As elections near, congestion pricing becomes part of the political debate

ALBANY — Democrats say a plan to charge a fee to drive into the busiest part of Manhattan will be good for economy, help clear the air and provide essential funding to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Republicans call the proposal a money grab forced on overtaxed suburban commuters and outer borough residents to fund a poorly managed mass transit system.

Now, both parties are spinning the issue known as congestion pricing in hopes of winning the critical suburban vote in November’s elections for the governor’s office and all state Assembly and Senate seats.

The plan is to reduce traffic congestion below 60th Street by charging fees of varying levels based on time of day and traffic flow. The goal is to push more drivers onto mass transit or to off-peak routes. Tolls could range from as little as $5 overnight to $34 in peak times for drivers without EZ Pass. The fees could begin as early as 2023.

The $1 billion in annual fees would be used to help fund the MTA’s subways, buses, commuter trains, such as the Long Island Rail Road, tunnels and other elements of mass transit.

The proposal was approved in 2019 by the State Legislature and then-Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo, but the Democrats have delayed resolving many of the thorniest issues, including setting the fees, into next year.

In an election year, Republicans aren’t waiting, trying to frame congestion pricing as an unnecessary tax necessitated by Democrats’ mismanagement of the state.

“Congestion pricing is a horrible idea that will create new economic pain for hardworking New Yorkers,” said Rep. Lee Zeldin of Shirley, the Republican nominee for governor. “Now, politicians and bureaucrats want to jam up New Yorkers with a whole new scheme to rip more money out of New Yorkers’ wallets, grabbing another $1 billion out of the pockets of New Yorkers who can’t afford it.”

GOP Assemb. Mike Lawler of Pearl River has introduced a bill to repeal the plan. Lawler said it’s “patently absurd that the cost of maintaining and improving New York City’s transit system is being placed on” suburbanites.

But Democrats, including Gov. Kathy Hochul, support the progressive measure, saying it will reduce air pollution and other triggers for asthma attacks and speed traffic flow to improve commerce, while providing much-needed revenue to mass transit in the city.

“The overwhelming rationale for congestion pricing is to raise revenue for mass transit, which should have positive impacts on our environment,” Assemb. Jeffrey Dinowitz (D-Bronx), a key progressive voice. “Congestion pricing will likely help air quality and traffic flow in Manhattan.”

“I support congestion pricing 100%,” Hochul said during a June Democratic primary debate.

But Hochul has downplayed the immediacy of the proposal this election year. “We don’t have toll numbers set,” she said Aug. 18. “This is not going to be resolved until 2023.”

Some major lobbying forces, including taxi and ride-sharing companies, share the GOP’s opposition. Hochul’s view is supported by the independent Citizens Budget Committee, which calls for “speedy implementation to reduce congestion and emissions and improve transit”; as well as the Partnership for New York City business group,

“The partnership continues to support congestion pricing as the best way to reduce that burden and to support mass transit,” the business group’s CEO, Kathryn Wilde, told Newsday in August.

The rhetoric is intense on both sides.

“Both sides try to make the proposal look very bad or very perfect,” said Gilles Duranton, dean and real estate professor at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. “It’s shades of gray.”

He said opponents of congestion pricing fail to account for existing costs, including delays in productivity, gasoline and auto maintenance, insurance and road safety. Meanwhile, supporters often exaggerate how much cleaner the air will be and the faster speed of traffic, he said.

The benefit of congestion pricing “is nowhere near as large as you read in the press,” Duranton told Newsday. “There will be gains, but they won’t be gigantic,” Duranton said. “I am still in favor of congestion pricing … but we shouldn’t expect miracles.”

Other independent, nonpartisan researchers who have studied congestion pricing worldwide agree the benefits outweigh the drawbacks of a well-crafted plan. They told Newsday that, despite initial opposition in cities such as Stockholm, London, Milan and Singapore, none have repealed congestion pricing.

“We have an imperative to reduce driving because transportation is the number one source of greenhouse gas — increasing the price of driving into Manhattan is an obvious way to do it,” said Nicholas Klein, a professor of city and regional planning at Cornell University. “Transit service in Manhattan is better than anywhere else in the country — we have no excuse to let people drive into Manhattan without paying for the privilege.”

Opposition, he said, is led by suburbanites.

“They may be the most vocal opposition, but they can afford to pay more,” Klein told Newsday. “Congestion pricing benefits everyone — drivers and non-drivers alike — with faster transit service, less air pollution, and less traffic congestion.”

But that argument won’t be easily won among residents who will be faced with the fees.

“Anything that adds to the cost of living, or at least as people perceive it today, is a negative politically,” said Lawrence Levy, executive dean of the National Center for Suburban Studies at Hofstra University. He argued, however, that congestion pricing as proposed would impact fewer suburbanites than the political debates would now have voters believe.

“The congestion toll would only hit people who take their car into the central city, and most people don’t do that,” Levy told Newsday.

Other emerging concerns include the potentially conflicting effort by state and city governments to draw workers back into Manhattan after the exodus during the COVID-19 pandemic to spur the economy, despite polls that show many workers want to work from home. 

“Increasing a driver’s trip cost to Manhattan … is likely to delay the return of workers back to the city center,” said Giancarlo Falcocchio, a professor at the New York University. “Employers might find it difficult to hire lower-wage and middle-income workers, and may decide to relocate outside Manhattan.”

The danger in this political calculus is evident in Albany history.

In 2010, Democrats lost the Senate majority that they won just two years before. Part of the reason: An MTA payroll tax that Democrats enacted to fund agency deficits back then. The tax was a major Republican talking point and it helped cost the job of some Democratic senators on Long Island. The payroll tax was eventually reduced, but it took Democrats another eight years to regain the majority.

“If it can be characterized as a tax, it’s probably politically potent,” said Michael Balboni, a former Republican state senator from Long Island and now a political commentator.

“Timing is everything in these types of things,” Balboni said. He cited the lower occupancy rate of Manhattan office space because many workers have stayed home since the pandemic and the problem of driving more commuters into a mass transit system already in need of renovation.

“So, the question becomes, ‘Is now the time to do this?” Balboni said.

Michael Gormley has worked for Newsday since 2013, covering state government, politics and issues. He has covered Albany since 2001.