Trump Administration Urges Manhattan Judge to End Congestion Pricing, MTA Lawsuit Stalls Tolls for Now

New York’s fraught experiment with congestion pricing now hangs in the balance, as federal and local authorities spar in court over the future of urban mobility and transit funding.

For drivers inching down Fifth Avenue or trapped on the BQE during rush hour, New York’s war on congestion might seem as old as the Model T. Yet, in 2024, the city’s attempt at congestion pricing—the nation’s first such scheme—finds itself jammed in a legal back-up. Even as gantries blink into operation south of 60th Street, a courtroom far uptown is setting the pace.

Earlier this week, Sean Duffy, Secretary of Transportation, pressed Judge Lewis J. Liman to rule swiftly on an ongoing lawsuit that could determine whether the city’s controversial $9 toll for driving into lower Manhattan survives. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the State of New York are tussling with Duffy and, by extension, the Trump administration. The administration wants to reverse an agreement under the Value Pricing Pilot Program, a federal scheme that enabled the toll’s launch just months ago.

This showdown is as bureaucratic as it is political. President Trump declared the toll “dead” on Truth Social in February, celebrating his intervention as a regal rescue: “Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED. LONG LIVE THE KING!” Yet his administration’s efforts to pull the plug have met judicial red lights. In June, Judge Liman issued a preliminary injunction, finding the federal government likely overreached in its rush to shutter the program; he chided the feds for acting “arbitrarily and capriciously.”

That judgment left federal deadlines in the dust and kept the toll active for the lawsuit’s duration. But patience, Duffy argued through his attorneys, ought not to stretch indefinitely. With both sides now seeking summary judgement—essentially, a decisive thumbs-up or thumbs-down from the bench—a final ruling is promised by year’s end. Depending which way Judge Liman swings, the city’s $9 toll could become either a lasting fixture or a historical footnote.

For the city, the stakes are stark. The MTA bet heavily on expected congestion pricing revenue—estimated at $1 billion annually—to fund subways and buses, the sinews of the city’s transit network. Already bruised by pandemic-era ridership losses, the agency’s capital plan totters without these new dollars. The prospect of suddenly losing this lifeline bodes ill, particularly when much-needed repairs to tracks and signals wait in the balance.

Will the cars return if the toll drops? Probably, with a vengeance. New York’s traffic had surpassed pre-pandemic levels even before the current legal imbroglio. The toll’s short-lived implementation yielded early evidence of lighter traffic and diminished emissions in downtown Manhattan—though progress was hardly bucolic. Reverting would, at minimum, portend a return to gridlocked afternoons and puny travel speeds through the city’s economic core.

Local politics adds layers to the snarl. Anti-toll legislators, especially outer-borough and suburban voices, decried congestion pricing as an unfair tax on drivers and voted accordingly. Mayor Eric Adams and Governor Kathy Hochul, meanwhile, hailed the policy as a difficult but necessary modernisation. With the scheme stuck in the courts, campaign season is ripe for rhetorical high beams—though data, yet again, takes the backseat.

In global context, New York’s legal saga stands as a cautionary tale

Cities from London to Singapore have congestion charges, some running for decades, with effects largely considered positive: decreased car traffic and improved air quality. New York’s attempt was less radical than many, taking pains to cap rates and offer discounts for lower-income drivers. Yet its rollout exposed peculiarly American obstacles: legal filings from both the feds and the city, a swirl of executive orders, and a penchant for partisan theatre.

For all the drama, the central controversy remains a familiar one: who controls urban policy in America’s largest city, and who pays for its public goods? Local authorities argue that decisions about city streets and underground trains should, by all rights, rest with city dwellers and state leaders. The federal government asserts its prerogatives—especially when traffic crosses state and funding lines or when political fortunes are tied to drivers’ tempers.

The economic implications, too, sprawl beyond commuter grievances. A functioning, well-funded MTA is not just vital for New Yorkers; it buoyed the city’s $2 trillion metro economy and, by extension, America’s GDP. If federal busybodies kneecap the toll, they put at risk a transit system critical to growth and mobility far beyond Manhattan’s canyons.

No policy is perfect; objections abound. Some critics reckon the toll is regressive, others that it is too lenient, or that its carve-outs undermine fairness. But pretending that New York can have both a world-class transit system and endless, cost-free access for private cars is to indulge fantasy, not strike policy gold.

As the city and Washington spar, it is worth recalling that the tide of urbanisation and climate anxiety is unlikely to recede. Sooner or later, American cities will either find political courage to manage car traffic—with all the enmity and complexity that entails—or stumble along with roads and rails in chronic decay. We reckon the former, kludgy as it may be, is preferable.

For now, New Yorkers will have to wait for Judge Liman’s gavel to drop. Until then, the only certainty is more gridlock—on the streets, and in the courts. ■