In Defense of Congestion Pricing

August Hoyt ’28

New York City’s revival of congestion pricing has been all over the news lately. And for good reason - it seems unprecedented to have to pay nine whole dollars just to drive into central Manhattan. But most Bard students can attest to the cumulative hours spent on the M14 or M21 in traffic. And planners have known for decades that the only ways to stop traffic congestion are viable alternatives to driving or, in this case, to provide a deterrent to driving into congested areas. So on that note, isn’t congestion pricing a great thing? Yeah, it actually is.

Governor Hochul’s plan for congestion pricing would charge cars entering Manhattan south of 59th Street $9 between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekends. However, there are a number of exceptions to this fee, such as a $2.25 fee during hours outside of those listed and a discount for entering through any of the tunnels leading to Manhattan. Further, the fee offers more leeway than depicted. Driving through the congestion zone without leaving the West Side Highway or FDR drive would be exempt from the charge. Taxis would pay 75 cents; and ride services like Uber would pay a $1.50 charge. However, a large percentage of people still drive into Manhattan every day. And while this reasoning has been frequently used in protest of congestion pricing, it doesn’t seem to hold up as much when examined further. Only 45 percent of New Yorkers actually own a car, according to ParkNYC. And even more own a car but still commute by public transportation, as the Community Service Society found that 57 percent of outer-borough residents take public transit to work, and only 4 percent drive to work. The number of people using public transportation would go up,as current drivers would be discouraged by the fee. This was seen in London, in which congestion inside the tolled zone dropped by 30 percent following the charge being implemented, according to a CBS news article describing the success of it there. Most of these people sought other ways of getting to their jobs, with many of these alternatives being public transport. And all these people who are commuting into the city center, which is already a majority of people within New York City, will be relying on our aging subways, which turned 120 years old in October. It’s no secret that the MTA is underfunded, and whether you agree with their spending or not (I, for one, think they spend a bit too much on the wrong things), you can’t deny that the billions being given to the MTA every year would certainly be of help to their financial woes and would better nearly every rider’s experience. But it’s still obvious that many of those who commute into Manhattan’s central business district come from suburban areas such as New Jersey not served by viable public transportation options. One solution would be to connect to commuter rail or the subway from their cars, a result which would undoubtedly be considered successful for its removal of cars from congested areas. Many would, however, simply choose to pay the nine dollars and receive a quicker commute with less traffic in return. This would, in essence, take those who have the option of public transportation off the roads and would have those with no choice but to drive pay the toll to drive with less traffic. While it may not be ideal to force some people with no choice but to drive to pay, doesn't it seem worth it if they are provided with an upside and if it benefits a majority of commuters?

While those choosing to pay the fee will have the return of a smoother commute from their payment, a reasonable concern has been made about who can afford to pay nine dollars each day as it can be a steep price for many New Yorkers. A number of conservative lawmakers have championed the idea that congestion pricing is a tax on the poor, and that those in poverty are going to bear the brunt of the tolls. Many of these come from New Jersey, and collectively sued the MTA, claiming, among other things, to be defending the working class from a tax that would only allow the rich into Manhattan. But if you look at who is actually driving into central Manhattan, this logic doesn’t exactly hold up. According to the New York Times’s article on how much congestion pricing would cost for different vehicles, out of all of the people who will be tolled as a result of congestion pricing, a mere one percent of those will be individuals with household incomes of less than $50,000 per year. Most of these households don’t own a car, and many of them will get where they need to go using public transit. And that one percent that will be tolled are eligible for a 50 percent discount on their toll, bringing the cost down to $4.50. Looking at it this way, congestion pricing is truly a tax on wealthier New Yorkers, in place to benefit the rest of the city. According to the Department of Transportation, those who drive into Manhattan earn 30 percent more than those who take mass transit. So if that logic stands, congestion pricing would be taxing higher income drivers to support an underfunded public transit system that serves all New Yorkers. We might live in a city with arguably the greatest public transit system in the Western Hemisphere, but an embarrassing amount of space and money continues to be given to a minority of richer automobile owners. Why oppose a law that tries to decrease gridlock while making the way we move around our city more equitable?