UES’s CB8 “Congestion Pricing Task Force” Argues About Incoming Tolls

With a public comment period for congestion pricing underway before it goes into effect later this spring, many Manhattan residents have been busy teeing up points and counterpoints on a tolling plan that includes a base fee of $15 and a few off-peak and low-income exemptions. Trucks will pay more, taxis will pay less, and the MTA hopes to collect $1 billion a year for capital projects.

Politicians are seemingly no less divided when it comes to their opinions on congestion pricing. NYC Mayor Eric Adams has called for more exemptions for public sector workers and people with medical appointments, while NY Governor Kathy Hochul headlined a Dec. 5 rally at Union Square praising toll recommendations approved by the MTA the next day.

This divide was highly evident on Jan. 3, when the UES’s Community Board 8 held a meeting of their special Congestion Pricing Task Force. Lingering disputes over the impending toll zone were on clear display.

It started off quietly enough, with CB8 Co-Chair Craig Lader outlining the pricing plan that the MTA signed off on in December. Political aides for prominent local politicians also brought comments from their bosses. A representative for Borough President Mark Levine told the board that “we’re really happy that you’re getting the word out about the comment period that is going on until March 11.” She added that Levine was supportive of the pricing plan.

Harley Neiditz brought a statement on behalf of State Assembly member Rebecca Seawright, who called for “common sense discounts, exemptions, and carveouts for populations that would be unduly burdened by the proposed $15 fee.” In an echo of Mayor Adams’s proposals, Seawright further specified that public sector employees and people with “serious medical appointments” should be considered for future carveouts.

However, Seawright happily noted that the funds would be directed towards making 67 subway stations ADA accessible, and she praised exemptions for Access-A-Ride vehicles transporting disabled people. This would, after all, certainly tie into her role as the Chair of the People with Disabilities Committee in the State Assembly.

The MTA’s Traffic Mobility Review Board did note in its recommendations that certain public sector workers may “have the option” of seeking toll reimbursements from their employers, especially if they have to drive into the congestion zone as part of work. They are not expressly exempted outright, however, with the MTA citing the precedent of “existing tolls” levied on public sector employees using other highways and tunnels outside of the zone.

The MTA has also pointed to Medicaid and Medicare Advantage discounts available for those seeking medical appointments.

Seawright concluded that “people will certainly disagree on the TMRB’s recommendations, even if we can all agree on the need to decrease congestion, decrease pollution, and fund vital capital projects.”

With the exception of Lader, board members that took the floor afterward didn’t appear inclined to be as equivocal. Valerie Mason started off by noting that “I urge everybody to have their voices heard by the MTA, if any they don’t read [your comments] and put them in piles of ‘for and ‘against’,” before making it abundantly clear that she was firmly in the “against congestion pricing” column.

Mason firstly called for another environmental review of the plan, taking up the argument of lawsuits filed by the likes of New Jersey and Staten Island. New York’s 4,000 page-long final environmental finding that congestion pricing would have “no significant impact” was announced by Governor Hochul in May.

This, however, quickly resulted in New York’s neighbor suing the Federal Highway Administration–for allegedly botching environmental laws by granting the finding. New Jersey argued that the pricing plan will simply offshore congestion across the Hudson into their state, an argument that the MTA has called “baseless.”

Mason said that “New Yorkers would find ways around the zone” and claimed that it would be “destructive instead of transformative.” She also speculated that the MTA wouldn’t direct the funds towards capital projects, as is directed by law.

Lader was taken back by Mason’s claims, and said that he believed that the MTA did not take any “short-cuts” when it came to environmental impacts. He appeared frustrated when Mason briefly tried to talk over him.

“It’s fair to question the process...but I think what you’re essentially suggested that if the rules aren’t good enough [for pricing opponents]...then the MTA shouldn’t follow the law. The law of the state is that the MTA needs to go through the process,” Lader said.

Michele Birnbaum, another board member, also registered her opposition to congestion pricing overall. Favorably citing the the aforementioned lawsuits, she echoed Mason by essentially hoping that it would be halted altogether by a second environmental review: “That would delay the process–as well it should. The issue is not to get this done quickly. It’s either not to get this done, or if you need to get this done, you need to show need and necessity.”

Lader, exasperated, summed up his point by saying that “to only view it as a negative ignores the fact that the intended benefits of congestion pricing are meant to produce societal gains, which could have a wide array of impacts on different people in different ways.” The designers and supporters of congestion pricing have noted that it would fund public transit, diminish pollution in the zone, and reduce global warming by bringing down carbon emissions.

Yet by the end of CB8’s meeting, it appeared that no resolution would be forthcoming.

*A portal for public comments on the congestion pricing zone can be found here.