www.newsday.com Open in urlscan Pro
2600:9000:247b:600:3:cdf4:ba00:93a1  Public Scan

Form analysis
0 forms found in the DOM

Text Content

Skip to contentMenu
Today's paper
 * Long Island
 * Sports
 * News
 * Restaurants
 * Opinion
 * Business
 * Things to Do
 * Schools
 * Obituaries
 * Newsday TV
 * Search

 * LOG OUT

Close the sidebar
Transportation


FEDERAL COURT SHOWDOWN OVER NYC CONGESTION PRICING AS TOLL LOOMS

Toll readers at Park Ave. and 61st St. in Manhattan on Friday. Plaintiffs argued
the congestion pricing plan was not thoroughly vetted. Credit: ED QUINN

By Alfonso A. Castilloalfonso.castillo@newsday.com@alfonsoreportsUpdated May 17,
2024 9:27 pm

Congestion pricing opponents faced off with transportation officials in a
Manhattan courtroom Friday in a last-ditch effort to stop the controversial
tolling plan before it can take effect next month.

Attorneys representing a slate of plaintiffs, including several New York City
residents, a teachers’ union and some elected officials, made their case to a
federal judge as to why the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Central
Business District Tolling Program was not thoroughly vetted, and could do more
harm than good.

ONLY 25¢ FOR 5 MONTHS

Unlimited Digital Access. Cancel anytime.

Get unlimited access
Get unlimited access
Already a subscriber?
Log in | Home

Congestion pricing opponents faced off with transportation officials in a
Manhattan courtroom Friday in a last-ditch effort to stop the controversial
tolling plan before it can take effect next month.

Attorneys representing a slate of plaintiffs, including several New York City
residents, a teachers’ union and some elected officials, made their case to a
federal judge as to why the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Central
Business District Tolling Program was not thoroughly vetted, and could do more
harm than good.

“People will go out of business,” said Jack Lester, an attorney representing New
Yorkers Against Congestion Pricing Tax, one of the plaintiffs in the suit.
“Employees will lose their jobs if they can't afford to get to their places of
employment.”



Far from eliminating traffic congestion, the tolling plan “is distributing it to
already burdened communities,” said attorney Alan Klinger, who represents
several plaintiffs.


WHAT TO KNOW 

 * A federal judge heard arguments about lawsuits challenging the Metropolitan
   Transportation Authority's congestion pricing plan on Friday.

 * Opponents said it was not thoroughly vetted, and could do more harm than
   good.

 * Attorneys representing the MTA and federal transportation officials said they
   followed the law in thoroughly considering the impacts.

“Our case is not an attack on the concept of congestion pricing,” Klinger said
in his opening statements. “What this case is about is whether a proper
assessment was taken.”

But attorneys representing the MTA and federal transportation officials said
they followed the law in thoroughly considering the impacts of the
first-in-the-nation congestion pricing plan, which will charge most vehicles $15
for driving below 60th Street in Manhattan during peak hours.

“The Manhattan central business district has the worst traffic congestion” in
the U.S., said attorney Elizabeth Knauer, who represents the MTA. She urged U.S.
District Court Judge Lewis Liman to put a stop to the “indefinite snowball
effect” of lawsuits aiming to delay the congestion pricing plan, scheduled to
start June 30. 

While not making a decision, Liman appeared skeptical of the argument the MTA
and federal transportation officials hadn't done their due diligence. Liman
pointed out that a 4,000-page environmental study took years to prepare.

“It doesn't quite seem like a rush to judgment,” Liman said.

But the plaintiffs' attorneys argued that the environmental assessment that was
undertaken seemed more focused on coming up with a plan that would generate the
targeted $1 billion in annual toll revenue than strategies to reduce congestion.
“This idea that they have to raise a billion dollars in revenue is not right,”
said attorney David Kahne, who called the $15 toll amount “draconian.”



Attorneys for the MTA and the other defendants noted that the $1 billion revenue
goal was included in the 2019 law adopted by the state Legislature calling for
congestion pricing.

Liman didn't appear swayed by the arguments questioning the tolls’ revenue goal.
“Am I supposed to play the role of the New York State Legislature?” Liman asked.
“Whether there should be that amount of money going to the MTA … is a decision
for the people’s representatives, not an Article III judge.”

After reviewing the assessment, federal authorities last year determined that
there was “no significant impact” from the tolling plan, clearing the way for
the MTA to move forward. But plaintiffs said the process was “backward” because
it made that finding before the tolling program was finalized and the harm from
it becomes apparent. The MTA's lawyers noted that the plan sets aside $155
million for mitigation measures, including air filtration systems in some
schools and new park land.

Kahne said the MTA’s mitigation plan was a “menu of vague, nonspecific”
measures, and questioned how, if at all, it would be enforced. “We don’t know
when these things will happen. It could be tomorrow. It could be in 10 years,”
he said.

The project opponents also noted that the plan ultimately adopted by the MTA
earlier this year was considerably different from the one greenlit by the
federal authorities, with different toll amounts, peak hours, discounts, and
policies for taxis and for-hire vehicles. “It is not the congestion scheme that
was reviewed by the agency,” Kahne said.



The MTA's lawyers acknowledged that the plan had undergone some changes, but
assured the judge that it would not be implemented until federal authorities
conducted a “final re-evaluation process” that they expect to be completed in
time for the June target date.

Defense lawyers dismissed the arguments in the suits as “scattershot,” and
suggested they should be tossed out because they were filed after a statute of
limitations expired.

Liman gave no hint of when he would rule on the arguments. Meanwhile, several
other lawsuits challenging the congestion pricing plan are also pending,
including one filed by New Jersey state officials that was heard in court last
month. The most recent suit, filed by the Town of Hempstead, is awaiting its
first court date.

Speaking outside the courthouse, MTA chairman and CEO Janno Lieber said all the
suits challenging congestion pricing — including Hempstead’s — are “basically
the same.”

“I think they’ll be resolved in a similar manner,” said Lieber, who briefly
attended the hearing. “Really the issue is, was a 4,000-page four-year study
sufficient? We think it is. The federal government gave us an ‘A+.’ That’s why
we’re confident.”



Also in attendance was Brian Fritsch, associate director of the MTA's Permanent
Citizens Advisory Committee, which includes the LIRR Commuter Council. He said
he didn't find the plaintiffs' arguments “particularly convincing.”

“I feel pretty confident that the program is going to go forward as scheduled,”
Frisch said. “I really feel like, looking at the evidence today, that the amount
of work done to get this program up and going … they really did dot all their
'i's' and cross all their 't's.'”

With Matthew Chayes

By Alfonso A. Castillo
alfonso.castillo@newsday.com@alfonsoreports

Alfonso Castillo has been reporting for Newsday since 1999 and covering the
transportation beat since 2008. He grew up in the Bronx and Queens and now lives
in Valley Stream with his wife and two sons.

More on this topic
Hempstead lawsuit latest challenge to congestion pricing
Another lawsuit filed over NYC's congestion pricing
Streaming Now

Car flips in Bay Shore … Repaving Northern State … FeedMe: Port Washington
Credit: Newsday

Stony Brook graduation ... Car flips in Bay Shore ... Tick season is here ...
Rising sea levels

Get more on these and other NewsdayTV stories





Ad


Copyright 2024 newsday. All rights reserved. newsday.com