Four Months In – NYC’s Congestion Pricing Got it Half Right

Congestion pricing has been in place for four months, and despite all the doomsday talk about the death of Manhattan, the program seems to be working.

I am man enough to admit I was wrong about some of my apprehensions. The streets are noticeably quieter, downtown is a much more pleasant place to be and we have not seen the flood of business closures that were predicted. For all intents and purposes, congestion pricing has been a policy homerun. However, with the goal of improving New York City as a model for other cities to emulate it has, in my opinion, been a huge failure and a public relations catastrophe.

At its core, the program has two main goals: to generate revenue for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and to reduce the number of cars on the streets. Both goals aim to create a more pleasant city, whether it's through cleaner air, less traffic, or more reliable public transportation. In these respects, the program has succeeded. It has successfully reduced the number of cars on the street and has generated the targeted revenue for the MTA. Reducing congestion was the right goal, raising funds for the MTA was not.

My main frustration, and I suspect the frustration of most New Yorkers, is not with the policy itself but how it was rolled out and communicated. Congestion pricing started at the end of a tumultuous few years for the MTA. Loss of ridership during Covid stripped the agencies coffers, Subway violence has been a valid concern for most riders and performance has been paltry at best. The MTA has routinely said the system is safer and more reliable than ever. Riders, however, disagree and feel slighted as the MTA shamelessly gaslights them. It feels disingenuous for the MTA to make alternatives more expensive while not providing the service they promise.

In 2023, the MTA self-reported over $600 million in lost revenue due to fare evasion. It is safe to assume that the real number is much larger than that. That figure alone is greater than what the MTA expects to make in its first year of congestion pricing.

For many New Yorkers it comes down to accountability. The question isn't just about raising money; it's about whether the MTA is using it effectively to improve services. The most recent capital plan calls for $65 billion dollars over the next five years – an amount larger than every major metro in the United States combined. There is a disconnect between what the MTA collects and how New Yorkers feel about the quality of the transit system they rely on. New Yorkers are right to question whether the MTA is a trustworthy steward and should be given yet even more money.

Congestion pricing has accomplished its goal of returning the streets to pedestrians. In my opinion, this should have been the primary focus of the initiative, rather than the sales pitch to justify the tax. To that end, the revenue should be dedicated to improving our streetscapes and delivering on the promise to focus on pedestrian safety, expanding public space, improved bike lanes and ADA upgrades. It’s a major step to remove cars from the streets, but it only goes halfway when the city’s sidewalks, crosswalks and bike infrastructure remain in such poor condition. The city has spent billions on selective elevators, but the majority of curb cuts are still an obstacle course for strollers and wheelchairs. Programming that prioritizes walkability, like pedestrian-only zones in Herald Square, demonstrates how rethinking urban spaces can make the city more livable. The revenue generated by congestion pricing barely makes a dent in the MTA’s yearly operating budget but could transform street and sidewalk initiatives.

Congestion pricing revenue should be used to fund projects that improve pedestrian safety and transform public spaces. our months in, NYC’s congestion pricing has succeeded in accomplishing its goals; unfortunately, only half of those goals were worth striving for.