Making market rationality: material semiotics and the case of congestion pricing in New York City

What were politicians, planners, and activists able to make of market concepts and market devices as they crafted congestion pricing plans in the context of New York City’s regional governance structure, its transportation infrastructure, and its physical geography? The answer challenges typical assumptions about the use of market mechanisms in restructuring urban space. Market mechanisms and market rationality created a platform for political debate about citywide mobility and its costs. From 2003 to 2014, through five formal plans, advocates and detractors opened up a political space for debating the interests of actors, from drivers, to pedestrians, to the local and global environment to citywide mobility. Market rationality was a provisional assemblage into which actors sought to embed values like sustainability and fairness. These values became more important in each new plan as advocates sought to address the political vulnerabilities of the one that had come before. The changes from plan to plan show challenges, liabilities, and possibilities for using market tools to address ecological and justice issues.