Maybe. Or maybe we should actually be building a grassroots movement with some real on-the-ground work. Haven't seen it yet, except in a couple of the "usual suspect" neighborhoods...and even then.

Of course, he's not an ally. I never said he was. The G line folks are, though. That is my point.

And of course elected officials respond to pressure. Pressure wisely delivered. This wouldn't be. But hey, if you want to bike over there and hand out leaflets, be my guest. I wish you luck.

Finally, I think we should realize that there are other ways to get funding for transit besides congestion pricing. (There's been $40 billion or so in funding over the past few decades without one dollar collected from congestion pricing.)

I supported, and support, congestion pricing. It would have been a tremendous flow of money to bond against for the transit system.

But I hope to see some rational discussion of this next battle, where those who lost this round will need to fight for transit money or the whole system will go down the tubes. It's happened before, as you know.

And yes, the issue of his hypocrisy over CP far outweighs the limited benefit the G-train riders would gain (they are fewer in number than the millions that will be impacted by the inevitable higher transit fares)

So we need to call him to the table over his resistance to CP and call him out for the pandering pathetic politician that he appears to be. Who's the Paul Newell in his district?

Get a clue.

Jeffries isn't an ally.

Hosting a public relations event for himself doesn't make him an ally.

He's not going to win more train service for anyone, in part, because he turned up his nose at the best opportunity he'll likely ever see to bring in the funds to pay for more train service.

Jeffries is doing this event and trying to position himself as a transit advocate, in part, because of the pressure and criticism he got from congestion pricing advocates during that debate.

This may sound like a "bizarre reason" to you but elected officials respond to pressure. It will only help Save the G to have a bunch of angry transit advocates on hand, breathing down Jeffries neck, holding his feet to the fire, making sure that after his little rally he does the work that needs to happen to actually win changes.

That makes a lot more sense than the tunnel. Why not?

By the way, blame politicians for the fact that the IND lines don't connect to the Atlantic/Flatbush complex already.

Mayor John Francis (Red Mike) Hylan, an opponent of privately run subways who had been fired by the BMT, hoped his IND would eventually destroy and replace the IRT and BMT, and didn't want his lines deliverng passengers to theirs. Yet less than a decade after the IND was built all the lines were merged under city ownership, making that decision foolish.

The Fulton Street line replaced a BMT Fulton Street elevated that did stop at Atlantic and Flatbush. There were tunnels built to connect to the DeKalb Avenue interlocking to eventually connect the El into the BMT subways to Manhattan, before Hylan took the route for the IND.

I initially thought the suggestion that folks hand out leaflets against Jeffries at the G line rally might be a joke, but no such luck. Even if he is the organizer, it seems silly.

Unless the goal is to piss off your allies for some bizarre reason, I hope folks understand that this is the kind of counterproductive move that doesn't help G line riders, as several of your astute readers have pointed out.

I don't really know how it helps congestion pricing advocates either; knowing how these things play out typically, it would probably just help Jeffries.

I don't see where this post calls for "a heckling counter-rally." That's your own interpretation.

I think primary challenges are a fine idea for EVERY politician that fails to adequately fund transit investment.

The issue I have taken with this post is the implied endorsement of a heckling counter-rally which I believe is counterproductive.

Thanks for clarifying that. I think your position and Save The G's position makes a lot more sense than Ms. James'. I understand her desire, but considering the financial circumstances of the MTA and the overall impact on the project, an above-ground transfer is much more practical. That one, I like.

Councilwoman Tish James asked the MTA to explore a physical G train connection to other subway lines near Atlantic Terminal. Yes, that would be a tremendously big lift, cash-wise, and an even longer wait for planning and construction. However, recognizing a kindred G train spirit, and hot wanting to diss a valued (and rare) friend of the G, we've taken the time to let other people know about her efforts, since she got the MTA to (grudgingly) agree to look into it.

As a coalition, Save The G is far more focused on winning free street transfers, which would accomplish the same goal in a much shorter timeframe, and for negligible implementation cost. If any of you attended the NYC Council hearing on G train service, you heard our testimony on the subject. There's also a lengthy passage on it, on the STG Blog.

As a teensy group, we can't afford to get too far out on long-term capital improvements. Our wishes are far more modest: shorter waits, longer trains, and street transfers. Public announcement systems would be neat, too. (Also detailed at the NYC Council hearing.)

I've written about this at SAS, but the reality is that this tunnel would be impractical, underutilized waste of money. It's costing at least $130 million to build a 50-foot tunnel at Jay St. How much will it cost to build a tunnel more than 13 times that length? For the amount of use it would get, it's impossible to justify a $1 billion investment in an underground tunnel.

I think the coalition should be pushing for a free above-ground transfer, and I think that in tying together their calls for service upgrades with a ludicrous proposal for a tunnel the length of two football fields, they make it very easy to dismiss their calls entirely.

And that doesn't even touch upon the issue of Hakeem Jeffries' obvious hypocrisy.

I hear you and agree that Streetsblog needs to be a strong independent voice and think that it has done a really good job of doing so at the City level. If the dysfunction of City government is Scylla, Albany is Charybdis on steroids.

Paul Newell and Luke Henry are fighting the good fight against Silver, but there might be better opportunities to pick off a couple anti-CP legislators- I'm happy to talk offline about it. If livable streets advocates are serious about getting political, it has to be highly targeted because of our currently-small numbers.

All said, it's definitely right to call out Jefferies on CP and if I make it to the meeting Wednesday, I will be doing so. And Gottfried's excuse of his caucus is predictable, but just sad.

Yes - Let's all work together to improve service on the G. But to ensure proper representation, come election season let's make sure our electeds have stood with us when they were needed.

How do you figure?

I think it's 100% clear that the "Will the Real Transit Advocate" headline refers to Jeffries who is pictured and named beneath the headline. The post makes no reference to Save the G. But, again, I apologize to the Save the G'ers and Teresa for my snipiness in comment #5.

Sad that all this brouhaha is over an Assembly member who's pretty small potatoes, politically speaking. We should be going after Silver, Brodsky, and the county leaders.

This is totally a sham.

Actions speak louder than words and we need real leaders who are ready to stand up and do the right thing.