Comments by "seneca983" (@seneca983) on "The Battle Over NYC Congestion Pricing" video.

"It is already one of the most expensive areas to drive." But it's still not expensive enough because the negative externality of driving there is so great.
13
@michaelsommers2356 "Anyone who says there are no disincentives to driving in Manhattan has never driven in Manhattan." Clearly there not enough disincentives currently. Also, consider that the current disincentives simply destroy value; the time lost to sitting in slow traffic isn't gained by anyone else. Congestion charges would at least only move value from one pocket to another instead of destroying it.
5
@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish "it's all predicated on people choosing to use public transportation instead of just paying the fee" If the fee is high enough, people will certainly avoid driving one way or another.
5
@Batmans_Pet_Goldfish "Paying the once a day congestion charge is still cheaper than the public transportation cost for most people." Some people use public transport even though there is no congestion charge yet. If the get gets narrower, more people can be expected to choose that option. And if the charge isn't enough to make anyone to not drive, it can always be increased until it does. And even if there's still no effect, it's a better way to collect revenue than taxes which can have distortionary effects on incentives and lead to deadweight loss.
3
Even if all of that money was embezzled, the congestion charges would still be a net benefit.
2
A fee per car should already incentivize that. A car with more people doesn't take any less space.
2
"the congestion pricing toll would not be per trip, but per day" Ideally, it should be per hour with different hours having different prices, but maybe that's too complicated to implement.
2
@elinoamrichter162 I don't see how the "problem number 1" is a problem at all. There are too many vehicles in Manhattan. How do you decide whether to reduce cars or delivery vehicles? Simple. Once the price increases, the ones that are less valuable will start to not drive into Manhattan first.
2
@SwitchedDreams It's not a contradiction. Currently the drivers are paying in time by sitting in slow traffic. But the time they lose isn't gained by anyone else. It's just destroyed value. Paying a congestion charge, however, at least just moves value (money) from one pocket to another instead of just destroying/wasting it.
1
@graysmith9218 With a high enough charge, the amount of cars will be less. The drivers are hardly ready to pay unlimited amount of money for the privilege of driving. Also, even if there was no effect, it would still be a good way to raise revenue. Governments typically raise revenue by taxes which can affect people's behaviour in unwanted ways and lead to so called "deadweight loss". Congestion charges either change people's behaviour in a desirable way or don't change it meaning no deadweight loss.
1
Even if it's badly run, that doesn't obviously mean that more money wouldn't translate to benefits. That would mean that less money hurt because the agency is badly run (because A<B is the same as B>A) and that would sound rather counterintuitive.
1
@gremate "thats not my fault that there isnt infrastructure there for me" That's like someone complaining that they have to obey the speed limits even though the live farther away than other people. What you said doesn't change the fact that every car (yours and those of others) slow every other car down and a congestion charge would be a big benefit to the society.
1
@gremate People can really only "evade" the fares by not taking space on the streets which is exactly the goal (or one of the goals) of the congestion charges. As to the speed limit, I used it as an analogy to explain why I don't think your claim of unfairness is a good argument against congestion charges. It's not specifically about speed limits in NYC. I think it works quite well as an analogy. As another analogy, people who drive more and thus consume more fuel still have to pay the same fuel tax per gallon (as they should). Also note that if you still continue driving after a congestion charge is implemented, it'll make traffic smoother which also benefits you, so you're getting value for your money.
1
@gremate You take space on the street while you're driving on them. That's why too many cars on the streets cause congestion. As for taxis and Ubers, presumably they'd have to pay too.
1
@elinoamrichter162 I don't think those problems can in any way mean that congestion pricing wouldn't still be a net benefit.
1
@elinoamrichter162 Currently, the streets in Manhattan are inefficiently used. Too many cars and trucks just make the throughput lower than it could be; traffic is slower than it needs to be; it takes longer than needed for trucks and cars to reach their destination. With congestion charges it wouldn't be free for trucks to use the streets but it's also not free for all that capital (trucks) to sit idle needlessly in slow traffic. Both are costs that those businesses and consumers pay. The difference is that the former is just transferring value (money) to someone else but the latter just straight-up destroys value without it being gained by anyone else. Congestion charges lead to more efficient use of resources. To the degree that trucks are more essential street users than cars, presumably there is willingness to pay more for the service they provide than for transporting people in cars. Or maybe not, markets can decide which is more important by measuring the willingness to pay.
1