In my useless (because I don't live in the region, and even if I did would have no clout) opinion, the OP's columnist had some good points, and the region should be looking at them seriously as a backup for the Big Project That Won't Happen (funny, you could say the same for California and certain projects there). They can complain and file lawsuits like California, and might even win one or two, but in the end there will be No Project if the current feds have any remaining options - and the region can't keep working around the failing systems a lot longer as a practical matter.

As for politics, yes, both sides are trash. But they're what we have, pending some gross revision of the Body Politic. On balance, a little more actually gets done if (D) is in power or at least close enough to negotiate with some clout. But not much more, and it's not going to happen for at least 4 years and probably longer anyway (the Senate will remain solidly (R) until at least 2022, even if the (D) retains the House in 2020 and Mr. T gets laid off (neither worth betting on), with Chairman Mitch saying "No" to everything that has a (D) legislator's name associated with it). So to the extent that infrastructure funding is a political decision (it is), blue states and regions like Greater HYC need to focus on things they can do on their own.

Funny, the (R) weren't always that way. They were responsible for a lot of the infrastructure and regulation we have, back when they were the party of running government halfway well, business understood that there was a level of regulation needed to keep the economy running smoothly, and the (D) were the party of relative anarchy/local control but were willing to work with anybody that would help their cause du jour. (R) has evolved to the the Party of No, and (D) still stands for anarchy, though now it's within the Party so nothing can get done even if they hold a majority.