3 ms·

It's OK to have individual regressive taxes as long as the result is net progressive. This doesn't incentive poorer people (including rideshare drivers??) at a

It's OK to have individual regressive taxes as long as the result is net progressive. This doesn't incentive poorer people (including rideshare drivers??) at all from driving downtown which is fucked. NYC's congestion pricing won't have this guilty-liberal nonsense. A good example of getting this right is a Carbon Dividend. Fuck the poor over with fuel prices but shower them with cash even more. None of the poor net hurt then, and those that move near transit can come out extra ahead. As everyone does that, the payout shrinks but that's fine because the gas tax doesn't.

orange_joe 5y ago
I live in NYC, and lived in SF. NYC can have a congestion fee because car travel is essentially a luxury. All train lines within the affected area of the city run every 15 minutes or so overnight, and less than 10 during the day. The bus service is also extremely extensive. SF has nothing comparable. There are ~4 subway stops in downtown SF, vs 151 in manhattan (probably around 120-130 in the affected area). SF needs to right with density and transit to even begin considering something like this.
- areyousure 5y ago
  Simply out of curiosity, I counted 91 stations in Manhattan in the proposed congestion pricing area below 60th street. (More precisely, I counted 60 stations outside the area.) More relevantly, congestion pricing has been proposed since (at least) 2007, and there are actually currently 0 stations in Manhattan in the congestion pricing area ... because there is no congestion pricing.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  Well first of all, there are busses. Congestion pricing should make the buses run absolutely better, and even more relatively better compared to cars. Maybe have some extra busses that turn around at the congestion zone border too for extra frequency. In the medium term, SF should be extending it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbahn. The central subways is behind schedule as usual for bay area infra. They should dig the Geary subway cut and cover. Every time public transit improves, crank up the congestion pricing and expand the area it covers.

orange_joe 5y ago

I live in NYC, and lived in SF. NYC can have a congestion fee because car travel is essentially a luxury. All train lines within the affected area of the city run every 15 minutes or so overnight, and less than 10 during the day. The bus service is also extremely extensive. SF has nothing comparable. There are ~4 subway stops in downtown SF, vs 151 in manhattan (probably around 120-130 in the affected area). SF needs to right with density and transit to even begin considering something like this.

areyousure 5y ago
Simply out of curiosity, I counted 91 stations in Manhattan in the proposed congestion pricing area below 60th street. (More precisely, I counted 60 stations outside the area.) More relevantly, congestion pricing has been proposed since (at least) 2007, and there are actually currently 0 stations in Manhattan in the congestion pricing area ... because there is no congestion pricing.
Ericson2314 5y ago
Well first of all, there are busses. Congestion pricing should make the buses run absolutely better, and even more relatively better compared to cars. Maybe have some extra busses that turn around at the congestion zone border too for extra frequency. In the medium term, SF should be extending it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbahn https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stadtbahn. The central subways is behind schedule as usual for bay area infra. They should dig the Geary subway cut and cover. Every time public transit improves, crank up the congestion pricing and expand the area it covers.