Streetsblog New York City

To promote biking and walking, new health commish Tom Farley could send DOH representatives to CB meetings about street safety improvements. Photo: Tulane University.

First, some words of encouragement for Farley, who biked to work every day at his previous job in New Orleans. Riding in Midtown is a lot less intimidating than it was just a short while ago, with a new bike route running from Columbus Circle down to Madison Square nearing completion. Once Farley's bike gets shipped and he takes a few practice runs on the Hudson River Greenway, a tour of Manhattan's burgeoning bike network is highly recommended.

Second, no one needs to remind Farley that safe streets pay enormous public health dividends. As co-author of "Prescription for a Healthy Nation," he helped coin the term "healthscaping" to express the idea that physical environments can be shaped to encourage healthier habits. In public talks, he's been known to sing the praises of walking and biking as transportation. When it comes to the transportation-health connection, the commish knows what's up.

Under Mayor Bloomberg, the Health Department has been an influential pulpit from which to launch high-profile policy initiatives. Witness the trans-fats and smoking bans that helped catapult our last commissioner, Tom Frieden, to the top job at the Centers for Disease Control. Street safety could be the next frontier for a major DOH campaign -- reducing injuries and fatalities while making streets more appealing for active transportation.

Traditionally, the Health Department has played a marginal role in enhancing street safety, so I asked Transportation Alternatives director Paul Steely White how Farley might go about this. He suggested that DOH start by analyzing traffic injuries and deaths with epidemiological rigor. Safety trends in New York City are positive -- annual traffic deaths have declined about 30 percent this decade -- but if we want to keep moving in the right direction, we'll need to understand a lot more about why this is happening. Currently, no one really knows.

The other day, we looked at a supermarket in a densely populated part of New Haven that is unwelcoming to pedestrians. Today, courtesy of member blog The City Fix, we're taking another look at urban supermarket planning, specifically the issue of how to get quality food markets built in underserved neighborhoods (so-called food deserts) -- where people often walk or take transit to the store. They write about how cities like New York and Washington, DC, can encourage supermarket construction by relaxing onerous zoning requirements for parking spaces:

She doesn't need a parking space. Photo by Ed Yourdon via Flickr.

The New York Times…mentioned that one of the strategies New York City is using to attract more supermarkets into food deserts is to change the city’s zoning laws that would “free smaller supermarkets from having to supply parking spaces.” Reducing or eliminating parking minimums for new development is good urbanism. But if it can help provide affordable, accessible, and nutritious food to low-income residents of the District -- which is already a District goal -- the planning commission has one more very good reason to wean us off of cars.

The District is taking steps to achieve this. Anita Hairston, the Chief of Staff of the Office of Planning, assures me by e-mail that:

–Any commercial building (this would include supermarkets) located in the central employment area of the city and is connected to a Metrorail station can have their parking requirements reduced or eliminated.

–Any commercial buildings that are less than 800 feet from a Metrorail station can have their parking requirements reduced by one-quarter.

–Any planned unit development project (regardless of location) can work with staff in our office to propose potential reduction or elimination of parking requirements.

Elsewhere around the network: The Complete Streets Blog shares its view on the Oberstar bill. We hear about a meaningful cash for clunkers program north of the border, via Sustainable Montréal (this one offers transit credit or money toward a new bike). And Active Transportation Alliance has the scoop on an iPhone bike app.

Senior members of the House transportation committee today fired a warning shot at those pushing an 18-month extension of existing federal law, putting the Obama administration and key senators on notice that their $450 billion proposal would move forward this year.

How often does Larry Summers hold a shovel? Photo: World Economic Forum/Flickr

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), the transportation panel's chairman, described a delay in long-term funding as a risk to jobs and growth opportunities that were created by the recent stimulus law.

And Oberstar made no attempt to hide his disdain for the Obama economic advisers who helped trim transit's share of that stimulus plan. Holding up a red shovel for a phalanx of photographers, Oberstar quipped: "There are folks in the economic gang at the White House who never had a shovel in their hands or a callus on their fingers."

His GOP counterpart on the committee, Rep. John Mica (FL), vowed to join Oberstar in amassing House support for a transportation bill that could clear the lower chamber of Congress by the end of September -- though even their allies concede that Senate passage is a long shot.

"I view this as the most critical jobs bill before Congress ... we're going to do it together, one way or another, come hell or high water," Mica said, adding flourish as he advised critics not to "underestimate Oberstar and Mica."

Several advocacy and interest groups are joining the committee's effort to push a six-year transportation bill across the finish line. The Laborers' International Union of North America released a statement that plainly said, "We agree with Chairman Oberstar that the surface transportation bill should not be delayed."

The American Public Transportation Association (APTA), which represents the nation's transit agencies, also lent its voice in support. "Our members need this bill to pass as soon as it possibly can," APTA President William Millar told Streetsblog.

Yet the key for Oberstar and Mica may be how many senators endorse their call for a long-term transportation re-write this year. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood already has admitted that the "reform" he called for as part of his 18-month extension would have a slim chance of passing, given the contentious debate that's likely to erupt simply over averting bankruptcy for the nation's highway trust fund.

As transit fans and policy wonks digest the details of House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar's (D-MN) new proposal, one question is coming to mind: Does it change the typical 80-20 split in the percentage of funding that goes to highways versus transit?

The short answer is, not really. While road programs got a hair less than 80 percent of highway trust fund money under the 2005 transportation bill, they will get about 75 percent of trust fund money under Oberstar's plan, according to an analysis by the subscription-only Transportation Weekly newsletter.

Transit programs, by contrast, got 18.3 percent of total funding under the 2005 bill and would receive 22.2 percent under Oberstar's proposal, Transportation Weekly found.

But the long answer is that this marginal improvement amounts to real progress. Among Oberstar's four consolidated categories of highway funding, only one focuses on building new capacity -- and that pot of money also gives states the flexibility to spend on new transit rather than new roads.

The other three highway funding categories Oberstar proposes would focus on repair of existing roads and bridges, air quality and public health improvement, and safety improvements. In addition, the House chairman also would create a dedicated program for metropolitan areas' concerns and reform the New Starts program to ensure a more comprehensive cost-benefit analysis of new transit proposals.

On Capitol Hill, lawmakers and advocates are constantly confronting the tension between what's ideal and what's realistically possible. The question for some transit boosters may be whether to support Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's push for an 18-month extension of existing law, welcoming the chance for more time to promote their priorities, or whether to align with Oberstar's plan and try to challenge the administration.

A pedicab (sort of) makes use of the Broadway bike lane.
Photo: Brad Aaron

Last week's collision between a pedicab and a yellow taxi in Brooklyn was followed by a renewed, or at least better publicized, interest from Mayor Bloomberg and the City Council in enforcing long-awaited pedicab industry standards.

The rules, initiated by pedicab companies themselves, are intended to protect passengers, pedicab drivers and the general public through, among other measures, the issuance of operator licenses and requirements related to vehicle safety. The City Council adopted the regulations in 2007, but enforcement lagged after a protracted legal battle between the city and the industry over a now-abandoned cap on pedicab licenses. 

On Tuesday, the Post ran an editorial opposing one aspect of the laws, which bar "pest-i-cabs" (ha, get it?) from bike lanes.

"[T]he bike-lane prohibition seems a little odd," Post editors wrote. "Mayor Mike's recent green-themed streetscaping means that such lanes occupy nearly half of many blocks in Midtown -- surely there's enough room for pedicabs on them."

The New York City Pedicab Owners' Association agrees.

"The NYCPOA officially is in favor of removing the restriction on pedicabs operating in bike lanes and actually believes it is safer for pedicabs to operate in bike lanes when they are available," spokesman Chad Marlow told Streetsblog. Marlow added, however, that the trade group supports keeping pedicabs out of tunnels and off bridges, even when the bridge has a bike lane -- as the regs dictate.  

What do you think? Should bike lanes be open to pedal-powered commercial traffic, including pedicabs -- or, for that matter, cargocycles -- or should they be reserved for citizen cyclists? 

Rep. Jim Oberstar (D-MN), the House transportation committee chairman, is set to brief reporters this afternoon on his $450 billion, six-year federal transportation bill -- which he plans to pursue regardless of the Obama administration's push for an 18-month extension of existing law.

House Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Oberstar (D-MN) has a brewing battle with the administration on his hands. Photo: Jonathan Maus

But Oberstar's early outline of the bill, which could get a vote in the committee as soon as next week, is already available. And it suggests that the Minnesota Democrat and Rep. Pete DeFazio (D-OR) have made good on their promises for a sweeping re-organization of the often debilitating federal transportation bureaucracy. Here are the highlights:

• The $450 billion price tag, which represents a 57 percent increase over the $286.5 billion bill approved in 2005, includes $87 billion in highway trust fund money for transit and $12 billion in transit cash from the Treasury's general fund. The 2005 bill gave transit less than $44 billion in highway trust fund money and $9 billion from the general fund.

• Oberstar isn't about to quietly accept Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood's admonition that the 18-month extension is necessary to "face reality." In fact, the committee's outline of its bill warns that an extension could be devastating to state DOTs that have "been unwilling to invest in large, long-term projects until enactment of the reauthorization act."

• Highway funding would be consolidated into four funding categories, as would transit -- effectively eliminating 75 funding categories from the current system.
  

• Oberstar's bill would establish the National Infrastructure Bank proposed by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) and other senior lawmakers, making the bank part of a broader metropolitan access program that would support urban areas in achieving "improved transit operations, congestion pricing, and expanded highway and transit capacity."

And that's not all. More details of the forthcoming House bill follow after the jump.

Everyone knows that Phoenix has a huge sprawl problem. But now transit-oriented development is on the upswing in this Sun Belt metropolis. In December, the Phoenix region opened one of the most ambitious transit projects in recent U.S. history: a 20-mile light rail line with 28 stops serving three cities (Phoenix, Tempe, and Mesa). Future plans include an extension within three years, with several new corridors being studied. 

The Valley Metro vehicles are handsome and comfortable, and thus far ridership has far exceeded initial projections -- with as many as 40,000 riders per day, compared to the expected 25,000. Each station features amenities and art installations. In addition, with many folks using the light rail as an intermodal step in their commutes, bicycles are welcome aboard. 

Buses, trucks, cars and pedestrians vie for space on 181st Street. Photo: Brad Aaron

The hearing comes over a year after the first public input session on the project, where Upper Manhattanites weighed in on their priorities for making 181st a complete street. At present, pedestrians pack the sidewalks of this major thoroughfare in the heart of Washington Heights, as buses compete for asphalt with double-parked cars and trucks.

One of 14 city corridors selected for redesign under the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program, 181st Street provides a direct link to the Bronx via the Washington Bridge, while, to its south, the George Washington Bridge brings traffic headed to and from New Jersey. The street is part of a local truck route and is home to five bus lines.

Tonight's meeting is at 6:30 p.m. at Mother Cabrini High School, 701 Ft. Washington Ave. at W. 190th St. Livable streets advocates, and especially locals, are encouraged to attend.

With all the kerfuffle in Washington right now over the federal transportation law and the crisis in the Highway Trust Fund, it seems like an appropriate time to be reminded of the role that federal dollars play in funding bicycle infrastructure.

Today, Streetsblog Network member DC Bicycle Transportation Examiner has a post doing exactly that:

Photo by Tracy O via Flickr.

There's  a common perception that funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects comes just from local and state revenue streams. Although local funding is certainly important, it's no longer the only game in town. Since 1990, the US Department of Transportation (DOT) has followed a new transportation strategy that has sought to increase the number of people walking and bicycling. Between 1992 and 2004, the federal government spent $3.17 billion on 10,012 pedestrian or bicycle projects, according to a recently published analysis led by a researcher from the Harvard School of Public Health…

A number of Federal Highway Administration programs divert money toward bicycle and pedestrian projects. The Surface Transportation Program, which provides flexible funding for a variety of different projects, is the largest federal program that funds bicycle infrastructure. The Transportation Enhancements Program [TEP] provides funding for improvements in bike facilities, safety and education programs, and the preservation of abandoned rail trails. Areas with poor air quality can get funding for bicycle projects through the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program. The Recreational Trails Program, though smaller, also funds bicycle-related projects. Finally, members of Congress can earmark money for specific programs.

A quick perusal of New York State TEP projects, which include bike and pedestrian trails all over the state, show just how important federal money is to improving non-auto infrastructure.

More from around the network: The Transport Politic reports on the growing interest in railway electrification; The Political Environment warns of dire consequences that could result from highway expansion in Milwaukee; and Baltimore Spokes has the disturbing story of a flier put out by anonymous Colorado motorists to encourage the blocking of a bike ride planned for the Boulder area next month. Apparently the three-foot passing law that's set to go into effect in Colorado August 5 has some drivers riled up.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is asking Congress to extend the existing federal transportation law for 18 months, averting the coming insolvency of the nation's highway trust fund while putting off broad-based transport reform for as long as the Bush administration did in the days surrounding the 2004 election.

Photo: AP

LaHood's request comes at an awkward time for Jim Oberstar (D-MN), chairman of the House transportation committee. Oberstar had planned to release an outline of his priorities for a new transportation bill tomorrow and vowed to oppose any short-term extensions of the Bush-era legislation -- exactly what LaHood is now seeking.

LaHood urged Congress to couple its extension with "critical reforms" to existing federal transportation policy that streamline cost-benefit analyses and help to promote more livable communities. But it's far from clear that such changes could pass Congress by the end of next month, when lawmakers are slated to leave Washington and must come to a decision on shoring up the highway trust fund.

In addition, LaHood's call to effectively postpone debate on long-term transportation policy reform may not sit well with the small but vocal group of lawmakers who would prefer to start a broader discussion this year.

Extending the existing law also puts off a discussion over whether to keep relying on the gas tax to fund transportation improvements or move to a new revenue source -- a politically volatile issue for the Obama team, but one that lawmakers from both parties increasingly say is necessary.

Oberstar plans to stick to his schedule for moving forward on a new transportation bill, his spokesman told Streetsblog. During an invitation-only briefing with reporters earlier today, he called extending the existing law "unacceptable."

LaHood's full statement follows the jump.

So, I've done a lot of posts about the Bicycle Access Bill the past few months, and I try to include one or two nuggets of information every time that get at why the bill matters and what a big difference it would make. I never got around to posting a real good story about having one's bike rejected from one's place of work. Luckily, Reuters blogger Felix Salmon has that covered:

I did end up buying a folding bike this weekend -- a Montague DX -- and proudly carried it, folded in half, into 3 Times Square this morning, after having been told by a security guard that folding bikes were OK to bring in to the office. Except, it turns out, they’re not. The only way you’re allowed to bring a folding bike into the building, it turns out, is if it’s packed up into a bag. Otherwise, no dice.

I suppose my next hope is that NYC's bike-friendly new transportation commissioner will install some permanent bike parking in the acreage of Times Square she recently pedestrianized.

I'm sure the property managers at 3 Times Square have concocted some far-fetched safety-related pretense to explain why folding bikes have to be in a bag to get inside the building. But let's get real. This is about appearances. There's some notion of office building propriety that the mere sight of a bicycle would violate.

At this point, the best hope for Felix Salmon and other cyclists rests with the New York City Council, especially transportation committee chair John Liu and Speaker Christine Quinn. How much longer will thousands of New Yorkers have to wait before they can ride to work without worrying about theft?

DOT today announced a new slate of public service announcements for its "Look" cyclist safety campaign. As demonstrated in this TV ad, the spots are more graphic -- i.e. more realistic -- than the previous line-up (though those ads are currently running online as well), and are reminiscent of PSAs we've seen from abroad. Reads a DOT press release:

"We are doing everything we can to engineer safer streets, but we need to do even more to reach motorists behind the wheel, which this campaign does in a dramatic way," said Janette Sadik-Khan, DOT Commissioner. "Last year, some 3,000 bicyclists were injured in car accidents citywide, and too many of these accidents occurred because drivers and riders simply weren't paying attention. While the number of bicycle injuries continues to fall, there's still no substitute for simple awareness and attention on the road."

We can't help pointing out that, as it stands, the crash that injured the victim depicted here probably would not even make the news. The driver, meanwhile, regardless of culpability (assuming drugs or alcohol were not involved), would most assuredly have been allowed to leave the scene in his or her car by now without so much as a summons. But maybe those are topics for another campaign.

The latest round of ads, available here for viewing and downloading, will run through June, and are accompanied by direct mail pieces for city homeowners and drivers license holders.

The "Look" program is a project of the New York City Bicycle Safety Coalition, which includes DOT, the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, NYPD, the Taxi and Limousine Commission, the Public Advocate's Office, Transportation Alternatives, the Five Borough Bike Club, the New York City Bicycle Messenger's Association and NY State AAA.

"Non-Transport Accidents" includes burns from fire and scalding liquids, falls, and several other causes of injury. "Transportation Accidents" is mainly comprised of kids on foot killed by autos. Chart: NYC Department of Health.

Injuries took the lives of 388 New York City children from 2001 to 2007, and if you break down the specific causes of unintentional fatalities cited in the report, the single biggest risk to kids appears to be traffic.

I say "appears" since the report presents information on traffic deaths in a rather indirect fashion. 77 kids age 12 and under were killed by motor vehicle crashes that "involved child pedestrians." This data comes on page 21 of a 29-page document. No graph or chart shows traffic deaths side-by-side with other specific causes of death. It's not until page 23 that one learns "motor vehicle-related accidents (occurring on streets and roadways) remain the largest contributor to child injury deaths overall."

I mention this because the purpose of the report is "to inform policies, laws, regulations, and prevention activities in order to prevent future deaths." To make those policies and laws effective, you need to have a clear picture of relative risk. Preventing deaths from, say, poisoning is certainly important, but preventing deaths from traffic would save more lives by a huge margin. There are broad implications for police, legislators, and planners that follow.

Yet, in its recommendations, the report only touches on measures to improve safety inside the home. It's a stark change from the initial report released by the Health Department's Child Fatality Review Team in 2007 [PDF].