It’s been one year since congestion pricing launched in New York City on January 5, 2025.

I’ve been on the front lines of this debate since June 2024, when Governor Kathy Hochul paused it at the 11th hour, through November when she resumed it with a decreased toll, and throughout this entire first year as the Trump administration tried to kill it. I have heard every argument you can think of for and against it.

Now, with a full year of data, we can move beyond speculation and examine what actually happened. Traditional media only shares a sliver of the discussion and biases certain voices while ignoring others. This article compiles the real results alongside the ongoing debates.

Quickly, What Congestion Pricing Is

Here are some bullet points to sum it up

• A policy where drivers pay a fee ($9 at peak times) to enter Manhattan below 60th Street. It does not apply to highways in the zone (FDR Drive, West Side Highway).
• Motorcycles pay $4.50, trucks pay $14.40-$21.60
• The are exemptions for emergency vehicles, people with disabilities, and low-income discounts
• The main goal of the policy is to reduce congestion and gridlock on New York’s busiest streets.
• The secondary goals is to fund MTA transit improvements through toll revenue.

One Year In, Congestion Pricing Is Mostly Going As Predicted

After twelve months, congestion pricing is “working.” What I mean by is it’s clear that most of the benefits supportors promised turned out to be true.

The Pros of Congestion Pricing (Now With Evidence)

• Traffic is down in the congestion pricing zone
• Car crashes and injuries dropped in the zone.
• Air pollution is down the zone (although more nuanced outside the zone)
• Buses are moving faster in the zone
• It did not kill businesses, broadway, or anything else some people said would happen. In fact, storefront vacancy rates are LOWER.

The Concerns of Congestion Pricing That Are Debunked

• It will kill businesses (it hasn’t). Less traffic = better for all business
• It would be a burden on working-class New Yorkers. It was true a year ago and it’s true today that the vast majority of working class New Yorkers take the train or the bus. This is the justification that the Trump Administration has given to try and kill congestion pricing.
• High amounts of vehicles would reroute, worsening traffic elsewhere. This one is more complicated, with some areas and routes having some months with worse traffic and others with better. The jury is out, but in the region as a whole traffic is down, not just shifted.

The Concerns of Congestion Pricing That Remain

• While air pollution and traffic is down in the zone, the story is mixed in neighborhoods that are already burdened with truck traffic, like the South Bronx.
• The main has not given an update on the “mitigation” measures for this, and many advocates were crticial of those to begin with According to a recent study in nature, while
• The MTA still has to execute on the promises to turn the toll money into transit improvements.
• The $9 toll might not be enough. It was originally supposed to launch at $15, and traffic is still pretty bad. Ambulance response times are still too slow.

All right, now it’s time to get into all of this in-depth. After three years talking about this, I hope I don’t ramble too much.

Sharing My Bias: I Believe Car Dependency is One of The Biggest Mistakes of The 20th Century

Of course, I’m not a pariah of unbiased writing either (anybody who says they are is full of it.) Yet, I believe underneath my bias are a few unavoidable facts:

• Traffic sucks. (Okay, this is an opinion not a fact, but I think we can agree on it.)
• Cars kill directly via crashes and indirectly from increased asthma levels and other health issues caused by pollution.
• Cars make life less efficient. It means we live further apart and more isolated. It means it’s more expensive to build homes, concentrate social services, delivery goods, and much more.
• Cars destroy the environment directly from pollution and indirectly from sprawl, which leads to deforestation.
• Taxpayers cover the true costs of driving. Drivers think they’re subsidizing transit users, when the reality is the opposite.

City life is better with fewer cars because we can make it more walkable, cleaner, and safer. It means we can dedicate less space to cars and more to housing, parks, gardens, and other things our cities need to thrive.

I’ve written about most of these points at length:

27 Hidden Costs of Cars: How Car-Dependency Hurts Your Wallet, Your Health, And The Planet

I think we can all agree that we’d like the transportation benefits of cars, without the problems that come with them. The challenge is how to get there. Congestion pricing offers an idea to move us towards that by discouraging car use and encouraging transit improvements. It’s a clever way to achieve two big goals without adding a broad tax.

Benefit of Congestion Pricing #1: Reducing traffic = Everything is Better

The first goal of congestion pricing is to relieve congestion by discouraging driving a car into the part of the city with the worst traffic.

Congestion pricing has reduced traffic in the congestion pricing zone, and to a lesser extent, the region as a whole. Data from the Regional Planning Association from January through April showed that traffic delays were down 25% in the zone, and 9% in the region as a whole.

The story for air quality is similar. A Cornell study on the first six months showed that particulate matter decreased substantial in the congestion pricing zone, and to a lesser extent in the rest of the city and metropolitan area.

By encouraging people to take alternatives to cars, the policy has already had many benefits.

It encourages fewer car trips. This in turn has so many other benefits.

Better Land Use

Cars destroy cities. In her classic book, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, Jane Jacobs has a chapter called “Erosion of cities or attrition of automobiles.” She writes, “With greater accessibility to a district by cars, total cross-use of the district by people thus invariably declines, and this is a serious matter for cities, where one of the jobs of transportation is to permit and encourage cross-use.”

Because cars take up so much space, they spread out cities. They defeat the point of cities. As Edward Glaeser put it nicely in his book Triumph of the City, “Cities are the absence of physical space between people and companies. They are proximity, density, closeness.”

Fewer cars mean we can have wider sidewalks and thinner roads (which are easier to cross). It means we can build housing with a restaurant on the ground floor instead of a parking lot. It means we can convert concrete into more green space. Cars are a bad use of limited city space. Manhattan, after all, is an island. There’s only so much space.

The city’s Department of Transportation must now take that space back. In Midtown, they’re staking out spaces for wider pseudo-sidewalks and more car-free blcoks.

Less Air and Noise Pollution, Better Health Outcomes

Areas with more cars have more air pollution. This is a disaster locally and globally.

Air pollution from cars is linked to a variety of health issues, like asthma levels and releasing lots of CO2.

I already mentioned the Cornell study that found that particulate matter was down in the zone, the city, and the region.

A March report also found that noise complaints were down compared to 2024. Those honking horns and the loud drawl of cars is linked to increased stress levels, worse sleep, and worse overall physical and mental health. Cars suck.

Faster Driving Times

Philosophically, the congestion relief toll presents an offer to New Yorkers: You can drive a car and pay the $9 toll, and in exchange, you will have less traffic than before.

Whether that’s worth it to drivers, of course, depends. If it’s not, many will take transit instead.

This is exactly what’s happening. As the MTA reported in late January, traffic has improved.

April Update: There Are Faster Driving Times Across The Region, Not Just in the Tolling Zone

A logical critique of congestion pricing is that as cars avoid tolls, they’ll take other routes, worsening traffic in other places. There’s a lot of nuance to this and data to comb through. But a March 2025 study by Stanford researchers showed that in both parts of Jersey and the Bronx, travel times have slightly decreased by 3% and 2.5%, respectively.

This is early evidence suggesting the rerouting theory isn’t as concerning as opponents thought.

Into the tolling zone, routes from Jersey are 8% faster.

Faster and More Reliable Buses

Immediately when congestion pricing began, some of Manhattan’s slowest buses saw faster, more reliable times.

As Streets Blog reported, the M50 bus took 27 minutes in January 2025 to make the same trip that took 32 minutes in January 2024.

As Gothamist reported in February, buses from Staten Island to Manhattan, like the SIM32 rout,e have also sped up, improving the commutes of thousands of New Yorkers moving from different boroughs.

Now in March, we know that every single bus that crosses into Manhattan is moving faster.

These examples underscore a clear benefit to congestion pricing: everybody who rides New York City buses, and especially those who commute to Manhattan by bus from another borough.

It’s not just faster times that matter. With gridlock, buses operate more reliably. If you ride transit, you know how frustrating it is when buses or trains come ahead or behind schedule. With less traffic, buses will be able to stick to their timetables, in addition to speeding them up.

As the MTA adapts to a reality of faster buses, they’ll be able to run more routes, more frequently, with the same drivers and buses. That’s an efficiency win for everybody.

Less Time Wasted in Traffic (and in NYC, time is money)

According to a Partnership for New York City report, gridlock costs the New York metro area $13 billion per year.

Traffic wastes everyone’s time, money, and life.

More Efficient Movement of Goods and Delivery

Related to this a common talking point against congestion pricing is that businesses who have to drive in will pay the price. What this misses is that with less traffic, business will be more efficient. If you’re entering Manhattan with a truck that has thousands of dollars (or more) worth of goods, shaving time off the drive is a massive net positive.

Good for businesses

In January 2025, retail sales in Manhattan were $900 higher than January 2024.

As reported by Bloomberg, storefront vacancy rates are down in the congestion pricing zone. This idea that charging cars to enter Manhattan would hurt storefront businesses was always ridiculous.

In fact, data by the Manhattan Economic Development Corp showed that foot traffic to businesses was up in January 2025 over the previous year.

This isn’t surprising. When the city pedestrianized Times Square, people said it would kill businesses in the area. But making it more pleasant to walk had the opposite effect. Early data suggests the same is true for congestion pricing.

Fighting traffic and making it more pleasant and easier to walk around dense urban areas is good for businesses.

Better Health Outcomes

I mentioned asthma, but sitting in less traffic, as well as taking transit instead of driving, are linked to better health outcomes. None of this is surprising. If you’re not in traffic, you’re probably enjoying your life more. And if you’re not driving, that means you’re moving your body.

This is why I say that car dependency is the new smoking.

@davidwilliamrosales

Car dependency is as bad as smoking and so many are blind to how destructive it is. #cardependency

♬ original sound – David William Rosales

Lives Saved From faster Emergency response times

I’ve seen many ambulances with their sirens blaring stuck in gridlocked traffic. Have you ever wondered what they were in a hurry to get to? Whose life were they in a rush to save?

@philbuildthefuture

#nyc #congestionpricing @David William Rosales

♬ original sound – philbuildthefuture

We know that every minute an ambulance delays, the patient is more likely to die. A successful reduction in congestion will directly save lives by improving the speed they can respond to emergencies.

Safer for Cyclists, Pedestrians, and Other Drivers

I bike all around New York, and I’ll be the first to admit: it can be treacherous. One of the reasons people don’t bike is that being a cyclist on roads built only for cars and with tons of drivers eager to get somewhere is stressful and dangerous. It’s often not about how far something is, it’s about how safe and stressful it is.

The same goes for pedestrians and other drivers. And even one month into congestion pricing, it has literally saved lives.

This graph shows crashes with injuries in the first ten working days of the year in teh congestion relief zone. There were only 90 crashes compared to 199 last year, lower than even the pandemic levels.

You’re talking about hundreds, perhaps thousands, of hosptializations prevented over the course of the year.

It turns out traffic is terrible.

Pre Congestion Pricing, New York City’s Traffic was the Worst in The World

It has won the loser prize of the #1 most congested city. The status quo is not an option.

Benefit of Congestion Pricing #2: Raising Funds For Transit Improvements

The main goal of the congestion pricing toll is to deter people from driving. We can’t lose sight of this. As someone commented on one of my TikToks…

The good news is they’re not lighting it on fire. The money from congestion pricing will fund the MTA. (Although many people think the MTA won’t use the money well, a fair critique which I’ll address.)

Raises Funds Without Increasing Taxes

Congestion pricing is a clever way to raise funds for transit because it only charges those who impose the problems congestion brings: drivers. It leaves those who take transit out of it. While there’s nuance to this, those with cars in New York tend to be the wealthiest New Yorkers.

According to research by Hunter College’s Urban Planning & Policy center, The average car owner makes nearly twice as much as the average non-car-owner in NYC.

New York City’s Transit is In a Desperate Place

The reasons why New York has neglected its transit is a discussion for another day and goes through a long, century-long history.

As the infrastructure gets older, delays and problems get more common. A lot of the improvements that will be possible thanks to congestion pricing are not sexy, either.

One year in, some of these have already begun, like ordering new cars, fixing elevators.

SIGNAL UPGRADES FOR GOD’S SAKE

The NYC subway uses a signal system from the 1930s. These outdated signals often force trains to slow or stop unnecessarily, causing delays.

The old signals require the MTA to keep extra distance between trains to ensure safety, reducing overall speed and capacity. Modern signals can track trains in real-time, allowing them to run closer together and boost reliability. If you’re interested, the MTA has a video on how this works.

New Elevators

A part of the plan is to make dozens of stations disability-accessible that currently aren’t.

2nd Avenue Subway

The funds for congestion pricing will also expand the 2nd Avenue Subway into East Harlem, connecting it at 125th st with the Lexington Avenue line.

So Much More

I’ve flipped through the MTA’s 2025-2029 Capital Plan, which details what they plan to do and what they expect it to cost.

One year in, I’d like to see the MTA doing a better job communicating where the congestion pricing funds are going.

Okay, let’s get into the problems with congestion pricing — the real ones.

Problem With Congestion Pricing #1: New York’s Transit… Isn’t Good.

The public imagination thinks of New York as walkable and easy to navigate on transit. That’s true in Manhattan. 45% of households in New York City own a car, according to that same set of Hunter College research.

I lived in Manhattan my first three years in the city, so at first, I always wondered, “Who the heck is choosing to drive a car here?” Over time, as I visited the boroughs and now live in the Bronx myself, I came to understand that the transit in the boroughs kind of sucks.

There’s no way to spin it otherwise.

Until you’ve tried to get from one side of Brooklyn to the other on transit, realized you’ll need to take two buses and it’ll take 54 minutes, you probably won’t get it.

Let’s take a few sections of the Bronx as an example. In Bronx Community Board 12, the northern part of the Bronx, the median household income is lower than the city average, and the poverty rate is higher. (This is according to stats from the NYU Furman Center.)

Yet, they have 0.87 vehicles per household. Basically, most homes have a car. They don’t have cars because they have more disposable income. They have cars because it’s more necessary. You’re looking at a transit desert.

Why does this matter for congestion pricing? The argument is simple: Many residents in these neighborhoods lack a reliable alternative to driving. They probably spend a disproportionate amount of their income on car ownership due to bad transit. Now they face an additional toll to head into the the congestion zone.

Congestion pricing hurts those in areas underserved by public transit.

You could say, “Well the money is going to improve transit.” But transit improvements take years. And they’re rarely centered on these areas. So why would a resident in the northern or eastern parts of the Bronx support congestion pricing? It’s all downside for them.

The Solution… Invest in More Transit 60 Years Ago

Unfortunately, we can’t do that. Because congestion pricing has been so successful in other cities, I looked more at their situations. London began investing heavily to improve transit before their congestion pricing launched. NYC is only promising to this after. This is a big miss for NYC.

Let’s add some nuance to this point and suggest some solutions.

First, Needing a Car is Different Than Needing a Car To Get Into the Busiest, Most Transit-Rich Part of Manhattan

People in transit deserts will prefer a car to get from one part of their borough to another, or from one borough to another. But there’s no toll for getting into the car. The toll is for driving to midtown and downtown Manhattan. This is an important distinction.

As one Queens native put it in her excellent substack article on congestion pricing, “Despite how central cars were to our lives in Queens, we rarely drove into Manhattan.” Even in transit deserts, people take trains into Manhattan. That’s where the trains go.

Second, if a low-income New Yorker for whatever reason needs to drive into the Central Business District, the MTA has a low-income discount plan for congestion pricing. This is for those who make under $50,000 per year. They will have their toll cut in half.

Third, if you work in the business district and commute by car from a transit desert, you can carpool. I can’t believe nobody is mentioning carpooling. It’s a $9 toll, which means if you carpool with two neighbors who also work in Manhattan, you’ll be paying the same rate as the subway. With just one neighbor, it’s less than a City Ticket ($5) on the Metro North or the Long Island Railroad.

@davidwilliamrosales

Re: congestion pricing. Carpooling is allowed. #congestionpricing #nyc #fundpublictransit

♬ original sound – David William Rosales

Reduced Congestion in The City is Good For Everyone, Especially Those in Transit Deserts

If you live in a transit desert and own a car, you sit in traffic along with people coming through the suburbs who could take the train in. Reducing congestion would mean you sit in less traffic in your daily life, around your area. It means less air pollution for your kids too.

Even if you own a car, as long as you don’t drive through the tolling area often, congestion pricing will support you by reducing traffic.

Other Solutions: Expanded Bike Networks and More Dense Housing

“Better transit” is the obvious solution, but that takes a long time. There are other faster solutions.

• Make biking safer with protected lanes
• Expand the low-income credits for Citi Bike. The ebike network is rapidly expanding. Make it a more affordable alternative to taking transit or driving.
• Support building more dense housing around existing train stations. If you can’t bring the transit to the people, bring the people to the transit.

These are not immediate fixes to the transit desert issue, but they’re much faster than waiting for the MTA to build new transit lines. Some, like expanding creidt for Citi Bike, could happy with the flip of a switch.

Another problem is that the same people complaining they’re in a transit desert often reject anything would give people non-car options. They’re the first ones to fight against safer bike infrastructure or against parking minimums.

C0g3stiOn pRic!ng is ReGR3Ssive

The transit desert situation can be real… and so can the fact that the majority of car owners in NYC can afford the toll without a problem. It’s a fact that car owners in New Yorkers make on average twice as much. The car-owning working class often live far from Midtown Manhattan.

It Will Hurt People in The Suburbs

Related to the transit desert argument is how it will affect people in the suburbs.

Those in the suburbs have access to the benefits of the city, without paying taxes to support those things the city provides. They can pay the toll. A stronger New York City is better for their suburb too. In exchange for the toll, it’s clear they’ll be rewarded with a shorter commute.

They can drive their car to their local commuter rail station and take the train in. This is what many suburban commuters have always done. Third, they can carpool.

Should More Funds Go to NJ Transit?

People in New Jersey argue they have the downsides without the upsides of investments to improve transit. This is valid. The MTA’s money is not going to help NJ Transit. Like the Subway, NJ Transit needs help.

I’m not one to die on arbitrary state lines. I would also like to see NJ Transit improve. I think some of that funding should go to New Jersey and I think that should be on the negotiation table for improving congestion pricing. The governor of New Jersey turned down offers for this. People in New Jersey, ask your governor.

Problem With Congestion Pricing #2: INCREASED Congestion in Areas That Already Suffer From Polluted Air and Thru Traffic

Up until now, all of the arguments for congestion pricing hinge on the fact that it will achieve its stated goal: reduce congestion.

The problem with this is that by the MTA’s own admission in their environmental report (chapter 17 on environmental justice), some areas would get worse traffic.

Even worse, these are areas like the South Bronx which already have some of the nation’s highest asthma rates.

Before congestion pricing, the logic here was that traffic could increase as trucks and drivers take a different route to avoid tolls.

The fact that the plan will reduce traffic citywide doesn’t matter to the community who will see worsened traffic.

While Lower Manhattan gets cleaner streets, the neighborhoods along the Cross Bronx Expressway and George Washington Bridge get more pollution.

South Bronx Unite, an environmental justice group in the area, summed up this critique nicely. The organization “supports congestion pricing in principle — but not at the cost of further polluting the South Bronx, which has among the highest childhood asthma rates in the country.”

In my first version of this article, I wrote that “this is a serious concern the MTA must address.” The MTA before the start of of congestion pricing said they were aware of the problem and were offsetting it by providing funding for these areas which includes some measures to help electrify buses.

But South Bronx Unite called this “insulting.” For example, the MTA plans on opening an asthma medical center. Why not do more to reduce asthma in the first place? (And one year in, there is no asthma medical center, and if there are plans to start it, I don’t see them publicly.)

Before we can even talk about solutions, the MTA must come through on the promises they’ve made.

They must electrify those Hunts Point trucks and install the charging stations, as promised.

They must install air filters in South Bronx schools, as promised. Yet that is not enough to offset to increased traffic.

One Year Later: Mixed Research on Traffic and Air Quality in the Bronx and New Jersey

First, there was some good news that traffic wasn’t rerouting to the most vulnerable areas. In a study by Sam Schwartz and Hunter College, the researchers break down the numbers and state clearly, “There is no evidence to support any significant diversion of trucks through the Bronx.“

They explained why trucks are paying the extra toll instead of diverting. “A 5-axle truck avoiding the congestion zone would save just $3 by using the Cross-Bronx, a notoriously slow route.  For through trucks that take the Queensboro Bridge the Bronx route is $31 more expensive!”

Westbound similarly provides negligible so most trucks aren’t diverting. The point is clear: the incentives for trucks to take a longer route for often no savings make no sense.

Other data from the MTA on route speeds and truck totals on the Cross Bronx, Triboro, and Major Deegan all affirm Schwartz’s data.

I go into further data in this article on congestion pricing’s impact on the Bronx.

Air Quality Worsened in Some Areas, Some Months, While Improving in Other

The Nature Cornell study wrote, “outside the CRZ, net PM2.5 concentrations exhibited a mixed pattern: initial declines were followed by increases in later months, suggesting possible redistribution or displacement of emissions linked to traffic rerouting.”

The air quality monitor near the Cross Bronx Expressway showed..

• 37% reduction in PM 2.5 in January
• 11% reduction in February
• 58% increase in March
• 25% reduction in April
• 73% reduction in May
• 53% increase in June

For communities near the Cross Bronx, congestion pricing is not a success 1-year in. They have mixed results on air quality and haven’t seen the promised improvements.

Solution #1: Fast-Track Funds to These Communities

Simple. Prioritize transit improvements, electric truck mandates, green space investments, or other ways to prioritize thsoe who, one year in, are still the most burdened communities by traffic pollution in the city.

The MTA should’ve done that before starting the program. They must do it now.

Solution #2: Make a Toll Zone in East Harlem and the South Bronx

If the South Bronx and East Harlem have among the lowest car ownership rates and the highest asthma rates, then the priority should be to reduce congestion there. Take the same concept of congestion pricing and apply it here.

@davidwilliamrosales

The Congestion Pricing Zone should be in East Harlem and the South Bronx, where asthma rates are high and car ownership rates are low. #congestionpricing #cardependency #newyorktraffic

♬ original sound – David William Rosales

People freaked out when I proposed this idea. I understand why. How do you toll people going through these neighborhoods who don’t live there? Add a toll on the Cross Bronx? On the Third Avenue and Willis Avenue bridges?

I’m not sure, but I think the principle of the idea, deterring pollution in the most polluted areas, is on the right track.

Solution #3: Expedite the Reimagine the Cross Bronx Efforts

This should be a higher priority for New York City in general. One of the main contributors to the asthma levels is the Cross Bronx Expressway.

There is a city plan already to reimagine the highway.

Problem with Congestion Pricing #3: The MTA Has a Well-Earned Reputation for Lighting Money on Fire

If you ask the average New Yorker what they think of the MTA, they will roll their eyes and wonder where all the transit money goes. And with good reason. The MTA has a long history of corruption.

From governors to mayors to leaders at the authority, they have done things like send transit funds upstate to ski towns.

People just don’t believe the proposed projects will actually happen. And it’s hard to blame them. But let’s add some nuance to this critique.

I get the pessimism, but the straight-up denial that the MTA doesn’t spend money on transit goes too far for me. This is for a few reasons.

First, the people responsible for smuggling MTA funds to an upstate ski town are no longer there, and neither are the governors who orchestrated it.

Second, the MTA has recently finished several projects under budget. For example, they completed a 7 train tunnel at Grand Central for $10 million under budget.

Third, the MTA has taken concerns about inflated costs seriously. For example, one of the reasons the Second Avenue Subway cost so much to build is that the MTA relied too much on consultants, rather than building an in-house team.

Here’s the head of the MTA talking about this:

MTA building up in-house teams to diminish the use of project consultants
byu/FarFromSane_ innycrail

This brings up a broader point, which is that inefficiency is different than blatant corruption. The MTA is filled with inefficiencies, and probably some friendly no-bid contracts to contractors. But it’s not corrupt in the same way it used to be.

Fourth, even with inefficiencies, the congestion pricing money will go to fund more improvements than it raises. That’s because, as the New York Times has explained on congestion pricing, the $1 billion dollars it raises will be used to finance $15 billion in bonds.

With that said, we still want to spend that money the best we can. Here’s what we can do to make sure they use it well.

Solution #1: The Public Must Keep Them Accountable

The MTA is a public authority, so public pressure matters.

The MTA has released its capital plan. They’ve told us the budgets and the timelines. We can investigate this.

It’s important we criticize the MTA and ask where the promised improvements are.

While the congestion reduction is great, New Yorkers want to see the transit benefits. If it fails, the MTA will continue to lose the public’s faith, which will create a feedback loop of deteriorating transit.

Solution #2: Study Why Transit Costs So Much in the U.S.

The corruption in the past is the sexy part that grabs headlines.

But the real problem is that building transit in the 21st century is just way more expensive. Whether that’s the MTA in New York or California High Speed Rail, these projects have outrageous costs.

Why California High-Speed Rail is Over Budget And Delayed — And What We Should Do About It

If NYC could go back in time 100 years and keep expanding the subway, it would’ve cost a fraction. (A tangent, but if World War II hadn’t happened, New York would have a much bigger subway network today.)

There are so many reasons for this. From overreliance on contractors, to strange U.S. labor laws, to lack of communications between utilities, it’s a big puzzle.

I highly recommend reading about the Transit Costs Project. They have an entire report dedicated to examining why the 2nd Avenue Subway line has cost so much freaking money.

By understanding why the MTA seems to get very little done with so much money, we can discuss how to make building transit more efficient. This is the real problem.

Problem with Congestion Pricing #4: Is The Toll Enough to Deter Traffic?

While lots of people call out problems in hopes of killing the program, I question whether congestion pricing goes far enough, especially one year in.

The law passed through New York State with a toll from $9-$23. At this range, the MTA’s reports say it will reduce congestion. It was scheduled to go live in June 2024 with a toll of $15. Governor Kathy Hochul paused it and resumed it for January 2025 with a $9 toll. At $9, lots of train tickets will cost even more. Commuters from the suburbs have lost some of the financial incentive to take the train instead of driving.

Some evidence shows that ambulances are just as slow as they were before. That’s a sign that the $9 isn’t enough of a deterrent for suburban drivers.

In order for congestion pricing to be successful, the price has to be high enough to reduce congestion.

Debunking Other Concerns With Congestion Pricing

All right, let’s go through some other talking points I’ve heard over and over.

A Straight-Up Lie That Must Be Debunked: Car Drivers Subsidize Transit Users

Okay, now that we’ve gotten through the good arguments for and against it, I have to take the time to debunk talking points that are, simply, not true.

The one I hear the most is something like “Drivers already pay taxes through the gas tax so they shouldn’t be taxed more.”

There’s a lot to dissect here. Yes, there is a gas tax. But it has not increased since 1993, not even matching inflation. Why? Raising gas prices on purpose is political malpractice, thanks to our reliance on cars.

The gas tax gives the impression that drivers pay to use roads, but in reality, the government pays to make driving cheaper.

@davidwilliamrosales

Our nation is an addict for oil and driving and there’s no boundary we won’t cross to subsidize it. #congestionpricing #urbanism #fundpublictransit

♬ original sound – David William Rosales

Second, ample research from many parts of the world has shown that, even as expensive as transit expansions are, mass transit is a better deal for taxpayers than our current car-dependent setup.

One study from Quebec concluded that the cost was five times higher. Another showed that for every $1 paid for by a driver, society pays $9.20.

Third, even accounting for these costs, it does not include pollution, hospital costs, insurance costs, or the number of people driving kills.

Drivers who give kids asthma don’t pay for that, and it’s hard to measure, but it’s real. Insurance costs we can measure (and are going up) but these costs often get passed onto crash victims.

If you drive in the United States, you’re the one getting the biggest government handout.

“Why Should I Pay for Transit That I Don’t Use”

Why should transit users pay for roads? Transportation rarely makes a profit, whether it’s a plane, a car, or a train. And that’s okay because better transportation makes our lives easier. The goal isn’t profit.

This is another favorite of those against public transit in general. The bottom line is transit users currently subsidize drivers, not the other way around. Congestion pricing gets a little bit closer to balancing the scales.

Even if you drive and will never take transit, better transit helps you because then there will be fewer cars on the road and less traffic.

Congestion Pricing Has Not Increased The Costs of Goods, Becuase It’s Improved Efficiency

@davidwilliamrosales

Replying to @Timer Rose Reduced congestion and CP will actually save these business a ton of $ because they’ll waste less time in traffic.

♬ original sound – David William Rosales

One of the common points against congestion pricing is that the cost of the toll will make delivering goods into the city more expensive, and that cost will get passed on to consumers. (Sound familar? Kind of like tarrifs?)

The problem with this logic is it misses one of the key points: congestion pricing has reduced traffic, which has sped up deliveries.

By making deliveries more efficient, it will decrease business costs and wasted time. If you’re delivering thousands of dollars worth of product, and you can do that without traffic, you’re happy to pay a $20 toll to save hundreds or more in business costs. If you’re paying a driver $30/hour, and the delivery route takes them 40 minutes less, you’ve saved $20 and paid a $9 toll. That’s a net of $11 in your pocket.

There is no evidence of increased costs of goods due to congestion pricing. It’s probably saving delivery companies money.

Another Fake Problem People Love to Bring Up: “Congestion Pricing Will Hurt Business”

When Kathy Hochul paused congestion pricing, the argument on the front page of the news was that people from New Jersey would no longer go to a diner in Manhattan.

It was ridiculous for many reasons, but the narrative was clear: they argued that congestion pricing would be bad for business because fewer people would go to Manhattan.

There’s a lot to potentially discuss here, so I won’t waste time on how ridiculous it is that people from New Jersey drove into Manhattan to get food they also have in New Jersey.

The suggestion is logical enough: if fewer people come into the city, that’s not good for business.

There are a few things to point out. First, as I mentioned, reduced congestion is very very good for business.

Second, there’s a lot of research on cities that confirms that more foot traffic is better for businesses, more so than car traffic. By prioritizing pedestrians and transit users, congestion pricing will increase foot traffic.

This makes intuitive sense. If you’re driving you rarely pull over and walk into a store you pass. But if you walk, you may.

I’m not going to get into this much. More foot traffic is better for businesses. Pollution and congestion is worse for business.

“But Ubers and Lyfts Make Up Most of the Traffic”

There is truth to this. It’s a good argument, but it’s also a case of whataboutism.

It’s true that New York has lots of taxis and rideshares. According to MTA stats, they make up about 52% of the traffic in the Central Business District. Yes, this contributes to traffic.

However, it negates a few key facts about rideshares and the space they take up in the tolling area compared to personal vehicles.

1. A rideshare or taxi is moves more people over the course of a day.

A personal vehicle (presumably) has one person. It drives in, parks for the day, and drives at the end of the day. It’s taking up space in the Central Business District for the whole day, and moving one person.

A rideshare or taxi is moving people all day. In New York, they probably accept 2-3 rides per hour. Let’s just say 20 people per day. So it takes up the same amount of space, but moves 20x the amount of people.

2. They Will also pay a surcharge

Users will pay a surcharge of $1.25 in taxis and $2.50 in Uber/Lyft. So, they’re not exempt, and they shouldn’t be. I have no problem raising prices on what in New York is a premium service: hauling a cab.

3. DO They Fills Gaps for Those who live car-free

If you made rideshares and taxis less accessible, the argument goes, then more people might want to own a car. Taxis fill in gaps that cities need to accommodate car-free life. This is logical, but I’ve never seen any data to back this up. I suspect in a city like New York this is less true than in places where it’s harder to live car-free. So I don’t hold any weight to this one.

The Fake Problem That Bothers Me The Most: “What About Disabled People?”

First, this is a moot point because the qualified with disabilities are exempt from the toll. But I still want to address it.

This one is really weird because, well, people with disabilities typically don’t drive. The blind certainly don’t, and the wheelchair-bound rarely do either. Certainly, the elderly as well would prefer crossing streets that have fewer car lanes to cross.

Second the benefits of congestion pricing no doubt apply to many with disabilities, in the form of better transit and more wheelchair-accessible subway stations. It’s also of obvious benefit to the elderly, who at some point in their life hand in their driver’s license. Better transit allows them to keep their other routines of life when this comes.

Just as with the transit desert argument, I also don’t ever hear these same people advocating for making life easier for people with disabilities. I hear them weaponizing the plight of those with disabilities for their own political gain when it suits them.

In Summary: Congestion Pricing is Working

Congestion pricing is working. Traffic is down. Travel speeds for drivers, buses, and trucks, are up.

The biggest concern, the diversion through the Cross Bronx and George Washington Bridge, has showed no significant changes.

Yet, there’s a lot more to advocate for. We should talk more about how the MTA can and should best use that money. We should keep them accountable for this. The only way congestion pricing really “works” long-term is if it translates to better transit for the whole New York metro area.

Congestion pricing’s problems are not solved by killing congestion pricing: they’re solved with a better congestion pricing plan.

Instead of killing it altogether, let’s work to improve its outcomes.

Now It’s Time to Make It Better

1. Prioritize the much needed relief for communities living near the South Bronx, Triboro, and other highways that haven’t shown significant and reliable traffic reductions.
2. Increase the toll
3. Reclaim space in the congestion pricing zone for car-free streets, green space, wider sidewalks, and other quality of life improvements.

As a study of cities, I see the feedback loop congestion pricing can cause. It’s a popular program, which creates more political will for more projects that promote healthier, cleaner, less expensive modes of transit. It means we can dream about the possibilities, and with the public behind it, execute.

It means we can ask questions like…

• What if we gave 25% of road space back to nature and multiplied the amount of green space? What if we passed universal daylighting?
• What if we created more pedestrian-only streets that became vibrant areas of outdoor dining, socializing, and more?
• Does successful congestion pricing create more appetite for car-free living, which means we can finally build more dense housing for less money without pushback on things like parking minimums? Does all this new housing allow us to address the severe affordability crisis in the New York region?
• What if it creates a ripple effect of higher demand for increased transit in the whole region, encouraging better commuter trains and more housing near those trains?

Other Cities Should Consider Congestion Pricing

Now multiply all of those questions for all major cities in the nation.

In New York, we like to share the myth that we set the tone: for art, culture, and fashion. Why not for cleaner, safer, more vibrant cities too?

Congestion pricing’s success could provide a model for other cities to follow. Is Boston next? Chicago? San Francisco? Does congestion pricing in New York create an entire nationwide acknowledgment and education initiative about the problems of cars in cities? After all, over 80% of the U.S. population lives in an urban area, according to the 2020 U.S. census.

Given the threat of climate devastation and the big role American life and our love affair with cars play in it, does a successful congestion pricing program save us?

I think it’s better than the alternative of shutting it down.

What Did I Miss?

I’m no stranger to debates on this topic. Please, bring the pushback and other points I may have missed.

11 Evidence-Based Benefits of Protected Bike Lanes