> Citation please? I've lived in this metro area for 18 years, and the only constant has been that they keep building more giant buildings all the time, so clearly something there doesn't add up.

NYC zoning is public record:

https://zola.planning.nyc.gov

The highest density residential buildings are zoned R10. Go uncheck all the boxes and then check that one to see where they're allowed. Spoiler: It's almost nowhere and the few places that have it also already have those buildings; there is basically nowhere to put new ones and some of the existing ones aren't even zoned for their current location anymore.

That is how zoning works to constrain housing supply. There will be large areas zoned R1-R5 and you can't put tall buildings there. There is a smaller amount of space zoned R6, which is kind of dense, but those areas already have those buildings too, so making them taller is still prohibited. That's the trick: In any given place, buildings are only allowed to be as tall as they currently are; little space is allowed for new buildings taller than what's already there.

Another giveaway that this is done to constrain the housing supply is that the land area allocated to each zoning level is inversely proportional to the density it allows.

In a dense city like NYC this means you can still see a lot of "tall" buildings, but you still can't put a 13 story building in the places where there is currently a 2-story one and you can't put a 30 story building in the places there is currently a 13 story one, so the existing density persists but isn't allowed to increase.

> Yes, and realistically there's no practical amount of construction that would cause NYC to become inexpensive, because the demand is too great.

Well that sounds like a testable hypothesis. Why don't we find out?

> That doesn't happen overnight

Best to get started then.

> and is subject to physical limitations: finite space constraints / a lack of purchasable land for development or re-development

Space constraints are solved by taller buildings. They can't be infinitely tall, but neither is there infinite demand, and you don't even have to satisfy all of the demand to cause prices to be lower than they are now or allow more people to live in the city than they currently do.

> Paid for how, and by whom?

By taxes, the same as interstate highways or law enforcement.

> No, I'm in favor of it because it makes bus commutes substantially faster, and the revenue will support the continued operational needs of the subway system.

You're saying different words that mean the same thing. You're in favor of it because you want improvements to the thing you use that come at the expense and inconvenience of someone else. It's the people paying the cost rather than receiving the benefit who are the ones objecting.

> You're asserting that because Murphy is opposed to congestion pricing several years later, this somehow means a majority of NJ residents are also opposed? That's ridiculous and doesn't logically follow. In truth a majority of NJ residents don't ever drive into NYC anyway and don't care one way or the other about this issue.

It's evidence that the majority of NJ residents who care about the issue are opposed to it, because the governor has reasons to satisfy constituents even if not running for another term in the same office if he wants to run for some other office or continue doing business with the representatives of various parts of the state during the rest of his term.

> Why should people living outside of New York get to vote on something affecting local roads in New York City?

Because they use those roads, have an interest in government policies that directly affect them, and are citizens of the country in which New York is a city.

> Another giveaway that this is done to constrain the housing supply

How about it's done just to prevent having a massive building block out the sun and destroy the character of a lower-rise neighborhood? This is common sense quality-of-life stuff, not some mass conspiracy to constrain the housing supply.

> You're in favor of it because you want improvements to the thing you use that come at the expense and inconvenience of someone else.

No, again, that is not why I am in favor of it. I am perfectly able to afford to drive to NYC and pay the congestion pricing fee on a daily basis if I wanted to. But I don't enjoy driving in NYC, and it isn't much faster than public transit anyway, and parking is a nightmare, and personal vehicles are worse for the environment. So why do it?

As for inconvenience of someone else, the folks driving personal vehicles and causing all the congestion are the ones inconveniencing all the mass-transit bus riders, and adding pollution that affects everyone who lives here. Yet you think the pro-congestion-pricing bus riders are the ones externalizing the costs? Is this seriously your argument?

> Because they use those roads, have an interest in government policies that directly affect them, and are citizens of the country in which New York is a city.

So users of NYC local roads, who don't live in NYC or NY State, nor contribute taxes to the maintenance of those roads, should somehow have a say in NYC congestion pricing just by virtue of living in the United States? That's completely absurd.

> you can't put a 30 story building in the places there is currently a 13 story one

But in practice you absolutely can. I'm not familiar with the particulars of zoning variances in NYC, but this does happen all the time. For example when I lived in Manhattan, a 5-story building on my street was replaced by a 24-story monstrosity.

I can't help but notice that you didn't answer my question about whether you actually live here, so I'm going to conclude that you do not, and you aren't actually familiar with the amount of large building construction that actually happens in NYC. There's no real sense in continuing this discussion as you quite literally don't know what you are talking about, whereas I'm currently sitting in a room where I have a panoramic view of the city skyline and can actually see this happening with my own eyes in real-time.

> How about it's done just to prevent having a massive building block out the sun and destroy the character of a lower-rise neighborhood? This is common sense quality-of-life stuff, not some mass conspiracy to constrain the housing supply.

Phrases like "character of the neighborhood" are... what to do they say these days? Problematic?

The places that have the massive buildings are the places most in demand. That seems inconsistent with the result being a detriment to the neighborhood.

> No, again, that is not why I am in favor of it. I am perfectly able to afford to drive to NYC and pay the congestion pricing fee on a daily basis if I wanted to. But I don't enjoy driving in NYC, and it isn't much faster than public transit anyway, and parking is a nightmare, and personal vehicles are worse for the environment. So why do it?

You're describing why it is why you're in favor of it. You already chose not to drive even before the congestion pricing, therefore you don't pay the cost and are happy to see it fall on someone else instead of yourself.

> As for inconvenience of someone else, the folks driving personal vehicles and causing all the congestion are the ones inconveniencing all the mass-transit bus riders, and adding pollution that affects everyone who lives here. Yet you think the pro-congestion-pricing bus riders are the ones externalizing the costs? Is this seriously your argument?

The sensible way to fund a transit system is with broad-based general taxes that apply to everyone, including you. You want to fund it through a tax that only applies to people who drive cars, some of them for legitimate and unavoidable reasons, so... yes?

Also, modern cars don't emit a significant amount of local pollution. Modern emissions control systems are extremely effective against everything except CO2 (a global rather than local concern), to the point that car exhaust in some of the more polluted cities actually has a lower particulate content than the ambient air, and hybrid and electric vehicles produce minimal brake dust because of regenerative braking.

> So users of NYC local roads, who don't live in NYC or NY State, nor contribute taxes to the maintenance of those roads, should somehow have a say in NYC congestion pricing just by virtue of living in the United States? That's completely absurd.

You're making a lot of assumptions there. Who says they don't pay any other taxes in New York? Also, why should suffrage depend on where you sleep rather than where you work? If New York is excluding people by pricing them out through restrictive zoning who otherwise have a right to live there as US citizens, they also get to disenfranchise them as a result?

> But in practice you absolutely can. I'm not familiar with the particulars of zoning variances in NYC, but this does happen all the time. For example when I lived in Manhattan, a 5-story building on my street was replaced by a 24-story monstrosity.

The ability to do something at all, ever is not the same as the ability to do it at the level needed to make housing more affordable. The lots zoned for 24-story buildings mostly but not entirely already have them, and then the ones that don't are the few cases where that can actually happen. The issue is that the market would have done that 1000 times except that the zoning only allowed it in 50 of those places, and then you get only 5% as much new housing as you would have otherwise, which isn't enough to keep prices in check.

> Also, modern cars don't emit a significant amount of local pollution. Modern emissions control systems are extremely effective against everything except CO2

Go stand next to the exhaust on a “modern car” and say that with a straight face. Everything that you see, smell, and hear is pollution, and it’s really not hard to notice.

One other confound is that vehicle sizes have gone up massively: the car I bought in 2006 has equivalent or better smog ratings than the current non-EV best sellers I just checked because it’s not a truck/SUV and all of the extra weight/power comes at a cost. Yes, that’s a personal choice but if you live somewhere many people drive you’re breathing their choices.

> Go stand next to the exhaust on a “modern car” and say that with a straight face. Everything that you see, smell, and hear is pollution, and it’s really not hard to notice.

Have you actually done this with recent cars? The exhaust doesn't really smell like anything once the emissions system is operating and that happens right away on newer cars with heated O2 senors and catalysts. Hybrids don't run the engine at idle or low speeds and might not run it at all at city speeds. Electric cars don't even have one.

> One other confound is that vehicle sizes have gone up massively

Particulate emissions are more related to the drivetrain than the vehicle weight, e.g. the Toyota Highlander Hybrid is a chunky beast but it's a "super ultra-low emissions vehicle" in the same category as the Prius or the Honda Insight.

> Have you actually done this with recent cars? The exhaust doesn't really smell like anything once the emissions system is operating and that happens right away on newer cars with heated O2 senors and catalysts.

Yes - I’m assuming earlier today counts - and it’s better but still quite noticeable. If you’re on a bike, you notice when you stop behind EVs and hybrids which are running on batteries because they are so much less smelly.

> Particulate emissions are more related to the drivetrain than the vehicle weight

This is true, but an awful lot of buyers avoid hybrids. I’d prefer it was otherwise as you’re quite right that it makes a nice benefit.

> Yes - I’m assuming earlier today counts - and it’s better but still quite noticeable. If you’re on a bike, you notice when you stop behind EVs and hybrids which are running on batteries because they are so much less smelly.

Now I'm curious what year the car was. There are obviously still a lot of older cars on the road (and they don't always look much different, since the aerodynamics-dictated shape of cars has been the same for >20 years).

Meanwhile people have taken to complaining about tire wear because the tailpipe emissions have gotten so low that the tire wear is actually higher, now advertised as "tire wear is more polluting than exhaust" as if the tires have somehow gotten worse rather than the exhaust particulates having been reduced to near-zero.

I'm also curious if it was cold. Heated catalysts address the issue where emissions controls don't work well until the catalyst is warm, but they're not that prevalent yet.

> This is true, but an awful lot of buyers avoid hybrids. I’d prefer it was otherwise as you’re quite right that it makes a nice benefit.

It's kind of surprising that anybody buys anything else. The main drawback of EVs is still range and charge time, but hybrids don't have any of that. Two-car households that don't have one EV and one hybrid are generally making a mistake.

It's probably FUD. Hybrid transmissions are significantly more reliable with fewer wear parts than traditional transmissions, but a lot of mechanics will say they're "more complicated" (meaning only they don't have the relevant computer or haven't learned how to do it yet), or less charitably that they prefer the cars that get them paid for expensive transmission rebuilds more often. And the purchase price is slightly higher but you more than make it back in fuel costs so the TCO is lower. It's hard to come up with a reason to buy a non-hybrid ICE vehicle anymore.

> Phrases like "character of the neighborhood" are... what to do they say these days? Problematic?

It's not problematic to discuss how a low-rise neighborhood is preferable in the architectural or aesthetic sense, let alone in quality of life. Or are you asserting that Jane Jacobs was a racist?

> The places that have the massive buildings are the places most in demand.

No, there's a reason why celebrities prefer living in Brownstone Brooklyn and not in Midtown Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, or Long Island City.

> You already chose not to drive even before the congestion pricing

I choose not to drive into New York City. I still choose to drive and pay plenty of tolls locally in NJ, pay my car registration in NJ, etc.

> you don't pay the cost and are happy to see it fall on someone else instead of yourself.

Between you repeatedly calling me cheap and saying my phrasing is "problematic", it sure seems like I'm wasting my time replying to a troll who doesn't even live here and isn't affected by NYC congestion pricing in any way in the first place.

> Modern emissions control systems are extremely effective against everything except CO2 (a global rather than local concern)

So when I lived right on 6th Ave and my windowsills would get covered in black dust any time the window was open, you're claiming that wasn't from the 24/7 four-lane traffic flow outside? Sure is strange then, considering that when I lived in other parts of NYC that weren't on busy roads, that was never a problem.

> hybrid and electric vehicles produce minimal brake dust because of regenerative braking

That's correct, but tire wear still produces a decent amount of air pollution, and it's especially bad with EVs due to their increased weight.

> Also, why should suffrage depend on where you sleep rather than where you work? If New York is excluding people by pricing them out through restrictive zoning who otherwise have a right to live there as US citizens, they also get to disenfranchise them as a result?

So congestion pricing is bad because our democracy consistently ties voting rights to residency? What?

> The lots zoned for 24-story buildings mostly but not entirely already have them

No, the 24-story building I'm describing is on a long block in the Flatiron District where literally all of the other buildings on the block are between 4 and 12 stories.

> It's not problematic to discuss how a low-rise neighborhood is preferable in the architectural or aesthetic sense, let alone in quality of life. Or are you asserting that Jane Jacobs was a racist?

There is an intrinsic trade off here between aesthetics and poverty/homelessness. The beneficiaries and the casualties are different people. What does it say if the priority is aesthetics?

> No, there's a reason why celebrities prefer living in Brownstone Brooklyn and not in Midtown Manhattan, Downtown Brooklyn, or Long Island City.

"Avoiding paparazzi in denser buildings" isn't a common concern for ordinary people.

> I choose not to drive into New York City. I still choose to drive and pay plenty of tolls locally in NJ, pay my car registration in NJ, etc.

Driving into New York City is the relevant thing. NYC congestion pricing isn't modifying what you're paying in NJ.

> Between you repeatedly calling me cheap and saying my phrasing is "problematic", it sure seems like I'm wasting my time replying to a troll who doesn't even live here and isn't affected by NYC congestion pricing in any way in the first place.

I generally ignore personal questions in debates like this, so you don't actually know where I live or work, because the only reason it would matter is as the basis for an ad hominem attack or an appeal to authority. Does anything about the argument change if I live in New York? What if I live in Canada but have parents in New York? What if I live in Washington but might move to New York? None of that would affect whether congestion pricing is good policy or not.

We're only even talking about your circumstances because I pointed out that the people who live in New Jersey aren't being represented (even though they'd represent a disproportionate share of the people who drive into New York), and your retort was that you live in New Jersey and don't drive into New York. Which would only be relevant if your position was held by the majority of interested people in the jurisdictions without a vote, and even if it was that still wouldn't be an excuse to leave them unrepresented on an issue directly affecting them.

> So when I lived right on 6th Ave and my windowsills would get covered in black dust any time the window was open, you're claiming that wasn't from the 24/7 four-lane traffic flow outside? Sure is strange then, considering that when I lived in other parts of NYC that weren't on busy roads, that was never a problem.

Don't confuse roads with cars. Roads also have buses and trucks, and if you're looking for a source of soot, diesel engines are a scourge.

> That's correct, but tire wear still produces a decent amount of air pollution, and it's especially bad with EVs due to their increased weight.

"Tire wear" is the last refuge of people with nothing else to complain about. A tire will shed around 1500 grams of mass over its entire lifetime. By contrast, a single gallon of gasoline is more than 3200 grams and combines with air to produce more than 8 kilograms of emissions. Modern cars ensure that nearly all of that is (stable) CO2 and not other dangerously reactive carbon and nitrogen oxides as they used to be and electric cars don't even produce the CO2. So we've gone from >15,000 kg of tailpipe emissions over 50,000 miles in a 26 MPG car to zero and the only complaint left is the 6 kg from a set of four tires.

Meanwhile the "electric cars are heavier" thing isn't really true. It came from comparing electric conversions of traditional gasoline cars to the weight of the original cars. The conversions weigh more than the original cars (and even then not by much), but they also weigh more than cars specifically designed to be electric from the start, which don't contain unnecessary engine support scaffolding and are heavily optimized for weight to maximize range.

> So congestion pricing is bad because our democracy consistently ties voting rights to residency? What?

Voting rights are tied to residency for issues that predominantly affect local people, like local schools. Issues that affect people over a wider area, like transportation, are meant to be decided at higher levels of government to make sure that the people being directly affected are represented. But here we have a transportation issue directly affecting people outside the jurisdiction being decided by the local government.

> No, the 24-story building I'm describing is on a long block in the Flatiron District where literally all of the other buildings on the block are between 4 and 12 stories.

I see I'm not explaining this clearly.

You have some amount of land which is zoned for 24-story buildings, but all the areas you see which are already full of 24-story buildings? That's most of the areas so zoned. You can't add new ones there because they already have them. You also can't put them in any of the areas with more restrictive zoning.

What's left is a small percentage of the city where the zoning allows for something that isn't already there. That small percentage can include a contiguous strip of smaller buildings. But because it's only those strips, it limits development to only those areas. That might not be where the greatest demand is, and most of the buildings in any given area wouldn't be on the market at any given time, so the opportunities to do it are reduced to a fraction of what they would have been.

That doesn't mean it never happens, what it means is that it would be happening many times more often in the absence of those restrictions, and that reduction in construction significantly exacerbates the housing shortage.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but you don't have to prohibit something through zoning that nobody was going to do anyway. Whereas if they were going to do it, where "it" is "increasing the housing supply", and the zoning stops them, QED.

OEM EV tires often require replacement well before 50,000 miles. And EVs really are heavier than similar form-factor ICE vehicles, completely separate from any notion of "conversions" because it's equally true across different makes/models.

I know these things because I own an EV, and did a massive amount of research before purchasing one, and also now have years of direct experience owning one.

Similarly, I know that Amtrak fare pricing actually isn't "uncompetitive with airlines" for popular routes.

I know this because I have taken many hundreds of Amtrak trips over the past 25 years, with destinations spanning 11 different states, and in every single case the fare pricing was better than flying.

Similarly, celebrities are far from incognito in low-rise neighborhoods, and their preference for low-rise buildings has absolutely nothing to do with avoiding paparazzi. It's not unusual to see celebrities in NYC, many even ride the subway.

I know this because I actually live here. The same way I know that there are many very large high-rise buildings in boroughs other than Manhattan, and I know that there's constant construction of new high-rise buildings in NYC.

This is why it's relevant whether you live here: you lack the frame of reference for many aspects of this discussion, and your comments frequently include objective falsehoods as a result. I'm not going to continue replying here, as there's no point in doing so under those circumstances.