By Wayne Arden, Vice-Chair, Sierra Club New York City Group
The Sierra Club has been a strong supporter of congestion pricing — for good reason. In multiple cities in Europe and Asia congestion pricing has succeeded in reducing congestion and resulting pollution, raising incremental funds for mass transit initiatives, and making a significant contribution in the fight against climate change. Per the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), urban areas account for 70% of global CO2 emissions, with transportation and buildings among the largest contributors.
In a speech in Ireland last year on May 20, Governor Kathy Hochul extolled the benefits of congestion pricing: “London, Milan, Stockholm, and Singapore have all implemented similar plans with great success. In New York City, the idea stalled for 60 years until we got it done earlier this year.” Then, on June 5, without warning, she directed the MTA to “indefinitely pause” the congestion pricing program. Riders Alliance and the Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice, filed suit, arguing that the Governor did not have the authority to revoke congestion pricing. Happily, the issue was resolved, and the MTA launched congestion pricing on January 4.
Arguably, NYC needs congestion pricing more than any other city on Earth. Last June, Bloomberg quoted from the “Global Traffic Scorecard,” a study conducted by the consulting firm INRIX that compared the traffic speeds of over 900 cities. The central business district of NYC had the world’s slowest traffic—slower than traffic in megacities such as Mexico City, Mumbai, or Shanghai. I work in finance, and congestion pricing is simply a case of applying common sense. NYC is not manufacturing new Manhattans. Congestion pricing is rebalancing the previously excessive demand for Manhattan’s fixed supply of streets.
I have traveled frequently to Stockholm and London. When Stockholm implemented congestion pricing in 2006 and London in 2012, there was local opposition. However, as the benefits became apparent, such as busses running on time, residents experiencing fewer or less severe respiratory conditions, and the implementation of more transit alternatives, opposition diminished. In both cities, congestion pricing has become an accepted part of the urban fabric.
The same is thing is happening in NYC. Per a March 10 Siena College poll, support for congestion pricing has achieved a plurality of 42% of city residents, up from 32% in December. The MTA plans to use the incremental funds raised by congestion pricing for projects such as extending the Second Avenue Subway to 125th Street, continued signal modernization, and the Brooklyn-Queens Connector (BQX) light-rail project. In the years ahead, I hope that the MTA considers using congestion pricing revenues to make further improvements, such as funding an AirTrain connection from the LIRR Station at Willets Point to LaGuardia, extending the 4 train in Brooklyn to Marine Park and Floyd Bennett Field, the F train in Queens to the Nassau County border, and the 1 train to the Westchester County border, and implementing rail service on the west side of Staten Island. These improvements would make it even more convenient for New Yorkers and visitors to use mass transit.
It’s essential that we continue to make progress against climate change by reducing emissions. The DOE’s EIA released data in February confirming that last year, electricity generated by solar and wind energy surpassed electricity fueled by coal for the first time in U.S. history. However, this progress took several decades to realize. By contrast, congestion pricing can be implemented more quickly, and its benefits of funding mass transit improvements and reducing pollution and GHG emissions are more immediately visible.
President Trump is attempting to revoke federal approval for congestion pricing. He’s looking at the situation exactly backwards. New Yorkers support congestion pricing because we want healthier air, better transit, and we worry about climate change. Per INRIX’s most recent 2024 study, the top ten cities with the highest traffic delays include Chicago and Los Angeles. As data about the efficacy of New York City’s program accumulates, we believe that more American cities will similarly consider implementing this proven solution to improve the quality of urban life.