On January 5th 2025, the MTA successfully implemented the Central Business District Tolling Program (CBD), or congestion pricing. This is a new, but hotly contested toll on vehicles headed south of 60th Street in Manhattan. The clash over New York City’s congestion pricing plan has all the drama of a heavyweight title match. In one corner: the MTA, armed with decades of transit woes and a bold plan to fix them. While in the other, the Trump administration, swinging to knock out the policy. What’s at stake here is the future of city life, transit reliability, and climate responsibility. The outcome of this battle could have massive effects that ripple across America’s most congested urban centers.
Congestion pricing isn’t new. Singapore launched the world’s first congestion pricing system in 1975. Since then, London, Stockholm, and Milan have seen successes—less traffic, cleaner air, and more transit ridership. New York City’s congestion pricing hopes for similar gains.
Round One: The MTA
I spoke with Carl Weisbrod, chairman of the Transit Mobility Review Board (TMRB), the group responsible for designing the tolling framework.
He emphasized a reduction in congestion as the MTA’s main priority. According to the National Bureau of Economic Research, average traffic speeds in New York City’s CBD areas increased by 15% with faster speeds seen during the most congested hours. Reporters at The New York Times recently published an extensive report detailing many of the positives spurred by CBD, which include less delays on transit that runs through the congestion zone and a rise in transit ridership.
Weisbrod argued that congestion pricing would lead to a reduction in air pollution in the region. “One of the leading generators of pollution is exhaust from cars. So the fewer cars on the road [in the central business district] the more likely it will be that pollution will be reduced.” In April 2025, the MTA estimated that there were 76,253 less cars entering the tolling district than what historical traffic trends would predict. While it’s still too early to discern the pricing program’s environmental effects, it’s evident that there are less cars going into the congestion zone.
This ties into his other claim of increased participation in public transit. “The more riders that use mass transit, the better our system will be, and the better, in my view, the city will be.” As early as ten days into the program, Ryan Schwach, a reporter with The Queens Daily Eagle reported a 34% increase in mass transit participation.
Lastly, Weisbrod asserts that it raises money for the MTA. “It [The transit system] is really in many respects put together with Scotch tape and bubble gum, and some parts of the system are 100 years old and falling apart.” Bloomberg estimates that it has raised 159 million dollars after just 4 months of implementation. CBD is being utilized to fund an estimated 15 billion dollars worth of renovations to the MTA in the coming decades.
Throughout our conservation, Weisbrod highlighted the MTA’s priorities for extra funding. The first reason includes increasing the abundance of accessible stations. “It’s not just the people who are disabled. It’s for the elderly. It’s for mothers and fathers with strollers who have to carry their babies up three flights of stairs because there are no elevators or no escalators.”
According to Weisbrod, the MTA also wants to reinforce subway stations that are susceptible to flooding, “There are large parts of the system that are very, very susceptible to flooding which is coming increasingly…Those lines have to be upgraded and defended against flooding. We’ve seen repeatedly over the last four or five or six years that major storms have really knocked out [major parts of] the system for a period of time.”
The additional funds are also being allocated to replace old buses with electric ones to eliminate pollution, thus supporting the MTA’s goal of being more green; and expanding the transit system to remote parts of Staten Island, The Bronx, and Queens.
Round Two: The Trump Administration (Secretary Duffy)
The MTA remains steadfast in implementing its pricing plan, even as the Trump Administration mounts an aggressive campaign to block it.
Dismantling congestion pricing was one of many promises that then presidential candidate Donald Trump made during his campaign. At the time, the reasons for his opposition was unclear; however, it might have had something to do with the fact that one of Trump’s most prized real estate ventures, the Trump Towers, sit near the heart of the congestion zone.
Undoubtedly though, the reason was political then, and politics likely still play a role in its attacks now. Weisbrod speculates that Republican congressmen are putting pressure on the administration to continue fighting congestion pricing. “I think those congressmen…are responding to their constituents who drive into the city, but [overall] I think that public opinion has been shifting more in favor of congestion pricing as the public has seen the results.”
Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy has been spearheading the charge against CBD in the courtroom. His focus on local transit policies marks a stark departure from his predecessor, Pete Buttigieg. Buttigieg, though not without controversy, left behind a legacy of strong policy.
Duffy has presented various arguments against CBD. However, these arguments don’t hold a lot of water when faced with greater scrutiny.
First, he claims congestion pricing should be eliminated because it doesn’t include a toll-free option. This argument feels especially hollow considering that when CBD was first deliberated during the first Trump Administration, this wasn’t even a point of contention. If they didn’t have a problem with this aspect of the pricing plan then, why now are they harping on it?
Secondly, he asserts that public fees should be used exclusively to fund highways and road work, not mass transit, and criticizes the MTA for making this pricing plan prioritize funding the MTA, rather than reducing congestion. Under Duffy’s logic, he would have to target most bridges and tunnels in the city. As Weisbrod puts it, “For decades now, we have used the tolls on the tri-barrow bridge to pay for mass transit. We’ve used the tolls on the Midtown Tunnel to pay for mass transit.”
Finally, Duffy characterizes the pricing plan as a “war” on the middle class, as those who aren’t as wealthy, would undoubtedly be facing more expensive commutes. Duffy is correct in the assumption that this will increase prices for middle class drivers. Despite this being the case, Weisbrod argues that the goal of this program is to disincentivize drivers from going in that zone in the first place, and opt for public transport instead.
Other detractors of congestion pricing previously expressed concerns regarding potential environmental impacts. They argue that some drivers could bypass tolls by driving through areas like the South Bronx and through the Cross-Bronx Expressway, which could increase congestion and air pollution in those regions. In truth, a large run over of traffic in the Bronx has not occured as many feared it would, and in the case of the South Bronx, traffic congestion has actually decreased by 1-2 percent.
Some also worried about potential compounding fees New Jersey drivers would face, having to bypass the Lincoln and Holland Tunnels and get tolled in addition to this new fee in manhattan. Weisbrod, and the Transit Mobility Review Board devised ways to help mitigate this. “[Drivers from New Jersey] get a credit off the congestion price, 50% as I recall. But again, the goal is to try to persuade New Jersey drivers, just as we try to persuade New York drivers to not use their cars and instead use mass transit.”
Setting the Stage
Congestion pricing has an extensive history in New York, going back decades. However, the blueprint for the congestion pricing program occurring in Manhattan right now was drawn up in 2017. Then, New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo proposed the idea as a method for the MTA to acquire more funding. This was initially approved for the 2019 April budget for New York State and slated to begin in 2021, but failed to materialize due to delays from the first Trump administration.
Subsequently, President Biden was elected in 2020 and he ultimately approved the program in June of 2023 after delays due to COVID-19.
The MTA’s Traffic Mobility Review Board or TMRB initially recommended a tolling structure in November of 2023, and finalized and approved it in March of 2024. Finally, it was set to be implemented in June 2024.
All of this changed mere weeks before its grand introduction, when Governor Kathy Hochul paused it indefinitely. Eventually, Hochul reinstated the plan with set prices in November of the same year. Her new plan instituted a nine dollar toll for most cars during the daytime which plummeted to 2.25 during the nighttime, at the recommendation of the TMRB. This nine dollar fee is set to increase in increments over the course of six years—starting at 12$ in 2028 to 2030, and finally $15 in 2031.
Her revised plan was approved and finally set in motion on January 5th, 2025 in southern Manhattan. Since then, the Trump Administration remains unconvinced of the tolling plan’s benefits and this has resulted in a fierce legal battle between the MTA and a Trump overseen Department of Transportation.
The Final Round: A Legal and Political Brawl
On February 19th 2025, U.S. Secretary of Transportation, Sean Duffy, sent a letter to Governor Hochul rescinding federal approval for congestion pricing in an attempt to stop the program. The MTA immediately responded with a lawsuit of their own that aimed to block that move. The following day, U.S. transportation Department’s Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) executive director, Gloria Shepherd, sent another letter appointing the first of several deadlines, clarifying that they wanted the program to end by March 21st, 2025.
The March 21st deadline was extended by 30 days to April 20th, 2025 in a social media post made by Secretary Duffy, on March 20th, 2025. The same post also alluded to the idea of limiting federal funds for the MTA as a result of NYC’s noncompliance. However, a letter Duffy sent on April 21 is what truly cemented this threat. In addition to reiterating the notion that congestion pricing was unlawful, Duffy declared that if New York City wouldn’t stop collecting tolls or successfully validate the lawfulness of congestion pricing by May 21, the federal government wouldn’t “foot the bill” for future MTA projects, and cease federal funding for New York City by May 28.
On April 24th, a lawyer at the Department of Justice accidentally filed an internal memo meant for the DOJ’s team. The memo attacked Secretary Duffy’s legal arguments against congestion pricing, stating they were unlikely to succeed. This leaked internal document, aimed at improving the DOJ’s case, likely just fueled New York City’s opposition.
The May 21st and May 28th deadlines imposed by Duffy have come and gone, and, still, congestion pricing is in effect. In fact, On May 27th, 2025, the referee overseeing this case, Judge Lewis J. Liman, issued a temporary injunction against the Trump Administration, preventing them from withholding federal funds as Duffy threatened, and permitting congestion pricing to proceed until the fall, when the legal dust settles.
Well, What Happens Next?
The court battle continues, and no victor has been declared (and likely won’t be for the next couple of months). But, public support for the program is growing, and Duffy’s arguments—particularly around funding and toll exemptions—have shown legal and historical weaknesses.
What started as a fix for congestion and a bid to modernize New York City transit has become a national test of local control. The MTA’s punches may be landing, but the final bell hasn’t rung.
However it ends, this fight could shape how U.S. cities tackle traffic, pollution, and gridlock in the decades ahead.
What’s at stake here is the future of city life, transit reliability, and climate responsibility. The outcome of this battle could have massive effects that ripple across America’s most congested urban centers.