3 ms·

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

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.

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.