This was round one and we lost, but pricing opponents may have won a Pyrrhic victory. They will find that they will ultimately have very few people thanking them and a whole load of people continuing to complain about fare increases, service cuts and high levels of congestion in their neighborhoods.

The ball is now firmly in the court of Silver, Brodsky and Weprin, et al. They and the entire Legislature will have to answer for this once the MTA has to revise its capital plan. They will need to convince us as to how they will remedy likely budget shortfalls. And if Bloomberg continues to act on initiatives within the city's purview -- ending placard abuse, market rate pricing for parking, better bus lanes, more protected bike lanes, etc. -- he can still create a lasting legacy as a bold leader on sustainability issues.

I encourage all of you who feel discouraged to channel some of that into reminding electeds of what we expect from them. Here is a letter I sent to all my representatives immediately after pricing's defeat.

This is a sad day for environmentalists, transit advocates and anyone concerned about the long term sustainability of our great city. Congestion Pricing, after much debate, analysis and even significant refinement by the state legislature, deserved an up or down vote from our legislators.

This is also the day that I lost faith in Albany as a democratic institution that can be held accountable to the two-thirds of New Yorkers that support congestion pricing. So now - it's up to you to fill the $17 billion MTA Capital Plan. No Excuses - how exactly are you going to work toward that? Where exactly will the money come from? How will people be encouraged to take mass transit if they can drive for free but it costs $2 and rising to take the subway?

The environmental movement is changing and evolving. I hope you evolve your thinking will along with us. Part of the disconnect I felt during the congestion pricing debate is that environmental policy is not as rooted in the traditional class and identity politics that the New York Democratic Party still seems overly locked into (and believe me, I'm a lifelong Democrat from a union household and care deeply about equity issues). While I'm all for a progressive income tax structure, there are limits to taxing good behavior (like working and contributing to society) and much more opportunity for the tax structure to discourage actions that harm the environment (like driving into congested areas when a transit alternative exists or wasting water/energy).

 

For instance, a millionaire tax dedicated to mass transit is frankly not a very creative idea and does not really attack the root of a problem, which is too many people driving into a congested area, causing health problems, pollution and economic losses. I hope you'll keep an open mind about using market mechanisms like user fees for roads/bridges, gas taxes, higher parking meter fees to advance the goals of environmental protection to fund automobile alternatives like mass transit, cycling infrastructure and more pedestrian friendly streetscapes. 

 

Environmentalists are looking for our elected officials to not just merely represent a jumbled set of constituent desires, but to stand on principle for protecting the environment against often narrow, short-sighted and frankly extremely selfish desires. Sometimes that might mean that you need to explain to your constituents why you disagree with them, encourage them to think of the greater good and point out to them what they stand to benefit if lots of people behave in more environmentally friendly ways in their neighborhood. In the end, I think your constituents will respect you more for having core beliefs and explaining your position on issues based on your principles.

Glenn McAnanama

President, Upper Green Side

It's still a good time to write something to your elected officials and tell them how you feel. Another great next step is to give money to the NYLCV's Climate PAC, Transportation Alternatives and other city and neighborhood organizations that supported congestion pricing. Finally, stay in touch with your electeds, get to know their staff members, get active in campaigns for candidates you believe in, and go to community board meetings.

This is not over.

In this StreetFilm, Upper Green Side's Glenn McAnanama takes viewers on a brief tour of 86th St. and Second Ave., a heavily congested intersection on the northern boundary of Mayor Bloomberg's proposed congestion pricing zone.

It's 4:00 pm and it's ugly.

On Monday, July 9 the transportation committee of Community Board 8 on Manhattan's Upper East Side took up the issues of congestion pricing and a new pair of crosstown bike lanes.

Congestion pricing, it turns out, was the evening's non-controversial issue. Even after a series of impassioned speeches against Mayor Bloomberg's traffic reduction plan the committee voted to support it, 10 to 4 with one abstention.

"You've treated us to quite a debate," Dept. of Transportation Bike Program Coordinator Josh Benson said as he stood up to present the 90th and 91st Street bike route plan (download it here).

"You haven't heard anything yet," heckled one member of the crowd.

Ryder Pearce sells DOT's Upper East Side bike route plan to a skeptical Community Board 8.

Benson then introduced DOT staffer Ryder Pearce, a youthful member of the City's Urban Fellows program, making his first-ever Community Board presentation.

As a part of the City's ongoing bike network build-out, Pearce said, DOT plans to stripe new, Class II bike lanes along E. 90th and E. 91st Streets with a small segment running along E. 89th Street near the East River and a special treatment for the pedestrian-only block of 91st Street between Second and Third Avenues.

"As you can see there are no crosstown routes on the Upper East Side right now," Pearce said, pointing to the New York City bike map. The new lanes would connect the East River Greenway directly to Central Park's 90th Street entrance, also known as the Engineer's Gate. Along the way, the bike route would link Carl Schurz Park, Gracie Mansion, Asphalt Green and the Guggenheim Museum and "would provide for the growing residential population" living in new towers around York and East End Avenues, a long walk from the nearest subways.

Controversy over the bike route centered around the one-block stretch of 91st St. running through the Ruppert Yorkville Tower Condominiums. The block has been closed to motor vehicle traffic since the 1970s and is considered by many to be a neighborhood "play street."

Recognizing the community's concerns, DOT presented the Board with four different design options for the pedestrian street: no markings, a marked bicycle lane, directional pavement markings and signs. DOT's preference, Pearce said, is "to keep the residential feel" of the "shared space" by not putting down a bike lane or any other markings. For a number of people in the room, none of the options were good.

"There are children and elderly who consider that street a park," one Yorkville Tower resident said. "People want to walk there without having to look both ways and worry about getting run over. I am absolutely opposed to this bike path."

Pearce pointed out that cyclists on the westbound street would be traveling up a rather steep hill. He observed the street during several site visits, noting, "You don't see cyclists shooting through. You don't see them running people over." An older man in the crowd shouted back, "Oh, yes they do!"

Four or five community members stood to speak on behalf of the bike route plan. As seems to be the case in most New York City bike lane battles these days, supporters had youth on their side, opponents had New York City accents.

Glenn McAnanama, president of the Upper Green Side said he thought DOT had chosen the ideal crosstown bike route. "Ninety-first Street is the natural connection from the Greenway to the Park," he said. "If you go too much further north you're getting into a lot of traffic at 96th and further south, you're not connecting to the Central Park entrance."

"The fears are overblown," McAnanama said. He pointed to the new bike route running through Carl Schurz Park at East End Avenue and 86th Street as an example of "shared space" working in the neighborhood. "People were very afraid before the lanes were put in, but there haven't been any problems," he said. "Cyclists know and sense a shared space.

Members of the Community Board weren't convinced. One Board member said, "I for one believe bicycling is a recreational activity. I don't believe that it is a legitimate mode of transportation."

As the meeting wound down and it became clear that DOT's plan wasn't going to gain CB8's blessing on this night, a man in the crowd began dictating a motion to committee chair Chuck Warren:

Whereas illegal biking is found more often than legal biking; Whereas biking causes danger to children and old people; Whereas bicyclists should be licensed in the City of New York and an extensive education program should be inaugurated and the bicycle laws strictly enforced at all times so that they obey the traffic laws…

The committee's final resolution didn't include this language. It rejected DOT's plan and asked the agency to go back to the drawing board. Community Boards, it is important to remember, only have "advisory" power over city agencies and City Hall has said that it would go forward with its bike network build-out over Community Board objections.

O'Donnell represents the 69th Assembly District which includes Manhattan Valley, Morningside Heights, and the Upper West Side of Manhattan.

Thank you for reaching out to my office. I find it valuable to gain awareness of the legislative issues my constituents are concerned with. I genuinely appreciate the effort you took to address your views on PlaNYC 2030.

I commend Mayor Michael Bloomberg's comprehensive approach to making New York City more environmentally sustainable. New York City has always been a leader in sustainable urban policy for the rest of the world's great cities and the proposed PlaNYC 2030 is a major example of that leadership. As of the moment, no detailed legislation has been presented to members of the New York State Legislature regarding the many programs under PlaNYC 2030. Until I can consider every detail of any proposed legislation and how it would affect the lives and families of my constituents, I cannot take a definite position.

Be assured of my commitment and longstanding support to improve environmental sustainability and public transportation in New York City. I am currently a sponsor of the "Bigger Better Bottle Bill", which expands the Returnable Container Act to non-carbonated beverages. I am also an advocate for developing a freight rail-tunnel in our city, which would go a long way in alleviating the traffic congestion that negatively affects our quality of life.

As the status of PlaNYC 2030 evolves in the State Assembly, please continue to contact my office with your concerns. I fully welcome any further comments you may have.

Very truly yours,
Daniel O'Donnell
Assembly Member

On the evening of Saturday, January 10, 2004, Peter Hornbeck, 26, stepped off the curb at Park Avenue and 96th Street and was struck by a Chevy Suburban traveling 74 miles per hour. The SUV, being driven by a 26-year-old man from Queens who had had his license revoked years earlier, dragged Hornbeck for a block as Hornbeck's friends cried out in horror. The driver, Gurpreet Oberoi, sped off, ditched his SUV and continued by bus to Atlantic City, where he spent the night gambling. Oberoi's friends stayed in the city, went to the police and called Oberoi on his cell phone to urge him to turn himself in. Oberoi was arrested (NYT Select, 2nd item) days later and sentenced (NYT Select) to up to nine years in prison for second degree manslaughter.

In what is something of a success, there has not been a single pedestrian death on Park Avenue between 59th and 96th Streets since that one. But there was a recent near miss in Morningside Heights, where a cab crashed into the three-foot-tall concrete wall on the median at Broadway and 114th Street:

"That wall is the only thing that kept the taxi driver from killing any pedestrians," Detective Bob Winton said. "He was traveling at 40 or 50 miles per hour-anyone crossing the street would have been killed."

Today, the New York Times has a report about Streetsblog's own Glenn McAnanama, an Upper East Side resident, who is asking his community board to approve similar concrete walls or metal bollards for the Park Avenue malls:

A spokesman for the Parks Department, which has jurisdiction over the malls, said the department had little information about the idea. A Transportation Department spokeswoman, Kay Sarlin, said that the malls themselves "provide a safe refuge" and that the agency considered bollards unnecessary.

Margaret Ternes, the executive director of the Fund for Park Avenue, said that she is not necessarily opposed to the idea but is baffled by the emergence of the issue, since she could remember few accidents involving pedestrians crossing Park Avenue. According to the Department of Transportation, one pedestrian died on Park Avenue between 59th and 96th Streets in 2003, one in 2004, and none since.

The bollard issue emerged right here on Streetsblog, where Aaron Naparstek showed in October 2005 that bollards protect pay phones and fire hydrants throughout the city, but rarely are used where people are likely to stand. It isn't just Park Avenue where opportunities to improve pedestrian safety exist. Here's a photo of Park Row next to City Hall.

Notice the bollards protecting the hydrant from errant motorists while people waiting on the refuge island are vulnerable. It is great to see Glenn taking the lead and setting the agenda on pedestrian safety, even if others find this baffling.

(Photo credits: Top: Daniella Zalcman/Columbia Spectator and Flickr; Bottom: Aaron Donovan/Streetsblog)