I'm not normally a Bloomberg booster, but the mayor's PlaNYC is really praiseworthy. Daniel [1] has done a great job linking to reporting and analysis on the specific proposal for congestion pricing. He notes, correctly, that the devil is in the details. I want to argue that when you consider the details, congestion pricing comes out looking like an excellent - even crucial - idea.
It's true that congestion charges, viewed in isolation, would constitute a regressive tax (though New Yorkers paying an $8 fee would have it easy compared to Londoners, who pay twice as much). But the regressiveness can be mitigated. As Jackie Ashley wrote [2] in the Guardian in February, "We need sharp, specialised instruments, not blunt ones." Congestion charges could be offset somewhat by reductions in other regressive taxes or fees; those who are particularly reliant on their cars - for instance, people with disabilities - could be provided with exemptions. This article [3] in the Daily News suggests additional ways to ease the burden where appropriate: for instance, by allowing drivers five free trips a year and by reducing bus fares in neighborhoods not served by subways.
Balancing the burden would help make congestion pricing less regressive. But in a larger sense, it's a very progressive idea - especially when you consider that fewer than 5% of New Yorkers actually drive to work in Manhattan. Like a carbon tax, congestion charging would be a means of using tax policy to discourage behavior that hurts the public interest. Traffic congestion damages public health and costs the city billions of dollars a year; it also contributes to global climate change. And it is inherently progressive - redistributive - to focus transportation policy on improving mass transit as opposed to automobile traffic.
The real key, and the reason Mayor Bloomberg deserves a good deal of praise, is that congestion pricing is understood as being only one element in a far-sighted plan to address the considerable challenges New York faces over the next two decades. Give Bloomberg credit - he recognized a moment of fiscal and political opportunity, and rather than squandering it, he's using it to the public's advantage. It's only when you look at how congestion pricing fits into this larger strategy that you realize how progressive it actually is.
Think of PlaNYC [4] as comprising four complementary plans. Congestion pricing is important to and made more progressive by each of them:
A plan for transportation. A key element in making the congestion charge less regressive is that the funds collected will be reinvested in public transportation. A particular priority is to augment service to under-served areas. PlaNYC's transportation [5] plan would focus on improving commuter rail and bus services, implementing Bus Rapid Transit routes, creating suburban transit hubs, and other measures designed to improve the accessibility and efficiency of mass transit. Not only will these improvements help ease the burden of congestion pricing, they will be partially funded by it.
A plan for growth. By 2030 the population of New York is likely to have grown by another million; that's not to mention the increased millions of visitors the city will host. Bloomberg's housing plan [6] emphasizes "transit-oriented development" and creative land reclamation ideas - including developing waterfront areas, adapting old buildings to residential use, and building platforms over highways and rail lines to increase acreage for housing development. Yes, this could mean a field day for developers - we'll have to be on our toes. But we need the housing, and we need it to be in the right places, connected to the right infrastructure. New York simply cannot sustain traffic growth proportionate to the expected growth in population. Congestion pricing is an important element of a plan to manage that growth and orient it around an effective public infrastructure.
A plan for the environment. Much of the reporting on PlaNYC has focused on the environmental angle. As we've seen, this is only one aspect of the strategy, but it's an important one. New Yorkers produce significantly lower carbon emissions per capita than other Americans, but there's much that can be done not only to further reduce the city's carbon footprint, but to improve the quality of our air and water, increase energy efficiency, reduce asthma rates, and even cool the city on hot days. The mayor's plan approaches the environment as a concern integrated across all the other elements under consideration: housing, transit, energy, the economy, even recreation. Congestion pricing is only one aspect of this plan, but it's an important one - not only would it directly reduce emissions and air pollution, it would help make possible the developments in housing and transportation infrastructure that would in turn provide further environmental benefits.
A plan for competitiveness. It's no coincidence that congestion pricing is an idea imported from London. New Yorkers are waking up to the fact that Britain's capital is threatening to surpass New York as the global economy's leading center. Much of the debate over this development has centered around making a scapegoat of Sarbanes-Oxley regulations; this is misguided [7], but there is no question that London - a great center of culture, capital, and innovation - is moving boldly to challenge New York's dominance in these areas. Capital moves; a successful world city needs to keep capital moving through its own economy. Modern infrastructure, healthy living conditions, a workable transportation system, and political and environmental innovation are not just luxuries - they are essential elements to maintaining New York's competitive edge in the global economy. We can't afford not to invest in reducing traffic and enhancing the public good.
New York owes everything to its public transport. It was the subway, just as much as Wall Street or the cotton trade or the Erie Canal - that made New York a great global city. The next generation of housing and transportation improvements - focused, like the subway, on the broad public interest - will be critical to maintaining New York's status as a great city for the century to come. It's in this context that we should view the debate over congestion pricing.
Cross-posted at The Albany Project.
[8] | 
[9] | 
[10] | 
[11] | 
[12] | 
[13] | 
[14] | 
[15] | 
[16]