[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]

Ok, let me restate some things.

- I drive a car. I like my car. I like driving my car places. You seem to be trying to find some personal sinister motivation on my part, or using me as a stand in for the MTA, and I don't think either are fair.

- You suggested that gas and registration taxes cover or could cover the externalities. I disagree because the externalities of specifically driving and parking in a city center are not covered fairly by taxes levied on vehicles buying gas or being registered outside of that city center. This is the point I originally responded to, and the one you seem to have moved on from to argue other things.

- You agree that cars should pay for their externalities if done so fairly. I agree.

- I don't think that cars used for personal transportation adequately or fairly pay for all of their externalities in any US cities. Especially compared to the relative costs per person transported by other means of urban transportation.

- I don't live in Manhattan and can't speak to the motivations and politics of this specific toll being levied by the MTA. The MTA may not be doing it for fair reasons of capturing externalities. That's perfectly valid and I won't (and haven't meant to) dispute it.

- Levying taxes, fees, or tolls on personal vehicles can have regressive costs for people living in the area, even if they don't own a personal vehicle. Absolutely, I agree with this. There are other ways to solve problems like getting groceries or deliveries, but if there aren't good alternatives in place then that is going to be an unfair cost added to those living there. Consideration and mitigation of these costs, and providing good alternatives, should be part of good policy.

There, I think that's a fairly accurate summary of my positions. Is there anything else you have questions on per my personal positions, or the arguments I have made in this thread?