Will NYC congestion pricing start Jan. 5? Here’s what a judge said in key court documents

As the final hours of 2024 ticked away, the metropolitan region’s commuters waited with bated breath about whether more clarity would be provided about a federal judge’s decision on the merits of a case brought by New Jersey to upend congestion pricing.

A more than 70-page decision was publicized by Judge Leo M. Gordon on Monday night, less than a week before the tolling program was set to begin Jan. 5. Both sides declared victory — leaving the public confused about whether vehicles would be tolled to enter Manhattan below 60^th Street on the newly established start date.

“The decision did not include an injunction to prevent the congestion pricing program from going forward, therefore it can go forward,” said John Reichman, a Montclair lawyer who submitted an amicus brief on behalf of several environmental groups supporting the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s tolling plan.

However, Bruce Nagel, a lawyer from the Roseland-based firm Nagel Rice who represented Fort Lee, some New Jersey residents and other municipalities that fought the congestion pricing plan, disagreed.

“It is our firm belief that by determining that the federal agency did not properly perform an environmental review and that the document known as FONSI, a finding of no significant impact, was flawed — that by definition means that the congestion pricing plan may not move forward on Sunday,” Nagel said.

He added that he and the other lawyers representing New Jersey, including Randy Mastro who was hired by Gov. Phil Murphy to represent the Garden State, have requested the court to clarify their position before Jan. 5. Nagel said Gordon did not discuss his decision in a conference with the lawyers Monday before the decision was publicized online around 5 p.m.

Earlier: NYC congestion pricing will move forward as planned as lawsuit proceeds — in part

Background of the legalese

Constituents, commuters and counsel alike have waited for Gordon’s decision since legal arguments were made in Newark in April.

A decision was supposed to be handed down before the program’s original June 30 start date, but it was suddenly halted by Gov. Kathy Hochul. The New York governor said she was concerned about affordability for residents, though several reports suggested it had more to do with appeasing suburban voters before the November elections. Hochul revived the plan Nov. 14 — nine days after the election — and brought down the starting toll to $9, saying it would go back up to the original $15 by 2031 using a phased-in approach.

After the revival, Judge Gordon ordered the parties — including New Jersey, the Federal Highway Administration and the MTA — to try to settle the lawsuit, but no agreement was reached.

“We’ve made multiple offers to settle this lawsuit, very generous offers, wish I could describe them to you because you would say generous, but I’m not at liberty to do that,” Hochul told reporters Dec. 18.

She continued that she did not think New Jersey was negotiating in good faith. Mahen Gunaratna, a Murphy spokesman, did not comment on questions about the settlement discussions or offers.

Details on the decision

Gordon wrote that “the court affirms the FHWA’s determinations in part and remands in part,” but includes no language that indicates the program could not begin Jan. 5.

The Murphy administration accuses the FHWA of failing to require a more thorough study of the potential adverse environmental impacts in New Jersey and that the MTA arbitrarily committed money for mitigation in New York, but not across the Hudson River. The FHWA and MTA argue they followed the law to enact the program, which its supporters say will reduce congestion, improve air quality and the tolls will fund wide-ranging improvements to public transportation.

Of the six general areas the Murphy administration accused the FHWA of acting “arbitrarily” or out of compliance with federal law, Gordon disagreed with New Jersey on four.

On the fifth issue — regarding the MTA’s decision to provide financial mitigation commitments in New York but not New Jersey — Gordon remanded it back to the FHWA and MTA “for further explanation, and if appropriate, reconsideration,” according to the decision. On the sixth topic — which had to do with considering alternative tolling plans — Gordon wrote the record did not support New Jersey’s arguments, but said “the court is not ready to sustain” the FHWA’s decision-making because of changes made in November to phase in the $15 toll.

The FHWA and MTA have until Jan. 17, 2025 to answer the order to remand. New Jersey will have until Jan. 29 to respond to that and final response comments will be due Feb. 11.

The timing matters greatly.

President-elect Donald Trump vowed to end congestion pricing after he is inaugurated Jan. 20, but that will be harder to do if the program is already under way.

If the program moves forward, it will be the first congestion pricing program in the country and will set some precedent for other American cities that may consider enacting a similar tolling scheme. However, other legal challenges could impact the program with several lawsuits still pending, including from the Trucking Association of New York, the United Federation of Teachers and a local Staten Island chapter, and residents of Battery Park City.

This article originally appeared on NorthJersey.com: Will NYC congestion pricing start Jan. 5?

EMEA Tribune is not involved in this news article, it is taken from our partners and or from the News Agencies. Copyright and Credit go to the News Agencies, email news@emeatribune.com Follow our WhatsApp verified Channel