Leandra Rosado, 11, was killed last month when a car driven by Carmen Huertas crashed on the Henry Hudson Parkway.

Depending on what course those discussions take, such changes could hinge on approval from Albany. As we reported previously, prosecutors are already pushing legislation that would remove the requirement that a doctor be present to supervise blood withdrawals. Inexplicably, state lawmakers -- and Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver in particular -- have a history of coddling drunk drivers, the latest example being the fight over "Leandra's Law," playing out at the capitol as of this writing.

While a truly comprehensive bill would aim to protect people of all ages whether or not they are in a car, one would think a measure to toughen penalties for DWI with children in the vehicle would fly to the governor's desk. Yet Silver has now attempted to water down two such measures. The original Leandra's Law would make it a felony to get behind the wheel with a BAC of .08 if passengers under the age of 16 are present. Assembly Dems want to raise the felony BAC level to .18, more than twice the legal limit for driving. Carmen Huertas, the driver in the October crash that killed Leandra Rosado, had a BAC of .132.

According to Monique Dixon, in 2005 Silver wavered in his support for a bill to make it a felony in New York State to kill someone while driving drunk. Dixon, whose 11-year-old son Vasean Alleyne was killed by a drunk driver who spent 38 days in jail, eventually won passage of a tougher "Vasean's Law" than Silver wanted.

Even the newly agreed upon protocol for collecting blood evidence leaves New York woefully behind. Prosecutors are working on a bill to remove the up-front warrant requirement in cases of death or serious injury where there is probable cause for DWI. Such procedure is common in other states, notes defense attorney Howard Weiner in the Times. Local laws, Weiner said, are "much more protective of drivers than those in other parts of the country."

On the merits, the texting "ban" is weaker than another bill, sponsored by Assemblyman Felix Ortiz, which the transportation committee never brought up for a vote. Under the Gantt bill, a driver could be fined, but not pulled over, for texting behind the wheel.

"While we certainly support the intent of the bill, we have questions about specific language which would seem to greatly restrict its actual application," said TA's Peter Goldwasser in an email. "In short, unless an individual is committing another, different violation in the first place, then he or she is not subject to receiving a summons for violating this new offense."

In 2007, there were nearly 10,500 crashes in New York where the contributing factor was driver inattention or distraction, Goldwasser noted. Shouldn't that be enough reason to make distracted driving a standalone violation?

On balance, this bill would be a step forward for street safety in New York, but with the State Senate in the midst of its epic breakdown, the odds of it becoming law -- during this session, at least -- are vanishingly small. (So far, there's not even a version of this bill in the Senate.) This will be something to keep an eye on in the next legislative session. The speaker, the transportation committee chair, and the whole Assembly are on record supporting this bill, so there's no reason it shouldn't pass again when the opportunity arises.

Sheldon Silver. Photo: Daily News.

When we contacted Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's office, a spokesperson told us that it's up to the committee chair to move the bill forward. That would be Rochester Democrat David Gantt. But why should one person have such power when the overwhelming majority of his members disagree? And is Gantt really the guy making that call -- or is it Sheldon Silver?

To get a sense of the dynamics at work here, Streetsblog called Laura Seago, a researcher at NYU's Brennan Center for Justice and co-author of the aptly titled report on Albany dysfunction, "Still Broken" [PDF].

"I would be surprised if Sheldon Silver wasn't involved," Seago said of the texting ban. "This is something we see all the time, unfortunately, which is that the speaker controls everything that comes to the floor."

While Gantt makes a convenient target, and it's conceivable, in Seago's words, that he was "acting freelance" on this one, the fact remains that Silver could easily move the texting ban forward if he chose to do so.

In a legislature that functions democratically, the members of the transportation committee could also override the objections of their chair or the leader of their chamber. But that's not how things work in Albany.

"Most state legislatures make committees the place where legislation is robustly debated and made," said Seago. Next door in Connecticut, she notes, bills introduced in committee are required to have a hearing and a vote, but in New York, "we just don’t have that." Here, the leaders of each legislative chamber -- Sheldon Silver in the Assembly, Malcolm Smith in the State Senate -- maintain control over the committee process, and there’s no viable way for the rank-and-file to force a vote on a bill.

The Assembly, says Seago, is a "democracy of one."

If you're wondering why Sheldon Silver would choose to block a popular measure to reduce the public safety risk posed by distracted drivers, it may be instructive to look at the long battle to ban driving while talking on a cell phone. That fight lasted several years, and when the state legislature finally passed a bill, in 2001, it did not include any restrictions on hands-free cell phones -- to the delight of the telecom industry and its lobbyists in Albany, and despite studies showing that hands-free phone calls pose just as big a risk as those on handsets.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Other highlights:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: The Politicker

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo: The Daily Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The New Jersey "trucker's special." Graphic: Sam Schwartz.

The truck inundation is due to the great counter-clockwise route that truckers take from New Jersey to Long Island and back to Jersey, to avoid paying the one-way, westbound, “double toll” on the Verrazano Bridge, or the two tolls on the George Washington Bridge and high peak hour tolls at the east bound Lincoln Tunnel. This state of affairs leaves a free path from Long Island to New Jersey across the Manhattan Bridge, over Canal Street, and out of the city via the westbound Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.

Because the trucking diversion -- the legacy of a deal cut on behalf of Staten Island Republicans -- is inherently political, the best policy options are not available. Congestion pricing would have solved the worst of the truck problem, as would restoring two-way tolls on the Verrazano Bridge, at least for trucks. But despite tough going in the State Senate, the MTA financial crisis and Silver's partial endorsement of the Ravitch Commission toll plan may offer some hope for neighborhoods battered by truck traffic, including downtown Brooklyn and western Queens.

Though no details have been released by the MTA, the Ravitch Commission or Sheldon Silver, it is very possible that truck tolls in the rescue plan will be set to match the truck tolls on other major MTA crossings. That would mean EZPass tolls of $20.25 each way for eighteen wheelers crossing the Manhattan, Williamsburg or Queensboro Bridges. (Trucks are not allowed on the Brooklyn Bridge.) This toll would greatly reduce truckers' financial incentive to cut across lower Manhattan on the way to New Jersey or further west. It's not perfect, but certainly enough to alter the time/money calculation so that some truckers will change routes. More effective, but also more politically difficult, ways to eliminate the great circle route include making the new tolls one-way for trucks westbound on the East River bridges and MTA tunnels, or following the Port Authority's lead and placing peak hour truck tolls on the new truck crossings.

General details:

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

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

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

Unknowns:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sheldon Silver and David Gantt

Gantt is also responsible for holding back automated enforcement measures like red light cams and speeding cams, which would save lives and deter the reckless driving that prompted Silver to call for zero tolerance traffic enforcement a mere two weeks ago.

After the bus cam vote, the Times editorial page exhorted Silver to remove Gantt from the chairmanship, citing his years of "micromanaging New York City's traffic from afar and for bewildering reasons." Gantt's standard anti-enforcement rationale -- privacy concerns -- was even more perplexing given that the bus cam bill had garnered the blessing of the New York Civil Liberties Union. Nevertheless, Silver just re-upped for two more years of Gantt at the helm of the transportation committee.

We asked the speaker's office why Silver made that call. We're waiting for a response, but a spokesman said the speaker does not usually comment on committee appointments.

So what does an Assembly member have to do to lose a committee chairmanship (and the hefty salary perk that goes with it)? Get caught asking for $500,000 in kickbacks from undercover federal agents. After Queens Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio was nabbed soliciting cash in exchange for favors in Albany, Shelly declined to re-appoint him. Making life more difficult for New York City bus riders, unfortunately, doesn't rate.

Will Silver follow through in Albany to make streets safer for his Chinatown constituents?

The plan calls for "zero tolerance" traffic enforcement; the banning of trucks and buses from traversing local streets; more pedestrians safety measures such as bollards and speed bumps; and a comprehensive traffic management plan to serve residents, businesses and vehicles passing through the neighborhood.

This is a thorough plan that includes several politically daring ideas. It would alleviate the scourge of double-parking by properly pricing on-street spaces. It would expand sidewalks and accelerate the implementation of traffic-calming measures. It even calls for congestion pricing, among other traffic management techniques.

There's always the temptation to be cynical -- and some of the recommendations for community board input are tough to swallow in light of recent events -- but this is a moment that should not go to waste. While it's terrible that two children had to die to garner such attention, this horror story has nakedly exposed the systemic failures inherent in the way our streets are designed, managed, and policed. A galvanized Chinatown community backed by a handful of elected officials is a start. More New Yorkers and advocates for safer streets will have to keep up the pressure.

The first person to whom appeals should be directed has got to be Shelly Silver. The Assembly Speaker who allowed congestion pricing to die on his watch now calls for that same policy to be adopted. He's got his name in Stringer's press release and a nice direct quote calling for "the city" to implement the whole nine-point plan.

There's no doubt that the City Council, Mayor Bloomberg, and his deputies at NYPD and DOT need to follow through on this plan, and the fact that City Hall has not publicly responded to the tragedy is shameful. And don't forget the Manhattan District Attorney's office, led by 89-year-old Robert Morgenthau, which is sticking to its policy of granting negligent drivers carte blanche to kill and maim without consequence. But if the Speaker is really committed to the safety and well-being of his Chinatown constituents, much of the responsibility lies with him and his caucus. There is a clear legislative agenda to be pursued: tougher state traffic laws, to start with. We'll see if Shelly cares enough to carry the fight out of his PR office and into the statehouse.

Red light cams have been proven to increase safety on New York City streets. Photo: mwilkie/Flickr

Red light cams are a proven life-saving technology, but one that is circumscribed by Albany. Previous attempts to expand automated enforcement measures -- including cameras to monitor red lights, speeding, and bus lane violations -- have been blocked by Rochester Assemblyman David Gantt, who chairs the transportation committee. That won't necessarily be the case this time around. "Putting it in the budget says the governor is firmly behind it," said Russ Haven, legislative counsel with NYPIRG. "That may mean it's more likely to happen."

It's still unclear how much New York's program would expand, but if the proposal survives the budget negotiating process, the final version will almost certainly extend the current red light camera "demonstration," which is due to sunset in December 2009. Advocates also hope that new red light cam programs proposed for Buffalo, Syracuse, Long Island, and yes, Rochester, will build more of a constituency for automated enforcement measures throughout the state.

Big questions remain about whether the expansion proposal will emerge intact from the Albany sausage grinder. As the state legislature works on passing a budget, members of the Assembly and Senate could try to sabotage the cams by substituting other measures. "If the governor's proposal is going to raise revenue then legislators need to come back and find other ways to replace that revenue if they don't like the idea," said Haven. The negotiation process is famously opaque, taking place largely behind closed doors.

Gantt, who ran for re-election unopposed this year, could still play the role of obstructionist. "He’s a formidable guy, he’s been around for decades," said Haven. "Unless he has a change of heart or unless he starts to see things in a different way, the governor and speaker may be the only figures who can move him."

Here is the budget language in question, in all its glory.

• Provide New Local Revenue and Financing Flexibility for New York City. Along with substantial mandate relief savings, the budget will authorize an expanded red light camera program and a range of local fee increases such as fees for birth certificates and marriage licenses worth $109 million in total. To enable New York City to better manage its finances during the current credit crisis, the City will be allowed to fund more of its capital program through the Transitional Finance Authority instead of general obligation debt, and Bond Anticipation Note (BAN) financing terms will be lengthened consistent with those allowed for the state.
• Provide Additional Targeted Revenue Flexibility for Municipalities Outside New York City. The cities of Buffalo, Yonkers, Rochester and Syracuse, as well as Nassau and Suffolk counties, will be authorized to establish red light camera programs to enhance public safety, while generating an estimated $48 million in local revenue. Cities outside New York City, as well as villages, will also be permitted to levy a gross receipts tax on cellular phone services similar to that currently charged by New York City, thereby raising up to $12.5 million in new revenue.

Soaking suburbanites to reduce the burden on city residents is a political nonstarter ... An end to the political stalemate requires recognizing that both sides in this debate have strong arguments. There is some truth to the belief of New York City residents that suburbanites use many city services and should contribute something to the city in which they work. Commuters are also right in saying they already pay their share with purchases that boost sales taxes. In addition, their state taxes are diverted from the wealthy suburbs to the city.

So what common interests do the two groups share? The desire to preserve affordable mass transit, something that is in jeopardy given the MTA's huge budget deficit and its proposal to hike fares by 23%. The sensible compromise is to adopt both the commuter tax and East River tolls and dedicate the money to the MTA to hold down fare increases and fund a vitally needed capital program.

Crain's is right in that city-based politicians have nothing to lose by proposing a tax on those outside their districts, while asking nothing of their own car-commuting constituents who also benefit from a thriving mass transit system. But will any of them step up and recommend both?

Newell pulled 23 percent of the vote, Henry nine percent. Though the vote tally wasn't close, some pundits are speculating that in mounting the first serious challenge to Silver in years -- reducing him to knocking on doors, of all things -- the Newell campaign may affect the way the speaker conducts business in Albany. That remains to be seen, of course, but Newell had this to say to the Observer early this week:

"I'm running to get the most votes in this election. That said, there's no question we've already brought change. We've already taken on Albany. There's no question about that. And people are scared."

Those scared people, Newell said, are thinking, "Wow, a 33-year-old community organizer can put together a campaign that is going to rock Sheldon Silver with his $3 million in his account, and $8 million in his Speaker's P.A.C. or whatever it is that he's got."

"If we're successful, you're going to see forty or fifty challengers to incumbents in 2010, in both parties," Newell said, adding, "I don't think there's any doubt we had a role in that."

Silver's last primary challenge was in 1986, when John Bal got 20 percent of the vote.  

In the Senate, the talk of the day locally was the defeat of Martin Connor, the 30-year incumbent upended by 28-year-old Daniel Squadron. As Streetsblog readers know, Connor was one of many Albany lawmakers to hold their tongues as congestion pricing went down in April, for which Squadron took him to task during the campaign. What impact pricing had on the race is open to debate, particularly since Connor's Senate District 25 encompasses Assembly District 64 -- home to Sheldon Silver.

In other results, vocal pricing backer Adriano Espaillat held off City Council Member Miguel Martinez in Assembly District 72, which covers Upper Manhattan.

Photo: New York Observer

In the 64th Assembly district, Paul Newell is riding a wave of endorsements from the three major dailies in his campaign against Speaker Sheldon Silver. Newell and fellow challenger Luke Henry have both taken Silver to task over his handling of the congestion pricing vote in April.

Likewise, in the 25th Senate district (which also includes parts of Brooklyn), challenger Dan Squadron has pounced on 30-year incumbent Martin Connor's timid stance on pricing. The back-and-forth battle of endorsements -- Squadron has his mentor Chuck Schumer and Mayor Bloomberg on his side, Connor has fellow Albany Dems on his -- plus Squadron's prodigious fundraising, have made this one of the most closely watched elections this cycle.

Up in the 72nd Assembly district, incumbent Adriano Espaillat faces a challenge from City Council member Miguel Martinez. Both supported congestion pricing, but Espaillat was one of the plan's fiercest advocates. Espaillat also supported the traffic-reducing Gansevoort Waste Transfer Station, which, while outside his district, ran against the wishes of prominent Manhattan Assembly members.

There are plenty of other seats at stake where candidates' views may affect streets and transit. If there's an election with implications for livable streets in your district, or if you've got a story to share from the polls today, tell us all about it in the comments.

Photo: Vidiot/Flickr

With New York City's mostly uncontested primary elections less than a week away, attention turns to the 64th State Assembly district in Lower Manhattan, where New York Times-endorsed insurgent Paul Newell is running a long-shot campaign against Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. Facing his first Democratic challenge since the coining of the word "cyberspace," the decidedly analog Speaker has joined us here in the Information Age with a fancy new campaign web site, ShellySilver.org. It features an eye-catching Google map illustrating "What Shelly's Doing Near You" with some of the $3 to $7 million in member items he distributes annually.

Apparently, Silver hasn't caught on to the whole web 2.0 user-generated content thing because there's no way to drop your own pins on his Google map. If, for example, you wanted to stick a pin on Canal Street to make note of Silver's complicity in maintaining that street's never-ending traffic jam and Chinatown's third world-level childhood asthma rates, you'd be unable to do that. If you wanted to point out that Lower Manhattan enjoys some of the city's slowest buses and most dangerous streets, thanks, in part, to Silver allowing Rochester Assemblyman David Gantt to deny New York City the use of red light and bus lane enforcement cameras, you wouldn't be able to do that either. And given that the Speaker is known more for the projects and policies that he's stalled and killed (the commuter tax, New York City's Olympic bid, congestion pricing...) than the projects he's made happen, it seems like there ought to be a map showing all the things that don't exist in New York City thanks to Sheldon Silver's handiwork.

So, here it is. To help create a more complete picture of Shelly Silver's citywide footprint, Streetsblog went ahead and built a more interactive "What Shelly's Doing Near You" map. If you've got a contribution, go ahead and add it to the comments section here on Streetsblog. Pin it on Shelly.

Apparently accepting the premise that Silver "supported" congestion pricing, the Express writes:

This week, he repeated his reason for not bringing it to the floor — the Assembly opposition was overwhelming. He said there were about 15 supporters, and if he had applied pressure, he thinks he could have gotten the number up to 20 — far short of the 76 votes needed.

He said outer borough Assemblymembers did not support the plan because "the M.T.A. lost its credibility." After so many broken promises, no one believed the Metropolitan Transportation Authority would direct the congestion pricing revenue to mass transit expansion, Silver said.

Got that? It's the chronically underfunded agency, not the lawmaking bodies lording over it, that lacks credibility.

Even so, Silver remains characteristically coy on the prospect of a pricing revival. Though he was quoted just a couple of weeks ago as ruling out the possibility, he tells the Express that pricing could perhaps come back "as part of a comprehensive plan," including a smaller zone. Once the Ravitch Commission releases its recommendations after the election, Silver says, "you’ll see this start to get straightened out."

What that means is anyone's guess. But in a recent interview with Crain's, PlaNYC architect Rohit Aggarwala maintains that pricing remains the most efficient means to meet the Bloomberg administration's goal of reducing the city’s carbon emissions by 30 percent over the next two decades:

"Any strategy will have to get people out of their cars and invest in the transit system. We settled on congestion pricing because it was the best solution to accomplish both."

Like Mr. Paterson and Mr. Skelos, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver now Albany's longest-serving leader drew heavily from established interest groups, including trial lawyers, the insurance industry, banking interests and an array of labor unions. Mr. Silver also received money from some groups that opposed Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's plan to charge a fee for cars entering parts of Manhattan, including limousine services and rental car companies. Though Mr. Silver said he personally supported the idea, he did not allow it to come up for a vote in the Assembly.

You can add to that partial list car dealers, service stations, parking garages, and private bus companies, which opposed the idea of pricing until an exception was brokered for them late in the game. All told, Silver collected $308,044 from contributors in the latest six-month fundraising period, outpacing challengers Newell and Henry by a (predictably) wide margin.

Here's a rundown of major donations to his campaign from groups who sided against pricing or influenced the proposed legislation.

Note that most of the contributions were given before the Assembly's Democratic conference scuttled the pricing bill in a closed-door session. (Groups are located within the state of New York unless otherwise noted.)

• GREATER NY AUTO DEALERS ASSOC.: $3800, March 19
• BLACK CAR PAC: $2500, March 19
• UNITED BUS CORPORATION: $2500, March 14
• HUNTINGTON COACH, LLC: $2500, March 14
• KENSINGTON ENTERPRISES LLC (parking garage): $2000, March 19
• VANGUARD CAR RENTAL USA INC. (Tulsa, OK): $1500, May 16
• SYLVAN FORESTER GARAGE, LLC: $1000, March 19
• CHAMPION PARKING 36 LLC: $1000, March 19
• ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR NY PAC: $1000, March 19