4 ms·

I don't get it. Congestion pricing is bad, because it gouges the poor. But if we make the price much higher and call it a fine, then everything's okay.

by evanpw 12y ago

raldi 12y ago
"It's a regressive tax!" is the universal torpedo; you can use it to shoot down anything. Congestion pricing, parking meters, the gas tax, drought-driven price-of-water increases, fishing licenses, soccer field rental fees...
- adamnemecek 12y ago
  You can base the fine on income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine I'm actually kind of surprised it's not more popular.
  - marincounty 12y ago
    I've been wanting this for years, but their needs to be a upper fine limit. No one should get a $5000 ticket. That said, a $500 ticket can make some poor people loose their residence, or go without eating. I remember getting a high priced ticket in college, and my transmission went out on that day too. It ate up all my savings, and I seriously thought it's(college) is not worth it. I was working on the weekends at a union job, but barely getting by. It just doesn't make sense that a person's income isn't a factor in the fee structure. (My mom used to go to court and the judge would reduce the fee, but that was the 70's- 80's; I hear that tactic seldom works, or the reduction is not much?)
    - adamnemecek 12y ago
      > No one should get a $5000 ticket. Why not? This http://www.businessinsider.com/a-millionaire-in-finland-got-a-60000-speeding-ticket-2015-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/a-millionaire-in-finland-got-... seems pretty fair to me.
      - djf1 12y ago
        If person A and person B commit the same fineable offense, it seems fair to me that the fine should be the same for both people. After all, shouldn't the fine be, in expectation, equivalent to the damage caused by the offense?
        adamnemecek 12y ago
        Do you think that it would be a good idea to have a fixed amount tax? I'm not talking about a flat tax, I'm talking about making everyone pay the same amount.
      - ptaipale 12y ago
        Because it creates a situation where it becomes stupidly risky to be affluent; people do make mistakes with e.g. speed limits - not everyone crosses them intentionally - and paying a € 50 000 fine for doing 21 km/h over a speed limit really makes people consider emigrating and taking their businesses to a more reasonable place. It also makes it more difficult to attract high-income workforce from abroad, thus having a negative impact on high-tech industries.
      - tomohawk 12y ago
        It just puts more pressure on people to move their wealth into corporations. How would you fine someone with no income or wealth, but who controls corporations that have plenty? Also, a persons wealth has nothing to do with the crime. Punishment should be based on the crime, not on a person's status.
        maxerickson 12y ago
        Ownership of corporations should show up as personal wealth. The corporate structure might slightly obfuscate the details, but if you try to hard to hide wealth in the corporation you quickly get to the point where fraud is being committed. I guess you can have the corporation own the vehicle, but you get around that easily by fining the driver.
martinald 12y ago
It also doesn't work very well. Rich people just end up buying two cars.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
  - evanpw 12y ago
    Google found this: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/df.pdf http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/df.pdf. But those high-order polynomial fits (see Figures 9 and 10) seem a little shady to me.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
      - evanpw 12y ago
        "the evidence indicates that HNC led to an increase in the total number of vehicles in circulation as well as a change in the composition of vehicles toward high-emissions vehicles"
        deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
- seanmcdirmid 12y ago
  In Beijing, they also ration plates, so that isn't very effective either. And parking, damn, parking sucks. Two cars? That would suck twice as much.
- raldi 12y ago
  Note: By "it", the parent post is referring to even/odd restrictions, not congestion pricing.
- megablast 12y ago
masterleep 12y ago
It's the same foolishness as supporting mandatory water rationing instead of raising the price for water during a drought.
- thrownaway2424 12y ago
  If you keep the existing rates on the first reasonable-amount-of-water amount of water per unit time and progressively charge more for every unit over that, you get as much savings without appearing to gouge anyone, rich or poor.
CalRobert 12y ago
If you can't afford congestion pricing, you probably can't afford car ownership. Note: millions of people own cars despite the fact that they really can't afford to.
- hueving 12y ago
  Millions of people live in the city, despite the fact that they can't afford to. We don't use that form of argument because it's stupid. People live in cities and use cars because they are necessary. If you have a family of 3 kids, using public transit costs more than a car. Fix that, then discourage cars.
  - Zach_the_Lizard 12y ago
    >If you have a family of 3 kids, using public transit costs more than a car. Depends on where you live and how old the kids are. In my neck of the woods, kids get to ride free up to a certain age (like 4 or 5). After that they pay adult fares. If you're going the maximum fare distance at rush hour, it's something like $5.90 one way here per adult, but parking is like $15-$20. At that point you may be better of driving if you don't value your time (traffic is abysmal). My own commute is $2.20 one way at rush hour. Even with five adults (two parents and three kids over four years of age) the $22 you'd spend roundtrip on transit fares is comparable to the cost of driving and parking, but with less hassle. In cities like New York with cheaper fares and reasonable monthly passes you can drastically cut down on your transit costs and also have to deal with massively more expensive parking (if any) and tolls. Of course, one of the advantages of urban areas like mine with regards to travel cost is that many trips can be done without any wheels whatsoever, be they steel or rubber. The grocery store is across the street, next to the pharmacy, there're a few doctors offices, many restaurants, convenience stores, schools, parks, restaurants, tourist attractions, etc. all within a few minutes on foot. All of those trips are essentially free (minus the wear and tear on your shoes and clothes), promote good health, have a reduced environmental impact, reduce traffic, and require less tax resources than other forms of travel. Bringing the whole family on transit would be a less common occurrence. For certain trips, ZipCar or Car2Go may also be an option. Also, for trips outside of walkable or transit accessible areas, rental cars are available. I myself have a rental car agency across the street, so if I wanted to go hiking and didn't own a car I could.
pseudonom- 12y ago
If revenue from congestion pricing is used for public transit, it tends to be progressive. (Also, those "on the clock" tend to be more sensitive to the high variance caused by congestion.)

I don't get it. Congestion pricing is bad, because it gouges the poor. But if we make the price much higher and call it a fine, then everything's okay.

by evanpw 12y ago

I don't get it. Congestion pricing is bad, because it gouges the poor. But if we make the price much higher and call it a fine, then everything's okay.

raldi 12y ago

"It's a regressive tax!" is the universal torpedo; you can use it to shoot down anything. Congestion pricing, parking meters, the gas tax, drought-driven price-of-water increases, fishing licenses, soccer field rental fees...

adamnemecek 12y ago
You can base the fine on income http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-fine I'm actually kind of surprised it's not more popular.
- marincounty 12y ago
  I've been wanting this for years, but their needs to be a upper fine limit. No one should get a $5000 ticket. That said, a $500 ticket can make some poor people loose their residence, or go without eating. I remember getting a high priced ticket in college, and my transmission went out on that day too. It ate up all my savings, and I seriously thought it's(college) is not worth it. I was working on the weekends at a union job, but barely getting by. It just doesn't make sense that a person's income isn't a factor in the fee structure. (My mom used to go to court and the judge would reduce the fee, but that was the 70's- 80's; I hear that tactic seldom works, or the reduction is not much?)
  - adamnemecek 12y ago
    > No one should get a $5000 ticket. Why not? This http://www.businessinsider.com/a-millionaire-in-finland-got-a-60000-speeding-ticket-2015-3 http://www.businessinsider.com/a-millionaire-in-finland-got-... seems pretty fair to me.
    - djf1 12y ago
      If person A and person B commit the same fineable offense, it seems fair to me that the fine should be the same for both people. After all, shouldn't the fine be, in expectation, equivalent to the damage caused by the offense?
      - adamnemecek 12y ago
        Do you think that it would be a good idea to have a fixed amount tax? I'm not talking about a flat tax, I'm talking about making everyone pay the same amount.
    - ptaipale 12y ago
      Because it creates a situation where it becomes stupidly risky to be affluent; people do make mistakes with e.g. speed limits - not everyone crosses them intentionally - and paying a € 50 000 fine for doing 21 km/h over a speed limit really makes people consider emigrating and taking their businesses to a more reasonable place. It also makes it more difficult to attract high-income workforce from abroad, thus having a negative impact on high-tech industries.
    - tomohawk 12y ago
      It just puts more pressure on people to move their wealth into corporations. How would you fine someone with no income or wealth, but who controls corporations that have plenty? Also, a persons wealth has nothing to do with the crime. Punishment should be based on the crime, not on a person's status.
      - maxerickson 12y ago
        Ownership of corporations should show up as personal wealth. The corporate structure might slightly obfuscate the details, but if you try to hard to hide wealth in the corporation you quickly get to the point where fraud is being committed. I guess you can have the corporation own the vehicle, but you get around that easily by fining the driver.

martinald 12y ago

It also doesn't work very well. Rich people just end up buying two cars.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
- evanpw 12y ago
  Google found this: http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/df.pdf http://faculty.haas.berkeley.edu/ldavis/df.pdf. But those high-order polynomial fits (see Figures 9 and 10) seem a little shady to me.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
    - evanpw 12y ago
      "the evidence indicates that HNC led to an increase in the total number of vehicles in circulation as well as a change in the composition of vehicles toward high-emissions vehicles"
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]
seanmcdirmid 12y ago
In Beijing, they also ration plates, so that isn't very effective either. And parking, damn, parking sucks. Two cars? That would suck twice as much.
raldi 12y ago
Note: By "it", the parent post is referring to even/odd restrictions, not congestion pricing.
megablast 12y ago

masterleep 12y ago

It's the same foolishness as supporting mandatory water rationing instead of raising the price for water during a drought.

thrownaway2424 12y ago
If you keep the existing rates on the first reasonable-amount-of-water amount of water per unit time and progressively charge more for every unit over that, you get as much savings without appearing to gouge anyone, rich or poor.

CalRobert 12y ago

If you can't afford congestion pricing, you probably can't afford car ownership. Note: millions of people own cars despite the fact that they really can't afford to.

hueving 12y ago
Millions of people live in the city, despite the fact that they can't afford to. We don't use that form of argument because it's stupid. People live in cities and use cars because they are necessary. If you have a family of 3 kids, using public transit costs more than a car. Fix that, then discourage cars.
- Zach_the_Lizard 12y ago
  >If you have a family of 3 kids, using public transit costs more than a car. Depends on where you live and how old the kids are. In my neck of the woods, kids get to ride free up to a certain age (like 4 or 5). After that they pay adult fares. If you're going the maximum fare distance at rush hour, it's something like $5.90 one way here per adult, but parking is like $15-$20. At that point you may be better of driving if you don't value your time (traffic is abysmal). My own commute is $2.20 one way at rush hour. Even with five adults (two parents and three kids over four years of age) the $22 you'd spend roundtrip on transit fares is comparable to the cost of driving and parking, but with less hassle. In cities like New York with cheaper fares and reasonable monthly passes you can drastically cut down on your transit costs and also have to deal with massively more expensive parking (if any) and tolls. Of course, one of the advantages of urban areas like mine with regards to travel cost is that many trips can be done without any wheels whatsoever, be they steel or rubber. The grocery store is across the street, next to the pharmacy, there're a few doctors offices, many restaurants, convenience stores, schools, parks, restaurants, tourist attractions, etc. all within a few minutes on foot. All of those trips are essentially free (minus the wear and tear on your shoes and clothes), promote good health, have a reduced environmental impact, reduce traffic, and require less tax resources than other forms of travel. Bringing the whole family on transit would be a less common occurrence. For certain trips, ZipCar or Car2Go may also be an option. Also, for trips outside of walkable or transit accessible areas, rental cars are available. I myself have a rental car agency across the street, so if I wanted to go hiking and didn't own a car I could.

pseudonom- 12y ago

If revenue from congestion pricing is used for public transit, it tends to be progressive. (Also, those "on the clock" tend to be more sensitive to the high variance caused by congestion.)