The Green Glance |Mayor Michael Bloomberg: A pragmatic environmental hero

Nathan Zucker Columnist

When one thinks about environmentalism, the fumes, car horns and asphalt of New York City certainly aren’t the first things that come to mind. Surprisingly, though, the Big Apple has become one of the greenest cities in the world, and it’s largely because of the hard work and political initiative of Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Through a series of small-scale yet ambitious projects, such as the ban on indoor smoking and the elimination of trans-fats in restaurant food, Bloomberg has gradually made the city a safer and healthier place. His newest plan, which calls for charging Manhattan drivers a congestion tax, is a more sweeping and large-scale environmental reform.

Residents of the metropolitan area are well aware of the horrible traffic and suffocating pollution that plague the city, especially during the humid and hazy summer months. Despite the city’s impressive subway and bus system, which costs only $2 per ride, the density of automobiles and trucks on New York roads has spiraled out of control. It has taken a mayor renowned for pragmatic thinking to suggest a practical solution to this problem.

On Earth Day 2007 (Apr. 22), Mayor Bloomberg unveiled his radical plan to charge weekday drivers entering Manhattan below 86th Street a congestion tax of $8. Trucks, which emit more pollution and consume more road space, would be charged $21 to drive through the congestion zone. Motorists traveling on Manhattan’s peripheral highways would not pay this fee, and those who have already paid a toll could credit the prior charge toward the congestion tax, thus avoiding double jeopardy.

Funds collected from this program would be used to improve mass transit, which is more sustainable and reduces hazards to residents and pedestrians.

Although the plan is anathema to American car culture and commuter society, Bloomberg presented plenty of evidence as support. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, over 15 million Americans currently have asthma, and this is largely due to emissions from cars and power plants. Additionally, the population of New York City has reached 8.2 million people, and a surge is expected in coming years; this will considerably exacerbate traffic problems.

Finally, Bloomberg’s administration has pledged to cut carbon dioxide emissions thirty percent by 2030, an ambitious goal that will require infrastructure changes. The congestion tax can solve all these problems and set the city on a new course toward sustainablity and healthfulness.

Most importantly, Bloomberg’s plan is based on the success of similar iniatives, such as one enacted in London in 2003. For many years, London streets were renowned for horrible congestion, leading to long delays and air pollution. The city decided to charge drivers for entering the worst congestion zones. So far, the program has been a success. Sixty thousand fewer vehicles enter central London annually, and air contaminants such as carbon dioxide, nitrous oxides and particulate matter have fallen dramatically. Stockholm has followed this model of infrastructural reform and has seen a similar decrease in traffic and air pollution.

Of course, there are plenty of opponents of Bloomberg’s plan. Trucking companies, commuters from the suburbs and affluent Manhattan drivers are obvious enemies of the congestion tax. Given the power of these interests, the controversial iniative has been held up in the New York State Legislature, a governing body not known for its efficiency or practicality.

Bloomberg lost one of his greatest allies after the resignation of Eliot Spitzer, a politician renowned for his commitment to progressivism and environmental reform. Although the plan has not been approved by the State, it is not yet dead in the water. One need only look to the controversy surrounding the smoking ban to see the political will of Bloomberg.

Enemies of the congestion tax are correct in suggesting that the plan requires a serious sacrifice on those living and working in New York City. Eight dollars is a lot of money for a trip to Manhattan, especially if it is done on a daily basis. However, we must sometimes make personal sacrifices for the communal good; in this case, it is more important to preserve New Yorkers’ health and the global environment than to permit unlimited driving in Manhattan.

As Bloomberg himself said, “We can’t talk about reducing air pollution without talking about congestion. The question is not whether we want to pay, but how do we want to pay—with an increased asthma rate, with more greenhouse gases, with more wasted time, lost business and higher prices. Or do we charge a modest fee to encourage people to take mass transit.”

—Nathan Zucker ’10, a Latin American Studies major, is writing about environmental issues that affect both the Vassar community and the world at large.