Aside from the points others have made that the congestion charge introduced by the mayor of the large urban area of London which covers the whole of central London[1] doesn't really have anything to do with the City of London boundaries or administration, I don't think "it's not well known in America" justifies the use of "secret"

The jurisdictions of San Mateo and Santa Clara aren't particularly well known in the UK but I'd still think any journalist referring to them as "secret" was being ludicrously hyperbolic...

[1]an area with approximately 17x the population of the City of London, and I suspect the ULEZ emissions charge which now covers all 9 million London residents also gets dragged into the US debate...

I never said anything about it being a "secret", nor did I even use the word.

You seem to be having an argument with the title of the piece, not with me.

The London congestion charge is a much larger area than the City

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge/congestio...

It's a fraction by area, but it's by far the densest and busiest part of the city. Comparisons to half of Manhattan are not unwarranted.

Only if you don't know anything about Manhattan other than "density".

The now-canceled project would have affected, at a minimum, about 10% of New York's entire resident population (~800k). A lot of New Yorkers actually live in Manhattan south of 60th. That's part of why it's dense.

A more reasonable comparison to the current London congestion area would be midtown -- the small area in the middle of Manhattan with the obvious skyscrapers, as well as Times Square, theaters, throngs of tourists, and the bulk of finance.

It's not canceled. They paused the plan.

It’s about 8 square miles - in Manhattan that would be about the area below 42nd street

You can't compare land areas directly. London is twice the size of New York. Population density, land uses, etc. are completely different.

For example, only about 140k people [1] live in the London area. Easily 800k live in the Manhattan area, and probably more (population density is higher on the lower half of the island, due to things like Central Park).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge#Prese...

So higher density means fewer cars per person and more reason to have a congestion charge

You're quibbling. The portion covered by the congestion charges is a tiny, tiny portion of the whole of London, comprising mostly business and entertainment areas.

The point I am making is that Americans use the naming confusion to draw the fundamentally misleading comparison.

The congestion charge in London has absolutely nothing to do with the City.

Yes the City of London has a population of around 10,000 but employs nearly 1 million by some estimates since the legal and financial capitals exist within it.

So, it's midtown Manhattan, which is a small portion of the area NYC proposed to meter.

What are you talking about the London congestion charge is analogous to the NYC one, covering the core central business district.

Residents would largely not have to pay, if they follow the London model. The London congestion zone covers ~150K residents, but above 1 million commuters, not counting trade and tourists.

Sensible, but unfortunately, that's not how it was going to work in NYC. Any car entering the zone below 60th would be covered, regardless of residency. Taxis, ride shares, deliveries, etc., were all covered as well.

The area in NYC was little more than a new tax on residents, disguised as congestion pricing. I'd personally have little problem with a fee that made carve-outs for the people who actually live here (and I say that as someone who doesn't own a car).

Thanks for the numbers on residents in the London area.

You’re just wrong. I live in NYC right next to the congestion zone and it would affect me greatly. I also have lived temporarily in London with a car. They’re very much similar plans.

You clearly don’t like the NYC one which is fine, but that wasn’t the topic.

As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things.

Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highways were exempted. So you very much could transit the area, or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate or the Battery Tunnel to Washington Heights, for example.

I live in the congestion zone. It would affect me greatly, even though I don't own a car. That's my point. Nothing you've written addresses that point.

> As for the NYC one it’s a fee for using a car, not a tax on residents. Those are two different things.

Any fee on car traffic in the zone that does not exclude residents, is de facto, a tax on residents. Even if you never ever ever take a taxi or ride in a car, the billion dollars in projected annual revenues don't just magically disappear because they're being paid by the people who deliver the goods you need for daily existence, the businesses where you shop, or the services you utilize. They get passed down to you, in the form of higher prices.

This is basic economics.

> Also you’re factually wrong, as the east/west side highways were exempted. So you very much could transit the area, or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate or the Battery Tunnel to Washington Heights, for example.

You're arguing about something I didn't say and isn't relevant to my arugment, so I'm not sure how I'm "factually wrong".

Yes, the west side highway and the FDR were exempted. Regardless, if your destination was inside the congestion zone, or you ended up driving there to get somewhere else, you were going to be charged the fee. But I don't care if you can travel upstate from Brooklyn. I live in Manhattan, not upstate. My argument is about people living here.

Not incidentally, when you say "or from the Brooklyn Bridge to upstate" that's some incredibly slippery wording, because, in fact, that's the only direction you can go from the Brooklyn bridge without incurring a fee. Per the MTA [1]:

> Vehicles can travel from the FDR Drive to the Brooklyn Bridge, and from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR Drive northbound without hitting the street grid and so will not be tolled. Vehicles traveling from the Brooklyn Bridge to the FDR southbound, however, will be tolled, as that connection includes hitting the grid at Pearl Street.

[1] https://congestionreliefzone.mta.info/faqs

They may be confusing it with London's ULEZ (ultra low emissions zone), which was expanded last year with no democratic mandate and has been hugely controversial.

No, not even close. The NYC one covered all of Manhattan south of 60th, and almost every ingress/egress to the island. As I said in my comment, even if you only consider people who live in Manhattan (which is a fraction of the NYC residents affected by the proposed policy), it would have covered about 10% of the entire city -- about 800,000 people.

Only in the most broad definition of central business district.

The NYC one was just a toll, which would have created a variety of problems without really solving a bunch of others beyond revenue generation. The people gridlocking the west side to get on the tunnels aren't going to blink at a surcharge for the most part. The alternative in most cases is a $100 Uber, so a $25 toll is an annoying bargain. But massive industries, like specialty healthcare, would have been boned by patients who cannot handle the fare.

In the healthcare example, advocates would be like "not a problem! just get an exemption permit!". When my wife was being treated at MSK for an aggressive cancer, it took almost 5 months to get a NYC handicapped permit -- she unfortunately didn't live long enough to benefit. The street closures during COVID were often cited as a quality of life improvement... closures don't require a toll.