Most active commenters
  • listenallyall(4)
  • woodruffw(3)

←back to thread

Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

(www.nytimes.com)
437 points Vinnl | 11 comments | 13 May 25 10:43 UTC | HN request time: 1.057s | source | bottom
Show context
jmyeet ◴[14 May 25 15:04 UTC] No.43985407[source]▶
I was living in London when congestion pricing was introduced and went into the West End the day before and the first day of and the difference was night and day. The difference along Oxford Street, Regent's Street, Green Street, etc was astounding.

And in the 20+ years the evidence seems to back up how much of a net positive it has been.

NYC congestion pricing took way too long because the New York Democratic Party sucks and, as usual, legal efforts were made to block it, much as how well-intentioned laws like CEQA (designed to protect the environment) are actually just weaponized to block development of any kind.

What's so bizarre to me is how many people have strong opinions on NYC congestion pricing who have never been and will never go to NYC. Americans love the slippery slope argument. It's like "well, if they make driving cars slightly more expensive in Lower Manhattan then next the government is going to take away my gas-guzzling truck in Idaho".

What's also surprising is how many people who live in outer Queens and Brooklyn chose to drive into Manhattan and were complaining how this changed their behavior. Um, that was the point. I honestly didn't know how many people like that there were.

What really needs to happen but probably never will is to get rid of free street parking below about 96th street or 110th.

Also, either ban or simply charge more for combustion vehicles. Go and look at how quiet Chinese cities are where the vehicles are predominantly electric now.

replies(5): >>43989536 #>>43989989 #>>43992030 #>>43993619 #>>43996044 #
listenallyall ◴[14 May 25 21:45 UTC] No.43989536[source]▶
Why does the slippery slope concept surprise you? It actually happens often - banning smoking indoors, for example - started in just one city, once they tweaked the model and overcame the legal challenges, it spread rather quickly. Legalized casinos, same thing. Uber, drinking age, pot legalization, more. Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different? (Idaho's Sun Valley probably already implements something similar). And ICE vehicles are definitely in many politicians' crosshairs, if you don't already see that coming in the next decade, you aren't really looking.
replies(5): >>43989675 #>>43989747 #>>43989788 #>>43989850 #>>43993238 #
1. woodruffw ◴[14 May 25 22:03 UTC] No.43989675[source]▶
These would be examples of normalization, not a slippery slope. The OP's example makes this clear (from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car," not "congestion pricing in NYC" to "congestion pricing elsewhere").

(Regardless, I think the answer is simple: congestion pricing is only economically viable when an area is simultaneously congested and has alternative transportation methods that would prevent the local economy from collapsing. NYC is one of a very small handful of cities in the US where this is true, although that's largely a function of 80 years of car-centric design. Maybe it will change.)

replies(2): >>43989789 #>>43990277 #
2. listenallyall ◴[14 May 25 22:20 UTC] No.43989789[source]▶
Numerous politicians and advocates have suggested exempting electric vehicles from the NYC congestion pricing. Such vehicles are exempt in London. It isnt unusual for governments to start a program with one goal or purpose, then expand it (or use as a launching point) to achieve further goals, such as banning ICE vehicles.

This is currently happening with cigarettes. Banning them at workplaces and other public places is one thing. But we live in a capitalist country that celebrates individual freedom. Or do we? Beverly Hills CA and Manhattan Beach CA have both banned the sale of cigarettes entirely. Massachusetts banned all flavored cigarettes and is trying to permanently ban the sale of cigarettes to anyone a born after a certain date.

These go beyond "normalization", it is exactly slippery slope... get a small foothold then keep expanding the position.

replies(3): >>43989945 #>>43990267 #>>43993649 #
3. Symbiote ◴[14 May 25 22:43 UTC] No.43989945[source]▶
Note that from 2026, electric vehicles will no longer be exempt from the London congestion charge.
4. woodruffw ◴[14 May 25 23:29 UTC] No.43990267[source]▶
People suggest all kinds of things. Just about every special interest group in the city wanted a congestion exemption; most did not get it. I don’t think this itself makes for good evidence of a slippery slope.
replies(1): >>43992283 #
5. jasonfarnon ◴[14 May 25 23:31 UTC] No.43990277[source]▶
"normalization, not a slippery slope"

Sounds like an arbitrary distinction, but in any event, it was the OP who used "slippery slope" to refer to going from "congestion pricing in NYC" to "they're going to take my car."

replies(2): >>43990312 #>>43990912 #
6. woodruffw ◴[14 May 25 23:35 UTC] No.43990312[source]▶
The distinction is important: a change in a law isn’t always a slippery slope towards other things. Implementing congestion pricing isn’t a slippery slope towards seizing peoples’ cars, which was GP’s point (which I agree with).

To make it obvious: universal suffrage is a change that happened, but it wasn’t a slippery slope towards giving dogs the right to vote. Some changes result in new stases.

replies(1): >>43992248 #
7. listenallyall ◴[15 May 25 06:00 UTC] No.43992248{3}[source]▶
But nobody was claiming congestion pricing would absolutely lead to seizing cars. The OP was talking about the fear that more things may happen, which is perfectly logical. Today, nobody (including you) can say whether 10 or 20 years from now, ICE cars will be banned. But observing steps that appear to lead in that direction, and being concerned or fearful, is rational and logical.
8. listenallyall ◴[15 May 25 06:09 UTC] No.43992283{3}[source]▶
New York's congestion pricing was just implemented. It's far too early to know whether it will, or to claim it won't, lead to further restrictions, such as banning some vehicles altogether.
9. superblas ◴[15 May 25 08:02 UTC] No.43992850{4}[source]▶
Could you please expand on how that is murder?
replies(1): >>43996857 #
10. jampekka ◴[15 May 25 10:47 UTC] No.43993649[source]▶
Over 300 recreationally used molecules have been banned outright by UN conventions alone. Not saying this is good, but cigarettes are very much an exception to the norm.
11. almosthere ◴[15 May 25 16:49 UTC] No.43996857{5}[source]▶
Abortion, it is literally killing a human. https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bGulABsExMs