The Death of NYC Congestion Pricing

https://www.apricitas.io/p/the-death-of-nyc-congestion-pricing

by gmays • 2 years ago

171 336 2 years ago

apricitas.io

KerrAvon• 2 years ago

Kathy Hochul really dug her political grave by killing this at the last minute. So at least there’s that.

returningfory22• 2 years ago

Yeah I am curious how this will play out for her in the long run.

One interesting dynamic here is the media's bias towards negative news. In the run up to congestion pricing the NY Times was putting out these very anti-congestion pricing articles (we need to be anxious that congestion pricing is happening!). But as soon as it was cancelled they flipped and now have put out a bunch of articles portraying the cancellation as a blunder (we need to be anxious that congestion pricing is _not_ happening!). I wonder in the long run what the steady state media framing of this whole episode will be.

devilbunny• 2 years ago

The NYT is predictable: imagine an upper-middle-class woman and her concerns, and the NYT coverage will reflect that. My wife is a subscriber and has been for years, though we live far from NY and actually have only been there once together.

kccqzy• 2 years ago

Not just the NYT, most media these days will try to stir up controversy and make you angry. First you are made angry about the implementation of the congestion pricing, then you are made angry about its cancellation.

woodruffw15• 2 years ago

This is a nice, data heavy summary of the situation!

Something that stood out to me: there's been a marked decline in state and local funding for NYCT since before COVID. I wasn't fully aware of just how much the city and state had independently cut back: it looks like NYCT part of MTA alone is receiving $3B less per year than it was in 2019.

Congestion pricing is sound policy regardless, but this hammers home the perception that NYS treats the MTA (and NYCT in particular) as a financial sponge that can be squeezed for spare change whenever a boondoggle needs funding somewhere else.

timbo1642• 2 years ago

Its nothing but a scam and anyone that supports it is completely heartless. It makes people poorer and nothing else. NYC has the national guard at its subways because its so dangerous. Its beyond dangerous still during many times. It is also always fucked up and is late or it breaks or other issues. Its not that reliable.

Its just a scam to grab money from already broke people that are suffering and only awful people support this because they can't think for themselves and are followers.

katbyte3• 2 years ago

Did the subway get drastically worse in the last few years or something? Last time I was in NYC I stayed in Harlem and either biked or took the subway everywhere I needed to go. It was.. fine?

yunwal2• 2 years ago

The NYC metro is a far, far safer way to travel than driving. 121 people die in traffic yearly in New York City. In the highest-crime year in recent memory (2022) there were 10 deaths in the metro. Generally it's 2 or 3 yearly.

sleepydog• 2 years ago

Can I ask, do you live in NYC and take the subway?

seoulmetro11• 2 years ago

Congestion pricing is cutting off the nose to spite the face.

It's dumb, but it does "stop the problem", the same way charging 5x more for petrol would, or closing all the highways into the city.... whilst also hurting a bunch of people.

woodruffw15• 2 years ago

This hasn't played out in other cities, so I don't know why you think this.

Notably, NYC congestion pricing does not affect the highways into the city: if you take a highway into the city and stay on the highway, you won't be charged. The charge is only for entering the city grid, where the (reasonable) argument is that the transportation system is more than sufficient and the traffic, noise, and tailpipe emissions of your car do more harm to local residents than they fairly benefit you.

timr4• 2 years ago

I keep saying it and getting savaged, but as someone who lives here and doesn't own a car, it's been obvious to me that "congestion pricing" was a lot more about collecting an additional tax from residents, and a lot less about "congestion", than anyone in power was letting on. The entire thing was heavy handed and dumb, but branded just well enough to capture the passions of NYC city people who really really really hate cars (and New Jersey) and don't think too deeply about it beyond that.

The plan was structured in a way that it would affect every resident of the city via higher prices on goods and services, surcharges on delivery, taxis, construction, etc. Setting aside the issue of local residents with cars (which I could care less about), the planners refused to make sensible carve-outs for things like cargo trucks, construction vehicles, and so on. They could have done it, they just didn't. It was about maximizing revenue for the MTA, not about making sensible policy.

Maybe the fees would be small when amortized over a truck full of groceries or a tanker full of oil, but that didn't change the fact that it was a regressive tax on everyone who lives here, and taxes here are already amongst the highest in the country. This stuff adds up.

tim3332• 2 years ago

Congestion pricing is cutting off the nose to spite the face. It's dumb, but it does "stop the problem"...

I live in London they brought it in and it's been ok overall. It doesn't stop congestion but reduces it a bit. For commuters it's probably a bit better as they mostly use the train/bus etc and benefit from less traffic. For workmen needing to deliver and fix things it's a bit of a pain. For me living in the center I'd probably take the plus of less traffic over the minus of getting a plumber to visit being expensive.

Re the tax grab - yeah but they have to get tax money from somewhere to pay for services and the like.

FooBarBizBazz• 2 years ago

Congestion pricing is good IFF the money is used to fund transit in some way that eases said congestion. (Personally I believe this should mean mass transit and pedestrian/bicycle infrastructure, but that's not the main "theoretical issue" I'm trying to address here.) Otherwise you're just replacing a more egalitarian form of backpressure (the traffic itself) with a less egalitarian one (prices).

pjc50• 2 years ago

Charging 5x more for petrol would also be a good idea. NYC isn't Florida, but it's still exposed to the risks of climate change.

onlyrealcuzzo• 2 years ago

MTA operates at a ~$600B loss. How is the city using it as a sponge to pay for other things?

I'm all for funding mass transit.

But the city is not using MTA revenue to pay for other things.

mechagodzilla• 2 years ago

I think you are off by a factor of 1000 - MTA lost $600M (not B!) last year.

woodruffw15• 2 years ago

MTA definitely doesn’t have 600B to lose, so I’m assuming you mean million. And it’s not the city; the MTA is run by the state. So the city can’t use it to pay for other things, but the state can both divert and reappropriate its budget.

Take a look at the third image in the post: both state and local funding from the MTA have been reduced in recent years, dating back to the FY before COVID.

Similarly, here’s an example of the state using MTA as a piggy bank for upstate ski resorts[1].

[1] https://jalopnik.com/new-york-mta-gave-millions-to-bail-out-...

goodSteveramos2• 2 years ago

Increasing the density of jobs, hospitals, restaurants, homes, schools, and more is key … as density grows mass transit becomes essential

This guy has it all backwards. No developer in his right mind is going to plow billions of dollars into high density housing without existing rail access. The new subway and commuter lines have to be built first, then the high density development becomes viable around it.

TrainedMonkey• 2 years ago

It's a chicken egg problem... as usual there is no right solution. China is the largest example of building transit infrastructure first, my understanding is that there are a lot of issues there, but most of them are due to how the effort was structured. On the other hand when housing is built first there is a lot of demand for transit infrastructure, but it becomes extremely hard and expensive as seen in every metro area in USA.

seoulmetro11• 2 years ago

In East Asia the problem is that the developments are so good, and nearly always get done with support for infrastructure that there are so many cronies in the government or with insider knowledge that can make bank off the outcome. Leads to some serious issues.

I highly, highly doubt it would be harder for those problems to happen here. In fact I think if it ever happened, it would be a huge corrupt mess.

goodSteveramos2• 2 years ago

when housing is built first there is a lot of demand for transit infrastructure

Not if it’s low density housing, which it will be if there is no transit.

skybrian• 2 years ago

One way to do it is for the transit authority itself to build a large amount of real estate next to or over the new station and lease it out. The costs are front-loaded, though, so a large amount of financing (like selling bonds) will be needed.

rallison• 2 years ago

Both what you say and what the article says is right.

To the article's point, in urban areas, increased density often happens even when mass transit isn't expanded (which then often leads to ever worsening traffic). So, for urban areas that are organically becoming denser, mass transit becomes ever more important, which was partially the article's point in the section you quoted.

Also, to generously read the article, it seems to be making two related points, but not actually imposing a "one should follow the other" ordering that you read into it. The full paragraph:

Globally, that is nothing notable—in most urban cores a majority of workers take public transportation for work and daily activities. Increasing the density of jobs, hospitals, restaurants, homes, schools, and more is key to the agglomeration effects that make cities such economic powerhouses, and as density grows mass transit becomes essential since it can far surpass the maximum throughput capacity of even the largest roadways.

It is saying two things: 1) high density is critical to be an economic powerhouse and 2) mass transit becomes even more essential as density increases. That paragraph isn't inherently saying mass transit should follow densification (vs preceding densification). Ideally you build out mass transit in anticipation of densification vs playing catch up.

Anyway, to your point, it's absolutely true that building out mass transit is critical in attracting more high-density development (especially very high-density development), and critical in enabling high density development in places that otherwise might not attract that sort of investment.

leetcrew3• 2 years ago

This guy has it all backwards. No developer in his right mind is going to plow billions of dollars into high density housing without existing rail access.

this is the default option? build a big complex with a courtyard, then surround it with a parking lot or dedicate 1/4 of the building to a garage.

I'm interested to see what happens with the new potomac yards wmata stop. I appreciate they are trying to expand rail in anticipation of growth, but it looks kinda dumb right now. it's a good 15 minute walk through parking lots to get to the nearest store or apartment building. you would never use that stop if you could afford a car. to be fair, the station just opened. it could look very different in 5-10 years. if they waited for it to densify first, people might be complaining about how much more expensive the station was.

tsimionescu2• 2 years ago

Not living in the USA, but I have never heard of the idea of a city drawing transportation lines to an empty area in anticipation of new buildings. Transportation is always reactive in my experience, especially if we're talking about costly things like metro lines or trams. You can't predict what will attract people to some area, so building a line to nowhere and expecting developers to move there because an unused line now exists is a waste of public money.

teractiveodular2• 2 years ago

The reason places like Tokyo, Hong Kong and Singapore have such great public transport is precisely because the rail planners work hand in hand with urban planners. Railway construction is largely financed by property sales (both residential and commercial) and when done well is hugely profitable, as the former richest man in the world, Yoshiaki Tsutsumi of the Seibu Corporation, can attest.

Retroactively building a subway line in an already densely populated area is a hugely expensive exercise, as most recently demonstrated in NYC itself with the 2nd Ave extension.

occz2• 2 years ago

The ongoing transit expansions in Stockholm were green-lit on condition that the municipalities getting increased transit access would invest in building housing in the vicinity of that transit.

You can definitely predict what will attract people to an area - rapid access to everything that the downtowns of cities provide is one such thing.

nox101• 2 years ago

Many cities in and around Los Angeles cities built around train stations.

https://www.amazon.com/This-Pacific-Electric-Stephanie-Edwar...

Symbiote2• 2 years ago

See this article for the original metro in London, which was built exactly like this, though with private money.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro-land

Nowadays it's common to build a new station in an area that needs redevelopment, perhaps a former industrial area.

imtringued5• 2 years ago

Land near public transport services is generally prime real estate. The only developers who wouldn't jump on this opportunity are the ones that hate money.

CalRobert12• 2 years ago

The Netherlands and China has built transit at the same time as (or before) new areas are developed.

PaulHoule6• 2 years ago

My wife and I were going to a graduation party in Maryland and figured we’d stay in a hotel near the end of the metro line and ride into DC to see the National Mall, Union Square, etc.

The Shady Grove end of the red line has a large development of mixed commercial and residential of buildings that are uniformly about 5 stories (I think) tall that was built to go with the transit line, I understand it is like that in Virginia too.

China is famous for building metros before building the rest of the city.

xethos• 2 years ago

The lower mainland (just outside Vancouver) has the Millenium Line extension. It was, when planned and built, called a train to nowhere. It doesn't go to nowhere anymore :)

stetrain3• 2 years ago

At a certain point in time, building new streetcar lines and "streetcar suburbs" along those lines was fairly common in US cities. Often the property developer and the streetcar operator were the same company or ownership:

https://www.planetizen.com/definition/streetcar-suburbs

Most of those have since had the streetcar lines removed or abandoned as cheap cars and gas replaced them, and the incentive for the original developer to maintain them went away.

CalRobert12• 2 years ago

If this is true, then why has almost the entire US worked to make it illegal to build high density housing? Presumably they wouldn't have bothered if nobody was trying to build it?

jimby• 2 years ago

Interesting that the major cities with sizable public transport user populations are all in the northeast hub. Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, DC. Growing up and living here, cars aren't really necessary day to day in any of these cities. I'm shocked when I travel to basically any other major-ish US city, especially "newer" big cities like Denver, Phoenix, Miami, Tampa. The best way I can describe it is older cities are built at human-scale, newer cities are built at car-scale.

swatcoder• 2 years ago

Those northeast cities form a connected industrial corridor that specifically bloomed during the train age. People and goods were actively shuffling around between them and within them as the very essence of why they existed.

Meanwhile, many other US cities were developed around regional agriculture, ranching, frontier settlement, and/or sea and river ports. Some explored sophisticated public transit systems at one point or another, but by the time they got really urbanized, cars were widely available and it was easier to justify roads and highways for personally-owned vehies than far more expensive train/tram infrastructure. We now see how car-centrism introduces limits on growth, but there wasn't a consensus sense of what those limits were or whether growth would really encounter them.

tsimionescu2• 2 years ago

You also shouldn't forget that car companies actively bought and dismantled mass transportation in several of those cities, at a loss to them, for the express purpose of driving demand for cars.

cortesoft2• 2 years ago

Yeah, cities that got big before cars aren’t designed around cars… seems like a logical result.

treflop• 2 years ago

It’s not about how the city is built… cities are largely built the same… completely haphazardly.

What older cities have, due to their age, is a metric ton more people in a smaller area because they ran out of space to expand and have to redevelop existing land.

Phoenix has 5% of the density of Paris and is not even 150 years old. Paris is over 2,000 years old. If Phoenix keeps growing for the next 2,000 years, will it have great public transit? Probably.

htthbjk• 2 years ago

Phoenix is a desert oven. It will never grow like Paris.

weberer• 2 years ago

Philadelphia is the odd one out there. Unless you live in Center City, most people have cars.

slt202121• 2 years ago

Does anyone have answer as to why MTA is a financial mess and a single elevator project costs $81 mln[1] ?

Congestion pricing seems like a pathetic attempt to squeeze money to fund bloated MTA salaries and bogus overtime[2]. that just eats MTA's budget. Widely cited $15 bln budget hole is roughly comparable to the decade of bogus $1.4 bln overtime that MTA workers accrue

Transit agency must go through a deep and thorough cleanup and restructuring of its finances, before it demands more funding from taxpayers

Same like city of San Fransicko spent $24 Bln with a B with nothing to show for it, arguably situation got only worse[3], while nonprofit and homeless industrial complex only got record funding and record fraud charges

  1. https://slate.com/business/2019/09/mta-elevators-are-the-perfect-example-of-new-yorks-cost-problems.html
  2. https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/blog/55017643/op-ed-excessive-mta-employee-overtime-continues-year-after-year
  3. https://www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/california-homelessness-spending-audit-24b-five-years-didnt-consistently-track-outcomes/

returningfory22• 2 years ago

On the one hand, this is a reasonable point to make and I think it's partially why the political support for congestion pricing wasn't there.

On the other hand, in reality, making new transit funding conditional on the MTA cleaning up all its inefficiencies and corruptions will simply translate into transit being underfunded.

slt202121• 2 years ago

It is unsustainable to keep squandering taxpayer money and demanding more and more resources with worse and worse results.

Private sector would never have allowed it

woodruffw15• 2 years ago

Because it doesn't: the $81M is to make an entire station ADA compliant, not to install a single elevator.

This is still more than it should cost, but it's important to have the facts straight.

The larger answer to the MTA's financial mess is multitudinous:

1. It's really 5+ independent transport systems folded into one big, unwieldy authority. Some of those systems (particularly the LIRR and MNRR, but not NYCT) are famous for overtime fraud[1].

2. NYCT runs 24/7, which means that maintenance operations need to happen at night or other overtime periods. That means higher baseline costs for labor.

3. The MTA intentionally under-hires, under the financial theory that overtime pay is more sustainable than more heads on the 20-year pension pipeline.

4. Any amount of capital development on the subway is fundamentally expensive, both due to the age of the system, the complexity of the infrastructure that's developed around it, the need to minimize disruption to the rest of the system and city, etc. The MTA has repeatedly opted for bigger, more expensive capital programs that minimize disruption throughout the city, with the SAS's extremely deep tunnels being a good example of this.

[1] https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/highest-paid-mta-employ...

slt202121• 2 years ago

MTA finances are unsustainable if they demand bailout and try to hide it under the label of "congestion pricing".

If you look at what CP advocates say: it is all about ecology, emissions, congestion, freeing up the road for cyclists, etc. Some people mention MTA capital projects and ADA compliance, etc.

But no CP advocate has actually and honestly told the truth: MTA is underwater, its finances, collective bargaining agreement is unsustainable, fraud is rampant, without this extra tax they will simply go bankrupt.

This is the clearest case of mismanagement and dishonest communication with the taxpayers. CP funding should go directly to the city, and any capital MTA funding should come from loans that are repayable (either via additional citywide tax/tolls/fares/City general fund/etc).

You can't keep throwing good money after bad money into this financial black hole

gorbachev• 2 years ago

One additional reason is that a not insignificant amount of the funding comes from New York State. NYS and NYC are in a permanent love/hate relationship, and any process that concerns using tax funds originating from NYC to other parts of the state or vice versa is always difficult.

salvagedcircuit• 2 years ago

How do you have an article about commuting into NYC without even mentioning Long Island or the Long Island Rail Road? 0_____0

cortesoft2• 2 years ago

Wonder if they decided to return the revenue from the congestion pricing to the cities residents if they would get more support… just take the total revenue, divide it by the number of citizens, and cut everyone a check for their share. It would still reduce congestion, and would transfer money from people who drive to people who use public transit. People might support it if it meant money in their pockets.

gennarro• 2 years ago

The article vastly underplays how mismanaged the MTA is and how poorly the subway is run on a massive budget. It is one of the last organizations that should be receiving this level of additional revenue, regardless of any sunk costs that have been put towards congestion pricing. This whole thing has been a mess for years so why double down on it when it would punish a set of residents and commuters and have very little chance of improving things for riders?

slt202121• 2 years ago

Agree, MTA must go bankrupt and restructure its liabilities, contracts, and overall cost structure to start from clean slate.

Only after thorough and deep cleanup it would gain taxpayer trust and be on a get-well plan to be more sustainable financially.

It would still operate in maintenance mode in the interim, while going through restructuring, NYC has no lack of financial restructuring professionals in downtown

katbyte3• 2 years ago

You can’t start from a clean slate with so much legacy infrastructure

asah8• 2 years ago

You misunderstand the power of organized labor, the oligopoly of skilled labor able to maintain and adapt the legacy infrastructure and the shocking cost of bespoke manufacturing. I'm on the boards of two Manhattan buildings and see the numbers and can't even imagine what MTA goes through.

leetcrew3• 2 years ago

idk, I honestly think congestion pricing would still be a good idea even if they just lit all the toll proceeds on fire. I almost wonder if it was a political blunder to couple "reduce cars in lower manhatten" with "more funding for MTA" in the first place.

walterbell6• 2 years ago

Congestion pricing has little impact on the unlimited number of cars (unlike regulated taxis) that can enter Manhattan and drive around for hours for Uber/Lyft.

lmm2• 2 years ago

The MTA might be badly run by subway standards but it still gives you a lot more bang for your buck than roads in NY, once you include the market-rate cost of the space that those roads take up.

josephcsible• 2 years ago

once you include the market-rate cost of the space that those roads take up

That's like saying that since land closer to Central Park is worth more than land further away, that we should demolish Central Park and replace it with more apartments. Property in NYC would be worthless if there weren't roads you could use to reach it.

scrubs• 2 years ago

Agree - only today I complained about the nyc subway on hn.

But a car? Parking it? Tolls? Insurance? To drive around in traffic going no where fast?

You're daydreaming.

Taxi/Uber when needed and subway the other 90%. I'm two blocks from the subway with coffee and a diner on the way there. Man, it's awesome. I'm annoyed def some days more than others at the mta, but this is a no-brainer.

Gd it America! Not everything can be low cost now/today and have long term soundness ... there are too many cars polluting too much in too small of an area going nowhere fast. As a would be business operator of the city, I damn near have a moral imperative to make some cash on that imbalance.

I've spent many a $25 going 2 miles or less (say when raining) in a yellow cab. I always feel half stupid for paying it given how slow it is to move two lousy miles.

dang• 2 years ago

Related. Others? I'm sure there were others:

With congestion pricing stop, New York City enters new era of economic gridlock - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40625307 - June 2024 (150 comments)

NYC Congestion Pricing Delayed Indefinitely by Governor Kathy Hochul - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40587485 - June 2024 (16 comments)

MTA board votes to approve new $15 toll to drive into Manhattan - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39841703 - March 2024 (831 comments)

NYC's plan to ease gridlock? A $15 toll for Manhattan drivers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39549726 - Feb 2024 (24 comments)

New York approves the first congestion toll in the US: $15 to enter Manhattan - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38583532 - Dec 2023 (155 comments)

NYC Congestion Toll Could Cost Drivers $23 per Trip Starting Next Spring - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36512248 - June 2023 (41 comments)

New York City will charge drivers going downtown - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36270597 - June 2023 (671 comments)

occz2• 2 years ago

History will not look kindly upon the treachery of Kathy Hochul. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for her little stunt to be rightfully shot down - she doesn't have the authority to stop this policy.

Justice would be immediate termination from her position along with a prison sentence.

pif5• 2 years ago

as density grows mass transit becomes essential since it can far surpass the maximum throughput capacity of even the largest roadways.

Once again this idiocy! Planners love so much to talk about throughput, and then they are surprised when people "do not understand". People do understand: people know that the only important metric is door-to-door time!

Nobody could care less about how many people can get to the station! Everybody just wants to minimize the time wasted within transportation, because the 24 hours in a day are not expandable.

I've never been to New York, please don't take this as a critic specific to this city. It's just that I'm tired of planners trying to "evangelize" the people while ignoring their actual concern.

imtringued5• 2 years ago

Driving a car in NYC isn't going to be much faster than taking the bus.

pif5• 2 years ago

It depends on where you live and work with respect to the nearest stations, and on how many legs your trip consist of.

JoshGG• 2 years ago

The key part of this comment is "I've never been to New York".

pif5• 2 years ago

Stockholm’s congestion tax was approved by voters after a 7-month trial period.

How dishonest must you be to lie in such a blatant way?

From the Wikipedia page referenced from the article: "Local consultative referendums regarding whether to permanently implement the congestion tax were held in Stockholm Municipality and several other municipalities in Stockholm County on September 17, 2006. It was only the referendum in Stockholm Municipality that the at the time reigning government would use as a basis for the decision. The municipalities surrounding Stockholm in Stockholm County, especially those that are part of the city of Stockholm, showed discontent with the fact that the people of those municipalities get no say whether the congestion taxes will be implemented permanently."

And the data shows unambiguously that it was only the resident of the centre tha voted yes.

frankharv• 2 years ago

""so congestion pricing serves redistributive purposes as well.""

In many places this would be called this socialism.

imtringued5• 2 years ago

"In many places" = Only in the US

asah8• 2 years ago

LOL people on the thread whining about MTA efficiency. Individual personal care are insanely inefficient, double when you consider all the roads and parking required.

I gave up my car when moving to Manhattan and now subway, walk and bike everywhere. It's a dream and saves $5000+ per year including capital cost, maintenance, gas, tolls, parking, insurance, repairs, cleaning, traffic tickets. As a society there's another $N000/year saved on the marginal cost of another car: road maintenance, traffic cops, people sitting in traffic instead of living their lives, etc.

Robotaxis change a bunch of this math: utilization shoots up and drives down cost per user, and people can live/work (on their cellphones) while being passengers.

asah8• 2 years ago

"The immediate vicinity of the North Berkeley BART stop in California is surrounded on all sides by parking lots, and thus the station currently sees only about 1,700 riders per weekday."

?!!? No: 1. North Berkeley is extremely low density housing. 2. There's a casual carpool pickup right in front of the station, which siphons 100s of riders away from BART. It's very fast, there's little wait time and it's free.

If North Berkeley had skyscrapers and riders didn't have a better option then you'd see NYC level ridership.

asah8• 2 years ago

"Contractors who work with the MTA on these projects already charge a premium for having to manage the substantial risk that construction is delayed or canceled—introducing “the Governor might suddenly decide your job is over” as another risk to worry about will just increase those cost premiums, thin the pool of companies who are capable of working with the MTA, and reward the politically savvy. ... The fact that infrastructure plans can go through years of study, environmental review, public consultation, pilot projects, revisions, lawsuits, construction, delays, and more only to then be shelved days before final implementation is a large part of why public works are so expensive in the first place."

Savvy point that's often missed in these discussions. I'm on the boards of two buildings in Manhattan and see these invisible "taxes" all the time.

yardie2• 2 years ago

I'm reviewing the budget for our condo now and some of the renovation projects have a contingency budget of 25%. You would think that was overkill but the last project was an elevator upgrade where the city inspector sat on the permit for almost a year.

bluGill• 2 years ago

Make sure you ask all residents to contact their city representative on this. If politicians don't feel pressure they won't do anything.

pc866• 2 years ago

There's a simple (but not easy) fix to this. After 30 days of no movement, permits are issued automatically and any fees paid are returned out of that department's budget, regardless of where the permit fees actually go.

The default response to government inaction is typically a) the citizen can't do whatever thing they're trying to do without violating the law, and b) nothing bad happens to the bureaucrats not doing their jobs. If those two things inverted you'd see government become more efficient overnight.

steveBK1234• 2 years ago

Anyone who thinks NYC simply needs to pass more laws & taxes should sit on a condo/coop board for a few years. Thankless job, and dealing with the city bureaucracy is awful.

Lot of mechanisms setup to punish & tax buildings but not to facilitate the timely curing of whatever they are fining you over.

One favorite was after an elevator incident a few years ago, the city passed some new law that required mostly software updates to elevators. It was essentially an update to prevent elevator repairmen from overriding the safety mechanism preventing motion when the door is open. So putting a safety on the safety.

However of course there are only like 2 companies in the city and they colluded on how much they'd charge. So in effect it was a $10k per elevator tax on every residential building in the city. Not huge in the grand scheme of things, but in my condo that was a random 4% of budget blown away at the stroke of a pen. And they do this all the time.

We had to do facade inspections and the city institutes all sorts of rules & fines around it, but then we ran into a stubborn neighbor with axe to grind with sponsor disallowing access on adjacent side for our scaffolding. City of course does nothing to force compliance by neighbor, it's your problem. Eventually had to be paid off in some manner.

Very much city of no.

asoneth8• 2 years ago

When I lived in NYC many years ago I'd be walking, biking, driving, at a park, dining in an outdoor cafe, in my living room, etc and perpetually surrounded by the noise, smell, and inconvenience of gridlocked traffic and road construction. I eventually tuned it out, but every time I left and came back it drove home how ridiculous it was.

I eventually moved to New England because it became clear that despite the city having good bones, the leadership (and many voters) were more interested in coming up with ways to make it convenient for drivers to drive and/or park in every neighborhood in the city than making it a pleasant place to live. The ghost of Robert Moses influences everything there.

So I was floored when it seemed like such an incompetently managed city as NYC was actually going to implement the obviously correct solution of charging money to allocate a scarce resource. What was less surprising was the fact that it was derailed by a state politician but only at the last minute and after hundreds of millions had already been spent.

throwaway7ahgb3• 2 years ago

> the leadership (and many voters) were more interested in coming up with ways to make it convenient for drivers to drive and/or park in every neighborhood in the city than making it a pleasant place to live. The ghost of Robert Moses influences everything there.

Sorry but this statement is not true. Compare NYC today vs 1980s or earlier. There are more bike lanes, parks, walking paths than ever before. Roads in Manhattan are narrowed frequently to allow more pedestrians.

The west side highway is amazing for biking, I love it. Just because it is not Copenhagen or Amsterdam doesn't mean progress isn't made.

source: Lived in Manhattan for 20+ years. Own a car, bike regularly and walk to work.

giraffe_lady• 2 years ago

It can improve a lot and still be godawful.

CalRobert12• 2 years ago

It’s so far behind Amsterdam, Paris, etc it doesn’t deserve to consider itself in the same class.

Bluecobra• 2 years ago

Also I could be wrong here but I think Central Park was also closed off to normal traffic. I rode an e-bike there last year and it was so much fun.

asoneth8• 2 years ago

Roads in Manhattan are narrowed frequently to allow more pedestrians.

That's wonderful to hear! I lived in NYC for the better part of a decade and was a big supporter of orgs like Transportation Alternatives and their work with the DOT to advocate for road diets.

At least when I lived there the painted bike lanes were a running joke and more dangerous than just taking a car lane because every block there was at least one taxi or truck blocking the bike lane. And in cases where there was physical separation you had to contend with moped drivers riding at unsafe speeds. The Queensboro Bridge bike path was dangerously overcrowded and every year they claimed they'd open another lane; it looks like that's still "just around the corner" https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2024/04/08/first-look-the-dot-fi... but I wouldn't hold my breath. The Queensbridge Greenway shared use path became a muddy parking lot soon after it opened and it seems like they're still struggling to keep cars off it. NYPD still seems more enthusiastic about ticketing cyclists than drivers who park illegally.

I didn't mean to imply that the NYC bike/ped folks haven't notched some wins. And I used to tell myself that as bad as it was, other US cities were worse for cyclists and pedestrians. But that wasn't true and every time I go back to visit friends and family I'm still grateful when we leave.

halfmatthalfcat• 2 years ago

I lived on 2nd Ave for years in UES and biked to FiDi for work - cannot relate to what you're claiming here. Yes there's noise, it's NYC, but "gridlocked traffic and construction" was not something I'd normally run into.

xvedejas• 2 years ago

At least visiting other parts of Manhattan -- I'm thinking for example LES -- there is definitely constant traffic and exhaust. Doesn't really matter if it's gridlock or not, moving cars emit more sound and fumes than idling cars do.

asoneth8• 2 years ago

My bike commute took me past a bridge entrance and a tunnel entrance in midtown which were both perpetually gridlocked, so I'll admit that probably colored my recollection a bit and it wasn't literally every street in NYC that was gridlocked.

Still, when living in NYC I felt constantly surrounded by car traffic, far more than other cities I've lived in.

CSMastermind• 2 years ago

Yeah completely agree - I spent 10 years living in Manhattan and don't recognize anything in the parent comment.

asdff11• 2 years ago

If your commute ran you by the exit of the holland tunnel instead you'd see pretty constant gridlock

sidvit• 2 years ago

I moved to the financial district a couple of years ago and I was very happy to find how anti car parts of it can be. I pretty much never hear any street traffic where I live. The narrow streets mean lots of places it isn’t covered in parked cars, there’s low to seemingly no traffic on the weekends, the closed streets around the exchange area is basically a big dog park after working hours.

I’ve looked at a bunch of different apartments this summer with my lease coming up, but I don’t think I want to deal with the noisy other parts of lower manhattan

karanbhangui• 2 years ago

Fidi is the most underrated neighborhood to live in NYC. Most MTA lines converge there, very secure due to post 9/11 security, not much traffic and quiet at night, and slightly cheaper than many other Lower Manhattan neighborhoods.

joenot4432• 2 years ago

It's interesting you say that, coming from Toronto, I was floored at how _well_ NYC traffic moves in comparison. Obviously no city is perfect, but suggesting that NYC is "incompetently managed" is a little funny to me. Of the other cities I've lived in, Seattle, Vancouver, SF, and Toronto, I've found the NYC city services to be by far the most effective.

What US city do you think does a better job?

asdff11• 2 years ago

To be fair only a handful of US metros are large enough to see a good amount of gridlock. A lot of american cities outside that top few are pretty much "mile a minute" metros where you can expect most trips you have the bulk of it done at 60mph from the ample highway access and lack of congestion on that network in general.

Scoundreller• 2 years ago

My guess about NYC is the large proportion of 1 way streets.

asoneth8• 2 years ago

I was floored at how _well_ NYC traffic moves in comparison

My criticisms of NYC traffic aren't based on the throughput efficiency for drivers, but the impact on the people who live there.

At least when I was in NYC, every attempt to charge market rates for parking, improve daylighting at intersections, get people to stop parking on the sidewalks, build protected bike lanes, stop making mountains of garbage bags on the sidewalk, etc were all met with fierce resistance. (Though I gather from this thread that things have improved in the last ten years or so.)

While the pedestrian fatality counts in NYC are breaking records, just across the Hudson River you have Jersey City and Hoboken prioritizing safe, pleasant streets for residents and have achieved "Vision Zero" with no traffic deaths.

grecy• 2 years ago

Once you've been out of a city for a while the smell of car exhaust can be extremely strong.

Every time I fly into LAX from northern Canada I get a punch in the lungs - it's horrible. There must be some severe long-term health impacts.

asdff11• 2 years ago

LAX is especially bad because of all the avgas burned. I've seen studies done where being directly downwind of lax relative to the other parts of southla not as downwind have marked increases in health issues. Port of LA is also a bad area. So is san bernardino and riverside county as the prevailing coastal breeze tends to push quite a bit of pollution off the la basin and into the san gabriel valley. You get up high to the highest reaches of hilly neighborhoods like bel air, you might actually be high enough to be totally above the usual inversion layer and have a dramatically different air quality than those maybe 10 minutes downhill on your street.

AtlasBarfed• 2 years ago

Electrification really hasn't hit home in the US yet.

EVs due to the simplicity of the drivetrain (which is already engineered for various electric motor sizes since we've been using them for 100+ years in 1000s of applications) can be adapted quickly and cost effectively to many different vehicle sizes and platforms:

- electric hand scooter - maybe this has happened already, but the mini micro kids scooter design seems ideal to human application. more stable, turns well, better balanced. It folds up and is totally hand-portable when you get to your destination, so no locking up. Modern battery performance should be able to do dozens of miles at 10-15mph if necessary.

These can be almost effortlessly carried into a subway car.

- electric bike - as anyone who has been to the netherlands, this encompasses a wide range, from a simple bike to various cargo carrying versions and basic trailers. The downside of the electric bike is securing it at the destination, but theoretically secured parking should be a lot more compact for a bike.

- electric vespa/moped - the big difference here is speed and danger. In a city, I argue this is right at the line of being too big and dangerous. It can't be adjacent to pedestrians or bicycles, needs to be in dedicated car lanes, but its kind of too small. These can go faster, carry more, and are more secure since they are harder to make off with.

- electric motorcycles/trikes - like mopeds but bigger/faster still

- electric K-cars/golf carts - this is where there is a big empty spot in US vehicles. You can see them starting to develop with side-by-sides, but an urban electric golf cart or similarly sized vehicle is tremendously useful and much more compact and cheap to make in theory. I would argue that outside of specifically permitted deliveries, nobody should have a vehicle larger than this in Manhattan.

IMO these are the big three that cities need to start planning to adapt to, and big vehicles are strictly for special situations. A "golf cart on steroids" can really pull quite a lot given EV motors ability to produce torque.

I lived in downtown Minneapolis for quite a while, it was amazing how much a bicycle shrunk the city once the snow melted. Anything under 4 miles of distance wasn't worth taking a car, because the parking delay and walk-to-destination removed any time advantage.

e-bikes and e-hand scooters are like that, but expand the accessibility to a far bigger age range and fitness level.

An e-handscooter that is portable takes a subway system and expands the radius/distance accessible from the base stations by a factor of 3 to 10. With a e-scooter you carry off the subway, you can easily go 1-2 miles from the station, weather permitting.

Finally, e-scooters are QUIET and CLEAN. Which when people get used to them will really highlight how much ICEs stink and are loud, and will turn them into pariahs socially. When that happens tipping point wise who knows.

Spooky233• 2 years ago

The problem is other stakeholders live in the provinces. NYC transit advocates don’t represent them. NYC is a regional megalopolis.

The commentary here is always focused on the strawman terrible people commuting to lower Manhattan, but there are a million reasons why convenient travel to or through Manhattan is needed.

It’s also unfair to characterize the governor of New York as “some politican”. The MTA and most river crossings are owned by public authorities controlled by the state, and the entirety of the system is dependent on New Jersey Transit and the multi-state Port Authority. Congestion pricing was a state initiative all along.

asoneth8• 2 years ago

The drivers commuting into Manhattan aren't terrible, they're responding totally rationally to the relative monetary and time costs of driving into the city vs park & ride vs living closer. The terrible thing is that the incentives that have been established make driving the right choice for so many people.

The problem is other stakeholders live in the provinces.

Exactly. People who live in New York City often end up being beholden to the preferences of people who live outside the city.

There are downsides to the culture of localism in New England, but one nice thing is that cities and towns are typically able to prioritize the lives of their own residents which makes them nice places to live.

PaulHoule6• 2 years ago

What I haven't seen mentioned is the political context at exactly this point in time.

People are freaked out about inflation and the prices of everything rising and I think they're very sensitive to anything that is going to add more expenses. Even in Ithaca, NY apartment dwellers have developed a consciousness that rising property taxes are going to get tacked on to their rent.

In terms of national politics, Democrats feel vulnerable, and I think Democrats everywhere feel pressure to drop unpopular policies that could affect them nationally. For that matter the rest of New York is rich in competitive House seats that could go either way.

kgermino4• 2 years ago

The problem is that congestion pricing has always gotten _much_ more popular after implementation. Riding the wave of decisions made in the past would let current politicians decide whether they wanted to blame others or take credit closer to the election.

Now we just see a probably illegal power grab by an executive which kills a bunch of popular and needed projects while very publicly demonstrating that Democrats can’t fucking deliver.

PaulHoule6• 2 years ago

In 2019 it split down the middle in NY state voters:

https://scri.siena.edu/2019/03/18/2-3-of-voters-say-amazon-c...

More recently

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/poll-congestion-pric...

they found 23% of people opposed the decision to suspend, and about 45% of voters supported it and that support was not very different for D's, R's and I's.

rob74• 2 years ago

So the Republicans are already winning (influencing politics in their direction) although they haven't actually won yet, great...

PaulHoule6• 2 years ago

It's what happens when you have an election. It's why Biden did https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/04/biden-border-close-...

If you steal enough of the other guy's issues you win.

breaker-kind• 2 years ago

NY Dems are the epitome of the "We hate life and ourselves" simpsons gag

HanShotFirst• 2 years ago

The Governor is pretty clearly doing this with the intent of saving vulnerable House seats. HOWEVER, it is misguided IMO because the political capital to get congestion pricing to the finish line has ~already~ been expended. The Governor, most local Democratic politicians, have already come out in favor of the project and advanced it against heavy opposition. The common refrain, that is a very reasonable interpretation, is that this will be re-implemented after the next election. But if all the voters know that, if we elect the Democratic candidate, this possibly unpopular plan will be passed, delaying it until after the election doesn't help; in fact, it makes it less likely for Democrats to get elected, or for the plan to pass.

In summary, Governor Hochul has now pissed off both opponents to congestion pricing, and also supporters of it. It was a terrible move, politically.

asdff11• 2 years ago

I think the big screw up was not means testing it. If the sell was, middle class people don't get congestion priced, and the rich folk in their black car limos get charged out the nose for that convenience, it would have been a very popular bill among the electorate. Maybe not the donor class but the electorate at least. Of course maybe the donor class is seen as more important to maintain favor with than the electorate in the eyes of the policy wanks.

BasilPH• 2 years ago

The Volts podcast dove into this recently (with transcript): https://www.volts.wtf/p/new-yorks-congestion-pricing-fiasco

kgermino4• 2 years ago

Given the opportunity to demonstrate that they can solve problems: improving the transit system for millions of New Yorkers - especially poorer and disabled riders, take steps to improve the environment, AND make it easier for who want or need to drive to drive in lower Manhattan; Democrats chose to make a power-grab and throw it all away.

It's absolutely disgusting. Yes the MTA is a mess, yes this money could have been spent more efficiently by a better run organization, and I'm sure the plan wasn't perfect; but to see Dems very publicly go out of their way to show they can't solve problems if doing so upsets a handful of rich people is somewhere between disheartening and enraging.

tzs2• 2 years ago

Does this apply to the vehicles of people or businesses that reside in the city when they come back in when returning from a round trip to someplace out of the city? Or is it just for vehicles that are based outside the city?

1024core2• 2 years ago

The policy would have charged vehicles for entering the perpetually gridlocked streets of Lower Manhattan,

If driving is so bad, and public transit is so convenient, why are people still driving?

People like this author write from a position of "people are stupid; they don't know what's good for them, so let me enlighten them". It's this assumption that is stupid.

People want the most convenience in their lives. If you want them to use public transit, make the public transit more convenient and cheaper than driving! I mean, take a look at a city like Tokyo. How many people drive there? Almost everyone takes public transit, putting NYC to shame. There is no need to drive in Tokyo! As a tourist, a 3-day all-you-can-travel subway pass costs less than $10, which is < $3.50/day and subway stations are every couple of blocks. How's that for convenience?

Instead of trying to tax the people into complying with your desires, make them want to do so of their own free will!

zip1234• 2 years ago

It's the tragedy of the commons. Driving is very convenient, however it is also VERY space inefficient and congested streets with drivers slows down busses and makes public transit worse. Furthermore, the price of driving is not born fully by drivers. The noise and particulate pollution, increased danger to the public, and space taken by cars is not paid for by drivers in any meaningful way.

timeinput2• 2 years ago

Driving is honestly pretty inconvenient. You have to find a huge space to put your car every night (difficult when trying to rent in an urban area) possibly with electrical service, you have to pay for the car which is likely tens of thousands of dollars, you have to maintain the car with regular oil changes, new tires, etc that's at least 4-8 hours a year.

I think we feel the pain of waiting for a subway, and think boy it would be so much easier to drive, but few people think while they're working an extra <period of time> a week to pay for their car+parking+insurance+maintenance+... boy would it be nice to not have to own a car.

steveBK1234• 2 years ago

This was always the original problem with NYC implementation of congestion pricing.

Collecting revenue and making driving worse is easy (the stick).

But the carrot of actually making timely, meaningful improvements in transit is hard (the carrot) and no one believes its really going to happen.

mplewis• 2 years ago

The canceled traffic congestion fees were going to pay for public transit improvements that would be used by millions every day.

Spooky233• 2 years ago

It’s a chicken and egg problem. You need taxes to find multi billion dollar capital programs.

I do agree this particular program was a dumb idea that advocates tried to push through with the COVID nadir in traffic and office occupancy.

caseyohara2• 2 years ago

I mean, take a look at a city like Tokyo. How many people drive there? Almost everyone takes public transit, putting NYC to shame.

I was curious so I looked this up.

Tokyo transit ridership is 3.46B / year

Tokyo population is ~39M (Urban figure on Wikipedia)

NYC transit ridership is 1.81B / year

NYC population is ~19.5M (Urban figure on Wikipedia)

In terms of ridership / population, NYC is actually higher (93.17 vs. 88.47)

maximilianthe1• 2 years ago

Sorry, that's incorrect

40 million passengers (counted twice if transferring between operators) use the rail system daily (14.6 billion annually) with the subway representing 22% of that figure with 8.66 million using it daily. [1]

1. http://www.mlit.go.jp/kisha/kisha07/01/010330_3/01.pdf

harmmonica• 2 years ago

Going off on a tangent here, but thanks for posting a reality check for the comment the gp made (that's no offense to gp; I get their thought process and why they would think Tokyo was more mass-transit friendly (it still could be more non-auto friendly on some other dimension (e.g., more pedestrians and therefore less auto-reliance but I'm not making that claim)).

Re the reality check, though, I wonder if this is going to be one of the no-questions-asked positives from AI. If, every time someone makes a claim that's not, but can be quantified, similar to what you just did with these ridership and population stats, an AI umpire would cite the stats behind the claim to better-educate the audience about the reality. Of course this assumes a non-biased "AI," but it seems like something that could become a reality sooner than later. I experience this multiple times per day, on HN a lot, where people make claims and I'm like "is that really true?" And I'm not being an ass; I'm always genuinely asking the question to make sure I'm getting properly educated.

P.s. I just typed "is Tokyo more transit friendly than New York City?" into 3.5 (yes, I'm still on 3.5. Some of us HN folks are actually tech laggards!). I won't paste the answer here since no one will read the comment given its absurd length, but your human answer is better, and more to the point, than 3.5 (+1 for humanity, I guess).

gumby• 2 years ago

If driving is so bad, and public transit is so convenient, why are people still driving? [this comes from an assumption that] people are stupid; they don't know what's good for them, so let me enlighten them". It's this assumption that is stupid...make the public transit more convenient and cheaper than driving...look at a city like Tokyo

But that's exactly what they did in Tokyo: owning a car (and finding a place to park it!) is so expensive that few resort to it. I've probably been in a private car in Tokyo only once. Whereas in NYC car costs are socialized (Manhattan street parking is quite cheap when you can get it; you don't need to prove you have parking in order to own one, etc) while public transit is not.

Yes there's a phase transition issue (driving in suburbs is easier than driving in the city, but there's little incentive to transition from one to the other. Congestion charges do exactly what you suggest: make public transit cheaper than driving, and provide the funds to improve public transit.

bombcar4• 2 years ago

From what I understand Tokyo and Japan in general have a lot of car owners (something like "one per house") or so, but they're rarely used for commuting purposes.

FireBy2024• 2 years ago

Case in point: I had to take my extended family visiting us to Manhattan for 2 days last week. Total 6 adults. The cost of taking the LIRR and Subway would have been upwards of $180 (LIRR $120 + Subway $60) per day! Driving was much more affordable (and convenient) even with the expensive parking charges of $50 for 12 hrs of parking in prime locations.

Public transportation needs to become more affordable first. I would have happily taken the train if it was comparable in cost.

But, I guess I am the minority case.

jandrese2• 2 years ago

Nope, I had the same experience. Family of 5 trip to Manhattan and we looked at possibly taking the train into the city but it made no sense financially, even after accounting for the outrageous parking costs in lower Manhattan. For one or two people mass transit is a no-brainer, three was roughly break even, but once you have a bigger group you're pretty much stuck driving.

borski2• 2 years ago

Things change when you live in the boroughs. For one thing, no need for LIRR; which isn’t what most people refer to when they talk about “public transit in NYC.”

But also, if you take the subway regularly, there are multi-use and unlimited passes, students get free metrocards for weekdays, and so on.

ProfessorLayton• 2 years ago

If every car in a major city was filled to capacity, I don't think we'd be having this conversation. A major part of traffic congestion is that a significant portion of people are driving their vehicles with a single passenger, sometimes two.

This is why we have HOV lanes that lower or make tolls free.

alexpetralia• 2 years ago

Downtown areas in Tokyo have virtually zero public parking spaces.

They made it very, very inconvenient to drive.

jandrese2• 2 years ago

public transit is so convenient

Unless you live in New Jersey, a short hop across the river from Manhattan but might as well be on the moon as far as the subway is concerned. The NYC Subway is great where it has service, but has for years neglected to expand into areas where the people live. Queens is also terribly underserved. There are bus options, but they get stuck in the same traffic that makes driving so miserable.

bombcar4• 2 years ago

This is a big issue for public transit - either it stays ahead of growth, or you end up with pockets that are underserved (and of course cheaper).

This starts compounding, because those pockets still need to get to work, etc, making it harder to get new transit in later.

Paradoxically you almost need to tax the locations that don't have access to public transit to pay for public transit, so the pricing inequality goes away.

ylhert• 2 years ago

The fundamental piece you are missing with your logic is that the negative externalities of driving a car are massive and not borne by those making the choice to drive. This leads to people choosing to drive a car at a rate that is much higher than the optimal balance for society. The best way to control for these negative externalities (risks to pedestrians, noise, pollution, congestion) is with a tax. In the US, we subsidize car usage in an eye watering and incredibly unfair way, which results in overuse of cars. If public policy were to better reflect the actual costs of driving a car, few would be able to afford it or choose it over other options

asdff11• 2 years ago

How are these externalities not borne by drivers? People with cars in nyc presumably park them on their local street that is clogged up with other neighbors cars. They drive them on nearby roads like the various expressways that cut up their own boroughs. They are very much bearing these external costs and taking advantage of their affordances. Its not like bronx drivers are protesting the various expressways that cut up their bronx neighborhood, parking cars to block the ramps or cut off access, no, they use those expressways all the same as any other driver and do benefit from the convenience and job access they bring.

tikhonj• 2 years ago

I mean, sounds like the first step according to that logic would be making the subway free, right?

1024core2• 2 years ago

Wouldn't be a bad idea. E.g., here in SF, the fares bring in $200M/year, and Muni's budget is $1.2B/year (approx numbers), which means, for every $2 charged by fare, the City has to put in another $10. Making it free would just cost an extra $200M/year, which is within the realm of possibility for a City with a budget of $14B/year.

stetrain3• 2 years ago

If you want them to use public transit, make the public transit more convenient and cheaper than driving!

So charge drivers for the actual value/cost of the land they park on, the lanes they drive on, the maintenance and infrastructure for the roads, the safety risk posed to those outside of cars, and the gaseous and noise pollution caused to others?

Sounds good to me. We can call it a "congestion charge" or something.

jperras• 2 years ago

Instead of trying to tax the people into complying with your desires, make them want to do so of their own free will!

… do you have any idea of the costs that are associated with owning and operating a vehicle in Tokyo?

borski2• 2 years ago

You have it backwards. The reason people still drive is inertia. The reason Tokyo has more people using public transport is that it’s expensive to own a car there and they encourage and advertise public transport heavily.

stfp• 2 years ago

It's very easy to get informed on these topics, yet people keep posting these high level extremely simplistic takes.

You can't summarize the world with "People want the most convenience in their lives" and use that to explain or justify the state of things.

A couple examples: Cars compete with public transit and are highly subsidized. "Roads" are a public transportation method that doesn't have to be profitable in people's minds. But "Public transit" does. There's so much more and the information is readily available.

MisterTea• 2 years ago

Born and raised NYC so Ive been around since the Regan era. Growing up my parents drove everywhere - even to Manhattan.

If you want them to use public transit, make the public transit more convenient and cheaper than driving!

Yup. I live in south Queens which is mostly suburban and a lot of people drive around. I'm two blocks from the A train so driving to Manhattan is pointless when I have a 30 min express subway ride. But if I wanted to go to the nearest Microcenter in Kew Gardens it's 20 minutes by car and an hour by bus, each way, with a transfer - guess what mode of transport I'm taking...

7952• 2 years ago

It is an apples to oranges comparison. You could just as easily say that if planes are so bad why do people use the subway. Different modes of transport are optimal for different things. The miracle of modern transport is that it allows you to drastically change the trade-off between different things in your life. You can live in a different neighborhood, take another job, visit family etc. But as usage grows the negative effects on individuals and community starts to grow and eventually effects the trade-off. The only solution is to invoke more magic transport. Build even more lanes, bike paths, rail roads etc. And hope that one day they will build the Colorado -> Tokyo starship link so you can finally commute between the ranch and the office. Great!

dumah2• 2 years ago

No, their position is that the commuters are exploiting a subsidized public good and pushing serious externalities onto the population that doesn’t commute every day.

Your position is that NYC should, at the cost of the average resident, make it easier for outsiders to drive into the core of Manhattan at a time when physical proximity for business is becoming less and less important.

jovial_cavalier• 2 years ago

I wish urbanists (I more or less consider myself one) would stop bringing up climate change. There is a chance that these issues could have strong bipartisan support if you would stop tying them to highly partisan issues. Put a pin in it - there are lots of other reasons to support these measures.

redandblack• 2 years ago

I hope congestion pricing withers away and dies. It really promotes public infrastructure for the wealthy and disadvantages the people who cannot afford.

MDs at my firm can easily afford any such surcharges, and for many it will be business write offs, and not even their own.

Fund public infrastructure - put more buses on roads, maybe even limit some avenues and roads for buses only. Reduce the costs - yes, I know NYC tickets are really low, but make them simpler and easier for people to get a monthly pass and hop on buses, Really, buses everywhere even if they operate at net losses - get the business to subsidize bringing their workers in.

stetrain3• 2 years ago

I agree that there is a limit to the "just charge people what each option costs and let market forces sort it out" capitalist utopian idea. Some are willing to pay large amounts for convenience that causes harm to many others.

At some point we just have to make decisions about land use and infrastructure. Do we want this space dedicate to driving and parking for cars with one person who can afford to pay congestion charges, or instead used for busses, dedicated bike roads, etc. that can move more people in less space with less pollution and less risk of serious injury.

tamaharbor• 2 years ago

I wonder how cars traveling east/west between Queens-Brooklyn-Long Island to New Jersey affect traffic? I wonder how congestion pricing will affect already problematic George Washington Bridge and Staten Island routes.

The Death of NYC Congestion Pricing

Related Stories