Brodsky's office sent us a copy of the letter [PDF], which is copied in full below. Among its 24 signatories, the overwhelming majority represent New York City:

Dear Hon. Walder,

We write to you as long-standing advocates for mass transit funding, as those who have regularly supported state funding for the MTA's capital and operating needs, and as those who represent students and parents across the MTA region.  We understand the continuing difficulties caused by the national recession, and the difficult decisions you are making as a consequence.  We believe that we share a desire to reform, expand, and improve the MTA, even as new leadership takes over, and as PARA 2009 makes real changes in legal, operational and fiduciary practices at the MTA. 

That being said, we write to make sure you understand the depth of our concern about MTA plans to end free and discounted student travel.  We cannot criticize any exercise that reviews all MTA expenditures and services in the face of the economic downturn.  But we reject any decision by the MTA to end free and discounted student travel as an element of a final package of changes. 

We reject that decision because it is not an accurate or intelligent analysis of the MTA's fisc [sic]. While the MTA asserts it needs $214 million in additional state and city aid to preserve the program, the actual cost of free and discounted student fares is close to zero.  We reject the MTA's assertion that the program must be valued at the ostensible lost revenue, and point out that state and city funding for the program actually exceeds the cost of providing the service. 

We reject that decision because it is a dangerous, unfair, and self-defeating political tactic. We understand the use of political tactics in budget controversies.  But there are limits, and the decision to put students and families out there as a pawn in the struggle to increase City and State funding crosses a line.

Simply stated, we ask that you immediately withdraw the threat to student fares, that you review the actual cost of the program across the MTA region, that you ensure that all students in the region be treated equally, and that you work with us to develop a fairer, clearer, and more successful negotiating strategy to get the MTA more money. For better of worse, this issue is becoming a defining moment for transit advocates in and out of the Legislature. In the spirit of fairness and cooperation, we ask for a timely response to this letter.

Best wishes,

Richard Brodsky

Michael Benedetto

Michael Benjamin

Jonathan Bing

James Brennan

Marcos Crespo

Jeffrey Dinowitz

Carl Heastie

Andrew Hevesi

Micah Kellner

Rory Lancman

Joseph Lentol

Margaret Markey

Grace Meng

Joan Millman

Audrey Pheffer

Peter Rivera

Linda Rosenthal

Michael Spano

Fred Thiele Jr.

Matthew Titone

Carmen Arroyo

Vivian Cook

Rhoda Jacobs

The only signatories who do not represent New York City districts are Brodsky and Spano, who represent Westchester, and Thiele, who represents Suffolk.

Aide Ashley Pillsbury wanted us to know that, while Hevesi is opposed to congestion pricing, he is a supporter of transit -- though she said the Times-Ledger story quoted the assemblyman correctly.

The point of Hevesi's remarks, Pillsbury said, was that transit revenues, rather than environmental benefits, are the driving force behind congestion pricing. Pillsbury also said that Hevesi believes congestion pricing should undergo a state environmental review before implementation. She was unaware of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission recommendation that the pricing pilot program be monitored for its environmental impacts, with adjustments made as warranted, but said such impacts should be known beforehand.

When a scheduled phone interview with Hevesi didn't pan out, Pillsbury sent over an op-ed written by the assemblyman and previously published "in several Queens newspapers." Here it is in full.

Manhattan, its residents and its representatives have a serious and legitimate problem to deal with regarding traffic congestion and pollution. While all of the proposed solutions have the potential to negatively impact the areas and the people I represent, I felt it was prudent to wait before solidifying my position, because only comprehensive thinking and cooperation between communities will allow us to tackle large, complex problems like the one Manhattan now faces.

After review of the final proposal, I am now forced to definitively oppose congestion pricing. A number of prominent elected officials have already voiced opposition to this plan including my Councilwoman, Melinda Katz. Some of the issues Councilwoman Katz and others have raised range from mildly troubling to monumentally problematic. These include the fact that there is no guarantee that revenues will be spent on mass transit, the possibility of increased park and riders in outer boroughs and elitist residential parking permit plans that will make people pay to park in their own neighborhoods and keep other citizens out, the fact that New Jersey residents will get a free ride because their tolls will offset the fee, and the fact that the plan hits low and middle income residents exceptionally hard while the more affluent among us will not be impacted.

While these issues gave me pause, it was not until I came upon the fatal flaw in the congestion pricing plan that I was forced to solidify my opposition. I cannot, as a representative of Forest Hills, Middle Village, Rego Park and the surrounding areas, cast a vote in favor of a plan of this magnitude before I am able to definitively assess the environmental impact to these communities. To do so would be the height of irresponsibility because the plan will result in uncalculated levels of increased pollution in the neighborhoods I represent, which in turn, affects the lungs of growing children, complicates or aggravates medical conditions of the elderly and is a contributing factor in respiratory, heart and lung disease.

There is a very simple way for those supporting this plan to address this shortcoming: mandate that a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be conducted in compliance with New York State's Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). SEQRA was written specifically to address major undertakings, such as congestion pricing, with a fact based analysis conducted by qualified experts. Without this information and a realistic understanding of the environmental impact on our neighborhoods, I will not support any plan that has the potential to inflict unknown levels of damage to the environmental well being of my communities and the physical health of the people I represent.

This issue is paramount, and I am stunned by members of the environmental community supporting congestion pricing who are asking us to acquiesce to this plan on the basis of a wink and a nod. The refusal of proponents of this plan to conduct a full review leads me to conclude that either they don't care about the environmental impact on our communities or they won't allow a full EIS because they know that the results will not be good for their cause.

All other deflective or untenable assertions that have been used to try to argue against the need for an EIS WILL NOT SUFFICE. These have included: 1) citing studies on environmental impacts in other cities like London and Stockholm, with facts that can be spun in any direction 2) the promise of an expedited EIS that will take place after I cast my vote in the state legislature or 3) unproven guesswork by an environmental community, who interestingly have consistently demanded SEQRA compliance and EIS's on other major undertakings in New York State but not this one.

Conduct a full Environmental Impact Study, in compliance with all SEQRA requirements, and I will come back to the table ready to discuss all other aspects of congestion pricing in good faith in order to help our neighbors in Manhattan. Until that is done, I will not support congestion pricing.

At the meeting, state Assemblyman Andrew Hevesi (D-Forest Hills) slammed Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, which would charge $8 to passenger vehicles and $21 to trucks entering Manhattan below 60th Street.

"This is a money grab to pay for mass transit," he said. "This is not about the environment."

Hear that, Queens subway and bus commuters? Your assemblyman opposes a program that would fund transit because it would fund transit.

In January Hevesi and his colleague Rory Lancman showed up at a Congestion Mitigation Commission hearing just long enough to knock pricing and demand improvements to public transportation, to quote one attendee, "without explaining where the money would come from or why as state legislators they haven't allocated more money to the MTA themselves."