Maybe the road to a "unified plan" starts with a "unified message." An optimistic view is this message will come from the sustainability initiative.

Weinshall is right to point out that the DOT receives conflicting direction from council and the public. Of course her own agency has played a big part in this. For years, DOT has had traffic engineers frame streets issues in terms of vehicle throughput, LOS etc. So even in areas where there is very little personal car-use, there is still great fear of reducing street capacity.

But Weinshall's testimony ignores that it is the mayor, not the council, who sets the public agenda. Unlike London or Paris, the mayor of New York has not plainly stated that we need people to drive less. Nor has he told DOT to pursue a policy of reducing car-use. It's too bad, because this mayor is very good at framing his initiatives as common sense, public benefit versus personal entitlement and privilege. He's done it with the smoking ban, transfats, nightclub cameras, school control etc. Smart transportation policy, grounded in city friendly movement of people and goods, not vehicles, clear goals and measurable results seems a natural for him.

Weinshall had a bigger chance to create political space for her successor, and to make council put it's money where it's mouth is on Intro 199. DOT could have turned it around and said "Yes, we need new performance measures. This includes major on-street parking reforms and council's unequivocal backing for DOT putting pedestrians before traffic flow." It was a good chance for DOT and the mayor to take the initiative instead of responding to council and civic groups.

When pressed by Chairman of the Transportation Committee Liu on a timetable and concrete new steps, she didn't blame her traffic engineers, or say that many of the reforms we advocate for weren't needed, but rather lack of political support. She put forth a challenge to the City Council to provide her agency with political cover against constituent and community board complaints about removal of parking spaces and traffic lanes when bike lanes are installed and in preparation for BRT. And on that point she is correct, that the Council and Community Boards object to the DOT's efforts if a handful of people are inconvenienced. Just in the last year City Council has pandered to motorists on Sunday parking, pedicabs and Community boards in many areas have voted against bike lanes.

What we really need is a unified plan of reforming the streets instead of all this piecemeal approach which invites NIMBYism. Then within that framework engage with community leaders on how to best implement that plan in their area. And we need the City Council and Mayor to make strong committments to support these reforms publicly.