Congestion pricing could be the only path to managing gridlock

By Chris McCahill 

Transportation agencies in the U.S. spend billions of dollars each year expanding highways to ease gridlock. Yet commute times have increased 20% over the last 50 years and traffic congestion is still worsening, according to a several reports. New research confirms congestion pricing may be the best path toward any kind of relief. New York’s program, which launched in January amid plenty of controversy, looks like a promising example. 

Although some reports suggested mixed results following the initial launch of New York’s program, there are clear signs it is beginning to shape downtown travel for the better. According to the MTA, the number of vehicles is down by eight percent, travel times on river crossings and major streets are 20 to 40% faster, and buses are moving more quickly. The benefits could become even more pronounced as revenues are directed toward transit improvements. 

A new study, published in an upcoming Journal of Transport & Health, outlines three approaches to congestion relief: “adding more road capacity, improving alternative modes, and discouraging driving, either by reducing the need to travel or by modal shift.” After reviewing 50 studies, they conclude that only the latter two approaches provide any meaningful benefits. 

They explain: 

“[O]ur recommendation to policy-makers aiming at mitigating or eliminating congestion is to avoid further road building or major upgrades to existing roads to increase road capacity. We also recommend measures that have proved to be effective in reducing congestion, such as road use charging, especially in combination with improvements to public transport infrastructure and services. This can be complemented with soft measures such as the provision of information for users to make better travel choices […] and support of incentive programmes implemented by employers.” 

They point to several Norwegian cities as test cases: “In Oslo, the revenues of the scheme were invested in the public transport network, and congestion fell. In Bergen, the revenues were invested in new roads, and congestion increased.” 

These findings are promising for New York and for other cities that might follow its example. Yet, there are still concerns about fairness, which initially led Gov. Hochul to postpone the program’s launch. Despite common public opinion, many researchers agree that free roads are not the answer. Many equity concerns can be addressed through targeted subsidies and by reinvesting the revenues in better transportation options, as New York’s program is intended to do. As UCLA Professor Michael Manville has written, “we can charge prices to advance efficiency, and use the revenue to protect equity.”  

In addition to making the system more efficient, New York’s program seems to be improving traffic safety, which often benefits the most disadvantaged community members. Crashes are down by more than 50% since the congestion pricing kicked in, according Streetsblog NYC, making New York’s streets the safest they have been in years. 

Photo credit: Roger Victorino on Unsplash. License.