Bloomberg and the Press Give Joe Bruno a Pass on Congestion Pricing

Posted at 10:33 AM, April 15, 2008

By Shaunna Murphy, Shea O’Rourke, Marguerite A. Suozzi

Tabloid headlines and even New York Times editorials echoed City Hall last week in targeting Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver as the one-man wrecking crew who obstructed Mike Bloomberg’s congestion pricing program. The mayor’s post-defeat scapegoating, however, has been as politically tilted as his pre-defeat contributions. The mayor has written checks totaling half a million dollars to Senate Republican boss Joe Bruno, who, like Silver, never brought the traffic plan to the floor yet miraculously became “the invisible man” in all the finger-pointing that followed.

Since congestion pricing's defeat, The Times has called Silver "unworthy of his office." "Here was a chance for Silver to show some real leadership," Schenectady's Daily Gazette railed. "His shortsightedness will cost the city $354 million in federal funds," Newsday piped in.

And the mayor certainly isn't going out of his way to refute the blame. His deputy mayor, Kevin Sheekey, told New York 1 that Silver has not been an effective leader in the past week. "I don't see any courage in Albany," he added. Bloomberg also made several statements implicating Silver as the main culprit. "I do not think that any one person should decide what's right," the mayor said at a press conference at Georgetown University.

But others find the finger-pointing unwarranted. "The editorial attacks on Shelly [Silver] are totally unfair," said Assemblyman Richard Brodsky (D-Westchester), the plan's leading opponent in the Assembly. "In the end, the overwhelming majority of the Democratic conference made the decision here. Probably 80 percent opposed the legislation."

Despite the onslaught of editorial boards blaming Silver for the plan's failure, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno had an equal chance at passing the bill. Silver stepped forward and said he wasn’t bringing the pricing bill to the Assembly floor because the overwhelming majority of Assembly Democrats opposed it during a protracted, closed-door, conference. Bruno, on the other hand, never said what the position of the majority of his GOP conference was, particularly the many Republican senators representing commuter districts as far away as Rockland County.

Bruno appears to have flirted with the notion of a floor vote only to put Senate Democrats in the difficult position of voting for or against it, but no one in Albany believes he had the votes to pass the bill from his own conference. Silver and Bruno, like the legislative leaders that preceded them for decades, rarely, if ever, allow floor votes on a bill unless a majority of their own members favor it.

Three senators interviewed by the Voice indicated that Bruno was merely posturing on the bill, raising questions about the Bloomberg administration’s evenhandedness in their assessment of how the biggest reform effort of their second term was scuttled. The difference was that as the Monday night deadline got closer, it was Silver who finally spoke up about what was actually true in both houses: This bill didn’t have enough support to pass.

“The assembly, by not voting, gave Joe an out — he appears to have made a promise to the Mayor without actually believing he could deliver it,” said Senator Liz Krueger (D- Manhattan), who was in favor of the bill. “Joe didn’t think he had the votes in the senate, and once the assembly publicly announced that they weren’t bringing a vote, he didn’t have to try anymore. ... At least the assembly said they didn’t try to bring it to the floor.

Since introducing the plan on Earth Day last summer, Bloomberg has donated an estimated $1.2 million of his own money to the Senate Republican Committee and $50,000 to the Republican Assembly, but has not donated a dime to statewide committees for senate and assembly Democrats. In the final accounting, Bloomberg's actual contributions will probably be even greater than initially projected, according to Senator Krueger.

“They don’t have to report any new filings until July," Krueger said. “He could have given them anything they wanted — we have no idea what he gave them in total. I suspect that the adding up of the amounts will be much more than reported so far."

Polar divisions between upstate Republicans — with access to Bloomberg's campaign contributions — and metro-area Republicans — whose constituents didn't want to pay $8 every time they drove into Manhattan — would have left the deciding votes in the hands of the Democrats. Had the Dems rejected congestion pricing, the city’s pro-pricing and pro-Bloomberg media certainly would have taken notice again and again before the fall election season.

According to Long Island Senator Craig Johnson (D-Port Washington), who opposed the bill, there was never strong support from his GOP counterparts in the Senate, primarily out of fear that Long Island would turn into a giant parking lot. As to why upstate Republicans would have any interest in going against the wishes of their city brethren, Johnson could only guess: "Obviously there were stories about how the mayor donated half a million dollars to the senate campaigns, so that might have had something to do with it," he said. "I just think it's rather a shame that we didn't get a chance to hear from them."

Krueger said that communities outside of the metro area, who wouldn't be nearly as affected by the bill, don't necessarily need to have that much of a say in the matter. "If you’re north of commuting distance from New York City, you don’t have a horse in this race,” Krueger said. Still, even if there had been a vote, Krueger said, there was enough vocal opposition from metro-area Republican senators to make Bruno question whether he could do his part in getting Bloomberg's bill passed.

"I’m up there, and I never heard any Senate Republican saying they would support this bill," Krueger said. "There were plenty of Long Island, Staten Island, and Westchester Senators who had no intention of voting for it. Joe Bruno would have needed a lot of Republican Senators to vote for this for it to pass, and he never implied he had those votes. He never brought it to the floor."

But according to Senate spokesman Mark Hansen, Bruno "has a very good relationship with mayor Bloomberg," "is supportive of the plan for congestion pricing" and would have brought the bill to the floor for a vote last Monday, when the assembly passed on taking it up, had enough senators been present. As many as 17 Democrats boycotted the session that day, according to press reports.

Senator Johnson said the idea that Bruno wanted a vote but was let down by a boycott by the Democrats is a fiction. “He had enough members in the Senate chamber to bring this to the floor," Johnson said. "At one point, there were 34 members of the Senate on the floor, and by the end of the day Monday there were 45. He could’ve brought it to a vote at any point, but he chose not to, and the reason is that he knew he didn’t have enough votes to pass it.”

Krueger said that Senate Democrats were primarily concerned with budget disputes that day, and that Bruno never actually called the Rules Committee or the Finance Committee into session about congestion pricing; a necessary step before bringing any bill to the floor.

Senator Carl Marcellino (R-Syosset), one of several Long Island Republicans opposed to the bill, said his impression was that the Senate was never planning to consider congestion pricing that day, an omission that could only be attributable to Bruno, who sets the Senate calendar.

"To my knowledge, it was not meant to be brought to the table that day,” Marcellino said. “It was never on the schedule."

Critical Mass Rally: We Still Speak!

Posted by Duncan Meisel at 5:30 PM, March 28, 2008

OnNYTurf posted this video with a press release from alternative transportation advocates TimesUp! about a rally being held Friday night called "We Still Speak." The rally is planned for 7pm at Union Square, the usual starting time and place for Critical Mass. The protest will feature video evidence of New York Police Department harassment of cyclists involved in the March 2007 Critical Mass ride. The ride has been a target of the NYPD since the RNC or so, despite several legal setbacks for the police department.

Note: this writer was issued a ticket in November 2007 while participating in a Critical Mass ride.

Court Strikes Down NY's Airline Passenger Bill of Rights

Posted by Candice M. Giove at 1:29 PM, March 25, 2008

So much for justice for the JetBlue passengers stranded on the JFK tarmac for 10 hours without food. A federal appeals court has struck down the New York Airline Passenger Bill of Rights, which would have required airline carriers to provide basic amenities like food, water, fresh air and clean toilets to passengers trapped on the tarmac in excess of three hours.

The Airline Transport Association of America, a trade group representing a number of carriers, lodged this second challenge to the New York State law earlier this month, and successfully argued that regulation should remain in the hands of the federal government and shouldn’t be handled on a state-by-state basis.

"If New York's view regarding the scope of its regulatory authority carried the day, another state could be free to enact a law prohibiting the service of soda on flights departing from its airports, while another could require allergen-free food options on its outbound flights, unraveling the centralized federal framework for air travel," the court wrote.

"This clear and decisive ruling sends a strong message to other states that are considering similar legislation,” the trade group said in a statement.

For Queens Assemblyman Michael Gianaris, who authored the bill, today’s decision was a major let-down for passengers. "The court's decision is a disappointment to anyone who has suffered at the hands of airlines that care more about profits than their customers," he said in a statement.

"This is far from over,” he added. “While this decision is a setback to passengers' rights, I will continue fighting until someone in a position of authority does the right thing and stands up to protect the flying public."

Is a Brooklyn-Queens-Bronx Train Line Pie in the Tri-Borough?

Posted by Duncan Meisel at 4:04 PM, March 7, 2008

Image: Mike Frumin

MTA Executive Director Elliott Sander raised the possibility of a tri-borough subway line running from Brooklyn to Queens to the Bronx during the first “State of the MTA” address.

The idea sounds ambitious, particularly considering the agency’s inability to run even a single-borough line down Second Avenue. However, that pie in the sky might not be so out of reach. Since the address, local blogs gave the idea a once over (which was originally proposed by the Regional Plan Association), and things might not be so desperate.

Second Avenue Sagas blogger Benjamin Kabak was surprisingly sanguine—the route could work with the under-utilized tracks of the Bay Ridge freight lines and might use less-perilous elevated tracks through most of its route.

Original planner Mike Frumin has some eye popping graphics of the line and its ridership—its path intersects with lines that have the fastest growing ridership in the city, which could be a vote in its favor. Other city-transit blogs looked over the plans and liked what they saw.

An intriguing long shot perhaps, but this looks like a proposal that might not be going away so soon.

'Prisoners of War Have More Rights' Than Stranded Airline Passengers

Posted by Candice M. Giove at 12:49 PM, March 6, 2008

The New York State Airline Passenger Bill of Rights seeks to save fliers from a recurrent travel nightmare: being stranded on a crammed airplane for hours— breathing stagnant air, with no food, no water and unsanitary bathrooms.

But yesterday the Air Transport Association of America, a trade group which represents a number of carriers, lodged its second legal challenge to the regulation, arguing that the federally-regulated airline industry should not be subject to a state law requiring minimal amenities for passengers cooped up on a grounded plane. A three-judge federal appeals seemed to agree with the trade group.

“I’m startled over and over again by the audacity of the airline industry,” Assemblyman Michael Gianaris, the author of the bill, said. “They hired high priced attorneys out of Washington to come and argue that passengers that are stuck on a plane for hours at a time should not be allowed to use the bathroom or have a drink of water. This is where the industry is spending their time and resources.”

Gianaris would like airlines to instead spend some money on emergency provisions for passengers stranded on the tarmac. His legislation, signed into law last year, demanded bare-bones accommodations like food, water, fresh air, clean toilets, and electricity for people held on planes in excess of three hours. The New York State law also threatens violators with a $1,000 fine per passenger.

The airline industry unsuccessfully challenged the law in December. Three judges hearing the case yesterday, however, seemed to be skeptical of the state regulation, according to the Associated Press.

The judges said they were sympathetic to the needs of passengers on planes, but they seemed to agree that only the federal government can regulate airline services. Judge Brian M. Cogan said New York's law might lead to multiple solutions by states nationwide that would subject airlines to all kinds of requirements.

Judge Debra Ann Livingston agreed.

"There is a patchwork problem in that every state should be concerned about this and probably would write different regulations," she said.

Even though the judges had not yet ruled, Judge Richard C. Wesley defended their apparent stance.

"This is a pre-emption issue. Judges aren't heartless people in black robes. Three judges must decide whether New York stepped over the pre-emption line," Wesley said.

“It’s a simple matter of cost for them,” Gianaris said.” They don’t want to figure out how to do it. My point is this is not a matter of discretion and you could keep fares lower by not allowing people to use the bathroom. These are basic necessities and they shouldn’t be bargained away.”

After court proceedings yesterday, Kate Hanni, president of the Coalition for an Airline Passengers’ Bill of Rights said that that the jurists’ decision, which is expected in the coming weeks, could have a chilling effect on bills in states across the nation. “If New York gets overturned than everything we’ve worked for gets overturned,” she said.

Hanni said that she couldn’t comprehend how airlines could display such a disregard for humane passenger treatment. She began the airline passenger advocacy group following her own terrible experience of being stranded on an American Airlines flight for over 13 hours in Texas in 2006. While they waited passengers drank water from the bathroom sink until it ran dry and held their noses after the restrooms overflowed. The lucky ones consumed snacks they had earlier stowed in their pockets.

“Prisoners of war have more rights through the Geneva Convention than passengers on an airplane have once the door is shut,” she said. “They get food, they get water, they get blankets, they get medicine, they make sure that they get a place to sleep and we don’t.”

Bill to Ban Horse & Carriages Met with Unbridled Anger

Posted by Michael Clancy at 9:01 AM, December 7, 2007

Photo by Zesmerelda via Flickr

By John DeSio

The clip-clop of equine feet through midtown Manhattan would be a thing of the past if City Council Member Tony Avella gets his way. But opponents of the council member say he has no horse sense.

Avella will hold a press conference on Saturday to announce a bill that would ban horse-drawn carriages, hansom cabs if you’re olde tyme-ish, from all City streets. The bill will be officially introduced in the City Council next Wednesday, and represents the first time any elected official has pushed for an all-out ban on perhaps the City’s most famous tourist trap.

For animal rights activists, Avella’s bill cannot be passed soon enough. Edita Birnkrant, spokesperson for the non-profit Friends of Animals, said there has been discussion of simply reforming the industry in the past. Such reforms, she added, would offer only cosmetic changes to a barbaric practice. “There’s no way to make it better,” said Birnkrant, calling horse-drawn carriages “horrible” and “cruel.” “It’s time to get it out of the City.”

Not so, says the horse and carriage industry.

“This is just a cheap publicity program he is running on the backs of these horses,” said Carolyn Daly, spokesperson for the Horse & Carriage Association of New York “He should be ashamed.” Avella has aligned himself with extremists, said Daly, knows nothing about horses and does not truly care for the animals, only his political career. “This is not about the horses,” said Daly. “This is about Tony Avella. He’s the worst kind of elected official.”

The genesis of Avella’s bill came two years ago, when he proposed limiting horse drawn carriages to Central Park and the surrounding streets. That proposal went nowhere, but Avella has decided to branch out to a full ban in part due to safety concerns for motorists. When he drives next to horses in Manhattan he often worries that something bad will happen. Will the horse move towards the car? Will it buck? Will he accidentally strike the horse? But the animal rights aspect weighs on Avella, too. The council member implied that the mistreatment of horses is inherent in the industry. “It’s just time to say, ‘enough is enough.’ We’re better as a society today,” said Avella.

“He’s just making stuff up as he goes along,” said an enraged Daly, who dared Avella to find a mistreated or abused horse among the 220 licensed by the City for use with 68 licensed carriages. “He’s not going to find one.” She said that veterinarians and the ASPCA regularly visit the horses, and they don’t seem to have a problem with the treatment of the animals. And the industry’s record with the Department of Consumer Affairs, she said, is spotless. In fact, Daly said that one year ago Avella visited the stables himself and proclaimed them, and the horses within, to be in great shape. “If a horse is in bad shape, it’s not working,” she said.

“The more you know about him, the more I feel like I could hate him,” said Cornelius Byrne, owner of Central Park Carriage, said of Avella. Byrne’s own personal tragedy has played a major role in Avella’s current push. In September he lost Smoothie, a ten-year-old mare, after the horse was distracted by a snare drum playing nearby. The horse panicked, lurched forward, struck a tree and died. Following the incident, animal rights activists held a vigil for Smoothie, to which Byrne was not invited. “There was nobody more sorrowful to have lost that horse than me,” said Byrne.

Byrne, whose family has been in the business for about 50 years, said there is a certain significant level of insincerity within the ranks of the animal right extremists that make up the opposition to horse drawn carriages. They do not mourn Smoothie or any other horse, he said, but are actually happy to see tragedy befall an animal so long as it might advance their argument. “They think its going to help prove their extremist, radical points,” he said. Those activists might have mental health problems, said Byrne, but Avella should know better. “He’s only doing this to get his name in the paper.”

The economy plays a major role in this horse drawn argument, with Avella and others stating that carriage business is down, in large part due to ethical concerns over the use of the animals. That, said Avella, is why the Horse & Carriage Association of New York is pushing for a fare increase. Nonsense, said Daly, who noted that the industry has not seen a fare increase since 1989. “The taxi fares have been raised 15 times during that same time span,” she said, pointing out that the cost of feed, for example, has gone up roughly 400 percent during that same time span. “A raise is perfectly reasonable.”

And plenty of people are still riding these hansom cabs, said Daly, noting that right now during peak carriage season wait times for rides can run longer than an hour. Both sides lay claim to the intents of New York’s tourists, with Birnkrant stating that numerous tourists her group has spoken to oppose the carriage industry, and that many of those tourists have signed the petition available at the website of the Coalition to Ban Horse Drawn Carriages. “We don’t need the horse drawn carriages for tourists,” said Birnkrant. “Most tourists don’t care about it. It won’t make a difference.”

“We’re a landmark,” said another horseman, Ian McKeever of Shamrock Stables. “We’re just as important as the Empire State Building or the Plaza Hotel.” McKeever said he resents any claims that he, or anyone else in his business, does not care about the horses under their care. He recounted stories of waiting with animals through the night to ensure their health, and pointed out that sick, decrepit horses do not do his business any good. These animals, said McKeever, live wonderful lives. “Nobody cares more for my horses than myself.”

McKeever and Daly both said that Avella might know the work of the carriage industry better if he listened to his own constituents. Daly said one-fifth of the industry’s close to 300 drivers live in Bayside, right in the heart of Avella’s Queens district. A ban on hansom cabs would cost them their jobs. But more than just those drivers would suffer, said Daly. They would be out of jobs, but so would the men and women who deliver feed, put shoes on horses, and clean the stables. “He should be looking after his own people in Bayside,” said McKeever, “not these extremists in Manhattan.”

Both Avella and Birnkrant are hopeful the bill will pass, though circumstances paint a bleak picture for the bill’s immediate future. The council member noted that both Mayor Michael Bloomberg and City Council Speaker Christine Quinn have indicated a reluctance to pass any ban, mostly due to the importance of carriages to the City’s tourism trade. Without Quinn on his side Avella will have an extremely hard time rallying fellow council members to his side, a task made even harder due to his pariah status in City Hall. Still, whether it happens today or down the line, Avella is confident that eventually horse-drawn carriage rides will be a thing of the past. “They’re not appropriate for City traffic anymore,” said Avella. “It may take some time, but eventually its going to happen.”

Though Daly and others see Avella acting on the issue to boost his own mayoral ambitions, Avella insists he is only looking out for the welfare of the horses. There was certainly a time when such transportation was necessary but today horse-drawn carriages are only in the way, he said. Smoothie was spooked by the sound of a drum, added Avella, who wondered how many more similar accidents could happen down the line given the thousands of other potential noisemakers that fill midtown Manhattan.

Birnkrant agreed. A City environment, especially the biggest City in the world, is no place for wild creatures like horses. ““When you look beyond the surface and the façade and charm, it’s crazy,” she said. You could hardly create a more hostile environment for a horse than midtown Manhattan.”

Whatever the objections, and personal ire, the City’s horsemen have for Avella and his bill he insists that New Yorkers are on his side, and passing his ban is the only humane thing to do. “There’s a reason horse-drawn carriages don’t exist anymore in society, especially in midtown traffic,” said Avella. “I hope we can pass this before we have more accidents.”

He added, ““I hate to use the pun, but I think it’s time to put them out to pasture.”

Avella is likely running against Quinn and others for mayor in 2009, and Byrne made it crystal clear that he and others in his industry will take tremendous pride in costing him votes down the line.

“He needs to be exposed for what he is, a terrible person. He’s a scoundrel, an opportunist,” said Byrne. “If he runs for mayor, I’ll do everything I can to be part of what makes him lose.”

The Congestion Pricing Alternatives Just Won't Work: Report

Posted by Michael Clancy at 9:05 AM, December 5, 2007

By John DeSio

Most elected officials who oppose congestion pricing for Manhattan’s central business district have conceded that, in one form or another, some type of congestion relief is needed in the City. Those officials note that they must not only stand in the way of Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s plan, they must also contribute a plan of their own.

It’s too bad those plans are wrong, according to a new report issued by Environmental Defense. The pro-congestion pricing organization, who last week issued a comprehensive survey of the select few who attended the seven hearings of the New York City Traffic Mitigation Commission and just what they said, has prepared an in-depth debunking of the three most notable congestion pricing alternatives proposed so far.

It comes on the heels of news that Bloomberg’s original plan might be scaled back considerably. Reports surfaced yesterday that the Traffic Mitigation Commission is considering plans to move the northern boundary of the congestion zone from 86th Street to 60th Street, to toll the East River Bridges and to institute higher on-street parking fees while reducing the number of cameras needed to enforce the pricing plan.

Environmental Defense’s survey examines the three main alternatives to congestion pricing so far proposed against the original Bloomberg plan, looking to find if they meet three key criteria: timeliness, ability to cut traffic, and ability to fund transit. According to the survey, each of the three proposals comes with major flaws. Rep. Anthony Weiner’s plan would only charge trucks to enter Manhattan and calls for expensive transit improvements, like the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel, that do nothing to reduce traffic. City Councilman Lew Fidler’s plan places too heavy an emphasis on building three major tunnels and developing hydrogen cars, both of which are too far in the future to be a viable alternative to traffic and pollution today.

And the series of small measures to keep traffic down put forth by the Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free coalition is too speculative to work. Only congestion pricing in the Bloomberg model, states the survey, could ever meet the aforementioned criteria.

“Every other proposal falls short in delivering practical, timely, affordable congestion relief,” concludes the reports primary author Michael Replogle, transportation director with Environmental Defense. “Congestion pricing works because it opens the door to many other solutions. It makes buses run more smoothly. It cuts traffic inside the charging zone and on major approaches to it. It raises revenue in the near term to invest in transit now.”

“We’re not saying that congestion pricing is a silver bullet,” said Neil Giacobbi, spokesperson for Environmental Defense. However, he said that congestion pricing would bring a more equitable transit fee system to the metropolitan area, something that none of the other plans do. Giacobbi specifically pointed to drivers from Nassau and Suffolk counties, who can “toll shop” and choose the free way into the City while New Jersey drivers are forced to pay to enter Manhattan. “What we’re saying is that there has to be a way to equalize this,” said Giacobbi.

Though his organization is critical of elected officials like Weiner and Fidler, Giacobbi insists those critiques are not personal. Weiner and Fidler are smart elected officials who do a good job for their respective districts, he said, but are just wrong on congestion pricing. “They’ve put forward alternatives, and have been better than most elected officials [in opposition to congestion pricing] in that regard,” said Giacobbi, who added that what Weiner, Fidler and others have proposed are “more a distraction than they are a solution.”

A perfectly good alternative to reduce traffic and improve transit already exists, said Giacobbi, and it is congestion pricing in its original form. And given the $354 million in federal grant money on the line, money that the City can keep should it walk away from congestion pricing following the two-year pilot program, Giacobbi said its time for everyone to settle down and focus on Bloomberg’s initial plan. Tweaking, he added, only serves to put that grant money in jeopardy and slow down much-needed transit improvements.

“Why walk away from that money just to try congestion pricing?” said Giacobbi. “We’re just trying to be methodical and reasonable about what is available right now. And the best thing available, the best thing to improve transit and reduce traffic, is congestion pricing.”

Download the full Environmental Defense report here.

NY's Airports Are Worse Than Most: Report

Posted by Michael Clancy at 7:35 AM, December 3, 2007

Delays at New York's area airports not only hurt the city's standing in the global marketplace but also pollute nearby communities, according to a report by Comptroller Bill Thompson.

In a new report, “Grounded: The Impact of Mounting Flight Delays on New York City’s Economy & Environment" Thompson found that passengers at local airports in 2007 waited 3.9 million extra hours for planes to take off after leaving the gate. This extra taxi time causes travelers to lose $187 million worth of time.

The report also found that: