New York's Congestion Pricing Hits a New Roadblock: New Jersey
A market solution to heavy traffic is mired in an interstate legal fight.

Since 2019, New York has sought to establish the nation's first congestion pricing zone, which would charge drivers fees for rush hour trips to improve traffic flows and raise funds for the city's dilapidated subway system. That plan to toll drivers entering lower Manhattan's gridlocked streets recently hit another roadblock: New Jersey.
Congestion pricing would provide important benefits to drivers themselves. Less gridlock means Manhattan's roads can handle more cars. Faster travel speeds allow people with pressing errands to get where they need to be on time.
New Jersey officials, however, argue that congestion pricing is a thinly disguised "shakedown" of their suburban constituents who commute to Manhattan. They complain that New Jersey drivers heading to New York would be charged thousands of dollars a year to pay for trains they don't use.
Because New Jersey's demands that New York exempt Garden State motorists from the toll scheme have fallen on deaf ears, elected officials are resorting to the courts. In July, New Jersey filed a lawsuit challenging federal officials' approval of New York's congestion pricing plan. That move could delay implementation for years.
The planned congestion fees would hit drivers on federally subsidized highways, which requires approval from federal highway officials. Before they could give New York the green light, federal regulators had to produce a lengthy report on any environmental effects congestion pricing might have, a requirement imposed by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
NEPA allows third parties to sue federal officials if they think an "environmental assessment" is incomplete. To head off such litigation, the Federal Highway Administration spent years producing a 958-page report detailing all the potential effects of congestion tolls. Creating that study delayed New York's implementation of congestion pricing from the initial target date of January 2021 to 2024.
As soon as the ink was dry on the study, New Jersey filed a lawsuit claiming more analysis was needed. If a federal judge agrees, congestion pricing might not begin before the decade's end.
Lawsuits like New Jersey's are "extremely normal," says Eli Dourado of the Center for Growth and Opportunity. "Plaintiffs bring a complaint [that] doesn't state the true objection to the project. They sue on environmental grounds because that's the course of action that's available to them."
Cynical NEPA suits have delayed everything from new highways to new windmills to space launches. They've become so common that liberals and conservatives alike blame the law for making America the "build nothing" nation. Unless the law undergoes some serious reforms, Manhattan's roads will continue to look like a parking lot.
Rent Free is a weekly newsletter from Christian Britschgi on urbanism and the fight for less regulation, more housing, more property rights, and more freedom in America's cities.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Manhattan's roads will continue to look like a parking lot.
Good!
Hmmm. An interesting situation. Whose ox is in the ditch here?
I guess New York city and state have an ox in the ditch - they want some (more) of somebody (else's) money and they're having a spot of trouble getting to it.
And New Jersey residents have an ox in the ditch - New York wants some of their money and have essentially voted taxes on them without representation.
But since New York City is where you go after you die if you have been a bad person, and I don't live there and am not going there under any circumstances, nor do I live in or plan to go to New Jersey (arguably an even worse place), I don't have an ox in the ditch, or a dog in the fight, or any skin in the game, and I really don't care what they do to each other, although mutual assured destruction has a nice right to it.
I actually don't think that NY city and state expect to get more of anybody's money here. The reports suggest (as does all logic and experience of human behavior) that consumers will react to the pricing information by changing their driving habits. And that's the whole point. I think NY expects to break even on the tolls (that is, no change in aggregate collections) - they just expect the distribution to change.
NJ commuters care because they don't want to change their behaviors and want to continue to externalize the costs of their decisions on the population at large.
But yeah, I'd be just as happy if both groups fell into the Atlantic someday.
I am making money from home with facebook. i received $15000 in this month for doing easily home job. I work in my part time only 3 to 4 hours a day on facebook. Everyone can earn more cash easily from home. For more information visit below this website....... BiteCoinTrader
Geologically speaking, that would require some really incredibly huge forces.
History suggests the politicians DO expect, but won't get, more money.
The New Jersey pols are making a "no taxation without representation" argument by any legal means necessary. New York is attempting to impose an equivalent of the Stamp Act on New Jersey commuters without their consent. Britschgi is apparently on the side of New York for utiliitarian reasons.
How is this significantly different in this particular aspect than any other toll charged by one state to residents of another? I.e.: Why is this particular scenario somehow different than the regular NYC bridge tolls on interstate traffic?
Genuinely asking.
It also seems not significantly different than any of the places that have highway lanes you can pay extra to use.
I'm not particularly arguing in favor of any of this, I'm just confused as to what makes this particular instance novel.
The novelty comes from the fact that NJ drivers are already paying $13 / $18 to cross the Hudson to a bi-state agency controlled by New York State (50%). That agency supports both state's port and transit infrastructure. IMO if the Hudson congestion toll funded capital plan deployed 50% of the capital to NJ, the state would have fewer objections.
Nonsense. Most states tax income earned by nonresidents within their borders; New Jersey commuters have been paying New York income taxes for generations. The congestion pricing thing is a terrible idea but it isn't a Stamp Act.
Only Reason would consider a government imposed tax on non-residents "a market solution".
I was about to ask how a government-imposed fee is a market solution.
I guess if you don't want to pay you can move to another country with better prices (fees).
Build your own Manhattan.
Manhattan, KS only has traffic in the late afternoon on Anderson Ave.
“A market solution to heavy traffic is mired in an interstate legal fight.”
Is this a market solution, truly? Just because there is a mechanism for variable pricing does not make for a “market solution”. You have government imposed costs, artificially manipulated by the bureaucracy, over monopolistic assets in an effort to manipulate the public into what he government considers more optimal behaviors. This is a rather cramped idea of a “market” and is not exactly “free” unless one just does not participate by avoiding going into NYC at all.
That's been my personal solution to the problem. Even when I lived in Atlantic City, I didn't think the trek to NYC was worth the time or effort or money.
The market solution is what they had before. I decide to pay the cost of driving into the city... the cost was being stuck in traffic or struggling to find a parking space. If I didn't want to pay that cost, I took the train or the bus. If I didn't want to pay THAT price, I stayed home.
That WAS a market solution.
Also, I refer you to the city of London, which banned private vehicles from driving in downtown London (except for a few commercial delivery vehicles IIRC) to solve the problem. Maybe NYC should do the same if "pricing" won't be allowed.
Baby steps.
Two Blue State Paradises duking it out in Court. LOL.
It is a shakedown. The taxpayer gravy train is running out and states are going to grab revenue any way they can.
New York, like Chicago and SFC need to get creative about new taxes and targets. How else can they continue to fund the urban progressive dream?
"Congestion pricing would provide important benefits to drivers themselves. Less gridlock means Manhattan's roads can handle more cars."
No, less gridlock means Manhattan's roads are handling fewer cars. Road capacity is not affected in any way by congestion pricing unless the money is used to add lane miles.
Lane miles is something NYC has been reducing since the Bloomberg days.
I can see why you’d think that but it’s not actually true. I can’t do the math justice in just a comment section but I can give you an analogy to explain the problem.
Consider a fire in a crowded theater. Everyone starts running for the too-small doors. Two guys up front get jammed together and not only can’t they get out but neither can anyone behind them. One way to fix the problem is to make wider doors. But that only works until three guys jam up the doorway. You can keep widening the door but eventually there’s an upper limit. The other way to prevent the jam is to have people wait their turn. That could be by putting a cop at the door to direct traffic or it could just be by having a high-trust culture. Either way, an orderly group can evacuate a constrained space FAR more quickly than a panicked crowd. Imposing order lets you get more people through the same bottleneck. That means you’ve increased capacity.
That’s not an exact analogy to what they’re trying to do with congestion pricing, though. The theater equivalent would not be a sudden fire but the planned staging of movie end times. If all the movies end at the same time, you’re all going to be jammed up in the parking lot. By intentionally staging the exit times, you've imposed a different sort of order such that not only will the average person get home faster but even the last person out will get home faster than he would in the ‘sudden release’ model.
The linear programming to prove that this works (and to define the edge conditions where it stops working) is a LOT of fun – at least, for certain geeky definitions of “fun”.
I can ge effectively a minimum of a 30% increese for the NY subway.
Fire all the lazy gov union employees, and switch to right to work
You can fire the government employees and then you will have to pay even higher salaries to replace them.
Lol. Why would you replace useless people?
Damn this thing is poorly written. I gave up after the first two paragraphs.
First the subhead:
Then the first two paragraphs:
No, cross subsidy is not a market solution.
No, if you reduce the number of cars to speed up commutes, you do not then allow more cars.
""city’s dilapidated subway system.""
That's want the MTA wants you to believe so they can pick your pocket more.
The population of drivers who benefit is different from the current population of drivers, or the population of tax payers.
You reason like a Soviet central planner, focusing on a bunch of visible benefits while being oblivious to hidden costs. For a libertarian magazine, that is sheer idiocy.
Wouldn't I just do something like impose a flat $1000 a year usage fee for cars from New York to enter the asphalt garden state? "Market solution, lol"
A market solution to heavy traffic is mired in an interstate legal fight.
"Market solution" lol
Jamal Bowman pleads guilty to misdemeanor for disrupting an official proceeding. Pouncing was soon to follow:
you can knock insurrection down to misdemeanor?
If only someone had told the J6 defendants.
^^^
Yes, but you have to sit in federal prison for 2 years with no charges filed then take a plea deal. Or have a D by your name.
>>Congestion pricing would provide important benefits to drivers themselves.
taxation is theft. where am I?
Taxation isn't theft. It pays for the government services you use.
Services I never asked for at a price that was not up for negotiation with a group that has a monopoly on violence and will not tolerate competition. Totally not theft. Neither is mafia protection money.
MY tax dollars pay for the government services YOU use.
That's why it's theft.
The market solution to NYC is bankruptcy. I really don’t give a crap if Reason billionaire benefactors have a significant part of their net worth in muni and state bonds. Oh well- you made on a bet, took a risk on NY financial governance to lower your tax bill- you lost! Free market Capitalism is RISK TAKING. The ratings agencies are worthless, anyone who didn’t have their head in the sand in 2008 realizes that. Anyone want to bet the big annuity firms are all over muni/state bonds?
https://www.data-z.org/news/detail/new-york-citys-debt-amounts-to-71400-per-taxpayer
The cost for traffic congestion should be bullshit you deal with being in congested traffic. Only greedy people would try to monetize that. It's still going to be congested traffic. Now you will still have to deal with the bullshit of being in congested traffic, AND the fact that your pocket is getting picked. That's a win win for people who hate humans.
Funny how progressive people in NY government do not seem to understand how this is a regressive tax that will affect poor NYC citizens the most. They should call it the keep the brown people's cars above 60th street tax.
Poor NYC residents don't own cars
And this is a damn fine disincentive for them to get one, you sick fuck.
I'm sorry. Is a large chunk of this article missing? I didn't see anything about a market solution.
Libertarians are Democrats who want to legalize weed.
I think an argument could be made that this is a market solution. If you are providing a product or service and find that demand is exceeding supply, that is the market telling you that you're price may be too low and you should raise prices.
Alternatively you could increase supply, but that's not really an option for Manhattan streets, so a price increase is in fact the appropriate market solution.
No, there is no market here. This is just another tax coupled to a weird regulation.
“New Jersey suburbs or single family homes and car ownership are literally Hitler or worse than Hitler”- Says every overpaid narcissistic nouveau urban planner and data analyst (white proggie guys) of the past two decades.
Congestion pricing is actually a *good* thing. It would be better tho if the roads were privately owned, but it's a start. If you want to drive a zillion miles from your cushy home in the burbs into the city, you need to pay for the privilege of using another state's roads that you aren't paying for now.
aswesd
So what SLAPP suits are to speakers, NEPA suits are to builders.
A market solution to heavy traffic is mired in an interstate legal fight.
Congestion pricing is not market based OR a solution.