18 ms·
Congestion pricing in Manhattan is a predictable success
- 7e 1y ago[flagged]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- EGreg 1y agoAnd keep in mind that The Economist is traditionally neoliberal. Yet they stay true to economics principles even when they are more lefty and collectively enforced :) Now imagine what else Pigovian Taxes can do to help solve collective action problems, if we had a UBI and local city currencies: https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basic-income-in-communities/1069 https://community.intercoin.app/t/rolling-out-voluntary-basi... To quote: Finally, as taxes and fees are introduced in the local economy, the community can start to issue a Universal Basic Income in its own currency, without causing inflation. Various taxes can be organically introduced, including sales taxes, land taxes 1, and pigovian taxes 3 on things like pollution, fossil fuels, meat or cigarettes. By redistributing taxed money equally to everyone, this can align public incentives with taxing these negative externalities, and avoid them falling disproportionately on the working class, as happened with the yellow vest protests in France. As demand for the local currency (and thus local real estate and services) grows, so does the town’s ability to tax various transactions. The town’s citizens could be given the ability to democratically vote on the level of taxes, and thus the level of UBI, they want to receive. Thus the town can have both sound money and true democratic control of its fiscal and monetary policies, all the while becoming more self-sufficient and stronger. Any town will be able to introduce a local UBI to end food insecurity, improve health outcomes, reduce dependence on means-tested welfare programs, and so on. PS: Why all the downvotes? Why always silent with no reason?
- PaulHoule 1y agoThe Economist was founded in 1843 to oppose the Corn Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corn_Laws so there is nothing "neo" about their "liberal".
- krustyburger 1y agoI’m not sure neoliberal and “lefty” are anywhere near synonyms either.
- PaulHoule 1y agoThey aren't. But I find something amusing that The Economist (which I subscribe to) is frequently considered left-leaning https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist https://www.allsides.com/news-source/economist whereas I see it what the center-right would be if we had a healthy media/political environment.
- kristjansson 1y agoImpugns the source(s) trying to place them on the left-right axis more than anything.
- tekla 1y agoThey are classical liberal, which is impossible to place in the current US Left-Right spectrum because politics have become even dumber than previously thought possible
- PaulHoule 1y ago… politics aren’t just dumb in the US. The Economist is politically homeless these days and has little faith in Labor, Tories or Lib Dems.
- billfor 1y agoCount how many times they use hard-left vs hard-right, or how many times they use hard-right vs any other kind of right.
- Tangurena2 1y agoAlternative link: https://archive.ph/6qlmb https://archive.ph/6qlmb
- turnsout 1y ago[flagged]
- 2OEH8eoCRo0 1y agoI love my car though.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lokar 1y agoOk, but should I have to pay for it?
- ave_b_2011 1y agoMany people love their cars, I love my car too. I hate traffic though, everyone hates traffic. That’s the problem with everyone loving cars. I love busses, bikes, and trains, so I use those as well.
- kjkjadksj 1y agoFeels like I am the only person patient enough to not mind traffic. “Soul crushing” who cares? I’m effectively sitting in a room with a hifi stereo unit like a lot of people do anyhow with their free time. Driving purely on subconscious autopilot. It is on you if you can’t make that work for a bit IMO. Crowded train is actually objectively unpleasant on the other hand. You have other peoples BO. The guy bringing in 50lbs of stuff strapped to the bike hits your knee. Another guy decides to smoke a cigarette in the train car or play with their blow torch. Everyone shoving you on the way in and out. Packed like a sardine. AC barely working. Elevators reeking of urine.
- ceejayoz 1y agoSurely that difference, therefore, is worth $9/day to you? Especially now that your commute is substantially shorter as a bonus?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- lysace 1y agoIt’s great for the very wealthy. See also: Singapore. When I first visited I was amazed at how little traffic there was. Turns out they had imposed so severe costs on car ownership that the vast majority can’t afford to own one. Why Driving in Singapore Is Like 'Wearing a Rolex' https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/world/asia/car-certificate-singapore-luxury.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/24/world/asia/car-certificat... (https://archive.is/X6dpP https://archive.is/X6dpP)
- lokar 1y agoDriving into manhattan and paying for parking is something only the fairly wealthy could afford anyway.
- decafninja 1y agoDriving into Manhattan every day? Yes. Occasionally? Tons of middle class people do it. The majority of my social circle consists of middle and upper middle class Newjerseyans. Many commute daily into Manhattan via public transit. But if they’re going in for anything other than work, it’s always the car. Which congestion price is perfectly fine for if you’re only going in occasionally.
- the_mitsuhiko 1y ago> Occasionally? Tons of middle class people do it. I would not be surprised if occasionally driving into Manhattan is cheaper now. Surely the excessive prices on parking should be going down.
- lokar 1y agoIt should be cheaper already if you place a non-zero value on your time.
- mc32 1y agoDo people put a value on time when not doing value added stuff? When they go for a walk, do they instead run? Do they try to only meet up with friends who can return an investment on their time? Do these people not shoot the shit? Are they busy beavers at all times maximizing wealth?
- throw7 1y ago"Only after Donald Trump won re-election did it start." That makes it seem like Trump was pro-congestion pricing... he was not. I remember reading there was a threat and attempt by him to reverse it. Lest it seem like I am a Trump hater, I am very much not impressed by Hochul's delaying which was certainly because of her special interests.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- paulgb 1y agoIt was not just an idle threat either, they tried to do it until they were blocked by a judge https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/nyregion/nyc-congestion-pricing-trump.html https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/27/nyregion/nyc-congestion-p...
- jimt1234 1y agohttps://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1892295984928993698 https://x.com/WhiteHouse/status/1892295984928993698
- gosub100 1y agoThey conveniently timed it until after the election.
- enragedcacti 1y agoThere was no "They". The state legislature passed it, NY/NYC/MTA designed it, and the Biden admin approved it to go into effect before the election. Kathy Hochul delayed it until after the election on extremely spurious grounds, despite the law being on the books and NYCers supporting it.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- timr 1y agoElasticity of demand is not magic, so yeah, making something more expensive will likely reduce demand. While I have no doubt it is a success if you consider only reduced traffic, there are other considerations that override that for me: 1) It's a regressive tax on everyone living here -- even if you never use a car. Literally everything we buy and use in the city gets more expensive because of this law. 2) That same regressive tax is used to provide a lifeline for an exceptionally wasteful public organization (the MTA) that needs budget discipline, not additional funding. The MTA rivals Tammany Hall in terms of waste and fraud, and the talks of budget cuts were political crocodile tears. 3) (more minor) By definition, the point of this tax is to make it so that only rich people can drive. As the article notes, of course this is great if you're rich enough to afford it...but the article doesn't quote the people who can't now. --- Edit: I'm just going to respond to the single point that everyone is making in one place, instead of repeating it: you don't just get to assert that the hypothesized "reduction in transit time" offsets the costs. You have to prove that argument. You're the one arguing in favor of a new tax. It's not my job to prove the negative. Ultimately, congestion was itself a cost, but it was a dynamic cost, increasing and decreasing with the amount of congestion to maximize utility of the roads. What the state has done here, effectively, is set the price of driving higher than the market at all times in order to guarantee a marginal reduction in demand.
- ceejayoz 1y ago> Literally everything we buy and use in the city gets more expensive because of this law. Significantly? Aren't those delivery trucks spending a lot less time paying drivers to idle in traffic now?
- righthand 1y agoCongestion pricing is great. I routinely end up in Manhattan on Friday and Canal Street at 5pm is running smoothly (not packed end to end with idling cars as before), the city looks like a regular city instead of the packed cars honking and spewing tire dust and exhaust. Long gone are the people that would drive into LES on Friday night with their expensive cars and blare loud music and rev their engines. It’s a different environment and everyone is loving it that I’ve talked to.
- ericmay 1y ago> Long gone are the people that would drive into LES on Friday night with their expensive cars and blare loud music and rev their engines. I I don't live in New York, but have been following along loosely on the congestion pricing policy as someone who has some official business but also just generally curious to see how it would work out, and this is a benefit that I had not considered. Thank you for mentioning this.
- righthand 1y agoYes I imagine a handful of crime was caused by the sheer number of people on the street. Fewer people idling about looking to cause a ruckus has made a huge difference. Passive benefits are what will keep cp in place.
- fitsumbelay 1y agoSame I would've had a hard time wrapping my head around being OK with ~$10/trip before this post Goes to show time is the most valuable commodity anyone'll ever own
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- xvedejas 1y agoSurely the reduction in vehicle count is more than enough to cancel this out, but a moving vehicle does emit more exhaust and tire dust per unit of time than does a vehicle idling. For the environmental improvements it's more about the reduction in the number of cars than about the better traffic flow.
- taeric 1y agoAre there any measures that show any downside to this? I confess a bit of bewilderment at how many people will assert there must be something bad every time this comes up. I don't think a single measured outcome has gone poorly from this.
- TulliusCicero 1y agoIt reminds me of what happens nearly every time car parking on a busy retail street is removed for bike lanes/bus lanes/better walking. Business owners universally oppose the change and predict catastrophe, the change goes through, and business/foot traffic goes way up instead. It seems that business owners' ability to "know their customers" is rather limited; that, or they're just biased by their own need for car/delivery parking.
- proee 1y agoSome changes, like having a highway bypass a small city, can be catastrophic to local businesses. A restaurant that might have hundreds of out-of-town cars go by, now has only local residents.
- TulliusCicero 1y agoThat's a completely different sort of scenario than what I'm talking about. I'm talking about changes to streets that accommodate greater population density.
- mcphage 1y ago> It seems that business owners' ability to "know their customers" is rather limited Movie production companies compared VCR sales to a serial killer. These were the leaders of large, successful companies, and they didn’t know shit.
- ASinclair 1y agoI think it's often that the business owners themselves drive to their businesses and street park. They don't want to give up their own parking.
- agentultra 1y agoThere are so many more initiatives from climate adaptation and environmental advocates and urban planning folks that will have similar, “well duh,” effects. It’s surprising how many easy, simple ideas there are that society and politicians dismiss. Maybe we don’t need to burn the planet to “achieve AGI,” in order to “solve climate change,” and, “make cities livable.” It’s not like that tech, even is possible, is going to stop hurricanes or take cars off the streets. Hope more cities in North America will follow suit. It’s sad how many have been doing the exact opposite of good ideas for so long.
- newyankee 1y agoAnother predictable success would be converting entirety of NYC into a driverless car zone, but we are probably not ready for the repercussions as a society
- ericmay 1y agoMaybe, or maybe just have more street cars and trams and such. More walking, and more biking to go from A -> B. I'm not sure in the case of Manhattan that driverless cars are particularly valuable, and it's very much debatable whether they would be a predictable success for a few reasons. Inevitably you arrive at a scenario where you have a limited number of them because of course otherwise would be to defeat the purpose of the congestion zone, and then you'll only have certain operators with the right permits able to extract money from moving people. Kind of like the taxi medallion scheme all over again. One of the best things America could do is to be to reduce reliance and spend on cars. This applies to New York but even moreso to the rest of the country.
- TheGRS 1y agoEntirety seems a little extreme. Maybe gradually they could get there as society and technology changes. But yes changing large areas to pedestrian-only seems totally doable to me in NYC.
- humanpotato 1y agoAlready 90-95% get around without a car and the rest are paying. Car traffic is necessary to an extent. Compare how shipping companies offer Next Day Early AM shipping for 10x the cost of 4 day shipping. Hardly anyone uses it, but when you need it, you are glad to have that expensive option.
- trgn 1y agoThe future of nyc is one with electric kei cars puttering around for the one offs and trams and subways for everything else. I can see it in my minds eye and it is better in every way
- post_break 1y ago
- wakawaka28 1y agoSince they define what success is, of course it will be.
- ceejayoz 1y agoWhich contrasting metrics that've gone in the negative direction would you like to highlight?
- s1artibartfast 1y agoThere are obvious winners and losers. Of course it is one sided if you dont care about the losers. Those who want to drive, not pay, and not take mass transit are losing out and nobody cares. Im not saying anyone has to care, but I dont think it is honest to call it a free lunch.
- zahlman 1y ago"The measure is failing because people are less able to do the thing that the measure was specifically implemented to reduce" doesn't seem to me like a very convincing argument.
- s1artibartfast 1y agoWho are you quoting? I didn't say failing. Those are your words, not mine.
- wakawaka28 1y agoThe point is, there are obvious negative externalities to any intervention. It may be very effective at reducing congestion, at the cost of everyone's money and free time. If you can afford to pay all fees like nothing then it only improves your quality of life.
- wakawaka28 1y agoHow about the average person's commute time, or cost of living? Disclaimer: I did not read this article. I don't need to in order to state the obvious but there is a tiny chance someone thought about the impact on people overall.
- amazingamazing 1y agowe need to do this with more things
- djaychela 1y agoRelevant Climate Town Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEFBn0r53uQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEFBn0r53uQ
- ks2048 1y agoIt's interesting that everyone is saying it is a drastic change, when it says "Traffic is down by about 10%" (which doesn't sound like a drastic change to me). I guess it is near a critical point where a relatively small change in traffic results in a large change in travel times, traffic jams, etc.?
- carabiner 1y agoYeah it's like fluid flow where once you reach choked flow or hit the sound speed, there's a discontinuous jump in resistance that fucks up everything.
- djaychela 1y ago>I guess it is near a critical point where a relatively small change in traffic results in a large change in travel times, traffic jams, etc.? Yes, same as school traffic (certainly where I live in the UK). It's not all the traffic on the road, but the difference it makes is enormous.
- toast0 1y agoManhattan traffic was pretty much at capacity. Bumper to bumper most of the time, certainly during peak times. Reducing traffic to 90% of capacity makes a huge difference. A little bit of room here and there allows for much smoother flow and a lot better experience for those who didn't get priced out. And almost certainly better flow for busses, which is helpful for a lot of people.
- bravesoul2 1y agoLike CPU %. Or maybe memory is a better analogy.
- time4tea 1y agoCycling is so much more effective than cars.. actually approx 5x more in terms of street usage. So when people move to bikes, the streets look way less busy. You'd need a 5x more bike traffic than car traffic for the two lanes to be equivalent. Just worth bearing mind when people talk about streets being emptier - just emptier of cars
- michaelcampbell 1y ago> Cycling is so much more effective than cars ... for 1 person in decent weather having to transport very little. As it turns out, this is the majority of traffic, but let's set constraints.
- crowbahr 1y agoSlight hyperbole but every single food delivery on door dash happens with cyclists in NYC. Rain or shine. Multiple orders at a time. So not for everyone and everything but cyclists are still 5x more efficient in bad weather.
- mizzao 1y agoLuckily, NYC supports this so much that they've started handing out criminal misdemeanor summons for (minor) cycling offenses: https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/traffic_and_transit/2025/05/03/cyclists-now-face-criminal-summonses-for-minor-offenses https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/traffic_and_transit/2025/05... /s You can do the same things in a car and all you'll get is a traffic ticket.
- mattlondon 1y agoCongestion will creep back up, just like it has in London. Unless they really price it to deter people, they'll just drive. In London it's cheaper to pay the £15 charge than to get two adults return tickets on the tube from the outer suburbs. Once you factor in comfort, convenience, reliability and practicality of your private car Vs London's public transport it's obvious why more and more people just pay the fee to drive. If they really wanted to stop congestion they'd increase the fee from £15 to something like £150-250 a day. But they won't do that because then hardly anyone would pay it and they'd lose the revenue.
- bravesoul2 1y agoThinking the same thing. Sydney has a lot of tolls but not for congestion. More as an additional tax really. Doesn't stop people using cars. What probably does is pedestrian streets and less parking making it a PITA to drive vs get a bus.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago> Congestion will creep back up, just like it has in London. This is actually a good point, because of the nature of what causes congestion. It's that governments don't do the things that prevent it (e.g. allowing higher density housing construction to shorten commutes or adding capacity to both mass transit and road systems), until the congestion gets really bad. So when you first introduce congestion pricing, congestion goes down, because of course it does -- increase the cost of something and you get less of it. But then, why do any of the other things that address congestion until it gets really bad again? So population grows over time or existing infrastructure decays and doesn't get replaced because it isn't "needed" yet. Until congestion is as bad as it ever was, but now people are living with a new mass surveillance apparatus and paying a regressive tax.
- JumpCrisscross 1y ago> governments don't do the things that prevent it (e.g. allowing higher density housing construction to shorten commutes or adding capacity to both mass transit and road systems), until the congestion gets really bad This is Manhattan. We tax the living shit out of parking, are actively converting driving space to bike lanes, and have multiple efforts to reduce or potentially even eliminate street-side parking in the congestion zone.
- anonymousiam 1y ago[flagged]
- tmaly 1y agoI am ok with congestion pricing. Most of the time I park above 60th street to avoid the tax. But the tolls on the tunnels are super expensive.
- EasyMark 1y ago*for those rich enough to afford it.
- amai 1y agoWhy is this called congestion pricing as if the price would change dynamically based on traffic congestion? In fact it seems to be a static toll of $9. Or am I missing something? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing_in_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congestion_pricing_in_New_York...