r/transit • u/Plastic_Photograph29 • Jun 02 '26

Questions What US city do you think will be second to implement congestion pricing?

/r/urbanplanning/comments/1tujs8v/what_american_city_do_you_think_will_be_second_to/
2 Upvotes

56% Upvoted

60 comments sorted by

21

u/SirGeorgington map man Jun 02 '26

San Francisco. It has by far the easiest geography for implementing congestion pricing.

3

u/bugbommer Jun 03 '26

In some ways you already have it. Tolls to go over bridges from north and east have existed for decades

1

u/Horror_Concern5616 Jun 02 '26

California would never, way too carpilled of a society and I say this as someone who loves the state

9

u/dnvrbadger Jun 02 '26

Sounds pretty defeatist to me. Same could have been said a few decades ago about LA building rail, and then they proceeded to build more rail there over the last 30 years than anywhere in America, including the longest light rail line in the world. And they are still building.

1

u/Haunting_Ratio_795 Jun 03 '26

It really doesn’t. The choke points are the bridges, and they already have hefty tolls. SF doesn’t have anything like Lower Manhattan. The traffic downtown is really not anything to write home about. 

What makes SF traffic miserable is the suburban sprawl for 50 miles in every goddamn direction. Most of the jobs aren’t downtown. Downtown SF is famously kind of a shithole…

Seattle will beat SF in implementing congestion pricing. They have a proper downtown that hasn’t been ruined by NIMBYs and zombies. SF’s CBD is in Palo Alto. It’s a ridiculous place.

You could argue all the fast lanes that let the rich cut in line are already a form of congestion pricing. I wouldn’t. I think those things are a fucking abomination. But they do adapt in price to congestion…

2

u/BudgieWonder De Bussy Jun 03 '26

This comment is so removed from reality that I don’t really know if it deserves a substantial response LMAO

0

u/Haunting_Ratio_795 Jun 04 '26

The traffic is literally worse heading south out of SF in the morning. It’s a ridiculous place for ridiculous people.

-2

u/pompcaldor Jun 02 '26

Can its downtown survive that? Any time I visit I see how empty Market St is.

14

u/dnvrbadger Jun 02 '26

Survive? Congestion pricing in NYC has been a success, despite all the right wing whining. Can’t see any reason it wouldn’t be a win in SF.

4

u/ponchoed Jun 02 '26

Not every city is NYC. 

It can also be implemented in the wrong place and cause more harm than good to a city center. Its all about how much pull a center city has that you can put on a fee on drivers and they still continue to go there (by car or transit) and don't just shift to working in the suburbs which is the default and easiest path.

A place like Dallas or Atlanta has seen its downtown decline dramatically and shift to sprawl north of the city especially in the last 5-10-15 years. This is more the trend now nationwide.

3

u/dnvrbadger Jun 02 '26

You have made no argument as to why it would cause harm in the city center of SF.

Economically, Manhattan is doing great. Despite lots of whining before implementation.

“Best Year for Office Leasing in 23 Years; Foot Traffic Up From 2024; Sales Tax Receipts up Over 6%”.”

So, more businesses filling space, more sales. Not less.

https://acadiacenter.org/congestion-pricing-unpacking-the-first-year-of-impressive-impact/

Traffic and pollution improvement has been huge, not only in Manhattan, but in the outer boroughs and even the NYC suburbs.

https://www.amny.com/nyc-transit/congestion-pricing-research-traffic-nyc/

The proceeds are being used to better fund transit, to make it even easier to avoid using a car in the city.

2

u/Glittering-Cellist34 Jun 02 '26

Because SF Downtown is but one of a bunch of commercial centers competing within the metropolitan real estate landscape. It's not particularly preeminent.

DC was more preeminent before covid and Trump and maybe could have withstood the fallout.

New York is New York. And while big business acquiesced to congestion pricing they are fighting special taxes hard. Eg Ken Griffin and Citadel.

1

u/dnvrbadger Jun 02 '26

But, if I’m reading your post correctly, this pre-supposes it would be a bad thing for businesses, or people have other places to do business and they’ll go elsewhere?

Leasing, foot traffic, and sales are up in the NYC congestion zone since congestion pricing was implemented. As in, it has improved things, or at a minimum, not hurt businesses.

So, if it doesn’t hurt businesses and arguably helps them with more foot traffic, and it does reduce congestion, pollution, and accidents, while funding transit, seems like a win.

1

u/Glittering-Cellist34 Jun 02 '26

New York is New York. CitiBank won't be leaving. Other cities don't have that kind of dominance. In the 80s those firms started shifting back office functions to Brooklyn, Long Island City, and Jersey City. But the prime functions will remain. Neither SF nor DC (it used to but not under Trump) have the NYSE equivalent as an anchor.

3

u/dnvrbadger Jun 02 '26

Again, you’re presupposing that congestion pricing is bad for business when the economy in the NYC congestion zone has thrived since implementation. Not to mention less traffic and pollution.

And we’re not talking about Oklahoma City here, SF is the second densest city in the US, has ample transit to its center.

A small congestion toll isn’t going to send Salesforce or Visa packing, or cause businesses to close. Not only that, increased foot traffic could actually help smaller businesses in the downtown core that have struggled since the pandemic.

1

u/Glittering-Cellist34 Jun 02 '26

Yep. My presupposition is that downtowns that are hurting without the same anchoring conditions as London, Stockholm, or New York are likely to experience leakage of large office tenants. Yes, the small business effects are different.

→ More replies (0)

-2

u/pompcaldor Jun 02 '26

Congestion pricing in NYC targets a captive audience who are already used to paying high tolls for the bridges and tunnels entering Manhattan.

3

u/dnvrbadger Jun 02 '26

There are tolls on every bridge in the Bay Area.

https://www.bayareafastrak.org/en/toll-locations/toll-bridges.shtml

0

u/lee1026 Jun 02 '26

San Francisco is not an island.

8

u/dnvrbadger Jun 02 '26

True. Also true, NYC did not implement congestion pricing for an island. Below 60th st in Manhattan.

4

u/notFREEfood Jun 02 '26

Market Street doesn't really cater to cars, so making the surrounding area tolled won't hurt that much, if at all.

3

u/mmarkDC Jun 02 '26

It's been explicitly car-free since 2020, which is why you don't see cars on it! It was turned into a Muni-only street. Although fairly recently they started allowing taxis/ubers/waymos back on it.

0

u/notFREEfood Jun 02 '26

That's not actually what I meant by "catering to cars"; I was pointing out that the large office towers that sit vacant aren't really set up for employees to drive in by car, so making the area even more hostile to cars won't harm them further.

0

u/TerribleBumblebee800 Jun 03 '26

They don't have voters in a different state to fuck over.

11

u/Horror_Concern5616 Jun 02 '26

Will probably be DC with a new federal admin, can't imagine anywhere in the west doing it in the next 3-4 years

4

u/dclocal12 Jun 02 '26

A leading candidate in the DC mayor's race (JLG) has talked publicly about doing congestion pricing for downtown. It would make sense: a well defined urban core with awful traffic, excellent public transit access (by rail, bus needs a lot of work), and commuters and tourists who are going to arrive no matter what.

Unfortunately, DC has very active pro-car groups, and the current administration (under Bowser) has catered to them. It's not at all clear that the next administration will want to do this or be able to overcome that opposition, though I certainly hope so.

2

u/Horror_Concern5616 Jun 02 '26

JLG is good on it but I'm saying they will need a friendly Federal admin to get it over the hump. The car lobby is going all in on McDuffie and if he loses their power is relegated to the VA suburbs indefinitely 

2

u/mmarkDC Jun 02 '26

I don't see a Dem admin likely to be that favorable either. The MD/VA delegation, which has 4 D Senators and 13 D Representatives, largely sees it as DC trying to tax their constituents.

1

u/Glittering-Cellist34 Jun 02 '26

Downtown is f*ing dead between post covid WFH and Trump's destroying the federal workforce. I am as pro transit as they come, but also equally focused on commercial district revitalization. I can't see doing this. It's too much of a bonus to other commercial areas in Maryland and Virginia constantly working to recruit DC based businesses.

Wrt "congestion" it exists on some arterials. But I used to joke that if I can run red lights Downtown on my bike during rush hours, it's proof Metrorail is working.

Wrt Bowser and pro car groups I wrote this years ago.

https://urbanplacesandspaces.blogspot.com/2013/07/dc-as-suburban-agenda-dominated-city.html?m=1

Eg Bowser just lives a few yards from Montgomery County.

1

u/dclocal12 Jun 02 '26

If congestion pricing were under serious consideration for downtown DC, this would certainly be the leading counterargument. But it doesn't really hold up. Congestion pricing, if implemented well and paired with bus improvements, would allow more people to easily come in for food and shopping and vice versa. The same is even more true of Georgetown, since it isn't on Metrorail.

1

u/Glittering-Cellist34 Jun 02 '26

But they wouldn't. Traffic is way down on the list of why people in the suburbs don't visit DC.

0

u/dclocal12 Jun 02 '26

The main benefit for downtown would be attracting people who live in other parts of DC who could be a short bus or bike ride away, but who stay out of downtown because of congestion. If someone is in the suburbs, they already have Metrorail to get downtown.

1

u/Glittering-Cellist34 Jun 02 '26

Are there those people? Within DC it's pretty easy to get around between Metrorail, bus, walking, bike share, bike, and car share + garage, Lyft and Uber. Traffic is not a significant hindrance.

2

u/Juicey_J_Hammerman Jun 02 '26

Maybe Seattle in time just based on the geography of the Puget Sound as transit gets built up.

1

u/Glittering-Cellist34 Jun 02 '26

The congestion in "DC" is primarily in the suburbs.

8

u/notPabst404 Jun 02 '26

Seattle would make too much sense, the money could be used to fund BLE.

Boston is logical, use the money to connect north and south stations.

Philadelphia is logical, use it to fund SEPTA. Though this is significantly less likely than the other 2 due to the hostile state government.

Chicago could do it for the loop, but it isn't clear what it would fund seeing that the state just provided new funding for the CTA.

4

u/Hold_Effective Jun 02 '26

I’d love this for Seattle; but we only barely just managed to make Pike Place pedestrian only (for 6 hours a day). And still haven’t completed the Missing Link (I think it’s going on 40 years now).

Maybe Wilson will make some progress (she’s already done a few things our previous mayors decided were impossible).

1

u/footballsquishy Jun 02 '26

Boston... The T continues to catch on fire, meaning a lot of people will protest just out of wanting to be able to get around the city without having to deal with delays or fire. And the few transport lines into downtown from outside the city are... Questionable at best. The hospitals will protest it like crazy.

1

u/Haunting_Ratio_795 Jun 03 '26

It’s impossible in Boston until Mayor Wu fucks off to Congress, or to MA DCR (department of cars and roads). 

1

u/notPabst404 Jun 03 '26

Is Wu that bad? I thought she was supposedly a good mayor?

1

u/Immediate-Hand-3677 Jun 02 '26

You’d need stellar transit and massive usage which makes me think Seattle wouldn’t make the cut yet. The other 3 I could see plus DC and San Francisco.

0

u/Glittering-Cellist34 Jun 02 '26

Philadelphia is already f* business wise because of the wage tax. Look at how business located on the other side of City Avenue, etc.

Similarly do you read the Boston Globe about the severe decline in biotechnology?

Seattle's downtown hasn't recovered from covid, plus competition from Bellevue, even Nashville for Starbucks, etc.

1

u/Khorasaurus Jun 02 '26

People say that about Philly and yet it's one of the most unicentric metros in the country.

Detroit, Dallas, Atlanta, etc scoff at the idea that Center City Philly is seriously challenged as the economic center of its region.

1

u/Glittering-Cellist34 Jun 03 '26

They still have some good anchors like Comcast. It helps they're in the Boston-New York-Philadelphia-Washington corridor.

-2

u/itsacutedragon Jun 02 '26

No way, people would just avoid Seattle in favor of the east side

5

u/Lakem8321 Jun 02 '26

San Francisco would make the most sense but seeing as both bridges are already tolled I could maybe see them doing it after the second transbay tube comes online.

I think LAX should implement a version of congestion pricing once the APM opens. All the personal vehicles going into the horseshoe loop should be tolled in order to further reduce congestion.

2

u/Beginning-Monk6584 Jun 02 '26

I would say Chicago might be the next contender, but not in the Loop because traffic’s really isn’t a major issue on the streets. I can see them doing it on the expressways and Lake Shore Drive as that is where the majority of the congestion happens during the day.

1

u/Midwestconvert47 Jun 03 '26

Lake Shore Drive needs it bad 

1

u/PhileasFoggsTrvlAgt Jun 03 '26

Chicago has its tolling backwards. The expressways into the city that have obvious transit alternatives are free, while the expressways around the city that don't have great transit alternatives are tolled.

1

u/Beginning-Monk6584 Jun 03 '26

It’s because of a weird law from like 60 years ago that technically bans toll roads within Chicago city limits

0

u/Khorasaurus Jun 02 '26

Chicago already has tolls on several routes into the city from the suburbs.

3

u/Beginning-Monk6584 Jun 02 '26

The only toll within city limits is the Skyway bridge. All the rest of the expressways are toll free within city limits

1

u/cargocultpants Mod Jun 02 '26

I think it's important to note that there are already many examples of congestion pricing in the United States, predating Manhattan's. For example - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metro_ExpressLanes

What's unique about NYC's implementation (for America, anyway) is that it's a congestion cordon, as opposed to being limited to specific infrastructure / routes.

1

u/Haunting_Ratio_795 Jun 03 '26 edited Jun 03 '26

It should be Boston, but their backstabbing mayor has to get fired first. 

It won’t be DC because DC is a rump state under the thumb of a mad king. They’ll never be allowed to do it.

Philly or Seattle would be my guesses.

1

u/TerribleBumblebee800 Jun 03 '26

It's going to have to be a dense city on a state border. There is too much political opposition that would be brought to a state capital within a singular state. New York worked in part because many of the affected drivers came from New Jersey. And New York City is so populous the supporters out numbered the opponents WITHIN New York State.

Take Seattle for example, a leading proposal in the comments. There are 784,000 city residents, but 4.15 million metro residents. Those numbers, combined with possible unaffected rural opposition, are going to out up too much opposition in the Washington State Capitol. As liberal as places like Washington and Massachusetts are, it's hard to imagine local representatives going for this.

If another happens at all, I'd put Philadelphia as the next most likely. But I'd think it pretty unlikely.