Anthony Weiner, equivocator. Photo: Narita Choudhury/Flickr

But as Reid Pillifant notes in his incisive Observer profile, for all the choreographed kookiness and “Oh no he didn’t” one-liners, the man who would be mayor goes all squishy on an issue that should be the unquestionable province of any worth-his-salt progressive. When he isn’t flat-out “ducking” (his word) questions on this particular topic, here’s what the brash Mr. Weiner has to say:

“Are bike lanes a progressive thing? I know a lot of very progressive people who were very pissed off at the bike lane in their neighborhood … I do believe that I’m pro-bike like a lot of New Yorkers are. I do hear a lot of New Yorkers say to me, ‘I love bikes, I bike all the time,’ or whatever it is, ‘But damn these f’ing bike lanes’ … That’s a weird place for us to be. That means that people who would be naturally part of a constituency are getting peeled away because they don’t feel something is right.”

“I do believe that I’m pro-bike.” That clear enough for you?

If not, there are other Democrats who have a more developed sense of self. In Chicago, Rahm Emanuel has pledged to build out 100 miles of protected bike lanes during his first term as mayor. And Weiner’s colleague from Portland Earl Blumenauer has for years been an outspoken proponent of cycling and sustainable transport in general. “It’s all about choice,” he recently told Grist. “In too many communities, people have to burn a gallon of gas to buy a gallon of milk. That’s not freedom. That’s tyranny.”

See? It’s not that hard to say it in a soundbite. How can a few lanes for bicycles be the source of such fretful vacillation for a pol who represents a city where over half the population does not own cars?

Back in 2009, when Blumenauer biked the city with the Streetfilms crew, we asked: “When will we get to see a rep from New York City walk, bike, or ride the bus with Clarence?” You can still be the one, Congressman Weiner. Just imagine the airtime.

Weiner promptly paid the fines after Roll Call informed him of the findings. As the local political reporters have been quick to point out today, New York’s contingent of parking scofflaw international diplomats may be feeling some schadenfreude at this moment. Weiner released a press release last year about their outstanding parking fines, saying, “It is insulting to all New Yorkers that countries like Yemen, Zimbabwe and Iran owe the City millions in unpaid parking tickets.”

You may now proceed to write punchlines to the set-up, “What’s the difference between Anthony Weiner and Iran’s Ambassador to the United Nations?”

Though he previously seemed to confirm what many suspected — that the Times, in its zeal for a juicy lede, turned an off-the-cuff exchange with Mayor Bloomberg into an indictment of transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan — Weiner, who’s not exactly known for holding his tongue, has declined to elaborate when it comes to the question of whether he would maintain or continue the expansion of the city’s program for safer biking and walking if elected mayor.

Yesterday, during a social media exchange that brought in thousands of questions and comments, Weiner had this to say:

“first it was a joke. but it make the story because we now have open and unnecessary warfare over bike lanes. its a false choice : bike lanes and true civic planning.”

It’s not the same as, “No, I’m not going to tear out any bike lanes,” but Weiner appears to be acknowledging that the current bike lane “controversy” has been trumped up in the press. As for saying that New Yorkers can have both bike infrastructure and “true civic planning” — that’s sort of a no-brainer, right?

More to come, no doubt.

We’ve queried Weiner’s office to find out, but the Times piece, more than anything, should serve as a rallying point for those who support the work of NYCDOT. Whether or not Sadik-Khan has hurt feelings or ruffled feathers, her efforts continue to make city streets safer and more accessible for the majority of New Yorkers. Period.

With the axing of the 34th Street pedestrian plaza, you can bet the haters — the “real New Yorkers” for whom pedestrians and bus riders are obstacles on the other side of the windshield — smell blood in the water. Today’s sneering editorial from the Post calling for Sadik-Khan’s job is likely but a hint of what’s to come.

Several Streetsblog readers have posted their letters to Weiner and the Times. After the jump, read what John Petro of the Drum Major Institute wrote to the congressman. At this pivotal moment, consider adding your voice of reason to what is sure to be an ongoing war of words over the very future of the city.

The Honorable Representative Weiner,

I live in an area in New York City a bit west to your House district, but I wanted to write to express my concern about your comments related to bicycle lanes as they were quoted by the New York Times on Friday afternoon. I know that you have stood up and spoken out in favor of pedestrian and bicycle improvements before, so it is quite possible that your quote was taken out of context. All the same I would like to take the opportunity to discuss exactly why recent improvements to the city s streets are so important.

I am a policy analyst for urban affairs at the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a progressive-leaning think tank based in New York City. My comments today reflect my personal opinion, not those of the Drum Major Institute, but I would like to refer to my position with this organization because I am currently researching a comprehensive paper about street safety in New York City.

Through my research, I have found that about 270 New Yorkers are killed by traffic incidents, on average, every year. For every traffic fatality, there are thousands of life-altering injuries, including the loss of a limb, chronic pain, and immobility. I have found that among our peer cities in Europe, New York City s fatality rate is extremely high. I also want to point out that the threat that street safety poses to the city s general public is on the same level as gun violence. In fact, more people are killed by traffic in New York City than are murdered by guns.

Therefore, street safety is a very serious issue. If there were about 270 fatalities at Kennedy or LaGuardia every year, I’m quite certain that we would feel compelled do something about the situation. And yet, the same number of people is being killed on the city s streets every year.

This is even more alarming given that many our peer cities in Europe have fatality rates half of New York City’s. For example, Paris halved the number of traffic fatalities in the city in the short span of six years. The interventions that reduce fatalities are well known. They aim to limit automobile speeds to between 20 and 30 miles per hour when pedestrians are present. These interventions, such as the wide-spread introduction of protected bicycle lanes, have been associated with reduced fatality rates in the cities that have implemented them, as studies in medical journals such as Injury Prevention have shown.

As a progressive, and one that has been closely watching your admirable statements on the House floor, I hope that you will take these facts into mind when developing your position on bicycle lanes in built-up urban areas. This is simply a matter of life and death, an ethical issue that should be treated with the utmost seriousness. Personally, I do not feel that 270 deaths and thousands of life altering injuries on the city s streets every year are acceptable. Given the fact that they can be avoided, as the experience of European cities shows, I cannot accept that level of violence.

If you have any questions about how I ve arrived at these conclusions I would be happy to share the academic studies and reports by organizations such as the World Health Organization which have concluded: interventions such as the implementation of bicycle lanes have the potential to save hundreds of lives every year in New York City. Thank you.

John Petro

It’s not so much a profile of transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan as a 2,500-word description of her place in New York’s political firmament. The question that drives the piece forward is this: “What is it about Sadik-Khan that gets under the skin of state legislators, City Council members, and other political figures?”

A more revealing piece might have asked: “What is it about a program to make New York a better city for transit, biking and walking that gets under the skin of the city’s political class?”

New York is now seen as a national innovator in progressive transportation policy, emulated by cities all over the country. I would like to know more about why so many elected officials in this supposed bastion of progressivism are so worked up over this development, which has not really affected all that many streets. What is it about some thermoplastic stripes on a street that gives Lew Fidler such agita?

The quote that’s already sending the most ripples has nothing to do with Sadik-Khan herself, and everything to do with the program that’s advanced under her leadership at DOT. It comes from Congress member, congestion pricing foe, and once and future mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner, at a Gracie Mansion dinner last year:

“When I become mayor, you know what I’m going to spend my first year doing?” Mr. Weiner said to Mr. Bloomberg, as tablemates listened. “I’m going to have a bunch of ribbon-cuttings tearing out your [expletive] bike lanes.”

The strange thing about Weiner’s wisecrack is that he’s on the record supporting the expansion of NYC’s bike network.

In 2007, while he was opposing congestion pricing, he was supporting steps (including bike-share) to increase cycling in New York to 10 percent modeshare.

In 2008, while he was toying with a run for mayor, Weiner told the riders assembled at the first Tour de Queens:

We still have to make this city a much more bike-friendly town. For every ten dollars we spend for transportation in this city, nine dollars and 30 cents goes to moving cars around, and the other 70 cents is to help pedestrians and bike riders. We need to change that.

The shout-out to better streets for walking and biking even made it in to Weiner’s proto-platform, before he decided not to make a run at City Hall:

Finally, as evidenced by my work as a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to secure millions of dollars for pedestrian and bicycle transportation options, we need to make our existing infrastructure safe and friendly for alternative modes of moving from Point A to Point B. Integrated neighborhoods — where individuals live, work and play in close proximity to one another, as Jane Jacobs once exalted — demand that we enable those who want to commute without polluting to do so safely and easily.

Interesting that the guy said something totally different at a dinner for New York’s congressional delegation. I think it says more about the audience at Gracie Mansion that night than it does about the person overseeing the changes to NYC’s streets.

[Weiner] said on Monday that making new tolls — which he would set at $4.15 — payable only by non-city residents would be a compromise that could gain traction in Albany and would be a bit like reviving the commuter tax, which was eliminated ten years ago.

He predicted the tolls would raise $391 million a year.

"This is my contribution to trying to solve this problem," Mr. Weiner said in a telephone interview.

Acknowledging that he has fought tolls in the past, he said, "We seem to be slipping from, should we have them, to, how should we have them. And I’m trying to engage that second discussion."

Weiner, who has not spoken with Sheldon Silver or Malcolm Smith about his proposal, is also calling for the MTA to cut administrative costs, post more of its financial data online, and for more power over the agency to be vested in the mayor, rather than the governor. 

It's hard to know where to begin here. If you're a transit rider, how much does it help to have another "plan" muddying the waters? On the other hand, if you're Anthony Weiner, how great is it to jump in at the last second with a plan that carries no political risk whatsoever?

Biggest Setback: After being approved by an unprecedented civic coalition, the mayor and New York City Council, congestion pricing -- the one policy measure that simultaneously reduces traffic congestion while raising money for mass transit and livable streets -- died in an Albany backroom without even a vote.

Lobbyists of the Year: Walter McCaffrey and the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free (below). It turns out New York City government is controlled by a handful of Queens Democrats, suburban state legislators and the Automobile Club of New York.

How Not to Lobby a State Legislator: Brooklyn State Senator Martin Malave Dilan's car is towed during a congestion pricing meeting with city officials.

Most Sociopathic Elected Official: Bronx State Senator Jeff Klein nearly crushes a cyclist with his black Mercedes and then tells him, "Get your hands off my car, you f*#king a55hole." Unfortunately for Sen. Klein, this particular cyclist happens to run a pretty robust media operation.

Most Disappointing Elected Officials: During the congestion pricing debate, three State Assemblymembers stood out for their enormous potential to exert leadership and their utter inability or unwillingness to do so. Deborah Glick, Joan Millman and Hakeem Jeffries all represent districts that would have overwhelmingly benefited from New York City's congestion pricing plan. Yet, Glick could only find reasons to oppose it. Millman decided she supported it -- two hours after the proposal was killed by her Democratic Assembly colleagues. And Jeffries had the gall to demand increased subway service on the G line three weeks after helping to eliminate the revenue source that might have paid for it. If only New York City were represented in the state Assembly by an aggressive, attentive, self-aggrandizing politician like...

Elected Official of the Year: You've got to hand it to Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky -- he works hard for his constituents and supporters. Unfortunately for New York City's traffic-choked neighborhoods, beleaguered transit riders and asthmatic kids, his constituents are the metropolitan region's wealthiest car commuters and his supporters own a bunch of parking garages in Manhattan. While New York City's legislators rolled over and played dead, Richard Brodsky worked his butt off to make sure that New York City's congestion pricing plan -- a plan approved by the Mayor, City Council and a state commission -- died a quiet death in the Assemly's Democratic conference. Brodsky did incredible damage to New York City in 2008 but he also showed us what effective representation in Albany might look like.

Worst Elected Official: Rochester Assemblyman and transportation committee chairman David Gantt continued his decade-long effort to deny New York City the ability to deploy automated traffic enforcement systems on its streets. He loosened up a little bit though. This year he introduced legislation that would allow counties outside of New York City to use red light cameras -- as long as they purchased the technology from a Swedish firm represented by one of his cronies. Shocking? Not really. Just another day in Albany.

Most Opinions Fewest Solutions Award: From now on, this will be called the Anthony Weiner Award.

Most Moronic Idea From Albany: State Senators Jeff Klein and Eric Adams put on their serious, fighting-for-the-people faces and proposed suspending tolls on New York City bridges and tunnels and giving drivers a $200 gas tax rebate ahead of Memorial Day weekend. Not planning to burn lots of gasoline for your summer holiday? These two have nothing for you.

They're talking about Barack Obama, why car-pooling doesn't seem to work in New York City, and saving the MTA in three separate segments.

Too bad Weiner's not sticking around for the MTA piece to talk about his plan to raise the federal gas tax to pay for transit improvements. 

Photo: Ben Fried

• The Ravitch Commission offered "the same old answer of tax and tax and tax again." He was pressed repeatedly to suggest alternative funding sources, but did not even mention an increased federal contribution, as he has in the past.
• He called instead for greater financial transparency ("Let's open the books of the MTA") and efficiency ("Cost-cutting has got to be part of the discussion"). The Ravitch Commission concurs that the MTA should be more open about its finances and smarter in its spending, while also noting that "we do not believe that the budget deficit can be eliminated solely through administrative and managerial actions. Nor can the budget be balanced through major reductions in service."
• "Who is the MTA Board? And why is so much of our future outside the hands of the voters?" he asked. An hour earlier, Ravitch had told the press that the process of increasing the fare had become "a political circus" that "produces distorted results. Putting off fare increases has been a contributing factor to where we are today."
  
• "This document wasn't even available on the internet." When a reporter pointed out that the plan was, in fact, available on the internet [PDF], Weiner said something to the effect that it was unfair for one class of people (policymakers and the press, supposedly) to have access to it before the general public.
  
• "The city and state have spoken loudly already." If Weiner is referring to congestion pricing, the city has approved the idea, and the state legislature did not deem it necessary to stake out a position in a public vote.
  
• "Ravitch is basically an MTA insider. We need some outside voices." We're about to hear a whole chorus of those.
  

Coverage of this transit crisis brought to you by Toyota.

Congressman Anthony Weiner and John Liu, chair of the City Council Transportation Committee, competed this weekend for best populist sound bite. Said Liu: "East River bridge tolls get bandied about every time there is a fiscal crisis. The mayor tried to impose them during the dire fiscal straits in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, and even then it went over like a lead balloon. This time it will sink equally fast -- to the bottom of the East River."

And here is Weiner's entry: "Tolls on the East River bridges are just congestion pricing by another name. It is a regressive tax on the middle class. It's a way to increase the traffic burden, and frankly it's simply unfair to residents outside of Manhattan."

Naturally, the pandering pols didn't have to go looking for microphones, as reporters also fanned out across the city for quotes from beseiged drivers and doomsaying business owners, who obliged by "blasting" those who would "drop the hammer on everyone" by "slapping" on the "wallet-busting" tolls.

As for funding alternatives, coverage included Liu's reference to an unspecified "broad-based revenue source." And Weiner? As usual, the congressman was all talk, no stick.

Image: WCBS-TV

NONMOTORIZED TRANSPORTATION ACCESS AND STORAGE. -- Grants under this chapter may be used to provide access to rolling stock for nonmotorized transportation, including bicycles, and recreational equipment, and to provide storage capacity in trains for such transportation, equipment, and other luggage, to ensure passenger safety.

Queens Congressman Anthony Weiner got the language into the bill after prompting from Transportation Alternatives. President Bush has not yet signed it into law, but according to the Times, the White House has signaled that he will.

"In the past, Amtrak has claimed that because the funding bill did not explicitly say that the money may be spent on bikes that they couldn't make trains bike-accessible," says T.A.'s Noah Budnick. "Now it should be clear to the most bureaucratic bureaucrat: Federal money for Amtrak can be spent on bike-accessibility."

The bill does not mandate bike-accessibility, so riders will have to contact Amtrak to put it on its agenda. I know I'd like to bring a bike on board the next time I visit my grandmother in DC. A SmartBike location right at Union Station would also do the trick.

Photo of Caltrain bike car near Palo Alto: richardmasoner/Flickr

While few two-term City Council incumbents seem to support term limits, several have their sights set on other offices, and many say they are leery of changing the rules to keep themselves and the mayor around for an additional four years. Others who are known to be running to succeed Bloomberg tend to be less conflicted. Said a spokesperson for Congressman Anthony Weiner: "It's illegal to run for a third term."

And what of livable streets advocates? The Wall Street Journal today cites unnamed enviros who see a third Bloomberg term as a means to continue work on PlaNYC, and the prospect of Janette Sadik-Khan resetting DOT countdown clocks come January 2010 is an enticing one for sure.

With no clear livable streets favorite among the 2009 mayoral contenders (Tony Avella, anyone?), would you support another term for the Bloomberg administration?

Photo: Brad Aaron

Move over Weinermobile.

Queens Congressman and 2009 mayoral hopeful Anthony Weiner released a manifesto of sorts yesterday. "Keys to the City" lays out his plan, in broad strokes, to "keep New York the capital of the middle class." Toward the end, Weiner touches on transportation policy. While he remains opposed to congestion pricing, he comes out in favor of making "alternative modes" more viable:

Finally, as evidenced by my work as a member of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to secure millions of dollars for pedestrian and bicycle transportation options, we need to make our existing infrastructure safe and friendly for alternative modes of moving from Point A to Point B. Integrated neighborhoods -- where individuals live, work and play in close proximity to one another, as Jane Jacobs once exalted -- demand that we enable those who want to commute without polluting to do so safely and easily.

It will be interesting to see how the "close proximity" pitch plays to the anti-development, down-zoning crowd that is certain to be an energetic part of the 2009 election. The language is still pretty vague and not attached to any specific plans, but a candidate who raises an idea can then be expected to elaborate on it.

Nearly 500 people braved the mid-90s heat yesterday to take part in the inaugural Tour de Queens, and Steetfilms' Clarence Eckerson was there to document the occasion.

In addition to discovering the borough's best bike shop, viewers will see Congressman Anthony Weiner, stalwart defender of car commuters, deliver the following message of support to the crowd of cyclists:

We still have to make this city a much more bike-friendly town. For every ten dollars we spend for transportation in this city, nine dollars and 30 cents goes to moving cars around, and the other 70 cents is to help pedestrians and bike riders. We need to change that.

With higher gas prices pushing drivers onto the city's trains and buses, the Daily News today blasted Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assembly Dems for passing up the billions of dollars that congestion pricing would have brought to MTA coffers. 

The trends prove that the theory of congestion pricing was valid: When the cost of driving rises, people actually do switch to mass transit.

Had Silver and the Assembly passed congestion pricing, as the City Council did, the MTA would already be using that $354 million in federal aid (which has now been disbursed about the country) to make more bus and subway seats available.

Then, the congestion fee would have given the MTA a half-billion dollars a year to pay for big projects like completing the Second Ave. subway and extending LIRR service to Grand Central Terminal. When that money vanished, the MTA's building plan was eviscerated.

The agency does not have the money it needs to keep the transit system in good repair, let alone to expand. Gov. Paterson has asked the estimable Richard Ravitch, a former MTA chairman, to hunt up cash.

He'll find no easy fixes. Option 1: Raise taxes. Option 2: Raise fares. Option 3: Congestion pricing.

Pricing foes must be waiting for Ravitch to make the next move, because we've heard virtually nothing from them since the plan was smothered behind closed doors over a month ago -- other than demands for improved transit service.

But what of Brodsky, Glick, and Weiner? Or Bearak and McCaffrey? Where are they now that their storied working class drivers, priced out of their cars, must rely on a beleaguered transit system that doesn't have the fiscal boost promised by congestion pricing?

Oh, right. They're stuck in traffic.

Graphic: New York Daily News 

• City Council Member Tony Avella: "[Avella is] an obscure pol, and attacking CP allowed him to grab attention while promoting his anti-tax agenda. But he may have gone around the bend, ranting about routine horse-trading for council members’ votes."
• Comptroller Bill Thompson: "The city comptroller has been mildly supportive of congestion pricing, though he’s always been careful to attach caveats ... Why take a bold stance on something that might never happen?"
• City Council Speaker Christine Quinn: "[S]he used last week’s vote to demonstrate leadership on a contentious issue ... Plus, wrapping her arms so tightly around CP also earned Quinn a big chit with Bloomberg..."
• Congressman Anthony Weiner: "[I]n the campaign, he’ll cast congestion pricing as Manhattan-centric and elitist, like Quinn. Weiner was thrilled to see her so far out front."

And don't forget Marty Markowitz, whose most notable contribution to the congestion pricing discussion has probably been his vehement opposition to new bridge tolls. 

On a related note, the Daily Politics reports that Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey issued a not-so-subtle warning on the radio this morning that state pols will be judged on where they come down, and could be supported or opposed accordingly in future races.

Whether or not the plan passes in Albany, how will congestion pricing influence your vote for the next mayor?

In town for a speech and fundraising events, Obama was introduced at Cooper Union by Mayor Bloomberg this morning.

WNYC reports:

Speaking not far from Wall Street, Barack Obama told a Manhattan audience that the US needs better oversight of national financial markets, help for financially stressed homeowners and an additional $30 billion stimulus package.

REPORTER: Later, in an exclusive interview with WNYC, Senator Obama said he supports congestion pricing.

OBAMA: I think Mayor Bloomberg's proposal for congestion pricing is a thoughtful and innovative approach to the problem.

REPORTER: Obama said congestion pricing should not replace federal funding of mass transit.

Maybe this will take some more air out of the right-wing conspiracy theory, propagated most vocally by Congressman Anthony Weiner.

In the interest of equal time (sort of), Bill Clinton has also expressed approval for pricing -- and cycling.

Photo: AP

At the first part of today's congestion pricing hearings, Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala, director of the Office for Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, fielded questions from the City Council's nine-member State and Federal Legislation Committee. Several other Council members, including Speaker Christine Quinn, were also there to ask questions, and the chamber was packed with supporters of both pro- and anti-pricing groups.

The hearing followed word this morning that State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno has introduced a congestion pricing bill in Albany -- the same legislation that Governor Paterson announced on Friday, which is based on the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. Quinn began the proceedings with a short but full-throated speech in support of pricing, saying, "The benefits so far outweigh any of the negatives, the concept of inaction is simply, in my opinion, not an option. We have to seize this moment to create a sustainable revenue source for mass transit." Then, after Sadik-Khan delivered her comments (which got big applause), the Council members started popping questions.

Two Council members who have not declared a position on pricing took part in the Q&A during the time I was there to observe. One was Larry Seabrook, a Bronx Democrat who has been identified as a possible swing vote on the committee. "How are we going to say these projects won't stay on the drawing board for another 30 years?" he asked, referring to projects in the MTA capital plan targeted for the Bronx.

Sadik-Khan assured him about the lock box language in the current bill, adding, "I don't see any other way to fund the projects that your district so desperately needs without the revenues from the congestion pricing program." Seabrook repeated his position that the lock box must be ironclad, but appeared satisfied that his concerns had been addressed, wrapping up by thanking the commissioner for considering his district.

The other undecided Council member was Tish James, who represents Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. James first asked if low-income New Yorkers, especially those who have to make trips to Manhattan hospitals, would receive any discount under the current plan. Aggarwala responded by pointing out that most New Yorkers rely on transit or for-hire vehicles to make hospital trips. The transit riders will receive better service, he said, and cab fare will be lower as a result of reduced travel times, yielding a de facto drop in the cost of hospital trips.

James also reiterated Anthony Weiner's claim that pricing will give the federal government an excuse to reduce transit funding for New York, but seemed to back down from that position after Sadik-Khan and Aggarwala rebutted it. "What gave me consolation is that [the Bush] administration is a lame duck and their days are numbered," James said.

Stay tuned for more highlights, and don't forget tonight's hearing, when the council will receive public testimony.

The article tells how this troika came up with the plan to seed pricing in five pilot cities, and delves into their ulterior motives:

For Gribbin, Duvall and Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, the goal is not just to combat congestion but to upend the traditional way transportation projects are funded in this country. They believe that tolls paid by motorists, not tax dollars, should be used to construct and maintain roads.

They and other political appointees have spent the latter part of President Bush's two terms laboring behind the scenes to shrink the federal role in road-building and public transportation.

On the face of it, the story meshes with some of the anti-pricing arguments New Yorkers have been hearing, especially from Representative Anthony Weiner, who has called pricing a conservative ploy to de-fund federal support for transit projects. That position has drawn ridicule from Mayor Bloomberg as he stumps for pricing, captured in the Observer's account of yesterday's Crain's New York Business Breakfast Forum:

“I have nothing against any one congressman [but] that is one of the stupider things I’ve ever heard said. Forget the fact that he’s one of the congressmen who’s supposed to get the money for us. The Democrats control -- his party controls Congress -- what’s he talking about? Number two, by that argument, we should cut all the taxes, which some people would like, and then just sit here and wait to give us all the money back.

The Post story has already provided fodder for press accounts favorable to Weiner, like this Daily Politics post, which quotes the Queens congressman:

"I'm interested in solutions, not name calling. I respect the Mayor, but I don't think the evidence supports trusting President Bush and his cabinet here. In Washington the Administration tries to cut money to roads and to cut mass transit, and then they come to New York City and say they won't. I'm concerned that New Yorkers will get the short end of the stick." 

On close examination, however, the Post article omits several details that would have led to a different conclusion, namely: There is no inherent connection between pricing and reduced funding for transit.

To begin with, the article fails to note that pricing enjoys widespread support from transportation policy experts who, unlike the officials it profiles, believe pedestrians, bikes, and transit should have priority over cars. In New York, we've also seen green groups like the League of Conservation Voters and Environmental Defense rally to support pricing. And the two cities to initiate pricing most recently -- Stockholm and "Red Ken" Livingstone's London -- did so under left-leaning leadership.

Clearly, there are (at least) two ways to tell the story of congestion pricing: one is to say traffic will be mitigated by allocating scarce road space more efficiently; the other narrative is about reclaiming city streets from the private auto, making motorists pay the cost of their own pollution while funding alternatives that make it easier for people to get around without a car.

These two ways of viewing pricing are not mutually exclusive. However, the Post story shows how the Bush administration has conflated the first narrative with an anti-transit agenda, and with their belief in privatizing roads. But the article neglects what's been going on in New York. Here, the advocates pushing pricing forward subscribe mostly to the second view, and the City and the Traffic Mitigation Commission have proposed using the revenue to support mass transit and livable streets.

Yes, local pricing advocates want the $354 million that Peters has been dangling in front of New York. But so what? In ten months she'll be gone, and so will Gribbin and Duvall and their agenda. The real meat of transportation policy for the next five years, the highway re-authorization bill, will be decided after they leave. Congestion pricing could play a significant part in that bill, and it could go hand in hand with more money for bikes and transit if the story gets told right.

Rather than letting the Bush administration frame the issue, our elected leadership -- especially people like Anthony Weiner and the rest of New York's congressional delegation -- needs to push the Livable Streets narrative of congestion pricing down in DC. Who has the vision to step out in front of this issue and define it as truly progressive transportation policy? Elected officials from Detroit and Phoenix certainly aren't going to do it.

Here's the breakdown by borough:

• Manhattan: 73% - 23%
  
• Bronx: 57% - 39%
  
• Brooklyn: 51% - 46%
  
• Queens: 58% - 40%
  
• Staten Island: 55% - 42%

In keeping with previous polls, 89 percent say traffic congestion is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem. The majority still isn't convinced, though, that pricing funds will used for public transportation improvements, according to Quinnipiac.

Only 43 percent of voters say it is "very likely" or "somewhat likely" that congestion pricing funds will be used to improve mass transit, while 54 percent say this is "not too likely" or "not likely at all."

Not sure how it squares with the approval ratings above, but the poll also says that, by a 58 to 36 percent margin, "New York City voters agree that congestion pricing would unfairly tax people who live outside Manhattan." Manhattan voters disagree, 52 to 43 percent. Says Q Polling Institute Director Maurice Carroll: “Again, it’s Manhattan against the world."

The poll also shows Police Commissioner Ray Kelly as the top choice for mayor at this point, followed by Congressman Anthony Weiner and Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz.