Streetsblog New York City

A physically separated busway won't be coming to 34th Street. Will New York City bus riders ever get one? Image: NYC DOT

The walkback of the city’s plans for 34th Street from a physically separated transitway to a package of painted lanes and bus bulbs was unquestionably a defeat for bus riders on the extremely congested street. While features like off-board fare payment, scheduled to go into effect this summer, will provide a speed boost to buses, riders won’t be able to go crosstown as quickly as if they had lanes free from encroachment.

What does the city’s decision on 34th Street mean for the future of bus rapid transit across the rest of the city, however? We spoke with two transit advocates to find out.

It seems likely that without physical separation on 34th Street, there won’t be physical separation on any bus lanes implemented before the end of the Bloomberg Administration. (The remaining routes in the city’s first phase of BRT rollout — on the Nostrand Avenue corridor in Brooklyn and Hylan Boulevard in Staten Island — are scheduled to debut in the next two years and do not include physically separated lanes.) Preliminary plans for the 34th Street route were first presented to the public in April 2008, a full three years ago, and the planning process for the project is scheduled to continue through the end of 2011. At that rate, any physically separated bus project would be at least partially under the authority of a new mayor and new DOT.

“A number of the environmental and transportation groups are starting to recognize that the next administration after Bloomberg is going to have to answer to us on where they stand on these issues that have been wildly popular for New Yorkers,” said Kate Slevin of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign.

Though a new physically separated busway is unlikely to be constructed in the next three years, said Joan Byron of the Pratt Center for Community Development, “Planning can happen and dialogue with stakeholders can happen that make it a lot more likely that the next phase is gets built and has those features.” Byron said she hopes that the BRT team at DOT can assemble a coalition along its next routes that can politically lock in full-featured bus improvements. “There are workers and residents and employers in the outer boroughs who would love to have this problem of a Select Bus route running by their door,” she said.

Read more…

Yesterday, several planning and environmental organizations joined Transportation Alternatives on the steps of City Hall to tout the release of "Suburbanizing the City" [PDF], the new report that critiques New York City's off-street parking policies. The coalition is similar -- but not identical -- to the array of groups that pushed for congestion pricing earlier this year. Their testimony highlighted the range of benefits that off-street parking reform would deliver, from mitigating tailpipe emissions to reducing housing costs.

Planning advocates recommended doing away with parking requirements and "unbundling" the cost of parking from the price of housing. "There's no reason for parking to be paid for by people who don't own cars," said Tri-State Transportation Campaign director Kate Slevin, adding that the construction of parking should be "a choice rather than a necessity."

Minimum parking requirements are especially ill-suited to affordable housing developments, said Elena Conte of the Pratt Center for Community Development (pictured at the mic). "[A parking minimum] really makes no sense at all for communities where less than 20 percent of households own cars, because it drives up the cost of housing and takes up valuable space that otherwise could be used to create additional units or public space."

Bus-ted! In London, automated enforcement has led to significant improvements in bus service.

A package of legislation recently introduced in the state legislature would help speed New York City buses and enable traffic agents to cite drivers for blocking the box. Members of the Campaign for New York's Future, the same coalition that fought for congestion pricing, are meeting with elected officials in Albany today. Streetsbloggers can lend support by contacting your representatives in the Senate and Assembly.

Here's what's on the table, as noted in the Campaign's press release:

• Bus camera legislation (S7229 Golden / A10233 Bing), which would allow for the installation of enforcement cameras on buses to deter cars from using bus-only lanes.
• “Block the Box” legislation (S6811 Lanza / A10071 Kavanagh), which would reclassify blocking the box infractions as parking violations, thereby allowing traffic enforcement agents (and not only police officers) to issue tickets and enhance enforcement.

Given that New York City DOT and the MTA are, for the most part, not creating physically-separated bus lanes as is done in cities like Bogota, Colombia and Paris, France, bus-mounted cameras will be essential to keep lanes clear and make BRT routes truly rapid. In a statement, Tri-State Tranportation Campaign director Kate Slevin said, "The Campaign strongly supports photo devices that capture violators in bus lanes because they will enable speedier commutes for bus riders even when police officers are not able to be present."

In addition to calling, you can urge support for these bills online through the New York League of Conservation Voters.

If only a zoning amendment could retroactively require the New York Times Building to provide bike parking.

Some interesting nuggets are coming out of DOT bike coordinator Josh Benson's ongoing Q & A with readers of the Times' City Room blog. In yesterday's installment, Benson outlined upcoming additions to the Queens bike network: 

In Queens, specifically, we have a number of bike lane projects either under way or on the drawing board for the coming months, including:

• 35th Street, Astoria (1.7 miles)
• Linden Boulevard, St. Albans (3 miles)
• Sunnyside Connector to the Queensboro Bridge, Woodside, Sunnyside, Sunnyside Gardens (5.2 miles)
• Vernon Boulevard, Long Island City, Astoria (7 miles).

Then, responding to a question about the need for more indoor bike parking, he said a zoning amendment to mandate bike amenities in or around certain buildings is in the works (no sure thing, of course, but certainly encouraging). A City Planning spokeswoman told Streetsblog the department is aiming to introduce the amendment by the end of this year. Benson's full response comes after the jump.

With all eyes on the governor's Fifth Avenue apartment, congestion pricing supporters are nevertheless soldiering on. The Empire State Transportation Alliance is one of several groups in Albany today, trying to get lawmakers' attention despite what has been described as a "surreal" atmosphere. [Insert "Yeah, and?" joke here.]

From an ESTA media release:

Principals underscored the vital need for the innovative measure to help fund the MTA's recently released 2008 - 2013 Capital Plan. The $29.5 billion dollar program recently submitted to the legislature as required under congestion pricing legislation relies on $4.5 billion in bonding capacity over the next five years to expand travel options in all five boroughs and the region's suburbs.

ESTA principals in Albany include: Chris Ward, Managing Director, General Contractors Association; Kate Slevin, Executive Director, Tri-State Transportation Campaign; Chris Jones, Vice President of Research, Regional Plan Association; Jim Melius, New York State Laborer's Union, Rich Kassel, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; Bill Henderson, Executive Director, Permanent Citizens Advisory Committee to the MTA; and Eric Alexander, Executive Director, Vision Long Island.

Efforts will continue next Tuesday, when busloads of pricing advocates will head to the capital. Buses will depart at 6:15 a.m. from the Central Labor Council at 31 W. 15th St. More info here and here. RSVP ASAP.

Reactions were mixed to yesterday's MTA fare hike approval. That is to say -- with the exception of the New York Post -- there was enough criticism to go around as to generally avoid repetition.

The Daily News, which has pounded the transit agency with its "Halt the Hike" series ("Even as the MTA is poised to stick straphangers with a fat fare hike, Chief Executive Lee Sander went shopping for a new necktie yesterday"), called the fare increase "the great train robbery of 2007," and characterized Sander and new Chairman H. Dale Hemmerdinger as puppets of Mayor Bloomberg and Governor Spitzer.

There was a time when MTA bosses were independent, standup people who represented the riders, even if only in losing battles with governors, Legislatures and mayors. Men like Dick Ravitch and Peter Kalikow come to mind.

At this point in their relatively young tenures, Hemmerdinger and Sander pale in comparison.

They are order takers, dictated to by Spitzer and Bloomberg, who have assumed full personal ownership of this fare hike.

New MetroCards should come bearing photographs of the governor and the mayor, like on wanted posters, including their records.

Also in the News, Gene Russianoff of the Straphangers Campaign, while critical of the hikes, says transit customers have reason for hope in the promises made by Spitzer and other pols, including Assembly Member Richard Brodsky, that more state aid is forthcoming. Russianoff also thinks further hikes will be politically infeasible for the next several years.

Read more...

State Assembly Member Richard Brodsky is displeased by the suggestion that his opposition to New York City's congestion pricing plan had anything to do with the fact that he has accepted more money from parking industry interests than any other State Assembly Member and that his district houses the wealthiest Manhattan car commuters in New York State.

This entire line of discussion, Brodsky says in this letter to Tri-State Transportation Campaign executive director Kate Slevin, represents the deterioration of of public and political discourse and "the politics of personal destruction." Brodsky believes that despite their numerous, detailed studies over the last few years, congestion pricing advocates have failed to address the substance of his objections. It's not exactly clear what Slevin wrote that so offended Brodsky. Tri-State addresses Assembly Members' congestion pricing falsehoods in this article.

Here is his letter to Slevin:

July 13, 2007

Ms. Kate Slevin
350 W. 31st Street, Suite 802
New York, NY 10001

Dear Ms. Slevin:

I've read your Statement entitled Asemblymember Brodsky and Councilmember Weprin: Fighting for the People, or for Parkings Special Interests? and after much reflection, I'm writing to you about it.

The substance of my concerns about the Mayor's various congestion pricing proposals are set forth in the Interim Report: An Inquiry into Congestion Pricing as Proposed in PlaNYC 2030 and S.6068. The Report was the result of six weeks of analysis and careful consideration. It sets forth my deeply held concerns about the use of pricing mechanisms to distribute public goods, invasion of privacy, regressiveness, and the elimination of SEQR and public health protections, practical concerns about air quality in neighborhoods surrounding the Zone, toll offsets, and exemptions for taxicabs, and pointed out that the legislation doesn't require the revenues to be used for capital mass transit, does not put into place mass transit improvements prior to implementation, does not contain any privacy protections, and is not a pilot program. I trust you read the Interim Report before you issued your Statement. I assume that you will offer criticism of the substance of the Report at some point, and as always, I welcome any thoughtful critique of my work and views.

Along with many other thoughtful Americans, I have watched with dismay, distress, and ultimately disgust as public and political discourse has deteriorated. What Senator Clinton has rightly called the politics of personal destruction has become commonplace. Attack on motive and character are substituted for argument about ideas and values. It's wrong, we should not participate in it, and when we see it we should call it by its name.

What could be worse than replacing neighborhood parks with private parking decks, built with the specific intent of increasing car trips by the tens of thousands through a community already suffering from so much disease-causing pollution that its nickname is "Asthma Alley"?

How about forcing afflicted residents to help foot the bill?

That's what could happen in the South Bronx, courtesy of the New York City Industrial Development Agency (IDA) and the New York Yankees.

Though the sweetheart deal orchestrated to fund a new stadium for the richest team in baseball went off with barely a hitch -- including the seizure of public park land, accomplished in just eight days -- construction of the planned parking decks for the new facility has been another matter.

Apparently recognizing the decks as a losing proposition, no private developer wants to build them. So to get things rolling, the IDA -- the financing arm of the NYC Economic Development Corporation -- is now set to award some $186 million in triple tax-exempt bonds for deck construction to a group called the Community Initiatives Development Corporation (CIDC), a non-profit that sets up tax-free loan packages.

In testimony from last week regarding the deck plan, Bettina Damiani of Good Jobs New York (GJNY) offered an analysis of how the project made its way to the CIDC, which has set up a 'local' Bronx division (BCIDC) for the stadium deal:

Despite the fact that these garages went through an official Request For Proposal the financing structure and selection process has the appearance of yet another backroom subsidy deal. BCIDC president William Loewenstein is a strategic partner of lobbying powerhouse Stadtmauer Bailkin, LLP, which specializes in securing public subsidies for its clients. The firm's promotional materials identified him as such until last fall. Stadtmauer Bailkin is listed on the IDA's core application as the attorney of CIDC.

This is a very tidy loop. Stadtmauer lobbies City Hall on behalf of Central Parking Systems, the business claiming it will operate the parking lots. Stadtmauer needs no introduction here. One of its managing directors has promoted herself as having written incentive guidelines as an employee of the New York City Economic Development Corporation. And the firm's incentive procurement practice was recently renamed Biggins Lacy Shapiro & Co. Jay Biggins is a former executive director of NYCEDC. CIDC's senior vice president Joseph Seymour is the former executive director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.

The proposed deck plan would push total subsidies for the new Yankee Stadium to somewhere north of $400 million, according to GJNY. It would also increase the current parking stock by 55 percent, even as plans for a new Metro-North station to serve the park languish for lack of funding.

All of which smacks of hypocrisy to Kate Slevin, associate director of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, who also submitted testimony to the IDA:

In January, Mayor Bloomberg announced his PlanYC initiative, which envisions a city in 2030 with faster travel times, more green space, and with the cleanest air of any big city in the USA. Providing more public subsidies for parking garages -- especially when funds for a transit station are precarious at best -- flies in the face of these goals. It's hard to take an initiative like PlanYC seriously when the city is throwing money at parking for a transit-oriented site like Yankee Stadium. 

In the interest of equal time, the Mets are encouraging fans to use transit for today's home opener -- at least while construction of their new stadium continues to take away parking. To avoid the 'shortage' during last year's playoffs, nearly half of Mets fans attended the games without their cars -- proving that even if you don't build it, they will come.

Note: Prior to publication, Streetsblog contacted Deputy Mayor Dan Doctoroff's office for comment on this story. Mr. Doctoroff could not immediately be reached.

 Image: duluoz cats via Flickr

A Broken Street: Broadway north of Houston St. on an August Friday. New Yorkers want the Mayor to fix it.

The so-called "greatest city in the world" doesn't even have decently-paved streets, let alone cutting edge transportation features like bus rapid transit, neighborhood traffic calming plans or bicycle-friendly avenues. It may be time to consider planning and transportation policy as Board of Education-type problems, where a top-to-bottom overhaul of city agencies is needed.

-- Jon Orcutt, executive director, Tri-State Transportation Campaign.

An important new survey says that New Yorkers believe that traffic congestion is a major problem plaguing New York City and that Mayor Michael Bloomberg is dong an inadequate job in addressing it.

According to the Tri-State Transportation Campaign's telephone survey of 800 New Yorkers:

59% of New Yorkers say the mayor is doing only a "fair" to "poor" job of reducing traffic jams and delays on city streets, highways and bridges. On only one other issue, increasing the stock of affordable housing, does the Mayor receive a higher net negative rating (60%). Mayor Bloomberg receives the highest net positive marks for keeping parks clean and safe (63%) and reducing crime (57%).

These findings come from a random telephone survey of 800 New York City residents in the five boroughs conducted May 19 through June 4, 2006, by Michaels Opinion Research. "The daily grind of gridlock and its impact rarely makes headlines, but the survey results show that New Yorkers have strong opinions about the problem and expect more action from Mayor Bloomberg to solve it," said Maureen Michaels, president of Michaels Opinion Research.

Discontent with the Mayor's performance on traffic congestion cuts across most segments of the city's population, but residents of Staten Island appear especially angry about traffic jams and delays 82% give an overall negative rating to the mayor, despite his announcement of a new transportation plan for the borough this spring.

• While 62% of motor vehicle owners give the Mayor a negative rating on reducing traffic jams and delays throughout the city, non-vehicle owners are not satisfied with his performance either (56% negative), nor are those who drive to work (70% negative).
• Dissatisfaction with the Mayor's performance on traffic issues also cuts across age and income groups, though a solid third of middle and upper income residents give intensely negative ratings (33%-36% rate the job he is doing on traffic issues as "poor").
• And among the working population, 59% of those who work below 60th Street in Manhattan and 67% of those working outside Manhattan say the Mayor has done, at best, a fair-to-poor job reducing traffic on city streets, highways and bridges.

"Let's face it, the Bloomberg administration has accomplished next to nothing on traffic problems since taking office. A few potentially promising initiatives, like speeding buses through traffic and enforcing truck routes, seem stuck as endless studies," said Kate Slevin, associate director of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, sponsor of the survey project.

Download the full report, here.

Video still by Clarence Eckerson