Under a plan approved by four community boards, Classon Avenue would become a one-lane road for much of its length. Shown here is a proposed transition from two lanes to a one-lane configuration. Image: NYC DOT

A plan to put Classon Avenue on a safety-enhancing road diet won unanimous approval from Brooklyn’s Community Board 8 last night. CB 8 was the fourth and final community board to vote on the proposal, according to the board. Each CB supported the plan.

Under the proposal from NYC DOT [PDF], the north-south corridor will be narrowed from two lanes to one in most locations. Where traffic is heavy or DOT thinks a turning lane is necessary, as at Eastern Parkway and Atlantic Avenue, Classon will remain two lanes wide.

The roadway space previously used for the second travel lane will be redistributed to widen the parking lanes on either side of the street.

DOT’s traffic calming plan stems from a request by City Council Member Letitia James, as well as community requests for speed bumps and other safety features.

Right now, Classon is more dangerous than three-quarters of all Brooklyn corridors, in terms of severity-weighted crashes. On average, 35 pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicle occupants are injured on every mile of the road every year. In November, a driver killed a man walking across Classon at Fulton Street.

The road will be restriped early this year, according to DOT.

A four-vehicle collision on Classon last May ended with a UHaul truck in the side of a building and three people injured. Photo: Prospect Heights Patch.

Staten Island Congressman Michael Grimm touts his support for transit on his website and represents a district where 38 percent of people take transit to work. Will he support the anti-transit, anti-urban House transportation bill? Image: house.gov

It isn’t only Democrats blasting the House Republican transportation bill, which would eliminate dedicated federal transit funding, cost the MTA up to $1 billion a year and slash bicycle and pedestrian funding. In the transit-dependent New York region, some Republicans are balking at the ferociously anti-urban legislation. But many of their colleagues remain studiously silent.

Newly elected Republican Congressman Bob Turner, who represents parts of Queens and Brooklyn, said in a statement that he wouldn’t vote for any bill that doesn’t allow New York City to meet its own infrastructure needs, which include mass transit. Long Island Representative Peter King, the senior-most Republican from the New York delegation, is also expressing some serious doubts about the Republican legislation.

But most of New York’s Republican congressmen, including some who present themselves as strong supporters of transit, are staying curiously silent. These are politicians who should, based on their districts and history, oppose what Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, himself a former House Republican, described as ”the worst transportation bill I’ve ever seen during 35 years of public service.”

Not all area Republicans are being so timid, however. In a letter sent to the top Republican and Democrat on the House Transportation Committee, Turner specified exactly what his urban district needs, including both transit funding and pedestrian safety programs. “The City’s ability to continue to serve as home to 45 Fortune 500 companies — more than double the number of the next three U.S. cities combined, is dependent on maintaining and improving its unique public transportation network,” he wrote. He also celebrated federal support for projects that have reduced traffic fatalities for senior and child pedestrians.

“We cannot underestimate the importance of providing efficient, safe, mass transit, roads, bridges and tunnels to the people who live and commute in New York City,” said Turner in his statement. “As this bill evolves, I will continue to work with my colleagues both in Congress and New York to find the best approach in meeting our infrastructure needs. However, I will not support any bill that does not allow New York City to sufficiently meet those needs.”

More than 46 percent of Turner’s constituents take transit to work.

King, too, is focused on the harm the House bill would do to the region’s transit system. “The congressman has serious concerns about this legislation and the impact it will have on mass transit both on Long Island and New York City,” a spokesperson told Crain’s earlier this week.

A regional consensus is starting to form that the House transportation bill would be a disaster for the entire New York metro area. The New York Times, the New York Daily News, and the Newark Star-Ledger have all editorialized against the House transportation bill. “This monstrosity must die,” wrote the News. “Uniquely terrible,” said the Times.

MTA chief Joe Lhota, himself a Republican, called the bill “the worst piece of legislation you could ever imagine.”

Across the region, Republicans represent constituents dependent on commuter rail lines and suburban bus systems. In Nan Hayworth’s district in New York’s northern suburbs, seven percent of people take transit to work, many on the Metro-North railroad lines that are vital links to Manhattan. Around eight percent of Leonard Lance’s New Jersey constituents commute via transit. That’s tens of thousands of voters.

Neither Hayworth nor Lance’s offices have responded to Streetsblog inquiries, nor have the offices of Republicans Chris Gibson, Scott Garrett, Frank LoBiondo or Chris Smith.

Perhaps the region’s Republicans are still deciding whether to vote with their transit-riding constituents or cave to the Republican leadership.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and her city-owned Chevy Suburban in 2008. Photo copyright Steven Hirsch.

To hear Christine Quinn tell it, New Yorkers are crying out for relief from unjust parking policies. Over the last two years, it seems that when City Council members weren’t flogging legislation to add layers of bureaucracy to DOT’s street safety program, they were tripping over themselves to absolve motorists of one responsibility after another.

No matter that most New York commuters don’t drive to work. Or that drivers would be best served by rational prices for on-street parking, not endless cruising for free spots. Or even that one bill, prohibiting the sanitation department from placing stickers on vehicles parked in the path of street sweepers, would put an end to a practice that has benefited the entire city by improving street cleanliness. Nothing has stood in the way of Chris Quinn’s mission to free the put-upon car owner from the tyranny of onerous city edicts.

Including public opinion, it appears. According to a Quinnipiac poll released today, a majority of city voters disagree with Quinn and the council that city sanitation stickers are “unnecessarily punitive.” The poll found that 60 percent of voters, including 57 percent who park on the street, support the use of the stickers.

Support for the yellow stickers ranges from 56 – 40 percent each in Brooklyn and The Bronx to 66 – 26 percent in Manhattan. Men are stuck on the stickers 63 – 33 percent while women want them 57 – 37 percent. There is little partisan difference.

“Even voters who park on the street and do the Alternate Side Parking dance are stuck on the stickers by a wide margin,” said poll director Maurice Carroll in a Quinnipiac media release.

You’ll recall that the sanitation sticker bill was the brainchild of Brooklyn Council Member David Greenfield, who promoted it with characteristic zeal (“I mean, what’s next? We’re going to start slashing people’s tires when they don’t park on the correct side?”). It was also championed by transportation committee chair James Vacca, who called the stickers “cruel.” Weighed against the reality of voter sentiment, such inflammatory rhetoric makes the council look out of touch. It could be that New Yorkers aren’t as worked up about this stuff as their electeds think.

You don’t have to be a political scientist to know that governing by pet peeve is not likely to result in sound policy. Now that Speaker Quinn and the council have impartial evidence that a small number of gripes doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinions of the electorate at large, maybe they will turn their attention to actual problems, starting with the hundreds of fatalities and thousands of injuries suffered on city streets every year.

On Delancey Street, DOT will extend sidewalks at every intersection with a star, with the largest expansion at the north side of Delancey and Clinton. On the south side of Delancey, a service road will be converted to pedestrian space. Image: NYC DOT

The crosswalks will be getting shorter on Delancey Street — one of the city’s deadliest corridors — thanks to a new safety plan from the Department of Transportation [PDF]. At 14 of 19 crossings between Clinton Street and the Bowery, neckdowns will extend the sidewalk into the street, making the distance across the extremely wide street a bit more manageable. While DOT found ways to add pedestrian space where it could, however, the department rejected options, some of which were very popular, that would interfere with the heavy traffic headed to and from the Williamsburg Bridge.

The changes to Delancey focus on the dangerous blocks approaching the Williamsburg Bridge. Cyclist Jeffrey Axelrod and pedestrians Patricia Cuevas and Dashane Santana were killed by drivers along these blocks in the last year alone. Over a five year period, 129 people were injured in traffic crashes at both Delancey and Essex and Delancey and Clinton.

The most extensive changes will come at Delancey and Clinton, the intersection right by the bridge entrance. Right now, the distance across Delancey is an incredible 165 feet, including a 30 foot median. “It begins to look more like a highway than a normal street,” said DOT bicycle and pedestrian director Josh Benson. “It gives a perception to motorists that they’ve entered a new environment, that it’s not a neighborhood street anymore.”

On the north side of Delancey, the sidewalk will be extended into the street a full 49 feet using paint and planters. The first lane coming off the bridge is a right-turn only lane, and there’s no reason for the space directly in front of it to remain open to traffic. “What we can do is capture that space, formalize it, and make it safe for people to walk to that place in the crosswalk,” said Benson.

Across the street, the service road for Delancey will be filled in and turned into pedestrian space: 14,160 square feet between Norfolk and Clinton.

On the other end of the corridor, at Bowery, another large neckdown will be installed at the southern end of the intersection. As Kenmare becomes Delancey at that intersection, each half of the street abruptly widens from two lanes to four. That means there’s a lot of extra road space, some of which is being reclaimed for pedestrians. The road will now widen to four lanes more gradually.

Under a new traffic pattern, drivers will be allowed to turn onto the Williamsburg Bridge from Clinton Street. Click to enlarge.

DOT also plans to allow drivers to turn onto the bridge from Clinton Street, which will be turned into a one-way northbound street between Grand and Delancey. The goal, said Benson, is to reduce the number of blocks drivers travel through the neighborhood when they go from the FDR Drive to the Williamsburg Bridge. Additionally, the presence of turning cars at Clinton Street might make eastbound Delancey drivers honor that red light more than they do currently. Bike access on Clinton would be maintained with a two-way bike lane.

Three new left turn restrictions would reduce turning conflicts where Delancey intersects with Chrystie, Allen, and Essex. Half of all pedestrians hit on Delancey Street are struck while they have the walk signal, according to Benson.

The improvements will be in place by June, when construction work ends on the bridge and a permanent traffic pattern is back in place.

Generally, the improvements earned commendations from local residents.

“This is more than I actually expected and I’m very pleased about it,” said CB 3 transportation committee chair David Crane. The improvements also won support from the Delancey Street Safety Working Group, made up of State Senator Daniel Squadron, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Council Member Margaret Chin, Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez, Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, Assemblymember Brian Kavanagh, and Council Member Rosie Mendez.

Many, however, wanted to see additional safety improvements that DOT was unwilling to make. “We continue to feel that the lights to cross Delancey need to be lengthened,” said April Lewis, a member of the community organization Manhattan Together.

Benson, however, said that while DOT is studying retiming the signals, no major changes are in the works, lest Williamsburg Bridge traffic be negatively affected. “There might be a second here, a second there,” he said. “Making a radical shift in that could have some pretty significant impacts on traffic flow.”

“You are talking about, basically, appeasements,” responded one man standing at the back of the room. “The philosophy would be cars over people.”

Similarly, many community members complained that the traffic enforcement agents stationed at the foot of the Williamsburg Bridge wave through traffic without the slightest regard for pedestrians or walk lights. When the agents are stationed there, said Crane, “there effectively is zero pedestrian crossing time.”

Also off the table was any reduction in space for traffic on or off the bridge. DOT won’t change the core width of Delancey Street while all that bridge traffic is pouring over it. For now, one can only wonder what the agency might have been willing to do had congestion pricing passed Sheldon Silver’s Assembly in 2008, or if the Fare Hike Four hadn’t killed bridge tolls in the State Senate in 2009.

The Delancey Street Safety Working Group will continue to meet, however, so more safety improvements could be added at a later date. “It is rare to get a government agency to move so aggressively and so quickly, and also to do it hand in hand with the community,” said Squadron, who added that more needs to be done. After the meeting, he mentioned bicycle safety and the quality of the median as two potential areas for improvement. “This is not the end of this,” he said.

John Mica and John Boehner would have you believe their bill is a blessing for transit. It isn't.

Republicans are not anti-transit, but we do recognize that the Highway Trust Fund is paid for by highways users, and cities and local governments must look at developing a similar user fee system for transit users.

This bill gives more flexibility to states to fund their most critical transportation needs, and under this bill states can also use the funds authorized under the highway program for transit systems if they so choose.

Because of the struggling economy, changing driving patterns and more fuel efficient vehicles, the Highway Trust Fund is in repeated danger of running dry. The Republican bill stabilizes the Trust Fund for the next five years, ensures states have the ability to fund their most critical transportation needs, and also guarantees transit funding.

Transportation myths die hard, and here the House GOP is trotting out a bunch of them — plus a few new sadistic rhetorical flourishes — to justify what’s quickly becoming known as the worst transportation bill ever. A quick primer on how the Republican leadership is lying about their bill:

1. The House GOP is not guaranteeing transit funding. They’re eliminating guaranteed transit funding.

Ask anyone who works in public transit, and they’ll tell you this bill would wreak havoc as soon as it is passed. By ending the policy begun by Ronald Reagan of funding federal transit programs with gas tax revenue, House Republicans would cast a pall of uncertainty over just about every transit agency in America. The Republican “guarantee” is nothing but a guarantee of more haggling over limited dollars as transit programs go up against other spending priorities in the general fund. Without the certainty that gas tax revenues provide, transit agencies will immediately move to cut service and raise fares, exactly what Americans don’t need while gas prices are rising and jobs are still scarce.

2. Highways are not “paid for by highway users.”

Gas taxes and tolls don’t cover the cost of highways, not by a longshot. In 2007, for example, user fees only covered 51 percent of highway costs, according to Subsidyscope. In other words, roads are subsidized — on a much larger scale than transit.

3. The House GOP bill does nothing to “stabilize” the Highway Trust Fund.

The bill relies on one-shot fees from gas and oil drilling to make up for the deficit in the Highway Trust Fund. While this would ensure that highways are subsidized even more than they are now, it’s a completely inadequate way to pay for transportation infrastructure, according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office.

4. There’s already a “user fee system for transit users.”

It’s called the farebox.

5. “Changing driving patterns” are not endangering the Highway Trust Fund.

The truth is that even though Americans are driving less, the nation’s transportation funding system would be on solid footing if the federal gas tax kept pace with inflation. But since the gas tax is much lower in inflation-adjusted dollars than it was in 1993, the last year it was raised, the Highway Trust Fund is depleted. Congress and President Obama could solve the problem by taking another page from Reagan and adjusting the gas tax.

(The other Orwellian touch here is that the House bill doesn’t actually include any policies to adapt to “changing driving patterns.” In fact, it seems to have been drafted with 1950s-era driving patterns in mind. A bill that accounts for changing driving patterns would reflect the steadily increasing number of American transit riders, cyclists, and pedestrians, and the decline of driving per capita. Instead, the House bill puts all its resources into infrastructure for driving.)

6. States already have the “flexibility” to spend their highway funds on transit — the problem is they don’t like to.

States have had the flexibility to spend their highway funds on transit for decades. But highways are what they know, so highways are what they build.

When the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act passed in 1991, it was supposed to mark the end of an era, says Deron Lovaas, Federal Transportation Policy Director for the Natural Resource Defense Council. The interstate highway system was finished, and federal transportation money would go to increasingly to other things — dedicated funding for bike/ped projects, an expanded transit program, a larger program for congestion mitigation and air quality improvement, all part of an enlarged Surface Transportation Program. States could “flex” STP funds however they wanted. “Unfortunately, the track record for flexing STP has been very poor,” said Lovaas. “State highway agencies focus on highways.”

If the House GOP really cared about local control of transportation funds, they could draft a bill that distributes federal funding to cities and towns. The problem for John Boehner and the oil companies who back this bill is that cities and towns spend transportation dollars on things like transit, biking, and walking.

Steven LaTourette, an Ohio Republican, said he opposes the House transportation bill as it is currently written. Photo: Cleveland.com

So there’s a chance that House leadership will fail to round up the 218 votes needed to pass this bill. Based on Streetsblog’s initial conversations with House GOP members, the bill could be too anti-transit and too hostile to street safety to pass, even in this extremely partisan political climate.

Streetsblog began reaching out to House GOP members this morning to see where they stand, and already we’re finding representatives who think the current bill is too extreme. One Republican with misgivings is Ohio Rep. Steven LaTourette, who represents rural and suburban areas in the northeast part of the state, east of Cleveland.

LaTourette has been a supporter of common-sense transportation reforms in the House, co-sponsoring national complete streets legislation as well as a bipartisan measure that would have increased flexibility with federal funds for struggling transit agencies.

Through his chief of staff, Dino DiSanto, LaTourette’s office had this to say about the bill:

In its current formation there are lots of things we don’t like about it. If it’s not changed drastically, we’re not going to support it.

What they’re doing to highway funding — removing [Transportation] Enhancements, not allowing more flexibility for transit agencies? There’s no reason [transit agencies] should be able to buy buses but not operate them.

Infrastructure used to be something that was widely popular among both parties, and for some reason over the last few Congresses, they’ve become highly polarized.

Meanwhile, Bob Turner (R-NY), whose district encompasses parts of Queens and Brooklyn, has reservations as well. In a statement, Rep. Turner indicated his disapproval, specifically for the portion of the bill that would eliminate dedicated funding for transit:

Now that the House bill is taking shape, I have concerns about how the funds will eventually be allocated. We cannot underestimate the importance of providing efficient, safe, mass transit, roads, bridges and tunnels to the people who live and commute in New York City. As this bill evolves, I will continue to work with my colleagues both in Congress and New York to find the best approach in meeting our infrastructure needs. However, I will not support any bill that does not allow New York City to sufficiently meet those needs.

Another GOP representative from New York, Peter King, told Crain’s via his spokesperson that he “has serious concerns about this legislation and the impact it will have on mass transit both on Long Island and New York City.”

The House and Senate transportation bill proposals are both expected to go up for votes next week. Streetsblog will be tracking the positions of key House Republicans throughout the week.

Congress members Joe Crowley, Charlie Rangel, Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney joined MTA chief Joe Lhota to decry the House Republicans' attempt to end dedicated federal funding for transit. Photo: Noah Kazis

Four New York City members of Congress joined the chairman of the MTA today to bluntly denounce the House GOP’s anti-transit transportation bill.

“It’s the worst piece of legislation you could ever imagine,” said MTA chief Joe Lhota, a Republican who served as the city’s budget director during the Giuliani administration.

“The worst transportation bill we have ever seen,” agreed Representative Jerry Nadler, a liberal Democrat.

Though the Republican proposal includes a number of other reasons for New Yorkers to hate it, such as eliminating the Safe Routes to School and Transportation Enhancements programs, which fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements, today’s presser focused on the attack on dedicated transit funding.

Currently, about 20 percent of federal gas tax revenues are devoted to transit, which provides the MTA $1 billion per year in dedicated capital funding. The transit agency gets another $400 million a year from the federal general fund. Under the Republican proposal, all transit funds would come from the general fund, where they’d have to compete with defense, health care and other spending priorities.

That $1 billion a year is absolutely necessary for the MTA to continue repairing the system and building expansions, and it could disappear entirely. Charlie Rangel, former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, which passed the anti-transit provision, said he asked influential House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan where the money to pay for transit would come from in the general fund. “The answer was they did not know at that time,” said Rangel.

The four Congress members in attendance did not mince words about the House bill. “Not even worth a warm bucket of asphalt,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Nadler said the bill exposed the attitude of the Republican Party toward transit riders: “You’re second class citizens. We don’t give a damn about you. Just disappear.”

Queens Representative Joe Crowley, who set up the event, argued that the Republican proposal revealed the hypocrisy of his Republican colleagues’ rhetoric. In arguing against Democratic policy changes, he said, conservatives cited the need for “the certainty to invest” and “the certainty to hire.” By making transit funding dependent on the yearly priorities of Congress rather than predictable gas tax receipts, the Republican proposal eliminates all certainty for transit agencies.

Even where the House Republicans have kept transit programs in place, they’ve added an extreme anti-urban tilt to what remains. A change to the bus and bus facilities grant program, Maloney noted, would bar funds from going to any transit system that also operated any kind of rail line. No more grants for New York City from that pot.

The future of the House bill remains to be seen. Its radical provisions have inspired widespread opposition, not only from pro-transit organizations but also traditionally road-friendly groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AASHTO. According to Politico, the arch-conservative Club For Growth is working to defeat the bill from the right, while no Democrats are expected to support the legislation.

If it does pass the House, it seems unlikely that the Democrat-controlled Senate would accept the most extreme provisions of the Republican package, setting Congress up for another round of partisan brinksmanship. For its part, the Obama administration is also opposing the Republican proposal in no uncertain terms. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, himself a former House Republican, called the House proposal “the worst transportation bill I’ve ever seen during 35 years of public service.”

Even so, House Democrats aren’t relying on the other branches of government to kill the bill. “You don’t depend. Who knows what deals will be made in the Senate,” said Nadler. Instead, he challenged every Republican representing an urban or suburban area to vote against the bill. “Anyone from a suburb or a city who votes for this is voting against their own district,” said Nadler.

Notably, ostensibly transit-friendly New York-area Republican Congress members like Peter King or Michael Grimm were absent from today’s press conference.

Spoiler alert. Photo: TruckinWeb

The centerpiece was yesterday’s/last night’s/this morning’s Transportation & Infrastructure committee markup, where members debated more than 80 amendments for over 18 hours before finally approving Chairman Mica’s bill, 29-24, at about 3:00 a.m. Not one Democrat voted for it, and only one Republican — Tom Petri of Wisconsin — voted against it. Energy and financing titles were also approved by their respective committees.

Streetsblog has already pointed out that there’s plenty to dislike in the bill, especially for pedestrians, cyclists, city-dwellers, transit riders, and the environmentally-conscious. But believe it or not, there are a few groups out there who still like this bill a whole lot. In fact, at today’s markup in the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Dave Camp submitted for the record a letter of support from over 50 organizations.

It’s worth noting that the list of supporters is getting smaller. The T&I bill may have enjoyed the support of AASHTO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, but both have now opposed the Ways & Means committee’s financing title. In fact, over 600 organizations have voiced their opposition to that particular bill. However, there are still some hold-outs.

For starters, there’s trucking. Bill Graves, the American Trucking Associations’ CEO, called the bill “a major step forward, not just for trucking, but for all users of our transportation system.” Graves was disappointed when new rules allowing longer, heavier trucks were put off pending further study, saying, “We hope that Congress will see that wasting taxpayer money on further study is not necessary and as this legislation moves forward, enacts these long overdue reforms.”

Then there’s the retail sector. David French, the National Retail Federation’s VP for Government Relations, has said, “Our neglected transportation system has created bottlenecks and inefficiencies in the supply chain that stifle U.S. companies’ ability to grow.” Those “inefficencies” could refer to the same regulations the trucking industry is excited about. But bigger trucks (and longer driver hours, another pet issue of the trucking industry) would mainly benefit the largest shippers — the WalMarts, Home Depots and Best Buys.

And then there is oil industry, who would be able to drill far more freely in Alaska and off the American coast. Speaker Boehner’s inclusion of the Keystone XL pipeline makes the bill even more appealing to the petroleum industry. American Petroleum Institute CEO Jack Gerard believes that most Americans “know America will need more oil. They see the benefits of importing more from Canada while also producing more at home… [Keystone XL] is essential to our nation’s energy future.”

So, more drilling (oil companies make money) and lax regulations (trucking industry makes money) mean slightly lower shipping costs (mega-retailers make money). Big Oil, Big Truck, and Big Box — whose business models each depend on wider highways and sprawl — are the major beneficiaries of this bill.

Yankee Stadium parking in its natural state. Photo: Daily News

In today’s Daily News, Juan Gonzalez reports that Bronx Parking Development Company LLC is expected to default this year on the $200+ million in triple-tax-exempt bonds issued by the New York City Industrial Development Agency, the financing arm of the New York City Economic Development Corporation. Since the threat of default has loomed for some time now, let’s look at the more recent developments cited by Gonzalez.

The promise of jobs to be created by the garages was never that grand to begin with — 12 full-time and 70 part-time positions, with an average wage of $11 an hour. But Bronx Parking LLC is so desperate for cash, writes Gonzalez, that “the company plans to slash the salaries of a handful of full-time garage employees and to reduce the number of game-day parking attendants from 76 to 57.”

“The people who continue to pay the price for this thing are the kids who lost their park space, and now the handful of people who got jobs and are going to lose them,” says Bettina Damiani, project director of Good Jobs New York, an NGO that has tracked the stadium project from its inception.

On top of that, a proposal to lure a hotel to complement or replace the garages has apparently cratered after four developers who expressed interest in the deal wanted “major city subsidies.” Gonzalez reports that Bronx Borough President Ruben Diaz, Jr., who inherited the stadium parking disaster from his predecessor Adolfo Carrion, “has been pressing City Hall to come up with an emergency plan to restructure the bonds, tear down some of the garages, and replace them with low-income housing.”

How bad is it for Bronx Parking LLC? According to Gonzalez its garages are 38 percent full on Yankee game days. When the stadium is idle, they have a total of 70 regular customers for 9,000 spaces.

On the other hand, from a neighborhood perspective about the only thing worse than a bunch of empty garages would be a bunch of full garages, a silver lining brought about by malfeasance on the part of the IDA, which approved the parking deal before conducting an economic feasibility study. Also, aides to Mayor Bloomberg tell Gonzalez that neither the city nor the IDA is responsible for backing the bonds.

The garages, however, were exempted from rent and taxes unless they turned a profit, so taxpayers probably shouldn’t expect a return on their investment. More than anything, Damiani sees those empty buildings as an ugly monument to the misplaced priorities of the Bloomberg administration, whose legacy of environmental stewardship and progressive transportation policies will be undercut by acres of new parking across the city.

“This community didn’t need thousands of parking spots,” says Damiani. “I have run out of adjectives to describe how bad this is.”

House Ways & Means members Dave Camp (R-WI) and Sander Levin (D-MI) do not see eye to eye on funding transit. Photo: Zimbio

The attack on transit has drawn opposition from an unprecedentedly broad coalition of over 600 groups, including many that do not often find themselves on the same side of an issue. Opponents of the bill include noted transit advocates APTA and T4America, and traditionally pro-highway groups such as AASHTO and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

The conservative Club for Growth has even gone so far as to make the entire House transportation package a key vote, meaning members will be rewarded for opposing the bill. Rep. John Campbell has already said he has changed his position on the package, and Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) laughed at the prospect of getting a positive rating from the Club for Growth for “the first time in a while.”

An amendment proposed by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, which would have removed the provision altering transit’s revenue source, was defeated along party lines during mark up this morning. However, two Republicans — Erik Paulsen of Minnesota and Vern Buchanan of Florida — broke ranks with their party and voted against the underlying bill. The bill passed anyway by a vote of 20-17.

Despite repeated attempts by Republicans to present the bill as placing transit funding on surer footing, the bill drew vocal opposition from Democrats such as ranking member Sander Levin, who said it “undermines the very structure of the Highway Trust Fund.” Blumenauer said the bill relied on “fantasy accounting” to justify a $40 billion transfer from the general fund to cover transit, and McDermott bemoaned the lack of long-term thinking behind the bill.

Rep. Charlie Rangel of New York even asked Chairman Dave Camp if there is a precedent for the Ways and Means Committee to demand a complete restart of transportation authorization efforts. When informed that there was not, Rangel responded, “Well, you can be a leader, then.”

The letter from coalition members opposing the Ways and Means bill is after the jump.

The city's first 20 miles per hour slow zone, in the Claremont neighborhood of the Bronx, uses "gateway" treatments to slow drivers entering the zone. Neighborhoods across the city want to be the next to get the new safety treatment. Photo: Noah Kazis

The deadline to apply to NYC DOT for a neighborhood slow zone is tomorrow, and groups from many different corners of New York are making their case for bringing a 20 mph speed limit and traffic calming measures to their neighborhoods.

“We are hearing from people applying for zones all over the city,” said Lindsey Ganson, Transportation Alternatives’ safety campaign director.

One exciting application comes from the Bronx Helpers, the team of middle and high-schoolers who have been fighting for safety improvements near their school at 172nd Street and Townsend for two years. The group started by asking just for a stop sign, collecting over 1,000 signatures from their neighbors. When DOT rejected their request without explanation, the group teamed up with TA, measured speeding with radar guns and counted pedestrian volumes, and changed their request to emphasize traffic calming.

Now the Bronx Helpers are working through DOT’s new slow zone program to try and get neighborhood-wide safety fixes. “We thought it was a great opportunity to expand and make the whole area more pedestrian-friendly,” said Bronx Helpers staff member Molly Berman.

The group applied for the entirety of the Mt. Eden section of the Bronx, located between 174th Street, 170th Street, the Grand Concourse and Jerome Avenue. With four schools, two daycares and a senior center in the area, it’s a neighborhood with lots of pedestrians who need safer streets.

Signing on in support of the slow speed zone are a slew of neighborhood groups and some prominent political figures. Three school principals wrote letters of support, as did a tenants’ rights organization, Bronx Community Board 4, and the Deputy Borough President, Aurelia Greene.

Also writing in support of the proposal is Public Advocate Bill de Blasio.”I believe it is clear that their proposed Slow Zone — from 10th to 174th and Grand Concourse to Jerome Avenue — is based on strong stakeholder engagement and presents compelling evidence of the need for greater pedestrian safety,” de Blasio wrote in a letter to DOT.

In Rego Park, Queens, Council Member Karen Koslowitz is championing the neighborhood’s slow zone application. The Rego Park Green Alliance submitted the bid for the triangle between Woodhaven Boulevard, 63rd Drive and the Long Island Railroad tracks. In addition to writing DOT, Koslowitz promised to bring the department on a tour of the neighborhood, said Yvonne Shortt, who has helped lead the push for the slow zone.

“I applied because on December 22, I saw a girl almost killed by two cars speeding and traveling in opposite directions on the narrow streets of Alderton,” Shortt told Streetsblog. “That was the last straw.” Residents and local businesses alike have signed her petition showing neighborhood support for slower speeds. Shortt argued that her neighborhood’s residential character makes it a good fit for the 20 mph zone. “Cars don’t realize how narrow the streets are. They’re already going too fast.”

The Fort Greene Association has perhaps the most ambitious proposal, asking for not one but two separate slow zones. “It didn’t seem fair to exclude one neighborhood,” explained Laura MacNeil, a member of the association’s livable streets committee.

MacNeil said that the genesis of the slow speed zone requests came in a survey she sent out to neighborhood residents last fall, asking about their transportation priorities for the neighborhood. Traffic calming came in at number one, both among residents on larger avenues and smaller residential roads. ”The slow zone seemed like a great way to systematically address a lot of the concerns that were mentioned,” MacNeil said. In a follow-up survey specifically about the slow zones, MacNeil heard from a number of residents asking for the slow zone to extend out to their block, but not from a single person opposed to the idea.

Among local leaders, too, the slow zone has significant support. City Council Member Letitia James, Assembly Member Joseph Lentol, and the Myrtle Avenue BID have all signed on in favor of the slow zone, as have a number of block associations.

In other neighborhoods, groups that want to apply have had a difficult time working within the rules governing this first round of slow zones. The Brownsville Partnership, for example, almost didn’t submit its application for a slow zone since it is neither a civic association, BID, or community board, said Nupur Chaudhury, who is managing the Partnership’s “Creating Healthy Places” project. Today the organization secured the local community board as a partner, and will file a joint application for a Brownsville slow zone, she said.

On the Upper West Side, it was the geography of the neighborhood that proved challenging. DOT is looking for areas roughly five blocks by five blocks, with clear geographic boundaries inside of which are only residential streets. On the Upper West Side, where most of the north-south streets are busy commercial arterials, such a location was hard to find, said Upper West Side Streets Renaissance organizer Lisa Sladkus.

Given the nature of the neighborhood, said Sladkus, her organization is pushing instead for a neighborhood-wide 20 mph speed limit, as was reported by the Columbia Spectator. That kind of change would fall well outside DOT’s current practices, but Sladkus is hoping to build support among schools and senior centers and then the community board.

Slow zone applications have been submitted or considered in at least three other neighborhoods, according to TA’s Ganson. David Sheppard, whose fiancee Sonya Powell was killed by a speeding driver, is working on an application for the Wakefield neighborhood of the Bronx, where she was hit. You can sign the Prospect Heights Development Corporation’s petition supporting their slow zone proposal here. And at a Park Slope Civic Council forum on slow zones, 90 percent of people were in favor of installing one on their street.

“These zones will have a dramatic impact on safety in the selected communities and will raise awareness about the dangers of speeding citywide,” said Ganson. “The demand for them in just the first year of the program has been extraordinary.”

House Ways and Means chair Dave Camp (R-MI) and Speaker John Boehner. Photo: Talking Points Memo

The Ways & Means bill [PDF] would funnel all gas tax revenue toward road programs, redirecting billions of dollars per year away from transit, which for decades has received about 20 percent of fuel tax receipts. Instead, the House GOP wants transit funding to come entirely from the general fund, pitting transit against all other government spending. To offset that spending, $40 billion would have to be cut from the rest of the federal budget.

Essentially, the House GOP is holding transit hostage to achieve budget cuts elsewhere — and they don’t seem to care if the hostage dies. They will also be tossing aside a precedent set during the Reagan administration, one that has enjoyed bipartisan support through several transportation bills, including the 2005 law, known as SAFETEA-LU, which was passed by a Republican president and Republican Congress.

Dan Smith of USPIRG put it like this:

The House Ways and Means Bill stops just short of defunding America’s public transit system. Instead it says that the real money with a funding source will all go to highways, while the tooth fairy will pay for transit. For Big Oil and the highway lobby, this is a dream, but it’s a nightmare for America’s transportation future.

In keeping with the secretive nature of the current House’s transportation reauthorization process, the announcement comes just one day before Ways and Means will mark up the bill. There is even less time to protect transit funding in the House bill than there was to protect bike/ped programs in today’s T&I markup.

Automated traffic enforcement cameras and lockboxes to protect transit funding are at the top of the legislative agenda for transportation advocates in 2012. Image: Wikipedia.

Many of Albany’s biggest transportation issues this year — the bloated and transit-free Tappan Zee, the unfunded MTA capital plan — will be decided by Governor Cuomo. But transportation advocates also have a slate of bills they hope to see make it through the legislature. Last year, the complete streets bill passed after a few prior attempts. Here’s what’s on the table for 2012.

Transit Lockboxes

Last year, lockbox legislation sponsored by Assembly Member James Brennan and Senator Marty Golden passed the legislature unanimously, only to have Governor Cuomo “eviscerate” the bill by amendment. The sponsors have vowed to try for the original language again.

The politics of the lockbox could be different this year if downstate legislators team up with their colleagues upstate. Buffalo Republican Mark Grisanti has introduced his own lockbox meant to protect dedicated funds for the Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority. He is amenable to working with those hoping to protect the MTA. “If we can get the upstate folks talking about a lockbox bill in the same breath as the MTA, then maybe that sends a louder message to the governor,” said Nadine Lemmon, Albany legislative advocate for the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.

Speed Cameras

Assembly Member Deborah Glick’s legislation to allow speed enforcement using automated cameras hasn’t gone anywhere in the past, but advocates have declared it a top priority for this year. “It’s speed cams all the time when it comes to Albany,” said Juan Martinez, general counsel for Transportation Alternatives.

The bill has support not only from transportation advocacy groups, but the New York City DOT and public health organizations. “There is a good coalition that’s gotten around it,” said Lemmon. That said, the bill still doesn’t have a Senate sponsor, an indication of how much work is left to be done.

Red Light Cameras

Three bills to increase the number of red light cameras permitted by the state, one each for New York City, Nassau County and Suffolk County, passed the Senate last year only to die in the Assembly transportation committee. Assembly transportation chair David Gantt has a history of blocking bills that would allow localities to implement life-saving traffic technology.

The red light camera bills didn’t have sufficient outside support last year, said Lemmon, who expects more action on the issue in 2012. If necessary, she said, the bills’ Assembly sponsors might be willing to use a parliamentary procedure to force a vote in committee. In the Senate, the bills are sponsored by Marty Golden, Chuck Fuschillo and Owen Johnson, respectively.

Transit Commuter Tax Benefit

The federal government may have let the tax benefit for transit fall to $125 per month while raising the parking perk to $240, but that doesn’t mean New York State has to. Senator Chuck Fuschillo’s legislation would reinstate the full benefit for state taxes. The benefit reduction doesn’t matter much for New York City residents — even now, the tax benefit covers a monthly MetroCard — but for those commuting into Manhattan on the LIRR or Metro-North, it’s a major incentive to take transit.

Fuschillo’s bill passed the Senate but died in the Assembly last year. Though it previously didn’t have outside advocates behind it, that will change in 2012.

Commercial Cyclist Responsibility

It seems that almost every community board in Manhattan has complained about unsafe riding by working cyclists. In order to effectively and equitably improve commercial cyclist behavior, Transportation Alternatives is lobbying for a bill sponsored by Senator Liz Krueger and Assembly Member Brian Kavanagh.

The legislation would place responsibility for traffic violations by working cyclists on their employers. “It’s the business owner who is in the best position to guide the cyclists’ behavior,” explained Martinez. “In order to make those deliveries, they feel they have to ride the wrong way or ride on the sidewalk.” On construction sites, Martinez said, employers receive violations for workers who don’t wear hard hats; he said the principle should be the same for cyclists.

Transportation Alternatives’ push for the bill comes as City Council Member James Vacca is launching his own campaign to regulate commercial cyclists. Under Vacca’s proposal, police would step up enforcement of existing rules and working cyclists would be required to take a new bicycle safety course.

Curbside Bus Regulation

The curbside bus industry is booming, to say the least. In 2007, 4.2 million people rode MegaBus, Fung Wah and other curbside buses along the Northeast Corridor, compared to zero a decade before, and the number of riders continues to grow rapidly. That means it’s easier to travel the East Coast in a way that’s both affordable and sustainable, but it’s also created significant pressures on the neighborhoods in which the buses load and unload, where passengers and luggage cramp the sidewalks.

A bill sponsored by Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and State Senator Dan Squadron would, for the first time, allow the city to regulate how curbside buses work. In theory, the city would be able to shift curbside operations toward streets with more room, or to locations that otherwise fit the city’s transportation vision. Legislation along these lines was proposed by the Tri-State Transportation Campaign in a 2009 report on improving regional bus service.

The bill doesn’t allow for a situation like that in Washington, D.C., however, where the city attempted to charge bus companies an $80,000 annual fee, which the industry said would result in higher fares. Under Silver’s law, the maximum annual fee for a permit is $275.

Last year, the Assembly passed the bill but it died in the Senate. With Silver’s name at the top, its future likely depends on his willingness to wheel and deal with the Senate.

Every Democrat on the committee voted for the amendment, and at the markup session this morning Democrats Nick Rahall, Peter DeFazio, and Daniel Lipinski spoke in favor. DeFazio’s remarks were especially impassioned, telling his colleagues to “look those kids in the eye and tell them we can’t afford this program,” and characterizing the opposition as “just mean-spirited.”

Opponents of the amendment couched their arguments in terms of government reform. Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA) said that the bill should be “focused like a laser on the national highway system” and not dictate any other uses of transportation funds. Rep. Herrera Buetler (R-WA) said that the bill, as written, would put the power to implement bike/ped projects into the hands of authorities closer to the communities those projects would serve, saying it would “unleash” states’ ability to pursue their own priorities.

However, putting more money in the hands of the states actually keeps it further out of reach for cities and towns that want to build better streets for biking and walking. The League of American Bicyclists’ Andy Clarke, following the proceedings on Twitter, responded that Herrera Buetler and Shuster “are missing the point.” The federal government is not dictating anything, Clarke said: “States are the problem.”

The Cherry Creek trail running from downtown Denver 40 miles out to the suburbs was partially funded by TE grants. Photo: National Transportation Enhancements Clearinghouse

According to a draft summary of the amendment, states would need to reserve an amount of money for TIP equal to the amount they currently reserve for TE and SRTS. TE-supported activities would no longer include transportation museums, depriving House leadership of one of their favorite talking points.

A second amendment would require states to prioritize bridge repair projects over the construction of new highways. As it currently stands, the House bill imposes little oversight on states that opt to spend on expanding highways.

A third amendment would provide operating assistance to transit agencies, a provision that the Senate has included in its transit bill to help prevent painful service cuts and fare hikes during economic downturns. However, neither of the bridge and transit amendments have sponsors in the House, and all amendments must be submitted by 3:00 p.m. today in order to be considered at tomorrow morning’s markup.

Transportation for America and AmericaBikes have launched online portals for citizens to voice their support for these amendments.

This is not a graphic from Christine Quinn's transportation report. In fact, the report says nothing at all about transit.

If you’re like most New York commuters, you took a train or bus to get to work today. And like most New Yorkers, you are invisible to the City Council and speaker Christine Quinn.

On Tuesday, Quinn issued a letter, co-signed by transportation committee chair James Vacca, bragging about the accomplishments of a council obsessed with the perceived needs of city drivers. You know the bills: the muni-meter grace period, the elimination of the alternate side violation sticker, the loosening of parking fine deadlines. While she makes mention of the law that requires NYPD to post traffic crash data online, Quinn also touts the council’s success in adding red tape to the installation of bike lanes, a proven safety measure.

November 2010: Quinn and Vacca take aim at safer streets.

The council’s transportation achievements add up to three bills written to address the pet peeves of certain car owners, three bills that allow council members to grandstand for codifying existing DOT protocols, and one genuinely useful bill to help make streets safer.

More broadly, Quinn’s “Transportation Report” contains not one word about public transportation. Framing the council’s transportation agenda as a win for “nearly every New York City driver,” Quinn ignores the 55 percent of commuters who rely on transit. Quinn and the City Council are kowtowing to the city’s motoring elite the same way Republicans in the House of Representatives are writing legislation to please oil companies.

You can find the full text of Quinn’s missive after the jump. Have at it.

January 31, 2012

Dear New Yorker,

A special thank you to everyone who responded to our first NYC Council Transportation Report! We were thrilled with the positive response, and the feedback we received was very helpful and informative.

There’ve been a number of important transportation-related developments since then, many of which you’ll find detailed in our newest report below.

As we explained in our first issue, our goal with these reports is to stay better connected and engaged with you and other New Yorkers about the important and challenging transportation issues affecting our city and communities, so please keep the comments and feedback coming!

If you have any questions about the initiatives below, please feel free to contact either Lyle Frank or Nivardo Lopez in the Council’s Human Services Division at lfrank@council.nyc.gov or nlopez@council.nyc.gov.

Thanks so much, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Christine C. Quinn

Speaker

NYC Council

James Vacca
Chair, Transportation Committee
NYC Council

Making Parking Enforcement in NYC Fairer for Motorists

Nearly every New York City driver has a story about getting a ticket they clearly didn’t deserve.

To help make parking enforcement in our city fairer, the City Council recently passed a series of bills, collectively known as the “Fair Parking Legislative Package.”

The first bill, Intro. 490, presented by Speaker Quinn during her 2011 State of the City address and introduced by Council Member James Gennaro, is aimed at helping drivers who receive a parking ticket while in the process of paying for a muni-meter spot.

Right now, traffic cops aren’t allowed to cancel tickets for any reason, forcing drivers to dispute tickets at a later date.

Under our new law, anyone who receives a ticket while doing what they’re supposed to do – purchasing parking time from a muni-meter – won’t have to fight it later on if they present their time-stamped muni meter ticket to the agent within 5 minutes of the ticket being issued.

This legislation only applies to tickets written electronically (which account for about 85 percent of parking tickets written in the City), so there shouldn’t be any dispute over the time stamped on the ticket and the muni-meter receipt.

The City will also be required to report the number of cancelled tickets annually to the Council, providing us with valuable information about any trends.

Intro. 610, introduced by Council Member James Sanders, prohibits the City from charging drivers late fees on parking tickets until 30 days after a ruling is made

Motorists have every right to dispute parking tickets and shouldn’t be penalized before a final determination is made in their case.

The way the law currently works, drivers begin to accrue fees 30 days after a ticket is written, regardless of whether they’re fighting the ticket in court.

Our bill will provide parking ticket recipients a greater degree of fairness as they await the ruling of an Administrative Law Judge.

Finally, Intro. 546, introduced by Council Member David Greenfield, prohibits the City from placing adhesive stickers to mark vehicles purportedly violating alternate side parking rules.  These stickers are attached even before motorists are given the chance to prove their innocence.  Besides the fact that many people successfully challenge alternate side tickets, cars shouldn’t be subject to such a nuisance before a finding of guilt.  Actions like these are unnecessarily punitive, and our bill will end this practice once and for all.

We’d like to Council Members Gennaro, Sanders and Greenfield for all the hard work and effort they put into the passage of these bills.  Our Fair Parking Legislative Package will provide relief to motorists while promoting more judicious parking enforcement and ticketing practices citywide, and we urge Mayor Bloomberg to sign all three of these bills into law.

Increasing Community Input on Bicycle Lanes

According to the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT), since 2008, over 200 miles of bicycle lanes have been installed, and the City is planning to have installed 1,800 miles of bicycle lanes by 2030.  The City’s bicycle lane network has now been expanded to all five boroughs, including:

• Flushing Avenue (Brooklyn);

• Grand Concourse-Mosholu Parkway (Bronx);

• Columbus Avenue (Manhattan);

• Center Boulevard (Queens); and

• North and South Railroad Avenues (Staten Island).

Now, there’s no disputing that the development of a safer, more accessible biking infrastructure is good for our city.  In addition to the recreational benefits that bicycling offers, bicycle lanes also provide an important, environmentally friendly alternative form of transportation.  However, the expansion of these bicycle lanes has also raised a number of safety and community consultation concerns.

In response to these concerns, the City Council passed Local Law 61 of 2011, sponsored by Council Member Lew Fidler.  Scheduled to take effect later next month, this law will allow local communities the opportunity for greater input in the process of where and how bicycle lanes are installed and removed.  While Local Law 61 doesn’t prevent DOT from installing or removing bicycle lanes, it formalizes a process of consultation with local community boards.  These community boards can then provide additional input to achieve the best and safest means of bringing bicycle lanes to individual communities.

Specifically Local Law 61 requires the DOT to:

• give affected Council Members and community boards at least 90 days’ notice before constructing or removing a bicycle lane; and

• offer to make a presentation at a public hearing held by such affected community board.

If the local community board accepts the DOT’s offer, the hearing must be held within 45 days of the notice given.  The DOT shall then make a presentation of the proposed plans and receive input and will not be permitted to construct or remove such bicycle lane until at least 45 days after the public hearing. However, if no hearing is held, the construction or removal of the bicycle lane may not occur until 90 days after the notification.

Local Law 61 further requires that if the notification is given between June 20 and August 6, the period for a public hearing shall conclude on September 20, and the bicycle lane may not be constructed until 90 days following the notification or 10 days after the hearing, whichever time period is later.  This is done to ensure maximum participation of community boards, most of which are in recess during the summer.

We’d like to thank all of our colleagues, especially Council Member Fidler, for helping us ensure that the DOT is working with community boards and fully considering feedback from neighborhood residents on where, and how, bicycle lanes are installed.

TrafficStat – A Reality!

Good news: Accident and summons data is now available to the public for the first time on the New York City Police Department’s website, thanks to Local Law 12 of 2011, sponsored by Council Member Jessica Lappin.

The crash data, which includes the number of moving violation summonses, the number of traffic crashes, and the number of injuries and fatalities citywide and by borough, can be found at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/traffic_reports/motor_vehicle_accident_data.shtml.  The summons data can be found at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/traffic_reports/traffic_summons_reports.shtml.

Having this data available online to the public will help us come up with better solutions to the many traffic and pedestrian safety issues affecting many of our communities.  Armed with this information, we’ll be better able to make our streets safer for everyone.

A special note of thanks to Council Member Lappin and our colleagues for helping to make this happen.

City Council & Mayor Bloomberg Launch Interactive Street Closures Map

Residents will now find it easier to navigate the City, thanks to the launch of NYC Street Closures – a new interactive website that maps closed-off streets across the five boroughs.

This online tool came out of legislation, sponsored by Council Member Garodnick, requiring the NYC Department of Information Technology and Telecommunication (DoITT) to create an online, interactive map displaying current and planned closings due to construction, street fairs, and parades.

The map is available online at NYC.gov and will be updated as often as practicable and necessary but not less than once a week.  Users can search the map based on date, time, and location.

With this information literally at their fingertips, New Yorkers will be better able to navigate the city and get from point A to B with less hassle.

We’d like to thank the Mayor and his Administration for working with us to help make New Yorkers’ lives a little easier.  Our sincere thanks as well to Council Member Garodnick for his leadership and support authoring the bill that created this new online tool.

Interagency Consultation PRIOR to Major Transportation Projects

In a continuing effort to involve and notify community boards and affected Council Member of transportation projects in their districts, the City Council passed and the mayor signed into law Local Law 64 of 2011, sponsored by Council Member James Vacca.

The law, which goes into effect February 12, 2012, requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to consult with the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Department of Small Business Services and the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities before undertaking any new projects.   (The term “major transportation project”, is defined as “any project that, after construction, will alter four or more consecutive blocks, or 1,000 consecutive feet of street, whichever is less, involving a major realignment of the roadway, including either removal of a vehicular lane(s) or full time removal of a parking lane(s) or addition of vehicular lane(s).”)

When the City takes on a major transportation project, it stands to reason the DOT would consider input from relevant city agencies.  Thanks to Local Law 64, not only will city departments be involved in the planning of new transportation projects,  but Council and Community Board members will have full access to the data, ensuring that the soundest decisions are made to better our neighborhoods.

Statistic Reporting AFTER Completion of Major Projects

Another new law related to major transportation projects was also recently passed by the City Council and signed by Mayor Bloomberg.

Local Law 66 of 2011, sponsored by Transportation Chair James Vacca and scheduled to take effect February 10, 2012, requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide statistics related to a major transportation project not less than 18 months following the completion of that project.  These statistics must include data on the average number of crashes over the five-year period prior to installation and the one year subsequent to the project.

In addition, DOT must also measure the impact the project has had on the flow of traffic in the area following the completion of the project, most importantly as to emergency vehicles.

All of the information must be made available to the affected community boards and council members and posted on DOT’s website.

Transportation & Our Quality of Life

Transportation-related issues are among the most pressing quality-of-life issues facing our communities today.

In addition to working collectively on these initiatives, the City Council is also working individually in our respective districts to help identify and respond to transportation-related issues and concerns at the local level.

As always, community input and involvement in these efforts are key, so please don’t hesitate to reach out to your local Council Member if there’s a transportation-related concern or issue in your community that needs addressing.  Contact information for all 51 members can be found on the City Council’s website at www.council.nyc.gov.

Together we can make our neighborhood and city a much better place to live!

There's something for everyone to dislike in John Boehner and John Mica's transportation bill. Photo: Zimbio

Streetsblog wrote about some of the bill’s low points last week: no more dedicated bike/ped funding; no more TIGER or other discretionary transit programs; more money for highways, less accountability for state DOTs. To top it off, Speaker John Boehner has made it a priority to attach the Keystone XL pipeline to the transportation bill somehow.

The truth is that there are a lot of things that a lot of sensible people find objectionable about this bill, and they’re having their say while they can — the bill will be marked up on Thursday.

Regarding the changes to bike/ped policy, Darren Flusche, policy analyst at the League of American Bicyclists, told Streetsblog:

You can bet that the performance measures that states would be required to meet will not be geared towards the myriad transportation benefits of bicycling and walking projects, making the “eligibility” for bicycling and walking projects an illusion. In this way, the bill would actually take away flexibility from the states instead of provide it, as claimed.

Provisions that would raise weight and length limits on trucks drew ire from the Association of American Railroads:

“Americans don’t want 97,000 pound trucks or huge multi-trailers up to 120 feet long on our nation’s highways,” said AAR President and CEO Ed Hamberger. “Nor is it fair that even more of the public’s tax dollars will be used to pay for the road and bridge damage inflicted by massive trucks.”

John Cross, federal transportation advocate with Environment America, had this to say about the bill’s environmental implications:

The bill introduced by Representative Mica today in the House of Representatives drives us down to the dead end of too many oil spills, too much air pollution, and destroying the places we love. It reads like a wish list for Big Oil.

The Natural Resources Defense Council’s Rob Perks called out the Speaker of the House for unnecessarily complicating matters:

I’ve heard of “my way or the highway” but this is ridiculous. In an unprecedented move, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) is hell-bent on crashing the transportation bill by loading it up with controversial issues that will guarantee more political gridlock.

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) objected to the partisan politics behind its drafting:

I am disturbed by the un-democratic and non-transparent fashion with which the majority has drafted and introduced its bill. Democrats have been left entirely out of the process and, now, after more than a year of waiting for this legislation, we have 48 hours to assimilate 800 pages before it is marked up.

As Rep. Nadler pointed out, the bill is quite long. Streetsblog will report more details from the bill as we learn them. We will also address efforts underway to amend the bill into a less objectionable state.

Last week, Streetsblog reported that NYPD had released a detailed description of how the crash unfolded, supposedly based on security video from a business located at 157 Morgan Avenue. But the footage NYPD gave the Lefevre family does not convey the same details as the descriptions of video in the police investigative file.

Here is the description of a security video from 157 Morgan submitted by Detective Gerard Sheehan. It delves into specific detail about the crash:

Here are two videos captured from 157 Morgan that NYPD gave to the Lefevres and their attorney, Steve Vaccaro, showing footage at the intersection immediately before Leonardo Degianni, who fatally struck Lefevre and then left the scene, turned on to Meserole Street. In the first clip, the crane truck operated by Degianni enters the frame at about the 4:50 mark, and a cyclist is briefly visible at about the 5:02 mark. In the second clip, the truck enters the frame slightly after the 6:50 mark. In neither video is the moment Degianni struck Lefevre plainly visible.

Adding to the discrepancies, a second police description of security video does not match Sheehan’s description or the videos in the investigative file. The description from Detective Sheehan says that Lefevre was initially struck by the “passenger right side” of Degianni’s truck, which threw him “into the roadway” before Degianni struck him again. A second description, from officer Armand Tasca, says Lefevre “rode directly into the side of the truck as it made the right turn” (note that both Sheehan and Tasca wrote that Degianni and Lefevre were traveling north on Morgan, when they were in fact traveling south — see crash diagram at the end of this post):

“The FOIL documents raise more questions than they answer,” said Vaccaro. Even with a close viewing of the videos posted here — two of the four released by NYPD — it’s impossible to corroborate NYPD’s version of how the collision unfolded. (The third video shows the truck traveling on Meserole Street, leaving behind what appears to be Lefevre’s bike mid-block, and the fourth video shows Degianni parking the crane truck, then driving away in another vehicle.)

NYPD’s public information office has not responded to Streetsblog’s request to speak with Detective Sheehan about the discrepancy between the videos and the descriptions of the videos in the investigative file.

On January 27, Vaccaro demanded that NYPD certify that he and the Lefevres have received accurate copies of all videos in the department’s possession. He has not yet received a response. “The NYPD’s account of the crash doesn’t hold water, unless there is video or other evidence they are withholding,” Vaccaro says.

Diagram of the crash from NYPD’s investigative file:

Videos from 157 Morgan Avenue as NYPD submitted to the Lefevres and Vaccaro:

Banking Committee Chair Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Ranking Member Richard Shelby (R-AL). Photo: LAT

Johnson and Shelby’s bill will serve as the transit component of the Senate’s two-year reauthorization bill, MAP-21, which passed the Environment and Public Works Committee with bipartisan support last month.

In one significant policy shift, the bill would enable transit authorities to use federal funds to pay for some of their operating expenses during “periods of high unemployment.” Generally, use of federal transit funds is restricted exclusively to system expansion and maintenance, but transit agencies across the country are slashing service, raising fares and laying off workers due to the effects of the economic downturn. This bill would offer them some much-needed relief.

The bill reauthorizes close to $21 billion in transit funding over two years, protecting many popular programs and expanding new ones. The reception so far has been generally positive. Jesse Prentice-Dunn of the Sierra Club told Streetsblog that he is “encouraged” and that “the Banking Committee title appears to be a step forward for transit.”

Among the more encouraging points listed in the summary, the new bill:

• Protects funding to the Job Access and Reverse Commute (JARC) program, which has been a priority since Barack Obama’s first presidential campaign.
• Creates a new pilot program to support transit-oriented development with planning grants.
• Streamlines the New Starts program, eliminating duplicative steps and allowing smaller projects ($100 million or less) to complete an expedited review process.
• Expands the Rail Modernization program to include “high-intensity bus” networks, renaming it the State of Good Repair Grant program.

One aspect of the State of Good Repair program would reduce the incentive for states to overbuild carpool lanes. When calculating the size of a high-intensity bus network, “the new proposal no longer recognizes highway high occupancy vehicle lanes as eligible… if they are not reserved for the sole use of public transportation vehicles.” This does not forbid SOGR grants from being used on HOV lanes, but it keeps HOV-heavy bus systems from looking larger on paper than they are in real life, and thereby grabbing a disproportionate share of transit funds for what is essentially a highway project.

The bill is also light on the program consolidation that had been so prevalent in the House and Senate’s highway bills. Two programs aimed at improving mobility for senior citizens and the disabled will be merged, but it does not appear that there will be a corresponding cut to the programs’ funding.

The bill will be marked up in committee on Thursday at 10 a.m.

Highways 'n' pipelines: The cover page to the House transportation bill brochure. Image: Politico

There was no grand unveiling of the House’s five-year transportation bill today, but a summary of the bill has been kicking around for a few days. While there aren’t any hard numbers available yet, the “American Energy and Infrastructure Jobs Act” looks like a return to 1950s-style transportation policy. It is particularly unkind to transit and bike/ped programs, and to cities in general.

The bill’s overarching themes, again in the absence of official language, seem to be:

• Funneling as much money as possible to highways
• Eliminating programs “that do not have a federal interest,” which apparently includes all dedicated funding for bicycle and pedestrian programs
• Doing away with discretionary transit programs, which would presumably spell the end for the very successful TIGER
• Giving even more power to spend that money to state DOTs, not cities and metro regions
• Shortening the environmental review process
• Augmenting gas tax revenue with a yet-unspecified revenue stream from oil and gas drilling

One example the summary gives of a project not in the federal interest is the Nonmotorized Transportation Pilot Program, which distributed four $25 million grants “to demonstrate how improved walking and bicycling networks can increase rates of walking and bicycling.” One of those grants went to Minneapolis, which is making great strides in promoting biking and walking. If reauthorized at current levels, NTPP would account for 0.04 percent of the bill’s total appropriations.

The “flexibility” afforded states to minimize spending on bike/ped and transit, as well as the bill’s reliance on oil drilling, have advocates outraged. The Sierra Club’s Jesse Prentice-Dunn told Streetsblog that the bill represents “a significant step backwards for safe biking and walking.”

“Americans are looking for transportation choices that can conveniently get them where they need to go without polluting the planet,” Prentice-Dunn said. “Today more than 12 percent of trips are made by foot or bike, yet less than 2 percent of our nation’s transportation funding goes towards biking and pedestrian infrastructure. According to the Alliance for Biking and Walking, bike commuting increased 57 percent between 2000 and 2009. Instead of increasing investment in transportation options that Americans want, the House bill appears to funnel more dollars towards roads, further deepening our addiction to oil.”

The bill would also cut Amtrak’s operating subsidy by 25 percent in fiscal years 2012 and 2013, would keep existing lanes on the interstate highway system toll-free, and would allow states to use up to 15 percent of their total highway funds to capitalize state infrastructure banks (currently the maximum is 10 percent).

Deron Lovaas, Federal Transportation Policy Director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, told Streetsblog that the bill “looks uninspiring at best, giving states a lot of authority without a lot of accountability.”

“The language about curtailing environmental reviews is alarming, but it’s probably the tip of the iceberg compared to what we’d see in the bill itself. It’s a march of horribles… and they’ll go much further than the Senate in eliminating environmentally beneficial programs,” Lovaas said. “I can’t help but conclude that the house Republican leadership has hijacked the transportation bill and shattered the idea of bipartisanship in transportation policy making.”

The new date for the full bill’s unveiling is next Tuesday, January 31.