Two years ago this week I was in Manhattan covering the Vision Zero Cities conference hosted by the great nonprofit Transportation Alternatives. At a panel discussion titled, Supersized SUVs, Mega Trucks, and Regulatory Failure, one of the speakers made me sit up and take notice: He railed against feckless leadership that wouldn't improve bus service, critiqued the "war on cars," called for higher taxes on large vehicles that are more prone to kill people, and spoke about traffic victims and transportation policy with the candor, clarity and conviction you'd expect from an activist.

But this wasn't an activist. It was an elected official. He was a member of the state assembly named Zohran Mamdani. Yes, the same Mamdani who might very well be New York City's next mayor in a few weeks.

This audio from that 2023 conference is a detailed view inside Mamdani's mind and it reveals how he approaches what are still some the most important road safety and transportation topics of the day.

Links:

• BikePortland recap of this panel discussion
• Mamdani campaign website
• Please support this work! Subscribe today!

Welcome to the bike Portland podcast. I'm your

host. Jonathan Maus, two years ago this week, I was in

Manhattan covering the Vision Zero Cities conference hosted by

the great nonprofit transportation alternatives at a

panel discussion titled super sized SUVs, mega trucks and

regulatory failure, my kind of panel, one of the speakers made

me sit up and take notice. He railed against feckless

leadership that wouldn't improve bus service. He called for

higher taxes on large vehicles that are more prone to kill

people, and he spoke about traffic victims and

transportation policy with the candor, clarity and conviction

you'd expect from an activist, but this wasn't an activist, it

was an elected official. He was a member of the State Assembly

of New York named zohran Mamdani. Yes, the same Mamdani

who might very well be New York City's next mayor when the

election is over in a few weeks, mamdani's approach to road

safety and his ability to communicate his ideas made such

an impression on me that I made his comments the focal point of

my recap of that panel I published on bike Portland, and

ever since his rise in the New York City mayoral race, I've

been wanting to go back and re listen to my audio recording of

that panel and pull out anything else that I thought was

interesting. I finally got around to doing that, and it

turns out there was a lot more worth sharing from his

legislation that would have taxed purchases of oversized

trucks and SUVs, his nuanced understanding of car culture and

how to counteract it, and the strategic political lens he

brings to the road safety conversation, it's crystal clear

to me that Mamdani brings a lot to the table when it comes to

transportation policy. In this single panel discussion from

2023

he touches on many of the key arguments and issues we talk

about, often in road safety advocacy. In this episode, I'll

share highlights from that panel discussion you'll hear mostly

from mom, Donnie, but when I felt more context was necessary,

I've also included questions andor comments from either the

moderator, who is former transportation alternatives

Executive Director, Danny Harris, other panelists, or

audience members. Keep in mind that as you listen, this isn't

the greatest audio I've ever collected because I only

recorded it for my own notes and never expected to share it like

this. I'll start us off with moderator Danny Harris asking

Mamdani about the legislation he was working on at the state

capitol in Albany.

I've introduced legislation with state senator

Andrew Gounardes that is a vehicle weight based tax bill.

The idea behind it is that the federal government is, in so

many ways, a government of inaction when it comes to these

crises, and has refused to step up and step in. And what we have

seen from localities like Washington DC is there is a

model whereby a municipality can step forward and disincentivize

the purchase of vehicles that have a direct link to higher

likelihood of killing children and people on the streets. And

so it's up to us to make it clear to New Yorkers that when

they go and they purchase a vehicle of a certain size and a

certain weight, that that comes with an additional cost, and

that cost should be a fiscal cost, not just a moral cost, and

that fiscal cost is one that we should create to ensure that New

Yorkers understand what they are doing when they are buying that

car at the dealership, and that they start to buy smaller and

smaller cars. Because what we have is an industry that is

almost entirely unregulated, that is pushing larger and

larger vehicles, tying it to notions of masculinity, vehicles

that can't even fit inside parking spots, and yet, for some

reason, they continue to be allowed to be sold. We have to

make it clear to New Yorkers that there is a cost when you

purchase such a vehicle. And I just want to say one thing, and

it is that in some ways, you know, New York is leading in

some ways, but we are far behind in many other ways. And we have

to be very clear about that fact that the way this whole

ecosystem works, where families have loved ones killed, and then

they have to testify again and again and again as to how their

loved o ne was killed and what it took. And we're seeing it

now. We're seeing it and Albany, it's disgusting, and we have a

system where I know the highest likelihood of change in my

neighborhood is right after someone gets killed, that's when

I can get the stop line, that's when I can get the day lighting,

that's when I can get the speed bumps. How is that an acceptable

way for government to work? And yes, we have we have ideas, we

have a vision. They are leading in this country, but we are so

far behind on so many things, and we have to make it clear

that there is a political consequence for people who

understand this as optional, because people are being killed,

as you said today, and it is design that is killing them. I

mean, it's ridiculous, so I know that's a bit of a tangent, but I

just wanted to say that before we celebrate New York too much

of knowing where it is that we are also lagging far, far behind

and who that responsibility lies with. It's not with you. It's

with the mayor, and it's with the governor.

You'll notice throughout this that Mamdani

blames current New York City Mayor Eric Adams several times.

So it's going to be sort of interesting when Mamdani finds

himself in that same hot seat in the next few weeks. The

discussion then turned to how city planners and policymakers

should respond to the growth in the size of vehicles on the

road. One of the panelists was Alex Engel from NACTO, which is

the National Association of city transportation officials. He

responds by talking about road design. And Mamdani uses the

question to share his view on how state power can influence

free markets,

but there are, you know, some mechanisms you can

use, like narrowing lanes, by far the most effective thing

that you can do, making sure that turns are tighter using

real concrete concrete barriers. So Street design, yes, but also

vehicles.

The state has a role in incentivizing the way in

which the market acts. If the state puts additional costs on

certain sizes of vehicles, then I think that it creates an

opening for there to be smaller vehicles with the understanding

that charge is not associated anymore. Your question initially

is, what do we do if the industry keeps going one way and

the city keeps going another way I believe in a clash between the

market and the state that I think the state can and should

win, and we cannot allow ourselves to try and respond to

the way the market goes. We must try and influence the market

itself, because the market is driven only by profit, and it is

a sad fact, but you make a lot of money making cars

hope that they change. We have to force them to do so. The

other claim I would make is the "yes, and" approach and that is

daylighting. And that is actually separate from the size

of the cars, right? That we could be having that now we have

that on the street that [name of traffic victim] was killed. What

kind of design sense does it make that the only places we

have protections are more places that both people have already

been killed?

The next exchange got into one of my favorite

topics, the role of us automakers and the culture wars.

They've played such a big role in starting here's Danny Harris

again with a question for mamdani.

Also have an industry that didn't want seat

belts and didn't want aerobatics, and the list goes on

and on. What do we need to be doing directly with the car?

What more do we need to be doing to be pushing the big three to

make better decisions?

I'm both very optimistic and also not naive.

And so I know that it will be a very long battle to win this

legislation. I think the importance is that we, the

immediate, get this legislation within political consciousness.

The fight to tax heavier vehicles is not just a safety

fight. It's also an infrastructure fight these

heavier vehicles are ruining roads and highways. I can't say

that I stay up late at night thinking about those roads and

highways, but this is an important infrastructure piece

for New York to understand that there are many of my colleagues

who are often hearing from their constituents about how these

roads are degrading more and more and more. Our legislation

would take the money that is raised to this additional

sticker price and would push that towards two things. One is

the redevelopment of streets with safety in mind, putting

money behind that vision, and the other is the maintenance of

the infrastructure. So I think that there is, I think that

there's a ceiling if all of these fights are framed as the

war on cars. I think that there's a lot more possibility

in where the fight for safety can go if it is framed through

the lens of safety predominantly, and I think that

one of the obstacles we face. What I've seen is the

understanding of this through a racial lens. And I've seen the

understanding of street safety and car safety and cyclist

safety as a white issue, as a wealthier white issue. This is

how it's framed to me when I bring it up, this is how it's

framed by the mayor. This is framed by many people who will

oppose this. right? But if we have to get into

low-wage, immigrant men who are delivering the food to people

are ordering to their apartments. That's what happened

when  Alfredo Cabrera Liconia was killed on Crescent street

bike lane and a few months after myself and a few others sent a

letter D O T, saying the protected bike lane is not

sufficiently protected. We need jersey barriers. We didn't get

them. He was killed by a truck turning onto that street. I had

to go to his wake. I made a video of myself stomping on a

flex delineator, and I got a call from the mayor's office

being like, 'Please calm down. [NYC DOT Director] Polly

Trottenberg is being considered for a national position.' This

is how it all works. And so I think that one of the

possibilities that lies in front of us is making clear who these

gaps in our design are actually impacting. It's the poorest

among us who are often out there, and that is what our

political leaders must understand, that every time they

say no to this, what they're saying is yes to another

Alfredo, yes to another [traffic victim], way yes to another.

Tamara, yes to another [traffic victim], one yes to another.

Jaden, these are all my constituents. I shouldn't have

so many names to say. I've only been there for two and a half

years. So I think that is something that I see. The

framing of this as a racial justice fight is something that

gives me inspiration. I think, you know, the DC model is

something that is exciting. I'm not supportive of congestion

pricing, in and of itself, that that is a good so we simply must

have it. We support [congestion pricing] because of what it will

create. It must reduce congestion. It must be coupled

with transit improvements. And we can't allow electric to

become the new solar where we think of them as innately good.

We have to understand them within this larger framework of

what we are pushing for.

There's very little we can do about the other side. We can do

a lot about how we frame this, and I think that too often we're

we're framing this also in a similar cultural way, where

there are many people for whom a car represents something else.

One of the first major battles of my political career was

around taxi drivers fighting for debt relief for taxi drivers.

That car was supposed to symbolize their ticket to the

middle class and stability in this country. And I think if we

frame it around a car and what a car means and what a car is,

versus if we frame it around safety, I think that we have

different levels of possibilities there. There are a

number of my constituents who I connect with on different

issues, who vehemently disagree with me on this, and they

disagree with me on this because they see this as yet another way

in which the government is looking to influence their lives

and kind of come in and tell them what they should do and

what they shouldn't do. And I think the problem is that there

isn't a widespread enough understanding that this status

quo is untenable, that this is actually something we have to

pull back from. And in American politics, sacrifice is not a

popular idea. We always try and frame our ideas as everyone's

going to win. Now we're just going to have other winners. But

with things like this, if you like that bigger, larger car,

our vision is actually that you will not have that bigger,

larger car, so that person will have to pare back their their

relationship to that vehicle, in the sense of ownership, but also

emotional. I think that the possibility maybe comes in the

more we put these stories as the front of how people understand

this. Because, you know, I mean, there's people who follow me

around. Who are like poking out a camera: 'Why are you working

for TransAlt? Are you paid for by Rider's Alliance?' It's, it's

kind of funny, in some sense, and then in another sense, it's

like people feel this in their bones, you know. And and the

more we can stop trying to defeat that small, organized

group, and the more we can try and have a conversation with the

larger public. And I think maybe that comes from from different

messaging, different messengers, but at the same time, that

clashes is what I was saying earlier, where I don't want

families to have to lose their child once and then lose them

every other day when they tell the story. Is that the price of

politics, I mean, we got the closest we ever could have

gotten the Safe Streets in Albany. Part of that was because

families came up there pour their pain out to people. That's

how we have to go right now. But it's just, it's not good.

The next voice you'll hear is Jessica Hart.

She's an advocate with families for Safe Streets.

Definitely it's part of the culture wars, and I

think we have to really reach more regular public people to

make any sort of change. You know, you said that. It just

made me think, like, if our city government just did an

It's like: 'How long it would take you to

find parking if your vehicle is this big? Versus how long would

it take to find parking if your vehicle is this big? And people

would be like, 'Fuck! I don't have the time! I just need to

get the smaller car.' I think time is money, and especially in

New York, and as opposed to being like, you know, a moral

choice or political information is just like: 'Do you have time?

Do you not have time?' It's like, 'Yeah, I want that car but

I just don't have time so I'm going to get this sedan.'

I love that idea.

At this point the panel had gotten into audience Q

and A and A woman asked Mamdani for advice on how to counter the

powerful cultural identity that many people attach to their

cars. I love how his answer reflects his understanding of

driving and the perspective of why some people are so attached

to their cars.

I think that one thing I've found is that for

many car owners, the car is their place of sanctuary. That's

how they understand the car. The world is chaos. The car is

sanctuary. We hear constantly how everything is crumbling

around us, but if I get in my car and have my temperature at

the right amount and my music playing, and I have my windows

up, I'm in control, and everywhere else in the world,

I'm not in control. And I don't think I can get the MTA to play

certain music on the bus, but I think that there is that

struggle we have to find, you know, and part of this is

convenience, and also part of this is kind of re

understanding, what is it that actually draws people to cars?

Because I think sometimes we we see it as if they understand our

views and they just hate us, but I think sometimes they're just

in a completely different conversation about this. And

then we have the bus going up and down. Sideway goes eight

miles an hour because the average bus speed in New York

City some of the slowest busses in America. And we have a mayor

who promised 150 miles of bus lanes. I think we're at eight

maybe. Like, these are all interconnected, because the more

busses we get on the street, bus drivers are actually the safest

drivers of that safest drivers of any car. This is all the same

fight. So I think that those are some of the things I think of

with what you're saying.

The next audience question was from someone who

introduced themselves as Deputy Chief of vehicular crimes for

the Manhattan District Attorney's office. She wanted to

know how views about pedestrian safety might be heard

differently in suburban and rural cities from how folks

think of them in a place like Manhattan.

How much do you see this as a battle between cities

versus other locales? I think in the city, people are already

heavily disincentivized to not have SUVs. We still have a lot

of them, but the they are already feeling. The taxes are

already much higher here, the gas prices are already much

higher. Parking is extremely difficult, but a lot of what

exists are SUVs and so it it's a larger societal culture that

that impacts how New York City behaves. I think a major problem

is that vehicles are not made to protect people outside of

vehicles. They're only made to protect people inside of

vehicles. And in New York, you can, you can understand, we can

hear stories. I'm a Deputy Chief of Vehicular Crimes at the

Manhattan DA's office, and so I see every single fatality that

comes through Manhattan, and it's constant, and I work with

lots of the families, and I know all of the stories, and I've

been doing this for 16 years, so those stories are very personal

to me. I spend a lot of time doing it, and that's why the

stories being told over and over again are so powerful. But you

don't have that in other places where people are not seeing

themselves as pedestrians. Here, everybody is a pedestrian at

some point. And how do you do that kind of messaging outside

of the city, where manufacturers are really marketing their

vehicles to you know, they're not really marketing the SUVs to

New York City. They're marketing them to the rest of the country,

where people are not pedestrians, and so people don't

care about pedestrians in the same way that we do here.

And I think that your point it can also be used

in New York State, the way in which the city functions versus

the rest of the state. There is a big debate in the assembly

chamber this year around the Idaho stop and whether we should

pass The Idaho stop. I have to admit, I already used the Idaho

style and I'm doing it in advance the law. The reason it

almost didn't pass the assembly was from opposition within New

York City. And that opposition came around the question of E

bikes, mopeds. You know, deliveristas and this whole

narrative and discourse around all of that which I understand,

but that is what was driving the opposition. I say all this to

say that the city is far from one, and in fact, the losses of

what we're facing in the city can then lead out into losses

that impact more rural, suburban areas, even places where people

might be even more ready for some of these ideas. I think

that we have now got to get to a point where we've built out a

mass transit system, but there are many people outside of

Manhattan who do not have the same access to that transit

system, and if they do, they think that it's just far better

still in their car. And we have to change that calculus. And I

think that a lot of that is truth, and some of it is also

perception, and that's why I think that with the onset of

congestion pricing, we have to couple it with service

enhancements. We have to couple it so that people understand

sticks and carrots together, that people understand that this

is not just an attempt to grab money from them, but rather,

this is part of a larger shift away from the car and towards

mass transit. Because I don't think we're at the ceiling of

people who could be taking mass transit in New York City, and I

don't think we're at the lowest point of people who could be

owning a car. There's a lot more work still to be done, and I

think we have to actively get into it, and not just hope that

it'll happen from policies and move on.

The next Audience Question led to an exchange

about how best to influence change. Should we rely on social

peer pressures and the power of cultural influence? Or should we

rely on government regulation?

I think it's a great question, because there is

an immense need of regulation at every single level. The thing

that gives me hope in being a state lawmaker and not someone

who's at the federal level unable to potentially influence

the speed at which these kinds regulations are taking place is

that if we win a battle and can characterize this successful

model, it can be used as the blueprint across the country.

That's one of the few good things about like the you know,

the way in which we position ourselves as leaders of the

country in spite of our actual actions, is that when we can get

somewhere, then it can be exported externally. That's why,

in this conversation, some of the things I think that have

come up that might not be understood as much as car

regulation, but street design — which I think effectively does

push some car regulation — is this question of daylighting, is

this question of bus lanes, and is the question of why should we

have a limitless number of EV vehicles, if we have a limited

number of non EV vehicles? If the whole idea undergirding all

of it is that vehicles, there should be a limit on all of them

in general, because it will take every single aspect of

government to get us to this place. And I think the more we

can politicize these decisions the better, because too often

they're they're understood as kind of bureaucratic mechanisms

going through the stages and will slightly get better and

slightly get better. And that even bleeds into the

understanding of people who were killed as victims of accidents,

as opposed to people who were killed by the design choices

that were made by executives and their administration. So that's

what I offer. But I think it's a great thing to say that we must

focus on regulation, because the market is one section and then

the state is another.

When someone brought up how terrible drivers

had gotten since covid, Mamdani launched into his argument for

automated enforcement.

It is such an ever present danger. I ride my

bike pretty much every day, and I just, I just don't ride on

certain streets that are actually more convenient,

because I'm terrified of being in by car, and the level of rage

in those interactions is also just terrifying. There's another

piece of legislation that I introduced in Albany that would

give the city authorization to create automated enforcement of

bike lanes, where you would have cameras that would be permitted

to take photos of license plates that drive into bike lanes. This

doesn't fully answer your question, but I think that there

is a need for automated enforcement. I have a real

criticism of the idea that we should empower the NYPD to any

other extent, and that the NYPD should be responsible for

traffic enforcement in general once so often, if I'm like,

Who's that in the bikeway? No, it's, it's the PD from our

precinct So I think that there is that possibility. You know,

we did pass automated bus line enforcement this year in Albany,

which gives the MTA, the authority to issue a ticket for

a car that is blocking two consecutive busses in a period

of time, because we sadly see so many of those cars idling in

that way, delaying our busses. But I think that there, there

has to be a real reckoning with the fact that driver behavior

has really gone south since the onset of the pandemic, and even

if you think about the crosswalk as a sanctity, right, it's now

you just inch, inch, inch, inch, and you're like, a quarter of

the way into the crosswalk. And that's acceptable for me. I

think one of the answers to it is to ensure that we start to

create an actual model here of ticketing for these offenses,

because when I've seen it with speed cameras. It does work in

the sense of how many of the first offenders do not become

second offenders do not become third offenders. We should have

that with bike lanes and bus lanes.

and the final clip I'll share came after

moderator Danny Harris gave each panelist an opportunity to share

one last thought

I would say, to politicize every failure of the

street and traffic and car design that we have in this city

to politicize every death, to make it very clear to

politicians and the political ecosystem that these people are

not just killed by drivers. These people are killed by the

way in which our streets are designed, by the decisions that

are being made, by the policies that are being upheld. And that

it is clear that the responsibility lies with those

who lead the city. And in our case, that's Mayor Adams. There

is an inextricable connection between decisions about bus

lanes, decisions about bike lanes, decisions about how we

treat pedestrians, and the fight for street safety, and then what

happens to the crossing guard? What happens to the delivery

worker? What happens to the recreational cyclists? These are

all interconnected, and we have to connect those dots so that

people understand that these are active decisions, and not just

passive products of the way New created.

So there you go. Pretty amazing to think this guy

could be mayor of New York City in just a few weeks time. I hope

you enjoyed this episode. If you did, please make sure to

subscribe and leave a comment and tell your friends about it

and make sure you don't miss any future episodes. Really

appreciate all of your support. If you are not a paid subscriber

of bike Portland yet, please become one today at

bikeportland.org/support, and find out how you can be a part

of what we're doing here, and pay a little bit in to keep it

thriving and surviving. I also want to thank Brock Dittus this

of sprocket podcast fame for our wonderful new theme music.

Thanks again for listening. Until next time, we'll see you

in the streets.