Why is congestion pricing considered extortion?

Consider a government imposing a new tax without consulting its citizens; this resembles tactics used by authoritarian regimes. New York City's congestion pricing, implemented without public input or a democratic vote, has raised concerns about fairness and the concentration of power. Rather than engaging the public in a decision that significantly impacts them, the city delegated the implementation to private interests, benefiting a select few while burdening the majority. These actions undermine democratic principles by imposing an unjust law that many believe favors the wealthy and penalizes everyday citizens.

History and Context

Some politicians seem unable to learn from past mistakes or have mastered the art of creating traffic congestion. A prominent example is the 2013 "Bridgegate" scandal in New Jersey, in which Governor Chris Christie's administration intentionally caused traffic jams by closing lanes on the George Washington Bridge. This was allegedly done in retaliation against the mayor of Fort Lee, who refused to endorse Christie's re-election. The lane closures resulted in significant delays during rush hour and led to conspiracy charges against members of Christie's administration.

A similar situation can be observed today in New York City, where congestion seems intentionally worsened by the mayor, local government, the Department of Transportation (DOT), and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). These entities stand to benefit financially from policies that generate revenue, such as congestion pricing. The city's transportation strategy has involved a series of changes that worsen congestion rather than alleviate it. For example, one of the initial measures was to lower the speed limit in certain areas from 30 mph to 25 mph, which slows traffic by approximately 20%. While this measure alone may not significantly contribute to congestion, it is part of a broader strategy that hinders traffic flow and exacerbates the overall problem.

This initiative has included introducing bike lanes and repurposing certain roadways for bicycles. While bike lanes are a positive environmental effort, they also reduce vehicle space, leading to increased congestion. As a result, drivers find fewer lanes to navigate, even as the city encourages alternative modes of transportation. Additionally, creating designated bus lanes has further decreased the available road space for cars, dividing the roadway into distinct lanes for vehicles, bikes, and buses. This arrangement raises concerns that the MTA and local government are deliberately worsening congestion to boost the demand for tolls and other revenue-generating measures.

These policies impose financial burdens on everyday New Yorkers and may approach extortion. The legitimacy of charging citizens for traffic congestion resulting from these policies warrants careful examination. There are concerns that actions intended to alleviate congestion and promote alternative transportation are designed to generate profits for public agencies and private corporations. Accountability for the revenues generated by these initiatives should not lie with the mayor's office, the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA), or local government. Despite the negative implications of these actions, these entities continue to receive funding, raising questions about the mechanisms that allow private interests to benefit in these situations.

CONCEPTS OF HOW CONGESTION PRICING IS ILLEGAL 

BRIDGES

Charging tolls for bridges leading to Manhattan is illegal because many of these bridges were constructed with significant federal funding, which requires them to remain toll-free for public use. Public infrastructure funded by taxpayer dollars is intended to be accessible without fees, and specific laws prevent tolls from being imposed on these bridges without proper approval. Court rulings have upheld this principle, blocking attempts by the MTA to toll certain bridges due to legal agreements related to federal funding. While some tolls are authorized by the Port Authority, bridges controlled by the MTA and the city do not have the same authority to impose tolls. This reinforces the notion that public infrastructure funded by taxpayers should remain free of charge. A concerning idea is emerging: entering Manhattan may soon require immediate payment due to congestion pricing. Previous attempts by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) to introduce tolls were blocked by legal restrictions; however, there are growing fears that a new plan could arise with support from government entities, including the State, the Department of Buildings (DOB), and Mayor Adams, which would impose charges for crossing into Manhattan. 

Implementing tolls at either end of these bridges contradicts the principle of free passage. If fees are enforced, it becomes a toll, undermining the expectation that bridge access should be free and allowing individuals to travel without financial barriers. Charging for bridge use is unlawful, and it seems we are witnessing a troubling collaboration among New York State government entities, the DOB, the MTA, and Mayor Adams, actions that appear to violate legal norms and principles of fairness. Access to these bridges should remain free, ensuring unimpeded travel between boroughs.

MTA IS A PRIVATE COMPANY

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is a private organization, not a government entity. It oversees public transportation in New York City by funding private companies to operate its transit system. This structure enables the MTA to prioritize its interests over the needs of the city's residents. A significant issue arises from the MTA's service area, extending beyond the five New York City boroughs. This expansion diverts funds meant for local infrastructure to less profitable projects outside the city, creating a financial strain on the boroughs and undermining the maintenance of essential services within the city. Despite raising fares in New York City even during a financial surplus, the MTA continues to borrow money and draw additional funds from the city's budget, highlighting a pattern of mismanagement. Moreover, local representatives and Mayor Adams have allowed the MTA to implement disruptions within the city's subway system to finance projects in other areas. Additionally, while the MTA claims to operate a fleet of 6,000 buses, it does not fully utilize these resources, especially the older buses that serve areas outside the city. The costs associated with maintaining these buses, including labor and pension expenses, detract from the quality of service within the five boroughs, as funds are diverted elsewhere. Given the MTA's private status and mismanagement of resources, it is essential to reform it into two separate entities: one responsible for public transportation within the five boroughs and another for services outside this region. This separation would ensure that funds are allocated effectively to support New York City's infrastructure, restore government oversight, and empower local officials to manage public transportation more efficiently.

INACCESSIBLE GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS

Certain government practices that impose fees for access to public facilities are unlawful. For instance, New York City operates two key government offices: one in Albany and another in the city’s business district. When officials at the NYC office schedule appointments, they often require individuals to pay a fee to enter the building or engage in government transactions and filings. This direct requirement for payment to access public facilities is illegal and creates an unnecessary barrier to public access. Such practices violate the legal rights established by the government, which are intended to serve the public interest rather than private interests. Additionally, within the city’s business district, there are various criminal and family courts, which further emphasizes the problematic nature of charging fees for access to government services.

CONGESTION PRICING IS RACIST

Congestion pricing disproportionately affects people of color and has a significant impact on low-income individuals, many of whom belong to these communities. Socioeconomic status plays a crucial role in determining who can access downtown areas, as those with limited financial means face the most significant challenges in covering the additional costs imposed by this policy. Lower-income residents, who often rely on public transportation and have fewer economic resources, bear the brunt of this fee. As a result, they encounter an added barrier to accessing the business district, government offices, and other key locations in Manhattan. The relationship between socioeconomic status and race in New York City is clear: communities of color, particularly Black and Latino populations, are more likely to experience economic hardship. Many residents in these communities rely on affordable transportation options, and implementing a fee-based system to enter downtown Manhattan further limits their mobility and ability to participate in city life. By imposing a financial barrier to access certain areas, this policy reinforces existing systemic inequalities related to race and economics. Residents of color, particularly those in neighborhoods like Harlem, Brooklyn, and the Bronx, are more likely to face economic disadvantages and the additional burden of congestion pricing. These communities contribute to the city through taxes, yet this policy creates further obstacles to accessing the government they help support. This dynamic reflects a historical pattern of exclusion, where fees and regulations have been used to separate marginalized communities from centers of power, ultimately deepening socioeconomic and racial divisions. The impact of congestion pricing is not just a toll on the road; it is a toll on opportunity and equal access for those who need it most.

MAYOR ERIC ADAMS

Mayor Eric Adams has drawn significant attention due to his complex character, receiving praise and criticism. There have been discussions surrounding allegations of corruption, and he has tried clarifying his position on these issues. However, it's worthwhile to consider his actions from another perspective. 

For example, imagine purchasing a bicycle. After completing the transaction, you have the bike, and everyone knows you made the purchase. Then, unexpectedly, you receive a car, leading you to think, "Now I have a car." Later, you discover that you are expected to provide some favor or service in return for getting the car. This scenario is similar to some of Adams' actions. During a trip abroad, his flight was upgraded from economy to first class, and upon arriving at the hotel, he also received a complimentary upgrade. While many people would welcome such perks, they raise questions about potential expectations or obligations. Upon returning to New York City, the Mayor may be confronted with situations where he must use his influence, such as supporting projects that may put safety at risk, like approving buildings with fire hazards. This raises concerns about his willingness to comply under pressure, suggesting possible corruption. Furthermore, Adams' interactions with community leaders extend beyond mere engagement, potentially seeking endorsements or financial contributions, further complicating perceptions of integrity. This behavior may help reduce congestion around his office, but it casts a shadow on his credibility. These dynamics create a nuanced picture of a public figure navigating his responsibilities and relationships, leaving one to question whether such preferential treatment extends beyond these examples and is linked to his support of specific pricing policies, such as congestion pricing.

DANGER

New York City comprises five boroughs: Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx, Manhattan, and Staten Island. These boroughs united to form a single city, ensuring free access across all areas. This collaboration is what makes New York City unique, and it is essential that no one borough, such as Manhattan, overshadows the others. The concept of New York City as a cohesive entity depends on this unity. Staten Island is increasingly concerned about the possibility of separating from New York City. Challenges such as travel to Manhattan are becoming more complex, and the movement for each borough to operate independently is gaining support. Additionally, the introduction of congestion pricing is threatening the city's unity. This situation raises an important question: Should we strive to keep New York City as one entity, or is it time to let the boroughs function as separate cities? If the current policies continue, New York City could become fractured into distinct boroughs instead of remaining a cohesive metropolis. The congestion pricing law could catalyze this division, potentially leading to a future with multiple independent cities rather than one unified city. The government and mayor must recognize that these decisions could fundamentally change the city. To prevent the fragmentation of New York City, it is crucial to halt the congestion pricing policy before it divides the boroughs.

UBER/LYFT

It is well-known that the New York State government has accepted financial contributions from businesses that stand to benefit from congestion pricing. The MTA lobby is significant in funding electoral campaigns, with companies such as Uber, Lyft, and the Taxi and Limousine Commission of New York City contributing to these efforts. The reality that likely drives these donations is that a few prominent companies have profited significantly from congestion pricing strategies. This creates a monopolistic environment where businesses can improve their services through fees that benefit them rather than the average working citizen. Large corporations seem to profit from governmental support, primarily when many individuals work hard for their livelihoods and end up shouldering the burden of these policies.

END GOAL 

In conclusion, I would like to explore the possibility of traveling between boroughs without incurring tolls. For instance, can someone travel from the Bronx to Queens or from the Bronx to Brooklyn without paying a fee? The current toll system between boroughs suggests that New York City is not a fully integrated entity but a collection of separate, fee-based areas. This system raises concerns, particularly for residents who pay taxes yet are still burdened with tolls restricting their movement within the city. This situation calls into question the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's (MTA) role and its impact on New Yorkers. The city's infrastructure serves as a revenue generator for specific private interests. The imposition of tolls for travel between boroughs fosters a sense of division and financial strain, undermining the notion of New York as a unified city. To address this issue, the MTA should be brought under city control to ensure the transportation system is managed with residents' best interests in mind. This shift could lower fares and improve service and accessibility, allowing for seamless travel across boroughs. If New York is to maintain its identity as a single city, it is essential to reevaluate the current tolling and zoning policies. Decisive action must be taken to place the MTA under government control, ensuring that the city's internal affairs are managed effectively while preserving the unity and interconnectedness of the five boroughs.