4 ms·

I don't know, but you don't have any evidence for that argument.

by timr 1y ago

ceejayoz 1y ago
I'm asking for evidence of your argument. We do have concrete evidence the buses, at least, are moving around faster.
- timr 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    You are making the following unsupported affirmative assertion. > Literally everything we buy and use in the city gets more expensive because of this law. I'd like to see evidence of it.
    - timr 1y ago
      Every delivery truck that comes into the city is charged a tax. It's not a matter of "evidence" -- it's how the law works. This cost is passed on to consumers. I didn't say "gets more expensive on net relative to some hypothetical other universe", because I can't possibly know that. You're the one making the argument that this universe is cheaper than that one. Prove it.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        Again, you said this: > Literally everything we buy and use in the city gets more expensive because of this law. If I buy a cup of coffee, and the cost of the coup goes from $0.05 to $0.10, but the cost of coffee goes down from $1.00 to $0.95, the thing I buy did not get more expensive. The components of its cost changed. The hot dog delivery truck paid a few extra bucks, averaged out over tens of thousands of hot dogs, and it spent less time stuck in traffic (saving gas and labor costs). This is not a large logical leap. You are arguing that this cannot possibly be the case, which is a large logical leap.
        timr 1y ago
        > If I buy a cup of coffee, and the cost of the coup goes from $0.05 to $0.10, but the cost of coffee goes down from $1.00 to $0.95, the thing I buy did not get more expensive. The components of its cost changed. Great, prove it! You at least agree with me on how taxes work now, so it's up to you to prove that your convoluted tax mechanism actually makes things cheaper. Maybe you're right, and I look forward your evidence. Barring affirmative evidence for that argument, we should just go with the usual models for taxation that work for everything else, and assume that they end up raising costs for consumers.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        Affirmative evidence: A small truck pays $14.40/day. A large truck $21.60/day. That $20ish in fees is distributed across the entire cargo of the truck; I'm sure we agree that the average truck carries more than, say, $20 worth of goods. NYC minimum wage for the driver/delivery person is $16.50/hour. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/11/upshot/congestion-pricing.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/11/upshot/conges... "average traffic speeds inside the zone increased by 15 percent" 15% faster between stops seems highly likely to save that driver an hour or so in their day. Probably some gas, engine wear and tear, etc. too. And if your delivery truck gets into an accident, that's additional cost. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/16/new-york-congestion-pricing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/... "Perhaps the most dramatic transformation has occurred outside the toll zone. In Queens, traffic crashes in Astoria and Long Island City have fallen by 27%, with injuries down 31.4%. The reason, Schwartz says, is geographical." This, of course, all ignores other improvements that are tough to measure. We've seen lower car crash injury rates - what's the per-capita benefit from that? What's the per-capita benefit of less asthma? What's the per-capita benefit of less road noise? (We have concrete evidence that these things are harmful! https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240621-how-traffic-noise-pollution-harms-childrens-health-and-development https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240621-how-traffic-nois...) > go with the usual models for taxation that work for everything else What are these magical models of taxation economists have wide consensus on? To my knowledge, tax policy remains a contentious field.
  - rafram 1y ago
    > The default is not to tax. No it isn't. The government pays for public transit, for the bridges and tunnels that vehicles take into the city, and for the infrastructure that they use when they're here. The government funds its spending with taxes. Either it taxes everyone (payroll/income tax) or it taxes the people who are specifically putting the highest toll on the infrastructure (congestion pricing). The MTA has tried the former — general fund, MTMCT — and it wasn't enough. Now they're trying the latter.
    - timr 1y ago
      It's clearly a new tax. It didn't exist for the entire history of the city before. So yes, the default is to justify why the change must be implemented.
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        > So yes, the default is to justify why the change must be implemented. That was done when the plan was proposed (and reviewed/approved by city/state/Federal government). We're now in the "confirming the benefits" stage. Which is the point of the article we're discussing; those benefits have, indeed, showed up in the stats. As the justifications for the change suggested they would. Now's the time for opponents to support their pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom, with concrete evidence now available because it's an actual thing.
        timr 1y ago
        > We're now in the "confirming the benefits" stage. Which is the point of the article we're discussing; those benefits have, indeed, showed up in the stats. As the justifications for the change suggested they would. No, now you're being slippery. The "stats" you cite have shown improvements in things that I don't care about, and you've provided no evidence to counter the argument I am making. > Now's the time for opponents to support their pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but I didn't have "pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom", so, perhaps you can go find that person instead.
arolihas 1y ago
We know there's less congestion, which means less time delivery trucks are idling...

I don't know, but you don't have any evidence for that argument.

by timr 1y ago

I don't know, but you don't have any evidence for that argument.

ceejayoz 1y ago

I'm asking for evidence of your argument. We do have concrete evidence the buses, at least, are moving around faster.

timr 1y ago
[flagged]
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  You are making the following unsupported affirmative assertion. > Literally everything we buy and use in the city gets more expensive because of this law. I'd like to see evidence of it.
  - timr 1y ago
    Every delivery truck that comes into the city is charged a tax. It's not a matter of "evidence" -- it's how the law works. This cost is passed on to consumers. I didn't say "gets more expensive on net relative to some hypothetical other universe", because I can't possibly know that. You're the one making the argument that this universe is cheaper than that one. Prove it.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      Again, you said this: > Literally everything we buy and use in the city gets more expensive because of this law. If I buy a cup of coffee, and the cost of the coup goes from $0.05 to $0.10, but the cost of coffee goes down from $1.00 to $0.95, the thing I buy did not get more expensive. The components of its cost changed. The hot dog delivery truck paid a few extra bucks, averaged out over tens of thousands of hot dogs, and it spent less time stuck in traffic (saving gas and labor costs). This is not a large logical leap. You are arguing that this cannot possibly be the case, which is a large logical leap.
      - timr 1y ago
        > If I buy a cup of coffee, and the cost of the coup goes from $0.05 to $0.10, but the cost of coffee goes down from $1.00 to $0.95, the thing I buy did not get more expensive. The components of its cost changed. Great, prove it! You at least agree with me on how taxes work now, so it's up to you to prove that your convoluted tax mechanism actually makes things cheaper. Maybe you're right, and I look forward your evidence. Barring affirmative evidence for that argument, we should just go with the usual models for taxation that work for everything else, and assume that they end up raising costs for consumers.
        ceejayoz 1y ago
        Affirmative evidence: A small truck pays $14.40/day. A large truck $21.60/day. That $20ish in fees is distributed across the entire cargo of the truck; I'm sure we agree that the average truck carries more than, say, $20 worth of goods. NYC minimum wage for the driver/delivery person is $16.50/hour. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/11/upshot/congestion-pricing.html https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2025/05/11/upshot/conges... "average traffic speeds inside the zone increased by 15 percent" 15% faster between stops seems highly likely to save that driver an hour or so in their day. Probably some gas, engine wear and tear, etc. too. And if your delivery truck gets into an accident, that's additional cost. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/16/new-york-congestion-pricing https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng-interactive/2025/jun/... "Perhaps the most dramatic transformation has occurred outside the toll zone. In Queens, traffic crashes in Astoria and Long Island City have fallen by 27%, with injuries down 31.4%. The reason, Schwartz says, is geographical." This, of course, all ignores other improvements that are tough to measure. We've seen lower car crash injury rates - what's the per-capita benefit from that? What's the per-capita benefit of less asthma? What's the per-capita benefit of less road noise? (We have concrete evidence that these things are harmful! https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240621-how-traffic-noise-pollution-harms-childrens-health-and-development https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240621-how-traffic-nois...) > go with the usual models for taxation that work for everything else What are these magical models of taxation economists have wide consensus on? To my knowledge, tax policy remains a contentious field.
- rafram 1y ago
  > The default is not to tax. No it isn't. The government pays for public transit, for the bridges and tunnels that vehicles take into the city, and for the infrastructure that they use when they're here. The government funds its spending with taxes. Either it taxes everyone (payroll/income tax) or it taxes the people who are specifically putting the highest toll on the infrastructure (congestion pricing). The MTA has tried the former — general fund, MTMCT — and it wasn't enough. Now they're trying the latter.
  - timr 1y ago
    It's clearly a new tax. It didn't exist for the entire history of the city before. So yes, the default is to justify why the change must be implemented.
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      > So yes, the default is to justify why the change must be implemented. That was done when the plan was proposed (and reviewed/approved by city/state/Federal government). We're now in the "confirming the benefits" stage. Which is the point of the article we're discussing; those benefits have, indeed, showed up in the stats. As the justifications for the change suggested they would. Now's the time for opponents to support their pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom, with concrete evidence now available because it's an actual thing.
      - timr 1y ago
        > We're now in the "confirming the benefits" stage. Which is the point of the article we're discussing; those benefits have, indeed, showed up in the stats. As the justifications for the change suggested they would. No, now you're being slippery. The "stats" you cite have shown improvements in things that I don't care about, and you've provided no evidence to counter the argument I am making. > Now's the time for opponents to support their pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but I didn't have "pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom", so, perhaps you can go find that person instead.

arolihas 1y ago

We know there's less congestion, which means less time delivery trucks are idling...