The City Council wants to turn the light on taxis.
Weighing in on the cab overcharging scandal first revealed three months ago, the City Council approved several bills on Wednesday to bring more transparency to the Taxi and Limousine Commission by requiring the commission report the number of complaints it receives every month and mandating taxis store rate data.
Some taxi advocates, however, are skeptical of the legislation, saying it could unfairly portray cabbies as scammers.
In addition to the taxi legislation, the council approved a bill to require the Department of Parks and Recreation permanently mark concession areas in public parks to prevent vendors from taking up public space.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg is expected to sign all of the legislation, according to a mayoral spokesperson.
In March, the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission reported thousands of drivers had routinely overcharged taxi passengers for fares by using out-of-town rates for some rides that were completely within the five boroughs.
Just weeks after the revelation, however, the commission revealed the taxi scam was not as prevalent as initially thought. In May, the commission announced that more than 600 drivers had routinely overcharged riders -- and many of them could now lose their license.
While the scope of the taxi scam has shrunk, council members said they want to make sure the meter isn’t switched on riders ever again.
"If there was just one driver out there overcharging New Yorkers and tourists in taxis that would be a big problem," said Council Speaker Christine Quinn. "It was clearly much more than one. It was a level that was unacceptable."
In response, the council, in a vote of 50 to 0, approved legislation ( Intro 235-A) that requires every cab have equipment to store fare and rate data, which could be submitted to the Taxi and Limousine Commission upon request. While cabs already have equipment that collects trip data, they do not always collect information regarding certain trip rates.
Another bill, unanimously approved by the council, ( Intro 233) would require the commission submit an annual report to the council detailing all taxi complaints, including those on overcharging, and any subsequent violations. This information will also have to be posted on the commission's Web site every month.
Bhairavi Desai of the New York Taxi Workers Alliance fears the new rush of taxi data could be taken out of context. She said the new numbers should show the number of complaints versus the number of taxi rides on a daily basis.
"We have no problem with the transparency," said Desai. "Our concern is the context in which the numbers will be interpreted."
The council also revised its passenger bill of rights ( Intro 232) for taxis to include a provision notifying passengers of their right to E-ZPass in the cab. During the taxi scandal, it was also uncovered some cabbies used long toll lines instead of the quick E-ZPass to up their total fare.
The measure was approved by a vote of 49 to zero with one abstention from Councilmember Gale Brewer.
The commissioner of the Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky, said yesterday he supported the bills.
In response to complaints about the privatization of parks, the council approved legislation requiring the Department of Parks and Recreation to identify concession areas by marking them in parks and on park maps.
The bill ( Intro 21-A) was approved by a vote of 50 to 0.
Seasonal concessions, those operating less than 45 days, those occupying less than 200 feet, concessioners on greater than two acres and those operating in three or more boroughs will be exempt from the requirement.
Violators will face fines of between $200 and $1,000.
By clearly identifying concession areas, supporters said the city and public can make sure vendors do not overflow into the open spaces of public parks.
The council also approved legislation that would give Albany the go-ahead to approve the installation of up to 50 miles of bus lane camerasin New York City. The bill must be approved at the council before the State Legislature can give the final OK. Quinn said it has not been determined whether the cameras, which will allow the city to better use bus rapid transit, will be installed on actual buses, on the street or both.
Additional reporting by Alana Horowitz.
Mohammad Chowdhury bears the scars of his profession. A long scar stretches across his throat, a memento of a five-inch knife wound he received during a March 28 attack. It took 18 stitches to put him back together. Chowdhury is not a police officer, a solider or emergency responder. He drives a cab.
At 4:30 a.m. as Chowdhury, off duty, headed home at the end of his shift, two women asked him to drive them to the Bronx. One of the women started to urinate in the cab. Chowdhury pulled over and demanded that she use a restroom. The woman opened the door and urinated on the sidewalk, and Chowdhury repeated his request that she use a nearby bathroom. That is when the woman grabbed him by the head and started assaulting him, eventually using a utility knife to slash his throat. Chowdhury was rescued by emergency medical workers who saw the attack.
The general public might not think driving a cab is particularly dangerous, but cabbies say that their profession is one of the most hazardous in the country. The New York City Police Department estimates that around 100 cabbies have been robbed this year but the New York City Taxi Workers Alliancesays that a large number of attacks go unreported by cabbies.
A 2002 report by the U.S. Department of Labor found that drivers who work 12-hour shifts are 60 percent more likely to be killed on the job than most workers.
In an effort to help change that, State Sen. Eric Adams and Assemblyman Rory Lancman have proposed the Taxi Driver Protection Act, which would make it a class D felony in New York State to assault a cab driver, even if only minor injuries are incurred, and would mandate that signs be placed in every cab warning that "Assaulting a Taxi Driver is a Felony Punishable by Up to Seven Years in Prison."
The new law might not punish Chowdhury's attackers anymore than they normally would be because of the brutal nature of their assault but there is hope that having a stiffer law on the books and the warning sign would deter future attacks. Taxi driving is routinely ranked in the 15 most dangerous jobs in America. It was estimated in 2008 that 19.3 cabbies died for every 100,000 drivers. They carry cash, they travel all over the city, and their backs are constantly to the people they are serving.
While attracting support from drivers and some officials, the measure is by no means assured of passage. The bill enjoys considerable support in the Assembly, where it has multiple cosponsors, but so far the Senate bill has no cosponsors.
The head of the city Taxi and Limousine Commission, David Yassky endorses the legislation. "Taxi and for-hire vehicle drivers provide an important public service to our city, and we need to maximize their safety. The Taxi Driver Protection Act will send a strong and clear message that violence of any kind against drivers will not and cannot be tolerated," said Yassky.
States including California and Illinois have stiff felony penalties for assaulting drivers, and other states employ warning signs.
Those expressing reservations about the bill question whether the state should distinguish between the job of the victim in setting penalties.
"There is always a concern about legislating for each individual profession in the state. We don't want a bill for each one," said Assembly Minority Leader Brian Kolb, who said he is not sure whether he will support the bill. "Having said that, they have a bill for transit workers, and taxi workers are certainly in more danger than most because of the situation they are in -- with their backs to riders. It is dangerous, and in general we have to do something about it."
But that something is not necessarily voting for the Taxi Worker Protection Act. Kolb said he needs to reconcile his concerns about the legislation before deciding how he will vote. Senate Republicans have similar concerns and said they would need more time to consider the legislation.
In 2008, as Kolb mentioned, the legislature passed a law that makes it a class D felony to assault transit workers, including bus drivers, station agents and traffic enforcement agents.
Lancman said that law makes Kolb's concerns moot. "The debate has been resolved. The only question that remains is if taxi workers fit into the class of workers who are in more danger than most others. And I think it is pretty clear they are. This is really a no-brainer," Lancman said
"There are other people on the other side of the aisle that say we shouldn’t give stricter penalties for attacking people of one profession," said Adams, "but we already have the precedent so there is no argument.”
Adams addressed a rally of taxi drivers on Tuesday to cheers and loud chants. Assembly members Lancman, Michelle Schimel, Michael DenDekker and Michael Benjamin also spoke in support of the legislation.
"You can't ever predict what is going to happen in Albany, but we are pushing this as hard as we can," said Adams.
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver's office would only comment to say that the bill is in the "committee process." A spokesman for the Senate Democrats said he was not familiar with the bill
Mohammed Chowdhurry was by no means the only cabbie at Tuesday’s rally with scars and stories to tell.
Nearly 100 other cab drivers took the day off from work to drive to Albany to lobby on their own behalf. They circled the Capitol in a motorcade, honking their horns. And then they took to the capital to tell their stories.
Mamnun Ul Haq told the crowd that, in 2005 he drove himself to get help after a passenger stabbed him in the back with a 10-inch hunting knife. The knife grazed his lungs and came near to his spine. He figured he would die on the operating table. He survived but spent years working his job afraid that he would be attacked again. He has recently taken up a different trade.
In 2007 Gurmail Singh was beaten in the head with a metal rod while exiting his cab at the end of the shift. On April 29, 2010, J. Singh was hit in the head with a metal rod and told to "go back to your country." Many other cabbies said they too were attacked because of their religion or ethnicity.
The stories go on and on.
Legislators and drivers admit that the legislation will not stop all violence against taxi drivers, but they hope it will go a long way to deterring at least some of it.
"We are impatient," said Lancman. "This is not some kind of esoteric debate. This is going to change people's lives. We feel a real sense of urgency to get this passed because we are sure it will save someone's life."
The brightly colored tour buses rumbling down Broadway are about to get muffled.
The City Council approved legislation Thursday, which turns down the volume on the tour bus industry by requiring all open-air tour buses give passengers headphones instead of blasting corny commentary over loudspeakers. The bill comes after years of complaints from local residents, who say wailing from a passing double-decker constantly interrupts their peace and quiet.
"The buses in the high season come every five minutes," said Barbara Becker, a resident of Bleecker Street for the last 40 years. "It permeates your living room, your kitchen."
The tour bus industry opposes the bill.
Under the legislation, (Intro 182) which was approved by a vote of 44 to 2, all open-air tour buses will have to be equipped with headphones by 2015. At least 10 percent of the open-air fleet must have headphones by July 2011.
When first introduced, the bill would have applied to every tour bus -- whether it is enclosed or not.
Officials called the final version of the bill "a good balance."
"We can't neglect that the tourists come to a city where in all neighborhoods people live," said Council Speaker Christine Quinn. "We wanted to make sure we passed legislation that brought residents a little more quiet, a little bit of ability to sleep in the city that never sleeps, but also created appropriate regulation that would allow the tour bus industry to continue in the city of New York."
Of the 250 tour buses registered with the Department of Consumer Affairs, 170 of them are open-air, according to the council. Quinn also said that the thousands of tourists sharing headphones did not pose sanitary concerns.
A spokesperson said the mayor would sign the legislation.
At a hearing earlier this month, Thomas Lewis, president of tour bus company Gray Line New York Sightseeing, testified that his company had received only a handful of complaints over its 15-year existence and its buses work within legal noise levels.
"We strongly prefer to address this issue on a neighborhood by neighborhood and a block by block basis, rather than the 'killing an ant with a sledge hammer' approach that this broad citywide mandate imposes," Lewis stated in his testimony.
Bus operators that do not have headphones could be subject to a fine of between $200 and $750 per day and could have their licenses suspended.
Some critics of the bill fear that equipping the buses with headphones could spur companies to replace tour guides with taped messages, which isn't prohibited by the legislation.
Officials, including the bill's sponsor, Councilmember Gale Brewer, said they would make sure tour guide jobs are not lost and buses keep their persons and personalities.
"A tourist wants a person," said Brewer, who has been called out to from a tour bus while walking on Sixth Avenue. "They want the nuances of the neighborhood."
The council also approved two bills (Intros 37 and 153) requiring the Department of Juvenile Justice to report demographic and restraint data to the council every year.
Under the bills, the department will have to report the race, gender, zip code and ethnicity of every individual confined in juvenile facilities. The department will also be required to report any instances of physical restraint, mechanical restraint, room confinement and any allegations of abuse.
Runaway horses aren't the only things to worry about during carriage rides in Central Park.
The industry might now gallop off with your wallet.
In an attempt to whip the horse carriage industry into shape and diffuse criticism that it's inhumane, the City Council approved a bill (Intro 35) Wednesday that implements new safety and stable conditions for horses, but also doubles carriage ride rates. A half hour ride around Midtown now costs $34. The rate will jump to $50 for the first 20 minutes.
Council officials said the increase is warranted, because rates have not been touched in 20 years. They also say the bill implements important humane standards for the horses, giving them a five-week vacation outside of the city every year and requiring larger stalls.
Despite its intent, the bill was not supported by some animal rights activists, who argue the horse carriage industry should be eliminated altogether.
"New York City is not the ideal environment for it. It's not going to be an ideal environment for it," said Michelle Villagomez, a senior manager at the ASPCA. "Unfortunately, the city and the industry have been unwilling to really put the horses first."
The ASPCA had urged the council to approve a bill to replace the carriages with antique automobiles.
The carriage horse industry overwhelmingly supports the legislation. Its members filled the second floor balcony of City Hall as the council voted. When the council approved the bill by a vote of 43 to four with one abstention, they applauded.
In addition to the initial rate increase, the legislation will allow carriage horse operators to adjust rates for inflation every three years.
Stephen Malone, a spokesperson for the Horse and Carriage Association of New York and a carriage owner and operator, said the rates are a maximum. If tourists balk, he said, the driver can negotiate.
"We're not in business to go out of business," said Malone. "These are all provisions put in place to protect the sustainability of the industry."
According to testimony from the Department of Health and Mental Hygiene on the bill, there are 202 licensed carriage horses, 68 carriages, 19 stables and 284 licensed drivers.
In addition to the five-week furlough, the carriage industry will have to provide horses with heavy blankets in cold weather and put emergency brakes on their carriages. A horse will now have to be between the age of 5 and 26 to pull a carriage.
The bill still allows carriages to operate on days from 18 degrees to 89 degrees. Advocates had urged the city to factor in wind chill and humidity.
The bill also does not change the number of hours a horse can work. Horses can now pull carriages for two hours at a time with a 15-minute break, said Malone. On average, he added, carriages only receive one ride an hour, meaning each driver and equine get a lot of down time. They can work for nine hours in a 24-hour period.
The bill will require horses see a vet before a carriage license can be renewed and every four to eight months after. Carriages will now be prohibited below 34th street.
In 2007, then Comptroller William Thompson audited the industry and found it was infrequently inspected and health conditions for horses were substandard. The audit was released as several accidents led to the death of several horses.
In response to criticism of the legislation, Council Speaker Christine Quinn defended the horse carriage industry, saying it was an iconic activity for any visitor to the Big Apple.
"We want to support this industry," said Quinn. "We want to keep it alive and running."
The City Council also gave the OK for a 754-unit, mixed-use development, Rose Plaza on the River, to take root in south Williamsburg.
The development will include about 25,000 square feet of community and commercial space, and extend open space along the Brooklyn waterfront south of the Williamsburg Bridge.
For weeks, officials questioned whether the community and the developer, Isack Rosenberg, would be able to reach an agreement over the size of the units and the amount of affordable housing. Up until Tuesday night, the area's council member, Stephen Levin, had not expressed support for the plan.
Under an agreement reached between Levin and the developer, the mixed-use development will make 30 percent of its units affordable, including 144 that could accommodate large families.
"This project has not been without controversy, but I am pleased to report we have come one step closer to reclaiming the Williamsburg waterfront," said Levin. "Affordable housing is desperately needed throughout the city and it is essential to communities like Williamsburg that have suffered from gentrification over the past several years."
It's getting worse.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority faces an operating gap of about $800 million and its five-year construction plan is down $10 billion. The authority is already planning cuts that include eliminating free rides for students and reducing Access-a-Ride services.
Now, a recently released report by the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, titled "The Urgency of Resurrecting Congestion Pricing in New York," claims fares could rise 15 percent by 2011 if new funding sources aren't found. The report has spurred a discussion of how to establish a long-term funding mechanism for mass transit.
Meanwhile, the war over the root of these financial problems continues: Politicians blame mismanagement and greed at the authority, while the authority and advocates claim politicians are simply unwilling to provide the agency with proper funding.
While transportation advocates are encouraged by reaction to the Drum Major Institute report, they fear history will repeat itself. Several plans for funding mass transit -- including congestion pricing and putting tolls on the East River bridges -- have died at the Capitol in the last few years. Now, advocates say they are now entirely at the mercy of legislators.
"At this point, the reality is we had plans, one from the mayor, two from [Richard] Ravitch. This time around who is going to bring it up? There is no guiding hand in this. Who would work for this? Who would want to take that risk?" asked Neysa Pranger of the Regional Plan Association. Pranger and other transportation activists will be in Albany on Monday to lobby legislators on MTA funding issues.
These advocates say they think the legislature has to come up with a plan of its own. "The one thing we have learned from Albany the past few years is they don't like being told what to do. I think any plan needs to be organic, to come from the Senate or the Assembly," Pranger said.
To that end, advocates hope that service cuts will motivate New Yorkers to complain to legislators -- a tactic they hope may be effective since this is an election year.
"To put it crassly," said Pranger, "we are going into an election, and they have to decide whether they want to deal with cuts or taxes, and neither sits well with people. But they need to deal with this issue and the student MetroCard issue, and I don't think they want to deal with results of inaction."
John Petro, the author of the Drum Major Institute study, wants to revive congestion pricing -- an $8 daily charge on cars entering or leaving Manhattan below 86th Street between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday. He estimates it could generate $400 million or more a year to help keep fares at a reasonable price. But other advocates say that the authority's financial situation is so desperate that it would take a congestion pricing plan, the current payroll tax and full funding from Albany to keep the agency afloat.
"Even if congestion pricing passes, Albany and City Hall will have to commit to properly funding the MTA or the situation won’t get better," said Petro.
While congestion pricing might be politically unpopular, the report's findings may make it more palatable for the city residents and legislators who argued the proposal would disproportionately affect working and middle class New Yorkers. According to Petro's calculations, without new funding sources a family of four with two working parents and two school age children would see their mass transit costs increase by $2,300 a year in 2011.
Legislators in the past railed against congestion pricing as well as the Ravitch plan, which would have placed tolls on East River bridges, saying that either change would hurt their working class constituents. One of the most outspoken critics of bridge tolls, Sen. Ruben Diaz, explained his opposition to the tolls tearlier this year: "Taxi drivers have to pay, too, and they will have to increase their fares. Who is gonna pay for that? The people," he said. But advocates point out that 67 percent of households in his district do not have access to a car and rely on mass transit.
The data shows middle and working classes would not be the ones paying to drive into the city under a congestion-pricing plan, Petro says. "We know from transit data that middle class and working class families use mass transit to get to New York if they work in the central business district," said Petro. "This idea that congestion pricing would hurt middle class families is very frustrating because it is patently false."
Petro said that only 5 percent of working New Yorkers commute by car in the city's central business district. Data from the city's Independent Budget Office from 2007 shows the median annual income of those who do drive into the city is 30 percent higher than the income of those who commute by mass transit.
"There has been a lot of misinformation that was aided by politicians who talked up this line that congestion pricing would hurt the working class," said Petro. "It will definitely be a slog to get this through Albany. The first step is addressing that this is misunderstood -- who would it affect, who it would benefit, who would have to pay."
Advocates say politicians are building on the public's distrust of the MTA to avoid responsibility for properly funding the organization.
Other proposals lto address the authority's fiscal problems include using federal stimulus funds to temporarily prop it up or redirecting capital funds into its operating budget. Advocates oppose redirecting capital funds because they say that money is used to maintain the infrastructure of the transit system, to make sure riders are safe and the system runs smoothly, as well as to expand service routes.
Gene Russianoff of the New York Public Interest Research Group said that thanks to anti-incumbent sentiment and the anti-tax fervor, the legislature will likely rule out bridge tolls and congestion pricing. He thinks the best case scenario could involve the MTA securing federal stimulus funding. "They could use stimulus funds to buy time and allow chairman Jay Walder to institute efficiencies he has planed," said Russianoff.
The worst plan currently proposed in Albany, according to Petro and a number of other advocates, Gov. David Paterson's plan to restructure the payroll tax, which has so far failed to live up to funding expectations.
Paterson's plan would increase the payroll tax in New York City from .34 to .54 percent, while counties in the rest of the MTA region would see their share reduced from .34 to .17 percent. Not only has the plan been slammed by Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Karthryn Wylde of the Partnership for New York City and loads of city legislators, but it would only raise a little over $200 million next year -- not enough to ward off already proposed service cuts.
Paterson's proposal would, to a degree, address the authority's funding problems. But the plan is a long shot because of Paterson's bitter relationship with legislators, and advocates charge that it has less to do with patching the MTA budget deficit than with pandering to suburban counties.
"It is little more than a shell game to reduce the tax for a portion of the MTA service area and then nearly double it for all businesses, including independent contractors like realtors, operating in New York City," said New York State Association of Realtors President Hank Fries. Fries’ organization is against any payroll tax to support the MTA. "Gov. Paterson is missing a key opportunity to demand meaningful reforms that result in long-term MTA cost containment," said Fries.
Transportation advocates say that the MTA's current financial situation is at least in part due to the failure of the payroll tax revenues to reach the levels projected by the state. Meanwhile, the legislature cut the MTA budget by $140 million in its end of the year deficit reduction plan approved in 2009.
The MTA made what is seen as a political gambit to spur the legislature to provide more consistent funding by approving a plan to phase out for free MetroCards for students. The plan, announced earlier this year, comes during a politically sensitive time as city legislators head into election season. The legislature is already dealing with public backlash and anti-incumbent sentiment left over from the Senate coup and cutting student MetroCards would not help them. However, it isn’t clear who is less popular -– legislators or the MTA.
In recent days, more than 19 members of the Assembly have called on the MTA to stop plans to cease funding free rides for school children. They sent a letter to MTA Chairman Jay Walder calling on him to continue the program. They argue the cuts will unfairly affect working class and poor families.
"Our working and lower-income families will not be able to absorb these additional costs, especially in the current depressed economic state we are in," said Assemblyman Felix Ortiz. "This cut is discriminatory in that it affects minority communities to a much higher degree. Everyone is entitled to an education; it should never become a privilege for those who can afford it."
Ortiz said he can't see providing the MTA with more funding until the agency makes its accounting more transparent. "Until they reveal their two sets of books and say here is book A and book B, we can't listen to the MTA. We need to fire everyone, restructure and reorganize," Ortiz said. "The MTA needs to get rid of the fat at the top."
Since 1995 the state and city provided the MTA with $45 million apiece to help fund the student MetroCard program. In 2009, the state decreased its share to $25 million. But the authority says the cost of funding the program has increased over the years and is now actually $214 million. City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and some senators have indicated they would be willing to look at increasing thei commitment to student transportation funding.
In a letter to Walder, Assemblyman Richard Brodsky questioned the cost of the program. "While the MTA asserts it needs $214 million in additional state and city aid to preserve the program, the actual cost of free and discounted student fares is close to zero. We reject the MTA's assertion that the program must be valued at the ostensible lost revenue, and point out that state and city funding for the program actually exceeds the cost of providing the service."
The letter continues, "We understand the use of political tactics in budget controversies. But there are limits, and the decision to put students and families out as a pawn in the struggle to increase city and state funding crosses a line."
Transportation advocates called the letter a farce, saying it was a shameless attempt by the assemblyman to distort the issue and skirt their responsibilities.
Russianoff, for example, points out that the load of students riding in the morning and afternoon certainly necessitates the use of more busses, which costs the MTA.
"About 20 percent of the morning bus peak is due to schoolchildren," said Russianoff. "I am disappointed in [Brodsky]. He has done good work watching over authorities and passing important legislation this year but I don't think he is adding anything constructive to the conversation."
Times are tough in New York’s pedicab industry. Drivers and owners of the bicycle taxis usually count on holiday season business to get them through the slow months of winter, but this year the recession and dismally wet weather weakened December business.
To further complicate the picture, new regulations governing the pedicab industry went into effect on Nov. 30, and it remains unclear how deeply these changes have affected business. The rules require that all pedicabs be inspected, insured, registered, and equipped with seatbelts and tail lights and that all pedicab drivers be licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs.
Considering this is the low season for pedicabs, no one has much hard information on the impact of the new rules. A consensus appears to be merging, however, that things have changed.
David Pollack, executive director of the Committee for Taxi Safety and one of the strongest advocates for regulation, seems pleased with the results. "Pedicabs had been a big problem for the longest time," he said. "Guys running red lights or going the wrong way down one way streets used to be a constant issue." Pollack reported that complaints from taxi drivers abut the bicycle cabs had decreased.
Complaints from pedestrians are down too, according to the office of City Councilmember Daniel Garodnick, who represents several of the neighborhoods most trafficked by pedicabs. Persistent nuisances like pedicabs on sidewalks or in no parking zones, and aggressive drivers harassing passers-by for a fare seem to have dropped off, according to the council member’s office.
Not all are satisfied however. The City Room blog reported in December that the 2009 holiday season was one of the worst on record for the pedicab businesses. "The economic crisis, a series of wet weekends and new regulations requiring licenses for pedicab drivers have created a perfect storm of misery in New York’s pedicab industry," it said.
While the weather and the economy have had an effect, some in the industry think the regulations have made the situation worse -- at least for now. For one thing, the number of people who have applied for pedicab licenses is far lower than the number of pedicabs in the city. According to the city's Department of Consumer Affairs, there are currently 943 registered pedicabs and 490 licensed drivers. For pedicab owners, many of whom own small fleets of the vehicles, this means massive amounts of lost revenue from rentals as their cabs sit idle.
"We’ve seen an 80 percent drop in revenue from December of last year," said Greg Zukowski, owner of Revolution Rickshaws, a company that rents out pedicabs to drivers.
Because the city did not put a cap on the number of licenses that can be awarded it is expected that the number of licensed pedicab drivers will eventually reach or exceed the number of registered pedicabs. When that happens, Zukowski expects things to pick up.
Whether or not some businesses will be able to last that long, though, is uncertain. January to March is the low season for pedicab rentals, and owners depend on a fat holiday to make it through that dry period. This year there were not enough pedicab drivers to fill the seats, and owners have been left struggling to find ways to get by.
When pedicabs began traveling city streets, they were subject to few, if any, regulations. By 2006, though, discussions had begun and the City Council held hearings on what, if any regulations, should govern the estimated 350 pedicabs then operating in the city. In 2007, the council passed legislation, which capped the number of pedicabs allowed to 325. It also required drivers to get licenses and have insurance; set safety standards for the cabs; and required pedicab operators to determine how they calculated fares. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who initially supported the measure, vetoed it, but the council overrodethat veto.
The battle was not over. The pedicab owners sued the city, successfully challenging the system the Department of Consumer Affairs planned to use to award licenses. Last summer, the City Council passed new legislation, which eliminated the cap on the number of pedicabs. Otherwise, much of the original legislation remained, including the driver's license, mandatory safety inspections and required safety features like seatbelts and taillights.
Obtaining a pedicab-driver’s license is relatively simple. The applicant must be a licensed driver, submit a photo ID and fill out several forms including a Child Support Certificate. According to the Department of Consumer Affairs, processing the application averages about five days. However several pedicab drivers did complain of slow turnover, most often because Consumer Affairs sent their license to the wrong address. The cost of the license is $35 a year.
Despite such problems, some drivers praise the new system. "In the past we were discriminated against by customers because the city wasn’t regulating the industry," said Jeff Larson, a pedicab driver for three years. "In general I think the regulations are very positive, especially the safety codes."
Now that they have been recognized by the city, pedicab owners and drivers think they deserve a more pedicab-friendly infrastructure.
"On the ground it's challenging," said Zukowski, who also is the head of the http://www.nycpedicabassociation.org/ Pedicab Owners Association. "City infrastructure hasn't really accounted for pedicabs yet." He pointed to the lack of taxi-stands for pedicabs, rules forbidding pedicabs from riding across any of the city's bridges or in bike lanes, and a continuing dispute with the Department of Parks and Recreation over how and where pedicabs can give tours through Central Park.
Any kind of regulations and improvements to tackle these issues will probably be put on the back burner for now, while those concerned about pedicabs see if the new regulations have made a difference. "Things always get better in the winter," said Wally Rubin, manager of Commmunity Board 5 which represents some of the most heavily trafficked pedicab routes in the city). "So if changes are made in November, as they were this year, the time to test them is spring and summer, not January."
Are the drastic service cuts adopted by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority board yesterday a bow to reality or simply a tool to goose the state legislature into giving it more money?
Earlier this month the MTA revealed that it faced a budget gap of around $400 million. The gap arose from a combination of factors, according to the agency. The state legislature reduced MTA funding by $143 million in its end-of-the-year deficit reduction plan, a payroll tax enacted by the legislature has brought in around $100 million less than expected and a State Supreme Court judge ruled that the MTA must make good on an 11.5 percent pay hike to transit workers over the next few years. All this put the Metropolitan Transportation Authority in a place no one wanted it to be again -- facing a major funding shortfall and promising drastic cuts if something isn't done.
On Wednesday morning, the MTA board voted unanimously to accept a budget that will eliminate two dozen bus routes and the W and Z subway lines, shorten the G and M lines, cut door-to-door paratransit service, and eliminate free rides for school students. Over 700 workers are expected to be laid off, and MTA administration will take a 10 percent pay cut. The MTA board will have to hold a round of public hearings and another vote before the cuts go into effect next year. A number of board members who voted for the plan voiced their hope that the cuts can be avoided.
Service cuts won't begin until July. Students would have to start paying half fare in the fall and finally full price in 2011.
Now, as advocates and straphangers and parents rage against the cuts, a game that played out last spring will start all over again -- with the legislature blaming the MTA for being alarmist and for not being forthright about its financing and the MTA accusing the state of being unwilling to come up with a sustainable funding mechanism for the authority.
Again straphangers will be left in the lurch, wondering if the state will act fast enough to make sure they aren't stuck holding the bill.
"They're the ones that put a deal together and said, 'You're fine for two years," board member Jeff Kay has said, referring to the legislature. "It's their deal that fell apart."
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer told the board New Yorkers are tired of the MTA's constant cash crises. Their "budget dance is quickly becoming known as the hustle," Stringer said.
Austin Shafran, spokesman for the Senate majority, took a more conciliatory approach. "We don't blame the MTA for the fiscal crisis," he said. "They didn't cause the financial problems, but more can be done to avoid these cuts."
Shafran attributed the $100 million shortfall in payroll tax collections to a lack of compliance, something typically seen with new tax collections. Despite that, he said, "The MTA has to tighten their belt and do more with less, like most New Yorkers."
"I am pretty ticked we are right back where we started," said Gene Russianoff of New York Public Interest Research Group's Straphanger's Campaign. The scenario played out for months last year as the MTA and advocates pressed the legislature to pass a bailout plan. Transportation activists pushed for a plan that would put tolls on bridges into the city -- making drivers part of the plan, as they put it. But recalcitrant senators balked at proposed tolls, mocked the MTA's bookkeeping.
Eventually, under mounting public pressure, the legislature passed a plan that did not include tolls on bridges, but also avoided significant service cuts and raised fares less than originally proposed. It did include the payroll tax. The package was largely seen as a stopgap.
Now, seven months later, with the state, too, facing financial crisis, there was no rush to plug the MTA's funding gap.
Some say the MTA's proposed cuts, specifically eliminating free rides for students, are designed to shock politicians into action- -- perhaps even to get them to consider congestion pricing next year.
"Last spring, we worked very hard with a number of other organizations to create a mechanism that would get the MTA through not just the thin times but the long haul," said Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives. "But instead what we got puts the burden on straphangers and businesses. Drivers were left out of it. Now we have severe cuts laid on straphangers. And advocates are forced to make a Sophie's choice between funding capital projects or just keeping what we have running."
Norvell said he is heartened by recent comments from Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Gov. David Paterson to the effect that implementing congestion pricing or bridge tolls would have headed off this financial mess. "Hopefully, what is on the table sets things back in motion to put the fourth leg back in place- -- congestion pricing," said Norvell.
But skepticism about charging people to drive into Manhattan persists. Sen. Kevin Parker said he would need more details. "Congestion pricing is not a silver bullet," he said. "The last plan that was before us would have cost the state more money in the first two years before it actually made money because of spending on infrastructure. So it would not solve an immediate cash crisis."
While the route cuts are severe, the idea of charging students, many of whom now get three free rides a day, to go to school has sparked the most outrage. "I have two daughters and I can't believe they would get rid of rides for students," said Russianoff. He estimates it would cost him around $900 to provide his daughters with Metrocards for most of the year.
Council Speaker Christine Quinn and Councilmember James Vacca proposed that the MTA use $90 million in unspent stimulus funds and $50 million in operating funds that are currently going to supplement the MTA's capital budget to avoid major cuts. But some advocates note that doing this would take away the urgency and make it harder for the MTA to force the legislature to consider congestion pricing -- or at least increasing its funding.
Paterson and Senate Democrats have responded to massive parent and student outcry and say they will act quickly in next year's budget to restore funding to the program.
In most other cities, the school system or city or state government -- not the transportation authority -- funds student ride programs, according to Russianoff. Here, he said, city funding for the program has "flatlined" while costs have increased, and "the state's support is down to an astonishing $6 million.
While Bloomberg said, "We are not going to stand for" elimination of the free student rides, he has apparently not offered to increase the city subsidy.
In general, the relationship between the legislature and the MTA remains tepid at best. "The MTA's credibility with the legislature is very low," said Russianoff. "They were told the bailout was enough. Then the MTA turned on a dime and all of a sudden, out of nowhere, they have this gap, and the legislature was shocked by the turn of events."
The rift between the MTA and the legislature is probably what stands in the way of instituting a steady source of MTA funding -- a source such as congestion pricing. A lot of legislators simply think the agency cannot be trusted. They see this budget crisis as "manufactured" and "alarmist."
Republican Assemblyman Joel Miller, who represents Dutchess County, does not mince words. "You can't trust these guys," he said. Miller went on to compare MTA officials to former Federal Emergency Management Agency head Michael "Brownie" Brown, saying the agency was headed by political appointees without any real experience.
He is supporting legislation that would actually phase out the MTA's payroll tax by the end of next year but conceded his bill has as much chance of moving as "you and I do of flying without an airplane." And so, Miller said, he expects "the rest of the state will just be used to make New York City happy until the three men in a room aren't all Democrats from New York City."
As for the service cuts, Miller did not express much concern. "So now New York City has to face service cuts. Boo hoo," he said.
Senate Democrat Brian Foley has proposed a bill that would reduce the payroll tax in Suffolk and Nassau counties.
The two members' action undercut the threadbare relationship between the MTA and suburban legislators.
Meanwhile, Democratic senators and Assembly members who represent the outer boroughs and opposed tolling the bridges last spring have remained fairly silent as the MTA's fiscal crisis has played out. A number did not return calls for this article.
Sen. Martin Dilan, head of the Senate Transportation Committee, said he was shocked by the MTA's shortfall announcement, specifically about the lower than expected returns on the payroll tax. He wrote Walder to share his displeasure.
"It is an affront to our burgeoning partnership, often discussed in previous months, to exclude us from this critical information," Dilan wrote, adding: "Additionally, it is difficult to think that our exclusion was simply a matter of being overlooked. One can only conclude that by going to the press first, your organization was in fact using the media to once again stir the bees' nest, rallying fears of insufficient funding and potential fare increases and service cuts."
Senate Finance Committee Chair Carl Kruger had also issued a statement blaming on the MTA for its fiscal projections. "Our ability to budget is only as good as our ability to forecast," he said.
He went on to say that he expected the payroll tax to "kick in" in the coming months. "It is my hope," he wrote, "that the MTA will not create an atmosphere of confusion or a needless sense of unrest over what appears to be self-adjusting bookkeeping issues. We all recognize that shortfalls are real and that expenditures are exceeding revenues. That is why we're addressing the situation in this manner."
Calling the MTA "the Grinch that stole education," Parker condemned the authority for suddenly announcing a $400 million deficit and then voting on a plan before anyone had time to take action. "I have no idea what's going on with the MTA's books," he said. "We still haven't received the forensic audit we asked for earlier this year."
Despite such suspicions of the MTA, Norvell hopes that the current brouhaha over drastic service cuts will lead to real discussion about congestion pricing. He said he thinks the public won't let legislators off the hook.
"This spring, something unique happened," said Norvell. The public and the media didn't allow legislators to use the MTA as a wooden shield. That didn't fly last spring and legislators were forced to come up with a decent compromise. Beating up on the MTA for months doesn't create new revenues."
Even if they don't know Diane Schuler by name probably every sentient New Yorker knows what she didand the horror she created. On July 26, Schuler, apparently under the influence of vodka and marijuana, drove the wrong way on the Taconic Parkway, only stopping when her minivan collided with another vehicle, killing herself, her daughter, her three nieces and three people in the other car.
But what about Isaac Chehebar? In 2001, Chehebar raced his Porsche at twice the speed limit down Brooklyn's Ocean Parkway, colliding with two teenage sisters walking along that boulevard's median strip He killed both of them and seriously injured their mother. Chehebar apparently was a reckless driver -- but, at least in this instance, apparently a sober one.
Last week the New York State legislature, after some debate and disagreement, agreed to take another move to crack down on drunk drivers, particularly those, like Schuler, who have children in their vehicles. The vote won widespread praise as one of the few worthwhile things the legislature has managed to accomplish this year.
The action continues what has been the practice in New York and much of the nation: getting tough on drunk drivers and the accidents they cause while doing little to combat the many death and injuries caused by people who, while unimpaired, still drive badly and even recklessly.
The bill passed by the legislature last week, Leandra's Law, makes it a felony for anyone to drive with a blood alcohol level of .08 or higher while transporting a child under age 15. It also requires interlocks in the vehicles of anyone convicted of driving while intoxicated in New York State. Interlocks periodically measure the blood alcohol content of the driver's breath and incapacitate the vehicle if the alcohol level is too high. Experts have estimated the devices could prevent between 35 and 65 percent of potential recurrences of drunk driving.
The new law is considered to be among the toughest on drunk driving in the country. Only one other state, Arizona, makes it a felony to drive under the influence with a minor in the car, and while over 40 states utilize interlocks, most of them require it only in extreme cases of multiple offenses or extremely high alcohol levels. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger recently signed a bill mandating the use of interlocks for those convicted of driving while intoxicated.
A sense of pride and purpose seemed to sweep over legislators as supporters of the bill learned they would pass the legislation. Gov. David Paterson and legislators declared that the bill might not have been signed into law had it not been for Lenny Rosado, the father of Leandra, an 11-year-old girl who was killed when the car in which she was riding flipped on the Henry Hudson Parkway in Manhattan. The driver, the mother of one of her friends, apparently was under the influence of alcohol and marijuana.
In his effort to pass the bill, Rosado became omnipresent in the capitol, handing out pictures of his daughter, doing interviews and talking about the plans Leandra had before her untimely death. Mothers Against Drunk Driving weighed in in support.
Rosado said that, for a moment, he was overwhelmed by Albany. "I went home and said, 'Wow, politics! This is just insane!'" Rosado admitted moments after the Senate passed the bill. "But today, for these people to come together and all be on the same page and pass the bill was really something."
According to Assembly and Senate sources it took a perfect storm to allow the bill to make it into law. The storm started this summer with the Schuler tragedy.
In August, Paterson and Republican Charles Fuschillo introducednearly identical proposals to stiffen the punishment for those who drive under the influence of alcohol with minors in the car.
The death of Leandra Rosado followed in October. And Rosado started a petition drive to toughen the laws. Soon the Daily News and other papers were covering Rosado's every move. He even appeared on Oprah. But that was not enough to get the bill passed.
When the legislature returned this month, the Assembly wanted to weaken the legislation by raising the blood alcohol level required for a felony to .18, more than twice the legal limit. As one staffer put it, "It's pretty much the Assembly policy not to increase penalties." Paterson was said to be looking to broker a deal to make the blood alcohol limit for a felony .13. Rosado and senators, including Fuschillo and Democrat Martin Dilan, pressed the Assembly not to make any alterations.
As Albany stewed, waiting for a budget deal, Rosado got more attention for his cause. Finally Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver agreed to the legislation. "I give the father full credit for shaming Shelly," said Sen. Frank Padavan. Assemblyman Harvey Weisenberg, the bill's sponsor in the Assembly, said it wasn't shame that brought Silver around but lively debate. "They say it's three men in the room, but in the Assembly there are 108 people, and we all get our opportunity to speak. It’s sort of like group therapy. I told them there is no reason to change the law from what is real!" Weisenberg said.
Some Assembly members worry the penalty might be too harsh and that the bill did not receive enough scrutiny. Assemblymember Vito Lopez told the New York Times, "I believe there are a lot of voices who would like to be heard. They will never be heard, and the reason they will never be heard is because there's too much emotionalism."
On the Senate floor, a number of senators who supported the legislation acknowledged that the bill will not necessarily stop drunk people from driving with children in the car. Revealing that her parents were alcoholics, Sen. Diane Savino said that the bill will not fix everything because alcoholics "are incapable of rational thought." She said she hoped the bill would raise awareness and make people more cautious of who children get into the car with.
Critics also have raised concerns about the efficacy of the interlocks. They say the devices aren't sensitive enough to always properly recognize the amount of alcohol in a person's system and can sometimes mistake other substances for alcohol. Drivers can use an alternative vehicle to avoid the interlock, and there are also privacy issues.
A study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found interlocks can help prevent repeat offenses, but most fatal alcohol-related crashes do not involve someone who had been convicted of drunk driving within the past three years. That has spurred some advocates to call for the use of interlocks in all vehicles.
Whatever the bill's shortcomings might be, Kate Hogan, director of the District Attorney's Association of the State of New York, said she didn't "dare to dream" that a bill that would both up the penalty for drinking and driving with a child in the car and require the use of interlocks in the vehicles of those convicted of driving while intoxicated could actually be passed during the current special session.
Advocates say there is much more to do.
"Making it a felony will go a long way to deterring people from driving while they are drunk," said Sen. Hiram Monserrate, a former police officer. But he noted that New York City has had problems prosecuting suspected cases of drunk driving and pointed to recent cases in which police officers refused breathalyzer tests after killing people with their cars. "It's harder to get the evidence you need for a prosecution than you might think," said Monserrate.
In September at 1 o'clock on a Sunday morning, officer Andrew Kelly of the 68th precinct struck and killed Vionique Valnord as she tried to hail a cab in Brooklyn. A sergeant at the scene reportedly saw alcoholic beverages in Kelly's vehicle, smelled alcohol and reported that Kelly's speech was slurred. Kelly initially refused a breath test. It took seven hours for police to secure a warrant to force Kelly to submit to a test, and when he did he tested clean.
Only a month later, Detective Kevin Spellman struck and killed 67-year-old Drana Nikac in the Bronx. Responding officers reported that Spellman appeared intoxicated, but Spellman refused a breath test at the scene. He eventually submitted to one at a hospital, five hours later. Even, then, officials have said Spellman had a blood alcohol level of .21, more than two and a half times the legal limits.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly has created a panel to consider how to handle instances when someone refused a test. Currently police generally take a person who won't take a test at the scene to the precinct. If the driver refuses the test there, police must obtain a warrant to allow blood to be drawn at a hospital. That can take hours.
Some advocates would like the legislature to remove the warrant requirement for Breathalyzer use in cases where someone has died or been seriously injured. Hogan, Fuschillo and Weisenberg say they see one particular piece of legislation as being paramount: Jack Shea's law, which would remove the state requirement that a doctor supervise a blood draw. Shea, a 91-year-old former Olympian, was killed in upstate New York by a driver who was charged with driving while intoxicated, vehicular manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. The charges were eventually dropped over a technicality. The driver wound up in a rural clinic where a technician drew a blood sample to check alcohol levels without the supervision of a doctor.
Fuschillo said he had assurances from Paterson that he wants to move on that bill. Paterson's office did not return calls for comment.
Rosado isn't giving up the fight, either. He announced at the signing of the bill named for his daughter that he intends to try to take his campaign to make driving under the influence with a minor in the vehicle national. "This is not going to be our last stop," Rosado promised. Later, he added, "I guarantee you that my daughter's death will not be in vain. She is here now to protect all our children, and anyone else who is a victim of DWI."
Not all children who die on the streets are killed by drunk drivers. The parents of Hayley Ng, age 4, and Diego Martinez, 3, know that all too well. Their children died on a Chinatown sidewalk in January when an unoccupied delivery van plowed into a group of children on a school outing. The driver, Chao Fu, left the van idling without realizing it was in reverse. He did not face any criminal charges.
Some 292 people -- including people in cars, on bicycles and on foot -- died in traffic fatalities in 2008, an increase from 2007, which saw a record low 274 such deaths.
Bad or reckless driving causes many of these deaths and many more injuries. Speeding and inattentiveness are the leading causes, according to Wiley Norvell of Transportation Alternatives, an advocacy group.
"Notwithstanding the outrageous and tragic death of Leandra, and the egregious and tragic 'Taconic Mom' incident, the number of people killed and maimed as a result of adults driving drunk with minors is dwarfed by the numbers killed and maimed by more mundane but often lethal behaviors such as turning into pedestrians in crosswalks (the documented number one 'mode' of pedestrian fatality in NYC), aggressive passing of bicyclists (the documented number one 'mode' of cyclist fatality in NYC), and of course the run-of-the-mill speeding, red-light running, distracted driving, aggressive driving, etc.," Charles Komanoff, a long-time transportation activist, wrote in an email.
The number of these cases that result in criminal, let alone felony, charges remain minuscule. Examples abound. Chehebar reached a plea agreement and served only four months in jail.
Alexander Aponte was driving a campaign bus for a candidate for City Council -- even though his license had been suspended. He ran a red light and killed 9-year-old Ibrahim Ahmed. Aponte got off with a misdemeanor charge: driving with a suspended license.
Attorney Robert Fader said he handled one case where a driver and a bicyclist had a dispute on the road, prompting the driver to deliberately back up and run down the cyclist. The driver's only penalty was a ticket for leaving the scene of a crime.
"If somebody is drunk, they'll be prosecuted, but if someone is driving without a license they'll get a ticket," Fader said. "You can't arrest people who are negligent."
In New York, people whose bad, but sober, driving kills someone can face a charge of criminally negligent homicide. But courts, law enforcement and relatives of victims rarely concur on when a traffic death becomes a criminal act.
Reckless behavior is not generally viewed as criminally negligent, according to attorney Barton Slavin. "I don't know where the line is drawn," he said. Earlier this fall, a jury in Manhattan convicted Auvryn Scarlett, a garbage truck driver, of second-degree murder. Scarlett struck and killed two British tourists last winter after he apparently neglected to take his epilepsy medicine. At the time, Komanoff said he could not recall any other instance when a driver who was not intoxicated was convicted of murder.
Why here? A police spokesman said, "Apparently, he stopped taking his medication. it was a conscious decision, so he's being charged."
But Paul Steely White, executive director of Transportation Alternatives, failed to see the distinction. "Don't people make a conscious decision to speed or a conscious decision to turn without yielding?" he said in Streetsblog. "Are we saying that people are somehow unconscious when they're breaking the law? … Scarlett's actions were no more deliberate than the majority of negligent motorists who routinely get off scot-free."
A variety of factors -- public attitudes, prosecutorial and police practices and judicial rulings -- have combined to create leniency. Deaths caused by reckless drivers -- not drunk ones -- "have not receive the grassroots consciousness raising" that alcohol related accidents have gotten, said Maureen McCormick, chief of Vehicular Crimes in Nassau County. While the public has become increasingly aware of the risks posed by dangerous drivers, the criminal justice system lags behind, she said: "It's like turning around a battleship."
Prosecutors, according to Slavin, may be reluctant to bring cases in traffic deaths because the likelihood of getting a felony conviction is slim. Unless an officer saw the accident proving it involved, for example, going 60 in a 30 mile per hour zone may be difficult.
Then there is the so-called "rule of two." Although not actually a law, this rule --more a kind of practice or belief, really -- holds that drivers who are not drunk cannot be prosecuted for criminally negligent homicide unless they did two things wrong: speeding and running a red light, for example, rather than committing just one of those offenses.
Two recent Court Ruling in New York have raised the bar even higher, according to McCormick. In one, the Court of Appeals, the state's highest court, overturned the conviction of Brett Cabrera, a 17-year-old with a junior license who had killed three passengers in his car. The court found he had been speeding and violating the terms of his junior license. Despite that, it threw out his conviction.
"Our decisions have uniformly looked for some kind of morally blameworthy component to excessive speed in determining criminal negligence," the court said. That, it continued, did not appear in Cabrera's case.
Proponents of tougher penalties hoped the court had given Cabrera a break because of his age, McCormicksaid. Then came a second ruling involving limousine driver James McGrantham. After realizing he had entered the Belt Parkway via an exit ramp and so was headed the wrong way, McGrantham decided to make a three-point turn in the middle of the highway. As he performed this maneuver, his car stretched across traffic creating a kind of wall. A motorcyclist, unable to stop, crashed into that barrier and died.
The Court of Appeals threw out that homicide conviction, McCormick said, because the limo driver had not acted with malevolence. Or as a the court phrased it, "Driver was sober, not speeding, and the decision to extricate himself from a dangerous situation while unwise was not morally blameworthy so as to support criminally negligent homicide."
McCormick believes such interpretations have gone beyond what the legislature intended. To correct that, she said, the legislature may have to step in and clarify its laws.
Some advocates have endorsed another piece of legislation, this one proposed by Assemblymember Robert Sweeney, that would make vehicular assault and manslaughter felonies if the driver involved had a suspended or revoked license. Sweeney proposed his bill after the death of Ibrahim Ahmed.
Whether prosecutors would use harsher laws remains unclear. And would juries be wiling to convict a generally law-abiding person for the mistake of running a red light -- even if that mistake had horrible consequences. As McCormick puts it, these kinds of crimes "are committed by average Joes."
Undoubtedly, though, average Joes commit such offenses very frequently. Anyone who drives -- or walks -- in New York City knows how often drivers shoot red lights or fail to yield to pedestrians. Some 30 percent of drivers exceed the 30 mile per hour speed limit in Manhattan, according to a Transportation Alternatives study released earlier this year. While most were going 40 miles per hour or less, the study found people driving "in excess of 60 mph in school zones and other areas with heavy pedestrian traffic."
"It's New York and everyone wants to get there in a hurry," said Slavin. "If people would just slow down and act less crazed and come to a stop at a stop sign," fewer people would be injured on accidents.
Transportation Alteratives has looked at some of New York's most dangerous intersections and urged the police to focus on them. Norvell likens this to the way the city has reduced crime.
Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer has called for installing speeding and red light enforcement cameras.
The incoming Manhattan district attorney, Cyrus Vance, has said he would establish a Vehicular Crime Unit that would, among other things, pay special attention to dangerous intersections or stretches of road. It also would focus on traffic assaults, reckless driving and other roadway offenses. He has also said his office would work with the police to reduce speeding Manhattan.
"There is no second chance on the road -- when a car crashes and someone is killed – no apology, no claim that it was strictly an accident, will ever bring that loved one back," Vance said in response to a questionnaire during the campaign. As a result, he continued, "strong preventative measures must be taken by police and prosecutors with the ultimate goal of reducing incidents of dangerous driving."
All of this assumes that people are ready to take bad driving seriously. Norvell and McCormick think that can happen.
"A generation ago, somebody who was caught drinking and driving was sent home with a wink," Norvell said. Leandra's law provides evidence of just how much that has changed. Now, said Norvell, "the way we tolerate and encourage dangerous and reckless driving on our streets is in need of a similar cultural shift."
In its first meeting since Mayor Michael Bloomberg won re-election by a narrower than expected margin, the City Council took on the administration's enforcement of parking regulations and passed four bills on how the city issues tickets. The mayor has vowed to veto at least one of them.
At Monday's stated meeting, the council also approved a land use measure paving the way for a new police academy in College Point and passed a resolution calling for the state to ban drilling for natural gas in the city's upstate watershed.
The parking rules, though, attracted the attention and heated discussion. The most controversial of the measures, Intro 907, would allow drivers a five-minute grace period at MUNI meters and after alternate-side parking restrictions go into effect.
The other bills would ease parking restrictions on members of the clergy, require advance notification of changes in parking meter rules, and improve procedures alerting people of parking regulation changes and make it easier for drivers to avoid being fined for offenses five days after a new rule goes into effect.
In total, Council Speaker Christine Quinn said, the package would make enforcement of parking rules in the city clearer and fairer. Supporters said they would bring some courtesy and common sense to a system that now, justifiably or not, angers many New Yorkers.
Several members accused the administration of using tickets to raise money rather than to move traffic and protect public safety. "Fines and tickets and fees are not supposed to be revenue generators," Quinn said.
The mayor reiterated Monday that he would veto the grace period bill. "I think it's a very misguided piece of legislation,” he said, adding, "A five-minute grace period is only going to lead to chaos and enormous increases in the number of contested tickets, and in argument.”
Quinn, though, said the bill reflects the fact that "everyone isn’t on some universal clock."
According to Councilmember Simcha Felder, one of the bill's sponsors, 300,000 tickets out of more than 1.4 million issued in 2007 were given within five minutes of the time a regulation went into effect or the meter ran out. Neither Felder nor Quinn would estimate how much not issuing those tickets would cost the city -- but it stands to be at least several million. Council members, though, said that is beside the point.
"If the administration wants to say this is about revenue, then we should call it a ticket tax and issue it to people who don’t even have cars," Felder said.
The bill passed by 47 to 2, with members Tony Avella and Daniel Garodnick voting no. ( Maria Baez did not attend yesterday's meeting reportedly because of medical problems.) This provides well in excess of the number of votes needed to override any veto.
The bill on the clergy, Intro 0662-A, would allow members of the clergy with a permit to park for extended hours near their houses of worship and outside a hospital or a funeral establishment. It would also provide permits to clergy who work in New York City but live outside the state and to those who work for at least 20 hours for a religious organization even if they do not receive full-time pay.
"God's work is not controlled or dictated by traffic rules," said Councilmember Letitia James, speaking for the measure.
While supporting the intro, a number of council members said it does not go far enough.
"It's a shame we even have to have this type of bill," said Councilmember Helen Foster, whose father is a minister. "Common sense and common courtesy indicate that, particularly in the black community, the black clergy is where you go first" when someone has died, is sick or in trouble."
She urged the mayor to sign the bill, saying if he did not he would be "sending a message that what you [clergy] do is not important."
Intro 1017-A would require the Department of Transportation to give advance notice of permanent and temporary changes in parking restrictions. It also allows any driver who gets a ticket for violating the rules within five day of the rules change to contest the ticket -- assuming the car was legally parked under the old regulations.
The fourth measure, Intro 1076-A, was apparently prompted by a rash of tickets issued after the city changed meters to reduce the amount of time one bought for 25 cents from 30 minutes to 20. It requires the city to provide 30 days notice of any such change and to alert people through mail, email and the Department of Transportation website.
"An orange parking tickets should never be the most common way of discovering the rules have changed," said Councilmember Vincent Gentile, a sponsor of the bill.
All these measures passed by a vote of 49 to 0.
Whether or not Monday's meeting signals the emergence of a more assertive City Council, much of the rhetoric had a decidedly harsh tone with even some allies of the mayor, such as Felder, criticizing the administration.
"Do you have any doubt there are de facto quotas for traffic agents in this city?" Councilmember Lew Fidler asked. "The people of New York City are sick and tired of being sick and tired of being ticketed to death."
Councilmember James Vacca said he hopes the bills will lead to "a discussion about traffic enforcement fairness" in the city. Now, he said, "people feel the city is judge and jury" and that motorists are guilty until proven innocent.
Last week the New York Post reported that the level of passion about the parking issue prompted Quinn, who has worked closely with the mayor, to postpone debate and voting on parking until after the election.
Quinn denied that. "These bills were not delayed as a favor to anyone," she said yesterday.
The council voted 47 to 2 to approve construction of the new police academy on a 35-acre site in College Point, Queens. It would replace the current academy on East 20th Street in Manhattan and also consolidate at a single location other training facilities, such as a driving course and target range, which are now scattered throughout the city. Once complete, the new school would be able to accommodate 1,900 recruits at a time as well as classes for officers already on the job.
"If you want a better police force, you need a better training facility," said Councilmember Peter Vallone in support of the new school.
The measure passed by 47 to 2, with Barron and Avella voting no.
"I don’t know what they're training these people in," said Barron. "We have people coming out of that academy who don’t know how to respect the rights, constitutional rights of black and Latino citizens."
In casting his vote, Councilmember Alan Gerson expressed concern that the New York City Police Museum remain in downtown Manhattan and not be moved to the College Point location, although Gerson said there might be justification for some kind of museum there as well.
The existence of natural gas reserves in upstate New York threatens to put upstate economic interests against those of New York City. Much of the land in the so-called Marcellus Shale formation lies in New York City's watershed. Environmentalists and other have expressed concern that extracting the gas -- drilling and then pumping in millions of gallons of water mixed with various chemicals -- could endanger the city's drinking water.
"This could lead to a situation where the water supply would be degraded," said Councilmember James Gennaro, who has lead opposition to the drilling, and could require the city to build filtration plants which, 10 years ago, were estimated to cost $10 billion. "It's hard to imagine how this could even be proposed by the state, Gennaro said.
The decision whether to allow the drilling rests with the state. But in a voice vote yesterday the council passed Resolution 2191 calling on the state to ban drilling in the city's watershed. It also urges the federal government to regulate the process under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act.
Quinn said the measure was necessary even though the one company that wanted to drill, Chesapeake Energy, has backed away from its plans. Saying the company was "forced out," Quinn continued, "We want to make sure that if anyone wants to come back and do it again, we’re not interested."
Although Mayor Michael Bloomberg's reputation as a bona fide straphanger suffered a bit after the New York Times revealed that two Chevrolet Suburbans regularly ferry His Honor from his home on 79th Street to 59th Street where he catches the Lexington Avenue express to City Hall, it would be unfair to paint Bloomberg as nothing more than a grandstanding populist who only swipes his MetroCard for the cameras.
After eight years in office, it is undeniable that the mayor wants to tackle traffic and improve biking, walking, and public transportation, even if it means ruffling feathers along the way. If Bloomberg's tenure were to end in November, his impact on the city's pedestrian spaces and bicycle infrastructure would surely be on his list of legacies.
That said, he lost the fight for congestion pricing -- easily his most publicized transportation initiative -- and the financial forecast for the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, which serves 14.6 million people with 2.6 billion trips around the region each year, is grim to bleak, at least in part because of funding choices made by the mayor.
The most comprehensive analysis of the administration's transportation record is, like so many other comprehensive analyses offered by the administration, an internally authored document. Released in December, the Department of Transportation's Sustainable Streets Index tracks transportation trends over the past decade. It's a well-designed, fact-packed, reader-friendly report that unsurprisingly depicts the agency that authored it quite favorably.
That is not to say the department doesn't deserve to toot its own horn. Since Janette Sadik Khan took over the department in April 2007, it has converted acres of street space to pedestrian plazas, installed hundreds of miles of bike lanes, piloted a new bus service that is significantly speeding commutes in the Bronx, launched the wildly popular Summer Streets initiative, and made the city safer for pedestrians and cyclists.
The index includes a slew of figures detailing these facts, but the most staggering, and the one that casts Bloomberg in the best light, is that transit ridership increased by nine percent between 2003 and 2007, while citywide traffic volumes remain the same. As the report points out: "These years mark the first time since World War II that the city experienced a period of entirely transit-centered growth, where non-auto modes absorbed all growth in travel in New York City."
Bloomberg has always fancied the English. Back in his private-sector days, his media empire's second largest office was in London, and one of his first transportation-related rows as a public figure came over toll for the East River bridges, an attempt to emulate the then brand-new congestion charge that revolutionized transportation in London. The phrase "congestion pricing" even made its way into a 2002 proposed budget, but after it proved poisonous in public opinion polls, the initiative was dropped, at least for a few years.
In 2007, congestion pricing came crashing back onto the scene, stealing the show from all 126 other points in Bloomberg's omnibus sustainability initiative PlaNYC. For months advocates and newspapers opined. Depending on whom you asked, the proposal was either a regressive tax on the working class or the city's salvation. In the end, the plan died in Albany, as did an attempt, launched by a blue ribbon panel earlier this year, to charge drivers to cross the East River bridges.
The pieces of New York City's transportation pie that Bloomberg directly controls have been handled very well, according to most advocates and urban planners. His transportation department has garnered more positive media attention than any in recent memory and truly revolutionary transformations are underway on streets throughout the five boroughs. On the other hand, the single most significant actor in our urban transportation drama, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, has had no shortage of trouble in the past eight years.
Although the authority is far from under the mayor's control (his appointees fill only four of the board's 17 seats), its successes and failures are intensely intertwined with the city's well-being and Bloomberg's transportation track record.
The 2005 transit strike stalled the city during one of the busiest shopping weeks of the year. It was only the third strike ever against the MTA, and as such it is imprinted in the minds of millions of straphangers with heavy ink. A New York 1 poll taken during the transit strike showed mixed opinions about Bloomberg's actions: Fifty-one percent said his handling of the situation was not so good or poor, while 45 percent said it was great or good.
The authority's financial standing did see some good years under Bloomberg. The real estate boom helped the MTA unload large parcels of land for big bucks. That balanced the books for a bit, but when the bubble burst and dedicated tax revenues dropped precipitously, the authority was back in the red.
During those long-gone good years, Bloomberg cut the city's contribution to the MTA. It is now about $60 million a year, or just 1 percent of the authority's capital budget. Previously, the city's contribution equaled about 10 percent of the MTA's capital budget. The cut has inspired some advocates, like John Petro of the Drum Major Institute, to claim that Bloomberg is "shortchanging mass transit" and others like Veronica Vanterpool of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign to call for the city to increase its aid to the MTA.
Certainly, Bloomberg has campaigned as though the decrease hadn't happened. In August he released Moving NYC, a populist, voter-friendly, MTA-dependant transit platform that suggests a slew of new proposals, like free cross-town buses, that are either inspired ideas or empty promises.
If the voters re-elect Bloomberg in November, we'll have four more years to find out if he is really the MetroCard Mayor or merely another politician in a big black SUV.
Graham T. Beck is the managing editor of Transportation Alternatives' StreetBeat and a freelance writer. He lives in Brooklyn.