Why Congestion Pricing Is So Difficult: the Equity Problem of a Slam Dunk Urban Policy

It seems the US is finally on the verge of implementing true congestion pricing, in New York City. It's been a long road to get here, though, and it's not done yet -- so I thought this would be a good time to dig into some of the math that makes congestion pricing work, and why that math can lead to the kind of inequitable outcomes that make it politically difficult.
We'll review congestion pricing (the definition of which often overlaps with "road pricing," "value pricing," or just plain tolling) as a policy tool and discuss what it's intended to accomplish. Then we'll dive into the math behind the value proposition that makes congestion pricing "work" -- offering travelers valuable time at a potentially attractive price -- and we'll discuss why that proposition often disadvantages people who are already financially disadvantaged. Finally, we'll look at not only how different people might react to pricing differently, but how different kinds of trips might be viewed within the same household.
----------
Patreon - a new way to support continuing CityNerd output! Thanks to all who have signed up so far!
/ citynerd
----------
Twitter: @nerd4cities
Instagram: @nerd4cities
----------
Other CityNerd Videos referenced:
The True Cost of Driving 2022: • The All-In Cost of Car...
Cities for Bus Rapid Transit: • Top 10 Cities for Bus ...
Why Traffic Delay Grows Exponentially: • Why Traffic Congestion...
----------
Resources:
www.npr.org/20...
reinventalbany...
www.c40knowled....
www.nytimes.co...
www.cssny.org/...
www.baseball-r...
www.wsj.com/ar...
nyc.streetsblo...
ny.curbed.com/...
----------
Image Credits:
Singapore ERP Zone By mailer_diablo - Self-taken (Unmodified), CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
Milan Area C By Ita140188 - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
London Congestion Cordon By Mariordo (Mario Roberto Durán Ortiz) - Own work, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
Electric car charging Image by (Joenomias) Menno de Jong from Pixabay
Car2Go Image by Marilyn Murphy from Pixabay
LA Traffic Video by William Sevilla from Pixabay
New York Traffic Video by Life-Of-Vids from Pixabay
Golf course Video by Vimeo-Free-Videos from Pixabay
London ULEZ sign By David Hawgood, CC BY-SA 2.0, commons.wikime...
Singapore gantry By VK35 at English Wikipedia, CC BY 2.5, commons.wikime...
Vehicle PNGs Image by R. tanu from Pixabay
Motherboard Video by Jacob Abbott from Pixabay
Port Authority Time Lapse Video by Daniel Carlton from Pixabay
Personal Income Taxes Ver4 via Flickr user Chris Potter, www.ccPixs.com creativecommon...
Fries Video by Engin Akyurt from Pixabay
Restaurant kitchen Image by StockSnap from Pixabay
Supply Demand Chart By TE-Pricing-EquilibriumCongestion.png: DavidLevinsonderivative work: Mariordo (Mario Roberto Durán Ortiz) (added more information to show a different case) - This file was derived from: TE-Pricing-EquilibriumCongestion.png:, CC BY-SA 3.0, commons.wikime...
----------
Music:
CityNerd background: Caipirinha in Hawaii by Carmen María and Edu Espinal (KZbin music library)
----------
Contact: [e-mail]

[@TheNeodarkwing]

"You're not stuck in traffic, you are traffic," was on the best freeway billboard I've ever seen.

[@Sp4mMe]

As renowned traffic engineer and public transportation expert Alice Cooper pointed out, car reliance already kinda functions like a prohibitive progressive tax on low income households. So feels almost kinda moot to debate what congestion tax does to that segment of the population when the underlying issue - lack of reliable, cheaper alternatives - isn't tackled. And if those alternatives do exist, then it's probably not going to be a decisive argument as opposed to the long list of benefits it can create, as cars move into the "luxury" basket of goods to own, instead of "necessities".

[@jonas2674]

Cars are poison

[@flinx]

when lack of reliable, cheaper alternatives isn't tackled, congestion pricing is yet another transportation tax in addition to the transportation tax that is driving. $8 a day for commuters with used cars may amount to 20-25% more transportation tax. Worse, cities aren't building enough low income housing where there's transit, and further away where housing is less expensive, it's en vogue among planners to replace park-and-rides with TOD. Which blows for people who can't afford living close to the stations.

[@philwoodward5069]

Absolutely. As CityNerd says in the video, whether road charging is going to nudge people onto bike or transit will often depend if there's a viable bike or transit option, but actually, if the alternatives to driving are good enough you can manage traffic congestion pretty well without any road charging. Look at Amsterdam. Ultimately if you've got a street that's being ruined by cars, the best thing is to do what the Dutch do: pedestrianise it or make it so it can't be used as a through-route, so cars only use it for access. I'm not in favour of pricing poorer people off congested roads.

[@flinx]

@@philwoodward5069 pedestrianize, bike lanes, and making the street so cars can't go through it are all bad for non-local car commuters. If transit near where they live isn't good enough, and the park-and-ride was replaced with housing they didn't get into, they're going to drive. If cities won't provide better transit where these folks live because it's low density, perhaps enough transit can be provided where it's higher density so the roads still available are used by low income drivers.

[@CityNerd]

Alice Cooper deep cuts are what keeps me coming back to the comments

[@jackmnan4724]

I like how the accountant is driving a pickup truck. I knew two audit managers who drove pickup trucks to work and it never made sense to me considering they sat in an office for 12 hours a day.

[@eleanor8652]

Lmfao, it made me laugh too.

[@altriish6683]

That's most people with pickup trucks though? Maybe they have a boat though, who knows

[@timdowney6721]

Their egos require it. Or, after a day with spreadsheets, they’re going to go bronco busting. 😉😄

[@timdowney6721]

@@altriish6683 The ultimate proof of human foolishness and hubris? An oversize pickup towing an oversize boat into the desert.

[@CityNerd]

Just trying to add some realism

[@itsvariii]

One note on congestion pricing here in Singapore from a resident - the nature of it being a regressive tax doesn't really have that great of an effect here, but that's only because cars here are *prohibitively* expensive. A stock Toyota Corolla costs about US$110K after tax, not counting yearly road tax of $500 per year and regular gas prices of $6/gallon (before the fuel shortage). If you can afford to buy a car, it's highly likely that you can afford the ERP. Plus, the public transportation system here is really robust and cheap - the most you'll pay for a trip is around US$2, off-peak train frequencies are at most 7 minutes, and off-peak bus frequencies hover at 10 minutes at most. Thus, car ownership isn't a necessity and more of a luxury. The value of the ERP thus is less focused on sending a price signal and a deterrent (though it does still act that way), and more towards upkeep of all transport infrastructure.

[@tonysoviet3692]

Completely agreed. Urban planners in US and UK savor over congestion pricing, but like everything else in economics, you need a balanced equation. Else things just going to be like Phoenix where it refused to build highways, but also did not have any reliable public transportation, resulting in the city being extremely...weird.

[@deenil]

@@tonysoviet3692 I mean I was in Phoenix a few months ago. There are definitely highways/roadways/MASSIVE stroads everywhere. If by weird you mean sprawled and lack of public transit. Then yes

[@tonysoviet3692]

@@deenil Exactly, I'm from Vietnam and visited Phoenix and Flagstaff for conferences, and Phoenix left me with this hollow impression of how exploitative Americans are with their resources. For a developed country, carbon emission per capita over 15 is bonker. (China is 7, Germany has the highest in EU at 8, Russia is 11)

[@itsvariii]

@Zaydan Naufal 2-3 min headways are during peak periods, while 7 minutes is the *longest* you'll have to wait for any train during off-peak, as mentioned in the comment. But also: the shortest headway is actually 100 seconds during peak hour on the NSL and EWL. As for revitalizing old rail, the two old rail corridors aren't that useful in terms of their alignment (they either duplicate existing MRT lines or run through low density areas), and parts of the old freight rail corridor have already been built over, while the old passenger rail corridor has been turned into a linear park. At this point, it's more effective to dig new routes, and cost here doesn't seem to be that big of an issue (looking at the projected costs of the TEL, CCL6, and JRL construction). HSR has never been in operation here, there was the planning stage of a HSR line with Malaysia that was canned (though land acquisition had already been done - that land has been turned into a new depot and train testing center).

[@itsvariii]

@Zaydan Naufal that's not fully right. For the passenger rail corridor, the land and stations were owned and operated by Malaysian Railways (later turned into KTM), so any changes or upgrades would have had to go through the *Malaysian* government - pretty sure you wouldn't want your main mass transit route to be in the hands of a different sovereign state. As for the freight rail corridor, that continued freight operations until the 90s, but again - the alignment runs through industrial areas, and wouldn't have been helpful as a commuter rail service given the area it served.

[@LCCB]

Salary white collar jobs can be more flexible in arrival times, whereas service workers usually have no schedule flexibility. Companies that can should stagger their workforce by 5-10 minutes rather than having an 8AM start time for hundreds of people.

[@NelsonBrown]

The people deciding the schedule are not necessarily the people paying for the congestion. Maybe if the employers had to pay for their employees congestion fees on top of wages we'd see the schedules fan out. I'm sure it's very complex.

[@timdowney6721]

Or have a core time, say 1000-1500 when everyone should be in the office. Employees can be flexible on the other three hours for things like medical appointments, finding short-notice day care if a school is closed, etc. Overbearing, controlling bosses won’t like it. Then again, that type usually make lousy managers.

[@CityNerd]

Great point!

[@Benz2112]

This is a great example of one of the many complicated variables at play. The low wage worker has to be somewhere not because they want to be, but because it is demanded of them. They don't live outside the city center out of choice, but because it is what they can afford. The other option for white collar workers is the trend of permanent WFH policies. It creates a positive freedom for certain members of society to have more control over their movement. For the working poor, they would require more moonshot like changes such as major expansions to public transit or heaven forbid a plan for good public housing. Americans have such little confidence in any possibility of life altering city planning that they will scoff at toll roads.

[@ChasmChaos]

You're right, but minutiae like these can't really be administered effectively via policy. Congestion pricing is simple to implement and allows salaried folks to negotiate for the cost being paid by the company or for flexible schedules that avoid that cost entirely. Or, go full London and just use public transit.

[@davidwatson7208]

My view from inside the London Congestion Zone. It worked here because we already had a comprehensive transit system & the majority of people don't own cars (

[@unconventionalideas5683]

That's exactly what NYC is like, though. Also, somehow Gothenburg over in Sweden managed to have a fair amount of the benefits with much worse alternatives than London, but that's beside the point.

[@robwebster4157]

From a London perspective (which might apply to a slightly lesser extent in NYC), congestion charging isn’t about achieving a network with no congestion, it’s about reducing gridlock to moderate congestion. That gets around the regressiveness a bit because no matter your income, nearly every journey is still significantly faster by public transit. Those choosing to still drive to work in Central London probably are among the richest, but I’d suggest their choice is based on an overwhelming value being placed on car convenience/comfort rather than the way they value their time.

[@jasonriddell]

a LOT of trips in NYC are NOT served by transit OR requires a LONG and unpleasant trip

[@prospectelectric2201]

I run a contracting business in NYC. Only a portion of my business is in Manhattan. From what I have read the more recent surveys show the reduction of vehicles will only be 5%. To that point the legislation has been renamed the “Central Business District Tolling Program” which is another way of saying TAXATION to benefit the MTA. I have always felt that driving into Manhattan (whether car or truck) is to be avoided because of traffic congestion, hard to find parking and risk of parking tickets. I have personally done service calls by using the subway rather than take a truck into Manhattan. My biggest complaint on this is that the tentative toll prices leaked are $25 for cars and $100 for trucks. I fail to see why cars are discounted when they are the drivers who have more choices. I cannot transport conduit and ladders on the subway. Not all trucks make multiple stops in Manhattan to spread the cost out. I already have to pay for commercial curb parking once my truck reaches its destination (about $36 for six hours). Now they want to add $100 to that. There is talk that car drivers from New Jersey and Westchester may get credit for their river crossing toll, so their net increase is minimal and they will continue to drive. I can only accept this concept if cars and trucks pay the same price. I would much rather see a mandatory two-person-per-car rule at the bridges & tunnels (during daytime hours). This is what they did during the subway labor strike. I really enjoy your content and dry humor

[@kimberleemodel7182]

I'll give an up-vote for car pool requirements or discounts at existing toll-plazas. That's a really neat thought.

[@j.s.7335]

A 5% reduction may still leave roads congested, but because of the scaling, it will make a significant difference in the most congested areas, at least.

[@AlRoderick]

Do they explain how they break down the difference between a car and a truck? is it explicitly all commercial vehicles that get charged the higher rate or is it by weight class? Because there are some small vehicles that can carry a lot of stuff, I'm thinking of small European trucks or transit vans, even station wagons, minivans or crossovers. if you can figure out a way to service Manhattan using smaller vehicles you might have just figured out a way to game the system. A nice secure welded steel roof box with a good padlock attached to the roof rack of a station wagon can carry quite a bit of conduit and a few ladders. It probably isn't every day you need to bring something as big as a panel van into the city.

[@altriish6683]

It might also be because trucks and other heavy vehicles cause disproportionate amounts of damage to the road surface, and create higher levels of noise and environmental pollution. But that's just me spit-balling, who knows the real reason?

[@prospectelectric2201]

@@AlRoderick there has been no official info released on these details yet

[@climbmountainsblog]

That view of Kauffman Stadium parking reminded me of how people talk about "last mile problems" for transit. The parking lot is probably about a half mile across at some points. It's both ironic and unfair how transit's last mile problems get a spotlight but cars live in this fictional world where last mile problems don't exist.

[@CarlenHoppe]

I have had the pleasure of driving past Kauffman Stadium right before a Chiefs game. It's impressive to see the stadium filled with fans wearing their red team shirts. All that parking lots and green grass area was totally covered with trucks (and a few cars). Tons of tailgating going on. It was a giant party. Everyone looked quite happy.

[@kimberleemodel7182]

Driving a car into the city is one big last mile problem. Expensive/hard-to-find parking means you have to park in one place, walk to whichever shops you planned to visit, then back to your car. It's basically the reason they invented shopping malls. Its a teeny-tiny not-quite-a-city that you can put in the middle of a suburb. Of course, online shopping is putting them out of business anyways...

[@CarlenHoppe]

@@kimberleemodel7182 When visiting my NFL stadium I have tried 1) parking 2) light rail 3) biking. I found biking to be the best. You ride your bike up close to the stadium. The bike is securely parked for free at a manned bike pen. The bike is easy to retrieve at the end of the game. If you were able to use one of the bike trails that was much safer than integrating with game traffic. Light rail was not satisfying due to a lack of capacity before or after the game. Trying to take your bike the on the light rail around gametime was not happening due to a lack of capacity. Parking worked as well as expected. Not too much trouble to park at a moderate cost lot 20 minutes away. Trying to leave that lot would of course take an hour or more. More premium lots had better access at double the cost (or were reserved for the suite elite).

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

@@CarlenHoppe i’m curious what city is that? That has like staffed bike parking by the stadium. That sounds like a wonderful idea and I’m into bicycling.

[@CarlenHoppe]

​@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 Levi's Stadium. The bike parking lot is staffed by the local Bicycle Coalition. The bike trails are imperfect.

[@nathanielmackler7225]

I absolutely agree with you! This kind of argument comes up in almost every consumption tax, with the exception of luxury goods. Funneling revenue in to a negative income tax fixes 90% of the problem! This still ensures that everyone faces an individual incentive to reduce consumption, while ensuring that on average, the least prosperous are not worse off. This applies to congestion pricing, but also carbon taxes. It astonishes me how contentious carbon taxes are even in the political left, despite the solution being so damn easy.

[@tonysoviet3692]

In economics terms, tax is a pricing mechanism, meaning that those who set the tax must know the EXACT proper reduction in externalities to derive the tax, whereas things like cap-and-trade is a quantity mechanism, which means letting the market decide the redistribution itself and is generally a much more saleable policy. Unfortunately, there is yet to be a same quantity mechanism for congestion...

[@nathanielmackler7225]

>In economics terms, tax is a pricing mechanism, meaning that those who set the tax must know the EXACT proper reduction in externalities to derive the tax That's... not really true. Yes, a carbon tax has the least losses (deadweight when the tax is too high, the cost of externalities when too low) when it's priced at exactly the cost of the externalities of carbon emissions. That doesn't mean you can't implement a carbon tax and fiddle with the numbers to try to achieve the correct balance. You don't need to know precisely the cost of the externality to implement a carbon tax. Cap-and-trade has not yet been shown to be scalable. Cap-and-trade systems exist in industry, limiting the emissions of certain types of industrial players. Electrical generation and passenger vehicles are the two places we've seen widespread implementation. To my knowledge, no country, state, or large municipality has implemented a cap-and-trade system that encompasses all the consumption decisions of ordinary people. Many of the same challenges would exist in implementing this system as exist in implementing a carbon tax.

[@tonysoviet3692]

@@nathanielmackler7225 My apologies for being unclear; tax is a pricing mechanism in that the regulator needs to know cost/benefit tradeoffs of both public goods like the environment as well as private productions, the latter being difficult since only private producers know real production costs, and only costs to themselves. Cap-and-trade is more politically appetite because regulator only needs to know the correct reduction amount (abatement units), and producers can sort among themselves by trading toward the "cap". Cap-and-trade becomes more expansive when passing a certain number of agents, because of transaction costs, but I think that Singapore and Korea are moving toward this approach for transport, as those want to drive can pay toward tickets or similar mechanisms for public transport users.

[@stevengordon3271]

Anybody who says a solution to a social problem in a divisive, heterogenous society like ours is either dangerously naive or trying to sell something (or both).

[@thetrainhopper8992]

There are a lot of solutions the left likes ignoring. As a teacher, county wide school districts are generally better than letting everyone decide where school boundaries are on an adhoc basis. But a lot of "activists" hate it because "community". One solution that I've thought of that could compliment congestion charges is an annual impact fee on parking spots of $100. Devote the money to transit expansion and let the developers deal with making parking pencil out.

[@jmchristoph]

Love this analysis! I'd be interested to see a comparison between this kind of pricing scheme, and a couple other policies: 1 - The traffic monitoring systems implemented in places like Zurich & Utrecht, where every road leading into the city has a vehicle counting system, only a set number of cars are allowed in the city center at any given time, and once that limit is reached the traffic lights on inbound roads all turn red until enough vehicles leave. Intuitively the main difference seems to be there's sorting by when a car gets in line rather than by ability to pay, which probably has its own equity issues. 2 - A coordinated municipal freight distribution plan which shifts heavy truck traffic to trains or smaller delivery vehicles, depending on the type of freight. I'm not sure of any specific examples in practice, but we talk a lot about the disproportionate effect heavy trucks have on both road maintenance and road capacity when it comes to highways, & I wonder about the comparison for congested city streets.

[@CityNerd]

Flagging this one. Cool stuff

[@Snowshowslow]

Actually, Utrecht and other Dutch cities have started to shift some of the inner city freight (store deliveries and trash pick-up) to boats again. Obviously, that only works in water rich areas, but it's a neat thought and a nice note to Dutch history.

[@adammillar6775]

Re: heavy trucks on congested city streets - I live in Hamilton, ON which has a pretty busy industrial sector/port area that sees a ton of truck traffic. Annoyingly, the "fastest" route from perimeter highways to their terminals is through the busy downtown. The effects are not only traffic congestion, but abhorrently bad pavement conditions, deafening noise, heightened emissions, dead pedestrians, terrified drivers, and much more. There's since been a proposal to reroute trucks, but of course "that will congest the highways more and that would suck" ... sigh

[@jasonriddell]

@@adammillar6775 as someone that has worked in the "heavy transport" industry for 25 years I have a few points the "profit" shipping companies make is around 3% at best for "LTL general freight" and labour is BY FAR the biggest cost it gets "worse" when "cold-chain" food stuff is concerned for example a trailer for a large grocery chain in Canada would have on average 12 - 16 PRO's OR orders on board for ONE store and if we were 4 hours LATE we were charged 20K PER PRO so in some cases late delivery fines are GREATER then the equipment is WORTH most cities ZONE warehouses FAR from stores and warehousing AND marshalling yards for semi trailers take a LOT OF LAND ( the industry standard is 4 to 6 trailers PER TRACTOR) so a 100 tractor company can have 600 trailers UPS and other parcel companies have / had tried bike and golf cart sized parcel delivery vehicles but the BIG issue is warehousing space in prime real-estate downtown / shopping districts and trains can ONLY replace NON time critical intercity freight because trains do NOT bypass onroute cities so transit times between heavy rail and over the highway trucks is massive 1 -2 day by truck is a week by train on some corridors

[@canadagood]

I just wanted to point out that in a city where public transit is highly bus dependant, that any reduction in downtown road congestion means a greatly enhanced experience for transit riders. If the bus is not stuck in traffic then it is more likely that commuters will get out of their cars and take the bus. A nice positive feedback look.

[@thebob563]

It would be interesting to see a video about Mexico City’s “Hoy No Circula” (you can’t use your car on certain days depending on your license plate) and compare it to congestion pricing to see which method is better.

[@TheEngineerd]

Is that the policy that resulted in people buying second cars to get around not being able to drive a single car every day of the week? I'm going to put my money on congestion pricing is better.

[@kimberleemodel7182]

@@TheEngineerd (I know nothing of this policy, so consider this speculation) for the super rich, buying a 2nd car seems legit, and they might have 2 cars already anyways. But there's gotta be a pretty large middle ground of people who could afford a congestion charge, but can't afford a 2nd car. I would think that even if it were super infrequent like 1-day a month, you'd have some people discovering alternate means of transportation and choosing their bike or the train or whatever even on day's they're allowed to drive.

[@a.s.f.g.8345]

i can tell you from experience, the policy didn't work, it just became a very effective way for police to get a lot of money from extortion. people with more than one car just don't care and people who only have one and live in the outskirts of the city just get screwed, keep in n mind that even if Mexico city transit system is very large a lot of people live very far away from the city and the population in general is very spread so it's still needed an improvement and expansion of the system, it's already congested as it is, it's not like people are not using it and need an incentive

[@eldrago19]

I saw this in Sim City and thought it was a joke. Apparently not... Kind of a reasonable policy when you think about it, though it lacks the per trip incentive structure - when it's your day there's no incentive not to drive.

[@michaelnajera7958]

That is a very interesting idea. Would love to see that option played out in an episode of city nerd

[@andrewlindstrom9599]

The negative legacy of the interstate highway system is really hard to overstate. It's crazy how American drivers just expect a free, fully grade separated, traffic-free highway system criss-crossing their entire city. Without even considering the overt racism in the planning process, the current day effects on driver expectations and behaviors are really toxic.

[@rosskgilmour]

The urban interstate system certainly warrants criticism however, the system at large is extremely efficient at moving people and goods around the stades. There’s a reason every advanced economy has a decent inter region freeway network. Id also like to point out that it was never an either or choice for freeways or transit. Many countries have both. There are also a lot of choices made independently of freeways that create some of the negative externalities that are often linked to freeways. For instance , sprawl is really a planning phenomenon rather then a freeway one It’s perfectly possible to have non-sprawling suburbs with freeways, Londons exurbs are a good example

[@Jack-fw4mw]

@@rosskgilmour Efficient by what metric? The cost of them is hidden through taxes, and people ignoring their own environmental impact. The planning of these systems brought them much closer (for the most part) to the city center than those other countries you are mentioning.

[@andrewlindstrom9599]

@@rosskgilmour sure, but the US has a ridiculous amount of them, with virtually no significant public investment in any other transportation mode. Even rural interstates are massively overbuilt and redundant in most states - particularly Pennsylvania (99, 81), Illinois (74, 57, 88). Like do we really need multi-billion dollar investments in fully grade separated freeways to connect Bedford, Altoona, State College and Bellfonte (99). Or an entire extra freeway through Illinois to avoid St. Louis (57 - I guess Chicagoans really do hate St. Louis). The crux of the issue is that there is a limited amount of infrastructure money to be spent, and we spent roughly all of it on freeways (still!). If you look in just about any state, you can find an absolutely impractically expensive interstate highway over-serving a region with no real thru-travel benefit either. Sprawl is a two sided issue for sure, but most of the suburban development in the US is more or less a direct result of interstate highways. The highways were, and still are, used as reasons for suburban development.

[@lik7953]

I mean technically I’d argue many European countries (like Germany or Netherlands) have much better interstate/highways than the US, while also having phenomenal public transport

[@gregessex1851]

The difference in the US compared to Europe is that the US didn’t toll their Motorways in the way that most European countries did. As a result, countries like France have the best of both worlds with an excellent public transport network and a Motorway network that supports the movement of goods. In Australia, we are belatedly seeing the same thing in our large cities where expensive Motorways are being funded by tolls, hence allowing funds to be allocated to public transport and other non road infrastructure.

[@accooper97]

The main problem with congestion pricing, especially in regards to NYC, is that, there are still so many transit deserts in the city. Many folks do lack access to high-speed transit, and the bus system can be stop and go at any time of day. Cities have to acknowledge why people are driving in the first place, before they start trying to remove people from their cars

[@Marylandbrony]

When i was at college, i would typically walk to Five guys for lunch on Wednesdays. It about a 50 minute walk over 2 miles and the bus trip is about 10 mintues over a longer distance due to it taking an indirect route but the bus only comes every 45 mintues. The only times i regularly ordered out food was during the pandemic when restaurants were closed.

[@UnnDunn]

I live in New York. I used to be nominally for the congestion charge, but I have pivoted to being strongly against it. The reason is simple: it has nothing to do with reducing congestion and everything to do with funneling more money into the financial black hole called the Metropolitan Transportation Agency. Everyone loves to point out NYC as having the largest, most robust public transit network in the country. And it is, by a country mile. But that doesn’t make it GOOD. NYC’s transit system is good for only one thing: commuting to and from Lower/Midtown Manhattan or Downtown Brooklyn. For every other type of journey, the MTA *sucks*. The MTA is woefully inept at its job. It can’t do anything in any reasonable timeframe or cost. It took them over 50 years and untold billions of dollars to get three stations built on the Second Avenue line. East Side Access is a decade late and still isn’t finished. CBTC upgrades are projected to take until 2040 to complete. Meanwhile, managers and executives at the agency routinely book hundreds of hours of overtime, abuse their status to get free parking, or give sweetheart contracts to their buddies. The agency can’t keep stations clean or dry, can’t deal with the homeless or the panhandlers, can’t keep trains running on time, and can’t even keep the cameras working to record people shooting guns on the trains or pushing people on to the tracks. The one person they brought in who actually gave a shit and made meaningful improvements to the system, Andy Byford, got ground up and spat out by the unrelenting bureaucratic quagmire that is the MTA, from the Governor on down. And THIS is the agency that wants to collect $1bn a year from people who are forced to drive to work because its service doesn’t meet their needs. The congestion charge scheme coming to NYC has no target metrics for congestion reduction, only for revenue generation. The MTA has a plan for how to use the money, but the man who championed the plan (Andy Byford) got ran out of town and is now doing great things for London’s transit system. So the plan is going to get watered down and will run way over budget. I dunno. Maybe the congestion charge will actually reduce congestion. Maybe it’ll even fund meaningful improvements to transit in this city. And maybe I’ll win the next powerball jackpot.

[@prospectelectric2201]

well said

[@CityNerd]

Love how candid this comment is. Yeah, another huge problem with congestion pricing is trust. I sort of talked about it in the video, but -- do you trust the operating agency to spend the revenues in an efficient and/or non-corrupt way? That's a huge question that goes to the heart of why citizen support is often so tepid, and often with good reason.

[@ChasmChaos]

I'm happy that Byford moved to TfL and worked on the Elizabeth Line. Sucks for NYC, but hopefully this will push the citizens to demand more accountability.

[@bikeny]

@@CityNerd I'm here in NYC too. And he's spot-on with all his observations. Even the speed cameras we've got here are just a revenue program.

[@mindstalk]

@@CityNerd There's also the fee-and-dividend model. Redistribute the congestion money evenly to households. Don't get to use the money for transit but helps the poorer households and gets around the "we don't trust the agency" aspect.

[@nycurbanist3616]

Live in NYC, and work in Queens so maybe I’m just not seeing it, but I don’t see a great number of people minimum wage service workers in mid/downtown Manhattan who wouldn’t have a decent enough transit option and would opt to drive in. People from the NYC metro area may not realize this but people rarely go into Manhattan for things the way they may in any other city in the U.S. People who live in NYC rarely go casually shopping there, and would never drive in to make a trip they could otherwise avoid as it is. Idk I just don’t see someone who lives in Staten Island taking a job at McDonalds in midtown and then needing to plan their commute to have enough time to scour the earth for non-existent street parking. Someone choosing to drive into Manhattan everyday can afford the $8

[@Zedprice]

But is congestion pricing really more regressive than car dependency? Take all your data about the price of owning a car and set it against the total income of each of those drivers, and you'll see that the $8 charge is far less regressive than requiring low-income people to drive. Further, if you siphon that money into transit, biking, and walking infrastructure, you've actually created a net positive for low income people by reducing their need for personal automobiles.

[@CityNerd]

That’s the ideal, but reality is it takes years/decades for governments to plan, design and construct the kinds of multimodal improvements that will truly make a difference in the lives of the people who really need them. There needs to be a more immediate redress.

[@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920]

It's really tough because energy NEEDS to get more expensive and it absolutely WILL have a disproportionate impact on people of lesser means. A lot of people live far away from the city center (and therefore the jobs) just because that's the only place they can afford to live. I'm well aware that if I ever manage to afford a home in the city where I have lived all my life, i will necessarily be doubling my commute and will probably need to finally buy a car.

[@Sho-td8wg]

Reducing car dependency means expanding transit schedules and suffering the costs of low ridership in the odd morning or midnight hours. My need for a car while low income was due to the impossibility of getting to work at the required time by bus.

[@jasonriddell]

@@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920 ANY "forced" change is going to impact less well off harder then more well off as they can NOT adapt as easily

[@jasonriddell]

@@Sho-td8wg and often lower income neighbourhoods do NOT get the "shiny" transit buildouts like the better to do areas

[@SaveFarris1]

Top 10 suggestion building off your 'Ginormous Interchanges list': cross reference land values for the zip code and compile a list of the most expensive wastes of land.

[@jasonriddell]

we know "transit oriented development" often raise local tax values / A look at car dependant infrastructure DEPRESSING tax rates in areas - I bet stroads KILL TAX values more then anything on this side of a sewage treatment plant

[@HeIiax]

I've been following your content for a while now - I love how you outline methodology so concisely in your analysis. I'm wondering what your thoughts on frontage roads are, and how they impact land use and traffic along highway corridors!

[@CityNerd]

Frontage Roads! A new one to add to my list. Thanks!

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

@@CityNerd Texas has many frontage roads and some other states like Florida do not have any it seems, I don’t know the reason why. When in Texas, I drive on the frontage road sometimes because when the traffic is heavy and stressful sometimes I’d like to just take it easy on the frontage road if I’m not in a hurry.

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

I would rather take it easy by riding a train if there were any.:)

[@elijah6970]

A video on cities/areas with the greatest transit potential would be cool

[@marcguidobolen693]

A video on *fun quirks”about city planning would be interesting I think. I don’t if they exist or what they are, but just a list of facts about city planning that only city planners would know. Im enjoying the weekly videos

[@michaelimbesi2314]

Congestion pricing is only regressive if you consider it in a vacuum. In reality, it’s quite progressive because it reduces traffic, which allows busses and trams to work faster and more efficiently. This improved public transit significantly *helps* the poorest people by allowing them to use transit so they don’t need to own a car. The health benefits of less air pollution from car traffic also disproportionately accrue to low income people.

[@CityNerd]

I do think the level to which a good congestion pricing program could improve bus service is underrated

[@AlexCab_49]

We should toll the interstate highway system. Here's why, gas taxes will become obsolete as EVs become popular and revenue from gas taxes will decline, it will reduce traffic as many ppl will switch to cheaper modes of transportation like commuter rail or commuter buses. And transportation funds can be allocated to the improvement of mass transit and bike infrastructure.

[@CityNerd]

Yeah, the future of the gas tax (the primary way we fund transportation infra and maintenance) is pretty dire.

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

Interstate highway system in Florida already has a toll system and also the highway from Houston Texas

[@AlexCab_49]

@@enjoyslearningandtravel7957 We should expand the toll system. I know some ppl will attack me for how tolls will hurt poor ppl, but most poor ppl don't live 30 miles away as it's already expensive for them to do that.

[@BeatHazardAngel]

I'd really like to see a video on what the effects would be if people are increasingly switching to using motorcycles. Reduced congestion, better fuel economy (51 mpg on the one I drive) and less required parking space. Love the videos!

[@ChasmChaos]

Take a look at South Asian countries. Lots of motorbikes and fewer cars. Unlike in the west, the cost of borrowing is high (circa 8% interest rates). This very quickly demotivates any frivolous buying - like an F-150 instead of a Chevy Spark.

[@jasonriddell]

I have LONG felt that suburbs could be well serviced by motorbikes and scooters IF there was a "benefit offered" I lived in Vancouver and the insurance on a bike was LOWER then a car and was by design where I live now they treat them "equally" and bikes must self fund there own coverage causing bikes to be SO EXPENSIVE that you can NOT afford to own both and there for the car "wins"

[@Burt1038]

The injury and fatality rate of motorcycles is unacceptably high. It could only work if roads were completely redesigned and speeds greatly reduced. In other words, no chance.

[@embersworkshop]

I will admit, it does make sense for bikes to replace 1-2 passenger vehicles. Then there's no attempt for modesty in pretending you could use all that space to haul lumber and carry a family of 6 through a mountainpass. 🤣 For warm places with low speed roads, sure. Though I suspect those kinda places already adopt mopeds or motorbikes regularly. Where I live everyone drives too fast and it gets too cold for people to rely on it for year-round regular transportation.

[@korianderbadger]

An argument I like: cigarette taxes are also regressive. But the assumption that we cannot implement them implies that the status quo of letting poorer people smoke (after the market distortion of advertising and addictive substances made them that way) is preferable to an imperfect policy that may push them to smoke less.

[@JeredtheShy]

Nah man, you don't get to equate driving with smoking so that you can force the poor to choose "healthy" options based on your own feelings of superiority. In the trash with all that. If the trash isn't acceptable to you we can discuss this guillotine instead.

[@korianderbadger]

@@JeredtheShy let me guess, better to let a marginalized person die in a car crash than give one a ticket for running a red light? ;)

[@jasonreed7522]

Smoke cigarettes is optional, driving is often mandatory because the US forgot to build a wide spread and functional transit system other than the road network. A much better solution than just taxing people do discourage them from their only option is to build the alternative first and many will switch to the more competitive option of taking a train to the downtown core of the city for work, or a short walk around the block to a grocery. (Also large swaths of single use zoning is a major problem, if 90% of your needs are a sub 15min walk then you wont be driving for everything and pedestrians are the ultimate form of short distance transit as sidewalks have the highest capacity of basically any transit form)

[@korianderbadger]

@@jasonreed7522 if I were king I would just build the alternative first, yes. But transit development is stuck in a feedback loop where no one rides it, so it doesn't get funding, so no one rides it. Congestion pricing is one way to break the cycle, and it also improves service for everyone. What if a minimum wage worker is late to work because of traffic partially caused by all the Ubereats drivers? Perhaps he would rather pay a premium for less traffic than use a less reliable but free one.

[@thepinkestpigglet7529]

I mean you can live without smoking you can't live without driving But then again change only happens when it burdens the upper class so maybe taking away their workers is the best course of action

[@paulhargrave3421]

Interesting you mention London. I've lived in or near London from pretty much when the Congestion Charge started in 2003 until last year. I own a car, I earn a reasonable wage and yet I've only paid to drive into the zone once. Obviously London has excellent public transit but the bigger price disincentive is actually parking. All day parking near where I used to work would be around £50 ($80) (seriously). And it would take longer than the train. Also the zone is only really central London and there's just no good reason for private cars to drive there.

[@jasonriddell]

my mothers job transferred to an OFFICE down town Vancouver and the monthly parking was $250 per month and it was first come first served every month so NO guarantee next month 2 zones on the SkyTrain at $80 MADE HUGE FINANCIAL sense

[@embersworkshop]

I hate driving to somewhere downtown because of parking costs, but until this comment I didn't realize that was the intent. 😅 Recently went to a professional building with tons of dedicated parking, tons of space, still always paid. Makes perfect sense for the doctors offices who see emergencies.

[@joshtruelson1535]

Remote work has proven most affective at reducing vehicle trips, but mandating hybrid or fully remote work for companies able to do is provocative. I see congestion pricing as burdening the worker. Blame bosses for revoking remote work, and put the cost of climate change on them. Charge then $8/day for requiring me to come in.

[@CityNerd]

Haha I like that

[@jasonriddell]

some industries have had HUGE productivity drops for remote work AND is hard on "newer" workers NOT having the "mentoring" of experienced team mates but yes the return to the office costs EVERYBODY a lot of money including employers paying rents ETC

[@Superchickenman159]

In Toronto, these food deliveries are always made on bike, This Skip-the-Dishes/UberEats/Doordash phenomenon is making non-recreational bike lanes attractive methinks.

[@jasonriddell]

in Winnipeg skip's home town the food is delivered by a teenager in a car - but some downtown locations have the bikes but NOT much coverage there

[@a52productions]

On doordash: I'll definitely agree that it's a bad, predatory business model with a lot of bad side effects, but it's really, really helpful when you're a hungry college student at 1 am with no car in a pavement desert. I'm not walking for 3 miles in the dark for a burger

[@AbsoluteMalarkey]

>inb4 the euros show up to talk about how they walk 10 miles every night in their sleep and the problem is americans are too fat

[@doesntreact2941]

Agreed. On the flip side, as a college student working for doordash, it was by far and away the most cost-effective work I could be doing (even with the expenses). It’s not a great business model, but it sucks when some take out their anger of that business on some poor student just trying to pay rent

[@Cinderbloom]

Actually, having that quarter of a mile delivery option is really important for a quite large amount of people in the disability community - and especially considering how poorly walkable american cities are, it is even more necessary. Not everyone can make that quarter of a mile trip, especially if it's in bad weather, and they gotta eat too.

[@joshwolf5477]

Great video as always! But as a teacher I have to issue a correction. We are paid no where near $30/hr. In fact we're probably closer to if not lower than the minimum wage worker you described.

[@HarryLovesRuth]

"Other duties as assigned" People should really look at teaching contracts before they open their pie holes. Also, tenure just means that you are guaranteed a contract for the next school year. That's it.

[@thetrainhopper8992]

Depends on where you live. I make around $30 an hour as a teacher based on my salary and work hours.

[@CityNerd]

Yikes. Honestly, “value of time” is usually pegged closer to 50% of your hourly wage, so it’s even worse. My example was just to make the general point about regressiveness, though, not to assign hard values universally!

[@HarryLovesRuth]

@@thetrainhopper8992 So you never had to chaperone a dance, work the ticket booth for a ballgame, or be present for parent/teacher conference evenings four to six times a year. When I was still teaching, the contract hours were the minimum time present in the building. Also, I taught theatre, so I was usually the last person out of the building during production. Had my own security system code and everything. (And I didn't get any additional money for that.)

[@gregessex1851]

Wow, the US doesn’t value their teachers

[@ferroledesma8858]

It's my first Wendsday here, I recently discover this Channel and I really like it. "Saludos" from Mexico

[@JustinKlinger]

Come on, man. Where you think we go to pre-game in KC? To our favorite place, the parking lot! Tailgating is a really big deal here.

[@johnshellenberg1383]

How does this channel not have at least 10x the subs? One of my faves, by far.

[@bobsykes]

Facincating assesment. Your channel has become one of my favorites.

[@BluePieNinjaTV]

I'd like to point out that your example of "anarchist" golf courses is almost exactly how public golf courses work here in Australia

[@EliStettner]

FREEDOM

[@Patrick_from_Youtube]

Great overview! We should expect transportation policy to fix transportation - not poverty and economic inequality. We need further policies and programs to tackle the latter problems.

[@jfwfreo]

Congestion pricing in places like London and Singapore work so well because they have such a good public transport system that its generally possible to get around those cities not need a car.

[@ChasmChaos]

"generally possible to get around those cities not need a car" is underselling London (and I'm sure Singapore, but I've never been there). If you need to get from point A to point B, you grab your jacket and step out of the house. You can look up the bus/train route as you are taking a 2 - 5 minute walk to the train/bus station. Price caps mean that you can roam the entirety of London for less than $9 a day (further capped to $230 a month). Americans who talk about "freedom" have no idea what freedom really means.

[@dubphotek]

Thanks for speaking to a topic close to the heart. Saw where London, a city I've been familiar with since childhood thanks to having an English mother and visiting there many times, passed this many years ago, while at the same time being a resident of San Francisco for many years when it was enacted. 20+ years later, still waiting and wondering why it still hasn't happened in SF despite my local politicians at the time (I no longer live in SF) supporting it.

[@ricardoludwig4787]

I think you can mitigate the regressive effects by just beefing up public transit, but the problem is if those alternatives won't be ready for a long time before it happens. Sure, you could use tax credits until then but the effects will really be felt by the people who need the most help. You just really need to make sure transit will be able to soak up that demand and make people's lives better for it

[@jasonriddell]

big issue is tax credits are delayed and the charges are instant and for struggling people that could be the difference between affording rent this month assuming inflation + gas prices have not already done them in

[@AliceYobby]

As someone who pays rent with delivery services since nothing else is currently available or possible to me, what sucks about what you were saying is that there’s no way in hell the companies I “work for” would fork up that payment for the drivers as they should and rush hour can unfortunately be one of the more profitable times to work. Although I do understand the harm of what I do for a living to the city I live in, i literally only drive when working, and this is what got me out of homelessness. I don’t really have a point to make here just thinking this through.

[@Frahamen]

Why not use weight classes? Smaller vehicules can be free even, but pickups and massive sized cars pays a lot more. Cargo still benefits from less delay even if they have to pay. Using weight is less unfair than using low emission zones like we have in Europe which just exclude old cars rather than big cars.

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

I agree with that! In the United States Way too many people buying SUVs and they used to buy smaller cars because some people bought SUVs seems like everybody thinks they need to buy an SUV to feel safe because they want to do what everybody else does.

[@tomdonahoe3539]

Any revenue generated by congestion pricing needs to go into improving alternative modes like more frequent (or free) transit and more complete & better connected bike lanes. Also might want to exempt vehicles like scooters that don't take up as much road space. RFID tags like they use on toll roads could be used for billing congestion charges.

[@jasonriddell]

I would like to see transit inside the congestion ring be free if NOT all of it and have a size based rate IE light electric cars lower rate then diesel pickups and mopeds being Way cheaper yet AND they can bake in a "flat rate commercial" system for trucks and vans being driven for commercial purposes LIKE delivery vehicles

[@mdhazeldine]

I live just outside the M25 (London's outer ring motorway) and I regularly have to make trips into London for work reasons. I also live near a main line train route into London (about 5 minutes walk from my house), so I regularly weigh up whether it's better to drive or take the train. If I'm going around the edges of the city, it usually works out better to drive because I can avoid the congestion charge, it's relatively direct and the parking fees aren't too high. But, the congestion charge, high parking charges and still pretty horrendous traffic in central London really make the train more appealing most of the time unless I'm carrying a lot of equipment with me (which does happen a lot as I'm a photographer). The congestion charge has definitely improved things in London, but I don't think it's expensive enough, as clearly there are many people who are still willing to pay the charge and sit in traffic just to be able to drive in their private box on wheels. I get the argument about it affecting the poor the most, but it honestly isn't a big problem if you have other good options and driving just sucks.

[@CityNerd]

Yeah, there aren’t that many US cities with good enough transit options. Some would argue not even NY.

[@denverfamily1751]

Side note-those food deliveries are not all unnecessary. My spouse is disabled and those trips are life savers. But I can see your point for many others it might be more feasible to do something else.

[@jasonriddell]

also for making side money to "stay ahead" of inflation

[@cullenpeterson]

“No bad baseball stadiums once you get in the stadium” Allow me to introduce Tropicana field.

[@gamelord12]

Door Dash's business success is baffling for me too. Like you said, they're mostly not even delivering it very far, and people could walk a few minutes and save some money. One thing I'll say though is that here in NYC, most food delivery is done on two wheels, not four. Sometimes that's a more old-school moped, sometimes it's a standing e-scooter, but usually it's a

[@danielkelly2210]

People are lazy. It's pretty much that simple.

[@CityNerd]

Yeah, it’s definitely ebike in NY. Other cities…people are driving to make food deliveries. It’s nuts.

[@knosis]

@@CityNerd yea. Like Nashville. I always wondered how the workers make money after paying for gas and car maintenance. I usually go out on my bike and pick up my own food when I order out. That way I get some exercise to make up for the trash I am about to put in my body 😂

[@jasonriddell]

I did delivery for a chicken fryer 25+ years ago and one location covered a whole town of 1/5 million people and there was a regular customer that I would WALK the order to her house (single mother with 3 very young kids)

[@jthom0027]

Love your videos. I was a bit put off by the flippant dismissal of the "grub hub" style job since I do that in my spare time. To me, its just another job no different than the service job you brought up in your first example. The far less important person on the road is the joy rider (which is rampant in the area I live in). These types should have to pay the most if a congestion tax sort of deal is ever created.

[@standardannonymousguy]

I really enjoy your ideas. I also like how you work so hard to try to help the USA understand basic fundamentals regarding how it could better itself. I also appreciate the regulatory direction regarding driving. Can you do an analysis on which states and municipalities have an "automobile idling law" in effect? Basically which places have restrictions for long long a car can just sit and idle?

[@geosophik9369]

Can't work in the US (except cities like New York) because of the huge urban sprawls. People will sue the government for predatory taxation. Non-Americans need to learn history to understand the American mentality. But regardless, bad urban design and awful public transportation make it impossible not to drive a car on any day. Grocery stores at least 2 miles away. Work more than 10 miles away. Now imagine this in the Sun Belt states in Summer (like Phoenix, 110 F). Good luck with that.

[@Lildizzle420]

we would just have to implement tolls on highways, some people might get around them but most would have to stop and pay. super commuters would pay multiple tolls a day

[@definitelynotacrab7651]

I really hope New York's congestion pricing plan doesnt get scrapped

[@TheSnahsnah]

Great video as always. Something I was expecting that you didn't touch on is the risk that drivers will "reinvest" the time saved by lower congestion to drive further, i.e. create additional sprawl. I read a paper on how time spent in traffic tends to stay constant even when average speed is increased by better infrastructure. But since it was only one paper, I am not sure if I'm missing context. I would love a video about that if you feel like you have something to say about the topic, because I found the claim quite fascinating.

[@CityNerd]

Yeah, there is a concept out there that people have a built-in tolerance for a certain travel time, and they'll calibrate where they love to that time. I don't know how solid the research is that backs that up. I'll give it some thought!

[@jasonriddell]

I recall a study that states a PROPER commute is 20 - 40 minutes shorter and you are TO CLOSE to work and further the CUMMUTE is to long and housing prices start to moderate at around 1 hour out I find assuming demand is NOT outstripping supply to much

[@jlpack62]

Congestion pricing is regressive in more than one way. If you are in the service class or the working class, you are almost assured that you have to punch a clock that's often based on times when congestion happens. Not only are these workers lower paid, they are forced to come to work when the congestion is the worst. Increasingly the white collar worker is allowed flexibility and can often avoid commuting at all. Then there are the pay lanes. In those lanes, it's the rich that pay to save time while the working class sits in traffic in the "free" ones.

[@nacoran]

The problem with a tax credit is that it sometimes misses people. I'm on disability. I saved up and finally got a new car (the old one was 26 years old). I got a Chevy Spark, but, since I didn't have a tax liability I wasn't eligible for the tax credit to get the EV version. I ended up with the manual version instead. If I'd been eligible for the credit I could have gotten the EV version for about a grand more (there is a nearby charging station). My mom had a similar problem because of the way her pension was structured when she got solar panels for her house. It would be easy enough to fix- just create a class of credit that you can get even without a tax liability... an actual payment. (I usually try to avoid peak traffic hours anyway, but can't always when I have appointments.) I'd also like to see something done that charges congestion tax based on vehicle weight. An 18 wheeler takes up a lot more space at a traffic signal, and blocks visibility a lot more than a passenger car, let alone a tiny car like my Spark. (I'd like to see some curb spaces sized for smaller cars. You can just about park two of my cars in the same space as some of the larger pickups and SUVs. There are towns that will ticket motorcycles that share a parking space- all hail the parking meter revenue stream- I mean, if you give us small car drivers a few spaces you don't fit in we can pack in tighter,... say you've got 10 spaces on a street block. Convert 3 of them for smaller vehicles into 5 spaces, or thereabout. (Obviously, you want to balance it against demand). Now, you have 12 spaces on the block. If you get the numbers right you end up making it easier to find spaces. For congestion taxes, of course, you could do something fancy with income... I know some countries impose traffic fines by income. I wouldn't mind seeing that more broadly adopted, as well as maybe some stiffer fines for bigger vehicles doing stupid things... like a formula that takes into account your actual stopping distance relative to how much you are speeding and uses that to adjust the fine (I know that if you have different classes of licences your insurance can take bigger hits for tickets, but from people in the industry it seems cops know that and will tend to try to cut truck drivers a break with no point tickets.)

[@jaredliveson1764]

Love your content! There's a high pitch buzz/hiss on this video. It's really easy to fix! In whatever you use to edit, look for an "EQ" or a "low pass filter" and turn the very highest frequencies down.!! Thanks for your work citynerd!!

[@CityNerd]

Thanks for piping up! Like 9 months into this and still haven’t figured out all the technical issues

[@GLitchesHaxandBadAudio]

I humbly ask, or rather beg of you, as a resident of the sunbelt, please tear down suburbia and sprawl in the Sunbelt cities and metropolitan areas, and the policies and projects that should be taken to prevent this ungodly ugliness from the seas of parking lots and concrete rivers called expressways.

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

Yes yes yes!!!!! I wish it was even possible to tear down suburban sprawl in the Sun Belt cities. And prevented from becoming larger.

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

also looking at a sea of Highways and spaghetti loop interchanges somehow gives me a unwholesome feeling and not a good atmosphere

[@stephenlee5929]

Hi, London Charge is per day (not sure if most are) so the delivery of soggy fries makes sense, since the driver only pays for the 1 entry per day. Alternatives could be based on mileage or time, but require much more intrusive data collection. Your calculations suggest not taking the car for a journey affects only that journey, whereas it probably affects the whole day, maybe the next and in the UK involves a cost for parking also..

[@jasonriddell]

interesting I thought (no research) that it would be like a toll road where EVERY time you pass the line you pay so it is the same rate to go and pick up a parcel OR to deliver skip the dishes ALL day

[@TheSpiffyNeoStar]

big thing about freight trucks paying congestion fees is that it's a lot fairer (and is better) to get the big shipping chains to pay, but what is likely to happen in the US is that the individual drivers would have to pay and wouldn't be reimbursed by their company, or whoever hired them. There'd probably have to be a companion law that for deliveries/pickups within the congestion fare zone, drivers are always allowed to get the fee/toll reimbursed by their company/employer.

[@CityNerd]

Yeah, none of this is simple, is it!

[@JohnCastro]

Not sure about New York but in the DC metro area we have express lanes on some highways that charge tolls that fluctuate based on congestion, so you have the option of taking the non-express lanes for free at every time of the day and risking traffic or taking the express lanes and will basically never sit in traffic but it may cost you well in excess of $20 depending on how congested the regular lanes are and how far you want to go

[@peterrassolov1979]

Starting around 6:00 you're starting to link value of drivers' time to hourly work compensation. The trouble with this type of analysis is it's the same as what prompts highway expansionists to claim, "this widening will save $X billion per year in time saved" and it's usually a major overestimate. IIRC drivers' willingness to pay tolls for shorter travel is typically closer to $3 per hour. As for me, I'm more than willing to pay $3 (or perhaps even more) to take the train instead of driving in a city.

[@JustinKlinger]

I'm all for equity but in this case the goal is to get cars off the roads, so you're just going to need to make a bunch of people unwilling to pay that toll. A congestion charge only makes sense if there are viable alternatives to driving in the first place, so use of the road can already be considered a luxury anyway. If you use most of the funds on improving public transit, then you will also help all those people who already can't afford to drive and are forced to use transit. Sounds like a win for equity to me.

[@conradbielicki774]

it's not as regressive as funding road development for cars, considering the mininum wage employees often cant afford a vehicle in the first place

[@CityNerd]

Depends where you are. In a lot of western US cities (this is where my perspective is coming from), minimum wage employees can't afford to live in a transit-rich location, and it's "cheaper" for them to live in a transit desert and own a relatively inexpensive car.

[@conradbielicki774]

@@CityNerd I'm from Canada and our ridiculous insurance prices are a big factor in my perspective. I don't know about the states but our used vehicle market has also been out of control since the chip shortage

[@conradbielicki774]

love the videos btw if that doesn't come across in my comment tone

[@sblack53]

On Doordash etc: many larger and more dense cities (including NYC and TO) have bike couriers delivering food.

[@keefers84]

Fantastic video- You do a great job of explaining complex topics in a simple way. Thank you so much. I would like to see more videos about congestion pricing. Maybe some success stories of cities that have implemented it and how it affected travel times, or if there was a measurable impact on freight prices. It would be cool to hear your thoughts on what a congestion pricing framework would look like in the US. For example, what if the federal government allowed cities to implement congestion pricing on sections of interstates that run through cities? Houston or Atlanta and a lot of other cities seem like they could benefit from this. Would love to hear more from you on this topic!

[@jasonriddell]

as an extension what is the transit like INSIDE the tax ring VS outside the ring and what numbers of JOBS relocated to be outside the tax ring IE moving the congestion to a NEW area

[@robjohnson3446]

Manhattan resident here! Here's the thing your analysis misses: Not everyone owns a car and car ownership largely maps to income. Specifically in New York City, poorer people are significantly less likely to own cars and extremely unlikely to commute to the Manhattan congestion zone by car! Lower income residents seldom drive to work. Yes there are anecdotes, but that's all they are - edge cases that should not drive policy. To take it back to your mathematical analysis: your chart showing various types of commuters ranked by salary should have at least one more spot below the lowly service worker/car commuter - it needs a lowly service worker bus commuter! The second you include that line in your chart the equity problem largely is largely solved by congestion pricing. For bus commuters the reduction in congestion equates to more time "for free" via a shorter and more reliable commute. The implementation of Congestion Pricing within New York brings Subway and Train commuters in to the equation too by virtue of funneling the proceeds of Congestion Pricing back into the MTA. Car culture has a tendency of erasing the existence of anyone who does not own or use cars as their primary means of transport - that's how the "equity argument against congestion pricing" is built. By excluding everyone but drivers, there's a clear penalty on the driver who can't afford the new toll, and this person is likely the poorest driver of the bunch. But that's not the whole picture! By including "everyone else" in the analysis you can quickly conclude that congestion pricing has a strong equitable impact as most non-drivers end up with clear positive benefits. In a place like Manhattan, where "everyone else" constitutes a sizeable majority, the argument is strong enough that we just might be able to pull off a congestion zone! I'm here for it!

[@ivanoffw]

I am glad that you finally did a video on congestion pricing. The best class I took at University was taught by an economist about transportation. If we can get people over the idea that an automobile is a necessity, and give people more choices besides an infrequent bus or train they might have to drive to, we could really reduce taxes for cities if they can reduce their streets to three lane (one in each direction and a left turn median), road maintenance costs would decrease, and if charge was not only based on time of day, but weight of vehicle per axle and amount of air pollution, then cities would become more enjoyable to live in. Maybe with the right congestion pricing, cities might have to come up with a way to deal with the congestion of pedestrians, which I think most cities and business owners would like to have as a problem. I am glad that you pointed out that just about everything about living in a Capitalist economy is regressive.

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

Yes heavy trucks tear up the roads the most and require more tax dollars for maintenance.

[@jasonriddell]

I like the weight approach as it would drive light car and motorcycle usage and even at that level the infrastructure demands will be lower

[@magichourai]

I'd love if you did a video comparing various schemes to reduce congestion/climate change, including license plate schemes in Beijing/Shanghai

[@macro_concepts]

Been to Kauffman and Arrowhead a handful of times. It is an absolute nightmare. One thing you left out is how far away it is from literally anything worth doing - the Denny's and Taco Bell don't do it justice. You go to the stadium, tailgate, and then go home (or go out, miles and miles away, often downtown). We have had proposals for a downtown ballpark many times, and they always lose because of the parking situation.. in your words, they're so close to getting the point.

[@abenm613]

Beginning today, it actually does!

[@martygp1794]

This is an verry interesting topic. Here in Belgium and also true in The Netherlands, they tried many times to implement a congestion charge over the whole country in order to reduce emissions and the many congestions occuring here. But they always fail as it is also here a controversial topic, every mobility expert and a lot of industrial buisnesses is in favour but the political parties are afraid of losing vote's so it never happenes. They argue that it overcharges the poor and that public transport is not good enough to implement it in rural area's, at the same time they keep cutting costs on local rural public transport and making it worse (this is for Belgium). In Belgium they did put a congestion charge on trucks since 2016 but they are not happy ofc cause they want it for cars aswell. And normally this year Brussel will have one aswell implemented but Flanders and Wallonia (the 2 other regions) are furious cause a lot of there citizens work in Brussel and so they are being "double charged". Eventough it's not true, even a court ruling said so. I hope it will get fully implemented as it is now completely silent about it for a year now. So it is still very hard to roll this program out, even in Europe

[@rothjoseph]

On a similar topic, can you talk about combination HOV / Toll lanes? E.g., US 36 between Boulder and Denver. I think you can view them as either (1) a toll lane that becomes free if you have 3 people in your vehicle or (2) an HOV lane that you can pay $7.15 to get ahead of all the other single car users. To me, this feels more like a pay-to-win scenario than congestion pricing.

[@CityNerd]

HOT lanes (high occupancy/toll lanes) aka Lexus Lanes? Haha, I don't have that on my list. You do see it in several metro areas!

[@rothjoseph]

@@CityNerd Thanks for giving me the official name(s).

[@vincewhite5087]

Many of my relatives that lived in LA, their whole life revolved around traffic on freeway.

[@fszocelotl]

The key point of all this is in the implementation, It has to be thought thoroughly. It could be an inconvenience for residents of the congestion pricing area, unless they have a way to reduce their driving / commuting costs. As you have pointed in many of your videos regarding the way U.S. cities are built, the central highway ring would be the delimiting area and the same highways can be the delimiting ring for the congestion delimiting area. It may be counterproductive in low highway mileage cities (I felt wrong not writing "kilometerage")... Unless there's an extensive transit network to complement the measure. Kudos for the good weekly content. * Edit * corrections on writing.

[@jasonriddell]

and there are people that had to "drive to qualify" for there mortgage and are in an outer suburb with bad transit at best also I wonder about "reverse commuters" live inside and commute out of the zone OR if the catchment is large enough having people totally inside the zone for both work AND living and ONLY paying to leave to go shopping

[@jimd1989]

A bit tangential: I've seen these types of analyses before where the value of ones time is tied to hourly wages in traffic engineering, but isn't there something bizarre about this analysis? They always claim that if a new road expansion will save X hours per commute for Y commuters per day each way with average hourly wage Z and with N work days per year, then that project will generate 2*N*X*Y*Z per year. But given the choice to save a few minutes per day on their commute, most people would not increase their work hours (which are typically employer-dictated anyway), instead budgeting it as free time. Free time and work time are surely not valued the same, though how they compare differs for everyone. Even we claim it is generating "overall economic value" rather than actual money in the pockets of motorists, it still doesn't make sense since wages and economic productivity are often quite different. Not to mention, for the high wage-earners in skilled labor positions, we know that additional productivity sharply decreases above a certain number of hours per week; any additional time added would be the least productive time and the hourly wage presumably "represents" the value of a typical hour, not of an additional hour at minimum productivity. I get that this analysis is good enough just to demonstrate the qualitative claim that congestion pricing is regressive, but do the numbers actually reflect the real world in any practical way? Does it have any empirical value when looking at actual road construction and policy changes? Or is it just traffic engineers' way of dowsing for new road projects?

[@clobberelladoesntreadcomme9920]

Charles Mahon has a section about this in Confessions of a Recovering Traffic Engineer, basically the more people need money the more time they are willing to trade for it. A minimum wage worker might just eat that 20 minutes of wasted time in traffic rather than spend $20 extra dollars to get away from it.

[@340Hz]

Apropos the different valuations of free time and work time, here's a quote from David Kadavy's "Mind Management, Not Time Management": "We have the gall to refer to unused time as "free" time. Do we call our unused money "free" money? No! Ironic, in a world where "time is money". Time is apparently money when your boss is using it, yet somehow it's "free" time when it's leftover for you to use."

[@CityNerd]

Excellent comment. I actually have a whole different video topic in mind to talk about the concept and theories of "value of time" -- it's that big of a topic. I didn't want to get into it here, but I believe in transportation modeling travel time is often valued at something more like 50% of imputed hourly wage, not the 100% I sort of illustrated in the video. I was going for simplicity just to make the point about regressiveness, of course. And I included the part about different trip purposes at the end to make a larger point about the very different valuation the same person might make on different trips -- which kind of defeats the "value of time" framing. Thanks for giving me your thoughts on this!

[@jimd1989]

@@CityNerd It looks like they do generally use a 50% fudge factor in these analyses as you say. As a physicist, I really dislike models like this where a difficult-to-measure quantity of interest (value of time) is replaced by the simplest thing you can find with the same units and the right order of magnitude (wages). What you were getting at near the end where the same individual might value different trips/time differently is surely closer to the right way to think about it, but also completely intractable at the scale of a population. We often see this kind of model when we work with people from e.g. mechanical engineering or materials science. Sometimes they work reasonably well, sometimes not, but almost always they require some kind of calibration to real empirical data. Without that, my inclination is to be very skeptical that the numbers that come out of the model actually mean anything or should be taken seriously by policy makers. (I'd also hope that policy makers look beyond the top-line numbers and see who is paying and who is benefiting, but at least for transportation policy in the US I'm not sure they always do.) That said, social sciences are harder so maybe it's just the best you can do. I look forward to hearing your thoughts in another context in the future!

[@jasonriddell]

@@CityNerd I have always had an issue with "my time is valuable" yet sitting in a car in traffic IS valuable time?? I agree that the value of time is a variable kids birthday is WAY more valuable then $20 per hour sitting in a dead end cubicle but does NOT PAY life's bills so we "sell out" to pay our bills

[@kibbee890]

To have congestion pricing you have to have viable options for public transit, cycling, walking, etc. If you have no viable options other than cars, then you are basically charging a fee without giving the option for not paying it. This is the issue in a lot of North American cities. Also, aren't parking fees a kind of congestion charge? Sure, you only pay them when you park, and not if you are driving through, but a large number of trips do require parking, which does work as a price signal for people to use other transportation methods.

[@jasonriddell]

And parking can be worth more then the retail space / housing space in places like Manhattan

[@robmarney]

The Washington, DC toll lanes use dynamic congestion prices that reveal just how hard the problem is. A $3 trip in off-peak hours is $30 or more during peak hours, and north of $60 during a snowstorm.

[@michaelng2923]

Before implementing congestion pricing in NYC, all the transportation agencies should fix their tolling schedules on bridges and tunnels to incentivize avoiding Manhattan. Currently the exact opposite is true. I commute daily between western Queens and the Bronx. Rather than travel directly between the two boroughs on I-278 using the RFK Bridge, which has a toll of about $7 one-way, I take the Queensboro Bridge into Manhattan and the Willis Avenue Bridge into the Bronx, both having no tolls. When I go visit family in South Jersey, it would be more direct to take the BQE to Brooklyn, cross the Verrazano Bridge into Staten Island ($7 toll one-way), and take the Goethals Bridge to New Jersey ($0 toll westbound). But instead, I am incentivized to cross the Williamsburg Bridge into lower Manhattan for a $0 toll and take the Holland Tunnel to NJ ($0 toll westbound). If NYC DOT, MTA, and PANYNJ would just coordinate their tolls better so avoiding Manhattan was at least equal to staying on the BQE, it would probably reduce congestion in Manhattan without implementing controversial congestion pricing.

[@saxmanb777]

Just curious. How much longer or shorter are your drives based what you described on average vs taking the free vs tolled routes. I’m always curious about this stuff around NYC.

[@peterpabian]

The problem here is that we took away a lane on the BQE in both directions and the SIE absolutely cant handle any more volume. Even if/when they bring back that third lane on the cantilever and they finally complete the HOV lane on the SIE all the way to the Goethals, it's probably questionable if that route would be viable considering how much volume you're shifting (we haven't even mentioned the Cross Bronx). But I do agree that we have to rationalize our tolling somehow, because of exactly what you said. This is true now even more so since they made the Verrazzano toll two-way; all it does is dump all the traffic on Canal Street eastbound. It's also completely unfair that Staten Islanders have such a heavy discount on all their crossings. The problem at the end of the day is that we're far too dense and have far too little transit / rail that actually gets people to where they're going in a competing amount of time and comfort at a reasonable price. And a government that's entirely hostile to remote work since, you know, capitalism and property values.

[@haweater1555]

My brother took the 407 toll highway once, not regularly used. The economics for the worst case scenario, just one short trip and no others that month were breathtaking. From one exit to another, driving time 10 minutes. The toll by distance, peak rate, also added on the camera fee for no transponder, "account fee" for making at least one trip this month, additional fee for mailing out bill plus taxes, came to nearly $20 CDN. So they essentially charged over $100/hour for the privilege of driving.

[@ficus3929]

I’m very concerned about implementing congestion pricing in cities with inadequate transit. In some cases transit can take 3-4x longer door to door. In my opinion there needs to be a minimum baseline of high quality transit (or other alternatives) before we can talk about congestion pricing.

[@AbsoluteMalarkey]

I completely agree. Congestion pricing should be used where it is necessary (cities with congestion issues and plenty of public transit capacity in the right places) and not where it is not (cities with inadequate or nonexistent transit). Unfortunately, that second group is much larger here in the US, so when I start to hear arguments outlined for how it's kind of crazy we can use roads for free, it feels like the perspective has been lost. Sure, you can view it that way, but if there is no alternative to driving, the poor people who can't afford congestion pricing just can't do things there. Most American cities still have a way to go in terms of building public transit infrastructure, and that should be the focus. If there's a city where the transit is underused, that's where congestion pricing fits in.

[@mdhazeldine]

Yeah, congestion pricing when there are no decent alternatives is just a tax on the poor. Build the transit first, then use congestion pricing to force people to use the transit.

[@_yak]

I understand the concern but I disagree. Congestion pricing should be implemented anywhere there is congestion. As mentioned, people can be made whole through a tax rebate or even cash transfer. At the end of the day, those who can afford it will pay in to a fund that should be used to improve the overall transit system. Those who cannot afford but have no other option should see a net zero change when they receive a rebate. And those who cannot afford it but have other options will be better off when they receive the rebate, find a cheaper alternative, and free up capacity on the roadways for others.

[@mdhazeldine]

@@_yak If a fair rebate existed, then yes I could see the sense it, but the trouble is, if you don't provide alternatives all a congestion charge does is act as a tax on road use, it doesn't actually reduce congestion because those drivers have no other choices. The only reason to do what you propose in my head is if the money raised directly goes into providing better public transport so that, in the future, people have more alternative options.

[@_yak]

@@mdhazeldine Where we may disagree is that road use is something I do think should be taxed, so I'm fine with it being a "tax on a road use". Where we do agree is that people who already struggle shouldn't be made to struggle more. Congestion pricing is a revenue source. That revenue can be used however we want, including transferring to the people who see a net loss. The remainder should be used to improve transit options. The important part is to put a price on a scarce good, road space.

[@elgreco75]

Great video as always! NYC resident here, personally I haven't heard much about congestion pricing recently. I get the feeling it will take a lot of compromise to get it going and because of that won't really be effective; thus dropped relatively shortly after. Call me a cynic but that's my opinion.

[@SwiftySanders]

They are going through and environmental review. With that said, IMO politicians always add these bureaucratic processes to what should be simple straight forward policies to avoid accountability or because they don't really want to do the job of showing leadership on issues they may not be as passionate about or they actually disagree with the public and they are trying to find the justification for doing nothing at all which is what they'd rather do many times.

[@clayton97330]

Not exactly a transportation topic, but a discussion on development planning such as Portland's infill plan and how the "sprawl cities" could implement one would be interesting.

[@leevickery4033]

Lee in Brooklyn NY says 'start congestion pricing as soon as possible' You use the street you pay for it.

[@simoneh4732]

Given the amount of toll roads in the US, it's kind of ironic that the US doesn't already have congestion pricing. Isn't free roads for everyone at all times socialism? Where is the outrage on the lack of capitalism for our roads from the right??

[@danielkelly2210]

Well, you see, “Socialism” is only bad when the wrong people benefit from it.

[@germainebell]

Miami's I-95 has had congestion pricing with their toll lanes for years. When I lived there I liked I had a choice whether to take it or not.

[@seattlegrrlie]

I really like Bellevue's toll express lanes. They're free during non-peak hours and flex pricing for how busy. It does also allow higher income people to remove themselves which adds lane capability to lower income people. That gives them less delay while not having to out of pocket the expense

[@sharpnal1]

It might be a bit more palatable if it was “revenue neutral” ie the money raised was used to directly reduce fare prices or directly returned to people in another way. Doing this makes the benefit real to people and thus a bit easier to sell

[@ChasmChaos]

Money is fungible. Once it goes into the pot, there's no way of saying which dollar paid for which expense. Congestion pricing, if implemented, will make roads better at their job (allowing people to get places). This will make commuting better for everyone - private and public vehicles. Parking requirements will go down, as will road maintenance costs. As public transit ridership increases, there will be more jobs in public transit and better services. Car-dependent systems are desperately suboptimal and it's only the collective will of the American people at sticking with such a shoddy system that's holding them back.

[@garrettmillard525]

I'm sure you already have it on the books, but you know we need a revisitation of this topic! Guess who's hosting the fundraiser for Kathy Hochul after she killed congestion pricing? You guessed it, a dealership lobby!

[@BoredSquirell]

I'm not a big fan of congestion pricing. It requires additional costs and more thechnology to implement which are not really necessary. Parking pricing is the answer. It makes absolutely no sense for on street parking to be cheaper than parking garages. Charge insanely high rates for parking and people will not use cars to go to that location. Parking minimum/maximum regulation for businesses, and parking charges are easier to enforce than charging each car for entering a cartain area. Edit: Generally speaking any policy is more efective when done in a roundabout way, than through a direct enforcement. There is just something about second order effects that is more permanent.

[@CityNerd]

Yup, that’s one of the options

[@jandraelune1]

Congestion pricing only makes sense in areas that have effective public/mass transit options that are cheaper than driving a single occupant car.

[@leonb2637]

You already have a congestion charge with the large tolls on all tunnels and bridges from NJ to NYC but limited between Queens/Brooklyn/Bronx and Manhattan. One often proposed idea is to have tolls on all bridges connecting Manhattan and the other boroughs. One opposition group to CC's are taxi and car service vehicles, there would have congestion charges for 24 hour periods with in/out ability or exempt. NYC has also ended much of the free parking on the streets in midtown/lower Manhattan that encouraged many to drive. Many who drive in to Manhattan do so as mass transit it too far, takes too long or work off times (building maintenance, police, firefighters). Many may live in locations distant in mileage or time to mass transit connections. You have people who live in midtown/lower Manhattan who own cars and if rich, what is a congestion charge to them, pennies to the dollars for the majority. Congestion charges, in particular for heavy deliveries could be high at peak times, low at off-peak times.

[@rrrglynn]

To me that makes no sense that taxi and ride shares would be exempt when they are creating the majority of the congestion in the first place! A private vehicle is only going from point A to B. A taxi or ride share is driving around (a significant amount of time empty) in and out round and around the city. Not to mention they double park and block lanes constantly when picking people up. They should have to pay much more than a personal vehicle if it was about congestion! You have to wonder why Uber is IN FAVOR of the current proposal in NYC. That is not a good thing.

[@MrEricSir]

I think I can explain the DoorDash business model: hidden fees for both you and the restaurant. And very soggy, sad fries.

[@enjoyslearningandtravel7957]

I like how you made the comment that if there is less congestion on the roads, that would mean faster time would be made by emergency vehicles which means a heart attack victim can get to the hospital quicker for example. I sometimes see emergency vehicles that struggle to go on the shoulder to get in between cars that can’t get over very quickly or don’t see or hear the emergency vehicle.

[@CityNerd]

There are lots of important benefits to reducing/eliminating congestion, and for emergency vehicles for sure.

[@jonathanbowers8964]

We kind of do have defacto congestion prices in Chicago and in NYC. In NYC almost all cars traveling into Manhattan have to take tunnels or bridges with tolls. In Chicago, most of the highways into downtown are toll roads. You could also argue that high parking fees greatly discourage driving in these two cities as parking in Downtown Chicago is close to $50 a day and NYC is closer to $100 a day. Granted locals can find work arounds on both these issues in many cases, but it highly discourages tourists and business visitors from considering driving into the city center to be a viable option and makes Park and Gos more reasonable.

[@elijaha773]

I seem to recall Strong Towns saying that lack of congestion caused an increase of traffic accidents during COVID. This wouldn't be a problem if our streets were designed safer. How does this factor into the congestion conversation?

[@CityNerd]

Yeah, it was a bit of an article of faith that crashes were a function of "exposure" (traffic volume), and so reducing traffic volume would reduce crashes. COVID has disabused us of some assumptions. Anyway, this is why I don't cite "reduced rashes" as a benefit of reducing congestion.

[@AlexDahl]

I like congestion pricing but unless we implement it with corresponding massive investment in building out alternatives like public transit, biking, and walkability, it will literally be just a tax that makes it harder for poor people who are already burdened by the need to own a car in so many places. You could use that money to subsidize transit, which I mean, good, but like, I highly doubt cities would actually implement it responsibly and not just use the money for something unrelated and useless. It's putting the cart before the horse, so to speak. If you create congestion pricing and everyone still needs a car it's just going to piss everyone off. Not solve anything.

[@CityNerd]

Yeah most US cities (nearly all) are NOT ready to tackle this

[@usernameryan5982]

Even without the investment in more transit, I can still be designed in a way that’s beneficial. With a refundable tax credit, poorer people can decide to spend the money at peak times if they need to, take a bus that would be massively more efficient, take an earlier time when there’s less demand and almost no charge, car pool when prices are high, or possibly change working hours to when prices are lower. Having congested roads cuts in half the productivity of the roads and gives merit to the number one argument for low density zoning, which is fear of traffic. Congestion pricing eliminates this which is good for everyone and can enable the housing sector to not be strangled by overused roads leading to lower housing costs, which more than makes up for small fees for using the roads.

[@philwoodward5069]

In London the pricing is incredibly blunt: it's just a daily charge. A delivery truck that drives around in the ULEZ all day pays exactly the same as somebody who just wants to take one trip in their diesel Nissan Note from Plumstead to Ilford, doesn't want or need to enter the ULEZ zone at all, but is left with no choice because the Woolwich Ferry is closed again for no apparent reason. It doesn't matter if the guy going to Ilford goes at 11am when the roads are quiet or at 8am when they're snarled up - he pays the same. It's not a good model. It's also incredibly regressive in the sense that, in essence, the newer and more expensive your car, the less likely you are to have to pay. So, at the moment, it's people who can't afford to replace their pre-2015 diesel cars who are worst hit, with most petrol cars being exempt from the ULEZ (for now). Exemptions from the C-charge, however, are only given to those who shell out $50,000 or so on an electric car. These more affluent drivers also avoid fuel duty, no matter how much fossil fuel is burnt generating the electricity to charge the battery. There's no disincentive for them to choose the car over walking, cycling or transit. I don't deny something needs to be done to address traffic congestion in London, but not just anything. Certainly not this.

[@michaeloreilly657]

Perhaps you would have a different perspective if you called central London your family home?

[@philwoodward5069]

@@michaeloreilly657 The perspective of a millionaire, you mean? ;-)

[@cholloway0046]

TfL are consulting now to make changes and potentially switch to smart user charging if ULEZ expands to all of London. It should help fix a lot of issues with the existing model.

[@rocjacwei]

How many minimum wage workers in NY currently drive to work? It must be a very small percentage. As long as the revenue raised goes to improve transit for low income communities, it seems that the tax would mostly take from the rich and give to the poor.

[@colormedubious4747]

To my fellow American citizens who think congestion pricing is some radical new concept here: It is NOT. It's been here for more than 4 decades in some form or another. Most famously, it's been in use since the late 1970s on DC's Metro system, where rush hour fares are higher than off-peak and weekend fares. It's used on other transit systems. It's been implemented on more than a few toll roads and toll bridges from sea to shining sea and is being implemented on more every year. It's also been or is being implemented on tolled express lanes throughout the land (even in Texas, believe it or not). It's not new.

[@CityNerd]

“Peak” fares for thee but not for me

[@colormedubious4747]

@@CityNerd Not for me, either. 🙂 When I worked on K Street after school, I commuted at weird, off-peak times to avoid the peak fares. When I visit nowadays, I buy a day pass and do the same to avoid the rush hour and tourist crowds.