Modify the original post to "nobody needs to commute in a personal vehicle" and it works. The truck full of plants is a commercial truck (it might be personally owned, but should be getting reimbursed for mileage).

Commercial is the wrong qualifier for two reasons.

The first is that you're going to have investment banks declaring their employees cars as commercial.

The second is that you don't have to be a business to take a job taking care of a planter (or whatever). You probably are, but it's not required.

I agree with the principal that "nobody needs to commute in a personal vehicle", but I find it hard to codify it into a reliable law.

Edit: Actually I like Nihonde's own modification: “small trucks/vans on demonstrable business”, I'd add "involving transporting stuff for use in the city".

It will probably still be gamed, but the ambiguity of the wording allows selective enforcement to fight the worst of that.

Edit 2: Actually I don't, considering the other discussions in this thread about police abusing their authority giving them more ambiguous laws seems like a bad idea.

Also - This is a perfect example of why I try to avoid advocating for/against policies on the internet unless it's abundantly clear that they are good/bad.

This is literally the point of congestion pricing.

If you really need to drive around in lower Manhattan once in a while (e.g. you are doing a big run to Home Depot), you pay the $5 fee. Unless you are truly destitute, it's not that bad to pay a couple times a year.

The price system isn't perfect, but it's pretty damn efficient at controlling quantity demanded.

For most cities $5 is not remotely enough to make a difference. People pay that per hour of parking. Make it $20 and you might make a dent.

The truck full of plants is delivering plants, so would nominally fit the definition of a delivery vehicle, at least when it's delivering things.

Well. I'd exclude disabled people from this group of "nobody". For many people with disabilities a car is usually the only real way to get anywhere.

What kind of disabilities are we talking about? Because I’m pretty certain that to a blind person a car won’t help them much, and in fact probably makes life in general more dangerous. Further poor people who have a mobility impairment are often forced into dangerous situations, such as operating a motorized wheel chair in mixed automobile traffic instead of being able to use a dedicated bike lane (yes I’ve seen this many times).

EDIT: I'm not saying wheelchair-bound and other similar people should be banned from driving. Like today, we can add wheelchair-only parking accommodations. In fact, restricting traffic to only people with a genuine need will make their trips faster.

You realize other people can drive the car?

It's called a bus

A bus will not drop you off right in front of a specialist clinic for your weekly appointment. Also buses are incredibly hostile for wheelchair bound people, even if they are not meant to be. Seriously try boarding a bus during rush hour on a wheelchair - the driver has to help you and people have to move to give space for you, but in general it's an unpleasant and humiliating experience(people who are usually already late are suddenly even more late because of you, and sometimes even comment on it - you need to grow some proper thick skin to not give a damn).

Besides, even if you are on a wheelchair with lower body paralysis you can still drive with hand controls.

Paratransit is recognized in North America as special transportation services for people with disabilities, often provided as a supplement to fixed-route bus and rail systems by public transit agencies.[0]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paratransit

Yeah, but that's still delivery of a sort, isn't it? GP says only delivery should be allowed. Cars that are only transporting a person and nothing else are unnecessary; that person can be transported by subway instead. Only transporting goods really requires a car.