This article was revised on March 27 to reflect recent developments.
In the 11 months since Mayor Michael Bloomberg put forth a plan to charge people to drive in Manhattan on weekdays, the proposal has been caught in government's equivalent of rush hour on Canal Street. With time running out for a final decision, will the plan reach its destination? Or will its opponents bring it sputtering into the junkyard of failed public policy initiatives?
The past days have seen a flurry of activity around the issue. Gov. David Paterson's announced on March 21 that he supported the idea and had submitted a bill for consideration by the State Legislature. On the following Monday, as the City Council held hearings on congestion pricing, Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno introduced the bill in the Senate. And on March 26, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver introduced the bill in the Assembly -- without giving it his support
With the April 7 deadline for enacting the bill -- and getting $354 million of federal money -- fast approaching , the issue promises to be the subject of intense lobbying and debate in the days to come. As an indication, the City Council hearings were packed and went on from 11 a.m. until well into the evening. To kick things off, City Council has scheduled a full day of hearings on it for today (March 24). Testimony from people on all sides confronted the many issues that have swirled around this since last spring, particularly whether charging people to use city streets is fair and whether it can both cut air pollution and provide money for mass transit.
In its current incarnation, the congestion pricing proposal would charge cars $8 a day to enter Manhattan south of 60th Street between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays.
The mayor's plan for congestion pricing -- which has seen changes over the past months -- was part of his PlaNYC2030 for an environmentally sustainable city announced on Earth Day 2007. (For more coverage of the plan, see Gotham Gazette's new Sustainability Watch.) The idea was to charge people to drive into or around the Manhattan business district during the workweek and use that money to fund mass transit improvements.
Proponents viewed it as both a solution to New York's persistent traffic congestion and air pollution problems and the constant shortage of funds for subways and buses. Opponents questioned whether the plan really would reduce noxious emissions and charged that it could pose a hardship to lower income New Yorkers who have to drive to Manhattan for business, medical appointments and the like.
As is so frequently the case with schemes from the city, the plan stalled in Albany. Bloomberg originally anticipated bypassing the City Council entirely so congestion pricing would just need state approval. It won support from Majority Leader Bruno and then Gov. Eliot Spitzer but ran into opposition from the Democratic-controlled Assembly. Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver kept his opinions on this issue -- whatever they might be -- to himself.
As reporters wrote the obituary for the driving fees, the governor, majority leader and speaker -- the three men in a room, joined for this round by Bloomberg -- drafted a compromise. A commission would be appointed to study proposals to reduce traffic and issue recommendations. Its plan would then go to the City Council, the legislature and the governor for approval.
Hanging in the balance was some $354 million in federal Department of Transportation Funds. To get the money, New York had to enact a traffic mitigation plan including fees by March 31.
With congestion pricing proponents in the majority, the commission issued its report, calling for a modified version of Bloomberg's original plan, on Jan. 31. And then it sat. And sat.
As of March 19, no bill had been drafted in either the legislature or City Council. No one had stepped forward to sponsor the needed legislation. The new governor had not expressed an opinion on the concept nor had Silver. Meanwhile, a New York Times story indicated support eroding on the council. Frustrated at seeing the plan falter, Bloomberg lashed out at opponents,
"Our children deserve better from us than an inheritance of excuses bequeathed by business as usual," he said in a speech Wednesday." This isn't just a test of our policies. It's a test of our character."
Then Paterson not only said he would back congestion pricing, but put forward a bill with specifics, including the size of the congestion zone, how the revenues would be spent, what vehicles would be exempt and so on. Calling the governor's actions "tremendously helpful," Michael O'Loughlin, director of the Campaign for New York City's Future, a coalition backing congestion pricing, said the bill "gives people something to work with."
In a written statement, Paterson said he had come to this decision because "congestion pricing addresses two urgent concerns of the residents of New York City and its suburbs: the need to reduce congestion on our streets and roads, and thereby reduce pollution and global warming; and the need to raise significant revenue for mass transit improvements."
Opponents expressed dismay. "Even Governor Paterson's good name on Good Friday cannot resurrect this flawed and unfair tax legislation called congestion pricing," said a statement from Walter McCaffrey of Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free.
Paterson's support does not guarantee passage. The City Council still needs to put forth a bill, although that measure, rather than being a detailed proposal, could simply urge the legislature to back the fees. Even though this council has proved reluctant to defy Bloomberg and Speaker Christine Quinn, who supports congestion pricing, many opponents remain and a close vote is anticipated (see related story) Quinn has said she expects the council to back the pricing plan.
The council recessed rather than adjourned its regularly scheduled March 26 meeting, leaving the door open to convene an unplanned meeting to consider the issue. Quinn has denied widespread speculation that the council will vote on the pricing plan on Monday, March 31.
Up in Albany, Silver continues to be less than enthusiastic. He was quoted as saying "we still have a long road to go" before the Assembly passes congestion pricing. The Daily News quoted Democratic legislators as saying that Silver's announcement of the bill was greeted with boos at a closed door meeting.
Not unexpectedly, the measure again could become ensnared in Albany politics and package deals. The Times reported that Silver could let congestion pricing move ahead-- in return for support from Paterson and others for some kind of tax on New Yorkers making more than $1 million. That idea, unlike congestion pricing, seems to have wide support among Democratic members of the Assembly. It's unlikely, though, to win approval from the Senate Republicans who have backed congestion pricing.
And polls show many New Yorkers oppose the idea. A Quinnipiac University survey taken in January found opponents outnumbered supporters almost two-to-one.
Supporters, though, expressed optimism. "I don't see how it can't work out," said Noah Budnick, deputy director of Transportation Alternatives. "We can't fit more cars in New York City and we can't move people around by car in the city. So we need to discourage driving and at the same time fund mass transit." Congestion pricing, in the eyes of its supporters, does all that.
In the months since its original proposal, the specifics of congestion pricing have changed. The governor's bill incorporates the revisions put forth by the Traffic Mitigation Commission in January and includes a few changes made since then.
The zone: The Paterson bill adopts the zone set forth in the commission report and so would charge people simply to enter Manhattan south of 60th Street. Bloomberg's original plan would have set the boundary at 86th Street, would have exempted some peripheral highways, such as the FDR Drive, and would also have charged people to drive within the zone during the work week.
The fees: Under both the commission's recommendations and the governor's bill, the base fee for cars entering the area would be $8. Trucks would pay $21. But many drivers would end up paying far less since the system subtracts tolls used to enter Manhattan -- as long as the driver used E-ZPass to cross one of the rivers. So while someone using the toll-free Brooklyn Bridge would be charged an $8 congestion fee, a person who used the Queens Midtown Tunnel, which has a $4.50 toll, would pay that and a $3.50 congestion fee for a maximum charge of $8.
Residential parking: Many New Yorkers who live outside Manhattan but near subway stations objected not so much to the fee itself but to what people in neighborhoods without good subway or express bus access might do to avoid the fee. They feared their neighborhoods would become giant parking lots for commuters wanting to get closer to Manhattan and still avoid the fee.
In March, Bloomberg and Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan proposed a residential parking permit program that would, Bloomberg said, "specifically be aimed at discouraging park-and-ride activity" and at areas with large facilities like sports arenas. Individual communities would decide whether to enact the program and would set regulations for it.
The Paterson bill also calls for a residential permit parking program.
The money: New Yorkers, like most Americans, tend to be skeptical of what the government will do with their money. Some opponents of congestion pricing see it as just another tax. Many people express skepticism over whether the money really will go to transit as promised.
“I’m not going to believe for a moment the lock box can’t be broken,” said Councilmember Lew Fidler of Brooklyn, who opposes congestion pricing, at the March 24 hearing.
For now, the commission and the governor are saying it will not be. The $8 fees are expected to generate enough money to operate the program and another approximately $490 million for transit improvements. Most of that will go to support the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's five-year capital plan that by some counts could add up to $30 billion.
Critics contend that that means revenue from congestion pricing would be barely more than a drop in the bucket -- about 15 percent according to a calculation by the Times. Critics, such as Assemblymember Richard Brodsky, have charged that the fees have been “oversold” as a financing mechanism. "Congestion pricing was sold as a panacea, and what this [capital] plan admits for the first time is that it’s not,” Brodsky told the Times.
Supporters of the fees say city officials and the transportation authority have to meet their commitments. “The big problem people have is they don’t trust the MTA and even city government for following through and using the money effectively,” John Liu of Queens, chair of the transportation committee, said.
If the city and state approve congestion pricing, the city will get about $354 million in federal funds designed to promote plans to ease congestion. The substantial federal payment has spawned its own set of controversies. Last summer, Bloomberg said the city would lose the funds if the state didn't approve the proposal by July 16, 2007. It didn't - but the action the state took kept the city in the running for the money. Now Bloomberg has said the deadline is March 31. Most people think that, because of a technicality, April 7 is more like it.
Then last week U.S. Rep. Anthony Weiner, a candidate for mayor in 2009 and a congestion pricing foe, said that a congestion pricing plan might not bring in more federal money after all. Instead, Weiner said, the Bush administration might reason that since New York was taxing itself to fund transit improvements it did not need Washington's help. Bloomberg countered that Weiner's statement was "one of the stupider things I’ve ever heard said."
Whatever the specifics, proponents believe the prospect of federal funding helps their position. "It's a tough year to turn down $354 million," McLoughlin said.
Monitoring the plan: Will it work? Proponents expect the fees to cut traffic in the zone by about 6.5 percent during peak hours, resulting in "a 13 percent reduction in congestion," according to a report by the Campaign for New York City's Future. "That's the difference between a busy autumn rush hour and mid-summer when commuters are on vacation," it said. And in turn, proponents say, an easing of traffic jams will reduce pollutants, particularly those that cause asthma and the greenhouse gases that cause global warming.
Opponents counter that the plan's backers underestimate the costs and overestimate the benefits. In a report, the anti-congestion pricing group concluded congestion pricing would reduce citywide traffic by only 2 percent. And because cars and trucks are not the city's chief source of greenhouse gas emissions -- buildings are -- they say, "Even if the system is as effective as its proponents claim, it will reduce emissions by only 0.4 percent."
To address the claims and counterclaims, the governor's statement says his bill will require the city to "oversee a monitoring program for traffic, air quality, noise, parking and other environmental impacts and release annual reports" as well as a preliminary report six months after the program begins.
Even among supporters of congestions pricing, two key issues remain unresolved. One is what some call the "Jersey inequity."
Because the plan subtracts bridge and tunnel tolls from the congestion charge, people crossing the Hudson River -- in other words -- those coming from New Jersey would not pay any more than they do now.
In a letter to Bloomberg last month, some 20 members of the City Council, most supportive of congestion pricing, laid out some concerns. One was the need for residential parking permits. The other was the question of the Jersey drivers. As it is now, said Tim Roberts, policy director for Councilmember David Yassky, who spearheaded the letter, "There's no disincentive for New Jersey suburbanites to drive in."
The council members then asked Bloomberg to fix the problem "either by amending the plan to require commuters from outside New York City to pay a congestion fee in addition to bridge and tunnel tolls, or by forcing the Port Authority to agree to devote a significant portion of their revenue from Hudson River crossings to funding mass transit in New York City."
While Bloomberg has not yet endorsed either of these ideas, he did leave the door open to compromise. In his response to Paterson's support Friday, Bloomberg issued a statement saying, "We will work with the governor and our partners in the State Legislature and the City Council to address outstanding issues - including reducing the impact on lower income drivers, and concerns about commuters who use Port Authority crossings contributing to the MTA Capital plan."
At the City Council hearing, transportation commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan seemed to back-pedal, telling council members it might be illegal for the city to have one fee for people coming from, say, Queens and another for people crossing the Hudson. Rit Aggarwala, director of the mayor’s Office of Long-Term Planning, indicated the law might not be the only sticking point. “The other is a policy question of whether any special treatment is a good idea,” he said.
Regardless of its merits, the New Jersey issue is an important one, said Rich Kassel, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "There is a large block on the council and probably of Assembly members for whom this is a threshold issue and it will have to be dealt with," he said.
Roberts said Yassky wanted the changes, but would support congestion pricing anyway because whatever the plan's failings "it's better than nothing."
And what about those low-income drivers? Proponents of congestion pricing question how many there really are. For example, in a look at Paterson's old State Senate district in Harlem, the Tri State Transportation Campaign found that about 80 percent of the residents, with an average household income of about $38,000 a year, did not even own a car. The 20 percent who did own a car had an average household income of more than $89,000.
Opponents of the charges, though, say those numbers are misleading. With spotty transit service in outlying areas of the city, many people of modest incomes do rely on cars to bring them to Manhattan. In particular, they cite an elderly person who has to come to Manhattan for medical care.
Further the plan heavily favors people who pay tolls with electronic E-ZPasses. Under the plan, users of the pass pay a congestion fee of $8, while those without them would pay $9. And while the E-ZPass users have the fee deducted from the money in their accounts, those without the passes will have to figure out how to pay — and pay quickly The bill carries a $65 fine for anyone who does not pay a congestion charge within 48 hours of incurring it.
The city wants to encourage E-ZPass use. But the preferential treatment given those who have them raises concerns about equity since occasional and low-income drivers may be less likely to have the electronic tags than more affluent drivers.
There does seem to be movement toward providing a tax credit for lower income people who must drive into the city. The New York Post reported that officials could offer a break to motorists who pay the $8 and qualify for the earned-income credit, $35,241 a year for a family of three in annual income.
"It'll cost something like $10 million" out of the $500 million expected to be raised, the source told the Post adding, "We're not talking about a lot of money."
Even so, it would serve to blunt one of the more powerful arguments the opponents have at their disposal.
No one argues that New York City does not have a traffic problem. Over the past year, a number of plans have been put forth to address it. Some have called for putting tolls on the East River bridges, which the commission considered and ultimately rejected. Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free put out a multifacted plan to reduce traffic, including charging more for curbside parking, reducing the number of free parking permits for city employees, changing the toll system on the Verrazano Bridge.
In the days to come, people on both sides will press their representatives. Advocates will seek to convey the message that "this is an opportunity for elected officials to make a huge impact to improve things here," said Budnick of Transportation Alternatives.
But given the political volatility of the idea, and a complicated election calculus spawned by legislative elections this year and many term-limited council members casting about for their next post, no one expects it to be easy. Members of the legislature and the council seem to be eyeing each other warily, wondering who will blink.
"No one knows who moves first," said Kassel. But, he said, "I am seeing a lot of people not ready to vote for it but who recognize that congestion pricing is coming" and that we need to fund the transit system.
Â
City Council Speaker Christine Quinn endorsed the creation of a citywide ferry service and an expansion of a small business insurance program in her State of the City address last week. Now advocates and stakeholders are weighing in, and - for the most part - appear to be praising the proposals.
Last week, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn announced her support for a five-borough, year-round ferry system that Mayor Bloomberg and the city Department of Transportation are developing. Such a proposal may seem like a pipe dream to many New Yorkers, who have seen ferry service remain fairly stagnant, either from a shortage of funding or an apparent lack of demand.
But the next time you are heading between waterfront neighborhoods like Astoria, Queens and Red Hook, Brooklyn, just imagine how much nicer the trip could be on a ferry. Rather than fuming at the scarcity of G trains, envision yourself on the ferry’s top deck as you are whisked down the East River and the Manhattan skyline floats by.
A comprehensive ferry system would not only give us a better view, it would turn waterway commuting into a viable and appealing form of public transportation. If done right, a ferry system could be affordable, environmentally conscious and ease the mounting pressure on our rickety transit system.
The Big Apple has had a long and complicated relationship with ferries. Gone are the days when steamers plied the waters between Manhattan and Rockaway several times a day with more than 3,000 passengers aboard. With notable exceptions like the Staten Island Ferry, waterfront commuting has gradually gone the way of the dodo. That’s because service is infrequent, fares tend to be relatively high and political support has been soft. Because of their high capacity, subways get most of the attention these days – New York City Transit just recorded its highest annual subway ridership in more than a half-century, with 1.56 billion rides in 2007.
But while the subway network hasn’t expanded in decades, the Big Apple certainly has. Neighborhoods that were once home only to industry are now coveted addresses – the only problem being that there is no subway to serve the new residents. And as anyone who has been on the subway recently knows, the trains are crowded. Congestion pricing is a great start, since it will help us pay for new buses and trains and help clean the air. But congestion pricing alone won’t solve all our transit woes, so we must explore complementary options.
Ferries have a number of advantages over other modes of mass transit. New York City is surrounded by water, and our waterways and waterfronts are, in many cases, untapped resources. Because they rely on the water to move passengers, ferries require very little infrastructure to set up compared with multi-billion dollar subway tunnels. Ferries are also flexible enough to keep up with changing population trends and would help commuters leapfrog all those local subway stops if they are going between boroughs outside Manhattan. There’s also a local economic benefit, as shops, restaurants and services would sprout near ferry terminals.
The first step should be to implement service where the need is greatest. That means in far-flung areas that have been clamoring for ferries for years. It seems barely a month goes by in Howard Beach or Broad Channel when the topic isn’t brought up at civic association meetings. Even as you are reading this, the Sunset-Ridge Waterfront Alliance is collecting signatures online for a petition to reinstate service at the 69th St. Veteran's Memorial Pier in Bay Ridge.
There is a compelling economic argument in favor of ferry service to these communities. Far Rockaway, for example, is one of the poorest areas in New York City, and its distance from the central business district of Manhattan has clearly contributed to its economic isolation -- the average commute time to Manhattan is well over one hour. The Economic Development Corporation is now reviewing bids from private ferry operators to start a two-year pilot program to lower Manhattan. The timetable isn’t clear yet, but, at a minimum, service would be provided Monday through Friday during peak rush hours.
Ferries will in all likelihood require some level of government support – as our buses, subways and commuter trains all do. The price of a ticket must also be fair. In addition, a viable ferry system must include sensible connections to make the door-to-door commute a desirable one.
In too many instances, getting to and from the ferry itself is not a pleasant experience. For example, a number of large employers are located near the 34th Street dock in Manhattan, but getting to them from the water is a hassle, requiring commuters to cross the FDR Drive and another lane of cars. To reach the Hunters Point ferry terminal in Long Island City, pedestrians must use haphazard walkways and pass through an active parking lot. For commuters coming off the subways or buses in Long Island City, the shortest walking distance to the dock is 10 blocks.
We must also make sure the ferry system is environmentally sound. Energy-efficient, clean fuel vessels are essential to reducing air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Fortunately, clean-fuel watercraft is off in the future; solar-powered ferries, for example, already are in place in several cities around the world. If the new ferries are owned or operated by the city, they would also be required to use ultra low-sulfur fuel under legislation the City Council passed last week.
With New York City expected to grow to 9 million residents by the year 2030, ferries will also advance the discussion about how to create more transit-oriented development. Neighborhoods like Red Hook and Williamsburg are growing at a rapid clip yet have limited access to the subways. If we pair future communities with ferry service, we can ensure that our waterfront areas are models of 21st century design, urban planning and sustainability.
Marcia Bystryn is the executive director of the New York League of Conservation Voters. Â
Segundo Musse doesn't walk too much anymore. "I got hit by a car and broke both my legs," he said surveying the scene along Manhattan Avenue in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn. "I used to be quick on my feet. Now, I'm slow and I'm only getting slower."
Musse, age 67, is one of 1.25 million New York City residents over 60. Like many others his age, he has seen his mobility diminish over time. "If I need to go somewhere, I take the bus," he said. "It's a pain to get around, but with the senior pass it's cheap enough and it's better for me than walking or the subway."
Late last month, Mayor Michael Bloomberg announced a series of transportation improvements aimed at older New Yorkers like Musse. Bloomberg's plan, dubbed "Safe Streets for Seniors," promises traffic engineering improvements at 25 high-accident areas that are especially problematic for aging residents.
What has prompted these changes? And what will they look like?
As it is for most New Yorkers, walking is a key form of transportation for older residents. Whether one walks down the block for milk and groceries, gets to a bus or subway by foot or goes out to hail a taxi, walking is a necessary part of almost every trip in the City.
But for many older people, New York City streets are hostile turf. According to research by Transportation Alternatives, residents age 60 or over make up only 13 percent of the population, but account for more than 33 percent of all pedestrian injuries and fatalities.
Although pedestrian fatalities declined sharply in 2007, one third of the 138 pedestrians killed by cars on New York City streets were seniors. And as the elderly population grows -- the Department of City Planning predicts a 44 percent increase in residents age 65 and older by 2030 -- the need for infrastructure designed with older New Yorkers in mind becomes more pressing.
The loss of speed and agility that often accompanies old age, along with increased susceptibility to injury and fatality from falls and impacts, make seniors more vulnerable to injury and death from traffic accidents.
"The things that most people don't even have to think of, like crossing the street, some older people really struggle with. Stepping off and back on to a curb and making it across the street during a walk signal can be next to impossible," said Amy Pfeiffer, director of planning at Transportation Alternatives.
When calculating the length of a walk signal, the city transportation department uses an estimated walking speed of 4 feet per second, the speed of an average adult, to determine the length of time a pedestrian needs to cross an intersection. But many older New Yorkers move at a much slower pace.
Rachel Krug, a doctoral student at the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University and author of "Discriminatory by Design: A senior citizen focused study of streets and intersections on New York City's Upper East Side," found that only 25.2 percent of seniors that she observed in her research walked at 4 feet per second, with many moving closer to 2.5 feet per second. So while the transportation department calculates that it would take 15 seconds to cross a 60-foot road like 23rd Street or 72nd Street in Manhattan, many older New Yorkers would need 24 seconds.
"Near Lincoln Center, I've talked to seniors whose friends have been hit and killed at certain crossings," said Pfeiffer, who has spent hundreds of hours researching older New Yorkers' transportation habits. "They now walk out of their way to cross the street. For a senior to walk a block out of the way because they don't feel safe crossing the street is a real burden."
Krug also pointed out that perceptual impairments, like bad eyesight or balance, and even some mobility aides, like walkers, canes and wheelchairs, can make some parts of trips more difficult for elderly populations.
So what is the city doing about this?
Following the mayor's pledge to improve 25 areas that are particularly problematic for seniors, the New York City Department of Transportation released some details of their plan. Flushing, Queens, Brighton Beech in Brooklyn, New Dorp on Staten Island, Fordham in the Bronx and Manhattan's Lower East Side will receive senior-minded safety upgrades this year. Officials state that there are 20 other neighborhoods being considered for similar enhancements in the future.
The specific improvements include:
:
Pfeiffer said such simple modifications go a long way. "Our basic safety treatment is so simple because we wanted to do as much as possible for as little money to help make it repeatable at other locations." More dangerous intersections, though, might require additional methods, such as enlarged corners, known as bulb-outs, she said. These expanded corners shorten the crossing distance at intersections and, by narrowing the space for cars, force the vehicles to slow down.
In 73 of New York City's 2,246 census tracts, more than 30 percent of the population is age 60 or over. In 16 of them, 40 percent of the population is 60 or above. The city hopes to concentrate its improvements in areas where they are needed most.
But the travel needs of older New Yorkers extend beyond crossing streets. Gene Russianoff, senior staff attorney for the Straphanger's Campaign, notes older New Yorkers are challenged on public transit as well. "If we want to have mobility for older New Yorkers the transportation system has to be more senior friendly," he said. "Signs that are easier to read would be a good start. Announcements that you can understand, that's the aim of a century long quest."
Ruth Finkelstein, vice president for health policy at the New York Academy of Medicine agrees. "Using a walker and living in Brooklyn should not mean that you lose access to a job, museums, the theater or a lifetime of friends that are in Manhattan. But to get from Brooklyn to Manhattan by bus can take two and a half hours. That's prohibitively long and so we have to get serious about subway access."
Access-a-ride service that is more consistent, convenient and courteous also is needed, according to Finkelstein and Pfeiffer.
More pubic seating, to enable those walking to take a short break, would also help. "Being comfortable in your neighborhood is a primary precursor in being able to stay independent and active. If you can't get around in your neighborhood first you can't get around anywhere else," said Finkelstein.
In the coming months, the City Council and the New York Academy of Medicine in collaboration with the Bloomberg administration will hold a series of public forums in all five boroughs as part of the "All Ages Project" and "Age-Friendly NYC." The sessions will allow the public, and older New Yorkers in particular, to weigh in on the promised improvements and help shape further recommendations.
Millions of aging New Yorkers will be watching to see if the city makes good on its promises and whether the improvements really make it easier for older New Yorkers to move around the city.
"I've seen a lot of changes," said Musse when asked about the mayor's plans. "When the city wants to do something, I know they can."
Graham Beck is the managing editor of StreetBeat, the biweekly newsletter of Transportation Alternatives and a writer. He lives in Brooklyn.
Â