New York City will charge drivers going downtown

There's an important concept to the success of city planning: the alignment of incentives.

When transit is faster and cheaper than driving, people don't drive as much. The individualistic personal freedom of the automobile doesn't outweigh those practical aspects of getting around. People generally make pretty logical decisions about what they want to do.

I'm definitely in favor of congestion charges in certain areas of NYC. If you're downtown in a car you are taking up some incredibly valuable real estate that could be alternatively dedicated to space for human beings.

I think about cities that have implemented taxes for disposable plastic bags. I find it somewhat hilarious how many people consider these policies to be anti-freedom government money-grabs. They make a libertarian's blood boil!

Even assuming those folks are correct, it doesn't really matter, because these taxes are incredibly effective. It's eye-opening to see how a nearly insignificant tax (literal pennies per bag) changes the behavior of everyone.

In cities with bag taxes, cashiers don't default to throwing your stuff in a bunch of bags, they ask you what you want first. Without the bag tax, some people who don't even have a strong preference to receive bags will end up with them just because the cashier put their items inside automatically. Then, customers start bringing their own reusable bags, use their existing backpacks and totes that they already own, and/or people will just carry a few items without a bag. The end result that the tax was going for has occurred regardless of how mad the individualists get: thousands of single-use disposable items stay out of landfills.

This is the same idea for congestion charges: people in NYC who might default to taking an Uber or taxi to get somewhere that's often the same speed or faster to get to on a subway or bus are going to think twice, because there's the psychological knowledge that their behavior is being punished, even if only by a few dollars or cents.

This isn’t exactly true. Rich people have the resources to live closer to where they work, they are more likely to WFH, they can ride a bike to work often, or maybe even walk. Poor people often live farther away from their jobs, they have worse commutes, and the likelihood of accomplishing that long commute by mass transit in many American isn’t that great.

Anecdotally, we are well to do, chose our house location to minimize our commute and make it easy by bus (and ensure we can go to the grocery store by foot). Then I got the opportunity to work from home, my wife has a straight shot from bus to her office downtown, the kid’s schools (even high school) are all within walking distance. There is no way we could have set all that up without money.

Libertarians are usually much more in favor of taxes to on externalities rather than outright bans. So I dispute your characterization.

I agree with the rest of the post though, I think taxing externalities is the right thing to do. Cars have gotten a gigantic subsidy for far too long. A car is allowed to take up 140 sq ft of land for free in one of the most expensive places on earth.

> But we're talking about New York city so you've already granted the port authority wide latitude and restricting your movements and controlling the population.

This is a bizarre argument. Cars are heavily policed: they must be registered and licensed. The state tells you where you can park it, and your ability to operate it is completely controlled by the state and can be taken away from you. In order for car infrastructure to function, there is a huge increase in police presence in people's lives to enforce traffic rules, parking, etc. None of this is true of, say, walking, biking, or taking transit, all of which are pretty unregulated, even in New York City.

Have you been to New York? The subway is the mode of transportation for nearly everyone and it works great. I wouldn’t say cars are the successful mode of transportation in New York at all