4 ms·

[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 high

by 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.
    - gojomo 8y ago
      I would say that because I'm familiar with the NYC area! There's expensive tolls, and limited & expensive parking, but excellent public transportation – the USA's most extensive and most-used subway system. NY state has the nation's highest (regressive!) gas taxes. New York is far-and-away the US city with the lowest rate of car ownership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_households_without_a_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_... Manhattan is the most likely place for congestion pricing. But, though rare in the USA, many Manhattanites never learn to drive! And only 8% of Manhattanite workers commute by car to work: https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-their-cars https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-their-cars (I highly doubt that 8% is correlated with the poorest Manhattanites.) Car-owning households in NYC are significantly richer than zero-car households: http://blog.tstc.org/2017/04/21/car-free-new-york-city/ http://blog.tstc.org/2017/04/21/car-free-new-york-city/ So, people who elect to drive in NYC (outside of driving-on-the-job) are richer than the New Yorkers who don't drive. Further, New Yorkers are richer than other Americans. Ergo, a fee that falls on people who choose to drive in NYC is unlikely to be "regressive", barring any actual evidence to the contrary.

by gojomo 8y ago

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.
  - gojomo 8y ago
    I would say that because I'm familiar with the NYC area! There's expensive tolls, and limited & expensive parking, but excellent public transportation – the USA's most extensive and most-used subway system. NY state has the nation's highest (regressive!) gas taxes. New York is far-and-away the US city with the lowest rate of car ownership: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_households_without_a_car https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._cities_with_most_... Manhattan is the most likely place for congestion pricing. But, though rare in the USA, many Manhattanites never learn to drive! And only 8% of Manhattanite workers commute by car to work: https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-their-cars https://www.nycedc.com/blog-entry/new-yorkers-and-their-cars (I highly doubt that 8% is correlated with the poorest Manhattanites.) Car-owning households in NYC are significantly richer than zero-car households: http://blog.tstc.org/2017/04/21/car-free-new-york-city/ http://blog.tstc.org/2017/04/21/car-free-new-york-city/ So, people who elect to drive in NYC (outside of driving-on-the-job) are richer than the New Yorkers who don't drive. Further, New Yorkers are richer than other Americans. Ergo, a fee that falls on people who choose to drive in NYC is unlikely to be "regressive", barring any actual evidence to the contrary.