Today’s Headlines

  • Four Out of Five Times Debaters Support Vigorous Promotion of Cycling in NYC; Here’s the Fifth
  • MTA Inspector: Subway Mega-Projects $2B Over Budget; Walder Improving Oversight (News)
  • Brooklyn DA Files Homicide Charge For Hit-and-Run Firefighter Who Killed Manuel Guachiac (NYT)
  • JSK Sits Down With Sarah Goodyear at Grist For a Chat About Taming NYC Streets
  • The Times Sues NYPD For Failure to Comply With Freedom of Information Law
  • FDNY Hates David Greenfield’s Bill to Shrink No Parking Zone Near Hydrants (Bklyn Paper)
  • Subway Countdown Clocks Now in 100 Stations (News, 2nd Ave Sagas)
  • End of “Train of Thought” Inspires News to Take a Swipe at Walder
  • John del Signore Files a Riposte to Victim-Blaming NY Post Bike Coverage (Gothamist)
  • DiNapoli Blocks MTA Contract With Ripoff Artists at SAIC (News)
  • The Remarkable Recovery of Crash Victim Emily Gossiaux (NYT)

Streetsblog will be on a light publishing schedule today. Stay tuned for the 2010 Streetsies nominees.

  • The fifth debater, Sam Staley, in a 2007 Op-Ed in the Times, said “Elevated highways and tunnels along existing highways are great solutions in the most densely populated areas of the region.”

    That’s right, he said that in 2007, not 1947.

  • butters

    Oddly enough, the fifth (and anti-bike) commenter, Sam Staley, ends on an accurate note: “Getting bike acceptance levels up to those of models like Amsterdam and Copenhagen takes more than striping lanes. It takes a focused anti-car policy that dramatically increases the costs of using automobiles.” Nail on the head. Congestion pricing!

  • So you CAN charge killer drivers with homicide. But if they don’t flee, they don’t get charged. How does staying at the scene AFTER the fatal incident make such homicides not criminally negligent?

  • Omri

    live in Boston. I need to be able to get from A to B.

    To do that, many years ago I sat down and took a government run class on how to drive, and then a government run written test, and then a government run practical test to make sure that I can handle controlling a fast moving 2 ton machine without killing anyone. Having done those, and having paid the government some fees along the way, I was issued this card with my picture on it, and nowadays other biometrics, that I can show to people to prove that i am allowed to drive. Which I have too renew every 10 years.

    Then comes getting a car. I can only get one of a make and model deemed street legal by the government. I then have to submit paperwork involving the vehicle’s certificate of title to get the damn thing put in my name, and get the car inspected regularly to show that it can be driven safely. The car is marked with a number ont he front and back just in case I misbehave with it, and makes it easier for the government to track my whereabouts should they feel the need to.

    I have to carry insurance, which has to be from one of the companies the government allows to offer me insurance. Or, I can put up money in escrow, in a bank authorized by the government to fill that role.

    And that card I carry? Since I carry it, all these people are accustomed to make me show it for various things. So I need it to board a plain or an Amtrak train, or to get a hotel room, which makes this thing an effective internal passport for travel within the United States.

    All in all, a big, hefty, expensive package of bureaucratic entanglement. What’s worse, is that it’s full of subsidies. The fees I paid to get my license are not even enough to pay the salaries of the examiners who looked at all this paperwork. The gas tax I pay to fuel the car is not enough to answer for the wear and tear on the roads I drive on. All the rest comes from other taxes that I have to pay whether I drive or not. And, even though I have to carry $25K in insurance, I know that if I injure anyone with my car, he will run up way more than that in hospital bills, which he cannot pay, and I cannot pay, and sooner or later the government will pay when the hospital comes cap in hand asking for a bailout.

    So all this costs me time, and money, and aggravation, and yet is heavily subsidized.

    My other options are to ride the MBTA, where I charge up cash on a card that is not linked to my name and then get going. Or I can bike.

    So which of these options is most supported by the libertarian Mr. Staley? Why, driving, of course, Because it’s emblematic of American freedom.

    The mind boggles.

  • Morris Zapp

    Did the truck that nearly killed the remarkable Ms. Gossiaux stay at the scene? Was it given a ticket — or did it display an exculpatory measure of remorse?

    Had Ms. Gossiaux been a pedestrian injured in a collision with a cyclist, would the Times have reported that she was “hit by a bicycle”?

  • Eric

    This link has the details on Emily Gossiaux and what happened to the driver that hit her.

  • Eric

    Sorry, wrong link, try this one.

    Basically nothing happened to the truck driver.

  • Re NYT bike lane debaters: Felix Salmon is cogent, as always; terrific photo, too. I chose to reply to Sam Staley, perhaps more with honey than vinegar. My comment is up, here.

  • Likely an excellent model for developing communities from @StrongTowns Of course w/20mph speedlimit

  • I agree with Komanoff. Salmon’s essay is truly outstanding.

    My favorite bits:

    Did these people really think that New York would become Copenhagen overnight?

    Even though it had a bit of a head start, I’d argue that even Copenhagen didn’t become Copenhagen overnight. There was already an established bike culture, but it took a lot of engineering and re-imagining of public spaces to make it what it is today.

    Take a New Yorker, put her on a bike in Berlin, and she’ll behave perfectly well, stopping at lights along with everybody else, and riding in the right direction on the street. It’s not the people who are the real problem, it’s just how those people behave when they’re on the streets of New York.

    Just as with auto traffic calming, compliance can be designed into the street. More bike lanes means better behavior from cyclists, as much of the stats about sidewalk riding pre- and post-bike lane installation prove. Bad cycling behavior can be explained, but not necessarily excused, by a poor allocation of city streets.

    An altogether good collection of essays and a nice counterpoint to last week’s anti-bike editorial.

  • Staley’s statistics about the failures of bike lanes are just about bike commuters. Of course, it is more difficult to shift commute trips to bicycle than local trips, because commute trips are longer. He is using statistics deceptively by looking only at commute trips, ignoring local trips. I myself commute by rail and take virtually all my local trips by bike.

    In fairness to Staley, he is a consistent believer in market economics. He believes that congestion is a result of underpricing of roadspace, and that we should charge more to drive. He also believes that the money from this charge should all be spend on more road space, including elevated highways and tunnels. It is a typical market response: the market deals with any shortage by raising prices; the higher prices reduce demand and increase supply of that commodity.

    Of course, this market approach does not actually work for cars in cities, because the external costs are so great that they overwhelm the benefits.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “Of course, this market approach does not actually work for cars in cities, because the external costs are so great that they overwhelm the benefits.”

    And the cost of adding auto capacity is astronomical, and basically requires that much of the city be eliminated. You can increase the number of people commuting from Manhattan by auto from 400,000 to 600,000 by reducing the number of people working there from 2 million to 600,000, but buying up and knocking down all that commercial space for parking is going to be costly.

  • J:Lai

    While Staley’s reasoning is inconsistent and at times self-contradictory, I have to agree with his main premise.

    Bicycle transportation is unlikely to ever grow beyond a minority commuting mode in NYC. The travel distances combined with the weather mean that bike commuting is at best very difficult, if not impossible, for the majority of people in NYC for trips to work or school. Although bicycle mode share could grow dramatically from its current levels, it does not seem realistic that it could reach much in excess of 10% for regular commutes.

    Not many people are capable of riding 5, 10, or more miles each way, every day, on a bicycle in any reasonable amount of time. Even fewer of those people are willing to do so in the middle of winter, or the height of summer.

    Right now, bike commuters have an optimal situation with regards to speed. Although imperfect, there have been very significant improvement in bike lanes and bike infrastructure. At the same time, there are not usually enough bike riders on the road to slow down bike traffic. In addition, bike riders can still flout most traffic regulations with impunity. These factors combine to make biking about as good as it is ever going to be. As bicycle mode share grows, average speeds will decrease.

    The priority for transportation within the city needs to be transit. Bicycle infrastructure, while far cheaper than transit, can not provide the same amount of utility.

  • J:Lai, it’s 6.3 miles from Grand Central Terminal to Grand Army Plaza. That’s 45 minutes at 8 mph, which is hardly an onerous pedal. Trains take 10 minutes less. Is that 20-minute savings (round-trip) worth $1,200 a year?

  • Maris

    J:Lai: “Not many people are capable of riding 5, 10, or more miles each way, every day, on a bicycle in any reasonable amount of time. Even fewer of those people are willing to do so in the middle of winter, or the height of summer.”


    I ride 8 miles each way, almost daily, from Brooklyn into midtown Manhattan, in about 40 minutes. I’m in my 40s. I have a family with two young kids. I work in a conservative suit-and-tie kind of place in a mid-to-senior role. We don’t have a shower at the office and I can’t bring my bike inside. And yet I’ve figured out how to do the bike commute in all seasons – for the past three years.

    I look around my office and estimate that at least 50% of the staff could also do it – those that I exclude mostly live in Westchester or NJ.

    So, why can’t many people ride 5 – 10 miles each way, every day, on a bicycle in any reasonable amount of time?

  • J:Lai

    Maris, perhaps you can share your secret.
    I am an avid bike rider and I would love to rely on the bike as my primary means of travel. For me, covering the distance is not the major hurdle. However, if I have to spend all day in an office, I am going to need a shower and changing facility.

    For many, the physical challenge of covering that much distance on city streets will rule out the option altogether. Perhaps you and I disgaree on the typical fitness level of New Yorkers, but the statisitcs on obesity are troubing at best.

  • car free nation

    Obesity is the effect of not riding, not the cause.

    I’m also in my 40’s and travel 8 miles one way (dropping off a kid, whose school is in the wrong direction) and 4 miles the other way.

    The secret, go slow in hot weather… it’s a little slower than the train, but saves on a gym membership.

    Three kids, no car.

  • Maris

    J:Lai Glad to share my commuting ‘secrets.’ Since I started bike commuting, I learned to wear my hair shorter and keep professional clothing (a suit, dress shoes, couple of slacks, ties and couple of dress shirts) in the office. Shirts and ties rotate in as needed. Suits and slacks rotate in less frequently.

    The daily routine is:
    Shower at home.
    Pack fresh undergarments.
    Wear bike clothing on ride to office.
    Don’t hammer on the ride in.
    Change out of bike clothing and into fresh undergarments and work clothes and ‘freshen-up’ in the bathroom (wash face and neck and fix hair).
    That’s it.

    BTW – like with a lot of questions about bike commuting (where/how do you secure your bike, how do you lug your stuff, what do you do if it rains, etc. etc.) – you won’t figure it out until you start doing it. When I started, I assumed that I also needed a shower, but found it that its not so.

  • Why does it have to be about commuting 5+ miles to work? Can’t it also be about using a bike to ride to a friends, pick up a gallon of milk, see a movie, or do something else? Many trips in NYC are under 3 miles and bike lanes will have the biggest impact on those trips more. There’s a reason any bike sharing program will have no charge for the first 30 minutes of usage.

    Bike lanes can also shorter a long commute without having to take the whole trip by bike. It may make a 15 minute walk to the nearest subway station a five minute bike ride. Install a bike lane network and secure parking and you’ll get more people riding to work. (The Alewife subway station in Cambridge, MA is at the end of a good bike path and has secure parking so people can take the Red Line the remainder of the way into Boston.)

    I think we lose a lot of support when we focus on commutes from the outer parts of Queens or Brooklyn into Manhattan. It sounds preachy to say, “My commute is 8 miles, so why can’t other people do that?” Even though more people undoubtedly will make such trips with more bike lanes, the majority still will not. But if enough of a network is built so that people can make all the short trips they want to, you’ll have a system that also works for the long commutes.

  • Joe R.

    I’m an avid recreational cyclist, have been for the last 32 years. I now work at home, but if I had a job where I had to commute 10 miles each way, I could physically do it by bicycle with no problems most times of the year ( exceptions are rain, snow, days above 90 or below 30 ). However, there’s only one circumstance where I would even consider it-namely if my commute couldn’t be done by public transit in a reasonable amount of time, say one hour or less. That would basically mean a commute which doesn’t go into Manhattan, or if I worked in Manhattan off-hours when public transit doesn’t run frequently. For going into Manhattan, the Q64 bus/E or F train is going to be faster and more convenient then biking could ever be most of the time, barring of course some major investment in grade-separated infrastructure like elevated bike lanes ( and we know that’s not happening anytime soon, if at all ).

    So why wouldn’t I even consider bike commuting in the majority of circumstances? Putting aside that I’m basically a night person who would find it difficult, if not impossible, to try riding at 7 or 8 AM, the roads would simply be too congested during normal commute times to give bicycling any advantage. Those ten miles which I could do in 35 to 38 minutes under free-flowing conditions might take twice that during rush hours. And it would be unhealthy/nauseating breathing in the fumes from autos ( this is one big reason most of my rides are after 10 PM ). It would also be stressful dealing with the myriad stupid things I see drivers/pedestrians/other cyclists do during the day. There’s a lot to be said for letting someone else do the driving during times like that.

    The bike commutes which would make sense to me, namely those during off-hours, or between less congested parts of the outer boroughs, are the only ones I would seriously consider. It all boils down to the fact that commuting by bike for me only makes sense when I can more or less travel at close to the maximum speed I’m physically capable of, unhindered by congestion. It also makes sense when bike commuting is quicker than the alternatives. A route involving heavily used protected bike lanes would ironically make bike commuting LESS attractive to me, not more attractive, as I have little desire or patience to ride at the 8 or 10 mph I typically observe cyclists traveling in these lanes at ( and constantly trying to pass slower cyclists would quickly wear me down ). This isn’t a knock on those cyclists or the protected bike lanes, either. I realize those kinds of speeds and those lanes work very well for the more typical bike trips of 2 or 3 miles. For me personally though, I consider trips of that length walking territory. I’m a reasonably fast walker. If one considers that you might average 6 mph overall in protected bike lanes ( versus the 4.5 mph that I walk ), then biking would only save me around 10 minutes on a 3 mile trip ( less if you count the time spent parking the bike ). Not worth it from my perspective. And frankly, I find riding in Manhattan where most of the new bike infrastructure is aggravating anyway. I messengered for a short time there in 1981. I about had my fill of all the nonsense which goes on there, with taxis regularly cutting off bikes, pedestrians standing in the street, etc. It’s only gotten worse since. The subway is infinitely faster/more pleasant to me for travel to Manhattan.

  • Larry Littlefield

    I used to think that bicycle commuting was impractical, until I tried it and figured out how to bring my work clothes in a bag and change, lock up, etc. I initially thought 9 miles was too long, and considered riding part way, but found that I can do it three or four times a week no problem. It takes a little more time than the subway,but also provides all the exercise I need with no extra time.

    I found that heat was not a problem, because I ride to work in the cool part of the day and shower when I get home.

    I found that cold was not a problem down to a windchill of zero, if I wore the right clothing, and it almost never goes below zero.

    I found that rain was not a problem because even on days with a 100 percent chance of rain, it doesn’t rain 100 percent of the time, and it’s only a problem if it is raining during the hour I’m riding in. That almost never happens, and I can check the radar and time my ride.

    Problems with snow are also rare.

  • ZA

    Sam Staley’s comment got my ire up, alas NYTimes registration isn’t working, so here are a few tidbits you all can use if you like…

    We have about 154 million working Americans, 3.3 million of them are ‘stretch commuters’ mostly-driving 50-200 mile daily distances. That leaves 151m who mostly (75%) drive alone.

    Interesting thing is 29% of these 151 million workers commute less than 5 miles. *That’s the national bicycle-commuting opportunity.* Even if you halve that opportunity because of health, preference, perception, habit, etc., we’re still talking about 23 million workers.

    Using average figures, that’s 131 million miles, at least 98.5 million of them driven, burning 4.5 million gallons of fuel, spending $13.3 million, emitting nearly 88 million pounds of CO2 – EVERY DAY.

    A bicycle avoids all of that, keeps the money in your pocket, and you get to ride when you want to.

    As America’s oldest great city, it’s up to New York how you choose to inspire & challenge the rest of the nation. I’ll take a meaningful urban bike network over a “Freedom” tower any day.

  • eLK

    New York is only so big. An average car is 130 sq ft. a pedestrian may be 4 and a cyclist 8. Considering the number of people here, what measures do we have to take to lesson the number of people killed?

    I prefer riding bicycle or walking. If I ride my bicycle or walk properly, according to the law. Why do I still have drivers driving at me in an angry manner?

  • Excellent comment, Larry (#21)!

  • I wish BikeShare arrived in 2011. Then lots of people would have an easy way to try bicycling in the city.

  • Joe R.

    Agreed Larry that rain and snow are seldom problems. Maybe you’ll have a dozen days a year where there really won’t be any opening in which to commute on account of precipitation. Usually when that happens though other forms of transportation won’t be running well, either. Cold and heat tolerance depend upon the individual. Generally speaking however, cycling increases your fitness. Fitter people usually have a better tolerance for temperature extremes.

  • BicyclesOnly

    The one drawback of daily bike commuting I’ve found is heightened intolerance for waiting and crowds. Getting hot, cold or rained on feels like no big deal by comparison!

  • Elk, they’re not really mad at you for breaking the law; they’re mad at you for choosing a better urban mode of transportation then they have.

  • It’s not clear to me what Staley’s main premise is, as he jumps from the claim that cycling will be a tiny part of the general “solution to congestion and mobility” to poo-pooing its current share of year-round commuting specifically. Then he calls out the DOT for doing the same thing in the other direction, for suggesting that cycling is a great solution for commuting and then celebrating the number of cyclists on the streets in general.

    Memo to both of them: it is the overall numbers that matter, as congestion and mobility are general concerns not limited to transporting white-collar bodies to work and back.

    After failing to establish a premise, Staley’s conclusion contradicts what little he has established: “Rather, it suggests that programs need to be strategically focused and recognize bike travel for the seasonally limited, commuting niche it is rather than a broad-based travel alternative advocates want it to be.”

    Of course! The fact that commuting, as reported, represents as a small share of overall cycling travel suggests that we should focus exclusively on *commuting*. Why didn’t I think of that? Oh right, because I am not an automobile nostalgic arguing in bad faith, who is trying to convince cycling advocates to structure their programs and qualifications of success in the way that is the most likely to fail.

  • Holy Crap. Are we getting a daily headlines today?

    Louise Hainline, Norman Steisel and Iris Weinshall with a co-written letter in the Times trumpeting a secret PPW video recording and also calling for bicycle licenses.

    (some nice letters in there too, thankfully)

  • Larry Littlefield

    “Cyclists are not riding to commute as originally contemplated but are recreational users who could be better served by enhancing the existing lane 100 yards away in Prospect Park.”

    Ie. I don’t exist. I don’t exist as someone riding to church, either.

  • Taking my kid to school obviously doesn’t count either.

    I used to think the PPW opposition was mostly about parking spots; but I’m increasingly convinced that the kind of irrationality they spout can only caused by the firm belief that their motoring lifestyle is being taken away from them.

    Of course, it’s not.

  • Yes, Larry. The neighbors can tell from careful examination of those videotapes that cyclists on Prospect Park West are not commuting. The only New Yorker who actually commutes by bicycle is Janette Sadik-Khan, and she takes her limousine most of the time anyway.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “I’m increasingly convinced that the kind of irrationality they spout can only caused by the firm belief that their motoring lifestyle is being taken away from them.”

    Or “who is in charge” egomania. These folks are part of the political class. They are not like you and me.

    How much of the political debate really comes down to “people like us” vs. “people like them?” Who matters more? Who has more power? Who is cool, in, deserving, special? It’s like middle school.

    Somehow, people with these kind of attitudes have latched onto bicycles.

  • Excellent insights, Larry.

  • Yeah, that was the most head-slapping point to me: “cyclists are not riding to commute as originally contemplated but are recreational users.”

    Um, how can they tell? What methodology did they use to make this claim? Did they ask people or did a group of people, most of whom have been publicly quoted as saying they don’t ride, make this observation? Because I’m sure a lot of cyclists who may look like they’re out for some exercise are riding to work. And they think the DOT’s statistics are suspect?

    Also, why hold cyclists to a different standard than drivers? Are only people driving to work allowed to drive on PPW? We don’t build roads based on why people drive. Numbers of cars, not purpose of the trip, are what dictates road construction. Same should go for bikes.

  • Larry Littlefield

    “Because I’m sure a lot of cyclists who may look like they’re out for some exercise are riding to work.”

    Right, my work clothes are in a bag.

    But this has gone beyond practical issues. In a way it has for me too, because the idea of “three lanes for us and none for you” reminds me too much of how public finance has worked in this country.

    If they ever take that bike lane away, I’ll be going up 8th Avenue at my own pace. And I’ll be taking the lane, to ensure I won’t be knocked off my bike by an SUV mirror again. They think two lanes southbound plus the park at peak hours isn’t enough for motor vehicles? How about one lane northbound?

  • The “Neighbors for Better Bike Lanes” are really only concerned with one bike lane, and their idea of making it “better” means replacing it with another motor-vehicle travel lane.

    Rather than NBBL, the more appropriate acronym is NIMBY.

  • Looks can be deceiving.

    For instance, you could be out in your car, innocently cruising for a “donut,” when lo and behold, an undercover cop working a prostitution sting might mistake you for a John.


  • Moocow

    I’ll take that lane with you Larry, but let’s ride sometime anyway, because that lane isn’t going anywhere.

  • Geck

    I figured I could find some folk here to vent about that letter to the editor. What a bunch of crap. The statistic go against them so they make up their own and draw conclusions about who is using the lane and for what purpose based on what exactly? And does it real matter-people are using the lane to get around town. You would think a former Transportation Commissioner would have a clue as to the mechanics of traffic calming. I guess not. Larry’s guess is as good as any as to what motivates them. At least the other letters to the editor were reality based (even if they didn’t run mine).

  • J:Lai

    I tend to agree with Joe R.

    I bike year round, I enjoy it a lot, but I seldom use the bike to commute to an office job in Manhattan. For me personally, not having a facility to change or shower is a big deterrent – I can break a sweat just walking at a moderate pace if it’s over 60 degrees. I also generally don’t ride if there is significant snow or ice on the roads, or in heavy rain (not everyone has the flexibility to wait it out.) While these may not be factors for everyone, there are enough potential deterrents (lack of secure parking, speed, safety concerns, difficulty of transporting large or heavy items, etc.) that I believe there is a definite ceiling on the mode share achievable by bikes for commuting.

    While there are many other types of trips besides commuting, it makes sense to focus on commuting if the goal is to replace car trips with other modes. Trips made for work represent the largest single share of total miles travelled within the city. Perhaps even more importantly, they tend to be concentrated during the peak rush hour periods with little scope to change the timing of when people need to travel. Thus, to make a big impact in motor vehicle traffic and usage, we need to address car commuting.

    Bicycles can play an important, although limited role. If bike commuting mode share were to increase to 10%, that would be a massive gain, although it is unclear how much of that gain represents replacement of car trips (as opposed to transit, walking, or other modes.) To really meaningfully reduce car usage, however, I think improved transit is the only way.

  • Brandon

    Are bike lanes for commuters only? Boy, im glad casual trips are allowed on the train, i might not get out much otherwise…

  • Larry Littlefield

    “For me personally, not having a facility to change or shower is a big deterrent – I can break a sweat just walking at a moderate pace if it’s over 60 degrees.”

    That’s what I thought too, but I found out otherwise.

    Over 50 degrees, I ride in a t-shirt and shorts. I wait 15 minutes to cool off, take off the T-shirt and shorts, if needed (a few days a year) use baby wipes, powder and more deoderant, put on my business casual wear, and I’m not different than if I had taken the subway in. Any sweat is on the T-shirt and shorts, not on me.

    Actually, during a heat wave I’m better off than if I had taken the subway in.

    For me, overheating is more of a problem at transition temperatures, when it’s just cool enough to go with the wind jacket (50 degrees) or just cold enough to put on the fleece vest under it (30 degrees). Today, however, was comfortable with the vest.

  • Let me mention part of Charles Komanoff’s response to the Staley article,

    The primary benefit of cycling in NYC, and, hence, of providing cycling infrastructure here, is that it greatly enhances the quality of life—health, autonomy, efficiency, and sheer daily experience—of those who do it.

    And as Larry said in one of his comments this fall, “The bike lanes with bikes in them are a message — you can do this.”

    I can testify to those enhancements and that message. If you want them you can bicycle too.

  • tom

    Perhaps Streetsblog, or Transportation Alternatives or some bike advocates, should state that their intent is to provide incentives for biking and/or other alternative transportation; and is not aiming in any way to deprive car owners in NYC of the legal use of their property to which they are entitled.

    It would be a start to a better dialogue than some I see here.

  • Jay

    Tom, your language is biased, selective, deliberately inflammatory, or naive… I’m not sure which, and I don’t know if it really matters.

    What is clear is that you widely missed the point. Nobody I have ever read here has remotely suggested depriving owners of their vehicles. What they have discussed, with different perspectives, is to what extent that minority of owners of small property owners are entitled to use the vast publicly-owned property that are New York City’s streets.

    Owning a car is not the same as owning the street.

  • The power of net-zero transit