The externality is already "priced in" to the traffic. People who can wait in traffic or can't afford not to wait in traffic do so, and people who want to skip out can as well.

Congestion pricing, like many fees and regulations, is a regressive tax, because the overhead seeps into all goods and services and it impacts the poor most of all and the rich not at all.

The median income of a household with a car in the city is more than double that of households without cars [1]. In a city where public transport is a viable and relatively cheap alternative, it doesn’t seem obvious that it disproportionately impacts the poor, unlike for instance a flat sales tax on essential goods.

[1] https://blog.tstc.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/how-car-fre...

It disproportionately impacts the working lower classes. Poor in NYC likely means homeless. Dual income McDonalds working family is above the CarLess HHI median wage in the reports you linked. That same worker is heavily impacted by congestion pricing vs say a Quant trader

17$/hr * 50hrs/week * 52weeks/year * 2 earners = 88.5k/year

The dual income McDonalds worker was never driving into Manhattan. Though the fixation on “poor people” is fake. 100 studies could come out explaining that congestion pricing is better for poor people and the opponents aren’t going to change their view on it. It’s a fake argument used to launder more selfish opinions.

If they only taxed passenger vehicles you'd have a point, but the cost for trucks is actually higher (up to more than double), which means that in the end it is a tax on essential goods, because those goods have to make it into the city somehow and businesses have to pass that cost on to customers. It's reasonable to be afraid that poor customers will see the largest change as a percent of their budget as prices go up to pay for the tax (though obviously we haven't had time to measure whether that to see for sure).

In the absence of pricing, people who do not want to wait cannot opt out of traffic, so the rebuttal here seems imperfect.

The externality of noise and smog for people living there is not priced in wait time for drivers.

> … the overhead seeps into all goods and services…

We have always paid a congestion tax on goods and services, it’s just been in the form of paying workers to sit in traffic.

traffic is a crappy externality that harms everyone, drivers, non-drivers. non-drivers are harmed by pollution, slower buses and cabs, noise, slower emergency response times. drivers are harmed by all those things as well plus the stress and inconvenience of extreme traffic. the point of congestion pricing is to reduce the so-called "traffic tax" that everyone pays into one that is just a toll, that only drivers pay. reducing traffic is a direct goal of the toll.

There is only one singular goal written into the enabling law for this Congestion Tax, renenue for the NYC MTA transit system's capital plan. They have to raise one billion dollars per year. Any reducing congestion or any altering of pollution were only part of getting Federal approval. Now the only purpose is to raise money with 5 years of hikes already scheduled. This is going to uave drastic unintended consequences. I predict a theatre and retail recession. And more office divestment if this regressive tax isn't repealed or forced to focus on emissions or some non revenue goal.

Sure it is going to have consequences, but so does not doing anything as well.

Not to be that guy, but from a European standpoint the clear answer is: If you make driving cars into the big city expensive, if you still wanna get people there you need to give them other, cheap, more space-efficient ways of getting there. Public transport, bus lines, trains, stuff that Asian megacities do as well.

Or you can build even more lanes and parking lots, because that worked out great and was without any consequences so far /s

I am not saying I trust in the success of NY congestion pricing, but that has nothing to do with the measure (it is fine) and everything to do with how how half-assed it might be implemented. But elsewhere similar concepts work just fine. But hey, so does healthcare..