4 ms·

I think it's highly unlikely to result in positive effects. I would be hoping that it only harms NYC economic condition "a little", as the best case outcome.

I think it's highly unlikely to result in positive effects. I would be hoping that it only harms NYC economic condition "a little", as the best case outcome. This falls solidly in the "it sounds good but causes significant negative unintended consequences" bucket of regulation, like the rest of NYC's many regulations that led up to this point.

scarab92 2y ago
Why do you think that? Congestion pricing is a way to price an externality, which is usually a good thing compared to externalities being free.
- Ferret7446 2y ago
  The externality is already "priced in" to the traffic. People who can wait in traffic or can't afford not to wait in traffic do so, and people who want to skip out can as well. Congestion pricing, like many fees and regulations, is a regressive tax, because the overhead seeps into all goods and services and it impacts the poor most of all and the rich not at all.
  - tptacek 2y ago
    In the absence of pricing, people who do not want to wait cannot opt out of traffic, so the rebuttal here seems imperfect.
  - vinay427 2y ago
    The median income of a household with a car in the city is more than double that of households without cars [1]. In a city where public transport is a viable and relatively cheap alternative, it doesn’t seem obvious that it disproportionately impacts the poor, unlike for instance a flat sales tax on essential goods. [1] https://blog.tstc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/how-car-free-is-nyc.pdf https://blog.tstc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/how-car-fre...
    - bushbaba 2y ago
      It disproportionately impacts the working lower classes. Poor in NYC likely means homeless. Dual income McDonalds working family is above the CarLess HHI median wage in the reports you linked. That same worker is heavily impacted by congestion pricing vs say a Quant trader 17$/hr * 50hrs/week * 52weeks/year * 2 earners = 88.5k/year
      - hombre_fatal 2y ago
        The dual income McDonalds worker was never driving into Manhattan. Though the fixation on “poor people” is fake. 100 studies could come out explaining that congestion pricing is better for poor people and the opponents aren’t going to change their view on it. It’s a fake argument used to launder more selfish opinions.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      If they only taxed passenger vehicles you'd have a point, but the cost for trucks is actually higher (up to more than double), which means that in the end it is a tax on essential goods, because those goods have to make it into the city somehow and businesses have to pass that cost on to customers. It's reasonable to be afraid that poor customers will see the largest change as a percent of their budget as prices go up to pay for the tax (though obviously we haven't had time to measure whether that to see for sure).
  - zip1234 2y ago
    The externality of noise and smog for people living there is not priced in wait time for drivers.
  - paulgb 2y ago
    > … the overhead seeps into all goods and services… We have always paid a congestion tax on goods and services, it’s just been in the form of paying workers to sit in traffic.
  - zzzeek 2y ago
    traffic is a crappy externality that harms everyone, drivers, non-drivers. non-drivers are harmed by pollution, slower buses and cabs, noise, slower emergency response times. drivers are harmed by all those things as well plus the stress and inconvenience of extreme traffic. the point of congestion pricing is to reduce the so-called "traffic tax" that everyone pays into one that is just a toll, that only drivers pay. reducing traffic is a direct goal of the toll.
- Projectiboga 2y ago
  There is only one singular goal written into the enabling law for this Congestion Tax, renenue for the NYC MTA transit system's capital plan. They have to raise one billion dollars per year. Any reducing congestion or any altering of pollution were only part of getting Federal approval. Now the only purpose is to raise money with 5 years of hikes already scheduled. This is going to uave drastic unintended consequences. I predict a theatre and retail recession. And more office divestment if this regressive tax isn't repealed or forced to focus on emissions or some non revenue goal.
  - atoav 2y ago
    Sure it is going to have consequences, but so does not doing anything as well. Not to be that guy, but from a European standpoint the clear answer is: If you make driving cars into the big city expensive, if you still wanna get people there you need to give them other, cheap, more space-efficient ways of getting there. Public transport, bus lines, trains, stuff that Asian megacities do as well. Or you can build even more lanes and parking lots, because that worked out great and was without any consequences so far /s I am not saying I trust in the success of NY congestion pricing, but that has nothing to do with the measure (it is fine) and everything to do with how how half-assed it might be implemented. But elsewhere similar concepts work just fine. But hey, so does healthcare..
djrobstep 2y ago
What are you talking about? It will have overwhelmingly strongly positive effects, while also raising revenue to fund stuff like more transit. Congestion charging is great and every city should do it!
- lolinder 2y ago
  You're both just asserting your positions as facts without even providing an argument, much less evidence.
Twirrim 2y ago
It has been highly successful in London. Less congestion, better air quality, incentivises the most disruptive things like heavy good vehicles to deliver out of rush hour reducing impact on other traffic etc.
- deanc 2y ago
  My ancedotal experience of driving around London once or twice a year for the last ten years is there hasn't been a huge change. I don't trust TFL data on this as the authorities are incentivised to report figures to support the gathering of the additional revenue stream. At least this study [1] suggests a mild improvement but interestingly replacing one pollutant with another (due to diesel exemptions). In my opinion, we should primary focus on improving the standards of public transport. Safety, cleanliness, punctuality and price. I'm a car owner living 15mins drive from downtown of a European capital city, and I refuse to drive near the city because the parking is expensive, there's always roadworks but primarily the public transport is excellent and comfortable. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046220302581 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01660...
  - Symbiote 2y ago
    Why would there be a change in London within the last 10 years? Congestion charging was introduced in 2003.
    - deanc 2y ago
      ULEZ was introduced for a start.
      - Symbiote 2y ago
        That affects pollution, but very few vehicles were not compliant so it would have minimal effect on congestion.
  - alamortsubite 2y ago
    You have to go back ~20 years to when congestion pricing was introduced. To my eyes, the change has been dramatic. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-02-what-are-the-main-trends-and-patterns-for-road-traffic-in-london.pdf https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-02-what-are-the-ma...

scarab92 2y ago

Why do you think that? Congestion pricing is a way to price an externality, which is usually a good thing compared to externalities being free.

Ferret7446 2y ago
The externality is already "priced in" to the traffic. People who can wait in traffic or can't afford not to wait in traffic do so, and people who want to skip out can as well. Congestion pricing, like many fees and regulations, is a regressive tax, because the overhead seeps into all goods and services and it impacts the poor most of all and the rich not at all.
- tptacek 2y ago
  In the absence of pricing, people who do not want to wait cannot opt out of traffic, so the rebuttal here seems imperfect.
- vinay427 2y ago
  The median income of a household with a car in the city is more than double that of households without cars [1]. In a city where public transport is a viable and relatively cheap alternative, it doesn’t seem obvious that it disproportionately impacts the poor, unlike for instance a flat sales tax on essential goods. [1] https://blog.tstc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/how-car-free-is-nyc.pdf https://blog.tstc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/how-car-fre...
  - bushbaba 2y ago
    It disproportionately impacts the working lower classes. Poor in NYC likely means homeless. Dual income McDonalds working family is above the CarLess HHI median wage in the reports you linked. That same worker is heavily impacted by congestion pricing vs say a Quant trader 17$/hr * 50hrs/week * 52weeks/year * 2 earners = 88.5k/year
    - hombre_fatal 2y ago
      The dual income McDonalds worker was never driving into Manhattan. Though the fixation on “poor people” is fake. 100 studies could come out explaining that congestion pricing is better for poor people and the opponents aren’t going to change their view on it. It’s a fake argument used to launder more selfish opinions.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    If they only taxed passenger vehicles you'd have a point, but the cost for trucks is actually higher (up to more than double), which means that in the end it is a tax on essential goods, because those goods have to make it into the city somehow and businesses have to pass that cost on to customers. It's reasonable to be afraid that poor customers will see the largest change as a percent of their budget as prices go up to pay for the tax (though obviously we haven't had time to measure whether that to see for sure).
- zip1234 2y ago
  The externality of noise and smog for people living there is not priced in wait time for drivers.
- paulgb 2y ago
  > … the overhead seeps into all goods and services… We have always paid a congestion tax on goods and services, it’s just been in the form of paying workers to sit in traffic.
- zzzeek 2y ago
  traffic is a crappy externality that harms everyone, drivers, non-drivers. non-drivers are harmed by pollution, slower buses and cabs, noise, slower emergency response times. drivers are harmed by all those things as well plus the stress and inconvenience of extreme traffic. the point of congestion pricing is to reduce the so-called "traffic tax" that everyone pays into one that is just a toll, that only drivers pay. reducing traffic is a direct goal of the toll.
Projectiboga 2y ago
There is only one singular goal written into the enabling law for this Congestion Tax, renenue for the NYC MTA transit system's capital plan. They have to raise one billion dollars per year. Any reducing congestion or any altering of pollution were only part of getting Federal approval. Now the only purpose is to raise money with 5 years of hikes already scheduled. This is going to uave drastic unintended consequences. I predict a theatre and retail recession. And more office divestment if this regressive tax isn't repealed or forced to focus on emissions or some non revenue goal.
- atoav 2y ago
  Sure it is going to have consequences, but so does not doing anything as well. Not to be that guy, but from a European standpoint the clear answer is: If you make driving cars into the big city expensive, if you still wanna get people there you need to give them other, cheap, more space-efficient ways of getting there. Public transport, bus lines, trains, stuff that Asian megacities do as well. Or you can build even more lanes and parking lots, because that worked out great and was without any consequences so far /s I am not saying I trust in the success of NY congestion pricing, but that has nothing to do with the measure (it is fine) and everything to do with how how half-assed it might be implemented. But elsewhere similar concepts work just fine. But hey, so does healthcare..

djrobstep 2y ago

What are you talking about? It will have overwhelmingly strongly positive effects, while also raising revenue to fund stuff like more transit. Congestion charging is great and every city should do it!

lolinder 2y ago
You're both just asserting your positions as facts without even providing an argument, much less evidence.

Twirrim 2y ago

It has been highly successful in London. Less congestion, better air quality, incentivises the most disruptive things like heavy good vehicles to deliver out of rush hour reducing impact on other traffic etc.

deanc 2y ago
My ancedotal experience of driving around London once or twice a year for the last ten years is there hasn't been a huge change. I don't trust TFL data on this as the authorities are incentivised to report figures to support the gathering of the additional revenue stream. At least this study [1] suggests a mild improvement but interestingly replacing one pollutant with another (due to diesel exemptions). In my opinion, we should primary focus on improving the standards of public transport. Safety, cleanliness, punctuality and price. I'm a car owner living 15mins drive from downtown of a European capital city, and I refuse to drive near the city because the parking is expensive, there's always roadworks but primarily the public transport is excellent and comfortable. [1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0166046220302581 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S01660...
- Symbiote 2y ago
  Why would there be a change in London within the last 10 years? Congestion charging was introduced in 2003.
  - deanc 2y ago
    ULEZ was introduced for a start.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      That affects pollution, but very few vehicles were not compliant so it would have minimal effect on congestion.
- alamortsubite 2y ago
  You have to go back ~20 years to when congestion pricing was introduced. To my eyes, the change has been dramatic. https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-02-what-are-the-main-trends-and-patterns-for-road-traffic-in-london.pdf https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-02-what-are-the-ma...