7 ms·

Effective ride-hailing services like UberPool and Lyft Line make congestion pricing feasible. Congestion pricing can banish traffic from the face of the planet.

by natrius 11y ago

Effective ride-hailing services like UberPool and Lyft Line make congestion pricing feasible. Congestion pricing can banish traffic from the face of the planet. Our roads can move a certain number of vehicles per minute at their maximum throughput. When more cars attempt to access the road, throughput goes down. Set the price of driving on a road at the level that maximizes throughput. As prices go up, some people won't be able to afford to drive alone. Instead, they'll pick up paying passengers, or pay another driver for a ride. As more people desire to travel in San Francisco, the price will go up, and more people will share a van (or a bus!) to get where they need to go. Traffic won't come back. Today, San Franciscans pay for their commute by sacrificing time they could spend with their friends and family. Instead, we should pay by sacrificing personal space during our commutes. Subways are an unnecessary expense when our streets are so poorly utilized. We can triple the capacity of our roads by charging a price that keeps traffic moving.

justizin 11y ago
> Subways are an unnecessary expense when our streets are so poorly utilized. It terrifies me that you are serious. The best way to better utilize our streets is to dedicate more space for cycling, there is absolutely no way to get the same density in an automobile. Your idea also presents basically no solutions for people who don't have elasticity in their budget. "Sorry, grandma, you can't go to the doctor today because the market is readjusting the price of transit to optimize for throughput in the future, when you might be dead."
- natrius 11y ago
  A full van is more space efficient than 12 bikes. I am a cyclist and I think there need to be safe routes to get everywhere in a city. Bikes aren't enough, though. The price doesn't adjust for future optimization. It adjusts for current optimization. Price-sensitive people like Grandma would go to the doctor for the same price she always does. She'd just share the ride with more people. This is exactly what a subway would do, except without the need for expensive infrastructure.
  - justizin 11y ago
    > A full van is more space efficient than 12 bikes. Arguable, but buses are higher density than vans, trains are higher density than buses, and subways aren't subject to traffic. The bicycle isn't in competition with the subway, it's in harmony with it. > She'd just share the ride with more people. This is exactly what a subway would do, except without the need for expensive infrastructure. I don't think if you extrapolated the current ridership of BART just for people traveling within San Francisco that you would find it practical to run buses for all of them, and when a vehicle on the ground during rush hour (including buses) is rarely moving more quickly than a typical pedestrian, the subway has an obvious advantage. You can try to traffic engineer all day, but the fastest route between two points on earth is through the earth. :)
    - natrius 11y ago
      With congestion pricing, nothing is subject to traffic. Buses move slowly because they're stuck in traffic and they stop all the time. Congestion pricing eliminates traffic. Ride hailing apps reduce the number of stops. Subways are better than buses. That doesn't mean we need subways. We can eliminate traffic all over the city for a much lower price, then we can build more subways when streets packed with full vans aren't enough to move people around.
      - s73v3r 11y ago
        It's still subject to traffic because there are still lots of people who do not have choice as to when they go. And taking Lyft/Uber isn't going to help, as those drivers are going to have to make enough to cover the congestion charge as well as profit, or they're not going to drive.
        natrius 11y ago
        It is not subject to traffic. People don't have infinite money. There is a price at which few enough people are willing to pay that traffic flows freely. That is the price that will be set. People who don't have a choice of when to travel will share a ride to split the cost. Yes, the driver will need to be paid as well, but people often run carpools that only charge for the price of gas. The prevailing rate for a ride will be low because there are plenty of people heading in the same direction who just want to defray their costs. Regardless, the mechanics of congestion pricing guarantee that people will use alternatives to driving. The congestion price will go up until people start choosing to share rides, take transit, or do something else. Congestion pricing works. It's not an untested idea. It just isn't widely used. It should be, because it eliminates traffic. Ride hailing apps give even cities without great transit a great alternative to driving alone, which makes congestion pricing a universal solution to traffic.
- silencio 11y ago
  Better bike routes/friendlier designs are a good thing, but they're still space inefficient compared to rail systems or even just plain buses. This is a favorite gif of mine to show the difference: http://i.imgur.com/kw8DaST.gif http://i.imgur.com/kw8DaST.gif In an ideal situation, we would have good subway systems alongside more promotion of bike use. I personally have a couple disabilities making bike use difficult :( I would kill to have a Seoul Subway-esque system in SF (the best system I've experienced firsthand, I'm sure there are better but it's among the best/biggest).
  - prawn 11y ago
    Someone should update that GIF to show the people using the subway. That frame would show the street empty, everyone being underground.
- whyenot 11y ago
  > There is absolutely no way to get the same density in an automobile. How about a double-decker bus? Busses also have the added benefit that they are safer, and since you don't have to pay attention to the road, you can read, crochet, surf the internet, work, sip your coffee, etc., while you commute.
- pbreit 11y ago
  "It terrifies me that you are serious." It's bizarre when people write something like this and then are basically wrong. A van or bus is more space efficient than bikes.
  - jacobolus 11y ago
    If we banished cars from the road and only allowed buses or vans with several passengers, it would be pretty nice. Great idea!
HelloMcFly 11y ago
I'm only fine with congestion pricing if the price increases with congestion and after-tax income of the registered owner of the car being driven. I despise the idea of reducing traffic for the rich through financial strong-arming of the poor, unless all are strong-armed relatively equally.
- natrius 11y ago
  Congestion pricing isn't strong-arming the poor. The poor will just share rides with more people to split the cost. Everyone gets a traffic-free commute. Everyone gets to spend more time with their friends and family. I don't think there's any reason to subsidize the usage of road space. I'd rather use that money to subsidize food, shelter, and education.
  - HelloMcFly 11y ago
    Congestion pricing is absolutely strong-arming the poor, which isn't necessarily bad as it should strong-arm everyone. I just want the economic burden of road usage to be equally felt by all peoples.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Funny notion that its 'fairer' when you scalp goods/services for the rich.
  - HelloMcFly 11y ago
    Scaling the cost with income is a progressive tax. Congestion pricing is a usage tax, and usage taxes are regressive for reasons that are, if not obvious, easily Googleable. Let the economic burden be applied equally, which cannot be accomplished by flat-rate pricing.
s73v3r 11y ago
Congestion pricing is a non-starter, as it's a very regressive tax, most usually paid by those who are least able to afford it, and least able to change the time they go to/from work.
- natrius 11y ago
  Yes, poor people tend to have rigid work schedules. If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. Would those jobs that people couldn't afford to take just disappear? We shouldn't subsidize the usage of road space just because some employers enjoy it. Congestion pricing isn't a tax. Its intent isn't to raise funds. You could rebate all of the revenue to low income folks and still achieve the goal of eliminating traffic. Congestion pricing isn't regressive since it's easy to split the cost. If you want to pay less, ride with more people.
  - smtddr 11y ago
    >>Yes, poor people tend to have rigid work schedules. If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. The employer won't be more flexible nor will the salaries go up; what would happen is the employee would complain and the employer wouldn't care because they'd know there's someone out there who's so desperate for a job that they'll take the horrible situation.... e.g., the awful working conditions of a lot of immigrants.
  - s73v3r 11y ago
    "If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. " That will never, ever fucking happen. Employers don't give a shit. "Congestion pricing isn't regressive since it's easy to split the cost." That has absolutely nothing to do with it being regressive. It's regressive because it disproportionately affects poor people.
    - natrius 11y ago
      Employers are subject to market forces just like everyone else. If they need workers in order to make money, but workers can't afford to get to work, they will pay more money. Not by choice, by necessity. If you don't believe that, fine. Just raise the minimum wage instead. Subsidizing the usage of road space is a terrible solution to the problem you're describing. Road space is scarce. Poor people get less scarce goods. Luckily, road space is easy to share, which is what poor people do with scarce things. This is not an affront to the current order. There are plenty of things I want to pay for so poor people can have more of them. Road space is not one of them.

by natrius 11y ago

justizin 11y ago

> Subways are an unnecessary expense when our streets are so poorly utilized. It terrifies me that you are serious. The best way to better utilize our streets is to dedicate more space for cycling, there is absolutely no way to get the same density in an automobile. Your idea also presents basically no solutions for people who don't have elasticity in their budget. "Sorry, grandma, you can't go to the doctor today because the market is readjusting the price of transit to optimize for throughput in the future, when you might be dead."

natrius 11y ago
A full van is more space efficient than 12 bikes. I am a cyclist and I think there need to be safe routes to get everywhere in a city. Bikes aren't enough, though. The price doesn't adjust for future optimization. It adjusts for current optimization. Price-sensitive people like Grandma would go to the doctor for the same price she always does. She'd just share the ride with more people. This is exactly what a subway would do, except without the need for expensive infrastructure.
- justizin 11y ago
  > A full van is more space efficient than 12 bikes. Arguable, but buses are higher density than vans, trains are higher density than buses, and subways aren't subject to traffic. The bicycle isn't in competition with the subway, it's in harmony with it. > She'd just share the ride with more people. This is exactly what a subway would do, except without the need for expensive infrastructure. I don't think if you extrapolated the current ridership of BART just for people traveling within San Francisco that you would find it practical to run buses for all of them, and when a vehicle on the ground during rush hour (including buses) is rarely moving more quickly than a typical pedestrian, the subway has an obvious advantage. You can try to traffic engineer all day, but the fastest route between two points on earth is through the earth. :)
  - natrius 11y ago
    With congestion pricing, nothing is subject to traffic. Buses move slowly because they're stuck in traffic and they stop all the time. Congestion pricing eliminates traffic. Ride hailing apps reduce the number of stops. Subways are better than buses. That doesn't mean we need subways. We can eliminate traffic all over the city for a much lower price, then we can build more subways when streets packed with full vans aren't enough to move people around.
    - s73v3r 11y ago
      It's still subject to traffic because there are still lots of people who do not have choice as to when they go. And taking Lyft/Uber isn't going to help, as those drivers are going to have to make enough to cover the congestion charge as well as profit, or they're not going to drive.
      - natrius 11y ago
        It is not subject to traffic. People don't have infinite money. There is a price at which few enough people are willing to pay that traffic flows freely. That is the price that will be set. People who don't have a choice of when to travel will share a ride to split the cost. Yes, the driver will need to be paid as well, but people often run carpools that only charge for the price of gas. The prevailing rate for a ride will be low because there are plenty of people heading in the same direction who just want to defray their costs. Regardless, the mechanics of congestion pricing guarantee that people will use alternatives to driving. The congestion price will go up until people start choosing to share rides, take transit, or do something else. Congestion pricing works. It's not an untested idea. It just isn't widely used. It should be, because it eliminates traffic. Ride hailing apps give even cities without great transit a great alternative to driving alone, which makes congestion pricing a universal solution to traffic.
silencio 11y ago
Better bike routes/friendlier designs are a good thing, but they're still space inefficient compared to rail systems or even just plain buses. This is a favorite gif of mine to show the difference: http://i.imgur.com/kw8DaST.gif http://i.imgur.com/kw8DaST.gif In an ideal situation, we would have good subway systems alongside more promotion of bike use. I personally have a couple disabilities making bike use difficult :( I would kill to have a Seoul Subway-esque system in SF (the best system I've experienced firsthand, I'm sure there are better but it's among the best/biggest).
- prawn 11y ago
  Someone should update that GIF to show the people using the subway. That frame would show the street empty, everyone being underground.
whyenot 11y ago
> There is absolutely no way to get the same density in an automobile. How about a double-decker bus? Busses also have the added benefit that they are safer, and since you don't have to pay attention to the road, you can read, crochet, surf the internet, work, sip your coffee, etc., while you commute.
pbreit 11y ago
"It terrifies me that you are serious." It's bizarre when people write something like this and then are basically wrong. A van or bus is more space efficient than bikes.
- jacobolus 11y ago
  If we banished cars from the road and only allowed buses or vans with several passengers, it would be pretty nice. Great idea!

HelloMcFly 11y ago

I'm only fine with congestion pricing if the price increases with congestion and after-tax income of the registered owner of the car being driven. I despise the idea of reducing traffic for the rich through financial strong-arming of the poor, unless all are strong-armed relatively equally.

natrius 11y ago
Congestion pricing isn't strong-arming the poor. The poor will just share rides with more people to split the cost. Everyone gets a traffic-free commute. Everyone gets to spend more time with their friends and family. I don't think there's any reason to subsidize the usage of road space. I'd rather use that money to subsidize food, shelter, and education.
- HelloMcFly 11y ago
  Congestion pricing is absolutely strong-arming the poor, which isn't necessarily bad as it should strong-arm everyone. I just want the economic burden of road usage to be equally felt by all peoples.
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
Funny notion that its 'fairer' when you scalp goods/services for the rich.
- HelloMcFly 11y ago
  Scaling the cost with income is a progressive tax. Congestion pricing is a usage tax, and usage taxes are regressive for reasons that are, if not obvious, easily Googleable. Let the economic burden be applied equally, which cannot be accomplished by flat-rate pricing.

s73v3r 11y ago

Congestion pricing is a non-starter, as it's a very regressive tax, most usually paid by those who are least able to afford it, and least able to change the time they go to/from work.

natrius 11y ago
Yes, poor people tend to have rigid work schedules. If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. Would those jobs that people couldn't afford to take just disappear? We shouldn't subsidize the usage of road space just because some employers enjoy it. Congestion pricing isn't a tax. Its intent isn't to raise funds. You could rebate all of the revenue to low income folks and still achieve the goal of eliminating traffic. Congestion pricing isn't regressive since it's easy to split the cost. If you want to pay less, ride with more people.
- smtddr 11y ago
  >>Yes, poor people tend to have rigid work schedules. If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. The employer won't be more flexible nor will the salaries go up; what would happen is the employee would complain and the employer wouldn't care because they'd know there's someone out there who's so desperate for a job that they'll take the horrible situation.... e.g., the awful working conditions of a lot of immigrants.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  "If congestion pricing were implemented, employers would have to be more flexible or pay their workers more. " That will never, ever fucking happen. Employers don't give a shit. "Congestion pricing isn't regressive since it's easy to split the cost." That has absolutely nothing to do with it being regressive. It's regressive because it disproportionately affects poor people.
  - natrius 11y ago
    Employers are subject to market forces just like everyone else. If they need workers in order to make money, but workers can't afford to get to work, they will pay more money. Not by choice, by necessity. If you don't believe that, fine. Just raise the minimum wage instead. Subsidizing the usage of road space is a terrible solution to the problem you're describing. Road space is scarce. Poor people get less scarce goods. Luckily, road space is easy to share, which is what poor people do with scarce things. This is not an affront to the current order. There are plenty of things I want to pay for so poor people can have more of them. Road space is not one of them.