At 7:50 a.m. on Monday, July 24, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey reported that cars driving east through the Lincoln Tunnel to Manhattan were taking 30 minutes to make the crossing, compared with only seven minutes earlier that morning. According to the authority, traffic was actually “light” compared with normal: The tunnel has limited capacity, so during the morning rush, cars always back up on the infamous Helix, the corkscrew approach to the tunnel.

If you choose to drive into Manhattan during that rush, you add to that backup. You probably add only slightly, maybe less than a second, to the delay facing each driver behind you — but there may be thousands of people in the queue, so the total cost you impose, in wasted time and fuel, is substantial. You probably impose less cost on the bus passengers who seem to make up most of the people using the tunnel, because many buses can bypass much of the inbound jam using a dedicated lane, but there isn’t anything comparable for the outbound commute, so if you drive into and out of Manhattan, you’re imposing big delays on everyone.

And of course, the congestion you create by driving into the busiest part of Manhattan is just beginning when you’ve exited the tunnel. Your presence slows city buses, the taxis and other for-hire vehicles that make up more than half of Midtown traffic, the delivery trucks that keep the city’s economy functioning.

In short, when you drive into New York, you’re imposing large costs on other people. And I mean really large costs. Reasonable estimates suggest that taking a private car into Manhattan during the morning rush and back out during the evening rush creates congestion costs of well over $100 — and if you think about it, especially while stuck in the traffic jam at the Helix, numbers that big seem entirely plausible.

Now, nobody is suggesting a ban on driving into Manhattan. But it seems ridiculous to argue that anyone should have the right to do that much damage to other people’s lives without paying considerably more than the current tolls. That would be like arguing that some people should have the right to dump trash on their neighbor’s land because they don’t feel like paying the fees for garbage pickup.

And yet the state of New Jersey is suing to block New York from imposing a congestion fee on vehicles entering Manhattan below 60th Street.

People who have studied congestion pricing in detail were probably bored or exasperated by my discussion up to this point. Why belabor the obvious? But the point is that it is obvious and that the numbers are clearly huge. The case for a congestion charge is overwhelming, and that reality should loom much larger than the details.

Yes, there are details. Might a congestion charge have some undesirable side effects, like increased truck traffic in the Bronx? Policies always do — but given the sheer size of the costs one inflicts by driving into Manhattan, it’s inconceivable that these would undermine the basic case. Should New Jersey be getting some revenue from the fees? Maybe, although hundreds of thousands of New Jersey residents commute into New York by train or bus, and these commuters would gain from reduced congestion after they arrive.

What’s really striking is how few people stand to benefit from New Jersey’s attempt to block or delay congestion charges. Fewer than 60,000 New Jersey residents, out of a state labor force of almost five million, commute into New York City by car. They are also, as it happens, relatively affluent, with a median annual income of more than $100,000, relatively well able to handle the extra cost. For this, New Jersey is trying to sabotage crucial policy in a neighboring state?

OK, I’m not an expert in New Jersey politics, and I won’t try to decipher how a progressive governor like Phil Murphy ended up in this position. But what this looks like to me is a vehicular version of NIMBYism — the same psychology that has prevented blue states and cities from building desperately needed housing and may undermine progress on climate change, too.

My take on NIMBYism is that it isn’t simply about selfishness, although of course that plays a role — some people oppose housing construction because they think it will reduce their property values. But I know affluent progressives who more or less cheerfully accepted the extra taxes that helped pay for Obamacare and donate generously to social causes but seem to lose it when someone proposes allowing more housing construction or a much-needed power transmission line anywhere near their residences.

Why, exactly? My armchair psychology is that even people who are socially conscious about big things — you might even call them woke — lose all sense of proportion in the face of suggestions that the way they live their own lives is problematic and might need to change, even slightly. I don’t know that this is the right answer, but something strange is going on.

In any case, let’s be clear: The case for imposing a New York congestion charge as soon as possible is overwhelming, and delaying that policy for the sake of a tiny group of New Jersey commuters would be crazy.