[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.)