It’s a tariff on DRIVING in Manhattan, the place in America you least need to drive.

Buses got significantly more reliable as a result of reduced traffic, more ridership on subways allowed for more police presence at stations, reducing crime.

Public transit got better.

> Remember kids: congestion pricing is nothing but a tariff on transportation.

On driving. And it actually makes driving more appealing, there’s much less traffic so you can get where you’re going much quicker.

> Instead of making public transport more appealing through competition

Like having multiple subway systems? NYC did that already.

In American English, tariff always means a fee that applies to international imports and exports. It doesn't apply here.

> why isn't congestion pricing a tariff?

Because tariffs are imposed on trade between countries. That was easy!

"There is no such thing as a free lunch" is a very strong argument for tolls, I hope you realize.

> everyone paying the tolls who now needs to engage in additional pollution-causing economic activity merely to offset the costs of government-mandated congestion pricing

I don't think that's how economics work. People are already doing their best to generate money. Also even if that did happen, the thing you're describing as "pollution-causing" is GDP growth, which is overall desirable.

> tariffs

Whether a tariff is good depends on what the goal is (and whether it works toward that goal).

Pigouvian taxes are genuinely one of the few policies that really are nearly a free lunch in economics.

A tariff is a tax on imports. Driving is not an import.

Ironic that with a headline measuring a negative externality of driving that wasn't being priced in and you think transit got the artificial leg up.

Please don't fulminate or engage in ideological battle here. The topic is fine to discuss and disagree about, but HN is for curious conversation not indignation, and the guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. You've posted several ragey comments in a short space of time, and that's not the way HN is meant to be used. Please have a read of the guidelines and make an effort to observe them when participating here.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

its not a tariff because tariffs are taxes on imports. you arent paying a tax related to the value of the goods being brought over, and to the extent that new car buyers are importing cars, its neglible compared to what youre trying to draw equivalence to, trump's 30% or so tariffs.

instead, its a toll or a usage tax.

but also, you want the economic activity of having people in the city, not the cost of supporting their light trucks. people coming from outside of new york are very costly in terms of pollution, road maintenance, and losing real estate to parking spaces.

> sheer number of disingenuous objections

This is unfair. Nobody wants to pay more for anything. And many of the objections resulted in policy adjustments that made the programme better.

Not in NYC where less than half the population has access to a car.

Well, Mamdani wants to make transit free. Car taxes can probably help a lot to pay for that.

I actually doubt it's very regressive in NYC. Also, you're still only counting the price and not the cost. The benefits are likely tilted towards the poorest residents who absorb the most costs of congestion in terms of both pollution and road safety. That's just an educated guess but it's very plausible.

Poor people are forced by circumstance to live in the busiest areas so they will get the biggest health benefits and many do not own cars and often do not even own a car space, so I would beg to differ.

You can also offset the regressive nature of this taxation by putting the revenue into subsidizing public infrastructure like rail and bus.

Many things hurt the poor more, because there are many things that the poor do that have negative externalities that cannot be compensated for by the productivity of the poor. Strict enforcement against violent crime is pretty regressive in that more poor people are incarcerated when this is done. Others are that strict enforcement of traffic laws is pretty regressive; paid parking is regressive; as are fares for buses and trains. Requiring a minimum number of signatures for a ballot proposition is regressive. Allowing more expensive cars to incorporate more advanced safety features is regressive. Requiring grant applications to be carefully written is regressive. As are minimum flying requirements for pilots. DoD medical standards for soldiers are regressive. Officer ASVAB score requirements are regressive. Surgical requirements. Drug approval requirements.

In fact, anything that requires a standard of performance will be regressive. We don't have to subordinate all goals to regression avoidance. In fact, no functioning society does that.

Is this an AI assisted answer?

Most people driving into the city aren’t parking in Manhattan. When I was living in west Chester county, I would drive in into midtown and always find street parking near Columbia, free. I was surprised how easy it was to drive into the city because I heard lots of stories that it wasn’t. No tolls either.

EVs help with air pollution & congestion, but a huge part of the AQI impact of cars is tires, and I don't think there's a solution for that yet short of "fewer cars"