Congestion Pricing

 This little article, concisely summing up that congestion pricing looks like it has really really worked in New York, and suggesting that perhaps, just maybe, it might be worth trying in other US cities (like, as the title of that blog suggests, San Francisco), sparked a couple of points in my mind.

1. Congestion Pricing Is Good

OK, let me start with the obvious: congestion pricing does seem to work, and I like the results. For those who might think it is overly aggressive, there are still enough cars in NYC (and London, and other cities that use congestion pricing) that you can't really say that people aren't driving; they're just only driving when they actually need to, and a lot of those trips are going non-car modes. But there are still cars!

See? It's not a no-car-zone, just a congestion pricing zone because there were so many cars there before. 

That means congestion pricing works on both its axes: reducing car use and raising funds, which in NYC are being used for transit investment. This ensures both that people can use non-car modes when they need to, and that fewer cars are on the roads--a win-win, frankly.

2. Good Downtowns Are Better With Fewer Cars

Note that in neither London nor NYC are congestion zones covering the whole metro area, or even the whole legal entity of the city (well, other than the tiny, square-mile "City of London"). Rather, they cover the most downtown portions--technically, the car in the above picture isn't even in the congestion zone (it will be if it goes straight through the intersection past the British Library though, as the zone starts south of Euston Road). NYC's is only Manhattan, not the Bronx, Queens, Brooklyn, or Staten Island (let alone the very dense suburbs). 

So when we're talking congestion charges right now, we're talking the most downtown-y parts of these big cities. These cities already have great downtowns. They're already spaces you can walk, bike, transit, etc. to and through, without a car. The congestion charge just makes it more likely that people will do that. 

Pictured: a non-car way to transit Manhattan.

The reduction in cars in these spaces is a positive, but we can't just throw a congestion charge at every downtown because not all downtowns are set up to allow this. Doing this to downtown Davenport would just piss people off and make them park one block outside the congestion area. In NYC and London, they can leave the car at home in the first place, in many cases. 

In New York, at least during decent weather, you can expect a whole host of people walking around anyway--that's a good sign of a place where this kind of charge might work.

(It certainly could be expanded in London, as this Camden Town picture might suggest).

So congestion charging is the sort of thing that can make a good space better--which makes it a good candidate for places like SF, Boston, Toronto, etc., even if not for all cities.

3. It's A Virtuous Cycle

All of this means that congestion charging is part of a virtuous cycle of encouraging non-car modes of transportation, rather than a panacea itself. 

Build transit, bike lanes, and walkable spaces->reduce car use->improve other options->further reduce car use.

Amsterdam, for instance, doesn't have this--those cars above don't pay to be in downtown. It has a low emissions zone (as London also does, which is much, much bigger than the congestion zone) but it doesn't need a congestion charge specifically because it's done other things to cycle down car usage in the inner city.

Bikes, local trains, metro, trams, walking: they don't need a congestion charge to work. They can be supercharged by one, but they can function to reduce driving on their own.

So while I love congestion charging, I think in the US cities that aren't NYC could mostly benefit from working on the earlier part of that virtuous cycle--with a few exceptions (SF and Boston perhaps most significant of those). I'm not opposed to it in big cities--I like it!--but outside of a few cities we're not there yet.