New York’s contentious congestion pricing initiative has passed two significant legal challenges as federal judges opted not to halt the program, which is set to commence in just a few weeks.
U.S. District Judge Lewis Liman in Manhattan dismissed a request from several groups seeking to delay the program while their legal battles continue, which would have postponed the implementation of the tolls next month. Shortly thereafter, U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel in White Plains also rejected the injunctions requested by Rockland and Orange counties in the suburbs.
Although the congestion pricing plan is a step closer to its January 5 launch, it isn’t entirely out of the woods yet. A federal judge in New Jersey could rule at any moment to send the proposal back for further environmental analysis following a challenge from New Jersey. Additionally, a lawsuit filed by Hempstead, a town on Long Island, remains pending in state court.
Despite these uncertainties, the rulings in Manhattan and White Plains are seen as a victory for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and Governor Kathy Hochul. The governor recently reinstated a modified version of the plan, which aims to generate funds for modernizing the city’s transit system, a vital infrastructure that has been in disrepair for decades.
Judge Liman made his ruling after hearing arguments from various groups on Friday, including the Trucking Association of New York, Battery Park residents, the United Federation of Teachers, and New Yorkers Against Congestion Pricing Tax, a community organization concerned about the toll’s financial and environmental impacts on the area.
In his decision, Liman explained that granting the injunction would “negatively harm the public interest as it would delay the environmental and economic benefits” intended by the program and impose a significant financial strain on the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority.
The judge also noted that research has shown that the congestion the tolling system seeks to address, if left unchecked, would result in major economic and environmental costs for individuals and businesses throughout the New York metropolitan area.
At Monday’s hearing in White Plains, Judge Seibel acknowledged that some groups would face higher costs than others due to the program. While she conceded that the decision to implement congestion pricing might be “unfair or unwise,” she emphasized that this does not make the plan “unconstitutional.”
Rockland County argued that the tolls force residents to rely on mass transit, despite limited commuter options. In response, Seibel remarked, “There are pros and cons of living in Rockland and Orange counties. This is one of the cons.”
Judge Liman added that delaying the program would result in an extra $12 million in monthly costs for state and city transportation agencies, along with a loss of about $40 million per month in revenue.
Delaying the program would also prevent the MTA from funding critical infrastructure projects, including improvements to subways, buses, commuter railroads, and accessibility measures for subway stations, as well as safety enhancements and extending public transit to underserved areas, the judge pointed out.
The initial lawsuit heard by Judge Liman was filed in November 2023 by Families for a Better Plan for Congestion, a group of Battery Park residents who argued that the plan did not adequately address the anticipated increase in traffic to the exempted parts of their neighborhood.
The United Federation of Teachers followed with its own lawsuit, claiming the program unfairly impacts teachers who live in areas without mass transit access. Staten Island Borough President Vito Fossella joined the union in this suit, citing concerns about higher commuting costs, worsening traffic, and declining air quality for his constituents.
New Yorkers Against Congestion Pricing Tax, another plaintiff, included a range of affected residents in their lawsuit, including a funeral home owner from the East Village, a teacher who cares for his partner, a wheelchair-bound blind person from New Jersey, and the owner of an ice cream shop in Chinatown.
The plaintiffs argue that both federal and state agencies neglected to use the governor’s pause in June to conduct further studies on the plan’s potential disproportionate impacts, violating the State Administrative Procedure Act.
In June, Judge Liman dismissed the claims of some opponents who argued that the environmental review process had been inadequate.
In a separate case, Judge Leo Gordon has not yet set a date to rule on a lawsuit from New Jersey, which was heard in April before Governor Hochul paused the program. Lawyers for New Jersey have urged the judge to make a ruling soon.
{Matzav.com}