A simple solution that reduces traffic and air pollution and gets people to work faster seems like an idea that everyone should agree with. But the issue of congestion charges can quickly become a heated debate.
Ironically, both the hospitality and utilities sectors are taking advantage of this principle, but most are not as opposed to it as they are in the transportation sector.
Congestion charging involves charging drivers a fee to enter busy areas during peak hours. This economic incentive encourages drivers to change their travel behaviour by using public transport, carpooling or travelling outside of peak hours. This in turn helps to reduce congestion during the busiest times and air pollution, and ensures that road space is used more efficiently and equitably.
“Had New York made progress, it would have given Los Angeles and San Francisco some breathing room to revive their fairly dormant proposals.”
The benefits of implementing overloading are obvious:
• Reduced traffic volumes Major cities such as New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco currently suffer from severe traffic congestion, which affects economic productivity and quality of life. Congestion charging can significantly reduce traffic volumes during peak hours, resulting in smoother traffic flow, shorter travel times and improved reliability of the road network.
• Environmental sustainability By reducing the number of cars on the road and encouraging the use of cleaner transport alternatives, congestion charging helps reduce vehicle emissions. This is particularly important for cities struggling with air quality problems and seeking to achieve environmental sustainability goals.
• Revenue for public transport The funds raised by the congestion charge can be reinvested in a city’s public transport infrastructure. This creates a positive feedback loop: better public transport options encourage more people to leave their cars at home, further reducing congestion and pollution.
• Equal use of road space By preventing unnecessary journeys during peak hours, the congestion charge ensures that road space is available for those who need it most, such as emergency vehicles, public transport and essential services.
The benefits of a city toll are obvious, but its implementation also brings with it a number of challenges that the city administration must overcome. These include:
• Equity and accessibility It is critical to ensure that congestion charging does not disproportionately burden low-income drivers. Measures such as exemptions or discounts for low-income residents, improved public transit, and targeted investments in underserved areas can help address equity issues.
• Public and political acceptance Successful implementation requires strong political will and public buy-in. Transparent communication about the benefits, planned reinvestments and possible exemptions or mitigations is essential. Pilot programs and phased implementation can also be helpful in building support.
• Technological infrastructure The implementation of congestion charging requires robust technological systems for monitoring, billing and enforcement. Investment in reliable, user-friendly technology is essential to ensure smooth operations and compliance.
NYC’s congestion pricing program
The introduction of congestion charges has proven to be extremely successful in easing urban traffic congestion around the world and has considerable potential for metropolitan areas in the US that struggle with chronic traffic problems. This makes the recent decision by New York Governor Kathy Hochul to abandon a plan to introduce a congestion charge for Manhattan at the last minute all the more puzzling.
The Big Apple’s decision to move forward with its plan was preceded by decades of discussion. While transportation officials in New York had been advocating for similar measures since the 1970s, it was former Mayor Michael Bloomberg who seriously began calling for a vehicle user fee on Manhattan’s busiest streets in 2007.
The current plan, which would have commuters who drive to work pay up to $15 a day to enter Lower Manhattan starting in June 2024, would have raised about $1 billion a year to help the city’s struggling public transit system. But in a stunning last-minute decision, Hochul ordered the first congestion tolling program in the U.S. to be put on hold indefinitely after years of staunchly supporting it.
The New York Times The editorial board called her decision a “serious miscalculation.” According to a Siena College poll, 64% of New Yorkers oppose the program and 72% of suburban residents oppose it, so the decision appears to have been partly politically motivated. Another possible reason for the governor’s decision was the financial impact on low-income people who have to commute to Lower Manhattan every day.
“The advantages of a city toll are obvious, but its implementation also brings with it a number of challenges that the city administration must overcome.”
The plan, which would impose a fee on vehicles entering the busiest parts of the city, was intended to encourage more commuters to use public transit, which would ease traffic and improve air quality. But Hochul worried that the additional cost would disproportionately affect low-income earners who rely on their cars for their commute, “at a time when inflation is still eroding New Yorkers’ hard-earned wages.” In a message announcing her decision, she expressed concern that “another additional expense would cause residents to rethink living or working here altogether, further damaging our recovery.”
Some argue that rather than abandoning a project with significant environmental and traffic benefits, the government could have considered alternative measures, such as tax cuts, to mitigate the financial impact on low-income drivers.
The cancellation of the congestion charge plan raises questions about equity and the distribution of benefits and burdens across communities. Although the plan was primarily aimed at Manhattan, its impacts would have affected residents of the outer boroughs and beyond. The decision underscores the complex interplay between environmental goals, economic considerations and social justice in city policy.
In the US, all eyes were on Manhattan’s congestion charge program. Had New York moved forward, it would have given Los Angeles and San Francisco some breathing room to revive their fairly dormant proposals. It is likely that these other cities will now be very cautious about moving forward with similar plans, if at all.
Examples of congestion charges
While the United States does not seem to be ready for such a program, congestion charging has led to a reduction in traffic in several other major cities around the world.
Singapore was one of the pioneers of congestion charging, introducing its Area Licensing Scheme in 1975, which evolved into today’s Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system. This dynamic pricing model adjusts fees based on real-time traffic conditions, resulting in consistently smooth traffic flow and high compliance rates. Revenues support the city’s extensive public transport network, making it one of the most efficient in the world.
London has had a congestion charge since 2003. Today, congestion in the centre has fallen by 30% and by 2018 it had raised around £2.6 billion. This money was invested in improving public transport, cycling infrastructure and road maintenance. And by and large, people there have got used to it.
The congestion charge was unpopular in Stockholm when it was introduced, so the authorities started a six-month trial program in January 2006, which was reinstated permanently in 2007. “The closer we get to implementation, the more the disadvantages become apparent,” noted Jonas Eliasson, Stockholm’s transport director, in an article for Streetsblog NYC. “When you get through that valley of political death and people actually see the advantages and also realize that, aside from the advantages, it’s actually not as bad as they thought… then support goes up again.”
After the pilot project, the Swedish government held a referendum. The residents of Stockholm voted in favour – the first time that European residents voted in favour of introducing a toll system. In the following years, support rose to over 70%.
These and other success stories provide compelling evidence that congestion charging can be a highly effective approach to tackling traffic congestion in a wide range of urban contexts, bringing significant benefits to environmental sustainability, economic productivity and quality of life.
None of this is easy, and there are pitfalls that need to be overcome if congestion charging is to have any chance of success. But the examples of several cities around the world that have introduced this measure offer valuable lessons and evidence of the effectiveness of this policy.
For large U.S. cities struggling with chronic traffic problems, implementing congestion charging is a viable solution. Through careful planning and implementation of such measures, U.S. cities can create more efficient, livable, and sustainable urban environments. As an experienced traffic and transportation planner, I am a strong advocate of implementing congestion charging as a critical component of modern urban mobility strategies. Now is the time to act and use the lessons of global pioneers to create a better future for our cities.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Wes Guckert is President and CEO of The Traffic Group. He is also a Fellow of ITE and a member of the National Small Business Leadership Council. For more information, visit www.trafficgroup.com or email (email protected).
