New York Gov. Kathy Hochul Kills Congestion Pricing
In a surprise move, the governor axed a plan to start charging drivers $15 tolls to enter lower Manhattan starting at the end of June.

After years of public engagement, foot dragging from federal officials, and multiple obstructionist lawsuits, New York's congestion pricing plan was ready to roll. Come the end of the month, sensors and cameras were ready and waiting to charge most drivers $15 tolls for entering Midtown Manhattan and below, with the money earmarked for New York's transit system.
Today, Gov. Kathy Hochul killed the plan.
Passed by the New York Legislature in 2019, congestion pricing was "enacted in a pre-pandemic period when workers were in the office five days a week, crime was at record lows, and tourism was at record highs," said Hochul in a video announcing the policy's surprise death. Now that everything has gotten worse in the city "the planned congestion pricing system risks too many unintended consequences at this time," she said.
Technically, Hochul is indefinitely pausing the implementation of congestion pricing. The policy's supporters worry that if it can't be implemented now, it will never be.
"I'm very upset that suddenly, out of the blue, this would pop up. If we stop congestion pricing now we're never going to get it," said Sen. Liz Krueger (D–Manhattan) to The New York Times. Urbanists and transit advocates were likewise infuriated at Hochul, calling her decision a "betrayal."
Congestion pricing, whereby tolls are used to manage traffic congestion throughout the day, is at its root a good idea. Cities around the world have used it to keep traffic flowing in their central business districts. A few places in the U.S. also have congested price lanes where drivers pay dynamic tolls to travel in free-flowing lanes.
New York's planned congestion pricing scheme fell short of the best-designed congestion pricing programs. It would have charged a flat toll, limiting its effectiveness at actually reducing congestion.
The program was also primarily sold as a bailout of New York's subway system, which helped alienate drivers who'd have to pay the tolls.
"They didn't lead with, 'We're going to stabilize traffic flow and therefore benefit you as motorists,'" Marc Scribner, a transportation policy researcher at the Reason Foundation (which publishes this website), told Reason last year."You can understand the knee-jerk reaction from a lot of motorists is that this is a cash grab."
Politicians from commuter communities around New York lined up to oppose the policy. The State of New Jersey sued to stop it, as did the teachers union.
Up until yesterday, it looked like these opponents would fail to derail congestion pricing. Now Hochul has done their wet work for them.
The cash grab is now defeated. New York's traffic problems will remain.
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
Given that NY is essentially a one-party state, the legislation did not encounter political gridlock.
I don't get it
Dark humor is like food -- not everyone gets it. -- Stalin
The order wouldn’t of been stuck and jammed up
NY should keep the political pedal to the metal like California does and drive the state's economy into the ditch. Even though they're tapping the brakes in this policy, they're still speeding towards fiscal destruction.
That said, the surprise decision did spark a worthy discussion.
Is it possible democrats realize they should not give more reasons to avoid NYC?
I rarely say anything good about Hochul, but she's right here. I find it ironic that a magazine that seems to think Third World migrants who haven't paid taxes have an absolute right to travel about the country, but taxpayers (non-Manhattan NYC and NY State) should have to pay a tax for the privilege of using roads they already partly paid for.
Also, the strategies of NYC to deliberately slow and congest traffic in the city is already well documented. Of course, I couldn't expect Christian to suggest his friends give up their bike lanes. That might be awkward for the little fella.
In case there's any doubt:
https://nypost.com/2016/12/02/new-york-citys-traffic-is-intentionally-horrible/
She could have been right months ago or from the beginning. It's only a problem now because it's an election year. She will go back to being wrong after the election. You might want to save your breath.
""Also, the strategies of NYC to deliberately slow and congest traffic in the city is already well documented.""
Indeed.
It was just a path to forcing more tolls.
You bet she will. Hochul is WEF.
Don't think for a minute that I don't know this is utterly dishonest and that she's a vile totalitarian b**ch. But, on the substance of this issue, she's at least temporarily taking the right position. Even if she'll betray it the day after election day.
I can't stand congestion pricing. However, I do not know if she has the actual authority to do this. It was passed by NYS. If she does not have the authority to do so, then it is an illegal order.
The purpose is to delay the implementation until after the election. They are scared dems will lose votes if implemented. Therefore the purpose of the delay is to affect the outcome of the election and she may be using an illegal method to do so. Will Alvin Bragg be on the case? Of course not.
The MTA put out a lot of money building the infrastructure and was expecting money to be rolling in on July 1. They definitely have grounds to sue the Gov.
The benefit of my pocketbook cheers if congestion pricing fails. But I don't believe a gov can ignore laws passed by the legislature that way. It's an impeachable offense.
Fat Alvin is too busy releasing violent criminals back onto the streets and persecuting Trump with bogus and dubious charges.
Wow, this is something that makes this libertarian think I could strategically and reluctantly vote for Hochul.
Some billionaire dudes are opening a non DEI on boards of directors stock exchange in Texas, -seriously . This is the equivalent of Apple or Meta ditching California. She’s in panic mode
It's a potentially tricky question from a libertarian standpoint.
On one side, it's an additional tax on the use of public infrastructure being used to raise funding for collectivist uses. On the other, a "congestion toll", if well constructed, is a market-based solution which increases the cost to use a limited resource when demand is higher
Didn't Hocul and James already get rid of the need for this by declaring capitalism and profits illegal in NY?
I believe that was just fair juries.
Congestion pricing or no congestion pricing, I'm staying out of Manhattan for fear of improperly classifying a journal entry.
LOL^^. Or lit on fire in the subway etc.
Don't forget over-valuing your property.
Why would anyone pay to drive in Manhattan?
There is some entertainment value. Lots of crazies wandering the streets. Fat Alvin doesn't mind.
Fuck New York.
Fuck Hochul.
Fuck Joe Biden.
End.
Congestion pricing, whereby tolls are used to manage traffic congestion throughout the day, is at its root a good idea.
This is not a libertarian website.
No. Christian is a progressive who loves central planning. He is in favor of big business and "the rich" working with government to remove freedoms from everyone else. He might couch it in some sort of liberty dressing, but it all comes down to classist rhetoric trying to create an economically oppressed class with few freedoms or choices
If this were a doctrinaire libertarian site, they would advocate private ownership of streets, which would be paid for by charging tolls.
Let’s imagine ourselves in the libertarian utopia, where we’d have private road systems, and they were somehow able to compete with one another—i.e., if I want to get from A to B, I can choose which of multiple private roadways to get me there, so there’s no monopoly on a given route.
Wouldn’t we expect to see the emergence of something very much like congestion pricing? To maximize revenue, the operators would presumably charge low prices during low-traffic hours, so that they could get as many toll-paying drivers as possible on uncrowded roads. During high-demand hours, they’d charge much higher prices, trying to get the highest possible level of use consistent with quick and smooth flow. Congestion would be contrary to their interests, both because it’d drive away potential customers and because slower throughput means fewer tolls per hour.
And even on a government-managed transportation system, congestion pricing seems like the most libertarian possible approach to traffic management. What alternatives are there? Rationing, e.g., even-numbered-plates one day, odd numbers the next? Government-issued ratings, like the ones used during WWII (top rating for official business, down to bottom rating for tourist travel)? We’ve seen how well rationing works with things like gasoline and toilet paper; isn’t it better to let the market decide?
Pay for use, of any government service, is the least bad tax… If, and only if, it is the only tax.
Like Tepper crashing New Jersey’s budget, the fleeing of the financial district to flat tax or no income tax states will have predictable consequences for New York.
Let’s imagine ourselves in the libertarian utopia, where we’d have private road systems
Wait, stop - why is that a libertarian utopia? Libertarians are capable of understanding, accepting, and advocating that there is a proper purpose of government. The question here is, is "manage traffic congestion throughout the day" by means of tolling on roads one has little choice but to use, one of them?
the most libertarian possible approach to traffic management.
Why do you think "managing traffic" is something a libertarian would ever concern themselves with? To say nothing of the notion that a usage tax is the best way TO manage it?
We're already taxed FOR the road that they can't even manage in the first place. Now we get another one because of their incompetence?
What if your trunk bear is armed?
https://x.com/BeesLittleRanch/status/1798565811818541363
Hmmmm, this doesn't sound like a WEF stooge/liberal at all. Looks fishy to me. Stay tuned for more.
I would bet Rush Limbaugh would have had something to say about her.
As for Manhattan, I have no plans to ever visit that toilet.
Rats on the west side
bed bugs up here
What a mess
This place is in tatters
I've been shattered
Shattered
Hochul knows the thing that nobody on the left is willing to say out loud in public.
The only thing that "progressive" voters hate more than ideas dissenting from their own is to live with the real-world results of the policies they claim to believe are necessary to bring about "equity".