New York Will Charge Drivers $15 To Enter Lower Manhattan
The new tolls are part of a congestion pricing scheme that's been years in the making.

After a grueling, yearslong, process, New York area commuters finally know how much in new congestion charges they'll pay for driving into lower Manhattan. Actually getting the published tolls approved is going to require more process still.
Earlier this week, the board of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA)—the state agency that runs rail and bus service in the New York City area—gave initial approval to a toll schedule that will charge the average driver $15 to enter lower Manhattan during peak times (5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends).
Trucks, buses, and vans will pay $24 per day for the same privilege, while larger vehicles like multiunit trucks and sightseeing buses will pay $36 per day. Included in the schedule are discounts for low-income drivers and credits for people using already-tolled tunnels.
Vehicles without an E-ZPass will pay higher rates, ranging from $22.50 for passenger cars to $54 for larger trucks.
The revenue from these congestion tolls will go toward covering the MTA's budget deficits.
The board's vote this week merely kicks off an additional round of public input and review scheduled to last four months, during which more changes could be made. This latest stage of public review is in addition to the 19 outreach sessions the MTA held during the yearslong federal environmental review process. The agency has already received 28,000 pages worth of public comments as well.
So, congestion tolls won't be implemented until spring 2024 at the earliest.
New York's long road to congestion pricing started back in 2019 when the New York Legislature approved a plan to toll drivers entering lower Manhattan as part of that year's budget agreement.
The intent of the new tolls was to raise money for the city's cash-strapped subway system and reduce rush-hour gridlock. London, Singapore, and Stockholm all have tolled congestion zones covering their city centers.
Economics and transportation policy wonks tend to love congestion pricing as an efficient means of rationing scarce road space. Done right, it can be a real benefit to commuters who benefit from more predictable travel times and free-flowing traffic.
From the get-go, however, New York primarily pitched its congestion pricing plan as a means of raising money for the city's subway system. That helped alienate drivers who'd have to pay it.
"They didn't lead with, 'We're going to stabilize traffic flow and therefore benefit you as motorists,'" Marc Scribner, a transportation policy researcher at the Reason Foundation (which publishes this website), told Reason earlier this year. "You can understand the knee-jerk reaction from a lot of motorists is that this is a cash grab."
The political opposition from motorists has only complicated what was always going to be a fraught, prolonged implementation process.
Because New York was planning to toll federal highways leading into the city, the state needed federal sign-off, which in turn required it to perform federally mandated environmental studies.
Even figuring out what level of environmental analysis congestion pricing required, and then performing that analysis, took years. During that time, New York politicians accused the Trump administration of slow-walking the process for political reasons.
From the beginning, New Jersey politicians have tried to undermine the policy with federal legislation and, more recently, lawsuits contending New York didn't do all the necessary environmental studies on congestion pricing's effects.
These fees are considerably less than the $23 rush-hour fees transit officials had previously recommended, a fact New York Gov. Kathy Hochul was eager to highlight after the MTA board's vote.
"Congestion pricing means cleaner air, better transit and less gridlock on New York City's streets," Hochul said in a statement. "The proposal approved today heeds my call to lower the toll rate by nearly 35 percent from the maximum rate originally considered."
The reduced rates have done nothing to win over critics of congestion pricing.
"If you commute, want to see a doctor, or grab dinner in New York City, get ready to pay $40 to go over the GWB in 2024—in addition to gas and parking," said Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D–N.J.), factoring in tunnel tolls, potential "gridlock alert day" surcharges, and higher rates drivers without E-ZPass will have to pay. "The MTA is a hot mess and just desperate for cash."
New York City Mayor Eric Adams also raised concerns about the "two yellows"—school buses and taxis—which he said should pay lower fees.
Of course, the more people and vehicles that are exempt from congestion tolls, the less they'll end up doing to fight congestion. The same is true of lowering the tolls for everyone.
New York could potentially be walking into a situation where its tolls are still too high to appease New Jersey drivers but not so high as to fix Manhattan gridlock. In that scenario, the tolls would more or less be functioning as just another tax.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Two men enter, one man leaves.
New York Will Charge Drivers $15 To Enter Lower Manhattan
Toll collectors hardest hit?
🙂
😉
I prefer they charge native New Yorkers $10,000 if they want to leave. Or better yet, follow the plan for Manhattan Island as depicted in ‘Escape From New York’. Let Republican refugees out after careful screening and then seal the democrats off forever.
The Greedy Hand gets grabby.
People who have to work in Manhattan are potentially about to be $3900 poorer over the course of a year.
One more reason to not go to NYC.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
It’s also 3,900 more reasons to get rid of the democrats.
That ought to bring more shoppers downtown.
The first $15 city?
Manhattan already convinced me not to go there.
and now literally every thing you buy in manhattan will be even MORE expensive. Good job guys. Cant wait for the subsequent handwringing over unaffordability of manhattan! lol.
the only good Manhattan is in Kansas. go Cats.
Manhattan, Illinois would like to beg to differ.
I've done Wheaton and Buffalo Grove. go Bears.
You did Wil Wheaton? Pluggo will be jealous.
As long as Chicago makes the state laws, can anything in Illinois be good?
Um. No.
Every business that can leave lower Manhattan should leave lower Manhattan. Let's see how well that congestion pricing works when there's nobody there.
They should leave. Ten years ago, they’ll be under the sea level.
if they put more businesses there will the island ... capsize?
I believe so.
Damnit, thought I changed my handle to Hank Johnson.
Well, pretend I did and laugh.
done. lolz.
Just one more bit of evidence that cars and cities and growth don’t mix. Pricing is the best solution to ration/ allocate traffic/congestion. But it doesn’t really transform anything and it doesn’t put an end to ‘tear down everything and build more roads’ impulse of Robert Moses.
So your libertarian solution is to add more government. Am I getting that correct, JFool?
Just one more bit of evidence that cars and cities and growth don’t mix.
Despite the fact that’s exactly what happened since 1920.
No. And you can see the changes in old photos. The first cars didn't make much difference speed-wise but cars/horses definitely don't mix so that any street where traffic would pass required land taken from sidewalks so the vehicles could pass further apart. That mostly eliminated 'third space socializing' stuff like benches or the stuff seen in Europe and during covid (table outside cafes, etc). It also immediately created one or two or a few places in most cities where intersections became a serious problem - initially controlled by traffic cops and later lights/signs and only much much later rotaries. Those cost a lot, are not needed absent cars/drivers, and create annoyance at best. Hardly a positive for freedom.
When the speed limit for cars went above 35mph or so, road safety became a problem. Peds were intimidated off the road so were required to walk here but not there with money spent on crossings, etc. Which was still ignored by drivers as 'road rage' became enough of a thing to be included while car companies were selling cars during movies. Streets started to become really unpleasant places - which started eliminating people using front porches even in places with front yards. The entire orientation of a neighborhood changes.
In bigger cities, this is also when neighborhoods started getting torn down or cut off so that the city grid could be made more convenient for thru traffic and people moving a little further away (the original streetcar suburbs) from work. Cars/drivers also began to drive streetcars out of business - by forcing them to stop and thus 'get off schedule' and drive those passengers into private vehicles. It truly was a negative externality of cars - not reduced demand - that drove streetcars under.
That all accelerated post-WW2 when speeds crept up enough for Marchetti's constant (people really prefer to set aside 30 minutes for commuting - no more no less -and they will change their mode of transport, housing, work, etc to create that ) to really kick in and make suburbs a thing and to really stick city grid systems into a food processor. Eminent domain is a wonderfully libertarian thing for cities isn't it. esp when targeted at people who just don't look right.
So cities would continue to grow to current size with horse and buggies?
Us monocle wearers prefer illegal alien au pairs to pull us along in rickshaws.
Size? Are you talking about population or about land (geographic sprawl)? I’d argue that US cities have generally discouraged urban population growth in favor of suburban population growth. And it is not mainly because of real free-market demand.
Sprawl is mostly a function of Euclidean zoning not population demand. Esp the huge swathes of R1 that require someone to get a car (and have the city build a road and zone a commercial area way over there) before they can even get a donut. Zoning is what really forces car transport as the ONLY viable transport option beyond peds/bikes/horses.
Zoning also – well plus auto advertising – forces a CULTURE of cars as expressions of some mythic mobility freedom. We travel many many more miles each year. Isn’t that proof of how free we are now? {cue jingle and Super Bowl ads} But in truth we are just spending the same amount of travel time per day traveling more miles to do the same things we have always done (go to work, buy groceries, see friends, etc). In a much bigger truck. We spend FAR more time each year cursing at the traffic jams we’re in than we do singing ‘On The Road Again’ on our way to the mountains/beach for vacation.
And BTW – it is mostly sprawl that is creating the need for that whole $15 congestion fee. Because zoning-based sprawl creates the bedroom community suburbs to citycore to bedroom community suburbs commute. By car rather than the earlier streetcar or ‘interurban’ (light rail) which preceded cars. And hence congestion.
Which gets back to my original point. The $15 fee ‘solves’ the congestion but it’s not remotely addressing the real problem. It is merely rationing demand access to a system with complete pricing inelasticity of supply. Great for cronyism but not for markets actually solving a problem.
Meh. Houston has a lot of traffic, but we Texans love our cars. There's no congestion barrier to drive in, and outside of rush hour, even downtown isn't that bad. Though a surprising fraction of downtown professionals take the bus to the suburban park and rides.
Cars work just fine. Don't blame the tool when the problem is bureaucracy
Oddly, it grew exceptionally well with cars and the like.
Weird.
It "allocates" me the Hell away from New York.
🙂
😉
For some reason (hah), this reminds me of the old joke -- "$20, same as in town."
This will, of course, and once again, hurt gen zers and millennials. Workers who work varied hours in Manhattan in tourism, the arts, restaurants and hospitals. Gee, I wonder why a middle class or upwardly mobile bartender or nurse in the boroughs is refusing a subway ride when they get off at 2am, especially when these small businesses and hospitals pay for parking.
Leftist fucks
It would be even more fun if NYC came up with a progressive congestion fee. How about a charge equivalent to the hourly pay equivalent of the driver or passenger? And for company vehicles, some percentage of gross revenue (looking at you, Wall Street)?
This is not a congestion charge. It's an entry fee, like at Disneyland, or at Venice {Italy!]. It switches the cause of congestion from congestion New Jerseyites to New Yorkers. Travel time will not change. A real one would not discriminate between commuter driven cars and New Yorker driven cars, which would be efficient. After all a car holding me up holds me up, wherever it's from.
Oh, by the way, real estate values in NYC will be caused to rise further. 🙂
Would it apply only to vehicles making a river crossing, or as well to vehicles coming from uptown?
To everyone. That includes people driving in from upper Manhattan and the Bronx. So toll gantries will have to be installed on every avenue with southbound traffic. And every exit from the southbound FDR Drive below 60th St., and every place you can make a left turn off the West Side Highway, since they say traffic that doesn't enter local streets will be exempt. What I'm wondering about is the Queensboro Bridge. Queens-bound traffic must pass through local streets south of 60th St. to access it. But Manhattan-bound traffic on the upper level won't enter the street grid until 62nd St., so I guess doing that and getting on the northbound FDR will remain free. Even coming in on the lower level, you can exit directly ONTO 60th St., and not use a street south of it.
Will we see a lot of Uber drivers north of the line just dropping folks off at the toll gates, so they can walk through to the Uber already in the $15 fee area? And vice versa?
Forget floating razor wire. This calls for toll gates on both borders:
Anyone who pays a coyote five grand to get to the Rio Grande can afford to cough up one more for congesting the public roads.
Economics and transportation policy wonks tend to love congestion pricing as an efficient means of rationing scarce road space.
Anybody who believes that is wrong.
Done right, it can be a real benefit to commuters who benefit from more predictable travel times and free-flowing traffic.
Yes, it is of benefit to wealthy commuters, reflecting their time/money preferences.
I love seeing what government policies increasing prices "libertarians" will support or oppose. You never really know in advance, do you?
They have to wait for the policy wonks to weigh in.
I'm just fascinated watching the Open Borders wing of libertarianism say that borders work... when done right.
So we have various factions in the party. The major parties are equally divided into factions that must be appeased by candidates. Not everyone is ready to have aliens carry off everyone who gets a government paycheck.
"Wonks" being the modern slang for the social engineers Hayek warns against
When the President gets stranded in Midtown, we can always send Snake Plissken in to get him out.
He'll need $15 to get in-
Bob Hauk : There was an accident. About an hour ago, a small jet went down inside New York City. The President was on board.
Snake Plissken : The president of what?
Fuck Nikki Haley.
As the Lincoln Tunnel is not pedestrian friendly, fifteen dollars seems a fair price to admit washashores without visas to Battery Park, provided they pay pedestrian tolls and subway surcharges as they venture uptown. Forty bucks will get them to Times Square, where all but the most feral will improve the quality of the tourist crowds , and $60 will deliver them to the base of the Trump Tower. Thereafter a flat dollar a block should apply, allowing those wishing to present their respects to the Clinton Foundation to do so for a mere $125 plus tax and tip.
Something tells me there's going to be a lot of agreeing to disagree coming up...
Oh hey glibertarians, question, does this $15 dollar congestion pricing, "when done right" involve some kind of social construct that the government enforces? Some sort of bullshit invisible line? Asking for a libertarian friend.
What's the cost/benefit analysis to that one?
That is, what am I getting for my $15?
Doesn't seem worth it.
I think London does this kind of scheme, where you are charged by wheel or some such nonsense. New York just wants to go back to being a part of the British Empire. I say the British can have them for some beads and shiny metal bits.
This work for you please go to this link........>>www.work.salary49.com