
The Streets Were Never Free. Congestion Pricing Finally Makes That Plain - resalisbury
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/upshot/the-streets-were-never-free-congestion-pricing-finally-makes-that-plain.html
======
Jorge1o1
The streets were never free. We paid for it with our tax money. (Not to
mention our 22 trillion dollar public debt)

I don’t think people expect streets to be free in the same way you don’t
expect the police department to be free, the fire department to be free,
public schools, etc.

In any case, my point is, we paid for the streets with our tax money and our
debt, so don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic reckoning” where the
people are FINALLY going to have to pay for those roads the government’s been
giving away for free for so long.

Because that’s just not true.

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _don’t masquerade this as some kind of “economic reckoning”_

In New York, low-income New Yorkers who own a car (or live in the zone) will
be eligible for a waiver [1]. People with disabilities, too, will probably be
eligible for a waiver. (Some carve-outs are still being pinned down.)

Taxis, Ubers, trucks and cars owned by people who opt to pay hundreds of
dollars a month in parking are who will be taxed. Given the unusability of our
streets, this seems closer to an economic reckoning than a political money
grab.

(Crowded streets have all kinds of nasty externalities. I live in the zone.
Crowded streets mean lots of honking at all hours of the day and night. It
means the constant smell of brake pads at street level. When I look out of the
window and see a stranded ambulance, it's a reminder of the risk my loved ones
and I will face when the day comes when we need an ambulance. _Et cetera_.)

[1] [https://710wor.iheart.com/content/2019-04-01-congestion-
pric...](https://710wor.iheart.com/content/2019-04-01-congestion-pricing-
budget-approved-by-new-york-state/)

~~~
nickles
> Taxis, Ubers, trucks and cars owned by people who opt to pay hundreds of
> dollars a month in parking are who will be taxed. Given the unusability of
> our streets, this seems closer to an economic reckoning than a political
> money grab.

Taxis and Ubers are forms of public transportation, and likely reduce the
overall number of cars on the road. Simultaneously, they reduce the incidences
of drunk driving, providing positive externalities.

Taxing trucks, used for transporting groceries, goods, and packages to the
city, will increase the cost of each of these goods. The increase in grocery
prices serves as a regressive tax on all people living within the congestion
pricing zone.

The failings of the subway and train infrastructure are due to mismanagement
on the part of the MTA and untenable, collectively bargained contracts. At the
same time that driving within the city will become more expensive, these forms
of transport have been reducing service within the city and to the surrounding
regions while simultaneously increasing fares.

[0] [https://medium.com/@johnnyknocke/the-mta-loses-six-
billion-d...](https://medium.com/@johnnyknocke/the-mta-loses-six-billion-
dollars-a-year-and-nobody-cares-d0d23093b2d8)

[1] [https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Cuts-to-
Metro...](https://www.stamfordadvocate.com/local/article/Cuts-to-Metro-North-
could-impact-more-than-12516146.php)

[2] [https://jalopnik.com/new-york-wont-shut-down-a-major-
subway-...](https://jalopnik.com/new-york-wont-shut-down-a-major-subway-line-
now-but-it-1831464730)

[3] [https://trid.trb.org/view/384171](https://trid.trb.org/view/384171)

~~~
gpm
> Taxis and Ubers are forms of public transportation, and likely reduce the
> overall number of cars on the road.

This doesn't make sense to me.

IME - the vast majority of time there is a single customer or group in a taxi
or uber. Assuming this is in fact the case. Taxis and ubers increase the
number of trips taken by vehicle, but let's pretend in their favor that they
leave that number flat. While they have a passenger in them they are trading
1-1 for a private vehicle to a "public" vehicle. While they don't have a
passenger in them they are trading 0-1 for private vehicles to "public"
vehicles. That results in a net increase in vehicles.

~~~
lenocinor
It lessens the amount of car storage needed too, though, which is also
important. It would be nice if multi-person trips like UberPool would be
exempted to encourage their use, but I don't know if that's technically
feasible.

~~~
onlyrealcuzzo
It lessens the amount of cars storage and increases the amount of cars on the
road.

You can't transport by car and reduce both at the same time!

~~~
fjp
Fewer overall cars because fewer people own cars due to taxis and uber and
Higher utilization of the cars that do exist because a higher % of cars are
taxis and ubers

Some combination of these two factors could mean that there are fewer cars
idle at any time ("storage") and more cars in service at any time. I'm not
necessarily saying that's what is happening but it's definitely possible.

Looking into the future, a great outcome of driverless cars would be the
commoditization of car transport. You essentially say where you're going and
whether you are willing to share the ride. A driverless car pops off the queue
to pick you up, or a multi-person car slightly diverts from its route to pick
up up (a la Uber Pool).

\- Each physical car sees much higher utilization, allowing fewer cars to
exist overall and parking space needs are reduced.

\- A large network of efficient driverless cars means it's more likely you can
get a shared ride quickly and with minimal diversion from everyone's route.
Ideally an improved shared ride experience would result in higher usage of
shared rides, meaning that fewer cars need to be on the road at any given time
= lower pollution and congestion.

~~~
notacoward
> Fewer overall cars

Fewer cars, but more miles. Every moment that a car is going between one drop-
off and the next pick-up adds to the total.

> Each physical car sees much higher utilization

Higher utilization is a mixed blessing. The more a car is driven per day, the
fewer days it will be until replacement. There's not much difference between
two cars each being driven half the time all year and two cars each being
driven all the time half the year. At best you get some benefit from keeping
the car warmed up, but that's outweighed by the passenger-less miles.

> t's more likely you can get a shared ride quickly and with minimal diversion

That would work a lot better if demand were uniformly distributed, but in fact
it's highly cyclic - toward office areas in the morning, away from them in the
evening. This asymmetry is even worse for things like sporting events. Once a
driver has taken a commuter to work, going anywhere else means 2x distance
because they'll have to come back for the matching commute home.

The only way to reduce ecological footprint is to reduce the number of vehicle
miles per person. It doesn't matter who or what is driving the vehicle.
Reducing commute distance works, even when people are still in cars but
especially when people can walk/bike instead. Increasing per-vehicle occupancy
helps, whether it's car pooling or mass transit. Replacing private cars with
shared ones doesn't make a dent, and in some cases can make things worse.

------
l1ambda
I post something like this every time the congestion pricing subject comes up.
We have congestion pricing in Minneapolis / St Paul and it just works. If I'm
in a hurry, I have the option to choose to use the priced lane. We're rolling
it out to all of the major highways (it's on 3 of them so far). I wish we had
it on more lanes on all highways already, because what is the point of having
a 60mph road if most of the time you are barely going 20mph, or trip lengths
are otherwise completely unpredictable? It's also particularly important to
people who might have to travel to multiple jobs, or people with children in
school/day care, when consistency in travel time is extremely valuable to
them.

There is a concept in economics called spontaneous order. Once the cost of
congestion becomes apparent through the price mechanism, then society can
reconfigure itself to adapt to it. You just have to have the price mechanism
in place to signal it. People will figure it out and adapt once you have
implemented congestion pricing. Practically every medium size or larger city
in America has terrible traffic congestion problems.

Importantly, you have to resist the temptation to set a price ceiling (like
Houston did at $8), as it will not work effectively because it will not allow
the price mechanism to work and will cause a shortage of road capacity and you
end up with no material change and basically a bad tax. (E.g., the true cost
of congestion spurs demand for apartments and transit options near the city
center, which in turn reduces traffic congestion.) Also important that it is
purely congestion pricing and not resulting in crony government. Changes in
laws and zoning and public transit will occur subsequently.

I am excited for NYC to pilot this and hope it becomes a success for that
city.

~~~
rsync
"We have congestion pricing in Minneapolis / St Paul and it just works. We're
rolling it out to all of the major highways."

Aren't these two very different things ?

I own a home in MPLS and I don't know anything about congestion pricing there.
I _think_ you must be talking about the lane restrictions on the freeways ?

Congestion pricing, as it is in London, and as is being discussed for NYC, is
the concept of the city center being an island of paid entrance. As if you
could not enter downtown MPLS without paying a fee.

I don't have any comment on your broad, economic analysis - just that the lane
restrictions on 35 are really not the same thing as the congestion pricing
being discussed here...

~~~
ls612
He’s probably talking about the HOV lanes on 35W and 394. Which aren’t even
remotely the same as what is being proposed for manhattan.

------
dec0dedab0de
When I worked in a major city I would go on a half-joke rant anytime someone
brought up traffic, parking,or obesity. If I were somehow the king of a major
city, I would have a giant parking lot on the outside, and ban all cars. You
could buy day passes if you need access to the roads to move or something, but
it would be discouraged. People would walk more, and be healthier, The air
would be higher quality, and most importantly you wouldn't have to wait to
cross the street when you're walking to lunch.

~~~
i_am_proteus
Also, there wouldn't be many lunch options because delivery services wouldn't
be able to use cars and trucks.

~~~
yardie
So restaurants, bars, and taverns didn't exist until after the automobile was
invented. Got it!

~~~
csours
I think this comment deserves a Michelin Star!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Guide](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelin_Guide)

Hint: Why would a tire company put out a restaurant guidebook?

------
dannyw
It's sad to see congestion pricing in America. I had hoped that the long-lived
cultural freedom of driving would keep it at bay for longer, but I guess not
anymore.

I live in Sydney. It takes a 45 minute drive to visit a family member, who is
sick and homebound. To do so in the shortest and least congested route, I must
pay 3 tolls: $14.85 total, one way; $30 dollars a trip.

Public transport is not a suitable option. Instead of 45 minutes one way, the
combined trip time balloons to 2 hours (4 hours to and back) due to poor
proximity to train stations, and bus connections that require waiting.

Every time I drive, I feel less free to move around my city. I feel less free
to visit my friends and family. 'Freedom of movement' isn't some crazy lunatic
idea. It is an important part of living for many people.

~~~
Xylakant
Your freedom to drive where ever you choose on the fastest route infringes on
freedoms of others, for example:

* their freedom to drive on the fastest route possible * their freedom not to have a large road in front of their home * their freedom not to have their taxes invested in a road infrastructure ballooned to a level that they might not need * their freedom to live in a world that is not inflicted by global warming

Freedom to move does not mean you can do so at any cost to the freedom of
others.

~~~
dec0dedab0de
I don't think your examples really count as freedoms. I agree with your point,
but I don't think you need to stretch the definition of a word to make it.

~~~
Sharlin
But how is the right to drive anywhere more of a freedom than those other
things?

~~~
dec0dedab0de
Because it is told from the perspective of the activity that is allowed. Now
they could have technically been stated as the freedom from {Annoying/Harmful
thing}* but thats still weak. The only reason to it is to take away power from
the original argument by watering down the language it used. I'm sure the op
didn't mean anything by it, I just happened to be listening to a conference
call with a lot of corporate speak and was particular sensitive to how words
are (mis)used

The actual point is that freedoms _should_ be curtailed when they cause harm
to others.

In this case unchecked freedom of movement can cause harm to society in
different ways, so some forms of movement are restricted. Which is already
true, we have signs, lights walls, fences, licenses, etc to restrict our
movement. So the argument is really about how much more should they be
restricted.

* EDIT, Zarath already called me out on that, but I still think it's a stretch

------
angstrom
As a NYC resident for 11 years now I see this as a necessary transition. The
streets aren't getting any wider unless we do away with street parking. I
don't hear anyone rushing to suggest that option, although it's easy to forget
there was a time when the streets weren't lined with cars - but horse shit. So
we trade one inconvenience for a slightly less inconvenient sight (I own and
park my car on the street dealing with the inconvenience of alternate side
parking twice weekly). The focus really needs to be on improving the
efficiency of the MTA, reducing distance between trains with more efficient
switching is big part of that. The inefficiencies of the trains and improved
efficiencies of app based rideshare dispatch is what is pulling ridership from
the trains the most.

------
yonran
I think Emily Badger sort of misses the point. A scarcity tax is completely
different from a user benefit fee for road maintenance. For public goods, it’s
a _good_ thing for the government to subsidize the fixed costs of the public
good. But where there is traffic, the road is not entirely a public good
anymore and we are already paying the cost of congestion, but the price is in
the form of time and inconvenience rather than dollars. A congestion charge
converts the time price into a monetary price. It makes sense to charge a
congestion charge because it is merely harnessing a price that drivers already
pay and using it to improve the city.

The same is true for land value taxes. Tenants pay the scarcity price for land
anyway (in the form of land rent) regardless of the level of tax, so the
government might as well harness that energy and use it to benefit all the
people instead of a few.

~~~
FakeComments
This assumes that either:

1\. People can arbitrarily convert time into money, ie, there’s not a reason
they’d prefer to pay some expenses in time.

2\. People are free to change their travel times, and aren’t being coerced
into traveling at a particular time. If travel time is a monopsony, then this
is mere rent extraction because people can’t adjust behavior in response to
economic pressures.

~~~
yonran
Yes, and in my opinion those are both valid assumptions to make.

1\. You’re right, congestion pricing forces drivers to reveal the marginal
price for time. In a congested road, what makes the marginal driver decide not
to drive at a specific time? Because he knows that it will take too much time
due to traffic (or because he is simply forced to queue). In a toll road, what
makes the marginal driver decide not to drive at a given time? Because he
knows it will cost too much money. At the margin, congestion pricing turns a
time cost into a monetary cost.

For those individuals whose value of time is lower than the marginal driver
(i.e., people who would rather have a traffic jam than pay the toll),
congestion pricing itself can make them worse off, but when the proceeds are
reinvested in transit I think it’s probable that congestion pricing will
generally benefit lower-income people.

2\. Congested roads _already_ force people to change their travel time. If you
try to cross a congested bridge at a specific time, you will be queued until
all the people in front of you have passed. So I suppose you could say the
road already is extracting rent and throwing it away. Congestion pricing
harnesses the value (of all the drivers whose value of time is _above_ the
marginal driver) instead of discarding it.

~~~
FakeComments
I’m not sure I follow your argument on 2.

If people aren’t free to adjust their driving habits, congestion pricing
merely raises the cost for them, because the time to commute doesn’t go down
(appreciably) — everyone is still on the road at the same time.

It then effectively becomes a regressive tax: those least free to change their
schedule are those in the lowest earning jobs, and hence those most coerced to
pay the cost.

I’m not sure I believe that’s an effective way to raise money for government.

~~~
yonran
I disagree with your premise. There _are_ people on the margin who decide to
drive or not because of the traffic (or who are forced to queue unexpectedly).
If the roads and parking garages had infinite capacity, then there would be
hundreds of thousands more cars on the road in Manhattan. It’s implausible
that all the people who remain on the road today are purely inelastic.

I also disagree that the tax would be incident on those with the lowest paying
jobs. Higher-paying workers are more likely to pay more, since people with
price-inelastic demand for driving are more likely to be those who value their
time more highly.

Finally, I don’t think the primary purpose is to raise money for the
government, but instead to manage the road resource so that the throughput is
high.

~~~
FakeComments
That decreasing the price causes elastic demand doesn’t indicate that raise
the price decreases demand elastically: there can be a largely inelastic base
load.

> Higher-paying workers are more likely to pay more, since people with price-
> inelastic demand for driving are more likely to be those who value their
> time more highly.

Again, this is only true absent coercive forces —

Higher paid workers (on average) also have more schedule flexibility and
ability to use money to cover for their physical absence.

By contrast, lower paid workers have less flexible schedules and a greater
need to utilize their time — eg, they have to perform childcare because their
market rate per hour is below child care services.

This leads to a situation where high paid workers have more elastic price
demand than low paid workers, and raising prices ends up charging low paid
workers because if market distortions from other factors.

------
DINKDINK
All markets have congestion controls, they're called prices. The only reason
roads and traffic don't function well is because they don't have prices.
Traffic on roads* is the 21st equivalent of Soviet breadlines.

*(particularly in the US where they are cross subsidized the most)

~~~
zach_garwood
Wow, I never thought of it that way, but it's a great point.

------
wallacoloo
We already have a kind of congestion pricing, in some sense. If you plan a
trip during peak hours, it costs you more time. It’s pretty typical, then, to
plan leisure trips into or out of the city based around when traffic will be
light.

It’s just that this cost in time isn’t distributed nearly as ideally as it
could be. It costs an individual the same amount whether they take a bus or a
car with four people or four cars with one person each. If we tax per-vehicle
instead, that pushes people not only to shape their travel times more ideally,
but to also use more efficient forms of transportation.

So long as this is used as a means to shape travel to be more efficient and
not just as a way to gobble up revenue, it might be alright. I think toll
bridges/roads are mostly this way, where they’re free in the dead of night
when few are on the roads, so I’m hopeful.

~~~
clairity
> "We already have a kind of congestion pricing, in some sense. If you plan a
> trip during peak hours, it costs you more time."

this is an underappreciated point, as it underlies the popularity of
congestion pricing among wealthier folks, whatever their politics (left-
leaners ostensibly would otherwise support more egalitarian/progressive
policies).

currently everyone pays with their time, whether rich or poor. you can't buy
your way out of the problem just for yourself. irksomely, money is of no
advantage. but with congestion pricing, you could, and that's really appealing
to wealthy folks.

i'm not arguing against congestion pricing, just noting a less-visible
motivation. a progressive pricing scheme (pay more if you have higher
income/net worth), for example, would still reduce congestion while providing
more egalitarian access.

------
Jerry2
The thing that this article doesn't discuss is the fact that Uber spent $2M on
lobbying to help push through congestion pricing. [0]

>“Over the past several years, we’ve been proud to work with a diverse
coalition to fight for comprehensive congestion pricing, and we’re excited to
see Albany take action to reduce congestion and invest in mass transit,” said
Harry Hartfeld, an Uber spokesman.

>Roughly $1 million went to some of the top city lobbyists, including Stu
Loeser, a onetime senior aide to former Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

>Another $700,000 went to fund the Fix Our Transit coalition’s ad campaign
that targeted undecided Albany ­politicians.

[0] [https://nypost.com/2019/04/03/uber-spent-2m-to-help-push-
thr...](https://nypost.com/2019/04/03/uber-spent-2m-to-help-push-through-
congestion-pricing/)

------
DFXLuna
It's weird to see someone calling roads free when I give the government 25% of
my paycheck every month to pay for things like roads.

We can't even pass a tax in my town to give necessary funds for road repairs
beyond the most basic. I wonder how something like that would fair.

~~~
Ancalagon
Yes but that 25% is for social security and the bloated healthcare system,
roads are extra.

------
test6554
Traffic itself is a symptom of roads being free in the first place. Charge
drivers exactly what it costs to maintain them plus a small profit and
suddenly there will be little traffic and no major potholes. Taxpayers will
get all that money back too, and they can either spend it on driving fees or
they can save the money if they use roads less.

------
bjourne
I wonder if we (as a society) in the not too distant future can make driving
embarrassing?

My hope is that if someone sits alone in their big SUV stuck in traffic,
pedestrians, cyclists and others will look at that person disparagingly. Like
how people look at dog owners not picking up their dogs feces, cigarette
smokers or how they look at obese people buying ice cream... Or how
hypochondriacs who go to the doctor when they don't need to are shamed in
countries with socialized health care.

Maybe it is not nice to use shame as a weapon, but it is a powerful one. We
have about ten years to completely change how our societies work before it is
to late. All options should be on the table.

~~~
jimmaswell
Shame me all you want, I'm not biking my commute in 90/20 degree weather with
a backpack full of stuff including a laptop and no reasonable way to listen to
music when I have such a comfortable SUV-type car.

~~~
crooked-v
This is the whole reason congestion charges exist: to get people to weigh
comfort and laziness against personal cost.

> no reasonable way to listen to music

...headphones?

~~~
jimmaswell
Listening to headphones while bicycling isn't safe, and playing it from a
speaker where everyone around you will hear it feels rude.

~~~
dmurdoch
Trekz Titanium. Or any other brand of bone conduction headphone. They sound
quite good for the price and the fact that I can hear everything else around
me at full volume.

------
ellard
I'm disappointed that motorcycles/scooters and lane splitting aren't brought
into the conversation more when discussions about traffic congestion come up.
It feels like a win/win for nearly everyone to promote two wheeled
transportation and allow them to split lanes or filter through traffic. Those
who do not want to ever ride on two wheels still get the benefit of others
doing so and essentially taking themselves out of the traffic queue. There's
also been studies about how allowing lane splitting/filtering are ultimately
safer for the riders too.

~~~
bhupy
Do you have links to some of these studies? Asking as a motorcyclist...

~~~
ellard
The study that I remember off the top of my head is the one that came out of
UC Berkeley. News article: [https://news.berkeley.edu/2015/05/29/motorcycle-
lanesplittin...](https://news.berkeley.edu/2015/05/29/motorcycle-
lanesplitting-report/)

There's been a couple of others that I remember seeing, but I don't remember
them or which sources I saw them at.

------
sek
This will be absolutely necessary when cars are self-driving. Instead of
parking they will just drift around the block when you buy something for
example. Also there will be empty Uber cars drifting around to be close if
somebody needs it. On top you won't worry so much about traffic if you can
sleep in you car or do something else.

Driving was always limited by the costs of somebody sitting behind the wheel.
Look how congested many cities of third world countries are, low labor costs
for cab drivers are a factor there.

~~~
RandallBrown
I think midtown manhattan is a pretty good example of what self driving cars
will look like. Most of the vehicles are taxis, ride shares, or delivery
trucks. Very few of them ever park longer than to drop something off.

------
tzs
A few comments have mentioned different levels or road damage caused by
different vehicles, with heavier vehicles causing more damage.

How much does tire pressure matter in that? If two vehicles have the same
weight and number of tires taking the load, evenly distributed among the
tires, but one of them runs with higher tire pressure, it will have a
proportionately smaller contact area, and so a proportionately higher ground
pressure.

In general, a tire supporting weight W at pressure P will have a contact area
A such that P x A = W.

I'd expect total road damage to depend on both area and pressure. Pressure
would determine whether you are going to damage the surface, and area would
determine how big an area will damaged.

For causing cracks that lead to potholes, I'm not sure area matters as much as
the pressure, so am curious about lighter vehicles with high pressure tires.

My car has a pressure of 32 psi. Back when I was a regular bike commuter [1]
my bike had a pressure of 110 psi.

Wikipedia has a nice table of the ground pressure of several things [2]. Some
excerpts, in psi:

    
    
        4  Diedrich D-50 T2 drilling rig
        8  Human male
       15  M1 Abrams tank
       25  1993 Toyota 4Runner
       25  Adult horse
       30  Passenger car
       40  Mountain bike
       90  Road racing bike
      470  Stiletto heel
    

A bit of Googling suggests delivery trucks are between 85 and 110 psi for most
fleets, and around 110 seems to be normal for big rig trucks, too.

So...trucks being more damaging than cars is quite believable. More
interesting is different kinds of passenger cars. Honda's recommended tire
pressure for a Civic and a CR-V, e.g., are largely the same range. Does this
mean a CR-V is not much more damaging than a Civic?

And where do bikes with high psi fit in? The have the pressure of a delivery
truck, but have a much smaller contact area. Is there some minimal area needed
before even high pressure damages the road, so bikes are OK? Or is it just
that because the areas is smaller it takes longer to cause enough cumulative
damage for people in cars to notice?

[1] when I lived in flat Cupertino. That died when I move to Seattle and found
that fat people on bikes don't get along well with hills.

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_pressure)

~~~
SamReidHughes
It seems to me like road damage involves processes that happen deeper, for
example those that create tire ruts in the lane. I'd guess the area should be
counted as larger the deeper you go.

It seems plausible to me that if you drove trucks over an unlined parking lot
completely randomly, then it would last much longer than when you run the same
trucks on a highway lane.

------
jaxbot
I think about this a lot when considering China's extensive High-Speed Rail
network. China's government operates it at a loss, and the capital expense
must have been enormous, even with their wages. But the government had enough
social good and political reasons to bite the cost.

The USA and our interstate system are the same way. The cost was enormous, the
maintenance burden continues to outpace the money we make on gas tax and
registration, yet we had political and social good reasons for building it.
The interstate was a massive investment, and investments of similar scale
could give us a HSR network at least on major corridors. But for some reason,
we have a social good attitude towards highways and a social waste attitude
towards subsidizing rail.

------
zacharyautin11
I am impressed with the good title. Article speaks to unspoken history of
purposefully hidden transportation costs that promote car sales and urban
sprawl to this day. Bring back the electric streetcar

~~~
jimmaswell
I think we have something great here where you can travel nice countryside
settings in a car and it would be a terrible shame to give that up or price
the poor out of it.

------
donatj
I mean infrastructure is what everyone points to when one asks “what am I even
paying taxes for?” Often even the short hand of “roads”.

~~~
sgift
Police, fire departments, emergency services, public transportation, ..

~~~
cannonedhamster
While I agree these are services people pay taxes for, Police mostly target
the poor, fire departments are stationed closest to the wealthier
neighborhoods, emergency services are generally better in wealthier areas, and
public transportation in most of the US is generally poor, airline travel
being the only thing worse. It's hard to convince someone who isn't of means
that raising taxes on them is somehow of benefit to them. We'd be far better
forcing companies to pay and freeing up the market for more people to work
from home. That would actually solve the congestion issues without punishing
the people who can't afford it.

------
drak0n1c
In Tokyo, there is no congestion pricing, but instead there is a ban on larger
trucks loading/unloading during many hours of the day. Everyone from the
businesses to the truckers and retail workers tolerate it and work night
shifts (often without overtime) because the culture (for better or worse)
emphasizes the needs of society over the individual.

Would such a policy work well if brought over to the states? Given the amount
of tangentially connected regulations and special interests such a strict ban
may just increase prices and make things worse.

------
zelon88
> Local laws require off-street parking from businesses and housing
> developers, who pass on the construction cost of it to tenants and customers
> who may not drive at all.

I'd love to see the tenents stay in business with a dirt road out front. Or a
pasture that no cars can pass through.

They're not doing us any favors. They're keeping themselves in business.

------
novaleaf
A wild idea already decades past it's prime:

in addition to the odometer, include a chronometer: something like "hours
driving above 5mph". Then tax on a combination of those.

That seems like it would have been be able to implicitly price congestion into
a progressive use-based tax.

------
simplesleeper
Congestion does not necessarily mean a shortage of roads. Sometimes roads make
congestion worse. Braess' Paradox has shown to occur as often as not.

------
mattigames
This is all kinds of wrong, the problem could be tackled much better, for
example most companies have no incentives to hire workers near their premises
(or relocating them to make it so), meaning they get no benefit if they
emplooyes have a 10 minute commute over a 2 hour commute; car companies have
no incentive to build smaller cars, small single-person cars should be far
more common but instead we are stuck with hundreads of people buying the
biggest car they can get a loan for.

~~~
nathanvanfleet
That doesn't really seem true to me. Car companies make products that can
sell. People vote with their feet. People make decisions to buy bigger
vehicles so that's what is manufactured. If there is increased demand for
compact cars the manufacturers will make more (like they do outside of the
US). Companies might not seek to hire people nearby but they might put their
offices in a more convenient location. Either way you seem to completely miss
the idea that alternative methods of transportation like mass transit or
bicycles etc might expand in use. Which can cause those things to expand
(better mass transit coverage, better and more protected bike paths). Again
there are examples all over the world outside of the US.

~~~
mattigames
> People vote with their feet. People make decisions to buy bigger vehicles so
> that's what is manufactured. If there is increased demand for compact cars
> the manufacturers will make more (like they do outside of the US)

Yeah and people are irrational and wrong, that's why the right incentives must
exist so they are more incentived to buy smaller cars such as single-person or
2 person cars.

> Either way you seem to completely miss the idea that alternative methods of
> transportation like mass transit

I did not, of course better transportation its the solution in long term but
in the short one we need viable solutions as well.

------
superkuh
This is understandable for high density urban areas but makes no sense for
most of the country.

------
patrickg_zill
Congestion pricing is an admission that the fuel taxes are being used for
other purposes than roads.

~~~
vidro3
or that the taxes are far too low to support the cost of road maintainance

~~~
kevin_thibedeau
New York's problem is that its fuel consumption has been flat for 50 years
because of increasing fuel efficiency and low population growth. Meanwhile,
everything else is more expensive to maintain so it must make up the
difference with other funding sources or higher taxes. The latter is is
difficult political issue when they are already near the top for state fuel
taxation.

------
wtdata
It's interesting that Americans (as we see in most of the comments) feel so
entitled to let taxes pay for their right to take their car everywhere, but
feel so strongly against having taxes pay for universal healthcare.

In Europe, we do the opposite.

