Leandra Rosado, 11, was killed last month when a car driven by Carmen Huertas crashed on the Henry Hudson Parkway.

Depending on what course those discussions take, such changes could hinge on approval from Albany. As we reported previously, prosecutors are already pushing legislation that would remove the requirement that a doctor be present to supervise blood withdrawals. Inexplicably, state lawmakers -- and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver in particular -- have a history of coddling drunk drivers, the latest example being the fight over "Leandra's Law," playing out at the capitol as of this writing.

While a truly comprehensive bill would aim to protect people of all ages whether or not they are in a car, one would think a measure to toughen penalties for DWI with children in the vehicle would fly to the governor's desk. Yet Silver has now attempted to water down two such measures. The original Leandra's Law would make it a felony to get behind the wheel with a BAC of .08 if passengers under the age of 16 are present. Assembly Dems want to raise the felony BAC level to .18, more than twice the legal limit for driving. Carmen Huertas, the driver in the October crash that killed Leandra Rosado, had a BAC of .132.

According to Monique Dixon, in 2005 Silver wavered in his support for a bill to make it a felony in New York State to kill someone while driving drunk. Dixon, whose 11-year-old son Vasean Alleyne was killed by a drunk driver who spent 38 days in jail, eventually won passage of a tougher "Vasean's Law" than Silver wanted.

Even the newly agreed upon protocol for collecting blood evidence leaves New York woefully behind. Prosecutors are working on a bill to remove the up-front warrant requirement in cases of death or serious injury where there is probable cause for DWI. Such procedure is common in other states, notes defense attorney Howard Weiner in the Times. Local laws, Weiner said, are "much more protective of drivers than those in other parts of the country."

New York State devotes just 1 percent of its federal transportation funds to pedestrian infrastructure. Photo: Wikipedia

In the last 15 years, more than 76,000 Americans have been killed while crossing or walking along a street in their community. More than 43,000 Americans -- including 3,906 children under 16 -- have been killed this decade alone. This is the equivalent of a jumbo jet going down roughly every month, yet it receives nothing like the kind of attention that would surely follow such a disaster.

Counterintuitive as it may be, "Dangerous by Design" also finds that, when it comes to investing in pedestrian-friendly streets, New York has little room to boast. Here are local stats culled from the report, issued in a joint statement from TSTC, Transportation Alternatives, the Regional Plan Association and TWU Local 100:

• 22.5 percent of total traffic deaths in New York State are pedestrians
  
• 31 percent of total traffic deaths in the NYC metropolitan area are pedestrians
  
• Only 1 percent of New York State federal transportation funds are spent on pedestrian infrastructure, an average of $0.73 per person
  
• New York State ranks 44th in the nation for federal spending on walking and biking
  
• The NYC metropolitan area receives only $0.61 per person in federal funds for pedestrian and bike facilities, well below the meager $1.39 spent per person for metro areas nationwide

Advocates are calling on Governor Paterson and the New York State Legislature to designate 10 percent of federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and 10 percent of federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding for pedestrian safety; to enact a statewide complete streets policy; to increase funding for Safe Routes to School and Safe Seniors programs; and to create a statewide Safe Routes to Transit program.

"From 2005 to 2008, New York has received $5.6 billion in federal transportation funds," reads the statement. "In the same amount of time there have been 1,215 preventable pedestrian deaths."

You can download "Dangerous By Design" in its entirety here. Elana Schor has more on the report's national implications at Streetsblog Capitol Hill.

-- MTA Chairman Jay Walder, quoted in the New York Times.

These are heartening words for transit advocates. Incoming MTA Chairman Jay Walder clearly wants to make big improvements to the agency's 250 bus routes. But given his time, budget and authority, there is a big gap between what he can do and what he would like to do for buses.

NYPD cruisers parked in the 34th Street bus lane. When it comes to bus route enforcement, Jay Walder has his hands full.

Let's look at the things that Walder and the MTA can realistically do for buses.

First up: contactless or “swipe less” MetroCards, like London's Oyster card, which are waved over a sensor instead of swiped. These contactless cards speed bus boarding and can save a lot of time over the course of a day. They also help reduce bus bunching by making loading times more consistent on every bus. Contactless cards are a mature technology which the MTA has already funded, and which Walder helped pioneer in London. So, there is every reason to think he can hurry its implementation.

Walder can also help with the long-delayed GPS bus locator system and real-time arrival information for passengers. These are also mature technologies which bus systems around the world use to reduce bunching, troubleshoot delays, and keep riders informed. To date, the MTA has bungled GPS tracking, and insisted on trying to solve the canyon effect caused by Manhattan skyscrapers instead of deploying GPS and passenger information on the huge majority of routes that don't go through Midtown, or even enter Manhattan. This is a highly visible and affordable improvement that Walder would get a lot of credit for.

Fortunately for Walder, when it comes to bus improvements, he has a strong ally in the NYCDOT and the mayor, who are leading the effort to institute Select Bus Service. SBS routes include elements of Bus Rapid Transit, including pre-paid boarding, transit signal priority, and painted bus lanes. Planning for SBS is well-advanced, though the initiative has very modest funding by MTA standards. Currently, DOT and the MTA intend to roll out one or two new SBS lines a year. Walder may be able to accelerate SBS through additional planning and funding, and by making the case for more physically protected bus lanes like the one planned for 34th Street in Midtown.

During Walder's tenure at Transport for London, the agency employed express bus lanes and other BRT features to great effect. So Walder is keenly aware of the need to "prioritize" buses on the street. In his interview with the Times, Walder emphasized the compelling reasons to enforce bus lanes and bus stops more vigorously. Bus riders, advocates and transit experts all agree on the desirability of better enforcement. The need is obvious. But increasing enforcement enough to make a difference in bus service will probably be the most difficult thing for Walder to achieve.

In London, more than 1,000 automated enforcement cameras mounted on buses -- and another 50 or so on utility poles -- help keep bus lanes and bus stops clear of other vehicles. Violations caught by these cameras result in steep fines. Unfortunately, in New York City, enforcement cameras and increased fines for lane blockers require the approval of the state legislature.

In 2008, NYCDOT made bus enforcement cameras its highest legislative priority. But the legislature has a long history of resisting enforcement cameras of all types. It took from 1993 to 2009 for the city to win an increase from 50 to 150 red light enforcement cameras. The MTA and transit advocates first started asking for bus enforcement cameras in the 1990s. Without cameras, enforcing bus lanes and stops is very difficult. You can do it on small numbers of specific corridors, like Fordham Road, but overall, it is extremely hard to keep the thousands of bus stops and hundreds of miles of lanes clear using only police and traffic agents. Which is why most modern BRT systems use enforcement cameras or physically separated rights-of-way. Whether Albany will grant legislative approval in the next year for enough cameras to make a visible impact -- or even any cameras at all -- is a question mark.

The specific approaches Walder pursues to improve bus service will probably meet with different degrees of success. But overall, his interest in better buses will give a big boost to efforts to dedicate more street space to transit and surely result in better service.

This is the second of two posts exploring how incoming MTA Chairman Jay Walder can improve New York City's bus system. Read the first part here.

At today's hearing, in Mineola on Long Island, Regional Plan Association President Bob Yaro said that Walder's pay is fair (and low, if you compare it based on ridership) and the severance package is justified "given the volatility that is unfortunately associated with the position."

"We are also aware that some have questioned the extra compensation Mr. Walder would receive in the event that his contract were terminated prematurely," Yaro testified. "We would argue that this provision reflects the risk Mr. Walder is taking in coming to the MTA at this time, with little more than a year to go in the current governor's term, and given the volatility that is unfortunately associated with the position. It will also encourage the MTA Board and the governor to think twice before discharging Mr. Walder for frivolous or purely political reasons. Keeping him in place for his whole contract would provide the continuity of leadership that this important agency urgently needs."

If Albany weren't such a cesspool of cronyism, in other words, we wouldn't need to slip such a big hedge into the chair's contract to attract top-tier talent. Meanwhile, is the State Senate even aware that the MTA released its draft capital plan a few weeks ago? There's a $10 billion hole, and the agency is still rudderless. If we're going to have a confirmation hearing, you'd think something like the future of the transit system would figure into it at some point, but I suppose that doesn't have anything to do with "transparency and accountability".

Only a handful of people on the planet have the chops to steer an agency as large and complex as the MTA, and Jay Walder is one of them, by all accounts. We'll know if the State Senate is satisfied on September 10, when they render their final decision.

Photo: berk2804/Flickr.

But maybe you had your doubts. Maybe the "It's just for tourists!" argument seemed like it might gain some traction. Maybe fears of Carmaggedon would win out.

Today's Q Poll settles the question: Car-free Times Square is a hit. Fifty-eight percent of New Yorkers think it was a good idea to close Broadway to cars and give more space to pedestrians, compared to 35 percent who don't. A surprisingly high number of New Yorkers -- 44 percent -- say they've seen the new Broadway for themselves. That translates to about three and half million people.

When it comes to transformative regional transportation policies, however, advocates still have a steep hill to climb. Majorities oppose East River bridge tolls and congestion pricing, even when the question explicitly states that funds would be used to limit future transit fare increases. Skepticism about the MTA's ability to deliver mega-projects like the Second Avenue Subway and the 7 line extension is very high.

Perhaps most importantly, among transit riders who think the quality of service has declined recently, blame falls on the MTA more than the state legislature. Much more, in fact -- 59 percent to 19 percent. This is troubling.

For the time being, it looks like Pedro Espada and company can rest comfortably in the knowledge that they won't be held accountable for shortchanging our transit system.

But if you're one of the optimists, here's something to build on. Overall support for congestion pricing stands at 40 percent. Okay, that's pretty sobering, but it's significantly higher than the 29 percent support for bridge tolls (maybe labels do matter). It's also higher than the level of public support for congestion charging prior to implementation in Stockholm. And back when congestion pricing was all over the news, we saw this number swing up and down rather dramatically, depending on the phrasing of the question.

We know the needle can be moved. The next time pricing comes up in the legislature, will advocates mobilize a broad enough coalition to move Albany along with it?

Following another revision to the Second Avenue Subway construction timetable, the first phase of the mega-project remains, as ever, about seven or eight years away from completion. Pete Donohue reports in the Daily News:

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority has finished an in-depth analysis of the work schedule, budget and potential hurdles for the long-awaited addition to the system, sources told the News.

The conclusion: the official completion date for phase one of the project should be pushed from June 2015 to December 2016, with possible future delays placing the opening in the summer of 2017, the sources said...

The original schedule for the first phase projected a 2012 completion date but MTA officials have pushed the date back several times over the years -- most recently in March 2008.

I'm lucky. I don't have to put up with sardine-style rush-hour commuting on the Lexington Avenue line. But if I did, I'd want relief as soon as possible. Eight years is a long time to ask people to wait, especially when a viable alternative like physically separated Bus Rapid Transit can be provided much sooner, at much less expense. And if experience is any guide, this won't be the last time the Second Avenue Subway gets pushed back, either.

ITDP director Walter Hook said it well in an interview with Streetsblog this February:

I don't know why Japanese and Chinese cities can roll out 10 miles of new subway line a year, and the richest city in the world has been trying and failing to build the Second Avenue Subway since the 1960s. But I've lived in this town a long time, and I am skeptical. The optimists are telling us that we will have a Second Avenue Subway between 125th Street and 63rd Street by 2015 and only after we spend $4 to $5 billion. So this means we are probably talking about 2018 or 2020, and $10 billion. The Second Avenue Subway would be great, it’s needed, it would have higher demand than almost any other metro line in the country. At those volumes, metros are often a good investment. But will it happen?

The MTA has a huge hole in its next capital program, with billions in funding for core maintenance still unaccounted for. That comes first, no matter what. If our legislative goons in Albany can't muster the will to fund mega-projects, too, we can still expand the system: On the east side of Manhattan, the right BRT configuration would carry almost as many commuters as the Second Avenue Subway, for a fraction of the cost.

"We'll look at it over the course of the next couple of months," said Kruger. ... "After that, we'll finish our vetting process, which hasn't even begun yet, and we'll have a better idea about the timetable (for a confirmation vote)."

When Liz Benjamin informed Kruger that Walder has already spoken of restoring public trust in the agency -- a task that will be much more difficult thanks to shameless hucksters like Kruger himself, the senator replied:

"I come from Missouri; don't show me, tell me. I mean, everybody says they're for oversight and accountability. What does that mean? What does it mean?"

I swear, this blog just writes itself sometimes.

• At the end of his coup, Pedro Espada made out with a $41,000 salary perk. New York City bus riders aren't smiling.
  
  Hayley and Diego's law. Named for two toddlers killed this January by a negligent van driver in Chinatown, this bill would stiffen penalties for drivers who injure or kill pedestrians and cyclists. The day before a major advocacy event in Albany, at which the children's mothers and other victims' relatives were planning to appear, State Senators Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate declared their intent to conference with Senate Republicans, throwing the legislature into chaos. The event didn't happen, and the bill is still in committee in both houses.
  
• Camera-enforced BRT routes. This is the same bill that Rochester Democrat David Gantt killed in his transportation committee last year. It would enable New York City to enforce 50 miles of exclusive BRT routes by mounting cameras on buses. Similar cameras have sped bus trips in London significantly. Between the protracted MTA funding debate and the Senate's utter collapse, however, the campaign to convince Gantt of the need for this bill never really got off the ground. Transportation advocates plan to push for the bill again in January.
• Complete Streets. There's a bill in both houses that would require transportation projects to include pedestrian and bicycle access. AARP and the New York Bicycle Coalition have campaigned strongly for the bill, which is sponsored by the transportation committee chairs in each house. The bill did not come up for a vote in Gantt's committee, however, so it looks like we'll be waiting until next year for any movement on this one.
  

There is one piece of legislation related to safer streets potentially en route to becoming law this week: The safe driving bill that passed the Assembly last month. Martin Dilan, chair of the Senate transportation committee, wants to move the bill this week, said his Albany office. Aimed primarily at young and inexperienced drivers, the bill would penalize distracted driving, including texting while driving, but it does not rise to the level of an outright texting ban. A provision inserted in the Assembly would prevent police from issuing a ticket for "inattentive driving" unless the driver was observed committing another violation at the same time.

Distracted driving contributes to more than 10,000 crashes per year in New York State. Apparently, Albany doesn't think that's a big enough hazard to justify pulling drivers over.

Last night, shortly after Pedro Espada secured his $41,000 majority leader perk, the State Senate returned to the business of legislating. Liz Benjamin has several posts today explaining what that looked like. In less than 24 hours, the chamber passed 135 bills. It could have passed 136, but Bronx Democrat Ruben Diaz, Sr. sided against his party and killed a measure to stiffen penalties for traffic violations on Long Island:

Diaz Sr. raised eyebrows when he crossed the aisle to join the GOP in voting against a bill that would have established a mandatory surcharge for traffic offenses and infractions in Suffolk and Nassau counties.

It was not immediately evident why the Bronx Democrat would care enough about such a parochial suburban issue to buck his own conference. His move created a 31-31 tie, and since Richard Ravitch is not yet presiding over the chamber (and probably couldn't have legally cast the stalemate-breaking vote, anyway), Sen. Malcolm Smith decided to take the bill off the floor.

The reason Diaz stalled the bill? He wanted to cajole Republicans into opposing an increase to New York City's sales tax. Of course, the ploy, if you can call it that, didn't work at all. The sales tax coasted to passage in a 43-19 vote (so much for avoiding taxes on hard-working New Yorkers). But rest easy, Nassau and Suffolk drivers: Ruben Diaz, Sr. has got you covered, again.

MetroCard machines aren't the only place where the price of transit is going up. Reader Steven O'Neill points out that New Yorkers who sometimes rely on rental cars are now being hit with an additional five percent "bailout" tax, bringing the total tax for renting close to 20 percent. Says Steven:

This means that I, a very occasional driver who basically only ever rents a car if I'm going somewhere outside of the city, am being forced to pay exorbitant taxes so that daily car commuters can be allowed to continue to drive into Manhattan for free. And it feels like a kick in the teeth.

Eric Adams, I'm pissed off at you personally about this because you are my Senator. If the Senate still exists by the next time you are up for election, I plan to help give you the boot.

Bravo to Steven for channeling his frustration in the right direction. Any daily reporters out there care to talk to an informed MTA customer?

On the merits, the texting "ban" is weaker than another bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, which the transportation committee never brought up for a vote. Under the Gantt bill, a driver could be fined, but not pulled over, for texting behind the wheel.

"While we certainly support the intent of the bill, we have questions about specific language which would seem to greatly restrict its actual application," said TA's Peter Goldwasser in an email. "In short, unless an individual is committing another, different violation in the first place, then he or she is not subject to receiving a summons for violating this new offense."

In 2007, there were nearly 10,500 crashes in New York where the contributing factor was driver inattention or distraction, Goldwasser noted. Shouldn't that be enough reason to make distracted driving a standalone violation?

On balance, this bill would be a step forward for street safety in New York, but with the State Senate in the midst of its epic breakdown, the odds of it becoming law -- during this session, at least -- are vanishingly small. (So far, there's not even a version of this bill in the Senate.) This will be something to keep an eye on in the next legislative session. The speaker, the transportation committee chair, and the whole Assembly are on record supporting this bill, so there's no reason it shouldn't pass again when the opportunity arises.

Most notable in DiNapoli’s reports are the debt warnings. While fairly technical and seemingly far off into the future, the MTA’s current projected borrowing levels will come back to plague the agency. The MTA is going to use the mobility tax to generate $6.8 billion in Bonds. By 2020, according to DiNapoli, debt service will cost the MTA $440 million in revenue from the mobility payroll tax. Furthermore, the agency is going to take on new debt to fund the 2010-2014 capital plan, and the MTA could be mired in $3.2 billion of debt service spending by 2020.

That's more than double what the MTA currently pays each year to cover its debts. With all those billions coming out of the operating budget, everyone who rides the subway or the bus is going to pay, while car commuters continue to get a free ride.

Sheldon Silver. Photo: Daily News.

When we contacted Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's office, a spokesperson told us that it's up to the committee chair to move the bill forward. That would be Rochester Democrat David Gantt. But why should one person have such power when the overwhelming majority of his members disagree? And is Gantt really the guy making that call -- or is it Sheldon Silver?

To get a sense of the dynamics at work here, Streetsblog called Laura Seago, a researcher at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice and co-author of the aptly titled report on Albany dysfunction, "Still Broken" [PDF].

"I would be surprised if Sheldon Silver wasn't involved," Seago said of the texting ban. "This is something we see all the time, unfortunately, which is that the speaker controls everything that comes to the floor."

While Gantt makes a convenient target, and it's conceivable, in Seago's words, that he was "acting freelance" on this one, the fact remains that Silver could easily move the texting ban forward if he chose to do so.

In a legislature that functions democratically, the members of the transportation committee could also override the objections of their chair or the leader of their chamber. But that's not how things work in Albany.

"Most state legislatures make committees the place where legislation is robustly debated and made," said Seago. Next door in Connecticut, she notes, bills introduced in committee are required to have a hearing and a vote, but in New York, "we just don’t have that." Here, the leaders of each legislative chamber -- Sheldon Silver in the Assembly, Malcolm Smith in the State Senate -- maintain control over the committee process, and there’s no viable way for the rank-and-file to force a vote on a bill.

The Assembly, says Seago, is a "democracy of one."

If you're wondering why Sheldon Silver would choose to block a popular measure to reduce the public safety risk posed by distracted drivers, it may be instructive to look at the long battle to ban driving while talking on a cell phone. That fight lasted several years, and when the state legislature finally passed a bill, in 2001, it did not include any restrictions on hands-free cell phones -- to the delight of the telecom industry and its lobbyists in Albany, and despite studies showing that hands-free phone calls pose just as big a risk as those on handsets.

One in four American motorists text and drive, despite the fact that distracted driving is implicated in 80 percent of all crashes. Photo: Switched.

Buffalo Assembly Member Mark Schroeder called Gantt's office last Wednesday seeking clarification on the chairman's plans for the texting-while-driving ban. The bill needs Gantt's blessing to get on the transportation committee calendar, and Schroeder wanted to know the deal. Would Gantt allow the bill to come up for a vote? Like us, Schroeder is still waiting for an answer.

Bill sponsor Felix Ortiz, a Brooklyn Democrat who has pushed legislation to deter distracted driving for more than a decade, was able to get a few minutes of face time with Gantt last week. In classic foot-dragging style, the chairman told Ortiz that he would prefer to address distracted driving with a more "comprehensive" bill that penalizes all forms of inattentiveness behind the wheel. Seems reasonable enough, right? Well, not quite. As Ortiz told Streetsblog: "This is how things die here."

Gantt's gambit is a tried-and-true Albany maneuver, deployed to kill bills softly by offering an alternative that can be spun as an acceptable substitute. But how plausible is Gantt's alternative?

The chairman has his own bill, no. 786, that would create a new class of traffic infraction called "inattentive driving," defined loosely as any non-driving activity that "unreasonably interferes with the free and proper use of the public highway" or "unreasonably endangers other people who are using the public highways." That may sound good in principle, but the language leaves too much unspecified to serve as effective legislation, or to garner the support needed to become law in the first place.

"Texting needs to be addressed by itself," Ortiz said. "It doesn’t make too much sense to have a comprehensive piece of legislation."

Compared to Gantt's bill, the texting ban gets to the point much more directly. It would simply extend the prohibition against cell phone use while driving to include all texting activity.

If the proof of a bill's legitimacy is in its co-sponsors, then Gantt's bill is pure smokescreen. Introduced more than four months ago, it has no co-sponsors and no corresponding version in the State Senate. The texting ban, by contrast, enjoys the support of 48 co-sponsors. A Senate version has already cleared that chamber three years running.

Given the strong rank-and-file support for the texting ban, it's remarkable that one member of the Assembly can effectively halt its progress. While press reports hint that proponents of the bill may somehow skirt Gantt's stonewalling, the way forward is murky at best. A spokesperson for Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver said that it's up to the transportation committee chair to bring any bill up for a vote, and that there are no plans to consider any distracted driving legislation outside the normal committee process. The Speaker's office did not answer requests to comment specifically about chairman Gantt's position on the proposed texting ban.

The city was slated to receive about $350 million in federal transportation funds to implement the plan, but it was was stalled by State Assembly Democrats in Albany.

LaHood said the money is still there if lawmakers change their minds.

"The money that was going to be provided for that particular project is still at the Department of Transportation," said LaHood. "If New York got its act together around that kind of opportunity, I think we would look at it."

Most of that $354 million would have gone toward transit enhancements targeted for areas underserved by subways. Citing, in large part, their distrust of the MTA to spend congestion pricing revenue wisely, state legislators turned down the offer from George W. Bush's DOT and killed the proposal last April.

Here we are a year later, and Albany just passed a toll-free MTA financing package that leaves the agency's capital plan largely unfunded. Congestion pricing would go a long way toward filling that gap, and self-styled watchdogs Malcolm Smith and Richard Brodsky say the new bill will make the MTA "transparent and accountable" to their liking. So if Barack Obama's DOT comes back with that $354 million offer, would NYC's state legislators still walk away from all those transit improvements for their constituents?

Photo: AP/Post-Standard

In politics, reputation matters. The scapegoating of the MTA has undermined the political case for transit funding and given cover to the hypocrites in Albany who blame the MTA, instead of themselves, for the agency's funding woes. Looking forward, it is critical that the MTA burnish its reputation as an effective and accountable public agency and excellent investment for public funds. There are many political forces that benefit from keeping the MTA as a scapegoat, its reputation besmirched. So, a clean bill of health for the MTA requires an unimpeachable, politically formidable force far above the gutter of the New York political fray. How about President Obama?

The president has spent enormous energy restoring public confidence in the banking system. A key part of his efforts has been the Treasury Department’s careful scrutiny of bank management and finances. Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Paterson should ask President Obama to help restore public confidence in the MTA by ordering the Federal Transit Administration to send in a team of management, finance and policy experts. The MTA receives millions in federal support and the U.S. government has a strong interest in seeing that money well spent. The FTA team would definitively and publicly assess the state of the MTA, detailing both its good and bad management practices while clarifying and vetting agency finances.

Most transit experts believe the MTA is a relatively well run public agency which compares favorably with other big American and foreign transit systems. The agency’s biggest problem is that the state and city have spent the last two decades reducing their financial support, loading the agency with debt, and making it overly dependent on volatile, cyclical funding like the mortgage recording tax. The FTA's assessment would bring these facts to the fore and lay the political groundwork for a stronger case for transit funding.

Hike 1, the 10-12 percent rise in subway, bus and rail fares set to take effect within a month, is a fait accompli. But Hikes 2 and 3, set for 2011 and 2013, are fair game. With municipal and state elections in the offing this year and next, the timing couldn't be better.

Hikes 2 and 3 are each intended to net $400 to $500 million annually. A geographically balanced traffic-pricing plan can replace that, no sweat. The MTA rescue plan I laid out in March, featuring a time-varied ($1-$2-$3-$4-$5) price to drive into the Manhattan CBD (charged inbound only) along with a 20 percent taxi fare surcharge, would bring in $1 billion a year. The plan can be ratcheted up as need warrants and politics allow.

I know, I know -- tolls have already failed, twice. But the Bloomberg and Ravitch Plans were grossly skewed, with a Jersey exemption and a Manhattan free pass, among other failings. The messengers, through no fault of their own, were flawed as well.

Rather than a billionaire mayor or another permanent-government state commission, we need a popular movement made up of straphangers, bus riders, truckers and tradespeople (who will easily make up the CBD toll in saved time), business interests, pedestrians and cyclists -- a true New York majority. And we should start posing the question now, as the 2009 municipal elections get in gear: Which should the MTA toll -- transit users or traffic?

It is true that the recession has eased traffic congestion. By how much is hard to say, but if vehicle volumes are down 5 percent, the drop in gridlock -- time stuck in traffic -- may be as great as 10 percent citywide and 20 percent within the CBD. When the Albany deal was revealed this week, a policy savant told me it demonstrated "the lack of political support for reducing traffic congestion." He may be right, but I believe that as fare hikes and a general economic recovery restore car use to prior levels, gridlock will again matter.

The German social thinker Wolfgang Sachs drilled to the heart of gridlock several decades ago:

Once a certain traffic density is surpassed, every driver contributes involuntarily to a slowing of traffic. The time that the individual driver steals from all the others by slowing them down is greater many times over than the time he or she might have hoped to gain by taking the car. (emphasis added)

Sachs’ "theft of time" can now be quantified. Using the Balanced Transportation Analyzer computer model I’ve developed with transit advocate Ted Kheel, I estimate it to average almost three hours per weekday car round-trip into the CBD and back home. Meaning: each additional weekday drive into the Manhattan Central Business District imposes aggregate delays on all other motor vehicle users totaling nearly three hours (more for peak-period trips, less for off-peak). Applying an estimated per-vehicle cost of $35-40 per hour spent in NYC traffic (a blend of costs for 18-wheelers, plumbers’ vans, private cars, etc.), the societal "time cost" imposed by each car trip into and out of the CBD is around $100.

(Note: figures in the previous paragraph are derived in the BTA worksheets, "Delay Costs" and "Value of Time," and were revised by the author in August, 2009 to reflect modeling refinements following the May 7, 2009 appearance of this post.)

This “theft of time” by auto trips into the CBD should form one moral basis for our transportation reform campaign. The other, of course, is the need to prevent any further burdening of hard-pressed working people with the MTA’s financial failings.

Ted, who turns 95 on Saturday, has said that if he were younger he would run for mayor on this platform. Here’s a Plan “B”: The advocates who fought valiantly for the Ravitch Plan unite behind a new, effective and equitable approach such as the traffic-pricing plan outlined here -- one that breaks, finally, the triple hell of spiraling fares, traffic gridlock, and the legislature’s tyranny over mass transit. Candidates run for City Council and state legislature on this plan, and we elect them.

In this scene from last night's State Senate vote on the MTA funding package, Fare Hike Four member Ruben Diaz, Sr. relishes his substantial influence over the final bill:

Today I'm standing here proud to say to my constituents. I promise you, constituents of the 32nd senatorial district, no toll.

That would be the asthma-plagued Bronx district where 67 percent of the households don't own cars [PDF] and the transit-riding majority endures the most crowded, cramped conditions in the city. Thanks to the intransigence of Diaz and company on bridge tolls, it's going to be much tougher to improve commutes for straphangers in the 32nd.

Here's a taste of what New Yorkers can expect as a direct result. Neighborhoods will suffer from heavier traffic as more drivers opt to take free bridges. Bus riders will sit through slower rides and worse gridlock. Straphangers will absorb more of the cost of transit through higher fares. And the long-term health of the transit system will remain a big question mark.

We've emerged on the other side of the immediate crisis, but the big problems that led there in the first place are still staring us right in the face. To paraphrase Governor Paterson, responsibility has been shirked to live for another day.

I stole the title of this post from Mikhail Gorbachev, who saw the writing on the wall for the USSR in 1985. Like the Soviet empire in the 1980s, New York City's transportation system is groaning under the combined weight of skewed incentives and stale political leadership. Instead of bread lines, we have traffic jams and drivers cruising endlessly for parking spots. Like the special privileges handed out to Communist Party apparatchiks, we bestow our public servants with parking placards and toll perks. The Eastern Bloc had the Kremlin. We have Albany.

Which is where this analogy breaks down. No one in Soviet Russia ever voted for the Glasnost candidate. One day, the head of the Communist Party just decided that something had to change. Well, as we've witnessed over the last 12 agonizing months, a decision from on high won't get it done in New York, not as long as the Carl Krugers remain in Albany. You see where I'm headed. Like Aaron said back in March, reforming transportation policy is now, above all, an electoral project:

Sustainable transport advocates need to build political clout. Period. At this point, almost nothing else matters.

• .34 percent payroll tax in MTA service region (non-graduated): $1.53 billion annually
  
• $.50 cab fare surcharge: $95 million (None of this is likely to pay for upstate roads and bridges, I'm told.)
• Assorted fees on vehicle registrations and rentals: $175.5 million
• 10 percent fare hike: $100 million more than the 8 percent hike in prior funding proposals
  
• Total: $1.9 billion
• Total from commuters who drive across East River bridges: $0.

This is basically the Senate Democrats' proposal, with some knob twisting. Many aspects remain murky, like how much will go toward the MTA capital plan, but it seems fairly certain that Albany will kick the lion's share of those funding needs down the road. The Times is also reporting that the deal includes scheduled 7.5 percent hikes for transit fares and existing MTA tolls in 2011 and 2013.

Discuss.