6 ms·

Because it's regressive. It takes money away from people who drive, who are often people who are blue collar, spread out in the outer boroughs, or who need to b

by CPLX 8y ago

Because it's regressive. It takes money away from people who drive, who are often people who are blue collar, spread out in the outer boroughs, or who need to bring tools to do their jobs, those who are forced to cross the city to get anywhere west of town, etc. Sure, that's not the only effect it will have, it will also cost money for bankers that drive in from Westchester and park underneath their midtown offices. But, as you can imagine, it won't change their behavior much -- by definition the only people that it will affect are people who can't easily afford it. If you look at it in a different way, congestion pricing takes a public good that everyone paid to create, the roads and streets of the central business district, and reserves them so they can only be used by drivers with lots of money. There are problems with that approach. Of course there's another side to the argument, obviously. But I feel like many people don't realize this issue cuts in two directions, rather than just being an obvious "good idea".

dionidium 8y ago
This is the most common objection, but it's not a very strong one, for at least two reasons: 1. There's no reason we couldn't provide exceptions for the kinds of vans and trucks that blue-collar workers need to drive into the city to make their livings. 2. There's no reason we couldn't offer income-based exceptions to people who absolutely cannot ride transit for this or that reason. As in all proposals to ration some scarce resource, it's important to understand that we already ration it, even if it's not explicit. Today, we do it by literally clogging the streets so much that nobody else can get through. (And now we've added this new way, too.) Surely nobody thinks that's the smartest way to ration.
- chlvsl 8y ago
  If we start to allow those who can't afford the congestion pricing to get a discount on congestion pricing, do we really have congestion pricing? Or just a new proportional-to-income "driving tax" in addition to state, county, and city taxes?
  - bumholio 8y ago
    >Or just a new proportional-to-income "driving tax" in addition to state, county, and city taxes? The difference is that you can avoid the driving tax by not driving; unlike the city tax that can only be avoided by not getting born. So it's less of a tax and more of paying for a public service.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    A "driving tax" is just another way to say "congestion pricing." Driving introduces massive negative externalities and should cost a lot more than it does today. Automobiles are one of the absolute worst quality-of-life-impacting things about living in Manhattan. They're loud, dangerous, and smelly. I'm not trying to hide my cards; if it were up to me, I'd ban private cars (at the very least) entirely in Midtown (at the very least).
- dahdum 8y ago
  I'd argue it's still a strong objection, your solutions require a lot more bureaucracy and would still be filled with loopholes. A couple quick ones: 1. Registering the car in your grandparents name, who have no income, to avoid tolls. Or perhaps your stay at home spouse (assuming you file separately). 2. Make your next vehicle a light truck or van to avoid potentially hundreds in monthly congestion tolls. Luxury trucks are very much a thing. I agree your plan would technically work, but it would be filled with exceptions, loopholes, and political handouts. That is rather fitting for NYC though.
  - dionidium 8y ago
    > I agree your plan would technically work, but it would be filled with exceptions, loopholes, and political handouts. That is rather fitting for NYC though. The end result of which would be a whole bunch of people paying a congestion tax who aren't paying one today.
- CPLX 8y ago
  Of course we ration scarce resources. But the nature of government services generally is, and should be, that we don’t just ration them by ability to pay. If that led by definition to optimal outcomes then the private sector could handle it. Government is for all the other stuff. Should we charge $500 to get into national parks? Why not? Should we just charge people for the health care they consume a la carte or should we have a national system for that? Why? As you can see you’re hitting on a general philosophy question here. My argument would be that trying to set shared government services at market rates tends to lead to deeply regressive outcomes. There certainly are smart arguments on both sides with congestion pricing. Externalities matter. Are cars inefficient? And so on. But my intention is to illuminate the other side of the coin, which seems perpetually unrepresented.
votepaunchy 8y ago
Is there any reason NYC couldn’t implement progressive congestion pricing? Payment is automated and could be tied to tax returns.
gojomo 8y ago
[citation needed] that congestion-pricing is regressive. I'd expect the exact opposite: those in NYC who take private cars, rather than public transit, are higher-income. Everyone gets a benefit from the public roads even if they don't use them directly: they feed the high-value trips that make the businesses there possible. But there's still not enough road-capacity for everyone without value-destroying congestion: a massive toll paid by everyone in delays. So, more money should be raised to improve roads and alternatives. And, that money should be raised in a way that shifts those who are most-adaptable into alternatives, in proportion to the congestion they'd cause. Only congestion fees do that.
- bumholio 8y ago
  It's regressive amongst those who drive, that's the point. By definition, that category is more oriented towards middle class, upper middle class; the poor don't pay the tax because they can't afford city driving in general.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    That's not quite evidence, and my intuition would still be: the more one drives inside NYC city limits, the richer one is. And the more one uses car services that would also pay the tax, the wealthier one is. So: it's highly progressive when you consider all NYC residents, including those who don't drive. And it's maybe a little regressive between the wealthy and the very-wealthy, just on the general pattern that the very-wealthy spend less of their income. So, boo-hoo for the merely wealthy. Congestion pricing doesn't seem nearly as regressive as gas taxes or sales taxes, narrowly focused as it is on just those driving in an especially wealthy and especially congested area. And the parent post's idea that it'd hit the "blue collar" especially hard is, without evidence, just hand-waving. Their time is valuable too, and commute/on-the-job-travel time saved, from pushing lower-value travelers to non-road (or on-road-but-shared-vehicle) paths, could be worth more than the congestion fees.
    - bumholio 8y ago
      > the more one drives inside NYC city limits, the richer one is. Why would you say that? A rich person would not spend hours every day commuting though rush hour traffic, or spend most of their day inside their work vehicle. They would buy or rent a central home, possibly near the central office building where they work. City driving in itself makes for a very low quality of life and most rational people would minimize it, given the option. So I would expect there's either no driving-income correlation, or it's inverse. So reducing congestion would make life easier for rich people, who don't care about the money and only care about the time - by pricing out people who are, by definition, poorer and can't afford to buy that convenience. You could say that the resulting post-tax distribution is progressive, the rich paying and driving more; but that's just a way of distorting the initial argument, that introducing a flat congestion tax is strongly recessive - to the point of completely pricing out poorer people.
bhups 8y ago
The current proposal is just as regressive, albeit in a way that introduces more inefficiency. A cap on Ubers/Lyfts + minimum pay will likely increase the price of Ubers/Lyfts. Rich people will be able to afford the new prices, but poor people will not.

by CPLX 8y ago

dionidium 8y ago

This is the most common objection, but it's not a very strong one, for at least two reasons: 1. There's no reason we couldn't provide exceptions for the kinds of vans and trucks that blue-collar workers need to drive into the city to make their livings. 2. There's no reason we couldn't offer income-based exceptions to people who absolutely cannot ride transit for this or that reason. As in all proposals to ration some scarce resource, it's important to understand that we already ration it, even if it's not explicit. Today, we do it by literally clogging the streets so much that nobody else can get through. (And now we've added this new way, too.) Surely nobody thinks that's the smartest way to ration.

chlvsl 8y ago
If we start to allow those who can't afford the congestion pricing to get a discount on congestion pricing, do we really have congestion pricing? Or just a new proportional-to-income "driving tax" in addition to state, county, and city taxes?
- bumholio 8y ago
  >Or just a new proportional-to-income "driving tax" in addition to state, county, and city taxes? The difference is that you can avoid the driving tax by not driving; unlike the city tax that can only be avoided by not getting born. So it's less of a tax and more of paying for a public service.
- dionidium 8y ago
  A "driving tax" is just another way to say "congestion pricing." Driving introduces massive negative externalities and should cost a lot more than it does today. Automobiles are one of the absolute worst quality-of-life-impacting things about living in Manhattan. They're loud, dangerous, and smelly. I'm not trying to hide my cards; if it were up to me, I'd ban private cars (at the very least) entirely in Midtown (at the very least).
dahdum 8y ago
I'd argue it's still a strong objection, your solutions require a lot more bureaucracy and would still be filled with loopholes. A couple quick ones: 1. Registering the car in your grandparents name, who have no income, to avoid tolls. Or perhaps your stay at home spouse (assuming you file separately). 2. Make your next vehicle a light truck or van to avoid potentially hundreds in monthly congestion tolls. Luxury trucks are very much a thing. I agree your plan would technically work, but it would be filled with exceptions, loopholes, and political handouts. That is rather fitting for NYC though.
- dionidium 8y ago
  > I agree your plan would technically work, but it would be filled with exceptions, loopholes, and political handouts. That is rather fitting for NYC though. The end result of which would be a whole bunch of people paying a congestion tax who aren't paying one today.
CPLX 8y ago
Of course we ration scarce resources. But the nature of government services generally is, and should be, that we don’t just ration them by ability to pay. If that led by definition to optimal outcomes then the private sector could handle it. Government is for all the other stuff. Should we charge $500 to get into national parks? Why not? Should we just charge people for the health care they consume a la carte or should we have a national system for that? Why? As you can see you’re hitting on a general philosophy question here. My argument would be that trying to set shared government services at market rates tends to lead to deeply regressive outcomes. There certainly are smart arguments on both sides with congestion pricing. Externalities matter. Are cars inefficient? And so on. But my intention is to illuminate the other side of the coin, which seems perpetually unrepresented.

votepaunchy 8y ago

Is there any reason NYC couldn’t implement progressive congestion pricing? Payment is automated and could be tied to tax returns.

gojomo 8y ago

[citation needed] that congestion-pricing is regressive. I'd expect the exact opposite: those in NYC who take private cars, rather than public transit, are higher-income. Everyone gets a benefit from the public roads even if they don't use them directly: they feed the high-value trips that make the businesses there possible. But there's still not enough road-capacity for everyone without value-destroying congestion: a massive toll paid by everyone in delays. So, more money should be raised to improve roads and alternatives. And, that money should be raised in a way that shifts those who are most-adaptable into alternatives, in proportion to the congestion they'd cause. Only congestion fees do that.

bumholio 8y ago
It's regressive amongst those who drive, that's the point. By definition, that category is more oriented towards middle class, upper middle class; the poor don't pay the tax because they can't afford city driving in general.
- gojomo 8y ago
  That's not quite evidence, and my intuition would still be: the more one drives inside NYC city limits, the richer one is. And the more one uses car services that would also pay the tax, the wealthier one is. So: it's highly progressive when you consider all NYC residents, including those who don't drive. And it's maybe a little regressive between the wealthy and the very-wealthy, just on the general pattern that the very-wealthy spend less of their income. So, boo-hoo for the merely wealthy. Congestion pricing doesn't seem nearly as regressive as gas taxes or sales taxes, narrowly focused as it is on just those driving in an especially wealthy and especially congested area. And the parent post's idea that it'd hit the "blue collar" especially hard is, without evidence, just hand-waving. Their time is valuable too, and commute/on-the-job-travel time saved, from pushing lower-value travelers to non-road (or on-road-but-shared-vehicle) paths, could be worth more than the congestion fees.
  - bumholio 8y ago
    > the more one drives inside NYC city limits, the richer one is. Why would you say that? A rich person would not spend hours every day commuting though rush hour traffic, or spend most of their day inside their work vehicle. They would buy or rent a central home, possibly near the central office building where they work. City driving in itself makes for a very low quality of life and most rational people would minimize it, given the option. So I would expect there's either no driving-income correlation, or it's inverse. So reducing congestion would make life easier for rich people, who don't care about the money and only care about the time - by pricing out people who are, by definition, poorer and can't afford to buy that convenience. You could say that the resulting post-tax distribution is progressive, the rich paying and driving more; but that's just a way of distorting the initial argument, that introducing a flat congestion tax is strongly recessive - to the point of completely pricing out poorer people.

bhups 8y ago

The current proposal is just as regressive, albeit in a way that introduces more inefficiency. A cap on Ubers/Lyfts + minimum pay will likely increase the price of Ubers/Lyfts. Rich people will be able to afford the new prices, but poor people will not.