Trump Administration Moves to End New York's Congestion Pricing Tolls | Hacker News Reader

Trump Administration Moves to End New York's Congestion Pricing Tolls

nytimes.com

41 pointsmikhael66 comments

How is it going though?

43K fewer drivers on Manhattan roads after congestion pricing turned on https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42692730

Subway crime plummets as ridership jumps significantly in congestion pricing era https://www.amny.com/nyc-transit/nyc-subway-crime-plummets-r... (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42958474)

It unfortunately doesn't matter how good of policy it is, it's a culture-war issue.

I'm all for transit but congestion pricing never sat right with me. It's as regressive of a tax as a regressive tax can get. Ends don't justify means.

And it comes off like throwing in the towel on making transit attractive enough to draw people away from driving, as if the only possible way to do so is to financially beat them into submission. I don't see that resulting in good public support for transit, stuffing it full of unwilling people who resent being herded there. On the other hand, if you make the transit good enough on its own merit, people will switch without a metaphorical cattle prod behind them. Carrot vs stick.

I don't think it's quite correct to call it a regressive tax. Driving a car in Manhattan is a luxury, so this is a tax on a luxury that subsidizes transportation that works for everyone.

Taxes on luxury goods typically aren't expected to significantly reduce their consumption, because they're purchased by price-insensitive wealthy people. But the congestion pricing seems to be deterring use, and indeed is explicitly intended to, so who are these price-sensitive people being subject to the tax?

Where do the funds to make transit good enough come from?

Hint: one funding source was cancelled today by the current administration.

Here is an idea: increase tax on properties worth more than 2M. Or maybe increase income tax for people who make more than 500k a year?

I like both of these ideas. I hope you have success in pitching these two ideas to the relevant government.

The relevant government in this case is New York, isn't it? Aren't they under the control of the opposite party from the federal government right now?

> It unfortunately doesn't matter how good of policy it is, it's a culture-war issue.

The trouble is that also means people are cherry picking results.

There was never any doubt that putting a heavy tax on something could deter use. The question is, at what cost? You now have middle income tradespeople who need a car because they have to transport their equipment paying the congestion pricing, or passing it on as higher prices to their middle income customers. It's a regressive tax.

It also deters people from commuting by car, as was the intention, but without supplying an alternative to it. So now it costs more to e.g. commute from New Jersey because you either have to pay the congestion pricing or use a less convenient means of commuting. Which in turn means it costs more to live in New Jersey relative to New York, driving up demand for New York real estate and exacerbating the high rents there.

Whereas if you would, for example, reduce car traffic in Manhattan by allowing taller buildings in the other burroughs from which Manhattan is conveniently accessible via subway line, you don't have a regressive tax and don't drive up overall rents, and maybe that's the better option to achieve the same goal.

there are still issues with the system. I took a cab from point A to point B where points A and B are both outside and above the congestion pricing zone. The taxi still tried to add a congestion pricing surcharge on my fair.

That's a different surcharge, friend. https://www.nyc.gov/site/tlc/about/congestion-surcharge.page

GoP, the big champion of states rights... unless you do something they don't like.

Even as a (dark) joke, the official @WhiteHouse Twitter post on NYC's congestion pricing is uncomfortable: https://xcancel.com/WhiteHouse/status/1892295984928993698

The president is not a king.

NYC should call it a transportation tariff and then DJT would love it.

Maybe unpopular opinion: Democrats should just grow a spine and say "Nah this is state issues, we're gonna keep congestion pricing, thank you very much. Come and tear down the toll booths yourself if you want to."

Nicety is dead. Playing nice only sets you up for more humiliation. It's time the Dems started playing dirty.

> Mr. Duffy did not indicate a specific date by which the federal government intended to end the program.

and (in direct response to "LONG LIVE THE KING!")

> Ms. Hochul defended the congestion pricing program on Wednesday and vowed to fight the president’s move.

> “We are a nation of laws, not ruled by a king,” she said in a written statement. “We’ll see you in court.”

It's a pity some people are against the free market and the simple law of supply and demand. The fact is roads cost money, and we can't possibly fit all cars on the road, thus there needs to be some kind of a mechanism of regulation so that traffic works. I don't see why not just let the market deal with it, especially since in the US everything otherwise needs to be economical including healthcare. But somehow car drivers need to be coddled.

How is this the business of the President?

You might find everyone's business becomes Trump's business in the end. Read history.

Traditional it's not, but this president thinks everything is.

The President likes to fuck with things, just to show you that he can.

A regressive tax like this should have no place in the Democratic agenda. Across the state, 47% of people oppose the congestion tax, while only 27% support it. Meanwhile, Manhattanites—the wealthiest group—are the most in favor, with 57% supporting it and just 32% opposed.

Unbelievable that Trump managed to steal this issue…

Driving a car in Manhattan is inherently regressive: in addition to the high cost of owning, insuring, and operating one you’re looking at a ton of money for parking in one of the densest parts of the country.

This forces an interesting dynamic: congestion pricing makes the city healthier and safer for everyone who actually lives there, speeds transit for (on average) poorer people, but it’s portrayed as regressive by the (on average) more affluent people who expect a city that they don’t live in remade for their convenience because they’ve already locked in a more expensive lifestyle.

A better approach would be to tax properties worth more than $2 million and use the revenue to improve public transit. Another option: increase income taxes on those earning over $500K a year.

But, of course, the wealthy resist any tax that actually affects them.

And Trump looked the polls found out that nearly two-thirds of New Yorkers oppose congestion pricing and now he is “hero”.

Everyone who lives in the city has been paying to subsidize suburban commuters for decades, at great expense to their health, lives, and quality of life. It seems unfair to say they should pay more in taxes so non-residents don’t have to pay for what they use.

Congestion pricing is a market-based approach for dividing a limited resource. Cars are just too inefficient for that many people to drive in a city and you need some way to reduce the ensuing negative externalities.

You have more money, so you should pay more in taxes. I know if might not sound right but it is better for all of us. A market-based approach is not the solution to achieving equality or public transportation.

So in short:

- tax the rich

- make government efficient (smaller)

> Across the state, 47% of people oppose the congestion tax, while only 27% support it.

That's kinda a weird statistic, given how many people are nowhere near Manhattan. I live in New York State, but it's 7 hours away, so I don't have any opinion whatsoever on New York City's congestion charges. Nor should my opinion (if I had one) carry any weight.

Charging for access to roads funded by our tax dollars should not be permitted. While it is reasonable for a privately built and owned bridge to have a toll, roads constructed with federal funds, such as those in Manhattan, should be accessible to everyone without additional charges. Allowing cities to impose fees on roads we've already paid for could lead to other areas, like small communities along highways, implementing similar tolls. For instance, a community in Chicago attempted to limit access to a public road during certain hours to residents only, but to do so, they had to finance the road entirely on their own, which they did.

There is a community in Chicago where they tried to restrict access to a public road during certain hours except certain residents and to do that they had to pay for the road in it’s entirety, which they did.

> roads constructed with federal funds, such as those in Manhattan

Does this mean that you are calling for the federal government to take over road construction and maintenance in New York City? The people who want to get rid of congestion pricing don’t live or pay taxes to the city so that would be more fair in a sense.

Not at all. I'm simply stating that when you receive Federal or State grants or assistance for a portion of your road system that you have to accept the restrictions placed on that funding and the road should benefit everyone. We build roads as a country so that everyone can use them not so your local government can use them as a revenue source. It's very likely that 30%-50% of the cost of the roads was paid for with Federal $'s.

This is not any different than the idea that if you accept Federal money for research dollars, you should not turn around and charge enormous sums for access to the research. It doesn't mean that the Federal government took over your research.

By that logic, we shouldn’t have toll roads either but they’ve been necessary to pay for the enormously expensive projects demanded by users of the least efficient transportation option.

The problem here is basic math: people driving cars need an order of magnitude more space than any other transportation option, and there simply isn’t room for that in a city. Basic economics tells us that when there’s more demand than a limited supply prices should rise to encourage more efficient decision. There just isn’t an option where suburban commuters can drive into Manhattan and magically have room for all of those cars, and that’s before you even attempt to price in all of the years of quality life lost due to the direct injuries and indirect pollution from their cars. The last month has been full of reports showing that everything is better for NYC residents due to reduced congestion, so their interests need to factor into this discussion about their city, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com