Year: 2025

Two years ago this week I was in Manhattan covering the Vision Zero Cities Conference hosted by New York City-based 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 failed improve bus service, 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.

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 event. And ever since his rise in the NYC 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 was interesting.

I finally got around to doing that. And turns out, there was a lot more worth sharing.

“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.”

– Zohran Mamdani at 2023 Vision Zero Cities Conference

From his legislation that would have taxed purchases of oversized trucks and SUVs, his passion for safer streets, his nuanced understanding of car culture and the strategic political lens needed in road safety conversations — 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, he touches on many of the key arguments and issues we talk about often in advocacy circles.

In this episode, I share highlights from that 2023 panel discussion. You’ll hear mostly from Mamdani, but when I felt context was necessary, I’ve also included questions and/or comments from either the moderator (former Transportation Alternatives Executive Director Danny Harris), other panelists, or audience members.

Keep in mind as you listen that it’s not the greatest audio I’ve ever collected because I only recorded it for my own notes and never expected to share it like this. If you have any problem making out a word, I’ve also created a very accurate transcript and will share key excerpts below.

I’ll start us out with Moderator Danny Harris asking Mamdani about the legislation he was working on at the state capitol in Albany which would have implemented a new weight-based tax on motor vehicles:

“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 the 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.”

Mamdani then pivoted to why he’s so passionate about regulating vehicle size:

“… 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 one was killed. And we’re seeing it now. We’re seeing it in Albany [the state capital]. 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 daylighting, that’s when I can get the speed bumps. How is that an acceptable way for government to work? … We have to make it clear that there is a political consequence for people who understand this as optional, because people are being killed, and it is design that is killing them. I mean, it’s ridiculous… and who does that responsibility lie with? It’s not with you. It’s with the mayor, and it’s with the governor.”

To understand why Mamdani believes government regulation can influence free markets, he used the example of how New York’s affordable housing bureau created policies around how large refrigerators could be in public housing buildings and the market responded by creating a wider range of mini-fridges. Here’s more from Mamdani on the role regulation can play in car design:

“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. 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 that can kill people. It is what is making money. And so we cannot hope that they change. We have to force them to do so.”

Mamdani’s approach to governing is very intersectional. He often takes a policy idea and connects it to the bigger picture:

“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.”

Then Mamdani shared a critique of the popular ‘war on cars’ framing and pivoted into how race factors into road safety conversations.

“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.

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 this racial framing, I think we also have to make it clear that this is also a class and racial justice issue. The people who are on the streets the most are the 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 [NYC] DOT, 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], yes to another Tamara, yes to another [traffic victim], yes to another Jaden — these were all my constituents. I shouldn’t have so many names to say. I’ve only been there for two and a half years.”

Asked about how advocates might be able to more effectively communicate with people who reflexively oppose bicycling and transit projects, Mamdani shared an experience from working with taxi drivers.

“There’s very little we can do about the other side. We can do a lot about how we frame this… there are many people for whom a car represents something else. One of the first major battles of my political career was around 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 in an emotional sense… people feel this in their bones.”

How can we win the culture war around car use? Mamdani said governments should offer pragmatic framing and he shared an idea for a PSA:

“I think we have to really reach more regular public people to make any sort of change. Like, what if our city government just did an advertising campaign? 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.'”

An audience member then pushed Mamdani to go back to the strong sense of identity many Americans attach to their cars. She wanted to know how to respond to that emotion:

“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… 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 Steinway [a street in his district] goes eight miles an hour because New York City has 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.”

When someone brought up how terrible many drivers have become since the pandemic, Mamdani used it as a way to bring up automated enforcement:

“[Drivers are] such an ever present danger. I ride my bike pretty much every day and I just don’t ride on certain streets that are actually more convenient, because I’m terrified of being hit by a 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. 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… We did pass automated bus lane 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 the way, delaying our busses. But I think that 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, 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 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 and do not become third offenders. We should have that with bike lanes and bus lanes.”

At the end of the discussion, moderator Danny Harris gave each panelist a chance to share one last thought. Here’s what Mamdani said:

“I would say to politicize every failure of the street and traffic and car design that we have in this city. 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 York City is created.”

Pretty amazing to think this guy has a real shot to be the next mayor of the largest and most influential city in America.

---

Listen to audio from the panel in the player above or wherever you get your podcasts.