Article
New York's transportation chief is a latter-day Robin Hood
Janette Sadik-Khan's brilliant marketing of sustainable transport (dedicated bike lanes, cycle sharing, even pedestrianising Times Square) has transformed New York. Now for that congestion charge ...
Walking the walk ... Janette Sadik-Khan's decision to pedestrianise part of Times Square infuriated cabbies but delighted most others. Photograph: Alan Schein/Corbis
Michael Bloomberg has been a very popular mayor of New York. The city has done well under his tenure, hurt less by the financial crash and bouncing back from recession better than almost anywhere else in the US. No wonder he feels in a position to offer advice on how to govern nationally – provoking speculation of a possible, if firmly denied, presidential run as an independent in 2012.
But when Bloomberg's third term is up in three years' time, it is likely that many of his appointees will have to move on as well. In that case, none will have left so visible and indelible a mark on the city as his transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan. Sadik-Khan's job is broadly equivalent to that of Transport for London chief Peter Hendy – only bigger (besides the road system, she is responsible for many of the bridges and tunnels into Manhattan from the other city boroughs, as well as the Staten Island ferry and more).
You can't talk to the people at Transportation Alternatives, New York's long-established sustainable transport campaign (and leading pro-bike group), for more than minute without hearing their admiration and excitement about what Sadik-Khan has done for the cause. (How many city transportation chiefs do you think have an "I Love …" Facebook page devoted to them? And in New York magazine's December 2007 list of reasons to love New York, No 35 was "Because the head of the department of transportation is a cycling radical".) Sadik-Khan is, in fact, a more than occasional bicycle commuter: she doesn't just talk the talk; she rides the blacktop, too.
New York is in the middle of the same transformation of the philosophy of what urban public space is for that London underwent during Ken Livingstone's mayoralty. And Sadik-Khan, armed with the Bloombergian blueprint for a greener city, PlaNYC, has been the key player in delivering this new New York.
Just as in London, a radical shift in priorities – though Sadik-Khan would never put it this way, a "Robin Hood strategy" of robbing roadspace and investment from the transport-rich (ie, motorists) to pay the transport-poor (ie, public transport users, cyclists and pedestrians) – has been brilliantly marketed as "what's best for business". Congestion – sclerotic city arteries clogged with traffic – is economically inefficient, ergo making mass transit work serves the city's economy. Since 96% of Wall Street's workforce goes to the office by subway, bus, boat, bike or on foot, keeping the city moving and making it prosperous are of a piece. As Sadik-Khan has been known to tell top executives, "Biking is the new golf."
Now in her fourth year in the post, Sadik-Khan is so in the groove and in mastery of her brief that pertinent points and argument-clinching stats trip off the tongue quicker than a yellow cab can change lanes. A rangy 50-year-old (though, like every well-groomed Manhattan professional, ageless), Sadik-Khan was formerly a senior VP of a large civil engineering firm and on the board of an environmental transport non-profit. After meeting her at a green transport NGO function before Christmas, I caught up with her recently by phone.
"The goal has been moving as many people as possible as quickly as possible – and safely," she says. "Re-engineering streets is about re-imagining streetscapes, but it's also about making streets safer." Briefed as ever, she's looked up a blog I'd written earlier expressing mild scepticism about segregated bike lanes. Her response is that the bike lanes – such as the ones down Broadway or up Eighth Avenue, where a broad green strip at the side of the highway is separated from motorised traffic by kerbed islands and car parking – are a big safety success, calming traffic and facilitating safer crossing for pedestrians.
"What we've found is that we've not only achieved a 50% reduction in cyclist injuries where we have these lanes, but a 40% cut in all injuries because of the pedestrian refuge islands," she says.
Looks as if I might have to accept that segregated bike routes work for New York City's six-lane avenues. According to Sadik-Khan, bike use was up 13% in 2009-10, and has doubled in the five years since 2006. "More cyclists are voting with their pedals," she says. Can't argue with that.
But cyclists are going to have to change, too. Last year, the NYPD handed out 29,000 tickets to bikers for traffic infringements. And 2011 will see a major media campaign aimed at persuading cyclists to follow the rules and use the road considerately. The campaign slogan is deliciously New York: "Don't be a jerk!"
Getting the message across is very much part of Sadik-Khan's expertise. A political science major, with a law degree to boot, Sadik-Khan also founded a communications consultancy. So, while she talks technocratic, she knows the power of symbols. Some of her boldest and most controversial strokes have been the pedestrianisation of iconic Manhattan spaces such as Times Square and Herald Square. As one commentator put it, that "sends a signal of pedestrian pride". Shrewdly, though, Sadik-Khan sticks to making the business case, leaving the ideological rhetoric for outsider campaigners.
"Our streets are our most valuable real estate," she says. "In Times Square and Herald Square, retail rents have gone up 71% this year, so we're seeing that the value of this new public space is being recognised." She cites a TfL study showing that pedestrians spend more than any other "modal" group. Many of these "re-imagining" measures resulted from her bold move, in 2007, to hire the Danish guru of pedestrianisation and urban planning, Jan Gehl.
Such transformation has been far from freewheeling: as with the congestion charging zone in London, infringing upon drivers' "freedoms" involves winning a political fight. "We're talking about change – and the very idea of change makes people uneasy," she says. But her argument is that change is coming anyway, as New York continues to grow economically and pull people in. "The city is growing more and more dense, and that density makes the city creative and innovative. But building more roads is not the answer to that development. We need to focus on other investments and strategies."
One of those investments will be a bike share programme, like the cycle hire schemes up and running in Paris and London. It will start in August this year, and the aim is to have a pool of 10,000 bikes by 2012. Presuming Sadik-Khan, as a mayoral appointee, will be looking for a new job sometime after that, is there anything on the sustainable transport wishlist she won't have delivered? Only a congestion charging plan for Manhattan.
When, in 2008, the New York state assembly shelved Bloomberg's proposal for an $8 (£5) charge for motorists to drive into Manhattan, that was perhaps the only major strategic defeat of Sadik-Khan's tenure. She remains undaunted. Time – and the times – are on her side, she reckons. New York state's budget is notoriously overstretched and on the brink of bankruptcy, the city's not much better. It's in this context, she points out, that the Metropolitan Transit Authority (which manages the subway, buses and railways and maintains the tunnels and bridges) has an annual funding deficit of $800m. The revenue-raising potential of road-pricing in Manhattan (where drivers are already accustomed to paying tolls for bridges and tunnels) makes it all but inevitable, in her view.
"Congestion pricing passed the city council. It got the backing of four major newspapers in New York," she says. "The mayor's plan remains up in Albany [with the state legislature].
"I do think it's a matter of when, not if."
That strikes me as a surprisingly bullish statement, given the generally circumspect tenor of her remarks. I check she really means this, but I needn't have asked. Yes, she confirms, New York will get congestion pricing.
If Janette Sadik-Khan says it, I wouldn't bet against it.
• Editor's note: Michael Bloomberg is currently serving the first year of his third term as mayor, not of his second, as the article originally stated. Also, Sadik-Khan's portfolio does not include the subway system (as the article also stated), which is operated by the MTA, a state authority. These and a few other, more minor amendments were made at 15:15 (GMT) on 6 January 2010.
Related Content
User Comments
JoeDunckley
6 January 2011 12:56PM
but London and most other UK cities just don't have the road space to give over exclusively to cyclists - more's the pity.
What utter bollocks. The same thing was said every time pedestrianisation and bus lanes were proposed. We only don't have the road space because such vast amounts of it have been given to the car. British city streets are no different to Dutch and German and Danish city streets. It may be Boris Johnson's excuse for inaction, but it's just not true. Please stop letting him get with it by unquestioningly repeating it.
ChasnDave
6 January 2011 1:00PM
I concur with Skinz - our road infrastructure wont allow for such provision.
Therefore I think we should look to improve the roads we do have and raise awareness and respect amongst road users of different methods of travel, and learn to look out for other "Fellow" road users. Our roads need to be a vehicular melting pot of harmony! - sic
e.g. Tractors or mechanised road cleaning vehicles are slow and impede the speed and flow of traffic but car drivers give them a wide berth and overtake when it is safe - this same mentality needs to shifted over to cyclists, motorcyclists, disability buggies, horses, etc etc.
p.s. A Hex on the 1st person to mention red light jumping cyclists... ha ha ha
NotFromLondon
6 January 2011 1:18PM
Grrrrrrr...grumble grumble...cyclists...mutter mutter...always on the pavement...drone...don't pay road tax...whinge whine...don't stop for red lights...dribble
There, that's got all the usual inaccurate moaning out of the way.
Now for a reasoned conversation.
NotFromLondon
6 January 2011 1:26PM
@ChasnDave
6 January 2011 1:00PM
Therefore I think we should look to ... raise awareness and respect amongst road users of different methods of travel, and learn to look out for other "Fellow" road users. Our roads need to be a vehicular melting pot of harmony! - sic
Couldn't agree more with this sentiment.
Segregating cyclists, providing special lanes for different road users etc etc is a clumsy way of dealing with the symptoms.
Why not deal with the root cause and get people to actually behave in a civilised manner toward each other?
I see no reason why pedestrians, cyclists, bikers and motorists can't all get along, other than selfishness & intolerance.
PhilipD
6 January 2011 1:39PM
Its smart of her to push the 'good for business' line - it is crazy that in a city like NYC where the overwhelming majority travel by public transport or by foot that such a vast area of land is given over to private cars. Its fundementally inefficient as well as damaging to the urban environment. Much the same applies to central London. Unfortunately, in most urban areas in the US and elsewhere car users are actually a major component, if not the majority of people on the move, so the same arguments can't be applied in such an unarguable manner.
I hope her good work is continued - it really is only at a very early stage - the bike lanes are barely scratching the surface of what could be achieved in NY, with its high density of development and huge avenues that are perfect for segregated cycle lanes. And New Yorkers are much less wedded to the private car than any other Americans (or Europeans for that matter) - in my experience New Yorkers are happiest walking, often surprisingly long distances as part of their daily routine. If there is a city that could be turned over to cycling as a form of mass transit, it is NY. Jan Gehl has said that there is no reason why up to 50% of trips in NY couldn't be done by bike - it would be great if they could achieve even half that (i.e. Copenhagen levels).
mattseaton
6 January 2011 1:51PM
@ Skinz and ChasnDave:
I basically agree with both your comments. On segregated bike lanes, my default position is to be sceptical of them -- because the ones I've seen in the UK seem not very useful and even counterproductive to me (giving cyclists a false sense of security and actually making junctions more difficult and dangerous for all concerned).
But I have been forced to revise that point of view a bit based on the NYC context: where you've got really wide avenues, taking one lane out and narrowing the road forces motorised traffic to slow, and also makes crossing easier and safer for pedestrians, while cyclists get a lane that gets greater priority since drivers turning into side streets are forced to stop by filter lights.
Instinctively, I feel we're all better off if traffic is calmed enough to be shared safely by all road users; but as an interim measure in that longer-term goal, the appropriation of avenue lanes for segregated bike lanes seems to work.
Also, if it's what they do in the Netherlands, then ipso facto they evidently work brilliantly in context.
JoeDunckley
6 January 2011 1:52PM
Ah, yes. Far too difficult to build infrastructure, but people's behaviour? That's an *easy* thing to change, isn't it? There I was living in a fantasy world where proper infrastructure is what is needed, while over here in reality we're just a step away from having everybody on the roads play nice. Hello, millions of people, would you mind awfully if you changed your lives and personalities overnight? Cheers, dudes.
This is all, of course, irrelevant. The barrier to mass cycling is not merely the fact that some motorists do not play nice. The barrier to mass cycling is the perception that the road is generally an unsafe -- and more importantly, unpleasant -- place to be on a bicycle. Not just because some motorists behave like assholes, deliberately or through ignorance, but simply because roads are stuffed with noisy smelly intimidating cars, whoever they're driven by. No amount of marketing, "play nice, mr driver" campaign, or "man up, mrs cyclist" campaign is going to make the slightest difference to that perception or to bicycle uptake.
arh14
6 January 2011 1:55PM
@mattseaton
So you wrote an article, a lot of it about cycling infrastructure, and you don't know what they do in the Netherlands? Or Denmark? Or Germany?
Sorry to rant - I think I'm in a bad mood today. Seriously though?
mattseaton
6 January 2011 1:59PM
@ JoeDunckley:
Just feel you've got a bit of a false opposition going there, Joe. I feel it makes more sense to understand infrastructure as also symbolic. In other words, making physical changes to the streetscape also shifts people's perceptions. Pedestrianising big, iconic public spaces like Times Square are the obvious example: it sends a message about who and what that environment is for -- and it's no longer the exclusive property of the motorist, around whom urban planning revolved entirely from the 1960s until the late 1980s.
mattseaton
6 January 2011 2:04PM
@ arh14:
Maybe you missed this, but the article is about New York and its transportation commissioner, not a global comparative study of pro-cycling policies. So I'm not sure why it's so reprehensible that I haven't made detailed comparisons with Denmark or Germany, as it was beyond the scope of the piece and I made no claim to have studied those other European countries' bike policies closely (which would, in any case, vary considerably from one region and city to the next within each country).
If you have special knowledge to offer, why not treat us here? Or debate what the article was actually about.
petergilheany
6 January 2011 2:05PM
I don't see why improving conditions for on-road cycling and creating segregated cycle lines are viewed as mtually exclusive and in opposition to one another. They are not positions of faith, which is generally how they seem to be discussed.
I think segregated cycles lanes would be a very effective way to increase the number and diversity of people cycling and should be a long term goal, but they won't appear by magic by overnight and they are not necessarily the right solution for all roads, so improving conditions for cycling on the road are hugely important as well.
It is also useful to distinguish between good and bad cycle lanes. It would be wrong to damn all lanes on the basis of the majority of those we have in the UK, which are simply a waste of paint. As Crocodile Dundee so eloquently put it, "That's not a knife, this is a KNIFE".
fluffyMike
6 January 2011 2:07PM
What a pity this brilliant article turned so quickly into a "segregate versus don't" argument
There are plenty of (currently hellish) streets where a (good not shit) segregated track could be installed both ways - Old Kent Road, for example
Likewise, there are numerous places where traffic-calming and blocking through traffic is the answer (The Cut)
Both solutions can work, but they require someone with the balls to give cycling and walking the same priority as motoring - and that means redressing the years of imbalance in favour of the motor car by reallocating roadspace
Is Boris that man? I don't think so... he's too scared to upset his Tory chums in the shires, who he hopes one day will vote him into Number 10
And Ken doesn't have the smarts to take business along with him
Anyone else want to try because this city really fucking needs it
redhook
6 January 2011 2:14PM
Bloomberg is now in his third not second term. The mayor's term was limited by law to two terms, having been affirmed twice through public referendum. Bloomberg convinced the City Councll to change the law to his benefit, which it did.The change will apply only to him. His argument was that only he was able to steer New York through difficult financial times. Rudy Giuliani made a similar argument after September 11 but in his case he was not successful.
drprl
6 January 2011 2:20PM
skinz
Segregated cycle lanes are all very well in New York, where the avenues are wide enough to accomodate them; but London and most other UK cities just don't have the road space to give over exclusively to cyclists - more's the pity.
There are some roads where you could replace a general lane with 2 cycle lanes but the most effective form of segregation might be to make a coherent network of narrow roads access-only for motor vehicles. This sort of situation certainly allows shared space.
arh14
6 January 2011 2:28PM
@mattseaton
My apologies. I am in a bad mood. It's the other article about how electric cars are the future that's grating.
"Maybe you missed this, but the article is about New York and its transportation commissioner, not a global comparative study of pro-cycling policies."
Sorry. I didn't miss this. But thank you for pointing it out. Actually I think what New York is doing is fantastic.
"I'm not sure why it's so reprehensible that I haven't made detailed comparisons with Denmark or Germany..."
I wasn't expecting detailed comparisons but I was genuinely interested in whether you have any knowledge of what they do in the Netherlands, especially given it's pretty world famous for it. I guess I won't assume so much in the future.
"If you have special knowledge to offer, why not treat us here? Or debate what the article was actually about."
Alas, I have no special knowledge, no. All that I know is gleaned from pretty obvious places. Even Wikipedia's pretty good: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cycling_in_the_Netherlands
But still, my apologies for digressing. And for contributing to the segregation debate. It is good to highlight this. London, and the rest of the UK, have much to learn.
ranelagh75
6 January 2011 2:30PM
But when Bloomberg's second term is up in two years' time
Actually Bloomberg is in the middle of his third term. He successfully and controversially got the two-term limit removed before his re-election.
hhazzahh
6 January 2011 2:31PM
New York is not New York... New York is Five Boroughs... all different.
Manhattan is totally unique. I always regard it as the setting for the Matrix (though I dislike that film). An alternate reality.
Driving in Manhattan makes no sense. Owning a car makes not much more sense. The grid structure with heavy traffic north-south, light traffic east-west is unique.
As is the way pedestrians organise their walking practice - only after you have lived there a while can you appreciate this.
All I am saying is well done, but not a great case study. The point is at least someone tried with ideas. Just different political sponsored ideas will be needed for other cities. Without political sponsorship then this is just a debate.
respectmyauthoritay
6 January 2011 2:42PM
You don't need to separate bike lanes with a kerb.
Just paint the old cycle lanes blue, throw in a couple of very dangerous crossings (CS7 at the Oval) and hey presto! They become Superhighways.
Magic.
Skinz
6 January 2011 12:18PM
Segregated cycle lanes are all very well in New York, where the avenues are wide enough to accomodate them; but London and most other UK cities just don't have the road space to give over exclusively to cyclists - more's the pity.