City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and her city-owned Chevy Suburban in 2008. Photo copyright Steven Hirsch.

To hear Christine Quinn tell it, New Yorkers are crying out for relief from unjust parking policies. Over the last two years, it seems that when City Council members weren’t flogging legislation to add layers of bureaucracy to DOT’s street safety program, they were tripping over themselves to absolve motorists of one responsibility after another.

No matter that most New York commuters don’t drive to work. Or that drivers would be best served by rational prices for on-street parking, not endless cruising for free spots. Or even that one bill, prohibiting the sanitation department from placing stickers on vehicles parked in the path of street sweepers, would put an end to a practice that has benefited the entire city by improving street cleanliness. Nothing has stood in the way of Chris Quinn’s mission to free the put-upon car owner from the tyranny of onerous city edicts.

Including public opinion, it appears. According to a Quinnipiac poll released today, a majority of city voters disagree with Quinn and the council that city sanitation stickers are “unnecessarily punitive.” The poll found that 60 percent of voters, including 57 percent who park on the street, support the use of the stickers.

Support for the yellow stickers ranges from 56 – 40 percent each in Brooklyn and The Bronx to 66 – 26 percent in Manhattan. Men are stuck on the stickers 63 – 33 percent while women want them 57 – 37 percent. There is little partisan difference.

“Even voters who park on the street and do the Alternate Side Parking dance are stuck on the stickers by a wide margin,” said poll director Maurice Carroll in a Quinnipiac media release.

You’ll recall that the sanitation sticker bill was the brainchild of Brooklyn Council Member David Greenfield, who promoted it with characteristic zeal (“I mean, what’s next? We’re going to start slashing people’s tires when they don’t park on the correct side?”). It was also championed by transportation committee chair James Vacca, who called the stickers “cruel.” Weighed against the reality of voter sentiment, such inflammatory rhetoric makes the council look out of touch. It could be that New Yorkers aren’t as worked up about this stuff as their electeds think.

You don’t have to be a political scientist to know that governing by pet peeve is not likely to result in sound policy. Now that Speaker Quinn and the council have impartial evidence that a small number of gripes doesn’t necessarily reflect the opinions of the electorate at large, maybe they will turn their attention to actual problems, starting with the hundreds of fatalities and thousands of injuries suffered on city streets every year.

This is not a graphic from Christine Quinn's transportation report. In fact, the report says nothing at all about transit.

If you’re like most New York commuters, you took a train or bus to get to work today. And like most New Yorkers, you are invisible to the City Council and speaker Christine Quinn.

On Tuesday, Quinn issued a letter, co-signed by transportation committee chair James Vacca, bragging about the accomplishments of a council obsessed with the perceived needs of city drivers. You know the bills: the muni-meter grace period, the elimination of the alternate side violation sticker, the loosening of parking fine deadlines. While she makes mention of the law that requires NYPD to post traffic crash data online, Quinn also touts the council’s success in adding red tape to the installation of bike lanes, a proven safety measure.

November 2010: Quinn and Vacca take aim at safer streets.

The council’s transportation achievements add up to three bills written to address the pet peeves of certain car owners, three bills that allow council members to grandstand for codifying existing DOT protocols, and one genuinely useful bill to help make streets safer.

More broadly, Quinn’s “Transportation Report” contains not one word about public transportation. Framing the council’s transportation agenda as a win for “nearly every New York City driver,” Quinn ignores the 55 percent of commuters who rely on transit. Quinn and the City Council are kowtowing to the city’s motoring elite the same way Republicans in the House of Representatives are writing legislation to please oil companies.

You can find the full text of Quinn’s missive after the jump. Have at it.

January 31, 2012

Dear New Yorker,

A special thank you to everyone who responded to our first NYC Council Transportation Report! We were thrilled with the positive response, and the feedback we received was very helpful and informative.

There’ve been a number of important transportation-related developments since then, many of which you’ll find detailed in our newest report below.

As we explained in our first issue, our goal with these reports is to stay better connected and engaged with you and other New Yorkers about the important and challenging transportation issues affecting our city and communities, so please keep the comments and feedback coming!

If you have any questions about the initiatives below, please feel free to contact either Lyle Frank or Nivardo Lopez in the Council’s Human Services Division at lfrank@council.nyc.gov or nlopez@council.nyc.gov.

Thanks so much, and we look forward to hearing from you soon.

Sincerely,

Christine C. Quinn

Speaker

NYC Council

James Vacca
Chair, Transportation Committee
NYC Council

Making Parking Enforcement in NYC Fairer for Motorists

Nearly every New York City driver has a story about getting a ticket they clearly didn’t deserve.

To help make parking enforcement in our city fairer, the City Council recently passed a series of bills, collectively known as the “Fair Parking Legislative Package.”

The first bill, Intro. 490, presented by Speaker Quinn during her 2011 State of the City address and introduced by Council Member James Gennaro, is aimed at helping drivers who receive a parking ticket while in the process of paying for a muni-meter spot.

Right now, traffic cops aren’t allowed to cancel tickets for any reason, forcing drivers to dispute tickets at a later date.

Under our new law, anyone who receives a ticket while doing what they’re supposed to do – purchasing parking time from a muni-meter – won’t have to fight it later on if they present their time-stamped muni meter ticket to the agent within 5 minutes of the ticket being issued.

This legislation only applies to tickets written electronically (which account for about 85 percent of parking tickets written in the City), so there shouldn’t be any dispute over the time stamped on the ticket and the muni-meter receipt.

The City will also be required to report the number of cancelled tickets annually to the Council, providing us with valuable information about any trends.

Intro. 610, introduced by Council Member James Sanders, prohibits the City from charging drivers late fees on parking tickets until 30 days after a ruling is made

Motorists have every right to dispute parking tickets and shouldn’t be penalized before a final determination is made in their case.

The way the law currently works, drivers begin to accrue fees 30 days after a ticket is written, regardless of whether they’re fighting the ticket in court.

Our bill will provide parking ticket recipients a greater degree of fairness as they await the ruling of an Administrative Law Judge.

Finally, Intro. 546, introduced by Council Member David Greenfield, prohibits the City from placing adhesive stickers to mark vehicles purportedly violating alternate side parking rules.  These stickers are attached even before motorists are given the chance to prove their innocence.  Besides the fact that many people successfully challenge alternate side tickets, cars shouldn’t be subject to such a nuisance before a finding of guilt.  Actions like these are unnecessarily punitive, and our bill will end this practice once and for all.

We’d like to Council Members Gennaro, Sanders and Greenfield for all the hard work and effort they put into the passage of these bills.  Our Fair Parking Legislative Package will provide relief to motorists while promoting more judicious parking enforcement and ticketing practices citywide, and we urge Mayor Bloomberg to sign all three of these bills into law.

Increasing Community Input on Bicycle Lanes

According to the NYC Department of Transportation (DOT), since 2008, over 200 miles of bicycle lanes have been installed, and the City is planning to have installed 1,800 miles of bicycle lanes by 2030.  The City’s bicycle lane network has now been expanded to all five boroughs, including:

• Flushing Avenue (Brooklyn);

• Grand Concourse-Mosholu Parkway (Bronx);

• Columbus Avenue (Manhattan);

• Center Boulevard (Queens); and

• North and South Railroad Avenues (Staten Island).

Now, there’s no disputing that the development of a safer, more accessible biking infrastructure is good for our city.  In addition to the recreational benefits that bicycling offers, bicycle lanes also provide an important, environmentally friendly alternative form of transportation.  However, the expansion of these bicycle lanes has also raised a number of safety and community consultation concerns.

In response to these concerns, the City Council passed Local Law 61 of 2011, sponsored by Council Member Lew Fidler.  Scheduled to take effect later next month, this law will allow local communities the opportunity for greater input in the process of where and how bicycle lanes are installed and removed.  While Local Law 61 doesn’t prevent DOT from installing or removing bicycle lanes, it formalizes a process of consultation with local community boards.  These community boards can then provide additional input to achieve the best and safest means of bringing bicycle lanes to individual communities.

Specifically Local Law 61 requires the DOT to:

• give affected Council Members and community boards at least 90 days’ notice before constructing or removing a bicycle lane; and

• offer to make a presentation at a public hearing held by such affected community board.

If the local community board accepts the DOT’s offer, the hearing must be held within 45 days of the notice given.  The DOT shall then make a presentation of the proposed plans and receive input and will not be permitted to construct or remove such bicycle lane until at least 45 days after the public hearing. However, if no hearing is held, the construction or removal of the bicycle lane may not occur until 90 days after the notification.

Local Law 61 further requires that if the notification is given between June 20 and August 6, the period for a public hearing shall conclude on September 20, and the bicycle lane may not be constructed until 90 days following the notification or 10 days after the hearing, whichever time period is later.  This is done to ensure maximum participation of community boards, most of which are in recess during the summer.

We’d like to thank all of our colleagues, especially Council Member Fidler, for helping us ensure that the DOT is working with community boards and fully considering feedback from neighborhood residents on where, and how, bicycle lanes are installed.

TrafficStat – A Reality!

Good news: Accident and summons data is now available to the public for the first time on the New York City Police Department’s website, thanks to Local Law 12 of 2011, sponsored by Council Member Jessica Lappin.

The crash data, which includes the number of moving violation summonses, the number of traffic crashes, and the number of injuries and fatalities citywide and by borough, can be found at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/traffic_reports/motor_vehicle_accident_data.shtml.  The summons data can be found at http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/html/traffic_reports/traffic_summons_reports.shtml.

Having this data available online to the public will help us come up with better solutions to the many traffic and pedestrian safety issues affecting many of our communities.  Armed with this information, we’ll be better able to make our streets safer for everyone.

A special note of thanks to Council Member Lappin and our colleagues for helping to make this happen.

City Council & Mayor Bloomberg Launch Interactive Street Closures Map

Residents will now find it easier to navigate the City, thanks to the launch of NYC Street Closures – a new interactive website that maps closed-off streets across the five boroughs.

This online tool came out of legislation, sponsored by Council Member Garodnick, requiring the NYC Department of Information Technology and Telecommunication (DoITT) to create an online, interactive map displaying current and planned closings due to construction, street fairs, and parades.

The map is available online at NYC.gov and will be updated as often as practicable and necessary but not less than once a week.  Users can search the map based on date, time, and location.

With this information literally at their fingertips, New Yorkers will be better able to navigate the city and get from point A to B with less hassle.

We’d like to thank the Mayor and his Administration for working with us to help make New Yorkers’ lives a little easier.  Our sincere thanks as well to Council Member Garodnick for his leadership and support authoring the bill that created this new online tool.

Interagency Consultation PRIOR to Major Transportation Projects

In a continuing effort to involve and notify community boards and affected Council Member of transportation projects in their districts, the City Council passed and the mayor signed into law Local Law 64 of 2011, sponsored by Council Member James Vacca.

The law, which goes into effect February 12, 2012, requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to consult with the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Department of Small Business Services and the Mayor’s Office for People with Disabilities before undertaking any new projects.   (The term “major transportation project”, is defined as “any project that, after construction, will alter four or more consecutive blocks, or 1,000 consecutive feet of street, whichever is less, involving a major realignment of the roadway, including either removal of a vehicular lane(s) or full time removal of a parking lane(s) or addition of vehicular lane(s).”)

When the City takes on a major transportation project, it stands to reason the DOT would consider input from relevant city agencies.  Thanks to Local Law 64, not only will city departments be involved in the planning of new transportation projects,  but Council and Community Board members will have full access to the data, ensuring that the soundest decisions are made to better our neighborhoods.

Statistic Reporting AFTER Completion of Major Projects

Another new law related to major transportation projects was also recently passed by the City Council and signed by Mayor Bloomberg.

Local Law 66 of 2011, sponsored by Transportation Chair James Vacca and scheduled to take effect February 10, 2012, requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to provide statistics related to a major transportation project not less than 18 months following the completion of that project.  These statistics must include data on the average number of crashes over the five-year period prior to installation and the one year subsequent to the project.

In addition, DOT must also measure the impact the project has had on the flow of traffic in the area following the completion of the project, most importantly as to emergency vehicles.

All of the information must be made available to the affected community boards and council members and posted on DOT’s website.

Transportation & Our Quality of Life

Transportation-related issues are among the most pressing quality-of-life issues facing our communities today.

In addition to working collectively on these initiatives, the City Council is also working individually in our respective districts to help identify and respond to transportation-related issues and concerns at the local level.

As always, community input and involvement in these efforts are key, so please don’t hesitate to reach out to your local Council Member if there’s a transportation-related concern or issue in your community that needs addressing.  Contact information for all 51 members can be found on the City Council’s website at www.council.nyc.gov.

Together we can make our neighborhood and city a much better place to live!

Under Speaker Chistine Quinn, shown here with council members James Vacca and Diana Reyna, the current City Council has added red tape for bike projects and reduced incentives to obey parking rules. Photo: DNAinfo

A year ago Quinn made it clear that her top transportation priority wouldn’t be improving conditions for straphangers or making streets safer for walking and biking. Nope. In a city where 54 percent of households don’t own cars, Quinn focused on reducing the perceived inconvenience of storing cars on public streets.

Now the speaker is getting her moment in the spotlight from this agenda, with the passage of three bills yesterday. One would ban the Sanitation Department from placing stickers on cars that violate alternate-side parking rules. The Sanitation Department opposes the legislation, but the bill has enough votes on the council to override a mayoral veto. Another would let motorists escape a ticket if they show the parking enforcement officer a muni-meter receipt timestamped within five minutes of the violation, and the third would give illegal parkers more time before late fees kick in on their violations.

The 54 percent who don’t own cars get nothing out of this package, except maybe dirtier streets.

The real irony is that car owners don’t get much out of these bills either. The fact is that parking will remain a headache as long as New York gives away most of its scarce curbside space for free, or at bargain rates.

The City Council could learn a few things from San Francisco, where car owners are incurring fewer parking tickets thanks to a program that aligns parking prices with demand. Rather than bend over backward to address a few pet peeves, Quinn and Vacca would do more to lessen parking dysfunction by encouraging the city to move quickly with its own program to put the right price on curbside space. Instead, any time the city tries to adjust meter rates, the council is the loudest opponent.

After the jump, read the email blast that Quinn’s office sent out yesterday claiming victory against “unfair” and “unnecessarily punitive” parking enforcement.

Council Votes to Ease Parking Regulations
The Fair Parking Legislative package will promote more judicious parking enforcement and ticketing practices, providing relief for motorists citywide.  

At today’s Stated Council Meeting, my colleagues and I voted on the Fair Parking Legislative package – three bills intended to make parking enforcement fairer and to eliminate excessive ticketing in New York City.

The first bill, which I first presented during my 2011 State of the City address, will help drivers who receive a parking ticket while in the process of paying for a muni-meter spot. Under the legislation, Traffic Enforcement Agents, with electronic ticketing devices, will now be able – and required – to cancel the ticket immediately, averting the need for New Yorkers to dispute it later, saving them time and effort.

My colleagues at the Council and I also voted on legislation to prohibit late fees on parking tickets prior to a determination of liability. Under current law, late fees may start accruing 30 days after a ticket is issued, rather than 30 days after a determination is made in these cases. This bill will suspend the accrual of late fees until at least 30 days after a finding of guilt, or thirty days after an appeal is decided.

Finally, we voted to end a practice that utilizes adhesive stickers to mark vehicles allegedly violating alternate side parking rules. These stickers are unnecessarily punitive and this bill will end this practice.

IMMEDIATE CANCELLATION OF UNFAIR PARKING VIOLATIONS
To address complaints heard from New Yorkers who park their car and receive a ticket while in the process of paying at a muni-meter, my colleagues and I passed a bill earlier today to require Traffic Enforcement Agents to cancel a ticket on the spot when presented with a muni-meter receipt that shows a time no later than five minutes after the time the ticket was issued.

Currently, when an agent issues a ticket but is then presented with a valid muni-meter receipt, there is no option to cancel the ticket instantly. Under this law, anyone who receives a ticket while doing what they are supposed to do – purchasing parking time from a muni-meter – will not have to fight it later on.

This legislation only applies to tickets written electronically, which account for approximately 85 percent of parking tickets written in the city, so there can be no dispute over the time stamped on the ticket and the muni-meter receipt. Finally, the Administration will be required to report the number of cancelled tickets annually to the Council, which will provide valuable information about any trends.

This local law will take effect 180 days following enactment, provided that during this period, the New York City Department of Finance will be required to appropriately train agents to enforce the law.

Today, we’re tackling a recurrent problem for many New Yorkers– unfair tickets. Nearly every New York City driver has a story about getting tickets they clearly didn’t deserve. Ticketing is supposed to help us enforce the law – not unfairly punish people with no chance for swift recourse. With this bill, we’re saying to New Yorkers, “We’ve listened, and we want to make your lives a little easier.”

PROHIBITING LATE FEES PRIOR TO A DETERMINATION OF LIABILITY
Motorists have the right to dispute parking tickets and should not be penalized before a final determination is made in their case. However, as it stands now under the law, the late fee “clock” starts 30 days after a ticket is issued instead of 30 days after a determination is made in the case. This means that if a driver fights a ticket and is ultimately found guilty, fees may have accrued even before that finding is made.

My colleagues and I passed a bill that will freeze such late fees until at least 30 days after a finding of guilt. In addition, if someone appeals their decision, late fees or penalties may not accumulate until 30 days following a notice of determination of the appeal.

ALTERNATE SIDE PARKING STICKER BILL
Finally, we voted to prohibit the City from placing adhesive stickers to mark vehicles purportedly violating alternate side parking rules. These stickers are attached even before motorists are given the chance to prove their innocence. Besides the fact that many people successfully challenge alternate side tickets, cars should not be subject to such a nuisance before a finding of guilt. Actions like these are unnecessarily punitive.

Little-known fact: Lew Fidler's bill also requires the city to notify community boards before a bike lane is removed. Photo of Bedford Avenue bike lane erasure: Elizabeth Press

“Our legislation will ensure the Department of Transportation works with community boards and fully considers feedback from neighborhood residents on where, and how, bicycle lanes are installed,” Quinn said in a statement.

This is kind of like bragging about legislation that ensures the Department of Sanitation will pick up the trash. The city already brings bike lane proposals to community boards. The past few years have produced a long record of community board votes in favor of safer streets, as well as a few that went in favor of the status quo. With or without this bill, the bike lanes are going in where the community boards sign off on them.

Defending the need for the legislation, Vacca told NY1, “I don’t think it’s anti-bike to make sure that local neighborhoods have input as to where bike lanes go.”

Can’t argue there. Having a public process for bike lane installation is not anti-bike. What’s anti-bike is to imply that the recent expansion of bike lanes has somehow lacked sufficient public input, which is the message that comes across from the coverage of this bill.

It’s also strange that the City Council thinks it’s necessary to mandate notification for all bike lanes, but not for all changes to motor vehicle lanes. If the city wants to carve out some left-turn bays from a pedestrian median, for instance, there’s no law requiring a public hearing.

So yeah, it’s anti-bike to grandstand about the imaginary problem of community input on bike lanes when the council could be focusing on real transportation problems like the MTA debt bomb, obscenely wasteful subsidies for stadium parking, or NYPD’s refusal to disclose information on traffic crashes.

In any case, Quinn, Vacca, and Fidler missed their chance to boast about the real innovation in this bill. It requires the city to inform community boards before any bike lane is removed:

…at least ninety days before the construction or the removal of a bicycle lane is to begin, the department shall notify each affected council member and community board via electronic mail of the proposed plans for the bicycle lane within the affected community district and shall offer to make a presentation at a public hearing held by such affected community board.

From now on, City Hall can’t make political bargains to rip out bike lanes without telling the affected community board and council member first. Whether the local CB and council member act on that information to notify the broader public seems to be up to them. So the bill isn’t quite a failsafe against future surprises like Bedford Avenue and Father Capodanno Boulevard, but it is a step forward.

NYC DOT has not opposed the bill, and the mayor is expected to sign it into law.

City Council Speaker made increasing the convenience of on-street parking a top priority in this year's State of the City. Photo: City Council

In her State of the City address this afternoon, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn laid out her priorities for the year ahead. Her speech focused on four issue areas: balancing the city budget, creating jobs, preserving affordable housing and parking.

Quinn’s parking platform isn’t aimed at making parking cheaper or more plentiful — though she’s taken action on that front recently — so much as eliminating some of the inconveniences car owners face when they park on public streets. To that end, she’s drawing on ideas like Brad Lander’s call to reduce the number of alternate side parking days on the city’s cleanest streets.

While the Council seems poised to advance important bills opening up data on traffic safety, Quinn’s transportation platform for the year only provides benefits to a privileged minority of New Yorkers. In a high-profile moment as she gears up for a 2013 mayoral run, Quinn offered nothing to the 54 percent of households which don’t own a car.

The parking related section of Quinn’s prepared remarks is excerpted below:

We’ve taken on everything from potholes to bedbugs, noise complaints to stalled construction sites. This year we’ll focus on an issue that plagues New Yorkers in many neighborhoods – parking.

Look, we still want to get more folks out of their cars and onto public transit. But for families in many neighborhoods, that’s simply not an option. So under the leadership of Transportation Committee Chair Jimmy Vacca, we’ll pass a package of legislation to make their lives a little easier.

First, we’ll take simple steps to free up additional parking space. For example, many blocks have more than one day of alternate side parking restrictions. Cars have to clear the way for street sweepers, even if the street isn’t dirty. We’ll change the law, so areas that receive the highest cleanliness rating for two years in a row will have the option of one less day of alternate side.

We’ll also help you find out where you can and can’t park – before you get a ticket. We’ll pass legislation sponsored by Council Member Dan Garodnick creating an interactive online map. It’ll show what blocks are closed for filming, construction, or street fairs – and where parkingrules have temporarily changed.

Making it easier to park is only part of the equation. We’re also going to take on drivers’ biggest complaint – unfair tickets. Ticketing is supposed to help us enforce the law – not help the city make a quick buck. But almost every New Yorker has a story about getting tickets they clearly didn’t deserve.

Here’s one that’s especially infuriating. Have you ever parked your car, then gone to the munimeter to pay – only to come back and find an agent is writing you a ticket? And when you complain, they say they’re not allowed to cancel a ticket once they started writing it – and you’ll have to fight it in court.

This is bureaucratic red tape at its absolute worst – the stuff that makes New Yorkers think government is just out to nickel and dime them. We’re going to pass a bill sponsored by Council Member Jim Gennaro, so if you show your receipt to the agent, they have to tear up your ticket on the spot.

These problems may seem small – after all, searching for a parking spot can be frustrating, but it’s hardly a matter of life and death.

But when you stop to think about it, you realize most problems seem small – until they happen to you.

A 65 dollar parking ticket seems like a small problem – until it makes you 65 dollars short on the rent.

Fire Department officials listen to testimony at today's hearing. Photo: Noah Kazis

At a public hearing held by the Fire Department this morning, every person who testified spoke against charging a fee for FDNY response to traffic crashes, calling it inappropriate to make drivers pay for what they said ought to be a basic government function.

The charges are part of the Bloomberg administration’s attempt to close a budget deficit. The Fire Department proposes to recover the cost of responding to a traffic crash by charging the motorists involved between $365 and $490, depending on the severity of the crash. They estimate the fees would raise $1 million a year.

The charges can also be seen as an attempt to make motorists bear some of the enormous cost of traffic crashes. According to the city Department of Transportation, traffic crashes cost $4.29 billion a year.

No one at this morning’s hearing saw it that way. Opposition focused on whether it was right to switch from using general taxation to fund fire services to a user fee model:

• The charge would “radically alter the relationship between the city’s taxpayers and the services they receive,” said City Council Member Dan Garodnick in a statement read by an aide. Continuing down this path, he argued, would create “two forms of government – one for those who can pay and one for those who cannot.”
• “Imposing crash taxes on individuals unfortunate enough to have accidents adds insult to injury,” said AAA New York’s John Corlett. “Public safety services are a core government function and therefore should be properly budgeted for.”
• The flat charges would place “a disproportionate financial burden on poor and minority citizens,” said William McDonald of the NAACP’s Jamaica Branch, speaking for the branch’s president.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn also wrote in to the Fire Department in opposition to the fee. “The Fire Department doesn’t charge for its response to structural fires, and the Police Department doesn’t charge for patrolling a block. Charging for responding to the scene of an accident is a slippery slope,” she wrote. She also worried that drivers might choose not to call 911 if faced with an additional fee, leaving people on the road who shouldn’t be, like injured or drunk drivers.

Though the Fire Department has the authority to institute this charge unilaterally, legislation has been introduced in both the City Council and state legislature to take away that power.

One important question that remains unresolved is the extent to which auto insurance policies would cover the charge. Fire Department counsel Julian Bazel seemed to believe that insurance would cover the charge, while multiple insurance industry representatives said that while it depended on the policy, most drivers would be paying out of pocket. State Insurance Superintendent James Wrynn agreed with insurers that most policies wouldn’t cover the charge, according to an article in the Daily News.

The charge would work very differently depending on whether the city or the industry is correct. If insurance does cover the charge, the city would essentially be increasing the overall cost of driving, as the fees would show up in all drivers’ premiums. If not, it really is a charge for particular services rendered.

Perhaps more importantly, if insurers covered the charge, insurers would in most cases shift all the fees onto the at-fault party in any given crash, according to industry reps. If drivers paid out of pocket, both parties might end up having to pay the charge, even if one was rear-ended while stopped at a red light.

Mayor Bloomberg just signed two bills making domestic violence and hate crime data public. Why won't he support the same for traffic crimes? Photo: Spencer T. Tucker via nyc.gov

Bloomberg administration officials have now twice appeared in front of the City Council to oppose legislation requiring that the city post up-to-date information about traffic crashes and summonses online. In April, the NYPD testified that such a reporting requirement would be a burden on the department and that the public couldn’t interpret that kind of information. And last week the DOT argued that it wasn’t the right agency to release such information.

But the Bloomberg administration isn’t always opposed to tracking and reporting police data. On Monday, the mayor signed into law two bills that will release information about hate crimes and domestic violence. Intros 373 and 393 require the Mayor’s Office of Operations to centralize this data on the city’s My Neighborhood Statistics website. “The two bills before me today increase transparency,” said Bloomberg at the bill signing.

“To not have this information available to the public would mean keeping our residents in the dark,” Council Speaker Christine Quinn said of the legislation, according to a DNAinfo report. “Any additional data to help understand and fight both hate crimes and domestic violence will be beneficial to individual neighborhoods and the City as a whole.”

With Bloomberg and Quinn squarely on board, both bills flew through the legislative process. They were introduced to the Council on October 13; hearings, votes, and the bill signing took less than a month.

While the specifics differ, the principle behind those bills is the same idea underpinning Intro 370, Council Member Jessica Lappin’s bill to release TrafficStat data about the location and cause of traffic crashes and data on traffic enforcement summonses. New Yorkers not only deserve to know about crime in their city, but they should be able to use that information to advocate for change. So why is the administration trying to keep traffic crime information hidden even as it celebrates the release of information about hate crime and domestic violence?

Perhaps the problem is that when it comes to traffic enforcement, the city isn’t eager to see sunlight shine on its record.

Take, for example, the recent Daily News exposé of traffic enforcement quotas in Brooklyn’s 77th Precinct. Documents portray a directive to issue summonses for six offenses: cell phone use, failure to wear seatbelts, double parking, stopping in a bus stop, tinted windows, and operating trucks off of designated routes. In contrast, the DOT’s recent pedestrian safety report found that the top three contributing factors in serious crashes involving pedestrians were driver inattention, failure to yield, and speeding. There’s not a lot of overlap between those two lists.

That means that in at least one precinct, the NYPD is not deploying its traffic resources to target offenses that cause the most harm on city streets.

Releasing data on traffic crashes and summonses would greatly increase the transparency of efforts to reduce deadly driving and make it easier to hold NYPD accountable for its performance. But it seems to be the one type of information about neighborhood safety that the Bloomberg administration wants to hide from public view.

Council Speaker Christine Quinn cuts the ribbon for East River Plaza and its 1,428 parking spaces. Photos: Noah Kazis

It's safe to say that East River Plaza will go down as an urban planning disaster for the ages, but as politicians praised the project, they gave no indication that they've absorbed lessons from its big mistake. The mall's eight levels of parking, a full 1,428 spaces, take up the better part of a city block. Those spots have mostly been sitting empty, hogging space and sucking the life out of the pedestrian environment -- a testament to the city's lax urban planning oversight and the fantastically faulty assumptions of the developer, who now admits that more people than expected are walking or taking transit to East River Plaza rather than driving.

So it was particularly jarring to hear praise for all that parking from City Council Speaker Christine Quinn. She thanked the city for rezoning the area "to make it not only a place where commercial development could occur, but also a place where we could have parking, so people could come here and take those 488 rolls of toilet paper home with them, out of Costco, as I myself like to do."

Never mind that parking takes the place of what could be more retail and more jobs, or that 82.3 percent of East Harlem households don't own a car [PDF]. This empty lot is failing even as a place to store private cars. 

A ribbon cutting may not be the occasion to expect reflections on lessons learned, but today's event was a great opportunity to explore East River Plaza and document a colossal mistake that should never be repeated. Photos after the jump.

Amazingly, to get to any of East River Plaza's stores, you have to walk through the parking lot; the entrance to Costco is just behind the camera. There is no pedestrian option. On the other hand, you can exit directly from the FDR Drive into the parking lot.

Further evidence that East River Plaza's shoppers are all assumed to be drivers: the view from each store. You walk out and face the parking lot and a sign reminding you to pay your parking ticket. That's it. Even suburban malls have a nicer environment for people walking around.

The parking lot is simply enormous, a dead zone dominating the landscape -- in this case, 116th Street. Of course, with the FDR just east of the lot, this is an area where the automobile already dominates.

The lot is almost completely empty inside. To be fair, not every store in the mall is open. But floor 3a, which connects to the already open Best Buy and GameStop, was almost completely empty this morning. 

Deputy Mayor Linda Gibbs. Photo: City Hall News

The Age-Friendly New York City agenda includes 59 initiatives meant to make it easier to age in the city, including building traffic calming public spaces and redesigning the city's most dangerous intersections. Bloomberg's remarks didn't specifically mention the pedestrian safety aspects of the plan, but he did reaffirm his commitment to follow through on the entire Age-Friendly program. "When we take on a project," he said, "we actually do it." 

Quinn focused more closely on street redesigns. "Through complete streets, we're making New York a place that's safe in every way for seniors," she told the audience. In April, Quinn stood with AARP in front of the Ninth Avenue protected bike lane to participate in a safety audit. Discussing that experience last night, Quinn said that the redesigns of Eighth and Ninth had helped fix "two very problematic corners" at 23rd Street.

Perhaps most striking, it seems that livable streets advocates have a potential ally in Deputy Mayor Gibbs, who oversees the Age-Friendly New York City program. Discussing NYCDOT's Safe Routes for Seniors program, Gibbs had particular praise for neckdowns at dangerous intersections. "It creates an intentional bottleneck that not only makes the distance shorter, but slows down the traffic as it approaches the intersection," she said, "so you have a double benefit."

To keep seniors safe, one area that would especially benefit from Gibbs' influence is Manhattan's East Side.

The wide avenues there remain particularly dangerous for older pedestrians: AARP called attention to the problem in January, and Yorkville is targeted for a Safe Routes for Seniors treatment. While the original plans for re-designing First and Second Avenues included pedestrian refuge islands, which are of particular benefit to older New Yorkers, along most of the corridor south of 125th Street, as of this month the administration will only fully commit to pedestrian safety improvements south of 34th Street. 

When asked whether she'd support restoring refuge islands to the full extent of the original plan, Gibbs said she just didn't know that level of detail about the First and Second Avenue redesign, which isn't under her direct supervision. The original plan earned the support of community boards and elected officials representing the length of Manhattan, and more importantly, would save seniors' lives in East Harlem, the Upper East Side, and Midtown. It's an essential, and shovel-ready, way to make good on the promises of Age-Friendly New York City. 

Kicking off a day of street surveys across the state, the group met at the corner of Ninth Avenue and 23rd Street, an intersection that had been particularly hazardous for the older residents of the nearby Penn South co-op.

One Penn South resident recounted her memories of living above the intersection before a redesign of the corridor brought refuge islands along Ninth to protect both pedestrians and cyclists. "Every time I heard a siren on Ninth Avenue," she said, "I ran out to see if it was one of our seniors."

Council Speaker Christine Quinn praised "the success we've had at 23rd and Ninth," and promised that the city would "replicate" it. "I'm looking forward to more safely strolling across intersections across the city," Quinn said. Quinn also noted the development of Age-Friendly NYC, a set of 59 initiatives to help New York City become more hospitable to a growing senior population. Traffic calming and street redesigns were an important piece of that document.

AARP's top pedestrian safety priority is complete streets legislation working its way through the state legislature. That bill, which has the support of the chairs of the transportation and aging committees in both the Assembly and Senate, would ensure that all streets statewide are designed with the needs of pedestrians, cyclists, people with disabilities, and transit riders in mind.

AARP street surveys account for drivers who speed and block crosswalks, pedestrian crossing times as they relate to signal lengths, and other important safety metrics. Five-hundred intersections across New York State were to be observed today, 70 of them in the city. Results will be sent to both the state and local departments of transportation. Once the data is analyzed, Quinn said, individual council members will follow up with DOT on trouble spots in their respective districts. Some city-wide policies may be necessary, added Quinn, but "a lot of that will come from the data."

New council transportation chair James Vacca, an AARP member himself, said that New York City needs to be "a safe, safe haven" for all its residents. Improvements are necessary, he said, in order for senior citizens to have "safe access to anywhere they want to go."

Vacca and Quinn could step up by attaching their names to Intro 120, which would require NYPD to publicize traffic crash information, enabling citizens and advocates to more effectively push for safety improvements. Plugging the bill today was co-sponsor Jessica Lappin, chair of the Committee on Aging. "We are a city of walkers," said Lappin, but "when you start pushing a stroller around, you start to notice where there aren't curb cuts, or where it's hard to cross the street."

James Vacca, left, and Daniel Garodnick are rumored to be in the running for transportation committee chair.

The bill's ultimate passage was a big step forward for the council on sustainable transportation. But the city's legislative agenda can still get clogged up with counterproductive items like the parking "grace period" which the council passed in December. Will the next transpo chair spend time and energy trying to score cheap points with car owners, or will New Yorkers get a leader who puts safety and livability at the top of the agenda?

"Historically, the transportation committee has been overly sensitive to New York's minority of motorists," Transportation Alternatives director Paul White told Streetsblog. "We really need someone who understands New York's supermajority of transit riders, walkers, and, increasingly, cyclists."

The next transportation committee chair could, for instance, move legislation requiring NYPD to release traffic safety data to the public every month, the same way it releases crime data. "We still don't get that information until several months or even years down the road," said White. With a sizable slate of bus, bike, and pedestrian projects on tap, the next chair could also rally support within the council for allocating street space to more sustainable modes.

According to a Daily News report, Quinn is expected to choose committee chairs toward the end of the month, and Bronx council member James Vacca is on the short list for the transportation committee. Vacca was one of the leading proponents of the parking grace period bill. The lone opponent of that bill, Manhattan rep Daniel Garodnick, has also signaled interest in the position, sources tell Streetsblog. Garodnick was among 19 local elected officials who last month urged DOT and the MTA to implement a bold BRT design for First and Second Avenues, incorporating separated lanes for both buses and bikes.

This was the scene at City Hall yesterday afternoon as Mayor Bloomberg put his signature on the Bicycle Access Bill. The mayor also signed Intro 780, which will increase the amount of bike parking in commercial garages and lots. Bill sponsors David Yassky (dark tie) and Oliver Koppell (red and navy stripes) were on hand, as were buildings commissioner Robert LiMandri (far left), DOT commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan (center) and TA director Paul White (glare in his lenses).

The new rules governing bike access to buildings won't take effect for a few more months. In the meantime, the best strategy for eventually reversing your building's bike policy is to talk amongst your co-workers (not to your employer just yet) and hash out potential bike access plans.

The passage of these bills elicited many pro-bike pronouncements from elected officials, some of which have been reprinted for your reading pleasure after the jump.

Bill sponsor David Yassky, in a press release before the City Council passed the Bicycle Access Bill:

“In a city in which one in eight kids has asthma, this bill is a long overdue step towards reducing carbon emissions, improving public health, and building a sustainable transportation infrastructure,” said Council Member Yassky. “I look forward to the Council passing this bill tomorrow so that we can begin the implementation of this important piece of progressive legislation.”

An email blast from speaker Christine Quinn's office after City Council passed the bill:

Dear New Yorker,

Good news!  Last week the New York City Council took steps toward creating a more sustainable transportation infrastructure in our city by passing two important pieces of legislation:

Intro. 0780-A (Koppell) - bicycle parking in garages and parking lots.  (To view a copy of the bill click here.)

Intro. 0871-A (Yassky) - bicycle access in commercial buildings.  (To view a copy of the click here.)

One of the main obstacles to bicycle commuting is the inability to park your bicycle in a secure location once you have arrived at work. 

These bills address this problem by improving bicycle access in commercial buildings and creating thousands of bicycle parking spaces in city garages and parking lots.  The legislation also encourages cycling by creating a bicycle commuting task force that will explore partnerships with private entities to build sheltered bicycle parking in public and/or private spaces.  The task force will issue its report by December 31, 2010.

Together, these proposals will improve public health, reduce carbon emissions, and provide a more affordable option for New Yorker's daily commute.

Remarks by Bloomberg in the press release sent after yesterday's bill signing:

“Making bicycling a safe, low-cost, and fun means of getting around town is a key component of PlaNYC, our Administration’s vision for a greener, greater New York.  Under the leadership of Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan, the Department of Transportation has made great strides in turning that vision into a reality: over the past three years, we’ve seen a 45 percent increase in bicycle commuting in our City, spurred by our creation of more than 200 miles of bike lanes as well as the installation of 3,100 bicycle racks and 20 sheltered bike parking structures.  Also, the Council recently adopted zoning requirements crafted by the Department of City Planning to ensure that new buildings over a certain size will be designed to include bicycle parking facilities.

“These two pieces of legislation aim to take these successes several significant steps further."

DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan speaks at a press event yesterday. That's bill sponsor David Yassky in the green tie.

"This will open up commuting by bike for New Yorkers," said Council Speaker Christine Quinn today. "We can use bikes as a main mode of transportation." She was speaking to a packed house. The security guards at City Hall were turning people away from the council chamber because the galleries had reached capacity.

"No other city in the country has a policy like the one City Council passed today," said Transportation Alternatives director Paul Steely White in a statement on the significance of the bill. "When we open the doors of New York City’s workplaces to cyclists, tens of thousands of commuters are going to get on two wheels."

For many cyclists forbidden to bring their rides to work, today's vote was a long time coming. TA first called for bicycle access legislation in 1993, as a plank in its Bicycle Blueprint. Since then, multiple bills like Intro 871 have come and gone without becoming law.

"This is historic, a very, very major step," said John Kaehny, who served as director of TA from 1994 to 2004. "I can't think of something that comes close to this from the City Council. This is very important because they've done something big. More than anything else, it validates bicycles as legitimate."

Gaining passage for Intro 871 entailed a combination of confronting and cajoling one of the quintessential New York City interest groups: the real estate lobby. Organizations like REBNY -- the Real Estate Board of New York -- don't like the idea of a bicycle access mandate, and they wield a lot of influence. To overcome that inertia, everything had to line up perfectly.

TA's constant advocacy has mobilized efforts over the course of many years. This time around, all the other pieces fell into place: a persistent sponsor in David Yassky, a Council Speaker in Christine Quinn who represents a cyclist-heavy district, and perhaps most crucially, a mayor and DOT commissioner who came out strongly for the bill. Even with the stars seemingly aligned, it took one last push from more than a thousand cyclists to put the bill over the top.

What does this all mean for bike commuting in New York? Well, the change won't happen overnight. The bill takes effect in 120 days, and then it's up to individual tenants to petition their building managers for access (we'll explain how to do this in a future post). Odds are, as Kaehny told me, "it's going to be a fight the whole way." The bill sets the stage for thousands of mini-battles between bike commuters and landlords who will try to claim exemptions from the law. Ultimately, the bill will be judged a success if commuters come out on top in the vast majority of those fights.

There are gaps in the legislation that will need to be plugged. The bill explicitly covers one building type -- office buildings that have freight elevators -- so there's plenty of room to extend its applicability. A future bill could fortify this version, for instance, by guaranteeing bike access to schools, or to office buildings without freight elevators. After today's vote, there's every reason to believe those improvements are achievable.

Intro 871 would make it much easier to -- gasp! -- bring your bike to work. Photo: Transportation Alternatives [PDF]

Should the zoning amendment pass, it would be good news for New York City bike commuters in years to come. The lack of a secure place to put your ride is one of the main obstacles to commuting by bike, and the zoning change will gradually alter the equation as new housing, workplaces, and commercial development get built. (The amendment now includes exemptions for low-income housing, but not the bike parking-for-car parking swap proposed at a previous hearing.)

A related measure, the Bicycle Access Bill (Intro 871), could deliver immediate benefits to nearly all bike commuters in the city by improving access to existing workplaces. As things stand, most landlords and building managers simply don't permit people to bring bikes inside. Intro 871, sponsored by David Yassky, would help remedy the situation and has already progressed through one hearing in the transportation committee. A revised version of the bill is expected to be released in the next few days, and Yassky's office is "very optimistic" that a second committee hearing will take place within approximately six weeks, according to spokesman Danny Kanner.

Intro 871 is one to keep a very close eye on. While a majority of the council has signed on as co-sponsors, the Real Estate Board of New York has signaled its opposition the bill. Not that the pro-bike side is without its own heavy hitters. A group of high-powered business leaders and lawyers sent this letter [PDF, or follow the jump] to Council Speaker Christine Quinn, asking her to continue the "championing of sustainable, healthy and cost effective transportation modes" (disclosure: Streetsblog publisher Mark Gorton is one of the signatories). Quinn's office has not returned inquiries about her stance on the bill.

Dear Speaker Quinn,

We write to you today as professionals and as cyclists. We are both business people and lawyers and we wish to be bicycle commuters. Many of our peers as well as employees of the companies we own, manage, and work for are discovering the physical, mental, and practical benefits that come with cycling. Yet there is a crucial inequity that separates us from those who commute by car: secure storage. It is not only this imbalance, but the opportunity for a solution, that prompts this letter. We urge you to continue your championing of sustainable, healthy and cost effective transportation modes by supporting City Council legislation Intro. 871, The Bicycle Access Bill.

When people drive to work they have several ways to store their cars. They can look for a curbside parking space, they can park in an off-street garage, or they may even have a parking facility in their destination building. Cyclists have to deal with issues of access, inconvenience, and security. Although the DOT and some BIDs have made great strides in providing curbside bike racks, supply has not kept up with demand in midtown and the financial district. Most riders have to chain their bikes to whatever sign, pole, scaffolding, or rack they can find in the vicinity.

A good bike is of value to both its owner and a thief, so many of us are reluctant to leave our bikes on the sidewalk even when racks are available. The better the bike, the more likely a theft. Some 70,000 bikes are stolen every year in New York City and less than 2% are ever recovered. Every time we ride to work, we gamble on whether or not our transportation will be there for the ride home, many of us will not cycle to work if we can’t park indoors.

Bicycle commuting is efficient in many ways. Riding to work allows people who are committed to fitness, but who work long hours, to combine transportation and exercise. More bicycle commuters mean fewer private and hired cars on the city’s clogged streets and fewer passengers on overcrowded subways and buses. Moreover, people who cycle to work have been shown to be more productive and happier on the job. And, as property owners and managers who permit access to buildings have already discovered, it will not increase operational or insurance costs.

PlaNYC 2030 calls for the promotion of cycling as a sustainable mode of transportation. Because Intro. 871 is an important step in achieving this goal, we urge you to support it.

City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and her city-owned Chevy Suburban. Photo copyright Steven Hirsch.

New bike infrastructure in New York City could be on the chopping block as the City Council and Mayor Bloomberg revise spending projections downward. On Sunday, Speaker Christine Quinn and the City Council released $495 million in proposed budget cuts over the next two years, including an item that would slash spending on bike network expansion in half. DOT's bike network funds would drop from $9.6 million to $4.8 million in 2009, and from $11 million to $5.5 million in 2010. Download this PDF and scroll down to the first item numbered 841, "Reduce Bike Network Development Funding."

A spokesman for Speaker Quinn's office did not specify why the bike network was targeted for spending cuts, saying only that painful steps were necessary to close the city's budget gap. In an interview on WNYC earlier this week, Quinn said that the council's financial staff were charged with identifying programs that are "not necessarily the core function" of city agencies.

The proposals now enter the ongoing budget negotiation process between the council and the mayor's office. In November, Bloomberg released a separate list of budget fixes, which did not include cuts to bike network funding. (Interestingly, the mayor's proposals did include a measure to raise more revenue from parking meters below 60th Street [PDF, page 24].) Yesterday Bloomberg ordered city agencies to identify additional spending reductions by December 22.

If you believe a safer bike network is a core function of DOT, contact information for Speaker Quinn's office and your council member can be found on the City Council website.

The transportation committee of Manhattan Community Board 2 will meet tonight to consider a proposal for a protected bike path on Eighth Avenue. If built, the cycle track would join the Ninth Avenue bike lane as the city's primary on-grid Class I bicycle facilities.

It seems not everyone embraces the prospect of improving pedestrian and bike safety. In notifying the neighborhood about the meeting, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn's office referred to the project as a "drastic design change." The hyperbole obscures the fact that the number of travel lanes will not be affected, though it is true that cyclists would have a "drastically" safer route if, as proposed, the current buffered bike lane were swapped with the lane of parked cars.

You can tell CB2 you support a safer bike network at tonight's meeting: 6:00 p.m. at the NYU Silver Building, 32 Waverly Place, Room 509.

• City Council Member Tony Avella: "[Avella is] an obscure pol, and attacking CP allowed him to grab attention while promoting his anti-tax agenda. But he may have gone around the bend, ranting about routine horse-trading for council members’ votes."
• Comptroller Bill Thompson: "The city comptroller has been mildly supportive of congestion pricing, though he’s always been careful to attach caveats ... Why take a bold stance on something that might never happen?"
• City Council Speaker Christine Quinn: "[S]he used last week’s vote to demonstrate leadership on a contentious issue ... Plus, wrapping her arms so tightly around CP also earned Quinn a big chit with Bloomberg..."
• Congressman Anthony Weiner: "[I]n the campaign, he’ll cast congestion pricing as Manhattan-centric and elitist, like Quinn. Weiner was thrilled to see her so far out front."

And don't forget Marty Markowitz, whose most notable contribution to the congestion pricing discussion has probably been his vehement opposition to new bridge tolls. 

On a related note, the Daily Politics reports that Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey issued a not-so-subtle warning on the radio this morning that state pols will be judged on where they come down, and could be supported or opposed accordingly in future races.

Whether or not the plan passes in Albany, how will congestion pricing influence your vote for the next mayor?

The Times reports that Silver, introducing the plan "as a courtesy to the new governor," agreed not to "block" it "in exchange for some version of the new tax on anyone making more than $1 million." But some Republican lawmakers who might otherwise support congestion pricing are opposed to the "millionaire tax" (as is Mayor Bloomberg).

And Assembly Democrats were peeved when Governor David Paterson seemed to dismiss the prospect of legislative pay raises in today's Times story, according to the Daily Politics.

One lawmaker deemed it "disingenuous" for the new governor to come around praising Democrats at a time when he needs their support very badly - not the least of which for Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan - and not mention that he plans to tank something that is of utmost importance to them.

"It puts another chill on enthusiasm for the new governor - beyond all the other letdowns and setbacks we've seen already," the lawmaker said.

Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver didn't mention the pay raise issue, either, the lawmaker said.

The City Council has yet to pass the home-rule message needed to place pricing in Albany's hands, though Speaker Christine Quinn says she is "optimistic" the votes will be there.

Care of the Observer Politicker comes this video from earlier today. Speaking at City Hall, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn turns around a question from a reporter on whether the MTA can be trusted with congestion pricing revenues, given that promised upgrades tied to the recent fare increase will be delayed. Quinn calls the MTA's actions "outrageous," and suggests the congestion pricing lock box will give the city more control over the transit agency.

Said Quinn:

"To me, this is a strong reason why we need congestion pricing. It's a reason why we need a separate, sustainable revenue stream targeted at capital expansion of mass transit in the City of New York ... We need that money to go somewhere separate, where the MTA's board is not the final and only authority over it."

The Observer's Azi Paybarah says Quinn is "optimistic" that pricing will get approval by the council.

Standing behind Quinn is the undecided Bill De Blasio.