Let's see how this goes.

我們來看看會發生甚麼事。

So it just took me 40 minutes to go about 4.5 miles which is pretty typical for New York City rush hour.

所以我前進 4.5 英哩花了 40 分鐘，這在紐約市的尖峰時刻很正常。

Despite a speed limit of 25 miles per hour, the average car moving through NYC is driving

儘管速限是每小時 25 英哩，在紐約市車輛移動的平均時速

at just 7.1 MPH, down from 9.1 MPH in 2010.

從西元 2010 年的 9.1 英哩降到 7.1 英哩。

And if you're in midtown it's even worse, with cars moving around 5 MPH.

如果你在市中心狀況更糟，車輛的時速大約在 5 英哩。

But it's not just New York City – traffic in cities like LA is so bad drivers could

但不只是紐約市 — 都市中的交通真的很糟，像洛杉磯

be locked in gridlock for hours.

駕駛會被塞在車陣中好些時候。

Of course this sucks for drivers, but it also makes activities like biking or walking less safe

當然這對駕駛來說超討厭，但也使得騎車、走路這樣的活動更不安全

because cyclists and pedestrians have to weave through an obstacle course of cars.

因為騎士與行人必須在一連串車輛形成的障礙物中迂迴前行。

Not to mention the estimated 20 billion dollars in lost revenue due to wasted time sitting in traffic.

更不用說由於浪費時間在交通上所導致的收入損失達 200 億美元。

Now, there might be a solution, but if you commute by car, you are probably not gonna like it.

現在，或許有個辦法可以解決問題，但如果你是開車通勤，可能不會喜歡這個主意。

It's called congestion pricing. And it means charging drivers for using the roads.

也就是「交通壅擠附加費」。意思就是對使用道路的駕駛收取費用。

"Congestion pricing is an idea whose time has come. And I believe this is the year to actually get it done."

「提出交通壅擠附加費這個想法的時機已到，而我相信今年就是實際執行的時候。」

New York's plan is still in the works, and it probably won't be enacted until 2020.

紐約的計畫還在執行，可能在西元 2020 年以前都不會實施。

But the end game is to reduce congestion by discouraging people from driving if they have

但最終階段是要透過勸阻人們開車以減少壅擠

other options like biking, or taking a train, or walking.

如果他們有其他選項，像騎自行車或搭火車或走路。

And to fund public transit at the same time.

並同時為公共運輸累積資金。

It's not a groundbreaking idea: congestion pricing is already old news in cities around the world.

這不是開創性的想法：交通壅擠附加費在世界上許多城市已是舊聞。

London enacted a similar policy in 2003.

倫敦在西元 2003 年實施相似的政策。

This is a necessary step for us to reclaim some of the space that is currently given to a motorized vehicles without ending up with gridlock.

這是我們要取回現在已經被授予機動車輛的空間，而不會造成堵塞的必要步驟

Nicole Badstuber researches urban infrastructure and policy at the University of Cambridge and according to her, the system's pretty simple.

Nicole‧Badstuber 在劍橋大學研究都市基礎設施與政策，根據她的說法，這個制度十分簡單。

When drivers enter the Central London congestion zone between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m., they're

當駕駛在晚上 6 點到 7 點進入倫敦市中心的壅擠區

charged 11 pounds 50 pence – about 15 US dollars.

他們會被收取 11 英鎊 50 便士 — 大概 15 美元。

New York City's plan will be similar.

紐約市的計畫也會差不多這樣。

When drivers enter Midtown or Lower Manhattan, they'll face a fee.

當駕駛進入市中心或曼哈頓下城，他們要付費。

There's cameras all around the roads at the edges of the congestion charging area.

在壅擠附加費區域邊緣的道路都會設置攝影機。

They automatically recognize the name plate of the car or the vehicle entering the zone.

它們會自動辨認進入這個區域的車輛或交通工具的車牌。

London has a few exemptions in place, like

倫敦也有一些適當的例外

for people who live inside the congestion zone or vehicles with 9 or more seats and

像是住在壅擠區裡的人，或 9 人座以上的車輛。

New York City will likely do that, too. And the system works.

紐約市也會有差不多的做法。而且這個制度是有用的。

So since it was introduced, we've seen that private vehicles

所以當這個制度被引入，我們可以看到私人車輛

entering the zone have gone down by 40 percent.

進入這個區域的比例降了 40 百分比。

Overall vehicle traffic has gone down by 25 percent.

整體車輛交通降低 25 百分比。

Cycling overall has increased 66% since the charge was instituted and bus ridership reached a 50-year high in 2011.

從交通壅擠附加費設立後，整體自行車量增加 66%，公車的搭乘率也在西元 2011 年達到 50 年來的高點。

And wait times for buses decreased 25%, due to increased service both on buses and on the London Underground.

而且由於增加公車與倫敦地鐵的服務，使得等公車的時間減少 25%。

So we now, in comparison, still have much higher frequencies of London Underground services.

相較之下，我們現在倫敦地鐵的服務頻率還是很高。

We can get more people, more capacity, more people into our trains because we have newer trains.

我們可以搭載更多人、更大容量，因為我們有更新的列車讓更多人進來。

And like Nicole said, congestion pricing isn't just about removing cars from specific zones,

就像 Nicole 說的，交通壅擠附加費不是只有從特定地區趕走車輛

it's about reclaiming a space for the public.

這是回收空間還給民眾。

Picture Trafalgar Square, but designed for cars – an idea that was very much a reality before congestion pricing.

這是特拉法加廣場的照片，但它設計給車輛使用 — 在交通擁擠附加費設立以前，這是個很現實的想法。

You would basically have a bus driving right past your nose as you come out of the National Gallery

基本上當你從國立美術館出來時，會有一台公車從你面前呼嘯而過。

Reclaiming that section of road made the square safer and opened it to more public events.

將那個路段回收會使這個廣場更安全，並且可以開放給更多公共活動使用。

No one could imagine going back to what it was before, and having these cars and buses zoom past you.

沒有人可以想像回到過去，有一堆車輛、公車呼嘯而過會是怎麼樣的景況。

London's plan is widely embraced today, but it was met with resistance at first, with

倫敦的計畫現今已被廣泛接受，但一開始也被反對過

opponents arguing that congestion pricing could cut people off from health care, shopping, and schools.

反對者爭論的點在於交通壅擠附加費會減少人們在健康照護、購物與教育的費用。

Plus, people had to trust that the government would work efficiently and make significant

加上，人們必須相信政府會有效率地運作

improvements to their public transit system.

並讓他們的公共交通運輸有顯著的改善。

But within a year, London's congestion charging had majority support.

但不到一年，倫敦的交通壅擠附加費便獲得大多數人支持。

As New York's plan is being finalized, some similar resistance is cropping up, which isn't too surprising.

當紐約的計畫準備定稿時，有些相似的抗爭也開始出現，這並不會讓人太意外。

After all, it's the first US city to implement this type of congestion pricing and no one

畢竟，這是美國第一個執行這種交通壅擠附加費的城市

wants to pay for something they've gotten for free for so long.

而且沒人想要為了過去一直以來都是免費的東西付費。

But the plan could generate up to a billion dollars for public transit, a system that

但這個計畫可以為公共運輸帶來 10 億美元收入

most agree desperately needs repair.

這個公共運輸系統大多數人都認為迫切需要維修。

And the city estimates it will reduce congestion by 8 to 13 percent and increase speeds by

紐約市估計這個制度會減少壅擠程度達 8 至 13 百分比

up to 9 percent, making a ride through midtown a lot easier.

並將時速提升 9 百分比，使得開車經過市中心更加容易。

So, like other cities where congestion pricing has been successful, it's likely that people

所以，如同其他交通壅擠附加費制度成功的城市

will end up accepting it.

人們最終很有可能會接受它的。

When we think of our roads, in particular in cities, as a sort of public good, as a public

當我們將我們的道路，特別是城市裡的，當作公共財產的一部份，當作公共空間

space, then if you're taking up more of it you should probably be paying for that privilege.

然後如果你佔用更多的道路，你應該要為這個特權付費。

If you start to think about how everyone gets around the city, charging cars begins to make a lot more sense:

如果你開始思考每個人如何在這個城市活動，對車輛收費就開始變得有道理了：

You pay for parking, pay for the subway, pay to take a train or a bus, so

你停車要付費、搭地鐵要付費、搭火車或公車要付費

why wouldn't we pay for a city road?

所以為什麼我們不為使用城市道路付費？

Thanks for watching. If you haven't already heard, we've

感謝您的收看。如果你還不知道

launched a paid membership program called the Vox Video Lab, right here on YouTube.

我們在 YouTube 設立了付費會員頻道，名叫 Vox Video Lab。

For a monthly fee, subscribers get access to tons of exclusive content

訂閱者繳納月費就可以獲得一堆會員專屬內容

and becoming a member is the best way to support our journalism.

成為會員也是支持我們媒體業最好的方法。

So if you want to join, head over to vox.com/join and we'll see you there.

所以如果你想要加入，前往 vox.com/join，我們在那相會。