Streetsblog New York City

Late last week, Brooklyn City Council member and current candidate for public advocate Bill de Blasio released this statement on MTA funding:

"In just two months, New York City commuters will face drastic fare hikes and service cuts unless our state government solves the MTA’s budget crisis. Time is running out and Albany needs to act now. In light of these troubling circumstances, I am supporting Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver’s proposal to combine a payroll tax with a toll on the East and Harlem River bridges set at two dollars, the same amount as a subway fare. Final legislation must permanently keep these tolls at the level of subway fares and the revenue generated should be used to maintain and improve outer-borough transportation services. In the past I have supported several different solutions to this problem, from reinstating the commuter tax to increasing driver registration fees. Now, above all, I believe Albany needs to fix this problem before straphangers across our city are left carrying the burden by themselves."

De Blasio's support of bridge tolls is notable for a few reasons. As far as we know, he's the sole City Council member to come out in favor of new tolls, when he could just as easily have remained silent. And considering his opposition to congestion pricing, de Blasio's stance on East River tolls is all the more surprising.

The timing is also significant. Now that Albany's suburban contingent has put its foot down on the proposed payroll tax, could de Blasio help revive Silver's toll plan, rousing key senators like Velmanette Montgomery to do the right thing?

Meanwhile, candidates for de Blasio's council seat have also weighed in. Brad Lander, Josh Skaller and Gary Reilly have all called on Albany to take action, with Lander and Reilly specifically endorsing East River bridge tolls.

Tonight, the MTA will host a public hearing in Brooklyn, where the agency will undoubtedly hear from scores of residents terrified by the prospect of elimination or reduction of service on several of the borough's bus and subway lines. The self-appointed leader of the charge will be candidate for public advocate and current City Council Member Bill de Blasio, who sent out this e-mail blast ahead of tonight's meeting (via Gowanus Lounge):

Make Sure Your Voice is Heard. Tell the MTA these cuts and hikes are unacceptable! Riders in this City already fund a disproportionate amount of the transit system, and the MTA’s proposed service cuts would prove dire for millions of working New Yorkers. Despite tough economic times, straphangers should not be forced to bail out the MTA. Tell the MTA there is another solution to this problem – reinstating a commuter tax could create similar revenue without placing the entire burden on our City’s residents. Join Bill at the MTA hearing on January 28th in standing up for straphangers.

Standing up for straphangers? Is that what de Blasio was doing when he voted against congestion pricing less than a year ago? 

And de Blasio certainly knows the MTA has no control over whether or not there's a commuter tax, as surely as he hopes voters don't see any connection between today's "unacceptable" situation and his own failure to get behind measures like congestion pricing. Even now, he can't bring himself to come out in support of the Ravitch Commission's recommended tolls on East River bridges.

Instead, let's attack the MTA on the commuter tax. That's some real leadership, Bill.

Last month, as school-age volunteers presented 10,001 signatures in support of a car-free Prospect Park, three City Council Members -- David Yassky, Bill de Blasio and Letitia James -- issued a letter to Mayor Bloomberg requesting a three-month car-free pilot program. The full text appears below.

The latest push to remove auto traffic from the park has prompted Brooklyn Community Boards 7 and 14, along with Assembly Member Jim Brennan (718-788-7221), to demand an environmental review before such a trial is implemented.

In other car-free parks news, Mobilized Moms will lead a Central Park rally today at 4:30 at 72nd St. & Central Park West. The Moms are expected to be joined by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and City Council Member Gale Brewer.

Dear Mayor Bloomberg, 

As Brooklyn representatives, we ask you to explore a simple and inexpensive policy change that could greatly improve the lives of our constituents -- to study the possibility of making Prospect Park car-free with a three-month car-free trial. We call upon your office, the New York City Department of Transportation and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation to implement a three-month pilot program to close the Prospect Park drives to vehicular traffic and to study the effect of this policy on park use and traffic on local streets. 

Gary Reilly, the Brooklynite whose petition drive for subway service improvements drew thousands of signatures last summer, is running to replace term-limited Bill de Blasio on the City Council. A Carroll Gardens resident and neighborhood blogger, Reilly has made transit the centerpiece of his campaign.

"For me, investment in transportation infrastructure is the key to the continued success and prosperity of our city," Reilly tells Streetsblog. "Within my own corner of Brooklyn, I envision robust F/V and G service along the Culver Line, with express and local service. I see a Smith/Ninth Street Station that is ADA compliant. And I see better bus service, particularly along a re-imagined B61 line, perhaps split into two routes to better insure against disruptions."

Reilly, a 33-year-old attorney, says he would work for a "sustainable funding regime" for citywide transit and livable streets infrastructure and initiatives, including curbside parking reform and "some form of congestion pricing." If elected, he says, "there will be at least one loud and clear voice for transit, for pedestrians and for cyclists on the Council."

As noted in today's New York Times, the 2009 campaign season is well underway, and Reilly has a crowded field to contend with in District 39. CB6 District Manager Craig Hammerman, Pratt Center for Community Development Director Brad Lander, Central Brooklyn Independent Democrats President Josh Skaller, and Gowanus Canal Community Development Corporation Executive Director Bob Zuckerman are also vying for the seat. (The Brooklyn Paper has short profiles of all five.) All of the candidates are Democrats. All except Reilly live in Park Slope.

Photo: Tom Callan/The Brooklyn Paper

Yesterday, a reader sent along City Council Member Bill de Blasio's letter to constituents [PDF] explaining his "Nay" vote on congestion pricing. Plenty of campaign fodder here, should someone who really believes in funding transit, bike, and pedestrian improvements challenge de Blasio in the 2009 race for Brooklyn Borough President. (His known opponent, Charles Barron, also voted no.) A few choice excerpts:

This plan, sadly, does not ensure that we will see mass transit improvements and expansions where they are most needed -- in the outer boroughs. The "lock box" attached to the congestion pricing plan only guarantees that the funding is used for transit improvements in general -- not for improvements in Brooklyn or the other boroughs.

So BRT on Nostrand Avenue, increased capacity on the C train, and dozens of new buses on the B41 line -- those transit improvements don't count? What about the 28 station rehabilitations Brooklyn is slated to receive in the MTA capital plan? According to the logic of this letter, the plan isn't worth the paper it's printed on unless every borough has its own transit lock box.

Besides, take away $4.5 billion in funding, and every subway rider in all five boroughs will feel the pinch. If fares go up in the next 18 months, let's see de Blasio try to pull off the same type of grandstanding he performed in December, when he unveiled a "Subway Riders' Bill of Rights" during the run-up to the last fare hike. Did we miss the 11th Amendment -- "Free trips for motorists over East River crossings"? You can't claim the mantle of straphangers' champion after voting against the best chance to stave off a huge funding gap at the MTA.

De Blasio, Jeffries, Gerson, Millman: Will they tarnish their environmental records by voting against pricing?

The New York League of Conservation Voters announced earlier this month that it is forming a new political action committee called Climate Action PAC. Sitting at the top of the PAC's legislative agenda: getting congestion pricing passed.

When it comes to climate impact, said NYLCV spokesman Dan Hendrick, "congestion pricing is the most sweeping proposal on the table; it's head and shoulders above the rest of what's out there." The Climate Action PAC will spend about $300,000 on elections this fall (you can donate online), to be divvied up among six races for seats in the state Legislature, Hendrick projects. Pricing votes will also be the number one factor that NYLCV considers in making its next round of endorsements for state legislators and City Council members.

"We've signaled that this congestion pricing legislation could give us a quantum leap in terms of improved mass transit and cleaner air," said Hendrick. "We're not only going to weigh this heavily when making endorsements, but how people vote on congestion pricing will weigh very heavily in how we use the PAC money."

Care of the Observer Politicker comes this video from earlier today. Speaking at City Hall, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn turns around a question from a reporter on whether the MTA can be trusted with congestion pricing revenues, given that promised upgrades tied to the recent fare increase will be delayed. Quinn calls the MTA's actions "outrageous," and suggests the congestion pricing lock box will give the city more control over the transit agency.

Said Quinn:

"To me, this is a strong reason why we need congestion pricing. It's a reason why we need a separate, sustainable revenue stream targeted at capital expansion of mass transit in the City of New York ... We need that money to go somewhere separate, where the MTA's board is not the final and only authority over it."

The Observer's Azi Paybarah says Quinn is "optimistic" that pricing will get approval by the council.

Standing behind Quinn is the undecided Bill De Blasio. 

Borough Prez Candidate De Blasio Qualifies His Opposition to Congestion Pricing

A crowd of nearly 200 filed into the auditorium at St. Francis College in downtown Brooklyn last night, ready to pop a few questions to DOT about residential parking programs. But first, three of Brooklyn's City Council members gave some of their first public comments since the Congestion Mitigation Commission delivered its final recommendations last week.

David Yassky kept his speech short, pretty much sticking to the sentiment that RPP is good because it will "give neighborhood residents first crack at the parking spots on residential streets."

Tish James, who had previously expressed support for congestion pricing if RPP was attached, staked out the position that Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, and Prospect Heights -- her district -- should all be covered by RPP, regardless of what happens to pricing. (This foreshadowed a major theme of the evening -- fear that one's neighborhood would be left outside looking in when the RPP boundaries are drawn.) James then ran through her "wish list related to congestion pricing," which ranged far and wide, including: capital improvements to transit ("the G train sucks"), taxi stands, more bike lanes, ending placard abuse, and re-instating the commuter tax. It wasn't exactly clear at the end where she now stands on pricing itself.

Bill de Blasio opened by saying, "I need to see complete, tangible, absolute progress on RPP before I can think of supporting congestion pricing." He then proposed that RPP zones should be allowed to sprout all over the city in neighborhoods near subway lines, to deter park-and-ride behavior. At one point he delivered some provocative rhetoric about weaning ourselves from the automobile, preparing for a different future, and changing our habits. But his verdict on pricing? "We don't expect the current plan on the table to pass."

Hot on the heels of this week's neighborhood parking workshops, DOT and several members of Brooklyn's City Council delegation are hosting a forum about residential parking permits. An RPP program with teeth could go a long way towards curbing traffic in residential neighborhoods, and this event is a big opportunity for livable streets advocates to make their voices heard. The forum will take place Monday, 7 p.m. at the St. Francis College auditorium on Remsen Street in Brooklyn Heights. Brownstoner has the details:

The town hall-style meeting will focus on whether the permits, which would probably cost a small annual fee, could help alleviate curbside parking problems and traffic in Downtown. Council Members David Yassky, Laetitia James and Bill de Blasio have organized the event, which is expected to draw several hundred residents, and DOT commish Janette Sadik-Khan is scheduled to attend. Councilman de Blasio sees the forum as the first step in developing parking strategies for all of Brooklyn. "Lack of a coherent parking strategy has been an ongoing problem in Brooklyn," de Blasio told us. "I think this forum represents a step in the right direction, and I look forward to extending this conversation to communities throughout the borough."

As John Kaehny wrote on Streetsblog last month, bringing a different perspective to these events can change the tenor of the debate:

One person can make a big difference at these workshops.

At the first round of workshops held late last year, I was the only non-car owner at my table of eight at Harlem's Alhambra Ballroom. But me being there changed the discussion from one of endless demands for more free parking space -- which I heard at another table, as my group was being organized -- to a more considered discussion of the implications of DOT's proposed changes.

By the end, a majority of the motorists at my table supported DOT's suggested changes. More than half of the households in New York City do not have a car. But non-motorists should have a say in the parking changes that affect them as bicyclists, bus riders, pedestrians and people who breathe the air. Take a couple of hours and show up. Your voice will be heard.

Council member Lew Fidler delivers his Tax & Tunnel plan to the Commission.

Spencer Wilking reports:

The city's traveling road show of community advocates, local politicians and concerned residents, otherwise known as New York City's Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, stopped in Brooklyn Thursday night as part of its whirlwind seven county tour.

At the hearing Brooklyn politicians delivered a resounding rejection of Mayor Bloomberg's plan for congestion pricing. From the Assembly (Joan Millman and Hakeem Jefferies) to the State Senate (Velmanette Montgomery and Carl Kruger) to the City Council (Vincent Gentile and Lew Fidler), to a candidate for Borough President (Bill de Blasio) they strode to the podium and railed against the plan calling it "Manhattan-centric" and bad for Brooklyn. Except for Councilmember David Yassky (who with great dexterity managed to support congestion pricing AND agree with his fellow Brooklyn politicos), endorsements for congestion pricing were left to residents and advocates. Council member Leticia James came close to supporting it but just couldn't do it, "at this time."

Brooklyn politicians voiced concern that their borough would become a "park and ride" community for those headed across the East River, clogging already crowded streets. They demanded the inclusion of residential parking permits to spurn this practice. Likewise, the usual argument that congestion pricing is an unfair tax on poor and working class families was cited more than once.

"I don't want to be known as an Assembly person from the largest parking lot in New York City," said Assembly member Joan Millman. "This will punish hardworking New Yorkers who live in the outer boroughs."

Millman, whose district is, literally, the tip of Long Island's traffic funnel into Lower Manhattan, crushed on a daily basis by regional through-traffic, went on to say that buildings, not vehicles were the true culprits of air pollution.

Instead of the current congestion pricing plan, politicians demanded better bus routes, more water taxis, advancements in the hybrid car, HOV lanes and a harbor freight tunnel for trucks. The need for improved subway service was a common lament, summed up by Council member Tish James, "For the record: The G train sucks."

Specific funding for these ventures was left mostly ambiguous, or as Council member Vincent Gentile put it: "The State legislature can find some options."

Read more...