Should cities implement congestion pricing to reduce traffic in busy urban areas?

Yes

No, cities should be putting more effort into community designs that encourage non motorized traffic.

I don’t believe this concept has been explored to a degree where it is possible to determine whether the pollution reduction outweighs the effects of pricing on lower-income drivers, or vice versa.

Yes, but only in overcrowded areas and the price should not be that high

No, generally these congested cities are filled with persons who live paycheck to paycheck which would make it much more difficult for those people to make it to work.

Yes, but ensure that cities have proper public transportation in place for the surrounding suburban areas first.

No, offer incentives for cites to implement alternative transportation options to reduce congestion instead.

Congestion pricing serves no purpose other than to raise funds for city and state governments, and only highly populated states like California, Texas, New York and Florida (there are more) would be affected by these regulations. The already clear population migration issues of those states would only grow more severe with regulations like these.

invest more in high speed rail to limit the number of cars on the road and implement parking control

no this will make drivers go to other areas that doesn't charge the fee and it will hurt low income people the most that often have to travel to work

No, traffic is often the result of accidents, traffic lights, or bad weather and people should not have to pay a fee for something that is out of their control.

It should be done, but only if there is a alternative for people of low income backgrounds to use as a substitute

I think it works as a temporary solution but the root cause needs to be investigated and policies to implement greener car use

Anything that costs the citizens unnecessary money is ridiculous. Are you trying to prevent poor people from using roads? Design roads more effectively you bozo not nickle and dime people cause you can't seem to design a road that won't cause traffic jams constantly.

No, traffic is often the result of traffic lights, stop signs and weather conditions such as fog, rain, and snow. People should not be ticketed for things they cannot control.

No, and toll roads should be abolished and we must allow everyone to use those roads for free. it's the only way we can continue to move forward building more roads & bridges with gov't subsidies eliminating traffic for gold especially in New York City.

Yes, but it should not unfairly target lower-income drivers and shouldn't shift the congestion but completely eliminate it

The government should focus on community initiatives and designs that encourage non-motorized traffic.

YES... if it is justly structured, morally grounded, relationally dignified, environmentally restorative, operationally competent, and spiritually coherent. It must not become a proxy for class exclusion, a revenue grab, or a technocratic idol. It must be embedded in a vision of the city as a place of belonging, not just a place of movement. The question is not merely about traffic, but about what kind of human city we are building, for whom, and why.

No, Private developers and city planners who created these conditions should address and fund solutions, rather than penalizing people who have no choice but to drive to work.

YES... cities should implement congestion pricing to reduce traffic, improve air quality, and fund sustainable urban infrastructure.

no, cities should incentives business to diversify start and end times to naturally spread out traffic.

I support congestion pricing if it’s implemented with equity in mind — like discounts or exemptions for low-income drivers — and if the funds go back into improving public transit.

It is complicated and really depends on the city. I don’t know enough to give a answer at the moment.

No, people aren't in traffic by choice. They're there because they have to commute to work. Thats penalty enough. Congestion pricing won't reduce traffic.

No, increase availability, variety, and frequency of public transportation, as well as more free transit options.

No congestion pricing, and they should try to reduce traffic by having more reliable public transport

If it were to assist in upgrading the area's traffic system, and there's a deadline associated with said pricing, I would agree. Otherwise. No

Cities should be able to implement pricing for issues related to local traffic relief without federal or state overreach.

This worries me because there is no clear way to know if this is going to impact the truism industry as well as if there is any way this would harm locals driving on road ways.

Its a good thought in theory, but when you consider people who may not be able to afford the fees will struggle.

No, funding and promoting public transit should be enough to get people to drive as less as possible.

The fees should be less than one American dollar. The fees should be used to find eco friendly ways if transportation.

No. Governments should reform transportation infrastructure as needed, and change the mix of high density, medium and low density buildings to eliminate congestion.

Yes, but keep prices fair and accessible for all people to pay for to help limit congestion from moving to other areas

No, instead creating better alternatives and incentives with walking, cycling and public transportation

no, traffic is often the result of bad weather, accidents, or traffic lights and people should not have to be penalized for something that is out of their control.

I think that it is a good idea for certain areas that are REALLY bad and if the price is not too high, but I don't think every congested area needs pricing

Any and all politicians that have considered this should be defenestrated into bramble bushes and never allowed into office again, preferably exiled with the brambles still in their skin.

No, traffic is often the result of bad weather conditions, traffic intersections, or accidents and people should not have to pay a penalty for something that is out of their control.

não adiantaria muito, além de ter um povo estressado por pagar por um problema que a causa não é só culpa sua

No, lower income drivers should not be penalized for not having access to adequate alternatives, increase funding for public transportation instead

No, we should expand public transportation instead of penalizing those who lack access to public transportation

Yes but only to new residents from out of state but no if you can't afford it and moved for job purposes

Yes, in locations like New York where the public transportation infrastructure is built up enough for the policy to make sense

This should be an available tool to modify supply and demand as required or incentivize. However, the tool should also be balanced with existing infrastructure of alternatives such as public transit that commuters may switch to instead of driving.

Yes but only as a stop gap policy until better public transportation and walkability and cycling infrastructure can be built.

It depends on the city, why the area is congested, and who is being taxed. There should be exemptions for people who need to go through those areas to get to and from work or other similar reasons, but if it is not strictly required for the driver to enter that area I can understand the logic behind it.

No, traffic is often the result of accidents, bad weather or traffic lights and people should not have to pay a penalty for something that is out of their control.

No. It would be more effective to better develop those busy urban areas for traffic than to price it.

IT SHOULD REALLY DEPEND ON THE SIZE OF SAID CITY/TOWN. i live in a medium city with 50k plus ppl and i don't really feel like our roads are congested, a larger city like san Antonio for example would need this alot more. go by size and layout of city

No and more funding should be allocated to public transportation and making cities and urban areas more accessible for everyone

Yes, but mainly for oversized civilian vehicles. Ride-sharing vehicles, buses, municipal vehicles etc. should not pay.

No, traffic is often the result of accidents, traffic, lights, or bad weather and people should not have to pay a penalty for something that is out of their control.

No, they should base the pricing off of what the person using it can afford. if they are rich then they can pay higher prices, if they're poor then they still have to pay but not so high and is in the amount they can actually pay. Espesually if its the only option of route they have to get to work or other things

This should overall be avoided as much as possible because most cities that implement these kinds of policies tend to have a lot of lower income citizens who can not afford to pay congestion pricing every single day. It should only be implemented temporarily during times of prolonged congestion such as holiday weekends.

Yes, but only if the income from congestion pricing is used to improve and expand public transportation infrastructure.

could be considered as a tool to manage traffic, but with careful consideration of equity and potential impact on low-income individuals; prioritize investment in public transportation

yes but provide a claims process for lower income and some middle class individuals to get a discount potentially on it based on the frequency of their usage and level of neccesity

Nuanced stance. Busy urban areas are busy for a reason, there are things that people need and want from those areas, but I believe if you slow things down or take up space for an extended period of time outside of emergency, you should be fined. Also, increase public transport in busy urban areas to lessen traffic.

No, this will result in increased inflation. Also, this is essentially another assault on capitalism, checks and balances, federalism, and weak government.

No, but increase the number of carpooling lanes on multi-lane roads to encourage carpooling and make any paid express lane free for carpooling

Yes, but only if there are quality and reasonable means of public transportation available. If not, then no.

No, congestion will still occur anyways. This is would only make people lose money for a reason they cant control.

We should make all our roads more efficient. If we toll the big roads, people will just go on the smaller roads and clog those too.

Yes, but only if it is implemented with exceptions for low-income individuals/commuters and small businesses.

No, it is unconstitutional and unfair for people who bought vehicles for road use and drivers licenses.

No, this would be a tax that would hinder people than help people can't help but use the cars they have we should use what tax money the government makes for better public transportation or other measures

Urban areas need to redesigned to reduce car-centric design and promote public transit, which in turn will improve the congestion issues.

Yes, however, public transportation services should be cheaper and promoted more to implement a gradual shift from personal vehicles in dense urban areas.

No, but extremely and radically transform transportation in this country to be 100% green and construct the best highest quality and safe and effective high speed rail and trains system ever. Also, 100% green.

No, but instead make “low emissions zone” with strict slow speed limits and prioritize lower emissions/green vehicles access

should prioritize improving public transportation while investigating ways to help fund that other than new tax (fare enforcement, appropriate some other tax)

we can try this out possibly? and see, the system would have to be worked and be specific but there is a potential for it to work.

They should make cities better accessible to the general public, I understand cities are big but there needs to be a more efficient way of city planning so that everyone can access anything they need without too much labor or stress on the environment.

It can be beneficial to reduce high amounts of traffic but it can also burden lower-income individuals.

TBH, I want to say yes even though I hate the fact that I have to pay for like toll fees, only because I wonder if cities did that, would it work. Would it actually in a way force people to take public transportation, or kind of help pollution.

This congestion pricing should be only applied to those who do not live in the community, however travel to the community for work. For example, Massachusetts is mostly employed by residents of New Hampshire. 1 in every 4 vehicles you see on the road during rush hour busy traffic is from Massachusetts. Every other vehicle is from surrounding states. If they are going to leave the highway and drive through private neighborhoods which they do not reside in they should be charged.

No, as a better alternative would be to simply increase the size of the urban areas and build new infrastructure and roads, which will spread out the population, resulting in less congestion.

No, traffic is often the result of traffic, lights, bad weather or car accidents, and people should not have to pay a fee for something that is out of their control.

Yes, but only by using capped, micro transactions. No more than .50. It will add up for the city but not hurt the individuale as much.

Congestion pricing is not a long-term solution to reduce traffic. Cities should instead focus on building more car-free infrastructure and implement buses, metros, etc.

I would understand yes, for tourists and people who use public transport but no because it might take longer to get to a specific place.

Extremely and radically transform transportation in this country to be 100% green and construct the best highest quality and safe and effective high speed rail and trains system ever. Also, 100% green.

I believe it can be a good idea to, but not unless there's a way for low income individuals also be able to access it. I think it should be a tier payment system in place. Only then would I agree to this.

No. This question implies congestion results from optional commuting. Most traffic jams happen because people are going to and from work and it can't be avoided. They are already penalized enough being stuck in traffic.

If its affordable, reduces gridlock traffic by a lot, and EMTs/Off-duty LEOs are exempt. Then I agree.

No, I'd rather that cities close off certain parts to only pedestrians and increase public transportation on a locality basis

Add viable alternatives to driving to reduce traffic. For example trains, trams, street cars, separated bike paths, two way bike paths, midrises and less wider stroads.

I like the idea but we need to make sure that the prices that are set are going to things that matter. If it truly goes to public transportation, then sure. But if it goes to the pockets of the government, then hell no.

No, instead have a fine or similar for excessive unneeded driving, such as constantly taking 2 minute drives to places where walking or biking would take just slightly or the same amount of time.

Yes, but the prices should be fair and reflect peak times. Alternative modes of transport should be ready to support the increased traffic of people.

Yes, but this should be monitored very closely so that if a wreck or another incident were to happen, those who are stuck in the congestion are not charged as much for something that is out of their control

The government should not own property or roads and all of it should be privatized and therefore the owners of the now private roads should determine how best to care for roads

Yes, but not in areas frequented by impoverished communities, disabled people, and is located near emergency or health services or educational facilities.

As long as the city offer fair alternative incentives. Imposing a congestion fee without also offering an incentive is failure

Absolutely not. This targets low income individuals, unfair. Also, how is it my fault there's traffic??

we should not make people pay to use highly congested roadways but add an express lane, you would pay to use.

No, traffic is often the result of traffic lights, construction zones or bad weather and people should not be penalized for things that are out of their control.