The Schleppie came five days after several prominent New York City Democrats lent their support to the Nostrand Avenue Merchants Association at a small press event protesting plans to upgrade B44 service. Brooklyn's first Select Bus Service corridor is slated for Nostrand and Rogers Avenue, with implementation projected for 2011. The package of improvements would alleviate exactly the problems that B44 riders put up with.

In light of the B44's new Schleppie, I called Council Member Tish James, whose office sent out the alert for Saturday's presser, to get her views on enhancing bus service. While James said she favors bus improvements, she made her support for Select Bus Service conditional. "Given the poor service and the lack of reliability I believe we need to improve service," she said. "At the same time, we have to balance the interests of businesses and improving mass transit."

How much longer will B44 riders have to wait for more reliable service?

While James said DOT has informed her the Nostrand Avenue configuration would differ from Select Bus Service on Fordham Road in the Bronx -- which converted a curbside parking lane to an exclusive bus lane -- she wants the agency to show merchants a specific plan.

A sit-down is in the works: Her office has arranged a meeting between business owners and DOT, which she says the agency put off until after Tuesday's election. And James seemed to agree that apprehension about a new street configuration shouldn't stand in the way of better service for bus riders. "I understand that people are afraid to embrace change," she said. "That's why we need to assuage their concerns."

James spoke most forcefully when I suggested that, judging from the comments of merchants association head Lindiwe Kamau, business owners might let their attachment to convenient personal parking spots guide their opinion of bus improvements. "I'm not concerned about people having to walk two blocks from where they parked," she said. "We don't need guaranteed parking in New York."

Out of three Brooklyn City Council members Streetsblog contacted about Nostrand Avenue bus improvements, James was the only one to return phone calls. Council members Mathieu Eugene and Al Vann, whose districts are also served by the B44, have not answered requests for comment.

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

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

Dear Mayor Bloomberg, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,     
David Yassky   Bill de Blasio    Letitia James

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Prospect Park Youth Advocates led a joyous procession over the Brooklyn Bridge yesterday afternoon on their way to deliver more than 10,000 letters to Mayor Bloomberg in support of a car-free park. The youth advocates and students from Freedom Academy and the Brooklyn Academy for Science and the Environment were joined on the steps of City Hall by council members Tish James and David Yassky, calling for a Prospect Park that is "safe, healthy, green, and absolutely car-free."

After leading a call-and-response of "No more cars -- Where? -- In Prospect Park" at the head of the procession (backed by the strains of the Brooklyn Steppers Marching Band), youth advocate Oswald Bowman gave the opening remarks. "I don't have a backyard, but I do have Prospect Park; Prospect Park is my backyard," he said. "I don't know about you guys, but I don't like no one driving through my backyard."

Bowman and fellow youth advocates Michael Cheng and Farah Karimova spoke about gathering signatures and documenting the hazards of cars in the park this summer. Transportation Alternatives' Paul Steely White gave three reasons why Bloomberg should heed their message (download a PDF) and instruct DOT to institute a three-month car-free trial:

• Park users face a potentially deadly risk from cars, which travel on the loop drive at speeds as high as 47 mph and sneak into the park during car-free hours when people have been lulled into a sense of security.
  
• The presence of cars in the park suppresses physical activity, taking up space during the hours before and after work and school when people have free time.
  
• Closing the park to cars will not result in unacceptable traffic impacts.

This last point was echoed by Yassky, who noted that previous expansions of car-free hours have not yielded the excessive traffic on nearby streets that opponents predicted. "The best evidence of why we should have a car-free Prospect Park is that we're already halfway there and it has been tremendous," he said. "We have seen it work part of the way, now let's do it all the way."

And now for more photos. (You'll have to wait for Robin Urban Smith's Streetfilm for some audio and video of the Steppers. In the meantime, you can see their 2005 incarnation in Dave Chappelle's Block Party.)

Photos: Ben Fried

At the first part of today's congestion pricing hearings, Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan and Rohit Aggarwala, director of the Office for Long-Term Planning and Sustainability, fielded questions from the City Council's nine-member State and Federal Legislation Committee. Several other Council members, including Speaker Christine Quinn, were also there to ask questions, and the chamber was packed with supporters of both pro- and anti-pricing groups.

The hearing followed word this morning that State Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno has introduced a congestion pricing bill in Albany -- the same legislation that Governor Paterson announced on Friday, which is based on the recommendations of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission. Quinn began the proceedings with a short but full-throated speech in support of pricing, saying, "The benefits so far outweigh any of the negatives, the concept of inaction is simply, in my opinion, not an option. We have to seize this moment to create a sustainable revenue source for mass transit." Then, after Sadik-Khan delivered her comments (which got big applause), the Council members started popping questions.

Two Council members who have not declared a position on pricing took part in the Q&A during the time I was there to observe. One was Larry Seabrook, a Bronx Democrat who has been identified as a possible swing vote on the committee. "How are we going to say these projects won't stay on the drawing board for another 30 years?" he asked, referring to projects in the MTA capital plan targeted for the Bronx.

Sadik-Khan assured him about the lock box language in the current bill, adding, "I don't see any other way to fund the projects that your district so desperately needs without the revenues from the congestion pricing program." Seabrook repeated his position that the lock box must be ironclad, but appeared satisfied that his concerns had been addressed, wrapping up by thanking the commissioner for considering his district.

The other undecided Council member was Tish James, who represents Fort Greene and Clinton Hill. James first asked if low-income New Yorkers, especially those who have to make trips to Manhattan hospitals, would receive any discount under the current plan. Aggarwala responded by pointing out that most New Yorkers rely on transit or for-hire vehicles to make hospital trips. The transit riders will receive better service, he said, and cab fare will be lower as a result of reduced travel times, yielding a de facto drop in the cost of hospital trips.

James also reiterated Anthony Weiner's claim that pricing will give the federal government an excuse to reduce transit funding for New York, but seemed to back down from that position after Sadik-Khan and Aggarwala rebutted it. "What gave me consolation is that [the Bush] administration is a lame duck and their days are numbered," James said.

Stay tuned for more highlights, and don't forget tonight's hearing, when the council will receive public testimony.

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

A crowd of nearly 200 filed into the auditorium at St. Francis College in downtown Brooklyn last night, ready to pop a few questions to DOT about residential parking programs. But first, three of Brooklyn's City Council members gave some of their first public comments since the Congestion Mitigation Commission delivered its final recommendations last week.

David Yassky kept his speech short, pretty much sticking to the sentiment that RPP is good because it will "give neighborhood residents first crack at the parking spots on residential streets."

Tish James, who had previously expressed support for congestion pricing if RPP was attached, staked out the position that Fort Greene, Clinton Hill, and Prospect Heights -- her district -- should all be covered by RPP, regardless of what happens to pricing. (This foreshadowed a major theme of the evening -- fear that one's neighborhood would be left outside looking in when the RPP boundaries are drawn.) James then ran through her "wish list related to congestion pricing," which ranged far and wide, including: capital improvements to transit ("the G train sucks"), taxi stands, more bike lanes, ending placard abuse, and re-instating the commuter tax. It wasn't exactly clear at the end where she now stands on pricing itself.

Bill de Blasio opened by saying, "I need to see complete, tangible, absolute progress on RPP before I can think of supporting congestion pricing." He then proposed that RPP zones should be allowed to sprout all over the city in neighborhoods near subway lines, to deter park-and-ride behavior. At one point he delivered some provocative rhetoric about weaning ourselves from the automobile, preparing for a different future, and changing our habits. But his verdict on pricing? "We don't expect the current plan on the table to pass."

When DOT Deputy Commissioner Bruce Schaller and his team took the stage, they were somewhat on the defensive. A Windsor Terrace man (who later identified himself as the chair of Community Board 7) had accused the previous speaker, Joanne Simon of the Boerum Hill Association, of "drawing a line around her neighborhood." The offense: Simon had showed the audience a map of the 2004 downtown Brooklyn RPP study, which applied to Boerum Hill, Brooklyn Heights, and parts of Fort Greene.

So Schaller took pains say that RPP would be available to many neighborhoods on an opt-in basis. Though not every neighborhood would be eligible, Schaller reacted favorably to de Blasio's idea of mapping RPP zones near subway lines. He recapped DOT's recent neighborhood parking workshops and outlined the four basic RPP options DOT is currently weighing. In a straw poll at the end of the event, almost everyone in the audience, except for the Windsor Terrace contingent, said they wanted some form of RPP. The most popular variant was DOT's Option A.

A few interesting nuggets came out of the Q & A session between the audience and Schaller's team, though many questions were more interesting for the attitudes revealed than any information brought to light. Here are some highlights:

Q: When will there be a pilot program?
A: If congestion pricing goes according to plan, a test RPP program would go into effect prior to spring 2009.

Q: What political authorization is necessary to proceed with RPP?
A: The city can implement a temporary pilot on its own, but it needs state approval for a permanent RPP program.

Q: Will DOT hold forums in Sunset Park, Windsor Terrace, and other neighborhoods?
A: DOT wants to be in touch with neighborhoods and anticipates talking to different Community Boards about RPP.

Q: How will boundaries be determined?
A: DOT will look to community boards to help decide. The size of a zone should be reasonably compact, conforming to notions of what a neighborhood is (i.e. not just a few square blocks, but not half the borough either).

Q: Why give local employees permits at all?
A: One view is that they contribute to the local economy and should be accommodated, another is that they should take transit or park off-street like other non-residents. Some sort of balance based on the context of the neighborhood is probably desirable.

Q: Won't the only stores that can withstand RPP be big boxes and those with big parking lots?
A: No, most people who shop at local merchants are already parking at meters, so RPP wouldn't affect them. (That was the answer given; no one said anything about all the people who walk, bike, or take transit to shop and eat out.)

Q: What about people whose cars are registered outside the neighborhood in order to get cheaper car insurance -- will they be eligible for permits?
A: There was no firm answer to this at first, then a consensus seemed to emerge that RPP permits should be based on where cars are registered, which would bring insurance cheats in line.

Q: What steps will be taken to ensure that permits are not loaned, stolen, or sold?
A: They will have the license plate or vehicle registration number on them.

The town hall-style meeting will focus on whether the permits, which would probably cost a small annual fee, could help alleviate curbside parking problems and traffic in Downtown. Council Members David Yassky, Laetitia James and Bill de Blasio have organized the event, which is expected to draw several hundred residents, and DOT commish Janette Sadik-Khan is scheduled to attend. Councilman de Blasio sees the forum as the first step in developing parking strategies for all of Brooklyn. "Lack of a coherent parking strategy has been an ongoing problem in Brooklyn," de Blasio told us. "I think this forum represents a step in the right direction, and I look forward to extending this conversation to communities throughout the borough."

As John Kaehny wrote on Streetsblog last month, bringing a different perspective to these events can change the tenor of the debate:

One person can make a big difference at these workshops.

At the first round of workshops held late last year, I was the only non-car owner at my table of eight at Harlem's Alhambra Ballroom. But me being there changed the discussion from one of endless demands for more free parking space -- which I heard at another table, as my group was being organized -- to a more considered discussion of the implications of DOT's proposed changes.

By the end, a majority of the motorists at my table supported DOT's suggested changes. More than half of the households in New York City do not have a car. But non-motorists should have a say in the parking changes that affect them as bicyclists, bus riders, pedestrians and people who breathe the air. Take a couple of hours and show up. Your voice will be heard.

About 60 people came to Medgar Evers College in Crown Heights and weighed in on the five options presented in the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission's interim report. It quickly became clear that the evening was really a referendum on the two pricing proposals in the report; none of the other options were viewed as viable. By the time it was over, half the audience had testified before commission members Elizabeth Yeampierre, Andrea Batista Schlesinger, and Gene Russianoff. (Richard Brodsky, who came to the Brooklyn hearing instead of the one closest to his Westchester district, left before it ended and missed several pieces of testimony.)

Most encouraging for pricing advocates: Several residents without any group affiliation testified, expressing a unanimous desire for better transit, cleaner air, and safer streets. Congestion pricing, they said, was the surest means to achieve those objectives. (Noah Budnick of Transportation Alternatives emailed us to report that pro-pricing speakers out-numbered anti- in the Bronx and Queens as well.)

But first the elected officials spoke, leading off with Congressman Anthony Weiner. In his allotted four minutes, he repeated the canard that congestion pricing is a conservative ploy to enact a "radical change and reduction in the amount of [federal] transit funding we receive." Then Council Member Lew Fidler and Assemblymen Hakeem Jeffries, Vito Lopez, Alan Maisel, and Alec Brook-Krasny each took a turn to bash both pricing proposals (their most common refrain: "too Manhattan-centric").

The one semi-exception among electeds was Council Member Tish James...

who skipped the meeting but had an aide read a statement that in order to curb asthma rates, "residential parking permits are an absolute necessity" for any areas immediately outside the congestion zone. Many of the community board reps and neighborhood association members who followed echoed that argument, offering support if a permit plan was attached to pricing, because they feared a park-and-ride spillover effect.

The non-profits in attendance came out strongly in favor of the commission's alternative pricing plan (which would raise more money at a lower cost than the Mayor's plan), countering the assertions of previous speakers with hard numbers. Here's a snippet delivered by Wiley Norvell of TA:

Congestion pricing will benefit the entire city, not just Manhattan. Nearly three-quarters of the congestion reduction from pricing will take place outside Manhattan. 40% of traffic in the neighborhoods of Downtown Brooklyn is from Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridge-bound motorists avoiding the Battery Tunnel toll. Congestion pricing, by equalizing tolls, will cut congestion and finally give traffic relief to neighborhoods adjacent to the free bridges. It is estimated that pricing will reduce traffic by 29% in Downtown Brooklyn and by 24% in North Brooklyn. That is staggering.

Personal note: While the pricing advocates were testifying, I was in a politician sandwich, sitting between two pairs of electeds, and could overhear their snickering and backslapping.

When the "ordinary people" got their chance to speak, they also endorsed the alternative pricing plan by a wide margin. The politicians had already left at that point, a fact that wasn't lost on Sunset Park resident Kay Young. "I have to note the seeming disconnect between our elected officials and everyone else," he said.

They haven't done their homework. They cite no statistics, just general specters. The fact that they left is unbelievable. They didn't even stay to listen to their constituents.

Spencer Wilking reports:

The city's traveling road show of community advocates, local politicians and concerned residents, otherwise known as New York City's Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission, stopped in Brooklyn Thursday night as part of its whirlwind seven county tour.

At the hearing Brooklyn politicians delivered a resounding rejection of Mayor Bloomberg's plan for congestion pricing. From the Assembly (Joan Millman and Hakeem Jefferies) to the State Senate (Velmanette Montgomery and Carl Kruger) to the City Council (Vincent Gentile and Lew Fidler), to a candidate for Borough President (Bill de Blasio) they strode to the podium and railed against the plan calling it "Manhattan-centric" and bad for Brooklyn. Except for Councilmember David Yassky (who with great dexterity managed to support congestion pricing AND agree with his fellow Brooklyn politicos), endorsements for congestion pricing were left to residents and advocates. Council member Leticia James came close to supporting it but just couldn't do it, "at this time."

Brooklyn politicians voiced concern that their borough would become a "park and ride" community for those headed across the East River, clogging already crowded streets. They demanded the inclusion of residential parking permits to spurn this practice. Likewise, the usual argument that congestion pricing is an unfair tax on poor and working class families was cited more than once.

"I don't want to be known as an Assembly person from the largest parking lot in New York City," said Assembly member Joan Millman. "This will punish hardworking New Yorkers who live in the outer boroughs."

Millman, whose district is, literally, the tip of Long Island's traffic funnel into Lower Manhattan, crushed on a daily basis by regional through-traffic, went on to say that buildings, not vehicles were the true culprits of air pollution.

Instead of the current congestion pricing plan, politicians demanded better bus routes, more water taxis, advancements in the hybrid car, HOV lanes and a harbor freight tunnel for trucks. The need for improved subway service was a common lament, summed up by Council member Tish James, "For the record: The G train sucks."

Specific funding for these ventures was left mostly ambiguous, or as Council member Vincent Gentile put it: "The State legislature can find some options."

Unlike Commission members Vivian Cook and Denny Farrell, Richard Robbins' daughter was at the hearing.

Councilmember Bill de Blasio, like Millman, represents a district heavily burdened by regional traffic congestion. But he has his sights set on Brooklyn Borough Hall these days. So, after complimenting fellow Brooklyn Council member Lew Fidler's "bold" plan to raise payroll taxes, build three new tunnels, and wait for General Motors to sell hydrogen cars, De Blasio noted that Bloomberg's plan lacked guarantees and was executed in the last throes of its administration. "I appreciate the goals of congestion pricing, but there are too many unanswerable questions to move forward," De Blasio said.

As a departure from the Brooklyn party line, David Yassky pledged his support for the Bloomberg plan, but on the condition that improvements to mass transit be implemented beforehand.

Long Island Assembly member Michelle Schimel was a surprising voice in favor of congestion pricing and more livable streets. "New York must be more human, more walkable, more bikeable," she said. Schimel added that she took the LIRR and subway to reach the hearing.

The most persuasive plea for congestion pricing came from a group of young people with the United Puerto Rican Organization of Sunset Park (UPROSE), a community group who say that the Gowanus Expressway is poisoning the neighborhood. Jennifer Casamayor, 21, who works for UPROSE and lives in Manhattan, said, "many children are currently suffering from respiratory issues as their bodies are still developing."

A member of UPROSE watches testimony along with members of the Commission.

Another member of UPROSE, Joaquin Brito, 16, of Bayridge, delivered the best line of the night, "If you can afford the $8 for a tall latte and cookie from Starbucks you can afford congestion pricing."

Other residents took the pulpit to advocate for congestion pricing. Many cited the problems of air quality and the opportunity New York City has to be a leader against global warming.

Richard Robbins, who works for AT&T and lives in Manhattan, held his one-and-a-half-year-old daughter as he spoke at the podium (he insists she wasn't a prop, Mom was merely working late). "The system is broke," he said. "When she grows up they'll be a better system in place, we have the opportunity to do that now."

This was the second to last of seven public hearings on the issue. The crowd at Brooklyn's New York City Tech numbered at around a 100, leaving plenty of room in the Klitgord Auditorium.

Reporting by Spencer Wilking. Photos by Aaron Naparstek. 

With city workers pouring concrete in the background (and StreetFilms' cameras rolling), New York City Department of Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan announced pedestrian and cyclist improvements for Brooklyn's Grand Army Plaza yesterday. The plan calls for 11,000 square feet of new, landscaped pedestrian islands, a separated bike path, new crosswalks and pedestrian signals.

The redesign should do a lot to help make pedestrian and bike crossings safer and more convenient, particularly on the Prospect Heights side of the Plaza. With new crosswalks connecting Prospect Heights residents directly to the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial Arch and Bailey Fountain, two of the city's most truly awesome historic monuments, DOT's plan may also help activate the beautiful but under-used public space in the center of GAP's traffic maelstrom.

DOT's plan for the Plaza is a direct result of work done by the Grand Army Plaza Coalition, a group of community organizations that myself and others started up back in the spring of 2005 to begin to reclaim and re-envision Grand Army Plaza as the great public space that it was originally designed to be.

Yesterday's press conference was notable not just for the physical changes taking place in the Plaza but for the changes that have taken place at New York City's transportation agency. When we started GAPco, DOT staffers weren't permitted to attend our meetings or even speak at our press conference with Danish urban designer Jan Gehl (Dalila Hall from the Brooklyn Borough office disobeyed the ridiculous order and said a few words anyway).

Yesterday, Grand Army Plaza Coalition organizer Rob Witherwax stood shoulder-to-shoulder at the podium with Sadik-Khan, Borough President Marty Markowitz, Council member Tish James and Prospect Park Alliance president Tupper Thomas. The press conference, staged in front of the Brooklyn Public Library, was probably visible from the apartment window of former Commissioner Iris Weinshall who lives on Prospect Park West.

While the news at GAP yesterday was all positive, GAPco organizer Michael Cairl still qualifies DOT's work as "a good first step." To get a sense of what he means by that, immediately after the press conference Sadik-Khan and DOT Alternative Modes Director Ryan Russo were peppered with questions from Park Slope Civic Council member Ezra Goldstein about why the agency still hasn't done anything to change the seemingly malicious traffic signal timing that traps pedestrians -- often dozens of them at a time -- on a tiny strip of concrete in the middle of Flatbush Avenue between Prospect Park and the Library. Russo said DOT wanted to see how the new crosswalks worked before making any more changes in the Plaza.

For a "before," an "after," and one very compelling "long-term vision" plan, click through to the jump below.

Related:

• It Must Have Required a Concerted Effort to Ruin It...
  
• Reconnecting Grand Army Plaza
• Grand Plans for Brooklyn's Iconic Public Space
• StreetFilms: Reclaiming Grand Army Plaza
• StreetFilms: Grand Army Plaza Community Survey

Existing Conditions at Grand Army Plaza:

According to Fredrik Anderson, the FGA's vice chair and head of its transportation committee, neighborhood merchants and residents had been frustrated that state employees who work at 55 Hanson Place were hogging metered parking spaces at Lafayette and Fulton streets. (The meters themselves, designed to encourage parking turnover, were the result of lobbying by Councilmember Letitia James, the FGA and the Fulton Area Business Association.)

The FGA waited until Gov. Pataki -- whom they presumed would be unsympathetic to their complaints -- was out of office. Then, as soon as Gov. Eliot Spitzer was on the job, they wrote a letter to the governor's office requesting action.

"Within a week or so, the placarded cars were gone," said Anderson. Not only that, the FGA got a friendly call from a representative of the state's Department of Taxation and Finance, which has offices at 55 Hanson, explaining that commuting employees had been asked to leave their cars at home. "The meters are now available for shoppers," said Anderson.

The FGA's April newsletter contained this reaction to the disappearance of placarded cars:  "We are still pinching ourselves in amazement."

Add this positive development to a police-driven crackdown on placards in Chinatown, reported by Streetsblog a couple of weeks ago.