8 ms·
It remains amazing to me, time and time again, how relatively small fees can encourage large changes in behavior. At the aggregate level, people overvalue thei
by jgalt212 1y ago
It remains amazing to me, time and time again, how relatively small fees can encourage large changes in behavior. At the aggregate level, people overvalue their time and undervalue their money.
- somsak2 1y agoi think it's the opposite right? people that didn't mind spending an hour in traffic are now unwilling to pay $9.
- righthand 1y agoI think you’re agreeing with each other. GP was talking about at the aggregate level where your observation is about the individual specifically. At the aggregate level with traffic reduction you’d think individuals would weigh their money as a shortcut to regain time but they don’t. My personal guess is because Manhattan is not the actual destination, work and home are the destinations, Manhattan is just the environment. Before it was the cost of car maintenance to drive into Manhattan (in the individuals eyes “free”), now it’s car maintenance + $9/day.
- yupitsme123 1y agoIf you make it so only rich people can do a certain thing, you'll have way fewer people doing that thing. I'm curious what kind of inconveniences this has caused for people who can't afford to pay the fee though.
- rcpt 1y agoAre you actually curious or were you just trying to make a gotcha against congestion pricing? I ask because the "only rich people" criticism of NYCs project has been beaten into the dirt and discussed at nearly every level of politics for more than a year now. If there's anything you want to know the information is readily available.
- yupitsme123 1y agoI'm not curious because I already know the answer. The inconvenience is that driving through the city is $9 more expensive without any improvement in other transportation alternatives. For some people that's no big deal but obviously for a lot of people it is, hence why there's fewer people on the road. The "missing" people are the ones who simply can't afford to be there.
- theluketaylor 1y agoThe money is being piped to the MTA for exactly the transportation improvements you’re looking for.
- gambiting 1y ago>>The "missing" people are the ones who simply can't afford to be there. I don't believe that for a second. They could afford to drive a car, insure it, maintain it, buy fuel, and pay for very expensive parking in NYC, but $9 is too much now? I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong if there's any data that suggest that this is actually true.
- littlestymaar 1y agoWhy would they not be there then? How is that supposed to even work if it doesn't affect consumers' behavior?! This kind of argument reminds me of a French politician who defended a tax on sweet drinks as a way to fight against the obesity crisis looming (France performs better than most country in that regard, but the situation is still bad). She wanted a tax to deter the consumption of sweet drinks, but at the same time they wanted the tax to stay at “a level where it would not affect the purchasing power of people”.
- gambiting 1y ago>>Why would they not be there then? Funny because I was going to use that exact example as something that absolutely works. I can easily afford the sugar tax where I live, it's been around for a few years now. But when I go to a store and a box of regular coke is more expensive than diet it makes me not pick regular even though the difference is meaningless financially to me. I understand the same mechanism works with cigarettes and loads of other things - even if you can afford them the increasing price puts you off. But maybe for a more relevant example - I can comfortably afford parking right in the city centre where I live. But the idea of paying what's being asked for parking puts me off so much I just park at the nearest park and ride and take the metro in.
- righthand 1y ago$2.95 + planning time or you can walk for free Literally no one has stepped forward and said “I can’t afford $9 or $2.95 or the deep discount commuter tickets.”
- yupitsme123 1y agoI assume you're referring to just taking the metro instead. Not everyone who drives lives near a metro. Not every destination is accessible via the metro. Many people commute from more affordable areas far from the city where public transportation isn't always a viable option. Driving gets $9 more expensive but public transit doesn't suddenly get better for the people who can't pay $9.
- overflow897 1y agoThere are very very few places in nyc not accessible via some combo of bus, metro and ferry. It's not as reliable as say Japan but the public transit network is pretty extensive.
- yupitsme123 1y agoNot everyone who drives through NYC lives in NYC. Even if it were, those transit hops add time. Now you're forcing people to choose between paying money they don't have or spending time they don't have.
- righthand 1y agoIf you're driving through NYC you probably have enough money for gas and $9 and all the other tolls on the road. No one is driving around on their last drop of gas going "gosh I could just get out of Nyc to Long Island if I just had that $9 for gas". The poor car owner who can't afford $9 stories are all made up nonsense. "Not everyone has $9 to spend to drive their tens of thousands of dollars car."
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- beowulfey 1y ago$9 is basically an hour of parking or whatever so really it's likely to be saving people a lot of money since transit costs a lot less
- yupitsme123 1y agoIf transit is an option for those peiple and if all other things (transit time, safety, etc) are equal, then yes.
- const_cast 1y agoIt is, the subway is a few orders of magnitude safer and cheaper. Sometimes it can take more time... now. Because of congestion pricing. Before, it was often faster to just walk next to the cars than be in one of the cars.
- littlestymaar 1y agoThe theory is that the price signal helps people make their own arbitrage between time and money and it would maximize society utility, but the reality is since people have a very different amount of money, it just do what you say: the rich pay without second thoughts and enjoy the higher quality of life when the less rich see a degradation of their own: they will either pay with money they don't have in excess and have to stop other consumption, or take public transports which is less convenient for them (since it's cheaper than car commute, they would be doing it if they didn't like it better).
- yupitsme123 1y agoYeah, and I'm guessing the opinions of those people don't get taken into account by folks who are studying or manufacturing consent for these policies.
- michaelmrose 1y agoWe have finite space for roads and an expanding population. Doing nothing means people spend as much time on congested roads as they would taking public transportation. Objectively the worst of both worlds and people having invested in a car and being used to it will continue living in it as it gets worse and worse. Providing additional impetus to make a change seems virtuous.
- yupitsme123 1y agoIf there's an overall plan to revamp transit and public spaces to accommodate all people then I'm in favor of it. That's how functioning cities do it. This is clearly just a money grab by a corrupt city.
- michaelmrose 1y agoIf slack capacity exists in public transportation and roads are way over what's needed immediately is for people to switch over. Making it more expensive to drive instead of subsidizing it is a way to achieve this.
- wat10000 1y agoIf you want the government to help poor people, there are much better ways to do it than giving away access to one specific kind of public resource to everyone.
- yupitsme123 1y agoWould you be in favor if they also wanted stop "giving away" access to the sidewalk and fresh air?
- supertrope 1y agoSidewalks can fit an order of magnitude more people than roads can fit cars. Especially if one car lane was re-allocated to make sidewalks wider. Less traffic means less air pollution. It's almost never needed to faregate sidewalks. Tourist districts can organize a special improvement district tax on stores to fund sidewalk upgrades, trash collection, shuttles, security, parking, and planting flowers. This makes the zone more even more attractive to tourists.
- yupitsme123 1y agoThis analogy pretty much gets at the heart of what makes these policies distasteful. Me walking or driving through my own city or neighborhood, where I live, pay taxes, and vote, is not the same as me taking a trip to Disney. I don't do it just for fun. I do it because living requires me to occasionally move from place to place. Auctioning off to the highest bidder the right to move around is cruel because you make it so that some people simply can't afford to exist in public spaces, and because you're telling people that their own city or neighborhood doesn't even belong to them. The correct analogy here would be access to healthcare, water, or electricity.
- wat10000 1y agoDoes this imply that the government should buy everyone a car? Or is driving not actually necessary for existing in this space and it's enough to let people walk for free? Keep in mind that we're not talking about some suburb where you have to drive two miles to get to the store, but rather about the most walkable place of its size in the US.
- cortesoft 1y agoPoor people were taking public transit already
- supertrope 1y agoPeople are not perfectly rational. When there's no explicit price tag people tend to overlook costs. For example when Tesla Model S sold at $70,000 a decrease in gasoline prices was predicted to hurt sales even though a few hundred dollar swing in fuel cost for one year is not going to materially change total cost of ownership of a luxury vehicle.
- GoatInGrey 1y agoI'm not sure why what is functionally a $180/month fee is considered "small". I think what we're seeing here is that public services (like roads) are more enjoyable, for those who can still use it, if the lower half of the income ladder is banned from using it.
- hnav 1y agoThat doesn't make much sense, driving a gas car from Jersey is gonna eat up a couple of gallons of fuel ($10x20=$200/mo), insuring it will be $200/mo, if it's not paid off it'll cost at least $500-600, parking will run easily $500 but likely more. Why is that $180 the straw that broke the camel's back?
- kevin_thibedeau 1y agoWhen I lived in the area, I used to regularly drive in to lower Manhattan after 6PM for free parking because it was cheaper, faster, and more convenient than taking the train from right in front of my NJ apartment. The congestion charge would change that equation.
- ta1243 1y agoSo your land use is no longer subsidised?
- const_cast 1y agoThe parking should've never been free in the first place, that's always a mistake. Even a single parking spot costs many thousands of dollars a year to maintain and own.
- Aloisius 1y ago> Even a single parking spot costs many thousands of dollars a year to maintain In what universe is this true? There are 3 million parking spots in NYC. If each cost $3000/year to maintain (presumably that's "many thousands"), that would be $9 billion/year - considerably more than what's spend on the entire Department of Transportation. I'd be shocked if a single spot cost even $100/year to maintain.
- 3eb7988a1663 1y agoI certainly refuse to pay $0.10 / plastic grocery bag since those fees were put in place. I have been exclusively shopping with a canvas bag for years now. Likely having saved thousands of bags in that time. In fact, I am angry at the half-dozen times where circumstances have forced me to pay for one.
- kulahan 1y agoI think I’m up to like 8 canvas bags, significantly thicker yet still significantly plastic, which I continue to forget at home. These laws have absolutely increased my carbon emissions, and I think o saw it’s like 10,000 visits to offset the carbon difference? AKA it’s more intensive initially to build things that last longer, idea being that you offset it over time I’d be surprised if I got 80k grocery store trips left in my LIFE!
- Spooky23 1y agoHN likes to equate all environmental issues with carbon. It’s one dimension but not the sole dimension. Bags were a huge litter, wildlife and quality of life issue. My wife was a finance commissioner for a water utility. Guess what the most common clogger of storm drains was? Shopping bags. They did hundreds of service calls annually doing service that ranged from fishing them out to using a hydro-jet to clear a pipe. Within 18 months of the bag fee, those calls dropped 60%. That’s easily $800k in wasted labor and dollars in this small city.
- michaelmrose 1y agoEg when plastic bags are free Grandma wants 5 things in 2 doubled bags but at 8 cents each she'll just stick them in the cart with no bag at all and transfer them to the back seat even if 8c for single bag to carry them in would add negligible costs to her $120 basket.
- Ferret7446 1y agoBut grandma is also buying trash bags now because she used to use the free bags for trash. Probably net zero if not net negative plastic consumption.