Streetsblog New York City

The campaign to rein in sprawl and build more livable communities across New York state intensified yesterday, as advocates redoubled their efforts to pass two critical pieces of legislation in Albany. Groups working to advance complete streets legislation, including AARP and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, and those pushing for statewide smart growth policies, such as Empire State Future, announced they will be teaming up to pass both bills.

The complete streets bill, sponsored by Brooklyn Senator Martin Malavé Dilan, would require that all new and reconstructed roads "accommodate all users," old or young, whether they walk, bike or drive. If passed, the law would "make complete streets the norm rather than the exception," said Nadine Lemmon, Tri-State's Albany legislative director. As Streetsblog reported last month, the legislation is moving quickly through the State Senate, but hasn't progressed beyond the Assembly transportation committee, chaired by Rochester Democrat David Gantt. 

The public infrastructure act, sponsored by Westchester County Senator Suzi Oppenheimer, Brooklyn Senator Velmanette Montgomery and Buffalo Assembly Member Sam Hoyt, would shift state infrastructure spending -- on roads, sewers, schools and housing -- away from far-flung sprawl and toward projects in line with smart growth principles. More than a dozen state departments, agencies, and authorities -- including heavyweights like the state DOT, the Port Authority, the Department of Education and the Empire State Development Corporation -- will be required to focus their spending on existing infrastructure in developed areas.

Under the smart growth bill, infrastructure projects would also need to protect the state's environmental resources, foster compact, mixed-use development, and reduce automobile dependency. Agency heads can only ignore these criteria if they sign a written justification of their decision. "We're going to make it very hard to build another sewer line into another greenfield," said Peter Fleischer, the executive director of Empire State Future, New York's smart growth coalition. 

Fleischer added that unlike past smart growth legislation that's come out of Albany, this one has some teeth. "It clearly instructs state departments, agencies, and corporations," he said. "It doesn't leave a lot of wiggle room." 

Read more...

It's a long walk from the Red Hook West houses to the nearest subway stop at Smith-9th Street, and even longer to train connections at Fourth Avenue. Without night-time B77 service, a lot of commuters from the largest public housing project in Brooklyn will have to make that trek -- including a dash beneath the BQE -- on a regular basis. With MTA rescue talks currently at a standstill in Albany, about 100 Red Hook residents marched yesterday in protest of the austerity measures that will soon take effect. Clarence Eckerson documented the rally, organized by the Red Hook East and West Tenants Association.

The B77 serves Velmanette Montgomery's Senate district. Last week, after we ran a post questioning why Montgomery had basically taken the same position as the Fare Hike Four, her office emailed us to clarify. We were directed to a statement on the senator's website, which is best summed up by the following tagline: "Before we cut the service, let's cut the fat."

Given that the MTA has in fact streamlined itself under Lee Sander, and that its crushing debt load will get even worse without a solid, long-term funding plan -- not to mention the service cuts and fare hikes about to hit Montgomery's constituents -- shouldn't the senator be doing all in her power to push for a viable rescue of the MTA? We have a call in to Montgomery's office to find out what she proposes to do next.

The Fare Hike Four have absorbed most of the fire from advocates and editorial boards for derailing the Ravitch plan, and rightfully so. But by calling so much attention to themselves, they've also given cover to other members of the State Senate. So, what does the rest of the Senate majority have to say? Here's what Brooklyn's Velmanette Montgomery, re-elected on the Democratic and Working Families Party ballot lines in 2008 (with more than 96 percent of the vote), told her constituents:

Thank you so much for reaching out to me about the MTA "Doomsday" plan. I am working with my colleagues in the Senate to find an alternative to the unacceptably harsh ideas suggested by the Ravitch Commission. The Senate Majority plan provides the MTA with more operating capital than the Ravitch plan, does so with a lower fare increase and with no tolls on bridges. In addition it provides for the ongoing future fiscal health of the MTA by requiring a thorough forensic audit of the MTA to root out excesses and duplications. It is unacceptable for the public to be continually subjected to fare increases and be denied any oversight of the MTA finances. With your continued support for the Senate Majority proposal, we can assure the continued responsible health of our transportation infrastructure.

The "Senate Majority plan" Montgomery touts is the same one with $700 million in accounting mistakes and absolutely no provision for maintenance and expansion. Claiming that it provides for the "continued responsible health of our transportation infrastructure" is laughable. Her position does not stray from what Carl Kruger and the rest of the Fare Hike Four have been saying.

Every day, traffic to free East River bridges overruns Montgomery's district -- which curves from Sunset Park to Bed-Stuy. Among her constituents, nearly 70 percent of households are car-free, and transit commuters to the CBD outnumber car commuters by more than 10 to 1 [PDF]. Back when congestion pricing was on the table, Montgomery said she had "major reservations." Now that her transit-dependent district faces some of the worst service cuts anywhere in the city [PDF], she's chosen to obstruct a workable plan to keep trains and buses running by asking drivers to pay their share. This is what it means to represent "working families" in Albany?