Despite Trump’s orders, congestion pricing will win in the long run

Last month, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy rescinded the New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) power to charge drivers who enter Manhattan south of 60th Street, officially known as the “Congestion Relief Zone.” President Donald Trump celebrated and playfully suggested New Yorkers would crown him king for doing so. 

But here’s the thing: New York’s congestion pricing may not be as hated as the president believes. In fact, since it became operational in January, the program is doing exactly what it was designed to do, and New Yorkers’ attitudes reflect that. Results this powerful are contagious, which is why we expect that whatever the outcome of the legal proceedings is, a cadre of urban leaders is poised to pursue congestion pricing in their own cities. 

First, the facts. In just the first month, river crossings into the Congestion Relief Zone moved 10% to 30% faster than they did at the same time last year. Some travel times within the zone dropped almost 60% during the afternoon peak. All that free-flowing traffic helped school buses and cross-town buses move faster while reducing crashes too. Economically, foot traffic is up and program revenue is strong, allowing the MTA to move forward on critical transit projects.  

Everyone traveling in the city is reaping the benefits. Commuters from New Jersey approaching the Holland and Lincoln tunnels at 8:30 a.m. on a weekday know they can smoothly enter the heart of Manhattan. Children and other bus riders can feel more confident they’ll arrive on time. Delivery drivers can finish ahead of schedule. Simply put, congestion pricing is improving people’s quality of life right now.  

It’s little surprise, then, that a clear majority of New Yorkers approve of the program, including two-thirds of people who drive into the Congestion Relief Zone. After seeing it work in practice, support for congestion pricing has surged. 

The same thing happened in Stockholm. When that city’s seven-month congestion pricing pilot launched in 2002, there was considerable resistance to the plan, with public support below 40%. However, once the pilot was over and congestion returned, residents voted to make the program permanent.  

That’s why we think that despite already claiming a political victory, policymakers in Washington grossly misread the field of play. New Yorkers clearly see how the program improves their daily lives, and the politicians responsible for ending it will bear the public’s anger when gridlock returns. New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy should be similarly cautious about celebrating the end of New York’s program, as his constituents are experiencing the benefits as well.  

But for now, the plan will be tied up in the courts. Immediately after the Trump administration’s decision to rescind its approval of the program, the MTA sued, maintaining that the federal government is not authorized to terminate the agreement. New York’s program has already faced no fewer than 10 legal challenges before it launched in January. But there has been a fundamental change: New Yorkers now know that congestion pricing works. 

No matter who wins in court, we expect political support for congestion pricing to grow—both in New York and across the country.  

If the federal government loses in the courts and the program continues, it will allow more people to grow accustomed to smoother-flowing traffic and a better-resourced MTA. It will also allow the transit agency time to get moving on all those extra construction projects, which will engender more confidence in the agency and what the Congestion Relief Zone makes possible. 

A legal win for New York will also be a massive “green light” to other city and metropolitan leaders to pursue their own programs. Not only will they have New York’s congestion results and polling data to reference, but depending on the scope of the judicial decision, they may have greater security from future lawsuits and other interference. That’s especially the case for those congested central cities that wouldn’t have to confront the same interstate commerce issues that exist between New York and New Jersey.  

If the courts stop the program, congestion pricing will have been live for at least a few months, meaning New York will have had its Stockholm-like pilot. Afterwards, traffic will return, the MTA will not be able to make the investments it needs to make, and the public will know who to blame. How long would the president celebrate being crowned the King of New York Gridlock? 

If the Trump administration eventually allows congestion pricing to resume, then it’s the same kind of green light for other cities. If the administration holds strong against the tides of public support, congressional legislators are likely to hear from local elected officials and their constituents that they want the authorities New York used to have. With federal law already granting states such congestion pricing authorities, it’s easy to imagine Congress making the legal code even clearer.  

Regardless of which scenario unfolds, it’s impossible to ignore congestion pricing’s impact. Americans are ready to pay more to reduce congestion and make their cities more livable for everyone. These kinds of undeniable truths have a funny way of winning out in the end.