The Congestion Pricing Effect: A Healthier City in More Ways Than One

New York City’s congestion pricing program has been a contentious policy, but a recent study sheds light on one of its often-overlooked benefits: faster ambulance response times. According to six economists, including Brad Humphreys of West Virginia University, the toll has reduced total EMS travel time inside Manhattan’s congestion zone by about 63-70 seconds.

The study’s findings are significant not only because they demonstrate a tangible impact on public health but also because they highlight the complexity of evaluating policies aimed at reducing traffic congestion. Opponents often argue that such measures merely displace driving habits rather than reduce them, but this research suggests otherwise. The economists used spatial analysis to compare ambulance runs on either side of 60th Street (the boundary between the congestion zone and free-flowing traffic) to measure the impact.

The time savings are substantial, with a clear indication that people have genuinely changed their behavior in response to the toll. Instead of simply relocating their trips outside the congestion zone, drivers have opted for alternative modes of transportation or adjusted their schedules to avoid peak hours. This shift is likely due in part to the fact that air quality has significant health consequences and could be quantified using existing methodologies.

The study’s findings also highlight the importance of considering externalities often overlooked in policy debates. Faster ambulance response times are just one benefit of reduced traffic congestion, which can also improve air pollution, noise pollution, and street wear issues. Humphreys notes that improved air quality has significant health consequences and should be a key consideration in transportation policies.

The study’s implications extend beyond New York City. Prior research demonstrates the positive impact of congestion pricing on public health, with reductions in accidents and mortality rates observed in cities like London, Stockholm, and Milan. These results suggest that policymakers need to rethink their approach to transportation, prioritizing not just reduced travel times but also improved air quality, increased physical activity, and enhanced economic vitality.

The researchers’ attention to confounding variables is also noteworthy. They acknowledge the introduction of a new FDNY directive in March 2025, which required ambulances to transport patients to the nearest hospital rather than their preferred destination. This change could have skewed the results and led some to argue that the observed benefits were due to this policy shift rather than congestion pricing itself.

The study’s findings offer a nuanced understanding of the impact of congestion pricing on public health. By prioritizing reduced traffic congestion, cities can reap a range of benefits – from improved air quality to increased economic activity. As policymakers continue to grapple with these issues, it’s essential to consider not just short-term effects but also long-term consequences for public health and well-being.

The researchers’ call for further research into the direct, long-term economic effects of congestion pricing is timely. With estimates suggesting a 6% increase in sales tax receipts due to increased foot traffic, there is a clear commercial upside to reduced traffic congestion. Policymakers should seize this opportunity and prioritize evidence-based decision-making that takes into account not just immediate benefits but also the complex web of externalities that shape our cities’ vitality.

By recognizing the multifaceted nature of transportation policies and prioritizing public health, safety, and economic vitality, we can build healthier, more sustainable cities – ones that benefit not just drivers but all residents.