the Judicial
        | Committee of the Privy Council as the case may be.
        | 
        | A large exception to these remarks is the Church of
        | England; the Churches of Ireland and Wales were
        | disestablished in 1869 and 1914 respectively.
 
    | Spooky23 wrote:
    | It's going to kill the city. It's just going to push
    | businesses out at a bad time.
    | 
    | This doesn't have anything to do with traffic - it's a way to
    | try to extract more money for the MTA. Money won't fix the
    | MTA's money woes; the unions will just slurp any available
    | cash.
 
      | Jolter wrote:
      | I suppose you have a better idea for financing the
      | investments, instead of congestion tax?
 
      | nimbleplum40 wrote:
      | I think you're vastly overestimating how many people
      | commute into lower manhattan via car.
 
      | acdha wrote:
      | Every time cities encourage people to drive less, it has
      | immediate benefits for quality of life and health. I'd be
      | shocked if this is more than a rounding error on the impact
      | of telework, especially since prioritizing residents over
      | commuters frees up a ton of real estate for desperately
      | needed housing.
 
    | mattlondon wrote:
    | I worked on the technical implementation of one of the London
    | Congestion Charge contracts many years ago.
    | 
    | It was a huuuuuuge loss for IBM to implement, but I think
    | their position was "we make a loss here, but then just need
    | to do a search-and-replace for "London" to New
    | York/Paris/Tokyo/Los Angeles and profit!" (I.e. no
    | significant extra development). Suffice to say that didn't
    | happen - it was built with zero customisation in mind. I
    | personally blame it on the _insistence_ that SAP was to be
    | used for processing payments etc.
 
      | ricktdotorg wrote:
      | interesting! where did the SAP requirement originate?
      | uk.gov not IBM?
 
    | stefan_ wrote:
    | Migration _to cities_ is whats causing this. When it was just
    | black people homes you had to bulldoze to build your freeway
    | straight to downtown there was obviously no concern. Now that
    | people living downtown are rich and powerful they are
    | starting to wonder why a huge chunk of prime space is
    | reserved for storage of suburbian commuter metal boxes.
 
    | Reason077 wrote:
    | > _"But, in the US, I wonder if this will cause another mass
    | migration of people out to the suburbs ?"_
    | 
    | If anything, I'd say the opposite is true in London. Reduced
    | traffic levels and cleaner air are making the centre a more
    | desirable place to be than ever. If only it were more
    | affordable!
 
| endisneigh wrote:
| Charging should be a function of either car book value as well
 
  | jupp0r wrote:
  | The point is to reduce traffic and raise revenue.
 
    | endisneigh wrote:
    | Yes, more reason to adjust to car book value.
 
      | jupp0r wrote:
      | Do expensive cars create worse traffic?
 
        | endisneigh wrote:
        | No but their drivers can pay more thus increasing revenue
        | for public transit, like income all taxes should be
        | progressive :)
 
        | codegeek wrote:
        | You will be surprised to know that lot of real wealthy
        | people drive normal cars. People who buy flashy cars in
        | America, majority of them finance/lease it and probably
        | couldn't afford it to buy in cash which is what u need to
        | be able to do if ur buying a car.
 
        | jupp0r wrote:
        | From the article:
        | 
        | "Drivers who make less than $50,000 a year or are
        | enrolled in certain government aid programs will get 25%
        | discounts after their first 10 trips every month. Trucks
        | and other vehicles will get 50% discounts during
        | overnight hours."
 
        | endisneigh wrote:
        | Good start but nothing about luxury vehicles :)
 
        | lkbm wrote:
        | Surely if you're concerned about identifying how rich
        | someone is, using _value of their car_ is a much worse
        | proxy than using _their actual income_.
 
        | endisneigh wrote:
        | Sure, let's do that then. But just so you know excise tax
        | is a thing and uses book value
 
| teakweazel wrote:
| [dead]
 
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-10 23:00 UTC)