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

Crain's also names Staten Island Councilman Mike McMahon one of the losers. They suggest that his support of congestion pricing has ruined any chance he has to win the Borough presidency. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that Crain's is wrong about that.

Only 5.8% of Staten Island's Central Business District commuters travel by car. Most of these drivers already pay a toll. Since the toll is discounted, congestion pricing wouldn't add all that much of a burden to all that many Staten Islanders. More significant, Staten Island is a big winner if congestion pricing passes. I've gotten a sneak peak at one of the new Bus Rapid Transit projects planned for the traffic-choked borough. I can't say much about it except that it is outstanding and will be the most exemplary BRT line in New York City if it goes forward as planned. It'll be a huge benefit in a borough where traffic congestion is the number one quality of life issue.

Thanks to his yes vote for congestion pricing, Mike McMahon is the guy who can say he brought this project home. Meanwhile, McMahon's likely opponent Jimmy Oddo is the guy who turned his back on the best opportunity in a generation to solve Staten Island's ever-worsening traffic problem.

Also Partnership for New York president Kathy Wylde is on NY1 tonight with Westchester Assemblyman Richard Brodsky. It should be a good show.

State Assemblyman Richard Brodsky, a prominent opponent of congestion pricing, introduced his own plan for road pricing and smart growth zoning regulations in Westchester following New York City Council's 30 to 20 vote in favor of Mayor Bloomberg's traffic mitigation initiative.

"New York City? Who needs it?" Brodsky said in a press conference this morning with the mayors of Yonkers, White Plains and New Rochelle standing by his side. "By encouraging walkable, bike-friendly, transit-oriented development, my plan will create new opportunities, preserve our environment, shorten commutes, generate funding for transit and keep the jobs here in Westchester."

Noam Bramson, the young, rising star mayor of New Rochelle said the specifics of Brodsky's plan raise serious questions, but agreed that smart growth policies provide benefits locally, regionally and nationally.

"A healthy downtown is all about people -- diners, shoppers, employees," Bramson said. "It may seem counter-intuitive to some, but from a regional and national perspective, high-rise residential construction in an urban center is sound environmental policy, because it provides an alternative to the urban sprawl that consumes far more energy and land, and because it concentrates population where infrastructure can support it, where mass transit is readily accessible, and where goods and services can be reached on foot."

Brodsky's plan would levy a $16 fee on non-Westchester residents driving northbound on the Saw Mill, Bronx River and Hutchinson River Parkways. Driving southbound on those highways into New York City would, however, be free. All of the new revenues, Brodsky said, would be plowed back into improved bus and commuter rail service and streetscape enhancements for Westchester towns.

"We have tremendous demand for domestic help and service jobs here in Westchester," Brodsky said. "We need to make sure that our housekeepers, nannies and Starbucks baristas are able to get from their working class Bronx and Queens neighborhoods to their jobs in Westchester."

Towards that end, Brodsky proposed dedicating one lane on each Westchester parkway to peak hour bus rapid transit service along with free "feeder buses" to carry residents of low density suburban neighborhoods to major transit hubs.

On Sundays, according to the Brodsky plan, the Cross County Parkway would be turned into a car-free recreational corridor for joggers, cyclists and even yoga and dance classes. Yonkers mayor Philip Amacone said that his city would set up a Parisian-style bike-sharing program to accompany the Car-Free Parkway initiative.

"Westchester is tired of accommodating New York City residents' weekend through-traffic," Brodsky said. "This summer, instead of driving to your country house, take the train up to New Rochelle and bike to Yonkers on the Cross County Parkway. That's what I'll be doing."

Regional Plan Association President Robert Yaro praised Brodsky's initiative. "Along with Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC and congestion pricing initiaitive, Brodsky's plan represents the beginning of a broad, regional transformation." Yaro added, "Plus this is a way better idea than the Assemblyman's odd-even license plate restriction proposal. That was crazy!"

Upon learning of the Car-Free Cross County Parkway plan Transportation Alternatives executive director Paul Steely White choked and spit a mouthful of coffee into the phone. "For the first time in my life I'm simply speechless," he said. "Wait, is it April Fools Day?"