It's a max of $21 for a truckload of goods, and that's if they deliver during the day. It probably costs the shipper more than that when the driver stops at a gas station to use the bathroom. Obviously the numbers will vary significantly depending on what the vehicle is carrying, but a truckload of groceries might go for around $100,000 retail [1]. The congestion charge is 0.02% of that.
> By definition, the point of this tax is to make it so that only rich people can drive.
That's not true. There's a tax credit for low-income residents and a full waiver for disabled people. The average person who drives in Manhattan makes $130,000, 40% more than the average income in the city as a whole [2], so letting them do it for free (while creating negative externalities that we all bear) is just a handout to people who don't need it.
— and speaking of truckloads, the truckers & delivery guys love congestion pricing.
After being the most vocal critics for years, they’ve learned that low traffic == more, faster deliveries == more business and more coverage, or same business with fewer drivers.
This is the real reason why I think it'll never get repealed. If anyone tries, the industry lobbies will be arguing to keep it instead.
> That's not true. There's a tax credit for low-income residents and a full waiver for disabled people.
That's a fig-leaf argument. Yes, there's some theoretical tax credit that may or may not offset the costs for particular groups of people -- and it would be insane if they didn't exempt the disabled. But if the tax weren't causing the marginal driver to stop driving, it wouldn't work, by definition.
It's not a "theoretical" tax credit. Here's the application form: https://lidp.mta.info/
Congesting pricing has dual goals of reducing congestion and funding the MTA. Low-income drivers get a break on the charge, so they fund the MTA a little less than other drivers, but they're still less likely to drive than they were before, because it costs more now.
If nobody is inconveniences, then there would be no change.
It is reasonable to say that it achieved its stated goals. Its not accurate to say nobody is experience higher costs or prevented from doing what they want.
> By definition, the point of this tax is to make it so that only rich people can drive.
That's not true. There's a tax credit for low-income residents and a full waiver for disabled people. The average person who drives in Manhattan makes $130,000, 40% more than the average income in the city as a whole [2], so letting them do it for free (while creating negative externalities that we all bear) is just a handout to people who don't need it.
[1]: https://selectliquidation.com/collections/grocery-liquidatio...
[2]: https://fiscalpolicy.org/impact-of-payroll-mobility-tax-on-n...