Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

(www.nytimes.com)

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 #

potato3732842 ◴[14 May 25 22:49 UTC] No.43989989[source]▶

>>43985407 #

I'm fundamentally against any measure that intentionally increases the cost at use of any form of transportation service whatsoever. Public transit? Free. Gas tax? Kill it.

I grew up on a goddamn island, I've seen what an inability for people to travel easily or when the cost of doing so has to be seriously weighed does to an economy and it's not good for anyone or anything except a very select lucky few who are well positioned to take advantage.

While the NY government can probably extract this rent from this area without damaging anything serious but it is not something that should be allowed to proliferate.

INB4 environment/pollution, the richer we all are the better custodians we will be of the environment. Nobody cares if their energy is clean when they can barely make ends meet.

replies(8): >>43990029 #>>43990033 #>>43990036 #>>43990108 #>>43990180 #>>43990291 #>>43993243 #>>43996393 #

1. graeme ◴[14 May 25 22:54 UTC] No.43990029[source]▶

>>43989989 #

Time is a cost though. You're looking only at monetary cost.

replies(2): >>43990059 #>>43990159 #

2. zzzbra ◴[14 May 25 22:57 UTC] No.43990059[source]▶

>>43990029 (TP) #

This is precisely the reasoning I bring up. In essence traffic congestion is an externality not unlike pollution. What society now pays in the form of a financial levy it formerly paid in the form of a wasted time. We've made explicit a cost that was already there, and by doing so the system can respond to it and behave more intelligently.

replies(1): >>43990313 #

3. potato3732842 ◴[14 May 25 23:12 UTC] No.43990159[source]▶

>>43990029 (TP) #

Exactly. The janitor has every right to sit in gridlock beside the CEO. If either doesn't like it they can adjust things but realistically the CEO's got the most ability and incentive to do so.

These artificial price distortions wind up most benefiting the people who were in the best position to alter their behavior.

replies(1): >>43991011 #

4. autoexec ◴[14 May 25 23:36 UTC] No.43990313[source]▶

>>43990059 #

> What society now pays in the form of a financial levy it formerly paid in the form of a wasted time.

Where it gets to be a problem is when instead of spending 40 minutes to get somewhere because of time stuck in traffic many people become priced out of driving and now have to spend 1.5 hours on public transportation to make the same trip. The cost of wasted time in this specific case might not be as extreme, but as more public roads are paywalled off around the country I expect we'll see more people forced to use inadequate public transportation suffer.

replies(1): >>44009856 #

5. sooheon ◴[15 May 25 01:40 UTC] No.43991011[source]▶

>>43990159 #

Driving your car incurs real externalities. Putting a price on it fixes the artificial extra incentive to drive, by making freeloaders pay up.

6. zzzbra ◴[16 May 25 21:11 UTC] No.44009856{3}[source]▶

>>43990313 #

your reasoning falls apart because mass transit options are inherently faster due to the geometric-space efficiencies gained by their form factors. You just need to induce enough people to participate in it to cross a tipping point where it becomes financially viable to run regular service, e.g., in NYC taking a train is often the fastest.

↑