Future of Freedom Podcast Summary

Episode Title: Nicole Gelinas & Diana Furchtgott-Roth: Should Congestion Pricing Be the Future of City Travel?
Released: December 1, 2025
Host: Scott Bertram
Guests: Nicole Gelinas (Senior Fellow, Manhattan Institute), Diana Furchtgott-Roth (Director, Center for Energy, Climate & Environment, Heritage Foundation)

Episode Overview

This episode explores the merits and drawbacks of congestion pricing in New York City and its implications for the future of city travel. Host Scott Bertram facilitates a thoughtful discussion between Nicole Gelinas, an advocate for congestion pricing as a free-market approach, and Diana Furchtgott-Roth, who critiques both the design and economic impacts of New York’s program. The episode delves into how congestion fees affect urban quality of life, transit funding, equity, and city economics.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Nicole Gelinas: The Free Market Case for Congestion Pricing

[00:49–15:27]

The Rationale for Congestion Charging

• Externalities & Choices: Congestion fees are a free-market mechanism for pricing the negative externalities of driving in dense urban areas.

  • Quote: “You are creating pollution, you’re creating congestion, you’re creating noise...If it’s more convenient for you to drive your vehicle into Manhattan...you will have to pay the congestion charge to account for these externalities.” (Gelinas, 01:08)

• Better Than Bans: Preferred over outright bans on driving, as it allows individual choice while internalizing costs.

Effects on City Traffic & Quality of Life

• Measured Traffic Decline:

  • Traffic into core Manhattan dropped 6–10% after implementation.
  • Even small reductions visibly improved pedestrian safety and street flow, especially at peak times.
  • Quote: “Even a small decline in traffic can make a big difference…the hardest edges of the most congested times of day have been blunted.” (Gelinas, 03:57; 09:18)

• No Significant Spillover:

  • Predictions that traffic would “slide” into other boroughs (e.g., the Bronx) have not materialized so far.
  • Quote: “It seems not to be happening…It seems to be reducing this traffic.” (Gelinas, 06:10)

Allocation of Revenue

• Funding Transit vs. Roads:
  • Though original plans allocated some funds to roadway upkeep, current practice sends all revenue to public transit.
  • Gelinas finds this acceptable, reasoning that bolstering transit reduces road congestion, benefiting drivers indirectly.
  • Quote: "The more people who are on the transit system means fewer people on the roads, which benefits the people on the roads.” (Gelinas, 04:22)

Suggestions for Improvement

• Beyond a Flat Fee:
  • New York’s approach is too rigid—a flat $9 from 5am–9pm, then $2.25 overnight. Gelinas favors dynamic, time-of-day and event-based pricing, and per-mile fees to more closely tie the cost to the “use” of congestion.
  • Quote: "The all day price and then the overnight price is not the best way to get at this. Also…the idea of per mile or per partial mile taxes would be better…” (Gelinas, 06:50)

Equity and Free Market Choices

• Who’s Affected:

  • Most lower-income individuals do not regularly drive into Manhattan; discounts are available for residents under $60K annual income.
  • The primary group affected is middle/upper-middle class residents driving in for leisure or entertainment.
  • Quote: "It's not so much poor people, the biggest complainers about it. It’s people who might have driven in a couple times a month…” (Gelinas, 10:25)

• On Choice:

  • Living farther from transit is often a trade-off for more space—commuters have free market choices between location, size, and convenience.

Success Metrics

• What to Watch:
  • Ensuring traffic doesn’t return to pre-fee levels, and that traffic injuries do not rise.
  • Hoping MTA uses fee revenue for real improvement, not just to cover deficits.
  • Quote: "...one important metric is does the transit system use this money to make real change, or do they just use it to just continue to feed their deficits and fund their higher workforce costs?" (Gelinas, 13:55)

2. Diana Furchtgott-Roth: The Case Against New York’s Congestion Scheme

[15:30–27:58]

Principled Acceptance, Practical Opposition

• Not Opposed in Principle:
  • Furchtgott-Roth agrees congestion pricing is "the right way to charge for roads,” but criticizes New York’s execution.
  • Quote: "First of all, I have no objection to congestion pricing...the objection I have to the New York scheme is that this is not going for roads. This is a direct transfer to the Metropolitan Transit Authority..." (Furchtgott-Roth, 16:09)

Transit Funding Concerns

• Transit Subsidies vs. Road Maintenance:
  • She objects that congestion fee revenues don’t maintain roads and instead “bail out” the MTA, which faces massive operating deficits.

The Post-Pandemic Transit Landscape

• Declining Ridership & Public Safety:

  • NYC transit ridership is at about 75% of pre-pandemic levels, partly due to crime concerns.
  • Outdated reliance on fixed-route, fixed-schedule public transit; suggests alternatives like providing low-income workers with debit cards for Uber/Lyft services.
  • Quote: “With app-based transportation, such as Uber...it’s less expensive to give a low income person a debit card to use Ubers than have a bus traveling half empty or with just one or two people in the middle of the night.” (Furchtgott-Roth, 17:17)

• Rethinking Public Transit Models:

  • Encourages experimentation with dynamic or on-demand transit, such as robo-taxis and more efficient point-to-point services.

Alternative Approaches to Reducing Congestion

• Rethink Road Use and Parking:
  • Advocates cutting back on underused bike/bus lanes, removing restaurant street structures, and charging for on-street parking to improve traffic flow.
  • Quote: “If cities, including New York, want to reduce congestion, they could take out some of the less used bike lanes...they could also...levy a dynamic parking charge...” (Furchtgott-Roth, 20:57)

Distributional (Equity) Impacts

• Potential Regressivity:

  • Congestion fees can disproportionately harm those who can’t use public transit—elderly, essential workers, small businesses that must deliver goods.
  • The fee becomes one more burden for those least able to avoid or afford it.
  • Quote: “It can be very regressive. The cost falls much more highly on those least able to afford it. Plus, there's small businesses that have to use vehicles for delivery...” (Furchtgott-Roth, 23:34)

• Critique of Political Incentives:

  • Argues the MTA and politicians are the real beneficiaries, calling the scheme a “money laundering” operation that props up transit unions and political spending.

Economic Impact on City Life

• Risk of Hollowing Out the City:
  • Contends congestion zones can drive out service businesses and delivery-reliant firms, pushing commerce and jobs out of city centers.
  • Quote: “Stores that provide services to people where delivery vans are needed, they move elsewhere...it becomes more tourists...small businesses, they cannot manage anymore and it's easier for them to move outside.” (Furchtgott-Roth, 26:55)

London as a Cautionary Example

• Questionable Results:
  • Points out that London, despite long-running congestion pricing, is still “one of the most congested cities in the world.”

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Nicole Gelinas:

  • “If you’re driving around midtown Manhattan...for every person driving in, there’s three people who are on the subway, bus, commuter rail…If they were also in their own car, you would just not have any chance of driving...” (04:22)
  • “New York often does the right thing the wrong way.” (08:33)

• Diana Furchtgott-Roth:

  • “Having a series of buses on a fixed schedule isn’t just 19th century, it’s not just 15th century, it’s Roman times.” (17:17)
  • “It’s a money laundering scheme from New Yorkers, many of whom have no other option, to the Transit Authority. Then the Transit Authority turns around and gives it to the politicians…” (24:55)
  • "I think it's a lose-lose situation, and many people are going to be happy when they see it repeal." (26:28)

Important Segment Timestamps

• 00:49 — Nicole Gelinas: Rationale for congestion pricing
• 02:31 — Impact on Manhattan traffic, observed changes
• 04:22 — Allocation of congestion fee revenues
• 06:50 — Why dynamic, per-mile, or event-driven pricing could be better
• 09:18 — Quality of life impacts: “blunting the hardest edges”
• 10:25 — Addressing equity concerns, who actually pays
• 13:34 — Success metrics: What to watch going forward
• 15:30 — Diana Furchtgott-Roth: Against NYC’s execution, in favor of principle
• 17:17 — The changing landscape of public transit, rideshare ideas
• 20:57 — Other ways to fight congestion—parking, bike lanes, delivery access
• 23:34 — Who is really hurt by congestion fees? Businesses and the vulnerable
• 26:55 — Economic risks: push commerce, jobs outside the zone

Tone & Style

The conversation remains civil, thoughtful, and fact-driven—eschewing ideological attacks for practical concerns. Both guests maintain a respectful, reasoned approach, emphasizing real-world data and firsthand observations. The host expertly guides the discussion, surfacing both principles and pragmatic realities without sensationalism or confrontation.

Conclusion

This episode provides a rich, balanced exploration of congestion pricing—showcasing its theoretical appeal and practical complication. Gelinas brings an urbanist, free-market perspective that sees pricing as a discipline for road use and a tool to fund cleaner, more livable cities. Furchtgott-Roth zeroes in on fiscal responsibility, post-pandemic realities, and the pitfalls of politically-motivated revenue allocation, urging more innovative, equitable, and flexible approaches to urban mobility.

Listeners are left with a nuanced understanding of both the promise and peril of using fees to manage city movement in an era of changing work, transit, and economic patterns.