NEW YORK — In a significant legal development, a Manhattan judge has refused to reject lawsuits aimed at Governor Kathy Hochul’s controversial decision to indefinitely delay the implementation of a new congestion pricing plan. The congestion tax, initially set to be enforced starting June 30, was designed to apply approximately a $15 toll to vehicles entering central Manhattan, funneling an estimated $1 billion annually into transit system enhancements.
This judicial decision ensures that the matter will proceed through the courts, compelling Governor Hochul to provide a legal defense for her action. The litigation is spearheaded by a coalition of transportation and environmental groups, who argue that by halting the fee days before its scheduled implementation, the governor overstepped legal boundaries defined by state law and the constitution.
Governor Hochul had paused the program citing economic recovery concerns following the impacts of the coronavirus pandemic. She suggested that the timing was not right to introduce a new tolling system, potentially placing further strain on businesses and citizens still grappling with financial recovery.
At issue is whether the power to implement the fee should reside with the state or a specific government entity. Arguments presented in court by Andrew Celli, representing the City Club of New York, emphasized that the 2019 law establishing the toll did not grant the governor’s office authority to determine the start date of the congestion pricing. Rather, Celli protested, that authority lies with the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority to prevent political influence from swaying operational decisions.
Representing Governor Hochul and the state’s Department of Transportation, attorney Alan Schoenfeld countered that the law does not exclude the governor and the state DOT from having a significant role in the process and deemed the suggestion that they were to be sidelined as “demonstrably false.”
During the hearings, Judge Arthur Engoron appeared skeptical of the arguments put forth by Schoenfeld. The ordeal began on a light note with Engoron humorously commenting on the heavy traffic he encountered driving into Manhattan for the hearing, underscoring the day-to-day relevance of the congestion issue at hand.
Beyond the courtroom, Dror Ladin of Earthjustice, representing some plaintiff groups, highlighted broader consequences since the postponement of the fee. According to Ladin, the delay has exacerbated traffic congestion, intensified adverse health and environmental impacts from increased air pollution, and stalled critical upgrades to the public transit system, all of which he described as causing significant harm to New Yorkers.
This case captures a pivotal moment not only in New York but also potentially sets a precedent for how urban centers manage congestion and fund public transportation infrastructure via legislative and executive actions. Legal experts anticipate that the outcome could influence future transportation policies nationwide, especially in major cities facing similar urban planning and environmental challenges.