Desperate to look as if they're responding to motorists complaints and prayers, state and federal electeds continue to scramble for a quick fix to ever-rising gas prices.

In Albany, Senate Republicans have adopted the state gas tax "holiday" as their issue of the moment. Since the largely-ridiculed measure is going nowhere in the Assembly, Joe Bruno and colleagues can circulate petitions and distribute mailers like the one above with impunity, scoring cheap political points while accomplishing nothing.

But the diddling in Albany seems innocuous when compared to doings in D.C. Yesterday, with George W. Bush enroute to the Middle East, both the House and Senate overwhelmingly voted to divert oil supplies from the national reserve, even as many lawmakers acknowledged that doing so would at best result in a small, short-term drop in prices at the pump.

Democrats basically portrayed the vote as a stall tactic offered in lieu of an actual energy policy. Here's a preview from New York's senior senator, as quoted in the Times:

A group of Democratic senators ... sought to put pressure on Saudi Arabia, where Mr. Bush will be visiting this week, as they called on the Saudis to increase their oil production or face the possibility of Congress blocking a pending arms deal.

"We are saying to the Saudis that if you don't help us, why should we be helping you?" said Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York. "We are saying that the relationship has to be a two-way street. We are saying that we need real relief and we need it quickly."

Image via Albany Times Union

This is the second installment of Streetsblog's interview with Paul Newell, candidate for State Assembly in the 64th District, who's challenging Speaker Sheldon Silver in the Democratic primary this September. In this segment, Newell addresses some of the issues that are fresh in the minds of everyone who followed the death of congestion pricing in Albany without a vote earlier this month. The first part of the interview, about running for office in New York, ran yesterday.

Streetsblog: What made you decide to run? What was the inspiration?

Paul Newell: The inspiration was seeing how Albany's broken and how that impacts
people's lives every day throughout this city and state, and in
particular downtown where I live and work. I've been an organizer for a
lot of years, and increasingly it became clear to me that we are not
going to move forward on new thinking on everything from transportation
to housing and education if we don't have a working system in Albany.
And the reason we don't have a working system in Albany is because of
Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno.

Why I decided to run evolved over some years. But in 2004, when I went
to my primary polling station to vote, and discovered that I did not
have the option to vote at all. The polling station was closed because
Sheldon Silver did not have a challenger. I was initially outraged
over, I think at that point it was a number of issues -- you know,
rules reform and drug law reform, which he'd killed for the fifth year in a
row. And I went down there -- I was gonna vote against Sheldon Silver.
I said, "If nobody's running I'm gonna write someone in." Well, the
sign on the door said, "Due to a lack of contested elections, this
polling station is closed today."

...And an older woman comes up
and she's also intending to vote, and I sort of give her my rant about
how this is bad for democracy. And she says, "Well, I guess nobody ran
for anything." And I said, "But I wanted to vote against Sheldon
Silver." And she says to me, "Well, you should have run!" So I laughed
it off, and then I looked into the fact that the guy, at that point,
had not had an opponent in 18 years. I do not believe it's possible for
anyone to be responsive to their community, or to the needs of the city
and state, if they do not even have to ask for our vote.

SB: Let's talk about your policy platforms, specifically transportation and rules reform.

PN: I supported congestion pricing, and I don't think it went far enough.

We need to dramatically rethink the way we approach transportation
issues, in New York City, and indeed in the country. From a public
health standpoint, from an economic standpoint, from an environmental
standpoint, and from a quality of life standpoint, we need to be
promoting mass transit as a top priority for our state and country.
People talk about fuel economy standards for cars, and I say that mass
transit beats better fuel economy standards any day.

Now higher fuel
economy standards is more of a federal issue, but what we need to do is
promote the kinds of policies and decisions that are good for the
community at large and our national interest. And that means, yes,
charging people money to drive their cars into the central business
district of New York, and using those funds to subsidize buses, bus
rapid transit, more accessible subways... It's about prioritizing. It's
about using the power of the state to favor one means of transportation
over the other -- and the kinds of communities that that creates.

SB: How do you make this pitch to voters?

PN: I generally start with congestion pricing because it's on people's
minds and you have to always be aware of what people are thinking
about. I say Sheldon Silver's killing of congestion pricing without
even a vote showed contempt for both the democratic process and the
concerns of Lower Manhattan. Of 150 Assembly districts in New York,
none would have benefited more from that bill than the 64th. We have
the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge, the Williamsburg Bridge, the
Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel, and about three blocks outside the district is
the Holland Tunnel. We have dramatically higher asthma rates than the
rest of the country. We have noise pollution.

I was talking with a teacher at PS124, which is across the street from
my apartment on Division Street. Division Street is one of the places
where trucks are using the free Verrazano-Holland Tunnel route, and
she's got 28 third graders in her classroom, of whom 22 do not speak
English at all. She's on the second floor, facing the street. And she's got trucks from 7 a.m. to the end of her school
day outside, honking their horns. People are getting road rage yelling
profanities at each other outside this classroom where she's trying to
teach 28 kids. And those kids are getting a worse education because of
it. She's working hard, but it is detrimentally impacting the quality
of education.

I understand why Brodsky opposed congestion pricing. I disagreed with
him, but I understand where he's coming from at least. His constituents
felt they were going to be paying this fee. This was a bill that was
going to help the 64th Assembly district directly. We needed leadership
and it wasn't there. My question then becomes, "What is the point of
being represented by the Speaker of the State Assembly if he doesn't go
to bat for you?" And then you try to come up with a line that conveys it, like: "Smoke-filled rooms lead to smoke-filled lungs."

SB: What have you been hearing back from people?

PN: You occasionally get pushback. There are people who will disagree
with you on any issue, and that's how it goes. But overwhelmingly, when
you explain to people that the funding was going to support the subways
that they use... all throughout the district these are real
improvements affecting our lives, and Sheldon Silver failed -- not just
failed to stand up for us -- actively killed something very important
to our health and quality of life. The way you convey a message is by
explaining how this impacts us, explaining how the incumbent is
responsible, and explaining why you would do things different.

SB: On rules reform, what are the high-leverage changes that you would put at the top of your agenda?

PN: I would break it down in to two categories, which I would call "democracy" and "ethics."

Lets start with democracy. We need a legislative process that is
transparent, member-driven, and on-the-record. This is the first thing.
As it now stands, almost all legislation is written by three men in a
room. The door to that room is closed, and inside that room, even if
Sheldon Silver and Joe Bruno were judicious, Solomon-esque leaders --
which I don't believe they are -- I don't think it's possible for three
men in a room to govern 19 million people well. Second of all, behind
closed doors, if you have officials who haven't had opponents for
decades, and they make decisions, it's going to be the developers and
the money-makers who are going to get heard. Because if people don't
have to ask for our vote, then they don't have to listen to us.

Furthermore, and this is where it spreads out to the entire Assembly
and Senate, is that if you do not have to actually take a stand on an
issue -- if your legislator does not have to vote on congestion
pricing, then they cannot be held accountable, and there's no way for
voters to say, "I want you to pass this legislation." If the
legislation is killed behind closed doors, [the representative] can
say, "Oh, I would have supported it," or "Oh, I would have opposed it,"
without taking any risks. And it makes it impossible to put any
pressure on elected officials and have an impact.

[Specifically], there should be a limit on the number of bills each
legislator is allowed to sponsor. All bills should be submitted to a
committee within a certain period of time. Committees must report bills
out within 30 or 60 days, depending on the type of bill. Within 30 to
60 days of receiving the bill, they must hold at least one hearing.
That hearing must be public, and then report the bill out to the floor
for a vote within 30 to 60 days. If a third of legislators sign a
release petition, then a bill should be submitted to the floor for a
vote. Thereby saying that a bloc of legislators supporting the bill can
demand that it be voted on.

All debate should be recorded... Legislators are always going to have
conversations behind closed doors, and that's fine. Not everything
should take place in public; I understand that that's how it works. But
all bills should have public debate, and all votes should be recorded.

And then you can get into conference committees. Every bill should have
a conference committee between the state, the Senate, and the Assembly
to work out the differences between those bills in public. This is
standard stuff that's found in almost every other state legislature.

That's the process stuff; that's the democracy aspect... The ethics
stuff is the second thing. We need real campaign finance reform. We
need clean money, clean elections, real public financing of elections.
It's got to be voluntary because of constitutional issues, but this is
already the law in Maine, Vermont, Arizona -- it just came online in
Jersey now. In Maine and Vermont and Arizona almost every candidate
uses it. What you do is you collect a certain number of donations from
people in your district, so in Arizona, if you can get a thousand people in
your district to give you five dollars -- I think for New York, five's
a little low -- the state will fund you enough to run a campaign in
that district. If you are outspent by a privately funded candidate, the
state will, by steps, go up to quadruple [the initial public funding]
amount. Of course a candidate could still outspend you, but you will
have enough money to get your message out and run a campaign. I cannot
believe that any candidate for public office would rather spend hours a
day on the phone begging people for money -- asking Bruce Ratner and
the developers for money -- when they could get it from public
financing. That way, in one fell swoop, you eliminate the campaign
finance influence on our politics.

Number two, legislators should be required to disclose all outside
income. We technically have a part-time legislature. They work about 65
days a year. Many of them have other jobs. Sheldon Silver works for the
Weitz & Luxenberg law firm. We know that he does work for them;
that's the one thing he is required to disclose. We don't know how much
they pay him, how those payments are disbursed. We don't know what work
he does to earn this money. We don't know what clients are involved. In
essence it is secret payments for secret work. We have no idea what
that is, and if that's not a basic recipe for corruption in government,
I don't know what is. People choose to be in public office, and when
you do, you give up some of your privacy rights. All public officials
should disclose all their income, from every source. There's no
compromise on that.

In a scathing editorial published on Saturday, the Times issued a call for change in the state capital, appealing for more Paul Newells to step forward and run against incumbent pols.

Any New Yorker who is not furious at the mention of their state capital, Albany, has not been paying attention. There are the sex scandals that forced one governor out of office and prompted his replacement to confess more details of his own indiscretions than anyone wanted to hear. The state comptroller quit last year after pleading guilty to misusing public assets. This week an Assembly member was convicted of corruption and faces up to a decade in jail. Angry yet?

The place needs a thorough cleaning -- a giant broom to sweep out the rascals, starting with the State Legislature. We are not in favor of term limits, but the idea gains currency when most people who get elected in New York State keep their seats until they retire, die or go to jail.

The ballot box is still the best form of term limits. So, here is how to change Albany: find and support somebody daring and thick-skinned enough to run against the local legislator.

We are not saying it will be easy. The system is rigged against challengers. It takes money, mostly for lawyers to fight lawyers whose job it is to keep other candidates off ballots. It takes time, energy and patience to fight a system so patently anti-democratic.

One example: the petitions to get on the ballot this year are probably due in early June, but the New York State Board of Elections has not yet posted the official schedule. For the record, state leaders appoint the members of that board.

Still, it is possible to run. And right now is the time to find challengers, especially for members of the Assembly. Albany’s stagnation is at its worst there. The cowardly failure of Democrats -- especially Speaker Sheldon Silver -- to allow a vote on New York City’s congestion-pricing plan was the latest example of why a change, in both parties' delegations, is essential.

At least the competition is intense on the State Senate side where Democrats are challenging the Republicans’ slim majority. Switching to a Democratic majority would at least demote Senate Leader Joseph Bruno, who is under federal investigation and a grand master of Albany’s business as usual. But the Assembly has 150 mostly unchallenged seats, and since this is technically a democracy, each race deserves more than one candidate.

In Manhattan, where the Democratic primary is the election, it is time to challenge even the most established members of the Legislature -- like Assemblyman Richard Gottfried on the West Side or Assemblywoman Deborah Glick. And it is far past time for a serious reformer to challenge Mr. Silver in his Chinatown base.

New York, of course, needs more than a few new faces. The state goes begging for challengers who are genuinely committed to changing Albany’s corrupt ways. Candidates need to promise a real reform of the scandalous campaign finance system, including public financing. And they should pledge their support for a nonpartisan commission to draw legislative districts.

New Yorkers deserve to be mad as hell about Albany, and their best revenge is at the ballot box. All they need now is to find decent candidates.

Streetsbloggers -- know any "decent candidates" you'd like to see take a run at an incumbent next fall?

Senators on both sides of aisle have received the heads up that the majority is preparing to call a vote on congestion pricing, despite the fact that both Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno and Minority Leader Malcolm Smith have said they don't have sufficient votes to pass the measure.

This is a departure for Bruno, who has been trying to pin the blame for the delay on Bloomberg's pet project (not to mention its potential demise) on Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, saying the Senate would not move forward until Silver's majority Democratic conference made a decision.

Keep those phone calls coming.

 
To be fair, the QCC has promoted this idea for several years, long before pricing was introduced by the Bloomberg administration. Here's the QCC in 2005:

Re-instate the Commuter tax after and dedicate this money for transportation infrastructure. If the proposal includes sharing the proceeds with our suburbs, it should pass in Albany. Let the 'burbs keep what their residents pay; New York City will do well with wealthy out-of-staters who live across the Husdon, Connecticut and elsewhere. Double the former rate -- netting $450 million to start, and reaching $1 billion soon.

But it's easy to be cynical when the QCC suggests the city, or the MTA, abandon congestion pricing to get behind the commuter tax. Setting aside the fact that it would do nothing to reduce congestion or VMT and has no environmental or public health benefit, Albany has already rejected it, and did so almost on a whim. Current state legislators Richard Brodsky, Denny Farrell, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver were among those who voted to repeal the tax in 1999.

These guys are still in charge, and no one at the capitol is talking about a commuter tax. There's no reason to believe it would be voted back in. Not even Brodsky, who has elevated anti-pricing rhetoric to an art form, is suggesting a return to the commuter tax to alleviate congestion, preferring a carbon tax and license plate rationing instead.

Besides having no basis in reality, claiming "it should pass in Albany" is a weak nail on which to hang the future of public transportation in New York City. In that light, the QCC commuter tax push should be seen for what it is: another attempt to distract from a plan that would actually reduce traffic congestion while raising critical funds for transit.

Photo, of QCC President Corey Bearak and MTA Executive Lee Sander, by Bruno DeFranceschi via Queens Civic Congress

Newsflash from Crain's New York: Congestion pricing is politically challenging: While I don't think any Streetsblog reader will be shocked by that big scoop, there are still some interesting tidbits in here. The Traffic Mitigation Commission has a new mandate, Greg David writes: "Save the mayor's plan by modifying it." If nothing else, I suppose this means that opponents have to stop calling the Commission a "sham" now. The Crain's story is available online only to subscribers. Here it is in full:

When the state legislature created a panel in June to review Mayor Michael Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, his aides claimed victory. They maintained that a majority of members would be appointed by officials who back the scheme. The thinking was that the panel would endorse congestion pricing, and show that the alternatives would neither reduce traffic enough nor raise large sums for mass transit. The City Council and the Legislature would then ratify that conclusion.

So much for the fix being in. Today, the plan is in deep trouble. Details emerging about the cost and the onerous implementation are worrying even the plan's supporters. The mass-transit bonanza is now pegged at as little as $100 million a year, a far cry from the almost $400 million initially promised. Polls show public support declining. And the political calendar isn't favorable; a vote on the plan is scheduled a mere eight months before legislators face the voters themselves.

Now the panel has a new mandate: Save the mayor's plan by modifying it. The members may have to do so despite the mayor. Earlier this month, after Crain's reported on the revisions being considered, he seemed to dig in his heels to defend his original proposal. Maybe he hadn't been briefed on recent developments.

Marc Shaw, the former top deputy mayor who is in charge of the review, understands the new reality. He has three major objectives: Co-opt as many opponents as possible by adopting some of their alternatives, reduce the enormous administrative cost, and greatly increase the money generated for mass transit.

A number of the alternatives could easily be folded into a broader plan, though some involve political risks. One no-brainer is to sharply increase the cost of on-street parking. Another option-which would be subject to public outcry but would be very effective-is to establish taxi stands and discourage cruising. Voiding the tens of thousands of special parking permits that are abused by city workers clearly would help. Municipal unions will scream, but taking that step would convince New Yorkers that the burden of congestion pricing will be shared.

Administrative costs, now estimated at 40% of monies collected, must be trimmed.That likely will be accomplished by moving the northern boundary of the affected zone to 60th Street from 86th Street and focusing enforcement on people driving into the central business district, not those traveling within it.

Congestion pricing could raise more revenues for mass transit if tolls for tunnels and bridges aren't deducted from the congestion pricing fee. Because of imminent increases in tolls, many New Jersey residents would pay no congestion pricing fee. Imposing East River bridge tolls would be lucrative, but such a proposal might kill the plan.

Political problems will remain even if these steps are taken. While the New York media have concentrated on opposition in the boroughs outside Manhattan, legislators from suburban counties also have been vocal about what they see as a city tax on their constituents. These leaders have had a great deal of influence on Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno, and they will require concessions before allowing the plan to be enacted.

Mr. Shaw proved himself to be a talented operator while on Mr. Bloomberg's staff. This policy tap dance will test even his skills.

Photo: Aaron Naparstek, September 25, 2007 Congestion Mitigation Commission meeting.

Though reporters weren't invited, Streetsblog managed to get a stringer into this morning's On-and-Off-the-Record transportation policy talk with Congressman Anthony Weiner at Commerce Bank in Midtown.

During the hour-long Q&A hosted by Edward Isaac-Dovere of City Hall News, Weiner hit on familiar themes:

• Something needs to be done about traffic but the mayor's plan is too costly.
• Though low and middle income New Yorkers overwhelmingly travel into Manhattan via transit, Weiner pounded away at the idea that congestion pricing is unfair to the city's middle class and would hit city residents harder than suburban commuters.
• Rather than imposing a fee to drive into Manhattan's Central Business District, he would opt for improved transit and ferry service, higher truck tolls and better enforcement of blocking-the-box regulations.
• He says that he would pay for these improvements with a federal gas tax increase.
  

While Weiner believes, "The Mayor got the solution wrong," he praised Bloomberg for being "innovative" and appeared to back off a bit from total opposition to pricing.

"There is a version of congestion pricing that will work," Weiner said. "My plan has 'congestion pricing' by increasing tolls and increasing parking fees." Unfortunately, this is probably not a version of congestion pricing for which the federal government will grant $354.5 million in start-up funds.

About 75 people showed up to the breakfast event including Queens Civic Congress president Corey Bearak, Northern Manhattan Council member Robert Jackson, the Durst Organization's Jordan Barowitz and an assortment of advocacy people from Transportation Alternatives, Tri-State Transportation Campaign and the newly-formed SWIM Coalition.

The event started with "on-the-record" questions from Isaac-Dovere and "off-the-record" questions from audience members. Here, in reporter's notebook format, are a bunch of Weiner's responses to both sets of questions:

• When asked about his theory that the Bloomberg Administration has purposely ordered the NYPD not to enforce traffic regulations to aid the passage of its congestion pricing plan, he ducked the question.

• We need the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel.
• If we had as many cops enforcing the blocking-the-box rules as we did during the Koch years our congestion problems would be solved. Likewise, we need a mass education campaign to change people's behavior like the pooper scooper law.
  
• He said that he has offered the City $19 million in federal funds for ferries but the City has not taken it.
• Asked how he would fund his transit initiatives, Weiner proposed raising the national gas tax to fund transit.
• The asthma problem is not in Midtown. It is in East New York, Brownsville by the Belt Parkway. Why aren't we looking at reducing the traffic there with ferry transit?
• Asked about Long Island City turning into a parking lot because of congestion pricing, Weiner said that the City needs to provide ferry service. We need to provide parking in the boroughs, not in Manhattan. There should be park and rides close to highways. We need to reduce parking because it causes traffic.
• "Congestion pricing hits NYC residents harder that suburban ones." Weiner shared an anecdote in which a Connecticut congressman supports $8 charge because, he says, "My constituents would pay $80 to have the riff raff from your district off the streets." Is this $8 charge really going to deter behavior of the driving in with their SUVs, Weiner asks.
• "The Congestion Commission can't be a rubber stamp for the Mayor's proposal"
• He wants assurances that pricing revenue will benefit NYC. Joe Bruno will see that money and want some for Rensselaer county.
• New York City needs to push against Albany and the unelected authorities and agencies. "We should every day declare a declaration of independence from Albany."
• The SMART fund won't work. How will the Mayor know that the MTA will build what it promises to build?
• Congestion pricing will lead to the federal government to defund New York City because they'll see that we're getting the money from another source.
• He incorrectly stated that "Ninety percent of carbon emissions in NYC are from existing buildings." The real number is 79 percent according to the City's Long-Term Planning and Sustainability office.
• "Advocates for the Mayor's plan are buying into the Bush doctrine of governing: If you want something, then you should tax yourself to pay for it."
• Congestion pricing has divided the coalition around environmental activism. This plan pits people against each other, pits neighborhoods against each other.
• When asked about Spitzer's undocumented immigrant drivers license scheme, Weiner quickly said that he thinks we really need it but that it's politically unpopular. [Sounds like congestion pricing, no?]

"The people who travel around are taxed enough. We have got to prioritize the use of our state resources to minimize the expense and the impact on the people who come into the city and work in the city," said Bruno.

The deal laid out a very specific timeline by which the process would move forward. One of the first big milestones on that timeline was today's date, August 1. That is date on which the Mayor shall "submit the traffic mitigation plan." Here is how it was laid out in the deal summary:

NYC is authorized to present and implement a detailed congestion pricing plan to address traffic congestion within a zone of severe traffic congestion in Manhattan. Such plan shall include (a) the geographic area to be covered; (b) the proposed dollar amount of any congestion pricing fee; (c) the technology to be used to implement such pricing plan; and (d) the number and scope of exemptions granted from such fee requirements. The Mayor shall submit the traffic mitigation plan by August 1, 2007.

Is the Mayor supposed to submit his plan to the 17-member commission? If so, where is the commission? Or does he just have to submit it to the State Legislature and City Council for now? Is the City still on track to meet the August 1 milestone? I've got some phone calls in to various sources. If you know what's going on, drop a line to tips@streetsblog.org or the comments section.

The 17 member congestion pricing commission is made up as follows:

3 appointees -- Mayor
3 appointees -- Governor
3 appointees -- City Council
3 appointees -- State Senate majority leader
3 appointees -- State Assembly speaker
1 appointees -- Senate minority leader
1 appointees -- Assembly minority leader

SUMMARYOF CONGESTION PRICING LEGISLATION

· NYC is authorized to present and implement a detailed congestion pricing plan to address traffic congestion within a zone of severe traffic congestion in Manhattan. Such plan shall include (a) the geographic area to be covered; (b) the proposed dollar amount of any congestion pricing fee; (c) the technology to be used to implement such pricing plan; and (d) the number and scope of exemptions granted from such fee requirements. The Mayor shall submit the traffic mitigation plan by August 1, 2007.

· NYC may not impose or collect any fee for traveling into or within designated zone unless the implementation plan has been approved by the State Legislature by March 31, 2008 and signed into law by the Governor, pursuant to a request from the Mayor that the State Legislature consider such plan where such request has been approved by the City Council.

· A NYC Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission shall undertake a review and study of the issues related to the implementation of the plan submitted by NYC. It may also review and study other plans to reduce traffic congestion and other related health and safety issues. The Commission shall have 17 members comprised of appointees by State and City officials.

· The Commission shall conduct hearings, take testimony and review information and proposals regarding traffic congestion. It shall issue to the Governor, State Legislature, the Mayor and City Council recommendations with respect to the details of implementing the plan submitted by the Mayor and other such proposals. These recommendations shall constitute "the implementation plan". The implementation plan must provide at least the same level of traffic mitigation, as measured by the 6.3% reduction in average vehicle miles traveled, as proposed in the traffic mitigation plan submitted to US DOT on June 22, 2007.

· The Commission shall approve by a majority vote its implementation plan and submit such plan to the Governor, State Legislature, the Mayor and City Council by January 31, 2008. The State Legislature shall consider such implementation plan by March 31, 2008.

· By October 1, 2007, the MTA shall submit comments on the Mayor's plan as well as (a) a description of the additional capital needs required for implementation; (b) proposed utilization of any potential revenue derived from such plan for such capital needs; and (c) the impact of such revenue upon the authority's capital and operating budgets.

· By March 31, 2008 (an 18-month acceleration), the MTA shall submit a capital program for the period covering July 1, 2008 through December 31, 2013.

· This legislation will expire on June 30, 2012. It shall also expire if US DOT does not commit at least $250 million in funding prior to October 1, 2007, except that the expiration and repeal shall not occur if the US DOT commits at least $200 million prior to October 1, 2007 and NYC commits prior to December 31, 2007 an amount equal to the difference between $250 million and the amount committed by US DOT.

An Assembly Member that I spoke with this morning, however, says that congestion pricing is totally dead or, as the Assembly Member put it, "There's no legislation to vote on, no one is planning on returning to Albany, it's in 'Nowheresville.'" Mayor Bloomberg's political people, the legislator says, are "in denial."

Meanwhile, Chad Marlow at the Public Advocacy Group reminds us of the awesome powers of Three Men in a Room and how these powers may render moot the objections of dozens of state legislators. Marlow's 30-second civics lesson is as follows:

In almost every other legislature in the country, when a bill is proposed, only the original sponsor of the legislation has the ability to pull that bill and prevent it from coming to a vote. In Albany, the original sponsor can pull his or her bill but so can the Assembly Speaker and the Senate Majority leader. So, regardless of how many of a legislator's colleagues support the bill, if the leader doesn’t support the legislator, it will never come to a vote. This gives the Silver and Bruno "veto plus" powers. When the governor vetos a bill there's an opportunity for the legislature to override the veto. But when the Leader pulls your bill, that’s it. It's done. That's why Albany legislators are, essentially, forced to fall in line with Silver and Bruno. If they don't, they may never get to pass another piece of legislation.

By most accounts, the mayor ran circles around his Albany inquisitors, as recounted in the Daily News:

Yesterday's Assembly hearing smacked of obfuscation and obstructionism. [Assembly Speaker Sheldon] Silver stacked the witness list with critics while failing to invite the MTA or any of the dozens of environmental and public health groups who back congestion pricing. The questions from lawmakers ranged from the skeptical to the outright hostile... But Bloomberg parried every thrust, and those testifying on the other side did their cause more harm than good.

And the Observer:

Mayor Bloomberg fought off the bridge-and-tunnel Assembly Members who showed up at this morning's hearing on congestion pricing, knocking down their objections one by one and dusting himself off afterward.

Them: It taxes the middle class. Him: No, it gives money to the transit system used by the working poor. Etc., etc.

Bloomberg even scheduled an unusual Sunday press conference to announce the enlistment of congressman and Queens Democratic Party chief Joseph Crowley, an unexpected ally the mayor described as "as influential in this as anybody can be."

Then Speaker Silver, a notable no-show last Friday, finally spoke:

We do all have a desire to do something positive about the environment, about preventing children from growing up with asthma. I'm not sure that this congestion pricing hits that, since many of the neighborhoods that have children with asthma are not within the congestion-pricing zone... Some of those areas will not benefit by the target of congestion pricing; in fact, some of those areas will become parking lots with people driving around the neighborhoods looking for parking spots in order to avoid congestion pricing fees.

There are people that have questions about putting a thousand cameras in the streets of Manhattan from a perspective of Big Brother watching you. And are there other ways you can do it as well? Are there other ways to achieve the goals? Will mass transit be ready to handle the overage? What's the significance of it? So these are all questions that hopefully good minds will get to work on answering and we'll have a comprehensive plan that makes sense.

Now, at least for the moment, all eyes turn to Silver, who so far has publicly posed no questions that haven't already been addressed, but who nonetheless has the power to stop congestion pricing in its tracks. The speaker, though, has not indicated he will do so, hinting instead that, even if time runs out on the regular session, passage by state lawmakers is quite possible before the August deadline for federal funding.

This leaves the Post wondering what he's holding out for:

The buzz in Albany is that pay raises for his members just could do the trick.

Lawmakers, who've wanted salary hikes for years, would sell their souls for a few more bucks - and consider the deal a bargain. (Recall how they quickly dropped their opposition to charter schools in exchange for pay hikes in the late '90s?)

Maybe it's something else Silver wants. The bottom line: Bloomberg, Spitzer and Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno are all on board, as is an impressive array of civic, governmental and political leaders.

Only Silver stands apart.

Biding his time.

Waiting for his deal.

So is it about children with asthma, or pay raises for politicians? Regardless, far from being baited by his would-be foil, Bloomberg is sticking to the high road:

"We have to keep working with Speaker Silver, and he couldn't be more open," said Bloomberg... "He's given us every opportunity to make our case and continues to be receptive to us working with his staff... Whether we get there or not, that's up to us to convince him, and I think, certainly, he has a very open mind and will do what's in the interest of all the city."

Thereby confirming another recent Post accolade for the mayor: "If nothing else, Mike's a leader."

Photo: Stop Me Before I Vote Again