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.

Its members are not listed on its website, but interested parties are asked a few questions: "Are you outraged by the deaths of 120 people each day on our roads? Are you pro-environment AND pro-highway?" Average commuters might be lulled into thinking they could join with the click of a mouse.

Greg Cohen, the American Highway Users Alliance president and chief lobbyist (Photo: NSTPRC website)

But the Alliance has a specific agenda -- which is on full display in the lobbying filings of Greg Cohen, its president and CEO.

During the first half of this year, Cohen reported working to "support additional supplies of domestic oil," "oppose the placement of tolls and congestion pricing on existing toll-free roads," and "support maximum funding for highways," among other goals.

That maximum cash for highways, in the Alliance's view, should continue to relegate transit to 20 percent of federal aid. If Congress' upcoming six-year transportation bill "starts looking more negative on highways," Cohen warned last month, "there is potential that the whole bill could be slowed down here."

Moreover, the Alliance mobilized to oppose the climate bill passed by the House last month and lobbied against Senate legislation that would set national transportation priorities such as emissions reduction and transit expansion.

Cohen also reported lobbying in favor of government loans for U.S. automakers -- an appropriate priority given that the Alliance's 2007 directors included senior lobbyists at Ford, GM, and Toyota, according to its tax returns.

The Alliance has been called many things, from "a leading nonprofit, nonpartisan group that advocates for improved mobility and safety" to "an advocacy group representing a wide range of motorists," but its true identity is best described as a card-carrying member of the road lobby.

Ever heard an anti-idling rap? Or Seen the "Funky Pollution Dance?" Tune in to this video to see what Livable Streets Education students are up to at MS 51 in Park Slope, Brooklyn.

Where's the Assembly's eco-warrior when you need him?

The MTA rescue package does not, in fact, fall under the purview of SEQRA, even though it's probably the most important piece of climate policy that the state legislature will consider this year. The Senate's latest stab would keep the trains and buses running for a few more months, but it's an eco-stinker compared to the Ravitch plan and any other package that includes road pricing or tolls on currently free bridges.

Let's go back to the spring of 2008. Remember all the carping from Richard Brodsky and other state legislators about congestion pricing not going through the SEQRA process? That was regarding a policy projected to take 112,000 cars off the road each day. Now we have an MTA funding plan getting serious consideration that would create worse traffic bottlenecks and more incentives to drive, but so far not even a peep about environmental consequences from Albany.

In separate letters issued this month to the Department of Environmental Protection, Thompson and Stringer present lists of unanswered questions pertaining to Local Law 41, adopted by the City Council in May 2005. The law required that all tour buses with engines that are at least three years old be retrofitted with best available technologies to reduce diesel particulate levels, and gave companies until January 2007 to either do the retrofits or apply for waivers.

Over three years later, only one company, Gray Line, has brought any of its buses into compliance. According to a DEP report, as of last August just 61 of the 204 tour buses on New York streets meet the law's requirements. The report, Thompson wrote, "shows a very disturbing lack of progress and, in fact, a widespread non-compliance with the law."

According to a 1999 study referenced in a recent New York Post article, a typical Gray Line bus "emit[s] about 25 times more diesel particles than the average bus."

Thompson takes the DEP to task for its tardiness in issuing the first of its required annual reports pertaining to Local Law 41. It was eight months late and, judging by the follow-up questions submitted by Thompson and Stringer, left many issues unaddressed, such as whether DEP is recommending license revocation for companies that aren't obeying the law.

"Tour Buses No -- Tourists Yes" is not only concerned with air pollution, but also noise pollution and physical safety. In September, sight-impaired West Village resident Lloyd Burlingame told NY1:

"I have to depend on my hearing to know when to cross the street and these tour buses, between the racket they make and these guys blathering, I put myself in danger every time they're here and I try to cross the street. So it's a particular problem for people like me."

Also in the NY1 report, City Council Member Alan Gerson said he wants legislation that would regulate tour bus times of operation, routes and frequency. (Enforcement, apparently, is another matter.) And said Villager Milton Polsky: "We have nothing against the tourists, but we'd like to see them walk and enjoy our wonderful sights here."

Photo: Richard Hsu/Flickr

A new report from Transportation Alternatives comparing carbon emissions for NYC transportation modes finds that drivers account for 60 percent of the city's transportation-related CO₂, while accounting for just 31 percent of all commuting trips.

"Rolling Carbon: Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Commuting in New York City" [PDF] reveals that the average New York City commute generates about seven pounds of carbon dioxide per round-trip, for a total of 1,750 pounds of CO₂ annually. Though this ranks us among the "greenest" US commuters in the aggregate, the report notes that individual impacts vary widely, depending on mode and distance. To that end, "Rolling Carbon" breaks down per-mile emissions for public and private conveyance, from Escalades, taxicabs and Priuses to trains, buses and, of course, bikes and feet.

Other report findings include:

• Driving alone causes the emission of about five times the amount of CO₂ (over 4,000 pounds per year) as is caused by taking the subway (about 820 pounds per year).
  
• If just 5% of all people commuting by private car or taxi switched to transit, walking or cycling, the result would be a decrease of 150 million pounds of CO2 emissions per year -- the equivalent of planting trees on an area 1.3 times the size of Manhattan.
  

Accompanying the report is a new killer app: RollingCarbon.org features a personalized Carbon Calculator for New Yorkers to determine emission levels generated by their commutes, and how many annual tree plantings would be needed to offset the trip. As illustrated by the chart above, pedestrians, cyclists and skaters are in the clear.

Planning advocates recommended doing away with parking requirements and "unbundling" the cost of parking from the price of housing. "There's no reason for parking to be paid for by people who don't own cars," said Tri-State Transportation Campaign director Kate Slevin, adding that the construction of parking should be "a choice rather than a necessity."

Minimum parking requirements are especially ill-suited to affordable housing developments, said Elena Conte of the Pratt Center for Community Development (pictured at the mic). "[A parking minimum] really makes no sense at all for communities where less than 20 percent of households own cars, because it drives up the cost of housing and takes up valuable space that otherwise could be used to create additional units or public space."

Representatives of Environmental Defense and the New York League of Conservation Voters rounded out the proceedings, calling on the city and state to take stock and head off the traffic-congested future that excessive off-street parking threatens to bring about. "We're building the infrastructure to encourage more people to drive with very little understanding of the environmental impacts," said Josh Nachowitz of NYLCV.

T.A.'s Paul Steely White tied the issue to preserving New York's streets for people on foot, noting that more off-street parking means less sidewalk integrity: "Curb cuts enable cars to drive across the sidewalk and block the sidewalk; it erodes the pedestrian environment."

Major planning groups, including the American Planning Association, the Regional Plan Association, and the Municipal Art Society, have also signed on to the report and urged Mayor Bloomberg to revise the city's ad-hoc policies governing off-street parking. According to one organizer behind the effort, this marks the first time all three organizations have lined up behind the same transportation reform.

Streetsblog will have more soon on the recommendations being advanced by this coalition.

"If only this street were completely jam-packed, I'd be having so much fun!!!"

It's too soon to evaluate this year's Summer Streets events, but I've noticed that the recent car-free days on Montague Street and Bedford Avenue in Brooklyn have been catching a bit of flack on Curbed and various other blogs for "not packing them in." On Saturday, the Brooklyn 11211 blog wrote that Williamsburg's main drag "lacked that manic aspect that Bedford often gets on the weekends." Curbed seemed to interpret that as failure. Last week, a Brooklyn Heights blogger snapped a photo of Montague Street around 3 pm with a light rain falling (on July 4th weekend, with the half of the neighborhood out of town) and sarcastically headlined the item, "Crowds Throng Montague." Brownstoner picked up on the photo and spread news of the "underwhelming" event.

Forgetting the fact that photos taken earlier in the day on Montague showed a pretty lovely and well-attended scene, what's with this idea that for a Summer Streets event to be considered successful, it needs to attract a "throng?" Jamming large crowds into small spaces has never been a big challenge in this town. The whole idea of Summer Streets, as I understand it, is to give New Yorkers a bit of room to breathe and space to walk, bike, play or simply sit down and relax. You want a throng? Try Midtown.

Here's a modest proposal for evaluating the success of a Summer Streets event...

Measure the amount of time kids are able to run and play without their parents having to worry about them being hit by a car, the number of friends you bump into and new people you meet, the pounds of automobile exhaust and carbon that are not spewed into the hot summer air, the volume of horn-honking, engine-revving and boom stereos you're not hearing, and whether local merchants are happy about the event and making more money than they usually do on a slow summer weekend.

And if there's a "throng" or the event is "packing them in" -- that's probably a sign of over-success. It means that it's time to expand your Summer Street by a few blocks, a few hours or another day.

Photo: Bedford Avenue last Saturday by Brooklyn 11211

The garage, situated near the mouth of the Lincoln Tunnel, will add more traffic to the already-congested streets of Hell's Kitchen, but its approval has strengthened calls to review similar permits more carefully in the future. "There are some positives," said Christine Berthet of the Clinton/Hell's Kitchen Pedestrian Safety Coalition (CHEKPEDS) in an email message. "The Borough President's office, the City Planning Commission, and the council all have special permits on their radar, and the commission indicated they are ready to do 'something about parking.' The Speaker is also interested in a long term action."

As a 2005 re-zoning leads to a surge in development around the West Side railyards, adopting stricter standards for the approval of special permits could prevent a concurrent boom in parking. The leniency of the current approval process, said Berthet, flies in the face of the city's goals for air quality and traffic reduction, and approving a flurry of permits now would saddle the neighborhood with parking facilities for years. "The special permit is like radioactive material," she said. "It remains toxic for a very long time."

Photo of traffic on 10th Avenue: SarahNYC/Flickr

State lawmakers reached an agreement yesterday allowing the city to move forward with plans for a recycling transfer station on Manhattan's Gansevoort peninsula near 14th Street. The step may do more to reduce traffic than any other measure passed during the latest legislative session, which wrapped up this morning.

The Gansevoort station is part of the city's Solid Waste Management Plan. By requiring each borough to handle its own trash, the plan is projected to reduce truck traffic within the city by about 3.5 million miles per year, in total. Areas that handle a disproportionate amount of the city's waste and the attendant truck traffic -- and suffer higher asthma rates as a result -- stand to see the greatest relief. As Mobilizing the Region noted last month, the opening of a Manhattan recycling station will mean fewer trucks fanning out to the Bronx, Brooklyn, and New Jersey.

Because the Gansevoort station is slated for a site on the Hudson River Park, state approval was required. Speaker Sheldon Silver had blocked the station last October at the behest of three Manhattan Assembly members. This time around, provisions were included to set aside future park funding and assure public access to the Hudson River Greenway during construction.

Photo: anazzarophotography/Flickr

Two weeks ago Streetsblog reported on the glut of public parking garages being built in Hell's Kitchen, which threatens to worsen traffic conditions in one of New York's most congested neighborhoods. The City Planning Commission could have set a precedent last Friday by denying a developer's request to build a 400-car public garage as part of a mixed-use project at 310-328 West 38th Street. Only 232 parking spaces would have been allowed without the special permit.

Instead, the commission approved the request. Despite the objections of community representatives, the only restriction imposed was to reserve most of the spaces for monthly parking. In its report [PDF], the commission asserts that streets near the new building "will be adequate to handle the traffic" generated by the garage. The analysis fails to consider the aggregate amount of parking in Hell's Kitchen, and flies in the face of DOT's efforts to improve the neighborhood's streets for pedestrians, says Christine Berthet of the Clinton/Hell's Kitchen Pedestrian Safety Coalition (CHEKPEDS).

"It's particularly egregious considering what we know about 37th Street," which carries cars heading toward the outbound Lincoln Tunnel, she adds. "The mitigation proposed as monthly parking demonstrates they have no clue on the science of parking, as monthly parking attracts commuters and discourages shoppers -- the worst case scenario."

The 38th Street garage, and others like it planned for Hell's Kitchen, are "a terrific example of the 'nibbling effect' that Jane Jacobs wrote about," whereby concessions to cars gradually multiply to erode the pedestrian environment, says Nick Peterson of the planning firm Alex Garvin & Associates.

The developer, Glenwood Management, will undergo one more stage of public review, needing approval at a June 18th session of the City Council to get the green light for the garage. Since the current review process appears to conflict with the sustainability goals of PlaNYC, Berthet believes it would make more sense for developers to appeal to DOT, not City Planning, for special parking permits. For now, this looks like another case of parking politics winning out over sensible policy.

Photo of a garage in the upper 50s between First Ave and Second Ave: lewisarothkopf/Flickr

If there's one thing a neighborhood overrun by traffic doesn't need, it's more public parking garages. But that's exactly what New Yorkers who live by the mouth of the Lincoln Tunnel will get if the City Planning Commission allows current development patterns to continue.

Case in point: In January, the developer Glenwood Management requested permission to build a 400-car parking garage attached to a new residential property in Hell's Kitchen. The application -- for 310-328 West 38th Street -- is the latest in a string of special permit requests to build parking in the area. It is currently pending before the City Planning Commission, which is scheduled to render a decision on June 6th. If the commission turns down the application, it could signal an important shift in the ongoing redevelopment of Hell’s Kitchen, which has seen a wave of new construction since a 2005 rezoning took effect.

The last time Streetsblog looked at the parking situation in Hell's Kitchen, local activists were fighting a provision in the new zoning that enabled substantially greater quantities of accessory parking -- spaces intended for building residents or commercial tenants. That battle is still playing out in court. The recent rash of permit requests represents another front in the effort to keep cars from overwhelming the neighborhood's streets.

A number of new buildings include plans for parking that exceed the amount allowed for residents. Glenwood Management, for instance, is only permitted to build 232 spaces for residents -- 114 under the pre-2005 zoning, according to local activists. The additional spaces will then be used by the developer as a public garage. At issue throughout Hell's Kitchen, in essence, is whether the city will allow developers to include public parking garages in new buildings without restriction.

"These regulations were put in place in 1973, more than a generation ago, and I don't think City Planning has ever denied any of those [requests]," says Christine Berthet of the Clinton/Hell's Kitchen Pedestrian Safety Coalition (CHEKPEDS). "As long as each public garage meets the guidelines, they approve it." What gets left out of the discussion is the total effect of those garages on traffic and air quality, she notes. "They never look at it as an aggregate."

In the case of Hell's Kitchen, that aggregate is poised to grow at a rapid clip. Already this year, developers have proposed building garages in the neighborhood totaling more than 500 parking spaces, Berthet estimates. With hundreds of new buildings planned on the West Side, she believes the trend will spiral out of control if left unchecked.

The effect on local streets could be considerable, in terms of both traffic generation and the pedestrian environment. "The Department of City Planning doesn't seem to take seriously the fact that parking generates traffic," says Nick Peterson, a vice president at planning firm Alex Garvin & Associates, "but if a new garage opens on a block that provides a net increase of 200 parking spaces, that's 200 cars that weren't there before. It's pretty obvious that new cars are on the road as a result." As for the pedestrian environment, he adds, "A parking garage is a dead space along the sidewalk -- there is no reason to go in and out of a parking garage except to park or pick up your car."

Traffic heads west on 37th Street towards the Lincoln Tunnel.

The garages in Hell’s Kitchen will be especially tempting to commuters exiting the Lincoln Tunnel. The neighborhood is already one of the most congested in the city and suffers the third highest asthma hospitalization rate among Manhattan's twelve community board districts. New parking facilities will only compound the problem by inducing more commuter traffic.

That is not the intent of the planning commission, which considers traffic volumes as well as demand for parking when it grants developers' requests, but observers say induced commuter driving will undoubtedly result. "There is often this disconnect between the planned condition and reality," says Peterson. "When you walk down a street and see a parking garage in a residential building, does the sign say, ‘Parking for Residents Only’? No. It says, simply, ‘Parking’ or ‘Public Parking.’"

When reached for comment, a Department of City Planning spokesperson referred to a commission report (PDF) on a recent parking application, which states that new garages are needed to offset the loss of parking incurred by new development, and to accommodate the influx of new residents.

Berthet takes issue with this stance because it assumes that existing parking lots were intended to serve as parking in perpetuity. In fact, she notes, the lots that are about to get displaced were supposed to serve as placeholders until developers could assemble parcels to build on. "They were not intended to be permanent fixtures," she says.

Meanwhile, DOT has committed to the Clinton/Hell's Kitchen Neighborhood Traffic Study, evaluating measures to, among other things, improve pedestrian safety in the neighborhood. The hesitation on the part of the planning commission to deny developers' parking requests seems at odds with DOT's efforts to tame traffic as well as Mayor Bloomberg's long-term sustainability agenda, but there are signs the commission may adopt a position more consistent with the goals of other agencies.

"In the last two hearings that we went to, we could see that the City Planning Commission is moving in its position," says Berthet. The commission has been more willing to place restrictions on new parking facilities, she notes. The report mentioned above, for example, required a development on 11th Avenue to provide monthly parking instead of the usual hourly parking -- a small step, but one that may signal more significant changes to come.

Before rendering its decision on the 11th Avenue garage, "the commission took into account the concerns about traffic, the decreasing supply of parking and the proposed use of the parking," said a department spokesperson in an email message. "The traffic analysis was based on a large share of the proposed parking spaces to be used by local residents. Accordingly, the commission required the garage to provide for monthly rather than largely hourly parking. This will serve local residents and businesses but reduce transient traffic."

In addition to weighing its priorities differently, the planning department should work more closely with other city agencies, Berthet says. Specifically, she’d like to see tighter coordination between the officials making transportation decisions and the ones making land use decisions. "Where you need parking is really a transportation issue," she says, especially when that parking will be used by commuters and other non-residents.

Making these long-term changes will not be easy. Peterson notes that the planning department is subject to pressures from community boards, which tend to favor more off-street parking. And some of the most effective ways to better manage parking supply, like raising the tax on spaces, lie outside the department’s control.

But for now, the planning commission has the authority to curb the quantity of parking being added to Hell’s Kitchen, if it so chooses. Without a swift change to current practice, developments winning permits today are likely to generate traffic far into the future. Even if the city zoning text is eventually amended to put a stop to the proliferation of public parking, dozens of garages in the neighborhood will get approved in the meantime. "We may have a nice law at the end, but what are we going to do with all this parking that gets built between now and then?" Berthet asks. "We will be stuck with it for the rest of our lives."

Photos: CHEKPEDS

Thank you for contacting me in support of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal. As you probably are aware, on March 31, the City Council approved a home rule message authorizing the state to approve Mayor Bloomberg's plan. The vote was 30 members in support and 20 against. I voted in support of the proposal. However, neither the State Assembly nor the State Senate acted in time to move this plan forward.

Anyone who drives in New York understands that congestion is a major problem, particularly in the Central Business District (CBD). Heavy traffic doesn't just anger and inconvenience drivers. It impacts our economy and environment as well. It is estimated that congestion costs the city $11.6 billion worth of lost business revenue, productivity, operating costs, and fuel and vehicle costs. In addition, because of our poor air quality, New York City asthma hospitalization rates are more than twice the national average.

Congestion pricing was one significant way to address these issues. It would have reduced traffic, improved air quality and public health, and provided critically needed funding for mass transit. Currently, our public transportation system is stretched to the limit. Nowhere is this more evident than the East Side. The Lexington Avenue subway line is operating at 110% capacity and, with 65,000 riders daily, the M15 is the most heavily utilized bus line in the Western Hemisphere.

Congestion pricing would have allowed the city to receive a one-time federal grant of $354 million for short-term mass transit improvements and allowed the city to use the congestion pricing fees to bond out an estimated $4.5 billion for major transit projects. These funds would have gone towards critical capital projects like the Second Avenue Subway, Bus Rapid Transit on First and Second Avenues, and East River ferry service. In addition to these large scale projects, if congestion pricing has been implemented, my Council District will have benefitted immediately from these short term transportation improvements:

• 46 new subway cars, primarily for the E & F lines
• 5 additional buses on the M101/M102/M103 lines
• 4 additional buses on the M86 line
• 2 additional buses on M66 line
• 3 additional buses on M31 line
• 6 additional buses on M15 line
• 10 additional buses on X90 line

Unfortunately, we won't be seeing these short term transportation improvements any time soon. However, I remain committed to the long term goal of reducing traffic and improving air quality in our city and will continue to work with our city's elected leadership to advance those goals.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this issue. I heavily weighed your views, and those of my other constituents, in formulating my position. As always, please feel free to contact me with any specific questions about this or any other issue facing our city.

Sincerely,
JESSICA LAPPIN
Council Member
5th District - Manhattan

Yesterday we heard that Assembly Member Deborah Glick's office told a constituent the congestion pricing bill could lead to worsening air quality. (Because, you know, building mass transit infrastructure will cancel out all the particulate pollution that pricing will keep out of the air.)

If Glick ends up basing her decision on that tortured logic, here's a look at what she would deny her district [PDF], according to the Campaign for New York's Future:

• 46 new subway cars, primarily for the E and F lines
• 3 additional buses for the M20/M104 Routes
• 5 additional buses for the M101/102/103 Routes
• 6 additional buses for the M15 Route
• 9 additional buses for the M1/M2/M3/M4 Routes

Those are just the short-term enhancements that will be implemented before congestion pricing goes into effect. (And it's worth repeating that the data comes from CFNY's district fact sheets, an excellent tool to help bolster your argument when you call your reps.)

Glick's district, which falls entirely within the congestion zone, also stands to benefit enormously from the most obvious result of congestion pricing: less traffic. Lower Manhattan will see a 33.2 percent reduction in extreme traffic jams and a 6.4 percent reduction in overall traffic, according to DOT commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan.

And it goes without saying that a very small minority of Glick's constituents would actually pay the fee. Only 3.2 percent drive alone outside the zone as part of their commute, according to 2000 Census data.

Brodskyite populist posturing would seem especially out of place in these parts. Only 22.4 percent of households own a car, a low figure even in New York City, and the average income of those households is more than $180,000.

I just called Deborah Glick's office as an outraged constituent to ask why she was not doing more to support congestion pricing, since she represents a swath of Manhattan on the West Side that would certainly benefit from reduced cars, better mass transit, etc.

I spoke to one of her top aides, Theresa Swidorski, who told me that while Glick "has not taken a position," one of her main concerns is the fact that the Congestion Pricing bill is not currently subject to SEQR--the State Environmental Quality Review Act.  http://www.dos.state.ny.us/lgss/seqr.htm

I asked why this should be of such a concern that Glick would risk shooting down the whole Congestion Pricing bill and federal funding for better mass transit. Swidorski responded that Glick's worried any work to expand the subways could "negatively impact the air."

That's right folks: Glick is worried that expanding the subways might "NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE AIR."

"There will be digging, there will be debris," Swidorski said.

Forgoing SEQR, Swidorski added, would set a terrible precedent for state law.

I'm not one to argue for sidestepping environmental reviews. But it would seem to me that the environmental benefits of reducing traffic congestion and expanding mass transit are really a no brainer here. I'm not sure why we have to waste a lot of time and precious capital to verify what we already know--less cars and more mass transit are good for the environment.

Supporters of the environment and Congestion Pricing should call Glick's office and let her know that.

Here's the digits:

District Office: 212-674-5153
Albany Office: 518-455-4841

glickd@assembly.state.ny.us

Brodsky's anti-pricing antics are well known to Streetsbloggers. Below is an excerpt from Farrell's February bulletin to his Northern Manhattan constituency, with emphasis added.

Read it and weep.

I would like to take a moment to explain my 'no' vote on congestion mitigation. Simply put, I saw this issue as a matter of fairness, where our community was being asked to shoulder the costs of this plan without receiving our fair share of the benefits.

While this idea of reduced traffic and a corresponding reduction in air pollution in our neighborhoods is appealing, the residents of New York City should not carry the burden for the entire metropolitan area while others use our bridges and tunnels without having to pay a fee. Unless there is some way drivers coming into Manhattan can be required to pay, these persons will continue to avoid paying their fair share, and this will do nothing to solve the pollution problems in our community which are caused by traffic on the George Washington Bridge.

However, my 'no' vote was one of only two cast by the review committee, meaning congestion mitigation passed the first hurdle without seriously addressing the concerns of our community.

From here, the City Council will take up the issue and must make a recommendation of its' own before the issue is considered by the State Assembly. Should congestion mitigation be approved by the City Council and taken up by the Assembly, the Assembly must approve congestion mitigation by March 31 in order to receive federal funding to implement this plan.

While both the Council and the Assembly are committed to meeting the deadline, should congestion mitigation be judges worthy of pursuit, it is imperative that this decision be made after consideration of all the facts. By design, this must include a long hard look at MTA's five-year plan, which was promised to the Council and the Assembly by the transit agency. However, MTA has yet to make good on their promise to release this information.

It's hard to know where to start here, but last things first: the MTA released its capital plan shortly after Farrell wrote this letter, and the overriding message, as expected, is that the MTA needs congestion pricing. But this is almost beside the point, not only because Lee Sander has been saying it for months now, but because a state legislator like Farrell, if anyone, should be well aware of the MTA's dire financial straits. Perhaps Ferrell expected the agency to say it doesn't need that $500 million a year after all.

Unlike some of his colleagues, Farrell seems willing to acknowledge that pricing will reduce traffic and air pollution. But that isn't good enough, since New Jersey drivers would receive a toll credit, thereby giving them a "free" ride. This is a classic example of the us vs. them strategy adopted by the anti-pricing crowd from day one: Even if there is less gridlock, less pollution, fewer kids hospitalized with asthma, we don't want it unless the other guy pays his "fair share."

our community was being asked to shoulder the costs of this plan without receiving our fair share of the benefits

Again with the "fair share" bit. If by "our community" Farrell is referring to Northern Manhattan, then he's at least partially right: drivers traveling below 60th Street would indeed have to pay the $8 congestion charge. But since just 3.4 percent of Farrell's constituents commute alone by car to Lower Manhattan from his transit-rich district, most of his community would indeed benefit. Greatly.

this will do nothing to solve the pollution problems in our community which are caused by traffic on the George Washington Bridge.

Not sure what Farrell means here, since the GWB has an inbound toll, and since the east and west side highways are included in the cordon area recommended by the TCMC.

Unless there is some way drivers coming into Manhattan can be required to pay...

Like an $8 charge to drive below 60th Street?

Despite Farrell's apparent willful ignorance when it comes to pricing, as of last week he had not signed on to Brodsky's $4 cab surcharge plan. Being a Manhattan legislator with his sights set on a City Council seat, it's hard to imagine he would. Yellow cabs aren't nearly as prevalent uptown, but Farrell would have a hell of a time justifying a $6.50 drop charge to the 77.9 percent of households in his district (full disclosure: mine included) that don't own a car and rely on taxis from time to time.

But now that Brodsky and his band of non-Manhattanite lawmakers have jumped the shark, what's next?

Aide Ashley Pillsbury wanted us to know that, while Hevesi is opposed to congestion pricing, he is a supporter of transit -- though she said the Times-Ledger story quoted the assemblyman correctly.

The point of Hevesi's remarks, Pillsbury said, was that transit revenues, rather than environmental benefits, are the driving force behind congestion pricing. Pillsbury also said that Hevesi believes congestion pricing should undergo a state environmental review before implementation. She was unaware of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission recommendation that the pricing pilot program be monitored for its environmental impacts, with adjustments made as warranted, but said such impacts should be known beforehand.

When a scheduled phone interview with Hevesi didn't pan out, Pillsbury sent over an op-ed written by the assemblyman and previously published "in several Queens newspapers." Here it is in full.

Manhattan, its residents and its representatives have a serious and legitimate problem to deal with regarding traffic congestion and pollution. While all of the proposed solutions have the potential to negatively impact the areas and the people I represent, I felt it was prudent to wait before solidifying my position, because only comprehensive thinking and cooperation between communities will allow us to tackle large, complex problems like the one Manhattan now faces.

After review of the final proposal, I am now forced to definitively oppose congestion pricing. A number of prominent elected officials have already voiced opposition to this plan including my Councilwoman, Melinda Katz. Some of the issues Councilwoman Katz and others have raised range from mildly troubling to monumentally problematic. These include the fact that there is no guarantee that revenues will be spent on mass transit, the possibility of increased park and riders in outer boroughs and elitist residential parking permit plans that will make people pay to park in their own neighborhoods and keep other citizens out, the fact that New Jersey residents will get a free ride because their tolls will offset the fee, and the fact that the plan hits low and middle income residents exceptionally hard while the more affluent among us will not be impacted.

While these issues gave me pause, it was not until I came upon the fatal flaw in the congestion pricing plan that I was forced to solidify my opposition. I cannot, as a representative of Forest Hills, Middle Village, Rego Park and the surrounding areas, cast a vote in favor of a plan of this magnitude before I am able to definitively assess the environmental impact to these communities. To do so would be the height of irresponsibility because the plan will result in uncalculated levels of increased pollution in the neighborhoods I represent, which in turn, affects the lungs of growing children, complicates or aggravates medical conditions of the elderly and is a contributing factor in respiratory, heart and lung disease.

There is a very simple way for those supporting this plan to address this shortcoming: mandate that a full Environmental Impact Study (EIS) be conducted in compliance with New York State's Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). SEQRA was written specifically to address major undertakings, such as congestion pricing, with a fact based analysis conducted by qualified experts. Without this information and a realistic understanding of the environmental impact on our neighborhoods, I will not support any plan that has the potential to inflict unknown levels of damage to the environmental well being of my communities and the physical health of the people I represent.

This issue is paramount, and I am stunned by members of the environmental community supporting congestion pricing who are asking us to acquiesce to this plan on the basis of a wink and a nod. The refusal of proponents of this plan to conduct a full review leads me to conclude that either they don't care about the environmental impact on our communities or they won't allow a full EIS because they know that the results will not be good for their cause.

All other deflective or untenable assertions that have been used to try to argue against the need for an EIS WILL NOT SUFFICE. These have included: 1) citing studies on environmental impacts in other cities like London and Stockholm, with facts that can be spun in any direction 2) the promise of an expedited EIS that will take place after I cast my vote in the state legislature or 3) unproven guesswork by an environmental community, who interestingly have consistently demanded SEQRA compliance and EIS's on other major undertakings in New York State but not this one.

Conduct a full Environmental Impact Study, in compliance with all SEQRA requirements, and I will come back to the table ready to discuss all other aspects of congestion pricing in good faith in order to help our neighbors in Manhattan. Until that is done, I will not support congestion pricing.

In three different studies presented at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual meeting in Boston last weekend, researchers "provided mounting evidence that air pollution can both increase the risk of cardiovascular disease in the long-term and induce heart attacks within hours of traffic exposure." While the studies have yet to be released in full, the Guardian reveals some details from the presentations made at AAAS:

John Incardona, of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, reported research on a type of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAHs) that has been ignored by scientists... He said: "The distribution of airborne PAHs really mirrors what is in oil and its refined products. So in essence we are breathing aerosolised oil spill in our big cities."

His work began when looking at how PAHs from oil had damaged the developing hearts of Pacific herring and pink salmon embryos after the Exxon Valdez spill of 1989. "When we first started studying the effects of oil on fish embryos I really never thought it would be applicable to human health," he said. "It turns out that fish hearts even in the embryo function more like human hearts than even mice or rats - the usual test animals in human health studies."

He believes the levels of the chemicals present when oil is burned are high enough to be pharmacologically active in the human bloodstream.

In another study, Lung Chi Chen, of the New York University School of Medicine, reported research where he exposed one group of mice to second-hand cigarette smoke equivalent to passively smoking three or four cigarettes a day and a second group to the fine particles present in air pollution, in concentrations similar to a big city. He found that both particles and smoke produced around the same amount of change in the hardening of the arteries, which can lead to heart attacks.

Related:

• Warning: Driving Could Be Hazardous to Your Health
• Congestion Relief: It's About Your Health

Photo: plakboek/Flickr

Still, we continue to spill all of this ink over congestion pricing because it is far and away the most important game in town. If you want better, safer bicycling; faster more reliable buses; more honorable treatment of pedestrians and public spaces and a healthier, more pleasant and sustainable New York City -- congestion pricing is the quickest, most effective way to make these changes happen.

That's because congestion pricing is the only policy that simultaneously reduces the number of motor vehicles on New York City's streets while raising money for transit and public space improvements. Typically, activists and change-makers deal in compromise and small incremental improvement. This moment is different. Congestion pricing creates an opportunity to make relatively revolutionary change happen relatively immediately. I don't expect this sort of opportunity to come along again any time soon. Now is the time to do everything we can to try to help push congestion pricing through the City Council and State Legislature.

Tonight's your chance to contribute. There will be six simultaneous public hearings held throughout the metropolitan region. Sign up ahead of time as a speaker and write up even just a paragraph or two of testimony. If you can go, go!

Here is a note from Transportation Alternatives executive director Paul Steely White with more details:

TONIGHT (Thursday, January 24), there will be public hearings on congestion pricing in Brooklyn, Queens, The Bronx and Staten Island. I'm sure you can think of better ways to spend an hour or two tomorrow night, but this set of hearings will determine whether congestion pricing will go to a vote this spring, or if it winds up in the dustbin.

Go represent your borough. Hearings start at 6pm. You must sign up in advance to speak, so go to this website for hearing locations and fax or email in your RSVP (you don't need to submit testimony online, you can just speak at the hearing).

All details are here:

Speak out for less traffic and better transit paid for by congestion pricing! Tell the commission about your transit, biking or walking commute and how you need safer streets and more reliable subways and buses.

Here are the details:

Thursday, January 24th
6 pm
Medgar Evers College
1650 Bedford Ave.
Brooklyn

Thursday, January 24th
6 pm
Hostos Community College
Savoy Multi-Purpose Room
Walton Ave. at 149th St.
The Bronx

Thursday, January 24th
6 pm
York College Performing Arts Center
94-20 Guy R. Brewer Blvd.
Jamaica, Queens

Thursday, January 24th
6 pm
College of Staten Island
Center for the Arts, Recital Hall 1P
2800 Victory Blvd.
Staten Island

Thursday, January 24th
6 pm
Westchester County Center
198 Central Ave.
1st Floor Meeting Rooms A-B
White Plains

Thursday, January 24th
6 pm
Hofstra University
University Club
North of Main Gate
Hempstead

Touting the good news from 2007, the Mayor noted that New York City's streets are getting safer:

In 2007, we made the safest big city in the nation safer than it has been in generations. The fewest traffic deaths in nearly a century. Historic lows in jail violence. Historic lows in fire fatalities. And the fewest homicides recorded in modern history. This is New York City today.

And, in a roundabout admission that more can be done to improve safety, Bloomberg mentioned a new initiative aimed at making the city more livable for senior citizens (like his own 99-year-old mom), taking a page from Transportation Alternatives' Safe Routes for Seniors program:

Today I'm announcing a major effort called 'The All Ages Project.' In collaboration with the City Council and the New York Academy of Medicine, this project will completely re-envision what it means to grow old in New York... For instance: How can we ensure that more seniors are cared for in their own homes, rather than in institutions? And how do we make our city easier to get around in? Next month, we will begin to address that second challenge with traffic engineering improvements at 25 high-accident areas which are especially problematic for seniors.

He wrapped up with a lengthy push for PlaNYC initiatives, including a brief pitch for congestion pricing:

With the State's blessing, we'll also use technology to create a system of congestion pricing -- something no other American city has done. It will help us achieve four critical, inter-connected goals: reducing traffic congestion; raising money for mass transit; improving our air quality; and fighting climate change.