“Congestion pricing is not just about alleviating traffic; it’s about recognizing that a future designed around the automobile is one of economic stagnation.”

CityViews are readers’ opinions, not those of City Limits. Add your voice today!

More than 100 days have passed since Gov. Kathy Hochul hit the brakes on New York City’s long-awaited congestion pricing plan, adding needless delays to a program poised to pull the city’s transportation infrastructure out of the dark ages and into a brighter, more economically vibrant and tech-forward future.

The months-long “pause” has already created a $840 million budget black hole for the MTA—a figure that represents not just lost operating funds, but a fundamental misunderstanding about how to fix the economic challenges facing New York City.

With buzz around the MTA’s board meeting last week (as well as the first trial date in a lawsuit challenging Hochul’s action on congestion pricing, ironically coinciding with ClimateWeek), it’s time for an honest discussion about the economic implications of delaying this critical initiative.

Hochul must reinstate congestion pricing to benefit the 5 million New Yorkers who rely on transit daily and the almost 1 million who use bikes and micromobility, and also because it is essential to the economic vitality of the entire city.

Congestion pricing is not just about alleviating traffic; it’s about recognizing that a future designed around the automobile is one of economic stagnation. One recent study found that traffic delays alone cost New York City $243 million every single year.

Now, factor in the lost productivity, the environmental damage of transportation emissions, the healthcare costs associated with poor air quality, and the opportunity cost of valuable urban space ceded to private storage (parking) instead of revenue-generating businesses. This is the cost of a car-dependent city, and it is simply not a future New York can afford.

The alternative—a car-lite city, enabled by robust public transit and a thriving micromobility sector—is not some utopian fantasy; it’s an economic imperative, as proven by cities like London, Singapore, and Stockholm.

These cities stand as testaments to the transformative power of congestion pricing; by making investments to modernize their transit systems and support non-car travel, they experienced a boom in economic activity. Further, Stockholm’s traffic reductions save the city the equivalent of $80 million per day through reductions in travel time, proving that a commitment to sustainable urban planning is a commitment to economic growth. 

Competing with these global powerhouses should be a top priority for officials in New York. The city has touted its stance as a “leader on climate action” and has become known as the Silicon Valley of climate technology. We’ve already invested heavily in infrastructure and incentives to entice climate tech companies to locate here, and recent predictions estimate the green economy will generate 400,000 jobs by 2040. But we’re selling snake oil if we choose to sideline the very policies that are essential to supporting a sustainable climate future and green economy. 

Hochul must embrace congestion pricing not as a tax, but as an investment in a future where New York City reclaims its streets, modernizes its infrastructure, and further secures its place as a global economic powerhouse. Where our aging population—the Baby Boomers—stay active and engaged in the economy thanks to transit accessibility improvements. Where businesses don’t just survive but thrive because their employees can easily access jobs, goods can move efficiently, and valuable real estate is dedicated to commerce, not car storage. This is the multi-faceted potential that congestion pricing unlocks.

And while our elected officials drag their feet, micromobility is already demonstrating the immense economic potential of a car-lite city. Micromobility has grown exponentially in both the consumer and commercial markets, becoming a default for personal trips and delivery operations. Despite limited infrastructure and a lack of supportive policies, this has made New York City a hotbed for micromobility startups, from vehicle manufacturers to charging infrastructure companies.

These companies see the writing on the wall—the future of global transportation is shared, electric, and efficient. Many of these businesses were drawn to New York City with the promise of congestion pricing, eager to be part of a city at the forefront of urban mobility. Stalling congestion pricing sends a chilling message to founders and investors, signaling a lack of commitment to building a 21st-century transportation network.

As we watch the time tick by and carbon emissions creep up, the choice before us is clear: We can continue to let traffic choke our streets and our economy, or we can choose a better path. By reinstating congestion pricing, Gov. Hochul has the opportunity to forge a legacy as the leader who actually steered New York City onto the path of sustainable growth and prosperity.

With the right action, we can create a city where the soundtrack is not the incessant honking of gridlock, but the gentle hum of micro-electric vehicles, the laughter of children playing in car-free streets, and the conversations of entrepreneurs building the businesses of the future in a place that embraces innovation.

Joseph and Eddie Cohen are the co-founders of Infinite Machine, a micromobility OEM developing the next generation of electric, non-car vehicles.

The appeal announcement included the launch of a website tracking the number of days since the Council says its laws should have been implemented—447, as of Tuesday—and the number of evictions filed across the city during that time.

City lawmakers filed a legal appeal on Tuesday, asking the court to overturn an earlier ruling that sided with the Adams administration in its refusal to implement a package of laws to expand the city’s rental voucher program.

The appeal, filed by the City Council and the Legal Aid Society in New York Supreme Court Appellate Division–First Department, is the latest in an ongoing legal battle over reforms to the City Family Homelessness and Eviction Prevention Supplement voucher program, known as CityFHEPS.

The vouchers help qualifying low-income households pay their rent. Last year, the City Council passed a series of bills to make more New Yorkers eligible for the subsidies, raising the income threshold and allowing those at risk of eviction or homelessness to apply without first having to enter the shelter system.

Mayor Eric Adams vetoed the legislation, citing potential costs and increased competition for existing voucher holders in a tight rental market. And while the Council overrode the mayor’s veto of the bills—the first time it had done so since the Bloomberg administration—City Hall still refused to implement them, as City Limits was the first to report last year.

“As New Yorkers face a housing and affordability crisis that leaves many without homes or at risk of losing them, it is our city government’s responsibility to support them,” Council Speaker Adrienne Adams said in statement Tuesday announcing the appeal.

That announcement included the launch of a website tracking the number of days since the Council says its laws should have been implemented—447, as of Tuesday—and the number of evictions filed across the city during that time.

“The Administration’s refusal to fulfill its duty to implement the laws has inflicted harmful consequences at a time when New Yorkers need housing security and stability,” Speaker Adams said.

The Council and Legal Aid are looking to reverse a ruling issued in August in which the New York Supreme Court dismissed their petition, agreeing with the Adams administration that New York State’s Social Services Law precludes city lawmakers from legislating on public assistance reforms.

Their appeal argues that the earlier court decision ignores “decades of social services policy enacted by the City Council and implemented by the executive branch,” as well as earlier binding precedent, according to Legal Aid.

They point to a 1999 case in which then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani refused to implement legislation eliminating arduous eligibility requirements for welfare recipients with HIV/AIDS; in that instance, the state’s highest court ruled that the city “had to enforce the legislation codified by the City Council.”

“The City Council has a long and established track record of legislating on social services-related issues, and the lower court’s ruling is wrong on the law and simply ignores this history which stretches back decades,” Robert Desir, a staff attorney with Legal Aid’s Civil Law Reform Unit, said in a statement.

When reached for comment, a City Hall spokesperson cited other efforts the Adams administration has made to aid CityFHEPS recipients, including eliminating a 90-day waiting period for people in shelter to apply, and plans to build 844 affordable apartments specifically for homeless voucher holders.

“Last year alone, we helped a record 18,500 move out of shelter and into stable homes in addition to over 10,000 New Yorkers we helped avoid shelter upfront,” the spokesperson said in a statement shared with City Limits.

“The trial court agreed with us that these laws went beyond the City Council’s legislative authority, and the Law Department will review the next steps,” City Hall added. “We remain committed to working to connect New Yorkers in need with safe, affordable, permanent housing.”

To reach the reporter behind this story, contact Jeanmarie@citylimits.org

Want to republish this story? Find City Limits’ reprint policy here.