11 ms·

London's congestion charge is £15 (about $18) and has largely been a success. I suspect there's a difference in PPP though, so the Manhattan charge is potential

London's congestion charge is £15 (about $18) and has largely been a success. I suspect there's a difference in PPP though, so the Manhattan charge is potentially less impactful

tempsy 3y ago
People in NYC make much more. So if it's less in NYC than London then I'm even more convinced that it won't do that much for congestion.
- wwarner 3y ago
  It can be a successful way to raise money for the subway system even if it doesn't help much with congestion.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    The nyc subways have a spending problem. if they could build and run it at normal world prices things would be much better.
- atkailash 3y ago
  Median rent is also 2x London’s. Median pay is less than 3x. That’s not even counting the rest of cost of living changes It’ll only affect working class people who commute by driving for whatever reason. As usual the actual rich won’t care. The majority of NYers don’t even own a car. So it’s mostly tourists and people from outside the city (plus ride share/taxis) who are driving.
- StressedDev 3y ago
  Do you have a source for this? London is not known as a poor city. In addition, some people in both cities are wealthy but a lot more are not. I doubt someone living in the South Brox or Far Rockaway can afford a $15/day charge.
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    I don't answer your question, but I had a quick look for statistics and found this beautiful map — zoom in all the way! It broadly shows there are rich and poor areas of London, but I don't know if it's better to be in the bottom 10% in London or New York. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/smallareamodelbasedincomeestimates/financialyearending2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...
    - chgs 3y ago
      The bottom 10% in london can’t afford insurance for the car, let alone parking.
    - Reason077 3y ago
      I've lived in both rich(ish) and poor(ish) areas of London over the years. Clapham, Fulham/West Brompton, and Maida Vale in the "rich" west. Whitechapel, Poplar, and the Isle of Dogs in the "poor" east. It is my general observation that the "rich" areas suffer more from traffic congestion and pollution, because more people own cars and more of those cars tend to be giant diesel Range Rovers and such. In the east it seems like while there are still a lot of parked cars everywhere, people don't actually drive them around as much, choosing the bus/train/bike/feet more often for everyday travel. Also worth remembering that even the "poor" parts of London are still pretty rich by overall UK standards.
  - tempsy 3y ago
    I'm talking about people who already have the means to drive into midtown manhattan as is, with all the tolls and gas and monthly parking bills they're already going to pay. For these people I'm saying I do not see an extra $15 1x/day being a difference maker.
    - Reason077 3y ago
      Right, but it's exactly the same in London. The only people who are regularly driving into central London are either professional drivers (taxis, delivery vans, etc), for whom the charge is just an operating expense, or they're very wealthy. Just parking in central London is going to cost you a lot more than the £15/day congestion charge. In addition to the central congestion charging zone, London also has an additional £12.50 low-emission zone (ULEZ) charge targeted at older, higher-polluting vehicles. The ULEZ has now expanded to cover all of Greater London.
timr 3y ago
London's congestion charge is just City of London. That's an incredibly tiny portion of London. In terms of impact, this is closer to putting congestion pricing on everything inside of M25.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > London's congestion charge is just City of London This is only lower Manhattan.
  - timr 3y ago
    No, it's everything south of 60th, and essentially every ingress/egress to the city, other than Randalls Island, the GW, and the Bronx.
    - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
      > it's everything south of 60th You’re right. It’s lower and midtown Manhattan. That said, it doesn’t include most of Manhattan let alone New York City. The core question is what someone who won’t pay $15 and refuses to not drive into the city during its most congested hours is bringing to the table. That is harsh. But it is a trade-off a city must make with its limited resources.
      - timr 3y ago
        The "rich person driving into the city" is a scapegoat. Get rid of those people (whom I absolutely do not care about taxing; it's fine, whatever), and the streets will still be crammed with the traffic supporting all the people who live here. And under this plan, those trucks, buses, taxis, etc. will be taxed to the tune of billions of dollars a year. As someone who hasn't owned a car in well over a decade, but lives in NYC and pays for things here -- and yes, even takes the occasional taxi when the MTA sucks -- this is what I resent. Setting aside the corruption and incompetence of the MTA (which we should absolutely not set aside), this is little more than a regressive tax on the people who live here, dressed up like anti-car activism.
spywaregorilla 3y ago
How has it been a success? I'm not familiar.
chgs 3y ago
Whenever I’ve parked in central london it’s been £50 for the day, the congestion charge is meaningless compared with the cost of petrol and parking.

London's congestion charge is £15 (about $18) and has largely been a success. I suspect there's a difference in PPP though, so the Manhattan charge is potentially less impactful

tempsy 3y ago

People in NYC make much more. So if it's less in NYC than London then I'm even more convinced that it won't do that much for congestion.

wwarner 3y ago
It can be a successful way to raise money for the subway system even if it doesn't help much with congestion.
- bluGill 3y ago
  The nyc subways have a spending problem. if they could build and run it at normal world prices things would be much better.
atkailash 3y ago
Median rent is also 2x London’s. Median pay is less than 3x. That’s not even counting the rest of cost of living changes It’ll only affect working class people who commute by driving for whatever reason. As usual the actual rich won’t care. The majority of NYers don’t even own a car. So it’s mostly tourists and people from outside the city (plus ride share/taxis) who are driving.
StressedDev 3y ago
Do you have a source for this? London is not known as a poor city. In addition, some people in both cities are wealthy but a lot more are not. I doubt someone living in the South Brox or Far Rockaway can afford a $15/day charge.
- Symbiote 3y ago
  I don't answer your question, but I had a quick look for statistics and found this beautiful map — zoom in all the way! It broadly shows there are rich and poor areas of London, but I don't know if it's better to be in the bottom 10% in London or New York. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/smallareamodelbasedincomeestimates/financialyearending2020 https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...
  - chgs 3y ago
    The bottom 10% in london can’t afford insurance for the car, let alone parking.
  - Reason077 3y ago
    I've lived in both rich(ish) and poor(ish) areas of London over the years. Clapham, Fulham/West Brompton, and Maida Vale in the "rich" west. Whitechapel, Poplar, and the Isle of Dogs in the "poor" east. It is my general observation that the "rich" areas suffer more from traffic congestion and pollution, because more people own cars and more of those cars tend to be giant diesel Range Rovers and such. In the east it seems like while there are still a lot of parked cars everywhere, people don't actually drive them around as much, choosing the bus/train/bike/feet more often for everyday travel. Also worth remembering that even the "poor" parts of London are still pretty rich by overall UK standards.
- tempsy 3y ago
  I'm talking about people who already have the means to drive into midtown manhattan as is, with all the tolls and gas and monthly parking bills they're already going to pay. For these people I'm saying I do not see an extra $15 1x/day being a difference maker.
  - Reason077 3y ago
    Right, but it's exactly the same in London. The only people who are regularly driving into central London are either professional drivers (taxis, delivery vans, etc), for whom the charge is just an operating expense, or they're very wealthy. Just parking in central London is going to cost you a lot more than the £15/day congestion charge. In addition to the central congestion charging zone, London also has an additional £12.50 low-emission zone (ULEZ) charge targeted at older, higher-polluting vehicles. The ULEZ has now expanded to cover all of Greater London.

timr 3y ago

London's congestion charge is just City of London. That's an incredibly tiny portion of London. In terms of impact, this is closer to putting congestion pricing on everything inside of M25.

JumpCrisscross 3y ago
> London's congestion charge is just City of London This is only lower Manhattan.
- timr 3y ago
  No, it's everything south of 60th, and essentially every ingress/egress to the city, other than Randalls Island, the GW, and the Bronx.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > it's everything south of 60th You’re right. It’s lower and midtown Manhattan. That said, it doesn’t include most of Manhattan let alone New York City. The core question is what someone who won’t pay $15 and refuses to not drive into the city during its most congested hours is bringing to the table. That is harsh. But it is a trade-off a city must make with its limited resources.
    - timr 3y ago
      The "rich person driving into the city" is a scapegoat. Get rid of those people (whom I absolutely do not care about taxing; it's fine, whatever), and the streets will still be crammed with the traffic supporting all the people who live here. And under this plan, those trucks, buses, taxis, etc. will be taxed to the tune of billions of dollars a year. As someone who hasn't owned a car in well over a decade, but lives in NYC and pays for things here -- and yes, even takes the occasional taxi when the MTA sucks -- this is what I resent. Setting aside the corruption and incompetence of the MTA (which we should absolutely not set aside), this is little more than a regressive tax on the people who live here, dressed up like anti-car activism.

spywaregorilla 3y ago

How has it been a success? I'm not familiar.

chgs 3y ago

Whenever I’ve parked in central london it’s been £50 for the day, the congestion charge is meaningless compared with the cost of petrol and parking.