Streetsblog New York City

The five-year Amtrak authorization that Congress passed last week includes a nice inter-modal touch. It states in no uncertain terms that funding can be spent on making trains accessible for bikes:

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

With Michael Bloomberg expected to announce today that he will seek a third term as mayor, current and would-be electeds are, understandably, in a tizzy.

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

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 

While we wait to see what happens, or doesn't happen, today in Albany, New York Magazine takes a look at four mayoral aspirants and how their positions on congestion pricing may affect their chances of succeeding Michael Bloomberg.

• 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?

Last month Barack Obama released details of a vaguely encouraging transportation platform, pledging investment in rail and "livable communities." Today the Democratic presidential candidate endorsed congestion pricing.

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

Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala (left table) fielded questions this morning from City Council members, including Lew Fidler and Larry Seabrook.

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.

This Monday the Washington Post ran a long feature on page A1, "Letting the Market Drive Transportation," about the Bush administration's attempts to shift financing for roads from the gas tax to user fees, and starve transit in the process. The cast of characters includes a pair of conservative ideologues, Tyler Duvall and D.J. Gribbin, high up in U.S. DOT, as well as Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, who earned the enmity of alternative transportation advocates last summer when she said bikes aren't transportation.

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.

A Quinnipiac Poll released today shows once again that New Yorkers are decidedly in favor of congestion pricing with revenues allocated for mass transit. The latest numbers indicate 59 percent approval vs. 38 percent opposed.

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.