Richard Brodsky was the most visible and vocal critic of congestion pricing in the Assembly.

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:

Photo: NYLCV

Tom Abinanti currently serves as the majority leader of the Westchester County Board. In that capacity, he says, he has a long history of fighting for mass transportation. Most recently, he said, he fought to maintain funding for commuter buses into New York City. "We have to recognize they serve a public purpose," he said, "so people don't drive, so you don't have to build parking garages."

Based on his record, the New York League of Conservation Voters has endorsed him and made his election in the primary a top priority. "Tom has been a real champion for re-thinking Westchester’s heavy reliance on the automobile," said NYLCV spokesman Dan Hendrick, citing Abinanti's support of the county's global warming action plan and transit-oriented development. Hendrick said that Sterne did not seek NYLCV's endorsement.

"We need to have mass transit," asserted Abinanti, "and we have to pay for it." Paying for it, however, is where Abinanti's support for transit became shakier, as was true for each candidate. If elected, he said, he would fight to repeal the MTA payroll tax: "It's forcing people to pay for something they're not using."

Abinanti did offer a hesitant statement in support of congestion pricing, however, saying "the concept was a good concept." The fact that environmental advocates supported congestion pricing in 2008 seemed to be a big factor in Abinanti's position. Even so, Abinanti would have liked to see revisions to the congestion pricing plan that came up short in 2008, including measures that would have "moderated the impact on the middle class" and the construction of more park-and-rides.

With regards to the Tappan Zee, Abinanti said his first priority is keeping the project's physical footprint as small as possible. "If they turn the bridge a certain way," he said, "they would literally destroy these homes." He pointed to the inclusion of rail and the construction of a new bridge, as opposed to repairs, as particularly worrisome to him in this regard. If the existing communities at the feet of the bridge are preserved, however, he'd like to see transit on the bridge. "We need to move people and not just cars," he said.

Abinanti expressed ambivalence over camera enforcement. "There has to be a balance between the use of technology, concern for individual rights, and then the third factor of home rule," he said.

In terms of protecting pedestrians and cyclists, Abinanti suggested that new infrastructure, not new legislation, is the best solution. "There are not a lot of holes left that need to be filled by new laws," he argued, rejecting attempts to pass laws that are tougher on dangerous drivers. In Westchester, he said, what's really needed are east-west bike paths to augment the north-south trailway system that is already in place. If elected, he promised to support additional funding for bike and pedestrian infrastructure. 

He did, however, express his support for Merrill's Law, which requires drivers to maintain a three-foot distance when passing a cyclist. That law, he said, had an educational function which laws increasing penalties do not. Merrill Cassell, for whom the law was named, was killed in the 92nd District. 

Photo: Sterne campaign website

Anna Sterne is a nurse and the president of the Dobbs Ferry School Board. She grew up on Dyckman Street in Upper Manhattan, where she says she pushed for livable streets from a young age. At ten, she said, she petitioned Mayor Wagner for bike paths in Highbridge Park, and in high school she became the first woman to visit every single subway station. 

Sterne saw complete streets as a transportation priority, suggesting the state establish an incentive program for local governments. "School districts could save money by having students walk to school," she said, "but too many districts don't have enough sidewalks." She also suggested providing all New York high school students with transit passes and facilitating the creation of electric vehicle infrastructure.

Sterne enthusiastically supported including both commuter rail and BRT on the Tappan Zee. "This would totally change the trip not just Rockland to Westchester, but within Westchester," she said. She questioned why BRT across the bridge had to wait for the bridge to be rebuilt. "I think we need it now. You could get rid of so much car traffic."

As with the other candidates, however, how to pay for all these improvements remains something of a question mark. Sterne has lobbied against the MTA payroll tax. "As a school district, it costs us a teacher," she said. "When you look at it like that, it really is incredibly burdensome. I'd love to see it repealed." She also argued against congestion pricing and bridge tolls. In neighborhoods near the bridges or congestion cordon, she worried, "That would just cause such traffic chaos."

Instead, Sterne suggested increasing the gas tax to fund transit. "It'll be one more incentive not to drive," she explained. "Put it on the cars."

Sterne showed the most enthusiasm for efforts to use law enforcement to make streets safer. "I'm a nurse," she said. "I can talk to you about car injuries." She said she'd vote to expand camera enforcement and support new traffic justice laws, especially those targeting drivers with suspended licenses. "Why does that person still have a car?" she asked.

Photo: Bock campaign website

Tom Bock is a former chief of the Elmsford Fire Department and works as a systems administrator. He ran unsuccessfully for the county board last year. His campaign website prominently features his connections with the Tea Party movement. 

Bock came off as a strong supporter of cyclists and pedestrians. He assailed current transportation planners, saying "they haven't accommodated biking lanes or walking lanes. Everything seems to be motorized transportation." With more bike lanes, he argued, you could reduce traffic congestion. "The supermarket I go to is a little far for walking," he said, "but I wouldn't have a problem biking there."

On most issues, however, his favored policies would increase the number of people driving. Bock called for eliminating all bridge tolls entirely. "That adds to the congestion we suffer from," he asserted. Though the elimination of both tolls and the payroll tax would take billions away from the MTA and the Thruway Authority, Bock argued that better management could recoup those losses: "What they are doing is shifting their incompetency to outside people."

Bock would oppose any Tappan Zee project that uses eminent domain. He also opposed the inclusion of transit along the bridge. "They're talking about adding a new bus every five minutes into the already congested traffic," he said. He also thought it was inappropriate to pay for new transit across the bridge while the Westchester Bee Line was cutting existing service.

Though Bock said he didn't oppose camera enforcement or stricter traffic laws, he doubted their efficacy. "At the end of the day, people who drink continue to drink and drive," he said, implying that speeding can't be deterred by enforcement.

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.

Simply stated, we ask that you immediately withdraw the threat to student fares, that you review the actual cost of the program across the MTA region, that you ensure that all students in the region be treated equally, and that you work with us to develop a fairer, clearer, and more successful negotiating strategy to get the MTA more money. For better of worse, this issue is becoming a defining moment for transit advocates in and out of the Legislature. In the spirit of fairness and cooperation, we ask for a timely response to this letter.

Best wishes,

Richard Brodsky

Michael Benedetto

Michael Benjamin

Jonathan Bing

James Brennan

Marcos Crespo

Jeffrey Dinowitz

Carl Heastie

Andrew Hevesi

Micah Kellner

Rory Lancman

Joseph Lentol

Margaret Markey

Grace Meng

Joan Millman

Audrey Pheffer

Peter Rivera

Linda Rosenthal

Michael Spano

Fred Thiele Jr.

Matthew Titone

Carmen Arroyo

Vivian Cook

Rhoda Jacobs

The only signatories who do not represent New York City districts are Brodsky and Spano, who represent Westchester, and Thiele, who represents Suffolk.

Him again.

"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.

Where's the Assembly's eco-warrior when you need him?

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.

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.

Mr. Brodsky said what emerges from the e-mail correspondence is a sense of entitlement ingrained in Bloomberg officials. He said that the city appeared to be pushing for use of the suite for not just regular-season games, but for the playoffs and the World Series, and for special events like concerts, too.

"There’s this 'Alice in Wonderland' quality to the question of, what is the public interest here and who’s protecting it?" said Mr. Brodsky, who conducted a hearing on the issue of public financing of sports stadiums this summer. "We can’t find the money for the M.T.A., or schools, or hospitals, and these folks are used to the perks and good things of life, and expect them."

Richard Brodsky railing about entitlements and perks -- in the name of the MTA? We are through the looking glass, indeed.

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.

You be the judge:

On the ideological scale of transportation planning, her policies err far closer to Trotsky than Reagan. She is decidedly pro-bike and pro-pedestrian, and thus inherently anti-automobile, earning her constant praise from the normally critical transit advocates.

This raises some obvious questions. If Sadik-Khan is Leon Trotsky does that mean suburban Westchester Assemblyman and congestion pricing foe Richard Brodsky is Josef Stalin? Will Sadik-Khan be exiled to an upstate gulag when Bloomberg is term-limited out of office?

All fun and games aside, as we gird ourselves for the Tony Avellafication of the 2009 mayoral race, the last two paragraphs of the article are worth discussing:

With many of Ms. Sadik-Khan’s key initiatives, there is a potential lack of permanency. The same features that allow the DOT’s projects to get in the ground swiftly could also seal their fate in a future administration: The city has claimed lanes of Broadway as open space with some epoxy, sand, paint, plants and tables, yet a future administration could just as easily pack up those tables and put lane markers right back down on the roadway.

This prospect seemed almost incomprehensible to Ms. Sadik-Khan, who seemed to think that public resistance to it would prove too great, the ease of removal notwithstanding. “People are very protective about their public space,” she said. “I think it would be very hard to take these spaces back to the state that they were in before.”

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.

With higher gas prices pushing drivers onto the city's trains and buses, the Daily News today blasted Speaker Sheldon Silver and Assembly Dems for passing up the billions of dollars that congestion pricing would have brought to MTA coffers. 

The trends prove that the theory of congestion pricing was valid: When the cost of driving rises, people actually do switch to mass transit.

Had Silver and the Assembly passed congestion pricing, as the City Council did, the MTA would already be using that $354 million in federal aid (which has now been disbursed about the country) to make more bus and subway seats available.

Then, the congestion fee would have given the MTA a half-billion dollars a year to pay for big projects like completing the Second Ave. subway and extending LIRR service to Grand Central Terminal. When that money vanished, the MTA's building plan was eviscerated.

The agency does not have the money it needs to keep the transit system in good repair, let alone to expand. Gov. Paterson has asked the estimable Richard Ravitch, a former MTA chairman, to hunt up cash.

He'll find no easy fixes. Option 1: Raise taxes. Option 2: Raise fares. Option 3: Congestion pricing.

Pricing foes must be waiting for Ravitch to make the next move, because we've heard virtually nothing from them since the plan was smothered behind closed doors over a month ago -- other than demands for improved transit service.

But what of Brodsky, Glick, and Weiner? Or Bearak and McCaffrey? Where are they now that their storied working class drivers, priced out of their cars, must rely on a beleaguered transit system that doesn't have the fiscal boost promised by congestion pricing?

Oh, right. They're stuck in traffic.

Graphic: New York Daily News 

Scheduled to appear at a panel discussion on the fate of Moynihan Station beginning at 6:30 pm Tuesday at the Municipal Art Society headquarters, congestion pricing foe Assemblyman Richard Brodsky arrived at 7:20 pm, more than halfway through the event. His empty seat prompted more than a few raised eyebrows. At one point, someone observed that Brodsky was "stuck in transit." Kathryn Wylde, president and CEO of the Partnership for NYC, a congestion pricing advocate, riposted: "Stuck in traffic."

When Brodsky arrived, he was contrite. "There was an accident," he said. "This unintentional disrespect I deeply apologize for."

Park Avenue co-op owners could easily have absorbed the $8 fee. But it would have been tougher for the Flatbush carpenter who does not want to schlep his toolbox on the subway so he can renovate a Tribeca kitchen or the Queens home care attendant who might have to take a bus to a subway to care for an elderly woman in Gramercy Park but is lucky enough to have a husband who can drop her off on his way to work.

As commenters have pointed out in the thread for today's headlines, it's easy to impart made-up motivations to imaginary characters, but how about citing some real data? Is it that difficult to dig up census numbers on car commute rates or how much car owners earn compared to people who depend on transit?

Come to think of it, throughout the whole lead-up to the pricing non-vote, it's hard to recall a news account in any of the major dailies that gave more than token print to the populist argument of the pro-pricing side. While editorial boards at the Times and Daily News were steadfast pricing supporters, for whatever reason -- dull copy? a superficial attempt to maintain "balance"? laziness? -- the day-to-day reporting seldom, if ever, challenged the assumptions beneath Brodsky's "progressive" stance.

The way the Democratic members see it, opening potentially contested votes up to all the members of the Assembly would be a voluntary abdication of party advantage. The will of the majority of Democrats, they point out, correctly, might not be done.

“If you had 44 Republicans and 32 Democrats, you could theoretically pass a bill that a majority of the Democratic conference opposed,” said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky of Westchester, who emerged as the vocal public leader of the opposition to congestion pricing. “That is not the way we run the system. And frankly, it’s not the way we should run the system.”

Assemblyman Jonathan Bing, a good-government type from the East Side of Manhattan, explained it by saying, “The idea that democracy did not occur here [because] it was not a floor vote really is incorrect. Democracy occurred with every member of the Assembly majority providing the speaker with his or her views, whether it was in conference or when the speaker polled members.”

“The process works in ways in which the committee structure weeds out bad bills and kills them,” Mr. Brodsky explained. “In this case, the issue was so important that the conference substituted for a committee meeting. It was a committee of the whole, as it were.”

And there you have it: democracy, firing-squad style. You know the victim is dead, but you'll never know who pulled the trigger.

Streetsblog: Without pricing, how will the MTA get funded?
Russianoff: They currently have a proposed $29.5B capital plan. The vast majority is for stuff that absolutely has to be done -- rehabbing 44 stations, buying buses, signal and track work, and so on. There is a $9B projected deficit plus $4.5B that will not be coming from pricing bonds, plus $4B that won't be coming in additional city and state money that was promised if pricing passed.

"Traditionally the MTA has raised funds from broad-based taxes -- corporate income tax, mortgage recording tax, real estate transaction tax, sales tax, gas tax -- and through fares and tolls. With tolls, excess from upkeep of bridges and tunnels is given to the MTA, and a large chunk of that is used for capital projects. Now [without pricing], we can do what [former MTA chief Peter] Kalikow said five years ago and increase all of them a little bit."

But these are all subject to fluctuation, as we're seeing now with the dip in real estate tax revenues, which had previously allowed the MTA to run surpluses.

"So one solution is the traditional one, which is to raise one or more of those taxes." Richard Brodsky has said relying on a broad-based tax is what he prefers.

Streetsblog: What about this millionaire's tax proposal?
Russianoff: "Doesn't seem like it's going to pass this time around. Senate Republicans have rejected it. Bottom line is they'll have to come up with the money from somewhere."

Streetsblog: What about Fidler's payroll tax?
Russianoff: "In the 25 years I've followed transit, just about every kind of tax has been proposed."

In 1984, the Democrats proposed a version of the payroll tax to support the MTA. Republicans didn't want it, so they proposed the corporate income tax, which passed. They put in a sunset clause, so now it comes up for renewal every few years. Legislators use it to "extract their pound of flesh from the MTA" -- i.e. the threat of lowering the rate or not renewing the tax is used as leverage to get projects they want.

Streetsblog: With congestion pricing off the table and the deadline to receive $354M in federal support about to pass, will other traffic mitigation measures surface in the state legislature?
Brodsky: Several have already been proposed, including better enforcement (block-the-box and double parking being the prime targets) and reforms of yellow cab and black car services. But there is no support for using pricing or any other ability-to-pay mechanisms.

Streetsblog: How will the projected shortfall in the MTA capital plan be addressed? Pricing would have taken care of a big chunk of it -- what are some likely alternatives that will be proposed?
Brodsky: The Assembly has already passed a small increase in the income tax rate for those who earn over $1,000,000 a year, with the proceeds largely going to mass transit capital across the state. It has the added advantage of being pay-as-you-go, saving billions in interest costs.

Take Hakeem Jeffries. The Brooklyn assemblyman reportedly has no position on pricing at the moment, but not so long ago he stood with Richard Brodsky in support of the Westchester pricing foe's $6.50 taxi drop charge "alternative."

In addition to system-wide and Brooklyn-specific improvements, here is just some of what residents of Jeffries' district stand to lose without pricing:

• 33 new buses on the B41 line
• Structural overcoating on the B and Q lines between Prospect Park and Sheepshead Bay
• Upgrade of the PA systems in the Bedford-Nostrand, Classon, Clinton-Washington and Fulton Street stations on the G line
• Flooding improvements for the Crosstown Line
• An 8.1% to 22.1% percent reduction in traffic jams

Check your district fact sheets to see what's on the block in your neighborhood. And if you haven't called your reps already, now is the time to pass this information on.

Richard Brodsky may have overplayed his hand in his latest attempt to cast congestion pricing as the bane of the less fortunate.

As we noted Wednesday, after Brodsky received a letter from the charity God's Love We Deliver asking for a congestion fee exemption, he began using the organization's request to paint his opponents as cruel and insensitive. In a phone interview this morning, God’s Love spokesman Gary Snieski clarified the position of his organization, which delivers meals from its kitchen in Manhattan to seriously ill people throughout the region.

"We're not against congestion pricing," he said. "What we’re trying to do is work within the congestion pricing initiative and safeguard the interests of our clients." They want an exemption, yes, but not a total collapse of the proposal.

Nor did God's Love intend their letter to become a battering ram for Brodsky. "Once that letter was sent out, the way it was used, we had no control over that," Snieski said, noting that by pitting God's Love against Greyhound (which has received an exemption), Brodsky had created a conflict where none existed before. "He made a very polarized comparison between us and Greyhound that put us in an awkward position."

Having read some of the comments on Streetsblog's original post, Snieski made his case for granting a fee exemption to God's Love. The organization's 16 delivery vehicles must operate during peak hours to deliver meals for clients on strict medication schedules, he said. They do not have the funds to move their kitchen outside the congestion zone.

When I asked if a congestion fee would be offset by lessening costs already incurred by traffic, Snieski said that drivers do get stuck in traffic, but not to the extent that God's Love must pay them overtime. They're usually back at headquarters by 4 or 5. Still, he agrees that traffic is a big problem.

"We're out in this traffic every day. We know how horrific it is, so we're not against [congestion pricing]."

Photo: kchbrown/Flickr

To get a sense of the issues that congestion pricing advocates will have to address in the State Assembly, download this letter that Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky circulated to his fellow Democrats yesterday.

In it, Brodsky repeats the debunked claim that congestion pricing is a "regressive tax" on middle class New York City residents, he suggest improprieties in "the Mayor's tactics," and even manages to bring in Alfonse D'Amato, the ultimate New York State Democratic bogeyman.

Brodsky's letter also includes a prominent two-page attachment from Karen Pearl, the president of God's Love We Deliver, a non-profit organization that delivers cooked meals to about 3,000 seriously ill people throughout the metropolitan region. With a fleet of 16 vans and a headquarters in SoHo, Pearl estimates that the congestion charge could cost her organization between $30,000 and $80,000 a year.

Pearl asks Brodsky merely to argue for "appropriate adjustments and/or exemptions" for organizations like hers. But if you saw the Assemblyman's debate with Kathy Wylde on NY1 last night, then you know that Brodsky is trying to turn God's Love into something like the Willie Horton of the congestion pricing campaign, the symbol of all that is wrong with Mayor Bloomberg's proposal. The choice, as Brodsky presents it, is clear: It's Creepy Republican lobbyist Al D'Amato and his big business interests vs. God's Love We Deliver and the AIDS patients they feed. Whose side are you on?

The tactic might even be working. I chatted with a Deborah Glick staffer last night and God's Love We Deliver was one of the first points he hit in explaining why his boss, who represents one of the districts that stands to gain the most from pricing, is still "uncomfortable" with the plan.

We apologize in advance for subjecting you to the barrage of misinformation that follows.

Dear Friend,

I do not support the congestion pricing plan which has been passed by the City Council.

The biggest problem with this congestion pricing proposal is that it sets a very bad precedent by setting aside the SEQRA requirements for an environmental impact study before undertaking a major project. The requirement that an Environmental Impact Study be completed before a major project is approved is critical to protecting people from the consequences of bad projects.

I believe the refusal to do such an EIS is because this proposal does not really achieve a reduction of congestion but rather seeks to impose a regressive tax on families. It fails to include elements which might be effective at reducing the environmental impacts of traffic congestion, such as favoring green low gas and hybrid vehicles, encouraging cars with two and three riders, making a fee progressive with income, targeting black cars and taxis (which equal 40% of all cars in the Manhattan congestion zone), and enforcing higher fines for illegal and double parking in congestion zone, eliminating the credit for tolls (which will exempt most of the congestion fee for New Jersey and Conn. drivers), establishing some form of rationing such as prohibiting vehicles with odd or even license plates to odd or even days, thereby encouraging car pooling, etc.

But the real goal of the proposal is to provide a new revenue source from the middle class and working poor. Even worse, the failure of the plan to require such additional revenues be used to make public transit more accessible and affordable for the families of our neighborhoods instead of allowing it to fund major capital projects favored by developers is hypocritical and dooms any hope for making public transit more accessible and affordable or for any real hope of a reduction in congestion.

In fact passage of this plan will almost guarantee a large fare increase because whatever monies which are given to the MTA will not be used to pay for public transit improvements but instead will be used to collateralize borrowing which will result in higher future interest payments which public transit users will need to repay with higher fares. Therefore it will not encourage people to use cars since use of mass transit will be almost as expensive. The congestion fee will impact on those with low and middle incomes and will have little impact on the wealthy who will simply use it as a business deduction.

There are many more arguments against this plan but these are some very major ones which require me to vote no in order to protect the families of our neighborhood.

Thanks,
Bill