In 2019, the New York State Legislature approved a plan to reduce traffic by charging drivers to enter Manhattan’s most congested areas and directing the proceeds to the MTA, a major boon for New York City. . After enduring generations of dysfunctional transportation policies, we can finally begin to create cities where traffic flows and public transit is faster and more reliable.
How obvious is this idea? Let’s take a look at the range of its supporters. Respected leaders in business, labor, economics, and transportation; champions for the environment, safe streets, and the poor. They all extol the benefits of congestion pricing and agree that allowing everyone to use the most valuable road space when they want is a recipe for transportation dysfunction and economic inefficiency. Masu. They agree that increasing funding for transportation helps the environment and benefits people who can’t afford to drive.
The only serious opposition to congestion pricing comes from powerful politicians and their ignorant or self-serving supporters. While there has been legitimate debate about the details of the plan, no one has raised any worthwhile objections to the overall concept. The benefits are all too obvious. Rather, opponents tend to center their opposition on misinformation about the plan’s effectiveness and on simple opposition to charging for something they would like to see free.
Therefore, I am grateful that Michael Mulgrew, the president of my union, the American Federation of Teachers, recently joined the lawsuit of Staten Island’s pro-Trump district president to block this potentially transformative plan. I was shocked to learn that I had participated. He took this action on behalf of just seven teachers who are outraged that driving to and from work can be as expensive as, say, taking the commuter train. Ta.
Mulgrew’s move was not only short-sighted and destructive, it also embarrassed many of us proud members of the UFT. I wonder why the leader of a university graduate union would engage in such simple populism. Rather than explain the benefits of the plan to members who may not understand its importance, he chooses to cater to their ignorance and worst instincts.
It is clear that congestion pricing benefits the economic health of our cities by reducing traffic and making it easier to move goods and people. Transportation economists say congestion is hurting the city’s economy so much that it’s worth charging for Manhattan’s free bridges, even if the money collected ends up in the river. I’ve heard of it. But, of course, the revenue from congestion charges would be put to good use. That means it helps fund the transportation system that is the lifeblood of the region’s economy. Indeed, Mulgrew recognizes that cities with thriving economies are those that can afford to fund schools and pay teachers well.
And realistically speaking, wouldn’t public-sector unions oppose any plan for significant increases? Despite remaining neutral, he paid a price. Then, when the city’s transit system proved underfunded, the city was forced to spend billions of dollars more, thereby shrinking the public transit pool. Money that can be used for education.
Mulgrew learned nothing from the experience.
Even more disturbing, Mulgrew is attempting to directly harm teachers and students by disrupting the transportation system that most people rely on. While perhaps only a handful of union members drive into the congested area each day, tens of thousands of school employees and hundreds of thousands of students ride trains and buses each day. As my students have reported from time to time, these trips sometimes involve buses that are too full to board. And let’s not forget the millions of transit users who don’t work in schools but for whom the system is key to their survival.
Many of these people earn far less than teachers, but clearly they are not worthy of Mulgrew’s concerns. It’s frankly despicable that the union is funding this effort with dues paid by members who ride transit.
Aside from policy concerns, there is another reason why many of my colleagues and I are outraged by Mulgrew’s actions. It is a disgrace to our profession. As teachers and union members, we are sensitive to the negative stereotypes our political opponents hold about us. Mulgrew now appears to have embraced the worst of these alleged traits.
After years of fending off accusations that teachers’ unions put their own interests ahead of the interests of children, our union is now facing a crisis in which several members are willing to pay student fees just to avoid victimization. trying to make life even more difficult. Despite being aware of allegations that our profession is staffed by people of questionable academic achievement, the president has made a point that nearly every respected civic organization and public intellectual on record supports. trying to thwart a plan to do so. And in an environment where critics portray public servants as having an exaggerated sense of entitlement, Mulgrew squarely argues that teachers should not in any way be forced to make the same sacrifices as everyone else.
My most generous view of Mulgrew’s actions is that it was simply a misguided political stunt. Perhaps he thought he could curry favor with the less knowledgeable and reactionary members of our union and wait for the case to be dismissed without harming the public. But our reputation has been tarnished.
It’s time to repair that damage. The UFT needs to step back from litigation and join the fight to improve transportation systems and create cleaner, more just cities. The public needs to know that teachers have their best interests at heart, and teachers who use transit need to know that our union knows we exist.