By Steven Cohen, Ph.D., Director of the M.S. in Sustainability Management program, School of Professional Studies
Governor Hochul’s political posturing and pandering paused congestion pricing this past June and reopened the policy to the renewed political attack now underway. This is a self-inflicted wound that could end up causing permanent damage to New York City’s economy. New York City’s economic well-being requires massive movements of people and freight. There is only a finite amount of street space in the city, and the area south of 60th Street in Manhattan is so congested that walking is often faster than riding. It is a textbook case of the “tragedy of the commons.” When something is scarce, valuable, and free, it gets overused to the point it becomes worthless. One way to preserve the value of street space is to charge for it so that traffic and travel times are reduced. This lowers the cost of moving people and freight on the street, since time is money. It costs money when freight and people are caught in gridlock.
Fact-free politicians focus on the price and not the congestion and never mention the cost of gridlock. They also make the data-free argument that the congestion charge is regressive. Over 90% of the commuters from New Jersey and the outer boroughs that travel to Manhattan’s central business district do so by mass transit. This is because of traffic and because the congestion fee is nothing compared to the cost of parking in a Manhattan garage. A congestion fee that charges motor vehicles for their use of street space and applies the money collected exclusively to mass transit is the definition of a non-regressive tax. It charges people who can afford the cost of tolls and parking to subsidize the mass transit system used by well over 90% of the people who travel south of 60th Street.
There will be hardship cases that should and can be made exempt from the charge. For example, there are many medical facilities on the east side south of 60th Street, and you should not be charged for driving grandma to the hospital (although you will still be paying for parking, as I can tell you from personal experience). There can and should be other exemptions and discounts. But the overall policy makes sense and is a good way to both reduce traffic and improve mass transit.
New York City’s mass transit system is like the circulatory system of the city’s living economic body. It efficiently moves workers, students, consumers, tourists, and anyone else around the city with a very low environmental impact. Our mass transit system desperately needs additional revenue streams. Of course, one neglected source of revenue is collecting fares. The MTA has a huge problem with fare evasion. According to Aaron Short of City and State:
“…fare evasion is happening more frequently, especially on buses.Bus fare evasion cost the MTA $315 million last year alone, which was more than the $285 million in subway fare evasion.”
Yes, that’s 600 million dollars of lost revenue. Every time I take the subway and ride on a bus, I see people riding who have jumped the turnstile or walked on the bus without paying. We elected a mayor for his law-and-order credentials but see petty crime and disorder everywhere, especially in our mass transit system. It’s not that fare evasion has been ignored by the police, quite the contrary. Again, according to City and State’s Aaron Short:
“The most visible way the MTA has sought to fight fare evasion has been through law enforcement…MTA officials…asked police to tackle fare evasion and requested another 800 officers in March. So far this year [May 28, 2024], police have arrested 1,700 people for fare evasion and ticketed another 28,000 people…The extra enforcement hasn’t been cheap... Overtime pay for police in the subways skyrocketed from $4 million in 2022 to $155 million last year….”
Clearly, the city’s enforcement strategy has been ineffective. The massive amount of fare evasion is a cultural as well as criminal phenomenon. Some people evade fares because they can’t afford to pay, while others evade fares because they can’t be bothered paying. Both problems require more effective responses than those attempted thus far. We need creative experimentation to identify practical and effective solutions. Perhaps we should improve recruitment for the Fair Fare MTA discount program so more people who can’t afford mass transit can travel at a discount. Perhaps technology could be applied, and people who refuse to pay might be photographed and, if identified, punished for fare evasion. Or have their photo posted on the MTA’s website. I’m sure there are other creative solutions that the MTA could experiment with.
New York City’s mass transit system needs better management, improved fare collection, and more sources of revenue. What it doesn’t need is to be made into a political pin cushion, as we see with the congestion pricing debate. We are all getting used to political disinformation and arguments based on ideology rather than facts. Let’s examine some facts. Our subway system is falling apart. Its mechanical signal system is about a century old. Modern electronic systems are more efficient and effective. Breakdowns are common, and signs of neglect are everywhere. It needs upgrading so we can run more trains, reduce crowding and improve passenger comfort. Despite these problems and even with the revolution in hybrid work environments, there are plenty of people riding our buses and trains. According to the MTA:
“In 2023, subway ridership posted a 14% annual increase to 1.15 billion annual paid rides, hitting the billion-ride milestone six weeks earlier than in 2022…Overall subway ridership is now at 68% of 2019 levels. At 77%, weekend recovery is higher than the weekday recovery of 66%... Bus ridership experienced a modest annual increase of 0.3% to 426 million rides, 63% of the 2019 level.”
Mass transit is a basic public utility, like water, sewage, garbage pick-up, and electricity. Its reliability and efficiency are central to the city’s economy and quality of life. The political attacks on congestion pricing are as destructive as the emerging culture of fare evasion that plagues the system. I don’t hear these pathetic politicos posing solutions to gridlock or inadequate mass transit revenues. One alternative to congestion pricing is a command-and-control regulation that only allows vehicles with odd or even numbered license plates into lower Manhattan on alternate days. Another rule could require freight deliveries from midnight to 5 AM. Congestion pricing is a far better method of reducing congestion, but the opponents to this policy aren’t interested in solving problems, they simply want to score political points. I also don’t hear them proposing alternative revenue streams for mass transit. Perhaps an increase in city income taxes or a commuter income tax. A user fee for our crowded streets makes more sense, but again: Why solve problems when you can get media coverage for opposing the solution that’s been proposed?
The blame for this problem lies squarely at the doorstep of the governor, who reopened what had been settled law. Hakeem Jeffries may have pushed her in his failed attempt to flip the House of Representatives, but with all this performative politics, no one seemed to care about the fate of our mass transit system. Now, in a post-election effort to save the program, Hochul has removed the pause and lowered the charge. President Trump and his political allies are trying to stop it, and it’s impossible to know if they will succeed. What is sad but obvious is that if congestion pricing had been started when it was supposed to start, it would be yesterday’s news and a less tempting target than it is today.
Views and opinions expressed here are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Columbia School of Professional Studies or Columbia University.
About the Program
The Columbia University M.S. in Sustainability Management program offered by the School of Professional Studies in partnership with the Climate School provides students cutting-edge policy and management tools they can use to help public and private organizations and governments address environmental impacts and risks, pollution control, and remediation to achieve sustainability. The program is customized for working professionals and is offered as both a full- and part-time course of study.
