> Sure, as long as you consider externalities like congestion.

The thing is, transit increases congestion.

No, I'm not joking. Transit promotes denser housing that always results in higher congestion.

So, are you proposing making transit even more expensive?

I'm all for it, btw.

I’m suspicious of that. LA is famous for low use of transit (relative to population) and is also famous for having bad congestion.

You can screw up everything if you try hard enough. LA is an example of that.

On the other hand, the Greater Houston Area has a similar population to NYC, yet it has 26-minute commutes versus 36 minutes for NYC.

Huh? The Houston metro area has 7.5 million people. The New York City metro area has 20 million.

If you want to look at the city proper (not a great comparison since city boundaries are somewhat arbitrary) then it’s 2 million for Houston versus 8 million for NYC.

It’s not even close.

You logic is completely backwards.

Dense housing doesn't result in traffic congestion. If more people live closer together there is more population density, but as long as they can access commercial areas easily then they can do their shopping and work and recreational tasks without cars. When you remove cars then you suddenly have much more living space because a car takes up a large amount of room to store and there must be extra space for commuters and visitors.

Are you seriously arguing that adding more space for cars makes cities less congested? For every one parking space you add you remove a large amount of useful space for other things.

> Dense housing doesn't result in traffic congestion.

Yes, it does. And the relationship is causal.

> If more people live closer together there is more population density, but as long as they can access commercial areas easily then they can do their shopping and work and recreational tasks without cars.

What a bunch of bullshit.

> Are you seriously arguing that adding more space for cars makes cities less congested?

Not quite. Nothing can help hellscapes like Manhattan. They just need to be slowly de-densified, it'll take generations, but it will be done eventually.

Cities should make sure that they don't rely on transit, and the rest will follow.

> What a bunch of bullshit.

How so? I live in lower Manhattan. I go to work, the gym, parks, restaurants, bars, movie theaters, etc. all without a car.

> Nothing can help hellscapes like Manhattan.

Lol. Don’t move to Manhattan then. Some of us enjoy it. Some of us prefer it over the suburbs. You don’t have to. No one is forcing you.

> Some of us prefer it over the suburbs. You don’t have to. No one is forcing you.

A lot of people say suburbs are bad and that we need to get rid of them.

Sure, there are people with extreme views on any issue.

The existence of those people doesn’t have any bearing on whether or not we should have congestion pricing in one of the densest urban environments in the world.

Suburbs are unequivocally bad for the environment but saying they shouldn’t be subsidized isn’t saying they should be banned. A high fraction of our problems could be solved with market mechanisms to capture the cost of externalities like carbon emissions or habitat destruction, so those factor into people’s buying decisions. Tolls are one of the most important mechanisms for cities to do this because much of the 20th century was spent redesigning cities for non-residents at the expense of the local economy, tax base, health, and quality of life for residents.

We’re seeing this happen partially as the insurance industry adjusts to climate change drives flooding and fires but it’s incomplete and needs to be combined with zoning reform in many cities.

> Yes, it does. And the relationship is causal.

If the relationship is causal, why are spread out areas with less dense populations which rely heavily on cars, like the Dallas or Houston or LA areas, so congested?

If you think your opinion is backed by data, I would love to see it.