London Mayor Isn’t Messing Around. Would this work in New York City?
March 2, 2008 by Peggy
About 17 percent of the autos that visit central London each day will pay $49 a day to enter the city, starting October 27.
Let that sink in a minute.
That charge triples the current congestion fee for autos that have high C02 emissions. The most fuel-efficient cars get in free, while others will continue to pay the current fee of $16. Click over to this AP story on msnbc for more details.
Let’s discuss this. I want to hear (uh, read) what you’re thinking. Please . . .
What do you think of the congestion fee increase?
Would something like this work in other congested cities like New York?
Would this fee encourage you to use public transportation or drive a more fuel-efficient car?
Well…without reading the article, the first comment that came to my mind was that here we just don’t have great public transportation. I’m in WI, an hour away from Milwaukee and our city bus only comes to the nearest stop every 30 minutes. If it came, say, every 10 minutes, I would be a lot more interested in taking it. I know it’s not NYC, but when I was visiting my sister there, we didn’t rent a car. I found their public transportation to be sufficient. If I lived there, I probably would use it frequently. However, I still feel like it could be made cleaner, safer and easier to use. I doubt I would get a more efficient car. Interesting idea. I often complain about people’s larger vehicles and never would have thought of a fee! I’ll go read that article now…
I actually really like that idea. Unfortunately that would never get by in the states. The politicians would throw a fit before it got anywhere.
DramaMama, I agree that the public transportation systems in many areas still need a lot of work. I can see something like this congestion fee working for a place like New York though, since they do have a fairly good system.
Summer, I think if we started seeing many more immediate, everyday problems with global warming, some politicians would change their minds. But, waiting until then is crazy, isn’t it?
I have three issues here. One, not everyone can afford a more fuel efficient car, they don’t come cheap. Two, I rarely drive at peak traffic times, and follow other green living ideas to help save the planet, yet, if I had to go into the city, say for a doc apt, I’d have to pay the fee too.
Lastly, and most importantly, punishing people is a bad way to make them act in a certain way. Especially punishing people for not “being green” how do you think the people already leery of green are going to feel now? They certainly won’t associate green with good, only bad. I get what they’re doing, and why, but I don’t agree. We need to use positive reinforcement not negative.
Plus, I hardly see politicians not using major jets and big cars. They need to set an example, not simply force this on others.
Well, now I’m wondering if London’s mayor sets a green example in his own life.
You have some good points, but sadly some people won’t drive responsible autos unless they are forced to. Hummers are much more expensive than fuel-efficient cars. Why should people who drive them crowd the streets of London and pollute the air for the people who do try to be green? That’s not really fair. But, part of me does say, “Hey, we have the right to drive what we want to without paying fees.”
I’m not saying I totally agree with this, but it could possibly become necessary in some crowded cities. But maybe the better solution is to put more pressure on the car manufacturers and try to turn public favor against gas guzzlers.