 |
| Until 18 February 2007 the congestion charge applied to drivers within the highlighted area. (Photo credit: Wikipedia) |
Congestion pricing: the political viability of a neoliberal spatial mobility proposal in London, Stockholm, and New York City(23 page pdf, Themis Chronopoulos, Urban Research & Practice, Jul. 2012)
Today we review an article that looks at the political factors behind the success or failure of congestion charging systems in Europe and the USA. Several key factors are at play that vary by geography and seem to involve class privileges: the clash between middle income and high income groups most affected by the charges and the need to have a plan to use congestion charge revenue in a fair way to improve other mobility options, principally mass transit which favours the low income sector.
Key Quotes:
“The London congestion charge scheme began on February 2003 and covered a 22-km2 area in central London…Vehicular congestion inside the zone decreased by 30%, mass transit was able to accommodate higher demand, car travel time improved, and despite lower revenues than originally expected, mass transit also improved”
“In Stockholm, congestion charging was first implemented as a trial…The toll zone, which covered about 30 km2, had about 300,000 residents and 23,000 workplaces employing 318,000 people…During the congestion tax trial, the number of vehicles crossing the cordon decreased by about 22%."
“Neoliberalism is defined as a theory of political-economic practices that encourages the deregulation of capitalist markets, the reduction of international trade barriers, the privatization of state companies, the encouragement of private investment, and the withdrawal of the state from public provision”
“Traffic rules apply to everyone and it is possible for multimillionaires to be delayed and inconvenienced by wage workers. Schemes like congestion pricing seek to restore class privilege to the elites in a realm that their affluence has been unable to penetrate.”
“The congestion pricing proposal of the New York City failed because it was proposed by a neoliberal city administration without a credible redistributive spatial mobility plan.”
“Congestion pricing may not affect many low-income people because they tend not to drive, but disproportionately affects many middle-income drivers. Congestion pricing proposals generate conflicts between the middle classes and the upper classes.”
“Various surveys have shown that the acceptability of congestion pricing increases when there is a clear redistributive mechanism channeling proceeds from the scheme to mass transit. This type of redistribution benefits low- and middle-income groups, which utilize mass transit in higher proportions than upper-income people.”
“the political entities promoting congestion charging in Stockholm and London were not even neoliberal, at least not in any orthodox and consistent sense. Their emphasis on redistribution disarmed critics of neoliberal urbanization and appeased mass transit riders.”
Related articles
No comments:
Post a Comment