Plenty of Congestion Pricing Attacks, Little Discussion of Progress

Ed Day recently penned an op-ed, “Congestion Pricing Should Be Eliminated”, where he dives into arguments that get into the crux of the issue – and the anger – of Rockland residents on the precipice of seeing a significantly higher cost to take part in the economic engine of our region. I’ll be clear: much of the anger and frustration is legitimate and valid.

Day rightly points out that we, as Rockland taxpayers, are on the hook for over 40 million dollars for terrible service. HudsonLink is erratic with an app that offers little predictability, Transport of Rockland is worse, stranding local transit-goers and impacting their ability to get to their destinations - and we still have no one-train ride to the city. Coach USA just filed for bankruptcy, throwing the future of a bus seat directly to Manhattan into uncertainty.

The answer to this all shouldn’t be continuing with austerity. Little, if any discussion or political effort has been made to address the changes needed for Rockland and the Hudson Valley. Rockland is closer in proximity to Manhattan than portions of Nassau County yet we are unable to compete with Nassau, Suffolk, Westchester, and portions of New Jersey because of our inability to access Manhattan anywhere as easily. We need to address this to maintain competitiveness in preventing outmigration (and encouraging new transplants); otherwise, we are faced with two choices: reduce municipal services or increase taxes. Demonizing congestion pricing does not address this core issue but only delays the inevitable.

Congestion pricing is largely an exercise in shifting societal capital expenses to the sources responsible for various challenges in an urban environment. Suburban car dependency has been subsidized by various levels of government at the expense of others. Day mentions that this is an unnecessary, and arguably illegal tax. What he does not acknowledge is that urban residents pay indirect (health outcomes, damage to their vehicles from road conditions, etc.) and direct (costs to repair roads, increases in MTA ticket prices) taxes on suburban resident usage of their roads. They subsidize us.

Why should Rockland residents have to pay extra to drive into the city during peak periods? It is straightforward: personal vehicles have a significant cost to the local environment, from degradation of asphalt and infrastructure to air pollution from ICE engines and particles kicked into the air from tire friction; not to mention the more cars, the more likely injuries and fatalities will occur in accidents. The reality is, we chose to live somewhere car-dependent. There are costs associated with that. Rockland is one of the most car-dependent suburbs in the metro region, for better or worse.

Day asserts that “there’s no way congestion is worse now than before the pandemic”. In 2023,the number of vehicles that pass through MTA bridges and tunnels was at a high of over 286 million vehicles in 2023, up 13.5% from 2019’s pre-pandemic high of around 252 million. There has also been an upward trend in deaths due to vehicle crashes. Research has shown consistent evidence of reductions in accidents and negative outcomes as a result of congestion pricing; forgoing the human cost for a moment, preventing accidents itself reduces traffic and negative economic impacts of lost hours due to sitting in a car in traffic. Congestion pricing also does what it intends to do: disincentivizes driving cars to reduce congestion. It has shown results in various locations where it was implemented.

Congestion pricing is a valid strategy if commuters have an alternative option available.

There are functional approaches to giving residents such alternatives. Programs already exist that provide subsidies. Commuters are afforded a discounted discount through EZ-Pass on the Tappan Zee Bridge, as one example. The MTA could augment our region with electric bus service into the city, using our significant network of park-and-rides throughout the county. This could be used as a bridge, for lack of a better term, while a longer-term plan to establish a one-train ride into the city is established, either on the West Shore Line or with new construction that was supposed to happen over the new Tappan Zee Bridge. Rockland residents are understandably not satisfied with transferring at Secaucus to another train that’s often already completely filled.

In his op-ed, Day also claims that many subject to congestion pricing in Rockland are first responders. There’s an incredibly simple solution to that problem, short of those folks being offered a job here in Rockland: give them a discount. We do it for property taxes, why not this too? It seems a very workable concession.

There’s been plenty of talk about how bad congestion pricing will be, but little on solutions (if any). Congestion pricing shouldn’t be eliminated, but there should be proper reforms, dynamic thinking, guarantees for alternatives to driving, and an independent oversight committee that has power over the MTA budget and can make changes to a bloated and inefficient entity.

For an even more in-depth look on the subject, read Joseph Politano's article, "The Death of NYC Congestion Pricing," on Apricitas Economics.

If you are interested in solutions to this uniquely Rockland problem, join Rocklanders for Alternatives to Driving as we seek productive and substantive changes to promote a more transit oriented county full of car-free alternatives.