Mercifully, the mayoral primary season is rapidly drawing to a close. By this time next week, we’ll know if a runoff is in our future or if the Democratic and Republican candidates for Gracie Mansion have been selected by a sliver of New York City voters, many of whom head to the polls with a strong bone to pick. Still, before this bit of political theater wraps up, we had to suffer through one final debate.
During the Democratic demagoguery, the topic of discussion shifted to transit developments, and two reports from the debate show the same old/same old. Stephen Miller at Streetsblog summarized accordingly:
If you thought the last Democratic mayoral debate was thin on transportation issues, you could be forgiven for thinking that the issue didn’t come up at all during last night’s event. Blink, and you might have missed it. Like last time, transit was relegated to the lightning round, and thin questions from the moderators didn’t elicit much information from the candidates.
At the previous debate, all the candidates had MetroCards in their pockets but we learned last night that they are, for the most part, infrequent straphangers: Thompson said he had last taken the subway on Monday, while de Blasio and Weiner rode the train last week; Liu and Quinn hadn’t swiped a MetroCard in about two weeks.
On the subject of the MTA, Liu said he had “gone after very powerful interests,” repeating the myth created by disgraced former Comptroller Alan Hevesi that the authority keeps “two sets of books” to obscure its finances from the public.
I don’t even have the heart to argue against Liu and his stubborn — if not worse — insistence that the MTA kept two sets of books. It’s been proven false every which way to Sunday, and the man who didn’t qualify for public funds because he actually kept fake campaign finance books isn’t one to talk. Those who vote for Liu deserve the worst.
Dana Rubinstein meanwhile reported on a different exchange:
The imposition of tolls on the East River bridges is widely understood to be a component of any realistic congestion-pricing scheme, and congestion pricing is the only recourse transportation advocates consistently put forward as the solution to the M.T.A.’s chronic budget problems.
“Do you support East River tolls?” asked one of the moderators. “Let me begin with you, Ms. Quinn.”
“I don’t support East River tolls,” she responded. “No.”
“Mr. Liu?”
“No, but I have a plan to implement them for out-of-city residents,” he added.
“Mr. Weiner?”
“Absolutely not,” he said.
“Mr. Thompson?”
“Definitely not.”
“Alright, and Mr. de Blasio?”
“No.”
The candidates all have various wishes to expand transit access, and a few have been forth some concrete plans. No one, though, wants to pay for it, and we’ve gotten the summer of “no, no, no.” John Liu’s plan, torn up by Streetsblog in April, was again the least thought-out even among a field of flat-out denials, and somehow, one of these politicians will have a loud say in the future transit policies and priorities of New York City.
23 comments
Sal Albanese is FOR tolling east river bridges. He’d have said ‘yes’ if allowed to debate. Strange you didn’t mention that.
Five days before the primary, reality trumps desires. I’ve mentioned Albanese before, but the truth is that he’s going to get less of the vote than even Liu by a large margin. There’s no path for him to be the next mayor.
No argument that there’s no path for Albanese but it’s important to remind transit focused voters that there IS a candidate on the Democratic ballot who is absolutely for tolling the east river bridges. The more votes he gets, the less scary the idea will seem to whatever political hacks end up with the power.
John Liu with the “two sets of books,” John Catsimatidis calling for the appointment of an MTA Inspector General and everyone else saying generally embarrassing things on transit. This is probably the worst crop of mayoral candidates in history.
What about George Mcdonald? He has some good ideas.
The goal is to suck the city dry and leave it in ruins, but have someeone else be blamed. Not just for this crop of candidates, but for most of those who have actually held office and those who support them.
It’s generational.
Right on. I wish it was just the stupid primary system, but in my worst moments I think it’s what NYers actually want and believe they can have. “Let someone else pay.”
“In my worst moments I think it’s what NYers actually want and believe they can have. “Let someone else pay.”
Americans. And it is give me or our little group now, and let someone else pay later.
http://larrylittlefield.wordpr.....ankrupt-2/
That parade of “No” answers about tolls is pretty much all the evidence you need that each candidate holds the people of New York City in utter contempt.
There is no place in the country where a candidate can openly advocate for adding tolls to a road people are used to having be free and expect to get elected. People vote with their wallets.
In spite of this, the winner may yet change his or her/tune once elected. Also, I love Liu’s “toll only non-city residents” response. Such a classic cop-out!
From a traffic flow perspective (besides from a revenue perspective), it makes perfect sense for every entrance to Manhattan from another borough to have the same toll since then people don’t have an incentive to shunpike, creating undue traffic jams.
What gets left out of the debate, though, is that along with tolling the East and Harlem River crossings, tolls should be removed from the Whitestone, Throgs Neck, Triboro between Bronx and Queens, and Verrazano. This would more accurately price CBD congestion and would further encourage traffic that does not need to go to Manhattan to avoid it.
The bulk of the voters here are the ones crammed into cattle car subways and buses. Unless you think voters are really stupid, it’s quite clear they’d be “voting their wallets” by supporting tolls. I rather doubt even a majority of people driving those bridges are NYC voters, and even if they all are it’s only a few thousand people at most.
a few ^hundred thousand
I believe that most NYers were OK with Mayor Mike’s congestion pricing as long as the $ was truly dedicated to transit improvements and would not be ‘stolen’ to be used elsewhere.
44.3% of New York City residents own a car. That’s not a majority but it’s a large enough demographic that you can’t promise to take money away from them and get elected. Especially when you consider that car ownership rates rise with income, and that involvement and influence in politics also rises with income.
It’s not generally fair, and it’s not for the greater good of the city, but it’s the reality we live in.
But the number that make regular rush hour trips to Manhattan is far, far lower. Not saying it doesn’t raise problems for candidates, but it certainly isn’t all problems – you can make a genuinely good case for tolls or (even better) CP, and evidently ~65% of New Yorkers are smart enough to buy that case if it’s explained to them.
Agreed. Just because one owns a car doesn’t mean he or she is stupid enough to try to daily commute with it. Mine just sits on the street and is used for weekend trips upstate.
Congestion pricing would play such a powerful role in balancing out the road network. So many choose the east river bridges while there are better options to get between the boros. The triboro for instance can support far more traffic as well as the battery tunnel but every avoids them to save some money. I say lower the tolls on all crossings (except for nj) and institute them on every crossing so that each is no better than the other.
Perhaps it’s time to start a The Tolls Are Too Damn Low party.
What does the SAS commentariat think of de Blasio?
I think that his son would be a very appealing candidate.
Thompson, Liu and Weiner are the worst in the Democratic field, for those under age 55, planning to stay here, and not among teh rich or the unionized public employees.
Lhota said the MTA only borrowed for capital expenditures, ignoring $600 million in “reimbursable” operating expenditures. Catsmatidis knows nothing about government. Same with McDonald, although he seems like a solid guy.
Who does that leave?
Tolling the East River crossings targets the wrong demographic UNLESS all city residents get a free pass. The tolled parties become folks from the outer-boroughs. The outer-boroughers already have less transit than do their Manhattan comrades, and taking more of their money to further better transit for the Manhattanites, such as SAS Phases II, III & IV is just so plumb wrong, it can’t be any clearer than this example.
Mayor Bloomberg’s congestion pricing hit the right mark. He didn’t care from which direction you were coming from. AND he was peak demand sensitive, so someone for example toting a family across a Brooklyn Bridge, going to visit family in Washington Heights at 2:00 on a Sunday afternoon would not be tolled.
Worst NYC mayoral candidates ever ….
A bit of an overstatement. There was 1969 after all. Not to mention Jimmy Walker vs. Red Mike Hylan.