For decades, New York City has been trying an ambitious experiment to reduce traffic and pollution on some of the world’s most congested streets by charging fees to drive in parts of Manhattan and using the revenue to better fund public transportation.
It’s known as congestion pricing, and after a long political and legal battle, lawmakers and transit officials finally agreed on a plan to roll out later this month. Just weeks before the new fees took effect, however, New York Governor Cathy Hochul adjourned Indefinite execution of plans citing economic concerns.
Supporters of the long-planned, much-discussed effort the haze. The ultimate goal of the plan was to take cars off the road, reduce carbon emissions, and improve public transit, including the New York subway and regional rail. Congestion pricing, in other words, will make the city safer, cleaner and easier for the people who live there to move around.
Now, it looks like the city has no Plan B.
“It’s a short-sighted decision,” said Sarah Kaufman, director of New York University’s Rudin Center for Transportation. “It really sums up the view of American cities as places to live and enjoy versus places to work and visit, and [it] prefers the latter.”
Hochul’s decision reflects a larger problem in American urban planning: Who do we design our cities for? Drivers are often the primary concern of lawmakers, not transit riders or pedestrians, especially when it comes to street design. This is why so many highways plow through so many suburbs and residential neighborhoods; Why parking space? is often preferred over bus or bike lanes or wide sidewalks; And why congestion pricing seems politically unlikely in New York and elsewhere.
While cities are mostly designed with drivers in mind, they are built for commuters, not residents, making them less attractive to live in or even visit outside of work. Even temporarily, the decision to abolish congestion pricing once again puts residents on commuters and drivers on transit riders.
“It greatly affects the livability of New York City, which is currently a sea of traffic in Manhattan below 60th Street,” Kaufman said. “It’s a quality of life issue, but it’s also essential to keep public transit running.”
New York is not the only American city to consider and push for congestion pricing. Boston, the fairiesAnd Washington DCFor example, everyone has explored some version of it over the years
But New York was arguably best prepared to go with it: It has a vast network of public transit options that give drivers options if they want a cheaper way to get downtown.
This is why congestion pricing can be a surefire way to tackle traffic problems in cities and their suburbs. But time and time again, when lawmakers are finally given the chance to tackle traffic — something everyone hates — they somehow falter. At some point, though, cities have to realize: a very good answer already exists. It’s worth the traffic.
What congestion pricing will be achieved
If New York’s plan took effect on June 30, drivers would have faced a surcharge to enter the city. During peak hours — 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends — cars were charged up to $15, and commercial trucks had to pay $24 or $36, depending on their size. (Cabs and rideshare services paid lower rates.) During off-peak hours, tolls were much cheaper, dropping to $3.75 for cars, for example.
That price may seem unreasonably expensive to drivers. that What Hochul emphasized When he abruptly scrapped the plan, citing its potential impact on middle-class families in particular.
But congestion pricing is premium-priced by design: the point is to make alternative modes of transport cheaper and more attractive. Drivers will inevitably initially resent the changes to their commutes, but that doesn’t mean congestion pricing will fail.
Congestion pricing has not only worked in cities outside the United States, but Has become more popular over time Residents started noticing its benefits.
In New York, this would serve two main purposes: First, by charging a price high enough for most people to notice, it would create a disincentive for people to drive, forcing drivers to ditch their cars and take the bus or train instead. Instead. Second, the revenue it would have generated would have gone towards much-needed improvements in public transport in the region, he added An estimate is $1 billion Annually in the treasury of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.
The results would have made commuting easier for most people. “More people are commuting by public transit, so traffic flow more efficiently will help workers arrive on time, help deliveries arrive on time and speed up city operations,” Kaufman said.
Improved public transport services funded by congestion pricing revenue could have saved people time and money. According to New York City’s Independent Budget OfficeMorning rush-hour subway delays are estimated to cost riders as much as $390 million.
Now, with congestion pricing suspended, it’s unclear how the region will fund the maintenance and operating costs needed to provide better service to riders.
Arguments against congestion pricing do not add up
Hochul He said there are concerns About the plan’s impact on the city’s economic recovery. Some business leaders He also opposed the planThey were concerned about losing customers who drive into town.
But in New York, businesses only benefit from improved foot traffic and a more efficient public transit system that can seamlessly shuttle riders around the city. Many of New York’s business leaders are themselves supporters of congestion pricing Expressed disappointment With the governor’s decision to suddenly suspend the plan.
“The biggest threat to business in New York City is traffic congestion,” said Jared Johnson, executive director of TransitMatters. “Almost every business in Manhattan is frequented by most people by train.”
Those not taking the train now may be encouraged by the cost of congestion, he added, “especially if New York City is able to invest in the MTA and make that service faster, more reliable, and expand its reach. It’s a no-brainer.”
Another argument against congestion pricing is that it is a regressive tax, which can be easily afforded by the wealthy and disproportionately burdens the poor. When New York plans There were some carveoutsWith surcharge exemptions for some low-income residents, it is true that any fee may be unaffordable for some low-income drivers.
But at the end of the day, New York’s congestion pricing plan will affect very few poor commuters. According to the Community Service Society of New York, a nonprofit organization that provides support services for low-income people, Only 2 percent of low-income outer-borough residents They have to deal with the congestion fee for their daily commute.
Congestion pricing, meanwhile, would help most low-income commuters, who mostly rely on public transit. By reducing the number of cars on the road, for example, buses can avoid rush-hour traffic jams, and commute times will inevitably become shorter and more manageable. And by raising funds for the MTA, commuters will have a more efficient and reliable transit network that doesn’t have to rely on fare increases to stay afloat.
New York’s congestion pricing plan has always faced fierce opposition and is still being contested in several lawsuits since Hochul suspended it, including one in New Jersey that alleged the plan imposed an unfair financial burden on its residents and could potentially cause more pollution. But various studies and reports, including from the federal governmentCongestion pricing schemes have been shown to have the exact opposite effect.
Why New York — and America — shouldn’t give up on congestion pricing
Ultimately, the best way to get people out of cars is to design cities for people, not cars.
That means building walkable streets, running a smooth public transit system that reaches every corner of the city, and sometimes making driving less convenient. Congestion pricing only helps cities make that vision a reality by funding major transit projects and making driving less attractive. It’s not a completely foreign concept to Americans: After all, many drivers are already used to paying tolls to drive on certain roads, tunnels and bridges.
There are also real examples of congestion pricing that show that the principle works. Cities like Stockholm, London, and Singapore have imposed a surcharge on drivers visiting their downtowns, and they’ve noticed the benefits: When Stockholm first implemented its policy, Traffic immediately plunged by 20 percent. Environmental impacts are also consequential: in London, carbon dioxide emissions 20 percent decrease. Singapore Similar results were observedIncreasing transit ridership and reducing people’s dependence on fossil fuels.
Despite Hochul indefinitely scrapping New York’s congestion pricing plan, it’s premature to declare the program dead. Already the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Signed a $500 million deal With a company to install necessary equipment like overhead EZ pass readers.
Hochul’s short-sighted decision may render that infrastructure useless for now, but New York now has it set up and ready to go. All it takes is political will to flip the switch.
“One of the incredibly frustrating things about this is that it’s delaying the inevitable,” Johnson said. “For cities that are really trying to compete on a national and global stage, you either have an archaic system that [many] Needs pointless modernization and repairs, or you have a small system that’s overly reliant on buses that clog up traffic.”
In other words, congestion pricing is a necessary component to make cities more attractive, livable and environmentally friendly.
So there is still room for hope. “For elected officials who are serious people and who are actually trying to solve a problem,” Johnson said, “they will understand that this is the only way to have an impact on traffic.”
