Extra-wide Delancey Street is one of the most dangerous roads in New York, but will have shorter crossings under a new DOT plan. Image: Google Street View.

The Department of Transportation’s plan to improve safety on Delancey Street will make it easier to cross the deadly artery, a press release from State Senator Dan Squadron’s office confirms.

The plan will widen sidewalks, shorten crossing distances and extend the length of pedestrian signals, among the shortest in the city. The improvements are expected to be implemented in a manner of months. At Clinton Street, the distance to cross Delancey will fall from 125 feet to 75 feet, according to a report in DNAinfo. DOT will also change turning patterns onto Delancey.

The plan will be officially presented at a public meeting tonight and we’ll have a full report on the proposal tomorrow.

Delancey has long been one of the city’s deadliest streets for both pedestrians and the many cyclists using the Williamsburg Bridge. Last May, 51-year-old pedestrian Patricia Cuevas was killed by the driver of a private garbage truck at Delancey and Essex. Then, in August, cyclist Jeffrey Axelrod was killed by a cement truck driver as Axelrod turned onto Delancey from Chrystie Street.

The push to improve safety along Delancey gained urgency after 12-year-old Dashane Santana was killed crossing the street at Clinton Street last month. DOT’s changes have support from a safety working group made up of all the area’s elected representatives from City Council to the United States Congress. The working group will continue to meet and push for additional safety improvements, Squadron’s office said.

Tappan Zee Bridge stakeholders were invited to speak on the Cuomo administration's draft environmental impact statement...

Time was, the public outreach for the new Tappan Zee Bridge included five different Stakeholders’ Advisory Working Groups. Each let interested parties dig deeper into issues like the environmental impact of the bridge or how the new transit service might affect development.

Now, however, Governor Andrew Cuomo has “fast-tracked” the construction of a replacement Tappan Zee by scrapping the popular transit elements and plowing ahead with a bloated $5 billion plan to double the size of the bridge. Under the governor’s new timeline, there’s no more room for public stakeholders to weigh in on the bridge.

Two weeks ago, the stakeholders were invited to the latest meeting of their working groups to discuss the recently-released draft environmental impact statement for the highway-only bridge. Yesterday, they learned that their meeting had been cancelled. They were invited to attend the mandated DEIS public comment sessions, but no other stakeholder meetings have been scheduled.

... until the state decided that stakeholders didn't need to continue participating in the public process anymore.

A spokesperson for the State Department of Transportation said that the first invitation was a “clerical error” and should not have been sent. The spokesperson would not say whether the meeting had been scheduled and then cancelled or how a date, time, and location were generated for a meeting that was never planned.

It’s just one more sign that under Governor Cuomo, public outreach on the bridge has effectively ended. Even though there’s no plan to even pay for the bridge, it’s full-steam ahead with an oversized and transit-less bridge. It’s Cuomo’s way or the highway — except that on the Tappan Zee Bridge, those are the same option.

Steven LaTourette, an Ohio Republican, said he opposes the House transportation bill as it is currently written. Photo: Cleveland.com

So there’s a chance that House leadership will fail to round up the 218 votes needed to pass this bill. Based on Streetsblog’s initial conversations with House GOP members, the bill could be too anti-transit and too hostile to street safety to pass, even in this extremely partisan political climate.

Streetsblog began reaching out to House GOP members this morning to see where they stand, and already we’re finding representatives who think the current bill is too extreme. One Republican with misgivings is Ohio Rep. Steven LaTourette, who represents rural and suburban areas in the northeast part of the state, east of Cleveland.

LaTourette has been a supporter of common-sense transportation reforms in the House, co-sponsoring national complete streets legislation as well as a bipartisan measure that would have increased flexibility with federal funds for struggling transit agencies.

Through his chief of staff, Dino DiSanto, LaTourette’s office had this to say about the bill:

In its current formation there are lots of things we don’t like about it. If it’s not changed drastically, we’re not going to support it.

What they’re doing to highway funding — removing [Transportation] Enhancements, not allowing more flexibility for transit agencies? There’s no reason [transit agencies] should be able to buy buses but not operate them.

Infrastructure used to be something that was widely popular among both parties, and for some reason over the last few Congresses, they’ve become highly polarized.

Meanwhile, Bob Turner (R-NY), whose district encompasses parts of Queens and Brooklyn, has reservations as well. In a statement, Rep. Turner indicated his disapproval, specifically for the portion of the bill that would eliminate dedicated funding for transit:

Now that the House bill is taking shape, I have concerns about how the funds will eventually be allocated. We cannot underestimate the importance of providing efficient, safe, mass transit, roads, bridges and tunnels to the people who live and commute in New York City. As this bill evolves, I will continue to work with my colleagues both in Congress and New York to find the best approach in meeting our infrastructure needs. However, I will not support any bill that does not allow New York City to sufficiently meet those needs.

Another GOP representative from New York, Peter King, told Crain’s via his spokesperson that he “has serious concerns about this legislation and the impact it will have on mass transit both on Long Island and New York City.”

The House and Senate transportation bill proposals are both expected to go up for votes next week. Streetsblog will be tracking the positions of key House Republicans throughout the week.

The Green Lane Project will provide financial and technical assistance for cities to develop physically protected cycling infrastructure. The six to-be-determined cities will then serve as models for other American cities looking to incorporate street designs that make cycling appealing to residents of all ages.

A few major cities including New York and Washington DC have implemented protected bike lanes, but the designs are still “When a city is out on the front like this and they have a problem, it’s not always clear where they go. We’re trying to help those cities figure it out,” said Green Lane Project Director Martha Roskowski. “So they don’t have to go to Copenhagen to see how these things work.”

Bikes Belong is looking for cities that have political support for creating world-class bike infrastructure, as well as a plan in place. The organization also wants to include three “emerging cities” outside the superstars like New York and Portland, Roskowski said.

“We’re looking for six cities where they have elected officials that are on board with this,” said said. “They’ve gone through some type of a planning process. They get it. They want to do these things.”

Bike Belong sent out invitations to 33 cities that have fairly developed cycling transportation programs. Those include Houston, Memphis, Los Angeles and Columbus, Ohio, as well as San Francisco, according to Roskowski. But any city can apply, whether it was invited or not.

One city that has already been chosen is Chicago. The city’s DOT chief, Gabe Klein, is serving as an adviser on the project, as is New York City Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. Roskowski said Bikes Belong has not determined what New York City’s role in the program will be, whether strictly as an adviser or as a participant.

The Green Lane Project will build on the work done by the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) to create a design guide for a new generation of cycling infrastructure. The Bikes Belong Foundation will be focusing most of its resources on the six chosen cities over the next two years, Roskowski said. They hope the results will be instructive to cities everywhere.

“We’re focusing on putting resources into six cities,” said Roskowski, “the other half is trying to capture what’s happening and share it with all the other cities.”

Applications for the program are due by March 9.

One of 45 new bike racks installed in the Hudson Square area at the request of the local BID. Photo: Hudson Square Connection

Workers in the Hudson Square area are demanding bike infrastructure and employers are helping them get it.

The Department of Transportation has installed 45 new bike racks in response to requests from the local business improvement district, the Hudson Square Connection, which covers Manhattan’s west side between Canal and Houston Streets. The 45 new bike racks are located in a roughly 20 block area, a significant expansion of bicycle parking.

In a press release, Hudson Square Connection President Ellen Baer tied the request for bike racks not only to a desire to make the neighborhood more environmentally friendly, but to demands from area employees. “We are seeing an increasing volume of people biking to work and building owners are receiving a growing number of requests to provide amenities for cyclists,” she said.

The new racks come at a what might be an especially opportune time. The local community board has requested that the city upgrade the Hudson Street bike lane, which cuts right through the area, into a parking-protected lane, a change that if implemented would make cycling a more attractive way to get around the neighborhood.

This intersection, Chicago's North Avenue at Kedzie Avenue, would be eligible for automated speeding enforcement under new legislation in Illinois. Between 2005 and 2010, 22 pedestrians and cyclists were injured by auto collisions at this intersection. Photo: Grid Chicago

Speeding Cameras Coming to Chicago: New legislation has cleared the way for automated speeding enforcement — speeding cameras — in Chicago. The cameras will be used only in “safety zones,” or areas around schools and parks. Fines will be $50 – $100 depending on the magnitude of the violation.

Steven Vance at Network blog Grid Chicago is dispelling some common misconceptions about speed cameras, pointing out that they will save lives. “Speed correlates with the survival rate of a pedestrian involved in an automobile crash. If a pedestrian is hit by a person driving a car at 30 MPH, there is an 80% survival rate. If a pedestrian is hit by a person driving a car at 40 MPH, there is a 30% survival rate.”

Will the cameras be effective? Vance summarizes three studies that looked at the efficacy of speeding cameras in preventing traffic collisions. The studies found that speeding cameras were indeed useful in motivating drivers to reduce their speed, improving safety. “There have been reductions in the number of people speeding, and the number of injuries and fatalities, in locations where speed cameras are installed and operated,” Vance writes. “In my assessment of multiple studies, it seems that speed cameras are a main cause of these reductions.”

Why Subway Construction Has Gotten to Be So Expensive: Building new subway lines is more expensive than ever — even when adjusted for inflation. Yesterday Benjamin Kabak at Second Avenue Sagas reviewed a recent Salon article by Will Doig, who identified seven issues that contribute to skyrocketing costs and ballooning construction time tables. Some of the culprits: the slow wheels of bureaucracy, the difficulty of assembling funding for large transit projects in an environment that marginalizes public transportation in favor of auto travel, and NIMBYism. Salon also identifies some progressive reforms, including environmental impact statements, ADA compliance and union rules, as hurdles that aren’t impeding China’s ability to lay down tracks for metros seemingly overnight.

Kabak looks at the issue through the lens of the Second Avenue subway New York City has been planning for decades. “The MTA issued its notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement for the Second Ave. Subway in March of 2001,” he says. “The FEIS saw the light of day 38 months later in May of 2004, and the authority had to further revise its assessment in 2009 to find no material impact when it had to redesign station configurations at 72nd and 86th St.”

Red Lights to Be Optional for Paris Cyclists: Systemic Failure points us to a story in the London Times about an experiment in Paris that will allow cyclists in one district to “turn right or to go straight at a T-junction even when the lights are red.” The news come after a contentious campaign by cycling advocacy groups which claimed it was “idiotic for them to stop at traffic lights.” Proponents of the measure argued it would reduce the risk of traffic collision — a sharp departure from American sensibility on the topic. It will be interesting to observe the safety outcomes of this one.

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Would you use a rototiller to get rid of weeds in a flowerbed? Of course not. You might solve your immediate goal of uprooting the weeds — but oh, my, the collateral damage that you would do.

Yet when we try to eliminate congestion from our urban areas by using decades-old traffic engineering measures and models, we are essentially using a rototiller in a flowerbed. And it’s time to acknowledge that the collateral damage has been too great.

Image: Andy Singer

Image: Andy Singer

First, an explanation of what I call the “deadly duo”: travel projection models and Levels of Service (LOS) performance metrics.Travel projection models are computer programs that use assumptions about future growth in population, employment, and recreation to estimate how many new cars will be on roads 20 or 30 years into the future.

Models range from quite simplistic to incredibly complex and expensive. Simple models deal primarily with coarse movements of vehicles between cities, while complex models deal with the intricacies of what happens on the fine grid of urban areas. To be truly accurate, growth projection modeling can be expensive. Therefore, absent compelling reason to do otherwise, most growth projections tend to be done using less expensive techniques, which usually lead to overestimates.

Levels of Service (LOS) is a performance metric which flourished during the interstate- and freeway-building era that went from the 1950s to the 1990s. Using a scale of A to F, LOS attempts to create an objective formula to answer a subjective question: How much congestion are we willing to tolerate? As in grade school, “F” is a failing grade and “A” is perfect.

Engineers decided that LOS “C” was a good balance between overinvestment in perfection and underinvestment leading to congestion. In urban areas, a concession was made to accept LOS D, representing slightly more restricted but still free-flowing traffic. LOS is commonly (actually, almost always) calculated using travel projections for 20 to 30 years into the future.

Using basic traffic models and LOS C/D to plan and design the interstate system was a no-brainer in the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. When deciding how many lanes to build on a freeway connecting major cities, a sensitivity of plus or minus 10,000 trips a day could be tolerated, and the incremental difference in cost to plow through undeveloped land was relatively insignificant.

Good approach, wrong setting

I’m not going to look back and quibble with the general philosophy of how the interstates and the associated high-speed freeways were planned and designed. On many levels, the approach made sense.

But it became increasingly less persuasive when applied to the rest of our road network. Unlike interstates and freeways, most roads exist not just to move traffic through the area, but also to serve the homes, businesses, and people along them. Yet in search of high LOS rankings, transportation professionals have widened streets, added lanes, removed on-street parking, limited crosswalks, and deployed other inappropriate strategies. In ridding our communities of the weeds of congestion, we have also pulled out the very plants that made our “gardens” worthwhile in the first place.

It’s worth remembering, too, that not all congestion is bad. John Norquist, former Mayor of Milwaukee and current CEO and President of the Congress for New Urbanism, suggests that congestion is like cholesterol: there is a good kind and a bad kind.

What makes the prevailing situation even more troubling is that there are no comprehensive requirements dictating the use of either LOS or travel modeling in transportation planning and project design. The “Green Book” from the Association of American State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) (more formally known as “A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets”) clearly states that these are guidelines to be applied with judgment — not mandates. So does the Federal Highway Administration’s “Highway Capacity Manual.”

The idea that we must rid our roads of any and all traffic congestion is, in fact, a self-imposed requirement. As Eric Jaffe wrote in an article for Atlantic Cities in December, 2011:

Although cities aren’t required to abide LOS measures by law, over the years the measure hardened into convention. By the time cities recognized the need for balanced transportation systems, LOS was entrenched in the street engineering canon.

Worse yet, many designers size a road or intersection to be free-flowing for the worst hour of the day. Sized to accommodate cars during the highest peak hour, such streets will be “overdesigned” for the other 23 hours of the day and will always function poorly for the surrounding community.

If that isn’t troubling enough, LOS is often calculated using traffic predicted 20 years into the future, even in urban settings. Until the forecasted growth materializes, the roadway will be overdesigned, even during the peak hour. Overdesigned roadways encourage motorists to drive at higher speeds, making them difficult to cross and unpleasant to walk along. This degrades public spaces between the edges of the road and the adjacent buildings, encourages people to drive short distances, and generally unravels a community’s social fabric.

Let me repeat: Contrary to what you may hear, there is no national requirement or mandate to apply LOS standards and targets 20 years into the future for urban streets. This thinking is a remnant from 1960s era policy for the interstate system, and has erroneously been passed down from generation to generation.

Image: Andy Singer

So what are the right approaches?

Asking the simple question, “Do you want congestion reduced at a particular location?” is a question out of context. It’s like asking you whether you want to never be stung by a bee again. Of course, the answer will be yes. But what if I told you that to in order to never suffer a sting again, every plant within a several mile radius would have to be destroyed — and that you could never leave the area of destruction?

You would have a completely different answer, I’m sure.

The question that needs to be asked in urban settings is not whether you ever want to sit in congestion again. Who does? The question is whether you want to eliminate congestion on your Main Street 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year — knowing that the consequence would be a community with decimated economic and social value, increased reliance on car use, increased crashes, and, ultimately, more congestion.

Recognizing the need for balance, a number of entities are beginning to promote approaches sensitive to the context.

I was the New Jersey Department of Transportation’ s project manager for the “Smart Transportation Guide” (STG), adopted jointly by the state DOTs in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. The STG directs DOT designers to consider the tradeoffs between vehicular LOS and “local service.” It goes on to say that if the street in question is not critical to regional movement, that LOS E or F could be acceptable — and that designers may actually need to design to slow down cars.

The Institute of Transportation Engineers, an “international association of transportation professionals responsible for meeting mobility and safety needs” also promoted this concept in its landmark “Context Sensitive Solutions Guidelines for Urban Thoroughfares.” Florida DOT has adopted multimodal LOS standards, and cities like Charlotte, N.C., have elevated pedestrian and bicycle LOS to the level of that for automobiles. We have a long way to go, but the door is opening.

Creating balanced standards for roadway design will benefit transportation as well. In the Netherlands, the “Livable Streets” policy led to a remarkable improvement in safety on their roadways. They started in the 1970s with a crash rate 15 percent higher than in the U.S., and now have a crash rate 60 percent lower.

Design with the community in mind

It’s time for communities and transportation professionals alike to accept that we have been using the wrong tools for the wrong job. LOS and travel modeling may be effective when sizing and locating high-speed freeways, but are totally inappropriate in every other setting. If travel modeling with high rates of growth is used to make street decisions, your community may be doomed to a series of roadway widenings or intersection expansions. If vehicular LOS C or D performance measures are adopted as non-negotiable targets, major road construction will be heading your way.

Village, suburban and city streets need to be designed with the community in mind using the PPS principle of Streets as Places to create a vision for a great community and then plan your streets to support that vision.

Lets not be fooled by the appearance of science behind Levels of Service and Traffic Modeling. As I pointed out in an interview with Wayne Senville that was published in the November 2010 “Planning Commissioner’s Journal,” LOS standards are easy to understand — and that’s exactly what makes them so dangerous.

Andrew Cuomo's big infrastructure push, the New York Works Fund, won't include transit projects. Why? Photo via Wikimedia.

Despite the fact that over one quarter of the state’s population takes transit to work, Governor Andrew Cuomo’s marquee infrastructure program won’t invest in public transportation. With so much still unknown about the governor’s “New York Works Fund” — including very basic information about how it will be structured — the reason why Cuomo is excluding transit remains elusive.

State DOT Commissioner Joan McDonald confirmed that transit won’t be included in the fund at a legislative hearing two weeks ago. According to the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, Manhattan State Senator Liz Krueger asked McDonald whether any transit projects would be eligible for the fund. “McDonald answered in the negative,” reported Tri-State’s Nadine Lemmon.

“The senator thinks it would be tragic if the state did not prioritize significant investment in both upstate and downstate mass transportation maintenance, modernization and expansion,” said a spokesperson for Krueger, who confirmed Tri-State’s account.

While the fund won’t include transit, it will provide funding for highways, bridges, municipal water systems, dams, and even state parks and historic sites. In his State of the State address this January, Cuomo said the fund would “master plan, coordinate, leverage, and accelerate capital investment,” and “leverage state investment by a multiple of 20-to-1.”

Exactly what the fund is, however, isn’t at all clear. “There’s no legislation or language,” explained Tammy Gamerman, a senior research associate with the Citizens Budget Commission who’s been following the New York Works Fund. Right now, she explained, the “New York Works Fund” label doesn’t refer to an actual fund so much as a way of conceptually packaging infrastructure spending. “It’s a way of thinking about different infrastructure investments together, rather than as separate.”

The governor’s office has not responded to Streetsblog requests for an explanation of how the New York Works Fund is set up. “The governor hasn’t revealed exactly what will be done or and how much of it was scheduled to be done anyway by repackaging of existing aid to minimize new spending,” reported the Associated Press last month.

The biggest unanswered questions involve Cuomo’s promise to leverage state investment with 20 private dollars for every public dollar. The private sector needs to make a return on its investment, of course, and alternative financing doesn’t eliminate the need to actually fund infrastructure investments. If Cuomo isn’t willing to pay for roadwork with a gas tax increase or tolls, it’s not clear how the private sector would be compensated.

As Elizabeth Lynam, vice president of the Citizens Budget Commission, told the AP: “It’s hard to fit the number together right now and know where all this financing capacity is going to come from. It’s not as though everything out there is free. Somebody is going to have to pay for it somewhere along the line.”

At the same time, Cuomo is also billing the reconstruction of the Tappan Zee Bridge as a New York Works Fund project, although it won’t be receiving any private financing. What defines a New York Works Fund project, in other words, seems flexible at this point.

So if the New York Works Fund is so far just an act of political branding, why is the Cuomo administration proactively declaring transit ineligible for the funds?

It’s possible that the fund will be structured in a way that precludes its use for transit, whether for legal or financial reasons. Gamerman, however, said she hadn’t heard of any such obstacle. “I don’t think there’s any structural reason for it,” she said. “I think they chose to keep transit separate.”

The Cuomo administration has also chosen not to fund the remaining three years of the MTA’s capital program, a far more significant fiscal decision. That left the MTA $9 billion short of what it needs to pay for badly-needed system repairs and the ongoing expansion of the system. Even if the New York Works Fund were to include transit, it’s impossible that the fund as currently imagined could close that enormous gap. The New York Works Fund is of less concern to New York City transit riders than the need for a new revenue stream to pay for the MTA capital program.

Even so, it’s worth keeping an eye on how the New York Works Fund takes shape. Depending on what the fund actually turns into, it has the potential to be one more way the Cuomo administration shortchanges the state’s transit riders.

Peter Vallone (l) and James Vacca

Responding to some 2,500 letters collected by Transportation Alternatives following the hit-and-run death of Brooklyn cyclist Mathieu Lefevre, Vallone announced that his public safety committee would address NYPD traffic enforcement. The hearing will be co-chaired by transportation committee chair James Vacca.

“It’s encouraging that the two chairs are treating this as a public safety concern, and are taking a long look and showing leadership,” says Juan Martinez, general counsel for TA.

In addition to crash prevention, Vallone and Vacca are expected to delve into how NYPD conducts crash investigations, an issue that is making headlines thanks to the Lefevre family’s pursuit of information from the department about the crash that killed their son. Says Martinez, “They have serious questions about the line — that in New York if you want to kill, do it with a car — whether that’s actually true.”

Anyone who wants to testify at next week’s hearing may send an e-mail to Martinez by the evening of Monday the 13th, with the subject line “Feb. 15.”

One of these bike-share workshop participants is the star of this classic Streetfilm.

It was another evening of hands-on bike-share station planning at Manhattan Community Board 2 last night, as New Yorkers hunched over maps of SoHo and Greenwich Village, marking the best places to site bike-share kiosks.

If you live or work in the bike-share service area, you really ought to mark your calendar for the station planning meeting in your neck of the woods. There’s something very gratifying about the process that NYC DOT and Alta Bikeshare have put together for people to rate different sites. Each time you put a sticker on the map, you’re shaping the bike-share system in a small but tangible way.

The other thing is that you never know who else will show up. Last night, former Talking Heads frontman and one-time Summer Streets spokesperson David Byrne was in the house, marking up a map. If the pattern holds, it looks like Jay-Z will be on hand for the Manhattan CB 6 workshop later this month, and John Franco and John Starks might turn up at Brooklyn CB 2.

Denver's plan to add 122 miles of passenger rail is boosting the local economy. Photo: The Fast Lane

The secretary’s blog, The Fast Lane, discusses how this project promises to be, on many levels, a winner for the Mile-High City:

The enthusiasm in yesterday’s crowd was electric. It’s not hard to see why. The West Rail Line is 85% complete, and the mock-ups and progress to date indicate a beautiful, state-of-the-art transit system. The new line will allow tourists and commuters to spend less time in traffic and less money on gas. That’s something everyone can appreciate.

Not only will the FasTracks program provide an efficient and cost-effective way to get to and from work, school or the airport; but it is also creating jobs right now. There are more than 500 men and women working on the West Rail Line alone. FasTracks estimates that its plan will eventually provide work for 4,200 others.

But we can’t be content to see this progress in just one city. All across America, there is work to be done on projects like the West Rail Line. More and more Americans are looking for greater choices in transportation today, and it’s important we provide the funding to ensure transit remains one of the available choices. Now is the time to connect people who need work with the work we need to do improving our nation’s transit centers, highways, railways, airports and ports.

This is exactly the type of investment in the future that other cities would miss out under the House GOP proposal to strip transit projects of dedicated federal funding stream.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Mobilizing the Region reports that political leaders in the New York-New Jersey region are united in their opposition to the House transit proposal. Streets.mn asks if traffic engineers’ roadway classification system is an outdated way of understanding transportation dynamics. And Suburban Assault introduces Dallas’s first bike café.

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

New Orleans' Claibourne Overpass is this year's Congress for New Urbanism choice for "Freeway without a Future." Photo: CNU.org

Latest week the Congress for New Urbanism released its updated list of “Freeways Without Futures” — 12 transportation anachronisms that are increasingly likely to meet the wrecking ball.

This year’s top finisher was New Orleans’ Claiboure Overpass — a 1960s-era eyesore that replaced a thriving, tree-lined commercial street at the center of the city’s oldest, most culturally vibrant black neighborhood. The teardown for this highway has some real traction; a master plan to remove the elevated portion is expected to be endorsed by City Council shortly, according to CNU.

The Sheridan Expressway in the Bronx is runner up, the same position it held in CNU’s 2008 Freeways Without Futures list. This riverfront disaster was bestowed by the master highway builder himself, Robert Moses. Residents of the Bronx have successfully fought off two separate proposals to expand the Sheridan, which runs right along the Bronx River. A coalition of community groups and advocates called the Southern Bronx River Watershed Alliance has led the charge to replace the freeway with housing and parks, and a group of cities agencies are now examining teardown scenarios with the help of a federal TIGER grant.

The third-place finisher is New Haven’s Route 34 (the Oak Street Connector), which is slated for demolition. New Haven received TIGER funds to convert the road into a pedestrian-friendly boulevard and local officials are currently haggling over the design details — there’s a chance they’ll opt to replace a highway with a road that feels like a highway.

Congress members Joe Crowley, Charlie Rangel, Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney joined MTA chief Joe Lhota to decry the House Republicans' attempt to end dedicated federal funding for transit. Photo: Noah Kazis

Four New York City members of Congress joined the chairman of the MTA today to bluntly denounce the House GOP’s anti-transit transportation bill.

“It’s the worst piece of legislation you could ever imagine,” said MTA chief Joe Lhota, a Republican who served as the city’s budget director during the Giuliani administration.

“The worst transportation bill we have ever seen,” agreed Representative Jerry Nadler, a liberal Democrat.

Though the Republican proposal includes a number of other reasons for New Yorkers to hate it, such as eliminating the Safe Routes to School and Transportation Enhancements programs, which fund bicycle and pedestrian improvements, today’s presser focused on the attack on dedicated transit funding.

Currently, about 20 percent of federal gas tax revenues are devoted to transit, which provides the MTA $1 billion per year in dedicated capital funding. The transit agency gets another $400 million a year from the federal general fund. Under the Republican proposal, all transit funds would come from the general fund, where they’d have to compete with defense, health care and other spending priorities.

That $1 billion a year is absolutely necessary for the MTA to continue repairing the system and building expansions, and it could disappear entirely. Charlie Rangel, former chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, which passed the anti-transit provision, said he asked influential House Budget Committee chairman Paul Ryan where the money to pay for transit would come from in the general fund. “The answer was they did not know at that time,” said Rangel.

The four Congress members in attendance did not mince words about the House bill. “Not even worth a warm bucket of asphalt,” said Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Nadler said the bill exposed the attitude of the Republican Party toward transit riders: “You’re second class citizens. We don’t give a damn about you. Just disappear.”

Queens Representative Joe Crowley, who set up the event, argued that the Republican proposal revealed the hypocrisy of his Republican colleagues’ rhetoric. In arguing against Democratic policy changes, he said, conservatives cited the need for “the certainty to invest” and “the certainty to hire.” By making transit funding dependent on the yearly priorities of Congress rather than predictable gas tax receipts, the Republican proposal eliminates all certainty for transit agencies.

Even where the House Republicans have kept transit programs in place, they’ve added an extreme anti-urban tilt to what remains. A change to the bus and bus facilities grant program, Maloney noted, would bar funds from going to any transit system that also operated any kind of rail line. No more grants for New York City from that pot.

The future of the House bill remains to be seen. Its radical provisions have inspired widespread opposition, not only from pro-transit organizations but also traditionally road-friendly groups like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and AASHTO. According to Politico, the arch-conservative Club For Growth is working to defeat the bill from the right, while no Democrats are expected to support the legislation.

If it does pass the House, it seems unlikely that the Democrat-controlled Senate would accept the most extreme provisions of the Republican package, setting Congress up for another round of partisan brinksmanship. For its part, the Obama administration is also opposing the Republican proposal in no uncertain terms. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood, himself a former House Republican, called the House proposal “the worst transportation bill I’ve ever seen during 35 years of public service.”

Even so, House Democrats aren’t relying on the other branches of government to kill the bill. “You don’t depend. Who knows what deals will be made in the Senate,” said Nadler. Instead, he challenged every Republican representing an urban or suburban area to vote against the bill. “Anyone from a suburb or a city who votes for this is voting against their own district,” said Nadler.

Notably, ostensibly transit-friendly New York-area Republican Congress members like Peter King or Michael Grimm were absent from today’s press conference.

Southwest corner of Park Terrace West and W. 218th Street. Photos: Brad Aaron

The city recently replaced four parking spots at Park Terrace West and W. 218th Street, in Inwood, with a no standing zone. The 34th Precinct reportedly requested the change to give drivers exiting Park Terrace West, a northbound one-way street, a better view of east-west traffic on 218th.

Inevitably, car owners accustomed to parking at the intersection complained, and those complaints, many of which were posted on a neighborhood email list, led to a story by DNAinfo. Here’s a taste:

At least seven residents said they were ticketed or towed after the new signs went up late last month.  Local parenting email list InwoodKids was recently flooded with parent complaints about the new parking regulations.

Inwood mother Beth More said she and her husband were ticketed and towed in the new zone on Jan. 5 after arriving home from the holidays.

“We had no idea the new signs were posted,” she told DNAinfo. “In fact, we were sure our car was stolen at first and never even thought to look up.”

The couple has appealed the $75 parking ticket and will fight for reimbursement of the $185 tow charge.

“I, like many others in the neighborhood, question if this really was a matter of safety or simply an opportunity for the city and police precinct to ticket more,” she said.

Several city and police sources said summonses issued just days after the new signs were installed are likely to be dismissed.

In case the no standing signs still don’t get the message across — a possibility, considering the illegally parked car out of frame in the above photo — on Sunday I saw a couple of homemade posters warning drivers not to park near the intersection.

I have driven this corner. I also walk it regularly. As a driver it was very difficult to detect whether cars on 218th were approaching without either inching into the Park Terrace West crossing or nosing into cross traffic. As a pedestrian I also appreciate that drivers have better sightlines. While it’s understandable that some were angry about being caught off guard, the idea that the city would look to raise revenue by clearing four parking spots at a blind intersection — and installing the proper signage, no less — smacks of Agenda 21-level paranoia.

Southeast corner, with no standing sign in the background.

How’s this for DIY messaging: Summons for parking in a no standing zone: $115. Fee to park almost anywhere else in Inwood: $0. Preserving life and limb through improved visibility: Priceless.

Unfortunately, nuttiness like this is no new thing, and its reach is longer than you might think. It has its roots in an antiquated and peculiarly American belief system that is standing in the way of improved urban livability.

Let’s start with gas prices. In recent weeks, Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and House Speaker John Boehner have all played to the notion that gas prices have doubled since President Obama took office. The price of gas is notoriously volatile; the national average price has actually fallen in 45 of the past 100 months (Excel spreadsheet). So a fair accounting would employ the U.S. average over an entire presidency, as in this chart, for the three most recent:

The chart makes clear that it was former oilman George W. Bush, not Obama, who came closest to presiding over a doubling of gas prices.

At one level, Gingrich and company are merely shilling for the Keystone XL pipeline. But of course excavating Canadian tar sands oil and piping it to Houston is so costly and energy-intensive that without high gas prices, the venture would collapse.

That aside, consider what Gingrich is really saying when he derides New Yorkers as elitists because each uptick in the price of gas doesn’t make us itchy to start a new war. In one way, he has a point. Unlike our countrymen trapped in punishing commutes and paying off two-car garages, we big city dwellers are fairly well insulated from fluctuating gas prices. And unlike big-box suburbs and the Sunbelt, which were built on the inefficiency of cars, highways, supersized houses and office parks, New York is built on the efficiency of dense neighborhoods and public transportation.

To anyone with common sense, that difference makes the ‘burbs brittle and cities resilient. To Newt, it makes city dwellers suspect.

Similarly suspect, in the eyes of Tea Party activists, are “all sorts of local and state efforts to control sprawl and conserve energy,” as the Times reported on Saturday. “Government action for things like expanding public transportation routes and preserving open space [is seen] as part of a United Nations-led conspiracy to deny property rights and herd citizens toward cities.” Ditto, bike lanes. And, you better believe, congestion pricing or any form of traffic pricing.

What’s at work here, according to the writer (and New Yorker) Dan Lazare, is the “Jeffersonian ideology that assumed that individual actions were autonomous unless proven otherwise. Whether a motorist chose to drive or not to drive,” Lazare wrote in his 2000 classic, America’s Undeclared War: What’s Killing Our Cities and How You Can Stop It, “was nobody’s business but his own; any suggestion to the contrary was positively un-American.”

The standard counterweight to the agrarian Jeffersonian model is the Hamiltonian sovereign nation-state drawing strength from cities built on manufacturing and trade. Lazare plumbed this duality in America’s Undeclared War, but he also broke new ground by contrasting Jeffersonianism to the “theory of externalities” that emerged in the early 20^th Century, which emphasized “the public dimension of individual acts” that consumed resources or otherwise damaged the commons:

Rather than regarding individual acts as private unless proven otherwise, the growing volume of external costs suggested that they had to be regarded as public acts — unless, that is, affirmative action was taken to mitigate the social consequences. To drive or not to drive, in other words, was no longer an individual decision but a social question because so many people were affected besides the motorist himself.

A great many people are affected by an individual’s decision to drive in NYC. I have shown elsewhere that a single car round-trip into the Manhattan Central Business District generates external costs on the order of a hundred dollars, just in terms of other road users’ lost time. Although the Bloomberg administration didn’t use this meme in its 2007-2008 push for congestion pricing, it is the essential motivating idea behind tolling vehicles entering the CBD. As I wrote on Reuters last month, any New York-area driver “is cognizant of the time he will expend being slowed by other cars, but not of the far greater delays he will impose on them.” A congestion toll helps close that feedback loop.

Tea Partiers are having none of that, of course, and Dan Lazare helps us make sense of their antipathy to treating driving — not to mention land use, transit provision, and climate change — as a social question rather than the sole province of individuals. To paraphrase America’s Undeclared War, “Where the externalities analysis highlights the tyranny that a mass of atomized individuals imposes on society, adherents of Jefferson worry about the tyranny imposed by society on the individual.”

In short, congestion pricing’s benefits be damned, you’ll still have to pry the car keys out of my cold dead hand.

Also on the calendar this week:

• Monday: Join Manhattan Community Board 2, local residents and business owners at a roundtable planning workshop to help decide how bike share should work and where stations should be sited in the West Village, Tribeca and and SoHo. Street-savvy participants are needed for this key meeting, which starts at 6 p.m.
• Also tonight: The transportation committee of Manhattan Community Board 6 will take up the DOT proposal for crosstown bike lanes on East 29th and 30th streets from 1st to 8th avenues, as well as a request from the 13th Precinct for an eastbound left turn lane marking on East 20th Street at 1st Avenue.
• Tuesday: The Manhattan CB 2 transportation committee will discuss how to mitigate “congestion, noise and hazardous conditions from intense vehicular traffic on the Kenmare-Lafayette-Broome Street section of the route from the Williamsburg Bridge to the Holland Tunnel.”
• Thursday:  NYC DOT will present its Classon Avenue traffic calming proposal to Brooklyn Community Board 8. 
• Also Thursday: DOT and electeds will hold a public workshop to discuss the future of Fourth Avenue between 15th and 65th streets.

Keep an eye on the calendar for updated listings. Got an event we should know about? Drop us a line.

The House transportation bill passed committee on solidly partisan lines. It would reverse decades of reforms that promote safer streets, sustainable transportation, and urbanism. Photo: The National Journal

The Senate managed to put together bipartisan support for legislation that weakens biking and walking programs while including a few progressive reforms to transit policy. House Republicans, meanwhile, have lined up behind a draconian vision for highways-only transportation policy that would reverse decades of pragmatic reforms.

Crystallized in the House bill is a strident position that seeks to undermine any form of transportation beside the private automobile, one that rejects cost-saving reforms while cloaking itself in the pretense of fiscal rectitude.

This position — clearly a favorite of industries that profit from highways and sprawl — has even become a talking point among Republican presidential contenders this primary season, reports Yonah Freemark at the Transport Politic. Advocates for green transportation and urbanism have no choice but to fight, says Freemark:

As I have documented, density of population correlates strongly and positively with the Democratic Party vote share in Congressional elections; the result has been that the House Republicans have few electoral reasons to articulate policies that benefit cities. Those who believe in the importance of a sane transportation policy need to make more of an effort to advance a sane transportation politics to residents of suburban and rural areas, who also benefit from efforts to improve environmental quality, mobility alternatives, and congestion relief, but perhaps are not yet convinced of that fact. Doing so would encourage politicians hoping for votes outside of the city core — Democratic or Republican — to promote alternatives to the all-highways meme that currently rules the GOP in the House.

In the face of such actions, it becomes imperative in the short term not only to ramp up citizen opposition to the defunding of transit and associated programs, but also to full-throatily endorse those leaders who will stand up to fight. Not working for their election in the fall risks policies like those being advanced in the House being passed by an acquiescent Senate and signed by a future president. Such actions would put in question the potential improvement of existing programs and turn back on the policy strides that must be made to contest the vision some have of an all-automobile America.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Second Avenue Sagas explains that the House GOP’s proposal to eliminate dedicated funding for transit would be catastrophic for New York City. iWatch News reports that industry groups are working hard to discredit a government study that is expected to link diesel exhaust to lung cancer. And BLDGBlog shares tips for making planning popular in the community.

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill