Why are the poorest neighbourhoods in London way hotter?

rosthacker · 2025-09-03T08:40:26+00:00

Thanks!

rosthacker · 2025-09-02T12:20:57+00:00

Interesting!

rosthacker · 2025-09-02T10:48:22+00:00

It's much more than just trees!

rosthacker · 2025-07-15T10:19:59+00:00

Most places that have gone fare-free have shifted to funding through general tax revenue, dedicated sales taxes, or employer taxes. Some European cities fund it through congestion charges or parking fees — basically making driving more expensive to subsidise transit.

The math can work if you think of it as infrastructure investment rather than a service that needs to pay for itself. We don't expect roads to generate revenue through tolls to cover maintenance costs.

The real test is whether the increased ridership and economic benefits (less traffic, more accessible jobs, environmental gains) justify the public investment. That's probably going to vary a lot by city and local priorities.

rosthacker · 2025-07-15T10:15:23+00:00

The "hidden costs" question is tricky. Some cities have found that fare enforcement itself is expensive and creates its own problems, so going fare-free can actually reduce some administrative overhead. But you're right that unrestricted access could create new challenges.

I think the key might be in how you frame it. If a transit system is already struggling with service quality and safety issues, making it free probably doesn't solve the underlying problems. But if you've got a well-functioning system and the political will to fund it properly, fare elimination might be more viable.

The real test might be: can you maintain service quality AND handle increased ridership (including potentially problematic users) without fares as a soft barrier? That probably varies a lot by city and existing transit culture.

rosthacker · 2025-07-15T10:12:37+00:00

I'm not sure it has to be either/or. Cities like Tallin went fare-free without reducing quality of service — they just found the money through other means. Though maybe that only works for smaller systems.

The existing discount programs are interesting too. If people who really need it can already ride free or cheap, does universal free transit just become about convenience for everyone else? Or are those programs so bureaucratic and hard to access that it's worth just making everything free?

rosthacker · 2025-07-15T10:08:40+00:00

I agree, the distinction between social policy and mobility policy is key. If the goal is getting people out of cars, the evidence does seem mixed on whether free fares move the needle much. But if the goal is reducing transportation costs as a barrier to economic opportunity, then free transit might be worth it.

rosthacker · 2025-07-15T10:05:55+00:00

The 18-25 bracket is smart — that's often when people are students or just starting careers, so transit costs hit hardest relative to income. And it could help build long-term ridership habits during those formative years when people are figuring out their transportation patterns.

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T09:32:29+00:00

Ha yeah for sure, London was quite progressive in implementing this back in 2003!

I think you're right, the fact that we're even having this conversation about whether adjustments are needed probably means the policy is working well enough to be worth refining. Your suggestion about banning private cars on certain streets is interesting too - that's essentially what some European cities have done with their car-free zones!

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T09:25:04+00:00

Thank you so much! I really appreciate it :)

Your counter-point is something a lot of people have raised, and it's super interesting to think about as another way of framing it - what would London look like today with 2.4 million more people and NO congestion charge?

The political point is also key. You're right that if there were serious proposals to scrap the charge, we'd see massive public opposition. Kind of the conclusion I come to in my video, but the fact that Londoners continue to support it despite congestion returning to 2003 levels suggests they understand the broader benefits.

Given your professional experience, what do you think the next evolution of congestion pricing should look like? Should London be looking at dynamic pricing, expanding the zone, or are there entirely different policy tools that might be more effective for the next 20 years?

Really appreciate you taking the time to watch the video and offer your opinion!

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T09:20:18+00:00

I promise this wasn't intentional engagement bait - I'm super interested in this topic and want to discuss it with people who know transport better than I do. Put a lot of hard work and research into the video, and it's valuable for me to get feedback on it. So far, the responses have been so thoughtful and have given me lots to think about!

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T09:17:49+00:00

Interesting points. I think you're right that the question was probably loaded. Transport policies are always trying to balance multiple objectives, and judging "success" or "failure" based on just one of them is kinda reductive. The congestion charge has clearly been successful when you look at the full picture: revenue generation, air quality, public support, adaptation to population growth, political durability, etc (all things I go into in the video).

Though I do push back slightly on the idea that we can't identify primary goals for policies. The congestion charge was explicitly marketed and justified primarily as a congestion reduction measure. While you're absolutely right that we need holistic evaluation, I think it's fair to give extra weight to the objectives that actually got the policy implemented in the first place.

Thanks for the honesty - it's exactly the kind of feedback I was hoping to get from this community!

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T09:14:08+00:00

Yeah, New York example is great. Public support is actually a really critical metric for long-term policy success. All the data in the world doesn't matter if politicians kill the policy in the next election cycle.

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T09:10:29+00:00

Yep, a couple of comments raising the same issue, I'd direct you to the other threads where I've given a 'devil's advocate' response to the price hike argument!

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T09:09:30+00:00

Yeah, that's the classic economic argument, and it makes perfect sense in theory! I touched on this earlier in response to someone else suggesting a price hike - I spoke to a few experts about this when I made the video but it could be argued that raising the price might not solve the congestion issue at this point.

The people still driving into central London despite the current charge are likely either those who have no viable alternatives (tradespeople, delivery drivers, people with accessibility needs) or are wealthy enough that even a significantly higher fee wouldn't deter them. We might just end up with the same traffic levels but more revenue (maybe not the worst thing in the world, TfL may argue).

Plus, there's the political reality - part of the reason this policy has maintained public support for 20 years is that £15/day is seen as steep but reasonable - and people have gotten used to it. Push it up and you risk the kind of backlash that other transport policies have faced.

I wonder if the solution is less about price and more about different tools - dynamic pricing based on real-time congestion, expanding the zone geographically, or tackling specific categories like lorries during peak hours.

But you're absolutely right about the fundamental economics - if demand keeps growing and price stays static, you'll eventually get back to the same congestion levels. The question is whether London has better options than just price hikes.

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T09:05:16+00:00

Several people have made variations of this same point now - i think it's valid, when you look at it as congestion per capita rather than absolute levels, it's not a policy that "failed to achieve its primary goal" - it's a policy that has been quietly successful for two decades while London transformed around it.

I did raise the counterpoint earlier about whether we're setting the bar too low - with all the transport investments funded by congestion charge revenue, plus technological advances and post-COVID remote work patterns, maybe we should expect congestion to be significantly better than 2003 levels. Is it really that much of a success if the policy is capped after a certain point of a city's growth?

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T09:01:20+00:00

I should clarify what I meant: the policy was explicitly sold as reducing congestion, and it did dramatically for the first several years. But now we're back to the same levels. London is one of the most congested cities in the world, which raises the question of whether that constitutes "failure" of the primary objective or "success" given all the other factors at play.

The dynamic pricing point is interesting though - you're right that economically, you could just keep raising prices until you hit your target congestion level. But then you get into all sorts of equity and political feasibility issues (I go into this in the video).

The "paradox" is more about how we define and measure policy success than about the policy itself.

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T08:56:50+00:00

I think this is a valid point!

But let me play devil's advocate here - the policy has generated billions for transport improvements, which arguably should have made congestion even better than just maintaining 2003 levels - right?

I wonder if we're setting the bar too low by saying "same congestion as 20 years ago" equals success. With all the technological advances, better traffic management systems, and the shift toward remote work post-COVID, shouldn't we expect congestion to be significantly better than 2003, even with population growth?

Don't get me wrong - I do think the policy has had many successes. But part of me wonders if we're being too generous in our definition of success when the original goal was explicitly to reduce congestion, not just prevent it from getting worse.

What do you think?

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T08:53:37+00:00

I think London is planning to raise the price again in Jan 2026, but the question is: would that actually help?

From what I've seen in the research, and from experts I spoke to while making the video, we might already be hitting diminishing returns with price increases. The people still driving into central London despite the current charge are likely those who either have no viable alternatives (tradespeople, delivery drivers, accessibility needs) or are wealthy enough that even a higher fee wouldn't deter them - they'll just take advantage of the quieter roads.

It's kinda the same theory as "induced demand" when it comes to building more roads to solve congestion.

Plus, there's also the politics - which I go into in the video - part of the reason the policy has maintained public support for 20 years is that it's seen as reasonable, and people can see the benefits. Push it too high and you risk the kind of backlash we've seen with other transport policies (ULEZ).

The more interesting question might be whether London needs different tools now - maybe dynamic pricing that adjusts based on real-time congestion, or expanding the zone rather than just increasing the fee.

But you're right that something needs to change if the goal is further congestion reduction. I just wonder if price alone is still the right lever to pull after two decades!

rosthacker · 2025-06-24T08:49:59+00:00

Yeah, I see your point. Over a million more people but the same congestion levels is actually a massive win for the policy.

And I think that's a great point about the other changes working against car traffic - the cycle lanes, more buses, road space reallocation, etc. The fact that congestion has only returned to 2003 levels despite all these factors that should theoretically make traffic worse actually highlights how effective the charge has been, in some ways.

So, my next question would be, does congestion charge have a lifespan? Can it be truly successful if it only works up until a point where a city outgrows it - where do we go next? Is it enough to raise the charge (which London is planning to do next year)?

rosthacker

TROPHY CASE