It remains amazing to me, time and time again, how relatively small fees can encourage large changes in behavior. At the aggregate level, people overvalue their time and undervalue their money.
I think you’re agreeing with each other. GP was talking about at the aggregate level where your observation is about the individual specifically. At the aggregate level with traffic reduction you’d think individuals would weigh their money as a shortcut to regain time but they don’t. My personal guess is because Manhattan is not the actual destination, work and home are the destinations, Manhattan is just the environment. Before it was the cost of car maintenance to drive into Manhattan (in the individuals eyes “free”), now it’s car maintenance + $9/day.
I certainly refuse to pay $0.10 / plastic grocery bag since those fees were put in place. I have been exclusively shopping with a canvas bag for years now. Likely having saved thousands of bags in that time. In fact, I am angry at the half-dozen times where circumstances have forced me to pay for one.
I think I’m up to like 8 canvas bags, significantly thicker yet still significantly plastic, which I continue to forget at home.
These laws have absolutely increased my carbon emissions, and I think o saw it’s like 10,000 visits to offset the carbon difference? AKA it’s more intensive initially to build things that last longer, idea being that you offset it over time
I’d be surprised if I got 80k grocery store trips left in my LIFE!
HN likes to equate all environmental issues with carbon. It’s one dimension but not the sole dimension. Bags were a huge litter, wildlife and quality of life issue.
My wife was a finance commissioner for a water utility. Guess what the most common clogger of storm drains was? Shopping bags. They did hundreds of service calls annually doing service that ranged from fishing them out to using a hydro-jet to clear a pipe.
Within 18 months of the bag fee, those calls dropped 60%. That’s easily $800k in wasted labor and dollars in this small city.
Great example. FWIW I don't think this is just an HN issue. It's hard for most people to have a systemic view of policy. I'm pretty dialed in on these issues and I never even thought of the drainage impacts of the bags.
That would’ve been a fantastic way to advertise this initiative to voters. Unfortunately, there were no mentions of clogged pipes, clean watersheds, or any other benefit, so I’m meeting them where they chose to meet us.
New Delhi’s has gotten more polluted over the last decades, to the point that it’s almost comical. (400+ AQI being normalised.) Post pandemic, it’s done a decent job in some parts at reducing the amount of trash on the roads. On the balance, I find it more pleasant now than before.
I’d also guess that most people would prefer trading emissions for e.g. not living next to a carcinogenic or toxic-waste dump.
Sufficiently high CO2 levels, such as existed at the end of the Permian period, can raise temperatures above that which would be survivable. Sure, people could huddle in air conditioned survival pods. This doesn't seem to be a sufficient rebuttal of the claim.
If you think an analogy with the P/T extinction is invalid, note that CO2 levels are rising now much faster than they did over that event.
> people could huddle in air conditioned survival pods. This doesn't seem to be a sufficient rebuttal of the claim
I kind of think it does, particularly when we’re talking about temperatures that humans choose to live in (almost precisely as you describe) today.
CO2 is not going to render our inland cities uninhabitable. It will make them more deadly, more expensive and less comfortable. It will cause a continuation of the current extinction event, which is already comparable with (if not equivalent to) P/T.
This is why environmental activism is ineffective and counterproductive.
Where I live, the campaign against natural gas and an arbitrary timeline for decarbonization, combined with accelerating the shutdown of a major nuclear plant, just triggered a 30% increase in electrical delivery cost this year and is driving migration due to cost. (to places with dirtier electric and gas production, btw)
Back when this was new, there were studies showing that the typical canvas bags sold at grocers are also breeding grounds for all sorts of nasty things that you don't want to be transporting your food in.
So it's just purely all downsides. Like security theater, but for the environment.
Tell that to the Anacostia river in DC! They great at reducing watershed pollution. It's really noticeable how much better things have gotten since the bag fee.
As a side effect, DC's water authority has also been able to cut maintenance budgets because clumps of bags were our main source of sewer clogs.
Likewise with the canvas bags they are so much nicer but if I do end up needing an 8 or 10c bag I hardly care. If I spend 50 its 1/5 of 1% of the cost.
Eg when plastic bags are free Grandma wants 5 things in 2 doubled bags but at 8 cents each she'll just stick them in the cart with no bag at all and transfer them to the back seat even if 8c for single bag to carry them in would add negligible costs to her $120 basket.
People are not perfectly rational. When there's no explicit price tag people tend to overlook costs. For example when Tesla Model S sold at $70,000 a decrease in gasoline prices was predicted to hurt sales even though a few hundred dollar swing in fuel cost for one year is not going to materially change total cost of ownership of a luxury vehicle.
I'm not sure why what is functionally a $180/month fee is considered "small". I think what we're seeing here is that public services (like roads) are more enjoyable, for those who can still use it, if the lower half of the income ladder is banned from using it.
That doesn't make much sense, driving a gas car from Jersey is gonna eat up a couple of gallons of fuel ($10x20=$200/mo), insuring it will be $200/mo, if it's not paid off it'll cost at least $500-600, parking will run easily $500 but likely more. Why is that $180 the straw that broke the camel's back?
The Jersey thing isn’t the issue. Car commuters still commute. Most of the traffic volume are whiny Long Islanders who’d rather cut through Manhattan than navigate the belt parkway and bridges to New Jersey. Also poorly served Queens and Brooklyn residents — I grew up in Queens… my dads public transit time to Lower Manhattan or my mom’s time to Manhattan hospitals was about 2 hours — similar to taking Metro North from Dutchess county or LIRR.
The downside of this stuff that we don’t have data on is how it affects big employers who benefit from car transit and benefit the city as a whole? How many patients are going to avoid NYU, Cornell or MSK in favor of a satellite site not in the city proper, for example?
NYC chased most of the big industries away already in my lifetime, I wonder if this will impact commercial business in the city in the long run.
When I lived in the area, I used to regularly drive in to lower Manhattan after 6PM for free parking because it was cheaper, faster, and more convenient than taking the train from right in front of my NJ apartment. The congestion charge would change that equation.
The parking should've never been free in the first place, that's always a mistake. Even a single parking spot costs many thousands of dollars a year to maintain and own.
> Even a single parking spot costs many thousands of dollars a year to maintain
In what universe is this true?
There are 3 million parking spots in NYC. If each cost $3000/year to maintain (presumably that's "many thousands"), that would be $9 billion/year - considerably more than what's spend on the entire Department of Transportation.
I'd be shocked if a single spot cost even $100/year to maintain.
It's the opportunity cost of the land being used as parking.
Manhattan is one of the few parts of the US where we don't indirectly mandate seven parking spots per car on average. A surface lot ends up costing about $7,000/spot to pave. But at >$1,000,000 per acre garages are used instead. But then that's tens of thousands per spot in construction cost. Underground parking is the most expensive type due to excavation cost. Meanwhile the most convenient parking curbside is offered by the government for free or <$1. Is there something wrong with this picture?
> Treating curbside parking like it was exactly the same as large rectangular lots is nonsense.
Yeah because the parking is already built. But obviously before you build the parking you have a choice - and building "free" parking is a really stupid choice you should never make. You can give that space to building or the road, either will be more productive.
Opportunity cost of not having protected bike lanes or dedicated transit right of way. Especially in a place like Manhattan improving cycling safety and getting busses out of traffic would be a huge net gain for the city compared with huge amounts of space dedicated to large private vehicles.
You can buy a used car that gets 30 mpg city for $7,000. Even with a loan, that's closer to $200/month at today's (rather high) rates, not $500-600/month.
Insurance on that will be on the order of $60/month for an adult safe driver, not $200/month.
Driving from say, Jersey City to the East Village and back every day is going to use about 10 gallons of gas per month @ $3.20/gallon that's $32/month, not $200/month.
Parking is bad though it depends on how long you park for, but that's because that has also been jacked up to only allow the wealthy to drive.
Manhattan is at least as dense as London, and land values must be about the same. The market cost of parking in London far outweighs the cost of the congestion charge, so presumably that's the same in New York.
Seems that renting a square foot of downtown Manhattan land is about $60/year. A parking space being about 200 square foot, that's $1k a month if paying the actual rate, just for parking (let alone the road space)
Seems that $200 a month is small when compared to the actual cost.
Not a fair comparison. Private owners have to pay property taxes and renters have exclusive use.
Never mind that the land value for a curbside parking spot on the side of the road is substantially less simply because you can't build anything on it.
Curbside parking still has opportunity costs. Why dedicate scarce publicly owned space in NYC to subsidize suburbanites, when it could benefit New Yorkers?
If you make it so only rich people can do a certain thing, you'll have way fewer people doing that thing. I'm curious what kind of inconveniences this has caused for people who can't afford to pay the fee though.
Are you actually curious or were you just trying to make a gotcha against congestion pricing?
I ask because the "only rich people" criticism of NYCs project has been beaten into the dirt and discussed at nearly every level of politics for more than a year now. If there's anything you want to know the information is readily available.
I'm not curious because I already know the answer. The inconvenience is that driving through the city is $9 more expensive without any improvement in other transportation alternatives. For some people that's no big deal but obviously for a lot of people it is, hence why there's fewer people on the road. The "missing" people are the ones who simply can't afford to be there.
The OP, as well as plenty of other articles, pointed out a rather immediate improvement in alternatives: the busses are faster as a result of traffic being reduced.
The source I found agree with 1-4% for bus routes within Manhattan, but it also said:
> Commutes on Hudson River and East River crossings for several express bus routes linking the boroughs with Manhattan have, on some lines, shaved more than 15 minutes off commuting times.
If you're going to massively inconvenience millions of people then you have to do better than a couple buses running faster. Better as in, using the new funds to completely revamp the whole system. If those faster bus lines don't provide an alternative to my previous route then they don't provide me an alternative to paying $9, losing my job, or picking a different city to live in.
If ~$200/mo is enough for you to quit your job in Manhattan, it's clear you weren't happy in the first place. Congestion pricing has done you a service.
>>The "missing" people are the ones who simply can't afford to be there.
I don't believe that for a second. They could afford to drive a car, insure it, maintain it, buy fuel, and pay for very expensive parking in NYC, but $9 is too much now?
I'd be more than happy to be proven wrong if there's any data that suggest that this is actually true.
People pay what they have to pay do get to work or get around. In that sense they could "afford" it, because the alternative is to move or get a different job.
You're trying to make it seem like driving in NYC is simply a lifestyle decision that people could choose to do or not do. For some people it is, for many people it's simply the only viable option. Once you make it no longer viable, people have no options left.
>>Once you make it no longer viable, people have no options left.
Which implies that the people who continue driving are indeed those who have no other option, and those who do have taken it instead of paying the $9. Would you disagree?
And no, of course I don't imply it's a lifestyle choice - merely that some people(not all!) were driving in NYC even though they indeed had other options available, because there was no extra cost associated with it - now that there is, those people use those other options where possible.
Again, it's really fun to speculate why who and where is doing what, but if you have more specific data then please share.
May I ask if you actually live in NYC? My understanding is that owning and regularly driving a vehicle is exceptionally expensive compared to almost any other city. Parking alone can massively eclipse the estimated monthly amount listed elsewhere in the thread.
Why would they not be there then? How is that supposed to even work if it doesn't affect consumers' behavior?!
This kind of argument reminds me of a French politician who defended a tax on sweet drinks as a way to fight against the obesity crisis looming (France performs better than most country in that regard, but the situation is still bad). She wanted a tax to deter the consumption of sweet drinks, but at the same time they wanted the tax to stay at “a level where it would not affect the purchasing power of people”.
Funny because I was going to use that exact example as something that absolutely works. I can easily afford the sugar tax where I live, it's been around for a few years now. But when I go to a store and a box of regular coke is more expensive than diet it makes me not pick regular even though the difference is meaningless financially to me.
I understand the same mechanism works with cigarettes and loads of other things - even if you can afford them the increasing price puts you off.
But maybe for a more relevant example - I can comfortably afford parking right in the city centre where I live. But the idea of paying what's being asked for parking puts me off so much I just park at the nearest park and ride and take the metro in.
> But when I go to a store and a box of regular coke is more expensive than diet it makes me not pick regular even though the difference is meaningless financially to me.
So you're telling me that the very same people who refuse to buy non-brand Coke copies whose taste is indistinguishable from true Coke in blind tests would accept to buy Diet Coke despite it tasting like shit in a way that everyone can feel? And they would do so for a smaller gain than what it would save them to buy the cheap copy?
Which is why I kept insisting that OP posts some factual data to back up their claims, because as much as I enjoy the guessing of who does what and how and when, it's just a bunch of strangers on the internet giving their theories so far(me included of course).
These are all lifestyle choices. You don't need to do any of those things. Getting to work or getting around one's own city are not lifestyle options. They're necessities.
Using market-style policies to try to nudge people around only works if there are alternatives they can choose from. In this case for many people there are not.
And like I said in my other comment - those people most likely still continue driving and pay the $9 fee. It's people who have other options or who simply don't really need to be there who have now stopped.
This exact same scheme has played out in many other cities already, this isn't new.
> People working _in Manhattan_ can't choose their employer and where to live
None of the blue collar workers in Manhattan (the janitors, the restaurant waiters and cook, etc. the massive working class that is needed for white collar work to be able to operate) can live in Manhattan.
I can also afford the parking in the city center, but mostly choose to patronize businesses in the suburbs where the parking is free (and usually plentiful). That I think is what city business owners are worried about.
It is, the subway is a few orders of magnitude safer and cheaper. Sometimes it can take more time... now. Because of congestion pricing. Before, it was often faster to just walk next to the cars than be in one of the cars.
I assume you're referring to just taking the metro instead. Not everyone who drives lives near a metro. Not every destination is accessible via the metro. Many people commute from more affordable areas far from the city where public transportation isn't always a viable option. Driving gets $9 more expensive but public transit doesn't suddenly get better for the people who can't pay $9.
There are very very few places in nyc not accessible via some combo of bus, metro and ferry. It's not as reliable as say Japan but the public transit network is pretty extensive.
Not everyone who drives through NYC lives in NYC. Even if it were, those transit hops add time. Now you're forcing people to choose between paying money they don't have or spending time they don't have.
If you're driving through NYC you probably have enough money for gas and $9 and all the other tolls on the road. No one is driving around on their last drop of gas going "gosh I could just get out of Nyc to Long Island if I just had that $9 for gas".
The poor car owner who can't afford $9 stories are all made up nonsense. "Not everyone has $9 to spend to drive their tens of thousands of dollars car."
If you want the government to help poor people, there are much better ways to do it than giving away access to one specific kind of public resource to everyone.
Sidewalks can fit an order of magnitude more people than roads can fit cars. Especially if one car lane was re-allocated to make sidewalks wider. Less traffic means less air pollution.
It's almost never needed to faregate sidewalks. Tourist districts can organize a special improvement district tax on stores to fund sidewalk upgrades, trash collection, shuttles, security, parking, and planting flowers. This makes the zone more even more attractive to tourists.
This analogy pretty much gets at the heart of what makes these policies distasteful. Me walking or driving through my own city or neighborhood, where I live, pay taxes, and vote, is not the same as me taking a trip to Disney. I don't do it just for fun. I do it because living requires me to occasionally move from place to place.
Auctioning off to the highest bidder the right to move around is cruel because you make it so that some people simply can't afford to exist in public spaces, and because you're telling people that their own city or neighborhood doesn't even belong to them.
The correct analogy here would be access to healthcare, water, or electricity.
Are people entitled to drive through an area? Or are people entitled to travel through an area? When you live in a car dependent society the two seem to be the same. But they're not the same. Only 22% of Manhattan residents own a car!
Look at a school. Many make the front driveway bus only. Because parents dropping off kids one at a time was very low capacity and causing a line of cars to form every morning backing up into the road. There's just not enough space for everyone to drive single occupancy cars to the same destination within the same half hour time slot. Favoring school buses in the school driveway is not an attack on drivers. It's acknowledging the limits of geometry and time, and choosing to get the most out of our common space.
Does this imply that the government should buy everyone a car? Or is driving not actually necessary for existing in this space and it's enough to let people walk for free?
Keep in mind that we're not talking about some suburb where you have to drive two miles to get to the store, but rather about the most walkable place of its size in the US.
The theory is that the price signal helps people make their own arbitrage between time and money and it would maximize society utility, but the reality is since people have a very different amount of money, it just do what you say: the rich pay without second thoughts and enjoy the higher quality of life when the less rich see a degradation of their own: they will either pay with money they don't have in excess and have to stop other consumption, or take public transports which is less convenient for them (since it's cheaper than car commute, they would be doing it if they didn't like it better).
Yeah, and I'm guessing the opinions of those people don't get taken into account by folks who are studying or manufacturing consent for these policies.
We have finite space for roads and an expanding population. Doing nothing means people spend as much time on congested roads as they would taking public transportation. Objectively the worst of both worlds and people having invested in a car and being used to it will continue living in it as it gets worse and worse.
Providing additional impetus to make a change seems virtuous.
If there's an overall plan to revamp transit and public spaces to accommodate all people then I'm in favor of it. That's how functioning cities do it. This is clearly just a money grab by a corrupt city.
If slack capacity exists in public transportation and roads are way over what's needed immediately is for people to switch over. Making it more expensive to drive instead of subsidizing it is a way to achieve this.
I'm convinced that having individual cars as default mean of transportation sucks, don't get me wrong.
But it's not because “doing nothing” is bad that any decision is good.
This kind of decisions that reduces the freedom of movement of the majority but spare the rich is exactly how people like Trump reach power.
You want to solve the urban planning problem that is car congestion, then the solution is a urban planning one, not a new tax.
Or at least if you want to leverage economic incentives, you have to give everyone working in Manhattan and not living there $200 a month so that their overall purchasing power isn't impacted (the marginal price of taking the car stays the same, and so does the incentive).
The situation as described on the ground seems to be fewer people driving so it seems like it is already working. It doesn't decrease freedom of movement by making people use public transit.
Trump got power because we are a garbage people with neither merit nor intelligence.
