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

May 7
World War I devastated Britain and likely slowed down its technological progressđź§µ

The reason being, the youth are the engine of innovation.

Areas that saw more deaths saw larger declines in patenting in the years following the war. Image
To figure out the innovation effects of losing a large portion of a generation's young men who were just coming into the primes of their lives, the authors needed four pieces of data.

The first were the numbers and pre-war locations of soldiers who died. Image
The next components were the numbers and locations of patent filings.

If you look at both graphs, you see obvious total population effects. So, areas must be normalized. Image
Read 12 tweets
May 5
New Pangram validation!

You know how most books on Amazon are AI slop now? If you didn't, look at the publication numbers.

Compare those to the proportion Pangram flags as AI-generated. It's fully aligned with the implied numbers based on the rise over 2022 publication levels! Image
Similarly, the rise of pro se litigants has come with a rise in case filings detected as being AI-generated, and with virtually zero false-positives before AI was around.

You can also see the rise of AI-generated text and yet more evidence for Pangram's validity from looking at different journalists.

Large portions of the journalistic profession are lazy, so they cheat when they can.

For example, the Guardian's Bryan Graham = slop Image
Read 9 tweets
May 3
Pierre Guillaume Frédéric le Play argued that France's early fertility decline was driven by its inheritance reforms, where estates had to be split up equally to all of the kids, including the girls.

There's likely something to this!đź§µ Image
For reference, the French Revolution ushered in a number of egalitarian laws.

A major example of these had to do with inheritance, and in particular with partibility.

In some areas of France, there was partible inheritance, and in others, it was impartible. Image
Partible inheritance refers to inheritance spread among all of a person's heirs, sometimes including girls, sometimes not.

Impartible inheritance on the other hands refers to the situation where the head of an estate can nominate a particular heir to get all or a select portion. Image
Read 11 tweets
May 1
In terms of their employment, religion, and sex, people who joined the Nazi party started off incredibly distinct from the people in their communities.

It's only near the end of WWII when they started resembling everyday Germans. Image
Early on, a lot of this dissimilarity is due to hysteresis.

Even as the party was growing, people were selectively recruited because they were often recruited by their out-of-place friends, and they were themselves out-of-place.

It took huge growth to break that. Image
And you can see the decline of fervor based on the decline of Nazi imagery in people's portraits.

And while this is observed by-and-large, it's not observed among the SS, who had a consistently higher rate of symbolic fanaticism. Image
Read 5 tweets
Apr 23
I simulated 100,000 people to show how often people are "thrice-exceptional": Smart, stable, and exceptionally hard-working.

I've highlighted these people in red in this chart: Image
If you reorient the chart to a bird's eye view, it looks like this: Image
In short, there are not many people who are thrice-exceptional, in the sense of being at least +2 standard deviations in conscientiousness, emotional stability (i.e., inverse neuroticism), and intelligence.

To replicate this, use 42 as the seed and assume linearity and normality
Read 7 tweets
Apr 22
I would like to live in a high-trust society.

The decline of trust is something worth caring about, and reversing it is something worth doing.

We should not have to live constantly wondering if we're being lied to or scammed. Trust should be possible again.
I don't know how we go about regaining trust and promoting trustworthiness in society.

It feels like there's an immense level of toleration of untrustworthy behavior from everyone: scams are openly funded; academics congratulate their fraudster peers; all content is now slop.
What China's doing—corruption crackdowns and arresting fraudsters—seems laudable, and I think the U.S. and other Western nations should follow suit.

Fraud leads to so many lives being lost and so much progress being halted or delayed.

I'm close to being single-issue on this.
Read 6 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!

:(