THE rise of ride-hailing firms like Uber and Lyft has been a boon for passengers. But it hasn’t been good for everyone. Licensed cabbies lament the extra competition. Drivers for the new services complain about inadequate benefits. The latest preoccupation is the impact of ride-hailing on congestion. Between 2013 and 2016, the number of such vehicles in London rose by 66%; rush-hour traffic in the city centre slowed by 20%. Manhattan has seen something similar.

Governments are right to worry about ride-hailing’s impact on traffic congestion. INRIX, a traffic-information firm, estimates that between fuel bills, time wasted sitting around in traffic and increased shipping costs, congestion cost New York City and London a combined $46bn last year. But the response of lawmakers is wrong-headed. On August 8th New York’s city council voted to place a one-year moratorium on issuing new licences for ride-hailing cars. Sadiq Khan, London’s mayor, now says he wants to do the same.

Jam today

A citywide cap on the number of ride-hailing vehicles will certainly have an impact. Because drivers for firms like Uber and Lyft have high attrition rates, a moratorium on new licences could lead to a sharp drop in the total number of such vehicles. But the effect will be to hurt people living in suburban areas, who have fewer transport options. Between 2014 and 2017, the combined number of taxi and ride-hailing trips rose by 350% in New York’s outer boroughs, but by only 25% in Manhattan, where it is much easier to find a cab.

A far better way for big cities to reduce traffic jams is to implement road pricing. When people drive their cars during peak hours, they create a cost for everyone else in the form of increased congestion. Making drivers pay money when roads are busy compensates the rest of society for the inconvenience, and discourages people from driving during rush hour.