Streetsblog New York City

Westchester Democrat Richard Brodsky is running for Attorney General this fall, leaving the seat of congestion pricing's leading opponent open. Will his successor take up Brodsky's anti-transit mantle or prove to better represent the environmental values on which Brodsky is now running for AG? We spoke with the three candidates vying to replace Brodsky in the Assembly, Democrats Tom Abinanti and Anna Sterne and Republican Tom Bock, to find out.

The 92nd district, which includes the towns of Greenburgh and Mount Pleasant along the western edge of Westchester County, is an interesting one for transportation advocates. The district covers very affluent suburbs -- including the well-off car commuting constituency that Brodsky represented so well -- but also has significant transit ridership: 15 percent of the district uses transit to get to the Manhattan central business district and a smaller group takes transit to other destinations [PDF].

One of the big issues in the district is the future of the Tappan Zee Bridge, which crosses the Hudson into the 92nd. Battered by traffic volumes it was never designed to carry, the Tappan Zee needs fixing. Debates have raged for years over whether the project should include bus rapid transit, light rail, and/or commuter rail and whether the bridge should be repaired or replaced. 

Then there's the central fact of this campaign: the opposition of all the candidates to the MTA payroll tax enacted by the state legislature and Governor Paterson last spring. The payroll tax provides over a billion dollars a year to the MTA, even despite lower-than-expected revenues. When it comes to transit funding, other options could complement the payroll tax to fill in the big budget gaps that remain, but not replace it. The 2008 congestion pricing proposal was expected to raise about $420 million per year while the Ravitch Plan's bridge tolls would have netted around $600 million per year. Brodsky ultimately gave muted support for the Ravitch Plan, including the payroll tax.

That shared opposition shouldn't obscure the important differences between the candidates, though. So we offer this preview of our election coverage with a look at the race for the 92nd. (We'll have more election profiles following the release of candidate survey responses from Transportation Alternatives and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign). In addition to transit and the Tappan Zee, we asked the candidates about automated traffic enforcement, traffic justice laws, and pedestrian and cyclist safety. Here are their positions, presented with the primary opponents first in alphabetical order:

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.

Read more...

The Westchester Democrat who carried the banner for congestion pricing foes in Albany two years ago is grabbing attention with another anti-transit stance. Posing as a defender of New York City school children, Assembly member Richard Brodsky sent a letter to the MTA this week claiming that "the actual cost of free and discounted student fares is close to zero." Twenty-three of his Assembly colleagues, including New York City Democrats Jeffrey Dinowitz and Linda Rosenthal, have signed on.

Brodsky's assertion is a patently false claim that has a history of surfacing when politicians try to shirk their responsibility to pay for student transportation. The argument hinges on the faulty assumption that the MTA runs a fixed number of trains and buses which students can hop on and off without affecting how the system operates. It ignores the fact that the 584,000 students who receive free or discounted fares comprise a significant portion of New York City Transit's daily ridership -- and that most of them use the system all at once. To handle the load, the MTA must run more buses and trains.

"About 20 percent of the morning peak bus requirement is moving schoolkids," said Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign. "Anyone who's been on a city bus in the morning knows exactly the truth of that."

On the subways, when students head home around 3 o'clock, there's a whole peak period distinct from the post-work evening rush hour. "They have to put out more trains to handle the afternoon rush," said Russianoff. (For more on the logistics of transporting students, read this excellent post by Jarrett Walker.)

"It's just ridiculous to say that it costs zero," said Russianoff, adding that the true cost probably lies much closer to the MTA's $214 million figure in yearly foregone fares.

In ignoring the facts about student transport, Brodsky has company in addition to his fellow Assembly members. He joins the likes of former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, whom Russianoff remembers making a similar argument when the city attempted to withdraw funding for student transit passes back in 1995. That showdown ended when the city, state, and MTA each agreed to contribute $45 million to student transportation.

The facts are: for fifteen years the MTA has been shouldering an increasing proportion of the cost of getting kids to school; Brodsky, the rest of the state legislature, and Governor Paterson have cut the state's contribution to covering that cost even further; and, in being asked to pay for an educational expense -- student transport -- the MTA is an exception among American transit agencies.

Up in Albany, however, robbing from transit is the norm.

The Municipal Art Society came out with a report yesterday urging New York State to start analyzing greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental review process (SEQRA). MAS argues that the policy could be adopted without changing existing laws, which raises an interesting question to ponder on this Earth Day afternoon: Would the State Senate's latest MTA funding plan pass muster if it were subject to an EIS that factors in climate change?

The MTA rescue package does not, in fact, fall under the purview of SEQRA, even though it's probably the most important piece of climate policy that the state legislature will consider this year. The Senate's latest stab would keep the trains and buses running for a few more months, but it's an eco-stinker compared to the Ravitch plan and any other package that includes road pricing or tolls on currently free bridges.

Let's go back to the spring of 2008. Remember all the carping from Richard Brodsky and other state legislators about congestion pricing not going through the SEQRA process? That was regarding a policy projected to take 112,000 cars off the road each day. Now we have an MTA funding plan getting serious consideration that would create worse traffic bottlenecks and more incentives to drive, but so far not even a peep about environmental consequences from Albany.

Biggest Setback: After being approved by an unprecedented civic coalition, the mayor and New York City Council, congestion pricing -- the one policy measure that simultaneously reduces traffic congestion while raising money for mass transit and livable streets -- died in an Albany backroom without even a vote.

Lobbyists of the Year: Walter McCaffrey and the Committee to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free (below). It turns out New York City government is controlled by a handful of Queens Democrats, suburban state legislators and the Automobile Club of New York.

How Not to Lobby a State Legislator: Brooklyn State Senator Martin Malave Dilan's car is towed during a congestion pricing meeting with city officials.

Most Sociopathic Elected Official: Bronx State Senator Jeff Klein nearly crushes a cyclist with his black Mercedes and then tells him, "Get your hands off my car, you f*#king a55hole." Unfortunately for Sen. Klein, this particular cyclist happens to run a pretty robust media operation.

Most Disappointing Elected Officials: During the congestion pricing debate, three State Assemblymembers stood out for their enormous potential to exert leadership and their utter inability or unwillingness to do so. Deborah Glick, Joan Millman and Hakeem Jeffries all represent districts that would have overwhelmingly benefited from New York City's congestion pricing plan. Yet, Glick could only find reasons to oppose it. Millman decided she supported it -- two hours after the proposal was killed by her Democratic Assembly colleagues. And Jeffries had the gall to demand increased subway service on the G line three weeks after helping to eliminate the revenue source that might have paid for it. If only New York City were represented in the state Assembly by an aggressive, attentive, self-aggrandizing politician like...

Elected Official of the Year: You've got to hand it to Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky -- he works hard for his constituents and supporters. Unfortunately for New York City's traffic-choked neighborhoods, beleaguered transit riders and asthmatic kids, his constituents are the metropolitan region's wealthiest car commuters and his supporters own a bunch of parking garages in Manhattan. While New York City's legislators rolled over and played dead, Richard Brodsky worked his butt off to make sure that New York City's congestion pricing plan -- a plan approved by the Mayor, City Council and a state commission -- died a quiet death in the Assemly's Democratic conference. Brodsky did incredible damage to New York City in 2008 but he also showed us what effective representation in Albany might look like.

Worst Elected Official: Rochester Assemblyman and transportation committee chairman David Gantt continued his decade-long effort to deny New York City the ability to deploy automated traffic enforcement systems on its streets. He loosened up a little bit though. This year he introduced legislation that would allow counties outside of New York City to use red light cameras -- as long as they purchased the technology from a Swedish firm represented by one of his cronies. Shocking? Not really. Just another day in Albany.

Most Opinions Fewest Solutions Award: From now on, this will be called the Anthony Weiner Award.

Most Moronic Idea From Albany: State Senators Jeff Klein and Eric Adams put on their serious, fighting-for-the-people faces and proposed suspending tolls on New York City bridges and tunnels and giving drivers a $200 gas tax rebate ahead of Memorial Day weekend. Not planning to burn lots of gasoline for your summer holiday? These two have nothing for you.

Not that we need more evidence that the Yankee Stadium parking deal was rancid to the core, but a Saturday story in the Times reveals the sad details of the Bloomberg administration's push for luxury game day digs -- a 12-seat suite in left field -- for which it traded 250 spots to the team.

The parking spaces were given to the team for the private use of Yankees officials, players and others; the spaces were originally planned for public parking. The city also turned over the rights to three new billboards along the Major Deegan Expressway, and whatever revenue they generate, as part of the deal.

The quest for perks first made news months ago following an inquiry by Assembly Member Richard Brodsky, but the nature of recently uncovered e-mails between the team, the city, and the Economic Development Corporation is depressingly banal.

At another point, raw personal feelings emerged, as evidenced during this exchange, starting June 29, 2006, between top city officials about Randy Levine, the Yankees president.

"If we want a deal on the suite, he wants 250 spaces," Seth W. Pinsky, then the executive vice president of the city’s Economic Development Corporation, wrote to Daniel L. Doctoroff, a former deputy mayor. After Mr. Doctoroff did not respond, Mr. Pinsky, a bit sheepishly, wrote the next day: "It comes down to how much we’re willing to rely on Randy’s word."

"Let’s not give," Mr. Doctoroff replied. "I don’t trust him."

The Daily News has more, including PDF files of some e-mails. The News notes that taxpayers could end up paying for the spots if stadium garages, as expected, take a loss.

And the kicker? Follow the jump for mind-bending quotes from Westchester's faux-populist-in-chief.

Read more...

Last week we e-mailed a short list of questions about the MTA financial crisis to Assembly Member Richard Brodsky. Here are his responses, received yesterday, shortly after we posted our "doomsday" scorecard.

Streetsblog: Given the MTA's need for both operating and capital funds, what revenue streams would you like to see tapped at this point for each?
Richard Brodsky: Earlier this year, Speaker Silver and the Assembly were the only State leaders to adopt an MTA funding plan, which was based on the Millionaire's Tax. I supported the Speaker's efforts and will do so again.

SB: What is your reaction to reports that the Ravitch Commission may recommend tolls on East River bridges, and/or the introduction of congestion pricing, as MTA funding sources?
RB: Dick Ravitch is a smart, tough, thoughtful man and the Commission's recommendations will be taken seriously.

SB: Are you comfortable with a fare increase for transit riders, as the MTA is considering?
RB: I have very publicly argued for increased public support for the MTA on the capital and operating sides and will continue to do so. The financial responsibility for the mass transit system should not be limited to those who use the system, but should include contributions from those who benefit from it.

SB: How quickly do you anticipate Albany will act on the MTA crisis, once the authority presents its proposed budget and the Ravitch Commission weighs in?
RB: It's very difficult to say. Again, the Speaker and the Assembly have a long record of protecting mass transit.  We're working to find partners.

In today's Times, Richard Brodsky weighs in on the pitfalls of shortchanging capital needs in the face of the immediate MTA budget crisis.

"The need for investment in the system is gargantuan," said Assemblyman Richard L. Brodsky, a Democrat from Westchester County who is chairman of a committee that oversees the authority. "Twenty-five years from now what we do on the capital plan will resonate much more loudly than what the debate is going to be about fare increases."

"It would be a terrible mistake to take whatever resources may be available and use them all on the operating side," Mr. Brodsky said.

The key words here: "whatever resources may be available." As the MTA contemplates eliminating bus routes and subway lines in addition to raising fares, we have not yet heard a proposed solution from Brodsky, who promised Streetsblog in April that he and his colleagues, having killed congestion pricing, would "continue ... good faith efforts to deal with the real problems of congestion and mass transit funding."

We have a message in with Brodsky's office in hopes of getting his views on potential service cuts, fare hikes, and the possibility that the Ravitch Commission will recommend measures that he has opposed in the past, including congestion pricing.

This week's Observer is running a profile of DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. It focuses on the speed with which many of DOT's Sustainable Streets projects are moving ahead and seems to suggest either:

a) Improving conditions for New York City's pedestrians, cyclists and bus riders is a Communist plot. Or,
b) The change that Sadik-Khan is bringing to New York City's streets is akin to the Russian Revolution.

Read more...

A short item in yesterday's Crain's Insider notes that the hiring of 100 additional traffic agents is on hold due to belt-tightening in the city budget:

An increase in the number of traffic agents, called for in PlaNYC, was cut from the city budget approved Sunday. The agents were to patrol new bus lanes and ticket cars under the anti-gridlock law just approved in Albany. Previously, only police officers could write the tickets. Adding agents is now slated for fiscal 2010.

According to the 2008 PlaNYC progress report [PDF], the new hires had already been postponed, so this is the second year in a row that beefing up the number of traffic enforcement agents will be delayed. Makes you wonder if the money will be there in 2010, as hoped for.

Earlier this year, when Richard Brodsky was touting his version of a congestion mitigation plan [PDF], the Westchester Assemblyman championed better enforcement as a key alternative strategy to pricing. His plan, which he introduced in the State Assembly as bill number A10198, also included a provision for 100 additional traffic agents. (It did not, incidentally, include red-light or bus-lane cameras.)

The bill never came up for a vote. Now the city is having trouble funding the same number of agents (we have a request into the mayor's office to determine why this provision was singled out). Will Brodsky and the Assembly Democrats who stood with him in February back up their talk next session, and push for the enforcement measures in A10198? Inquiries placed to his office yesterday afternoon and this morning have not yet been returned.