Congestion pricing saves more than it costs

Bloomberg’s law: Environment equals economic growth 4

This guest essay comes from Steven Cohen and Jacob Victor. Steven Cohen is executive director of Columbia University's Earth Institute and director of its Master of Public Administration Program in Environmental Science and Policy at the School of International and Public Affairs. Jacob Victor is an intern at Columbia's Earth Institute.

After overcoming numerous obstacles in Albany, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controversial congestion-pricing plan finally appears to be slowly moving forward. Thanks to a last-minute deal between Bloomberg and the leaders of the state Assembly, it is almost certain that New York will receive a $500 million federal grant to fund the equipment and upgrade mass transit in order to begin the program. While New York City has not been given permission to charge tolls to enter Manhattan south of 86th street, the first steps in implementing congestion pricing were authorized by New York state's famously dysfunctional state government.

Many complaints have been leveled against congestion pricing, the most common being that any environmental benefits the program would provide -- including improved air quality and reduced carbon dioxide emissions -- would not make up for the cost that consumers will be forced to bear. But what critics fail to realize is that congestion pricing, at its core, is an economic issue. The time that drivers spend stuck in traffic is time that could be used making money. According to a December 2006 report by Bruce Schaller of Schaller Consulting, the total value of time wasted by NYC traffic congestion comes to about $8 billion annually. While that number reflects a larger area than that covered by the proposed congestion-pricing plan, the message is still clear. Furthermore, the waste caused by traffic congestion can also be felt in the impact that unpredictable travel times and smog-filled streets have on the price and appeal of doing business in heavily congested areas of the city.

Some critics erroneously view congestion pricing as yet another expensive environmental protection program that would operate at the expense of economic productivity. But the success of the plan reflects the fact that many business and political leaders, like Bloomberg, finally realize that environmental sustainability and economic efficiency go hand in hand.

In the 1960s, the environment was an aesthetic issue: polluted rivers were ugly and smelly and we wanted someone to clean up the mess. In the 1970s and 1980s, the environment became a health issue as we learned that the toxic substances in the ground, air, and water could make us sick or kill us. In the 1990s, the environment became an issue of global survival as we learned that our air conditioners and refrigerators were poking holes in the ozone layer and that the carbon dioxide emitted from our cars and power plants was heating up the planet's atmosphere. All of that was important enough to capture the attention of many Americans, but it didn't seem to bother the people who ran America's businesses and cities.

The success of congestion pricing represents a wide-ranging shift in the way our leaders think about environmental policy. They have finally realized what experts in the field have known for years: environmental protection and economic efficiency are two sides of the same coin. Bloomberg himself is an excellent example of this turnaround. In his first term, he dismantled key elements of the city's recycling program, opposed hybrid taxicabs, and opposed congestion pricing. In the last year, the data on the economics of going green persuaded him to make environmental sustainability one of his top priorities.

New York City's congestion-pricing plan is the surest sign to date that sophisticated, data-driven managers are beginning to understand that clean air, clean water, and energy efficiency are not luxuries, but essential attributes of a well-run company or community. Throughout the city, things are beginning to change. More green buildings, like the new Bank of America Tower on Sixth Avenue, are being built. While efficient "green materials" were once thought to be prohibitively expensive, the lower energy costs and higher worker productivity in these buildings are allowing landlords to actually make money off of going green. Bloomberg has also proposed other changes that efficiently blend environmental and economic policy. In New York City's subway system, fluorescent lamps are replacing incandescent lamps and NYC Transit will soon save $4.8 million per year in the cost of lighting. Recently, Bloomberg announced that NYC's cab fleet is going hybrid, a move that will save millions in fuel costs.

The success of congestion pricing is a sign that something is beginning to change in the way politicians and businesspeople think about the environment. They are beginning to see that pollution is waste, waste is an indicator of inefficiency, and inefficiency is the enemy of profit. Environmental protection is a way to reduce the cost of energy, water, sewage, waste disposal, and health care, and it's a tool for attracting highly mobile global businesses. Congestion pricing is hopefully only the first step toward a greater emphasis on environmental and economic sustainability throughout the country, and Bloomberg should be lauded for setting America's largest city on the path toward a cleaner and more efficient future.

Advertisement
Advertisement
  1. spaceshaper's avatar

    spaceshaper Posted 1:59 am
    29 Jul 2007

    Fringe benefitsI appreciate this view of the positive economic impact of environmental intervention at the macro level. Meanwhile on the street a further economic bonus which we are likely to see from congestion pricing in particular is to push a little business outside the congested core. Downtown continues to thrive, the economic joy gets spread a little further. The cost of downtown vehicle access is easily adjustable for optimal balance of economic push and stability. Win/win.

    The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
  2. GonzoDon Posted 2:06 am
    29 Jul 2007

    Is it really that simple?The success of congestion pricing is a sign that something is beginning to change in the way politicians and businesspeople think about the environment. They are beginning to see that pollution is waste, waste is an indicator of inefficiency, and inefficiency is the enemy of profit.
    Forgive me if I sound cynical, but the above seems like an incredibly naive statement that only a social-think-tank academic could make.  
    Where to begin?  As much as I'd like to believe that making the right environmental decisions will lead us to some kind of economic nirvana, I'm realistic enough to realize that our current humming economic engine is predicated, basically, on the abundance of cheap fossil fuels.  Moreover, changing that paradigm will likely entail at least some inconvenient changes to our happy-motoring lifestyles, and that can only happen if bold politicians make some unpalatable decisions that -- forgive me for raining on this parade -- won't  automatically be a win-win for every capitalist and his precious investment portfolio.
    While industries and businesses and households do indeed have a vested economic interest in improving their efficiencies in burning those fossil fuels and lowering their cost of converting them into cheap crap for the masses to consume, what possible incentive do they have to reduce their production of that crap?
    The subtext of the above quote is that we still worship at the Altar of the Almighty Profit.  That goes hand-in-hand with unbridled capitalism, and that will be our ultimate downfall.  
    As long as it's more profitable to produce Wal-Mart crap from fossil fuels rather than not produce it; as long as it's more profitable to harvest the last fish from the ocean than not harvest it; as long as it's more profitable to drive to work rather than ride public transit because it saves the rider 30 minutes of precious time each direction, we're not gonna be saved by the efficiencies of capitalism alone.  Sorry, Steven.  Sorry, Victor.
    We're just gonna become more efficient at producing the Wal-Mart crap, more efficient at driving our cars 10 miles to buy the crap, and more efficient at harvesting that last fish from the ocean.
    Methinks a more fundamental change in our thinking and our livestyles is necessary here.  But then, I'm not the director of a high-falutin' think tank.  So what do I know?

  3. greenguideforkids Posted 5:06 am
    29 Jul 2007

    The effect of smog on kidsIn terms of this being both good for the people and for the economy, it is crucial that we not forget the effect that smog has on the health of New Yorkers. Over 500,000 New Yorkers have asthma, or 6% of the population, which is much worse than the rest of the country. 35,000 New Yorkers go to the hospital each year with asthma attacks, twice the national average. A majority of these people are poor majority children, whose health care is paid by the state.
  4. Steven T Posted 5:25 am
    29 Jul 2007

    A few questions for GonzoI agree that a fundamental change in our thinking is necessary.  You apparenlty think that the schemata presented above is too reformist to get the job done; what do you have in mind as an alternative road map?
    I get the impression from your comments that your "theory of social change" has a strong "either/or" quality to it -- that there is one best way, and it is distracting for folks to explore a multiplicity of approaches.  Did I interpret you correctly?
    By the same token, I gather that in the long-standing debate between "realtos" and "radicals," you believe that the latter should determine the direction of the environmental movement.  True?
    One more question:  Do you think that moderate reformers (like the original posters here) and radicals have anything to learn from each other?  Or do you think they are so fundamentally at odds that they should not stop throwing rhetorical eggs at each other?

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor!    Why not register?

Advertisement