UFT leadership sues to stop congestion pricing but supports the City’s litigation to force UFT retirees into a for-profit inferior Medicare Advantage plan. The UFT lobbied the City Council to take away health care coverage from its retirees and in-service members.The UFT/Unity caucus must be voted out and the retirees can start the process by becoming delegates for the Retiree Advocate caucus and then removing the Unity caucus from the Retiree Chapter leadership.
From that beginning, the Unity caucus can then be removed from all the chapters so that the Union once again will serve its members.
Excellent piece Nick. I agree and learned from every point you made. Just like Lord Mulgrew shows no scruples about working in the dark, violating laws, lying, dividing us,, and selling both retirees and actives of our health benefits to predatory insurance cos, he thinks he's free to use union dues to threaten effective dissenters and sue any cause he sees fit without a peep of representation. This guy needs to get the hell out of our union --and lives!
Every Unity hack (a.k.a. UFT employee) who drives to "work" or even just attend meetings, at 52 Broadway will be paying congestion pricing charges. 🤷♀️ That's Mulgrew's crew.
Your commute on the 1 would get BETTER because MTA would have money for capital improvements. Kind of weird to say that the solution to transit problems is to choke off money for transit.
I'm willing to be convinced, but I'm skeptical that this was the best way to go about funding capital improvements. I'm also skeptical, by the way, that the money will be managed well and lead to real improvements for average subway users. Back to drivers, the lack of toll exemptions for people who have no real choice but to drive also gives me pause. After all, many people drive because it's frankly not affordable to live all that close to transit. But the real problem I have with all this is that, despite years of lead-up, we never debated this before taking a stance and then committing to a major action - a lawsuit.
Congestion pricing has been tried in other jurisdictions and has substantially reduced driving and associated air pollution, which disproportionately burdens children.
Lower Manhattan is the most transit rich part of North America, with the possible exception of parts of Mexico City, and is thus accessible from an enormous footprint. Those that really have no choice but to drive will see substantially lower traffic delays. Because demand for parking will go down, it's also likely that there will be some offsetting savings from parking costs.
I hear you on concerns about how effectively the money will be spent to address deferred maintenance and system modernization. MTA has problems in this department. I assume that this philosophy of denying funds to essential public services until they address this extends to other public services too? For example, given DOE's noted inefficiency in spending capital dollars efficiently and swiftly in service of maintaining its capital plant, you oppose providing additional capital dollars to addressed maintenance and modernization issues in New York City Schools?
Congestion pricing will provide a large influx of funding to address reliability and operational needs for the dominant form of transportation used by New Yorkers, especially those traveling below 60th. It will also provide increased farebox revenue, creating a beneficial knock on effect. It will provide hundreds of millions of dollars for diesel elimination via electrification of trucking operations in the Bronx and provide an incentive structure to shift truck passage into night time to reduce daytime pollution exposure. It will also contribute climate pollution reduction. Remaining drivers will see costs, but will also see benefits in terms of their commutes. These are all tremendous social benefits. The avoided pollution benefits aren't likely to be realized with other funding sources, which MTA also draws on, like the recent NYC payroll tax increase. Perhaps there are other sources of revenue beyond all these but you can bet there is competition for them including from, for example, schools.
Your position on the other hand rests on concerns about how you personally will be inconvenienced.
I'm glad you're calling a process foul on the union. But I would hope that if they did ask, you wouldn't have endorsed using an environmental review law to challenge a policy that would reduce environmental burdens.
I understand all of this, but have fundamental problems with regressive taxation as the source of funding for capital improvements. Generating revenue by taxing 'Jaguars' at the same rate as beat up Honda Civics just doesn't sit well with me. By the way, most of the cars I see heading in on my commute alongside Route 9A are closer to the latter type of car than the former. People drive in because they don't live near transit - often because it's too expensive to live near it, especially if you have a larger family. That, or their jobs require the use of vehicles. As for the issue of congestion itself, there are other ways to deal with it, and frankly I don't see enough on my rush-hour commute to justify methods this severe and anti-working-class.
The average annual cost of car ownership is approximately $9000. Car owners are on average more affluent than car owners and that's especially true in Manhattan. I don't really accept your personal observation if car types as evidence to the contrary. It is also the least affluent that are burdened by car pollution, demonstrated clearly by New York's disadvantaged communities map. I am, however, interested in what other methods you'd suggest for dealing with congestion while continuing to subsidize driving.
We aren't talking about car owners in Manhattan - unless you mean upper Manhattan, where regular car users typically drive because they need them for transporting work materials, reverse commuting, or because they can't physically access transit in a way efficient enough to use it. Again, we aren't talking about lower Manhattan drivers - we're talking about people who drive into Manhattan from cheaper neighborhoods in the Bronx, Staten Island, or New Jersey, for whom $9,000 is likely nothing compared to the increase in rent they'd need to live close enough to transit to be able to use it - or to use it without spending all of their time commuting. Part of the logic for the lawsuit is that air pollution would potentially increase in those areas where cars drive into transit hubs, by the way. As for how I'd suggest dealing with it, I suggest reading another UFT blogger, Jonathan Halabi's, detailed article from a few years ago: https://jd2718.org/2021/07/20/feeling-congested-pricings-not-the-answer/
No question at all we should remove lanes. Strongly support that! Odd that you'd be OK with that given that it would have all the exact same impacts on your commute as you complained about but without the complementary subsidy for transit.
The Bronx, NJ and Staten Island are served by Manhattan bound transit. Staten Island has a free ferry, in fact. That's the reason such a small minority of commuters use cars as it is.
The 4000 page EA that that the MTA submitted found single digit increases in emissions in a few places, the most burdened of which the MTA is dedicating offsetting investments towards, and OVERALL reductions.
At the end of the day, your counterarguments here hard to stomach. You told us in detail what your problem is, and it was 100% personal inconvenience. It is beyond question that the benefits in aggregate far outweigh the costs (they do exist! That's the case for just about everything!). I think you knew this, which is why when you got called on it you aggressively back pedaled to pretend to care about working people driving into lower Manhattan, seemingly ignoring that MTA serves far far far far more working people than Lower Manhattan roads. Kinda interesting that as soon as you were called out for substituting private inconvenience for the public good, you immediately started pulling arguments from the UFT lawsuit.
This will never F’n end!! Don’t you all know it’s useless. Mulgrew is in bed with politicians and UFT members are spare change. On and on this goes and to no avail. Just like all the TRUMP lawsuits. Power always wins. Stop making believe your voice or opinions count here. Just like the UN (united nothing), the UFT (unfortunately Failing Teachers/Therapists).
It will not be easy but UFT retirees forced City Council hearings and the Council backed down from passing a law to change 12-126 which protects health care coverage for in-service and retirees.
Retirees are demonstrating against the City and the MLC/UFT.
I do believe that the retirees can remove Unity from the Retiree Chapter and then take on Unity in the other chapter elections.
UFT leadership sues to stop congestion pricing but supports the City’s litigation to force UFT retirees into a for-profit inferior Medicare Advantage plan. The UFT lobbied the City Council to take away health care coverage from its retirees and in-service members.The UFT/Unity caucus must be voted out and the retirees can start the process by becoming delegates for the Retiree Advocate caucus and then removing the Unity caucus from the Retiree Chapter leadership.
From that beginning, the Unity caucus can then be removed from all the chapters so that the Union once again will serve its members.
Excellent piece Nick. I agree and learned from every point you made. Just like Lord Mulgrew shows no scruples about working in the dark, violating laws, lying, dividing us,, and selling both retirees and actives of our health benefits to predatory insurance cos, he thinks he's free to use union dues to threaten effective dissenters and sue any cause he sees fit without a peep of representation. This guy needs to get the hell out of our union --and lives!
This I agree with, he sues for this without asking anyone but won't lift a finger to help out discontinued teachers and abusive administrators.
Every Unity hack (a.k.a. UFT employee) who drives to "work" or even just attend meetings, at 52 Broadway will be paying congestion pricing charges. 🤷♀️ That's Mulgrew's crew.
In the end, I think that's the real reason for this lawsuit.
Your commute on the 1 would get BETTER because MTA would have money for capital improvements. Kind of weird to say that the solution to transit problems is to choke off money for transit.
I'm willing to be convinced, but I'm skeptical that this was the best way to go about funding capital improvements. I'm also skeptical, by the way, that the money will be managed well and lead to real improvements for average subway users. Back to drivers, the lack of toll exemptions for people who have no real choice but to drive also gives me pause. After all, many people drive because it's frankly not affordable to live all that close to transit. But the real problem I have with all this is that, despite years of lead-up, we never debated this before taking a stance and then committing to a major action - a lawsuit.
Congestion pricing has been tried in other jurisdictions and has substantially reduced driving and associated air pollution, which disproportionately burdens children.
Lower Manhattan is the most transit rich part of North America, with the possible exception of parts of Mexico City, and is thus accessible from an enormous footprint. Those that really have no choice but to drive will see substantially lower traffic delays. Because demand for parking will go down, it's also likely that there will be some offsetting savings from parking costs.
I hear you on concerns about how effectively the money will be spent to address deferred maintenance and system modernization. MTA has problems in this department. I assume that this philosophy of denying funds to essential public services until they address this extends to other public services too? For example, given DOE's noted inefficiency in spending capital dollars efficiently and swiftly in service of maintaining its capital plant, you oppose providing additional capital dollars to addressed maintenance and modernization issues in New York City Schools?
Congestion pricing will provide a large influx of funding to address reliability and operational needs for the dominant form of transportation used by New Yorkers, especially those traveling below 60th. It will also provide increased farebox revenue, creating a beneficial knock on effect. It will provide hundreds of millions of dollars for diesel elimination via electrification of trucking operations in the Bronx and provide an incentive structure to shift truck passage into night time to reduce daytime pollution exposure. It will also contribute climate pollution reduction. Remaining drivers will see costs, but will also see benefits in terms of their commutes. These are all tremendous social benefits. The avoided pollution benefits aren't likely to be realized with other funding sources, which MTA also draws on, like the recent NYC payroll tax increase. Perhaps there are other sources of revenue beyond all these but you can bet there is competition for them including from, for example, schools.
Your position on the other hand rests on concerns about how you personally will be inconvenienced.
I'm glad you're calling a process foul on the union. But I would hope that if they did ask, you wouldn't have endorsed using an environmental review law to challenge a policy that would reduce environmental burdens.
I understand all of this, but have fundamental problems with regressive taxation as the source of funding for capital improvements. Generating revenue by taxing 'Jaguars' at the same rate as beat up Honda Civics just doesn't sit well with me. By the way, most of the cars I see heading in on my commute alongside Route 9A are closer to the latter type of car than the former. People drive in because they don't live near transit - often because it's too expensive to live near it, especially if you have a larger family. That, or their jobs require the use of vehicles. As for the issue of congestion itself, there are other ways to deal with it, and frankly I don't see enough on my rush-hour commute to justify methods this severe and anti-working-class.
The average annual cost of car ownership is approximately $9000. Car owners are on average more affluent than car owners and that's especially true in Manhattan. I don't really accept your personal observation if car types as evidence to the contrary. It is also the least affluent that are burdened by car pollution, demonstrated clearly by New York's disadvantaged communities map. I am, however, interested in what other methods you'd suggest for dealing with congestion while continuing to subsidize driving.
We aren't talking about car owners in Manhattan - unless you mean upper Manhattan, where regular car users typically drive because they need them for transporting work materials, reverse commuting, or because they can't physically access transit in a way efficient enough to use it. Again, we aren't talking about lower Manhattan drivers - we're talking about people who drive into Manhattan from cheaper neighborhoods in the Bronx, Staten Island, or New Jersey, for whom $9,000 is likely nothing compared to the increase in rent they'd need to live close enough to transit to be able to use it - or to use it without spending all of their time commuting. Part of the logic for the lawsuit is that air pollution would potentially increase in those areas where cars drive into transit hubs, by the way. As for how I'd suggest dealing with it, I suggest reading another UFT blogger, Jonathan Halabi's, detailed article from a few years ago: https://jd2718.org/2021/07/20/feeling-congested-pricings-not-the-answer/
No question at all we should remove lanes. Strongly support that! Odd that you'd be OK with that given that it would have all the exact same impacts on your commute as you complained about but without the complementary subsidy for transit.
The Bronx, NJ and Staten Island are served by Manhattan bound transit. Staten Island has a free ferry, in fact. That's the reason such a small minority of commuters use cars as it is.
The 4000 page EA that that the MTA submitted found single digit increases in emissions in a few places, the most burdened of which the MTA is dedicating offsetting investments towards, and OVERALL reductions.
At the end of the day, your counterarguments here hard to stomach. You told us in detail what your problem is, and it was 100% personal inconvenience. It is beyond question that the benefits in aggregate far outweigh the costs (they do exist! That's the case for just about everything!). I think you knew this, which is why when you got called on it you aggressively back pedaled to pretend to care about working people driving into lower Manhattan, seemingly ignoring that MTA serves far far far far more working people than Lower Manhattan roads. Kinda interesting that as soon as you were called out for substituting private inconvenience for the public good, you immediately started pulling arguments from the UFT lawsuit.
This will never F’n end!! Don’t you all know it’s useless. Mulgrew is in bed with politicians and UFT members are spare change. On and on this goes and to no avail. Just like all the TRUMP lawsuits. Power always wins. Stop making believe your voice or opinions count here. Just like the UN (united nothing), the UFT (unfortunately Failing Teachers/Therapists).
It will not be easy but UFT retirees forced City Council hearings and the Council backed down from passing a law to change 12-126 which protects health care coverage for in-service and retirees.
Retirees are demonstrating against the City and the MLC/UFT.
I do believe that the retirees can remove Unity from the Retiree Chapter and then take on Unity in the other chapter elections.