Abstract
This article examines the debates and contradictions that surrounded the promotion of congestion pricing proposals in London, Stockholm, and New York City. On the one hand, congestion pricing is a neoliberal urban proposal that seeks to reduce motor traffic in a cordoned area by pricing out certain drivers. On the other hand, the political authorities believe that the success of congestion pricing proposals depends on the degree of redistributive elements regarding spatial mobility that are built into them. Redistribution in the form of improved mass transit provision was proposed in all three cities and was implemented in Stockholm and London. The problem with this political gesture is that neoliberals are lukewarm to redistributive politics and consider spatial mobility to be a matter of capacity and not a right. This means that neoliberal political parties because of their skepticism of redistributive politics, have more difficulties in imposing congestion pricing schemes than Left Parties. 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.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 187-208 |
| Number of pages | 22 |
| Journal | Urban Research and Practice |
| Volume | 5 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - Jul 2012 |
UN SDGs
This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
-
SDG 11 Sustainable Cities and Communities
Cite this
- APA
- Author
- BIBTEX
- Harvard
- Standard
- RIS
- Vancouver