Every delivery truck that comes into the city is charged a tax. It's not a matter of "evidence" -- it's how the law works. This cost is passed on to consumers.
I didn't say "gets more expensive on net relative to some hypothetical other universe", because I can't possibly know that. You're the one making the argument that this universe is cheaper than that one. Prove it.
> Literally everything we buy and use in the city gets more expensive because of this law.
If I buy a cup of coffee, and the cost of the coup goes from $0.05 to $0.10, but the cost of coffee goes down from $1.00 to $0.95, the thing I buy did not get more expensive. The components of its cost changed.
The hot dog delivery truck paid a few extra bucks, averaged out over tens of thousands of hot dogs, and it spent less time stuck in traffic (saving gas and labor costs). This is not a large logical leap. You are arguing that this cannot possibly be the case, which is a large logical leap.
> If I buy a cup of coffee, and the cost of the coup goes from $0.05 to $0.10, but the cost of coffee goes down from $1.00 to $0.95, the thing I buy did not get more expensive. The components of its cost changed.
Great, prove it! You at least agree with me on how taxes work now, so it's up to you to prove that your convoluted tax mechanism actually makes things cheaper. Maybe you're right, and I look forward your evidence.
Barring affirmative evidence for that argument, we should just go with the usual models for taxation that work for everything else, and assume that they end up raising costs for consumers.
A small truck pays $14.40/day. A large truck $21.60/day. That $20ish in fees is distributed across the entire cargo of the truck; I'm sure we agree that the average truck carries more than, say, $20 worth of goods. NYC minimum wage for the driver/delivery person is $16.50/hour.
"Perhaps the most dramatic transformation has occurred outside the toll zone. In Queens, traffic crashes in Astoria and Long Island City have fallen by 27%, with injuries down 31.4%. The reason, Schwartz says, is geographical."
This, of course, all ignores other improvements that are tough to measure. We've seen lower car crash injury rates - what's the per-capita benefit from that? What's the per-capita benefit of less asthma? What's the per-capita benefit of less road noise? (We have concrete evidence that these things are harmful! https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20240621-how-traffic-nois...)
> go with the usual models for taxation that work for everything else
What are these magical models of taxation economists have wide consensus on? To my knowledge, tax policy remains a contentious field.
> 15% faster between stops seems highly likely to save that driver an hour or so in their day. Probably some gas, engine wear and tear, etc. too.
Great. Prove it! When you use words like "probably", it indicates that you're speculating.
(I'll just save you some time here: you can't prove it, because no such proof exists. It's fine to just admit that you have a theory.)
> "Perhaps the most dramatic transformation has occurred outside the toll zone. In Queens, traffic crashes in Astoria and Long Island City have fallen by 27%, with injuries down 31.4%. The reason, Schwartz says, is geographical."
Non responsive. I didn't ask you for proof that other things you like might be happening. I asked you to prove that your preferred tax is actually lowering prices.
No it isn't. The government pays for public transit, for the bridges and tunnels that vehicles take into the city, and for the infrastructure that they use when they're here. The government funds its spending with taxes. Either it taxes everyone (payroll/income tax) or it taxes the people who are specifically putting the highest toll on the infrastructure (congestion pricing). The MTA has tried the former — general fund, MTMCT — and it wasn't enough. Now they're trying the latter.
It's clearly a new tax. It didn't exist for the entire history of the city before. So yes, the default is to justify why the change must be implemented.
> So yes, the default is to justify why the change must be implemented.
That was done when the plan was proposed (and reviewed/approved by city/state/Federal government).
We're now in the "confirming the benefits" stage. Which is the point of the article we're discussing; those benefits have, indeed, showed up in the stats. As the justifications for the change suggested they would.
Now's the time for opponents to support their pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom, with concrete evidence now available because it's an actual thing.
> We're now in the "confirming the benefits" stage. Which is the point of the article we're discussing; those benefits have, indeed, showed up in the stats. As the justifications for the change suggested they would.
No, now you're being slippery. The "stats" you cite have shown improvements in things that I don't care about, and you've provided no evidence to counter the argument I am making.
> Now's the time for opponents to support their pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom
I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but I didn't have "pre-implementation allegations of doom and gloom", so, perhaps you can go find that person instead.
> The "stats" you cite have shown improvements in things that I don't care about…
You implied you cared about pollution, then claimed that was whimsical when evidence became available.
What do you care about that has measurably worsened with the change? And can you demonstrate it with more than feefees? And will it become “whimsical” if debunked?
Significantly? Aren't those delivery trucks spending a lot less time paying drivers to idle in traffic now?