3 ms·

Look at the carpool lanes in the Bay Area. It’s as much as $9 for a couple of miles around the Palo Alto / Atherton area and there’s no lack of cars. Then there

Look at the carpool lanes in the Bay Area. It’s as much as $9 for a couple of miles around the Palo Alto / Atherton area and there’s no lack of cars. Then there’s like another $5 or something between that area and Santa Clara. Maybe it will work in NYC, but in the Bay Area I can’t help but feel like it’s a regressive tax because people who already have the money will continue their ways and pay but people who are on a budget now have to wait longer to get anywhere in the peninsula. SF has a ton of folk coming from quite a ways away and it can easily take 2x the time if using public transit. Outside of rush hour Caltrain can take 1.5-2h, and Bart from Berryessa isn’t quick (plus contending with BART delays).

donmcronald 2y ago
> I can’t help but feel like it’s a regressive tax That’s exactly what it is. The richer you are, the better it is. Now people on a budget will pay taxes to subsidize infrastructure that’s only accessible to the wealthy. It’s a massive scam perpetrated by the rich for the rich. Why stop with roads? Why not have congestion pricing for schools or hospitals or access to water? That way we only have to build enough infrastructure to serve the wealthiest half of society.
- afavour 2y ago
  In NYC it’s nothing new. A parking spot is already completely unaffordable for the average worker so they don’t drive in anyway. The vast majority of folks affected by the congestion charge are wealthy, or businesses the serve the wealthy (who will pass on the cost).
- Analemma_ 2y ago
  > Now people on a budget will pay taxes to subsidize infrastructure that’s only accessible to the wealthy. It’s a massive scam perpetrated by the rich for the rich. Huh? The revenue from congestion pricing is used to pay for public transit. The rich people pay extra to subsidize transit for everyone else, which is exactly how things should work.
  - paulgb 2y ago
    There’s a progressive aspect to drivers (higher income on average) subsidizing transit, but I worry that framing leads to drivers feeling they are paying for something that other people use. I prefer the framing that drivers should fund transit because drivers do use transit: NYC would be complete gridlock if transit went into a death spiral and straphangers switched to cars. Even if they never set foot on the MTA, drivers see a lot of the benefit of it existing.
    - Analemma_ 2y ago
      The drivers are paying for something they use: less-congested roads. In theory, if this is priced correctly, everyone is getting what they want: the drivers pay to not have to sit in traffic, everyone else benefits from that revenue to have better mass transit.
0_____0 2y ago
Anything that costs money is 'regressive' if you use your definition. Sure, we could means test every toll and fee, but there's a different solution for that already - taxation. There's a secret third option to congestion, which is you disallow some number of people at a time from using the facility, and people really don't like that one. Dig deeper and you find it's a housing problem anyway. People can't afford to house themselves/their families in the cities they toil in. Build housing near jobs and there's less need to commute in from Tracy.
- thenoblesunfish 2y ago
  Correct. You're acting like your statement refutes the point, though. Charging for things which are publicly shared is regressive.
  - walthamstow 2y ago
    If you're looking for non-regressive ways to share scarce resources, you're going to struggle. In Tehran, for example, only license plates ending with an odd number can drive on Mondays, even numbers on Tuesdays.
    - em500 2y ago
      I've seen such policies in other countries. What typically happens is that the well off buy 2 cars, one with odd and one with even license number.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      > If you're looking for non-regressive ways to share scarce resources, you're going to struggle. It's not actually that hard. You fund them through general taxes rather than fares. Then how much you pay is proportional to how much money you make -- even a flat tax does at least that -- as opposed to the largely fixed amount that corresponds to the amount the average person has to move around in order to live an ordinary life, which is approximately a head tax.

donmcronald 2y ago

> I can’t help but feel like it’s a regressive tax That’s exactly what it is. The richer you are, the better it is. Now people on a budget will pay taxes to subsidize infrastructure that’s only accessible to the wealthy. It’s a massive scam perpetrated by the rich for the rich. Why stop with roads? Why not have congestion pricing for schools or hospitals or access to water? That way we only have to build enough infrastructure to serve the wealthiest half of society.

afavour 2y ago
In NYC it’s nothing new. A parking spot is already completely unaffordable for the average worker so they don’t drive in anyway. The vast majority of folks affected by the congestion charge are wealthy, or businesses the serve the wealthy (who will pass on the cost).
Analemma_ 2y ago
> Now people on a budget will pay taxes to subsidize infrastructure that’s only accessible to the wealthy. It’s a massive scam perpetrated by the rich for the rich. Huh? The revenue from congestion pricing is used to pay for public transit. The rich people pay extra to subsidize transit for everyone else, which is exactly how things should work.
- paulgb 2y ago
  There’s a progressive aspect to drivers (higher income on average) subsidizing transit, but I worry that framing leads to drivers feeling they are paying for something that other people use. I prefer the framing that drivers should fund transit because drivers do use transit: NYC would be complete gridlock if transit went into a death spiral and straphangers switched to cars. Even if they never set foot on the MTA, drivers see a lot of the benefit of it existing.
  - Analemma_ 2y ago
    The drivers are paying for something they use: less-congested roads. In theory, if this is priced correctly, everyone is getting what they want: the drivers pay to not have to sit in traffic, everyone else benefits from that revenue to have better mass transit.

0_____0 2y ago

Anything that costs money is 'regressive' if you use your definition. Sure, we could means test every toll and fee, but there's a different solution for that already - taxation. There's a secret third option to congestion, which is you disallow some number of people at a time from using the facility, and people really don't like that one. Dig deeper and you find it's a housing problem anyway. People can't afford to house themselves/their families in the cities they toil in. Build housing near jobs and there's less need to commute in from Tracy.

thenoblesunfish 2y ago
Correct. You're acting like your statement refutes the point, though. Charging for things which are publicly shared is regressive.
- walthamstow 2y ago
  If you're looking for non-regressive ways to share scarce resources, you're going to struggle. In Tehran, for example, only license plates ending with an odd number can drive on Mondays, even numbers on Tuesdays.
  - em500 2y ago
    I've seen such policies in other countries. What typically happens is that the well off buy 2 cars, one with odd and one with even license number.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > If you're looking for non-regressive ways to share scarce resources, you're going to struggle. It's not actually that hard. You fund them through general taxes rather than fares. Then how much you pay is proportional to how much money you make -- even a flat tax does at least that -- as opposed to the largely fixed amount that corresponds to the amount the average person has to move around in order to live an ordinary life, which is approximately a head tax.