The last 24 hours have been a blur for followers of the congestion pricing program for drivers entering Manhattan, which was “indefinitely paused” by New York Gov. Kathy Hochul on Wednesday.
Her announcement came just weeks before the planned June 30 start date, when automobiles entering Manhattan below 60th Street would face toll rates ranging from $3.75 to $15 depending on the time of day.
Hochul’s sudden, about-face decision to pause a program she has trumpeted for more than a year has raised a slew of questions about what prompted this decision and what will happen next. We try to answer some of those questions.
Story continues after photo gallery
Were there signs of this coming?
Yes and no.
The first signs of Hochul’s doubts about congestion pricing arose — similarly — during a tense election year.
During a gubernatorial debate in June 2022, she said she supported congestion pricing, but added: “This is not going to happen in the next year under any circumstances, but now is not the right time.” She attributed the delays to hurdles placed by the federal government on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority as the program was going through the environmental review process.
Six months after that election, the MTA received a green light from the Federal Highway Administration to move ahead with the program.
As New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy doubled down on his stance against congestion pricing and launched a legal fight, Hochul went in the opposite direction, becoming one of its biggest spokespeople.
She worked closely with the MTA to accelerate the program’s launch. And as recently as two weeks ago, she boasted at a summit in Ireland that New York City, under her leadership, would become the first city in the U.S. to have a congestion pricing program, mirroring some other international cities where similar tolling programs have been successful at reducing traffic, raising revenue and improving air quality.
Meanwhile, concerns in Democratic political circles have grown about how to win back seats in the U.S. House of Representatives this November. Her change in stance was a response to worries raised by U.S. Rep. Hakeem Jeffries, according to reporting from Politico, which first broke the story Tuesday night about Hochul’s decision to postpone the tolling.
Hochul attributed the change to “putting more money back in people’s pockets” and trying to avoid undercutting the “momentum” of New York’s economic recovery from the pandemic, according to a video statement her office released Wednesday.
What about the New York State mandate?
The idea to bring congestion pricing to the region was born through a law passed by the Legislature in 2019 and signed by then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo.
That law required officials to make appointments for a Traffic Mobility Review Board, which would have to make its toll recommendation no sooner than Nov. 15, 2020 and no later than Dec. 30, 2020.
However, those deadlines came and went when the Trump administration neglected to take action on the MTA’s environmental review process.
Rachel Fauss, a senior policy adviser at the good governance nonprofit group Reinvent Albany, which supports congestion pricing, said it’s not yet clear whether the state law has the teeth to still require the MTA to move ahead with congestion pricing despite Hochul’s instruction to pause it. The congestion pricing program was approved by the MTA board in March.
It’s possible, Fauss said, that the MTA board — whose voting members are made up of gubernatorial nominees — would vote on this again given Hochul’s directive.
“The MTA board, they’re supposed to be fiduciaries for the MTA to keep them running, the agency running under sound fiscal management,” Fauss said. “This is the exact opposite of that because they’re behind on the capital plan. This is exactly the type of funding they need to move forward and get out of the cycle of debt, so this is exactly in the wrong interest of the board to vote for this.”
Emailed questions about whether an MTA vote is necessary and what other next steps are required to pause the program were not answered by Hochul’s office.
What about the MTA?
The law passed in 2019 required the congestion pricing program generate at least $1 billion a year for the MTA’s capital program, 80% of which would go to projects for the agency’s subway and bus network with the other 20% split between projects for the agency’s two commuter railroads, Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road.
Now, that capital program is in jeopardy.
Hochul said she remains “committed to these investments in public transit” and said plans were already in place to “backstop the MTA capital plan” in the event the program was delayed by lawsuits.
Asked what those “backstop” funds were and how much was put aside to help the MTA, Hochul spokeswoman Katy Zielinski didn’t say.
Hochul also said her administration is “currently exploring other funding sources” for the agency, but Zielinski didn’t elaborate on that, either. News reports said Hochul’s team was looking into a business tax, which seems to counter her justification for ending the program — helping drive economic activity and growth and bring workers and businesses back to New York City.
Meanwhile, gantries or polls equipped with the latest infrared camera scanning technology were installed at 110 locations around the city, as part of a $507 million contract signed with Transcore in 2019 to design, build and operate the infrastructure for congestion pricing.
What about the lawsuits?
A federal judge is expected to issue a decision any day now on a lawsuit launched by Murphy, who has tried to block the plan by requiring the MTA to do a more thorough environmental review of how the program could impact pollution in the Garden State.
Murphy told reporters at an unrelated event last week that he didn’t have any updates on the status of the lawsuit. The judge told litigants at the end of oral arguments in April that he would issue his decision in “sufficient time” before the program’s intended launch time, which at that time was expected to be June 15 and later changed to June 30.
The outcome of that case could impact whether other U.S. cities attempt to design a congestion pricing program and how the environmental review process could unfold at the federal level.
Meanwhile, there are a number of other lawsuits making their way through various courts to halt congestion pricing, including one launched by a national teachers union and a local Staten Island chapter.
Michael Mulgrew, president of the United Federation of Teachers, issued a statement Wednesday applauding Hochul for hearing “the concerns of educators and ordinary New Yorkers,” but didn’t say whether the organization would withdraw its lawsuit.
The Trucking Association of New York filed a lawsuit in federal court last week to put a stop to congestion pricing, saying it would harm its members.
Kendra Hems, a spokeswoman for the association, said the group is moving ahead regardless of Hochul’s decision to pause congestion pricing.
“We appreciate the delay of the program, but it delays the program, it doesn’t change the program or address the concerns we’ve laid out in our lawsuit, so at this point in time we are still moving forward with that,” Hems said.
A trucking group was successful in dismantling a new tolling program in Rhode Island in 2022 after the case went to federal court and a judge said it discriminated against interstate commerce and was therefore unconstitutional.
What’s next?
Perhaps the biggest question residents in the region are asking themselves is whether Hochul’s decision is merely a political ploy to get through election day in November, and whether she would un-pause the program after that or stay the current course.
Hochul said Wednesday that her new position on congestion pricing was driven by “the little guy who feels no one listens to them. I’m here to say we are listening. This decision is about you and to those cynics who question my motivation I approach every decision through one lens — what is best for New Yorkers.”
She said that in the coming months she would work to “achieve the objectives of congestion pricing without putting undue strain on already stressed New Yorkers. There never is only one path forward together.”
If there is anything to draw from how Murphy has handled controversial tolls before a consequential election, look no further than his decision last year to veto the New Jersey Turnpike Authority’s budget that included 3% toll hikes — which were the result of annual toll hikes approved by Murphy in 2020.
Murphy vetoed the budget just 12 days before Election Day, amid pressure from leadership in the state Legislature from both parties to help New Jersey families dealing with high inflation and affordability issues. That year, every seat in the state Senate and Assembly was up for election.
The Turnpike Authority board unanimously approved the 3% toll hikes when it voted on the budget again in January. That time, three months after Democrats secured better-than-expected results on election night, it was not vetoed by Murphy.