6 ms·

Better/cheaper train solutions would seem to be the desired fix though not just raising prices to random high numbers. I agree that this will likely have a goo

by bogota 3y ago

Better/cheaper train solutions would seem to be the desired fix though not just raising prices to random high numbers. I agree that this will likely have a good outcome in the end but something about it just seems wrong to me.

KptMarchewa 3y ago
It's hard to exactly tax externalities.
bobthepanda 3y ago
The high tolls are going to subsidize the trains.
- bogota 3y ago
  So are train tickets going down in price or more seats being added?
  - anotherhue 3y ago
    More bag searches obviously.
  - bradleyjg 3y ago
    They’ll be six workers standing around not doing anything while one works, up from five.
  - selcuka 3y ago
    Nothing goes down in price. Ticket prices will remain the same, but salaries will increase because of inflation, so yes, they will become more affordable. At least that's the theory.
  - roywiggins 3y ago
    Capital projects on the subway: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/nyregion/mta-congestion-pricing-nj-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/nyregion/mta-congestion-p...
  - Reason077 3y ago
    > "So are train tickets going down in price or more seats being added?" You can answer this question by looking at the existing service. Are the trains crowded, unreliable, and/or running over capacity? In that case it would be better to spend the extra money on upgrading the service. Or is the service good but not enough people are using it? In that case it may be better to use the money to reduce ticket prices. Whatever gets more people to ride the trains is going to be the best solution.
    - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
      It's actually "neither of the above": the congestion funding is simply going to replace federal funding (mostly Covid relief stuff) that is due to roll off.
      - lkbm 3y ago
        The article links to another article[0] (way down in the final paragraph) about how some transit upgrades were put on hold because they were 50% funded by the congestion pricing: > The MTA said money from congestion pricing makes up more than 50% of funding for the agency’s capital program Presumably, those specific things can now get back underway: > Projects that rely on the funding include modern signaling on the A train to Far Rockaway, more ADA-accessible stations and phase two of the Second Avenue subway. [0] https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2024/02/16/mta-halts-contracts-amid-congestion-pricing-litigation https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2024/02/16/mta-halt...
        NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
        I mean, sure, that's obviously the way the MTA wants you to look at this; and indeed the congestion pricing funds are restricted to be used on the capital budget. But that's meaningless; since capital funding from the congestion pricing lockbox will just displace debt issuance, so it's effectively just taking pressure off the operating budget, which is where the current federal funding is going.
- exegete 3y ago
  Subsidize which trains? Not the ones from NJ (NJTransit). These tolls will only be used for MTA (NY). I’m for congestion pricing but NJ trains and buses are not going to benefit from this.
  - emeril 3y ago
    NJTransit will benefit by increased ridership I will benefit personally as a NJTransit bus rider by, I hope, having a shorter bus ride (more time to do work and see family) since I sit in 1-2 hours of commuter car induced traffic several days a week As an NJ resident, I very much look forward to this congestion pricing and wish it were $50 instead of $15...
    - DaveExeter 3y ago
      [flagged]
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
    For obvious reasons, the vast majority of public transport systems long for increased patronage above all else.
- moate 3y ago
  Nah. Those tolls go to new york. The people being taxed are predominantly from NJ. Our gov just raised the gas tax to help fund the transit system here, and he’s also suing NY over these tolls. Feel however you want about this, it’s a complicated issue because of our patchworks of states vs federal control.
  - harimau777 3y ago
    If the people paying the tolls work everyday in New York, then I think it would be reasonable to consider them to effectively be New Yorkers as much as they are New Jersiers (New Jersites?). Like you say though, it's complicated. Especially when you have New York and Jersey City that in a lot of ways are almost one city that happens to be in two states.
    - r00fus 3y ago
      Income tax is often divided into where you live AND where you work (ie unemployment is typically work-state dependent). However the where you live part is over-emphasized IMHO.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    I mean this also hits anyone coming from an outer borough. It’s hardly only a tax on NJ residents
seoulmetro 3y ago
Car congestion fees are touted but they are rarely effective, except at keeping poor people from moving around. It's just another dial the lazy can inflict on the population to pretend like they're solving the issue. Reminds me of ye olde window tax.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Yep. I don't know the situation around NYC, but in the bay area, lower-income folks have been getting pushed out of SF and most of the peninsula, and have moved farther out. Something like this (e.g. if they were to analogously increase the Bay Bridge toll) just hurts lower-income folks even more. They have no choice: they need to drive to where the jobs are, but can't afford to live where the jobs are. And the transit options are laughable. It's great for the people served by BART or Caltrain, but there are a lot of people far enough from a station to make it less than useful for them. So even with the traffic, they make the entirely logical choice to spend 2 hours commuting rather than 4.
  - nostrebored 3y ago
    This is a NIMBY induced problem. If upward construction had been allowed, this wouldn’t be the case.
    - inpdx 3y ago
      Who to blame probably does not matter one whit to those affected.
  - macNchz 3y ago
    In NYC, the overwhelming majority of low-income workers commute by public transit.
  - seoulmetro 3y ago
    It's easier to place the blame on something when you eliminate all casual or affordable use of that thing. You can stand back and say "see, it is this thing". Not mentioning the problems that eliminating and enforcing the ban of casual use brings about on required use. Lazy weapons against problems are just barely better than sort-of-bad solutions. But if you look in the long term, the lazy weapons scorch the earth so that better solutions can't come along.

by bogota 3y ago

KptMarchewa 3y ago

It's hard to exactly tax externalities.

bobthepanda 3y ago

The high tolls are going to subsidize the trains.

bogota 3y ago
So are train tickets going down in price or more seats being added?
- anotherhue 3y ago
  More bag searches obviously.
- bradleyjg 3y ago
  They’ll be six workers standing around not doing anything while one works, up from five.
- selcuka 3y ago
  Nothing goes down in price. Ticket prices will remain the same, but salaries will increase because of inflation, so yes, they will become more affordable. At least that's the theory.
- roywiggins 3y ago
  Capital projects on the subway: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/nyregion/mta-congestion-pricing-nj-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/25/nyregion/mta-congestion-p...
- Reason077 3y ago
  > "So are train tickets going down in price or more seats being added?" You can answer this question by looking at the existing service. Are the trains crowded, unreliable, and/or running over capacity? In that case it would be better to spend the extra money on upgrading the service. Or is the service good but not enough people are using it? In that case it may be better to use the money to reduce ticket prices. Whatever gets more people to ride the trains is going to be the best solution.
  - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
    It's actually "neither of the above": the congestion funding is simply going to replace federal funding (mostly Covid relief stuff) that is due to roll off.
    - lkbm 3y ago
      The article links to another article[0] (way down in the final paragraph) about how some transit upgrades were put on hold because they were 50% funded by the congestion pricing: > The MTA said money from congestion pricing makes up more than 50% of funding for the agency’s capital program Presumably, those specific things can now get back underway: > Projects that rely on the funding include modern signaling on the A train to Far Rockaway, more ADA-accessible stations and phase two of the Second Avenue subway. [0] https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2024/02/16/mta-halts-contracts-amid-congestion-pricing-litigation https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/transit/2024/02/16/mta-halt...
      - NovemberWhiskey 3y ago
        I mean, sure, that's obviously the way the MTA wants you to look at this; and indeed the congestion pricing funds are restricted to be used on the capital budget. But that's meaningless; since capital funding from the congestion pricing lockbox will just displace debt issuance, so it's effectively just taking pressure off the operating budget, which is where the current federal funding is going.
exegete 3y ago
Subsidize which trains? Not the ones from NJ (NJTransit). These tolls will only be used for MTA (NY). I’m for congestion pricing but NJ trains and buses are not going to benefit from this.
- emeril 3y ago
  NJTransit will benefit by increased ridership I will benefit personally as a NJTransit bus rider by, I hope, having a shorter bus ride (more time to do work and see family) since I sit in 1-2 hours of commuter car induced traffic several days a week As an NJ resident, I very much look forward to this congestion pricing and wish it were $50 instead of $15...
  - DaveExeter 3y ago
    [flagged]
- cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
  For obvious reasons, the vast majority of public transport systems long for increased patronage above all else.
moate 3y ago
Nah. Those tolls go to new york. The people being taxed are predominantly from NJ. Our gov just raised the gas tax to help fund the transit system here, and he’s also suing NY over these tolls. Feel however you want about this, it’s a complicated issue because of our patchworks of states vs federal control.
- harimau777 3y ago
  If the people paying the tolls work everyday in New York, then I think it would be reasonable to consider them to effectively be New Yorkers as much as they are New Jersiers (New Jersites?). Like you say though, it's complicated. Especially when you have New York and Jersey City that in a lot of ways are almost one city that happens to be in two states.
  - r00fus 3y ago
    Income tax is often divided into where you live AND where you work (ie unemployment is typically work-state dependent). However the where you live part is over-emphasized IMHO.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  I mean this also hits anyone coming from an outer borough. It’s hardly only a tax on NJ residents

seoulmetro 3y ago

Car congestion fees are touted but they are rarely effective, except at keeping poor people from moving around. It's just another dial the lazy can inflict on the population to pretend like they're solving the issue. Reminds me of ye olde window tax.

kelnos 3y ago
Yep. I don't know the situation around NYC, but in the bay area, lower-income folks have been getting pushed out of SF and most of the peninsula, and have moved farther out. Something like this (e.g. if they were to analogously increase the Bay Bridge toll) just hurts lower-income folks even more. They have no choice: they need to drive to where the jobs are, but can't afford to live where the jobs are. And the transit options are laughable. It's great for the people served by BART or Caltrain, but there are a lot of people far enough from a station to make it less than useful for them. So even with the traffic, they make the entirely logical choice to spend 2 hours commuting rather than 4.
- nostrebored 3y ago
  This is a NIMBY induced problem. If upward construction had been allowed, this wouldn’t be the case.
  - inpdx 3y ago
    Who to blame probably does not matter one whit to those affected.
- macNchz 3y ago
  In NYC, the overwhelming majority of low-income workers commute by public transit.
- seoulmetro 3y ago
  It's easier to place the blame on something when you eliminate all casual or affordable use of that thing. You can stand back and say "see, it is this thing". Not mentioning the problems that eliminating and enforcing the ban of casual use brings about on required use. Lazy weapons against problems are just barely better than sort-of-bad solutions. But if you look in the long term, the lazy weapons scorch the earth so that better solutions can't come along.