I'm relieved. Turning private cars into a revenue stream means the MTA will always want large numbers of private cars rolling into the city. That's the opposite of what a transit system should aim for. A ban on private cars will put rich people too snooty for the metro in favor of a better metro, as it will be the only game in town, and they will get what they want. I know Hochul's opposing it from the opposite direction, but that doesn't make it a good policy.
OK but you see how this is not really a solution, right? This is the ultraleft position of "if we can't do the best possible thing we shouldn't do anything at all." Congestion pricing discourages cars from entering the city and is a step towards a private car ban. The MTA does not control the bridges or tunnels into Manhattan, that's the Port Authority, so they're not in a position to ever ban or affect cars entering or exit the city. There's no like perverse incentive this creates on the part of the MTA to support cars because they have no policy levers to do so.
It's a step away from political feasibility of a car ban. As it stands, the opposition should just be drivers. With a congestion charge in place, a car ban would mean budget cuts to the MTA and/or tax hikes, so you'll see people who never set foot inside a car opposing the ban because they'd be impacted by one or both of those things.
As for the policy levers, they run the metro. If they improve the metro to the point that a lot of drivers stop driving in, they lose money. That's the perverse incentive.
As it stands, the opposition should just be drivers.
This is unrelated to your overall point, but suburban motorists are irrational for opposing congestion pricing. The addition of a congestion tax/toll would do wonders for rush hour traffic. The current experience of driving in Lower Manhattan during rush hour is sitting in a sea of cars at 0 mph while watching pedestrians walk faster than you.
The reason motorists oppose congestion pricing is because they wrongly perceive driving as free. The millionaire NYC middle manager who commutes downtown every day in their Audi A8 L pays $5.10 every 25 miles in gasoline, but they don't realize this because they only feel the cost once they hit the pumps.
There is an irrational aversion to taking the train because the cost is paid upfront, so you're constantly facing the reality that travel costs money. With cars, you only pay once you're done driving - up until then everything appears free.
Because of these factors, motorists have this idea that driving downtown "has always been free" when in fact it is not free and has never been free. Rational motorists who understand that they are already paying lots for the privilege of driving have no qualms about paying a little bit extra to shave tens of minutes off their commute.
I'm relieved. Turning private cars into a revenue stream means the MTA will always want large numbers of private cars rolling into the city. That's the opposite of what a transit system should aim for. A ban on private cars will put rich people too snooty for the metro in favor of a better metro, as it will be the only game in town, and they will get what they want. I know Hochul's opposing it from the opposite direction, but that doesn't make it a good policy.
OK but you see how this is not really a solution, right? This is the ultraleft position of "if we can't do the best possible thing we shouldn't do anything at all." Congestion pricing discourages cars from entering the city and is a step towards a private car ban. The MTA does not control the bridges or tunnels into Manhattan, that's the Port Authority, so they're not in a position to ever ban or affect cars entering or exit the city. There's no like perverse incentive this creates on the part of the MTA to support cars because they have no policy levers to do so.
It's a step away from political feasibility of a car ban. As it stands, the opposition should just be drivers. With a congestion charge in place, a car ban would mean budget cuts to the MTA and/or tax hikes, so you'll see people who never set foot inside a car opposing the ban because they'd be impacted by one or both of those things.
As for the policy levers, they run the metro. If they improve the metro to the point that a lot of drivers stop driving in, they lose money. That's the perverse incentive.
This is unrelated to your overall point, but suburban motorists are irrational for opposing congestion pricing. The addition of a congestion tax/toll would do wonders for rush hour traffic. The current experience of driving in Lower Manhattan during rush hour is sitting in a sea of cars at 0 mph while watching pedestrians walk faster than you.
The reason motorists oppose congestion pricing is because they wrongly perceive driving as free. The millionaire NYC middle manager who commutes downtown every day in their Audi A8 L pays $5.10 every 25 miles in gasoline, but they don't realize this because they only feel the cost once they hit the pumps.
https://fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=45613
There is an irrational aversion to taking the train because the cost is paid upfront, so you're constantly facing the reality that travel costs money. With cars, you only pay once you're done driving - up until then everything appears free.
Because of these factors, motorists have this idea that driving downtown "has always been free" when in fact it is not free and has never been free. Rational motorists who understand that they are already paying lots for the privilege of driving have no qualms about paying a little bit extra to shave tens of minutes off their commute.