Governor’s congestion pricing pause is unlawful, three lawsuits argue

While more than half a dozen lawsuits challenge the legality of starting New York City’s congestion pricing program, three new lawsuits argue that stopping the new toll is unlawful.

In July, Riders Alliance, Sierra Club and New York City Environmental Justice Alliance filed a state lawsuit against Gov. Kathy Hochul, the New York State Department of Transportation, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority and the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority. On the same day, City Club of New York, a not-for-profit corporation promoting good governance and transparency in the Big Apple, filed a similar lawsuit.

Although the two lawsuits differ in their main arguments, both claim the governor overstepped her authority by unilaterally stopping congestion pricing, which was directed by the state legislature.

Governor and state DOT lack authority

The lawsuit filed by residents claims that the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority has the sole authority over the congestion pricing program.

Congestion pricing became a legal directive in 2019 through the Traffic Mobility Act. Plaintiffs in the case argue that the plain language of the act granted sole authority over all matters of congestion pricing to the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority to avoid politicization of the program.

As a way to circumvent the limitations of her power, Hochul ordered the state DOT to withhold its signature from a Federal Highway Administration tolling agreement. The commissioner, who was appointed by the governor, followed the directive.

The lawsuit claims that this refusal to sign the FHWA agreement is the only thing that prevents the implementation of congestion pricing. In the event the state DOT signs the agreement or its signature is deemed unnecessary, “congestion pricing would immediately become a reality,” the lawsuit states.

Violation of state environmental laws and rights

The lawsuit filed by public transit riders and environmental groups claims Hochul’s decision to pause congestion pricing violates state environmental laws and the state constitution.

In the same session that passed the Traffic Mobility Act, New York state lawmakers also passed the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act. The law requires the state to reduce greenhouse gas emission by 40% by 2030 and no less than 85% by 2050.

According to the lawsuit, the climate act requires the executive branch to ensure its decisions help achieve those goals. Congestion pricing is identified as a key component of the strategy to address climate change. Therefore, the lawsuit argues, Hochul’s decision to block the program violates the Climate Leadership and Community Protection Act by not fulfilling her obligation to reduce certain emission.

Plaintiffs also argue that Hochul violated the state constitution. In 2021, 70% of New York voters approved of an environmental rights amendment to the state constitution. The amendment simply states that “Each person shall have a right to clean air and water and a healthful environment.” The lawsuit claims the governor’s abrupt pause of congestion pricing “deprives the people of New York of the air quality protection that the Legislature provided in the Traffic Mobility Act.”

Comptroller’s legal charge

Lawsuits challenging Hochul’s congestion pricing pause are being led by New York City Comptroller Brad Lander.

Just one week after Hochul announced her decision to pause congestion pricing, Lander announced a team of attorneys had entered into a joint defense agreement to explore legal action.

The above lawsuits complete a trio of planned lawsuits. One week before the environmental groups, New York City residents and public transit riders filed their lawsuits, the first lawsuit was filed on behalf of bus riders and bus drivers. Attorneys are also considering a fourth class-action lawsuit for straphangers with disabilities who are affected by the lack of accessible station improvements. LL