NYC congestion pricing cuts air pollution by a fifth in six months
89 comments
·December 10, 2025Pooge
frankest
EV self-driving shuttles you can take on demand so nobody needs to keep a car
milesskorpen
EVs help with air pollution & congestion, but a huge part of the AQI impact of cars is tires, and I don't think there's a solution for that yet short of "fewer cars"
d_sem
electric bicycles have significantly less tire waste.
dangus
Or, how about this, connect them together and put them on rails to reduce friction.
You could even run them separate from the street with raised platforms for accessibility and sometimes even run them underground.
We could call this something like “underway” or “steel beam connect-o-cars”
masterphai
[dead]
AniseAbyss
[dead]
1970-01-01
The fact that tolls are now directly useful to the entire public must not be underappreciated. This is good news for everyone.
csomar
No it’s not. NYC transit is already one of the most expensive in the world and quality is suspect. Pushing money into a dysfunctional structure doesn’t make it functional and might make it worse. A money grab from the public that goes through a maze of expenses.
The solution was to re-structure the MTA. But that’s hard work. Politicians would rather blame the other side and just raise taxes. The people like it because they are grabbing money from what they consider it to be their oppressors.
jpalawaga
The quality is not suspect. It is one of the world’s few 24/7 systems, and there are many capital improvements happening constantly. For example, making more stations accessible and improving switching equipment to improve reliability and volume.
This comment is typical HN “government bad can do no right” fodder. The MTA is truly a marvel in the service it provides. The only advantage it has is age, which is why it is so expansive.
Invictus0
The MTA is billions in the red because it overpays the union workers and fails to commercialize the stations
afavour
The run up to their implementation was so deeply frustrating. The sheer number of disingenuous objections. And they’ve all been proven false.
JumpCrisscross
> sheer number of disingenuous objections
This is unfair. Nobody wants to pay more for anything. And many of the objections resulted in policy adjustments that made the programme better.
Hammershaft
Which objections lead to better policy?
afavour
I didn’t say every objection was disingenuous, just that there was an incredible number of objections that were.
RhysU
[flagged]
tomhow
Please don't fulminate or engage in ideological battle here. The topic is fine to discuss and disagree about, but HN is for curious conversation not indignation, and the guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. You've posted several ragey comments in a short space of time, and that's not the way HN is meant to be used. Please have a read of the guidelines and make an effort to observe them when participating here.
afavour
> Remember kids: congestion pricing is nothing but a tariff on transportation.
On driving. And it actually makes driving more appealing, there’s much less traffic so you can get where you’re going much quicker.
> Instead of making public transport more appealing through competition
Like having multiple subway systems? NYC did that already.
itissid
This is also quantitatively correct because for two people coming in from afar you might change two trains or a bus and train and each ticket is at least 3.00$(bus/path from NJ) which is 24$ minimum both ways, with more than two it would make even more sense to take the car.
Congestion pricing brings in a toll above the 16$ you pay throu the tunnel. I think it's 18, So 34$ total?
So you are incentivized to get more than 2 people by car. Less traffic.
RhysU
It makes driving more appealing if one discounts the best alternative use of the funds, which humans are irrationally likely to do. That driving seems better is because people suck at thinking about what else they might do with the money given compound returns on its investment.
eutropia
Buses got significantly more reliable as a result of reduced traffic, more ridership on subways allowed for more police presence at stations, reducing crime.
Public transit got better.
RhysU
[flagged]
Dylan16807
"There is no such thing as a free lunch" is a very strong argument for tolls, I hope you realize.
> everyone paying the tolls who now needs to engage in additional pollution-causing economic activity merely to offset the costs of government-mandated congestion pricing
I don't think that's how economics work. People are already doing their best to generate money. Also even if that did happen, the thing you're describing as "pollution-causing" is GDP growth, which is overall desirable.
> tariffs
Whether a tariff is good depends on what the goal is (and whether it works toward that goal).
RhysU
If people aren't working harder to offset the tolls then they're strictly poorer as a consequence of the toll.
Hammershaft
Pigouvian taxes are genuinely one of the few policies that really are nearly a free lunch in economics.
RhysU
[flagged]
ch4s3
It’s a tariff on DRIVING in Manhattan, the place in America you least need to drive.
RhysU
You have never tried to leave the city for the suburbs after 9 pm. Driving is still immensely useful, as I sit in my Uber on the way home.
8note
its not a tariff because tariffs are taxes on imports. you arent paying a tax related to the value of the goods being brought over, and to the extent that new car buyers are importing cars, its neglible compared to what youre trying to draw equivalence to, trump's 30% or so tariffs.
instead, its a toll or a usage tax.
but also, you want the economic activity of having people in the city, not the cost of supporting their light trucks. people coming from outside of new york are very costly in terms of pollution, road maintenance, and losing real estate to parking spaces.
hammock
They better be. No one’s rooting for the smog, but a congestion tax is pretty regressive (hurts poorer people more)
lmm
Not in NYC where less than half the population has access to a car.
hammock
The congestion tax has far more impact on people who live and work above 60th or in the outer boroughs or NJ than it does Manhattanites. Retail, wholesale, trades, small businesses and yes commuters in these areas, which are poorer than Manhattan, suffer disproportionately
seanmcdirmid
This mostly commuters and tradesmen. You aren’t going to get your tools on the train, snd you are driving into the city from white plains or somewhere similar.
knollimar
2.90 is pretty accessible
energy123
Poor people are forced by circumstance to live in the busiest areas so they will get the biggest health benefits and many do not own cars and often do not even own a car space, so I would beg to differ.
You can also offset the regressive nature of this taxation (if any) by putting the revenue into subsidizing public infrastructure like rail and bus.
seanmcdirmid
Isn’t it the opposite though? The poor aren’t able to live in the most popular busiest areas, and usually have to live on the fringes of the city. They might train in though. This is mostly going to benefit the rich people who can still afford to live in the city, but with rent control there are still some non-rich people in the city.
ashleyn
Well, Mamdani wants to make transit free. Car taxes can probably help a lot to pay for that.
jkaplowitz
Partial correction: he wants to make buses free, but not subways.
renewiltord
Many things hurt the poor more, because there are many things that the poor do that have negative externalities that cannot be compensated for by the productivity of the poor. Strict enforcement against violent crime is pretty regressive in that more poor people are incarcerated when this is done. Others are that strict enforcement of traffic laws is pretty regressive; paid parking is regressive; as are fares for buses and trains. Requiring a minimum number of signatures for a ballot proposition is regressive. Allowing more expensive cars to incorporate more advanced safety features is regressive. Requiring grant applications to be carefully written is regressive. As are minimum flying requirements for pilots. DoD medical standards for soldiers are regressive. Officer ASVAB score requirements are regressive. Surgical requirements. Drug approval requirements.
In fact, anything that requires a standard of performance will be regressive. We don't have to subordinate all goals to regression avoidance. In fact, no functioning society does that.
tootie
I actually doubt it's very regressive in NYC. Also, you're still only counting the price and not the cost. The benefits are likely tilted towards the poorest residents who absorb the most costs of congestion in terms of both pollution and road safety. That's just an educated guess but it's very plausible.
masterphai
A charge on the marginal driver looks regressive if you only examine who pays the toll, but not who’s been paying the externalities all along. Once you include the benefits - faster buses, cleaner air, better reliability, and the ability to reinvest revenue into transit - the incidence flips pretty quickly.
We’re basically shifting costs from people who can’t opt out of congestion to people who can. That’s about as progressive as a transport policy gets.
CGMthrowaway
There was a study published about how much air pollution dropped in NYC during the COVID lockdown. PM2.5 was found to have dropped 36%. However with more robust analysis, this drop was discovered to not be statistically significant. I would caution anyone reading this who is tempted by confirmation bias.
weird-eye-issue
"average daily peak concentrations of PM2.5 dropped by 3.05 µg/m³. For context, background pollution levels in the region typically hover around 8-9 µg/m³, making this reduction particularly significant for public health."
I think that the numbers are already low enough that the drop is actually not very significant, at all. Is there any data that shows better health outcomes at 8 vs 13 for PM 2.5 levels? From my understanding adverse health outcomes come at exposure over the long term to higher levels like 30 minimum
For context I have several air purifiers in my home and I'm all for better air quality but the percentage difference makes it sound like a much bigger drop but when these numbers are already so small I just am skeptical it really makes a difference...
hn_throwaway_99
This is not accurate. The WHO (which recommends lower levels than US authorities) recommends an annual PM 2.5 level below 5 µg/m³: https://www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/WHO-Air-Quality-Gu...
But more importantly, when it comes to PM 2.5 levels, there are really no safe levels, the risks are just dose dependent, so lower is always better. In a city the size of NYC, lowering air pollution by 20% means a significant decrease in effects.
To give a good analogy, driving a car on the US is still quite safe, most of us take that risk, but still, thousands die annually from car accidents. A one fifth reduction in deaths from car accidents, even from its current low level, would be a major deal. In NYC, around 1 in 20 deaths is linked to air pollution.
weird-eye-issue
That's the strictest "policy" I've seen and I was asking about any specific health data not WHO guidelines
"In NYC, around 1 in 20 deaths is linked to air pollution."
A difference between 8 and 12 PM 2.5 levels won't change that
Forgeties79
> I think that the numbers are already low enough
Is that low? I don’t know what is considered high or low here.
hammock
What did it do to GDP? (Sincerely asking)
dataviz1000
I wonder myself this too. Would people have to say "If NYC was a country would its GDP be 11th largest in the world compared to being the 12th largest GDP in the world like in 2024?"
What we can quantify is the economic impact the San Antonio River Walk has or the impact the Atlanta Beltline has which is billions of dollars in added economic activity. Based on those examples, likely it will increase the NYC GDP by millions if not hundreds of millions. We can prove with dollar amounts getting rid of cars in these cases increase the GDP by billions but in NYC they are only decreasing them so probably won't have the positive impact completely getting rid of cars does.
tonymet
and downtown activity. i know NYC rebounded better than most us cities, but nearly all of them still ended lower than pre-Covid
petesergeant
No city has reliable data on this for a fleet of reasons. The high quality data tends to show little effect on retail foot traffic, slightly more reliable commute times, and then the wealth of health benefits. Linking this to output seems to be beyond economists for cities that have done something similar (London, Stockholm, Milan, etc)
hammock
Is this an AI assisted answer?
tootie
It's frustrating how poorly most people understand economics and the distinction between price and cost. Everybody in the world is being asked to blithely accept the massive unpaid costs of motor vehicle usage. This is a tiny step towards recouping some of this costs. Roadways, parking, collisions, pollution, noise have all be costs born by all of us. And in NYC that's a load of non-drivers. We should be adopting all sorts of policies to pass those costs on to drivers.
People panic over the thought of free buses when we have millions of miles of free roads.
listenallyall
The article says "average daily peak concentrations of PM2.5 dropped by 3.05 µg/m³. For context, background pollution levels in the region typically hover around 8-9 µg/m³, making this reduction particularly significant for public health."
But 8-9 was already considered a safe level: "Most studies indicate PM2.5 at or below 12 μg/m3 is considered healthy with little to no risk from exposure. If the level goes to or above 35 μg/m3 during a 24-hour period, the air is considered unhealthy." (https://www.indoorairhygiene.org/pm2-5-explained/)
So, good job on reducing pollution, but you already had very safe levels (well, the article doesn't tell us what the old "peak concentrations" were). Since the levels were "little to no risk", the claim of "significant health benefits" (i.e. reduction in disease or death) should be challenged.
energy123
The hidden risk of round numbers and sharp thresholds in clinical practice:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41746-025-02079-y
Smaller doses of a poison are better than less small doses. Using coarse linguistic categories to argue otherwise is an abuse of the purpose of categories as a linguistic tool.
khannn
Regressive tax keeps the poor out of area with their older vehicles that pollute more than people who can afford to pay a $9 fee per day. News at 11.
anyonecancode
Who are these mythical people who can pay $500/month to park below 60th street but will be bankrupted by the congestion toll?
khannn
$1.50 toll on rideshare drivers/users and/or people getting dropped off at work.
nickv
You act like driving in NYC is free even without the congestion price. You realize how much it costs to park in Manhattan right? $50/day? And if you are coming from the Jersey side, you realize how much the toll is for the tunnel? $17-27.
So yea, if you're poor, you're not driving your beater to SoHo and parking in a lot for $50 daily.
seanmcdirmid
Most people driving into the city aren’t parking in Manhattan. When I was living in west Chester county, I would drive in into midtown and always find street parking near Columbia, free. I was surprised how easy it was to drive into the city because I heard lots of stories that it wasn’t. No tolls either.
nickv
I'm confused, if you lived in Westchester and were parking by Columbia why would you be in Midtown? Mind you, it's still like $14-$22 to cross the GWB and if you parked by Columbia after driving down from Westchester you don't have a congestion charge to worry about.
afavour
Columbia is over 40 blocks north of the congestion zone. You’d be able to do the exact same thing today.
petesergeant
The American mind truly struggles with the concept of people not owning cars
CGMthrowaway
We did perfect their mass production, and it propelled us to the world's largest economy. The only country with better GDP growth over the last 100 years is Japan, and that's in large part because they perfected the manufacture of cars themselves.
khannn
The European mind quivers at the thought of a state with a bigger area than most EU countries
I like walking around new cities, but a lot of people are car life types
nickv
But we're talking about New York City here, not Kansas. Specifically the congestion zone which during the work day is the most congested place in the world (187,500 people/sqm).
I live in Europe so it's still very much considered pedestrian-friendly, but cars and roads scale so bad. Especially with population density going through the roof in bigger cities.
I wonder how it's going to look like in 50 years.