A reader sends this photo of a huge rig using Kent Avenue's new protected bike path as its own, highly illegal shortcut. Our tipster says the trucker was bearing down on him at a rapid clip for several blocks before slowing down enough to hear an inquiry through the window: "What do you think you're doing?" The driver's response was unenlightening and filled with obscenities, we're told. This shot was taken after the confrontation.

The last time we checked in on the Kent Avenue project, which converted the street to one-way flow, truck traffic was the burning issue. The 90th and 94th precincts are supposed to keep trucks off streets where they don't belong. From the looks of it, police need to send a stronger message.

See the head-on view of the rig after the jump.

One section of the Kent Avenue two-way bike path has been painted. Two more will follow. Image: NYCDOT [PDF].

We've got another dispatch from the ongoing bike lane drama that is Kent Avenue. At Wednesday night's information session hosted by Brooklyn CB1, the DOT team gave a short presentation [PDF] outlining their plan to address truck traffic changes caused by converting Kent to one-way flow. Then the public was invited to comment.

Truck routes in North Williamsburg and Greenpoint.

A couple of things to keep in mind. The traffic changes are happening in three phases. So far only the first has been completed. Once the whole thing is finished and truckers have had some time to learn the new traffic patterns, the straightest shot heading south goes nowhere near Wythe or North 11th. DOT intends to promote this route, which takes trucks down McGuinness Boulevard instead, and work with the local police precincts to keep truckers off streets where they're not supposed to drive.

As for the notion that the project makes streets less safe (some opponents went so far as to say the new traffic patterns will endanger children), it's hard to take seriously. This is not just a one-way conversion: The crossing distances will be shorter and the roadway narrower on Kent Avenue, which motorists used to treat as a little stretch of autobahn in Brooklyn. Now that traffic will be calmer.

The bike lane was always intended to be a precursor to the Brooklyn Waterfront Greenway. The new design now occupies the greenway footprint, so opposing the bike lane is tantamount to opposing the greenway. An area undergoing as much residential development as North Brooklyn sorely needs this new space for pedestrians and cyclists. Walking to the waterfront will feel much safer and more appealing, and biking to the Williamsburg Bridge won't just be limited to a few brave souls. CB1 embraced those improvements when it approved the greenway plan last April [PDF]; the same benefits should feel much more tangible once the Kent Avenue bike lane is completed next month.

Come out tonight and support the city's first two-way, on-street protected bike path.

DOT representatives will be presenting their plan to address traffic changes caused by the new one-way vehicular flow on Kent. The new design establishes the greenway footprint and re-establishes on-street parking and loading zones. No new truck routes have been created, though southbound truck traffic will travel differently than before. Plenty can be done to mitigate the truck traffic changes, but there's a lot of hearsay and misinformation floating around. You can be sure that some North Williamsburg residents living close to those designated truck routes will be there tonight, and they'll be loud. A show of support for safe cycling would give a big boost to this important link in the city's bike network.

The meeting gets started at 6:30 (sorry about the late notice) at 807 Manhattan Avenue -- the entrance is on Calyer Street.

By all accounts, the new plan enjoys the support of former opponents, including the Satmar Hasidic community and businesses along Kent that would see loading zones return. While supporters may have had the numerical advantage last night, they were not the loudest.

"DOT could barely get through its presentation," reports TA's Wiley Norvell, with lots of heckling coming from residents of North 11th Street (which is already a truck route but would receive diverted traffic). The meeting had already been going on a few hours by the time public comment on Kent Avenue started, Norvell said, and not that many people testified. "A lot of people who were there to speak in favor felt a little browbeaten."

There was no vote on the agenda last night.

No one is dismissing the issue of truck traffic, which could be mitigated, in part, by stricter route enforcement. But the latest plan is the product of an already long and contentious public process. "DOT came up with a design that satisfied those concerns," said Norvell. "There's never a perfect scenario that leaves everyone grinning ear to ear, but there's always a safest scenario."

The New Jersey "trucker's special." Graphic: Sam Schwartz.

The truck inundation is due to the great counter-clockwise route that truckers take from New Jersey to Long Island and back to Jersey, to avoid paying the one-way, westbound, “double toll” on the Verrazano Bridge, or the two tolls on the George Washington Bridge and high peak hour tolls at the east bound Lincoln Tunnel. This state of affairs leaves a free path from Long Island to New Jersey across the Manhattan Bridge, over Canal Street, and out of the city via the westbound Lincoln and Holland Tunnels.

Because the trucking diversion -- the legacy of a deal cut on behalf of Staten Island Republicans -- is inherently political, the best policy options are not available. Congestion pricing would have solved the worst of the truck problem, as would restoring two-way tolls on the Verrazano Bridge, at least for trucks. But despite tough going in the State Senate, the MTA financial crisis and Silver's partial endorsement of the Ravitch Commission toll plan may offer some hope for neighborhoods battered by truck traffic, including downtown Brooklyn and western Queens.

Though no details have been released by the MTA, the Ravitch Commission or Sheldon Silver, it is very possible that truck tolls in the rescue plan will be set to match the truck tolls on other major MTA crossings. That would mean EZPass tolls of $20.25 each way for eighteen wheelers crossing the Manhattan, Williamsburg or Queensboro Bridges. (Trucks are not allowed on the Brooklyn Bridge.) This toll would greatly reduce truckers' financial incentive to cut across lower Manhattan on the way to New Jersey or further west. It's not perfect, but certainly enough to alter the time/money calculation so that some truckers will change routes. More effective, but also more politically difficult, ways to eliminate the great circle route include making the new tolls one-way for trucks westbound on the East River bridges and MTA tunnels, or following the Port Authority's lead and placing peak hour truck tolls on the new truck crossings.

Check out this video, via BikePortland.org, on bicycle safety, part of a Portland Water Bureau campaign to reduce truck-cyclist collisions there. Last month, the Water Bureau held a bike safety seminar, which involved cyclists climbing into the cab of a city truck to see (or not see) driver blind spots for themselves.

The accompanying vid definitely puts the onus on cyclists (since "drivers are trained for safety"). Still, there's valuable info here on how the road looks from a truck driver's perspective, and it's impressive to see a city not only acknowledging the dangers trucks pose to cyclists, but taking action to mitigate them. Writes BikePortland.org editor Jonathan Maus:

I’m usually skeptical of educational videos as they are often cheesy and pedantic. But this one worked. Much of the footage was taken from inside the truck’s cab on crowded bikeways I’m very familiar with, but they looked completely different from a trucker’s perspective. It was eye-opening and nerve-racking just to watch the truck’s rear and side mirrors as bikes darted in and out of view — I couldn’t imagine the stress of actually operating that vehicle.

This handy illustration, courtesy of DOT via "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz, should be in the training curriculum for every delivery driver who does business in New York. Streetfilms' Clarence Eckerson, who came across this graphic last week, says his appeals to delivery drivers stationed in bike lanes are often met by the excuse that it is not illegal to double park. When a vehicle blocks a bike lane, the law says otherwise:

No vehicle is allowed to block a bicycle lane at any time. If there is no curbside spaces on either side of the street within 100 feet of a delivery/pickup location, commercial vehicles may stand, “double parked,” next to a bicycle lane. If there is no active loading or unloading taking place standing a vehicle in such a manner can result in a violation. Please note also that this does not apply to midtown Manhattan.

Streetsblog contributor Ethan Kent sends along this item from CoolTown Studios, profiling what it calls "the contemporary urban delivery vehicle":

So what's the delivery truck equivalent of the bicycle? Look no further than Paris, the home of 20,000 shared bikes, and there you'll find La Petite Reine, a delivery company that utilizes a fleet of 60 Cargocycles.

With a delivery capacity of 400 lbs. and 50 cubic feet within an 18-mile delivery radius, La Petite Reine completes 2500 deliveries every day for larger corporate partners like DHL that can't access the more intimate street networks of more pedestrian-oriented downtowns.

'La Petite Reine' translates to 'Queen of the Road', the name given by the French to the bicycle. Founded in 2001, the company now serves Bordeaux, Rouen and Dijon.

What's that? Great, but it could never work in New York?

Think again.

If BP can stand for "Beyond Petroleum," what's to stop the trucking industry from claiming to "deliver a cleaner tomorrow"? Not much, apparently.

In a story about the current practices of K Street lobbyists, the Washington Post reports that even the American Trucking Associations -- a national trade group -- is adopting an eco-friendly tone:

Record gasoline prices have done more than boost advertising budgets for worried energy lobbies. They also have turned long-held positions of significant lobbying groups upside down -- and decidedly pro-environmental.

The American Trucking Associations last week did a 180 (or pretty close to that) on two key issues. In news releases notable for their use of the color green, the truck company lobby said it would accept a fuel tax increase -- once its most hated policy proposal -- if the extra revenue went toward reducing highway congestion. It also suggested tougher fuel economy standards for trucks, another shocker for the trucking industry.

Guess the ATA might have to iron out some differences with Truckers and Citizens United, a more grassroots-style group that staged a gas-guzzling, street-clogging "rally" in Washington last month to protest the price of fuel.

To get its green message across, the ATA has launched a campaign called "Trucks Deliver" touting six steps to reduce the industry's emissions. Their congestion mitigation strategy comes after the jump.

The American Trucking Associations advocates initiatives to improve highway infrastructure and reduce congestion.

Relieving highway congestion is a critically important strategy for reducing carbon emissions. Improving the nation’s highway infrastructure is a long-range challenge, and the American Trucking Associations has recommended a 20-year program, focused initially on fixing critical bottlenecks.  Longer-range ideas include creating truck-only corridors which would permit carriers to further increase the use of more productive vehicles. The needed infrastructure improvements can be paid for with a dedicated fuel tax if necessary. If congestion in all 437 urban areas were eliminated, the reduction in truck CO₂ emissions would be 45.2 million tons over ten years -- equal to the annual output of a population the size of the State of Colorado.

Whether the "Trucks Deliver" campaign is an exercise in green-washing, an adaptation to new economic realities, or a sincere effort to reduce the trucking industry's carbon footprint, one thing is clear: They'd still rather not broach the subject of freight rail.

Tonight the DOT will be presenting their plans for improved Manhattan Bridge bike access via the Chrystie Street bike lane to Community Board 3. This plan is going to involve the removal of parking along Chrystie Street, so it is anticipated that there will be resistance at the Community Board level.

It would be great to have supportive cyclists in the room. The details are as follows:

What: CB 3 Transportation Committee Meeting on Chrystie Street Bike Lane

When: Wednesday, May 14, 2008 6:30 PM

Where: Confucius Plaza, Community Room - 33 Bowery (at Bayard Street)

The Manhattan Bridge is the second busiest East River crossing for NYC cyclists. From 2005-2006 (most recent counts), the Manhattan Bridge saw a 90.3% increase in daily cycling trips (829-1,578). As the numbers of cyclists continue to grow, so will daily crossing over this vital connector between Manhattan & Brooklyn.

Chrystie Street is one of the most common routes for cyclists commuting to and from Brooklyn on the Manhattan Bridge. It is also a 'through' and 'local' truck route. (http://home2.nyc.gov/html/dot/downloads/pdf/uppertruckroute.pdf)

According to the City's Bicyclist Fatalities and Serious Injuries Report, 1996-2005, trucks are twice as deadly to cyclists as regular vehicles, even SUVs. The same study found that of all the fatalities between those years, only one occurred in a bike lane.

T.A.'s www.crashstat.org highlights the need for traffic calming and improved design on Chrystie Street as well.

A bike lane along Chrystie Street is a necessary safety measure for cyclists and for pedestrians. This plan will also involve many pedestrian treatments along this dangerous corridor. The number of people the bike and pedestrian improvements will serve far outweighs the number of people who will impacted by any loss in car parking.

At a panel on cyclist's rights, Bob Mionske, a Portland, Oregon attorney and founder of Bicycle Law, offered a cogent explanation of the obstacles cyclists face when it comes to public perception, police enforcement, and holding motorists accountable for injuring and killing cyclists. "Anti-cyclist bias is endemic in the police, the court system, and the media," he said, then described how bias in each arena reinforces bias in the others.

Mionske talked about three examples from his practice:

• A 19 year-old cyclist stops next to a cement truck. Truck turns right and crushes her. Headline the next day reads: "Bike slams into cement truck." Police said the driver couldn't see her, didn't issue a ticket.

• A rider going downhill in the bike lane gets crushed under the rear wheels of a right-turning garbage truck. Cops determined that the driver had violated the cyclist's right-of-way, but he couldn't perceive it. They didn't issue a ticket, even though the sideview mirror was held together with duct tape and bungee cord. Media portrayed it as a "cars vs. bikes" story and ran file footage of a bicyclist on a roundabout, nothing from the scene of the crime. "It's a feedback loop," said Mionske. "The message to society is: Someone died on a bike, but it was probably his fault."

• A mother called, said her son was hit by an F150 truck. Son was issued two tickets for running a light and had $25,000 in medical bills. He had front lights, back lights, and a helmet at the time of the crash. On the scene, the officer asked the cyclist what happened, but the cyclist was in shock and couldn't remember. News said, "Wrong way cyclist hits truck, driver has heart attack," but it turned out that the driver was entering a diabetic coma at the time of the crash. Media wasn't interested when the case against the cyclist was dismissed.

"This just poisons the mind of the public, and the public is who is empaneled in juries," said Mionske. "What you see is anti-cycling bias starts with cops, is reinforced by the media, and is perpetuated in the courts."

"We need to keep the media accountable, and we need to talk to the police," he said. "But it starts with enforcement."

Photo: Steffe/Flickr 

We didn't do it.

A web site demanding that US Transportation Secretary Mary Peters lose her post -- www.firemarypeters.com -- is a project of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Angry about the Bush administration's plan to allow trucks from Mexico across the border, the labor org launched the "Fire Mary Peters" campaign last month.

Though Peters took heat from Streetsbloggers last year for claiming that bikes "are not transportation," her department also chose New York as one of five cities to share in a $1.1 billion earmark for congestion pricing projects.

Streetsblog has gotten hold of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission recommendation, which should be voted on this hour. According to the version we have (pdf), the commission's alternative to Mayor Bloomberg's plan is expected to exceed the 6.3% VMT reduction required by the federal government, and raise an estimated $491 million per year for mass transit. Other details include:

• An $8 fee to drive into Manhattan south of 60th Street on weekdays between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m.
• Trucks pay $21, except for low-emission trucks which pay $7
• East and west side highways would NOT be free; the cordon would start at bridge exits in Manhattan
  
• Increased on-street parking meter rates within the zone
• "[T]he commission recommends that the city be required to offer communities a residential parking permit program (RPP) prior to the start of congestion pricing and to track park-and-ride activity as part of a comprehensive monitoring program."
  
• Elimination of the resident parking tax exemption for off-street parking garages and lots within the zone
• "All funds from increased on-street parking rates and the elimination of the resident parking tax exemption within the zone should be dedicated by the City of New York to additional transit, pedestrian, bicycle, and parking management improvements, including, but not limited to, expanded ferry service, bus signalization, BRT investments, bicycle facilities, and pedestrian enhancements."  
• For EZ Pass users, the value of all tolls would be deducted from the fee up to $8
• A $1 surcharge for motorists who don't use EZ Pass
• $1 surcharge on taxi and black car trips that start and end within the zone during pricing hours
• A lockbox, or "dedicated transit account," will be created, aimed mainly at funding the MTA Capital Plan
• Short-term strategic improvements to subway, bus, and express bus service should be put in place before pricing kicks in
  
• Traffic and environmental monitoring program in place before the start of pricing along with a thorough review along the lines of SEQRA
  

Passages from the recommendation report:  

• "Compared to the Mayor’s plan, the Commission’s plan has considerably lower operating and capital costs and a simpler fee structure.  By increasing both the cost of taxi trips and parking within the zone, the plan ensures that those who live inside the zone also pay for auto use. The plan will also reduce traffic in neighborhoods adjacent to the zone, decrease vehicle emissions, and benefit the City and regional economy."
• "In terms of economic equity, the Commission’s plan will negatively impact a small proportion of New Yorkers of limited income: those who drive to work in the CBD and have no feasible transit alternative. This group represents less than one percent of all commuters to the CBD."
• "[T]he Commission believes that the Commission’s plan is the first step towards a coordinated traffic management strategy for Manhattan and the region."
  

Taking the stump for pricing were Kathryn Wylde of the Partnership for NYC and Michael O'Loughlin of the Campaign for New York's Future. Arguing against were Congressman Anthony Weiner of Queens and Walter McCaffrey of the Coalition to Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free. The standing-room-only crowd of more than 120 people -- most of whom came from the Upper East Side and East Harlem, judging by the post-debate Q & A -- appeared to favor Weiner and McCaffrey by a noticeable, though not overwhelming, margin. Wylde and O'Loughlin scored their share of applause, but Weiner was the only speaker to draw vocal cheers.

Claiming that "we are buying a pig in a poke," Weiner made several arguments familiar to Streetsblog readers, adding a few rhetorical flourishes worth noting. Among his main points:

• The current plan is "not fair" because suburban drivers from LI and NJ won't pay any fee in addition to the existing tolls on the Hudson River crossings and the Queens-Midtown Tunnel.
• Commercial truck traffic in Midtown is increasing faster than car traffic, so a priority should be placed on mitigating truck congestion.
• The number of people who switch to mass transit because of congestion pricing will impose costs on the transit system that significantly outweigh the revenue pricing will generate.
• Republicans support congestion pricing because it "bolsters the idea that municipalities should pay for their own transportation enhancements," as opposed to the idea that transit improvements should be paid for from a federal pot of gas tax revenue.

Weiner built up this last point quite dramatically, painting congestion pricing as a wedge issue that has played into the hands of "Texas conservatives" by dividing people who share a concern for the environment. "There's a reason that George Bush likes this plan," he said, insisting that "there are smarter and more progressive ways to do this."

Weiner then outlined his own three-point plan in broad strokes, saying he would 1) charge trucks to enter Midtown during peak hours, 2) offer businesses tax incentives to remain open for late-night truck deliveries, and 3) charge private motorists, but only those from outside the five boroughs.

Wylde attacked Weiner's emphasis on trucks, pointing out that only eight percent of the vehicles in the zone below 60th Street are trucks, while 40 percent are private, single-occupancy cars. She also argued that the mayor's plan would not pit people who live in the congestion zone against people from the outer boroughs, because "Manhattan is the magnet that creates excess traffic throughout the region, and reducing traffic below 60th Street will reduce traffic throughout the region." Her repeated references to 60th Street as the northern boundary of the congestion zone may signal that the TCMC will ultimately propose shifting the boundary south from 86th Street.

Also, in response to an East Harlem resident who expressed concern that her asthma-stricken neighborhood would become even more overwhelmed by vertical parking lots, Wylde hinted that the TCMC proposals would pay "very serious attention" to the issue of parking in peripheral districts.

O'Loughlin, in his rebuttal to Weiner, argued that New York can't rely on Congress -- especially representatives from Texas -- to raise the gas tax and set aside sufficient cash to fund the city's transit system. "Just because the Bush administration is willing to give us $354 million doesn't make this a bad idea," he said. He cited support from the Drum Major Institute and the Central Labor Council as evidence of pricing's progressive bona fides, pointing out that it will be "especially good for low-income New Yorkers, who are more likely to rely on transit."

When the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission meets today, it is expected to deliberate four proposed alternatives to Mayor Bloomberg's original congestion pricing plan. While Chairman Marc Shaw writes that that the commission "may choose to modify," "combine elements" or "put forward a wholly different plan," debate has already begun in the media, focused mostly on the proposal to add tolls to all free bridges on the East and Harlem Rivers.

Under that plan, a $4 toll would be imposed on all crossings into and out of Manhattan, 24 hours a day, with higher tolls for trucks. The plan would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 7 percent -- qualifying the city for $354 million in federal funds -- while raising an estimated $859 million annually for transit.

Pols including Brooklyn Borough President Marty Markowitz and City Council Member John Liu are adamantly opposed to tolling the remaining bridges. Liu -- who chairs the council's transportation committee -- pre-empted today's TCMC discussion with another salvo, via the Daily News.

"You can't seal off Manhattan like that," said Liu (D-Queens), who supports congestion pricing. "To think of Manhattan as a castle surrounded by a moat will not get anybody anywhere."

The News points out that in 2006, "Although 557,043 vehicles used the nine free bridges spanning the Harlem River, only 494,576 vehicles crossed the free Brooklyn, Manhattan, Williamsburg and Queensboro bridges."

Another proposal, as outlined with the others in a 72-page commission report (pdf), would operate similarly to the mayor's plan, but would move the pricing boundary to 60th Street and remove the $4 fee for trips originating within the zone. It would also raise parking meter rates, eliminate the resident parking tax exemption, and impose a $1 surcharge on cab rides that start and/or end within the zone. Estimated annual revenues for the "Alternative Congestion Pricing Plan" are pegged at $520 million.

The other two plans are the "Combination Plan," which would reduce VMTs by just 3.2 percent and is apparently not considered a viable option as written, and the odd-even license plate scheme, which would raise zero dollars for transit and will ideally end up but a gleam in Richard Brodsky's eye.

Meanwhile, maverick advocate Ted Kheel grabbed some prime op-ed space in today's Daily News to push his plan to double the $8 congestion charge while making transit free. And a new Quinnipiac Poll -- released, true to form, just ahead of the congestion commission meeting -- finds that 60 percent of New Yorkers support congestion pricing to improve transit, though you still wouldn't know it from the headlines.

Here is the wire report:

FINAL UPDATE,RESP-4 REPORTS A CYCLIST TRAVELING NORTH BOUND 6 AVE BTWN 36 & 37 ST WERE A RED PICK UP TRUCK WAS PARKED BY THE HYDRANT WHEN THE PASSENGER OPENED THE DOOR AND STRUCK THE CYCLIST . THE CYCLIST WAS STRUCK BY A PASSING BOX TRUCK.THE CYCLIST WAS TAKEN TO BELLEVUE HOSPITAL {DOA} ..SIGNS & MARKING IN GOOD WORKING ORDER..PER OP-26

And here is how it was reported in the Daily News. Note the number of steps taken, and not taken, by the cyclist to put himself in mortal danger -- starting with the headline.

Bicyclist killed after falling in front of truck

A 63-year-old man bicycling in midtown Manhattan Wednesday morning hit a car door and flipped into the street before he was run over and killed by a box truck, police said.

The man, whose identity wasn't immediately released, was not wearing a helmet, a police source said.

It's as if every action -- hitting the door, flipping into the street -- was initiated by the cyclist, who wasn't even wearing a helmet. The drivers of the vehicles, meanwhile, are never mentioned in the story. In fact, the article makes it seem as if there were no drivers.

The Ace Hardware truck that hit the man stayed at the scene.

Of course this isn't the first time we've seen this kind of victim-blaming, even in the News.

Here is the 1010 WINS account:

Police said Wednesday that the victim, a Manhattan resident whose name
was not immediately made public, was riding northbound on Sixth Avenue
near 36th Street when he encountered the open door of a parked vehicle.
The impact caused him to land on the street, where he was struck by a
passing truck.

In this version, the cyclist encountered the door of a parked vehicle, which he apparently decided to crash into. At least this article refers to him as a "victim."

And though it almost goes without saying:

There were no charges, cops said.

US Rep. Anthony Weiner was one of the first voices to speak up against Mayor Bloomberg's proposal for a three-year congestion pricing pilot project and he remains one of the loudest. In his testimony Oct. 25 before the NYC Traffic Mitigation Congestion Commission, Weiner -- who is planning a 2009 mayoral run -- consolidated his arguments, starting off with a diplomatic concession: "The Bloomberg administration has begun a very important conversation about what New York will look like in 2030 and how we prepare now for the sustainable and prosperous future." Weiner went on immediately, however, to characterize the mayor's congestion-pricing plan as "expensive and unfair." Today, an even more boiled down version of Weiner's proposal can be found on the New York Post op/ed page. 

In his testimony, Weiner outlined a seven-point alternative that has a little something for everybody. Very roughly, here's what it boils down to:

• Improving mass transit, including ferries and buses, before anything else is done. Weiner also outlines a plan to get 1 of 10 New Yorkers on a bike by 2020, with strategies including a pilot bike-sharing program and expanded bike-storage facilities.
• What he calls "carrot and stick congestion pricing"-- a tax credit for companies that schedule truck deliveries in off-peak hours; increased tolls during rush hour; and an increase in metered parking fees during peak hours. Weiner says these last two points "would satisfy the Department of Transportation's requirement that some element of congestion pricing be part of the City's plan, and thus make us eligible to collect the federal grant." (Actually, no, those ideas don't appear to meet the federal government's definition of "congestion pricing.")
  
• Reducing reliance on trucks by building the Cross Harbor Tunnel.
• Scaling back alternate-side parking and street-cleaning.
• Avoiding the creation of an expensive infrastructure in order to qualify for the $354.5 million in federal funds.
• Enforcing existing traffic laws such as "don't block the box."
• "Apportioning the benefits and the burden fairly--don't pit neighbor against neighbor."

Weiner's proposals prompted a scornful response from Transportation Alternatives. In a letter to the Traffic Mitigation Commission, TA executive director Paul Steely White said: "Congressman Weiner does nothing to help the work of this Commission by presenting an 'alternative' plan to mitigate congestion that includes a hypothetical blank check from the federal government to pay for it. Choices the Congressman suggests like eliminating congestion pricing, lowering truck tolls at off-peak times, providing off-hour delivery tax credits to businesses and building a cross-harbor tunnel carry an exceptionally high cost while providing no substantial revenue streams." Here's the PDF of White's full letter.

Jeff Zupan, Regional Plan Association's transportation analyst, has shown why other alternatives to congestion pricing are flawed. Some of those points apply to Weiner's plan as well.

Speaker Sheldon Silver told City Room this morning that the Assembly would not act on the proposed West Side trash transfer station near Gansevoort Street in the meatpacking district, in his latest snub of Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg.

The station has been a priority for the mayor, who held a news conference with City Council Speaker Christine C. Quinn last week urging the Legislature to approve the station. The debate over the station has also led to contentious arguments among the Assembly Democrats.

But once again, Mr. Silver and Mr. Bloomberg are not seeing eye to eye.

“We’re not doing Gansevoort today,” Mr. Silver said, adding that he was not satisfied that alternatives to the proposal had been fully considered and did not think the mayor lived up to commitments made earlier this year to provide more financial details of alternative proposals. “I had an understanding back in June, despite any newspapers of record that might think otherwise — editorial-wise or news-wise — that they would present the financial undertaking of alternatives,” he said, adding, “Those numbers are not yet in, the use of Gansevoort is 2013, still more than five years away, so waiting for all of that to be completed does not impact in any way shape or form from the use of it.”

He added, “The mayor decided to do press availability or a press conference notwithstanding the understanding predates his press conference by five months, and that’s unfortunate, that in an irresponsible fashion, despite everything we had as an understanding, he chose to do that.”

Reactivation of a garbage transfer station that the city considers crucial to its waste management plan -- a plan it says will reduce truck traffic and allow more waste to be moved by barges and trains -- is being held up by three Manhattan Assembly members and Speaker Sheldon Silver, who is characteristically refusing to allow a vote on legislation necessary to move the project forward.

The transfer station, located on Gansevoort Peninsula near West 14th Street, would handle recyclables, and is needed as part of an effort to have each borough handle more of its own garbage. Officials say the station will ease the environmental stress of waste disposal activity in areas like the South Bronx, where much of the city's trash is now hauled by truck.

Assembly members Deborah Glick, Richard Gottfried and Linda Rosenthal, whose districts include or are close to the peninsula, say they don't want the station reactivated because of its Hudson River Park location, and have suggested Pier 76, north of West 34th Street behind the Javits Center, as an alternative. The city says it would cost three to five times as much to prep Pier 76 as it would the Gansevoort site.

The waste management plan as proposed would reduce truck traffic by an estimated 5.7 million miles per year, according to PlaNYC documents.

Supporters of the city's plan are encouraged to call Silver's office (212-312-1420 or 518-455-3791) today and ask for a vote on the amendment to the Hudson River Park Act.

The Post has endorsed the plan and has called on Silver to get out of the way. The Times did much the same yesterday. For more background, check out City Room's coverage and this June editorial from Daily News columnist Errol Louis.

Photo: Phil of Photos/Flickr

The deaths of two Brooklyn cyclists just hours apart yesterday have resulted in a homicide charge and an outpouring of grief for a man friends describe as "a truly thoughtful and selfless individual." Friends of one of the victims are also questioning the official account of his death.

City dailies report that Williamsburg resident Alfred Taylor, 41, has been charged with criminally negligent homicide for killing an as-yet-unidentified cyclist on Fulton Street in Bed Stuy around 6 a.m. Thursday. Police say Taylor was driving a speeding van when he struck the 25-year-old cyclist, whose name is being withheld pending notification of relatives.

As Streetsblog readers well know, it is virtually unheard of for a driver to face a charge of any sort after hitting a cyclist or pedestrian, as long as the driver is sober and stays at the scene. We will keep an eye on this case as it progresses.

Meanwhile, no charges were filed in the death of 26-year-old Craig Murphey, who according to police and media reports was hit by a turning gas truck just after 4 a.m. yesterday while riding southbound in the northbound lane of Union Avenue at Ten Eyck Street.

But Elizabeth Weinberg, a friend of Murphey's, tells Streetsblog that doesn't make sense:

We know for a fact that he was coming from Lorimer (at Broadway) at that time (dropping off our friend) and heading to his place on South 3rd in Brooklyn, so he had to have been going NORTH on Union Ave, not south like the police report said. There is no way Craig would be riding against traffic and he had no reason to head back down in the opposite direction from home. He rode to work everyday in Harlem from Brooklyn; he knew what he was doing.

Murphey did social work with the West Harlem Action Network Against Poverty and was reportedly a member of Right Rides, a group that provides late-night rides and walks home to GLBT populations vulnerable to assault. Friends have dedicated a Flickr photo pool to Murphey, and are directing donations made in his name to WHANAP.

Photo of Craig Murphey courtesy Elizabeth Weinberg via Flickr