Crémieux Profile picture
Mar 18, 2025 • 19 tweets • 7 min read • Read on X
The first empirical evaluation of New York's congestion pricing has just been published.

Spoiler: It worked really, really wellđź§µImage
First, what is congestion pricing?

It's an added fee sent to drivers when they drive on certain roads, at certain times, in order to dissuade people from using the road when they don't need to.

The initiative aims to cut down on needless overuse, leading to slow roads. Image
Congestion pricing, in New York, acts as a sort of redistribution:

Because people pay to get into Manhattan, fewer go in, and the payments that would go to paid parking lot owners are effectively redistributed to the city government.

Congestion pricing can improve land use!Image
Congestion pricing should also increase the use of public transit, like the subway and buses and such.

This also helps with the redistribution from inefficient land users in Manhattan to the city government, and it's fine because transit has lots of excess capacity. Image
The way congestion pricing was evaluated was by using a "synthetic control".

The data from NYC was compared to the data from a counterfactual NYC based on data from other, comparable cities.

The estimate is New York (real) vs New York (projected without congestion pricing).
Some of the data underlying this model looks like this.

In this example, we can see average daily speeds within New York's Central Business District (CBD) in red and in comparison cities in gray.

Notice the jump around congestion pricing being introduced? Image
With that data, we can compare real New York to the ensembled New York and get this result, our treatment effect of interest.

On average, road speeds went up by a whopping 16%! Image
But here's something interesting:

Speeds on highways went up 13%, arterial road speeds went up by 10%, and local road speeds increased by 8%.

None of that's 16%, and that's important: This means congestion pricing sped roads up, but also sorted people to faster roads. Image
In response to having to pay a toll, people not only got off the road, they also made wiser choices about the types of roads they used!

Now let's look at the times of day, as a check on the model

It works: Congestion pricing just boosts speed when it's active and shortly after: Image
As another check, let's look at the effects by location.

In the CBD, trips are faster. Going to the CBD, trips are faster. Leaving it, trips are faster, but not much. And outside of it, where congestion pricing is irrelevant? No effect. Image
This policy has economic benefits and incentive benefits, but it also helps residents of New York who aren't directly paying the fee.

This is because vehicle emissions are down!

They're down the most in the areas with the highest rate exposure (co-occurrence), too. Image
The policy is also fair: The impacts do not fall on particularly low- or high-class neighborhoods, and the distributional impacts are thus pretty much neutral, with some regional differences.

The big effect is really just that people are able to get into the city more reliably.Image
In short, congestion pricing, though only briefly in place, has been a rousing success.

But New Yorkers don't seem to mind if the policy goes. They seem to prefer being able to freely waste time in traffic, even though it's inefficient and boring.

Convincing the public to care about this policy and support it will be key to its future re-implementation, not just in New York, but nationally

Getting people to understand that a small fee actually improves how cities operate and aligns incentives is going to be a big project.
Best of luck to anyone working on this.

Source: nber.org/papers/w33584
As an added note, subway ridership was increasing and, more interestingly, with congestion pricing, more people were choosing to take the express service buses.

Because of the reduced traffic, those buses were also making their trips much faster.

Wins everywhere!
Another interesting set of datapoints:

1. Foot traffic went up. That's the type that's relevant for businesses.

2. Broadway ticket sales? Also up.

3. Honking complaints? Went down by two-thirds.

Every sign points to benefits. Image
And I think signs should generally point to benefits, because I believe New Yorkers are smart enough to adjust in response to a little toll.

Some links:

bloomberg.com/news/articles/…

amny.com/news/broadway-…

nyc.streetsblog.org/2025/02/05/win…

thecity.nyc/2025/03/11/tra…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Crémieux

Crémieux Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @cremieuxrecueil

Feb 3
Indeed!

This research directly militates against modern blood libel.

If people knew, for example, that Black and White men earned the same amounts on average at the same IQs, they would likely be a lot less convinced by basically-false discrimination narratives blaming Whites. Image
Add in that the intelligence differences cannot be explained by discrimination—because there *is* measurement invariance—and these sorts of findings are incredibly damning for discrimination-based narratives of racial inequality.

So, said findings must be condemned, proscribed. Image
The above chart is from the NLSY '79, but it replicates in plenty of other datasets, because it is broadly true.

For example, here are three independent replications:
Read 4 tweets
Jan 29
How well-known is this?

A lot of the major pieces of civil rights legislation were passed by White elites who were upset at the violence generated by the Great Migration and the riots.

Because of his association with this violence, most people at the time came to dislike MLK. Image
It's only *after* his death, and with his public beatification that he's come to enjoy a good reputation.

This comic from 1967 is a much better summation of how the public viewed him than what people are generally taught today. Image
And yes, he was viewed better by Blacks than by Whites.

But remember, at the time, Whites were almost nine-tenths of the population.

Near his death, Whites were maybe one-quarter favorable to MLK, and most of that favorability was weak. Image
Read 5 tweets
Jan 28
The Pope, like his recent predecessors, is good to take this position: anti-Semitism is manifestly idiotic!

On that note, did you know that the Catholic Church was actually one of the biggest forces in stopping the rise of the Nazis?

It's true!đź§µ Image
You might say that the Catholics didn't vote for the Nazis because they had their own party: Zentrum.

This isn't the explanation.

Note: the Catholic Church opposed both forms of totalitarianism in Germany, but it had an asymmetric effect against the Nazis, not the Communists.Image
The real "Catholic effect" on far right vote shares was small.

In reality, Catholics only became poised against the far right when the church began to actively campaign against it.

But when the local clergymen were "Brown Priests" (Nazi-supporting priests) like Alois Hudal? Image
Read 22 tweets
Jan 27
The researcher who put together these numbers was investigated and almost charged with a crime for bringing these numbers to light when she hadn't received permission.

Now we have an update that goes through 2020!

First: Where are Sweden's rapists from?

Mostly not Sweden. Image
What countries were those foreign rapists from?

We only got information on the top five origins, constituting roughly half of the foreign-born samples, and thus about a quarter of all the rapists. Image
What about welfare usage? 35.1%.
Alcoholism? 14.9%
Drug addiction? 23.7%
A diagnosed psychiatric disorder besides that? 13%

What about a criminal prior? 52%. That compares to 13.4% of non-rapist criminals. So rapes? Considerably more preventable.
Read 5 tweets
Jan 17
Greater Male Variability rarely makes for an adequate explanation of sex differences in performance.

One exception may be the number of papers published by academics.

If you remove the top 7.5% of men, there's no longer a gap! Image
The disciplines covered here were ones with relatively equal sex ratios: Education, Nursing & Caring Science, Psychology, Public Health, Sociology, and Social Work.

Because these are stats on professors, this means that if there's greater male variability, it's mostly right-tail
Despite this, the very highest-performing women actually outperformed the very highest-performing men on average, albeit slightly.

The percentiles in this image are for the combined group, so these findings coexist for composition reasons. Image
Read 6 tweets
Jan 17
One of the issues with understanding Greater Male Variability on IQ tests is that groups that perform better tend to show greater variance

Therefore, to estimate the 'correct' male-female gap, you need to estimate it when the difference is 0

In the CogAT, that looks like this: Image
In Project Talent, that looks like this: Image
And comparing siblings in the NLSY '79, that looks like this: Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(