Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodruffw | Hacker News Reader

This is a nice, data heavy summary of the situation!

Something that stood out to me: there's been a marked decline in state and local funding for NYCT since before COVID. I wasn't fully aware of just how much the city and state had independently cut back: it looks like NYCT part of MTA alone is receiving $3B less per year than it was in 2019.

Congestion pricing is sound policy regardless, but this hammers home the perception that NYS treats the MTA (and NYCT in particular) as a financial sponge that can be squeezed for spare change whenever a boondoggle needs funding somewhere else.

View on HN

MTA operates at a ~$600B loss. How is the city using it as a sponge to pay for other things?

I'm all for funding mass transit.

But the city is not using MTA revenue to pay for other things.

I think you are off by a factor of 1000 - MTA lost $600M (not B!) last year.

MTA definitely doesn’t have 600B to lose, so I’m assuming you mean million. And it’s not the city; the MTA is run by the state. So the city can’t use it to pay for other things, but the state can both divert and reappropriate its budget.

Take a look at the third image in the post: both state and local funding from the MTA have been reduced in recent years, dating back to the FY before COVID.

Similarly, here’s an example of the state using MTA as a piggy bank for upstate ski resorts[1].

[1]: https://jalopnik.com/new-york-mta-gave-millions-to-bail-out-...

If you dig in a bit, it's a fairly minor scandal. There are much, much better summaries elsewhere.

I've gotta point out though, the writing in that article is truly abhorrent. This is the weird Frankenstein of The Onion and Gawker that was picked up by private equity, right? The web is a better place without this style of publication, I think.

I'd encourage you to get your news somewhere else my friend :) This reporting makes Buzzfeed look Pulitzer worthy.

I don't normally read Jalopnik; there's a Gothamist article on the payment as well, but it was paywalled.

(I happen to agree it's a fairly minor scandal. It's intended to be demonstrative of the MTA's inability to protect its budget.)

Its nothing but a scam and anyone that supports it is completely heartless. It makes people poorer and nothing else. NYC has the national guard at its subways because its so dangerous. Its beyond dangerous still during many times. It is also always fucked up and is late or it breaks or other issues. Its not that reliable.

Its just a scam to grab money from already broke people that are suffering and only awful people support this because they can't think for themselves and are followers.

Did the subway get drastically worse in the last few years or something? Last time I was in NYC I stayed in Harlem and either biked or took the subway everywhere I needed to go. It was.. fine?

No, but the media coverage surrounding cities has decayed to an absolutely abysmal level, so every single issue on the subway gets 48 hours of coverage or more, and the current governor is awful, so she thinks things like sending in the national guard to stand around will help

It's just propaganda - downvote and ignore it, but don't ignore the worrying amount of propaganda spread implied by seeing this on HN.

Not at all. Subway seems to have less people on it but it's still very safe, especially considering it's a 24/7 train.

The subway was in a "crisis" operating mode from 2017 to 2021[1]. I've lived in the city for my entire life, and subjectively the "crisis" label was accurate for that period (in terms of timeliness, breakdowns, station decay, overcrowding pre-COVID, etc.).

That ended, in part, because the MTA received a huge operating boost from federal COVID funds, which are now (4 years later) running dry. So we haven't seen the return to the 2017 subway yet, but we almost certainly will if essential maintenance and system improvements are once again deferred to keep the lights on. As with everything about public infrastructure: the best and cheapest time to fund infrastructure is before it breaks. If the subway is allowed to continue to fall into disrepair, it'll only cost us more down the road.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017%E2%80%932021_New_York_Cit...

The NYC metro is a far, far safer way to travel than driving. 121 people die in traffic yearly in New York City. In the highest-crime year in recent memory (2022) there were 10 deaths in the metro. Generally it's 2 or 3 yearly.

Can I ask, do you live in NYC and take the subway?

Congestion pricing is cutting off the nose to spite the face.

It's dumb, but it does "stop the problem", the same way charging 5x more for petrol would, or closing all the highways into the city.... whilst also hurting a bunch of people.

This hasn't played out in other cities, so I don't know why you think this.

Notably, NYC congestion pricing does not affect the highways into the city: if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged. The charge is only for entering the city grid, where the (reasonable) argument is that the transportation system is more than sufficient and the traffic, noise, and tailpipe emissions of your car do more harm to local residents than they fairly benefit you.

> if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged. The charge is only for entering the city grid

That's technically true, but it ignores the fact that both the Lincoln Tunnel (495) and Holland Tunnel (78) require you to enter the city grid. With the way the congestion pricing was designed, if you take either of those tunnels, there's no way to avoid the congestion pricing fee -- this was confirmed multiple times in FAQs and Q+A's.

I'm mostly in favor of congestion pricing, but I really think they need to figure out a better solution for that tunnel issue.

I think you should take either the Verrazano bridge exit off 95 or continue north to 87. The idea is to avoid driving through Manhattan planning one's trip accordingly should work. The only reason to take either tunnel is to reach Manhattan.

I really wish there was a tunnel between jersey and Brooklyn. Every option sucks for that. You either end up stuck in traffic in Staten Island, manhattan, or queens.

I'm looking at a map and really confused about how from New Jersey you can end up in Queens while trying to get to Staten Island.

Crossing the Verranzo Bridge and coninueing on the Brooklyn Queens expressway or 278.

Ok, sure if you’re an idiot and you go past Brooklyn you could end up in Queens

Starting in Ft. Lee?

going where?

Remember when Chris Christie said a modern tunnel was not worth the cost to NJ?

That's absolutely incorrect. Over a million NJ residents live closer to the tunnels, myself included. Every route I plan on google maps to various destinations in parts of Brooklyn and Queens puts the tunnels as being faster.

Right, that's part of the problem. During the work hours the temporary population of Manhattan grows about threefold. They contribute to immense gridlock and then disappear to their suburbs in another state. Why must the residents bear the brunt of the externalized traffic impact? It is only fair to treat available street space as a limited resource.

That's tangential to the issue being discussed in this subthread, which is that there's physically no way to stay on highways when coming from the tunnels, even when attempting to reach non-Manhattan destinations in outer boroughs.

So the only relevant congestion for this specific issue is between the tunnels and the highways. Manhattan residents living near the tunnels know what they're signing up for. The tunnels opened in 1927 and 1937. The traffic isn't exactly a new problem.

Also, the parts of NJ in question (where the tunnels are closer than bridges) are largely urban in character. You make it sound like people are coming from some far-away leafy suburb, that's not the case for the majority of this population.

People in NJ know what they are signing up for. The outer boroughs have existed in the same locations for decades. Traveling by automobile through Manhattan isn't exactly a new problem.

Being charged $15 to travel literally two blocks between the tunnel and the West Side Highway is a new problem. That's the point. There's no way to avoid the city grid, due to bad highway design that doesn't directly connect either 495 or 78 with 9A.

Any congestion pricing plan which ignores that problem is going to be met with mass outrage, to an extent that will swing elections against incumbents. Especially when said incumbents promote this "no charge if you stay on highways" BS without explaining the fine print.

Again, I'm saying this as someone who only ever takes public transit and is generally in favor of congestion pricing as a concept.

I was assuming traffic from Florida to Boston or Albany. Local traffic is local traffic and I thought about the Holland tunnel->Kenmare->Williamsburg Bridge route. Which I found too exceptional to mention and likely only used by people that live in the region and should be using public transit for such trips.

Due to the layout of the northern Brooklyn subway lines (no direct connection to PABT or Penn Station), some trips can easily take 2x-3x as long using public transit on a good day, let alone when there's some incident affecting the subways.

Personally I always take public transit into NYC, but I can completely understand why it isn't a reasonable option for many people. Especially when both NJT rail and Amtrak have daily meltdowns whenever the temperature is above average.

Edit to add: I'm completely puzzled by your comment about "traffic from Florida to Boston or Albany". Boston is on the I-95 corridor, which means going over the GWB -- there's already no reason for any sane driver to enter the congestion zone for that route. And routes to Albany don't need to cross the Hudson at all. I don't see how congestion pricing or these two tunnels have any connection to those routes.

Anyway, my overall point here is that the upthread comment of "if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged" is true but worthless, because for one million people here there's no way to actually do that without driving massively out of your way to a bridge crossing.

I agree with points more or less and have plenty experience moving around the region to understand what you are saying.

The through traffic comment was a response to my original comment that a person wanted to use the Hudson River tunnels to pass through NYC onto their destination. I picked the Varanzono bridge route as the southern route around the city and 87 for the northern route. I usually go further north than the GWB to crossover.

The massively out of your way I might prefer to NYC city traffic.

> The through traffic comment was a response to my original comment that a person wanted to use the Hudson River tunnels to pass through NYC onto their destination.

Which parent comment are you referring to? I don't see any talking about non-NYC destinations besides yours.

In any case, the only highways that are exempt are the West Side Highway and the FDR. These are the only highways in the zone. And generally you don't take either of those highways for anything other than "local traffic" as you said. So I'm just not understanding your point about routes outside of NYC, that doesn't make any sense in the context of congestion pricing and the exempted highways in the first place.

Maybe I only perceived it. Funnily enough it was your comment from someone discussing maintaining traveling while on 495 or 78.

My comment was that travelers not going to Manhattan should choose a route that avoids the tunnels.

I'm only now beginning to understand the point you are trying to make is that political outrage makes good policies tougher. I thought this sub-thread was regarding driving into Manhattan to get somewhere else is inconvenient and adding extra costs makes sense.

A lot of really terrible congestion comes from people who are only passing through Manhattan on their way to/from other places, because the toll structure incentivizes that vs going around. I worked in the general vicinity of the Holland Tunnel entrance for years and it was miserable for basically all users of the streets every afternoon.

Toll optimization aside, there’s often a huge backup of the BQE or in Staten Island that makes the tunnel the next best option. I’ve faced that scenario probably 1/3 of the time trying to visit family in PA/NJ from Brooklyn.

> the toll structure incentivizes that vs going around

How so? The toll rate is identical between the Lincoln Tunnel, the Holland tunnel, the George Washington Bridge, the Bayonne Bridge, the Goethals Bridge, and the Outerbridge Crossing: https://www.panynj.gov/bridges-tunnels/en/tolls.html

Well three of those involve a toll on the Verrazzano unless you're starting or ending your trip on Staten Island itself, whereas the East River bridges into Manhattan are free.

The GWB can be done without a toll, but if you're shopping for a cheaper route to avoid the Verrazzano toll it's likely way out of your way.

Ideally the toll structure should incentivize through traffic to stay on highways and out of the most gridlocked streets in the country, and I'm saying this as a longtime car owner in Brooklyn who has driven through the Holland Tunnel hundreds of times. Manhattan streets are a tragedy of the commons in action.

Ah, I see, that makes sense.

But even with congestion pricing, assuming a same-day round-trip with a non-NY EZ-Pass, the combined cost of (Holland or Lincoln Tunnel toll + congestion pricing toll) is still a bit less than the cost of (Goethals or Bayonne Bridge toll + Verrazzano Bridge toll)... because the Verrazzano charges in both directions. So even congestion pricing doesn't fix those incentives :/

I think this because that's what it is.

It has played out in other cities, there is only one way for it to play out.

It's okay if you disagree with the facts, but it's fairly easy to understand how pricing people out is a poor attempt at a solution, but solves the problem by brute force anyway.

>where the (reasonable) argument is that the transportation system is more than sufficient and the traffic, noise, and tailpipe emissions of your car do more harm to local residents than they fairly benefit you.

Yes. I never said that less cars is not beneficial. I understand this, that's why I said what I said.

There's no such thing as "fairly benefiting from other residents"...

You're still not solving the problem by slapping a $ figure to the entrance of cars. It's just a lazy and bad solution.

It is a bit of a blunt instrument, but presuming you agree that it's a problem that needs to be solved, what other alternative would you suggest?

Not doing that?

I'm not here to give alternative solutions, I'm here to tell you the current solution is slightly worse than nothing.

You would have to make the solution fairly complex for it to be beneficial. But I'd start with quantifying why people are in the city, rather than treating them all the same.

If it were my job, I'd have a better solution than congestion charges, that's for damn sure.

If it were your job you would think differently because you knew all the facts, constraints and trade offs. Contrary to popular belief most people make reasonable decisions and want to do a good job

corruption and incompetence exist.

Given your username one might hope "implement a world class public transport system" or better yet "convert an urban highway into a beautiful linear park and waterway" (like Seoul) would come to mind.

Yes. Except I don't believe they're capable of that...

>"convert an urban highway into a beautiful linear park and waterway"

They converted an inner urban highway and other highways in the sky (in the immediate city centre) to walking paths while adding extra highways to the pool further out from the city centre. Removing the inner highways added to congestion, adding the outer highways reduced congestion.

They did not add congestion charges and the city handles it fine. They are not stupid like a lot of people here are.

You make some valid points, but calling us stupid is incredibly rude and undermines everything you say. It also runs afoul of HN guidelines.

Sorry I wasn't calling you stupid. I said there were a lot of stupid people here.

You may or may not be stupid. I don't know.

Do you have anything to reply? I think you're running afoul of guidelines too.

you're right but judgmental statists get high off the feeling of control and "fairness" - effectiveness be damned. I thought we absolutely needed the government and taxes for the roads because paying for use would be so "unfair" and "hard" - oh wait, now they want to control what you do because they like bikes so its totally reasonable. Hard to find more statists than in New York

Clear accurate pricing is how people decide what to do with their resources. Pricing things correctly is basically the reason we have a modern economy.

Externalities are one of the thornier issues and making those prices clear to people is how we get people to decide whether they actually want to pay the full price of a good or service.

its artificial pricing by definition

By that criteria Any price that includes some tax would be artificial. I suppose libertarians would be happy.

Artificial, organic, lab grown or otherwise - does the price of a good or service capture the cost of its production.

So you don't believe in welfare? Because they circumvent "accurate pricing".

"Poor people" or rather "people who actually need to drive in this particular moment"?

It's really nice to be able to pay for better facilities _when you need them_. The person who is late for a flight or a job interview, or who just found out their kid got hurt at school and is heading to the hospital, benefits massively from congestion pricing. They have the ability to access faster transportation when they need it, and to choose the slower alternative when they don't.

It's nice to be able to pay for better facilities. It's even nicer if they are just better, without paying. Payment can create perverse incentives as well.

Yes, magic definitely is nicer than dealing with actual constraints.

The thing about congestion is that you can't “make it better” (in a densely populated place like Manhattan's CBD) without removing cars somehow. The only other real approach to this is rationing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_space_rationing), which leads to economic inefficiencies and doesn't raise money that will be used to make transit better for everyone who choses not to drive.

It’s impossible for free city streets to both be fast and scale to the density of NYC. Congestion pricing allows them to be fast by removing traffic. Thus allowing busses or people with significant need to travel quickly.

Where it fails is an Uber/taxi drivers add a lot more congestion than an average person and the fees don’t get adjusted for this issue.

So does banning people from driving. But obviously people are smart enough to realise that's dumb. I guess not smart enough to realise that pricing them out is the same thing and also incredibly dumb.

Because that worked out so well with the internet and ad networks lol.

So you're hurting everyone for the minor few? I've heard this before and it's still very bad planning.

You can create bus and emergency lanes you know, with less detriment.

pricing people out is a poor attempt at a solution

No, it's a good solution to negative externalities. In the status quo, drivers do not bear the full cost of driving (noise, pollution, opportunity cost of time lost in traffic). Congestion pricing address that by imposting a fee equal to the societal cost of those externalities.

Grocery shoppers don't either. What's your point? Do we charge people to enter the grocery store, or if they buy too much?

It's not a good solution in any sense of the word. There are reasons we don't charge for some things. Do you charge people extra who use their entire bin on bin day?

It's weird how many people here are not smart enough to realise how backwards this solution is.

I keep saying it and getting savaged, but as someone who lives here and doesn't own a car, it's been obvious to me that "congestion pricing" was a lot more about collecting an additional tax from residents, and a lot less about "congestion", than anyone in power was letting on. The entire thing was heavy handed and dumb, but branded just well enough to capture the passions of NYC city people who really really really hate cars (and New Jersey) and don't think too deeply about it beyond that.

The plan was structured in a way that it would affect every resident of the city via higher prices on goods and services, surcharges on delivery, taxis, construction, etc. Setting aside the issue of local residents with cars (which I could care less about), the planners refused to make sensible carve-outs for things like cargo trucks, construction vehicles, and so on. They could have done it, they just didn't. It was about maximizing revenue for the MTA, not about making sensible policy.

Maybe the fees would be small when amortized over a truck full of groceries or a tanker full of oil, but that didn't change the fact that it was a regressive tax on everyone who lives here, and taxes here are already amongst the highest in the country. This stuff adds up.

> it would affect every resident of the city via higher prices on goods and services

I find the math on that claim highly dubious. The toll for a truck is set to be $36 at peak times. $9 non peak. And they get up to $20 credit towards that when travelling through one of the tunnels, as many do. When I think about the amount of goods that can be carried in a truck and divide the $36 minus $20 or $9 across all those items… how much are we really talking about here?

I ask the question earnestly because I don’t know, but at a cursory glance it just doesn’t seem like that big of a deal. Some drivers might even be quite happy to pay if it means they don’t spend hours stuck in traffic!

What part is "dubious", exactly? There's a tax. It applies to all vehicles. You think that doesn't get passed on to consumers? I have a bridge to sell you (don't worry, it's a toll bridge).

You're just repeating the last part of what I wrote -- that the taxes would be low when amortized over a large number of items -- but ignoring the rest. The point is, New York does this all the time: yesterday a surcharge on food delivery, today a "congestion tax", tomorrow a "global warming fee" on electricity consumption, a "save the whales" fee on straws, or whatever else. The number of sneaky fees and surcharges and social-engineering taxes in NYC is enough to make even the most ardent liberal begin to resist. Eventually, you're paying $25 for a hamburger and wondering why you can't find staff for your store.

Look, I have no problem with taxes. Just be honest. Don't sneak them in and lie about them and pretend that they're punishment for New Jersey car commuters when most of the revenue will come from the people who live here, directly or indirectly. If the people want to vote in another billion-dollar sales tax for the MTA, great. Go for it.

The part I’m dubious about is there being any notable effect on prices.

I don’t personally see the congestion charge as dishonest. You can see it as a quasi-tax, certainly, but provisions like off peaking pricing and credit for using the tunnels means that it has positive side effects a straightforward tax wouldn’t.

I don't care if it moves prices one millionth of a penny, or ten dollars. That billion dollars of extra MTA revenue was coming from somewhere, and it was mostly going to come from locals, even if it meant that we're all paying a fraction of a cent more per sheet for toilet paper. The worst taxes are the ones that are regressive and secret.

> The worst taxes are the ones that are regressive and secret.

In my book, negative externalities are worse than taxes. If we agree that a car driving in Lower Manhattan inflicts a non-trivial cost on everyone else, then not taxing it leads to socially inefficient outcomes.

Effectively, locals are paying a price either way - either by having their bus moving slower, inhaling fumes, etc, or by buying goods and services that reflect congestion pricing. The difference is that congestion pricing aligns incentives - for instance, delivery drivers may choose to travel to Manhattan during the off-peak hours whereas in the status quo they do not care at all about inconveniencing others.

People don't grasp that you can get wealthier simply by avoiding harmful things that would otherwise be done by default.

OP wasn't arguing about "cars", it was specifically about service vehicles that are required for Manhattan operations.

Thought experiment: If we could somehow ban private residential use of all cars and only allow "work" vehicles, there would be no congestion and no tax.

There are some good arguments against that. It creates a deadweight loss by banning high utility private uses of the car (driving kid to hospital) and instead there would be an increase in low utility "work" uses of the car (delivering a single banana to a bodega). There is a parent out there who would be willing to pay $X to drive their kid to hospital, and a work vehicle user who would forgo paying $X by staying off the road, but under a blanket ban that won't happen.

It would also increase the incentive for people to play games like claiming their personal car as a "work vehicle", throwing a little advertising decal on the side, things like that.

if prices don't move then you are basically stealing money from those who pay (delivery drivers, blue collar workers, contractors), who are not rich enough to live on Manhattan - to subsidize transit for affluent Manhattan residents

I’m sorry… you’re suggesting congestion charging would take money from poor car drivers and give it to affluent transit riders?

By any data available that’s entirely backwards. Cars in the CBD are disproportionately driven by the affluent, transit is disproportionately taken by the poor.

"By any data available"

Let's see that data then. Plenty of working class individuals are trying to commute through the CBD for their livelihoods. They aren't taking the bus or rail to fix someone's water heater.

Really what's the point of asking this question? Did you do a search and not find anything and you're convinced this is false? Or are you just here to fight? [1] shows a pretty clear negative correlation between car ownership and poverty. Do you have a source that shows contradictory information?

(I love social medi... sorry HN oops how can I get this wrong, the quality of discussion is so high! :)

[1]: https://wellango.github.io/posts/2021/06/who-owns-cars-in-ny...

Manhattan residents are richer than outer boroughs.

It is true, that some rich motorists will pay up congestion pricing, but they wont even notice these charges cause they are rich (so NO EFFECT whatsoever on actual congestion). In fact, that's exactly what MTA wants - they want congestion pricing Revenue, not reduction in congestion loss in revenue.

But the most impacted would be workers who rely on car to make a living: uber, lyft, doordash, blue collar contractors, food delivery trucks, etc. Everyone who has to drive to make a living will be taxed, while rich Manhattan residents will enjoy subsidies from the working class. and they cannot take public transit, so no reduction in actual congestion either.

it's all farce and show to steal money from honest working people and have over it to corrupted union bosses at MTA

The same mindset that leads to calling bike commuters elitist apparently.

It is a consumption tax (on space taken up on roads, noise, and emissions basically combined), in effect it incentivizes consolidation of traffic, goods and people both, and steers some of it to other modalities.

Of course there's a long way to go before visible changes happen. the US is extremely car-dependent after all, and public transportation does not organically expand with more demand for it. and without alternatives people will just pay it.

but this doesn't necessarily make it a bad tax. other changes can build on it.

But it's not a consumption tax, it's a "congestion" tax. If there were no congestion there would be no reason for this to exist.

It's a regressive nearly flax tax amounting to a taking from the residents of lower Manhattan. If they wanted to reduce congestion all they would have to do is make the free street parking NYC residents only. Many cities do that. An issue with this was it was clearly not about congestion except in name it was MTA can't build anything without spending multiples of the next most expensive transit system. The singular goal was to hit an arbitrary number. And if traffic dropped leaving revenue below rhe goal the costs would have been hiked. This was a hammer when they needed a scapel.

Why did you completely ignore the question of how much money this tax amounts to per item? It's in the realm of one cent.

Congestion pricing is about taxing blue collar workers (plumbers electricians and such), who cannot afford to live in Manhattan and have to use vehicle for work.

Would they not just pass the charge directly onto their customers living in the central business district?

all costs are passes through, but elasticity of demand and supply will lead to consumer/supplier splitting the tax in the ratio of their respectable elasticities.

fundamentally though it is NOT about reducing congestion, it is about stealing money from poor blue collar workers from outer boroughs, and handing them out to finance MTA's bogus overtime and 400k salaries for doing nothing useful.

while also enabling rich urban liberals from manhattan to signal their "ecology conciousness"

> it is about stealing money from poor blue collar workers from outer boroughs

It isn’t though, is it? What percentage of poor blue collar workers in the outer boroughs drive into the CBD of Manhattan for work on a regular basis? Very few. The cost of parking already makes it prohibitive for most. If they work as e.g. an electrician they’re already passing the parking fee onto their customer. Congestion charge will be the same.

But yeah, sure, there will be a small number of people affected that way. But orders of magnitude more poor blue collar workers would benefit from better public transit. You can’t run a city by vetoing anything that has a negative effect to someone. Nothing will ever get done.

But you can run a city buy carefully picking and choosing who your policies impact and minimizing that impact where appropriate.

Yea running a city of millions of people is super easy.

Just pick the good policies instead of the bad dummy!

I mean it is a thing experts can in theory do well, it isn't fundamentally doomed as the person I responded to implies.

So... pick policies like this one that very disproportionately pull money from people who are wealthier to improve the situation for everyone?

Wouldn't people like your example end up with more billable hours due to reduced congestion, likely coming out ahead?

I don't buy that argument. If the plumber/electrician is working for a company and driving a company car, then the company will pay the extra $15 for that corporate vehicle to be in Manhattan.

If the person has their own business then they can easily afford the daily $15. Skilled trades and the owners of those companies make very good wages in NYC.

I see plenty of blue collar workers on the MTA. Its one of the fastest ways to get around Manhattan and much cheaper than paying for parking.

I have a problem with this “can easily afford” logic. This is not true, and this is not how taxation should work. You are just justifying stealing money from blue collar by bogus “they can afford it” logic.

A lot of NYC residents can easily afford extra $15 (their incomes are like 6 figures) why not just spread the tax to everyone to make it more equitable? And more revenue for MTA

I take the Lincoln Tunnel during rush hour(in a bus). I see seas of single occupant cars and personal vehicles entering the city.

You're getting attacked because a lot of people are brainwashed into a solution that is forced down peoples throats.

It's much easier to solve the problem like a brute and attack people and say they're wrong when they point out the nature of the solve.

It's not even about money, if it were about the usage of power, food, travel, etc. it'd also be terrible. If you were to convince people they can't eat meat because it's wrong and then offer a solution as bad as "just become vegetarian", it'd also be laughable... but of course people would attack anyone pointing it out.

The ease of the truck moving through the city with less traffic and easier parking would have more than made up for the toll cost. Same for taxis where the cost compared to the increased demand (since the taxi might actually be faster than it would be now in midtown during the day) also probably would have benefited taxis and their customers.

Not true, you cannot simultaneously have lower congestion and higher demand for taxi. This is contradictory statement.

In the end not much will change, people who would have takes transit will end up takin transit, people who have to drive will drive, they just will pay additional tax.

> you cannot simultaneously have lower congestion and higher demand for taxi

How so? If a taxi used to take 20 minutes and $20 and now it takes 15 minutes and $18 the demand for that form of transport will go up.

If a driver is replaced by a cab passenger it is 1-to-1 replacement of personal vehicle with taxi, no impact on congestion.

If you see demand for cabs increasing + congestion pricing revenue of $1.5bln that means more traffic and more paying drivers

Of course you can have, if it's the non-taxi traffic that's decreasing.

Single drivers will be replaced by single taxi passengers, whats the diff? Maybe less demand for daytime parking, but gridlock will be the same

No, because a lot of traffic is driving around looking for parking spot. Taxis don't have that problem.

If it reduces congestion, delivery companies could make more deliveries with fewer vehicles. It would probably be a net saving in costs.

I mean, even if its well designed, we should expect some increase in costs due to a congestion charge.

Right now, you have Group A: people who are ok with some members of their city getting to deal with congestion, so that they can have cheaper goods.

Group B: The people who deal with the effects of congestion, who have to find a ways to have their needs met.

as mentioned: >Setting aside the issue of local residents with cars (which I could care less about), >someone who lives here and doesn't own a car

The status quo should suit you.

That said, the inefficiency caused due to congestion, ends up affecting both group A and group B. This will add to costs, in either wait times / Delays, wastage, wear and tear, pollution etc.

Those costs are borne by you, but not associated with congestion.

You could implement congestion pricing and throw the money the garbage and it would still be a net win for the city by reducing cars and traffic violence.

Less congested traffic tends to move faster. Won't that increase "traffic violence"?

The bigger issue for pedestrian injuries on Manhattan's streets is box-blocking and hazardous turns, not really speed. Congestion pricing will probably cause a slight increase in average speeds, but we're talking about going from 5 MPH to maybe 10[1]. It's not ever going to be fast for cars, just faster.

[1]: https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-new-york-traffic-manhat...

I'm not sure why you expect to be taken seriously when using terms like "traffic violence."

“Having my kid’s skull popped open and their brains splattered on the road under the tire of your dodge ram” seemed too emotive.

Stop sanitising killing people.

Lot of that happening in Manhattan, huh?

You can save the pearl-clutching hyperbole.

> The plan was structured in a way that it would affect every resident of the city via higher prices on goods and services, surcharges on delivery, taxis, construction, etc.

We already pay a congestion tax on all of these things, it just takes the form of paying for the labor of someone sitting in traffic. It's not obvious at all to me that the cost of the tax will be less than the gain on the labor cost.

I mean...that's a precise argument. To have this argument effectively, you need to have more than a hand-wavy idea of how much congestion would be impacted by the fee, which we don't. The impact studies were ludicrously ambiguous, and as far as I can tell, the numbers were pulled from thin air.

What I know, without doubt, is that the plan didn't make any reasonable exclusions for residents, so it was de facto an additional tax. Would such a tax reduce marginal wait time cost by more than the price of the tax? Golly, that would be convenient for proponents, wouldn't it?

Regardless, even if you believe this, you still have to deal with the counterfactual of a world where we do the whole congestion fee thing, but exclude obvious categories of essential vehicles, like delivery trucks, construction, etc. That would be better, smarter, and more aligned with the stated goals of the system.

You claimed that congestion tax will increase the cost of consumer goods and services. That was a precise argument backed up by hand-wavy evidence. All I said was that we don't know that for sure, and that it's possible it could go the other way.

>Congestion pricing is cutting off the nose to spite the face. It's dumb, but it does "stop the problem"...

I live in London they brought it in and it's been ok overall. It doesn't stop congestion but reduces it a bit. For commuters it's probably a bit better as they mostly use the train/bus etc and benefit from less traffic. For workmen needing to deliver and fix things it's a bit of a pain. For me living in the center I'd probably take the plus of less traffic over the minus of getting a plumber to visit being expensive.

Re the tax grab - yeah but they have to get tax money from somewhere to pay for services and the like.

I'm curious, in London did they cut the fares for subways when they implemented the tolls?

The one thing that has been bothering me about NYC congestion toll is I figured there was be a cut in the fares for subways and rail to entice more riders. But I don't see that mentioned; just for capital projects it seems.

My understanding is that OMNY's weekly fare cap[1] was created for exactly this reason (along with incentivizing people to switch from MetroCard to OMNY).

That being said, NYCT's fare ($2.90 without zones or times) is markedly cheaper than even the cheaper London Underground off-peak same-zone fare. I don't particularly want to pay more for the subway, but the fare also really hasn't kept up with inflation.

[1]: https://omny.info/fares

It's a long time ago, but I think the main benefit from the congestion charge money in London was improving the service. More buses, especially at night, which helped the poorest people (cleaners, security, etc).

Yeah I don't remember them dropping the fares although it was a while ago.

Congestion pricing is good IFF the money is used to fund transit in some way that eases said congestion. (Personally I believe this should mean mass transit and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure, but that's not the main "theoretical issue" I'm trying to address here.) Otherwise you're just replacing a more egalitarian form of backpressure (the traffic itself) with a less egalitarian one (prices).

Charging 5x more for petrol would also be a good idea. NYC isn't Florida, but it's still exposed to the risks of climate change.

It would in fact be a very bad idea.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com