BROOKLYN COMMUNITY BOARD 6
TRANSPORTATION & PUBLIC SAFETY/ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION/PERMITS/LICENSES COMMITTEES MEETING
MARCH 17, 2011
ATTENDANCE:
TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE:
D. ABRAHAM J. ARMER W. BLUM
S. BURZIO J. COHN N. COX
D. GIULIANO H. LINK V. MILNE
T. MISKEL M. MURPHY L. NAPOLITANO
G. REILLY R. RIGOLLI J. THOMPSON
ABSENT:
J. IGNERI J. LEVIN A. MCKNIGHT
R. OBERLENDER R. SLOANE
PUBLIC SAFETY/ENV PROT/PERMITS/LICENSES COMMITTEE
M. KENTON T. MISKEL G. REILLY
M. SHAMES M. SILVERMAN
EXCUSED:
T. ALEXANDER P. BLAKE M. DEPALMA
J. LODGE S. MILLER M. SCOTT
L. SONES B. STOLTZ
GUESTS:
HON. BRAD LANDER, CITY COUNCIL MEMBER
L. DE PALMA – REP. FOR BOROUGH PRESIDENT MARKOWITZ
M. FREEDMAN-SCHNAPP– REP. FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER LANDER
J. BLUMSTEIN - REP. FOR CITY COUNCIL MEMBER LANDER
J. KEEFE – REP. FOR STATE ASSEMBLY MEMBER BRENNAN
E. MCCLURE L. SCHINDLER
***MINUTES***
Presentation and review of a proposal to co-name Prospect Park West between 14th Street and Bartel-Pritchard Square as “Julian Brennan Way”
Co-naming of Prospect Park West between 14th and 15th Streets: Joseph Landers made the presentation proposing to rename this block for Julian Brennan who was killed while on duty in (Iraq or Afghanistan?) January 2009. Roger Rigolli suggested that his rank, Lance Corporal USMC be included on the sign.
Motion to accept proposal was made by Roger Rigolli, seconded by Jerry Armer, passed by vote.
Presentation and discussion with representatives for the Taxi & Limousine Commission on their Five Borough Taxi Plan, a proposal to bring taxi service to the outer boroughs.
Presentation on Taxi Plan for the outer boroughs:
Presented by Michael DelBene and Tweeps Phillips of the TLC. They noted that 97% of taxi trips occur in Manhattan while 80% of the population lives in the outer boroughs. There are a large number of ‘illegal’ street hails of cars in the boroughs. The TLC is working on a plan that will increase the number of cars available for street hails in the boroughs. Plan features:
Participation is optional for livery car companies. Would be in effect in all four outer boroughs. New vehicle requirements to differentiate from livery cars: o Color o Roof light o Meter o GPS system required o Credit card payment o Driver requirements: background check, training, English proficiency Uniform metered rate. Hope to reduce congestion at locations where livery cars wait for passengers
Q: Will cars be able to pick up in Manhattan for return trip? A: Only for return to the outer boroughs. Enforced by GPS tracking records.
Q: Will there be taxi stands for returns to boroughs? A: Providing stands will be difficult due to limited curb space.
Q: Car services are typically entry-level jobs; will there be any assistance for new drivers to comply with standards? A: It is an optional program for the car service companies. We acknowledge the barriers to entry; the goal is to create a better system to provide more service to outer borough residents.
Comment: there needs to be a workable return from Manhattan process.
Q: Why do we need ‘green’ cabs for outer boroughs, why not just yellow cabs? A: The goal is to retain the call-ahead services; if more medallions are added, the cabs will just end up in Manhattan. The proposed service is dedicated to the outer boroughs.
Q: What happens if yellow cabs refuse to go to the boroughs? A: This is already prohibited and is enforceable.
Q: Is participation by fleet or individual driver? A: Could be either or a mix. A fleet could have some cars authorized for street hails and some only for call-ahead.
Q: How will enforcement work?
A: Color will let consumers know which cars are available for street hails.
Q: What is the fare structure? A: Same as yellows: metered. Call-ahead service is usually more expensive for the same distance travelled.
Q: If there is no ‘medallion’ as a barrier to entry does this not give an unfair advantage to the borough services? A: There may be a medallion or other initial price to join the system.
Q: When is this proposal to go into effect? A: Still a way out – it must go to City Council, requires State approvals, and must be reviewed by Community Boards.
Q: How will pickups in Manhattan and returns to the boroughs be enforced? A: By GPS tracking.
Q: How will better service (than yellows) be ensured? A: Training courses, performance standards.
Q: How often will GPS monitoring reports be done? A: This is still being studied.
Q: Will the driver be allowed to refuse fares – to Manhattan, for example? A: No.
Q: Why not legalize the current practice of informal cab stands? A: Doesn’t provide consumer protection.
Comment: The proposal sounds good, the community is very interested, but we need more detail and a more concrete proposal.
Council Member Brad Lander comments: it has been very useful to hear this presentation, I’ve been talking to both yellow cab and livery drivers to get their opinions, these are good goals and I’ve heard important questions.
Q: What is status of ‘dollar vans’? A: Program has ended.
Q: Have the signs been removed? A: The program has to run its full course; the signs will be removed after.
Q: Did the operator ask to discontinue? A: Don’t know the answer to that.
Jerry Armer moved to approve minutes from previous meeting, seconded and approved.
(Joint) Meeting with the Public Safety/Environmental Protection/Permits/Licenses Committee. Continued discussion and formulation of a recommendation to the Department of Transportation on their proposed modifications to the Prospect Park West bike lanes regarding DOT proposals for modifications to the PPW bike lane:
Tom Miskel asked for comments from the public prior to the introduction of the motion addressing the DOT proposal.
Gary Reilly introduced the motion and gave a brief overview of the main points: Move the process forward Acknowledge the suit. Accept the changes proposed Work with stakeholders and appropriate agencies to preserve aesthetic quality Ask DOT to study ways to increase parking Ask DOT to study the Litchfield entrance
Comments from the committees: Make a more concrete time frame for the study period. Ask DOT to report on the project at specific intervals. In effort to gain more parking, safety should be a paramount concern. The study period should be 3 years.
Gary Reilly moved, Jerry Armer seconded an amendment to replace the word ‘urge’ with ‘should’ in items 5, 6, 7, 8; this was accepted.
Bill Blum proposed an amendment to request bicycle signals at 3rd St., 9th St. and Litchfield Villa. Craig Hammerman noted that CB6 did request lights originally but DOT felt that the full- phase traffic signals for bicycles lights were unwarranted. Craig noted that DOT was unlikely to reconsider the request.
Ensuing discussion points: Safety enhancements for bikes and pedestrians are desired. Re aesthetics: suggestion to change wording from ‘in keeping with’ to ‘complimentary’. The goal is to make the design contextual.
Suggestion to recommend an educational effort re: rumble strips, signals, etc. This would become new item #10 and would be voted on separately from the main motion.
Discussion about the preamble: The motion should reiterate support for the bike lane. Modify statements about the lawsuit, debate about whether this should be included. Concern that the preamble does not express enough concern for safety. The motion should be a ‘consensus’ document that does not perpetrate existing divisions.
Bill Blum proposed an amendment to eliminate reference to the lawsuit, Norman seconded, passed by vote.
Craig suggested that the item about studying increased parking be amended to emphasize safety.
Question called, passed by vote.
Gary Reilly reviewed the motion including the amendments, passed unanimously by vote.
Matt Silverman proposed, Hildegaard Link seconded a motion to add a statement regarding educational efforts for the bike lane
Bill Blum suggested modifying language to omit specific agencies and to require all relevant NYC agencies to participate in educational efforts as well as neighborhood groups and other interested organizations.
The education effort would include but not unlimited to publishing a handout, include all bike lanes in CB6 and should be coordinated with existing programs.
Question called, passed by vote.
Motion to adjourn, passed by vote.
Minutes by Norman Cox.