Donald Trump has promised to "terminate" New York City's plan to impose a $9 toll on drivers entering certain parts of Manhattan on his first day back in office. He isn't the only critic of congestion pricing; the plan has catalyzed rallies in New Jersey and on Long Island and generated headlines across the country.
These criticisms are understandable. New York City's congestion toll will impose a financial burden on those driving to the city. But the presence of so many automobiles has created tremendous costs beyond time lost in traffic. And it is long past time for New Yorkers -- and city dwellers elsewhere -- to reimagine our urban spaces.
Congestion pricing presents an opportunity to rebalance these societal costs and create spaces that prioritize people over cars. It's one of many tools that American cities must use to spark a transportation culture shift. As such, it should be a policy goal for communities nationwide.
Let's uncover the hidden costs of a car-centric culture. New Yorkers -- a majority of whom do not own cars -- collectively subsidize 3 million free parking spaces across the city. But those automobiles spend 95% of their lifetime parked, ironically making streets and traffic more congested while providing little benefit for most of the day.
Automobiles also consume valuable urban space. On average, American cities sacrifice a staggering 22% of their land to accommodate parking, resulting in nearly seven parking spots for every car. Given that Americans own 283 million cars, imagine how much space we could free up for pedestrians, parks, and affordable housing.
Then there are the environmental costs. A single car releases about 4.6 tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide annually. Asphalt-paved streets and impermeable parking lots also create stormwater runoff issues and make cities even hotter.
Shifting more of these societal costs to car owners would allow cities to invest more in parks, public transit systems, and other shared amenities that enhance quality of life for all residents.
Cities with congestion pricing policies are already reaping these benefits. Stockholm implemented congestion pricing in 2006, while Singapore has utilized it for nearly 50 years. Both cities have used the revenues from congestion pricing to expand transit networks, update transportation infrastructure, and fund other ambitious public works projects.
In Stockholm, traffic has plummeted, and transit has become more affordable and reliable. Even as the city's population jumped 10% in the decade post-congestion pricing, its traffic declined 22%. Singapore's transit system is among the world's best, and it is one of the greenest and most livable cities worldwide.
American cities can achieve similar successes. To overcome initial opposition, leaders might consider proposing congestion pricing on a temporary basis, like Stockholm did, to allow the public to get comfortable with the idea and witness the benefits of a pedestrian-first approach.
Congestion pricing may sound novel, but many U.S. cities have taken steps to prioritize pedestrians before. In 2009, New York City leaders transformed highly congested areas -- including Times Square and Herald Square -- by reclaiming driving and parking lanes. These changes, along with investments in bus and bike-friendly infrastructure, helped create the pedestrian-friendly landmarks we know today. It's hard to imagine cars cutting through the heart of Times Square, but for decades that was the reality.
Or consider the COVID-era "streateries" that popped up due to indoor dining restrictions and decreased automobile use. Spaces dedicated to parking became expanded outdoor dining rooms where consumers spent more and small businesses earned more.
How we choose to move around our cities impacts their evolution. Congestion pricing provides yet another critical opportunity to disrupt the status quo and spark new social norms. It allows us to reconsider what our public spaces should look like and who should have the right to use them.
New York City's congestion toll may be an initial fiscal burden on those using cars to commute into the city. But the bias toward automobiles has exacted a far greater toll on the city's residents for decades.
These criticisms are understandable. New York City's congestion toll will impose a financial burden on those driving to the city. But the presence of so many automobiles has created tremendous costs beyond time lost in traffic. And it is long past time for New Yorkers -- and city dwellers elsewhere -- to reimagine our urban spaces.
Congestion pricing presents an opportunity to rebalance these societal costs and create spaces that prioritize people over cars. It's one of many tools that American cities must use to spark a transportation culture shift. As such, it should be a policy goal for communities nationwide.
Let's uncover the hidden costs of a car-centric culture. New Yorkers -- a majority of whom do not own cars -- collectively subsidize 3 million free parking spaces across the city. But those automobiles spend 95% of their lifetime parked, ironically making streets and traffic more congested while providing little benefit for most of the day.
Automobiles also consume valuable urban space. On average, American cities sacrifice a staggering 22% of their land to accommodate parking, resulting in nearly seven parking spots for every car. Given that Americans own 283 million cars, imagine how much space we could free up for pedestrians, parks, and affordable housing.
Then there are the environmental costs. A single car releases about 4.6 tons of climate-warming carbon dioxide annually. Asphalt-paved streets and impermeable parking lots also create stormwater runoff issues and make cities even hotter.
Shifting more of these societal costs to car owners would allow cities to invest more in parks, public transit systems, and other shared amenities that enhance quality of life for all residents.
Cities with congestion pricing policies are already reaping these benefits. Stockholm implemented congestion pricing in 2006, while Singapore has utilized it for nearly 50 years. Both cities have used the revenues from congestion pricing to expand transit networks, update transportation infrastructure, and fund other ambitious public works projects.
In Stockholm, traffic has plummeted, and transit has become more affordable and reliable. Even as the city's population jumped 10% in the decade post-congestion pricing, its traffic declined 22%. Singapore's transit system is among the world's best, and it is one of the greenest and most livable cities worldwide.
American cities can achieve similar successes. To overcome initial opposition, leaders might consider proposing congestion pricing on a temporary basis, like Stockholm did, to allow the public to get comfortable with the idea and witness the benefits of a pedestrian-first approach.
Congestion pricing may sound novel, but many U.S. cities have taken steps to prioritize pedestrians before. In 2009, New York City leaders transformed highly congested areas -- including Times Square and Herald Square -- by reclaiming driving and parking lanes. These changes, along with investments in bus and bike-friendly infrastructure, helped create the pedestrian-friendly landmarks we know today. It's hard to imagine cars cutting through the heart of Times Square, but for decades that was the reality.
Or consider the COVID-era "streateries" that popped up due to indoor dining restrictions and decreased automobile use. Spaces dedicated to parking became expanded outdoor dining rooms where consumers spent more and small businesses earned more.
How we choose to move around our cities impacts their evolution. Congestion pricing provides yet another critical opportunity to disrupt the status quo and spark new social norms. It allows us to reconsider what our public spaces should look like and who should have the right to use them.
New York City's congestion toll may be an initial fiscal burden on those using cars to commute into the city. But the bias toward automobiles has exacted a far greater toll on the city's residents for decades.
Evan Shieh is an architect, urbanist, researcher, and assistant professor of architecture at New York Institute of Technology.
Read Full Article »
