You sir, know nothing of heroin and it's work.

Or maybe you underestimate the addiction to cars? Because I've seen plenty of both and I find the comparison apt

Migration to cities is whats causing this. When it was just black people homes you had to bulldoze to build your freeway straight to downtown there was obviously no concern. Now that people living downtown are rich and powerful they are starting to wonder why a huge chunk of prime space is reserved for storage of suburbian commuter metal boxes.

not only this, it just decreases quality of life in the downtown. You want less space for cars, less traffic, less noise, less pollution, less parking and more bike lanes, public spaces, space for outside dining on former parking places etc.

London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government above it is the national one.

Cities in the US are creatures of their respective states, and the swing votes in states are usually the suburban voters who would be most impacted by a charge like this.

—-

It also helps that TfL has a track record of delivering many miles of projects and a future expansion plan. MTA is planning on using this to keep the lights on for another five years, at which point a new source of money has to be found to pay for capital investment. (The plan is currently to bond out the future congestion revenue to pay for today’s capital investments.)

> London has it relatively easy; the only layer of government above it is the national one.

Is that actually true? I mean, are there no vestiges of England, Scotland and Wales in the UK?

Scotland and Wales have devolved governments. England does not. There is no English parliament; there are no English courts—there are English and Welsh courts; there are many English ministers but no ministers in right of England.

The once-English institutions of parliament, the crown, and its ministers became those of Great Britain first and the United Kingdom subsequently. But the remit of the UK government in devolved matters is limited in some cases to some subset of {England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland}, e.g., the first two and the fourth. Those powers are exercised qua the British government, not qua some English, English and Welsh, or English, Welsh, and Northern Irish (i.a.) government, none of which exist.

There is a body of law peculiar to England. It is administered by the English and Welsh courts, from which an appeal may lie to the UK Supreme Court or the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as the case may be.

A large exception to these remarks is the Church of England; the Churches of Ireland and Wales were disestablished in 1869 and 1914 respectively.

Yes for Scotland and Wales but not for England. The discrepancy is known as The West Lothian Question

Not really. The West Lothian Question is "why can Scots vote on English laws but not vice-versa?", which wasn't true at the time it was asked (1977), and especially isn't true now.

Firstly, note that all constituent countries elect MPs to the UK's Westminster parliament, because there are many laws that affect the entire country, and are controlled centrally.

Between 1707 and 1997 (20 years _after_ asking the question!), _all_ laws for Scotland were made in Westminster, and voted on by _all_ MPs. Laws for Scotland get their own bills because Scotland retains its own legal system. Likewise Northern Ireland, but _not_ Wales. Wales shares the same legal system as England, which is why the phrase "England and Wales" appears often.

Since Scottish devolution, certain powers were _reserved_ for Westminster, and the rest of the laws for Scotland are now made in a separately elected Scottish parliament. But there are still plenty of laws which affect Scotland, sometimes _exclusively_ affect Scotland due to the reserved powers having the ability to override choices that Scotland has made for itself. Those laws are still made in Westminster, English MPs can still vote on them and easily win, and so Scots still need representation in the Westminster parliament.

The main part of the West Lothian question, which is where there are sometimes laws that _exclusively_ affect England and Wales, why do Scottish MPs get to vote on them?, was handled by the Scottish MPs voluntarily not voting on them. They managed to do this for centuries without any formal process. Then after the 2015 election, the UK government brought in the EVEL process (English Votes for English Laws), which gave English MPs a "veto" on laws that only affected England. Since the pandemic, Westminster chose to drop EVEL, presumably because the voluntary system of Scottish MPs abstaining from voting on England-only bills worked just fine!

What's relevant for this discussion is that _London_ has an elected mayor, which makes it a special case. It has its own autonomy, within England, which supposedly doesn't have any special carve outs unlike Scotland/Wales/NI... in reality, it has quite a few: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directly_elected_mayors_in_Eng...

>The main part of the West Lothian question, which is where there are sometimes laws that _exclusively_ affect England and Wales, why do Scottish MPs get to vote on them?, was handled by the Scottish MPs voluntarily not voting on them. They managed to do this for centuries without any formal process.

Did they? Wikipedia says this:

> In establishing foundation hospitals and increasing student tuition fees in England, Scottish votes were decisive in getting the measures through.[10] The vote on foundation hospitals in November 2003 only applied to England – had the vote been restricted to English MPs then the government would have been defeated.[11] Had there been a vote by English MPs only on tuition fees in January 2004, the government would have lost because of a rebellion on their own benches.[12]

While Wikipedia does note that, I'd say those are two pretty rare examples of shenanigans out of several centuries of daily politicking.

In another case of shenanigans, it's an established procedure that if you can't physically turn up to the HoC to give your vote, you find an opponent and pair off with them, they abstain in order to give the equivalent outcome of you turning up to vote. What if they go back on their promise and vote anyway? It happened: https://theconversation.com/pairing-and-why-it-matters-in-th... - has anything been done about it? Not really.

The politics of Westminster are not in the habit of looking at every infraction and locking down process tightly. If Scottish MPs habitually voted on English-only legislation, and if it affected the outcome (which is very rare indeed as there are only 59 Scottish MPs versus 533 English MPs), there would be more concern, but as they generally don't and it generally doesn't, the formal process giving English MPs a veto on English-only legislation only lasted 5 years out of the past 316.

There's also the county government layer that cities must adhere to in addition to state/national.

London and unitary authorities don't have a county above them.

I assumed that was in the context of the US. Country governments in the US vary a lot in how powerful they are from being mostly a judicial unit or organization to being pretty powerful (e.g. parishes in Louisiana).

New York City, which is implementing this, is a bit of a weird case in that it actually sits above the counties, not below them. New York's five boroughs are technically five counties.

Hmm, depends a lot on the State.

You can generally make two generalizations about local governments in the United States: they are local governments and you can’t make any other generalizations about them because everything depends on the State and sometimes a locality’s specific circumstances.

In California, municipalities do not adhere to the counties they are in, the county is a legal subdivision of the State which might also have a charter and cities are municipal corporations with a monopoly on the land use within their cities. School districts are also a form of local government here, as are special purpose districts like BART.

In some parts of New England, and I’m not going to go into specifics because when I looked into this more than 10 years ago this had changed or some States were changing it, the State is divided into counties and the counties were divided into townships which are the basis of the New England township system. Somewhere in there, there are also cities, and Maine has a couple of severely underpopulated places designated as Plantations.

So, congestion pricing in the US: NYC, LA, San Francisco and probably Seattle absolutely have the power to this if they wanted to, although I’ll say for San Francisco that would have made a lot more sense to try before the pandemic than now, cuz now, well now downtown is dead so what would it really do? Fairly certain Boston could as well. Everywhere else, I’m less certain, like in Texas I’m fairly certain cities there could, but I’m also fairly certain the Texan legislature under their own laws has the power to step in and go “No. None of that. Shame on you.”

NYC can only do it if granted the home rule authority by the state legislature - which it has.

In general, counties are pretty weak in New York.

You see, this kind of thing is why I led with this:

"You can generally make two generalizations about local governments in the United States: they are local governments and you can’t make any other generalizations about them because everything depends on the State and sometimes a locality’s specific circumstances."

That is good intel though. I thought NY was a home rule state, but is that only for municipalities which have had home rule enabled by legislation? This table doesn't really go into that many specifics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_rule_in_the_United_States

Effectively home rule exists at the mercy of state legislation in NY due to the current legal precedents around the state constitution.

One weird NYC thing is that it is the only city I am aware of in the US that sits above the county level. The five boroughs are the five counties and mostly used for administrative management, since four of the boroughs are million plus cities in and of themselves; but the boroughs have no lawmaking powers.

In practice, there are no explicit constitutional protections for municipalities. So really, it's all states that can stomp on municipal legislation with impunity if they really felt like it. There might be a state constitution or two on the way, but those are easy to change, and many a state government is capable of either outright ignore constitutional changes brought in by voters, or do some aggressive deception in the drafting of summaries for constitutional propositions as to make them seem to do the opposite of what they really do. See a recent, pro-gerrymandering change to the Missouri constitution, which talked about independent commissions and cutting political donations, but really overrode earlier anti-gerrymandering language, and gave the governor total control over the process.

So broadly, the rights of local governments only go as far as the whims of the state government and the courts anyway, across the board.

There you go making generalizations about 50 separate sovereign entities with 50 different legislatures, constitutions and court systems independent of each other.

But yes, legislatures can change laws on a whim, which is quite a bit more of a process than when I do something on a whim. Given the half-a-hundred entities that are the subject of your comment, some variability in the laws and political processes creating different outcomes depending on their jurisdiction is an expected result.

Does the revenue go to the state of NY, NYC or the federal government? I imagine a split between all if it needed federal approval?

Current plan is for revenue to accrue to the MTA, a public benefit corporation owned by NY State.

It needs federal approval because it covers interstate crossings.

Mass migration to Statin Island, Brooklyn, and Flushing.

I've been interested in cities with rail trails and the like. For example, San Antonio with the many mile extension of the Riverwalk along the San Antonio river and Atlanta with the Belt Line have created non motorized vehicle corridors through the respective cities which have spurred incredible amounts of mixed use development for miles on each side of the walking, peddle biking pathways. The most expensive real estate butting the pathway with bars, restaurants, yoga studies in the lower levels of the new buildings and with less and less expensive real estate pushing away from the sides of the path ways out words. Rather than having concentration of wealth at a circular center, the concentration is linear which has a side effect of having lower income house available in closer proximity to the wealthy areas.

“Statin Island” is funnier than perhaps you realize!

I worked on the technical implementation of one of the London Congestion Charge contracts many years ago.

It was a huuuuuuge loss for IBM to implement, but I think their position was "we make a loss here, but then just need to do a search-and-replace for "London" to New York/Paris/Tokyo/Los Angeles and profit!" (I.e. no significant extra development). Suffice to say that didn't happen - it was built with zero customisation in mind. I personally blame it on the insistence that SAP was to be used for processing payments etc.

interesting! where did the SAP requirement originate? uk.gov not IBM?

I think it was from the client.

A huge part of of why London could pull it off is the exceptional state of the Underground. It’s not hard to wean off cars when the alternative is a clean, fast, modern train a short walk away. NYC is going to have an uphill battle getting the MTA to anywhere near that level, and the MTA itself is already leagues ahead of any other transit system in the US.

I would love to see London-tier transit in the United States, but until our bureaucracies can solve about a dozen or so hard problems, plans like this will remain all stick, no carrot.

I've taken both the Underground and the MTA and you're overstating the difference. Aesthetically, the Underground is far better, no question. But most commuters are focused on functionality. And functionally the MTA is just as good, if not better.

The trains run extremely frequently - every few minutes during the day on weekdays. The parallel local-express tracks give the MTA a big speed advantage. And the inside of the MTA trains are extremely spacious compared to the Underground.

> ”MTA trains are extremely spacious compared to the Underground”

Depends what line you’re talking about. Deep tube lines are indeed pretty small due to the narrow tubes they run in. But the sub-surface lines (District, Circle, Metropolitan, etc) are comparable to NYC subway dimensions.

And have you tried our new 200m long Elizabeth line trains?

I live in NYC, have taken the tube when I lived in London. I've also lived in other cities like Seoul, Tokyo with superior public transportation. The "aesthetics" aspect that you describe is an incredible understatement. The nearest MTA station is covered in feces and used syringes and I'm not exaggerating. Trains are constantly late. Apparently building a barrier and a gate on the platform is a 10 year, trillion dollar project. I have to put my back to a wall because I'm worried some crazy person will push me onto the track. Yeah, I wouldn't concur with the statement on MTA being so functional.

Huh, what station? I also live in NYC but haven’t seen any subway stations nearly that bad. Grimy, definitely. But never what you’re describing.

I have literally never seen a subway station “covered in feces and used syringes” - or even one single syringe in a station - in my life. How many times have you actually ridden the subway?

Have you ever visited the 155th station? Maybe you should actually try living in the city before talking. Or maybe Penn station which is next to the biggest methadone clinic in the city. If you think that I'm saying the station is literally covered from floor to ceiling with feces and syringes, then no that's not what I'm saying. But maybe you're just so comfortable with the griminess that it doesn't bother you.

I live in New York City, but no, I haven’t spent time in a random local station near Sugar Hill. Not sure why that would invalidate the rest of my experience. Penn Station is fine. Methadone is taken orally (as a drink) to treat addiction and no syringes are involved, so the methadone clinic wouldn’t have anything to do with syringes in the station.

No matter where you live, the subway elevators always pull double duty as restrooms, and I've never stepped into one without feeling that pungent scent of urine. But hey, you're absolutely right, the subway is just peachy.

> Penn Station is fine.

Yeah you either don't live in NYC, or you just have a lower standard for basic hygiene. But let's agree to disagree.

Exactly. I worked across the street for 2 years and the things I saw there on a weekly basis were interesting to say the last. My wife worked a block away for 4 years, same story.

Was also the first place I saw an extremely locked down Duane Reade where I had to ask for help to get almost any product off the shelf. Understandable, given the above.

Yup, for example, I live in Brooklyn .. an area with multi-million dollar apartments. And yet, my nearest subway station has had 2 murders in the last 2 years. And I am talking about weekday, 6~8pm timeslot on train or platform. One was a shooting the other was a stabbing.

Were they drug/crime related & therefore targeted, so "well don't worry if you aren't a drug dealer". Sure, maybe! But also, shootings frequently have bystanders hit, as for example the outdoor cafe 2 blocks from said subway did during our covid crime spike.

Does it speak to a general level of violent crime happening in/near subways - obviously yes.

Do I think the city is a mad max chaotic wasteland of death? No. Do I want my subway station that I / my wife transit through a dozen times a week to have less murder? Yes.

NYC urbanists have an incredible level of Stockholm Syndrome with this city and cannot let their guard down to admit there are problems in need of solving that are not entirely "from the left".

It’s going to kill the city. It’s just going to push businesses out at a bad time.

This doesn’t have anything to do with traffic - it’s a way to try to extract more money for the MTA. Money won’t fix the MTA’s money woes; the unions will just slurp any available cash.

I suppose you have a better idea for financing the investments, instead of congestion tax?

He's saying it's not going to finance any "investments" - the extra money is just going to the unions.

Hasn't the state also been directly taking money meant for mass transit in general for years?

Lol no. The State through various schemes has been propping up the MTA for years. The bridges and tunnels (rightly) subsidize the mass transit. The state also imposed an additional sales tax for people 100 miles away to raise more revenue.

The MTA’s woes are death from a thousand cuts.

I’d love to hear more about that. US unions seem broken in such interesting ways. Are they generally seen as a cost driver, apart from working to raise salaries and pensions?

Few ideas:

Structure the fares to charge a premium for low volume riders. Work two days a week? Pay for 5.

Collect fares.

Raise bridge tolls.

Drop construction cost drivers. Change liability laws, reduce MWBE requirements, mandated staffing levels, etc.

There’s lots of potential areas. Just politically expensive to do.

What problem would you solve by a “drive twice, pay for five” scheme?

I think that would incentivize people to drive more, not less.

The same problem that congestion pricing aims to solve - more revenue for the MTA.

I think you’re vastly overestimating how many people commute into lower manhattan via car.

If nobody is driving, why is it congested? New York City is the hub of a region that represents like a quarter of the US population. Like many other regions, you start cutting off the hub and the central business district dies.

Commuting is one aspect. Tourism. Business meetings. Medical care. I live in Queens. Getting a family member to MSK for treatment or getting a meeting in the city via public transit is a 4 hour odyssey.

End of the day, folks are gonna say “fuck it” and move to Jersey.

I’m not saying “no one is driving.” Clearly they are or there wouldn’t be such horrible gridlock in lower Manhattan. I’m just very skeptical of the claim that congestion pricing in one of the densest urban environments in the world will “kill the city.”

I work in lower manhattan (in a high-income field). I don’t know of a single coworker that drives into work. Most of my friends also work in lower Manhattan. None of them drive to work.

Many other cities have implemented congestion pricing without killing their economies.

If businesses really do require employees to drive into lower Manhattan instead of taking transit, for most profitable businesses it will not be an issue to cover the additional cost.

I feel for you in Queens. I think we should absolutely expand public transit access. But that takes money. Congestion pricing provides (at least some of) that money.

So you never use cabs or Uber?

My point is, which is definitely not being expressed well by me is that that are millions of exceptions and cost/convenience escalations that are going to impact lots of people and increase the friction and hassle of the place.

> So you never use cabs or Uber?

Rarely. Less than once a month.

I get what you’re saying, but there’s lots of friction/hassle associated with all of the cars too. Walk or bike around lower Manhattan on a weekend morning before all of the cars roll in. It’s so pleasant! No honking, no risk of getting run over at every intersection, etc. Biking especially is way better. And for those that do have to drive it’s way better and quicker for them too!

Every time someone drives into lower Manhattan they make life slightly worse for the hundreds of thousands of people that live or visit the area. I don’t want to ban cars, but I think it’s totally fine to discourage driving there.

Tourists certainly don't drive in Manhattan. They don't want to get stuck.

Isn't it easier for tourists to just take public transit instead of renting a car? You probably won't find parking next to the empire state building...

Much easier. I've only visited NYC twice, and both times I took transit into Manhattan. The first time, on my way out of NYC, I accidentally drove over a bridge into Manhattan and it was very stressful.

> I live in Queens. Getting a family member to MSK for treatment or getting a meeting in the city via public transit is a 4 hour odyssey.

I feel like I’m going insane reading this! There is nowhere in Queens that’s more than two hours from midtown Manhattan by public transit, and pretty much everywhere besides Far Rockaway is under an hour. Do you commute by car into Manhattan every single time? Have you ever actually tried public transit? If you think it’s a “4 hour odyssey,” you’re in for a very pleasant surprise.

2 + 2 = 4.

Try taking a bus to a train then walking 6-10 blocks with a patient requiring the services of MSK. It’s difficult.

Off-peak, it takes about 20-40 minutes via car.

Commuting to the city for the daily grind is totally different. That’s what everyone thinks about - if you don’t have a conventional schedule or have a need that isn’t daily commute, your needs may be different. There are millions of trips every week like that.

Every time cities encourage people to drive less, it has immediate benefits for quality of life and health. I’d be shocked if this is more than a rounding error on the impact of telework, especially since prioritizing residents over commuters frees up a ton of real estate for desperately needed housing.

I think it's the other way around. The death of the city is when you see it as dependent on the suburbs, it places transportation and ease of access over quality of life. To see big cities thrive means increasing quality of live so that working remotely and other changes will not mean abandonment, but just an easier life inside the city because it results less traffic and more spaces for people, restaurants, cultural institutions and parks.

A conglomeration of office-towers surrounded by suburbs with major arteries leading traffic in and out is not a real city.

Makes sense for Cleveland. NYC is a different animal. It’s really a conglomeration of cities surrounded by suburbs that are bigger than most US cities.

> It’s going to kill the city. It’s just going to push businesses out at a bad time.

It's going to do the exact opposite. Every city in Europe that has implemented measure to discourage or even BAN cars in some areas has experienced positive economic outcomes. Of course, every single time people like you had predicted that it would be bad for business.

> “But, in the US, I wonder if this will cause another mass migration of people out to the suburbs ?”

If anything, I’d say the opposite is true in London. Reduced traffic levels and cleaner air are making the centre a more desirable place to be than ever. If only it were more affordable!