Squadron’s 25th Senate District Community Convention
We then split up into the discussion groups. I attended the “Buses, Subways, MTA Funding and MTA Issues,” which was moderated by the Co-Chair of Neighbors Allied for Good Growth (NAG) and Paco and Lacey attended “Pedestrian Safety, Street Changes, Bicycle Lanes & Traffic Control.” Though somewhat reluctant to attend the MTA session, out of fear that it would be little more than an open forum for vociferous complaints about MTA management, I wanted to use this opportunity to express the need for bridge tolls (though I had already called his office and written to him about this). About 20 people attended the session (most lived in Brooklyn but there were a few from lower Manhattan) and we’d barely finished introductions before the bemoaning of the MTA and calls for transparency began. A few people in the group listed specific bus lines cuts that would affect them; many more jumped in about the perceived abysmal state of the MTA and its service in general before we were reminded to think about specific recommendations to make to the senator. Through much predictable scapegoating of the MTA came out a few proposals for funding sources: various forms of tolls (of course some decried them as “regressive,” unfairly burdening drivers who already pay city taxes and the working poor who don’t have access to mass transit), variable-rate congestion pricing, and reinstating the commuter tax. Mostly the session was dominated by complaints (some valid, some based on blatant misinformation) about the MTA: that it was hiding money, that it had planned the elimination of bus lines long before it held public hearings, that it had squandered its “surplus.” It seemed very few people in the room had heard of the Ravitch plan or were aware that fare hikes and service cuts were inevitable and imminent unless Albany moved on a plan to fund the MTA. Verdict: the session was at times boisterious (though expertly moderated, I should add) and not very productive (I wonder how much political weight Squadron’s constituents carry at this point anyway when Senators Smith, Diaz, Sr., Kruger and the rest are stalling in Albany).
I know that in their group, Paco and Lacey were on the receiving end of a good deal of wrath directed at cyclists and, of course, bike lanes; hopefully they’ll leave their impressions in the comments section. The Convention ended with a reception, where the three of us talked briefly with Senator Squadron. He seems genuinely concerned about the budget crisis the MTA faces and determined to push for the most effective and politically palatable solution. He also mentioned plans to introduce legislation that would penalize drivers who accidentally injure vulnerable populations (though with safety classes and steep fines, I think, not with jail time). Overall, this was an interesting event. A similar one probably won’t happen for awhile but it was encouraging to speak face-to-face with a representative at the state level.
-summer
Thank you Summer for that summary! As she mentioned, Paco and I attended the breakout session on pedestrian safety. It began with a discussion about the DOT’s lack of community outreach when making decisions, specifically about bike lane placement and street reconfiguration. Some constituents from Chinatown expressed their disappointment that the City is not paying attention to a community-based alternative plan for the Chatham Square area. There is much concern that DOT’s proposal will worsen traffic congestion there. I mentioned that DOT outreach has been a problem in my neighborhood (Williamsburg) as well, specifically related to the Kent Ave. bike lane issue. There seemed to me much agreement in the group that the City should have to go through the community boards and the City Council to get approvals to map bike lanes. While I agree with the need for more community outreach, I will say that I do not agree with this idea, primarily because, as we have often discussed, cyclists are not very well-represented on today’s community boards.
The main focus of our discussion, however, came as a surprise to Paco and me - much of the group, many claiming to be cyclists themselves, wanted to discuss bad/dangerous behavior by cyclists, and how this can be addressed. Two people of maybe 15 said they had been spit on by cyclists who were riding on the sidewalk. While everyone agreed for the need for better education and Paco spoke about the upcoming Biking Rules! campaign, there was much negativity directed toward him as a TA representative — people seemed to feel that TA’s efforts so far have been inadequate/ineffective (and some from Chinatown were disappointed that TA supported the City’s Chatham Square plan over the community’s plan). The group seemed to have quite high expectations for TA as an organization! Paco can perhaps talk more about his impressions of this.
Some suggestions were made for addressing the issue of unsafe cycling, including a ticket “blitz” similar to the recent cell-phone-while-driving blitz that resulted in something like 7,000 tickets issued in one day this week.
In my opinion, people in the group had lost sight of two main issues - first, that if a cyclist is biking on the sidewalk (admittedly a dangerous thing that no one should do) it is likely because he or she feels unsafe on the street. Paul Newell, one-time candidate for State Assembly, was there and reminded people of this - that the City is designed primarily for cars, so cyclists and pedestrians are forced to compete for the scraps. If City planners were to take the needs of pedestrians and cyclists into consideration when creating plans, such situations would be avoided. Secondly, while safe and reasonably law-abiding cycling is of course an important issue, the fact that people are more worried about the dangers that unsafe cyclists pose than the dangers that unsafe drivers pose seems misguided to me. As we all know, one has a much higher chance of getting hit by a car than by a cyclist, and a much higher chance of getting badly hurt or killed by a car than by a cyclist. Yet public perception seems to be that cyclists pose the greater threat! I know Paco also felt strongly about this so I’ll let him elaborate if he so chooses!
Another point - the fact that Paco and I were so outnumbered in this group shows the need for livable streets advocates to get out there and participate and engage with elected officials!!
Comment by Lacey on March 15, 2009 at 11:54 pm
Tom Vanderbilt had an interesting post on his “How We Drive” blog on potential explanations for this perception about cyclists’ threat to pedestrian safety: “Things that are novel or out of our perceived control invoke particular “dread”; so too do those things we can more easily remember.” The brush with the cyclist on the street is so rare compared to the countless close calls pedestrians experience with drivers on a daily basis–stopping in crosswalks, making sharp right turns to avoid waiting for crossing pedestrians, speeding to make yellow lights–that, perversely, it’s the cyclists on the sidewalks that stick out in our minds. Drivers’ bad behavior is so rarely noticed, let alone punished, it’s become normalized. (I have started to take greater notice of driver transgressions only within the last few months, following a spate of pedestrian-driver crashes in the news.)
Another highlight from the post: “People may not respect the legitimacy of cyclists as a form of transportation as much as they do automobiles. Maybe there’s something about the idea that cyclists are often found on sidewalks, and perhaps pedestrians view them as a more personal encroachment than cars, to whom the road “belongs” (I should point out that even when we’re talking about fatalities on sidewalks, cars are much more the prime offender). Another possible reason is what’s been dubbed here as “bikeism”; pedestrians may somehow deem the actions of cyclists as being part of their character, rather than to situational responses in the moment. Thus the action of one bad cyclists comes to taint all of cyclingdom, while the actions of many bad drivers are diffused into a sort of blameless norm.” This last point might explain why the people in your discussion group were so eager to blame you, Paco, and T.A. (or at least air their grievances as if you were directly linked to these spitting cyclists); an association with cycling alone suggests amorality at best, dastardly behavior at worst. Winning this PR war will be tricky to say the least.
I wholeheartedly agree about the need for more livable streets advocates interfacing with electeds. When Squadron said that he would use our ideas from the Convention to guide his legislation, I thought, “Wow, that’s ambitious.” After the Convention, I thought, “Seriously? Hopefully, we can trust him to weed out the crazy ideas that come from his constituents.”
Comment by greensT on March 17, 2009 at 11:28 pm