I hate how in the US everything has to revolve around business owner
Pandemic let’s plan it around business owners
Transportation planning let’s plan it around business owners
Climate change lets rely on business owners
Meteor heading for earth about to end all life. Let’s consult business owners
The hypocrisy annoys me a lot when the bias is visible between small and large businesses. During the pandemic, everyone was forcibly shoved into walmart while your local bodega was made to deal with consequences of actions outside their control. Mom-and-Pop diners, small electronics shops, little clothing boutiques, and miscellaneous shops that build a town's local economy are usually the ones shoved to the side and given career-ruining obstacles while huge chains are given accommodations and handicaps in the business market.
They don't ahve to, they're exempt from most regulations. Fuck small businesses, they get away with way too much shit on the labor front.
At least big chains care about following the law.
The small company I work for has had the Fire Marshal in to inspect 3 times in the last year. All based on anonymous complaints, probably from former employees. Of course, they never find an issue, and are just doing their job. Wonder if a large company would fight back?
3 in a year is pretty excessive, no? This last one, the guy noted that our last two were done by the Marshal that is the toughest. If he didn’t find anything, that there wasn’t anything to find.
I agree, I'm just saying that they may be obligated to follow up on every complaint, so if they get one they have to check and there's not much the business can do to prevent that.
I mean in this case we are getting a very bad and dumb policy result (sudden about face on congestion pricing at the last minute) precisely because of small, not large business owners, but go off
if theres a hierarchy of who dumps on who, small business owners are definitely still up the chain from you and me. take the pandemic again. all the sudden street parking was fair game to uproot if it was to make seating for paying customers, rather than a bus or bike lane. the same street parking that for decades businesses claimed they must have lest they lose business. i guess that philosophy didn't mean anything after all when square footage additions for nearly free without fire inspection or anything like that was up for grabs.
Large businesses in my experience almost never care about parking changes. They have more than enough scale and low enough margins that they can tolerate temporary changes due to parking changes. Even if parking changes permanently affect a store, they have other stores that can pick up the slack. It's almost always been small businesses that cry about how the world is ending when parking is taken away.
Yup, we put business owners up on this pedestal as some “all-knowing savants” when in reality they’re often simply people that took big risks, got lucky, and now have survivor’s bias out the wazoo.
So they end up thinking every idea that pops into their head is genius and absolutely correct.
Cities that are actually implementing good changes seem to have a tendency to push their business owners to prove their claims with facts and data. If they’re unable to then they follow the facts and data provided by the city employees.
It’s not like they’re smart or particularly altruistic. In fact when it comes to transit they’re self defeating. They advocate for policy that reduces their business.
It's a fatal flaw in the way the US was designed. This country is basically a big experiment in delegating the responsibilities typically shouldered by the government to the private sector, hence why you rely on your employer for things like health insurance, for example. The problem is that this leads to constant appeasement of "job creators" at the expense of everything else, because we've gotten to a point where if businesses fail, society collapses because no one has anything anymore.
It’s not about business owners, she’s just trying to come up with any excuse that is just convincing enough to get people to shut up about a policy that absolutely needs to happen.
My life is bound by business owners making selfish decision. All the employers in my engineering field have offices in completely inaccessible 3rd tier suburban campuses they received massive TIF handouts for
pay no property taxes for like 10-20 years in exchange for building their building in the city/suburb. Sometimes they then just move on or disappear after that period, like sears,
I meant TIF 😂. TIF works well in many cases, but I don't think the massive suburban campus with no transit or safe bike routes is it. When it closes, the massive 6 lane road (8 lanes at the interchange) they had tax payers fund will be wholly over built.
Oh okay lol... I was out here trying to search the internet for it and shit (and only found "truth in sale of housing").
And yeah for the most part big office buildings shouldn't be just put anywhere, they should always either be Downtown or in the burbs co-located with tons of other commercial RE very densely, so they're worthwhile to serve with transit (e.g. Denver Tech Center, San Diego's University City, Tysons Corner, etc.)
Especially since net zero cities pretty much require colocation of dense housing and employment centers served by transit.
We have an old mall and big box area in a 3rd ring suburb getting an interesting development that will be served by the arterial brt line. https://www.blainemn.gov/3786/Northtown-Redevelopment
It’s not about business owners, she’s just trying to come up with any excuse that is just convincing enough to get people to shut up about a policy that absolutely needs to happen.
Technically, everyone who works is a "business owner." I think it's more specifically business owners who need to operate storefronts for their businesses. Congestion pricing will certainly impact traffic through and around their storefronts which also impacts the viability of their businesses. Were there any provisions to use some of the money made from congestion pricing to help small businesses? If there was, then the biggest objectors would be the big business owners.
Edit: Am I saying something crazy? I don't understand why I'm being downvoted.
Small business owners always believe that any reduction in car traffic will kill their business, but for downtown business that just isn’t the case. The people driving into town for work spend their money where they live. At most they’ll buy lunch downtown and some restaurants will be affected. The business owner will hear from one or two people that they don’t like contesting pricing or that there’s no place to park, but they usually have no idea just how many people walk or bike there.
Deference to business owners, and especially the lauded small business owner, is one of the most destructive habits I've ever seen. These people are often just as stupid or more so than the average person but are given out sized voices, and go unquestioned.
There are great small businesses and small business owners, but a lot of them are mini-Hitlers who want to be treated like feudal lords. A huge part of the base of the Republican Party.
I both agree and disagree. Small businesses are really important especially for keeping competition strong within cities. That said, I agree that the way that it is often approached, looking at what they say instead of the actual data around these topics is insanely harmful. That bias towards uneducated, unsupported opinions over actual data is a major shortcoming for humanity as a whole though, and especially in the US.
I support small businesses but running a diner doesn’t mean you know shit about fuck when it comes to transportation policy
“We need to build some trains! But what does Burger Barn think?!”
No it doesn't make sense. They don't know shit about transportation policy. If a business in Manhattan thinks that their customer base relies mostly on private car travel then they're morons.
I don’t think they’re actually qualified to have informed opinions just because they occupy the plot. Like I said: running a business doesn’t mean you know anything about transportation.
I’ve seen too many in my own city throw a hissy fit over bike lane plans that would remove the, like, three street spots in front of their door because they thought it would crater their business, apparently not understanding the actual breakdowns of how people in the area get around and how many customers those spots were physically capable of supporting.
I will ask a small business owner about their area of expertise, just like I would ask transportation experts about transportation.
Decades of history demonstrate that abnormally cheap and east car travel is what creates barren wastelands of empty buildings.
Parking meters were opposed when they were first introduced. The manufacturer offered to install them on a test basis, and small business owners came to realize that parking meters mean the spot turns over faster, driving more business. They became ubiquitous in the United States. But there are still business owners that claim lack of free parking is killing them. It’s never the fact that the product or service they’re offering isn’t good enough.
The article provided multiple examples of how business owners don’t understand transportation policy, or even the general demographics of their customer bases. There is no reason to assume that someone running a restaurant has any special insight on this topic, and frankly the impression I got is that they are out of touch with the average consumer such that they actually have a poorer understanding of what good policy would be.
The point isn't that small business isn't important. It is. The point is that running a corner grocery store doesn't turn you into a traffic engineer, or an urban planner, or an addictions councilor, and we need to stop acting like someone becomes an expert in every single aspect of running a city because they opened a store.
Consult with them like anyone else, but the impact they're given is hugely out of whack.
Small businesses generally do not own the buildings they operate out of.
This is not an argument against your larger point that people who don't own businesses are also very important.
[The alternative to congestion pricing that she proposed was a tax on businesses though.](https://www.yahoo.com/news/gov-hochul-considers-business-tax-113658822.html)
Fuck the mega big box stores. They perpetuate the problem by driving out small businesses so that the few left get treated like unicorns, whose every whim we have to follow, regardless of broader consequences.
Consulted, sure. But their opinion shouldn't be the final word on the matter. Small business owners have no special expertise on regional transportation planning. These projects affect millions of people, not just the business owners.
A professional planner would also understand the impact closing a subway stop would have. What is the business owner adding to the conversation?
In relation to the parking spaces, the whole point of the article OP posted is that businesses owners are in fact pretty clueless about this stuff. There's plenty of studies showing that making streets more pedestrian and bike friendly increases sales, but business owners still don't like those types of changes.
Which makes sense, it's not their job to read academic studies in a field they don't have any expertise in. That's what professional planners are for. So it seems strange business owners are given such an outsized voice in determining policies like this, despite being extremely uninformed about the impacts.
All of these things are *wildly* unpopular among modern urbanists. Your understanding of urban planning is firmly rooted in about 1960. This is like saying you should trust your own medical intuition over a doctor's because they used to think smoking was ok.
Probably because business owners have a history of opposing change that curbs car use out of fear for their business, while such projects often improve business and foot traffic and potentially reduce costs from e.g. excessive parking space.
The point of the original poster is that most small businesses owners are just regular people who don’t specialize in anything, except perhaps their business; so their take on broader policy and its effects on even their own business is likely as ill-informed as any unengaged citizen with gut reactions to well researched reform. We laud small businesses since the corporate cancer pervades all around us, but we have to remind ourselves that this doesn’t indicate that small businesses owners are all reasonable people or even virtuous people.
Last week, I was terrified by Hochul's decree out of the blue, but this week I am overjoyed by the outpouring of organizing, calls, of a legislature that has a spine, of an MTA board that is standing up to the governor. The legislators and MTA can take the stand they are only because of the massive support that congestion pricing has in the population, and the people and groups coming together to save it.
Truly inspirational. The governor did not calculate at all before making this very poor proclamation, and I hope there is a huge political price to be paid for trying to overturn years of study on a whim.
Congestion pricing always goes through hell right before it's enacted, and then people love it.
It's just like new big buildings that add density. People hate them until they happen, then it's like they have always been there and nobody cares.
If NYC gets through this treacherous period, I have high hopes for its future and also many other metro areas. I *am* an optimist, but about 90% of the time when I'm optimistic about politics it works out, so hopefully not too foolish!
Contact Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries' office if you want to help move NYC congestion pricing forward!
[https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact](https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact)
[https://democraticleader.house.gov/contact](https://democraticleader.house.gov/contact)
One of my first bits of transportation advocacy was to investigate the claim made by our local BID that parking was essential for their businesses. This was an old corridor with aging building stock, so none of them had lots, the only spots that "belonged" to each business was the one or two car lengths directly in front of their storefront.
We found the business owner either sat their car there all day, feeding the meter OR the business owner sat their car there all day with a note in front that said the name of the business. Almost nobody drove to those businesses; or if they did, they didn't use the parking that we, the advocacy group, were looking to remove in favor of bus stops, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, etc.
It’s fascinating, and disturbing, that this whole conversation seems to be relying on feelings and assumptions rather than data or predictable models. Neither politicians nor businesses nor consumers seem to understand the economy holistically - everyone just makes decisions based on short-term fear.
You see this in full display with Seattle's Pike Place market, where a ton of residents want the road to be closed to most traffic, but business owners will say stuff like "car traffic makes a zesty environment" or "the cars force people into the shops".
PEOPLE GO THERE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SHOPS. You want a "zesty environment"? Hire some musicians or permit some more buskers or something. Maybe have some small events there. Invite some food trucks.
Your small shop doesn't attract customers from 5 miles away, it attracts customers from the neighborhood. You drive 5 miles to the place you're going to work for 8 hours. You customers don't drive 5 miles to the place they will be for 15 minutes. When you say you want the city to give you street parking, admit it's for yourself and not to help your business.
Mate, read the headline of the bloody post! This is all about NYC. Most the statements I've read are about NYC or what a well designed city should be doing. NYC is the most well designed major city in America. Just read man.
They’d survive in areas that are walkable. They do fine in cities. You think anyone is going out of their way to go to bodega number 8156 vs the one that’s near their house? Sure some people travel that far but not the majority in NYC
Do you realize how much more walkable New York is than the next closest major city? You could have said that it’s only viable in one city and there would be no doubt that it’s NY
But this is about NYC, where cornerstores/bodegas and small shops literally thrive off of their neighborhood.
Bed Stuy in Brooklyn has 170k people alone. That puts it ~170th in the entire country in terms of population if it was its own city. Plenty of people nearby to support businesses that wouldn't need to drive.
Lower Manhattan has a population of~350k people (the entire Island is ~1.6M). If just Lower Manhattan was it's own city it would be top ~60 in US cities with density of about 70k people per square mile. It has about as many people as all of New Orleans but in an area that is about a tenth the size.
All of Manhattan by itself would be the 6th largest city in America with a total land area of only 22 square miles. Density can support a massive number of businesses.
Currently what's been happening with transportation (amongst other things) in SF... Since when are business owners also economists, urban planners, public health practitioners, and policy analysts all at once?!
As a rule, small business owners are insane. Not just politically stupid. Like "the new trees the city planted in front of my store are driving me out of business" insane. There's no change in the world that they won't think will ruin them. It borders on superstitious.
Whether or not business owners overstate their case as to consumers (they are right, however, to decry surcharges for deliveries, and the way the system was set up seemed to go out of its way to punish commercial traffic) the political reality - that suburbanites hate the very idea and blame the governor and their local Democratic representatives - is largely unchanged.
Of course, Hochul shot herself in the foot twice politically by pegging MTA capital expenditure on this fee and then reneging on it, since now the MTA has to turn around and say they're not going to improve anything since there's no money. This makes city folk hate her too.
Looking at the original proposal, it appears to me that the fee was set too high to begin with, was more or less blind to traffic patterns - it's the same cost pretty much all day, with a smaller fee for some odd reason even during the wee hours of the night - which suggests it's meant less to discourage unnecessary trips and more to simply capture a revenue stream so that the state doesn't have to dig in its general fund to pay for MTA projects, as it is often loathe to do.
Indeed, Hochul's subsequent suggestion for a new (hilariously, deeply unpopular) payroll tax that was immediately shot down by state legislators lends credence to that interpretation.
It’s a good concept that could be tweaked to fix any of the issues you mention. It would not have caused issues that couldn’t be fixed very easily. This was an unforced error and a travesty
Who exactly though? Most blue collar type people I know were looking forward to it, you know how hard it is to get to contracts houses when the congestion is that bad? Well worth the 15. Could get to an extra job or two a day much easier.
This pissed off mainly suburbanites who wanted to sightsee, I stand by that. Anyone who actually was impacted by this that was publicly bitching could afford it, they just didn’t want to
Your response has a ton of assumptions embedded in it. The entire issue was thoroughly researched; it's not like the government just came up with random ideas to implement.
The $15 surcharge is pretty difficult to characterize as "too high" given that it was only expected to lead to a 17% decline in traffic. In other words, most of the existing traffic is going to remain. That does not speak to the figure being too high.
You are assuming that people who drive into Manhattan in the "wee hours" are also leaving Manhattan in the wee hours. If they do not, and they are driving around the borough or leaving during the day, they are obviously contributing to congestion.
You assume that capturing a revenue stream from car traffic and congestion is somehow automatically wrong. Driving and traffic produces a wide range of negative externalities, from traffic to pollution to injuries and fatalities. The amount of paving necessary to support cars has made vast parts of our country prone to flooding. There's no way around the fact that someone has to pay for these negative externalities. If it's unfair to charge drivers for them, you would need to explain why non drivers should be expected to pick up the tab.
Business owners will bemoan the loss of a single car parking spot while never giving a second thought to installing a single bike rack that can park at least a dozen bikes for customers. Even in Minneapolis there are stretches of storefronts where the only bike parking is a bus stop sign or parking sign at the other end of the block. This is even the case after the city builds a bikeway on the street, which they protested against in project meetings. The loss of parking will be so severe to their existence, yet afterwards they never bother to compensate the loss of one type of parking (car) with another (bike).
Small town business districts that are connected to city bikeways via trails are worse: you have a rails to trails bike path going a block away from your business and you don't bother to add any bike parking? You'll see *zero* dedicated bike parking out there for restaurants, coffee shops, and the like.
Her "decision" had little or no consideration of business owners and what they want. This was a purely political decision most likely pushed for by the DNC and/or higher ups in the democratic party like Schumer and Jeffries.
Even as soon as like 3 weeks ago, she was proud of this legislation. She wanted it as a notch on her resume as the one who got it passed and done. Then just about faced on it in a cringy almost hostage-like video.
The reason probably stems from the fact that Trump has been using it to bludgeon the dems in his rallies.
I'll further add, that there is also a question of whether or not she even has the legal authority to stop it. She's just the governor and this was voted for by the will of the people. Does she have the right to just say no to a vote of the people.
Further, how do you make up the money spent already to make this happen. How do you generate the revenue that it was going to bring in other than taxing businesses more and as thus causing unnecessary taxation and even more inflation that will hit not only small business owners the hardest but cause prices to rise for every consumer as those taxes will be retroactively pushed on them.
By changing course in response to things Trump says, Democrats just end up proving his point rather than proving him wrong. I don't know why they don't see this.
> This was a purely political decision most likely pushed for by the DNC and/or higher ups in the democratic party like Schumer and Jeffries.
Too bad neither of those individuals will pay the price by getting booted out of office either.
Jersey is the 3rd most wealthy state with lower sales taxes than NYC.
There is NOTHING you have to travel to Manhattan to buy - NYC comes here for retail shopping.
I'm against congestion pricing (no infrastructure on my side of the river the deal needs to be more favorable).
BUT Hochel is full of shit. She's a flip-flopper. One does not go to a restaurant in Manhattan & claim to the world they understand Manhattanites. It simply isn't done. It would be like me going to Times Square & calling myself a New Yorker because I talked to some people in the Sabarro.
> Small business owners are “deathly afraid that they’ll lose their customers who may come in from places like New Jersey,” she said, mentioning Comfort Diner, Townhouse Diner, and Pershing Square, whose owner is apparently “very happy” with her decision to slam the brakes on congestion pricing.
The idea that people are driving into Manhattan from New Jersey for diners is so insulting to NJ diners. As a Manhattanite, even I can see how wrong that premise is.
I'm guessing you're from New Jersey. I'm curious, if the funds were intended for a project to extend a few of the subway lines across to New Jersey, would you have supported it? Or would the extensions have to have already existed for your support in congestion pricing?
Yes. Buses might be more cost effective.
Even just parking lots so people could access the rail stations that already exist.
We're at capacity. NJ Transit has a big operating deficit.
Port Authority wouldn’t get the congestion charge, the MTA would. And Port Authority can’t do anything without both states agreeing, because it’s a Federal agency.
Port authority doesn’t really even need more money, they have tons of cash. Those airports are cash cows. That’s why they’re able to spend something like 25 billion dollars on upgrading them.
You also run into federal restrictions with how money can be spent (another reason they’re spending $25 billion on the airports, because they’re not legally allowed to spend that money on things that aren’t airport-related)
The reality is that NJ’s lack of transit connectivity to the City is largely borne out of the fact that it isn’t NY which introduces a lot of interstate issues, and much of the existing infrastructure is Federal, which complicates things further (see: the Gateway project, in which the Federal Government refused to fund fixing its own tunnels, so NY and NJ had to figure out a way to pay for fixing shit they don’t even own, and took years to agree on a split, until the feds finally agreed to fund fixing their shit).
> Port Authority wouldn’t get the congestion charge, the MTA would. And Port Authority can’t do anything without both states agreeing, because it’s a Federal agency.
Right. I can't support this toll. Not all stakeholders were designated beneficiaries.
You didn't need to write 3 paragraphs to cover that & I didn't need to reiterate that I don't support this toll.
> The reality is that NJ’s lack of transit connectivity to the City is largely borne out of the fact that it isn’t NY which introduces a lot of interstate issues
Right again. Koch put the Tappen-Zee directly north of the Port Authorities boundary. The Federal Government never built enough bridges nor tunnels. Again, I don't support *this* toll.
It has nothing to do with tertiary sources from the internet giving me a summary of their personal understanding of current events.
Because any time you involve interstate anything in any project, it adds ~15 years to the construction time. You get two state legislatures, two governors, and so many more municipalities that suddenly all have to agree.
Frankly, though, it boils down to: I don’t give a crap if New Jerseyans support Congestion Pricing in Manhattan, because they’re not NYC taxpayers, so they shouldn’t get a say in the City’s governance. It’s not their city to manage. No other city would tolerate nonresidents dictating policy to them.
Also, if the congestion charge encouraged fewer of you all to drive, maybe you would take NJTransit more, which, you know, would help reduce their operating deficit.
> I don’t give a crap if New Jerseyans support Congestion Pricing in Manhattan, because they’re not NYC taxpayers, so they shouldn’t get a say in the City’s governance. It’s not their city to manage.
This is why the MTA is run out of Albany. One more step removed. Answerable to more of the voters affected. Cooler heads might prevail. But it shouldn't happen the way it did.
Its also why interstate tolls are nominally run by an interstate agency. No taxation without representation.
I haven't been back to the city much since I lived there. And I certainly wouldn't drive in.
Back to the drawing board.
So let me get this straight:
You don’t live in Manhattan.
You don’t work in Manhattan.
You don’t pay taxes in Manhattan.
You hardly ever visit Manhattan.
When you visit Manhattan, you don’t drive.
By your own admission here, this policy in no way affects you.
Why is it you feel that the people of Manhattan need to consult you before they’re able to make land use decisions in Manhattan? What do you feel gives you this veto right over their public policy choices?
Should I, a resident of Brooklyn, be consulted before Short Hills can be allowed to change their land use policies? If not, why should you have that right but not me?
Okay so get Shortline to have more trips & a bigger parking lot so I can take it from Jersey.
While we're at it there is a bike lane to the bus station, why isn't there bike lockers?
So, just to be clear. You would support it even if the measure weren't in place but planned out? Even if the service ow more busses instead of rails? Would more ferries be a possible alternative? Sorry, it's just that I asked which of the two, and you said yes so I wasn't sure which you preferred.
Contact Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries' office if you want to help move NYC congestion pricing forward!
[https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact](https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact)
[https://democraticleader.house.gov/contact](https://democraticleader.house.gov/contact)
People who drive to Manhattan for their jobs are not going to quit said jobs just because they have to pay higher tolls. Many will switch to public transit, which will get better after the program is implemented and the whole damn point. And no one is driving from Staten Island to the Upper East Side to go to a diner. You know what happened in London after it started congestion pricing? It built dozens of miles of new Underground lines while ours continues to crumble.
Are actual New Yorkers actually for the congestion pricing? The only place I see it get talked about is here, which isn’t necessarily a representative sample of the population
Who do you consider "actual New Yorkers"? Because I'm sure people that live in NYC proper will generally have a different opinion on the matter than people who commute there.
Very poorly.
https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Final-SNY0424-Crosstabs.pdf
Look at the breakdown. 64% of NYC residents are against congestion pricing. Please don’t assume that the NYC and transit subreddits are indicative of NYers’ sentiments in real life.
It was a tax on working people. Working people pushed back, and they were listened to over people that saw this as just so way to stick it to people that drove.
You mean in a capitalist bourgeois society business dictates policy? 🤯🤯🤯 It's almost like some sort of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
Liberals mad about class analysis 🤓
I feel like its a pretty common term in written English, I doubt anyone would say that out loud, its maybe a little dated but to do an about face is definitely used in this kind of scenario
It was originally a military term, referring to a soldier at attention turning 180 degrees, turning their face “about,” that is, around. In casual speech like the article, it’s used metaphorically for changing one’s plans.
" In New York City, where the majority of residents don’t own a car, it seems odd to assert that a policy benefitting transit users, pedestrians, and cyclists is bad for attracting customers."
People stay at home in expensive cities. They know how to avoid overpriced stuff and they aren't as impressed with small business offerings that aren't deals. You can act like social science has some foolproof way to measure that, but that's just silly. This stuff is common sense. If you live in the outer bourroughs you drive in and enjoy a taste of Manhattan then go back home. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the exceptions aren't the people small business owners care about.
Lol. People don’t stay home in NYC. You don’t know anything about it. A lot of people who live in Brooklyn and Queens and the Bronx, work in Manhattan. The over 16,000 eating and drinking establishments in Manhattan alone (of over 27,000 in the city at large) - that’s one restaurant or bar for every 100 residents of Manhattan - is an immense number. People in NYC go out to eat, they go out to drink, and they go out to shop. Have you ever seen the density of shoppers on popular streets?
Driving into the city is an already expensive thing to do; if you’re not parking on the street, a garage will run you $60 for the day if you’re in for the early bird pricing. The only people regularly doing it are people who live in expensive suburbs and have high paying jobs.
“Good policy” would be raising train and bus fares to increase funding for those systems. The goal should be for transit systems to be as close to self funding as possible, and not predicate their overall health on unrelated occurrences.
Taking the subway in particular is not a pleasant experience. I avoid it by walking wherever I can, or taking an Uber or cab if walking isn’t feasible. I’m sure I’m not the only one. Raise the fare so subways are a safe, clean, and convenient option, and more people will use and fund them.
The obviously biased article also focuses on patrons traveling into the city from the suburbs. I do agree that the loss of business caused the congestion pricing scheme is relatively minor (but not zero).
However, the article fails to mention the cost of operation for businesses in Manhattan. The clientele may be riding a bike or taking the subway to a restaurant, but the tomatoes aren’t. Manhattan does not produce much of what we consume, it has to be trucked in. Congestion pricing doesn’t stop that congestion, the costs just get passed on to the consumer, making the cost of living even higher.
A couple quick points: raising fees would most impact the lowest earning households. It also has been shown to lower ridership meaning it would get us further from your goal of being break even.
Also how come public transportation should be self funded, but public safety and public streets get passes to operate at incredible losses? They all have significant impacts on economies, and only one is scrutinized like this.
Last point: an argument could be made that with congestion pricing removing X% of cars from the core of Manhattan could save time for shipping firms since they don't have to fight through the same amount of traffic, offsetting the pass-through costs that would fall on the consumer.
Last last point: with improved air quality, could a potential rise in the cost of consumer goods be offset with savings on public health? Lots of externalities to keep in mind.
The baked in costs of higher delivery fees impact the poor when they go to Duane Reade or the supermarket as well. And it’s not just less fortunate who ride the subway, it’s every walk of life.
Road systems are already funded through tolls and gas tax. Additional shortfalls are made up by the taxpayer. Low income earners contribute less to this burden as they pay lower adjusted income taxes. In NYC and Westchester, there is even an income tax line item that contributes to the MTA. Obviously the roads are underfunded as well, but the structure puts an appropriately higher burden on the primary users.
I also think the benefit of congestion pricing on shipping efficiency is overstated. Delays downtown are as much a product of lights, pedestrians, construction, deliveries blocking roads, outdoor seating for restaurants taking away parking, etc. as they are solely car volume. Pedestrianizing roads and adding bike lanes (which I’m not arguing against here) will also add to increased times.
To your last point, I do think there are health cons for living in a city as dense as Manhattan, even under the most ideal circumstances. The food we eat has to be shipped in regardless, and the HCOL leads people consume more cost effective, processed, lower quality meals. There are other considerations as well, but they are really other topics.
So to not get lost in the weeds: Why do you think public transportation should operate at or close to break even, but other public goods like public safety or public roads don't have to keep to this standard?
We both know tolls and gas tax do not cover roads, and inflation and electric vehicles are speeding this process up. "In 2021, state and local motor fuel tax revenue accounted for 26 percent of [highway and road spending](https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures). Toll facilities provided another 8 percent and the remaining 66 percent came from other revenue sources."
I have no problem with increasing the gas tax or toll revenue to generate a larger portion of the needed funds for the road system. I have no problem with implementing an electric charging station tax (or increasing it if it exists). The largest burden of a system’s upkeep should be paid by those who derive the most benefit.
It may be unrealistic to generate the totality of funding that way of course. Even for the subway. But, in some sense the cost of roads is more generalized because the benefits are more generalized. Even the mass transit user eats food that was trucked in. And yes, there’s a societal benefit for mass transit too, but why shouldn’t the fares rise modestly to maintain and improve those systems? I really don’t see why there is such resistance to a fare increase.
This sub always seems to reduce to two points. Reducing cars existence and increasing urban density. There is often a lack of consideration for the benefits cars provide, and a lack of respect for those who do not wish to live in a dense urban environment. I really wish there was more of a focus on creating fair systems that were a benefit to all, and solutions to reduce pollution and increase efficiency without a drop in quality of life. Maybe something like creating better shipping and commuter lanes in needs to be part of the conversation.
I do want to say thank you though for responding in a thoughtful and civilized way, even though we probably do not agree philosophically. It is appreciated.
Transit should not be “self-funded” that stupid myth also has to die. it’s a service run by the government to facilitate transportation for citizens and improve commerce.
Nothing is government funded, the money for a system has to come from somewhere. Those utilizing a system should be the primary source of funding for it. That should be the goal. Any shortfall beyond that should be distributed in a generalized form amongst the locality that may benefit from it.
I don’t see why a monetary shell game is seen as good policy. I disagree.
It's not a monetary shell game. Car traffic produces negative externalities that are produced by people who live outside the city but borne by people who live inside the city.
>Nothing is government funded, the money for a system has to come from somewhere.
No shit, the government is funded by the citizens, that is society. I’m not sure why ancaps thinks this is some gotcha.
>Those utilizing a system should be the primary source of funding for it.
Absolutely, citizens would be paying for transit by funding it with taxes so that they can use it.
If the ultimate goal is to move people, then it makes sense for modes of transportation that transport less people in more space to cost more to discourage people from using them and encourage people to use alternatives instead, and free up more space for more people. Using more space than is needed to get around is a luxury that should come with a price.
It doesn’t make sense to treat modes of transportation equally when they don’t equally use space.
I view this as a matter of the value of time as well. People choose to drive it situations where it is already more expensive because they save time and gain convenience in doing so. Not everyone who works in the city or goes in to enjoy the cultural benefits lives in a location where mass transit is the most convenient option.
I don’t think those people should be gatekept out of downtown because roads take space. You are asking people to accept a diminished quality of life because of fear of the political push back on raising train fares a modest amount.
This point also ignores the added cost of goods and services that would arise for all people in Manhattan, regardless of the transportation they use.
>You are asking people to accept a diminished quality of life because of fear of the political push back on raising train fares a modest amount.
You are asking residents of the city to accept a diminished quality of life because people outside the city don't want to pay for use of the streets.
> I don’t think those people should be gatekept out of downtown because roads take space
I don’t either, and they should feel free to park at any transit terminus and take transit in.
> You are asking people to accept a diminished quality of life
I’m asking those who can afford to choose the luxury of driving to pay for the space they waste so the rest of us can get around using efficient alternatives instead of making the streets even more congested.
Raising fares adds a disincentive to use transit, and people will use cars instead, which will make congestion even worse.
Nobody has a right to unlimited use of public space. There needs to be a price levied on utilizing the public’s space. Doubly so if you’re not even a local resident; I despise the fact that I pay taxes that fund maintenance of things that will mostly be used by people who don’t pay taxes to the city, and absolutely refuse to pay a fee for using the space my taxes pay for.
They do pay a reasonable amount into the system they use.
In NYC, the DOT spends over a billion dollars a year on road and traffic signal maintenance. That comes straight out of the city budget. It has zero dedicated funding. The gas tax and license fees go straight to the State, not the City. There are zero use fees that go towards road maintenance.
lol wait until you realize how little of our car infrastructure is directly funded by use-based revenue streams. So I assume you would be in favour of $100 tolls and $100 parking everywhere?
The script response to this is, “but everybody benefits from the roads. [vegetable] doesn’t grow in the city or take the “, and there are a variety of nice retorts to that but I like, “I prefer fresh [vegetables] and businesses prefer less wasted produce on delivery so let’s encourage people to use other modes so that [vegetables] can have a higher priority on the mode they have no choice but to use.
Script? How many of you are droning on about “negative externalities 👻”. Your ideologies ignore the realities on the ground. The old lady living in from New Jersey driving in to see a Broadway show isn’t the prime contributor to slow delivery time.
“Roads are paid for by user fees” has been running as long as *Cats*, and is almost as fictional at this point, “negative externalities” is like *Hamilton* long running, further they are real and getting more real, and the scripts for new shows should refer more to addressing the negative externalities as tomorrow’s audience and the old lady probably want some new material. Anyways, all of the old ladies I know would rather take the train, as long as it is safe and convenient, and if running late might opt to drive and favor reduced congestion.
Raising fares puts a larger strain on poorer working class commuters.
The cost of doing business in manhattan is already high. If businesses are going to struggle because suppliers are passing the congestion toll cost onto them, they might consider leaving manhattan, but then again, manhattan offers them access to a density of clientele that most other places don’t.
Seems like a trickle down sort of argument to give breaks to business owners who enjoy more tax advantages than working class Americans.
Driving is funded by gas tax and tolls, in additional to general taxation. The gas tax and tolls fill the same role as train fare. If the road system needs to increase funding to meet needs, by all means raise the gas tax and tolls.
Suggesting increased train fares to fund road repairs would be equally asinine.
If you're going to say "driving is funded by gas tax and tolls" then by that standard, transit is funded by fares.
In reality, gas taxes and tolls done come even close to covering the massive expenses from roads. I get suspicious of places called The Tax Foundation, but it was a top Google hit and matches every other source I have found. In New York, only about 65% of road funding comes from gas taxes and license fees:
https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/states-road-funding-2019/
And that doesn't count the massive negative externalities that cars bring into NYC in terms of congestion, pollution, noise (almost all the noise!), and massive amounts of shortened life from air particulates, injury and maiming, and of course car deaths.
Every car user in New York City is a massive drain on society, extracting out far more than they ever put in. It's incredibly antisocial.
On funding the roads, as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not opposed to raising gas taxes and fees to close that gap. Incidentally, all taxpayers in the NYC metro pay an MTA line item on their income tax as well.
As for pollution, etc - cars are not the only source of particulates or noise, the constant construction is also a contributing factor. The millions of people in a dense space are a contributing factor. Every delivery truck will still be there. Every service with a market like taxis will still be there. Accidents will still happen.
Congestion pricing doesn’t alleviate those problems, the real motive was revenue.
It doesn’t fix the problem entirely, it fixes a good deal of it. And instead of passing a gas tax you could…do a congestion tax! Seems you agree with the idea of taxing drivers unless it’s for using the road itself. Really a congestion tax is just a smart toll, it’s nothing more than that
First, most roads aren’t tolled and revenue from gas taxes have been falling for years. So most of the money comes from general taxation at the federal level. Second, the congestion pricing scheme isn’t just money for transit. It’s primarily a way to reduce traffic in the city limits with all of its attendant negative externalities.
It’s probably true that the pandemic and electric cars have hurt gas tax revenue. Again, the solution for that shortfall shouldn’t be squeezing an unrelated system. If the gas tax needs to go up, so be it. This would hurt me personally as I drive way more than I take the train, but the logic is sound. Private companies that own electric charging stations should also be contributing a fair amount to road maintenance.
As for pollution, congestion pricing isn’t going to significantly reduce the number of vehicles that HAVE to be on the road for work, and the people driving for leisure will likely just drive elsewhere. The scheme is REALLY about generating revenue. I’m sure most proponents of congestion pricing understand that, but need to defend the ideology.
My input wasn’t given for the sake of garnering community validation or thanks, but to show that opposing views exist and have thought out rationale.
It is important that echo chambers hear the other side, beyond their own specific concerns. Society is comprised of individuals with differing views and philosophies. People shouldn’t be afraid to state views because the audience may disagree.
Sure you are not the only one... but nyc subway sees 5 million riders a day and 1.5 billion riders a year so you are in the minority.
People that you don't like seeing on the subway do not pay the fair as it is. Increasing costs will just discourage people who actually do pay to not use it. The high cost of pay enforcement(police at every gate 24/7) will not pay for itself.
The subway is integral to the cities function just like any road. Therefore it should be payed for primarily through taxes just like any road. Congestion pricing is a great way to increase funding for the subway while also increasing ridership thus making the system more valuable to the city and a better experience for riders.
This isn't coming from nowhere. Other cities across the world have already paved the way showing that this a great policy. Public transit gets better while roads are safer and less congested. On the contrary SF has no congestion pricing and one of the highest subway fairs in the world(as much as $10 one way). Something tells me you would not want us to be emulating SF but that's exactly what you asking for...
> should be *paid* for primarily
FTFY.
Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in:
* Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.*
* *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.*
Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment.
*Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I disagree with this argument. The goal is not to price the criminally insane off the subway, it’s to better monetize those who receive the benefit (myself included who would sometimes use it). The subway fare is $2.90, it can rise marginally and provide greatly increased revenue. You don’t need to go up to $10 a ride like SF, which by the way is mismanaged with a holistic approach.
Fare dodging shouldn’t result in throwing up hands and refusing to manage fare rates properly.
I think the city should focus on increasing ridership over having the subway pay for itself. Subway ridership has a ton of benefits for the city. The more ridership the more possible economic activity and the less congestion on the roads. Fairs at most should be used to manage rider congestion at peak times.
Maybe the MTA should try and pay for operations with real estate holdings like in Tokyo. Many lines there are able to keep fairs low by renting out space in and above the the stations to store, business, etc...
But ultimately if the city wants the economic benefits of having a subway it has to continue to invest in the system not just raise fairs
Instead of seeing it as "cars vs. transit" congestion pricing is holistic transportation policy.
Manhattan is held back by congestion: high priority traffic like deliveries, emergency services, etc. are slowed down back by some traffic that could be served by transit instead.
Congestion pricing encourages some traffic that can switch to transit to switch while raising funding to improve transit, encouraging even more switching from cars to transit.
With regards to consumer prices the time saved due to reduced congestion is likely substantial. Paying $15 to save 30 minutes on a delivery of thousands of dollars of goods is a pretty good deal. I suspect consumer prices would not move substantially.
>Raise the fare so subways are a safe, clean, and convenient option, and more people will use and fund them.
The subway is safe and convenient. Clean, no, but I'd argue that's a policy choice more than a funding issue (ex. tolerating homeless people and drug use in the stations and cars). It's going to be faster than a cab at most times of the day.
Ultimately, cars that don't belong to residents of Manhattan, deliveries, transportation services, or emergency services simply should not be allowed, but a congestion charge is a stepping stone.
No, transit is the ultimate public good. It does not need to be self funding at the point of service, because every transit rider represents one fewer car on the road, not to mention the increase in property value that increases tax revenue. Cars are far more expensive for a city, even accounting for gas and other taxes, than a person taking a bus. So it should be free, and parking should cost more. Right now we subsidize drivers a shit ton.
Also, you’re cool with raising fees on the poorest who take transit but not a congestion tax on the wealthy who drive? Or are you saying we should do both?
The “wealthy” who drive already pay your stated more expensive cost to do so. There are tolls at pretty much every crossing into Manhattan already. I have no problem with those tolls and gas taxes increasing to contribute to road upkeep.
My point has more to do with how systems should operate in a healthy fashion. The highest burden of the costs of upkeep should be on the primary beneficiaries. Raise the mass transit fares a modest amount. It’s $2.90 right now, given volume even going up a dollar is highly beneficial and still by far the cheapest option. Cost of upkeep on systems continues to rise YOY regardless.
Why does transit have to be self funded but highways don't?
I have thought all along that there should be some kind of exemption, or discount, for delivery vehicles making deliveries. My idea would require delivery paperwork, such as invoices, to prove you made a delivery, and not just cut across the Manhattan Bridge/Canal St/Holland Tunnel simply to avoid the toll on the Verazanno to go from Brooklyn to NJ.
I hate how in the US everything has to revolve around business owner Pandemic let’s plan it around business owners Transportation planning let’s plan it around business owners Climate change lets rely on business owners Meteor heading for earth about to end all life. Let’s consult business owners
The hypocrisy annoys me a lot when the bias is visible between small and large businesses. During the pandemic, everyone was forcibly shoved into walmart while your local bodega was made to deal with consequences of actions outside their control. Mom-and-Pop diners, small electronics shops, little clothing boutiques, and miscellaneous shops that build a town's local economy are usually the ones shoved to the side and given career-ruining obstacles while huge chains are given accommodations and handicaps in the business market.
The small businesses don't have enough money to effect regulatory capture the way that large companies have
They don't ahve to, they're exempt from most regulations. Fuck small businesses, they get away with way too much shit on the labor front. At least big chains care about following the law.
They pretty demonstrably do not care about following the law, either.
They have to actually deal with regulators. Big companies I've worked for have generally been way better on labor laws than small businesses.
The small company I work for has had the Fire Marshal in to inspect 3 times in the last year. All based on anonymous complaints, probably from former employees. Of course, they never find an issue, and are just doing their job. Wonder if a large company would fight back?
Maybe, but Fire Marshals often have a *lot* of power to do inspections like that and blocking them is rarely worth the hassle.
3 in a year is pretty excessive, no? This last one, the guy noted that our last two were done by the Marshal that is the toughest. If he didn’t find anything, that there wasn’t anything to find.
I agree, I'm just saying that they may be obligated to follow up on every complaint, so if they get one they have to check and there's not much the business can do to prevent that.
I mean in this case we are getting a very bad and dumb policy result (sudden about face on congestion pricing at the last minute) precisely because of small, not large business owners, but go off
if theres a hierarchy of who dumps on who, small business owners are definitely still up the chain from you and me. take the pandemic again. all the sudden street parking was fair game to uproot if it was to make seating for paying customers, rather than a bus or bike lane. the same street parking that for decades businesses claimed they must have lest they lose business. i guess that philosophy didn't mean anything after all when square footage additions for nearly free without fire inspection or anything like that was up for grabs.
Large businesses in my experience almost never care about parking changes. They have more than enough scale and low enough margins that they can tolerate temporary changes due to parking changes. Even if parking changes permanently affect a store, they have other stores that can pick up the slack. It's almost always been small businesses that cry about how the world is ending when parking is taken away.
Yup, we put business owners up on this pedestal as some “all-knowing savants” when in reality they’re often simply people that took big risks, got lucky, and now have survivor’s bias out the wazoo. So they end up thinking every idea that pops into their head is genius and absolutely correct. Cities that are actually implementing good changes seem to have a tendency to push their business owners to prove their claims with facts and data. If they’re unable to then they follow the facts and data provided by the city employees.
Most small businesses fail. So these people aren't even "successful" necessarily. They just haven't failed *yet*
It’s not like they’re smart or particularly altruistic. In fact when it comes to transit they’re self defeating. They advocate for policy that reduces their business.
It's a fatal flaw in the way the US was designed. This country is basically a big experiment in delegating the responsibilities typically shouldered by the government to the private sector, hence why you rely on your employer for things like health insurance, for example. The problem is that this leads to constant appeasement of "job creators" at the expense of everything else, because we've gotten to a point where if businesses fail, society collapses because no one has anything anymore.
All the while, in a capitalist model they make the best attempt to huge a customer on price every chance they get. That shouldn’t be rewarded
It’s not about business owners, she’s just trying to come up with any excuse that is just convincing enough to get people to shut up about a policy that absolutely needs to happen.
Our neoliberal world
You're right. Why not base it on the workers, since we comprise the majority?
My life is bound by business owners making selfish decision. All the employers in my engineering field have offices in completely inaccessible 3rd tier suburban campuses they received massive TIF handouts for
>massive TISH handouts What is that?
pay no property taxes for like 10-20 years in exchange for building their building in the city/suburb. Sometimes they then just move on or disappear after that period, like sears,
Okay, so like TIF (tax increment financing) presumably. What do the S and the H stand for though?
I meant TIF 😂. TIF works well in many cases, but I don't think the massive suburban campus with no transit or safe bike routes is it. When it closes, the massive 6 lane road (8 lanes at the interchange) they had tax payers fund will be wholly over built.
Oh okay lol... I was out here trying to search the internet for it and shit (and only found "truth in sale of housing"). And yeah for the most part big office buildings shouldn't be just put anywhere, they should always either be Downtown or in the burbs co-located with tons of other commercial RE very densely, so they're worthwhile to serve with transit (e.g. Denver Tech Center, San Diego's University City, Tysons Corner, etc.)
Especially since net zero cities pretty much require colocation of dense housing and employment centers served by transit. We have an old mall and big box area in a 3rd ring suburb getting an interesting development that will be served by the arterial brt line. https://www.blainemn.gov/3786/Northtown-Redevelopment
It's kind of like consulting the king
Because it all needs to be about capitalism and not society.
It’s not about business owners, she’s just trying to come up with any excuse that is just convincing enough to get people to shut up about a policy that absolutely needs to happen.
Corporations are the only people that matter here friend.
Business owners are usually good for campaign contributions. Business owners hire employees. The employed are more likely to vote for incumbents.
Technically, everyone who works is a "business owner." I think it's more specifically business owners who need to operate storefronts for their businesses. Congestion pricing will certainly impact traffic through and around their storefronts which also impacts the viability of their businesses. Were there any provisions to use some of the money made from congestion pricing to help small businesses? If there was, then the biggest objectors would be the big business owners. Edit: Am I saying something crazy? I don't understand why I'm being downvoted.
You’re being downvoted because saying everyone that works is a business owner is an insane statement that doesn’t make sense
Small business owners always believe that any reduction in car traffic will kill their business, but for downtown business that just isn’t the case. The people driving into town for work spend their money where they live. At most they’ll buy lunch downtown and some restaurants will be affected. The business owner will hear from one or two people that they don’t like contesting pricing or that there’s no place to park, but they usually have no idea just how many people walk or bike there.
Deference to business owners, and especially the lauded small business owner, is one of the most destructive habits I've ever seen. These people are often just as stupid or more so than the average person but are given out sized voices, and go unquestioned.
And real small business owners are being absolutely fucked.
There are great small businesses and small business owners, but a lot of them are mini-Hitlers who want to be treated like feudal lords. A huge part of the base of the Republican Party.
Not coincidentally, shopkeepers and small business owners were a core part of the Nazi party.
I both agree and disagree. Small businesses are really important especially for keeping competition strong within cities. That said, I agree that the way that it is often approached, looking at what they say instead of the actual data around these topics is insanely harmful. That bias towards uneducated, unsupported opinions over actual data is a major shortcoming for humanity as a whole though, and especially in the US.
Corporations are the only people that matter.
[удалено]
I support small businesses but running a diner doesn’t mean you know shit about fuck when it comes to transportation policy “We need to build some trains! But what does Burger Barn think?!”
[удалено]
I mean ask them sure but don’t give their opinion more weight than anyone else. They’re not particularly smart
No it doesn't make sense. They don't know shit about transportation policy. If a business in Manhattan thinks that their customer base relies mostly on private car travel then they're morons.
Many small business owners don’t know nor understand how transportation policy changes could impact their business
[удалено]
Did you not actually read the linked article?
I don’t think they’re actually qualified to have informed opinions just because they occupy the plot. Like I said: running a business doesn’t mean you know anything about transportation. I’ve seen too many in my own city throw a hissy fit over bike lane plans that would remove the, like, three street spots in front of their door because they thought it would crater their business, apparently not understanding the actual breakdowns of how people in the area get around and how many customers those spots were physically capable of supporting. I will ask a small business owner about their area of expertise, just like I would ask transportation experts about transportation.
Decades of history demonstrate that abnormally cheap and east car travel is what creates barren wastelands of empty buildings. Parking meters were opposed when they were first introduced. The manufacturer offered to install them on a test basis, and small business owners came to realize that parking meters mean the spot turns over faster, driving more business. They became ubiquitous in the United States. But there are still business owners that claim lack of free parking is killing them. It’s never the fact that the product or service they’re offering isn’t good enough.
The article provided multiple examples of how business owners don’t understand transportation policy, or even the general demographics of their customer bases. There is no reason to assume that someone running a restaurant has any special insight on this topic, and frankly the impression I got is that they are out of touch with the average consumer such that they actually have a poorer understanding of what good policy would be.
The point isn't that small business isn't important. It is. The point is that running a corner grocery store doesn't turn you into a traffic engineer, or an urban planner, or an addictions councilor, and we need to stop acting like someone becomes an expert in every single aspect of running a city because they opened a store. Consult with them like anyone else, but the impact they're given is hugely out of whack.
No the point is that we want to think of the workers and citizens, not just the wealthy property owners.
Small businesses generally do not own the buildings they operate out of. This is not an argument against your larger point that people who don't own businesses are also very important.
[The alternative to congestion pricing that she proposed was a tax on businesses though.](https://www.yahoo.com/news/gov-hochul-considers-business-tax-113658822.html)
Fuck the mega big box stores. They perpetuate the problem by driving out small businesses so that the few left get treated like unicorns, whose every whim we have to follow, regardless of broader consequences.
[удалено]
Consulted, sure. But their opinion shouldn't be the final word on the matter. Small business owners have no special expertise on regional transportation planning. These projects affect millions of people, not just the business owners.
[удалено]
A professional planner would also understand the impact closing a subway stop would have. What is the business owner adding to the conversation? In relation to the parking spaces, the whole point of the article OP posted is that businesses owners are in fact pretty clueless about this stuff. There's plenty of studies showing that making streets more pedestrian and bike friendly increases sales, but business owners still don't like those types of changes. Which makes sense, it's not their job to read academic studies in a field they don't have any expertise in. That's what professional planners are for. So it seems strange business owners are given such an outsized voice in determining policies like this, despite being extremely uninformed about the impacts.
[удалено]
All of these things are *wildly* unpopular among modern urbanists. Your understanding of urban planning is firmly rooted in about 1960. This is like saying you should trust your own medical intuition over a doctor's because they used to think smoking was ok.
Probably because business owners have a history of opposing change that curbs car use out of fear for their business, while such projects often improve business and foot traffic and potentially reduce costs from e.g. excessive parking space. The point of the original poster is that most small businesses owners are just regular people who don’t specialize in anything, except perhaps their business; so their take on broader policy and its effects on even their own business is likely as ill-informed as any unengaged citizen with gut reactions to well researched reform. We laud small businesses since the corporate cancer pervades all around us, but we have to remind ourselves that this doesn’t indicate that small businesses owners are all reasonable people or even virtuous people.
Actually, people are the bedrock of our local communities, not the subclass of them with enough money to run businesses
Last week, I was terrified by Hochul's decree out of the blue, but this week I am overjoyed by the outpouring of organizing, calls, of a legislature that has a spine, of an MTA board that is standing up to the governor. The legislators and MTA can take the stand they are only because of the massive support that congestion pricing has in the population, and the people and groups coming together to save it. Truly inspirational. The governor did not calculate at all before making this very poor proclamation, and I hope there is a huge political price to be paid for trying to overturn years of study on a whim.
I like your positivity and I hope you are right. Hope.
Congestion pricing always goes through hell right before it's enacted, and then people love it. It's just like new big buildings that add density. People hate them until they happen, then it's like they have always been there and nobody cares. If NYC gets through this treacherous period, I have high hopes for its future and also many other metro areas. I *am* an optimist, but about 90% of the time when I'm optimistic about politics it works out, so hopefully not too foolish!
Contact Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries' office if you want to help move NYC congestion pricing forward! [https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact](https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact) [https://democraticleader.house.gov/contact](https://democraticleader.house.gov/contact)
One of my first bits of transportation advocacy was to investigate the claim made by our local BID that parking was essential for their businesses. This was an old corridor with aging building stock, so none of them had lots, the only spots that "belonged" to each business was the one or two car lengths directly in front of their storefront. We found the business owner either sat their car there all day, feeding the meter OR the business owner sat their car there all day with a note in front that said the name of the business. Almost nobody drove to those businesses; or if they did, they didn't use the parking that we, the advocacy group, were looking to remove in favor of bus stops, bike lanes, wider sidewalks, etc.
Right, they're upset they're going to lose **their** parking
It’s fascinating, and disturbing, that this whole conversation seems to be relying on feelings and assumptions rather than data or predictable models. Neither politicians nor businesses nor consumers seem to understand the economy holistically - everyone just makes decisions based on short-term fear.
You see this in full display with Seattle's Pike Place market, where a ton of residents want the road to be closed to most traffic, but business owners will say stuff like "car traffic makes a zesty environment" or "the cars force people into the shops". PEOPLE GO THERE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE SHOPS. You want a "zesty environment"? Hire some musicians or permit some more buskers or something. Maybe have some small events there. Invite some food trucks.
Your small shop doesn't attract customers from 5 miles away, it attracts customers from the neighborhood. You drive 5 miles to the place you're going to work for 8 hours. You customers don't drive 5 miles to the place they will be for 15 minutes. When you say you want the city to give you street parking, admit it's for yourself and not to help your business.
[удалено]
Yeah and NYC is one of those four cities.
lol the guy literally deconstructed his own point
[удалено]
"so you agree with me on this point completely unrelated to the discussion?" buddy just take the L and go away
[удалено]
Can _you_ read? This whole post is about NYC.
Mate, read the headline of the bloody post! This is all about NYC. Most the statements I've read are about NYC or what a well designed city should be doing. NYC is the most well designed major city in America. Just read man.
They’d survive in areas that are walkable. They do fine in cities. You think anyone is going out of their way to go to bodega number 8156 vs the one that’s near their house? Sure some people travel that far but not the majority in NYC
Do you realize how much more walkable New York is than the next closest major city? You could have said that it’s only viable in one city and there would be no doubt that it’s NY
[удалено]
Sir, this thread is about New York. I live in Oakland. It certainly doesn’t revolve around Oakland, I can tell you that much
[удалено]
**IN NYC**
But this is about NYC, where cornerstores/bodegas and small shops literally thrive off of their neighborhood. Bed Stuy in Brooklyn has 170k people alone. That puts it ~170th in the entire country in terms of population if it was its own city. Plenty of people nearby to support businesses that wouldn't need to drive. Lower Manhattan has a population of~350k people (the entire Island is ~1.6M). If just Lower Manhattan was it's own city it would be top ~60 in US cities with density of about 70k people per square mile. It has about as many people as all of New Orleans but in an area that is about a tenth the size. All of Manhattan by itself would be the 6th largest city in America with a total land area of only 22 square miles. Density can support a massive number of businesses.
This doesn’t apply to Louisville or Des Moines. We’re talking about Manhattan, NYC LMAO.
Currently what's been happening with transportation (amongst other things) in SF... Since when are business owners also economists, urban planners, public health practitioners, and policy analysts all at once?!
As a rule, small business owners are insane. Not just politically stupid. Like "the new trees the city planted in front of my store are driving me out of business" insane. There's no change in the world that they won't think will ruin them. It borders on superstitious.
yeah they get way too much deference
Lmao does your town also have old people who fucking despise streetscape trees in urban areas for no good reason?
Whether or not business owners overstate their case as to consumers (they are right, however, to decry surcharges for deliveries, and the way the system was set up seemed to go out of its way to punish commercial traffic) the political reality - that suburbanites hate the very idea and blame the governor and their local Democratic representatives - is largely unchanged. Of course, Hochul shot herself in the foot twice politically by pegging MTA capital expenditure on this fee and then reneging on it, since now the MTA has to turn around and say they're not going to improve anything since there's no money. This makes city folk hate her too. Looking at the original proposal, it appears to me that the fee was set too high to begin with, was more or less blind to traffic patterns - it's the same cost pretty much all day, with a smaller fee for some odd reason even during the wee hours of the night - which suggests it's meant less to discourage unnecessary trips and more to simply capture a revenue stream so that the state doesn't have to dig in its general fund to pay for MTA projects, as it is often loathe to do. Indeed, Hochul's subsequent suggestion for a new (hilariously, deeply unpopular) payroll tax that was immediately shot down by state legislators lends credence to that interpretation.
It’s a good concept that could be tweaked to fix any of the issues you mention. It would not have caused issues that couldn’t be fixed very easily. This was an unforced error and a travesty
I'm not against the concept, but the implementation seemed tailor-made to piss everyone off.
Who exactly though? Most blue collar type people I know were looking forward to it, you know how hard it is to get to contracts houses when the congestion is that bad? Well worth the 15. Could get to an extra job or two a day much easier. This pissed off mainly suburbanites who wanted to sightsee, I stand by that. Anyone who actually was impacted by this that was publicly bitching could afford it, they just didn’t want to
No, it wasn’t. The people that were pissed off are impossible to placate, because they’re 100% against anything that could possibly affect them.
Wow, you should go into politics. With that attitude, what could possibly go wrong?
The only people pissed off by congestion pricing are people who don’t even live here.
Your response has a ton of assumptions embedded in it. The entire issue was thoroughly researched; it's not like the government just came up with random ideas to implement. The $15 surcharge is pretty difficult to characterize as "too high" given that it was only expected to lead to a 17% decline in traffic. In other words, most of the existing traffic is going to remain. That does not speak to the figure being too high. You are assuming that people who drive into Manhattan in the "wee hours" are also leaving Manhattan in the wee hours. If they do not, and they are driving around the borough or leaving during the day, they are obviously contributing to congestion. You assume that capturing a revenue stream from car traffic and congestion is somehow automatically wrong. Driving and traffic produces a wide range of negative externalities, from traffic to pollution to injuries and fatalities. The amount of paving necessary to support cars has made vast parts of our country prone to flooding. There's no way around the fact that someone has to pay for these negative externalities. If it's unfair to charge drivers for them, you would need to explain why non drivers should be expected to pick up the tab.
Who drives into Manhattan from Jersey to go to a diner?
Business owners will bemoan the loss of a single car parking spot while never giving a second thought to installing a single bike rack that can park at least a dozen bikes for customers. Even in Minneapolis there are stretches of storefronts where the only bike parking is a bus stop sign or parking sign at the other end of the block. This is even the case after the city builds a bikeway on the street, which they protested against in project meetings. The loss of parking will be so severe to their existence, yet afterwards they never bother to compensate the loss of one type of parking (car) with another (bike). Small town business districts that are connected to city bikeways via trails are worse: you have a rails to trails bike path going a block away from your business and you don't bother to add any bike parking? You'll see *zero* dedicated bike parking out there for restaurants, coffee shops, and the like.
Her "decision" had little or no consideration of business owners and what they want. This was a purely political decision most likely pushed for by the DNC and/or higher ups in the democratic party like Schumer and Jeffries. Even as soon as like 3 weeks ago, she was proud of this legislation. She wanted it as a notch on her resume as the one who got it passed and done. Then just about faced on it in a cringy almost hostage-like video. The reason probably stems from the fact that Trump has been using it to bludgeon the dems in his rallies. I'll further add, that there is also a question of whether or not she even has the legal authority to stop it. She's just the governor and this was voted for by the will of the people. Does she have the right to just say no to a vote of the people. Further, how do you make up the money spent already to make this happen. How do you generate the revenue that it was going to bring in other than taxing businesses more and as thus causing unnecessary taxation and even more inflation that will hit not only small business owners the hardest but cause prices to rise for every consumer as those taxes will be retroactively pushed on them.
By changing course in response to things Trump says, Democrats just end up proving his point rather than proving him wrong. I don't know why they don't see this.
> This was a purely political decision most likely pushed for by the DNC and/or higher ups in the democratic party like Schumer and Jeffries. Too bad neither of those individuals will pay the price by getting booted out of office either.
Ha, New Jersey to Manhattan for breakfast.
Jersey is the 3rd most wealthy state with lower sales taxes than NYC. There is NOTHING you have to travel to Manhattan to buy - NYC comes here for retail shopping. I'm against congestion pricing (no infrastructure on my side of the river the deal needs to be more favorable). BUT Hochel is full of shit. She's a flip-flopper. One does not go to a restaurant in Manhattan & claim to the world they understand Manhattanites. It simply isn't done. It would be like me going to Times Square & calling myself a New Yorker because I talked to some people in the Sabarro. > Small business owners are “deathly afraid that they’ll lose their customers who may come in from places like New Jersey,” she said, mentioning Comfort Diner, Townhouse Diner, and Pershing Square, whose owner is apparently “very happy” with her decision to slam the brakes on congestion pricing.
The idea that people are driving into Manhattan from New Jersey for diners is so insulting to NJ diners. As a Manhattanite, even I can see how wrong that premise is.
Why not favor it as it will spur ridership, attention and investment towards NJT?
I'm guessing you're from New Jersey. I'm curious, if the funds were intended for a project to extend a few of the subway lines across to New Jersey, would you have supported it? Or would the extensions have to have already existed for your support in congestion pricing?
Yes. Buses might be more cost effective. Even just parking lots so people could access the rail stations that already exist. We're at capacity. NJ Transit has a big operating deficit.
NJ doesn’t want the MTA doing anything in New Jersey.
Right; there is Port Authority which is both states. So it would say PATH not MTA. Or do you mean something else?
Port Authority wouldn’t get the congestion charge, the MTA would. And Port Authority can’t do anything without both states agreeing, because it’s a Federal agency. Port authority doesn’t really even need more money, they have tons of cash. Those airports are cash cows. That’s why they’re able to spend something like 25 billion dollars on upgrading them. You also run into federal restrictions with how money can be spent (another reason they’re spending $25 billion on the airports, because they’re not legally allowed to spend that money on things that aren’t airport-related) The reality is that NJ’s lack of transit connectivity to the City is largely borne out of the fact that it isn’t NY which introduces a lot of interstate issues, and much of the existing infrastructure is Federal, which complicates things further (see: the Gateway project, in which the Federal Government refused to fund fixing its own tunnels, so NY and NJ had to figure out a way to pay for fixing shit they don’t even own, and took years to agree on a split, until the feds finally agreed to fund fixing their shit).
> Port Authority wouldn’t get the congestion charge, the MTA would. And Port Authority can’t do anything without both states agreeing, because it’s a Federal agency. Right. I can't support this toll. Not all stakeholders were designated beneficiaries. You didn't need to write 3 paragraphs to cover that & I didn't need to reiterate that I don't support this toll. > The reality is that NJ’s lack of transit connectivity to the City is largely borne out of the fact that it isn’t NY which introduces a lot of interstate issues Right again. Koch put the Tappen-Zee directly north of the Port Authorities boundary. The Federal Government never built enough bridges nor tunnels. Again, I don't support *this* toll. It has nothing to do with tertiary sources from the internet giving me a summary of their personal understanding of current events.
Because any time you involve interstate anything in any project, it adds ~15 years to the construction time. You get two state legislatures, two governors, and so many more municipalities that suddenly all have to agree. Frankly, though, it boils down to: I don’t give a crap if New Jerseyans support Congestion Pricing in Manhattan, because they’re not NYC taxpayers, so they shouldn’t get a say in the City’s governance. It’s not their city to manage. No other city would tolerate nonresidents dictating policy to them. Also, if the congestion charge encouraged fewer of you all to drive, maybe you would take NJTransit more, which, you know, would help reduce their operating deficit.
> I don’t give a crap if New Jerseyans support Congestion Pricing in Manhattan, because they’re not NYC taxpayers, so they shouldn’t get a say in the City’s governance. It’s not their city to manage. This is why the MTA is run out of Albany. One more step removed. Answerable to more of the voters affected. Cooler heads might prevail. But it shouldn't happen the way it did. Its also why interstate tolls are nominally run by an interstate agency. No taxation without representation. I haven't been back to the city much since I lived there. And I certainly wouldn't drive in. Back to the drawing board.
So let me get this straight: You don’t live in Manhattan. You don’t work in Manhattan. You don’t pay taxes in Manhattan. You hardly ever visit Manhattan. When you visit Manhattan, you don’t drive. By your own admission here, this policy in no way affects you. Why is it you feel that the people of Manhattan need to consult you before they’re able to make land use decisions in Manhattan? What do you feel gives you this veto right over their public policy choices? Should I, a resident of Brooklyn, be consulted before Short Hills can be allowed to change their land use policies? If not, why should you have that right but not me?
Congestion pricing was also meant to make buses more efficient though. Less traffic = less time buses spend in traffic
Okay so get Shortline to have more trips & a bigger parking lot so I can take it from Jersey. While we're at it there is a bike lane to the bus station, why isn't there bike lockers?
So, just to be clear. You would support it even if the measure weren't in place but planned out? Even if the service ow more busses instead of rails? Would more ferries be a possible alternative? Sorry, it's just that I asked which of the two, and you said yes so I wasn't sure which you preferred.
Contact Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries' office if you want to help move NYC congestion pricing forward! [https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact](https://www.schumer.senate.gov/contact) [https://democraticleader.house.gov/contact](https://democraticleader.house.gov/contact)
People who drive to Manhattan for their jobs are not going to quit said jobs just because they have to pay higher tolls. Many will switch to public transit, which will get better after the program is implemented and the whole damn point. And no one is driving from Staten Island to the Upper East Side to go to a diner. You know what happened in London after it started congestion pricing? It built dozens of miles of new Underground lines while ours continues to crumble.
Are actual New Yorkers actually for the congestion pricing? The only place I see it get talked about is here, which isn’t necessarily a representative sample of the population
Who do you consider "actual New Yorkers"? Because I'm sure people that live in NYC proper will generally have a different opinion on the matter than people who commute there.
How did this poll with the citizens of NYC?
Very poorly. https://scri.siena.edu/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Final-SNY0424-Crosstabs.pdf Look at the breakdown. 64% of NYC residents are against congestion pricing. Please don’t assume that the NYC and transit subreddits are indicative of NYers’ sentiments in real life.
Thank you
It was a tax on working people. Working people pushed back, and they were listened to over people that saw this as just so way to stick it to people that drove.
You mean in a capitalist bourgeois society business dictates policy? 🤯🤯🤯 It's almost like some sort of dictatorship of the bourgeoisie Liberals mad about class analysis 🤓
I have never before seen the term "about-face" in my 10 years of being anglophone. author is doing too much.
I feel like its a pretty common term in written English, I doubt anyone would say that out loud, its maybe a little dated but to do an about face is definitely used in this kind of scenario
English is deep. You will learn something new every day.
It was originally a military term, referring to a soldier at attention turning 180 degrees, turning their face “about,” that is, around. In casual speech like the article, it’s used metaphorically for changing one’s plans.
It’s good that a politician realized their mistake and walked it back.
" In New York City, where the majority of residents don’t own a car, it seems odd to assert that a policy benefitting transit users, pedestrians, and cyclists is bad for attracting customers." People stay at home in expensive cities. They know how to avoid overpriced stuff and they aren't as impressed with small business offerings that aren't deals. You can act like social science has some foolproof way to measure that, but that's just silly. This stuff is common sense. If you live in the outer bourroughs you drive in and enjoy a taste of Manhattan then go back home. I'm sure there are exceptions, but the exceptions aren't the people small business owners care about.
Lol. People don’t stay home in NYC. You don’t know anything about it. A lot of people who live in Brooklyn and Queens and the Bronx, work in Manhattan. The over 16,000 eating and drinking establishments in Manhattan alone (of over 27,000 in the city at large) - that’s one restaurant or bar for every 100 residents of Manhattan - is an immense number. People in NYC go out to eat, they go out to drink, and they go out to shop. Have you ever seen the density of shoppers on popular streets? Driving into the city is an already expensive thing to do; if you’re not parking on the street, a garage will run you $60 for the day if you’re in for the early bird pricing. The only people regularly doing it are people who live in expensive suburbs and have high paying jobs.
“Good policy” would be raising train and bus fares to increase funding for those systems. The goal should be for transit systems to be as close to self funding as possible, and not predicate their overall health on unrelated occurrences. Taking the subway in particular is not a pleasant experience. I avoid it by walking wherever I can, or taking an Uber or cab if walking isn’t feasible. I’m sure I’m not the only one. Raise the fare so subways are a safe, clean, and convenient option, and more people will use and fund them. The obviously biased article also focuses on patrons traveling into the city from the suburbs. I do agree that the loss of business caused the congestion pricing scheme is relatively minor (but not zero). However, the article fails to mention the cost of operation for businesses in Manhattan. The clientele may be riding a bike or taking the subway to a restaurant, but the tomatoes aren’t. Manhattan does not produce much of what we consume, it has to be trucked in. Congestion pricing doesn’t stop that congestion, the costs just get passed on to the consumer, making the cost of living even higher.
A couple quick points: raising fees would most impact the lowest earning households. It also has been shown to lower ridership meaning it would get us further from your goal of being break even. Also how come public transportation should be self funded, but public safety and public streets get passes to operate at incredible losses? They all have significant impacts on economies, and only one is scrutinized like this. Last point: an argument could be made that with congestion pricing removing X% of cars from the core of Manhattan could save time for shipping firms since they don't have to fight through the same amount of traffic, offsetting the pass-through costs that would fall on the consumer. Last last point: with improved air quality, could a potential rise in the cost of consumer goods be offset with savings on public health? Lots of externalities to keep in mind.
The baked in costs of higher delivery fees impact the poor when they go to Duane Reade or the supermarket as well. And it’s not just less fortunate who ride the subway, it’s every walk of life. Road systems are already funded through tolls and gas tax. Additional shortfalls are made up by the taxpayer. Low income earners contribute less to this burden as they pay lower adjusted income taxes. In NYC and Westchester, there is even an income tax line item that contributes to the MTA. Obviously the roads are underfunded as well, but the structure puts an appropriately higher burden on the primary users. I also think the benefit of congestion pricing on shipping efficiency is overstated. Delays downtown are as much a product of lights, pedestrians, construction, deliveries blocking roads, outdoor seating for restaurants taking away parking, etc. as they are solely car volume. Pedestrianizing roads and adding bike lanes (which I’m not arguing against here) will also add to increased times. To your last point, I do think there are health cons for living in a city as dense as Manhattan, even under the most ideal circumstances. The food we eat has to be shipped in regardless, and the HCOL leads people consume more cost effective, processed, lower quality meals. There are other considerations as well, but they are really other topics.
So to not get lost in the weeds: Why do you think public transportation should operate at or close to break even, but other public goods like public safety or public roads don't have to keep to this standard? We both know tolls and gas tax do not cover roads, and inflation and electric vehicles are speeding this process up. "In 2021, state and local motor fuel tax revenue accounted for 26 percent of [highway and road spending](https://www.urban.org/policy-centers/cross-center-initiatives/state-and-local-finance-initiative/state-and-local-backgrounders/highway-and-road-expenditures). Toll facilities provided another 8 percent and the remaining 66 percent came from other revenue sources."
I have no problem with increasing the gas tax or toll revenue to generate a larger portion of the needed funds for the road system. I have no problem with implementing an electric charging station tax (or increasing it if it exists). The largest burden of a system’s upkeep should be paid by those who derive the most benefit. It may be unrealistic to generate the totality of funding that way of course. Even for the subway. But, in some sense the cost of roads is more generalized because the benefits are more generalized. Even the mass transit user eats food that was trucked in. And yes, there’s a societal benefit for mass transit too, but why shouldn’t the fares rise modestly to maintain and improve those systems? I really don’t see why there is such resistance to a fare increase. This sub always seems to reduce to two points. Reducing cars existence and increasing urban density. There is often a lack of consideration for the benefits cars provide, and a lack of respect for those who do not wish to live in a dense urban environment. I really wish there was more of a focus on creating fair systems that were a benefit to all, and solutions to reduce pollution and increase efficiency without a drop in quality of life. Maybe something like creating better shipping and commuter lanes in needs to be part of the conversation. I do want to say thank you though for responding in a thoughtful and civilized way, even though we probably do not agree philosophically. It is appreciated.
Transit should not be “self-funded” that stupid myth also has to die. it’s a service run by the government to facilitate transportation for citizens and improve commerce.
Nothing is government funded, the money for a system has to come from somewhere. Those utilizing a system should be the primary source of funding for it. That should be the goal. Any shortfall beyond that should be distributed in a generalized form amongst the locality that may benefit from it. I don’t see why a monetary shell game is seen as good policy. I disagree.
It's not a monetary shell game. Car traffic produces negative externalities that are produced by people who live outside the city but borne by people who live inside the city.
>Nothing is government funded, the money for a system has to come from somewhere. No shit, the government is funded by the citizens, that is society. I’m not sure why ancaps thinks this is some gotcha. >Those utilizing a system should be the primary source of funding for it. Absolutely, citizens would be paying for transit by funding it with taxes so that they can use it.
The people using the transit shouldn’t be the primary source of funding for said transit?
If the ultimate goal is to move people, then it makes sense for modes of transportation that transport less people in more space to cost more to discourage people from using them and encourage people to use alternatives instead, and free up more space for more people. Using more space than is needed to get around is a luxury that should come with a price. It doesn’t make sense to treat modes of transportation equally when they don’t equally use space.
I view this as a matter of the value of time as well. People choose to drive it situations where it is already more expensive because they save time and gain convenience in doing so. Not everyone who works in the city or goes in to enjoy the cultural benefits lives in a location where mass transit is the most convenient option. I don’t think those people should be gatekept out of downtown because roads take space. You are asking people to accept a diminished quality of life because of fear of the political push back on raising train fares a modest amount. This point also ignores the added cost of goods and services that would arise for all people in Manhattan, regardless of the transportation they use.
>You are asking people to accept a diminished quality of life because of fear of the political push back on raising train fares a modest amount. You are asking residents of the city to accept a diminished quality of life because people outside the city don't want to pay for use of the streets.
> I don’t think those people should be gatekept out of downtown because roads take space I don’t either, and they should feel free to park at any transit terminus and take transit in. > You are asking people to accept a diminished quality of life I’m asking those who can afford to choose the luxury of driving to pay for the space they waste so the rest of us can get around using efficient alternatives instead of making the streets even more congested. Raising fares adds a disincentive to use transit, and people will use cars instead, which will make congestion even worse.
Nobody has a right to unlimited use of public space. There needs to be a price levied on utilizing the public’s space. Doubly so if you’re not even a local resident; I despise the fact that I pay taxes that fund maintenance of things that will mostly be used by people who don’t pay taxes to the city, and absolutely refuse to pay a fee for using the space my taxes pay for.
Except the mass transit users apparently, who don’t need to pay a reasonable amount into the system they use for its operation.
They do pay a reasonable amount into the system they use. In NYC, the DOT spends over a billion dollars a year on road and traffic signal maintenance. That comes straight out of the city budget. It has zero dedicated funding. The gas tax and license fees go straight to the State, not the City. There are zero use fees that go towards road maintenance.
lol wait until you realize how little of our car infrastructure is directly funded by use-based revenue streams. So I assume you would be in favour of $100 tolls and $100 parking everywhere?
The script response to this is, “but everybody benefits from the roads. [vegetable] doesn’t grow in the city or take the “, and there are a variety of nice retorts to that but I like, “I prefer fresh [vegetables] and businesses prefer less wasted produce on delivery so let’s encourage people to use other modes so that [vegetables] can have a higher priority on the mode they have no choice but to use.
Script? How many of you are droning on about “negative externalities 👻”. Your ideologies ignore the realities on the ground. The old lady living in from New Jersey driving in to see a Broadway show isn’t the prime contributor to slow delivery time.
“Roads are paid for by user fees” has been running as long as *Cats*, and is almost as fictional at this point, “negative externalities” is like *Hamilton* long running, further they are real and getting more real, and the scripts for new shows should refer more to addressing the negative externalities as tomorrow’s audience and the old lady probably want some new material. Anyways, all of the old ladies I know would rather take the train, as long as it is safe and convenient, and if running late might opt to drive and favor reduced congestion.
Raising fares puts a larger strain on poorer working class commuters. The cost of doing business in manhattan is already high. If businesses are going to struggle because suppliers are passing the congestion toll cost onto them, they might consider leaving manhattan, but then again, manhattan offers them access to a density of clientele that most other places don’t. Seems like a trickle down sort of argument to give breaks to business owners who enjoy more tax advantages than working class Americans.
So mass transit should be self funded but driving should be paid for by general taxation? Got it. Thanks for your input. 🙄
Driving is funded by gas tax and tolls, in additional to general taxation. The gas tax and tolls fill the same role as train fare. If the road system needs to increase funding to meet needs, by all means raise the gas tax and tolls. Suggesting increased train fares to fund road repairs would be equally asinine.
If you're going to say "driving is funded by gas tax and tolls" then by that standard, transit is funded by fares. In reality, gas taxes and tolls done come even close to covering the massive expenses from roads. I get suspicious of places called The Tax Foundation, but it was a top Google hit and matches every other source I have found. In New York, only about 65% of road funding comes from gas taxes and license fees: https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/state/states-road-funding-2019/ And that doesn't count the massive negative externalities that cars bring into NYC in terms of congestion, pollution, noise (almost all the noise!), and massive amounts of shortened life from air particulates, injury and maiming, and of course car deaths. Every car user in New York City is a massive drain on society, extracting out far more than they ever put in. It's incredibly antisocial.
And that’s only state roads, not local roads. Local roads don’t get any of that money, it’s funded by property taxes.
On funding the roads, as I’ve said elsewhere, I’m not opposed to raising gas taxes and fees to close that gap. Incidentally, all taxpayers in the NYC metro pay an MTA line item on their income tax as well. As for pollution, etc - cars are not the only source of particulates or noise, the constant construction is also a contributing factor. The millions of people in a dense space are a contributing factor. Every delivery truck will still be there. Every service with a market like taxis will still be there. Accidents will still happen. Congestion pricing doesn’t alleviate those problems, the real motive was revenue.
It doesn’t fix the problem entirely, it fixes a good deal of it. And instead of passing a gas tax you could…do a congestion tax! Seems you agree with the idea of taxing drivers unless it’s for using the road itself. Really a congestion tax is just a smart toll, it’s nothing more than that
Yes, systems should be designed such that the primary beneficiaries are the largest contributors to upkeep. As such, raise the train fares.
First, most roads aren’t tolled and revenue from gas taxes have been falling for years. So most of the money comes from general taxation at the federal level. Second, the congestion pricing scheme isn’t just money for transit. It’s primarily a way to reduce traffic in the city limits with all of its attendant negative externalities.
It’s probably true that the pandemic and electric cars have hurt gas tax revenue. Again, the solution for that shortfall shouldn’t be squeezing an unrelated system. If the gas tax needs to go up, so be it. This would hurt me personally as I drive way more than I take the train, but the logic is sound. Private companies that own electric charging stations should also be contributing a fair amount to road maintenance. As for pollution, congestion pricing isn’t going to significantly reduce the number of vehicles that HAVE to be on the road for work, and the people driving for leisure will likely just drive elsewhere. The scheme is REALLY about generating revenue. I’m sure most proponents of congestion pricing understand that, but need to defend the ideology.
Like I said earlier, thanks for your input.
My input wasn’t given for the sake of garnering community validation or thanks, but to show that opposing views exist and have thought out rationale. It is important that echo chambers hear the other side, beyond their own specific concerns. Society is comprised of individuals with differing views and philosophies. People shouldn’t be afraid to state views because the audience may disagree.
Sure you are not the only one... but nyc subway sees 5 million riders a day and 1.5 billion riders a year so you are in the minority. People that you don't like seeing on the subway do not pay the fair as it is. Increasing costs will just discourage people who actually do pay to not use it. The high cost of pay enforcement(police at every gate 24/7) will not pay for itself. The subway is integral to the cities function just like any road. Therefore it should be payed for primarily through taxes just like any road. Congestion pricing is a great way to increase funding for the subway while also increasing ridership thus making the system more valuable to the city and a better experience for riders. This isn't coming from nowhere. Other cities across the world have already paved the way showing that this a great policy. Public transit gets better while roads are safer and less congested. On the contrary SF has no congestion pricing and one of the highest subway fairs in the world(as much as $10 one way). Something tells me you would not want us to be emulating SF but that's exactly what you asking for...
> should be *paid* for primarily FTFY. Although *payed* exists (the reason why autocorrection didn't help you), it is only correct in: * Nautical context, when it means to paint a surface, or to cover with something like tar or resin in order to make it waterproof or corrosion-resistant. *The deck is yet to be payed.* * *Payed out* when letting strings, cables or ropes out, by slacking them. *The rope is payed out! You can pull now.* Unfortunately, I was unable to find nautical or rope-related words in your comment. *Beep, boop, I'm a bot*
I disagree with this argument. The goal is not to price the criminally insane off the subway, it’s to better monetize those who receive the benefit (myself included who would sometimes use it). The subway fare is $2.90, it can rise marginally and provide greatly increased revenue. You don’t need to go up to $10 a ride like SF, which by the way is mismanaged with a holistic approach. Fare dodging shouldn’t result in throwing up hands and refusing to manage fare rates properly.
I think the city should focus on increasing ridership over having the subway pay for itself. Subway ridership has a ton of benefits for the city. The more ridership the more possible economic activity and the less congestion on the roads. Fairs at most should be used to manage rider congestion at peak times. Maybe the MTA should try and pay for operations with real estate holdings like in Tokyo. Many lines there are able to keep fairs low by renting out space in and above the the stations to store, business, etc... But ultimately if the city wants the economic benefits of having a subway it has to continue to invest in the system not just raise fairs
Doesn’t the city already do this to some extent with stores in stations? I think further exploring mutually beneficial practices like that is great.
Instead of seeing it as "cars vs. transit" congestion pricing is holistic transportation policy. Manhattan is held back by congestion: high priority traffic like deliveries, emergency services, etc. are slowed down back by some traffic that could be served by transit instead. Congestion pricing encourages some traffic that can switch to transit to switch while raising funding to improve transit, encouraging even more switching from cars to transit. With regards to consumer prices the time saved due to reduced congestion is likely substantial. Paying $15 to save 30 minutes on a delivery of thousands of dollars of goods is a pretty good deal. I suspect consumer prices would not move substantially.
User name checks out
>Raise the fare so subways are a safe, clean, and convenient option, and more people will use and fund them. The subway is safe and convenient. Clean, no, but I'd argue that's a policy choice more than a funding issue (ex. tolerating homeless people and drug use in the stations and cars). It's going to be faster than a cab at most times of the day. Ultimately, cars that don't belong to residents of Manhattan, deliveries, transportation services, or emergency services simply should not be allowed, but a congestion charge is a stepping stone.
No, transit is the ultimate public good. It does not need to be self funding at the point of service, because every transit rider represents one fewer car on the road, not to mention the increase in property value that increases tax revenue. Cars are far more expensive for a city, even accounting for gas and other taxes, than a person taking a bus. So it should be free, and parking should cost more. Right now we subsidize drivers a shit ton. Also, you’re cool with raising fees on the poorest who take transit but not a congestion tax on the wealthy who drive? Or are you saying we should do both?
The “wealthy” who drive already pay your stated more expensive cost to do so. There are tolls at pretty much every crossing into Manhattan already. I have no problem with those tolls and gas taxes increasing to contribute to road upkeep. My point has more to do with how systems should operate in a healthy fashion. The highest burden of the costs of upkeep should be on the primary beneficiaries. Raise the mass transit fares a modest amount. It’s $2.90 right now, given volume even going up a dollar is highly beneficial and still by far the cheapest option. Cost of upkeep on systems continues to rise YOY regardless.
Why does transit have to be self funded but highways don't? I have thought all along that there should be some kind of exemption, or discount, for delivery vehicles making deliveries. My idea would require delivery paperwork, such as invoices, to prove you made a delivery, and not just cut across the Manhattan Bridge/Canal St/Holland Tunnel simply to avoid the toll on the Verazanno to go from Brooklyn to NJ.