Congestion Pricing Is a Policy Miracle

This is not surprising at all to the people who have looked at other cities that have implemented it. These were all expected outcomes, and I'm glad the expectations turned into reality. One thing I'd like to add in is that to take public transit in NYC, you have to pay $2.90 a ride (with some exceptions). So for a commuter from the Bronx who works downtown, their daily fee is $5.80. A $9 a day fee to get into downtown with a car seems like a fair deal.

inb4 claims that congestion pricing is somehow regressive<p>in fact, it is a <i>progressive</i> tax since reinvestments into public transit are phenomenal for the vast majority of low and middle Americans (and ALL the rest too, but especially those who can&#x27;t afford a car in NYC)

I must say I am not surprised that it works but that it works at such a cheap rate. Looking at parking costs that seems to be less than two hours of parking. My instinct would have been that there would be no effect below say ~30$.

Miracle seems to imply that the outcome is not what one would expect when pricing rise. Demand goes down when prices go up, and alternatives get used more frequently. This is precisely what anyone who understand economics would think. Why is this surprising or miraculous? Is that tongue-in-cheek?

Yes, though only works if the public transport is already pretty good. If not then the demand for car travel is inelastic<p>I&#x27;m in London and can&#x27;t see myself switching back to a car. Public transport is so much more convenient.

As a regular commuter via bus to NYC, I am now MORE likely to take the bus in given that the ride out of the Lincoln tunnel is more predictable.<p>Fewer cars -&gt; fewer accidents -&gt; fewer delays -&gt; much better experience.<p>The p90 of the Lincoln tunnel trip is 100% a &quot;when numbers match gut feel&quot; experience.

Make it bill employers rather than employees so they don&#x27;t all thrash the transit infrastructure at the same time. That would be a miracle.

I don&#x27;t live in NYC but I have friends, both conservatives and liberals, who live in NYC and they couldn&#x27;t be happier with congestion pricing. Increased subway ridership has increased police presence at the stations which has made the subway feel safer and reduced crime. Hopefully more cities follow their lead.

The answer has always been to create guidelines under which capitalism is allowed to operate that align with the goals of society.<p>Congestion pricing and carbon taxes.

While the results are great describing it as a miracle when it has been in effect in other cities for years with similar results seems a bit much.

The next step in this policy miracle is to charge a higher rate, either by weight or by tailpipe emission, for cleaner air.

This policy sounds like a great thing all around. It reduces traffic, noise, and pollution in the city and increases MTA funding. Win-Win! My only question is why does the federal government (ie. Trump) want to halt it? Why do they care?

Stated goal was not necessarily reduced traffic, but additional funding for MTA. The agency that never had an audit and is widely known to be very corrupt. Why on earth not to tie additional funding with an audit requirement? Every New Yorker wonders the same. The fact that Hockul does not mention MTA accountability in any form and shape makes it very hard to take seriously.

To me the fact that traffic has fallen off a cliff feels like a bad sign. Congestion pricing is 9$ a day, at max ~400$ a month. Any tech employee making over 100k a year can spend this much without overthinking it. But the fact that traffic fell off a cliff means that actually the roads were used by poor people who can’t afford an additional 400$ a month and now we’ve pushed them into public transit.

The <i>only bad</i> thing about this is it penalizes the poor. For the rich that charge means nothing and I am sure they love it due to less traffic.<p>It is too bad the rates could not be set based upon the income level of the driver. Make it hurt for everyone.<p>For example, if you make say 100,000 per year, it is say 100&#x2F;day. I am sure it was thought about, but was ignored because the people in power want the best of both worlds. Cheap access and low traffic.<p>I think some countries in Europe use a graduated rate for this.

I look forward for people emboldened by this coming up with more market based solutions to get the riffraff out of my sight.

Isn&#x27;t Congestion Pricing a handout of public streets to the wealthy?<p>(Because the wealthy can easily afford the extra cost, but non-wealthy cannot, making travel on public streets more convenient for the wealthy, while denying public streets to others?)<p>I&#x27;d want to explore options that are more fair, but that the wealthy wouldn&#x27;t like, because it doesn&#x27;t give them preferential treatment.<p>For example, start with only public mass transit, emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, workers needing to transport equipment, and walking. And then figure out what else needs to be added in, and how you prevent it just being gamed. (Nope, the public streets don&#x27;t necessarily owe ride-hailing apps, taxis, and limos use of the public streets; nor is anyone necessarily entitled to use of a non-mass-transit vehicle on public streets when in Congestion Mode, no matter how wealthy or royal they are.)

&gt; One of the loudest criticisms of congestion pricing is that it “forces people to take the unsafe subway.” Putting aside the fact that the subway is already far safer than driving, increased transit ridership has driven down subway crime as more “eyes on the train” reduce the appeal of crime and make the system more safe.<p>I take issue with the framing of this. Sure public transport is &quot;safe&quot; as in you are very unlikely to get assaulted or murdered. But I think most people use that word as a stand in for general unpleasant experience. If you have to avoid a train car because someone decided to camp out there, or you nearly get kicked in the head by a subway dancer, you&#x27;re not exactly not &quot;safe&quot; but you&#x27;d rather not be there.