NYCEDC required a suburban level of parking at the Flushing Commons development. Image: Rockefeller Group Development Corporation.

The project, known as Flushing Commons, is a mixture of retail, housing, and office space slated for downtown Flushing, one of New York's fastest growing business districts. It's also one of the most transit-rich areas in Queens, making it a prime location for great walkable development.

But Meyer's project is slated to include a suburban level of parking, which will induce shoppers to drive to an area  that's already overrun by traffic. And if some Flushing leaders get their way, the project will include even more -- and cheaper -- parking.

Meyer believes the area is ready for walkable development, but notes that 50-year-old beliefs about transportation and development still prevail. "We're almost in a time warp," he said, adding that "Flushing is not the way it used to be," but "emotions and misconceptions" lead people to think excessive parking is a necessity.

Zoning rules require 700 spaces at Flushing Commons, according to Meyer, but the project will build far more -- 1,600 spaces -- because the parking-obsessed Economic Development Corporation demanded that level of parking. 

Flushing Commons would build up to 620 residences, 275,000 square feet of retail space and 234,000 square feet of commercial space just two short blocks from the busiest subway station outside Manhattan. The site is served by 21 different bus routes and is a short walk from the third-busiest pedestrian intersection in all of New York. The property, currently a 1,100-space surface parking lot, is owned by the city, hence the active involvement of EDC. 

"This is not a single-use suburban development site," said parking policy expert Rachel Weinberger, co-author of a recent report on parking innovation in American cities. "And yet EDC seems to be once again pushing suburban-style development standards."

In addition to the 1,600 parking spaces, the city has convinced the developers to add 200 spaces to a nearby municipal lot. Still, many residents and local merchants say that isn't enough.

In fact, at the typical 350 square feet per spot, the parking is already set to consume more space than the retail and office space combined, a real waste in such a transit-rich location. If more parking gets built, Flushing Commons will become a parking garage with mixed-use development attached, rather than the other way around.

Flushing Commons would replace a city-owned surface parking lot in the heart of transit-rich downtown Flushing -- and build even more parking in the process. Image: Google Maps.

The addition of so much parking will be mitigated by the developers' decision to price it more effectively, which is what really seems to be upsetting some in Flushing. Currently, the lot only charges $1 per hour or $4 per day, which Meyer says just leads to commuters filling the spots all day. "You don't put a commuter lot in the heart of a burgeoning central business district," he said. "'The High Cost of Free Parking'? Flushing's the poster-child for that."

In order to attract more shoppers, Meyer's firm is instead increasing the amount of short-term parking and pricing parking at higher rates, though still slightly below market prices.

This attempt to get motorists to pay the cost of the parking they use has elicited some of the loudest complaints. Then-Council Member John Liu spoke out against charging more for parking as early as 2007.

Putting a rational price on parking should temper demand, allowing the developer to build fewer spaces. But EDC's requirements have pre-empted any attempt to give less space to vehicle storage. (EDC should learn from previous mistakes, like the Gateway Center mall in the Bronx, where parking isn't free and most customers walk to shop, leaving parking spaces unused, eating up land and money.)

Streetsblog has a request in with NYCEDC about why the agency required so much parking at a site so well-served by transit.

Less parking at Flushing Commons wouldn't just promote livable streets, it would also make it easier to build at this transit-rich location. "The parking is a money loser -- we know this because the original plan included even more parking, which was cut back to make the project profitable," said Weinberger. 

Given the demands from EDC, however, building less parking isn't an option at Flushing Commons. Shoup-quoting developers can only do so much for sustainable growth when the city itself demands that up-and-coming downtowns like Flushing emulate suburbia.

Last week, Comptroller John Liu announced plans to convene a task force to study and issue recommendations about community benefits agreements in New York. While details on the task force are still forthcoming, the renewed public attention on these planning tools provides an opportunity to examine how CBAs have worked in New York and how they are increasingly being used to build livable streets.

Community benefits agreements are private contracts between community organizations and developers, requiring that the developer take additional actions for public benefit. In theory, CBAs allow groups that are shut out of the normal planning process to make their voices heard. The first real CBA was tied to the construction of a basketball arena -- the Staples Center in Los Angeles, where a coalition of religious, social justice, environmental, health, immigrant and tenant organizations capitalized on public concerns over the project to win promises of living-wage jobs, affordable housing, and local hiring.

In some cases, locals have demanded the inclusion of transportation improvements in the benefits agreement. At the Staples Center, the CBA created a residential permit parking program for the arena's neighbors. Here in New York, the CBA Columbia University signed as part of its expansion into West Harlem required it to light the viaduct along Broadway and advocate for improvements to subway and bus stations.

Where the public makes livable streets a priority, CBAs can be useful tools. In Minneapolis, one community group in the Longfellow neighborhood was able to win an impressive list of livable streets features from a developer. In addition to traditional CBA provisions like affordable housing and living wage jobs, the locals negotiated a contract mandating bike parking and paths, parking maximums for cars and car sharing, commercial space that engages the sidewalk, and even a requirement that the architecture "must be urban, not suburban, in feel and function."

Melanie Majors, the executive director of the Longfellow Community Council, explained why her group's CBA focused so heavily on urban design. "CBAs represent what that community has in terms of priorities and in terms of challenges," she said. "In greater Longfellow, our priorities are to have this livable community."

According to Amy Lavine, an expert on CBAs at Albany Law School, we can expect to see more CBAs like Longfellow's. "As the CBA process expands and branches out," said Lavine, "you'll see more different approaches." Indeed, Majors says she received dozens of invitations to present on the Longfellow CBA after it was signed.

In New York, however, the history of community benefits agreements is stained with failures. The CBAs crafted here are often held up as models for what not to do, said Lavine. Millions of dollars that the Yankees promised to local organizations have never been distributed. In Brooklyn, the Atlantic Yards CBA has been criticized as little more than a fig leaf for the developer.

Lavine cited the lack of real community involvement in the negotiations of the Columbia, Atlantic Yards, and Yankee Stadium CBAs as undermining those agreements. "There have also been issues with people taking money from developers," she added. "That's certainly not a best practice."

The potential to fix the well-documented shortcomings of New York's CBAs may be limited. "The idea of a CBA is a private contract between two parties," said Lavine. "You can only regulate that so much."

Even so, livable streets advocates should keep their eyes on Liu's task force. The comptroller's office says that it hasn't yet worked out the details of its proposal, but no matter what, CBAs are here to stay. And as the Longfellow project shows, they can help steer development to meet livable streets goals. 

What can the incoming city comptroller and public advocate do to improve the lives of millions of daily subway and bus riders over their next four years in office?

Public Advocate-elect Bill de Blasio and Comptroller-elect John Liu.

While it's right to hold the mayor accountable for what the city does on public transportation, there's much that Public Advocate Bill de Blasio and Comptroller John Liu can do on behalf of the city's commuters.

Both gentlemen took stands on key transportation issues as council members. Liu served as chair of the council’s transportation committee and de Blasio promoted the return of F express service in Brooklyn and proposed a "Transit Rider’s Bill of Rights." Additionally, Liu voted for congestion pricing, de Blasio against. Later, de Blasio favored East and Harlem River bridge tolls pegged to the subway fare to fund the MTA, which Liu opposed.

So there’s every reason to expect them to be vocal on transportation. And they’ll have plenty of opportunities to take action. To start with, millions of New York City bus riders have a big stake in the service improvements that newly appointed MTA Chair Jay Walder and Mayor Bloomberg have each made a high priority. De Blasio and Liu, if they choose, can use their new offices to help give millions of transit riders the best possible outcome as these plans advance.

Let’s start with what the public advocate can do. This office was set up to be an “ombudsperson,” which in everyday English means listening to complaints from the public and working to make sure they are resolved. In addition, the public advocate looks for patterns of problems in service delivery.

A good place for de Blasio to start would be to encourage some of the 2.4 million daily weekday bus riders to call his office. They have an earful of woes to talk about, such as slow, unreliable and crowded service. I hope that Advocate de Blasio can make cataloguing the complaints of riders a top priority. The precedent is there. Carol Bellamy, who served several years as president of the City Council (the precursor to the public advocate), was so vocal on transit that former Governor Mario Cuomo appointed her to the MTA board.

The Bloomberg administration has proposed using Bus Rapid Transit strategies on several pilot routes to quicken service and improve reliability. These include providing truly exclusive bus lanes, giving buses priority at traffic signals, designing bus stops to reduce conflicts with traffic, and having riders pay fares before board. Another ingredient -- bus-mounted cameras to enforce exclusive lanes -- may become available if Albany approves the necessary legislation.

A limited form of BRT -- called Select Bus Service -- is already in operation on the Bx12 on Fordham Road and Pelham Parkway in the Bronx. It has reduced travel times 24 percent. Another SBS route has started on 34th Street in Midtown. And still another one is due on First and Second Avenues in Manhattan next September.

The Straphangers Campaign hopes that de Blasio uses his bully pulpit to press for picking up the pace and scope of Bus Rapid Transit routes. He can take up the cause of camera enforcement for bus lanes, helping its chances in Albany. He can also serve a mediating role to make sure the concerns of community players are taken into account without endangering the effectiveness of BRT improvements. Stakeholders include bus passengers, community leaders, bicycle riders, and small businesses. Especially in the outer boroughs, which stand to gain the most from BRT, the public advocate's independent voice will carry a lot of weight.

Comptroller Liu can come to the aid of bus riders as well, by using his audit powers to make sure BRT strategies work for New York. The comptroller is an independent elected public servant and his views on BRT will carry a different kind of weight than NYC DOT or the MTA.

Bus service, of course, is not the only transportation issue that these two citywide offices can take on. For example, outgoing comptroller Bill Thompson did a great job documenting how New York City was shortchanged on state transit aid. (See this report.) And his hard-working transit aide Joseph Rappaport keeps many important issues alive, from cuts to transit service to making the MTA more transparent.

Among possible future audits for the new comptroller to consider:

• On-time performance and other official NYC Transit statistics
• Reviewing the work of the new line managers
• Reviewing the MTA capital program to see where it is over timeline and budget
• The status of “mega-projects" like the Second Avenue Subway.

Citywide officials like the comptroller and the public advocate are automatically considered potential candidates for mayor in the next go-round. If they choose to run -- either for mayor or for re-election -- they of course will be judged on what they've done for New Yorkers, including millions of subway and bus riders.

For the next four years, Mike Bloomberg will be joined in citywide office by Democrats Bill de Blasio and John Liu.

And how few votes were cast. Total turnout -- 1.1 million out of about 4 million registered voters -- looks to be even lower than in Ed Koch's election to a third term, back when a million fewer people lived in the city. Participation in New York City's democratic process hasn't been this paltry since the days before women were enfranchised.

The Thompson camp appeared to take some satisfaction in the relatively close finish. Still, Democrats have got to be second guessing themselves today. No doubt much hand-wringing will ensue about the failure of President Obama and local power brokers to rally around the party's standard bearer.

But here are some numbers to chew on: Thompson lost by 50,000 votes, and New Yorkers make more than two million bus trips every day. What if the Democratic candidate had actively campaigned on specific ideas to improve bus service? Vastly outspent or not, Thompson couldn't clear the bar set by Freddy Ferrer in 2005 despite an electorate that seemingly felt little enthusiasm for the incumbent. (Disgust with the term limits extension may explain why Bloomberg himself garnered 200,000 fewer votes than he did four years ago, even though his approval rating, at 70 percent, remains quite high.)

Instead, when it came to New Yorkers' transportation concerns, Thompson sounded few consistent themes except the notion that self-serving complaints from a few local merchants should take precedence over safety gains and transit improvements on our streets. The Democratic Party -- purported defender of the working class and the environment -- failed to make the connection between urban transportation, economic opportunity, and sustainability.

Overall, transportation remained a second- or third-tier issue during the campaign. Under Janette Sadik-Khan, Bloomberg's Department of Transportation has made notable strides to improve walking, biking, and transit, but the mayor seldom strayed from his core themes of falling crime rates and rising student test scores. In the televised debates, parking tickets got more attention than pedestrian safety. The city's 2008 toll of 292 motor vehicle fatalities and annual rate of 50,000 traffic injuries were never even mentioned.

Transportation issues may not have affected this election, but this election will affect transportation policy. Bloomberg will be joined on the citywide stage by two ambitious Democrats, John Liu and Bill de Blasio, whose records on progressive transportation have so far appeared to vary according to the political opportunities available. With Liu in the Comptroller's office and de Blasio taking over as Public Advocate, each now commands a high-visibility bully pulpit, presumably with an eye cast toward 2013. Each can choose to reinforce, ignore, or obstruct livable streets policies.

And the next four years will be an intensely active time for livable streets in New York City. Since Bloomberg appointed Sadik-Khan to run DOT in 2007, we've seen a string of innovations: the city's first rapid bus corridor, major new pedestrian plazas, and the beginnings of a safer, protected bike network. As of today, these important changes to New York's streets exist mainly as experiments and fragments. Expect the question of how to allocate street space to play out on a much bigger scale as the city attempts to expand and solidify its recent progress.

This term also gives Bloomberg the chance to address the gaping holes in his sustainability agenda. By 2013, will NYCEDC and the City Planning Commission still foist anti-urban disasters like the Gateway Center Mall and East River Plaza on New York's car-free majority? Will NYPD rein in reckless driving so New Yorkers can walk and bike without fear? Bloomberg's legacy on the environment, transportation, and quality of life depends on these questions as much as anything.

In the days ahead, Streetsblog will publish a series of essays from local advocates and experts about New York City's transportation and public space agenda for the next four years. What should the mayor set his sights on, and how much can the city accomplish? We'll kick things off next Monday, so stay tuned.

Right now, you might just want to breathe a sigh of relief -- no one's about to rip out bike lanes or ax plans for bus improvements. At least not for the next four years.

With extremely low turnout expected for tomorrow's mayoral election, Bill Thompson and Mike Bloomberg canvassed the city over the weekend trying to drum up some enthusiasm for their candidacies. For Thompson, the itinerary included a stop in Bedford Stuyvesant this Saturday to protest plans for improving bus service along Nostrand Avenue.

Hopping off the campaign truck at the corner of Fulton and Nostrand, Thompson and the entire citywide Democratic ticket joined local council rep Tish James for a quick show of solidarity with Nostrand Avenue Merchants Association president Lindiwe Kamau. Kamau takes issue with bus improvements planned for Nostrand because, she claims, dedicated bus lanes will eliminate curbside parking along the corridor. Here's the thing: The most recent renderings of Select Bus Service on Nostrand [PDF] depict buses operating in an existing travel lane. The curbside parking lane would still be there.

That didn't stop Thompson, James, John Liu, and Bill de Blasio from lending their support for a few minutes, standing beside Kamau and repeating stock phrases about "protecting small businesses." The biggest constituency they addressed appeared to be the press. About four reporters were on hand, outnumbering Nostrand Avenue merchants by approximately four-to-one. After a light cycle or two, the pols hopped back on the truck and were driven away.

If the Democratic ticket had walked over to the B44 stop around the corner, they would have found a much larger and more captive audience to address. Their message might not have gone over very well though.

Around the corner: Waiting to board the B44.

On a typical weekday, more than 40,000 people ride the B44 on the Nostrand corridor. On Saturdays, average ridership is about 29,000. B44 riders can definitely use some relief: They currently depend on the second-most unreliable bus route in the city, according to the Straphangers Campaign. The improvements promised by Select Bus Service -- pre-paid boarding, dedicated travel lanes, signal priority -- would speed trips and enable buses to stick to their schedules.

Around the corner from Saturday's presser, dozens of people were waiting for the next B44, many carrying shopping bags on a warm fall afternoon. Henrietta David, one of the older women waiting at the stop, told me that she doesn't bother glancing at the posted schedule to find out when the next bus will arrive; the bus comes when it comes. There was nowhere for her to sit as she waited. After a bus pulled up, it took a good two minutes for everyone to board.

When I had asked Kamau why she opposed plans for BRT on Nostrand, the indignities and inconveniences of riding the bus weren't foremost in her thoughts, nor were her own customers' transportation needs. She said merchants already get ticketed for parking their cars on this stretch of Nostrand during the p.m. rush, when the west side of the street is a no-standing zone. "We already have problems with parking," she said. "Our merchants get tickets constantly."

• Intro 624: This is Jessica Lappin's effort to hold businesses responsible for traffic law violations committed by bike delivery personnel. The bill was inspired in part by Upper East Side constituent complaints about restaurant employees and other commercial delivery workers riding on sidewalks.
• Intro 901, from committee chair, presumptive comptroller-elect and rock star John Liu, would mandate all commercial parking facilities to set aside 10 percent of spaces, or 10 spots, whichever is less, for car-sharing programs.
• Intro 947: Responding to the deaths of Robert Ogle and Alex Paul and Diego Martinez and Hayley Ng, Queens Council Member Elizabeth Crowley's bill would raise the fine for unattended idling vehicles to $250. The current fine: five bucks.
• Continuing his crusade against the travesty that is parking enforcement, Vincent Gentile's Intro 1076 would require DOT to give 60 days notice to community boards and council members in advance of changes to parking meter regulations.
• Intro 1077, another Gentile bill, looks as if it would basically codify DOT's current practice of presenting new projects -- pilot projects, specifically -- to community boards prior to implementation.

In the end the votes matter most, but it's interesting that Gentile, for instance, is not a co-sponsor of Crowley's anti-idling bill or Liu's car-sharing intro, but is on board with Lappin's commercial cyclist regulations. Guess we all have our priorities.

Tomorrow's hearing, one of the last of Liu's tenure as committee chair, convenes in the council chambers at 10 a.m.

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.

L-r: Council candidates S.J. Jung, John Choe, Evergreen C. Chou, James Wu and Isaac Sasson

With the September 15 primary fast approaching, the race to succeed Liu in District 20 is one of two especially compelling Queens contests, where long-time council incumbents are leaving open seats. (District 26's Eric Gioia is running for public advocate. Streetsblog will profile the race to replace him later this week.)

Of the three District 20 candidates who answered the Transportation Alternatives Candidate Survey -- S.J. Jung, John Choe and Evergreen C. Chou -- all expressed support, to varying degrees, for road pricing, bus rapid transit, bike-share, public plazas, and improved traffic enforcement. Each candidate also said he would like to see innovations like BRT and Summer Streets come to Queens.

Choe served as Liu's chief of staff for eight years, and has the endorsement of his former boss. If elected, Choe says he would advocate for improved service on the 7 train, BRT on Northern Boulevard, and unrestricted subway access for bikes. He would also like to see ferry service on the Flushing River. Choe says he would favor targeted traffic enforcement with increased fines for speeders, and thinks congestion pricing "should be further explored" as a means to reduce traffic and provide funding for transit expansion in areas without easy access to subways.

Choe and Jung, an entrepreneur and community volunteer, are in sync on many if not most transportation issues. But Jung differentiates himself in a couple of key areas. Jung is the only candidate to employ the term "traffic justice" in his survey responses, citing "thorough investigation of all traffic crashes" as a component of a successful strategy to reduce dangerous driving. He also supports "exploring the option" of raising on-street parking rates to "discourage long-term parking, convince some drivers to utilize garage parking and direct others to take public transit."

Chou, a Green Party nominee, is big on bikes: bike lanes, bike parking, bike-share, and bike racks on buses. He would also like to see lower transit fares. While he seems to favor the interests of pedestrians, cyclists and transit users, Chou's positions are largely short on specifics -- though he is the only candidate among the three to declare his unqualified support for congestion pricing.

Candidate James Wu didn't return the TA survey, but according to a Gotham Gazette write-up of the District 20 race, he "would seek to curb rampant jaywalking and reduce speeding." Wu says he would also push to restrict traffic on Main Street in Flushing to pedestrians and buses.

Democrats dominate the District 20 field -- Yen S. Chou and Isaac Sasson round out the Democratic roster -- but with Chou along with Republican Peter Koo in the race, voters won't finalize their choice for John Liu's successor until November.

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.

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.

Does anyone believe that John Liu's position on bicycle access to buildings has remained consistent since last September?

A cycling advocacy group has been flooded with e-faxes pushing Councilman John Liu to schedule a committee vote on a bill allowing bicycles in some office buildings. Transportation Alternatives has received more than 800 messages in four days. "We've never had anything like it, not even at the height of the congestion pricing drama," a TA spokesman says. The group is delivering the messages to Liu, who questions whether the bill would improve bicycle access. Bill sponsor David Yassky is running against Liu for city comptroller, but Liu says that has nothing to do with his position. He previously backed a stronger bike access bill that, unlike this one, lacked mayoral support.

Our calls to Liu's office have yet to be returned, so we can't expand on his rationale that the bill won't improve bike access to office buildings. At this point, Liu doesn't really need to explain himself. The fact that the committee chair with jurisdiction won't move a bill supported by the mayor, 29 other Council members, and the city's best-known advocates for cycling speaks volumes.

If Liu lets the bill come up for a vote, we're looking at a watershed moment for bike commuting in New York. If he doesn't, it will be a major blow to PlaNYC's vision of a bike-friendly city, and the collective record of transportation committee chairs everywhere will somehow sink even lower.

A few months ago, John Liu was all for bikes in buildings.

Danny Kanner, a spokesman for bill sponsor David Yassky, confirmed this afternoon that the landmark piece of legislation has yet to clear John Liu's transportation committee. "The bill has been laid on council members' desks for eight days, which is typically what is done before a bill comes before the full council," said Kanner. "That was done with the anticipation that it would be voted out of the transportation committee today."

Liu's office has not yet returned requests for comment. But here's what we know.

• When a previous version of this bill surfaced in the council in 2006, John Liu was a co-sponsor.
  
• Last September, Liu joined Yassky and Tish James on the steps of City Hall to call for better bike access to buildings. Rally speakers noted the odd aversion many building owners display toward letting bikes inside office buildings, and the manifold benefits of legislation to correct that bias.
  
• In March, Liu switched from the crowded public advocate race to the somewhat less crowded comptroller race, in which he faces two other candidates from Queens -- and Yassky.
• At the last transportation committee hearing on the bill, Liu started questioning whether DOT should have jurisdiction over bicycle access to buildings. No one else on the committee voiced similar concerns. DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and Buildings Commissioner Robert LiMandri assured Liu that their agencies would have it covered.
• Today, Liu's committee did not meet and advance the bill despite the widespread expectation that it would do so.
  

The next opportunity to move the bill will come in July, when the full City Council is scheduled to hold a stated meeting. "David and a variety of advocates have worked hard on this bill, a bill that will reduce congestion, carbon emissions, and improve public health," Kanner said. "It should pass."

Last September, John Liu stood on the steps of City Hall to support bicycle access to buildings. Will he follow through on that commitment?

We Are Not There Yet -- Bicycle Access to Buildings Bill in Jeopardy

Your voices are needed. Now! With the expected passage of the Bicycle Access to Buildings Bill slated to take place at tomorrow’s City Council meeting, we are concerned to learn that there still may be some strong opposition to the bill. Please immediately call Council Member John Liu, chair of the Transportation Committee, and let him know that you support this bill and that we need his support too!

Information:
Council Member John Liu
Chair, Transportation Committee
City Hall office: 212-788-7022
District office: 718-888-8747

Advocates have been fighting for this legislation for years. Its passage would make it much easier for thousands of cyclists to ride to work -- boosting bike commuting by as much as 50 percent -- and one last push from supporters can help put it over the top.

Will the real John Liu please stand up? The councilman plays to the crowd at last year's Tour de Queens. Photo: qmaparks/Flickr.

Before I get to that, a little explanation is in order about the current status of the bill. This is the second committee hearing on Intro 871. It's been reworked substantially in the seven months since the first hearing, with both transportation advocates and the real estate industry weighing in. The bill has also been tweaked since Streetsblog posted the revised text earlier this month. I don't have the most up-to-date version available, but based on today's testimony, there are two notable changes:

• The bill now clearly states that building owners can claim an exemption if "secure" bike parking is available nearby. This should close a potential loophole in previous language, which granted exemptions for buildings near "sheltered" bike parking. That's the good news.
• The bad news: The bill no longer requires buildings that have a passenger elevator but no freight elevator to provide bicycle access. Previously, any building with a passenger elevator big enough to accommodate a bike had to comply.

The current legislation is still strong enough to merit the support of transportation advocates, but the loss of passenger elevator access is significant. Said bill sponsor David Yassky, "My hope is that at some point in the future, the bill will be amended to include passenger elevators." We have a request in with the Department of Buildings to determine how many buildings this exemption would affect.

Most of the questioning and testimony this morning centered around enforcement. Intro 871 relies on a "tenant-driven" process: Building owners have to provide bike access if a tenant requests it, and they may deny the request if their freight elevator can't accommodate bikes. Council Member Daniel Garodnick suggested that the final bill should spell out exactly how the city will determine whether building owners have legitimate reasons for denying access. Sadik-Khan agreed.

This addressed one of the major shortcomings Liu found in the bill, but the committee chair wasn't satisfied. In a long, combative exchange with Sadik-Khan, he questioned why DOT "is involved in this bill in the first place." Sadik-Khan and Buildings Commissioner Robert LiMandri had already explained that DOT and DOB would jointly monitor compliance with the bill. Undeterred, Liu launched into a digressive speech about the city's lack of enforcement of "stoop-side stand" regulations. Claiming that sidewalk vending stands present a pedestrian safety hazard, he accused DOT of "inconsistency" for proposing to inspect bicycle access to buildings while leaving stoop-side stands unmonitored. Liu, it should be noted, has vocally opposed the pedestrian safety improvements underway in Times Square.

While the committee chair was dragging out the proceedings, two bike commuters sitting next to me left the council chamber before they had a chance to testify in favor of the bill. They had to get back to work.

During the MTA funding debate, Liu was also a vocal opponent of bridge tolls, a stark about-face given his early support for congestion pricing. Tonight you can see the new John Liu in action, when he makes an appearance on NY1's Road to City Hall at 7 p.m. The topic: Broadway's new pedestrian spaces, a transformation Liu pounced on as soon as the plan was announced.

If you're going to tonight's BRT workshop in the Bronx instead, you can catch the NY1 show again at 10:00 p.m.

Alan Gerson.

Itching to tell DOT what you think of recent changes to Lower Manhattan streets? You can tonight at 6:30, when the second installment in Alan Gerson's "Traffic Town Hall" series gets underway at Old St. Pat's Gym (near 275 Mulberry Street).

Fellow Council Member John Liu, running for citywide office in the crowded comptroller race, is also scheduled to put in an appearance, and Manhattan DOT Commissioner Margaret Forgione will be on hand to soak it all up.

Publicity materials for the event frame it as a chance to "present your views and ideas" to DOT. At the first Gerson town hall, this translated into griping about pedestrian refuges, bike lanes, and other safety measures. Tonight's agenda invites more of the same: The critical issue of "traffic islands" gets top billing on the docket.

Sidewalks where children's lives are at risk from reckless drivers, even when parents and teachers are right there next to them? That seems not to have made the cut.

Last Tuesday, May 5, in honor of World Asthma Day and Idle-Free NYC Day, clean air advocates gathered at City Hall to mark the passage of Council Member John Liu's Intro. 631, which limits the amount of time drivers are allowed to idle near schools to one minute. Streetfilms' Robin Urban Smith files this report, which includes details of an anti-idling curriculum for fourth and seventh graders from Livable Streets Education and Asthma Free School Zone.

In related news, Senator Daniel Squadron has announced a bill calling for a statewide one minute idling restriction for "heavy-duty vehicles." And today there will be a rally in Manhattan to celebrate the adoption of Intro. 631 and to launch the West Side Clean Air Campaign, which, among other goals, aims to ensure that charter buses and car services obey the new law. The rally kicks off with a press conference at 3 p.m. at the P.S. 111 playground on 52nd St. between 9th and 10th Aves.

It's safer to cross Grand Street. The arrogance!

Lower Manhattan City Council rep Alan Gerson held a "transportation town hall" Monday night, following up on his pledge last year to closely monitor creeping safety enhancements to New York streets. Fellow City Council member John Liu, a candidate for comptroller, also made an appearance at the forum.

Based on a report in the Lo-Down, a new blog covering the Lower East Side, the session successfully gathered up ideas from ill-informed cranks:

The Grand Street bike lanes and center islands installed last year were ridiculed by several residents of Co-op Village. Harold Jacob accused DOT Commissioner Margaret Forgione of lying when she told him the center median was installed because pedestrians had been killed by cars on Grand Street. Jacob said he believed the changes had, in fact, made the street more dangerous. Because there is less room to maneuver, Jacob claimed fire trucks and ambulances can't safely pass through. "You've actually put lives in danger," he told DOT officials.

Another resident contended the islands, opposed by Community Board 3,  were "arrogantly conceived and arrogantly carried out." More than one speaker blamed Mayor Bloomberg, accusing him of "destroying Grand Street." Some people demanded that the medians be removed -- others wanted the bike lanes eliminated.

A quick CrashStat check reveals that, contrary to Mr. Jacob's gut assertion, several people have been killed by autos while walking on Grand Street in recent years. Co-op Village, like many other housing developments in the area, is home to a big senior population. Those pedestrian refuges make Grand Street safer to cross and less intimidating to older New Yorkers. Rolling back critical safety improvements that improve seniors' quality of life -- is that really the kind of "community input" that Gerson wants to align himself with?