Early results from New York City suggest traffic and environmental benefits
By: Leo Saul
As traffic filtered into Manhattan’s lower business district on January 5th, 2025, drivers were met by a new toll: $9 for cars and $14.40 for trucks. As commuters complained, residents living south of 60th Street were overjoyed at less traffic cluttering their neighborhood. The early results confirmed that well-planned congestion pricing could indeed reduce traffic, lessening the environmental impact of cars.
Congestion pricing in New York City was first proposed on Earth Day in 2007 by former mayor Michael Bloomberg to reduce vehicle emissions and the resulting environmental impact. The plan stalled in the New York legislature over concerns it would overwhelmingly benefit affluent Manhattanites. The issue returned in 2015 as a deteriorating public transit system led rider’s rights groups, such as transit advocacy organization Rider’s Alliance, to pressure then-Governor Andrew Cuomo to fund improvements by implementing congestion pricing. Cuomo appointed new leadership to the Metropolitan Transport Authority while also declaring support for congestion pricing. In December 2017, the governor’s Fix NYC task force recommended congestion pricing. With the legislature for political reasons unwilling to do Cuomo any favors, it was excluded from the budget that passed the following March. In 2019, the plan was finally approved by the New York State legislature but then not implemented because under President Trump it failed to get the necessary sign-off from the Federal Highway Administration. When President Biden took office in 2021, the plan began to move forward. Despite many lawsuits from opponents, the FHWA approved congestion pricing, supported by positive initial results from cities including London and Stockholm. Congestion pricing finally went into effect in NYC on January 5th, 2025.
Most arguments that backed congestion pricing looked to reduce traffic. Due to the sheer number of cars on the road, NYC ranked second worst in the world for traffic on the INRIX 2024 global traffic scorecard, with drivers spending an average of 102 hours annually in congestion. A second benefit to congestion pricing is to raise funds to improve transit. In NYC, 100% of the money brought in from congestion pricing is going to go towards improving public transit funding efforts, such as switching to electric buses. This has the possibility of yielding significant environmental benefits. By making driving more expensive and less appealing, the added toll aims to incentivize more people to utilize public transportation. This helps reduce emissions because it reduces the number of cars on the road.
Caption: A map of where congestion pricing is taking place.
However, congestion pricing currently faces a new threat—President Trump announced his intention to revoke federal approval for the program because of its costs to motorists. One common argument against congestion pricing is equity concerns, specifically the financial burden of driving. According to a Department of Transportation report, low-skilled workers often don’t have easy access to public transit near their workplace in NYC. Even on the occasions when that’s not the case, access to public transit is often infrequent during off-peak hours. Thus, for those with the least flexibility, public transportation is unappealing and often impractical. Ultimately, low-income workers are impacted disproportionately.
The benefits to NYC of being able to reduce traffic while at the same time benefiting the environment are compelling. In addition, the initial results from NYC are similar to the substantial evidence showing that it was effective in cities such as London, where the number of cars in the area where congestion pricing was implemented was down 20%. In the first week that NYC congestion pricing was in effect, traffic in the implemented area was down 7.5%, suggesting that it was working. It remains to be seen what the long-term outlook will be and if this reduction is sustainable, but the potential benefits significantly outweigh the cost.
Congestion pricing indeed leads to valid equity issues such as affordability, so it is not perfect. In an ideal world, there would be programs that encourage people to take public transportation by making it less expensive and more reliable, something Europe has done, but the United States has yet to implement. NYC should use the money it collects from congestion pricing to implement some traffic models that have proven successful in European countries. Rather than ignoring the benefits of congestion pricing because it will be particularly hard on those who can least afford it, creative solutions should be tested such as using the revenue to aid low-income residents of the tolled areas.
The early results on congestion pricing from New York should also encourage Massachusetts, where tolling-based solutions have languished in state government, to revisit how congestion pricing might benefit Greater Boston. Implementing congestion pricing in Boston could also provide the MBTA, consistently ranked one of the worst public transportation systems in the US, the much-needed funds to address the backlog of capital improvements and large operating deficits. With a stronger public transit system still years away, though, Massachusetts faces the challenge of convincing an understandably skeptical public that implementing congestion pricing won’t leave those most financially vulnerable stuck with no alternative but limited service and constant delays.
For both proponents and opponents of congestion pricing in Manhattan, it is critical to balance the improvements in reducing congestion and improving the environment with making sure there is equality in the forms of transportation people have access to. It must be equitable to protect low-income workers, while simultaneously proving to be a reliable transport option for all.
Leave a Reply