> Is this also true: If you want to live in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it's going to cost you? Of course. But also: it’s why big, exp

> Is this also true: If you want to live in some of the most expensive real estate in the world, it's going to cost you? Of course. But also: it’s why big, expensive cities build mass transit, and why everybody takes it. Most residents in NYC, especially Manhattanites, are not regular drivers. The majority don’t even own cars. This is the demographic we’re talking about; they don’t want infrastructure that they don’t use taking up already-precious space, with more air pollution to boot. I also don’t think it would reduce traffic; induced demand is at play here. We’ve seen that with other highways in the city: if you build a certain amount of highway capacity, demand grows to fill it. That’s why congestion pricing is so appealing: it changes the incentive structure away from highway sprawl and grid congestion to efficient roads for those who need to drive and cleaner, quieter streets for everyone else. Canal Street’s frontage is a mixture of business and residential, varying by the neighborhoods it crosses through. I’d say it leans more commercial on the western part and more residential on the eastern part, subjectively. > It's would be easy: Just take all bridge and tunnel tolls and apply them 100% to congestion pricing, instead of the tiny amount they proposed. After all, those tolls already act as a congestion pricing, you don't need to do it twice. The important bit here is not just charging drivers a bunch of money, but actually reducing congestion. Higher tolls go a long way, but it’s equally important to incentivize drivers off of city streets and onto highways, where possible. Or in other words: if the goal was just to collect money, charging higher tolls would be fine. But there’s an additional virtue at play, which is making the city itself more livable.