[passivedonut]

Congestion pricing is a regressive tax. It doesn’t actually ‘work.’

As the population or inflation increases the fee will have to increase to keep enough people off the road. It doesn’t actually address the public’s transportation needs, it’s just some rich assholes way of using wealth to cut in line at the expense of the general public.

Most of these policies that seek to inflict harm on the public to effect social change never actually produce a positive and productive end result.

Small businesses which is the U.S. economy will be heavily impacted resulting in local cities moving revenue generation from commerce to residential property, increasing cost of living.

If gentrification is your wheelhouse then yah Congestion Pricing sounds wonderful.

[JumpCrisscross]

> As the population or inflation increases the fee will have to increase to keep enough people off the road

Most people in a car in Manhattan don’t need to be in one, and most of those that do are exempted from this charge.

(I say this as someone who is commonly in a car in Manhattan.)

[ethbr1]

It would be a regressive tax... if there weren't public transit alternatives.

As is, it's a tax on people who drive.

[CPLX]

It’s not a regressive tax, it’s a fee. Taxes and fees are related but distinct.

It’s possible for an overall fee based structure to be regressive, but it’s also possible for it to not be.

For example a fee for landing private jets at public airports is not regressive.

Given the contours of who does and doesn’t drive in Manhattan it’s almost certain that this one has a similar dynamic and is actually progressive.

[insane_dreamer]

it works in places that are already gentrified, like Manhattan or the City (of London). No one is suggesting congestion pricing in Queens.

[righthand]

“Gentrified”, no. “Romanticized” to the extreme, yes