London's traffic congestion tax coming to a city near you...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Give it time. LA's downtown traffic is already a nightmare yet they're talking about tripling or even quadrupling the population of downtown in the next decade. They're busy converting old factories and warehouses from the 20's through 50's into chic new urban lofts plus they're putting up highrise apartment complexes like no tomorrow. In California it has become all the rage to abandon the suburb and become a trendy urban dweller.

With the congestion this population increase brings can congrestion charges be far behind?

Looking at LA's mass transit system... yes.

As said before (by... someone) for this to work, you need a comprehensive mass transit system. You can't charge the tax and then say, oh we are going to invest in mass transit. Maybe in 10 years we'll be ok, but the people now... well, you are screwed.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


Looking at LA's mass transit system... yes.

As said before (by... someone) for this to work, you need a comprehensive mass transit system. You can't charge the tax and then say, oh we are going to invest in mass transit. Maybe in 10 years we'll be ok, but the people now... well, you are screwed.

I wonder who said that.

BTW in places like LA I could see a congestion charge being sold as a way to raise funds to rebuild the trolley network or expand the new subway system. BTW in that last 10-15 years LA has built a small light rail system which isn't enough to meet current demand much less future demand but they really are trying since they've built light rail, built a new subway, and changed zoning laws to bring people back to live downtown instead of commuting from the suburbs.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I wonder who said that.

Az, actually.

[DanS]

Originally posted by Oerdin
BTW in places like LA I could see a congestion charge being sold as a way to raise funds to rebuild the trolley network or expand the new subway system.

That's where I see danger. Rather than a means of reducing congestion in private transportation, the tax may be seen as a cash cow for public transportation.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by DanS
That's where I see danger. Rather than a means of reducing congestion in private transportation, the tax may be seen as a cash cow for public transportation.

Cash cows that pay for a useful purpose

[GePap]

Originally posted by Adam Smith
Improved technology has allowed more jurisdictions to try congestion pricing plans. If NYC simply charged people for crossing the East River bridges and tunnels into Manhattan during daytime, that alone would probably improve matters greatly. (Though the article said that would be politically infeasible. Anybody know why?)

Because most travelers on the East River crossings are NYC residents, voters in Queens, Brooklyn, and Staten Island, while those using the Hudson River crossings are not NYC residents, and thus can't vote for mayor or City Council.

Given the general thought that NYC government is Manhattan centric and residents in the Outer Boroughs are somehow second class citizens, these same people would probably not appreciate having to pay for the "privilage" of going into Manhattan. Thus pols in Queens and Brooklyn (where 50% of the pop. of NYC lives) are dead set against the idea. And no mayor is stupid enough to get those voters angry.

[Az]

Cash cows that pay for a useful purpose

Especially not in this case. Transportation is never a goal, always a means to an end - thus, looking at it and solving it's problems must always be done in an almost purely economical manner. The subsidy to public transport and the taxation of the private transport must be only the rectification of the externalization of costs in private transport, such as various forms of pollution. This being said, zoning and land allocation should be directed in a way that will make public transport viable - public transport not being the goal here, of course, but more of a gauge of correct urban planning.