Adriano Espaillat voted for a gas tax holiday -- which won't even help lower costs at the pump -- on the dime of the 70 percent of his constituents who don't own a car. Photo: Chu for Daily News

The New York State Senate voted for a “gas tax holiday” yesterday, moving to eliminate the three state taxes on fuel for the busy Memorial Day, Independence Day and Labor Day weekends this year. The estimated loss of revenue would be $60 million.

The 48 state senators who voted for the gas tax holiday wanted to ensure that drivers didn’t have to pay for the environmental and social costs of their actions — a misguided enough goal — but their desperate attempt to pander wouldn’t even have been a success on those grounds.

As economists from across the political spectrum have stated, a summertime gas tax holiday wouldn’t reduce the price at the pump. Oil companies would charge the same rate and pocket the difference. The libertarian Cato Institute, no friend of taxes, called gas tax holidays a “holiday from reality” in 2008. If we really must pander to motorists, surely we can all agree that New Yorkers deserve better panderers.

Those state senators, however, are savvy politicos. They can’t deliver the goods, but they know their audience. That’s where the gas tax vote is especially revealing.

Even if a gas tax holiday worked as promised, reducing the price at the pump instead of increasing Exxon’s profit margins, it’s a sure thing where the money comes from: the state’s transportation budget. If the gas tax holiday costs $60 million, that’s $60 million in new revenues needed for the MTA and state DOT, or $60 million more in cuts to things like education. While only drivers would even theoretically benefit, everyone else would pay the price.

Voting for a gas tax holiday means you’re worried about appeasing drivers in your district and not too concerned with sending everybody else the bill. That’s probably good politics if you’re Patrick Gallivan, the Western New York senator whose district has a 96 percent car ownership rate according to Streetsblog’s analysis of Census data. More outrageous is the fact that many New York City senators seem to agree.

The worst offender is new Upper Manhattan rep Adriano Espaillat. He voted for the gas tax holiday even though 70 percent of households in his district do not own a car. He thinks all of them need to pay to keep things easier for the other, wealthier, 30 percent. Almost as galling are the yes votes from Senate Transportation Committee chair Martin Dilan (whose district is 66 percent car-free), Ruben Diaz, Sr. (63 percent car free) and Eric Adams (62 percent car-free). Adams and Bronx Senator Jeff Klein had floated a similar idea in 2008, proposing to suspend tolls on bridges and tunnels while giving drivers a “gas tax rebate.”

Now that such a shameless pander has actually come up for a vote, kudos are due to Shirley Huntley, Toby Ann Stavisky and Diane Savino, the only three senators who voted against the gas tax holiday despite having a majority car-owning district. You can see the full, short list of senators who voted against handing the oil companies extra millions in the roll call.

Luckily, there is no indication that the Republican-sponsored plan is going anywhere in the State Assembly.

Monserrate, of course, was expelled from the State Senate and then defeated in a special election for his old seat by Assembly Member José Peralta. Peralta was one of the leading opponents of bridge tolls in the Assembly and put his opposition to congestion pricing front and center on his campaign website. In Peralta's Senate district, 53.3 percent of households do not own a car [PDF].

Carlos Ramos, Jr. and Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter.

In a press release tied to the Staten Island Ferry crash, Ramos announced his general support for sustainable transportation. "Innovative ways to relieve vehicular congestion in the city, such as the 'Yankee Ferry' here in the Bronx, should be explored in an effort to reduce our carbon footprint and thwart potential environmental hazards," the statement read.

In the district where Ramos is running, 67.0 percent of households do not own a car [PDF].

Desiree Pilgrim-Hunter, a leader in the fight for higher wages at the Kingsbridge Armory, has taken on scandal-battered Pedro Espada. Before she takes any position on MTA financing, Pilgrim-Hunter told us, she wants to "look at the books -- the real books -- to look at what's going on and how this money is being managed." 

She stressed that she supported the MTA ("We have the best transportation system in the world, just about"), but declined to give a specific answer about how she'd help provide the transit system with financial stability. "We've seen service cuts, we've seen fare hikes, we've seen new taxes," she said. "Somehow it doesn't seem to work, or it's just a temporary fix. I think we need to look at the entire structure of the MTA and whether it needs an overhaul."

Pilgrim-Hunter also spoke about her last big tangle with the MTA, over the location of a Select Bus Service stop in her neighborhood. She thought that the stop, located at the bottom of a steep hill, wasn't accessible to senior citizens or the disabled. Though Pilgrim-Hunter was successful in getting the stop moved, she still has doubts about the Fordham Road bus improvements overall. "It has caused us to lose businesses," she said, "because the stops have taken away the parking for the businesses to get their deliveries and for their customers to come."

In the district where Pilgrim-Hunter is running, 71.5 percent of households do not own a car [PDF].

Last night, shortly after Pedro Espada secured his $41,000 majority leader perk, the State Senate returned to the business of legislating. Liz Benjamin has several posts today explaining what that looked like. In less than 24 hours, the chamber passed 135 bills. It could have passed 136, but Bronx Democrat Ruben Diaz, Sr. sided against his party and killed a measure to stiffen penalties for traffic violations on Long Island:

Diaz Sr. raised eyebrows when he crossed the aisle to join the GOP in voting against a bill that would have established a mandatory surcharge for traffic offenses and infractions in Suffolk and Nassau counties.

It was not immediately evident why the Bronx Democrat would care enough about such a parochial suburban issue to buck his own conference. His move created a 31-31 tie, and since Richard Ravitch is not yet presiding over the chamber (and probably couldn’t have legally cast the stalemate-breaking vote, anyway), Sen. Malcolm Smith decided to take the bill off the floor.

The reason Diaz stalled the bill? He wanted to cajole Republicans into opposing an increase to New York City’s sales tax. Of course, the ploy, if you can call it that, didn’t work at all. The sales tax coasted to passage in a 43-19 vote (so much for avoiding taxes on hard-working New Yorkers). But rest easy, Nassau and Suffolk drivers: Ruben Diaz, Sr. has got you covered, again.

In this scene from last night's State Senate vote on the MTA funding package, Fare Hike Four member Ruben Diaz, Sr. relishes his substantial influence over the final bill:

Today I'm standing here proud to say to my constituents. I promise you, constituents of the 32nd senatorial district, no toll.

That would be the asthma-plagued Bronx district where 67 percent of the households don't own cars [PDF] and the transit-riding majority endures the most crowded, cramped conditions in the city. Thanks to the intransigence of Diaz and company on bridge tolls, it's going to be much tougher to improve commutes for straphangers in the 32nd.

Well, here we are again.

One year after State Assembly Democrats killed New York City’s attempt to fund mass transit and reduce traffic gridlock, sustainable transport advocates find themselves suffering yet another huge defeat in Albany.

Fixing Albany requires volunteers dragging themselves out to the Kings Highway Q train platform in the middle of Carl Kruger’s district and handing palm cards to commuters explaining that the impending fare hike is the direct result of their state senator’s fine work.

On Wednesday the MTA Board approved the “doomsday” scenario – massive fare hikes and sweeping service cuts for New York City’s eight million transit riders. The State Legislature easily could have avoided doomsday by approving Richard Ravitch’s financing plan or coming up with a viable alternative of its own. But a handful of New York City State Senators, Carl Kruger, Ruben Diaz Sr., Pedro Espada and Hiram Monserrate – call them the Fare Hike Four – couldn’t bear the thought of imposing new fees on New York City’s motorists. In working to protect the free driving privilege of New York City’s armada of horn-honking, exhaust-spewing, road-clogging single-passenger car commuters, the State Senate has brought the city’s transit system to the brink of financial ruin. If you ride a train or bus in New York City you're going to pay the price.

The irresponsibility, the destructiveness and sheer lack of seriousness displayed by the Fare Hike Four is without question and we could spend all day heaping scorn on them. But the Senate Democrats are hardly any worse than the minority Republicans who were perfectly happy to sit by and watch the train wreck. And we could just as well place the blame for our current mess on the State Assembly members who killed congestion pricing last year.

Rather than pointing fingers at our feckless state government, advocates for livable streets and mass transit need to take a good long look in the mirror. Despite assembling a broad and seemingly powerful coalition in support of our issues, our advocacy consistently goes nowhere in Albany. That needs to change. So, how?

First off, it’s obvious that we need a better policy-making process. Granted, New York’s state legislators tend to show a profound lack of seriousness when it comes to policy (see their performance on last year’s congestion mitigation commission) and they are renowned for their deeply ingrained windshield perspective. But they still need to be engaged in the process from the beginning. It didn't help that the Ravitch Plan was, in many ways, too small, too lacking in creativity and too flawed for anyone to get too excited about it. The fact that the Ravitch Plan originated outside the state legislature made it all the more easy for them to reject it.

But let’s also be clear that our losses in Albany have a lot more to do with politics than policy. Sustainable transport advocates need to build political clout. Period. At this point, almost nothing else matters. We need to join forces with mainstream environmentalists, labor groups and issue advocates working on education, housing and economic development, who are equally disgusted with the performance of New York’s state legislature. The Fare Hike Four and the Assembly Democrats who killed congestion pricing come up for reelection every two years. For the most part, they run unopposed. Until we can get some of these people unelected – or, at the very least, challenged – we are pretty much irrelevant.

Here at Streetsblog we are mostly issue advocates and wonks. We enjoy debating policy minutia in the comments section, geeking out at Rudin Center breakfasts and fleshing out the most rational possible pricing schemes for New York City’s transportation system. But fixing Albany demands less policy intellect and more political muscle. It requires volunteers dragging themselves out to the Kings Highway Q train platform in the middle of Carl Kruger’s district and handing out palm cards to morning rush hour commuters explaining that the impending fare hike is the direct result of their state senator’s fine work -- or total lack thereof. It’s about knocking on doors, spending evenings at community meetings and drumming up votes. Defeating Albany incumbents isn’t easy. Most of these guys leave office in handcuffs or a coffin. But state legislators aren’t invincible either. A lot of them have had their jobs for more than 20 years. Many of them are stale and feeble and don’t work particularly hard anymore. Daniel Squadron knocked off Sen. Martin Connor in last September’s Democratic primary by a margin of 8,034 to 6,179. It doesn’t take a lot of votes.

Still, it’s a daunting task for any individual community activist to run a campaign against a sitting state legislator. So, here’s my humble proposal: What New York needs right now is a well-organized, heavily-funded, Newt-Gingrich-Contract-With-America-style campaign to take back Albany. We need to create a broad-based reform platform and recruit a slate of viable candidates to run challenges against vulnerable Senators and Assembly members all across the city. We need to focus citywide attention on state legislature campaigns and stop letting these guys slip quietly back into office unchallenged year after year in neighborhood-level campaigns that no one even pays attention to. We’ve got to take Albany back from these people who are ruining our city.

Photo by Buck Ennis

Regardless, when asked if they use the transit system, most replied in the affirmative. Not so in the case of Ruben Diaz, Sr., who -- well, we'll let him tell you.

"Don't ask me if I ride or don't ride. It doesn't mean anything," said Diaz. "Who rides the subway doesn't matter. You don't listen to me. It doesn't matter who rides the subway. I don't care who rides the train or who doesn't ride the train.

"Listen to what I'm saying," he said on a continuing tirade. "English, English, English. I don't care who rides the train who rides the train or not. Whoever rides the train or whenever they ride the train, I'm offering the best plan."

That plan, one that he said would hit straphangers with only "a 4 percent" fare increase, was slammed by Gov. Paterson, the MTA and transit advocates as having bad math. It would actually carry a 17 percent fare increase, they said.

"I'm here representing a community," Diaz said. "For the community I represent, I'm offering four things: No layoffs, no tolls, no cut of services, and a 4 percent increase of fare."

Asked earlier this week by another reporter about protests in his district -- where 67 percent of households don't own cars -- Diaz replied: "The gays demonstrate in front of my office, too. Everyone demonstrates in front of my office! I love those people."

So, people, Diaz loves you, even if you're one of the "the gays." But he really, really doesn't care that you ride the train.

Without new financial help from Albany soon, the MTA says its current bad finances may mean another fare hike in 2010.

That would make it three years in a row for fare increases -- March 2008, June 2009 and early 2010 -- the worst record in the MTA's 40-plus year history.

It demonstrates a trend of shifting the costs of operating transit from some beneficiaries of the subways and buses -- such as motorists and businesses -- onto riders.  For example, the riders' share of operating costs for the subways will go from 69% to an astonishing 84%, according to the MTA, if the just-approved fare increases are implemented.

Under the plan proposed by former MTA chairman Richard Ravitch, no new fare hike would occur before 2011.

Meanwhile, the excuses for inaction are pouring in. GOP State Senator Marty Golden, a Brooklyn rep who never broke ranks to support the Ravitch plan, sent around a press release blaming the state's top Democrats for "closing the doors completely to Republicans." Senate Minority Leader Dean Skelos excused his party's monolithic opposition to the transit rescue effort in much the same way, and added that the MTA was asking for a "blank check" by seeking to fund its five-year capital program. As Liz Benjamin notes, that's exactly what the Fare Hike Four and Senate Dems have been saying.

It's a patently false claim. Any plan is subject to oversight and approval by the Capital Program Review Board. The leaders of the State Senate and the Assembly each appoint one voting member to the CPRB, as do the mayor and the governor. Any of the four voting members can veto the whole thing. Said Russianoff: "If they appropriated the money, they would still have power over how it's spent."

Because a handful of state senators representing New York City refused to back a credible plan to fund our transit system, the MTA's March 25th deadline has come and gone without any reprieve for everyone who relies on subways and buses. Head over to City Room for scenes from the final act.

Pedro Espada photo: John DeSio

Barring a viable MTA rescue plan, the 140,000 transit riders in Ruben Diaz. Sr.'s district will lose the Bx4 and the Bx14

Not that the Fare Hike Four concern themselves with facts and data, but in Ruben Diaz, Sr.'s Bronx district, maps show the planned elimination of bus lines Bx4 and Bx14, as well as altered or reduced service on seven additional routes. Not to mention increased wait times on the 4, 5, and 6 subway lines. Constituents of Hiram Monserrate, Pedro Espada, Jr., and Carl Kruger all face cutbacks and service eliminations as well.

With GOP senators indicating a willingness to negotiate, there may yet be an outside chance to salvage a workable, long-term MTA rescue plan. There's still time to remind your legislators what you, and the city, stand to lose without it.

OK, we have a winner of yesterday's photo caption contest. Democratic State Senators Hiram Monserrate, Carl Kruger, Pedro Espada, Jr. and Ruben Diaz, Sr. will henceforth be known as "The Fare Hike Four."

While we're at it, we figure if the State Senate is going to treat New York City's transit riders like clowns and turn the MTA funding process into a year-long circus, we're going to need a good graphic to go with the story. So, here's what Livable Streets Initiative graphic design genius Carly Clark came up with. From left-to-right that's Monserrate playing the role of the abusive Moe, Kruger as the developmentally-impaired Curly, Espada as Shemp, and Diaz as the bumbling but lovable Larry. 

We'll have travel mugs and t-shirts printed up soon so you can ride with the Fare Hike Four on your morning commute.

Pedro Espada photo: John DeSio

The State Senators (for convenience sake, let just refer to them "The Fare Hike Four" from now on) say they can satisfy the MTA’s short-term financing needs with a four percent fare and toll hike and a small payroll tax increase. The MTA says that math doesn’t work, according to Reuters:

The MTA’s chairman, H. Dale Hemmerdinger, estimated the
Senate plan would force the agency to raise fares and tolls by
17 percent — about four times more than the Senate calculated
– as it would only raise about $1 billion more.

I suppose it comes down to a question of who do you trust more with the numbers, Richard Ravitch or four venal, old pols in the nation’s most dysfunctional state legislature? If that’s a tough call for you, then it’s probably worth noting that Ravitch spent considerably more time working out his financing plan than did The Fare Hike Four. As Kathy Wylde at the Parternship for New York City says:

The State Senate has had almost a year to join the public discussion of funding for the transportation system. They waited until the very end of the process to come forward with a proposal that provides not a nickel for system maintenance and badly needed expansion of bus service, let alone a full capital program. It is time for both sides of the Senate — Democrat and Republican — to join the Governor and the Assembly in support of some version of the Ravitch Commission Plan.

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

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

Constituents picketed outside the office of Ruben Diaz, Sr. yesterday to urge the Bronx state senator to get behind the MTA rescue plan, which includes new tolls on East and Harlem River bridges. Though some 140,000 people in his district use transit every day, and are facing serious service cuts along with steep fare hikes, Diaz is adamantly opposed to the tolls, which would affect a relative handful of drivers.

City Room reports that protesters were especially concerned about the impact the planned cuts would have on the district's seniors.

Carl VanPutten, 76, a retired taxicab driver from the South Bronx, said that he takes the Bx4 bus, one of the lines threatened by the authority’s fiscal crisis, to get to his health-maintenance organization for check-ups and other medical appointments. He said he could take the subway but there are no elevators, making it difficult for him.

"Climbing the stairs to the subway which is above it is a problem because they don’t have elevators," said Mr. VanPutten. "I take the bus, I get off right in front of it. I can go in and come back out."

Chanting slogans like "Diaz don’t betray our trust, our people ride the bus," protesters pointed out that the currently-proposed $2 toll is the same amount that they pay to take the bus and subway every day.

A staffer interviewed by City Room said that Diaz opposes new tolls because "a sufficient number of people in this community take taxis across the east river bridges," and said Diaz would prefer to reinstate the commuter tax -- nixed by Albany lawmakers in the 1990s -- than impose the tolls. As Mobilizing the Region notes, Diaz has also proposed saving the MTA through prescription drugs from Canada.

Yesterday's action was led by COMMUTE, a coalition of advocacy groups including Nos Quedamos, Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice, Sustainable South Bronx, and The POINT CDC/ACTION.

"We believe that Senator Diaz — and Senators [Pedro] Espada and [Ruth] Hassell-Thompson — can change their minds," said Anna Vincenty of Nos Quedamos. 

Photo via COMMUTE

Dozens of South Bronx residents and constituents of State Senator Rubén Díaz will rally outside his office to protest his opposition to the plan to save mass transit. They are calling on the Senator to act in the interest of his constituents and to support a plan that preserves existing transit service in his district and citywide by asking all sectors, including drivers, to pay.

Senator Díaz has publicly opposed the plan to save mass transit because it includes new $2.00 tolls on the Harlem and East River bridges, even though more than 60% of households in his district have no access to a car and are completely dependent on mass transit. Seniors and bus riders from his district who will suffer if a plan is not passed and transit cuts go into effect are protesting this stance, and calling on him to act in the interest of the truly most vulnerable.

The rally starts at 12:30 this afternoon at 1733 East 172nd Street. 

I am very concerned to hear that Senators Carl Kruger; Pedro Espada, Jr.; and Ruben Diaz, Sr. will refuse to pass a transit rider rescue plan like those proposed by Governor Paterson and Speaker Silver, if that plan includes any new tolls.

These senators have made it clear what they oppose, so I'm writing to make sure you know what I, as your constituent, oppose.

* I oppose increasing fares by 23%;
* I oppose shutting down entire subway lines;
* I oppose discontinuing dozens of bus routes in every borough;
* And I oppose longer waits and overcrowding.

The Campaign is urging transit-supporting New Yorkers to send their messages today.

The Three Amigos -- Sens. Carl Kruger, Pedro Espada Jr. and Ruben Diaz Sr. -- who recently reaffirmed their relationship and started strategizing again as a team, today issued a joint statement demanding that the MTA go "back to the drawing board" and do everything possible to avoid tolling the East and Harlem river bridges.

The three senators are "demanding" that the MTA agree to a forensic audit conducted by an outside entity and a complete accounting of all its assets - including real estate holdings, which is an issue other lawmakers have been hammering on for a while now.

The trio is open to the idea of a payroll tax, which is the other revenue-generating proposal made by the Ravitch Commission, but called the tolls a "non-starter."

With the Democratic majority hanging by a minuscule 32-30 thread and Republicans showing no signs of breaking ranks to support the Ravitch proposals, it would take a unified front in the Senate to pass the rescue plan. The brazen disregard for transit riders displayed by these three lawmakers could very well torpedo any chance to stave off drastic fare hikes and service cuts, shore up the MTA's finances, and keep the subways from slipping into a state of decline.

To better appreciate the fundamental absurdity of their arguments, follow the jump or, better yet, read Liz's full post.

What the amigos might want in exchange (albeit not formally, because that's illegal) for their support of the MTA bailout is unclear.

During an interview yesterday, I asked Diaz Sr. whether he could ever see his way clear to supporting tolls, and he seemed to be open to it - but only if someone would "explain to me, please" how camera technology is going to make sure drivers from out of state pay their fair share.

"Why should I be punishing my state and the people from my district?" Diaz Sr. said. "As soon as the people from my district and the people of New York are protected, I will support anything that doesn't punish the need ones."

Diaz Sr. then insisted to me that there are "other ways" to generate and/or save the revenue necessary to stave off massive fare and toll hikes. He mentioned two of his own bills - one that would require the state to buy prescription drugs from Canada and another that would force ConEd to pay taxes - for starters.

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

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

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

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

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

Class-cutting school kids in Bushwick and the South Bronx, fear not. The clipboard-wielding women standing outside your school aren't looking to bust you, they're trying to help you breathe. As reported in last week's New Yorker Talk of the Town:

The women belong to a nonprofit group called the Asthma Free School Zone, which, for the past year, has been holding covert stakeouts of schools around the city to aid a campaign against vehicle idling. New York City prohibits idling for spurts of longer than three minutes (the fine is from three hundred and fifty to two thousand dollars), though the law is rarely enforced. In 2004, after receiving a tip from the A.F.S.Z., Eliot Spitzer, who was the attorney general at the time, sued several school-bus companies for breaking the rule, and last month, as governor, Spitzer signed a ban on all bus idling in school zones. "In Switzerland you have to turn your engine off if you're more than four cars behind the stoplight," Rebecca Kalin, the group's founder, said the other day. "Idling is rude there. It's like burping-you just don't do it."

Kalin had arrived at P.S. 274 a little before two o'clock, with three colleagues: Lori Bukiewicz, a public-health worker; Jen Richmond-Bryant, an assistant professor at Hunter College (courses: Ventilation, Indoor and Outdoor Air Quality); and Bin-Yun Zheng, the group's assistant. When no one was looking, they wheeled out a small gray cabinet with a plastic tube sticking out of the top. The cabinet emitted a low buzzing noise, and it contained a car battery, two Sidepaks-used to gauge air quality by counting small particles called PM2.5-and an instrument called an Aethelometer, which measures black carbon.

…In an hour and a half, there had been twelve idlers: seven cars, one truck, and four school buses. The PM2.5 reading was on the high side.

Next month, A.F.S.Z. will launch a public awareness campaign in New York and Kalin, Bukiewicz, and Richmond-Bryant will give presentations on their recent air sampling activities at the American Public Health Conference in Washington, DC.

No word yet on whether Bronx State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. will demand that A.S.F.Z. cease and desist until an Environmental Impact Statement can be conducted to determine whether school bus exhaust is, in fact, harmful to children. 

Photo: Southern Alliance for Clean Energy School Bus Air Quality Monitoring Project

1. Mayor Bloomberg does not have a "green light" to move forward with congestion pricing, nor has he been granted any new powers. The deal denies him the authority to impose a pricing charge until approved by the City Council and state legislature.
2. The feds may still yet give New York City congestion pricing start-up funds despite the missed Monday deadline.
3. The deal mandates a very specific timeline by which the process will move forward and a 17-member commission that may become an important forum for the congestion pricing and and broader transportation debate, good things could emerge.
   
4. Transportation policy and livable streets issues have moved to the top of New York City's civic agenda and will remain in the political spotlight for some time to come.
   
5. There are a ton of things that could still derail congestion pricing.

Assuming the oft-stalled legislature approves yesterday's deal in the next week or so, the next hurdle will be the demand that the feds give New York City at least $200 million in congestion pricing pilot program funds by October 1, before the newly created Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission has even voted to approve pricing. If the feds don't pay up by this deadline the legislation is voided and pricing is dead.

If the feds do come through with money and the Commission approves the pricing "Implementation Plan" by the Jan. 31, 2008 deadline, then three separate legislative bodies will still have to vote to approve the Plan: the City Council, State Assembly and State Senate.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn of Manhattan has issued strong statements in support of pricing, but it is hard to know whether she can actually deliver her members. Make your own judgments about the Senate and Assembly. Perhaps the biggest obstacle is the clock. A lot has to happen on schedule and as we see here, politics is messy. Time is short -- 2009 is a mayoral election year, Quinn is a candidate and pricing is controversial. Bloomberg is gone in 2010.

If everything goes right, congestion pricing could be up and running by 2009, though many variables will influence that. It depends on how quickly the charging system is installed, how fast the mayor can get start-up funds from City Council or other sources that he controls and whether a lawsuit or has the potential to delay things. Even before yesterday's deal, pricing opponents like Bronx State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. were saying, "I cannot understand how these plans can be made without an environmental impact study being conducted first."

Whether or not yesterday's deal succeeds, the transportation reform movement has already won a huge victory. For decades, transportation has been a second-tier concern in New York City behind crime, education and housing. The congestion pricing debate has changed that, moving transportation policy to the top of the civic agenda, perhaps, for good.

In the past, transportation policy reformers have often found themselves pitted against the city's power players and marginalized by City Hall. Since the mayor proposed congestion pricing, he has been shoulder to shoulder with the advocates. It is a remarkable turn-around. There is no more talk about traffic congestion being a sign of a prosperous and healthy city. Traffic has been re-branded by the Mayor, big business and editorial boards across the political spectrum as a costly, harmful problem that needs solving. Finally, livable streets are being understood as one of the foundations of a prosperous, healthy, sustainable city.

It turns out that pollution-related heart and lung problems aren't just for poor kids in the Bronx anymore. From yesterday's New York Times:

A study that used the mass of data included in the Women's Health Initiative found that women who lived in communities with relatively high levels of air pollution in the forms of tiny particles -- aka soot -- were far more likely to die because of heart attacks than women who lived in cleaner air. Results were published in February in The New England Journal of Medicine.

Cars, trucks, and diesel buses - the main culprits in the creation of particle pollution - spew untold millions of the microscopic pollutants into the air daily. Exercisers should take precautions against particles, experts said, by not exerting themselves near traffic, or, if they must use a path next to a highway, staying a few hundred yards away from vehicles.

Meanwhile, in related news, Bronx State Senator Ruben Diaz, Sr. and Richard Lipsky's Neighborhood Retail Alliance are holding a press conference on the steps of City Hall this Sunday, 11:30 am to protest "the failure" of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion picing plan "to address the air quality in those neighborhoods that are experiencing a severe asthma problem." Diaz, Sr. says:

With all due respect to environmentalists, I cannot understand how these plans can be made without an environmental impact study being conducted first. There are many questions that have been left unanswered, and we need to have a thorough review of the matter before implementing any plan of action.

Photo: Richard Perry/The New York Times