10 ms·
Congestion Pricing Is a Policy Miracle
- jampekka 2y agoI look forward for people emboldened by this coming up with more market based solutions to get the riffraff out of my sight.
- rcpt 2y agoBy riffraff you mean cars? Or are you trying to be cute and suggest something else?
- jampekka 2y agoI mean in general introducing and ramping up fees for basic public services to get poor people to use them less, and getting thus better service for us better off. Imagine how nice e.g. libraries would be with loitering pricing. I don't own, or plan to own, a car, but I still oppose congestion charges based on the marketization of basic public goods.
- trial3 2y agowith all due respect: i admire your confidence, but this is a at best a purposefully uninformed and at worst a child's understanding of what congestion pricing, tolls, and taxes are. i invite you to actually read about what congestion pricing is, how it has been enacted, and how the tolling actually works.
- jampekka 2y agoI think I know the basics. In the NYC implementation entering the toll area is $9 a pop during certain hours, and cheaper outside them. $9 maximum once a day. Low income residents get 50% off. In general the primary purpose of these pricings is to discourage people from using the priced thing, revenue from the fees is a bonus. The price naturally is more painful to pay the less you have money, so the less you have the more you are discouraged.
- bobthepanda 2y agoFunding public transit is for the rich?
- jampekka 2y agoThere are other ways to fund public transit than congestion fees. E.g. taxing (the rich).
- bobthepanda 2y agoBy and large, poor households in the NYC metro area do not even own cars. That fact alone means that pricing road entry is progressive.
- baq 2y agoA car is not a public good, it’s a privilege. A public road might as well be paid for by everyone except municipal services. It’s free because it started this way, ideology of public = free is retconned into roads.
- jampekka 2y agoThe underlying question indeed is what should be public goods for wider public and what should be privileges for the well off.
- BurningFrog 2y agoA "public good" is something like clean air, national defense, or street lighting which is freely available to everyone and where one person's usage doesn't reduce availability for others. It's unfortunately mutated from the Economics definition to a more loose "good for the public" in public discourse, confusing everyone. Street space in Manhattan is not a public good, because with enough cars using it, it becomes more and more useless. To fix that you have to make fewer people want to drive there some way. There are other methods than pricing, but they have problems of their own.
- jampekka 2y agoYes, I meant the more general concept of goods that can be used without fees, for which there doesn't seem to be a great term. Very widely used methods are e.g. reducing lanes, reducing speed limits, banning (private) cars on some roads and decreasing parking space. These are used a lot more widely, and probably a lot more succesfully, than pricing systems. Notably these all are about as discouraging regadless of how much money you have.
- affinepplan 2y agoso somehow roadways are "basic public services" but railways are not? this kinda just exposes the depth of car-centric bias. to any competent urban designer, in a place like Manhattan, public transit is the "basic public service" and cars & roadways are a LUXURY.
- recursive 2y agoBad news. The same people are still mostly going to the same places. They're just using different transport modes. Probably even more in your sight.
- jmclnx 2y agoThe only bad thing about this is it penalizes the poor. For the rich that charge means nothing and I am sure they love it due to less traffic. It is too bad the rates could not be set based upon the income level of the driver. Make it hurt for everyone. For example, if you make say 100,000 per year, it is say 100/day. I am sure it was thought about, but was ignored because the people in power want the best of both worlds. Cheap access and low traffic. I think some countries in Europe use a graduated rate for this.
- CPLX 2y agoIt's literally the opposite of this. It takes money from the relatively well off, namely people who have cars and can afford to park them in Manhattan where a parking space costs ~$50+ a day on average, and sends it to the MTA who create rapid transit accessible to everyone and especially valuable to the poor. The arguments that this is a way to penalize poor people should be immediately seen for what they are, absolute bullshit and propaganda. The only real refinement to this is there's a large and vocal community of people in NYC who work for the city (mainly cops and firefighters) who aren't all that rich and get free parking, almost always via illegal or questionable means, through use of city placards and parking by police stations and so on. But there's literally no reason to reward those people for anything, they've been gaming the system for decades.
- Kerrick 2y agoCar-centric urban design penalizes the poor anyways. The total cost of ownership of a car reliable enough to get you to work on time (or an unreliable car plus the cost of alternative transportation when it fails) is quite large. I'm not one to let perfect be the enemy of good.
- bko 2y agoA car is more expensive generally because it is a lot more convenient. We shouldn't aim to have everyone take a less convenient mode of transportation just so everyone is equally inconvenienced. We should try to lift the poorest among us. Try to make driving less expensive. Not sure why car insurance doubled in the last few years but that's one thing to look at, in addition to other car expenses.
- robcohen 2y agoMiracle seems to imply that the outcome is not what one would expect when pricing rise. Demand goes down when prices go up, and alternatives get used more frequently. This is precisely what anyone who understand economics would think. Why is this surprising or miraculous? Is that tongue-in-cheek?
- hiddencost 2y agoGiven the extreme hostility to congestion pricing that led to the current regime trying to kill it in NYC, a lot of people need to be educated...
- 9283409232 2y agoIt's a miracle when any pro-transit policy wins over car centric America.
- happytoexplain 2y agoFirst of all, "anyone who understand economics" understands that "supply and demand" is a generalization, not the only two variables in a void. More relevantly though, it is a "Policy Miracle", i.e. the writer is saying it's a miracle that an effective policy was finally enacted. In the second sentence: "but Governor Hochul finally made the right decision". The writer also praises how effective it is, not just that it is effective.
- jncfhnb 2y agoI personally would not have expected the level of changes noted in the article I would have expected car usage to be inelastic and for this to basically just become a tax on commuters
- 9283409232 2y agoI don't live in NYC but I have friends, both conservatives and liberals, who live in NYC and they couldn't be happier with congestion pricing. Increased subway ridership has increased police presence at the stations which has made the subway feel safer and reduced crime. Hopefully more cities follow their lead.
- autoexec 2y agoI wouldn't feel safe riding the subway https://nypost.com/2023/05/13/subway-has-alarmingly-high-pollution-levels-study-finds/ https://nypost.com/2023/05/13/subway-has-alarmingly-high-pol...
- 9283409232 2y agoApples and oranges.
- autoexec 2y agoThe fact is that congestion pricing is driving people to an unsafe alternative that will result in more autism, schizophrenia, ADHD, and cancer. Fix the public transportation so that it's safe and more convenient and people will take the better option without the need to punish anyone.
- aclatuts 2y agoAnd living near a highway is linked to health issues like cardiovascular disease, dementia, Parkinson’s, Alzheimer’s and MS. More cars and road is not more healthy. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3907023/ https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3907023/ https://www.med.ubc.ca/news/living-near-major-roads-linked-to-increased-risk-of-dementia-parkinsons-alzheimers-and-ms/ https://www.med.ubc.ca/news/living-near-major-roads-linked-t...
- autoexec 2y agoThat's also true, but more people in Manhattan ride the subway than live live next to a highway and trading one pollution hazard for another isn't improving anything. It'd be a lot better to make the trains safe before forcing people onto them than to point to other people who are also being poisoned.
- mjevans 2y agoMake it bill employers rather than employees so they don't all thrash the transit infrastructure at the same time. That would be a miracle.
- trollbridge 2y agoGenerally speaking, employers aren’t even allowed to pay employee commuting expenses (other than via taxable wages) in America. The exceptions are providing parking and special spending accounts to buy a bus/subway/train pass.
- mjevans 2y agoYou've misunderstood. This fee is a Tax no matter whom it's applied to. Business DO pay taxes on their workers of various sorts.
- bobthepanda 2y agoSeattle does this via the Washington Growth Management Act and it works okay.
- advisedwang 2y agoThe whole point is to change behaviour, not raise revenue (although that's obviously something city leaders look at with glee too). If you shift the cost away from the people making the decision, it's not going to change behaviour. Congestion pricing explicitly wants to move people to transit infrastructure. More people using buses allows buses to be more frequent which is more convenient, reduces transfer times, and reduces the impact of outlier slow buses. My understanding is that the NY Subway is near it's trains/hour capacity otherwise the subway would also be able to benefit (although with subways the reliability thing goes in reverse because a stuck train blocks others vs a stuck bus being saved by other buses).
- EasyMark 2y agoI think it's generally "let God sort out the poors", these types of policies tend to be a carve out for upper middle class and higher. I don't think they care about public transit or there would be a better plan than just "raise prices until we break the poor"
- affinepplan 2y agoinb4 claims that congestion pricing is somehow regressive in fact, it is a progressive tax since reinvestments into public transit are phenomenal for the vast majority of low and middle Americans (and ALL the rest too, but especially those who can't afford a car in NYC)
- jampekka 2y ago> in fact, it is a progressive tax since reinvestments into public transit There could be, and are, (truly) progressive normal taxes that could be invested into public transit. And now there's a reduced pressure to use tax money for public transit, so it can be used for a nice tax break.
- mplanchard 2y agoToo late, top thread is (was?) already the deranged take that making it easier, more convenient, and safer to take the subway while improving both pedestrian and auto safety by reducing congestion penalizes the poor.
- addicted 2y agoIt also ignores the fact that people driving in Manhattan are disproportionately among the richest people in NYC.
- bko 2y ago> One of the loudest criticisms of congestion pricing is that it “forces people to take the unsafe subway.” Putting aside the fact that the subway is already far safer than driving, increased transit ridership has driven down subway crime as more “eyes on the train” reduce the appeal of crime and make the system more safe. I take issue with the framing of this. Sure public transport is "safe" as in you are very unlikely to get assaulted or murdered. But I think most people use that word as a stand in for general unpleasant experience. If you have to avoid a train car because someone decided to camp out there, or you nearly get kicked in the head by a subway dancer, you're not exactly not "safe" but you'd rather not be there.
- hexator 2y ago[flagged]
- wussboy 2y agoI don’t think it’s unfair. Both of the issues you mentioned (campers and dancers) are less likely to happen as ridership increases.
- mplanchard 2y agoIn the realm of minor inconveniences, I'd rather get nearly kicked in the head by a subway dancer or deal with seeing a homeless person than get into a fender bender and have to deal with insurance, body work, etc. In the realm of major inconveniences, I'd much rather deal with someone being aggressive on the subway than be in a major car crash.
- V__ 2y agoI must say I am not surprised that it works but that it works at such a cheap rate. Looking at parking costs that seems to be less than two hours of parking. My instinct would have been that there would be no effect below say ~30$.
- ceejayoz 2y agoI'm not surprised; I've seen people devote hours to saving a few bucks.
- jakelazaroff 2y agoCan't find the article now, but before the cameras turned on in NYC I saw a prediction based on congestion pricing elsewhere that: 1. Even the reduced $9 toll would have a larger-than-anticipated impact 2. Increasing the toll to $15 would have a smaller-than-anticipated impact i.e. the presence or absence of a toll matters more than the dollar amount (obviously to a limit) We'll see about #2 when it increases to $12 in 2028 but #1 seems spot on!
- giaour 2y agoI have personally watched very rich people spend 30 mins circling and looking for a meter spot in Manhattan, which saved them ~$15 at a cost of ~$50 worth of their time. (I was also in the car having my time wasted, so the true cost was higher.) People are not good at making rational decisions when hit with nominal fees.
- Taters91 2y agoThis is not surprising at all to the people who have looked at other cities that have implemented it. These were all expected outcomes, and I'm glad the expectations turned into reality. One thing I'd like to add in is that to take public transit in NYC, you have to pay $2.90 a ride (with some exceptions). So for a commuter from the Bronx who works downtown, their daily fee is $5.80. A $9 a day fee to get into downtown with a car seems like a fair deal.
- precommunicator 2y agoAre there no much cheaper monthly/yearly tickets for commuters?
- etblg 2y agoFor the MTA you cross a weekly threshold of 12 rides where rides after that are free: https://omny.info/fares https://omny.info/fares You max out paying $34 a week, or $17 if you qualify for reduced fare.
- precommunicator 2y agoSo that's not cheaper for someone who works 5 days a week and gets to their place of work with a single ride.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- estebank 2y agoBut it makes it free to use public transport on top of that: it encourages people to use it for more than commutes (improving traffic in turn), which makes sense because commutes are peak utilisation time, the rolling stock is under utilized at every other time.
- 7speter 2y ago
- jklinger410 2y agoThe answer has always been to create guidelines under which capitalism is allowed to operate that align with the goals of society. Congestion pricing and carbon taxes.
- jampekka 2y agoI.e. get the less well off to bear the brunt.
- danny_codes 2y agoCar dependency is a much bigger tax on the poor than congestion pricing. Disincentivizing car travel and incentivizing public transit is a far greater help to the poor than any other conceivable transit policy. Most places in America require you to pay 10k a year just to participate. Places with good transit and progressive fare policies require $0 to participate, or a nominal amount.
- jampekka 2y agoYou can incentivize public transport without car tolls. You can disincentivize car travel in various eqalitarian ways, typically by making driving harder or impossible.
- Tostino 2y agoYou still have deliveries and other business related uses for the roadways in NYC. Clearing the roads up for higher economic value activity while also increasing the public transportation reliability and speed seems like a win all around.
- jampekka 2y agoYou can ban or restrict private cars but still allow business related uses. This is how it's done in many places. It would actually clear the roads even more for the higher economic value activity!
- Havoc 2y agoYes, though only works if the public transport is already pretty good. If not then the demand for car travel is inelastic I'm in London and can't see myself switching back to a car. Public transport is so much more convenient.
- neilv 2y agoIsn't Congestion Pricing a handout of public streets to the wealthy? (Because the wealthy can easily afford the extra cost, but non-wealthy cannot, making travel on public streets more convenient for the wealthy, while denying public streets to others?) I'd want to explore options that are more fair, but that the wealthy wouldn't like, because it doesn't give them preferential treatment. For example, start with only public mass transit, emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, workers needing to transport equipment, and walking. And then figure out what else needs to be added in, and how you prevent it just being gamed. (Nope, the public streets don't necessarily owe ride-hailing apps, taxis, and limos use of the public streets; nor is anyone necessarily entitled to use of a non-mass-transit vehicle on public streets when in Congestion Mode, no matter how wealthy or royal they are.)
- alexlesuper 2y agoYou're paying for the fair market value of those streets.
- neilv 2y ago> You're paying for the fair market value of those streets. Note that you dropped the word "public".
- yo_ean 2y agoIn two ways it isn't: * Anyone who takes a Bus benefits as well * The wealthy pay with their fee to make public transit better for everyone
- neilv 2y agoPeople taking the bus and other mass transit will benefit even more when everyone has to take it, including the wealthy, and therefore there is more pressure to improve it.
- ARandumGuy 2y agoFor sure, but do you think a complete ban on car traffic in Manhattan would ever get passed? Let's not let perfect be the enemy of good.
- yakovsi 2y agoStated goal was not necessarily reduced traffic, but additional funding for MTA. The agency that never had an audit and is widely known to be very corrupt. Why on earth not to tie additional funding with an audit requirement? Every New Yorker wonders the same. The fact that Hockul does not mention MTA accountability in any form and shape makes it very hard to take seriously.
- wussboy 2y agoWhy let the perfect be the enemy of the good? The benefits are obvious and measurable. Keep pushing for an audit now.
- sashank_1509 2y agoTo me the fact that traffic has fallen off a cliff feels like a bad sign. Congestion pricing is 9$ a day, at max ~400$ a month. Any tech employee making over 100k a year can spend this much without overthinking it. But the fact that traffic fell off a cliff means that actually the roads were used by poor people who can’t afford an additional 400$ a month and now we’ve pushed them into public transit.
- xboxnolifes 2y ago> ~400$ a month. Any tech employee making over 100k a year can spend this much without overthinking it. No way. Adding an additional $4800 a year expense is not nothing. And if you aren't at least thinking about that cost, that's crazy to me. That's a significant chunk of potential investments.
- jampekka 2y agoThat's by design and maybe why congestion pricing is so popular in places like HN. Just don't say the quiet part out loud.
- consteval 2y ago> now we’ve pushed them into public transit Right, saving them the obvious 400 dollars we tacked on, and then an additional ~15% of their gross income by not operating a car. Operating a car is unbelievably expensive. The subway is significantly cheaper, and it’s not even close.
- alexpotato 2y agoAs a regular commuter via bus to NYC, I am now MORE likely to take the bus in given that the ride out of the Lincoln tunnel is more predictable. Fewer cars -> fewer accidents -> fewer delays -> much better experience. The p90 of the Lincoln tunnel trip is 100% a "when numbers match gut feel" experience.
- 1970-01-01 2y agoThe next step in this policy miracle is to charge a higher rate, either by weight or by tailpipe emission, for cleaner air.
- rcpt 2y agoThe next step is for NJ to implement "revenge congestion pricing" and then watch this spread across the nation until Los Angeles is traffic free
- apexalpha 2y agoWhile the results are great describing it as a miracle when it has been in effect in other cities for years with similar results seems a bit much.
- Corrado 2y agoThis policy sounds like a great thing all around. It reduces traffic, noise, and pollution in the city and increases MTA funding. Win-Win! My only question is why does the federal government (ie. Trump) want to halt it? Why do they care?