13 ms·

This is the right thing to do - it makes drivers pay for the externalities they produce (including pollution, congestion, noise). When a city grows as big as Ma

This is the right thing to do - it makes drivers pay for the externalities they produce (including pollution, congestion, noise). When a city grows as big as Manhattan has, drivers need to begin shouldering at least some of the costs they introduce to the city, instead of leaving residents dealing with those costs.

willmadden 2y ago
They do, by buying things in Manhattan and paying an 8.8% sales tax. Now many of them won't.
- affinepplan 2y ago
  oh the tragedy I would be willing to wager that the increased sales / foot traffic from one fewer car trying to make its loud and carcinogenic way through manhattan is well worth the decreased foot traffic from that car's passenger(s)
- snakeyjake 2y ago
  Congestion charges have been implemented in many global cities, including London, Milan, Singapore, and Stockholm. Many more cities have started severely restricting access to vehicles, turning many downtown areas that had previously been roads into pedestrian malls. Indeed, NYC has done this to many roads (parts of Fulton Street, Delancey Street, and both Broadway and Times Square). Do you have any evidence that those schemes have resulted in lower sale tax revenue for those locations?
  - rsynnott 2y ago
    I'm honestly kind of shocked to discover that Manhattan's only getting one now. Like, taken on its own it is one of the densest large urban areas on earth. I'd assume driving in it is a fairly miserable experience, anyway; where on earth do people park?
    - IncreasePosts 2y ago
      Yes, I was living in Manhattan in 2004 working on GPS navigation software, and had to perform some updates relating to the London congestion charge. I thought to myself "This is such a great idea, Manhattan will surely implement a similar system within a couple years". Here we are, 20 years later... Parking is only really a problem below 59th st or so. You can usually get street parking by driving in circles for 20 minutes, or go to a parking garage and pay ~$8/hr to park.
    - shadowgovt 2y ago
      In specially-architected car elevators for a large amount relative to what you pay for parking in other urban areas. Daily parking varies from $20 to $125. (I mean, there are also more traditional parking garages, both above- and below-ground, but the premium on real estate is high enough to justify more expensive solutions to maximize land value also).
    - CPLX 2y ago
      Driving in Manhattan is pretty straightforward. There are parking garages everywhere you'd want to go (though most non-NYC people would probably consider them shockingly expensive) and at night and on weekends street parking is not too hard to find in most areas. But outside of rush hours and especially a few places like the tunnel approaches it's not a big deal. People do it constantly, it's totally normal for people from NJ or Westchester or LI to drive in for dinner and park, that kind of thing.
      - bombcar 2y ago
        I wonder if the parking should be taxed instead of tolling the bridge.
        CPLX 2y ago
        It is heavily taxed.
      - macNchz 2y ago
        I’ve owned a car in Brooklyn for more than 10 years and find it basically nonfunctional to drive in a lot of Manhattan and surroundings. The idea of driving in for dinner from NJ makes my skin crawl. I have family in NJ and Manhattan, and go through the Holland Tunnel frequently. Sometimes it’s fine. Sometimes it’s hell. The random chance of winding up in standstill gridlock is just way too high. I can’t even count all of the times it has taken me over an hour to go like five blocks. Every time I’ve had the bad idea drive to the office to get a head start on an after-work trip, my mind is blown that some people actually do it every day, by choice.
  - Vaslo 2y ago
    We aren’t Europe though. Many Americans have no interest in paying even more taxes. Glad I avoided working and living in NY.
    - snakeyjake 2y ago
      Do you have any evidence that those schemes have resulted in lower sale tax revenue for those locations?
    - srndsnd 2y ago
      If you are living in a place that forces you into car ownership as a means of transportation, then you are receiving a subsidy in the form of the infrastructure that enables car dependent city planning. You're also compelled to own a car, which is enormously expensive, getting even more expensive, and is probably the thing you do on a regular basis which is most likely to kill you. Sprawl is expensive, and so is car ownership.
      - smileysteve 2y ago
        Upvote; People complain about a congestion tax -- or traffic -- or bad roads. But they don't think about policy when when a car costs ~30% of a median salary, when insurance is "required", expensive (and part is because some choose not to afford insurance while driving a car). Beyond that car / driving enforcement is a drain on police preventing more dangerous crime, a top entry point of harassment and escalation by police, a drain on District Attorneys and the courts from enforcing other crime.
      - Spivak 2y ago
        What are you talking about? The roads in my city are paid for my taxes remitted to the city. I guess you could call that a subsidy but that's also just known as being paid for by taxes. And if you're in an area where everyone needs a car to get around then there's no argument that drivers are mooching off the tax revenue of non-drivers. I swear people are so salty about roads when they don't drive but nobody complains about public schools when they went to private. Owning a car isn't enormously expensive except in online discussions where people quote the MSRP of $year+1 models and act like folks making minimum wage are actually paying that. My primary car is a 2012 Honda Fit that was $6000 when I bought it at 30k miles and is now pushing 120k. I bought it in cash, but the monthly payment with insurance would have been 15% of my rent.
- kube-system 2y ago
  > Now many of them won't. That's the point of congestion pricing.
- mlavrent 2y ago
  The issues with this argument is that pedestrians, transit-users, and cyclists also pay the same sales tax. So if the goal is to have drivers take ownership over the costs they produce, we could also consider only levying the sales tax on people who arrived by car - but that's silly since there's no good way to implement that (how do you know if someone arrived in the city by private vehicle?). The straightforward answer is to add tolls. Another solution I could see working is adding special sales taxes on parking garages in the congestion pricing zone, but then this wouldn't capture tolls on trucks, and make it harder to implement exceptions for low-income drivers or drivers with disabilities.
  - timr 2y ago
    It's not a straightforward answer to the issues you're presenting -- they're exempting the West Side Highway and JFK, and of course, the line at 60th is basically arbitrary. I predict that parking garages on the upper east and upper west are about to get a lot more expensive. This is social engineering in tax form, intended to redirect traffic (or really...just to raise money for the MTA), without a great deal of thought about how it will impact the people actually living here (beyond "cars are bad", or, "New Jersey sucks", in any case). It is not "having drivers take ownership of the costs the produce" -- that would be, I dunno...raising the gas tax or tag fees or something. And don't forget that drivers already pay a toll to use the bridges or tunnels into Manhattan. I'm generally in favor of making externalities real and specific, but this plan sucks. One nice thing about congestion is that it is inherently self-limiting, so the stated problem was already captured in existing economic incentives.
    - stetrain 2y ago
      > It is not "having drivers take ownership of the costs the produce" -- that would be, I dunno...raising the gas tax or tag fees or something. Gas taxes or registration fees don't reimburse Manhattan for the space and infrastructure costs of cars driving into and parking in Manhattan for cars that are registered and buy fuel outside of Manhattan. You can toll drivers for driving on those specific roads, or add a significant parking tax. Or reduce parking in general and let prices naturally rise, but then you'll also probably have more people driving in and then violating parking rules and need more parking enforcement. Parking fees/taxes also wouldn't capture the costs of traffic that doesn't necessarily park in Manhattan, such as ride share drivers.
- baq 2y ago
  Unfair. Those who don't come by car also pay the sales tax. Drivers are using a limited resource, why not pay for it. Be happy it's a fixed fee and not a proper market.
- ecshafer 2y ago
  Who would drive into Manhattan to buy anything? Seriously, if you are already in the Suburbs, why not just go to a store there. If you are in any other burrough, you will find easier parking there. If you are anywhere else, it'll also probably be cheaper. No one drives into Manhattan to buy anything. If you don't live in Manhattan, you go into Manhattan for work, an event, etc.
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    > Who would drive into Manhattan to buy anything? Because the selection and quality are unlike almost any place in the world.
- lxgr 2y ago
  I've got the strong suspicion that this was never a thing: Why on Earth would people living in New Jersey drive into (paying bridge/tunnel toll) and park in Manhattan to do their shopping when there are so many malls with free parking available in NJ?
  - InitialLastName 2y ago
    Free parking and no sales tax on clothing. There's a reason the big NYC area malls are in Paramus and Elizabeth.
    - BobaFloutist 2y ago
      So they're not paying sales tax?
      - InitialLastName 2y ago
        Sorry if that wasn't clear: NJ doesn't have a sales tax on clothing. NY does. Paramus and Elizabeth are where the 4-ish (the ones in Paramus blend together) giant malls outside of NYC are.
        evanelias 2y ago
        NY/NYC only charges sales tax on clothing over $110 per item. In addition to the giant malls you mentioned, there's American Dream in East Rutherford. Parking isn't free there though. And all its clothing stores are closed on Sundays. (Ditto for the Paramus malls re: Sunday.)
        mike50 2y ago
        High land costs pushed these kinds of land uses further and further from Manhattan. There are the same huge malls in Westchester and Nassau county.
    - lowkey_ 2y ago
      > There's a reason the big NYC area malls are in Paramus and Elizabeth. I think the reason is that malls are just out-of-fashion. If we consider the SoHo area to be the equivalent of a mall, or the North Williamsburg/Greenpoint area to be a mall, I'd bet they dwarf the Paramus & Elizabeth malls in GMV sold and foot traffic.
- tomjakubowski 2y ago
  $15 covers about one minute of parking in Manhattan
- stetrain 2y ago
  If car infrastructure was replaced by more transit, pedestrian, and cycling infrastructure, then more people would be able to go into Manhattan and shop and dine. One or two people per car each taking up 320 sqft of road space and parking space imposes a lower human density limit than most other ways of getting around. And the infrastructure to support it is more expensive on a per-human basis.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > Now many of them won't It’s $15 creditable against other tolls. If whatever you’re doing in downtown Manhattan during peak hours isn’t worth $15, its replacement by other activity happening faster is likely a net positive.
iooi 2y ago
> instead of leaving residents dealing with those costs. Residents will be mostly the ones paying these costs. Residents are not exempted.
- srndsnd 2y ago
  If you live in Manhattan south of 60th, your number one transit option should almost never be driving a car.
  - busterarm 2y ago
    A good chunk of southeastern Manhattan is dramatically underserved by public transit, despite what the MTA's map would have you believe. I'm talking about from the Seaport all the way up to Alphabet City. I hope you've got strong legs. Tangentially, this is one of the reasons that nearly-invisible corners of Manhattan like the eastern end of Cherry St and Water St still have serious crime problems today. Honestly that whole stretch between Smith Houses and Vladeck Houses is pretty fucked.
- nayuki 2y ago
  Residents living in the congestion pricing zone aren't the ones commuting into the zone.
- TomK32 2y ago
  From Wikipedia 3.7 million people were employed in New York City; Manhattan is the main employment center with 56% of all jobs.[19] Of those working in Manhattan, 30% commute from within Manhattan. And: The primary mode of transportation in New York City is rail. Only 6% of shopping trips in Manhattan involve the use of a car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_Cit...
  - ghaff 2y ago
    NYC, and specifically Manhattan, is pretty much the only US city where you can get by pretty easily without owning a car but there's no cultural expectation with respect to friends and recreational options that you have one.
BobaFloutist 2y ago
Only thing is they should charge more for heavier and for less eco-friendly cars.
- jwells89 2y ago
  Though it might be a good idea to also encourage carpooling with reduced tolls, because presumably one bigger car carrying 5-7 people is better than 5-7 smaller but still bigger-than-city-cars carrying 1 person each.
  - throwaway562if1 2y ago
    Presumably the toll is per vehicle, so carpooling already divides the fee among the carpoolers.
  - foobarian 2y ago
    Wonder about the road damage aspect of this. If the relationship is a 4th power of weight, assuming a single vehicle with 2x the weight, it would need to replace 16 individual cars to break even.
    - jwells89 2y ago
      Good question. Maybe the amount of toll reduction should depend on the number of people carried and the weight of the vehicle, encouraging lightweight vehicles that can carry a lot of people. Probably should have a hard cutoff too so e.g. over a certain weight loses the reduction altogether.
    - diabeetusman 2y ago
      "According to a 2022 study from the Environmental Protection Agency, the average weight of a car is 4,094 pounds."[1] Going from 1 person of 200lb to 4 people totaling 800lb (in a 4,000lb car) increases the damage by less than an additional car (4,800 / 4,200) ^ 4 = 1.71 [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-car-weight-140033718.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-car-weight-140033718....
tempsy 2y ago
Time will tell but I feel like $15 max 1x/day is too low. Drivers are already likely paying other tolls, expensive monthly parking in Manhattan, gas. Another $15/day is not likely to change behavior.
- proaralyst 2y ago
  London's congestion charge is £15 (about $18) and has largely been a success. I suspect there's a difference in PPP though, so the Manhattan charge is potentially less impactful
  - tempsy 2y ago
    People in NYC make much more. So if it's less in NYC than London then I'm even more convinced that it won't do that much for congestion.
    - atkailash 2y ago
      Median rent is also 2x London’s. Median pay is less than 3x. That’s not even counting the rest of cost of living changes It’ll only affect working class people who commute by driving for whatever reason. As usual the actual rich won’t care. The majority of NYers don’t even own a car. So it’s mostly tourists and people from outside the city (plus ride share/taxis) who are driving.
    - StressedDev 2y ago
      Do you have a source for this? London is not known as a poor city. In addition, some people in both cities are wealthy but a lot more are not. I doubt someone living in the South Brox or Far Rockaway can afford a $15/day charge.
      - Symbiote 2y ago
        I don't answer your question, but I had a quick look for statistics and found this beautiful map — zoom in all the way! It broadly shows there are rich and poor areas of London, but I don't know if it's better to be in the bottom 10% in London or New York. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/smallareamodelbasedincomeestimates/financialyearending2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...
art0rz 2y ago
Isn't that what road tax is for?
- jacobolus 2y ago
  Yes, this is a special kind of road tax for specific congested roads.
  - akira2501 2y ago
    I guess "improving the roads" has been decided to be impossible. Whether it is or isn't, it sure would be a great way to increase congestion, if that was your desired outcome. You might then expect them to use the money to improve roads instead of giving to an unaccountable city controlled subway monopoly. It's a baffling bureaucracy there in NYC.
    - acdha 2y ago
      They tried nothing else for the better part of a century, but the traffic just kept getting worse: the more you subsidize driving, the more people choose to do it. The underlying problem is basic geometry: cars are the least spatially efficient form of transportation in common use - you need something like 140 square feet to transport on average just over one person, plus a similar amount of space for storage. That can work somewhere unpopular but the math just doesn’t work in a city core where you don’t have that much space unless you bulldozed all of the buildings. Even if they did something phenomenally expensive and unpleasant like creating multilevel streets those would fill up quickly because if traffic ever improved, more people would start driving all the way in.
    - programjames 2y ago
      This is so confusing. If you create bigger roads, it usually doesn't solve the issue, as: 1) More people start to use the road, which can actually increase total commute time (Braess's paradox). 2) It removes room for the actual city. The city becomes more spread out, and people have to travel farther to get to their destinations! Think about this: do you want to be encouraging other people to create more traffic along your commute? No way! You want everyone else off your roads, somehow get them to start biking or take the subway. And the best way to do that is to replace a couple lanes with bus/bike/streetcar lanes.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kleiba 2y ago
But shouldn't pollution and noise be pretty much solved in the foreseeable future, I suppose, with EVs on the rise? And congestion I find an interesting one. Where I live, the city planners are trying to make it as hard as possible for people driving into the city, the idea being that people will just give up if driving even to a parking lot close to the city center sucks too much. However, it has always made me wonder: doesn't this strategy add to the congestion? Like, what if you made it instead super easy and fast to get to a parking spot - then your car would be off the road much faster and you'd produce less congestion, less noise, and less pollution.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > But shouldn't pollution and noise be pretty much solved in the foreseeable future, I suppose, with EVs on the rise? The loudest noise is tire noise.
  - pgodzin 2y ago
    Tire wear also contributes the most to PM2.5 pollution, and EVs are heavier and produce more wear
    - kleiba 2y ago
      Interesting. Do you have a source to back up the part about EVs?
      - Solvency 2y ago
        You need a source to tell you EVs are heavier? This is a basic fact.
        programjames 2y ago
        > This is a basic fact. Clearly they don't want a source, it's just malicious ignorance. After all, if they really wanted to know it'd be far easier to click the "plus" button on their browser and ask DuckDuckGo.
dumbfounder 2y ago
The cost is fine, but is it creating an incentive for drivers to stay longer because if they go in and out they are double charged?
- pquki4 2y ago
  I assume this is aimed at commuters who drive into the city and almost always enter and exit the city exactly once a day.
- galdosdi 2y ago
  We're talking about lower Manhattan, so in practice if they stay longer then they have to deal with alternate side parking or pay for garage parking. Or, what the hell, I don't live there anymore, so I'll give away my secret awesome free parking spot: under the Williamsburg Bridge east of Clinton St.
- supertrope 2y ago
  Which works to the advantage of the city. They want to you stop to work your job (income tax), buy stuff (sales tax), participate on foot (low pollution). Not drive through (consumes tax dollars on roads, high pollution). In the long term if you move closer or change your commute mode they win too.
  - dumbfounder 2y ago
    I am thinking more about Uber drivers I guess, who won’t be able to enter and exit all day. So they may be just sticking around the city, causing traffic.
    - jrochkind1 2y ago
      You are only charged max once per day under the plan.
wolverine876 2y ago
> congestion, noise These aren't problems, these are features. Manhatten is not a place to go for quiet, empty spaces, except maybe Central Park. You're there for energy, movement, lots of action. Who wants a peaceful, empty Manhatten??
- acdha 2y ago
  You’re not there for any of those things from cars. The energy and movement people visit Manhattan for are from other people – if they wanted car noise, they’d be out at a racetrack.
  - wolverine876 2y ago
    > You’re not there for any of those things from cars. I don't know how you can say that (other than your personal preference). The cars have been there, doing those things, for generations. They are quieter and pollute less now. Are they trying to turn NY into Long Island? Keep the things that make NY unique and special - people obviously love it.
    - acdha 2y ago
      Cars do pollute less but are still a major hazard and quality of life reduction. If you ask people why they come to NYC, nobody says it’s to listen to people honk at each other or almost get run over in the crosswalk by an Uber driver. People may say that they accept the background car noise as a cost of living in the city but nobody sees it as a positive.
      - wolverine876 2y ago
        Pretty definitive statements, but what are they based on?
        acdha 2y ago
        Let’s start with your survey results showing that people like Manhattan for the car noise. Please link to your data and methodology. My support is based on both the real health costs and direct injuries/fatalities - see e.g. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abf60b https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abf60b – and the fact that if people loved the pollution so much there wouldn’t be an entire political movement to reduce it. Beyond the topic of this thread, they’ve also had a variety of laws to punish noisy vehicles and reduce traffic: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/07/06/opinion-loud-driving-threatens-our-health https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/07/06/opinion-loud-driving-...
pishpash 2y ago
"...raise $1 billion annually for public transit improvements" The money isn't going to residents.
- orr94 2y ago
  It’s benefiting the residents who use the improved public transit.
  - pishpash 2y ago
    The externality applies to residents who do not take public transit too. The two decisions should not be coupled. If you want to do a Pigovian tax, do a Pigovian tax properly. If you want to do congestion pricing, make it budget neutral to users. If you want transfer payments, do that and call it that.
- nobody9999 2y ago
  >The money isn't going to residents. Does your state government send you a portion of tax receipts? No? They must be putting it in their mattresses instead, eh? Please.
  - pishpash 2y ago
    So it's a tax. Fine, don't call it congestion pricing.
    - fsckboy 2y ago
      but it's purpose is to lower congestion, and the fee varies with time of day based on congestion, and the people who pay it are contributing to the congestion so ... it's a congestion priced fee. Not clear it's a tax at all, in the same way a fishing permit is not called a tax.
    - nobody9999 2y ago
      Does your state government send you a portion of toll receipts, DMV licensing fees, etc, etc, etc? So that makes those taxes too? And even if they are taxes, so what? Congestion pricing in NYC is a tax on the selfish. And it's not nearly high enough. It should be at least ten times higher.
rcthompson 2y ago
For me at least, it will also make driving to Manhattan and parking actually more expensive than taking the train, which it should be. The fact that both options are currently about the same price for me has had me thinking that something somewhere is deeply wrong.
- bogota 2y ago
  Better/cheaper train solutions would seem to be the desired fix though not just raising prices to random high numbers. I agree that this will likely have a good outcome in the end but something about it just seems wrong to me.
  - KptMarchewa 2y ago
    It's hard to exactly tax externalities.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    The high tolls are going to subsidize the trains.
    - bogota 2y ago
      So are train tickets going down in price or more seats being added?
      - anotherhue 2y ago
        More bag searches obviously.
      - bradleyjg 2y ago
        They’ll be six workers standing around not doing anything while one works, up from five.
      - selcuka 2y ago
        Nothing goes down in price. Ticket prices will remain the same, but salaries will increase because of inflation, so yes, they will become more affordable. At least that's the theory.
up2isomorphism 2y ago
The ones who drive nowadays on weekday regularly into Manhattan are mostly those who need to do a job in the city with a vehicle, which likely why you can get the goods you want in the city. This toll won't stop them from entering the city and will only make what people pay more expensive. It could be a fact you are not the group of people who care about that, but for most of the people, they do. It is just another way to grab funds from private section into public ones, which usually operates at extremely low efficiency and high corruption level.
- chgs 2y ago
  If you are operating a vehicle and operator in NYC you’re already paying $500 a day. This will add 3%.
  - up2isomorphism 2y ago
    If you are trying to say 3% is a small number, you are already suffering is not the reason why you should suffer more.
bradleyjg 2y ago
Why don’t they start by making all drivers pay the existing tolls and fines (including those that work for the city and those that cover their license plates)? They we can talk about new ones. As it is this is only punishing honest people.
- dlp211 2y ago
  They already are: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/ny-ghost-cars-dodging-tolls-fake-altered-license-plates/5219412/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/ny-ghost-cars-dodging-...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
devwastaken 2y ago
Taxing vehicle use does not reduce the necessity of vehicle use. It just makes it harder to live with the broken infrastructure. If you want less cars then create the infrastructure. Don't advocate against yourself or your peers.
Diesel555 2y ago
I think microeconomics is an under appreciated class / study. Thanks for that point. If more people understood those concepts we could skip some of these basic arguments which is why I think people love HN. You can get to the meat of tech discussions without wasting time on the basics. And I wish we could do that with economic discussions. But to add on - congestion is not just a negative externality problem - it’s a policy problem to get a throughput of people to a location that the road infrastructure cannot support and therefore must incentivize people to a new transportation method which I’m not sure has a solution outside of economic incentives (New York’s solution) or strict regulation (Beijing with no drive days based on license plate number). No solution is perfectly equitable or efficient. But it’s a fun policy academic discussion with a lot of data! I am biased towards the economic incentives based on studies of the two.
- mlrtime 2y ago
  These types of policy decisions are perfect for Freakonomic types. You really need to look at lots of data to make direct and indirect consequences of these policies. Humans are not rational (As we know), behavior cannot always easily be predictable.
Spooky23 2y ago
Yes, it’s great. Same shitty service, more cash for the TWU.
boh 2y ago
City planning produces traffic. Blaming drivers is a lazy evasion of responsibility. Large sections of Robert Caro's Power Broker pretty much explains exactly why there's traffic in the city and how it was baked in by the mid 20th century. If anyone is driving in or driving through Manhattan it's because they have to, not because they prefer it over pretty much any other alternative. It's a cash grab, pure and simple with absolutely no reasonable expectation for traffic reduction following this initiative. The residents "dealing with the costs" also need things delivered or a ride to the places mass transit doesn't support and you better believe that the extra $15 dollars will be something that will find its way in the already inflated costs of living in NYC.
- diebeforei485 2y ago
  If someone really needs to drive into Manhattan most days perhaps they should move to a place that's close to a PATH, LIRR, Metro-North, subway, ferry, or other transit system. > The residents "dealing with the costs" also need things delivered This generally works in favor of people within the congestion zone, because time is money and delivery drivers can do far more deliveries per hour. > or a ride to the places mass transit doesn't support Residents of Manhattan below 59th can easily take one of the above-mentioned transit options to get to Jersey City, Queens, Brooklyn, or Harlem, and get in an Uber or Zipcar from there. But if someone needs to do this most days, perhaps they shouldn't be living in Manhattan.
  - ectospheno 2y ago
    I love the “just move bro” responses to things like this.
    - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
      Almost as good as the “let’s just do nothing” responses.
      - ectospheno 2y ago
        Guess which one is actually possible for the average person.
slavboj 2y ago
Drivers also supply positive externalities by engaging in commerce with associated consumer surplus. No one is driving into Manhattan for the thrill of it.
- cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
  Your comment comes very close to implying that these people would not be there if they weren’t driving in.
- Panzer04 2y ago
  So goes the argument of every roadside downtown strip who complain about the removal of their curbside parking. The reality in many cases is that walkers make up a substantial, if not majority of the business in these places (referring to denser town areas with parallel curbside parking rather than suburban strips with normal parking or actual parking lots)
- nostrebored 2y ago
  Drivers are overwhelmingly funded by urban cores, nationwide, and the data is not ambiguous. People do not cover the cost of their commuter lifestyle.
disambiguation 2y ago
Why not advocate for incentivizing use of public transportation by lowering costs trains and buses instead? It seems like prices only ever go up.
- dlp211 2y ago
  Because trains cost money? Everything can't be free or cost less just because you wish it so. I'm a big proponent of no-fare subway's, but I don't think the MTA should just do that without a revenue source to replace rider fares. It would result in a completely broken subway system.
  - disambiguation 2y ago
    Huh? Free? A ton of tax money goes to both road maintenance and public transportation. This kind of price hiking comes off as a double-dip. Surely they have enough money in the budget already?
    - ryukafalz 2y ago
      > Surely they have enough money in the budget already? No, the MTA seems to be running with a substantial deficit right now: https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics Removing fare revenue would only exacerbate that as a large portion of their revenue comes from fares.
      - disambiguation 2y ago
        nice find, it would be really cool to see the revenue v. budget year over year. labor related costs seem sticky, and 58% is huge. I wonder how that compares to D.C. and other metros with automated systems. a $3b cliff due to change of ridership is impressive, but doesn't common sense suggest fewer riders mean they don't need as much money?
        ryukafalz 2y ago
thisislife2 2y ago
It would be the "right thing to do"™ if New York already didn't collect tax on the vehicles purchased. These include - registration fee, vehicle plate fee, county use tax, sales tax, title certificate fee of $50.00 and MCTD fee (see https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/how-estimate-registration-fees-and-taxes https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/how-estimate-registration-fe... and https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/sales-tax-information https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/sales-tax-information ). Collecting a toll for using a road in addition to all these taxes and fees paid to the state is just another kind of recurrent tax - but how fair is it to pay tax for the same thing, again and again (kind of like "double taxation")? In India, we specifically pay a separate "road tax" to the State when purchasing a vehicle ( https://indianauto.com/stories/road-tax-india-different-states-nid3912 https://indianauto.com/stories/road-tax-india-different-stat... ), and the idea behind it is that the government needs money to build and maintain the road. Despite this, in the last 2 decades, the government has also introduced tolls on many state and national highways. In another decade or two, I expect even city corporations and municipalities to make road use a "subscription service" for all vehicle owners. /s
- tootie 2y ago
  They can tax as much as they want. The taxes on car ownership and fuel consumption are way way too low across the country to account for the costs they incur.
  - thisislife2 2y ago
    And that's how you tax the poor and the middle-class, and restrict their mobility by not investing in affordable public transportation. (Don't forget that in the US, you are forced to own a vehicle due to the lack of affordable and good public transportation). Taxes aren't meant just for building infrastructures but are also a mean to reduce income inequality and provide opportunities for those neglected or exploited by the society. Taxing the poor or the middle class too much works against this principle. But I guess that's too "socialist" for most Americans.
    - tootie 2y ago
iancmceachern 2y ago
I agree, but I think there should be an income cutoff, below a certain income level it's free. Reason is there are lots of lower income folks who live top far out to use public transport or need to drive for other reasons (hotdogs or bagel cart) that this would really negatively impact.
- paulgb 2y ago
  The thing about a congestion tax is that if it’s effective at getting drivers to mode shift to transit, it also makes things better for drivers who do continue to drive, since they deal with less traffic. If a large group of people is excepted from the fee, they may start to mode shift in the reverse direction because they get the benefit without the cost.
  - iancmceachern 2y ago
    In this case, I would say that would be good. It would be subsidizing our poorest folks, at the cost of those who can afford it.
kmlx 2y ago
> it makes drivers pay for the externalities they produce (including pollution, congestion, noise) you can make a point that charging drivers will impact the poor a lot more then others. and another point you can make is that if anyone was actually interested in pollution then wouldn’t it have been better to restrict usage directly?
AzzyHN 2y ago
Perhaps, but flat fees like this are regressive taxation

willmadden 2y ago

They do, by buying things in Manhattan and paying an 8.8% sales tax. Now many of them won't.

affinepplan 2y ago
oh the tragedy I would be willing to wager that the increased sales / foot traffic from one fewer car trying to make its loud and carcinogenic way through manhattan is well worth the decreased foot traffic from that car's passenger(s)
snakeyjake 2y ago
Congestion charges have been implemented in many global cities, including London, Milan, Singapore, and Stockholm. Many more cities have started severely restricting access to vehicles, turning many downtown areas that had previously been roads into pedestrian malls. Indeed, NYC has done this to many roads (parts of Fulton Street, Delancey Street, and both Broadway and Times Square). Do you have any evidence that those schemes have resulted in lower sale tax revenue for those locations?
- rsynnott 2y ago
  I'm honestly kind of shocked to discover that Manhattan's only getting one now. Like, taken on its own it is one of the densest large urban areas on earth. I'd assume driving in it is a fairly miserable experience, anyway; where on earth do people park?
  - IncreasePosts 2y ago
    Yes, I was living in Manhattan in 2004 working on GPS navigation software, and had to perform some updates relating to the London congestion charge. I thought to myself "This is such a great idea, Manhattan will surely implement a similar system within a couple years". Here we are, 20 years later... Parking is only really a problem below 59th st or so. You can usually get street parking by driving in circles for 20 minutes, or go to a parking garage and pay ~$8/hr to park.
  - shadowgovt 2y ago
    In specially-architected car elevators for a large amount relative to what you pay for parking in other urban areas. Daily parking varies from $20 to $125. (I mean, there are also more traditional parking garages, both above- and below-ground, but the premium on real estate is high enough to justify more expensive solutions to maximize land value also).
  - CPLX 2y ago
    Driving in Manhattan is pretty straightforward. There are parking garages everywhere you'd want to go (though most non-NYC people would probably consider them shockingly expensive) and at night and on weekends street parking is not too hard to find in most areas. But outside of rush hours and especially a few places like the tunnel approaches it's not a big deal. People do it constantly, it's totally normal for people from NJ or Westchester or LI to drive in for dinner and park, that kind of thing.
    - bombcar 2y ago
      I wonder if the parking should be taxed instead of tolling the bridge.
      - CPLX 2y ago
        It is heavily taxed.
    - macNchz 2y ago
      I’ve owned a car in Brooklyn for more than 10 years and find it basically nonfunctional to drive in a lot of Manhattan and surroundings. The idea of driving in for dinner from NJ makes my skin crawl. I have family in NJ and Manhattan, and go through the Holland Tunnel frequently. Sometimes it’s fine. Sometimes it’s hell. The random chance of winding up in standstill gridlock is just way too high. I can’t even count all of the times it has taken me over an hour to go like five blocks. Every time I’ve had the bad idea drive to the office to get a head start on an after-work trip, my mind is blown that some people actually do it every day, by choice.
- Vaslo 2y ago
  We aren’t Europe though. Many Americans have no interest in paying even more taxes. Glad I avoided working and living in NY.
  - snakeyjake 2y ago
    Do you have any evidence that those schemes have resulted in lower sale tax revenue for those locations?
  - srndsnd 2y ago
    If you are living in a place that forces you into car ownership as a means of transportation, then you are receiving a subsidy in the form of the infrastructure that enables car dependent city planning. You're also compelled to own a car, which is enormously expensive, getting even more expensive, and is probably the thing you do on a regular basis which is most likely to kill you. Sprawl is expensive, and so is car ownership.
    - smileysteve 2y ago
      Upvote; People complain about a congestion tax -- or traffic -- or bad roads. But they don't think about policy when when a car costs ~30% of a median salary, when insurance is "required", expensive (and part is because some choose not to afford insurance while driving a car). Beyond that car / driving enforcement is a drain on police preventing more dangerous crime, a top entry point of harassment and escalation by police, a drain on District Attorneys and the courts from enforcing other crime.
    - Spivak 2y ago
      What are you talking about? The roads in my city are paid for my taxes remitted to the city. I guess you could call that a subsidy but that's also just known as being paid for by taxes. And if you're in an area where everyone needs a car to get around then there's no argument that drivers are mooching off the tax revenue of non-drivers. I swear people are so salty about roads when they don't drive but nobody complains about public schools when they went to private. Owning a car isn't enormously expensive except in online discussions where people quote the MSRP of $year+1 models and act like folks making minimum wage are actually paying that. My primary car is a 2012 Honda Fit that was $6000 when I bought it at 30k miles and is now pushing 120k. I bought it in cash, but the monthly payment with insurance would have been 15% of my rent.
kube-system 2y ago
> Now many of them won't. That's the point of congestion pricing.
mlavrent 2y ago
The issues with this argument is that pedestrians, transit-users, and cyclists also pay the same sales tax. So if the goal is to have drivers take ownership over the costs they produce, we could also consider only levying the sales tax on people who arrived by car - but that's silly since there's no good way to implement that (how do you know if someone arrived in the city by private vehicle?). The straightforward answer is to add tolls. Another solution I could see working is adding special sales taxes on parking garages in the congestion pricing zone, but then this wouldn't capture tolls on trucks, and make it harder to implement exceptions for low-income drivers or drivers with disabilities.
- timr 2y ago
  It's not a straightforward answer to the issues you're presenting -- they're exempting the West Side Highway and JFK, and of course, the line at 60th is basically arbitrary. I predict that parking garages on the upper east and upper west are about to get a lot more expensive. This is social engineering in tax form, intended to redirect traffic (or really...just to raise money for the MTA), without a great deal of thought about how it will impact the people actually living here (beyond "cars are bad", or, "New Jersey sucks", in any case). It is not "having drivers take ownership of the costs the produce" -- that would be, I dunno...raising the gas tax or tag fees or something. And don't forget that drivers already pay a toll to use the bridges or tunnels into Manhattan. I'm generally in favor of making externalities real and specific, but this plan sucks. One nice thing about congestion is that it is inherently self-limiting, so the stated problem was already captured in existing economic incentives.
  - stetrain 2y ago
    > It is not "having drivers take ownership of the costs the produce" -- that would be, I dunno...raising the gas tax or tag fees or something. Gas taxes or registration fees don't reimburse Manhattan for the space and infrastructure costs of cars driving into and parking in Manhattan for cars that are registered and buy fuel outside of Manhattan. You can toll drivers for driving on those specific roads, or add a significant parking tax. Or reduce parking in general and let prices naturally rise, but then you'll also probably have more people driving in and then violating parking rules and need more parking enforcement. Parking fees/taxes also wouldn't capture the costs of traffic that doesn't necessarily park in Manhattan, such as ride share drivers.
baq 2y ago
Unfair. Those who don't come by car also pay the sales tax. Drivers are using a limited resource, why not pay for it. Be happy it's a fixed fee and not a proper market.
ecshafer 2y ago
Who would drive into Manhattan to buy anything? Seriously, if you are already in the Suburbs, why not just go to a store there. If you are in any other burrough, you will find easier parking there. If you are anywhere else, it'll also probably be cheaper. No one drives into Manhattan to buy anything. If you don't live in Manhattan, you go into Manhattan for work, an event, etc.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  > Who would drive into Manhattan to buy anything? Because the selection and quality are unlike almost any place in the world.
lxgr 2y ago
I've got the strong suspicion that this was never a thing: Why on Earth would people living in New Jersey drive into (paying bridge/tunnel toll) and park in Manhattan to do their shopping when there are so many malls with free parking available in NJ?
- InitialLastName 2y ago
  Free parking and no sales tax on clothing. There's a reason the big NYC area malls are in Paramus and Elizabeth.
  - BobaFloutist 2y ago
    So they're not paying sales tax?
    - InitialLastName 2y ago
      Sorry if that wasn't clear: NJ doesn't have a sales tax on clothing. NY does. Paramus and Elizabeth are where the 4-ish (the ones in Paramus blend together) giant malls outside of NYC are.
      - evanelias 2y ago
        NY/NYC only charges sales tax on clothing over $110 per item. In addition to the giant malls you mentioned, there's American Dream in East Rutherford. Parking isn't free there though. And all its clothing stores are closed on Sundays. (Ditto for the Paramus malls re: Sunday.)
      - mike50 2y ago
        High land costs pushed these kinds of land uses further and further from Manhattan. There are the same huge malls in Westchester and Nassau county.
  - lowkey_ 2y ago
    > There's a reason the big NYC area malls are in Paramus and Elizabeth. I think the reason is that malls are just out-of-fashion. If we consider the SoHo area to be the equivalent of a mall, or the North Williamsburg/Greenpoint area to be a mall, I'd bet they dwarf the Paramus & Elizabeth malls in GMV sold and foot traffic.
tomjakubowski 2y ago
$15 covers about one minute of parking in Manhattan
stetrain 2y ago
If car infrastructure was replaced by more transit, pedestrian, and cycling infrastructure, then more people would be able to go into Manhattan and shop and dine. One or two people per car each taking up 320 sqft of road space and parking space imposes a lower human density limit than most other ways of getting around. And the infrastructure to support it is more expensive on a per-human basis.
JumpCrisscross 2y ago
> Now many of them won't It’s $15 creditable against other tolls. If whatever you’re doing in downtown Manhattan during peak hours isn’t worth $15, its replacement by other activity happening faster is likely a net positive.

iooi 2y ago

> instead of leaving residents dealing with those costs. Residents will be mostly the ones paying these costs. Residents are not exempted.

srndsnd 2y ago
If you live in Manhattan south of 60th, your number one transit option should almost never be driving a car.
- busterarm 2y ago
  A good chunk of southeastern Manhattan is dramatically underserved by public transit, despite what the MTA's map would have you believe. I'm talking about from the Seaport all the way up to Alphabet City. I hope you've got strong legs. Tangentially, this is one of the reasons that nearly-invisible corners of Manhattan like the eastern end of Cherry St and Water St still have serious crime problems today. Honestly that whole stretch between Smith Houses and Vladeck Houses is pretty fucked.
nayuki 2y ago
Residents living in the congestion pricing zone aren't the ones commuting into the zone.
TomK32 2y ago
From Wikipedia 3.7 million people were employed in New York City; Manhattan is the main employment center with 56% of all jobs.[19] Of those working in Manhattan, 30% commute from within Manhattan. And: The primary mode of transportation in New York City is rail. Only 6% of shopping trips in Manhattan involve the use of a car. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transportation_in_New_York_Cit...
- ghaff 2y ago
  NYC, and specifically Manhattan, is pretty much the only US city where you can get by pretty easily without owning a car but there's no cultural expectation with respect to friends and recreational options that you have one.

BobaFloutist 2y ago

Only thing is they should charge more for heavier and for less eco-friendly cars.

jwells89 2y ago
Though it might be a good idea to also encourage carpooling with reduced tolls, because presumably one bigger car carrying 5-7 people is better than 5-7 smaller but still bigger-than-city-cars carrying 1 person each.
- throwaway562if1 2y ago
  Presumably the toll is per vehicle, so carpooling already divides the fee among the carpoolers.
- foobarian 2y ago
  Wonder about the road damage aspect of this. If the relationship is a 4th power of weight, assuming a single vehicle with 2x the weight, it would need to replace 16 individual cars to break even.
  - jwells89 2y ago
    Good question. Maybe the amount of toll reduction should depend on the number of people carried and the weight of the vehicle, encouraging lightweight vehicles that can carry a lot of people. Probably should have a hard cutoff too so e.g. over a certain weight loses the reduction altogether.
  - diabeetusman 2y ago
    "According to a 2022 study from the Environmental Protection Agency, the average weight of a car is 4,094 pounds."[1] Going from 1 person of 200lb to 4 people totaling 800lb (in a 4,000lb car) increases the damage by less than an additional car (4,800 / 4,200) ^ 4 = 1.71 [1]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-car-weight-140033718.html https://finance.yahoo.com/news/average-car-weight-140033718....

tempsy 2y ago

Time will tell but I feel like $15 max 1x/day is too low. Drivers are already likely paying other tolls, expensive monthly parking in Manhattan, gas. Another $15/day is not likely to change behavior.

proaralyst 2y ago
London's congestion charge is £15 (about $18) and has largely been a success. I suspect there's a difference in PPP though, so the Manhattan charge is potentially less impactful
- tempsy 2y ago
  People in NYC make much more. So if it's less in NYC than London then I'm even more convinced that it won't do that much for congestion.
  - atkailash 2y ago
    Median rent is also 2x London’s. Median pay is less than 3x. That’s not even counting the rest of cost of living changes It’ll only affect working class people who commute by driving for whatever reason. As usual the actual rich won’t care. The majority of NYers don’t even own a car. So it’s mostly tourists and people from outside the city (plus ride share/taxis) who are driving.
  - StressedDev 2y ago
    Do you have a source for this? London is not known as a poor city. In addition, some people in both cities are wealthy but a lot more are not. I doubt someone living in the South Brox or Far Rockaway can afford a $15/day charge.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      I don't answer your question, but I had a quick look for statistics and found this beautiful map — zoom in all the way! It broadly shows there are rich and poor areas of London, but I don't know if it's better to be in the bottom 10% in London or New York. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/smallareamodelbasedincomeestimates/financialyearending2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...

art0rz 2y ago

Isn't that what road tax is for?

jacobolus 2y ago
Yes, this is a special kind of road tax for specific congested roads.
- akira2501 2y ago
  I guess "improving the roads" has been decided to be impossible. Whether it is or isn't, it sure would be a great way to increase congestion, if that was your desired outcome. You might then expect them to use the money to improve roads instead of giving to an unaccountable city controlled subway monopoly. It's a baffling bureaucracy there in NYC.
  - acdha 2y ago
    They tried nothing else for the better part of a century, but the traffic just kept getting worse: the more you subsidize driving, the more people choose to do it. The underlying problem is basic geometry: cars are the least spatially efficient form of transportation in common use - you need something like 140 square feet to transport on average just over one person, plus a similar amount of space for storage. That can work somewhere unpopular but the math just doesn’t work in a city core where you don’t have that much space unless you bulldozed all of the buildings. Even if they did something phenomenally expensive and unpleasant like creating multilevel streets those would fill up quickly because if traffic ever improved, more people would start driving all the way in.
  - programjames 2y ago
    This is so confusing. If you create bigger roads, it usually doesn't solve the issue, as: 1) More people start to use the road, which can actually increase total commute time (Braess's paradox). 2) It removes room for the actual city. The city becomes more spread out, and people have to travel farther to get to their destinations! Think about this: do you want to be encouraging other people to create more traffic along your commute? No way! You want everyone else off your roads, somehow get them to start biking or take the subway. And the best way to do that is to replace a couple lanes with bus/bike/streetcar lanes.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kleiba 2y ago

But shouldn't pollution and noise be pretty much solved in the foreseeable future, I suppose, with EVs on the rise? And congestion I find an interesting one. Where I live, the city planners are trying to make it as hard as possible for people driving into the city, the idea being that people will just give up if driving even to a parking lot close to the city center sucks too much. However, it has always made me wonder: doesn't this strategy add to the congestion? Like, what if you made it instead super easy and fast to get to a parking spot - then your car would be off the road much faster and you'd produce less congestion, less noise, and less pollution.

WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
> But shouldn't pollution and noise be pretty much solved in the foreseeable future, I suppose, with EVs on the rise? The loudest noise is tire noise.
- pgodzin 2y ago
  Tire wear also contributes the most to PM2.5 pollution, and EVs are heavier and produce more wear
  - kleiba 2y ago
    Interesting. Do you have a source to back up the part about EVs?
    - Solvency 2y ago
      You need a source to tell you EVs are heavier? This is a basic fact.
      - programjames 2y ago
        > This is a basic fact. Clearly they don't want a source, it's just malicious ignorance. After all, if they really wanted to know it'd be far easier to click the "plus" button on their browser and ask DuckDuckGo.

dumbfounder 2y ago

The cost is fine, but is it creating an incentive for drivers to stay longer because if they go in and out they are double charged?

pquki4 2y ago
I assume this is aimed at commuters who drive into the city and almost always enter and exit the city exactly once a day.
galdosdi 2y ago
We're talking about lower Manhattan, so in practice if they stay longer then they have to deal with alternate side parking or pay for garage parking. Or, what the hell, I don't live there anymore, so I'll give away my secret awesome free parking spot: under the Williamsburg Bridge east of Clinton St.
supertrope 2y ago
Which works to the advantage of the city. They want to you stop to work your job (income tax), buy stuff (sales tax), participate on foot (low pollution). Not drive through (consumes tax dollars on roads, high pollution). In the long term if you move closer or change your commute mode they win too.
- dumbfounder 2y ago
  I am thinking more about Uber drivers I guess, who won’t be able to enter and exit all day. So they may be just sticking around the city, causing traffic.
  - jrochkind1 2y ago
    You are only charged max once per day under the plan.

wolverine876 2y ago

> congestion, noise These aren't problems, these are features. Manhatten is not a place to go for quiet, empty spaces, except maybe Central Park. You're there for energy, movement, lots of action. Who wants a peaceful, empty Manhatten??

acdha 2y ago
You’re not there for any of those things from cars. The energy and movement people visit Manhattan for are from other people – if they wanted car noise, they’d be out at a racetrack.
- wolverine876 2y ago
  > You’re not there for any of those things from cars. I don't know how you can say that (other than your personal preference). The cars have been there, doing those things, for generations. They are quieter and pollute less now. Are they trying to turn NY into Long Island? Keep the things that make NY unique and special - people obviously love it.
  - acdha 2y ago
    Cars do pollute less but are still a major hazard and quality of life reduction. If you ask people why they come to NYC, nobody says it’s to listen to people honk at each other or almost get run over in the crosswalk by an Uber driver. People may say that they accept the background car noise as a cost of living in the city but nobody sees it as a positive.
    - wolverine876 2y ago
      Pretty definitive statements, but what are they based on?
      - acdha 2y ago
        Let’s start with your survey results showing that people like Manhattan for the car noise. Please link to your data and methodology. My support is based on both the real health costs and direct injuries/fatalities - see e.g. https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abf60b https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/abf60b – and the fact that if people loved the pollution so much there wouldn’t be an entire political movement to reduce it. Beyond the topic of this thread, they’ve also had a variety of laws to punish noisy vehicles and reduce traffic: https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/07/06/opinion-loud-driving-threatens-our-health https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2021/07/06/opinion-loud-driving-...

pishpash 2y ago

"...raise $1 billion annually for public transit improvements" The money isn't going to residents.

orr94 2y ago
It’s benefiting the residents who use the improved public transit.
- pishpash 2y ago
  The externality applies to residents who do not take public transit too. The two decisions should not be coupled. If you want to do a Pigovian tax, do a Pigovian tax properly. If you want to do congestion pricing, make it budget neutral to users. If you want transfer payments, do that and call it that.
nobody9999 2y ago
>The money isn't going to residents. Does your state government send you a portion of tax receipts? No? They must be putting it in their mattresses instead, eh? Please.
- pishpash 2y ago
  So it's a tax. Fine, don't call it congestion pricing.
  - fsckboy 2y ago
    but it's purpose is to lower congestion, and the fee varies with time of day based on congestion, and the people who pay it are contributing to the congestion so ... it's a congestion priced fee. Not clear it's a tax at all, in the same way a fishing permit is not called a tax.
  - nobody9999 2y ago
    Does your state government send you a portion of toll receipts, DMV licensing fees, etc, etc, etc? So that makes those taxes too? And even if they are taxes, so what? Congestion pricing in NYC is a tax on the selfish. And it's not nearly high enough. It should be at least ten times higher.

rcthompson 2y ago

For me at least, it will also make driving to Manhattan and parking actually more expensive than taking the train, which it should be. The fact that both options are currently about the same price for me has had me thinking that something somewhere is deeply wrong.

bogota 2y ago
Better/cheaper train solutions would seem to be the desired fix though not just raising prices to random high numbers. I agree that this will likely have a good outcome in the end but something about it just seems wrong to me.
- KptMarchewa 2y ago
  It's hard to exactly tax externalities.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  The high tolls are going to subsidize the trains.
  - bogota 2y ago
    So are train tickets going down in price or more seats being added?
    - anotherhue 2y ago
      More bag searches obviously.
    - bradleyjg 2y ago
      They’ll be six workers standing around not doing anything while one works, up from five.
    - selcuka 2y ago
      Nothing goes down in price. Ticket prices will remain the same, but salaries will increase because of inflation, so yes, they will become more affordable. At least that's the theory.

up2isomorphism 2y ago

The ones who drive nowadays on weekday regularly into Manhattan are mostly those who need to do a job in the city with a vehicle, which likely why you can get the goods you want in the city. This toll won't stop them from entering the city and will only make what people pay more expensive. It could be a fact you are not the group of people who care about that, but for most of the people, they do. It is just another way to grab funds from private section into public ones, which usually operates at extremely low efficiency and high corruption level.

chgs 2y ago
If you are operating a vehicle and operator in NYC you’re already paying $500 a day. This will add 3%.
- up2isomorphism 2y ago
  If you are trying to say 3% is a small number, you are already suffering is not the reason why you should suffer more.

bradleyjg 2y ago

Why don’t they start by making all drivers pay the existing tolls and fines (including those that work for the city and those that cover their license plates)? They we can talk about new ones. As it is this is only punishing honest people.

dlp211 2y ago
They already are: https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/ny-ghost-cars-dodging-tolls-fake-altered-license-plates/5219412/ https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/ny-ghost-cars-dodging-...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

devwastaken 2y ago

Taxing vehicle use does not reduce the necessity of vehicle use. It just makes it harder to live with the broken infrastructure. If you want less cars then create the infrastructure. Don't advocate against yourself or your peers.

Diesel555 2y ago

I think microeconomics is an under appreciated class / study. Thanks for that point. If more people understood those concepts we could skip some of these basic arguments which is why I think people love HN. You can get to the meat of tech discussions without wasting time on the basics. And I wish we could do that with economic discussions. But to add on - congestion is not just a negative externality problem - it’s a policy problem to get a throughput of people to a location that the road infrastructure cannot support and therefore must incentivize people to a new transportation method which I’m not sure has a solution outside of economic incentives (New York’s solution) or strict regulation (Beijing with no drive days based on license plate number). No solution is perfectly equitable or efficient. But it’s a fun policy academic discussion with a lot of data! I am biased towards the economic incentives based on studies of the two.

mlrtime 2y ago
These types of policy decisions are perfect for Freakonomic types. You really need to look at lots of data to make direct and indirect consequences of these policies. Humans are not rational (As we know), behavior cannot always easily be predictable.

Spooky23 2y ago

Yes, it’s great. Same shitty service, more cash for the TWU.

boh 2y ago

City planning produces traffic. Blaming drivers is a lazy evasion of responsibility. Large sections of Robert Caro's Power Broker pretty much explains exactly why there's traffic in the city and how it was baked in by the mid 20th century. If anyone is driving in or driving through Manhattan it's because they have to, not because they prefer it over pretty much any other alternative. It's a cash grab, pure and simple with absolutely no reasonable expectation for traffic reduction following this initiative. The residents "dealing with the costs" also need things delivered or a ride to the places mass transit doesn't support and you better believe that the extra $15 dollars will be something that will find its way in the already inflated costs of living in NYC.

diebeforei485 2y ago
If someone really needs to drive into Manhattan most days perhaps they should move to a place that's close to a PATH, LIRR, Metro-North, subway, ferry, or other transit system. > The residents "dealing with the costs" also need things delivered This generally works in favor of people within the congestion zone, because time is money and delivery drivers can do far more deliveries per hour. > or a ride to the places mass transit doesn't support Residents of Manhattan below 59th can easily take one of the above-mentioned transit options to get to Jersey City, Queens, Brooklyn, or Harlem, and get in an Uber or Zipcar from there. But if someone needs to do this most days, perhaps they shouldn't be living in Manhattan.
- ectospheno 2y ago
  I love the “just move bro” responses to things like this.
  - cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
    Almost as good as the “let’s just do nothing” responses.
    - ectospheno 2y ago
      Guess which one is actually possible for the average person.

slavboj 2y ago

Drivers also supply positive externalities by engaging in commerce with associated consumer surplus. No one is driving into Manhattan for the thrill of it.

cqqxo4zV46cp 2y ago
Your comment comes very close to implying that these people would not be there if they weren’t driving in.
Panzer04 2y ago
So goes the argument of every roadside downtown strip who complain about the removal of their curbside parking. The reality in many cases is that walkers make up a substantial, if not majority of the business in these places (referring to denser town areas with parallel curbside parking rather than suburban strips with normal parking or actual parking lots)
nostrebored 2y ago
Drivers are overwhelmingly funded by urban cores, nationwide, and the data is not ambiguous. People do not cover the cost of their commuter lifestyle.

disambiguation 2y ago

Why not advocate for incentivizing use of public transportation by lowering costs trains and buses instead? It seems like prices only ever go up.

dlp211 2y ago
Because trains cost money? Everything can't be free or cost less just because you wish it so. I'm a big proponent of no-fare subway's, but I don't think the MTA should just do that without a revenue source to replace rider fares. It would result in a completely broken subway system.
- disambiguation 2y ago
  Huh? Free? A ton of tax money goes to both road maintenance and public transportation. This kind of price hiking comes off as a double-dip. Surely they have enough money in the budget already?
  - ryukafalz 2y ago
    > Surely they have enough money in the budget already? No, the MTA seems to be running with a substantial deficit right now: https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics https://new.mta.info/budget/MTA-operating-budget-basics Removing fare revenue would only exacerbate that as a large portion of their revenue comes from fares.
    - disambiguation 2y ago
      nice find, it would be really cool to see the revenue v. budget year over year. labor related costs seem sticky, and 58% is huge. I wonder how that compares to D.C. and other metros with automated systems. a $3b cliff due to change of ridership is impressive, but doesn't common sense suggest fewer riders mean they don't need as much money?
      - ryukafalz 2y ago

thisislife2 2y ago

It would be the "right thing to do"™ if New York already didn't collect tax on the vehicles purchased. These include - registration fee, vehicle plate fee, county use tax, sales tax, title certificate fee of $50.00 and MCTD fee (see https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/how-estimate-registration-fees-and-taxes https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/how-estimate-registration-fe... and https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/sales-tax-information https://dmv.ny.gov/registration/sales-tax-information ). Collecting a toll for using a road in addition to all these taxes and fees paid to the state is just another kind of recurrent tax - but how fair is it to pay tax for the same thing, again and again (kind of like "double taxation")? In India, we specifically pay a separate "road tax" to the State when purchasing a vehicle ( https://indianauto.com/stories/road-tax-india-different-states-nid3912 https://indianauto.com/stories/road-tax-india-different-stat... ), and the idea behind it is that the government needs money to build and maintain the road. Despite this, in the last 2 decades, the government has also introduced tolls on many state and national highways. In another decade or two, I expect even city corporations and municipalities to make road use a "subscription service" for all vehicle owners. /s

tootie 2y ago
They can tax as much as they want. The taxes on car ownership and fuel consumption are way way too low across the country to account for the costs they incur.
- thisislife2 2y ago
  And that's how you tax the poor and the middle-class, and restrict their mobility by not investing in affordable public transportation. (Don't forget that in the US, you are forced to own a vehicle due to the lack of affordable and good public transportation). Taxes aren't meant just for building infrastructures but are also a mean to reduce income inequality and provide opportunities for those neglected or exploited by the society. Taxing the poor or the middle class too much works against this principle. But I guess that's too "socialist" for most Americans.
  - tootie 2y ago

iancmceachern 2y ago

I agree, but I think there should be an income cutoff, below a certain income level it's free. Reason is there are lots of lower income folks who live top far out to use public transport or need to drive for other reasons (hotdogs or bagel cart) that this would really negatively impact.

paulgb 2y ago
The thing about a congestion tax is that if it’s effective at getting drivers to mode shift to transit, it also makes things better for drivers who do continue to drive, since they deal with less traffic. If a large group of people is excepted from the fee, they may start to mode shift in the reverse direction because they get the benefit without the cost.
- iancmceachern 2y ago
  In this case, I would say that would be good. It would be subsidizing our poorest folks, at the cost of those who can afford it.

kmlx 2y ago

> it makes drivers pay for the externalities they produce (including pollution, congestion, noise) you can make a point that charging drivers will impact the poor a lot more then others. and another point you can make is that if anyone was actually interested in pollution then wouldn’t it have been better to restrict usage directly?

AzzyHN 2y ago

Perhaps, but flat fees like this are regressive taxation