Home

Transportation Alternatives 4th Avenue Intersection Redesign Competition

Transportation Alternatives recently announced a competition to redesign the intersection of 4th Avenue and 9th Street in Brooklyn. The contest seeks to

generate viable street design options that are more suited to a modern vision of our city. This begins by designing streets that integrate the needs of all users, address the problems of automobile congestion and pollution, and aim for quality of life benefits such as greater sociability, activity and economic development. This is a necessary step towards a greener New York and healthy, sustainable communities.

It has four overarching goals:

1. To encourage architects and planners to consider the social, cultural and health impact of design on a larger scale
2. To apply a green transportation hierarchy – pedestrians first, bicyclists second, cars third – to a specific site in our city
3. To expose a wider audience to the importance of design in creating a more livable New York
4. To encourage the city to adopt practical and innovative techniques for street development and to redevelop existing streets using these designs

The competition apparently works in conjunction with the Brooklyn Traffic Calming Report, though it isn’t clear that it is officially sanctioned by the city. It sounds more like some people getting together to try to do something good for the community, until you consider it a little more closely.

Transportation Alternatives’ mission is

to reclaim New York City’s streets from the automobile, and to advocate for bicycling, walking and public transit as the best transportation alternatives. We seek to change New York City’s transportation priorities to encourage and increase non-polluting, city-friendly travel and decrease dependence – though not ban – dependence on car use. We seek a rational transportation system based on a “Green Transportation Hierarchy” which gives preference of on the public right-of-way to modes of travel based on their benefits and costs to society. We advocate for a hierarchy which places pedestrians needs first, then bikes, then cars. To achieve our goals, TA works in five areas: Bicycling, Walking and Traffic Calming, Car-Free Parks, and Complete Streets.

The Complete Streets movement wants to enable safe access of the roads for all users, which sounds fine on the face, and certainly looks nicer in practice, but can easily be taken overboard. This competition is a perfect example.

We’re told we need to prioritize pedestrians then bikes, then cars. But in the history of 4th Avenue provided by the competition, we learn that the street exists today in essentially the same configuration it had in 1862 – before cars. So the pedestrians have just as much space as they have always had, and the road occupies just as much space. What’s missing from the equation is a bike lane, but if we implemented better rules and regulations on bicycle use, we may see reduced need for bike-only lanes for safety.

The need for bike lanes is dubious at best anyway. According to CrashStat.org - a traffic injury and fatality tool created by Transportation alternatives (and linked to by this competition) - this intersection had 1 pedestrian fatality 12 years ago, and has had no bike fatalities. There are an average of 2.45 pedestrian injuries per year (27 total 1995-2005) and .54 bicycle injuries (6 total 1995-2005) at this intersection. But what the raw numbers don’t tell us is who is at fault, and that’s what is important to know if we really want safe streets.

If it’s mostly bicyclists and pedestrians disregarding the traffic laws, then what good will a redesign of the intersection that penalizes cars do? Bike lanes may just encourage bicyclists to think of themselves as outside of the traffic universe and lead to more injuries and deaths. The impact of these proposed changes is unknown beyond the speculative aesthetics.

What we do know is that 4th Avenue is currently undergoing heavy development. This increased development will only increase the demands on 4th Avenue.

In light of this, Transportation Alternatives reminds us that, “We must think of our streets as first serving the basic needs of pedestrians, then bikes, then cars, but towards a balance of providing for all functions.”

But why?

I often hear that we need to think of streets differently. I tend to think of them as the lifeline of the city – one of the very basic things that a city cannot exist without. Streets allow people to move themselves and goods swiftly and efficiently.

A reader named Vukovich summed up the opposing view in the following comment:

For centuries prior to the advent of the automobile, the television and Internet shopping, in cities around the world, transportation was one of many activities taking place on urban streets. Vendors sold goods in the street. Kids played ball and adults sat at tables, drank tea and played backgammon in the street. Artists and actors provided entertainment in the street. Public notices were posted, announced and discussed in the streets. Politics and demonstrations took place in the street.

The Roman Forum. The Greek Agora. The Arab Shuk. In the urban core, streets were, for centuries and across every civilization, used primarily as a public space and marketplace — the place to exchange goods and information. Transportation was only one part of this process of exchange and, unlike today, transportation (and vehicular storage) was not necessarily the dominant activity on the street given that transportation took place mostly on foot, not within 3,000 lbs of metal.

What part of those conceptualizations is not first grounded in the need for streets to transport people and goods? How do the goods get to the markets? How do the people congregate for social events or to conduct politics? How does news arrive from far-flung lands? And what part of any of these functions have been usurped today by automobiles? Don’t we still have sidewalk cafes and street entertainers? Don’t we still hold demonstrations and special events in the streets? Don’t our markets still open onto the streets?

Vukovich confuses necessary and sufficient conditions – the presence of streets is certainly sufficient for any of those other activities to occur, but it is hardly necessary. Efficient transportation however, cannot exist without roads, and never has in any culture on earth.

It’s true you probably won’t find kids playing stickball in the middle of 4th Avenue, but that’s a false comparison – you wouldn’t have found that on many ancient streets with a similar traffic volume either.

What part of making it easier for cars to move efficiently is anti-pedestrian? Don’t cars move the goods to the stores that pedestrians are walking to? Don’t they bring the workers who staff those stores to work? Aren’t the drivers of cars really just pedestrians who haven’t arrived close enough to their end destination to begin walking?

What Transportation Alternatives wants is to displace automobiles – except the absolutely essential ones that deliver groceries to stores, etc…- in favor of bicycles. Groups like this point to bicycles as if they are some morally superior form of transportation. But how do they really stack up?

Safety – It’s definitely more dangerous to be the driver or passenger of a bicycle than an automobile. Cars do kill bicyclists, but a study by the New York City Department of Transportation indicated that bicyclists pose 10 times more danger to themselves than cars pose to them. The same study also indicated that bicycles kill pedestrians at the same rate as cars in proportion to their numbers, so it’s a devil’s bargain at best to replace cars with bicycles.

Environment – Cars do pollute, but calling a bicycle clean is a bit of a misnomer. They are clean by comparison to cars, but they still pollute. The materials that make up bikes - stainless steel, aluminum alloys and anodized aluminum, rubber, carbon fiber, titanium - all require energy to produce and assemble, and some are very difficult and expensive to produce - notably aluminum. Yes, you use less energy and materials than a car does, but you still use energy, and it takes many more bicycles to match the effectiveness of one car for certain types of work.

If you look at Carbon Dioxide output – which is foolish since Global Warming is unproven and CO2 lags (that’s right, comes after) temperature increases by 600-800 years according to historical data - you’re still exhaling CO2 while riding a bike, and the bike encourages you to exhale more than walking or riding a car would. I guess through the prism of moral relativism you could claim some sort of pyrrhic victory over automobile emissions, but the most environmentally friendly thing for you to do would be to not exist – not to ride a bicycle. And let’s not forget that you’re simply consuming different resources – you are burning more calories and therefore require more food, so I think the advantage is an overall wash.

We also have to examine the blight to our surroundings that roads pose. It doesn’t look good for cars. Of course, it doesn’t look good for bikes either, since they also require those roads, and since Transportation Alternatives acknowledges that the roads have to exist for some essential purposes, they aren’t going anywhere.

Health – Bicycles force you to be healthier, but they also punish you if you aren’t physically capable of using them. Cars have no such operability requirements, and can generally be configured so that anyone can use them.

Though they may burn more calories, bicycles also expose you to the elements and thus more discomfort and danger. So I wouldn’t exactly classify bicycles as the clear winner in this realm.

Convenience – This is entirely dependant on where you live, where you have to go and what you have to do. For one person, it could easily be more convenient to bike on one errand and drive a car on another. The car doesn’t expose you to the elements, but it also requires you to fill up the tank. Of course you could have a flat tire on a bike and have to walk several miles, but it’s cheaper to fix than a car’s flat. This is an endless back and forth that boils down to personal preference. Overall - tie.

Expense – The car will definitely cost you more, but what bearing does that have on anyone else? If you want to ride a bike and save money, or drive a car and spend tons, it should be your choice. This doesn’t affect others until we start to talk about externalities – which are impossible to quantify and fall mainly under the environmental section above. And if we talk about hidden costs, we need to talk about hidden benefits. If implementing a “Green Transportation Hierarchy” gives preference on the public right-of-way to modes of travel based on their benefits and costs to society, then cars are far more beneficial than pedestrians could ever hope to be and should be at the top of the hierarchy.

Aesthetics – Again, a matter of preference. The roads aren’t going anywhere. So it’s the difference between seeing bikes, or seeing cars. Bikes aren’t as noisy, but there will have to be a lot more of them, so who knows what our streets would really be like with only bikes. Regardless, we should consider that New York has always been a very noisy city, even before cars, and that noise is part of the price you pay to live there.

I’m not convinced that bicycles are that much better overall. We’re trading some minor gains in safety, expense and aesthetics for some major losses in safety.

Fourth Avenue carries 17,800 vehicles per day – how many bicycles does it carry? Is it wise to reduce the carrying capacity for cars – the cars that bring goods to the stores and people to work in all of the shops that will service those new developments on 4th – cars that made this area attractive in the first place and drove property values sky high? Should we replace that with lanes for bicycles?

Mark Gorton

Most of the people in those cars aren’t joyriding, they have somewhere to go. Some will simply have to drive elsewhere and increase congestion on other roads – probably in a poor neighborhood without an effective and well organized community organization to advocate for their rights to “complete streets”. Others may be able to ride mass transit, but think about that – the choice of how you get from point A to point B would no longer be yours – you would surrender it to some rich folks who want to enjoy their nice homes on a quiet, pedestrian friendly street without you bothering them. Mark Gorton – you remember him, the multi-millionaire - is the single largest financier of Transportation Alternatives and serves as its co-producer. He’s also organizing this whole livable streets movement that is about to take away your freedom to choose for yourself so that he can ride his bike whenever he pleases.

Let’s call this what it is: elitist NIMBY-ism propagated by rich people who want to continue to enjoy all the benefits of automotive capitalism, but don’t want to have to look at the ugly side-effects that come along with it. They want to continue to enjoy the fruits of your labor, they just don’t want you to drive down their streets to get to work.