A new New York City report finding no significant improvement in Manhattan air quality since congestion pricing took effect is giving fresh ammunition to opponents of the controversial $9 toll, who say the findings prove the program was designed primarily to raise money for mass transit rather than reduce pollution.

The Department of Health analysis found that despite an 11% decline in vehicle trips into Manhattan’s congestion zone compared with the period before the toll began, the reduction in traffic did not produce a measurable improvement in air quality south of 60th Street.

“Did congestion pricing affect air quality in the congestion relief zone? No,” the report said.

Kathryn Freed, a Lower East Side resident and member of New Yorkers Against Congestion Pricing Tax, which sued the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in an effort to stop the program, said the findings undermine one of the arguments made by toll supporters.

“There hasn’t been any change. Supporters said there would be less pollution if traffic went down in Manhattan. Apparently there’s no environmental benefit at all,” said Freed, a former state judge and councilwoman.

“How can they say traffic went down but not air pollution?”

The findings also contrast with claims made earlier this year by Gov. Kathy Hochul. At a January press conference, Hochul credited congestion pricing with environmental improvements, declaring that “pollution is down more than 20% in one year” because of congestion pricing.

Hochul initially put the congestion pricing program on hold in 2024 before approving its implementation following the November election. The toll ultimately took effect in January 2025 despite lawsuits challenging the plan and opposition from President Trump.

For business owners who regularly drive into the congestion zone, the new findings have renewed anger over the additional expense.

“It was all bullsh-t. It was to put money in the MTA’s pocket,” said Vinnie DiMino, owner of the Sea Breeze Fish Market on Ninth Avenue near the Lincoln Tunnel.

“The report just proved it wasn’t about air pollution. It was all about transit. It’s all a lie – the Democratic politicians lie.”

DiMino said the toll has imposed a substantial daily cost on his business because of the deliveries he makes throughout the area.

“I feel like I have been robbed. It cost me $50-$60 a day to go back and forth, in and out of the [congestion] zone for deliveries. They are killing us.”

The financial burden is scheduled to increase in the coming years, with the congestion toll set to climb to $12 in 2028 and then to $15 in 2031.

Manhattan resident Jill Bowman, who drives several times each week to Brooklyn and New Jersey, similarly questioned the justification for continuing the program.

“We know it’s bullish-t but we can’t do anything about it.

“It’s not about saving lives. It’s about making money,” she said.

Alex Pichado, who has driven for Uber for a decade, said the lack of measurable improvement should prompt officials to reconsider the toll.

“If there is no change [in air pollution], they should stop it. There is no reason to continue with it.”

The Health Department’s findings extended beyond Manhattan. The report concluded that “pollution levels were not significantly different because of congestion pricing” in designated environmental justice communities outside the congestion zone, including parts of the South Bronx.

Supporters of the toll argue that the finding is significant for a different reason. Before congestion pricing began, critics warned that motorists attempting to avoid the charge could reroute through surrounding neighborhoods and create new pollution hot spots.

A separate report released in March had claimed that air pollution worsened in some Bronx neighborhoods following the launch of congestion pricing.

“Opponents of congestion pricing said there would be hotspots for increased pollution. That has not happened,” said John Kaehny, executive director of Reinvent Albany, a watchdog organization that supports mass transit.

Reinvent Albany backed congestion pricing as a way to reduce traffic and generate funding for the MTA, but Kaehny said his organization did not promote major air-quality improvements as a central justification for the toll.

The city report noted that motor vehicles account for only about 14% of particulate matter emissions and approximately 20% of nitric oxide emissions in the atmosphere, limiting how much a reduction in traffic alone could affect overall pollution.

“That congestion pricing would only have a small impact on air quality is consistent” with earlier environmental impact assessments examining the likely effects of the program, the report said.

“Whoever was hyping the air pollution was wrong from the beginning,” Kaehny said.

Opponents in New York City’s outer boroughs remained unconvinced. Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella, who is among the plaintiffs challenging congestion pricing in court, pointed to increased truck traffic on Staten Island and questioned how that could occur without affecting pollution levels.

“The report reaffirms that congestion pricing was nothing but a money grab. Just come out and say it,” he said.

The MTA, however, rejected the argument that the findings represent a failure for congestion pricing. The agency, which administers the toll and uses its revenue to finance transit improvements, said the study demonstrates that fears of pollution being shifted into other neighborhoods have not materialized.

“Before we turned the cameras on, there was concern about the potential for increased pollution caused by drivers looking to avoid the toll,” MTA Chair and CEO Janno Lieber said in a statement about the city report.

“As this study confirms, that didn’t happen, and congestion pricing is already funding additional investments to further improve air quality.”