I'm not saying it's not a fair price -- I think largely it's a positive to discourage people from deciding to commute into Manhattan by car. I'm in my 40s and only recently got my license, so I'm certainly on team public transit.

But I am saying that not everyone that lives in the congestion zone are well off office workers, particularly those born and raised in lower Manhattan that have housing arrangements that go back a few decades. An extra $2-300 month in tolls is not nothing for many people. You can't easily bring hundreds of pounds of art and building supplies to your art warehouse in Newark every day on the path train.

That’s fair, I guess I just don’t have much sympathy for that person as from my perspective, they were getting a massive subsidy for a long time, and we’re all better off if we cut off their gravy train. And I say this as a former artist myself — if they need the space, they can move to Brooklyn like the rest of us.

I see where you’re coming from, but it does assume the American approach to basic housing as an investment opportunity vs a basic need the government should ensure is available and affordable.

But it's not double dipping, because the cost of infrastructure for motor vehicles is absurdly high - higher than even a lot of public transportation. Because individual vehicles are horribly inefficient, and require significantly more space per capita. Roads are not free, congestion is not free, pollution is not free. You're used to being subsidized, so when you're not it may seem unfair. But it's not.

> You're used to being subsidized, so when you're not it may seem unfair.

It wouldn't be unfair if nobody were subsidized. It's unfair that just cars aren't anymore, but buses, etc. still are.

Cars are still subsidized, just a little less. And public transit is absolutely subsidized, but in a similar position to cars - some of it is subsidized, and some of it you pay. It's not free to ride the bus. To me, it seems fair.