Daily insights for city builders, delivered every morning at 6 AM ET. I’m Brandon Donnelly — a Toronto-based real estate developer and founder of Globizen. I’ve been writing here since 2013.
Okay, so, we know that New York’s congestion pricing in lower Manhattan is doing exactly what it’s supposed to do. It has reduced traffic congestion and average drive times, improved air quality, increased public transit ridership, and continues to generate lots of money for the city.
Because of this, a majority of New Yorkers now say they want congestion pricing to continue, despite many vehemently objecting to it before its enactment. It is, in fact, a car-friendly policy. It makes driving faster and easier by reducing congestion.
But here’s another way to look at its effects. A recent study by the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health (in partnership with the Yale School of Public Health) found that, at the highest level, the program is also helping road safety. Car crashes have declined since the program began.
But this is for overall crashes. Interestingly enough, the results are less obvious when looking specifically at injury and fatal crashes. One possible explanation for this is that congestion pricing is, you know, working. Cars are able to drive faster! And since I would imagine that vehicle speed is correlated with injury severity, this makes sense.
So, congestion pricing won’t solve all of your city-building problems. It will, however, solve a great number of them. Which city will be bold enough to step up next?
We’ve been talking about the merits of congestion pricing for as long as I’ve been writing this blog. But it remains politically unpopular, despite the overwhelming evidence that it consistently does what it’s supposed to do: it reduces congestion, shortens commute times, improves air quality, and raises money for alternative modes of transport, among other things.
The status quo bias is strong, but right now we have an opportunity. Self-driving cars are in the midst of shifting the mobility landscape, and there’s a growing belief that (1) roads are going to need to be more accurately priced to deal with the surge in demand, and (2) this is a moment in time that grants us the opportunity to do it. Here’s a recent tweet by Chris Spoke of Toronto Standard that makes this point and that I agree with.
The basic idea behind point number two is that many voters don’t like the idea of a congestion charge for themselves, but will probably mind a charge on robot cars a lot less — both because they are robot cars and because there are relatively few of them on the road today. However, at some point, robot cars will form the majority of vehicles on the road, so now would be a good time to establish new practices.
Back in the spring, I wrote about a platform called Build Canada. More recently, this same group launched their first “city project” called Build Toronto (which is not to be confused with the city corporation that ultimately became CreateTO). Similar to Build Canada, they publish regular memos and advocate for policies and projects that will help build Canada’s largest city.
Their most recent memo is by the CEO of A2X, Jamie McDonald, and it covers a topic that we discuss a lot on this blog: congestion pricing. Jamie talks about the drag that congestion has on the region’s economy (upwards of $45 billion every year?), the numerous successes we can point to from around the world, and then lays out the following proposal:
– Create a downtown congestion pricing zone – Introduce dynamic highway pricing across the GTA – Guarantee fairness and predictable exemptions – Invest in alternatives before launch
This is the way. And it remains deeply disappointing that we don’t have the political leadership to move this forward. Instead, we sit in traffic. But after a decade of writing about it, I think I’ve said about all I can say about the virtues of congestion pricing. We absolutely know it works. Now we just need to spread the word and continue to apply pressure. I’m glad that groups like Build Toronto are helping to do exactly that.
At the risk of sounding obvious, pricing is fundamental to the functioning of markets. It determines profitability, it allocates resources, and it influences customer behavior, among other things. Take the example of electricity pricing.
In Ontario, we use something called time-of-use (TOU) pricing. What that means is that electricity rates vary according to the time of the day and the time of the year. In the summer, the expensive peak usage period is the afternoon (because of air conditioning) and in the winter it’s the morning and early evening (because of heating and lighting when people are generally not at work).
What this pricing strategy does is incentivize customers to change their consumption behaviours. Instead of doing laundry during a peak period, maybe you set a timer and have it run during a low-peak period. In other words, it helps to flatten the demand curve. This is valuable for utility providers because peak periods are more expensive to supply and they also create the risk of brownouts and blackouts. So you worry about peak demand.
With this in mind, let’s now switch and talk about highway congestion. The parallels are almost identical, and yet, most highways are free to use, which means we do absolutely nothing to manage peak demand. Instead, we encourage the equivalent of brownouts where demand greatly exceeds supply, traffic crawls, and roads become practically unusable. Why is that? Why should highways be viewed any differently?
In the case of highways, there are even alternatives such as transit (thought not always, of course). But if you need electricity from a monopolistic utility provider, you’re paying whatever rates they charge. As you might expect, the answer is not technical or economic. We know with 100% certainty that pricing congestion will reduce it. The reason we don’t do it is political. Free roads are preferred to functioning roads.
New York City was supposed to terminate its congestion pricing program last Friday because, well, Trump told them to. But they didn’t do it and so harsh words were exchanged and then the deadline was extended for another 30 days. (This sounds oddly familiar.) Who knows what happens next month, but we are able to accurately quantify the benefits of nearly 3 months of congestion pricing.
Firstly, it’s generating a lot of money. In the first two months of operation, congestion pricing has already brought in over $100 million in new revenue for the city. This is important because it’s money that can be used for transit and other infrastructure improvements.
Equally important is the fact that this money was generated by creating measurable value for drivers. For all of the river crossings that lead into the CBD, average weekday travel times this past January are lower compared to January 2024. And in some cases, they’re lower by a lot. The Holland Tunnel, for example, saw travel times drop by 48%.
Lastly, it’s encouraging more people to take public transit. Here’s a chart from Sam Deutsch over at Better Cities showing the increases in ridership since the program was implemented:
The MTA as a whole is now averaging about 448,000 more public transit riders per day. And to put this number into perspective, Sam reminds us that Washington DC has the second most-used public transit system in the US and that it sees an average of about 304,000 total riders per day (January 2024 figure). So in other words, New York’s congestion pricing bump alone was nearly 1.5x DC’s entire ridership base.
Some critics will argue that NYC’s subway is dangerous and that this program unfairly pushes people toward it. But crime data suggests otherwise. New York’s subway also saw over a billion rides in 2024! So I don’t know how you argue that less people should be taking it. It’s pretty clear that this is what moves the city. Imagine if the above went the opposite way and 448,000 more people started driving to work.
Some people may not like it, but the reality is that congestion pricing is doing exactly what it’s intended to do: reduce traffic congestion, make money, and encourage more sustainable forms of urban mobility.
Today is the third day of New York’s new congestion relief zone. And if you’re curious to see how it’s already impacting traffic conditions, here is a website run by Joshua Moshes and Benjamin Moshes, under the supervision of Brown University Professor Emily Oster.
The site collects Google Maps traffic data every 15 minutes for 19 routes leading into Manhattan (some of which are directly affected by the new relief zone and some of which are not). It then calculates average traffic times for each day of the week, both before and after the congestion charge.
Here is the Holland Tunnel on Sunday (which was day number one):
And here is the Holland Tunnel on Monday (which was the first weekday):
Already, we are seeing a meaningful reduction in average traffic times. Maybe demand is more elastic than I suggested yesterday. But obviously we’re only looking at two days. So I’ll check back in later once we have more data points. In the meantime, if you’d like to follow along, you now have a website.
About a year ago I wrote about how NYC is considering a congestion charge on vehicles entering Manhattan below 60th street. Well it looks like that plan could be adopted as early as April 1 (however the fees won’t start until 2021).
Here’s a map of the proposed congestion pricing zone from the NY Times:
I have written extensively on road pricing over the years and so I won’t repeat myself here today. Suffice to say that I think creating a sustainable funding source for transit and other mobility options is a positive step forward.
As disappointing as this week’s vote on Toronto’s Gardiner Expressway East was, there is one good thing that has come to the forefront and that is the will to explore road pricing. At this point, I have almost no confidence that this City Council would ever vote it in, but at least we’re talking about it. That’s better than not talking about it.
If you’ve been reading Architect This City since the beginning, you might know that I’ve been a vocal supporter of road pricing. I wrote two posts on the topic: The case for electronic road pricing (which was based on an HBS case I did as part of my MBA) and More on electronic road pricing (which was a Lunch & Learn I did while I was at TAS).
I continue to believe that road pricing is a highly sensible solution to big city traffic congestion. But I do think that an electronic/variable pricing model is preferable to and more equitable than a flat toll model. A variable model means that the price of using the road adjusts based on congestion levels and/or the time of day. I also think that we should use as much of the revenues as possible to fund continuous transit improvements.
If you’re interested in learning more about this topic, check out the two posts mentioned above. I’d also love to hear your thoughts on road pricing in the comment section below. Would you welcome it in your city?
In 2023, the City of Toronto announced a deal that would “upload” the Gardiner Expressway and Don Valley Parkway from the city to the province. This was a big deal because these highways were previously the city’s largest state-of-good-repair liabilities, and so, before this deal, the city was, you know, trying to figure out how to pay for them.
One option was road pricing (or expressway tolls). And in 2016, this became a real possibility with City Council overwhelmingly endorsing the plan, before it got rejected by the province. It will come as no surprise to regular readers that I was in support of it and writing about it at the time.
In 2016, Toronto estimated that 40% of all trips on these two expressways were by non-residents, and yet they were being funded by Toronto taxpayers. When I said this on Twitter, many of you got upset and argued that people coming in from the suburbs are a boon for the city. No doubt. But the reality is that this was an inequitable funding structure.
Let’s look at the 2022 Transportation Tomorrow Survey results, which I wrote about here.
The mode share for all trips to downtown Toronto (from within the city) was 75% non-car, with transit making up the largest share at 40.4%. And the mode share for home-based work trips to downtown Toronto (people who leave home in Toronto to go to work downtown and then come home) was about 80% non-car! In this case, transit made up nearly 50% of the trips.
The effective result is that the people who tended to drive the least to work were paying for the highways with their tax dollars, and the people driving into downtown were not. This is in no way intended to be an attack on the latter camp. The simple reality is that driving into downtown and buying a chicken souvlaki pita from Jimmy the Greek at lunch isn’t enough to offset the road usage costs.
The uploading of the highways to the province (which is still advancing but has already relieved Toronto of its financial obligations) is a more equitable solution. It shifts the cost burden to Ontario taxpayers, reflecting that people from all over the region use these highways and that Toronto is part of a broader economic agglomeration.
But this only solved the jurisdictional problem. We still have worsening congestion and an inefficient funding model. The problem with using broad-based taxation to obfuscate infrastructure costs is that direct usage then goes unpriced, and that leads to what is known as a “tragedy of the commons.”
We all tend to act in our own short-term self-interest, and the result is that road demand constantly outstrips the available supply. There’s zero marginal cost to actual usage, whether you drive 100 kilometres each day or bike to work. The most effective way to manage traffic congestion is to remove the hidden subsidy for driving and price the costs and negative externalities.
It has now been almost a year since New York City implemented its congestion charge for the area of Manhattan south of 60th Street and, despite all of the critics, the results are overwhelmingly positive. Here are some of the most important data points:
– Pollution is down by as much as 22% in the congestion zone area. – Traffic has declined by about 11% in the zone. As a reminder, traffic improved basically immediately following the $9 charge. – An average of 71,500 fewer vehicles entered the zone each day from January through to November 2025, totalling nearly 24 million fewer vehicles. – The congestion charge is forecasted to bring in $548.3 million in 2025, beating the initial goal of $500 million. (This revenue will be used by the MTA for bond issuances that will in turn fund further infrastructure improvements.) – Importantly, foot traffic in the zone is also up year-over-year compared to Manhattan as a whole (3.5% versus 1.4%, respectively). – Storefront vacancies in the zone declined more rapidly compared to Manhattan as a whole and the rest of the city. (Though the vacancy rate is still the highest in this area, presumably because of the higher rents in downtown and midtown.) – New York City’s sales tax revenue is also up 6.3% this year compared to the same period last year, outperforming all neighboring counties. This suggests that the congestion charge is not keeping shoppers away.
So, why shouldn’t other North American cities follow New York’s lead?
