[timr]

> Gas tax or registration fees doesn'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.

The tolls on every bridge and tunnel into Manhattan do. Raise those. But now you're tipping your hand: this isn't about "having drivers take ownership of the costs they produce", it's about punishing people who drive in Manhattan (below 60th, excepting FDR and West Side Highway, because those don't have externalities, I guess.)

> You can toll drivers for driving on those specific roads, or add a significant parking tax.

I don't have a problem with charging for parking. But the toll roads thing, again...that has little to do with "having drivers take ownership of the costs they produce". It's just social engineering via taxes, because people will avoid those roads, and drive on other ones instead.

[stetrain]

Not sure what I'm 'tipping my hand' about.

This is just another tier of toll in another congested subsection.

If your argument is that all vehicles driving and parking in all places should appropriately pay for their externalities (infrastructure cost, driving and parking space, noise, and emissions) then we agree.

Gas taxes or registrations fees paid in another state as you suggested don't really accomplish that though.

[timr]

> Not sure what I'm 'tipping my hand' about.

You don't want the general recapture of externalities. You want specific things to be punished.

> This is just another tier of toll in another congested subsection.

Yes, exactly. And unless you have some practical alternative for the thing you're taxing, this is just another tax. Those of us who live here don't have an alternative to buying groceries or getting deliveries, so this is just one more tax on life. I don't own a car, and I take the subway most of the time, but this will make my life more expensive. That's wrong.

[stetrain]

> You don't want the general recapture of externalities. You want specific things to be punished.

I'm not the one levying this toll, I don't super care either way about it. I replied because your suggestions for capturing externalities did not seem to be equivalent or direct those costs to the correct place.

But I think this all depends on what you consider externalities worth charging for. I'm thinking of it as more than the simple dollar cost of building and maintaining roads and parking. There are other costs to dedicating space for those things that cities may want to avoid.

[timr]

> But I think this all depends on what you consider externalities worth charging for.

I've already said that I do. So no, I'm making a more specific argument than the one you're trying to have.

Capturing externalities is fine, but this is dumb rule dressed up in the clothing of anti-car rhetoric. It's a little more than a politically acceptable cash grab by MTA.

[stetrain]

> I've already said that I do. So no, I'm making a more specific argument than the one you're trying to have.

My point is which externalities you are considering, and which ones a city is trying to account for.

Cost of building and maintaining asphalt is one externality.

A city might consider other things like congestion, noise, and emissions. Pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Green space. Space allocated to parking vs additional homes and businesses.

You can call this considering the externalities of car traffic, or you can call it social engineering because the city wants fewer cars. I'm saying the distinction isn't super important, they are both the result of recognizing negative effects and trying to reduce them.

[timr]

> My point is which externalities you are considering, and which ones a city is trying to account for. Cost of building and maintaining asphalt is one externality. A city might consider other things like congestion, noise, and emissions. Pedestrian injuries and fatalities. Green space. Space allocated to parking vs additional homes and businesses.

Yes, yes. I understand that you don't like cars. You keep ignoring the part where I say that I'm not opposed to capturing externalities. Those things are, in fact, externalities.

You have to do it fairly. When your rule ends up impacting everyone who lives in Manhattan, even if they don't own a car, then your rule is either not about capturing externalities, or it's badly designed.

In this particular case, the MTA is not concerned about what you're concerned about. The MTA is concerned about getting more money for the MTA, and this is a somewhat craven way for them to do it without huge political backlash. They know that left-wing Manhattanites will throw their lower-Manhattan neighbors under the bus in the guise of "reducing cars", and otherwise won't think very deeply about how this is a general purpose tax on everyday life.

[stetrain]

> But the toll roads thing, again...that has little to do with "having drivers take ownership of the costs they produce". It's just social engineering via taxes, because people will avoid those roads, and drive on other ones instead.

Toll roads are direct use tax on using that infrastructure. 100% of roads being toll roads that cover their own costs is the libertarian ideal, isn't it?

Which roads will people take instead, if all roads into Manhattan have tolls?

And I agree it is social engineering. Those aren't mutually exclusive concepts. What reasons would a city have for wanting to encourage people not to drive or park in sections of that city? Perhaps there are negative externalities of that car traffic that they want to reduce. Why is social engineering via levying costs not a valid way to handle that?

[timr]

> Which roads will people take instead, if all roads into Manhattan have tolls?

Yes, exactly.

Also: they already do. So consider that for a second.

[mgce]

Of course they don't. Multiple major crossings from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx have no tolls into our out of Manhattan. Am I misreading you? Are you only talking about commuters from New Jersey?

[timr]

No. Be specific, and think about it:

The Brooklyn Bridge, Queensboro, Manhattan, GW (heading to NJ only), and Williamsburg bridges are the only bridges that do not currently have tolls. All cross the East River. With this plan, you will have to enter the congestion area to use all of those but the GW -- but that's already tolled heading into Manhattan. They even defined the "zone" to be sure to catch the Queensboro onramps. It's intentional.

As for NJ (which is every New Yorker's favorite scapegoat when imagining car commuters): every crossing of the Hudson south of Albany has a toll.

I guess you can count the tiny bridges over the Harlem river if you really want to be pedantic about it, but this is essentially a new tax on NYC residents, whether you own a car or not. Literally every truck entering Manhattan by a major artery will be tolled in one form or another -- in many cases, twice.