This paper examines how equity claims were mobilized in the public debate over New York City’s Central Business District Tolling Program (CBDTP). We analyze approximately 8300 public comments submitted during the environmental review and use large language models (LLMs) for stance/equity classification followed by structural topic modeling to surface latent themes. Proponents’ equity arguments clustered around a compact set of frames: drivers paying their fair share, non-drivers reclaiming public space and road safety, air-quality improvements, and benefits to transit riders. Opponents advanced more varied arguments, ranging from fee regressivity and affordability pressures to distrust in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s management. Many opponents framed the fee as inequitable where driving is not discretionary—for example, medical/disability trips, off-peak and emergency workers with equipment, and contexts with unsafe or unreliable transit. These objections reflect Sandel’s critique of the market society, where willingness to pay (WTP) is mistaken for value, while ability to pay is overlooked. We extend this insight to transportation by highlighting unequal abilities to avoid paying. Even in New York, many commenters characterized the toll as an unavoidable levy. Congestion pricing’s legitimacy may depend not just on distributional effects, but also on whether payment is experienced as a genuine choice. Public comments reveal the enduring relevance of two choice-enhancing strategies in the literature: funding new mobility options for those who cannot pay, or preserving non-tolled alternatives for those who would rather wait than pay. If these concerns are being raised in New York, they are likely to dominate debate elsewhere in North America.
Palm et al. (Thu,) studied this question.