I misread this at cats and I was sultaniously confused and concerned
this post was submitted on 06 Jul 2025
107 points (100.0% liked)
Climate - truthful information about climate, related activism and politics.
6928 readers
544 users here now
Discussion of climate, how it is changing, activism around that, the politics, and the energy systems change we need in order to stabilize things.
As a starting point, the burning of fossil fuels, and to a lesser extent deforestation and release of methane are responsible for the warming in recent decades:
How much each change to the atmosphere has warmed the world:
Recommended actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions in the near future:
Anti-science, inactivism, and unsupported conspiracy theories are not ok here.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
The only thing that bothers me is that it is a regressive tax on the poor. Rich people won't blink at the fee so it only stops poor from driving.
I'd like to think that the money will go to public transportation but history has shown that because money is fungible, the income from the fees will only mean they cut previous infrastructure spending.
That's a common misconception about congestion price in NY. The poor wasn't driving to Manhattan in the first place, they represented only 2%, and the money generated by congestion pricing will be reinvested back into public transport.
Climate Town did a great video on this subject, with more details if you are interested:
New York Declares War On Traffic (A Congestion Pricing Story)
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=DEFBn0r53uQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEFBn0r53uQ
What's really bad for the poor is car centric design, where you are forced to have a car and spend, on average, $12k annually to maintain it
The poor wasn't driving to Manhattan in the first place, they represented only 2%,
Under $1m in NYC is poor. But I should have been more explicit. This is a tax on the masses, not the elite.
Yes, and often the core area is not affordable on retail, services, or even trade salary so they have to commute in, and the hours may dictate that they can’t take transit; even some large cities have a service pause overnight.
This is another misconception addressed in the Climate Town video on this subject, with more details if you are interested:
New York Declares War On Traffic (A Congestion Pricing Story)
https://yewtu.be/watch?v=DEFBn0r53uQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEFBn0r53uQ
They might need to commute in, but they don't have to drive in. The vast majority of people going to Manhattan doesn't drive, they take the subway, buses, trains and bikes. Only 20% of the people traveling through the congestion zone is in a vehicle and only 2% of the poor drove in.
Workers that needed to drive in wasted a lot of their valuable hours stuck in gridlock traffic, burning their own costly gasoline and being prevented from reaching their job site, costing them more than congestion pricing
I gotta watch that, thanks!
That’s why I said “often” and “some cities”. It’s not universal. I support congestion pricing.
Others have said it would hurt businesses in the congestion zone. The report, however, says pedestrian activity inside the zone was up 8.4% in May, compared with the same period last year, while outside the zone only saw an increase of 2.7%.
The same can be seen in Paris: Reducing car traffic is good for businesses and shops. The whole discussion on cars in cities reminds the discussion on smoking in public spaces. The only interest group which actually had an advantage from it was the tabacco industry.