Gov. Kathy Hochul’s decision to “indefinitely pause” congestion pricing in Manhattan is likely to reverberate for decades, much like the former New Jersey governor Chris Christie’s decision in 2010 to block construction of a badly needed new rail tunnel under the Hudson River.
Both were short-term choices that pushed aside critical long-term investments in the most mass-transit-dependent metropolitan area of the nation. The decision by Mr. Christie, which he said was based on the project’s cost, compromised the region’s competitiveness, economy and environment. Ms. Hochul’s could do the same.
Mr. Christie’s move earned him the enmity of many New Jersey Transit commuters, who never know whether their trip to or from work will turn into a hellish, hourslong ordeal on tracks owned by Amtrak that have suffered from decades of underinvestment and compound New Jersey Transit’s own problems. The plan he killed would have cost an estimated $12.4 billion and been completed by now. A project to build new tracks and another tunnel under the Hudson River is now underway, but it will take at least another decade and about $16 billion to complete.
Ms. Hochul’s action raises questions about whether congestion pricing, which was set to begin at the end of the month, will ever happen. It will mean continued congestion on some of the world’s most traffic-stymied streets and no relief from the air pollution from auto and truck exhaust. And it will leave the Metropolitan Transportation Authority without an expected $1 billion a year in toll revenue that the agency planned to use to secure $15 billion in bond financing for desperately needed improvements to the transit system.
This is not the right way to run the nation’s largest mass transit agency.
Congestion pricing of course has its critics. Most automobile drivers would pay a fee of $15 during peak hours to drive into Manhattan south of 60th Street. But the idea had essentially universal support from environmentalists, transit advocates, economists and policy experts. The fee was expected to reduce traffic in the city’s core by as many as 120,000 vehicles a day, significantly improve traffic congestion and reduce the exhaust that is fouling Manhattan’s air.
London and Stockholm have had similar programs in place for decades. After implementation, London immediately saw a 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions and a 37 percent increase in bus transit use. The results in Stockholm were similar and that city also saw a nearly 50 percent reduction in childhood asthma cases. (Children in the Bronx suffer from one of the highest rates of asthma in the country.)
We are having trouble retrieving the article content.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.
Thank you for your patience while we verify access.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.lucky pot