KC: The Council hearing went forward as planned the following day. The Transportation Committee, chaired by Liu, first heard from Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall. Although Weinshall had stood alongside the mayor the day before and said that "people come to New York City's parks to get away from the hustle and bustle of urban life," at the hearing she declared that Central Park's loop road was an "essential traffic artery" and that its closing would cause "significant" disruption. Pressed by Council member Daniel Garodnick for a definition of "significant," Weinshall and First Deputy Commissioner Michael Primeggia offered only more vague portents of traffic tie-ups.
MZ: On the surface, it seems safe to assume that closing the park off to cars would increase traffic elsewhere. How was this assumption challenged?
KC: Weinshall and Primeggia were followed by a panel of three independent traffic experts who believe that closing the Central Park loop road to traffic will lead to an overall reduction in traffic on city streets. Under questioning from Garodnick, consultant Bruce Schaller said that "shrinkage"-the percentage of cars now using the park that would effectively disappear from the street grid if Central Park were closed-could reach 100 percent. Schaller said that the Department of Transportation's assumption of 15 percent shrinkage was too pessimistic. Other witnesses speaking in favor of the bill included Columbia University professor Patrick L. Kinney, an expert on the human health effects of air pollution. Noting that fine particles from car exhaust can lodge deep in the lungs and cause lung cancer, heart disease and asthma, Kinney said, "moving traffic off of the park loop roads will significantly reduce health risks for people using the park, especially those exercising along the loop roads."
MZ: I appreciate the health benefits but I still don't understand how the "shrinkage" works.
KC: People make the mistake of viewing traffic as some unvarying physical force that, like water, must find somewhere to go. To the contrary, it is the product of thousands of individual decisions by thousands of drivers and passengers. Studies of road closings around the world have shown that much of the traffic that formerly used the closed road miraculously disappears, and that a higher percentage of traffic vanishes when alternative transportation options are plentiful. How can traffic "disappear"? It's simple: drivers elect to use an alternative mode of transportation, to drive at a different time or on a significantly different route, or to share a vehicle with someone else.
The reality that traffic is elastic gives us hope that something can be done about our currently nightmarish traffic. Otherwise, there is no hope. Given their current mindset that meaningful shrinkage is impossible, all that the traffic engineers at the New York City Department of Transportation can offer us is more of the same. Until they embrace the idea that people can be coaxed from their cars, and that it's good public policy to do this, very little real change will take place on our streets. Cars will dominate, some 150 to 200 pedestrians and cyclists will die each year, thousands of New Yorkers will succumb to premature deaths because of pollution, and our overall quality of life will continue to be degraded in subtle but profound ways.
MZ: So what was the outcome of the hearing?
KC: The committee's stance on the bill was hard to read. We know that Liu and Brewer are 100 percent behind Intro. 276. At a press conference prior to the hearing, both spoke strongly in favor of it, as did Brooklyn Council member Bill de Blasio and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, whose latest newsletter to Manhattan residents twice mentions his support of a car-free Central Park. We believe Intro. 276 also has the support of East Side Council members Garodnick, Jessica Lappin and Melissa Mark
Viverito. The big question mark is Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who may hold the key to not only the bill's passage but its passing with enough votes to overcome an almost certain mayoral veto. Quinn has not yet made her position known. It is likely that the Transportation Committee will vote on Intro. 276 in late May, and, assuming it passes, a full Council vote will come shortly thereafter.
MZ: To wrap up, I have to ask this: What's your response to those who say things will never change because the automobile is too entrenched in our society? How do you reach someone who believes we can't live without our cars?
KC: Our car culture is already being revealed as destructive to the planet, and it will soon become completely unsustainable. We lived completely without cars as recently as 110 years ago. Our auto-dependent lifestyle of the past century has been fueled by cheap and reliable sources of oil. When those start to dry up, we are in for some big changes. People are going to have to figure out other ways to live, and the dislocations will be profound and painful. And even if the equivalent of another Saudi oil field is suddenly discovered, we'll have to dramatically cut back on car use simply because of global warming. So history is moving in our direction.
To contact Ken Coughlin: kencoughlin@hotmail.com
Transportation Alternatives' Car-Free Central Park Campaign: http://www.carfreecentralpark.org
MZ: On the surface, it seems safe to assume that closing the park off to cars would increase traffic elsewhere. How was this assumption challenged?
KC: Weinshall and Primeggia were followed by a panel of three independent traffic experts who believe that closing the Central Park loop road to traffic will lead to an overall reduction in traffic on city streets. Under questioning from Garodnick, consultant Bruce Schaller said that "shrinkage"-the percentage of cars now using the park that would effectively disappear from the street grid if Central Park were closed-could reach 100 percent. Schaller said that the Department of Transportation's assumption of 15 percent shrinkage was too pessimistic. Other witnesses speaking in favor of the bill included Columbia University professor Patrick L. Kinney, an expert on the human health effects of air pollution. Noting that fine particles from car exhaust can lodge deep in the lungs and cause lung cancer, heart disease and asthma, Kinney said, "moving traffic off of the park loop roads will significantly reduce health risks for people using the park, especially those exercising along the loop roads."
MZ: I appreciate the health benefits but I still don't understand how the "shrinkage" works.
The reality that traffic is elastic gives us hope that something can be done about our currently nightmarish traffic. Otherwise, there is no hope. Given their current mindset that meaningful shrinkage is impossible, all that the traffic engineers at the New York City Department of Transportation can offer us is more of the same. Until they embrace the idea that people can be coaxed from their cars, and that it's good public policy to do this, very little real change will take place on our streets. Cars will dominate, some 150 to 200 pedestrians and cyclists will die each year, thousands of New Yorkers will succumb to premature deaths because of pollution, and our overall quality of life will continue to be degraded in subtle but profound ways.
MZ: So what was the outcome of the hearing?
KC: The committee's stance on the bill was hard to read. We know that Liu and Brewer are 100 percent behind Intro. 276. At a press conference prior to the hearing, both spoke strongly in favor of it, as did Brooklyn Council member Bill de Blasio and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, whose latest newsletter to Manhattan residents twice mentions his support of a car-free Central Park. We believe Intro. 276 also has the support of East Side Council members Garodnick, Jessica Lappin and Melissa Mark
Viverito. The big question mark is Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who may hold the key to not only the bill's passage but its passing with enough votes to overcome an almost certain mayoral veto. Quinn has not yet made her position known. It is likely that the Transportation Committee will vote on Intro. 276 in late May, and, assuming it passes, a full Council vote will come shortly thereafter.
MZ: To wrap up, I have to ask this: What's your response to those who say things will never change because the automobile is too entrenched in our society? How do you reach someone who believes we can't live without our cars?
KC: Our car culture is already being revealed as destructive to the planet, and it will soon become completely unsustainable. We lived completely without cars as recently as 110 years ago. Our auto-dependent lifestyle of the past century has been fueled by cheap and reliable sources of oil. When those start to dry up, we are in for some big changes. People are going to have to figure out other ways to live, and the dislocations will be profound and painful. And even if the equivalent of another Saudi oil field is suddenly discovered, we'll have to dramatically cut back on car use simply because of global warming. So history is moving in our direction.
To contact Ken Coughlin: kencoughlin@hotmail.com
Transportation Alternatives' Car-Free Central Park Campaign: http://www.carfreecentralpark.org
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
