Editorial: For whom the congestion pricing tolls

Jimi Hendrix sang about trying to break through “Crosstown Traffic” — but that was nearly 60 years ago, long before more than 80,000 Uber and Lyft app-hail cabs compounded New York City’s congestion chaos.

The Big Apple’s first-in-the nation congestion-pricing plan is currently being challenged by numerous lawsuits, and it remains to be seen if anything from these will stick. Meanwhile, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is set to kick off the fees in late June.

After the M.T.A. on March 27 finalized the toll-pricing structure, Tribeca-based transportation guru Charles Komanoff trumpeted, “NY congestion pricing is a big deal…changing the twin paradigms of motordom and polluter impunity.”

Yet, now even former Governor Cuomo, who initiated the plan, says it has not been adequately studied — and is calling for a full environmental impact statement, or E.I.S. We agree. There are simply too many questions about potential negative impacts, including traffic displacement and economic hardship for both residents and businesses, particularly those in the zone.

Of course, Cuomo — apparently mulling a political comeback — is also tapping into public sentiment among a large faction of New Yorkers. Naturally, he would not be doing it unless the opposition was significant.

Ideally, the $1 billion raised annually by CP for the M.T.A. really would improve subway and bus service, leading to faster, safer mass transit. However, the M.T.A. is viewed — and rightly so — by many as a black hole for taxpayer dollars.

Also, the number of high-profile violent and deadly incidents in recent years has scared off many from using the subway. The idea that CP will make some drivers switch to mass transit seems wishful thinking until subway safety is vastly improved.

In 2023, fare evasion alone cost the M.T.A. $700 million — a problem both the M.T.A. and police must tackle. That amount, in fact, nears the annual revenue CP is meant to raise.

While CP advocates note most New Yorkers don’t own cars, and that drivers tend to be wealthier — and so could eat the toll — there’s no question this plan would disrupt and financially impact many thousands of residents’ lives, in particular, those who live in the so-called Central Business District — shockingly defined as all of Manhattan south of 60th Street. This area, in fact, has some of the world’s most iconic residential neighborhoods, like Greenwich Village, the East Village, Lower East Side and, yes, Soho, too. Seemingly responding to criticism, the M.T.A. has now quietly changed its name to…the Congestion Relief Zone.

Meanwhile, unlike in New York City, residents living in London’s CP zone get a 90 percent discount. Also, as opposed to here, in London there was no target revenue amount that was set, so there is flexibility on the toll fee. That seems like a better idea to us.

Interesting to note, despite its congestion charge, London — partly due to its ancient infrastructure and layout — continues to be the most congested city in the world.

In addition, the M.T.A.’s traffic data for its CP studies was collected pre-pandemic, and New York City traffic and transit use have changed significantly since then. Manhattan office occupancy remains only around 50 percent.

Meanwhile, app-hail companies, like Uber and Lyft, stand to profit immensely by this plan. There is a radical reshaping of transportation going on in New York City. As critics say, “Follow the money.”

The M.T.A. plans to reassess CP after a year or so. But, we agree with the main premise of the community lawsuit, whose plaintiffs include a number of familiar Downtown activists, represented by attorney Jack Lester: CP’s environmental and economic impacts should have been fully studied beforehand — in a full-scale E.I.S., as opposed to a less-rigorous environmental impact assessment, or E.A.S., which was all that was done.

Still, we support CP’s goals: cleaner air, quieter and safer streets (what about the ever-growing number of e-bikes, though?) faster mass transit, fewer cars in our residential district.

Tom Fox, an urban-planning visionary who helped create Hudson River Park, backs CP. As for Lower East Side activists’ concerns that it will increase pollution and traffic along the F.D.R. Drive, as the E.A.S. maintains, Fox — who also founded New York Water Taxi — countered: “There won’t be more pollution. The wind blows from the west.”

Wind patterns or not, though, congestion pricing certainly seems like a leap of faith — especially when done without an E.I.S.