What sticks out to us is not so much that 3 percent of voters rated transportation as the "one issue" that mattered most to them, since many who participated could care a great deal about transportation and you wouldn't know it. Notice instead how Bloomberg dominated the issue of economy and jobs, even in this terrible downturn, despite Thompson's attempts to portray livable streets improvements as assaults on small businesses.

Obviously, despite the low level of interest indicated here, transportation matters. Otherwise pols wouldn't drone on about the MTA ad nauseam. But what do these numbers tell you?

For the next four years, Mike Bloomberg will be joined in citywide office by Democrats Bill de Blasio and John Liu.

And how few votes were cast. Total turnout -- 1.1 million out of about 4 million registered voters -- looks to be even lower than in Ed Koch's election to a third term, back when a million fewer people lived in the city. Participation in New York City's democratic process hasn't been this paltry since the days before women were enfranchised.

The Thompson camp appeared to take some satisfaction in the relatively close finish. Still, Democrats have got to be second guessing themselves today. No doubt much hand-wringing will ensue about the failure of President Obama and local power brokers to rally around the party's standard bearer.

But here are some numbers to chew on: Thompson lost by 50,000 votes, and New Yorkers make more than two million bus trips every day. What if the Democratic candidate had actively campaigned on specific ideas to improve bus service? Vastly outspent or not, Thompson couldn't clear the bar set by Freddy Ferrer in 2005 despite an electorate that seemingly felt little enthusiasm for the incumbent. (Disgust with the term limits extension may explain why Bloomberg himself garnered 200,000 fewer votes than he did four years ago, even though his approval rating, at 70 percent, remains quite high.)

Instead, when it came to New Yorkers' transportation concerns, Thompson sounded few consistent themes except the notion that self-serving complaints from a few local merchants should take precedence over safety gains and transit improvements on our streets. The Democratic Party -- purported defender of the working class and the environment -- failed to make the connection between urban transportation, economic opportunity, and sustainability.

Overall, transportation remained a second- or third-tier issue during the campaign. Under Janette Sadik-Khan, Bloomberg's Department of Transportation has made notable strides to improve walking, biking, and transit, but the mayor seldom strayed from his core themes of falling crime rates and rising student test scores. In the televised debates, parking tickets got more attention than pedestrian safety. The city's 2008 toll of 292 motor vehicle fatalities and annual rate of 50,000 traffic injuries were never even mentioned.

Transportation issues may not have affected this election, but this election will affect transportation policy. Bloomberg will be joined on the citywide stage by two ambitious Democrats, John Liu and Bill de Blasio, whose records on progressive transportation have so far appeared to vary according to the political opportunities available. With Liu in the Comptroller's office and de Blasio taking over as Public Advocate, each now commands a high-visibility bully pulpit, presumably with an eye cast toward 2013. Each can choose to reinforce, ignore, or obstruct livable streets policies.

And the next four years will be an intensely active time for livable streets in New York City. Since Bloomberg appointed Sadik-Khan to run DOT in 2007, we've seen a string of innovations: the city's first rapid bus corridor, major new pedestrian plazas, and the beginnings of a safer, protected bike network. As of today, these important changes to New York's streets exist mainly as experiments and fragments. Expect the question of how to allocate street space to play out on a much bigger scale as the city attempts to expand and solidify its recent progress.

This term also gives Bloomberg the chance to address the gaping holes in his sustainability agenda. By 2013, will NYCEDC and the City Planning Commission still foist anti-urban disasters like the Gateway Center Mall and East River Plaza on New York's car-free majority? Will NYPD rein in reckless driving so New Yorkers can walk and bike without fear? Bloomberg's legacy on the environment, transportation, and quality of life depends on these questions as much as anything.

In the days ahead, Streetsblog will publish a series of essays from local advocates and experts about New York City's transportation and public space agenda for the next four years. What should the mayor set his sights on, and how much can the city accomplish? We'll kick things off next Monday, so stay tuned.

Right now, you might just want to breathe a sigh of relief -- no one's about to rip out bike lanes or ax plans for bus improvements. At least not for the next four years.

With extremely low turnout expected for tomorrow's mayoral election, Bill Thompson and Mike Bloomberg canvassed the city over the weekend trying to drum up some enthusiasm for their candidacies. For Thompson, the itinerary included a stop in Bedford Stuyvesant this Saturday to protest plans for improving bus service along Nostrand Avenue.

Hopping off the campaign truck at the corner of Fulton and Nostrand, Thompson and the entire citywide Democratic ticket joined local council rep Tish James for a quick show of solidarity with Nostrand Avenue Merchants Association president Lindiwe Kamau. Kamau takes issue with bus improvements planned for Nostrand because, she claims, dedicated bus lanes will eliminate curbside parking along the corridor. Here's the thing: The most recent renderings of Select Bus Service on Nostrand [PDF] depict buses operating in an existing travel lane. The curbside parking lane would still be there.

That didn't stop Thompson, James, John Liu, and Bill de Blasio from lending their support for a few minutes, standing beside Kamau and repeating stock phrases about "protecting small businesses." The biggest constituency they addressed appeared to be the press. About four reporters were on hand, outnumbering Nostrand Avenue merchants by approximately four-to-one. After a light cycle or two, the pols hopped back on the truck and were driven away.

If the Democratic ticket had walked over to the B44 stop around the corner, they would have found a much larger and more captive audience to address. Their message might not have gone over very well though.

Around the corner: Waiting to board the B44.

On a typical weekday, more than 40,000 people ride the B44 on the Nostrand corridor. On Saturdays, average ridership is about 29,000. B44 riders can definitely use some relief: They currently depend on the second-most unreliable bus route in the city, according to the Straphangers Campaign. The improvements promised by Select Bus Service -- pre-paid boarding, dedicated travel lanes, signal priority -- would speed trips and enable buses to stick to their schedules.

Around the corner from Saturday's presser, dozens of people were waiting for the next B44, many carrying shopping bags on a warm fall afternoon. Henrietta David, one of the older women waiting at the stop, told me that she doesn't bother glancing at the posted schedule to find out when the next bus will arrive; the bus comes when it comes. There was nowhere for her to sit as she waited. After a bus pulled up, it took a good two minutes for everyone to board.

When I had asked Kamau why she opposed plans for BRT on Nostrand, the indignities and inconveniences of riding the bus weren't foremost in her thoughts, nor were her own customers' transportation needs. She said merchants already get ticketed for parking their cars on this stretch of Nostrand during the p.m. rush, when the west side of the street is a no-standing zone. "We already have problems with parking," she said. "Our merchants get tickets constantly."

According to Dept. of Transportation statistics, accidents of all types are down by nearly 30 percent on Grand St., but Thompson said those were not enough reasons to keep the lane.

“Then you move forward,” Thompson told the Express. “So you'll have a safer street where the businesses are going to wind up closing? That's not what you're looking to do. You're looking to strike that balance so it works.”

He said last week that he would have his transportation commissioner take a new look at any lanes that seemed to be problematic, such as along Grand St. and in Astoria, though he did not promise to definitely close any. He favors bike lanes and suspects ones on wider streets such as on Eighth and Ninth Aves. are working better.

So in Thompson's view, safety gains on Grand Street, proven by measured reductions in injuries, are no match for unfounded accusations that, all evidence to the contrary, bike lanes are bad for business. The implication: car traffic propels commerce even in dense, walkable lower Manhattan. Also, let's not forget that the vast majority of Grand Street's curbside parking has been retained. Eliminating the bike lane would simply allow motorists to resume driving faster and double-parking without blocking vehicles behind them. How is that good for business?

I'm not sure whether candidate Thompson can be swayed by studies, common sense, and the vision of a city where better streets for pedestrians and cyclists attract more foot traffic for local businesses. At this point, it seems pretty clear that his ear is more attuned to whoever whines the loudest.

Tonight's debate will be broadcast on NY1.

To date, Thompson has uncorked a steady flow of escalating anti-bike lane statements, couched in a demand for greater "community input." The argument never squared with DOT's habit of seeking community board approval for bike projects, nor does it jibe with recent resolutions in favor of protected bike lanes passed by Manhattan Community Boards 7 and 8. So Hawkins' sources offer up a few other explanations for Thompson's stance:

George Arzt, a veteran Democratic political consultant, said Thompson appears to be making a grab for working class, outer borough votes with his calls to remove bike lanes and dump Sadik-Khan.

"It's a 718 issue, as we used to say," said Arzt. "He sees this as an advantage to do something for the car drivers, many of whom hate the bicycle lanes and are fearful of running over a cyclist."

Ross Sandler, a New York Law School professor who served as transportation commissioner under Mayor Ed Koch from 1986-1989, said that vast improvements in public safety over the past 20 years have increased competition for public space, which goes towards explaining Sadik-Khan’s controversial role in the political landscape, as well as the growing clamor for her removal.

"Everybody wants that space," Sandler said. "Parkers, truckers, drivers, cyclists, skateboarders. It is the most competitive space in the city."

One good thing about Thompson's hostile rhetoric toward real-world livable streets improvements: On TV tonight, we might actually get to watch New York's next mayor go on the record explaining how he believes this intensely contested space ought to be allocated.

Thompson tells NY1 he'll "review" recent safe street projects.

• After the Ninth Avenue protected bike lane was installed in 2007, injuries among all users dropped 56 percent.
  
• The protected Broadway bike lane between 42nd and 35th Streets brought a 50 percent drop in injuries.

Given quality of life improvements like these, it would make sense for mayoral challenger Bill Thompson to promise to at least stay the course, if not to one-up the incumbent. And in his responses to the Transportation Alternatives Candidate Survey, Thompson comes across as a big believer in the benefits of livable streets. New MTA revenue streams, expanded BRT service, ramped-up traffic enforcement, on-street parking reform -- when playing to the TA crowd, the candidate is nearly pitch perfect.

But depending on whom he's talking to, Thompson is either eager to expand on the safe streets initiatives of the past few years or eradicate them on day one -- starting with a shake up at DOT and removal of the Grand Street lane.

If increased safety and community board approval wouldn't be enough for a project to be judged a success by Mayor Thompson, what criteria would he use? Though we were assured several times that the candidate supports bike lanes, our conversation with a Team Thompson spokesperson did little to clear things up.

"It's a wide range of factors," said the spokesperson. "It's not just the small businesses in the area, it's also the community. I can't comment on something in the future. I mean, obviously you have to look at each bike lane separately, right?"

Despite a lot of talk about "community," the spokesperson did not mention health or safety as factors in determining worthy projects.

"We've heard from the community. Not just the community board, but from small business community members, neighbors in the area that felt like the bike lane has actually hurt business in the area. Obviously with the economy the way it is, you want to do all you can to help the small businesses of New York. Again, I just want to make it clear that he does support bike lanes. He's said it over and over again."

So when it comes to livable streets initiatives under the Thompson administration, the litmus test won't be public health, or even environmental impact, but feelings and anecdotes. When you single out one of the city's most effective cyclist safety improvements for immediate demolition based on who's screaming loudest, a promise of theoretical support simply doesn't hold water. No matter how many times you say it.

The latest production of the Yes Men hit the streets and the Web today: an Onion-esque "Special Edition" of the New York Post devoted completely to climate change, released ahead of this week's global summit at UN headquarters. Coming in at 32 pages in print, there's a lot here to digest -- including a fun take down of livable streets skeptic Steve Cuozzo, whose alter ego sees the error of his auto-centric ways.

It may be a fake edition of the Post, but it isn't fake news, says the group:

Everything in it is 100% true, with all facts carefully checked by a team of editors and climate change experts.

"This could be, and should be, a real New York Post," said Andy Bichlbaum of the Yes Men. "Climate change is the biggest threat civilization has ever faced, and it should be in the headlines of every paper, every day until we solve the problem."

Take, for example, the city's own climate change report [PDF], which warns of a future New York beset by extreme heat waves, flooding and drought unless "all nations" reduce their carbon emissions.

The bright side, inasmuch as there is one, is that most New Yorkers are already committed to a relatively low-impact lifestyle simply by residing in a city where over 80 percent of the population gets around by walking, biking and taking transit. Hopefully copies of today's faux-Post will make their way into the hands of oblivious politicians like Bill Thompson, for whom urban carbon-cutters like bike lanes and pedestrian spaces are only as valuable as the next faux-populist sound bite.

Update: Daily Finance (via Gothamist) reports that NYPD detained three volunteers who were distributing fake Posts outside the News Corp. building in midtown.

Fact check: The Grand Street bike lane was presented to Manhattan CB2 and won overwhelming support [PDF].

While campaigning in Chinatown, Thompson questioned whether a bike lane on Grand Street and the other bike lanes across the city have hurt businesses.

Thompson said if elected, he would rip out the Grand Street bike lane and review other ones put in by the Bloomberg Administration.

"I'm in favor of bike lanes but you can't put bike lanes in without speaking to the community," Thompson said. "You can't put bike lanes that are doing damage to local businesses."

The city just came out with horrible employment numbers across the board and we're in the depths of a historic national downturn. Naturally, in his talking points about the local economy, the Democratic mayoral nominee turns to bike lane removal.

Pandering to anti-bike sentiment under the guise of speaking up for "the community" doesn't pass the smell test when you're talking about a project that the local community board approved 33 to 1. So if Thompson is really in favor of bike lanes, maybe he needs a refresher on what that actually means.

Street space is finite and creating a cohesive bike network that people will want to use entails giving some of that scarce space to cycling. Odds are, not everyone will be thrilled at first, even if the public outreach is impeccable. But streets will be safer, more people will ride, New Yorkers can lead more active lives, and our carbon footprint will be lower. Democrats are supposed to stand up for these things, right?

If the city "reviews" its new bike and pedestrian infrastructure and caves at the slightest sign of discontent from any quarter, New Yorkers can expect to say goodbye to Grand Street and many more safety improvements. At one point or another, naysayers have torn into the pedestrian plazas on Broadway, the Ninth Avenue bike lane, the Eighth Avenue bike lane, bus bulbs on Broadway, pedestrian refuges on the Lower East Side, the list extends to the most mundane and basic changes.

The Grand Street bike lane has about a year of service under its belt, and the safety record is clear: Injuries are down nearly 30 percent since the bike lane was installed. Thompson has basically pledged to make streets more dangerous under his mayoralty.

Tony Avella and Bill Thompson. Photo: Daily News.

Thompson got started with a restrained, "I think you bring your own team to the table." Then Avella took the first rip at the city's new bike lanes and public plazas.

"There has to be community involvement," he said. "You can't just dictate from the top: 'Hey, tomorrow, here's a bike lane, here we're gonna close off the street,' without having communication with the elected officials, the community boards, and the neighborhoods, and that's why she should be fired."

This prompted an escalation from Thompson: "I favor bicycle lanes, however, you are hearing the complaint all over the city of New York, because the communities have not been consulted. They've been ignored. Bicycle lanes have been dropped upon them and there has been no discussion. That's wrong and that shouldn't continue."

Avella and Thompson don't seem to have a very good grasp of the facts on this issue. DOT's plaza program is entirely opt-in. They won't build a plaza in your community unless someone from the neighborhood asks for it. New Yorkers are basically competing with each other to get these public spaces added to their streets. Oh, and attacking the new plazas on Broadway is kind of like pledging to pave Bryant Park at this point.

When it comes to bike lanes, DOT, if anything, has rather timidly avoided going against the grain of community board votes. The Grand Street bike lane? Approved by Manhattan CB 2. Eighth Avenue cycle track? Approved by Manhattan CB 4 and CB 2. The Kent Avenue bike lane? Approved by Brooklyn CB 1. Meanwhile, DOT has not striped a bike lane on Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Boulevard because CB 10 has yet to approve it. They added a bike lane to Empire Boulevard only after Brooklyn CB 9 explicitly asked for one.

Are there exceptions? Thankfully, yes. Otherwise even more power over transportation policy would be vested in people like Vinicio Donato, the chair of Queens CB 1 since 1975. Last year Donato's board wrote a letter to DOT opposing the Vernon Boulevard bike lane. Streets are safer because the DOT went ahead and striped the bike lane anyway.

So when these candidates moan about the lack of community input, they're basically pledging to halt any progress toward making New York City's streets less car-centric. Why make streets safer and less clogged with cars when you can cater to a minority of self-interested motorists? I suppose we'll see soon enough whether, after 16 years in exile, New York City Dems can ride that message back to City Hall.

All told, TA has collected responses from 73 candidates. With Bus Rapid Transit routes taking shape, congestion plaguing city streets as much as ever, Robert Morgenthau stepping down after decades as Manhattan's top prosecutor, and advances in ped-bike safety provoking a vocal backlash from certain quarters, there's a lot at stake in this election. Thanks to the candidate survey, New Yorkers will be able to remind electeds of their promises on livable streets issues for the next four years. And the companion web site gives voters a handy reference as primary day approaches (September 15, don't forget).

One of the really useful functions of the survey site is that you can compare competitors' responses to the same question. Say you want to know how the mayoral candidates pledged to reduce traffic -- here are their answers. Bill Thompson, the likely Democratic nominee, supports time-based tolls on the MTA crossings but, true to form as a Ravitch Plan foe, says nothing about putting a price on free bridges. Bloomberg, meanwhile, gives no indication that he'll renew the push for pricing if he wins a third term.

For some unambiguous statements in support of pricing, check out the Public Advocate candidate responses to a similar question -- especially former Public Advocate Mark Green and, rather surprisingly, current Council Member Eric Gioia.

So, now we have many candidates on the record regarding pedestrian safety, bike infrastructure, transit investment, and traffic enforcement, all in one place -- it's a lot of information to digest. Streetsblog will be sifting through it in the weeks before primary day, highlighting the citywide races, the Manhattan DA contest, and the key showdowns for City Council seats.

Greenwich Avenue: Plenty of commerce-loving cyclists, no bike lane.

Shop owners also protested that bicycle lanes have made deliveries difficult if not impossible. A pizzeria on Greenwich Ave. that used to depend on cabbies stopping at the curb to get a quick slice has lost the trade and is closing shop, someone reported. Thompson agreed that bike lanes have been a nightmare in places like Astoria and in Manhattan, especially on Grand St. in Little Italy.

So Bill Thompson, opponent of East River bridge tolls and pedestrian safety improvements in Chinatown, apparently also thinks bike lanes are a "nightmare." If Thompson is out to establish himself as not-Mike Bloomberg, he's making a lot of headway when it comes to livable streets.

One thing, though: Thompson may want to tour Greenwich Avenue himself. It doesn't have a bike lane.

It could be that the "someone" in the crowd meant Greenwich Street, which does have a lane. Or maybe it was a typo. The larger issue, regardless, is whether current comptroller and mayoral aspirant Thompson really believes that business communities in cyclist- and pedestrian-rich places like Greenwich Village rely on auto traffic for their survival.

We asked Community Board 2's Ian Dutton (his letter to The Villager was already on its way) about the impact of actual bike lanes on business in his home district. Here's what he had to say:

It's no news story that businesses are having a tough time with the current economic state in our neighborhood and around the country, on streets with bike lanes and on streets choked with traffic. I find it hard to believe that the presence of a bike lane scares off customers in cars, upon which Village businesses rarely depend, but embracing a street design that leads to a more pleasant experience for pedestrians and bike riders might just be a jackpot for a business.

Tourists and local residents make up the lion's share of shoppers and diners in our neighborhood and you'd have to work hard to convince me that they'd stop patronizing a business that had a safer, quieter, neighborhood-oriented streetscape. Attributing an individual business' failure on a bike lane, particularly in an economy with shuttered storefronts on every block, is simply passing blame while ignoring reality.

Charles Komanoff in the booth at WNYC earlier this year. Photo: WNYC/Flickr

Today Ted Kheel released a revised version of his plan to fund transit through a congestion pricing mechanism on motor vehicle traffic. Streetsblog spoke to one of Kheel's lead analysts, Charles Komanoff, about the updated plan (see the major components here) and why he believes it offers a more comprehensive answer to New York City's transportation problems than the MTA rescue package unveiled by the Ravitch Commission last week. The interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Streetsblog: What are the major ways that the second version of the Kheel Plan differs from the original version?

Charles Komanoff: The major difference -- and it's kind of profound -- is the time of day and also weekend versus weekday pricing for both motor vehicles and the subways. A very cool result is that the average cordon fee under our plan would work out to be around $16, so we’re matching the number we had before, but we're doing it with a range from $5 to $25 that is geared to the amount of congestion that the trip causes. Which makes much more sense because the city gains a good deal more from eliminating a cordon car trip at eight in the morning on a Tuesday than from three in the morning on a Sunday.

A second difference is that we don’t have 100 percent free subways anymore but we have something that is in some ways better, which is peak pricing. This will spread the peak load in the subways so that 22 out of 24 hours of the day -- and all the hours on a weekend -- there will be more subway use than there is now. During the two peak hours -- 8 to 9 a.m. and 5 to 6 p.m. -- there will be considerably less subway use than there is now, which means not only do we address the concerns that people had previously -- “My goodness the subway is so crowded now at rush hour, you’re going to make it worse!” -- we’ve defused that argument because during those two worst hours there’s going to be less subway use than there is now. And I should make clear the six hours a day in which we're going to charge on weekdays are 7 to 10 in the morning and 4 to 7 [in the p.m. rush].

There is a third important change. The taxi surcharge is now 50 percent; previously it was 25 percent. Now remember that medallion taxis under our plan are not going to pay a cordon fee. You couldn’t do it because they’d be going back four or five times. I wish we could charge for Manhattan residents who have cars that are just going to be driving within the CBD and not breaking the cordon. We can’t get to that and that’s got to happen in the future, but at the very least we can charge a healthy surcharge for medallion taxis and that accomplishes three things. One, it generates almost $700 million and the system needs money. Second, it acts as somewhat of a break on what could otherwise be a big boom in taxi use as the streets get less congested... And third -- and this is where the politics come in -- who is going to pay the lion’s share of this taxi surcharge? It’s going to be Manhattanites, so we are really trying to balance the equities geographically.

SB: So the major planning and environmental groups who lined up behind congestion pricing are starting to push the Ravitch plan, and at the same time we have the same opposing forces lining up against bridge tolls. How are you going to sell this politically?

The prime underlying principle in the Kheel Plan is, I would say, "When New Yorkers use transit everybody wins, when New Yorkers drive everybody loses." And what we ought to be doing is maximizing the incentives for New Yorkers to use mass transit and we ought to be de-incentivizing or discouraging New Yorkers from driving.

The real arena is with Brooklyn and Queens, and with the populist -- or faux-populist, as Streetsblog would say -- forces. Why will they come in? Why they ought to support it is because it is geographically balanced, and it’s providing an incredible value to everyone in the city, especially the boroughs, in the form of free buses -- buses being much more of a borough than a Manhattan medium -- and providing nearly free subways, 75 percent discounted subways. The way that I would put is the way that I put it a year ago to Brooklyn and Queens, "How are you going to tell your constituents that you turned your back on a plan that could make mass transit virtually or practically free?"

SB: You do lose a bit of the pitch if you can’t say totally free subways.

CK: We do, so why are we doing that? We’re doing it for $600 million, that’s what we get by holding on to the fare box for those hours. The fare box now [collects] about $2,300 million and we hold onto $600 million. I don't think it's trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. I think it’s an ironclad answer to the very legitimate concerns about subway crowding, and if we had free subways during those three morning and three evening most-crowded subway rush hours we might stress the system just beyond what anybody is willing to tolerate.

It's a much easier sell and it's a terrific argument -- the time of day pricing on both modes -- it really solves a lot of problems and creates a lot of benefits.

SB: Does this plan recommend bus service improvements and reaching those parts of Brooklyn and Queens that say, "We don’t have a transit option?" Is that part of this plan or is it implicit that that will be added?

CK: It's an input that needs to be added. There are some things that we don’t have quite the reach to do, but we think it’s really important to do that. I will point out that the existing bus fleet will experience a 20 percent boost in productivity from this plan because of the combination of reduced traffic and the fare-free boarding. So in that sense the existing bus fleet will run much more efficiently, and it will be a much more attractive form of service. That admittedly begs the question of adding the routes and we think it's vital to do that.

SB: What’s the cordon in your model?

CK: It's the same as we had a year ago, but the so called "offset" -- so that if a driver was already paying on a Hudson River crossing or the Queens Midtown Tunnel, the fee would be deducted -- we don’t have that. Whatever tolls there are now stay in effect, and our cordon toll is in addition. When I say that our toll averages out to around $16, that’s $16 in addition to what a driver may now be paying to drive into the cordon.

SB: So it would not equalize prices at cordon crossings across the board, you would have some variation in those prices?

CK: Yes, but what that means is that it would equalize the political impact, so the legislators from Brooklyn and Queens who were very irate about the virtually no-impact cordon toll on Jersey, we’ve defused that argument. Now there may be more cries from New Jersey, from the other side of the Hudson, but at least we’ve laid to rest this idea of geographic inequality that was a big problem with the mayor’s plan.

SB: The Ravitch plan, they anticipate, would generate $2.1 billion per year. How does Kheel Plan 2 compare to that?

The existing bus fleet will experience a 20 percent boost in productivity from this plan because of the combination of reduced traffic and the fare-free boarding.

The other is that we are not at all averse to having the MTA be able to tap some of Bill Thompson's weight-based registration surcharge. Clearly we don’t think that that’s an optimal answer to the whole MTA funding situation, because it’s very unlikely that something of the magnitude Thompson is talking about is going to pass, and the Thompson plan -- just like the Ravitch plan -- isn’t really going to do anything for traffic congestion. In fact it’s not going to do anything for subway congestion either but there’s nothing wrong with having that in a scaled down form. That seems like the kind of revenue source that really is most suited to reducing the state’s budget deficit. It’s not a transportation measure. It’s a revenue raising measure and fine, I would support it as a tax measure primarily for the State of New York, so let the state tap it and then let the state earmark a fraction of it for the MTA.

SB: We are hearing a lot about the stimulus package coming up and how much the federal government might be putting towards transit projects, but once this crisis passes do you think we'll be able to count on heavy spending on MTA capital projects from the feds?

CK: It seems to me that if we can solve the problem of the moment, which is the MTA deficit and the fare, and if we can do it in a way that is as revolutionary and as liberating as [the Kheel Plan], I think we will have done enough and the landscape of transportation and transit will be so different five years after a plan like this has gone into effect. I don’t think we need to fret now about what are we going to do in 2020. Not very many years from now it will be possible to charge VMT fees throughout the city and throughout the region, which will be a more comprehensive funding source, and ultimately the cordon fee ought to be superseded by a VMT fee-based system that will charge more to drive in congestion, or to create congestion, and less for driving that doesn’t. People are beginning actually to talk about that in the transportation policy community, and that would be the next generation, but we're not quite there yet.

SB: One way to look at the Ravitch plan is as an attempt to shore up the MTA's finances according to the principle that every constituency who benefits from the transit system should pay into it. What would you say is the parallel principle undergirding the Kheel Plan?

CK: I don’t think the Ravitch plan meets its own objective, most starkly in the continued exemption of any charge on drivers [from the Upper West Side and Upper East Side] coming in via 60th Street, which is just a stark omission, it's a giant exception. It's a real class issue. Who lives in those neighborhoods [that would avoid paying bridge tolls]? Relatively wealthy New Yorkers.

Why [Brooklyn and Queens] ought to support it is because it is geographically balanced, and it’s providing an incredible value to everyone in the city, especially the boroughs, in the form of free buses -- buses being much more of a borough than a Manhattan medium.

And there hasn’t been that much discussion of the payroll tax. It seems to [Kheel] and to me that it’s practically insane to be raising payroll taxes in the face of a severe recession. It’s discouraging employment and it’s taking money away from workers and companies, and there’s no way to mitigate that. Everybody is going to pay regardless of who they are and what they do. That may seem equitable, but it’s really very penalizing and it goes completely in the wrong direction.

Probably the prime underlying principle in the Kheel Plan is, I would say, "When New Yorkers use transit everybody wins, when New Yorkers drive everybody loses." And what we ought to be doing is maximizing the incentives for New Yorkers to use mass transit and we ought to be de-incentivizing or discouraging New Yorkers from driving. Transit users are already giving something up. They are giving up the autonomy of getting around in a car. To me and to Kheel the playing field has been badly skewed to benefit drivers, the paradox being, of course, that they no longer truly benefit because there are now so many of them that they've gotten in each other's way, as well as our way. The principle that comes first for us, and certainly for Ted, is to provide all reasonable incentives for people to not drive and to use transit, and that makes for a better city.

SB: There’s been repeated mention of the idea that fare payers should be expected to keep up with inflation and pay more into the system as costs rise. The Kheel Plan would go in the opposite direction…

CK: It’s a standard argument that has as an implicit assumption that the current situation is equitable. For us it comes back to the feeling that the transit users are sacrificing through giving up or foregoing the use of cars, so we’re not starting from an equal situation that otherwise should be preserved proportionally. It is a very disproportionate situation.

SB: Last week Ravitch said that a brisk timetable is necessary to head off some of the most severe austerity measures for the MTA. Before you were talking about Kheel Plan 2 being an issue in the 2009 elections. Have you advanced your timetable?

CK: Absolutely. We have advanced the political timetable because the moment of crisis and decision is here. But it could be that the [City] Council and [State] Legislature debate and reshape and vote on a modified Kheel Plan within the next several months, absolutely. I don’t see any reason that they wouldn’t be able to.

Thompson is also advocating a new surcharge on vehicle registrations in 12 counties served by the authority, which he estimates would raise an additional $1 billion a year for transit. As explained by Thompson's chief economist Frank Braconi on WNYC's "The Brian Lehrer Show" this morning, the surcharge, like the existing state fee, would be based on vehicle weight, and would result in an average fee of $200. Currently, motorists pay $30 in city registration fees every two years.

Naturally, Braconi was peppered with questions from indignant motorists, one of whom asked why he should "subsidize" transit. Braconi's reply:

"There are many hidden subsidies of auto drivers ... But the truth is that mass transit [riders] subsidize auto drivers in many ways. For example, the fact that we can park free on our streets for the most part ... But the fact is we are all one city, and we all benefit from mass transit. Parking and driving would be virtually impossible in this city, it would be so congested, without a functioning mass transit system, and vice versa. I think mass transit users benefit that there are automobiles to deliver goods, and taxis, et cetera, et cetera ... [Drivers and transit users should] realize there is some fair way to distribute the costs of making the city work properly."

Fielding a call about motorists dodging the fee through registration fraud, Braconi said that residential parking permits are included in Thompson's proposal.

In separate letters issued this month to the Department of Environmental Protection, Thompson and Stringer present lists of unanswered questions pertaining to Local Law 41, adopted by the City Council in May 2005. The law required that all tour buses with engines that are at least three years old be retrofitted with best available technologies to reduce diesel particulate levels, and gave companies until January 2007 to either do the retrofits or apply for waivers.

Over three years later, only one company, Gray Line, has brought any of its buses into compliance. According to a DEP report, as of last August just 61 of the 204 tour buses on New York streets meet the law's requirements. The report, Thompson wrote, "shows a very disturbing lack of progress and, in fact, a widespread non-compliance with the law."

According to a 1999 study referenced in a recent New York Post article, a typical Gray Line bus "emit[s] about 25 times more diesel particles than the average bus."

Thompson takes the DEP to task for its tardiness in issuing the first of its required annual reports pertaining to Local Law 41. It was eight months late and, judging by the follow-up questions submitted by Thompson and Stringer, left many issues unaddressed, such as whether DEP is recommending license revocation for companies that aren't obeying the law.

"Tour Buses No -- Tourists Yes" is not only concerned with air pollution, but also noise pollution and physical safety. In September, sight-impaired West Village resident Lloyd Burlingame told NY1:

"I have to depend on my hearing to know when to cross the street and these tour buses, between the racket they make and these guys blathering, I put myself in danger every time they're here and I try to cross the street. So it's a particular problem for people like me."

Also in the NY1 report, City Council Member Alan Gerson said he wants legislation that would regulate tour bus times of operation, routes and frequency. (Enforcement, apparently, is another matter.) And said Villager Milton Polsky: "We have nothing against the tourists, but we'd like to see them walk and enjoy our wonderful sights here."

Photo: Richard Hsu/Flickr

• City Council Member Tony Avella: "[Avella is] an obscure pol, and attacking CP allowed him to grab attention while promoting his anti-tax agenda. But he may have gone around the bend, ranting about routine horse-trading for council members’ votes."
• Comptroller Bill Thompson: "The city comptroller has been mildly supportive of congestion pricing, though he’s always been careful to attach caveats ... Why take a bold stance on something that might never happen?"
• City Council Speaker Christine Quinn: "[S]he used last week’s vote to demonstrate leadership on a contentious issue ... Plus, wrapping her arms so tightly around CP also earned Quinn a big chit with Bloomberg..."
• Congressman Anthony Weiner: "[I]n the campaign, he’ll cast congestion pricing as Manhattan-centric and elitist, like Quinn. Weiner was thrilled to see her so far out front."

And don't forget Marty Markowitz, whose most notable contribution to the congestion pricing discussion has probably been his vehement opposition to new bridge tolls. 

On a related note, the Daily Politics reports that Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey issued a not-so-subtle warning on the radio this morning that state pols will be judged on where they come down, and could be supported or opposed accordingly in future races.

Whether or not the plan passes in Albany, how will congestion pricing influence your vote for the next mayor?

It's now or never for congestion pricing, the MTA, and maybe even the city itself, Mayor Michael Bloomberg said this morning.

Speaking before a sold-out crowd at the Battery Park City Ritz-Carlton, Bloomberg and U.S. Transportation Secretary Mary Peters were the guests of honor at today's Crain's New York Business Breakfast Forum, where the mayor painted a bleak picture for a city transit system without congestion revenues and the $354 million in federal funds that hinge on the adoption of a pricing plan by March 31.

"Refusing those funds is basically saying that there will be next to no MTA capital projects in our immediate future," said Bloomberg. "It's just the truth of the matter. There is no money short of this."

Bloomberg said there are "only four significant issues" left to address in the current pricing plan. As to doubts that revenues will be dedicated to transit, the mayor implied there would be no alternative, other than "a steep increase in fares." The MTA has borrowed all that is "feasible," he said, noting that even with pricing funds, there is a $9 billion gap in the agency's capital plan.

Residential parking zones will guard against park-and-ride problems, Bloomberg said. Responding to criticism of a toll credit for New Jersey car commuters, the mayor cited estimates that indicate the new $8 toll is already reducing peak hour traffic. "So, in a very real sense, there's already a congestion pricing fee for New Jersey drivers," he said, pointing out that the State of New York receives a 50 percent share of Port Authority tolls.

According to Bloomberg, his administration is working with lawmakers on a possible refund for low-income city commuters "that offsets what they'd pay in congestion pricing fees that are over and above the comparable cost of commuting by subway" -- a significant compromise reportedly insisted upon by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver. He gave no further details.

Though he said the city needs to "make sure our governor is on board," Bloomberg bristled at the notion that recent turmoil in Albany could stall the plan, since the makeup of the legislature has not changed. "There's nothing new here," he said. "Either you're going to do it or you're not."

Asked if there was any possibility that the plan could be passed now but implemented during better economic times, as has been suggested by Comptroller William Thompson, Secretary Peters responded simply: "No." For her part, Peters said she is "optimistic" congestion pricing will pass. If not, she said, New Yorkers will have missed out on a "once in a generation" opportunity.

Playing to his business-friendly audience, Bloomberg elicited rueful chuckles when he pointed out that while New York has four earth-boring machines at work on subterranean transportation tunnels, Shanghai has 90.

"Cities that are our competitors in the global economy are making investments that will ensure their future," he said. "So must we."

According to the Sun, Governor Eliot Spitzer's office is drafting a congestion pricing bill, while legislators who have remained cool to pricing are preparing to deal on everything from bus routes to pay raises (for themselves). Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver wants "some form of a rebate for lower-income motorists" who drive into the pricing zone, along with an additional toll for New Jersey drivers crossing the Hudson. Members of the City Council, which must sign off on the plan before it goes to Albany, are also asking Mayor Bloomberg to work in an extra Jersey fee, or else gain a pledge of additional transit funds from the Port Authority.

Bloomberg irked Albany Democrats when he recently made a hefty half-million dollar donation to the Republican cause, then justified the move yesterday by saying that the Assembly and the governor have not stepped up for the city -- an injury-insult combo some say will hurt the mayor's agenda, and especially congestion pricing. As if daring Dems to take the low road, the mayor brushed off such talk.

"Think about what you're saying," he said. "You're saying that those decisions are made based on politics rather than what's right for the city. We certainly need congestion pricing, and it would be an outrage. Just for anybody to suggest that that's the basis on which they're going to make decisions, or that others would make a decision, I find reprehensible."

Surveying the long month ahead, a Monday Crain's editorial said that, with Bloomberg's presidential flight of fancy finally over, a win on congestion pricing is crucial for the mayor to remain relevant.

While both proponents and opponents have jiggered polls to support their cause, it is clear there is no public groundswell to impose a steep fee for driving in Manhattan. The qualified support of [Comptroller William] Thompson and [Council Speaker Christine] Quinn could be at risk as they take their own reading of public sentiment as they prepare for the 2009 race.

Suburban legislators remain overwhelmingly against the plan. Democratic Assembly members will be putting pressure on Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver not to back the mayor. Republican senators from Long Island, desperate to turn back Democratic challengers this November, have every reason to stand against the mayor.

It will take an aggressive effort by the mayor to push through congestion pricing. Much is at stake for him as well as for the city.

Following up on his tour of the smelly swath of plastic turf the Yankees installed in the South Bronx after turning actual park land into a stadium construction site, Neil deMause reports in the Village Voice that a clause in the Yanks' lease agreement with the city -- initiated by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and extended by Mayor Bloomberg -- allows reimbursements for stadium "planning" expenses. As of 2005, deductions include apparent write-offs for food, alcohol, and thousands of dollars in schwag, like caps and souvenir crystal baseballs.

Seems the Yankees haven't been spending enough on stadium "planning" to take full advantage of the rent break, so to justify additional deductions, the club began handing over loads of receipts to the Parks Department.

[W]hereas the earlier receipts were limited to stadium-related expenses -- although questionable ones, like the $700-an-hour lobbyist bills and restaurant tabs for engineering consultants -- by late 2005, the files had begun to look like those of an organization hastily trying to spend down its account by billing the public for everything but the kitchen sink.

Here's a sample itemized list, courtesy Good Jobs New York:

• $31,364 in food and bar tabs at Yankee Stadium for two nights of the 2005 post season
• $1,978 for a dozen crystal baseballs
  
• $8,600 in "rivalry" wool caps for home games against Boston and Toronto
• $1037 for 550 logo baseballs for an annual sales meeting
• $2,037 in gifts for corporate clients like Sony, Ford and Continental Airlines
• $25,000 for office space near Newark Airport
• $10,145 for press room rental
• $1,948 for party for Verizon
• $78 to ship batting helmets from Yankee Stadium to Tropicana Field

Images of actual receipts are here, here and here.

GJNY has issued a media release calling for an audit by City Comptroller (and potential mayoral candidate) William Thompson -- something the city has not done since 2004, when it examined the Yankees' stadium planning costs from 2001 and 2002.

"Considering the impact the new Yankee Stadium has had on the taxpayers and the neighborhood," reads the GJNY statement, "Good Jobs New York calls on Comptroller William Thompson to bring up to date all audits of the team to ensure no improper expenditures were in fact borne by the taxpayers."

If anyone knows more about any of these folks, or if you spot any outdated info, please share.

The IDA board:

• Robert C. Leiber, Chairman. President of the New York City Economic Development Corporation. Former real estate executive. Mayoral appointee.
  
• Derek Park, Vice Chairman. Senior Executive Vice-President, Cohane Rafferty Securities. Mayoral appointee.
  
• Amanda Burden, ex officio. City Planning Director, City Planning Commission Chair.
  
• Michael Cardozo, ex officio. New York City's Corporation Counsel.
• Albert V. De Leon. General Counsel, Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken.
• Dan Doctoroff, ex officio. Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and Rebuilding.
• Joseph I. Douek. Chairman and CEO, Willoughby's Konica Imaging Center, friend of Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz, and subject of this 2006 critique on Room EIght.
• Kevin Doyle. Executive Vice President, Local 32BJ, "the largest property services union in the country." Doyle was profiled by the Observer when he joined the IDA board. Appointed by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.
• Bernard Haber. Member of Queens Community Board 11. Queens Borough President appointee.
  
• Rafael Salaberrios. President, Bronx Overall Economic Development Corporation. Chairman, Bronx Tourism Council. Bronx Borough President appointee.
  
• Robert D. Santos. Vice President for Campus Planning and Facilities Management, City College of New York. Former executive with construction firm Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. Former Assistant Commissioner, NYC Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Former Deputy Commissioner for Operations, NYC Department of Parks and Recreation. Mayoral appointee.
  
• William C. Thompson, ex officio. New York City Comptroller.

Alternates:

• Barry Dinerstein. Deputy Director for Housing, Economic Development and Infrastructure Planning, NYC Planning Department.
• John Graham. City Comptroller appointee.
• Angela Sun. Doctoroff appointee.
• Leonard Wasserman. Chief, Economic Development Division, New York City Law Department (Corporation Counsel).