We’ve all had that moment, where something small tends to take more time than you anticipate. Today, formatting can be a five minute task; I can use AI tools to help reformat a paragraph, organize my thoughts into a table, and more.

In the background, however, there are thousands of servers chugging along to help format documents, providing ideas for how to soothe a crying baby, and answering if you should put glue on pizza.

All of those questions that we put through AI seem somewhat weightless. But collectively, the massive physical footprint of a data center which includes thousands of computer servers housed inside large facilities is the physical embodiment of what powers all of these actions.

In the news, we often hear about the race to build the smartest AI model. Underpinning that race is the question: who can build the infrastructure to power that model?

This has led to companies spending a lot of money to build data centers. This leaves states and residents grappling with the question: Do we have enough power to continue supporting this technology?

New York is the first state to pause to seek an answer to that question.

Recently, Governor Hochul signed an executive order that placed a one year pause on new hyperscale data center approvals. This is one of the most significant attempts at regulating the infrastructure demands of artificial intelligence.

It is really important to clarify that this does not mean that New York banned all of its data centers or is turning its back on AI. Instead, this is a one year moratorium on permits for new hyperscale facilities. This means that existing data centers can continue to operate. It also means that smaller data centers are not affected, only very large facilities are paused. Specifically, it places a pause on new state environmental permits for hyperscale data centers, which are facilities that require at least 50 megawatts of electricity. To put that into context 50 megawatts of electricity can power about 50,000 homes.

It is an important distinction to make that this policy is not banning data centers and is not against AI. Rather it is a pause on the largest new projects so that New York can figure out how to manage the infrastructure and who should be paying for it.

Why Did New York Step In?

As I previously discussed in New York’s Data Center Dilemma, large language models require more computing power than other internet services. Companies are racing to build more facilities to support their AI ambitions. These data centers are extremely resource intensive and communities across the country have pushed back due to:

1. Increased energy strain due to the high amount of electricity required

2. Increased water consumption used to cool off the facilities

3. Rising electricity costs due to improper safe guards.

The rising electricity costs is probably the largest concern New Yorkers have because massive data centers require expensive upgrades. Without the right guardrails, these costs can be passed down to the residents.

Why Now?

New York already has several data centers and several are relatively small, ranging from 5-20 MWs. Now, there are several large data centers planned that would require 100+ MW. Several of the data centers will be located in upstate New York, where there is more land, existing transmission infrastructure, and cooler temperatures. Several upstate communities are worried about the amount of electricity and water these facilities would draw on after they are built. Additionally, the New York Independent System Operator has already warned that NY faces reliability strains due to rising electricity demand, delays in renewable energy projects and more.

Weeks earlier, the state legislature passed a separate bill, the Responsible Data Center Development Act, setting a lower 20 MW threshold. Thus, Hochul’s executive order isn’t a unilateral move by the Governor, it is a timely compromise. This executive order is important now because the next wave of data center projects are an entirely different scale of electricity, water and more.

So Why a Moratorium?

Hochul’s executive order places a temporary pause on state environmental permits for new hyperscale data centers. New York agencies will use this time to help develop rules around:

1. Energy Demand: The states wants to understand how these data centers will impact the electricity supply and specifically the grid’s reliability

2. Environmental Impacts: Regulators want to understand how to align future projects with New York’s climate goals

3. Community Benefits: The state is also exploring how the benefits of these data centers can be distributed to communities, not just the costs.

Essentially, Hochul recognizes the need for an effective playbook outlining how to govern AI’s infrastructure.

This executive order shows that the narrative behind the infrastructure is just as important as the one around the software. There have been several conversations on algorithms and chips but now the limiting factor is not just computing power, it is also whether states can generate and deliver enough electricity to support it.

Conclusion

AI runs on these massive data centers. I do appreciate this order because it does force us to think a bit more holistically about what powers all of our actions and take some time to create guiding principles around new data center projects. It is ensuring that residents aren’t left paying the bills or left in the dark.

“Did you watch the Knicks game last night?” she asked.

For the next two minutes, we talked about the series. We laughed about the emotional roller coaster it is being a Knicks fan, and how our neighborhood really came alive that Monday night.

Then the elevator reached the lobby and we went our separate ways.

The conversation felt so unusual but also great! I’ve lived in NY my whole life, so I know that it is very possible for us to work in the same building, share the same subway carts, and live in the same neighborhood while rarely interacting. But the Knicks had finally given us something meaningful to speak about.

This exchange got me thinking about how we experience the city today and the importance of shared experiences.

The Lack of the Shared New York Experience

For much of the city’s history, people followed a very familiar rhythm. We’d wake up, commute to work in Manhattan, hit up a deli or food court for lunch, meet friends for drinks post work, and then make a trip back home. There were so many moments built for spontaneous interactions.

But today, this rhythm looks remarkably different. The rise of hybrid work means that fewer people are going into the office and several people have opted for fully remote positions. Today, NYC office attendance has tapered to 15-20% below pre-pandemic levels. Economist also use the term, the “Donut Effect” to explain how remote work has been shifting economic activity outwards to residential neighborhoods and outer boroughs.

Don’t get me wrong, I love a hybrid work environment. My Friday work from home feels sacred because I don’t have to deal with the morning subway scramble. There are so many benefits like less time commuting and more flexibility. But there are trade offs. I felt these trade offs most acutely when I was working a fully remote position. I stopped sharing the same routine with others in my city, I no longer bumped into a colleague for lunch, and the tertiary connections I had seemed to fade.

We all still live in the same city but we experience it less together.

The Shift in Third Spaces

Work isn’t the only thing that changed, there is also a shift in our third spaces. A “third space” is a name coined by Ray Oldenburg to describe a place outside of home and work where people build community. Churches, libraries, bars are examples of third spaces.

These spaces are important because they allow us to cultivate “weak ties”. These are the familiar acquaintances, baristas, neighbors you see that help you feel rooted to the community.

But today in NYC, it feels like these third spaces have become less central to our daily lives.

Part of this shift is generational. Gen Z, for example, drinks less and therefore goes to bars less frequently compared to other generations. So instead of meeting at bars, people spend their time at home chatting online or scrolling through social media. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing but the buzz of the city is lost when people live most of their lives in private or digital spaces.

So, the Knicks

This is why the Knicks’ playoff run is a breath of fresh air. For the last few weeks, New Yorkers have had a reason to gather again. We adorn our blue and orange regalia, pack into local bars, or pack a public space hosting a watch party. Strangers strike up conversations.

The Knicks have given something for the collective to agree on and demand our collective attention. In an era where we all consume different media, millions of New Yorkers are focused on the same thing at the same time.

It feels like we are all creating and living a shared civic experience because a teacher in Astoria, a software engineer in Brooklyn, and a banker in Manhattan are likely all watching the same game and experiencing similar emotions during game time. There is this intangible phenomenon called “psychic income” which is emotional and psychological dividend a city receives from a winning team such as a measurable increase in civic pride, collective joy, and social cohesion.

But the Knicks aren’t just fostering conversation, they are also acting as a key economic engine for the city. Across the city, restaurants and bars that would have otherwise been half empty are packed to the brim. I experienced this in my neighborhood, where I couldn’t even get into the bar and had to watch a quarter of the game standing on the sidewalk, looking through the window.

There are also so many vendors selling merchandise and more people on the train commuting the different parts of the city to watch the game. According to the New York City Economic Development Corporation, the Knicks playoff run has already generated an estimated $202 million in economic activity, with the potential to reach $465 million by the end of the Finals. Clearly, the Knicks are creating economic activity beyond the arena.

The Knicks have been creating so many moments that are feeling like important cultural touch points we will all remember. They won’t solve the housing crisis or make the trains move faster but they have provided us with a reminder that NYC is amazing when we don’t just live alongside each other and rather experience the city together.

The NYC transit system is one of the most expansive public transit networks in the world. Every day, millions of riders move though the massive system. Naturally this makes it one of the most valuable canvases for advertisers in the country.

When I started to dig into the process, I quickly learned that the allocation, sale and curation of this space is not a simple process. It is a complex intersection of law, bureaucratic review process, sensitive public policy considerations and aggressive marketing strategies.

The Commercial Landscape Behind the MTA

So who decided that the Museum of Sex ad should be on every bus?

Technically, not the MTA. The MTA does not manage its advertising sales portfolio. Instead, it contracts this to a specialized out-of-home media vendor. Currently, OUTFRONT Media is the primary contractor responsible for the administration, sales and installation of the ads across the MTA.

Advertisers, like the Museum of Sex, work with OUTFRONT to purchase campaigns. They decide how many placements they want, how long they want to run their ads, and essentially how broadly they want to saturate the city. In the case of the Museum of Sex, the founder, Daniel Gluck is hoping that the Museum of Sex logo on every bus “becomes another iconic New York thing.” Thus, there are over 3000 buses running with the museum’s logo across the front.

The Financial Reality of These Ads

So, how lucrative are these ads for the MTA?

The MTA operates with a massive annual budget of over $20 billion, which is primarily funded through federal grants, state and local tax subsidies, tolls, and passenger revenue. The advertising program is designed to bring in some of the “supplemental” revenue to support its operations.

Advertising accounts for about $175 million annually. While this number is large in absolute terms, it makes up less than 1% of the MTA’s total budget. This is why it plays a supplemental role because it helps offset some costs rather than keeping the trains running.

This creates an interesting dynamic: the MTA needs to keep its ad inventory attractive and flexible to advertisers, while also policing what goes on buses to avoid public backlash.

The Economics of Bus Advertising

So why buses?

Buses are unique advertising canvas because they offer mobility. Buses travel through the city across multiple neighborhoods throughout the day. This movement increases visibility and creates repeated exposure, which is very valuable. Subway station ads, in contrast, are fixed in place and play on the concept of dwell time, which is the amount of time a viewer has to process an ad.

• Subway ads: Riders sit across subway ads for several minutes. This allows for more complex messaging.

• Bus ads: Exterior bus ads, in contrast, rely on immediate cognitive processing. You only have a few seconds to grab someone’s attention, which bus ads tend to be visually bold, text light, and very legible.

There are different types of ad formats that serve different uses. Below is a sample of some of the types of ads:

The Museum of Sex ads uses the Headliner format closely. It’s visually bold and designed to be understood quickly. The repeat exposure all across the city helps you remember it.

The MTA’s Advertising Policy

So what’s actually allowed?

The MTA has strict guidelines on what is and is not allowed on public transit. Notably, the MTA completely prohibits political ads, anything related to a “public controversy”, and any content that is explicitly graphic or defamatory. Legally, the courts view transit systems as a “non-public forum.” This means that the MTA does have the right to restrict speech as long as their views are neutral and seen as reasonable. They are allowed to do this so that they can ensure transit is safe, orderly and free from harassment.

Back in 2018, the Museum of Sex had ads that were removed from the buses because some riders used the signage to harass female bus drivers. Following complaints from the Transport Workers Union, the MTA agreed to pull the ads from the fronts of the vehicles and relocate them to the back of the bus. While the MTA does have guidelines that ban “sexually oriented businesses”, the Museum of Sex is a legally accredited educational and cultural institution. So its ads are viewed under the law as cultural programming promotions rather than commercial product advertisements. This distinction grants them a legal right to transit ad space that actual adult businesses do not have. Recently, the Museum of Sex partnered very closely with OUTFRONT Media to ensure the placement complied fully with all of the MTA’s formal administrative and structural guidelines before the wraps ever hit the vehicles.

Whether you love it or hate it, you won’t miss the Museum of Sex logo on buses. But the next time you see one, you will know how it got there. I do find the ads interesting to watch because they do represent a unique intersection of culture, bureaucracy, and culture.

In recent years, the rise of AI has led to governments spending an increasing amount of attention to regulating AI tools. NYC’s Local Law 144 is one example of this. It is a regulation that addresses bias in the hiring process, and targets the use of Automated Employment Decision Tools (AEDTs). The regulation is rooted in the modern-day concerns revolving around AI and discrimination, but it also re-raises constitutional questions about the relationship between government regulation and economic liberty. One way I want to explore this is through the lens of Lochner v. New York as a theoretical framework (not a binding precedent).

First, I want to acknowledge that Lochner is “dead” in many respects. While the case was never formally overruled, the central doctrine, which sees freedom of contract as a protected liberty under substantive due process, has not been used in nearly a century. My use of Lochner in this post is a thought experiment because I think it is still an interesting tool for interrogating how we balance our individual liberties against regulations.

Understanding Local Law 144

NYC’s Local Law 144 requires employees using AI or algorithm-based software to screen candidates or employees for hire or promotion within New York City must:

• Conduct an Annual Bias Audit: The tool has to go through a bias audit once a year, which checks the “selection rate for each race/ethnicity and sex category.”

• Publish Audit Results: The summary of these results and the “impact ratio” for different demographic groups has to be publicly available.

• Provide Candidate Notification: At least 10 days prior to using AEDT, the employers have to notify candidates of its use.

Fundamentally, Local Law 144 is a regulation that intervenes in the employment market. It imposes procedural requirements and compliance costs on employers and shapes how they can structure their hiring processes. While the law reflects a concern that algorithmic systems can amplify existing social biases, it also constrains the freedom of businesses to contract and operate as they see fit.

Lochner v New York

In 1905, the Supreme Court decided Lochner v. New York after a bakery owner challenged a state law that limited his employees’ work hours to 60 per week. The Court ruled 5-4 to invalidate the law, arguing that it unconstitutionally interfered with the liberty of contract between employers and workers. According to the court, the 14th Amendment’s Due Process Clause protected economic freedom. It argued that the state overstepped by passing this law since there was no visible or direct emergency. By interpreting the 14th Amendment in this way, the Court curtailed the government’s police power (defined as protecting the public from systemic harms) to intervene in the workplace.

Applying the Lochner Lens

If you apply the Lochner lens to Local Law 144, then you view these hiring algorithms as a piece of private property, just like any other business tool. If an employer wants to use this tool to rank resumes, that is their prerogative. Applying this lens also leads to the conclusion that requiring a company to audit and publish these results could be seen as an unreasonable burden on innovation. Thus, the city’s mandate would be seen as unconstitutional since this should be a private negotiation between a job seeker and a company. Furthermore, the laissez-faire economic theory that the Lochner case supports would also suggest that if a tool is biased, then the company will eventually lose out on talent and the problem will correct itself without governments interference.

Critiques of Lochner

The dissenting lens was famously championed by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. He argued that the Constitution was not meant to favor a specific economic theory over another; instead it allows the government to exercise its “police power.”

Ultimately, Holmes’s dissent became far more influential than the majority opinion. The Supreme Court gradually shifted away from the rigid protection of economic liberty that Lochner established. Central to this shift was the adoption of the rational basis test. Under the rational basis test, a law will be upheld as long as it is rationally related to a legitimate government interest. Courts that apply rational basis put the burden on the challenger to prove that the law is irrational, not on the government. This is in opposition of the Lochner majority, which closely scrutinized whether labor regulations interfered with the freedom of contract. The adoption of the rational basis test became more clear during the Progressive era. A prime example is the West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, where the court upheld a state minimum wage law for women. This case rejected the Lochner-era framework that the freedom of contract is absolute. By doing this, the Court embraced Holmes’s view that the states can use their police power to regulate in the interest of public welfare. Today, the rational basis test remains the default standard for evaluating economic regulations.

When applying this lens to the Local Law 144, the argument shifts dramatically. A job seeker in 2026 has practically no bargaining power against a ‘black box’ algorithm that might filter them out before a human even sees its name. The city, in this case, is attempting to ensure that the algorithm doesn’t perpetuate any racial or gender bias. It has the right to do so because it is their duty to ensure that the labor market is safe and fair.

Due Process in a Modern Context

While the economic substantive due process that Lochner upheld has faded, the concept of substantive due process is still central to constitutional law. Since today’s courts tend to provide a rational basis review that only asks whether the law is reasonably related to a legitimate government interest, this makes them more open to economic regulation.

Therefore, Local Law 144 would likely be upheld in this modern framework. The law’s requirement supports the government’s goal to prevent discrimination and promote fairness in employment. Courts applying the rational basis test would not ask whether the law imposes a burden on employers, rather it would ask whether it is reasonable for the legislature to believe that the regulation could mitigate systemic bias. Given the concerns that these types of tools can exacerbate existing inequalities, the audits and disclosures are rationally related to address those harms. Similar to the minimum wage law upheld in West Coast Hotel Company v. Parrish, Local Law 144 reflects a policy judgment that economic actors can be regulated to protect workers and the broader public.This shift represents a growing recognition that regulations play a necessary role to ensure markets function fairly.

Conclusion

Local Law 144 is an ambitious attempt to address challenges posed by algorithmic decision making in employment. Examining it through the lens of Lochner v New York highlights some of the tension between regulation and liberty. Even though we have shifted away from the Lochner perspective, the core question still remains: How much should the government intervene in private economic relationships? Lochner provides a theoretical basis by which to understand this question.

I began my trip in Bangkok, where walking across the street felt like an act of faith. Cars, motor bikes, and tuk-tuks move in what appears to be choreographed chaos. But above the disorder of the Bangkok streets, the train stations had a sense of order that can sometimes feel unfathomable in NY.

The Train as a Cultural Mirror

Public transportation is not just about getting from point A to point B. Sociologists argue that transit spaces act as microcosms of societal norms and values. The way people line up, speak, take up space, and respond to rules reflects deeper cultural scripts.

Thailand is widely characterized as a collectivist society (per the Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions theory), where group harmony and social cohesion are emphasized over individual assertion.

In Bangkok’s rail systems, I noticed:

• Clearly formed queues on platforms

• Riders standing to the side to let passengers exit first

• No door prying

• Low noise levels

• Trains arriving quickly even at odd hours

These norms align with the Thai cultural concept of “kreng jai”, which is a value that emphasizes consideration, deference, and minimizing inconvenience to others. Rather than prioritizing individual urgency, behavior is adjusted to preserve collective flow.

In addition to Kren Jai, the concept of “Nam Jai” (water from the heart), which is the impulse for spontaneous kindness was on display. In Bangkok, there were two train systems, the BTS Skytrain and the Mass Rapid Transit which are distinct, non-integrated systems for transport. The MRT has tap-to-pay but for the Skytrain, we needed to buy tickets from a machine. We were having some issues with purchasing the tickets and a Thai rider noticed our confusion. He walked over with us to the clerk, waited at a respectful distance to ensure we were able to buy the tickets, and checked in once more before heading to his own train. His kindness was palpable. I love New Yorkers, but our tolerance for tourists (and locals) can be non-existent if it requires us to break stride. This man taking the time during rush hour to help us was incredibly sweet and another instance of a cultural norm that shaped how we experienced riding the train in Thailand.

The cost of urgency
Taking the train is a shared experience in any country. You share the platform, train, and ride with others. But in NY, even that experience can feel individualistic when we pile on to cars, pry open, closing the doors to let ourselves in, and rush into the car before letting others out. Courtesy often feels like a (rejected) suggestion rather than a shared expectation.

But given the scale of the NYC subway system (~4 million trips) daily riderships, these actions can lead to inefficiencies that compound.

According to reports from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, common causes of subway delays include:

• Passenger boarding and exiting delays

• Door holding and obstruction

• Train crowding

I am not ignoring the aging infrastructure leads to delays, but riders’ actions are consistent factors that do contribute to those delays. When riders block doors or prevent trains from departing on time, train dwell times increase. These seconds of delays get compounded over our massive system leading to meaningful amounts of delays experienced by everyone taking the train. Proving that public transportation systems are deeply sensitive to human cooperation.

Efficiency Is a Social Contract

Sociologist Erving Goffman’s concept of “civil inattention” suggests that urban dwellers subtly acknowledge each other through a respectful distance. Even though people are really busy in Bangkok that distance was filled with cooperation whereas in NY it is often filled with urgency.

Given that there are so many people riding the subway each day in New York, we are not isolated commuters, we are participants in a shared system. This shared system can be a collaborative experience if we wanted it to be. Research on social norms shows that people are more likely to comply with cooperative behavior when they believe others are doing the same. Norms are contagious.

In Thailand, cooperative behavior felt visible and expected. In New York, urgency often overrides collective flow.

New York has one of the most extensive and 24-hour subway systems in the world, something Bangkok does not operate at the same scale or frequency. But it is worth nothing that the Bangkok transit systems are significantly newer. This can also contribute to shared pride and cooperation. The comparison isn’t about which system is “better.” It’s about how cultural norms interact with public infrastructure. This experience reinforced how transit systems are co-produced by infrastructure and culture.

Other than taking actions that seem somewhat obvious (like not holding doors, letting others out first, etc.), I do wonder if there are any design elements that we can implement within our subway that can encourage these behaviors.

I’ve never really had to think about where my electricity comes from but lately that is changing. There is a ton of news about the huge data center projects that is and will continue to reshape the US’s electricity demand and consequently electricity costs and reliability. The demand for these projects has risen in recent years primarily because of the AI boom. Training large language models used for generative AI requires more than 10X the power compared to your standard google search. Nationwide, data center electricity demand is projected to reach up to 12% of the country’s total power by 2028, according to the Department of Energy. So there is this need to build more data centers

The public response to these data center projects has been quite cold. Nationwide, opposition to data centers surged by over 125% in 2025, with over 180 grassroots groups forming to block projects. For context, in Q2 2025, $98 billion worth of data center projects were blocked or delayed.

The intensifying opposition stems from three main reasons:

1. Energy strain: the data centers cause for electrical grids

2. Water usage: these data centers can consume millions of gallons of water a day for cooling.

3. Energy costs: residents fear they will end up subsidizing the massive grid upgrades needed to support Big Tech.

In New York, there are several advocacy groups that have called for a statewide moratorium on data centers due to the negative externalities data centers can impose on those living around the area. These concerns are largely economic since data centers provide few long term jobs when built but continue to suck clean water and harm local ecosystems while driving energy costs higher.

So, are any of the claims against data centers real?

Yes, residents are left holding the bag for data centers because:

• Infrastructure Levies: When a massive data center moves in, the utility needs to build new high-voltage lines and substations. Under current laws, these costs are often “socialized,” so those living in the area do pay an additional fee.

• Energy reliability: The New York Independent System Operator (NYISO) identified a “reliability need” for NYC meaning that the power grid may not have enough capacity to meet peak demand during extreme weather or system disturbances. The report warned of a 446 MW shortfall in the grid’s reliability margin driven by the rise of electricity demand.

• Scarcity Pricing: When supply is tight, prices spike. Reports suggest that in high-density data center regions, residential bills can increase by 8% to 25% as a direct result.

New York’s Data Center Inventory

New York is a high demand state for developers given that there is more untapped land that can be used for data centers especially upstate or Long Island.

• Current Inventory: As of early 2026, New York hosts roughly 140 facilities with a combined operational capacity of approximately 850 Megawatts.

• The 2031 Forecast: The “interconnection queue” (the list of projects asking for power) has increased to over 12,000 MW. Market analysts project New York will reach 1,150 MW of active capacity by 2031. This represents a 40% increase in just five years, which is not sustainable for the original aging grid.

There are some planned projects like the Cayuga project in Tompkins County which aims to use the site’s existing power infrastructure to support large-scale energy needs. It can add add over 1,300 MW to the state’s load by 2027.

Hochul and State Legislatures Response

There is opposition to a lot of these projects but New York still wants to cement its status as a global AI Hub while also shielding residents from the massive energy costs associated with data center expansion. Hochul and the Senate have designed a few bills to help to this:

• NYS Affordable Utilities Omnibus Legislation: Hochul presented this in January 2025 which essentially ensures that data centers pay their fair share” by mandating that these facilities fund their own grid interconnections and infrastructure upgrades directly. By doing so, the state aims to stop the “socialization” of costs, where residential ratepayers have historically subsidized the lines needed for Big Tech.

• Bill S6394A (The Sustainable Data Centers Act): The State Senate is advancing this bill which introduces a Data Center Surcharge, where the proceeds are distributed as monthly bill credits to eligible low-income utility customers. It also bans state tax incentives for any facility that relies on fossil fuel, so that more green energy sources can be used.

• Senate Bill S8540 (Accountability of Costs for Data Centers Act): To create more accountability and transparency, this bill requires utilities to create a separate service classification for data centers. This allows for transparent auditing of exactly how much power these facilities consume and prevents their energy spikes from being blended into residential rate cases.

New York is at a critical crossroad where the reality of a strained power grid is meeting the data center gold rush. The new legislative guardrails represent a necessary pivot toward accountability and affordability for residents. It will be interesting to see whether these safeguards will be enough to protect the state’s reliability and residents’ costs.

Governor Hochul mirrors the markets bullish stance, aligning with the tech industry to oppose innovation-killing red tape. Lawmakers are far more skeptical, pushing for strict safety checks to rein in the industry. Looming over both is the new Executive Order from the White House that threatens to render the entire debate moot.

The RAISE Act

At the heart of the conflict is the Responsible AI Safety and Education (RAISE) Act. This is the nation's first bill that would force companies to prove their AI models are safe before they ever hit the market. AI developers will be required to create safety standards for AI models by mandating incident reporting, and assessing for critical harm before deployment. It focuses on large-scale AI risks like cyberattacks and bioweapons with penalties for non-compliance.

It has been passed by the New York state legislature and has been sent to Kathy Hochul for signature. However, Hochul has proposed a critical rewrite that would mimic California’s softer law that focuses on transparency rather than strict liability.

Key Differences

There are a couple of key differences between the two forms of the law:

1. The Thresholds: The original RAISE act uses a compute cost threshold that triggers regulation for anyone spending $100 million to build the model. Hochul wants to swap this for a revenue threshold, applying the rules only to companies generating $500 million in sales.

2. The Who: By changing the thresholds, who the law impacts changes drastically. Effectively, Hochul’s revenue test would only regulate Big Tech, placing the regulatory burden solely on incumbents (like Google) whereas the original RAISE act would include smaller tech companies that are developing AI with high computational power. It targets capability by requiring any company rich enough to train a powerful AI model rather than just looking at sales figures.

3. The End Goal: The divide ultimately boils down to timing. The Legislature is demanding preemption: they want to stop “critical harm” before a model ever launches, prioritizing maximum safety over speed. Hochul’s rewrite flips this to a disclosure model, requiring companies to report disasters only after they occur. The end goals differ widely. The Legislature wants to ensure maximum safety whereas, Hochul’s goal is primarily economic. Her version of the law will protect startups from excessive red tape.

4. The Risks: The two versions have different risks associated with them. For the Legislature’s version, the risk is that smaller start ups flee to California, where the law is more lax. For Hochul’s version, the risk is that AI models that harm their consumers can be released.

The Federal Wild Card

This debate may be in vain given Trump’s December 11 Executive Order. This orders aims to create a national regulatory framework for AI by preventing states from enforcing their own AI regulations. The aim is to prevent states from stymieing innovation through a patchwork of regulation.

This means that even if Hochul and the legislature reach a compromise, any New York AI law will likely face a federal lawsuit the moment the ink is dry.

So What Happens Next?

On December 12, Hochul signed two less controversial AI bills: one protects actors from “digital replicas” and another regarding data privacy. The RAISE act is still in limbo.

If New York adopts the California model, it signals that Big Tech has successfully set the ceiling for regulation across the US. But if the legislature holds the line and forces a veto, New York may end up with no regulation at all.

• “Hochul and legislative leaders play game of chicken with AI regulations”

• The White House: “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence (Executive Order)”

• : “California’s SB 53: The First Frontier AI Law, Explained”

When did the Sticker Campaign Start?

Pinpointing the exact origins of the ‘I Voted’ stickers is somewhat difficult. According to a 1982 article in the Miami Herald, a small business in Fort Lauderdale was offering discounts to customers wearing an “I Voted” sticker. On the other side of the country, the Phoenix Realtors Association mentioned that it started distributing these in 1985.

The modern day “I Voted” design with the American Flag blowing is credited to Janet Brodreau, who worked at an election supply company. According to Brodreau, she designed these stickers because of how crucial voting mattered during that time. ““In terms of civil rights and people protesting against the Vietnam War, we could see populism having a huge effect. Who you’d get in office to pass or kill legislation could mean life or death for some people.”1

According to many political scientists, the sticker itself doesn’t get people to come out and vote but it does connect you to those who did vote. It takes a seemingly solitary activity into a shared experience creating a sense of community. The stickers also serve as a tool to exert some social pressure by creating a visible distinction: a “good citizen” is one that performs his/her civic duties, while subtly implying that those without one have failed to do their part.

How did the Halloween stickers get young voters out?

In the NYC Mayoral election, exit polls and post election analysis showed that the Friday, October 31 saw a surge in voter participation aged 18-34. This is significant because early voting is typically dominated by older demographics. But Halloween 2025 was different.

“There was a huge uptick in younger voters. Younger voters on Halloween on that Friday made up more than a quarter of all of the early voters for that day. When I say “younger,” I am talking specifically voters 25 to 34 made up 26% of the vote on that day. You add in voters 18 to 24, and we are above 30%. I really do think the Halloween sticker had something to do with it.”2

For a generation that is chronically online, the sticker represents a form of social currency. There were several sticker selfies posted on social media. The fact that this sticker was only going to be available on one day (really a few hours) also created this form of scarcity, which may have helped convert some voters that would have waited to vote into early voters. Social media posts also helped create this feeling of FOMO driving peers to the voting polls as well.

I am living proof of the sticker hype. I planned to vote on election day because it was more convenient for my schedule, but the Halloween sticker prompted me to go vote on Halloween day. When I got to my early voting site, the energy was palpable with lines snaking around the block. The lines were longer than I’ve ever seen before. Sadly, my enthusiasm wasn’t fast enough. After waiting in the line, all the Halloween stickers were out.

Gamifying the Civic Experience

The Halloween Sticker is just one example of a broader effort by the Board of Elections to gamify democratic participation. Stickers represent one gamification technique by providing a tangible reward. Other initiatives try to meet these young voters where they already live: on their phones. For the NYC 2025 Mayoral election, the non-profit “Who’s on the Ballot” partnered with Palumba NYC to create an app that served as a “Tinder for Politics.” The app allowed users to “swipe” on policy positions to find their best candidate match, demystifying the mayoral race for Gen Z voters.3

Ultimately, these strategies were more than just a gimmick. Digital engagement and tangible rewards helped boost voter participation, especially among younger voters. These gamification techniques employed show just how important the experience of voting matters. Given that we live in an era of declining trust in institutions, initiatives like Halloween stickers and interactive apps helped bridge the gap between these institutions and people. I hope that this 2025 election continues to serve as a blueprint for how we design the voter experience to make it more social, seamless, and genuinely enjoyable.

Here are some key dates:

• October 25: In-person early voting begins.

• November 2: Early voting ends.

• November 4: Election Day (vote in-person or put your ballot in the mail).

What are ballot proposals:

A ballot proposal is a form of direct democracy where instead of having elected officials, like city council members, vote on a law, a proposal is added to the ballot and registered voters are able to vote directly.

Ballot proposals are needed to make a change to the city’s governing structure. In NYC, these proposals are often put on the ballot by a group called a Charter Revision Commission. Since the City Council cannot change the charter itself (they can only pass local laws that fit within the rules of the Charter), these proposals must be put on the ballot.

Ballot proposals are common in places like California but rare in NYC because of how the systems differ fundamentally. California has a “citizen initiative” process. This allows citizens to gather enough signatures to force the public vote on a new law. This bypasses the need for the legislature.

New York does not have this system; it has a “legislative referral” process, which means that proposals must be put on the ballot by the government itself. In NYC, this is typically done by a Charter Revision Commission.

Propositions for this year:

Propositions 2, 3, 4, and 5 are focused on reducing the cost of housing by speeding up and lowering the cost of building new homes in NYC.

Proposal 2 (Fast Track Affordable Housing): This creates a streamlined path for affordable housing projects to get approved. It also creates another process for projects in neighborhoods that have built the least amount of affordable housing. The goal of this proposal is to provide a faster and predictable process to allow for more affordable units.

Proposal 3 (Simplify Review of Modest Housing): This creates an expedited review process for smaller scale projects, like adding a duplex or a small apartment building. The goal is to make it financially possible for these smaller projects to get built.

Proposal 4 (Establish Affordable Housing Appeals): This creates a new appeals process for affordable housing projects that are rejected by City Council. It provides a “second look” from a panel with citywide and borough wide perspectives, creating a mechanism to approve worthy projects.

Proposal 5 (Creating a Digital City Map): This is a technical upgrade to modernize the city’s official map from over 8,000 separate paper documents and rather have one digital system. The goal is to eliminate a major source of administrative delays.

The housing shortage and high costs affect all New Yorkers. These ballot proposals represent a chance for us to make a direct impact on NYC’s housing shortage by cutting the red tape, lowering costs of building new homes, and speeding up construction. It is crucial that we make our voices heard and make a difference; I recommend voting Yes for all of them!

After concluding season 2 (in an embarrassingly quick time), I was completely immersed Given the upper east side was the location for most of the drama, I was curious to see some of the mansions up close.

After finishing season 2 (in an embarrassingly quick time), I was completely immersed. Since the upper east side was the location for most of the drama, I was curious to see some of the mansions up close.

So I took a walking tour of Millionaires Row on the Upper East Side, which is where most of the show takes place. The tour was an incredible audio guide that brought the stories of the Astors, Vanderbilts, and other robber barons to life. The past felt surprisingly present. Many of the opulent homes from the show are now museums, consulates or luxury apartments. The robber barons may be gone, but have left their architectural and social mark on the city.

While on the tour, I thought about the parallels to modern day society.

Instead of Vanderbilts and Astors, we have Bezos, Bloomberg, and the real estate moguls whose glass supertalls are aggressively reshaping the skyline.

The fundamental dynamics of power and influence are very similar to before. The Gilded Age elite fought for social supremacy so that they could have control over the city’s resources. Today’s elite wage their own wars in community board meetings and backroom deals over zoning, development, and the future of our neighborhoods.

Eerily similar to today, the Gilded Age was built on a foundation of staggering inequality. There is a small number of families controlling a vast portion of the nation’s wealth. The struggles of the domestic servants to the factory workers are not so different from those faced by many New Yorkers today, who are struggling to afford housing and make ends meet in a city that often seems to just cater to the wealthy.

The Gilded Age was also a period that gave rise to a new form of philanthropy. The robber barons built museums, concert halls, and universities that are still beloved institutions today. Their philanthropy, however, was often a way of removing attention from their often ruthless business practices. Today, we see a similar trend of “philanthro-capitalism,” as the ultra-wealthy use their foundations and charitable giving to shape public policy and advance their own interests.

Walking through the streets of “The Gilded Age” was a powerful reminder that the past is never truly past. The forces that shaped New York in the late 19th century are still at play today. By understanding this history, we can better understand the challenges and opportunities we face as a city, and work towards a future that is more equitable and just for all New Yorkers.

When I got back to New York, I didn’t expect to experience the same thing. But I did: water rushing into subway stations, streets turning to rivers, and a city trying not to get into a standstill. The difference? Panama doesn’t pretend it’s ready for this. New York still does.

We like to think of this city as invincible. But the truth is, New York City’s flooding is a problem and is the result of a collision between a 21st century climate and 20th century infrastructure. Flooding seems to have gone from rare to routine, and climate change is only making it worse. This isn’t just inconvenient, it’s dangerous. And the impact no longer just falls hardest on working class neighborhoods, basement renters, and essential workers. It is impacting everyone.

We can’t keep treating floods like flukes. We need serious investment in green infrastructure, updated sewers, and climate ready transit.

Why New York City Floods

The city is grappling with a new climate reality, characterized by increasingly intense and frequent short-duration rainfall. This is straining and breaking a vast infrastructure network largely designed and built for the more predictable weather patterns of the previous century. Climate change is causing more frequent and intense rainfall, with storms delivering massive amounts of water in short, concentrated bursts. During Hurricane Ida in 2021, for example, Central Park was drenched with 3.15 inches of rain in a single hour.

This intensity is critical to recognize because the city's aging sewer system was only designed to handle about 1.75 inches of rain per hour.1 When rainfall exceeds this capacity, the system is overwhelmed. Water has nowhere to go and erupts from drains, flooding streets, homes, and subways.

This issue is made worse by the city's landscape. About 72% of its surface is covered by impervious materials like asphalt and concrete, which prevent rain from soaking into the ground.2 Instead, these surfaces act as funnels that channel huge volumes of runoff directly into the already strained sewer network, which guarantees that it becomes overburdened quickly during a downpour. This type of rainfall-driven event, known as pluvial flooding, can happen anywhere in the city, far from the coast.3

The Impact on Key Infrastructure

When the sewer system fails, the effects cascade across the city’s most critical infrastructure, with the subway system being particularly vulnerable. As a largely underground network, the subway's own drainage pumps are connected to the city's sewers. When the city system is full, it can no longer accept water from the subway, causing millions of gallons of stormwater to back up onto tracks and into stations. This paralyzes the transit network, trapping trains, causing widespread service suspensions, and resulting in tens of millions of dollars in damages. Even on a dry day, the MTA pumps 14 million gallons of groundwater out of the system, highlighting its constant battle with water.4

Above ground, the impact is just as severe. Major highways like the FDR Drive and Major Deegan Expressway frequently become impassable, shutting down critical arteries and causing city-wide gridlock. Flooding also leads to widespread property damage, with the most tragic consequences occurring in basement apartments. These units, often a source of affordable housing, can become deadly traps during flash floods, as seen during Hurricane Ida when 11 of the 13 fatalities in the city occurred in flooded basements.

What It Will Take to Fix This

Addressing New York City's flooding requires a multi-layered defense combining traditional engineering with innovative, nature-based solutions. The first layer involves massive investments in "grey infrastructure"—the pipes and tunnels that form the city's backbone.5 This includes upgrading and expanding sewers to increase their capacity, building large underground storage tanks to hold excess stormwater during a storm, and flood-proofing the subway system by raising stairwell entrances and installing deployable floodgates.

The second, and increasingly critical, layer is "green infrastructure." This strategy uses natural systems to absorb and manage rainwater where it falls, before it can overwhelm the sewers. Thousands of green infrastructure assets have been built, including curbside rain gardens (bioswales), permeable pavements that allow water to soak into the ground, and green roofs that absorb rainfall. Large-scale programs like the Staten Island Bluebelt preserve entire natural drainage corridors of streams and wetlands to manage runoff effectively and affordably. This hybrid approach is being implemented through "Cloudburst" projects, which strategically integrate green and gray solutions at a neighborhood level to handle intense, localized downpours.6

The path forward for New York is clear. It requires moving beyond the cycle of shock and recovery and accepting that the sky overhead is now a formidable threat. The solutions require prioritizing. New York is strong but strength means being ready, not just resilient.

Investing in a hybrid defense of smarter grey infrastructure and widespread green, sponge-like surfaces is the only viable strategy. Ultimately, New York must build a city that doesn't just fight water, but makes room for it, creating a future where the rhythm of life isn't dictated by the forecast.

New Yorkers are disillusioned. Concerns about public safety, housing affordability, and how the city is handling the migrant crisis dominate conversations. In that vacuum of trust, the Democratic field has grown crowded. Former Governor Andrew Cuomo—scandal-scarred but polling surprisingly well—is back in the headlines, while progressive Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani is gaining momentum with his left-leaning vision.

Voters, like me, aren't just looking for the loudest voice or the best tagline—we are looking for someone who can deliver real, tangible improvements. One piece that stood out to me is some of the proposals on transit related issues.

There is a proposal from Brad Lander that made me pause. He wants to bring the subway and buses under city control by creating a new municipal transit agency, “Big Apple Transit.”1 Not long after, I read about Mamdani laying out a plan to make buses entirely free across all five boroughs.2

As someone who thinks about the subway almost every day—not just as a commuter, but as a New Yorker these proposals hit a nerve.

Can a mayor really do that? Wrest control of the MTA? Make transit free? Why does the city need to create a whole new agency just to govern the system that moves its people?

When looking into these questions, I quickly realized that the relationship between the Mayor of New York City and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) is complex, often misunderstood, and significantly different from the influence wielded by the Governor of New York State.

What Can the Mayor Actually Do?

Let’s start with the basics: The MTA is a state agency. It’s run out of Albany, not City Hall. That means the person who sets subway budgets, controls long-term capital plans, and appoints the most powerful decision-makers isn’t the Mayor—it’s the Governor.3

The Mayor does have a say, but it’s a limited one. Of the 23 voting members on the MTA board, the Mayor only recommends four.4 The Governor appoints the chair and a majority of the board, giving the state significant influence over how the system runs and where the money goes.

So, when mayoral candidates pitch big plans for the subway, they’re often operating on the edge of their authority. It doesn’t mean their ideas are pointless—but it does mean their power is more persuasive than directive.

What the Mayor Does Control: Streets, Signals, and Buses

While the MTA might be out of direct reach, the Mayor still plays a major role in how we move through the city. Through the NYC Department of Transportation (NYCDOT), the Mayor has control over:

• Streets, highways, bridges, and sidewalks: Day-to-day maintenance, resurfacing, pothole repair, and capital improvements on city-owned roads.5

• Traffic signals and street lights: Installation and maintenance.

• Parking: Parking meter installation and maintenance, and management of municipal parking facilities.

• Street design and public space: Implementing initiatives like pedestrian plazas, bike lanes, and shared streets to improve safety and accessibility for all users (pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users)6.

• Setting speed limits on all city roads.

• Oversight of transportation-related issues: Authorizing jitney van services and permits for street construction.

That means if you’re waiting for a bus stuck in traffic, it’s the city—not the MTA—that's responsible for whether there's a functioning bus lane or traffic signal prioritization to help it move faster. In other words, the city can’t run the buses, but it can decide how smoothly they run.

The Mayor also indirectly shapes the transit experience by deciding how and where to invest in pedestrian infrastructure, how aggressively to enforce traffic laws, and how livable our public spaces are.

Here is a brief table summarizing some of the key differences in power between the governor and the mayor:

Comparison: Mayor vs. Governor on the MTA

When the Mayor and Governor Clash (Or Don’t)

This division of power between the city and state isn’t just bureaucratic—it's often contentious. New York is famous for its mayor–governor feuds, especially when it comes to transit. Cuomo vs. de Blasio? Infamous. Fights over who’s funding what, who’s to blame for service failures, and even who’s allowed to speak at press conferences about the subway became a regular spectacle.7

Today’s dynamic between Governor Hochul and Mayor Adams is more collaborative—but not without tension. Hochul still has the final say on big transit funding decisions, and her priorities can overshadow the city’s needs.8

So Where Does That Leave Voters?

Back to the original question: what should we make of mayoral candidates promising bold transit reforms?

We should welcome them—but we should also read the fine print.

It’s encouraging to see candidates treating public transportation as central to the city’s future—not just a policy box to check. But voters would be wise to read the fine print. Because as ambitious as some of these proposals sound, the mayor’s actual power over the MTA is limited.

Plans like Brad Lander’s “Big Apple Transit” or Zohran Mamdani’s call for free buses reflect an important instinct: the current system isn’t working for New Yorkers, and structural change may be necessary. Whether or not these specific ideas come to fruition, they surface a larger need - the transit system needs to change.

In the meantime, the most effective mayor might not be the one with the most sweeping promises, but the one who understands the architecture of power—and still finds ways to move within and around it. Because while a mayor may not control the MTA, they do control the streets buses run on. They can push for fare programs, fight for more accessible stations, and use their platform to hold Albany accountable.

Even if they can’t run the trains, they can shape how we experience them.

Want to shape the future of NYC transit? Primary elections are on June 24. Early voting starts June 14.

We wait on crumbling platforms. We climb endless flights of stairs because installing a basic escalator or elevator seems like an impossible feat. Stations flood after a light rain.

As for building new subway lines? Barely a dream — we haven't meaningfully expanded the subway network in decades. Entire megacities around the world have built entirely new systems in the time it takes New York to renovate a single station.

The MTA’s capital budget is supposed to be a promise of progress — a light at the end of the tunnel, if you will. But for most of us, it feels more like a black hole: money goes in, but the improvements never seem to come out. New Yorkers know the feeling — announcements of massive investments followed by years of construction walls, service disruptions, and yet no real change.

Ironically, the concept of the capital budget was born out of a desperate need for real change. In the early 1980s, Richard Ravitch fundamentally transformed how the MTA approached investment. Ravitch’s leadership helped secure dedicated funding and ushered in structured planning for the first time. His warnings about systemic collapse pushed the creation of the inaugural 1982–1986 capital program, which allocated $7.66 billion (later bumped to $8.7 billion) to rescue the subway from total decay.1

This new structure brought hope: oversight through the Capital Program Review Board2, five-year cycles for prioritization3, and a more sustainable financial foundation. It was supposed to be the beginning of a new era for the system.

And yet, here we are.

Since 1982, the capital budget has grown by 183% — a staggering increase when adjusted for inflation — but the number of subway stations has barely budged. The significant boost in the latest 2025–2029 plan, a proposed $68.4 billion, is fueled by some understandable (and alarming) realities: chronic underinvestment, aging infrastructure, skyrocketing construction costs, and a desperate need for climate resilience and accessibility.4

The MTA even conducted its most detailed system-wide evaluation to date — the Twenty-Year Needs Assessment — and the findings weren’t exactly comforting. J.P. Morgan’s analysis suggests that even $68.4 billion isn't enough; to truly address the backlog and bring the system up to par with private sector standards, the MTA would need closer to $115 billion over the same period.4

So yes, the money is bigger. The needs are bigger. The promises are bigger. But for the rider, the lived experience remains stubbornly small.

In a city defined by motion, it’s maddening that we can send rockets into orbit faster than we can build an escalator without blowing through timelines, budgets, and every last ounce of public patience.

The Trump administration is now using these concerns as leverage, threatening to withhold federal funding from the MTA unless it provides detailed crime prevention data. In a letter from Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy, the administration demanded statistics on assaults, fare evasion, and crime prevention spending by March 31, warning of potential financial consequences. This move comes as part of a broader political clash, particularly over Manhattan’s congestion pricing plan, which the administration opposes. While overall subway crime is down, a few high-profile incidents have fueled public anxiety. In response, Governor Kathy Hochul has deployed more National Guard and police officers, but critics argue that without greater investment in social services, increasing law enforcement alone won’t fix the problem.1 This doesn’t even account for the idea that adding armed guards increases the feeling that there is danger, when there might not be.

All of this got me thinking—how much does the MTA actually rely on federal funding, and what would happen if that support were cut? Below, I’ll break down the MTA’s budget, highlight key funding trends, and examine the federal government’s role in keeping the system running.

MTA

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority isn’t just New York City’s subway operator—it’s the backbone of an enormous transit network that keeps the entire region moving. As the largest public transit authority in North America, the MTA serves not just the five boroughs but also 12 counties in downstate New York and even parts of Connecticut. That means its impact stretches far beyond the city, linking millions of commuters from Long Island, the Hudson Valley, and beyond to jobs, schools, and essential services.

On any given weekday, the MTA moves over 11 million people—more than the populations of Los Angeles and Chicago combined.2 It operates not only subways and buses but also two major commuter railroads, seven toll bridges, and two tunnels, making it a key player in the region’s economy. Given its vast reach and massive operational costs, the MTA relies on funding from multiple levels of government, not just fares and tolls. City, state, and federal contributions help keep the system running, supporting accessibility projects, climate resilience efforts, and major infrastructure upgrades. Without this financial support, one of the world’s busiest transit networks—and the economic powerhouse it sustains—would be at risk.

Breakdown of the budget

The MTA’s funding is split into two major budgets: the operating budget and the capital budget, each serving a different purpose in keeping the system running and growing.

• The operating budget covers the everyday costs of running the subway, buses, commuter rails, bridges, and tunnels. This includes employee salaries, pensions, healthcare, utilities, and maintenance—basically, everything needed to keep trains moving and stations open. Labor costs alone make up nearly 60% of this budget, with the rest going toward upkeep, repairs, and contracts.3 Since these expenses are recurring, the MTA relies on predictable revenue sources like fares, tolls, dedicated taxes (such as the Payroll Mobility Tax), and state funding to keep things running smoothly.

• Then there’s the capital budget, which focuses on big-picture, long-term improvements. This is the money used to replace aging subway cars, upgrade signals and stations, make the system more accessible, and build major expansions like the Second Avenue Subway.4 Because these projects are massive and take years to complete, the funding comes from sources like bonds, federal grants, congestion pricing revenue, and contributions from the state and city.

• The reason for keeping these budgets separate is simple: day-to-day operations need steady, reliable funding, while infrastructure projects require large-scale investments planned out over years. This dual-budget approach allows the MTA to maintain service today while preparing for the future of New York’s transit system.

What is the money being used for?

Operating Budget (2025 projection, $19.9 billion)

The MTA operating budget is projected to be $19.9 billion in 2025.5 About 60% of this, (~$11.9B) is going towards personnel costs whereas the remainder towards debt service and non-labor expenses like materials, contracts, and utilities. The remainder of the operating budget covers debt service repaying the money the MTA borrows to fund the Capital Program through the issuance of bonds.

Capital Budget (2025-2029 proposal, $68.4 billion)

The MTA’s proposed $68.4 billion 2025-2029 Capital Plan is all about making the system more reliable, accessible, and modern for riders.6 A huge chunk of the budget is going toward upgrading core infrastructure—think 2,000 new railcars, modernized signals on key subway lines, and power system upgrades to keep trains running smoothly. Major projects include rebuilding the Grand Central Artery, repairing critical structures, and finally starting construction on the Interborough Express (IBX) to better connect Brooklyn and Queens.

Beyond just keeping things functional, the MTA is also focusing on customer experience. The plan includes making at least 60 more subway stations ADA-compliant, installing modern fare gates, and expanding the zero-emissions bus fleet, particularly in areas with high air pollution.

This capital plan is larger than previous ones because the MTA is trying to catch up on long-overdue maintenance (becuase of decades of underfunding and more) while also pushing forward on much-needed improvements. The goal is to replace aging equipment, protect the system from climate threats like flooding and sea-level rise, and make the transit network more inclusive. The MTA is also making a big investment in sustainability, aiming to cut emissions and modernize transit in a way that benefits both the city and the environment.

How is it funded?

Capital Budget

The MTA’s 2025-2029 Capital Plan faces a 49% funding gap, meaning nearly half of its budget still needs to be secured. Notably, congestion pricing revenue isn’t included in this plan, despite being listed for 2024.

One key funding source is MTA TBTA bonds, issued by the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA) to finance transit projects. These bonds aren’t debts of New York State or NYC; instead, they’re backed by dedicated revenue streams like real estate transfer taxes, payroll mobility taxes, and sales taxes. Since TBTA can’t levy taxes, it relies on these sources to repay bondholders. The funds help upgrade infrastructure, support congestion pricing, and finance other critical transit improvements. Approval from the MTA Capital Program Review Board and TBTA Board ensures oversight in how these funds are used.

Operating Budget

The MTA’s operating budget is funded through a mix of sources, including:

• Fares and tolls – The money riders pay for subway, bus, and commuter rail fares, as well as tolls from MTA bridges and tunnels.

• Taxes and subsidies – Dedicated taxes like the Payroll Mobility Tax, real estate transfer taxes, and direct subsidies from the city and state.

• Federal aid – Grants and relief funding, particularly during crises like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Unlike the capital budget, which has clearly defined funding plans, the operating budget relies on a combination of these revenue streams to keep daily transit services running. Balancing these funds is an ongoing challenge, especially when ridership fluctuates or external funding sources face uncertainty.

The MTA’s vast reach and critical role in keeping the New York metropolitan area moving make it clear that stable, reliable funding is essential. With a complex financial structure that depends on a mix of federal, state, and city contributions, as well as fares, tolls, and bonds, any disruption in funding can have serious consequences for millions of riders. The current federal funding gap poses a direct threat to necessary infrastructure improvements, service reliability, and accessibility initiatives. Without adequate federal support, the MTA risks falling further behind on maintenance, modernization, and expansion—ultimately jeopardizing the economic and social mobility of the region. Ensuring long-term, sustainable investment in the system is not just a local concern but a national priority, as the MTA is vital to the economic engine of the country’s largest metropolitan area.

If there’s one thing that binds New Yorkers, it’s the shared love-hate affair with the subway. I still remember the moment I truly felt like I belonged—standing on a suffocatingly packed platform at rush hour, craning my neck in quiet desperation for the next train’s arrival. It was one of those relentless summer days when the underground heat lingers, intensifying the ever-present, untraceable smells. The only solace? That brief gust of air heralding an oncoming train.

When it finally screeched to a halt, I wedged myself into the car, one hand gripping the pole, the other pressed awkwardly against the body of a stranger, all of us united in silent determination to reach our destinations. The subway isn’t just transit—it’s a ritual, a test of patience, a shared experience, an unspoken bond between the millions who rely on it every day.

New York City’s subway is more than just a way to get around—it’s a living, breathing entity, steeped in history, grit, and the daily frustrations of millions. In Subway: The Curiosities, Secrets, and Unofficial History of the New York City Transit System, journalist John E. Morris unpacks the tangled, chaotic, and captivating world of the MTA, revealing the scandals, innovations, and unsung stories that shaped it. Blending historical insight with striking visuals, Morris traces the subway’s evolution—from its 1904 debut to the unpredictable, ever-adapting system of today. Whether you’re a transit enthusiast or just a curious commuter, Subway offers a vivid picture of how the subway has changed over time

Rather than a dry, chronological history, Subway mirrors the system itself—layered, messy, and deeply interconnected. Morris moves fluidly between past and present and blends historical accounts with technical details, and cultural observations, creating a rich tapestry of stories. He explores the engineering marvels, the political battles, the social dynamics, and the cultural impact of the subway, often shifting between these perspectives within chapters. This structure allows us to uncover the hidden stories and appreciate the intricate connections that make the subway such a vital part of New York City's identity.

A few of the key pieces of information covered in John E. Morris's Subway include the political challenges that shaped (and hindered) its development, the technological innovations that transformed transit, the key figures who played a role in its creation, and the cultural impact of the subway on New York City and beyond.

Political Challenges

From the very start, politics shaped—and often stalled—the growth of New York City’s subway system. In its early days, the powerful Tammany Hall political machine, led by William “Boss” Tweed, fought to keep underground transit from becoming a reality. Tweed, who had financial stakes in the city’s horse-drawn streetcars, used his influence to block subway proposals, backing legislation that dismantled competing transit plans to protect his own interests.

Even after the subway opened, the tug-of-war between city and state control continued to dictate its expansion. A key compromise allowed the city to build new lines under a Board of Transportation appointed by the mayor, while the state-controlled Transit Commission maintained authority over the existing private subway lines, the IRT and BMT. One major stipulation of this deal required city-owned lines to charge a “sustaining fare” and become financially self-sufficient within three years—a policy that prioritized high-ridership routes over expansion into underserved areas. The result? A Manhattan-focused subway system that still leaves many outer-borough neighborhoods without reliable transit access.

The struggle over who controls the subway—city or state—has remained a constant battle, playing out through shifting commissions, agencies, and political power plays that continue to shape the system today.

Technological Innovations

New York City’s subway didn’t appear overnight—it was built on decades of trial, error, and technological experimentation. Long before the first underground train ran, inventors were testing different ways to move people quickly through the city. Charles Harvey’s cable-drawn elevated railway was an early attempt, though frequent cable snaps made it unreliable. Alfred E. Beach introduced an underground pneumatic train, which used giant fans to push cars through tunnels, but the idea never fully caught on. The most immediate precursor to the subway was the steam-powered elevated lines—functional but unpopular due to their thick smoke, deafening noise, and pollution.

Today, the subway is still evolving, with new technology shaping how trains operate. One of the most significant advancements is the shift from the old block signaling system to Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC). The traditional block system requires a fixed number of empty track segments between trains, limiting how many can run at once. CBTC, on the other hand, uses real-time electronic tracking to allow trains to move safely with less distance between them, increasing efficiency and capacity. While the transition has been slow, it marks a major step toward a more modern, reliable subway system.

Profiles of Figures Who Played a Role In Shaping the System

The New York City subway was not the work of a single visionary—it was shaped by a cast of financiers, engineers, and politicians, each leaving their mark on the system.

One of the most influential yet often overlooked figures was August Belmont Jr., dubbed by Morris as “The Forgotten Mogul.” Belmont was the financier behind contractor John McDonald’s winning bid to build the first subway. His backing was crucial, but his legacy was complicated. At a time when public trust in monopolies was low, his involvement sparked skepticism, and as the subway’s financial struggles mounted, so did his personal losses.

The engineers behind the system were just as essential. Frank Sprague revolutionized train operations with his multiple-unit control system, which allowed trains to be powered by multiple motors rather than a single locomotive—a breakthrough that made longer trains feasible. William Barclay Parsons, the chief engineer of the Board of Rapid Transit Commissioners, was the mastermind behind the subway’s initial design, laying the foundation for the network that exists today.

On the political side, Mayor John Hylan played a defining role in shaping the subway’s future. He pushed for the creation of the city-owned IND (Independent Subway System), shifting control away from private companies and paving the way for the fully integrated system New Yorkers rely on now.

Cultural Impact of the Subway

The cultural significance of the New York City subway is impossible to overstate—it has influenced music, film, literature, advertising, and the very identity of the city itself.

Throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, the subway has been featured in countless movies, like modern blockbusters like Joker. It has served as the setting for chase scenes, romantic encounters, and moments of urban tension, reinforcing its role as a stage for the daily drama of New York life.

In music, the subway has inspired songs across multiple genres, from Duke Ellington’s jazz classic Take the ‘A’ Train to Billy Joel’s New York State of Mind and Jay-Z’s Empire State of Mind. The subway’s rhythmic clatter and ever-present performers have made it a natural muse for musicians and poets alike.

Beyond entertainment, the subway has played a role in shaping public etiquette and social norms. From the evolution of “Ladies-Only” cars in the early 1900s to modern-day debates over subway seat-hogging and manspreading, the train has long been a microcosm of societal change. Advertisers, too, have recognized its power, using subway posters and ads to shape consumer culture in New York.

The subway is more than just a transit system—it is a symbol of the city itself, representing its chaos, diversity, and resilience.

Conclusion

John E. Morris’s Subway is more than just a history of New York City’s transit system—it’s a deep dive into the political struggles, engineering marvels, and cultural significance that have shaped the subway into an essential part of the city’s identity. By weaving together historical events, technological advancements, and personal stories, Morris creates a compelling narrative that highlights both the triumphs and the frustrations of the system. Whether you view the subway as a daily nuisance or a vital lifeline, Subway offers a fresh perspective that reminds us of its enduring impact on the city and the people who rely on it.

Yet, as is often the case with significant change, reactions have been divided. Transit advocates applaud the move as a crucial step toward a greener, more sustainable city, while drivers express frustration over what they see as an unfair financial burden. As New York embarks on this bold experiment, the road ahead promises to be filled with challenges, uncertainties, and debates over the true impact of the program.

I’ve seen firsthand how gridlock doesn’t just disrupt the daily grind—it can have far more serious consequences. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve watched an ambulance, lights flashing, stuck in the thick of Manhattan traffic. In those moments, it's a harsh reminder that New York’s streets don’t just serve commuters; they’re lifelines for emergency services and more.

The clash between New York’s relentless pace and the limitations of its transit system has always been a backdrop to my experience here. I’ve seen countless friends vent on Instagram about their frustrations with the subway—missed trains, overcrowded platforms, the usual complaints. Then the pandemic hit, amplifying everything. Ridership plummeted, delays became more frequent, and the sense of safety seemed to vanish along with the people. For a time, it felt like the system had stalled, unable to keep up with the city’s ever-evolving demands.

Now, with the launch of congestion pricing, it feels like the city may finally be taking a crucial step toward addressing these deep-rooted issues. Will this policy reduce the gridlock I’ve often witnessed? Can it help us avoid those moments when an ambulance’s siren is just another noise in a sea of traffic, struggling to make it to its destination? As New York ventures into this uncharted territory, I am curious about it’s future - will it be the change we’ve all been waiting for or will it just add another layer to a complex web of challenges that the city’s transit system faces.

What Happened?

I think it’s important to take a moment and recognize what a monumental achievement it was to pass congestion pricing in New York City. This isn’t just another policy; it’s the product of years of debates, compromises, and relentless advocacy by countless organizations, policymakers, and citizens. The sheer complexity of this plan, combined with the number of voices involved, speaks volumes about how difficult it was to design and implement. It’s a reminder of how much effort it takes to bring about meaningful change in a city as dynamic and complex as ours. At the same time, it serves as a reminder that while meaningful change is achievable, the bureaucratic nature of our system can make progress painfully slow. To truly address the challenges of the future, we may need to rethink how decisions are made to ensure we can act with greater efficiency and urgency.

New York City's congestion pricing journey began in 2007 when Mayor Bloomberg first proposed the initiative as part of PlaNYC, aiming to reduce traffic and generate revenue for public transit. Despite initial support, the plan failed in the State Assembly in 2008, marking the first of several setbacks.

The concept re-emerged nearly a decade later in 2017, championed by Governor Andrew Cuomo. This time, it gained momentum, culminating in its inclusion in the 2019 state budget. Yet, even as the plan moved forward, it faced delays, including years of federal reviews and legal battles. It wasn’t until 2023 that the Federal Highway Administration finally gave its stamp of approval, allowing the MTA board to approve the program's implementation in 2024, with a launch date set for June 30.

However, on June 5, 2024, Governor Kathy Hochul unexpectedly paused the program, citing economic concerns. This decision was widely criticized by transit advocates and business groups, and led to significant financial complications for the MTA, including potential loss of billions in transit improvements and job opportunities. After continued negotiations and political maneuvering, the congestion toll ultimately went into effect on January 5, 2025, with a base toll of $9, which is 40% lower than the $15 fee initially proposed.

Initial Findings

Public Response

Public sentiment around congestion pricing is still split. Transit advocates are quick to highlight the program’s potential to ease congestion and generate funds for vital subway and bus upgrades. On the other hand, many drivers see the tolls as an unnecessary financial strain, especially for those who depend on their cars for work. The policy has also sparked political pushback, with New York’s congressional Republicans pledging to repeal the tolls, citing concerns about the economic impact.

MTA Data

Early data from the MTA suggests a promising start for congestion pricing. In its first week, roughly 43,000 fewer vehicles entered Manhattan south of 60th Street each day—an encouraging 7.5% decrease from historical January averages. Traffic times on key crossings, like the Williamsburg Bridge and the Holland Tunnel, improved by 30-40%, particularly during the morning rush. Bus speeds also saw significant gains, with the Manhattan-bound B39 running 28% faster compared to the same period last year.

While ridership on certain express buses increased, north-south traffic speeds within the toll zone showed little change. The MTA has yet to disclose initial revenue figures, but it expects to generate around $500 million annually, earmarked for much-needed transit upgrades, such as new train cars, accessible elevators, and the extended Second Avenue subway line.

That said, it’s important to take these early findings with a grain of salt. After just one week of data, it’s difficult to draw definitive conclusions. Factors like weather, special events, or temporary shifts in commuting patterns could be influencing these results. We need a longer window to better understand the full impact and ensure that these early successes aren’t just short-term anomalies.

What I am Curious to Find Out

1. Comparison with Other Cities
   How will New York’s program stack up against international success stories? Cities like London, Stockholm, and Singapore have shown how impactful congestion pricing can be over the long run. Each of these cities saw reduced traffic, better urban mobility, and significant cuts in emissions and pollution.

   In London, delays dropped by 30% within the first year, and carbon emissions took a noticeable dip. Stockholm won over skeptics after a trial run, and Singapore’s decades-old system remains a gold standard, recognized as the most technologically advanced model in the world.

   But how will New York’s urban landscape compare? Can we replicate—or even surpass—the successes of these cities?

2. Sustainable Transit Improvements
   Will the revenue from congestion pricing translate into tangible, lasting improvements for New York’s public transit? Projects like the Second Avenue Subway extension, modernized signal systems, and expanded accessibility features hold immense potential to transform the system. But will these promises become reality, and if so, how soon?

   For years, I’ve heard talk of subway modernization—faster trains, new signals, and more reliable service. Yet, riding the subway today doesn’t feel much different than it did a decade ago. The same delays, crowded platforms, and aging infrastructure persist, and the changes we’ve been promised seem perpetually on the horizon. It makes me wonder: will congestion pricing finally be the game-changer New York needs, or will it just add to the list of unmet expectations? If commuters can start to see real, everyday improvements—more reliable service, fewer delays, and a better overall experience—maybe we’ll finally feel the impact of all that’s been promised.

3. Long-Term Public Perception
   International examples show that public attitudes toward congestion pricing can shift significantly once people experience its benefits. Take Stockholm, for example: what started as widespread doubt eventually turned into strong support as residents saw traffic ease up, the air become cleaner, and public transit improved. It’s a striking transformation, and it makes me wonder—could New Yorkers follow a similar path?

   As someone who relies on the subway, I get how easy it is for the bad moments to overshadow the good ones. I’ve been stranded, delayed, and frustrated more times than I can count, and those experiences tend to stick with me far longer than the times I’ve breezed through the city for under $3. It’s moments like those that make me wonder: will congestion pricing bring the kind of transit improvements New Yorkers actually notice? If we start seeing real changes—trains arriving on time, fewer crowds, smoother rides—will that be enough to change how people feel about the policy? Stockholm’s story suggests it could happen, but here, where our relationship with public transit is anything but simple, it’s hard to predict whether optimism will take hold.

4. Environmental and Equity Outcomes
   Beyond traffic and transit, how will congestion pricing shape air quality and advance our climate goals? When I think about air quality, I’m reminded of the sharp contrast between stepping off a subway platform and walking through one of the parks in my neighborhood. The difference is striking—a reminder of how much cleaner and healthier the city could feel with fewer cars on the road.

   Congestion pricing presents an opportunity to reimagine the city’s relationship with its streets, not just in terms of traffic flow but as a step toward a greener and more sustainable urban environment. Will it deliver on that promise? For a city like New York, where cleaner air feels like a dream rather than a reality, I’m eager to see if this policy can finally turn the tide.

My first morning in Galway started idyllic enough. I was in a cozy bed-and-breakfast dining room, sipping tea and eating toast so perfect it could have been in a butter commercial. The TV played in the background, filling the room with snippets of local news delivered in the kind of rich Irish accent you only hear in movies. Then I caught it—a phrase I know all too well: housing crisis. My brain snapped back to New York, to brokers’ fees, Craigslist scams, and apartments the size of closets. I had flown 3,000 miles only to hear the same story: unaffordable rents, limited options, and people stretched too thin.

Later, I joined a tour led by a local college student who had clearly memorized every historic stone in Galway’s charming streets. She pointed out sites with a pride as rich as her love for her hometown (although not the food), but when the subject of housing came up, her passion shifted. She sighed and said, “Just six years ago, my brother only paid 800 dollars for a room. Now, I’m stuck paying over 2,000 euros.” Her voice carried a hint of sibling resentment—nothing encapsulates “modern Ireland” quite like knowing your older brother had it easier with rent.

As we traveled from Galway to Killarney and finally to Dublin, housing seemed to infiltrate every conversation. In Dublin, our new guide shared her sister’s ongoing quest for a place of her own—a two-year endeavor that had reluctantly led her back to her parents’ house. “At my age,” she said, half-joking, “I should have a two-bedroom, not be sharing a room at home.” Her laugh was layered with that familiar resignation—the kind of reluctant acceptance that only a housing crisis can inspire.

By the time I left, I felt unexpectedly connected to Ireland in a way I hadn’t anticipated. For a country of five million, it shares unsettling common ground with New York City: a lack of affordable housing, escalating rents, and a widening gap between wages and housing costs. Both NYC and Ireland are experiencing an influx of people seeking economic opportunities, struggling to accommodate this growth sustainably. Both places are ending up with the same result: a lot of people wondering if their idea of “home” is slipping further out of reach.

My journey through Ireland’s towns and cities left me thinking deeply about home and how elusive it can feel. This isn’t just Ireland’s struggle—it’s one I know all too well from life in New York City. Both places, though rooted in different histories, reveal similar, complex struggles for affordable and accessible housing. Both regions face severe shortages, inflated rents, and markets tilted toward private and institutional investors, making it increasingly difficult for middle- and lower-income residents to secure stable homes.

New York City’s soaring housing costs aren’t just a result of demand—they’re also tied to outdated laws that make building new homes nearly impossible or prohibitively expensive. The principles of supply and demand dictate that a limited housing supply, coupled with overwhelming demand to live in the city, drives rental and purchase prices higher. The city’s zoning regulations hinder the development of denser housing, while historic preservation laws restrict modifications to many existing structures, further stifling potential solutions to the housing crisis. This combination not only escalates housing expenses but also forces long-time residents out of the city, jeopardizing the rich diversity that makes New York such an attractive place to call home.

Ireland’s housing crisis is deeply affected by a mix of underinvestment, market imbalances, and restrictive policies that hinder development. A historical preference for homeownership has left the rental market underdeveloped, and the 2008 financial crash worsened the issue by halting construction, creating a housing deficit that continues to grow. While urban populations, particularly in Dublin, have soared, strict planning and zoning regulations, compounded by local opposition have delayed much-needed construction. This opposition and the stringent zoning laws drive up project timelines and costs, further fueling demand-supply imbalances that have led rents to unsustainable levels. In Dublin, I couldn’t help but notice how its skyline remains dominated by low-rise buildings. Locals told me they resist high-rises for fear of losing sunlight—a sentiment that underscores how deeply personal urban development debates can be.

The scale of this housing shortfall is now starkly evident. Ireland’s Housing Commission estimates a current shortage of 212,500 to 256,000 homes, with government targets unable to meet this demand. Rising housing prices, which have surged 75% over the past decade compared to only a 27% wage increase, make affordability a worsening challenge. The housing gap affects not only young adults and low-income households but now increasingly impacts Ireland's aging population as well. In this environment, restrictive zoning, high rents, and local resistance to new development create formidable barriers, making the need for systemic reform urgent to provide accessible and affordable housing across Ireland.

Despite their distinct contexts, both New York City and Ireland face affordability crises spurred by housing shortages. In both places, restrictive zoning and planning regulations slow the process of building new homes, adding to the supply shortages.

Solutions

The political figures in both New York City and Ireland are acutely aware of the pressing housing crisis, and their promises often evoke a sense of déjà vu. Ireland’s prime minister has vowed to deliver 250,000 homes in the next five years, a pledge that remarkably echoes Eric Adams’s own “moonshot” plan of 500,000 new homes over the coming decade.1

These parallel aspirations reflect a shared urgency to address the housing shortage. Liberalizing construction regulations in both New York City and Ireland presents a promising opportunity to tackle their respective housing crises. These laws, often rooted in mid-20th century regulations, can be amended with relatively simple legislative changes. Allowing landowners greater freedom to develop residential properties—whether it means building three to five-story apartment complexes in Brooklyn or introducing denser housing options in Dublin—could lead to an influx of new homes, easing supply constraints and ultimately reducing rental and purchase costs.

New York City and Ireland are proposing ambitious solutions to tackle their respective housing crises, focusing on increasing supply and reforming existing systems. NYC's "City of Yes" plan, seeks to modernize zoning laws to enable the construction of 100,000 new housing units over 15 years, while also addressing restrictive regulations like parking mandates.2 In Ireland, Labour’s housing policy aims to build at least 50,000 new homes annually through state-led efforts, including a dedicated State Construction Company to stabilize delivery and a streamlined process for repurposing vacant and derelict properties. While NYC's plan relies heavily on private sector development within a reformed zoning framework, Ireland's approach emphasizes a robust state intervention to ensure sustained housing production and affordability.3 Both solutions acknowledge the need for transformative action but differ in their reliance on public versus private sector leadership.

While some may voice concerns about potential disruptions, like increased construction noise or shifts in neighborhood dynamics, these challenges are surmountable with thoughtful urban planning and gradual population growth. The end result would be a more vibrant urban landscape in both cities, allowing more individuals and families to thrive and invest in their futures while fostering a sense of community.

For me and those who grew up in Queens, cars feel like a necessity. About 63% of households in this borough own a car, well above the city average of 46%.But despite how central cars were to our lives in Queens, we rarely drove into Manhattan. The thought of sitting in hours of traffic, hunting (and paying) for parking, or navigating gridlock kept us opting for the subway when we needed to go into Manhattan. For my family, and for so many others, there was an unspoken understanding: we’d use public transit, instead of adding to the 117 hours a year per driver wasted in a year sitting in Manhattan gridlock.

I still remember the first time I ventured beyond Queens on my own without the car. Free from the logistics of driving (or more accurately, my parents driving) it was just me, my metro card, and the city ahead. All of a sudden, my world became bigger and more accessible. I found myself walking more, wandering through neighborhoods, seeing the city not from the window of a car but from sidewalks and subway platforms.

For those of us who grew up here, cars may always hold a place in our lives. But as the city changes and grows, so do our needs. Traffic, pollution, and the accessibility challenges in our transit system are reminders that New York needs new solutions. Personally, I have seen how my aging parents have a much harder time walking up and down stairs. With my parents growing older, navigating the N/W station on Broadway, Astoria without an elevator has made it harder to visit Manhattan together. Even for the car lovers among us, the cost of parking and endless gridlock has made Manhattan feel like more of a challenge than a destination.

That’s why I see congestion pricing as a step toward a new balance—one that reduces traffic while creating more efficient ways to travel.

Subscribe now

What Happened to Congestion Pricing in June 2024?

In June 2024, New York Governor Kathy Hochul paused the congestion pricing program just weeks before it was set to launch. Her reasoning centered on the city’s post-pandemic recovery, fearing that the toll might slow down economic progress. But the move sparked frustration among supporters, including transit advocates and environmentalists, who have been eagerly awaiting the launch. For New Yorkers who rely on the subway, buses, or commuter trains, the delay also meant a longer wait for vital improvements that congestion pricing revenue would fund.

The plan would have levied a fee on most vehicles entering Manhattan below 60th Street. But with Governor Hochul’s pause and opposition from various groups—including some labor unions and suburban residents—the project was postponed. She indefinitely suspended the plan, citing concerns that the tolling system might discourage visitors to Manhattan and hinder the city's economic recovery from the pandemic.

Her decision made many furious and feel “blindsided.”1

Many argue that her decision leaves a gap in NYC’s budget and delays critical infrastructure upgrades. “Congestion pricing is the linchpin of New York’s recovery. This city runs on our subway. It runs on the millions of buses we have on the street.”2 

The added complexity is that congestion pricing isn’t just a matter of transportation; it’s tied up with environmental justice, public health, and urban accessibility.

The New Urgency: How the Prospect of a Republican Administration Could Push Congestion Pricing Forward

The recent victory of Trump and his stated opposition to congestion pricing is now pushing the state’s leadership to act swiftly before the program is rejected. Trump’s stance against congestion pricing, which he has argued will discourage people from coming into Manhattan3, has created an unexpected sense of urgency among supporters. Transit advocates and city officials now face a “race against time” to ensure that congestion pricing is implemented before Trump’s administration can halt it.

This political threat may actually help congestion pricing pass where earlier delays hindered it. Without this time-sensitive threat, congestion pricing might have languished indefinitely, postponed by debates over cost, structure, and potential exemptions. However, with Trump’s potential opposition, Governor Hochul and her team have greater motivation to move forward and secure federal approval as quickly as possible. The governor is reportedly considering a compromise, possibly reducing the toll to $9 instead of the original $15, which could help avoid a drawn-out environmental review and speed up the approval process while also addressing concerns over price.4 

The Benefits of Congestion Pricing for New York City

If congestion pricing is implemented, the potential benefits for New York City and its residents are enormous. Here are just a few:

1. Reduced Traffic and Quicker Emergency Response Times: By decreasing the volume of cars entering the congestion zone, congestion pricing would improve traffic flow, allowing ambulances, fire trucks, and emergency responders to reach their destinations faster—a critical factor for public safety.

2. Cleaner Air and Improved Public Health: Fewer cars mean reduced emissions, which could greatly improve New York City’s air quality. Better air quality means healthier residents and fewer hospital visits for respiratory issues—a particular relief for those with pre-existing conditions who are forced to stay indoors when pollution is high.

3. Sustainable Funding for Transit Upgrades: Congestion pricing is projected to generate $15 billion in revenue for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). This funding could go directly toward much-needed improvements to the city’s subway system, bus lines, and commuter trains.This summer’s ongoing delays highlighted how, due to chronic budget shortfalls, the MTA’s aging infrastructure is beginning to fail. The Citizen’s Budget Commission (CBC) estimates up to $115 billion in needs over the next five years to ensure that MTA continues to be a reliable, safe, and fast mode of transportation.5 Enhanced public transit options would mean faster, more reliable service and more accessible stations for New Yorkers.

4. Making the City More Accessible: The improvements to public transit would also support New York’s goals for increased accessibility for people like my parents. Accessible transportation is essential for many New Yorkers, particularly for those with disabilities who rely on elevators, ramps, and accessible train stations. Congestion pricing would contribute to a more inclusive, equitable city where people of all abilities can navigate freely.

Cars Don’t Need to Dominate Manhattan

Imagine a New York where you’re not stuck at home because subway stations aren’t accessible or because heavy traffic keeps you from getting where you need to be. Or where the air quality is finally good enough that friends with asthma or other health conditions can join you outside without worry. That’s the New York congestion pricing can help create.

It’s time to rethink Manhattan’s future. Congestion pricing isn’t about tolls or fees—it’s a plan for a cleaner, safer, and more accessible city. A more apt name for this would be Accessibility Pricing.6 And while the political timeline might feel urgent, it also provides a clear opportunity: a chance to make this vision of New York City a reality.

What can we do? 

Even if the recent election results have left you feeling discouraged, there are still ways to take meaningful action. Transportation Alternatives is an organization dedicated to reducing car dependency and promoting greener, more sustainable ways of getting around the city. By visiting their site, you can quickly send a message to Governor Kathy Hochul, urging her not to delay congestion pricing any longer. You'll also find other actions you can take to make a difference. Together, we can advocate for a city that’s less congested, more accessible, and healthier for everyone—because even small steps today can lead to a more vibrant, sustainable New York tomorrow.

Share Metro Mosaic

While it might feel like our votes are less impactful because of New York City's longstanding Democratic stronghold, there's more at stake this year than who wins office. Key issues, such as access to abortion and expanded anti-discrimination protections, are also on the ballot. These ballot measures, like Proposition 1, offer New Yorkers the chance to shape the future and even amend the New York State Constitution to reflect our current values.

In this explainer, I’ll discuss the structure of the New York State Constitution, the intricate process of amending it, and dive into the details of Proposition 1, an important amendment up for vote this cycle. 

New York State Constitution 

The New York State Constitution serves as the foundational document outlining the organization, powers, and responsibilities of the state government, much like the U.S. Constitution does for the federal government. 

The New York State Constitution predates the United States Constitution by over a decade, showcasing the state's early commitment to democratic principles. Since its inception, the constitution has undergone numerous revisions (over 200 times) to reflect changing social norms and political realities, with the current version ratified in 1938. New York has adopted four constitutions (1777, 1821, 1846, and 1894) and held eight constitutional conventions (1801, 1821, 1846, 1867, 1894, 1915, 1938, and 1967). 

New York State’s Constitution, with over 50k words and filled with amendments, is far longer than the U.S. Constitution and the average of other states. Part of the reason it is so long is that it is difficult to amend the constitution. Although it is very comprehensive, it also has some anachronisms. Understanding the structure of this foundational document is key to appreciating why amending it is no simple task.

Amending the New York State Constitution

There are two ways to amend the constitution: 

1. A proposal by the legislature 

2. A constitutional convention 

In both cases, these proposals need voter approval to become part of the Constitution.

1. Legislative Proposal

The most common method of amending the constitution is through legislative proposals. This process begins when an amendment is proposed in either the State Assembly or Senate. The proposal must then pass both houses by a simple majority. Once passed, the proposal must go through a second round of approval in the next legislative session, typically following a general election. If the Legislature approves it in both sessions, the amendment appears on the ballot for a public vote. A majority of voters must approve it for it to become law.

2. Constitutional Convention

Another option for amending the New York State Constitution is through a constitutional convention, which occurs every 20 years when voters are asked whether they want to hold one. If approved, delegates are elected to the convention, where they can propose amendments or even a complete rewrite of the constitution. These proposed changes are then placed on the ballot for voter approval. Although the process is relatively rare, it provides an opportunity for comprehensive constitutional reform.

Proposition 1: The Equal Rights Amendment on the 2024 Ballot

One of the most anticipated amendments in the upcoming 2024 elections is Proposition 1, also known as the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). This proposed amendment would enshrine a variety of protections in the New York State Constitution, including abortion rights, protections against discrimination based on gender identity, age, and sexual orientation, and protections for pregnancy and pregnancy outcomes.1

What Does Proposition 1 Seek to Achieve?

Proposition 1 aims to expand anti-discrimination protections by preventing discrimination based on pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive health decisions. While the word “abortion” is not explicitly mentioned in the amendment, it is seen as a measure that would protect access to reproductive health care, including abortion.2 Furthermore, Proposition 1 seeks to protect people from discrimination based on gender identity, sexual orientation, age, and several other identities, solidifying New York’s commitment to ensuring broad civil rights protections.

The Political Climate Around Proposition 1

The ERA has become a political flashpoint, attracting support and opposition from various groups. Supporters argue that Proposition 1 is essential to guarantee equal rights for all New Yorkers, particularly in the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. Although abortion rights remain protected under New York state law, proponents of Proposition 1 believe that enshrining these protections in the constitution will ensure lasting protection.

On the other hand, opponents, particularly Republican lawmakers, have criticized the amendment. Some argue that it could have unintended consequences, such as affecting women-only spaces and allowing minors to access gender-affirming surgery without parental consent.3 

How Proposition 1 Reflects the Amendment Process

Proposition 1 exemplifies how the legislative proposal method can be used to amend the New York State Constitution. It reached the 2024 ballot after being approved twice by the New York State Legislature, as required by the amendment process. The initial proposal gained enough support to pass both houses, and after passing again in a separate session, it was placed on the ballot for voters to approve or reject. If a majority of voters support Proposition 1, it will become an official part of the New York State Constitution, ensuring that New Yorkers are constitutionally protected from discrimination based on gender, reproductive health decisions, and other identities.

Conclusion

The New York State Constitution is a comprehensive and evolving document that reflects the state's progressive values. The legislative process to amend the New York State Constitution is both intricate and time-consuming. Because it requires passage by two separate legislative bodies in two consecutive sessions, the process does not allow for quick changes. This design is intentional, as it provides numerous checks and balances that limit rapid alterations to the state’s fundamental laws. While this thoroughness ensures thoughtful consideration and minimizes rash decisions, it also means that amendments can take several years to complete. This lengthy and complex process can be frustrating, especially in cases where timely changes are desired.

However, through the amendment process, New Yorkers have a direct hand in shaping their government and society. In the upcoming 2024 elections, Proposition 1 provides a clear example of this process in action. By voting on the Equal Rights Amendment, New Yorkers will decide whether to expand the constitution's protections against discrimination and solidify access to reproductive health rights. This opportunity underscores the significance of state-level governance and the impact that constitutional amendments can have on daily life and civil rights. By voting on Proposition 1, New Yorkers are not just shaping the state's future; they’re influencing protections that impact everyday life, from the workplace to personal healthcare decisions.

This November, every voter has the power to contribute to our state’s evolution and ensure it reflects the values we hold dear. So, let your vote be your voice—it’s your chance to help shape a New York that represents us all.

What’s a Bike Boulevard? 

A bike boulevard prioritizes bicycles over motor vehicles by maintaining low-speed and low-traffic conditions. These boulevards use various techniques to discourage motor vehicles from using the street as a through route while allowing local traffic to pass at reduced speeds. Techniques include signs, pavement markings, and measures for speed and volume management.1 

Why Does Astoria Need a Bike Boulevard? 

1. Astoria's outdated road infrastructure has led to numerous injuries and high rates of pedestrian and traffic-related incidents. Vision Zero, a comprehensive road safety initiative aimed at eliminating traffic-related fatalities and severe injuries, has identified Astoria as a priority area.

2. The people have spoken and they want more protected bike lanes and more pedestrian space. The DOT launched a community survey in 2023 to collect ideas on how to improve the bike network. Over 2000 community members responded, and 76% of them noted that they want more protected bike lanes and 74% said they want more pedestrian space. Many mentioned issues with regards to cars ignoring traffic signals, double parking, lack of protected bike lanes.

   As an Astorian, I have noticed that many drivers treat traffic signals as suggestions and double parking seems like a cultural norm. This behavior forces many bikers onto the sidewalks.

   

The survey also highlighted that most people either walk or bike within Astoria. Also as an Astorian, I don’t drive and mainly get around by walking or public transit.

What Else Did the Process Entail? 

Over the past year, the Department of Transportation has actively engaged with the Astoria community through various initiatives. These included an online survey allowing residents to submit ideas for street improvements, five pop-up workshops to gather in-person feedback, and a Q&A session with Queens Community Board 1. A key event was an in-person workshop where over 150 attendees provided feedback on the conceptual design, driven largely by robust online community involvement. This strong turnout reflects the power of digital platforms like Reddit and Facebook in mobilizing local residents to address traffic safety issues. The engagement of groups such as the MicromobilityNYC subreddit highlights the effectiveness of online activism in shaping local infrastructure and enhancing pedestrian and cyclist safety.2

What Does This All Mean? 

The city has begun installing the bike boulevard on 1.1 miles of 31st Avenue, creating a safer route for cyclists and pedestrians. The redesign introduces two-way protected bike lanes from Steinway Street to Vernon Boulevard, providing a secure east-west corridor. Sections of the street will be converted to one-way for car traffic, reducing vehicle congestion and improving safety for cyclists and pedestrians.

The DOT has started implementing these changes this summer, with a potential car-free plaza between 33rd and 34th Streets that could further enhance the area. The redesign also includes "shared streets" between 31st and 35th Streets, where cars will move one-way and bikes will move two-way, with some bike paths running against car traffic. The DOT plans to extend the bike boulevard east to 51st Street next year.

Several residents support the project. Despite challenges and pushback on similar projects in the past, local advocates are enthusiastic about the improvements, believing they will create a safer and more community-friendly environment.

What Does This Show About Community Engagement? 

Astoria’s bike boulevard shows the real power of community action. Local advocates and engaged residents have turned 31st Avenue into a safe, vibrant corridor for cyclists and pedestrians. This project demonstrates how collective efforts can reshape a neighborhood, creating a model for other areas to follow. Get involved now and help drive change in your community.