New York becomes first US city with congestion charge
New York becomes first US city with congestion charge
The scheme has faced resistance, including from President-elect Donald Trump.
Summary
New York City has become the first U.S. city to implement a congestion charge, with car drivers paying up to $9 daily to enter areas south of Central Park.
The scheme aims to reduce traffic and fund public transport but has faced opposition, including from Donald Trump, who has vowed to overturn it.
Fees vary by vehicle type, with trucks and buses paying higher rates.
Despite legal challenges, the initiative moves forward as New York remains the world's most congested urban area, with peak traffic speeds averaging just 11 mph.
This is great. People complaining on social media aren’t New Yorkers. We have the best mass transit in the nation. Fuck cars. What we want are more bike and footpaths and less time at the crosswalk.
The amount of crying and screaming around this has been insane. On IG, you'd think from the comments that downtown Manhattan is a mecca of families and small businesses, and not the Financial District.
Best in the nation does not mean it is good. A great deal of NYC is not sufficiently covered
The fee is only for downtown Manhattan. Literally every subway line in Manhattan runs through downtown.
This is great work by the city leadership. It's taken decades to get this system in place and the city sorely needs it.
Congestion charges work. It's not a new thing nor an untried approach to mitigating extreme congestion from unfettered use of the city streets.
The weird part about all of this, to me anyway, is that tools and congestion charges are very much an economic and Libertarian style solution, but strangely conservatives often fight them tooth and nail. Isn't their whole schtick that the market driven solutions are best? The city owns the streets. The use of the streets are in high demand. So, the city puts a price on a resource. That's just econ basics.
Libertarians have no underlying principles other than doing whatever they want with no consequences.
100%. Knew a Libertarian. Conversations about anything rooted in reality or logic were like pulling teeth.
They thought people and businesses would pay to be connected to roads, and each one would pay for the upkeep of their own segment. They wouldn't charge anyone to use their roads, because they'd recoup the costs from businesses.
Highways would be built through...uh, charity? Or maybe it was big businesses that'd need to ship goods across them. Every highway would be a toll highway, and it'd be beautiful. It'd be cheaper than paying taxes...
/majorEyeRoll
Perhaps my memory is bad, but as far as I can recall, they jettisoned all ideology after the Tea Party (funded by Libertarian billionaires) fizzled. So, pretty much about the time Obama took office. It's mostly racism and tribal identity now.
I think they just whittled down their ideology into the most privileged and selfish extreme. They do believe the insane things they spout like "tax is theft."
I think you're right that the rank-and-file libertarians don't really think their ideology through or educate themselves on its flaws or alternatives, because it really is about identity. I'm pretty convinced that it always has been though. Conservative ideology is based on hierarchy, and they think the right outcomes result from having the proper social stratification— this is usually wealth-based.
Just a slight correction to your post - it isn’t NYC leadership per se. The final call is made by the NY State governor as the MTA is regulated on the state level.
I lean towards libertarianism and I oppose congestion pricing because I think all the claimed benefits are just marketing and it's simply a new tax. If it does improve conditions in Manhattan significantly, I'll admit I was wrong.
How is it a tax, other than as an attempt to drum up opposition from the poorly-informed? This charge is very clearly a user-fee, as in, you have a choice of whether to pay it or not, and the amount you pay is directly tied to what you use. It's even implemented through the EZ Pass system, like any other road toll!
A tax, on the other hand, is compulsory, and levied on people whether they drive in lower Manhattan or not. The reason that New Jersey had standing to file its ridiculous lawsuit in first place is that some of the affected roadway is U.S. highway. If that's sufficient, then I want a say, because I'm forced to help pay for that highway, too, and I've never even been to lower Manhattan, so how's that fair?
I lean towards libertarianism and I oppose congestion pricing because I think all the claimed benefits are just marketing and it’s simply a new tax. If it does improve conditions in Manhattan significantly, I’ll admit I was wrong.
We don't have to guess what the future holds. London has had congestion pricing for about 22 years now. Its been largely successful.
Hello, left-lib here, congestion pricing is just market economics at work. If you demand to drive your car into town, then the city will supply you with a drivable street, provided you will pay for such. Nobody is forcing you to drive into the city, there are viable alternatives, you're still free to choose something else. What congestion pricing does is take crowded downtown streets (a free good, which means that demand will almost always consume all available supply) and use price pressure to reduce demand and ensure an actually useful experience for those who want to use the street.
They see it as a tax. They don't really like taxes.
And honestly there's a fair amount of stuff in lower Manhattan that can't be adequately serviced by public transportation. Large conventions, cruise traffic, hotels. People bring their cars to those things because they want to have more than just what they can carry with them, and when they return they don't want to have to stand around for two to three hours to get enough trains through to disperse them back to Secaucus where they parked. (And God forbid there be a breakdown in the line right there)
If it doesn't adequately reduce the congestion it's just a tax. If it does adequately reduce the congestion, You're going to put a hell of a lot of parking, hotels and convention out of business.
Congestion charges make sense when it's congestion just for the sake of people wanting to drive, But it doesn't solve the reasons people are driving. New York City public transportation doesn't have the capacity to handle these big events.
I hate to be on Trump's side with anything, but this issue needs some infrastructure changes along with the congestion tax where it's going to be just a massive tax with no actual solution.
Skeptical hippo is skeptical. If people are going on a freakin' cruise, staying at a Manhattan hotel, or attending a convention, I very much doubt another $9 is going to be a deciding factor.
ETA: Out of curiosity, I consulted Google Maps about driving to Manhattan. It helpfully alerts me that my route would pass through a congestion zone, but does not calculate that price for me, nor add it to the $54.28 of other tolls that I would have to pay along the way.
The difference between taxes and fees is really just that the first is cheaper and goes to people who aren't incentivized to pocket the money while providing the worst service they can get away with. If you push a libertarian to explain their story in detail, there always comes a point where they introduce government and taxes but try to call it something else.
There is one downside that I don’t think people consider enough when discussing congestion pricing:
Trucks will now find alternate routes that will hurt poorer neighborhoods.
Example: In order to go between New Jersey and Long Island, some trucks traditionally take routes through Manhattan as it is geographically faster to go crosstown than to detour north or south.
In order to drive from New Jersey to Long Island, to avoid the new congestion pricing trucks will most likely take the George Washington Bridge, drive through the South Bronx, and come down into Queens via the Throggs Neck, Whitestone, or RFK Bridges.
The South Bronx is about to absorb a LOT more of that traffic. Anyone taking the Major Deegan or Bruckner during rush hour knows it’s already beyond fucked with traffic.
Now, the traditionally poorer residents of the South Bronx are about to experience more air pollution, more noise, more road repairs, and majorly slower travel time anywhere.
Congestion pricing doesn’t remove the traffic, it just re-routes it into poorer neighborhoods.
(NOTE: I am a NYC car owner and still for congestion pricing. NYC should be way more pedestrian and bike friendly and while this program has downsides, it is a step in the right direction.)
Apply it to areas you want fewer people driving. Don’t exclude poorer neighborhoods.
Economically, this is not an either or. It will both reduce AND divert traffic. Some will choose to pay, some will choose an alternate route, some will choose alternate forms of transport.
Agreed. The next phases should keep expanding the zone until there is an equilibrium across all the travel routes.
Counter point. If the congestion pricing extended all the way through The Bronx, Queens, and The Mt. Vernon or Mt. Hebron (I honestly forgot which one is just north of The Bronx, and which one is upstate. Didn't live there for very long.) area, this wouldn't be an issue for any of the boroughs.
If other areas of NYC have too much congestion, maybe they should have congestion pricing too…
Definitely agree. It’s just something that will always push traffic to the adjacent area. Eventually it could be all NYC then Westchester county will become the traffic inheritor.
Why wouldn't they increase the fees there too? The goal should be to get cars down to zero.
Personally I dont understand why they dont just remove all the street parking spots.
That and establish maximum parking spots per building. Building has legal occupancy for 2000 people? Max 1% parking spots means theyre not allowed to have more than 20 car parking spots for the entire building.
The point is to make cars the slowest, most expense, and most difficult mode of transport. Make it hell so that nobody would want to drive a car there because its miserable.
There are a lot of two fare zones in the city limits. I understand the desire some people have to turn nyc into big amsterdam, but nyc is substantially larger than that city with substanitally less interconectedness. Hell, Holland is a country barely bigger than the NYC metropolitan area.
If people had good reliable transit available, they would use it. The reality is that they do not. People who think nyc does either are not from there, or live in the privilged part that has tons of transit options.
You cant force people, you have to offer better options. I agree, if cars were the slowest option people wouldnt use them. Guess what? They arent. Three bus transfers are. This is ignoring anyone who needs to travel outaide of the city limits as well.
That would invovle upgrading the subway to actually handle capacity along with a circular route, but that is currently beyond the capability of any American public transport development lol.
You've described the opposite of how the US likes to do things
Last year I lived in an apartment who had about 40 parking spaces, 2 for each of 20 units. This complex was in a highrise which had around 80 vacant units, but due to minimum parking availability laws in my area they had to leave most units vacant.
My city is (obviously) plagued with an unhousing epidemic as the artificial restrictions like this (the landlord problem too 🙄) continue to drive property prices up (my unit was a 400sqft studio for $1.2k after fees, that's $3 a square foot in a nation where $1/sqft is standard).
Fortunately NYC is more progressive than most US cities
Yes. Leave the big old parking lots outside of the key areas. Even when you drive into these areas you are either extremely lucky to find a spot or you drive around forever before you get one.
I will never understand why someone would rather drive into nyc vs a bus or train. The morning rush hour drive through the tunnel is one of the most insane things to waste your time doing.
I’ve met people who said they enjoy traffic because it’s time they get to be alone and in silence/away from their kids. I’ve also met people who have a superiority complex and look down on us common folk who take public transit.
I've had people ask how I make nurse money (not a lot, but more than nursing assistant money) and still take the bus. Like saving money and not wanting to deal with other drivers are things only people in poverty do.
I don’t do it a lot but there are times when I just cannot take public transit - like when I need to bring packages to my relatives. Or like this week when I need to bring my cat to the animal hospital in Manhattan. It’s very difficult to bring my cat to her appointment by public transit or Uber/Lyft/Taxi.
My rare driving into the zone is negligible but every car on the road contributes to the traffic.
Sit in traffic and then pay money to park their car. I suspect those who drive into the city won’t change their habits. Another $50 an week isn’t a big deal for them.
Some people live in cars. It cuts your expenses significantly, especially in NYC.
But other than that, I can't think of a good reason.
It's not a black and white issue https://www.nyctransitforums.com/topic/31326-which-outer-borough-has-the-best-coverage/
How many are driving into, or driving tbrough? To get from long island to nj, one needs to either go all the wya to the gwb (already worst traffic in the entire nation), go through staten island (two tolls, one of them being > $20), or go theough residential streets in manhattan to get from the bridges to the tunnels. Cross town highway options are non existant. Its a geographic, and poor planning issue.
A lot of nyc is a two plus fare zone.
I would not want to drive in New York.
Kansas City is nowhere near as dense as NYC, but I still get frustrated driving downtown around there, especially if there's construction.
Suburban cities like KC, Houston, Dallas, and Columbus were designed from the ground up to make driving as feasible as possible and it's still a nightmare to drive in them. I drove through the Bronx once on my way to Long Island and it was a nightmare between all the bridges, tolls, and traffic. And i didn't even try to find somewhere to park. We just took the LIRR into the city from for doing tourist stuff.
Fees vary by vehicle type, with trucks and buses paying higher rates.
I would have thought that single occupant cars should be paying the higher fees, and mass transportation like busses should pay lower fees.
If you live in an RV or truck, you're screwed. But then if you drive a huge truck to deliver stuff, your company benefits more and destroys more than my driving my 1980 civic.
Who in their right mind is bringing an RV into this:
Where can you even put an RV in NYC, let alone downtown Manhattan?
More like who in their right mind would ever want to drive there at all...ever.
Counter point. If the congestion pricing extended all the way through The Bronx, Queens, and The Mt. Vernon or Mt. Hebron area, this wouldn't be an issue for any of the boroughs.Replied to the wrong comment.
Congestion pricing only makes sense if they do something to mitigate the lack of public transit availability, punctuality, and affordability. If public transit were cheap and ubiquitous, then go right ahead.
Instead, busses and subways cost more and still smell like piss and now you get congestions pricing if you drive in.
I would agree with all your points, if the year was 1975. Since it's not, maybe start trying to have some empathy.
Oh, just an FYI, I'm not one of the people who downvoted you.
Edit: you can literally check the modlog
Curious how many people who downvoted my initial comment have ever worked in NYC and had to deal with either driving or taking public transit.
I know the point is to raise funds to improve it, but based on my city’s track record , they don’t ever divest it into things that make a difference in the public transit. Instead they do things like: embezzle (Adam’s is indicted btw) or add more cops, or change the turnstiles, but they don’t fix the issues with our systems.
They’re still filthy and run like ass and they JUST raised priced for the 3rd time in 5 years.
I actually support the idea of people driving less in cities and getting the cars out of manhattan for the most part, I just know how poorly this city is run currently and how badly this will go.
The aim is to raise money to fund public transport, so it will become better and cheaper than cars
I wonder how this will affect elections. I figure Governor Hochul "indefinitely" paused the program last summer to avoid hurting Democrats in the 2024 election. The next mayoral election in NYC is in November of this year and the next election of the governor is in November 2026. Right now both the mayor and the governor are not popular and congestion pricing has a lot of opponents. Maybe people will get used to it before the elections, which is what Hochul is betting on, but there will almost certainly be a new mayor (for reasons unrelated to congestion pricing) and Hochul's chances of being reelected aren't great either.
With all that and opposition from Trump, I think there's a good chance that congestion pricing won't last very long. (I can't say I would be sad.) The congestion pricing hardware cost over $500 million to build, and the expected income from the toll would take over a year to cover that. The MTA's budget will be in big trouble if congestion pricing ends up not even paying for itself.
I don't recall the name of the effect, but there's a characteristic curve that shows up on the graph of public support for these kinds of changes. The hysterical outrage peaks at the time of implementation, but falls off as time goes on. If it has visible benefits, and it lasts, a lot of people will claim that they supported it all along, by November 2026.
Happens the same with smoking bans and such. After a couple of years, even people who smoke and protested the bans notices how indoors dosen't smell like shit anymore.
People can get used to anything. I think it's also likely that the Democratic party will not put forth any serious candidates who oppose congestion pricing, most people aren't going to be single-issue voters about it, and even if someone who opposes it gets elected then he'll still have a hard time getting rid of it for all the reasons why it's always hard to lower taxes. Trump might manage to kill it, but if he doesn't then I wouldn't bet on it ending even if it does cost Hochul the election.
(But I wouldn't want to bet $500 million on it not ending either.)
PSA: Remember, everyone, not to be poor in those areas.
Edit: thanks everyone for the clarification.
Poor people can’t afford a car in Manhattan. This is a tax on middle to high income people. It’s good for NYC.
I'm not from NYC, or even the US, but unless I'm mistaken, if you can afford to store a car there in order to be able to drive around, then you can almost certainly afford to pay a congestion charge.
London has had a CC for a number of years now, and it isn't a problem at all. The overwhelming majority of people who travel into the areas affected by it just take public transport. Hell, I lived up there for several years and despite owning a car I never once had to pay to drive in the charge zone.
If you are poor, there are discounts for those with low income who live in the area. There’s also exemptions for people with medical conditions that prevent them from using public transit source.
Street parking in NYC is $9 an hour, and long term parking garages typically charge like $400 per month. $9 per day is nothing in comparison.
It costs about $50 to park a car downtown all day. Drive to a commuter train station and just take the train train in to save your self $40 a day.
Upvoted for humility. You’re a good egg.