5 ms·

Miracle 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 frequ

Miracle 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 ago
Given 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 ago
It's a miracle when any pro-transit policy wins over car centric America.
happytoexplain 2y ago
First 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 ago
I 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
- estebank 2y ago
  Had you looked into the effects of similar policies elsewhere? The effect have universally been the same shown in the post.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Nope These policies don’t affect me
- jeffbee 2y ago
  Driving is highly elastic and among economists this is well-known and beyond serious dispute. A regularly updated review of the literature is available at https://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf https://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    I mean sure? I’m just voicing my intuition from before seeing data as someone who does not live in New York or in a congestion pricing affected area.
    - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
      Yeah I'm sorry you're being downvoted because your intuition is shared by a lot of people but is actually a pretty common fallacy (and one I believed before I started reading about transit policies a while ago now.) There's a long-tail of driving demand which is very elastic and the only reason why it exists is because the US underprices driving and builds expensive road infrastructure to lower LOS areas than most of the world. When he was a bit younger, my dad was the type to often just "go out for a drive" and drive in circles for a while just to clear his head. On its face that seems fine, like going out for a walk, but then you realize that my dad was just taking up a limited throughput resource for a very low-value use. My partner's family who actually lives close to NYC used to take drives to Manhattan "for fun" for years actually.
      - jeffbee 2y ago
        > a very low-value use That's the crazy thing. Driving into lower Manhattan costs society hundreds of dollars, but to an apparently huge fraction of drivers it wasn't even worth nine lousy dollars.
        Karrot_Kream 2y ago
        Yeah I know. I was shocked when I learned my partner's family drove to Lower Manhattan "because why not?" But there just is a lot of long tail behavior like this.
- alexpotato 2y ago
  My favorite quote about this was: "The improvements lead us to believe that a large number of the cars in NYC were driving around with no particular reason" Effectively, people were spending time in their cars that they DID NOT VALUE at $9.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    I think that’s just a bit of privilege on the value of $9 personally
  - rcpt 2y ago
    A large number of cars in general are driving around with no particular reason. Roads are free to use and the costs of driving are sunk/hidden so why not?
BurningFrog 2y ago
It's surprising/miraculous to the large majority of people who don't understand economics.
- hgomersall 2y ago
  And a large majority of people are surprising to those that think they understand economics.
throw-qqqqq 2y ago
I interpreted the miracle to be that it achieves a political goal AND makes money. From TFA: “… congestion pricing is a policy unicorn - it accomplishes a key goal (reducing congestion) and raises money. This is in contrast with highway widenings which are the opposite: they cost money (often billions of dollars) and fail to accomplish the goal of reducing traffic due to induced demand.”

hiddencost 2y ago

Given 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 ago

It's a miracle when any pro-transit policy wins over car centric America.

happytoexplain 2y ago

First 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 ago

I 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

estebank 2y ago
Had you looked into the effects of similar policies elsewhere? The effect have universally been the same shown in the post.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Nope These policies don’t affect me
jeffbee 2y ago
Driving is highly elastic and among economists this is well-known and beyond serious dispute. A regularly updated review of the literature is available at https://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf https://www.vtpi.org/elasticities.pdf
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  I mean sure? I’m just voicing my intuition from before seeing data as someone who does not live in New York or in a congestion pricing affected area.
  - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
    Yeah I'm sorry you're being downvoted because your intuition is shared by a lot of people but is actually a pretty common fallacy (and one I believed before I started reading about transit policies a while ago now.) There's a long-tail of driving demand which is very elastic and the only reason why it exists is because the US underprices driving and builds expensive road infrastructure to lower LOS areas than most of the world. When he was a bit younger, my dad was the type to often just "go out for a drive" and drive in circles for a while just to clear his head. On its face that seems fine, like going out for a walk, but then you realize that my dad was just taking up a limited throughput resource for a very low-value use. My partner's family who actually lives close to NYC used to take drives to Manhattan "for fun" for years actually.
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      > a very low-value use That's the crazy thing. Driving into lower Manhattan costs society hundreds of dollars, but to an apparently huge fraction of drivers it wasn't even worth nine lousy dollars.
      - Karrot_Kream 2y ago
        Yeah I know. I was shocked when I learned my partner's family drove to Lower Manhattan "because why not?" But there just is a lot of long tail behavior like this.
alexpotato 2y ago
My favorite quote about this was: "The improvements lead us to believe that a large number of the cars in NYC were driving around with no particular reason" Effectively, people were spending time in their cars that they DID NOT VALUE at $9.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  I think that’s just a bit of privilege on the value of $9 personally
- rcpt 2y ago
  A large number of cars in general are driving around with no particular reason. Roads are free to use and the costs of driving are sunk/hidden so why not?

BurningFrog 2y ago

It's surprising/miraculous to the large majority of people who don't understand economics.

hgomersall 2y ago
And a large majority of people are surprising to those that think they understand economics.

throw-qqqqq 2y ago

I interpreted the miracle to be that it achieves a political goal AND makes money. From TFA: “… congestion pricing is a policy unicorn - it accomplishes a key goal (reducing congestion) and raises money. This is in contrast with highway widenings which are the opposite: they cost money (often billions of dollars) and fail to accomplish the goal of reducing traffic due to induced demand.”