Congestion Pricing: Unpacking the First Year of Impressive Impact

For too long, traffic congestion has been treated as an unavoidable cost of urban life. Yes, it’s frustrating to be stuck in traffic, yes congestion is dangerous to pedestrians and drivers alike, and yes, traffic jams are concentrated sources of air pollution that disproportionately impact people living in dense urban areas. But decades of experience adding vehicle lanes, hoping that “one more lane will fix it” have amply demonstrated that adding more space for vehicles merely attracts additional traffic rather than resolving the problem. So what can be done? Perhaps having the average driver sit in traffic for 50,100 hours a year is just the price of economic progress.

Over the past year, New York City has demonstrated that ever-increasing traffic congestion is not an inevitability but a choice that can be addressed through smart policy. New York’s congestion pricing system places a modest fee of $9 on drivers entering into Manhattan’s central business district, perhaps the most heavily congested area in the entire country, during certain peak hours. Instead of adding more lanes of traffic, NYC’s plan uses pricing signals to use our existing transportation infrastructure more efficiently.

The results are in from the first year of implementation, and the program is working – resoundingly so.

Year One: NYC’s Congestion Relief Zone is Thriving

As MTA Chief, Policy and External Relations John J. McCarthy has said: “Traffic and pollution are DOWN, business is UP, and every other metric shows congestion relief is WORKING!!”

According to the MTA data:

• Traffic volumes are down: “11% fewer vehicle entries between January and October”
• Buses are more reliable: “Bus speeds in the CRZ increased 2.3% YoY between January and September,” and “Bus ridership increased by 8%
• Emissions have eased: “GHG emissions decreased 6.1% YoY between January and September.”
• Transit funding has increased: “$468M in net revenue raised through October”
• Less vehicle crashes: “a 21% decrease” in crashes involving trucks in the CRZ
• Taxis did not suffer: “Taxi and FHV trips increased 1.4% within the CRZ January through September.”

These results matter, and they are exactly what urban economics theory says should happen when implementing congestion pricing, based in part on what has been affirmatively demonstrated in other similar programs around the globe, such as London.

From Taboo to Textbook: How Congestion Pricing Became the Norm

This is not what the critics of congestion pricing expected.

Critics of the program took one look at the addition of a fee to transportation and assumed drivers would revolt.

And, before its implementation, congestion pricing was treated like a political third rail, from elected officials tiptoeing around it to headlines warnings of mass chaos and lawsuits. Every opposition talking point assumed that once the policy went live, public backlash would force a retreat.

But that didn’t happen. The most inflammatory predictions faded fastest. There was never any sustained objection from commuters, nor a wave of political reversals (although the CRZ fee was reduced from $15 to $9). What once dominated headlines now is approaching an uncontroversial opinion thanks to the growing appreciation for and support of the program’s benefits.

What Arguments Collapsed and Why

Some critiques didn’t just weaken; they were completely disproven.

“This will punish the working class.” This claim assumed that most low-and-moderate-income (LMI) commuters are mostly driving into Manhattan. But, what is true today is that the vast majority of working-class New Yorkers take the train or the bus into the congestion zone in Manhattan. This is the justification that the Trump Administration has given to try and kill congestion pricing.

“Traffic will just move elsewhere.” Spillover was treated as an inevitable outcome. This one is more complicated, with some areas and routes having some months with worse traffic and others with better. The jury is out, but in the region as a whole, traffic is down, not just shifted. In practice, traffic reduction in the core didn’t make other corridors more congested. Travel behavior adjusted by some trips shifting mode, time, or some trips not happening at all. That is the whole point of pricing.

“Negative Economic Impact on Businesses.” According to the NYS governor’s office,” the Manhattan Economy is Thriving: Best Year for Office Leasing in 23 Years; Foot Traffic Up From 2024; Sales Tax Receipts up Over 6%”. The fear that congestion pricing would negatively impact the economy has been completely disproved. More foot traffic has meant that the storefronts are more likely to receive more visitors.

“People won’t tolerate paying to drive.” This argument underestimated how quickly people adapt once rules are clear and consistent. Predictability matters. Once congestion pricing became a stable feature of the system, behavior simply adapted. A recent poll demonstrated that 57 percent of New York City residents now want congestion pricing to continue, a remarkably high level of support for a policy that imposes fees on drivers. Drivers paying the fee recognize the benefits they themselves derive in the form of reduced commute times, thanks to bridges  and tunnels now substantially cleared of once-debilitating traffic and lost time.

This Is Exactly What Happened in Other Jurisdictions

The growing political support for congestion pricing matches the experience of other cities around the world that have implemented congestion pricing programs: the public is initially skeptical, but opinion turns around once people see that congestion pricing is delivering real world results.

In London, when congestion charging was introduced in 2003, opposition outweighed support before the program went into effect. Many drivers feared it would hurt businesses or simply fail to reduce traffic. But once the charge was implemented and central London traffic volumes fell by roughly 15–20 percent, with bus speeds improving and travel times becoming more reliable public opinion shifted. Over time, a majority of Londoners came to support keeping the program in place.

A similar pattern unfolded in Stockholm, where congestion pricing was first introduced as a temporary trial in 2006. Support hovered around 40 percent before implementation. After residents experienced noticeable reductions in congestion and improved air quality, support rose sharply, eventually exceeding 60–70 percent. What had been politically contentious became broadly accepted once people saw that the policy worked.

What all of these examples demonstrate is that drivers are actually willing to pay a bit more, once they see that the program is working and providing tangible benefits.

The Real Takeaway: Starting is the Hard Part

Congestion pricing’s first year confirms something known but often underestimated: the hardest part of change is starting. With 2026 now in full swing, let’s take this as a reminder that implementation is a matter of taking the plunge. The political costs of starting something are worth the risk.

Congestion pricing didn’t win because it avoided controversy. It won because it endured it long enough for reality to take over. What was once framed as radical now reads like a case study from an urban economics textbook, but with tangible, real-world – not academic – benefits and impacts on people’s daily lives.

The lesson isn’t that every reform will be painless. It’s that durability comes from follow-through. If you can get to day one, and the policy does what it’s supposed to do, day 365 looks a lot less scary.

The congestion pricing framework that ultimately launched at a $9 charge was not the program’s originally proposed price. Earlier analyses suggested that a $15 charge would deliver greater congestion reduction and generate more revenue to support major transit investments. The difference between $9 and $15 isn’t just arithmetic. It’s the difference between managing congestion and reshaping how people move through the city.

After one year, the most important barrier has already been cleared: implementation. The program works, the public is adjusting, and the direst predictions did not materialize. The political cost of starting has already been paid. Having proven congestion pricing works, the question now is, will policy makers allow it to reach its full potential?