BY LINCOLN ANDERSON | With America’s first-ever congestion pricing plan set to start in June, intense pushback is building — notably including from the man who originally set the scheme in motion, former Governor Andrew Cuomo.

In addition, four city councilmembers — Carlina Rivera, Christopher Marte, Erik Bottcher and Keith Powers — representing Downtown and Lower Manhattan recently quietly expressed their concern about the toll plan’s impact on residents living in the congestion zone — all of Manhattan south of 60th Street. Under the plan, all of this area is officially deemed the Central Business District — though locals living in much of it have always considered it simply to be…their home.

Basically, the politicians asked that transit improvements funded by the new toll should be first made in the CBD before other parts of the city, and also that there be a deeper residential discount program than the limited one currently planned.

In a March 7 letter to Janno Leiber, the M.T.A. chairperson and C.E.O., the four pols wrote, “As representatives of residents who live below 60th street and in the heart of the Central Business District, the successful implementation of congestion pricing and a program that is equitable to our constituents is a top priority for us. … [W]e ask that the finalized regulations focus on addressing residents’ concerns in the program’s immediate impact area, including a residential discount program and allocating funds towards projects and programming to improve the Central Business District transportation network. … [U]sing the revenue generated [by congestion pricing] to address the Central Business District transit network first would go a long way in alleviating the growing pains during the shift away from their current methods of transportation.”

However, Lower East Side activist Tommy Loeb, a plaintiff in a community lawsuit against congestion pricing, panned the letter as “late to the game after all decisions have been made and no plan to make change. Classic cover your a–.”

Lots of lawsuits

Meanwhile, the lawsuit to which Loeb is a party, plus several ones by other plaintiffs — including by New Jersey, the United Federation of Teachers, the Staten Island borough president and the N.A.A.C.P. — are all pending.

On March 11, in an opinion piece in the New York Post, former Governor Cuomo flat-out declared it was “time to hit the brakes” on congestion pricing. As governor, he advocated for the novel traffic plan, signing it into law in 2019. But now he says he opposes it — at least at this moment.

“Many things have changed since 2019 and while it is the right public policy, we must seriously consider if now is the right time to enact it,” Cuomo said. “New York City still hasn’t recovered from COVID; office occupancy is still at only 48.9 percent. For many, traveling to the city is no longer a necessity — and for some it is an unwelcome hardship.

“What impact will an additional $15 entry surcharge have on New York City’s recovery in this moment — when the migrant crisis, crime, homelessness, quality of life and taxes are all pressing problems?

“More important, the policy’s success hinges on people’s confidence that mass transit — which is still operating 29 percent below pre-pandemic ridership levels — is a safe alternative.”

In his column, Cuomo also slammed “local leaders” for not demanding an independent environmental impact study for the scheme or insisting that the revenue raised be “put in a lock box for more transit police” and for stopping fare beaters, who are draining millions from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority each year, he noted.

Cuomo comeback?

Charles Komanoff, a leading advocate for New York City congestion pricing, for one, was disappointed by Cuomo’s aboutface. There are rumblings Cuomo is eying a possible run for mayor.

“I think it’s ill-timed, ill-conceived and ill-fated,” Komanoff said. “The sad thing is he’s desperately trying to stay politically relevant. And seeing the jitters [about congestion pricing], he’s thinking it may help him. But it won’t stop congestion pricing.”

A Harvard-educated Tribeca resident who “refounded” Transportation Alternatives in 1986, Komanoff prides himself on his “Balanced Transportation Analyzer,” an Excel spreadsheet that can spit out 160,000 “equations.” On Oct. 10, 2017, at a high-powered meeting at the Empire State Building, at their request, he presented the device to Cuomo staffers and the city and state Department of Transportation and M.T.A., to help them, as he said, “frame” the congestion pricing plan, convincing them to move ahead with the bold idea.

Komanoff called Cuomo “brilliant” for deciding to set a firm “revenue target” for the M.T.A. under the plan. That means the toll rates can’t really be lowered and exemptions must be kept to a minimum.

“If you’re going to raise a billion dollars a year, it has to bite,” Komanoff said. “It means it’s going to price some drivers off the road — and that’s going to decrease traffic.”

As for the resistance, he shrugged, “The same thing happened in London and Stockholm. Within a year, it’s going to be accepted.”

Other laws that “upended the status quo,” as he put it, from the pooper scooper law to the ban on smoking in bars and restaurants, were eventually accepted as part of everyday life, as the traffic fee will be, too, Komanoff assured.

“Congestion pricing is like a slam dunk for New York City,” he enthused. “Trucks will come in faster and have fewer parking tickets. There’ll be less traffic, less honking, less aggression.”

Small trucks will pay a $24 congestion toll, large ones $36. All overnight rates would be 75 percent less.

‘To raise a billion a year, it has to bite.’

— Charles Komanoff

Komanoff basically accused the plan’s opponents of ignorance.

“It’s sad,” he said. “They don’t know how to run [traffic] numbers, they haven’t run the numbers. This is not a back-of-the-envelope thing.

‘Some will take a hit’

“A few hundred or a few thousand people will take a hit,” he conceded. “Some will have to dig into their pockets and pay — but they will get a faster commute, fewer traffic snarls, more places to park.”

For residents in the zone who use their cars for work, such as to carry equipment or tools to jobs around the metro area, Komanoff said to get creative. For example, they could “store” tools at spots outside the zone or double up their loads to make fewer trips.

Told that, East Villager Chris Ryan, a movie technician who is married to former City Council candidate Allie Ryan and is another plaintiff in the community lawsuit, hit the roof.

“I literally have a small futon mattress, heater, extension cord and changes of clothing in my vehicle due to the odd, unpredictable hours, weather conditions, safety concerns and scenarios I face,” he said. “I rarely know what borough I will land in — ranging from Staten Island Boy Scout camps to Far Rockaway beaches, the Bronx and everything in between — and often don’t know what county or state we will be working in. But no matter where I go, I return home to the Central Business District residential zone and get billed $15. And 3 to 5 grand a year is not a simple inconvenience for a working-class family of four.”

London calling?

While residents in London’s congestion zone get a 90 percent toll discount, Komanoff said that would not work here.

“There’s five times as many people” in Manhattan’s congestion zone as London’s, he said, noting, “If you were to do that, you’d be taking away a noticeable chunk of the [M.T.A.] revenue.”

In addition, drivers from the boroughs would complain that an exemption for Manhattanites living in the zone was unfair, Komanoff said, calling it “bad optics.”

“They would resent it,” he said. “It would be untenable.”

The plan is that New Yorkers who earn less than $60,000 annually can apply for a tax credit to offset the congestion toll.

Another oft-heard complaint is that elderly or other New Yorkers who need to drive to hospital appointments, for example, will be socked by congestion pricing. To which the transit advocate said, “Most of ’em can take a bus or train. If they’re driving grandma to Sloan Kettering for chemo or whatever, the trip is only going to take 20 minutes instead of 40 — and that’s going to be good for grandma sitting in the front seat.”

Business impact

But others, like Susan Lee of New Yorkers Against Congestion Pricing Tax, another community lawsuit plaintiff, warn of the traffic toll’s impact on businesses, specifically restaurants in Manhattan’s Chinatown. In response, Komanoff did a study, holding a clipboard outside Great N.Y. Noodletown, at 28 Bowery, during lunchtime one day last May. In a half hour, 32 diners came on foot or by subway, three by bike and two by car or taxi. He admitted it was a nice spring day, which encouraged walking and biking.

Basically, Komanoff said he has studied Manhattan congestion pricing exhaustively and is confident it’s the right call.

“I know more about this thing — its benefits — than anyone on the planet,” he declared.

Of course, a major reason for New York City’s congestion has been the explosion of for-hire vehicles, such as Uber and Lyft, over the past decade. This has flooded the streets with around 80,000 vehicles, many of them plying Manhattan’s CBD. In fact, in 2019, according to New York City D.O.T., FHV’s comprised a whopping 30 percent of “Manhattan core traffic.” Last October, City Hall tried to exempt electric vehicles from the FHV cap, but a temporary restraining order is blocking that move, thanks to a lawsuit by the New York Taxi Workers Alliance. Komanoff filed an affidavit in support of the lawsuit.

TransAlt’s take

Transportation Alternatives, the group Komanoff revived in the ’80s, is one of the biggest supporters of congestion pricing.

Emily Jacobi, T.A.’s Manhattan organizer, said, “New York City is the most traffic-congested city in the United States — and this congestion fills our air with pollutants, harms our pedestrians and bike riders, traps our emergency vehicles in car traffic, and costs our metro area well over $20 billion annually. The status quo is deeply inequitable — especially for lower-income New Yorkers or New Yorkers of color, who are less likely to own cars and significantly more likely to ride transit to work. With fewer cars in the Central Business District, it will be easier for shipping and freight to make more deliveries in less time, ambulances to speed to hospitals, and workers who rely on cars to work more efficiently. New York City must implement congestion pricing now because driving a personal vehicle into Manhattan comes with real costs for everyone — especially our youngest and oldest New Yorkers, who are especially impacted by traffic crashes and asthma from car exhaust.”

Former Councilmember Kathryn Freed, who is also part of the class-action lawsuit against congestion pricing, agrees with Cuomo that now is not the time for the scheme.

“Yeah, he’s saying everything we’ve been saying,” Freed shrugged of Cuomo’s op-ed.

As for Komanoff, she retorted, “Charlie doesn’t understand because it’s not his air and his health that are being impacted.”

L.E.S. traffic increase

As Freed wrote in a talking point in The Village Sun this past December, congestion pricing actually would increase traffic and pollution on the Lower East Side along the F.D.R. Drive between the Brooklyn Bridge and E. 10th Street, since the Drive — like the West Side Highway — would not be tolled.

“I do have 9/11-related respiratory problems. If he knew that his air quality was going to get 19 to 26 percent worse, he might be a little concerned about it,” she said of Komanoff. “Why is it always the areas that are people of color or where people are older who always get screwed?”

She added, “Allowing the 85,000 Ubers to drive in this area for free — they will be polluting.”

Meanwhile, the Lower East Side, where Freed, who is also a retired judge, lives on Grand Street is a transit desert. It’s at least a 15-minute walk for her to reach a subway station (Delancey/Essex Street, which does not have an elevator and is not scheduled to get one). Plus, she feels the transit system currently is not even safe.

‘People are afraid to go into the subways.’

— Kathryn Freed

Subway safety

“Just last week, three people got pushed in front of the subway,” she said. “The problem is a lot of people are afraid to go into the subways. I won’t go into the subway at night, I’m an older woman. There are so many people with mental problems. We need to solve that problem before people go back into the subways.”

Like others, Freed is skeptical that the M.T.A. would even make good use of the congestion revenue. She noted some recent agency clunkers on everything from supposedly fare-beater-proof turnstiles that failed to new subway cars without doors in between them — meaning no escape from disruptive or reeking passengers.

“Does anyone really expect these guys to come up with a proposal that works?” she asked.

Meanwhile, Freed continued, people who have automobiles in Manhattan have them for a purpose.

“They have cars because they have relatives to visit or for medical visits,” she noted. “It’s not easy to drive a car in Manhattan. I drove a cab for a while. I lasted like nine months. People drive in the city when they have a reason — you don’t do it for fun.”

Like others, Freed warned congestion pricing will spark an exodus.

“The middle class will leave,” she said. “They showed that they’ll leave during COVID. What are they turning Manhattan into? A place for healthy young people who can ride bikes, who can walk a mile to the subway. Anyone who has a disability, anyone who is older is going to leave.”

Komanoff suggested Freed just “get a beater” bike to ride to the subway. However, she has a condition that makes it unsafe for her to bicycle.

M.T.A. not bending

Regarding the community lawsuit, Jack Lester, the attorney representing the plaintiffs, said the M.T.A. is not compromising.

“The M.T.A. is adamantly opposed to any sort of settlement,” he said.

Lester said five cases against congestion pricing — two from New Jersey, three from New York — were recently combined in a New Jersey court.

“The magistrate asked that everyone submit proposals, which we did,” he said. “She reported to us that the M.T.A is against any settlement.”

The New York City community lawsuit’s key point is that a full environmental impact statement, or E.I.S., for congestion pricing must be done.

The attorney said the toll would be “devastating” for people on fixed incomes or living paycheck to paycheck — and that this should have been studied under an E.I.S.

“The problem with saying most people who have cars are wealthy is there’s no data to support that,” Lester said. “What about an E.M.S. worker, teacher, musician? The number of people that will be horrendously impacted is endless.” Without an E.I.S., he said, “We can’t point to any statistics that will tell you exactly what the impacts will be.”

According to city D.O.T., in 2019 half of all vehicle trips into the Manhattan CBD were by those earning $100,000 or more, with only 5 percent earning under $25,000.

‘E.I.S. is essential’

Instead of an E.I.S., the M.T.A. only conducted a less-rigorous Environmental Assessment Statement, or E.A.S.

Meanwhile, Lester said, other revenue-raising alternatives for the M.T.A., such as bond issues or using the real estate surplus tax, have not even been considered.

“They did a voluminous E.A.S., that’s true,” he said. “But all the findings of impacts were ignored. The M.T.A. either came to the wrong conclusion or chose to ignore it.”

In short, the M.T.A. declared the E.A.S. findings showed that implementing the plan would have “no significant impact” and left it at that. And yet, for one thing, all the E.A.S. scenarios found that pollution and traffic would rise along the F.D.R. Drive, as Freed has noted.

April 4 in district court in New Jersey will be the first chance for a judge to weigh in on the contentious congestion pricing issue. The New York City community lawsuit will be decided in a New York court. Lester said all the cases will be decided by June.

“Congestion pricing is unprecedented,” he said. “It’s been undertaken nowhere else in America. Is the M.T.A. using the good citizens of New York as guinea pigs? It’s a very paternalistic, government-knows-best approach.”

Teacher’s torment

Meredith LeVande, another one of the local lawsuit plaintiffs, lives on the Lower East Side and works as a music teacher for special-needs kids at seven different Bronx public schools. Sometimes she travels to more than one school per day.

Six mornings a week, she loads her Honda with two guitars (she brings two so she doesn’t have to stop to fix a string if one breaks), a speaker, wireless mic, cables and classroom props, then drives one block to the F.D.R., and zips up to the Bronx.

“Twenty years ago I tried to take a stripped-down version of my gear on a subway — and I got stuck in the subway doors,” she said. “And there are no elevators [in the station]. There’s no way to carry all of this stuff on the subway — and the subway is close to a mile from my home.”

Plus, she said, even if she could physically manage it, she is not comfortable lugging all her gear to the subway in the early mornings when it’s still dark out. Her car is protection.

“There were kids beating each other up on the street and I Instagrammed it,” she said. “I have seen people brandishing weapons. If you have a lot of equipment, you’re not in a position to defend yourself.”

LeVande attended an M.T.A. public hearing on congestion pricing in late February. She bristled when a member of the agency’s Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee stood up and called car owners “privileged.”

‘It’s like a war on car owners.’

— Meredith LeVande

“Most New Yorkers cannot afford to own or regularly drive a car,” the PCAC member, Kara Gurl, testified. “It’s not at all unreasonable to ask those with the privilege of owning their own private vehicle to pay for the negative impacts they inflict on New Yorkers — fumes and pollution, unsafe streets and roads, constant noise and congestion at all hours of the day.”

Gurl branded car owners against the traffic toll “entitled traffic-lovers.”

“I’m not privileged enough to afford housing near the subway,” LeVande retorted. “It’s much more affordable to own a car than for me to pay $2,000 a month more in housing. I just find that a completely elitist statement.”

In fact, she said she moved to the Lower East Side from Washington Heights for cheaper rent.

“I service students that really, really need me, marginalized children,” LeVande said. “It makes a difference in their lives. I’ve been labeled a privileged polluter just because I drive one block [to get onto the F.D.R. Drive] to drive to the Bronx.

“This is like a war on people who own cars,” she fumed, “and, like, if you own a car you’re destroying the world. The idea that if you own a car, it puts you into the top 1 percent of wealth.

“This is America,” LeVande said, indignantly. “I think we’re going down a very dangerous slope if government is going to say, ‘You don’t have a right to drive home without paying us.’

“It’s something,” she said, “that literally keeps me up at night.”