Streetsblog New York City

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver could make a slew of transportation bills move through his chamber or let them languish as in years past. Photo: Daily News

This year’s legislative session is rapidly coming to a close in Albany. With the state legislature wrapping up its regularly scheduled official business on June 20, the Capitol is entering a period of intense activity as legislators and lobbyists make a final push for their priorities.

Albany has some big items on its agenda this month: rent regulations, a property tax cap, ethics reform, and gay marriage. Somewhat below the radar, the push is on for a number of street safety and sustainable transportation priorities as well. Time is of the essence, as advocacy momentum built up over the year dissipates after the session ends. Bills that falter this time around will have to start over again after the legislature reconvenes in January.

If support gels for any of the following bills, the legislature can act extremely quickly to turn them into law. That’s especially true in the Assembly, where Speaker Sheldon Silver controls a large majority and where most of this legislation is currently stalled or has died in past sessions.

Complete Streets

Complete streets legislation would require planners to consider the needs of all road users when designing a road receiving state and federal funding. Last year, it passed the State Senate but stalled out in the Assembly.

After talking with the legislation’s opponents, complete streets supporters made some revisions to the language, and an updated version of the bill is headed to the Senate Transportation Committee today, said Nadine Lemmon, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign’s Albany legislative advocate. As now written, the complete streets bill would cover the large set of projects that already need to conduct extensive reviews as part of the federal approval process, which involves filling out thick binders of paperwork. “We’re targeting projects that already have to do a lot of review and we’re just adding two pages to their world,” said Lemmon.

Purely local projects wouldn’t be covered, but Lemmon argued that as towns or counties prepare complete streets plans on some projects, they’d grow more familiar with the concept, leading to what she called a “trickle down effect.”

In the Senate, the complete streets bill is sponsored by both Charles Fuschillo and Martin Dilan, the chair and ranking member of the Transportation Committee, respectively, along with twelve other senators. In the Assembly, however, the companion legislation hasn’t been introduced yet. That said, Lemmon reported that preliminary conversations about the bill with both the governor’s staff and state DOT officials have been encouraging.

Read more…

The MTA fare hike hearing circus is wrapping up, and while the first event in Manhattan was relatively free of political grandstanding, the Brooklyn Heights blog reports that the scene was different in Brooklyn Tuesday night. Assembly Member Joan Millman, a long-time incumbent who cruised to victory in her northwest Brooklyn district on primary day last week, had this to say to the MTA Board:

She sharply criticized MTA management for focusing on fare increases and service cuts to solve the Authority’s fiscal problems instead of rectifying what she said are serious management deficiencies that are costing the MTA “hundreds of millions of dollars each year” according to a report issued by State Comptroller Tom DiNapoli. One of several areas in which Millman said the MTA could save money is in its management of real estate, pointing in particular to the huge office building at 370 Jay Street (photo above) which has sat unused and in a partial state of rehabilitation for years.

Millman also noted the MTA’s sale of the Atlantic Yards property for less than half of its appraised value, and its failure to demand that developers of new, large residential buildings along the Fourth Avenue corridor provide funds to assist in the rehabilitation of subway stations along the corridor affected by increased ridership. Finally, noting that she voted against repeal of the commuter tax, which was levied on suburbanites who work in the City in order that they pay their share of the cost of the City’s subway and bus systems, Ms. Millman accused the MTA of subsidizing commuter rail lines serving the suburbs “at the expense of hardworking New Yorkers.”

Millman represents one of the most transit-dependent districts in the city, and her constituents cope with torrents of traffic bound for free East River bridges every day. When she had the chance to get behind the single most transformative policy for the city’s streets and transit system — congestion pricing — she failed to say a word until it was much too late. If the MTA had $420 million in annual revenue from congestion pricing, its fiscal problems wouldn’t be so severe today.

By now, the MTA has been audited to death, and it’s clear that no amount of efficiency wrung out of the agency can offset the effects of long-term, systemic neglect and disinvestment on the part of the city and state — especially the state. It’s not clear which DiNapoli report Millman was referring to at the hearing, but recent findings from DiNapoli’s office have identified $56 million in potential overtime savings each year, and $13 million in potential annual savings on fuel contracts. Meanwhile, the agency had to plug an $800 million deficit this year, and its yearly debt payments are expected to increase $1.5 billion by 2020 [PDF].

Read more…

On Friday we noted that Assembly Member Richard Brodsky's latest anti-transit argument -- that "the actual cost of free and discounted student fares is close to zero" -- doesn't hold water. A letter from Brodsky addressed to MTA CEO Jay Walder calls for reinstating student MetroCards, laying blame for the program's potential elimination at the MTA's feet while neglecting to mention Albany's leading role in reducing funds for student transport. 

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

Dear Hon. Walder,

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

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

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

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

On Friday, a trio of local electeds pushed for legislation that would allow New York City to create a residential permit parking system. The Daily News and NY1 picked up the story, and if those reports have you wondering about specifics, that's because much of the plan has yet to be hammered out.

An RPP program, which would establish districts within the city where car owners must display permits to park legally in most on-street spaces, needs Albany's assent to become law. Assembly Member Joan Millman and State Senator Daniel Squadron have introduced bills in their respective chambers, with the details of the permit system left up to the city. Council Member David Yassky is carrying the banner for RPP at City Hall.

This is not the first time lawmakers have turned their attention to residential permit parking. Most recently, RPP got a serious look during last year's congestion pricing debate, when DOT devised a plan to assuage fears that car commuters would cram on-street parking spaces just outside the cordon zone.

That version of RPP included only nominal permit fees -- just enough to cover the cost of running the program. This time around, the bill's sponsors are touting permit fees as a new revenue source for the MTA. Separated from congestion pricing, however, an RPP system won't pack quite the same punch. Reports the News:

A Transportation Department spokesman said permits alone aren't enough to solve parking problems, and should be accompanied by a congestion pricing plan.

"Without such a plan, we don't believe this bill will actually solve neighborhood parking problems," said Transportation Department spokesman Seth Solomonow.

From Transportation Alternatives' Spring 2008 magazine:

On Monday, April 7, Sheldon Silver walked out of a closed door meeting of State Assembly Democrats and announced congestion pricing was dead. Never mind that New York City's mayor and City Council supported the plan along with the governor, the State Senate and an unprecedented coalition of business, labor, environmental and civic groups. Like so much else in Albany, the decision was made in secret, without a debate, a vote or even a record of the proceedings.

Until congestion pricing came around, I never paid all that much attention to Albany. Sure, I knew about the sex and graft scandals, the "three men in a room," and the Brennan Center reports showing New York's government has more in common with the old Soviet Politburo than America's 49 other state legislatures. I knew "dysfunctional" was the official adjective to describe Albany. But the dysfunction never seemed to impinge on my own life in any immediate, tangible way. Until congestion pricing.

I was really looking forward to seeing motorists pay to drive into Lower Manhattan. While I understood the importance of $354 million in federal aid, $491 million per year in revenue for transit and fewer kids growing up with asthma, this wasn't what pumped me up. What I liked most about congestion pricing was the fact that the people who make life in New York City most miserable -- the armada of horn-honking, exhaust-spewing, space-hogging, oil-guzzling, climate change-inducing motorheads that rolls through my neighborhood every day, to and from the free East River bridges, were finally going to have to pay for the privilege.

Here's a constituent e-mail from Brooklyn Assembly Member Joan Millman, who finally, bravely announces her intent to vote for congestion pricing. Note the time stamp: nearly two hours after the plan was declared dead.

From: Assemblywoman Joan Millman [mailto:millmaj@assembly.state.ny.us]

Sent: Monday, April 07, 2008 4:51 PM

Subject: Re: Online Contact Form

April 7, 2008

Thank you for your communication regarding congestion pricing. I am attaching a copy of my statement to be made today on the floor of the Assembly. At this point I still do not know if the Mayor's congestion pricing plan will be voted on today.

Thank you for sharing your views with me.

Sincerely,
Joan L. Millman
Member of Assembly

*Statement by Assemblywoman Joan L. Millman on **April 7, 2008***

Mr. Speaker, on the bill, I will vote yes on the Congestion Pricing Plan. I will vote yes even though I still have major concerns and questions about the plan itself.

We've said it before and we'll say it again: Congestion pricing is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to enact progressive transportation policy for New York City.

With the midnight deadline to receive $354 million in federal aid approaching in a matter of hours, now is the last chance to call your representatives in Albany to express your support, no matter where they may stand on the issue. And don't forget, when you call you can have these handy fact sheets at your disposal.

As we learned from reader reports last week, several representatives who seem to be leaning against pricing in the press are in fact uncommitted. Your phone calls today will make a difference.

Hopefully a lot of electeds are hearing from Streetsbloggers today. We'd love to know the responses you're getting. To get the ball rolling, here's an account from Streetsblog's Jason Varone:

I just got off a lengthy phone call with a staffer at Joan Millman's Albany office. She was very pretty well versed on the subject and she assured me that Assemblywoman Millman supports the concept of congestion pricing, but is hung up on getting assurances from the mayor about the lock box, transit improvements, and handicap access to subway stations. She mentioned that the 9th Street subway station has no handicap access, and that they have been complaining about this for years, but the city says there isn't enough money to add it.

She said that about 70% of the constituents that have emailed, written and called are in support of the plan -- but they want guarantees that the money will in fact be used for transit. I told her that my personal favorite aspect to the plan is that it will be a clear signal to the public that the government does not want them to drive cars, if they can avoid it. The staffer agreed with me on that. I also pointed out to her that I was a union member, and all of my "working class" friends do not own cars, and that the argument that Brodsky types have been making do not hold any water. She agreed with that too.

Mainly, her office seems to be kind of pissed off at the mayor for not being forthright with the information they have asked for since the idea was first floated. It was my impression that Millman will vote yes, but she will be biting her lip as she does it.

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."

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...