Home » Posts tagged 'congestion pricing'
Tag Archives: congestion pricing
Examples of congestion pricing as applied in major cities
Here is a quick share of an article on cities that have been successful with congestion pricing:
Zukowski, D. (August 8, 2025) “5 cities with congestion pricing,” Smart Cities Dive, https://www.smartcitiesdive.com/news/5-cities-with-congestion-pricing/756987/ [Last accessed: 8/15/2025]
Quoting from the article:
“As cities around the world continue to see increased traffic delays, some have implemented congestion pricing programs to ease gridlock. Congestion pricing acts as a market-based mechanism: increasing the cost to drive in certain areas may encourage drivers to take alternate means of transport or travel at different times. Toll revenues can go to improving roadways and public transit or reducing other vehicle-related taxes.”
Indeed congestion pricing has been around and yet few cities have actually implemented congestion pricing schemes and have had success with it. In the Philippines, the discussions are basically on and off or intermittent. I recall there were already mention of congestion pricing in Metro Manila transport studies back in the 1970s but nothing really came out of those. Fast forward to the present and Baguio City in the northern Philippines implemented their version of number coding, which was supposedly a prelude to some form of congestion pricing but apparently is more of a travel demand management (TDM) scheme along the lines of Metro Manila’s UVVRP. Will we have our own proof of concept sometime soon even for a smaller area or district in any Philippine city? That will also be dependent on whether our so-called leaders can engage their constituents in meaningful discussions on the benefits of congestion pricing.
–
Solutions to transport problems: the combination of congestion pricing and transit infrastructure development
Congestion pricing and transit infrastructure development (e.g., mass transit infrastructure) are often mentioned separately or independently. It is as if they are mutually exclusive alternatives or solutions to our transportation problems. They are not and should be considered together for greater impacts and also to complement each other. While the article below focuses on the experience in the United States, the experience is Singapore as applied to cities should provide a model that can be adopted if not outrightly replicated. Singapore’s version of congestion pricing in the form of its Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) scheme has been very effective in regulating congestion levels while helping fund public transportation in the city-state.
Descant, S. (May 8, 2025) “Congestion Pricing and Transit Are a Necessary Alliance,” Government Technology, https://www.govtech.com/transportation/congestion-pricing-and-transit-are-a-necessary-alliance %5BLast accessed: 11/05/2025]
Quoting from the article:
“In order to move a congestion pricing proposal forward, “you must have serious congestion, and you must have good transit,” said Sam Schwartz, a former New York City traffic commissioner, said during a March 21 panel on the New York City congestion pricing program. The event was organized by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) Mobility Initiative. Schwartz is also the CEO of Sam Schwartz Pedestrian Traffic Management Services, a consulting firm.
A recent report by the Mineta Transportation Institute at San Jose State University in California concluded roadway tolling — a form of congestion pricing — can serve the dual purpose of reducing traffic congestion and supporting transit options, if the programs are structured properly.”
–
Article on the evaluation of congestion pricing
I want to share this article on the congestion pricing zone in London. This is called the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), which also met resistance when it was first implemented.
Selby, O. (January 16, 2025) “ULEZ expansion hasn’t hurt high street spending,” Centre for Cities, https://www.centreforcities.org/blog/ulez-expansion-hasnt-hurt-high-street-spending/ [Last accessed: 2/1/2025]
Quoting from the article:
“The benefits ULEZ has provided to public health have been studied extensively. The data is clear: London has the worst air quality of any UK city and the capital’s emission zone is helping to change this.
So far, card transaction data does not suggest that ULEZ is harming high street spend. This should reassure policy makers in London, who committed to the emission zone a while ago, and strengthen the convictions of policy makers in New York who are now following suit.”
The article is a nice reference not just for evaluation of similar congestion pricing schemes but can also be used for carless streets or zones. I wonder if there are similar work being done for Baguio’s congestion pricing scheme as well as the carless programs in Ortigas Center. Quezon City should also do this for the newly implemented program along Tomas Morato.
–
On the idea of congestion pricing
I purposely titled this post to include the word ‘idea’ as congestion pricing is still very much like that in the Philippines. It is a reality in some part of the world particularly in Singapore where its Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) has evolved and improved over the years. Its success though seems to be an exceptional case that has not been replicated elsewhere where conditions are not exactly like the city state’s.
Here is an article that recently came out from The Washington Post about the New York Governor’s decision to backtrack on the proposed congestion pricing initiative in New York City:
McArdle, M. (June 12, 2024) “People hate traffic. They also hate this great idea to clear it,” The Washington Post, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/06/12/congestion-pricing-great-idea-people-hate/ [Last accessed: 6/14/2024]
To quote from the article:
“Roads are a scarce good; you can fit only so many cars on a road at one time, and fewer if you would like those cars to go somewhere. When roads are “free,” we are forced to fall back on a more costly and inefficient strategy: sitting in traffic. This wastes valuable human time and inflicts noise and pollution on everyone nearby. Far better to charge a modest price that inspires some drivers to carpool and others to take public transit or shop nearer to home, until supply and demand are balanced and traffic flows easily…
In political disputes, a discrete group facing highly concentrated costs often defeats a larger public interest that conveys a small individual benefit to everybody — such as being able to move around the city faster when you really need to. This is particularly true in the American system, which is designed to empower angry minorities. And it’s especially true when they’re abetted by status quo bias and a sympathetic majority, as in this case.
Complain all you want about selfish suburban drivers or the Metropolitan Transit Authority’s bloated cost structure or Hochul’s cowardice; the biggest obstacle to congestion pricing is that almost two-thirds of New York City residents have told pollsters they oppose it — in a city where less than half of all households even own a car. A more technocratic, less democratically responsive government might have been able to ram it through, and perhaps in time everyone would have come to like it. But in fractious America, with all its political veto points, congestion pricing is doomed by the reality that people hate slapping prices on things — especially if they have to pay them.”
There is a congestion pricing proposal in Baguio City and we don’t know yet how this will go. I don’t have the details yet except that a private company whose core business is tollways is involved. Will this be a model or a proof of concept? Or will it just go the way of a typical tollway where users are those who are willing to pay and which would eventually congest if most of the current users pay and use it anyway? Will the funds generated be used to develop a more efficient transport system for Baguio, eventually leading and contributing to less congested streets? That would also mean eventually less revenues from the congestion pricing scheme and probably lead to it being unnecessary.
–
A Serious Critique of Congestion Costs and Induced Vehicle Travel Impacts
Here is a quick share for today. This is an article by Todd Litman critiquing congestion costs and induced vehicle travel impacts:
Quoting from the article:
It is time for planners to rethink the way we evaluate congestion problems and solutions. Vehicle travel is not an end in itself; our ultimate goal is to improve accessibility. Traffic congestion is one constraint on accessibility, but others are more important. For example, the study, “Does Accessibility Require Density or Speed?” found that a given increase in urban density, and therefore proximity, has a far greater impact on overall accessibility than an increase in travel speed, and therefore congestion reductions. This is particularly true of disadvantaged groups who cannot drive or are financially burdened by vehicle expenses.
It is irresponsible for transportation agencies to expand highways in ways that contradict other community goals. If they do nothing, at worst, traffic congestion will maintain equilibrium; people will manage within its constraints. Even better, transportation agencies can invest in resource-efficient alternatives—better walking, bicycling, public transit, and telework opportunities—that improve accessibility, increasing transportation system efficiency.
If we truly want to truly optimize our transportation systems, we need a more comprehensive analysis of impacts and options, including the full costs of urban highway expansions and the full benefits of non-auto mode improvements and TDM incentives. Highway expansion should be a solution of last resort, only implemented when all other solutions have failed and users are willing to pay the full costs through tolls.
It’s time to stop obsessing about congestion and instead strive for efficient accessibility that serves everybody in the community.
Source: A Serious Critique of Congestion Costs and Induced Vehicle Travel Impacts