I thought the point of the policy is to get people to use the train instead of cars, freeing up the roads for people that actually need it?

Why not?

IMO, ideally:

- Some people work from home or drive elsewhere

- Others take transit instead of driving

- The remainder pay a fee that they didn't previously, which can fund more transit

> 1. The data is obviously flawed, but if there's anything to speculate from it, it's that the actual congestion in lower Manhattan isn't affected that much.

I'm not saying that's correct or incorrect, but the person you replied to already considered what you brought up and responded to it. The primary "point" seems not to have worked, so the in-practice reason to keep the policy becomes other benefits, which for the city would include revenue being raised. (I guess you can argue it's not a "success" if the main point wasn't achieved, but good luck convincing the city to give up the additional revenue.)

If you want congestion to go down, keep raising the price. It will eventually go down and revenue could go up a lot.

Politics is tricky, don't take so much you make people affected mad enough to undo what you wanted.

It’s also nyc primarily in charge of it and nyc constituents probably are in favor of less congestion and more money.

Many of the entries in question are not tolled: the Brooklyn/Manhattan/Williamsburg/QBB are all toll-free, but are included in congestion pricing. Similarly, the street-level entries to the congestion zone were never tolled. I think the state's calculations probably conclude that these more than offset the drop in toll revenue.

(Or, more nuanced: much of the previous toll revenue went to PANYNJ, whereas congestion pricing funds go directly to the MTA/NYCT.)

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of that either but it'll be interesting to see when more/better data comes available. Maybe car traffic getting to Manhattan is reduced but those people are using more taxis and Ubers to get around once they're in

Here in Singapore, the congestion charging pioneer, we adjust the fee dynamically to keep traffic flowing.

There isn't all that much free parking left in Manhattan south of 60th street.

Not saying it doesn't exist, there still are alternate side streets for sure, but it's a rapidly dwindling thing.

Agree that it should be almost nonexistent though for the most part.

Also the cost of metered parking in most of the city these days is similar to garage parking pricing.

Please no. Just tax me at the end of the year if you really need more money. Stop paywalling everything.

But even as a driver I prefer when cities place an efficient price on parking. Otherwise, if parking is too cheap compared to demand it costs time and stress circling the block to find a place to park. Market pricing, where the city sets whatever prices are necessary to maintain an empty spot or two on each block, seems more fair, efficient, and pleasant.

One interesting finding from the initial research reports was that it achieved the goal of improving availability while at the same time lowering the average meter price, which is nice because it drives home that the purpose is maximizing efficiency, not revenue.

And despite my using it as an example above, Midtown Manhattan actually does this reasonably well, especially in contrast with trying to park in the Upper East/West Side or Harlem.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SFpark