WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

A 6680

Relates to repealing congestion pricing (Part A); commissioning an independent audit of the metropolitan transportation authority (Part B); and conducting an environmental impact study (Part C)

2025 Regular Session Introduced by Mike Tannousis

Repeal congestion pricing.

HELD FOR CONSIDERATION IN CORPORATIONS, AUTHORITIES AND COMMISSIONS
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · A 6680

Bill A 6680 – Summary

Overview

  • Bill Number: A 6680
  • Title / Purpose: Relates to (Part A) repealing congestion pricing; (Part B) commissioning an independent audit of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA); and (Part C) conducting an environmental impact study.
  • Sponsor: Michael Tannousis (primary)
  • Introduced: March 6, 2025
  • Status: HELD FOR CONSIDERATION in the Committee on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions (CAC)
  • Related Bills: A 9877 (prior-session); S 2622 (companion, in the Senate)

What the bill aims to do

The bill is organized into three parts, each addressing a different governance or policy action related to the state’s transportation framework:

1) Part A – Repeal of congestion pricing
- Would repeal the congestion pricing program. The bill’s language indicates removal of this pricing mechanism that imposes tolls or charges to enter certain urban roadways during peak times.

2) Part B – Independent audit of the MTA
- Would commission an independent audit of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The goal is to obtain external scrutiny of the MTA’s operations, finances, governance, or other specified areas (details not provided in the summary).

3) Part C – Environmental impact study
- Would require an environmental impact study. This study would assess environmental effects related to the bill’s themes or related transportation activities (scope not specified in the summary).

Key Provisions by Part

  • Part A: Repeal of congestion pricing

    • Legislative action to remove or discontinue the existing congestion pricing program.
    • Potential effects include changes to traffic patterns, toll revenue, and funding streams tied to the program.

  • Part B: Independent MTA audit

    • Establishment of an independent entity or process to audit the MTA.
    • Audit likely would review governance, financial practices, efficiency, and accountability (specific audit scope not enumerated in the summary).

  • Part C: Environmental impact study

    • Commission or require an environmental assessment related to the bill’s policy changes or associated transportation activities.
    • Study results could influence further action or program design.

Who/What is Affected

  • New York City drivers and commuters affected by congestion pricing (potential repeal implications).
  • Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) facing an upcoming independent audit.
  • State environmental policy processes due to the required environmental impact study.
  • Public and stakeholders involved in transportation funding, traffic management, and regional planning.

Procedural and Timeline Notes

  • Introduced: March 6, 2025, and referred to CAC on the same date.
  • Legislative actions to date:
    • March 6, 2025: Referred to CAC (listed twice in the record, likely clerical duplicate).
    • May 28, 2025: Held for consideration in CAC (listed twice in the record).
  • Status implication: As of the latest action, the bill remains in committee and has not advanced to floor debate or passage.

Observations and context

  • The bill consolidates three distinct policy actions: a repeal of congestion pricing, an external audit of the MTA, and an environmental impact assessment.
  • Its companion relationships (A 9877 and S 2622) suggest ongoing interest across sessions and chambers in addressing congestion pricing and oversight of the MTA.
  • As the bill is currently held in committee, any movement would require committee consideration and potential amendments before potential floor action.

If you’d like, I can add a brief section comparing A 6680 to its related bills (A 9877 and S 2622) or outline potential fiscal implications based on typical outcomes of congestion pricing repeals and independent audits.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.