As a New Jersey resident I don't really get why congestion pricing in New York is viewed as worse for us. I go years at a time without driving a car in the congestion pricing zone and we have no shortage of ways to access that area without a car. The only complaint I would consider legitimate is that the money will go to the MTA which really only funds transit within New York State, rather than somewhere else that would support New Jersey and Connecticut as well...the problem there is that that "somewhere else" doesn't really exist.
@@jaredrl06 That sounds like a stretch, to be very generous. Do the existing tolls at the Port Authority's bridges and tunnels between New Jersey and New York violate the interstate commerce clause then? (The PA itself being a thing that exists under constitutional authority for interstate compacts) Or a traffic jam because people are commuting by car and blocking the roads that could be used for movement of goods? Or I don't know, a big pothole that slows "commerce" down?
The congestion pricing debate is hilarious. Most Nyers don't own or use personal cars to get around. Why should we have to pay taxes to maintain roads that we do not use? Congestion pricing is only fair and if anything this system is letting drivers off easy
And those that actually do own cars most likely will not drive to other Boros (unless needed) but most likely just drive around within their borough or whichever suburb is close to them (for example: live in the Bronx, drive to Westchester or you live in Queens you go to Long Island)
I have started pointing out the insane tax money required for that car centric design to my family with that mentality. "They enjoy their federally mandated hundred acre parking lots, with their free on street parking that we all subsidize." is a comment I have made. " Ah, I see we enjoy averaging 30 mph down a 50 mph street littered with millions in subsidized multi million dollars worth of traffic light infrastructure" is another.
You actually use the roads every day. How to you think the stuff you buy in stores you walk/transit to gets there? How do you get food delivered? What if you need emergency services? They're not going to take the subway to your home. We all use these roads (some less, and some more, and perhaps those that drive in their cars should pay more), but let's keep in mind that this infrastructure is part of the commons that we all share, and rely on, to some extent.
@@RichardFraser-y9t Too many of us liked Johnson. What gets me is that Starmer attacked Khan because of his stance on ULEZ, and now he's won the mayoral election, it's all best mates! Khan would have been kicked out if Starmer had had his way at the time.
@@Bungle-UK Brexit only got the votes of 36% of the electorate. 63% either wanted to stay, or were happy with the status quo. Yet we still left the EU. Them's the breaks!
@@crowmob-yo6ry sometimes yes, he overuses the outrage incentive of the algorithm to draw in views, but that can be useful when he follows in up with advocating for things like Strong Towns, which has a VERY different approach.
Why can we not have spaced out pedestrian blocks? You can just about take a car down every street in NYC and Chicago, for no specific reason at all. This has always confounded me
it's a problem in so many places, in almost every city and town here in sweden they have maybe.. 5.. streets where you cannot drive, it's insane and completely useless.
I can think of maybe three or four streets in Chicago which are not car friendly. I've certainly seen my fair share of cars on the Lakeshore bike path. Chicago will literally bend over backwards to enable drivers.
The issue with too many pedestrian only blocks is that it can make deliveries to stores and shops on that block difficult. I would keep the streets, but make some of them local traffic only, so that only cars or trucks going to or from locations on that block can use it. I’ve seen several blocks like that is Manhattan and Brooklyn.
@@michaelhadjiosif97 where do you live that pedestrian streets don't allow any sort of traffic? Here in sweden a pedestrian street simply means the speed limit is like 5 km/h and only people with business on the street are allowed to drive there.
I've been advocating congestion pricing for downtown Toronto for years. There is already no logical reason to drive downtown most of the time and anything that helps people realize that is helpful.
I can bring to the discussion the example of Rome, where I live (part-time). The city council is planning to introduce a congestion charge area in the centre of the city. Many of the historic neighbourhoods, with narrow roads and many pedestrians, are already limited access areas where only residents are allowed, some permanently, some only during specific times of the day. Wider roads, like the ones following the river, can be used by anyone. For instance, everyone can freely drive around the Coliseum or the Circus Maximus. The whole centre of the city, and even some of the suburbs have some insane amounts of traffic, and parking spaces are extremely difficult to find, and usually not free, and there is a diffused parking anarchy, where people just invent parking spaces in areas where it's not clear it's possible to park, but also it's not explicitely forbidden. All of this would make a perfect point for a congestion charge area, but there is a really important issue with that: public transport in the whole city is terrible. Many areas are not served by the metro, buses and trams are slow, infrequent and unreliable and most transit options stop working after 11pm. There is also a lack of road alternatives that would allow random cars to avoid passing through scenic Roman ruins to reach a neighbourhood on the other side of the city. The city council is also considered by many as not focused on the citizens' needs, whatever they may be. This is making such a measure deeply unpopular, but the peculiar thing is that it's poorer people from the suburbs that are more strongly against it: they consider it as a burden that can negatively affect their lives, as they don't see a viable alternative to driving, which is already a deeply unpleasant experience for everyone forced to do it. Someone could tell them that using three buses to make the same journey would be better for everyone even if it takes double the time (I don't have a car there, so I'm used to doing it), but you can't expect anyone to instantly agree. If the person saying that comes from a wealthy family and suburb, and can afford to take a taxi to work every day, the effect is even detrimental. I think that such measures require a strong feeling of trust between the government of a city and its residents, which isn't always there. Other Italian cities, like Milan and Bologna, have had similar charges in place for decades with good result, but either the affected area is really small, or public transport is excellent and people are aware of that.
Sometimes I quite like the Japanese approach to this problem, just let normal roads jam up and make a rather expensive paid express way through the town center
God Toronto needs this so bad. The TTC is literally going to run its reserves dry in less than 2 years if they can't get more funding/find another revenue source (commercial parking levy/ congestion charges)
I’ve driven in Manhattan from time to time and it’s something I hate doing. I really hate being stuck in traffic wasting time when and I find it funny when suburbanites want to sue the MTA for implementing congestion pricing when they’re already being tolled to cross bridges and tunnels (plus some highways as well) and have several railroads in their towns that takes them to the city and at times beats traffic during rush hour. I understand there are some people that do require some sort of personal transport but for the majority of people, I honestly don’t understand how suburbanites are ok with being stuck in Manhattan traffic trying to get to and from the city that they complain about why traffic isn’t fixed but scoff at paying a charge to reduce traffic?
I have car loving family out on Long Island, and when I flew into Newark (cheaper for my flight path) I told my parents I'd take the LIRR in. My parents haven't lived in NY for awhile and were insistent on picking me up so they could see me sooner. My car loving suburban family laughed at them, said they only go to the city by train
They seem to not understand there is no way all tri-state area residents could drive into Manhattan. To improve traffic in this situation, you need to discourage driving.
The problem I have with the congestion charges in London is that they expanded it to the places with very little transit where people have to use cars. Also like all consumption taxes it hits the poor 100 times harder than the rich.
This is the classic chicken or the egg situation, and, frankly, having the funds on the standby from all the tolling available for transit buildout is a much better alternative to buildout first in anticipation of congestion pricing. In other words, if you’re so inconvenienced by paying congestion pricing without corresponding increases in transit services, lobby your elected officials to spend more $$$ on transit in your neighborhood.
Dutch cities have clearly shown that this very technical and complex solution is not needed to reduce car traffic! Instead cities can just decrease parking and make it much more expensive. This has almost the same effects.
That only works for cities that don't have through-roads which is the case for Dutch cities, but not for NAmerica. Many trip e.g. made in Toronto are not simply to go downtown but to go to suburbs on the opposite side of the city.
@@agilemind6241 that was the case in dutch cities too before the 80s. Then they made the decision to reroute the traffic around the center. The same is possible in NA cities too
@@CaptRRright now - no, but generally speaking density is not NYC’s invention but definitely where NYC excelled in, so we should be smart in copying great ideas that work
Congestion charging only works if there's a viable alternative to driving. In NYC it doesn't seem unreasonable, but somewhere like LA... First you need the transit, but you can't get the transit because everyone drives.
No, you should have a decent public transport before you start road taxing/ congestion charging unless you want angry people. Not saying that public transport has to be world class before they start congestion charging, but people should see that government is proactive in alternatives and public transport first. This also helps and encourages people to drop the car and ease in the congestion charges. What you wrote is exactly what the gov of Norway (country) said then they starts these congestion charges. That we have to make driving uncomfortable and expensive first and then improvement to public transport (or roads in rural areas) can come. That people has to prepay for roads and public transport. This has lead to them not holding their promises and you can't see any significant improvement to roads and public transport. This has also led to road taxes and congestion charges now cover most of the cost of road and public transport (building and maintaining) and them using other taxes (which should go to these things) to other things (mainly overseas). Btw Norway is one of the richest and sparsely populated country in the world, so it should be unnecessary, execpt congestion charges in rush hour only in the biggest 2-3 cities.
You just have to make sure you don't drive (literally) people to do their commerce in outlying areas through enacting this. COVID and habits from COVID especially WFH havent helped. Plus the US is already so car oriented and suburbanized. I've always thought the best way is add bus lanes, bike lanes, and road diet the streets to slow speed two way streets with fewer lanes and let the cars deal with their own congestion. In a lot of downtowns in the US, you want people to visit because they don't now and a congestion charge will ensure they'll never visit.
@@BDub2024 I agree with everything you write that if public transport is good enough (which vary from place to place as you describe), they will come. But Norway is spears and public transport outside of the the Big 3 cities poor, yet they have implemented congestion charges now in nearly every cities and towns country wide. Nobody there expect bus or train every 5 min, but they expect to at least have some services during weekdays. I don't think people would have been so much against it if the government held their promises (as upgrading public transport or roads in rural areas), but they don't. One example from my home city which is Norways 4th largest (Stavanger) We have paid these congestion charges for 25yrs, but it's first now we start to see the promised upgrades being build. One major promise for 25 yrs ago was a LRT system btw the Twincities of Stavanger and Sandnes with other lines. That was scraped and they now has finally begun to build a scale down BRT (which will be slower then todays buses), which was expected to be completed by 2016. The latest estimate is now 2030 with even smaller network and to 4x the budget. Another big promise was to upgrade the 1 lane (each way) E39 highway to 2 lane through the metro area and build a bypass under Stavanger. The bypass was completed 3 yrs ago (12 yrs late) and completion for the rest of the highway is unknown (several parts has not begun construction). All this has drivers and locals prepaid for since ca 2000 and with increasing demand from government that we have to take bigger part of the founding. And if you don't know Norway is one of the richest country in the world and has one of the highest taxes. That I want to say, congestion charges has to be implemented to reduce traffic and better real alternatives, not as a new way to tax people as it's done in Norway. I absolutely for better public transport and agree some restrictive measurement may be needed in some cases, but you have to alternatives to go to or see that the government do improve them before you start charging these congestion charges. If not you will just get people more anti- public transport and angry against the government bc of their broken promises.
@@layeleeTbh, I think NYC and CDMX are the only cities on the continent with comprehensive enough transit networks for congestion pricing to work. If there isn't already a viable alternative to driving, congestion pricing is a just tax on movement that doesn't actually reduce car usage.
Congestion pricing will also likely reduce road damage, and thus road maintenance costs. That's money that can be re-invested into transit and bike infrastructure.
Maybe it's that here in the Netherlands EVs have more or less reached a critical mass, but I don't think subsidising or giving them discounts should really be done any more, one EV takes up at least as much space as a normal car, it's just as noisy and dangerous too. The only difference is that it outsources the energy related pollution elsewhere. Giving them discounts on stuff like congestion charges basically just incentivises people to needlessly one-man personal cars through these zones, and when you have quite a high proportion of EVs and hybrids that's going to substantially reduce the effect of the charge.
EVs are significantly better better than ICE vehciles in that they have a much lesser impact on global atmospheric polution. Local ground polution is a whole other matter. They're also a lot quieter... at low speeds. Which is Mostly good, but has a few issues too. On the other hand, electric cars are still cars and still have and cause all of the Other problems that come with cars, so on the one hand you really want to ecourage people to get EVs over ICE vehciles, but you also want to strongly discourage the use (and where practical, ownership) of cars in general if you want significant local benefits.
I think the real arguments against congestion pricing that people cite are rooted in fear that people dislike the idea that they already pay for the roads via taxes and congestion pricing feels like double taxation. Toll roads are practically banned from receiving public dollars so people rationalize their existence* *Depending on where you are at. The Northeast and Chicago are really comfortable with tolling. Places like Wisconsin are extremely anti-toll roads.
Tolls on some relief roads mean that they don't provide the desired relief. Charging for the M6 toll ensures that many people who want to go to the north-west (Manchester, Liverpool, Lake District), North Wales and Scotland still take the old M6 right past the congested entrance to the city, when they could take a route away from the city.
@@jbirzerRight - we have trained a few generations of people to expect “free” roads and the economics of roads becomes a menacing financial nightmare. The fact that people cannot mentally wrap their head around their true cost explains why a toll road without public dollars either cannot be maintained well or have to have really high tolls.
@@jbirzer ah, slight correction: DRIVERS don't pay the real price. The money for the rest of it is coming from somewhere, and the answer is almost certainly, at least for the most part, 'general taxes' or 'general taxes with extra steps'.
Several of the Greater Toronto Area 400 series expressways definitely need to have congestion pricing, (QEW skyway, 401, 400 etc.) Meanwhile, the current Premier has promised never to toll an existing or new highway.
That would push more cars onto city streets. Better to leave the highways and put the charge on downtown, where it's already easier to get around via transit, biking or walking already.
@@quixomega driving through city streets isn't particularly fast or convenient, so it's a discouragement away from driving to transit regardless. The tolls need not be outrageous like the 407, just enough to reduce stand-still congestion. But I'm for tolling the CBDs as well
Cincinnati needs this too. Our outer loop bridges could immediately remove some of the lanes now being laid for our I-75//71 central bridge but through drivers love the straight shot through downtown.
A congestion charge for Cambridge (England) was recently blocked by both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats despite the narrow streets often causing traffic problems, and the relatively high bike ridership and comprehensive bus network (including five park & ride sites!). I fear it's already been co-opted by the 'stop the war on cars' nutters unfortunately.
As another commenter said, Cambridge doesn’t have a good alternative to cars for locals to do big shops, or navigate on the outskirts of the city. Bikes are unbeatable to get into the town centre, true, but most people commute into Cambridge because of the insane house prices and a congestion charge would just hurt the poorer Cambridge residents who are unable to live inside the city limits due to cost. If Labour had not scrapped the autonomous metro in Cambridge then I could see a congestion charge making more sense in future.
@@Jack-cq9pv That's simply not true. There are trains to almost all of the outlying villages (sure their frequency would need a boost, but the option is there) of Cambridge and with the North Cambridge station it is even easier to take the train + bike/walk to anywhere you might want to go, and tons of Park & Ride options. There are also many big grocery stores on the periphery of the city that can be driven to easily. So there is really no reason for someone in Ely to be driving into Cambridge to buy a months worth of groceries at a time.
San Francisco is an interesting case, as the toll bridges required to get there from most of the bay tend to have a similar impact to this already, pushing people off the bridges and onto BART
Toronto seems like its getting close. With GO expansion and the Ontario Line as well as the Eglinton and Finch West LRTs I'd be willing to bet a congestion charge is no more than 10 years from serious consideration. The current provincial government, for all the good they've done on public transit wouldn't ever support a congestion price though. We'd need a change of provincial government before that ever happens.
Yep, the general public is not yet aware of how fundamentally a different service GO will be in a very short time period, but once the penny drops, support for drastic change like a congestion charge will become wildly more popular imo. The wild success of the UP express in serving the west end of the city is just the tip of the iceberg
I would LA to the list of future cities where congestion pricing could work. The Santa Monica Mountains and the LA River are ideal natural boundaries where you can establish the paid area.
I doubt it. Downtown LA, while underrated, is not attractive enough for congestion pricing and the Metro is cruddy enough that people would rather just not go downtown than take Metro.
There's a study about that going on now. I think it makes sense in downtown that's well connected by rail and bike lanes, and possibly over the SM mountains too once they finish the sepulveda subway
They're already doing a study on where to install congestion pricing in LA. They have found that a DTLA cordon (pricing to enter and exit DTLA) and the Santa Monica Mountains are considered to be the best options in terms of traffic reduction and the return on investment
@@PolkCountyWIProgressive Luckily it's polycentric so there's more options for congestion pricing than just DTLA. The current study shows that congestion pricing the freeways through the Santa Monica Mountains would yield a very high ROI. It'd especially be good considering that we have the B Line as an alternative to the US 101 and eventually, the Sepulveda Transit line to replace the I-405
I am an Aussie and I support this in our big cities - Sydney and Melbourne, Where they already have trains, trams or light rail and buses, with a population of about 5 million people each.
You read Alon Levy's article on this, didn't you? Alon seems to appreciate you. They mentioned you as a positive example during their reaction stream on March 2nd about that Nth Review video ("Urban Planning UA-cam Does not Have a Huge Problem").
Thank you for mentioning that you need both a carrot and a stick. I've seen tactics that annoy drivers into changing their habits play out nicely in my home city BUT that only works because we have a good public transport system in place that is actually improved upon regularly. I've seen family members of mine from a nearby town starting to take the bus and train to work daily because parking for non-residents became huge inconvenience and expensive as my city removed all free streetparking whatsoever except for one's home-district. Said family members of mine would have never even thought of taing public transport to work three years ago but the policy changes and added inconvenience, but also more frequent buses to and from the train station (carrot) made them leave their comfort zone and change their habbits.
Yes please, bring this everywhere! Make people pause for two seconds to consider the options before driving all the way downtown in a big city, then complain about the traffic that they're a part of.
Well it didn't really work in practice in London except briefly in the early 2000s, the roads are far more congested than I remember them in the 1990s. With that said, other than residents, delivery vehicles and taxis, I do wonder who willingly drives into the congestion charge zone.
Sadly this kind of stuff sees a lot of opposition in Denmark up here in Scandinavia. Business owners complain that it would ruin their businesses, delivery drivers and utility workers complain that it would make it too expensive to do business there and cause boycotts (something which already happens due to the lack of on street parking), politicians and the elderly complain that it would increase social injustice, the handicapped claim it is discriminatory since for some reason car dependency is seen as standard for disabled people here. And car owners are against it since not only do they complain about costs and taxes a lot, but for some reason many think that their taxes are high enough to the point it actually covers all road expenses and is just an income to the government. This in turn making them think it is unjust that "Their car travel is subsidising transit" and demand that transit should run without subsidy and that all car taxes should be vastly reduced. All because they scream about "Us drivers have to pay more than full price but transit passengers or cyclists dont, we have to pay for their rides". God help us
To your point about when you implement congestion pricing, you need to redefine bus routes and build bike Lanes the MTA has been working on redesigning its bus routes and there are some massive improvements
All I would ask is that we actually put barriers at the entrance and charge then an there, just like we do with public transport. A tax on forgetfulness is really not good. Having to pay increased amounts because of a poor memory now leaves me terrified of travelling to Birmingham. If I had to pay to get into the clean air zone I would be happy, or even if they sent me an invoice to pay, but no, if you forget, £60 without any prior reminder.
Hear hear. And if you don’t have a UK-registered car, you’re in limbo. It took me three days to get a straight answer as to how I could pay the charge in Birmingham when driving an Irish-registered vehicle, as the website didn’t accept my license plate. Eventually they told me not to worry as it wouldn’t be on their system. Not exactly a confidence-inspiring setup.
It can work well in Los Angeles if we build enough rail lines, and bus lanes, to supplement the paths that we would be pricing. Namely the Sepulveda line, and some other extensions like the B line on the chandler right of way, the K line into the valley, and a light rail line on Venice boulevard. Metro is studying congestion pricing along the 10, into DTLA, and crossing from the valley into the basin
Australia's capitals desperately need to implement congestion charges. Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne are all building big motorway networks to improve road freight movements, but all of those motorway networks are toll roads and the toll charges are pretty substantial -- Sydney is one of the most road-tolled cities in the world! -- so it's in the interest of shipping companies to *avoid* the toll roads and got back onto the older, non-tolled stroads instead, which means that the traffic on the stroads gets worse and worse. The best proposal I've heard to fix this situation is to simply remove the road tolls on the motorways and put congestion tolls on the city centre stroads instead. That way these big motorways can actually be used for their intended purposes of keeping freight out of suburban streets.
the problem with congestion pricing is they're charging commercial vehicles as well on top of the tolls they're already paying. Also, LIRR and PATH don't have enough regular service for out of city commuters who are most likely to drive car to city centre. I don't have problem with congestion pricing for personal vehicles
I think congestion pricing in central london makes perfect sense, however the expansion of the ULEZ to basically all of Greater London has caused a lot of uproar since it divided neighbourhoods in half. I’d argue it doesn’t even reduce car dependency and greener vehicles still aren’t the ultimate solution. For that reason I think the emphasis should be on lowering fares on TfL and national rail services as well as improving ride quality instead of expanding the ULEZ.
Fundamentally I don’t disagree with the idea of an expanded ULEZ. But (hot take) I personally think there’s a lot left to be desired for london’s public transport, so they should focus on that first before expanding the ULEZ. A bunch of cities in Asia don’t have congestion pricing and their transit systems still get tons of ridership, because they’re so good and practical that they don’t need to force people to use it. They’re also relatively cheap compared to London’s public transport, which is, I think, one of the biggest barriers to get even more people to use it over cars
Congestion charge is enough, or even the existing ULEZ. Ultimately, I think the government doesn’t subsidise TfL enough. Maybe going full-on MTR and building massive TODs next to stations with relatively less development could help, although I don’t know how whether that would be politically viable in London
All but one, in one direction, of the bridges and tunnels from Brooklyn to Manhattan either dump directly in the congregation pricing zone, or already have a toll 1:38
Kinda, It did wonders when it was first rolled out in the 2000s, but in the last 10 or so years traffic has been especially abysmal. I used to love taking the bus over any other form of transport but now it’s just painfully slow, no wonder bus ridership was way down even before Covid. However like most things in life, I don’t think a single cause is to blame, rather a list of contributing factors.
My father was part of the university class that was used to go through the data for determining how to solve the rush hour congestion on the Champlain Bridge the government commissioned in the 80s, their conclusion was to increase the tolls during rush hour. This was a class of economists and lawyers that was 90% tory supporters. The government got rid of the tolls.
Many people who despise congestion pricing in any form, most of whom are politically supposedly "law-and-order" righty-tightys, are also the same people that love defacing their license plates to prevent traffic cameras from catching them speeding. They are also the same people who whine and complain when cops give out parking tickets for, ya know, enforcing the law.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Or is this just another left-winger rant, about how everyone that doesn't agree with you, and your utopia vision is evil and a Nazi?
Congestion pricing is fantastic. Transit users in NYC have peak and non-peak hours, and there are a lot of passenger per one railroad car. In contrast, there is one or two passengers per private car, yet they don’t pay peak pricing. It’s about time private car drivers should start. Manhattan is a tiny landmass that just can’t accommodate everyone for free. Longer term, this will make NY region (even more) polycentric, where some commuters will be making suburb to suburb commutes instead of piling into Manhattan. Also, a big, big part of this is enforcement. I’d imagine a large number of people will just use the services but will refuse to pay. Kinda like fare gate jumpers in MTA subway. Making sure that local governments have teeth to fight these toll evaders is key for successful program
Hi Reece, I was curious about how viable it would be for cities to build new tramways that function at a more rudimentary level, similar to what so many cities had in the early to mid 20th century. For example, using single car trams rather than the multiple units which are so common today, potentially operating in some corridors without a designated right of way, and also replacing bus services on medium-low patronage routes. A good example is Melbourne, however this still isn't quite adequate as the network still largely reflects the size and density of the city when the tramways were first built.
One trouble I could foresee is the trouble that a city would have in actually reconstructing the tram lines. As far as I'm aware, most of the tram lines built in urban cores were laid down while the road networks of their respective cities were still quite young. Nowadays, I can only imagine the nimby firestorm complaining to the city council about the necessary road closures.
Chicago seems like it would be problematic to introduce congestion charges considering the legal challenges likely to come from the people they sold off their on-street parking to
SOLD the street parking? So a private company is just doing that as a for-profit business? Sounds insane. What if you want to improve a street? Put in some bike lanes, maybe a pedestrian street? Do you buy that street back? Monopoly in real life would make people angry for real as well?
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 slight correction- I believe its a lease (or similar) with decades still to go- but it has all the ramifications you suggest... there are videos out there on the subject
Unless their contract had a clause that said Chicago couldn't have congestion pricing at any future point I don't think their lawsuit would go far. Probably wouldn't stop them from trying, though.
@@1978dkellythey have a stipulation that says Chicago must compensate for lost revenue. So when the city wants to shut down a street for repairs or a festival, they pay the private company. I would imagine the private company would have a good case if the city artificially reduced demand for on-street parking through a congestion zone.
In my opinion if people aren’t using transit in places like DC, a congestion tax isn’t going to make them start using it. They’ll just avoid going into the city all together other than going to work (if they aren’t already remote). I know people who live directly next to metro stations who will choose to drive. Sometimes driving is faster and there’s a lot of weird people on the metro. I usually just suffer through it because I get tired of driving. There’s barely anything in downtown to attract people to come there. Something like this would most likely make the interest even smaller.
In the Bronx our main complaint is that we’re getting most of the pollution from this decision. With little benefit. And while the more wealthy places get fresh air and better transit at our expense. And the most we get is 4 metro north station that most people in the Bronx can’t afford. Here in the Bronx because we lost so much of our transit in the 70s has forced people to become reliant on cars. But the mta doesn’t plan to fix that merely wave it away or give us a bus lane. We need better transit in transit desserts or at the very least matching the pricing of an inner city metro north ticket with a subway fare. Because if not this yet another example of wealthy white neighborhood benefiting while working class black and brown neighborhoods deal with the burden.
The key with congestion charges (and any kind of anti car policy) is that they don't work unless you also provide a viable alternative. Ofc in Mannhattan there is an alternative to driving, but this is part of your point on why it isn't appropriate everywhere. If there is no alternative to driving then all a congestion charge does is penalise people for going into the city by car when it's the only option, which will both kill the city centre, as well as piss people off and widen the social divide as poorer people can't afford to go into town. So congestion charges, and other policies to reduce traffic have to come after (or at least along with) improvement to public transport. Slightly different scheme, but one of the big criticisms on the ULEZ epansion in London is that it now encompasses areas with poor public transpor linkst. The old zone made sense as within the N and S circulars has good public transport, but transport in outer parts of London is often poor, except for radial routes into the centre, but for anything else driving is really the only choice, and so the expanded ULEZ punishes people for reasons out of their control. If it had come with new trams (like in Paris), better bus infrastructure etc it would be more paletable and be far more effective at reducing emissions and congestion.
The main argument for congestion charges isn't that they're a traffic reduction policy but that they internalize an externality. So they're not really an anti-car measure any more than transit fares are an anti-transit measure or food prices are an anti-food measure. Downtown road space is a scarce resource and giving it the right price lets that price communicate to users where and when it's at its scarcest. From a traffic engineering standpoint, the greatest value in that is that drivers are disincenticized to use the road all at the same time, instead of roads being far below capacity 90% of the day and coming to a halt the other 10%. Like with all negative externalities, if you fail to internalize them, you'll end up paying some other way, but that scarce resource will continue to be used wastefully. And that's a problem wherever road space is scarce, regardless of other transportation options.
The legitimate concern I’ve heard about lower Manhattan congestion pricing is that it will shift congestion from the borough itself to streets & roads just outside the pricing zone.
Congestion pricing can be good so long as good public transport is always cheaper. London does that well, but Birmingham…I’ll just pay and take my car normally. You just can’t easily get around by Tram and Bus there like you can on the tube.
you'd think it was a no-brainer. why on earth should suburbanites have their over-sized SUV trip to the city subsidized while bringing nothing to the table themselves?
Congestion charging is one of those ideas that suffers from a co-ordination problem. The aim of the charge is to get people to switch to transit, but this only works if the transit is already there before you introduce the charge. Using the charge to pay for transit improvements just means that until you build the new capacity, you're just imposing unavoidable charges, which is exceedingly unpopular. It would seem that it's an idea best suited to places like London or New York, that already have the transit infrastructure, and just need to push modal shift. For the rest of us, we're still in the "build it, and they will come" stage.
Montreal and other cities in Quebec are very upset with the CAQ Transport minister who is not helping sufficiently with the operational deficits all of these transit agencies are facing. Montreal for sure could benefit from congestion pricing, especially if it also included the new Royalmount development. Yes, you indicated that as behaviours changed, the revenue from congestion could go down, but at least for the first few years Montreal could put it towards operations to allow for more time to work out efficiencies.
It’s an interesting topic! I think this can only work though when you have a viable alternative. Around Montreal this would be seen as a : « Yet another thing the government is doing to favour Montreal instead of the regions ». I still think there is some merit to the idea, but this would require mass transit alternatives beforehand. People from the surrounding cities have a tendency to be poorer due from having to work in Montreal to have a job in the first place and have to spend a lot of money on fuel. IF this congestion charge came with a train line to reach the further cities like Sorel, Chambly, St-Jerome, etc, then you can offer a charge for people to not take the new transit.
I always felt that the best way to blunt much NIMBY opposition to road pricing is to allow the first five or ten trips in the zone to be free. Or paid, but you receive the funds back in the form of a short term transit pass. The powerful senior voting bloc (and biggest NIMBY whiners) that does not commute in daily, but still comes in regularly can feel they are getting a substantial break, while incentivizing experimentation with alternate modes. Maybe just do this for only the initial year of the scheme.
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia is refusing to use congestion charging because of a number of political factors including "Transurban" contracts for our toll road system developed between Transurban and the conservative Coalition government over the previous 10 years. The current government is caught between a rock and a hard place because of these contracts. If the contracts weren't so tight congestion charges would be implemented in central Sydney, North Sydney, Chatswood, Parramatta, along Broadway to Sydney University
This was really interesting. Can you do another video on how congestion charges work and implemented in different as well as the effect. I’ve read Tokyo has some but would love to know more about it in different cities
If not already the case, I think commercial vehicles should be completely exempt from the tax because they actually need to be there. Delivery drivers, emergency vehicles, electricians, plumbers, and all similar lines of work should not have to pay. Alan from New Jersey has no reason to drive into the heart of the city. XD
Sadly, Thatcher's ghost wouldn't allow for government subsidies of any kind. London's public services must suffer so that London can avoid "government handouts."
I would also, at least for now, exempt people with certain types of disabilities from congestion pricing. While it has improved, there is a non-trivial portion of New York City subway stations that are not fully handicapped accessible. Until the system is 100% handicapped accessible, congestion pricing should be waived for individuals with cars with disabilities that prevent them from using all of the subway stations.
My only issue with the NY model of congestion pricing is that it charges motorcycles along with cars. Even though they have an extremely minimal impact on congestion and are basically the size of bicycles in a city planning sense. The UK was smart enough to exempt bikes as a means to encourage transit shy commuters to atleast take a low foot print vehicle but the NY method seems to just be a cash grab.
In big cities I think it should be done, but not what they did with ULEZ in the UK and making the whole of Greater London have these charges. Especially the areas at the edge because businesses will be impacted because they can't just buy another car, so can't go into that area, and theres not that must congestion.
Context is everything… In my town (very small twin city), we just implemented toll - not for congestion as planned. The “numbers” used were from the late aughts, and the so called economy is not what it used to be - and, no one cared. Two regional rail schemes are dropped (one public, one private), e-buses from fresh contractor fail winter, and regulator planning for 30 % reduction in bus services - now. We’re too small for tram/metro, and only the between-cities two routes are at 15 min intervals. Else, 30 (daytime), 60 or worse. After only two months, the social strata impact is skewed - workers generally save by not “consuming”, more wealthy and companies don’t care - they have tax writeoffs. (I have lived/worked in Oslo & London - great systems, very different reality.) And, this happens in supposedly rich Norway - also a country not investing in infrastructure, rather in assets. Shift workers usually don’t do those…😅
The congestion charged can be a good thing if there are GOOD public transit and the charges is fixed towards rush hour (higher charges in rush hour and low/no charges at night). Here in Norway (country) we have had this scheme for 40 yrs and has unfortunately developed to 24/7 taxation where every city and town (also the smallest ones) has to implemented them to get some gov founding for their roads or public transport, with the government part of the founding steadily decrease and no improvement to roads or public transport. And the charges remain the same 24/7. It's so bad you almost can't get out of your street/ neighborhood before you hit these congestion/ road tolls in some cities. But I do agree if these charges is structured right and there is good alternatives (public transport and bike lanes ) it can be a positive solutions to reduce traffic. Just don't copy that Norway has done!
Do not forget to set a FINE for those drivers that wait just outside the zone blocking roads just before a charge gets reduced per schedule. e.g. Singapore ERP.
We so desperately need this is Cincinnati! If there were toll booths at the top and bottom of I-71 and I-75, also I-74 eastbound from Indianapolis, increased use of I-275 would mitigate the wear and tear in our bridges, and cut down the number of lanes now proposed to supplement the notorious Brent-Spence Bridge. No excuse for all those through travelers to rattle bridges and clog up roads we locals require for normal life.
Here's the funny thing about how this would affect businesses. If your business requires a truck or van to get around, then the congestion pricing on its face might seem like a bad idea because now businesses have to pay to use the roads. However, when you take away all of the motorists who could otherwise be using the public transit already available, what ends up happening is that all of those businesses now can achieve a newfound level of efficiency with less cars on the road. Meaning that a business can get a lot more done in less time, thus saving on hours spent driving. It's a short-term cost for long-term savings.
So, my one issue with congestion pricing is that it only really forces lower income people to use public transit. Higher income people who usually drive and can easily absorb the congestion pricing cost will still drive there. I don’t think it’s fair for your income level to determine if you’re able to drive in downtown. I would suggest either a daily lottery system based on license plates, where people who want to drive in downtown can register for a lottery that gives them a random chance of being selected to be given a permit, or if you stick with congestion pricing then the amount should be a sliding scale based on income and assets.
Congestion pricing needs to be a thing everywhere in this country. It would be a wake-up call to the suburbanites, which is desperately needed. Washington DC figures suggest that almost HALF the people who work in DC commute in by a car alone - over half if we account for carpooling. That isnt sustainable.
New Jersey is whining about this, but it’s been checked, only ~5% of commuters from NJ are driving all the way into Manhattan. Meanwhile NJ Transit has major budgetary shortfalls and fare hikes with service cuts are imminent without additional funding from Trenton. I think NJ is just jealous they can’t get a slice of the pie from the new congestion tolls.
Trouble is most places that do a congestion charge only do the stick and neglect the carrot. They view it (behind the scenes) as just another income source and expensive public transport is not a hit to that they want. So you will probably just see downtown areas with charges wither slowly.
@@RMTransit It's the less notable examples that have zero carrot, like smaller cities in the UK. Birmingham and Bristol as examples. All have congestion charges and terrible transit with no improvement worthy of note as a result of the charges.
I don’t see Portland working. When COVID hurt downtown and caused businesses to decline, people just went elsewhere. Portland obviously would benefit from people taking the MAX to downtown but there is some merit in attracting the money from Happy Valley and Lake Oswego to go downtown and they aren’t going to suffer a 1 hr train ride or a congestion pricing to do it.
This is exactly my fear. Most US downtowns are weak. Portland had a great downtown until COVID, WFH, riots, wild druggies with rampant crime, as well as Portland having the highest taxes in the country, etc. killed the city center and drove massive suburban growth. The story of Portland for 30 years was reviving the city center with transit, public spaces, reducing suburbanization. All these failed policies reversed that overnight. Portland used to be one of the most desirable cities in the country and now it's a shithole.
Big fan of the congestion charge in London, I actually wish it would expand to my bit of west London.. nothing worse than getting stuck in traffic on a bus. You are doing the right thing, and you have to wait behind all the stupid range rovers driving half a mile.. I actually often find myself just waiting an hour to get the bus home, which I suppose is probably good for local businesses..
Everyone I know that is pissed about this are from New Jersey because the train takes an extra half hour to get into the city. Personally I prefer taking the train. I get to read, and I don't have to deal with driving, parking, etc. So what if it takes an extra half hour?? My biggest concern is NYC's governments inability to spend money wisely.
Congestion is a price on it's own and that's where the case of New York becomes odd. Driving there already has no benefit - there is public transit everywhere and driving is painfully slow; UA-cam is full of "I can walk faster than a taxi drives in Manhattan" videos. So might there be some very broken incentive to drive, which isn't even effected by the financial cost…?
The MTA is refusing to increase service ahead of implementing congestion pricing (they're only adding ONE rush hour run on six express bus routes-not the increase they initially promised). The result will be severe overcrowding on trains and buses because they won't be able to handle this influx of commuters. Also with the MTA raising fares across the board as well (it should be $2.90 for all transit throughout the city, including LIRR and MNR) and changing the bus routes to disproportionately harm disadvantaged communities, there will be fewer people coming in from the outer boroughs, especially essential workers and small business owners/workers who run NYC.
It's such a nice idea. I'd like it to be implemented in my home town (Kyiv, Ukraine). It is now a 3 mln city that has only 6 car bridges over the main river Dnieper that connect the halves of the city, of which 2 bridges are marked "dangerous to use" by some organisations due to bad maintanence, 1 bridge (that is now in construction for 30 years and costs more than $1 billion [some of this money is obviously stolen. Every mayor steals money from that, but not every mayor actually builds it]) is restricted to buses and special service vehicles (no pedestrians and bikes). The choice of the road standard is sticked to the city's general plan that is drawn by old people with highways through the city so they refuse to install traffic lights on some major thoroughways that go through the built-up areas, restricting the pedestrian and bike access to the another side of the road and encouraging speeding. The city's yearly budget is $2 billion dollars.
Congestion charges do have some flaws, in that they don't actually reduce or solve congestion at the source. It does keep cars out of the city which is fine, but the truth is that well connected city streets are better able to move traffic and distribute it than Stroads and Highways can. If you ever notice coming into any city, the highway into the city has all the traffic, but once you get on the local streets, there is almost no traffic. The solution is to not make a congestion pricing zone but to just toll the highways in and out of the city, If traffic is the #1 goal of these charges, it would be more effective at achieving that goal.
They tried to shoe horn this in Cambridge UK. They never consider the people priced miles out of the city with no transport links. What do they expect these people to do? We still need to see our communities, friends, families, and work. The poorest are always hit harder and this is always pushed by the affluent middle class who can still afford to live in the bubble.
What about congestion zones being free to those with registered disabilites, who find it hard to walk, cycle or use most public transport? Often, their only option is to drive as it takes them from door to door.
Please can you do a collaboration with the London mayor Sadiq Khan he is very public transport focused and believes in greener smarter cities. I think ot would be great to see you both together
toronto could stand to use congestion charges as the stick, and building park n ride buildings at downsview park, expand the ones at finch, hwy 407, and richmond hill center, (and any appropriate place on the east and west borders my york reigon viewpoint isn't familiar with, scaroughough etobicoke ect residents please chime in!) as the carrot. at least until the go rail system gets a lot better.
Im all for congestion charge, but no exemptions for EVs. This is just a subsidy for the wealthy. The problem is cars not the internal combustion engine.
I highly highly agree. But I do think that funds should be prioritized towards those most affected. If they tolled the 405 in LA I’d have no way of getting to work on public transit besides a 4 transfer bus taking two hours with transfer at LAX!!! toll the 405, make an express buss lane and run commuter buses on it and I’m on board any day
Good video Reece. I find various ways of effectively having a congestion charge interesting. The regional vehicle tax in Montreal or expensive parking permits for example.
As a New Jersey resident I don't really get why congestion pricing in New York is viewed as worse for us. I go years at a time without driving a car in the congestion pricing zone and we have no shortage of ways to access that area without a car. The only complaint I would consider legitimate is that the money will go to the MTA which really only funds transit within New York State, rather than somewhere else that would support New Jersey and Connecticut as well...the problem there is that that "somewhere else" doesn't really exist.
They came to a settlement to give NJ Transit some money. I think that's the end of any viable lawsuits
@@stevenroshni1228 I didn’t realize that. Then yeah, should be no issue at all.
I myself have never gone to New Jersey by anything but transit 😂
@@jaredrl06 That sounds like a stretch, to be very generous. Do the existing tolls at the Port Authority's bridges and tunnels between New Jersey and New York violate the interstate commerce clause then? (The PA itself being a thing that exists under constitutional authority for interstate compacts) Or a traffic jam because people are commuting by car and blocking the roads that could be used for movement of goods? Or I don't know, a big pothole that slows "commerce" down?
Isn't the money going to go to building some metro lines connecting the close by New Jersey cities like Newark and Jersey City?
The congestion pricing debate is hilarious. Most Nyers don't own or use personal cars to get around. Why should we have to pay taxes to maintain roads that we do not use? Congestion pricing is only fair and if anything this system is letting drivers off easy
And those that actually do own cars most likely will not drive to other Boros (unless needed) but most likely just drive around within their borough or whichever suburb is close to them (for example: live in the Bronx, drive to Westchester or you live in Queens you go to Long Island)
My dad always uses this argument against public transit (in the Chicago area). It's absolutely infuriating every time
I have started pointing out the insane tax money required for that car centric design to my family with that mentality.
"They enjoy their federally mandated hundred acre parking lots, with their free on street parking that we all subsidize." is a comment I have made.
" Ah, I see we enjoy averaging 30 mph down a 50 mph street littered with millions in subsidized multi million dollars worth of traffic light infrastructure" is another.
You actually use the roads every day. How to you think the stuff you buy in stores you walk/transit to gets there? How do you get food delivered? What if you need emergency services? They're not going to take the subway to your home. We all use these roads (some less, and some more, and perhaps those that drive in their cars should pay more), but let's keep in mind that this infrastructure is part of the commons that we all share, and rely on, to some extent.
@@bnwinsf 👏👏
If you were following the recent London mayor elections, the anti-road pricing candidate was roundly defeated.
She was lying and claimed that the incumbent wanted pay-per-mile, UK voters don't like liars
@@RichardFraser-y9t
Too many of us liked Johnson.
What gets me is that Starmer attacked Khan because of his stance on ULEZ, and now he's won the mayoral election, it's all best mates!
Khan would have been kicked out if Starmer had had his way at the time.
@@Bungle-UK
Brexit only got the votes of 36% of the electorate. 63% either wanted to stay, or were happy with the status quo. Yet we still left the EU. Them's the breaks!
@@RichardFraser-y9tuk voters dont like liars but tories won so many elections in a row
@@CorporateShill66 why arent you wearing your ancle bracelet?
"Alan from New Jersey..." 🤣😂
We need the NJB "copium" truck video but Alan Fisher in a Cybertruck.
@@crowmob-yo6ry sometimes yes, he overuses the outrage incentive of the algorithm to draw in views, but that can be useful when he follows in up with advocating for things like Strong Towns, which has a VERY different approach.
No Alan noooooo!
Why can we not have spaced out pedestrian blocks? You can just about take a car down every street in NYC and Chicago, for no specific reason at all. This has always confounded me
Could definitely aim for more of a superblock type setup!
it's a problem in so many places, in almost every city and town here in sweden they have maybe.. 5.. streets where you cannot drive, it's insane and completely useless.
I can think of maybe three or four streets in Chicago which are not car friendly. I've certainly seen my fair share of cars on the Lakeshore bike path. Chicago will literally bend over backwards to enable drivers.
The issue with too many pedestrian only blocks is that it can make deliveries to stores and shops on that block difficult. I would keep the streets, but make some of them local traffic only, so that only cars or trucks going to or from locations on that block can use it. I’ve seen several blocks like that is Manhattan and Brooklyn.
@@michaelhadjiosif97 where do you live that pedestrian streets don't allow any sort of traffic? Here in sweden a pedestrian street simply means the speed limit is like 5 km/h and only people with business on the street are allowed to drive there.
I've been advocating congestion pricing for downtown Toronto for years. There is already no logical reason to drive downtown most of the time and anything that helps people realize that is helpful.
Just wanted to drop a note to say thank you for properly attributing the OSM maps. Its so nice to see it done correctly
I can bring to the discussion the example of Rome, where I live (part-time). The city council is planning to introduce a congestion charge area in the centre of the city. Many of the historic neighbourhoods, with narrow roads and many pedestrians, are already limited access areas where only residents are allowed, some permanently, some only during specific times of the day. Wider roads, like the ones following the river, can be used by anyone. For instance, everyone can freely drive around the Coliseum or the Circus Maximus. The whole centre of the city, and even some of the suburbs have some insane amounts of traffic, and parking spaces are extremely difficult to find, and usually not free, and there is a diffused parking anarchy, where people just invent parking spaces in areas where it's not clear it's possible to park, but also it's not explicitely forbidden.
All of this would make a perfect point for a congestion charge area, but there is a really important issue with that: public transport in the whole city is terrible. Many areas are not served by the metro, buses and trams are slow, infrequent and unreliable and most transit options stop working after 11pm. There is also a lack of road alternatives that would allow random cars to avoid passing through scenic Roman ruins to reach a neighbourhood on the other side of the city. The city council is also considered by many as not focused on the citizens' needs, whatever they may be.
This is making such a measure deeply unpopular, but the peculiar thing is that it's poorer people from the suburbs that are more strongly against it: they consider it as a burden that can negatively affect their lives, as they don't see a viable alternative to driving, which is already a deeply unpleasant experience for everyone forced to do it. Someone could tell them that using three buses to make the same journey would be better for everyone even if it takes double the time (I don't have a car there, so I'm used to doing it), but you can't expect anyone to instantly agree. If the person saying that comes from a wealthy family and suburb, and can afford to take a taxi to work every day, the effect is even detrimental.
I think that such measures require a strong feeling of trust between the government of a city and its residents, which isn't always there. Other Italian cities, like Milan and Bologna, have had similar charges in place for decades with good result, but either the affected area is really small, or public transport is excellent and people are aware of that.
Man, I'd love to see congestion pricing in DC and Philly.
It would be an absolute game changer for them! Especially Philly, with all its transit!
Sometimes I quite like the Japanese approach to this problem,
just let normal roads jam up and make a rather expensive paid express way through the town center
Nice profile picture
God Toronto needs this so bad. The TTC is literally going to run its reserves dry in less than 2 years if they can't get more funding/find another revenue source (commercial parking levy/ congestion charges)
I’ve driven in Manhattan from time to time and it’s something I hate doing. I really hate being stuck in traffic wasting time when and I find it funny when suburbanites want to sue the MTA for implementing congestion pricing when they’re already being tolled to cross bridges and tunnels (plus some highways as well) and have several railroads in their towns that takes them to the city and at times beats traffic during rush hour. I understand there are some people that do require some sort of personal transport but for the majority of people, I honestly don’t understand how suburbanites are ok with being stuck in Manhattan traffic trying to get to and from the city that they complain about why traffic isn’t fixed but scoff at paying a charge to reduce traffic?
You have to practice "offensive" driving in Manhattan.
I have car loving family out on Long Island, and when I flew into Newark (cheaper for my flight path) I told my parents I'd take the LIRR in. My parents haven't lived in NY for awhile and were insistent on picking me up so they could see me sooner. My car loving suburban family laughed at them, said they only go to the city by train
NJ folks are already being tolled, exactly. $13.38-$17.68 is high, and $10 more feels like overkill.
They seem to not understand there is no way all tri-state area residents could drive into Manhattan. To improve traffic in this situation, you need to discourage driving.
That’s the thing, the status quo isn’t rosy!
Well, that didn't work out very well, did it? Damn you, Kathy Hochul!
The problem I have with the congestion charges in London is that they expanded it to the places with very little transit where people have to use cars. Also like all consumption taxes it hits the poor 100 times harder than the rich.
yeah it should always be accompanied by transit build out
This is the classic chicken or the egg situation, and, frankly, having the funds on the standby from all the tolling available for transit buildout is a much better alternative to buildout first in anticipation of congestion pricing. In other words, if you’re so inconvenienced by paying congestion pricing without corresponding increases in transit services, lobby your elected officials to spend more $$$ on transit in your neighborhood.
@@kirillboyko9208 also, people can *move*, which seems to be an unfathomable concept for many people
Ulez is to do with emissions not congestion
@@swedneck No, no they can't. London housing is incredibly expensive. 50 year mortgages to own your own apartment is the norm.
Dutch cities have clearly shown that this very technical and complex solution is not needed to reduce car traffic!
Instead cities can just decrease parking and make it much more expensive.
This has almost the same effects.
That only works for cities that don't have through-roads which is the case for Dutch cities, but not for NAmerica. Many trip e.g. made in Toronto are not simply to go downtown but to go to suburbs on the opposite side of the city.
@@agilemind6241 that was the case in dutch cities too before the 80s.
Then they made the decision to reroute the traffic around the center.
The same is possible in NA cities too
"Where NY goes, the rest of NA naturally follows." Let's get some NYC density in more cities!
Yeah, because NYC is such a role model right now. 🙄
@@CaptRRright now - no, but generally speaking density is not NYC’s invention but definitely where NYC excelled in, so we should be smart in copying great ideas that work
It’s happening! Slowly!
@@CaptRR you're saying this because of something you saw on TV, Dad.
God I hope not.
Ottawa has so much downtown rush hour congestion... could really use some stick to get people to stop driving there.
Congestion charging only works if there's a viable alternative to driving. In NYC it doesn't seem unreasonable, but somewhere like LA... First you need the transit, but you can't get the transit because everyone drives.
…and the downtown has to be desirable enough that congestion pricing wouldn’t kill interest. DTLA is just not attractive enough.
No, you should have a decent public transport before you start road taxing/ congestion charging unless you want angry people. Not saying that public transport has to be world class before they start congestion charging, but people should see that government is proactive in alternatives and public transport first. This also helps and encourages people to drop the car and ease in the congestion charges.
What you wrote is exactly what the gov of Norway (country) said then they starts these congestion charges. That we have to make driving uncomfortable and expensive first and then improvement to public transport (or roads in rural areas) can come. That people has to prepay for roads and public transport. This has lead to them not holding their promises and you can't see any significant improvement to roads and public transport. This has also led to road taxes and congestion charges now cover most of the cost of road and public transport (building and maintaining) and them using other taxes (which should go to these things) to other things (mainly overseas).
Btw Norway is one of the richest and sparsely populated country in the world, so it should be unnecessary, execpt congestion charges in rush hour only in the biggest 2-3 cities.
You just have to make sure you don't drive (literally) people to do their commerce in outlying areas through enacting this. COVID and habits from COVID especially WFH havent helped. Plus the US is already so car oriented and suburbanized. I've always thought the best way is add bus lanes, bike lanes, and road diet the streets to slow speed two way streets with fewer lanes and let the cars deal with their own congestion. In a lot of downtowns in the US, you want people to visit because they don't now and a congestion charge will ensure they'll never visit.
@@BDub2024 I agree with everything you write that if public transport is good enough (which vary from place to place as you describe), they will come. But Norway is spears and public transport outside of the the Big 3 cities poor, yet they have implemented congestion charges now in nearly every cities and towns country wide. Nobody there expect bus or train every 5 min, but they expect to at least have some services during weekdays.
I don't think people would have been so much against it if the government held their promises (as upgrading public transport or roads in rural areas), but they don't.
One example from my home city which is Norways 4th largest (Stavanger)
We have paid these congestion charges for 25yrs, but it's first now we start to see the promised upgrades being build.
One major promise for 25 yrs ago was a LRT system btw the Twincities of Stavanger and Sandnes with other lines. That was scraped and they now has finally begun to build a scale down BRT (which will be slower then todays buses), which was expected to be completed by 2016. The latest estimate is now 2030 with even smaller network and to 4x the budget.
Another big promise was to upgrade the 1 lane (each way) E39 highway to 2 lane through the metro area and build a bypass under Stavanger. The bypass was completed 3 yrs ago (12 yrs late) and completion for the rest of the highway is unknown (several parts has not begun construction). All this has drivers and locals prepaid for since ca 2000 and with increasing demand from government that we have to take bigger part of the founding. And if you don't know Norway is one of the richest country in the world and has one of the highest taxes.
That I want to say, congestion charges has to be implemented to reduce traffic and better real alternatives, not as a new way to tax people as it's done in Norway.
I absolutely for better public transport and agree some restrictive measurement may be needed in some cases, but you have to alternatives to go to or see that the government do improve them before you start charging these congestion charges. If not you will just get people more anti- public transport and angry against the government bc of their broken promises.
@@layeleeTbh, I think NYC and CDMX are the only cities on the continent with comprehensive enough transit networks for congestion pricing to work. If there isn't already a viable alternative to driving, congestion pricing is a just tax on movement that doesn't actually reduce car usage.
Congestion pricing will also likely reduce road damage, and thus road maintenance costs. That's money that can be re-invested into transit and bike infrastructure.
Maybe it's that here in the Netherlands EVs have more or less reached a critical mass, but I don't think subsidising or giving them discounts should really be done any more, one EV takes up at least as much space as a normal car, it's just as noisy and dangerous too. The only difference is that it outsources the energy related pollution elsewhere. Giving them discounts on stuff like congestion charges basically just incentivises people to needlessly one-man personal cars through these zones, and when you have quite a high proportion of EVs and hybrids that's going to substantially reduce the effect of the charge.
EVs are significantly better better than ICE vehciles in that they have a much lesser impact on global atmospheric polution. Local ground polution is a whole other matter. They're also a lot quieter... at low speeds. Which is Mostly good, but has a few issues too.
On the other hand, electric cars are still cars and still have and cause all of the Other problems that come with cars, so on the one hand you really want to ecourage people to get EVs over ICE vehciles, but you also want to strongly discourage the use (and where practical, ownership) of cars in general if you want significant local benefits.
Nice profile picture
I think the real arguments against congestion pricing that people cite are rooted in fear that people dislike the idea that they already pay for the roads via taxes and congestion pricing feels like double taxation. Toll roads are practically banned from receiving public dollars so people rationalize their existence*
*Depending on where you are at. The Northeast and Chicago are really comfortable with tolling. Places like Wisconsin are extremely anti-toll roads.
Tolls on some relief roads mean that they don't provide the desired relief. Charging for the M6 toll ensures that many people who want to go to the north-west (Manchester, Liverpool, Lake District), North Wales and Scotland still take the old M6 right past the congested entrance to the city, when they could take a route away from the city.
Except people don't pay the real price of roads and maintenance. The rise in toll roads in the DC area is emblematic of that.
@@jbirzerRight - we have trained a few generations of people to expect “free” roads and the economics of roads becomes a menacing financial nightmare. The fact that people cannot mentally wrap their head around their true cost explains why a toll road without public dollars either cannot be maintained well or have to have really high tolls.
@@jbirzer ah, slight correction: DRIVERS don't pay the real price. The money for the rest of it is coming from somewhere, and the answer is almost certainly, at least for the most part, 'general taxes' or 'general taxes with extra steps'.
Roads aren’t free as they say!
Several of the Greater Toronto Area 400 series expressways definitely need to have congestion pricing, (QEW skyway, 401, 400 etc.) Meanwhile, the current Premier has promised never to toll an existing or new highway.
That would push more cars onto city streets. Better to leave the highways and put the charge on downtown, where it's already easier to get around via transit, biking or walking already.
@@quixomega driving through city streets isn't particularly fast or convenient, so it's a discouragement away from driving to transit regardless. The tolls need not be outrageous like the 407, just enough to reduce stand-still congestion. But I'm for tolling the CBDs as well
Cincinnati needs this too. Our outer loop bridges could immediately remove some of the lanes now being laid for our I-75//71 central bridge but through drivers love the straight shot through downtown.
A congestion charge for Cambridge (England) was recently blocked by both Conservatives and Liberal Democrats despite the narrow streets often causing traffic problems, and the relatively high bike ridership and comprehensive bus network (including five park & ride sites!). I fear it's already been co-opted by the 'stop the war on cars' nutters unfortunately.
@@Bungle-UKhow much does general motors pay you to say this? or do you parrot their propaganda for free?
As another commenter said, Cambridge doesn’t have a good alternative to cars for locals to do big shops, or navigate on the outskirts of the city. Bikes are unbeatable to get into the town centre, true, but most people commute into Cambridge because of the insane house prices and a congestion charge would just hurt the poorer Cambridge residents who are unable to live inside the city limits due to cost. If Labour had not scrapped the autonomous metro in Cambridge then I could see a congestion charge making more sense in future.
@@Jack-cq9pv the autonomous metro was a bad idea from the start, it should've just been a conventional tram/right rail system.
@@Bungle-UK ooooooo we're going to take your cars away and make you live in a ten-minute city ooooooo scary
@@Jack-cq9pv That's simply not true. There are trains to almost all of the outlying villages (sure their frequency would need a boost, but the option is there) of Cambridge and with the North Cambridge station it is even easier to take the train + bike/walk to anywhere you might want to go, and tons of Park & Ride options. There are also many big grocery stores on the periphery of the city that can be driven to easily. So there is really no reason for someone in Ely to be driving into Cambridge to buy a months worth of groceries at a time.
San Francisco is an interesting case, as the toll bridges required to get there from most of the bay tend to have a similar impact to this already, pushing people off the bridges and onto BART
Toronto seems like its getting close. With GO expansion and the Ontario Line as well as the Eglinton and Finch West LRTs I'd be willing to bet a congestion charge is no more than 10 years from serious consideration. The current provincial government, for all the good they've done on public transit wouldn't ever support a congestion price though. We'd need a change of provincial government before that ever happens.
Yep, the general public is not yet aware of how fundamentally a different service GO will be in a very short time period, but once the penny drops, support for drastic change like a congestion charge will become wildly more popular imo. The wild success of the UP express in serving the west end of the city is just the tip of the iceberg
I would LA to the list of future cities where congestion pricing could work.
The Santa Monica Mountains and the LA River are ideal natural boundaries where you can establish the paid area.
When California can build an HSR for less than $100 billion, that's when I'll let the California government tell me not to drive.a car.
I doubt it. Downtown LA, while underrated, is not attractive enough for congestion pricing and the Metro is cruddy enough that people would rather just not go downtown than take Metro.
There's a study about that going on now. I think it makes sense in downtown that's well connected by rail and bike lanes, and possibly over the SM mountains too once they finish the sepulveda subway
They're already doing a study on where to install congestion pricing in LA. They have found that a DTLA cordon (pricing to enter and exit DTLA) and the Santa Monica Mountains are considered to be the best options in terms of traffic reduction and the return on investment
@@PolkCountyWIProgressive Luckily it's polycentric so there's more options for congestion pricing than just DTLA. The current study shows that congestion pricing the freeways through the Santa Monica Mountains would yield a very high ROI. It'd especially be good considering that we have the B Line as an alternative to the US 101 and eventually, the Sepulveda Transit line to replace the I-405
I am an Aussie and I support this in our big cities - Sydney and Melbourne,
Where they already have trains, trams or light rail and buses, with a population of about 5 million people each.
You read Alon Levy's article on this, didn't you?
Alon seems to appreciate you. They mentioned you as a positive example during their reaction stream on March 2nd about that Nth Review video ("Urban Planning UA-cam Does not Have a Huge Problem").
I didn’t, but I will now!
Thank you for mentioning that you need both a carrot and a stick. I've seen tactics that annoy drivers into changing their habits play out nicely in my home city BUT that only works because we have a good public transport system in place that is actually improved upon regularly. I've seen family members of mine from a nearby town starting to take the bus and train to work daily because parking for non-residents became huge inconvenience and expensive as my city removed all free streetparking whatsoever except for one's home-district. Said family members of mine would have never even thought of taing public transport to work three years ago but the policy changes and added inconvenience, but also more frequent buses to and from the train station (carrot) made them leave their comfort zone and change their habbits.
Yes please, bring this everywhere! Make people pause for two seconds to consider the options before driving all the way downtown in a big city, then complain about the traffic that they're a part of.
A pause and consider the options moment would be super valuable!
Congestion pricing was supposed to happen in New York many years ago, but politicians kept killing it.
Well it didn't really work in practice in London except briefly in the early 2000s, the roads are far more congested than I remember them in the 1990s. With that said, other than residents, delivery vehicles and taxis, I do wonder who willingly drives into the congestion charge zone.
Sadly this kind of stuff sees a lot of opposition in Denmark up here in Scandinavia. Business owners complain that it would ruin their businesses, delivery drivers and utility workers complain that it would make it too expensive to do business there and cause boycotts (something which already happens due to the lack of on street parking), politicians and the elderly complain that it would increase social injustice, the handicapped claim it is discriminatory since for some reason car dependency is seen as standard for disabled people here. And car owners are against it since not only do they complain about costs and taxes a lot, but for some reason many think that their taxes are high enough to the point it actually covers all road expenses and is just an income to the government. This in turn making them think it is unjust that "Their car travel is subsidising transit" and demand that transit should run without subsidy and that all car taxes should be vastly reduced. All because they scream about "Us drivers have to pay more than full price but transit passengers or cyclists dont, we have to pay for their rides".
God help us
To your point about when you implement congestion pricing, you need to redefine bus routes and build bike Lanes the MTA has been working on redesigning its bus routes and there are some massive improvements
All I would ask is that we actually put barriers at the entrance and charge then an there, just like we do with public transport. A tax on forgetfulness is really not good. Having to pay increased amounts because of a poor memory now leaves me terrified of travelling to Birmingham. If I had to pay to get into the clean air zone I would be happy, or even if they sent me an invoice to pay, but no, if you forget, £60 without any prior reminder.
Hear hear. And if you don’t have a UK-registered car, you’re in limbo. It took me three days to get a straight answer as to how I could pay the charge in Birmingham when driving an Irish-registered vehicle, as the website didn’t accept my license plate. Eventually they told me not to worry as it wouldn’t be on their system. Not exactly a confidence-inspiring setup.
If you cannot remember simple, unchanging regional regulations I do not feel confident in your ability to operate a vehicle
@@nolanxuereb2914 Unchanging? They're pretty recently introduced, too recent to be considered unchanging, as they are a change to what went before.
It can work well in Los Angeles if we build enough rail lines, and bus lanes, to supplement the paths that we would be pricing. Namely the Sepulveda line, and some other extensions like the B line on the chandler right of way, the K line into the valley, and a light rail line on Venice boulevard.
Metro is studying congestion pricing along the 10, into DTLA, and crossing from the valley into the basin
Australia's capitals desperately need to implement congestion charges. Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne are all building big motorway networks to improve road freight movements, but all of those motorway networks are toll roads and the toll charges are pretty substantial -- Sydney is one of the most road-tolled cities in the world! -- so it's in the interest of shipping companies to *avoid* the toll roads and got back onto the older, non-tolled stroads instead, which means that the traffic on the stroads gets worse and worse. The best proposal I've heard to fix this situation is to simply remove the road tolls on the motorways and put congestion tolls on the city centre stroads instead. That way these big motorways can actually be used for their intended purposes of keeping freight out of suburban streets.
I watched a video on Seattle's various Monorail expansion idea. It sounded like they made a congestion charge for it, but wasn't sure
Great video! Very pertinent to my Urban Econ class! Shoutout Professor Dass!
the problem with congestion pricing is they're charging commercial vehicles as well on top of the tolls they're already paying. Also, LIRR and PATH don't have enough regular service for out of city commuters who are most likely to drive car to city centre. I don't have problem with congestion pricing for personal vehicles
I think congestion pricing in central london makes perfect sense, however the expansion of the ULEZ to basically all of Greater London has caused a lot of uproar since it divided neighbourhoods in half. I’d argue it doesn’t even reduce car dependency and greener vehicles still aren’t the ultimate solution. For that reason I think the emphasis should be on lowering fares on TfL and national rail services as well as improving ride quality instead of expanding the ULEZ.
Yeah I don’t know about that. If you’re not driving it has no real impact on you and improving air quality is really important!
Where would you get the money to reduce fares? ULEZ & Congestion Charge actuallly help keep the fares low (on TFL).
Fundamentally I don’t disagree with the idea of an expanded ULEZ. But (hot take) I personally think there’s a lot left to be desired for london’s public transport, so they should focus on that first before expanding the ULEZ. A bunch of cities in Asia don’t have congestion pricing and their transit systems still get tons of ridership, because they’re so good and practical that they don’t need to force people to use it. They’re also relatively cheap compared to London’s public transport, which is, I think, one of the biggest barriers to get even more people to use it over cars
Congestion charge is enough, or even the existing ULEZ. Ultimately, I think the government doesn’t subsidise TfL enough. Maybe going full-on MTR and building massive TODs next to stations with relatively less development could help, although I don’t know how whether that would be politically viable in London
And paying the workers so theres not a strike everyday /s
All but one, in one direction, of the bridges and tunnels from Brooklyn to Manhattan either dump directly in the congregation pricing zone, or already have a toll 1:38
Montréal should adopt that policy!
Hello from London, it works great.
Kinda, It did wonders when it was first rolled out in the 2000s, but in the last 10 or so years traffic has been especially abysmal. I used to love taking the bus over any other form of transport but now it’s just painfully slow, no wonder bus ridership was way down even before Covid.
However like most things in life, I don’t think a single cause is to blame, rather a list of contributing factors.
@@Discount-Stonks got sources?
"Meter Maid" should charge motor vehicles with defaced or unreadable license plates.
Absolutely
My father was part of the university class that was used to go through the data for determining how to solve the rush hour congestion on the Champlain Bridge the government commissioned in the 80s, their conclusion was to increase the tolls during rush hour. This was a class of economists and lawyers that was 90% tory supporters.
The government got rid of the tolls.
Many people who despise congestion pricing in any form, most of whom are politically supposedly "law-and-order" righty-tightys, are also the same people that love defacing their license plates to prevent traffic cameras from catching them speeding. They are also the same people who whine and complain when cops give out parking tickets for, ya know, enforcing the law.
Do you have any evidence to support your claim? Or is this just another left-winger rant, about how everyone that doesn't agree with you, and your utopia vision is evil and a Nazi?
Fine with it as long as there's good transit
Congestion pricing is fantastic. Transit users in NYC have peak and non-peak hours, and there are a lot of passenger per one railroad car. In contrast, there is one or two passengers per private car, yet they don’t pay peak pricing. It’s about time private car drivers should start. Manhattan is a tiny landmass that just can’t accommodate everyone for free. Longer term, this will make NY region (even more) polycentric, where some commuters will be making suburb to suburb commutes instead of piling into Manhattan.
Also, a big, big part of this is enforcement. I’d imagine a large number of people will just use the services but will refuse to pay. Kinda like fare gate jumpers in MTA subway. Making sure that local governments have teeth to fight these toll evaders is key for successful program
I live in DC and am desperately hoping that we follow suit
Hi Reece, I was curious about how viable it would be for cities to build new tramways that function at a more rudimentary level, similar to what so many cities had in the early to mid 20th century. For example, using single car trams rather than the multiple units which are so common today, potentially operating in some corridors without a designated right of way, and also replacing bus services on medium-low patronage routes. A good example is Melbourne, however this still isn't quite adequate as the network still largely reflects the size and density of the city when the tramways were first built.
One trouble I could foresee is the trouble that a city would have in actually reconstructing the tram lines. As far as I'm aware, most of the tram lines built in urban cores were laid down while the road networks of their respective cities were still quite young. Nowadays, I can only imagine the nimby firestorm complaining to the city council about the necessary road closures.
Chicago seems like it would be problematic to introduce congestion charges considering the legal challenges likely to come from the people they sold off their on-street parking to
SOLD the street parking? So a private company is just doing that as a for-profit business? Sounds insane. What if you want to improve a street? Put in some bike lanes, maybe a pedestrian street? Do you buy that street back? Monopoly in real life would make people angry for real as well?
@@geirmyrvagnes8718 slight correction- I believe its a lease (or similar) with decades still to go- but it has all the ramifications you suggest... there are videos out there on the subject
@@MercenaryPen As a non-American, this sounds like something that should be unconstitutional, but probably isn't. 😒
Unless their contract had a clause that said Chicago couldn't have congestion pricing at any future point I don't think their lawsuit would go far. Probably wouldn't stop them from trying, though.
@@1978dkellythey have a stipulation that says Chicago must compensate for lost revenue. So when the city wants to shut down a street for repairs or a festival, they pay the private company. I would imagine the private company would have a good case if the city artificially reduced demand for on-street parking through a congestion zone.
In my opinion if people aren’t using transit in places like DC, a congestion tax isn’t going to make them start using it. They’ll just avoid going into the city all together other than going to work (if they aren’t already remote). I know people who live directly next to metro stations who will choose to drive. Sometimes driving is faster and there’s a lot of weird people on the metro. I usually just suffer through it because I get tired of driving. There’s barely anything in downtown to attract people to come there. Something like this would most likely make the interest even smaller.
In the Bronx our main complaint is that we’re getting most of the pollution from this decision. With little benefit. And while the more wealthy places get fresh air and better transit at our expense. And the most we get is 4 metro north station that most people in the Bronx can’t afford. Here in the Bronx because we lost so much of our transit in the 70s has forced people to become reliant on cars. But the mta doesn’t plan to fix that merely wave it away or give us a bus lane. We need better transit in transit desserts or at the very least matching the pricing of an inner city metro north ticket with a subway fare. Because if not this yet another example of wealthy white neighborhood benefiting while working class black and brown neighborhoods deal with the burden.
Do you think LA could make it work? At least with rush hour pricing on the freeways?
The key with congestion charges (and any kind of anti car policy) is that they don't work unless you also provide a viable alternative. Ofc in Mannhattan there is an alternative to driving, but this is part of your point on why it isn't appropriate everywhere. If there is no alternative to driving then all a congestion charge does is penalise people for going into the city by car when it's the only option, which will both kill the city centre, as well as piss people off and widen the social divide as poorer people can't afford to go into town.
So congestion charges, and other policies to reduce traffic have to come after (or at least along with) improvement to public transport.
Slightly different scheme, but one of the big criticisms on the ULEZ epansion in London is that it now encompasses areas with poor public transpor linkst. The old zone made sense as within the N and S circulars has good public transport, but transport in outer parts of London is often poor, except for radial routes into the centre, but for anything else driving is really the only choice, and so the expanded ULEZ punishes people for reasons out of their control. If it had come with new trams (like in Paris), better bus infrastructure etc it would be more paletable and be far more effective at reducing emissions and congestion.
The main argument for congestion charges isn't that they're a traffic reduction policy but that they internalize an externality. So they're not really an anti-car measure any more than transit fares are an anti-transit measure or food prices are an anti-food measure.
Downtown road space is a scarce resource and giving it the right price lets that price communicate to users where and when it's at its scarcest. From a traffic engineering standpoint, the greatest value in that is that drivers are disincenticized to use the road all at the same time, instead of roads being far below capacity 90% of the day and coming to a halt the other 10%.
Like with all negative externalities, if you fail to internalize them, you'll end up paying some other way, but that scarce resource will continue to be used wastefully. And that's a problem wherever road space is scarce, regardless of other transportation options.
I seriously doubt state DOTs would allow this
The legitimate concern I’ve heard about lower Manhattan congestion pricing is that it will shift congestion from the borough itself to streets & roads just outside the pricing zone.
If that happens, the congestion charging area can simply be expanded northwards.
Denver's RTD is dealing with a budget crisis right now, and congestion charging would be a good idea to help get them some extra money!
Here's the h you needed for Pittsburgh.
Congestion pricing can be good so long as good public transport is always cheaper. London does that well, but Birmingham…I’ll just pay and take my car normally. You just can’t easily get around by Tram and Bus there like you can on the tube.
Man I wish Toronto would implement a congestion charge.
you'd think it was a no-brainer. why on earth should suburbanites have their over-sized SUV trip to the city subsidized while bringing nothing to the table themselves?
Congestion charging is one of those ideas that suffers from a co-ordination problem. The aim of the charge is to get people to switch to transit, but this only works if the transit is already there before you introduce the charge. Using the charge to pay for transit improvements just means that until you build the new capacity, you're just imposing unavoidable charges, which is exceedingly unpopular. It would seem that it's an idea best suited to places like London or New York, that already have the transit infrastructure, and just need to push modal shift. For the rest of us, we're still in the "build it, and they will come" stage.
Well you could use money generated from tolls to pay back loans or PFIs and build the new infrastructure before/whilst the tolls are being introduced.
Nobody in NYC calls it the "Hugh L. Carey Tunnel", it's always been the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel.
Montreal and other cities in Quebec are very upset with the CAQ Transport minister who is not helping sufficiently with the operational deficits all of these transit agencies are facing. Montreal for sure could benefit from congestion pricing, especially if it also included the new Royalmount development. Yes, you indicated that as behaviours changed, the revenue from congestion could go down, but at least for the first few years Montreal could put it towards operations to allow for more time to work out efficiencies.
It’s an interesting topic! I think this can only work though when you have a viable alternative. Around Montreal this would be seen as a : « Yet another thing the government is doing to favour Montreal instead of the regions ». I still think there is some merit to the idea, but this would require mass transit alternatives beforehand. People from the surrounding cities have a tendency to be poorer due from having to work in Montreal to have a job in the first place and have to spend a lot of money on fuel. IF this congestion charge came with a train line to reach the further cities like Sorel, Chambly, St-Jerome, etc, then you can offer a charge for people to not take the new transit.
I always felt that the best way to blunt much NIMBY opposition to road pricing is to allow the first five or ten trips in the zone to be free. Or paid, but you receive the funds back in the form of a short term transit pass. The powerful senior voting bloc (and biggest NIMBY whiners) that does not commute in daily, but still comes in regularly can feel they are getting a substantial break, while incentivizing experimentation with alternate modes. Maybe just do this for only the initial year of the scheme.
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia is refusing to use congestion charging because of a number of political factors including "Transurban" contracts for our toll road system developed between Transurban and the conservative Coalition government over the previous 10 years. The current government is caught between a rock and a hard place because of these contracts. If the contracts weren't so tight congestion charges would be implemented in central Sydney, North Sydney, Chatswood, Parramatta, along Broadway to Sydney University
This was really interesting. Can you do another video on how congestion charges work and implemented in different as well as the effect. I’ve read Tokyo has some but would love to know more about it in different cities
If not already the case, I think commercial vehicles should be completely exempt from the tax because they actually need to be there. Delivery drivers, emergency vehicles, electricians, plumbers, and all similar lines of work should not have to pay. Alan from New Jersey has no reason to drive into the heart of the city. XD
i know you’re Canadian
Londoners aren’t happy 😮
They want London bus fare to go back to £1.50 and trains subway to be a flat fare of £3.00 😅
Sadly, Thatcher's ghost wouldn't allow for government subsidies of any kind. London's public services must suffer so that London can avoid "government handouts."
I would also, at least for now, exempt people with certain types of disabilities from congestion pricing. While it has improved, there is a non-trivial portion of New York City subway stations that are not fully handicapped accessible. Until the system is 100% handicapped accessible, congestion pricing should be waived for individuals with cars with disabilities that prevent them from using all of the subway stations.
My only issue with the NY model of congestion pricing is that it charges motorcycles along with cars. Even though they have an extremely minimal impact on congestion and are basically the size of bicycles in a city planning sense. The UK was smart enough to exempt bikes as a means to encourage transit shy commuters to atleast take a low foot print vehicle but the NY method seems to just be a cash grab.
Well if we take noise into account, it all evens out so they should pay full price :)
In big cities I think it should be done, but not what they did with ULEZ in the UK and making the whole of Greater London have these charges. Especially the areas at the edge because businesses will be impacted because they can't just buy another car, so can't go into that area, and theres not that must congestion.
Context is everything… In my town (very small twin city), we just implemented toll - not for congestion as planned. The “numbers” used were from the late aughts, and the so called economy is not what it used to be - and, no one cared.
Two regional rail schemes are dropped (one public, one private), e-buses from fresh contractor fail winter, and regulator planning for 30 % reduction in bus services - now. We’re too small for tram/metro, and only the between-cities two routes are at 15 min intervals. Else, 30 (daytime), 60 or worse.
After only two months, the social strata impact is skewed - workers generally save by not “consuming”, more wealthy and companies don’t care - they have tax writeoffs. (I have lived/worked in Oslo & London - great systems, very different reality.)
And, this happens in supposedly rich Norway - also a country not investing in infrastructure, rather in assets. Shift workers usually don’t do those…😅
The congestion charged can be a good thing if there are GOOD public transit and the charges is fixed towards rush hour (higher charges in rush hour and low/no charges at night).
Here in Norway (country) we have had this scheme for 40 yrs and has unfortunately developed to 24/7 taxation where every city and town (also the smallest ones) has to implemented them to get some gov founding for their roads or public transport, with the government part of the founding steadily decrease and no improvement to roads or public transport. And the charges remain the same 24/7.
It's so bad you almost can't get out of your street/ neighborhood before you hit these congestion/ road tolls in some cities.
But I do agree if these charges is structured right and there is good alternatives (public transport and bike lanes ) it can be a positive solutions to reduce traffic. Just don't copy that Norway has done!
Do not forget to set a FINE for those drivers that wait just outside the zone blocking roads just before a charge gets reduced per schedule. e.g. Singapore ERP.
We so desperately need this is Cincinnati! If there were toll booths at the top and bottom of I-71 and I-75, also I-74 eastbound from Indianapolis, increased use of I-275 would mitigate the wear and tear in our bridges, and cut down the number of lanes now proposed to supplement the notorious Brent-Spence Bridge. No excuse for all those through travelers to rattle bridges and clog up roads we locals require for normal life.
Here's the funny thing about how this would affect businesses. If your business requires a truck or van to get around, then the congestion pricing on its face might seem like a bad idea because now businesses have to pay to use the roads. However, when you take away all of the motorists who could otherwise be using the public transit already available, what ends up happening is that all of those businesses now can achieve a newfound level of efficiency with less cars on the road. Meaning that a business can get a lot more done in less time, thus saving on hours spent driving. It's a short-term cost for long-term savings.
So, my one issue with congestion pricing is that it only really forces lower income people to use public transit. Higher income people who usually drive and can easily absorb the congestion pricing cost will still drive there. I don’t think it’s fair for your income level to determine if you’re able to drive in downtown. I would suggest either a daily lottery system based on license plates, where people who want to drive in downtown can register for a lottery that gives them a random chance of being selected to be given a permit, or if you stick with congestion pricing then the amount should be a sliding scale based on income and assets.
4:02 what is that on the road that looks like rock aggregate is that from tyres?
Congestion pricing needs to be a thing everywhere in this country. It would be a wake-up call to the suburbanites, which is desperately needed. Washington DC figures suggest that almost HALF the people who work in DC commute in by a car alone - over half if we account for carpooling. That isnt sustainable.
New Jersey is whining about this, but it’s been checked, only ~5% of commuters from NJ are driving all the way into Manhattan. Meanwhile NJ Transit has major budgetary shortfalls and fare hikes with service cuts are imminent without additional funding from Trenton. I think NJ is just jealous they can’t get a slice of the pie from the new congestion tolls.
Trouble is most places that do a congestion charge only do the stick and neglect the carrot. They view it (behind the scenes) as just another income source and expensive public transport is not a hit to that they want. So you will probably just see downtown areas with charges wither slowly.
I don’t know that I agree? The notable examples I mention in the video have all provided lots of carrot
@@RMTransit It's the less notable examples that have zero carrot, like smaller cities in the UK. Birmingham and Bristol as examples. All have congestion charges and terrible transit with no improvement worthy of note as a result of the charges.
I don’t see Portland working. When COVID hurt downtown and caused businesses to decline, people just went elsewhere. Portland obviously would benefit from people taking the MAX to downtown but there is some merit in attracting the money from Happy Valley and Lake Oswego to go downtown and they aren’t going to suffer a 1 hr train ride or a congestion pricing to do it.
This is exactly my fear. Most US downtowns are weak. Portland had a great downtown until COVID, WFH, riots, wild druggies with rampant crime, as well as Portland having the highest taxes in the country, etc. killed the city center and drove massive suburban growth. The story of Portland for 30 years was reviving the city center with transit, public spaces, reducing suburbanization. All these failed policies reversed that overnight. Portland used to be one of the most desirable cities in the country and now it's a shithole.
Big fan of the congestion charge in London, I actually wish it would expand to my bit of west London.. nothing worse than getting stuck in traffic on a bus. You are doing the right thing, and you have to wait behind all the stupid range rovers driving half a mile.. I actually often find myself just waiting an hour to get the bus home, which I suppose is probably good for local businesses..
Everyone I know that is pissed about this are from New Jersey because the train takes an extra half hour to get into the city. Personally I prefer taking the train. I get to read, and I don't have to deal with driving, parking, etc. So what if it takes an extra half hour?? My biggest concern is NYC's governments inability to spend money wisely.
Congestion is a price on it's own and that's where the case of New York becomes odd. Driving there already has no benefit - there is public transit everywhere and driving is painfully slow; UA-cam is full of "I can walk faster than a taxi drives in Manhattan" videos. So might there be some very broken incentive to drive, which isn't even effected by the financial cost…?
It was also a problem in London that they’ve managed to mitigate!
The MTA is refusing to increase service ahead of implementing congestion pricing (they're only adding ONE rush hour run on six express bus routes-not the increase they initially promised). The result will be severe overcrowding on trains and buses because they won't be able to handle this influx of commuters. Also with the MTA raising fares across the board as well (it should be $2.90 for all transit throughout the city, including LIRR and MNR) and changing the bus routes to disproportionately harm disadvantaged communities, there will be fewer people coming in from the outer boroughs, especially essential workers and small business owners/workers who run NYC.
It's such a nice idea. I'd like it to be implemented in my home town (Kyiv, Ukraine). It is now a 3 mln city that has only 6 car bridges over the main river Dnieper that connect the halves of the city, of which 2 bridges are marked "dangerous to use" by some organisations due to bad maintanence, 1 bridge (that is now in construction for 30 years and costs more than $1 billion [some of this money is obviously stolen. Every mayor steals money from that, but not every mayor actually builds it]) is restricted to buses and special service vehicles (no pedestrians and bikes).
The choice of the road standard is sticked to the city's general plan that is drawn by old people with highways through the city so they refuse to install traffic lights on some major thoroughways that go through the built-up areas, restricting the pedestrian and bike access to the another side of the road and encouraging speeding.
The city's yearly budget is $2 billion dollars.
Congestion charges do have some flaws, in that they don't actually reduce or solve congestion at the source. It does keep cars out of the city which is fine, but the truth is that well connected city streets are better able to move traffic and distribute it than Stroads and Highways can. If you ever notice coming into any city, the highway into the city has all the traffic, but once you get on the local streets, there is almost no traffic.
The solution is to not make a congestion pricing zone but to just toll the highways in and out of the city, If traffic is the #1 goal of these charges, it would be more effective at achieving that goal.
They tried to shoe horn this in Cambridge UK. They never consider the people priced miles out of the city with no transport links. What do they expect these people to do? We still need to see our communities, friends, families, and work. The poorest are always hit harder and this is always pushed by the affluent middle class who can still afford to live in the bubble.
What about congestion zones being free to those with registered disabilites, who find it hard to walk, cycle or use most public transport? Often, their only option is to drive as it takes them from door to door.
In London people with serious mobility difficulties are exempt from the congestion charge.
Please can you do a collaboration with the London mayor Sadiq Khan he is very public transport focused and believes in greener smarter cities. I think ot would be great to see you both together
what about Los Angeles
toronto could stand to use congestion charges as the stick, and building park n ride buildings at downsview park, expand the ones at finch, hwy 407, and richmond hill center, (and any appropriate place on the east and west borders my york reigon viewpoint isn't familiar with, scaroughough etobicoke ect residents please chime in!) as the carrot. at least until the go rail system gets a lot better.
Im all for congestion charge, but no exemptions for EVs. This is just a subsidy for the wealthy. The problem is cars not the internal combustion engine.
I highly highly agree. But I do think that funds should be prioritized towards those most affected. If they tolled the 405 in LA I’d have no way of getting to work on public transit besides a 4 transfer bus taking two hours with transfer at LAX!!! toll the 405, make an express buss lane and run commuter buses on it and I’m on board any day
You could also go a long way by getting rid of free parking and many of the surface parking lots that sit on fairly valuable land.
Good video Reece. I find various ways of effectively having a congestion charge interesting. The regional vehicle tax in Montreal or expensive parking permits for example.