Congestion Pricing is a very contentious issue in the United States. Mayor Michael Bloomberg of New York City tried to establish rates for motorists to enter the central business district. This plan would have decreased traffic congestion, improve quality of lives and make NYC a healthier place, but there was not enough public support to push it through the New York State Assembly.
However, there are many cities around the world that have successfully implemented congestion pricing and has created a better city as a result. London for example now has it and the revenues that are collected by motorists go directly into public transportation such as trains, buses and bicycling facilities.
There are obvious benefits to congestion pricing like boosting funding for a very limited transportation budget, but how can we change the preconceived notions of people who have been brainwashed to think that the car is the only way to go. How can we change the preconceived notions of people that think public transit is inconvenient and crowded. Perhaps if congestion pricing is implemented in cities, the latter question would no longer be a problem.
It is a tough sell to the people, but I believe if it was established in cities in the US, it would decrease congestion, make public transit better and increase the quality of life. The cost of driving a private vehicle is incredibly cheap, and I believe people should pay for not just the costs at the pump, but a societal cost because it is so detrimental to our environment.
I think calling people brainwashed about cars and public transportation is a bit off. People don’t not like congestion pricing because they can’t think of any way of getting through Manhattan other than a car. I also don’t think preconceived notions of public transportation as crowded are wrong in many places or overly present in areas in which they are wrong. The issue is that while most people normally take the subway through Manhattan they also don’t want to have to pay to drive through it either. Its merely a matter of presenting the alternative, i.e. purposely putting potholes in the road and refusing to fix them until the congestion fee is added to pay them. Or maybe setting a few opposing traffic lights to go green at the same time and blame the problem and delayed response on lack of funding. Some might call that manufacturing a problem, but I call it preemptively illustrating the future.
I disagree with you Avi on your point that people do not know of an alternative. Advertisements (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ny8Onevxko) that were pro-congestion pricing explained that people would see an increase in public transport service. People know there is an alternative to the car.
And can you elaborate further on what you call “preemptively illustrating the future”. I do not quite understand.
You need to be a part of a contest for one of the highest quality blogs on the
net. I’m going to highly recommend this site!
Thank you so much for reading! It is comments like these that motivate me to continue posting.