Publisher's Letter: Expectations

Thirteen years ago I became part of Transportation Alternatives' campaign to restore a permanent bicycle and pedestrian path to the Queensboro Bridge. Three mayors, six commissioners of the Department of Transportation, one lawsuit, one arrest, tens of meetings, 40 demonstrations and reams of correspondence later, the path is there. I have to laugh when people ask me if T.A.'s expectations of the NYC Department of Transportation are unfair. It's an interesting question. Does it suggest that it is unfair to expect much of anything because the DOT is incompetent? Or, is the implication that T.A. has unrealistic expectations that no government agency can fulfill?

Expectations are tricky and changing things, influenced by emotions and personal experience. I know this. I also know how frustrating it is to change the way New York City works. That's why, since becoming Executive Director of Transportation Alternatives in 1995, I've strived to make T.A.'s expectations of city government consistent, clear and reasonable. Hopefully, this has been reflected through the years in our dozens of magazines, brochures, our 3,000-page Web site and our annual NYC Bicycle Report Card, which is included in this issue.

T.A.'s official mission statement, which dates from 1973, is "To encourage bicycling, walking and public transit as alternatives to automobile use and reduce automobile use and its attendant environmental and social harms." Now here is something interesting.

The New York City Department of Transportation's own Web site states the agency's mission:

"To Provide for the safe, efficient and environmentally responsible movement of people and goods in the City of New York." This includes working to "Foster, manage, and facilitate environmentally sound alternative modes of transportation while reducing single-occupancy vehicle trips in the City."

These institutional visions seem remarkably similar. So, why does T.A. so often clash with the DOT? You got it: expectations. We expect the DOT to live up to its own mission statement. Unfortunately, despite the sincere efforts of many inside it, the agency's fundamental priority remains moving cars. Not pedestrians, not buses, not trucks and commerce, not bicycles, but cars. This is manifested in numerous ways. Chief among them are the poor conditions that pedestrians and cyclists face throughout the city. The city's streets remain treacherous to cross and intimidating and dangerous for cyclists. New York City is not Houston, Phoenix, Atlanta or some car-centered metropolis. But try getting the City to widen a sidewalk, extend a street corner, install a bollard or fix a bridge path entrance, and there doesn't seem to be much difference. Even when pro-pedestrian forces rear-up and win a marquee project like expanded pedestrian space in Times Square, the improvement is diluted by traffic engineers. In Times Square-at the media epicenter of America-engineers vetoed placing protective bollards or planters to protect pedestrians at corner crossings, claiming that the steel or concrete might damage errant vehicles. This means that pedestrians are only shielded by a white line on the street and a flimsy plastic pole.

Despite the fact that 12,000 NYC pedestrians were reported injured last year, the DOT still has a problem putting pedestrian safety first. On Queens Boulevard, where thanks to enormous public pressure and media attention, the DOT has made huge pedestrian improvements, the stated goals of Phase II of the DOT's Queens Boulevard Pedestrian Safety Study are to "Improve pedestrian safety and maintain traffic operations at current levels." What the DOT seems to be saying is that pedestrian safety improvements that could impinge on traffic flow will be rejected-even if they save lives and reduce crashes. This suggests that the "pedestrian safety" effort on Queens Boulevard is more about restricting the movement of pedestrians than making the boulevard a better place to walk. In the media glare of 2001, DOT Commissioner Weinshall ordered pedestrian crossing times increased, which saved lives and reduced the boulevard's traffic carrying capacity, without ill effect. She should be emboldened by that success.

Transportation Alternatives does not expect the DOT to be perfect. But it must follow its own mission statement. This includes unequivocally putting the safe movement of pedestrians and bicyclists before the flow of traffic.

John Kaehny
Executive Director

Read the latest news on this subject.