Taxi and Limousine Commissioner David Yassky says legalizing street hails for livery cabs will reduce car ownership rates and improve traffic safety. Photo: Adams for News

Since Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced his plan to create a new class of taxis allowed to make street hails outside the Manhattan core, most of the coverage has focused on the potential effect on yellow cab medallion owners’ profits or livery drivers’ earnings. Less has been written about the broader effect such a plan would have on the city’s transportation system as a whole (Cap’n Transit being a notable exception).

Taxis, after all, make up a significant component of that system. A 2006 report by Bruce Schaller, a former policy director at the Taxi and Limousine Commission and now a top DOT official, estimated that in 2004, yellow cabs drove 815 million miles each year, while livery cabs drove more than double that, 1.733 billion miles.

Now that the legislature has passed the plan — it still needs Governor Andrew Cuomo’s signature — we checked in with TLC Commissioner David Yassky to see how he views its wider impact. He argued that the outer-borough taxi plan would help reduce car ownership and improve traffic safety.

Though he couldn’t quantify the likely impact of the Bloomberg taxi plan on car ownership or trip mode-share, Yassky said that “I think we can say that we know what direction the numbers go in.”

“A healthy taxi market gives people an alternative to private car ownership,” he said. People currently use illegal street hails “to go home from the supermarket with heavy bags, to go to and from the subway stop if you live a mile from the subway, to go to church or visit friends on a Saturday or Sunday. Those are all things that you need a car to do outside Manhattan if there’s no decent taxi service… That’s the systemic impact.”

Yassky also made the case that the taxi plan would make livery drivers more likely to follow traffic laws and drive safely: “We see with the yellow taxis that when you have a valuable license, that gives the driver a stake in following the rules.” Certainly some yellow taxi drivers break rules, he said, but “they do have to worry that if they rack up too many driving infractions, they’re going to lose their livelihood.” That isn’t true in the underground market for livery cab street hails. “Since the drivers activity is illicit to begin with, we have no way to give them an incentive to follow the more mundane but important traffic rules,” he said.

Interestingly, Schaller’s 2006 report found that livery cabs generally had fewer crashes per mile than yellow cabs (both were far safer than private vehicles). The two classes of vehicle take different trips in different locations, so it’s possible either that Yassky’s intuitions are correct and liveries will become even safer, or that making liveries more like yellow cabs will push up their crash rate.

Yassky wouldn’t say whether legalization would make hailing a cab outside the Manhattan core more or less affordable. “Rates will be set through TLC rulemaking,” he said. “We’ll have to look at the economics of the industry.”

A sign advertises the TLC's cab-sharing stand at 72nd Street and Third Avenue. Photo: New York Times

Can the city's 50,000 licensed livery vehicles better serve New Yorkers stranded by service cuts and help keep streets from getting more clogged with private motor vehicles? Both the city government and at least one start-up business are trying to find out.

Since February, the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission has been operating a handful of group-ride stands, where multiple passengers can jump into a cab together. They pay a flat fare and each can be dropped off at different locations, along a route that is loosely defined by the TLC. 

For example, the newest group-ride stand is located on York Avenue, between 70th and 71st Streets [PDF]. After each passenger pays $6, the cab drives all the way downtown on the FDR and then lets riders off at locations of their choice between Pearl Street and the World Financial Center. That particular route replaces the MTA's discontinued X90 express bus. 

"The goal," said TLC Commissioner David Yassky, "is to expand the capacity of the cab fleet by opening up seats that otherwise would be unoccupied." Group rides have the added benefit, he argued, of providing cheaper rides for passengers while offering more revenue for drivers.

The TLC isn't the only one trying to figure out how to get New Yorkers to share cabs, though. David Mahfouda is the founder of Weeels, a smartphone application that allows New Yorkers to order livery cabs electronically and share rides with other Weeels users. "Sharing offers users a big discount," explained Mahfouda, "and it's also a way to save energy and gasoline."

So far, Weeels is just getting started. It's only available for the iPhone and only connects to one Brooklyn-based livery car company, though the plan is to offer connections to more companies with more technologies, including text messaging. Even so, Mahfouda's ambitions are sizable. "Ultimately," he said, "the idea is to create a new kind of public transit system out of existing infrastructure."

If cab-sharing takes off -- Yassky admitted that group rides still aren't popular, though he hopes new locations, like the airports, will jumpstart the program -- it could help cut traffic on New York City's streets, but the potential effects are tough to predict.

Yassky thinks that cab-sharing, by reducing the price of a ride, would attract more people to take cabs. "My gut instinct, I think it will expand the market for taxi service in the way that credit cards did," he said. If that's so, one question is how those new riders would have gotten around otherwise. Are they switching from buses and trains or ditching their cars? Neither Yassky nor Mahfouda was willing to speculate.

Regardless, Yassky expects that cab-sharing, by expanding transportation options for car-free New Yorkers, could ultimately help reduce congestion. "That's the overall goal here," said Yassky, "to make each component of the transit network as inexpensive and convenient as it can be, so that people won't be driven into using private automobiles."

That both the public and private sectors are looking at cab-sharing right now is no coincidence. "In an era where the subways and buses aren't able to do everything we'd like to see them doing," argued Yassky, "the need for the taxi and car service segment to step up to the plate gets greater and greater." With transit service shrinking and expensive infrastructure improvements seemingly out of reach, cabs may have to pick up some of the slack. Yassky said this would happen bit by bit over a period of years. For example, the first five commuter van routes will open in late August or early September.

The TLC's approach, therefore, actually makes cabs function a little bit more like traditional transit, with fixed routes and fares. "It enables taxis to occupy even more fully their niche in the transit network," said Yassky. 

That's where the digital approach to cab-sharing has an advantage, argued Mahfouda. "They've missed an opportunity," he said, "insofar as they ended up routing taxis as they would buses." The whole advantage of taxis, Mahfouda argued, is that they are responsive, driving the exact route you want, when you want. Both Mahfouda and Yassky praised the other's approach to cab-sharing, though, calling them complementary.

Commuter vans, like this one in Sunset Park, could become a more common sight on New York's streets. Image: The Brooklyn Ink.

To clarify what's in the works, livery vans are going to be a completely new service, not an expansion of the existing commuter van program. Currently-licensed commuter vans operate within specific geographic areas, but lack defined routes, according to a spokesperson for the Taxi and Limousine Commission. Livery vans, in contrast, would travel between fixed pick-up and drop-off spots, though drivers would be able to take any route they choose between them. Drivers would also be allowed to drop off passengers at locations of their choice, he said, not just at fixed stops. 

The fares are likely to be $2, with longer rides costing up to $4, according to media reports, and there won't be free transfers to MTA subways and buses. "The issue here is not whether it’s more expensive or less expensive; it’s whether the service exists or not," said Bloomberg at Tuesday's press conference.

Transit advocates expressed guarded praise for the plan, noting that a detailed proposal was still forthcoming. "Providing new options like this is part of providing for a car-free lifestyle," said Transportation Alternatives' Noah Budnick. The Straphangers Campaign's Gene Russianoff also believed that livery vans could help improve mobility for New Yorkers, if implemented appropriately. 

In order to make the livery van pilot successful, it's being accompanied by a major enforcement push. The TLC will target unlicensed vans, unlicensed drivers, and licensed vehicles working outside the the bounds of authorized activities, said the agency spokesperson. The idea is that illegal vans, not subject to safety and insurance requirements, would undercut the more tightly regulated livery service. 

But from there, the picture becomes less clear. One big unknown is exactly where these livery vans will run. The stops will be set in the next few weeks, according to the TLC, and the mayor promised to put the routes in areas affected by MTA bus cuts. But just how the stops connect with buses and trains will determine how much livery cab service will complement transit, and how much it will substitute for it.

The relationship between transit and livery cabs grows even more muddled. We asked the TLC what would happen to these routes if the MTA ever restores bus service to these areas and were told "this program is not tied to any actions the MTA has taken or will take in the future." Decisions to discontinue or expand the service, said the TLC spokesperson, would be made based on livery industry capacity and public appetite for the service. That suggests a very different relationship with service cuts than the mayor suggested.

The presence of Deputy Mayor Stephen Goldsmith at Tuesday's announcement adds an extra resonance to the question of whether livery vans would replace, rather than augment, MTA service. As mayor of Indianapolis, Goldsmith's major transit initiative was a plan to privatize city buses.

Another key question: Though it's billed as a one-year pilot, according to the TLC, the metrics for success are still under development. In other words, we don't yet know what the program's goals are, or what it's ultimate purpose is.

Finding innovative new ways to bring car-free mobility to transit-poor neighborhoods, particularly in a time of austerity, is a good thing, and in the short-term that's all this plan is about. But where it is headed in the long run, how it fits into a larger transportation vision, remains completely and problematically opaque.

We're off today for Yom Kippur but here's a reminder:

Two important citywide elected positions are going to be decided in tomorrow's Democratic primary election run-off. David Yassky and John Liu are vying to be New York City's next Comptroller and Bill de Blasio and Mark Green are running for Public Advocate. Since no serious Republican opposition is expected in November's general election, the winners of tomorrow's run-off win the whole enchilada. 

If you've ever wanted to know what it feels like to be a powerful Democratic party Boss with lots of political influence, then do this on Tuesday morning September 29: Wake up, slap some suspenders over your shoulders, and stuff a cigar in your face and a pocket watch in your vest. Waddle over to your local polling place and simply cast a vote. That's it. That's all you have to do to wield serious power on Tuesday.*

Only 11 percent of registered Democrats bothered to vote in the primary two weeks ago and turnout for tomorrow's run-off is going to be absurdly low. If you are one of the few people who show up to the polls on Tuesday, your individual vote will count for a lot. You may never again have so much influence over a citywide election, so get out there and enjoy it just like Vito Lopez does. On Tuesday your one vote makes you the Boss.

Find your polling place here.

* Actually, if you really want to feel like a Democratic Boss, then you should drive to the polling place, don't walk. Once you've arrived feel free to park in front of a hydrant or in some other illegal spot. Remember: You're the Boss!

John Liu and David Yassky might be headed for a run-off in the comptroller race.

If you're a little unclear about what these positions do, here's the short version: The comptroller is the city's financial watchdog, and the public advocate is the watchdog for everything else, evaluating the effectiveness of city policies and sometimes serving as a check against mayoral power. Whoever holds these positions will wield important oversight powers for the next four years, and we'll probably see one or both of the winners make a run for mayor at some point.

In the right hands, both offices can advance the cause of livable streets. We'll review the comptroller race first and then take a look at the public advocate contenders later today.

The comptroller can't cast a vote in Albany for a transit funding package, but he or she can certainly help frame the debate. Democratic mayoral contender Bill Thompson could have used his comptroller's pulpit to reinforce the Ravitch Commission bridge toll plan this year. Instead he opted to push for vehicle registration fees as an alternative to road pricing, giving the State Senate additional cover for its watered down transit funding package.

The race to succeed Thompson, which will effectively be decided in the Democratic primary, pits four City Council members against each other: David Yassky of Brooklyn, and John Liu, Melinda Katz, and David Weprin of Queens. Neither Katz nor Weprin cleared the most elementary livable streets hurdle during their council tenures, with each siding against congestion pricing in last year's vote. So let's review the intriguing Yassky-Liu rivalry.

Liu's inconsistencies have been well-documented here on Streetsblog. His "yes" vote on congestion pricing in 2008 somehow morphed into vocal opposition to bridge tolls this year. He lectured on pedestrian safety from his post as transportation committee chair, but when DOT actually improved safety with its Midtown reclamation projects, he scolded the city for "expropriating" street space. And when the Bicycle Access Bill came before the City Council, Liu looked ready to scuttle the historic legislation until the last minute. As a comptroller candidate, he has turned to standard-issue MTA bashing as a staple of his campaign.

In addition to sponsoring the Bike Access Bill and shepherding it through the council, Yassky has consistently supported a car-free Prospect Park and helped secure funding for the Bedford Avenue bike parking swap. An early supporter of congestion pricing, Yassky has not made transit funding a signature campaign issue. But in his response to the TA candidate survey, he gives some promising indications that he will use the comptroller's office to highlight the necessity of funding transit with road pricing.

Pledging to "set up in-depth assessments of the economic impact congestion has" and to "advocate and support policies like congestion pricing," Yassky says his office will "provide a solid platform from which to advocate change." A comptroller who follows through on those promises would be a valuable ally in the fight for sustainable transportation policy in the New York region.

Tonight's debate: Come for the bike lane drama, stay for the discussion of parking policy. Photo: Brooklyn Paper.

To get a sense of the hot transportation topics in the district, especially the North Brooklyn neighborhoods closest to tonight's venue, Streetsblog spoke to Teresa Toro, chair of Brooklyn CB1's Transportation Committee, and Michael Freedman-Schnapp of Neighbors Allied for Good Growth.

Here's what they want the candidates to address tonight:

Bike and pedestrian safety. Streetsblog readers are familiar with the twists and turns of the Kent Avenue bike lane saga. In a district that includes approaches to all three of Brooklyn's East River bridges, it's probably not the last such dispute we'll see. "There’s a clear need in the district to continue to improve biking infrastructure and to make walking safer," said Freedman-Schnapp, noting that, in addition to the bridge approaches, corridors like McGuinness Boulevard have particular safety deficiencies that need to be addressed. The fact that all three bridges remain free, Toro reminded us, attracts a disproportionate amount of traffic to the district and discourages people from biking and walking.

Truck traffic. As the latest Kent Avenue dust-up has made apparent, truck traffic is a big issue in North Brooklyn. "Truck-generating uses are important employment sources in the neighborhood," said Freedman-Schnapp, but management and enforcement of truck routes are lacking. For some sharp insight into how better truck route planning can address some of the complaints arising from Kent Avenue's conversion to one-way flow, check out this post from neighborhood blog Brooklyn 11211.

Too much parking, not enough planning. Williamsburg and Greenpoint have seen a spike in car-oriented development since a 2005 rezoning took effect. Thanks in large part to Department of City Planning parking minimums, thousands of new units have been built with more space allotted to parking compared to the existing urban fabric, causing a surge in traffic volumes.

"The rezoning had no transportation plan," said Freedman-Schnapp. "They analyzed the impacts. They had this very thick EIS. Then nothing happened to address those impacts."

The EIS badly misjudged the transportation impacts of the rezoning, Toro said, calling the end result a huge missed opportunity. "The area around the Bedford Avenue station is prime real estate because of its proximity to transit. You have such a clear demonstration of people preferring transit, and yet they're being handed the option of car ownership." She wants to know whether the candidates support studying traffic-calming improvements and enhanced bus-to-subway connections to relieve the area's growing traffic pressures.

The traffic trouble unleashed by abundant residential parking figures to intensify if projects like the Domino Sugar factory redevelopment -- where 70 percent of luxury units are slated to include parking, according to Freedman-Schnapp -- proceed as planned. It will be interesting to see where the candidates stand on reforming the city's parking requirements.

Transit crowding, transit funding. Crowding on the L train is reaching Lexington Avenue line proportions, said Freedman-Schnapp, and even northbound G service can get cramped in the morning -- problems that ultimately boil down to how well we fund our transit system. "[The candidates] can yell at the MTA all they want," he said, "but when it comes down to it, they need more money to improve service, so where’s the money going to come from?"

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.

As anticipated, this morning the City Council transportation committee voted in favor of Intro 871, the Bicycle Access Bill. The tally was 9-0 with one absence, sending the bill to the full floor for the Council's stated meeting tomorrow. The law will take effect 120 days after that vote.

The final version of the bill isn't online yet, but according to sources who've seen it, the core provisions affecting bike access haven't changed since the last time Streetsblog checked in. The process of overturning bans on bikes will be gradual, as individual tenants gain access that used to be denied. Basically, the mechanism will work like this: If you work in an office building that has a freight elevator, and the property managers won't let you bring your bike inside, you will soon be able to request a change in policy knowing that the law has got your back.

Many would-be bike commuters will still have fights on their hands as they seek to reverse anti-bike policies, building by building. Building managers can obtain exemptions if allowing bikes on the freight elevator is deemed to pose a safety risk, or if there's an adequate alternative supply of secure, covered bike parking within three blocks or 750 feet of the building, whichever is less. It will be up to city inspectors to determine whether exemptions are justified (recent changes to the bill have centered on which agency will do the inspecting, DOT or the Department of Buildings). Streetsblog will run a more complete breakdown of the bill later this week.

Let's remember that just a few weeks ago, prospects for 871 looked pretty dim, when transportation committee chair John Liu dashed expectations that it would pass quickly. More than a thousand e-faxes were sent out during the final push that followed. If you helped put the Bicycle Access Bill over the top, now's the time to give yourself a pat on the back.

The revised bill, which would require building managers to provide bicycle access to tenants who request it, divvies up responsibility for enforcement between DOT and the Department of Buildings differently than previous versions, Streetsblog has learned. Core provisions intended to expand bicycle access to buildings remain unchanged.

The bill, now supported by 35 co-sponsors, would come up for a vote at the council's next stated meeting,  scheduled for Wednesday, July 29.

The last time we checked in on the Bicycle Access Bill, it was still sitting in John Liu's Transportation Committee after other legislators, including sponsor David Yassky and 31 additional supporters in the City Council, had expected it to reach the full floor for a vote. Then came an outpouring of e-faxes from cyclists asking Liu to get behind the bill.

Today, a number of people have forwarded us an invitation from Liu's office to hear him explain his position this Friday. Read it after the jump.

Dear Fellow Cyclist:

Thank you for reaching out to me about your support for legislation in support of expanding bicycle access to buildings in our City. This is an issue I have fought for over the last couple of years and my position on it has been clear and consistent, notwithstanding recent efforts by some folks to misrepresent my actions and statements on this.

I wanted to take this opportunity to invite you to meet with me so I can give you the latest update on bike access legislation. Can you meet me at City Hall this Friday July 24 from 4:30-5:30pm? (to try to accommodate those who have regular work-hours). No need to RSVP (but you can if you’d like) and feel free to pass this along to others who may be interested.

John Liu
Member, City Council
Chairperson, Transportation Committee

We're hearing that Liu is now prepared to support the bill. An aide at his office said he would explain all at the Friday meeting.

An RPP program, which would establish districts within the city where car owners must display permits to park legally in most on-street spaces, needs Albany's assent to become law. Assembly Member Joan Millman and State Senator Daniel Squadron have introduced bills in their respective chambers, with the details of the permit system left up to the city. Council Member David Yassky is carrying the banner for RPP at City Hall.

This is not the first time lawmakers have turned their attention to residential permit parking. Most recently, RPP got a serious look during last year's congestion pricing debate, when DOT devised a plan to assuage fears that car commuters would cram on-street parking spaces just outside the cordon zone.

That version of RPP included only nominal permit fees -- just enough to cover the cost of running the program. This time around, the bill's sponsors are touting permit fees as a new revenue source for the MTA. Separated from congestion pricing, however, an RPP system won't pack quite the same punch. Reports the News:

A Transportation Department spokesman said permits alone aren't enough to solve parking problems, and should be accompanied by a congestion pricing plan.

"Without such a plan, we don't believe this bill will actually solve neighborhood parking problems," said Transportation Department spokesman Seth Solomonow.

Here are some early pics from this morning's Bike to Work festivities, courtesy of Transportation Alternatives. Don't forget to tag your own shots for our Flickr pool, and stay tuned for Streetfilms coverage. 

TA treats cyclists to a complimentary breakfast

Sadik-Khan and Dani Simons, also of DOT, riding to work

Photo: Department of City Planning [PDF].

We've said it before and it's certainly worth repeating: This zoning change is a good step forward that will bear fruit in the long run; the missing piece -- and it's a big one -- is bike access to existing buildings. To that end, the Bicycle Access Bill (Intro 871) would provide a much more substantial and immediate benefit to bike commuters by allowing them to bring their rides inside the workplace, if their employer consents. The legislation aims to reverse the policies of New York City landlords and property managers, most of whom don't allow bikes inside. By drastically reducing the risk of theft, the bill could boost bike commuting by as much as 50 percent.

After holding a committee hearing on Intro 871 last fall, legislators are currently tweaking the bill's language. We have a request in with sponsor David Yassky's office to determine when the revised bill will come up in committee.

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.

First things first. David Yassky's status update beats what we've seen from Marty Markowitz, hands down. And if anyone in the City Council can credibly claim the mantle of bike advocate, it's Yassky: a steady voice in support of a car-free Prospect Park and forceful proponent of the Bikes in Buildings Bill. But this gesture of solidarity would sure feel a lot stronger if Yassky had stood with cyclists trying to preserve safety improvements on Kent Avenue, instead of giving his signature to the parking chauvinists attempting to roll back those advances.

The major changes will entail making a stronger distinction between bicycle access and storage (the bill aims to require the former, not the latter), and tweaking the language that grants exemptions to certain buildings. In addition, bike-friendly regulations for new construction will be struck from the bill. The same zoning rules are still on track to go through the Department of City Planning's public review process.

As the finer legal points get hammered out, one definition in particular figures to be a key point of contention. The bill grants an exemption to buildings that cannot "reasonably accommodate" bicycles. Supporters say the bill's effectiveness will be limited if this lets building owners off the hook too easily.

"Freight access can't be the only thing that equates to 'reasonable,'" said TA's Peter Goldwasser. "If you can't access from the back or the side... bikes should be able to come through the front."

Representatives of the Real Estate Board of New York and the Building Owners and Managers Association had no ready response when the bill's sponsor, David Yassky, asked why bicyclists shouldn't be able to make use of the lobby. There was a long pause, we're told, after which one opponent claimed that people would end up waiting in line if bicycles were allowed through the front entrance.

Another angle, associating bicycles with the threat of terrorism, went over like a lead balloon. Noting that the bill only guarantees bike access to building employees, Yassky asked (rhetorically) if the bill's opponents meant to imply that employees will become terrorists once they start bringing their bikes inside.

In addition to advocates and city officials, about a dozen people testified in favor of the bill, including REBNY member and real estate broker Janet Liff, who described an insular code of conduct among building owners afraid to break ranks and admit that bike access "is just not that difficult." Read her testimony here [PDF], as well as testimony from developer Two Trees Management [PDF] and bike commuters Sabrina Lau [PDF] and Jillian Smith [PDF].

The gathering threat.

The bill also includes language requiring bike parking in new buildings, mirroring a zoning amendment unveiled by the Department of City Planning earlier this week.

Yassky spokesman Jake Maguire stressed that the bill is about access. "It's a no-brainer that if you want people to stop driving and relieve crowding on subways, you need to allow people to bring their bikes to work," he said. "Hopefully this bill will have a speedy hearing and a speedy debate in the Council. With the support of 30 members we expect it to pass before the end of the year."

To review: The bill provides for bike access to existing buildings (which will constitute the vast majority of commuting destinations long into the future), and bike parking in new buildings. A few weeks ago transportation analyst Charles Komanoff gave us a quick-and-dirty estimate that bike commuting could rise up to 50 percent as a result of universal access to workplace buildings.

Crain's Insider has reported that the Real Estate Board of New York opposes the Bikes in Buildings Bill. REBNY President Steve Spinola sent a letter to Streetsblog Wednesday outlining his organization's stance, and confirmed his opposition to the new bill in a phone interview this morning. He questioned the city's legal authority to mandate bike access and cited concerns about liability, arguing that access should be expanded voluntarily by building managers. More on that exchange later.

Photo: kate at yr own risk/Flickr

The latest push to remove auto traffic from the park has prompted Brooklyn Community Boards 7 and 14, along with Assembly Member Jim Brennan (718-788-7221), to demand an environmental review before such a trial is implemented.

In other car-free parks news, Mobilized Moms will lead a Central Park rally today at 4:30 at 72nd St. & Central Park West. The Moms are expected to be joined by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer and City Council Member Gale Brewer.

Dear Mayor Bloomberg, 

As Brooklyn representatives, we ask you to explore a simple and inexpensive policy change that could greatly improve the lives of our constituents -- to study the possibility of making Prospect Park car-free with a three-month car-free trial. We call upon your office, the New York City Department of Transportation and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation to implement a three-month pilot program to close the Prospect Park drives to vehicular traffic and to study the effect of this policy on park use and traffic on local streets. 

Prospect Park is the lifeblood of the communities we represent. It is their place to exercise, to escape the heat of a hot apartment, to celebrate a birthday party, to barbeque, to listen to great music and to play with their kids. Just being in Prospect Park and enjoying all it has to offer makes life better. 

Because Prospect Park is such a popular destination for our constituents, it is busy. From morning till night, the loop drive is packed with people walking, running, and riding bikes.  When cars are permitted to drive through the park, these people are often put in danger. A recent speeding survey found that over 90% of cars travelling through the park were going beyond the posted speed limit —- up to 50 mph. Runners and cyclists may find themselves just feet from this traffic and have no barrier to protect them from deadly collision. 

The dangerous and unhealthy environment created by this traffic scares people away. A 2006 survey of 450 park users found that 4 out of 5 people would use the park more often if cars were banned. This survey also found a 40% drop in people entering the park when cars are permitted. As our city struggles to fight a rise in obesity, asthma and diabetes, we call on you to explore solutions to this troubling situation. 

While the benefits of prohibiting cars from the park are many, we also recognize that closing Prospect Park to traffic may have an impact on the surrounding community. Conducting a three-month study and trial closure, to fully analyze the resulting effects on traffic and related quality of life issues would allow the City and the community to understand the full impact of a full closure. Furthermore, this study would allow the Department of Transportation the opportunity to analyze how the traffic patterns around the area are affected by the Prospect Park loop drive and to gauge what mitigation measures might be necessary to deter traffic buildups in the surrounding community, were the park to be car-free. 

Parks are the very foundation of a healthy population. As public leaders, we need to do everything in our power to make our public parks and recreational areas as safe and inviting as possible, while also making sure to balance the diverse needs of the surrounding communities.  

Sincerely,     
David Yassky   Bill de Blasio    Letitia James

Front row l-r: Tish James, Paul Steely White, John Liu, David Yassky. Photo: Mike Infranco.

With the fallout from Wall Street taking a toll on city coffers, Mayor Bloomberg has a lot of tough calls to make. The "Bikes in Buildings" bill [PDF] is not one of them. It's a lay-up -- a simple rule change that promises big gains for bike commuting. The bill, also known as Intro 38, would require commercial landlords to allow tenants to bring bikes inside buildings. No storage requirements attached.

On the steps of City Hall this morning, City Council members David Yassky, Tish James, and John Liu joined Transportation Alternatives' Paul Steely White and a band of advocates to urge passage of the bill. In total, 30 members of the City Council have already signed on to the measure, a majority of the chamber.

A similar pledge to promote bike storage in commercial buildings is enshrined in the transportation plank of Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC. As the speakers were quick to point out, "Bikes in Buildings" is an even easier lift.

"It's simply to mandate that you have to allow access to bicycles, and then you let the landlords figure out, case by case, what's the most efficient way to do it," said Yassky. The way things stand now, he noted, even if businesses encourage employees to bring bikes to work, most building managers won't let it happen. "You can bring a dolly or a stroller, but not a bike."

Reversing this widespread policy would address one of the major obstacles to bike commuting, especially among people who already ride: the lack of a secure place to keep bikes at work. Rigorous projections of the bill's effect are not available, but, drawing from his decades of experience analyzing bike traffic, former TA president Charles Komanoff gave a rough estimate that "universal bike commuter access to buildings would cause at least a 25 percent increase and perhaps as much as a 50 percent increase in bike commuting."

Deb Shapiro, a lawyer who works near Madison Square Park, testified to the senselessness of landlords' current policies. When she asked her building manager why she couldn't bring a bike inside, she was told it came down to concerns about liability and property damage. "I know a little bit about liability issues, and this just didn't make sense to me," she said. "What damage is a bike going to do to a freight elevator? You see all these other things that can go in and out of an office building, like dumpsters and cleaning carts. What more could a bicycle do?"

Yassky had a theory about where that baseless fear of bikes comes from. "There's this feeling that it isn't the proper decorum for an office building to have people bringing their bicycles in," he said. "How outdated can you get? I think any building owner should be proud that the tenants in his or her building are biking to work. That should be a badge of honor."

Some commercial landlords are a step ahead of the curve, White noted: "Hundreds of buildings are doing this with no problem -- Class A office buildings with marble floors."

Advocates are pushing for City Council to consider the bill this fall. "We need a hearing in City Council and we really need Bloomberg to voice support for this," said White.

A summary of the bill [PDF] notes that, "According to the Department of City Planning, the number one barrier cited by potential bicycle commuters is the lack of safe, secure places to store their bike." It's a barrier kept in place not only by outdated codes, but also an inexplicable aversion some building managers have to indoor bike storage.

As the Bikes in Buildings Bill is consistent with the city's stated goal of fostering more bike commuting and reducing air pollutants, and given the flexibility offered by the bill's language, shouldn't this be an easy one? 

Tomorrow's rally will take place on the steps of City Hall at 10:45 a.m. Attendees are invited to RSVP to Peter Goldwasser.

Photo: Draconum/Flickr