←back to thread

437 points Vinnl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.246s | source
Show context
maerF0x0 ◴[] No.43985046[source]
Not to settle on "It's bad" but their so called "results" seems completely obvious.

The congestion policy is disincentivizing/suppressing people's preferred method by making it unaffordable to some, and unappealing to some. We already know that we can use policy to push people away from their preferred to a less preferred method. The items listed in green are mostly obvious as people seek alternatives. It's like highlighting how many fewer chicken deaths would occur if we created an omnivore or meat tax.

IMO what they should be keeping a careful eye on and tracking is how many fewer trips happen to businesses in those areas. How much fewer social interaction is happening across the distances that those car based trips used to occur. And how much harder is it to get goods into the areas. Is less economic activity happening.

In the long run, yes, maybe things will be net better for all, when the $45M per year has had a chance to make alternative transportation methods to be not just policy enforced, but truly _preferred_ option.

replies(12): >>43985091 #>>43985160 #>>43985212 #>>43985245 #>>43985252 #>>43985271 #>>43985285 #>>43985399 #>>43985482 #>>43985872 #>>43985908 #>>44001228 #
PaulDavisThe1st ◴[] No.43985245[source]
> people's preferred method

You have some evidence of this?

replies(1): >>43985284 #
taeric ◴[] No.43985284[source]
To be fair, I think this is just definitional? If you would normally do one behavior, but an increased cost to it causes you to do something else; I think it is fair to say the first would be your preference?

Now, if it was claimed as a superior method, that would be different. I could easily see it being people's preference as much from habit and availability as from any active preference. Certainly few people want to sit in traffic. But without an obvious immediate cost, many will jump in the car to drive somewhere.

replies(6): >>43985360 #>>43985369 #>>43985500 #>>43985531 #>>43985650 #>>43985907 #
1. jasonlotito ◴[] No.43985531[source]
> To be fair, I think this is just definitional? If you would normally do one behavior, but an increased cost to it causes you to do something else; I think it is fair to say the first would be your preference?

Good point, but I don't think people prefer the car. Rather, I think they prefer the convenience a car provides. Sure, there are some people that love driving, but for the rest of us, I'm pretty sure driving is a means to an end. (As an aside, I'm also pretty sure that by-and-large people that love to drive aren't wanting to drive into NYC ).

Rather, if people prefer the most convenient method of travel, and if something becomes more convenient, they will take that.

All this is to say, driving isn't their preferred method of travel. Rather, it just happened to meet their preferred levels of convenience. And not all of that is money related. Being able to take public transit and sit and relax and enjoy the ride and not deal with traffic and listen to an audio book, I love that. And if it's good enough, I don't drive. But I do still have a car and drive more than I take public transit. Not because my preferred method of travel is car. Rather, my preferred method of travel is whatever gets m to my destination in a reasonable amount of time, price, comfort, and safety.

I'm sure this is more likely a thought experiment and not as useful, but you had an interesting question, and it got me thinking.