On January 5th 2025, Congestion Pricing went into effect in New York City. It was a long and winding road (as I detailed here last summer), but Governor Hochul finally made the right decision and allowed the policy to go into effect (albeit at a $9 price point vs. the initial $15). While I was a bit concerned at first that this lower price would reduce the effectiveness of the congestion relief zone, it has still been a resounding success over the past two months.
Despite this, Trump has issued an order demanding the MTA shut down the program tomorrow, March 21st. Thankfully, Trump’s legal authority here is questionable at best and the MTA is making the decision to keep the program running absent any court order forcing their hand.
With so much debate over the impacts of congestion pricing, let’s take a look at the hard data and see exactly what’s happening:
First and foremost, congestion pricing has been stunningly effective at reducing traffic in Manhattan and the bridges/tunnels entering the city.
In the first month of congestion pricing, the MTA reported over 1 million fewer vehicle entries into the toll zone than would be expected without the program, driving the significant traffic reduction seen above. It’s also worth noting that the above chart shows reduction in travel times rather than congestion—in many cases, congestion has completely disappeared, and the new travel times represent a congestion-free trip. This reduction reverses a years-long trend of rising traffic into Manhattan – congestion pricing took a worsening gridlock problem and solved a significant portion of it overnight. Additionally, while there were fears that congestion pricing would just re-route traffic to other boroughs, the data from the first months of congestion pricing suggests that traffic has not increased elsewhere in the city.
Transit ridership has seen a notable spike since the implementation of congestion pricing as travelers into Manhattan are switching from driving to transit.
The MTA as a whole is averaging 448K more public transit riders per day this year. To put this into perspective, the second-highest ridership subway in the US is the DC Metro, which averaged 304K riders per day in January this year. The MTA ridership growth since congestion pricing went into effect is almost 50% larger than the total ridership of America’s next-largest subway system.
Unsurprisingly, bus ridership has seen the greatest relative growth, likely due to the fact that it most immediately benefits from congestion pricing thanks to faster travel times.
As you can see in the above chart, median trip times are down significantly, meaning that buses can go faster. However, the most interesting aspect of the above chart is the “P90” savings: P90 is the 90th percentile trip (basically the bus rides from hell that get caught in horrible traffic). These trip times are down even more drastically, reflecting the increased reliability of bus rides and shaving off the long tail of major delays. And it’s not just the MTA – buses in New Jersey are seeing significantly faster travel times, here’s quote from the CEO of Boxcar, a private bus company in New Jersey.
“There’s been no need for subtle data analysis,” said Joe Colangelo, 39, Boxcar’s founder and chief executive, who has heard from customers who say they can’t believe how fast their rides are. “The buses are just flying.”
Boxcar has already added six more trips a week to and from Manhattan in response to a surge in ridership and is considering adding more, Mr. Colangelo said.
One of the loudest criticisms of congestion pricing is that it “forces people to take the unsafe subway.” Putting aside the fact that the subway is already far safer than driving, increased transit ridership has driven down subway crime as more “eyes on the train” reduce the appeal of crime and make the system more safe. In January of 2025, subway crimes were down 37% vs. 2024. This is on an absolute basis, and when adjusting for ridership, the rate of crime went from one crime per 397K riders to one crime per 672K riders. To put that number into perspective, if someone rode
16 Comments
robcohen
Miracle seems to imply that the outcome is not what one would expect when pricing rise. Demand goes down when prices go up, and alternatives get used more frequently. This is precisely what anyone who understand economics would think. Why is this surprising or miraculous? Is that tongue-in-cheek?
jmclnx
The only bad thing about this is it penalizes the poor. For the rich that charge means nothing and I am sure they love it due to less traffic.
It is too bad the rates could not be set based upon the income level of the driver. Make it hurt for everyone.
For example, if you make say 100,000 per year, it is say 100/day. I am sure it was thought about, but was ignored because the people in power want the best of both worlds. Cheap access and low traffic.
I think some countries in Europe use a graduated rate for this.
9283409232
I don't live in NYC but I have friends, both conservatives and liberals, who live in NYC and they couldn't be happier with congestion pricing. Increased subway ridership has increased police presence at the stations which has made the subway feel safer and reduced crime. Hopefully more cities follow their lead.
mjevans
Make it bill employers rather than employees so they don't all thrash the transit infrastructure at the same time. That would be a miracle.
bko
> One of the loudest criticisms of congestion pricing is that it “forces people to take the unsafe subway.” Putting aside the fact that the subway is already far safer than driving, increased transit ridership has driven down subway crime as more “eyes on the train” reduce the appeal of crime and make the system more safe.
I take issue with the framing of this. Sure public transport is "safe" as in you are very unlikely to get assaulted or murdered. But I think most people use that word as a stand in for general unpleasant experience. If you have to avoid a train car because someone decided to camp out there, or you nearly get kicked in the head by a subway dancer, you're not exactly not "safe" but you'd rather not be there.
affinepplan
inb4 claims that congestion pricing is somehow regressive
in fact, it is a progressive tax since reinvestments into public transit are phenomenal for the vast majority of low and middle Americans (and ALL the rest too, but especially those who can't afford a car in NYC)
V__
I must say I am not surprised that it works but that it works at such a cheap rate. Looking at parking costs that seems to be less than two hours of parking. My instinct would have been that there would be no effect below say ~30$.
jampekka
I look forward for people emboldened by this coming up with more market based solutions to get the riffraff out of my sight.
bschmidt105
[flagged]
bschmidt107
[flagged]
Taters91
This is not surprising at all to the people who have looked at other cities that have implemented it. These were all expected outcomes, and I'm glad the expectations turned into reality.
One thing I'd like to add in is that to take public transit in NYC, you have to pay $2.90 a ride (with some exceptions). So for a commuter from the Bronx who works downtown, their daily fee is $5.80. A $9 a day fee to get into downtown with a car seems like a fair deal.
jklinger410
The answer has always been to create guidelines under which capitalism is allowed to operate that align with the goals of society.
Congestion pricing and carbon taxes.
Havoc
Yes, though only works if the public transport is already pretty good. If not then the demand for car travel is inelastic
I'm in London and can't see myself switching back to a car. Public transport is so much more convenient.
neilv
Isn't Congestion Pricing a handout of public streets to the wealthy?
(Because the wealthy can easily afford the extra cost, but non-wealthy cannot, making travel on public streets more convenient for the wealthy, while denying public streets to others?)
I'd want to explore options that are more fair, but that the wealthy wouldn't like, because it doesn't give them preferential treatment.
For example, start with only public mass transit, emergency vehicles, delivery vehicles, workers needing to transport equipment, and walking. And then figure out what else needs to be added in, and how you prevent it just being gamed. (Nope, the public streets don't necessarily owe ride-hailing apps, taxis, and limos use of the public streets; nor is anyone necessarily entitled to use of a non-mass-transit vehicle on public streets when in Congestion Mode, no matter how wealthy or royal they are.)
yakovsi
Stated goal was not necessarily reduced traffic, but additional funding for MTA. The agency that never had an audit and is widely known to be very corrupt. Why on earth not to tie additional funding with an audit requirement? Every New Yorker wonders the same. The fact that Hockul does not mention MTA accountability in any form and shape makes it very hard to take seriously.
sashank_1509
To me the fact that traffic has fallen off a cliff feels like a bad sign. Congestion pricing is 9$ a day, at max ~400$ a month. Any tech employee making over 100k a year can spend this much without overthinking it. But the fact that traffic fell off a cliff means that actually the roads were used by poor people who can’t afford an additional 400$ a month and now we’ve pushed them into public transit.