New York City has turned residents into bounty hunters to enforce its idling laws against private fleets while turning a blind eye to its own vehicles. Now, the bus industry is saying enough is enough by challenging the legality of the Big Apple’s anti-idling program.
New York City prohibits most vehicles from idling for more than three minutes. In areas near schools and parks, that time limit is reduced to one minute. Only legally authorized emergency vehicles are exempt from the law.
Enforcing idling laws proved to be too burdensome, so the city turned to residents. In 2018, New York City began rewarding people who turned in buses and trucks violating the law.
Specifically, the Citizens Air Complaint program allows residents to submit a timestamped video of trucks and buses idling for at least 3 minutes and 4 seconds. Carriers are then summoned and prosecuted by the city’s Office of Administrative Trials and Hearing (OATH). The resident who turned in the video receives 25% of the fine collected, which is usually $350 but can be up to $2,000.
At $87.50 a video, the program has been a lucrative side hustle for many New Yorkers.
According to CNBC, several residents have made tens of thousands of dollars by submitting videos of idling trucks and buses. A New York Post report reveals one man has earned nearly $1 million since 2019, with several others banking in hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Although idling laws broadly apply to vehicles in New York City, the Citizens Air Complaint program targets trucks and buses rather than passenger cars. As for trucks and buses owned by the city or state, they are not subject to penalties.
Those discrepancies have led to a lawsuit filed by the American Bus Association, which is calling the selective enforcement of idling laws unfair.
Clean air or revenue generator?
In its complaint, the American Bus Association argues that the government is violating several laws by shielding its fleets from idling laws while going after private fleets.
According to the New York City Department of Environmental Protection’s official Citizens Air Complaint guidance, “City and/or State Vehicles are not subject to OATH penalties.” While those vehicles are subject to idling laws, summonses are routinely dismissed and no monetary penalties are collected.
As the lawsuit points out, no such carveout for public fleets appears in any city or state statute. In 2023, 99.7% of idling tickets were issued through the Citizens Air Complaint program. Because passenger vehicles are not covered by the CAC program and publicly owned fleets are shielded from penalties, the lawsuit argues the system effectively targets privately owned trucks and buses. The American Bus Association is calling the “two-tiered enforcement regime” unfair and unlawful.
“The lack of enforcement against non-exempt vehicles in public fleets, which are subject to the same Idling Law, shows that the City’s goal is not about ‘clean air’ (since a city vehicle pollutes as much as a private coach, and given the number of vehicles the City operates, actually more), but about generating revenue,” the lawsuit states. “If the goal were environmental, the owner of the fleet would not matter in any prosecution regarding emissions.”
Idling law violations can be steep. Since January 2020, one bus company has faced nearly $800,000 in “exposure from tickets.” Adding insult to injury, a bill currently sitting in the New York City Council would triple the fines, with the first offense costing at least $1,000, up from the current $350, all the way up to $6,000 for third and subsequent offenses.
Damned if you do, damned if you don’t
Bus and truck companies often have to choose between violating New York City idling laws or federal regulations.
Like truck drivers, motorcoaches must also undergo federal pre-trip checks. Those can require the engine to run in order to power or test various vehicle components. Idling may also be necessary “to maintain or restore system pressure or to ensure readiness for safe operation before returning to service,” according to the lawsuit.
The American Bus Association points out that the zero-tolerance idling policy at terminal points conflicts with Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration regulations requiring brake pressure testing and power system checks after any stop.
“The City’s enforcement forces drivers to choose between a Federal Safety Violation (such as moving a bus with insufficient air pressure) and a City Idling Violation, an impossible choice,” the lawsuit states. “Under the Supremacy Clause, federal law must prevail.”
Trucking industry also in crosshairs
Although the lawsuit is specific to bus and motorcoach operations, trucking companies are also subject to the same idling laws.
In 2024, the Trucking Association of New York hosted a rally to call attention to how the Citizens Air Complaint Program “kneecaps our industry, harms our logistics systems and fails to consider the myriad steps the industry has taken and continues to take to move to zero emissions.”
“This program is punitive, not reformative, by encouraging freelance ‘bounty hunters’ to target trucking companies without introducing long-term solutions to prevent idling or protect the cleaner, more efficient trucks that are currently on the road,” said Kendra Hems, president of the Trucking Association of New York. “The city should work on collaborating with the trucking industry to create truly effective solutions that will both support our hardworking truck drivers and improve air quality, while incentivizing continued investments in zero- and near-zero-emission vehicles.”
In a statement to Land Line, the association said it is monitoring the American Bus Association’s lawsuit closely.
“The program, which TANY has long viewed as flawed given its history of abuse, is a predatory system in which a select few ‘bounty hunting’ New Yorkers can get rich off the backs of hardworking members of the trucking industry,” TANY said in a statement. “Without a proper adjudication process, claims made by bad actors are unable to be challenged and almost always result in fines which go into the pocket of the accuser, rather than into a fund to benefit New Yorkers at-large. TANY shares the concerns espoused by the ABA and is currently weighing its options with regards to the Citizens Air Complaint Program.” LL
Credit: Source link
