Amazing to watch some here try and justify another tax that hurts poor people and deprives them of access to opportunity, that doesn't impact rich people.
You're thinking of some other kind of place like the middle of america, where that would make sense.
This will not significantly increase the cost of goods.
In fact, by reducing congestion, it might actually decrease shipping and other bulk transportation costs.
This is not an everyday occurrence except for some occupations. If it happens once a month, it amortizes out to not much. When I lived there, this is when you got a cab, and the surcharge there will be $2.50, for something you do once in a while. Wow, what a scandal /s
In an occupation where you have to drive in lower Manhattan daily, everyone else in your industry also has the extra $15 now too, so you're not really at any competitive disadvantage. And for some of those occupations, the time savings from lower traffic due to the surcharge might actually really be helpful.
So you're all worse off is a good solution?
> As for discounts, low-income drivers who make less than $50,000 annually can apply to receive half off the daytime toll after their first 10 trips in a calendar month. In addition, low-income residents of the congestion zone who make less than $60,000 a year can apply for a state tax credit.
Subsidize what you want more of, tax what you want less of, and all.
Of course, your underlying point is still valid that the effects of such a tax will not be felt equally across class lines, and that is not ideal in my opinion either.
- bridge/tunnel tolls to enter any way other than from the Bronx along slow inconvenient local streets
- parking costs a lot of money, or a lot of time and hassle (and in fact is prohibitive, like as in you won't find free parking even after circling for an hour, in much of manhattan for much of the day)
- if you're an average american driver from the suburbs or further afield, who is not used to big city driving, you will probably find it very stressful until you practice a lot
- opportunity cost: transit is already great, so there's no compelling reason usually
But, it is great _compared_ to driving, in terms of point A to point B on time performance, other than very late at night, which is the only time you can get around faster in a car (but will likely still struggle with parking)
Yes. Many poor people (think teachers, healthcare workers, services workers) have been priced out of living in areas that are commutable by MTA. You're looking at driving in or a 2-3 hour commute. People who think NYC's mass trans is 'the best in the U.S.' already live in Manhattan/close-in Brooklyn.
Don't get me wrong, it's great – if you're already paying $40k/year in rent anyway.
Like they would know.
How might such a system work? Have the DMVs from the metro area (NY, NJ, CT) link registered vehicle owners with their taxable income last year and share this info with MTA to adjudicate fees? I think that makes it too complex. You could achieve a similar equitable outcome by making the fee universal and using the revenue to improve alternative transit services (and/or lower fares) that are used more by lower income households.
Sometimes you've got to carry some stuff with you and cars a great at that. Less affluent people getting penalised for needing some stuff to do a job is pretty brutal. No amount of public transport fixes this.