Rich Kassel's Blog
Congestion pricing, regressivity, and a new study from WE ACT and Earth Institute
March 21, 2008
Posted by Rich Kassel in Curbing Pollution , Environmental Justice , Health and the Environment
One of the biggest canards of the congestion pricing debate in New York is that the program is somehow regressive, i.e., it discriminates against poor people and mostly benefits upper-income people.
Throughout the past two weeks of lobbying, I cannot even count the number of times that legislators or staff have raised this point with me, and I’m still surprised by its resonance with so many people.
It's time to put this issue to bed:
Anybody who drove to work in the central business district of Manhattan today probably paid $50 or more to park their car, on top of any bridge, tunnel or highway tolls that they paid en route.
There are two types of people who do this: people who work for companies that pay for parking and people who earn enough that it’s worth it, to them, to pay $50, $60 or even $70 daily (including tolls and gas) to avoid the train or subway. These people are not the “working poor,” and probably not even “middle-class,” even by the unique pay scales of New York.
Let me be clear here—I am NOT making a value judgment about their driving choice. Whether somebody drives or not is their business.
I’m merely saying that most of these drivers can handle the extra $8.
And who will benefit?
Everybody. Certainly, the millions of train, subway and bus riders throughout the region, but also every New Yorker who breathes our air or drives on our roads.
Why?
Because those $8 charges will generate roughly $5 billion in bond revenue for our transit system, which will help pay for critical capital investments to modernize and expand the system now and for the future.
Because the reduced congestion and increased transit use that will follow the implementation of congestion pricing will help clean our air and make breathing a bit easier.
And, yes, because if the projections are right, even car commuters will benefit because congestion will be reduced from 6 percent to more than 30 percent in the region, depending on where you measure it, thanks to the ripple effect of reduced driving from the suburbs into the City.
But here’s the news today that really drives the point home:
Today, the advocates at WE ACT for Environmental Justice (Harlem’s leading advocate for environmental justice for two decades) and the Earth Institute of Columbia University (led by Jeffrey Sachs, who is among the world’s pre-eminent advocates for addressing the needs of the urban poor) released “Northern Manhattan and the Congestion Pricing Plan,” their study on the impacts of congestion pricing on the low-income communities and communites of color that WE ACT represents.
Their conclusion: After evaluating the key concerns of community members and elected officials about the plan’s potential effect on parking, congestion and quality of life north of 110th Street, WEACT and the Earth Institute concluded that the congestion pricing plan “would have no significant negative impact on Northern Manhattan if implemented.”
None.
If WE ACT and the Earth Institute couldn’t find negative impacts on the low-income communities of northern Manhattan, they aren’t there.
And, if they aren’t there, this program isn’t regressive.
(bookmark or email this entry)
Comments are closed for this post.
- Rich Kassel
- Senior Attorney and Director, Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project
- New York City
- I came to NRDC in 1991 on a three-year grant, and never left. Over the...
- more→
Comments
Larry Stouder — Mar 24 2008 09:02 AM
Frankly I am getting tired of politicians constantly putting their hands in my pocket in the name of improving my life. Increased parking fines, fines for "violations" of a convoluted recycling policy, and now congestion pricing. Sure, let's take money from the other boroughs and improve Manhattan. The politicians and Manhattan elitist talking about using public transportation clearly have not tried to use that public transportation to get into Manhattan. I would like to hear the details of how this would be improved to be able to carry more people, before any half-baked plan is put into place.
Regressive, oppressive, discriminatory, ill-conceived. Too many words. Let's just add a word to the dictionary - "Bloombergesque".
Larry Dwyer — Mar 24 2008 10:51 AM
I am against the Mayor's Congestion Pricing Plan. It puts an unfair burden on NYC workers, and is a regressive tax that hurts the working middle class. With the recent increase in fuel prices and food, the last thing NYC workers needs is another regressive tax.
The Mayor’s plan may alleviate congestion in Manhattan, but it will be offset by an increase in congestion in Queens, Brooklyn and upper Manhattan, due to increased driving by commuters looking for a place to park their vehicles, in order to avoid the Mayor’s Congestion Tax.
It doesn’t take much to see through the mayor’s proposal to alleviate Global Warming as a farce when the New York Times reported that the Mayor has two large Chevy Suburbans drive him 22 blocks to the 59th street express stop, when he lives only five minutes from the 77th street local subway stop. (Mayor Takes the Subway — by Way of S.U.V., NY Times. Aug 1, 2007.) Please ask yourself, do you know of any other person in New York City who gets driven to the subway in Manhattan?
“New York’s subways and buses are already at capacity, and as we prepare to add one million new residents by 2030, our existing mass transit will require improvements that will take years (if not generations) to put in place." (The Path of Least Congestion, NY Times. July 18, 2007.)
If the mayor wants to raise taxes, then he should say so, but he should not portray a regressive tax against the working middle class as an effort to stop global warming.
Nick Vlahos — Mar 25 2008 12:07 PM
Think this plan stinks. I own a flower shop in the upper east side, and deliver flower arrangements to midtown twice a day. How is this goona effect my business? I have a commercial van and have to pay 21.00 per day. This is amnother tax on the working people. The politicians want a RICH ONLY Manhattan. I'm going to cut down on my staff
to pay for this additional tax on small businesses.