←back to thread

437 points Vinnl | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
jmyeet ◴[] 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 ◴[] 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 #
gjsman-1000 ◴[] No.43989788[source]
> Why would toll roads or congestion pricing be different?

The answer is actually quite simple: It won't be different. Prove to me it won't spread, because almost every new tax spreads.

When is the last time a tax has existed in one state, and not spread to other states within 5 years?

replies(3): >>43989819 #>>43989978 #>>43997744 #
ackfoobar ◴[] No.43989978[source]
I'm generally sympathetic to arguments that are "we will fall down the slippery slope." But as someone who has spent too much time stuck in traffic, I WANT congestion pricing to spread. It's just basic economics that people end up paying for a "free" resource with time - grossly inefficient.
replies(1): >>43990250 #
gjsman-1000[dead post] ◴[] No.43990250[source]
[flagged]
zhivota ◴[] No.43990353[source]
The trains and subway are right there...
replies(1): >>43990360 #
gjsman-1000[dead post] ◴[] No.43990360[source]
[flagged]
1. joshuamorton ◴[] No.43990485[source]
The fun question of course is, are you actually safer on the road, or does it just feel safer? Which is more likely, a subway assault or a dangerous road-rage incident? There's tons of examples of road rage incidents in NYC where people have guns pulled on them or worse. But that isn't a particular visceral fear folks have (and you shouldn't!), but the likelihood of you getting shot on the subway is about the same, if not lower, than being shot elsewhere.
replies(1): >>43990489 #