New Jersey pushes back on NYC's $15 congestion toll: 'You are not eliminating pollution; you are just displacing it'



New Jersey presented oral arguments on Wednesday in its lawsuit against New York over its $15-per-day congestion toll for Manhattan commuters. The complaint argues that the plan will place an economic strain on New Jersey residents and fail to reduce pollution, WABC-TV reported.

According to the lawsuit, the Federal Highway Administration approved New York City's toll but "failed to adequately consider the environment impacts" and "ignored the significant financial burden being placed on New Jerseyans and New Jersey's transportation system."

The complaint claims the federal government rushed through the approval without adequately reviewing the potential impacts.

Randy Mastro, a lawyer representing New Jersey in the case, called it "mind-boggling" that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority concluded the congestion toll would have "no significant impact" on traffic, the economy, or air quality in nearby areas, the New York Post reported. Mastro claimed that the FHWA's approval was "predetermined."

Mastro questioned whether the review "took a hard look into the adverse environmental impact" on the "entire region."

"They didn't consider New Jersey adequately," he stated.

As part of New York City's congestion toll plan, it set aside a $35 million mitigation commitment for the Bronx. However, it did not allocate any funds to New Jersey.

"There has been a mitigation commitment and in a dollar amount to the Bronx. Isn't that differentiated treatment, potentially rising to the level of arbitrariness?" Judge Leo Gordon asked MTA and FHWA lawyers.

Elizabeth Knauer, a lawyer representing the MTA, denied the claims of differentiated treatment.

New Jersey officials hope the legal action will force the federal government to conduct a more thorough evaluation. Governor Phil Murphy (D) contended that New York City's plan will only move pollution to surrounding areas.

"You are not eliminating pollution; you are just displacing it from Manhattan to New Jersey," Murphy stated Tuesday. "And you're charging our commuters an exorbitant fee on top of that."

Murphy has asserted that the city's plan is a "blatant cash-grab."

WABC reported that over 400,000 New Jersey residents commute into Manhattan every day. The new toll, slated to take effect in June, will require New Jersey commuters to pay millions of dollars to the MTA.

The lawsuit stated, "The end result is that New Jersey will bear much of the burden of this congestion pricing scheme — in terms of environmental, financial, and human impacts — but receive none of its benefits."

The MTA passed the controversial congestion toll in an 11-1 vote last week. Under the plan, most passenger vehicles will be charged $15 per day to drive on 60th Street and below. Small trucks and charter buses will be charged $24 per day, and large trucks and tour buses will be charged $36 per day. Motorcyclists will receive a $7.50 toll per day. The cost will drop by 75% in the evening. Commuters using taxis and black car services must pay an additional $1.25 fare, while Uber and Lyft passengers pay an extra $2.50.

New York City will use the state's existing E-ZPass system to collect most tolls. Drivers without a pass will be charged at a higher rate. For example, instead of $15 per day, passenger vehicles without an E-ZPass will be charged $22.50 per day.

Drivers making less than $50,000 per year could be eligible to receive a discount.

City officials anticipate the plan will reduce traffic by 17% and collect $1 billion annually. The funds gathered through the toll system will be used to improve public transportation.

Currently, the city is facing six lawsuits over the congestion toll plan.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Judge blocks Biden's emissions rule forcing states to set greenhouse gas reduction targets



A federal judge on Monday blocked the Biden administration's new emissions rule that would have required states to set greenhouse gas reduction targets to receive federal highway funding, the Daily Caller News Foundation reported.

What's the background?

The day before Thanksgiving, the Biden administration's Federal Highway Administration announced new regulations forcing state departments of transportation to "establish declining carbon dioxide" goals, Blaze News previously reported. The White House and the rule's supporters touted the measure as having "flexibility" because it did "not mandate how low targets must be."

According to the new rule, the targets and the progress made toward those targets would "be used to inform the future investment decisions of the Federal Government."

Critics argued that the Biden administration was using the rule to force Americans to switch to electric vehicles or public transportation.

Republican North Dakota Sen. Kevin Cramer released a statement in November accusing the "Biden bureaucracy" of "returning to their stale playbook of inventing illegal, punitive regulatory schemes."

"This final rule is contrary to congressional intent, usurps state authority by putting the federal government in the driver's seat, and is fundamentally unworkable in rural states like North Dakota," Cramer added.

Emissions rule faces legal challenge

A coalition of 21 states filed a lawsuit in December against the president, the United States Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration, claiming the agencies lacked the authority to regulate emissions or force states to follow the new measures, Courthouse News Service reported.

The plaintiff states in the case included Kentucky, South Dakota, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron (R) argued that the rule would impact "the American economy" by requiring states to "make choices about projects, contracts, and regulations in order to meet the declining targets."

"Any mandated decline in on-road CO2 emissions will disproportionately affect states with more rural areas," Cameron wrote in the suit.

"States with fewer metropolitan areas have fewer options available to them to reduce CO2. Many of the ideas for how states can decrease GHG emissions — congestion pricing, road pricing, ramp metering, increased coordination with transit and non motorized improvements, paying fees to scrap low mileage heavy duty vehicles — are options more conducive to metropolitan areas, not rural ones," he continued. "Low population densities limit the efficacy of public transit and congestion pricing as options that would reduce vehicle miles traveled and, consequently, CO2 emissions."

United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky Judge Benjamin Beaton, appointed by former President Trump, blocked the Biden administration's rule on Monday.

In his opinion, Beaton declared, "Even assuming Congress gave the Administrator authority to set environmental performance standards that embrace CO2, the Administrator exercised that authority in an arbitrary and capricious manner."

Beaton agreed that the rule lacked a statutory basis. However, he did not enjoin the regulation's enforcement or vacate it.

A spokesperson for the Federal Highway Administration told the DCNF, "The Department of Transportation and Federal Highway Administration remain committed to supporting the Biden-Harris Administration's climate goals of cutting carbon pollution in half by 2030 and achieving net-zero emissions by 2050."

"We are reviewing the court's decision and determining next steps," the spokesperson added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!