Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Cycling intimately acquaints you with every bump, slice, crease, divot, ledge, ripple and of course pothole in a street, because not noticing means you might get thrown off your steed into bone-breaking and life ending car traffic.

While riding along Lafayette Street in Manhattan, or Bergen Street in Brooklyn, or essentially anywhere in New York City, what I notice is surfaces that can only be described as poor and frankly dangerous for someone on a bike.

New York City is not the exception in this. It's been true in every city I have ever lived in in the United States, which includes some geographic and cultural diversity. Abroad, that's not so much the case, particularly in the prosperous countries of Western Europe. They notice the difference when the travel here, let me assure you. A few years ago when I was living in Boston a friend from Germany surveyed the pot-holed streets in Cambridge around the prestigious university of Harvard with some amazement.

"It reminds me of a Third-world country," he said with a grin. "Apparently no one cares!"

I don't think that's the case, but streets here do seem unusually bad. Why is that so?

"If you were to design the ultimate system, you would have mass transit be free and charge an enormous amount for cars."

So said Mayor Michael Bloomberg last April, right about the time he unveiled his plan to charge motorists a fee to drive into Manhattan's central business district. Eight months later, as the mayor's original proposal mutates for better or worse, the MTA is hours away from raising transit fares. Neither idea has exactly caught fire with the public, and the fare hikes could actually end up a foil for congestion pricing -- a plan originally intended as a sustained financial boost for the transit system.

And then there's Theodore "Ted" Kheel. The environmentalist, philanthropist, and renowned labor attorney has lobbied for free transit in New York for over 40 years. Last February he commissioned a $100,000 study that, as it turns out, could put the city's money where the mayor's mouth is. A summary of findings released late last week shows that if the city were to impose a $16 congestion fee ($32 for trucks) below 60th Street in Manhattan, 24 hours a day, seven days a week, along with higher curbside parking fees and a taxi surcharge, the MTA could remove its turnstiles and fareboxes forever.

Read more...

New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg will
declare his support today for a national carbon tax, according to a
report posted this morning on the New York Times City Room blog by
metro reporter Sewell Chan:

Mayor Bloomberg plans
to announce today his support for a national carbon tax. In what his
aides are calling one of the most significant policy addresses of his
second and final term, the mayor will argue that directly taxing
emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases that contribute
to climate change will slow global
warming, promote economic growth and stimulate technological innovation
— even if it results in higher gasoline prices in the short term.

Mr.
Bloomberg is scheduled to present his carbon tax proposal in a speech
this afternoon at a two-day climate protection summit in Seattle
organized by the United States Conference of Mayors. (A copy of the speech was provided to The New York Times by aides to the mayor; the full text is available here, along with the complete Times story.)

Needless to say, Charles Komanoff at the recently spiffed-up Carbon Tax Center, thinks this is a big deal (worthy of an Oscar or a Nobel Peace Prize, perhaps?):

With his speech today, Mayor Bloomberg joins former Vice-President Al
Gore as the nation’s leading advocates of a carbon tax to cap and
reduce carbon emissions from fossil fuels.

And consistent with the Mayor’s local transportation policy push:

Bloomberg’s support of a U.S. carbon tax is philosophically consistent
with his big current local initiative, a congestion pricing plan to
improve mobility, economic activity and the quality of life in the
Manhattan Central Business District by charging an entry fee for motor
vehicles. A carbon tax and congestion pricing both embody the principle
that safeguarding “the commons” — our air, water and public space –
requires that we exact from ourselves a commensurate price for uses
that damage or deplete it.

Congestion pricing advocate Carolyn Konheim and consulting partner Brian Ketcham are advising the Bloomberg administration to drop its resistance to a congestion pricing Environmental Impact Study.

The two say a study is needed to head off "likely 11th hour litigation" aimed at stopping the three-year pilot program from taking effect, a possibility Streetsblog alluded to following the first meeting of the Traffic Congestion Mitigation Commission late last month.

"[D]ecision-makers need to know that the selection of the system to be tested has considered all reasonable alternatives to achieve the Mayor's admirable goals," reads a press release announcing Konheim and Ketcham's open letter to Mayor Bloomberg.

The most promising alternative to be examined in an environmental assessment is "charging at the real chokepoints in roadway capacity -- our river crossings and highways," according to Ketcham, a traffic engineer who has regarded bridge tolls as the premier congestion pricing strategy since he introduced them in his landmark Clean Air plan for New York City in 1973. Tolling the four free East River bridges equal to all MTA crossings and across 60th Street, river to river, he calculates "would be at least as effective as PlaNYC in reducing congestion and would generate far more funding for transit."

The independent Brooklyn-based planners estimate that a pricing cordon that crosses bridge and tunnel spans and 60th Street would require E-ZPass monitors on about 50 inbound lanes, whereas the charging network necessitated by PlaNYC's complex avoidance of tolls could require detectors and cameras on1,000 to 2,000 lanes. Based on London's operating costs for a simpler single cordon, they foresee that the charging grid in PlaNYC would consume most of the congestion pricing revenue, leaving little funding for transit -- a major goal of the mayor's plan and the long-term aim of transit advocates.

Mr. Ketcham and Ms. Konheim suggest numerous strategies as alternatives to or companions of congestion pricing, particularly, the kind of comprehensive parking control and parking pricing program instituted in London before road pricing, and measures to reduce taxi cruising, a "major source of New York's congestion."

The full text of the letter appears after the jump.

Read more...

New York State Assembly Members Jose Rivera, Richard Brodsky and Adriano Espaillat

Mayor Bloomberg and the Campaign for New York's Future never really seemed to get that the congestion pricing debate was fundamentally going to be a fight about class, and the widening divide between rich and poor in New York City.

While the Mayor and the Campaign built their communications strategy around little girls with asthma and $500 million in federal funding for transit, opponents hammered away on class issues, arguing that congestion pricing is a "regressive tax," harmful to small business, the middle class and the aspiring middle class. Perhaps a Mayor Weiner or Carrion wouldn't have been as vulnerable to these clearly bogus class arguments. But the billionaire Republican mayor was.

The Mayor and the Campaign should have acknowledged up front that an $8 fee isn't going to prevent Donald Trump from driving in to Midtown if that's what he wants to do. But if CEO's and hedge fund managers are going to drive anyway, let's make them pay every time they decide to do so. And let's take their money and plow it into mass transit for the rest of us, the 95% of weekday commuters who don't use a car to get to work in Manhattan. Congestion pricing is transportation policy that Robin Hood would approve of.

It's probably too late for Bloomberg, but perhaps there are some lessons here for a Mayor Weiner or Carrion. The failure to address the class issue head-on allowed a congestion pricing opponent like Westchester Assembly Member Richard Brodsky to present himself as the defender of the little guy. Frankly, nothing could be further from the truth. Brodsky did no favors to New York City's poor and middle class. He did, however, do a fantastic job of representing the interests of his relatively wealthy, suburban, car-commuting district.

Take a look at the income data from these three State Assembly districts. It's pretty clear who represents the interests of poor and middle class New York City residents and who does not:

19.6% of residents earn less than $35,000/year
26.6% of residents earn $35,000 to $75,000/year
53.3% of residents earn more than $75,000/year

Jose Rivera, congestion pricing supporter
D-Bronx
Assembly District 78

64.5% of residents earn less than $35,000/year
27.0% of residents earn $35,000 to $75,000/year
8.4% of residents earn more than $75,000/year

Adriano Espaillat, congestion pricing supporter
D-Manhattan
Assembly District 72

63.1% of residents earn less than $35,000/year
28.1% of residents earn $35,000 to $75,000/year
8.7% of residents earn more than $75,000/year

Numbers are based on 2000 census data assembled in 2002 by the New York State Legislative Taskforce on Demographic Research and Reapportionment.

Supporters of congestion pricing rallied yesterday in Times Square, urging state lawmakers to act by July 16 on Mayor Bloomberg's initiative or risk losing $500 million in federal funds. "The time is now," said the mayor, according to the New York Post. "We cannot walk away from this opportunity." 

Shouting out to tourists in a passing bus, the Mayor also suggested a new slogan for the Big Apple, according to the Daily News: "Welcome to New York. We have cars clogging our street. We have trucks polluting our air. We have traffic holding back business."

Department of Transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan continues to assemble an impressive management team.

Following in the footsteps of Bruce Schaller and Jon Orcutt, Project for Public Spaces vice president and transportation program director Andy Wiley-Schwartz is heading over to 40 Worth Street where he will be reporting to Deputy Commissioner Schaller at DOT's new Office of Long-Term Planning and Sustainability. There they will be working to implement the transportation and public space objectives set out in Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC.

Wiley-Schwartz starts at DOT on Monday. While there has been no official announcement of his hiring or his title, word has it Wiley-Schwartz will be working on new public space initiatives, which seems like a natural fit, given his experience at PPS. With DOT's recent focus on reclaiming under-utilized bits and pieces of street space as public plazas and with tremendous grassroots energy in places like Hell's Kitchen, SoHo, Gansevoort, Grand Army Plaza, Williamsburg and even the occasional, random on-street parking spot -- it seems like "public space initiatives" could be a pretty exciting job description at DOT right now.

Wiley-Schwartz has been a contributor here at Streetsblog. At PPS he specialized in working with Departments of Transportation and community groups all across the U.S. on downtown street enhancement, traffic calming and bicycle and pedestrian projects. He is a national lead in the Context Sensitive Solutions movement, an articulate advocate and just a really pleasant guy to work with. Here is an excerpt from his PPS bio:

He specializes in helping communities rebuild their neighborhoods and cities by leveraging transportation funding into the development of public spaces, including streets and other transportation facilities, in part by focusing on strategic partnerships and programming.

Andy's current projects include PPS's New Jersey Smart Choices program: an outreach, education and training program to help municipalities plan and make sustainable land use decisions in partnership with the New Jersey Department of Transportation. He is also working with the Times Square Alliance in New York City, the City of Elmira, NY to revitalize the area under and around a railroad viaduct downtown, and advising the City of Indianapolis on their plan to build a "Cultural Trail" through their central business district.

And, no, this is not an April Fool's prank. It's June, people.

It seems inconceivable given the overwhelmingly positive developments of the past few weeks, but the city wants to increase parking in Manhattan by some 20,000 spaces, and is defending itself in court for the right to do so.

The Bloomberg and Spitzer administrations are working together to hold on to a rezoning provision that would dramatically increase required parking inventory for new development in the Hudson Yards area on the far West Side. The parking plan is a holdover from the failed Jets stadium deal -- and it's illegal, according to the Hell's Kitchen Neighborhood Association (HKNA) and others who have filed suit against Mayor Bloomberg, City Planning Director Amanda Burden, the MTA and the New York Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).

The suit alleges that the parking requirements, adopted in 2005, are in violation of a 1982 agreement to keep the city in compliance with the Clean Air Act. Further, plaintiffs question the validity of the city's environmental impact statement regarding planned development for the area.

For its part, the DEC is attempting to remove references to parking from its Clean Air Act State Implementation Plan (SIP). The state currently limits the amount of parking that can be attached to development below 60th Street, but the DEC says parking should not be considered part of the SIP since the city was not legally required to consider parking as part of its compliance strategy. Further, the DEC says parking falls under the jurisdiction of city planners, not state officials.

Critics of congestion pricing often claim that small businesses will bear an unfair burden if the Mayor is successful in implementing his plan. But yesterday, a diverse group of small business leaders from throughout the five boroughs gathered on the steps of City Hall yesterday to voice their support for the Mayor's PlaNYC initiative. From The Campiagn for New York Future's press release:

The organizations and leaders who stepped up today to support the Mayor's plan and enlist in the broad-based Campaign for New York's Future included:

• New York City Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• Manhattan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
• Dumbo Improvement District
• National Supermarkets Association
• Chinese Chamber of Commerce New York
• New York Industrial Retention Network
• 86^th Street Bay Ridge Business Improvement District

Said Maria Alvarez Castro, President and CEO of the Manhattan Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, "By and large, small business owners in New York City also live here. They want what is best for their families and the City's future and are willing to support sensible efforts to create a healthier environment to live and work."

Added Tucker Reed, Executive Director of the Dumbo Improvement District, "Change is not an option. It is an urgent priority. Global warming, traffic congestion and health problems, such as asthma and lung disease, are getting worse and will continue to worsen absent serious measures, such as the far-reaching PlaNYC initiative. It is time all of us got on board with solutions."

Joe Ithier of the New York City Hispanic Chamber of Commerce said, "In addition to the enormous health benefits of PlaNYC, it will be obvious to any small business owner, who studies the full details of the initiative, that the package of proposals, if enacted, would benefit virtually all business in virtually every industry throughout the five boroughs."

Read more...

The Today Show cast, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, a Yahoo! executive and Council Member David Yassky stand with a gas-electric hybrid Ford Escape SUV taxi this morning.

Though members of my immediate family claim that it is the most mind-numbingly boring of all 500 cable channels available in our home, I'm a big fan of NYCTV Channel 74 (and don't get me started about Channel 93's riveting City Drive Live, traffic cam after traffic cam, get yourself a bucket of popcorn and settle in).

One of the best "shows" that I ever saw on Channel 74 was a 2005 City Council hearing on Council Member David Yassky's hybrid taxi legislation. The push for hybrid cabs has been a pillar of Yassky's platform since his first days in City Council. In 2003 he introduced 81 taxi medallions designated strictly for hybrid vehicles. In 2005 the city released another 250 of the hybrid medallions.

Putting cleaner and more fuel efficient taxi cabs on the streets of New York seemed to me to be a no-brainer and a big win for taxi drivers, taxi riders and the city as a whole. So, it was incredible to watch Taxi Commissioner Chairman Matthew Daus flanked by a couple of old school taxi industry guys on Channel 74, rejecting every one of Yassky's attempts to get the TLC to commit to more hybrid cabs. Back in 2005, this idea seemed to be an impossibility.

Times have changed. This morning Mayor Bloomberg and Yassky appeared together on the Today Show to announce the city's commitment to establishing an all-hybrid or low emission taxi fleet for New York City by 2012. City Council and the TLC haven't gotten their hands on it yet, so who knows what the final law will look like. But here are the general outlines of the new legislation as described to me by a Yassky aide:

• Current law mandates that cab owners must purchase new vehicles every three years. Between now and January 2008 somewhere around 2,700 new cabs will be put on the street. The new law suggests that the taxi industry voluntarily commit to making sure that 20%, or 540, of these new cabs are hybrids.
  
• By October 2008 all newly purchased yellow cabs will be vehicles with a 25 m.p.g. city rating or higher.
  
• October 2009 all newly purchased yellow cabs will be vehicles with a 30 m.p.g. city rating or higher or low emission standards. Including the three year turnover, by October 2012 all of New York City's 13,000 taxis would meet this standard.