Four Cities that need Congestion Pricing

Delhi – People often come to Los Angeles and shake their head solemnly at the effect that urban sprawl has had on the environment and low-income residents. They have obviously never been to Delhi. It’s a city “on its back” as Paul Theroux once said about Guatemala City, sprawled spread eagle over nearly 600 square miles. Traffic also chokes many parts of the city 24 hours a day and a pricing system that allows for commercial and military exemptions –I include auto-rickshaws under the “military” umbrella, there seems to be an army of them—would go a long way towards organizing one of the more organic cities in the world.

New York – This a little unfair since New York has already designed a congestion pricing system that would restrict access below a given street by adding a more linear version of London’s cordon system. But it got rejected by upstate lawmakers who saw it as a tax on their commuter-based constituency. Not to worry though, NYCDOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan has a way of convincing policy-makers and the public that a progressive transportation edict is one of the best ways to improve health and safety citywide. And if she can’t, she has the blessing of Mayor Bloomberg to use more aggressive tactics in a Robert Moses kind of way.

Bangkok and Säo Paulo- I’m pairing these two cities because I have experience in the former and have never been to the latter but tend to hear that the traffic issues are similar in scope and severity. The sheer road capacity problem in these cities also make them a decent conceptual match; they are not Los Angeles or Shanghai where excess demand can be met, temporarily, with increasing supply on an apparently never ending scale.

This is where congestion pricing gets tricky. If congestion is endemic to a city’s transportation outlook then the potential traffic alleviation can be negated by the volume of cars, unless you take the severe step of charging a toll that only the very affluent can afford which would also make traffic that much worse on incoming arterials where traffic is already choking off access. It’s an issue that no one wants to touch –the very rich bypass the traffic in Säo Paulo by taking a helicopter to the city center—but there’s no doubt that the problem will begin to cripple city economies without a gutsy traffic planning move.

Enjoyed this post? Read its companion: Five Cities with Congestion Pricing.

Images courtesy of satellite360, carthesian and Paul Trafford on flickr

 

  • http://twitter.com/John_Dantas John Dantas

    The problem in Sao Paulo is all about transportation policy. Most politicians in the government of the city and of the State fo Sao Paulo still thinks that car is an efficient mean of transportation (or do nothing to change this situation), and considering a metropolitan area with more than 20 million people that is such an insane idea. Well guys, I don’t know if you have heard about the construction of 3 more lanes in our busiest highway. Anyway, things like that project shows how anachronistic or lazzy our governors are.

  • http://twitter.com/omAthos Oscar Montoya J

    I’d would add to this list, Bogotá-Columbia, where congestion is currently at its worst peak in the city’s history, lack of planning, weak policies, corruption, citizens’ poor common sense and local leaders currently lacking the will to really put their hands into the real dough… Shallow and weak policies in the past have increased the issue.

  • Anonymous

    You really need to check the facts out when it comes to NYC.  The facts, legislators from NYC opposed.  Also from Long Island.  It was not just upstate.  Legislators outside Manhattan — NYC has five boroughs for anyone unknowing, refused to buy in to a scheme that would realize no NET revenue and failed to address congestion.  Check out http://www.keepnycfree.com for more information.  

  • Resolveit123

    Did you happen to see all the yellow cabs in the Time Square  picture! You don’t need congestion pricing! Get the rich people out of their cabs and return the streets to the middle class driver! Thanks! But not thanks to a congestion tax!

  • stevenm

    People naturally move away from congestion based pricing by not travelling
    to them.It would only serve to “ghost town ” the area in question totally
    defeating the purpose of making an  incentive to go to those regressive tax
    areas.To supplant loss of revenue then the locality would have to make
    purchasing items tax free ; so it goes government that involvement in
    policy  to make consumers choices for them fight against it if given a choice.
    Suburbs would greatly benefit from a downtown or city travel per mile travel
    tax.

    • http://www.thisbigcity.net/ Joe Peach

      Interesting response. You view seems almost entirely based on the assumption that people in cities get around in cars. ‘People’ don’t naturally move away from areas with congestion pricing, ‘people in cars’ do. That is largely the point. And a ghost town is a city with less cars? Why would 20% less cars make it a ghost town? Are cars the only way of bringing people to an area?!

      Your assumption that cars = revenue is false. Time and again we have seen research conclude that pedestrians and cyclists spend more than people in cars. And the economic issues you mention have simply not happened in many cities with congestion pricing. London has benefitted economically from its congestion pricing, because more people use public transport and journey times have been reduced.