I'm honestly kind of shocked to discover that Manhattan's only getting one now. Like, taken on its own it is one of the densest large urban areas on earth. I'd assume driving in it is a fairly miserable experience, anyway; where on earth do people park?

Yes, I was living in Manhattan in 2004 working on GPS navigation software, and had to perform some updates relating to the London congestion charge. I thought to myself "This is such a great idea, Manhattan will surely implement a similar system within a couple years". Here we are, 20 years later...

Parking is only really a problem below 59th st or so. You can usually get street parking by driving in circles for 20 minutes, or go to a parking garage and pay ~$8/hr to park.

Driving in Manhattan is pretty straightforward. There are parking garages everywhere you'd want to go (though most non-NYC people would probably consider them shockingly expensive) and at night and on weekends street parking is not too hard to find in most areas.

But outside of rush hours and especially a few places like the tunnel approaches it's not a big deal. People do it constantly, it's totally normal for people from NJ or Westchester or LI to drive in for dinner and park, that kind of thing.

I wonder if the parking should be taxed instead of tolling the bridge.

It is heavily taxed.

I’ve owned a car in Brooklyn for more than 10 years and find it basically nonfunctional to drive in a lot of Manhattan and surroundings. The idea of driving in for dinner from NJ makes my skin crawl. I have family in NJ and Manhattan, and go through the Holland Tunnel frequently. Sometimes it’s fine. Sometimes it’s hell.

The random chance of winding up in standstill gridlock is just way too high. I can’t even count all of the times it has taken me over an hour to go like five blocks. Every time I’ve had the bad idea drive to the office to get a head start on an after-work trip, my mind is blown that some people actually do it every day, by choice.

Second that - for us it's a complete waste of time trying to go into manhattan from dumbo anytime during the work week, it's essentially a giant parkinglot from the bridges onwards.

I imagine all the congestion toll will do is swap the cost of congestion from time to something more palatable like money. And a windfall for people that own real estate just outside of the tolled boundary (yay brooklyn)

In specially-architected car elevators for a large amount relative to what you pay for parking in other urban areas. Daily parking varies from $20 to $125.

(I mean, there are also more traditional parking garages, both above- and below-ground, but the premium on real estate is high enough to justify more expensive solutions to maximize land value also).

> I'd assume driving in it is a fairly miserable experience

Driving in Manhattan is actually pretty pleasant, all things considered. Wouldn't even make a top 10 list for me of worst places to drive in the US. I think in part because there's a weird selection bias where people think it will be bad, so bad drivers don't even attempt, and you're left with a cohort that, on average, has above-average driving skills.

Seattle on the other hand? Worst driver's in the US by a country mile.

We aren’t Europe though. Many Americans have no interest in paying even more taxes. Glad I avoided working and living in NY.

If you are living in a place that forces you into car ownership as a means of transportation, then you are receiving a subsidy in the form of the infrastructure that enables car dependent city planning. You're also compelled to own a car, which is enormously expensive, getting even more expensive, and is probably the thing you do on a regular basis which is most likely to kill you. Sprawl is expensive, and so is car ownership.

Upvote; People complain about a congestion tax -- or traffic -- or bad roads. But they don't think about policy when when a car costs ~30% of a median salary, when insurance is "required", expensive (and part is because some choose not to afford insurance while driving a car). Beyond that car / driving enforcement is a drain on police preventing more dangerous crime, a top entry point of harassment and escalation by police, a drain on District Attorneys and the courts from enforcing other crime.

> If you are living in a place that forces you into car ownership as a means of transportation, then you are receiving a subsidy in the form of the infrastructure that enables car dependent city planning.

It costs more to build a road that supports a bus than it does to build a road that only supports cars. OTOH, the roads also need to support fire engines, so there's that. Certainly stores devote more real estate to parking than they would if I didn't live in a car dependent infrastructure, but I'm paying for that in some way or another.

Otherwise, what infrastructure do you think I'm getting subsidized? I don't have muni water or sewer, and the power and telco utilities certainly pass along their costs to me.

> It costs more to build a road that supports a bus than it does to build a road that only supports cars.

This isn’t true and it’s also missing a bigger point: you need many more lanes for cars than buses. That space is not providing economic value and has to be subsidized using general fund revenue when it could be used by businesses or for housing.

Busses weigh a lot more than most cars, and require a better prepared road bed if you want the road to last. If it's just private light duty vehicles, you can build to a much lower standard; gravel roads are perfectly servicable for cars, but will suffer heavy wear from frequent busses. Road preparation is especially important where many busses are expected to stop and wait for long periods of time, bus stops are often built to an even higher standard.

In the city I live in, nearly all roads are one lane in each direction. Even if we had a lot more busses, I don't see how we would have fewer lanes. If we had a lot less traffic, one lane roads could work.

The minimum infrastructure for busses is more than the minimum infrastructure for cars. Although, if you're getting municipal roads, it makes sense to build them to standards so you can use busses.

This thread is about one of the largest cities in North America and that’s the context of my comment: if gravel roads are an alternative you’re not looking at congestion tolls, and you already need to build the roads to handle things like trucks.

Re: lanes, yes, rural areas are different but if you look around suburban or urban environments there are a ton of 4-8 lane roads, complex interchange ramps, etc. which exist only because people drive solo and the resulting congestion leads to a massive amount of dedicated space. If you count the number of people on a given block, it’s usually an amount which will fit on a single bus. This is really eye-opening if you’ve ever driven in New Jersey where there are these huge congested roads full of cars and a single train goes by with more people than every car in eyesight.

You started with

> If you are living in a place that forces you into car ownership as a means of transportation,

Which I felt moved the topic out of NYC. Lots of people live in NYC without car ownership.

That was someone else, but I think the point of comparison was the New Jersey and Connecticut suburbs whose drivers are affected by this change rather than rural drivers. Those kind of places are where you see such a large amount of the local budget going to road construction and maintenance because they have the combination of high population and limited transit options.

> Otherwise, what infrastructure do you think I'm getting subsidized?

The city you drive into is subsidizing your ability to drive into the city, the space to park in the city (which could be used for more housing), paying the cost of your emissions and noise, so that you can live a cheaper life in an area that's generally more expensive to sustain per-capita.

> I don't have muni water or sewer, and the power and telco utilities certainly pass along their costs to me.

The power and telcos generally do not pass these costs onto you. The costs are spread across the entire user-base, and it's more expensive to support you because it's more infrastructure for less people. Streets/roads/highways are also generally subsidized.

Suburbs and extreme white-flight areas are heavily subsidized by cities, especially if you're commuting into them for work. If the costs of sustaining your living situation were truly passed onto you, you wouldn't be able to afford to live there.

What are you talking about? The roads in my city are paid for my taxes remitted to the city. I guess you could call that a subsidy but that's also just known as being paid for by taxes. And if you're in an area where everyone needs a car to get around then there's no argument that drivers are mooching off the tax revenue of non-drivers. I swear people are so salty about roads when they don't drive but nobody complains about public schools when they went to private.

Owning a car isn't enormously expensive except in online discussions where people quote the MSRP of $year+1 models and act like folks making minimum wage are actually paying that. My primary car is a 2012 Honda Fit that was $6000 when I bought it at 30k miles and is now pushing 120k. I bought it in cash, but the monthly payment with insurance would have been 15% of my rent.

Most Americans do not drive solely on city/town roads, we rather frequently take highways and interstates which are federally subsidized - not mostly paid for by city taxes.

You or your city may be exceptions, you might drive only on city roads, but the parent comment's point about subsidies is broadly correct.

Federal taxes come from ... citizens.

Even the fuel taxes come from ... citizens.

There's not some magical source of funding that doesn't eventually come from taxes.

I don't think anyone here is under the impression that government subsidies don't come from taxes. The criticism above is that subsidies skew the observed relative prices of transport at the point of use.

If I am reading https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2022-03/F... correctly (and I'm almost certainly not) the budget in 2023 was $60 billion (which to be fair includes more than just highways) and if this is correct (which it may be biased) https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-highway-t... then federal fuel taxes raised $43 billion of that.

It's within 2/3rds (and frankly lower than I thought, $60 billion doesn't get you @#@^ these days).

Yes, but I think the poster's point was that their locality maintained the roads using tax dollars collected from the locality - i.e. their local roads are sustainable system.

All US dollars are created by the US government, the ability of the US government to create valuable dollars comes from the tax base, so of course everything eventually goes back to taxes.

But it's not really relevant to the point.

I'd recommend watching this video by "Not Just Bikes": [Suburbia is Subsidized: Here's the Math](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Nw6qyyrTeI).

The city also has to pay for utility lines, which are much more expensive in suburban sprawl than the urban center. Also, zoning laws make it more expensive to build apartments, so you really only get single-family houses in the suburbs and apartments in the inner city. If you use property taxes to pay for infrastructure, the inner-city residents (living in apartments, and likely poorer) are paying most of the money for infrastructure they never use.

This isn't even moving the goalposts, this is switching to water polo. You don't get to tally every cost of suburbia and then say that's the cost of people driving cars. The argument doesn't apply to someone who lives in a city and drives a car nor someone who lives in a rural town who drives a car.

You're really just arguing that suburbia is a drain on city budgets and I can agree with that, it's a drain on a lot of things. I think the reason it persists and gets special treatment is because a significant number of people consider it the goal and see themselves moving out of the city eventually.

But more generally people get so stuck in the idea that tax dollars will be spent on things that aren't for you. Am I the weird one that's unbothered by this? If your vegan you're paying for meat and dairy subsidies you don't use, if you don't have kids you're paying for schools you don't use, if your house is all electric you're paying for gas subsidies you don't use, if you're not outdoorsy you're paying for parks you don't use, if you're acab you're paying for police you don't want, if you believe that caging people is immoral you're paying for whole prison systems you don't want.

Adopting or rejecting a policy based on it being "European" or "American" rather than by its actual projected effects and merits seems like weird decisionmaking to me. American exceptionalism, as well as its inverse, are usually pretty poor guidance for anything.

> Glad I avoided working and living in NY.

Seems like an unequivocal win-win :)

Do you have any evidence that those schemes have resulted in lower sale tax revenue for those locations?