4 ms·

As the article discusses at the end: the MTA is a black hole of money, it's overly optimistic to assume cash generated from congestion pricing would go back int

As the article discusses at the end: the MTA is a black hole of money, it's overly optimistic to assume cash generated from congestion pricing would go back into public transit (e.g.: the NYT recently reported how Gov. Cuomo directed the MTA to hand over millions to ski resorts in upstate NY because there hadn't been a lot of snow that year). By comparison London implemented a $15 congestion fee in 2003 and it resulted in a 26% reduction in traffic, which is good but likely not life-changing for most commuters. So if you cynically assume you won't get free transit and congestion pricing is not a panacea for rush hour gridlock, what do you get implementing this? Less CO2 emissions. Fewer pedestrian accidents. But mostly: more money for the city. Aka a tax. Once you accept that, the discussion boils down to your belief in what constitutes a fair taxation scheme: should the users of a service pay per use, or should essential city services be subsidized by the wealthiest citizens? Good arguments for and against. While I'm in favor of congestion pricing in general I think it's important to not be overly optimistic in our assumptions in what it can accomplish. Very cool spreadsheet though.

mcny 9y ago
> Once you accept that, the discussion boils down to your belief in what constitutes a fair taxation scheme: should the users of a service pay per use, or should essential city services be subsidized by the wealthiest citizens? Good arguments for and against. Very tangentially related but wanted to hear your opinion on this: I know it is not in my best interest as a poor person but I think there should not be any handouts or subsidies for poor people. We should transform any entitlement program that requires you to show you make $X or under a year and replace them with programs that everyone (regardless of income or wealth) can participate in. I am still a firm believer in a progressive tax regime to fund these programs but we should not divide beneficiaries based on income or wealth. Another thought experiment I sometimes think about is what would change if public transit were fully paid for by taxes? How would things change? Would we see more traffic? How much more traffic would we see? Would we see more people camping out inside the subway stations?
- ordinaryperson 9y ago
  Depends on your definition of "handouts". Free cash transfers don't seem to be a successful antipoverty program but what about free college tuition? High education levels strongly correlate with above average lifetime incomes but you can't expect poor mothers to feed their children on college degrees. I guarantee you even the most ardent proponent of regressive taxation schemes has some pet govt benefit they consider not a handout but a right. As to the second, it's an interesting idea. Everyone complains about the NYC MTA but for $2.75 you can traverse the entire city -- even with delays it's a steal. People are definitely disconnected from the price vs reward of public transit.
  - mcny 9y ago
    > what about free college tuition I love it! However, if we can afford to make college tuition to people making under $x, I think we can make college tuition free for everyone without checking for their income. (This is my main objection to the New York state scheme. They can make it so only NYS residents are eligible but we should drop the income requirement.)
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- millstone 9y ago
  There are two strong practical arguments for no means-testing. The first is that these programs are much cheaper and easier to administer. The forms are simpler, there is less opportunity for fraud, the programs are easier to understand so less outreach is required, etc. The second is that such programs are much more politically durable. In the US, compare the ever-teetering Medicaid or TANF with Medicare or Social Security, which enjoy broad support.
rahimnathwani 9y ago
"should essential city services be subsidized by the wealthiest citizens" It's interesting you bring up London's congestion charging scheme. The burden of that scheme doesn't fall on the wealthy: they live within the congestion charging zone and are thus entitled to a 90% discount (i.e. they pay just a tenth of what we South Londoners pay). And they can afford to take taxis, which are too expensive for most people, and are exempt from paying the congestion charge.
- geezerjay 9y ago
  If they live within the city, use public transportation systems and don't bring additional cars into it, it sounds like they aren't the ones causing or even contributing to congestion problems. Therefore, why should they pay for a problem they aren't causing?
  - rtpg 9y ago
    Well you only pay the charge when you're using it right? Why does living in the city make it cheaper per use? It'd be like having a cheaper subway ticket if your house was closer to the station. Maybe one thing affects usage of the other, but that shouldn't change per-use. Slight detail here though: if you suddenly can't use your car anymore because you happened to live in an area with heavy traffic that's not great
    - rahimnathwani 9y ago
      "Slight detail here though: if you suddenly can't use your car anymore because you happened to live in an area with heavy traffic that's not great" Right, but if you can lobby the government to extend the boundary of the zone a bit so that you live inside it, then suddenly (i) there's a reduction in traffic near you, (ii) you get the resident 90% discount on the scheme. People who live within the zone get the traffic reduction for almost free. Everyone else pays for it directly (having to pay full price for the congestion charge) or indirectly (due to increased traffic elsewhere).
    - geezerjay 9y ago
dagss 9y ago
Wait, you say a 26% reduction in traffic is not life changing? Congestion can be caused by a slight undercapacity. One case I know of from Bergen, Norway a reduction in traffic of 5% caused reductions in travel time of 50%. Bergen is several orders of magnitude below London or NY and not comparable, my point is just that small reduction in traffic can lead to massive reduction in travel time. I would be very interested to hear the travel time numbers for London..
- robk 9y ago
  No noticeable change, anecdotally
  - taboulay 9y ago
    How old are you? Maybe you don't remember... Not only is traffic noticeably lighter than in 2003, it is INCREDIBLY lighter than what it would have been without congestion charge, given the city growth.
Doctor_Fegg 9y ago
> By comparison London implemented a $15 congestion fee in 2003 and it resulted in a 26% reduction in traffic, which is good but likely not life-changing for most commuters. It is becoming life-changing. It's just taking a while to do it. But here's the most startling result: https://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/933767747611299842 https://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/933767747611299842 In a few years, at this trajectory, cycling will overtake driving as the most popular means of personal transport in central London. That's astonishing. It was unthinkable even ten years ago. The Congestion Charge isn't the only factor behind this. The new protected cycling infrastructure makes a huge difference. The 7/7 terror attacks were, oddly, a big boost to cycling (the Canal & River Trust, which owns the Regents Canal - a popular cycling route - says that this was the tipping point for cycling on the towpath). But 2003 is when driving started falling and cycling started rising in London, and the Congestion Charge is a big part of that.

mcny 9y ago

> Once you accept that, the discussion boils down to your belief in what constitutes a fair taxation scheme: should the users of a service pay per use, or should essential city services be subsidized by the wealthiest citizens? Good arguments for and against. Very tangentially related but wanted to hear your opinion on this: I know it is not in my best interest as a poor person but I think there should not be any handouts or subsidies for poor people. We should transform any entitlement program that requires you to show you make $X or under a year and replace them with programs that everyone (regardless of income or wealth) can participate in. I am still a firm believer in a progressive tax regime to fund these programs but we should not divide beneficiaries based on income or wealth. Another thought experiment I sometimes think about is what would change if public transit were fully paid for by taxes? How would things change? Would we see more traffic? How much more traffic would we see? Would we see more people camping out inside the subway stations?

ordinaryperson 9y ago
Depends on your definition of "handouts". Free cash transfers don't seem to be a successful antipoverty program but what about free college tuition? High education levels strongly correlate with above average lifetime incomes but you can't expect poor mothers to feed their children on college degrees. I guarantee you even the most ardent proponent of regressive taxation schemes has some pet govt benefit they consider not a handout but a right. As to the second, it's an interesting idea. Everyone complains about the NYC MTA but for $2.75 you can traverse the entire city -- even with delays it's a steal. People are definitely disconnected from the price vs reward of public transit.
- mcny 9y ago
  > what about free college tuition I love it! However, if we can afford to make college tuition to people making under $x, I think we can make college tuition free for everyone without checking for their income. (This is my main objection to the New York state scheme. They can make it so only NYS residents are eligible but we should drop the income requirement.)
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
millstone 9y ago
There are two strong practical arguments for no means-testing. The first is that these programs are much cheaper and easier to administer. The forms are simpler, there is less opportunity for fraud, the programs are easier to understand so less outreach is required, etc. The second is that such programs are much more politically durable. In the US, compare the ever-teetering Medicaid or TANF with Medicare or Social Security, which enjoy broad support.

rahimnathwani 9y ago

"should essential city services be subsidized by the wealthiest citizens" It's interesting you bring up London's congestion charging scheme. The burden of that scheme doesn't fall on the wealthy: they live within the congestion charging zone and are thus entitled to a 90% discount (i.e. they pay just a tenth of what we South Londoners pay). And they can afford to take taxis, which are too expensive for most people, and are exempt from paying the congestion charge.

geezerjay 9y ago
If they live within the city, use public transportation systems and don't bring additional cars into it, it sounds like they aren't the ones causing or even contributing to congestion problems. Therefore, why should they pay for a problem they aren't causing?
- rtpg 9y ago
  Well you only pay the charge when you're using it right? Why does living in the city make it cheaper per use? It'd be like having a cheaper subway ticket if your house was closer to the station. Maybe one thing affects usage of the other, but that shouldn't change per-use. Slight detail here though: if you suddenly can't use your car anymore because you happened to live in an area with heavy traffic that's not great
  - rahimnathwani 9y ago
    "Slight detail here though: if you suddenly can't use your car anymore because you happened to live in an area with heavy traffic that's not great" Right, but if you can lobby the government to extend the boundary of the zone a bit so that you live inside it, then suddenly (i) there's a reduction in traffic near you, (ii) you get the resident 90% discount on the scheme. People who live within the zone get the traffic reduction for almost free. Everyone else pays for it directly (having to pay full price for the congestion charge) or indirectly (due to increased traffic elsewhere).
  - geezerjay 9y ago

dagss 9y ago

Wait, you say a 26% reduction in traffic is not life changing? Congestion can be caused by a slight undercapacity. One case I know of from Bergen, Norway a reduction in traffic of 5% caused reductions in travel time of 50%. Bergen is several orders of magnitude below London or NY and not comparable, my point is just that small reduction in traffic can lead to massive reduction in travel time. I would be very interested to hear the travel time numbers for London..

robk 9y ago
No noticeable change, anecdotally
- taboulay 9y ago
  How old are you? Maybe you don't remember... Not only is traffic noticeably lighter than in 2003, it is INCREDIBLY lighter than what it would have been without congestion charge, given the city growth.

Doctor_Fegg 9y ago

> By comparison London implemented a $15 congestion fee in 2003 and it resulted in a 26% reduction in traffic, which is good but likely not life-changing for most commuters. It is becoming life-changing. It's just taking a while to do it. But here's the most startling result: https://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/933767747611299842 https://twitter.com/carltonreid/status/933767747611299842 In a few years, at this trajectory, cycling will overtake driving as the most popular means of personal transport in central London. That's astonishing. It was unthinkable even ten years ago. The Congestion Charge isn't the only factor behind this. The new protected cycling infrastructure makes a huge difference. The 7/7 terror attacks were, oddly, a big boost to cycling (the Canal & River Trust, which owns the Regents Canal - a popular cycling route - says that this was the tipping point for cycling on the towpath). But 2003 is when driving started falling and cycling started rising in London, and the Congestion Charge is a big part of that.