Congestion Pricing Coalition Statement
New York Congestion Pricing cameras ready to go in Manhattan (Photo by Bruce Schaff).
The Effective Transit Alliance is proud to be a part of the coalition of advocates, business leaders, government watchdogs, and legal experts aiming to ensure that congestion pricing begins as originally planned in New York City. We do not consider Governor Kathy Hochul’s last-minute declaration of an indefinite delay—in effect a cancellation—to be acceptable. It may not even be legal, but regardless of that, the facts are clear: congestion pricing must begin “on or about June 30th” as scheduled or as close to it as possible.
Hochul's cancellation jeopardizes the MTA’s finances and ability to execute its capital plan. It carries immense financial risk to the organization, including a possible credit downgrade if the funds are not replaced within months (congestion pricing was planned to be heavily bonded against, accounting for $15 billion of the 2020–2024 capital plan, and large portions of the next one). It sends the message that carefully considered plans that would improve New Yorkers’ day-to-day lives can be disposed of at any time by officials acting on impulse.
And this plan, if implemented as the state mandated, would improve the lives of New Yorkers indeed. There is extensive evidence of the benefits of congestion pricing, regardless of which projects the money funds, including reduced traffic, faster and more reliable buses, and reduced pollution. Those have all been studied in the cities that have already introduced congestion pricing:
Gibson and Carnovale (2015) study Milan, where an unexpected eight-week suspension of the program by judicial order made it easier to look at the short-term impacts: congestion pricing reduced traffic entering the congestion charge zone by 14.5% and pollution by 6–17%.
Börjesson (2018) studies Stockholm and Gothenburg and computes elasticities of travel with respect to price. She finds among other things that traffic decreased even in the evenings, when roads are not priced, as people shifted to public transportation, and that the effect of modal shift increased over time in Stockholm (where there are ample public transit alternatives) but decreased in Gothenburg (where the alternatives are weaker).
Simeonova et al (2018) study air pollution in Stockholm and find that congestion pricing reduced pollution by 5–15% and cut childhood asthma in half.
Leape (2006) studies the impact of the London congestion charge on traffic: within the first year, total vehicle-kilometers fell 12%, rising to 16% excluding bikes, motorcycles, and buses.
Green et al (2014) look at car crashes in London and find a significant and substantial decline within the congestion zone, but also some evidence of decline outside the zone, at uncharged times, and for exempt vehicles.
Tonne et al (2008) find that the congestion charge in London saved people collectively 1,888 years of life expectancy.
Chamberlain et al (2023) do a meta-study of low emissions zones including London and Milan congestion pricing but also other policies in Germany and Japan, and find consistent health outcome benefits, especially reduction in cardiovascular disease.
The exact value of the benefits varies, but the literature points to the same thing: congestion pricing has a sizably positive impact on people’s health and saves drivers and transit users time. Congestion pricing is the law of the land, and ETA will continue to do everything else we can to ensure that it begins as planned.
