Four wins worth celebrating.
Thousands of premature deaths don’t happen in our country every year because of these four wins. Millions of kids are smarter and don’t get asthma attacks, and countless parents don’t get heart attacks or cancer. Billions and billions of dollars are saved in health costs every year.
Happy Earth Day!
]]>
The rule will cover the largest, dirtiest diesels that power the ocean-going vessels (OGVs) at our ports, such as oil tankers, container-carrying cargo ships, and large cruise vessels (regulated as "Category 3" engines because of their size, i.e., those with per-cylinder displacement at or above 30 liters).
This rule is a critical piece of a multi-part strategy to reduce ship pollution off our coasts and at our ports. Due to the complexities of how ships are governed at the international level, this rule will only cover the U.S.-flagged ships at our ports and off our coasts. But it’s a key step towards getting international approval of a comparable rule for all ships, U.S.- and foreign-flagged, at the March 2010 meeting of the International Maritime Organization (IMO) in London.
Here’s the background:
Over the past few years, EPA joined with the Coast Guard, the State Department, and a diverse set of other governmental, industry and nongovernmental stakeholders (including NRDC) to advocate for a stronger global commitment to reducing ship emissions worldwide.
It was the correct next step for an EPA that had aggressively targeted every other source of mobile diesel emissions over the past decade. (see, e.g., EPA’s rules for trucks and buses, farm, construction, and other nonroad diesel engines, and locomotives and marine-diesel engines).
In late 2008, this resulted in a new global pact to reduce ship emissions (for those readers interested in the minutiae, the agreement is codified in amendments to Annex VI to the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships (a/k/a "MARPOL” in the shipping world)). The new Annex VI amendments include a provision that allows individual countries to create special "Emission Control Areas" to accelerate the reduction of ship pollution off their coast lines.
In March, the Obama administration proposed the creation of a joint US/Canada Emission Control Area (ECA) pursuant to this provision. Under this ECA proposal, ships within 200 nautical miles of our coastlines will use fuel that has 98 percent less sulfur than in current OGV fuel, and will cut their smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) emissions by 80 percent and their cancer-causing particulate soot (PM) emissions by 85 percent, starting in 2015.
This proposal is critically important because air pollution from large ships is expected to grow rapidly as port traffic increases. By 2030, the ECA strategy is expected to reduce annual emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOx) from large marine diesel engines by about 1.2 million tons and particulate matter (PM) emissions by about 143,000 tons. Cutting those NOx and PM emissions by 80 and 85 percent, respectively, will be necessary for communities downwind of our ports and for states that are chronically battling dirty air.
The health benefits of these emissions reductions will be substantial. In fact, EPA estimates that, by 2030, between 13,000 and 33,000 premature deaths and between $110 and $280 billion in health costs will be avoided annually. As with all the other EPA diesel rules over the past decade, these benefits will far, far, far exceed the expected implementation costs—at a ratio of at least 30:1.
Frankly, it is hard to find a better deal in the public health world.
Plus, there are significant climate benefits too. Scientists are increasingly pointing to black carbon emissions as a key issue in the acceleration of melting sea and glacial ice, especially in the Arctic region and key mountain ranges that supply drinking water to billions of people around the world like the Himalayas and the Rockies. Unlike carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, black carbon emissions are very short-term in duration – they last only a few weeks in the atmosphere. In other words, cutting black carbon emissions today creates global warming benefits almost immediately—creating some breathing room to allow the longer-term strategies to cut greenhouse gas emissions time to take effect.
The soot particles from the world’s ocean-going ships have a core that is largely composed of black carbon. So, in addition to the health benefits listed above, cutting ship pollution creates a short-term climate benefit almost immediately. In this week of important climate news, a commitment to cutting ship pollution would be an added bonus.
What does EPA’s new rule have to do with all of this?
As I wrote in August, EPA’s rule covers all US-flagged ships, just in case the IMO fails to support the US/Canada ECA proposal. Obviously, given the global nature of shipping, we need the IMO-sanctioned ECA to really solve the ship pollution problem off our coasts because most large ships at our ports carry foreign flags. Nevertheless, this EPA rule for US-flagged ships will send a strong signal to the global shipping industry that the US intends to act swiftly to cut this pollution from the ships under its jurisdiction. Doing so should help encourage the IMO to adopt a globally-recognized ECA, rather than a more limited US-only approach.
One caveat worth noting: earlier this fall, a group of 13 steamships that operate on the Great Lakes convinced Congress to add a budget rider that restricted EPA’s ability to enforce the proposed pollution cuts against their vessels. More recently, some steamship operators off the Alaskan and northwest coasts have been advocating for a similar carve-out. Hopefully, dealing with these niche operators (less than one percent or less of emissions) won’t lead to extra trouble at the IMO meeting in March, just as the existence of a few remaining Model T Fords never stood in the way of EPA's world-class Tier 2 emission standards for cars.
The bottom line: EPA’s rule is strong, and is a welcome holiday present to anybody who cares about clean air.
]]>That soot comes from #2 heating oil, a close cousin of diesel fuel. It's similar to the diesel fuel in New York's buses and trucks, except it can contain more than 650 times as much sulfur. It's dirty stuff, and it can trigger asthma emergencies and other health ailments when people breathe it. Like all soot pollution, it's especially a threat to children, the elderly and anybody with heart or lung ailments.
On Monday, the New York State Senate has a chance to take a big step to make this plume of smoke a thing of the past.
Here are the particulars: The Senate will meet in a special session on Monday, and may use this opportunity to pass S.1145-A (Perkins), a bill that, when it takes effect in July 2011, will reduce the sulfur level of #2 heating oil to the same level as the clean, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel now used in trucks and buses across the country. (The Assembly has already passed a version of this bill.)
Ever since the fall of 2006, sulfur levels in highway diesel fuel have been capped at 15 parts-per-million (ppm). But #2 heating oil averages about 2,600 ppm in New York, and is permitted to contain up to 10,000 ppm - 666 times the allowable sulfur levels in bus and truck fuel.
Sulfur in heating oil contributes to high concentrations of sulfur dioxides and fine particulate matter in New York State.
Just today, EPA designated much of downstate New York, including New York City, as a "nonattainment area" for its most recent health-based particulate matter standard. This will trigger a legal requirement for the state to create a plan to cut this pollution.
No. 2 home heating oil contributes an estimated 1,155 tons of PM emissions every year in New York City. Passing and implementing S.1145-A would reduce as much pollution as shutting down two and a half coal plants in New York State, and will help the state meet its new legal requirements for particulate matter.
Let's hope the Senate passes this bill on Monday. It's time to get rid of that black plume of sooty smoke, once and for all.
]]>With nearly $50 million in EPA's FY 2008 budget for this program, EPA made 119 grants nationwide that enabled more than 14,000 diesel-powered vehicles to run cleaner. These grants run the gamut of diesel engines - school and transit buses, trucks, farm and construction equipment, cargo-handling equipment at our ports, and so on. And, in many cases, these dirty diesels were equipped with the most advanced diesel soot filters, making them more than 85 percent cleaner.
For years, I've been writing and talking about the cost-effectiveness of diesel clean-up. This report documents that cost-effectiveness clearly: for the government's $50 million investment, the public will receive between $500 million and $1.4 billion in health benefits, thanks to the reduced number of asthma emergencies, bronchitis cases, cancers, heart attacks, and premature deaths that would have been attributable to the diesel pollution that, thankfully, will no longer exist.
Plus, projects funded by these grants will save 3.2 million gallons of fuel per year, saving operators more than $8 million each year (at $2.50/gallon). At a time when many school districts and local governments are struggling with operating budget shortfalls, these cost-savings are critically important.
Much of this money is being spent in nonattainment areas (i.e., cities and towns that don't meet EPA's health-based standards for ozone or particulate soot), in urban environments, and in the low-income communities and communities of color that border many of our nation's ports and other diesel "hotspots." This is good news for those communities that are disproportionately affected by diesel pollution.
The stimulus bill, passed by Congress earlier this year, contains another $300 million for diesel clean-up, which must be spent by next September 30, 2010 in most cases. It's hard to imagine a better investment in cleaner air and improved public health.
]]>
This month, I wrote about what the Stimulus package means for New York. It's worth taking a look at if you are wondering what the Stimulus package means in your own state, even if you don't live in New York.
]]>Researchers at the University of Cincinnati looked at the proximity of public school students and major highways in nine large Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) around the country. In sum, they found that more than 30 percent of the students in these MSAs went to schools that were within 400 meters of a major roadway and more than 10 percent went to schools that were less than 100 meters than a highway. For some MSAs, almost half of the student population attended schools near major roadways, resulting in a potentially increased risk for asthma and other chronic respiratory problems.
The authors concluded that proximity of major roadways should be an important factor in considering sites for new schools and developing policies for reducing the exposure in existing schools.
I think this is only half the story.
Sure, we need to do a better job coordinating future urban development, transportation and environmental policies. We must do this.
But we also have to speed up the replacement or retrofitting of the older, smoking diesel buses that service these schools and the trucks that pass by on all of those nearby highways.
Here’s why:
Despite one EPA rule that lowered smog-forming nitrogen oxides (NOx) by 40 percent in 2004 (and a consent decree that required most engine makers to start selling those engines in October 2002) and another EPA rule that reduced diesel NOx by another 40-50 percent and particulate soot by 90 percent in 2007, more than half of all of the trucks and buses on the roads predate both of these rules and the consent decree.
From the perspective of eliminating the diesel soot particles that can trigger asthma attacks and other emergencies, the picture is even worse. We don’t have bombproof data yet, but it’s safe to say that at least 80 percent of the trucks and buses on the roads today lack the particulate filters that became standard equipment in 2007, thanks to the latest EPA diesel rule. These filters are the only technology that removes almost all of the fine particulate soot from the tailpipes of today’s diesel engines.
And, here’s another important piece of information: According to EPA and other studies, every dollar spent to retrofit an existing diesel engine with a particulate filter yields $12-16 in health benefits. It’s hard to find an example of a more cost-effective pollution expenditure.
As we look to ensure that the diesel problem actually gets solved anytime soon (as compared to waiting 30 years or more for all of today's dirty-yet-durable diesels to die a natural death and be replaced by engines that meet the 2007 or upcoming 2010 standards), as we think about how to best spend transportation and air pollution-related moneys in the next transportation funding bill that Congress will consider next year, and as we think about how to incorporate what we know about diesel exhaust into what planners, governments and developers are doing with smart growth and related land use issues, accelerating the clean-up of the existing diesels should not fall off the radar screen.
]]>The video is about Dan. Dan loves “Sweet Lady Traffic,” loves everything about it. His greatest fear: in next year’s transportation funding bill, Congress will take money away from building highways and spend it on trains and buses. This will, according to the video, “suck the lifeblood out of traffic.”
Take a minute and 41 seconds and watch:
There is, of course, a serious side to this issue.
In response to high gas prices, Americans are turning to transit to get to work and school in numbers that have not been seen since the 1950s. Unfortunately, in too many cities, high diesel prices and transit funding cuts (in part due to lower gas tax receipts) are adding up to overcrowded buses and long delays at exactly the wrong time.
Here are just a few examples: In New York, the transit system faces its worst fiscal crisis since the 1970s, cutting services and facing a 5-year capital funding gap that could be as high as $20 billion; in California, there’s a proposal to cut $1.4 billion from the state’s transit fund for next year; in Cleveland, San Diego and many other cities, services are being cut to fill a budget holes despite record ridership levels. The list could go on and on – according to the American Public Transit Association, roughly one-fifth of the nation’s transit agencies cut services over the past year.
Responding to this transit funding crisis, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 6052, the Saving Energy Through Public Transportation Act, by a vote of 322 to 98 in June. The Act authorizes 1.7 billion dollars to transit agencies across America to expand services and reduce fares.
When the Senate returns to work in September, will it take up a similar effort? Thankfully, Senator Clinton has introduced a Senate version of H.R. 6052, but that’s a long way from passing a bill for the President’s signature.
The bottom line is that we cannot break our addiction to oil, we cannot solve our global warming problems, and we cannot give Americans clean, health air without investing in transit and other alternatives to driving. Support increased funding for transit.
]]>It struck me that the successful transition to this new, cleaner diesel fuel is one of the most uncovered environmental stories out there.
But it’s a real success story.
Here’s the story: in late 2000, then-President Bill Clinton signed an EPA rule that required oil refiners to cut the sulfur levels in their highway diesel fuel (i.e., all diesel fuel used by trucks, buses and cars) from 500 parts-per-million to 15 parts-per-million. This 97 percent cut would eliminate sulfate-based soot pollution overnight, and would open the door to advanced catalysts and soot filters that would reduce particulate emissions and nitrogen oxides from new diesel engines by more than 90 percent. More recently, EPA rules have adapted this approach to farm, construction, industrial and other nonroad equipment, and to locomotive and marine diesel engines.
(A quick primer on why this matters: Soot particles trigger asthma emergencies, bronchitis, cancer, heart attacks and tens of thousands of premature deaths every year. Nitrogen oxides are a key component of acid rain, summertime smog, and even contribute to more particles in the air. Both the black carbon core of a diesel soot particle and the nitrogen oxides are contributing to global warming’s impacts too).
Of course, environmentalists were thrilled, and the various oil and trucking industry groups were alarmed.
As we’ve often heard from industry, these changes would drive up prices, hurt consumers, and wreak havoc throughout the industry in unforeseen ways.
But the reality turned out to be much different: the anticipated price hikes due to the transition to ULSD never happened (yes, diesel prices are sky-high, but that’s principally because of high refinery margins and the escalating price of a barrel of petroleum, not because of the cleaner diesel fuel).
So, what’s the reality?
Industry had four years to gradually phase in ULSD, yet almost all diesel fuel (well over 90 percent) switched right away. The price differential between LSD and ULSD (where you can find the dirtier fuel) is meaningless in almost every case.
Today, according to the folks at Travel Centers of America, who track retail diesel prices in all of the states where they sell fuel, the differential between these two fuels is 3/10 of one cent in almost every station they have. At more than $4/gallon, I’d say this is a pretty meaningless differential.
The bottom line: the transition to cleaner, ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel has been a mostly-uncovered success story. Today’s diesel fuel is cleaner than it’s ever been, and at no noticeable incremental cost to the old, dirtier diesel fuel.
And that’s a story worth telling.
]]>
Uugghhh.
I haven’t been on such a losing side since I worked on Walter Mondale’s campaign staff in 1984.
I am not going to join the blame game, as easy as it would be to do so. As Switchboard readers (and my NRDC colleagues) may know by now, that’s not how I play the game.
Rather, I will point out that I cannot think of a major environmental issue in New York that was resolved in a single year. It took seven years to convince the MTA to clean up their buses; more than one City Council speaker had to oversee the revamping of the City’s solid waste plan once the Fresh Kills landfill was slated for closure; and safeguarding the NYC watershed is an ongoing venture that won’t ever be fully completed. And so on.
So, I will use a sports analogy to point out that this is just the first inning of a game that will continue in various City and State forums for some time.
The game, of course, is ensuring a sustainable city for the future.
The goal of this game to ensure that we are ready for the one million new residents of New York City—and the three million new members of our region—who will live here by 2030. This includes ensuring that we figure out how to reduce congestion so the City and the region work better, whether we’re measuring “better” through the lens of elbow room on the subway, the cleanliness of our buses, getting a seat on the morning train from Lynbrook or Yonkers, or our region’s ability to handle the ever-increasing pressures of growing goods movement through our port and the demand for on-time deliveries throughout the City and the region.
Another goal of this game is also to figure out how to handle all of these people and all of these goods, while also reducing air pollution to levels that are safe enough to breathe, every day of the year. Yes, every day.
Of course, another goal of this game is to find a fair, equitable and sustainable way of financing the billions of transit and other transportation investments that will be necessary to build and maintain all of what’s needed to create a sustainable city and region for the future.
And, last but certainly not least, another goal of this game is to create sustainability models that will be adaptable to other big cities in the U.S.—and around the world—so all of our cities are more sustainable in the long run (I’m actually writing this from Beijing, where particulate levels are often six times those in Manhattan.).
This game is not about a single vote on a single bill about congestion pricing.
We lost a few runs in the first inning. But this game ain’t over. And the goal of this game is too important to give up after just the first inning.
Stay tuned.
]]>This was a huge victory for Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, of course, since the Council was the first legislative body to vote on the proposal.
It was great timing for NRDC, too—it came on the eve of our annual “Forces of Nature” gala in NYC. This year, we honored Mayor Bloomberg for his environmental leadership, and he used the occasion to welcome Speaker Quinn to the podium and thank everybody who has worked hard to pass congestion pricing.
The City Council’s vote sends a strong message of support to the State Assembly and Senate, both of which must vote on the congestion pricing bill by next Monday, April 7. As Mayor Bloomberg said at our event, passing congestion pricing in the City Council is “like getting 95 percent across the Grand Canyon…it doesn’t mean anything unless you get all the way across.”
So our attention is now wholly on Albany, where Assembly members are conferencing on congestion pricing as I write.
But while they do, I want to point out that many of the “yes” votes in the Council came from all five boroughs. In contrast to what some observers expected, there were some real leaders from Queens, Brooklyn, Staten Island and the Bronx who were willing to step up and vote yes—despite coming from car-centric districts.
These include:
Elizabeth Benjamin, whose Daily Politics blog on the New York Daily News website is covering congestion pricing as it unfolds, published a full list of the votes that you can see here.
This was also a major step forward for the more than 150 civic, labor, environmental, business and other organizations working around the clock this month to pass congestion pricing. The folks who make up the Campaign for New York’s Future and the Empire State Transportation Alliance are doing incredible work this month to pass congestion pricing. (NRDC is a member of both organizations).
Everybody’s tired, everybody’s swamped, but everybody was totally pumped after the vote.
Want to help? Go to our coalition's website and take action now!
Stay tuned.
]]>Governor David A. Paterson just announced that he’s presenting a program bill to the New York State Legislature to implement congestion pricing in the City.
Here’s what Governor Paterson said: “Congestion pricing addresses two urgent concerns of the residents of New York City and its suburbs: the need to reduce congestion on our streets and roads, and thereby reduce pollution and global warming; and the need to raise significant revenue for mass transit improvements.”
Here’s NRDC’s statement on this critical news: “Having Governor Paterson’s support is a huge step forward. There’s clearly a shift in momentum happening as more and more people realize that this debate is fundamentally about providing more elbow room, better service and new travel options for people trying to get to school and work every day.”
This is, as we’re telling reporters, huge.
And, it’s further evidence of a shift that I’m feeling everywhere.
In my meetings in Albany and the City this week, I sensed it everywhere: most of the discussions were fundamentally about how to fund the transit system, and how best to make congestion pricing work well.
Not whether to have congestion pricing or whether to fund the MTA capital plan.
How to make it work best.
Sure, plenty of legislators are on the fence, and some oppose it.
And, given the way politics works, many fence-sitters will stay there until the last minute when all of the final details are set. That’s just how the system works.
But there’s a shift happening. I can feel it.
And Governor Paterson’s support is a huge boost, just huge.
Want more? Check out Elizabeth Benjamin’s must-read political blog over at the New York Daily News, The Daily Politics, or the latest article at Crain's for more on the story.
And, want to take action? Check out our coalition's website, which gives you an easy way to click and send a message to the key legislators in the City and in Albany.
Happy Spring, and have a great weekend.
]]>Here's why: last month, I wrote a post, “Where’s the rule?” alerting Switchboard readers to our five-year wait for a strong EPA program to reduce pollution from the nation’s dirty trains and ships.
On Friday, EPA answered our question with their announcement of their final rule that will require new trains and ships to be 90 percent cleaner than today’s models—and that will also require today’s dirty trains and ships to be built to much cleaner levels when they go through their regular overhauls.
Together with a prior EPA rule that is cleaning up trucks, signed by President Clinton in 2001, this rule will go a long way towards cleaning up goods movement within the nation. NRDC put out a strong statement of support, which is pasted at the bottom of this post.
Of course, there’s still the open question of the container ships out there on the open seas, which I wrote about on February 15. And, of course, with container cargo expected to double by 2020, we can’t really rest until we figure out how to handle all of those extra goods in a sustainable way.
But, for now, this rule is a strong step in the right direction. It’s something to applaud EPA for, and I thought you would want to know.
And, here’s the press release we put out on Friday, which also gives some key details about what's contained in EPA's new program.
]]>New EPA Diesel Rule Will Clean Up Dirty Trains and Ships
Will Reduce 90 percent of Soot Emissions by 2030
WASHINGTON (March 14, 2008) -- Thousands of emergency room visits and more than 1,000 premature deaths will be avoided every year, once a long-awaited federal plan to clean up dangerous, lung-clogging emissions from railroad locomotives and large marine diesel engines is fully implemented, according to scientists and clean-air advocates at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which has been advocating for a clean-up plan for more than five years.
The plan, contained in a rule announced by Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Stephen L. Johnson at a press conference in Houston today, will cut particulate soot pollution from new ship and train engines by 90 percent, starting in 2015. It will also cut smog-forming nitrogen oxide emissions by 80 percent, starting in either 2014 or 2015, depending on the size and type of engine. Between now and then, ship and train engines will be required to be rebuilt to cleaner levels, as they undergo their regularly-scheduled overhauls.
The following is a statement from Richard Kassel, director of NRDC’s Clean Fuels and Vehicles Project and a member of EPA’s Clean Air Act Advisory Committee:
“While ships and trains deliver many things Americans want, nobody needs to breathe their toxic soot. These ships and trains emit as much smog-forming pollution each year as 120 coal-fired power plants.
“EPA has delivered a strong program that will go a long way towards solving the problem of diesel train and ship pollution in the future.
“Thousands of asthma attacks and other health emergencies will be avoided, as the nation’s 40,000 ships and 21,000 diesel locomotives are cleaned up in years to come.
“Cleaning up trains and ships is an extremely cost-effective way to cut pollution. Judging from EPA’s data, every dollar invested in cleaner diesel engines should result in up to $15 in health savings.
“Like prior EPA rules that are dramatically reducing pollution from the nation’s trucks, buses, tractors, bulldozers, and other diesel engines, today’s new rule assumes that engine makers will use new pollution-cutting filters and catalysts to cut train and ship pollution.
“With this rule finished, two steps remain. First, given the long life of diesel engines, the nation’s ports, railyards, and freight haulers need to find ways to accelerate the clean-up of today’s dirty engines. Second, the global shipping industry needs to clean up the pollution from the foreign-flagged ships that are beyond the reach of today’s rule.”
Here’s the issue: would some car commuters try to avoid the Manhattan congestion charge by parking in the residential neighborhoods of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and upper Manhattan and then take the subway to get to midtown and lower Manhattan? And, if so, would this create new congestion and air pollution in those residential neighborhoods?
Here’s the solution: As part of the congestion pricing program, the City will adopt a residential parking permit program to ensure that residents who currently park on the street can continue to do so, and to discourage commuter park-and-riding in Long Island City, Downtown Brooklyn, Boerum Hill, Forest Hills, Harlem, and the other neighborhoods that have this concern.
This is a really smart move by the Mayor and his cracker-jack team at the Department of Transportation. DOT listened to the concerns, held 17 workshops in neighborhoods throughout the City, took in hundreds of public comments, and came up with a smart program that enables communities to create their own parking permit zones that reflect their community’s local needs.
Nothing is being forced here: it’s an entirely voluntary program, and local community boards will be free to join the program or not. But for communities that worry that an unintended consequence of congestion pricing may be more congestion and air pollution as non-residents circle the streets looking for free parking, this should be a welcome development.
The bottom line: During the past months of workshops and hearings, the City heard loud and clear that residents wanted a residential parking permit system for New York City. DOT listened and responded, and created a program that is tailored to meet the needs of local communities.
Another good step.
Stay tuned.
]]>Governor-to-be Paterson is a well-liked, smart public official, with a long resume of support for environmental issues, especially in the energy area. Hopefully, he’ll tackle the MTA’s proposed $29.5 billion, 2008-2013 capital plan and congestion pricing right away as an opportunity to make his mark in the Governor’s mansion. Given the March 31 deadline for a vote (and the $353 million in federal funds that New York will lose if the vote is delayed), we certainly hope that the transition does not delay New York’s decisions on the MTA capital plan and the congestion pricing proposal.
Yesterday, I was in Albany to talk to legislators about the MTA plan and congestion pricing. It was a surreal day to be in Albany, given everything that had been going on. Ironically, it was also a good day to talk to legislators and staff. Many were waiting for news that never came, which meant that many had extra time to talk to our group about the MTA’s proposed capital plan and the role that congestion pricing would play in fully funding this critical program.
We had an extremely diverse group walking the halls, which demonstrates the wide support for congestion pricing in the business, labor and civic communities. I spent the day with allies from the General Contractors Association, the New York State Laborers Union, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, the NYPIRG/Straphangers Campaign, the Regional Plan Association, and others. It’s not every day that the State’s contractors, construction workers and NRDC lobby together, and policy-makers usually take note of unusual, diverse coalitions like this one.
Mostly, we focused on the Assembly members who are either opposed or undecided about congestion pricing. So, as you can imagine, we had many conversations about broad policy implications of changing the economics of driving to encourage more transit use, lower congestion, improve air quality and reduce global warming pollution.
But, at the heart of their concerns are questions about whether the MTA plan will really result in added transit benefits for their constituents, once congestion pricing is in place. They’ve been in Albany a long time—and they have seen, far too often, promises of services that never quite materialize. So, we heard over and over again the request for more, detailed information about the specific transit benefits that their constituents would receive.
After seventeen years of NRDC advocacy, I don’t hear this as ironclad opposition—instead, I felt that many members wanted to support the MTA plan. And, I felt that they were open to congestion pricing as a financing mechanism, so long as they received enough assurance that their constituents would benefit from the new transit investments. That seems reasonable to me, since their jobs rightly depend on delivering better services to their constituents.
So, one of our tasks, as lobbyists, is to get them that information, as quickly and as accurately as possible. Indeed, thanks to our friends at the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, much of that information has now been collected. Legislators seemed really appreciative when Kate Slevin, Tri-State’s indefatigable executive director, gave them district-specific information about commuting patterns and proposed transit investments.
Another key issue that we addressed was a concern about whether the program was regressive, i.e., a tax on poor and working people. If there was one benefit to our lobbying, it was making the case that this issue is a canard, at best. In office after office, we explained to legislators that only 3 – 5 percent of their constituents actually drove into the central business district of Manhattan during business hours (i.e., would be charged under the new system). And, that these are drivers who can already afford the $40-50/day parking fees that midtown and downtown parking garages already charge.
In other words, their lower-income and middle-income constituents already take the subway, train or bus to work, and it’s their upper income constituents are the ones who drive to midtown and park during the day.
So, we explained how the 95-97 percent of their constituents who take transit to work would receive the transit benefits of the proposed capital plan, thanks to the $4.5 billion or more in bond revenues that should follow the implementation of congestion pricing. If anything, we explained, congestion pricing in New York is exactly the opposite of regressive—it’s a program that charges a small percentage of mostly upper-income drivers and spreads the benefits across the entire City and region’s transit services. Little by little, legislators and their staffs are starting to realize this.
All in all, a good day of lobbying on behalf of NRDC and our members.
Of course, with the news today, the congestion pricing debate will enter a new phase, and I’ll keep you all informed.
Stay tuned.
]]>That’s a fun topic to debate, and a good one.
But what’s more significant today is that more than half of those polled agreed that we need to implement congestion pricing in Manhattan now, assuming the revenues are used for improving the region’s transit system.
To me, that’s strong support, given that the notion of paying-to-drive is something that’s never been done in an American city before—and that the plan’s opponents have been slamming the proposal relentlessly for months.
Individual New Yorkers can always make a difference by leaving their car at home, and taking the train, bus, or subway to work—and most of us do. But as I wrote yesterday, we need to find more than $29 billion over the next five years to rebuild and expand the transit system to give everybody more transit options and extra elbow room in years to come.
Congestion pricing can provide as much as $6 billion of those funds. So, the next time you leave the car at home to come to Manhattan, and the next time you wonder about what you can do to help reduce congestion, air pollution and global warming, join me in supporting congestion pricing—and tell your legislators and friends to do so, too.
]]>