I was once riding in a cab, ranting about how private cars should be banned in NYC, and the driver spoke up and said that no one who drives in the city wants to drive there—they do it because they have to. They do it because many neighbors within the greater metro area aren’t severed by any form of public transportation.
I'd be interested to see numbers on that (e.g. what percentage of cars are coming from which locations). There are people poorly served by transit, but Manhattan also has a lot of fairly wealthy people driving, or even being chauffeured, on routes that have perfectly usable transit that they'd just rather not use. Car ownership in NYC (45% overall) is much higher among wealthier than poorer people, and especially so in Manhattan (22%). Those 22% of Manhattanites who own cars are also the ones who lobby hardest for pro-car policies, get angry when street parking is removed to make room for bus lanes or bike lanes, etc.
Because someone in Manhattan owns a car does not mean they use it on a daily basis. From what I see the biggest contributors to parking and congestion in manhattan are people commuting in from outer boroughs and suburbs, then there are the visitors in for lunch and a museum or dinner and a show from the suburbs, Uber or Lyft drivers, and tradesmen/deliveries
People that own cars in Manhattan use them to escape on the weekends...not drive around during the week
> Manhattan also has a lot of fairly wealthy people driving, or even being chauffeured, on routes that have perfectly usable transit that they'd just rather not use.
The classicist subtext you allude to above has no place in NYC transportation policy, and will likely make inequality worse. If you want to make the rich pay their fair share, then raise income or wealth taxes. A multi-millionaire won't be fazed by a $10 congestion surcharge, they'll keep driving their Hummer directly through midtown. But the commuters from Queens or Staten Island, the senior citizens that can't easily walk down subway steps, the families car-pooling their children to different activities, and the countless businesses that need to lug equipment and supplies around the city will feel the pain.
Perversely, congestion pricing will probably benefit the rich. It will clear the streets of folks that can no longer afford to drive, making their Hummer joy ride through mid-town much more pleasurable.
1. The word is "classist," not "classicist," someone who studies the classics. (I wouldn't comment except you've used it twice in this thread.)
2. The proposal has neither classist subtext nor text. It isn't "The rich need to stop driving because the rich suck," it's "The rich need to stop driving because they have perfectly reasonable alternatives, people who live and work in less affluent areas underserved by transit often don't have a perfectly reasonable alternative." Nobody would care if the rich want to drive their cars in Staten Island all day, as long they're not causing congestion. Nobody is trying to hurt the rich. They're trying to solve congestion without hurting people, and those who drive private vehicles in Manhattan are, it is believed, least hurt by this proposal.
And your own argument demonstrates this: obviously congestion pricing is more affordable to the rich, but people still think it's a good idea. If three billionaires want to drive Hummers around midtown all day but in exchange there are protected bike and bus lanes, I am all for that.
If you think the rich are actually being hurt by this proposal, it would be worth arguing that claim. But it is not an injury in my opinion that the rich could previously do something from their richness and now have to do what everyone else does.
Meanwhile, taxing the rich simply because we don't like them (as opposed to because we think that they disproportionately benefit from government resources, or that setting this tax policy has particular benefits to the economy, or whatever) would in fact be a gratuitous injury to them, so I'm not sure why you think that's a kinder alternative.
(Disclosure: I work for a hedge fund, I take the subway, and I think taxes at my bracket and above are too low.)
The proposal in the linked article isn't a congestion charge, but to just pedestrianize many roads in Manhattan. I agree with you that congestion charges aren't an ideal solution for a bunch of reasons, one being that affluent people can just pay their $10 and drive through, as you note. Another problem with them is that congestion charges don't really make roads safe for non-automobile road users, in the way that pedestrianization does.
What annoys me personally about rich Manhattan types with cars is mostly their political influence. Fewer than a quarter of Manhattanites own cars, but the ones that do have historically been disproportionately well connected in local Democratic machine politics.
> What annoys me personally about rich Manhattan types with cars is mostly their political influence. Fewer than a quarter of Manhattanites own cars, but the ones that do have historically been disproportionately well connected in local Democratic machine politics.
I've lived in Manhattan pretty much forever and don't own a car. Most "rich" people I know in this borough are rich because they bought an apartment in the 1970s and are now millionaires on paper based on their apartments current value. They may have outsized influence, but they've also lived here for a long time. While I can understand your irritation, they are not exactly an insignificant constituency (22% of a population is not trivial).
The super rich have always been in NYC, and will be able to get around however they want. Transportation policy should not mix with classicism on either side.
Unfortunately you get to a point where no-one _does_ have to drive in a city, yet still people do. Oxford (UK) is a case in point. There are park-and-rides at every entrance to the city, good bus and train services, and conversely, awful congestion and exorbitant car parking costs. Yet I still know people from my town (15 miles outside) who choose to drive into Oxford even though there's an express train that takes under half the time.
Eventually you can't offer any more carrots and you have to start using a stick.
> Eventually you can't offer any more carrots and you have to start using a stick.
At least you're open that you want to force them to do what you prefer, instead of what's best for them. Most people who want to force their preferences on others are not so clear-eyed.
And at least you're open that you care little about anything else apart from your personal comfort. All the externalities associated with you driving while having perfectly good alternatives should be suffered by the rest of us.
I live in NYC and do not typically drive, nor do I want to drive in NYC. Of course, that has nothing to do with the carrot/stick dichotomy to which I was responding, as you know.
