From the TV station that presents pedestrian islands as safety hazards for cars, a screenshot presented without comment.

Over the weekend, I came across this clever re-use of a car parking space for bike parking in Burlington, Vermont. It’s remarkable that in a town where cars are the primary mode of transportation, this can happen, but in New York City, it’s marked with political controversy and delays.

What’s wrong with this picture from the corner of 1st Avenue and 16th Street in Manhattan? Too many things to even begin.

For one, a van is blocking a crosswalk by parking the zebra stripes along the parking buffer of the First Avenue bike lane.

Second, and most obviously, is the Access-A-Ride van that is not only parked in the bike lane with the motor running, but parked in such a manner that the only way for it to leave the bike lane is to drive in the bike lane for an entire block.

Third, but most troubling, is the fact that Beth Israel Hospital encourages people to drop off their vehicles for valet parking by stopping in the bike lane.

I like these lanes, and I get angry when people abuse them. But I honestly can’t blame these people for doing such stupid things. I blame the NYCDOT and the NYPD.

The assumption made by the NYCDOT when they place these lanes – which only exist in one other place in the city – is that once the paint is dry, people will figure out what to do. Cyclists will figure out how to use these lanes. Drivers will heed the “yield” signs and markings and watch for cyclists when making left turns. Drivers will figure out to use the zebra stripes and floating lanes to load and unload. And businesses will change their policies to adapt to the new configuration.

But the NYCDOT doesn’t provide any education at all. There’s no awareness campaign with flyers or temporary signs to explain the changes. They simply expect everyone to figure out how to use them. And even a month after these lanes opened, it’s clear that plenty of people still haven’t figured out how to use them on their own.

And the NYPD isn’t enforcing the rules, either. Do they even understand how this configuration is supposed to work? When someone is parked curbside in the left turn lane, are they blocking the bike lane? When someone is unloading a truck in the zebra stripes, are they parked illegally? The issue is murky, so their solution appears to be not to enforce any law on the lanes.

If nobody gets ticketed, or even a warning, for parking in the middle of a bike lane, how is the lane going to be functional? The same holds true for double-parkers in unprotected bike lanes all over New York, but parking in a lane that is very clearly not meant for cars is particularly egregious. Yet there’s no negative reinforcement to this bad behavior.

In the meantime, the First Avenue lane remains lawless mayhem. Without a little bit of education and enforcement, this non-intuitive layout isn’t significantly better or safer than any other bike lane configuration in New York City.

Check out this commercial for Volkswagen:

I guess they left out the part where the truck driver swerves when startled by the car that’s cutting him off, causing a four-car accident. Or the part where the driver gets pulled over by a cop.

Coincidentally, this ad followed a report on NY1 about how new bike lanes were going to make 1st Avenue in Manatthan dangerous. Seriously? Bikes are making our streets dangerous?

Update, 7/29/10: As commenter Nicole pointed out, Volkswagen removed this ad from their YouTube page just a day after I posted it. Dozens of comments below the spot on YouTube complained that it encouraged reckless driving, and a campaign by truckers may have also led to its removal. Above is an alternate cut of the ad used by a local dealership in Pennsylvania. Hopefully, VW is pulling the ad from TV, too, for the same reason.

A truck from Anchor Tank Lines parks in New York City’s Second Avenue bus lane at the 14th & 2nd bus stop at 8:30am this morning, at the height of rush hour. Two M15 buses – on one of the busiest bus routes in the United States – were forced to stop in the street to load and discharge passengers, at the inconvenience of riders and other drivers.

This is the front of the city hall in Eden Prairie, Minnesota, Money Magazine’s “Best Place to Live” in 2010.

Rather, this is the entrance to the massive parking lot that surrounds the city hall. There’s no town square, no park, and not a single business within walking distance of city hall. There’s only one sidewalk to access city hall by foot, on one side of the street (and in the picture, the sidewalk is blocked with a “sidewalk closed” sign further up the road at the corner). It sits next to a rentention pond that appears to have been created to collect the runoff for the huge parking lot. The building is a low-rise, two-story building that appears to be the length of about three football fields. The building has no true front door, but rather several entrances that keep its citizens from having to traverse an entire parking lot just to get in.

Money stated in its description of Eden Prairie that it “doesn’t have much of a downtown.” That’s a lie; it literally has no downtown at all. The entire town is made up of suburban sprawl, office parks, strip malls, and a big hulking indoor retail monstrosity known as Eden Prairie Plaza surrounded by acres of parking without a tree in sight. There is no sense of place in Eden Prairie. How, then, can it be one of the best places to live?

Obviously, there’s also no prairie in Eden Prairie. Isn’t this part of a joke? It’s like when someone says that developers of sprawl cut down trees and then name streets after them.

To be fair, much more walkable cities like Newton, MA and Fort Collins, CO also cracked the top ten.  But if this anti-social, obesity-inducing, sprawl-choking town is what Money thinks is the best place to live in the United States, Money has a really warped sense of what makes a place great.

While Streetsblog is decidedly up in arms over the journalism atrocities practiced by WCBS-TV’s Marcia Kramer, WPIX – who has a track record of drumming up anti-MTA sentiment through its reporting – quietly ran an “exclusive” story last night about MTA waste.

The story accuses the MTA of “wasting” $10,000 a year on newspaper subscriptions for two top executives, their head of media relations, their spokesman, and the agency’s law library. Citing that the newspapers are available “for free online,” reporter Greg Mocker makes it abundantly clear that he thinks the MTA doesn’t need these subscriptions. Putting aside the fact that two of the newspapers the MTA receives have web sites that are behind paywalls (the Wall Street Journal and Newsday), Mocker ignores his journalism background and basic knowledge of how public relations works to do a smarmy, sarcastic journalistic hit-job on the MTA.

For one thing, a lot is said about the MTA each day. They need newspaper subscriptions to monitor those stories. It is the responsibility of the media relations team and spokesman to monitor news stories about the MTA and respond when necessary. Heck, Greg Mocker himself had to reach out to the very people who receive these subscriptions. He works in journalism (or a sorry excuse for it, at least). Shouldn’t he know why they get these newspapers? The ads in newspapers aren’t available online, either – and political ads by groups like the Working Families Party are ones that the MTA’s media relations team should respond to regularly. Perhaps Mocker has a point about the Village Voice, which the MTA pays for a subscription despite its availability on the street for free. But then again, if a homeless man takes an entire stack of the free paper for bedding or urinates in the box at the newsstand, are we to expect an MTA employee to run around the city looking for the paper on the taxpayers’ dime? That would probably rile up WPIX enough to air a shrill expose, too.

Secondly, isn’t it the job of the MTA chairman to stay informed about what the public is saying about his agency? Chairman Jay Walder reads the newspapers on the way to work each morning so he can respond accordingly. He also receives the Washington Post, a crucial tool for monitoring news about Federal funding for transit, which could save the state millions upon millions of dollars and potentially save transit riders from damaging service cuts and fare hikes. Does Mocker really think this is unnecessary? Probably not, but it gave him and WPIX another opportunity to play the role of populist hero by misinforming the masses.

What’s missing more than anything else from this story is perspective. For one thing, even Mocker himself admits that the MTA cut their newspaper subscription costs by 80% three years ago – a fact that would indicate that in Jay Walder’s successful bid to cut waste out of the MTA’s budget, he saw no need to cut further in this area. But what’s entirely omitted from the story is a mention of the size of the MTA’s budget deficit: $800 million. If Greg Mocker and WPIX aired this hit piece to sucker the MTA into cutting these subscriptions entirely, that would bring the MTA 0.000013% closer to fiscal solvency.

Congratulations, WPIX! Only another 99.999987% to go!

In recent months, more attention has been paid to the fact that drivers with suspended licenses in New York State are still getting behind the wheel – and killing people. Transportation Alternatives led a rally in December to bring light to the fact that ten percent of all crashes in New York are caused by unlicensed drivers, and 75 percent of unlicensed drivers still get behind the wheel.

Suspended licenses are nothing to scoff at. Often, these drivers were suspended for reckless, dangerous, drunken driving. They are a menace to not only pedestrians like the man killed on a Midtown sidewalk in December, but also to other drivers on the road. Licenses are suspended for a reason: these people should not be behind the wheel of a vehicle.

But in Albany, not everyone sees it that way, apparently. On Tuesday, the New York State Senate Transportation Committee passed – by a 10-6 vote – S3627, a bill that would add additional immediate “hardship privileges” to people whose licenses are suspended because they are in “legal limbo.” Essentially, the current law establishes that a driver who is charged with drunk driving by the results of a blood, breath, urine, or saliva test shall have their license suspended on or before their first court appearance. This law covers the period between their first court appearance and their conviction. They may be in limbo, but their test results are proof positive that they were driving drunk. Shockingly, these drunk drivers are already allowed to request a court waiver to drive under certain conditions:

For the purposes of this clause, “extreme hardship” shall mean the inability to obtain alternative means of  travel to or from the licensee’s employment, or to or from necessary medical treatment for the licensee or a member of the licensee’s household, or if the licensee is a matriculating  student enrolled in an accredited  school, college or university travel to or from such licensee’s school, college or university if such travel is necessary for the completion of the educational degree or certificate.

The new bill would add an additional provision:


The bill was introduced by Assemblyman David Gantt, chair of the Assembly Transportation Committee, and known foe of the texting-while-driving ban and red light cameras. The bill passed entirely along party lines, with six Republicans voting against the bill, and ten Democrats – including seven from within the New York City limits – voting in favor.

New York State Chief Administrative Judge Ann Pfau cited the cases of People v. Correa and People v. Henderson as why the law should be amended to include employment-related driving:

In Correa, the defendant was a New York City firefighter who was required to maintain a valid driver’s license for his employment, even though he did not drive any emergency vehicles during the work day. In Henderson, the defendant’s employment duties required him to drive to and from various job sites on a daily basis. In both cases, the respective courts held that the statute did not authorize the court to grant a limited license for the defendant to drive while at work even though holding a valid license was necessary for their employment.

Interestingly, in the Correa case, he was ultimately found guilty, and the key reason his hardship request was denied was because he lived in New York City and could have used public transit to travel to and from his employer. This makes the votes of seven New York City legislators in favor of this bill even more baffling.

What the supporters of this seemingly small change to a state statute fail to recognize is that the loss of a job is a deterrant to drunk driving. Public service announcements regularly cite the potential loss of your license and your job as consequences of driving drunk. This new law would prove both of those untrue. These people broke the law, put other’s lives in danger, and should be forced to suffer the consequences.

As Streetsblog reported earlier today, there’s another politican roaming the halls downtown who is oblivious to the facts. This week, it’s New York City Councilman Ydanis Rodriguez. Just two weeks into his term representing his uptown district where 80% of his constituents don’t own a car, he has taken a decidedly pro-car stance by protesting the NYPD’s ticketing of cars who “block the box” on 181st Street:

“If you drive 125th Street there’s a team of one to two traffic agents moving traffic,” Rodriguez said. Ticketing drivers instead of helping move traffic on the street amounts to harassment, he said.

Rodriguez has put calls into the head of traffic enforcement to hopefully find a solution to the problem.

It’s obvious that the problem is not the enforcement of the law; it’s the fact that so many people are breaking the law. Rather than blame those who block the box, Rodriguez would prefer to blame the NYPD – another easy target and a favorite punching bag of politicians in minority neighborhoods.

Does Rodriguez even know that these drivers are breaking the law? Judging from the newspaper’s account of his position, it’s easy to see why his comprehension of why the “blocking the box” law even exists.

As vehicles stack up at lights, drivers, hoping the line will inch up before the light turns red, inevitably get stuck in the intersection and are ticketed.

We hope that this isn’t Rodriguez’s explanation for why these drivers shouldn’t be ticketed, and it’s simply a lack of understanding of the law on the part of Manhattan Times’ writer Daniel Bader. After all, drivers are breaking the law if they enter the intersection without adequate space to clear the intersection.

Of course, in a month where we’ve seen politicians mislead, deflect blame, and outright lie to justify positions that inconvenience and endanger those without cars, it’s not surprising that Rodriguez caught the bug that makes him just another run-of-the-mill politician.

Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Astoria) at Astoria Park in July 2009

It’s becoming clear that the key reason that the MTA suffers from a lack of state and city funding is a lack of understanding among public officials. Last week, Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther blamed the MTA for the failure to place tolls on East River bridges – an issue that was squarely the responsibility of the state legislature.

Yesterday, City Councilman Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Astoria) blamed the MTA for something else that the agency has absolutely no control over: union salaries. Per today’s Daily News:

Protesters held up signs that read “Save Our Subways” while Vallone chided the MTA for granting an 11.3% raise to its workers over three years.

“You can’t give raises and then cut services. It’s Business 101, and they failed it,” said Vallone.

Vallone failed Labor Relations 101. The MTA and Transport Workers’ Union went into binding arbitration last January. When the arbitrator awarded the 11.3% raise to TWU workers, the MTA appealed the decision, citing among other things that the raise was unreasonable when the agency is in dire fiscal straits. The MTA did everything they could to stop this raise, but citing other city agencies receiving similar raises, the Union had the upper hand and a judge denied the MTA’s appeal.

Of course, Vallone would never fault the union for asking for and receiving such a raise in a recession, since merely criticizing unions is taboo among Democrats. Vallone prefers to entirely rewrite how labor negotiations work and claim that the MTA “gave raises” to TWU workers.

Vallone also fails to mention that non-union workers – including the MTA’s top executives – are taking a 10% paycut in 2010 to cover part of the budget gap left by higher blue-collar wages and a cut in state aid. The councilman may have conveniently left this out this fact, but considering his lack of understanding about arbitration, it wouldn’t be entirely surprising if he didn’t even know.

Beyond all this, Vallone claimed that the city can’t do anything about the MTA’s cuts:

“A lot of people think that the city officials have control over this, but we don’t,” said Vallone (D-Astoria). “What I can do is speak out for my district, and that’s what I will continue to do.”

Vallone seems to miss the fact that the city controls a portion of the funding provided to the MTA. Coincidentally, the city’s $159 million tithe for transit operations has been virtually unchanged since the mid-90s. If the services provided to the MTA are so important to his district, why isn’t Vallone suggesting that the city step up their funding of the MTA? That’s certainly within his control. And on the same day that Vallone said the cuts are out of the city’s hands, Council Speaker Christine Quinn suggested that the city could cover the cost of Student Metrocards that the MTA can no longer afford to subsidize.

As long as the ill-informed have their hands on the money that funds the backbone of New York City’s economy, the MTA will be a New York politician’s favorite punching bag.