When proposed change runs into strong resistance, we usually say it's because the idea is overly ambitious or it's gone too far. But sometimes it's because it hasn't gone far enough.

Consider New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg's controversial plan to charge automobile drivers entering Manhattan south of 86th Street during major business hours an $8 congestion pricing fee ($21 for large trucks). Modeled after a system in place in London, the proposal for New York is an excellent effort to reduce traffic, and hence cut down on some of the environmental and economic costs arising from gridlock. New York's state assembly rejected the plan in April, but most believe New Yorkers haven't heard the last of congestion pricing.

Now consider a much-discussed alternative, proposed by famed New York labor mediator and environmental advocate Theodore W. Kheel: Double that fee for cars driving into Manhattan south of 60th Street (and raise it to $32 for commercial vehicles). And then use the extra revenue to make subways and buses free for everyone in the five boroughs. Drivers might howl twice as hard, but at least there'd be someone howling back on the other side—someone who wanted to ride the bus for no charge.

Ninety-four years old, Kheel commissioned a team led by veteran environmental analyst Charles Komanoff to study the free-transit plan, and a half-year of intensive work produced a massive spreadsheet called the Balanced Transportation Analyzer (BTA). Komanoff's data revealed some pretty startling discoveries.

In Kheel's report, the city would raise taxi fares by 25%, with all extra money going to support public transit. With less congested streets, the analysis calculates, the average cabbie would make 37 runs a shift instead of 31. Transaction-free bus rides could result in a 20% reduction of route time, leading to an effective 25 percent growth of each fleet because drivers could make more runs per shift. The city would also triple the price of streetside parking in Manhattan south of 96th Street, making it about the same as the private parking garages. "There are parts of the city where a quarter or more of drivers are simply looking for a parking spot," says Komanoff.

All told, when you add up the numbers, 2.4% more people would enter Manhattan south of 60th Street every day. But the number coming by car would drop by a quarter, and the number traveling by bus, bike, or subway would rise dramatically. Across the entire city, automobile travel would drop by 9%.

Obviously, neither Bloomberg's plan nor Kheel's radical alternative is an easy sell.

In a sense, the congestion pricing battle is a class struggle. Well-off commuters who tie up the city's traffic because they need or want to travel alone are pitted against residents who are willing to submit to public transit or can't afford to do otherwise. But a New York free-transit plan could have a broader and more enduring significance: As a microcosm, it helps illustrate the sort of shifts rich nations like ours will have to make in the next decade to accommodate, say, the growth in energy demand in places like India and China. Our world will soon be one in which those who pollute more per capita will have to start paying for it. That, it seems, will be our future cost of living—and it will be a lot easier to swallow if some things come for free.

Bill McKibben is the author of The End of Nature, Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future. He is the recipient of the 2000 Lannan Literary Award for nonfiction, and founder of Step It Up (www.stepitup2007.org).

Clean Energy Act
By June Brashares

In San Francisco an exciting new proposal will come before the voters in the November 4th, 2008 election that, if approved, will make the city a world leader in the fight against global warming. The San Francisco Clean Energy Act (Proposition H) would enable the City to switch to clean, sustainable energy production at affordable rates. It ensures that by the year 2017, at least 51% of the City's electricity needs would be met through the use of clean, non-nuclear, renewable energy, and increases it to 75% by 2030, with the ultimate goal of 100% clean renewable energy by 2040!

Global Exchange is one of the lead organizations in the local coalition actively campaigning for Prop H. We recognize the importance of access to clean, affordable and sustainable energy is a human right, necessary for the health and safety of local communities and nature and for promoting responsible foreign policy.

The San Francisco Clean Energy Act will require a green jobs workforce development plan to train and employ thousands of workers to build the City's clean renewable energy infrastructure. The passage of the San Francisco Clean Energy Act would generate thousands of jobs and make San Francisco a hub of the new green economy.

Take action: Learn more about Prop H, contact june@globalexchange.org or visit Yes on Prop H! Switch-On Clean Energy