NYC Congestion Pricing Plan: GONE !

U.S.D.O.T. just withdrew approval for the plan. Seems the plan was designed to raise $$$ for NYC transit system rather than its stated purpose of reducing congestion.

Makes no sense because it apparently DID reduce congestion!

At least that’s how it was reported initially on NPR

He's just a vindictive prick. Don't look for reasoning or rationale. 

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

U.S.D.O.T. just withdrew approval for the plan. Seems the plan was designed to raise $$$ for NYC transit system rather than its stated purpose of reducing congestion.

It was always supposed to do both. And I don't know why "raising money for transit" is considered inappropriate by the U.S. Department of Transportation.

The plan worked.  The only issue I had with it is that our governor did not negotiate intelligently and thus had a judge rule on the issue.  We should have been negotiating not for refunds or discounts, but for transit funding from the revenue being raised.  

The only other problem with it is for the folks who live in the city and want to go out to do their errands/go to the country, etc. That is incredibly unfair Other than that that the congestion pricing was a great idea and Trump and company suck. Screw them. 

Not quite accurate

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

U.S.D.O.T. just withdrew approval for the plan. Seems the plan was designed to raise $$$ for NYC transit system rather than its stated purpose of reducing congestion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/19/nyregion/trump-congestion-pricing-nyc.html

"Mr. Duffy did not indicate a specific date by which the federal government intended to end the program."

and

”Ms. Hochul defended the congestion pricing program on Wednesday and vowed to fight the president’s move.

“We are a nation of laws, not ruled by a king,” she said in a written statement. “We’ll see you in court.”

Worth watching the clip of Gov. Hochul's response waving the picture of Trump wearing his crown. 

max_weisenfeld said:

Not quite accurate

Formerlyjerseyjack said:

U.S.D.O.T. just withdrew approval for the plan. Seems the plan was designed to raise $$$ for NYC transit system rather than its stated purpose of reducing congestion.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/02/19/nyregion/trump-congestion-pricing-nyc.html

"Mr. Duffy did not indicate a specific date by which the federal government intended to end the program."

and

”Ms. Hochul defended the congestion pricing program on Wednesday and vowed to fight the president’s move.

“We are a nation of laws, not ruled by a king,” she said in a written statement. “We’ll see you in court.”

Thanks for the more accurate statement Max! In these times it is much appreciated.

The MTA CEO has stated that the federal government can't unilaterally terminate congestion pricing.

My impression is that this is major overreach by the federal government. It will all be decided in court.

DanDietrich said:

The plan worked.  The only issue I had with it is that our governor did not negotiate intelligently and thus had a judge rule on the issue.  We should have been negotiating not for refunds or discounts, but for transit funding from the revenue being raised.  

Several NJ politicians have complained loudly about congestion pricing. This includes Phil Murphy, Mikie Sherrill, and Josh Gottheimer.

I agree with Dan that NJ should have negotiated for a cut of the funding.  But I think their whining and complaining is misguided.  They should be focused on improving NJ Transit.

One thing that has interested me since this was originated is why this toll is so objectionable compared to other tolls. We pay tolls all the time to cross bridges, use tunnels, and drive on highways. We even pay different amounts based upon peak and off-peak use.

How is this different?  It is a toll to use the lower Manhattan street grid.

I think they screwed up the sales job, starting with the name of the program. 

I'm interested to hear what others think.

jimmurphy said:

How is this different? It is a toll to use the lower Manhattan street grid.

A few things spring to mind: They put a toll on what are a lot of people’s residential streets. Other toll roads and bridges often (not always) have non-toll alternative routes. And for many, it’s a toll on top of tolls they’re already paying (like if you had to pay to get off the turnpike to use a rest stop).

DaveSchmidt said:

A few things spring to mind: They put a toll on what are a lot of people’s residential streets. Other toll roads and bridges often (not always) have non-toll alternative routes. And for many, it’s a toll on top of tolls they’re already paying (like if you had to pay to get off the turnpike to use a rest stop).

A toll on top of tolls they're already paying? What other toll does one pay to use the street grid?  

If you are referring to paying for a bridge or tunnel and then the street grid, isn't it just another piece of infrastructure along the journey?

People pay the GSP authority and then the Turnpike Authority and then the Port Authority (Holland, Lincoln, GWB) all the time to use those different facilities. No?

jimmurphy said:

If you are referring to paying for a bridge or tunnel and then the street grid, isn't it just another piece of infrastructure along the journey?

Yes.

To clarify, Jim, after my walk to the train: You asked for thoughts on the objection to the toll, and though I’m not an opponent I took the challenge and tried to briefly articulate a few.

This may be the wrong way to think of them, but tunnel and bridge tolls seem to me more like entrance fees to the island, rather than taxes for the infrastructure of the tunnels and bridges themselves. And paying once to enter, I don’t expect to be charged more for the streets (or sidewalks, for that matter), just as I don’t expect to pay for rest area access after I’m already on the turnpike or parkway. I go in expecting that the current tolls and other taxes already take care of that.

I know you're trying to channel the opposition and play Devil's advocate to a point, but assuming that paying a toll to the Port Authority for a bridge or tunnel "covers" using the NYC streets doesn't make much sense to me.

These infrastructure resources are all limited. It's why you pay a higher bridge toll during rush hour than in the middle of the night. They're trying to optimize the use of the limited resource. The city streets are just as limited. Doesn't it make sense to manage them the same way?

I know that many object to using the funding to support transit, but that also happens all the time. The PA airports and bridges/tunnels subsidize PATH. The MTA bridges and tunnels subsidize the subway. (I agree that NJ should have fought for a share of the pie to support NJT, BTW).

At the end of the day it is all politics, I guess. 

A frequent objection I have heard is from people traveling to/from Manhattan below 60th Street on a regular basis, NJ commuters for example. who are already paying tolls as part of their daily commute and likely paying for parking on top of that They complain that  the congestion pricing "toll" is another cost on top of what they are already paying and some cannot afford to pay it on a daily basis.  These are people for whom public transit is not an option because public transportation between NY and NJ does not serve their area; or because they have mobility issues that make taking the inaccessible NJT train impossible for them; or because they travel to/from Manhattan below 60th street at a time when public transportation is not running between NJ and NY. These are people who have no option but to drive.

I have heard people object because they live near the approach to the GWB and are experiencing additional congestion and pollution as traffic bound for destinations above 60th Street that would normally take the Holland or Lincoln Tunnel are now clogging their streets. 

To your toll road analogy, some might point out that tolls on thruways, bridges, and tunnels are intended to pay for maintenance and repairs of those structures which is reasonable since vehicles paying those tolls are contributing to the wear and tear of that infrastructure while those paying a toll to enter Manhattan below 60th Street are  paying for a shortfall in the City budget resulting from a drop in ridership on NYC Transit.  

jimmurphy said:

A toll on top of tolls they're already paying? What other toll does one pay to use the street grid?  

If you are referring to paying for a bridge or tunnel and then the street grid, isn't it just another piece of infrastructure along the journey?

People pay the GSP authority and then the Turnpike Authority and then the Port Authority (Holland, Lincoln, GWB) all the time to use those different facilities. No?

Don't get me started on the Turnpike/GSP. 

When it was build in the '50's the toll was to pay for its construction. It was supposed to disappear after the road bonds were paid. 

25 years later, the bonds were paid. But someone in Trenton remembered that the parkway authority (It was separate from the turnpike authority at that time) would be a good source of patronage to put retired politicians in. 

OPPS -- can't eliminate the tolls because we gotta pay for the Garden State Art Center.  What was that? 50 years ago?

Opps -- we borrowed money from the public employees pensions and we gotta use tolls to pay them back. So they borrowed the money, collected the tolls and Oh $hit ! We collected the toll money but forgot to put the money back into the pension funds.

Oh well.

jimmurphy said:

At the end of the day it is all politics, I guess. 

And psychology -- people are sensitive to change, and to loss (real or potential), and to the highly-visible over the indirect. Street parking in NYC, for instance, is absurdly cheap for the value of that space. It's an enormous subsidy for private vehicles. But that's less visible, has been in place a long time, and the absence of market-rates for parking is less visible than the presence of a charge. And that's just one example of many of the ways we the public heavily subsidize private transit.

I'm a big fan of congestion pricing, but I'm not at all surprised at the opposition.

PVW said:

And psychology -- people are sensitive to change, and to loss (real or potential), and to the highly-visible over the indirect. Street parking in NYC, for instance, is absurdly cheap for the value of that space. It's an enormous subsidy for private vehicles. But that's less visible, has been in place a long time, and the absence of market-rates for parking is less visible than the presence of a charge. And that's just one example of many of the ways we the public heavily subsidize private transit.

I'm a big fan of congestion pricing, but I'm not at all surprised at the opposition.

I wonder if there are more available parking spaces on the streets… that would be a good thing because paying for those parking garages would cost more than the toll.

PVW said:

And psychology -- people are sensitive to change, and to loss (real or potential), and to the highly-visible over the indirect. Street parking in NYC, for instance, is absurdly cheap for the value of that space. It's an enormous subsidy for private vehicles. But that's less visible, has been in place a long time, and the absence of market-rates for parking is less visible than the presence of a charge. And that's just one example of many of the ways we the public heavily subsidize private transit.

I'm a big fan of congestion pricing, but I'm not at all surprised at the opposition.

Yeah, I guess the bottom line is that people don’t like to start paying for something that used to be “free.” Regardless of the externalities.

Especially older conservative people. Ahem.

Let's remember the folks that live in that area please. Whenever they venture out they pay too. That is the most unfair thing going on from all I can tell. I am still for it but those folks should be exempt period. I am fine paying it myself and sure we're the first in our nation I believe but so be it. Other issues are the parking congestion right above the zone that many will stop at to park and proceed downtown. Nuances folks. Nuances. But the FEDS have no right to stop this. Period.

Since Election Day I've been avoiding political discussion, but the FEDS may indeed have no right, Wendy, but tRump pays no attention to rights or rules or laws or courts, He has no personal beliefs at all. He doesn't really have any inherent opinion about food prices, education, abortion, war or peace, Ukraine, Russia or anything.  His only concerns are (1) pissing people off and truly, indiscriminately reversing anything a Democrat did and (2) achieving tax cuts for the rich, for the billionaire class. And it is ruining our competitiveness, way of life and strength. 

Watch Richard Wolff's salient analysis:

US Empire In Crisis: Trump's Tariff War Is Desperate Denial Masking As Strength - Democracy at Work (d@w)

The_Soulful_Mr_T said:

Since Election Day I've been avoiding political discussion, but the FEDS may indeed have no right

We'll see.

When the national highway system was authorized the law stipulated that that Federally funded highways may not be tolled. Later a law was passed carving out an exception. Some roads into NYC's tolled area are federally funded. 

The Biden admin made an administrative decision that NYC's congestion plan meets that exception. The Trump administration disagrees.

The courts will have to decide.

Makes no sense to me.

The NYC streets are what is being tolled, not the highways leading in.

West Street (9A) is specifically carved out, probably anticipating a conflict.

jimmurphy said:

Makes no sense to me.

The NYC streets are what is being tolled, not the highways leading in.

West Street (9A) is specifically carved out, probably anticipating a conflict.

You're saying the Feds have no authority because its NYC streets being tolled.

But NY state and city recognized the Feds have authority and therefore they requested their permission for the tolls. As also acknowledged by Biden's DOT when they granted permission.

If it were only NYC streets with no Fed jurisdiction then the state and city could simply have enacted their tolls without asking the Feds.

TGreene said:

You're saying the Feds have no authority because its NYC streets being tolled.

But NY state and city recognized the Feds have authority and therefore they requested their permission for the tolls. As also acknowledged by Biden's DOT when they granted permission.

If it were only NYC streets with no Fed jurisdiction then the state and city could simply have enacted their tolls without asking the Feds.

I was thinking that the Feds are involved because of the need for approval of the Environmental Impact statement. 

Were any of the streets being tolled federally-funded originally, to your knowledge? 

I think it's not just official federal road (say, interstates), but routes that receive federal funding aid. I'm not sure which these may be -- maybe all or a lot if we're just talking about getting federal funds to assist in building and maintenance? Haven't been able to find a clear answer (I suspect it might be similar to how even though schools are funded and run by states, the federal Dept of Ed still contributes funding).

jimmurphy said:

I was thinking that the Feds are involved because of the need for approval of the Environmental Impact statement. 

Were any of the streets being tolled federally-funded originally, to your knowledge? 

Not environmental -