Skip to Content
Streetsblog USA home
Streetsblog USA home
Log In
Congestion Pricing

Who Better Represented “the Little Guy” in the Pricing Debate?

assembly_members.jpg
New York State Assembly Members Jose Rivera, Richard Brodsky and Adriano Espaillat

Mayor Bloomberg and the Campaign for New York's Future never really seemed to get that the congestion pricing debate was fundamentally going to be a fight about class, and the widening divide between rich and poor in New York City.

While the Mayor and the Campaign built their communications strategy around little girls with asthma and $500 million in federal funding for transit, opponents hammered away on class issues, arguing that congestion pricing is a "regressive tax," harmful to small business, the middle class and the aspiring middle class. Perhaps a Mayor Weiner or Carrion wouldn't have been as vulnerable to these clearly bogus class arguments. But the billionaire Republican mayor was.

The Mayor and the Campaign should have acknowledged up front that an $8 fee isn't going to prevent Donald Trump from driving in to Midtown if that's what he wants to do. But if CEO's and hedge fund managers are going to drive anyway, let's make them pay every time they decide to do so. And let's take their money and plow it into mass transit for the rest of us, the 95% of weekday commuters who don't use a car to get to work in Manhattan. Congestion pricing is transportation policy that Robin Hood would approve of.

It's probably too late for Bloomberg, but perhaps there are some lessons here for a Mayor Weiner or Carrion. The failure to address the class issue head-on allowed a congestion pricing opponent like Westchester Assembly Member Richard Brodsky to present himself as the defender of the little guy. Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth. Brodsky did no favors to New York City's poor and middle class. He did, however, do a fantastic job of representing the interests of his relatively wealthy, suburban, car-commuting district.

Take a look at the income data from these three State Assembly districts. It's pretty clear who represents the interests of poor and middle class New York City residents and who does not:

Richad Brodsky, congestion pricing opponent
D-Westchester
Assembly District 92

19.6% of residents earn less than $35,000/year
26.6% of residents earn $35,000 to $75,000/year
53.3% of residents earn more than $75,000/year

Jose Rivera, congestion pricing supporter
D-Bronx
Assembly District 78

64.5% of residents earn less than $35,000/year
27.0% of residents earn $35,000 to $75,000/year
8.4% of residents earn more than $75,000/year

Adriano Espaillat, congestion pricing supporter
D-Manhattan
Assembly District 72

63.1% of residents earn less than $35,000/year
28.1% of residents earn $35,000 to $75,000/year
8.7% of residents earn more than $75,000/year

Numbers are based on 2000 census data assembled in 2002 by the New York State
Legislative Taskforce on Demographic Research and Reapportionment.

Stay in touch

Sign up for our free newsletter

More from Streetsblog USA

Shoveling a Snowy Sidewalk Is An Act of Resistance

Shoveling a sidewalk in winter is always a critical act of community care — but in an era of government assault on civil liberties, it's also an act of resistance.

February 2, 2026

Monday’s Headlines Are for Alex Pretti

Cyclists banded together in cities across the country to honor the ICE victim.

February 2, 2026

Friday Video: Should We Stop Calling Them ‘Low-Traffic Neighborhoods’?

Is it time for London's game-changing urban design concept to get a rebrand?

January 30, 2026

Friday’s Headlines Yearn to Breathe Free

While EVs aren't the be-all end-all, especially when it comes to traffic safety, they do make the air cleaner. Most of the U.S. is falling behind on their adoption, though.

January 30, 2026

Talking Headways Podcast: One Year of Congestion Pricing

Danny Pearlstein of New York City's Riders Alliance breaks down how advocates made congestion pricing happen in the Big Apple.

January 29, 2026

Improving Road Safety Is A Win For The Climate, Too

Closing the notorious "fatality target" loophole wouldn't just save lives — it'd help save the human species from climate catastrophe, too.

January 29, 2026
See all posts