Trump and DOT take action to stop NYC congestion pricing. Here's a timeline of the controversial toll.
Congestion pricing is on the ropes in New York City, as President Trump appears to be making good on a promise to kill the first-in-the-nation toll.
U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy sent a letter to New Yok Gov. Kathy Hochul on Wednesday pulling the federal approval for the program.
While the next steps remain to be seen, here's a look back at how the plan came to be.
History of congestion pricing: The early years
Congestion pricing was nearly 20 years in the making before it became a reality in New York City.
Taking a page from other cities like Singapore and London, then-Mayor Michael Bloomberg first proposed the plan in April 2007.
In an Earth Day address from the American Museum of Natural History, Bloomberg unveiled what he called "PlaNYC," a sweeping vision to make the city more sustainable.
"The time has come for New York to try congestion pricing: a carefully-designed charge for drivers in part of Manhattan during business hours. This solution is bold. It is also proven. Cities around the world have shown that congestion pricing can reduce congestion and speed travel times with no significant negative impact on economic activity," the plan read in part.
Under the initial proposal, most drivers would have been charged $8 to enter Manhattan below 86th Street from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays. The proposal called for exemptions for transit and emergency vehicles, taxis and handicap license plates.
The proposal reached the state Legislature, where a commission revised the plan, removing Manhattan's Upper East and West sides from the congestion zone, and calling for drivers to only be charged in the inbound direction.
Despite securing federal funding and City Council approval, the proposal was met with opposition in the state Assembly, particularly from the city's outer boroughs. Lawmakers blocked a vote to advance the plan before the funding deadline, effectively killing it.
Congestion pricing's (first) comeback
More than a decade after it was first introduced, reports surfaced in August 2017 that then-Gov. Andrew Cuomo wanted to resurrect the toll. He appointed what he called a "Fix NYC" commission to explore ways to alleviate traffic in Manhattan while funding improvements for the MTA.
"These are difficult choices, but difficult choices don't get easier by ignoring them," Cuomo said in his State of the State address in January 2018, including the plan in his budget proposal. Days later, the commission recommended a $11.52 toll for peak trips below 60th Street.
Then-Mayor Bill de Blasio initially came out against congestion pricing, favoring a millionaire's tax instead. He eventually hopped on board and endorsed it, as he and the governor announced a 10-point plan to fix the MTA.
Following a brief legal delay, the first congestion surcharge took effect in February 2019, targeting for-hire vehicles below 96th Street in Manhattan. It added $2.50 to base taxi fares and $2.75 for ride-share vehicles.
The next month, state lawmakers approved the broader toll in the budget, and started hammering out the details for other drivers. Months of debate ensued, as residents and lawmakers from the city, Long Island and New Jersey waited to learn how the tolls would work.
Congestion pricing was slated to start in January 2021, but the plan hit another snag from the federal government in February 2020, and then came the COVID-19 pandemic. The feds eventually gave the green light for the MTA to move forward with an environmental assessment in March 2021, and the political debate picked back up.
Later that year, Cuomo stepped down in a sexual misconduct scandal, and the project fell to Gov. Kathy Hochul.
Current battle over congestion pricing
In the summer of 2023, the feds approved the plan, clearing another hurdle. Several lawsuits were filed to stop the rollout, as the MTA's Traffic Mobility Review Board met to determine how much drivers would be charged, and the first toll scanners were installed.
Later that winter, the board recommended a $15 toll for most vehicles entering Manhattan below 60th Street during peak hours, from 5 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekdays and 9 a.m. to 9 p.m. on weekends.
Following a public comment period, the full MTA board voted on March 27, 2024 to adopt the recommended fees, discounts and exemptions. A month later, the agency said the new tolls would start on Sunday, June 30.
Then, just weeks before congestion pricing was supposed to begin, Hochul made the stunning announcement to pause the program.
"After careful consideration, I have come to the difficult decision that implementing the planned congestion pricing system risks too many unintended consequences for New Yorkers at this time. For that reason, I have directed the MTA to indefinitely pause the program," the governor said in a video statement on June 5.
The sudden pause left the MTA scrambling to fund several projects, and it was met with another round of lawsuits.
Then in November, after the 2024 general election, Hochul announced she was resurrecting the toll at a cheaper rate of $9 for most trips into Manhattan. The MTA approved the lower toll, and the feds also signed off later that month.
Despite a last-ditch legal fight, the congestion pricing tolls went into effect on Sunday, Jan. 5.
After the first three weeks, the MTA said travel speeds appeared to be improving, and more people were taking mass transit.
Nonetheless, opponents continued to ask President Trump and the federal government to kill the controversial toll. Late last month, CBS News New York learned the president had been in talks with the governor about the future of the program.
Hochul then canceled a meeting with Mr. Trump about congestion pricing after the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against New York over it's Green Light Law that allows undocumented immigrants to apply for drivers' licenses.
On Feb. 19, the U.S. Department of Transportation said it was terminating a November 2024 agreement with the state. The MTA quickly responded, saying it was filing court papers to make sure the program stays in place.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Sen. Rand Paul Blasts Trump Over Revoked Invite To White House Picnic
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Wednesday slammed President Donald Trump for uninviting him and his family from the White House picnic. Paul has opposed the Trump administration's decision to 'actively' seek to suspend habeas corpus. Habeas corpus — the constitutional freedom that translates to 'you should have the body' in Latin — ensures that detained individuals, whether or not they are citizens, are able to physically appear in front of a judge. 'I think I'm the first senator in the history of the United States to be uninvited to the White House picnic,' Paul told reporters on Wednesday. 'I just find this incredibly petty. I mean — I have been, I think, nothing but polite to the president.' The picnic is an annual event held by the White House on the South Lawn, which members from both aisles of Congress typically attend. 'They've decided they want to declare war on my family and exclude us from the White House, and I just think it's incredibly petty,' Paul added on Wednesday, saying that White House staffers are 'running sort of a paid influencer campaign against me for two weeks on Twitter.' Paul said his son, daughter-in-law and infant grandson were supposed to attend the picnic with him. He also added that he did not receive an explanation as to why they all were no longer invited, and he's not sure if the revoked invitation came from Trump or his staffers. Habeas corpus is 'one most fundamental rights we have,' Paul said. 'And the same people that are directing this campaign are the same people that casually would throw out parts of the Constitution and suspend habeas corpus. So, I think what it tells it they don't like hearing me say stuff like that, and so they want to quiet me down. And it hasn't worked, and so they're going to try to attack me.' Paul has drawn Trump's ire on more than one occasion in recent days. Earlier this month, Paul voiced concerns about Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' prompting Trump to take jabs at him online. 'Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming,' Trump said on his Truth Social platform. 'He loves voting 'NO' on everything, he thinks it's good politics, but it's not. The BBB is a big WINNER!!!' Paul also criticized Trump's upcoming military parade on Saturday, Trump's birthday. Paul told HuffPost the parade reminded him of the Soviet Union and North Korea. The White House did not immediately respond to HuffPost's request for comment. Trump Seethes Over Rand Paul Continuing To Oppose 'Big, Beautiful Bill' Trump Unironically Attends 'Les Misérables' As Protests Spread GOP Senators Freak Out When Asked About Trump's Military Parade Costing $45 Million
Hamilton Spectator
26 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
US governors are divided along party lines about military troops deployed to protests
California Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom is calling President Donald Trump's military intervention at protests over federal immigration policy in Los Angeles an assault on democracy and has sued to try to stop it. Meanwhile, Texas Republican Gov. Greg Abbott is putting the National Guard on standby in areas in his state where demonstrations are planned. The divergent approaches illustrate the ways the two parties are trying to navigate national politics and the role of executive power in enforcing immigration policies. In his live TV address this week, Newsom said that Trump's move escalated the situation — and for political gain. All 22 other Democratic governors signed a statement sent by the Democratic Governors Association on Sunday backing Newsom, calling the Guard deployment and threats to send in Marines 'an alarming abuse of power' that 'undermines the mission of our service members, erodes public trust, and shows the Trump administration does not trust local law enforcement.' The protests in Los Angeles have mostly been contained to five blocks in a small section of downtown; nearly 200 people were detained on Tuesday and at least seven police officers have been injured. In Republican-controlled states, governors have not said when or how they're planning to deploy military troops for protests. Since Trump's return to office, Democratic governors have been calculating about when to criticize him, when to emphasize common ground and when to bite their tongues. The governors' responses are guided partly by a series of political considerations, said Kristoffer Shields, director of the Eagleton Center on the American Governor at Rutgers University: How would criticizing Trump play with Democrats, Republicans and independent voters in their states? And for those with presidential ambitions, how does that message resonate nationally? Democratic governors are weighing a number of considerations. 'There probably is some concern about retributions — what the reaction of the administration could be for a governor who takes a strong stance,' Shields said. And in this case, polling indicates about half of U.S. adults approve of how Trump is handling immigration, though that polling was conducted before the recent military deployment. On other issues, Democratic governors have taken a variety of approaches with Trump. At a White House meeting in February, Maine Democratic Gov. Janet Mills told Trump, ' we'll see you in court ' over his push to cut off funding to the state because it allowed transgender athletes in girls' school sports. Michigan's Gretchen Whitmer, a possible 2028 presidential candidate, publicly sparred with Trump during his first term but this time around, has met with him privately to find common ground. Initially, Hawaii Gov. Josh Green referred to Trump as a 'straight-up dictator,' but the next month he told a local outlet that he was treading carefully, saying: 'I'm not going to criticize him directly much at all.' Democratic governors speaking out — but some cautiously Apart from their joint statement, some of the highest-profile Democratic governors have not talked publicly about the situation in California. When asked, on Wednesday, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul's office pointed to a Sunday social media post about the joint statement. Whitmer didn't respond. The office of Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, who is set to testify before Congress on Thursday about his state laws protecting people who are in the country without legal status, reiterated in a statement that he stands with Newsom. The office said 'local authorities should be able to do their jobs without the chaos of this federal interference and intimidation.' Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro, in an interview Wednesday in The Washington Post, said Trump should not send troops to a weekend protest scheduled in Philadelphia. 'He's injected chaos into the world order, he's injected it into our economy, he is trying to inject chaos into our streets by doing what he did with the Guard in California,' Shapiro said. As state attorney general during Trump's first term, Shapiro routinely boasted that he sued Trump over 40 times and won each time. As governor he has often treaded more carefully, by bashing Trump's tariffs, but not necessarily targeting Trump himself. GOP governors weighing in Florida Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis has often clashed with Newsom, a fellow term-limited governor with national ambitions . Newsom's office said DeSantis offered to send Florida State Guard troops to California. 'Given the guard were not needed in the first place, we declined Governor DeSantis attempt to inflame an already chaotic situation made worse by his Party's leader,' Newsom spokesperson Diana Crofts-Pelayo said in an email to The Associated Press. Speaking on Fox News on Tuesday, DeSantis said the gesture was a typical offer of mutual aid during a crisis — and was dismissive of the reasons it was turned down. 'The way to put the fire out is to make sure you have law and order,' he said. States are preparing for more protests this weekend Protests against immigration enforcement raids have sprung up in other cities — and a series of 'No Kings' demonstrations are planned for the weekend — with governors preparing to respond. In Connecticut, Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont said he has spoken with his public safety commissioner to make sure state and local police work together. 'I don't want to give the president any pretext to think he can come into Connecticut and militarize the situation. That just makes the situation worse,' said Lamont, who called Trump 'a little eager to send federal troops and militarize the situation in Los Angeles.' It is unclear how many Texas National Guard members will be deployed or how many cities asked for assistance. In Austin, where police used chemical irritants to disperse several hundred protesters on Monday, the mayor's office said the National Guard was not requested. San Antonio officials also said they didn't request the Guard. Florida's DeSantis said law enforcement in his state is preparing 'The minute you cross into attacking law enforcement, any type of rioting, any type of vandalism, looting, just be prepared to have the law come down on you,' DeSantis said Tuesday. 'And we will make an example of you, you can guarantee it.' ___ Associated Press reporters Nadia Lathan and Jim Vertuno in Austin, Texas; Sophie Austin in Sacramento, California; Isabella Volmert in Lansing, Michigan; Andrew DeMillo in Little Rock, Arkansas; Susan Haigh in Hartford, Connecticut; Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York; Marc Levy in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania; Kate Payne in Tallahassee, Florida; and Sophia Tareen in Chicago; contributed. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
Hamilton Spectator
26 minutes ago
- Hamilton Spectator
Trump's military parade is a US outlier in peacetime but parades and reviews have a long history
Troops marching in lockstep. Patriotic tunes filling the air. The commander in chief looking on at it all. The military parade commemorating the U.S. Army's 250th anniversary and coinciding with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday will be a new spectacle for many Americans. This will not be the first U.S. military parade. However, it is unusual outside of wartime, and Trump's approach stands out compared to his predecessors. The Army had long planned a celebration for its semi-quincentennial on June 14. Trump has wanted to preside over a grand military parade since his first presidency from 2017 to 2021. When he took office a second time, he found the ideal convergence and ratcheted the Pentagon's plans into a full-scale military parade on his birthday. The president, who is expected to speak in Washington as part of the affair, pitches the occasion as a way to celebrate U.S. power and service members' sacrifice. But there are bipartisan concerns about the cost as well as concerns about whether Trump is blurring traditional understandings of what it means to be a civilian commander in chief. Early US troop reviews Ceremonial reviews — troops looking their best and conducting drills for top commanders — trace back through medieval kingdoms to ancient empires of Rome, Persia and China. The pageantry continued in the young U.S. republic: Early presidents held military reviews as part of July 4th independence celebrations. That ended with James K. Polk , who was president from 1845 to 1849. President Andrew Johnson resurrected the tradition in 1865, holding a two-day 'Grand Review of the Armies' five weeks after Abraham Lincoln's assassination . It came after Johnson declared the Civil War over, a show of force meant to salve a war-weary nation — though more fighting and casualties would occur. Infantry, cavalry and artillery units — 145,000 soldiers, and even cattle — traversed Pennsylvania Avenue. Johnson, his Cabinet and top Army officers, including Ulysses S. Grant , Lincoln's last commanding general and the future 18th president, watched from a White House viewing stand. Spanish-American War and World War I: An era of victory parades begins The Spanish-American War was the first major international conflict for a reunited nation since the Civil War. It ended in a U.S. victory that established an American empire: Spain ceded Cuba, Puerto Rico, and Guam, and the U.S. purchased the Philippines for $20 million. Puerto Rico and Guam remain U.S. territories. New York City hosted multiple celebrations of a new global power. In August 1898, a fleet of warships, including the Brooklyn, the Texas, and the Oregon, sailed up the North River, more commonly known today as the Hudson River. American inventor Thomas Edison filmed the floating parade. The following September, New York hosted a naval and street parade to welcome home Rear Adm. George Dewey, who joined President William McKinley in a viewing stand. Many U.S. cities held World War I victory parades a few decades later. But neither Washington nor President Woodrow Wilson were the focal point. In Boston, a million civilians celebrated 20,000 troops in 1919. New York honored 25,000 troops marching in full uniform and combat gear. New York was the parade epicenter again for World War II On June 13, 1942, as U.S. involvement in World War II accelerated, about 30,000 people formed a mobilization parade in New York City. Participants included Army and Navy personnel, American Women's Voluntary Services members, Boy Scouts and military school cadets. Scores of floats rolled, too. One carried a massive bust of President Franklin Roosevelt , who did not attend. Less than four years later, the 82nd Airborne Division and Sherman tanks led a victory parade down Manhattan's Fifth Avenue. Gen. Dwight Eisenhower , the Allied commander during World War II, rode in a victory parade in Washington, D.C. In 1952, Eisenhower would join Grant and George Washington as top wartime commanders elevated to the presidency following their military achievements. Other World War II generals were honored in other homecoming parades. A long parade gap, despite multiple wars The U.S. did not hold national or major city parades after wars in Korea and Vietnam. Both ended without clear victory; Vietnam, especially, sparked bitter societal division, enough so that President Gerald Ford opted against a strong military presence in 1976 bicentennial celebrations, held a year after the fall of Saigon. Washington finally hosted a victory parade in 1991 after the first Persian Gulf War. The Constitution Avenue lineup included 8,000 troops, tanks, Patriot missiles and representatives of the international coalition, led by the U.S., that quickly drove an invading Iraq out of Kuwait. The commander in chief, George H.W. Bush , is the last U.S. president to have held an active-duty military post. He had been a World War II combat pilot who survived his plane being shot down over the Pacific Ocean. Veterans of the second Iraq and Afghanistan wars that followed the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks have not been honored in national parades. Inaugurations and a flight suit Inaugural parades include and sometimes feature military elements. Eisenhower's 1953 inaugural parade, at the outset of the Cold War, included 22,000 service members and an atomic cannon. Eight years later, President John F. Kennedy , a World War II Naval officer, watched armored tanks, Army and Navy personnel, dozens of missiles and Navy boats pass in front of his reviewing stand. More recent inaugurations have included honor guards, academy cadets, military bands and other personnel but not large combat assets. Notably, U.S. presidents, even when leading or attending military events, wear civilian attire rather than military garb, a standard set by Washington, who also eschewed being called 'General Washington' in favor of 'Mr. President.' Perhaps the lone exception came in 2003, when President George W. Bush , who had been a National Guard pilot, wore a flight suit when he landed on the USS Abraham Lincoln and declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, which U.S. forces had invaded six weeks earlier. The aircraft carrier was not a parade venue but the president emerged to raucous cheers from uniformed service members. He put on a business suit to deliver a nationally televised speech in front a 'Mission Accomplished' banner. As the war dragged on to a less decisive outcome, that scene and its enduring images would become a political liability for the president. ___ Barrow reported from Atlanta. Error! Sorry, there was an error processing your request. There was a problem with the recaptcha. Please try again. You may unsubscribe at any time. By signing up, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google privacy policy and terms of service apply. Want more of the latest from us? Sign up for more at our newsletter page .
