New York City Democrats Carl Kruger (yes, he still votes) and Malcolm Smith both reversed their 2009 support for transit funding that their constituents rely on -- the payroll mobility tax -- in last night's vote.

Under the bill, sponsored by Long Island Senator Lee Zeldin and Majority Leader Dean Skelos among others, small businesses and schools would first be exempted from the payroll tax. By 2014, the seven suburban counties of the MTA region would be exempt while the New York City payroll tax would be cut by more than a third.

In addition to every member of the Republican majority, the bill garnered the votes of eight Democrats. Every Democratic state senator from outside New York City voted to repeal the payroll tax. Shockingly, so did Queens Senator Malcolm Smith, who while majority leader in 2009 was responsible for shepherding through the Senate the MTA funding package that had the payroll tax as its centerpiece. Every Senate Democrat voted for that bill at the time, meaning the six non-freshmen Democratic nays from last night flipped their votes (here’s the roll call), whether because of a different political climate or the knowledge that this was merely a symbolic vote.

The Senate Republicans estimate that reducing the payroll tax by this much would take roughly $840 million away from the MTA each year. Their bill does include a few offsets in the form of existing revenues redirected to the MTA, which they claim would leave $375 million in total cuts to transit.

Capitol Tonight reporter Liz Benjamin, however, spoke to one source who said those offset estimates were wildly off the mark. Benjamin reports:

According to an Albany insider who crunched the numbers of this, by the time the bill is fully implemented in 2014, it would generate a budget gap for the MTA of about $800 million a year. That would be offset slightly by a statewide sales tax intercept, but the annual estimated hit to the authority is still hovering at about $768 million, this source maintains.

Even more fantastically, the Republicans are claiming that their cuts need not result in any increased fares or reduced service.

“There is absolutely no doubt that the MTA, without increasing fares or cutting services, can balance its books after this legislation is implemented,” said Zeldin in a statement. “One must question the motives and veracity of any individual or group that attempts to dispute this fact going forward.”

When Albany stole $143 million from the MTA in late 2009, of course, it led to last year’s unprecedented wave of service cuts and fare hikes. Moreover, with a $10 billion deficit in the MTA’s capital budget, enormous fare hikes or service-worsening deferred maintenance are already in transit riders’ future unless Albany acts to provide new revenue for the MTA. Question our motives all you want, but Zeldin’s claim is nothing short of delusional.

Benjamin’s source lays out what’s more likely to happen if the Senate Republicans get their way:

Well, the MTA pretty much has one major revenue generation option: Fare increases.

If the split was 50-50 between the subway system and the rails (LIRR and Metro North), fares would increase 15 percent and 30 percent, respectively, according to this source. If the MTA decided only the commuter lines should take the hit, which one could argue makes sense, since that’s what services those seven counties, fares would have to up a whopping 64 percent.

“It’s ironic that the Republican majority in the Senate would pass payroll tax relief bill that would drive a high fare increase for rails,” this source said.

"We'll look at it over the course of the next couple of months," said Kruger. ... "After that, we'll finish our vetting process, which hasn't even begun yet, and we'll have a better idea about the timetable (for a confirmation vote)."

When Liz Benjamin informed Kruger that Walder has already spoken of restoring public trust in the agency -- a task that will be much more difficult thanks to shameless hucksters like Kruger himself, the senator replied:

"I come from Missouri; don't show me, tell me. I mean, everybody says they're for oversight and accountability. What does that mean? What does it mean?"

I swear, this blog just writes itself sometimes.

Now that Governor Paterson has backtracked on his pledge to secure a long-term solution to New York's transit funding crisis, the push is on to spin the slapdash result as a responsible outcome, not a capitulation to Albany's lowest common denominator.

Courtesy of Liz Benjamin, here's Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith emerging from last night's closed-door session with the two Long Island legislators who will presumably give him the 32 votes needed to pass a bill:

I think it is a tribute to them, and a tribute to this Democratic conference. Reform is what everybody wanted. Everybody said that you should have a legislature where the rank-and-file members have a right to speak their mind, and have input -- and not only have input but get some results.

Never mind that all the negotiating for this deal took place behind closed doors. Or that the plan Smith's conference concocted does not reduce the MTA's dependence on debt financing. Or that the band of senators who derailed the viable plan drawn up by the Ravitch Commission are the same group who held the Democratic takeover of the Senate hostage last year, in return for more lucrative and powerful committee chairmanships.

Sure, rank-and-file legislators need a more open, transparent process in Albany, but letting the Fare Hike Four dictate the agenda hardly qualifies as reform, or sound policymaking.

Fortunately, the city's editorial boards aren't buying it. The Times, the Daily News, and the Post unanimously slammed the framework that Smith, Paterson, and, one assumes, Sheldon Silver will now sign off on, because it doesn't fund the MTA capital plan -- the vital maintenance and improvements necessary to the transit system's long-term health.

Under the Ravitch framework, the payroll tax would have funded those long-term investments, and car commuters would have helped to plug the MTA's operating deficit through bridge tolls. The Smith/Paterson framework uses the payroll tax to plug the deficit, asks nothing of car commuters (who benefit enormously from a robust transit network), and leaves the capital plan unfunded.

Our transit system risks collapse, in other words, because Albany can't muster the will to charge drivers. That is the core storyline in the ongoing MTA funding saga -- not "reform" -- and it has to change.

We were half-kidding last week when we said state legislators were open to taxing anything from pet food to shoelaces as long as they could say they had saved the MTA, and as long as drivers could continue to cross East and Harlem River bridges at no cost. Turns out it's no joke after all, according to Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith.

Following another futile secret meeting late yesterday with his Assembly counterpart Sheldon Silver and Governor David Paterson, Smith acknowledged that at this point any revenue source will do. The Politicker reports:

"It's not about merits," Smith said. "It's just about what gets us there with the votes that we need to get it passed. Because there are things in this plan that, somebody's not going to like something. At some point, you just have to sort of toughen up a little bit and make the tough decisions."

"It's not about merits" goes a long way toward explaining Smith's proposal to substitute bridge tolls with a taxi surcharge, a scheme that by one columnist's count has the support of Smith, Carl Kruger, and no one else. It could also serve to sum up Smith's idea of "reform" in Albany, at least as it applies to the MTA funding crisis. Consider his comments when The Fare Hike Four unveiled their cockamamie plan.

Liz Benjamin asked Smith whether the fact that the new plan clearly represents the thinking of the old Gang of Three was a sign of his own weakness. He said it was just part of the "paradigm shift."

"Quite frankly, I would hope my members are strong enough and will try to drive agendas," Smith said. "This is a Democratic conference, this is not a Malcolm conference."

"I encourage them: go ahead with the Gang of Three, do your thing."

As for toughening up, Smith could stand to heed his own advice. Ignoring the merits in an effort to appeal to the lowest common denominator isn't hard. Nor is it particularly virtuous to preach transparency and reform while hiding behind closed doors.

When it comes to MTA rescue, it's past time to make the tough decisions. Straphangers are still waiting to see if the new leader of the Senate has it in him.

WFP director Dan Cantor (center) at a "Halt the Hike" rally last week. Photo: Working Families Party.

If there was any doubt before, now it should be clear: The latest transit rescue package proposed by Malcolm Smith is too skimpy to get the job done. By refusing to ask car commuters to shoulder any of the burden, the plan Smith put forward would merely postpone the day of reckoning for straphangers.

Tomorrow the State Senate is expected to vote on that plan, or some variation on it. For months obstructionist senators have excused their own inaction by pointing fingers at the MTA for what they deem a lack of transparency. But now the Senate might pass a transit funding package without holding any public hearings whatsoever. How opaque is that? The utter lack of transparency or discussion about this latest plan should be enough to preclude any votes from senators looking to burnish their good government cred.

The new budget numbers also set the stage for tomorrow's big rally in Union Square, where the Working Families Party and transportation advocates will gather to protest the doomsday fare hike and service cuts. The Senate's proposal is a band-aid that won't deliver what this coalition demands: a long-term, sustainable revenue stream that will protect straphangers from paying more for a deteriorating transit system. A real remedy, like the Ravitch plan, needs a united front behind it in order to regain momentum. This rally must be a galvanizing moment, and the person best positioned to deliver is Dan Cantor, head of the labor-backed Working Families Party.

Here's a chance for the Working Families Party to make a strong push for a robust transit plan. A plan that will put the city's subway and bus systems on sound footing. A plan that will spare working New Yorkers from worse fare hikes and deteriorating service.

Car commuters are one constituency asked to sacrifice next to nothing in the Senate's latest proposal, even though the average income of the city's car owners more than doubles that of the transit-riding, car-free majority. The official position of the Working Families Party is that the MTA funding plan should be "based on the Ravitch principles." Coming out with a more forceful position at tomorrow's rally -- like a full-fledged endorsement of the Ravitch plan itself, including bridge tolls -- could change the terms of the debate.

Photo: The Daily Politics

Instead, Rivera thinks the answer to the MTA funding crisis is a tax on jet fuel, which ranks with the purchase of Canadian prescription drugs as the most far-fetched, nonsensical "solution" we've heard yet from Albany.

Of course, there's still time for more, so let's hear 'em: What's the wackiest thing you can think of to slap a tax on to fund the MTA? Pet food? Cell phone minutes? Shoe strings? Nothing, apparently, is off limits.

Except driving.

Under the Democrats' proposal, which does not yet exist in bill form, the payroll tax would be 34 cents per $100 in the 12-county MTA service area, but it would be graduated so the outlying counties would pay less (exactly how much less was not immediately clear).

The payroll tax would generate the lion's share of revenue: $1.49 billion.

Another key feature: a $1 taxi drop-off fee (50 cents more than what was originally on the table).

Half of the $190 million this fee is expected to generate would be used to pay the $95 million debt service on a $1.2 billion capital plan for roads and bridges upstate and on Long Island -- a move designed to woo GOP lawmakers and suburban Democrats who have so far dug in their heels in opposition to the payroll tax.

Other highlights:

- A $25 motor vehicle registration fee - on top of the existing fee, which was increased in this year's budget. ($130 million).

- Boosting the auto rental surcharge from 6 to 11 percent. ($35 million).

- A 25 percent increase in the motor vehicle license fee. ($10.5 million).

The proposal also includes several measures related to MTA governance and financial disclosure. Smith has not yet lined up the 32 votes needed to pass a plan in the State Senate, but spokesman Austin Shafran expressed confidence that a majority can be wrangled, reports Politicker's Jimmy Vielkind.

In a statement, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver left the door open -- fairly wide, I'd say -- to supporting the proposal:

I am willing to support any plan that provides a stable, long term funding stream for mass transit and apportions the burden equitably among everyone who has a stake in the MTA's future.

I have not had an opportunity to fully review the Senate's plan, but if it can accomplish both of those objectives and command the support of the majority of Senators then it is an alternative we're prepared to take very seriously.

Let's just focus on the revenue here. Smith's plan appears to fall short of Shelly's own by around $150 - $200 million per year, so something's got to give. Assuming the fare hike is held down to the range of eight percent, that means the Senate Dems are still prepared to sock New Yorkers with some combination of service cuts and slapdash investment in maintenance and expansion. Will that qualify as "a stable, long term funding stream" that "apportions the burden equitably"? With the MTA's financial picture growing bleaker by the day and the need for a robust plan all the more apparent, the only answer that makes sense is "No."

At a meeting later in the afternoon with Mr. Paterson, a group of senators from suburban districts told him they would not support the payroll tax.

The senators were Craig M. Johnson of Nassau County, Brian X. Foley of Suffolk County, and Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Suzi Oppenheimer, both of Westchester County.

"I’m very uncomfortable with the proposed payroll tax," Mr. Foley said later in an interview. "Suffolk County is in the outer ring of the service area. Our businesses would be paying into a system that they don’t get much out of."

Both the Times and Daily News point out that opposition to the payroll tax is not unexpected. Now that it's out in the open, however, lawmakers are reportedly scrambling, with Sheldon Silver suggesting that a "little time out would be helpful." Before the breakdown, everything from higher vehicle registration fees to a 50-cent cab surcharge was said to be under consideration.

Amid the chaos, one thing appears certain. Said a spokesman for Malcolm Smith to the Times: "Everything [is] still on the table 'except tolls.'"

Photo: The Politicker

David Paterson, legislative leaders and top staffers just emerged from a 90-minute meeting on an M.T.A. bailout package and declared that it will not include bridge tolls.

"The framework I see is that the Senate has really eliminated what my choice would be, which would be to have the tolls. If that's the case, then we're going to have to try to find alternative ways to come up with several hundred million dollars that would replace what would have been the revenues generated by the tolls," said David Paterson, who made a rare appearance at a press scrum outside his second-floor office.

The possible alternatives Paterson spoke of include a gasoline tax, increased automobile registration fees and parking fees -- though Paterson said he considered a gas tax hike "out of the question." 

For his part, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver characterized the still-secret plan as a righteous rebuke of last week's MTA board vote to raise fares and cut service -- which state lawmakers failed to prevent despite years of warnings. Said Silver:

"I think what's most important is we're dealing with the one thing the three of us agree [on]—the actions of the M.T.A. board cannot be allowed to stand. We have to get together and provide the revenue and ensure these 31-percent fare hikes do not stand."

Now that Shelly's own $2 toll plan has succumbed without ever coming up for a vote: New York State Legislature, what are you smoking?

Transit gallows humor from Daily News cartoonist Bill Bramhall. The whole toon is a fitting accompaniment to the paper's editorial stance on the MTA rescue saga. You can find it on the fourth slide in this gallery.

Millions of New York City bus riders are counting on an MTA rescue plan to maintain service and hold fares down.

A plan to save transit service and spare New Yorkers the burden of drastically higher fares would seem to match the Working Families Party agenda perfectly. The party has a public transportation plank, and has touted a halt the hike website in tandem with the Straphangers Campaign when higher fares loom. The car commuters who would pay bridge tolls earn far more, on average, than the transit riding majority. But on the question of the Ravitch Plan, the party has been mum in public.

"We haven’t taken a pro position on the Ravitch Plan itself," said WFP spokesman Dan Levitan. "We haven’t had the bandwidth to do a public campaign around this, since we've been fighting so hard on the general budget. We've been trying to defend the Silver/Paterson [transit funding] compromise in the Senate."

In the last election, three of the key players in the Senate hold-out were endorsed by the party: Majority Leader Malcolm Smith, Fare Hike Four member Hiram Monserrate (indicted on six counts today for assaulting his girlfriend), and Kevin Parker, a bridge toll opponent whose Brooklyn constituents face a slew of service cuts [PDF]. Will the Working Families Party ballot line still be available to these legislators if doomsday comes to pass?

Photo: The Daily Politics

Newsday filed this report on the MTA Finance Committee meeting (as live-blogged by Second Avenue Sagas), where members voted to recommend revenue-saving measures to the full board, now set to make its decision on Wednesday:

MTA board chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger urged the agency's finance committee to adopt the fare hikes and service cuts even though he called them "horrific."

"This represents as good a job as human beings can do to divide the pain as equally as we can," he said.

The vote took place as state lawmakers in Albany sought to reach a compromise on a bailout plan that would avoid the worst of the planned fare increases and service cuts.

At a news conference after the committee vote in Manhattan, Hemmerdinger was asked if he had any message for Albany. He said, "How about: 'Help!'"

In Albany, Governor Paterson engaged in what Liz Benjamin of The Daily Politics described as "a game of political chicken" when, flanked by a silent Malcolm Smith and Sheldon Silver, he urged the MTA to go ahead with higher fares and service cuts without waiting on assistance from the legislature.

"Delaying action, to me, would just ring too true to what's gone on in Albany too many times," Paterson said. "I'm not in favor of delaying any action that was scheduled."

In Fare Hike Four news, Senator Hiram Monserrate was indicted for allegedly stabbing his girlfriend with a drinking glass last December. If convicted, Monserrate faces seven years in prison -- and, says one City Room commenter of today's developments, "will probably guarantee his re-election."

The governor, who went on the offensive today criticizing Smith's chamber, might find more favor among Daily News readers, judging by this poll that asks what people think of the Senate Dems' MTA proposal:

Hat tip to Liz Benjamin at the Daily Politics for this snapshot of four state senators who've helped concoct a stopgap, toll-less MTA funding plan that does nothing to address the imminent decline of New York's transit system. Lest they be accused of completely shortchanging the future, they say maintenance and expansion can be taken care of next year, by raising personal income taxes throughout the 12-county MTA region. Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith is calling it all "sound practice." Politicker's Jimmy Vielkind has more from Smith.

The grinners, from left to right, are Carl Kruger, Ruben Diaz, Sr., Pedro Espada, Jr., and Hiram Monserrate (yes, that Hiram Monserrate). When these men held the Democratic takeover of the Senate hostage, they styled themselves the "four amigos." Now that they've done their level best to hamper investment in subways and buses, all to preserve a free ride to Manhattan for the car-driving minority, I think it's time for a new nickname. Something to do with horsemen, perhaps?

Queens Senator Hiram Monserrate, who had considered new tolls on East and Harlem River bridges acceptable as a "last resort," has flip-flopped. The Daily Politics reports that Monserrate now opposes new tolls, and faults the MTA for "failing to explain 'specifically' how toll revenue would be used to pay for service and capital improvements." From a statement released today:

"Solving financial problems on the backs of hard-working New Yorkers now struggling with their own financial problems is the least desirable course of action," the senator stated.

"Tolling of the East River bridges should be considered only after passage of the 'Millionaire's Tax' that will ensure the wealthiest residents of New York pay their fair share."

"For these reasons, support of the so-called 'Ravitch Plan' is not in the best interests of New Yorkers."

Monserrate presides over a district where 53 percent of presumably hard-working households do not own cars and rely on transit, while less than five percent drive or carpool into Lower Manhattan for work. Still it looks as if his own windshield perspective has clouded his judgment enough that he would abandon the only viable plan in existence for a proposal that is positively Weiner-esque in its implausibility.

In other developments, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith this morning laid his inability to unite the Democratic bloc at the feet of the MTA itself. Here is Smith, again from The Daily Politics:

"I know they have this deadline; I just don't think it's appropriate for the MTA to sort of hold the public hostage and say, 'Well if we don't get to the deadline we're going to charge you more.'"

"The public didn't cause their failures in terms of how they managed their budget," the senator continued. "It's the failure of their performance that has now asked the legislators to help."

"Yes, we can be there to help, but then we should have together have decided what the deadline was. Not them to impose their will on us and say 'because we screwed up, that we now are going to tell you if you don't help us we're now going to have a problem or cause a problem for the public.'"

While he did not declare tolls to be completely off the table, Smith says he is not counting votes because he has not seen a proposal -- including the Ravitch plan, apparently -- which "is worthy of having that kind of discussion."

Smith's latest gambit -- calling the MTA's March 25 deadline into question -- carries a lot of risk. "The deadline seems real to us," said Russianoff, noting that there may be some wiggle room, but not much. "The concern would be if the legislators say, 'We can wait a while.' That's a recipe for inaction."

There's been some speculation that the Ravitch proposals might get folded into the state budget, but that would face similar political hurdles to a stand-alone rescue package. All 30 Republican state senators are expected to vote against the budget, said Russianoff, meaning Democrats will have to vote as a single, 32-member bloc to gain passage.

If the Gang of Three and other Democratic obstructionists fail to realize that their constituents need a well-funded transit system much more than free bridges, there is a potential solution that might garner support from elements of both parties. "One thing with promise is to do the highway and bridge program at the same time as MTA financing," said Russianoff. "That gives Republican senators a reason to vote positively on the bill." The state's highway and bridge program faces its own funding shortfall, and like the MTA, it needs new revenue streams. Some of the bridge toll alternatives that pols are floating -- such as higher gas taxes and vehicle registration fees -- make more political sense as revenue for a road program, because, Russianoff says, "the highway people think it's theirs."

General details:

• New tolls on East and Harlem River Bridges equaling "a single ride subway fare," ($2 each way.*)
  
• Management, possibly ownership, of East and Harlem River Bridges transferred to MTA from NYC DOT
• Maintenance and operation of East and Harlem River Bridges transferred to MTA from NYC DOT
• Truck tolls pro-rated on "single subway ride fare" or based on other MTA major crossings:$10 to $20.25 for 18-wheelers
  

• $450 million to MTA operating and capital budget
• $50-$100 million savings to NYC DOT in annual bridge maintenance and capital costs 

• Major reductions in truck traffic on Manhattan Bridge, where trucks now constitute 25 percent of vehicle traffic
• Major reductions  in overall traffic on Canal Street due to reductions in truck traffic
• Modest traffic reductions in Long Island City, Downtown Brooklyn, Northern Manhattan, South Bronx

Unknowns:

• Toll for taxis and for-hire vehicles
• Toll for government placard holders
• Toll for vans and smaller commercial vehicles
• Two direction tolls?* Tolls on the Midtown Tunnel and other "major MTA crossings" are two-way. We assume new bridge tolls will be applied in each direction, so a round trip car commuter will pay $4. 
• Exact status of management and operational control of East and Harlem River Bridges. To be determined by future agreement between MTA and NYC DOT: including bike/ped paths.
  

Of course, the State Senate has yet to offer up a plan of its own -- for what it's worth, the Senate has a new web site designed to gather public input on how to overcome the MTA budget shortfall -- and early indications are that some prominent Senate Dems are opposed to tolls altogether. We will know shortly if Malcolm Smith's pledge to consider tolls will result in the Senate passing Silver's modified Ravitch plan.

For more on East River tolls, traffic reductions and who pays, check out these 2003 reports from Charles Komanoff [PDF] and by Bruce Schaller for Transportation Alternatives and Straphangers Campaign [PDF].

Take it to the bank: 67 percent of households in Ruben Diaz, Sr.'s Bronx district are car-free.

"If that is in there, there's no way I'm going to vote for it and you can take that to the bank," Sen. Ruben Diaz Sr. (D-Bronx) said after the afternoon meeting.

Streetsbloggers may remember Diaz as one of the legislators who opposed congestion pricing on the grounds that it may adversely affect the environment. His district faces a slew of subway and bus service reductions [PDF] without transit funding equal to that proposed under the Ravitch plan, but Diaz is as yet unwilling to stand up for the whopping 67 percent of households that don't even own a car.

Ditto Brooklyn's Carl Kruger, another congestion pricing opponent, who has called tolling "a non-starter" and "an insult to every outer-borough resident in New York City." Kruger should check his census data. Almost half of the households in his district alone are car-free, and those who own cars have an annual income that more than doubles those who don't. Yet it seems Kruger is willing to let the non-driving half of his constituency bear the brunt [PDF]. But what should we expect from the legislator who wanted to fine pedestrians for listening to iPods and talking on cell phones.

It's still unclear where Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith stands on bridge tolls. Smith's own Queens district, where some 34 percent of households don't own cars, also stands to lose bus and train service in lieu of increased MTA funding [PDF]. Like his counterpart Shelly Silver, Smith owes it to his constituents and all New Yorkers to come out strongly in favor of bridge tolls and gain majority support.

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.

"Today is Monday. There is work to be done."

So said David Paterson, who was sworn in as New York's 55th governor just after 1:00 this afternoon. Two Mondays from now, the City Council and state Legislature will need to have adopted a congestion pricing plan if the city is to receive $354 million in federal transportation funds. Opinions on whether the governor will work to make that happen still vary wildly, even among those who've talked to people close to Paterson.

Here is the Daily News, from Friday:

Incoming Gov. David Paterson may have declined to take a stand on congestion pricing Thursday - but members of his inner circle have been lobbying for the proposal.

During his first press conference since Gov. Spitzer resigned in disgrace, Paterson said he needed to delve deeper into details of the plan to charge motorists $8 to drive south of 60th St.

"Although the mayor has not directly discussed congestion pricing with him, it would seem to be a good sign that people very close to the new governor are supportive," a City Hall source said.

Former Deputy Mayor Bill Lynch and former Paterson campaign manager Luther Smith have been pitching the toll scheme as a way to fund mass transit improvements in underserved minority communities.

Smith is president of Lynch's lobbying firm, Bill Lynch Associates, which has been doing pro-pricing outreach for Communities United for Transportation Equity.

Both Lynch and Smith are advising Paterson as he makes the transition to the state's highest office.

And here is a Crain's story filed yesterday:

AS THE DEADLINE APPROACHES for legislative approval of congestion pricing, Mayor Michael Bloomberg's plan faces a new hurdle in the state Senate.

Senate Minority Leader Malcolm Smith, D-Queens, has supported the idea, but he is making no effort to rally his conference behind it. Democrats from the boroughs outside Manhattan don't want to endorse a plan that they believe is unpopular with constituents.

"It's a very heavy lift, and Malcolm recognizes that it's a problem for his members," one senator says. "He's not pressuring us."

Moreover, Mr. Bloomberg has not delivered transit upgrades that senators have requested for their districts. Instead, the legislator says, "I've gotten the same talking points over and over."

The back-and-forth continues from last week, when Paterson said his incoming admin was "taking a look" at pricing. It's the only public statement he's made so far on the subject.

On Wednesday Crain's will host a breakfast forum at the Battery Park Ritz-Carlton featuring Mayor Bloomberg and federal Transportation Secretary Mary Peters. The event is sold out.

Photo: Mary Altaffer/Associated Press via New York Times