A vision for transportation reform

As part of a longer comment today about congestion pricing on Streetsblog, George Haikalis of the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility proposes the following bold vision for transportation reform:

I think it is time to calm down, get over the blame game and devise a winning strategy for transportation reform that includes disincentives for driving to the core, including very substantial levels of cordon pricing, closing key single-occupant arteries to the core like the Central Park loop roadways and converting the entire upper deck of the Queensboro Bridge to bike and pedestrian use, eliminating fares entirely on subways, buses and commuter rail lines and creating a grid of pedestrian streets with surface rail transit, using vision42 as a prototype.

Mm, wait. A car-free Central Park, unfettered bike and pedestrian access to the Queensboro bridge, free public transportation, and pedestrianized streets? This sounds like a New York we would all enjoy living in.

The beginning of the end for Silver?

(Left to right: Sheldon Silver, Paul Newell, Luke Henry)

New York State Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver (representing the LES, Chinatown, Nolita, Financial District, and Battery Park City) is one of Albany's notorious "three men in a room" controlling a corrupt and undemocratic state government. Thanks to Silver, congestion pricing was never allowed to the floor for a vote, thus protecting Assembly Dems from having to go on public record as being pro- or anti-pricing. He has not been challenged in a Democratic primary since 1986.

Enter challengers Paul Newell and Luke Henry. Newell and Henry are aiming to unseat Silver this fall and offer a progressive's dream agenda: clean money, clean elections; stronger rent regulation (including repeal of the Urstadt law that denies New York City home rule in determining rent regulation); an end to partisan redistricting; marriage equality for GLBT New Yorkers; and congestion pricing and other livable streets initiatives.

I would be thrilled if either man managed to unseat Silver, but if I could vote in this election (which I can't because I don't live in the 64th Assembly District), I would probably throw my support behind Newell, who seems to have greater political experience and be stronger on livable streets issues. I also think he may have a more intuitive grasp of GLBT issues than Henry (for example, transgender inclusion), although honestly I couldn't identify any real difference in their published positions. Nevertheless, Newell's profile in the NY Sun mentions that he eschews driving in favor of riding around the city on his red mountain bike, so what's not to like?

Light rail now!

(Image: vision42.org)

The following comment was posted yesterday in response to the NY Times City Room blog item about congestion pricing's downfall. While I disagree with Mr. Spitz's characterization of congestion pricing as "economically harmful," I found his comment particularly visionary in promoting light rail as a greener mass transit strategy:

In promoting Congestion Pricing as a panacea, Mayor Bloomberg continues the irrational policies of his PlaNYC and the MTA by omitting non polluting street level boarding light rail as a remedy for improving the environment and lessening vehicle gridlock. Light rail, the solution successfully adopted by forward-looking cities including Charlotte, Baltimore, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, Houston, Dallas, Denver, Phoenix and Portland, Oregon, has proven to be the 21st century answer for reducing traffic congestion and air pollution.

The Mayor and the MTA are promoting two excessively costly Manhattan mega-projects which threaten to absorb not only all available transit funding and but which may require further subway, bus and toll bridge increases. Moreover, the $4.65 billion, 1.7 mile three station first phase Second Avenue Subway is not expected to be completed until 2015 and construction of the $2.1 billion one station 42nd street number 7 line extension has not yet begun.

Substituting street level boarding (excellent for senior citizens and the disabled) light rail on 1st, 2nd and 3rd Avenues for the Second Avenue Subway and the uncomfortable polluting articulated buses now used on those thoroughfares would cost less than $500 million and the MTA could easily construct river to river light rail on 42nd street for less than $300 million. Studies have shown that European and North American motorists are willing to abandon their cars when provided with state of art light rail as an alternative for their daily commute. There is enough money already committed by Mayor Bloomberg’s PlaNYC and the MTA to the aforementioned Megaprojects to make major improvements such as light rail and bus rapid-transit plus improved subway signaling equipment throughout the five Boroughs without the economically harmful Congestion Pricing scheme.

— Posted by George N. Spitz

In my experiences riding light rail, I have found it to be the most pleasant means of urban mass transit as I didn't have to manage subway station entrances and exits (problematic if one is disabled or encumbered) and I got to enjoy charming street-level views of the city (rather than being banished underground).

For an example of light rail being applied to New York, check out vision42's fabulous proposal to make 42 Street a car-free pedestrian and light-rail corridor.

In the wake of CP's failure

Now that Congestion Pricing has been voted down, let's look at some other projects for improving Manhattan's streets that don't require Albany's approval. Featured today in Streetsblog, here's an interesting article from Outside Magazine about greening New York's streets.

Who you gonna call?

Inwoodists, here's who you need to call to voice your support for congestion pricing:

Senator Eric Schneiderman: (212) 928-5578
Assemblymember Herman D. Farrell: (212) 234-1430

When I spoke with aides at both offices, Schneiderman appears to support congestion pricing. The aide at Farrell's office did not state his position (and I foolishly didn't ask), but from various news reports he appears to be against it. Please inform the aide when you call that congestion pricing would greatly benefit the vast majority of his constituency, since just 3.4 percent commute alone by car to Lower Manhattan.

Remember, CP needs to be approved the state legislature by Monday in order for New York to receive $350 million in badly needed federal funds to launch it.

Call your state legislators now!

The New York City Council passed congestion pricing by a vote of 30-20 on Monday. To make it a reality, the state legislature needs to approve it *by Monday* to secure $350 million in federal funding to get the program started. Passing congestion pricing would help provide traffic relief and needed mass transit upgrades.

If you are in support of congestion pricing, please call your state senator and assemblymember as soon as possible to request their support. If you don't know who they are, you can identify them here. It's simple and fast (I just did it).

City Council approves congestion pricing 30-20

Read the reportage in the New York Times. Miguel Martinez, Inwood's representative on the New York City Council, voted in favor, so make sure and give him some love.

Speak out in favor of congestion pricing

If you support reducing traffic, cutting commute times, and funding public transportation across all neighborhoods in New York City, write your legislators now!

Improved mass transit

With all the buzz about congestion pricing as a solution to Manhattan's traffic woes, I've been thinking about ways to improve getting folks around in this city and the quality of life for those who make this island their home or place of work. Ultimately, to get more cars off the road, we need to do more than just charge drivers more money to negotiate our streets. When prices for everyday commodities rise suddenly and dramatically, many may grumble or protest at first, but they go ahead and pay the higher price and soon mentally adjust to the situation as "normal." For example, have significant price increases at the gas pump really reduced the number of drivers on the road in any meaningful way?

To get people out of their cars, we need to make mass transit not just a viable but desirable alternative to driving.

Now, I admit, living in New York, I'm spoiled. I gave up my car when I moved here and have never looked back. I can get anywhere I need to go within the city 24 hours a day using subways, buses, my own two feet, and, if I'm really desperate, a cab.

And yet...

How many of you living in Inwood and the Heights have encountered the following situations?

• You cut short your fun evening out downtown or in Brooklyn because it's 10:25 and the A is about to turn into a pumpkin and you don't want to spend 75 minutes getting home when you have to get up at the ass crack of dawn to get to work the next day.


• You discover that yet again, for the 20th weekend in a row, the A is going to be running local (which seemed to be the case for almost all of 2007). Oh, and just to slow you down even further, the MTA is running a "special" shuttle between 207th and 168th streets. You'd better bring a good book or some rocking tunes for that 90-minute commute to the East Village.


• It's 2:20 a.m. and you're ready to slit your wrists at 50th St. because it's taken the A 40 minutes to show up (despite the MTA's claim that they run every 20 minutes late nights).


• You're in the 'Wood and you need to get to the East Side... don't get me started.

Is it any wonder why some people persist in driving their cars around this island?

So in the next few entries, I'm going to put out some ideas for improving our mass transit and quality of life on Mannahatta. I'm just getting started with this blog, and I may not be able to post all that frequently, so be patient, okay?