Trump Kills New York's Flawed Congestion Pricing Program
Federal transportation officials said that because New York's congestion tolls were really about raising money for mass transit, they didn't qualify for an exemption from the federal tolling ban.

It's gone again.
On Wednesday, the Trump administration withdrew federal authorization for New York's short-lived congestion pricing program that tolls drivers entering a cordon covering lower Manhattan.
In a letter to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that New York's congestion-priced cordon did not qualify for an exemption to the general federal prohibition on tolling federal-aid highways because it did not provide drivers a toll-free option and because its primary purpose was funding transit, not reducing congestion.
"New York State's congestion pricing plan is a slap in the face to working class Americans and small business owners," Duffy told the New York Post, which first reported on his letter.
President Donald Trump gloated about the policy's demise on Truth Social.
The latest post by the President of the United States. pic.twitter.com/1DTqNiYJ7D
— Yashar Ali ???? (@yashar) February 19, 2025
In her own statement, Hochul—who had issued her own shock suspension of congestion pricing in June 2024, only to revive the program shortly after the November 2024 elections—promised to sue over the cancellation.
MTA, the state agency that runs New York City's subways and would receive the congestion toll revenue, has already sued the Trump administration.
Governor Kathy Hochul responds to President Trump's king post.
"Public transit is the lifeblood of New York City and critical to our economic future - as a New Yorker, like President Trump, knows very well.
Since this first-in-the-nation program took effect last month,… https://t.co/Eijk5ZXi24
— Yashar Ali ???? (@yashar) February 19, 2025
Thus continues the long, troubled, clownish saga of congestion pricing implementation in New York City.
The "cordon pricing program" was first authorized by the New York Legislature back in 2019, with the twin goals of raising money for New York City–area rail transit and reducing traffic in the badly congested areas of lower Manhattan.
The initial plan was to begin charging drivers tolls in 2021, but the program's implementation was delayed by numerous practical and political hurdles.
Because New York would be tolling federally funded highways, the federal government would need to grant an exemption to its general ban on tolling.
The path for doing this involved New York's acceptance into DOT's Value Pricing Pilot Program (VPPP), which allows for a limited number of states to experiment with congestion pricing programs on federal-aid highways.
Before the federal government could admit New York to the VPPP, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) required it to produce an environmental study of New York's congestion pricing program.
A NEPA review is no small order and involved the federal highway officials producing a near-1,000-page report (not counting the multiple appendices) and collecting 28,000 pages of public comments. It wasn't until June 2023 that the federal government finalized its environmental findings.
The finalized report merely kicked off endless rounds of litigation from congestion pricing critics. New Jersey, teachers unions, and more, all sued the federal government for allegedly failing to do a thorough-enough environmental analysis of the project.
Nevertheless, New York barreled ahead with implementation. It installed tolling cameras and formulated actual toll rates—which were initially going to be $15 for the average driver.
Then in June 2024, just a few days before tolls were supposed to go into effect, Hochul made the shock move of suspending the final implementation of congestion pricing.
The program had first been approved when "crime was at record lows, and tourism was at record highs," the governor said at the time, arguing that the sudden implementation of congestion pricing carried the risk of too many unintended consequences.
Soon enough, however, Hochul had a change of heart, and by November 2024, plans were in the works again to start tolling drivers a $9 toll to enter lower Manhattan come January 2025.
Even under the higher $15 tolls, academics were predicting a muted effect of the program on traffic congestion.
In a November 2024 paper, Stanford University's Michael Ostrovsky and the University of Chicago's Frank Yang argued that New York's policy of charging taxi cabs and for-hire vehicles like Uber and Lyft (which make up a significant share of Manhattan traffic) much lower tolls to enter the congestion zone would mute the impact on congestion.
Similarly, Ostrovsky and Yang also say New York's plan to charge full tolls between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and charge steeply discounted tolls outside that time period will minimize its impact on congestion. Delivery drivers (another major source of traffic) could avoid the full tolls by entering the congestion zone early in the morning and staying in the zone during peak hours.
Preliminary data on the first month of congestion pricing bore out those predictions.
A congestion tracker supervised by Brown University professor Emily Oster found that in the first month of congestion pricing in Manhattan, congestion on bridges and tunnels leading into Manhattan is down but congestion within the priced cordon has remained the same.
"It's having an impact on travel behavior outside the zone but it doesn't appear to be having a measurable impact within the zone. That's a big problem," says Marc Scribner, a transportation researcher at the Reason Foundation (which publishes this website). "What is the purpose of cordon pricing? It is to reduce congestion within the cordon."
Scribner says that the apparent minimal impact on traffic is a product of the Manhattan tolls being primarily used as a funding tool for New York mass transit. The tolls were therefore set to maximize revenue and reduce political pushback, not minimize congestion. The Trump administration therefore has a point when it says that New York's congestion pricing scheme doesn't align with the purpose of the VPPP.
Nevertheless, Scribner says the Trump administration's cancellation of New York's congestion tolls is an example of the outsized powers federal officials have over nonfederal transportation policy.
"This suggests that the federal government has too much authority of states and localities to toll their own infrastructure and implement road pricing. That's really something that Congress should address," he says.
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
He needs to ask congress.
Uhm, why? It's a discretionary waiver of a law that Congress already passed and (apparently) following the waiver rules set forth in that same law.
Because that is the theme of this site. It was written in sarcasm font which reason doesn't allow.
I was wondering if my sarcasm detector was miscalibrated.
On a more serious note, I wish that people here (and online generally) would use sarcasm a LOT less. It is so rarely done well that I think have the apparent arguments on this site are from misinterpretations of intended sarcasm.
typo - should be "I think half the ..."
Sarcasm is the second lowest form of humor. For the lowest form check out snl
When you're going for clapter rather than laughs, that's the lowest form of humor.
So you just want to silence people?
Where's Rick James with the "Hello fellow teens" meme when Reason turns on its heel wrt to free markets and congestion pricing?
I actually came here to point that out-- that suddenly Reason seems critical of mass surveillance "if done right". But I didn't recognize the author name so I thought he might be the token opinion writer that accidentally gave the wrong opinion.
edit: Actually no I was reading the wrong author on the wrong article. So I don't know why we suddenly pivoted from "hooray congestion pricing" to not-so-hot on it.
Not to call you out. Really, I'm just readying myself to be knocked over by a feather when it turns out that either Section 230 *isn't* the first amendment of the internet or that the poverty and pricing in places like Puerto Rico and Guam is primarily because they're far-flung island nations, routinely ravaged by storms, that are largely kleptocracies propped up by more stable and prosperous economies rather than held back by The Jones Act.
Any day now...
..required it to produce an environmental study of New York's congestion pricing program.
Why?
Because the first thing bureaucrats want is to increase their fiefdoms: more money, more subordinates, more regulations.
Because the last thing bureaucrats want is to solve the problems that created their jobs.
Or in short: FYTW.
The process is the purpose.
Sounds like a lot of lawyers got paid and isn't that really the most important thing?
But was it a diverse group of lawyers?
My bad. Let me take another shot at it. Isn't the skin color of the lawyers that got paid really the most important thing?
"Similarly, Ostrovsky and Yang also say New York's plan to charge full tolls between 5 a.m. and 9 p.m. on weekdays and charge steeply discounted tolls outside that time period."
That's not a sentence.
What a Nazi!
Ackshyually...
Claim: Federal transportation officials said that because New York's congestion tolls were really about raising money for mass transit,
Verdict: Partly true!
Headline in Seattle Times:
Trump administration orders halt to NYC toll meant to fight traffic and fund mass transit
I like to go by the one-drop rule. One drop of reducing traffic makes a pound of 'funding mass transit' null and void.
This is too bad.
New Yorkers need to suffer more.
They don't necessarily need to suffer, they just need to pay for the services they want. Just like those living in suburbia or in rural areas need to shoulder the costs of their chosen lifestyle.
Democracy is the rich making the poor pay for the rich's preferred lifestyle and moral grandstanding.
That’s why we have to sAvE oUrDeMoCrAcY!
>The finalized report merely kicked off endless rounds of litigation from congestion pricing critics. New Jersey, teachers unions, and more, all sued the federal government for allegedly failing to do a thorough-enough environmental analysis of the project.
Oh dear, New York's big government Democrats hoisted by the big-government-petard they built themselves.
What's going to be funny is watching them completely reverse themselves about how they shouldn't have to follow the law . . . because reasons.
Ugggg. I like the idea of reducing traffic in cities, but I really hate tolls. I will come down on the no-toll side.
I do my part to reduce traffic in big cities.
I stay out of them.
Doesn't Reason have a libertarianish adjacent think tank that has spent decades writing thousands of words read by dozens of people, some of whom are not even close relatives, expounding on the virtues of forcing the underclass to pay tolls to drive on roads that they have already paid for via fuel taxes? Will I have to revisit my formerly held assumptions to maintain my libertarian cred? What the fuck happened to the free market solution to ROADS?
From the article: "In a letter to New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said that New York's congestion-priced cordon did not qualify for an exemption to the general federal prohibition on tolling interstates because it did not provide drivers a toll-free option and because its primary purpose was funding transit, not reducing congestion."
These would seem to be the claims worth grappling with in this story, and the article doesn't really address them. Is it true those are the requirements for skirting the federal prohibition? Are there examples of this elsewhere in the country? How has this been interpreted previously? Is a toll-free option required?
Similarly, is it true that the aim of the plan was to fund mass transit? Can that be a secondary aim of the program, or does mentioning it at all automatically disqualify it? I'm sure there aren't easy answers, which is why this will end up in court for interpretation, but, like...we can at least speak to NY's aims, right?
We can assess part of Duffy's claim, at least, by visiting governor.ny.gov and reading Hochul's statement upon implementing the tolls.
It starts with these bullets:
- Toll Reduction to $9 for Cars Will Save Drivers Up To $1,500 Annually
- Commuters Will See New and Improved Subway Service, Second Avenue Subway Extension, Investments in LIRR and Metro North, and Elevator Service for Seniors and People With Disabilities
- Outer Borough Residents Will Benefit From Proposed Expansion of Bus Service and Plans To Build Interborough Express — Eliminating 30 Minutes Of Commuting Time Between Brooklyn and Queens
- Governor Directs MTA To Make Responsible, Targeted Investments and Find $100 Million in Annual Savings; Commits to Funding 2025-2029 Capital Plan
- Governor's Comprehensive Approach Wins Support From Broad Coalition of Environmental Advocates and Business Groups
Four of those are statements about how this will fund MTA, and the fifth says some environmental advocates and business groups like it.
The first full graf then reads: "Governor Kathy Hochul today announced a plan to begin implementing congestion pricing in New York City by early January. In keeping with her promise to lower the cost of tolls from $15, the Governor’s plan features a 40 percent reduction in all tolls for vehicles entering the City’s Central Business District (CBD), saving commuters up to $1,500 per year. That plan also includes new tools to reduce congestion and air pollution in communities citywide – all of which will ensure that the plan achieves the goals of congestion pricing, including $15 billion in mass transit funding to support the MTA’s current Capital Program. Additionally, Governor Hochul committed to funding the proposed 2025-2029 MTA Capital Plan that was approved by the MTA Board in September – the largest capital plan for transit in New York State history."
“Public transit is the lifeblood of New York City and critical to our economic future - as a New Yorker, like President Trump, knows very well.
Well you stupid cow, either throw the bums out and clean up those transit sewers and attract more riders OR raise the fares. A $9 fare should match those lost funds.
Too local.
Bans and Fines (taxes), are these really the only two levers our "leaders" can pull?
Replacing them with AI is sounding better and better...
Hmmm it is the subway... So replace skynet with subterranean net?
According to my Facebook page my Dem friends are really into congestion pricing in NYC all of a sudden.
Weird.
The Left has decided that the poor have got to go!
Only the American poor. The Left has a raging boner for poor foreigners.
What Interstate highways are being tolled? The only Interstates that enter the congestion zone are the Queens Midtown, Brooklyn-Battery, and Holland Tunnels, and they all already had tolls. In fact, entering the zone through one of those tunnels (or the Lincoln Tunnel) gives drivers a discount off the $9 congestion-zone toll. And aren't the congestion tolls still in effect at this time, despite Trump's order?
That these are not Interstate highways is, in fact, exactly what the Secretary of Transportation's letter banning the congestion charge points out ( https://www.scribd.com/document/830190408/Trump-administration-terminates-approval-of-congestion-pricing ).
See, the issue is that any road built with Federal highway funds can't be tolled, with some exceptions. The only one of those exceptions that specifically authorizes cordon pricing is one that allows it on certain parts of the Interstate system. Since these roads aren't part of the Interstate system, they're not covered by the specific authorization to use cordon pricing.
That leaves a vague statutory authorization of "value pricing pilot programs" (the phrasing used in 1998 to replace 1991's "congestion pricing pilot projects"). The Feds have never previously authorized, as a VPPP, a case where the VPPP either used cordon pricing or didn't provide a toll-free alternative. Thus there is no precedent for counting this specific program as a valid VPPP.
Without such a precedent, the Secretary of Transportation then goes on to evaluate whether the plan is designed to reduce congestion, and concludes it is not. He therefore concludes this unprecedented plan does not constitute a valid VPPP, and therefore is illegal. He then points out that the previous authorization given by the Feds to go ahead with it as a VPPP did not include any analysis to sustain the conclusion that the plan was legal, and therefore cannot undermine the conclusions of this new evaluation.
I'm 100% against any tolling on the bridges and tunnels.
What I want instead is for them to be blown up.
But if w blow them up the manhatinites will be stuck on their island. Iswydt. Well played
If the state of New York wants to pay for their roads themselves, then, fine, they can. Just don’t use federal highway funds. The control of federal highway funds as both a carrot and a stick, to control state actions is nothing new. It was used to force the rest of the country to implement the idiotic 55 mph speed limit. That was the Carter Administration. And, indeed, it was essentially almost impossible to exceed 55 mph either in Manhattan, or on the Interstates (including the Beltway) in DC at the time (on the DC Beltway, at the time, it was a functional problem, due to the quality of the roads and the congestion). Never mind that in most of the country, outside DC, Manhattan, and other small Dem enclaves, the 55 mph speed limit was ludicrous. Hoist onto their own petard.
HEY LOOK DOGE -----------------> U.S. Department of Transportation
MORE Cuts!!!!
There is no Constitutional Authority for a 'Department of Transportation'.
I was not a supporter of this but changed my mind. Congestion really has declined. Buses are running closer to schedule. Those willing to pay the $9 are experiencing shorter commutes. And air pollution levels have also declined.
NY is still collecting the fees and probably will continue to do so for a long time as this is litigated. NY has been repeatedly sued over this and has won every case. It probably will win this one too.
No, they will not win this case.
The congestion is intentional by NYC. They have intentionally reduced the number of lanes for traffic (bike lanes and entire areas blocked off for pedestrians). It started with Bloomberg and never changed.
It is being used to fund the MTA and to not take care of traffic and pollution.
This could not be a more clear violation of the interstate commerce clause.
Major Fool and Kamala Fool were at the very top of the responsibility list
Statement from New York City Comptroller on Biden Administration’s Approval of Congestion Pricing
May 5, 2023
https://comptroller.nyc.gov/newsroom/statement-from-new-york-city-comptroller-on-biden-administrations-approval-of-congestion-pricing/