Photo: DNAinfo

A police van struck and killed a pedestrian in Chinatown this morning.

Reports say the driver of the NYPD Auxiliary van jumped a curb on Elizabeth Street near the 5th Precinct stationhouse at around 11 a.m., striking a 55-year-old man on the sidewalk. He was later pronounced dead at New York Downtown Hospital. Two officers in the van were reported injured.

According to FDNY, two other vehicles were involved in the crash, which is under investigation. NYPD was unable to comment as of this writing.

The nine coalition members range from organizations with deep community organizing roots in the two neighborhoods, like housing organization Good Old Lower East Side and civil rights group Asian Americans for Equality, to citywide cycling advocates like Transportation Alternatives. In six to twelve months, Local Spokes will compile all the information they’ve gathered, make a concrete plan for building the bike infrastructure the community wants, and present it to elected officials and the city.

One way that Local Spokes will be gathering input from the community is with a survey, available on their website in English, Spanish, and Chinese. It asks people who live or work in Chinatown and the Lower East Side to detail how they get around, what would make them cycle more, how they exercise and who they think has power in their community. According to AAFE’s Douglas Le, they hope to get 1,000 responses.

Those surveys will be augmented by a series of public meetings reaching out to community members, starting at the end of the summer. “Rarely is there this opportunity to have this conversation before it’s too late,” said Karyn Williams, the director of Velo City, an urban planning education group participating in the Local Spokes coalition.

At the same time, Local Spokes will be training a team of 12 youth ambassadors to serve as leaders in local cycling efforts. Over the course of the summer, the ambassadors will learn about issues like immigration and gentrification, mapmaking, and bike safety twice a week, said Recycle-A-Bicycle director Pasqualina Azzarello, a coalition member. On Saturdays, the ambassadors will take group bike rides tied to the week’s lesson. When the public meetings about the bike plan get underway, the ambassadors will attend them. By the end of the planning process they will be leading them.

The youth ambassador program is “a way to understand the neighborhood where they live more politically,” said Le, “how decisions like road construction or capital investment really impact the fabric of the place they call home.”

No one I spoke with wanted to say too much about what might be included in the plan before the community had spoken, but they were willing to point to a few issues that would likely be addressed. As in most parts of the city, said Le, traffic safety and secure bike parking are top concerns in Chinatown and the Lower East Side. Bike lanes and bike-sharing could be tools to address those problems. Le also noted issues unique to the area, such as an extremely dense population, a large bike delivery industry, and major NYCHA developments. A large population of immigrants and people who speak limited English must be taken into account, Le added.

Azzarello also pointed to the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and Williamsburg bridges as particular planning challenges for the area. The three free bridges deposit huge volumes of traffic onto the streets of the Lower East Side and Chinatown.

So far, coalition members are pleased with the reaction they’ve been getting. Azzarello said she was impressed by “just how interested people are and how willing people are to be engaged.”

The view across Chatham Square, looking east from Worth Street. Image: Google Street View

Just a reminder: Chatham Square, the intersection where Chinatown NIMBYs have fended off the reclamation of street space for pedestrians, is a huge expanse of asphalt with chaotic traffic patterns and a terrible safety record. According to CrashStat, dozens of pedestrians and cyclists were injured in traffic crashes at Chatham Square from 1995 to 2005, and five schools are located within three blocks.

In 2008, the city put out a conceptual plan for pedestrian improvements at Chatham Square that would have simplified intersections and added significantly more sidewalk space. But a contingent of opponents, contending that the economic health of Chinatown depends on auto access to Park Row, mobilized against the project. (The Chatham Square project would have altered the street pattern at one end of Park Row, but the street, which goes by NYPD headquarters, has been closed to private traffic since the days after 9/11.)

Today DNAinfo reports that opponents have succeeded. The Lower Manhattan Development Corporation will be taking the $30 million set aside for those pedestrian improvements and spending it on other things. Jan Lee, owner of the antiques showroom Sinotique and a vocal opponent of the project in his role as leader of the Civic Center Residents Coalition, told DNAinfo that “at least some of the money should remain in Chinatown.” Now that an actual safety improvement is off the table, Lee suggested spending some cash to study the feasibility of re-opening Park Row to traffic.

Here’s one more look at what Lee and other opponents have thwarted:

Chatham Square layout under the proposed redesign...

...and the intersection as it is today.

A rendering of what the intersection of Pike and Monroe will look like once the construction now underway is completed this fall. Image: Parks Dept.

When DOT installed four pedestrian plazas and a protected bike lane along the median of Pike and Allen Streets in 2009, the results were impressive. Traffic injuries dropped 40 percent at the pedestrian malls; at the intersection of Allen and Delancey, injuries dropped 57 percent.

As impressive as those results are, the Pike and Allen improvements were made using low-cost materials, not construction techniques built to last. The plan now is to replace the temporary redesign with more robust permanent features. Construction has started on the final design at the southernmost end of the corridor, between South Street and Madison Street. With additional funding, the redesign could extend one block further north to Henry Street by the time this round of building is complete in November. Another section of the malls, from Grand to Delancey, is scheduled for capital construction beginning this June.

The finished treatment, which will feature more landscaping and higher-quality materials for both pedestrians and cyclists, will bring Allen and Pike Streets closer to the vision for the neighborhood developed over several years by local residents, United Neighbors to Revitalize Allen and Pike, and the Hester Street Collaborative.

For a photo of the construction, head below the jump:

Construction underway on the Pike Street redesign. Photo: Department of Parks and Recreation.

A template to prioritize walking, biking, and transit at the intersection of Third Avenue and 117th Street. Image: Transportation Alternatives

Earlier this week, Laurence Renard was killed as she crossed First Avenue when a dump truck driver turned into her path from 90th Street, hitting her from behind. Renard was one of at least six pedestrians and cyclists who have lost their lives in traffic crashes on East Side streets since last August.

People are seriously hurt and killed with terrible frequency on the East Side of Manhattan: 148 pedestrians and cyclists died on its streets between 1995 and 2008, and more than 15,000 were injured. The area is rife with wide streets and intersections that invite speeding and reckless driving. At the same time, the East Side is home to high percentages of walk-to-work commuters, car-free households, and senior citizens. East Siders lead walkable lifestyles and make many trips by foot or bike, but their streets are extremely dangerous.

Last night, more than 100 people gathered at St. Mark’s Church on East 10th Street for the unveiling of Transportation Alternatives’ East Side Action Plan [PDF], which outlines a broad vision for making this part of Manhattan safer and more livable.

In a series of public workshops, more than 600 East Siders helped TA put together recommendations to redesign their streets and put walking, biking, and transit first. The Action Plan came out of those workshops to serve as “a tool for local East Side experts to use as citizen planners, so they can educate their communities and generate the local support needed to engage decision makers around design and policy change,” said TA’s Julia De Martini Day. Dozens of community groups from Chinatown to Harlem have signed on to the campaign.

With political attacks on pedestrian and bicycle improvements fresh in everyone’s mind, the kick-off event last night was something of a rallying cry for the coalition. New Yorkers who want safer streets have to organize and mobilize as effectively as possible, a point that former Bogota Mayor Enrique Penalosa brought home when he told the audience that the allocation of street space “is a political decision, not a technical decision.”

The East Side campaign has an ally in Assembly Member Brian Kavanagh, who told the crowd that he’s been very encouraged by last year’s improvements for transit, biking, and walking on First and Second Avenues, and that he wants to see the NYC DOT and the MTA do more to prioritize those modes of travel. Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and City Council Member Dan Garodnick also lent their support to the campaign in TA’s press release.

The East Village Community Coalition is one of the neighborhood groups that will be making the case for safer streets. EVCC Managing Director Kurt Cavanagh said he hopes to meet with the local community board and elected officials in about a month to talk about the recommendations in the East Side plan. Other community groups in Harlem, the Upper East Side, and Chinatown will be approaching their CBs and electeds in the months ahead as well. Stay tuned.

Video: Clarence Eckerson

The only thing more congested than Canal Street might be Canal Street's sidewalks. Photo: Bertrand Duperrin via Flickr

Canal Street, to put it mildly, is due for a makeover. The street is clogged with traffic from the Holland Tunnel and the un-tolled Manhattan Bridge. Pedestrians jostle for space on the packed sidewalks, and they’re especially at risk of getting hit by a car, according to the city’s Pedestrian Safety Study.

Fortunately, the funds are in place for an eventual reconstruction and re-imagination of the street, thanks to federal World Trade Center emergency relief aid. To help determine how to design Canal Street, which must strike a balance between serving the local community and the regional transportation system, NYMTC, the region’s metropolitan planning organization, has been engaged in a nearly decade-long process of studying the area and drawing up recommendations for the corridor.

In a report released last Thursday [PDF], NYMTC recommends making Canal Street friendlier for pedestrians by adding significant amounts of sidewalk space. But larger changes, in particular the creation of a carpool lane in the Holland Tunnel, weren’t included. According to the NYMTC report, NYCDOT has agreed to use the recommendations to inform its plans, though a DOT spokesperson said only that the agency was reviewing the findings.

The Canal Area Transportation Study process began in 2002, and the first phase ended with some relatively small improvements to the area, like high-visibility crosswalks, new signage, and temporary improvements near Allen Street. Since 2005, the second, larger-scale phase of the study has been underway, bringing together all the regional transportation agencies as well as others with a stake in the project.

The NYMTC team studied a wide array of congestion-busting ideas for the corridor. Some, like two-way tolling on the Verrazano Bridge or congestion pricing, were dismissed because they required legislative approvals well outside the project’s scope. Transit expansions, like bringing the PATH train north from the World Trade Center or building light rail on Canal, were rejected as too costly. Some ideas were nixed because they lacked community support or because they conflicted with New York City’s Street Design Manual. Other ambitious proposals, like keeping traffic off side streets including Pell, Doyers, Mosco, and Mulberry, were referred to the appropriate agency for further study.

What’s left still has a lot to like.

In addition to a few recommendations that have already been implemented, like a HOV lane on the Manhattan Bridge and a median on Bowery, the plan calls for significant new pedestrian amenities. Those include leading pedestrian intervals at intersections and a redesign for the intersection of Bowery and Canal, at the foot of the Manhattan Bridge. Curb extensions would be built on Canal at Varick Street, between Elizabeth and Mulberry and between Baxter and Lafayette, replacing traffic lanes.

A separate memo on parking policy [PDF] also puts forward some powerful suggestions for making the most of scarce curb access and reducing parking-induced driving. That document recommends a further crackdown on parking placards, which in Lower Manhattan would significantly cut traffic. It also suggests that Park Smart might be successful in the area and puts forward the goal of keeping ten percent of spaces open at all times, which Donald Shoup would approve of. Though the report does raise the idea of building more parking on the area’s periphery, it notes that this hasn’t been particularly successful in other downtowns.

But NYMTC recommends against one significant change. Putting a HOV3 lane through the Holland Tunnel, the NYMTC model found, would shift cars with one or two passengers from the Holland Tunnel to the Lincoln Tunnel, George Washington Bridge, and Staten Island crossings. A NYMTC spokesperson added that those new trips, since less direct, would likely add extra vehicle miles traveled overall, and that a HOV lane already exists for the approach to the tunnel on the Jersey City side. While the tunnel itself would have less traffic with a HOV lane, NYMTC projected, the Manhattan streets it empties into would just fill up again with other traffic from the over-congested streets nearby.

NYMTC also looked into turning Canal Street one-way headed east, pairing it with a westbound Grand Street. While that option would have allowed for even wider sidewalks on Canal, wrote NYMTC, “the wider Canal Street sidewalks in the one-way alternative would be offset by the negative traffic impact of the one-way pair on both Grand Street and Spring Street.” In other words, the cars won out over the pedestrians on that one.

The study also includes a wealth of data for those interested in the area’s travel patterns. Congestion on Canal Street is worst on Sundays, for example, because non-work trips mean that there are more turns onto side streets, more cruising for parking, and more passenger drop-offs. The sidewalks are the most overcrowded between Broadway and Centre Streets. And during the weekday rush, there are roughly equal amounts of vehicles crossing Manhattan, beginning or ending their trip in Manhattan, and traveling within the Canal Street area.

The safety data and the workshop are part of a new campaign organized by TA called the East Side Streets Coalition, which aims to dramatically improve safety from East Harlem to Chinatown. The goal is to reduce traffic collisions that injure and kill pedestrians and cyclists by 50 percent over the next ten years.

Upper East Side workshop participants discussed street safety using a new map of the most frequent sites of traffic collisions that injure pedestrians and cyclists. Click here for the full version of the map, showing the whole East Side. Image: Transportation Alternatives. 

The campaign started by mapping out precisely where pedestrians and cyclists are most at risk of getting hurt by cars. Using advanced mapping techniques and new data from the state Department of Transportation, TA has identified and visualized the intersections where the most crashes occur along the entire East Side. These intersections will be the principal targets of the campaign. (The campaign will explicitly refrain from focusing on First and Second Avenues, which are already slated to receive major pedestrian and cyclist safety features.)

The coalition is beginning outreach to develop a vision for a redesigned East Side. The first workshop, for Upper East Side residents, was held last night, with about thirty participants meeting in the cafeteria of the Wagner Middle School to share their concerns about local streets and develop solutions.

Using tools like the city's Street Design Manual and detailed maps of some of the most dangerous intersections in the district, they plotted out their safety ideas. Some of the most popular fixes, like leading pedestrian intervals or sidewalk extensions, would make sense throughout the city. Others were specific to the neighborhood or even the intersection.

One especially interesting proposal was to give 86th Street, where two deep red ovals are visible on the safety map, the same treatment that DOT is proposing for 34th Street: a physically separated bus lane and a full block closed to cars. As Upper East Side resident Steve Vaccaro noted while presenting this idea, 86th Street is choked with cars even though it doesn't actually connect anything; the street doesn't directly connect to either the FDR Drive or a Central Park transverse.

The solutions didn't fall on deaf ears. City Council Member Dan Garodnick gave opening remarks, telling the group that he "will be very eager to look at the plans and then advocate for them." Representatives from Assembly Member Jonathan Bing and Council Member Jessica Lappin's office also participated in the group exercises and presented ideas.

The workshop was a success in another respect as well. Two local organizations, the E. 86th Street Association and Upper Green Side, became the first members of the East Side Streets Coalition, in addition to a local committee composed of TA members. According to Day, more organizations have already committed to joining the coalition but haven't officially signed on yet. Five more visioning workshops are scheduled for the rest of the East Side between now and mid-May. 

NYCDOT unveiled a slate of pedestrian and bicycle improvements to the transportation committee of Manhattan Community Board 3 last night. Presenters asked for votes on two street safety projects: the construction of a planted center median on the Bowery between Canal and Division streets, and the addition of new curbside bike routes to improve connections to the Williamsburg Bridge.

Despite a few moments of crankiness from one member ("I can’t in good conscience vote for any more bicycle lanes"), the committee approved resolutions in favor of both measures.

The new bike routes on Suffolk, Stanton, and Rivington streets would complement improvements built last year, which extended the Williamsburg Bridge approach to Suffolk. Slated for implementation in May, the painted, curbside lanes are intended fill in key east-west connections north of where Delancey Street feeds into the bridge path.

The changes are important because Delancey remains extremely dangerous even as biking on the Williamsburg Bridge increases rapidly.

This January, 74-year-old Fuen Bai was killed by a school bus driver while riding in the no-man's-land between the bridge and Allen Street. Every year, traffic injures dozens of pedestrians and cyclists on the corridor, according to CrashStat. Meanwhile, DOT bike counts indicate that cycling on the bridge has quadrupled since 2004. Despite all the people biking over the bridge, the tantalizing proximity of the Allen Street bike path, and the dismal safety record of Delancey Street, the new plan does not address Delancey itself.

DOT's strategy is to divert Williamsburg Bridge bike traffic to calmer, safer side streets. "One of the issues is that people don’t know about the alternatives," Bicycle Program Coordinator Josh Benson told the audience last night. "When you get out there and try this route, it’s gonna make sense. It will change people’s behavior." DOT has no plans to add bike infrastructure to Delancey, he said.

Ian Dutton, a member of neighboring Community Board 2, noted at the meeting that a similar strategy on the other side of town has helped direct cyclists to side streets like Bleecker and Prince instead of the Houston Street traffic sewer. Still, he said, the proposal amounts to a tacit admission that Delancey Street is supposed to function like a highway.

Delancey Street "is obviously the most dangerous corridor in that part of the neighborhood," said Transportation Alternatives' Wiley Norvell. "We can’t continue to skirt it in its entirely. It’s time to give it the attention it deserves."

The CB 3 committee also approved a plan to build a raised, planted median on the Bowery between the Manhattan Bridge and Division Street. The project would reallocate some space from moving and parking lanes to create safer pedestrian crossings on some of the most hellish blocks in Manhattan, where crossing distances currently exceed 80 feet.

To offset the effects of its terror trial security zone, NYPD should adopt a zero tolerance policy for placard abusers.

The soft perimeter appears to include around five-and-a-half linear miles of streets comprising 17 "lane-miles." (These figures exclude Park Row and other streets already taken out of service by the NYPD since 9/11.) Clearly, restricting vehicular travel on these streets will aggravate gridlock, but by how much, and at what “time cost” to travelers? City Hall isn’t saying, of course, but with the help of the Balanced Transportation Analyzer, it’s possible to make a rough estimate.

Assuming that the restrictions take away one-quarter of the carrying capacity of the affected streets (one-half for streets within the inner section), vehicles in the area can expect to spend 2,200 additional hours stuck in traffic each weekday. Scaled to a full year, that translates to $30 million in lost time for motorists, truckers, taxi riders and bus passengers. (Go to the “Cordon” tab of the BTA spreadsheet to view derivation.)

This is a mere drop in the regional bucket, which now loses $13 billion a year to gridlock, according to the Partnership for New York City [PDF]. But locally, where most of that lost time will tick away, the impact could be tangible -- particularly in Chinatown, the epicenter of post-9/11 business closings and a major component of the area targeted by the NYPD.

Yet this new gridlock could be mitigated, and perhaps even offset altogether, if the city took steps to reduce car commuting into lower Manhattan. Using the BTA, I calculate that eliminating 4,000 to 5,000 daily round-trips by car into and out of the area around Foley Square would cut traffic levels in proportion to the travel restrictions. That is, even with street capacity reduced by 25 percent throughout the NYPD's soft perimeter, traffic speeds could be held steady via a 4,000 to 5,000-car reduction in commuting in the vicinity of the trial.

This calculation is extremely preliminary and should be firmed up by a street-level engineering analysis. Nevertheless, it suggests a possible path for averting a potential traffic and economic nightmare for Chinatown and the Civic Center area.

The alternative is to move the trial out of Lower Manhattan altogether, perhaps via the Menin plan. Police Commissioner Kelly appeared open to considering Governors Island as a venue — at least before federal officials warned him off the idea, according to The Times.

If Governors Island is indeed off the table -- and the feds’ arguments should be carefully scrutinized -- Mr. Kelly’s good intentions could still be channeled into a full-frontal assault on placard abuse. Not only would the benefit outlast the upcoming trial. Weeding out free parking in Lower Manhattan would also help “upstream” communities whose streets and roads are clogged with privileged government employees driving to their free parking spots.

Assembly Member Brian Kavanagh, speaking, with Daniel Squadron and Scott Stringer at last year's rally for Hayley and Diego's Law. To Squadron's right are Wendy Cheung, Hayley Ng's aunt, and Jon Adler, representative for the families of Ng and Diego Martinez.

With the state legislative session underway, Albany will soon turn its attention to business that lawmakers never got the chance to address last year. One bill to keep an eye on would give police and prosecutors a new tool to protect pedestrians and cyclists.

After two preschoolers were killed in Chinatown last January by a van driver who left his vehicle idling and unattended, lawmakers and advocates drafted "Hayley and Diego's Law." The bill is what's known as a "vulnerable user law." It would create a new offense called careless driving, which would carry penalties of up to $750 in fines and 15 days in jail for drivers who hit and injure vulnerable street users -- including all pedestrians and cyclists.  

New York City's 2009 legislative session didn't end without a parting gift from outgoing Lower Manhattan rep Alan Gerson. A new law that passed City Council unanimously before the end of the term mandates that any significant changes to the streetscape be subject to comment by both the local council representative and the community board. Though the comments are not binding, the law seems primed to slow down the process of re-designing streets at a time when projects to enhance bus service and improve safety for pedestrians and cyclists are top priorities in New York City, and hundreds of New Yorkers are still dying every year on city streets. Mayor Bloomberg signed the bill into law on December 28.

The law tacks on up to 65 days of back-and-forth between the city, council members and community boards on major street projects, after which DOT is not obligated to make any changes. Ian Dutton, the vice chair of Manhattan Community Board 2's Traffic and Transportation Committee and a resident of Gerson's district, noted the seeming superfluity of the law: "When we really needed it was over the last 50 years when they were pushing highway projects on us that we didn't want. Now we have a DOT that is really responsive to the neighborhoods for the first time." Dutton did add that "it may help going forward if there's an administration that wants to rip up all these bike lanes and pedestrian plazas."

The law is a variation on an idea that Gerson had floated for over a year. An earlier version of the legislation would have required local input into almost any new transportation project, big or small. 

The bill that passed City Council is somewhat more limited. It covers "major realignments of the roadway," particularly the addition or removal of a lane of traffic or parking on more than four blocks or "1,000 consecutive feet of street." That would certainly apply to one of Gerson's chief targets, the Grand Street bike lane, and probably the Chatham Square reconfiguration as well. Any true bus rapid transit project would fall under the scope of the law.

Even on projects where the law applies, however, it might have little effect.

Although DOT will be required to give council members and community boards notice, make formal presentations to them upon request, and receive comments and recommendations from them, DOT can still implement the original plan if it so chooses. Transportation Alternatives spokesman Wiley Norvell expressed relief that "the bill's final iteration maintains the city's authority to change street design when safety, particularly that of vulnerable users like pedestrians and cyclists, is at stake."

As currently written, the law is essentially codifying what DOT already does. In recent years, few significant projects have been undertaken without providing notice to the local community board. To the extent that it smooths over the sometimes fractious relationships between community boards and City Hall, the law could prove beneficial. "We hope this law helps bridge the knowledge gap that has proved frustrating in the past," said Norvell, "and ensures that community boards understand the compelling rationale for why their streets are changing."

Whether Gerson's law ultimately ends up improving relations between DOT and neighborhood residents or providing local reactionaries with another stalling tactic (or both) remains to be seen. In either case, it's more than a little ironic that a bill ostensibly intended to ensure an open process was hurriedly passed by a lame duck City Council right before the holidays, when no one was looking. 

Photo: Matt Hogan.

Vehicles exiting the Manhattan Bridge have turned this block, often teeming with people waiting for the Fung Wah Bus, into a constant danger zone. Here's what an employee at the jewelry store across the street told the Tribeca Trib:

"Ever since I was a kid, trucks come flying off the bridge," he said. "It’s at least three or four times a year, this happens, and it’s always these trucks. They fly right off that thing like there’s no tomorrow."

After 10 years at the store, John said he no longer ventures across the intersection for his lunch for fear of becoming the next casualty.

Update: Reader Matt Hogan informs us that the truck bed was packed with what looked like 50-pound bags of cement at the time of the crash. The rear of the vehicle is outfitted with an apparatus for mixing and pouring out concrete.

The debut Streetfilms Shortie caught an errant scooter blocking a bike lane. This time it's New York's Finest, camped out in the Manhattan Bridge bike path at Canal and Chrystie.

A half-step forward, two steps back.

The current round of pedestrian and bike improvements for Allen and Pike Street might be just the beginning.

The changes underway right now rely mainly on paint, planters, and paving surfaces to set aside space for public plazas and bike lanes. It's a great example of what you can do on a shoestring, but without a second phase of construction, the reclamation will have a temporary feel to it. The next iteration of this project might include plazas raised to sidewalk grade, for instance, or bike lanes with more robust physical protection. A solid showing in favor of further upgrades could help secure Parks Department funding for more long-term construction.

Representatives from Parks and DOT will be on hand at tonight's CB3 meeting. To voice support for investment in this promising livable streets project, head over to the BRC Senior Services Center at 30 Delancey Street (between Chrystie and Forsyth). The meeting starts at 6:30.

A reader sends this view of Pike Street, taken from the Manhattan Bridge bike path late last week. You'll notice the square of light pavement connecting two mall segments. That's the intersection with Monroe Street, one of four locations slated for pedestrian plazas in DOT's most recent plan for Pike and Allen Streets [PDF]. A center median protected bike path running from Houston Street down to the water -- the first of its kind in New York City, I believe, depending on how you categorize the Sands Street bike path -- is also in the works. DOT's project presentation characterizes these changes as interim improvements that can help generate support for further funding and more permanent construction.

The pedestrian and bike improvements on this corridor are the result of a painstaking bottom-up process that Sarah wrote about last September. Residents have been clamoring for safer walking, safer biking, and more welcoming public spaces on Allen and Pike for a long time. Soon, they'll be able to enjoy the benefits of more humane streets. (We have a request in with DOT to find out when the project will wrap up.)

City Council member Alan Gerson didn't have much new to say at his sidewalk protest of the Grand Street bike lane. But a handful of reporters and a few cyclists pressed him to defend the idea that projects designed to improve street safety should be subject to greater City Council review.

Gerson's assertion of "dangerous conditions" on Grand Street basically amounted to this: The row of parked cars on the south side used to protect only pedestrians; now it protects pedestrians and cyclists, so there's a perception among some of the older residents that they're at greater risk because cyclists are riding next to the curb.

But do the data back up the perception? In a word, No. According to DOT's study of Grand Street, injuries are down 28.8 percent since the protected lane was installed nine months ago. Which only makes sense, because the parking-protected bike path has narrowed the traffic lane, sending cues for drivers to slow down and making a safer environment for pedestrians and cyclists.

Gerson was not swayed by statistical evidence. "Sometimes anecdotal testimony reflects the reality," he said. For bike lane opponents, however, reality intruded rather inconveniently this afternoon.

A couple of speakers employed the time-honored "no one uses the bike lane" argument. Since they were standing right next to the bike lane in question, it was plain to see the dozens of people riding by during the course of the event. (A DOT traffic count last month tallied 990 cyclists in one 12-hour span.) Other well-worn assertions -- that the bike lane has hurt business and worsened congestion -- were similarly offered without supporting facts.

All the while, Gerson attempted to portray himself as an advocate for street safety who just wants to get everyone on the same page, by taking into account such factors as "the needs of traffic flow." When a reporter suggested that this was a recipe for inaction, Gerson argued that it is ultimately futile "to pit local neighborhoods against cyclists."

Set aside, for the moment, that the Grand Street bike lane is probably quite well-used by neighborhood residents (Gerson's district is nearly 80 percent car-free). Who's doing the "pitting" here? Fewer people are getting hurt on Grand Street now than before the protected bike path was installed. Wouldn't a public servant committed to safer streets try to preserve those gains? If there's some tension between pedestrians and cyclists, Alan Gerson could use his "town halls" to get people talking about how they can get the most out of a much-needed safety enhancement. Instead, he's simply escalating the conflict.

Video: Elizabeth Press

Anyone heading over to Chinatown for lunch? If not, and you work in Manhattan, you might want to change your plans. This rally, promoted by Council Member Alan Gerson, promises to be a can't-miss event:

Rally to Protest Dangerous Conditions with the Grand Street Bike Lane

WHEN: Friday, August 21, 2009 at 12:30pm

WHERE: Corner of Grand St and Mott St

WHAT: Rally to protest dangerous conditions caused by the Grand Street bike lane and to demand that the NYC Department of Transportation conduct more community outreach before deciding where to place bike lanes.

WHO: NYC Council Member Alan J. Gerson, local business owners and residents

That would be the same "dangerous" bike lane that has calmed traffic by narrowing the right-of-way for motorists. Oh, and it gives cyclists a nice, protected east-bound link in Lower Manhattan's bike network.

Alan Gerson wants "more community outreach." That's one way to put it. Given that the bike lane was vetted by Community Board 2, which approved the project in a nearly unanimous vote last year, isn't this more like a demand to give small, vocal groups veto power over street safety projects? I think it's pretty much official at this point: The District 1 City Council contest is a race to the bottom when it comes to livable streets.

To reiterate, the place to be at 12:30 today is the corner of Grand and Mott. After the jump, more pictures of the hazardous Grand Street bike lane.

Last night at the Council District 1 candidates debate, in the "lightning round" (one-line answers), a question was "Grand St. bike lane: good or bad."

All the candidates came out strongly against it to the cheers of some in the crowd. Only PJ Kim, the last to comment, tempered his statement with, "but we must not demonize bikers." They all either flatly opposed congestion pricing or want carve-outs for residents (pandering, hmmm?) and opposed East River tolls.

On the congestion pricing question (about 1:31:00 into this audio file posted on the Lo-Down), Pete Gleason and Alan Gerson were the two to outright oppose the idea -- although the incumbent Gerson voted for pricing last year. Margaret Chin, the only candidate to express any support for bridge tolls (check the 1:32:00 mark), qualified her answer by saying that car-poolers should be exempt.

Any exemption for congestion pricing or bridge tolls, of course, opens the door to more exemptions. The first people who will take advantage? Exactly the same placard-holders whom District 1 candidates rightly blame for clogging downtown streets.

We're talking about a district that is absolutely pummeled by bridge traffic, where about 80 percent of the households don't own a car. Those who do own one earn nearly two-and-a half times those who don't, on average [PDF]. There was a great opportunity here for a savvy candidate to separate from the pack on livable streets issues. And yet, no one chose to grab it.

Dan Squadron at yesterday's press event.

Earlier this month Albany approved the expansion of New York City's red light camera program. Media coverage tends not to play up the benefits of automated enforcement, so it was refreshing to see State Senator Dan Squadron, who represents Lower Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn, put the emphasis squarely on safety at a press event in Chinatown yesterday.

Standing near the foot of the Manhattan Bridge, where more than 40 pedestrians have been injured and two killed since 1995, Squadron brought attention to the most dangerous intersections in his district. He called for DOT to install an enforcement camera at Bowery and Canal and at these "danger spots":

• The intersection of Essex and Delancey Streets (87 pedestrians injured and one killed from 1995 to 2005)
• Targeted intersections on West Street between Canal Street and the entrance to the Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel (114 pedestrians injured and one killed)
• Tillary Street from Adams Street to Flatbush Avenue extension in Brooklyn (81 pedestrians injured and one killed)

DOT will have to make its selections judiciously. The city is now authorized to use 150 cameras (50 more than the old limit), with more than 12,000 signalized intersections to choose from.

As long as you are sober and licensed, you can go ahead and run over a 4-year-old and his babysitter walking in the crosswalk and drive off with nothing more than a failure-to-yield summons. You can plow your 2008 Ranger Rover into a bike commuter at a busy intersection and count on the NYPD only to interview the passengers in your vehicle, your buddies, before closing the case and letting you drive home despite numerous prior convictions on your driving record. You can rip down the narrow streets of Lower Manhattan at 60 mph, kill a woman, flee the scene, refuse to take a Breathalyzer test and get a plea deal for a mere eight weekends in jail because the victim happened to have a couple of drinks before she got in the way of your speeding Mercedes SUV. You can even let your van slam into a class of preschoolers walking on the sidewalk with their teachers, kill two of them, traumatize the rest, and be assured that the NYPD, the District Attorney and the local media will treat the case not as manslaughter or negligent homicide, but as an "accident."

When a construction crane falls or a New York Giants wide receiver accidentally discharges his gun, New York City's law enforcement community flies into a frenzy of justice-seeking. But when the killing is done by a sober, licensed driver, you can pretty much hear crickets chirping at the District Attorney's office. Though the total number of traffic fatalities and injuries has declined in recent years, for the friends and families of the 271 people killed by automobiles on New York City streets in 2007, the concept of "traffic justice" was virtually non-existent.

With Manhattan's 89-year-old District Attorney Robert Morgenthau finally stepping down, this year's campaign to succeed him is a great opportunity to make sure the next DA is committed to doing a better job of protecting New Yorkers from reckless and negligent drivers. Streetsblog met with Manhattan District Attorney candidate Leslie Crocker Snyder to learn more about where she stands when it comes to traffic justice.

* * * * *

Though Snyder acknowledged that she has "never been an expert in traffic-related issues" she said the horrific killings of preschoolers Diego Martinez and Hayley Ng in Chinatown have brought these issues to her attention and she is "learning more."

She believes the Manhattan DA's office has become "stale and reactive" and non-responsive to community concerns with the same man at the helm for 35 years. Rather than ignore traffic fatalities as Morgenthau has done, Snyder would bring killer-driver cases before grand juries. "I would want a grand jury to know the law of criminally negligent homicide, vehicular assault and reckless endangerment," she said.

Even when the law prevents her from pursuing criminal prosecution, Snyder said, "I would meet with the families. I would hear their grief as a mother" and, at the very least, explain to them what her office can and can not do for them. "You have to be a human being and acknowledge that these families must be going through hell."

Snyder said that the biggest traffic safety complaint she hears from community leaders these days is not about reckless motorists but "bicyclists being dangerous" and "messengers running us over." If she is elected DA, she invites livable streets advocates to educate her on the issues and "meet with me regularly and make sure I'm staying on top of it."

Here is an edited transcript of my interview with her:

Aaron Naparstek: We see a lot of cases in New York City where motorists are killing pedestrians and cyclists and basically just being put back in the driver’s seat and driving away with little more than a failure-to-yield summons. What can be done to change that?

You have to be a human being and acknowledge that these families must be going through hell. Why wouldn’t you meet with them and explain what your office is doing?

Leslie Crocker Snyder: I think a lot can be done. This issue fits into my whole theme which is that this has been a great office -- I was a member of it some years ago as a young assistant DA -- but it’s gone completely stale and reactive as opposed to proactive.

Frankly I really haven’t spent a lot of time on traffic issues, but they are important. I’m hearing over and over again that messengers are running us over, bicyclists being dangerous, pedestrians are having a lot of issues and I didn’t realize until fairly recently how important this is to people and how much of an issue it is.

Now, I know that you are concerned about the Chinatown situation. Obviously I don’t know all the facts, but the obvious question is always is there any criminal liability when something like this happens. So, there are several things that I would do if I were DA. One, I would present all of the evidence to a grand jury, and that way all sides could be heard. I can’t tell you that I have a conclusion about whether there is criminal liability because it can be very difficult to prosecute someone criminally in this situation. But I’d certainly want the grand jury to know the law of criminally negligent homicide, vehicular assault, reckless endangerment, and ultimately of course we would also know as DAs whether we felt that it was criminal liability. But the reason to present it to a grand jury is, number one, everyone is heard, which is extremely important, and number two, if there is no criminal liability as found by a grand jury, the grand jury has the ability to issue an extensive report to establish the issues in case like this.

AN: We should back up to one thing that you said at the top. You mentioned that you hear a lot about bike messengers endangering pedestrians. Do you hear more complaints about cyclists violating the law than motorists?

LCS: Thus far I've heard more about bikes.

AN: So, what do you hear?

LCS: I’ve heard that there’s a general feeling in a variety of communities that bicyclists just don’t follow any rules. They do what they want and are putting pedestrians in danger. It really hasn’t gone beyond that point but certain communities feel that it’s a major issue. Now what can the DA do about it? Again it depends on the situation. We don’t enforce traffic, we don't give summonses, so part of it would be working with the police department to make certain that issues like that are taken seriously.

Second, if a messenger or delivery person hits somebody the DA has to take that very seriously and do something about it. You have to send a message, as is happening in Nassau County where, for example, if you have that extra drink and you’re stopped you face dire consequences. So, people should realize the Manhattan DA is going to take a great interest in both pedestrian-vehicular accidents and pedestrian-bicyclist accidents.

If there's a death that’s questionable in Manhattan the DA should at least look into it and see whether there's something that can be done about it.

AN: Looking at your platform, you talk about protecting New Yorkers from terrorism, gangs, violent crime and domestic violence but I suspect that, statistically speaking, there’s a better chance that a Manhattanite will be hurt or killed by a stranger in a car than a stranger with a gun. Why don’t we see traffic justice as an issue on your web site?

LCS: I think it’s something I would discuss more in the future because, frankly, I’m just learning more about it over these last few months. My expertise is more in the areas of rape, murder, white collar crime, organized crime and drug-related issues. I’ve never been an expert in traffic-related issues but I’m learning more and I will be reading your blog because, obviously -- the Chinatown incident. Anything like that where kids die and you’re a parent -- I guess you don’t have to be a parent -- but as a parent it’s just the worst thing.

The point is my mind is open. I'm learning something I really didn’t know that much about. But I certainly know about prosecuting criminals and I know what a DA can do in terms of presenting situations to a grand jury. I also know that you have to be a human being and acknowledge that these families must be going through hell so why wouldn’t you meet with them and explain what your office is doing one way or another? Even if you can’t prosecute criminally, explain it to these poor people.

AN: Let me run a specific case by you to get a sense of how you would handle it as DA. Last August, a 31-year-old cyclist named Rasha Shamoon was struck and killed at the intersection of Delancey and Bowery. She was a regular bike commuter, known for being responsible and safety-conscious. Her bike was plastered with reflective tape and she wore a helmet. She was hit by a 21-year-old man driving a borrowed 2008 Ranger Rover who had already racked up six prior traffic convictions and one personal injury case in the three-and-a-half years he'd been legally driving. According to the police report [download it, it'll make your blood boil], the only witnesses interviewed were the driver’s friends, the two passengers in the Range Rover. Based on their testimony that Shamoon had run the red light at this very busy, dangerous intersection the police assigned blame to the cyclist. As Rasha Shamoon lay dying in a hospital bed, the police put the driver back in his Range Rover, he drove home and that was that. DA Morgenthau didn’t have anything to say about it and to the NYPD the case was closed. I spoke with the family and they feel a real injustice was done in the way their daughter’s death was treated by the authorities. I'll just add that while we don't know what really happened out there, as a bike commuter myself, I just find it hard to believe that an experienced cyclist would run the red light at Delancey and Bowery, particularly at night. It seems profoundly wrong for the police to have assigned blame to the victim having only interviewed the passengers of the car that did the killing.

As soon as I hear that people are blaming the victim -- I hate that. Let’s look at the defendant’s conduct.

LCS: Without knowing all the facts, I can’t tell you exactly what I would do. I would certainly want to investigate any death. Certainly whatever reports the NYPD did would be highly relevant, but I would conduct an independent investigation. Some responsible DA in my office would look into it and I’d want a personal report.

If there's a death that’s questionable in Manhattan the DA should at least look into it and see whether there's something that can be done about it. I mean maybe the answer would be there isn’t anything that can be done criminally, but the answer might be “Yes, there is.” Also I'm extremely disturbed by this person’s driving history, as you describe it. At the very minimum maybe there's some reckless driving or reckless endangerment charge. You don’t want someone driving who has five moving violations. That’s an outrage.

AN: It is very difficult to get access to police reports on car crash cases. I can go and see in my neighborhood how many rapes and murders and robberies and car thefts there were -- it’s all in CompStat, it’s all on the precinct web sites…

AN: It often appears that law enforcement doesn’t want to pursue these traffic justice cases because the DAs feel like they’re not going to get a win, the state laws are stacked against the victim to some extent. We wrote about a case where a woman named Florence Cioffi was run down in Lower Manhattan by a guy named George Anderson. He was driving 60 miles an hour in a Mercedes SUV. He fled the scene. He eventually came back and refused to submit to a Breathalyzer test. The woman whom he hit was crossing the street, and she was also found to be intoxicated, so the Manhattan DA’s office chose to plead out the case -- let Anderson off with a charge of DUI and leaving the scene of the accident. Anderson got 16 days in jail, eight weekends. Again, Cioffi's family felt that this was profoundly unjust. What would you do there?

LCS: That seems outrageous on the face of it, but as a lawyer I have to say I really have to know all the factors. You're reading me a newspaper account. Assuming all those facts to be true then I think it sounds outrageous, but you have to know all the facts and you have to know what the applicable law is. So for example there might be situations which shock us where there's no criminal liability, where it’s a genuine accident. But the idea is the Manhattan DA, with something that seems that outrageous, should be doing everything to make certain that if there should be a prosecution, it’s done. It sounds awfully lenient to me, it sounds awfully inappropriate. If she was drunk but didn’t do anything that she shouldn’t have done, and this guy was drunk and killed her, why isn’t that a very serious crime? Why does her being drunk have anything to do with his behavior? So I’d have to know what was her behavior. Did it just turn out that she in fact had a high blood alcohol, I mean that’s totally irrelevant. It actually sounds something like the rape shield law.

AN: Can you remind us what that is?

LCS: Sure. I co-authored the rape shield law. It protects the victim from any sex crime from having to go into details about her prior irrelevant sexual history. So here, for example, are we putting the victim on trial? Why does the fact that the victim was drunk have any impact on how we treat the defendant, unless there's something else she did while drunk that I don’t know about from that article. To me, as soon as I hear that people are blaming the victim -- because that’s what happened in my early days as a prosecutor, especially in sex crimes, it was always blame the victim, put the victim on trial -- I hate that. Let’s look at the defendant’s conduct. What did this person who was driving drunk -- why was he given a deal like that? Maybe there's an answer, maybe there isn’t, but it doesn’t appear to be one on the face of it.