5 ms·

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 t

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.
dlp211 3y ago
> Car congestion fees are touted but they are rarely effective Citation needed. All studies I have seen suggest that congestion pricing achieves its desired outcomes of reducing car traffic and is the most effective way of doing so.
- seoulmetro 3y ago
  Nope. Draining the pool and filling it with more water is not an effective way of cleaning the pool. The pool ends up clean though so you can lead any study you want. It's not effective. It's just prohibitive. Prohibiting people stops things, who would have guessed.
  - mlyle 3y ago
    Non-toll roadways are a common-pool resource with significant externalities. They invite overuse and push most of the harms of overuse on others (locals, pedestrians, etc). Congestion charges or tolls are a good way to put a price on the resource and make market mechanisms work. Then the resources can be used for whatever produces the greatest benefit (and thus is willing to pay the most for use of the resource), and the tolls obtained can pay to address the externalities.
    - seoulmetro 3y ago
      Tolls are there to pay for the new roadwork(s) (and in some cases, line private company profits). Nothing more. Anything else is not effective, it's just prohibitive.
      - mlyle 3y ago
        It's good to have any scarce common resource be bid for, rather than giving it to whomever shows up first, is willing to wait longest, etc. If 150k people want to go, it's usually better that the 100k people who value the road the most get through quickly, instead of having a random 110k get through after a large traffic jam.
helsinkiandrew 3y ago
The London and Singapore congestion schemes have been running for decades with clear, measured benefits. https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/143883/londons-congestion-charge-celebrates-20-years-of-success/ https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/143883/l... https://www.oecd.org/climate-action/ipac/practices/london-s-congestion-charge-and-its-low-emission-zones-c6cd48e9/ https://www.oecd.org/climate-action/ipac/practices/london-s-...
- seoulmetro 3y ago
  Killing people benefits against environmental disasters like global warming and pollution too. That doesn't make it effective.

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.

dlp211 3y ago

> Car congestion fees are touted but they are rarely effective Citation needed. All studies I have seen suggest that congestion pricing achieves its desired outcomes of reducing car traffic and is the most effective way of doing so.

seoulmetro 3y ago
Nope. Draining the pool and filling it with more water is not an effective way of cleaning the pool. The pool ends up clean though so you can lead any study you want. It's not effective. It's just prohibitive. Prohibiting people stops things, who would have guessed.
- mlyle 3y ago
  Non-toll roadways are a common-pool resource with significant externalities. They invite overuse and push most of the harms of overuse on others (locals, pedestrians, etc). Congestion charges or tolls are a good way to put a price on the resource and make market mechanisms work. Then the resources can be used for whatever produces the greatest benefit (and thus is willing to pay the most for use of the resource), and the tolls obtained can pay to address the externalities.
  - seoulmetro 3y ago
    Tolls are there to pay for the new roadwork(s) (and in some cases, line private company profits). Nothing more. Anything else is not effective, it's just prohibitive.
    - mlyle 3y ago
      It's good to have any scarce common resource be bid for, rather than giving it to whomever shows up first, is willing to wait longest, etc. If 150k people want to go, it's usually better that the 100k people who value the road the most get through quickly, instead of having a random 110k get through after a large traffic jam.

helsinkiandrew 3y ago

The London and Singapore congestion schemes have been running for decades with clear, measured benefits. https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/143883/londons-congestion-charge-celebrates-20-years-of-success/ https://www.intelligenttransport.com/transport-news/143883/l... https://www.oecd.org/climate-action/ipac/practices/london-s-congestion-charge-and-its-low-emission-zones-c6cd48e9/ https://www.oecd.org/climate-action/ipac/practices/london-s-...

seoulmetro 3y ago
Killing people benefits against environmental disasters like global warming and pollution too. That doesn't make it effective.