NYC’s Congestion Pricing Was Flawed—But Killing It Won’t Fix Traffic
Last week, the Trump administration rescinded federal approval for New York City’s congestion pricing program, a move that left many transportation advocates and urban advocates frustrated. After years of delays, political fights and legal challenges, the first congestion pricing system in the U.S. was just getting started — only to be abruptly shut down by a policy reversal from Washington.
If you believe in congestion pricing as a tool to manage traffic (and we do), this decision is infuriating. If you’ve spent years pushing for it, this feels like another example of political whiplash — where long-term infrastructure planning is undermined by short-term electoral shifts.
Even so, the reality is that NYC’s congestion pricing was deeply flawed from the start. While the administration’s decision to kill the program outright is wrong, it’s also true that there is a major credibility gap at the program's foundation. Instead of being solely focused on reducing congestion, it was also framed as a funding mechanism for the deeply dysfunctional Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).
That framing not only created confusion about the program's primary purpose, it also made it easy to attack and hard to defend. And now that it’s been shut down, congestion pricing advocates are left with two problems: Manhattan’s traffic is still a mess, and they have no clear path forward.
Tying Congestion Pricing to the MTA’s Infinity Budget Crisis
The Trump administration’s argument against congestion pricing is framed as a matter of fairness: They claim it’s an extra tax on working-class drivers with no alternative route into the city. That’s a stretch. Most Manhattan-bound drivers have choices — commuter trains, buses, ferries — but many prefer to drive.
The real vulnerability in NYC’s congestion pricing plan wasn’t fairness — it was trust. The program was designed with dual objectives: as a traffic management tool, but also as a revenue generator for the MTA. Within NYC, that argument may make sense because of the close link between reduced driving and increased demand for transit services, along with longstanding frustrations with the MTA. But outside of the city, that dual purpose comes across as an excuse for bad policy. For the general population, that’s where NYC lost the argument.
The MTA is a transit agency that serves millions of people every day, but it’s also one of the most financially dysfunctional local government organizations in the country. Its funding model today relies on service cuts, crippling levels of debt, and endless rounds of federal and state bailouts. Nearly 80% of fare and toll revenue goes toward paying off debt — not improving service. And for those who have used comparable systems around the world, NYC transit feels dysfunctional, despite its high cost.
Congestion pricing was marketed as a way to fund desired system expansions. More specifically, to allow MTA to borrow even more money today and pay that back with future congestion charges. Not only are these projects the MTA should already be able to finance if not for chronic mismanagement, but they also create a dissonant dependence on future drivers being willing to pay the congestion charge (instead of, you know, not driving). It’s the transportation version of taxing smokers to pay for schools; if you like good schools, then become a smoker. If you want to pay the decades of debt for marginally better transit, then drive to Manhattan.
From the outside, it is easy to see this as just another scheme to pour good money after bad, with suburban commuters footing the bill for the dysfunction. Linking the tolls to funding the MTA makes it look like just another tax on drivers.
That framing gave opponents an easy talking point: This isn’t about fixing traffic, it’s about bailing out a bloated, failing bureaucracy.
And the truth is, that perception isn’t entirely wrong. The MTA desperately needs reform. If congestion pricing revenue disappears into the agency’s budget hole without any work at addressing its longstanding structural problems, that won't really help New Yorkers, let alone the suburban commuters the administration is pandering to.
There’s No Other Real Way To Address NYC Congestion
But, here’s the thing — regardless of how poorly NYC implemented congestion pricing, it’s still the only real way to address the city’s congestion problem.
Traffic isn’t a fixed amount of cars that have to be accommodated in a fixed period of time. It’s a dynamic system, and drivers adjust their behavior in response to changes in condition. They adjust the amount they drive, the times they drive and their frequency of trips based on perceived levels of traffic congestion. That means, for a place like NYC, there are only two ways to reduce congestion:
Make driving cost more money (pricing).
Make driving cost more time (gridlock).
There is no third option. NYC can’t build its way out of congestion — there is physically no room to expand roadways and doing so would only induce more demand anyway. Unlike every other North American city that has plenty of room to thicken up and add more walkable/bikeable destinations, NYC — particularly Manhattan — is a fully mature place. You can already do every daily task in NYC without needing a car. Most people there do.
What congestion pricing does — when implemented correctly — is make drivers rethink when, how and whether they drive. Done right, it facilitates:
More transit use and carpooling, which reduces the number of cars entering the city.
More off-peak trips, which spreads out demand.
More local economic activity outside of Manhattan, which reduces long commutes by creating alternatives in other locations.
Without congestion pricing, Manhattan’s streets will remain clogged with traffic, slowing down buses, deliveries and emergency vehicles. The Trump administration’s decision doesn’t solve anything — it just takes one cost structure (price) and replaces it with another cost structure (time), making NYC a worse place for everyone in the process.
Is There a Pragmatic Compromise?
U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Duffy has repeatedly said he supports congestion pricing — just not this version. His main objection? Drivers don’t have a free way to get into the city. The Secretary seems to be equating "free" with money while being willing to tolerate significant costs in terms of delays. Let's go with that.
A model that might address congestion and meet the administration's priorities could be a hybrid of the model used in Vancouver, B.C. There, instead of imposing a fee, they regulate the number of vehicles entering the city by use of actuated traffic signals. Like drivers who wait at a ramp meter to get on the highway, suburban drivers are not allowed into the city until congestion has subsided. While that doesn't involve a congestion charge or other financial transaction, it obviously comes at a cost — increased delays for commuters entering the city — albeit one that, like the ramp meter, is somewhat offset by improved mobility once within the city itself.
NYC could offer this “free” option in some areas, on some routes, while continuing to apply congestion charges on other routes. I know this hybrid approach may annoy some advocates and policymakers, and I understand why, but it's a small annoyance compared to being forced to scrap the program entirely for at least the next four years.
NYC also needs to get serious about reforming the MTA. In a state that has long been a Democratic stronghold, there are many progressives now making the case for better governance, for taking seriously the idea that running an agency like the MTA has to be about more than finding creative ways to raise revenue. We are 1,000% here for more responsible and competent local governance, which is an essential part of building a strong town.
Fixing the MTA will not just give NYC and the region's commuters the experience they deserve for what they are paying; it will also give credibility to the argument that congestion pricing is not just another initiative to fund bloated and unresponsive bureaucracy.
NYC still needs congestion pricing, but it must be structured as a legitimate congestion management tool, not perceived as a tax to bail out a failing transit agency. The current approach blurred the lines between traffic control and revenue generation, making it an easy political target.
The Trump administration’s decision to eliminate congestion pricing was shortsighted, but NYC’s leadership bears responsibility for allowing it to be framed as an unfair tax. If congestion pricing is ever going to return — and work as intended — it needs to be rebuilt on a foundation of transparency, efficiency and public trust.
Charles Marohn (known as “Chuck” to friends and colleagues) is the founder and president of Strong Towns and the bestselling author of “Escaping the Housing Trap: The Strong Towns Response to the Housing Crisis.” With decades of experience as a land use planner and civil engineer, Marohn is on a mission to help cities and towns become stronger and more prosperous. He spreads the Strong Towns message through in-person presentations, the Strong Towns Podcast, and his books and articles. In recognition of his efforts and impact, Planetizen named him one of the 15 Most Influential Urbanists of all time in 2017 and 2023.