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.
Cover photo by Wells Baum on Unsplash
Good morning. Well, it finally happened.
After decades of delay and negotiations, New York City finally implemented congestion pricing for the area of Manhattan south of 60th Street. This is a first for the United States, and so it's a big deal not just for the city, but for this part of the world. It went into effect yesterday, on Sunday at midnight, so that the MTA could work out any kinks before this morning's rush hour. And apparently everything went smoothly. Drivers are now required to pay $9 to enter the zone during peak hours (5am to 9pm during weekdays). The charge is also expected to rise to $15 by 2031. Of course, this is a highly contested initiative. Trump is still vowing to kill the program as one of his first acts in office and, as soon as the pricing came into effect, suburban drivers started protesting it in Manhattan. I thought Jarrett Walker had a clever response to this:
extreme activists 
plan to make streets so unsafe and gridlocked that NYC businesses lose money! 
Only car owners can shut NYC down and send a message!
2,029
One of the common rebuttals when it comes to things like road and congestion pricing is this one: "yeah, this might work in cities like London which have great transit systems, but it doesn't work in our city because we don't have that and it will unfairly disadvantage those who have no other alternative but to drive." In fact, this exact excuse was recently raised by local politicians here in Toronto. But this is New York fucking City. It has the highest annual transit ridership in North America (beating out Mexico City by nearly 2x) and it has the largest system by total length. According to the 2012-2016 American Community Survey, 85% of people traveling to Manhattan's CBD (I'm assuming lower Manhattan here) also take transit. And only 11% drive a car. So what exactly is the problem here?
This objection also ignores the fact that, generally speaking, congestion pricing has two main goals: (1) to, of course, reduce traffic congestion and (2) to generate money for more efficient modes of transport. In this case, the MTA is hoping this new congestion relief zone will generate up to $15 billion that can then be reinvested in transit and other infrastructure. Demand for roads can also be relatively inelastic in the short term, meaning demand doesn't change all that much as the price moves up and down. This makes it a good place to find money for public infrastructure, but it might mean that $9 is too low to have a dramatic impact on traffic congestion. We will see; I'm sure we'll get some data soon enough.
My prediction is that this will ultimately have an impact on congestion and that people in New York will get over the $9 charge. They'll also come to appreciate the reduced traffic congestion within the zone. So I think this road pricing will stick, and my hope is that it will become an example for other cities in the US and across North America. Congratulations on finally getting this over the line, NYC. It was certainly a hard-fought battle.
Cover photo by Veronika Galkina on Unsplash
People in Toronto are deeply and rightly frustrated about our traffic. We have truly world-class congestion. But here's the thing, the way we're going about solving this problem is all wrong.
Transportation staff seem to believe that congestion charges would not reduce or deter traffic from coming into Toronto. Never mind all the global precedents, never mind that we have the tolled 407 highway to look to, and never mind that economics tells us that when the price of something increases, the quantity demanded decreases.
Instead, we seem to think that we can solve this problem with fewer bike lanes, improved traffic management, and better policing, including higher fines for disobedience. (Interestingly enough, higher fines are supposed to deter people, but congestion charges won't do the same. I'm confused.)
None of this will fix the mess we're in.
This is a case of politics over data and experience. Identify something that people are pissed off about, and then create the illusion that you're doing something to fix it. Good politics. But the reality is that this problem is much trickier to solve. It will require vision and meaningful change. That's a much tougher sell.
Think of this way. Can you identity a large car-oriented global city with millions of people that doesn't have a traffic congestion problem? Even the Katy Freeway in Houston, which counts as many as 26 total lanes, has a congestion problem. And the last time I checked, it didn't have any bike lanes.
Now let's look at the largest city region in the world -- Tokyo. The city proper has about 14 million people and the broader region has about 41 million. This is the entire population of Canada in one city region, and yet it's generally viewed as being one of the most well-run and efficient cities in the world. How do they do it?
Here are the modal splits within Tokyo's 23 wards (2018 data):
36% public transport (rail and bus)
27% passenger cars
23% walking
14% bicycles and motorcycles
Now compare this to the splits in Toronto's census metropolitan area (2021 census data):
76% passenger cars
16% public transport
5% walking
1% bicycles
2% other
Of course, if we were to look at the modal splits within the core of the city they would look quite different and much closer to Tokyo's numbers. This is why it can be so hard to achieve consensus on many city building issues -- we are quite literally a divided and different kind of city.
In the end, this is the root cause of our traffic problem. The vast majority of people in this city region drive. And they are not to be blamed. It's because we've designed this to be the only practical option.
But if we're serious about solving congestion, it's going to require some bold changes. It's going to require reducing this 76% figure. We can fool ourselves into thinking that better construction coordination, fewer bike lanes, and higher fines will somehow solve this enormous and deep-rooted problem, but the inconvenient truth is that they won't.
What we need are real solutions. Is anyone going to take the lead?