Who Wants to Drive Into a City That’s Under Water?

flood1.jpg

Elizabeth Kolbert, author of the outstanding Field Notes From a Catastrophe, covers climate change for the New Yorker. In this week’s issue, she takes up congestion pricing and Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s 2030 plan:

The case against congestion pricing is often posed in egalitarian terms. "The middle class and the poor will not be able to pay these fees and the rich will," State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, of Westchester County, declared after listening to the Mayor’s speech. In fact, the poor don’t, as a rule, drive in and out of Manhattan: compare the cost of buying, insuring, and parking a car with the seventy-six dollars a month the M.T.A. charges for an unlimited-ride MetroCard. For those who do use cars to commute, eight dollars a day would, it’s true, quickly add up. And that is precisely the point. Congestion pricing works only to the extent that it makes other choices-changing the hours of one’s daily drive or, better yet, using mass transit-more attractive. One of the Mayor’s proposals is to put the money raised by congestion pricing-an estimated four hundred million dollars a year-toward improving subway and bus service.

As a matter of city planning, congestion pricing is a compelling idea; in the context of climate change, it is much more than that. Any meaningful effort to address the problem will have to include incentives for low-emitting activities (walking, biking, riding the subway) and costs for high-emitting ones (flying, driving, sitting at home and cranking up the A.C.). These costs will inconvenience some people-perhaps most people-and the burden will not always be distributed with perfect fairness. But, as the Mayor pointed out, New York, a flood-prone coastal city, is vulnerable to one of global warming’s most destructive-and most certain-consequences: rising sea levels. If New Yorkers won’t change their behavior, then it’s hard to see why anyone in the rest of the country or, for that matter, the world should, either. The congestion problem will, in that case, find a different resolution. Who, after all, wants to drive into a city that’s under water?

Photo: tillwe/Flickr

ALSO ON STREETSBLOG

Who is Richard Brodsky?

|
Matthew Schuerman offers up a brief but insightful profile of Westchester Assembly member Richard Brodsky in this week’s Observer. Who is the man who holds the keys to the future of New York City transportation policy? First of all, like many on the government payroll, he’s got his own ideas about parking policy: Already late […]

Brodsky Represents NYC’s Wealthiest Car Commuters

|
Here is a complete copy of Assembly Member Richard Brodsky’s "Interim Report and Inquiry" into New York City’s long-term planning and congestion pricing proposals. Brodsky, you may recall, is the powerful state lawmaker with the moneybag full of parking industry contributions. Brodsky’s 20-page report concludes: The Mayor deserves great credit for thinking seriously about the […]

“Not Getting Anywhere” at Bronx Pricing Forum

|
And we thought Bloomberg had a tough crowd… Filed by Megan Chuchmach: Parking at the Riverdale Temple in the Bronx was at a premium Thursday night, with cars lining Independence Avenue in front and packing the lot out back. Inside, the owners of those cars, for the most part, raised a stink about Mayor Bloomberg’s […]

Does the State Senate’s MTA Plan Pass Environmental Muster?

|
Where’s the Assembly’s eco-warrior when you need him? The Municipal Art Society came out with a report yesterday urging New York State to start analyzing greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental review process (SEQRA). MAS argues that the policy could be adopted without changing existing laws, which raises an interesting question to ponder on this […]

Wylde v. Brodsky on WNBC News Show

|
Yesterday on WNBC’s "News Forum," Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for New York City and congestion pricing panel appointee, went head-to-head with anti-pricing Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. While Brodsky once again recited the "tax on the working man" même chapter and verse, he failed, once again, to articulate an alternative plan to raise […]