Transportation policy today means how to reduce car use.
Transportation is not an end in itself. Very good transportation will not make us happy. It is a means to a kind of city. So what we really are talking about with transportation is what kind of city do we want. What is a good city?
There is a wonderful Danish urbanist, Jan Gehl, who says that a good city is like a good party – people do not want to leave. It is a city where people want to be out of their houses. We have to go out into the public space to work or to buy groceries, but the good city is the one where people want any pretext to be in the parks, on the sidewalks, in the cafes.
We have to chose between a city that is friendlier to cars or a city that is friendlier to people. I am not a car hater, but if you are with a three-year old walking next to an eight-lane highway it is clearly not a pleasant environment to be in. The slower the traffic, the narrower the streets, the wider the sidewalks, the more pleasant the city.
Adam Smith told us that each person seeking his own benefit will yield the best results for society. In the case of cities, that does not work. We cannot let every individual decide if they want to live next to a wide sidewalk or a narrow sidewalk, or what the height of the building will be
There is often a contradiction between private rationality and social convenience. What is good for the bee is not always good for the beehive. It is very logical for someone to try to use a private car. It is more comfortable than public transportation, you don’t get pressed next to people who don’t smell as you would like. But if everybody does the same thing at the same time, society will collapse. There has to be a collective decision on how we want to organize our lives.
What city model are we creating? Who benefits? What is our objective – efficient mobility for all and a certain kind of city, or do we simply want to minimize traffic jams?
Transportation is the only problem in developing countries that gets worse as we get richer. If we had three or five times the income per capita that we have today, we would have much better health, much better education, much better culture, but with our current model of transportation we would have much worse problems if we had more money.
Transportation cannot be solved with money. It has to be changed with changes in our way of life. This is why it is so difficult.
Almost by definition, a Third World city is one where only a minority of people own cars. And so all investments in road infrastructure are very regressive. We are taking money away from schools, from libraries, from parks, in order to solve the traffic jams of the upper income people.
How would New York be if we had a magic wand? How wide would sidewalks be? Why not have districts just for pedestrians? If we could do anything, what is our vision of New York for 2300? What is our dream for at least 100 years from now? Is it the same as today? Are we going to have the same FDR Highway in front of that beautiful river – just like that, nothing else?
What would make a New York where children could feel better? Today we talk about London in the 1800s as a horrible environment. It was polluted. People lived in overcrowded housing. Yet at that time, it was considered the most advanced city in the world. I wonder if, in 200 years, people will talk about our cities as horrible environments. When we tell a three-year-old child anywhere in the world, “Watch out -- a car,” the child will jump in fright -- and with good reason because more than 200,000 children are killed by cars every year.
Today we still talk about the wolves because a few children during the Middle Ages in Europe were eaten by wolves. In any month today, there are more children killed by cars than were eaten by wolves all through the Middle Ages. But we have come to think that that’s totally normal. As soon as our children come out of their houses, we are afraid they might get killed. After 5,000 years of cities, is that where we are?
How would our lives change if we were to enter a pedestrian street 40 miles long, one, two or three blocks away from our house? If we could just go jogging, riding a bicycle, children could go play? It would tremendously improve our quality of life.
Whenever people use public transport, as in New York, it is not because they love the environment. It is because there is some kind of severe restriction on the use of private cars, either because they have congestion charges, such as in London, or because it is very difficult to park, as in New York or Hong Kong. In Bogotá, we started a restriction that 40 percent of cars have to be out of the streets during peak hour every day.
Traffic jams provide another way to restrict car use, not the most intelligent one perhaps. If we want to achieve density in public transport use, traffic jams should not be seen as a problem.
Bogotá has a similar population to New York – about 7 million inhabitants – and if you fly south from New York you will hit Bogotá. It would take us about 150 years with very good growth rates to have the income per capita that New York has. Regardless of the relevance of our experience to New York, it is important to consider the Third World urban challenge because over the next 30 years, there will be more than 2 billion new inhabitants in Third World cities. The world’s sustainability depends to a large degree on what is to happen in the Third World.
When I arrived at City Hall in Bogotá, there was a proposal to put seven elevated highways over the city. In my opinion, that would have destroyed the quality of life and would have not solved anything. Instead, we decided to restrict car use and invest in public transport. We were able to build schools and housing projects because we did not invest in these seven elevated $5 billion highways. There were hundreds of community projects done by the people -- nurseries, community pools, libraries.
Space for People
And we created a lot of pedestrian spaces. Is public space in the Third World a frivolity? I would say no. Public space is fantastic, not only because of the obvious thing that we meet as equals in public space but also because upper income people and poor people at work in the Third World are more or less equally satisfied. The difference comes when they have their leisure time. The upper income person goes to a large house, to clubs, to country houses, to restaurants. The poor people and their children have no alternative to public pedestrian space for their leisure time.
Therefore a democratic society should have quality pedestrian space. People can go walk and at least see their city.
Bogotá does not have a big river as in New York, but we made a 45-kilometer greenway where thousands and thousands of people go to work by bicycle every day.
We started to build bikeways. In developing countries, the only means of individual transportation available to everybody is a bicycle. A bikeway in Bogotá is important maybe 20 percent because it protects cyclists, 80 percent because it is a symbol that a citizen on a $20 bicycle is equally important to one in a $30,000 car.
We increased bicycle ridership, and we now have about 350 kilometers of bikeways. Of course, we have to increase this more, but now there is consensus that this should be done.
Bus Rapid Transit
We tried to get people to use public transportation, but it is very difficult when people getting on buses were running against each other and buses were dumping people – ladies with children -- in the middle of the street. We cannot dream of having a rail system. So, we created a bus rapid transit. This is a very low-cost system.
After only five years of operation, we are moving 1.4 million passengers per day. We copied the idea from the Brazilian city of Curitiba. The station is in the middle of the road. People pay when they enter the station, not when they go into the bus. When the bus comes, it opens four doors at the same time as the station doors open. You can get 100 people out of the bus and 100 people onto the bus in seconds because they have already paid and the bus is at the same level as the station, so it is accessible to wheelchairs.
The station is in the middle of the lane because if it is at the side of the road you need to have two stations, and there are cars coming in and out all the time. Buses have a bad image in developing countries. We call our buses TranMilenio because we had to have a system that is sexy. It’s marketing.
Sometimes people told us, “Some roads are too narrow downtown. We cannot put a city bus system in there.” So we said, “You are totally right. The road is too narrow. So cars cannot go in.” So we put the system along the main artery downtown -- with no cars.
Half of this the infrastructures is financed through a gasoline surcharge of 25 percent. We first put it in Bogotá so, of course people, were getting their gas in the municipalities nearby. With the help of Congress, we put this surcharge all over the country.
The bus system is moving more passengers per kilometer than 85 percent of rail systems in the world at similar speed and a fraction of the cost.
We have a car-free day. People voted in a referendum to have the first Thursday of every February in this 7 million inhabitants city with no cars. This is marvelous because people can realize that the city works without cars. It is just a game but it is an interesting game.
We also asked for a referendum on something very radical: that where citizen want, they could totally ban cars during peak hours every day -- all private cars, leaving just trucks and taxis and so on. We were going to win by a landslide, so there was a campaign by some businessmen not to ask people to vote no but to ask them not to vote so we would not reach the necessary threshold. This is going to be left for another time
A long time ago, explicitly or implicitly, in Manhattan they decided the scale of vehicle use in the city. There was nothing natural about the amount of cars. Some space was allotted. There could have been much bigger roads or much smaller roads. The amount of car use in this city exists because there was a decision, and the decision can be changed. Just as today’s behavior is determined by the given amount of road and parking space, tomorrow’s behaviors will be determined by lesser amount of street and street parking, for example.
Better Sidewalks
How wide should a sidewalk be? How about if in New York we simply took away one lane of curbside parking and made sidewalks bigger?
New York’s sidewalks are the best, the liveliest sidewalks in the world. But New York’s sidewalks could be much better. For example, it is assumed that allowing all vendors to set up on streets and sidewalks is very democratic. But they are a small minority, and the extent that they are now taking over the public space in New York is deteriorating the quality of public space.
In Bogotá, every Sunday we closed 120 kilometers of main arteries for people to go out and ride bicycles and jog. We get more than a million and a half people every weekend. I dream of making Broadway a permanent pedestrianway. Initially it could just be a few hours on Sunday—not for markets as is usually done here, but for people to go out riding bicycles, jog, even to have some sort of aerobics outdoors. Forty-second Street as a pedestrian promenade with tramway would be a beautiful project.
Faster Buses
There could be a bus rapid transit on Second Avenue while the subway line is built. It could be extended to many other areas outside Manhattan. This is not so sophisticated but it does make buses go much faster than cars. Manhattan has beautiful buses but they are too slow.
More Bikes
Manhattan could be one of the most bicycle friendly cities in the world. Bicycles are amazing machines. Sometimes I see a fantastically athletic person, a marathon runner, and on my bicycle, I can go faster. Bicycles are silent and they don’t pollute. So why haven’t more cities used bicycles.
Why isn’t Manhattan excellent for bicycles? The distances are short. It’s relatively flat. So why don’t more people use bicycles in Manhattan? Simply, because it is extremely dangerous. A bikeway that is not physically protected, a bikeway that is not safe for an 8-year-old child, is not a bikeway.
Today we consider it obvious and natural that we have sidewalks on every street. Bikeways should be the same. If we are a democratic society, everybody has the right to the same mobility. So, in the future we have to think as bikeways not as something cute or nice but as a right. A quality city is not one that has great roads but one where a child can safely go anywhere on a bicycle.
Enrique Peñalosa was mayor of Bogotá from 1998 to 2001, when term limits forced him to leave office. He has advised other world cities on transportation and is a senior fellow at the Institute for Transportation and Development Policy. This article is adapted from comments he made at “Manhattan on the Move: A Transportation Agenda for a Growing City,” a conference presented by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.
See also: Faster Buses, Safer Cycling, Better Pedestrian Protection And Other Plans For The Future by New York City Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall. Â
The New York City Department of Transportation, of which I am the commissioner, is responsible for among other things, the Staten Island ferry, nearly 800 bridges, 6,000 miles of roads that contain 1.3 million signs and 12,000 signalized intersections, and 65,000 parking meters. It is a transportation network that, for the most part, was put in place decades and even centuries ago. We have not built a new highway in this city in nearly 40 years. We haven’t added a major subway line since the 6th Avenue line in the 1940s. Our infrastructure requires an enormous investment just to maintain a state of good repair.
The magnitude of our facilities and the investment they require is only part of the story. New York is one of the densest cities in the world. While Chicago has a population density of 13,000 people per square mile, London 14,000, and Mexico City 15,000, our city has about 26,000 people per square mile and Manhattan nearly 67,000. And that is just the people who live here. Over 2 million people from outside Manhattan enter the central business district every day. Not surprisingly then, the space the Transportation Department is responsible for teems with activity: pedestrians, cars, cyclists, trucks, construction and commerce.
Every day the city makes changes about how space is used. These decisions have an enormous impact, not only in how we travel but on how we work and how we play and how we live. Following are some of the initiatives we have completed or begun and some new efforts we will focus on in the weeks, months and years ahead:
Faster Buses
While the Metropolitan Transportation Authority provides bus service, the ability of those buses to serve New Yorkers depends on their ability to move through our crowded streets. In the last two years, along with the state transportation department, the city and MTA have been working hand in hand on a bus rapid transit initiative. We will introduce measures to allow buses to move more quickly, including colored bus lanes, improved bus lane enforcement, signal prioritization, wider bus stop spacing, next-bus information, and quicker fare collection, Very shortly, we will announce five corridors for pilot bus rapid transit. We expect to implement plans for two of the corridors by fall of 2007.
Safer Cycling
Buses are not the only mode we are trying to make more viable. Last month, the transportation department, along with the parks and health departments, took significant steps toward better safeguarding NY cyclists. This administration released a study of bike fatalities and injuries that a leading bike advocacy group here called “the most thorough analysis of cyclists’ serious injuries and fatalities in the United States.”
The report confirmed the importance of motorist and cyclist education, bike helmets and bike lanes. And it justified a plan to add 200 new lane miles of bike lanes, paths and routes over the next three years. We will be placing new “share the road” signs and markings, installing more bike racks and working with agencies and advocacy groups to conduct a bicycle safety campaign aimed at cyclists and motorists.
Accommodating Truck Traffic
While we must try to increase cycling, bolster our transit system, and reduce auto use, truck traffic is likely to increase in the years ahead. Our population is growing dramatically and, with the lack of rail access, nearly 99 percent of our goods arrive by truck. That is why it is important to limit the number of trucks in residential neighborhoods.
We have also been focusing on how the delivery of goods and services affects the use of our curb space. For years, traffic engineers and economists have proposed creative curb-space pricing that would help move goods more efficiently. Our Midtown parking program does just that. It encourages truckers to rotate out of legal parking spots quickly, giving others an opportunity to load and unload. This cuts back on illegal parking and on the number of vehicles circling the block to find a parking spot. The program combines three elements: charging for commercial parking, placing multispace meters to free up more space, and a value pricing schedule to encourage truckers to get in and get out within an hour.
In Lower Manhattan, we have undertaken a comprehensive curb-space study. It will include a block by block survey of curb activity that will tell us where people are parking, where they are coming from, and how long they have parked. We hope this analysis can help inform new strategies for how to manage this valuable real estate.
But perhaps the most important step we have taken involving parking meters was in the interest of improving safety for pedestrians on Queens Boulevard. A few years ago, we narrowed the service road available to motorists by adding meters, an action that almost every Queens elected official said would be a mistake, claming it would slow traffic. It did. But along with improved signal timing, the installation of fees and other safety measures, this traffic calming dramatically reduced the number of accidents and pedestrian fatalities on the boulevard from a high of 18 in 1997 to one in 2004 to two in 2005.
Protecting Pedestrian
But one pedestrian fatality is one too many. New York is above all a walking city. Efforts to protect pedestrians are the Department of Transportation’s most critical mission.
We have pursued many initiatives to better provide space for and protect pedestrians. And the numbers speak for themselves: In each of the last two years, pedestrian fatalities hit their low level since 1910.
But there is much more we can do to reduce fatalities, provide better access, and make us all feel secure when we walk our streets. We will be undertaking a number of initiatives to better serve those on foot in our city. They point to three key principles: focusing safety efforts where there is the greatest need; thinking of our public space beyond just parks and roads; making changes to our streetscape by challenging old paradigms.
In 2004, we announced our safe routes to school initiative to focus on safety improvements for our children. After studying the areas and the accident histories around the city’s 1,400 public, private and parochial elementary and middle schools we came up with a list of 135 priority locations. Our consultants have now come up with recommendations for over 90 of the 135, and we have begun to make improvements on these sites.
These measures include adjusting signal timing, adding school crosswalks and installing speed reducers. Most important, the plans call for a substantial amount of capital work on streets and sidewalks around these schools.
In the years ahead, we will perform similar work for the next 135 schools and for 40 of the city’s 400 high schools. And we have not neglected other school locations. We have, for instance, installed 69 speed reducers around other schools over the past four months.
Space for People
Our work for pedestrians extends beyond safety. We are also looking to boldly reimagine how our street space is used. This past spring in Brooklyn, we created the Willoughby Street pedestrian plaza. In an area with low vehicular volumes and rampant illegal parking, we closed off streets and added tables, chairs and planters. We took away some road space but, in doing so, created a street that that now accommodates high pedestrian volumes and large lunchtime crowds, providing a safe and pleasant space to walk around or enjoy a meal.
Next month, we will create a similar space in front of Stuyvesant Town on First Avenue and we’ve also developed plaza plans for Astor Place and for Louise Nevelson Plaza in Lower Manhattan.
In the years to come, the department will work with communities and other city agencies to reallocate street space and create more of these public plazas in neighborhoods in all five boroughs. These open spaces will make walking more enjoyable, preserve neighborhood character, and can serve as the heart of a neighborhood through which all activity can pulse.
From Bowtie to Times Square Shuffle
Willoughby Street is one example of how a small regulatory change in the use of street space can have a dramatic impact. Anyone who has been on Broadway around 42nd Street knows that walking there often means standing, squeezing, and twisting your body to get through the crowds. To help mitigate this pedestrian congestion, we have extended sidewalk space in both Herald and Times Square and will soon be making these improvements with permanent materials.
Now another change is taking place. Back in 1964, the city created the Times Square bowtie. It gave traffic on Seventh Avenue and 45th Street the option of either staying on Seventh or switching to Broadway. Under the latest change, traffic on Seventh will have to continue into Broadway, while traffic on Broadway will have to continue into Seventh. We are calling this the Times Square shuffle and are making it for pedestrians. Because of it, we will be able to expand the pedestrian island between 45th and 47th Street. We will also push the curbs out, expand the sidewalks at several locations, and add three new crosswalks.
These steps will help relieve the pedestrian congestion and make the sidewalks safer, more navigable and more welcoming. By reversing one decision from a few decades ago, we can make a big difference I today’s world.
To find the other Times Square shuffles and the other Willoughby Streets while we undertake the enormous day to day operational responsibilities is not easy. That is why we’ve created a new Office of Strategic Planning. This unit is participating in the mayor’s long-term planning and sustainability initiative, which is considering what New York City must do to preserve and improve our high quality of life as the city grows to a population of 9 million.
This long-term effort is considering a wide range of strategies to shift travel away from the automobile and onto transit. I expect that its recommendations will include some big ideas and will pose some challenges to the way that we have dealt with our public space in the past.
Iris Weinshall is New York City transportation commissioner. This article is adapted from comments she made at “Manhattan on the Move: A Transportation Agenda for a Growing City,” a conference presented by Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer.
See also: Putting Cars Behind, by Enrique PenalosaÂ
Over the past decade, New York’s subway and bus system has shown phenomenal success in attracting increased patronage and helping spur the revitalization of the city. But that success may be imperiled by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s coming financial woes. Although the MTA is projecting a budget surplus for 2007 due to booming revenues from taxes on real estate transactions, its long-term financial situation is dim. A $1.3 billion budget deficit is projected for 2008, growing to $2.2 billion in 2010.
The deficits are driven by ballooning costs of debt service and health insurance. Together with other expenditure increases, these more than offset growth in fare revenues from higher ridership and the fare increases of 2003 and 2005. The agency's debt is projected to increase from $13 billion in 2000 to $32 billion in 2010. These increases stem from borrowing approved over the past half dozen years to finance maintenance and capital improvements to the system.
No one is in a hurry to head off rising budget deficits as long as the Metropolitan Transportation Authority shows a surplus, however transitory it may prove to be. MTA Chairman Peter Kalikow announced in September his opposition to $20 million in cuts to bus and subway service that had been planned when forecasts showed budget deficits next year. Likewise, Kalikow said that a planned 5 percent fare increase in 2007 would not be necessary, again citing the rosier-than-expected 2007 budget picture.
In fact, recent Metropolitan Transportation Authority decisions on development of Manhattan’s West Side risks further exacerbating future deficits. In September, the MTA Board approved a deal with the city to develop the railyards just west of Penn Station in Manhattan and extend the #7 train to 34 St. and 11 Avenue. The city agreed to pay up to $2.1 billion to build the extension and also to pay for any unplanned costs for land acquisition and design changes. The agreement does not specify who would pay for other cost overruns, however. If the MTA is forced to pick up the tab, its financial difficulties would only deepen.
Many observers think that the agency is taking on a considerable risk. The State Comptroller, Alan Hevesi, released a report pointing out that the MTA’s East Side Access project is over budget by $2.4 billion and the Fulton Street Transit project is already over budget by $94 million. Both are also behind schedule, with delays contributing to higher costs.
Nevertheless, Kalikow commented that, “I was comfortable leaving the cost overrun question to another day.”
It’s not that the MTA’s critics are any more eager to impose service cuts or fare hikes. Although Hevesi’s report clearly outlines the MTA’s long-term budget problems, Hevesi argued at the same time for postponing the 2007 fare and toll increases “for as long as possible” until the MTA develops a long-term strategy to close the budget gaps.
The MTA’s financial problems are thus going to arrive on the desk of the next governor. Transit advocates are hoping that, following Hevesi’s thinking, the new governor will take a comprehensive approach that would achieve a balanced solution to the MTA’s financial needs. Gene Russianoff, staff lawyer for the Straphangers Campaign, was quoted in the Times as saying, “All the big issues are now squarely in the lap of the new governor: fare hike, service cuts, more state aid, MTA efficiencies. … The whole menu of options should be there as a whole and enacted as a package.”
Will the new governor adopt a comprehensive plan, even if that means supporting fare and toll hikes and tax increases? Or will he try to muddle through as his predecessor did, whatever the longer-term difficulties that would create? Stay tuned.
Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.Â
New York City’s transit system received some good news recently when data from the UnitedÂ
How would New York City’s transportation system fare under a new governor?
Of the three major candidates for the office, Eliot Spitzer, the state attorney general, has laid out the most developed transportation agenda. The most publicized foray into transportation issues by Spitzer’s opponent in the Democratic primary, Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, was to suggest putting a toll on the Long Island Expressway, which was the target of intense criticism. The Republican candidate, John Faso, former minority leader of the state assembly, talks on his Web site of “directing all state sales taxes on gasoline (over $600 million) to be used for pay-as-you-go financing for road, bridge and transit projects.”
Both Faso and Suozzi criticize the transportation policies of Spitzer, who is widely touted as the front-runner in the race. They accuse Spitzer of being vague on how the transportation projects he favors will be funded.
Spitzer has signaled that he would push three transportation mega-projects to the top of the agenda: the Second Avenue subway in Manhattan, the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) link to Grand Central Terminal and replacement of the Tappan Zee Bridge.
The Second Avenue and LIRR projects, Spitzer says, are “essential” to providing transit capacity for job growth in Manhattan and accommodating increased commuting both from Long Island and reverse commuting to Long Island. Eventually, Spitzer would also like to see the Second Avenue subway extend into the Bronx and Brooklyn.
In a July 25 debate, Suozzi challenged Spitzer on promising to “spend over $20 billion in new transportation projects” while refusing to give “specific details” on how the projects will be funded.
Spitzer replied that the Second Avenue and LIRR projects are fully funded through 2009 in the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (MTA) capital program. In an earlier speech to the Regional Plan Association, Spitzer called on the federal government and Port Authority to help fund these two projects after 2009 when most of the construction expense will occur. He also suggested that a new Tappan Zee Bridge could be paid for through bonds backed by future toll revenues or through public private partnerships.
Left off Spitzer’s list of top priorities are two other mega-projects: a rail link from lower Manhattan to JFK airport, and a cross harbor freight tunnel that would connect Brooklyn with either New Jersey or Staten Island. Both projects are controversial because of doubt about whether they are worth the$5 to $7 billion pricetage for each. Spitzer urged further study on the costs and benefits of both projects, potentially paving the way toward eventually setting them aside.
Spitzer also supports a proposed new passenger rail tunnel connecting New Jersey to Manhattan. The new tunnel would enable New Jersey Transit, which currently shares tracks with Amtrak, to increase commuter service into Manhattan. Support for this project from a New York gubernatorial candidate gained little fanfare, a remarkable commentary on how much competition between the two states has eased as both states increasingly recognize that their main economic threat is not each other, but other cities around the globe. There may also be a measure of self-interest since Spitzer also wants the Port Authority, which has never funded MTA projects, to help pay for the Second Avenue and LIRR projects.
More controversially, Spitzer said in the debate that if elected governor he would “absolutely” act to replace Peter Kalikow, the MTA chairman. Governor George Pataki recently reappointed Kalikow to a second term that runs until 2012. Kalikow has indicated that he wants to finish projects currently underway. Some Democrats and transit advocates respect the job that Kalikow has done under Pataki, who has exercised an unprecedented level of control over the agency during his 12 years as governor. Yet Spitzer and others oppose letting Kalikow continue in office, citing his lack of independence in decisions such as rejecting the transit workers union ratification of a labor pact in a revote after initially rejecting it.
In the same debate, Suozzi said he would not try to force out Kalikow.
Another hot MTA issue concerns the sale of the Penn Station rail yards. With the Jets stadium deal off the table, Mayor Michael Bloomberg has offered to buy part of the rail yards from the MTA for $500 million. Spitzer criticized the city’s offer as “grossly under market value” and called for “fair and open” bidding process for the property. Kalikow wants to use the money to help offset future projected MTA budget deficits. The MTA board voted in late July to negotiate the sale of the development rights to the city. Whether a deal could be consummated before the next governor takes office remains to be seen.
In his RPA speech, Spitzer also announced support for:
• Bloomberg’s proposed extension of the 7 line to the west side;
• Bus rapid transit;
• Expanding ferry service “where it is financially feasible;”
• Integrating ferry service with rail and bus systems;
• Maintaining core infrastructure as a first priority;
• Weaning the MTA from financing transit improvements with borrowing; and
• Restoring professionalism in the state’s transportation agencies.
What is this campaign talk likely to mean for New York City if Spitzer is elected governor in November? Those who recall Bloomberg’s 2001 promise for a “Subway on the Surface” on the East Side – an idea that the city is still only mulling over – may want to take this candidate’s promises with a tablet of salt. Nevertheless, it is worth noting Spitzer’s willingness to prioritize three big projects over projects such as the JFK rail link, which have strong support in segments of the business community. If Spitzer can follow through as governor on truly setting priorities for getting these projects in the ground, he will leave a legacy.
It would also be an accomplishment if the new governor reverses the politicization of the MTA and other transportation agencies that has occurred under Pataki. It was not that long ago that governors appointed professionals such as Bob Kiley to head the MTA. Although Kalikow has shown more independence than his immediate predecessors, he can hardly claim independence from the governor.
Less visibly but equally important would be the new governor giving the state Transportation Department and regional planning agencies funding, staffing and political mandate to pursue progressive transportation policies.
Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.Â
The deaths of three bicyclists in traffic accidents in June brought renewed attention to bicycling -- not only as a form of recreation but also of transportation in New York City.
The deaths illustrated the variety of cycling trips in the city and the range of dangers facing cyclists. Derek Lake, a 23-year-old filmmaker, was crushed beneath the wheels of a tractor-trailer on Houston Street in Manhattan as he biked to work on a rainy Monday, June 26, apparently after slipping on a steel plate covering a construction trench. Dr. Carl Nacht, a 56-year-old physician, was hit by a police department tow truck as he rode with his wife along the Hudson River Park bike path near 38th Street on Sunday, June 25. Donna Goodson, 41, was killed on Rockaway Parkway in Brooklyn on Monday evening, June 5, when a truck turned in front of her onto Avenue D.
Clearly, cyclists face danger whether they ride on a street like Houston without even a bike lane marked on the pavement, or on bike paths separated from the flow of traffic. Except for a few bike paths along parkways, nearly all bike paths and lanes in the city require bicyclists and motorists to watch out for each other.
Coming in close succession, these accidents might lead New Yorkers to believe that bicycling is becoming less safe. But this is an incorrect conclusion. The number of traffic accidents involving cyclists has declined by about 40 percent in the last decade, even as the number of people cycling has increased by 40 percent, according to the advocacy group Transportation Alternatives. This group believes that the decline in accidents shows that there is safety in numbers; when motorists see more bicyclists they are more likely to watch out for them.
Other cities are experimenting with ways to improve bike safety that go beyond the standard public education. Chicago, which recently announced plans for a 500-mile bike network that would put a bike lane within a half-mile of every resident, plans to try raised bike lanes; this would dissuade motorists from veering onto the bike lane. (Chicago also plans to install showers and bike lockers at a commuter train station on the edge of the Loop.)
How many people bicycle in New York City? Transportation Alternatives estimates that 120,000 bicyclists make 400,000 bike trips per day, at least in the warmer months. That is twice the number of daily riders on the PATH system, and equivalent to the number on the ten most popular bus routes in the city.
The increased popularity of cycling has been spurred by an expansion in bike lanes around the city. The Hudson River Park path, which is shared by bicyclists, in-line skaters and (on some portions) pedestrians, means that one can now cycle from the Battery to the George Washington Bridge with only a brief detour onto city streets around West 130th Street. Along the East River are traffic-separated paths from 125 Street to the Battery except for a detour onto city streets in Midtown. Other boroughs also offer excellent cycling options. These include, in Brooklyn, traffic-separated paths on Ocean Parkway and next to the Belt Parkway and on-street bike lanes on Dean and Bergen Streets and Bedford Avenue. Other boroughs also offer a mix of on-street and traffic-separated bike lanes and paths, as shown in the city’s bike map. Connecting the boroughs, all four of the East River bridges, as well as the Triboro and George Washington bridges, have bike access.
Even with this progress, however, cycling advocates point out that the city is only slowly moving to complete its 1997 master plan that envisioned a citywide network of bike facilities. Indeed, the lack of progress is one of the factors cited by Andrew Vesselinovitch when he quit his job earlier this month as the Department of Transportation's bicycle program director.
Off-street paths have increased from 51 miles in 1997 to about 100 miles today and on-street bike lanes have increased from 41 miles to about 90 miles, according to Transportation Alternatives. These figures put the city about one-fifth of the way toward the master plan goal of 909 miles.
The city has not set a schedule for completion of the master plan network. As a result, while there are attractive bike lanes around the city, it can be hard to get to them. For example, a cyclist like Derek Lake who bikes over the Brooklyn or Manhattan bridge and heads uptown needs to travel on city streets for a number of blocks before reaching even an on-street bike lane.
The need for a true network of bike lanes is not the only barrier to making New York City truly bike-friendly. The city’s master plan noted that potential cyclists want three things:
*on-street bicycle lanes
*secure bike parking
*facilities to shower and change clothes.
A 1990 survey conducted by the city’s transportation department found that nearly 50 percent of Manhattan office workers surveyed who live within 10 miles of work would cycle to work if provided these facilities. Yet how many employers offer bike parking or showers for their employees?
How does New York City rank among other cities as a place to bike? According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau on how people travel to work, 0.4 percent of workers in the New York metro area biked to work in April 2000. This figure is on a par with other major cities such as Chicago, Philadelphia, Boston and Los Angeles. However, the bike-to-work rate in these cities is only about one-third of the rate in San Francisco (1.4percent bike to work), Madison, Wisconsin (1.7 percent) and several Canadian cities -- Vancouver (1.9 percent), Ottawa (1.9 percent) and Montreal (1.3 percent), according to a study by John Pucher at Rutgers University. European cities have achieved far higher levels of cycling -- 25 percent of all trips nationally in Denmark are by bike, as are 18 percent in the Netherlands and 11percent in the former West Germany. London, the city that most closely resembles New York, is spending ÂŁ24 million annually (about $44million) in cycling infrastructure, training, promotion and education.
Cycling in London has increased by 72 percent overall and 100 percent in summer months since 2000, according to Transport for London.
New York City has every reason to aspire to the levels of bike usage seen in the most bike-friendly cities. The Pucher study, comparing Canada and the United States, found that higher rates of cycling in Canada are attributable to such factors as higher urban densities, more mixed-use development, shorter trip distances, lower incomes, and higher costs of driving a car. Sounds a lot like New York – except that the study also found that higher cycling rates are also due to more extensive cycling infrastructure and safer cycling conditions.
Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.Â
While most industries in New York place a premium on using time efficiently, bus service in New York City has only become a slower and less efficient way to get around. What will be required to make buses move faster, reduce the waits at bus stops and make the entire experience more comfortable and reliable?
That’s the question now being considered for 15 bus routes scattered throughout the city that are being looked at for “bus rapid transit” (BRT) service by the city’s Department of Transportation (DOT) and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA). This month, the two agencies released concept plans for the 15 routes and held public workshops in each borough to gather feedback. They plan to choose five of the 15 by the end of the summer for development and implementation of the services by 2008, which would replace the current “limited stop service” on the selected routes. Local service would be continued.
There is no question about buses being too slow. Buses spend only 54 percent of their time actually moving; the other half of their time is split between waiting at traffic signals and boarding passengers at bus stops. According to my 2002 report, buses travel on average only 7.5 miles per hour. Just as frustrating is the fact that buses often bunch up, making for long waits at bus stops and increased crowding on the buses that lead the pack.
BRT aims to solve these problems. There is not a standard solution for all 15 routes, however; each would employ measures tailored to its particular situation.
On some of the corridors, such as First and Second Avenue in Manhattan, Flatbush Avenue in Brooklyn, Union Turnpike in Queens, and Webster Avenue and the Grand Concourse in the Bronx, bus lanes would be set up in the second lane from the curb instead of the curb lane, as is currently the case. That would allow space for truck loading, vehicles making turns and parking – uses that currently slow down buses trying to use curbside bus lanes. At stops, the sidewalk would be extended to meet the bus lane. That provides more space for riders, and means that buses would merely stop at each stop rather than having to merge back into traffic at the end of each stop.
BRT lanes would be painted a bright color to discourage drivers from clogging up the lane.
Traffic is not the only reason that buses are slow, however. Other measures are designed to improve how quickly passengers board and alight, such as having riders pay their fares before boarding the bus at selected highly used bus stops. That would also allow passenger to board in the rear door, further reducing time spent at bus stops.
Another step being discussed is installing automated vehicle locator (AVL) systems on buses, which allow a central bus control center to chart where all buses are at a given time and better manage bus movements. In Los Angeles, bus managers have successfully used an AVL system to even out the spacing between buses, and thus reduce bus bunching, excessive waits at bus stops and crowding on buses. Currently, the MTA has a much-delayed program to install AVL along First and Second Avenue in Manhattan that, if proven successful, could be expanded.
Buses might also be coordinated with traffic signals. If a bus is running late, the green light would be held for a few extra seconds to allow the bus to proceed through the intersection before the light turns red. “Signal priority” is suggested for intersections on Tenth and Eleventh Avenue in Manhattan, Flatbush Avenue and Nostrand Avenue in Brooklyn, Horace Harding Expressway, Merrick Blvd. and Hillside Avenue in Queens, Hyland Blvd. on Staten Island and Webster Avenue, the Grand Concourse and Pelham Parkway in the Bronx.
New York BRT planners also envision buses coming every five to eight minutes, stops every one-half to 1 mile, larger shelters at major stops and specially marked buses and bus stops to help riders identify BRT services. The fare would remain at $2.
BRT measures successfully used in Los Angeles, Boston and other cities, such as well-marked bus lanes, frequent service, pre-boarding fare payment and vehicle location technology, are all at least mentioned in the concept plans for New York. New York planners have foregone only one major BRT element: exclusive lanes from which other vehicles are physically barred from entering. Whether that is a good choice depends on how well the New York plans keep bus lanes clear of other vehicles.
The New York plans are thus a good start, but to borrow from Churchill, they are merely the end of the beginning. Whether the plans will come to a good end depends on how aggressively the measures are implemented. How many locations will get pre-boarding fare payment?
Key questions also surround the bus lanes. How much of the corridors will get the one-lane-out treatment that gives trucks a place to park for deliveries? How many parking spaces is the community willing to give up for bus lanes and truck delivery spaces? How much police enforcement will there be to keep other vehicles out? Will the MTA and City Hall get the state Legislature to authorize putting cameras on the front of buses, with pictures of license plates used to issue tickets to vehicles that block the bus lane? Will painted bus lanes help keep out other vehicles?
The current concept plans do not contain enough details to answer these questions. The staff at the two agencies say they are looking for community feedback before deciding how far to go with the measures. It will be up to each community to advise the agencies on how to balance the goals of bus rapid transit with car speeds, truck deliveries and other needs for street space.
Another unknown is how drivers and others will react to well-marked bus lanes. The experience with the numerous bus lanes that are currently around the city is not encouraging, as a bus driver at the Manhattan workshop on June 8 pointed out. This driver said that the police enforce bus lane restrictions on First and Second Avenue for only an hour and a half in the morning rush hour. The driver said that without constant enforcement, BRT will not work. Whether bus planners can find some combination of physical markings and sustainable enforcement levels remains to be seen.
Given all the uncertainties, it might be wise for bus planners to ease away from trying to make a comprehensive plan that foresees the future. It has been a time-consuming way to approach the problem – the study is already two years old and implementation is not expected for at least two more years.
Staff from the two transportation agencies have mentioned the possibility of experimenting with bus rapid transit measures in a few locations sooner rather than later. This idea has two important benefits. First, planners can see how some of these ideas work in practice. They can apply to more routes those ideas that prove to work well and make changes in ideas that do not prove out.
Second, the public can start to see the benefits of bus rapid transit. Los Angeles’ experience suggests how important that can be. In L.A., BRT was put on two routes. Buses sped up by about 30 percent, ridership ballooned, and people throughout the city clamored for BRT in their neighborhoods. L.A. is now implementing the most ambitious network of BRT routes in the country, involving 28 corridors and 450 miles of service, to be completed in 2008.
If it could happen in L.A., could it happen here too?
Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.Â
While New York City is known as the transit capital of the country, sections of the city are primarily dependent on the automobile. This is most notable in Staten Island, the eastern half of Queens, the northern half of the Bronx and sections of Brooklyn that are beyond subway lines – all areas where (as Census data show) the majority of workers commute by car.
No borough of the city is more car-dependent than Staten Island. Rapid population growth has combined with high rates of car use to create traffic congestion that rivals northern New Jersey and other areas around the country where traffic congestion has become a political issue. Staten Island’s congestion is made worse by a confluence of unfavorable forces. Among these is a lack of new roadway capacity despite population growth and the borough’s position as a through route for trucks and autos traveling from the mainland to Long Island. Thus, drivers can run into traffic jams not only at rush hour, but almost any time day or night, weekday or weekend.
Mayor Michael Bloomberg, in his State of the City speech earlier this year, charged his commissioners of transportation and of city planning to report back with a plan within 60 days to tackle Staten Island transportation needs. In March, the mayor announced 40 recommendations to relieve congestion bottlenecks, improve traffic enforcement, move forward with construction projects, improve mass transit and strengthen cooperation between city and state agencies.
Short-term steps, to be completed within a year, include:
Longer-term plans include considering bus rapid transit on Hyland Boulevard – part of a citywide bus rapid transit study – as well as road widenings and realignments and new park and rides and stations for the Staten Island railway.
The Bloomberg transportation plan for Staten Island reflects the consensus for addressing traffic congestion that is seen both inside and outside of New York. There is a strong emphasis on public transportation as well as traffic-related initiatives. The traffic aspects of the plan emphasize operational improvements -– getting better use of existing lanes -– rather than building new highway or street capacity. The plan thus considers numerous steps that each have fairly small impacts but together can noticeably improve traffic flow.
There is also an emphasis on community involvement and consensus building. The mayor acknowledged in announcing the plan that the “lack of community consensus” had stymied previous attempts to deal with transportation needs. To help get everyone on board, the mayor’s task force included elected officials and community boards as well as city and state officials. Implementation of the proposals will depend on a continued high level of involvement and engagement by the local communities.
The plan also perhaps inadvertently underscores that just as there has been a neglect of elements of the physical infrastructure ranging from potholed streets to the obsolete Goethals Bridge, so has the operational infrastructure been neglected. Why, for example, are there so many major intersections in need of re-timed signals? Why is it novel for the City Planning Department to coordinate adjacent parking lot designs to allow cars to move between parking lots without re-entering the roadway?
In pledging that city agencies will focus on ensuring that capital projects proceed on schedule, the plan acknowledges that without special attention, project schedules may easily lag.
The plan also puts off some very contentious issues. Reconstruction of the Goethal’s Bridge, first recommended in a 1987 study conducted for its owner, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is listed as a long-term goal.
The mayor’s plan lightly touches on transportation impacts of land use decisions, a hot topic in much of the country. A short term goal is for the city Transportation Department to be consulted “early in the process” when builders apply for permit waivers –- presumably to look at traffic impacts of larger-scale developments.
Finally, it is notable that while promising action, the mayor’s plan does not promise results. There are no estimates of how much congestion will be reduced or traffic speeds increased –- no doubt at least in part due to how rapidly the plan was put together. Staten Islanders and others traveling into or through the borough can only wait to see how the administration’s new focus on transportation improvements will bear fruit.
Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting, which provides research and analysis about transportation. He is also a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.Â
Most people would surely agree that the snail’s pace of traffic in the Manhattan central business district is a pain. But there is much disagreement over whether the benefits of speeding up that traffic are worth the costs, or even what the costs would be.
Although only one of many ideas to ease traffic, the flash point for this debate is congestion pricing. Many people in both London and New York view as a great success London’s ÂŁ8 ($14) a day congestion charge for weekday travel in central London, which was instituted three years ago. When the idea was raised in New York City after the mayoral election in November, however, a Bloomberg administration spokesman said the administration wasn’t interested. Nevertheless, congestion pricing made headlines again in February with the release of two reports and continued mixed signals from Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Whether congestion pricing itself is ever implemented in New York, this debate may yet improve mobility in the Manhattan central business district (referred to as the CBD, and defined as from the Battery to 60th Street).
The core of the congestion pricing debate revolves around the question of how motorists would respond to a congestion charge. The Queens Chamber of Commerce released a report in late February titled, “A Cure Worse than the Disease? How London's 'Congestion Pricing' System Could Hurt New York City's Economy." The report estimates that with a congestion charge similar to London’s, 40,000 fewer people would enter the Manhattan central business district each weekday, resulting in a loss of $2.7 billion in economic output. The report says that working-class and middle-class car commuters from Queens and the other outer boroughs would be especially hard hit, as would small to mid-size businesses that need to go into Manhattan frequently.
The Queens Chamber of Commerce report came on the heels of a Transportation Alternatives report (conducted by me), titled, “Necessity or Choice? Why People Drive in Manhattan.” This report argued that very few people would stop coming to Manhattan with congestion pricing or other steps to restrict car use in the central business district. Many assume that most people who drive into Manhattan do so because of poor or nonexistent transit access. Yet Census data show that 90 percent of auto commuters have access to buses, subways and trains. Not even the length of the commute need deter auto commuters; 80 percent have a transit alternative that offers travel times within 15 minutes of their car trip.
The report also pointed out that London experienced only a two percent decline in the number of people coming into central London as a result of its rather steep charge. (The Queens Chamber of Commerce assumed, without explaining why, that 14 percent would be deterred from traveling into Manhattan.) In London, the number of trips taken in vehicles subject to the charge dropped by 31 percent, but the number of people coming into central London declined only slightly because most diverted auto users switched to transit, including expanded bus service.
For the Manhattan business district, congestion pricing would reduce congestion, speed bus and taxi trips, reduce noise, afford more space for pedestrians and make the borough a more attractive -- not less attractive –- place to work, live, shop and be entertained. That’s been London’s experience and there is every reason to expect it would be New York’s experience.
Not just Manhattan would benefit. The outer boroughs would benefit from beefed up transit service that could be funded by the congestion charge, as London has done. The outer boroughs would also benefit from less traffic passing through outer borough neighborhoods on the way into Manhattan. In Long Island City, 57 percent of traffic entering the area during the morning peak hour is bound for the Queensboro Bridge. Wouldn’t getting some of those cars off the roads be good for Queens? Likewise in Brooklyn, traffic bound for the East River bridges accounts for 43 percent of all vehicles entering downtown Brooklyn during the morning rush hour and 45 percent during midday.
Reducing traffic would also seem to benefit those small to mid-size businesses that need to go into Manhattan frequently. These folks presumably charge for their time and would benefit from having to spend less time in traffic. Given what they bill on an hourly basis, a plumber or electrician or computer repairman needs to save only a few minutes to recoup a congestion charge.
Recent comments by Mayor Bloomberg have been both hot and cold toward congestion pricing. The businessman in him seems to understand the logic of reducing traffic by charging for use of the streets. But the mayor has also become an astute politician. That part of him knows how he has been hammered on the issue each time it gets raised. Thus, after commenting in February that congestion charging “is certainly something that we should be looking at,” his spokesman said he was not “loosening or easing up” on the position he took last November.
While discussions of traffic in Manhattan turn toward congestion pricing, in fact there are many ways to improve pedestrian, bus and bicycle movement in the business district. City traffic planners need to be freed from their fear of impinging on the prerogatives of that sacred cow, the American automobile. The city would then be open to dedicating more street space for buses and bicycles and wider sidewalks. Traffic might not improve – it probably takes pricing measures to reduce congestion. But the 86 percent of trips to Manhattan central business district destinations taken by modes other than the auto would be easier to make. That would make life more livable in Manhattan.
There are also many different ways to institute pricing strategies. San Diego pioneered the so-called HOT lanes along one of the major highways leading into the central part of the city. Motorists have a choice: pay nothing and sit in traffic, or pay a toll and zip into town. Tolls are increased as traffic volumes go up in order to maintain free-flow conditions on the tolled lanes.
HOT lanes overcome people’s resistance to forcing everyone to pay while also using pricing to give those who are willing to pay a speedier option. The same concept could be applied in New York City by tolling selected lanes on bridges and selected avenues into the central business district. E-ZPass could be used to pay the tolls, avoiding the need to install the elaborate camera system used to read license plates in London.
Let’s hope that the debate over congestion pricing does not lead to another dead end for the goal of improving mobility into and within the Manhattan business district. Even if New York is not ready for a full plate congestion pricing, there are plenty of other effective ways to give a little relief to pedestrians, bus and bicycle riders, and even to motorists who would rather pay than sit.
Bruce Schaller, who has been in charge of the transportation topic page since its inception in 1999, is head of Schaller Consulting and a Visiting Scholar at the Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management at New York University.Â
Anyone who associates bicycle cabs solely with the streets of, say, Hong Kong or New Delhi would have gotten a shock if he had dropped by New York City Hall on the last day of February. It was standing room only as the City Council’s Committee on Consumer Affairs held what promises to be the first of several hearings on regulations for pedicabs. Many of those attending were my fellow pedicab owners and drivers who have made the bicycle rickshaws a staple of the Midtown streetscape.
The packed meeting room, respectful testimony from city officials, and supportive words from various City Council members indicated that pedicabs are increasingly seen as an integral part of New York City’s transportation system. On a typical Thursday, Friday or Saturday evening in the spring or autumn last year, approximately 350 pedicabs -- large tricycles that sport a driver in front and a carriage for passengers over their rear axle rolled around Manhattan. This represents almost a five-fold increase from just three years previous. More than 500 people annually now work full or part time as pedicab drivers.
But while pedicabs — or cycle rickshaws, as they also are known – have many fans, including those of us in the industry as well as environmentalists, city planners, animal rights activists, and almost every customer we have ever had, opponents recently have been making some noise as well. Such parties include auto-taxi owners, horse-carriage drivers, Broadway theater owners, and even the police.
Due to the local pedicab industry’s growth over the past 10 years, most participants, including myself, today agree that some regulation is desirable to raise the bar for drivers, owners and customers, and for others who share city streets with us. Yet we want also to ensure that, as Councilmember Charles Barron put it, “when people find a legitimate way to generate income, [city council members] don’t legislate them out of business.”
Neither transit strike nor blackout nor terrorist attack nor oil crisis nor gridlock has kept these human-powered people-moving machines from making their rounds. Pedicabs increasingly impress even hardened skeptics as they quietly move around Midtown through one motor vehicle traffic jam after another.
With their slim wheelbase (typically 48 inches), sharp handling, and solid speed, pedicabs have become a hit in midtown Manhattan — and not just with tourists. The offer of “10 minutes or less anywhere in Midtown, or the ride is for free” — the mantra of many veteran drivers — is making its mark on both locals and out-of-towners. Many who used to turn up their nose when a pedicab pulled up now glance around furtively, hop in, and call a friend to declare with glee, “I couldn’t find a cab, so I’m taking one of those bike taxi things!”
Try to get, say, from Grand Central to Penn Station via surface transport at 5 p.m. on a Friday. With any other mode, you will either be still waiting in the taxi line or be stuck in an automobile traffic jam 20 to 30 minutes later. A veteran pedicab driver, meanwhile, completes the journey — with you and yours along for the ride — in eight minutes. Typical fees for this run ranges from about $15 to $25.
The overall efficiency of pedicabs is nowhere more obvious than in Midtown. Pedicab speeds in Midtown average six to ten miles per hour, compared with automotive speeds of about seven miles per hour according to the Department of Transportation. Pedicabs also are narrow enough for most motor vehicles to pass. Passengers typically get to enjoy a pleasant conversation with the pedicab driver en route. The city benefits as well, since pedicabs do not create pollution, are quiet, and have no impact on street infrastructure.
Pedicab drivers are an amazingly diverse bunch: The majority includes artists, actors, students, immigrants, disaffected tour-bus guides, PhD dropouts, and former taxi drivers. The industry offers entrepreneurial opportunities and potential for living wages to this quixotic crew, who may possess little more in common than strong quadriceps, a serious work ethic, a solid sales pitch, and street savvy.
Like almost any successful new industry, opponents have cropped up to challenge us.
Horse carriages, which make their living primarily from Central Park South passers-by, sometimes complain that pedicabs “steal” their business. Yet pedicabs cannot compete with the romance of a leisurely carriage ride. During most of the year, horse carriages have more business than they can handle. While most pedicab drivers are happy to show passengers New York’s most charming spots (including lengthy Central Park tours of our own), our primary job is providing quick, clean Midtown travel with a personal touch.
Pedicabs have also been unfairly lumped with so-called “party bikes” or “conference bikes.” These vehicles, which carry up to six riders who sit in a circle pedaling while a driver steers from the rear, usually operate in the Times Square area. People board these sizable contraptions for a good time — not for real transportation — and the police department has made known its disdain for them.
More significantly, the taxi industry is also challenging pedicabs and their right to operate. Taxi medallion owners charge that, since potential passengers can hail the bicycle rickshaws on the street, the pedicabs are illegally picking up street hails. All medallions, however, must be affixed to a motor vehicle and may not be affixed to a bicycle, which a pedicab is under state law. In addition, auto taxis handle over 170 million rides a year; pedicabs, on the other hand, hit the one-million ride mark for the first time last year, and many of these rides were tours. Overlap is virtually nonexistent. The taxi lobby nevertheless feels the current situation is unfair, as pedicabs do not now have to pay a license or any other fee to operate.
The city seems to be coming around to the idea that pedicabs are here to stay. The council is considering a bill proposed last year by Councilmember Alan Gerson. The bill, Intro 75, would require driver and owner licenses, liability insurance, and regular pedicab inspections, among other things. The Bloomberg administration has indicated it supports efforts at regulation, and most pedicab owners and drivers also endorse Gerson’s bill or some variant of it.
Rules such as those proposed by Gerson would further legitimize pedicabs on our city’s streets and make the experience even safer for those who use them. We agree with Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall that, while “we simply cannot wait for a tragic accident involving a pedicab.”
A majority of owners already have been responsible enough to secure insurance and operate safe vehicles. In fact, a group of businesses with a total of over 200 pedicabs recently formed the New York City Pedicab Owners Association to implement the best practices industry-wide.
There has never been a serious bicycle rickshaw injury in New York City. Despite that, Councilmember John Liu has wondered whether pedicabs should come equipped with helmets and seatbelts. But some experts believe this would make the cabs less, rather than more, safe.
Many details of the legislation still need to be worked out. Even some involved in the pedicab industry differ over whether drivers, as well as operators, should have to get a pedicab license. Toole has mentioned that the legislation needs to define better what exactly a pedicab is and questioned how to fairly manage fees charged by pedicabs. For now, the driver proposes a fare on the spot based on the distance traveled, the number and weight of the passengers, and even the weather. Toole suggests that driver and passenger be required to agree on a price before the ride begins.
Liu and some pedicab operators have also raised concerns about insurance. Coverage for drivers in fleets is extremely expensive except for insurance provided by Lloyd’s of London, and a few owners have chosen to forgo insurance altogether.
Most attendees at the recent City Council hearing reveled in the enthusiasm of my fellow pedicabs drivers. Long-time driver Craig Molino, for instance, likened driving a pedicab to “spreading a trail of good karma all over the city.” Driver Melissa Ludwig said that she had an epiphany the first time she saw a woman driving a pedicab in New York: “She pedaled with style and grace, and I knew that was my calling as a biker, a woman, an artist, and a New Yorker.”
But if you don’t believe me or my fellow drivers, then go for a ride yourself. It is truly the only way to understand the phenomenon of the urban pedicab, today’s sustainable solution to Midtown congestion.
Gregg Zukowski is owner and driver for Revolution Rickshaws, L.L.C. and acting secretary of the New York City Pedicab Owners Association.
Â