New York's congestion pricing toll for car trips entering Manhattan below 60th Street remains good-to-go — for now — after two federal judges denied requests from a batch of plaintiffs in separate cases to stop the long-awaited fee.
Federal Judges Lewis Liman, in Manhattan, and Cathy Seibel, in White Plains, both denied requests that the toll plan be halted until plaintiffs could make their case in court — determining that the suits would likely fail if they go to trial.
Judge Liman's ruling came in response to suits filed by the United Federation of Teachers, the Trucking Association of New York, a coalition of Lower Manhattan residents and the group New Yorkers Against Congestion Tax. Judge Seibel's came in response to a suit from Rockland and Orange counties.
In rejecting an injunction, which would have put the Jan. 5 congestion pricing launch on hold, Judge Liman made clear he does not see how the plaintiffs would be adversely impacted by tolls that will reduce traffic, speed up commutes and deliveries and improve the air, the economy and public transit.
"Plaintiffs fail to establish a likelihood of success on the merits for any claim, do not show that they would be irreparably injured absent an injunction, and do not show that the balance of the equities and the public interest support an injunction," Liman wrote in his massive, 111-page decision.
Congestion pricing opponents have thrown a kitchen sink at the tolls, including that the MTA's years-long environmental assessment was not sufficient, that the toll violates the Constitution's Commerce Clause by impeding the right to travel, that the toll violates the New York State Constitution's "Green Amendment" that establishes a right to a healthy environment, and that the cost of the tolls will harm businesses and individuals.
Liman rejected every single one of those arguments. None of the plaintiffs provided any evidence "showing that they will suffer incalculable financial injuries," he wrote.
The Trucking Association, for example, offered "no evidence that [congestion pricing] will actually result in increased costs for the trucking industry or that the Program will not have the congestion-mitigating effects that the models predict," Liman said in his decision.
"While [congestion pricing] imposes a cost on motor carriers entering the CBD, it is expected to lower their operating costs," he said. "Trucks are projected to spend less time in traffic, and thus the cost of each delivery will be reduced by corresponding savings on labor and materials."
Liman did concede that the MTA's environmental assessment "provides some support" for the claims of environmental harm from increased pollution outside the tolling zone. But he said the plaintiffs failed to show how the pollution would be "injurious to such a level that it will constitute irreparable harm." (Indeed, the MTA's environmental study showed that slight increases in pollution in isolated areas remains well within federal standards.)
Congestion pricing will "reduce congestion thereby improving regional air quality, providing safety benefits, improving worker productivity, reducing noise pollution, among other benefits," Liman wrote.
"Numerous studies have established that the congestion addressed by [congestion pricing] itself, if unchecked by that program, will also continue to impose tremendous costs on individuals and businesses throughout the New York metropolitan region," he said. "Those costs are economic and environmental."
As for the constitutional argument, Liman said that both the dormant Commerce Clause and right to travel claims were thin gruel.
In the case of the former, the judge opined that since the toll applies to people who live inside and outside of New York, it doesn’t discriminate against out-of-state commerce. Similarly, Liman wrote that the plaintiffs couldn’t prove they would be prohibited from travel, even if the toll posed a minor inconvenience to them.
Hours after Liman released his decision on Monday, Seibel read hers from the bench in federal court in White Plains. Like Liman, Seibel denied the injunction request because she doubted any of the arguments from Rockland County Executive Ed Day and Orange County Executive Steven Neuhaus would win at an actual trial.
Seibel did acknowledge the political disagreements afoot, but she said not having a one-seat ride into Manhattan does not rise to the level of a violation of someone’s Constitutional rights.
“There are pros and cons of living in Rockland and Orange counties, and this is a con,” Seibel said about the prospect of having to pay to drive into lower Manhattan. "But this being a con doesn’t make congestion pricing unconstitutional.”
The suit from the two Hudson Valley counties was the legal equivalent of throwing spaghetti at the wall and seeing what stuck. The county executives argued that congestion pricing violates the equal protection and due process rights of their residents as well as the right to travel, and that the toll is an unauthorized tax and an excessive fine prohibited by the Eighth Amendment.
But the two counties had “no likelihood of success on any of their claims” if the case went to trial, Seibel concluded.
The Republican-appointed judge failed to be persuaded by arguments that funding transit with the tolls make it illegal, that a toll itself is a tax, that drivers won’t benefit from congestion pricing, or that the plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if congestion pricing begins.
Coming to Rockland County’s argument that congestion pricing was irrational because it does not exempt electric vehicles, the barrister made a simple point: e-vehicles are still vehicles.
“There is a rational basis for not exempting electric vehicles, because they also contribute to congestion,” she noted.
Congestion pricing advocates celebrated the ruling, and said they would continue to fight to get better options for the residents of the Hudson Valley.
“Riders are the biggest winners today as the start of the nation’s first congestion pricing program approaches,” said Lisa Daglian, the executive director of the Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA. "Nearly 90 percent of commuters to the central business district rely on transit, but everyone in and around the region will benefit from better air quality, less traffic, better bus speeds and faster emergency response times, and historic investments in critical transit infrastructure.
"There's no doubt that Rockland riders need better service — and a one-seat ride — and we're committed to continuing to be a voice for that change, even as we maintain strong support for New York’s historic congestion pricing program," Daglian added.
Liman still needs to issue a ruling on the some remaining issues in a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs and motion to dismiss the case filed by the MTA. Seibel said she’ll still consider the merits of the suburban counties' cases, but the schedule for that won’t advance until the MTA files a motion to dismiss on Jan. 15 — after congestion pricing is scheduled to begin.
The MTA celebrated the pair of rulings. A spokesperson said the transportation authority is ready to finally start the toll.
“We are gratified by the decisions from these Courts,” said MTA Chief, Policy and External Relations John McCarthy. “The cases have highlighted how extensively the Central Business District Tolling Program was studied, as well as the enormous benefits it’s expected to provide both to drivers and mass transit users... It’s time for congestion relief, and we are ready to go.
Reporting by Dave Colon in White Plains and David Meyer in New York.
