拥堵定价与紧急医疗服务响应: 来自纽约市的证据
Congestion Pricing and Emergency Medical Service Response: Evidence from New York City
NBER Working Papers · 2026 · [{"name": "Yulia Chikish", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Gregory J. Colman", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Dhaval M. Dave", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Brad R. Humphreys", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Zachary Santamaria", "affiliation": []}, {"name": "Zachary Winship", "affiliation": []}]
中文摘要
全球各大城市已采用拥堵收费以减少城市交通拥堵,其在出行速度、事故率和空气质量方面的效益已有充分记录。本文识别出一种新的外部收益:更快的紧急医疗服务(EMS)响应时间。我们首次提供证据,考察纽约市拥堵收费计划——美国首个全面的、基于警戒线的拥堵收费系统,于2025年1月5日实施——如何影响EMS绩效。利用纽约市拥堵缓解区在第60街处的锐利地理边界,并采用断点-双重差分设计(difference-in-discontinuities design),我们首先记录了边界附近交通与出行的显著变化:机动车交通量下降约18%至21%,同时步行和自行车活动有所增加。与这一第一阶段机制相一致,我们发现拥堵收费改善了EMS绩效,使总行驶时间减少63至70秒(约5%至6%)。效应迅速显现,且几乎没有证据表明其转移至邻近区域。同期纽约市消防局(FDNY)要求将患者送往最近医院的一项指令会混淆标准双重差分估计,但不会混淆我们基于边界的设计。这些发现表明,拥堵收费的成本收益分析因遗漏急救响应改善而系统性地低估了净社会收益。
Abstract
Large cities worldwide have adopted congestion pricing to reduce urban traffic, with well-documented benefits for travel speeds, accident rates, and air quality. This paper identifies a novel external benefit: faster emergency medical service (EMS) response times. We provide the first evidence on how the congestion pricing program in New York City – the first comprehensive cordon-based congestion pricing system in the U.S. that was implemented on January 5th, 2025 – affects EMS performance. Exploiting the sharp geographic boundary of New York City’s congestion relief zone at 60th Street and a difference-in-discontinuities design, we first document substantial changes in traffic and mobility near the boundary: vehicular traffic declines by roughly 18 to 21 percent, accompanied by increases in pedestrian and bicycle activity. Consistent with these first-stage mechanisms, we find that congestion pricing improves EMS performance, reducing total travel times by 63–70 seconds (approximately 5–6 percent). Effects emerged quickly and show little evidence of displacement to adjacent areas. A concurrent FDNY directive requiring transport to the nearest hospital confounds standard difference-in-differences estimates but not our boundary-based design. These findings suggest that cost-benefit analyses of congestion pricing systematically understate net social benefits by omitting emergency response improvements.
在 ireadpaper 查看全部 →