3 ms·

It’s going to kill the city. It’s just going to push businesses out at a bad time. This doesn’t have anything to do with traffic - it’s a way to try to extract

It’s going to kill the city. It’s just going to push businesses out at a bad time. This doesn’t have anything to do with traffic - it’s a way to try to extract more money for the MTA. Money won’t fix the MTA’s money woes; the unions will just slurp any available cash.

Jolter 3y ago
I suppose you have a better idea for financing the investments, instead of congestion tax?
- miley_cyrus 3y ago
  He's saying it's not going to finance any "investments" - the extra money is just going to the unions.
  - xen2xen1 3y ago
    Hasn't the state also been directly taking money meant for mass transit in general for years?
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      Lol no. The State through various schemes has been propping up the MTA for years. The bridges and tunnels (rightly) subsidize the mass transit. The state also imposed an additional sales tax for people 100 miles away to raise more revenue. The MTA’s woes are death from a thousand cuts.
  - Jolter 3y ago
    I’d love to hear more about that. US unions seem broken in such interesting ways. Are they generally seen as a cost driver, apart from working to raise salaries and pensions?
- Spooky23 3y ago
  Few ideas: Structure the fares to charge a premium for low volume riders. Work two days a week? Pay for 5. Collect fares. Raise bridge tolls. Drop construction cost drivers. Change liability laws, reduce MWBE requirements, mandated staffing levels, etc. There’s lots of potential areas. Just politically expensive to do.
  - Jolter 3y ago
    What problem would you solve by a “drive twice, pay for five” scheme? I think that would incentivize people to drive more, not less.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      The same problem that congestion pricing aims to solve - more revenue for the MTA.
nimbleplum40 3y ago
I think you’re vastly overestimating how many people commute into lower manhattan via car.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  If nobody is driving, why is it congested? New York City is the hub of a region that represents like a quarter of the US population. Like many other regions, you start cutting off the hub and the central business district dies. Commuting is one aspect. Tourism. Business meetings. Medical care. I live in Queens. Getting a family member to MSK for treatment or getting a meeting in the city via public transit is a 4 hour odyssey. End of the day, folks are gonna say “fuck it” and move to Jersey.
  - nimbleplum40 3y ago
    I’m not saying “no one is driving.” Clearly they are or there wouldn’t be such horrible gridlock in lower Manhattan. I’m just very skeptical of the claim that congestion pricing in one of the densest urban environments in the world will “kill the city.” I work in lower manhattan (in a high-income field). I don’t know of a single coworker that drives into work. Most of my friends also work in lower Manhattan. None of them drive to work. Many other cities have implemented congestion pricing without killing their economies. If businesses really do require employees to drive into lower Manhattan instead of taking transit, for most profitable businesses it will not be an issue to cover the additional cost. I feel for you in Queens. I think we should absolutely expand public transit access. But that takes money. Congestion pricing provides (at least some of) that money.
    - Spooky23 3y ago
      So you never use cabs or Uber? My point is, which is definitely not being expressed well by me is that that are millions of exceptions and cost/convenience escalations that are going to impact lots of people and increase the friction and hassle of the place.
      - 3y ago
acdha 3y ago
Every time cities encourage people to drive less, it has immediate benefits for quality of life and health. I’d be shocked if this is more than a rounding error on the impact of telework, especially since prioritizing residents over commuters frees up a ton of real estate for desperately needed housing.
LeanderK 3y ago
I think it's the other way around. The death of the city is when you see it as dependent on the suburbs, it places transportation and ease of access over quality of life. To see big cities thrive means increasing quality of live so that working remotely and other changes will not mean abandonment, but just an easier life inside the city because it results less traffic and more spaces for people, restaurants, cultural institutions and parks. A conglomeration of office-towers surrounded by suburbs with major arteries leading traffic in and out is not a real city.
- Spooky23 3y ago
  Makes sense for Cleveland. NYC is a different animal. It’s really a conglomeration of cities surrounded by suburbs that are bigger than most US cities.
himinlomax 3y ago
> It’s going to kill the city. It’s just going to push businesses out at a bad time. It's going to do the exact opposite. Every city in Europe that has implemented measure to discourage or even BAN cars in some areas has experienced positive economic outcomes. Of course, every single time people like you had predicted that it would be bad for business.

Jolter 3y ago

I suppose you have a better idea for financing the investments, instead of congestion tax?

miley_cyrus 3y ago
He's saying it's not going to finance any "investments" - the extra money is just going to the unions.
- xen2xen1 3y ago
  Hasn't the state also been directly taking money meant for mass transit in general for years?
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    Lol no. The State through various schemes has been propping up the MTA for years. The bridges and tunnels (rightly) subsidize the mass transit. The state also imposed an additional sales tax for people 100 miles away to raise more revenue. The MTA’s woes are death from a thousand cuts.
- Jolter 3y ago
  I’d love to hear more about that. US unions seem broken in such interesting ways. Are they generally seen as a cost driver, apart from working to raise salaries and pensions?
Spooky23 3y ago
Few ideas: Structure the fares to charge a premium for low volume riders. Work two days a week? Pay for 5. Collect fares. Raise bridge tolls. Drop construction cost drivers. Change liability laws, reduce MWBE requirements, mandated staffing levels, etc. There’s lots of potential areas. Just politically expensive to do.
- Jolter 3y ago
  What problem would you solve by a “drive twice, pay for five” scheme? I think that would incentivize people to drive more, not less.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    The same problem that congestion pricing aims to solve - more revenue for the MTA.

nimbleplum40 3y ago

I think you’re vastly overestimating how many people commute into lower manhattan via car.

Spooky23 3y ago
If nobody is driving, why is it congested? New York City is the hub of a region that represents like a quarter of the US population. Like many other regions, you start cutting off the hub and the central business district dies. Commuting is one aspect. Tourism. Business meetings. Medical care. I live in Queens. Getting a family member to MSK for treatment or getting a meeting in the city via public transit is a 4 hour odyssey. End of the day, folks are gonna say “fuck it” and move to Jersey.
- nimbleplum40 3y ago
  I’m not saying “no one is driving.” Clearly they are or there wouldn’t be such horrible gridlock in lower Manhattan. I’m just very skeptical of the claim that congestion pricing in one of the densest urban environments in the world will “kill the city.” I work in lower manhattan (in a high-income field). I don’t know of a single coworker that drives into work. Most of my friends also work in lower Manhattan. None of them drive to work. Many other cities have implemented congestion pricing without killing their economies. If businesses really do require employees to drive into lower Manhattan instead of taking transit, for most profitable businesses it will not be an issue to cover the additional cost. I feel for you in Queens. I think we should absolutely expand public transit access. But that takes money. Congestion pricing provides (at least some of) that money.
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    So you never use cabs or Uber? My point is, which is definitely not being expressed well by me is that that are millions of exceptions and cost/convenience escalations that are going to impact lots of people and increase the friction and hassle of the place.
    - 3y ago

acdha 3y ago

Every time cities encourage people to drive less, it has immediate benefits for quality of life and health. I’d be shocked if this is more than a rounding error on the impact of telework, especially since prioritizing residents over commuters frees up a ton of real estate for desperately needed housing.

LeanderK 3y ago

I think it's the other way around. The death of the city is when you see it as dependent on the suburbs, it places transportation and ease of access over quality of life. To see big cities thrive means increasing quality of live so that working remotely and other changes will not mean abandonment, but just an easier life inside the city because it results less traffic and more spaces for people, restaurants, cultural institutions and parks. A conglomeration of office-towers surrounded by suburbs with major arteries leading traffic in and out is not a real city.

Spooky23 3y ago
Makes sense for Cleveland. NYC is a different animal. It’s really a conglomeration of cities surrounded by suburbs that are bigger than most US cities.

himinlomax 3y ago

> It’s going to kill the city. It’s just going to push businesses out at a bad time. It's going to do the exact opposite. Every city in Europe that has implemented measure to discourage or even BAN cars in some areas has experienced positive economic outcomes. Of course, every single time people like you had predicted that it would be bad for business.