With congestion pricing stop, New York City enters new era of economic gridlock

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/06/09/with-congestion-pricing-stop-nyc-enters-new-economic-gridlock-era.html

by rntn • 2 years ago

100 148 2 years ago

rayiner2• 2 years ago

Congestion pricing is a no-brainer for the environment and urbanism alike, and we can’t even make it happen in the country’s biggest city. It’s such an uphill battle to get any buy-in from the voting public. Even in such a politically homogenous city like New York.

woodruffw20• 2 years ago

The law in question is a New York State law, not a NYC one. The state is much less politically homogeneous than the city is, and Hochul's (tepid) argument for suspending the law is in part based on this political dynamic.

(The entire situation is a pathetically self-inflicted one: the MTA is a state entity instead of a city one, meaning that the city's single most important mode of transportation is perpetually shackled to the state's political slapfights.)

ikjasdlk2234• 2 years ago

There is a similar issue playing out in Boston too, where the MBTA, the public transit authority that operates the busses and trains predominately in the Boston metro, is a state entity.

rayiner2• 2 years ago

Isn’t the MTA a state-level agency so it can access state-level tax resources? While in recent years the city has become rich, in the 1960s-1990s the city was in dire financial straights. The city’s transit system was unified under the MTA in 1968, and in 1975 the city nearly had to declare bankruptcy.

EasyMark3• 2 years ago

That said, I feel it should be left to the people in the district (Manhattan) that have to live with it day in and day out. It should be a direct vote and not some politician’s call.

FredPret• 2 years ago

I think the Swiss have a system like this. Referendums galore

timr4• 2 years ago

As someone who lives in New York and doesn't own a car (and hasn't for almost two decades), this was such a poorly thought out plan that I hope it never comes back.

It was little more than a backdoor tax on all city residents, disguised as urbanism. Good riddance.

(FWIW, I even support more funding for the MTA, within reason, but this wasn't the way to do it.)

meesles• 2 years ago

As someone living here, I'll share my sentiment - millions of dollars and years of time spent to come up with a plan, however unpopular. Hochul did not signal she would do this during all that time. And right near the finish line, boom, she pulls the rug out.

It's just embarassing the level of dysfunction in planning any major projects in this city. It kills all hope that our public transit can be brought into the modern era, honestly.

acdha• 2 years ago

Yeah, she was talking accurately about the benefits until very recently. The complete reversal using transparently-untrue claims should cost her the governorship since it also means nobody can trust her on anything.

woodruffw20• 2 years ago

Maybe it's wishful thinking, but I think it will: NY's Democratic governors have historically received a "default" vote from the city's voters (especially when the governor themselves is from the city), and this will challenge that default.

Hochul also hasn't helped herself by spending a bunch of state money (i.e. city money, since the city contributes disproportionately to the state budget) on her own local, i.e. Buffalo, pork-barrel topics[1].

[1] https://hellgatenyc.com/the-buffalo-bills-just-need-another-...

woodruffw20• 2 years ago

One of the more ridiculous things about the chaos Hochul has wrought over the last 72 hours is that it isn't remotely clear that she can even order the suspension of congestion pricing like this: it's the law of the land in New York, one she already signed, passed by our legislative branch, funded by taxes, and administrated solely by an independent public corporation (the MTA) that she has only minority authority over. It's the equivalent of a president signing a bill and then attempting to post-facto veto it.

It's been very frustrating to see so little news (both local and national) pick up on this basic reality: Hochul is acting far beyond her constitutional powers as the governor, and the legislative branch has so far responded only tepidly (by refusing to pass her last-minute tax alternative).

bayareabadboy• 2 years ago

This is the core issue. Unchecked executive overreach, by politicians of both parties at the federal and state level, will end terribly for the republic.

But no one cares if it serves their political interests.

highcountess• 2 years ago

I argue that it has already ended poorly for the republic since the republic effectively no longer actually exists and what does exist is a fraudulent and inherently illegitimate government based on its own words and actions.

The Constitution that created the federal republic is essentially an agreement, a form of contract. It has been violated to every degree and in every imaginable way possible that the only thing holding any of this together is that people still have not realize that they still trust in a lie.

I get indications that there is possibly a kind of realization starting to work its way through the country, where people are starting to realize just that … that they’ve been had, defrauded, conned, lied to, deceived, stolen from, plundered, and abused.

We shall see how deep the cracks go once an economic event stresses the foundation. I’m agnostic on which way it will go or if the crack will cause the foundation to crack catastrophically. I could make arguments either way.

ip262• 2 years ago

Possibly a natural consequence of gridlocked legislature or judiciary. If only the executive branch can get anything done, allowing overreach is the only way for government to continue functioning.

That doesn't mean it's good, but suggests directions for solutions.

pudwallabee2• 2 years ago

This has kind of always been the case hasnt it? The governor of the state has special powers over NYC. At least they have stepped in and bullied the city before, usually because the city is broke or has some crisis it needs the state to sort out with a pile of money.

Personally, as a remote worker, it bugs me that she’s doing this to force people to go to work. So basically she wants the pollution and massive waste of resources if someone can sell a bunch of 15 dollar sandwiches and 10 dollar coffees at street level every day. In other words she wants to fleece employees either way.

I feel for the business paying rent based on foot traffic in cities, however they know that if the foot traffic goes away, they can get out of their leases, since at least in malls etc the price per sq foot is based on foot traffic.

But what I have zero interest in is this argument that I have to go to work so that I can be fleeced by businesses every time I walk down the street, so that they can stay in business. That is not my problem. Its pretty insulting given how much better for the environment and people’s personal lives it is to work remotely to treat us like a bunch of chickens going through a toll gate.

Progressive companies that know the future have already let their leases go and gone full remote. More will follow. There will be no back to office.

woodruffw20• 2 years ago

This has kind of always been the case hasnt it? The governor of the state has special powers over NYC. At least they have stepped in and bullied the city before, usually because the city is broke or has some crisis it needs the state to sort out with a pile of money.

To the best of my knowledge, the governor of New York absolutely does not have "special powers" over NYC. NYC's boroughs are normal municipalities for the purposes of state law.

You might be thinking of the MTA, which was formed as an independent state corporation after the city's bankruptcy. This is a source of persistent local funding headaches, but is not a "special power": the MTA's board is intentionally not fully appointed by the governor, to prevent exactly this kind of unilateral maneuvering[1].

I don't really think this has anything to do with remote work or RTO, etc., either. Congestion pricing was a pre-COVID policy that's been on the table for well over a decade; it's sound policy purely in terms of making the MTA financially sustainable and reducing congestion and air and sound pollution within Manhattan.

[1] https://new.mta.info/transparency/leadership/board-members

DANmode• 2 years ago

The State government in New York has been run like a mafia family, (including premeditation and predestination of position appointment, legislation, policy shifts etc as the norm) for some time now.

Please note: this can barely be considered a partisan comment.

roamerz• 2 years ago

>far beyond her constitutional powers as the governor

That’s because there are no penalties for violating the Oath of Office they take - the courts will simply override her decision at some point.

If by chance they don’t she will simply reverse her decision - after the election.

This is pure politics by a politician who cares only about herself and her party.

gessha• 2 years ago

Political parties are organizations fighting over political power. If they have local monopoly over power (which is the case in NY) they can do whatever they want without consequences. Multiparty systems should be a solution to this but often times fail because power concentrates in 2-3 parties in the short term.

bradleyjg2• 2 years ago

The board has 14 members.* The governor appoints five and the county executives of Nassau, Suffolk, and Westchester each appoint one.

Board members historically have been creatures of their appointees, exercising no independent judgment.

The suburbs hate this congestion pricing plan.

So, yes, technically the governor can’t do this. Practically, she can.

* not really, one of the votes is split into four pieces, but effectively

afavour2• 2 years ago

It’s not even as simple as that. 2009 Public Authorities Reform Act states that the MTA board is an independent body and should be making all decisions with the MTA's fiscal responsibility its primary concern. It’s going to be really, really difficult to justify an 11th hour reversal that will leave the MTA in a financial pit. It’ll almost certainly lead to legal action.

But I agree, they’ll probably still do it.

cglan• 2 years ago

Popular or not, all this has taught me is that NYC, and with that most of America has no vision for any future. If after 10 years and millions in setup just to get congestion pricing in place, it falls thru because of the whims of a governor there’s just no hope for any more difficult capital projects.

Realistically, we’re never going to see any ambitious projects in my life time and it’s sad to see

returningfory26• 2 years ago

The problem is not NYC though. I think if NYC was left to its own devises its government could be much more visionary.

The problem is that so much of the control of NYC lies with state-level Democrats who are structurally incentived to prioritize the suburbs over the city because the suburbs are more likely to vote Republican in various races. This is exactly what happened here. Hochul -- working with the federal House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries -- paused congestion pricing to make it easier to win House seats in the suburbs. If they lose support in the city they don't care because the city districts are so safe.

noobermin• 2 years ago

Just like in 2016, republicans will never choose diet-coke over coke. The appealing to republican voter strategy has never worked when they can just vote for a republican. Not that it matters for the political consultant class, they can get higher fees the more mailers they can send out when they're losing talking about how the republicans are ruining America.

Don't take democratic politicians at their word, they only care about keeping their money flowing into their coffers.

jobs_throwaway• 2 years ago

Which is why its time for NYC statehood. The interests aren't aligned. The city fills alls the coffers just to get fucked over again and again by shortsighted, spineless politicians.

Why should our greatest city be held back by the backwaters upstate?

HDThoreaun2• 2 years ago

The congestion tax is underwater in statewide polls. Its not like she's looking out for some special interest here, her constituents unfortunately just dont want the congestion tax.

StanislavPetrov• 2 years ago

Agree completely that the Democrats (and Republicans) at the state level are an absolutely disaster. Albany has been a cesspool of corruption for much longer than any of us have been alive, but NYC is unfortunately just as bad. The City Council, the Mayor's office, NYCHA, the MTA and just about every other large organization that run NYC is just as corrupt as those in Albany.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/70-current-and-former-n...

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/20/nyregion/adams-fbi-corrup...

https://www.cityandstateny.com/politics/2017/08/the-worst-ne...

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/new-york-history-polit...

https://www.nytimes.com/news-event/albany-corruption-trials

PaulHoule• 2 years ago

I think also you will see Democrats even in blue states back off on any unpopular policies so it can’t be used as ammunition against Biden as they see a Trump victory as that catastrophic.

coliveira• 2 years ago

Yes, the sad reality is that the US is non-investable, specially for foreigners. Any project can be cancelled at the whim of somebody somewhere in the political structure, and what has been accorded in one administration can be easily canceled in the next. It is nowhere's land when it comes to investing.

Ekaros• 2 years ago

Truly why invest in anything real when everyone in power is there to make stock market go up eternally... Or federal bonds. Which will be flipped over for reasonable profit until they are not anymore, but even that is unlikely to be fully sudden.

nradov• 2 years ago

"U.S. Remains World's Top Destination for Foreign Direct Investment for 12th Consecutive Year"

https://www.commerce.gov/news/blog/2024/04/us-remains-worlds...

mlazos• 2 years ago

Man I was just lurking but this take is so wrong I just have to comment. It’s in fact the exact opposite. Every other country in the world is much much worse at this. Look at China! They’re actually destroying companies left and right. You should qualify your statement with “public projects” which do not have any foreign investment. The US is very friendly to foreign private projects, almost too friendly arguably. It also has public reliable information and rules for investing which make price discovery much easier than other foreign markets. It’s probably one of the most lenient and best markets for external investment.

coryrc• 2 years ago

Counterpoint: Chicago parking meters

cscurmudgeon• 2 years ago

US is #1 in foreign investment: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/cp/top-countries-foreign-di...

And no one invests in individual public projects anywhere.

billfor• 2 years ago

No different than the president issuing executive actions to stop or make a law.

bradleyjg2• 2 years ago

You should have given up on difficult capital projects after seeing the results of the second avenue subway and the oculus.

The insanely high cost of building relatively modest things precludes entirely building ambitious things. Not even the federal government has that kind of money.

carterschonwald• 2 years ago

Hochul keeps on messing with every nyc / nys initiative I get excited about.

hersko• 2 years ago

Do you have a car?

wtp1saac• 2 years ago

‘Rep. Gottheimer hopes this is the end of the road for congestion pricing, and as far as it coming back after the upcoming elections are decided, “I don’t think so,” he said. “We got it done. ... indefinite pause, the word indefinite is key here,” he said.’

what a joke of a statement; then none of you mean to pause it, you meant to kill it. if you’re going to ruin what little progress this damn country can make at urbanism in its most urban city, at least wear your mockery and ruination on your sleeve proudly, rather than weasel out of it with a bullshit “pause.”

garbage politicians.

rickydroll• 2 years ago

An interesting write-up on what went wrong the the NYC congestion charge and better alternatives. https://www.forbes.com/sites/bradtempleton/2024/06/05/new-yo...

Reason0777• 2 years ago

Not a good article. The author understands the problem, but the "alternatives" offered are much more complex and difficult to administer than the simple, practical, proven solution of a congestion charge.

ars9• 2 years ago

I think this would have been more likely to be politically viable if the credit for entering via a tunnel or bridge was dramatically increased, after all a bridge or tunnel toll is already a form of congestion pricing. Double charging is just a money grab rather than a form of congestion pricing.

They should have also given a credit for exiting immediately and not staying in the city, i.e. transiting through the city. This would have made New Jersey considerably more likely to be in support.

Without both of those things New Jersey has it right: everyone would just travel through New Jersey to avoid that part of Manhattan when they're just trying to get through Manhattan.

kjkjadksj2• 2 years ago

Shifting traffic to jersey is a good thing because theres more road infrastructure there than in manhattan

ars9• 2 years ago

If that was the goal (was it? I have not seen anyone say something like that) but if it was, then they should share the money too. Manhattan can't take all the money and shift all the expenses to New Jersey.

woodruffw20• 2 years ago

They should have also given a credit for exiting immediately and not staying in the city, i.e. transiting through the city. This would have made New Jersey considerably more likely to be in support.

Which NJ residents do you think are through-transiting via the Manhattan's streets? The core demographic being targeted here is driving onto the streets to park and go to work, not to drive into Brooklyn, Queens, or LI.

(To my understanding, the plan with the congestion charge is to waive the charge when drivers stay on highways and freeways, i.e. don't enter the grid. So a NJ resident who takes the GWB and drives down HHP and then Brooklyn via 478 would never pay the congestion fare.)

ars9• 2 years ago

The core demographic being targeted here is driving onto the streets to park and go to work, not to drive into Brooklyn, Queens, or LI.

Charging them is fine, but that is not the basis of the lawsuit from NJ. NJ is complaining about people using NJ to go around Manhattan.

To my understanding, the plan with the congestion charge is to waive the charge when drivers stay on highways and freeways

Can you show me that policy or map? Because when I checked that was NOT the case. The only time charges are waived are the two coastline roads that go around Manhattan. All other transit traffic is charged at full rates. When you enter from NJ you do not go on those coastline roads, you go through Manhattan.

This pricing should have been coupled with some new transit roads that do not have any exits in the city.

From your comment I wonder if part of the reason she stopped the project is people not actually understanding what the real charges are.

returningfory26• 2 years ago

By the same argument paying a toll both on one of the tunnels and the New Jersey turnpike is also double charging. Those charges are for fundamentally different things - just like the tunnel toll and congestion charge are for different things.

ars9• 2 years ago

congestion charge are for different things

The congestion charge is to make people go away and not go to Manhattan. So any kind of charge that's placed in the way of traffic to there counts.

Also the toll on the tunnel is just a cash grab, and the congestion charge has that as a secondary goal, so they are not actually for different things.

SJetKaran• 2 years ago

Yeah, I never understood why some of the cogestion pricing revenue wasn't shared with NJ.

bastard_op• 2 years ago

What no one really seems to talk about that I can find is just how the money flows through NYC and then to TransCore, the company that is running the service.

Most of these are some sort of profit sharing arrangement, usually with most of the fee going to the provider vs the local government. This is almost always some sort of shady friend of a friend deal that makes the only real winner the service provider, in this case TransCore, so it would be interesting to trace the money through the deal to see just what the real motivation and reality is of this. Now particularly that it's turning into a circus, who pays the company running it now that it's installed and NOT being used and no profit to be had?

It was already stated that NYC wanted tracking of cars even without the congestion fees, and thus tracking the people in or around them, so likely the real reason they're there. Since the local law enforcement cannot effectively police the city, this is meant to do something, hopefully anything to help, but with most of the crime originating from undocumented migrants at this point, the only persons to be punished will be real citizens.

Funny thing, in the UK they are trying this as their ULEZ plan, and people took to this by chopping down the cameras installed on the side of the road to the point they've disabled effectively more than 10% of them. The city of course is trying to find the "vigilantes" doing this, but mean time they are deploying vans equipped with cameras and readers in their place to deter vandalism. The "blade runners" as they're called have now taken to following them around and blocking them with cars, objects, or otherwise still disabling them with spray paint and other means however to negate their efficacy.

Sadly the NYC cameras are mounted in such a way to make this more difficult to do, but I'm certain where there's a will, there's a way.

dang• 2 years ago

Related. Others?

NYC Congestion Pricing Delayed Indefinitely by Governor Kathy Hochul - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40587485 - June 2024 (16 comments)

MTA board votes to approve new $15 toll to drive into Manhattan - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39841703 - March 2024 (831 comments)

The new toll to drive into Manhattan won't change much by itself - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37475743 - Sept 2023 (87 comments)

New York City will charge drivers going downtown - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36270597 - June 2023 (671 comments)

Reason0777• 2 years ago

London has had this sort of congestion pricing for years. £15/day, about USD $19. Exemption for zero-emission vehicles, but that will end from 2026.

As a London resident I'd say it only has benefits: frees up road space for those vehicles that really need it. Makes walking and cycling safer and more pleasant. Shifts some journeys to public transport. Generates revenue that gets reinvested in transport projects.

vosper• 2 years ago

Does reduced congestion not also make it much healthier to walk/live/work close to busy roads? We know that combustion and tire pollution causes a number of health issues.

Reason0777• 2 years ago

Certainly, London's air has gotten noticeably cleaner in recent years. Although I suspect most of this gain is from incentivising zero-emission vehicles through the congestion charge exemption and also the ULEZ ultra-low emission zone (an additional charge on older dirty vehicles), not just from reducing traffic volumes.

bko• 2 years ago

Person who doesn't pay a tax, actually likes the tax.

In other news: water is wet.

In all seriousness, doesn't this also impact cab prices? How much is a typical fare for 15min ride in central London?

Reason0777• 2 years ago

"doesn't this also impact cab prices?"

Not directly, because most London taxis and Ubers are electric and thus exempt from the congestion charge. This exemption will end by 2026, but even then we're talking about £15 spread between many fares over the day.

timr4• 2 years ago

London has had this sort of congestion pricing for years. £15/day, about USD $19. Exemption for zero-emission vehicles, but that will end from 2026.

City of London has had it. It's an absolutely trivial area when compared to what is proposed in Manhattan, where literally half of the island -- and almost every major entry/exit point to the island -- is included in the "congestion area". London's congestion area is something akin to lower Manhattan south of Wall St., by proportion of land and overall impact.

It's completely disingenuous that supporters of this plan keep confusing the tiny London congestion area with the entirety of London. You can see the actual proportion on the maps on these pages:

London's zone: https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/congestio...

NYC's zone: https://www.fox5ny.com/news/nyc-congestion-pricing-map-exemp...

Reason0777• 2 years ago

"It's an absolutely trivial area when compared to what is proposed in Manhattan"

This is incorrect. The London congestion charge zone covers 21 sq km. The proposed Manhatten congestion zone includes only the area below 60th street, which is approximately 20 sq km. They are almost exactly the same size.

The £12.50 ULEZ (ultra-low emission zone) charge works using similar technology and covers all of Greater London (excluding the M25), an area about 30x larger than the entire island of Manhattan.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ule...

_heimdall4• 2 years ago

Serious questions -

Do people living outside the city of London also agree it only has benefits? And does it work so well for London because more people actually live in the city, compared to New York City which is comparsrively full of commutors and tourists?

Reason0777• 2 years ago

More than 1 million commuters and tourists travel in to London every day, but the vast majority (> 80%) travel by train/plane/tube/etc.

People driving to Central London from elsewhere in the UK often park in outer London, where there are large carparks near major rail stations with fast trains into the center. This saves both time and money!

kevin_thibedeau2• 2 years ago

Motorcycles are free in London. NYC was only giving a 50% discount.

neilv2• 2 years ago

This congestion pricing seems to partly be a handout to the wealthy: for a cost that's negligible to them, they get more use of the public streets, due to fewer poors in the way.

elbasti• 2 years ago

No congestion charge seems to be partly a handout to the wealthy: for a cost that's negligible to them, they get to pollute _public_ streets.

BHSPitMonkey• 2 years ago

You're implying that the main/only "use" of public streets is to fill them up with car traffic. Fewer cars on the streets means they can be better leveraged by buses, cyclists, and pedestrians, which is how it should be in a place like Manhattan.

standardUser2• 2 years ago

You say it like they'll be cruising down empty double-wide lanes while waving to the grateful peasants. In reality, the time commuters cut off their driving time will probably be measured in single digit minutes, while the benefits to the city and the millions of us who live here will be huge.

neilv2• 2 years ago

while the benefits to the city and the millions of us who live here will be huge.

OK, so also preclude private vehicles of the wealthy, to remove more congestion.

If you're talking about the revenue, then increase taxes on the wealthy (without selling them preferred use of public streets).

kelnos• 2 years ago

I'm not against congestion pricing per se, but aren't these sorts of policies regressive? White-collar workers (with higher-paying jobs) are more likely to have employers that will pay these costs for their employees, so I would expect the costs to be borne directly mostly by middle- and lower-income workers.

(Assuming lower-income workers could even afford the bridge/tunnel tolls plus parking costs in the first place...)

standardUser2• 2 years ago

I think the idea is that most lower-income and many middle-income workers are already taking transit, so the impact is primarily on higher-income commuters. I'd only consider it regressive if a lot of middle-income commuters were forced to pay a fee because transit options from their home are either non-existent or take too long. That's a rare situation in NY but is probably pretty common in other US metros. There's also usually various exemptions to these kinds of laws, such as in this case...

"Low-income drivers who earn less than $50,000 a year can apply to pay half the price on the daytime toll, but only after the first 10 trips in a month."

bluGill2• 2 years ago

Lower income includes various 'handman' type services which need their truck of tools and supplies with them. Some are poorly paid.

matrix87• 2 years ago

Don't forget that Hochul also neutered the right to repair bill before signing it into law [0]. She also vetoed the non-compete bill [1] and asked for it to be watered down

It's a shame that the GOP candidate she competed against was so unelectable, it just makes it easier for the other party to sink to the same shitty level. Good to see that news outlets aren't trying to shield her, hopefully this term is the end of her political career

[0] https://www.theverge.com/2022/12/29/23530733/right-to-repair...

[1] https://ogletree.com/insights-resources/blog-posts/new-york-...

objektif• 2 years ago

As much as I like the idea this was nothing but a money grab by MTA. So what happens to the cars of rich Manhattanites? They can run their cars up and down park ave freely once the congestion pricing is in effect? Why do I have to pay so they can fund their subway system?

EasyMark3• 2 years ago

I would say it’s best to let the voters affected vote for what they want, but they must also live with the consequences, and they don’t have much choice. Then if it’s awful they can reconsider, that’s why democracy works, rather than than all these technocrats telling us what is best for us; give us your arguments technocrats, we will decide what we do with our lives.

kevin_thibedeau2• 2 years ago

No problem. Since we can back out of deals at the last second, just divert the $850M going to a billionaire's entertainment complex he was too poor to build on his own.

causality02• 2 years ago

As a car lover, I don't understand the attachment to cars in big cities. Driving in them, with or without admission prices, is an utterly miserable experience. Why would you want to take an hour to go five miles while surrounded by screaming noise and horns and the constant threat of hitting a pedestrian or another car? It sucks out of control. I don't see the point in allowing personal vehicles to operate in that motorist's hellscape at all.

You want to live in a human termite mound, you don't get to drive an apartment with wheels around. You wanna drive your car to work, live and work where it makes sense.

AdrianB1• 2 years ago

Not a car fan, but I use one from time to time:

- grocery shopping every week requires a car

- it takes me 1.5 hours to commute to work by subway, ~ 1 hour by car in a good day. When it's freezing outside and I have to walk 2 kilometers to the subway, I would prefer the car. When there are 38 degrees Celsius, I would prefer the car (also from the subway to the office is over .5 kilometers). Getting sweaty in the office is bad. Luckily I work from home most of the time or I take a motorcycle, much faster than a car and better most of the time (except when it's freezing)

- driving the kids to school sometimes requires a car when the school is 2 km away and there is no direct public transportation in that direction (or you have to change 3 different bus lines)

Work from home is not always and option and most of the time is not the employee's choice. All the greenwashing companies that require their employees in the office for work that does not require physical presence bear more guilt on pollution than their employees.

With congestion pricing stop, New York City enters new era of economic gridlock

Related Stories