Congestion pricing in Manhattan is a predictable success

Ideology, “Neoliberalism,” and The Economist

• Long subthread on labeling The Economist: classical liberal vs “neoliberal,” center‑right, not left.
• Several point out that Pigovian taxes, congestion pricing, and carbon taxes are entirely consistent with market economics, not “anti‑market” intervention.
• Others stress neoliberalism vs US “liberal” and “left” are muddled terms that many people use mainly as slurs.

Who Benefits, Who Loses, and Class Issues

• Supporters argue: in Manhattan, regular car commuters are disproportionately affluent; the poorest rely on buses and subways, which benefit most from less congestion and new funding.
• Critics call it classist: it prices out lower‑income drivers (including long‑time residents, small‑business workers, and people with car‑dependent jobs) while the rich simply pay and enjoy emptier roads.
• Some cite low‑income credits and disability waivers; opponents dismiss these as bureaucratic fig leaves.

Observed Effects: Traffic, Buses, Air, Safety, Business

• Multiple first‑hand accounts: traffic is clearly lighter, especially at traditional choke points; buses and deliveries are faster and more reliable.
• Early data cited: fewer crashes and injuries in the zone; modest improvement in one particulate measure (too early to prove causation).
• Some residents say the main quality‑of‑life gain is the disappearance of “show‑off” cars and street noise at night.
• Others report no noticeable change or note that their own costs (taxis, tradespeople, deliveries) are going up.
• Comparisons to London: congestion initially fell, but critics claim it crept back as charges were politically held below true congestion‑clearing levels.

Regressivity, Externalities, and Pass‑Through Costs

• One camp: this is a regressive tax that will raise the price of “literally everything,” subsidize a wasteful MTA, and deliberately reserve driving for the rich.
• The other: congestion and road space were already heavily subsidized; the charge simply makes private driving reflect its full social cost (space, pollution, delays), replacing “deadweight loss” with revenue for transit.
• Ongoing dispute over evidence: will time savings for trucks and service vehicles outweigh the fee, or be passed on as higher prices?

MTA Governance and Use of Funds

• Several posts highlight documented MTA waste, union‑driven overstaffing, and contractor capture; they fear new revenue will be squandered.
• Others counter with references to legally earmarked capital plans: billions for new subway cars, buses, and modern signals, arguing congestion funds are among the few streams with clear safeguards.
• Broader argument about US habit of outsourcing core public functions to consultants and contractors, and whether rebuilding in‑house expertise is underway.

Politics, Legitimacy, and Long‑Term Design

• Discussion of federal attempts to block the program, state‑level delay until after an election, and the outsized role of city employees with free parking in opposing it.
• Some see rural/suburban backlash as part of a broader anti‑city, anti‑transit culture war.
• Concerns that if pricing isn’t dynamically adjusted, congestion may eventually return while the charge persists as a quasi‑permanent toll.