Streetsblog New York City

Transportation Alternatives Queens Committee Chair Mike Heffron sends along this report from last night's traffic commission hearing at York College in Jamaica, Queens.

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.

Roosevelt Island's old connection to the Queensboro Bridge -- elevator building, 1916-1956

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.

Read more...

This Morning's Forum: Road Pricing Worked in London. Can It Work in New York?

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.

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