4 ms·
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.
by 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 agoIt can be a successful way to raise money for the subway system even if it doesn't help much with congestion.
- bluGill 3y agoThe nyc subways have a spending problem. if they could build and run it at normal world prices things would be much better.
- atkailash 3y agoMedian 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 agoDo 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 agoI 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 agoThe bottom 10% in london can’t afford insurance for the car, let alone parking.
- Reason077 3y agoI'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 agoI'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 agoRight, 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.
- hparadiz 3y agoYou forget that America is a car culture outside of NYC so a typical tourist coming to NYC for the day will likely just eat the cost and drive anyway. The geography of NYC is also very challenging. A lot of the public transportation options don't even cover places like Staten Island properly so people drive instead. There won't be much of a difference in traffic imo. Taking the train is already pretty expensive.