[blehn]

1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much.

2. So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA. The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers.

3. There are so many other simple policies that would benefit quality of life in NYC:

- Daylighting — Don't allow cars and trucks to park at the corners of intersections. Huge safety benefits.

- Metered parking everywhere. Why is NYC giving away the most valuable real estate in the world for free? Would be a huge revenue stream while discouraging car ownership in Manhattan.

- Close more streets to car traffic. This is already true on 14th street and it's fantastic. Close Houston, 34th, 42nd, 59th, 125th. This would make buses much more efficient and further discourage passenger car usage

[ihuman]

> So the success of this policy really depends on how much additional revenue it's bringing in for the city and the MTA.

I thought the point of the policy is to get people to use the train instead of cars, freeing up the roads for people that actually need it?

[bluGill]

There are several points. Some want it to get people to not drive, but work from home or drive elsewhere instead is fine with them. Some want it to get more people on transit. Some want it to fund transit expansion. You can belong to more than one of the above groups. Nobody belongs to them all.

[barnabee]

> Nobody belongs to them all.

Why not?

IMO, ideally:

- Some people work from home or drive elsewhere

- Others take transit instead of driving

- The remainder pay a fee that they didn't previously, which can fund more transit

[bluGill]

I didn't give anywhere close to all the different interests here.

[jacobgkau]

The first sentence they said was:

> 1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much.

I'm not saying that's correct or incorrect, but the person you replied to already considered what you brought up and responded to it. The primary "point" seems not to have worked, so the in-practice reason to keep the policy becomes other benefits, which for the city would include revenue being raised. (I guess you can argue it's not a "success" if the main point wasn't achieved, but good luck convincing the city to give up the additional revenue.)

[woodruffw]

> The $9 increase needs to significantly offset the loss in toll revenue from the decrease in drivers.

Many of the entries in question are not tolled: the Brooklyn/Manhattan/Williamsburg/QBB are all toll-free, but are included in congestion pricing. Similarly, the street-level entries to the congestion zone were never tolled. I think the state's calculations probably conclude that these more than offset the drop in toll revenue.

(Or, more nuanced: much of the previous toll revenue went to PANYNJ, whereas congestion pricing funds go directly to the MTA/NYCT.)

[varelaseb]

This is the most econ-brained response possible. Why would the success of a public policy be exclusively defined by revenue generated?

[ses1984]

Because it’s based on the assumption that congestion didn’t actually go down, see number 1 posted by op.

If you want congestion to go down, keep raising the price. It will eventually go down and revenue could go up a lot.

[bluGill]

Or you get voted out of office and your charges reversed down to zero - or perhaps negative as the people are so mad they take it out on the transit this was supposed to fund.

Politics is tricky, don't take so much you make people affected mad enough to undo what you wanted.

[ses1984]

Both parties like money so one party may be voted out if people are angry, but it’s unlikely to result in the charge going away.

It’s also nyc primarily in charge of it and nyc constituents probably are in favor of less congestion and more money.

[bluGill]

Politicians like votes more than money. If this is seen as the standard change of hands that happens once in a while in a good democracy then the charge will stay because $$$. However if this is seen as a rejection of the charges they will go away to prove your vote for the new people wasn't wasted. Seen is the key here - while surveys and such influence this, there is emotion there as well. Note too that it only needs a small vocal percentage in some cases to change perception.

[Rastonbury]

Big econ brained is thinking about whether the congestion pricing is approximately captures the negative externalities of traffic

[blehn]

First, it's not exclusively defined by revenue (which is what my first point was alluding to). Second, the underlying assumption of revenue generated is that it's going to the MTA and used to improve public transit and therefore quality of life in the city, which would be a success.

[CPLX]

> Metered parking everywhere. Why is NYC giving away the most valuable real estate in the world for free? Would be a huge revenue stream while discouraging car ownership in Manhattan.

There isn't all that much free parking left in Manhattan south of 60th street.

Not saying it doesn't exist, there still are alternate side streets for sure, but it's a rapidly dwindling thing.

Agree that it should be almost nonexistent though for the most part.

Also the cost of metered parking in most of the city these days is similar to garage parking pricing.

[jakelazaroff]

Advocates did worry that reducing it from $15 to $9 would create a sort of "no-mans land" — not quite high enough to deter traffic but high enough to annoy people. I'm not sure how to reconcile the significant drop in the bridge and tunnel commute times with the apparent non-effect on commute times within the congestion relief zone.

[sethhochberg]

Most of the bridges and tunnels have their own tolls, with a few exceptions like the Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges. One possible explanation is that the advocates were right and the combined bridge/tunnel + congestion toll is enough to dissuade driving into the zone entirely for people arriving via bridge/tunnel, but the lower congestion toll on its own isn't as much of a deterrent if you have access to a free crossing into Manhattan from other boros or were already in Manhattan (outsize of the zone) to begin with.

[eru]

It's a bit silly to set a fixed rate.

Here in Singapore, the congestion charging pioneer, we adjust the fee dynamically to keep traffic flowing.

[blehn]

> I'm not sure how to reconcile the significant drop in the bridge and tunnel commute times with the apparent non-effect on commute times within the congestion relief zone.

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that either but it'll be interesting to see when more/better data comes available. Maybe car traffic getting to Manhattan is reduced but those people are using more taxis and Ubers to get around once they're in

[spamizbad]

You also have to factor in any reduction (or increase) in traffic fatalities and injuries. 34 traffic deaths and roughly 7500 injuries occurred in Manhattan in one of the nation's highest GDP-per-capita area, so the loss of economic output from these fatalities and injuries is likely fairly high.

[adamc]

Not to mention the costs of treating them.

[jimbob45]

Metered parking everywhere.

Please no. Just tax me at the end of the year if you really need more money. Stop paywalling everything.

[asoneth]

Others have mentioned the unfairness of asking taxpayers to subsidize drivers. This is particularly egregious in Midtown Manhattan where many taxpayers are not drivers and many drivers are not (local) taxpayers.

But even as a driver I prefer when cities place an efficient price on parking. Otherwise, if parking is too cheap compared to demand it costs time and stress circling the block to find a place to park. Market pricing, where the city sets whatever prices are necessary to maintain an empty spot or two on each block, seems more fair, efficient, and pleasant.

[dleink]

Any examples of cities that have done a good job on this?

[asoneth]

It's been ages since I've driven there, but SFpark[1] was (and maybe still is?) considered the gold standard in demand-based pricing.

One interesting finding from the initial research reports was that it achieved the goal of improving availability while at the same time lowering the average meter price, which is nice because it drives home that the purpose is maximizing efficiency, not revenue.

And despite my using it as an example above, Midtown Manhattan actually does this reasonably well, especially in contrast with trying to park in the Upper East/West Side or Harlem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFpark

[fnfjfk]

Why should everyone pay equally, rather than people that currently store their private property for free on public land in some of the most expensive real estate in the country?

[jacobgkau]

The point wasn't supposed to be to raise more money, it was to decrease the amount of people using the roads. Taxing more would, if anything, incentivize people to use those parking spots to "get their money's worth." More realistically, it would not add a barrier to actually parking on a day-to-day basis. Making you think about and reconsider it every time you go to do it with the paywall is what they want (and what is arguably necessary in order to fix the underlying problem, unless those tax dollars are going to go towards multi-level parking garages that add spaces and not just the existing roads).

[renewiltord]

It’s kind of how I feel about rent too. Instead of paywalling this $7k/mo apartment maybe just tax everyone a fair amount?