Photo: @10/Flickr

Worsened gridlock follows automatically from making curbside parking cheaper. The lessened likelihood of being served a parking ticket can be expected to draw more auto trips into Manhattan and around town as well. The added congestion isn’t huge; most car trips not made are on account of other factors, and only a tenth of all parking tickets are being assumed away. But the impact will be visible.

Most of the estimated 334,000 hours lost, around 85 percent, will come from drivers outside the Manhattan Central Business District, putting an ironic stamp on Council Member Tish James’ reminder to the mayor that his narrow re-election was “a call from average New Yorkers for relief.”

Note: Readers who want to check the analysis in the BTA should head to the Parking worksheet, a dozen tabs from the back.

To signal their displeasure with law enforcement, Council members David Weprin, Simcha Felder, and Vincent Gentile ripped up parking tickets on the steps of City Hall. Photo: Daily Politics.

According to Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. the bills are "an attempt to legislate common sense and discretion." But really, what we have here is old-fashioned pandering combined with a failure to comprehend the consequences of giving away curb space.

The council calls it a "grace period," but what does it really mean to ban parking agents from issuing a ticket until five minutes after the allotted time expires? Well, if you drive somewhere and pay for 40 minutes of metered parking, now you get 45 minutes. The bill gives on-street parkers more bang for their buck -- a subsidy for the minority of New Yorkers who get around by private car.

With less turnover of metered spaces, drivers will double-park more and cruise around longer as they search for open spots. Whether you're walking, biking, riding a bus, or driving, you'll have to contend with more traffic clogging up the streets.

The expansion of parking placards for clergy will have the same effect -- more free curb space for an entitled class of drivers, with less to go around for everyone else. The bill flies in the face of placard-reduction policies that the Bloomberg administration began enacting in 2008 with an eye toward cutting congestion.

City Room reports that Bloomberg, predicting "chaos and enormous increases in contested tickets," is ready to veto the grace period bill. A council override would not augur well for the next four years of New York City transportation policy.

A revised law attaches a stiff fine to the type of carelessness that caused the deaths of two children in Chinatown, but it's up to NYPD to make it stick.

The obvious question: What good is it to jack up idling fines, even by a factor of 50, when police can't be counted on to ticket for traffic fatalities? That's where Council Member Dan Garodnick comes in. Last year he introduced legislation that would allow Traffic Enforcement Agents to issue idling tickets using their hand-held computers. The bill stalled some time ago, but a Garodnick spokesperson says it hasn't been forgotten. Since learning that such a change can be handled administratively, Garodnick's office has been waiting for NYPD to carry it out.

Streetsblog has word that the department has completed programming and testing the hand-held units, and now plans to begin training agents, though no timetable was available.

"Obviously it's still something we'd like to see done," Garodnick's spokesperson said, adding that unattended vehicles should be covered under the new protocol. At $250 a pop, it probably wouldn't take many tickets before companies start telling drivers to take two seconds to shut down their trucks.

• Intro 624: This is Jessica Lappin's effort to hold businesses responsible for traffic law violations committed by bike delivery personnel. The bill was inspired in part by Upper East Side constituent complaints about restaurant employees and other commercial delivery workers riding on sidewalks.
• Intro 901, from committee chair, presumptive comptroller-elect and rock star John Liu, would mandate all commercial parking facilities to set aside 10 percent of spaces, or 10 spots, whichever is less, for car-sharing programs.
• Intro 947: Responding to the deaths of Robert Ogle and Alex Paul and Diego Martinez and Hayley Ng, Queens Council Member Elizabeth Crowley's bill would raise the fine for unattended idling vehicles to $250. The current fine: five bucks.
• Continuing his crusade against the travesty that is parking enforcement, Vincent Gentile's Intro 1076 would require DOT to give 60 days notice to community boards and council members in advance of changes to parking meter regulations.
• Intro 1077, another Gentile bill, looks as if it would basically codify DOT's current practice of presenting new projects -- pilot projects, specifically -- to community boards prior to implementation.

In the end the votes matter most, but it's interesting that Gentile, for instance, is not a co-sponsor of Crowley's anti-idling bill or Liu's car-sharing intro, but is on board with Lappin's commercial cyclist regulations. Guess we all have our priorities.

Tomorrow's hearing, one of the last of Liu's tenure as committee chair, convenes in the council chambers at 10 a.m.

Photo: artgyrl/Flickr

Though it isn't spelled out in the bill, Int. 836 is ostensibly intended in part to minimize bus traffic on narrow residential streets, increasing pedestrian safety and, like Int. 742, reducing the buses' negative impact on neighborhoods.

Both bills are supported by the group Our Streets Our Lives (formerly Tour Buses No -- Tourists Yes), which worked last year to prod the Department of Environmental Protection to enforce tour bus emission standards. Group member Barbara Backer says most licensed tour buses are now in compliance with those rules. Of the new proposed regs, Backer says: "With re-routing no one will lose one job, tourists will still be able to visit the same businesses, and the re-routing will mean less disruption for local residents. Buses can use their hop-on-hop-off feature on major thoroughfares and still convey the same number of people to the same areas they do now."

Monday's hearing, a joint session of the council's consumer affairs and transportation committees, gets underway at 10 a.m.

As of this writing, the Committee on Environmental Protection is considering Int. 622, which would require school buses to be fitted with filters to reduce kids' exposure to diesel exhaust, and would mandate that buses be retired after 16 years. The Natural Resources Defense Council has been tracking the measure, and has background here.

John Liu and David Yassky might be headed for a run-off in the comptroller race.

If you're a little unclear about what these positions do, here's the short version: The comptroller is the city's financial watchdog, and the public advocate is the watchdog for everything else, evaluating the effectiveness of city policies and sometimes serving as a check against mayoral power. Whoever holds these positions will wield important oversight powers for the next four years, and we'll probably see one or both of the winners make a run for mayor at some point.

In the right hands, both offices can advance the cause of livable streets. We'll review the comptroller race first and then take a look at the public advocate contenders later today.

The comptroller can't cast a vote in Albany for a transit funding package, but he or she can certainly help frame the debate. Democratic mayoral contender Bill Thompson could have used his comptroller's pulpit to reinforce the Ravitch Commission bridge toll plan this year. Instead he opted to push for vehicle registration fees as an alternative to road pricing, giving the State Senate additional cover for its watered down transit funding package.

The race to succeed Thompson, which will effectively be decided in the Democratic primary, pits four City Council members against each other: David Yassky of Brooklyn, and John Liu, Melinda Katz, and David Weprin of Queens. Neither Katz nor Weprin cleared the most elementary livable streets hurdle during their council tenures, with each siding against congestion pricing in last year's vote. So let's review the intriguing Yassky-Liu rivalry.

Liu's inconsistencies have been well-documented here on Streetsblog. His "yes" vote on congestion pricing in 2008 somehow morphed into vocal opposition to bridge tolls this year. He lectured on pedestrian safety from his post as transportation committee chair, but when DOT actually improved safety with its Midtown reclamation projects, he scolded the city for "expropriating" street space. And when the Bicycle Access Bill came before the City Council, Liu looked ready to scuttle the historic legislation until the last minute. As a comptroller candidate, he has turned to standard-issue MTA bashing as a staple of his campaign.

In addition to sponsoring the Bike Access Bill and shepherding it through the council, Yassky has consistently supported a car-free Prospect Park and helped secure funding for the Bedford Avenue bike parking swap. An early supporter of congestion pricing, Yassky has not made transit funding a signature campaign issue. But in his response to the TA candidate survey, he gives some promising indications that he will use the comptroller's office to highlight the necessity of funding transit with road pricing.

Pledging to "set up in-depth assessments of the economic impact congestion has" and to "advocate and support policies like congestion pricing," Yassky says his office will "provide a solid platform from which to advocate change." A comptroller who follows through on those promises would be a valuable ally in the fight for sustainable transportation policy in the New York region.

Top to bottom: Deirdre Feerick, James Van Bramer, Brent O'Leary.

Gioia, after some wobbling, voted yes on congestion pricing last year. For good reason. Like District 33 in Brooklyn, the 26th is a doormat for traffic crossing the East River. All those car commuters enticed by the free pass are a curse for bus riders heading to the transit hub at Queens Plaza or crossing the Queensboro Bridge itself, which handles more bus routes than any other East River bridge. Combined with crammed subways and a boom in car-oriented development along the western Queens waterfront, the picture isn't pretty for transit.  

"The 7 train seems to be at capacity while large residential buildings are sprouting throughout Hunter's Point," said Emilia Crotty, a Woodside resident. "We want to encourage these new residents to use mass transit, of course, but there's very little room for them. Simultaneously, these buildings are being built with ample parking facilities for their new occupants. Our buses are not a viable alternative to the 7 when they sit in backed-up Queensboro Bridge traffic nearly all day long." 

Biking over the bridge instead? As in the neighboring 25th District, both Queens Boulevard and Northern Boulevard cut through here, traffic sewers that discourage cycling and strangle street life near and far. Local community boards have reacted to recent bike safety enhancements, like the buffered lane on Vernon Boulevard, with hostility.

Putting a stop to the free ride over the Queensboro is pretty much the sine qua non for fixing this district's traffic troubles and requires some degree of courage, so the answers to the road pricing question on the TA candidate survey are especially instructive. Candidate Deirdre Feerick, a lawyer who works for the City Council, ruled out bridge tolls and dodged the topic of congestion pricing. Feerick has the backing of Queens Democratic boss Joseph Crowley and former council member Walter McCaffrey of "Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free" fame.

James Van Bramer, a former reporter who now works for the Queens Public Library, acknowledged the effectiveness of congestion pricing but hedged by calling for "careful planning and mitigation" as a pre-condition, citing the belief that commuters from points east might drive to the district, park, then hop on a train or bus to complete their trips. Van Bramer has been endorsed by the New York League of Conservation Voters and has secured the Working Families Party ballot line in November.

The other candidate on the Democratic primary ballot next Tuesday, business lawyer Brent O'Leary, eschewed going on the record about congestion pricing, voicing support for a higher gas tax or VMT fees instead.

With two potential BRT routes identified by DOT running through the 26th, the question of how to prioritize surface transit is a big one here. While all three candidates said they support BRT, only Van Bramer mentioned the idea of giving buses exclusive space. "Creating bus lanes or giving buses the right of way makes a lot of sense," he observed in his survey response, though again he hedged, saying he'd like to see "a study of the impact it would have on traffic conditions."

Two other candidates, David Rosasco and Kwame Smalls, were kicked off the ballot after Feerick challenged the signatures on their petitions. Of the two, Rosasco is mounting a full-fledged write-in campaign. He didn't fill out a candidate survey, but a source who lives in the district tells us that the self-described conservative Democrat is an earnest worker who has admirably refrained from pandering to the anti-bike crowd during his campaign.

For more transportation stances from Feerick, Van Bramer, and O'Leary -- including one call for bike-only streets and one incorrect citation of the New York City speed limit -- check their responses at the TA candidate survey.

L-r: Council candidates S.J. Jung, John Choe, Evergreen C. Chou, James Wu and Isaac Sasson

With the September 15 primary fast approaching, the race to succeed Liu in District 20 is one of two especially compelling Queens contests, where long-time council incumbents are leaving open seats. (District 26's Eric Gioia is running for public advocate. Streetsblog will profile the race to replace him later this week.)

Of the three District 20 candidates who answered the Transportation Alternatives Candidate Survey -- S.J. Jung, John Choe and Evergreen C. Chou -- all expressed support, to varying degrees, for road pricing, bus rapid transit, bike-share, public plazas, and improved traffic enforcement. Each candidate also said he would like to see innovations like BRT and Summer Streets come to Queens.

Choe served as Liu's chief of staff for eight years, and has the endorsement of his former boss. If elected, Choe says he would advocate for improved service on the 7 train, BRT on Northern Boulevard, and unrestricted subway access for bikes. He would also like to see ferry service on the Flushing River. Choe says he would favor targeted traffic enforcement with increased fines for speeders, and thinks congestion pricing "should be further explored" as a means to reduce traffic and provide funding for transit expansion in areas without easy access to subways.

Choe and Jung, an entrepreneur and community volunteer, are in sync on many if not most transportation issues. But Jung differentiates himself in a couple of key areas. Jung is the only candidate to employ the term "traffic justice" in his survey responses, citing "thorough investigation of all traffic crashes" as a component of a successful strategy to reduce dangerous driving. He also supports "exploring the option" of raising on-street parking rates to "discourage long-term parking, convince some drivers to utilize garage parking and direct others to take public transit."

Chou, a Green Party nominee, is big on bikes: bike lanes, bike parking, bike-share, and bike racks on buses. He would also like to see lower transit fares. While he seems to favor the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and transit users, Chou's positions are largely short on specifics -- though he is the only candidate among the three to declare his unqualified support for congestion pricing.

Candidate James Wu didn't return the TA survey, but according to a Gotham Gazette write-up of the District 20 race, he "would seek to curb rampant jaywalking and reduce speeding." Wu says he would also push to restrict traffic on Main Street in Flushing to pedestrians and buses.

Democrats dominate the District 20 field -- Yen S. Chou and Isaac Sasson round out the Democratic roster -- but with Chou along with Republican Peter Koo in the race, voters won't finalize their choice for John Liu's successor until November.

L-r: City Council candidates Ken Baer, Doug Biviano, Ken Diamondstone, Jo Anne Simon, Evan Thies.

It was an opportunity for the candidates to show how well they understand the most critical transportation problems facing New York City by rebutting Reina with a well-reasoned argument. Traffic generated by the free price on Brooklyn's three East River bridges overruns the 33rd District, which includes parts of Greenpoint, Williamsburg, Brooklyn Heights, Cobble Hill and Park Slope. Congestion pricing, supported by outgoing rep David Yassky, should be as much a no-brainer here as it is in Lower Manhattan.

Only one candidate, Doug Biviano, a former campaign staffer for Kucinich 2008, came close to giving Reina what he asked for. "I'm not against congestion pricing," he said, "but I think we have to be careful about unintended consequences. Do we want to hit people with that toll? In this climate, I don’t think we want to. That would kill contractors."

Biviano was followed by Evan Thies, who played an active role in last year's campaign to pass congestion pricing as a consultant for Environment Defense and the Pratt Center. "I do absolutely support congestion pricing," he said to some applause. "Neighborhoods like this are disproportionately affected by the traffic that’s created by the lack of congestion pricing. Contractors in the outer boroughs supported congestion pricing, because instead of spending time in traffic, they’d be spending more time working for clients." Thies later named congestion pricing his top transportation priority and noted that the next City Council will need to take it up again in 2010 to fund the MTA Capital Plan.

Jo Anne Simon, an attorney who serves as Democratic district leader in the 52nd Assembly District, gave another strong statement in support of pricing. "The gratuitous traffic that comes over the bridges is just that, gratuitous," she said. "We’re a doormat. It’s costing us in infrastructure; it’s costing us in health. The challenge for us as policy makers is to convince people in the outer boroughs that congestion pricing benefits them too. It’s not just for Manhattan."

Ken Diamondstone and Ken Baer, the other two candidates at the forum, also endorsed congestion pricing. Baer took the more enthusiastic stance, noting that pricing revenues can help plug the MTA Capital Plan's $10 billion hole. Diamondstone said he "believes strongly" in the policy but thinks exceptions must be made for people with disabilities and, in a novel carve-out suggestion, musicians.

By this point in the debate, candidate Isaac Abraham was long gone.

Abraham, whose base is in Williamsburg's Satmar Hasidic community, left soon after taking a swipe at the Kent Avenue bike lane, about 30 minutes into the event. (He told the crowd of about 50 that he had a wedding to attend.) At least Abraham made an appearance, which is more than we can say for no-show Steve Levin, a protege of Brooklyn Democratic boss Vito Lopez. The day before the debate, Levin backed out of his commitment to attend.

On the question of truck traffic, the need to fund the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel was widely invoked by the candidates, but council members can't do much to advance a project that needs billions in federal cash to get built. The more intriguing responses came from Simon and Thies. Simon raised the prospect of truck tolls on the East River bridges (you can do it with E-ZPass transponders, she said), which would put a halt to the free counterclockwise route that sends trucks through downtown Brooklyn streets, while Thies proposed giving Traffic Enforcement Agents the authority to "bust trucks for traveling on non-truck routes."

It wasn't the only question on which Simon and Thies distinguished themselves. While the two Kens showed a solid commitment to street safety measures like automated enforcement and traffic-calming infrastructure, Simon and Thies consistently displayed a broader and more current grasp of transportation issues.

Responding to a question about improving streets for walking, biking and transit, Thies was the only candidate to broach the politically difficult subject of off-street parking reform. "I'd like to prevent garages from being built in developments near subway stops," he said. "It’s bad urban planning, it brings traffic." Simon, meanwhile, made the evening's sole statement on bike-share, a project that she said "needs to be pursued."

Aside from Abraham's early turn at the mic, fireworks over bike lanes failed to transpire. One audience member did mention that she fears cyclists while driving at night, and asked the candidates if they would push legislation requiring cyclist registration and helmet use. To read what they had to say, check out "Audience Question #1" over at TA's candidate survey blog.

Tonight's debate: Come for the bike lane drama, stay for the discussion of parking policy. Photo: Brooklyn Paper.

To get a sense of the hot transportation topics in the district, especially the North Brooklyn neighborhoods closest to tonight's venue, Streetsblog spoke to Teresa Toro, chair of Brooklyn CB1's Transportation Committee, and Michael Freedman-Schnapp of Neighbors Allied for Good Growth.

Here's what they want the candidates to address tonight:

Bike and pedestrian safety. Streetsblog readers are familiar with the twists and turns of the Kent Avenue bike lane saga. In a district that includes approaches to all three of Brooklyn's East River bridges, it's probably not the last such dispute we'll see. "There’s a clear need in the district to continue to improve biking infrastructure and to make walking safer," said Freedman-Schnapp, noting that, in addition to the bridge approaches, corridors like McGuinness Boulevard have particular safety deficiencies that need to be addressed. The fact that all three bridges remain free, Toro reminded us, attracts a disproportionate amount of traffic to the district and discourages people from biking and walking.

Truck traffic. As the latest Kent Avenue dust-up has made apparent, truck traffic is a big issue in North Brooklyn. "Truck-generating uses are important employment sources in the neighborhood," said Freedman-Schnapp, but management and enforcement of truck routes are lacking. For some sharp insight into how better truck route planning can address some of the complaints arising from Kent Avenue's conversion to one-way flow, check out this post from neighborhood blog Brooklyn 11211.

Too much parking, not enough planning. Williamsburg and Greenpoint have seen a spike in car-oriented development since a 2005 rezoning took effect. Thanks in large part to Department of City Planning parking minimums, thousands of new units have been built with more space allotted to parking compared to the existing urban fabric, causing a surge in traffic volumes.

"The rezoning had no transportation plan," said Freedman-Schnapp. "They analyzed the impacts. They had this very thick EIS. Then nothing happened to address those impacts."

The EIS badly misjudged the transportation impacts of the rezoning, Toro said, calling the end result a huge missed opportunity. "The area around the Bedford Avenue station is prime real estate because of its proximity to transit. You have such a clear demonstration of people preferring transit, and yet they're being handed the option of car ownership." She wants to know whether the candidates support studying traffic-calming improvements and enhanced bus-to-subway connections to relieve the area's growing traffic pressures.

The traffic trouble unleashed by abundant residential parking figures to intensify if projects like the Domino Sugar factory redevelopment -- where 70 percent of luxury units are slated to include parking, according to Freedman-Schnapp -- proceed as planned. It will be interesting to see where the candidates stand on reforming the city's parking requirements.

Transit crowding, transit funding. Crowding on the L train is reaching Lexington Avenue line proportions, said Freedman-Schnapp, and even northbound G service can get cramped in the morning -- problems that ultimately boil down to how well we fund our transit system. "[The candidates] can yell at the MTA all they want," he said, "but when it comes down to it, they need more money to improve service, so where’s the money going to come from?"

When I set out to summarize responses to the Transportation Alternatives Candidate Survey from City Council contenders in Washington Heights and Inwood, I expected it to take some time. It's a crowded field, after all, with challengers looking to knock off incumbent Robert Jackson in District 7 and a full slate of District 10 hopefuls vying to fill the spot vacated by the disgraced Miguel Martinez.

But of the 16 candidates running in both races, not one responded to TA's survey. A single candidate, Victor Bernace in District 7, submitted a bio. But no one deigned to answer TA's questions on the specific transportation needs of their respective districts, or street safety, congestion reduction, parking reform, public space reclamation, bus rapid transit, bike-share, or improving the health of city residents by making it easier to walk and bike.

"You would think that between crushing GWB congestion, sky-high asthma rates and mass transit that is literally crumbling before our eyes, transportation would be a top-tier issue in races uptown," said TA's Wiley Norvell. "It's regrettable none of the candidates took this opportunity to weigh in on some of the most pressing quality of life issues facing the constituents they aspire to represent."

Indeed. So how should Upper Manhattan voters who care about livable streets proceed? Robert Jackson voted for congestion pricing, though he was never a vocal supporter, and he isn't really known for being outspoken on transportation issues one way or the other. Three candidates -- two in District 7 and one in District 10 -- didn't make it on the ballot.

Of the remaining 12, those in District 10 are profiled in a recent Gotham Gazette piece, which reads:

If you want to get elected in Washington Heights, start by getting a car.

Paste posters of your face all over it. Blasting merengue from a large roof-mounted megaphone can't hurt either. Then hit the streets.

Welcome to Upper Manhattan.

I recognized candidate Francisco Spies' name from a van that passed me on an Inwood street a few weeks back, blasting his custom campaign theme song from the aforementioned roof-mounted megaphone. I was able to track down responses to a 504 Democratic Club survey, which touches on transportation options for the disabled, from Cleofis Sarete. Luis Facundo's platform doesn't mention transportation, though he is interested in making "the community energy efficient and green."

NYPD employee Ruben Dario Vargas, who according to Gotham Gazette doesn't live in the district but plans to move there by Election Day, says he's for "street safety" and, again from the Gazette: "wants to make sure two of the district's subway stations, one on Broadway the other on Dyckman, get elevators." Richard Realmuto is also for safer streets, but it seems both he and Vargas are referring to overall street crime.

Ydanis Rodriguez, considered a front-runner in District 10 -- mostly because he has raised the most money -- boasts of both "derailing a proposed toll on Northern Manhattan bridges with Assemblyman Espaillat" and "opposing fare increases with the Straphangers Campaign." So it looks like we can expect Council Member Rodriguez to uphold the Upper Manhattan tradition of protecting the status quo while pandering to all sides.

Another District 10 favorite, Manny Velazquez, is chair of Community Board 12. Here's his transportation plank: "Provide funding for roadway and street reconstruction projects in Northern Manhattan and for the modernization of train stations throughout the district."

To the west, in District 7, Victor Bernace -- again, the only candidate in Inwood or Washington Heights to respond to TA at all -- is an attorney who defends cab drivers in traffic court. According to his bio, however, he at least takes the subway to work, and in this video Bernace says he wants to rid Upper Manhattan of "all vehicle traffic" and make public transportation free. In 2005, Bernace made headlines by holding a fund-raiser featuring erotic dancers.

Julius Tajiddin is a member of CB 10, whose comments on residential parking from a 2007 meeting represent all the relevant info I could dig up among the remaining District 7 candidates.

Tajiddin (Freedom, Justice & Equal) and Fima Shlimel (Libertarian) are the only District 7 candidates who are not Democrats. While that race won't technically be decided until November, voters in District 10 will choose their next council rep in the September 15 Democratic primary. As Norvell said, it's too bad, for them and for Upper Manhattan, that the candidates chose not to distinguish themselves to a committed voter bloc on an issue that affects each and every one of their potential constituents.

At the Transportation Alternatives City Council candidate debate last night, the three Democrats competing in District 25 sat down to tackle concerns about traffic, public space, and street safety. An overflow crowd of about 50 people packed the second floor office of the Queens Diversity Center to see them.

The starkest differences between the candidates centered around how to allocate street space and improve safety. Challenger Daniel Dromm, a school teacher, was the only one to speak unreservedly in favor of design and engineering improvements. "We need to have more bike lanes installed," he said. "We may need to have lighting systems that give pedestrians more time to cross the street."

Incumbent Helen Sears took a different view of cyclist safety. While Dromm had called for better education of both drivers and cyclists, Sears got more specific. "I think every company that makes bikes should have to produce a video that will absolutely show the cyclist exactly what the rules of the road are," she suggested.

Businessman Stanley Kalathara at first insisted that "providing a special route in the street" for bike lanes is "impossible," but later modified the claim, saying that 34th Avenue and 35th Avenue might have the necessary space. (Note: 34th Avenue already has a bike lane.)

Dromm was also the only candidate to express much support for congestion pricing. "I do support some form of road pricing that would help to alleviate the burden on the MTA," he said, adding that he would also support higher gas taxes or bridge tolls to fund transit. "The majority of people in this neighborhood probably do not have cars, and that’s why I make that such a high priority."

According to the most recent census numbers [PDF], Dromm's intuition is correct: 52 percent of District 25 residents don't own cars. Still, Kalathara pledged to oppose pricing in no uncertain terms, and Sears made her support conditional on the construction of additional municipal garages. Apparently the council member subscribes to the belief that car commuters will use her district as a park-and-ride if they can't drive across the 59th Street Bridge for free. Logic dictates otherwise, but if there's any way to fulfill that prophecy, thousands of additional parking spots would do it.

Off-street parking policy was something of an Achilles heel for all three candidates. Their prevailing view: More garages and more parking would reduce the terrible congestion problem in Jackson Heights, one of the most transit-rich neighborhoods in Queens. Someone should send around a copy of Donald Shoup's The High Cost of Free Parking to these folks:

• Kalathara: "People are going to buy cars anyway, it has nothing to do with the garage."
• Dromm: "I agree that any development that comes into the community should have parking attached to it. Some people here come from Jersey and don’t use transit. So they need space."
• Sears: "We have very viable commercial areas. It’s a tri-state shopping center; people don’t take public transportation to get here."

After they're done with Shoup, the candidates might want to peruse TA's 2008 report, Guaranteed Parking, Guaranteed Driving, which spelled out that many car trips originate in Jackson Heights precisely because city zoning laws require parking attached to new development.

Each candidate also had one or two ideas that stood out as especially unique or insightful. I'll end on a bright note with some of these: 

• Dromm: "Reducing the speed limit is something we have to look at. These cars come barreling down the streets, especially the side streets, not the avenues. It rattles my windows." 
• Kalathara proposed car-free summer weekends on the major shopping streets in Jackson Heights: "37th Avenue, 73rd Street, and 74th Street -- make it like a shopping mall, car-free so people can shop and have a lot of fun."
• Sears used the disjointedness of Queens Boulevard to justify her stance that it can't accommodate a bike lane: "When [DOT] did studies for traffic, they did not do Queens Boulevard in its entirety, they did sections of it. As a result, they went by Community Boards; none of it connected." Okay, that's a terrible excuse for inaction. But it's also a pretty trenchant observation about DOT, when you consider that nearly all of the Class 1, on-street bike lane miles installed in the past two years have been confined to two community board districts in Manhattan, with two more in Brooklyn slated to receive some soon.
  

Both Queens Boulevard, still one of the city's most dangerous streets, and Northern Boulevard, another heavily trafficked feeder to the free 59th Street Bridge, run through the 25th. Only five percent of workers in the district commute by car to the Manhattan CBD, while 39 percent rely on transit [PDF]. Livable streets activism is strong here: Residents helped launch the 78th Street Play Street last year as a temporary corrective to the district's cramped sidewalks and lack of public spaces. Calls for a protected bike lane and traffic calming on Queens Boulevard have been continuous since the death of Asif Rahman last February.

Two-term incumbent Helen Sears sided against congestion pricing in last year's City Council vote, declined to join Eric Gioia and John Liu in urging safety improvements for Queens Boulevard, and responded to the district's sidewalk crunch by proposing a ban on food vendors in 2006. Democratic primary challenger Daniel Dromm, a teacher at PS199, also answered TA's candidate questionnaire, while a third Democratic candidate, Stanley Kalathara, has confirmed he will attend the debate. Republican Mujib Rahman has yet to confirm.

For a preview of tomorrow night's action, here's what Dromm and Sears told TA when asked their opinion of road pricing as a traffic reduction tool:

• Daniel Dromm
  Daniel Dromm does believe that road pricing will alter New Yorkers' travel choices. Dromm is a strong advocate for reducing motor vehicle congestion and expanding mass transit access and funding. Road pricing may be an effective way to reduce traffic but its implementation and design must not alienate or appear to unfairly burden different sections of the City. The major concern is that road pricing, as twice recently proposed, is not politically viable at the moment. Dromm advocates for vastly increasing street parking fees, improving parking management, and initiating a residential parking program. Dromm is a firm believer that neighborhoods surrounding high-traffic roadways will benefit from reduced vehicular congestion.
• Helen Sears
  Helen Sears: I believe that congestion is a serious problem in NYC for many reasons, including health (emissions contribute to high asthma rates and other issues) and the environment (it is critical that we reduce our carbon footprint). I look forward to working on this issue in the future, and will advocate for a plan that equitably distributes any burdens equally among the five boroughs.

The forum gets underway tomorrow at 7 p.m. at the Diversity Center of Queens, 76-11 37th Avenue (between 76th Street and 77th Street).

Anyone heading over to Chinatown for lunch? If not, and you work in Manhattan, you might want to change your plans. This rally, promoted by Council Member Alan Gerson, promises to be a can't-miss event:

Rally to Protest Dangerous Conditions with the Grand Street Bike Lane

WHEN: Friday, August 21, 2009 at 12:30pm

WHERE: Corner of Grand St and Mott St

WHAT: Rally to protest dangerous conditions caused by the Grand Street bike lane and to demand that the NYC Department of Transportation conduct more community outreach before deciding where to place bike lanes.

WHO: NYC Council Member Alan J. Gerson, local business owners and residents

That would be the same "dangerous" bike lane that has calmed traffic by narrowing the right-of-way for motorists. Oh, and it gives cyclists a nice, protected east-bound link in Lower Manhattan's bike network.

Alan Gerson wants "more community outreach." That's one way to put it. Given that the bike lane was vetted by Community Board 2, which approved the project in a nearly unanimous vote last year, isn't this more like a demand to give small, vocal groups veto power over street safety projects? I think it's pretty much official at this point: The District 1 City Council contest is a race to the bottom when it comes to livable streets.

To reiterate, the place to be at 12:30 today is the corner of Grand and Mott. After the jump, more pictures of the hazardous Grand Street bike lane.

All told, TA has collected responses from 73 candidates. With Bus Rapid Transit routes taking shape, congestion plaguing city streets as much as ever, Robert Morgenthau stepping down after decades as Manhattan's top prosecutor, and advances in ped-bike safety provoking a vocal backlash from certain quarters, there's a lot at stake in this election. Thanks to the candidate survey, New Yorkers will be able to remind electeds of their promises on livable streets issues for the next four years. And the companion web site gives voters a handy reference as primary day approaches (September 15, don't forget).

One of the really useful functions of the survey site is that you can compare competitors' responses to the same question. Say you want to know how the mayoral candidates pledged to reduce traffic -- here are their answers. Bill Thompson, the likely Democratic nominee, supports time-based tolls on the MTA crossings but, true to form as a Ravitch Plan foe, says nothing about putting a price on free bridges. Bloomberg, meanwhile, gives no indication that he'll renew the push for pricing if he wins a third term.

For some unambiguous statements in support of pricing, check out the Public Advocate candidate responses to a similar question -- especially former Public Advocate Mark Green and, rather surprisingly, current Council Member Eric Gioia.

So, now we have many candidates on the record regarding pedestrian safety, bike infrastructure, transit investment, and traffic enforcement, all in one place -- it's a lot of information to digest. Streetsblog will be sifting through it in the weeks before primary day, highlighting the citywide races, the Manhattan DA contest, and the key showdowns for City Council seats.

L-r: Brad Lander, Dave Pechefsky, Gary Reilly, Josh Skaller, and Bob Zuckerman.

The race to succeed Bill de Blasio in the 39th District is crowded, with seven candidates participating in the debate (an eighth, Democrat John Heyer, was a no-show). After last night, it's clear that a strong livable streets candidate won't emerge from the Republican primary. GOP candidates Joe Nardiello and George Smith voiced support for bike infrastructure but neither could articulate a coherent strategy for curbing auto use and mitigating traffic. (Nardiello on congestion pricing: "Penalties are not the solution.")

The other five debaters -- Democrats Brad Lander, Gary Reilly, Josh Skaller, and Bob Zuckerman, and Green Party candidate Dave Pechefsky -- generally agreed that the city should reduce driving and foster walking, biking, and transit. How, and to what extent? I'll try to give a sense of their positions and ideas as concisely as possible.

Among this group, Zuckerman seemed the most gun-shy about getting people out of their cars. When asked to identify the district's most pressing transportation need, "I would use the word congestion," he said. His main strategy: Residential parking permits, proposing a borough-wide permit zone for on-street parking, with a $100 annual fee. As a hypothetical revenue-raiser, that's nothing to sneeze at. As a feasible proposition for busting congestion, I'm not so sure.

In general, RPP was a common proposal, while more effective and politically risky strategies to manage parking received fewer mentions. Lander and Reilly both lauded the DOT's PARK Smart pilot in Park Slope -- which charges higher rates for on-street spaces during peak hours -- and suggested ramping it up. Thankfully, no one from the Dem/Green contingent proposed building additional parking structures to ease congestion. (Skaller: "I do agree with the basic notion that if you create parking, more cars will come. So the solution must lie elsewhere.")

Reilly was the only candidate to identify the city's off-street parking requirements as a major cause of traffic and congestion. "We need to eliminate that archaic part of the zoning law that requires car parking," he said. Pechefsky picked up on a different aspect of the city's off-street parking boom. "Riding down Ninth Street is an invitation to get hit by someone driving to Lowe’s," he said, referring to the big box home improvement store that sits right by the Gowanus Canal. "We need another economic development model." 

The most full-throated endorsement of congestion pricing, meanwhile, came from Lander. "I want to encourage people to stick, long-term, with congestion pricing," he said, noting that RPP would not pack the same punch. "I think we need to be in the forefront of advocating for that to happen. If we want enough money to run transit, and cut congestion and the traffic that runs through our neighborhood, we need congestion pricing." Council members can push for that reform, he said, by helping to build the coalitions necessary to sway Albany legislators.

One of the more pronounced and interesting distinctions between the candidates arose when they were asked about making Prospect Park car-free, an idea that the departing de Blasio has endorsed. Pechefsky and Reilly fell squarely in the "do it now" camp. Lander, Skaller, and Zuckerman urged a gradualist approach, suggesting variations on a strategy of winning over skeptics in Windsor Terrace and Kensington, who fear that a car-free park would send more traffic through their streets. "I think that the perception and the reality are probably two different things," said Skaller. "I think it's a very attainable goal, to have a car-free park. But in order to get there, we need a full buy-in from all communities, and we need to show people that it will work for them."

The area of greatest unanimity was probably traffic enforcement. Several candidates concurred that the enforcement of traffic laws is woefully insufficient and pledged to work with the NYPD to make it a higher priority. Reilly took the additional step of recommending more red light cams, which must be approved by Albany.

As for bikes? Well, woe to the candidate who comes out with an anti-bike message at a TA debate. If these pols follow through on what they said last night, you don't have to worry about the 39th District producing a council member who'll rail against protected lanes and stand in the way of a more robust bike network.

Last night at the Council District 1 candidates debate, in the "lightning round" (one-line answers), a question was "Grand St. bike lane: good or bad."

All the candidates came out strongly against it to the cheers of some in the crowd. Only PJ Kim, the last to comment, tempered his statement with, "but we must not demonize bikers." They all either flatly opposed congestion pricing or want carve-outs for residents (pandering, hmmm?) and opposed East River tolls.

On the congestion pricing question (about 1:31:00 into this audio file posted on the Lo-Down), Pete Gleason and Alan Gerson were the two to outright oppose the idea -- although the incumbent Gerson voted for pricing last year. Margaret Chin, the only candidate to express any support for bridge tolls (check the 1:32:00 mark), qualified her answer by saying that car-poolers should be exempt.

Any exemption for congestion pricing or bridge tolls, of course, opens the door to more exemptions. The first people who will take advantage? Exactly the same placard-holders whom District 1 candidates rightly blame for clogging downtown streets.

We're talking about a district that is absolutely pummeled by bridge traffic, where about 80 percent of the households don't own a car. Those who do own one earn nearly two-and-a half times those who don't, on average [PDF]. There was a great opportunity here for a savvy candidate to separate from the pack on livable streets issues. And yet, no one chose to grab it.

One of the more intriguing races is shaping up in the 39th Council District, which includes parts of Carroll Gardens, Park Slope, Kensington, and Borough Park. This is the seat being vacated by Bill de Blasio -- who opposed congestion pricing last year and came out in favor of bridge tolls late in the game during the MTA funding debate this spring. The district is heavily transit-dependent, mostly car-free [PDF], and situated in prime New York City "bike belt" territory. This election should put a strong, smart voice for progressive transportation policy in City Hall.

If you live in the 39th and care about green transportation and livable streets, you'll want to come out tomorrow night for the candidate debate Transportation Alternatives has put together. TA director Paul White will moderate the event, featuring the seven council candidates, who will discuss their views on "the bike network, congestion pricing, pedestrian safety, the MTA and livable streets issues of all stripes."

The more people attend, the more the candidates will appreciate that these issues matter to their potential constituents. Here are the details:

• When: Tuesday, August 18, 7:00 - 8:30pm
• Where: PS 321, 180 7th Avenue (between 1st and 2nd Street)
• Who: City Council candidates for District 39 (John Heyer, Brad Lander, Joe Nardiello, David Pechefsky, Gary Reilly, Josh Skaller, Bob Zuckerman)

This was the scene at City Hall yesterday afternoon as Mayor Bloomberg put his signature on the Bicycle Access Bill. The mayor also signed Intro 780, which will increase the amount of bike parking in commercial garages and lots. Bill sponsors David Yassky (dark tie) and Oliver Koppell (red and navy stripes) were on hand, as were buildings commissioner Robert LiMandri (far left), DOT commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan (center) and TA director Paul White (glare in his lenses).

The new rules governing bike access to buildings won't take effect for a few more months. In the meantime, the best strategy for eventually reversing your building's bike policy is to talk amongst your co-workers (not to your employer just yet) and hash out potential bike access plans.

The passage of these bills elicited many pro-bike pronouncements from elected officials, some of which have been reprinted for your reading pleasure after the jump.

Bill sponsor David Yassky, in a press release before the City Council passed the Bicycle Access Bill:

“In a city in which one in eight kids has asthma, this bill is a long overdue step towards reducing carbon emissions, improving public health, and building a sustainable transportation infrastructure,” said Council Member Yassky. “I look forward to the Council passing this bill tomorrow so that we can begin the implementation of this important piece of progressive legislation.”

An email blast from speaker Christine Quinn's office after City Council passed the bill:

Dear New Yorker,

Good news!  Last week the New York City Council took steps toward creating a more sustainable transportation infrastructure in our city by passing two important pieces of legislation:

Intro. 0780-A (Koppell) - bicycle parking in garages and parking lots.  (To view a copy of the bill click here.)

Intro. 0871-A (Yassky) - bicycle access in commercial buildings.  (To view a copy of the click here.)

One of the main obstacles to bicycle commuting is the inability to park your bicycle in a secure location once you have arrived at work. 

These bills address this problem by improving bicycle access in commercial buildings and creating thousands of bicycle parking spaces in city garages and parking lots.  The legislation also encourages cycling by creating a bicycle commuting task force that will explore partnerships with private entities to build sheltered bicycle parking in public and/or private spaces.  The task force will issue its report by December 31, 2010.

Together, these proposals will improve public health, reduce carbon emissions, and provide a more affordable option for New Yorker's daily commute.

Remarks by Bloomberg in the press release sent after yesterday's bill signing:

“Making bicycling a safe, low-cost, and fun means of getting around town is a key component of PlaNYC, our Administration’s vision for a greener, greater New York.  Under the leadership of Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, the Department of Transportation has made great strides in turning that vision into a reality: over the past three years, we’ve seen a 45 percent increase in bicycle commuting in our City, spurred by our creation of more than 200 miles of bike lanes as well as the installation of 3,100 bicycle racks and 20 sheltered bike parking structures.  Also, the Council recently adopted zoning requirements crafted by the Department of City Planning to ensure that new buildings over a certain size will be designed to include bicycle parking facilities.

“These two pieces of legislation aim to take these successes several significant steps further."

1st District Council candidates say safety measures like the Grand Street lane are out of step with their community. Photo: Ian Dutton

When it comes to giving their potential constituents some relief from the auto armada, the 1st District challengers have plenty of deserving targets to train their fire on. But forget the placard abuse, the free ride for car commuters who pour over the East River bridges, and the city's nonsensical truck toll system. Here's what challenger Arthur Gregory said when asked what he views as the district's most pressing transportation issue:

You can drive through Central Park at certain times. And certain times you can't. Have the bike paths the same way. When there's congestion because of cabs, people are going to work, they're doing business, or deliveries in the morning then you say, listen, you can't really use the bike paths now.

Okay, so Arthur doesn't get biking as transportation, or the fact that bikes take up much less space than cars. His views on cycling would have come across as backwards even during the dark ages of the Midtown bike ban, 22 years ago. (If only he'd thought this bike thing through as much as his well-reasoned position on delivery truck schedules -- read the whole interview, he says some good stuff.)

The thing is, the other candidates don't compare all that favorably. In fact, they practically trip over themselves to condemn one of the most important cycling safety measures in their district, the protected bike path on Grand Street.

Chin gave the following assessment of the Grand Street bike lane:

Grand Street cuts across many different neighborhoods. You have different needs and you have different usage, and no consultation. Just an item on the community board agenda... That bike lane (between Chrystie and Canal) is the stupidest thing, that's what people in the community say. It just created a lot of congestion. But the city says 'we think it's a good idea. We just think people will get used to it.' Wait a minute. You can't just impose that on a community.

This is a common refrain. It's easy for the candidates to profess support for safer streets in the abstract, but what about specific projects like Grand Street, or the seemingly unassailable addition of pedestrian refuges to hazardous crossings? Their standard response: Say it's no good and blame the community process that preceded these real-world improvements.

In the case of the Grand Street bike lane, that process involved a nearly unanimous CB2 vote in favor. The community board system has its flaws, but I think it's fair to ask: If approval from the local CB doesn't cut it for these council candidates, what sort of "community input" requirement would they like to see fulfilled before every attempt to make streets safer?

Signed consent from SoHo boss Sean Sweeney?