congestion pricing is also about public space
in a city where everything is expensive, cars start to pay their way
I know a lot has been written about congestion pricing in the past few weeks, so I’ve been wary about wading into the discourse. However, I’ve been having a lot of conversations about the program since it went into effect, and I thought it might be useful to share some of my thoughts here, particularly as the new toll relates to civic space.
To start, congestion pricing is not a radical program globally, but it is radical in the context of car-related policy in New York City (and by extension, the United States). On one hand, similar policies have been in existence around the globe for decades: Singapore pioneered the road pricing scheme back in 1975 (50 years ago!), while London has had a congestion charge since 2003, Stockholm since 2007, and Milan since 2012. When we look at this policy in the context of road pricing implementation in global cities, it’s hard to say that NYC is an innovator or even an early adopter of congestion pricing.
However, in the context of surface transportation policy in NYC, this is a radical step forward. In the ‘70s and ‘80s, when Singapore was experimenting with road pricing, limiting car access wasn’t even part of the conversation. In fact, things were going in the opposite direction. In 1987, NYC mayor Ed Koch announced a ban on cycling in Midtown to cede more space to cars. The pedestrianization of Times Square, which has resulted in the permanent closure of five blocks of Broadway, didn’t start until 2009. And it wasn’t until 2018 that cars were banned from the park drives in Prospect and Central Parks (cars are still permitted on the grade-separated crosstown routes in Central Park).
What’s interesting about these policies to me is that they show the development of a new kind of thinking about public space: that a road is not just a road. A road is not a fact of natural law. In fact, we just decided in a political process that this sliver of land (100 feet wide on the avenues and 60 feet wide on the cross streets) should be allocated to driving. But this space could also be used for walking, cycling, sitting, eating, exercising, playing, etc.
Unfortunately, cars are very bad at sharing, especially when there are a lot of them. So driving typically precludes all of these other activities. In doing so, it generates a form of opportunity cost, or the cost of not pursuing an alternative use. In a city where many residents have limited access to park space, transitioning existing roads to recreation space could have immense economic, health, and social benefits. And for the first time in NYC, we’re putting a dollar value to that opportunity cost ($9). I think that many global cities have understood this trade-off well for the last fifty years, but the idea is still catching on here in NYC.
Nonetheless, congestion pricing feels like a big step forward. I’ll be watching this policy closely despite its disastrous rollout, low levels of popularity, and threats from the Trump Administration.
When someone asks me to tell them what I think about congestion pricing, I explain that I support the policy because it asks people to rightfully pay the costs of driving in the busiest urban core in America: costs generated in the form of traffic deaths, air pollution, congestion, and noise.
However, I also think the most compelling case for congestion pricing is its compensation of an enormous opportunity cost: the opportunity to build a large and robust network of public space in NYC that improves access to recreation, connections to nature, and climate resiliency.
Bennett
City Speak #39