Congestion Charge to Come to New York City

Taking a leaf out of "Red" Ken Livingston's book, New York City Major Michael Bloomberg unveiled plans for an $8 "Congestion Pricing Strategy." Drivers could face a fee commuting into New York's central borough, Manhattan.

Similar in principle to the £8 congestion charge for driving through the centre of London (although half it's price) Bloomberg's charge is intended to ease congestion, improve air quality and help raise $31 MILLION for new rail links, tunnels, subways and buses.

It's just one of 127 energy conserving measures unveiled on "Earth Day," intended to help America's biggest city cut it's carbon footprint. The plan is backed by 70 businesses, civic and green groups - but still has to make it's way through the state government before it can be implimented.

That won't be easy. Over 60% of drivers in New York are against the fee - despite being informed by Bloomberg's spin doctors that Londoners over in the UK overwhelmingly supported their similar congestion charge. Not that it would have mattered. Unlike Bloomberg, Ken Livingston had the clout to bring in the congestion charge whether Londoners liked it or not.

Before New York votes on the issue, they'll hopefully examine the lessons Londoners have learned following the introduction of the charge. The most obvious of these being the effect the charge has had on local businesses.

John Lewis reported an 8% drop in revenue in central London since the introduction of the charge - while revenue outside of the area was actually on the rise. The drop in revenue suggests that the charge didn't encourage people to take public transport instead of the car - it simply dissuaded them from entering London at all.

Herein lies the greatest problem with the London congestion charge - and possibly New York's.

The key to making people switch from private to public transport isn't found in raising the cost of driving. It's in making public transport an attractive alternative to cars.

If public transport was quicker, more reliable and cheaper, more people would use it. It's as simple as that. But instead, the British government is stuck in an idiotic mindset of raising prices without offering alternatives.

One recent moment of genius (which I blogged about here - British Trains are Awful and Expensive) was to increase the cost of rail travel to reduce congestion. It succeeded - but only by reducing the number of people who could afford to travel by train.

We can only hope that people in New York are smarter than that - and instead of hoping a congestion charge will solve all their traffic and smog problems, they'll take the initiative to redirect that revenue into the public transport system where it's needed most.

New York might surprise us all - and prove that a Congestion Charge isn't necessarily a bad thing - but the way it's implemented in London is.