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
We talk a lot about congestion charges and road pricing on this blog. Here's a list of some of those posts. I found 46 that were tagged with "road pricing."
I continue to believe that it's the only way that big cities can effectively solve the problem of traffic congestion. It's not being caused by the bicycle lanes that were just added to your street. It's not the new COVID street patios. And it's not the new apartment that was just built with too many parking spots.
The problem is mispricing.
If you want free roads, then you don't get free-flowing traffic. That's how this equation works, which is why I have always thought it a good idea to dynamically price roads based on demand, and then to direct those funds toward more efficient forms of mobility -- such as transit.
Despite all this, it's not a very popular approach in this part of the world. Toronto looked at road pricing back in 2016, but we got nervous and backed away from it. New York City has also been looking at a congestion charge for Manhattan south of 60th Street for at least 4-5 years. But this one appears to still be on the table.
According to this recent CityLab article, New York's congestion prices could look something like this (note that this chart includes other pre-existing tolls):
But with some exceptions (I think this is an interesting approach):
Primary residents of the Manhattan central business district, which is south of 60th Street, and New York State residents with adjusted gross income of less than $60,000 would be eligible for a state tax credit equal to the amount of the new tolls, paid during the taxable year.
In total, this current pricing scheme is expected to generate an additional $1 billion in annual revenue for the city's transportation authority. The MTA also plans to bond against this revenue and raise an additional $15 billion for new transit projects.
This sounds like a reasonable approach to me.
Stockholm has a congestion charge that is used to reduce traffic volumes in the center of the city. Toronto does not. We looked at it, actually fairly recently, but then we lost our nerve.
Stockholm’s congestion charge was first implemented on a trial basis starting in January 2006. Trials and pilots have become a common way to actually create positive change. Otherwise the status quo bias may simply be too strong.
When Stockholm started the trial back in 2006, public support was very low. Maybe 30%. But as soon as it was implemented, car trips dropped overnight by 20%. Once people saw the benefits, support grew – hitting around 70% by 2011.
Here is a brief Street Films video with Stockholm’s Director of Transport, Jonas Eliasson, talking about their experience with congestion pricing. If you can’t see the video below, click here.
[vimeo 244771087 w=640 h=360]