The $9 Toll Isn’t Destroying NYC

After years of debate and delay, New York City has joined several cities throughout the world and finally implemented a congestion charge on Jan. 5, becoming the first U.S.

city to do so. Critics of New York’s congestion pricing include the armada of New York Post articles that railed against the toll. The articles warned of various catastrophes this toll will bring, including devastating local businesses, unfair burdens on commuters, increased costs for deliveries and the “death” of Manhattan’s vitality.



Now, congestion pricing charges drivers a $9 toll during peak hours to enter Manhattan south of 60th Street. The program aims to both reduce traffic and fund public transit. It’s only been a few weeks, but I don’t see the city up in flames yet.

You can disagree with the premise of congestion pricing all you want, but early data suggests the $9 toll is already delivering on its core goal of reducing traffic, a new stream of funding for the MTA, and improving the mobility of Manhattan’s core. Right now, congestion pricing is no doubt unpopular. While the latest Siena College poll shows 63% of New Yorkers currently oppose congestion pricing, I wouldn’t be so pessimistic that those numbers stay stagnant.

Following London’s “congestion charge” experience, initial opposition gave way to 60% support within months as residents witnessed real improvements. Those improvements are and will become visible in New York too. In just its first week, congestion pricing has led to significant improvements in travel times.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) reports that weekday entries into the congestion zone fell by 7.5% , representing about 43,800 fewer vehicles per day . This reduction has translated into meaningful time savings — travel times through the Holland Tunnel dropped by 63% , while the Lincoln Tunnel saw a 46% improvement.

It’s way too early in congestion pricing’s lifespan to be making concrete statements on how the toll is affecting transportation, and critics can argue these early successes are merely a result of January’s unusually cold weather keeping drivers home. While temperature obviously plays some role, similar programs have proven successful across different climate zones worldwide. In London, Stockholm and Singapore, traffic speeds in congestion zones increased by 10 to 30% after implementing similar policies.

Whether it be with your time or your wallet, you’d already be paying the congestion toll. This newly accrued money is something that can actually be managed and reinvested, which is why the economic argument against congestion pricing has to ignore the pitfalls of current gridlock and the potential benefits congestion pricing could have for the city’s economy. The Partnership for New York City estimates that traffic congestion costs the region $9.

2 billion annually in lost time and productivity. Current traffic moves at an abysmal 4.8 miles per hour in midtown Manhattan.

A toll is still a toll, but reducing this congestion will significantly benefit the businesses opponents claim to protect in the name of speed, ease and efficiency. Beyond traffic reduction and economic benefits, the congestion pricing program promises significant improvements to public health, safety and environmental sustainability. New York currently has some of the highest asthma rates in the country .

Reducing vehicle emissions through congestion pricing directly improves air quality for millions of residents while helping New York meet its climate goals, as the transportation sector accounts for 28% of the city’s greenhouse gas emissions . The program also promises to save lives in more immediate ways. For example, reduced congestion means faster response times for emergency vehicles, which are exempt from the congestion charge and currently struggle to navigate Manhattan’s gridlocked streets.

When ambulances are stuck in traffic, every minute of delay increases the risk to patients who need urgent care. Another common criticism is that the toll unfairly burdens low-income commuters. However, this argument overlooks a key fact about Manhattan’s commuting patterns.

About 85% of people who work in the congestion zone already take mass transit, with only 11% driving . The Community Service Society, New York’s oldest anti-poverty organization, found that only 2% of the city’s working poor would regularly pay the congestion fee, while over 250,000 would benefit from improved transit service, compared to the 5,000 New Yorkers who would regularly pay the congestion toll. Still, for those who must drive, the program includes important accommodations.

Low-income drivers making under $50,000 are eligible for half-price tolls , and the fee includes crossing credits for drivers using tunnels, ensuring the program remains fair for the minority of people who the toll would disproportionately punish without the reduction. The $15 billion in bonds enabled by this program are tied to the MTA and will fund critical improvements: modernizing subway signals, expanding accessibility, purchasing electric buses and extending the Second Avenue subway to East Harlem, which has been in funding limbo . These investments will benefit the vast majority of New Yorkers who rely on public transit as their primary form of transportation.

The real question isn’t whether congestion pricing works for its goal — the evidence from cities worldwide shows it does. The question is whether New York will fully commit to the program and resist the reactionary pressures trying to water it down even though the current $9 toll is already a 40% reduction from the originally planned $15. As New York adapts to this new system, we should expect some adjustment pains.

But the early data is encouraging: faster bus times, reduced traffic and more reliable travel for those who truly need to drive. A $9 toll won’t destroy New York City — it might just help save it from the chokehold of endless traffic and give our floundering transit system a much-needed funding supplement. If nothing else, it’s making the Ram Van run a couple of minutes quicker.

Andrew McDonald, FC RH ’26, is a history and political science major from Sacramento, Calif..