[Tinyyy]

I’m a fan of charging market efficient rates for shared goods. The congestion situation in the Holland Tunnel is awful and bleeds out into various streets of Manhattan as well. The cost of sitting in crawling traffic with aggressive drivers cutting around is probably much more than an extra $20.

[cyberax]

> I’m a fan of charging market efficient rates for shared goods.

Are you a fan of charging market rates for transit as well?

[zip1234]

For sure, let's charge methods of transportation based on negative externalities such as how much space they take, safety, and noise/particulate pollution.

[cyberax]

I'm all for it! It would suck for transit, though:

1. It has a higher CO2 footprint than small/medium EVs.

2. Transit forces people into smaller and denser housing, resulting in suboptimal living conditions.

3. Buses in particular result in excessive road wear&tear.

It's really amazing that people say things like "car owners should not get subsidized" (by whom?), while talking about transit that is literally infeasible without massive subsidies.

[pessimizer]

> 1. It has a higher CO2 footprint than small/medium EVs.

This is too misleading to be unintentional. I don't know if you're comparing buses to small/medium EVs 1:1, but even if you aren't, the environmental footprint of replacing all bus services with EVs would be extraordinary.

> 2. Transit forces people into smaller and denser housing, resulting in suboptimal living conditions.

Transit doesn't force people into housing. It creates new housing options that previously were not tenable. Rivers don't create port congestion, rivers create ports. Not having enough ports, or enough rivers, creates port congestion.

> 3. Buses in particular result in excessive road wear&tear.

In proportion to human-miles, or is this a 1:1 comparison?

[cyberax]

> This is too misleading to be unintentional.

It's not misleading. On average, buses in the US carry around 15 people. A car carries around 1.5, so the raw multiplier is just 10.

But wait, there's more!

ALL buses have an incredibly polluting component that is fundamental to their functionality: the driver. You need around 3 drivers to cover the useful service time (from 5am to midnight). And drivers are POLLUTING AS HELL.

> I don't know if you're comparing buses to small/medium EVs 1:1

Yes, I do. Here ya go: https://ourworldindata.org/travel-carbon-footprint

> Transit doesn't force people into housing.

It does, via market forces.

> It creates new housing options that previously were not tenable.

No. It _destroys_ affordable housing to pack people into smaller and smaller footprints. Tokyo is a _great_ example of that.

> In proportion to human-miles, or is this a 1:1 comparison?

In proportion to passenger-miles. Road wear scales approximately as the 4-th power of the axle weight, and under-loaded buses still have to haul around their massive bulks even if there's just one passenger inside.

Honestly, it's amazing how bad public transit turns out to be when you actually start looking at its negative sides.

[jrockway]

Let's be honest, it's far from factual that dense housing is problematic in any way. It's just your opinion, and you're mad about it because you stand to lose the most in a world where you have to pay cash for your externalities. The sewer and water system to your house is subsidized. Snow removal from your cul-de-sac is subsidized. Most people couldn't afford the suburbs if someone else wasn't paying for those things (usually future generations).

Many people enjoy living in a dense environment, as evidenced by how much they'll pay to do so. It's objectively better for the Earth, and pretty enjoyable for the people that choose that path.

[mdorazio]

> It's not misleading.

It's very misleading because you're starting from the supposition of EVs rather than the actual mix of personal cars. If you choose EVs for the cars, why not choose ZEV buses that are starting to enter the market as well?

> And drivers are POLLUTING AS HELL.

What? I genuinely don't understand what you're trying to say here.

> No. It _destroys_ affordable housing to pack people into smaller and smaller footprints. Tokyo is a _great_ example of that.

It doesn't destroy affordable housing, though, it shifts it to other areas while increasing density near stations. You need to show why that's a bad thing. Most urban planners and economists would say that increased density is a good thing and that Tokyo is an excellent example of a city done right.

You seem to have a personal bone to pick with high-density cities that's just not shared by most other people.

[nimbleplum40]

Do you have citations for those numbers? They don’t match what I’ve heard in the past so I’m curious to learn more.

Also, everything about density in relation to quality of life is pretty subjective. Luckily, we have cities for both! You’re free to live in Houston while those of us that prefer dense urban environments can live in New York and take transit.

[acdha]

> On average, buses in the US carry around 15 people. A car carries around 1.5, so the raw multiplier is just 10.

Buses in the US are largely avoided due to the last century spent prioritizing suburban car commuting over everything else. What you should be looking at are the averages on bus routes where the buses run regularly and aren’t blocked by solo drivers. That means that the floor for a bus is 10:1 but it can easily rise to 50-70:1 with cheap policy changes (e.g. put a $500 camera on the bus to ticket drivers and suddenly headways improve by 50%). In contrast, the large EVs people are actually buying will never become more efficient over the lifetime of the vehicle.

[zip1234]

> It's really amazing that people say things like "car owners should not get subsidized" (by whom?), while talking about transit that is literally infeasible without massive subsidies.

If road usage fees cover less than half the cost of roads then clearly someone is subsidizing roads.

[alphanullmeric]

Sounds like roads should be paid for only by their users, and proportionally to their use. Then it would be irrelevant whether it’s a sedan or bus since everyone pays their fair share. But of course, such solutions are not acceptable to those that do not intend to pay their fair share.

[klipt]

Transit is completely feasible without subsidies if the transit company owns the land near the stations, which generate generous rents.

Of course if the land is owned by other people, the increase in value provided by transit should be recaptured through a Land Value Tax which is then used to fund the transit.

[cyberax]

> Transit is completely feasible without subsidies if the transit company owns the land near the stations, which generate generous rents.

So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the transport authority be a slumlord. Got it.

There are no unsubsidized urban transit services in the US. Even operating costs are not paid from fares. And new transit construction is COMPLETELY subsidized.

I live in Seattle and I will have paid around $20k in car tab fees alone by the time the choo-choo subway train expansion here is done. It won't go anywhere near me and it will make my life worse, by inducing even more traffic.

[nimbleplum40]

There are also no unsubsidized fire departments, police departments, public schools, public parks, etc. Analyzing only the first order costs/benefits is really not a good way of analyzing any infrastructure project.

[klipt]

> So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the transport authority be a slumlord

Is everyone who owns land a "slumlord" now?

It's well studied that transit generates huge economic value, but that value mostly manifests as increased land value near the stations.

So why shouldn't that value - created by transit - be credited to the transit that created it?

[trinovantes]

> So basically, you want to subsidize transit by making the transport authority be a slumlord. Got it.

Yes, it's better to have transit company use that money to fund operations than some numbered corp generating profit for wall street investors

Tokyo transit is highly profitable and don't require tax-payer subsidies because they own the land around stations

[kelnos]

Car owners are already hugely subsidized. Toll roads cover only a tiny fraction of road maintenance. The rest is paid by taxpayers, even those who do not drive.

[ApolloFortyNine]

Could easily make the same argument when some city spends 3 billion to build a 4 mile subway extension.

The fare recovery rate is absolutely terrible in the US. Expecting 100% isn't exactly necessary, but NYC is at 20%.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farebox_recovery_ratio

[rafram]

The “farebox recovery ratio” of a road is usually zero. Roads are funded through taxes (with the exception of some toll highways). Why can’t transit be the same?

[cyberax]

> Car owners are already hugely subsidized

Around 80% of all commutes in the US are by car. You can't subsidize 80% of the population.

Drivers simply pay for their road use through various taxes, and not directly.

[seadan83]

Only a fraction of the US population work and thus commute. Of those that commute, that 80% do not have equal road usage. Even within that community, there is a subsidy going on. So, yes, there is a ton of subsidization going on (and this is not always bad)

> Drivers simply pay for their road use through various taxes, and not directly.

I think this is the point, notably because those 'indirect' payments are also payed by non-drivers as well. Hence, the subsidy.

Even within drivers, some are subsidized by others (let alone non-drivers). To illustrate, first: most road wear is from weather [1]. This means any two lengths of similar roads will have about the same upkeep cost regardless of usage (not quite true, but if taking 30 people vs 300, it's about true).

Let's consider 10 miles of road to suburb A with 30 drives, and 10 miles of different but similar road to suburb B with 300 drivers. The city will pay for upkeep of 20 miles, collecting various taxes from 330 people, and those taxes are then spent evenly across those 20 miles. To do this proportionately, without any subsidies, the group of 300 could arguably have those various taxes reduced for them only by 90% and increase the taxes of the 30 people 9 fold. That would be an equitable upkeep system.

The fact the road upkeep payment per person is not equitable, means there is a subsidy (and this situation is not always a bad thing)

[1] https://lacrossetribune.com/what-causes-roads-to-wear-out/ar...

[acdha]

You certainly can subsidize large populations because taxes cover all income but are being used specifically to encourage just one more of transportation. If driving wasn’t so heavily subsidized, people would use other options because the true cost is much higher than what people see directly – it’s not just roads but also things like below market rate storage, zoning rules requiring owners to build more car storage than they necessarily want, and especially not requiring drivers to carry insurance sufficient to cover the full cost of their mistakes and decisions.

[ryukafalz]

> Drivers simply pay for their road use through various taxes, and not directly.

Taxes that are also paid by those who don't drive, yes?

[seadan83]

> 1. It has a higher CO2 footprint than small/medium EVs.

If mass transit _and_ also EVs are incentivized over petrol cars, that is not bad [1]

> 2. Transit forces people into smaller and denser housing, resulting in suboptimal living conditions.

My anecdotal experience is that areas around light rail stations gentrify and luxery style condominiums pop up like mushrooms around them. A 10 minute and consistent train ride into dowtown is compelling when that same journey can take 30 to 120 minutes by car (this is Seattle, it can take 20 minutes to just cross the U bridge and travel a quarter mile).

> 3. Buses in particular result in excessive road wear&tear.

If a bus is actually taking 50 cars off the road, and is traveling on lanes that are built for the excessive wear; then it is still a net benefit.

> "car owners should not get subsidized (by whom?)"

Point 3 discusses the wear and tear of roads. Drivers do not pay fully for the wear and tear of roads (and road construction, etc). Road funds come from many funds and car traffic does not generate enough in fuel and car-tab taxes to fully pay for roads. Hence, it is subsidized by other people that pay those taxes.

-----------

The comparison perhaps should not be also strictly of just buses against EVs.

[creato]

Sure, as long as you consider externalities like congestion. That would suggest charging for passage through congested areas (the subject of this thread), and subsidizing mass transit in congested areas.

[superseeplus]

To be fair, that is how commuter trains in the NYC metropolitan area work. The fares are higher during rush hour to discourage people who can shift their schedule from traveling during rush hour.

[op00to]

Sure. Let's make sure we account for all the negative follow-on effects from personal car ownership including wasted space from parking, pollution, etc etc. Also account all the positive effects from transit - less wasted space for parking, less pollution, etc etc.

[DaveExeter]

I agree! Let's get the poors off the roads.

The peasant class belongs on public transport, not on taxpayer-funded roads.

[raldi]

Lower-income Americans already take the bus far more than wealthy ones, who are much more likely to be driving.

A congestion charge will fall disproportionately on the wealthy, and allow the buses carrying lower-income folks to move throughout the city faster.

[seanmcdirmid]

This isn’t exactly true. Rich people have the resources to live closer to where they work, they are more likely to WFH, they can ride a bike to work often, or maybe even walk. Poor people often live farther away from their jobs, they have worse commutes, and the likelihood of accomplishing that long commute by mass transit in many American isn’t that great.

Anecdotally, we are well to do, chose our house location to minimize our commute and make it easy by bus (and ensure we can go to the grocery store by foot). Then I got the opportunity to work from home, my wife has a straight shot from bus to her office downtown, the kid’s schools (even high school) are all within walking distance. There is no way we could have set all that up without money.

[raldi]

Do you have a citation for that claim? Here are a few refuting it:

https://bikeportland.org/2016/01/25/low-income-households-dr...

https://medium.com/100-hours/is-congestion-pricing-fair-to-t...

https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2017/3/7/toll-roads-hurt...

[seanmcdirmid]

I didn’t make a quantitative claim, just a qualitative one based on anecdotal evidence. I put about 1000 miles a year on my car, but I paid a lot of money to get to the point that I could do feasibly that. I’m not unusual in this either, a lot of rich techies go for urban car-light lifestyles if they can afford it.

The above studies seem to only focus on the poorest of the poor, and not the lower middle class. Congestion charges are going to hit people who are rich enough to drive but not rich enough to live in convenient places the most. There isn’t a binary distinction between rich and poor after all. Those links are pretty embarrassing actually, surely there are better arguments that this will impact rich the most than using the poorest of the poor as an example?

[dgacmu]

I mean, the answer is that this is New York City, not Seattle, where parking is going to cost you $30+ in the areas affected by the congestion charge. So we've already limited the discussion to the pretty well-off.

Per the article itself: "But out of a region of 28 million people, just an estimated 16,100 low-income people commute to work via car in Lower Manhattan, according to the MTA."

Probably easier to find a way to meet the needs of 16k exceptions. And having a safe fast public transit system, which the connection charge funds, is part of that.

(Hi, Sean! Hope you're well!)

[mc32]

I was poor, I took the bus to college and work (there were times I'd have to add 30 minutes where I knew I'd have to leg it). It was an hour and a half with transfers. It's doable --you get used to it, just like tech workers get used to driving in from the East Bay into the Peninsula. It's no biggie. On the way home, sometimes you get off at a different stop to pick up groceries and then you're the one walking home with two plastic bags -at first your arms ache. Again, you get used to it.

[seanmcdirmid]

There are multiple levels of poor, like there are multiple levels of rich. Plenty of people are rich enough to drive, but not rich enough to live in convenient locations. It’s weird that, when I was going to university, many people would save money by living far off campus and driving to pay $5 for parking. The richer kids were living on or next to campus, and didn’t even need cars. Housing is expensive, and the American system has made driving unnaturally cheap.

[pessimizer]

> Plenty of people are rich enough to drive, but not rich enough to live in convenient locations.

Now they're not rich enough to drive, they're become poor enough to use public transportation. Maybe their votes will improve the convenience of public transportation.

To somebody who can afford to live in Manhattan, you'd have to charge $200 a trip to bother them. Just tax them, and use that money to build out public transportation.

Very weird to crusade for the right of people who can barely afford their cars to be better than those who can't afford cars.

[analognoise]

Hour and a half is no biggie? Is that one way?

That sucks more than having a car does by far. Even the last part about "your arms ache but you get used to it" - how is that for disabled people? How is it for the elderly? An extra hour and a half - what about if you have kids at home?

Honestly that... Blows?

If the options are to destroy the environment or to have to take an extra three hours daily to commute, I choose destroy the environment - smart people will probably fix it with science.

I thought about it - why would I rather destroy the environment than reduce cars? Because it's a lie - there's clearly no shared burden. Like as soon as humanity bans all privat jets, the entire cruise industry, etc, then maybe I'd consider it. But as it is, it's just one more "eh the poors will get used to it" - meanwhile we don't ban major contributions from sources that are rich people's enjoyment or profits.

[wussboy]

3 hours commutes or destroying the environment aren't the only two options. By changing the way we build cities, and by retrofitting the ones we've already built, we can make places where the walked/biked commute is less than a half hour and the environmental impact is slashed dramatically.

[pessimizer]

To people who can't afford to drive, this just sounds like relatively wealthy people whining about being reduced to living like they have been the entire time.

If you want to reduce the relative privileges of wealthy people, tax them and redistribute or do a socialist revolution. Never crusade for the privileges of people with some money while ignoring the situation of the people with less money. In the limit, you'll end up crusading for the privileges of billionaires against the privileges of multi-billionaires. As activism, imo it's silly.

[zeroonetwothree]

Having more money lets you buy more of everything. Yet you are only concerned about roads (which aren’t even used by the poorest segment since they can’t afford a car)? Why not focus on making something more fundamental to existence free, like food or shelter?

Oh right it’s because it creates poor incentives and overuse (tragedy of the commons) exactly like we see with roads (and parking). If car drivers had to pay the full cost of the resources they use it would reduce wasteful driving substantially. And we could use money collected in that way to pay for transit (or just give it as a tax rebate to low income people if you prefer).

[Tinyyy]

Yea you’re exactly right, there’s a tragedy of the commons situation right now. You could either decrease the demand or increase the supply to fix this problem, and it seems pretty impossible to increase the supply (build a bridge across the Hudson? That’s crazy). So here we are.

[zip1234]

The average speed driving in Manhattan is something like 7mph. There is not enough space for cars. Congestion charge is such a no-brainer easy solution here.

[nimbleplum40]

Another bridge wouldn’t do much to fix supply since you’re still dumping cars into one of the most dense urban environments in the world.

The only sustainable way to increase the supply of trips into lower manhattan is increased public transit.

[aqme28]

Encouraging transit ridership does actually increase the supply. You get far far far more people moved via buses and trains.

Buses account for about 73% of people moved in the Lincoln tunnel, but only 10% of vehicles.

http://www.nymtc.org/data_services/HBT.html

[fellowmartian]

Unironically I’d hate a new bridge across the Hudson around the Holland Tunnel, that area is the crown jewel of Manhattan and its seafront should be protected.

It’s also one of the few safe bike paths in the city where casual bikers would feel comfortable biking.

Additionally, we already have one Canal St in the area, we don’t need another.

Sorry for this small NIMBY rant.

[bobthepanda]

NIMBYism is not inherently a bad thing; it was originally coined by the waste management industry to describe opposition to local landfills and toxic waste dumps, which any sane person doesn't actually want to live next to.

(Yes, I know Europe and Japan build fancy incinerators with parks and whatnot that are very pleasant, but the odds of that being built in the US by penny-pinching private industry is nil.)

[bradleyjg]

The “poors,” as you so delightfully put it have nowhere to park in those parts of Manhattan. So they won’t be going there (leaving aside deliveries and taxis, but then the fee is a cost of doing business.)

The group this will hit the hardest are those with de facto immunity from parking tickets. Cops, teachers, members of certain trade unions, and so on.

However, lest you worry too much about these folk in light of automated speed and red light cameras they’ve taken to obscuring their license plates or buying fraudulent paper plates on the internet. Of course nothing is done about these effectively untraceable vehicles.

[Tinyyy]

I grew up in a city with insanely high taxes on cars and roads (Singapore). But you could get anywhere easily with the bus or MRT. In a rush? Your Grab taxi can get you there quickly and efficiently. I’m not sure why it’d be better to make everyone’s day worse instead. Does that really make the world a fairer place?

[anotherhue]

> out of a region of 28 million people, just an estimated 16,100 low-income people commute to work via car in Lower Manhattan, according to the MTA

[pessimizer]

Exactly. If those 16K really concern somebody, they should just issue them a pass based on income. And if capitalism means anything, the employers of those 16K will have to raise pay to attract people.

[ZoomerCretin]

There's nothing wrong with public transport. The subway is frequently faster than driving anyway.

[bombcar]

Discrimination is much easier once you take a racial aspect out and just use socioeconomic status instead.

[pierat]

Absolutely true. In fact this was the 1980s republican plan. Lee Atwater has a great hot mic moment about this.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni*er, ni*er, ni*er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni*er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni*er, ni*er.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwa...

---------------

And you also have New York City and the racist/classist bridges. Bridges were built too low for public transit to get out to Long Island. It did a VERY effective job at keeping black people and poor people away from the middle class and higher areas.

" In one of the book's most memorable passages, Caro reveals that Moses ordered his engineers to build the bridges low over the parkway to keep buses from the city away from Jones Beach—buses presumably filled with the poor blacks and Puerto Ricans Moses despised. The story was told to Caro by Sidney M. Shapiro, a close Moses associate and former chief engineer and general manager of the Long Island State Park Commission."

Who would have thought that building a bridge could be racist and classist?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-09/robert-mo...

[mc32]

Yes, they do! Everyone should be taking public transit, the poor as well --and if they prefer private transport, then it's time to pay up!

[renewiltord]

Yep, given sufficient externalities, this is true. As an example, watch this fictional response to the fact that better cars cost more:

Let's get the poors out of safe cars. The peasant class belongs in beaters, while the rich ride safe.

Consider the choices necessary to make that statement untrue.

[lotsofpulp]

You mean how the richer you are, the bigger (and safer) the vehicle you can afford?

I drive by many parents taking their kids wherever in old corollas or kias or other small car, and I see many parents at my kids’ daycare dropping their kids off in large suburbans/F150/Sequoia/etc.

[renewiltord]

Certainly. That's one way, but also poorer people own older cars.

An argument that rests on equality should support the idea that all people deserve the same car irrespective of how much money they have.

[estebank]

Equality would be to be able to go where you need to go, in reasonable time, cost and accomodation, regardless of class, race, gender or disability. Focusing on cars is over-indexing on one potential solution.

People want to move around. Cars are only one way of doing so.

[beerandt]

If you want safer vehicles across the board, get rid of cafe and other efficiency regulations.

At this point in the current regulatory framework, safety and efficiency are in direct competition.