The more congestion pricing advocates defend it the worse they make it look...
Getting a policy like this right, with only good outcomes and none unexpectedly terrible, requires a scalpel, not a chainsaw. You have to anticipate what could be terrible and carefully carve out a policy that won't be.
This quote from Representative Don Beyer, a car dealer (!!!), on Kathy Hochul's congestion pricing fuckup is 🧑🍳 💋.
"It's like taxing cigarettes or alcohol. You tax things you don't like, and incentivize things you do like. And we don't like congestion."
You’re anti-congestion pricing? Despite the fact that it’s worked well basically everywhere it is implemented, it ties local funding to local use, and taxes a textbook externality?
I am against THIS policy, and overall dubious about it as a general solution, esp. in the NYC region, which differs significantly from elsewhere it's been used.
Ex: multiple jurisdictions (states!), inadequate and poorly integrated cross-regional transit, tricky topography (water! cliffs!), etc.
Bizarre list of problems. NYC is by far the most transit-integrated city with its metropolitan area in the country. The multiple jurisdictions thing is irrelevant. What does the topography have to do with anything?
These things you are dismissing matter!
NJ transit is not well-integrated with NY transit, for instance. There's not enough capacity, it costs more, etc. There needs to be more transit FIRST, but it's also harder to build because of terrain.
No, this is a trap that anti-urbanists always pull. "We can't build more houses, the transit infrastructure won't support it!" "Don't built transit infrastructure, it's not necessary for the level of housing here!"
Congestion pricing will help fund transit expansion.
Not like this, not equitably, and not without just moving the congestion or pricing people out of inter-regional travel.
You can't just throw any policy at a problem and expect it to fix the problem!
Want less congestion in Manhattan? Great. Then do it in a way that doesn't create new problems.
What you really mean is, do nothing and simply live with it and with the emissions. I'm not exactly hearing an alternative, beyond the unicorn of "find funding for more transit from somewhere that we haven't found it previously, without actually creating a new revenue source"
I suspect this moment has changed the politics enough to get that investment.
I also suggested an alternate approach that gets most of what is wanted with fewer downsides.
And my ultimate point: you can't just impose any regime and expect it to meet your policy goal. THE DETAILS MATTER!
And as you've been told multiple times in this thread, this was a very detailed design process. And also: you suspect wrong. Until we actually get permitting/NEPA reform, it is not actually going to be easier to build. And that's nothing something New York can do unilaterally, nor NY+NJ jointly!
I remain unclear on how topography is an issue here, the transit infrastructure is pretty built out. On multiple jurisdictions, NJ at least gets a cut and as someone who commutes from JC through the tunnel on public transit, this will absolutely benefit me. And as noted, there’s low income relief
I've credited lots of counter-arguments. But, you know, it's hard to keep up when you're the Discourse... The good points are buried under lots of garbage shitposts and so I can't get to them all. (I can't even SEE them all.)
That's fair enough (I also did not intend to snowball this into All of BlueSky lol but this platform is very aggressive about showing people's replies in the feeds I guess)
It's been a Morning. I know I'm being dragged, and that's not great, but the amount of abuse v. reasonable pushback isn't really making me doubt my take. There's really not a lot of the latter, and that's what actually could.
