Hacker News Reader

Comment by ars | Hacker News Reader

Very long article that basically says nothing.

"In New York, many details of a congestion pricing plan — including how much drivers will be charged — are still being worked out."

So saying "implements" seems rather premature.

My personal prediction is that this will lead people to move out of cities. I guess we'll see.

View on HN

You don’t spend much time with people that live in cities do you? I’d be less likely to move away if my city implemented congestion pricing, got rid of most street parking, and used that space and money for things like protected bike lanes, improving walkability and public transit. Significant improvement in day to day life, and relatively minor inconvenience occasionally when I do need to drive (picking up something heavy, out of city weekend activity, etc).

London did this a while ago and traveling around the city is much more pleasant. There is a case to be made that a congestion charge makes a city more habitable.

The way London does it does create some asymmetries which would be good to avoid. You pay when crossing the border between the outside and the congestion charge zone while driving inside the zone is not charged. This means that those who live inside the zone and drive inside the zone don't pay while those who come from the outside do. London real estate being priced as it is, those who live inside the zone could easily afford to pay for the privilege of driving private vehicles in that area - but they don't. Those who can not afford to live inside the zone but need to drive there for their work do end up paying. It would make more sense to tax the actual use of the roads inside the area instead of the mere fact that a vehicle crossed some imaginary border between the untaxed and taxed zones.

I’ve known a few people who lived in New York. I don’t think any of them ever owned a car there. It’s outrageously expensive and impractical in Manhattan. I don’t see it affecting the residents negatively.

Why would people move out of cities? Wouldn’t the majority of people entering a city (and being taxed) be coming from outside the city?

Because with fewer outside people coming into the cities there is less economic activity in the city.

So they will move to places with even less economic activity?

It certainly will cause people to leave. There’s a really high demand for walkability (that’s one reason cities like SF, NYC and Seattle are so pricey). As such, I have a feeling many more people will move in — especially as the city becomes less hostile for those on foot, on bike or transit.

I hope cars move out of cities, the people can stay. And since cities are much more pleasant without cars, without constant risk, without the huge number of deaths and pollution they cause, more people may move in.

London introduced a charge of £10 a day for cars if you drive into the congestion zone. If you live inside it you get a 90% discount though.

Considering the price of properties in congested areas, the fee is negligible.

They have committed to doing it though, and this is a huge political change. Congestion charging used to be the kind of thing that social scientists would point out as the obviously right thing to do and that never got any traction. Then we saw a few very prominent experiments with it (including the London City area) which were quite successful, and now it's coming to Manhattan, NYC. Amazing.

I'm not sure who drives into Manhattan-below-60th, but AFAIK it's very Uber/Lyft/Taxi-heavy, so this will probably get rolled into fares. It will be interesting to see how that ends up being priced. If it prices more trips onto transit while funding transit improvements, it will be a nice quality of life improvement.

people with free (placards) or reimbursed parking

Reply on news.ycombinator.com