The MTA "changed its flawed initial proposal to offer the [disability] exemption only to drivers or vehicles owners with state-issued disability plates" [1].
I'm sure you're being honest about your intent, but a glancing read of your previous comment sounded categorical, to my ear at least, "And they've all been proven false."
Please don't fulminate or engage in ideological battle here. The topic is fine to discuss and disagree about, but HN is for curious conversation not indignation, and the guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. You've posted several ragey comments in a short space of time, and that's not the way HN is meant to be used. Please have a read of the guidelines and make an effort to observe them when participating here.
This is also quantitatively correct because for two people coming in from afar you might change two trains or a bus and train and each ticket is at least 3.00$(bus/path from NJ) which is 24$ minimum both ways, with more than two it would make even more sense to take the car.
Congestion pricing brings in a toll above the 16$ you pay throu the tunnel. I think it's 18, So 34$ total?
So you are incentivized to get more than 2 people by car. Less traffic.
It makes driving more appealing if one discounts the best alternative use of the funds, which humans are irrationally likely to do. That driving seems better is because people suck at thinking about what else they might do with the money given compound returns on its investment.
Buses got significantly more reliable as a result of reduced traffic, more ridership on subways allowed for more police presence at stations, reducing crime.
"There is no such thing as a free lunch" is a very strong argument for tolls, I hope you realize.
> everyone paying the tolls who now needs to engage in additional pollution-causing economic activity merely to offset the costs of government-mandated congestion pricing
I don't think that's how economics work. People are already doing their best to generate money. Also even if that did happen, the thing you're describing as "pollution-causing" is GDP growth, which is overall desirable.
> tariffs
Whether a tariff is good depends on what the goal is (and whether it works toward that goal).
You can say that about any tax. Which makes it extremely unconvincing as an argument against any particular tax, since in the long term money not collected from tax A will be collected from tax B.
its not a tariff because tariffs are taxes on imports. you arent paying a tax related to the value of the goods being brought over, and to the extent that new car buyers are importing cars, its neglible compared to what youre trying to draw equivalence to, trump's 30% or so tariffs.
instead, its a toll or a usage tax.
but also, you want the economic activity of having people in the city, not the cost of supporting their light trucks. people coming from outside of new york are very costly in terms of pollution, road maintenance, and losing real estate to parking spaces.
How are you crashing out over a $9 toll while using a mode of transport that's (conservatively) 3x more expensive to commute just one way? Good grief lmao
Poor people are forced by circumstance to live in the busiest areas so they will get the biggest health benefits and many do not own cars and often do not even own a car space, so I would beg to differ.
You can also offset the regressive nature of this taxation (if any) by putting the revenue into subsidizing public infrastructure like rail and bus.
Isn’t it the opposite though? The poor aren’t able to live in the most popular busiest areas, and usually have to live on the fringes of the city. They might train in though. This is mostly going to benefit the rich people who can still afford to live in the city, but with rent control there are still some non-rich people in the city.
It is both. People forget that probably a third of all housing in the congestion zone is rent-controlled or public housing.
Half of households in the congestion zone are living at or below 3x federal poverty level ($70K for a family of three). One in six residents makes $20K or less a year.
Really poor people can’t afford cars in the city, and yes, they can exist in the city because of public housing snd rent control. And it really isn’t the cars that are expensive, or even operating the cars, but the parking.
There are lots of middle class commuters who can’t afford to live in the city: they aren’t lucky enough to win the lottery with a rent controlled unit, and are too rich to live in public housing, but still too poor to live in housing of a standard they can tolerate in the city even if their job is there.
This mostly commuters and tradesmen. You aren’t going to get your tools on the train, snd you are driving into the city from white plains or somewhere similar.
The alternative is the tradesmen can now apply their trade for 30 minutes more each way rather than sit in traffic (probably better overall) That, and apparently they and their kids can breathe easier.
The congestion tax has far more impact on people who live and work above 60th or in the outer boroughs or NJ than it does Manhattanites. Retail, wholesale, trades, small businesses and yes commuters in these areas, which are poorer than Manhattan, suffer disproportionately
The 2.90 is even capped at $34 per week. Then there's the 50% discount for low-income NYC residents who qualify and apply for the Fair Fares NYC program, or for anyone regadless of residence who qualifies for reduced fares through age or a qualifying disability.
Both of these numbers are changing in early January to $3 and $35 respectively, but same idea.
Still, some European countries like Germany offer far cheaper than this, while others like the UK are probably pricer. NYC public transit gives very good value for the US at least.
Many things hurt the poor more, because there are many things that the poor do that have negative externalities that cannot be compensated for by the productivity of the poor. Strict enforcement against violent crime is pretty regressive in that more poor people are incarcerated when this is done. Others are that strict enforcement of traffic laws is pretty regressive; paid parking is regressive; as are fares for buses and trains. Requiring a minimum number of signatures for a ballot proposition is regressive. Allowing more expensive cars to incorporate more advanced safety features is regressive. Requiring grant applications to be carefully written is regressive. As are minimum flying requirements for pilots. DoD medical standards for soldiers are regressive. Officer ASVAB score requirements are regressive. Surgical requirements. Drug approval requirements.
In fact, anything that requires a standard of performance will be regressive. We don't have to subordinate all goals to regression avoidance. In fact, no functioning society does that.
I actually doubt it's very regressive in NYC. Also, you're still only counting the price and not the cost. The benefits are likely tilted towards the poorest residents who absorb the most costs of congestion in terms of both pollution and road safety. That's just an educated guess but it's very plausible.
A charge on the marginal driver looks regressive if you only examine who pays the toll, but not who’s been paying the externalities all along. Once you include the benefits - faster buses, cleaner air, better reliability, and the ability to reinvest revenue into transit - the incidence flips pretty quickly.
We’re basically shifting costs from people who can’t opt out of congestion to people who can. That’s about as progressive as a transport policy gets.
It hurts homeless more, that's a fact (although most,big cold city homeless couchsurf rather than sleep in their car in my experience, but it might be different in the US). But if you take 'poor people' as in the bottom 20% of earners, they probably don't drive, because car are expensive.
Do I understand correctly -- you are saying this NYC congestion price hurts the homeless more? As in, people who are homeless in NYC are regularly driving cars into and back out of lower Manhattan?
No it’s not. NYC transit is already one of the most expensive in the world and quality is suspect. Pushing money into a dysfunctional structure doesn’t make it functional and might make it worse. A money grab from the public that goes through a maze of expenses.
The solution was to re-structure the MTA. But that’s hard work. Politicians would rather blame the other side and just raise taxes. The people like it because they are grabbing money from what they consider it to be their oppressors.
The quality is not suspect. It is one of the world’s few 24/7 systems, and there are many capital improvements happening constantly. For example, making more stations accessible and improving switching equipment to improve reliability and volume.
This comment is typical HN “government bad can do no right” fodder. The MTA is truly a marvel in the service it provides. The only advantage it has is age, which is why it is so expansive.
The MTA does not overpay when you compare to other employers in central NYC. It's an extremely expensive city due to housing policy failures.
As for commercialising the stations, does the MTA try to do so and fail, or are they forbidden from doing so effectively (often by the same people who are pushing the narrative that there is something wrong with the organisation)?
If you're a car-owning Long Island or upstate suburbanite who occasionally commutes into Manhattan, the MTA is a god damned marvel compared to what would be available to you in other cities.
If you live anywhere in Brooklyn or Queens, the MTA is an inconvenience that constantly reminds you that the spirit of Robert Moses haunts your city to the present day, and that he really, really would like you to ride a private vehicle. Those boroughs are littered with coverage and frequency gaps that can turn a 40 minute car ride into a 2 hour subway ride. And god help you if you ever need to take a bus.
The capital improvements you mention are improvements on the margins. The MTA needs to engage in a radical rethink of NYC metro area transit. There needs to be radial lines - plural - crossing through Brooklyn and Queens at regular intervals to move as much traffic as possible out of Manhattan. The IBX is a good start, but it should also cross through Staten Island and the Bronx. Queenslink should absolutely be built[0], the N/W should extend to LaGuardia Airport, Utica Ave needs a subway line, and the subway in general should extend through Nassau County and Yonkers. Nassau and Suffolk counties need way more north-south rail[1] than they currently have (which is zero) and the same probably could be said for the service areas of MNR.
The bad part of government is not that it can't run a successful transit service. Actually, government is very good at taking a politically popular service and preserving it[2]. But this comes with a cost: extreme conservatism. You see, our government also happens to have a military that is obsessed with roads; and they pay a 900% subsidy to highway projects. So even states that like transit are hard-pressed to actually fund coverage improvements because it's capital inefficient to build anything that isn't a road. And private institutions building their own rail or transit services will just get absolutely crushed by the road subsidy making driving the only good option. So, government bad, actually, but not for the reason you think.
Also, you're replying to someone talking about NYC in particular. Politics in this area are notoriously corrupt; NJ had a mayor who literally closed a bridge to punish people who didn't vote for him. LIRR in particular has a labor scandal every decade or so. And don't forget, Trump was a NY real estate guy before he decided to tear apart America's political fabric.
[0] In fact, it's kind of absurd they didn't do this when they initially switched the Far Rockaway line over from LIRR to subway service!
[1] This would actually be a good opportunity for light rail, unlike the MTA's initial idea of making the IBX a light rail line
The quality is most definitely suspect for how much revenue it brings it and how poorly its allocated. MTA has been full of cronyism and corruption for years and the cycle of kickbacks. Yes, its a complicated service, however you cannot deny the lack of transparency and ineptitude leaves the service in a much worse place than it currently could be. People can understand price increases when it translates to service.
> What in particular about the MTA would you change?
Remove the diversity compliance requirement from bids, e.g. [1]. Open up bids to any firm in the nation and select winners based on cost and competence only. Subject the MTA to a forensic audit every ten or twenty years.
Usually diversity requirements don't come with lower competence requirements. They usually require people to be competent and then also equal opportunity. Or are you suggesting that all non-white non-male people are incompetent?
> diversity requirements don't come with lower competence requirements
They come with certification requirements. The one that RFQ lists are NYC specific.
> are you suggesting that all non-white non-male people are incompetent?
I’m saying a local-only bidding pool will necessarily be smaller than a national one. And requiring local certification guarantees the former.
I’m objecting to diversity compliance. Not diversity requirements. (Though even there, one needs to be cognizant of how quickly intersecting requirements can rapidly cascade the candidate pool to small numbers.)
I live in Europe so it's still very much considered pedestrian-friendly, but cars and roads scale so bad. Especially with population density going through the roof in bigger cities.
EVs help with air pollution & congestion, but a huge part of the AQI impact of cars is tires, and I don't think there's a solution for that yet short of "fewer cars"
I thought the tire wear particulates being a huge source of particulate air emissions was an overestimate due to misunderstanding and misquotation of primary literature by secondary literature used by regulatory agencies.
Well, scanning an article on it for Manhattan, the fraction of "road dust" PM2.5 looks like somewhere around 2-5% depending on time of year, which is a bit below contributions by sea salt.
From my limited reading, what fraction of road dust is from tire tread is unclear. The models trying to estimate it give anywhere numbers from 4 to 48%, but may be incorrect due to the citation problem above. Experiments seem to show 4-9%, but they have trouble excluding resuspended dust.
I'd also point out that if we're worried about air quality in NYC between modes of transport, then one should look at subways since PM2.5 in stations/tubes is many times that of the street and far exceeds EPA limits.
EV shuttles will come in lots of capacities. Vans, buses. But you won't need to worry about schedules or preset routes because it's all dynamic.
Wherever there would be the most congestion is precisely where the app will give you the biggest discount to switch from your private vehicle into a bus, then switch back into another private vehicle for the last 5 minutes of your trip.
That's so unbelievably difficult it might as well be impossible. It's easier to teach cars to drive themselves than it is to build transit. Ridiculous I know.
No, individualized point to point travel is better. I just got back from Tokyo and Taipei, which have transit systems better than any European country. And it was still faster to Uber everywhere.
And how much did that cost? You can get around Tokyo on the subway system for $5 for an entire day, and it's a profitable system that largely does not rely on taxpayer subsidy.
And how fast would it be if Tokyo and Taipei's trains weren't handling 80% and 40% of trips, respectively?
If you reduce Tokyo's 80% trip usage rate down to 5% like many American cities, that means for every other car on the road in Tokyo you'd now see 5 cars instead. How's that Uber ride looking now?
It's a tragedy of the commons. For an individual, private car is faster, but the resulting traffic ultimately makes things slower for everyone. Public transit in Tokyo is faster than private cars in car-oriented cities.
Everywhere? This is a crazy thing to claim. I was also recently in Japan and I never took a car anywhere. I'm sure there are particular routes that are badly served but come on.
EVs are just going to further escalate the race to the bottom with traffic that we’re already seeing with services like DoorDash.
Driving down the marginal cost per hour to operate a vehicle on the road and removing humans who are averse to sitting in endless traffic is not going to result in the utopia people think it will.
This is a bad way to provide functioning public transit and a good way to enshittify car ownership. All the externalities of private vehicles with all the downsides of not owning your own mode of transportation.
NYC has a better subway system than most Euro cities. Probably because NYC has the advantage of being old before cars became affordable.
For a few decades it seemed planners all over the world really had this crazy idea that everyone would just drive around for everything. Just put 10 lane highways straight through your town!
> NYC has a better subway system than most Euro cities. Probably because NYC has the advantage of being old before cars became affordable.
Nah, it's just because it's very, very big, nearly 9 million people. Very big European cities have comparable transport, but most European cities are smaller than this.
NYC's subway system is a little smaller than London's (though its commuter rail system is much smaller), and both cities have similar populations. And a little bigger than Paris's.
(Comparing metro system sizes can get messy, because there are things that are called metros but aren't really (eg SF muni metro, which shares space with cars) and things which aren't usually called metros but are metro-like (some S-bahn type things, in particular))
It's frustrating how poorly most people understand economics and the distinction between price and cost. Everybody in the world is being asked to blithely accept the massive unpaid costs of motor vehicle usage. This is a tiny step towards recouping some of this costs. Roadways, parking, collisions, pollution, noise have all be costs born by all of us. And in NYC that's a load of non-drivers. We should be adopting all sorts of policies to pass those costs on to drivers.
People panic over the thought of free buses when we have millions of miles of free roads.
True, you can ride a bicycle/scooter/etc. or just walk on roads without paying. All motor vehicles pay registration fees if I'm not mistaken. And in at least some states, they hit EVs with higher fees, to make up for lost gas tax revenue. I think some states are even moving towards per-mile fees for EVs, for this purpose. But most road damage is done by big rigs and other heavy vehicles, which are basically all ICE.
If you're only paying for a couple of those yards, does it matter if the others are literally free or if you distribute that payment to all of them while paying a couple percent each?
There was a study published about how much air pollution dropped in NYC during the COVID lockdown. PM2.5 was found to have dropped 36%. However with more robust analysis, this drop was discovered to not be statistically significant. I would caution anyone reading this who is tempted by confirmation bias.
I couldn't find anything more recent that this but apparently it has made the streets safer for pedestrians too. "Traffic fatalities in the Congestion Pricing zone are down 40% from last year."
"average daily peak concentrations of PM2.5 dropped by 3.05 µg/m³. For context, background pollution levels in the region typically hover around 8-9 µg/m³, making this reduction particularly significant for public health."
I think that the numbers are already low enough that the drop is actually not very significant, at all. Is there any data that shows better health outcomes at 8 vs 13 for PM 2.5 levels? From my understanding adverse health outcomes come at exposure over the long term to higher levels like 30 minimum
For context I have several air purifiers in my home and I'm all for better air quality but the percentage difference makes it sound like a much bigger drop but when these numbers are already so small I just am skeptical it really makes a difference...
But more importantly, when it comes to PM 2.5 levels, there are really no safe levels, the risks are just dose dependent, so lower is always better. In a city the size of NYC, lowering air pollution by 20% means a significant decrease in effects.
To give a good analogy, driving a car on the US is still quite safe, most of us take that risk, but still, thousands die annually from car accidents. A one fifth reduction in deaths from car accidents, even from its current low level, would be a major deal. In NYC, around 1 in 20 deaths is linked to air pollution.
> A difference between 8 and 12 PM 2.5 levels won't change that
Yes, it will, and that's the point I was making.
There are some things that have no harmful affects below certain concentrations, in that they are not toxic at low levels. PM 2.5 particles are not one of those - they are toxic at all levels. It's quite similar, in this context, to ionizing radiation. There is no safe level of ionizing radiation - every X-ray you get will slightly increase your chance of getting cancer. Of course, in the risk/benefit analysis, the risk is low and the benefits for medical X-rays are high.
It's the same with PM 2.5 pollution - every percentage reduction results in fewer health effects and related deaths. It's fine to argue that some level of pollution is worth it to get the benefits of industrialization, but it's simply false to say a reduction from 12 to 8 PM 2.5 levels won't reduce related deaths.
So about ionising radiation: UNSCEAR recommendation is to act as if no threshold effect exist at low doses for indeterministic effects (even though effectively we act as if a 100mSv threshold exists), but the medical literature isn't as clear cut. Precautionary principle should be respected in any cases.
The most recent epidemiology studies (studies on _very_ large cohort) do seems to favour a linear model without threshold (or, if the threshold exists, it is so low ambient radiation is enough to go past it), so I think you're right, but I wanted to nitpick because you wrote it like it was settled science and it's not yet, so I had to look up the PM 2.5 stuff too.
I wonder myself this too. Would people have to say "If NYC was a country would its GDP be 11th largest in the world compared to being the 12th largest GDP in the world like in 2024?"
What we can quantify is the economic impact the San Antonio River Walk has or the impact the Atlanta Beltline has which is billions of dollars in added economic activity. Based on those examples, likely it will increase the NYC GDP by millions if not hundreds of millions. We can prove with dollar amounts getting rid of cars in these cases increase the GDP by billions but in NYC they are only decreasing them so probably won't have the positive impact completely getting rid of cars does.
No city has reliable data on this for a fleet of reasons. The high quality data tends to show little effect on retail foot traffic, slightly more reliable commute times, and then the wealth of health benefits. Linking this to output seems to be beyond economists for cities that have done something similar (London, Stockholm, Milan, etc)
Anecdotally, living in London where we have congestion charge, I doubt it changed GDP much. GDP is basically total spend and if people don't spend on one thing they'll probably spend on another.
In terms of real economic output I'd guess it helped a bit as it made things quicker for workmen who needed to get around while reducing the more leisure driving. But we've had lots of much larger changes like covid and brexit that would probably drown things out in the numbers.
Since GDP growth in the US is dependant on medical care and on new car sales, it probably decreased it on the short term.
A sudden decrease in car crash would probably decrease the GDP the year it happen, then the fact that less people are dying or disabled would probably increase it in the long run. It will probably have the same effect here.
I'm not sure GDP is a good guide there since whether you drop dead at 60 or 80 doesn't effect the GDP much. Though obviously there's a value to the individual there.
You act like driving in NYC is free even without the congestion price. You realize how much it costs to park in Manhattan right? $50/day? And if you are coming from the Jersey side, you realize how much the toll is for the tunnel? $17-27.
So yea, if you're poor, you're not driving your beater to SoHo and parking in a lot for $50 daily.
Most people driving into the city aren’t parking in Manhattan. When I was living in west Chester county, I would drive in into midtown and always find street parking near Columbia, free. I was surprised how easy it was to drive into the city because I heard lots of stories that it wasn’t. No tolls either.
I'm confused, if you lived in Westchester and were parking by Columbia why would you be in Midtown? Mind you, it's still like $14-$22 to cross the GWB and if you parked by Columbia after driving down from Westchester you don't have a congestion charge to worry about.
I’m not sure, I’m a bit hazy about the names, it was a dormitory, I never actually saw the school. The dormitory wasn’t on campus. We were interning at IBM Hawthorne at the time and my friend was living at a Columbia dorm and commuting. Sometimes when I took the train the nearest train line stop (to get back to Hawthorne) was Harlem.
I get it, remember the congestion zone isn't the entire borough of Manhattan. It's just below 59th street. And, if you were driving down there, good luck finding parking in the literal densest place on planet earth during work hours (187k people/sqm). Driving in the congestion relief zone is not a right.
(Also, this thread's root was "regressive tax affecting the poor" which I assert again, is just a silly mischaracterization)
We did perfect their mass production, and it propelled us to the world's largest economy. The only country with better GDP growth over the last 100 years is Japan, and that's in large part because they perfected the manufacture of cars themselves.
Right, it's not the geopolitical situation, but cars. Natural resources + every potentially powerful hostile country is across entire oceans = success.
I mean... Toyota would beg to differ (and realistically US car manufacturers today are closer to the Toyota model of car mass production than the traditional US one).
But we're talking about New York City here, not Kansas. Specifically the congestion zone which during the work day is the most congested place in the world (187,500 people/sqm).
> I like walking around new cities, but a lot of people are car life types
Congestion pricing makes driving in New York better. Broadly speaking, the tendency for someone to have a problem with the scheme is proportional to their distance from and inversely related to the amount of time they've ever spent in New York.
The article says "average daily peak concentrations of PM2.5 dropped by 3.05 µg/m³. For context, background pollution levels in the region typically hover around 8-9 µg/m³, making this reduction particularly significant for public health."
But 8-9 was already considered a safe level: "Most studies indicate PM2.5 at or below 12 μg/m3 is considered healthy with little to no risk from exposure. If the level goes to or above 35 μg/m3 during a 24-hour period, the air is considered unhealthy." (https://www.indoorairhygiene.org/pm2-5-explained/)
So, good job on reducing pollution, but you already had very safe levels (well, the article doesn't tell us what the old "peak concentrations" were). Since the levels were "little to no risk", the claim of "significant health benefits" (i.e. reduction in disease or death) should be challenged.
Even if the risk was linear/exponential with threshold at 12 for everyone, including infants and elderly, the 30% average reduction is likely mostly done by smoothing the peaks (since you probably have a base level of PM2.5). So you would have more than a 30% reduction in days in which you are exposed to above-threshold PM2.5
Btw, it's a very legitimate remark, please don't down vote the parent. (Sorry about meta commentary I try to avoid)
Smaller doses of a poison are better than less small doses. Using coarse linguistic categories to argue otherwise is an abuse of the purpose of categories as a linguistic tool.
Kinda irrelevant, since 12 isn't really a round number (like 10 would be).
Further, the article is essentially saying that there is far less difference between 11 and 13 than might be assumed by a categorical model that says one level is inside the "safe" level and one is outside of it. But that isn't the issue here - 9 was already quite safe, the risk is very close to zero, so going lower doesn't reduce risk much - because the existing risk can't get much lower.
> Smaller doses of a poison are better than less small doses
Since 1996, the EPA has mandated that unleaded gasoline must be below 0.05 grams of lead per gallon. While the elimination of lead up to this point was a massive benefit to public health, is there any significant health benefit to reducing this further below 0.05? If so, who's claiming that and why haven't the standards changed in 30 years?
But obviously the latter is better. It offers more flexibility for consumers and more transmission of demand signals.
Maybe that has to do with the fact that lifetime is somewhat (!) equally distributed, while wealth isn't
This is unfair. Nobody wants to pay more for anything. And many of the objections resulted in policy adjustments that made the programme better.
The MTA "changed its flawed initial proposal to offer the [disability] exemption only to drivers or vehicles owners with state-issued disability plates" [1].
[1] https://www.nylpi.org/resource/letter-to-mta-regarding-conge...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
On driving. And it actually makes driving more appealing, there’s much less traffic so you can get where you’re going much quicker.
> Instead of making public transport more appealing through competition
Like having multiple subway systems? NYC did that already.
Congestion pricing brings in a toll above the 16$ you pay throu the tunnel. I think it's 18, So 34$ total?
So you are incentivized to get more than 2 people by car. Less traffic.
Public transit got better.
> everyone paying the tolls who now needs to engage in additional pollution-causing economic activity merely to offset the costs of government-mandated congestion pricing
I don't think that's how economics work. People are already doing their best to generate money. Also even if that did happen, the thing you're describing as "pollution-causing" is GDP growth, which is overall desirable.
> tariffs
Whether a tariff is good depends on what the goal is (and whether it works toward that goal).
(And they have the option of not driving, too.)
instead, its a toll or a usage tax.
but also, you want the economic activity of having people in the city, not the cost of supporting their light trucks. people coming from outside of new york are very costly in terms of pollution, road maintenance, and losing real estate to parking spaces.
Because tariffs are imposed on trade between countries. That was easy!
You can also offset the regressive nature of this taxation (if any) by putting the revenue into subsidizing public infrastructure like rail and bus.
Half of households in the congestion zone are living at or below 3x federal poverty level ($70K for a family of three). One in six residents makes $20K or less a year.
really-rich people don't have to work/commute, so prefer to live in countryside with gardens
really-poor people can't afford cars, and rich(=busy) cities usually have accomodations for them -- so they live inside busy cities
There are lots of middle class commuters who can’t afford to live in the city: they aren’t lucky enough to win the lottery with a rent controlled unit, and are too rich to live in public housing, but still too poor to live in housing of a standard they can tolerate in the city even if their job is there.
Both of these numbers are changing in early January to $3 and $35 respectively, but same idea.
Still, some European countries like Germany offer far cheaper than this, while others like the UK are probably pricer. NYC public transit gives very good value for the US at least.
In fact, anything that requires a standard of performance will be regressive. We don't have to subordinate all goals to regression avoidance. In fact, no functioning society does that.
Used to be that you had to purchase an officer's commission...
We’re basically shifting costs from people who can’t opt out of congestion to people who can. That’s about as progressive as a transport policy gets.
The solution was to re-structure the MTA. But that’s hard work. Politicians would rather blame the other side and just raise taxes. The people like it because they are grabbing money from what they consider it to be their oppressors.
This comment is typical HN “government bad can do no right” fodder. The MTA is truly a marvel in the service it provides. The only advantage it has is age, which is why it is so expansive.
As for commercialising the stations, does the MTA try to do so and fail, or are they forbidden from doing so effectively (often by the same people who are pushing the narrative that there is something wrong with the organisation)?
If you live anywhere in Brooklyn or Queens, the MTA is an inconvenience that constantly reminds you that the spirit of Robert Moses haunts your city to the present day, and that he really, really would like you to ride a private vehicle. Those boroughs are littered with coverage and frequency gaps that can turn a 40 minute car ride into a 2 hour subway ride. And god help you if you ever need to take a bus.
The capital improvements you mention are improvements on the margins. The MTA needs to engage in a radical rethink of NYC metro area transit. There needs to be radial lines - plural - crossing through Brooklyn and Queens at regular intervals to move as much traffic as possible out of Manhattan. The IBX is a good start, but it should also cross through Staten Island and the Bronx. Queenslink should absolutely be built[0], the N/W should extend to LaGuardia Airport, Utica Ave needs a subway line, and the subway in general should extend through Nassau County and Yonkers. Nassau and Suffolk counties need way more north-south rail[1] than they currently have (which is zero) and the same probably could be said for the service areas of MNR.
The bad part of government is not that it can't run a successful transit service. Actually, government is very good at taking a politically popular service and preserving it[2]. But this comes with a cost: extreme conservatism. You see, our government also happens to have a military that is obsessed with roads; and they pay a 900% subsidy to highway projects. So even states that like transit are hard-pressed to actually fund coverage improvements because it's capital inefficient to build anything that isn't a road. And private institutions building their own rail or transit services will just get absolutely crushed by the road subsidy making driving the only good option. So, government bad, actually, but not for the reason you think.
Also, you're replying to someone talking about NYC in particular. Politics in this area are notoriously corrupt; NJ had a mayor who literally closed a bridge to punish people who didn't vote for him. LIRR in particular has a labor scandal every decade or so. And don't forget, Trump was a NY real estate guy before he decided to tear apart America's political fabric.
[0] In fact, it's kind of absurd they didn't do this when they initially switched the Far Rockaway line over from LIRR to subway service!
[1] This would actually be a good opportunity for light rail, unlike the MTA's initial idea of making the IBX a light rail line
[2] See also: Amtrak.
What in particular about the MTA would you change?
Remove the diversity compliance requirement from bids, e.g. [1]. Open up bids to any firm in the nation and select winners based on cost and competence only. Subject the MTA to a forensic audit every ten or twenty years.
[1] https://www.mta.info/document/180556
They come with certification requirements. The one that RFQ lists are NYC specific.
> are you suggesting that all non-white non-male people are incompetent?
I’m saying a local-only bidding pool will necessarily be smaller than a national one. And requiring local certification guarantees the former.
I’m objecting to diversity compliance. Not diversity requirements. (Though even there, one needs to be cognizant of how quickly intersecting requirements can rapidly cascade the candidate pool to small numbers.)
I wonder how it's going to look like in 50 years.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.estlett.4c00792
From my limited reading, what fraction of road dust is from tire tread is unclear. The models trying to estimate it give anywhere numbers from 4 to 48%, but may be incorrect due to the citation problem above. Experiments seem to show 4-9%, but they have trouble excluding resuspended dust.
I'd also point out that if we're worried about air quality in NYC between modes of transport, then one should look at subways since PM2.5 in stations/tubes is many times that of the street and far exceeds EPA limits.
Wherever there would be the most congestion is precisely where the app will give you the biggest discount to switch from your private vehicle into a bus, then switch back into another private vehicle for the last 5 minutes of your trip.
You could even run them separate from the street with raised platforms for accessibility and sometimes even run them underground.
We could call this something like “underway” or “steel beam connect-o-cars”
Good luck climbing hills. A lot of systems like these moved away from rails onto rubber tires.
Rapid bus is probably best combination. Yes it will never match the throughput of rail, but it's vastly cheaper.
And how fast would it be if Tokyo and Taipei's trains weren't handling 80% and 40% of trips, respectively?
If you reduce Tokyo's 80% trip usage rate down to 5% like many American cities, that means for every other car on the road in Tokyo you'd now see 5 cars instead. How's that Uber ride looking now?
Driving down the marginal cost per hour to operate a vehicle on the road and removing humans who are averse to sitting in endless traffic is not going to result in the utopia people think it will.
For a few decades it seemed planners all over the world really had this crazy idea that everyone would just drive around for everything. Just put 10 lane highways straight through your town!
Nah, it's just because it's very, very big, nearly 9 million people. Very big European cities have comparable transport, but most European cities are smaller than this.
NYC's subway system is a little smaller than London's (though its commuter rail system is much smaller), and both cities have similar populations. And a little bigger than Paris's.
(Comparing metro system sizes can get messy, because there are things that are called metros but aren't really (eg SF muni metro, which shares space with cars) and things which aren't usually called metros but are metro-like (some S-bahn type things, in particular))
Aren't Euro cities generally much older than those in the New World?
People panic over the thought of free buses when we have millions of miles of free roads.
Are you familiar with the gas tax? Vehicle registration fees?
It's a distinction without a difference.
Source: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7314691/
This is from July 2025: https://transalt.org/press-releases/new-data-from-transporta...
I think that the numbers are already low enough that the drop is actually not very significant, at all. Is there any data that shows better health outcomes at 8 vs 13 for PM 2.5 levels? From my understanding adverse health outcomes come at exposure over the long term to higher levels like 30 minimum
For context I have several air purifiers in my home and I'm all for better air quality but the percentage difference makes it sound like a much bigger drop but when these numbers are already so small I just am skeptical it really makes a difference...
But more importantly, when it comes to PM 2.5 levels, there are really no safe levels, the risks are just dose dependent, so lower is always better. In a city the size of NYC, lowering air pollution by 20% means a significant decrease in effects.
To give a good analogy, driving a car on the US is still quite safe, most of us take that risk, but still, thousands die annually from car accidents. A one fifth reduction in deaths from car accidents, even from its current low level, would be a major deal. In NYC, around 1 in 20 deaths is linked to air pollution.
"In NYC, around 1 in 20 deaths is linked to air pollution."
A difference between 8 and 12 PM 2.5 levels won't change that
Yes, it will, and that's the point I was making.
There are some things that have no harmful affects below certain concentrations, in that they are not toxic at low levels. PM 2.5 particles are not one of those - they are toxic at all levels. It's quite similar, in this context, to ionizing radiation. There is no safe level of ionizing radiation - every X-ray you get will slightly increase your chance of getting cancer. Of course, in the risk/benefit analysis, the risk is low and the benefits for medical X-rays are high.
It's the same with PM 2.5 pollution - every percentage reduction results in fewer health effects and related deaths. It's fine to argue that some level of pollution is worth it to get the benefits of industrialization, but it's simply false to say a reduction from 12 to 8 PM 2.5 levels won't reduce related deaths.
The most recent epidemiology studies (studies on _very_ large cohort) do seems to favour a linear model without threshold (or, if the threshold exists, it is so low ambient radiation is enough to go past it), so I think you're right, but I wanted to nitpick because you wrote it like it was settled science and it's not yet, so I had to look up the PM 2.5 stuff too.
Is that low? I don’t know what is considered high or low here.
What we can quantify is the economic impact the San Antonio River Walk has or the impact the Atlanta Beltline has which is billions of dollars in added economic activity. Based on those examples, likely it will increase the NYC GDP by millions if not hundreds of millions. We can prove with dollar amounts getting rid of cars in these cases increase the GDP by billions but in NYC they are only decreasing them so probably won't have the positive impact completely getting rid of cars does.
In terms of real economic output I'd guess it helped a bit as it made things quicker for workmen who needed to get around while reducing the more leisure driving. But we've had lots of much larger changes like covid and brexit that would probably drown things out in the numbers.
A sudden decrease in car crash would probably decrease the GDP the year it happen, then the fact that less people are dying or disabled would probably increase it in the long run. It will probably have the same effect here.
Does your goverment just let people die?
Anyone Ubering to and from work is not among New York's poor.
So yea, if you're poor, you're not driving your beater to SoHo and parking in a lot for $50 daily.
(Also, this thread's root was "regressive tax affecting the poor" which I assert again, is just a silly mischaracterization)
I mean... Toyota would beg to differ (and realistically US car manufacturers today are closer to the Toyota model of car mass production than the traditional US one).
I like walking around new cities, but a lot of people are car life types
Congestion pricing makes driving in New York better. Broadly speaking, the tendency for someone to have a problem with the scheme is proportional to their distance from and inversely related to the amount of time they've ever spent in New York.
But 8-9 was already considered a safe level: "Most studies indicate PM2.5 at or below 12 μg/m3 is considered healthy with little to no risk from exposure. If the level goes to or above 35 μg/m3 during a 24-hour period, the air is considered unhealthy." (https://www.indoorairhygiene.org/pm2-5-explained/)
So, good job on reducing pollution, but you already had very safe levels (well, the article doesn't tell us what the old "peak concentrations" were). Since the levels were "little to no risk", the claim of "significant health benefits" (i.e. reduction in disease or death) should be challenged.
Btw, it's a very legitimate remark, please don't down vote the parent. (Sorry about meta commentary I try to avoid)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-02079-y
Smaller doses of a poison are better than less small doses. Using coarse linguistic categories to argue otherwise is an abuse of the purpose of categories as a linguistic tool.
Further, the article is essentially saying that there is far less difference between 11 and 13 than might be assumed by a categorical model that says one level is inside the "safe" level and one is outside of it. But that isn't the issue here - 9 was already quite safe, the risk is very close to zero, so going lower doesn't reduce risk much - because the existing risk can't get much lower.
> Smaller doses of a poison are better than less small doses
Since 1996, the EPA has mandated that unleaded gasoline must be below 0.05 grams of lead per gallon. While the elimination of lead up to this point was a massive benefit to public health, is there any significant health benefit to reducing this further below 0.05? If so, who's claiming that and why haven't the standards changed in 30 years?