Bloomberg on Congestion Pricing

This morning’s Crain's Breakfast gave Mayor Bloomberg a chance to make a final push for his congestion pricing plan before the March 31 deadline, when the NYS Legislature must either approve the plan or lose $354 million in federal transportation funding.

Bloomberg’s speech was effective: after laying out the costs of traffic in Manhattan’s central business district – an estimated $13 billion in lost time and fuel, reduced business productivity, increased emissions of carbon monoxide (asthma) and carbon dioxide (global warming) – the Mayor addressed four criticisms of his plan. He argued that: a) congestion pricing fees will raise significant revenue specifically for mass transit improvements (estimated that the revenue stream would bond out to $4.2 billion, and that without this stream MTA capital investments will require again raising fares) b) congestion pricing won’t create parking lots on the boundaries of the central business district (no parking spaces in these neighborhoods anyway) c) congestion pricing scheme is not regressive (the small minority of New Yorkers who drive to work are on average well above median income d) exemption of congestion fees for New Jersey drivers is reasonable since they already pay $8 tolls to the Port Authority to get to Manhattan, and half of that money goes toward New York transportation needs. Bloomberg concluded by noting that he was meeting with Patterson and other officials in Albany this afternoon to urge action on his plan.

Bloomberg was followed by Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, who urged approval of congestion fees, noted their success in other cities, and made a somewhat confused observation about the number of hours NYC residents spend in traffic each year (either than the average resident spends 49 hours a year in traffic (which seems low), or that congestion fees would reduce time per resident spent in traffic by 49 hours).

In the Q&A with journalist Bloomberg gave feisty responses, describing an objection by Congressman Weiner to congestion fees as “the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard” (Weiner argues that congestion pricing will have no benefits, because whatever money NYC raises through fees will be offset by declines in federal transportation grants at the demand of anti-New York Republicans. Bloomberg responded that – it is Weiner’s job to help secure such funds, Democrats control Congress, and by Weiner’s logic New York City should eliminate all taxes and wait for federal money to fill the void).

In response to a question, Bloomberg acknowledged that a logistically easier way to reduce Manhattan congestion and raise revenue for mass transit would be to simply place tolls on East River bridges. He explained his reluctance to pursue this strategy by noting that “toll politics are extremely difficult”, but suggested that in the city’s gloomier economic climate citizens might become more open to formerly taboo revenue-raising measures.

All in all a good breakfast – let's hope its message was heard in Albany. Not only is Bloomberg's congestion plan strong on the merits, it represents a crucial test of New York elected officials' willingness to embrace market-based solutions to public problems. When people drive into Manhattan's central business district at peak hours they are using a scarce public resource, not to mention causing harm to others in the forms of delayed travel and polluted air; why souldn't drivers be forced to pay for this privilege?

LA Debate

Despite the absence of important issues (climate, energy), one hell of a debate. Either one of these candidates will make a formidable general election candidate and terrific President....

.....and we celebrate this with the blather of my fellow Dalton alum Anderson Cooper

LA Democratic Primary Debate

Final Hillary-Obama Showdown..... and nothing about energy policy? Nothing about climate change? Yet we have time for "sex and violence in Hollywood", with panning shots of Steven Spielberg? We've got ice sheets melting people!

The first step in improving political discourse...... replacing Wolf Blitzer.

History at Carnegie Hall

One of the thrills of living in New York City is the daily opportunity to brush up against history. For example, tonight I will be hearing the soulful a cappella ensemble Sweet Honey in the Rock at Carnegie Hall. The power of these vocalists makes for a memorable experience whatever the venue.

Today, however, WBGO dedicated an hour to celebrating the Voice of America's 1957 recording of the Thelonious Monk Quartet with John Coltrane. The VOA recording captures Monk and Trane playing together at Carnegie Hall, exactly fifty years ago today.

For non-jazz fans, the VOA reels are famous because they represent the only record of a historic collaboration, and because they sat unnoticed in the vaults of the Library of Congress until 2005. NPR tells the story of archivist Larry Applebaum's discovery (and allows you to listen to certain tracks); the New Yorker's Steve Futterman argues that the VOA date may represent both Monk and Trane at his peak. That two frighteningly original artists could team up and each bring out the best in the other - an inspired thought.

Tonight as I glance around the majestic hall, I'll try to imagine how it would have felt to hear "Monk's Mood" floating from the stage. I'll savor the singing a little more knowing that today marks the anniversary of a tour de force by earlier black musicians. And I'll marvel at the incompetence of the VOA in allowing such a brilliant record to collect dust in a library rather than performing its rightful duty of glorifying American culture throughout the globe. It's episodes like this that make you understand why the Cold War took 56 years to win. But that still can't spoil tonight's performance.

Progressive, nee Liberal

Greg Mankiw features a cartoon mocking liberals who have rebranded themselves 'progressives.' Though funny, the criticism is unfair. All should welcome the switch in terminology simply to undo the semantic perversion of making liberalism synonymous with "big government"," thus distorting the word 'liberal' from its original 18th-century meaning.

Hillary Clinton explains her preference for 'progressive' in a response to a question during the CNN/YouTube debate:

QUESTION:

Mrs. Clinton, how would you define the word "liberal?"

And would you use this word to describe yourself?

Thank you.

(LAUGHTER)

CLINTON: You know, it is a word that originally meant that you were for freedom, that you were for the freedom to achieve, that you were willing to stand against big power and on behalf of the individual.

Unfortunately, in the last 30, 40 years, it has been turned up on its head and it's been made to seem as though it is a word that describes big government, totally contrary to what its meaning was in the 19th and early 20th century.

I prefer the word "progressive," which has a real American meaning, going back to the progressive era at the beginning of the 20th century.

I consider myself a modern progressive, someone who believes strongly in individual rights and freedoms, who believes that we are better as a society when we're working together and when we find ways to help those who may not have all the advantages in life get the tools they need to lead a more productive life for themselves and their family.

So I consider myself a proud modern American progressive, and I think that's the kind of philosophy and practice that we need to bring back to American politics.

Clinton's explanation is entirely correct. From its historical meaning, someone such as Greg Mankiw (who in policy debates consistently supports more "freedom of choice" irrespective of inequality in outcomes) is more 'liberal' than Hillary Clinton.

So let those left-of-center speak with historical precision by identifying as progressives. Now, we just need to correct the folly (more pronounced in the U.S. than in Europe) of describing free trade, open capital flows, deregulation, etc. as "neoconservative" policies when - by removing barriers to individual enterprise - they are in fact "neoliberal."

If the precise use of language in politics seems irrelevant to you... William Safire's Political Dictionary offers 930 pages (!) of reasons to think otherwise.