The scheme has faced resistance, including from President-elect Donald Trump.

Summary

New York City has become the first U.S. city to implement a congestion charge, with car drivers paying up to $9 daily to enter areas south of Central Park.

The scheme aims to reduce traffic and fund public transport but has faced opposition, including from Donald Trump, who has vowed to overturn it.

Fees vary by vehicle type, with trucks and buses paying higher rates.

Despite legal challenges, the initiative moves forward as New York remains the world’s most congested urban area, with peak traffic speeds averaging just 11 mph.

  • partial_accumen
    14•2 days ago

    I lean towards libertarianism and I oppose congestion pricing because I think all the claimed benefits are just marketing and it’s simply a new tax. If it does improve conditions in Manhattan significantly, I’ll admit I was wrong.

    We don’t have to guess what the future holds. London has had congestion pricing for about 22 years now. Its been largely successful.

    • @[email protected]English
      -4•2 days ago

      Your article makes congestion pricing in London seem like a failure, and I would call getting those same results in New York a failure.

      • partial_accumen
        8•2 days ago

        Your article makes congestion pricing in London seem like a failure, and I would call getting those same results in New York a failure.

        You might need to work on your reading comprehension.

        It did what it was intended for decades, and recently the original symptom is present again. What you also apparently missed is the net total of people able to enter London has increased since then except they are largely served by 3x in pubic buses as well as 137% increase in bicycle use. So many many more people are being served in London today than they were back then, and the worst of the problem is only what it was about 22 years ago. That is an amazing success. Further, we have London to look at for an archetype for modifications to a plan for New York to possibly make it even better/longer lasting in New York than 20+ years. Even if we can’t, 20+ years for a fix for a problem of this scale is an amazing success.

        Your statement alone looks comically bad. I paraphrase your response as: “We have a problem today in Manhattan which has a solution in the form of congestion pricing, but that solution will potentially need to be adjusted in 20 years time. So the best option is to NOT use the solution that will buy us two decades of a fix.”

      • @fpslem
        3•2 days ago

        Yeah, to be honest, that’s a crappy article from CBS. London’s Low Emission Zone is a huge success in terms of air quality and active transportation. The city has continued to pour the revenues generated from the zone fees into its public transit system, so the iconic double-decker busses run frequently all day, and they have continued to open new train lines like the Elizabeth Line. New York has never managed that level of investment, and without the income and incentives congestion pricing creates, it won’t be able to. If anything, London still prices the LEZ too low, just like NYC has priced it too low at $9, rather than the $15 was supposed to be before Gov. Hochul’s cowardice.