5 ms·

Are 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 ha

by rcpt 1y ago

Are 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 ago
I'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 ago
  The 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 ago
    Why 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.
      - sokoloff 1y ago
        I can also afford the parking in the city center, but mostly choose to patronize businesses in the suburbs where the parking is free (and usually plentiful). That I think is what city business owners are worried about.
      - yupitsme123 1y ago
        These are all lifestyle choices. You don't need to do any of those things. Getting to work or getting around one's own city are not lifestyle options. They're necessities. Using market-style policies to try to nudge people around only works if there are alternatives they can choose from. In this case for many people there are not.
        gambiting 1y ago
        >>In this case for many people there are not. And like I said in my other comment - those people most likely still continue driving and pay the $9 fee. It's people who have other options or who simply don't really need to be there who have now stopped. This exact same scheme has played out in many other cities already, this isn't new.
        sagarm 1y ago
        How is where to work and live not a lifestyle choice?
  - yupitsme123 1y ago
    People pay what they have to pay do get to work or get around. In that sense they could "afford" it, because the alternative is to move or get a different job. You're trying to make it seem like driving in NYC is simply a lifestyle decision that people could choose to do or not do. For some people it is, for many people it's simply the only viable option. Once you make it no longer viable, people have no options left.
    - boston_clone 1y ago
      May I ask if you actually live in NYC? My understanding is that owning and regularly driving a vehicle is exceptionally expensive compared to almost any other city. Parking alone can massively eclipse the estimated monthly amount listed elsewhere in the thread.
      - ta1243 1y ago
        "No one in New York drove, there was too much traffic" -- Fry (Futurama)
    - gambiting 1y ago
      >>Once you make it no longer viable, people have no options left. Which implies that the people who continue driving are indeed those who have no other option, and those who do have taken it instead of paying the $9. Would you disagree? And no, of course I don't imply it's a lifestyle choice - merely that some people(not all!) were driving in NYC even though they indeed had other options available, because there was no extra cost associated with it - now that there is, those people use those other options where possible. Again, it's really fun to speculate why who and where is doing what, but if you have more specific data then please share.
- amluto 1y ago
  The OP, as well as plenty of other articles, pointed out a rather immediate improvement in alternatives: the busses are faster as a result of traffic being reduced.
  - yupitsme123 1y ago
    If you're going to massively inconvenience millions of people then you have to do better than a couple buses running faster. Better as in, using the new funds to completely revamp the whole system. If those faster bus lines don't provide an alternative to my previous route then they don't provide me an alternative to paying $9, losing my job, or picking a different city to live in.
    - sagarm 1y ago
      If ~$200/mo is enough for you to quit your job in Manhattan, it's clear you weren't happy in the first place. Congestion pricing has done you a service.
  - shawn-butler 1y ago
    This is absurd. The data shows maybe a 1-4% gain. I know that legitimizes a bunch of activist talking points but come on. This is HN
    - amluto 1y ago
      The source I found agree with 1-4% for bus routes within Manhattan, but it also said: > Commutes on Hudson River and East River crossings for several express bus routes linking the boroughs with Manhattan have, on some lines, shaved more than 15 minutes off commuting times. That’s a rather dramatic improvement.

by rcpt 1y ago

yupitsme123 1y ago

I'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 ago
The 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 ago
  Why 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.
    - sokoloff 1y ago
      I can also afford the parking in the city center, but mostly choose to patronize businesses in the suburbs where the parking is free (and usually plentiful). That I think is what city business owners are worried about.
    - yupitsme123 1y ago
      These are all lifestyle choices. You don't need to do any of those things. Getting to work or getting around one's own city are not lifestyle options. They're necessities. Using market-style policies to try to nudge people around only works if there are alternatives they can choose from. In this case for many people there are not.
      - gambiting 1y ago
        >>In this case for many people there are not. And like I said in my other comment - those people most likely still continue driving and pay the $9 fee. It's people who have other options or who simply don't really need to be there who have now stopped. This exact same scheme has played out in many other cities already, this isn't new.
      - sagarm 1y ago
        How is where to work and live not a lifestyle choice?
- yupitsme123 1y ago
  People pay what they have to pay do get to work or get around. In that sense they could "afford" it, because the alternative is to move or get a different job. You're trying to make it seem like driving in NYC is simply a lifestyle decision that people could choose to do or not do. For some people it is, for many people it's simply the only viable option. Once you make it no longer viable, people have no options left.
  - boston_clone 1y ago
    May I ask if you actually live in NYC? My understanding is that owning and regularly driving a vehicle is exceptionally expensive compared to almost any other city. Parking alone can massively eclipse the estimated monthly amount listed elsewhere in the thread.
    - ta1243 1y ago
      "No one in New York drove, there was too much traffic" -- Fry (Futurama)
  - gambiting 1y ago
    >>Once you make it no longer viable, people have no options left. Which implies that the people who continue driving are indeed those who have no other option, and those who do have taken it instead of paying the $9. Would you disagree? And no, of course I don't imply it's a lifestyle choice - merely that some people(not all!) were driving in NYC even though they indeed had other options available, because there was no extra cost associated with it - now that there is, those people use those other options where possible. Again, it's really fun to speculate why who and where is doing what, but if you have more specific data then please share.
amluto 1y ago
The OP, as well as plenty of other articles, pointed out a rather immediate improvement in alternatives: the busses are faster as a result of traffic being reduced.
- yupitsme123 1y ago
  If you're going to massively inconvenience millions of people then you have to do better than a couple buses running faster. Better as in, using the new funds to completely revamp the whole system. If those faster bus lines don't provide an alternative to my previous route then they don't provide me an alternative to paying $9, losing my job, or picking a different city to live in.
  - sagarm 1y ago
    If ~$200/mo is enough for you to quit your job in Manhattan, it's clear you weren't happy in the first place. Congestion pricing has done you a service.
- shawn-butler 1y ago
  This is absurd. The data shows maybe a 1-4% gain. I know that legitimizes a bunch of activist talking points but come on. This is HN
  - amluto 1y ago
    The source I found agree with 1-4% for bus routes within Manhattan, but it also said: > Commutes on Hudson River and East River crossings for several express bus routes linking the boroughs with Manhattan have, on some lines, shaved more than 15 minutes off commuting times. That’s a rather dramatic improvement.