Eighteen days ago, Gov. Kathy Hochul of New York stood before an audience of world economic leaders in Ireland and promised to transform mobility in New York City with a first-in-the-nation congestion-pricing system. The concept, she said, had stalled for 60 years because leaders feared a backlash from drivers set in their ways. But, she said, “if we’re serious about making cities more livable, we must get over that.”

It was a strong and forthright defense of an imaginative policy that would charge most drivers $15 for entering Manhattan’s densely crowded core. On Wednesday, however, Ms. Hochul abruptly disposed of her steadfast promise with a surprise announcement: She no longer believed congestion pricing was the right idea for the moment. She declared that she would “indefinitely pause” the program — scheduled to begin on June 30 — because she had become concerned it would hamper Manhattan’s economic recovery from the pandemic.

It was a flimsy excuse for a grievous misjudgment. In one stroke, Ms. Hochul had endangered a vital public policy that would have had huge benefits for New York’s environment and quality of life; threatened to dig a huge hole in the desperately needed capital budget of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority; and set back the cause of reducing automobile use for cities across the country that have been hoping New York would create a landmark model.

What, really, had changed in the days after the governor’s economic speech? There had been no sudden setback in the city’s financial health; it was Ms. Hochul, in fact, who said in March that New York had already achieved a “full economic recovery from the pandemic.” What had changed, however, was the country’s political climate. Donald Trump had attacked the congestion plan, and multiple Democrats in competitive House races around the New York region had become worried that it would leave them vulnerable to attack. According to multiple reports, they prevailed on Ms. Hochul not to start the plan.

But there is still time to save the plan. Congestion pricing can’t be stopped without a formal vote of the M.T.A. board. Though most of its members are appointed by the governor or her suburban allies, they represent an independent agency and do not have to consent to her panicked political demand. The board members have a fiduciary responsibility to their agency. Postponing or killing the congestion program would mean an immediate loss of a projected $1 billion a year to the agency’s capital plan, meaning no money for a pollution-free electric bus fleet or the extension of the Second Avenue Subway to Harlem. It could also mark the end of a successful, painstaking campaign to modernize the subway system that helps power the largest city in the country.

The clearest indication of the hasty and ill-considered nature of this decision is that Ms. Hochul had no serious plan to replace that revenue. She initially proposed raising the payroll mobility tax on New York City businesses, which would be paid by their employees. But that was immediately shot down by state lawmakers, many of whom pointed out, rightly, that it was unfair to make city workers shoulder this burden while imposing no charge on suburban residents who also use M.T.A. rail and bus systems.

We are having trouble retrieving the article content.

Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.

Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.lol646

• New
• York
• Should
• lol646
• lead