Governor Andrew Cuomo "eviscerated" the transit lockbox bill last night, according to the office of bill sponsor James Brennan. The governor doesn't want New Yorkers to know when the state steals from the MTA. Michael Nagle/Getty Images via Times Union

Governor Andrew Cuomo and the leadership of the state legislature added insult to injury last night, neutering the transit lockbox bill even after they put hundreds of millions in dedicated transit revenue at risk. While lockbox language did make it into the omnibus legislation passed last night, the governor’s office stripped out the meaningful provisions and added a giant loophole.

“It’s eviscerating our bill,” said Lorrie Smith, legislative director for Assembly Member James Brennan, the lockbox’s sponsor along with State Senator Marty Golden. “It completely removes the impact statement requirement and it allows the governor to declare an emergency and take whatever money he wants subject to legislative removal, which is what we have now.”

Since no law short of a constitutional amendment could completely stop future legislatures from raiding the MTA’s dedicated funds, the most important provision in the lockbox bill required the creation of a “diversion impact statement” whenever a raid was commenced. The statement would have clearly detailed how much was stolen from transit riders and estimated the impact on transit riders’ fares and service. That sunshine provision — which ought to have been a favorite of a governor who campaigned on transparency — was stripped out last night.

Smith said that Brennan, the bill’s sponsor, was surprised to find the bill destroyed. He only saw the language yesterday afternoon, she said, hours before the bill was passed.

What motivated the last-minute changes? “This is what the governor negotiated,” Smith said. “We really don’t know.”

Smith promised that Brennan would reintroduce his bill in its full form next year.

Coming on top of the massive cut to the MTA payroll tax — a move which could cost the MTA up to $320 million dollars a year over time — the effective veto of the lockbox bill caps off a political deal that has threatened transit service at every turn.

Transit advocates, good government groups, labor unions and construction associations all blasted the dismantling of the lockbox bill. ”Our groups are disappointed that Governor Cuomo, Senate Majority Leader Skelos and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver used this special session to effectively nullify the provisions of the transit ‘lockbox’ bill that was overwhelmingly passed during the regular session,” said a statement released jointly by the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Citizens Committee for NYC, Common Cause/NY, the General Contractors Association, the League of Women Voters of NY State, NRDC, the NYS Council of Machinists, NYLCV, Reinvent Albany, the Straphangers Campaign, Transportation Alternatives, TSTC and TWU Local 100. ”We do not support the substitute legislation passed in this special session. It does not constrain future raids on transit funds and deletes the requirement that the impacts of the diversion of transit dedicated funds be reported.”

It’s worth remembering that every member of the State Assembly and every member of the State Senate voted for the original, stronger lockbox legislation. Even without a strong lockbox, the members of the legislature shouldn’t be allowed to renege on their stated support for keeping dedicated transit funding dedicated to transit.

Wrote Brennan in an email to Streetsblog:

I understand the concerns raised about my idea of compelling Ratner to provide off-street parking. I agree completely that the correct policy is not to encourage automobiles coming to the area, so I am dropping any notion of initiating legislation on this subject. You should know that my intention was not to increase parking, but to compensate for the fact that the Empire State Development Corporation eliminated Ratner’s obligation to provide 2300 units of underground parking at the arena as part of the deal to delay completion of the project until 2035. My focus next session will be to find incentives for mass transit.

That’s encouraging news. Atlantic Yards is going up at the site of Brooklyn’s biggest transit hub — precisely the space not to induce more auto trips with government-mandated parking. It’s good to see Brennan on board with efforts to ensure that as many people as possible take the subway, the bus or the Long Island Railroad to get there.

Assembly Member James Brennan wants the state government to force more parking into Atlantic Yards. Image: NYS Assembly.

Brennan is working on legislation that would force Forest City Ratner to build more off-street parking at the Atlantic Yards site, as was first reported in the Park Slope Patch. Currently, an 1,100 parking space surface lot is slated for the site.

Tonice Sgrignoli, a legislative aide for Brennan, said the legislation is still being researched and no details are available at this point. According to Sgrignoli, ESDC eliminated a requirement to build underground off-street parking that had been in an earlier agreement with Forest City Ratner and this legislation would likely undo that change.

When Streetsblog asked why Brennan thought that Atlantic Yards should have more parking in the first place, Sgrignoli replied that “Anyone who’s ever tried to drive a car and park it in that area will understand why it’s important to provide parking.”

Hopefully, Brennan himself has a more sophisticated understanding of parking policy. As former Boerum Hill Association president Jo Ann Simon said, no conceivable amount of off-street parking is going to free up on-street spaces so long as they are cheaper than going to a garage and available to anybody. “If people drive there, they will always try and find something free on the street,” she said. What happens on-street — many in the area, including Simon, have long pushed for residential parking permits — Simon said, “is entirely irrelevant to whether there should be more off-street parking to serve the arena.”

Simon’s argument is borne out by the reality at Yankee Stadium. There, despite a whopping 9,000 off-street spaces, area residents still complain that on-street parking is impossible on game day, according to a Crain’s report.

Moreover, building extra parking will simply mean that more people are able to drive to the area instead. “Brennan’s proposal to compel more off-street parking in one of New York City’s most transit-accessible locations betrays a terrible lack of understanding regarding transportation and mobility,” said University of Pennsylvania parking expert Rachel Weinberger. “His idea will invite more traffic through his district, more traffic in adjoining districts, and by requiring all of that parking, other development is preempted.”

Agreed Simon, “You induce drivers if there is parking there.”

Steven Higashide of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, which has analyzed the plans for Atlantic Yards and is a member of the Brooklyn Speaks coalition, said that underground parking had been a part of the Atlantic Yards plans, but was removed when the amount of development planned was scaled back.

“The only way Atlantic Yards can become part of a vibrant urban fabric is if the city and developer work to reduce driving to the site,” said Higashide. “Providing hundreds or thousands of extra parking spaces won’t do that.”

The lockbox already passed the State Senate, where it was sponsored by Brooklyn Republican Marty Golden, and the powerful Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver announced his support for the bill last night.

The bill should be on the Ways and Means Committee agenda this morning, said Lorrie Smith, the legislative director for lockbox sponsor James Brennan. “If Silver’s supporting it, then it should be on that agenda,” said Smith. The Ways and Means agenda has not been released yet, however. “We’re in kind of a holding pattern since late last evening,” Smith said.

There is still room on the calendar to pass the lockbox, said Smith, even as the time remaining in the session continues to tick away. If Assembly Republicans do decide to delay the bill with a fight over the payroll tax, as Silver’s office was worried about last night, however, that could complicate matters. “If that were to come about, it would be a problem,” admitted Smith.

“We have to hope that Senator Golden will ask them to let this go through,” said Smith. Streetsblog has a call in with Golden’s office to see if he’s communicated the importance of the lockbox legislation to his Republican colleagues in the Assembly.

Assembly Member Jim Brennan makes the case for protecting dedicated transit funds from raids. Senator Marty Golden stands behind him to the left and TWU Local 100 President John Samuelson is on the far right. Photo: Noah Kazis

Momentum is growing in the push to protect dedicated MTA funds from Albany’s predations, but with only one month left in the legislative session, time is ticking. Assembly Member Jim Brennan and Senator Marty Golden, the bipartisan sponsors of the transit funding lockbox bill, stood today with a broad coalition of transit advocates in the Times Square subway station to make a final push for their legislation.

Since 2009, Albany has stolen $260 million in dedicated funds from the MTA in order to patch up the state’s budget. The theft of those funds worsened an already bad fiscal situation for the transit authority, leading to devastating service cuts and fare hikes.

In order to keep Albany from continuing to use public transit as its piggy bank, Brennan and Golden introduced legislation that would make it more difficult for the state to divert dedicated funds. First, it would forbid the governor from including dedicated transit funds in “blanket sweeps.” In recent years, however, only $1.3 million of the $260 million stolen from transit were taken using this mechanism.

To completely prevent the legislative sweeps that have made up the rest of the raids on transit, it would be necessary to pass a constitutional amendment. Brennan and Golden’s bill aims to raise the political cost of stealing from transit by introducing a set of disclosure requirements.

For the legislature to steal dedicated transit funds, they would be required to pass a “diversion impact statement” outlining how much was being raided from each mass transit fund, how much had been raided over the past five years, and an estimate of what those raids would cost in terms of service, maintenance and security. These important sunshine measures hadn’t been included in an earlier draft of the legislation, but were a top priority for transit advocates and added later.

Both Brennan and Golden argued that the disclosure requirements would be very effective in dissuading their colleagues from raiding transit. “It highlights the issue,” explained Brennan, with the disclosure requirements making transit raids stick out more in a budget that totals 135 billion dollars. “Legislators will get more involved earlier in the process.”

Golden added that his Republican colleagues would hate to see taxes approved on false grounds, singling out the payroll mobility tax, which is much-loathed in the Senate Republican caucus. “When we find out that we didn’t need that money, why did we take it in the first place?”

Both legislators cautioned that it will take a big push to get the lockbox bill through the legislature before the end of the session on June 21. “We have a fight ahead of us,” said Brennan. While neither identified any sources of direct opposition, they said that the challenge will be to make protecting transit riders a top priority when hundreds of other bills are competing for time and attention. On the Assembly side, Brennan urged supporters to focus their energy on Ways and Means Committee chair Denny Farrell, whose committee has jurisdiction over the bill.

One group that will be lending its muscle to protect transit is the Transport Workers Union Local 100. Local 100 president John Samuelsen identified a lockbox as the most important legislation on the table for transit riders. It doesn’t make sense to add new revenues through something like bridge tolls before securing existing ones, Samuelsen argued. “Without a lockbox in place, it’s all a moot argument.”

Samuelsen’s comments are auspicious because, as both Brennan and Golden noted, separate from any transit raids, the MTA’s capital budget faces a $10 billion deficit starting next year. If the capital program is left unfunded, transit riders will be forced to pay vastly higher fares or suffer 70s style disrepair. “We as a state do not contribute enough into our mass transit system,” said Golden, who noted that finding the money to fully fund the MTA is “obviously a hard job.”

Also standing in support of the lockbox bill were representatives of the New York Building Congress, Transportation Alternatives, the Straphangers Campaign, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and Reinvent Albany.

Assembly Member Jim Brennan (inset) favors redesigning Prospect Park West to make this activity illegal or too dangerous to undertake. Photo: Planetgordon/Flickr

After Assembly Member James Brennan released the results of his telephone survey on the Prospect Park West bike lane last Friday, the assessment in the press was unanimous. WNYC’s Andrea Bernstein headlined her post on the poll results “They Like It. They Really Like It.” Gersh Kuntzman at The Brooklyn Paper began his story: “The survey says — again! — that Park Slopers like their controversial bike lane.”

The topline numbers in the Brennan poll — 44 percent for keeping the lane as is, 25 percent for making adjustments, and 28 percent for eliminating it — closely resembled the results of the web survey conducted by Brad Lander, Steve Levin, and Community Board 6 last year, which found that 49 percent of Park Slope residents wanted to keep the lane, 22 wanted to keep it and make adjustments, and 29 percent wanted to get rid of it.

Even the New York Post’s Sally Goldenberg, author of the most gratuitous anti-bike bile of 2011, led her Brennan poll story by noting that the bike lane “is a hit among Brooklyn residents in neighboring areas, a new survey shows.”

About the only person who didn’t read Jim Brennan’s poll as an endorsement of the bike lane is Jim Brennan. (If we’re also counting people who are obligated to oppose the bike lane, you can add Gibson Dunn attorney Jim Walden, the lawyer suing the city to remove it, to the list. So that makes two people.)

Earlier this week, Brennan’s office sent around a presentation [PDF], compiled for his office by the polling firm Kiley & Company, which includes the following header summarizing opinion on what should happen next: “After Hearing Arguments on Both Sides, Narrow Majority Favors Changing or Eliminating New Bike Lane.” You can only get to that narrow majority if you group the 25 percent who agreed with the idea of “altering it to address pedestrian and driver concerns” together with the 28 percent who actually want to remove the lane.

You could also say that a huge majority want to keep the lane or adjust it — the 44 percent who said the lane should stay as is, plus those 25 percent who like alterations. Unlike the Lander/Levin/CB 6 survey, Brennan’s poll didn’t suggest specific alterations to the design, so we don’t know what those 25 percent are really thinking. (Note: This didn’t stop the Brooklyn Paper from reprinting Brennan’s poll interpretation today.)

Despite the fact that his own survey found a substantial margin of support for the PPW redesign, Brennan’s office has been trying to portray those results as a reason to eliminate the bike lane ever since making the poll responses public.

The press release that accompanied the results last Friday concluded:

But 40% of residents near Prospect Park West, and 42% of older residents, feel less safe as pedestrians crossing or walking along Prospect Park West. This is why I am reluctant to endorse the bike lane as is, and would prefer that the City and the community continue to study the elimination of the two-way lane or the transfer of the bike lane to the righthand side of Prospect Park West with a buffer (an ordinary bike lane).

Brennan’s press release didn’t mention anything about the measured reduction in speeding on Prospect Park West or the fact that NYPD reported zero pedestrian injuries after the street was redesigned.

Streetsblog sent Brennan a list of questions about his position on the bike lane, how the poll was put together and financed, and why he’s been emphasizing the negative when the topline opinion numbers indicate support for the project.

Brennan wrote back referring us to last Friday’s press release, and included the following statement by way of introduction and explanation:

I am posting this statement along with my press release on the poll regarding the bike lanes along Prospect Park. The press release contains lots of information about the poll and a variety of its findings. It contains my position, in that the City should make the bike lane one-way or make it an ordinary bike lane on the right-hand side of the street and maintain the traffic calming measures (two-lanes rather than three).

The telephone numbers were drawn from a current data file of all registered voters in zip codes 11215 and 11218.  There was no distinction between voting or not voting in any election. Boards of Elections generally make these files available for purchase by the general public.

The poll cost $11,000 and was paid for by Friends of Jim Brennan. [Editor's note: This is Brennan's campaign fund.] I take full responsibility for all content.

Brennan did not touch on the question of why he’s chosen to play down his own public opinion data indicating support for the bike lane. We can say, however, that even though the PPW redesign has made the street safer and enjoys significantly more support than opposition, Jim Brennan wants to make this illegal:

Copyright Dmitry Gudkov, used with permission.

He’s okay with eliminating the bike lane on Prospect Park West and replacing it with a buffered lane on the right side of the street, turning the bikeway into an obstacle course of double-parked cars and turning vehicles, so that this will no longer happen:

Copyright Dmitry Gudkov, used with permission.

Just 28 percent of the respondents to his survey are opposed to the bike lane, but that’s enough for Jim Brennan to be okay with putting a stop to this:

Photo: Planetgordon/Flickr

Brennan's poll adds to the public opinion research showing a clear preference for the Prospect Park West redesign over the old configuration.

By an overall margin of 48 percent to 32 percent, more people feel the redesign has improved the street than made it worse. A similar margin prefer to keep the redesign than to get rid of it — 44 percent to 28 percent, with 25 percent choosing the option of “altering it to respond to pedestrian and driver concerns.” (In response to concerns, DOT has proposed narrowing the bike buffer near Grand Army Plaza and installing raised pedestrian refuges and bike “rumble strips” at intersections, a plan that cleared two CB 6 committees unanimously last month.)

Last fall’s Lander/Levin/CB 6 survey found very similar results among a non-random sample of 1,800 Park Slope residents, with 49 percent saying the redesign should be kept as is, 29 percent preferring to revert to the old design, and 22 percent saying the new configuration should be kept with changes.

Brennan’s poll, conducted by the firm Kiley & Company, surveyed 500 voters in Park Slope, Windsor Terrace, and Kensington. The sample was collected by randomly calling from a list of 25,000 voters. Compared to the overall population of Brennan’s district, however, the sample seems to favor car owners — 66 percent of the respondents said they own or have use of a car that they drive regularly in Brooklyn, but only 49 percent of households in Brennan’s district own cars, according to Census data gathered from 2005 to 2009.

The difference is significant, because among regular car users in Brennan’s poll, 40 percent said the redesign has made the street worse, compared to 32 percent of the overall sample. The overall support for the redesign would probably have been higher than 48 percent if the sample had accurately reflected the area’s car ownership rates.

Despite the positive topline numbers, Brennan is still not taking a position on the redesign. Citing a few specific survey results, like the 42 percent of older respondents who reported feeling less safe crossing the bike lane, the Assembly member said in a statement that he is “reluctant to endorse the bike lane as is.”

The poll appears to be the same survey that Streetsblog readers reported receiving earlier this week. Kiley & Company may have used Quantel Research, the firm surveyors identified themselves as working for, as a sub-vendor.

New legislation wouldn't be able to ban transit raids, but could raise the political cost for Albany lawmakers looking to steal from transit riders. Graphic: Carly Clark/Streetsblog

Since 2009, Albany has stolen roughly $260 million dollars from dedicated transit funds in an attempt to plug the state government’s enormous deficits. Those cuts have wreaked havoc upon the MTA’s budget, precipitating major service cuts and fare hikes.

Now, however, some legislators are trying to help put an end to those raids. A new bill introduced by Assm. Jim Brennan and Sen. Marty Golden won’t be able to put a stop to the raids directly, but it has the potential to make a statement in support of protecting transit riders and educate their fellow legislators.

“Unfortunately, New York has a history of raiding the MTA’s funds,” said Brennan in a prepared statement. “This bill requires that funds raised by taxes for the express purpose of funding the MTA or its subsidiaries be used for their intended purpose. By retaining these funds for the system, we stabilize fares and protect funding for the system’s operation.”

The Brennan/Golden bill would make it slightly harder for the executive branch to raid transit funds. For two years following a fare increase, the bill would forbid the state Division of the Budget from including dedicated transit funds in the “blanket sweeps” it is currently allowed to perform. However, while blanket sweeps have raided hundreds of millions of dollars statewide from dedicated funds in recent years, according to a report from the state comptroller [PDF], only a small fraction of the sweeps have affected transit funding.

The sole transit funding taken using blanket sweeps since 2009 was $1.3 million in aid to the LIRR and Metro-North. The rest of the $260 million in transit raids were done through legislative action, and there’s no way short of a constitutional amendment to prevent transit raids from being included in future laws.

The Brennan/Golden bill, therefore, isn’t really an outright ban on raiding transit funds, according to Gene Russianoff of the the Straphangers Campaign. “I’m just not sure that we could do that legally,” he said. Instead, Russianoff is hoping that Brennan and Golden “use this as an organizing vehicle to make their colleagues aware of this problem of theft.” If the bill is passed, it could also make it politically costlier for the legislators who vote for it to later support additional transit raids.

The political benefits of the legislation would be even stronger if it included provisions to shine some sunlight on the raids, which Russianoff is hoping to include. “Right now, it’s a game of Clue uncovering this stuff,” he said. “It should be easier for the public and the media and affected riders to tell right out front if they’re the victims of theft.” Russianoff said he’s spoken with Brennan and the assembly member is open to adding disclosure requirements to the bill.

Currently, the bill has one co-sponsor in the Assembly, Southern Brooklyn Democrat Alan Maisel, and one in the Senate, Queens Democrat Tony Avella.

As we reported yesterday, two open issues in budget negotiations threatened $170 million in funds for the MTA. The Senate Republicans were trying to exempt schools from the payroll mobility tax, which would have cost the MTA $70 million, and the Assembly was opposed to a Cuomo plan to shift $100 million in Assembly discretionary funds to the MTA.

According to Brennan’s legislative director, Lorrie Smith, the Assembly remains opposed to having its money be used for the MTA, but will find another source for that $100 million. “The MTA is not going to lose that money,” she said. “Mr. Brennan’s main goal here is to protect the MTA’s budget.” It is not clear, however, what the alternative source for that $100 million will be.

Smith also told us that the payroll tax exemption was not going to make it into any final budget. “The payroll tax, as I understand it, is off the table,” said Smith, “because the Assembly is adamantly opposed to it.” According to the leaked memo we reported on yesterday, the Cuomo administration is also opposed to cutting back the payroll tax in this budget.

Finally, Smith revealed that a third transit issue is keeping the transportation section of the budget from being completed: Long Island Bus, which recently cut more than half of its lines. “This is an issue that is being decided some place above us,” said Smith, who knew only that negotiations were ongoing.

We have calls in with the governor and Senate Transportation Committee chair Charles Fuschillo’s offices to confirm that these issues are indeed off the negotiating table.

Andrew Cuomo's staff hasn't spoken to MTA executives about the authority's looming capital funding shortfall, according to MTA chair Jay Walder. Photo: Wikimedia

The MTA is still staring down a $10 billion hole in its capital plan, and the consequences of that deficit continue to roll closer. Unless money is found by the end of the year, transit expansions like the Second Avenue Subway will slow down and important maintenance will be left undone. But despite the approaching deadline, no one in Albany seems willing to step up and even begin to tackle the issue.

Governor Cuomo hasn’t shown much interest in dealing with the MTA’s capital deficit. During a legislative hearing on the transportation budget yesterday, MTA Chairman Jay Walder revealed that while he has met with the governor’s staff, “I have not had conversations as to avenues of funding for the capital program.”

Any new revenue source for the MTA would be a major political fight. If the governor’s office hasn’t even started speaking with the MTA about the issue, movement in the near future seems unlikely.

While the governor seems to be whistling past the graveyard, the State Senate continues to actively fight to take money away from transit. The $1.4 billion payroll mobility tax remains under threat, with Majority Leader Dean Skelos strenuously opposed, a number of Senate Republicans elected on anti-payroll tax platforms and the four breakaway Senate Democrats willing to axe the tax as well.

In a speech at a Crain’s Breakfast Forum two weeks ago, Skelos once again expressed his desire to eliminate the payroll tax, though he now says that the MTA should be “made whole” if that revenue is removed. That’s progress for Skelos, but it’s not enough. Whatever revenue would be used to replace $1.4 billion from the payroll tax is revenue that can’t be used to fund the capital plan. As Walder told the legislature yesterday, “I don’t foresee a plan in any time frame in which you can phase out the payroll tax.”

Then there’s the Assembly, where you can find glimmers of hope if you’re a glass-half-full type. Brooklyn rep James Brennan has taken over from Richard Brodsky as the head of the Committee on Corporations, Authorities, and Commissions, which has jurisdiction over the MTA. In an interview with The Bond Buyer, Brennan described himself as “a devoted supporter of mass transit.”

Speaker Sheldon Silver’s decision to appoint Brennan as authorities committee chair is grounds for optimism about support for transit in that chamber. While Brodsky led the fight against congestion pricing, Brennan was a congestion pricing supporter. And while Brennan didn’t take responsibility for transit funding himself (“The MTA’s got major capital budget shortfalls going forward which we’re probably not going to deal with right now”), he rightly attributed responsibility to the state government rather than bash the MTA.

There are a variety of concerns with the proposal you write about. The Legislature has tended to consider many New York City specific traffic control measures outside of the budget process. Last year, for instance, we authorized an increase in red light cameras but the matter was considered separately. Usually we focus on New York City specific measures toward the end of the session but prior to the beginning of the New York City fiscal year which begins on July 1.

One concern is that the proposal would cost the MTA $4 million for installing the cameras but all the revenue would go to the City of New York. The MTA does not benefit from the proposal. Another is that the New York City Department of Transportation is irrationally expanding the number of bus lanes in the City and creating excessive restrictions on vehicles. Motorists would be overly penalized under such circumstances from the use of these cameras.

I share you interest in the use of these devices to enable buses to move more rapidly but these concerns need to be addressed. Thanks for writing.

Yours truly,
Jim Brennan
Member of Assembly

Brennan must not be aware that New York City's 2.7 million daily bus riders currently endure the slowest average bus speeds in the nation. Nor that many routes in line for camera enforcement have been around for years. The handful of streets selected for new bus lanes were singled out for good reason. Select Bus Service on Brooklyn's B44 corridor would help tens of thousands of riders who currently have to put up with the most unreliable bus route in the city. SBS on First and Second Avenues would serve one of the densest areas of the city and improve speeds on the bus route with the highest ridership in America. It will enhance service mainly on existing bus lanes that lack adequate enforcement.

As for those concerns about cost, a bus lane enforcement program with 40 cameras is projected to provide a net revenue gain of about half a million dollars each year, according to NYCDOT. The cost of installing and operating the program would come to $2.4 million annually, with the city handling adjudication and administration.

It should be pretty obvious that these figures are trivial compared to factors that actually shape the MTA budget, like the state's theft of $118 million in dedicated transit taxes. But if the Assembly is concerned about where the revenue goes, why not amend the budget proposal, instead of completely rejecting a critical transit enhancement that stands to benefit millions?

Nothing says "fact-based public process" like "community board consideration."

Thanks for your note about Prospect Park. Last week I wrote the New York City Department of Transportation asking for a public process that would include the coummunity [sic] boards adjacent to Prospect Park in any decision involving eliminating cars from the Park. The boards include Community Board Six in Park Slope, Board 8 in Prospect Heights, Board Nine in Crown Heights, Board Seven in Windsor Terrace and Board 14 in Flatbush.

I also expressed the view that an environmental impact statement might be required because of traffic congestion and pollution concerns. I believe that a decision about elminating [sic] cars from the Park should be based on an objective assessment of the facts.

I have supported the previous change in vehicle use in the Park that have reduced vehicles to only two hours in the morning and evening rush hours. However, the New York City Deaprtment [sic] of Transportation also reduced Prospect Park Southwest from two lanes to one lane north- and southbound several years ago without consulting the Community Board.

Absent an emergency, it should be a matter of policy for any significant change in the use of the City's streets and roads to allow for local community board consideration. Eliminating cars in the Park may be a good idea or a bad idea, but I want a fact-based public process to make such a decision.

Once again, thank you for writing.

Sincerely,

Assemblymember Jim Brennan
416 7th Ave.
Brooklyn, NY 11215
718-788-7221

A car-free park "could have a major environmental impact," said Brennan, who co-signed a letter with the CB chairs asking DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan for the EIS. Similar use of environmental regulations have postponed the development of San Francisco's bike lane network for three years.

In the midst of calling for the environmental impact study, typically a lengthy and expensive process, Peers made clear that he had already reached his own conclusion. "Closing the park to traffic is unacceptable even for a trial period," he said.

The Car-Free Prospect Park Campaign is a decades-long volunteer advocacy effort led by Transportation Alternatives, a member-driven organization with a strong base of support in the neighborhoods around Prospect Park. Two weeks ago, youth advocates delivered 10,001 signatures to City Hall in support of a car-free park. During the summer of 2002 a volunteer effort organized by T.A. produced approximately 15,000 signatures, a 400-person town hall meeting and the support of all five Council members with districts abutting the park. Subsequent expansions of car-free hours in Prospect Park have repeatedly failed to validate dire predictions of traffic cataclysm outside the park.

Nevertheless, Peers finds these community organizing efforts despicable. "We abhor the tactics of the bicycle advocacy group," he said. "They tried the same tactics when they tried to shove Residential Parking Permits down our throats. They're a well-financed advocacy group representing a minority view."

Assemblyman Jim Brennan can be reached here:

416 Seventh Avenue
Brooklyn, NY 11215
718-788-7221
brennaj [at] assembly.state.ny.us

Photo: Randy Peers (with green sheet), flanked by Assemblyman Jim Brennan (beige suit) and Alvin Berk (bearded).

• Re-instating the $4 intrazonal fee
• Exempting drivers who cross into Manhattan below 60th Street but only drive on the periphery
  

If these changes were to be applied, against the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, it would result in higher administrative costs and more surveillance cameras. Although Brennan identified himself as a pricing supporter when the idea was first floated last summer, at this point his bill seems to undermine much of the approval process to date, including the contributions of the TCMC and the City Council's vote on Monday in favor of a home rule message.

Brennan alerted his colleagues in the Assembly to the new bill this morning. His office told me it is too early to say whether the bill enjoys more support among Assembly Democrats, who are currently discussing pricing behind closed doors, than the version that the City Council approved. As of this writing, the bill has no co-sponsors.

UPDATE: The new bill would also require congestion pricing to come up for renewal in three years and prevent the MTA from issuing bonds backed by pricing revenue.

Brennan's full press release:

Brennan Congestion Pricing Bill Authorizes Plan as an Experiment;
Exerts Full City Council Control over Residential Permit Parking;

Retains Elements of Original Proposal that Required Entrance into the Business District Before a Charge is Imposed

State Assemblymember Jim Brennan (D - Brooklyn) has introduced a congestion pricing bill. The new proposal takes a variety of ideas that have been advanced and blends them together to create a better plan, while dropping or changing several proposals advanced by the Traffic Mitigation Commission.

Key to this proposal involves authorizing congestion pricing as a three-year experiment, similar to the concept advanced by Mayor Bloomberg last summer. Authorizing the congestion pricing program as an experiment would assure that the MTA does not go into debt by selling bonds with congestion pricing revenue pledged toward the new debt, only to find that the program is unsuccessful in deterring traffic congestion. The congestion pricing revenue, estimated at $500 million per year, would still be directed to the MTA capital program.

The new bill retains two concepts advanced in the original Mayoral proposal from 2007. First, it would retain the $4 charge for auto trips originating within the zone. Short trips would be exempt. The proposal also only charges drivers crossing bridges and tunnels into Manhattan if they enter the zone. Under the Traffic Mitigation proposal just supported by the City Council, drivers who cross bridges and tunnels in to Manhattan but bypass the zone are still charged $8.

Another aspect of the Brennan bill would require full City Council approval of residential permit parking plans. This would assure that individual neighborhoods would not be able to create exclusive zones without the consent of all of the City government's elected representatives. New aspects of the Council-supported program, such as a Port Authority contribution, a low-income tax credit, and prevailing wage, are included in the proposal, as well as a new compliance requirement for the MTA for the State's MWBE program.

Liz Benjamin has the latest scoop on congestion pricing legislation in Albany:

The third version of a bill dealing with congestion mitigation in
the city was introduced yesterday in both houses of the state
Legislature.

The Assembly and Senate are scheduled to return to Albany Thursday
to take up this new bill – and nothing else. Each of them will be
eligible to collect $49 worth of taxpayer-funded per diem pay to cover
meals and other incidentals, and those who are traveling more than 50
miles will be eligible to put in for that to be publicly paid for, too.

NOTE: The full-day per diem is $152 while
the half-day is $49, I’m informed by the Speaker’s press office. The
mileage reimbursement depends on how far a lawmaker travels. Just FYI - and mine.

The measure,
which represents the four-way compromise hammered out by the governor,
legislative leaders and Mayor Bloomberg last week, is a program bill
from Gov. Eliot Spitzer.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver is the main sponsor in his house.
Co-sponsors include two of the most outspoken opponents to Bloomberg’s
congestion pricing plan – Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, of Westchester;
and Assemblyman Denny Farrell, of Manhattan; along with two who
supported the mayoral measure: Assemblyman Jim Brennan, of Brooklyn;
and Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco, of Schenectady.

In the Senate, the bill is being sponsored by the mysterious Sen. Rules.

A reader sent along this helpful comparison
between the new bill and the Bloomberg bill the Senate moved out of
committee but never brought to the floor for a full vote after Senate
Minority Leader Malcolm Smith made himself a target of the mayor’s
wrath by saying that his members wouldn’t be voting unless there was a
deal with the Assembly.

While Brennan supports congestion pricing himself, he is concerned that advocates have "over-sold the benefits to transit." The $380 million per year that would be raised by congestion pricing is "a drop in the bucket compared to the enormity of the fiscal crisis" that awaits the MTA."

Other congestion pricing updates:

• Sewell Chan has a minute-by-minute account of the morning's meetings in Albany (City Room) 
• Senate Dems not on board for congestion pricing (Daily Politics) 
• Bloomberg has nothing but good things to say about the State Senate (Politicker)
  

Sources say that first-term Brooklyn State Senator Eric Adams has delivered a lengthy letter to Department of Transportation Acting Commissioner Judith Bergtraum expressing opposition to DOT's 9th Street traffic safety and bike lane plan. Though the Senator, a former cop, has no urban planning or traffic engineering background, he questions DOT's assertion that its plan is an effective way to calm traffic and make Park Slope's most dangerous and crash-prone street safer for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists.

Check that: Adams doesn't seem to be interested in cyclist safety on 9th Street at all, despite the fact that he represents Prospect Heights, Park Slope and Windsor Terrace, districts with some of the highest rates of bike commuting in the entire city, along with Prospect Park -- the number one bicycling destination in Brooklyn. Rather, Adams seems to be angling for a DOT plan that, essentially, de-maps 9th Street as a bike route. Now that's a heck of a way for a public official to celebrate Bike Month and show his support for the Mayor's new Long-Term Sustainability Plan.

If you live in Adams district, now would be a really good time to call, fax or visit his office and let him know of your support for DOT's plan. You might also suggest that he get his mind wrapped around the concept of "Complete Streets" -- the idea that urban streets function better and more safely when they are designed for all different types of users, not just speeding motor vehicles.

572 Flatbush Avenue
Brooklyn, New York 11225
Phone: (718) 284-4700
Fax: (718) 282-3585

Senator Adams needs to hear from constituents who support this plan because he spent Saturday morning two weekends ago meeting with a group of about fifteen mostly car- and brownstone-owning 9th Street residents who are deeply opposed to DOT's plan. A source who was at the meeting reports, "everyone kept saying they aren't anti-bike and that this isn't about double-parking, though, it always seemed to come back to double-parking."

Adams, along with his State Assembly colleague Jim Brennan, who has also sent a critical letter to DOT, both seem to have been swayed by Ninth Street residents' factually incorrect claim that the fines for double-parking in a bike lane are higher than the fines for double-parking elsewhere. In fact, it's a $115 fine either way. But more important: The DOT plan does nothing to prevent motorists from double-parking. DOT's presentation actually includes a diagram of vehicles double-parked on the three-foot buffer just outside the bike lane. The DOT plan shows drivers how to double-park (see slide 12)!

Of course, the bigger issue here is the fact that a Brooklyn State Senator, a former law enforcement officer, appears to be prioritizing a fundamentally illegal activity -- double-parking -- ahead of pedestrian safety, bicycling and three years worth of community efforts to get DOT to fix a street where two fifth grade boys and a 77-year-old woman were killed in 2004 while crossing the street, in the crosswalk, with the pedestrian signal giving them right-of-way.

Former Senator Carl Andrews, supporter of Car-Free Prospect Park, we miss you, man.