How much traffic is too much? As it happens, it depends, as you may have suspected, on what the meaning of “is” is – and of course, who are. At a NYC Council Transportation Committee hearing, the views of Department of Transportation officials and concerned citizens diverged completely. They were considering a bill introduced by Council Member Gail Brewer, Intro 199-A, which would require the NYC DOT to gather data on traffic and its impacts in preparation for planning to reduce vehicle traffic. While the Brewer bill might sound tame, boring and non-controversial, it would turn transportation planning in NYC on its head – because NYC now plans transportation in the dark with only the goal of moving cars, trucks and buses faster through intersections. If, as has recently been proven, in an elegant epidemiological study, diesel soot from trucks causes asthma in exposed children, that is no concern of the NYC DOT (at least at present.) For another report of adverse health impacts of traffic see Tuesday's NY Times

As I re-read what I’ve written here, some of it is fairly dense and difficult to understand – either as a result of my own limitations or because the subject is difficult or both. The bottom line is this: Public interest transit advocates support Intro 199-A; Mayor Bloomberg and his DOT do not. If that’s enough for you, email your NYC Council Member right now and ask him/her to sign on to 199-A. by clicking here. If you want to know more, read on till your eyes glaze over.

To about-to be-former Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall, flanked by deputies and surrounded by assistants, New York City traffic movement is just fine, thank you very much. Brewer's bill, she said was “premature and redundant.” She explained: the Brewer bill is redundant because DOT already gathers the data and premature because DOT will soon have better technology to gather the data. Does that sound to you as though City Hall sent its almost former Commissioner to do the bureaucratic two-step? Of course, poor DOT is unable to get data because some of it is in the hands of enemy agents and agencies: the MTA, the Port Authority NYC DEP etc.
The agency objections were so thin as to defy reason. (One objection, it would cost to much was never quantified by DOT. And a good thing since the extra costs of the Brewer bill, one adopted would be modest, as planner Bruce Schaller explained)

For the business-oriented, Partnership for New York City excess vehicular traffic throughout the City but especially in Manhattan’s –below 60th Street -- central business district results in the loss of billions of dollars mostly to local retailers and tens of thousands of jobs. Their report published in December, was widely seen as call for congestion pricing to reduce peak-hour traffic gridlock. (Actually, it only suggested congestion-pricing be studied as one control measure). If you’re interested in transportation, are a walker, cyclist, mass transit rider or breather in New York City, the report, although somewhat dense at 64 pages, is worth reviewing. If you want to read more about congestion pricing, try this excellent article which appeared last month in Gotham Gazette by Bruce Schaller. This NYT op-ed by Robert Sullivan is also useful piece on why NYers don't walk more.

Other organization which think NYC traffic congestion has reached crisis proportions include Transportation Alternatives, the Regional Plan Association and the Straphangers Campaign. Those organizations supported Intro 199-A and, if you search our their websites, you can learn more.

The effect of the Brewer bill would be to require NYC DOT to gather data which would be used to plan methods of reducing vehicular traffic and inducing people in NYC to drive less. Success or failure in NYC agencies is judged in part by the Mayor's Management Report. How many potholes filled, how many streets cleaned, the MMR gives a picture of how NYC agencies and the Government as a whole are doing. By putting DOT in the business of planning traffic reduction instead of just traffic movement, the Brewer bill could help the agency turn its planning and construction functions to putting together sustainable NYC.

Arron Naparstek writing in Streetsblog saw Commissioner Weinshall as more of the problem than I do and sees her departure as more of an opportunity. His post has links to much of the testimony and is worth reading carefully. As I see it, the person responsible for transportation policy is Mr. Bloomberg and the traffic congestion we experience and he ignores, should be attributed to him. The buck stops with him.