Ideas to enhance the appeal of traffic congestion pricing

New York Governor Kathy Hochul’s last-minute decision to “pause” congestion pricing means that drivers throughout New York will avoid the $15 congestion pricing fee to enter Manhattan, but it also means local residents and business owners will pay in the form of fare hikes and service cuts for public transit options.

The decision all along was extremely polarizing. Those with the means to pay wouldn’t even flinch for the additional daily “toll.” However, those without the means to pay would suffer from the inequities of a mass transit system in one of the world’s largest cities. Aside from the larger issue of modernizing an entire urban transit system, a large portion of the objective was to also reduce traffic by deterring single-passenger cars and incentivizing more mass transit options.

Other cities, such as San Francisco, have successfully enacted different forms of tolls, such as ubiquitous bridge tolling. It acts as a form of tourism tax, where it doesn’t penalize residents of the greater San Francisco area from moving in and about the city. Essentially, local residents, through traditional taxes, have already paid for those roads and bridges. Is it fair to tax them a second time for its use? Perhaps New York can turn its attention toward other means of revenue generation for the purpose of reducing traffic congestion while also building funds to fix its mass transit system.

As cities worldwide grapple with ever-worsening traffic congestion, congestion pricing has become a preferred solution among urban planners and policymakers. While the benefits of congestion pricing are frequently touted, its adverse effects on local communities and the potential to exacerbate inequities in the transportation system are often overlooked.

Economic burden on low-income residents
One of the most significant adverse impacts of congestion pricing is its disproportionate economic burden on low-income residents. These individuals often have less flexibility in their travel schedules and modes of transportation due to job constraints, lack of affordable housing near workplaces and other socioeconomic factors. As a result, they are more likely to be affected by congestion charges, which can constitute a significant portion of their income.

For instance, many low-income workers, such as those in service industries, do not have the luxury of telecommuting or shifting their working hours to avoid peak pricing. These workers often have no choice but to commute during peak hours, directly absorbing the costs of congestion pricing. This financial strain can exacerbate existing economic hardships, leading to a cycle where the cost of simply getting to work further entrenches poverty.

Geographic disparities
Congestion pricing can also accentuate geographic inequities within cities. Wealthier residents, who often live closer to city centers or have greater access to alternative transportation options, can more easily avoid or absorb the costs of congestion pricing. Conversely, low-income and marginalized communities, often residing in suburban or peri-urban areas, are more reliant on car travel due to inadequate public transportation in their neighborhoods.

This spatial disparity means that the burden of congestion pricing falls disproportionately on those who can least afford it. Additionally, the potential improvement in traffic conditions and air quality within congestion pricing zones may not extend to the outer areas where these disadvantaged communities live, thus perpetuating a divide in the quality of urban living environments.

Insufficient alternatives
For congestion pricing to be equitable, there must be viable and affordable alternatives to car travel. However, in many cities, public transportation systems are underfunded, inefficient or nonexistent in certain areas. Without substantial investment in improving and expanding public transit options, congestion pricing can leave many residents without practical alternatives, forcing them to bear the costs without a viable way out.

Moreover, even where public transportation exists, it is often less reliable and more time-consuming than driving, disproportionately affecting those who cannot afford the time or money to deal with delays and inefficiencies. This lack of reliable alternatives further entrenches transportation inequities, making it harder for low-income residents to benefit from congestion pricing schemes.

Impact on small businesses
Small businesses, particularly those located within congestion pricing zones, can also suffer from reduced customer traffic and increased operational costs. Delivery services and other logistical operations that rely on vehicle access may face higher costs, which can be passed down to consumers or result in lower profit margins for these businesses.

For small business owners and employees, many of whom come from local communities, these added financial pressures can lead to business closures and job losses, further exacerbating economic inequities. Moreover, customers who must pay congestion fees to shop or do business in these areas might choose to go elsewhere, harming the economic vitality of neighborhoods within congestion pricing zones.

Broken promises of reduced traffic
Congestion pricing offers the promise of reducing traffic. However, like in many other areas of global commerce, even when prices rise, the vast majority of people still end up paying for goods, or in this case, use of the roads. Sure, people will complain. But they will also pay the additional toll and go on with their daily lives, continuing to clog streets. This means that not only does traffic continue to build, but other critical public services, such as first responders, must continue to suffer from corridors that are not conducive to speedy arrival times for ambulances, firefighters and local law enforcement.

Use of advanced technology to solve urban transportation
It is time for large metropolitan areas to leverage advanced technologies to reduce overall traffic, enhance existing transportation systems in a low-budget approach, and create more equity in the transit system by enhancing public transportation options. Technologies such as transit prioritization solutions encompass a range of advanced systems leveraging AI and data designed to enhance the efficiency and reliability of public transit. By prioritizing public transport vehicles through intelligent traffic management, cities like New York can create a more seamless and modernized approach.

Technologies such as Transit Signal Priority (TSP) and adaptive traffic signals can significantly improve traffic flow. TSP allows buses and trams to communicate with traffic signals via cloud technology to extend green lights or shorten red lights, reducing stop-and-go conditions and improving travel times.

By improving the reliability and speed of public transit, more people are likely to shift from private car use to public transport. This shift not only reduces the number of vehicles on the road but also optimizes the use of existing transit infrastructure.

Transit prioritization technology can be scaled and adapted to different transit modes and city sizes. Whether it’s prioritizing buses in a small city or managing a complex network of trams and buses in a metropolitan area, the technology is versatile and can grow with the city’s needs.

Investing in technologies such as transit prioritization technology can be more cost-effective in the long run and allows cities to take a prescriptive approach to solving traffic, as opposed to a reactionary approach. It enhances the capacity and efficiency of existing infrastructure without the need for extensive new construction. This contrasts with a congestion pricing-only approach, which primarily generates revenue rather than directly improving transportation infrastructure.

Timothy Menard is the visionary CEO and founder of LYT, a pioneering company revolutionizing traffic management through advanced artificial intelligence and machine learning solutions for public transit, emergency vehicles and snowplows.