This was round one and we lost, but pricing opponents may have won a Pyrrhic victory. They will find that they will ultimately have very few people thanking them and a whole load of people continuing to complain about fare increases, service cuts and high levels of congestion in their neighborhoods.

The ball is now firmly in the court of Silver, Brodsky and Weprin, et al. They and the entire Legislature will have to answer for this once the MTA has to revise its capital plan. They will need to convince us as to how they will remedy likely budget shortfalls. And if Bloomberg continues to act on initiatives within the city's purview -- ending placard abuse, market rate pricing for parking, better bus lanes, more protected bike lanes, etc. -- he can still create a lasting legacy as a bold leader on sustainability issues.

I encourage all of you who feel discouraged to channel some of that into reminding electeds of what we expect from them. Here is a letter I sent to all my representatives immediately after pricing's defeat.

This is a sad day for environmentalists, transit advocates and anyone concerned about the long term sustainability of our great city. Congestion Pricing, after much debate, analysis and even significant refinement by the state legislature, deserved an up or down vote from our legislators.

This is also the day that I lost faith in Albany as a democratic institution that can be held accountable to the two-thirds of New Yorkers that support congestion pricing. So now - it's up to you to fill the $17 billion MTA Capital Plan. No Excuses - how exactly are you going to work toward that? Where exactly will the money come from? How will people be encouraged to take mass transit if they can drive for free but it costs $2 and rising to take the subway?

The environmental movement is changing and evolving. I hope you evolve your thinking will along with us. Part of the disconnect I felt during the congestion pricing debate is that environmental policy is not as rooted in the traditional class and identity politics that the New York Democratic Party still seems overly locked into (and believe me, I'm a lifelong Democrat from a union household and care deeply about equity issues). While I'm all for a progressive income tax structure, there are limits to taxing good behavior (like working and contributing to society) and much more opportunity for the tax structure to discourage actions that harm the environment (like driving into congested areas when a transit alternative exists or wasting water/energy).

 

For instance, a millionaire tax dedicated to mass transit is frankly not a very creative idea and does not really attack the root of a problem, which is too many people driving into a congested area, causing health problems, pollution and economic losses. I hope you'll keep an open mind about using market mechanisms like user fees for roads/bridges, gas taxes, higher parking meter fees to advance the goals of environmental protection to fund automobile alternatives like mass transit, cycling infrastructure and more pedestrian friendly streetscapes. 

 

Environmentalists are looking for our elected officials to not just merely represent a jumbled set of constituent desires, but to stand on principle for protecting the environment against often narrow, short-sighted and frankly extremely selfish desires. Sometimes that might mean that you need to explain to your constituents why you disagree with them, encourage them to think of the greater good and point out to them what they stand to benefit if lots of people behave in more environmentally friendly ways in their neighborhood. In the end, I think your constituents will respect you more for having core beliefs and explaining your position on issues based on your principles.

Glenn McAnanama

President, Upper Green Side

It's still a good time to write something to your elected officials and tell them how you feel. Another great next step is to give money to the NYLCV's Climate PAC, Transportation Alternatives and other city and neighborhood organizations that supported congestion pricing. Finally, stay in touch with your electeds, get to know their staff members, get active in campaigns for candidates you believe in, and go to community board meetings.

This is not over.

The drive to create additional (free) parking for the benefit of New York City's auto-owning minority takes many shapes and forms. Today, I'd like to take aim at a particular form of curbside parking: "pull-in angle parking." I've seen this type of parking in a few areas of the city, but I'll contain my assessment to the street I live on -- W. 97th Street between Central Park West and Columbus.

Rather than the typical, curbside parallel parking, on my street cars park bumper-to-curb at a 45 degree angle to the sidewalk. On my extra-wide street, this has increased the total supply of parking spots by 30 to 40 percent.

In some sense, it seems to be a decent trade-off -- less space for through-traffic and more space for local residents and visitors to store their motor vehicles. West 97th Street could be a dangerous four-lane speedway if all of the available road space were used to move traffic. The angle parking is a way of putting this block on a road-diet, though, installing bike lanes, a dedicated bus lane, a planted median or wider sidewalks would have the same result.

From a cyclist's perspective, this stretch of 97th Street feels really dangerous because drivers have little visibility of the road as they back their vehicles out of their parking spaces. Twice biking down my street I have had to swerve out into traffic to avoid a motorist blindly backing out of his parking space. A couple of weeks ago, I had the experience of parking a friend's car in one of these spots and I couldn't comfortably pull-out without someone helping to let me know when the coast was clear.

After checking out CrashStat 2.0, the middle of this block does not have any more pedestrian or cyclist injuries than the average middle block. But CrashStat doesn't look at auto vs. auto crashes, which seems to be the more likely danger at this location because of the lack of visibility.

If angle parking is what we we really, truly want on this block (rather than bike lanes, bus lanes, wider sidewalks or a greener streetscape), there's a safer, better way to design this kind of parking. It's called "back-in / head-out angle parking." You can download a Nelson Nygaard report on it right here.

From the report, we find that:

This type of parking provides a safer environment for bicyclists using the roadways. The driver is able to see the cyclist easily when exiting the stall. Several cities where back-in angle parking has been implemented have seen a reduction in number of accidents compared to the number of accidents at regular parallel parking schemes. Matt Zoll at Tucson-Pima County Bicycle Advisory Committee says that after implementing the back-in/head-out angle parking scheme in Tucson they "went from an average of 3-4 bike/car accidents per month to no reported accidents for 4 years following implementation."

And furthermore, they cite the Salt Lake City Q&A about Back-in parking

As SLCTrans (2004) states, "one of the most common causes of accidents is people backing out of standard angled parking without being able to see on-coming traffic. Reverse angled parking removes this difficulty." It also improves safety for cyclists, and for loading/and unloading the trunk of the car. Similarly, the Urban Transportation Monitor's recent article on back-in angle parking reported reduced accidents and benefits for bicyclists in several communities. In all, back-in/head-out angle parking is a good choice when compared to conventional head-in angle/back-out parking and parallel parking.

Head-out angle parking is clearly the safer choice. For West 97th between Central Park West and Columbus Avenue, I hope that the next road repaving will include a redesign. And while we're at it, a bike lane on 97th street from Central Park West to Riverside would be grand too!

Almost all of these are centered around an institution, like a university or military academy, where many are housed very close to their classes or jobs. The concentration of people and buildings reduces the amount of space that could be used for roads and parking. Raising the threshold to at least 20,000 residents:

 
Again, with few exceptions, we find the pattern of high walking rates and major institutions of higher learning, military bases and areas of mixed use development. Now, setting the bar at over 250,000 residents:

 
While all of these cities have colleges and universities and other major institutions, they are part of a very large mix and cannot alone account for why these cities are on the list. Even controlling for population density does not account for this distribution. These are cities that grew to sizable populations before the automobile, which may explain why they are on this list instead of Los Angeles, Phoenix, Atlanta, Houston and Dallas. Surprising in their absence, meanwhile, are Chicago and Portland. They aren't that far off, but while both cities receive a lot of credit for their green initiatives they don't seem to encourage walking to work as much as the cities above.

An even better measure of walkability than the percentage that walk to work would be the number that walk to the grocery store or pharmacy. Walkscore as a defining metric for such an assessment has its flaws, but is generally useful. Looking at both the Bikes at Work census analysis and Walkscore, it would seem that there are two major factors that influence the walkability of a city or town: institutional presence and pre-auto urban design.

Boxer is quoted as preferring cap and trade, which seems to be most favored among politicians and big corporations as a way to leverage market forces to address climate change.

"I think cap and trade makes the most sense. When we pass legislation to combat global warming, we will not be hurting this economy. We will be helping it."

Dingell, however, favors a carbon tax as a more direct, visible and predictable means of reducing carbon emissions. He says,

To be fair, the economic pain must be shared all the way down to the consumer. And he says the way to do that is to tax anything that produces too much CO2. "This is going to be tough. And it's gonna cost, and its gonna hurt. In my view, probably the only thing that will really work. In all honesty, I'm not convinced that if you don't change people's behavior, you're going to change the way they behave."

The Carbon Tax Center has a page that explains why it thinks a carbon tax is the way to go. CTC co-director and Streetsblog contributor Charles Komanoff recently published a piece in favor of a carbon tax over at Gristmill. On the other side of the issue is the US Climate Change Action
Partnership, a group of major corporations and environmental
organizations in favor of a cap and trade system. Environmental Defense chief scientist Bill Chameides, wrote a piece in Gristmill as well laying out the case for a cap and trade system.

The debate between Carbon Tax and Cap and Trade is an important one that could lead to new federal legislation by the end of the year.

(Editor's note: Why do I always want to write it, "Cap'n Trade?")

A Streetsblog reader brings us an update on the case of the cyclist killed last December in the Central Park Transverse, through information obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request.

In the documents sent to Streetsblog, it shows that the motor vehicle "struck the bicyclist as both vehicles attempted to merge into the same path in lane to avoid wooden barrier in roadway." As the very short video above, taken this week, shows, not only is the wooden barrier still in place, causing extremely tight conditions on the roadway, but there is a large pothole on the right side of the lane, exacerbating the problem. Here are current photos of the scene.

An eyewitness driving behind the car that hit the cyclist reports: "The bike and the car came together where the road narrowed. He (the motorist) hit her (the cyclist) with the mirror of the car and she hit a wooden divider and fell over the divider onto the sidewalk. The driver stopped about a half-mile down the road, that is when I told him he hit someone."

According to the report, the cyclist did have reflectors on the bike, but was not wearing reflective clothing or a helmet. (The collision happened at approximately 6:30 p.m.)

Initially a breath test was conducted on the driver, which produced no evidence of alcohol consumption. No charges were made against the motorist. The injured cyclist later died of head wounds suffered from the crash. Then on March 15, the driver was issued a summons for "Violation of VTL 1146, Failure to exercise due care." The driver stated he would plead not guilty. Here is the definition of "Due Care" by the NY State DOT:

1146 Drivers to exercise due care. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other law to the contrary, every driver of a vehicle shall exercise due care to avoid colliding with any bicyclist, pedestrian or domestic animal upon any roadway and shall give warning by sounding the horn when necessary.

On Saturday April 7, the final determination was made by the investigating police officer that "the possible contributing factors in this accident are due to the operator of the vehicle failing to exercise due care in the presence of a bicyclist and the bicyclist's failure to have the required safety equipment." It is not stated in the documents we received whether a court date was set or if a decision had been made.

Streetsblog will continue to investigate and bring you more as we know it. In the meantime, be extremely careful if you use the 66th Street transverse to bike across town, especially going west-bound. It is not safe. It is unclear what purpose the wooden barrier serves. We hope to determine this over the next few days.

On Monday evening, just hours before the federal government's announcement that it would give New York City $354.5 million to kick-start Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY 9th District) spoke with New Yorkers on environmental and energy issues at a forum hosted by Solar 1.

One of the earliest vocal critics of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, Weiner made clear to the environmentally-conscious audience that his position has not changed on the subject. Rather than charging motorists any fee, Weiner said that he would rather tackle New York City's traffic congestion problem by improving ferry service on the East River, increasing cycling mode share to 10 percent of all commuter trips, reducing truck traffic during peak hours and starting work on the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel. A Democratic contender for Mayor in 2009, Weiner did not delve into the specifics of how he would accomplish or pay for the implementation of his transportation policy goals.

Anthony Weiner's 2005 Mayoral campaign ads pictured him playing stickball on the Brooklyn street where he grew up. You don't see kids playing street ball in Weiner's old neighborhood anymore. Too much traffic.

Weiner, who told the Brooklyn Eagle yesterday, "Congestion pricing is simply a bad idea that will create a giant expensive bureaucracy, hand too much authority to state agencies, and give many suburbanites a free ride at the expense of New York City residents," laid out a four point critique of congestion pricing. He said:

1. Congestion Pricing is a regressive tax: Weiner said he believes congestion pricing will hurt New York City's poor and small business owners, while wealthy suburbanites will pay whatever it costs to keep driving. The commuter tax, Weiner said, was a much more effective way to raise money for the city.
   
   
2. Congestion Pricing will not raise enough money for mass transit: Weiner said that the technology necessary to run a congestion pricing system is too expensive to set up and run compared to the amount of revenue that it will bring in. Weiner suggested that 40 percent of the revenue generated by the system would go towards paying to run it. He also expects that whatever funds are raised for mass transit will ultimately be deducted from New York State and Federal mass transit aid to New York City.
   
   
3. Congestion Pricing is a divisive issue: Weiner believes that congestion pricing draws unnecessary borders within and across different communities, especially between the outer boroughs and Manhattan.
   
   
4. There are other more effective means to reduce congestion: In addition to his call for starting construction on the Cross-Harbor freight rail tunnel, increasing bicycle mode share and beefing up ferry service, Weiner said that traffic flow could be improved simply by better enforcement of existing traffic laws.
   

Weiner also spoke more broadly about environmental policy and politics on both the local and national levels.

He places much of the blame for the lack of action on climate change squarely at the feet of the Bush administration and powerful members of Congressional energy and environment committees from districts where coal, oil and automotive production are influential. Weiner said that he is proud of what Congressional Democrats were able to accomplish in the recent energy conservation tax bill and he looks forward to passing a bill establishing a cap and trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050. He views environmental issues as an opportunity to unite Republicans and Democrats.

When pushed by moderator Chris Neidl and members of the audience for specifics, Weiner offered four ideas for making New York City more environmentally friendly:

The feeling among environmental leaders I spoke with after the Q&A was that Weiner falls into that frustrating camp of New York City Democratic politicians who say all the right things and seem to agree with progressive goals on the surface, yet when it comes to putting a real plan into action, Weiner seems to be more worried about upsetting vocal constituents than achieving tangible gains.

Photo: The Oscar Mayer Weiner Mobile in Times Square by jacksonsquare on Flickr

Last week the Dept. of Transportation extended the car-free time on the West Drive of the Central Park loop one extra hour, from 7am to 8am. While this is far short of the goal of a totally Car-Free Central Park, and DOT's failure to make similar improvements in Brooklyn's Prospect Park is inexcusable, the additional car-free hour represents a step in the right direction.

Members of Upper Green Side and Transportation Alternatives woke up early to celebrate the new car-free hours and monitor the situation. DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan stopped by to join the celebration where we thanked her for the extra hour and lobbied her for a total traffic ban in both Central and Prospect Parks. She complimented us on our positive attitude, saying, "I love how with TA folks it's always 'Thank you, and...'"

There were many park users on-hand to celebrate as joggers, cyclists, parents, children and dog owners enjoyed the park uninterrupted by the typical armored column of motor vehicles rumbling down the West Drive. But we did have to turn around a few motorists trying to enter before 8am, telling them they were risking a ticket.

We also kindly asked some motorists that somehow did get into the park to "Slow Down"

A tipster points us to a few good pictures on Flickr from the morning.

In Brooklyn, where over 10,000 Prospect Park have sent postcards to DOT in support of a three-month car-free trial, a coalition of local organizations issued a press release suggesting that "City Hall overlooked several clear and easy options to make Prospect Park safer, healthier and more enjoyable for Brooklynites." These incremental improvements include:

In the past, my group, the Upper Greenside, has worked with Lappin to bring new greenmarkets to our neighborhood as well as other environmental issues. Based on our conversations about traffic, she seemed very positive about the idea of congestion pricing. She once wrote a letter to former DOT commissioner Iris Weinshall at our request about the dangerous traffic congestion around the Queensboro Bridge.

Last Friday, while Mayor Bloomberg was testifying in front of the State Assembly about congestion pricing, I accompanied Ann Seligman from Environmental Defense on a visit to Lappin's legislative office to advocate for the mayor's plan. Lappin jumped in immediately, saying, "I support congestion pricing, I just have some tough questions about the details." She described her position as close to Governor Spitzer's. She wants to see something happen but has some concerns over the plan's details.

 
I was glad to hear that her position was generally pro-congestion pricing, but I'm still disappointed in her lack of leadership on this issue, especially when compared to Council Member Dan Garodnick who shares much of the Upper East Side with Lappin.

If you live in Lappin's district, consider calling her office at (212) 535-5554 to give her a push in the right direction. Better yet, she's hosting a town hall meeting this Thursday. I strongly encourage Livable Streets advocates to show up and and ask her and other elected officials about their positions on congestion pricing, bicycling and and other urban environmental issues.

On Memorial Day, I had a chance to speak with Micah Kellner, the Democratic Party's candidate for the New York State Assembly seat left vacant by Pete Grannis who was such a strong environmental advocate Gov. Spitzer elevated him to the head of the Department of Environmental Conservation. I asked him to clarify the report in the New York Sun that he opposed Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, despite supporting the plan "in concept." He said:

The purpose of congestion pricing is to reduce traffic and congestion, not just shift congestion to a different neighborhood. I believe having the border at 86th Street will be a disaster for the people living between 86th and 96th Streets. It will create gridlock there and turn the area into a parking lot. I think the border should be at 59th Street. I also want the mayor to commit to incentives for night deliveries and to support the cross-harbor freight tunnel, which he continually flip flops on.

When I challenged him on his vision of Carmmegedon in Yorkville and Carnegie Hill he responded with a few ancedotes of comments he's heard on the campaign trail: People looking for parking on 88th Street would not be able to look below 86th Street. People working near 86th street would exit the FDR at 96th street, park and walk the rest of the way.

I told Kellner that my greatest concern was that the bickering over where to draw the line would delay or sink the whole plan. He was not worried. "I think we will see congestion pricing of some type get implemented. There will be a vote and it will pass."

Monday night I attended Manhattan Community Board 8's pedestrian and cycling safety forum. There was an All-Star cast of panelists. Former DOT Commissioner Sam Schwartz, Manhattan DOT Commissioner Margaret Forgione and Director of Street Management and Safety Ryan Russo, Matthew Bauer of the Madison Ave BID, Traffic Enforcement Agents as well as other transportation experts.

There were the usual complaints about cyclists running red lights or riding on the sidewalks and the level of enforcement that should be put forth, but generally the conversation was more directed at making people safe from automobiles in the district. Almost everyone was supportive of bike lanes as a way to provide cyclists with a safer place on the road and minimize conflicts with other street users, but there was an exchange between one of the Community Board members and Mr. Russo that brought up something fairly fundamental to me.

The Community Board member stated that she saw biking as purely recreational, not for commuting or running errands, which just sounds crazy but, hey, when you want to keep all residential and commercial zoning completely separate to the point where you won't site a greenmarket in a school playground, why not extend that to every aspect of life. She added that bike lanes should be built for the recreational user in mind as opposed to the commuter.

Mr. Russo vigorously defended the idea that bikes are currently and will increasingly be used across the city for everyday commuting and local errand running where good bike lanes and bike parking make that possible. He then repeated the Mayor's pledge to build out the bike lane network by several hundred miles over the next few years and set up more city racks for parking. He then added that in the Upper East Side that they are considering some bike lanes to connect the East River Greenway to Central Park.

In some strange twist of logic, even though DOT disagreed with the concept of biking as only for recreational users, the DOT's bike lane network extension in my area seems to be mostly geared toward recreational users. I fully support the idea of integrating the greenways with the Central Park loop, but if the DOT's goal is to increase the number of commuter cyclists on the Upper East Side, the bike lanes that would make much more sense are extending the current Second Ave bike lane north from 14th Street to 125th Street and the existing First Avenue bike lane south from 72nd Street down to Houston. This would increase the number of cyclist commuters on the Upper East Side and East Harlem dramatically. It would also provide commuter cyclists coming over the Queensboro bridge access to a good North/South bike lane network.

But number of biking commuters doesn't seem to be the measurement the DOT is working toward. Their primary measurement is the number of directional bike lane miles they lay each year. A more meaningful and ambitious goal would be to set a target to double or triple the number of commuting cyclists in the city. Here on the Upper East Side, a goal like that would mmediately change DOT's mindset from increasing lane miles to using bike infrastructure to help relieve overcrowding on the Lexington Avenue subway line.

If increasing the number of bike commuters was the metric by which DOT measured the success of its bicycling program, the alignment of future bike lanes and the sensitivity toward making biking accessible to the average commuter would be much different.

Photo of First Avenue Bike Lane at 85th Street - Glenn

On Wednesday, Community Board 8 in Manhattan unanimously approved a proposal for conducting a feasibility study to physically connect Roosevelt Island to the Queensboro Bridge pedestrian and bike path. The proposal was put forth by Ellen Polivy of the Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) and the Roosevelt Island Community Emergency Response Team (CERT).  She made a compelling presentation to Community Board 8's transportation committee, citing the numerous benefits of the link from a public health, environmental and emergency preparedness perspective.

This is not a new concept. There used to be electric trolleys going over the Queensboro bridge and there was a stop at Roosevelt Island halfway across the bridge. People would then walk across to a building (see above photo of the Roosevelt Island elevator building) that had a number of elevators. These elevators were so big that they could fit the trucks and automobiles that supplied the island.

As recently as August 2004, Roosevelt Island residents faced what they refer to as "the perfect storm" of transportation problems (from a recent NY Times article - Times Select only)

...for a brief time, Roosevelt Island was cut off from the city that surrounds it.

All the means of access to the sliver-shaped island were out of service for about an hour that day, Aug. 12. The tram was down for a periodic tune-up. The Roosevelt Island Bridge, which lifts to allow boat traffic to pass through, was stuck in the open position. Electrical problems temporarily halted service on the F train.

However, the Department of Transportation is not considering the pedestrian-access proposal at this time. They cite security risks, the landmark status of the bridge and the need to maximize the flow of vehicles into Manhattan.

Kay Sarlin, a spokeswoman for the city Department of Transportation, raised doubts about a passageway that would have to be nearly 135 feet high.

''It's not feasible,'' she said. ''They'd have to remove a lane of traffic to put in an elevator.''

With an average of about 180,000 vehicle crossings a day, the Queensboro is one of the city's busiest bridges, and according to Ms. Sarlin, eliminating a lane for an elevator would hamper traffic. A stairway could not be installed because people with disabilities could not use it, she added, noting that such a change would also cause security problems. Further, she said, since the facade of the bridge has landmark status, altering it would present a problem.

Let's take each of these criticisms and see if they make any sense.

Security Risk: Here's an island with a projected population of 15,000-20,000 in the next few years, on an island that lacks a permanent pedestrian link to the rest of the city. In fact, the main emergency route of escape for residents, the lift bridge to Queens, is often closed in light of security risks to the UN when that body is in session or hosts major events and shipping traffic is routed to the eastern side of Roosevelt Island. In the case of a Category 3 hurricane hitting NYC, the whole island would need to be evacuated, and officials have not provided details of the escape plan to the CERT or the RIRA. It's a security risk for there to be no permanent link to the rest of the city.

Landmark Status: While it's great that the Queensboro Bridge has achieved landmark status, this status should not override legitimate security and public health priorities. Rather it should ensure that any alteration harmonizes with the structure's aesthetics -- you know, the way the building that connected the island to the bridge for four decades did.

Removing a Lane of the QBB Would be Bad: This assumes that maximum flow of automobiles into Manhattan would be a good thing, when in fact we know that the current design generates dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists on the Manhattan side of the bridge. Even specific requests for action from the local City Councilmember Jessica Lappin have so far not resulted any safety improvements by the DOT. Never mind that we might just want fewer cars to be able to enter the Central Business District for environmental and public health reasons.

When asked about why the Community Board supported the proposal, David Liston, CB8 Chair wrote via email:

"We passed a resolution asking the City to look into the feasibility of providing another means of access to and from the Island by pedestrians and the physically challenged."

"The feasibility study we're asking the city to undertake would identify a variety of means of egress/ingress between Roosevelt Island and Manhattan and Queens. One suggestion was to look into a method utilizing the Queensboro Bridge -- making Manhattan accessible to Roosevelt Islanders on foot and those using mobility assistance devices."

"Making all parts of the borough accessible to all is a worthy goal and one the Community Board fully supports."



With the Community Board now unanimously supporting a feasibility study, it will be up to the new DOT Commissioner to reconsider this proposal.

West 90th Street Bike Lane between Columbus and Central Park West

This is one use of the new bike lane on W. 90th Street that I did not expect to see. I'll leave it to someone else to submit this to MyBikeLane.com.

Photo by Glenn McAnanama

In a major restructuring of the Bloomberg Administration, outgoing Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall will be replaced by Public Health Commissioner Thomas Frieden. Bloomberg's surprise announcement came at a rare Sunday morning press conference, where the mayor also rolled out a major piece of his 2030 Sustainability plan for reducing congestion.

After thanking Weinshall for her efforts, Bloomberg set forth his vision for New York's new Transportation Commissioner. "Today begins a new day, when we look at our streets differently, when we see the inextricable link between public health and and the public realm, when we choose clean air and quality of life over congestion. What I started on Friday with my veto of the pedicab cap will continue through the end of my administration. We will free this city from the negative consequences of automobile congestion."

"Driving a single-passenger private motor vehicle in New York City is about to go the way of smoking in restaurants," Commissioner Frieden said. "I accepted this job because I realized that the best way to achieve many of our public health goals is to reduce New Yorkers' automobile dependence."

Bloomberg went on to announce his support for congestion pricing and said that he would begin taking street space away from private motor vehicles throughout the city to help accelerate his long-stalled Bus Rapid Transit project. Bloomberg named Vision42 founder George Haikalis as DOT Deputy Commissioner and boldly announced that by the end of his term 42nd Street would be transformed into a car-free light rail pedestrian boulevard.

He then introduced Dr. Thomas Frieden as the new DOT chief. "Tom is the natural choice. He has been a remarkable innovator as New York City's Health Commissioner, but he can do more for public health as DOT commissioner than he can in his current position," the mayor said.


Vision 42: One of the many innovative projects now embraced by the Bloomberg Administration

"As we move more people out of automobiles and encourage more people to bike and walk around the city," Dr. Frieden said, "our city's residents will get fitter and healthier. We'll reduce obesity and diabetes rates. Moreover, we will start eliminating the ground-level pollution that causes asthma, lung cancer and other respiratory ailments that plague so many New Yorkers, our children and seniors in particular."

Frieden also pointed to the fact that much of the traffic congestion and pollution was from automobiles merely driving through the city as something he intends to address. "Automobile congestion is not only making our residents sick, it is stymieing New York City's economic development and holding us back from being the greatest city in the world."

The move stunned Livable Streets advocates. Paul Steely White, Executive Director of Transportation Alternatives, was initially very excited about the announcement, but quickly realized the full impact of City Hall suddenly buying in to his entire agenda. "I'm not really sure what TA's mission would be moving forward. I mean, if Frieden's running the show, what are we going to complain about?" He was last seen scratching his head and mumbling something about updating his resume and trying to get a job in the new DOT.

Ken Coughlin, chairman of the Car Free Central Park campaign, reportedly received a call in advance of Frieden's appointment from Dan Doctoroff. "He told me that he's been a big supporter of Car Free Central Park from day one, but just has been waiting for the right moment to announce his support for a total ban on automobiles from entering the park." Coughlin then did three cartwheels in front of City Hall and high-fived several people around him.

Streetsblog will be following this story as it unfolds. Stay tuned and happy April Fools Day.

Earlier this week, I received a request  in writing from Gary Altman, the Legislative Counsel of the City Council to testify at a hearing on March 1st. The topic of this oversight hearing is: How do we achieve the PlanNYC2030's Sustainability Goal to Improve Travel Times by Adding Transit Capacity for Millions More Residents, Visitors and Workers? For reference here is the presentation on congestion (warning pdf) put out by the PlanNYC2030 folks.

As I am learning in the process of making Upper Green Side an official 501c3 non-profit, there are limits to how much legislative lobbying that is allowed, but when asked in writing to testify at a legislative hearing, that is not considered lobbying but rather responding to a question asked by the legislative body.

So now that I know this is totally kosher for Upper Green Side to make an appearance, I thought I would pose this question to the esteemed readers of Streetsblog to write in here their top three answers to that question. And please consider the gamut of public policy alternatives that might help achieve this goal.

Photo: Sixth Avenue and 43rd Street at 1pm on Tuesday, February 20th - Blocked box, pedestrian crosswalk blocked.

A few weeks ago I attended the first of the Community Leader meetings for the PlanNYC 2030 Sustainability initiative. I thought Streetsblog readers might be interested in some reflections on this from a neighborhood environmentalist perspective.

All and all, I'm extremely happy that this initiative is moving forward and the city is starting to take a long term outlook and prioritize environmental sustainability. But there are some areas of concern on my part that I thought you would be interested to hear.

Jeffery Kay, the NYC Director of Operations, gave a 30 minute presentation by using mostly the same slides as the Mayor used last year out in Queens. As far as I can tell, there is not much new information, except some stuff that I got out of the Q&A. The point of the meeting was to somehow motivate "Community Leaders" to have meetings about the 10 goals within their own organizations and give them feedback. But aside from the current glossy spread, they provided no additional resources (despite some great background presentations tucked away on their website), background information or kits or anything that would help facilitate that or provide a neighborhood or block association with anything tangible. This was a real lost opportunity in my opinion, especially when they had gone to such lengths to just have just "community leaders" attend this event. They need to really engage and have hands-on discussions, tangible options for people to consider with regard to land use, transportation, street design, etc with community groups about building sustainable neighborhoods.

This meeting being in Harlem, many of the questions were about preserving the character of neighborhoods in the face of an onrush of gentrification. Some NYCHA tenant association leaders and other East Harlem neighborhood groups and community board members took offense to the idea that we need to go out of our way and spend lots of money to help fit in the million NEW people without figuring out how to improve the existing housing stock. The answers from the presenter were pretty weak. They seemed unprepared for that line of questioning even though the whole point of increasing housing supply is to make it more affordable for everyone and reduce the need of gentrification to spread. I added that they should make sure that the housing is mixed use and close to transit, retail & major employers.

There were three people who separately mentioned increasing the accessibility of biking and general agreement in the room to reduce the number of cars rolling through Northern Manhattan. Lots of people were advocating for more renewable energy sources and increased conservation efforts. It's great to hear so many other people agree with those sentiments.

Overall I think the goals are very worthy and they need to iron out their presentation a bit, particularly to be more sensitive to the concerns of lower income and long time residents that see the million new New Yorkers as more threat than opportunity.

But there was one very worrisome comment that the presenter repeated a few times in response to questions from the audience about their 10 goals: "We're just talking about infrastructure." And absolutely infrastructure is important and requires a great deal of thought, time and money to design & build well. But it repeats one of the worst mistakes of the Moses era - assuming that building more and "better" infrastructure is an end itself that will increase quality of life. The goals they set are more process than outcomes driven.

They are not really talking at all about how to build small scale human-based systems that are the foundation of truly sustainable communities. Green buildings are great, but if the people inside don't separate their trash, turn off their lights, start riding bikes, walking to local destinations, etc. then the society is not necessarily working toward a sustainable future. Perhaps it is too ambitious for a central government to consider all the elements that make a community truly sustainable?

So while this effort is great in looking at how to make the city's infrastructure sustainable, people should not be lulled into complacency that those smart folks at city hall are going to just "figure it all out" for us and produce a sustainable society. I think it will fall to community based organizations to continue all their good work in educating people about how they can make changes in their daily life and how they can help guide the city when it comes to their own neighborhood to have an impact on environmental issues.

You can send your views to the Plan NYC folks and tell them some of the small ideas you have as well as big ideas on what can make NYC more sustainable.

Peter Hornbeck was killed on January 10th 2004 in a horrific hit and run crash on 96th and Park Avenue. The driver who killed him was speeding, had his license already revoked for prior speeding and the vehicle itself was stolen. The site of his death will be the memorial site for all pedestrians killed on city streets this Sunday at 1:30pm.

Last night I attended Community Board 8's Transportation Committee meeting to propose the installation of basic pedestrian protections on the Park Avenue medians. As reported in this morning's New York Sun, the idea was rejected for a variety of reasons. "Longtime neighborhood residents," the Sun reports, "said they hated to sacrifice the aesthetics of a landmark city street for a safety issue they felt was no big concern.

While I certainly don't expect Park Avenue's median to be restored to its verdant, pre-1922 width any time soon, the photo above illustrates the absurdity of pitting streetscape aesthetics against pedestrian safety. Clearly, Park Avenue was once a whole lot more beautiful and a whole lot more safe than it is today as a roaring six-lane parkway. As we've written before, there are lots of ways to make a street safer for pedestrians. Even bollards, the most basic and functional of pedestrian safety measures don't have to be ugly.

Peter Hornbeck's fiancee Rachael Myers volunteered to speak at the meeting. Rachael was walking with Peter the night that he was killed. With Rachael's permission, I thought I would share with you what she said last night since it had a deep impact on me and many other people in the room:

In an article published in the New York Times this past week on the issue of installing barriers at the Park Avenue medians, it was reported that some residents were surprised that this issue had emerged. After all, only one person was killed while crossing Park Avenue in 2003 and another in 2004.

As the girlfriend of the person killed in 2004 and a witness to the crash, I can tell you that one person is too many. What exactly are we willing to sacrifice for the "touch of Paris" look of the medians on Park Avenue? Are we willing to sacrifice two human beings?

Those of us that were close to Peter will feel that loss forever. But the loss to our community is something that we will never know and never be able to calculate. Pete spent his free time volunteering to care for homeless dogs at a local animal shelter on East 92^nd street. He was an outspoken environmentalist who was returning to graduate school at Hunter so that he could teach Earth Science to high school students. We will never know how he would have touched these lives if given the opportunity. It is important to try to keep this in mind when looking at statistics and numbers and trying make a cost/benefit analysis.

Some may think that we can solve this problem through increased traffic enforcement, and that is certainly part of the solution, but police cannot be everywhere at all times. In this case, the driver's record indicates that he had little respect for police and traffic laws. He not only was driving a car that was uninsured and reported stolen, his driver's license had been revoked due to prior speeding infractions. All previous efforts by the police to get this driver off the road were ineffective. When such drivers refuse to stay off the road, our only hope is that traffic-calming measures and pedestrian-friendly street design will be in place to protect our fellow citizens.

I can assure you that even if the proposed median barriers protect only one person in the future, it will be worth it. Not only for the friends and family, but for the countless lives who are affected by just one individual; it will be worth it for the entire community.

While we failed to win Community Board support for new pedestrian protections on the Park Avenue medians last night, Rachael's statement made a difference, we got the discussion started, and this issue isn't going away. Hopefully we can make some changes happen before the next horrific headline.

Photo: New York Historical Society via Jeff Prant

The DOT has some traffic plan porn for you today. Starting with P.S. 1 in Manhattan on Catherine Street, where they found a school bus parking on the narrow sidewalk near the school, they have detailed reports including pictures and proposed re-designs of the streets for all 135 schools included in the initial wave of Safe Routes to Schools. Dig in everyone and send us what you think of a school that you know about.

(Unfortunately, I can't figure out how to capture an image from what seem to be extremely secure PDF files - more later)

Update: 8:30pm. On a different computer, I can now extract the images using the old Mac Apple key/Shift/4 move). Here is the PS 1 Manhattan map of existing infrastructure and proposed improvements. Note a number of new sidewalk bump-outs and neck downs (Red areas) and some "no standing" signs in front and on the side of the school.

No doubt much more to come from Streetsblog and it's readers on all of this.

In 2004 the DOT began what turned into a 2 year study of Well, the study is now complete and they are planning to implement the changes in late 2007. The study has confirmed that many additional safety improvements are needs near schools to make them safer for kids to walk to school.

From a press release issued by the Mayor's Office:

Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg today joined Department of Transportation (DOT) Commissioner Iris Weinshall and Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein to announce the completion and release of  "Traffic Safety Maps" for each of the city's 1,471 elementary and middle schools following an examination of accident histories around each school, as well as upgraded school crosswalk signs at each school, and comprehensive traffic safety reports for 135 priority schools located around the city.   The maps, which identify traffic signals, all-way stop signs, speed bumps, and crosswalks maps, are designed to help students and parents find the safest routes to and from school.  DOT will soon begin distributing these maps to schools, and they will also be online at DOT's web site starting next month.  Mayor Bloomberg also announced that DOT has already begun to implement the safety enhancements recommended in the traffic safety reports for the 135 priority schools, and that the City plans detailed studies for 135 additional public, private and parochial elementary and middle schools. DOT will also begin a similar program for 40 high schools in late 2007. Mayor Bloomberg made today's announcement at P.S. 21 in the Williamsbridge section of the Bronx .

We'll have more on the specifics later in the day.

There are many users of curbside space in New York City. Taxis, School Buses, Access-A-Ride and other private automobiles need curbside space to pick up and drop off people, often disabled, elderly or children. Trucks making deliveries to businesses and residents need curbside space to load and unload goods and packages. These are essential needs. Kids have to get to school. People with health issues need to see their doctors. Residents in taxis need access to their buildings.

But currently all of these needs are subservient to something far more frivolous -- free curbside parking for the owners of private automobiles. The owners of private cars have another option -- indoor parking garages. While this may not be affordable for everyone, that misses the point. We should be aiming to discourage people from parking on city streets that consume valuable curbside space as well as minimizing the number of cars driving around this city.

As you can see in the typical scene above, a phalanx of private automobiles blocks the right-of-way of a school bus, a UPS truck and a Fed Ex truck as well as several other vehicles trying to pick up and drop off people at the doctor's office further down the street. A six lane street is reduced to only one lane in each direction causing traffic to bottle up in every direction.

Why not accept that there are many legitimate reasons to access the curb and assign them each a place suited to their importance? Why not charge market rates for curbside parking? Why not stand up to the elite minority of New York City residents who benefit from free curbside parking to the detriment of the rest of us?