Amazing to watch some here try and justify another tax that hurts poor people and deprives them of access to opportunity, that doesn't impact rich people.
There are always exceptions to any rule, but the vast majority of Manhattan drivers aren't poor and the vast majority of poor people passing through Manhattan don't drive.
You're thinking of some other kind of place like the middle of america, where that would make sense.
This is not an everyday occurrence except for some occupations. If it happens once a month, it amortizes out to not much. When I lived there, this is when you got a cab, and the surcharge there will be $2.50, for something you do once in a while. Wow, what a scandal /s
In an occupation where you have to drive in lower Manhattan daily, everyone else in your industry also has the extra $15 now too, so you're not really at any competitive disadvantage. And for some of those occupations, the time savings from lower traffic due to the surcharge might actually really be helpful.
Most people driving in are not poor - if you’re truly poor, you can’t afford the cost of car ownership at all, and if you’re in the lower income brackets you’re likely to take transit because it’s still a big chunk of your income – and the article notes that there are discounts for low-income drivers:
> As for discounts, low-income drivers who make less than $50,000 annually can apply to receive half off the daytime toll after their first 10 trips in a calendar month. In addition, low-income residents of the congestion zone who make less than $60,000 a year can apply for a state tax credit.
And I learned today that NYC has a 50%-off program for low-income transit users ("Fair Fares"). That makes taking a bus or the subway incredibly cheap.
Almost every public health tax hurts poor people. I'm sure you would agree that even taxing tobacco hurts poor people because poor people are the largest user base of tobacco and since they are addicted, taxing tobacco is tantamount to taxing the poor directly (and has little effect on the non-smoking rich). That doesn't mean the tax is a bad thing.
Subsidize what you want more of, tax what you want less of, and all.
In most cities I would agree, but NYC has the best transit in the country by a huge margin. Genuine question: are there lots of people in NYC and surrounding area who must drive into the city for work and don't have convenient alternatives available? This would be true in most places in the US but I'm not sure about NY.
Of course, your underlying point is still valid that the effects of such a tax will not be felt equally across class lines, and that is not ideal in my opinion either.
Genuine answer as a former New Yorker: No. You can get in and out more easily by transit than by car already. It's a luxury. Driving in Manhattan is already expensive many ways anyhow
- bridge/tunnel tolls to enter any way other than from the Bronx along slow inconvenient local streets
- parking costs a lot of money, or a lot of time and hassle (and in fact is prohibitive, like as in you won't find free parking even after circling for an hour, in much of manhattan for much of the day)
- if you're an average american driver from the suburbs or further afield, who is not used to big city driving, you will probably find it very stressful until you practice a lot
- opportunity cost: transit is already great, so there's no compelling reason usually
But, it is great _compared_ to driving, in terms of point A to point B on time performance, other than very late at night, which is the only time you can get around faster in a car (but will likely still struggle with parking)
> are there lots of people in NYC and surrounding area who must drive into the city for work and don't have convenient alternatives available?
Yes. Many poor people (think teachers, healthcare workers, services workers) have been priced out of living in areas that are commutable by MTA. You're looking at driving in or a 2-3 hour commute. People who think NYC's mass trans is 'the best in the U.S.' already live in Manhattan/close-in Brooklyn.
Don't get me wrong, it's great – if you're already paying $40k/year in rent anyway.
I suspect this summary is fundamentally mistaken. I'm sure at least one poor person will have to pay this tax, but my understanding is that the revenue from it will be used to improve systems used by the general public and the wealthy are overrepresented in the expected tax base. By definition, that's the opposite of a tax on "the poor."
That's not the argument at all? We're talking about "the tax" and who it falls on. It's not good that some poor people will have to pay it. That's obviously a downside. It's also only one of many unfair costs pushed down to poor individuals and pretending this is the most important cost of driving a car seems silly. do you disagree with my summary that this is a net transfer to poor folks?
It's an HN classic! "Fuck the poor" is probably the most consistent sentiment expressed on this board. And any opposition to this is met with "they aren't really poor!"
So you think the congestion fee should be means-tested (or, more accurately, affluence-tested)?
How might such a system work? Have the DMVs from the metro area (NY, NJ, CT) link registered vehicle owners with their taxable income last year and share this info with MTA to adjudicate fees? I think that makes it too complex. You could achieve a similar equitable outcome by making the fee universal and using the revenue to improve alternative transit services (and/or lower fares) that are used more by lower income households.
I believe that's roughly how countries that do progressive fines do it. I'm very supportive of progressive fines generally, they preserve the desired deterrent effect of a fine and make sure we all have skin in the game.
It should be easy to make it income related these days. Just have the transit authority submit a list of tolls passed to the tax authorities once a year and have the tax system work it out.
Don't forget the disabled. Can't use 75% of subway stations because you're in a wheelchair? Pay the fee because it's now your problem that MTA doesn't prioritize accessibility.
That's only for the "Access-A-Ride" shuttles and hasn't been codified for individual vehicles of people with disabilities. It's planned but not in writing.
I'm sympathetic to this argument, but as an example someone from NJ could easily drive up to Secaucus Junction and hop on the NJ transit into Penn Station in about the same time as it would take to make it through tunnel + Manhattan traffic. If there are not good connections inside Manhattan or other parts of the city then that is a good argument for better public transit.
Sometimes you've got to carry some stuff with you and cars a great at that. Less affluent people getting penalised for needing some stuff to do a job is pretty brutal. No amount of public transport fixes this.
