8 ms·

They should charge a congestion fee then and let the market sort it out, as opposed to artificially regulating one small source of cars (100k for hire vehicles

They should charge a congestion fee then and let the market sort it out, as opposed to artificially regulating one small source of cars (100k for hire vehicles vs 2.7m vehicles entering the city per day). Why would the thought even be to regulate 3% of cars vs. attacking the actual core problem (2.7m cars/day). It makes absolutely no sense (aside from protectionism of the taxi industry)

Retric 8y ago
Those 2.7m cars don't spend 10+ hours driving each day. So, those 100k for higher vehicles make up a large fraction of total vehicles on the streets. Further, congestion charges would need to be per hour on the road not just in the city to adjust for this issue.
- JumpCrisscross 8y ago
  > Those 2.7m cars don't spend 10+ hours driving each day No, they spend 10+ hours parked on two sides of my narrow street.
  - InitialLastName 8y ago
    So they should charge more (read: any price > $0) for parking. It baffles me how much of the most expensive real estate on earth is dedicated to free car storage.
    - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
      > they should charge more (read: any price > $0) for parking People who park their cars go to town halls. They turn out to vote. They call their representatives. I called my City Councilman, who is also the Speaker proposing this bill, and was apparently the first person to call in opposition. Everyone else focussed on how Uber is a den of sexual harassment and it's about time we did something about them. If that is the balance, this bill is good politics. Even if it's counterproductive.
      - InitialLastName 8y ago
        People who park their cars have enough money to be able to vote, call their representatives, and go to town halls (not to mention to have cars). It's not "good politics" if influence is only available to the affluent.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
jdanp 8y ago
Why not just let the market sort it out without a congestion fee? Surely there's a point at which there is so much traffic that people will stop taking uber/lyft and prefer to take the subway. Why should the government set an arbitrary bar to that?
- Daishiman 8y ago
  Because there's this thing called the Nash Equilibrium, and in a complex system like streets the equilibria are not optimal. Individually, humans are really bad at judging these things and you cannot have optimal traffic and congestion control without some measure of centralized management of incentives. Nobody wins when all car traffic is slower than optimal and driving just becomes an objectively worse experience for everyone on the road.
- steego 8y ago
  > Why not just let the market sort it out without a congestion fee? You realize that the roads are property right? They're owned by the city. They're funded by the tax payers. Are you telling me they are obligated to share their roads for free? I simply cannot fathom how someone who is advocating a "free market" solution doesn't understand the important role that property rights play in a market system. I realize you want free access to the roads, but who says you're entitled to free access? You don't own the roads. I don't care if your tax dollars pay for them, you're not entitled to drive on them just like you're not entitled to roam around on a military base. If I owned the roads, you bet your ass I'd charge you an arm and a leg to ride on my roads. I would do whatever I could to maximize revenue. This means getting as many paying customers on my roads as possible. Let's say I owned 10th, 6th and 3rd Avenues and series of cross streets. I could be a conventional thinker and simply turn them into premium express lanes for car services and the wealthy, but that's peanuts. I could make a lot more money if I turned them into efficient roadways for a fast bus service that's competitive with the MTA. I'd try to make my roadways the fastest and most efficient way to get around the city so I could charge as much as I could to make a profit. For less capital investment, I could get better coverage of the city at a fraction of the price of the subway system. Who gives a shit if cabbies and people from New Jersey can't drive on my road for free? It's my road! Why should I let your crappy car drive on my roads when I can pack far more customers in my driver-less buses? If you want a free market solution, then let companies buy/lease the roads. Your solution is not a free market solution. It gives away access to the roads at the tax payer's expense, so taxi/car companies can leach off it. You've socialized the costs and privatized the gains. Stop telling tax payers what they can and can't do with their roads. It's their roads and they don't owe you shit.
ohyes 8y ago
The problem is that the public transit in NYC area has gone to crap. They haven't made the infrastructure investments considering the potential ridership, and we're paying the price for it. I say this as someone who hates hiring a car (because they make me motion sick), but if you have to be somewhere on time, even with the congestion, hiring a car is more likely to get you there on time.
- jschwartzi 8y ago
  The sensible solution is to use the congestion charge to fund mass transit improvements. As mass transit gets better congestion goes down.
schuyler2d 8y ago
You talk about it as if it's the same 'They' -- NY state blocked taxing midtown travel during the Bloomberg administration. NYC also has no power over the state defunding the subway system (which it did far more than NYC). NYC is dealing with problems with powers it has.

Retric 8y ago

Those 2.7m cars don't spend 10+ hours driving each day. So, those 100k for higher vehicles make up a large fraction of total vehicles on the streets. Further, congestion charges would need to be per hour on the road not just in the city to adjust for this issue.

JumpCrisscross 8y ago
> Those 2.7m cars don't spend 10+ hours driving each day No, they spend 10+ hours parked on two sides of my narrow street.
- InitialLastName 8y ago
  So they should charge more (read: any price > $0) for parking. It baffles me how much of the most expensive real estate on earth is dedicated to free car storage.
  - JumpCrisscross 8y ago
    > they should charge more (read: any price > $0) for parking People who park their cars go to town halls. They turn out to vote. They call their representatives. I called my City Councilman, who is also the Speaker proposing this bill, and was apparently the first person to call in opposition. Everyone else focussed on how Uber is a den of sexual harassment and it's about time we did something about them. If that is the balance, this bill is good politics. Even if it's counterproductive.
    - InitialLastName 8y ago
      People who park their cars have enough money to be able to vote, call their representatives, and go to town halls (not to mention to have cars). It's not "good politics" if influence is only available to the affluent.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

jdanp 8y ago

Why not just let the market sort it out without a congestion fee? Surely there's a point at which there is so much traffic that people will stop taking uber/lyft and prefer to take the subway. Why should the government set an arbitrary bar to that?

Daishiman 8y ago
Because there's this thing called the Nash Equilibrium, and in a complex system like streets the equilibria are not optimal. Individually, humans are really bad at judging these things and you cannot have optimal traffic and congestion control without some measure of centralized management of incentives. Nobody wins when all car traffic is slower than optimal and driving just becomes an objectively worse experience for everyone on the road.
steego 8y ago
> Why not just let the market sort it out without a congestion fee? You realize that the roads are property right? They're owned by the city. They're funded by the tax payers. Are you telling me they are obligated to share their roads for free? I simply cannot fathom how someone who is advocating a "free market" solution doesn't understand the important role that property rights play in a market system. I realize you want free access to the roads, but who says you're entitled to free access? You don't own the roads. I don't care if your tax dollars pay for them, you're not entitled to drive on them just like you're not entitled to roam around on a military base. If I owned the roads, you bet your ass I'd charge you an arm and a leg to ride on my roads. I would do whatever I could to maximize revenue. This means getting as many paying customers on my roads as possible. Let's say I owned 10th, 6th and 3rd Avenues and series of cross streets. I could be a conventional thinker and simply turn them into premium express lanes for car services and the wealthy, but that's peanuts. I could make a lot more money if I turned them into efficient roadways for a fast bus service that's competitive with the MTA. I'd try to make my roadways the fastest and most efficient way to get around the city so I could charge as much as I could to make a profit. For less capital investment, I could get better coverage of the city at a fraction of the price of the subway system. Who gives a shit if cabbies and people from New Jersey can't drive on my road for free? It's my road! Why should I let your crappy car drive on my roads when I can pack far more customers in my driver-less buses? If you want a free market solution, then let companies buy/lease the roads. Your solution is not a free market solution. It gives away access to the roads at the tax payer's expense, so taxi/car companies can leach off it. You've socialized the costs and privatized the gains. Stop telling tax payers what they can and can't do with their roads. It's their roads and they don't owe you shit.

ohyes 8y ago

The problem is that the public transit in NYC area has gone to crap. They haven't made the infrastructure investments considering the potential ridership, and we're paying the price for it. I say this as someone who hates hiring a car (because they make me motion sick), but if you have to be somewhere on time, even with the congestion, hiring a car is more likely to get you there on time.

jschwartzi 8y ago
The sensible solution is to use the congestion charge to fund mass transit improvements. As mass transit gets better congestion goes down.

schuyler2d 8y ago

You talk about it as if it's the same 'They' -- NY state blocked taxing midtown travel during the Bloomberg administration. NYC also has no power over the state defunding the subway system (which it did far more than NYC). NYC is dealing with problems with powers it has.