Yeah, 9 million sounds like MTA’s total daily volume, including all subway riders. But you are absolutely right about suburban transit prices. Taking NJ Transit into Manhattan and back at off-peak hours costs about the same as driving (if I account for the fact that on average, parking in Manhattan is pretty cheap- I can often find a spot on the street). Peak hours are more expensive with or without congestion pricing. Congestion pricing would simply quantify what a headache it is to drive into Manhattan at rush hour.

But your figures don’t justify lowering suburban rail fares; they justify raising subway fares because they are so cheap by comparison. As for finding a job closer to where you live, that’s always a good thing. It’s unfortunate that everything is so centered on Manhattan. The other boroughs are big enough to have their own downtowns, yet transit’s focus on Manhattan perpetuates a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hell, why not move to Oregon and pay nothing for transit, no tolls, no parking fees, no sales tax?

On cost of living alone, there’s no reason anyone would want to live in first-world cities. The reason they’re still growing is that they’re where the jobs are located. You can’t randomly decide to start an engineering firm, publishing house, or biotech research facility in Syracuse; the company’s suppliers and business partners will all be located in New York and maybe Toronto, and the local talent pool will be too small. That’s why Downstate New York is growing faster than Upstate even though on all indicators you cite Upstate looks more attractive.

Feel free to move to a more developed place than Syracuse, like Texas. Other people have, congestion pricing or no congestion pricing. For what it’s worth, the period of greatest emigration from New York, the 1970s, was brought about by low investment and a recession, rather than high cost of living or taxes.

Also, I don’t know where the 9 million figure comes from. There are about half a million people who work but don’t live in New York.

Every discussion of fare increases seems to begin and end with the subway, because that’s all most New Yorkers ever have to deal with. The problem is a large number of subway riders are not New Yorkers, yet they still have to pay the fare – on top of their other transit fares. For example, I live just outside of the city (in Valley Stream) and my total monthly fare is $281. My commute is no shorter or more pleasant than someone who rides the subway alone from parts of Brooklyn or Queens, yet I pay about $200 more per month than they do.

You can get righteous about it and say that’s the price I pay for living in the burbs, and I don’t disagree with that, but the point is once you start getting close to that $400 per month mark, then it actually becomes cheaper for me to drive – even with the higher gas prices. (I can park for $10 per day, 20 days per month.) That’s the last thing you want to happen, is for 9 million commuters to start abandoning trains for their cars.

And if your solution to *that* problem is congestion pricing, well, then a lot of us will just find jobs outside the city. I mean, if it’s going to cost me $500 a month to commute no matter what I do, then I may as well get a job closer to where I live, even if it pays a bit less. Or move. Nobody’s chained down to this area. Hell, why not move to Oregon and pay nothing for transit, no tolls, no parking fees, no sales tax? That’s starting to sound pretty good from here.

There are economic consequences to raising fares that go well beyond what’s being considered here so far, because there are more people that use the subways than just New Yorkers.

This is especially true for the bridge tolls Ivy suggests. I think bridges over both the East River and the Harlem River should be tolled, but tolling just the East River crossings can’t increase Harlem River traffic. Who would drive from Queens to Manhattan through the Bronx, when the toll is the same as the toll from Queens or Brooklyn to Manhattan directly?

These tolls should generate about the same amount of money as congestion pricing, i.e. 400-500 million a year. That’s enough to avoid a fare hike until 2010 at least, but not enough to completely balance the MTA’s budget.

I think that for all practical reasons, congestion pricing is equivalent to putting tolls on the East River bridges, which is what Ivy used to oppose but does no longer, it seems to me. Of course, the tolls should be congestion-based. As for Hudson river crossings, most congestion schemes would not charge an additional fee to those drivers coming in from New Jersey, so the effect of the congestion plan here is minimal.

A toll on the few bridges that are still free, which all happen to be East River bridges, would right a historical injustice that, as you mention, shifts the traffic burden from the tolled routes to the free routes. As a side effect, it would remove a lot of traffic from Manhattan, and the toll revenue can go to fund the MTA.