Anyone in NYC, did congestion pricing help?
Because im driving in more traffic...
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Direct comparisons between cities are fallible because they might not use the same types of scheme.
Congestion-charges hit two groups of people hard:
- residents of the affected area (if they own a car and have their own parking spaces),
- traders, both shopkeepers and their suppliers, and service people like builders and coach operators.
It may also be partly responsible for ending of what had been a large, annual exhibition I used to attend in London, where the scheme is not simply congestion-limiting. So I wonder what other cultural events in London, such as concerts, are also badly affected by such plans. The problem is not so bad for the event visitors, as many can share cars so share costs, can use public-transport (plentiful in and around London), or own cars exempt from the charge . Rather, it adds to trade-stand proprietors', performers', etc. already-high show costs.
London's complication is that the congestion-charge area is quite compact but accompanied by the "Low Emission Zone" ("Ultra ~ " close to the city-centre).
The LEZ is far larger than the congestion-charge area. It is most of the land enclosed by the M25 motorway, the capital's primary ring-road, forming a rough rectangle approaching 900 square miles (by measuring a road map), some in open countryside. Several million people live and work within this area, obviously by no means all motorists; but many from outside need drive into it regularly.
An "LEZ" is based on vehicle type, age and fuel, so by which EU-wide emission-control regulations band it occupies; and its present cost is £12.50 a day for those not exempted by meeting the appropriate standards. That the UK is no longer in the EU does not matter because the vehicles are the same, subject to Type-Approval laws imposed on their manufacturers, and the idea is to cut pollution as well as traffic-jams.
Several other British and continental-European cities have adopted their own versions of congestion and/or emission-control charging. Glasgow goes further, by simply banning some vehicles by their emission-standards bands!
So London's arrangements might not be totally comparable to New York's or Stockholm's, if those are purely "congestion charges" designed to limit only vehicle numbers, not directly air pollution as well. (Though fewer vehicles will mean less pollution, of course.)
Congestion-charges hit two groups of people hard:
- residents of the affected area (if they own a car and have their own parking spaces),
- traders, both shopkeepers and their suppliers, and service people like builders and coach operators.
It may also be partly responsible for ending of what had been a large, annual exhibition I used to attend in London, where the scheme is not simply congestion-limiting. So I wonder what other cultural events in London, such as concerts, are also badly affected by such plans. The problem is not so bad for the event visitors, as many can share cars so share costs, can use public-transport (plentiful in and around London), or own cars exempt from the charge . Rather, it adds to trade-stand proprietors', performers', etc. already-high show costs.
London's complication is that the congestion-charge area is quite compact but accompanied by the "Low Emission Zone" ("Ultra ~ " close to the city-centre).
The LEZ is far larger than the congestion-charge area. It is most of the land enclosed by the M25 motorway, the capital's primary ring-road, forming a rough rectangle approaching 900 square miles (by measuring a road map), some in open countryside. Several million people live and work within this area, obviously by no means all motorists; but many from outside need drive into it regularly.
An "LEZ" is based on vehicle type, age and fuel, so by which EU-wide emission-control regulations band it occupies; and its present cost is £12.50 a day for those not exempted by meeting the appropriate standards. That the UK is no longer in the EU does not matter because the vehicles are the same, subject to Type-Approval laws imposed on their manufacturers, and the idea is to cut pollution as well as traffic-jams.
Several other British and continental-European cities have adopted their own versions of congestion and/or emission-control charging. Glasgow goes further, by simply banning some vehicles by their emission-standards bands!
So London's arrangements might not be totally comparable to New York's or Stockholm's, if those are purely "congestion charges" designed to limit only vehicle numbers, not directly air pollution as well. (Though fewer vehicles will mean less pollution, of course.)
ElwoodBlues · M
Too early to tell. But, in London England, it reduced traffic 30% the first year. Stockholm had similar results.
London implemented congestion pricing in 2003, then charging vehicles 5 pounds to enter the city’s busiest streets on weekdays between 7 am and 6:30 pm. Just before the toll was put in place, only 39 percent of Londoners supported the plan — similar numbers to the Siena poll showing the (un)popularity of NYC’s plan.
Five months after the program launched, public support for congestion pricing grew to 59 percent, buoyed by noticeably decongested roads. In the policy’s first year, London saw a 30 percent reduction in traffic.
Stockholm was a similar story. When the city first imposed a congestion tax in 2006, it started with a seven-month trial period. During this time, the policy effectively removed some 100,000 cars off the roads in the relief zone, easing traffic and improving people’s commute times. Shortly afterward, Stockholm residents approved a referendum to make congestion pricing permanent, and public support swelled to 70 percent by 2011.
https://www.vox.com/policy/394514/congestion-pricing-popular-support-new-york-stockholm-londonFive months after the program launched, public support for congestion pricing grew to 59 percent, buoyed by noticeably decongested roads. In the policy’s first year, London saw a 30 percent reduction in traffic.
Stockholm was a similar story. When the city first imposed a congestion tax in 2006, it started with a seven-month trial period. During this time, the policy effectively removed some 100,000 cars off the roads in the relief zone, easing traffic and improving people’s commute times. Shortly afterward, Stockholm residents approved a referendum to make congestion pricing permanent, and public support swelled to 70 percent by 2011.
RedBaron · M
I don’t own a car and would never drive in Manhattan. Subway, Uber, or taxi for me.
NYCChick · 31-35, F
i live in nyc but use the subway everywhere like most people i havent drove in 10 years parking is a nightmare in manhattan
Im not there but what is congestion pricing? 😳
OMG, I’m so glad I got the hell out of there and don’t have to put up with that. Lol…… don’t know how they could keep a straight face saying it would cut down on congestion. Pure BS, nothing but a money grab.
Moneyonmymind · 31-35, M
Won’t people just find ways around it?
View 1 more replies »
MethDozer · M
@Moneyonmymind same. I have family that lives there. Hearing about 2+ hour commutes on multiple crowded trains, buses, etc. is living hell conditions to me. Especially since it might only be a few miles away
I couldn't imagine carrying my tool bags everyday on multiple forms of crowded mass transit 2+ hours each way like my brother in law does
I couldn't imagine carrying my tool bags everyday on multiple forms of crowded mass transit 2+ hours each way like my brother in law does
Moneyonmymind · 31-35, M
@MethDozer not to mention its filthy
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment