[AnthonyMouse]

> Traffic in Manhattan is largely caused by drivers from other states and the state of New York has exactly one means to tax that behavior.

Both of the suggestions would actually address this. If you stop constraining housing construction in New York then more housing is created in New York and the people who work in New York could actually live there instead of commuting in from other states, which would consequently increase New York's tax base. If you eliminate fares for mass transit, they're equally removed for people commuting from out of state, who are meanwhile still doing business in New York as that's why they commute in, and are then subject to its other taxes the same as anyone else working there.

Meanwhile disproportionately taxing people from outside of the jurisdiction is another disadvantage of congestion pricing, because it's taxation without representation and thereby creates a perverse incentive for the local government to use an inefficient system specifically because it taxes people without a voice in the relevant government. Notice that it gets passed first in New York (a city directly adjacent to state borders) and not e.g. Los Angeles or Houston.

> many non-solutions to housing costs are predicated on the workers' glorious revolution happening first.

There is still only one solution to housing scarcity even in the presence of the workers' glorious revolution. Those solutions tend to be something like "have the government build a lot of new housing" which, although not necessary (the market would do it if you'd just stop restricting people from building in most places), is fundamentally just a different proposal for doing the same thing the opponents don't want to be done in any way whatsoever.

The problem with the housing market is high housing prices, which is the thing the opponents of building want to preserve. The problem with transit is congestion, which nobody wants and then it's a debate over how to solve the problem rather than a fight against people whose actual goal is for it not to be solved.

[bobthepanda]

Removing fares does not actually move people out of cars into public transport because it is already cheaper than driving in most cases.

This has been proven time and time again; where free transit is implemented, car usage does not decline, and surveys of people who switch indicate they mostly come from people walking and cycling. https://www.fastcompany.com/90968891/estonias-capital-made-m...

[AnthonyMouse]

> Removing fares does not actually move people out of cars into public transport because it is already cheaper than driving in most cases.

Cheaper is relative. If transit costs $130/month and driving a car you already own costs an incremental $150/month but is $50 more convenient then you value the $50 in convenience over the $20 savings. If you eliminate the fares then the difference is $150 which is more than $50.

Collecting the money via taxes rather than fares also allows the transit budget to be increased relative to the same cost burden on the local population because you don't have to pay for the collections infrastructure, which goes to the article's point about increasing service contributing to the solution as another alternative to congestion pricing.

> This has been proven time and time again; where free transit is implemented, car usage does not decline, and surveys of people who switch indicate they mostly come from people walking and cycling.

You're citing a study where the existing mass transit cost was only ~$20/month to begin with. Meanwhile their GDP increased by 50% over the period in question and the area underwent a shift in the location of employment away from the city. Having only a modest increase in car use against that context is evidence that it does work.

[stouset]

People are not frictionless utilitarian spheres that perfectly obey the laws of economics. We have data, and removing public transit fares is not an effective lever to move people out of cars and onto buses, trams, trolleys, and trains.

[AnthonyMouse]

People always say they have data. Then you look at the data and it's full of confounders or confuses cause and effect or expects to see a stark instantaneous effect from something that gradually affects long-term population-level life choices.

Most data is trash. If the data is contrary to reason then either the reasoning is wrong or the data is wrong, but for anything with public policy implications it's more likely to be the data because policy data is disproportionately generated by people trying to influence the result.

Also notice that the benefits of the policy aren't limited to the thing you're disputing. Eliminating transit fares still removes a regressive tax, increases the government's revenue collecting efficiency by eliminating the transit collections infrastructure costs and improves privacy by stamping out a mass surveillance system regardless of what extent it reduces traffic congestion. Which means that if you're trying to reduce traffic congestion, you should definitely start there because it very well could work and it's something you should be doing anyway.

[stouset]

> If the data is contrary to reason

Literally everything in behavioral economics is contrary to reason because people simply do not behave like rational utilitarians in the real world, either individually or as a collective.

We are a species where people routinely spend ten minutes circling around to find a parking spot that's thirty seconds closer to their destination.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Literally everything in behavioral economics is contrary to reason because people simply do not behave like rational utilitarians in the real world, either individually or as a collective.

People largely do behave rationally, it's just that rational behavior includes things like heuristics to account for incomplete information or trading the optimality of the choice against decision time costs.

This is one of the reasons the data is always such a mess. You make a change and people don't immediately notice because they're still applying their old heuristics or haven't recognized that the new alternative is available yet. Then the data shows nothing relevant. Meanwhile five or ten years later people have largely figured it out, but by then a dozen other things have also changed and there is no way to measure the result of the original change net of the others whose true effects are also unknown.

This is why actual science uses double blind randomized controlled trials, but this happens for policy data approximately never.

[bobthepanda]

The average salary in Tallinn is 2415EUR a month before taxes, so that's roughly comparable to the NYC example.

[AnthonyMouse]

Vehicles and fuel are global commodities with cost floors set by international trade and the relevant comparison is to the cost of driving rather than the cost of New York Metro real estate.

[jakelazaroff]

> Meanwhile disproportionately taxing people from outside of the jurisdiction is another disadvantage of congestion pricing, because it's taxation without representation and thereby creates a perverse incentive for the local government to use an inefficient system specifically because it taxes people without a voice in the relevant government.

Is it also “taxation without representation” when NJ Transit charges me a fare to go to New Jersey or to drive on the Turnpike? Infrastructure costs money and the people who use it should help pay for its upkeep and externalities.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Is it also “taxation without representation” when NJ Transit charges me a fare to go to New Jersey or to drive on the Turnpike?

Is it a tax, i.e. a fee charged by a government? Yes.

Do you have a vote in that government, as a non-resident of New Jersey? No.

It's taxation. Without representation.

This why roads used in interstate travel are one of the few specifically enumerated powers of the federal government (the constitution calls them "post roads"), and funding them from general federal revenue rather than tolls is completely appropriate.

> Infrastructure costs money and the people who use it should help pay for its upkeep and externalities.

Infrastructure is dominated by fixed costs. Amortizing fixed costs per-use is economically inefficient because it deters productive uses whose value exceeds the (negligible) incremental cost but not the (sunk) amortized fixed cost.

This operates to the extreme in the case of mass transit because the incremental cost of mass transit use is negative, since its use remove congestion from the roads. Paying people to use it would be an obvious perverse incentive, but paying for a collections infrastructure in order to deter people from using it instead of just making it free is an obvious own-goal.

[evanelias]

> Is it a tax, i.e. a fee charged by a government? Yes.

That isn't the commonly-held definition of a tax. The key thing about taxes is that they are compulsory. Transit fares are purely usage-based, and therefore optional, as you aren't forced to use transit. Fares are not commonly considered to be "taxes" in anything I've ever read.

[AnthonyMouse]

They're taxes. Notice how your definition would also exclude all other taxes. Property taxes aren't taxes, just don't own property. Sales taxes aren't taxes, just don't buy anything subject to them.

[evanelias]

> your definition

I'm literally repeating what it says in the Oxford English Dictionary. What are you citing that equates transit fares with taxes?

[AnthonyMouse]

The issue is with your own interpretation of "compulsory". It means compulsory for anyone engaged in the activity being taxed. It's a tax on transit use rather than a tax on purchases or property ownership or what have you. Which is kind of a dumb thing to tax, but that's still what it is.

[stouset]

> Is it a tax

No, it is a usage fee just like stamps.

[evanelias]

> If you stop constraining housing construction in New York

Given that NYC's population density is already nearly double that of London, how exactly is housing construction being constrained in NYC?

Housing is expensive in NYC because it's a popular place to live.

> If you eliminate fares for mass transit, they're equally removed for people commuting from out of state

If you make the subway free, that only helps for travel within NYC, but not for the portion of travel from out-of-state e.g. NJ Transit rail, NJ Transit bus, Port Authority's PATH subway. These are completely separate from the MTA.

> Meanwhile disproportionately taxing people from outside of the jurisdiction is another disadvantage of congestion pricing, because it's taxation without representation

Nonsense, this line of thinking assumes that everyone coming from out-of-state drives. I live in NJ, and am strongly in favor of congestion pricing, because I take public transit into NYC, and use public transit within NYC.

[AnthonyMouse]

> how exactly is housing construction being constrained in NYC?

Most of the existing tall buildings in NYC would be illegal to build today under the current zoning. You also can't build buildings in the other boroughs of the sort currently in Manhattan. The supply needed is relative to local demand, not relative to other cities.

> Housing is expensive in NYC because it's a popular place to live.

Housing is expensive because there is more demand than supply. This happens when there is high demand and increases in supply are constrained. Otherwise supply would respond to increased demand.

> If you make the subway free, that only helps for travel within NYC, but not for the portion of travel from out-of-state e.g. NJ Transit rail, NJ Transit bus, Port Authority's PATH subway. These are completely separate from the MTA.

If you make the subway free, you remove the fare associated with taking the subway, which is part of the cost of using mass transit.

You could also remove the cost of the other mass transit. That might require you to do things at the federal level or in partnership with other states, but that doesn't mean it's something you can't do, it's just something you'd be doing in a different way.

> I live in NJ, and am strongly in favor of congestion pricing, because I take public transit into NYC, and use public transit within NYC.

You're in favor of congestion pricing because you don't pay it. This is unsurprising, right? It's the people who do pay it who are opposed, and that appears to be a majority of the people of NJ since the governor elected by the people of NJ is opposed, but then those people don't get a vote, which is the issue.

[evanelias]

> Most of the existing tall buildings in NYC would be illegal to build today under the current zoning.

Citation please? I've lived in this metro area for 18 years, and the only constant has been that they keep building more giant buildings all the time, so clearly something there doesn't add up.

> You also can't build buildings in the other boroughs of the sort currently in Manhattan.

What type of building are you talking about here?

If you mean skyscrapers, they're plentiful in Long Island City and Downtown Brooklyn, among other outer-borough neighborhoods. But many skyscrapers aren't residential (regardless of borough) so I'm not sure if that's what you mean.

If you mean mid-rises, there are large high-density apartment buildings in all five boroughs, in quite a few different neighborhoods.

I must ask, do you actually live in NYC?

> Housing is expensive because there is more demand than supply.

Yes, and realistically there's no practical amount of construction that would cause NYC to become inexpensive, because the demand is too great.

> Otherwise supply would respond to increased demand.

That doesn't happen overnight and is subject to physical limitations: finite space constraints / a lack of purchasable land for development or re-development, finite limitations on building rate (e.g. the size of the construction sector), and the time required for infrastructure improvements to support an even higher population density.

> You could also remove the cost of the other mass transit.

Paid for how, and by whom?

> You're in favor of congestion pricing because you don't pay it.

No, I'm in favor of it because it makes bus commutes substantially faster, and the revenue will support the continued operational needs of the subway system.

> that appears to be a majority of the people of NJ since the governor elected by the people of NJ is opposed

Murphy very narrowly won reelection in 2021 and is now term-limited from running again. You're asserting that because Murphy is opposed to congestion pricing several years later, this somehow means a majority of NJ residents are also opposed? That's ridiculous and doesn't logically follow. In truth a majority of NJ residents don't ever drive into NYC anyway and don't care one way or the other about this issue.

> but then those people don't get a vote, which is the issue.

Why should people living outside of New York get to vote on something affecting local roads in New York City?

[AnthonyMouse]

> Citation please? I've lived in this metro area for 18 years, and the only constant has been that they keep building more giant buildings all the time, so clearly something there doesn't add up.

NYC zoning is public record:

https://zola.planning.nyc.gov

The highest density residential buildings are zoned R10. Go uncheck all the boxes and then check that one to see where they're allowed. Spoiler: It's almost nowhere and the few places that have it also already have those buildings; there is basically nowhere to put new ones and some of the existing ones aren't even zoned for their current location anymore.

That is how zoning works to constrain housing supply. There will be large areas zoned R1-R5 and you can't put tall buildings there. There is a smaller amount of space zoned R6, which is kind of dense, but those areas already have those buildings too, so making them taller is still prohibited. That's the trick: In any given place, buildings are only allowed to be as tall as they currently are; little space is allowed for new buildings taller than what's already there.

Another giveaway that this is done to constrain the housing supply is that the land area allocated to each zoning level is inversely proportional to the density it allows.

In a dense city like NYC this means you can still see a lot of "tall" buildings, but you still can't put a 13 story building in the places where there is currently a 2-story one and you can't put a 30 story building in the places there is currently a 13 story one, so the existing density persists but isn't allowed to increase.

> Yes, and realistically there's no practical amount of construction that would cause NYC to become inexpensive, because the demand is too great.

Well that sounds like a testable hypothesis. Why don't we find out?

> That doesn't happen overnight

Best to get started then.

> and is subject to physical limitations: finite space constraints / a lack of purchasable land for development or re-development

Space constraints are solved by taller buildings. They can't be infinitely tall, but neither is there infinite demand, and you don't even have to satisfy all of the demand to cause prices to be lower than they are now or allow more people to live in the city than they currently do.

> Paid for how, and by whom?

By taxes, the same as interstate highways or law enforcement.

> No, I'm in favor of it because it makes bus commutes substantially faster, and the revenue will support the continued operational needs of the subway system.

You're saying different words that mean the same thing. You're in favor of it because you want improvements to the thing you use that come at the expense and inconvenience of someone else. It's the people paying the cost rather than receiving the benefit who are the ones objecting.

> You're asserting that because Murphy is opposed to congestion pricing several years later, this somehow means a majority of NJ residents are also opposed? That's ridiculous and doesn't logically follow. In truth a majority of NJ residents don't ever drive into NYC anyway and don't care one way or the other about this issue.

It's evidence that the majority of NJ residents who care about the issue are opposed to it, because the governor has reasons to satisfy constituents even if not running for another term in the same office if he wants to run for some other office or continue doing business with the representatives of various parts of the state during the rest of his term.

> Why should people living outside of New York get to vote on something affecting local roads in New York City?

Because they use those roads, have an interest in government policies that directly affect them, and are citizens of the country in which New York is a city.

[evanelias]

> Another giveaway that this is done to constrain the housing supply

How about it's done just to prevent having a massive building block out the sun and destroy the character of a lower-rise neighborhood? This is common sense quality-of-life stuff, not some mass conspiracy to constrain the housing supply.

> You're in favor of it because you want improvements to the thing you use that come at the expense and inconvenience of someone else.

No, again, that is not why I am in favor of it. I am perfectly able to afford to drive to NYC and pay the congestion pricing fee on a daily basis if I wanted to. But I don't enjoy driving in NYC, and it isn't much faster than public transit anyway, and parking is a nightmare, and personal vehicles are worse for the environment. So why do it?

As for inconvenience of someone else, the folks driving personal vehicles and causing all the congestion are the ones inconveniencing all the mass-transit bus riders, and adding pollution that affects everyone who lives here. Yet you think the pro-congestion-pricing bus riders are the ones externalizing the costs? Is this seriously your argument?

> Because they use those roads, have an interest in government policies that directly affect them, and are citizens of the country in which New York is a city.

So users of NYC local roads, who don't live in NYC or NY State, nor contribute taxes to the maintenance of those roads, should somehow have a say in NYC congestion pricing just by virtue of living in the United States? That's completely absurd.

> you can't put a 30 story building in the places there is currently a 13 story one

But in practice you absolutely can. I'm not familiar with the particulars of zoning variances in NYC, but this does happen all the time. For example when I lived in Manhattan, a 5-story building on my street was replaced by a 24-story monstrosity.

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question about whether you actually live here, so I'm going to conclude that you do not, and you aren't actually familiar with the amount of large building construction that actually happens in NYC. There's no real sense in continuing this discussion as you quite literally don't know what you are talking about, whereas I'm currently sitting in a room where I have a panoramic view of the city skyline and can actually see this happening with my own eyes in real-time.

[AnthonyMouse]

> How about it's done just to prevent having a massive building block out the sun and destroy the character of a lower-rise neighborhood? This is common sense quality-of-life stuff, not some mass conspiracy to constrain the housing supply.

Phrases like "character of the neighborhood" are... what to do they say these days? Problematic?

The places that have the massive buildings are the places most in demand. That seems inconsistent with the result being a detriment to the neighborhood.

> No, again, that is not why I am in favor of it. I am perfectly able to afford to drive to NYC and pay the congestion pricing fee on a daily basis if I wanted to. But I don't enjoy driving in NYC, and it isn't much faster than public transit anyway, and parking is a nightmare, and personal vehicles are worse for the environment. So why do it?

You're describing why it is why you're in favor of it. You already chose not to drive even before the congestion pricing, therefore you don't pay the cost and are happy to see it fall on someone else instead of yourself.

> As for inconvenience of someone else, the folks driving personal vehicles and causing all the congestion are the ones inconveniencing all the mass-transit bus riders, and adding pollution that affects everyone who lives here. Yet you think the pro-congestion-pricing bus riders are the ones externalizing the costs? Is this seriously your argument?

The sensible way to fund a transit system is with broad-based general taxes that apply to everyone, including you. You want to fund it through a tax that only applies to people who drive cars, some of them for legitimate and unavoidable reasons, so... yes?

Also, modern cars don't emit a significant amount of local pollution. Modern emissions control systems are extremely effective against everything except CO2 (a global rather than local concern), to the point that car exhaust in some of the more polluted cities actually has a lower particulate content than the ambient air, and hybrid and electric vehicles produce minimal brake dust because of regenerative braking.

> So users of NYC local roads, who don't live in NYC or NY State, nor contribute taxes to the maintenance of those roads, should somehow have a say in NYC congestion pricing just by virtue of living in the United States? That's completely absurd.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. Who says they don't pay any other taxes in New York? Also, why should suffrage depend on where you sleep rather than where you work? If New York is excluding people by pricing them out through restrictive zoning who otherwise have a right to live there as US citizens, they also get to disenfranchise them as a result?

> But in practice you absolutely can. I'm not familiar with the particulars of zoning variances in NYC, but this does happen all the time. For example when I lived in Manhattan, a 5-story building on my street was replaced by a 24-story monstrosity.

The ability to do something at all, ever is not the same as the ability to do it at the level needed to make housing more affordable. The lots zoned for 24-story buildings mostly but not entirely already have them, and then the ones that don't are the few cases where that can actually happen. The issue is that the market would have done that 1000 times except that the zoning only allowed it in 50 of those places, and then you get only 5% as much new housing as you would have otherwise, which isn't enough to keep prices in check.