Q&A: Assemblyman weighs in on bridge scandal
Asbury Park Press ;
TRENTON – Assemblyman John Wisniewski, D-Middlesex, has been making a lot of news recently, largely through his work as chairman of the Assembly Transportation Committee. Wisniewski has been sounding the alarms for New Jersey to address its transportation funding shortage, with a gas tax hike high on his list of preferred solutions.
But most of all, Wisniewski has found himself at the center of the growing "Bridgegate" controversy, which has already prompted the resignation of two of Gov. Chris Christie's allies at the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey for what some believe to be their roles in a bogus, politically motivated "traffic study."
Gannett asked Wisniewski for some added perspective on those issues and more:
Q: You've been pushing hard on those unannounced lane closures at the George Washington Bridge by the Port Authority. At this point, do you think Gov. Christie was directly involved, or do you believe he at least deserves some blame for empowering his cronies inside the agency?
A: At this point I've seen nothing to directly connect the governor to the decision to close the lanes, but I am convinced that there is a deliberate effort to conceal the truth of how this decision was made, which raises the question why.
The shifting explanations for the alleged study as well as the governor's aggressive defense of (David) Wildstein (the Port Authority's director of interstate capital projects) and (Deputy Executive Director Bill) Baroni, praise of their work at the Port Authority and cavalier dismissal of concerns about their unprofessional conduct and the threat to public safety resulting from their actions, all raise suspicions that there is still more to be learned about how and why this happened.
Q: It seems apparent now that this was not the result of a traffic study. Do you really think it was something as petty as retaliation against the Fort Lee mayor?
A: This is an administration that has shown little tolerance for dissent or disagreement so, sadly, I do think that's a possibility and it raises concerns about how far the governor's administration is willing to go to get its way. Might the governor's opponents have flights deliberately delayed or luggage inappropriately searched at Port Authority airports or might state tax authorities choose opponents for unduly aggressive tax audits?
Americans have seen this sort of abuse of power in the past and it's not as far-fetched as it seemed only a few months ago.
Q: What has to happen at this point to satisfy you that your committee has sufficiently pursued this? Do other heads have to roll? Are there fundamental changes you'd like to see in how the Port Authority operates, aside from Christie's particular choice of appointees?
A: What I'm hoping to find is a credible explanation for the decision to close the lanes, the secrecy surrounding its execution and the refusal of the transportation professionals running the bridge facilities to just say no. When the governor's appointees can deliberately keep the Port Authority's executive director in the dark about actions that professionals at the agency said went against all previous protocols, I think it's obvious that the dysfunction described in a management report issued two years ago and which the governor claims has been resolved still exists and needs to be addressed.
Q: Transportation funding in the state hasn't received as much attention as it should have recently. How would you describe the state's financial position regarding transportation? Is there any money left to keep projects moving?
A: Our Transportation Trust Fund is broke and the governor's refusal to address the problem is setting up a crisis in the not-too-distant future. Financing critical transportation infrastructure work in the absence of trust funds has already led to the Port Authority's plan to raise tolls by 50 percent and an increase in state debt. It is also requiring more of the state's general revenues each year. This is an issue that demands leadership, such as that exhibited by Gov. Tom Kean when New Jersey created the trust fund 30 years ago, but to date it is leadership that Gov. Christie has refused to provide.
Q: In the past you've supported an increase in the gas tax to sustain transportation funding. Is that still the best available option? Do you think Democrats will propose it in 2014?
A: I continue to believe the gas tax is the most efficient and equitable way to fund our transportation infrastructure. While no one likes paying higher taxes, polling has showed people are willing to support the gas tax if they are confident it will be used for the transportation work that's needed. But until the governor shows a willingness to tackle the problem it would be quixotic for Democrats to propose a tax that would face not only the governor's veto, but his wrath as well.
Q: In the short term, what sorts of projects are imperiled by the transportation funding uncertainty?
A: We've already seen the cancellation of the ARC tunnel, and the governor's Gateway alternative is little more than a hope for the distant future until we can resolve funding issues, which means the bottleneck for trains into New York's Penn Station will remain for years to come. Our ability to maintain our roads and bridges is compromised at a time when almost 10 percent of our bridges are described as structurally deficient.
In addition, the loss of Sen. Frank Lautenberg, who was dogged in his pursuit of federal funding for New Jersey's transportation infrastructure, will add to our difficulty in maintaining a transportation system that, until now, has been one of New Jersey's great economic advantages.
Q: You are renewing efforts for a broad "distracted driving" bill that would seem to make something as simple as eating a sandwich or glancing at scenery while driving subject to fines. Is that really the way the law would work? What would be the practical effect?
A: Distracted driving continues to cause injury and death each year, including a nationwide rise in deaths among pedestrians and cyclists according to the most recent statistics available. The proposed bill does not ban eating or looking at scenery. It would prohibit a driver engaging in any activity "in a manner that interferes with the safe operation of a vehicle." It would also create a presumption that a driver holding a phone to or near their ear is using the phone in violation of the law.
The practical effect is that law enforcement officers will have greater confidence that they can successfully cite drivers for unsafe driving behavior such as using a handheld phone, texting, reading a newspaper, shaving or applying makeup — something that has been described as a shortcoming under existing law.
Q: Can police meaningfully enforce something that attempts to legislate driver behavior in such detail?
A: The problem is that, under present law, police are unable to enforce against driving behavior that threatens public safety. I would not be pursuing the legislation if I did not think that it would provide significant improvements in road safety and help convey to drivers the seriousness of these distractions. Too many of us have witnessed drivers distracted by behavior we all recognize as dangerous, yet the law is silent on that type of behavior.