Bergen vs. Broadway: New Jersey’s Legal Battle Against New York City Congestion Pricing
From Singapore to Stockholm, congestion pricing—a toll placed on automotive commuters traveling through a specific area—has helped major cities reduce gridlock, lower air pollution, improve public health, and fund transportation alternatives. Introduced in Singapore in 1975, the policy has been widely adopted abroad but remains uncommon in the United States. New York City, which has consistently ranked among the top ten worst world cities for traffic congestion, has been one U.S. city fighting for congestion pricing, but comprehensive proposals have historically failed to garner the necessary support for implementation. However, in 2017, NYC Mayor Cuomo declared that “congestion pricing is an idea whose time has come” and began paving the way for its implementation. [1] After gaining the approval of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) in June 2023, NYC’s congestion pricing plan was the first of its kind to come to fruition in the United States — but it quickly faced legal backlash [2]
Claiming that they would unfairly face the brunt of overflow traffic and air pollution from commuters changing their routes to avoid the toll, New Jersey filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in July 2023 against the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and other senior FHWA officials. New Jersey argued the defendants had underreviewed New York’s congestion pricing project, noting that the FHWA found that Bergen County — home to the George Washington Bridge that commuters could utilize to avoid traveling through the central business district — would “experience increased air pollutants….through at least 2045”, but chose to move forward with the project anyway. [3]
New Jersey filed its July complaint on the basis that the FHWA did not properly review New York’s proposal under the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) and the Clean Air Act, and violated requirements outlined by the Administrative Procedure Act. [4] As outlined in Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council and the decision’s assessment of the NEPA, the FHWA must take a “…hard look at the environmental effects of their planned action…,” — a step that New Jersey asserted was absent from the FHWA’s ultimate approval of congestion pricing. [5] New Jersey also argued that congestion pricing would violate the “good neighbor” provision outlined in the Clean Air Act which “probibit(s) … any source or other type of emissions activity within the state from emitting any air pollutant in amounts which will contribute significantly to nonattainment in … any other state.” [6] In arguing that congestion pricing had, in failing to meet the National Ambient Air Quality Standards, violated the Clean Air Act, New Jersey delivered a new interpretation to the law, which has historically been used to protect against power plant emissions. [7] Furthermore, New Jersey also cited the Administrative Procedure Act (which requires federal agencies to consider all relevant data and alternatives to a specific action) claiming the FHWA did not adequately consider the consequences of congestion pricing on New Jersey highways. [8]
On December 30th, 2024, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey reached a split decision regarding New Jersey’s complaint. Judge Leo M. Gordon found the FHWA in violation of the NEPA through its "arbitrary and capricious” review of New York’s congestion pricing and ordered them to correct their process by January 17th, 2025. [9] However, the court rejected New Jersey’s complaints about the Administrative Procedure Act and Clean Air Act, stating that the FHWA indeed undertook the required careful analysis and made its conclusion with reason, finding that congestion pricing would lower the overall emissions in the region. [10]
Following the FHWA’s revised plan for congestion pricing, New Jersey filed an amended complaint on January 27th, 2025, proclaiming that the FHWA’s decisions continued to be concluded without deeper analysis into the impacts on New Jersey’s environment. [11] Although a decision regarding the amended complaints has yet to be ruled on, New York continued with its implementation of congestion pricing on January 5th, 2025, setting a precedent that environmental law would not be an easy path for states to challenge or stall transportation reform. [12]
New Jersey’s argument demonstrates the difficulty of tackling regional environmental impacts with localized policies. The future of environmental policy, such as the possibility of congestion pricing implementation in future U.S. cities, will depend on how courts interpret federal environmental review processes that assess interregional impacts.
Sources
Santora, Marc. “Cuomo Calls Manhattan Traffic Plan an Idea ‘Whose Time Has Come.’” The New York Times, August 13, 2017.
Marquis, Richard J, Federal Register § (2023).
State of New Jersey v. United States Department of Transportation (United States District Court District of New Jersey July 21, 2023).
Ibid.
Marsh v. Oregon Natural Resources Council (U.S. Supreme Court May 1, 1989).
42 U.S. Code § 7410 - State implementation plans for national primary and secondary ambient air quality standards (n.d.).
Ibid.
New Jersey v. USDOT (2023).
Ibid.
Ibid.
State of New Jersey v. United States Department of Transportation Proposed Supplemental Complaint (United States District Court District of New Jersey January 27, 2025).
Ibid.