Public Hearing on Manhattan Traffic Congestion, September 17, 2015

Manhattan Borough President Gale Brewer's Introduction: 00:00:00

[See the hearing video here; scroll to the bottom of the linked page.]

Ms. Brewer introduced herself as Manhattan Borough’s President and explained that under the City Charter, Borough Presidents are permitted to conduct public hearings. She explained that she had called the public hearing due to recent public discussion related to Manhattan traffic congestion, specifically discussion concerning a possible cap on the number of For-Hire Vehicles (FHVs) in the City. Ms. Brewer explained that her public hearing is meant to facilitate a comprehensive, contained public discussion about congestion causes, costs, and possible solutions. Before the respective panels presented their testimonies, she began the hearing with a PowerPoint presentation, after which the testimony began.

In her presentation, Ms. Brewer indicated that traffic congestion is not a new phenomenon; there are many causes and congestion is a very complex equation. All categories of vehicles and pedestrians use and compete for the same asphalt. Furthermore, that asphalt is rarely left empty since there are double-parked vehicles, blocked-off building construction areas, street construction, dedicated bus lanes, dedicated or shared bike lanes, and the occasional traffic accident or police action, which constrict the available roadway. According to the City Department of Transportation (DOT), the weekday number of vehicles entering Manhattan’s Central Business District, which is everything below 59th Street, has been dropping - from 1,523,088 in 2010 to 1,471,153 in 2013 which is the most recent data that we have. But even with fewer vehicles on the streets, the average Manhattan traffic speed has dropped by 9% - from 9.35 to 8.51 miles per hour between 2010 and 2014 and the recent rush hour speed of Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) buses has dropped by 5%.

According to Ms. Brewer, traffic congestion is said to cause 16 billion dollars’ worth of lost economic activity each year. Furthermore, subway delays have spiked 23% on weekdays and 30% on weekends in the past year. The MTA’s 32 billion dollar five year capital plan is under-funded by about 11.5 billion [at the time of the hearing, according to Ms. Brewer] and depending on who is doing the counting, it might be more. The Citizen’s Budget Commission estimates that a complete system wide renovation won’t be finished until the year 2067. The Citizen Budget Commission estimates that 25% of the subway system’s structural components are in major disrepair. Meanwhile, while traffic speeds have dropped and subway delays have spiked, there have been 25,000 new For-Hire Vehicles registered since 2011 from drivers for companies like Uber, Lyft, Get, and Via, which amounts to a spike of 63%. In fact, in 2015, those registrations have been added at a rate of 2000 per month. A majority of those For-Hire Vehicle pick-ups, 57%, occur in Manhattan’s Central Business District. A vast majority of the pickups from FHVs, over 70%, occur in Manhattan’s core. While For-Hire Vehicle trips have boomed, daily yellow cab trips have dropped, down 17.66% in Manhattan overall and down 18.7% in Manhattan’s Central Business District. At this stage of her presentation, Ms. Brewer nonetheless emphasized that For-Hire Vehicles cannot be the only reason for the current traffic congestion problem in Manhattan.

Ms. Brewer highlighted that the good news is that total tourism numbers keep rising -visitors are up 16% from 2010 to 2014. To serve those tourists, there are now 229 tour buses registered with the Department of Consumer Affairs, many of which are travelling endless hop-on-hop-off loops in Manhattan. Although it does not sound like a big number, Ms. Brewer highlighted that this number of buses can increase congestion. One estimate is that one extra car, travelling one mile, slows surrounding vehicles by an aggregate of around 600 seconds, (50-60 vehicles x 10 seconds each). Larger vehicles, like buses and trucks, can cause even more delays.

According to Ms. Brewer, as to trucks specifically, she related two simple statistics: 90% of New York City’s and Long Island’s freight enters via truck and freight volume is projected to rise 37% in the next 20 years.

There are other contributors to Manhattan’s congestion, as well, according to Ms. Brewer, the fact that four of the area’s largest toll-free bridge crossings feed directly into the Central Business District, again south of 59th street, and three of those crossings allow trucks.

These are all factors that figure into Manhattan’s congestion equation.

Ms. Brewer explained that it was in the public interest to do more than just keep the problem from getting worse. The motive of the public discourse was to find solutions. Ms. Brewer then explained the format of the public hearing. There would be seven panels, each with three to four witnesses arranged by category of interest; for example, government regulators, vehicle-based businesses, mass transit advocates, others. [Click here and scroll down for a list of the panels on the Manhattan Borough President’s website.] Each witness was to have three minutes to deliver remarks, timed by a countdown clock, after which Ms. Brewer and the other elected officials would ask questions. At the table, present along with Ms Brewer, were her former colleague and Dean of Pace Law School, David Yassky and staff member David Dodge. The chair of the Council’s Transport Committee, Ydanis Rodriguez, would later join Ms. Brewer, as well. After the various panels’ testimony, members of the public who had filled out cards would serve as an additional and final panel.

Panel 1: Transportation Agencies and Regulators – 00:19:30

-Ryan Russo, deputy commissioner for planning and management, NYC Department of Transportation

The NYC Department of Transportation is actively involved in fighting the congestion problem. Deputy Commissioner Russo (DOT) began his testimony by highlighting what he called the unprecedented growth and power of New York City: “New York has never been bigger, had more jobs, more tourists, more people” than it does today. Russo said the NYC DOT was committed to improving the lives of the city’s 8.5 million residents and the millions of tourists and other economic actors.

The Department has focused its efforts in three aspects: reliable bus service, redesign of streets to afford all modes of transportation, and technology for creative management of high traffic areas. The select bus service (SBS) covers particularly busy routes in the City and features dedicated bus lanes, off-board fare collection, and transit signal priority. There are currently 8 SBS routes but the NYC DOT is looking to add 12 more routes over the next 3 years. These SBS routes carry 280,000 riders each day and have improved travel time by at least 15%. The City is also redesigning its streets to improve overall safety and increase options for pedestrians and cyclists. These designs have looked to increase bike lanes. The expanding Citi Bike system has provided a realistic and affordable biking solution across the city.

Finally, the City has used technology to assist with real time congestion management. ‘Midtown in Motion’ was implemented in 2011 and serves to identify and respond to incidents and traffic conditions on the spot. More recently, the NYC DOT has obtained $20 million in federal funding for a ‘Connected Vehicle Pilot Deployment Program.’ This program will retrofit 10,000 vehicles with innovative technology to communicate crucial vehicle information with each other, surrounding infrastructure, and traffic signals.

Unfortunately, despite all these efforts, the NYC DOT identifies some troubling statistics. In the last 4 years, Manhattan CBD’s traffic speed has declined by 9%, and, from 2013 to 2014, there has been a 5% decline in bus speeds during the evening rush time, possibly related to a 6% bus ridership decline in the central business district as compared to a 1% decline in the rest of the City. Ultimately, reversing the drop in bus speeds is crucial to solving the congestion problem.

Russo also discussed a recent joint initiative with the U.S. Department of Transportation, whereby Secretary Anthony Foxx announced that many New York City vehicles, including public cars, taxis, UPS trucks and others would soon be retrofitted with the newest tracking information so that the NYC DOT could gather more traffic data.

Russo concluded his testimony by describing what he saw as one of the largest concerns for the NYC DOT: “Buses hold a lot more people” and get a lot more people where they need to go than do cars, and so “reversing the drop in bus speeds is critical.”

-Bill Heinzen, Special Adviser to the Commissioner of the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC)

The next to testify in the regulators’ panel was Special Adviser Heinzen, from the TLC. He started his testimony by saying that the mayor’s interagency review of this issue is ongoing, but noted that FHVs (many of them in competition with industries regulated by the TLC) were up, especially in the central business district.

The TLC’s perspective, Heinzen said, is that congestion is even worse, “magnified,” for mobility-impaired New Yorkers. He submitted that while traditional taxis are under a mandate to be “50 percent handicap-accessible” by 2020, FHVs were under no such requirement, frustrating an important city objective. This means that only yellow cabs are available for these vulnerable groups, and yet yellow cab trips are down while FHVs take more of the market.

The TLC has identified several trends in the City regarding the congestion problem. The number of FHVs is increasing, especially in Manhattan, and average traffic speeds are decreasing in the central business district. The FHV industry, according to Heinzen, has had significant impacts on traffic congestion, and Heinzen summarized these impacts on typical passengers, mobility-impaired passengers, and licensed drivers:

• First, increases in congestion have increased cost and time to all passengers. This amounts to lost economic opportunity in time and money better spent in more productive activity than navigating through traffic.

• Second, the proportion of accessible on-demand vehicles for mobility-impaired passengers has decreased due to the increasing FHV sector. Accessibility is a question of supply. The City’s yellow cabs are subject to a federal court mandate that 50% of the fleet is accessible by 2020, and green taxis 42%. There are five times as many FHVs as there are yellow taxis and yet these FHVs are not subject to the same requirements. The TLC incentivizes yellow cab drivers to drive mobility-impaired accessible vehicles and additionally a portion of each yellow and green cab fare goes to a fund that supports purchase of accessibility equipment. The same cannot be said for the FHVs. Ultimately, there is a shortage of mobility-impaired accessibility on the streets of Manhattan magnifying wait times for mobility-impaired passengers.

• Finally, licensed vehicle-based-business drivers are experiencing reduced driver income as extended wait time until the next fare and increased congestion increases fuel consumption. The TLC contends that a full analysis of the congestion problem requires equivalent data from all sectors. It currently has direct systems in yellow and green taxis that yield direct data about fares, locations, and pickup and dropoff times. However, different provider options in FHVs decrease the amount of data that can be collected, which weakens the TLC’s ability to depend on chauffeured-vehicle data for policymaking. The TLC started collecting data in 2015 from the FHV sector, which should ideally provide more complete information.

-Questions to the panel (by President Brewer and Dean Yassky)

In response to President Brewer’s questions about whether the increased number of FHVs was replacing what would have been yellow taxi trips or simply drawing out new trips that would not have happened otherwise, the TLC spokesperson said that the TLC did not know the exact equation, although it did observe that FHV rides were increasing and yellow taxi rides were decreasing.

In response to President Brewer’s questions about whether the TLC knew what the yellow cabs or FHVs were doing when they were not carrying passengers, such as whether they were cruising or parking, the TLC spokesperson, Bill Heinzen, responded that the TLC would need more information about pickup and dropoff times from FHVs, and that even then, it would not be certain about what drivers were doing in between pickups and dropoffs. In response to thoughts on carpooling, the TLC spokesperson responded that the market would be better at organizing such a system, but that there is room for experimentation.

The TLC spokesperson went on to state that his agency is committed to solving the congestion problem partly because “it brings down drivers’ income,” by both increasing time spent cruising and, thereby, increasing fuel costs, which also has negative environmental consequences as well.

Brewer then posed a question to the panel directed at the NYC DOT spokesperson, asking if Mayor Bill de Blasio’s announcement about increasing ferry transport had progressed. The NYC DOT spokesperson, Ryan Russo, replied that he did not have specifics but assumed it was on track. Ms. Brewer specifically asked if ferry riders would be able to use their MetroCard on the ferries, indicating that the Mayor had stated such would be possible. The NYC DOT spokesperson indicated only that he assumed so but gave no indication of specifics or actual knowledge. Brewer next asked Mr. Russo about the City’s position on the Move NY plan, a question on which Mr. Russo declined to comment.

Ms. Brewer then introduced a colleague, seated with Ms. Brewer—David Yassky, a former City Council member and former TLC commissioner, who presently holds the position of Dean of Pace Law School. Noting that the MTA is not a city agency, Mr. Yassky asked the panel whether, to anyone’s knowledge on the panel, the MTA was relying on car and taxi alternatives to lessen its burden. The panel was unable to provide an answer, citing MTA’s independence from the City.

Dean Yassky next asked the TLC about whether FHV businesses had thought more about carpooling. Mr. Heinzen, the TLC spokesperson, said that his agency believed “the market” was better at mandating this, not a government regulation, but said nothing from the TLC stood in the way or would be an “obstacle” to FHV companies encouraging ride-sharing—noting the difference, however, between allowing the market to choose and pushing the market to a specific choice.

Panel 2: Mass Transit Advocates – 00:42:16

-Nick Sifuentes, Deputy Director of the Riders Alliance

Mr. Sifuentes’ testimony focused on the deficit in the MTA’s capital program [as of the time of the hearing]. Citing “a 2014 study,” Sifuentes argued that congestion “saps” $16 billion from the New York City economy each year. He noted that congestion causes harmful health effects, such as asthma, and increases traffic-related accidents. Funding the MTA capital program will allow the MTA to expand its bus and train system. And without more funding, Mr. Sifuentes saw the problem as expanding, as a record number of commuters—allegedly 8 million per day—use MTA services, and an increasing number of commuters use e-hailing For-Hire vehicles (e.g., Uber, Lyft) and black car services, because of real and perceived problems with MTA services. Sifuentes maintained that the city must do more to improve transit services, pointing to the 7th Avenue Train extension as a prime example of the improvements public transit needs. Similarly, the city must improve services outside the five boroughs, through programs like East Side Access and the Metro North Extension. These services would speed up commutes into the city. In addition, maintenance and repairs will be important to reduce breakdowns and delays in the MTA system.

The key question is how the state and city will fund the capital program. Governor Cuomo says that the state will contribute an additional 7.3 billion over several years to the capital plan [as of the time of the hearing], but doesn’t say how the state will pay for it. The city has been requested to contribute but has yet to agree to do so [as of the time of the hearing].

Mr. Sifuentes argued that the Move NY plan should be a key part of the city’s efforts to fund the capital program’s deficit, re-adjusting tolls in all of NYC’s bridges and inputting tolls on those currently untolled bridges, as well as tolls on travel below 60th street. This plan would reduce the amount of unnecessary travel.

During a brief Q&A, Mr. Sifuentes also argued that the city needs to implement a reduced fare program for low income riders, stating that one-third of people in poverty cannot access bus or subway service. “Public transit needs to be public,” he said. Traffic congestion under 60th street is causing real congestion. It causes asthma and other cardiovascular diseases. Unsafe streets cause hazards for pedestrians and drivers. The solution is to encourage people to use mass transit as much as possible. In order to do this we would need to accommodate the extra people on mass transit.

-Andrew Albert, MTA Board Member

Mr. Albert indicated that the transit system is a particular treasure for a metropolitan area like New York City, but that the city was treating it as if, “We were some place in Iowa.” Mr. Albert believes that the train system is not being fully utilized, and that the more people the MTA can service, the better. However, Mr. Albert asserted, the MTA is still recovering from 2010 service cuts, in which the governor took money earmarked for the MTA and moved it into in a general fund. He stated that there is a $3.2–3.3 billion gap that the city must fill in terms of capital funding, but that there is no lockbox for MTA funds; and that the city has still not agreed to contribute to that gap [as of the time of the hearing]. Albert argued that it is essential for the city to contribute to the gap, because 70% of MTA services are located in New York City. The capital program is essential to cope with the increasing amount of riders.

Bus service has slipped a little due to congestion and because they are slow. Thus, even more people will be using the subways. There is a plan to reduce subway delays; for example, using platform conductors to stop people from holding open subway doors, and ways to shorten subway announcements to get the doors closed faster. There is funding for the Queens Boulevard Communications-Based Train Control (CBTC), but there are many other lines that need funding. Although there are commuter rails that travel through boroughs, these rails are unaffordable for many people.

Among improvements that the MTA hopes to implement, Mr. Albert pointed to the Freedom Ticket plan, in which commuters could pay a small premium over subway ticket prices (about 1.5x the subway fare) and use any MTA service, such as bus and rail. Albert also noted that when far-flung areas receive new transit service, property values skyrocket, benefiting commuters and the community.

-Bill Henderson, Permanent Citizens Advisory Council (PCAC) to the MTA

Mr. Henderson maintained that public transit is key to solving the congestion problem, in light of projected economic and population growth. Like Mr. Albert, Mr. Henderson contended that fixing the transit system is primarily the city’s responsibility. He argued that concrete actions, such as the 7th Avenue subway extension, were required to increase capacity and modernize the transit system. He also argued that the city should consider innovative funding methods, such as public-private partnerships, which pair public and private funds to finance public construction projects.

Moreover, he argued, the city needs to enforce traffic rules, such as bus lanes, and make ridership easier for commuters, through programs like Freedom Ticket. Other fixes Henderson mentioned to reduce congestion were to continue to improve the existing system by improving the capacity for riders, complete the 10th Avenue subway station, and to improve existing stations such as those in Grand Central. Mr. Henderson also noted that we need to improve the bus system to provide better amenities and better bus dispatching. We have to enforce bus stop and bus lane rules to ensure that loading people is not slowing down traffic and causing more congestion.

Panel 3: For-Hire Vehicles – 00:57:41

-Uber Representative: Nicole Benincasa, Public Policy Representative for Uber

-Uber Representative: Ms. Benincasa was joined also by Josh Mohrer, General Manager for Uber in NYC.

-Via Representative: Alex Lavoie, General Manager of Via in NYC.

The leading topic in this discussion was the role of ride-sharing amongst passengers who use Uber and Via services, and how that will help reduce congestion particularly in Manhattan’s Central Business District (CBD).

Uber introduced their Uber Pool program in December 2014, which allows Uber users going from the same origin to destination to pool their trips and split the cost, resulting in fewer cars and lower costs for riders. Riders have saved $1 million dollars with this system, and there have been 1.5 million pooled trips since the launch, with an increase of 28% every month. 75% of these trips are happening during nights and weekends, and 55% are beginning or ending in the outer boroughs.

Via is a new, shared on-demand ride service that provides affordable shared rides. They offer an alternative mode of transport to residents who cannot afford cabs or black cars and to residents living in areas with limited access to public transport. Their app matches multiple passengers to one vehicle, and is especially popular for riders traveling from one borough to another as it provides rides between key transit points. Via distinguishes itself from other for-hire vehicle businesses by only providing shared rides. Via allows up to six passengers to be in one vehicle at any given time, thus reducing the number of vehicles and reducing congestion while also improving accessibility.

-President Brewer asked several questions about several concerns during the Q&A, including cruising behavior, surge pricing, and accessibility. Following is a summary of that Q & A:

Uber does not support cruising behavior as it adds to congestion and advises their drivers against it. They also added that Uber drivers were disincentivized from cruising because it wastes gas and time. With surge pricing, Uber noted that implementing surge pricing was a way to further minimize cruising behavior, as it informs and motivates drivers of real-time supply and demand and allows drivers to match the supply accordingly. This allows drivers to lower surge pricing quickly when surge pricing does take place, and also minimizes cruising behavior as the app informs drivers where the next demand will likely come from. In response to an anecdote that President Brewer related concerning her own personal experience with surge pricing, Uber noted that their app prompts users several warnings about the increased pricing before allowing the user to request an Uber ride.

Uber explained that For-Hire Vehicles have other benefits, including offering the best accessible vehicle option in New York. With only one-fifth of green cabs offering wheel-chair accessible options, the Uber accessibility program allows wheelchair riders to request a ride using technology. This, Uber argues, is better than having the passenger wave their arms in hopes of getting a rare wheelchair accessible cab.

Via currently operates only below 110th street, but, going forward, hopes to expand to outer the boroughs and above 110th street. Uber supports the Move NY Plan’s congestion pricing and city ticket program that allows people to get into the city via long island rail for a lower cost. They also noted that only 20% of Uber pickups happen in the central business district during 7am–7pm, and they indicate that most of their growth is in the outer boroughs and upper Manhattan.

Panel 4: Vehicle-Based Businesses – 01:13:13

-Alec Slatky, AAA Northeast, NY State

Alec Slatky is the legislative and community relations representative at AAA Northeast, a service motor club that has extensive membership in the New York Metropolitan area.

Mr. Slatky pointed out that not all of the reasons for congestion are intrinsically bad. In fact, according to Mr. Slatky, things such as increased construction and tourism are all evidence of a strengthening economy. However, Slatky did believe that there was some “low hanging fruit” that could be addressed (the oft-used term to refer to easily addressable issue).

First, Mr. Slatky thought that one solution would be to more consistently enforce “blocking the box” violations. Generally, “blocking the box” refers to a system of traffic regulations where the “box” is the central area of the intersection, usually distinguished by painted lines on the road surface, and drivers are not allowed to enter that part of the intersection (the box) without being able to clear it during a traffic light cycle. Mr. Slatky believes that more routine enforcement of blocking the box violations would help mitigate the traffic problem. He said that this solution is not a “silver bullet” but it should help.

Secondly, Mr. Slatky said that another solution is to increase funding for road resurfacing, stating that the “worst roads are by far in Manhattan.” In fact, some major Manhattan roads have less than 50% of their road-miles in good condition. Slatky supports the increased funding for road resurfacing and hopes that the city will allocate more long-term resources to make up for poor road conditions

In response to question from Brewer on what AAA thought the city should do about road safety concerns, Mr. Slatky thought that street redesign would be helpful. Particularly, he indicated that having fewer lanes doesn’t always lead to worse congestion, though it can. An example of when fewer lanes lead to traffic congestion is double-parking. A third lane where a two lane road current is would allow more traffic to flow where incidents of double parking occur. Another objective Slatky thought should be addressed is greater enforcement of traffic and parking violations on out-of-state residents, which often are less incentivized to pay tickets and avoid repetitive offenses. He gave an example of one New Jersey vehicle that accumulated over 250 parking tickets in one year and has yet to pay one.

-Patrick Condren, Big Bus (NYC Tour Bus Company)

Big Bus is a private bus company that operates 48 double decker buses in New York City, catering to 54 million tourists to NYC. They allow passengers to hop-on and hop-off (as opposed to a charter-type tour bus).

Patrick Condren’s testimony noted that while Big Bus may add to traffic congestion, it is a form of public transportation—by relieving tourist pressure from MTA subways. Tourist designated buses are more efficient than having tourists take public subways and public buses because the bus stops and routes are specialized for tourist's purposes. Although the loading and unloading of passengers add to the congestion, they crowd only predictable areas and the tourists line up in an orderly fashion. And these tourist-site congestion areas are not going to be relieved even if Big Bus and like companies cease to exist because tourists will inevitably come to these sites.

Mr. Condren noted that loading and unloading delivery trucks block the flow of traffic.

He also recommended the expansion of the Holland and Lincoln tunnel and indicated there could be dedicated cross-borough (cross-town) bus lanes. Other private bus companies, such as Hampton Jitney, have also seen an increase in passenger numbers and will need to be part of the congestion discussion, according to Mr. Condren.

The Queens midtown tunnel (as well as Holland and Lincoln tunnels) are multi-jurisdiction, and in going forward with the Move NY talks, he says these multi-jurisdictional tunnels and bus companies need to be part of that conversation.

When asked about illegal idling, the Mr. Condren explained how his company has tried to minimize it but acknowledges that it is sometimes inevitable when there are 100 passengers and the buses can only accommodate 50 each, leaving one bus to idle behind waiting for the first bus to load everyone. With regards to bus capacity, because Big Bus is a hop-on hop-off service with passengers spending unpredictable time at each tourist location, they are not able to control how many passengers get on one bus, unlike a chartered bus. Mr. Condren indicated that Big Bus works closely with DOT to examine and reevaluate bus stops and idling and capacity issues, but cannot speak for other private tourist bus companies.

 

Panel 5: Alternative Transportation Advocates – 01:27:41

-Julia Kite, Policy & Research Manager, Transportation Alternatives

Ms. Kite began her testimony by noting that Transportation Alternatives is a 40-year-old non-profit dedicated to alternative means of transportation—for example, walking, biking, and public transit. Ms. Kite noted that while congestion is a part of NYC life, that fact does not mean we should simply accept it anymore than we would simply accept without intervention increasing deaths in automobile accidents. She went on note that in order to effectively intervene in the NYC traffic congestion issue and related hazards, we must have data from the City. Data is necessary to know how best to improve existing infrastructure.

Ms. Kite stated that while many people believe that any space allocated to non-automobile users slows down traffic that simply is not the case. Contrary to popular opinion, bicycle lanes do not further congest the streets; in fact, they do the exact opposite according to certain studies. She further indicated that dedicated bus and bike lanes both increased the number of bike riders and bus users with a minimal impact on traffic.

Ms. Kite also believes that available resources to better understand NYC congestion should to be better publicized. Ms. Kite specifically mentioned that, like the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) which shares GPS information with the NYC DOT for research purposes, so should Uber and other e-hail services. Ms. Kite also indicated that the NYC DOT had [at the time of the hearing] failed to publish its annual report on NYC congestion and traffic speeds as required by law. Ms. Kite noted, further, that if such information were supplied when it should have been much of the debate around Uber could have been resolved, based on hard data.

Ms. Kite also indicated that there cannot be significant improvement in the area of congestion without a redesign of the streets with allocated space on the road for all types of users. She noted pedestrian plazas as examples that both prioritize pedestrian safety and help with the congestion problem.

During her Q & A, in response to Brewer’s question about how many people elect to use a bicycle instead of other transit services, Ms. Kite indicated that while she has no hard data, from her observations and conversations with bicyclists, many of them would get in a car if not for their bikes, or they choose their bikes because subway stations (and perhaps also effective transit options, generally) are not convenient to their residence.

Ms. Kite went on to say that bicycles should not be considered a secondary mode of transportation or a toy, but as a sole mode of transportation, which it is for many people. She continued by indicating that while many bicyclists have been encouraged by some expansion of bicycle lanes, many have also had that encouragement tempered by close calls (i.e., near accidents) on the road with drivers who don’t respect bicyclists’ place on the road.

-Roland Lewis, President & CEO, Waterfront Alliance

Mr. Lewis noted in his testimony that the Waterfront alliance is a group of over 800 civic organizations which is devoted to an accessible and safe Harbor. He specifically mentioned that, during times of disaster (e.g., 9/11 or Hurricane Sandy) many people need to leave the “Island” (New York City) via boat. So, having a well-developed ferry system is critical component to a city like New York City.

Mr. Lewis went on to note that recently Mayor Bill de Blasio proposed an expansion of the ferry service, proposing to double the number of cities served by the ferry service. Mr. Lewis specifically noted the proposal’s effect in increasing ferry service on the east side. Mr. Lewis also noted that a council member had recently proposed a plan for a west side ferry, as well.

Mr. Lewis indicated that while ferry service is not a complete substitute for trains and buses, it is a complement to those services—especially in areas that are underserved by the current transit system.

Mr. Lewis noted that, in order to maintain an effective ferry service for purposes of traffic congestion, fares for the ferry must be reasonable and users must have the ability to easily transfer from the ferry to other modes of transportation.

Mr. Lewis went on to indicate that revamping the ferry service is also a relatively cheap prospect at the price of $55 million. He stated that the cost of running the ferry service is around 2 dollars a passenger, which is about the same as buses and far less than some other modes of transportation.

Mr. Lewis indicated that if the Hudson River tunnels became unable to allow transport across the river, it is estimated that 1/3 of the tunnels’ commuters could stay home if they did not have ready access to other means of commuting across the Hudson River. A situation such as this would negatively affect the NYC economy. Mr. Lewis suggests that if a ferry service were readily available as an alternative, that hypothetically 1/3 of trans-Hudson River commuters would use the ferry service. Mr. Lewis believes that NYC needs a revamped ferry service.

Mr. Lewis also mentioned that the Waterfront Alliance has a transit expert by the name of Douglas Adams [Chief Operating Officer of the Waterfront Alliance] who is available to aid the Manhattan Borough President, Gail Brewer, on these issues.

During Mr. Lewis’ Q & A, in response to Ms. Brewer’s questions about some of her and others’ concerns surrounding the ferry service, Lewis indicated that NYC should learn from beneficial attributes of the East River Ferry Service—fairly accessible and available every 20 minutes during rush hour, a good price point of $4.00, and viable transfer options to other transit modes, as well. Mr. Lewis also noted the need for facilities to protect ferry-riders when the weather is especially bad.

Mr. Lewis He suggested that increased ferry service, a reasonable price point for fares, and integration of ferry service with other modes of transit (e.g., free transfers to other transit, like bus service, etc.) are the objectives that will ensure a successful ferry service and thereby generally benefit NYC and also decrease congestion. He believes that those objectives, along with a focus on adequate facilities, should be the primary objectives as the City looks to improve the ferry system.

Panel 6: Professional Drivers – 01:39:14

-Steve McLoughlin, Int’l Association of Machinists (District 15)

For Panel 6, Professional Drivers, Steve McLoughlin, of District 15 of the International Association of Machinists, was the sole panelist. Mr. McLoughlin’s union represents for-hire-vehicle drivers in a limited capacity, specifically through its administration of the Black Car Fund. The Black Car Fund “was created by statute (Chapter 49 of the laws of 1999) for the sole purpose of providing Workers' Compensation coverage to Black Car operators in the state of New York. The statute was signed into law by Governor George Pataki in May 1999.” The Black Car Fund covers for-hire vehicle drivers whose companies or “bases” meet certain statutory requirements. While the Black Car Fund has member bases throughout the state of New York, “98% of the companies are based in the greater New York City Metropolitan area”.

Mr. McLoughlin, as a representative of For-Hire Vehicle drivers to some degree, believes the solution to congestion is simple: Private vehicles should not be allowed into Manhattan. He said, “Private vehicles coming into Manhattan is insanity” (as quoted on streetsblog.org’s report on the hearing). Mr. McLoughlin analogized the use of private vehicles in Manhattan to commuters driving their own subway cars. He maintained that Manhattan’s streets cannot handle much more than professional drivers, trucks necessary to supply businesses, and first responders, all of which must operate in the central business district. Mr. McLoughlin emphasized that the Black Car industry forms an essential part of the city’s transportation system and that the city must make it possible for these three classes of drivers (i.e., professional drivers, commercial delivery truck drivers, and first responders) to move about Manhattan. Mr. McLoughlin argued that the City should implement congestion pricing and that certain parts of Manhattan should be off-limits to private vehicles. He asserted that the problem of private vehicles is one of many “low-hanging fruit,” which the city could easily tackle. He pointed to regulation of food-cart movement as another easily implementable solution. Mr. McLoughlin claimed that he once saw a food cart block the path of an ambulance while the food-cart operators were moving their carts.

Ms. Brewer asked Mr. McLoughlin if app driven vehicle companies, like Uber and other e-hailing companies, have affected professional drivers whom he represents. Mr. McLoughlin replied that the app driven vehicle companies had dramatically influenced the industry but stopped short of making a definitive statement on behalf of the various black car companies in response to Ms. Brewer’s question. He stated that such a response would be improper. Mr. McLoughlin did indicate, however, that he thinks the various professional-driver apps have had a significant impact on the industry. He also indicated surprise that such an impact could occur in the tightly regulated city transportation system.

Additionally, Mr. McLoughlin addressed some of his health and safety concerns related to black car drivers.

First, he discussed the Black Car Fund [see above], which provides workers’ compensation to black car drivers and covers, by statute, employees of companies that do 90 percent or more of their business on a non-cash basis. Every Uber, Get, and Lyft driver can obtain workers compensation insurance through the fund, which now covers 24,000 drivers—up from 8,000 two years ago.

Second, he discussed a safety program administered by District 15 (i.e., District 15 of the Int’l Association of Machinists), which is an eight hour defensive driving course. Mr. McLoughlin stated that every black car driver is required by the Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) to take a six hour defensive driving course every 36 months. District 15’s course supplements the TLC training. Drivers are not required to take District 15’s course, but they are paid a stipend for doing so. According to Mr. McLoughlin, because of District 15’s safety program, irresponsible drivers that might previously have been incentivized to pay around $50 to some sort of illicit broker for a falsified record showing that a driver completed the course are, instead, incentivized to participate in District 15’s course. This is because drivers are paid around $200 a day for eight hours of training when they take District 15’s course. According to McLoughlin, the program has lowered accident rates. And, District 15 has expanded it to include a wellness component in which drivers learn to take better care of themselves, given the physical demands of driving a car for 12 to 14 hours a day. Mr. McLoughlin also noted that District 15 has introduced CPR training in partnership with Columbia Presbyterian Hospital and lectures by Bike New York discussing bike safety.

Panel 7: Congestion Solutions – 01:46:49 & 2:06:24

-Alex Matthiessen, President of Blue Marble Project (an environmental advocacy firm based in NYC) and Director of Move NY

Mr. Matthiessen began his testimony by explaining that Move NY is a campaign to enact a comprehensive transportation plan for New York that would reduce traffic, bring toll equity to the region, and make critical investments in the region’s transit, road, and bridge infrastructure. Mr. Matthiessen then indicated that the Manhattan Borough President’s (MBP) hearing, to the point of his testimony, had demonstrated “empirically and anecdotally” what people understand “intuitively." Namely, that the Manhattan’s central business district (CBD) is overwhelmed with congestion and, further, that the transportation system that the City relies upon “to bring people into and out of the City’s core and to relieve . . . congestion is at a crisis point."

Mr. Matthiessen then went on to say that nearly 70 civic groups, 7 editorial boards, and dozens of politicians believe that the Move NY plan is the single best option to address the above mentioned problems and the only option that can actually gain political traction. Mr. Matthiessen then went on to explain the “toll swap” part of the Move NY Plan.

The toll swap will add tolls to currently free crossings into Manhattan’s core while providing toll relief to drivers that use the City’s outer MTA bridges. By simply making the toll system fairer as well as adding a surcharge to for-hire vehicles operating south of 96th street, the Plan will slash traffic by up to 18% inside the CBD and up to 10% outside of the CBD, according to Mr. Matthiessen. He then explained that by “slashing traffic” up to 18%, he means an up to 18% increase in vehicle speeds. That is, he means that average vehicle speeds are the metric that experts use to define the state of traffic congestion and to cut or slash traffic means increasing average vehicle speeds in a given area.

The Move NY Plan will also, according to Mr. Matthiessen, release $1.5 Billion per year in new revenue, which will allow the City to substantially improve the quality and reliability of the City’s roads and bridges and the region’s mass-transit system, delivering a win-win situation for both drivers and riders alike. Additionally, the Move NY Plan will also result in 30,000 new local jobs. Mr. Matthiessen then noted that the AAA representative who had testified earlier mentioned the need for long-term investment in the City’s roads, and the Move NY Plan is the first plan to segment out a quarter of its projected income, about $350 Million, specifically for road and bridge improvement. This results in drivers getting something back in return for paying their tolls. He then noted that, for the aforementioned reason, AAA was very open to the Move NY Plan. He also noted that this is a first in 40 years—i.e., AAA has typically been opposed to congestion pricing and new tolls in New York City.

Mr. Matthiessen then went on to say that the Move NY plan would plug the then-existing five year gap in the MTA’s capital plan. It would also go beyond the MTA capital plan by reducing express bus fares and intra-city commuter fares while also creating a dedicated “community transit investment fund” in the amount of $4.5 billion, under estimates current to the time of his testimony. The fund will allow politicians to work with the MTA to expand transit in their districts and the five boroughs around New York City and even beyond to the suburbs. Mr. Matthiessen then noted some examples of improvements that the Move NY Plan would make to the transit system, especially for places in the City that have transit gaps: more ferry service, more express bus service, and reducing express bus fares by a dollar. Mr. Matthiessen then stopped to note that where transit advocates who testified earlier in the hearing highlighted the “freedom ticket” idea, Move NY already has that notion imbedded in the Move NY plan—named, “city ticket.” Mr. Matthiessen then went back to list one last example of transit benefits of the Move NY plan. He stated that the Plan would provide the funding to make the Mayor’s vision of twenty “BRT lines” (i.e., Bus Rapid Transit) around the City of New York a reality. Mr. Matthiessen then ended his testimony.

-Charles Komanoff; Komanoff Energy Associates; Move NY

Mr. Komanoff’s primary opening statement in his testimony was that “we can’t unsnarl our streets unless vehicles that take up the space on the street are charged a price. Otherwise, the space that we clear out today by capping tour buses or Uber cars or eighteen-wheelers will be filled tomorrow by other vehicle owners taking advantage because so many people want to be able to drive in that space. And, the price needs to apply to all vehicles . . . . based on the space that they take up because space is a finite resource.”

Mr. Komanoff then went on to explain that in deciding how much to charge they want to balance “access with effectiveness.” He then went on to note that by allocating tolls the way the Move NY plan has done, it makes tolls more fair and will make roads “less awful.” He further noted that the toll allocation is also politically viable. Mr. Komanoff then stated that the biggest benefit of the toll allocation was its ability to fill the gaps in MTA funding. He then noted that politicians had yet to explain how they would do it. The gap-filling part of the plan means that better subways lead to fewer people driving on the streets so that there’s a double benefit to both the lesser amount of drivers left on the streets and the millions of people who use the subways.

Mr. Komanoff then ended his testimony by saying that there is no perfect plan for traffic congestion, but that the Move NY Plan comes very close, which is why he’s worked on it and for it for a long time.

-Sam Schwartz (a.k.a. “Gridlock Sam”); Sam Schwartz Engineering, former NYC DOT Chief Engineer/First Deputy Commissioner; Move NY

Sam Schwartz opened his testimony by explaining that many years ago when he was involved in implementing Clean Air Act requirements in NYC they (i.e., the team of which Mr. Schwartz was a part) had planned to do so by reducing vehicle emissions by restructuring the toll system, namely placing tolls on the East and Harlem river bridges. The plan was endorsed by the City, the State, and the Federal Government approved it. He then noted that only an act of Congress could have stopped the toll plan and, in fact, that is exactly what stopped it—an act of Congress stopped the toll plan. Mr. Schwartz then went on to relate another toll-plan story from his past. During the 1980 transit strikes they mitigated traffic effectively by imposing occupancy restrictions on the bridges. He then stated that the least efficient mode of transport available is the single-occupant car. So, from 6am to 10am, in order to curb the traffic from the transit strikes, they imposed occupancy restrictions on cars so that single-occupant cars were required to use a toll facility. The effect of the occupancy limitation and related toll requirement on single occupancy cars was effective. However, they had to end the practice when they lost a lawsuit from opponents of the measures. Mr. Schwartz then quickly mentioned another tolling plan event from his past— the toll restructuring plan during the Bloomberg administration which was never put to a vote. Mr. Schwartz went on to tie this history lesson together by saying that’s why over the past years he’s been spending his time with opponents of toll restructuring to see what they (fair tolling opponents) would find palatable and beneficial. As a result of these efforts, the Automobile Club has been working with them (i.e., Move NY), a trucking association has been working them, elected officials have been working with them—even some who were previously staunch opponents of fair tolling.

Mr. Schwartz then said, “The point is we have to do something. Congestion is getting worse. . . . Our transit system needs more money; our roads, bridges need more money.” He then concluded his testimony.

-Q & A Session For Panel 7

Ms. Brewer then asked Mr. Schwartz if he knew of any immediate measures the City’s agencies could employ to curb traffic congestion, noting that she hopes they do “get Move NY,” but wants to know if Mr. Schwartz knew of some way that city agencies could currently better mitigate congestion. She then clarified her question by asking, specifically, if he’s aware of any studies that are in process that would help provide a better understanding of congestion. Or, does Mr. Schwartz have some “low hanging fruit” suggestions that could help now, in the interim, before the approval of a comprehensive plan like Move NY.

Mr. Schwartz replied by saying the most immediate thing they could do was eliminate much of the placard parking in the City—e.g., the “police department civil service exam” placard parking permit. He noted that construction workers now put cones on top of their cars and say that is a parking permit. He then went on to say that many city-worker placards were also unnecessary. He said other than certain exceptions (e.g., police who need their vehicles), there is usually no reason that city workers need to have free parking in “the most valuable, possibly, land on earth.” He then went on to note that eliminating parking spaces is not as difficult as people make it out to be. He, then, wrapped up by saying “this [unnecessary placard parking] is one of the lowest hanging fruits out there, and it’s the right thing to do.”

Ms. Brewer then asked of Mr. Matthiessen or Mr. Komanoff wanted to add to Mr. Schwartz’s answer, and she further asked if the panel could explain any barriers to the Move NY Plan being officially enacted. She clarified her question by saying succinctly, how do we get rid of traffic congestion in Manhattan—what are some low hanging fruit; and what are the barriers to Move NY?

Mr. Matthiessen answered Ms. Brewer by saying that he would address the second question (i.e., barriers to the enactment of the Move NY Plan), and that, perhaps, Mr. Komanoff had some thoughts on the first. Mr. Matthiessen then said that he believed one of the main barriers to be that people (officials and regular New Yorkers alike) tend to associate the Move NY Plan with the old Bloomberg plan, and many are just mistakenly fighting the idea of the old Bloomberg plan. But, Move NY is a separate, different plan; it’s not the Bloomberg plan. They (Move NY) have found that when elected officials and regular New Yorkers understand the details of the Move NY plan, they actually have a strong tendency to support it—i.e., 2-to-1 favor the Move NY Plan once they know the details, according to a poll that Mr. Matthiessen said they did last fall (i.e., fall of 2014). He then admitted that that this is nonetheless a challenge because Move NY doesn’t have endless resources to try and raise that kind of awareness among the rank-and-file elected officials and the public-at-large. He then noted, however, that one of the strong points on Move NY’s side is that no one seems to have an idea of how to fill the MTA funding gap, and the Move NY Plan has the solution. And, the solution doesn’t just fill the MTA funding gap, Mr. Matthiessen went on to note, it reduces traffic congestion, creates toll fairness, and invests the transit gap (i.e., the transit infrastructure, including in places where transit is not currently available or efficient). Mr. Matthiessen further stated that the Move NY plan is hoping to introduce legislation in the next legislative session, and he thinks they have a “real shot,” but they need “your support,” they need “your help” (i.e., elected officials’ and the public’s support and help). He then concluded his answer.

At this point, Ms. Brewer then took a moment to let Council Member Rodriguez speak. He had just walked into the hearing and needed to leave soon, so she wanted to give him an opportunity to speak. She would then get back to Mr. Komanoff for his answer to her first question. For a summary of Council Member Rodriguez’s statement, please link to the summary titled “Councilmember Rodriguez's Testimony – 02:03:26”or scroll down on this page).

After Council Member Rodriguez finished speaking, Mr. Komanoff then stated his answer to the first of Ms. Brewer’s questions (i.e., her question about immediately available “low hanging fruit” measures that city agencies could take to curb traffic congestion in the interim). Note that Council Member Rodriguez also posed a very similar question, if not precisely the same question, to the panel at the close of his statement.

[Note: Mr. Komanoff's reply appears both in this summary and in Council Member Rodriguez's summary.]

In Reply to Ms. Brewer and Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Komanoff said that the panel here testifying (i.e., himself, Sam Schwartz, Alex Matthiessen) had a collective experience of over 50 years in transportation. He, himself, had about 25-30 years in the industry since he joined it in the mid-1980s. According to Mr. Komanoff, one of the benefits of the Move NY Fair Plan is its synergism and interconnectedness. In expressing his understanding of the traffic congestion problem, Mr. Komanoff said that people could talk about putting a surcharge on for-hire vehicles or on app based For-Hire Vehicles, specifically, but that such proposals implemented in a vacuum, without a comprehensive solution surrounding them, would not be fair with respect to yellow cabs, for example—perhaps giving yellow cabs an unfair advantage. Further, people could talk about surcharging all business based chauffeured vehicles, including yellow cabs, in the central business district but that this proposal, too, would not be fair vis-à-vis private cars. In sum, he expressed that there was no way, no significant and fair way, for surcharges alone to make a difference in traffic congestion, let alone the needs to upgrade and modernize infrastructure and expand and improve the public transit system. In responding to the immediate and interim “low hanging fruit” questions of both Ms. Brewer and Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Komanoff said that there is no way to solve the traffic congestion problem piecemeal. He further stated that there needs to be an integrated plan that treats every component, every participant, every borough, and every mode of transport equitably. According to Mr. Komanoff, the Move NY Plan satisfies that.

Councilmember Rodriguez's Testimony – 02:03:26

Mr. Rodriguez expressed his concern over traffic congestion and emphasized the particular seriousness of New York City traffic congestion. According to Mr. Rodriguez, academic experts and advocates must come together to find solutions for this issue. He strongly indicated that he believed Uber to be irresponsible in its releasing of a report (on or near that same day) completed by a consulting agency retained by Uber. The report concluded that a full year would be necessary to complete a thorough study of FHV data and related impact on Manhattan traffic congestion. Mr. Rodriguez indicated that his belief concerning Uber’s irresponsibility in putting forth the report stems from the fact that they (Uber) had a pre-existing agreement with the City wherein the City was to take four months to conduct a study on congestion and transportation and come up with new recommendations to efficiently regulate FHV businesses, like Uber, and to curb Manhattan traffic congestion—all with Uber’s willing assistance [likely in exchange for the Mayor’s ceasing of support of a proposal to cap FHV licenses in Manhattan]. Mr. Rodriguez emphasized that it was nonetheless important to get recommendations from experts on transportation within that four month time frame. He expressed his disapproval at Uber’s failure in honoring the previously mentioned agreement.

Mr. Rodriguez then emphasized the importance of including some input from local communities in any future regulatory proposals. According to Mr. Rodriguez, local community boards, or other mechanisms, through which the local community can contribute in a manner similar to the budget committees would be beneficial to all interested parties. Whatever the outcome of process, whatever the adopted solution—for example, congestion pricing—any adopted solution should benefit the community in a manner other than just renovating bridges, tunnels, or any other long-term major project. The local community’s voice on investing, for example, is also an important component of the necessity for local community input.

Rodriguez further stated that local communities will let some of their input be known on October 3rd at a summit on transportation put on with the support of NYU and others. The purpose of this summit is to continue discussing the issues surrounding traffic congestion and transportation.

In concluding, Mr. Rodriguez stressed that any solutions for congestion in New York City should consider assistance and recommendations from experts, in addition to Move NY [who had already indicated a readiness to participate], in order for the City to properly finalize its report within the four month time period to complete the City’s study on traffic congestion. Mr. Rodriguez then concluded his testimony by directing question to Panel 7, whose testimony had overlapped with Council Member Rodriguez’s. He asked if anyone on Panel 7 could suggest any immediate solutions that would benefit the people of New York now, in the interim prior to the enactment of a comprehensive plan with long-term goals. Note that this question also reflected a request of Ms. Brewer’s to Panel 7 just prior to Mr. Rodriguez’s arrival. His arrival to the hearing, however, put Panel 7’s answer to Ms. Brewer on hold so that Mr. Rodriguez, who had only a limited amount of time available that day, could make his statement.

[Note: Mr. Komanoff's reply appears both in this summary and in Panel 7's summary.]

In reply to Mr. Rodriguez (and Ms. Brewer who'd asked the same question just prior to Mr. Rodriguez's arrival), Mr. Komanoff said that the panel here testifying (i.e., himself, Sam Schwartz, Alex Matthiessen) had a collective experience of over 50 years in transportation. He, himself, had about 25-30 years in the industry since he joined it in the mid-1980s. According to Mr. Komanoff, one of the benefits of the Move NY Fair Plan is its synergism and interconnectedness. In expressing his understanding of the traffic congestion problem, Mr. Komanoff said that people could talk about putting a surcharge on For-Hire-Vehicles or on app-based for-hire-vehicles, specifically, but that such proposals implemented in a vacuum, without a comprehensive solution surrounding them, would not be fair with respect to yellow cabs, for example—perhaps giving yellow cabs an unfair advantage. Further, people could talk about surcharging all business based chauffeured vehicles, including yellow cabs, in the central business district but that this proposal, too, would not be fair vis-à-vis private cars. In sum, he expressed that there was no way, no significant and fair way, for surcharges alone to make a difference in traffic congestion, let alone the needs to upgrade and modernizes infrastructure and expand and improve the public transit system. In responding to the immediate and interim “low hanging fruit” questions of both Ms. Brewer and Mr. Rodriguez, Mr. Komanoff said that there is no way to solve the traffic congestion problem piecemeal. He further stated that there needs to be an integrated plan that treats every component, every participant, every borough, and every mode of transport equitably. According to Mr. Komanoff, the Move NY Plan satisfies that.

Public Testimony Summaries, divided by time frame on the video of the Manhattan Borough President's hearing

See the hearing video here; scroll to the bottom of the linked page.

Public Testimony Summary (time 2:08—2:22)

-Brad Taylor, Community Board 9

Mr. Taylor believes that while the conversation has rightfully focused on Manhattan’s Central Business District, there is much that can be done for uptown Manhattan as well. Part of that is parking regulation reform and enforcement of current regulations, which he thinks would help eliminate double-parking that congests the streets. He further suggests that whatever street parking remains be made available, first, to area residents through some form of a sticker or placard. Specifically, Taylor wishes to avoid the problem of having non-residents coming into the area, parking, and taking the train downtown. He further states that West Harlem has a natural intermodal transportation center, which can help the city deal with some of its congestion problems, e.g. there’s a ferry center, a train line, and some buses.

-Christine Berthet, Community Board 4

Ms. Berthet believes that there is a critical issue that has not been discussed, yet: construction. She thinks that for-hire vehicles are not the problem because the total number of cars coming into the City has not increased. Ms. Berthet especially notes construction that takes place between 8th and 11th Avenues as a major congestion issue. She states that in between these avenues, there are about 20 streets that are in some form or another obstructed by construction, and, sometimes, an entire block will be obstructed. Also, according to Ms. Berthet, on 9th and 10th Avenues, some parts of these streets are reduced by two lanes, which greatly reduces the flow of traffic.

Other issues Ms. Berthet believes contribute to congestion are new bus industries—of the type that were not present 10 years ago—and which takes up much of the real estate in the City.

Regarding “low-hanging fruit,” Ms. Berthet thinks that the City should enforce “gridlock” violations [she says she agrees with the AAA representative, so the assumption is she is referencing “Blocking the Box” violations]. She believes another piece of low-hanging fruit would be to build a Port Authority in New Jersey and connect the two stations by train. She also suggests building garages for touring buses so that they do not take up so much space on the roads.

Ms. Berthet further stated that she supports the Move NY plan.

Lastly, she stated that she believes that whoever is responsible for construction should also be responsible for the costs of congestion, and that they should have to pay to use the public space in a similar fashion that individuals have to pay for parking.

-Noah Pfefferblit, Community Board 1

Mr. Pfefferblit first stated that his board passed a resolution about the problems of NYC congestion in preparation for the hearing. The first concern that they addressed was in regard to double-decker buses, which have become more and more common and many of which seem to be partially empty. Part of their concern is whether the double-deckers have an ulterior motive in regards to advertising vs. their actual intended use. Mr. Pfefferblit thinks that one solution would be to cap the number of tour buses allowed in particular areas at a time. Mr. Pfefferblit also noted that construction was a major contributor to congestion in his board’s area. He noted also that there are collateral issues to construction, like emergency vehicles being obstructed by constant construction. Mr. Pfefferblit also noted that there are a few studies that the committee found promising and thought should be researched further, the first is the Burohappold Engineering, Make Way for Lower Manhattan study. Mr. Pfefferblit’s board also believes that the Move NY plan should be further studied because there may be some things in there that ought to be implemented. He also noted a study done by the Manhattan Borough President and, specifically, the part of that study concerning the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel. Mr. Pfefferblit stated that his board would like to hear more about the Cross-Harbor Freight Tunnel. Mr. Pfefferblit also indicated that there should be an emphasis on subways and making them as efficient as possible in continuing congestion discussions.

-Dan White, Community Board 7

The area Community Board 7 serves includes over 200,000 people, according to Mr. White, but the one thing that they almost universally agree upon is the need for an expansion of mass transit. Specifically, he believes that local, state, and federal government needs to make sure that mass transit is being properly funded and runs as efficiently as possible. Mr. White does not believe that his board has taken any particular stance on the Move NY plan. He believes, however, the plan is very “positive” and does a good job of addressing the basic issue of funding for mass transit.

-Terri Cude, Community Board 2

In discussing bus routes, Ms. Cude, noted that on M3, M1, M5, and M6 routes have been curtailed or removed altogether. She believes that such routes need to be restored, renewed, and increased. In addressing train service in relation to bus service, Ms. Cude further stated that the #6 train is currently over capacity. Another issue that she heard about while recently campaigning is that Access-A-Ride simply does not work and patients are missing doctors’ appointments. They are unable to get a ride and sometimes are sitting outside for hours, and this population cannot afford to get a cab and they are not in reach of a bus.

Public Testimony Summary (time 2:22—2:35)

-George Haikalis, President, Institute for Rational Urban Mobility

[A summary of Mr. Haikalis’ testimony made available by the Institute for Rational Urban Mobility is available here.]

Mr. Haikalis represents a non-profit concerned with reducing congestion.

He urged the Borough President’s Office to outline a comprehensive street-use plan that “rationally” allocates street space between pedestrians, cyclists, motorists, FHVs, and others. Mr. HaiKalis further suggests that such a plan was actually outlined in a 2009 letter send to NYC DOT by Community Board 5, and that plan should be considered.

He also urges the City to work with other regional entities [presumably, Port Authority of NY-NJ] to increase regional rail capacity. He indicated that there is a current commitment by governors of NY and NJ to expand Hudson River passenger rail. He also suggests that there should be a Cordon Toll in in the central business district (CBD), as well as select auto-free streets, which could lead to a river-to-river light rail on 42nd street.

-Nancy Soria, Vice President, Green Taxis of New York

Ms. Soria stated in her testimony that she represents all Green Taxis of NY.

Ms. Soria’s greatest concern was the rise of FHVs. She testified that 2,000 e-hailing FHVs per month were idling in the CBD, and engaging in illegal street hails in Midtown, Inwood, and the Bronx, which is the borough taxis’ territory.

She also stated that there are 21,000 e-hailing FHVs “hanging out” under 59th street. Ms. Soria urges the City to cap the number of FHVs, and urges the TLC to enforce regulations against Uber and other e-hailing companies.

Borough taxis, according to Ms. Soria, feel that the City has disregarded them.

-Pete Davies, Resident, Broadway, member of loosely organized group—Broadway Residents Commission.

Mr. Davies complained of bridge-to-tunnel traffic across Broome St. He suggested that the congestion effects of double decker tourist buses need to be studied, and that such buses should be treated as advertising vehicles and not real transport vehicles. Mr. Davies further noted that bus lane enforcement on Broadway can actually hurt congestion, because enforcing the lane rules can block lanes. He referenced a pilot off-hours delivery program lead by DOT in 2009-2010.Mr. Davies contends that this program has caused much disruption in his area.

-Wendy Frank, resident on 148th Street, Upper Manhattan

Ms. Frank noted that the 148th St. Station is not handicap accessible, and that this causes many problems. Ms. Frank also described Fredrick Douglas Blvd as dirty and congested. She maintains that bus stops are unequal because some bus stops are unsanitary and in areas that are congested with vehicle traffic. Ms. Frank suggested that essential services should be made available. Namely, the City should create parking for the disabled, the elderly, certain contractor services, and teachers, who cannot afford to live on the Island.

Public Testimony Summary (time 2:35—3:01)

-Jack Friedman, Times Square Alliance

Mr. Friedman testified that he represented the Times Square Alliance, a group that works to improve and promote business in Times Square. He stated that the Times Square thrives due to approximately on 400,000 pedestrians that pass through it daily. Vehicular traffic is also key to day-to-day Times Square business success, according to Mr. Friedman. In illustrating the importance of both vehicles and pedestrians to Times Square, he noted deliveries to hotels, visitors to the Broadway theaters, and commuting workers. Mr. Friedman emphasized that regulators must find a policy balance that mitigates growing vehicular congestion while, at the same time, considering Times Square’s huge volume of activity. Mr. Friedman suggested that the City conduct a comprehensive study of theater district traffic to analyze the cause of congestion in that area. According to Mr. Friedman, such a study should account for street hails, clustering of hop-on-hop-off buses, and pedestrian traffic. If done rightly, such a study would allow the NYC DOT to create a rational and fact-based criteria for managing street closures, tour buses, and film shoots, for example, in Time Square. According to Mr. Friedman, hop-on-hop-off buses have increased significantly in the Times Square area in recent years, exacerbating congestion due to a high volume of unpredictable stops.

Mr. Friedman also suggests that the City consider reopening left turn lanes on 4th and 46th Street which have recently been closed due to construction. He also suggests that there should also be a moratorium on events and street closures for the balance of the construction period. A comprehensive traffic study, of the type suggested by Mr. Friedman above, would also help to determine the total number, timing, and location of events in Times Square so that event regulation can be responsive to neighborhood needs and preferences. Mr. Friedman emphasized that the City should limit events, particularly the type of events that adversely impact pedestrian and vehicular traffic. He further believes that the City should consider placing pedestrian crossing cards at key intersections throughout the Times Square area to help reduce congestion at key pinch points where pedestrians currently spill into the traffic. Mr. Friedman emphasized that in Times Square there are multiple and varied contributing factors to traffic congestion. He believes that all the factors can be efficiently and rationally addressed by cooperative interagency regulation and fueled by a data driven approach.

-Roxanna Warren, Architect and Chair of the Vision42 Proposal

Ms. Warren noted that when the density of a city increases, as it has in Manhattan, it becomes increasingly important for the city’s traffic to remain fluid and free from congestion. Ms. Warren stated that for this to happen the City's transportation units must be decreased in size. In her view, mini cars are preferable to medium-sized cars, which in turn are preferable to SUVs, and the combination of public transit and walking is vastly preferable to private vehicles. According to Ms. Warren, the primary factor is space, which has nothing to do with the vehicle’s method of proportion or control. Congestion cannot be solved by electric cars or computer driven cars. Ms. Warren believes that congestion can only be solved by the public choosing to travel by a common carrier rather than a private vehicle. Efforts at managing congestion, therefore, should be focused on making common carriers as reliable, appealing, and convenient to ride as possible. She believes that surface light rails meet that description better than any other mode of transport. Ms. Warren proposes running a light rail from river to river in midtown Manhattan and also in other boroughs. According to Ms. Warren, a pilot project would get people interested light rail. A light rail system like she describes, according to Ms. Warren, will have reliable timing and extend the reach of the subways at a cost of only 1/10th as much per mile as subways. She testified that light rails have had this effect in many other cities in the US, as well as in the Europe. Ms. Warren expressed her confidence that an extended light rail system would prove an enormous attraction to riders. She strongly endorsed Sam Schwartz’ MoveNY proposal for rationalizing the city’s system of toll collection and generating income for New York’s essential transit systems as well as its roads. She further stated that increased FHVs and tour buses have become a congestion problem and need to be addressed. Ms. Warren indicated that the proliferation of private motoring is destroying the pedestrian environment.

-Elise Marrow, Resident

Ms. Marrow voiced her approval of the MoveNY Plan. According to Ms. Marrow, the MoveNY Plan benefits her in all her modes of transport, bicycling, walking, and driving. Ms. Marrow voiced her displeasure with free parking. She noted, however, that parking spaces are necessary for the disabled, the elderly, and emergency vehicles.

Ms. Marrow suggested that there be retail zoning, express bus stops, and express bus lanes.

She also stated that wherever protected bike lanes built, commuters' lives improve.

Ms. Marrow also suggested that entry and exit toll in Manhattan should be income based. She proposed a system where anyone who uses a private car be required to chip in their time or money to work the kinks out of the traffic system instead of relying on an agency that requires funding. Ms. Marrow believes that private car drivers should volunteer their time or pay money into the traffic management system.

She went on to propose a solution for the problem of double parking. A simple solution, according to Ms. Marrow, would be an app that relies on a smartphone's camera and GPS and which allows the general public to, in effect, ticket double parkers.

Ms. Marrow She also indicated that about 20% of the Manhattanites have or are using their cars and that 70% of the community on the transportation committee are all car users. She feels that public transit users and pedestrians are not fairly represented on the transportation committee.

Ms. Marrow also noted her desire that the City use technology to optimize taxis' rate structure.

-Sarah Bacon, Bandwagon Rideshare, taxi-share

Ms. Bacon represented Bandwagon, a taxi-sharing technology company. She is also a part of the group working with the Mayor’s Office for the Environmental Impact Study. She and her team put a proposal first to the TLC and then to the Mayor’s Office for a taxi-share rate structure, which they believed, would help to optimize the existing yellow and green taxi supply in the city, during shift change and during rush hour. She reminded the audience that Taxicab Passenger Enhancements Project (T-PEP) technology exists to enable meters to issue multiple receipts and multiple drop-offs. It would just be a matter of getting the policy in place for such a rate structure. Her company has been in talks with the two major T-PEP providers and they are both interested in facilitating this and enabling the technology. She wants to put this forth as a package of congestion solutions to not only allow Vehicles for Hire to rideshare, but also to give taxis an edge in that domain as well.

-Bill Evans, The Shubert Organization, Broadway

Mr. Evans’ company, The Shubert Organization, has been in the theater district for 116 years. Their number one priority has always been providing every ticket buyer with a safe, smooth experience while attending the theater. He emphasized that they want people to enjoy spending time in the theater district, before, during and after seeing a show. The pedestrian and vehicular congestion throughout the theater district has reached unmanageable proportions approaching gridlock in the plazas and on the sidewalks. Pedestrians are confronted with a steady stream of solicitations, from bus companies, ticket scalpers and a range of other predatory individuals. Pedestrian crowds spill into the streets that are already clogged with cars, trucks, and dozens of tour buses. Another issue is the large number of construction sites impeding traffic. Attending the theater, should not be a dangerous ordeal. These current quality-of-life issues are having a negative impact on the theater industry every day. He clarified that his company was in full support of the proposals formulated through the collaborative efforts of Borough President Brewer, Council Members Dan Garodnick and Corey Johnson, members of the Community Board Five, and their colleagues at the Times Square Alliance.

-Susan Crawford, Resident, Upper Manhattan

Ms. Crawford came as a resident of Upper Manhattan. She lives at the intersection of 110th and Amsterdam – at what she described as being the victim of street re-design. She described how the DOT had drawn lines and constricted access, on 110th in two places. This reduced what was formerly two lanes each way, down to one lane each way . She presented photographic evidence to Ms. Brewer of what the said intersection looked like, every rush hour, morning and late afternoon, with trucks and buses trying to clear, because they only had one lane to deal with. The intersection, as a result, is constantly backed up during the high traffic times, only intensifying the congestion. According to her, such re-designing of roads, if also present in midtown would only constrict traffic. It was simple math - even if no more vehicles are added, congestion exists in places where throughways are being cut in half. She explained, if you have one lane going instead of two lanes in each direction, you have now cut in half, the amount of space these trucks – and she emphasized trucks because Amsterdam and Columbus are the truck routes for the West Side Manhattan – then there is no place else for the vehicles to move other than where they are supposed to be but because of this constriction. Further adding to the problem are the bike lanes on Columbus, from 100th street to 96th street. As a result, only one lane remains because there are double parked cars, parked cars, and the bike lanes. She was convinced that if a bike lane was put on Amsterdam, the same consequences will surface. She urged the DOT not to put a bike lane on Amsterdam, but to put it on West End Avenue for instance which already has trucks are spilling over since they can’t navigate what they used to have - which was to get down Amsterdam, turn and get to Columbus to get into Manhattan. To that end, she suggested some quick low hanging fruit suggestions. First, she suggested to make the cross town buses free since there is no reason for them to collect money because they are all just transfers. Second, she suggested that small trucks be used between 10 AM and 3 PM. Third, she suggested alternate side parking once a week instead of twice a week. She questioned why the change of overtime of cabs happened right when the rush hour started and complained that the police double parked all the time, which backs things up. In conclusion, she emphasized that the Bloomberg era of ‘We-must-do-more-with-less’ was faulty since less is less.

-Trevor Holland, Resident, Lower East Side

Mr. Holland has lived in the Lower East Side for almost twenty years. According to him, one of the main issues is the intercity buses and that is an issue that isn’t being paid enough attention. The whole East Side has become a de facto bus terminal because the buses do not have anywhere to park, pick up or drop off passengers. There are over 100 illegal intercity buses that clog Lower East Side every single day. They fly down residential streets that are not engineered to handle intercity buses. They are a congestion problem, they are a safety problem, and they are a pollution problem. Buses also use many of the MTA staff preventing MTA buses from picking up local passengers and making it impossible for many of the elderly or handicapped to actually get on a MTA bus. It is actually easier to get on a bus to Monroe, Louisiana than is to get to Monroe Street, Lower East Side. In contrary to popular opinion, or to folks who don’t really know about the intercity buses, they are not really a benefit to the local community. He emphasized that there was a need for a comprehensive plan to deal with this particular problem and one of the solutions is what has been talked about before; giving incentives to intercity buses to move their pick-up or drop-off places from outside the corridor. The Lower East side also faces a huge problem with commercial trucks. He suggested that they should look at possibly towing commercial trucks across bridges, since that seems to me to be the main focus of MoveNY. Many commercial trucks are also parking in Lower East Side because a lot of parking garages are closing. This also causes congestion, a lot of them double park at night and they don’t get tickets because the police not used to this behavior. As far as tolling in New York was concerned, he thought it needed to be carefully looked at. The Lower East Side is a transit starved area; there is not a lot of public transportation in that area so many people rely on FHV’s and personal vehicles. According to him, it was impossible to catch a yellow cab in many parts of the Lower East Side and a lot of traffic that happened in the Lower East Side and Lower Manhattan was because of Municipal and Government workers. In conclusion, he emphasized that the municipal workers would not be affected by the MoveNY Fair plan because they get a discount or they do not pay for their tolls.

-Wellington Chen, Resident, Chinatown

Mr. Chen was in agreement with Mr. Holland concerning the Canal Street issue. According to him, Canal Street is the single most congested street and 30 million vehicles a year has had a toll on it. It is also the only street that does not have a cross-town bus for the seniors or for anybody who would like to go across the town. According to him, Chinatown been inundated with vehicular traffic for too long; particularly with trucks bypassing the tolls bridges and the tunnels, to exit the city. This occurs at the cost of the health and physical safety of the community. Heavy traffic congestion on Canal Street has contributed to the air pollutants being poured into the lungs of the residents, with increased cases of asthma in children and individuals of all ages. Pedestrians are frequently killed by speeding vehicles and construction trucks. He felt it was time to do something about the situation, not only for Chinatown but city-wide, for the children and seniors and likewise. He further elaborated that the intercity buses have existed since 1997. He came from the area that morning and it was nowhere near what was just described by Mr. Holland. He felt that his version of the story was the truth because many of these buses did having waiting rooms, or were not idle for a long time because they are paying drivers – they want to get in, get out quickly and frequency is not that high since peak days in 1997 to now. Traffic in Chinatown is bleeding, in his words, heavily bleeding. He commented that favorite expression has been, “It’s all quiet on the Eastern Front” due to the unavailability of buses there.

-Ms. Kathleen, Resident

Ms. Kathleen found the issues to be highly political. In her opinion, the lock box on the MTA’s budget and letting the Governor have access to the money was appalling. She firmly believed that if the public was aware of the politics surrounding these issues, the Governor might think differently. She briefly lived in Chicago and references that in Chicago, historically, all deliveries are made at night. And it seemed to her that if Chicago can do that, New York City can as well. According to her, there was a critical need for bus garages, so that buses are not moving around constantly in residential streets. When she moved to Hell’s Kitchen 20 years ago, there were three bus routes on 42nd Street. Now, there is one bus route and that is inadequate. She suggested a need to move people from the UN to the Hudson River. She was in favor of light rail to do this. She said she would love to see light rail go from river to river, 34th street in a loop up 42nd. Also, light rail is great for disabled folks. According to Ms. Kathleen, it is important to enforce, “Don’t-lock-the-box”. The gridlock is insane and out of hand. The EMS vehicles can’t get through; ambulances wait for precious minutes, stuck in traffic.

Public Testimony Summary (time 3:01—3:25)

-Robert Asrael

Mr. Asrael identified what he considers to be the causes of traffic congestion, namely increased bicycle lanes and bus lanes, reconfigured streets, staggered lights system, the elimination of parking spaces because of Citibikes, and the creation of pedestrian plazas. He asserts that implementing tolls on free bridges will not help because MTA will not properly manage the income from the tolls. This is evidenced, according to Mr. Asrael, by the Fulton Street Hub Project, which, he states, ended up costing $1.4 billion dollars making it $800 million over budget. He also recommended that the MTA headquarters (at 2 Broadway) be moved out of Manhattan. Mr. Asrael testified that it costs the MTA $63 million a year in leasing costs and $845 million in renovation costs. Mr. Asrael indicated that the MTA could be operating from Brooklyn for free from an MTA-owned building.

-Michelle Birnbaum, President of Preservation and Block Association

Ms. Birnbaum identified what she considers to be several reasons for congestion.

First, she contends that when street lanes are made more narrow in order to make room for bike lanes, despite that there exists in her estimation only a small population of bike riders, the narrowed streets diminish the available road space for other modes of road transport, thereby increasing congestion. Ms. Birnbaum further contends that bicyclists are seasonal commuters, so redesigning roads for their benefit is not an efficient use of resources.

Second, Ms. Birnbaum contends that the pedestrian plazas block traffic seemingly because vehicles cannot drive through pedestrian plazas. Restructuring measures to create pedestrian plazas have caused dangerous bottlenecks at 23rd & Broadway and 34th & Broadway.

Third, Ms. Birnbaum believes that the installation of bike share racks, such as Citibikes, contributes to congestion because they diminish the available resident vehicle parking. Additionally she identifies the installation of bike share stations in no standing zones and busy transportation hubs as causes of congestion.

Fourth, Ms. Birnbaum notes that new parking regulations have taken indoor parking spaces previously available for residents to rent out to ZipCar. As noted, she believes that diminishing parking options for residents increases congestion.

Fifth, Ms. Birnbaum indicates that congestion on the weekends is affected by out-of-town rental cars.

Sixth, Ms. Birnbaum identifies neckdowns as traffic congestion cause.

Seventh, she identified bump outs as a cause.

Eighth, she identified the closing of travel through the Central Park as a traffic congestion cause.

Ninth, Ms. Birnbaum identified a lack of enforcement of illegal parking of food trucks as a congestion cause.

Tenth, she identified the introduction of pettycabs and green cabs also as contributing factors of congestion.

Finally, while Ms. Birnbaum believes that the current For-Hire-Vehicles operating are fine, he would like to see a cap across the board for these types of vehicle based businesses.

-Walter South, M.A. in Urban Planning, Public Policy

Mr. South identifies the major problem as a lack of rational planning in the Manhattan Borough President’s office and a lack of consistency in the public transportation system. He specifically mentioned the on-board/off-board bus fare payment system and speed bumps. He suggests that the city hire urban planners from Sweden or Amsterdam because, according to Mr. South, the City currently has no efficient system for urban planning.

-Lily Pollack, Resident, Hell's Kitchen

Ms. Pollack lives in Hell’s kitchen and works in downtown Manhattan. Her commute takes an hour to an hour and a half. She believes that proposed transportation restructuring laws fail to gain support at the state level, in Albany, because those decision-makers use private vehicles and cannot sympathize with a population, like NYC, that relies primarily on public transportation.

The police, according to Ms. Pollack, are also usually from the outer boroughs and cannot sympathize with Manhattan residents’ problems and, therefore, tend to let drivers get away with moving violations.

As solutions, she suggests that political representatives visiting the UN enter the city via helicopters instead of bringing motorcades through midtown. She also suggests that the Taxi and Limousine Commission use GPS to collect data for buses and taxis. Further, she suggests that the City start strongly enforcing existing laws, that commercial trucks not be allowed in Manhattan [likely referring to large commercial trucks, like 18 wheelers], that the City install designated taxi stops, and that delivery trucks upload and unload at specified less-busy hours (e.g., the early morning or late evening).

-Bill Lindauer & Asim Akhtar representing the New York Taxi Workers Alliance

Mr. Lindauer first criticized Uber, emphasizing what he described as Uber’s unlimited funding and ability to lobby for regulations beneficial to Uber but, perhaps, not beneficial to the general public. Mr. Lindauer and Mr. Akhtar would like to see a quota on the number Uber cars and similar FHVs, just like there is on the number of yellow cabs. Mr. Lindauer and Mr. Akhtar feel this is right because Uber and like companies operate in a regulated industry. FHVs and yellow cabs alike ought to be regulated on an even playing field, according to Mr. Lindauer and Mr. Akhtar.

-Martin Wallace, member of Manhattan Community Board 9

Mr. Wallace described how free street parking adds to Manhattan congestion and suggested that the City reduce such parking. He went on to say that only 20% of the Manhattan population owns cars, but they receive 80% of the road space through free street parking. Furthermore, according to Mr. Wallace, free parking incentivizes people from New Jersey to park in upper Manhattan and take the subway downtown for their commute. He further noted that eliminating free street parking would also free up space for delivery trucks. Mr. Wallace also links the traffic problem to a housing problem. He noted that people who cannot afford to live in Manhattan have to commute there. Mr. Wallace further suggested that, if people could live where they worked, congestion may be less of a problem.

-David Vasser

Mr. Vasser is an avid bicyclist, and both he and his son bike everywhere. He believes that biking as a primary transportation option is an important factor that should be more developed. He indicated that there is currently too much traffic violence and risk for bicyclists. He proposed converting one lane of NY 9A Southbound to a bike lane.

-Emma Coubert, member of the Steward Park and Canal East (SPaCE) block association

Ms. Coubert focused on traffic issues surrounding her neighborhood in Lower Manhattan. According to Ms. Coubert, in Chinatown, there exists many illegal private bus companies that do not have licenses or permits and don’t follow regulated pick-up and drop-off locations. She estimates there around 100 bus companies operating in the area with only 20 of them having permits. According to Ms. Coubert, these bus companies, as a result of their regulatory violations, add to congestion, increase air pollution and noise pollution, and generally increase illegal activity in her area. She proposed that no more permits be issued and that there be stronger enforcement surrounding the existing permits and non-permit violations. Mr. Coubert noted, also, a special difficulty with enforcement. She stated that she has previously spoken with the local police about this issue, and some have admitted that they are busy with many other types of enforcement and unable to effectively enforce permit regulations.