3 ms·

It unfortunately doesn't matter how good of policy it is, it's a culture-war issue.

jimmaswell 2y ago
I'm all for transit but congestion pricing never sat right with me. It's as regressive of a tax as a regressive tax can get. Ends don't justify means. And it comes off like throwing in the towel on making transit attractive enough to draw people away from driving, as if the only possible way to do so is to financially beat them into submission. I don't see that resulting in good public support for transit, stuffing it full of unwilling people who resent being herded there. On the other hand, if you make the transit good enough on its own merit, people will switch without a metaphorical cattle prod behind them. Carrot vs stick.
- ninthcat 2y ago
  I don't think it's quite correct to call it a regressive tax. Driving a car in Manhattan is a luxury, so this is a tax on a luxury that subsidizes transportation that works for everyone.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    Taxes on luxury goods typically aren't expected to significantly reduce their consumption, because they're purchased by price-insensitive wealthy people. But the congestion pricing seems to be deterring use, and indeed is explicitly intended to, so who are these price-sensitive people being subject to the tax?
- kccqzy 2y ago
  Where do the funds to make transit good enough come from? Hint: one funding source was cancelled today by the current administration.
  - tlogan 2y ago
    Here is an idea: increase tax on properties worth more than 2M. Or maybe increase income tax for people who make more than 500k a year?
    - kccqzy 2y ago
      I like both of these ideas. I hope you have success in pitching these two ideas to the relevant government.
      - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
        The relevant government in this case is New York, isn't it? Aren't they under the control of the opposite party from the federal government right now?
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> It unfortunately doesn't matter how good of policy it is, it's a culture-war issue. The trouble is that also means people are cherry picking results. There was never any doubt that putting a heavy tax on something could deter use. The question is, at what cost? You now have middle income tradespeople who need a car because they have to transport their equipment paying the congestion pricing, or passing it on as higher prices to their middle income customers. It's a regressive tax. It also deters people from commuting by car, as was the intention, but without supplying an alternative to it. So now it costs more to e.g. commute from New Jersey because you either have to pay the congestion pricing or use a less convenient means of commuting. Which in turn means it costs more to live in New Jersey relative to New York, driving up demand for New York real estate and exacerbating the high rents there. Whereas if you would, for example, reduce car traffic in Manhattan by allowing taller buildings in the other burroughs from which Manhattan is conveniently accessible via subway line, you don't have a regressive tax and don't drive up overall rents, and maybe that's the better option to achieve the same goal.

I'm all for transit but congestion pricing never sat right with me. It's as regressive of a tax as a regressive tax can get. Ends don't justify means. And it comes off like throwing in the towel on making transit attractive enough to draw people away from driving, as if the only possible way to do so is to financially beat them into submission. I don't see that resulting in good public support for transit, stuffing it full of unwilling people who resent being herded there. On the other hand, if you make the transit good enough on its own merit, people will switch without a metaphorical cattle prod behind them. Carrot vs stick.

ninthcat 2y ago
I don't think it's quite correct to call it a regressive tax. Driving a car in Manhattan is a luxury, so this is a tax on a luxury that subsidizes transportation that works for everyone.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  Taxes on luxury goods typically aren't expected to significantly reduce their consumption, because they're purchased by price-insensitive wealthy people. But the congestion pricing seems to be deterring use, and indeed is explicitly intended to, so who are these price-sensitive people being subject to the tax?
kccqzy 2y ago
Where do the funds to make transit good enough come from? Hint: one funding source was cancelled today by the current administration.
- tlogan 2y ago
  Here is an idea: increase tax on properties worth more than 2M. Or maybe increase income tax for people who make more than 500k a year?
  - kccqzy 2y ago
    I like both of these ideas. I hope you have success in pitching these two ideas to the relevant government.
    - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
      The relevant government in this case is New York, isn't it? Aren't they under the control of the opposite party from the federal government right now?

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> It unfortunately doesn't matter how good of policy it is, it's a culture-war issue. The trouble is that also means people are cherry picking results. There was never any doubt that putting a heavy tax on something could deter use. The question is, at what cost? You now have middle income tradespeople who need a car because they have to transport their equipment paying the congestion pricing, or passing it on as higher prices to their middle income customers. It's a regressive tax. It also deters people from commuting by car, as was the intention, but without supplying an alternative to it. So now it costs more to e.g. commute from New Jersey because you either have to pay the congestion pricing or use a less convenient means of commuting. Which in turn means it costs more to live in New Jersey relative to New York, driving up demand for New York real estate and exacerbating the high rents there. Whereas if you would, for example, reduce car traffic in Manhattan by allowing taller buildings in the other burroughs from which Manhattan is conveniently accessible via subway line, you don't have a regressive tax and don't drive up overall rents, and maybe that's the better option to achieve the same goal.