Peter Vallone (l) and James Vacca

Responding to some 2,500 letters collected by Transportation Alternatives following the hit-and-run death of Brooklyn cyclist Mathieu Lefevre, Vallone announced that his public safety committee would address NYPD traffic enforcement. The hearing will be co-chaired by transportation committee chair James Vacca.

“It’s encouraging that the two chairs are treating this as a public safety concern, and are taking a long look and showing leadership,” says Juan Martinez, general counsel for TA.

In addition to crash prevention, Vallone and Vacca are expected to delve into how NYPD conducts crash investigations, an issue that is making headlines thanks to the Lefevre family’s pursuit of information from the department about the crash that killed their son. Says Martinez, “They have serious questions about the line — that in New York if you want to kill, do it with a car — whether that’s actually true.”

Anyone who wants to testify at next week’s hearing may send an e-mail to Martinez by the evening of Monday the 13th, with the subject line “Feb. 15.”

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.

Admitting the problem is the first step. Photo: Brooklyn Paper

“Any driver who has been towed knows that a trip to the impound lot can be one of the most frustrating experiences in New York City,” Greenfield said.

Under the new legislation, instead of towing, vehicles would be locked with devices called “boots,” which prevent drivers from moving until they call in and pay their outstanding fines, plus a $50 processing fee. Once paid, drivers receive a code that allows them to unlock the boot and drive away, as long as they return the boot.

Cars left booted for 72 hours could be towed under the bill, as could cars parked in tow zones, bus stops, crosswalks, fire hydrants or driveways.

Greenfield said the bill comes after numerous complaints from residents who accused the city of unfairly targeting them to make cash.

Drivers whose cars are towed under the current system have to schlep to an impound lot and then pay $185 in towing and $20 in storage a day, in addition to tickets, Greenfield said.

“This bill would give drivers a chance to pay their debts to the city without wasting an entire day trying to retrieve their vehicle,” he said. “It’s a simple and fair way for the city to enforce its parking laws without excessively punishing drivers.”

Retrieving a car from impound has got to be a frustrating ordeal, which is pretty much the point. Not that the boot itself isn’t a deterrent, but if nothing else this is further evidence of a City Council preoccupied with making life easier for motorists who believe laws should not apply to them.

Of course this is old hat for Greenfield, whose obsession with loosening parking regulations seemingly knows no bounds, and who a year ago went online to rant about the city clearing snow for safer walking and biking. Yet when reckless drivers inflict serious injury and death in his district, Greenfield has nothing to say.

Greenfield’s bill has been referred to the transportation committee, with support from council members including Brad Lander, Tish James, Lew Fidler, Robert Jackson and Ydanis Rodriguez.

Peter Vallone Jr.

The Village Voice reports that Peter Vallone, chair of the City Council’s public safety committee, is planning a hearing on traffic enforcement.

Responding to the Transportation Alternatives probe into how NYPD handles crash investigations, announced after a year that saw reckless motorists face little to no repercussions for taking lives, Vallone said, “They have some legitimate concerns. Clearly, more has to be done.”

Accepting Vallone’s statement at face value — that his committee will indeed focus on pedestrian and cyclist safety, rather than personal gripes — this is welcome news. Here are a few questions we’d like to see the Vallone committee ask the brass at NYPD:

• Is the Accident Investigation Squad dispatched to all cases involving death or serious injury? If not, why not?
• Why must victims’ families resort to the courts to obtain information pertaining to fatal crashes?
• Why isn’t NYPD making use of new state laws intended to hold dangerous drivers accountable for injuring and killing vulnerable street users?
• Does NYPD track rates of traffic violations, the same way it tracks other crime? If not, why not? If so, where is the data?

With mainstream media outlets picking up the story of Mathieu Lefevre’s family suing to get information from NYPD, and papers including the Voice questioning how so many deaths and injuries can go unpunished, might the council finally be ready to address the shortcomings of the city’s traffic justice system? We’ll see if Peter Vallone will pick up the slack for his colleague James Vacca.

If only NYPD targeted the most dangerous intersections with similar vigor. Streetfilms’ Clarence Eckerson and Streetsblog publisher Mark Gorton went out to Canal and Lafayette, which saw 13 crashes in the month of August alone, to see how traffic is being policed. Here’s what they found.

A team of Transportation Alternatives volunteers did just that over the course of October on the block of Jay Street between Willoughby and Johnson Streets, a major approach to the Manhattan Bridge and Brooklyn Bridge in downtown Brooklyn. Over the course of eight weekday rush hours, the volunteers tracked three easy-to-catch violations: Bike lane blocking, bus stop blocking, and illegal U-turns.

On that one block, 49 drivers parked in the bike lane every hour, 18 parked in the bus stop, and another eighteen made an illegal U-ey. You can do your own count in the video above.

Brooklyn cyclists, transit riders, pedestrians and motorists hoping for a safe and easy commute shouldn’t look to the NYPD to clean up Jay Street, either. In an average hour, three of the drivers parked in the bike lane, five parked in a bus stop, and two of the U-turners were cops, according to T.A.

In other words, police officers made as many illegal U-turns on this block in a single hour as the number of summonses NYPD issued for illegal U-turns on the same stretch in the entire month of September, according to T.A.

“The police aren’t paying attention (and are breaking the law), so drivers think they can get away with anything,” said T.A. Executive Director Paul Steely White in a statement. “With so little enforcement against the many drivers who blatantly ignore the rules of the road, everyone on this street is in harm’s way. Police Commissioner Kelly needs to get his department in order and make traffic safety a priority.”

When Scottsdale, Arizona's speeding cameras were temporarily not being used for enforcement, the number of speeders jumped by over 1,000 percent. Image: John Petrozza

The Manhattan Borough Board passed a resolution last Thursday endorsing the use of automated cameras to catch speeding drivers. Earning the support of 10 Manhattan community boards and four City Council members — with no votes in opposition — the resolution was a strong show of support for better traffic enforcement on New York City streets.

As the borough board notes in the resolution, if a driver hits a pedestrian at 40 mph, the victim has a 70 percent chance of being killed, but is someone is struck at 30 mph, she has an 80 percent chance of surviving. With the NYPD stretched thin, camera enforcement is a proven way of consistently enforcing the speed limit.

The only Manhattan community board to abstain on Thursday was CB 9. All the others voted in support of the resolution (CB 3 was absent from the borough board meeting, but had previously voted in support of speeding cameras, according to Transportation Alternatives Safety Campaign Director Lindsey Ganson). No council members voted against or abstained from the resolution. The four voting members with representatives in attendance — Dan Garodnick, Jessica Lappin, Gale Brewer, and Robert Jackson — all voted in favor of the resolution.

Ganson singled out Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer for his influence in getting the borough board resolution passed. “Having his leadership really made all the difference,” she said. Stringer is a long-time supporter of stepped-up speeding enforcement, including through the use of cameras.

Outside Manhattan, Ganson said that the speed camera legislation has earned endorsements from Brooklyn CBs 7 and 9, Queens CB 8, Staten Island CB 2, and from committees at Bronx CB 4 and Staten Island CB 1.

These local shows of support could build momentum in Albany for legislation sponsored by Assembly Member Deborah Glick authorizing the use of speeding cameras, which is necessary for the city to install them, Ganson said. “Having both the borough board resolution and resolutions from individual community boards makes a huge difference when you have a meeting with a state senator or state assembly member,” she said. “It shows them that people in their own district, at the most local level of representation, support this.”

The text of the resolution and the roll call vote are available in full below:

MANHATTAN BOROUGH BOARD RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF AUTOMATED SPEED ENFORCEMENT CAMERAS

WHEREAS, the Manhattan Borough Board is deeply concerned about speed-related roadway deaths and injuries which resulted in the death of 63 people and the injury of 2,150 people in 2009; and

WHEREAS, pedestrians and cyclists are at a heightened risk of injury in speed-related crashes: if a pedestrian is hit by a car at 40 mph there is an 70% chance the pedestrian will be killed, but if a driver strikes a pedestrian at 30 mph there is an 80% chance the pedestrian will survive; and

WHEREAS, speeding is the number one cause of deadly crashes in New York City, claiming more lives than drunken driving and distracted driving combined; and

WHEREAS, in 2009, 170 cyclists and pedestrians were killed on New York City’s roads; and

WHEREAS, law enforcement agencies, with increasing responsibility and without commensurate increases in staffing levels, are considering technologies to improve their efficiency; and

WHEREAS, “automated speed enforcement cameras,” when used in conjunction with traditional means of traffic enforcement and public education complement law enforcement’s traffic safety efforts and enforcement programs; and

WHEREAS, automated speed enforcement cameras have been shown to reduce all crashes by 14-72% and injuries and fatalities by 40-45%; and

WHEREAS, the New York State Senate and Assembly will introduce legislation, which would authorize the City of New York to use camera technology to enforce existing speed limits and support the efforts of the NYPD;

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Manhattan Borough Board supports the use of “automated speed enforcement cameras” and calls on the respective houses to pass this legislation and for the Governor to sign it; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Manhattan Borough Board urges the New York City Council and the Mayor to fully support this legislation.

CB 1 – Yes
CB 2 – Yes
CB 3 – Absent
CB 4 – Yes
CB 5 – Yes
CB 6 – Yes
CB 7 – Yes
CB 8 – Yes
CB 9 – Abstain
CB 10 – Yes
CB 11 – Yes
CB 12 – Yes

Councilmember Chin – Absent
Speaker Quinn – Abstain
Councilmember Mendez – Absent
Councilmember Garodnick – Yes
Councilmember Lappin – Yes
Councilmember Brewer – Yes
Councilmember Jackson – Yes
Councilmember Mark-Viverito – Absent
Councilmember Dickens – Absent
Councilmember Rodriguez – Absent

Borough President Stringer – Yes

Graph: Transportation Alternatives, based on data from New York State DMV

Tomorrow marks the one-year anniversary of the adoption of Hayley and Diego’s Law, which established the charge of “careless driving” in New York State and gave police and prosecutors a new tool to hold motorists who injure pedestrians and cyclists accountable. Unfortunately, says Transportation Alternatives, over the past 12 months the law has gone largely unenforced by NYPD.

Intended to demarcate a middle ground between moving violations and more serious criminal charges, Hayley and Diego’s law prescribes that drivers who caused injury “while failing to exercise due care” be required to take a drivers education course and be subject to fines of up to $750, jail time of up to 15 days, and a license suspension of up to six months. But a law is only as effective as those who enforce it, and TA has found that applications of VTL 1146, the statute that includes Hayley and Diego’s Law as well as Elle’s Law, are as rare as ever.

Diego Martinez and Hayley Ng were killed in January 2009 when an idling, unattended van jumped a curb in Chinatown. The driver was not charged.

T.A. filed a Freedom Of Information request in May with the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles and found that the number of applications of VTL 1146 has remained more or less steady for the last few years. T.A. estimates that there will be approximately 77 citations of the statute in 2011 based on a total of 32 citations issued as of June this year, while 97 tickets were issued under 1146 in 2010, 87 in 2009, and 92 in 2008.  These statistics show that a year after these new penalties meant to protect New Yorkers went in effect, they are barely being applied.

“Our family worked hard for these laws to deter motorists from dangerous and lethal behavior,” said Wendy Cheung, Hayley Ng’s aunt. “Nothing can undo the crash that took Hayley away from us, but we can prevent tragedies like this from happening to other families. And we can hold someone who breaks the law and takes a life responsible for their actions. We hope the police will use all the tools at their disposal to bring justice to our streets and protect others from the pain of losing a loved one to traffic violence.”

It should be noted that, in the city, VTL 1146 is enforced by NYPD and the Department of Motor Vehicles and, while district attorneys may advise police to apply it in certain cases, it does not fall under DA purview except for repeat offenders.

Streetsblog has a message in with NYPD regarding TA’s findings.

I drive a van as part of my duties as a utility worker, and I’m appalled at the lack of courtesy and regard for human life displayed by many drivers.

Given that NYPD has issued 16 times as many tickets for failing to wear a seatbelt as for failing to yield to pedestrians so far this year [PDF], and that retaining a New York state driver’s license is now treated like a basic human right, not a serious responsibility, he makes some good points.

Here’s Ken’s letter, which has been edited and formatted for clarity. The proposals he outlines probably go farther than what many Streetsblog readers would suggest, but there’s no doubt that the principles are sound and would save lives if applied. Keep in mind that driver error causes more than 78 percent of the thousands of crashes that kill or seriously injure New York City pedestrians each year, and that failure to yield contributes to 27 percent of those crashes, according to NYC DOT’s landmark pedestrian safety study.

Dear Mr. Fried,

All the proposals outlined in your article, which appeared in the Daily News on September 26th 2011, are great ideas that need advancing.

Unfortunately, all the sidewalk extensions, pedestrian islands and complete streets are not enough to erase the savagery that takes place on our streets. The fate that met Ms. Renard is not unique, it is sad that she was killed, but on a daily basis I see many near misses, many citizens narrowly escaping injury and possibly being killed just like Ms. Renard.

I drive a van as part of my duties as a utility worker, and I can tell you that I’m appalled at the lack of courtesy and regard for human life displayed by many drivers.

In their rush to nowhere, drivers are not yielding to pedestrians in the crosswalks — even when it’s a mother with a stroller. You can’t stop this callous behavior unless you change the driver’s way of thinking. If they can’t get the message, then we have to hit them in the pocket and hit them hard.

Some pedestrians stand in the crosswalk while waiting to cross the street, with their strollers in front of them and some of them are quite careless, but ultimately it is the driver who has the responsibility of being extra cautious. An irresponsible driver has a potential three-ton killing machine on his or her hands.

Drivers and pedestrians alike must realize that courtesy trumps right of way and we drivers have to respect the lives of everyone using the roads. Here are my proposals.

(1) $1,000 dollar fine — that will be enforced — for failing to yield to a pedestrian in a crosswalk.

(2) A two-minute freeze on vehicles turning while pedestrians are crossing in busy intersections, and a one-minute freeze in less-busy intersections. (Editor’s note: This signal timing technique is called a leading pedestrian interval, or LPI, and NYC DOT has been implementing it at an increasing number of intersections — though the length of the LPIs suggested by Ken would be extraordinary.)

(3) A massive public education campaign alerting all citizens of the dangers that exist on the roads, especially crosswalks.

Your organization’s approach as well as other ideas ,such as I have outlined, can work to provide safer streets. We need to work on all levels to make it happen, and it can happen.

Yours Respectfully,

Ken Douglas

So while the News and other outlets (the story made the AP wire) howl over $52 million in fines issued to “unsuspecting motorists” for running red lights in 2010, here’s the real news: a lot of drivers are running red lights. The fact that, in the course of a year, just 150 cameras caught a reported 1,053,268 drivers potentially putting lives at risk is a pretty good sign that the actual amount of red-light running is off the charts. (Is Komanoff in the house?) One can’t also help but conclude that the 2010 figures represent about 1,053,268 drivers who, if not for the cameras, would have gotten away with it.

But that’s not much of a surprise either. What jumped out at us, again, is the show of support for red light cameras from James Vacca. An avowed skeptic of other traffic-taming infrastructure and promoter of unfettered parking access, the City Council transportation committee chair has remained consistent in his condemnation of reckless driving. Said Vacca to the News:

“People who run red lights can kill people. These cameras go a long way towards making this a safer city.”

“I hope we get to the point where these cameras do not raise revenue and there is compliance with red lights,” he said. “Stop means stop.”

Granted, this is no big lift, and it’s exactly what the council transportation chair should be saying. But with more red light cameras, along with speed cameras, on the agenda, Vacca’s ongoing vocal support could be a big help in prodding Albany to allow the city to deploy additional life-saving, and popular, traffic tech.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver could make a slew of transportation bills move through his chamber or let them languish as in years past. Photo: Daily News

This year’s legislative session is rapidly coming to a close in Albany. With the state legislature wrapping up its regularly scheduled official business on June 20, the Capitol is entering a period of intense activity as legislators and lobbyists make a final push for their priorities.

Albany has some big items on its agenda this month: rent regulations, a property tax cap, ethics reform, and gay marriage. Somewhat below the radar, the push is on for a number of street safety and sustainable transportation priorities as well. Time is of the essence, as advocacy momentum built up over the year dissipates after the session ends. Bills that falter this time around will have to start over again after the legislature reconvenes in January.

If support gels for any of the following bills, the legislature can act extremely quickly to turn them into law. That’s especially true in the Assembly, where Speaker Sheldon Silver controls a large majority and where most of this legislation is currently stalled or has died in past sessions.

Complete Streets

Complete streets legislation would require planners to consider the needs of all road users when designing a road receiving state and federal funding. Last year, it passed the State Senate but stalled out in the Assembly.

After talking with the legislation’s opponents, complete streets supporters made some revisions to the language, and an updated version of the bill is headed to the Senate Transportation Committee today, said Nadine Lemmon, the Tri-State Transportation Campaign’s Albany legislative advocate. As now written, the complete streets bill would cover the large set of projects that already need to conduct extensive reviews as part of the federal approval process, which involves filling out thick binders of paperwork. “We’re targeting projects that already have to do a lot of review and we’re just adding two pages to their world,” said Lemmon.

Purely local projects wouldn’t be covered, but Lemmon argued that as towns or counties prepare complete streets plans on some projects, they’d grow more familiar with the concept, leading to what she called a “trickle down effect.”

In the Senate, the complete streets bill is sponsored by both Charles Fuschillo and Martin Dilan, the chair and ranking member of the Transportation Committee, respectively, along with twelve other senators. In the Assembly, however, the companion legislation hasn’t been introduced yet. That said, Lemmon reported that preliminary conversations about the bill with both the governor’s staff and state DOT officials have been encouraging.

Automated Enforcement for Speeding and Red Lights

Using automated cameras to enforce the speed limit would save lives, but local governments need state approval to do so. Legislation to allow New York City to install such cameras was introduced in the Assembly by Manhattan rep Deborah Glick last week, said Transportation Alternatives State Policy Director Lindsey Lusher Shute. The bill is now in front of the transportation committee. Companion legislation hasn’t been introduced yet in the Senate, she said, though she thinks that Brooklyn Republican Marty Golden may sponsor it.

Though the bill currently has 12 co-sponsors, “it’s going to take quite a few more sponsors and attention by the transportation committee to move,” said Lusher Shute, especially “given the reluctance of the chair to adopt more automated enforcement legislation.” Transportation Committee chair David Gantt killed legislation to allow bus lane enforcement cameras in 2008. Concluded Lusher Shute, “It’s not as close as we’d like.”

Another Golden-sponsored bill, to allow New York City to increase the number of life-saving red light cameras in use from 150 to 300, has moved quickly through the Senate. It passed through committee there and now only awaits a floor vote. Again, however, the Assembly version is stuck in the transportation committee.

Transit Funding Lockbox

The broad array of groups supporting legislation to make it harder for Albany to steal dedicated transit funds is headed up to the Capitol today, said Lusher Shute. The coalition includes transit advocates, labor and business leaders.

The bill is currently in front of the Assembly Ways and Means Committee and Senate Finance Committee. Assembly sponsor Jim Brennan urged supporters to contact Ways and Means chair Denny Farrell at a press conference last week.

Lusher Shute sounded optimistic about the lockbox’s chances. “There are tons of groups behind it,” she said, and legislators’ memories of recent fare hikes and service cuts are fresh. “It’s very possible that we could move that this session.”

Crossover Mirrors

An effort to require large trucks on New York City streets to be equipped with mirrors that enable drivers to see pedestrians in the blind spot in front of the cab got a big boost last week, in the form of a mayoral press conference supporting the bill. By standing with the bill’s sponsors, Golden and Brooklyn Assembly Member Joan Millman, Mayor Bloomberg showed that the legislation is a top priority for the city.

Yesterday, the bill passed the State Senate, where it was sponsored by Golden. In the Assembly, the bill is still in front of the transportation committee, but the Daily News reports that it could clear the whole chamber as soon as tomorrow.

Michael Pilecki (center) promised to strengthen traffic enforcement and focus on pedestrian safety at a community board meeting last night. Photo: Adams/Daily News.

Top NYPD brass expressed surprise at West Side residents’ unhappiness with the department’s traffic enforcement policies and vowed to do better at a meeting of Manhattan CB 4′s transportation committee last night. They also announced a new citywide “pedestrians first” policy for the department.

Four officers attended the CB 4 meeting, according to committee co-chair Christine Berthet, including Michael Pilecki and Scott Hanover, the commanding officer and executive officer of the NYPD’s traffic enforcement division. “It was fabulous,” said Berthet. “They took copious notes on everything.”

Berthet said that committee members had a wide array of complaints with NYPD’s current traffic enforcement practices in the area and pushed for more aggressive enforcement focused on pedestrian safety. “They were surprised how strong the message was from the community,” said Berthet. “We want fewer agents [who can only issue tickets for very limited violations like parking] and more tickets, summonses and towaways.”

Certain NYPD practices earned specific criticism from the West Siders. Police wave cars through red lights even when there isn’t any threat of gridlock, they said, or wave turning vehicles right into crossing pedestrians. “They said they had heard that, but needed to reinforce that message,” reported Berthet.

The officers also agreed to enforce anti-idling laws against buses and vans as well as automobiles.

To ensure that the police follow through on their commitments, said Berthet, she’ll hold another meeting of the transportation committee in three months to gather community feedback. “If there was no visible change,” she said, “we’ll re-invite them.”

Pilecki and Hanover also told the community board that the police had made a new citywide commitment to “pedestrians first” enforcement. “This is their new priority,” said Berthet. The campaign will include retraining traffic officers and stressing the “pedestrians first” mantra inside the department with visual reminders like stickers. A Streetsblog request to the NYPD press office for more information on the “pedestrians first” commitment was not returned.

Transportation Committee Chair James Vacca at a rally against the 25-cent meter rate bump in December. Photo: YourNabe/Council Member Vacca's office

Mayor Bloomberg’s budget proposal, which was released today, still includes a plan to increase parking meter rates across the city, a plan which the City Council scuttled once in January. The transportation budget also includes an increase in revenue from an expansion of the city’s red light camera program.

The biggest budget fights are sure to be over top-ticket items, like the 6,000 teaching jobs that Bloomberg would cut. But the meter hike will likely be an important subplot as the City Council debates Bloomberg’s budget proposal; Transportation Committee chair James Vacca has already made clear that he will fight to keep down the cost of on-street parking.

The proposal is the same as in the mayor’s preliminary budget, released last February. In Manhattan below 86th Street, meter rates will rise from $2.50 to $3.00 per hour. That change was not challenged by the Council and is likely to move forward smoothly. In the rest of the city and at municipal lots, meter rates will increase from $0.75 to $1.00 per hour.

Overall, the increase in parking meter revenue would raise roughly $20 million next year and $25 million after that. That’s between two-fifths and two-thirds of the entire deficit-closing package for the Department of Transportation, depending on the year, far more than would be saved by planned job cuts, furloughs, or efficiency measures.

When the Bloomberg administration put forward the citywide meter hike last year, however, the City Council made eliminating it a top priority in negotiations. Vacca led that fight and at the time promised to introduce a bill capping the city’s ability to increase meter rates in the future.

If Vacca again fights to keep parking meter rates completely flat — when adjusted for inflation, the city’s meter rate hasn’t risen in 18 years — he’ll be fighting for increased congestion and against small businesses. Meter rates set too low mean it’s nearly impossible to find a parking spot when you need one in many parts of New York City, leading to extra driving as motorists search for a spot and less turnover in front of neighborhood shops.

Moreover, Vacca would be fighting for extra cuts somewhere else in the budget. Increasing meter rates by a quarter an hour would raise $13.8 million each year after the first. According to the Independent Budget Office [PDF], $10 million buys 158 new teachers, 956 Head Start slots, or 10 days of residential garbage disposal. Are those sacrifices that the Council’s chief negotiator, Speaker Christine Quinn, is willing to sign off on?

Even within the realm of transportation, compare the revenue from the meter rate hike to the savings from a one-week furlough of DOT workers included in the budget that will result in 9,000 fewer potholes being fixed each winter: around $1 million a year. Keeping parking extra-cheap could, therefore, theoretically come at the price of an extra 124,000 potholes and all the wear and tear they cause to vehicles.

Another potential controversy buried in the budget is a plan to expand the use of red light enforcement cameras. The number of intersections where the city can install cameras is limited by Albany, but this plan would add extra cameras facing the opposite direction at 20 locations that already have cameras. Red light cameras have been repeatedly shown to reduce crashes and save lives, so the expansion of the program should be a boon to safety.

However, much of the opposition to traffic enforcement cameras comes from a minority who believe their only purpose is to raise revenue. The inclusion of this plan as a revenue item in the city’s deficit-closing plan could be a political liability therefore, giving opponents some evidence to latch onto.

In driver-on-pedestrian crashes, a few miles per hour can be the difference between life and death. Graph: Transportation Alternatives

Legislation allowing the city to curb deadly driving through the use of speed enforcement cameras will soon resurface in Albany.

A bill introduced last year called for a pilot program of 40 cameras, to be installed at crash-prone city intersections. Photographs would be taken of license plates (not of drivers), and tickets issued to vehicle owners. Tickets would not result in license points and could be contested in court. The bill included a five-year sunset provision.

A spokesperson for Manhattan Assembly Member Deborah Glick, sponsor of the original bill, told Streetsblog a draft is now being prepared for the current session.

In the meantime, Transportation Alternatives has been drumming up support, finding receptive audiences across the boroughs. Says TA’s Lindsey Ganson:

Five resolutions in support of using speed cameras in NYC have already passed full community boards — in Manhattan, Community Board 2, 4, and 7; in Staten Island Community Board 2; and in Brooklyn Community Board 7.  Many other community boards are in the process of showing their support. The transportation committees of Staten Island’s Community Board 1, Manhattan Community Boards 11 and 12, Bronx Community Board 4 and Queens Community Board 8 will be presenting resolutions to their full boards at their next meetings.

Speed cameras have the endorsement of NYPD, NYC DOT, and the city’s Department of Health. And with good reason. Speeding-related crashes killed 71 people in New York City in 2009, and injured 3,739. Not only have cameras have proven to be a potent deterrent — reducing the number of drivers speeding by 10+ mph by up to 88 percent, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety — they offer a cost-effective means of enforcing the law, and allow police departments to direct manpower to other crimes.

“Safe speed detectors will save lives,” Ganson says. “In New York City speeding is the number one cause of deadly crashes, claiming more lives than drunk driving and distracted driving combined. Speed detectors have cut speeding and reduced crashes in the 89 U.S. communities in 14 states where they’ve been authorized.”

Manhattan’s Tom Duane sponsored last year’s Senate version of the speed camera bill. He could not be reached for comment as of this writing.

Weekend cyclists in Central Park. Photo: Ed Yourdon/Flickr

At a meeting Wednesday night with representatives of groups that use the park’s loop road, the Central Park Precinct’s Community Affairs Officer Richard Tombari strongly implied that the precinct’s enforcement approach has shifted from its previous and punitive zero-tolerance stance.

While stressing that “the law is the law” and that cyclists will never get an official announcement of relaxed enforcement, Tombari told meeting attendees that officers have “discretion” and that their focus is now on reckless cycling. He offered several examples of what might be considered reckless riding, including racing through a red light when pedestrians are in the crosswalk. None of his examples involved a cyclist riding through a red light when no one is attempting to cross. It was unclear whether officers’ use of discretion is limited to car-free hours or whether it extends to places and times when cars are in the park.

Tombari’s comments came during a meeting of the Central Park Conservancy’s Recreation Roundtable, a loosely structured advisory group that works with the Conservancy on recreation issues in the park. Supporting the suggestion of a more relaxed enforcement regime is the fact that none of the representatives of the cycling organizations in the room knew of a red-light summons having been issued to a cyclist in the park in the past several weeks. In addition, on April 6, citing a reliable source, the New York Cycle Club announced to its members that a pilot program is underway in which the police will not enforce red lights in Central Park between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 a.m. on weekdays, barring reckless or dangerous riding. At the same time, the lights on the loop road were permanently synchronized to 25 miles per hour, presumably as an accommodation to fast cyclists.

While it appears that cyclists will never get explicit confirmation from the NYPD, after Wednesday’s meeting it seems fair to conclude that the NYPD is now pursuing a more rational policy of focusing enforcement on reckless cycling and is unlikely to ticket cyclists riding through red lights at deserted intersections, at least when that section of the loop is car-free. A meeting attendee asked about trends in the enforcement of rules against counterflow riding on the drives and equipment violations, and Tombari said he would provide a response.

But as long as the NYPD is unwilling to explicitly pledge that it will not ticket cyclists simply because they go through a red light — or as long as the city insists that traffic laws apply to cyclists in parks during car-free hours — riding a bike in Central Park remains, legally speaking, a dicey proposition. (Dicey, that is, unless you can maintain an average speed of 25 mph, which seems like a crazy thing for anyone to be encouraging at this point.) Changing the lights to flashing yellow during car-free times, as legislation introduced by City Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez calls for, appears to be the only current route for legitimizing recreational cycling in the park once more. Rodriguez’s bill now has 11 co-sponsors, although the Department of Transportation reportedly opposes it on the grounds that it would confuse pedestrians.

Will the “Central Park Shuffle” – a ticket-avoidance strategy employed by some in which the rider dismounts and runs through the red light cyclocross-style – become a vaguely remembered relic of a fleeting period of civic madness? Perhaps, but you might not want to clip in too tightly just yet.

Steve Vaccaro assisted with reporting and writing.

If you want to get the attention of the New York news media, the formula apparently goes something like so. Step one: turn a personal pet peeve into a matter of public record by filing a baseless lawsuit. Step two: watch reporters beat a path to your door.

Take one Jack McCloy, a motorist who was ticketed for running a red light at a camera-enforced intersection in Queens. According to McCloy, yellow lights in the city and Nassau County are too short, are purposefully timed to fatten municipal coffers at the expense of entrapped drivers, and are unsafe to boot.

As Fox 5 reporter Andrea Day points out, the timing of traffic lights is regulated by state and federal guidelines, and it’s pretty well established by now that red light cameras save lives and reduce injuries. Yet rather than pay a $50 fine, McCloy wants traffic signals re-calibrated to his satisfaction, and has filed a suit to that end in New York State Supreme Court. “Unless somebody stands up for what they believe is right,” McCloy says, “it’s going to just perpetuate itself.”

Fox at least gives some airtime to a Nassau County official who insists that the local traffic camera program is intended to influence behavior — i.e. force drivers to obey the law — but the piece is clearly meant to be a David and Goliath story, Average Joe taking on The Man.

So, one driver with a petty grievance and time to kill: worthy of making his case on television. Hundreds of families turning out to support a street safety project that the New York City press corps otherwise can’t stop talking about? Nothing to see here.

The guide includes tips on each step of the process, from choosing what to measure (speeding, though dangerous, is hard to measure without a radar gun) to targeting the right officials (don’t go for your police precinct’s commanding officer but his number two, the executive officer). The toolkit includes form letters for writing to your community board chair and City Council member, templates for counting traffic violations, and survey questions to pose to pedestrians walking by.

“To understand why there are so many injuries and fatalities on our streets every year, we need accurate, localized data,” said T.A. executive director Paul Steely White in a statement. “The Neighborhood Traffic Monitoring Toolkit empowers ordinary people to make their communities safer.”

Of course, the toolkit is just to get activists started; you can always contact T.A. for more hands-on assistance.

Photo: City of Newark

One year after Newark installed cameras at its most dangerous intersections, crashes and instances of red-light running were down by sizable margins.

According to the Traffic Safety Coalition, the city has reduced crashes by 16 percent and red light running violations by 40 percent at intersections with cameras — a total of 10 across Newark. Says the TSC:

The total number of crashes at those intersections dropped 16 percent in 2010 compared to 2009 despite half the approaches having been installed for six months or less. From July through December, there were 23 percent fewer crashes compared to the same months the year before — a clear indication cameras are changing driver behavior in the city.

“We must do what is necessary to encourage people to drive safely,” said coalition national co-chairs Paul and Sue Oberhauser, “and clearly cameras are making drivers think twice before running a red light.” You can read more about Newark’s red light cam program on the city’s web site.

Earlier this year, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found that red light cameras prevented 159 deaths between 2004 and 2008 in 14 of the largest cities in the U.S., and that 815 deaths would have been prevented had cameras been operating in all U.S. cities with a population of over 200,000. Nearly two-thirds of those killed by red light runners in 2009 were occupants of other vehicles, passengers in the red light runners’ vehicles, pedestrians or cyclists.

In 2009, after a series of delays and defeats in Albany, NYCDOT was given the go-ahead to install cameras at 150 of the city’s 12,000+ signalized intersections. A speed camera bill is currently pending. Perhaps as evidence of the effectiveness of automated enforcement continues to mount, state lawmakers will allow the city more leeway to save lives and prevent injuries.

Photo: Ken Coughlin

A crowd of 300 people, outraged at a police ticket blitz that threatens to effectively eliminate Central Park as a place of recreation for cyclists, ran into an unyielding blue wall at last night’s meeting of the Central Park Precinct’s community council. The precinct commander, Captain Philip Wishnia, offered no hope that his precinct’s enforcement of red-light laws at each of the loop road’s 47 traffic lights will abate, nor any assurances that his officers will exercise meaningful discretion.

Both Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and Upper West Side City Council Member Gale Brewer made brief statements at the meeting, urging exploration of a proposal to change the traffic lights to blinking yellow when cars are not in the park. Brewer, however, grasped the essence of the problem. Noting that she has had a bill before the council since 2006 calling for a trial closing of the park to cars, Brewer said, “Let’s get cars out of the park and change the current policy.”

Central Park Precinct Commander Philip Wishnia. Photo: NYPD

Wishnia initially tried to claim that the precinct’s sudden crackdown is in response to a “dramatic increase in incidents over the years,” an assertion that he failed to substantiate. When speaker after speaker challenged the claim, Wishnia would eventually fall back on the explanation that he is simply being instructed by higher-ups to enforce the law and has no flexibility. He suggested audience members talk to their legislators if they want a change.

Here are some further highlights, if you can call them that (many thanks to audience members Steve Vaccaro and Lisa Sladkus for their notes):

• Wishnia said that 230 summonses have been issued to cyclists so far this year, compared to 160 speeding summonses issued to drivers all of last year and 62 the prior year. Wishnia maintained the summonses given to cyclists are “not a lot” and that it “doesn’t amount to zero tolerance enforcement.”
• “We cyclists don’t understand how routine speeding by motorists in the park is condoned and even encouraged in this way, but you can’t allow a cyclist to ride through a red light in a deserted intersection in the park,” said Vaccaro. “How can an officer have the discretion to ignore one, but not the other?”
• Wishnia responded: “My officers have discretion. Not everyone who went through a light got a summons.” But when a cyclist asked under what circumstances he could go through a red light without getting a ticket, Wishnia replied, “I won’t tell you what your window of opportunity is.”
• One audience member presented his calculation that a park visitor has an infinitesimal chance of being struck by a cyclist (35 million park visitors in 2010 vs. 43 incidents involving cyclists and pedestrians, an unknown number of which were not the cyclist’s fault). When Wishnia was pressed by this and other questioners on his evidence for a problem warranting the current crackdown, he declared, “Even one injury is too many.”
• Stephen Bauman of the Five Borough Bicycle Club made a detailed legal argument that cyclists are not subject to Vehicle and Traffic Laws during non-car hours. “I think you’re making up the law,” Bauman said. “VTL does not apply directly to bicycles, and only to roadways ‘ordinarily used for vehicular travel.’”
• Wishnia claimed that the crashes involving bikes typically happen when the cars aren’t in the park. “I can guarantee you that if you ban cars in the park, there will be more crashes.”
• More from Wishnia: “When you’re leaned over your racing handlebars, you’re not looking out for pedestrians.”
• Wishnia refused to address a question about why officers don’t try to keep joggers out of the bike lane. “Right now we’re talking about cyclists, not runners. There are lots of other things we could talk of.”
• An 8-year-old girl asked Wishia: “If cyclists are being killed all the time, why are they being punished?”
• “I believe in this little yellow light idea that would give cyclists the right to use the park,” said Stringer. “I sent a letter to DOT. If we (i.e. cyclists) respect the yellow light, we shouldn’t be hitting cyclists with $270 tickets.”
• Wishnia estimated the crowd at 300 but claimed that the room could be filled with just as many who favor the current enforcement regime. “Where are they?” the crowd roared back.

Where do we go from here? Your comments appreciated.

Under a proposal by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, traffic lights would tell cyclists to yield rather than stop during off-peak hours. Photo: Ed Yourdon via Flickr.

Whatever you think of the NYPD’s citywide “Operation Safe Cycle,” of which all this is a part, the culture in Central Park for decades has been to allow cyclists to treat the traffic signals as “Yield” signs. Suddenly issuing $270 tickets to anyone who happens to go through a red on a bike while enjoying this most famous of urban oases is a “sick, disgusting, and even somewhat sadistic policy,” to quote a friend of mine not generally given to hyperbole.

If you care about preserving Central Park as a place where cyclists can get some exercise and escape the city, tonight you will want to attend the Central Park Precinct’s Community Council meeting, the precinct’s monthly forum for community input, at 7 pm at 160 Central Park West (the Universalist Church at 76th Street).

Admittedly, when I was in the park spearheading the drive to gather 100,000 signatures for a car-free Central Park, I would sometimes hear complaints about lycra-clad riders treating the park as if it were their personal velodrome. But at tonight’s meeting I and others will argue that if there is a safety issue, the precinct’s extreme solution will do little or nothing to address it. Moreover, requiring cyclists to stop at every red light for the full duration of the cycle no matter the circumstances – and there is, on average, a light every 674 feet on the six-mile loop — arguably removes the park as a viable recreational space for many riders, not just the Lance Armstrong wannabes. (I know several non-racing cyclists who have stopped using the loop.)

The February meeting of the Parks and Environment committee of Manhattan’s Community Board 7, on which I sit, provided some insight into the rationale for the ticket blitz. Precinct Commander Captain Philip Wishnia answered questions and essentially offered two competing explanations: First, he said word had come down from One Police Plaza to zealously enforce all traffic rules against cyclists, and the precinct had no say in the matter. Second, he maintained that the crackdown is an effort to address a purported rise in incidents involving cyclists and other users on the loop drive. Wishnia returned several times to a mishap between a cyclist and a 9-year-old boy, who he said was seriously injured. The logic of Wishnia’s proposed remedy goes like this: Forcing cyclists to stop at all red lights will make it harder for fast cyclists to achieve speeds that could do serious harm to someone on foot.

It became clear, however, that Wishnia has no idea of the scope of the problem he is seeking to address. He said that of 120 reportable incidents involving cyclists in 2010, only 43 involved a cyclist colliding with a pedestrian. And he could not say in how many of these incidents the cyclist was at fault or how many occurred at a crosswalk. A group of recreational cyclists sent a letter to Wishnia last week following up on these questions [PDF], and we hope to get a more thorough response from the precinct at tonight’s meeting.

Many observers, including Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, have proposed an alternative: simply shift the park’s traffic signals to blinking yellow during car-free hours, and perhaps add a push-button that would turn the light red for pedestrians who wish to cross during high-use times. Unfortunately, according to the Central Park Conservancy the park’s signals would have to be retooled for this to happen, presumably at considerable expense.

On the legislative front, City Council Member Ydanis Rodriguez is about to introduce a bill that would require all the lights to blink yellow during non-car hours. To generate momentum, Rodriguez needs people to encourage their council members to sign onto his bill and to express support to Speaker Christine Quinn.

Another common sense alternative would be for the precinct to treat the lights as if they are already blinking yellow for recreational users like cyclists. The idea would be for officers to exercise discretion and to ticket failures to proceed with caution (VTL 1113) or to yield to pedestrians in crosswalks (VTL 1134). At the CB7 meeting, Wishnia dismissed this idea out of hand, claiming it would amount to “selective enforcement.”

Leaving aside that he is misusing this legal concept, the reality is that Central Park precinct officers routinely exercise discretion and treat different users differently. As was recently reported on Streetsblog, motorists regularly drive through the park at 10 to 15 miles per hour above the 25 mph speed limit, right alongside cops. In addition, a precinct officer recently informed a cyclist that officers are using their judgment about whether to ticket red light-running cyclists at the park’s less crowded northern section, whereas a strict zero-tolerance policy is in force further south. This officer’s assurances notwithstanding, cyclists are reportedly still being ticketed in the park’s northern section.

I don’t harbor illusions that anything will be resolved at Monday night’s meeting, but if the crowd of those pleading for reason is large enough, it will send a clear message up the chain of command that the Central Park loop is not the same as Ninth Avenue.

Of course, we would not be having this discussion if cars were not allowed in the park in the first place. Traffic lights were first installed there in 1932, not to regulate recreational users but to keep the cars that had invaded the park some three decades earlier from killing people. Today, cyclists — the sort of recreational user for whom the park was designed — are being forced to adhere to rules created for cars, which is making it difficult for them to use Central Park as a place of recreation. In other words, even when cars are not in the park, their iniquitous influence endures.

The best solution would be to simply ban cars altogether, which would immediately open up a host of opportunities to better regulate and separate loop users. At the least, the recent ticket blitz has sharpened the contradictions inherent in allowing car traffic in this most famous of urban refuges.