The roads coming into the city on a weekday mornings are choked with lorries and cars all trying to cross the bridges and tunnels into Manhattan.
After 9/11 the cities coffers were virtually empty.
With New York's infrastructure falling apart the city was £3 billion pounds in debt.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg quickly saw how successful London's congestion scheme was working and decided a similar congestion charge here would be the best way to rapidly raise cash.
As in London, the money would be reinvested in public transport like the subway and rail links.
Drivers crossing these 100-year old bridges and tunnels that link Manhattan with the mainland already face an $8 (£6) toll to get into New York.
The plans to introduce an additional congestion charge last April would have cost commuters another $8 - Lorries $21 - but the idea never took off.
Law makers in New York State's capital Albany were against the plan.
They believed a charge would have the potential to cause massive traffic jams outside the city and that New York's congestion problem would simply be shifted elsewhere. Where do you park 4 million cars each day?
Even New Yorkers believed that Bloomberg's plan was more about redressing budget deficits than any green environmental policy and for now it seems as though the plan has been scrapped. Tweet
Comments
Login or Register to comment
another one sided report by the MEN - when are they going to do a full page report on why london is getting rid of a chunk of its congestion charge
More-toll pusing stories from the MEN....whatever next?
So the answer to the question in the title is?????
I've already voted NO, if i hadn't yet voted, the amount of propoganda published by the MEN would certainly make me vote NO!
I think my Internet browser is broke, I appear to be missing the second half of the story?
I will finish it off for everyone....
And the moral of the story is Congestion Charging is another Stealth TAX on getting to work. New York agrees!
Love Paul (MEN's new story finisher-offerer)
Quote:
"After 9/11 the cities coffers were virtually empty.
With New York's infrastructure falling apart the city was £3 billion pounds in debt.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg quickly saw how successful London's congestion scheme was working and decided a similar congestion charge here would be the best way to rapidly raise cash. "
So we have 9/11 in the year 2001.
London introduces a Congestion Charge in 2003.
It makes £10 million profit by 2007.
This Bloomberg guy is surely a prophet and a visionary. Two years before they introduce it and a whole 6 years before it made a profit (less the millions that they lost in car park reveue) - But when he tried to sell it to City hall the gave him the brush-off, I can see why now.
How does NY handle congestion?
The answer is certainly NOT by introducing a congestion charge, which everyone involved saw as primarily aimed at raising cash.
In New York the city was for it, those further away from the city (in the rest of the state) were against it.
It's a very difficult issue to decide who has a say in these things (the people who live in the city, as it's their city; or the people who drive into the city, as they'll be paying).
Ultimately, though, New York are now still in a situation where they have a crumbling transport infrastructure in comparison to other world cities.
Dave Dave please be careful what you say.It may be perceived as a "vote yes"post and could get the MEN accused of pro bias for daring to print it.
What an interesting story~
Perhaps Peter Pan can tell us about the success of Congestion Charging in Never Never Land?
Dave Dave: New York does not have crumbling transport system. You can't just print anything to support your silly views.
what it doesnt seem to say on here is that new york already had a very impressive public transport system that just needed some improving!
manchester needs a whole lot more than that to make an impact. not upto £2.75bn!
this story like most others on here is useless and pointless and show just more biased views towards the pro groups!
im so glad i dont buy it anymore! i wont fund anything thats pro toll!
i hope others do so as well!
Bean B4 "you cant print anything to support your silly views"?
Does this include claims of unnecessary road works,traffic light sequences being changed,unnecessary detours,matrix signs being fiddled with,strategically placed lorry breakdowns,planned accidents,people being employed to drive slowly on the M60,gritters not gritting?All purported to be part of the conspiracy by the "yes" campaign to add to the congestion to further their cause , according to some posts printed by the supposedly "pro biased"MEN".Or aren't these claims silly enough?
Bean B4: in what way do you consider me saying that it is difficult to decide whether commuters or just city dwellers should get a vote a "silly view"?
I said NY had a crumbling transport infrastructure compared to other world cities - eg Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, Barcelona etc etc. You disagree with that?
The one thing that New York doesn't need is a congestion charge. Part of what make Ney York what it is is it's busyness.
The subway is packed most of the time, as is the the EL, Taxis do a very brisk business. There seema little extra capacity for mor PT.
The great thing about NY is the buzz, that is why people love it. A congestion charge would kill it.
I must admit though that I walked along Columbus avenue one morning at about 9.30 midweek and there didn't seem to be much congestion.
Don't kill NY, the greatest city in the world.
Its just a tax on people with a job. Them booklets we all received just made it seem like we will be living in Disneyland if we vote yes.
I said NY had a crumbling transport infrastructure compared to other world cities - eg Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, Barcelona etc etc. You disagree with that?
Dave Dave,
Have you been yto any of these Cities? Paris and Barcelona are small compared to New York. Berlin has a particular history of division and investment post war, with relatively recent removal of the wall, so that it cant realy be compared with any other city. Tokyo system may be good, but is stretched to the limit and is very overcrowded.
New Yorks public transport does need some improvements but yu can not just compare Cities that are so unalike in there size, history and location.
To Dave, lebist and all your friends:
We shall know the result of the vote soon enough. I don't care either way - and I'll tell you why.
A NO vote will be great because we can all forget this silyness - once we've paid off the huge bill for all the waste paper and hot air that's been produced in support of the unsupportable.
A YES vote will be great because the congestion tax will turn so many people off labour that they will hopefully lose control of the city in the next few years.
This labour council and the laughably bad labour government will ruin the city and hopefully their chance of re-election for a very long time.
I only hope the YES camp live to regret their actions.
Over a week ago I requested a ballot paper. despite being on the electrol role I seem to have been missed.Funny, anyone would think they wouldnt want my vote! Perhaps they suspect i will vote 'No'.
CityCntr - no two international cities are alike, but you can certainly still compare infrastructure - you an benchmark against each other.
You're argument is the one ministers use when people in the 'provincial' cities as why we can't have a regulated cheap bus service like in London - they say 'ah, London is a "special case", it's different, you can't compare the situation in your city to London'.
You have very low ambitions if you can't take inspiration from others.
where there is black spots for traffic it may be an idea to relocate some business, spread them out to even the load, and instead of rebuilding in the centres its a matter of spreading it out rather than cramming everything in.