Congestion Pricing Is a Policy Miracle

Meaning of “policy miracle” and basic economics

• Several commenters note that reduced driving after a new fee is exactly what supply‑and‑demand predicts, so not “miraculous” in a technical sense.
• Others interpret “miracle” as: (a) a rare instance of an actually effective policy being enacted in a car‑centric country, and (b) a rare policy that both achieves its goal (less congestion) and raises money.
• Some admit their prior intuition was that car demand would be inelastic and the fee would just become a commuter tax; the observed scale of behavior change surprised them.

Who pays: poor vs rich, and fairness of the fee

• One side argues congestion pricing “penalizes the poor” while leaving the rich unaffected.
• Counterarguments: in NYC most poor residents don’t own cars; car owners have higher incomes; drivers into the zone skew richer than transit users; and revenue funds transit, which disproportionately benefits lower‑income people.
• There’s support for income‑based pricing (for tolls and fines generally), citing “day‑fine” systems abroad, but others say the complexity would block implementation.
• Some see the charge as a Pigouvian correction to heavily subsidized car use and free/underpriced parking.

Cars, transit, and urban design

• Strong disagreement over whether cars increase “freedom” or create dependence by pushing everything farther apart.
• Pro‑transit voices emphasize climate, air pollution (including tire and brake dust), child asthma, obesity, urban ugliness, and huge public costs of roads and parking.
• Skeptics of anti‑car policy stress current transit shortcomings (coverage, comfort, safety) and argue alternatives should be made genuinely better before “punishing” drivers.

Transit quality, safety, and pollution

• Some report improved subway safety with higher ridership and more police presence.
• Others distinguish statistical safety from perceived unpleasantness (homelessness, disruptive behavior, dancers in cars).
• A long subthread debates subway particulate pollution vs road pollution: one commenter fears neurotoxic dust underground; others counter that car pollution and crash risk are far worse overall.

Behavioral response and pricing dynamics

• Many are struck that a relatively low daily fee produced large traffic reductions; anecdotes describe people spending significant time to avoid small charges, suggesting salience > amount.
• Discussion of parking meter pricing and dynamic pricing experiences elsewhere supports the idea that even modest, visible prices can strongly shift behavior.
• Some caution that prices may need to rise over time as people habituate.

Impacts on buses, tradespeople, and deliveries

• Bus riders and bus commuters report noticeably faster, more reliable trips (e.g., through tunnels).
• Proponents argue tradespeople and delivery drivers gain from shorter travel times and more jobs per day; critics note some low‑wage workers carpool in and may be squeezed.
• There’s debate over how common low‑income car commuters into Manhattan actually are, with one side relying on local observation and the other citing studies (shared within the thread) showing such drivers are a small minority.

Alternatives, governance, and representation

• Some say congestion pricing is inferior to: banning private cars in core areas, removing lanes/parking, or funding free transit via general progressive taxation.
• Others reply that those politically harder options weren’t on the table; congestion pricing was the feasible lever and has well‑documented success in other cities.
• Concerns are raised about MTA mismanagement and lack of audits; supporters argue “don’t let perfect be the enemy of good” and push for oversight in parallel.
• There’s a philosophical dispute over whether congestion tolls are “taxation without representation” for out‑of‑state drivers vs a reasonable user fee on local streets.

Ethical and political framings

• Some view congestion pricing as a progressive policy: drivers into Manhattan are comparatively affluent, while improved transit helps many non‑drivers.
• Others worry more generally about “marketizing” basic public goods and see this as part of a pattern of policies that let the better‑off buy their way into less crowded, higher‑quality space.
• A recurring theme: whether to judge the policy primarily by distributional fairness, by net social outcomes (less traffic, better transit), or by political realism.