NYC Congestion Pricing: Less Traffic and Big Revenue

Written by: Maxime Renson | June 30, 2025 | Time to read 3 min

Six months, fewer traffic jams, and more than $219 million in revenue later, NYC’s bold traffic experiment is reshaping the city in real time. Here’s the latest on congestion pricing.

We’ve finally reached the halfway point in congestion pricing’s first year on the streets of New York City— and it’s time for an update. Since the toll’s introduction back in January, data has revealed significant traffic reduction and high program revenue, increasingly convincing New Yorkers of its worth. New numbers and analyses offer the latest look at the program’s success and limitations, and we’re still watching where the growing pool of revenue is headed.

• In Manhattan, time lost to traffic decreased by 28.4%, earning 17 minutes back
• Bronx drivers saved 10 minutes, on average
• In the four boroughs and nearby areas in New Jersey, Long Island, and Westchester, the time lost to traffic jams decreased by 11.8%, for a savings of 7 minutes
• Average trip times for buses decreased by 17% at the Lincoln Tunnel and by 48% at the Holland Tunnel

And these positive effects have been thoroughly vetted by the researchers. After the holiday season (November/December) each year, traffic delays ease up anyway, which was the moment that congestion pricing was introduced. But the data backs up the fact that reduced congestion wasn’t just a happy coincidence. 

For example, Manhattan’s post-holiday traffic ease is typically around 21% but congestion pricing caused traffic delays in the new year and spring to reach a 40% reduction. The same is true for areas outside of Manhattan; the program caused a 17% drop in traffic, significantly more than the normal 9% level. 

Some initial views of congestion pricing considered it a policy to benefit Manhattanites at the expense of the commuters who come from outside the city. There were also hypotheses that the toll would divert traffic to Bronx highways or South Bronx neighborhood streets. However, both of those theories have been debunked. Congestion pricing led to less traffic overall, both inside Manhattan and across the wider metropolitan area, as well as in places where models predicted it could increase. Data also showed that traffic crashes and injuries decreased by a third in areas such as Queens.

Silver bullet solutions aren’t common in public policy and urban planning, and despite congestion pricing’s demonstrated success, it isn’t a perfect program. The $9 toll is the same regardless of income level, imposing a type of regressive tax that disproportionately affects lower-income individuals. 

There are exemptions, but the list is very narrow. At the moment, drivers with low incomes may qualify for a 50% discount following the first 10 trips each month. Also, low-income residents inside the “Congestion Relief Zone” may qualify for a tax credit to rebate the amount of paid tolls. I think that there should be stronger support for people who don’t have as many choices to change their driving habits. Certain low-income areas are not well served by public transportation, complicating the switch from driving to using the bus or subway system. 

The rosy-eyed vision of congestion pricing is that less gridlock can pave the way for better infrastructure, such as bike lanes, more pedestrian zones, and faster bus corridors. We know that the program is earning significant revenue and decongesting the roads already, but where is the money really going to go? That important question has a lot of New Yorkers remaining skeptical of congestion pricing and the MTA’s management of the funds.

MTA has stated that the revenue from congestion pricing will go toward public transit projects, ranging from subway station accessibility to more electric buses and infrastructure upgrades above and below ground. I would love to see the MTA double down on these goals, providing more specific plans for the revenue. The investment in the subway system and bus network is a solid idea, though it’s a process that will take many years. 

I also support that a large portion of the revenue should be funneled toward electric mobility projects. It may include electric buses, charging stations for electric cars, and investments in electric bikes across the city. There can be improved bicycle parking, subscription programs or “bike libraries” for residents, and rebate programs to make purchasing an e-Bike more accessible. One advantage is that these smaller-scale, effective strategies are more quickly actionable, allowing the city to cash in on the revenue early on, while bigger network-wide projects are in the works. 

Congestion pricing successfully shows that New Yorkers respond to economic incentives (or rather, disincentives), which can shape city transit for the better. That plasticity is a positive sign for the city’s ability to improve its subways, buses, bike lanes, and walkable infrastructure in a significant way, and alter people’s behavior toward a more sustainable future. But it will require ambitious and responsible management of the nearly half a billion dollars that congestion pricing is estimated to generate by the end of the year.