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.
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.