London's congestion charge is £15 (about $18) and has largely been a success. I suspect there's a difference in PPP though, so the Manhattan charge is potentially less impactful
It’ll only affect working class people who commute by driving for whatever reason. As usual the actual rich won’t care. The majority of NYers don’t even own a car. So it’s mostly tourists and people from outside the city (plus ride share/taxis) who are driving.
It broadly shows there are rich and poor areas of London, but I don't know if it's better to be in the bottom 10% in London or New York.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personal...
It is my general observation that the "rich" areas suffer more from traffic congestion and pollution, because more people own cars and more of those cars tend to be giant diesel Range Rovers and such. In the east it seems like while there are still a lot of parked cars everywhere, people don't actually drive them around as much, choosing the bus/train/bike/feet more often for everyday travel.
Also worth remembering that even the "poor" parts of London are still pretty rich by overall UK standards.
In addition to the central congestion charging zone, London also has an additional £12.50 low-emission zone (ULEZ) charge targeted at older, higher-polluting vehicles. The ULEZ has now expanded to cover all of Greater London.
It was the obvious thing to do for Europeans visiting a metropolis.
In terms of impact, this is closer to putting congestion pricing on everything inside of M25.
This is only lower Manhattan.
You’re right. It’s lower and midtown Manhattan. That said, it doesn’t include most of Manhattan let alone New York City.
The core question is what someone who won’t pay $15 and refuses to not drive into the city during its most congested hours is bringing to the table. That is harsh. But it is a trade-off a city must make with its limited resources.
As someone who hasn't owned a car in well over a decade, but lives in NYC and pays for things here -- and yes, even takes the occasional taxi when the MTA sucks -- this is what I resent. Setting aside the corruption and incompetence of the MTA (which we should absolutely not set aside), this is little more than a regressive tax on the people who live here, dressed up like anti-car activism.
I'm unclear on how that's supposed to work, though. There are a lot of avenues crossing 61st. Are they going to put tolls on all of them?
I guess that could work, since it's all EZ-Pass anyway. But it does imply that there are going to be some people who take the Queensboro Bridge (paying the Central Business District Toll), but head to the Upper East Side. Then when they leave, they'll have to pay the toll to enter the CBD again to take the bridge home.
I'm not sure how this compares to Manhattan's zone in terms of area.
There's no clean comparison of Manhattan to a portion of London, but just in terms of land area it's about 10% of NYC, and in terms of population it's around 20% (so maybe divide each by half to get the impact of this new rule). More importantly, almost every way to enter or exit the city by car is covered by this new toll. That's definitely not true in the case of the CoL congestion tax.
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2019/05/19/congest...
(Many websites have similar comparisons.)
As a percentage of the whole, the City of London is trivial, whereas this "congestion district" is about half of Manhattan (even more if you account for central park).
That's incorrect. All of the bridges and tunnels other than GW and Randall's Island (RFK) enter or exit from this new zone. With this new plan, literally all of the ways to get to Manhattan by vehicle will now have a toll. Some will have two.
I suppose if you're willing to take the tiny bridges from the Bronx into Harlem you can still get around tolls, but good luck with that.
I’m not counting the Brooklyn Bridge, etc, because I was replying to your “ways to enter the city.” The topic as I understood it was “will you pay this toll if your final destination isn’t Manhattan,” and the answer is “Not unless you’re coming from certain parts of New Jersey, and even then you’ve got choices.”
> The City of London, London's ancient core and financial centre − an area of just 1.12 square miles (2.9 km2) and colloquially known as the Square Mile − retains boundaries that closely follow its medieval limits.
Greater London, in total, is larger than Los Angeles.
https://mapfight.xyz/map/los.angeles/#london
https://www.londoninfoguide.com/how-big-is-london-uk.html
The congestion charge is not for Greater London and the Manhattan toll is not for all of Manhattan.
I used the term Greater London to try to make the distinction. I failed you.
Since the toll and comparative congestion pricing are municipal concepts, the arbitrary sizes matter for the purposes of figuring out consequence. The post was not very illustrative, since I compared LA to London, as opposed to NYC to London. The greater LA area just happens to share arbitrary terminology to my choice of description, rather than specific relevancy.
timr is not correct, he is confidently wrong even if he makes the same claim several times in the discussion.
And you keep forgetting to say that London is 600 square miles, and Manhattan is about 20. They're also vastly different in terms of their connectivity to the outside world. The "London congestion area" is a tiny section of the middle of London. This covers almost every major ingress/egress into the island of Manhattan.