"Congestion pricing is such a good idea everywhere there is rock solid public transit alternatives. Where there’s not, it just becomes a tax on the poor."

If most of the poorer and working class road users cannot shift their transport times (and typically they can't) and then you don't have good and affordable public transport options for them to take instead then it effectively becomes a charge that the people who can't avoid it pay so that those with flexible lives can enjoy a smoother commute.

Which is to say that it might well reduce congestion but the cost of doing so is lumped on those that can least afford it, rather than those that can. As with most things its a choice of who pays for what to reach the aim. I would prefer that we increase taxes on wealthier people and fund expanded and free(er) public transport with a huge increase in safe cycling routes.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

I think it could be argued that Auckland and Wellington have decent public transport options, and they would be the most likely place to implement congestion charges.

I wonder if you could reduce the cost of public transport using the funds raised, as an attempt to balance it.

Free public transport would be great, better if they removed the requirement to outsource and let councils or some new government entity control it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I've not used Auckland PT, but Wellington's is definitely decent, probably depending on where you live. I think the trains would work better if they were faster, and thus more frequent - its probably difficult to make them much bigger given the platform lengths.

Some areas the bus services are a bit borderline, but would work better with less private vehicles to contend with. And to make PT even better some smaller busses with dynamic routing (like is trialled in Heretaunga-Hawkes Bay) could be the missing link that makes cross network travel much better.

The only thing is the routing algorithm would need work because up here what's tended to happen is that they've kinda just become large subsidised taxis for individual or groups going point to point rather than a vehicle travelling across the network picking up & dropping off along the way.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah I also haven't used Auckland's but have got the impression it's not too bad these days.

I'm not convinced we can get faster trains (without significant changes) but you could have more of them which would also help the frequency thing.

I hadn't heard of dynamic routing for buses, is that a bit like airport shuttles?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Yeah that’s the easiest comparison. You use an app and put your pick up & drop off points and then a bus like a big transit van will get routed past you. So it’s less predictable when you get to your destination as it might do more drop offs or pick ups. My partner used it a bit and reckoned 2/5 trips would be only her onboard and direct to work.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Nice. What kinda pricing? I presume it's got to be more expensive than a normal bus?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Think it wasn’t far off a normal bus fare, but it’s free to the hospital where my partner worked at the time.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Oh wow, that's a win. I guess it makes sense with a smaller population rather than running routes that either don't have many people or are not close enough to destinations so people don't use them.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

$3 anywhere within Hastings: https://www.mywayhb.nz/about-myway/

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Ah interesting, replacing certain bus routes. If they were lower demand ones they may well be saving money on it.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Auckland's PT is excellent getting in and out of and through the CDB, which is where the the congestion charges would apply.

Reducing congestion makes everyone who actually needs to drive a vehicle to/from/for work lives' easier.

It's still regressive, like any flat tax, in that the charge will impact lower incomes more. That can be alleviated by moving marginal tax rates to compensate.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

It will also become a tradie tax, in my view. A fair chunk of the traffic going in and out of our big cities is commercial vehicles.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago

Which then gets passed on to consumers in the form of increased prices. It is always you and I who pay for these things, no matter how they're structured.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (3 children)

Do people think we're all on the road, at the same time, going to the same place, just to be annoying?

Also, if they do try this, trade and service vehicles should be exempt, otherwise it will be just another cost to pass on to the client.

[–] WolfLink 8 points 2 weeks ago

Add an exception for people carpooling and require that funds raised by the congestion toll support public transit options.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 weeks ago

otherwise it will be just another cost to pass on to the client.

There's literally nothing wrong with this - just pass it on.

You'll make it out ahead on the time savings alone, which you as someone who necessarily must travel by car will stand to gain the most from.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Trade and service vehicles would of course have incentive to work at off peak hours and establish satellite offices. Maybe we don't need to exempt them after all.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

work at off peak hours

Fuck right off. Also, tradies don't work at an office, you do understand that right?

[–] [email protected] -5 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You are one sad individual, aren't you. Oh well. I guess it's how you were raised.

I thought this would have been incredibly obvious, but apparently not, so let me spell it out in detail. Let's suppose you're a plumber working in the New York City area, and someone on the other side of town asks you to come fix their pipes. If the highway to get there is very expensive, you're going to charge them more, so they're going to look for a plumber that is located closer to their location. Or, if you work for a large company that has one hub for the greater New York City area, your company might invest in several smaller hubs, so that they can be more local. Does that make sense? Can you imagine it? Is it too difficult for you to conceive of?

And I'm not saying that you should like such a system, or that such a system is better or worse than what's currently in place, but it's one possible result of making certain roads more expensive to use.

As for off peak hours, nobody said that all trade jobs should be done in the middle of the night, but if you can't imagine several that could, and many that often could, then you have an issue with your brain.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

You clearly have no idea how most trades work, so let me clue you in.

First, most trades get the materels they need directly from a wholesaler, not from an office or depot. Why have stock on hand when your guys can just buy what they need directly?

Second, most trades don't start and finish the day at a depot or office, they drive from home directly to site. I've gone over a month without visiting the office before.

Third, a plumbing company will typically have multiple plumbers, and will try and limit the driving they do anyway, because they pay by the hour.

Finally, why are you talking about New York City? Why not use a local example?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

As someone who was just in Jersey and NYC a few months ago, allow me to tell you that it didn't fix shit. Traffic is still gawd awful. I don't consider the government fining people for going to work a positive thing either. FYI, this is why all the major corporations are pushing for a return to the office. The government gives them big tax breaks for maintaining a minimum occupancy, and then the government make a bunch of money on tolls, traffic tickets, sales tax, parking, etc. The corporations and the government make lots of money, and it all comes out of our pockets. Neat! Right?

[+] [email protected] -7 points 2 weeks ago (2 children)

Hell no, this has failed in every place it has been implemented. It doesnt stop people who need to drive at that time from driving it just makes it harder for poor people to get to work.

[–] teegus 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Just a small reduction in traffic can have a huge impact on congestion. Yes, it will always have some side effects, everything has in politics. The solution is not to not use traffic reduction inventives, the solution is to raise minimum wage/organize.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 weeks ago

Any increase to minimum wage at least close to inflation is at least 2 years off in New Zealand so in at least the short term there would be pain to those that are already pay cheque to pay cheque.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Contrary to what this poster is claiming, it's been a raging success in every place it's been implemented, as can be seen in the meta-analyses of studies on the policy.

But don't believe me nor the poster, read the meta-analyses yourself so that you come away truly informed.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

Do you have a link to the meta analysis so that I can read?