A congestion charge, like the one being implemented in New York, is proven to have a positive impact on traffic congestion and quality of life, however, a lack of political will and public opposition makes it difficult to implement in India
Image Source: Getty
On 5 January 2025, New York became the first city in the United States (US) to impose a congestion charge on vehicles that entered Manhattan’s central business district (CBD), stretching 13 kilometres from 60th Street to Battery Park, the southern tip of the financial district. Cars entering the CBD between 5 am and 9 pm on weekdays, and between 9 am and 9 pm on weekends have to pay up to US$9 in congestion charges. Small trucks and non-commuter buses would be levied a congestion fee of US$14.40, while larger trucks and tourist buses would have to pay US$21.60. In off-peak hours, all vehicles would get a 75 percent discount. The charge is payable once a day, even if multiple trips are made by a vehicle. Certain emergency and government vehicles, school and commuter buses, low-income drivers, and those who are not able to use public transit because of medical conditions, are exempt.
The concept of congestion pricing, sometimes called value pricing, is not new. Singapore was the first to introduce congestion pricing in 1975. Since then, several other cities have imposed the charge—Durham (2002), London (2003), Stockholm (2006), Valletta (2007), Milano (2008) and Gothenburg (2013). The congestion fee introduced in Edinburgh was abandoned as it was voted out with a ratio of 3:1 in a citizens’ referendum.
In the context of city roads, the congestion charge may be defined as a charge imposed on users of specific, over-crowded roads, to ease congestion and vehicular emissions during peak traffic hours by reducing demand and usage. For this purpose, cities demarcate a “congestion zone” or multiple “congestion zones”. New York, now, has earmarked a single congestion zone in Manhattan. The Metropolitan Transport Authority (MTA) of New York expects, through its assessments, that the congestion charge will reduce traffic in the designated area by about 10 percent.
It is well known that the idea of congestion pricing has, over the years, been strongly advocated by certain groups and equally opposed by others. Traffic congestion and its side effects, especially on human health, have been a growing urban concern.
Supporting the levy, the MTA stated that the objective was to ease the city’s traffic congestion in Manhattan, as well as raise money for public transportation. The benefits that it expects are reduced traffic, savings in commuting time, safer streets, reduced emissions, and a positive contribution to the city’s quality of life. While city transportation officials in New York have been wanting congestion pricing to be imposed since the 1970s, it was the city mayor Michael Bloomberg who first seriously took up the matter in 2007. However, many stakeholders continued to raise questions about the efficacy of congestion pricing and its negative impact on equity. Despite facing several roadblocks over the years, the idea has finally been fructified.
However, the imposition has faced stiff opposition from several quarters—especially from the Republican Party and Donald Trump, the President-elect. One of the reasons the city administration hurried to impose the congestion charge was because of Trump’s strongly stated opposition, and his vow to scrap the plan after assuming office. Given Trump’s stand, the hurried application of the charge may not appear very wise in hindsight, as it runs the risk of being summarily scrapped. Irrespective of what ultimately transpires in New York about the congestion charge, a dispassionate assessment of the charge may not be out of place.
It is well known that the idea of congestion pricing has, over the years, been strongly advocated by certain groups and equally opposed by others. Traffic congestion and its side effects, especially on human health, have been a growing urban concern. A traditional method of reducing traffic congestion is expanding the network of roads, or widening existing roads. However, this is possible only up to a point, after which road expansion does not remain possible due to the non-availability of land, or for reasons of viability. Pulling down built structures to make way for wider roads means the municipality would have to pay for land acquisition as well as compensate owners for the cost of house construction. This would be beyond the means of urban local bodies. Road space could be improved by building extensive flyovers and underpasses, but such infrastructure is frightfully costly. Besides, the positive impact of such measures gets eroded over time on account of the phenomenon of “induced demand” and the resultant rise in vehicle traffic. The more feasible option is congestion pricing, widely favoured by transport planners and economists due to its effectiveness. However, while financially and technically it finds great support, the real problem is its low community and political acceptance.
In terms of public response to congestion pricing, the Stockholm case is especially relevant. Once the idea was mooted in that city and a six-month trial introduction was initiated, a heated debate about its pros and cons began in Sweden. The most extreme charge against it was that it was “the most expensive way ever devised to commit political suicide”. While the congestion charge got a hostile media reception, it eventually viewed the charge being introduced as a “success story”. More detailed studies that were carried out later found that the congestion charge was instrumental in sizeable congestion reduction and that hostile public opinion, to begin with, changed to a small majority in favour of the congestion charges after seeing the results.
Many Indian architects, transport experts and urban planners have come forward to argue that Indian cities must impose a similar congestion charge. India’s biggest cities have greater traffic congestion than New York, but none of these cities have thought it necessary to impose congestion charges. A 2018 proposal made by the Delhi Lt. Governor in this regard has not been acted upon. Similar attempts were made by the Mumbai Regional Development Authority (MMRDA). It invited stakeholders to discuss how the Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) could go ahead with the implementation of a congestion charge. As of today, no Indian city or metropolitan region has congestion charges on its roads.
The lack of political will may be the principal reason for the non-implementation of many congestion-pricing projects in several cities around the world.
It would be necessary to concede that, during the last decade, traffic congestion and ways to tackle it have risen to the top of the agenda in many Indian cities. Global traffic congestion data released annually by TomTom also reveals that Indian cities are rapidly rising to find their place among the top global cities with traffic congestion. The negatives that traffic congestion brings to a city are numerous. It causes delays in the movement of goods and passengers; there is a resultant increase in emissions and fuel wastage on account of idling; it impacts the city’s economic productivity; and it leads to a rise in respiratory ailments. On the other hand, there are clear benefits of imposing congestion pricing in cities, especially when technology has enabled a fully automated system of charging that causes no hindrance to traffic. Apart from easing traffic congestion, it generates revenue that can be ploughed back into meeting enforcement and operating costs, financing alternate transit routes and funding road maintenance. It also leads to greater usage of public transportation and a drop in the total consumption of fuel for personal vehicles.
Despite its advantages, there are only a handful of cities that have been able to go ahead with the imposition of a congestion charge. While it is natural that there would be public opposition to any fresh levy, the matter could be debated with stakeholders and their concerns can be addressed. However, democratic governments have been chary of facing public criticism, and are timid in proposing its implementation. The lack of political will may be the principal reason for the non-implementation of many congestion-pricing projects in several cities around the world.
Ramanath Jha is a Distinguished Fellow at the Observer Research Foundation
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Dr. Ramanath Jha is Distinguished Fellow at Observer Research Foundation, Mumbai. He works on urbanisation — urban sustainability, urban governance and urban planning. Dr. Jha belongs ...
Read More +
PREV
