[MUSIC]

Kousha Navidar: It's The Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC. Welcome back, everybody. I'm Kousha Navidar filling in for Brian, who is on vacation this week. Up next, we're turning to some local transit news. Construction on the new Second Avenue Subway extension is back in business. The project is one of many that was halted when Governor Kathy Hochul indefinitely paused the much awaited but controversial congestion pricing program back in June.

Hochul announced last week that she managed to squeeze $54 million in state funding to continue work on the project and bring the line further uptown. Phase 1 of the Second Avenue Subway opened in 2017. It was the result of a decades-long effort to bring better public transit to historically underserved communities like East Harlem. So far, it only extends up to 96th Street. Just to jog our memories, congestion pricing is a program that would have charged all vehicles a $15 base fee to drive below 60th Street in Manhattan.

When Hochul indefinitely paused the program, which was supposed to take effect in July, there were more than $16 billion worth of crucial transit upgrades that got put on hold. Some people are pretty happy that the Second Avenue Subway work will continue, but a lot of transit advocates are still frustrated at what they see is a Band-Aid approach because, ultimately, that project is only a fraction of what the MTA had planned for in capital investments across the city.

We're a little past the one-month anniversary of when congestion pricing was supposed to start but didn't. Today, along with the Second Ave Subway expansion, we're going to take a look at some of the fallout more broadly of the governor's decision to pause the program. With us now to help us parse through how all of this is playing out is Ana Ley, a New York Times reporter who covers New York City's mass transit system. Ana, welcome back to the show.

Ana Ley: Hi, thanks so much.

Kousha Navidar: It's great to have you here. There are a lot of planned projects that have been left in the lurch after the pause was put on congestion pricing, so why the Second Ave Subway extension? What do you think Hochul really pushed to continue working on this project? Why?

Ana Ley: I think there was a lot of disappointment around the Second Avenue Subway expansion, in particular when condition pricing got paused, just because this is something that politicians have been promising for 100 years. This extension was supposed to help people in East Harlem have better access to transit. This is a poor community. This is a community of color. I think, politically, the optics were just very bad for her. I think that's probably a big reason that she made such an effort to just find the money wherever she could in the state budget to at least nudge the thing forward.

Kousha Navidar: This particular project is getting $54 million from the state budget, which we mentioned up at the top of the intro for this segment. How does that compare to the funding that had been expected from the congestion pricing?

Ana Ley: It's a drop in the bucket. If you talk to anyone in the transit world, they will probably point that out. $54 million compared to $16.5 billion that is being lost by this indefinite suspension is really not a lot. In this scope of the actual expansion or, sorry, extension of the Second Avenue Subway line, it's also not a lot. That estimate is around $7.7 billion. This is just not a huge amount of money. It's only for the first contract in what is a very, very, very huge project.

Kousha Navidar: The federal government is helping out with the Second Avenue extension as well, right?

Ana Ley: Yes, and there's money that is contingent on local investment that the federal government had been expected to give. I want to say it's something like $3.4 billion from the federal government. Without the local investment, that money is kind of up in the air. It's not clear whether New York will get it if it doesn't put in the money.

Kousha Navidar: The federal government said, "In New York State, you put in $54 million. We'll put in $3.4 billion thereabouts." Is that fair?

Ana Ley: No, I don't think it's just the $54 million. I think there has to be a bigger investment than that. Right now, there are a lot of questions about how much is going to be needed here for this match to come in.

Kousha Navidar: Without the congestion pricing, it becomes even more difficult, obviously, for that extra or full amount to come in. Now that there is this $16 billion deficit in the MTA's budget, it sounds like it might be tough to say. What happens to this agreement for the Second Ave extension?

Ana Ley: I think it's really up in the air. I think there's a lot of frustration from advocates because this was mostly a done deal before the last-minute decision from the government to pause the program. There was all this dedicated money that was coming in. It was going to help not just the Second Avenue extension, but it was also going to help the MTA bond out a lot of money. There's all these proposals that have been suggested, not just by the governor but by some lawmakers, and even some advocates to try to come up with some money. Some of the people in the transit world say that this is not really going to achieve the funding that the MTA needs in the way that they need it to come in.

Kousha Navidar: Ana, you've reported that because of the shortfall in funding that was expected, the MTA has also had to totally shift its priorities. At this point, it's really just trying to meet its basic needs. Can you tell us? What are those needs? How are those priorities shifting?

Ana Ley: Yes. The head of the MTA, Janno Lieber, said something to the effect of, "We just need to make sure the system doesn't fall apart," which is not a great thing to hear as a writer. All these investments that were going to be made on putting elevators into the system and expand or updating this infrastructure that's 100 years old, a lot of these things are not going to happen.

Right now, the system is really just trying to keep its head above water. They're just trying to do the most that they can with the money that they do have. Congestion pricing was going to make up a large piece of its capital budget, which is the part of the budget that they use to repair and upgrade the system, which is very old. It's very old. It's crumbling in a lot of places.

Right now, the MTA is just trying to just keep things running as best as they can without doing things that they need to do to make sure that the system can withstand another Sandy or some other huge weather event or things that would happen with regular wear and tear in the system like the tracks getting warped and the heat, things like that. With climate change, these things are inevitable.

Kousha Navidar: Listeners, what do you think about this new funding from Hochul to resume construction on the Second Avenue Subway? We are all in this city experiencing what Ana is talking about with the state of the subway, the state of many forms of transportation from the MTA. Are there any other projects that you listening right now were excited to see get built that are now in limbo because of the congestion pricing pause, or are you relieved that the governor paused the program and you think the funding should come from somewhere else? We want to hear from you. Give us a call. Send us a text. We're at 212-433-WNYC. That's 212-433-9692.

Ana, while we're on the topic of the state of transportation here in the city, I want to talk about one of the big consequences of this pause, which is the fact that a lot of environmental benefits that were touted by advocates aren't going to be seen, which is hard to quantify, right? Can you break it down for our listeners a little bit more? What are we losing out on environmentally?

Ana Ley: Oh yes, that is something that I think environmentalists are very frustrated about. I think congestion pricing was intended to drop traffic in the zone by something like 17%. People who live in the zone, they would have been exposed to less noise, less smog. Their buses would have traveled at a faster speed, which is a really big problem throughout the city, but especially in the core of Manhattan, where there's just an insane amount of vehicles at any given time.

Actually, there's a couple of lawsuits that have been filed by people who are trying to convince the governor to change her mind. There are a lot of lawsuits involved in congestion pricing from both sides, from opponents and proponents. One of those lawsuits that is being filed in favor of the program is arguing that this suspension by the governor is pulling back these efforts to make the city more environmentally conscious. That is a huge argument that proponents of the program have been raising.

Kousha Navidar: There are two lawsuits going on right now. Can you tell us a little bit more about the second one?

Ana Ley: Yes, so there have been a couple of lawsuits filed by, like I said, proponents of the program. The first one or the one that I didn't mention was about arguing that the governor is breaking the law, basically, that there was a law that was passed in 2019 that the legislature moved forward, that made congestion pricing law, that it made it a necessary thing that the city would have to carry out, and that her suspension of this program violates that requirement. That's the first one.

The second one I mentioned earlier, which was filed by Riders Alliance, which is an organization made up of riders of the transit system. Then there are also eight lawsuits that have been filed by opponents of congestion pricing. They are arguing lots of different things. A big one is that some of them worry that the shift in traffic patterns could push more vehicles into places where people don't want them. One of the key arguments from opponents as well has been that there wasn't enough research basically done to see what the impacts of the program would be. A judge a few weeks ago argued that that merit in particular, it didn't stand up.

Kousha Navidar: If we go back to that first lawsuit that you were talking about, which had to do with climate resiliency, there are unrealized environmental effects of putting the pause on congestion pricing. The city-state is likely not to meet its 2030 greenhouse gas emissions requirements. Can you talk a little bit about the impact of climate resiliency here and congestion pricing?

Ana Ley: Yes, I believe that congestion pricing was meant to be this key component in plans by the city to, like I said, be more climate-conscious. This was meant to be a pretty big part of that. This really sets back not just the MTA's goals to bring more people onto transit to raise fares, which they really need to make their budget sustainable in the long term, but it also affects broader goals that extend beyond the subway system that extend into New York City in general to make the city more resilient.

Kousha Navidar: Let's go to Jose in Brooklyn. Jose, welcome to the show.

Jose: Hey, good morning, everyone. The reason I'm calling is I'm thinking of something. I was in my car listening to your show. I know the MTA was expecting $16 billion and the cost of coming into lower Manhattan below 60th Street was $15. How about if we cut that in half? You'll get the drivers a chance to save a little money. The MTA will get $8 billion instead of $16 billion. The governor can take back the $54 million that she's putting out for the Second Avenue transit system. Everybody should be happy because they'll extend that also with the $8 billion hopefully. With $8 billion, you could do a lot of damage. You can do very well.

Kousha Navidar: Jose, thank you so much for that call. I'm sure that there are a lot of folks out there offering alternatives to the original plan. Ana, what's going through Governor Hochul's mind right now if you were a mind reader, which I'm sure that you're not?

Ana Ley: I wish I were.

Kousha Navidar: Don't we all? What are these alternatives? What's the state of play here with congestion pricing, with folks like Jose offering, "Hey, there's a lot of ways that you can approach this problem"?

Ana Ley: Yes. No, actually, I'm really glad Jose called in because that's something that we have heard from a lot of people. The governor is being pushed by lawmakers and by very powerful people to do exactly what Jose is saying. They want a lower toll. They want lower tolls. They want basically to make the system a little more palatable. I'm sorry. When I say "system," they want the tolling program to be a little more palatable to drivers who don't want to pay the $15 to get into Lower Manhattan.

If that were to happen, I think there would be criticism from people who would say that that doesn't raise enough money, that it doesn't help the MTA bond out the money that it needs. The way that it would work is the MTA would collect $1 billion each year. That money would help them bond out $15 billion in financing. It's not like the full $15 would come from the tolls. It's a little bit more complicated than it might seem. To that point, there is a pretty heavy lobbying effort right now to convince the governor to bring that cost down for drivers.

Kousha Navidar: We're here with Ana Ley talking about not just the pause on congestion pricing, but about $54 million that Governor Hochul has made available in order to continue the Second Ave extension subway line. We got a text here, Ana, that says, "Sorry. Elevators, I think, address more important than extending the Second Ave Subway," and it brings up this idea of priority. How is the MTA determining what is most urgent now that they can't really afford to implement the kinds of forward-thinking projects that they had originally planned for?

Ana Ley: Yes, I think there are lots of people who would agree with that listener that elevators are very, very important. The system is really hard to use for anyone with a disability, but also people who might be carrying a suitcase, who might be pushing a stroller, older people who might just need a little help getting around. This suspension is delaying that efforts to make the system more accessible.

The way that the MTA has explained it is that they are, unfortunately, not making those upgrades because they have to just make sure the system doesn't become dangerous for the people who ride it and for the people who maintain it. As far as why the governor decided to find the money for that and not accessibility, I suspect it's because the cost to make the system more accessible is very, very, very high. Elevators are really expensive and $54 million seems like a lot of money to you and me. In the scale of the subway system, it's not that much.

Kousha Navidar: We have another text here that says, "Why are we expanding the subway system when we can't maintain what we have?" We had one texter before saying, "Why not elevators." You, Ana, are saying, "Well, one part of it is the real cost of this and elevators are actually more expensive than you expect." Now, this other texter is saying, "Well, why not maintain what we already have instead of expanding it?" Is it a matter of what the federal funding is that can help us with these projects or is it something more than that?

Ana Ley: Yes, I think you're right. I think the issue gets down to who's willing to put in the money. If we're able to get money from the Feds to pay for this project, then I would imagine the MTA doesn't want to lose that opportunity. East Harlem really does need better access to transit. That is certainly not to diminish the fact that a lot of the system is in bad shape. What I think it comes down to is just, where are they able to get the money to pay for X, Y, or Z?

Kousha Navidar: Thank you so much to that texter and all the texters who are messaging us right now. We have a caller from Sunset Park. Robert, you're a driver. Is that right, Robert?

Robert: I do both, but, yes, I do often drive.

Kousha Navidar: Okay, and what do you think about congestion pricing?

Robert: I think it's great. I think we should go forward with it. I don't have to commute into Manhattan every day for my job. The amount of money that is necessary to fix the subway system, which is so much more important than the economic value of the car tourists that come in, there's just no comparison. The subway is the whole ballgame.

The amount of work that needs to be done and the amount of work that needs to be done that isn't glamorous, fixing the signaling system that dates back to the mayoralty of Fiorello La Guardia that's powering the AC, that's the sort of work that needs to be done in addition to the expansions. That was what congestion pricing was for. It would fix everything. It would take a generation, maybe more. Without it, we just watched the entire thing fall apart.

Kousha Navidar: Robert, thanks so much for that call. I appreciate that perspective, especially you're talking about fixing the signaling system, as you said, from the time of La Guardia. Ana, I'm sure that you can offer some perspective there. There are real systems in the MTA that need updating that are really outdated as Robert is saying, is that right?

Ana Ley: Yes, he's 100% right when he says these things are not glamorous. They're not ribbon cuttings. They're not fancy mosaics. These are things that I would compare to making sure that the bones on your house are standing upright. The signal system is so important. It keeps the trains running on time.

If anyone was around for the "Summer of Hell" in 2017 when the system was falling apart, when trains were super delayed, and there were fires on the tracks and people getting trapped underground without AC or light, stuck in dark, hot cars, a lot of those problems stemmed from the signal system being really old. The trains just not running the way that they should have in the sense that they were stacking up down there because the signal system is so old. It's not keeping things running smoothly the way that they need to run. Yes, Robert's right. Congestion pricing was going to update that system in a really meaningful way.

Kousha Navidar: Robert, thank you so much for bringing that in. We have another perspective from Martin in Manhattan. Hi, Martin. Welcome to the show.

Martin: Thank you very much. I have a quick question for Ana, and that's this. How is congestion charging supposed to cut congestion down in Midtown? The majority of us, those who don't have access to public transport, who commute in every day to come to work, we come to work. We park our cars at nine o'clock. We go to our offices. We work all day. We contribute to the local economy.

We spend money in local businesses. We go home. The idea that we drive around Midtown all day causing congestion is absolutely ludicrous. I don't see why we should be penalized for the 93,000 Uber and Lyft licenses that were given out by de Blasio without any thought whatsoever to the effect that would have on the city. I don't see why we should be penalized for those stupid decisions.

Kousha Navidar: Martin, for you, it sounds like potentially Uber, Lyft, other driver services are really the issue here, is that fair?

Martin: Absolutely. I park my car in the morning. I work all day long. I spend money in local businesses. I pay taxes. I already pay for the privilege of coming into the city because I pay tolls to come across the bridges. Now, I'm being asked to pay double that to fund probably one of the worst-run public organizations in the world. Quite frankly, you could give the MTA $100 billion. They find 100 billion ways to waste it.

Kousha Navidar: Well, $100 billion would be quite an amount. Let's bring it to you, Ana. Uber, Lyft, these taxi services, what do you say to folks like Martin who say they are the real issue? They should be the ones to receive this pricing.

Ana Ley: They are paying Uber and Lyft vehicle-- Well, they would have been paying under the program for every trip that they make into the zone. Whereas drivers like you and me, we would have paid one time. There was a cap. There was a daily cap for people to come into the zone. I'm just explaining the methodology here. I'm explaining what their reasoning was and how they sorted some of these concerns out.

Not suggesting that they satisfy whatever the concerns might be from drivers, but the way that they tried to address this was by only charging drivers of passenger vehicles one time per day. Whereas if you're an Uber or Lyft driver or taxi driver, you're going to get charged for every trip that you make into the zone to take into account that they do go in and out a lot of times per day. Whereas someone who's going in for work is probably just going to go in one time.

They also try to give credits to people who already pay to go into the zone through the bridges and tunnels by offering a bit of a-- I guess you call it a discount. You get a certain amount of money taken off of your toll if you're already paying to come in through another route that would charge you. There were some efforts to try to soften the impact on drivers who need to go in to commute like Martin is.

Kousha Navidar: Martin, just to let you know, as soon as you asked that question, we got another text coming in that just says, "Thank you, Martin." I don't think you're the only one thinking along these lines. Looking at the clock. Got to wrap up here. Before, Ana, I asked you if you were a mind reader into Governor Hochul. I'm asking you another question like that. Again, understanding you're not a mind reader, but the governor has been pretty insistent that this pause is truly just a pause. She says she really does plan on pressing play but hasn't given a sense of when. Do you have any insight into what that timeline might look like if and when congestion pricing were back in play?

Ana Ley: I think if she wants this thing to actually happen, it's going to have to happen before a potential Trump presidency because Trump has already said he'll kill this thing. I think that's why there's a lot of anxiety among supporters of the program. Because if this doesn't happen before that potential point, it's over.

Kousha Navidar: Well, we'll have to leave it there. We've been talking to Ana Ley, a reporter at The New York Times who covers mass transit. Ana, thanks so much for coming on the show.

Ana Ley: Thank you.

Copyright © 2024 New York Public Radio. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use at www.wnyc.org for further information.

New York Public Radio transcripts are created on a rush deadline, often by contractors. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of New York Public Radio’s programming is the audio record.