4 ms·

$15 isn't indefensible if the project is solely or mostly funded with tolls (and therefore not out of state / city budget). But as to toll (flat) vs tax (progr

by ethbro 9y ago

$15 isn't indefensible if the project is solely or mostly funded with tolls (and therefore not out of state / city budget). But as to toll (flat) vs tax (progressive), you're right: it's definitely screwing over the poor. I'm all in favor of usage based charging, but "unaffordable to live near work on a moderate salary" + "we're going to tax your daily commute, the same as your boss" doesn't feel fair.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
The “fair” answer is get on a train. There are plenty of affordable communities on the Metro North, LIRR and NJ Transit.
- bunderbunder 9y ago
  How practical is that for the people who are currently driving in NYC? In Chicago, the vast majority of people who live in the suburbs and work in the loop take Metra. But Chicago's transit system is so heavily hub-and-spoke that the public transit just isn't practical if you don't work near the hub, and plenty of people don't. For them, it's frequently a choice between an hour or so in traffic, and more like 2 hours split among some combination of traffic (to get to the commuter train station), train, and maybe bus. I can't really blame anyone for deciding that 4 hours total commuting is not an option.
  - JumpCrisscross 9y ago
    > I can't really blame anyone for deciding that 4 hours total commuting is not an option I know people who drive from their faraway place to a train station outside the city and then take the Metro-North into Grand Central Station. From street parking to bridges and tunnels, New York City massively subsidises drivers. I'd strongly prefer we raise tolls and congestion charges and use the proceeds to modernize our subway system.
    - lazerpants 9y ago
      >New York City massively subsidises drivers. Actually, the bridge and tunnel tolls are major revenue generators for the MTA. The subway is near revenue neutral. The buses lose tons of money.
- jimmaswell 9y ago
  Tax funded roads being gated off to those without higher incomes doesn't sound fair to me in any case, even if there are alternatives.
  - lotsofpulp 9y ago
    Sometimes, the world doesn't present us with a solution that is "fair", especially when demand is greater than supply. Assuming you were tasked with reducing the congestion of the road network in NYC and its surrounding areas, do you any ideas of a solution that is "fair"? Edit: Elsewhere in this thread, someone posted a link to Beijing's solution to congestion, which seem interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_space_rationing_in_Beijing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_space_rationing_in_Beij... Unfortunately, I don't know if I would trust the politics of NY to allow for that.
    - flgr 9y ago
      I think that's not any more fair than a direct charge. Or am I missing something? From what I've heard well off families in Beijing will then just have multiple cars, one with an odd license plate and one with an even one.
      - ghaff 9y ago
        I can't speak specifically to the Beijing system but rationing (or lotteries) as a general approach are often seen as a fairer way to distribute a limited good than letting whoever has the most money have it. That said, especially given the circumstances of Manhattan, congestion charging probably makes the most sense and also has the virtue of bringing in additional money that can theoretically be used to improve public transit. [ADDED: I think the key here is that driving in Manhattan for individuals is something of a luxury good. We'd view things differently if this was about distributing relief food after a natural disaster.]
        chimeracoder 9y ago
        > I can't speak specifically to the Beijing system but rationing (or lotteries) as a general approach are often seen as a fairer way to distribute a limited good than letting whoever has the most money have it. Lotteries are an absolutely terrible system. They fail the basic test of Pareto efficiency. Or in other words: lotteries result in outcomes in which one person could be made better off without making anybody else worse off. The only way to avoid this with a lottery is provide a secondary market, and that defeats the whole purpose of a lottery - at that point, you might as well skip the lottery and use a direct market. Not all Pareto-efficient scenarios are good, but all scenarios that are not Pareto-efficient are bad, by definition. If Alice could be made better off without making Bob or Eve (or anyone else) any worse off, we know there's a problem.

by ethbro 9y ago

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

The “fair” answer is get on a train. There are plenty of affordable communities on the Metro North, LIRR and NJ Transit.

bunderbunder 9y ago
How practical is that for the people who are currently driving in NYC? In Chicago, the vast majority of people who live in the suburbs and work in the loop take Metra. But Chicago's transit system is so heavily hub-and-spoke that the public transit just isn't practical if you don't work near the hub, and plenty of people don't. For them, it's frequently a choice between an hour or so in traffic, and more like 2 hours split among some combination of traffic (to get to the commuter train station), train, and maybe bus. I can't really blame anyone for deciding that 4 hours total commuting is not an option.
- JumpCrisscross 9y ago
  > I can't really blame anyone for deciding that 4 hours total commuting is not an option I know people who drive from their faraway place to a train station outside the city and then take the Metro-North into Grand Central Station. From street parking to bridges and tunnels, New York City massively subsidises drivers. I'd strongly prefer we raise tolls and congestion charges and use the proceeds to modernize our subway system.
  - lazerpants 9y ago
    >New York City massively subsidises drivers. Actually, the bridge and tunnel tolls are major revenue generators for the MTA. The subway is near revenue neutral. The buses lose tons of money.
jimmaswell 9y ago
Tax funded roads being gated off to those without higher incomes doesn't sound fair to me in any case, even if there are alternatives.
- lotsofpulp 9y ago
  Sometimes, the world doesn't present us with a solution that is "fair", especially when demand is greater than supply. Assuming you were tasked with reducing the congestion of the road network in NYC and its surrounding areas, do you any ideas of a solution that is "fair"? Edit: Elsewhere in this thread, someone posted a link to Beijing's solution to congestion, which seem interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_space_rationing_in_Beijing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_space_rationing_in_Beij... Unfortunately, I don't know if I would trust the politics of NY to allow for that.
  - flgr 9y ago
    I think that's not any more fair than a direct charge. Or am I missing something? From what I've heard well off families in Beijing will then just have multiple cars, one with an odd license plate and one with an even one.
    - ghaff 9y ago
      I can't speak specifically to the Beijing system but rationing (or lotteries) as a general approach are often seen as a fairer way to distribute a limited good than letting whoever has the most money have it. That said, especially given the circumstances of Manhattan, congestion charging probably makes the most sense and also has the virtue of bringing in additional money that can theoretically be used to improve public transit. [ADDED: I think the key here is that driving in Manhattan for individuals is something of a luxury good. We'd view things differently if this was about distributing relief food after a natural disaster.]
      - chimeracoder 9y ago
        > I can't speak specifically to the Beijing system but rationing (or lotteries) as a general approach are often seen as a fairer way to distribute a limited good than letting whoever has the most money have it. Lotteries are an absolutely terrible system. They fail the basic test of Pareto efficiency. Or in other words: lotteries result in outcomes in which one person could be made better off without making anybody else worse off. The only way to avoid this with a lottery is provide a secondary market, and that defeats the whole purpose of a lottery - at that point, you might as well skip the lottery and use a direct market. Not all Pareto-efficient scenarios are good, but all scenarios that are not Pareto-efficient are bad, by definition. If Alice could be made better off without making Bob or Eve (or anyone else) any worse off, we know there's a problem.