From the first (and only) town-hall meeting of the Manhattan Borough President’s Planning for Pedestrians Council in 1987, to Manhattan Community Board 8’s “Bicycle Forum” this week, I’ve sat through innumerable gatherings on cyclist-pedestrian conflicts.

Cycling and pedestrian advocates, with Charles Komanoff at left, gather on the UES in 2007. Photo: Jonathan Barkey

The CB 8 forum on Tuesday evening did have hopeful elements, however. Local residents wanting more bike and pedestrian infrastructure and fewer cars outnumbered those who wanted cyclists put in their place. None of the five elected officials in attendance played the anti-bike card; all seemed receptive to the livable streets agenda. And one or two attendees who professed to be terrified by bicycles even took pains to support bike lanes.

Some highlights:

• Deputy Borough President Rosemonde Pierre-Louis “commend[ing] City DOT and Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan for their visionary work to make New York City more walkable and bikeable.” (City Council Member Jessica Lappin had a more guarded version of the same message.)
• Council Member Daniel Garodnick deflecting criticism from a pro-congestion pricing audience member by insisting he had been a “strong, outspoken supporter” of Mayor Bloomberg’s toll plan and, by implication, could be counted on to champion traffic pricing in the future.
  
• A diverse collection of Upper East Siders — a 50-something male attorney who has cycled to work for decades, a young woman who recently took up bike-commuting, a female African-American community board member, and a husky pedestrian who pronounced himself too un-coordinated to ride a bike — passionately and eloquently speaking up for cycling and cycle facilities. Here are some of their remarks:

“Cycling makes me healthy.”
“After biking to work, I feel good all day.”
“Cycling is saving my life.”
“Broadway is really great, Second Avenue is awful.”
“Summer Streets was fabulous.”
“There’s been nothing to teach people how to use these new streets.”
“A message should be sent by the community board to the District Attorney and the NYPD that there needs to be a re-evaluation of our priorities to protect cyclists and pedestrians.”

Okay, it wasn’t all a lovefest. There were these complaints from several women of a certain age, CB 8 members all:

“Transit is a priority, cars are a priority, bikes are not a priority.”
“The thought of having double, triple, quadruple the number of cyclists terrifies me.”
“The bicyclists have become the darlings of the [Bloomberg] administration, even though the number of bicyclists is a rounding error compared to the number of fire engines, buses and taxis.”
“One day we woke up to find all these circles and lines on our streets.”
“You’re afraid to go outside … You can’t be sure you’re not going to be killed [by a bicyclist].”
“I’d like to see bicycles registered and bicyclists licensed.”

None of the electeds took up the call for registering bikes. NYS Assembly Member Jonathan Bing and NYS Senator Liz Krueger did call on Albany to stiffen penalties for restaurants whose delivery cyclists flout laws against riding on sidewalks. Lappin has a local law in the works to allow the city to penalize the owners of restaurants and other businesses whose delivery staff ride on sidewalks or violate one-way rules or red lights. A hearing on her Intro. 624 is set for 10 a.m. next Thursday.

Garodnick has a bill pending, Intro. 813, to require the NYPD to post delivery-bicycle violations on line “to help send a message and give restaurants a reason to improve their practices.” Garodnick is also drafting legislation to increase penalties for operating motorized bicycles, which in his view are becoming more common (I agree), on sidewalks.

My verdict on the forum? The pervasive tonedeafness toward bikes (e.g., transportation committee co-chair Jonathan Horn categorizing all cyclists as either recreational or delivery) would have dumbfounded a visitor from Portland or Copenhagen. Any practitioner of risk management or harm reduction would have been appalled by the electeds’ indifference to motorized mayhem. And it’s still possible that the make-the-bikes-go-away ladies will carry the day at the October 7 CB 8 Transportation Committee meeting, when issues raised at the forum get turned into resolutions.

There was also a disconnect between the officials’ insistence that “pedestrians’ grievances about bikes is one of our top complaints” (Garodnick) and the sparse turnout (around 50, many of whom were pro-bike). Still, I came away feeling that, unlike 22 years ago, the embattled minority isn’t cyclists but the anti-bikes. We may never get them to turn against autos, but we might, finally, be outnumbering and out-organizing them.

According to city statistics, over the last seven years the number of cyclists on New York streets has risen by 75 percent. With increased investments in infrastructure, overseen by a new, pro-cycling DOT commissioner, the city hopes to double the number of riders by 2015.

Of course, obstacles remain. As reported in a Los Angeles Times piece from yesterday on the current state of New York cycling, as their favored mode enjoys a renaissance that even a bike snob can't ignore, riders must nonetheless contend not only with careless motorists, but also toasted newspaper columnists, a hostile police department, and certain double-talking City Council members.

Police here largely ignore jaywalkers, cyclists going against traffic and taxi drivers bounding across lanes to pick up customers. And anarchy begets anarchy. Cyclists -- fearing for their lives -- ride on the sidewalk, and pedestrians -- to avoid the cyclists -- step into traffic.

Jessica Lappin, a councilwoman from the Upper East Side, hears the horror stories almost daily.

Seniors in her neighborhood feel "terrorized" by delivery people who barrel down the sidewalks on two wheels, causing elderly residents to duck and dive. "While I understand that the cyclists fear for their lives in the streets," she said, "the answer can't be whizzing by on the sidewalk at 20 mph and running into pedestrians."

Lappin added that she supported bicycling in general and -- if it was safer -- would probably bicycle herself.

Still, the article is mostly positive, profiling as it does an everyday Park Slope couple, Amy Cohen and Gary Eckstein. Both are in their forties, and both bike to work in Lower Manhattan after dropping the kids off at school. (According to the story, cycling is growing in popularity among the "middle-aged" set -- another positive trend.) Says Eckstein, who, along with Cohen, has ridden here for 15 years: "The city feels much safer than when we started. It even feels safe in the dark."

Photo: Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times

Thank you for contacting me in support of Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal. As you probably are aware, on March 31, the City Council approved a home rule message authorizing the state to approve Mayor Bloomberg's plan. The vote was 30 members in support and 20 against. I voted in support of the proposal. However, neither the State Assembly nor the State Senate acted in time to move this plan forward.

Anyone who drives in New York understands that congestion is a major problem, particularly in the Central Business District (CBD). Heavy traffic doesn't just anger and inconvenience drivers. It impacts our economy and environment as well. It is estimated that congestion costs the city $11.6 billion worth of lost business revenue, productivity, operating costs, and fuel and vehicle costs. In addition, because of our poor air quality, New York City asthma hospitalization rates are more than twice the national average.

Congestion pricing was one significant way to address these issues. It would have reduced traffic, improved air quality and public health, and provided critically needed funding for mass transit. Currently, our public transportation system is stretched to the limit. Nowhere is this more evident than the East Side. The Lexington Avenue subway line is operating at 110% capacity and, with 65,000 riders daily, the M15 is the most heavily utilized bus line in the Western Hemisphere.

Congestion pricing would have allowed the city to receive a one-time federal grant of $354 million for short-term mass transit improvements and allowed the city to use the congestion pricing fees to bond out an estimated $4.5 billion for major transit projects. These funds would have gone towards critical capital projects like the Second Avenue Subway, Bus Rapid Transit on First and Second Avenues, and East River ferry service. In addition to these large scale projects, if congestion pricing has been implemented, my Council District will have benefitted immediately from these short term transportation improvements:

• 46 new subway cars, primarily for the E & F lines
• 5 additional buses on the M101/M102/M103 lines
• 4 additional buses on the M86 line
• 2 additional buses on M66 line
• 3 additional buses on M31 line
• 6 additional buses on M15 line
• 10 additional buses on X90 line

Unfortunately, we won't be seeing these short term transportation improvements any time soon. However, I remain committed to the long term goal of reducing traffic and improving air quality in our city and will continue to work with our city's elected leadership to advance those goals.

Thank you for taking the time to contact me on this issue. I heavily weighed your views, and those of my other constituents, in formulating my position. As always, please feel free to contact me with any specific questions about this or any other issue facing our city.

Sincerely,
JESSICA LAPPIN
Council Member
5th District - Manhattan

The Daily Politics got hold of the letter [PDF], which appears below in full, including the names of its 20 signatories -- some of whom, like David Yassky and Melissa Mark-Viverito, are pricing supporters.

Dear Mayor Bloomberg:

We are writing to urge you to correct an unfairness in the "congestion pricing" policy proposed by the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, prior to the upcoming votes in the City Council and the State Legislature.

We are concerned that the burden of paying for congestion pricing will fall too heavily on New York City residents - and in particular on residents of Brooklyn, Queens, the Bronx and Staten Island - while commuters from outside the City will remain unaffected.

Under the current proposal, bridge and tunnel toll payments would be credited against the $8 congestion charge. This means that commuters who currently pay tolls to use the Port Authority and Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority river crossings will pay no additional congestion fee. The bulk of these drivers live outside of New York City. At the same time, drivers who enter Manhattan via the Brooklyn Bridge, the Manhattan Bridge or the Williamsburg Bridge will pay the full $8 congestion charge. Most of these drivers do live within New York City.

This is blatantly unfair.

Indeed, the Final Report of the Congestion Pricing Commission itself appears to recognize the unfairness when it states: "The Commission recommends that the State Legislature consider the concerns raised by some Commissioners regarding the contribution of commuters from west of the Hudson River to the MTA Capital Plan."

We ask you, as the primary architect of the congestion pricing plan, to act to remedy the unfairness, either by amending the plan to require commuters from outside New York City to pay a congestion fee in addition to bridge and tunnel tolls, or by forcing the Port Authority to agree to devote a significant portion of their revenue from Hudson River crossings to funding mass transit in New York City (as suggested in the sentence quoted above from the Commission Report).

One proposal for addressing the unfairness would be to give drivers a full credit for bridge and tunnel tolls only if they reside in one of the five boroughs; under this proposal, drivers from outside the City would be given partial credit for toll payments but would still be required to pay some fee for entering the congestion zone. This would improve the existing plan in three ways. First, it would treat New York City residents more equitably in comparison to New Jersey commuters; while City residents would still bear the brunt of the new charges, the unfairness would be lessened. Second, it would raise substantially more revenue than the current proposal, with no additional cost; this revenue would enable more significant expansions in mass transit service than are envisioned in the Commission proposal. Third, it would make the policy more effective in reducing congestion by giving New Jersey commuters an incentive to choose mass transit.

We have been told by members of your Administration that a concern has been raised as to the constitutionality of a plan that provides a different toll credit to City residents than is provided to non-residents. After consulting with constitutional law scholars, we are confident that our proposal is constitutionally valid - just like, for example, the current practice of allowing Staten Island residents to pay a reduced fare for using the Verrazano Bridge.

As an alternative to adjusting the toll credit, another way to address the unfair burden on City residents would be to require the Port Authority to contribute a significant portion of its revenue from tolls on the Holland Tunnel, the Lincoln Tunnel and the George Washington Bridge to the Metropolitan Transit Authority, for use in funding system improvements within the City. We note that in expectation of the congestion pricing policy, the Port Authority cynically raised the tolls on the crossings it controls, so that those tolls will be exactly the same as the $8 congestion fee - thus ensuring that revenue generated from drivers who use those crossings will be spent by the Port Authority rather than on mass transit. Either of the two proposals discussed in this letter - capping the toll credit, or requiring a Port Authority contribution to the MTA - would ensure that more of the revenue generated from driving commuters goes to mass transit, and would help force the Port Authority to be a more responsible partner in planning and implementing the region's transportation network.

Finally, we note that some of the signatories to the letter support the idea of congestion pricing; others do not, or have concerns beyond the unfairness of the plan's burden on City residents in comparison to non-resident commuters. All of us, however, believe strongly that this unfairness must be corrected.

Sincerely,

Council Members,

Yassky
James
Mark-Viverito
Garodnick
Brewer
Koppell
Jackson
Gioia
Seabrook
Felder
Vacca
White
Mendez
Liu
Gentile
Lappin
Stewart
Vallone
Rivera
Dilan

On Wednesday Monserrate announced that he is submitting a "consumer protection bill" to end "price-gouging at or around NYC sports arenas." Specifically, the bill would set standard fees across the city and impose penalties for exceeding them during "special events," like baseball playoff series.

From Monserrate's press release:

Councilmember Monserrate decided to introduce the bill after he joined with friends to attend Sunday's post-season baseball game between the NY Yankees and the Cleveland Indians. He observed a dramatic increase in parking fees around Yankee stadium to $50 and even attempts to charge up to $150 by unscrupulous operators.

"As a Met Fan from Queens, I decided to attend [read: drive to] last Sunday's game and show some support to our other New York Team, the NY Yankees. I observed several lots with Parking Lot Full signs, all operated by Central Parking Company. They were advertising a $50.00 fee to park. Shockingly, and to add insult to injury, one particular lot (also operated by Central) had a "FULL" sign in front but the attendants told me if I paid $150.00 they would park my car," Monserrate said.

He added, "As we look forward to both the NY Mets and NY Yankees playing in next year's post-season, we need to enact consumer protections against price-gouging for New York fans. While New Yorkers cheer for the hometown teams our City needs to protect us from price-gouging parking lot operators who unfairly take advantage of NY fans."

So, to Monserrate, being asked to pay market rates for auto storage at a sporting event that is accessible by transit qualifies as an "insult."

The council member might want to check with the Yankees before tightening up those fees too much. They're going to need all the revenue they can get.

Upper East Side City Council Member Jessica Lappin has announced legislation that would make business owners responsible for cycling violations committed by their delivery workers.

City Room has the scoop:

Ms. Lappin, a Democrat who represents the Upper East Side, said she has regularly received complaints from constituents about unsafe conditions. A nine-year-old constituent, Annabel Azziz, wrote to her, saying, “We can’t take a walk without being nervous of bicycles zooming next to us.” Another constituent, an elderly woman, was hit by a bike last Thursday and needs hip replacement surgery as a result, she said.

Although she did not have statistical evidence, Ms. Lappin said she believed that workers who use bikes are in general less responsible than recreational cyclists, who, she said, were more likely to use helmets and obey traffic laws.

“I hear in community meetings, night after night, that people are afraid to walk down the street,” Ms. Lappin said in a phone interview.

Under the bill, the employer of a worker found to have broken the law while using a bicycle for commercial purposes would be liable for the violation. Ms. Lappin said that shifting the liability from workers to their employers would give businesses a greater incentive to ensure that their employees are following the law.

Bicycle riders who violate traffic regulations can be fined between $100 and $300, with an additional $200 fine if the rider hits a pedestrian. Ms. Lappin said her bill would not increase the penalties, but only shift the fine from the workers to the employers.

Streetsblog has certainly had its share of animated discussions on cyclists and traffic law, but Lappin's proposal immediately reminded me of a recent story in New York Magazine describing the horrendous working conditions endured by Chinese restaurant bike delivery workers, including the loss of income they face when a customer complains about cold food due to 'slow' delivery (not to mention what happens if they're injured in a crash). How would Lappin's proposal affect that dynamic? Might business owners simply deduct incurred traffic fees out of an employee's pay? Just one of many angles to consider, of course.

Also, anyone know what the fine is for a motorist who hits a pedestrian these days?

Photo: bondidwhat/Flickr

In the past, my group, the Upper Greenside, has worked with Lappin to bring new greenmarkets to our neighborhood as well as other environmental issues. Based on our conversations about traffic, she seemed very positive about the idea of congestion pricing. She once wrote a letter to former DOT commissioner Iris Weinshall at our request about the dangerous traffic congestion around the Queensboro Bridge.

Last Friday, while Mayor Bloomberg was testifying in front of the State Assembly about congestion pricing, I accompanied Ann Seligman from Environmental Defense on a visit to Lappin's legislative office to advocate for the mayor's plan. Lappin jumped in immediately, saying, "I support congestion pricing, I just have some tough questions about the details." She described her position as close to Governor Spitzer's. She wants to see something happen but has some concerns over the plan's details.

 
I was glad to hear that her position was generally pro-congestion pricing, but I'm still disappointed in her lack of leadership on this issue, especially when compared to Council Member Dan Garodnick who shares much of the Upper East Side with Lappin.

If you live in Lappin's district, consider calling her office at (212) 535-5554 to give her a push in the right direction. Better yet, she's hosting a town hall meeting this Thursday. I strongly encourage Livable Streets advocates to show up and and ask her and other elected officials about their positions on congestion pricing, bicycling and and other urban environmental issues.

The third annual Tour de Brooklyn bike ride rolled through the borough Sunday with sunny skies, temperatures in the low 70s and a light breeze along a scenic waterfront route. For the first time, the event was led by New York City's transportation commissioner, newly appointed Janette Sadik-Khan, who introduced herself to riders at the beginning of the ride and praised cycling (transcript of her remarks follows below the fold).

Speaking with Streetsblog before the event, the commissioner said she is considering a car-free Central Park summertime trial and talked about the need to improve cycling conditions in New York City. "I think there's been a renaissance in cycling," she said, "and I think you're seeing that energy come from a lot of the investments that we've made in the city's bike infrastructure -- making it easier for people to get to where they need to go and connecting the different bike paths we have in the city to create a strong biking backbone."

She said improvements to the cycling lane system would begin this summer, and called them "smaller interventions, urban acupuncture, to make it easier for people to see the city." In Brooklyn, the Department of Transportation plans to create 20 lane miles of bike lanes this year and 15 more next year, she said.

The commissioner said she enjoyed cycling. "I think it's one of the best ways to get around," she said. "Of course, the emphasis for us now is to make it as easy as possible. Sometimes it's not as easy to get around, and that's basically what the mayor's emphasis is on the sustainability 2030 plan is to make it easier to get on their bike to get to work, to get on their bike to get to school."

If congestion pricing is implemented, the department would encourage a broad modal shift toward public transportation, she said, playing down fears of a "border effect" expressed by lawmakers such as Jessica Lappin in which communities fear people driving to the border of the congestion pricing zone, seek to park for free, then board transit. "We believe that it's not as big of an issue as people fear," she said. "We think that it’s more likely that people are going to make those modal choices early on."

Hinting at a broader philosophy of urban space, Sadik-Khan noted that the success of street space might be measured in terms other than volume of automobiles moved in a given period. "The streets and sidewalks are the living rooms of New York," she said. "We have to figure out the best way to utilize those living rooms."

Below the fold, a transcript of the commissioner's remarks to the Tour de Brooklyn riders.

Remarks by Janette Sadik-Khan, New York City Transportation Commissioner:

Thanks Noah.

Good morning. As Noah mentioned, I was recently appointed transportation commissioner by Mayor Bloomberg. And I want to thank Transportation Alternatives for organizing this terrific event. And want to welcome you to the 2007 Tour de Brooklyn. When I was coming over here, I thought it was interesting, when I was on the other side of the bridge, it was called the Tour de Brooklyn, when I got over to Brooklyn, it was called the Tour duh Brooklyn.

But this is a great opportunity for recreation and it's great to see you all out here. Cycling is also the backbone of our city's transportation network. And we need to do more to find ways to build out our transportation infrastructure to include biking. And that’s what we want to change.

The Brooklyn cycling network continues to evolve, and we really want to do everything we can to make that happen. Brooklyn could certainly be called the bicycling borough. Downtown Brooklyn has been a focal point of our investments. And if you consider the huge investments that we've made to date on the East River bridges alone, I think it's some serious cycling infrastructure and I think it's the envy of many riders from across the country. And if you're from the northern borough – the northern part of Brooklyn, and you use the Williamsburg Bridge, congratulations: That's the most popular bridge in the city today, with 2,600 riders crossing this bridge every day.

And moving forward, we're going to dramatically increase this with Mayor Bloomberg's sustainability program, we're going to continue to invest in better connections to the biking network. Make better intermodal connections to our transit stations, and do everything we can to improve the quality of life for bikers in this city. So thank you so much. None of this could happen with out you.

I look forward to your support as we move forward to improve transportation and the biking network in New York City. So, on to the road.

On Memorial Day, I had a chance to speak with Micah Kellner, the Democratic Party's candidate for the New York State Assembly seat left vacant by Pete Grannis who was such a strong environmental advocate Gov. Spitzer elevated him to the head of the Department of Environmental Conservation. I asked him to clarify the report in the New York Sun that he opposed Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan, despite supporting the plan "in concept." He said:

The purpose of congestion pricing is to reduce traffic and congestion, not just shift congestion to a different neighborhood. I believe having the border at 86th Street will be a disaster for the people living between 86th and 96th Streets. It will create gridlock there and turn the area into a parking lot. I think the border should be at 59th Street. I also want the mayor to commit to incentives for night deliveries and to support the cross-harbor freight tunnel, which he continually flip flops on.

When I challenged him on his vision of Carmmegedon in Yorkville and Carnegie Hill he responded with a few ancedotes of comments he's heard on the campaign trail: People looking for parking on 88th Street would not be able to look below 86th Street. People working near 86th street would exit the FDR at 96th street, park and walk the rest of the way.

I told Kellner that my greatest concern was that the bickering over where to draw the line would delay or sink the whole plan. He was not worried. "I think we will see congestion pricing of some type get implemented. There will be a vote and it will pass."

Under the mayor's congestion pricing proposal, drivers will have to pay a toll to go south of 86th Street in Manhattan. At a City Council hearing yesterday, Councilwoman Jessica Lappin drew a bleak picture.

"There will be a crush of cars circling around 86th Street looking for parking spots that don't exist," said Lappin, who feared the downtown-bound bridge-and-tunnel crowd would use her Upper East Side district as a parking lot before catching a train. "I envision idling, and more congestion, and more pollution in the air, because there aren't places for these cars to go." Parking in a garage would be out of the question, she said: "The garages up there are full."

Janette Sadik-Khan, two weeks into her job as the city's transportation commissioner, had a simple solution: a residential parking permit. Such permits would allow only residents to park on the street. Violators would be fined and perhaps towed.

Lappin wasn't buying it: "A residential parking permit is a hunting license." She believed plenty of outsiders would still be looking for a place to land. "Is the city considering municipal garages?" she asked.

Among the three cyclist fatality clusters identified by the joint report by the City Departments of Health, Police, Parks and Transportation, the Queensboro Bridge is by far the worst. The entrance intersection at 60th and Second also claimed the award for the most unticketed incidents of block the box in the Borough President's study of lax enforcement of basic traffic rules.

My local group, Upper Green Side, approached Councilmember Jessica Lappin to bring attention to this issue and she shared our concern about safety. Based on our conversation, she wrote this letter below to Department of Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall.  You can take action yourself by telling Councilmember Lappin of your concerns around the Queensboro Bridge (212-535-5554) and also by filing your own personal complaint about safety around the Queensboro Bridge to the Department of Transportation.

Dear Ms. Weinshall:

            I am writing regarding the dangerous Queensboro Bridge path used by cyclists and pedestrians in my district.

            The Queensboro Bridge site is the most fatal crash cluster for cyclists and pedestrians in Manhattan. According to NYPD data, between 2002 and 2004, motor vehicles killed 5 pedestrians, 3 cyclists and injured 765 pedestrians and 141 cyclists in the one square mile area around the Queensboro Bridge path's Manhattan entrance located at East 50^th Street to East 69^th Street, between 5^th Avenue and the East River. By comparison, at the Queens entrance of the bridge no cyclists or pedestrians were killed and only 94 pedestrians and 10 cyclists were injured.

            The Queensboro Bridge area was highlighted as one of the most dangerous sites for cyclists and pedestrians in a joint report from the New York City Departments of Health and Mental Hygiene, Parks and Recreation and the New York City Police Department. This report confirms the reality that people live with as they risk their lives trying to exit the Queensboro Bridge.

            I appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your reply. If my office can be of any assistance please do not hesitate to contact my Policy Director, Caroline Mello, at (212) 535-5554. Thank you for you assistance in this important matter.

Sincerely,

JESSICA LAPPIN
Council Member
5^th District, Manhattan

FILM SCREENING & DISCUSSION
with the NYC Council's Transportation Committee
"Contested Streets: Breaking NYC Gridlock"
Thursday, July 20th, 2:30 pm

Manhattan Borough President Scott M. Stringerand New York City Council Members John C. Liu, Joseph P. Addabbo, Jr., Daniel R. Garodnick, G. Oliver Koppell, Jessica S. Lappin, Miguel Martinez, Michael E. McMahon, Darlene Mealy, Diana Reyna, and Larry B. Seabrookinvite you to a special screening and discussion of a new documentary film, Contested Streets: Breaking NYC Gridlock.

WHEN: Thursday, July 20, 2006 at 2:30 pm (the film runs approximately 57 minutes); discussion to follow.

WHERE: New York City Council, 250 Broadway, 14th Floor Hearing Room (across from City Hall).

WHAT: "Contested Streets" shows how to create gridlock-free, livable streets, right here in New York City. The film features experts from Downtown to the Bronx, as well as London, Paris and Copenhagen who together show how to meet the transportation needs of NYC's rapidly growing population. To watch a short trailer for the film, please visit: http://www.contestedstreets.com/trailer.html.

WHY: Gridlocked streets are a concern to all New Yorkers from our business community that depends on uncongested streets to speed commerce, to moms and dads who want their children to be able to walk and bike to school without fear. This film shows ways that cities around the world are reclaiming their streets to the delight of residents and businesspeople alike.

RSVP: Seating is limited. To reserve your place, please email your name and affiliation to liu@council.nyc.ny.us (with the subject header: "NYC Council: Contested Streets").