4 ms·

London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government above it is the national one. Cities in the US are creatures of their respective states, and the sw

London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government above it is the national one. Cities in the US are creatures of their respective states, and the swing votes in states are usually the suburban voters who would be most impacted by a charge like this. —- It also helps that TfL has a track record of delivering many miles of projects and a future expansion plan. MTA is planning on using this to keep the lights on for another five years, at which point a new source of money has to be found to pay for capital investment. (The plan is currently to bond out the future congestion revenue to pay for today’s capital investments.)

cronix 3y ago
There's also the county government layer that cities must adhere to in addition to state/national.
- bpye 3y ago
  London and unitary authorities don't have a county above them.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    I assumed that was in the context of the US. Country governments in the US vary a lot in how powerful they are from being mostly a judicial unit or organization to being pretty powerful (e.g. parishes in Louisiana).
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      New York City, which is implementing this, is a bit of a weird case in that it actually sits above the counties, not below them. New York's five boroughs are technically five counties.
- SllX 3y ago
  Hmm, depends a lot on the State. You can generally make two generalizations about local governments in the United States: they are local governments and you can’t make any other generalizations about them because everything depends on the State and sometimes a locality’s specific circumstances. In California, municipalities do not adhere to the counties they are in, the county is a legal subdivision of the State which might also have a charter and cities are municipal corporations with a monopoly on the land use within their cities. School districts are also a form of local government here, as are special purpose districts like BART. In some parts of New England, and I’m not going to go into specifics because when I looked into this more than 10 years ago this had changed or some States were changing it, the State is divided into counties and the counties were divided into townships which are the basis of the New England township system. Somewhere in there, there are also cities, and Maine has a couple of severely underpopulated places designated as Plantations. So, congestion pricing in the US: NYC, LA, San Francisco and probably Seattle absolutely have the power to this if they wanted to, although I’ll say for San Francisco that would have made a lot more sense to try before the pandemic than now, cuz now, well now downtown is dead so what would it really do? Fairly certain Boston could as well. Everywhere else, I’m less certain, like in Texas I’m fairly certain cities there could, but I’m also fairly certain the Texan legislature under their own laws has the power to step in and go “No. None of that. Shame on you.”
  - Spooky23 3y ago
    NYC can only do it if granted the home rule authority by the state legislature - which it has. In general, counties are pretty weak in New York.
    - SllX 3y ago
      You see, this kind of thing is why I led with this: "You can generally make two generalizations about local governments in the United States: they are local governments and you can’t make any other generalizations about them because everything depends on the State and sometimes a locality’s specific circumstances." That is good intel though. I thought NY was a home rule state, but is that only for municipalities which have had home rule enabled by legislation? This table doesn't really go into that many specifics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule_in_the_United_States
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        Effectively home rule exists at the mercy of state legislation in NY due to the current legal precedents around the state constitution. One weird NYC thing is that it is the only city I am aware of in the US that sits above the county level. The five boroughs are the five counties and mostly used for administrative management, since four of the boroughs are million plus cities in and of themselves; but the boroughs have no lawmaking powers.
  - throw3823423 3y ago
    In practice, there are no explicit constitutional protections for municipalities. So really, it's all states that can stomp on municipal legislation with impunity if they really felt like it. There might be a state constitution or two on the way, but those are easy to change, and many a state government is capable of either outright ignore constitutional changes brought in by voters, or do some aggressive deception in the drafting of summaries for constitutional propositions as to make them seem to do the opposite of what they really do. See a recent, pro-gerrymandering change to the Missouri constitution, which talked about independent commissions and cutting political donations, but really overrode earlier anti-gerrymandering language, and gave the governor total control over the process. So broadly, the rights of local governments only go as far as the whims of the state government and the courts anyway, across the board.
drdec 3y ago
> London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government above it is the national one. Is that actually true? I mean, are there no vestiges of England, Scotland and Wales in the UK?
- desas 3y ago
  Yes for Scotland and Wales but not for England. The discrepancy is known as The West Lothian Question
  - amiga386 3y ago
    Not really. The West Lothian Question is "why can Scots vote on English laws but not vice-versa?", which wasn't true at the time it was asked (1977), and especially isn't true now. Firstly, note that all constituent countries elect MPs to the UK's Westminster parliament, because there are many laws that affect the entire country, and are controlled centrally. Between 1707 and 1997 (20 years _after_ asking the question!), _all_ laws for Scotland were made in Westminster, and voted on by _all_ MPs. Laws for Scotland get their own bills because Scotland retains its own legal system. Likewise Northern Ireland, but _not_ Wales. Wales shares the same legal system as England, which is why the phrase "England and Wales" appears often. Since Scottish devolution, certain powers were _reserved_ for Westminster, and the rest of the laws for Scotland are now made in a separately elected Scottish parliament. But there are still plenty of laws which affect Scotland, sometimes _exclusively_ affect Scotland due to the reserved powers having the ability to override choices that Scotland has made for itself. Those laws are still made in Westminster, English MPs can still vote on them and easily win, and so Scots still need representation in the Westminster parliament. The main part of the West Lothian question, which is where there are sometimes laws that _exclusively_ affect England and Wales, why do Scottish MPs get to vote on them?, was handled by the Scottish MPs voluntarily not voting on them. They managed to do this for centuries without any formal process. Then after the 2015 election, the UK government brought in the EVEL process (English Votes for English Laws), which gave English MPs a "veto" on laws that only affected England. Since the pandemic, Westminster chose to drop EVEL, presumably because the voluntary system of Scottish MPs abstaining from voting on England-only bills worked just fine! What's relevant for this discussion is that _London_ has an elected mayor, which makes it a special case. It has its own autonomy, within England, which supposedly doesn't have any special carve outs unlike Scotland/Wales/NI... in reality, it has quite a few: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directly_elected_mayors_in_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directly_elected_mayors_in_Eng...
griffinkelly 3y ago
Does the revenue go to the state of NY, NYC or the federal government? I imagine a split between all if it needed federal approval?
- epc 3y ago
  Current plan is for revenue to accrue to the MTA, a public benefit corporation owned by NY State.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  It needs federal approval because it covers interstate crossings.

cronix 3y ago

There's also the county government layer that cities must adhere to in addition to state/national.

bpye 3y ago
London and unitary authorities don't have a county above them.
- ghaff 3y ago
  I assumed that was in the context of the US. Country governments in the US vary a lot in how powerful they are from being mostly a judicial unit or organization to being pretty powerful (e.g. parishes in Louisiana).
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    New York City, which is implementing this, is a bit of a weird case in that it actually sits above the counties, not below them. New York's five boroughs are technically five counties.
SllX 3y ago
Hmm, depends a lot on the State. You can generally make two generalizations about local governments in the United States: they are local governments and you can’t make any other generalizations about them because everything depends on the State and sometimes a locality’s specific circumstances. In California, municipalities do not adhere to the counties they are in, the county is a legal subdivision of the State which might also have a charter and cities are municipal corporations with a monopoly on the land use within their cities. School districts are also a form of local government here, as are special purpose districts like BART. In some parts of New England, and I’m not going to go into specifics because when I looked into this more than 10 years ago this had changed or some States were changing it, the State is divided into counties and the counties were divided into townships which are the basis of the New England township system. Somewhere in there, there are also cities, and Maine has a couple of severely underpopulated places designated as Plantations. So, congestion pricing in the US: NYC, LA, San Francisco and probably Seattle absolutely have the power to this if they wanted to, although I’ll say for San Francisco that would have made a lot more sense to try before the pandemic than now, cuz now, well now downtown is dead so what would it really do? Fairly certain Boston could as well. Everywhere else, I’m less certain, like in Texas I’m fairly certain cities there could, but I’m also fairly certain the Texan legislature under their own laws has the power to step in and go “No. None of that. Shame on you.”
- Spooky23 3y ago
  NYC can only do it if granted the home rule authority by the state legislature - which it has. In general, counties are pretty weak in New York.
  - SllX 3y ago
    You see, this kind of thing is why I led with this: "You can generally make two generalizations about local governments in the United States: they are local governments and you can’t make any other generalizations about them because everything depends on the State and sometimes a locality’s specific circumstances." That is good intel though. I thought NY was a home rule state, but is that only for municipalities which have had home rule enabled by legislation? This table doesn't really go into that many specifics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule_in_the_United_States
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      Effectively home rule exists at the mercy of state legislation in NY due to the current legal precedents around the state constitution. One weird NYC thing is that it is the only city I am aware of in the US that sits above the county level. The five boroughs are the five counties and mostly used for administrative management, since four of the boroughs are million plus cities in and of themselves; but the boroughs have no lawmaking powers.
- throw3823423 3y ago
  In practice, there are no explicit constitutional protections for municipalities. So really, it's all states that can stomp on municipal legislation with impunity if they really felt like it. There might be a state constitution or two on the way, but those are easy to change, and many a state government is capable of either outright ignore constitutional changes brought in by voters, or do some aggressive deception in the drafting of summaries for constitutional propositions as to make them seem to do the opposite of what they really do. See a recent, pro-gerrymandering change to the Missouri constitution, which talked about independent commissions and cutting political donations, but really overrode earlier anti-gerrymandering language, and gave the governor total control over the process. So broadly, the rights of local governments only go as far as the whims of the state government and the courts anyway, across the board.

drdec 3y ago

> London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government above it is the national one. Is that actually true? I mean, are there no vestiges of England, Scotland and Wales in the UK?

desas 3y ago
Yes for Scotland and Wales but not for England. The discrepancy is known as The West Lothian Question
- amiga386 3y ago
  Not really. The West Lothian Question is "why can Scots vote on English laws but not vice-versa?", which wasn't true at the time it was asked (1977), and especially isn't true now. Firstly, note that all constituent countries elect MPs to the UK's Westminster parliament, because there are many laws that affect the entire country, and are controlled centrally. Between 1707 and 1997 (20 years _after_ asking the question!), _all_ laws for Scotland were made in Westminster, and voted on by _all_ MPs. Laws for Scotland get their own bills because Scotland retains its own legal system. Likewise Northern Ireland, but _not_ Wales. Wales shares the same legal system as England, which is why the phrase "England and Wales" appears often. Since Scottish devolution, certain powers were _reserved_ for Westminster, and the rest of the laws for Scotland are now made in a separately elected Scottish parliament. But there are still plenty of laws which affect Scotland, sometimes _exclusively_ affect Scotland due to the reserved powers having the ability to override choices that Scotland has made for itself. Those laws are still made in Westminster, English MPs can still vote on them and easily win, and so Scots still need representation in the Westminster parliament. The main part of the West Lothian question, which is where there are sometimes laws that _exclusively_ affect England and Wales, why do Scottish MPs get to vote on them?, was handled by the Scottish MPs voluntarily not voting on them. They managed to do this for centuries without any formal process. Then after the 2015 election, the UK government brought in the EVEL process (English Votes for English Laws), which gave English MPs a "veto" on laws that only affected England. Since the pandemic, Westminster chose to drop EVEL, presumably because the voluntary system of Scottish MPs abstaining from voting on England-only bills worked just fine! What's relevant for this discussion is that _London_ has an elected mayor, which makes it a special case. It has its own autonomy, within England, which supposedly doesn't have any special carve outs unlike Scotland/Wales/NI... in reality, it has quite a few: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directly_elected_mayors_in_England https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directly_elected_mayors_in_Eng...

griffinkelly 3y ago

Does the revenue go to the state of NY, NYC or the federal government? I imagine a split between all if it needed federal approval?

epc 3y ago
Current plan is for revenue to accrue to the MTA, a public benefit corporation owned by NY State.
bobthepanda 3y ago
It needs federal approval because it covers interstate crossings.