295
New York becomes first US city with congestion charge
(www.bbc.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 05 Jan 2025
295 points (99.0% liked)
News
23761 readers
3602 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
This is great work by the city leadership. It's taken decades to get this system in place and the city sorely needs it.
Congestion charges work. It's not a new thing nor an untried approach to mitigating extreme congestion from unfettered use of the city streets.
The weird part about all of this, to me anyway, is that tools and congestion charges are very much an economic and Libertarian style solution, but strangely conservatives often fight them tooth and nail. Isn't their whole schtick that the market driven solutions are best? The city owns the streets. The use of the streets are in high demand. So, the city puts a price on a resource. That's just econ basics.
Libertarians have no underlying principles other than doing whatever they want with no consequences.
100%. Knew a Libertarian. Conversations about anything rooted in reality or logic were like pulling teeth.
They thought people and businesses would pay to be connected to roads, and each one would pay for the upkeep of their own segment. They wouldn't charge anyone to use their roads, because they'd recoup the costs from businesses.
Highways would be built through...uh, charity? Or maybe it was big businesses that'd need to ship goods across them. Every highway would be a toll highway, and it'd be beautiful. It'd be cheaper than paying taxes...
/majorEyeRoll
They don't have any idea how cost-effective taxes are, compared to paying private companies individually for every single shared resource. It's the same for healthcare, education, etc.: to pay the government for a decent nonprofit service is always better value.
"But governments waste so much money!"
And so do private organizations.
But in addition to wasting money, they also pay CEOs 10x as much, pay the middle class workers 1/2 as much (meaning worse jobs in your communities), and charge people at least 2x as much. Because they have shareholders to feed!
Perhaps my memory is bad, but as far as I can recall, they jettisoned all ideology after the Tea Party (funded by Libertarian billionaires) fizzled. So, pretty much about the time Obama took office. It's mostly racism and tribal identity now.
I think they just whittled down their ideology into the most privileged and selfish extreme. They do believe the insane things they spout like "tax is theft."
I think you're right that the rank-and-file libertarians don't really think their ideology through or educate themselves on its flaws or alternatives, because it really is about identity. I'm pretty convinced that it always has been though. Conservative ideology is based on hierarchy, and they think the right outcomes result from having the proper social stratification— this is usually wealth-based.
The hierarchy concept is exactly the framework the conservative mindset is based upon. The original idea was for it to be about fighting (war, duels, etc), but as civilization progressed they had to settle for money as a scoreboard.
There's a great video series on this from Innuendo Studios: https://youtu.be/agzNANfNlTs
There's also a fantastic book called The Reactionary Mind that's the best thing I've read on conservative ideology. The newest edition has updated chapters through the Trump administration. It's essential reading, in my opinion, for understanding what drives them.
He also has a great chapter shredding Ayn Rand to bits.
Just a slight correction to your post - it isn’t NYC leadership per se. The final call is made by the NY State governor as the MTA is regulated on the state level.
I lean towards libertarianism and I oppose congestion pricing because I think all the claimed benefits are just marketing and it's simply a new tax. If it does improve conditions in Manhattan significantly, I'll admit I was wrong.
How is it a tax, other than as an attempt to drum up opposition from the poorly-informed? This charge is very clearly a user-fee, as in, you have a choice of whether to pay it or not, and the amount you pay is directly tied to what you use. It's even implemented through the EZ Pass system, like any other road toll!
A tax, on the other hand, is compulsory, and levied on people whether they drive in lower Manhattan or not. The reason that New Jersey had standing to file its ridiculous lawsuit in first place is that some of the affected roadway is U.S. highway. If that's sufficient, then I want a say, because I'm forced to help pay for that highway, too, and I've never even been to lower Manhattan, so how's that fair?
You do not have the choice to pay it. Anyone driving through for the first time will have no idea what this is or how to avoid it.
Same with no-stop toll roads. The first time I encountered one, I could not refuse to pay. I could not refuse to go through, and I could not turn around. I was also poor.
I am all for reducing car and truck traffic, but we have to acknowledge that this way steals money from some of the most vulnerable who don't get to choose.
Was that Florida? It sounds like something Florida would do.
In any case, that sounds like a stretch, since this congestion toll has garnered nationwide media coverage, and NYC has posted plenty of advance notice in the form of road signs (pictures of which have accompanied many of those news reports). Google Maps warned me about the congestion toll when I pulled up my driving route to Manhattan. But even if one were to just hit the road without any foreknowledge of the route, the existence of toll roads is well-known, so the possibility of encountering one is part of the decision to drive.
Consider a tax on sandwiches (which New York actually has). I have a choice of whether to pay it or not; I could buy a different food. The amount I pay is directly tied to what I use; it's a sales tax. Would you say that it's wrong to call this a sandwich tax and that it should be called a sandwich user fee?
You don't mention this, but I think that the main difference between a toll and a sales tax is that the toll is for the use of something provided by the government whereas the sales tax is a fee that the government imposes on transactions between two other parties. However, tolls are generally for the use of something specific (for example, the Midtown Tunnel ). The New York City income tax isn't a toll despite the fact that it could be described as the fee that the government charges for living in NYC.
Ultimately the line between the two terms is a matter of opinion, but in my opinion driving in Manhattan south of 60th Street is too general for the fee charged for it to be called a toll. It's more like living in New York City than it is like driving through the Midtown Tunnel.
Who exactly the fuck do you think provides the streets, if not the government?
Half-baked nonsense like this is why people think Libertarians have zero credibility.
Is a car required to live in NYC?
No, and the majority of New Yorkers don't own cars. Which is why it's been mind-boggling to have the majority subsidize the minority and out-of-towners when they want to drive in an store their 3-tonne vehicles in public space, often for free.
No (and neither are sandwiches). Even being in NYC at all isn't required to live.
Yes, you are correct, I did mean to imply the use of something provided by the government in the definition of a user fee charged by the government. That's what makes the tax on the sale of a sandwich a tax; the government is a third party, not otherwise involved in the transaction.
I have to say that I reckon the congestion toll as quite specific. One does not need to pay it to enter lower Manhattan. It is immediately spatially and temporally connected with driving on certain city-provided streets, just like the other $54.28 in tolls that I found I'd have to pay to other governments to drive to NYC on their roads. In any case, tax or user fee, I think it's more justified and fair than the taxes used to construct those streets.
I don't think we disagree about anything that isn't a matter of opinion.
(But if making drivers pay for the streets is fair, wouldn't making the people who use mass transit pay for it also be fair? The MTA spends three or four times as much as it collects in fares.)
I'm not a big fan of those other tolls either, especially since there isn't any way to get across the Hudson River in a car without paying a toll unless you drive 160 miles each way to Albany. (In practice you would only need to drive 80 miles each way to pay a very low toll.) I'm currently considering some jobs in New Jersey and having to pay about $50 every time I visit my relative in NYC is definitely something I need to account for. It all makes me wish I was still living in New Hampshire.
Indeed, it's fun to talk things over even if we don't disagree. My username is an old, nautical version of shooting the breeze, chewing the fat, etc. The tendency to see every interaction as verbal combat was slowly driving me off the red site even before the API fiasco, and Lemmy has been refreshing that way.
You'd pay about $12 on mass transit ($2.90 PATH and $2.90 MTA in each direction), and the reasons for the government to incentivize one versus the other are numerous, not the least of which are safety, noise, air quality, and efficiency.
We don't have to guess what the future holds. London has had congestion pricing for about 22 years now. Its been largely successful.
Your article makes congestion pricing in London seem like a failure, and I would call getting those same results in New York a failure.
You might need to work on your reading comprehension.
It did what it was intended for decades, and recently the original symptom is present again. What you also apparently missed is the net total of people able to enter London has increased since then except they are largely served by 3x in pubic buses as well as 137% increase in bicycle use. So many many more people are being served in London today than they were back then, and the worst of the problem is only what it was about 22 years ago. That is an amazing success. Further, we have London to look at for an archetype for modifications to a plan for New York to possibly make it even better/longer lasting in New York than 20+ years. Even if we can't, 20+ years for a fix for a problem of this scale is an amazing success.
Your statement alone looks comically bad. I paraphrase your response as: "We have a problem today in Manhattan which has a solution in the form of congestion pricing, but that solution will potentially need to be adjusted in 20 years time. So the best option is to NOT use the solution that will buy us two decades of a fix."
Yeah, to be honest, that's a crappy article from CBS. London's Low Emission Zone is a huge success in terms of air quality and active transportation. The city has continued to pour the revenues generated from the zone fees into its public transit system, so the iconic double-decker busses run frequently all day, and they have continued to open new train lines like the Elizabeth Line. New York has never managed that level of investment, and without the income and incentives congestion pricing creates, it won't be able to. If anything, London still prices the LEZ too low, just like NYC has priced it too low at $9, rather than the $15 was supposed to be before Gov. Hochul's cowardice.
Hello, left-lib here, congestion pricing is just market economics at work. If you demand to drive your car into town, then the city will supply you with a drivable street, provided you will pay for such. Nobody is forcing you to drive into the city, there are viable alternatives, you're still free to choose something else. What congestion pricing does is take crowded downtown streets (a free good, which means that demand will almost always consume all available supply) and use price pressure to reduce demand and ensure an actually useful experience for those who want to use the street.
They see it as a tax. They don't really like taxes.
And honestly there's a fair amount of stuff in lower Manhattan that can't be adequately serviced by public transportation. Large conventions, cruise traffic, hotels. People bring their cars to those things because they want to have more than just what they can carry with them, and when they return they don't want to have to stand around for two to three hours to get enough trains through to disperse them back to Secaucus where they parked. (And God forbid there be a breakdown in the line right there)
If it doesn't adequately reduce the congestion it's just a tax. If it does adequately reduce the congestion, You're going to put a hell of a lot of parking, hotels and convention out of business.
Congestion charges make sense when it's congestion just for the sake of people wanting to drive, But it doesn't solve the reasons people are driving. New York City public transportation doesn't have the capacity to handle these big events.
I hate to be on Trump's side with anything, but this issue needs some infrastructure changes along with the congestion tax where it's going to be just a massive tax with no actual solution.
Skeptical hippo is skeptical. If people are going on a freakin' cruise, staying at a Manhattan hotel, or attending a convention, I very much doubt another $9 is going to be a deciding factor.
ETA: Out of curiosity, I consulted Google Maps about driving to Manhattan. It helpfully alerts me that my route would pass through a congestion zone, but does not calculate that price for me, nor add it to the $54.28 of other tolls that I would have to pay along the way.
It's not going to stop people driving in entirely. It's just going to add a cost. So that people who deem the cost "worth it" can still drive in. Like those taking a cruise.
So it's just a tax on those people for no reason. I can't really say that I love it.
It's a tax on the people who cause congestion during peak hours and make downtown miserable, yes
It’s like paying for an extra topping on your NY style pizza. Only those that want that topping will pay for it, not everyone else.
In countries where a having a car is considered a luxury, only those with one pay a “permission to circulate” (tax on driving) which goes to paying for road maintenance and the like. And how much you pay every year is prorated to the cost of your car. Sucks, but seems fair if you don’t have a car.
I think this congestion tax is similar, but it the same. You pay for what you use.
It's a price increase to use a limited resource. That's how markets work.
Doesn't the congestion revenue explicitly help fund public transportation? Which would help mitigate a lot of the issues you bring up, there will for sure be growing pains but with smart decisions should adapt to the needs of traffic
Eh. Money's perfectly fungible, except for restrictions the government puts on itself through the budget process. Theoretically, they could have simply decided to pay for the MTA with existing funds, and tie the future of street maintenance to the implementation of the congestion toll. Instead, they tied the MTA funding increase to the implementation of a congestion toll, for political reasons.
How much congestion tax would it take to add a new line to New Jersey to handle the offloading of big traffic?
Looking at the numbers to fix the infrastructure, the tax is a drop in the bucket.
Yet to the businesses in the area, it'll severely lower their income.
I'd hate to see Comic-Con leave the Javits center to move to New Jersey.
Additional tunnels are already being built as part of the Gateway Program which will double train capacity.
So put the congestion charge in once they can handle the traffic...
The difference between taxes and fees is really just that the first is cheaper and goes to people who aren't incentivized to pocket the money while providing the worst service they can get away with. If you push a libertarian to explain their story in detail, there always comes a point where they introduce government and taxes but try to call it something else.
It's like they try to slow roll putting themselves in charge and expect you not to notice :)
I'm pretty sure a lot of them don't even notice.
Wasn't Gov. Hochul's rationale for pausing it that it would keep Jerseyites from driving in to have lunch?
Could you imagine trying to drive in from someplace serviceable in New Jersey to have lunch and drive back out during peak? Lake Jersey can't field reasonable restaurants ;)
Yes, it was incredibly, transparently dumb, but that was her stated reasoning.
How long are their lunch breaks? I work in a small rural town and driving somewhere for lunch still eats up about a quarter of my lunch break.