Comments on: Mayor Bloomberg at the Crossroads: Who Will Run DOT?

By: David Gaier

David Gaier — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 20:57:30 +0000

Boerum – As far as I know, Urbitran actually has a fulltime employee who works solely on bicycle-related (path) engagements, to give you an example of their diversity. And while Urbitran was launched as a traffic engineering firm, I believe that its combined work in transit planning, urban planning, and architecture (including architecture of commuter rail facilities) far outweighs pure traffic engineering. It’s just too convenient to call Michael Horodniceanu a traffic engineer, as it would be equally unfair to call Ms. Sadik-Khan a “lawyer.” I am just saying, play fair, and don’t make assumptions when you have no evidence. Neither candidate spoke to the writer of the SUN piece…so how does she know their “vision?” And I believe that Mr. Horodniceanu visited the London Transport ommissioner to discuss congestion pricing, 2 or 3 years ago.

By: Boerum

Boerum — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:24:14 +0000

David,

Does Horodniceanu know anything about bikes and pedestrians? Are the sources above who describe him as an “old school” traffic engineer mischaracterizing his work? What kind of work is Urbitran doing in NYC anyway?

By: David Gaier

David Gaier — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 17:03:32 +0000

Karni neglected to mention that Horodniceanu is not merely a “traffic” engineer but a “transportation” engineer by trade, and he and his firm, Urbitran, are big in both public transit planning and engineering, and urban planning. In fact, Urbitran has done a lot of work for Metro-North Rail, and produces dozens of public transit studies/recommendations in New York and across the nation, each year. And while Karni was busy painting Mr. Horodniceanu with a “Traffic-only” brush, she neglected to mention that Ms. Sadik-Khan is an attorney by trade.

Perhaps even more to the point, her assertion that Mr. Horodniceanu would generally ignore public transit is baseless and not far from a smear. No one in such a position could reasonably do so, and it defies logic and common sense to even suggest it. It’s also absurd to suggest that one could ignore traffic and its effect and every New Yorker’s life…as well as those of us “Bridge-and-tunnelers”. And since Ms. Karni pointed out that neither party was interviewed for her piece, how in the world does she know his “vision” – or hers, for that matter?

The candidates are both very intelligent and experienced people. They should be asked what their positions are on the issues, rather than have baseless assumptions drawn by a so-called “journalist.”

By: Clarence

Clarence — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:40:49 +0000

I second the Honker nomination.

By: Nightmare for NYC

Nightmare for NYC — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 16:32:37 +0000

I wouldn’t assume that Bloomberg and Doctoroff are necessarily on the same page, people.

By: Ace

Ace — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:50:39 +0000

What we need are more trains more often. Especially late at night.

By: Jason Varone

Jason Varone — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:12:03 +0000

I get the feeling that Bloomberg and Doctoroff know what the right thing to do is, but they simply lack the gumption to deal with the intertia that has built up over the years.

By: Angus Grieve-Smith

Angus Grieve-Smith — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:10:04 +0000

Science is about finding the best model that relates your data to your goals. In the 1950s the "falling water" model was the best one that people had to work with, but now that we have lots of observations of induced-demand type phenomena, the "falling water" model no longer serves the goal of street safety adequately. People who hold to the "falling water" model in the face of this evidence are the true anti-science religious zealots, kind of like Urban VIII.

By: Happy Camper

Happy Camper — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:06:54 +0000

Right on JK !
first the comish needs a clear direction which translates in spending choices.
if you read the DOT budget you will find the word sidewalk and pedestrina only once.

Second the comish needs political support to get rid of the old guard who clearly has maffia-like stronghold on every level of the DOT . Needs a lot a early retirement plans .

and yes this office of transportation is sorely needed provided it has teeth.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:06:03 +0000

How can I nominate the Honker as DOT Commissioner?

By: Glenn

Glenn — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 15:01:49 +0000

So can I ask the obvious question of why Schwartz isn’t under consideration?

By: ddartley

ddartley — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:26:17 +0000

I believe Ken Coughlin of T.A.’s Car-free Central Park campaign was the first person I ever saw write that car traffic is NOT an immutable physical force like falling water, and that will simply go elsewhere if its first path is cut off.

Although not a scientist or engineer, I tend to agree. I am curious whether the profession of traffic engineering is “engineering” because it assumes things like what Mr. Coughlin calls into question. If I’m right about why it’s called “engineering,” and if Mr. Coughlin’s doubts are right, then perhaps traffic engineers HAVE failed, and perhaps this is why.

Oh no, I sound like some anti-science religious zealot. I take it all back.

By: JK

JK — Tue, 20 Mar 2007 14:24:55 +0000

Nice piece.

Some perspective, for all the power the DOT Commissioner has to do good things— which is substantial— it is the mayor and other agencies, who make final decisions about:
>Land use, zoning, density.
>Freight movement and truck use.
>Off-street parking.
>Capital investment in transit and streets.
>Street design and reconstruction.
>Car-free parks.
>Street closings/pedestrianizations.
>Enforcement of traffic and parking.

Even if Aaron Naparstek is the next DOT Commissioner, there is not going to be a London or Paris style revolution in the public realm unless it is led by the mayor.

Lastly, I think it was Bloomberg, not Giuliani, who dissolved the Mayor’s Office of Transportation— which is still needed.