PARK(ing) Day Sidewalk (Photo by Elisabeth Deogracias)

September 17 2010: PARK(ing) Day

PARK(ing) Day is an annual and international event that SF has participated in since 2007. Along with thousands of other individuals spread throughout the globe, on PARK(ing) Day we reclaim the 120 square feet of space, which is labeled every other day of the year a parking spot, into a small but powerful public place for the community to enjoy. With so many families and young children in the Flatbush neighborhood, SF’s “Cortelyou Road Park” was a place full of child’s play. From puppets, to painting, to percussion, PARK(ing) Day 2010 entertained the young and young at heart while sending a clear message about the need for increased usable public space in Flatbush.

Bike Decorating Activities at the Traffic Calming Block Party

July 18 2010: Traffic Calming Block Party Organized by SF and executed with the help of local volunteers, the Traffic Calming Block Party raised awareness about the importance of ensuring that our streets are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists. With live music, bike decorating, sidewalk chalk drawing, and tasty food and drinks provided by the late (and lamented!) Vox Pop Café, this event had all the fixins’ of a summer block party. Helpful NYC biking guidelines provided by Transportation Alternatives and a pedestrian survey engaged guests in a discussion of street safety, particularly on Cortelyou and Stratford Roads. These surveys will be compiled to create a study that can be used to advocate on behalf of the community’s needs for safer streets.

Spring and Fall Street Tree Walking Tours

Fall 2010 Street Tree Walking Tour

This spring we held our fourth Street Tree Walking tour, now a semi-annual event. Local horticulturists Chris Kreussling (aka Flatbush Gardener) and Tracey Hohman led residents around Victorian Flatbush by foot, while giving a thorough account of the diverse local canopy. This event reminds us that streets are not separate from nature, but can in fact be places where one can connect to foliage. In addition to increasing knowledge and appreciation of the local environment, the walking tour impresses upon residents the important role street trees play in absorbing stormwater runoff, as well as filtering air pollutants released into the atmosphere. More recently we hosted the fall complement to the Street Tree Walking Tour series in late October. It was a beautiful Sunday afternoon and participants were guided along the streets of Flatbush by Chris and special guest Sam Bishop, Education Director at Trees New York. Sam and Chris described the identifying features of various tree species as well as some of the urban planning history that has shaped the current canopy. With over forty participants total, the fall walking tour was certainly a success!

It’s been quite  a busy year for SF, but the advocacy continues on without a doubt! Keep an eye out for our upcoming events and in the meantime consider these words from the NYC Department of Transportation’s May 2009-released Street Design Manual:

“The streets of New York are often seen as permanent fixtures of city life, and in some ways, they are. But our streets are also dynamic, and their character and uses can change as the city continually evolves and reinvents itself.”

And as residents, we have the right to a voice in how that evolution transpires.

Yesterday Sadik-Khan gave a talk at the Municipal Arts Society to unveil a new strategic plan for 2008 and beyond called “Sustainable Streets”. Many people were unable to attend because the reservations were at capacity a week before the event (it’s that rock star thing). Fortunately Clarence Eckerson of Streetfilms was able to wangle entrance for himself and his camera to record the event for posterity:

Streets

Thanks Clarence! You rock too!

• “While some Queens politicians are claiming that the plan is elitist, the reality of it is that the elites killed this plan. With money going toward transit and a better environment for our city as part of the payoff, congestion pricing was and always will be a populist plan.”
(Second Avenue Sagas)

• “The ball is in your court Mr. Silver. The city needs tens of billions of dollars in new transit infrastructure investment. This plan has died on your doorstep. Now it’s up to you to FIND THE MONEY.”
(Brooklyn Streets, Carroll Gardens)

(And how about Silver’s statement: “Let me be clear: If I were making the decision alone, I might have made a different decision,” Mr. Silver said. Actually, he’s being as UNclear as possible, so that when budget deficits and fare hikes rear their ugly heads he can always say he MIGHT have made a different decision! What a coward…)

• “The fundamental facts remain the same. The traffic problem and air pollution problems are real. The need for better transit is real. Two-thirds of New Yorkers support congestion pricing if the funds are used for transit. The success of congestion pricing in other cities is real. The reality is that we have to come up with a plan to solve our traffic and transit crisis, if not today then tomorrow.”
(Michael O’Loughlin, Campaign for New York’s Future)

• “It will be interesting to see how the country’s most worthless and corrupt state legislative body will justify raising transit fares (a “TAX” on the working class if ever there was one). They seem perfectly comfortable voting for a 22% pay raise for themselves- for a part time job. How can they justify turning down 350 million in federal money for the rest of us??”
(Streetsblog comment)

• “More important than the cost to a small percentage of commuters is the cost of maintaining the status quo and not implementing a congestion pricing plan. Millions more people will clog our roads over the next few decades without viable alternative mass transportation options, making daily commutes far more unbearable.”
(Nassau County Assembly Democrat Michelle Schimel, via Streetsblog)

Congestion Pricing Ad, originally uploaded by wka.

As a supporter of Congestion Pricing, I felt that this week was the time to do whatever I can to help get this legislation passed. So last Saturday I spent some time in Crown Heights (Brooklyn) asking people to take the time to compose a personal letter in their own handwriting to their local representatives (in that case State Assemblyman Hakeem Jeffries and State Senator Eric Adams). I was quite amazed at how many people were willing to do this (it’s not an easy thing to ask for!). On Monday morning I went to City Hall for the Council hearings (wearing the green t-shirt pictured below) and heard testimonies from Speaker Quinn and DOT Commissioner Sadik Khan. Yesterday morning I was part of a small group that met with an aide to City Council member Kendall Stewart, who represents the 45th District (Flatbush, East Flatbush, Flatlands), and I also spoke briefly with Stewart himself afterwards.

What I can attest to from talking to ordinary citizens (meaning, NOT politicians) is that even those who weren’t sure where they stood on Congestion Pricing (or knew nothing at all about it) were in favor when told that the revenue would be dedicated to improving subway and bus service. A few expressed understandable skepticism that the money would actually be used for transit improvements, but were somewhat reassured when told that it would go to a dedicated lockbox.

As for our elected officials, many of them seem to be earnestly asking for the data and information that will enable them to answer their constituents’ doubts. Questions about neighborhood parking permits and whether New Jersey and Long Island commuters should pay more than those from the five boroughs seem to be sticking points for some people. But for those of us who don’t drive – a solid majority in all five boroughs – the need for better bus and subway service is not in question.

More posts on Congestion Pricing and Transit Equity in New York City:

• Obama Supports Congestion Pricing!
• Enrique Peñalosa on Transit Equity for NYC
• A Brooklyn Youth’s View on Congestion Pricing
• More Supporters for Congestion Pricing
• Brooklyn and Congestion Pricing: The Numbers

Check out coverage at the NY Observer here, NY Times City Room blog here, and WNYC here…

from City Room:
“I think Mayor Bloomberg’s proposal for congestion pricing is a thoughtful and innovative approach to the problem,” Mr. Obama told Bob Hennelly of WNYC, in an interview that is scheduled to be broadcast during National Public Radio’s “All Things Considered” at 4 p.m. Mr. Obama said that revenue from congestion pricing should not replace federal financing for mass transit, WNYC said in a statement describing the interview.

Enrique Peñalosa, former mayor of Bogota, Colombia and a legendary figure in the Livable Streets movement, speaks here with transit activists Commuters United for Transportation Equity (COMMUTE). If you care about our city’s future and particularly the mobility of low-income New Yorkers, have a look.

“The mass-transit system is failing those of us who need it the most, while truck and car-related infrastructure running through our neighborhoods wreaks havoc on our health. Having a long commute takes away time from families and communities, and poor transit access means poor job access because you can’t take a job that you can’t get to,” said Silvett Garci­a, an official at Youth Ministries for Peace and Justice, a nonprofit group in the Soundview section of the Bronx.

The group called not only for congestion pricing as a way to finance mass transit and reduce traffic, but also for the city to hasten its plans to start a bus rapid transit program. Bus rapid transit, or B.R.T., is a catch-all term for innovations like bus designated lanes, special traffic signals that are programmed to prioritize buses, and bus stops that are few in number and spread out across high-volume stations where passengers pay their fares before getting on board.

“A congestion pricing plan increases investment while reducing pollution, and B.R.T. is the fair, fast and necessary way to reach the transit dependent – those who live or work in the gaps of the subway system and who cannot afford a car, cab or premium commuting fare, the elderly, and the handicapped,” said Cynthia Doty, organizer for the West Harlem/Morningside Heights Sanitation Coalition, another community organization. “As the congestion pricing debate moves from the commission to the city and state legislatures, we should focus on the half million working-class New Yorkers with treacherous commutes.”

It’s been said here before: 97.3% of Brooklyn’s workers (those who do not commute alone to the Central Business District in Manhattan by private car) would be positively affected by the transit improvements that revenue from congestion pricing is targeted to fund; and B.R.T. is a quickly-implementable transit innovation — already hugely successful in Curitiba (Brazil), Singapore, and Bogota, amongst other cities — that would be life-altering for many New Yorkers. Hopefully this re-framing of the debate will reveal politicians’ disingenuous “pro-working class” rhetoric for the smokescreen that it is, and shed some light on the reality of who stands to benefit most from congestion pricing.

Courtesy of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign and Pratt Center for Community Development. What else do we need to know?? Let’s hope those politicians who claim to represent low-income New Yorkers in opposing congestion pricing take a look at the household income statistics shown here: less than half of Brooklyn households own cars, and those who don’t earn roughly HALF the income of those who do.

Actually, what they don’t mention here is that 97.3% of Brooklyn’s workers (those who do not commute alone to the Central Business District in Manhattan by private car) would be positively affected by the transit improvements that revenue from congestion pricing is targeted to fund (in addition to the millions in federal grants at stake).

I agree with Mr. Jeffries’ equation, just not with the driving part: those who truly make the least are also the least likely to own cars! With rising gas prices far out of any local control, what elected officials (and, frankly, everyone in this city) should be worrying about is how to create a public transit infrastructure that gives every New Yorker, especially those of less financial means, equal access to a decent car-free commute. At the moment Brooklyn’s wealthiest neighborhoods are also the ones best served by public transit; if people who live in those districts choose to drive, they are also the ones best equipped to pay a premium for it, and to finance a better transit system for the rest of us.

I would go on to say that if Jeffries is truly concerned about “those who make the least”, he should work on providing them with a safe bicycle network, which would bring their commute costs close to zero. More people on bicycles and fewer in cars would also be a great boon for public health: less pollution and more exercise is a win-win. As Enrique Peñalosa, former mayor of Bogota, explained the motivation to improve his city’s bicycle infrastructure (in leiu of building an elevated highway around the city), it “sends a message that a citizen on a $30 bike is as important as one in a $30,000 car”.

Here is today’s last word on the subject, from a youth activist:

“Congestion pricing would not only help get cars off the road, leading to a reduction of pollution, but will reduce the upper respiratory diseases that have settled in the lungs of my mom, cousins, aunts, uncles, abuelas, abuelos and even my little brother,” said 16-year-old Joaquin Brito, a youth justice organizer with UPROSE, a Sunset Park–based activist group.

Brito scoffed at politicians who claimed congestion pricing would be an unfair economic burden on drivers.

“If you can afford to pay $8 for a venti latte and a cookie from Starbucks every day, then you can afford congestion pricing,” he said.

I hope Perry and Jeffries are listening.

“Our dependence on cars and trucks is a national security issue… By getting more drivers out of cars and onto mass transit, congestion pricing increases our economic resiliency to fuel price shocks. Because of its many benefits, congestion pricing could be more accurately called the transit relief fund, the mass transit incentive, or the rush hour fee, according to Joe Brewer, research fellow at George Lakoff’s Rockridge Institute. It could also be called security pricing.”

Here’s the whole article:

Despite the new enthusiasm for green initiatives in New York City, the congestion pricing at the core of the PlaNYC transportation program is still getting the cold shoulder from a substantial number of City residents and lawmakers. Hoping to redirect some travelers to mass transit, Mayor Bloomberg wants to charge a fee to cars and trucks entering midtown Manhattan during the day. The fees, with city and state contributions, would fund $31 billion in metro area mass transit projects and would help unclog our streets and reduce carbon emissions.

Critics agree that more mass transit funding is needed, but oppose the fees as a punitive tax on working class outer-borough residents. Both critics and supporters implicitly assume that the price of gas will remain basically stable, a faith shared by the general public, as shown in a recent Gallup poll where 58% of Americans expected gasoline to reach $4 this summer but almost all doubted it would go higher. In addition, most said that higher prices would not convince them to get to work by carpooling, biking, telecommuting or mass transit.

In spite of the general public’s inability to imagine much higher gasoline prices, a growing number of corporate leaders, military analysts and national security advocates worry that even slight disruptions to our oil imports will cause abrupt price spikes to over $100 a barrel, leading gasoline and heating oil prices to rise to over $5 per gallon. Gasoline prices could rise suddenly for many reasons: an attack on Iran causing a blockade of the Straits of Hormuz, the shipping channel for over a third of the world’s oil, turmoil in Nigeria or Venezuela, terrorist attacks on oil shipping and refining infrastructure, or Gulf Coast hurricanes. Even without a crisis, the U.S. Government Accountability Office warns that depleting world oil supplies, combined with rising demand, will make energy markets increasingly volatile – and supply disruptions inevitable.

With this national energy security in mind, energy policy makers now recognize that our addiction to oil and our growing dependence on imported fuel are dangerous liabilities with severe economic consequences if the flow of foreign oil is disrupted. Joining environmentalists in calling for massive increases in energy conservation and renewable energy, these new voices include the Council on Foreign Relations, Senator Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), former Secretary of State George Schultz, former CIA Director James Woolsey, and Frederick Smith, CEO of FedEx. Manifesting this concern, the Army Corps of Engineers calls for all Army facilities to go green and the Pentagon warns that the military must take immediate steps toward running on alternative and renewable fuels or the increasingly costly and dwindling supply of oil – the lifeblood of fighter jets, warships, and tanks – will make the US military’s ability to respond to hot spots around the world “unsustainable in the long term”.

We can imagine what those Pentagon analysts might tell outer-borough commuters. How would a sharp spike in oil prices affect trucks bringing groceries to supermarkets? Winter heating fuel prices? The restaurants and theaters dependent on tourists? Fire, police, ambulances, and garbage trucks? Would commuters still choose to drive into Manhattan, or would they flock to mass transit?

Our dependence on cars and trucks is a national security issue. With the threat of price shocks and fuel shortages, such as those resulting from Hurricane Katrina in 2005 or political turmoil in oil-producing regions in the 1970s, efforts to shift our transit needs to less fuel-guzzling modes is as vital to our future as NYPD’s anti-terror task force. By getting more drivers out of cars and onto mass transit, congestion pricing increases our economic resiliency to fuel price shocks. Because of its many benefits, congestion pricing could be more accurately called the transit relief fund, the mass transit incentive, or the rush hour fee, according to Joe Brewer, research fellow at George Lakoff’s Rockridge Institute. It could also be called security pricing.

While we need both short-term and long-term responses, the critical starting point of all energy policy should be rapid energy conservation planning. To address this challenge, the newly released Sierra Club report, “Moving New York City toward Sustainable Energy Independence” urges the City Council to resurrect the bill, drafted in 2004 by its own Environmental Committee, to create City contingency plans for energy volatility. Similar bills have been passed in San Francisco and Portland, Oregon, where they are already working to identify vulnerable areas of municipal operations and then create responses to fuel price increases of varying duration, rapidity and magnitude. Highway speed limits, reduced public transit fees, car pooling, telecommuting, and compressed work weeks of fewer but longer days are some of the responses recommended by the International Energy Agency and the engineering firm Parsons Brinkerhoff.

Improving rail, subway and bus service to underserved areas, preventing impacts to neighborhoods with transit hubs, increasing police enforcement, and making biking and walking safer will not only address the concerns of congestion pricing critics, but will enhance PlaNYC implementation. There’s clearly room for compromise, so we shouldn’t wait for future disasters to force crisis decision making. If the Administration and City Council collaborate with the private sector and civic groups to implement congestion pricing and develop rapid energy conservation plans, the City will become more resilient to price shocks, reduce carbon emissions, cut energy costs and create jobs. It’s a win-win solution. New York’s example could lead the U.S. toward sustainable energy independence. Let’s start moving beyond oil, and toward better mass transit, today.

“Moving NYC Toward Sustainable Energy Independence” has been endorsed by a number of groups, including New York Public Interest Research Group, INFORM, Hudson River Sloop Clearwater, the Pace Energy Project and Sustainable South Bronx. It was cited as a Report of the Day by Gotham Gazette. The full report is available online here; references and links are available here.