4 ms·

inb4 claims that congestion pricing is somehow regressive in fact, it is a progressive tax since reinvestments into public transit are phenomenal for the vast

inb4 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 ago
Too 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 ago
It also ignores the fact that people driving in Manhattan are disproportionately among the richest people in NYC.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- paxys 2y ago
  > richest people in the country
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - addicted 2y ago
    True but in most of the country even the poorest have to drive. In Manhattan only 22% of households own a car, and the number is probably a fraction of that in the congestion relief zone.
- koolba 2y ago
  From the first hand accounts I’ve heard on this, the rich love not having to share the road with the less rich. The guy who gets shafted here is the middle to upper middle class with a job that requires driving into NYC.
  - UberFly 2y ago
    This is the major point for me. It's a policy miracle for some. Delivery, construction, repair etc etc jobs will be the ones it will hurt as usual. The rich won't care.
    - jeffbee 2y ago
      Delivery and trades love congestion pricing because with the faster trip times they can now hit more deliveries and more jobs per day.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
    - dmix 2y ago
      A business that functions on efficiently delivering services to Manhattan would likely benefit from getting there faster in exchange for some cost increases. I'm sure any repairman would rather be doing 2x repair jobs in the time it'd take to do one + sitting in traffic for an extra thirty minutes. Most don't get paid to drive between jobs.
    - tim333 2y ago
      From my experience living in central London they just jack the prices to compensate. It's expensive getting a plumber here. Although I guess the charge is only part of it. The congestion charge here is £15 and my last two plumbers were £400 a time.
  - ta1243 2y ago
    I'd never dream of driving into Central London because it costs something like $90 to park. The congestion charge is pretty much irrelevant for that use case. Or is land just far cheaper in Manhattan?
- Jcowell 2y ago
  More likely* but not always.
mjevans 2y ago
The _really_ rich don't even drive themselves. It really doesn't effect them that much. A tax doesn't have to hit just the poorest people to effect the poor. This probably hits middle-upper middle the hardest, and anyone taking a hired car (like a cab) as well* (There's a chance that sort of fee is elsewhere, like the medallion registration). The correct place to levy the fee is on demand sources that draw people into the area at given times. Reduced fees should be offered to business that schedule shifts earlier or later to avoid the congestion windows.
- aqme28 2y ago
  Congestion pricing doesnt affect cabs/uber the same way.
- skywhopper 2y ago
  What makes you think the cab driver is paying congestion fees out of their own pocket? That’s not how it works.
- addicted 2y ago
  So your recommendation is that instead of picking a system that is simple to implement and understand and has been successfully implemented in multiple cities across the world (and now in NYC as well) they should have opted for a novel system that is way more complicated to implement and understand which would even if it worked perfectly have extremely marginal benefits over the tried and tested system.
  - mjevans 2y ago
    Businesses are already supposed to report worker salary as part of taxes and other regulations, they might even already have to report hours to labor boards. The change here is also reporting when those hours are worked, possibly to local govs instead of just state/national, and then a zoned tax based on the start and stop times relative to 'congestion windows'. Similarly with 'open hours' for businesses. That seems more simple and more direct than taxing individual people, taxing the drive of the demand instead.
__s 2y ago
I think this is a good tax (in terms of creating incentives), but defending progressive vs regressive based on where the money goes is a bad take. Money is liquid
- googlehater 2y ago
  Completely agree I love the incentives this tax creates, even though it isn't the most progressive tax in the world. City planning seems to be a particularly inflexible issue on this forum, possibly because the majority of this board are upper-middle income, urban, childless, 20-30s males. Most in the thread seem to miss the fact that flat congestion pricing (even with the 50% reduction for those making <50K), is regressive, like a carbon tax. It's made progressive by allocating the revenues to transit upgrades, which would outsizely benefit lower income communities. But as you say, the redistributions aren't liquid, so progressive feels like a slight stretch. Here in Canada, the carbon tax is regressive (carbon consumption is not graded as steeply as income is). However, the canada carbon rebate redistributes all revenues flatly, and makes this scheme truly progressive. Though some debate can be had about liquidity diffs of tax-at-use and rebate at end-of-year. It is okay to admit a scheme is not progressive, and still support it!
oliwarner 2y ago
How much money has congestion pricing raised, and how has it been reinvested into public transit? More services, lower bus prices, new, free off-island parking for park-and-ride services, heavily subsidised passes for NY state residents? I've made that very argument here in favour of higher tolls, but I'd like to see if it's actually happening.

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 ago

Too 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 ago

It also ignores the fact that people driving in Manhattan are disproportionately among the richest people in NYC.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
paxys 2y ago
> richest people in the country
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- addicted 2y ago
  True but in most of the country even the poorest have to drive. In Manhattan only 22% of households own a car, and the number is probably a fraction of that in the congestion relief zone.
koolba 2y ago
From the first hand accounts I’ve heard on this, the rich love not having to share the road with the less rich. The guy who gets shafted here is the middle to upper middle class with a job that requires driving into NYC.
- UberFly 2y ago
  This is the major point for me. It's a policy miracle for some. Delivery, construction, repair etc etc jobs will be the ones it will hurt as usual. The rich won't care.
  - jeffbee 2y ago
    Delivery and trades love congestion pricing because with the faster trip times they can now hit more deliveries and more jobs per day.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
  - dmix 2y ago
    A business that functions on efficiently delivering services to Manhattan would likely benefit from getting there faster in exchange for some cost increases. I'm sure any repairman would rather be doing 2x repair jobs in the time it'd take to do one + sitting in traffic for an extra thirty minutes. Most don't get paid to drive between jobs.
  - tim333 2y ago
    From my experience living in central London they just jack the prices to compensate. It's expensive getting a plumber here. Although I guess the charge is only part of it. The congestion charge here is £15 and my last two plumbers were £400 a time.
- ta1243 2y ago
  I'd never dream of driving into Central London because it costs something like $90 to park. The congestion charge is pretty much irrelevant for that use case. Or is land just far cheaper in Manhattan?
Jcowell 2y ago
More likely* but not always.

mjevans 2y ago

The _really_ rich don't even drive themselves. It really doesn't effect them that much. A tax doesn't have to hit just the poorest people to effect the poor. This probably hits middle-upper middle the hardest, and anyone taking a hired car (like a cab) as well* (There's a chance that sort of fee is elsewhere, like the medallion registration). The correct place to levy the fee is on demand sources that draw people into the area at given times. Reduced fees should be offered to business that schedule shifts earlier or later to avoid the congestion windows.

aqme28 2y ago
Congestion pricing doesnt affect cabs/uber the same way.
skywhopper 2y ago
What makes you think the cab driver is paying congestion fees out of their own pocket? That’s not how it works.
addicted 2y ago
So your recommendation is that instead of picking a system that is simple to implement and understand and has been successfully implemented in multiple cities across the world (and now in NYC as well) they should have opted for a novel system that is way more complicated to implement and understand which would even if it worked perfectly have extremely marginal benefits over the tried and tested system.
- mjevans 2y ago
  Businesses are already supposed to report worker salary as part of taxes and other regulations, they might even already have to report hours to labor boards. The change here is also reporting when those hours are worked, possibly to local govs instead of just state/national, and then a zoned tax based on the start and stop times relative to 'congestion windows'. Similarly with 'open hours' for businesses. That seems more simple and more direct than taxing individual people, taxing the drive of the demand instead.

__s 2y ago

I think this is a good tax (in terms of creating incentives), but defending progressive vs regressive based on where the money goes is a bad take. Money is liquid

googlehater 2y ago
Completely agree I love the incentives this tax creates, even though it isn't the most progressive tax in the world. City planning seems to be a particularly inflexible issue on this forum, possibly because the majority of this board are upper-middle income, urban, childless, 20-30s males. Most in the thread seem to miss the fact that flat congestion pricing (even with the 50% reduction for those making <50K), is regressive, like a carbon tax. It's made progressive by allocating the revenues to transit upgrades, which would outsizely benefit lower income communities. But as you say, the redistributions aren't liquid, so progressive feels like a slight stretch. Here in Canada, the carbon tax is regressive (carbon consumption is not graded as steeply as income is). However, the canada carbon rebate redistributes all revenues flatly, and makes this scheme truly progressive. Though some debate can be had about liquidity diffs of tax-at-use and rebate at end-of-year. It is okay to admit a scheme is not progressive, and still support it!

oliwarner 2y ago

How much money has congestion pricing raised, and how has it been reinvested into public transit? More services, lower bus prices, new, free off-island parking for park-and-ride services, heavily subsidised passes for NY state residents? I've made that very argument here in favour of higher tolls, but I'd like to see if it's actually happening.