Who owns the city street?

A driver entering central London on a weekday pays for the privilege. The congestion charge, introduced in February 2003, was a political gamble (1). Stockholm followed with a seven-month trial in 2006, and made its charge permanent in August 2007. In January 2025, New York began charging most vehicles that enter the busiest part of Manhattan. Other cities are watching to see whether the idea works, and whether voters will forgive it.

The theory is simple. Road space is limited, and when it is free at the point of use it is consumed until the streets are jammed (2). A charge turns an invisible cost, the delay that each driver imposes on all the others, into a visible one. Economists have long argued that people who must pay will think twice about making a journey. The hope is that those who stay out of the zone enjoy less traffic and quieter streets, and that the money raised can be spent on buses and trains.

Yet such charges are rarely popular. The Stockholm example is instructive because voters were asked. After the trial, the residents of the city itself voted in a referendum to keep the charge, while voters in fourteen surrounding municipalities voted against. Those who drive in every day from outside the city pay the most, yet had no say in the decision of the capital's own electors. A scheme can be popular where it is paid for by others.

Fairness is the strongest objection. A flat fee weighs more heavily on a nurse who drives to a night shift than on a manager who drives to a morning meeting. Critics say that a charge on drivers without better public transport is a tax on those who have no alternative. Supporters reply that the revenue can pay for cheaper fares and better services, and that exemptions and discounts can protect the people with the least choice. London, for one, offers exemptions and discounts.

There is also the question of what a city is for. A street can be a road, a market, a playground or a place to meet, yet for most of the last century planners treated it mainly as a channel for cars. Charging for access is one way of saying that this is no longer automatic. Whether it is the best way is another matter. A charge can push traffic towards the edges of the zone, and a city that cannot offer a decent alternative simply sends drivers on longer, angrier journeys.

In the end the argument is about trust. Drivers will accept a charge if they can see where the money goes and if the alternatives are real. Without that, the best-designed scheme will look like a toll (3) on the daily commute with a green label.