The Wall Street Journal recently published an article called, "Atlanta's Growth Streak Has Come to an End." It's behind a paywall, though, so I don't actually know what it says. But Paul Krugman did write about it, here, and I do know that one of the key statistics that you should know is this: For the first time since the data was collected, net domestic migration to Atlanta has turned slightly negative.
Overall, the metro area is still growing because of natural births and international migration, but it's still noteworthy that more Americans are leaving Atlanta than moving there. Because up until recently, Atlanta was a high-growth metro region. It's an important logistics hub and it has had an elastic housing supply model. That is, it used suburban sprawl to keep home prices in check.
But that is starting to change. Housing supply is dropping and traffic congestion has become one of the worst in the US. Paul Krugman hypothesizes that this is an example of "the limits of sprawl." And I would agree with this. Sprawling cities have the advantage of being able to grow quickly when they're relatively small. But eventually, they reach a population and geographic limit where the model starts to fail.
The Atlanta urban region is massive. As defined by the US Census Bureau, it is 6,612.4 km2. The only urban region that is bigger is the one around New York City. Los Angeles — which might come to mind as another large car-oriented metro region — is smaller. It's about 4,239.4 km2, but with ~2.4x the population of Atlanta.
It may also surprise you to learn that Los Angeles is remarkably dense. When looking at the entire built-up urban area, it's the densest in the US at 2,886.6 people per km2; whereas Atlanta is one of the least dense big city regions at 771.3 people per km2. This figure really stands out when you compare it to its peers, which means it's going to be that much harder for it to overcome the limits of sprawl.
Density is the unlock that allows you to get people onto trains.
It has now been over 4 weeks since New York City started charging motorists to enter Manhattan so that they pay for a portion of the impact they have on roadways in the city. And the data overwhelmingly supports that travel times have fallen as a result. Transit ridership also appears to be increasing, despite what some critics will tell you, and trains and buses appear to be moving more efficiently as well (via Fast Company):
More commuters are opting for buses to cross Manhattan, and those buses are now traveling more quickly, too. Weekday bus ridership has grown 6%, while weekend ridership is up 21%, compared to January 2024. (Subway ridership has also grown by 7.3% on weekdays and 12% on weekends, part of a larger trend in ridership growth happening since the fall, per the MTA. Anecdotally, some subway riders have said they’ve seen more packed trains on their morning commutes.) Buses entering Manhattan from Queens, Staten Island, and the Bronx are saving up to 10 minutes on their route times, which also makes their arrivals more reliable.
Also noteworthy is that polls suggest that the majority of Manhattan commuters (~66%) now support the congestion relief zone. They are experiencing the benefits and probably doing the mental math that the time they are personally saving is worth at least $9. However, one figure that hasn't changed all that much is that about half of voters across New York State still oppose the congestion charge (though it has dropped by a few percentage points compared to earlier polls).
Paul Krugman speculates (in this recent post) that this negative view is, therefore, coming from people living in upstate NY, which is interesting, because how many of these voters will actually end up paying this charge and/or experiencing its benefits? That's the thing about being asked to spend money that you didn't have to spend before; if you can't clearly see the value in doing so, then you're not going to like the idea.
At the same time, it can be hard to win political battles with facts, figures, and rational arguments alone. Krugman also argues that there are other reasons for why this congestion relief zone is being opposed by many people and why Trump, in particular, wants to kill it:
...maybe the biggest reason for Trump’s desire to kill the congestion charge is a phenomenon I identified the last time I wrote about this: the rage some Americans obviously feel at any suggestion that people should change their behavior for the common good. What we’re seeing with regard to the congestion charge is that some Americans feel that rage even when they themselves aren’t being asked to make changes.
As I have said before, this is an important policy to follow because its success, or failure, will naturally set a precedent for the rest of North America. If transit-rich NYC can't make a congestion relief zone work, then who can? However, my optimistic view continues to be that it will ultimately stick. And already we are seeing positive sentiment from the people who it directly affects/benefits.