Hacker News Reader

Comment by shipscode | Hacker News Reader

This idiocy will only hurt the working class employees who drive in from the outerboros.

1. The overwhelming majority of outerboro working class people are not driving in NYC.

Only about 30% of NYCers even own cars.

2. This only impacts a small part of Manhattan and for certain hours in the day. The only thing it does is encourages those who can move their travel away from peak hours to do so. This will greatly help all the people driving in as well.

3. This will greatly save many lives through reduced pollution and reduced car crashes.

4. This will help bus services etc which service far more working class people from the outer boros than private cars.

5. Congestion pricing has worked very well and been expanded everywhere it’s tried. There’s no evidence of it hurting working class people anywhere. And the parts of Manhattan this affects might be the most densely populated in terms of public transport.

1. Numbers are close enough to correct

2. This is no longer true, the plan is tolling individuals driving into that area 24 hours a day, and from 5AM-9PM at the full rate.

5. Just because Manhattan has public transit doesn’t mean they’re coming from a neighborhood with accessible public transit. Converting a short drive into a 2 hour each way trip is wrong no matter how poor the person.

> There will also be discounts for low-incomes motorists (below $50,000 per year) who need the car to get around. However, as a 2022 study pointed out, most drivers who enter Manhattan have medium or high incomes, meaning only 4% of drivers will receive a discount

I read this as "96% of drivers will be fine." Do you have other information to add here? Would be interested if so.

$50k in NYC is nothing. $350-$450 month in tolls is enough to break households that pull in way more than that.

Doesn't car ownership in NYC break households, between massive parking costs, high insurance, gas, idling in traffic, plus normal maintenance? I'm curious where using a car actually becomes a better deal given the transit options here. I'm sure there's instances, but it's hard to envision. Living way on the edge of an outer borough but working in the middle of Manhattan?

Working class employees take the train.

Go hang out on any village street during street parking hours and tell them they aren’t working class to their face.

Oh no, if only New York had the best transit system in the country.

Which still doesn’t efficiently serve the outerboros? Why should they have to spend 2 hours in a train each way instead of 45 mins in a car?

They don't. They have to decide if that extra 2.5 hours of life is worth $15.

The billion dollars a year might help change that. Why should they have to? The case has already been made by the city.

How can the working class afford to park in NYC? A monthly subscription to a parking lot/garage is $400 + monthly.

They street park for free which usually turns over between 9-11AM in all of the villages.

Simple, don't drive to Manhattan. If you're truly working class you won't have a car anyway you'll be taking the excellent public transit infrastructure.

They should jack the price to >$50. Anyone paying $8000/no for a 1bd in Manhattan can afford an extra 50*30=$1500 for the privilege of congesting everyone else's roads.

You're right about the majority of people who live in outer boroughs.

But my mind went to one demographic in particular -- Halal food carts. Those folks usually live in Queens and they have to haul their carts into Manhattan (unless I'm wrong about that).

What is your alternative?

My alternative are things that, unfortunately, would never fly politically:

1) Regulate urban business density in coastal cities and cities more generally limited by water.

2) More multi-core metropolises where the highest <edit: business> density is either spread out entirely, or spread to multiple districts sufficiently far away from each other.

Edit: The comment by hamandcheese showed I had forgotten this important modifier for point 2.

Urban density doesn't cause the issue of traffic. The issue of traffic is caused by cars. Urban density allows public transportation, the only current viable alternative, to be financially sound on a large scale.

business density - important difference from density in general.

Take San Francisco, for example. We have transit. But riding at peak hours sucks and will always suck because everyone is going to the same place.

Concentration of offices downtown makes transit to anywhere else less viable - hence the only subway in SF goes to one place.

Urban sprawl is perhaps the most environmentally devastating behaviour that humans do.

Suburban sprawl with manicured lawns is pretty bad, too. Fortunately there are cultural shifts away from that.

Urban sprawl generally refers to the development of suburbs outside cities. That’s what I was referring to.

I thought it was a more general term, and that suburbs were distinct. But it does appear that suburbs are considered a part of urban sprawl.

Regardless, manicured lawns are an environmentally bad thing on their own.

When you mentioned urban sprawl I first thought of expansion of the urban heat-island effect.

Lawns are my least favourite part of America. They’re just so ugly.

Add to that mixed zoning. It is crazy that in some places you live, work, shop, and eat each in distinct neighborhoods.

Status Quo seems to be working just fine?

Have you ever been in rush hour traffic in NY?

You cannot possibly have this opinion if you have.

Yes lived, parked and drove in downtown NYC for 6 years. 4/5 people parking on the streets own or work in local businesses. Throwing a $350-$450/mo congestion tax their way is bs. They’re keeping the city running with their vehicles, not hurting it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com