Editorial: ‘Pause’ applause — Hochul hits brakes on congestion pricing

For weeks the news was dominated — until panic over Joe Biden’s fitness to run for reelection recently bumped it — by outraged articles about Governor Kathy Hochul having put an “indefinite pause” on congestion pricing. The nation’s first-of-its-kind plan was set to start June 30 — until Hochul slammed on the brakes, saying New York residents and businesses simply could not afford it right now, especially amid the city’s still-tenuous post-pandemic rebound.

It was a gutsy call. But the governor has stood by it despite the noise and hysteria. She’s the state’s chief executive, out of hard-boiled Buffalo politics. She showed leadership.

There’s been much hyperventilating by transit advocates — and pandering politicians, including notably Comptroller Brad Lander — over Hochul’s decision. But the fact is, per a Sienna poll, there is “bipartisan opposition” to congestion pricing, with 63 percent of New Yorkers against it — including majorities of Democrats, Republicans and independents — and only 25 percent for it.

Fourteen percent of those surveyed would travel into Manhattan less were the toll implemented; that’s a lot of people and clearly would hurt our borough’s economy.

Congestion pricing also would, unquestionably, pass along higher costs from tolls paid by trucks entering the zone (Manhattan south of 60th Street) to merchants and, in turn, local residents. Plus, zone residents absolutely should be exempt from the toll.

While a judge recently shot down several New York City lawsuits brought against congestion pricing, the fact is that one of these suits’ central claims — that a full environmental impact statement should have been done for the massive proposed plan — is a powerful argument. An environmental impact assessment, which has a much lower bar, was not enough.

Also, again, no question, an economic impact assessment must be done to show us how congestion pricing would affect struggling local mom-and-pop shops and other businesses that are the backbone of our local economy.

On June 26, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board O.K.’ed Hochul’s pause by a vote of 10 to 1. While transit advocates howl that a huge hole now has been blown in the M.T.A.’s capital budget, Hochul, an experienced politician, obviously did not take this step lightly. She will find ways to replace the funding so the M.T.A. can do what must be done, if the Legislature lets her. Troubling, though, is the massive fare evasion — and infamously bad planning — that drains hundreds of millions of dollars from the M.T.A. coffers every year. The M.T.A. needs rigorous auditing.

Manhattan community boards in the zone have mounted a furious rear-guard action, passing resolutions saying congestion pricing must be implemented. This push started at Community Board 5, where members of the “astroturf” pro-development group Open New York now run the show. Several of the other boards that cover parts of the area south of 60th Street dutifully fell into lockstep. Tellingly, not among them was Community Board 3. C.B. 3 includes the East Village and Lower East Side, parts of which are de facto transit deserts and “environmental justice communities,” where residents are largely people of color and low-income. Data show congestion pricing would actually increase traffic and pollution in some of these areas. Refusing to be rushed, C.B. 1, representing Lower Manhattan, has not signed onto the letter, wanting to more carefully assess how it does or doesn’t align with the board’s already-stated position.

In addition, the Stuyvesant Town/Peter Cooper Village Tenants Association, Murray Hill Neighborhood Association and others — tens of thousands of hard-working residents living in “the zone” — flat-out oppose the toll.

We do support congestion pricing’s goals: fewer cars on our streets, less pollution, more M.T.A. revenue for essential projects. But its potential negative impacts absolutely must be given a harder look. Plus, who would benefit from this plan — and lobbied hard for it? App-hail companies like Uber, Lyft and Revel. How come these companies are not being asked to pay into congestion pricing — since, under the plan, their tens of thousands of cabs would continue to be circling our streets inside “the zone”?

Similarly, many of the most outspoken transit advocates, groups and publications, like Streetsblog, that decry Hochul for daring to defer on congestion pricing, are financed by the same hedge funders who are bent on revamping the city’s streets — i.e., obsessed with eliminating cars. Again, we are fine with fewer cars, that’s a good thing. It’s known as the “war on cars.” Yet, it’s not O.K. if that war’s collateral damage are the fixed-income, lower-income and middle-class residents and small merchants south of 60th Street.

Perhaps after November’s election — or next year’s gubernatorial election — Hochul will ease the pause. Maybe she will start by tolling trucks — and then cars, though at a much lower rate than $15. Maybe she will broaden the tolling zone. But the current plan was punitive, regressive and would have hurt Manhattan’s economy and the pocketbook of hard-working New Yorkers both living south of 60th Street and elsewhere.

Everyone take a deep breath. We will work it out.