7 ms·

I think it says a lot about how our society is so hugely car centric that the idea of charging people to drive on a road is hugely controversial, but the idea o

I think it says a lot about how our society is so hugely car centric that the idea of charging people to drive on a road is hugely controversial, but the idea of making people pay to travel on a train is accepted without a thought.

probablynish 3y ago
This is not really a fair comparison - even without a congestion toll, people have to pay to drive on a road. They need to buy the car, pay for its maintenance, fill it with gas, pay for insurance, pay annual registration fees to help maintain the roads. Presumably some of the money from buying a train ticket goes into doing the equivalent things: purchasing and maintaining the trains, etc. Not saying the implicit subsidies/taxes on each mode of transport is equal, but it doesn't seem to be as simple as 'one is paid and the other is free'.
- acdha 3y ago
  Most of the things you mentioned only benefit the car owner, and they can choose to adjust them based on their need and budget. This is about the cost to other people for your choices: if you buy an SUV, you get the positive effect of feeling more macho but the people whose health is at greater risk as a direct consequence of that decision aren’t consulted. This kind of thing allows those communities to provide the negative feedback required to keep a system stable.
  - Zpalmtree 3y ago
    You're clearly not arguing in good faith when you suggest the only reason people buy an SUV is to feel macho. You know women own them too?
    - acdha 3y ago
      Yes, for the same reasons – the desire to feel strong and powerful isn’t exclusive to men! That product class has a higher profit margin so car companies have been running a marketing campaign for decades promoting them as powerful, safe, etc. to get buyers to pay extra.
hibikir 3y ago
It's $15 a day: $300 if you commute 20 days a month. That's not a small price change. I find that tolls are a good idea, but suspect that we'd have significant complaints situation if the MTA decided to raise the prices of the 30 day pass by, say $300 a month in one sitting. People made decisions based on existing prices, and a change this big. Going around the price changes by moving or parking further out and then paying for a train is a significant lifestyle change. People get really mad when rent goes up by this much too. So all in all, we don't need any car dependence exceptionalism to expect a lot of push back.
- huytersd 3y ago
  I haven’t lived in NYC for a few years now but wasn’t the toll to cross the bridge already between $12-15? How is this a significant change?
  - nfRfqX5n 3y ago
    $15 for bridge/tunnel + $15 for congestion. doubling the cost sounds significant to me.
    - huytersd 3y ago
      Oh interesting. This isn’t just a bridge toll, this is a surcharge on top of that. This is going to kill traffic in Manhattan. The PATH is about to get really crowded (more than it is already).
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- derlvative 3y ago
  You can't afford 300 bucks a month you can't afford to own a car in NYC. Take the bus, it's cheaper
  - gravypod 3y ago
    Many people who are unhappy with this tax are people who live in NJ where cost of living is significantly lower and it is much more affordable to own a car. Many people who live in NJ work in the city.
squeaky-clean 3y ago
This is much more expensive than the equivalent trip on a train.
- bashtoni 3y ago
  That rather depends how you define expensive doesn't it? The toll is per vehicle and not per person. The price paid per vehicle is massively higher for the train.
- aqme28 3y ago
  Which makes sense, because a train is much more efficient per-person than a car.
rsanek 3y ago
Except, you own your car and have to pay to maintain it already. A better comparison would be taxis, which we do pay for per-use, like with a train.
- acdha 3y ago
  That’s far from universally true and for the median household it’s a significant expense forced on them by past generations’ planning decisions. That also doesn’t address the reasoning behind this decision: cars are a major health risk and entail significant quality of life reduction. Taxing negative externalities is a textbook way to shrink them, and your sunk cost in car ownership doesn’t have any effect of the costs to the communities you drive through.
IAmGraydon 3y ago
Well let’s see…we paid for the road already, we pay tax on the gas and we pay tax on the vehicle every year just for owning it. Now onto the train…we didn’t pay for the track in most cases and we don’t pay property tax as we don’t own the vehicle. It’s not that we’re overly car-centric. It’s that we’ve already been charged at least three ways to drive on that road and now they want to add another.
- 310260 3y ago
  Maybe consider that a car is just an expensive thing to own? Why should costs stop at cost-of-ownership when cars affect the lives of more than just their owners?
  - freedomben 3y ago
    Did you read the comment you replied to? There are already a bunch of taxes in place on it, and this is adding another tax. They aren't saying there should be no taxes at all. As far as cost-of-ownership, the trains are actually the thing being subsidized here, not cars. I hate cars in the city, and I think the argument that cars are a negative externality and that for car owners to pay the true cost requires some taxation, but let's be honest about what we're arguing for. but strawman arguments don't help anybody.
    - tidbits 3y ago
      Gas tax doesn't even begin to cover the externalities of burning that gas. Vehicle taxes go entirely towards the administrative costs of vehicles (i.e. DMV) and also don't cover externalities. Sure the road is already built but it was funded by all tax payers, not all of which drive cars. And roads require maintenance, also tax payer funded. Society at large subsidizes cars and drivers, giving them huge chunks of land while making most cities inhospitable to pedestrians, causing almost as many deaths as guns in the US. A giant, heavy, extremely dangerous machine is just about the worst way to transport people. Maybe we should stop subsidizing it entirely and taxing it to lower use like we did with cigarettes?
    - 3y ago
up2isomorphism 3y ago
You pay for the wine, but you don't pay for something more important for you, air. I guess we have to really think a little bit before pushing agenda like this. BTW, there are only 1/5 of people in Manhattan has a car, which not really can be called "car centric".
- TheNorthman 3y ago
  > BTW, there are only 1/5 of people in The argument isn't that Manhattan is car-centric qua its people, the argument is that Manhattan is car-centric qua its infrastructure.
Daz1 3y ago
[flagged]
- wepple 3y ago
  > I thought this site was for intelligent comments? Comments like this add nothing of value toHN discourse, somewhat ironically.
tim333 3y ago
The ability to travel down roads and paths has been a major part of life for centuries whether by foot, horse, car or whatever. The land you travel over was there before humans evolved. Blocking that is always going to be a bit controversial. Trains on the other hand don't exist unless someone pays to build them.
- addcommitpush 3y ago
  As opposed to roads, which exist in nature when there is no one paid to build them.
drumttocs8 3y ago
I own the car and pay taxes that are partially used to build/maintain highway infrastructure. I do not own the train. I guess it's true that my taxes were partially used to subsidize the tracks without my consent, though.
- nostrebored 3y ago
  The taxes go to the administrative costs of driving. The multiple billions of dollars per year that each state spends maintaining road infrastructure comes from everyone, regardless of participation.
navane 3y ago
Pay per usage seams fair, but its usually a regressive tax. Joe Schmoe who needs to drive for his work or small business shelling out 15 bucks per day hits different than Joe Apple not even noticing this expense while driving from the jewelry too the theater.

probablynish 3y ago

This is not really a fair comparison - even without a congestion toll, people have to pay to drive on a road. They need to buy the car, pay for its maintenance, fill it with gas, pay for insurance, pay annual registration fees to help maintain the roads. Presumably some of the money from buying a train ticket goes into doing the equivalent things: purchasing and maintaining the trains, etc. Not saying the implicit subsidies/taxes on each mode of transport is equal, but it doesn't seem to be as simple as 'one is paid and the other is free'.

acdha 3y ago
Most of the things you mentioned only benefit the car owner, and they can choose to adjust them based on their need and budget. This is about the cost to other people for your choices: if you buy an SUV, you get the positive effect of feeling more macho but the people whose health is at greater risk as a direct consequence of that decision aren’t consulted. This kind of thing allows those communities to provide the negative feedback required to keep a system stable.
- Zpalmtree 3y ago
  You're clearly not arguing in good faith when you suggest the only reason people buy an SUV is to feel macho. You know women own them too?
  - acdha 3y ago
    Yes, for the same reasons – the desire to feel strong and powerful isn’t exclusive to men! That product class has a higher profit margin so car companies have been running a marketing campaign for decades promoting them as powerful, safe, etc. to get buyers to pay extra.

hibikir 3y ago

It's $15 a day: $300 if you commute 20 days a month. That's not a small price change. I find that tolls are a good idea, but suspect that we'd have significant complaints situation if the MTA decided to raise the prices of the 30 day pass by, say $300 a month in one sitting. People made decisions based on existing prices, and a change this big. Going around the price changes by moving or parking further out and then paying for a train is a significant lifestyle change. People get really mad when rent goes up by this much too. So all in all, we don't need any car dependence exceptionalism to expect a lot of push back.

huytersd 3y ago
I haven’t lived in NYC for a few years now but wasn’t the toll to cross the bridge already between $12-15? How is this a significant change?
- nfRfqX5n 3y ago
  $15 for bridge/tunnel + $15 for congestion. doubling the cost sounds significant to me.
  - huytersd 3y ago
    Oh interesting. This isn’t just a bridge toll, this is a surcharge on top of that. This is going to kill traffic in Manhattan. The PATH is about to get really crowded (more than it is already).
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
derlvative 3y ago
You can't afford 300 bucks a month you can't afford to own a car in NYC. Take the bus, it's cheaper
- gravypod 3y ago
  Many people who are unhappy with this tax are people who live in NJ where cost of living is significantly lower and it is much more affordable to own a car. Many people who live in NJ work in the city.

squeaky-clean 3y ago

This is much more expensive than the equivalent trip on a train.

bashtoni 3y ago
That rather depends how you define expensive doesn't it? The toll is per vehicle and not per person. The price paid per vehicle is massively higher for the train.
aqme28 3y ago
Which makes sense, because a train is much more efficient per-person than a car.

rsanek 3y ago

Except, you own your car and have to pay to maintain it already. A better comparison would be taxis, which we do pay for per-use, like with a train.

acdha 3y ago
That’s far from universally true and for the median household it’s a significant expense forced on them by past generations’ planning decisions. That also doesn’t address the reasoning behind this decision: cars are a major health risk and entail significant quality of life reduction. Taxing negative externalities is a textbook way to shrink them, and your sunk cost in car ownership doesn’t have any effect of the costs to the communities you drive through.

IAmGraydon 3y ago

Well let’s see…we paid for the road already, we pay tax on the gas and we pay tax on the vehicle every year just for owning it. Now onto the train…we didn’t pay for the track in most cases and we don’t pay property tax as we don’t own the vehicle. It’s not that we’re overly car-centric. It’s that we’ve already been charged at least three ways to drive on that road and now they want to add another.

310260 3y ago
Maybe consider that a car is just an expensive thing to own? Why should costs stop at cost-of-ownership when cars affect the lives of more than just their owners?
- freedomben 3y ago
  Did you read the comment you replied to? There are already a bunch of taxes in place on it, and this is adding another tax. They aren't saying there should be no taxes at all. As far as cost-of-ownership, the trains are actually the thing being subsidized here, not cars. I hate cars in the city, and I think the argument that cars are a negative externality and that for car owners to pay the true cost requires some taxation, but let's be honest about what we're arguing for. but strawman arguments don't help anybody.
  - tidbits 3y ago
    Gas tax doesn't even begin to cover the externalities of burning that gas. Vehicle taxes go entirely towards the administrative costs of vehicles (i.e. DMV) and also don't cover externalities. Sure the road is already built but it was funded by all tax payers, not all of which drive cars. And roads require maintenance, also tax payer funded. Society at large subsidizes cars and drivers, giving them huge chunks of land while making most cities inhospitable to pedestrians, causing almost as many deaths as guns in the US. A giant, heavy, extremely dangerous machine is just about the worst way to transport people. Maybe we should stop subsidizing it entirely and taxing it to lower use like we did with cigarettes?
  - 3y ago

up2isomorphism 3y ago

You pay for the wine, but you don't pay for something more important for you, air. I guess we have to really think a little bit before pushing agenda like this. BTW, there are only 1/5 of people in Manhattan has a car, which not really can be called "car centric".

TheNorthman 3y ago
> BTW, there are only 1/5 of people in The argument isn't that Manhattan is car-centric qua its people, the argument is that Manhattan is car-centric qua its infrastructure.

Daz1 3y ago

[flagged]

wepple 3y ago
> I thought this site was for intelligent comments? Comments like this add nothing of value toHN discourse, somewhat ironically.

tim333 3y ago

The ability to travel down roads and paths has been a major part of life for centuries whether by foot, horse, car or whatever. The land you travel over was there before humans evolved. Blocking that is always going to be a bit controversial. Trains on the other hand don't exist unless someone pays to build them.

addcommitpush 3y ago
As opposed to roads, which exist in nature when there is no one paid to build them.

drumttocs8 3y ago

I own the car and pay taxes that are partially used to build/maintain highway infrastructure. I do not own the train. I guess it's true that my taxes were partially used to subsidize the tracks without my consent, though.

nostrebored 3y ago
The taxes go to the administrative costs of driving. The multiple billions of dollars per year that each state spends maintaining road infrastructure comes from everyone, regardless of participation.

navane 3y ago

Pay per usage seams fair, but its usually a regressive tax. Joe Schmoe who needs to drive for his work or small business shelling out 15 bucks per day hits different than Joe Apple not even noticing this expense while driving from the jewelry too the theater.