New York City Mayor's Race, Transportation Edition
Analyzing transportation/land use plans for as many candidates I can find. We'll compare what they say, how they say it, and why consistent language matters.
Business as Usual Isn’t Gonna Cut It.
I’m writing this post to focus on each serious contender’s transportation plans—what they’ve said and what they’ve written. I’ll analyze the overall progressiveness/boldness of each candidate that’s polled over 3% and describe what I like and what I don’t like about each.
It’s going to take a long time for New York City to recover from the long-tail effects of COVID-19. Work, Leisure, Health, Education—daily life will slowly get back to normal. I wanted to know what each candidate has said about the transportation rubber-band-ball that is New York. We have 8,000 miles of streets in our city—and the mayor has control over what happens on them.
But what is normal? And do we want our environment to revert back to the full-throated, stress-only quotidian? It’s lucky that in 2021, NYC’s citizens have the rare ability to wholesale-remake the landscape for who represents us: 35 seats on the 51 seat city council are up for grabs; we’ll have a new mayor-elect; and we could have two new citywide, lesser-known positions turn over, the public advocate (incumbent, Jumaane Williams, is on the ballot) and the comptroller (incumbent, Scott Stringer, is running for Mayor). We’ll know how well citywide power-redistributors fare after November 2nd, but really we’ll know sometime in July, when all the ballots are counted and the ranked-choice, instant-runoff races are called. It is unlikely that there will be more than a handful of interparty races: the city’s party politics are entrenched and predictable.
But for now we have a choice for executive and with that comes plans for how they will use power to rebuild our city. Twenty-one people are running for mayor—but some are not going to even make it out of March (here’s looking at you, Carlos Menchaca).
What Transportation Ideas Would Make A Good Candidate For Mayor?
It’s important to start with a baseline. Does calling for thousands more miles of bike lanes make this candidate a good choice? How about extending Open Streets? Or what about bus signal prioritization? Or far-side stop priority?
In other words, does the mayoral candidate’s plan have to be super wonky and technical to impress and be effective? Or does just saying the right things about a progressive vision count? What are important features that I care about (this is my blog!)?
(Note: I changed tactics halfway through writing this, and decided to focus on each candidate on his/her own merit and ditched the direct comparative effort, but I thought about these questions while deciding what I liked and didn’t—see below.)
A balance between what the candidate has written in ink and how the candidate represents the issues in public. Doublespeak is often accidental or incidental and happens when the candidate doesn’t have a full grasp on the issues.
A clear vision for what a successful future looks like, annunciated. Not a host of projects that cobble together a handful of different groups’ ideas for the future of New York.
A clear understanding of how the different city departments must work together to enact a just future—related: understanding what the mayor’s office and departments are allowed to do.
Endorsements and/or communications from advocacy organizations carry some weight, though it might be early for this to be relevant yet.
Ensuring that language and pursuant policy goals acknowledge a just recovery from the effects of COVID-19.
Brief Remarks On Stated Policy via Candidate Websites and Spoken Responses to Transit Center’s Transportation Forum
I’ll run through each of the top eight candidates in alphabetical order. Here’s what you can expect below:
A paragraph or two on the candidates approach. No two candidates have the same profile, experience, and policy prescriptions when it comes to transportation. Many do not even break out their platforms into an explicit transportation section.
A section with bullets on what I like and a section of bullets for things I don’t.
Eric Adams
Looking at Brooklyn Borough President Eric Adams’ “100+ Steps Forward For NYC” should tell you that Adams has been preparing to run for Mayor for a long time. His policy proposals range from course-correction to huge manifestos; the small ideas demonstrate Adams’ technical competency and the big, bold ones show a bold vision.
What I Like
Adams’ “big idea” for transportation isn’t so bold as to break minds: he wants to build out NYC’s robust bus system so that it runs more efficiently and serves more New Yorkers. He wants to “[…build] an interconnected Bus Rapid Transit system starting on roadways with service roads in transit deserts.”
The promise to de-silo NYC agencies, which is probably the largest structural problem the city is facing.
What I Don’t Like
I am unsure if Adams’ plan describes problems clearly enough to determine whether his solutions meet the needs of NYC’s diverse communities.
Two bullet points on closing transit gaps using e-bikes and e-scooters. This is a solution to a different problem Adams thinks it is: bikes and scooters are not 1-1 replacements for robust transit service, even in transit deserts. When we’re talking about transportation options there needs to be more than one.
Restructuring NYC government is the largest structural problem, and it’s also the one that will take the most executive work to fix. I don’t think an appointed council undoes this problem enough and I don’t think an “efficiency” czar is a narrow enough office to not value engineer every nook of waste—some of which might be much needed system slack.
During a recent Mayoral forum, Adams mislabeled “crashes” as “accidents,” which is an inappropriate blanket term for traffic incidents.
Shaun Donovan
Donovan’s background as a housing administrator is interesting, since housing is the other side of the transportation problem—he’s described himself as the transportation-wonk candidate. His platform demonstrates a clear understanding of the issues that face New Yorkers—equitable access to transportation choices, safety barriers, and a mismatch between bus and Subway needs and current bus and Subway solutions. This plan is reflective of lots of transportation ideals, but it feels practical almost too often. Perhaps some bigger ideas or more specific issues would help widen this plan’s ideals.
What I Like
A commitment to BRT (bus-rapid transit—basically the equivalent of light rail or a tram, but on tires and not tracks) as a viable alternative to more subways and more traffic through “solutions” like partnerships with Uber or Lyft or Via.
A focus on safety through design changes. Enforcement is often an ex post facto punishment and often is not a deterrent for future behavior. Narrowing street widths, lane widths and deprioritizing the ability for drivers to speed through local streets through intersection treatments is correct. We didn’t get an answer from Donovan during a transportation forum on whether he’d lower the citywide speed limit—and his plan doesn’t address it—but it will likely make little difference without essential design changes.
Embracing cycling as a viable alternative to driving and transit through bike-network connectivity.
What I Don’t Like
It’s hard to tell what Donovan’s true priority is—if BRT is a pipe dream, why lead with it? Safety is repeated through several different projects and plans—why not lead with safety, follow-up with safety, and finish with safety?
“Create stronger partnerships with the MTA” is a cop out. There’s no incentive for the state mavens to care one iota more with a Donovan administration than with a DeBlasio administration. This plan needs to demonstrate more the how of wrangling this agency to achieve his bold environmental and equity plans.
Kathryn Garcia
Garcia’s team builds on her time as NYC’s Sanitation chief and her years of service in NYC government: specifically the need to plow and keep bike lanes clear and the challenge of curb management (especially for trash/recycling collection). Her problem statement and subsequent solution manifesto bring Garcia’s vision into focus:
Even before COVID, too many New Yorkers faced long, unreliable commutes to work and school, and entire neighborhoods were underserved by public transportation. Incremental change here isn’t going to cut it.
&
Our plan will create more equitable access to jobs by expanding transportation options, but also protect our health and make our streets, sidewalks, and bike lanes safer and more enjoyable.
What I Like
Clear problem-driven goals identified and grouped by theme and tactful, carefully considered policy goals—29 in total—all of which seem within the purview of a mayor and possible to implement.
A focus on Open Streets and Complete Streets design processes.
Prioritizing bus signal timing, stop location, off-board fare collection, and all-door boarding, and generally expanding express-style bus service across the city demonstrates a true understanding of the full power of a robust bus network.
A shift toward sustainability as a rule rather than an exception in city-owned vehicles and a push to use the city’s limited taxing authority to impel environmentally-friendly private vehicle purchases.
What I Don’t Like
Varying levels of specificity within each policy section. It’s fine to not have a full agenda sorted at this stage, but it’s an interesting way to demonstrate priority when some ideas have numbers and dates attached, and others don’t.
Lack of clarity regarding NYC’s ferry service. Garcia’s plan leans toward expansion and integration of ferry service into the citywide transportation system, but also calls for a removal of subsidy for riders. Expanding access to ferries, but then offering service at full fare does not make sense if the goal is equity and access.
Half-measures on reducing car dependence: the switch from internal combustion to electric power doesn’t solve the larger, structural issues. A car is still a car, and with it comes danger to safe streets, and there’s the pesky issue still of where the energy to power the batteries comes from.
Ray McGuire
A McGuire administration seemingly will not focus on transportation as a central policy platform—at least as far as his written platform is concerned. Transportation isn’t its own section and commands very little attention, and it would seem that should Ray McGuire become mayor New Yorkers would see very little change to the city’s transportation. It feels that McGuire (and/or his advisors) hasn’t been exposed to much of the city’s transportation ills; his non-attention is a de facto approval of the severely stilted status quo.
What I Like
A McGuire administration would invest in infrastructure by leveraging cheap debt. This is a good idea.
What I Don’t Like
How a McGuire administration would invest in infrastructure by leveraging cheap capital. For instance:
The policy platform language demonstrates that this debt could very easily be misallocated. Instead of “shovel-ready projects,” NYC needs “shovel-worthy projects.” This platform does not distinguish what a shovel-ready project is, either, for what it’s worth.
The use of public-private partnerships (P3s) does not demonstrate sophisticated investment strategy on its face; P3s do not guarantee better projects or risk-deference. If we have access to such cheap capital, why do we need to create arms-length private project platforms?
What does “improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists” mean? What does implementing a “smart grid” entail?”
Why is reducing congestion necessarily a good output? Congested corridors usually signifies thriving commercial activity.
Dianne Morales
Morales is the Democratic Socialists’ endorsed candidate, and her platform priorities reflect the important goals of centering marginalized populations with dignity and investment from public offices. She’s right. Her transportation priorities aren’t especially radical, so it’s hard to distinguish this platform from other candidates’, save a few very good ideas.
What I Like
Every policy returns to Morales’ ultimate goal as a mayoral candidate—human dignity no matter your financial position or race, gender, sexuality, preference, ethnicity, etc., etc. This distinguishes her and serves as a guiding principle for any question that might be tossed her way.
A focus on disability justice (especially Access-A-Ride, which is a hot mess), which is a hallmark for equitable transportation planning, especially since planning with the most vulnerable in mind builds also improves quality of life for people without obvious mobility challenges.
Including comprehensive, municipal broadband in an infrastructure/transportation platform, especially since remote work is an alternative to a more traditional commute.
What I Don’t Like
The intervention rhetoric is written in activist language, instead of policy language.
It is challenging to determine which of these interventions are priorities for a Morales administration— “all of them” is not a policy position from an effective New York City executive.
Outside taxing the rich to pay for expensive projects—fully subsidizing transit and bikes included—it’s not clear how a Morales administration would reorganize the city to meet the needs of this plan or what would make her policies successful.
Scott Stringer
[Up-top edit: SIGH.]
Scott Stringer understands New York transportation, nearly all the issues New Yorkers face, and most importantly, the impediments in the way to creating meaningful change. His transportation vision is split into three distinct goals (streets, transit, green infrastructure) and his goals all come with projects. It’s surface-level policy prescriptions, but it feels responsive and nimble.
What I Like
A focus on all aspects of streets as the level of analysis for local work, right up top, with broad projects that feel accomplishable by the end of a term.
A housing goal inside the transportation platform demonstrates a deep understanding of the issues.
“NYC in 6” is mode-agnostic (which means it’s not dependent on a particular way to get around, say by bike or by bus), which make this plan flexible, as transportation alternatives should be. If an affordable choice is to drive then our Mayor should acknowledge this possibility; if the solution is excellent, frequent bus service, then the Mayor should acknowledge this, too. If it’s a bike trip, then we need to make sure that biking is safe, affordable and fair.
This:
Streamline DOT planning and development of street projects and improve community engagement.
Also this:
Speed up the construction process by removing bureaucratic barriers.
What I Don’t Like
The framing of Stringer’s plan as “comprehensive” is incorrect—the plan doesn’t address ferries or fleet electrification. It is fine that these are low on the priority radar, but then the plan isn’t “comprehensive.”
That’s it.
Maya Wiley
Wiley’s vision for New York is based around 10 big ideas, and within each of the larger idea areas, it’s obvious the vision is cross-disciplinary. A “New Deal” New York, for instance, insists on climate justice, housing justice, infrastructure parity, and an arts & culture focus. Wiley’s “State Government Priorities” agenda targets specific bills she supports in the Senate and the Assembly that would have downstream effects for all New Yorkers. Further, Wiley’s “Community First Climate Action Plan” centers all of the City’s new investment around community needs and climate change reversal.
What I Like
The sheer scope and boldness of Wiley’s ideas. There’s a lot to unpack and the level of detail about who this idea is for how Mayor Wiley will implement the idea and how her administration would pay for it is impressive in and of itself.
Wiley’s agenda is hyperfocused on reducing dependence on cars, which she backs up with investment in other options—increasing bus lanes and bike lanes, open space for walking.
Acknowledging freight and non-people movement as a vital part of the transportation network.
Leading the way on fleet electrification and required ancillary investments to support charging EVs.
Creation of a new executive office—Public Space Management—to manage investment and operation of assets in the “public realm.”
What I Don’t Like
This plan reeks of DeBlasioisms. It’s so comprehensive that it feels impenetrable and it risks alienating community groups who may struggle to find agenda space to be heard. If every policy is a priority, none will be.
Despite the density of the plan and the centering the transportation focus on community-led problem development, Wiley’s agenda feels light on actionable detail and short- and medium-term goals/success metrics. The problems her agenda mentions are generationally endemic, so correcting errors in development might take another generation—and it would be a shame to declare much-needed improvements a failure if projects don’t immediately hit her lofty goals.
Transportation goals are strewn about two different plan areas. I’m certain I’m missing an important goal because I don’t know where to look for it. I’d like to see this platform also organized by discipline area e.g. housing, transportation, knowing full well that much of Wiley’s agenda is cross-functional.
Andrew Yang
A Yang Administration’s policy likely aligns with the views of most New Yorkers—he’s a left-of-center Democrat, a technocrat and an entrepreneur at spirit who believes in the will of the individual to forge success with the right level of support from a government that supports them. His plan is narrow, maybe right-sized, and is not pandering but often feels short on depth of ideas, instead relying too heavily on the breadth of his ideals.
What I Like
Simple: NYC must take control of New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) to control our own transit destiny.
Placard abuse is a very niche issue (it’s a form of low-level corruption where certain vehicles are issued a park-literally-anywhere-for-free card to stick in their windshield while the city turns a blind eye) and this policy seems to take direct aim at Eric Adams, who at least turns a blind eye to this issue in Brooklyn. It is a serious issue that causes ripple effects when city vehicles, who don’t need to, block bike or bus lanes; it’s especially a problem if there’s not a germane reason to do so, even still.
Making the open streets program permanent and offering a community-driven pathway to add to the network is smart policy and has broad support, even if opponents have been tossing the barricades in the Newtown Creek in protest.
What I Don’t Like
NYC taking control of NYCTA brings into sharp relief MTA’s financial woes and management challenges. It feels very Pollyannaish to blithely claim “we’ll take responsibility for NYC transit,” without truly considering how to integrate the MTA into DOT operations…or vice versa? There’s also the matter of the insanely large debt burden, which the city would then be solely responsible for, and likely beg for help to allay.
Two parts (of four) of Yang’s platform seems to make a mountain out of a sufficiently pet molehill. Yes, a dearth of mobility and access on Staten Island causes major challenges for commuters and yes placard abuse is an issue to be solved, but I don’t see how SI’s transit deserts are acutely worse than similar deserts in Queens, the Bronx, or Brooklyn. Lifting this issue to a citywide policy proposal would serve Yang’s agenda better.
As for placard abuse—this is a very specific problem that does cause ripple effects across the bus and bike system, when, say an off-duty police cruiser is sat in the bike lane, un-ticketable because of the city-issued placard. There’s likely concern that there are many more placards issued than needed, and that some might be corrupted/fraudulent. Also, this seems to be a very specific fight aimed directly at Yang’s major challenger, Eric Adams.
Yang, too, used “accident” instead of “crash” or “incident,” on a transportation forum call in March. It’s a small complaint, but as language conveys meaning, it indicates that Yang is not as fluent on these issues as he claims to be.
The candidates basically agree that the current state of affairs isn’t cutting it for all New Yorkers, especially those who continue to be left behind (exacerbated by COVID). We can have a better way to get around, and one of these eight will hopefully lead us to a more just way to do so.
Please let me know where you disagree with me—or if I’ve missed anything crucial—in the comments. For a more summarized version of this (with a shareable graphic) click the button below.