25
votes
New Jersey files federal lawsuit to block NYC’s congestion pricing plan; Staten Island sets up legal action
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Authors
- Ben Brachfeld
- Published
- Jul 23 2023
- Word count
- 835 words
I have to say, as a New Jersey resident who is currently interested in working in the city and who is generally happy with Murphy, I quite disagree with this suit. It is absurd overreach to try to dictate to a city outside of your own state who they can and cannot enact taxes/tolls on.
Also, we need to reduce congestion both inside and immediately outside the city (in parts of NJ near the city) for the sake of both the environment and the quality of life of those of us who live here.
We also need better public transit to the city, and my hope is that this congestion pricing goes through and puts enough burden on the politicians in New Jersey to expand our public transportation that it gets moved to being a high priority.
Will it suck for a while for commuters? Yes. All the more reason for us New Jerseyans to light a fire under politicians' asses to get them to fund the infrastructure changes we desperately need. Either we sacrifice now for a better future or we just sit around and claim "this is unfair" and moan and groan while letting the status quo maintain its stronghold on us.
Also, does anyone even like driving in the city?
I haven't investigated the exact numbers too deeply, but the NEC Future's Selected Alternative does make some meaningful changes to local transportation in New Jersey, especially around the Secaucus Junction across the river from New York. There's a considerable effort being made to improve regional access between small and large cities along the NEC, which should alleviate issues that divers conceivably face from congestion pricing: many can switch to rail, and those who can't will face less traffic. See the Tier 1 Final Environmental Impact Statement for more details.
Lower Manhattan's much-needed congestion pricing plan, which will enact daily tolls of up to $23 for passenger automobiles and $82 for trucks entering the island south of 60th Street, recently passed federal environmental review with a "finding of no significant impact." It will launch in Spring 2024. The plan seeks to decrease traffic, pollution, and noise in the busiest part of New York City's most walkable and most transit-accessible borough.
The reasoning is simple: having large numbers of cars in city centers generates tremendous social and financial problems for residents, urban planners, and municipal budgets. Automobiles take up too much space relative to the number of people they can carry, limiting the city's ability to create green spaces and pedestrian/bike/transit corridors; and excessive use of roads by personal vehicles prompts frequent and expensive resurfaces, costing taxpayers unnecessary money. They are also environmentally unfriendly, issuing more pollutants and using more energy relative to any form of public transit. Automobile externalities include higher per capita petrol/electricity use, toxic gaseous emissions from ICE engines, toxic particulate matter (PM10-PM2.5) from tires which floats in the air and then seeps into groundwater and soils, and greater noise pollution. Personal passenger automobiles also contribute to 17–20x more fatalities than trains or buses. In short: the fewer cars, the better (with necessary exceptions).
While the policy does not in any way ban automobiles from any part of Manhattan, it seeks to discourage their use in favor of public transit, especially for through-traffic which does not need to go there at all. In doing so, the MTA will be able to raise funds to support more efficient transit in and around the city. The plan makes special exemptions for emergency vehicles, people with disabilities, and low-income residents, among other groups.
Similar strategies have been implemented in cities around the world, but are rare in the United States. However, not everyone is happy. Some residents of New Jersey and Staten Island, who choose to drive into Manhattan instead of taking a train, bus, or ferry, do not want to pay the tolls, or believe that it will negatively contribute to traffic in their towns.
New Jersey, and a few other actors, are suing New York City in an attempt to halt the plan. We will see how their argument is received by federal judges.
...
...
I think I see which way the winds are blowing here, but it's still theoretically possible for a federal judge who does not have a background in infrastructure and city planning to take these complaints seriously over the decision from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)'s analysis. If the current congestion pricing plan is halted, New York will likely conduct additional environmental reviews under the FHWA in order to enact a similar plan.
Look, I'm in favor of congestion pricing and don't dispute the environmental good that can come of it, but it's obvious that it's screwing NJ here, and Murphy, as Governor, has every right to push back and try to get a better deal for his citizens. None of the money from the plan is to be shared with NJTransit or Port Authority, the two mass-transit services on which the burden of additional commuters will fall. This amounts to an unfunded mandate to increase capacity, while the MTA hauls in new profits to put towards commuters from Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx, very few of whom drive. Meanwhile NY State and the City of NY refuse to pony up their fair share of costs to improve NJ-->NYC mass-transit infrastructure like the new PA building or the Hudson tunnel.
Yes, the article says that. I see why New Jersey might be upset about budgetary issues related to the plan, especially the profit-sharing scheme. I also don't think that's a reason to literally halt the project after decades of conversation and years of stringent environmental review. Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.
I can't speak to the intricacies of inter-state political budgets, but the Hudson River Tunnel is being repaired now. The federal government is covering quite a lot of that, and both state governors have agreed to evenly split their share (archive). If Chris Christie, New Jersey's former governor, had not canceled the "Access to the Region's Core" plan a decade ago, connections between NJ and NY would already be a lot better.
I didn't grow up in a big city and I get the feeling of being left out by transit projects. But we kind of do it to ourselves when we elect politicians who intentionally defund transit and actively contort the legal system to stymie infrastructure progress between neighboring municipalities.
But you didnt bring it up in your summary, so I felt it was important to highlight a point of view that didnt get represented well in a high-visibility first post.
This isn't a "perfect" vs "good" situation. These "decades of conversation" haven't actually included the polities that will be footing the bill; this is offloading the costs of a project onto those who have no voice in the decision. Yes, ARC may have helped avoid these problems a long time ago, but the fact is that these actions now will degrade mass-transport experiences and infrastructure... just not for New Yorkers.
There's a practical argument to be made, too. If it's too expensive to drive and mass-transit is unable to support the additional demand, I'm more likely to push for a work-from-home situation and spend social time on my side of the river, both of which end up hurting NYC's finances and their local businesses.
On the other hand, it's possible that the next shot across the bow will be NJ more seriously trying to end NJ residents paying NY State income tax. That's been brewing for decades, but as long as the commuter ecosystem stayed status quo, no-one wanted to cross the line. This may end up pushing it over.
I genuinely appreciate the perspective you're bringing to this conversation, as well as your highlighting of that part of the article that I omitted in my summary, but this is just not a correct statement.
Public transportation from northern New Jersey into Manhattan is extensive. Rail service runs from Penn Station to five separate commuter lines deep into North Jersey. Bus service is also extensive, even quite a distance away from Hoboken/Jersey City: someone in Paramus can easily catch a bus into Uptown and connect with a subway to Midtown. Ferries cross the river at multiple points. Indeed, the regional trains could run more often, and more lines could be built, but this plan does not negatively affect any of the existing public transportation options surrounding the city. Particularly when you consider the region's many imminent infrastructure upgrades, such as the Portal North Bridge replacement, it's clear that transit agencies have a legitimate and largely funded plan to meaningfully increase capacity on non-automobile modes to accommodate changes like this.
Drivers who prefer to go into lower Manhattan during peak hours do not have a great excuse to use a personal vehicle. There are excellent alternatives. Anyway, it's not like Manhattan will be cut off from Jerseyites: if they really want to avoid the peak toll, they can take the GW into uptown, park, and take the subway downtown. If they live close enough to the Lincoln Tunnel that the GW would be a significant detour, they already have multiple good (and affordable) alternatives.
The use-case of someone who literally needs to drive from NJ into southern Manhattan is fairly negligible: this applies to a small subset of workers who use their personal vehicles to transport a large amount of equipment from their home to their Manhattan office/work space every day. Examples might be an independent HVAC contractor with heavy tools or an audio engineer with recording equipment. But the final plan will likely exempt most such commercial uses anyway. And with fewer people who don't need to drive actually ending up on the highway, those who do will not see dramatic upticks in traffic. This kind of thing is all studied.
Is it conceivable that spreading out traffic from the most congested entry points of NYC will... move some number of cars elsewhere? Yes, and that's kind of the point, but it will also shift them to a different mode (rail/bus/ferry). The entire purpose of an environmental review is to consider how a plan like this will affect transportation patterns in the region as a whole, and whether those externalities are actually meaningfully negative. Likewise, it considers whether localized areas where traffic might increase have the infrastructure to handle it: this includes places outside of Manhattan. In this case, this painstakingly exhaustive 4,000-page study (featuring plenty of input from NJ) concludes that public transit modes can take the extra capacity, and that traffic in the region as a whole will not meaningfully increase as a result of congestion pricing.
Sure, but how is this good for New Jersey?
It isn't, but New York City's decisions don't need to be good for New Jersey. New York can't sue New Jersey for increasing tolls on the New Jersey Turnpike, even though that isn't good for New York.
Of course they don't.
But if it's not good for New Jersey then "Don't let perfect be the enemy of good" doesn't apply here. There is no good.
This plan does not just divert traffic uptown but also encourages a modal shift from private vehicles to public transportation, which is more efficient at moving people from a cost and environmental perspective. Fewer vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on any particular roadway within New Jersey results in less road maintenance for the state, fewer toxic gases and microplastics leeching into soils and groundwater, and less traffic on congested routes aiming toward NYC. There are benefits to NJ even if they aren't as obvious as the ones to the part of Manhattan affected by this plan.
It encourages such a shift through a mechanism which will cost NJ money and give NYC money. The only reason NJ wouldn't have to fight this is if it's impossible for them to win. But generally, being as big of a pain in the ass as possible and delaying this as long as possible is going to be their best move.
It will not cost NJ money to have fewer VMT on its own roads. It has to maintain and pay for those roads. More VMT = more wear = more maintenance = more cost. By extension, less wear = less maintenance = less cost.
Higher ridership on NJ Transit is also a source of revenue for NJ. Even if the cost of running such lines increases as well, the efficiency of rail as opposed to self-destructive asphalt roadways means that for
Xnumber of drivers mode shifting to rail, the state will save the sum ofX*Y - X*Zon overall maintenance, whereYis the per-capita VMT-based cost of personal automobiles on municipal roadways andZis the equivalent of public transportation, and whereY > Zaxiomatically. i.e. New Jersey really is benefitting from this plan, even if the tolls themselves stay with NY.The same generic formula applies to environmental effects too. Fewer VMT in NJ means less environmental destruction in NJ. That saves the government (and taxpayers) money in any number of ways, such as costs related to the negative health effects of ingesting pollutants; or costs related to groundwater reclamation and filtration for agriculture or human consumption. These costs are very... not visible to drivers, who don't recognize the externalities of their mode choice. But they're very real.
It makes sense to me that some of the tolls from bridges entering from the NJ side should go to NJ, but the plan as a whole has benefit to the entire region one way or another, including NJ. The reason the governor is making a show about this is because voters aren't really interested in VMT cost-benefit analyses. In contrast, it's easy to rile people up about change (even if it's a good and necessary change) for political points. I understand why he would "fight for the people of NJ" by opposing this plan, but it's just not correct.
Everytime someone from NJ pays the congestion toll they're paying into NYC tax coffers. That's less money spent in NJ.
Everytime someone takes a longer route so they don't have to cross below 60th that's more driving on NJ roads.
Unless NJ drivers are already paying these externalities then they're correct to hate this and support their state fighting it.
Precisely.
Furthermore, even if that wasn't necessarily true, NJ stands to gain simply by being enough of a pain in the ass that NYC is willing to concede some funding to get them to go away. And if the stated goal really is to discourage traffic in Manhattan that should be perfectly palatable to NYC. I'm sure they definitely don't have any ulterior motives of forcing NJ drivers to fund their debt-ridden subway.
he's not just "pushing back" though. he's trying to block the entire project with a lawsuit in federal court, alleging the environmental review was not properly done. as the article says:
sure, he wants more money for his state. but is that the proper way to go about it?
like, maybe he doesn't actually believe in the environmental stuff, and he's just trying to use this lawsuit as a bargaining chip? demand that NYC allocate some of the money to his state, and if they do he'll drop the lawsuit.
that would amount to using the federal courts, and federal environmental protection law, as an element of basically a Mafia-style shakedown. gee, that's a nice congestion pricing plan you've got there. it'd be a shame if it got tied up in a lawsuit for several years. or, you can give me a 10% cut and the whole thing will go away.
hasn't there been an unfunded mandate going in the opposite direction for decades?
that is, people from NJ drive into NYC. this results in higher demand for road construction & maintenance in NYC. but lots of those commuters are probably filling up on gas in NJ, which means they're not paying NY gas taxes that are used to fund that road construction.
Short answer to my mind: no. Tolls go to that maintenance. NJ residents' state (and until 20 or so years ago, city) taxes go to that maintenance if they commute to work in NYC.
Alternate phrasing: he wants his state's fair share of the money being charged to its residents so that NJTransit can do the same thing that the MTA will do: patch the huge hole it blows in their budget and expand service.
Is it a little cynical to use environmental review? Maybe. But politics ain't beanbag and I'm sure that if there were other options, they'd be going with those instead.
I don't know the specifics, but my general understanding is that if I pay a toll, such as on the George Washington Bridge, that toll only goes to the Port Authority, for maintenance of the bridge itself.
I was referring to the local roads in NYC - I drive over from NJ, pay a toll on the bridge, but after that I'm creating wear and tear on all the surface streets around Manhattan.
assuming I buy my gas in NJ because it's cheaper there, do I pay anything towards maintenance of those surface streets? like I said, this seems like an unfunded mandate where NYC has to maintain roads that benefit NJ commuters, but those commuters don't contribute anything to that funding.
what makes it NJ's "fair share"?
if I fly from here in Washington state to JFK or Newark, rent a car and then for some godawful reason drive myself into Manhattan, does Washington have a claim to a "fair share" of the congestion toll that I pay?
OK, obviously that's an absurd, contrived example. what about Connecticut or Pennsylvania, though? they'll certainly have some number of commuters affected by the congestion pricing. are they also entitled to a "fair share" of NYC's revenue?
does any other toll or tax work the way you're suggesting this one should?
if our hypothetical NJ resident buys a pack of cigarettes while they're in Manhattan, they pay NY's taxes on cigarettes. those taxes go, among other things, towards funding tobacco-prevention services for NY residents.
by your logic, NJ should get a "fair share" of the cigarette taxes paid by that NJ resident?
no "maybe" about it in my mind - this sort of abuse of environmental law is an established pattern.
for another example: Hollywood Burbank Airport files environmental lawsuit against California’s bullet train
only 40% of the flights from that airport are regularly scheduled commercial flights. the other 60% are private planes.
private aircraft are one of the largest contributors to carbon emissions. and yet here we have an airport used mostly for private flights, trying to use environmental laws to block a high-speed rail project.
these laws requiring environmental review were passed with good intentions, but they've been co-opted for these sort of "I don't like this so I'm going to ask the federal government to block it on the flimsy excuse that they didn't do enough environmental review" lawsuits.
this sounds an awful lot like "the ends justify the means"
I'm sure the NJ government tried various other channels, such as negotiations through the Port Authority, and only filed this lawsuit when those didn't pan out.
do the ends that NJ wants (getting a cut of the congestion toll revenue) justify the means (filing this bullshit environmental lawsuit)?
And if that was where the congestion fee was going then you'd have a damn good point. But this isn't about road maintenance, it's about funding NYC transit. It's closer to rent seeking than transit advocates want to admit.
NYC benefits from having the businesses and employees there in the first place. I'm sure NJ would gladly have office skyscrapers with their tenants, land values, and lunch/bar tabs migrate across the river in exchange for subsidizing the local road maintenance.