The year 2007 may prove to be one of the most important years in the storied history of New York City's development. In a future timeline of urban advances, it might be printed in as big a font and as bold a type as 1811--when the grid system was adopted--or 1904--when the I.R.T. subway opened. The text adjacent to 2007 could say something like "the start of livable streets," or "the bike boom begins," or "congestion pricing kicks off." It may turn out that all of those descriptions may suit 2007. The real question is, in hindsight, will they?

Federal, state and city officials joined several civic organizations today to express support for a new four-acre waterfront park that would be built in the shadow of the United Nations and cost as much as $100 million, but the project faces considerable logistical and financial hurdles.

My name is Aaron Naparstek. I am a project coordinator at Transportation Alternatives and co-author of the report, Alarmingly Useless.

• New Yorkers hate car alarms. In 2001, 83% of the 97,000 calls to the City's Quality of Life Hotline were noise complaints, with car alarm calls consistently near the top of the list (according to Vincent La Padula, Senior Advisor to the Mayor). The Census Bureau reported the same year that more New Yorkers are bothered by traffic noise (including car alarms) than by any other aspect of city life, including crime or the condition of local schools.
  Title, continued: 

  Audible car alarms destroy New York's quality of life without protecting cars.
  Testimony Date: 

  09/18/2003
  Old Filename: 

  030918caralarms

Thank you Chairman Gennaro and members of the Environmental Protection Committee for holding today’s hearing. My name is Kit Hodge. I am the Campaign Coordinator for Transportation Alternatives, New York City’s advocates for walking, bicycling and sensible transportation.

I am here today to urge the passage of Int. No. 397, which will allow the City to undertake a study of the feasibility of instituting a completely ban on the use of audible car alarms.

Fordham University will host a forum concerning the effectiveness of audible car alarms, urban auto security and the rising support for banning car alarms in New York City on Thursday, March 13, at 7:15 p.m. at Fordham University’s Lincoln Center campus in Manhattan.

The panel discussion coincides with the release of a report by Transportation Alternatives with new information about the ineffectiveness of car alarms and the significant costs they impose on New York City residents, businesses and visitors.

Tuesday, May 25, 2004, Noon to 12:30 PM
on the steps of City Hall

On Tuesday, May 25th, 2004 at noon, parents and children from across the city will join Transportation Alternatives to protest Speaker Miller's obstruction of Int. 115, the bill to ban all car alarm sirens from New York City streets.

Participants will march silently on the steps of City Hall, holding signs, wearing noise-blocking earmuffs and urging the City Council Speaker to hold a hearing on Int. 115.

None of Mayor Bloomberg's proposed changes to the noise code respond to the enormous public support for a ban on the use of car alarms in New York City. Transportation Alternatives, New York City's advocates for safer, calmer streets, urges the Mayor and City Council to include a full ban on the use of audible car alarms in the new noise code.

On Thursday, June 10, the City Council Environmental Protection Committee held a public hearing on Int. 81, a proposed bill to ban only the sale and installation of new car alarm sirens. Though the council's intentions were noble, Int. 81 will not stop car alarm noise. Under Int. 81, sirens could continue to blare as long as they were installed outside of New York City. Since most New York drivers buy their cars outside of the five boroughs, and have alarms fitted at the dealer, very few cars would be affected by this law. And all of the existing alarms would