Congestion pricing countdown

After years of groundwork, the MTA is holding its congestion pricing hearings, gathering input on the long-awaited policy to charge drivers a $15 toll to enter Manhattan below 60th St. The first two hearings, Thursday and Friday, established what we already knew: there are always going to be people who have some claim on an exemption, with rationales ranging from reasonable to idiotic. A cancer doctor who noted that radiation therapy patients often have to commute in for treatment daily and have a hard time using public transportation is sympathetic, but those patients don’t get free bridge tolls or free parking.

A resident complaining about how those who live in and commute out of the zone will be impacted, meanwhile, is just showing that they either didn’t read the specifics of the plan — those making under $60,000 will receive tax credits for the tolls paid — or don’t ascribe to the plan’s core tenet.

That is the simple notion that wealthier Manhattan residents who own and drive cars around the city should be made to pay more for the maintenance and long-term viability of the public transit system that the significant majority of their neighbors rely on.

The last two hearings are both on Monday and the MTA should be attuned to surfacing real issues that could conceivably be mitigated while basically ignoring those who just don’t want to pay.

The plan has been in the works for years, taking inspiration and technical guidance from initiatives around the world, and with clear public good objectives on the back end. That some people find it unfair to them, personally, or are simply vaguely angry about the policy is irrelevant.

Above all, we should keep in mind that there is simply no way for this policy to be rolled out in a way that doesn’t make life a little more expensive for some people because, at base, that’s half the policy’s purpose.

It intends to lower vehicular congestion in Midtown and Downtown — which, as traffic injuries and fatalities have risen, is not just an aesthetic or social improvement but a health one — but also to raise desperately-needed funds for the systems that actually power NYC’s commerce and culture: buses, subways, stations.

Most of the litigation that the MTA faces comes down to an indignant “not me!” Various groups — including New Jersey officials, who seem to think they should have a say in the domestic policy of New York — have sued not to raise fundamental structural flaws with the initiative but to insist that there should be more studies and reviews. It has been studied and reviewed for decades and it makes sense.

Already, the lawsuits are threatening to delay MTA projects like signal and accessibility improvements that were predicated on the new money. So, straphangers should know at least one place to point the finger as our ancient signaling system keeps triggering delays and people with disabilities keep waiting for access to subway stations (not that the MTA is itself faultless in these circumstances festering).

Let’s hope that the lawsuits are dismissed expeditiously and the hearings have more actionable feedback and fewer screeds. Congestion pricing has a long time in coming and we can finally see the light at the end of the tunnel.