I am referring, or course, to New York City's congestion pricing, which, much like London's earlier program, is a resounding success, with decreases in air pollution, noise, congestion, traffic deaths, pedestrian fatalities, and improved commute times.
Gee, hoocoodanode? (Basically anyone who saw what happened when "Red" Ken Livingstone did this same thing decades earlier.)
Surprise! A public policy initiative panned by drivers and pro-car pundits turned out to instead be a roaring success that improved traffic congestion, road safety, and even reduced pollution — a godsend not just for those living in Manhattan, but for transit riders, drivers, and outer-borough residents.
Congestion pricing is a policy which charges drivers a toll of up to $9 for using surface-roads below Manhattan’s 60th street, an area known as the Congestion Relief Zone (CRZ), which is enforced by over 1,400 license-plate cameras.
………
As a result, those who do drive or use surface-level transit like buses experience much less traffic. Over the past year, average travel speeds increased 4.5 percent in the congestion zone, while the rest of New York City experienced a 1.4 percent increase. Local bus speeds are also up noticeably, increasing 2.4 percent in the CRZ, and 0.8 percent throughout the rest of the city.
The gains haven’t just been about convenience, either. The reduced volume of cars has led to marked improvements in pollution and traffic safety for motorists, cyclists and pedestrians. It also raised more than half a billion dollars for the city’s beleaguered public transportation system.
Car centric cities are an idea that has failed.
1 comments :
I couldn't agree more that cities should be car-free. The time I've spent in car-free (or mostly car-free) cities such as Basingstoke and Venice was wonderful, and I'd like to see every city be that way.
But I wonder, is congestion pricing somewhat regressive in effect? It sounds as if the rich can afford to drive in Manhattan, while the poor might not be. No?
Post a Comment