Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

Perceived Early Outcomes in NYC

• Many commenters see congestion pricing as “working”: fewer cars, faster traffic, better bus reliability, less noise, especially in Manhattan’s core.
• Graphs showing cars averaging ~9 mph are viewed as stark evidence that pre‑policy car infrastructure was highly inefficient.
• Some on-the-ground reports describe more foot traffic in lower Manhattan and easier bus travel from New Jersey/Queens; others anecdotally report eerie midweek emptiness and more vacant storefronts.
• Business impacts are contested: article stats show visitors and restaurant bookings up, but several people are skeptical, noting business self‑diagnoses are unreliable and early data is thin.

Measurement, Causality, and “A/B Testing”

• Several participants want policy changes bundled with explicit evaluation plans and success metrics (e.g., commute times, bus speeds, business revenue).
• Others stress that true randomized A/B tests at city scale are impossible; before/after comparisons are confounded by macro trends (economy, seasons, other policies).
• Some call these “fundamentally unanswerable questions” where we can only collect suggestive evidence rather than clean causality.
• There’s criticism that the NYT piece feels like advocacy: positives are quantified, while sections on pollution, low‑income commuters, and public opinion are “too soon to tell.”

Equity, Fairness, and Who Pays

• Critics argue congestion fees are inherently regressive, turning Manhattan into a “playground for the rich” and burdening low‑income drivers who lack viable transit.
• Others counter that:
  • Most commuters into lower Manhattan already use transit.
  • Car commuters into the zone skew higher income.
  • A very small share of working poor drive into the zone and some receive waivers or discounts.
• Debate over fairness: some see a flat fee as fair (same price for same service); others see any flat access charge as exclusionary when it changes behavior mainly for poorer users.
• Alternative ideas (lottery/plate bans, income-based pricing) are discussed but criticized as harder to tune, more intrusive, and more disruptive to people with fixed-time obligations.

Cars vs. Transit, Bikes, and Urban Form

• Strong anti‑car contingent: cars dominate space, generate noise, pollution, injuries, and sprawl; they argue many “needs” for cars are artifacts of car‑centric planning.
• Defenders emphasize convenience, carrying capacity, weather protection, perceived personal safety, and US low density; they resist policies that intentionally raise “at‑use” costs.
• Congestion pricing is framed by some as a bootstrapping tool: shifting marginal trips to transit, justifying better service and eventually supporting denser, more walkable neighborhoods.
• Bikes and e‑bikes feature heavily:
  • Advocates highlight huge capacity and space gains, plus evidence that bike and foot traffic spend more locally.
  • Others describe “lawless” delivery e‑bikes, serious crashes, and call for registration and camera enforcement; replies stress cars remain orders of magnitude more dangerous.

Families, Accessibility, and Quality of Life

• Some parents describe car‑centric suburbs as “hell” with kids and see dense, transit‑rich neighborhoods (Manhattan, Brooklyn, European cities) as ideal.
• Others highlight the practical difficulties: double strollers on stairs, limited elevators, crowded trains, expensive family housing, and the need for cars in outer boroughs or US regions without good transit.
• There’s broad agreement that improved transit accessibility (elevators, better buses) is a necessary complement to congestion pricing.

Politics, Slippery Slopes, and Scaling

• NYC is seen as a special case: uniquely dense, pre‑car transit skeleton, and massive existing demand; many doubt simple transferability to car‑dependent US metros.
• Some fear a “slippery slope” from pricing to broader driving restrictions or de facto bans on internal combustion vehicles; others call this normal policy diffusion (successful ideas spreading) rather than escalation.
• The governor’s earlier delay and fee reduction are criticized as short‑term political maneuvering that risked underfunding the transit improvements pricing is meant to support.