←back to thread

Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

(www.nytimes.com)
437 points Vinnl | 1 comments | 13 May 25 10:43 UTC | HN request time: 0.216s | source
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]▶
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 #
dcre ◴[14 May 25 23:04 UTC] No.43990108[source]▶
I’m impressed. This is one of the strangest opinions I’ve ever seen. What is special about “at use”? Presumably because it lets you avoid the question of whether everyone should get a free car. Does a monthly car payment count as “at use”? Why not if a monthly transit pass does?

The other replies point out that different forms of transit compete with each other, so the more cars we have, the fewer bikes and trains.

replies(1): >>43990147 #
potato3732842 ◴[14 May 25 23:10 UTC] No.43990147[source]▶
Because once an investment has been made in a car and roads or in a train line or whatever there should be no artificial distinctive for people to use it as they deem appropriate.
replies(3): >>43990371 #>>43990524 #>>43990999 #
1. dcre ◴[15 May 25 00:12 UTC] No.43990524[source]▶
As others have said, you are describing a totally imaginary world where money is the only cost. “Artificial” is doing all the work. But the very investments you’re describing are “artificial”, and more than that, they require constant spending to maintain. Why should cost at point of use be the only artificial incentive? What about the environment created by those investments? The quality of roads, the cleanliness of the train? Your distinction is contrived in service of your predetermined conclusion.