However NYC's transit is notoriously bad at spending, so not sure it would achive that. Which studies linked in this thread are you refering to? I cant see them.
I wish as a society we'd use this form of taxation more, and widely applied taxes less. In theory insurance is supposed to have the actuarial people who figure it out and properly price the choices in, but it's also surprising how crude they can be-- lumping very distinct situations as "the same". eg aggressive drivers are only penalized after they hurt someone, like the phrase "no harm no foul" (until there is harm). It'd be better if telemetry was collected and penalized in realtime.
How many people on Wallstreet do you know that drive to work?
In this case, you have a regressive tax with a huge positive side effect due to taxing an externality. If the funds are also spread into progressive services it can be a net positive for all income brackets.
However you did mention some other studies on this thread that support your claim this is a regressive tax, I'm worried I missed them, can you share the links?
A lot. Also white-shoe lawyers. They live in Greenwich, Westchester or Westport and drive into the city. (And still, they often park uptown because driving in the congestion zone is annoying and expensive.)
The poor in New York don't drive. If they do, they do so to earn an income. Less congestion helps with that.