In a recent New York Post article, United Federation of Teachers President Mike Mulgrew blasted New York’s congestion pricing plan, calling it a betrayal of the working class by Governor Kathy Hochul and state Democrats. Mulgrew’s criticisms, however, are riddled with inconsistencies and a troubling misalignment with the interests of the very people he claims to represent. His stance against congestion pricing not only misrepresents the working class but also undermines a policy designed to benefit all New Yorkers by improving transit infrastructure and reducing emissions.
Mulgrew positions himself as a
defender of working-class New Yorkers, but his opposition to congestion pricing
aligns more closely with suburban and Staten Island politicians who prioritize
car commuters over public transit users. According to the Post,
Mulgrew justified his position by claiming to protect “scores” of teachers who
drive into Manhattan, but this argument falls apart under scrutiny.
The reality is that most New York
City teachers—and working-class New Yorkers in general—rely on public
transportation, not personal vehicles, to commute to midtown and downtown
Manhattan. Rather than protecting the majority of his membership, Mulgrew’s
legal battle against congestion pricing appears to serve the interests of a
privileged few who drive. Moreover, it’s unclear whether the UFT rank-and-file
membership even supports this lawsuit, raising concerns about whether Mulgrew
is acting without their authorization.
One of Mulgrew’s key arguments,
reported in the Post,
is that congestion pricing will shift traffic and pollution to the outer
boroughs, particularly affecting areas like the Bronx. He even mocked Governor
Hochul’s announcement of a new asthma center in the Bronx, suggesting that
residents would need it as a result of congestion pricing. However,
environmental studies and real-world data from cities like London and Stockholm
contradict this claim.
Congestion pricing is proven to
reduce emissions overall by discouraging car travel and increasing public
transit use. Revenues from the program are intended to fund critical upgrades
to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, such as cleaner buses and
expanded subway service, which would directly benefit outer-borough residents.
Mulgrew’s suggestion that the policy will exacerbate pollution in these areas
not only lacks evidence but actively ignores the benefits of increased
investment in public transit infrastructure.
This episode highlights a broader
issue with UFT leadership: a disconnect from the progressive and equitable
values many educators hold. Teachers often champion sustainability and social
justice, making it baffling that Mulgrew would use union resources to oppose a
policy that aligns with these principles. The Post
noted Mulgrew’s criticism of Democrats as “tone deaf,” but his own
stance—clinging to car-centric commuting habits—is equally out of touch with
the needs of teachers, students, and working-class families.
As UFT elections approach this
spring, members should consider whether Mulgrew’s leadership truly reflects
their priorities. Supporting policies like congestion pricing, which aim to
create a cleaner, more equitable city, is far more consistent with the goals of
public education and the well-being of students and families.
Congestion pricing is a
forward-thinking policy that addresses multiple crises: traffic congestion,
climate change, and underfunded public transit. By opposing it, Mulgrew risks
sidelining the UFT from broader efforts to make New York City a healthier, more
sustainable place to live. Rather than fighting congestion pricing, UFT
leadership should focus on advocating for affordable transit fares, improved
service for outer-borough commuters, and environmental policies that benefit
the majority of its members.
The Post described Mulgrew as furious with Democrats for pushing a policy he sees as harmful to the working class. But in reality, his stance does more to harm the working class by ignoring the long-term benefits of congestion pricing. It’s time for UFT leadership to align with policies that prioritize the needs of their members and the future of the city rather than clinging to outdated, regressive positions.
5 comments:
I am sure folks living in Manhattan, some of the wealthiest neighborhoods in America, are glad for your support. Otherwise, those of us in other parts of the city are concerned with your willingness to shift Manhattan’s pollution and traffic into the outer boroughs.
It was disingenuous to adamantly suggest for months that only a $15 charge would allow for the much needed transit improvements across the city only to acknowledge, when faced with staunch opposition, that a $9 fee will do. Of course transit improvements throughout the system are needed. MTA chair Lieber has been touting the recent success of capital projects completed under schedule and under budget. The MTA is successfully improving the system and they will continue to do so.
I have to ask, is it not elitist to suggest one mode of commuting superior to another? Yet, you do. Certainly you find mass transit the better option. Maybe you would prefer we all walk or ride bikes. A quaint city of joyful commuters on e-scooters sounds idyllic.
Commuters will not walk to distant transit stops. They will drive there. With congestion pricing there will be further crowding of local roadways. There will be added vehicles on already congested roads in search of precious parking near enough to bus stops and train stations. And once parked, they will idle their cars, polluting local neighbors, because no one is getting out of a warm car to wait ten minutes on a cold, wet bus stop.
Our UFT members, teachers, paraprofessionals, school nurses, as well the cafeteria staff, the custodians, even the administrators who drive into Manhattan everyday, they should be hit with a daily $9 fee while Wall Street, the playground of billionaires, gets a free pass? Our members should shoulder the financial burden of shifting greenhouse gases from Manhattan into Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island and not corporate America? And how about our students? You would improve the quality of life for children in Manhattan at the detriment of our students in Brooklyn, Queens, Staten Island, the Bronx? You agree that the $100 million earmarked for the Bronx is the remedy? That $100 million will protect our children from asthma and related respiratory illnesses? Then you and I can join together and seek such funding from city or state government. Our children deserve a greener, cleaner environment and a $100 million price tag should not be paid for with a congestion pricing scheme.
And for the record, anyone using the NY Post to support an argument has already lost the argument.
This entire project has been disingenuous from the start. It is a money-making scheme in support of an organization that enjoys a $20 billion annual budget.
Thank you for sharing your concerns. I appreciate your passion for the well-being of all New Yorkers and your dedication to fairness in policymaking. Allow me to address your points one by one:
"Shifting pollution and traffic into the outer boroughs": Congestion pricing is designed to reduce overall vehicle traffic and emissions across the city, not merely shift them. Studies of similar systems in London and Stockholm show that congestion pricing leads to citywide improvements in air quality and reductions in traffic-related injuries and fatalities. Furthermore, a more efficient and funded transit system benefits all boroughs, not just Manhattan, by providing alternatives to car use and reducing reliance on personal vehicles.
"From $15 to $9 charges": The adjustment from a $15 charge to $9 reflects responsiveness to public feedback, not dishonesty. The ultimate goal remains the same: reducing congestion and emissions while funding transit improvements. A tiered pricing strategy can effectively achieve these goals while balancing affordability and equity.
"The MTA is already improving the system": While it’s true the MTA has seen recent successes, the scope of New York City’s transit needs far exceeds what current funding can address. Congestion pricing revenue ensures sustained investment in capital projects and maintenance, which are critical to keeping the system functional and competitive in a growing city.
"Elitism in commuting preferences": Promoting mass transit and active transportation (walking, biking, e-scooters) is not elitist—it is pragmatic. These modes reduce emissions, improve public health, and alleviate traffic congestion. Encouraging alternatives to car reliance is a proven strategy for making urban environments more livable for everyone.
"Increased parking congestion near transit hubs": Strategically placed park-and-ride facilities, improved local transit, and pricing policies for residential parking can address this issue. Cities with congestion pricing have implemented such measures successfully to manage demand and minimize local disruptions.
"UFT members and fairness of the fee": Congestion pricing charges are designed to reduce overall vehicle trips into Manhattan, including from private vehicles. While it’s understandable that teachers and school staff would feel the impact, the policy also benefits them through reduced commute times and cleaner air. Moreover, provisions such as toll credits or exemptions for specific workers could be explored to address equity concerns.
"Impact on students in outer boroughs": Children in every borough benefit from cleaner air, safer streets, and a well-funded transit system. Asthma and other respiratory illnesses are exacerbated by traffic emissions, which congestion pricing directly aims to reduce. The $100 million allocated for the Bronx is a starting point, but reducing vehicle emissions citywide addresses the root cause of these issues.
"A money-making scheme": Far from being a “money-making scheme,” congestion pricing is a targeted public policy to tackle congestion, air pollution, and transit funding challenges. The revenues are reinvested into public transit, creating a virtuous cycle that benefits all residents. NYC’s $20 billion budget must stretch across numerous responsibilities; congestion pricing ensures the transit system receives the dedicated funds it needs.
Congestion pricing is not about privileging Manhattan over other boroughs. It’s about creating a more sustainable, equitable, and livable city for all. If and when congestion in other areas increases, extending congestion pricing to those areas could be part of a holistic solution. Let’s work together to advocate for policies that benefit all New Yorkers, now and in the future.
I'm totally in support of congestion pricing. As a teacher who takes public transportation to work and born in and living in the city, I should be given a free monthly MetroCard like many municipal workers do. I think there should be a separate (higher) pay scale for teachers who live in the five boroughs. Teachers I work with who live.in the suburbs complain that they pay higher taxes to which I reply, "That has nothing to do with New York City."
I wholeheartedly agree with your assertions. Most teachers I’ve known who have worked for the DOE in the South Bronx (for a decade or more) have developed asthma. I did myself, but I no longer, since I’ve retired. It’s a real issue that most people don’t understand unless they’ve lived with it. I believe this congestion pricing doesn’t go far enough. It should also be in the Bronx . It seems like almost every truck and bus that goes into Manhattan drives through the Bronx. Mulgrew should publicly show the data from his polling of the membership on congestion pricing, before filing suit under the auspices of the Uft. He won’t because he can’t, as he never took one. If he feels strongly about this, let him spend his own money on the suit, and use his own name, not the United Federation of Teachers.
And for the record, in regards to the NY Post, most of us have a love-hate relationship with that paper. Making an argument in that paper is at least possible as it’s not censored (other than for for vulgarity) - it’s nearly impossible in other venues (especially the ludicrous propagandized ‘teacher papers’ like the UFT’s NY Teacher) unless the argument is an affirmation of the publication’s stance.
Who likes to sit in traffic? sheesh! If you are on a bus, at least you can do your lesson plans. The same for the subway. My only concern is for the disabled. Do they get an exception? I remember parking passes. Every school would get a handful which allowed people to park in front of the school.
Over all, I think the congestion pricing is a good thing. We are only talking below 60th St. in Manhattan. What does Mulgrew drive? Anyone know? I've seen him sneak downstairs at 52 B'way just after 4pm where I think they have a parking garage the UFT staff uses.
Post a Comment