NYC Car Ownership Going Into 2026: Two Very Different Directions

Introduction

Car ownership in New York City has never been simple. Storage is expensive. Insurance is unpredictable. Traffic enforcement has always been inconsistent. But the environment you are making decisions within has changed depending on who governs the city.

Under Adams, car ownership felt tolerated but increasingly burdened. Congestion pricing, stricter enforcement zones, and rising storage costs made owning a car in Manhattan feel more like a liability than a convenience. Under someone like Mamdani, the direction would shift toward making car ownership even less practical, prioritizing transit expansion and penalizing private vehicle use more aggressively.

This guide is not political. It is analytical. It compares the ownership environment under different governing philosophies and helps you make better decisions based on what direction the city is heading.

Car ownership under Adams: tolerated but burdened

The Adams administration did not eliminate car ownership. It made it more expensive and more regulated. The philosophy was pragmatic: cars are part of the city, but they should not be prioritized.

What defined this environment

• Congestion pricing implemented below 60th Street
• Expanded bus lanes and enforcement cameras
• Higher parking violations and ticketing frequency
• No major crackdown on street parking or garage access
• Transit improvements slower than car-related restrictions

How it affected ownership

Storage costs remained high but stable. Insurance premiums rose modestly. Driving into Manhattan became more expensive due to congestion fees, but driving outside the congestion zone was largely unchanged.

For people who used cars infrequently, the added costs were tolerable. For people who drove regularly into the congestion zone, ownership became harder to justify.

Car ownership under a Mamdani-style direction: actively discouraged

A Mamdani-style administration would treat private car ownership as incompatible with the vision of a denser, transit-focused city. The philosophy would be clear: cars should be phased out wherever possible, and those who keep them should bear the full cost.

What this environment would include

• Expanded congestion pricing zones beyond 60th Street
• Higher fees for street parking permits
• Stricter emissions and inspection requirements
• Reduced garage capacity through zoning changes
• More aggressive ticketing and towing policies
• Transit expansion prioritized over road maintenance

How it would affect ownership

Storage costs would rise as garage capacity shrinks. Insurance premiums would increase due to higher enforcement and claims frequency. Driving anywhere in the city would become more expensive and more regulated.

For casual drivers, ownership would become financially untenable. For people who depend on cars for work or frequent travel outside the city, the decision would become more painful but potentially still necessary.

Side-by-side comparison

What this means for decision-making

The direction of the city affects whether car ownership makes sense. Under Adams, ownership was expensive but manageable for people with the right income and usage patterns. Under a Mamdani-style direction, ownership would become prohibitively expensive for most people.

If you are deciding whether to own a car

• Assume costs will rise faster than inflation
• Plan for stricter enforcement and fewer parking options
• Consider whether you can absorb annual cost increases of 10 to 20 percent
• Evaluate whether transit improvements will replace your need for a car

If you already own a car

• Re-evaluate whether your usage justifies the rising cost
• Secure long-term garage contracts if possible
• Consider selling before the market softens further