Congestion Pricing Cuts Manhattan Air Pollution by 22 Percent, but EPA Bar Still Out of Reach

Early data suggest New York’s congestion pricing is delivering not just less gridlock and more revenue, but also cleansing the city’s air in meaningful—if modest—ways.

New Yorkers prick up their noses at many things, foul air perhaps chief among them. That discontent was regularly justified: by late 2024, midtown Manhattan’s air hovered at 13.8 micrograms per cubic metre of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), well above the Environmental Protection Agency’s “healthy” threshold of 9 micrograms. Now, nearly a year after the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) initiated its long-gestating congestion pricing scheme—a $9 daily toll on vehicles entering Manhattan below 60th Street—fresh peer-reviewed data show an unambiguous effect: cleaner air across the city.

The study, published this week in Nature by Tim Fraser of Cornell and colleagues, is blunt in its findings. Comparing pollution and traffic data from the six months before and after congestion pricing’s launch in January, they detect a 22% drop in PM2.5 within the charging zone. Suburbs and boroughs, often invoked as likely “pollution havens” after displacement of through-traffic, saw slight but real decreases as well. Contrary to the naysayers, the city did not merely export its fumes to the Bronx or New Jersey.

The MTA’s gambit aimed initially at two targets: unclogging streets and replenishing rail coffers. But health outcomes, especially among the old, the young, and those with chronic respiratory ills, were no small part of the calculus. Fine particulates penetrate deep into lungs, fuelling asthma and cardiovascular woes; a sharp drop could meaningfully reduce hospitalisations and deaths in a city where over 1 million residents already suffer from respiratory ailments. For those who dwell, exercise, and work in Manhattan—like runner Ryan Wilson, now less likely to mask up—the most tangible gains are being inhaled with every breath.

Cleaner air also carries financial implications that ripple through the city’s economy. Healthier residents mean fewer missed workdays and lower hospital bills, not to mention a modest enhancement of the city’s long-maligned urban experience. Employers, especially in a period when hybrid work threatens Midtown’s primacy, may find that even a marginal improvement in air quality bolsters the city’s appeal for talent. After all, an ability to stroll through a less smog-choked Bryant Park may help tip the scales for “return-to-office” laggards.

However, not every New Yorker is convinced. Anecdotes run the gamut from enthusiastic joggers breathing easier to sceptical residents, like Hell’s Kitchen’s Catherine Butschi, who claims she notices less traffic but little perceptible difference in the city’s miasma. In a metropolis built on car horns and diesel buses, perceptual thresholds for “clean” remain high. And while the PM2.5 figure has indeed fallen, Manhattan’s air still exceeds the EPA’s healthy threshold—progress, but not panacea.

Second-order effects may become clearer as data accumulate. If reduced pollution translates into enhanced public health, the city may see downstream budget relief for its overburdened healthcare system. Moreover, should congestion pricing deliver the projected $1bn in annual revenues for transit upgrades—while also proving politically palatable—other U.S. cities may be more willing to imitate the model. For now, New York’s experiment stands as both morality tale and policy laboratory on an immense and unruly scale.

A tale of two cities: Lessons from London

Comparison with London, which implemented its own congestion charge in 2003, offers a sobering caution. There, initial reductions in traffic and pollution eroded over time as exemptions, pandemic-induced collapses in public transport use, and adaptive driving behaviours chipped away at early gains. New York’s geography—an island core with tidal commuter flows—favours the scheme’s resilience. But political wobbles or revenue earmarking shenanigans could easily scupper progress.

Nationally, the stakes are considerable. Urban pollution shortens American lives by an estimated 1.5 years on average, according to the University of Chicago’s Air Quality Life Index. Should the Big Apple’s approach prove to nudge down health costs and greenhouse emissions in tandem, Washington policymakers may be emboldened to prod other car-choked metros (looking at you, Los Angeles and Houston). Internationally, the case for congestion pricing as a lever for healthier, more liveable cities grows stronger with every microgram shaved off urban PM2.5 averages.

It is, however, prudent to temper optimism. The reduction in particulates, while meaningful, leaves New York’s air still more polluted than several European peers. The real challenge—solidifying and extending gains—requires both vigilance and adaptation. Traffic patterns morph and public tolerance for new tolls is never infinite. Unless windfall congestion tolls are translated into tangible transit improvements, patience with the scheme may evaporate faster than smog on a gusty day.

New York has demonstrated that a blunter instrument—a straightforward toll on city core entries—can, for now, discourage driving and cut pollution without simply pushing problems to poorer neighbourhoods. That hints at a tantalising possibility: with tweaks and sustained public investment in alternatives to private vehicles, American cities might finally begin to unshackle themselves from the tyranny of the steering wheel.

For now, the city’s congested, frequently malodorous streets are showing the faintest whiff of progress. That is no small feat, in a metropolis where environmental headaches and political intransigence usually linger longer than rush-hour traffic. The air, though still far from Alpine, is at last a little less filthy—and policy wonks across America would do well to take note. ■