NYC has 8M people and 2M cars. Manhattan has like a 22% car ownership rate, and it's… not the poor people. https://www.hunterurban.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Car-L...
A parking spot will cost you more than rent in some other cities.
replies(1):
A parking spot will cost you more than rent in some other cities.
Because the poor don’t drive in New York, and to the extent they do, they likely qualify for an exemption.
This mechanism allows people with more money to enjoy driving in the city or is this congestion prcing based on your salary? no its not its based on the time in the city independent of what you make.
A person with their high end car and miillions now can buy himself a nice little drive into the city while everyone else can't.
The whole issue with car dependency is that it is a massive barrier for participating in society.
Public transit is orders of magnitude cheaper, and very viable and often the better option in the New York area.
This was already the case in NYC without congestion fees. (For example: https://nypost.com/2025/07/12/us-news/park-slope-parking-spo...)
Now they get to fund public transit a little bit while they do so.
https://www.cssny.org/news/entry/the-cost-of-killing-congest...
This is nonsense.
The poor of New York benefit from congestion pricing. It means more funding for the public transit they predominantly take. And for the minority who drive for a living it increases their revenues.
The opposition to congestion charges comes from principally outside New York, often from folks who have little to no familiarity with it.
The difference is that now they are paying for that service they were already using, and those funds are going to public transit which serves the majority of New Yorkers especially those with lower incomes.
They're already using them, and the results show. They could have done it cheaper. But the LIRR is operating at Swiss rail efficiecies since the recent electrification and signalling improvements.
This does not exist. Parking in the congestion zone starts at $25 for an hour and regularly goes above $100 for an evening.
> In June 2025, revenue from the congestion toll was used to increase service on more than a dozen bus lines citywide… In October 2025, the MTA sold $230 million worth of bonds to help fund the first projects that were being partially financed using congestion-toll revenue.
Also, efficiency was already on the upswing for the LIRR long before congestion pricing funds[1].
[1] https://www.mta.info/press-release/icymi-governor-hochul-cel...
Even before congestion pricing this was the major factor. It's often quicker, more reliable, more pleasant, and has less variation in delays to ride the train/subway in NYC. Speaking from personal experience I could easily eat the congestion charge to daily commute into Manhattan, and I'd rather still take the train because I can do my mindless scrolling or read a book during that time.
The only time I've found that a car is better is during the weekends with a group larger than about 4 people. The train schedules are terrible, the commute time isn't bad, and the price per ticket (assuming you're coming from the outer suburbs) vs parking and tolls works out to be a wash.
Our C-suite and top quant traders at our firm take the train, bike, or walk to the office daily. I asked around my office - no one has ever driven regularly to our office in 20+ years.
The reason why is because driving objectively sucks in the city.
Expected revenue was used to budget quite a few projects; this caused a bit of a scare when Hochul put it on hold for a while. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/16/nyregion/congestion-prici...
That money you're talking about was money that was already spent to implement congestion pricing
Correct. But they’re being expanded. Early signs are there. And we have precedent to show that funding this work, and funding it sooner, works.
> efficiency was already on the upswing for the LIRR long before congestion pricing funds
Correct. Congestion funds accelerate that process.
I spoke an inarticulately, but the point was trying to make is that we have precedence for quality and efficiency improving capital spending by the MTA. The bonds the MTA issued earlier this year double down on that. The early signs of that spending show those capital deployments are helping in the way the preceding spending did.
Its the same principle with kindergarden and late fee; Without a late fee, people sometimes were late getting their kids, with late fees more people were late getting their kids. Now they were able to 'pay' for this.
You now can pay for having less traffic for you. Who can afford this? The rich/richer person.
This increases inequality.
As long as the pricing is absolut and not relative to the owners salary, it is increase inequality.
Poor could also mean the middle class is more affected than the rich class (whatever you call the class above middle).