NYC Congestion Pricing Reduced Traffic, Hits Revenue Goals

[iluvatar5150]

Now let’s see if Kathy Hochul can convince Trump (or the courts) to let it remain in place.

Congestion Pricing Reduced Traffic. Now It’s Hitting Revenue Goals.

Revenue figures from the Manhattan tolling plan showed that the program is on track to raise billions for mass transit repairs.

www.nytimes.com

New York’s congestion pricing plan raised $48.6 million in tolls during its first month, a strong start for the program that exceeded expectations and kept it on track to raise billions of dollars for the region’s decaying mass transit system.​

 

[ThatRobGuy]

It may be tougher to make a sales pitch for keeping it it's unpopular with nearly half of residents, some local business owners, and some local politicians (despite it achieving some revenue goals at a state level)

From what I've read, the main concerns about it are 3-pronged

- Some local critics argue that public transportation needs major improvements BEFORE making driving more costly via toll deterrence.
- Local business have the obvious concern that the extra tolls will prevent people from coming into the city to dine and shop
- Fairness concerns, while $13.50/day can be easily absorbed by people with a lot of money. That's not the case for everyone. The outer boroughs and NJ are already not cheap places to live. So, for people who have to commute into the city 5-days a week, that equates to them getting a $270/month toll bill. In addition, it congests public transit (more often used by lower income people) with more people taking that than commuting. So it's basically shifting the "it takes a long time to make it to work in the morning" burden from the upper income to the lower.

Prior to Trump dipping his toes into that particular water, New Yorkers were quite divided on it. Per some polling picked up by the AP:

The poll showed that among adults who drive into the congestion pricing zone a few times per week or more (56% support vs. 42% oppose), adults who drive into the area at least a few times per month (51% support vs. 46% oppose), adults who take public transit at least a few times each week (47% support vs. 45% oppose), and Manhattan residents (57% support vs. 36% oppose).

Barely over half in the wanted it to stay

Thus, the reason I said, "prior to Trump"...because we'll see if the "Trump factor" plays any role in public perceptions in the area. Since Trump tends to be a divisive figure, that has a way of shaping people's views on policies based on not wanting to be seen as "being on Trump's side". Meaning, there is a subset of liberal voters who will say "What's that? Trump is against the congestion pricing model?...well in that case, here's my 'hooray for congestion pricing' shirt I'm going to wear out in public for all my friends to see"

 

[iluvatar5150]

It may be tougher to make a sales pitch for keeping it it's unpopular with nearly half of residents, some local business owners, and some local politicians (despite it achieving some revenue goals at a state level)

From what I've read, the main concerns about it are 3-pronged

- Some local critics argue that public transportation needs major improvements BEFORE making driving more costly via toll deterrence.
- Local business have the obvious concern that the extra tolls will prevent people from coming into the city to dine and shop
- Fairness concerns, while $13.50/day can be easily absorbed by people with a lot of money. That's not the case for everyone. The outer boroughs and NJ are already not cheap places to live. So, for people who have to commute into the city 5-days a week, that equates to them getting a $270/month toll bill. In addition, it congests public transit (more often used by lower income people) with more people taking that than commuting. So it's basically shifting the "it takes a long time to make it to work in the morning" burden from the upper income to the lower.

Prior to Trump dipping his toes into that particular water, New Yorkers were quite divided on it. Per some polling picked up by the AP:

The poll showed that among adults who drive into the congestion pricing zone a few times per week or more (56% support vs. 42% oppose), adults who drive into the area at least a few times per month (51% support vs. 46% oppose), adults who take public transit at least a few times each week (47% support vs. 45% oppose), and Manhattan residents (57% support vs. 36% oppose).

Barely over half in the wanted it to stay

Thus, the reason I said, "prior to Trump"...because we'll see if the "Trump factor" plays any role in public perceptions in the area. Since Trump tends to be a divisive figure, that has a way of shaping people's views on policies based on not wanting to be seen as "being on Trump's side". Meaning, there is a subset of liberal voters who will say "What's that? Trump is against the congestion pricing model?...well in that case, here's my 'hooray for congestion pricing' shirt I'm going to wear out in public for all my friends to see"

I have sympathy for the fairness concerns regarding folks of lesser means and folks in areas without good access to public transit. Fortunately, the MTA offers a discount to low income commuters.

The plan only affects the southern half of Manhattan (i.e. 60th St / the southern end of Central Park and south), an area that is well-served by public transit. I would hope that folks commuting in by car would be able to find some sort of park-and-ride alternative.

I don't really care about the polls - people are going to crab about stuff like this regardless.

it congests public transit (more often used by lower income people) with more people taking that than commuting. So it's basically shifting the "it takes a long time to make it to work in the morning" burden from the upper income to the lower.

That may be true in most places, but I am skeptical that it's true in NYC and a handful of other cities (e.g. Boston, DC) where awful traffic and public transit have been part of the culture for a long time. Or at least, I'm skeptical it's true to any significant degree. Rich people take trains all the time not because they can't afford cars, but because driving and parking in Manhattan are a pain in the butt. A Mercedes S-Class isn't going to get you through a traffic jam any faster than a bus will.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

That may be true in most places, but I am skeptical that it's true in NYC and a handful of other cities (e.g. Boston, DC) where awful traffic and public transit have been part of the culture for a long time. Or at least, I'm skeptical it's true to any significant degree. Rich people take trains all the time not because they can't afford cars, but because driving and parking in Manhattan are a pain in the butt. A Mercedes S-Class isn't going to get you through a traffic jam any faster than a bus will.

Admittedly, I don't know anyone personally who lives in NYC, but I do know a few who commute to the city (and commute around while they're there). One of the reasons for that I've heard was the perceived safety concerns. (especially for people who have to commute around late a night)

Not sure how it compares to other major cities where I've got to "experience" what the RTA & Rapids stations are like once the sun goes down, but I can definitely why perhaps a woman (or person of smaller stature) wouldn't necessarily feel safe in such an environment, and would probably prefer to have an extra 25 minutes on their commute time in exchange for what perceive as a "safer" method of transport.

So I would imagine there are at least a few who now feel like

"I have to pay an extra $13 a day for my own peace of mind"

I don't really care about the polls - people are going to crab about stuff like this regardless.

But, with regards to what kind of support Hochel can get to "keep the fight alive" so to speak... it can be an indicator of how much people will fight to keep something in place. (and how much time citizens will put forth doing petitions, calling their reps, legal challenges, etc...)

Or, to put it more simply...

For local level policy, a 52/48 split typically doesn't result in the same types of public pressure and letter writing and "call your rep and tell them to keep it" efforts, as it would for a local thing that's overwhelmingly popular or a national or state-wide policy that's more "politically charged"

What I mean by that is:

"They're thinking about getting rid of this playground and dog park that 92% of the public loves" is doing to drum up more of that "general public involvement" than something like this.

When the issues are "closely split", it has to be a "charged" issue that people get extremely passionate about and that would have much broader impact.


A public outcry/demand for "Save our Playground!" (at a county level) is a thing I could see getting a state rep's radar
A public outcry/demand for "Save our access to reproductive health!" (at a state level) is a thing I could see grabbing the attention of a rep or senator

"Save our increased congestion pricing!" (for one portion of one city) is unlikely to be such a thing...


People will write letters and call the mayors office and their state reps to save their park. People will spin up massive sms/email blast campaigns, create petitions to their reps, etc... to raise awareness to protect things like reproductive health.

Quite frankly even if there were people who were "passionate" about keeping congestion pricing in place, would there be enough of them to even get on the radar?

 

[durangodawood]

Sometimes Im driving around and I see everything with fresh eyes or "beginner's mind" for a minute and I think: how did we get to this???

I mean acres and acres of pavement and tons of metal and plastic per person. And just the idea that "parking" is this huge issue. Parking.

 

[Aldebaran]

Now let’s see if Kathy Hochul can convince Trump (or the courts) to let it remain in place.

Congestion Pricing Reduced Traffic. Now It’s Hitting Revenue Goals.

Revenue figures from the Manhattan tolling plan showed that the program is on track to raise billions for mass transit repairs.

www.nytimes.com

New York’s congestion pricing plan raised $48.6 million in tolls during its first month, a strong start for the program that exceeded expectations and kept it on track to raise billions of dollars for the region’s decaying mass transit system.​

$48.6 million that would still be in the pockets of everyday New Yorker's if it wasn't being taken by the government.
But if this is such a great thing, why not double, or even triple the cost? Then there would be even fewer people who can afford to drive into New York City. Then only the rich will be able to afford to drive there. But maybe that's the real goal.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Admittedly, I don't know anyone personally who lives in NYC, but I do know a few who commute to the city (and commute around while they're there). One of the reasons for that I've heard was the perceived safety concerns. (especially for people who have to commute around late a night)

Not sure how it compares to other major cities where I've got to "experience" what the RTA & Rapids stations are like once the sun goes down, but I can definitely why perhaps a woman (or person of smaller stature) wouldn't necessarily feel safe in such an environment, and would probably prefer to have an extra 25 minutes on their commute time in exchange for what perceive as a "safer" method of transport.

I don't live there but visit a couple times a year and have several friends and family who live there. IME, even among cities with robust public transit, NYC is something of an outlier. Driving and parking in Boston sucks, but it's not entirely unfeasible. DC offices are more spread out (it takes a good friend 3 hours door-to-door via public transit from his house in Baltimore), but most of the touristy stuff is within walking distance of each other if you've got a good pair of shoes. But neither of those are true in NYC. It's big; and the whole lower half of Manhattan is very dense, such that, during normal business hours, trying to get around by personal car is just stupid. And then trying to find parking near your house is another nightmare. My SIL who lives on the upper east side has a car, but leaves it at her parents' house in PA most of the time.

In general, I have a hard time relating to fears of crime. I understand it, but when I look around, I see it being spread around more than people assume, i.e. muggings happen in the daylight, near others, not merely in the shadows as depicted in movies.

$48.6 million that would still be in the pockets of everyday New Yorker's if it wasn't being taken by the government.
But if this is such a great thing, why not double, or even triple the cost? Then there would be even fewer people who can afford to drive into New York City. Then only the rich will be able to afford to drive there. But maybe that's the real goal.

The initial proposal was to have the toll at $15, but people complained, so they lowered it to $9.

The goal is to get fewer people driving into the city and more people taking other forms of transportation, which this toll will help fund. I'd be open to having the toll scale with income or net worth - something so the wealthy incur a burden similar to the poor. As I've already pointed out, they have a program that discounts the toll for poor individuals. I wouldn't be surprised if making that system more complicated might not be worth the administrative overhead.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Sometimes Im driving around and I see everything with fresh eyes or "beginner's mind" for a minute and I think: how did we get to this???

I mean acres and acres of pavement and tons of metal and plastic per person. And just the idea that "parking" is this huge issue. Parking.

It's definitely a bigger problem in the "old New England cities"... they built all of the buildings with somewhat narrow roads (during a time when a people didn't even have cars, there were people still riding horses), and then tried to post-hoc introduce "modernity/industrialization".

That's why a cities that developed ("developed" meaning, constructed their city buildings/planning) after the industrialization period don't have the same problems with congested road and narrow streets.

It really boils down to whether or not the cities were designed with automobiles in mind, or if they were "built up" before cars were even really a "thing".

 

[wing2000]

The first month’s revenue will pay for $11 million of expenses related to setting up tolling cameras and other parts of the system, and environmental projects to address concerns about urban pollution that might arise because of changing traffic patterns. That leaves about $37.5 million that can be applied toward financing a slew of major transit repair projects, said Jai Patel, the M.T.A.’s co-chief financial officer.


IMO, Trump authority to shut it down will not hold up in court. But let's say it does, how else with NYC raise the funds to pay for major transit repair projects? IMO, it seems more fair to tax those who use the streets than raising taxes on NYC businesses and residents.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The first month’s revenue will pay for $11 million of expenses related to setting up tolling cameras and other parts of the system, and environmental projects to address concerns about urban pollution that might arise because of changing traffic patterns. That leaves about $37.5 million that can be applied toward financing a slew of major transit repair projects, said Jai Patel, the M.T.A.’s co-chief financial officer.


IMO, Trump authority to shut it down will not hold up in court. But let's say it does, how else with NYC raise the funds to pay for major transit repair projects? IMO, it seems more fair to tax those who use the streets than raising taxes on NYC businesses and residents.

What they need to do is hire in some better project managers and auditors to manage the money they've already got in their budget.
(and no, I'm not suggesting a DOGE-like effort lol)

NYC, and in particular, their MTA has been long criticized for poor management.
(take a quick google about their Second Avenue Subway and Penn Station renovation projects)

The BIG one
Fare evasion (...which fares are supposed to be what they were counting on to provide 50% of their revenue, the rest comes from state money and federal grant money). They knew it was a problem. 2022 estimates were that fare evasion cost them to the tune of $285 million from subway fares, the estimates are even higher now.

The Blue-Ribbon Report on MTA Fare and Toll Evasion

In 2022, MTA leadership convened the Blue-Ribbon Panel to develop fresh approaches to reducing fare evasion across the entire MTA system of subways, buses, commuter rails, bridges and tunnels. Read its report or provide feedback.

www.mta.info

This is direct from the source...right from the MTA's website.


Rather than step up enforcement, "social justice mindsets" chimed in and instead of putting their focus toward using grant money to hire extra police and private security contractors to step up enforcement of fare evasion and increase penalties for it, they had another bright idea. "Let's use a big chunk of the Federal grant money to understand the psychology of fare evaders by commissioning behavioral therapists to conduct a large-scale study"

**Spoiler alert, they're doing it because they can and know the odds of getting caught or punished are slim**


The reality is, if they know what the problem is and know where the revenue shortfalls are coming from, they shouldn't be taking state money, and especially not federal grant money (which comes from all us), to circumnavigate having to address the real issue merely for the purpose of keeping up appearances, politically speaking... (in the form of not wanting to be seen as implementing policies that have disparate outcomes across racial and economic groups)


"Well, we know what the issue is, and we know what we could do to solve it, but if apply the rule equally, we may end up arresting too many people from Groups X & Y and then a bunch of people will accuse us of an 'ism', so instead, let's get some humanities professors from NYU and Columbia University to 'study the problem', because we know the conclusion they'll come up with, and it'll give us cover to justify raising taxes in these other areas to compensate for the problem"

The results of the "study" have yet to be released, but I'd bet good money that they're going to have the predictable conclusion of "bigotry and biases made certain people poor, and that's why they feel they have no other choice but to jump the turnstiles at the subway station"

 

[iluvatar5150]

It's definitely a bigger problem in the "old New England cities"... they built all of the buildings with somewhat narrow roads (during a time when a people didn't even have cars, there were people still riding horses), and then tried to post-hoc introduce "modernity/industrialization".

That's why a cities that developed ("developed" meaning, constructed their city buildings/planning) after the industrialization period don't have the same problems with congested road and narrow streets.

It really boils down to whether or not the cities were designed with automobiles in mind, or if they were "built up" before cars were even really a "thing".

lol wut? You have to get out of Ohio, man. Cities built “for cars” absolutely do have problems with traffic, and they don’t have the density or robust public transportation networks of older cities that help mitigate some of those congestion problems. Imagine trying to drop NYC’s population into Houston (3.5x as many people into 4/3 the area) with just their weak excuse for a light rail. lol

Older, Northeastern cities had their population booms a long time ago, in some cases before cars were ubiquitous. Now that other regions are growing, they’re going to suffer even worse fates because car-centric design isn’t as scalable.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That may be true in most places, but I am skeptical that it's true in NYC and a handful of other cities (e.g. Boston, DC) where awful traffic and public transit have been part of the culture for a long time. Or at least, I'm skeptical it's true to any significant degree. Rich people take trains all the time not because they can't afford cars, but because driving and parking in Manhattan are a pain in the butt. A Mercedes S-Class isn't going to get you through a traffic jam any faster than a bus will.

And importantly, from an article or two I saw recently, the busses are getting through faster, therefore the transit users are actually getting better service, not just those who pay the privilege to drive in lower Manhattan.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

lol wut? You have to get out of Ohio, man. Cities built “for cars” absolutely do have problems with traffic, and they don’t have the density or robust public transportation networks of older cities that help mitigate some of those congestion problems. Imagine trying to drop NYC’s population into Houston (3.5x as many people into 4/3 the area) with just their weak excuse for a light rail. lol

Older, Northeastern cities had their population booms a long time ago, in some cases before cars were ubiquitous. Now that other regions are growing, they’re going to suffer even worse fates because car-centric design isn’t as scalable.

Doesn't that tie in with what some of what I was saying, about the New England cities have a lot of their development before cars were widely used?

And cities that had that main development period with cars in mind do have lighter traffic. Obviously, every major city is going to have some traffic.


Another distinct feature of NYC is that there are no real "suburbs" or "rural" areas nearby for people to move to un-congest the city.


For instance, if someone works in Pittsburgh, they can easily live in a suburb or somewhat more rural area, and be to downtown in 20 minutes.

Some of those older cities with their major population booms and major development happening earlier on, as you mentioned, basically stick people with having to live, work, and shop in "the big city".

 

[ThatRobGuy]

New York’s congestion pricing plan raised $48.6 million in tolls during its first month, a strong start for the program that exceeded expectations and kept it on track to raise billions of dollars for the region’s decaying mass transit system.

I touched on it in my previous reply to someone else.

Would it be reasonable to suggest that they step-up enforcement of fare evasion prior to going back to the citizens wallets for more money?

The Blue-Ribbon Report on MTA Fare and Toll Evasion

In 2022, MTA leadership convened the Blue-Ribbon Panel to develop fresh approaches to reducing fare evasion across the entire MTA system of subways, buses, commuter rails, bridges and tunnels. Read its report or provide feedback.

www.mta.info

In 2022: They lost $285 million due to subway fare evasion.

Fare evasion cost MTA $690 million in 2022 says report that suggests replacing turnstiles with new technology

Fare evasion cost the MTA $690 million last year, according to a new agency study that recommends upping enforcement, expanding low-income fare subsidies, and replacing the subway system’s tu…

www.nydailynews.com

In 2023: That number jumped up even more.

And like I noted, instead of getting more aggressive with enforcement, they decided to take a "social justice approach"

Per The New York Times:
The transit system lost $690 million to fare evasion last year, officials say. Now, the M.T.A. is grappling with a more existential question that is not about how to crack down on fare evasion, but about whether criminal enforcement is the right approach at all.

While some riders who do pay feel cheated by the idea of letting others off the hook, left-leaning politicians and advocates for poor New Yorkers have denounced aggressive policing because they say it unfairly targets the city’s most vulnerable people.

Arrests and summonses for fare evasion have disproportionately fallen on Black and Latino New Yorkers, giving fuel to critics of the approach. During 2022, they accounted for 73 percent of people arrested and given a summons for fare evasion among all incidents in which race and ethnicity were reported by the police, according to an analysis by Harold Stolper, an economist at Columbia University who studies fare evasion policing patterns in the city.

“Economic need is one of the main drivers of fare evasion, so policing fare evasion is policing poverty, to a large extent,” Mr. Stolper said.


It seems as if they're trying to turn it into "social justice" thing...by where, they can lighten enforcement on the thing that more likely impacted "protected" groups, and instead, target the drivers (who are more likely "well-to-do") because it "sends the right message" and it's a harder form of a fare to evade since they're snapping a pick of a license plate

So it's less work for them, and it gets them off the hook from having to implement something that social justice advocates would go after them for, for reasons of "you did something that led to the arrests of more poor, Black, and Latino people"

 

[durangodawood]

It's definitely a bigger problem in the "old New England cities"... they built all of the buildings with somewhat narrow roads (during a time when a people didn't even have cars, there were people still riding horses), and then tried to post-hoc introduce "modernity/industrialization".

That's why a cities that developed ("developed" meaning, constructed their city buildings/planning) after the industrialization period don't have the same problems with congested road and narrow streets.

It really boils down to whether or not the cities were designed with automobiles in mind, or if they were "built up" before cars were even really a "thing".

Yes, except you have it totally backwards!

Its a bigger problem in the newer cities. Drive around south FL sprawl or most of Albuquerque NM or so many similar places. Its all huge 6 lane roads and strip malls, and to get anywhere other than by car is either impossible or risking your life.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

Yes, except you have it totally backwards!

Its a bigger problem in the newer cities. Drive around south FL sprawl or most of Albuquerque NM or so many similar places. Its all huge 6 lane roads and strip malls, and to get anywhere other than by car is either impossible or risking your life.

But I was strictly referring to the problem of traffic congestion, not whether or not cities are suitable "walking cities".

Whether or not the newer cities should be better designed for a "healthy balance" is a different discussion.

 

[durangodawood]

But I was strictly referring to the problem of traffic congestion, not whether or not cities are suitable "walking cities".

Whether or not the newer cities should be better designed for a "healthy balance" is a different discussion.

The problem you were responding to in post #8 to is this: "acres and acres of pavement and tons of metal and plastic per person. And just the idea that "parking" is this huge issue. Parking."

Not congestion per se, though that happens too. But just the absurd amount of resources: land, energy, materials, time, devoted to automobile transport within the predominant modern development schema.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Doesn't that tie in with what some of what I was saying, about the New England cities have a lot of their development before cars were widely used?

And cities that had that main development period with cars in mind do have lighter traffic. Obviously, every major city is going to have some traffic.

@durangodawood beat me to it - The subject was "acres and acres of pavement...", which is worse of an issue in sprawling metropolises.

Another distinct feature of NYC is that there are no real "suburbs" or "rural" areas nearby for people to move to un-congest the city.


For instance, if someone works in Pittsburgh, they can easily live in a suburb or somewhat more rural area, and be to downtown in 20 minutes.

Some of those older cities with their major population booms and major development happening earlier on, as you mentioned, basically stick people with having to live, work, and shop in "the big city".

That's not accurate, either. That phenomenon exists in NYC as it does everywhere else; everything is just a bit further out. Commuting into NYC from NJ, Long Island, or even PA & CT are not uncommon. That's why there are so many trains. When we stay with my in-laws north of Philly and visit NYC, we usually take the SEPTA from Trenton, which is takes about an hour to get into Penn Station. Within NY State, bedroom communities extend well into the Catskills.

It seems as if they're trying to turn it into "social justice" thing...by where, they can lighten enforcement on the thing that more likely impacted "protected" groups, and instead, target the drivers (who are more likely "well-to-do") because it "sends the right message" and it's a harder form of a fare to evade since they're snapping a pick of a license plate

So it's less work for them, and it gets them off the hook from having to implement something that social justice advocates would go after them for, for reasons of "you did something that led to the arrests of more poor, Black, and Latino people"

I'm fine with enforcing fare jumping, but that won't do anything to alleviate traffic congestion, which is part of what congestion pricing is intended to do.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

I'm fine with enforcing fare jumping, but that won't do anything to alleviate traffic congestion, which is part of what congestion pricing is intended to do.

But it will get them the revenue they need to undertake their improvement projects, which was one of the stated "perks" do doing the congestion pricing was it not?

It seems to me as if they may be targeting the wrong initiative anyway.

If there's too many people in the area for the square acreage of available space, it seems like they're trying to "support the congestion" rather than alleviate it.

Seems like what some of these cities really need is for some people to move elsewhere. And with things like remote work now being much more prevalent, it seems like that's more of an option now that it used to be.

An interesting stat:
As of May 2024, approximately 16% of NYC residents work fully remote, meaning they do not attend the office at all. Additionally, nearly 50% of employers have adopted hybrid schedules, allowing employees to split their time between remote work and in-office presence.

Seems like there's a lot of people wanting to live in NYC for "the vibe" that don't necessarily need to be there adding to the congestion.

 

[DaisyDay]

I don't live there but visit a couple times a year and have several friends and family who live there. IME, even among cities with robust public transit, NYC is something of an outlier. Driving and parking in Boston sucks, but it's not entirely unfeasible. DC offices are more spread out (it takes a good friend 3 hours door-to-door via public transit from his house in Baltimore), but most of the touristy stuff is within walking distance of each other if you've got a good pair of shoes. But neither of those are true in NYC. It's big; and the whole lower half of Manhattan is very dense, such that, during normal business hours, trying to get around by personal car is just stupid. And then trying to find parking near your house is another nightmare. My SIL who lives on the upper east side has a car, but leaves it at her parents' house in PA most of the time.

In general, I have a hard time relating to fears of crime. I understand it, but when I look around, I see it being spread around more than people assume, i.e. muggings happen in the daylight, near others, not merely in the shadows as depicted in movies.

The initial proposal was to have the toll at $15, but people complained, so they lowered it to $9.

The goal is to get fewer people driving into the city and more people taking other forms of transportation, which this toll will help fund. I'd be open to having the toll scale with income or net worth - something so the wealthy incur a burden similar to the poor. As I've already pointed out, they have a program that discounts the toll for poor individuals. I wouldn't be surprised if making that system more complicated might not be worth the administrative overhead.

I used to live in NYC - moved in the mid-90sk but still visited my day through the mid-2000s. The other day I took a tour of the old haunts via Google Street View. Things have changed drastically in midtown Manhattan. Even back then, free street parking was reduced to almost nothing but now, even paid parking is hard to come by. The traffic lanes have gone down from four lanes of traffic and one of metered parking on the avenues to three lanes for traffic and often none for parking. They have bike lanes and increased pedestrian islands.

Included in the drive to decrease combustion traffic is air quality and pedestrian safety. I never owned a car until I moved away; my parents sold theirs shortly after arriving. I know it can still be a necessity for those who live in the outer boroughs, but they can park at the stations and take public into midtown.

I seriously doubt Mr. Trump has ever taken public transportation in his life.