The Politics of Congestion Pricing Have Changed
As New York’s congestion pricing program nears its six-month mark and the 2026 midterms come into view, it’s worth revisiting how the politics surrounding the policy have shifted. When Governor Kathy Hochul paused the program ahead of the 2024 elections, the reasoning was straightforward: congestion pricing polled poorly in key suburban and outer-borough swing districts. With cost-of-living concerns dominating the conversation, Republicans seized the moment to cast Democrats as out-of-touch elites pushing a “commuter tax.”
In the end, New York Democrats defied a national red wave led by Donald Trump, flipping three House seats and retaining large majorities in Albany. It’s almost impossible to determine the precise role of the congestion pricing pause in the party’s overperformance. But leaders in both parties largely agreed: the politics of congestion pricing were toxic, especially outside Manhattan.
Months later, with congestion pricing in effect, that bipartisan consensus hasn’t changed. Republicans still see a cudgel to wield in New York as they attempt to hold their razor-thin House majority and make inroads in the state legislature. Most suburban Democrats continue to treat congestion pricing with contempt or ignore it entirely. But the conventional wisdom that congestion pricing is a political loser is showing signs of age.
For one, congestion pricing is working. Traffic in Manhattan is down. Subway ridership is up. Small businesses in the toll zone continue to thrive. Air quality is improving. The MTA has a reliable funding stream to modernize the transit system. And the predicted catastrophes—economic collapse, intolerable commutes—haven’t materialized.
Despite this success, public support for congestion pricing remains middling. But politics rarely plays out in a vacuum. The question is whether congestion pricing will be an effective wedge issue that animates voters above other concerns in 2026. The numbers suggest it won’t. In a recent Siena College poll, voters disapproved of congestion pricing by a narrow 39%-41% margin—hardly overwhelming opposition, and a significant improvement over previous Siena surveys.
One reason for the uptick: media coverage has shifted from prioritizing fear-based hypotheticals to data-driven results. Outlets that once ran headlines about “carmageddon” are now writing about improved air quality, smoother commutes, and better-funded transit. As residents connect the dots between the policy and their actual experience, even voters who may still dislike congestion pricing in theory haven’t seen their lives disrupted. Commutes are not unbearable. Neighborhoods aren’t flooding with displaced cars. The cost of traveling hasn’t spiked. The abstract anxieties that once gave the issue salience are, increasingly, a thing of the past.
Then there’s the Trump factor. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s calls to repeal congestion pricing have turned the issue into a partisan flashpoint. In New York, where Trump remains broadly unpopular and Democrats outnumber Republicans two-to-one, that dynamic plays to Democratic advantage. Governor Hochul has framed her defense of the policy as an act of resistance to federal overreach. Her clash with Duffy has resonated with a Democratic base eager for leaders to take on Trump and helped boost her approval ratings. Despite lackluster support for congestion pricing overall, Siena found that a plurality of voters (46%-36%) think the Governor is right to continue fighting the federal government on the issue.
But the most significant political shift is structural: the policy is now in effect. That changes the stakes. Undoing it is no longer a hypothetical debate about tolls. It’s about reversing progress.
In that sense, congestion pricing resembles another once-controversial policy: the Affordable Care Act. When it first passed, “Obamacare” was a political albatross for Democrats. Republicans ran on repealing it for nearly a decade. But when they finally had the chance, they failed because millions had come to rely on its benefits.
Congestion pricing is heading in the same direction. The overall concept may remain unpopular, but people like its individual components: less traffic, cleaner air, better transit. Repealing it would eliminate a major funding source for the MTA’s capital plan, threatening up to 100,000 jobs. It would mean more congestion and more pollution. Democrats can now paint a dark picture of a post-repeal world that mirrors Republican fearmongering before the program was implemented.
In this environment, it’s hard to imagine congestion pricing serving as a decisive wedge issue in 2026. The voters who once worried about it have adapted. The voters who benefit from it are beginning to notice. And most others are focused on bigger, national concerns like healthcare funding and trade wars.
Yes, congestion pricing remains a tough sell in the abstract. But in the real world, it’s quietly doing its job. And now that it’s here, the political risks are shifting—not for those who implemented it, but for those who want to tear it down.
Loren Amor is a Senior Vice President at BerlinRosen with more than 15 years of experience in New York government and politics.
