[New York Diary] "Pay 30,000 Won to Commute"...Debate Over Congestion Charges

Stories from Everyday Life in America, Straight from New York
Congestion Charges Spark Debate:
Will Manhattan’s New Fee Relieve Traffic or Just Add “Another Tax”?

The city of New York, suffering from severe traffic congestion, will impose congestion charges in downtown Manhattan as early as next spring. The main stated purpose is to 'reduce car usage to alleviate traffic jams and cut pollutant emissions to address climate change.' This is a welcome goal for those tired of Manhattan's chronic traffic congestion. However, a more realistic explanation is as follows: "Another tax has been added."

[Image source=AP Yonhap News]

Last week, when the U.S. Federal Highway Administration (FHA) approved New York City's plan to introduce congestion charges, mixed reactions poured in locally. The congestion charge will impose a fee of up to $23 (about 30,000 won) on passenger cars entering below 60th Street, south of Central Park, the core commercial district of Manhattan.

The first to react were residents of nearby New Jersey and Connecticut who commute daily by car to Manhattan. They are already paying about $17 in bridge and tunnel tolls to enter Manhattan, so an additional financial burden is inevitable. This is why New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy strongly opposed the approval immediately, calling it a "money grab" by New York City.

Among New Yorkers, opinions on the introduction of congestion charges are also divided. Supporters point to successful cases like London, UK, which saw significant effects from congestion charges. Since London introduced congestion charges in 2003, it has achieved successful results in simultaneously resolving traffic congestion and air pollution. It is evaluated as having addressed urban problems sustainably by encouraging vehicle use only when necessary.

Recently, research in South Korea confirmed that collecting congestion charges in Seoul's Namsan Tunnels 1 and 3 had a positive effect in reducing traffic volume. Converting infrastructure and environmental costs to a user-pays principle is a global trend. Mr. Heo Ben, who supports New York City's congestion charge, said, "Traffic in Manhattan recently has been beyond crazy," and added, "More people need to use public transportation." New York City plans to use the $1 billion annual revenue secured through congestion charges for subway system maintenance and installing air purifiers in schools.

Opposition is also strong. The basic analysis is that cities like London and Stockholm, where congestion charges are already established, differ geographically and in conditions from New York City. Contrary to New York City's intentions, traffic congestion and pollutant emissions are expected to worsen in the Bronx and Queens as drivers bypass Manhattan.

There are also concerns that hybrid work, expanding among workers reluctant to pay congestion charges, will lead to regional economic contraction. This is likely to impact New York's commercial real estate market, which is already struggling with vacancy issues post-pandemic. Delivery vehicles to stores in the downtown commercial district, as well as taxis and ride-sharing services like Uber, will be required to pay the charge, potentially fueling inflation. Ms. Aubrey, a resident of Manhattan's Chelsea area, said, "Everything will become more expensive. Even those who don't drive or own cars will indirectly pay congestion charges as consumers," calling it "another tax."

Discussions about introducing congestion charges in New York City first emerged in 2007, shortly after Ken Livingstone, then mayor of London, successfully implemented congestion charges and won re-election. It took more than 10 years of local discussions and federal approval to reach this point. After long envying London's success, can New York City finally shed its notorious traffic congestion label? However, it should be noted that not all cities that introduced congestion charges have successfully tackled both traffic congestion and air pollution.