←back to thread

Changes since congestion pricing started in New York

(www.nytimes.com)
437 points Vinnl | 2 comments | 13 May 25 10:43 UTC | HN request time: 0.404s | source
Show context
stuaxo ◴[15 May 25 07:21 UTC] No.43992625[source]▶
Hi from London:

The centre is much more pleasant to walk in, as are most places in the zone.

Pollution is much, much better: if you came to London and travelled on the underground you would have black snot when you blew your nose, this hasn't been the case for a few years now.

I hope NY gets the sake improvements.

replies(2): >>43992641 #>>43993206 #
jampekka ◴[15 May 25 09:15 UTC] No.43993206[source]▶
Travel of low-income people also declined significantly while high-income travel did not. So quite literally the London congestion pricing got the poor off the zones.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/03611981221138801

replies(2): >>43993252 #>>43994295 #
nmeofthestate ◴[15 May 25 12:26 UTC] No.43994295[source]▶
How would limiting access by adding a cost not obviously impact people differently based on their income? I'm struggling to see why this would even need to be verified by research.
replies(1): >>43994891 #
1. jampekka ◴[15 May 25 13:31 UTC] No.43994891[source]▶
What's not obvious is how strong the impact is, does it cause substitution of travel modes or just decrease in travel, how does it change when travel takes place, what share of people are those who still have to drive etc.
replies(1): >>43995245 #
2. ghaff ◴[15 May 25 14:07 UTC] No.43995245[source]▶
In general cost, travel time, difficulty of parking, etc. all affect optional travel. (And, also, just age and inclination.) I know I'm way less inclined to go into Boston/Cambridge for something in the evening for some combination of those reasons than I used to be. I can take commuter rail in for a day event but it's pretty much a non-starter for something in the evening.