More lanes, or more housing and parks? Image of proposed Deegan Expressway widening: NYSDOT. Image of the community plan for a de-commissioned Sheridan Expressway: SBRWA.

The DOT is considering tearing down the little-used Sheridan, a decision that would clear trucks off local streets and make room for housing, shops, and parks by the Bronx River. But the capital plan sets aside just $2 million for the project. As advocates said in testimony today, that's only enough cash to muddle through the studies already underway.

To repeat: The capital plan includes $266 million to widen a highway in an asthma-choked area of the Bronx, and $2 million for a project that could dramatically improve neighborhoods pummeled by truck traffic. Addressing a State Senate committee today, advocates made the case for a different approach.

"We call on the NYS DOT to reinstate funding for the Sheridan project by reducing the size and scope of the Major Deegan Expressway project," said the South Bronx River Watershed Alliance in a written statement. "With scarce resources, the agency must do a better job of prioritizing transportation investments that promote the safety, health and well-being of New York City residents."

The Tri-State Transportation Campaign submitted detailed commentary on the full capital plan, which you can read here. Here Tri-State explains why the New York State DOT, which doesn't expand highways to the same degree as other DOTs, still has a weakness for widening certain types of roads.

NYS DOT often plans large or over built rehabilitation projects under the guise of "bringing the roadway up to modern design standards." While certain modern design changes can help improve safety, spending millions of dollars, in some cases hundreds of millions, to simply widen interchanges, intersections, or build additional lanes does not make sense. Such projects often do little to solve congestion in the long-run, and come with very high price tags at a time when we have no money to waste.

New York State devotes just 1 percent of its federal transportation funds to pedestrian infrastructure. Photo: Wikipedia

In the last 15 years, more than 76,000 Americans have been killed while crossing or walking along a street in their community. More than 43,000 Americans -- including 3,906 children under 16 -- have been killed this decade alone. This is the equivalent of a jumbo jet going down roughly every month, yet it receives nothing like the kind of attention that would surely follow such a disaster.

Counterintuitive as it may be, "Dangerous by Design" also finds that, when it comes to investing in pedestrian-friendly streets, New York has little room to boast. Here are local stats culled from the report, issued in a joint statement from TSTC, Transportation Alternatives, the Regional Plan Association and TWU Local 100:

• 22.5 percent of total traffic deaths in New York State are pedestrians
  
• 31 percent of total traffic deaths in the NYC metropolitan area are pedestrians
  
• Only 1 percent of New York State federal transportation funds are spent on pedestrian infrastructure, an average of $0.73 per person
  
• New York State ranks 44th in the nation for federal spending on walking and biking
  
• The NYC metropolitan area receives only $0.61 per person in federal funds for pedestrian and bike facilities, well below the meager $1.39 spent per person for metro areas nationwide

Advocates are calling on Governor Paterson and the New York State Legislature to designate 10 percent of federal Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and 10 percent of federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding for pedestrian safety; to enact a statewide complete streets policy; to increase funding for Safe Routes to School and Safe Seniors programs; and to create a statewide Safe Routes to Transit program.

"From 2005 to 2008, New York has received $5.6 billion in federal transportation funds," reads the statement. "In the same amount of time there have been 1,215 preventable pedestrian deaths."

You can download "Dangerous By Design" in its entirety here. Elana Schor has more on the report's national implications at Streetsblog Capitol Hill.

The unidentified driver of this car, who injured six when he slammed into a Queens bus stop this month, is one of thousands of city motorists who harm and endanger others without consequence.

Maureen McCormick has specialized in prosecuting reckless drivers for 14 years. She led the Kings County Vehicular Crimes Bureau in Brooklyn, and now works for Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice. On Tuesday, McCormick said she believes the state's criminally negligent homicide statute, by virtue of its status as a Class E felony -- the least severe of all felony categories -- is "illogical on its face." Further, McCormick said, courts often go soft on killer drivers by twisting the language of the statute in ways unintended by the state.

McCormick cited a 2008 case as an example. Here is her account from a March Streetsblog interview:

As recently as May 2008, New York's highest court held that a 17-year-old driver who violated his junior license by driving with four unrelated passengers, without seatbelts, and who also was speeding at 70-72 mph through a curve with a posted caution speed of 40 mph, and who lost control sending the car over an embankment and killing three of his passengers, could not be held criminally liable (People v. Cabrera, 10 NY3d 370 [2008]). This decision alone has resulted in numerous defense motions to have cases dismissed claiming that "speed alone" or any traffic infraction "alone" is not sufficient to sustain criminal negligence. Our position is that this is nonsense.

McCormick wants state legislators to tell the courts they are misinterpreting the law. Another panelist, Oregon civil attorney and bike lawyer Ray Thomas, suggested that instead of trying to read defendants' minds -- the Cabrera case turned on the driver's perception of risk -- states should rely on objective, definable criteria. In Alabama, to cause a death while violating a traffic law is to commit homicide, regardless of intent. In Alabama, Georgia, Idaho and North Carolina, the severity of the charge stemming from a non-fatal crash depends on the extent of the victim's physical injuries. These approaches have worked well, Thomas said. Another way to remove subjectivity from court decisions, and to reduce the chance of reversal on appeal, said Thomas, is to assign penalties to certain acts undertaken while driving, like texting.

Thomas was instrumental in the successful push for Oregon's "vulnerable user" law. Focusing on road workers and school kids is a good way to win over police and appeal to the "protective impulses" of legislators, Thomas said. While acknowledging that Oregon, too, has a long way to go in the traffic justice arena, its vulnerable user law has singled out anyone not "encased in a steel exoskeleton," as Thomas put it, as worthy of extra care. A driver convicted of causing death or serious physical injury to a vulnerable user in Oregon must complete a traffic safety course and 100 to 200 hours of community service, or else pay a fine of up to $12,500 and lose his or her license for one year.

New York has its own vulnerable user law in the works, named after Hayley Ng and Diego Martinez, two pre-schoolers who died when an unattended, idling van backed onto a sidewalk in Chinatown. But given the horrific consequences of driver-on-pedestrian violence, such measures are abysmally inadequate. As McCormick said Tuesday, to truly be punished in New York State for killing someone with your vehicle, you almost have to be intoxicated.

Not that weak laws are 100 percent to blame. The only charge that applies to either a vehicular assault or homicide that does not require the presence of alcohol or drugs, said Peter Goldwasser of Transportation Alternatives, is criminally negligent homicide. Between 1994 and 2008, there were only 29 indictments for this crime in all of New York State, according to Goldwasser. During that period, about 10,000 people died on New York State roadways.

The third symposium panelist, Brooklyn-based criminal defense attorney Scott Cerbin, believes New York prosecutors have the tools at their disposal to dispense justice, but lack fiscal resources. Due to overwhelming case loads, Cerbin said, the majority end in pleas, which result in lighter sentences. In fact, Cerbin is skeptical that Cy Vance will be able to substantially beef up Manhattan's vehicular crimes unit as promised, especially if the city experiences a surge in other violent crimes. McCormick agreed -- to a point -- likening traffic safety efforts to school art and music programs: the first to be cut when budgets get tight.

Cerbin also said that NYPD officers virtually never charge motorists with reckless driving, and prefer to issue summonses rather than make arrests. This breakdown at the point where a traffic offense occurs, be it a fender-bender or a gruesome death, illustrates what could have been the theme of the day: in the words of Ray Thomas, "perspective imposes outcome." Every level of lawmaking and enforcement -- from the cop to the assistant district attorney, the state court judge to the state legislator -- is populated by people who identify as much or more so with fellow drivers as with victims of vehicular violence.

Thomas argued that, since a vehicle can do catastrophic damage even with no intent to harm, a new paradigm is needed wherein driving a car is considered a privilege requiring a considerable amount of care, with commensurate consequences for recklessness. What we have instead is a system so infused by car culture that anyone outside a vehicle is considered to be tempting fate. As for other drivers or passengers who lose their lives, well, accidents happen.

Whether a cultural shift is needed to bring about changes in laws and enforcement, or vice versa, one thing is clear. To paraphrase Maureen McCormick: We have a lot of work to do.

Here are the details:

Tri-State Transportation Campaign Annual Benefit
Thursday, October 29, 6:00 - 8:30 p.m.
The Gates, 290 Eighth Avenue, New York, NY
Tickets available from $150

Cy Vance, far right, joined by (l-r) Oregon attorney Raymond F. Thomas, TA's Peter Goldwasser, New York attorney Scott Glen Cerbin, and Nassau County prosecutor Maureen McCormick. Photo: Brad Aaron

Don't take our word for it. This is the message from Cy Vance Jr., the candidate who next Tuesday is all but certain to be elected Manhattan's next district attorney. Speaking at today's legal symposium on vehicular violence at the Cardozo School of Law, Vance called the number of city traffic fatalities "extremely large" when compared to its 500 annual murders, and reiterated his campaign pledge to make vehicular violence a priority on his watch.

"Safety on our streets is going to be a very, very important issue for our office," said Vance, who noted that his son is a Manhattan cyclist.

Vance restated his commitment to allotting additional resources to the Manhattan DA's Vehicular Crimes Unit, as well as his intent to curb dangerous driving with prevention techniques currently applied to other potentially deadly behaviors. Vance also said he plans to approach traffic crime through the "community justice" model [a concept explained in this PDF], working with NYPD precincts to identify specific problem areas.

Much of today's event -- co-hosted by the Cardozo School, Transportation Alternatives and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign -- was devoted to what other states are doing to hold killer drivers accountable. We'll delve into that in a follow-up post. Vance said that he, too, plans to look nationwide to keep up with case law.

"I have a lot to learn," he said. "I will be an active student."

Photo: New York Times

Vance will deliver opening remarks at the symposium, set to convene at 9 a.m. at the Cardozo School, 55 Fifth Ave. in Manhattan.

"I am pleased to be invited to next week's event," Vance said in a statement to Streetsblog. "This seminar will address very important public safety issues facing Manhattan and our entire city."

The presence of the candidate who in all likelihood will be Manhattan's next top prosecutor (Vance, a Democrat, faces no Republican opposition in the November 3 general election) again gives safe streets advocates reason to believe that long-awaited progress in the fight for traffic justice is at hand.

"Mr. Vance’s actions continue to indicate that, if elected, his office will give vehicular crimes the attention they deserve," said TA’s Peter Goldwasser.

The October 27 symposium is free and open to the public. Further details are on the TSTC web site.

Diego Martinez and Hayley Ng are among the many victims whose killers never face justice.

Later this month, Transportation Alternatives, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law will hold a symposium addressing the prosecution of vehicular homicide in New York State. TSTC's Mobilizing the Region reports:

Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and legal advocates will examine the existing legal framework and discuss innovative or untried techniques and those in use in other states. The program is free and open to everyone. Attorneys will be eligible for CLE credit.

"This is a watershed moment," says TSTC's Kyle Wiswall. "There are too many examples of mayhem on the streets that go unprosecuted. We'll be discussing why this is so, and, perhaps more importantly, what can be changed to find justice for the vulnerable users and victims of careless driving."

No word yet on whether they will be in attendance, but this would be a great opportunity for members of Team Vance to get a head start on the new Manhattan DA's traffic justice agenda. Peter Goldwasser, general counsel for TA, is optimistic that the symposium can build on recent progress in the fight against vehicular violence.

"It's our hope that the discussion will lead to concrete progress in finding justice for the innocent victims of careless and negligent driving," Goldwasser says. "We want to get to the very root of the problems lawmakers, prosecutors and judges encounter when these cases arise. Furthermore, with the recent election of a new Manhattan District Attorney who specifically included a pedestrian safety plank in his campaign platform, we are further encouraged that change is afoot."

Panelists will include Maureen McCormick, a former Brooklyn prosecutor who now works for Nassau County DA Kathleen Rice, known nationally for her vigorous pursuit of justice for victims of drunk driving.

"With this symposium," says Wiswall, "we will help move the issue of traffic justice from awareness to action."

The symposium will be held on October 27 from 9 a.m. to noon at the Cardozo School of Law, 55 Fifth Ave. in Manhattan. RSVP info and other details are here.

Via Mobilizing the Region, here's some more mayoral bike news, this time from across the Hudson. Newark's Brick City Bike Collective launched earlier this summer, bringing a new voice for safe streets to a city that sorely needs it. After just those first few months, they managed to woo Mayor Cory Booker to come along for their first organized ride. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign's Kyle Wiswall reports:

Since the middle of the last century, Newark has been an autocentric place that is hostile to cyclists. Wide roads like McCarter Highway bisect communities and encourage speeding, while broken glass and potholes increase the chances of a crash.  The Collective is working get more Newarkers out on bikes, make drivers more aware of bikers and encourage city planners to implement bike-friendly policies and infrastructure. So far, the group has 60 members.

At its inaugural ride, the Collective traveled up Beaver Street through Branch Brook Park, ending at Independence Park in the Ironbound.  Members got the unique opportunity to chat with their Mayor in an informal setting.

“Enjoying Newark on two wheels is a vision I share with many others, and Newark has the potential to be a truly green, bike-able city,” BCBC member Elizabeth Reynoso told TSTC staffer Zoe Baldwin during the ride. “The Brick City Bike Collective taps into that, giving riders a voice and building a community that will encourage more and more people to get around the city by bike."

BCBC is putting on monthly rides and bike repair nights. They also have an event that sounds really cool planned for Sunday, August 23: A "biking audit" where participants will document the state of the streets so they can tell the city what to fix. Given their high-placed contacts, we expect to hear more from them soon.

Here's a scenic shot of the Sheridan Expressway in the South Bronx during the evening "rush," courtesy of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and the advocates behind the Southern Bronx River Watershed Alliance. Even in the peak direction, reports Tri-State's Steven Higashide, the Moses-era relic is barely used at all:

The gaps in the traffic weren’t quite long enough for a sit-down picnic, which is too bad because the South Bronx is sorely lacking parks and other places for families to recreate and relax. The needs of the area and the light traffic are just two of the many reasons why the Alliance is calling for a teardown of the 1.2-mile Sheridan, and why NYSDOT is studying it. A demapped Sheridan could be replaced not only with open space, but also affordable housing and mixed-use development.

The State DOT is scheduled to decide the fate of this huge piece of riverfront real estate by 2012. Acting Commissioner Stanley Gee was in the news this week for agreeing to expand 1.2 miles of the Staten Island Expressway, under pressure from borough politicians. It's hard to see where any pressure to preserve the Sheridan would come from.

Average weekday eastbound trips, 2008. Source: TSTC/Port Authority of NY & NJ.

The Lincoln Tunnel XBL was established all the way back in 1971. In the last 38 years, bus ridership crossing the Hudson has boomed, especially this decade, but capacity for buses hasn't kept pace. Unless provisions are made to accommodate more bus travel -- and soon -- riders will face slower trips, the ridership gains of recent years will flatten out, and traffic troubles will deepen as more commuters choose to drive.

The good news is that it doesn't take all that much time or money to deliver some significant enhancements for bus riders. In a new report, "Express Route to Better Bus Service" [PDF], Tri-State lays out a strategy to expand on the success of the Lincoln Tunnel XBL and make bus travel more attractive for all trips across the Hudson. It's a wake-up call for the Port Authority to get moving on some long-overdue improvements.

"A population nearly the size of Cincinnati travels by bus across the Hudson River every weekday, but plans to enhance service for these riders are stalled," said Tri-State's Veronica Vanterpool, co-author of the report. "With bus travel anticipated to grow, we need to stop treating bus riders like second-class citizens and provide them with faster commutes and better access to information."

Tri-State recommends creating a westbound Lincoln Tunnel XBL during the evening rush and moving full-speed ahead with plans for a new high occupancy/toll lane for the morning commute (which has been stuck in the study phase for way too long). The report also touches on strategies to speed bus service across other Hudson River crossings, organize on-street loading for the city's growing volume of private bus operators, and make it easier for riders to plan their trips.

Follow the jump for the full slate of Tri-State's major recommendations.

Key Recommendations 

Short Term

1. Expedite the completion of the Lincoln Tunnel High Occupancy Toll Lanes study and implement the recommendations immediately.
2. Establish a westbound XBL in the Lincoln Tunnel during the evening rush hour.
3. Create an online portal for regional bus riders, with maps, route schedules and carrier information.
4. Improve communications technology for buses and update signage.
5. NYC should develop, with community input, strategies for formalizing bus loading/unloading and bus parking areas in neighborhoods across the city.
6. Coordinate with MTA and Westchester County’s Bee-Line to create and/or expand existing bus service between Westchester County and George Washington Bridge Bus Station.

Long Term

1. Study the potential for High Occupancy Tolling on the Holland Tunnel and GW Bridge.
2. Move forward plans to renovate and add capacity to the Port Authority Bus Terminal with community input, and to construct a bus garage on the West Side.

Photo: SI Advance via MTR.

Last month, the state DOT opened the dedicated bus lane on the Staten Island Expressway to cars with two or more passengers. Tri-State's Michelle Ernst has more:

The conversion aims to appease some politicians and drivers who’ve pressured NYSDOT to open the bus lanes to cars since the lanes were opened. But even the commenters in the Staten Island Advance recognize that it will do little to alleviate congestion in the general purpose lanes, and will completely obliterate any time savings currently enjoyed by Staten Island’s bus riders.

The Expressway was widened to add the bus lane in 2005. Now, opening the busway to private cars turns that transit enhancement into a de facto highway expansion. Before the change, average bus speeds in the dedicated lane averaged 50 mph despite lax enforcement of the bus-only policy. With any multi-passenger car allowed in the lane, and even more license for solo drivers to break the rules, buses may soon move at the same speed as the regular traffic lanes -- 25 mph.

"There's already plenty of people carpooling on the Expressway," Ernst said. "This is just going to pull cars from the regular lanes and induce more traffic." The state DOT, for its part, says bus-exclusivity will be restored if riders end up saddled with slower rides.

So where did the political pressure come from? The Advance reports:

Many people welcome the change. Sen. Charles Schumer, Rep. Michael McMahon and Councilman James Oddo are three elected officials who have been outspoken in their support of the switch to HOV lanes.

Mr. Oddo said upon hearing of the DOT's plan, "Maybe they've woken up," adding, "You have to maximize the infrastructure."

Someone should inform the efficiency-minded Oddo that buses carry a lot more people than cars, and that potentially cutting their speeds in half is no way to "maximize infrastructure." Meanwhile, at least one of those Advance commenters is pinning responsibility on -- you guessed it -- the MTA.

Yesterday the coalition sent this letter [PDF] to every member of the state legislature. Notably, three of the state's biggest unions -- the AFL-CIO, Service Employees International, and United Federation of Teachers -- have signed on. These labor groups were not part of the coalition that fought for congestion pricing last year, but on this issue, they are firmly on board. On this issue, they're united with the same business leaders whom they're fighting against when it comes to the proposed millionaire's tax. Unlike the State Senate, these leaders grasp the implications of sharply hiking fares while drastically cutting service. They don't want to risk the region's future by letting the transit system fall apart. They do want a plan that provides a long-term answer, and that includes bridge tolls. Here's their full letter:

Dear Legislator:

We represent the citizens of New York who depend upon a safe, clean and reliable public transportation system. We represent the working class New Yorkers -- many of whom do not own automobiles -- who depend upon an affordable public transportation system to get to their jobs, to their schools and to their health care providers. We represent the employers of the region that recognize that a well functioning subway, bus and commuter rail network is the prerequisite for continued economic growth and is what sets New York apart from the rest of the country. We represent the hard-working building trades and construction workers responsible for New York’s skyline that are dependent upon public sector projects to put food on the table during these hard times. And we represent those that care about reducing the asthma rates of children in disproportionately impacted communities throughout the city and about making this city a whole lot greener, more equitable and a little bit more livable.

We represent your constituents, and we are calling on you to act and adopt a comprehensive, long term funding plan for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. It must be a plan that provides for affordable fares, expanded service and long term capital investment. And it must be adopted now -- before the Authority is forced to raise fares and tolls by as much as 30 percent, while at the same time drastically reducing service across the system.

The New York Legislature has had long enough to act. This issue is no surprise to those that have been paying attention. Almost a year ago, Governor Paterson called on Richard Ravitch to head a Commission to review options for comprehensively addressing the MTA’s operating and capital funding needs. This Commission represented business, labor, environmental advocates and everyday straphangers. And the proposal that the Commission put forward has the broad-based support of all of these constituencies -- your constituencies. It is a proposal that is fair, balanced and comprehensive. It relies on transit riders, motorists and the employers that benefit from the system to all participate in the solution for saving the system.

Once again, we are calling for bipartisan action to respond to the needs of New Yorkers and prevent a backsliding into the kind of neglect and disinvestment in our transportation system that marked earlier decades and nearly crippled New York. With funding for the MTA in place, we can move on to confront the other innumerable challenges that our state faces in this time.

We stand united in our commitment to working with you and your colleagues towards a solution to this crisis. We respectfully request a meeting with you in the coming days.

Sincerely,

Denis Hughes
President
New York State AFL-CIO

Gary LaBarbera
President
Building & Construction Trades Council

Mike Fishman
President
32BJ, Service Employees International Union

Randi Weingarten
President
United Federation of Teachers

Kathryn Wylde
President & CEO
Partnership for New York City

Richard T. Anderson
President
New York Building Congress

William C. Rudin
Chairman
Association for a Better New York

Dick Dadey
Executive Director
Citizens Union

Nancy Ploeger
President
Manhattan Chamber of Commerce

Gene Russianoff
Senior Attorney
Straphangers Campaign

Kevin Corbett
Co-Chair
Empire State Transportation Alliance

Kate Slevin
Executive Director
Tri-State Transportation Campaign

David Jones
President & CEO
Community Service Society of New York

Pratt Center for Community
Development

Fifth Avenue Committee

The POINT CDC

Erasmus Neighborhood Federation

Morningside Heights/West Harlem Sanitation Coalition

I spoke with Michelle Ernst, staff analyst at the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, to get a sense of how the new legislation compares to the 2005 federal transportation bill, known as SAFETEA-LU. Ernst points out that federal highway money flows through the Surface Transportation Program, which is more flexible than the "highway" label lets on. Compared to SAFETEA-LU, the stimulus bill will nearly double the portion of "highway" funds going to bike and pedestrian projects while sending more money to cities.

Here are the changes Ernst spotted after crunching the numbers:

• Double the money to bike and pedestrian projects: Under SAFETEA-LU, roughly 1.7 percent of total highway funding was authorized for the Transportation Enhancements program, most of which goes toward bicycle and pedestrian projects. In the stimulus package, that figure has nearly doubled to 3 percent. The new bill also requires states to spend the money on actual Transportation Enhancements, whereas previous transportation bills gave them wiggle room to shift it around to other programs.
  
• More money going to cities: Under SAFETEA-LU, 6.5 percent of highway funding was "sub-allocated" directly to large urban areas, defined as metro regions with a population greater than 200,000. In the stimulus bill, large urban areas get 16 percent. This funding will go to agencies that, compared to state DOTs, are more likely to invest in progressive transportation projects.
  

While these changes represent improvements, even more money should be going to cities. As Brookings notes, the nation's 100 largest metro areas produce 75 percent of the nation's GDP. And the glaring omission of any "fix-it-first" language in the final bill will make it easier for some of those sub-allocated funds to be spent on road expansion.

But overall the revised formulas in the stimulus bill mean more money for transit, bike and pedestrian projects and more funds piped directly to cities. The guaranteed funding for Transportation Enhancements is something that bicycle advocates, especially, fought to include in the final bill. Mayors and green transportation experts championed a bigger slice for urban areas, which frees up money for progressive projects. The final stimulus bill reflects these efforts and gives advocates something to build on as Congress gears up for the big transportation re-authorization coming later this year.

Earlier this week, we asked Tri-State's Michelle Ernst and Steven Higashide about the state DOT wish lists, especially New York's. (It's reasonable, they say.) With the transportation debate set to play out again on a massive scale as the multi-year federal reauthorization approaches, there's no better time to get acquainted with the arcane world of transportation spending. If you're not familiar with the term "sub-allocation" yet, you will be.

Streetsblog: What do urban areas stand to receive compared to rural areas in the New York state list?

Steven Higashide: I should start by saying that it’s not clear how NYSDOT will prioritize the projects on its wish list -- that is, how much money will each regional office actually get?

I did a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation. Based on that, it looks like urban areas get roughly 25 percent of NYSDOT highway funds, while suburban areas get around 25 percent and rural areas get 50 percent. Again, this is pretty back of the envelope; but we can say pretty confidently that rural areas have more road funding in the list than urban areas.

This changes once you incorporate transit funding, since the vast majority of that goes to urban areas, and unlike other states' lists the New York list is evenly split between transit and highways -- about $1.6 billion requested for each. So once you add MTA and other transit funding to the NYSDOT highway funds, it's more like 50 percent urban, 25 percent suburban, and 25 percent rural. I'm not including Thruway Authority money in the calculation since so much of it is just to stop the Tappan Zee from falling down.

SB: If urban areas get shortchanged for routine maintenance/repair projects in the state list, does that affect cities' ability to invest in transit/bike/ped projects?

If a municipal agency gets federal money for maintenance work -- which has to be performed -- it frees up local money to be spent on other capital projects. In a progressive agency like NYCDOT, that means more resources for innovative projects like public plazas or redesigning streets for bus rapid transit.

SB: Does the same situation apply to a municipal agency like NYCDOT -- if they use stimulus money for maintenance and repair, that frees up resources for more innovative and progressive projects?

SH: It’s basically a similar situation. If a municipal agency gets federal money for maintenance work -- which has to be performed -- it frees up local money to be spent on other capital projects. In a progressive agency like NYCDOT, that means more resources for innovative projects like public plazas or redesigning streets for bus rapid transit. An old-fashioned agency, of course, might choose to spend its freed-up resources on road widening.

SB: What do state lists tell us about the need to reform the federal formulas that divvy up transportation dollars? What's wrong with those formulas now and how can they be adjusted to work better for cities?

Michelle Ernst: Of the highway funds, HR 1 (the stimulus bill) sub-allocates 45 percent to metropolitan areas, with the rest going to state DOTs. This is significant. Research by Linda Bailey (now at NYCDOT) has shown that sub-allocated funds are far more likely to go toward transit, bicycling and walking projects. That said, it really depends on how progressive the metropolitan agency is, just as the distribution of non-sub-allocated funds really depends on how progressive the state DOT is. In California, where the state currently sub-allocates 75 percent of all federal funds, this works great.

We should subject new or expanded road capacity to the same rigorous review that we subject new transit systems and lines to.

The second issue is how the formulas distribute funding across the major federal funding programs (National Highway System, Interstate Maintenance, Surface Transportation Program, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, etc.)  Most of these programs are very highway oriented, with the exception of CMAQ. That said, ISTEA made almost all of them very flexible, so that it's really up to the states to determine how best to spend the funds. STP is particularly flexible and can be spent on almost any type of project (including transit), but even NHS can be used for bike/ped projects (apparently the Hudson River bikeway was funded in part with NHS funds).

I'm not sure that the structure of the current federal formulas is the problem. In my opinion, the state DOTs are the primary obstacle to putting more money into transit and bike/ped projects.  We need to encourage states to embrace the flexibility inherent in the current bill.

Nevertheless, we could do a lot to improve the bill. To get more money to cities, we could sub-allocate more than the six percent or so that's set aside under SAFETEA-LU. I've also been lobbying for a "New Starts for Roads" program, the idea being that we should subject new or expanded road capacity to the same rigorous review that we subject new transit systems and lines to. I want a cost-benefit analysis conducted for every new road or road widening project which quantitatively demonstrates that adding road capacity is an effective use of federal dollars. I've seen this rhetoric in some of the Obama administration's stuff.

Whatever your stance on the Ravitch Commission's MTA rescue plan, the broad inequities of allowing New York transit service to deteriorate while fares rise 23 percent are stunning. The doomsday budget passed earlier this week would affect vastly more New Yorkers than bridge tolls or congestion pricing, burdening those who can least afford the added delay and expense.

The Regional Plan Association and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign came out with a strong one-two punch yesterday that frames this disparity in no uncertain terms, countering the shopworn drivel we've been hearing in defense of the "driving public."

These fact sheets from the RPA chart the doomsday service cuts by borough. The maps are helpful and alarming -- visual confirmation that pretty much everyone who rides the train can expect longer waits and more crowded conditions. Bus riders from eastern Queens to lower Manhattan will see routes eliminated and less frequent service. I see that in my neighborhood, Windsor Terrace, the B75 is slated for extinction, shunting more riders onto the F train.

New Yorkers who would bear the brunt of these cuts, of course, outnumber those who would be asked to pay bridge tolls under the Ravitch plan. The gap is cavernous, as Tri-State shows in these fact sheets, updating its earlier analysis of congestion pricing impacts. In the Bronx, where pols balked at the Ravitch plan's modest Harlem River bridge tolls, car-free households outnumber car owners by greater than 3 to 2. The margin is much larger when straphanging commuters are compared to solo drivers -- 5 to 1. Even in Westchester, three times as many people commute to Manhattan by transit as by driving alone.

As ever, the populist "defense" of the driving public is a bunch of hokum that no reporter should let go unchallenged. Households without a car earn, on average, less than half what their car-owning counterparts make. Streetsbloggers know this already. What about everyone who gets their transportation news from the morning paper and the local network desk anchors?

TSTC stats compiled from National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and US Census data

Though senior fatality rates are high across the region -- people aged 65 and older accounted for 30 percent of pedestrian deaths during the three-year study period, yet comprised less than 12 percent of the area’s population -- Manhattan was "the most dangerous place in downstate New York for older people to walk." Between 2005 and 2007, 50 people aged 65 or older were killed on Manhattan streets, an average of 8.27 deaths per 100,000 seniors. The same period saw 1.82 deaths per 100,000 people under age 65.

Nassau County ranked as having the second most dangerous downstate pedestrian environment for seniors, followed by Staten Island and Brooklyn. Queens and the Bronx ranked seventh and eighth, respectively.

"Clearly, older tri-state residents are suffering disproportionately," said William Stoner, AARP New York’s Associate State Director for Livable Communities. "Making our streets safe and livable to accommodate our aging population will require taking a close look at the infrastructure of our communities."

TSTC applauded efforts like DOT's Safe Streets for Seniors, and suggested similar programs for other areas, particularly in Long Island and Connecticut. See the TSTC web site for complete report data and county and borough fact sheets.

Given this preventable public health crisis right in their own backyards, we're expecting public calls to action from incensed local electeds any time now. C'mon Alan Gerson, where's the Safe Streets for Seniors bill? When's your camera-ready rant scheduled, Anthony Weiner? Anyone?

Mobilizing the Region has scooped up some interesting nuggets about the Ravitch Commission's soon-to-be-released report:

...insiders tell MTR that Ravitch is likely to recommend improved bus service, including increased investment in bus rapid transit and the establishment of a MTA Regional Bus Authority. The latter would take control of suburban bus systems like Long Island Bus and Westchester's Bee-Line Bus, potentially ending the annual battles over funding and resulting in substantial service improvements for bus riders. The former could offer near-term improvements in transit service for many outer borough residents out of the subway's reach...

Improved MTA oversight, transparency and strengthening of governance may also make the short list of recommendations, according to those who have seen the report.

When the commission held its first public hearing this September, there were still a lot of unsettled questions about its exact purpose. Several speakers asked Ravitch to extend the scope of his recommendations beyond how to fund the MTA -- to examine the agency's operations and identify reforms that can build its credibility. Looks like that testimony will be reflected in the final product.

Photo of Select Bus Service: Brad Aaron

A new report from the Tri-State Transportation Campaign names five New York City streets among the region's 10 most dangerous roads for pedestrians, based on the number of fatalities from 2005 to 2007. Making the list were:

• Third Avenue, Manhattan: 10 fatalities
  
• Broadway, Manhattan: 10 fatalities
  
• Grand Central Parkway, Queens: 9 fatalities
  
• Hylan Boulevard, Staten Island: 9 fatalities
  
• Atlantic Avenue, Brooklyn: 8 fatalities

TSTC found that two Long Island routes, Hempstead Turnpike in Nassau County and Sunrise Highway in Suffolk County, were the most deadly in terms of raw numbers, with 15 and 12 fatalities, respectively. Roads in New Jersey's Atlantic, Burlington, Middlesex and Ocean Counties rounded out the list.

"The most dangerous roads are either extremely busy urban roads, such as 3rd Avenue in Manhattan, that handle many pedestrians and cars," said TSTC analyst Michelle Ernst, in the media release accompanying the report, "or, as with the case of Sunrise Highway in Suffolk County, they are major suburban roadways dotted with retail destinations but designed exclusively for fast-moving car traffic."

During the three years covered by the study, there were 147 pedestrian deaths in Brooklyn, 128 in Manhattan, 95 in Queens, 53 in the Bronx, and 26 in Staten Island. Narrowly missing the regional top 10 list were First and Seventh Avenues in Manhattan and Fourth Avenue in Brooklyn. Each saw seven fatalities.

TSTC acknowledged city DOT efforts to improve pedestrian conditions, but gave lower marks to New York State.

"It’s upsetting that roads on Long Island have more pedestrian fatalities than roads in dense urban areas, where people tend to walk much more," said Ryan Lynch, Senior Planner and Long Island Coordinator for the Campaign.  "It’s clear that the New York State Department of Transportation isn’t providing safe walking routes for Long Islanders. This needs to change."

Borough and county fact sheets are available on the TSTC web site, and Mobilizing the Region has further analysis.

Today the Tri-State Transportation Campaign joined the One Region Funders’ Group* and The Fund for New Jersey in announcing a grant program to foster metro area transit-oriented development.

The program intends to encourage transit oriented development, or mixed use development within a fourth to half mile of a train or bus station, by offering financial support to municipalities ready to address the linkages between affordable housing, energy efficiency and development near transit stations. Up to ten small grants will be awarded to communities across downstate New York and Connecticut. Up to five grants will be awarded in New Jersey.

The grants, according to a TSTC press release, will be awarded to help fund project planning and design. While the state of New Jersey and New Jersey Transit have had TOD funding programs in place since the 1990s, resulting in a number of projects including the Transit Village Initative, New York and Connecticut have not kept pace. Last spring the MTA announced a new plan to encourage TOD development, but has so far not followed through with a formal program. The New York State Department of Transportation, meanwhile, has come up with a "smart growth" web site, and not much else. Connecticut has embraced TOD concepts, but has also been slow to realize a blueprint for carrying them out.

In addition to filling state TOD gaps, the non-profit grants will ideally bring more of a focus on environmentally sound, affordable development. Says TSTC's Kate Slevin: "It makes total sense to include affordable housing near your transit stations."

To this point, Slevin says, much TOD housing has been targeted at high-income buyers.

By putting homes and businesses near public transportation, transit-oriented development is of course considered a crucial element in reducing auto dependence and its attendant health and environmental impacts. For more, check out TSTC's new online TOD clearinghouse.

* The One Region Funders’ Group includes the Fairfield County Community Foundation, Long Island Community Foundation, New York Community Trust, Rauch Foundation, Surdna Foundation, Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation, and Westchester Community Foundation.

Image: Tri-State Transportation Campaign

New York's Sheridan Expressway, which traverses 1.25 miles of Bronx River waterfront (right), comes in at number two. Thanks to the advocacy of the Southern Bronx River Watershed Alliance, the state DOT is considering a proposal to replace the lightly-traveled, Moses-era Sheridan with housing and parks. As the Tri-State Transportation Campaign reported last month, preserving it is becoming harder and harder to justify.

Here's the full "Freeways Without Futures" list, issued as part of a joint venture between CNU and the Center for Neighborhood Technology called the Highways to Boulevards Initiative:

1. Alaskan Way Viaduct, Seattle, WA
2. Sheridan Expressway, New York, NY
   
3. The Skyway and Route 5, Buffalo, NY
   
4. Route 34, New Haven, CT
   
5. Claiborne Expressway, New Orleans, LA
6. Interstate 81, Syracuse, NY
7. Interstate 64, Louisville, KY
8. Route 29, Trenton, NJ
9. Gardiner Expressway, Toronto, ON
10. 11th Street Bridges and the Southeast Freeway, Washington D.C.

Previous highway-to-boulevard conversions have succeeded in cities from New York to San Francisco to Seoul, often in the face of opposition from carmaggedon-predicting doomsayers. More from CNU President John Norquist on why freeway removal makes sense, after the jump.

CNU President and CEO John Norquist says that compared to the prospect of completely rebuilding aging freeways -- something that’s inevitable after 40 or 50 years -- highways-to-boulevards projects are real money savers. "There’s a whole generation of elevated highways in cities that are at the end of their design life. Instead of rebuilding them at enormous expense, cities have an opportunity to undo what proved to be major urban planning blunders," said Norquist, Mayor of Milwaukee when it replaced the Park East Freeway with McKinley Boulevard in 2002. "The Federal Highway Fund just received a short-term bailout. The money that does exist can be invested much more efficiently in surface streets and transit. The development that results is walkable and close to jobs and city life. It helps residents keep a lot of money in their wallets that they’d otherwise spend driving."

"Fifty years ago, when there was flight from cities, industrialized waterfronts seemed like a convenient place to run freeways," Norquist said. "The result for the neighborhoods has been blight. Cities like San Francisco that have removed freeways and reclaimed waterfronts have turned them into magnets for people and investment."