By practically all accounts, New York City’s congestion pricing initiative, which launched on January 5, is doing precisely what it’s supposed to: easing traffic congestion. You can get up to speed on exactly how the program is designed, from this explainer by Streetblog NYC’s Dave Colon.
In a nutshell, the Big Apple’s new toll has resulted in a 7 percent reduction in Manhattan traffic, plus other key improvements, according to research by NYU’s Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management. You can read a new Q&A on the subject with the center’s director Sarah Kaufman.
Fewer drivers during rush hours improves safety, reduces pollution, and makes the streets function better for sustainable transportation users, not to mention folks who truly need to drive. And the NYC initiative is also generating revenue for the MTA transit system, which can be used to fund better service, infrastructure upgrades, and ADA improvements. In short, congestion pricing is improving quality of life for New Yorkers.
So why shouldn’t Chicago also reap the safety, environmental, equity, and efficiency benefits of less driving and better walk/bike/transit? Streetsblog Chicago has previously discussed how New York-style congestion pricing would be a no-brainer in terms of benefits for our city.
The Active Transportation Alliance agrees. “By implementing a smart, well-designed congestion fee for Chicago’s downtown area, we can ease gridlock, boost transit use, and create a more livable region,” said spokesperson Ted Villaire. “Imagine cleaner air, better mobility, and a thriving public transit system funded by this innovative approach. With New York City leading the way in the U.S., Chicago has a unique opportunity to follow suit and create a more efficient, sustainable, and livable Chicagoland.”
Mayor Brandon Johnson has said he’s open to this idea, telling Block Club Chicago’s Quinn Myers in early January that a congestion toll is something Chicago “should explore.” The mayor added, “Being able to have robust conversations about how we respond to congestion, and of course, how we generate revenue, particularly from individuals that take full advantage of our city resources, but don’t necessarily live here… I’m all for that conversation.”
But unsurprisingly, the Chicago Tribune editorial board, which usually writes from a windshield perspective on such issues, is dead-set against trying this in the Windy City. A mere three days after the New York experiment launched, the Debbie Downers at the Trib ran the editorial “New York’s congestion tax is no model for Chicago.”
Granted, this is my third post about Tribune articles in less than a week, including both praise of the paper’s sustainable transportation reporting, and criticism of its walk/bike/transit commentary. And the congestion pricing editorial that I’m about to discuss is more than a month old. But unpacking the arguments against this strategy has been on my to-do list for a while, so let’s have at it.
“Chicago traffic rivals New York City for worst in the nation,” the Tribune editorial began. “A report from Inrix consultants released on Jan. 5 shows Chicago commuters spend a whopping 102 hours a year in traffic.” It’s worth noting that Streetsblog USA has previously called out these annual Inrix traffic studies for biases against relatively compact cities with shorter travel times, where it may be more difficult to drive at dangerously high speeds.
“Congestion has, of course, been made worse by seemingly endless (and ill-timed) construction projects that disrupt the flow of traffic in and out of the city that do little to improve travel times,” the article continued.
Or maybe the traffic jams are partly caused by people driving too much, especially since the pandemic? Last June, the Tribune itself reported that in 2023, Chicago traffic numbers were 18 percent higher than in 2019.
Noting that Mayor Johnson is looking for new revenue to address Chicago’s nearly $1 billion budget deficit, and the NYC initiative recently started, the editorial board said, “We weren’t surprised” by the following tweet by transit-friendly Ald. Andre Vasquez.
“Ald. Vasquez forgets that Chicago isn’t New York,” the Trib responded, trotting out the old war horse used in arguments against implementing sustainable transportation policies that have proved successful in peer cities. “We’ve warned against congestion pricing in the past and hope it stays dead.” The paper called the strategy a “revenue grab.”
In light of the aforementioned quality-of-life benefits that a congestion toll would have for Chicagoans, the Trib calling it a money grab is silly. That term doesn’t apply here any more than it does to a cigarette or alcohol tax. It’s simply properly pricing something – in this case road space – in a way that benefits residents and helps reduce the chance of bad outcomes, such as lung cancer, alcoholism, crashes, and traffic jams.
“We’d rather see attention paid to bringing Chicago-area commuters clean, efficient and safe public transit systems,” the board continued. Uh, yeah. Funding transit improvements is one of the main reasons for the NYC driving fees. So what other funding source would the Tribune suggest for CTA, Metra, and Pace improvements, especially considering the three systems are facing a projected $770 million total budget gap next year? We’re all ears.
Even in its editorial against congestion pricing in Chicago, the Trib acknowledged that strategy was working in New York. “Data shows that on Jan. 6, the first Monday of the new pricing setup, inbound commutes via the Holland Tunnel that would normally have taken 19 minutes at 8 a.m. were cut down to 11 minutes, and a drive through the Lincoln Tunnel that used to take nine minutes took just five minutes.”
The paper noted, only three days after the NYC debut, “It’ll take far more time to fully understand what new traffic patterns will look like.” Well, yes, even in mid-February, congestion pricing is still a work in progress in “The City That Never Sleeps”, and it’s still too early to tell. But, as stated in the NYU report, the numbers keep showing success, and almost no one is arguing otherwise.
“We’ll keep an eye on the Gotham situation as it plays out,” the Tribune editorial board concluded. “But New York’s solution clearly won’t work here in Chicago.”
Why the heck not? The Trib article basically provided zero evidence to back up that statement, other than a rather random description of “a South Loop business district, which was almost devoid of traffic, human or vehicular, during the first part of rush hour.” That shouldn’t have been surprising, because that assessment took place early in the morning on the first Monday after New Year’s Day, when downtown car use is not exactly at its peak.
The fact is, the Tribune editorial board can’t actually come up with any proof that NYC-style congestion tolls wouldn’t succeed here. They’re simply opposed to any policy that would make driving a somewhat less attractive way to get to the Loop, for people who have other options.
So let’s disregard that negative attitude, and start working to make congestion pricing a reality in Chicago.
Did you appreciate this post? Streetsblog Chicago is currently fundraising to help cover our 2025-26 budget. If you appreciate our reporting and advocacy on local sustainable transportation issues, please consider making a tax-deductible donation here. Thank you.
