This is a fascinating analysis of the ripple effects from congestion pricing in downdown, and just as how congestion causes backups and jams far upstream of the affected area, reducing it and...
As they expected, the researchers determined that the $9 charge has sped up vehicle journeys into Manhattan, nudging some people who would otherwise drive at peak times to instead ride transit, drive earlier or later, or forgo the trip entirely. Because traffic thinned, those still opting to enter Manhattan by car saved roughly 83,000 hours per week, averaging around three minutes per journey, according to the NBER paper.
But drivers who never ventured into the toll zone also saved time: As a group, this cohort, including those traveling within Bergen County or from the Bronx to Brooklyn, racked up savings exceeding 461,000 hours per week. An average journey became just eight seconds faster, but because there were over 100 times more of them than Manhattan-bound trips, their aggregated savings were more than five times greater.
This is a fascinating analysis of the ripple effects from congestion pricing in downdown, and just as how congestion causes backups and jams far upstream of the affected area, reducing it and encouraging public transit has eased travel far outside the city centre.
More of this!! I never understood why this was a controversial thing (aside from gas and oil companies' profits 🙄). Nothing brings me more joy than looking up transit time and seeing that public...
More of this!! I never understood why this was a controversial thing (aside from gas and oil companies' profits 🙄).
Nothing brings me more joy than looking up transit time and seeing that public transit is shorter and cheaper than hopping in my car.
It's "controversial" because people inherently don't like being restricted on things they could freely do before, even if it's in their best interests. I really hope this brings more investigation...
It's "controversial" because people inherently don't like being restricted on things they could freely do before, even if it's in their best interests.
I really hope this brings more investigation and study on implementing this in other cities, but that "controversy" point is fuel for populist leaders. Case in point: Toronto is constantly being shit on by the provincial leadership because they are heavily catering to car driving suburbia. Its the perfect city for this program, but instead we are being forced to rip out speed cameras and defending against attacks on bike lanes all to cater to the car. Maybe someday we can develop a more accessible city that isn't gridlocked.
This is a fascinating analysis of the ripple effects from congestion pricing in downdown, and just as how congestion causes backups and jams far upstream of the affected area, reducing it and encouraging public transit has eased travel far outside the city centre.
More of this!! I never understood why this was a controversial thing (aside from gas and oil companies' profits 🙄).
Nothing brings me more joy than looking up transit time and seeing that public transit is shorter and cheaper than hopping in my car.
It's "controversial" because people inherently don't like being restricted on things they could freely do before, even if it's in their best interests.
I really hope this brings more investigation and study on implementing this in other cities, but that "controversy" point is fuel for populist leaders. Case in point: Toronto is constantly being shit on by the provincial leadership because they are heavily catering to car driving suburbia. Its the perfect city for this program, but instead we are being forced to rip out speed cameras and defending against attacks on bike lanes all to cater to the car. Maybe someday we can develop a more accessible city that isn't gridlocked.