←back to thread

Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

(www.nytimes.com)
437 points Vinnl | 4 comments | 13 May 25 10:43 UTC | HN request time: 0.501s | source
Show context
aynyc ◴[15 May 25 02:42 UTC] No.43991318[source]▶
As a long time NYC resident who moved out during Covid but commute to work in the city. I definitely noticed less traffic on the streets and less noise.

I see a lot of talk of other cities that don't have good public transportation. For example, between Flushing in Queens to 8th Ave in Brooklyn, there are privately run buses at affordable rate and get you there at half the time of trains. There are buses from a lot of residential areas in NJ that are closer to NYC that go to port authority (west side, 42nd st) very quickly. In fact, those buses are getting there faster and more comfortable than ever due to congestion pricing.

I'm curious, do other larger cities where commercial is concentrated into one area not have a private mini-bus(es)? I know public transportation would be great, but having a competitive environment for privately own bus services might be the answer to a lot of cities.

replies(13): >>43991570 #>>43991715 #>>43992036 #>>43992139 #>>43992155 #>>43992682 #>>43992791 #>>43993344 #>>43993368 #>>43993567 #>>43993947 #>>43993996 #>>43994810 #
PaulRobinson ◴[15 May 25 07:50 UTC] No.43992791[source]▶
A lot of the UK did this in the 1980s and it’s turned into such a disaster, most mayors and local authorities are trying to move to the London model: companies can bid a flat rate to deliver a bus service (effectively, they commit to providing drivers to deliver the timetable). TfL collects all fares. They also - I think - supply most of the buses to ensure they are of a certain standard, but the companies need to lease them, and maintain them.

This means you get private companies trying to lower costs and so costs are privatised, but the profits (if any) are socialised into a public authority.

This then allows TfL to offer system-wide passes making bus travel over all 43 boroughs cost effective.

replies(2): >>43993043 #>>43993377 #
1. Thlom ◴[15 May 25 08:38 UTC] No.43993043[source]▶
I don't know about London, but many places systems like this results in terrible working conditions for drivers. Pay is lousy, shift arrangements are in some cases insane, like work from 5:30-10:00 and then 14:00-17:00. Minimal time in between routes to go to the toilet and so on.
replies(3): >>43993287 #>>43993289 #>>44007212 #
2. Y_Y ◴[15 May 25 09:31 UTC] No.43993287[source]▶
How else are you going to lower costs?
3. Xss3 ◴[15 May 25 09:31 UTC] No.43993289[source]▶
Workers, especially drivers, have rights in the UK.
4. maeil ◴[16 May 25 16:18 UTC] No.44007212[source]▶
Yep, it does! However the net benefit to society at large - and being public transit, to the less privileged in particular - is still gigantic compared to any of the alternatives, and this is blatantly obvious if you've been in multiple countries/locations that use this system, as well as ones that don't use it. The job is generally still better than driving for e.g. Amazon, as well as honestly a whole load of 3D jobs[1] that we rather forget exist and people carry out every day, including in "wealthy" countries.

Perfect is the enemy of good. This is the #1 thing other progressives need to learn. Everything is a tradeoff.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty,_dangerous_and_demeaning