Congestion pricing could reduce traffic, but is it fair to ask drivers to pay up?

Mike Bebernes

After years of political maneuvering, lawsuits and heated debate among residents, New York was on the brink of becoming the first city in the United States to institute congestion pricing as a way to combat the traffic that routinely clogs its streets.

But on Wednesday, Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that she is blocking that plan from going into effect indefinitely over concerns that it would be too much of a burden on the city and its residents.

Congestion pricing works in a similar way to typical road tolls, but rather than asking drivers to pay a fee to cross a bridge or use a certain highway, it imposes an extra cost on anyone driving into heavily congested areas.

Under New York’s plan, which was slated to kick in at the end of this month, cars entering the most chronically gridlocked parts of lower Manhattan would have been charged a $15 fee. For trucks and buses the cost would have been as much as $36. The city estimated that the policy would have kept 120,000 cars off its overburdened streets every day and generated $15 billion to help improve and expand public transportation.

In a speech announcing her decision, Hochul said she agrees with the goals of the congestion pricing plan but believes that the plan could stunt the city’s economic growth and hurt its vulnerable residents.

“I cannot add another burden to working- and middle-class New Yorkers or create another obstacle to our continued recovery,” she said.

While New York’s plan would have been groundbreaking for the U.S., several major cities around the world — most notably London, Stockholm and Singapore — have had congestion pricing in place for decades. All three of those cities have reported reductions in traffic along with other benefits like lower levels of air pollution. A handful of other U.S. cities, including Boston and Los Angeles, have at least begun studying whether congestion pricing would work for them as well.

Supporters of congestion pricing say it’s long past time for the U.S. to finally take serious action to reduce traffic, which not only robs millions of Americans of their precious time but also causes a wide range of harms to residents and the planet. Advocates say reducing the number of cars clogging the roads would lead to safer streets, less noise pollution, cleaner air and fewer climate-warming emissions and bring in a major influx of funding to help improve other modes of transportation. Others make the case that it’s simply a matter of fairness, because the drivers who flood into cities impose real costs on the people who live there, but currently pay nothing to help mitigate those harms.

Critics of the idea say the truly unfair thing would be forcing people to fork over extra money they can’t afford when many have no other option but to drive. They also express serious doubts that the plan would actually reduce traffic. London, for example, still has the some of the world’s worst gridlock despite more than 20 years of congestion pricing. There are also concerns that the plan would merely reroute traffic out of rich city centers and into poorer communities that are ill-equipped to take on the extra burden.

Many skeptics add that whatever merits the policy might have in a metropolis like New York, congestion pricing simply won’t work in most other parts of the country, where the population is less densely packed and alternatives like public transit are sparse or even nonexistent.

It’s unclear at the moment whether Hochul’s move to block congestion pricing in New York City means that the policy is merely on pause or if it’s entirely dead. Part of the answer could depend on the presidential election. The Biden administration signed off on New York’s plan last year, but former President Donald Trump said recently that he would immediately kill it if he returns to the White House.

Drivers impose a cost on cities, they should have to pay for it

“The concept is simply that by driving into a congested area, you are harming the other people who have to deal with that congestion and you should be charged for your negative externality. It’s hard to argue with that.” — Peter Coy, New York Times

Congestion pricing is being sold on empty promises

The … lie is that the tax will solve the congestion problem while paying for mass transit. It can’t do both at the promised levels. If the levy sharply reduces the number of cars and trucks entering Midtown, the pledged money will come up short. If the tax doesn’t reduce traffic, congestion will remain a problem.” — Michael Goodwin, New York Post

Cities need high-quality alternatives in place before trying to get people out of their cars

“For congestion pricing to work … public transit needs to be good enough to present a viable alternative to the $15 toll.” — Liza Featherstone, New Republic

We don’t have time to wait for the ideal circumstances

“Delaying congestion pricing until transit meets some ill-defined, bad-faith standard ignores the health impacts of living near freeways. … It would be like not charging for electricity, w./ blackouts from overuse, until everyone has a solar panel.” — Jacob Wasserman, public transit researcher at UCLA

Any extra expense will be too much for a lot of people

“Most folks who live and work in and around Boston are trying to get by, keep a roof over their heads and put food on the table. They aren’t the city's or state’s ATM” — Editorial, Boston Herald

Anything that reduces the number of cars on the street is worth pursuing

“Keep your polluting, traffic-snarling, crash-causing cars out of the most crowded place in the United States.” — Editorial, Daily News

Drivers benefit from congestion pricing too

“Just like highway tolls, those who pay (to drive) should also see some benefit (less traffic) and better mass transit alternatives.” — Jim Cameron, CT Mirror

The last thing struggling cities need is policies that deter people from coming in to spend their money

“It’s a fragile economic ecosystem into which congestion pricing is now being introduced. … This is a dangerous experiment — one that almost certainly will have unintended economic consequences.” — Paul H. Tice, Wall Street Journal

The plan won’t work in most of the country

“Which cities will follow on New York’s heels? No U.S. urban area comes close to our trifecta of gridlock, transit and wealth.” — Charles Komanoff, Washington Spectator

The plan would force people to pay a lot of money to get nothing in return

“You get no service or product for this fee, mind you, nothing tangible. As bad as electricity, food, water and heating costs can be, at least you’re getting something for your money. And at least when you fork over money to see a movie or a concert, you’re getting some kind of experience, even if you can’t take that experience home with you. Not with congestion pricing. It’s truly money for nothing.” — Tom Wrobleski, Staten Island Advance

Advertisement