Court leaves truckers stuck with higher congestion pricing tolls

A trucking group’s second swing at lowering New York’s congestion pricing tolls for trucks was another miss, and the judge is not giving the association a third shot.

Congestion pricing in New York City has been controversial since the day it was proposed. There have been numerous attempts to undo the program, including President Donald Trump vowing to eliminate it. All of those efforts have been unsuccessful.

About eight federal lawsuits have been filed challenging New York’s congestion pricing program. Nearly all of them attempt to undo the program entirely by focusing on the environmental review process. In June 2024, Judge Lewis J. Liman, a Trump appointee, severely gutted those lawsuits.

After Trump returned to office, the federal government took multiple shots at eliminating congestion pricing in the Big Apple. That prompted New York officials to sue the federal government. On March 3, Judge Liman again shot down an attempt to end the tolling program.

In the background of all these legal challenges to stop congestion pricing has been a lawsuit that focuses on truck drivers. The complaint is unique from all the others, which is why it has survived previous court ruling, albeit hanging on a thread.

On March 10, Judge Liman drove the final nail into the Trucking Association of New York’s lawsuit challenging congestion pricing tolls for trucks.

Unlike the other lawsuits, the association was not asking the court to get rid of congestion pricing entirely. Rather, the association claimed that the higher toll rates for trucks are unconstitutional.

New York’s original toll rate was $15 for passenger vehicles. Motorists would be charged the toll only once a day, regardless of how many times they entered the central business district. Large trucks, on the other hand, would be charged $36 every single time they entered the congestion pricing zone.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Traffic Mobility Review Board found that trucks make up only 4% of traffic in the congestion pricing zone. It also found that the “vast majority of those who drive to the (central business district) have access to transit,” including commuter rail, urban rail and express bus options.

The New York association took issue with trucks paying much higher tolls despite accounting for only 4% of traffic. Adding insult to injury was that trucks are charged every time, while passenger vehicles are charged once per day. Even worse, trucks have no other options, unlike other motorists.

In May 2024, the association sued MTA and other local and state officials, claiming that congestion pricing truck rates violate the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause. Those original allegations were twice struck down by Liman, first through a preliminary injunction and then through a subsequent dismissal.

In the original complaint, the association argued that congestion pricing imposes a financial burden on trucks that is “not a fair approximation of their use of the central business district.”

Conversely, MTA’s report stated they “have an outsized impact on congestion, because of their large size and large turning radii, their parking patterns, and the noise and air pollution they cause.”

Liman dismissed that claim, stating that the toll rate rationally reflects trucks’ bigger size and contribution to pollution, i.e. one truck contributes to congestion more than one passenger vehicle. He also found that there is no “constitutional significance” between a toll charged multiple times per day and one charged once per day.

The trucking association’s Supremacy Clause claim was based on the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act (F4A), which prohibits states from enacting laws that have an effect on prices, routes or services of motor carriers.” However, Liman ruled that congestion pricing does not impact those factors.

In his dismissal of the original complaint, Liman said that congestion pricing “does not bind motor carriers to undertake any particular service or route or charge a certain price, nor bar the provision of any identified service, route, or price that they might wish to provide.” Customer needs may require them to go into the central business district during peak times, but the congestion pricing itself does not.

After its original complaint was dismissed without prejudice, the association took a second bite at the apple with an amended complaint.

According to the court, the amended complaint “contains no relevant additional facts beyond those already considered” in the original complaint that was dismissed.

“… retreads the exact same arguments it previously pressed before this Court, on the exact same facts, with no acknowledgement thereof,” Liman states in the order.

This time, Liman dismissed the claims with prejudice, meaning the trucking association cannot take another shot at a second amended complaint. In a statement to Land Line, the association called the ruling “unfortunate” but remains hopeful that a solution can be found.

“With this ruling, we are discouraged that trucks will continue to yield this disproportionate burden,” the association said in a statement. “However, it does not have to be that way, and we hope that a middle ground solution which introduces pricing parity, while reducing congestion, a position which (the Truck Association of New York) has stood by since the pricing framework was first announced can be found. We will continue to advocate for all New Yorkers at this critical moment and are currently evaluating all options which remain in front of us.” LL