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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In 1909, wrote the Times, tolls on the brand new Queensboro Bridge were temporarily suspended for a "touring contest" on Long Island, described as "an enjoyable diversion for a great many New York and Brooklyn motorists."

All four city bridges had tolls in the early 1900's, including one for pedestrians on the Brooklyn Bridge. But they were abolished in 1911 under Mayor William J. Gaynor, who called them ''inconvenient and irksome'' and declared, ''For my part, I see no more reason for tollgates on the bridges than for tollgates on Fifth Avenue or Broadway.''

Gaynor, a one-time Tammany favorite and apparent inspiration to future city leaders, was also opposed to expansion of the subway system, according to his official bio. In 1910, Gaynor was shot in the throat by a disgruntled city employee, an injury that would end his life three years later. Months after the attack, the mayor ordered the East River bridges to go toll-free, recounted Aaron Naparstek in 2006, prompting speculation in local transpo circles of a link between the two incidents:

While "there's never been a serious connection drawn between the assassination attempt and Gaynor's tolling policy," says former Department of Transportation Deputy Commissioner "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz, "I'm suspicious."

Check out Aaron's full post, written upon the advent of the city's latest congestion pricing debate, for more on the sordid, sometimes violent, and seemingly interminable struggle to preserve the privileges of New York's motoring class.

New York celebrated the 100th birthday of the Queensboro Bridge yesterday, and Clarence Eckerson was on hand to document the occasion for Streetfilms. As pointed out in the vid by "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz, back in 1909 drivers paid 10 cents to cross the Q'boro -- or $4.66 for a round trip in today's dollars. Motorists were accustomed to using the bridge for free by the 1980s, even as it was falling apart, and now pay less than the three pennies it once cost to ride across on horseback.

Even so, with today's bankruptcy filing by General Motors, the Queensboro has held up better than two of the Big Three.

From the Streetsblog tipwire:

The past two mornings there have been NYPD officers parked on the Queensborough Bridge bike/pedestrian path. They've been stopping cyclists in an effort to slow them down with the construction on the bridge. However there's been no active construction when I've ridden through.

Safety is certainly a concern but having an officer bark at cyclists isn't going to be effective. Barriers which would force cyclists to swerve and slow down would be more effective without inflaming cyclist/police antagonism.

While this doesn't match the level of the harassment reports we saw early this spring, it does raise some interesting points. Giving NYPD the benefit of the doubt: Assume there's a real need to slow cyclist traffic and warn riders of potential danger. Is the police presence necessary or would signage and diverters suffice? Can stationing officers be done in a way that doesn't exacerbate tensions between police and cyclists?

If anyone else has encountered officers on the Queensborough lately, please share.

Photo: tommylane/Flickr

No huge surprise, Assemblymen Andrew Hevesi and Rory Lancman both came out against congestion pricing, citing not enough evidence it would work and demanding transit improvements without explaining where the money would come from or why as state legislators they haven't allocated more money to the MTA themselves. Then they left.

Queens Borough President Helen Marshall didn't even make it, she sent her Chief of Staff to repeat the same speech from the last public hearing, also calling for lots of great transit improvements without explaining where the money would come or why Queens hasn't gotten it before now.

That was one step better than Assemblywoman Cathy Nolan who was listed as first to speak, but didn't make it to the hearing. It's too bad our elected officials, with the exception of City Councilman Leroy Comrie, couldn't have stayed or even bothered to come because they would have seen something that they claim doesn't exist in Queens… supporters of congestion pricing who live in the borough, several for their whole life.

There were still the usual opponents to congestion pricing. One woman voiced concern that the fee on trucks would raise the price of food and essentials. Another man claimed that transit improvements would never come to Queens, although isn't that really our elected officials fault? One delightful woman claimed that to reduce congestion all we had to do was rewire all the traffic lights to only allow pedestrians to cross when all traffic was stopped. She then blamed the new meters placed near the Bronx subway stop where she used to ride and park before their presence for forcing her to drive into the city, when after all her tax dollars were paying for the streets. I guess my tax dollars go to pigeon birth control and not the city streets.

But the real story last night was the turnout of congestion pricing supporters in the borough that supposedly refuses to accept anything that would keep them from driving. Angus Grieve-Smith told the story of a motorcyclist that was struck by a speeding car and killed, the motorcycle then striking and crippling his friend who was walking along Skillman Ave. all because Skillman is designed to get drivers through Sunnyside and Woodside and to the Queensboro Bridge as fast as possible.

Emmanuel Fuentebella said they he owns a car for work, but because of oil issues worldwide we must be spendthrift in its use. Dan Hendrick of the League of Conservation Voters, Neysa Pranger of the Regional Plan Association and Karla Quintero of Transportation Alternatives, all Queens residents, gave their respective groups' support for the plan.

The quote of the night came from Eddie Hernandez, a lifelong resident of Queens. "Opponents of congestion pricing preposterously claim that congestion pricing hurts the middle class. I have news for them, if you can afford to throw away $10,000 per year in parking fees in Midtown because you don't feel like using the subway: Congratulations, you're rich, you're not middle class and you can afford an $8 toll."

Will congestion pricing pass? Time will tell. But as Angus said, "I hope tonight has put to rest the myth that no one in Queens supports congestion pricing."

On Wednesday, Community Board 8 in Manhattan unanimously approved a proposal for conducting a feasibility study to physically connect Roosevelt Island to the Queensboro Bridge pedestrian and bike path. The proposal was put forth by Ellen Polivy of the Roosevelt Island Residents Association (RIRA) and the Roosevelt Island Community Emergency Response Team (CERT).  She made a compelling presentation to Community Board 8's transportation committee, citing the numerous benefits of the link from a public health, environmental and emergency preparedness perspective.

This is not a new concept. There used to be electric trolleys going over the Queensboro bridge and there was a stop at Roosevelt Island halfway across the bridge. People would then walk across to a building (see above photo of the Roosevelt Island elevator building) that had a number of elevators. These elevators were so big that they could fit the trucks and automobiles that supplied the island.

As recently as August 2004, Roosevelt Island residents faced what they refer to as "the perfect storm" of transportation problems (from a recent NY Times article - Times Select only)

...for a brief time, Roosevelt Island was cut off from the city that surrounds it.

All the means of access to the sliver-shaped island were out of service for about an hour that day, Aug. 12. The tram was down for a periodic tune-up. The Roosevelt Island Bridge, which lifts to allow boat traffic to pass through, was stuck in the open position. Electrical problems temporarily halted service on the F train.

However, the Department of Transportation is not considering the pedestrian-access proposal at this time. They cite security risks, the landmark status of the bridge and the need to maximize the flow of vehicles into Manhattan.

Kay Sarlin, a spokeswoman for the city Department of Transportation, raised doubts about a passageway that would have to be nearly 135 feet high.

''It's not feasible,'' she said. ''They'd have to remove a lane of traffic to put in an elevator.''

With an average of about 180,000 vehicle crossings a day, the Queensboro is one of the city's busiest bridges, and according to Ms. Sarlin, eliminating a lane for an elevator would hamper traffic. A stairway could not be installed because people with disabilities could not use it, she added, noting that such a change would also cause security problems. Further, she said, since the facade of the bridge has landmark status, altering it would present a problem.

Let's take each of these criticisms and see if they make any sense.

Security Risk: Here's an island with a projected population of 15,000-20,000 in the next few years, on an island that lacks a permanent pedestrian link to the rest of the city. In fact, the main emergency route of escape for residents, the lift bridge to Queens, is often closed in light of security risks to the UN when that body is in session or hosts major events and shipping traffic is routed to the eastern side of Roosevelt Island. In the case of a Category 3 hurricane hitting NYC, the whole island would need to be evacuated, and officials have not provided details of the escape plan to the CERT or the RIRA. It's a security risk for there to be no permanent link to the rest of the city.

Landmark Status: While it's great that the Queensboro Bridge has achieved landmark status, this status should not override legitimate security and public health priorities. Rather it should ensure that any alteration harmonizes with the structure's aesthetics -- you know, the way the building that connected the island to the bridge for four decades did.

Removing a Lane of the QBB Would be Bad: This assumes that maximum flow of automobiles into Manhattan would be a good thing, when in fact we know that the current design generates dangerous conditions for pedestrians and cyclists on the Manhattan side of the bridge. Even specific requests for action from the local City Councilmember Jessica Lappin have so far not resulted any safety improvements by the DOT. Never mind that we might just want fewer cars to be able to enter the Central Business District for environmental and public health reasons.

When asked about why the Community Board supported the proposal, David Liston, CB8 Chair wrote via email:

"We passed a resolution asking the City to look into the feasibility of providing another means of access to and from the Island by pedestrians and the physically challenged."

"The feasibility study we're asking the city to undertake would identify a variety of means of egress/ingress between Roosevelt Island and Manhattan and Queens. One suggestion was to look into a method utilizing the Queensboro Bridge -- making Manhattan accessible to Roosevelt Islanders on foot and those using mobility assistance devices."

"Making all parts of the borough accessible to all is a worthy goal and one the Community Board fully supports."



With the Community Board now unanimously supporting a feasibility study, it will be up to the new DOT Commissioner to reconsider this proposal.

Three specific proposals to reduce New York City's ever-increasing traffic congestion emerged from a highly anticipated Manhattan Institute forum this morning. One seeks variable prices on cars driving in to central Manhattan, with express toll lanes and higher parking fees to keep things moving. Another seeks to get rid of tolls on less-congested bridges in car-friendly parts of town and replace them with congestion charging technology in gridlocked, transit-friendly sections of the city. A third plan relies entirely on enforcement of existing parking laws.

The forum, organized by the Manhattan Institute's Center for Rethinking Development, opened with Partnership for New York City president Kathryn Wylde setting a collegial but urgent tone two days after releasing a report that put a $13 billion price tag on New York City's traffic congestion. The Partnership's analysis, she said, found that 48 percent of all motor vehicle traffic delay is "excess traffic congestion, beyond what we ought to put up with."

"Why do you think construction prices are going up one percent a month?" Wylde asked. It takes crews too long to get to job sites, and once they get there they spend valuable work time waiting for deliveries. "Manufacturing, an industry we have been hemorrhaging" is leaving New York City, in part, because of the difficulty in moving people, supplies and products, Wylde said. "A person who might go to a restaurant" in Manhattan will skip the trip if she's staring at brake lights.

The problem Wylde says, is "How do you attack traffic without making commercial deliveries or taxis suffer?" London achieved a 15 percent "mode shift" moving approxmately 60,000 commuters from cars to other forms of transportation with its congestion charge. How can New York achieve similar results?

Bruce Schaller, who released a major new study on New York City traffic congestion this morning, presented the first and most detailed answer to that question. He proposed a combined system of congestion charges, highway express lanes and parking reform, emphasizing that the plan can't just be about getting rid of cars or punishing motorists. It has to be about "making New York the kind of city that New Yorkers want."

Schaller pointed to the results of a Tri-State Transportation Campaign survey showing that 44 percent of New Yorkers feel that congestion pricing is "a good idea" versus 45 percent against. It is worth noting that congestion charging starts with much higher approval ratings in New York City than it had in either London or Stockholm.

Schaller ran focus groups to test three ideas: London-style congestion charging, highway express lanes with tolls, and increased parking fees. He found that New Yorkers, in fact, are quite sophisticated in their thinking about the city's traffic congestion problem and possible solutions.

Schaller found that there are six factors that drive public reaction to congestion pricing and other solution ideas:

1. Will reduce traffic congestion
2. Will solve my transportation problems
3. Enhances my transportation choices
4. Fair and equitable
5. Works as intended
6. Is supported and complemented by non-pricing policies

In other words, New York City's auto dealership-supported tabloid media may not be accurately reflecting New Yorkers' apparently intelligent and nuanced thinking on local transportation issues when it blares "Traffic Tax!" headlines and reports knee-jerk opposition to congestion charging and other traffic relief measures.

Schaller's plan combines three elements: Selective road pricing, new highway express lanes, and more tightly managed and higher priced curbside parking.

Schaller's traffic relief charges would apply to anyone crossing the Hudson River, East River or 60th Street boundary into Lower Manhattan. On weekday mornings he would charge $4 to any vehicle entering the zone between 6:30 and 10:00 am. During mid-day, from 10:00 am to 4:00 pm, all vehicles traveling in or out of the zone would pay $4. Then from 4 pm to 6:30 pm vehicles traveling out of the zone would pay the $4.

Schaller's highway express lanes would be open to buses, vehicles carrying three or more passengers and any motorist willing to pay a fee. Times and fees would vary depending on congestion and also the State Department of Transportation's identification of "feasible corridors."

Schaller's parking plan would apply to commercial districts and selected parking spaces. To show skeptics that usage fees can influence drivers' behavior, he suggests setting up a pilot project to increase curbside parking rates with, perhaps, rates rising incrementally each hour a car occupies a spot.

To make these ideas politically palatable, Schaller added, all revenues generated by these new plans would need to be plowed back into public transport - especially in underserved areas like Staten Island, Eastern Queens and the Upper East Side.

Next up was transportation guru "Gridlock" Sam Schwartz, a former city transportation commissioner. Gridlock Sam immediately went to the root: "Our road pricing stinks." He lamented a regime in which "we toll people going from Queens to Queens or from Staten Island to anywhere" but let drivers "drive across the Queensboro Bridge" without paying tolls (and without funding upkeep on that bridge). His solution: Eliminate all tolls on bridges outside the central business district and impose charges "only where there is congestion and good public transit." This approach could work politically, he said, if it is demonstrably "revenue neutral."

Schwartz also argued that Brooklyn and Queens drivers would benefit from this approach. "People from Brooklyn and Queens would have five river crossings with no tolls. If you go over the Brooklyn Bridge, up the FDR and across the Willis Avenue Bridge, you didn't set rubber in midtown Manhattan" and so you should pay no tolls, he reckoned. To make any traffic reform effective, Schwartz counseled, "we have to give Brooklyn and Queens a lot." And short of extending subway lines to Maspeth or Gerritsen Beach, the idea of a tight area for fees presumably leaves residents of those areas some latitude.

Councilmember David Weprin, who represents eastern Queens disagreed with Schaller and Schwartz. Since most people who live east of Kew Gardens or north of Forest Hills have to drive at least a mile to get to the subway, he noted, more frequent express bus service would have to complement any changes that made driving into Manhattan more expensive. He warned the audience to consider people who count on driving for their business and cited a statistic: "In London, 62 percent of businesses reported a drop in customers" after congestion charging. What Weprin didn't say, however, is that the start of congestion charging in London coincided with a nationwide economic recession and a massive Tube construction project that shut down subway service in Central London.

The political gap between Weprin and Schaller seemed large, especially when a former Queens City Council member named Walter McCaffrey, now a lobbyist heading up a newly formed group called the Coalition to Keep New York City Congestion Tax Free, rose from the audience to declare: "A tax is a tax is a tax." But there may be more room for compromise than such rhetoric might suggest. Council member John Liu, who represents Flushing and chairs the Transportation Committee, told me that he would like to see more express bus service in his district. "Nobody wants to pay new charges for anything," he said. "But if, in return, they get something like more express buses." He left the forum at about 9:50 to conduct a hearing at City Hall on express bus service.

So wheels are in motion. Mayor Bloomberg will deliver a major speech within a week outlining his sustainability plan for the city, and advisers say traffic congestion issues will be front and center. Stephen Hammer of Columbia University challenged the panel to push the New York City metro region into a broader conversation about encouraging walking, bicycling and living near mass transit. Road pricing, clearly, is just one cog in the machinery New Yorkers will have to build to make the city livable.

Among the three cyclist fatality clusters identified by the joint report by the City Departments of Health, Police, Parks and Transportation, the Queensboro Bridge is by far the worst. The entrance intersection at 60th and Second also claimed the award for the most unticketed incidents of block the box in the Borough President's study of lax enforcement of basic traffic rules.

My local group, Upper Green Side, approached Councilmember Jessica Lappin to bring attention to this issue and she shared our concern about safety. Based on our conversation, she wrote this letter below to Department of Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall.  You can take action yourself by telling Councilmember Lappin of your concerns around the Queensboro Bridge (212-535-5554) and also by filing your own personal complaint about safety around the Queensboro Bridge to the Department of Transportation.

Dear Ms. Weinshall:

            I am writing regarding the dangerous Queensboro Bridge path used by cyclists and pedestrians in my district.

            The Queensboro Bridge site is the most fatal crash cluster for cyclists and pedestrians in Manhattan. According to NYPD data, between 2002 and 2004, motor vehicles killed 5 pedestrians, 3 cyclists and injured 765 pedestrians and 141 cyclists in the one square mile area around the Queensboro Bridge path's Manhattan entrance located at East 50^th Street to East 69^th Street, between 5^th Avenue and the East River. By comparison, at the Queens entrance of the bridge no cyclists or pedestrians were killed and only 94 pedestrians and 10 cyclists were injured.

            The Queensboro Bridge area was highlighted as one of the most dangerous sites for cyclists and pedestrians in a joint report from the New York City Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene, Parks and Recreation and the New York City Police Department. This report confirms the reality that people live with as they risk their lives trying to exit the Queensboro Bridge.

            I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your reply. If my office can be of any assistance please do not hesitate to contact my Policy Director, Caroline Mello, at (212) 535-5554. Thank you for you assistance in this important matter.

Sincerely,

JESSICA LAPPIN
Council Member
5^th District, Manhattan

Classic Scene near Queensboro Bridge on Second Avenue (note red light!)

Every morning I walk past scenes like this near the Queensboro Bridge (QBB) on Second Avenue. Traffic blocks up on Second Avenue north of the two major crosstown exit routes at 60th and 57th Streets all the way to 70th Street and beyond. The problem is that the QBB creates a natural choke point for south bound traffic on Second Avenue as hundreds of cars and trucks enter Manhattan at every change of the light. But instead of trying to discourage drivers from using Second Avenue in that area or deter drivers from taking the QBB, the only attempt to manage this is to place some traffic agents at a few intersections, but it remains a state of perpetual gridlock and lawlessness. It is also one of the most dangerous areas in the city to bike, as shown in the recent health study of cyclist fatality clusters.

In the scene above, cars heading down Second Avenue in the 60s blocked the box (60th and Second was the worst intersection for blocked box in the Borough President's analysis) for vehicles heading eastward. Instead of patiently waiting for the obstruction to clear, the London Meat Truck (212-255-2153) drove up onto the pedestrian crosswalk, but still couldn't make it's way to the next block until people on the sidewalk backed up to allow it space to squeeze through. But then other cars were following the truck, even after the light turned, forcing pedestrians back on the curb, even though they had the signal.

Pedestrians pinned on the Corner As Cars and Trucks Run Red Lights

And so the cycle of frustrated motorists clashing with each other as well as pedestrians and cyclists continue. How much longer must the Queensboro meat grinder churn?