Chinatown Bus Study, 2009

Home , Doyers Street, Essex Street, Forsyth Street, Rutgers Campus Buses

CHINA TOWN BUS STUDY New York City Department of City Planning Transportaon Division

October 2009 Chinatown Bus Study

Final Report October 2009

Michael R. Bloomberg, Mayor City of New York

Amanda M. Burden, FAICP, Director New York City Department of City Planning This study was funded by a matching grant from the Federal Highway Administraon, under NY- SDOT Pin PTCP08D00.G03, FHWA under the Subreagional Transportaon Planning Program, year 2008/2009. This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportaon in the interest of informaon exchange. The contents of this report reflect the views of the au- thor, who is responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Federal Highway Administraon, nor of the New York Metropolitan Transportaon Council. This report does not constute a standard, speci- ficaon or regulaon. Table of Contents Execuve Summary 1 Introducon 2 History 3 Study Area 4 Land Use 5 Zoning 7 Bus Operaons 9 Business Model 13 Previous Aempts to Improve Condions 13 Industry Regulaons 15 Issues and Community Concerns 17 Congeson 17 Polluon and Lier 18 Safety 19 Community Concerns 20 Case Studies 21 Boston, MA 22 Washington, DC 24 Philadelphia 28 Port Authority Bus Terminal and George Washington Bridge Bus Staon 31 Recommendaons and Next Steps 33 Long Term 33 Near Term 33 Conclusion 35 Appendix A: Demographics 37 Appendix B: Transportaon Network 45 Public Transportaon 47 Truck Routes 49 Parking 50 Street Network 51 Appendix C : Accidents 55 Bibliography 63 Credits 65

BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Execuve Summary The Chinatown private interstate bus industry began operang from Chinatown in 1997, primarily serving restaurant workers and other Chinese immigrants residing in New York City. The buses provide an alternave to air travel, which is costly and not always possible for those who do not have resident status. Aer September 11, 2001 airline travel became more me-consuming and cumbersome and bus travel became popular among students and bargain seekers outside the im- migrant market. Another reason for the popularity of Chinatown buses is that they cost less than other long-standing commercial bus companies, such as Greyhound or Peter Pan. Chinatown buses are also more convenient for the target populaon since they operate from the Chinatown of the origin city to the Chinatown of the desnaon city, and eliminate unnecessary traveling. The Chinatown Bus industry has grown exponenally since 1997, and the buses now travel to many states along the east coast such as Massachuses, District of Columbia, Delaware, Mary- land, Virginia, Pennsylvania and Georgia. Some bus companies travel further west to Ohio, Ten- nessee and Illinois. Many problems have arisen as a result of this expansion and compeon. A significant strain has been placed on the surrounding community. Reported and observed problems include increased congeson, noise, polluon, lier and decreased safety and security for pedestrians, passengers and neighborhood residents. This study documents the efforts of New York City to improve these condions. Case studies and historical models are presented to demonstrate how other cies manage the Chinatown bus industry and how New York City has historically managed similar problems of severe congeson. There are several studies underway in Chinatown that overlap the study area of this analysis. The Canal Area Transportaon Study (CATS) is being conducted by the New York Metropolitan Trans- portaon Council (NYMTC). Although CATS does not directly address the problems associated with interstate buses, the study does examine congeson issues in the Chinatown area. Lower Manhaan Street Management is a study being undertaken by the New York City Department of Transportaon (NYCDOT) that examines placard parking, as well as bus and curbside management. NYCDOT is also working with Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez’s office, the Chinese Consolidated Benevolent Associaon (CCBA) and the Asian American Federaon of New York (AAFNY) to commence a parking and access study for Chinatown. Following a detailed examinaon of the bus operaons, this report recommends that the City instute a perming process to require bus operators to pay for curbside use, just as commercial trucks are required to pay for parking. It is important to note however, that in New York State instung a perming system requires state legislaon. Instung a permit process will control the growth of the industry and its associated impacts by assigning the space from which buses may operate, and specifying hours when they are permit- ted to operate. Addionally, a permit process would add a measure of safety to the industry by discouraging bus companies from changing their names to evade safety regulaons. Lastly, congeson would be eased by assigning the curb space properly and eliminang the need to double park, and block New York City Transit bus stops and parking meters. Noise and polluon would be reduced by eliminang the need for buses to circle while looking for parking. These recommendaons would benefit the Chinatown community in many ways. Unl a lower Manhaan bus terminal can be built, a perming system would provide order to the industry.

1 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Introducon The Chinatown Bus Study examines the operaons of the private interstate bus companies that load and discharge passengers throughout Chinatown (for locaons see Figure 1). Recommen- daons to improve those operaons are offered, which may help alleviate the congeson these buses create, to improve traffic circulaon in the area and help travelers find buses more easily. Figure 2 illustrates the study area in context of the borough, and demonstrates its proximity to the Port Authority Bus Terminal and the George Washington Bridge Bus Staon. Figure 1

BROOME ST SPRING ST KENMARE ST

STATON ST RIVINGTON ST

MERCER ST 122 Allen Street CROSBY ST CENTER MARKET PL LISPENARD ST HOWARD ST

VARICK ST ± 175B Lafayette Street DELANCEY ST

WALKER ST AV OF THE AMERICS THE OF AV ELIZABETH ST

ESSEX ST WHITE ST BOWERY

NORFOLK ST

CHRYSTIE ST CENTRE ST 87 Chrystie Street SUFFOLK ST

MULBERRY ST FORSYTH ST MOTT ST CLINTON ST BROADWAY ATTORNEY ST MERCER ST GE S LAFAYETTE LEONARD ST 69 Chrystie Street ALLEN ST RID ORCHARD ST CHURCH ST BROOME ST LUDLOW ST WORTH ST

THOMAS ST 33 Allen Street GRAND ST

BAXTER ST 139 Canal Street HESTER ST DUANE ST BAYARD ST

HOGAN PL READE ST PITT ST 13 Allen Street PELL ST 59 Canal Street CHAMBERS ST MOSCO ST DIVISION ST 1999 CT BNDY E BROADWAY JEFFERSON ST 2000 CB BNDY

2000 CB BNDY PARK ROW HENRY ST

OLIVER ST

MONTGOMERY ST

88 East Broadway MARKET ST MN BR APPR 133 East Broadway MADISON ST

PIKE ST

BKBR APPR ST JAMES PL

MONROE ST SPRUCE ST ROSE ST CATHERINE ST

BEEKMAN ST ALLEY

UNNAMED ST

Arrival and Departure PIKE SL ANN ST CHERRY ST FDR DR

CT BNDY FULTON ST WATER ST LocationsPEARL ST GOLD ST ALLEY

BROOKLYN BR SOUTH ST E RIVER SHL W DOVER ST MANHATTAN BR FDR DR Arrival/Departure Locations JOHN ST FDR DR NB EN BK BR BEEKMAN ST CLIFF ST Study Area PLATT ST WATER ST

FRONT ST

This study provides a comprehensive analysis of exisng condions, including informaon about the study area’s land use, zoning, demographics, street network, accidents and availability of public transportaon. In addion, the operaonal characteriscs of the companies conducng business from Chinatown have been documented, including their frequency, desnaons and business model. Lastly, traﬃc circulaon and congeson problems have been idenﬁed and recommendaons have been developed to improve condions.

2 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

History The Chinatown Buses, also known as Dragon Buses in the Chinese community, began shuling Chinese immigrants to the Chinatowns of other states in 1997. Many passengers were restaurant workers and/or NYC residents vising family members. Prices were very low compared to the Greyhound or Peter Pan bus lines and soon word spread to students and other budget-conscious travelers that for a very low fare the Chinatown buses would take customers to Massachuses, Virginia, Washington DC, or Pennsylvania.1 Bus travel in general has increased a great deal since 1997. The growth of the Chinatown bus industry is primarily due to an increase in populaon of Chinatown communies in this country. In addion, immediately following the terrorist aacks of September 11, 2001, airlines ghtened security thereby creang longer lines and delays for air travelers. In 2002 Chinatown Bus companies began to sell ckets online, which made it easier for travelers who do not belong to the Chinese community to purchase ckets. During this period of growth in the bus travel industry, several new bus companies began to provide service thereby cung fares and creang ﬁerce compeon over passengers and curb space. Figure 2 George Washington Bridge Bus Station The Bronx

New Jersey Manhattan

Port Authority Bus Terminal

Queens

Chinatown Bus Study Boundaries ´ 1 GotoBus, “Brief History of Chinatown Bus.” (2008) hp://www.gotobus.com/ (Accessed June 20, 2008). 3 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Study Area The study area boundaries are the FDR Drive to the south, Rutgers Street and Essex Street to the east, Grand Street to the north, Centre Street, Worth Street and Catherine Street to the west (see Figure 3). These boundaries include the core of the Chinatown community which surrounds the Manhaan Bridge entrance. Many of the interstate Chinatown buses load and unload passengers on the streets surrounding the Manhaan Bridge because the irregular street geometry in this area results in a considerable amount of excess roadbed. Figure 3

R LISP T RI ENAR S VIN BAXTE GTO D LBERRY ST N ST S ST T HO T MU WA S WA R H D T LKER ST ST MOTT

ZABE Y LI ± E T WHITE ST S E CANAL BOWER TI AV OF THE AMERICAS DE HES S LA TE NCE ST YTH ST Y R HRY ST S ST T C RS FRA E HURCH ST Y O C NKLIN ST F

LDRIDG E ROADWA T AL B D BROOME ALLEN AN L RCHARD ST ST ST O ORT E LOW ST C TT T E UD L S EX ST K FAY T L LA H ESS E EST K S ON ER ARD ST ST NORFOL C FFOL ANAL ST GRAN SU D S W T ORTH ST T S

HOG BAYARD ST CENTRE AN PL

DUANE PELL ST ST

READ MOSCO E ST ST OADWAY DIVISION ST E BR

SON ST

ST PARK ROW HENRY L HAYES PL DINA OLIV CAR M ER ST ADISON ST C EC M LIN

TON

AN RU T MES PL I CS TGER A ST ST J AL

EARL S EARL S S P

E ST K MONRO E MARK ST

CAT

HE ET SPRUCE ST

RINE S

T ST CHERRY T SOUTH S

R ST BROOK WATE F D R DR LY N BR MANHATTAN BRIDGE Feet STUDY AREA 0250 500

4 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Land Use The study area encompasses a wide range of land uses including mixed residenal buildings with ground-ﬂoor retail, low- to mid-rise commercial buildings, community facilies and open space. See Figure 4. Figure 4

LISP RIVINGTON ST ENARD ST HOWARD S ± WALKER T T LK S S ERY T AXTER ST O IE ST F B

AV OF THE AMERICAS ST T CANAL ST HE T ST WHITE ST S BOW H T BERRY ST NOR ER ST OT T E ST DE M LANCEY CHURCH ST CHRYS G MUL FRANKLIN ST ORSYT ST Y ST F

WA RD AL ELDRID N ST AD DT ELIZABETH S HA ST N C BROOM ALLE BRO OR E ST ORTLA C ETTE ST Y LUDLOW

ESSEX ST ST LEON LAFA HESTER ST GRAND ARD ST CANAL ST ST UFFOLK WORTH S S ST E T H CENTR OGA BAYARD ST N PL

DUANE ST PELL ST

ST READE S MOSCO ON ST AY T DIVISI OADW J LANDUSE E BR EF

RSON

PL One & Two Family Buildings ST L HAYES RK ROW HENRY ST INA PA OLIVE MulFamilyCARD Walkup Buildings MECHANI

CLI L ARKET ST MulFamily Elevator Buildings R ST MADISON ST

T S P N

RUT TON ST Mixed Commercial/Residenal Buildings CS AL ST JAME G ERS S Commercial/Oﬃce Buildings PEARLS

Industrial/Manufacturing T E ST MONRO PIK CATH

Transportaon/Ulity E SPRUCE ST S T Public Facilies & Instuons ERI

E Open Space ST CHERRY ST Parking Facilies SOUTH ST B R ST Vacant Land ROO WATE F D R DR KL Y All Others or No Data N B MANHATTA R BRIDGE Feet 0250 500

Residenal Use Residenal use is generally apparent throughout the study area. While the prevailing building form is a low- to mid-rise, mixed-use building featuring commercial uses at the ground floor and residenal space on the upper floors, the area reflects a range of building types, including lower-scale rowhouses, mul-family tenement buildings, mid-rise elevator apartment buildings and tower-in-the-park superblocks. Commercial and Office Use Commercial and office uses are generally concentrated along the Bowery and Canal Street. Throughout the study area there are buildings that offer first floor retail/commercial with residenal space above.

5 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Public Facilies and Instuons Public facilies and instuons, including a number of government oﬃces, are generally concentrated near Worth and Centre streets. Area schools include P.S. 1 Alfred E. Smith, Saint Joseph School, and P.S. 124 Yung Wing School. There are a number of churches and synagogues spread throughout the study area. Parks and Open Space Four parks/playgrounds are located within the study area and several others are located just outside of the study area. Most prominently, the 7.85-acre Sara D. Roosevelt Park overlaps a poron of the study area. This park extends to East Houston Street, beyond the study area’s northern boundary. Columbus Park, at 3.14 acres, is bounded on the north by Bayard Street, on the south by Worth Street, on the east by Mulberry Street, and the west by Baxter Street. Coleman Square Playground, 2.61 acres, which provides baseball ﬁelds, basketball courts, and playgrounds, is located between Market and Pike streets. Tanahey Playground provides 1.25 acres of acve play space between Cherry and Water streets. Industrial Uses There are a few lots in the study area zoned for manufacturing or industrial uses. The industrial areas are in the northwest corner and southern porons of the study area. Vacant Lots There is lile vacant land within the study area. Undeveloped lots, including small sites located on Henry Street and Madison Street, east of Pike Street, are generally used for parking.

6 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Zoning The study area is widely mapped with commercial zoning districts, including high-density C6-1, C6-2, and C6-4 districts, which permit a diverse range of residenal, community facility, retail and commercial Use Groups. These along with some semi-industrial uses, including automove uses, are also permied in the exisng C8-4 zoning district mapped over two blocks between Pike Street and Mechanics Alley. C6-1G and C6-2G districts such as those mapped in other areas of Chinatown, Chelsea, and the Garment district are generally mapped in the northern half of the study area, above East Broadway. Figure 5

RIVIN LISP RRY GTO T C4-4A N S EN S A BAXTER BE T T RD S M1-5B T S S

T H T OWARD MUL T T S

W K ST ALK S TH R7A T MO ER C6-2A OL ± ST F ZABE

LI RY E NOR

WH OWE B V OF THE AMERICAS T ITE ST M1-5 STIE ST D CA S E A LAN N H HE C6-2G RY CE AL S S T Y S T ST T ER S CH T SY T R CHURCH STFRAN GE C4-4A D FO I C6-1 KLI N S AY T ELDR ST BRO D OME ST

AL T ALLEN ST HAR BROADW D C

OR T TLAN R S LUDLOW ST CO TTE C6-2G

YE T A ESSEX ST LEON F H ES GR K S C6-4A LA TER AN ARD S D ST OL T F S CANAL T UF ST C6-1G S W C6-4 O RTH S T T S

HOGAN NTRE BA E YAR C D C6-2 R8 PL C6-1 ST

DUAN PELL E ST ST C6-2G READE S MOSCO T T S DWAY DIVISION ST E BROA

FFERS

N C6-4 ST K ROW HENRY ST YES PL PAR AL HA DIN R7-2 CAR OLI

ME ST CL VER S C8-4 MADISON CHA INTON S PL RUTGERS ST T

T N I C S A S

T RL S RL ST JAME

A L

E P

I MONROE ST KE M ST

A CA R7-2 R KET ST T

HERINE SPRUCE ST C6-4

ST B R ST OOKLYN CHERRY Existing Zoning SOUTH ST

B M1-4 R ST WATER R F D R D Study Area Boundary M1-6 Zoning Boundary MANHATTAN

R8 Zoning District Destination BRIDGE R8 Feet 0250 500

7 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

The study area is also mapped with manufacturing districts, generally located in the northwest- ern poron of the area adjacent to Tribeca and on selected blocks along the waterfront south of the Brooklyn Bridge. These include M1-4, M1-5, M1-6 districts, as well as a small poron of an M1-5B district. This exisng zoning permits Use Groups allowing certain retail, commercial, manufacturing (that can conform to high performance standards) and semi-industrial, including automove uses. The M1-5B district is a special district that allows arsts to occupy joint living- work quarters as an industrial use in a lo building. Use Group 16, which includes bus depots and certain other semi-industrial or automove uses, is permied as-of-right in the manufacturing districts and in the C8-4 district. The study area is also mapped with a general residence R7-2 district, largely in the blocks between East Broadway and the FDR Drive. This district permits a wide range of housing types, community facilies and, in areas mapped with a commercial overlay district, certain local retail and service uses.

8 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Bus Operaons The bus schedules for each company operang within the study area were obtained either online or by requesng a wrien schedule directly from the bus operators. In some cases both online and paper schedules were available and were cross referenced in order to provide as accurate a schedule as possible. The bus schedules were verified on Friday September 19, Sunday September 21, and Monday September 22, 2008. To determine the accuracy of the bus schedules, counts were conducted by staff from 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM at four locaons that had the highest number of arrivals and departures: 13 Allen Street, 139 Canal Street, 133 East Broadway, 88 East Broadway. When staff went into the field to conduct counts, the 88 East Broadway locaon, on Forsyth Street between East Broadway and Division Street, was cordoned off by police barricades. When asked about the blockade, police officers replied that this was a recent permanent change that had been ordered by the Police Department’s (NYPD) 5th Precinct. The cket sellers remained at this locaon selling bus ckets and direcng passengers to nearby locaons where interstate buses were loading and unloading.

Police barricades close 88 East Boradway to buses

As a result of the new NYPD policy of prohibing buses to conduct curbside loading at 88 East Broadway, the buses were displaced and conducted their loading at various other locaons throughout the study area. Staff members were told that buses were loading at Metropolitan Transportaon Authority (MTA) bus stops on Henry Street and Allen Street. It was not possible to obtain accurate numbers since the buses were moved to many different locaons, and some locaons were undisclosed, to be revealed only if a cket was purchased. Addionally, many of the buses were marked with different company names, making it difficult to determine which company was dispatching them. The only companies that accurately followed their adversed schedules were Fung Wah and Lucky Star. These companies are located north of Canal Street and were unaffected by the closure of the 88 East Broadway locaon.

9 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

The closure of the curb space adjacent to 88 East Broadway has created a new set of problems for nearby Allen Street, Henry Street and other locaons along East Broadway. The interstate buses that once loaded and unloaded passengers at 88 East Broadway, have sought nearby MTA bus stops from which to operate. Interstate buses were observed to be obstrucng MTA buses, forcing MTA buses to load passengers in the middle of the street. This pracce further delays traf- ﬁc and creates potenally dangerous condions for MTA passengers. Addionally, passengers waing for buses with luggage and packages on the sidewalks and in bus shelters results in severe sidewalk congeson. A survey conducted by AM NY News found that this was commonplace as well.2 While the bus companies post schedules online, these buses do not always depart or arrive according to schedule. Buses will oen wait for addional passengers and depart when they are full.3 In addion, traﬃc and other roune traveling delays will cause buses to arrive later than their scheduled mes. However, the following data taken from online bus schedules posted by www.chinatownbus.org, provides a fairly accurate representaon of the number of interstate buses arriving to, and deparng from, Chinatown daily. The numbers do not include intrastate buses traveling to other cies within New York State, such as Albany or Syracuse.

Table 1

Daily Esmated Arrivals and Departures Departures Arrivals Daily Total Sunday 149 142 291 Monday 135 141 276 Tuesday 132 130 262 Wednesday 125 129 254 Thursday 127 126 253 Friday 141 138 279 Saturday 139 133 272

Table 1 indicates that the days with the highest number of daily total buses are weekends. Sun- day has 291 daily total buses, the highest number of buses throughout the week. Friday has 279 daily total buses, the second highest number of buses throughout the week. The days with the lowest number of daily total buses are Wednesday (254) and Thursday (253). The bus schedules indicate that these buses travel at all hours of the day and night. Buses depart for Philadelphia or Boston at 11:00 PM and arrive from Virginia at 1:00 AM. The bus acvity is constant and around the clock. The locaon with the highest number of arrivals and departures, at the me data were collected, was 88 East Broadway. The buses are now dispersed along Allen and Henry streets, however, the number of buses likely remain the same. Table 2 and Figure 6 below indicate all interstate bus locaons and the number of arrivals and departures on Sunday.

2 Marlene Naanes, “Cheap Buses Drive NY Crazy” AM New York, Pg. 3, October 27, 2008. 3 Chinatown Bus, “Chinatown Bus History.” (2007) hp://www.chinatownbus.org/ (Accessed June 2, 2008). 10 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Table 2

Sunday Esmated Arrivals and Departures Locaon Number of Arrivals Number of Departures 13 Allen Street 28 35 33 Allen Street 1 2 59 Canal Street 3 3 139 Canal Street 18 20 69 Chryse Street 17 16 87 Chryse Street 8 8 88 East Broadway 47 46 133 East Broadway 16 17 175B Lafayee St 1 1 The peak period for arrivals and departures is 4:00 PM to 7:00 PM.

11 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Figure 6

RIDGE S RIDGE PITT ST PITT

ATTORNEY ST ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY ST

CLINTON ST CLINTON FDR DR FDR

2 SUFFOLK ST SUFFOLK

STATON ST W SHL RIVER E

122 Allen Street NORFOLK ST NORFOLK BROOME ST

GRAND ST ESSEX ST ESSEX ALLEY JEFFERSON ST 35

6 CT BNDY CT 59 Canal Street

133 East Broadway LUDLOW ST LUDLOW 3

RIVINGTON ST ORCHARD ST ORCHARD

33 Allen Street ALLEN ST ALLEN HESTER ST MANHATTAN BR 16 DELANCEY ST

MADISON ST MADISON PIKE SL

HENRY ST HENRY PIKE ST E BROADWAY E

87 Chrystie Street FORSYTH ST FORSYTH

MN BR APPR CHRYSTIE ST CHRYSTIE

MARKET ST BOWERY

SPRING ST

SOUTH ST SOUTH ELIZABETH ST ELIZABETH DR FDR

WATER ST WATER

CHERRY ST CHERRY MONROE ST MONROE

63 CATHERINE ST

175B Lafayette Street KENMARE ST ST MOTT ST DIVISION

13 Allen Street

MARKET PL MARKET CENTER

93 MULBERRY ST MULBERRY OLIVER ST 33 UNNAMED ST PELL ST

ALLEY 38 BR BK EN NB DR FDR 88 East Broadway

69 Chrystie Street BAYARD ST

BROOME ST MOSCO ST MOSCO PL JAMES ST

139 Canal Street CENTRE ST CENTRE

CROSBY ST CROSBY

BAXTER ST BAXTER PARK ROW PARK BROOKLYN BR

DOVER ST

LAFAYETTE HOGAN PL

HOWARD ST ST PEARL

ONT ST ONT

MERCER ST MERCER

2000 CB BNDY CB 2000

MERCER ST MERCER WATER ST WATER

BROADWAY 1999 CT BNDY CT 1999

ROSE ST ROSE BEEKMAN ST LISPENARD ST 2000 CB BNDY WALKER ST

WHITE ST Arrival/Departure Locations Study Area GOLD ST GOLD

BKBR APPR AV OF THE AMERICS THE OF AV SPRUCE ST ST CLIFF LEONARD ST

WORTH ST CHURCH ST CHURCH THOMAS ST BEEKMAN ST Sunday Bus Volumes Arrivals and Departures

DUANE ST ANN ST ± VARICK ST VARICK CHAMBERS ST FULTON ST JOHN ST READE ST PLATT ST

12 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Business Model There are several reasons independent bus companies can offer lower fares than larger commercial bus carriers, which have been operang for decades. First, most Chinatown operators run small, streamlined operaons and only offer basic service. Most of the bus companies do not have staons; instead they pickup and discharge passengers curbside. Second, they do not use tradional adversing methods; they rely on word of mouth and internet cket sales. Third, many of the operators play a hands-on role in daily management of the company; some owners even drive buses when necessary.4 Finally, and perhaps the most important factor, operators make sure they fill their buses. It is for this reason that they only serve heavily trafficked routes and they will oen wait unl a bus is full before leaving, even if this means long delays for passengers.5 Previous Aempts to Improve Condions What began as a few dayme buses traveling to Boston has turned into a major industry that dispatches over 200 trips a day entering and exing the city and providing service around the clock. Concerns have been previously expressed by the community6 in the Community District Needs Statements, leers to CB3 from residents of Knickerbocker Village7 and from CB3 to the Lower Manhaan Development Corporaon,8 as well as a CB3 Resoluon9 that include pedestrian and vehicular congeson; polluon from fuel exhaust, noise and lier; blocking waterfront access; safety concerns with the condions of the buses, qualificaons of the drivers, and unloading hundreds of lost and confused visitors onto the streets without proper direcons. The Issues and Community Concerns secon of this report will expand on the problems created by curbside loading in the Chinatown community. In 2007 the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit (CAU) spearheaded an effort to relocate some of these buses in response to community concerns. Some of the idenfied relocaon sites were Forsyth Street, between Canal Street and Division Street; Pike Street, between Monroe Street and South Street; the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area bordered by Delancey Street, Broome Street, Essex Street and Clinton Street. (See Figure 7 for the locaons listed above.) Forsyth Street was eliminated from consideraon since the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) requested that this street be kept clear in case of an emergency on the Manhaan Bridge. The Pike Street locaon was eliminated from consideraon aer concerns were raised over the exhaust entering nearby Coleman Park. Addional concerns were raised about passengers using the restroom facilies in the park. Lastly, the Seward Park Urban Renewal Area was eliminated from consideraon because it is too far from the core of Chinatown, and the Lower East Side BID provides parking on these lots to neighborhood shoppers. Addionally, many community members support other uses for these lots,10 such as housing.11

4 Saki Knafo, “Dreams and Desperaon on Forsyth Street.” The New York Times, Sunday, June 8, 2008. 5 Chinatown Bus, “Chinatown Bus History.” (2007) hp://www.chinatownbus.org/ (Accessed June 2, 2008). 6 Sruthi Pinnamaneni, “Corralling Chinatown’s Cowboy buses.” Downtown Express, (August 3, 2007) hp://www. downtownexpress.com/de_223/ (Accessed June 18, 2008). 7 Residents of Knickerbocker Village, Leer to David McWater, Chair of CB3, July 17, 2007. 8 David McWater and Richard Ropiak, Leer from CB3 Chair and Parks and Recreaon Chair to Kevin Rampe, President of the Lower Manhaan Development Corporaon, March 2, 2007. 9 David McWater, CB3 Chair and David Crane, CB3 Transportaon Chair, CB3 Resoluon, July 31, 2007. 10 Meeng with Lolita Jackson, Manhaan Director, CAU, April 2008. 11 David Gonzalez, “Forty Years of Growth, Except Where It Was Expected.” New York Times, August 27, 2007. 13 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

It is clear that a signiﬁcant amount of resources have already been commied to ﬁnding a new locaon for the interstate buses. However, none of the recommended sites have proven to be feasible. As such, the buses connue to operate from their current locaons and the CAU no longer plans to relocate the buses at this me. However, they have made a commitment to assist the Department of City Planning (DCP) in this study. Figure 7 RIVI Y N ER G LISP R TON ST ENARD S ST BAXT BER L ST U ST T HOWARD M T WALKER ST ST MOT DEL AMERICAS ABETH ST AN Z CE Y Y ST

THE ± ELI

WER Seward Park Urban

WHITE O C B Renewal Area AV A ST S NAL STIE ST T HES H H ST TER RY T ST Y ST CH URC RS F E ST BR R Y O OOM A F CH NKLIN E WA IDG ST ST ST

AL ELDR LEN RD ST BROAD DT L A N A A TL T ORCH E S LOW ST D COR T ST ETT U S L X

SSE LAFAY E LEONA HES ST TER LK RD ST NORFOLK C FO ST ANA L S G SUF T RAN W D S OR T TH ST ST E R T HOG BAY CEN A ARD N S PL T

DUAN PELL E S ST Forsyth Street North T of Division Street

REA MOSCO DE ST ST ROADWAY DIVISION ST E B

JEF

FERS

N ST OW RY ST PARK R HEN ES PL L HAY A O DIN CAR LI V MECHANICS ER MADISON ST CL

ST INTO PL S RUTGE

T JAME T S AL Pike Street RS

PEARLST Between ST

PMonroe and IKE ST MONROE ST MA South Streets

CATH

KET S

SPRUCE S ERINE

ST T ERRY ST RELOCATION SITES CH H ST Coleman SOUT Park R ST BRO WATE R ELIMINATEDOKLY FROM F D R D N B MANHATTAN R CONSIDERATION BRIDGE Feet 0250 500

14 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Industry Regulaons Currently, the United States Department of Transportaon (USDOT) is responsible for regulat- ing interstate buses. The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administraon (FMCSA) oversees driver qualificaons, work schedules, and vehicle safety; and the Surface Transportaon Board (STB) oversees intercity passenger bus company structure, finances, and operaons. The bus drivers and companies must comply with New York State regulaons set by the Depart- ment of Motor Vehicles (DMV) for safety including bus guidelines, state sckers, weigh staons, number of violaons, etc. NYCDOT does not inspect vehicles. Under USDOT regulaons, any “for-hire” vehicles weighing over 10,000 pounds and transporng more than nine passengers, must obtain a USDOT number. An Operang Authority MC number is also required. The applicaon processing fee for an MC number is $300. The USDOT number and Operang Authority number can be used to check a company’s safety rang. Bus companies are permied to change the name of their operaon for a $14 fee if there is no change in the ownership, management, or control of the company. The MC number remains the same if the company changes its name. USDOT numbers are not transferable. There are some limitaons to the City of New York’s authority when regulang the Chinatown buses, due to the fact that they are interstate carriers. If the operaon of buses interferes with the flow of traffic,12 some restricons may be placed on bus operators. New York City may assign interstate buses specific bus stops or zones, but may not prohibit them from conducng interstate commerce. If there is space in a bus terminal, curbside buses could be required to operate from it. Right now there is no available space in the Port Authority Bus Terminal at 42nd Street and there is no area in or near the Chinatown core that is opmal for curbside bus loading. There is currently a waing list for bus companies that want to operate out of the Port Authority. In addion to the buses in Chinatown, there are other buses loading and unloading passengers on the curb in front of the Port Authority; many are discount companies offering low cket prices. The most effecve tool the City has to regulate curbside bus operaon is enforcement. Effecve enforcement requires cooperaon from all city agencies including NYPD, the Department of En- vironmental Protecon (DEP), and the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA). According to the Rules of the City of New York (RCNY), a bus may not park unless authorized by signs.13 Idling for longer than one and one-half minutes is also illegal. Idling laws are enforced by the DEP, who can issue a summons of up to $2,000 for repeat offenses. Many of the curbside buses in Chinatown, unl recently, loaded and unloaded passengers at 88 East Broadway, where there is a bus layover sign. This locaon was designated as a bus loading area by the NYPD and DOT. In order to increase pedestrian safety and reduce traffic congeson, the NYPD has communicated with the bus drivers and operators and has negoated with them about where they may or may not load passengers.14 Since curb space is limited, it is not possible to have signs for each type of bus on the curb. Secon 383 of the NYC Vehicle and Traffic Laws (VTL) prohibits private use of a public right-of-way. A bus may use a stop dedicated for another bus (since it is a bus stop) to load and unload passengers

12 Rules of the City of New York, Title 34, Secon 4-10. 13 Ibid. 14 Sgt. Frank Failla of the 5th Precinct, telephone interview, September 24, 2008.

15 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY expediously. This is currently the pracce among tour buses in the city. Tour buses, which are regulated by DCA, commonly use MTA bus stops. However, it is important to note that it is illegal to wait, layover, or park in a bus stop. The sale of bus ckets on the sidewalk is another pracce that the NYPD and DCA aempted to eliminate. According to Sgt. Frank Failla of the 5th Precinct, several years ago the DCA served the cket sellers with summonses for illegal street vending. However, the summonses were dis- missed in court on the grounds that the vendors were selling services, not goods, which is permit- ted on the sidewalks.15

15 Ibid. 16 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Issues and Community Concerns While the Chinatown buses provide an important service to the Chinatown community and to many travelers and tourists, they also create problems for the neighborhood including congeson, polluon, noise, safety and security. Congeson The congeson created by the Chinatown buses is both on-street and on the sidewalks. Buses regularly impede the flow of traffic by blocking travel lanes and bus stops. Addionally, buses occasionally park in metered parking spaces in order to avoid parking summonses. The buses will occupy up to three parking spaces and will not depart unl a new bus arrives to occupy the same spaces. While the buses do create a significant amount of congeson in the Chinatown area, it is impor- Buses occupy a significant amount of curbspace along tant to note that this is not a new problem for East Broadway the neighborhood. Canal Street carries a significant amount truck traffic since it is a through and local truck route and runs the enre width of Manhaan connecng the free Manhaan Bridge with the Holland Tunnel. Trucks (as well as many cars) try to avoid the one-way, Staten Island-bound toll on the Verrazano Bridge by using the Manhaan Bridge instead, thereby increasing traffic. One-way tolls were installed on the Verrazano Bridge in 1986, in response to community efforts to curb polluon from idling vehicles. According to a report from Congress- Dump truck crashes into Fung Wah bus loading man Anthony Weiner’s Office, truck traffic has passengers on Canal Street. Filippo, www.flickr.com. increased by almost 30% on City roads.16 In June of 2008 one woman was killed and several people were injured when a Fung Wah bus struck them, aer a dump truck careened into the back of the bus.17 An addional problem created by the buses is that they aract large crowds of people. Each bus can accommodate 50 to 60 passengers and many of them wait on the sidewalk. As a result, the sidewalk congeson generated by the buses is significant. Passengers queue with luggage and other packages on sidewalks that are 15 feet-wide or narrower. They impede pedestrian traffic forcing many pedestrians to walk in the street as they circumvent the crowds.18

16 The Oﬃce of Congressman Anthony D. Weiner, “New York City Keeps Trucking– A Lot: A Study of Truck Traﬃc in NYC 1998 -2007.” (January 12, 2007) hp://www.house.gov/list/press/ny09_weiner/trucks_report.doc/ (Accessed August 5, 2008). 17 David Freedlander and Marlene Naanes, “Bus Crash Latest in String of Pedestrian Accidents.” (June 24, 2008). AM New York Online, hp://www.amny.com/news/local/transportaon/am-bus/ (Accessed September 4, 2008). 18 Graham T. Beck, “The Down Side of Low-Cost Buses.” Gotham Gazee, (September 18, 2008) hp://www. gothamgazee.com/arcle/transportaon/20080918/ (Accessed September 19, 2008). 17 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Passengers wait on Allen Street for Apex bus Passengers wait on Division Street for Great Wall bus Polluon and Lier Another concern associated with the Chinatown Bus industry is air and noise polluon, and lier. The buses arrive and depart at all hours of the day, on some days over 200 buses are dispatched, causing consistent polluon. At least one bus company reportedly operates old buses that may have failed inspecons,19 and give off high emissions. Most of the buses observed while conduct- ing field work appeared to be older models. Area residents are concerned about the effect of the bus emissions on air quality.20 Noise polluon is also a concern since local residents hear the constant rumbling of bus engines on their streets. Trash bags near Lucky Star bus stop Lier is also a problem the buses create. Many of the smaller bus companies do not have waing rooms so passengers are forced to wait on the sidewalk. As they wait, there is no proper place for trash disposal or available restrooms. Much of the waste generated by waing passengers is thrown onto the sidewalks. It is important to note, however, that some bus companies do try to control the amount of lier on public property and provide restrooms for the passengers. Lucky Star es trash bags to the gate of Sara D. Roosevelt Park. Both Apex Bus at 13 Allen Street, and Double Happiness Bus at 133 East Broad- way provide waing rooms.

19 Mac Daniel, “Fung Wah Bus Line Faces State, Federal Scruny.” The Boston Globe, (September 7, 2006) hp:// www.boston.com/news/local/arcles/2006/09/07/ (Accessed March 18, 2008). 20 Triada Stampas, “Idling Buses: Exhausng our Health.” Prepared for The Council of the City of New York, The Commiee on Oversight and Invesgaons, (October 2003) hp://www.nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/ govpub/760busidling.pdf./ (Accessed July 25, 2008). 18 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Safety Bus operators will oen put off repairs in order to save money in the near term.21 Addionally, there is no terminal in which the buses can be serviced.22 There have been reports of buses being seized for repair problems, buses catching fire23 and turning over.24 Drivers frequently fail to comply with speed limits, and operate buses that failed inspecon.25 Senator Schumer called for addional oversight and more inspecons to be carried out by the Federal Motor Carriers As- 26 sociaon. Photo of cracked window on a Chinatown bus. Carrier There are also concerns with discharging scores not idenfied. The Viscious One, www.flickr.com. of lost and confused visitors onto the city’s streets without proper direcons. When visitors enter the city through the Port Authority Bus Terminal there are signs direcng travelers, and employees who can provide assistance. When passengers are le on the city’s streets they can become targets for thieves and other criminals, however some companies such as Fung Wah and Lucky Star do have uniformed staff at the loading sites in order to provide assistance.

Fung Wah Staﬀ in red uniform Lucky Star staﬀ in bright green uniform

21 Mac Daniel, “Wheel Scare Halts Fung Wah Bus Trip, Mishaps Connue for Bargain Carrier.” The Boston Globe, (January 4, 2007) hp://www.boston.com/news/local/arcles/2007/01/04/ (July 2, 2008). 22 I-Ching Ng, “Trouble on the Highway and Parked in Chinatown.” City Limits Weekly, (June 11, 2007) hp:// www.citylimits.org/content/arcles/viewarcle.cfm/ (Accessed July, 2008). 23 Lisa Fleisher and Mac Daniel, “Passengers Say Bus Firm Unresponsive Fire, Delays Le Many in Diﬃcultly.” The Boston Globe, (August 18, 2005) hp://www.boston.com/news/local/massachuses/arcles/2005/08/18/ (Accessed June 5, 2008). 24 Robert D. McFadden, “Bus to Casinos Skid oﬀ Parkway; 2 Die and 28 are Injured.” The New York Times, (February 8, 2003). hp://query.nymes.com/gst/fullpage.html/ (Accessed August 5, 2008). 25 Mac Daniel, “Fung Wah Bus Line Faces State, Federal Scruny.” The Boston Globe, (September 7, 2006) hp:// www.boston.com/news/local/arcles/2006/09/07/ (Accessed March 18, 2008). 26 Senator Charles Schumer, “Schumer Reveals Safety Gap on Inner-City Chinatown Buses; Rated Dangerously Low on Safety by Feds.” (August 28, 2005) hp://schumer.senate.gov/ShumerWebsite/pressroom/press-release/ (Accessed July 8, 2008). 19 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Community Concerns In their Community District (CD) Needs Statements, Community Boards 1, 2 and 3, which overlap the study area, have indicated the following problems that these buses cause: The residents of CD 1 express the need for a bus storage facility because of the hundreds of commuter and tour buses that travel throughout Lower Manhaan each day. The people of this district are ancipang more buses once the World Trade Center site is rebuilt. The community is concerned with the polluon, noxious fumes, and congeson that are associated with the various interstate, tourist, and commuter buses that frequent the streets. They believe if there were a bus storage facility, then the buses would not be parked in front of their homes and workplaces. The residents of CD 2 express concerns regarding the high levels of pedestrian traffic as well as the polluon emied from semi-trucks and buses. They contend that many heavy vehicles will pass through this community district in order to use the toll-free Manhaan Bridge with access to the Holland Tunnel instead of the Verrazano Bridge which has a toll. The residents of CD 3 are concerned with the traffic and parking congeson the numerous vans and low-cost bus companies are causing in Chinatown. They request that the NYPD and other enforcement agencies monitor and enforce curbside pick-up and drop-offs as well as proper layover pracces. Figure 8 below illustrates the problem areas which generate most of the community’s complaints. Figure 8

LISPENARD S ER T RI ERRY ST VINGT BAX B T S O T N S T HOWARD ST T MUL W ALKE MOTT S R ST Y LIZABETH ST ± E

WER ST WHI O E CANAL ST B I T T AV OF THE AMERICAS E ST D HES ELA TER NC EY ST ST ST CHRYS RSYTH ST HURCH ST FRA GE C NKLI FO WAY ID N ST R L A ELD D ST ROAD R B A BROO ALLEN ST M CH E ST T R S O TE CORTLANDT T ST LUDLOW ST FAYET SEX OLK S T LA ES F LEONARD HE R K S ST L BOWERY ER ST NO O ST CANAL ST G SUFF RAND ST

WORTH ST ALLEN ST

T S

H B OG AYARD ST CENTRE AN CANAL PL ST

D UA NE ST PELL ST ST

ALLEN REA MOSCO DE S T T S OADWAY DIVISION ST DIVISION ST E BR

EFF

EAST BROADWAY ER

SON

S K ROW T S PL PAR HENRY ST HAYE NAL OLIV CARDI MECH ER MADISON ST CLI ST PL T NTON S A RUTGERS ES NIC MADISON S M

JA S

T RL ST RL AL

ST EA

S P

PI MONROE ST KE ST M

A CATHERIN

ET SPRUCE ST

E S ST PIKE SLIP

T ST CHERRY PROBLEM AREAS SOUTH ST

B ST R WATER O R Study Area BoundaryOKL F D R D Y N B MANHATTAN R Problem Areas BRIDGE Feet 0250 500

20 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Another concern the CD 3 residents have is the bus layover area on South Street. They indicate that the parked buses create a barrier between the residents and the water. They want the NYPD and DEP to strictly enforce the idling law. The issue of Chinatown buses was discussed at Community Board 3’s District Service Cabinet Meeng of April 2009. Members of the Board stated that complaints are received constantly. Parcularly the residents of 1 and 3 Pike Street are having diﬃcules with passengers waing for buses in their lobbies. The residents have peoned NYCDOT to remove this bus stop in front of their buildings.27 Some other problems include buses stuck on narrow side streets and buses and waing passengers blocking entrances to small businesses.28

The CAU reported to Community Board 3 that on Thursday, April 2, 2008, the 5th and 7th Precincts conducted a joint operaon and issued 51 violaons, including one moving violaon and 28 parking summonses to bus operators. Addionally, a total of eight buses were towed because they did not pass safety inspecons. These buses were not released to their respecve owners unl the safety issues were corrected. In a preceding operaon the 5th Precinct towed 15 buses and issued 30 summonses.29 Case Studies Cies outside of New York have issues concerning the regulaon of Chinatown buses as well. This study examines Boston, District of Columbia, and Philadelphia in order to provide an understanding of the disnct issues in each city. The issues resulng from Chinatown buses in these cies are not exactly parallel to those of New York City. However, the Case Studies do provide some informaon about what can be done to manage the industry and ensure safety and security to patrons, while also protecng the rights of the bus operators and preserving the low-cost fare business model. Addionally, a discussion of the Port Authority Bus Terminal and George Washington Bridge Bus Staon is provided. This discussion explains how historically, New York City has dealt with the growth of the bus industry and provides insight into what might be expected if the buses were moved to a centralized locaon such as a terminal.

27 Meeng Minutes, Community Board 3 District Service Cabinet Meeng, April 14, 2009. 28 Susan Stetzer, DM CB3 and David Crane, CB3 Transportaon Commiee Chair, Telephone interviews, May 1, 2009. 29 Meeng Minutes, Community Board 3 District Service Cabinet Meeng, April 14, 2009. 21 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Boston, MA Figure 9

Boston’s Chinatown highlighted in red, Google maps

As the popularity of the curbside Chinatown buses escalated in Boston, so did the congeson problem on city streets. In 2004, all curbside buses operang out of Chinatown in Boston were ordered by the Massachuses Bay Transportaon Authority (MBTA) and the Massachuses High- way Department to comply with a city ordinance prohibing them from loading buses curbside and requiring them to operate out of South Staon.30 In 2004, Fung Wah requested that the Boston Department of Transportaon (BDOT) place a bus loading sign on the street in Chinatown,

30 Janna Starcic, “Surviving the Motorcoach Rate-Cung War.” Metro Magazine, (August 2005) hp://www. metro-magazine.com/Arcle/Story/2005/08/Surviving-the-Motorcoach-Rate-Cung-War.aspx (Accessed July 18, 2008). 22 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN designang the area, for Fung Wah buses only. The city rejected Fung Wah’s request because as it would have given Fung Wah an unfair advantage. Addionally, the City of Boston would have lost revenue from terminal fees by allowing Fung Wah to operate on city streets, because there was ample room in the South Staon Bus Depot for addional buses.31 In contrast, the Port Au- thority Bus Terminal in New York City is operang at capacity with a waing list. Through effecve enforcement, and with the help of Chinatown residents and the Chinatown Civic Associaon, the City was able to end the curbside bus problem. Traf- fic enforcement officers, which operate under the City’s Department of Transporta- on, cket Fung Wah buses frequently for illegal parking. According to Bob Dimico of the BDOT, “it just was not worth their while anymore to operate on the street.” From March through September of 2004, Fung Wah received $11,000 in ckets from the City of Boston,32 which is far above the South Staon terminal fees. Currently, there are only two Chinatown bus compa- Fung Wah cket line in Boston’s South Staon nies operang out of South Staon, Fung Wah and Lucky Star. According to Bob Dimico, aside from commuter vans there have not been any reports or complaints of buses loading and unloading curbside in Chinatown. While there are many commuter vans (mainly that operate between Boston and New Hampshire) that load and unload passengers on the curb, they are not reported as a nuisance for the City. Commuter vans do not operate throughout the day. They typically arrive around 9:00 AM and depart around 5:00 PM and do not bring passengers with luggage, thereby liming the load me. Addionally, an agreement was reached with the MBTA, which prohibits commuter vans from loading passengers in MBTA bus stops.33

31 Bob Dimico of the Boston Department of Transportaon (BDOT), telephone interview, June 24, 2008. 32 Steve Bailey, “Peter Pan is a Bully.” The Boston Globe, (June 18, 2004) hp://www.bostoncom/business/ arcles/2004/06/18/peter_pan_is_a_bully/ (Accessed July 29, 2008). 33 Bob Dimico of the Boston Department of Transportaon (BDOT), telephone interview, June 24, 2008.

23 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Washington, DC Figure 10

DC’s Chinatown highlighted in red, Google maps

In 2007 DC’s Downtown Neighborhood Associaon, a local civic associaon, expressed concern about curbside buses operang in D.C.’s Chinatown in a July 24, 2007 leer to Mayor Adrian Fenty: Chinatown buses increase traﬃc congeson and interfere with law abiding businesses and park (or double- park) in front of residenal buildings. The buses o en block street traﬃc, sidewalks and/or alleys while loading and unloading. Double parking is common, as is the use of no-parking zones and loading zones. The companies seem to lack public space permits. Customer queuing frequently eliminates the pedestrian right of way, o en forcing pedestrians into the street. These lines also obstruct the entrances of legimate businesses. When parked, some buses habitually block storefronts (for example, the Eastern Travel stop at 715 H Street NW creates havoc for Matchbox Restaurant at 713 H Street). The buses idle far longer than the three minute maximum, which harms air quality and pollutes the air of nearby homes and businesses.

24 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

We understand that efforts have been made by MPD [Metropolitan Police Department] to enforce appli- cable ordinances, including those governing traffic, the environment, parking and public space. However, we have learned that this is difficult due to the avoidance strategies taken by these companies [which] rounely change ownership along their service chain so that a cket to a company is hard to enforce since… the company ceases and another is created in its place. We need strategies to reconcile this effecve avoidance behavior.

It is our understanding that buses that MPD finds with outstanding ckets or are unsafe cannot be towed because the towing resources and space to store these buses does not exist. So, they can issue thousands of dollars in ckets that are treated as a cost of doing business in DC or worse, ignored by rounely changing ownership structure. In short, efforts to enforce exisng laws are not effecve because we do not have the resources to seize and store the buses. We ask you to find the resources to enforce our laws and seize unsafe buses.34

An emergency rule was adopted on May 29, 2008 by the District Department of Transpor- taon (DDOT). Chapter 33, Title 24 of the District of Columbia Municipal Regulaons (DCMR), entled “Public Space and Safety,” was amended to establish curbside loading and unloading zones for intercity bus service. Intercity bus is deﬁned by the DCMR as a vehicle-for-hire seang more than 12 people used for regularly scheduled, city to city transportaon (Secon 3399, Subsecon 1). A pilot program was proposed that would re- Passengers wait for Chinatown Bus on sidewalk in D.C. quire all buses to have a Public-Right-of-Way Bus is double parked on H St NW between 8th St NW and 7th St NW. permit and pay a rental fee to load and unload passengers in the designated “intercity bus zone.” Each permit would have a one year term. The rental fee would be $1.18 for each 30-minute increment of public right-of-way used by the intercity bus operator for each arrival and departure in the intercity bus zone. The intercity bus zone is deﬁned by the DCMR as a segment of a curb lane designated by signs prohibing general purpose parking or standing to facilitate loading and unloading of intercity buses providing regularly scheduled intercity bus service. The intercity bus zone is at the curb lane of northbound 10th Street SW, south of D Street SW, beneath the L’Enfant Promenade, as designated by signs. This will be the bus zone unl June 30, 2009 (Secon 3399, Subsecon 1). Some highlights of the new intercity bus zone pilot program include:

• A $100 permit applicaon fee. • All permit applicaons must include a proposed schedule, to be approved by the DDOT. • A plan for orderly queuing of waing passengers (so pedestrian movement along the sidewalk will not be obstructed or adjacent buildings will not be obstructed or impeded). • All vehicles must have a copy of the arrival/departure schedule, stamped and signed by the DOT while occupying the loading/unloading zone.

34 Miles E. Groves of the Downtown Neighborhood Associaon, Leer to Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, July 24, 2007. 25 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

• No occupancy of the loading/unloading zone prior to 30 minutes before scheduled departure as listed on the approved schedule, stamped and signed by DDOT. • No vending of ckets in public space.

The DDOT has also proposed hey fines for operators who fail to comply with the new rules governing curbside buses. The fine for failure to display a permit is between $100 and $300; depending on how many mes the offense occurs. The fine for failure to obtain a permit for an intercity bus zone is between $500 and $1,500. The pilot program was originally intended to begin in July of 2008, but DDOT suspended the intercity permit regulaons to allow for addional evaluaon and review of the program and policy. In response to public comments received, the Emergency Regulaons were rescinded and the Proposed Rulemaking was revised to allow more than one locaon for loading and unloading of intercity buses, to clarify the applicaon process and to modify the basis for computaon of the public space rental fee. Currently there are no rules in effect regulang Chinatown buses. In January 2009, DC again revised regulaons for the intercity bus program. Like the original pilot program, the revised regulaons require all intercity buses to have a Public-Right-of-Way permit. One of the major changes in the new amendments to the DCMR is “intercity bus” has been rede- fined as a for-hire vehicle with the seang capacity of more than 25 passengers used for regularly scheduled, interstate travel. In addion to permit and applicaon fees, there would be an annual public space rental fee for the use of the public right-of-way for intercity bus service. The fees would be determined by whether public curbside parking spaces are metered or non-metered, and how many days/hours the space would be occupied for operaons. Public-Right-of-Way permits would only be granted upon approval by a Public Space Commiee, who has the right to deny a permit if it determines the applicant does not meet a set of condions, including whether the intercity bus operaons would have a direct impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, on nearby public transit systems, or any other effects on health and safety. Addional highlights of the amended DCMR are:

• DDOT may designate shared intercity bus service passenger loading zones.

• DDOT will post signs indicang locaon and hours of operaon for each approved intercity bus service passenger loading zone.

• Permit holders would be responsible for any direct costs and loss of revenue incurred by the Department in the creaon of the intercity bus service passenger loading zones, including installaon of signage marking the intercity bus loading/unloading zone, parking meter bagging.

• Intercity bus service operaons can only be conducted within the authorized passenger loading zone designated by their speciﬁc permit.

26 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

• The maximum layover/dwell me for intercity bus service passenger loading zones would be 15 minutes.

• Intercity bus service public space permit holders would need to inform the DDOT of any changes in route, ownership, and/or liability insurance.

• A new applicaon for a public space permit would need to be submied if there are any changes to operang hours, locaon, or schedule.

• DDOT may revoke an annual public space permit for failure to comply with the new rules.

The proposed regulaons will be republished for comment prior to ﬁnalizaon.35

35 Alice Kelly, Program Manager, Public Space Policy Branch, Transportaon Policy and Planning Administraon, DDOT. Telephone interview, January 28, 2009. 27 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Philadelphia Figure 11

Philadelphia’s Chinatown highlighted in red, Google maps

Philadelphia’s Chinatown is located north of Center City and is bounded by 8th, 13th, Filbert and Spring Garden Streets.36 Although Philadelphia’s Chinatown is small compared to New York City’s Manhaan Chinatown, it does occupy 20 square blocks.37 Chinatown serves as a cultural cen-

36 Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporaon. “11th Street Commercial Corridor” (June 2007). www. chinatown-pcdc.org/images/11th%20St%20project/11th%20Street%20Report%20Introducon.pdf (Accessed March 30, 2009). 37 Ibid. 28 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN ter and a hub of services for Asians in the Delaware Valley. An esmated 75,000 people come through Chinatown every weekend.38 Many visitors arrive to Philadelphia by bus. In 2007, the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporaon (PCDC), a neighborhood advocacy group, conducted a Neighborhood Resident Sasfacon Survey. Most of the respondents did not perceive the Chinatown buses as a problem. Yet, the closer the respondents lived to the buses, the more likely they were to have a problem with them.39 Similar to the situaon in NYC, the sidewalks are narrow and become filled with lier. Phila- delphia’s biggest challenge with regard to Chinatown buses is controlling lier resulng from passengers waing outdoors during peak periods. Although the bus companies that operate in Philadelphia have storefronts with waing rooms, when the weather is nice the passengers will wait outside. Therefore, in addion to generang lier, they also create a significant amount of pedestrian congeson on the sidewalks. Although the overall opinion based on PCDC’s surveys is that the Chinatown buses do not create problems, in a neighboring district of Philadelphia many problems were created by tour buses. The Independence Naonal Historic Park draws in many visitors and school groups, and is the top visitor aracon in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.40 Because of the traffic issues created by the tour buses, the City of Philadelphia funded a study to examine the buses that rounely loaded and unloaded near Independence Naonal Historic Park. The study concluded that 37 percent of the site’s 1.8 million annual visitors arrived by bus.41 The study also found that spring weekdays are the peak me when school groups visit the site, at mes generang 300 buses per day. Annually, the tourist aracon receives approximately 25,000 charter and tour buses.42 As a result of the study’s findings, the City of Philadelphia constructed the Independence Trans- portaon Center (ITC) and required all tour buses to load and unload passengers in the new facility. New regulaons went into effect in July 2004, which prohibited all buses, tour bus, and charter buses from parking on city streets.43 ITC is specifically designated for motor coaches and charter buses to load and unload. The buses are able to park overnight in the newly constructed nearby Callowhill Bus Center (CBC), which provides many amenies for the motor coach drivers while they wait for their groups. In order for the motor coaches and tour buses to be able to use the ITC and CBC facilies, the group must pay a nominal fee and display the receipt in the windshield to indicate that they have paid.44 In order to encourage tour and charter buses to follow the city’s parking rules, parking and idling regulaons are strictly enforced.

38 Chrisna Shat, “Health Needs Assessment: Executive Summary” http://www.chinatown- pcdc.org/community_health.htm. (Accessed March 30,2009). 39 John Chin, Execuve Director of the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporaon. Telephone Interview, September 17, 2008. 40 Christopher Zearfoss and Adrienne Eiss. “Development of a Bus-Management System for Independence Mall.” Instute of Transportaon Engineers. ITE Journal ( June 2002). hp://ﬁndarcles.com/p/arcles/mi_qa3734/ is_200206/ai_n9134783 (Accessed March 30, 2009). 41 Ibid. 42 Ibid. 43 Independence Visitor Center, “Bus Parking.” (2009) hp://www.independencevisitorcenter.com/motorcoach (Accessed March 31, 2009). 44 Naonal Constuon Center, “Group Informaon” (2009). hp://constuon.org/ncc_visit_Group_ Informaon.aspx (Accessed March 30,2009). 29 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Figure 12

Calowhill Bus Center

Independence Transportation Center

Philadelphia’s CBC and ITC, Google maps

Although at present it is not possible for NYC to construct new facilies similar to the ITC and CBC due to a lack of space and resources, it did appear to solve many of Philadelphia’s problems related to tour buses.

30 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Port Authority Bus Terminal and George Washington Bridge Bus Staon The following discussion of the Port Authority Terminal and George Washington Bridge Bus Sta- on provides a historical model that is relevant today. The congeson issues that triggered the development of these projects reflect similar issues to those that are generated by the Chinatown bus industry. This model offers insight into the city’s previous aempts to improve severe pedestrian and traffic congeson. The George Washington Bridge Bus Staon is located in Washington Heights between 178th and 179th streets. The Port Authority Bus Terminal is located one block west of Times Square, and is bounded by Eighth and Ninth avenues and 40th and 42nd streets. The issue of interstate bus travel causing congeson is not a new one in New York City. Prior to the construcon of the Port Authority Bus Terminal and George Washington Bridge Bus Sta- on, buses would travel daily from New Jersey, bringing passengers over the George Washington Bridge and Holland Tunnel into midtown Manhaan. In the 1930s aer the compleon of the George Washington Bridge and the Holland Tunnel, interstate buses began entering Manhaan from New Jersey. These buses would typically make their way from either the north or south entry point and proceed toward Midtown. The buses would travel many miles along crowded streets, stopping at various locaons between 34th and 51st streets. Since this commute via bus took longer than alternave means of transportaon, some opted to travel by railroad or car. Prior to the Lincoln Tunnel’s 1937 opening, the buses would enter mid-Manhaan via the George Washington Bridge, but by 1939 approximately 1,500 interstate buses were using the Lincoln Tunnel each day. The majority of buses were entering at 39th Street and Tenth Avenue, then would spread across the midtown area to eight separate bus staons, making stops along the way, blocking traffic and contribung to the general congeson in Midtown Manhaan. This chaoc situaon demanded a soluon: Soon a er the Lincoln Tunnel opened, traffic planners for the city and at the Port Authority began to realize that these problems could be dramacally eased if a single bus staon were constructed near the Manhat- tan mouth of the Tunnel, and if all interstate bus companies terminated their trips at the unified staon, abandoning their scaered bus terminals. Working inially with Mayor LaGuardia and Robert Moses, the Port Authority studied the idea of building and operang a unified bus terminal, agreed to build it, and then found itself embroiled in a series of bales over 5 years with those who opposed its efforts -- including Grey- hound Bus Company, Robert Moses, key legislators in Albany, and New York’s Governor Dewey.45

In 1944, the Port Authority devised a plan for the new bus terminal that would consolidate all the current bus terminals located in Midtown Manhaan. The Port Authority proposed direct routes that would take most interstate buses straight from the Lincoln Tunnel into the bus terminal, which is how the Port Authority Bus Terminal operates today. Both the Port Authority and the City agreed that by requiring the buses to use the new terminal instead of loading and unloading along the street, traﬃc congeson would decrease. To persuade all the bus companies to move from their separate staons into the new terminal, the city would have to agree that no bus terminals could be built or expanded in the midtown area. Without that prohibi- on, the Port agency argued, the interstate bus companies would be reluctant to sign contracts to use the Eighth Avenue terminal, since their competors might later be able to build or enlarge terminals in more

45 Jameson W. Doig, Empire on the Hudson: Entrepreneurial Vision and Polical Power at the Port of the New York Authority. Pg 315-316, Columbia University Press, New York, 2001. 31 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

centrally located areas. Moreover, this restricon was essenal to ensure that the Eighth Avenue terminal would have enough passengers to generate substanal rental and concession income…46

Construcon of the Port Authority Bus Terminal was authorized in 1948, and it opened for business in December of 1950. The George Washington Bridge Bus Staon was approved many years earlier in 1931 as part of the Bridge and Tunnel Unificaon Act, but did not open unl 1963. The George Washington Bridge Bus Staon and the Port Authority Bus Terminal are examples of projects that needed bistate authorizaon to construct and that connue to be owned and op- erated by the Port Authority, a public corporaon that works with municipal, county, state, and federal agencies. Since the Port Authority is responsible for large transportaon projects in both New York and New Jersey, each new program or project must be approved by the enre Board and both states’ governors. Depending on the scope of the project, local agencies also may need to approve the program. The George Washington Bridge Bus Staon replaced a number of sidewalk bus loading areas and a smaller depot that existed in the 166th and 167th street areas of Washington Heights.47 By central- izing the buses, some traffic was lied off the local streets. Addionally, passengers could more comfortably wait for their bus inside of the terminal, instead of standing on a street corner. When the Port Authority Bus Terminal and the George Washington Bridge Bus Staon were built, they inially alleviated some of the adjacent roadway traffic. However, the demand for space in the Port Authority Bus Terminal has grown and several interstate bus companies and charter buses must connue to use the street as a terminal. Figure 13

T ST 0 W ST 49 ST E 59 ST

W 48 ST W 56 ST W 50 ST Capital Greyhound TerminalE 58 ST W 54 ST W 55 ST E 57 ST 10 AV 9 AV E 56 ST E 55 ST Port AuthorityBus Terminal W 53 ST E 54 ST All-American and Times SquareE Terminals53 ST

LINCOLN TUNLINCOLN TUN EN Trailways Terminal W 47 ST W 44 ST PARK AV Midtown Terminal E 52 ST ROCKEFELLER PLZ E 50 ST E 51 ST W 46 ST E 49 ST W 41 ST Consolidated TerminalE 48 ST

W 43 ST W 39 ST PARK AV E 47 ST W 42 ST DYER AV E 46 ST W 35 ST MADISON AV

W 40 ST E 45 ST W 34 ST PennslyvaniaGreyhound TerminalVANDERBILT AV

W 33 ST DE PEW PL W 38 ST LINCOLN TUN 3 AV W 37 ST Herald Square TerminalE 44 ST W 36 ST E 43 ST 8 AV E 38 ST E 41 ST E 37 ST W 27 DR E 42 ST W 32 ST W 29 ST E 40 ST W 31 ST E 39 ST PARK AV Bus Terminal Locations PriorW 30 ST to the Construction LEXINGTON AV W 27 ST of the Port Authority Bus Terminal E 36 ST W 28 ST

W 26 ST E 35 ST W 25 E 34 E ST 32 E ST AV 46 Jameson W. Doig, Empire on the Hudson: Entrepreneurial Vision and Polical Power at the Port of the New York Authority. Pg 317. Columbia University Press, New York, 2001. 47 The Port Authority of NY and NJ, “History of the Port Authority” (2006) hp://www.panynj.gov/ (Accessed August 10, 2008). 32 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Recommendaons and Next Steps The recommendaons of this study are intended to complement the many other studies being conducted in the Chinatown area that aim to manage the congeson and improve traffic condions, such as: NYCDOT’s Chinatown Parking and Access Study; NYCDOT’s Lower Manhaan Street Management; and NYMTC’s Canal Area Transportaon Study (CATS). In preparaon for this study DCP has consulted with the 5th Precinct, NYCDOT, NYMTC, and the Mayor’s Community Affairs Unit (CAU). The following recommendaons result from these meet- ings and a thorough analysis of the issues. Long Term A Chinatown bus terminal is essenal for the economic growth of Chinatown and safety for patrons, pedestrians and residents. However there are no empty lots within the community’s core. If the buses are moved too far from their current locaons there is a risk that they will no longer be useful to the people who depend on them. Furthermore, moving the buses from their current locaons could prove to be more problemac for the city. When NYPD closed the 88 East Broadway locaon, buses were displaced to nearby Allen Street, which has resulted in extreme congeson. Moving the buses will not necessarily improve condions, it may simply move the problems from one locaon to the next. Even if empty lots existed within the Chinatown core to build a bus terminal, a broader plan is necessary for how the terminal would be financed and built. Addionally, further study would be necessary to determine how the operaons of the terminal would work with the surrounding traffic in Chinatown, and who would be responsible for management and maintenance. While the current locaons of the bus stops (including 88 East Broadway) are not opmal, they are centrally located in close proximity to the city’s public transportaon network. Addionally, the surrounding businesses benefit from them. Therefore, if the buses are moved they must remain in close proximity to where they currently operate from. Near Term Whether the buses will one day be moved to another locaon or not, it is advisable to charge bus companies for use of the curb space, much like the proposed DC program. The problems outlined in the Washington DC Case Study are similar to those experienced in New York City. The DDOT has found an innovave way of improving condions without moving the buses into a terminal. While the City of Boston was successful in moving the buses into South Staon, this is not an op- on for NYC because the Port Authority is operang over capacity, and it is geographically distant from Chinatown. Philadelphia’s soluon to build a new bus terminal is also not viable for New York City since the resources and space are not available at this me. In Washington DC, bus companies must apply for a permit in order to load and unload passengers curbside. They are charged for both the permit applicaon fee and a curb rental fee. The DC dra regulaons give the DDOT a significant amount of control over the proliferaon of intercity buses, their operaons and schedules. In New York City curb space is extremely limited and there are not enough spaces for each company to obtain a permit. However, it may be possible to issue permits for spaces by a compeve bidding process. It is important to note however, that issuing permits in New York State requires state legislaon, which is not the case in Washington, DC.

33 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

The Perming System In order to obtain a permit for curbside loading in the District of Columbia, bus operators will soon be required to submit an applicaon to the DDOT along with an administrave applicaon review fee. The regulaons will require each applicaon to be accompanied by the following documentaon: • the corporate name of the intercity bus operator; • a valid USDOT operang authority number; • a copy of the operator’s business license issued by the District Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs; • a copy of the operator’s liability insurance cerficate; • photographs of the proposed passenger loading zone; • a proposal for orderly queuing of passengers on the sidewalk; • a proposed traffic flow plan; and • the proposed bus service schedule. All applicaons will be reviewed by a Public Space Commiee, who will consider the impact on vehicular and pedestrian flow, the ancipated traffic condions during the peak hour, the size of the proposed loading zone, the number of passengers expected to board or disembark, the ancipated impact on nearby transit, and any other effects on public health and safety. In New York City the perming system could be administered by NYCDOT, who will determine the opmal locaon for each bus operator. In addion to determining the locaon from which buses may operate, NYCDOT could establish guidelines for their hours of operaon, locaons for cket sales, wheelchair accessibility and safety standards. Benefits of Perming While the DC program is complex and requires a significant amount of oversight and enforcement, it would benefit the Chinatown community in many ways. Congeson might be reduced and safety might be increased. This recommendaon supports the PlaNYC goals of relieving congeson and reducing noise and air polluon. Addionally, the program would require Chinatown bus companies to compete with tradional commercial carriers and improve service to their customers. Bus operaons would become more efficient by issuing permits to bus operators. The City would determine appropriate locaons for curbside loading, thereby eliminang confusion over the locaon of bus loading areas. This would expedite bus loading acvies and improve and ease traffic congeson. Perming would also reduce noise and air polluon since the City could determine the appropriate number of permits to issue each year. Establishing a specific loading area for each bus operator would eliminate the need for buses to circle while looking for a place to park. Requiring a permit to conduct curbside loading would support the NYPD in their efforts to enforce traffic and safety regulaons. Bus operators will be less likely to evade enforcement officers if they have a legally obtained permit.

34 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Addionally, a permit process would add a measure of safety to the industry. It is oen difficult to track a bus company’s safety record since they frequently operate under several names in order to evade safety regulaons. Requiring bus companies to obtain a non-transferable city permit would encourage them to retain their names even when they receive fines and safety cita- ons from the FMCA. The City could also require that bus companies adhere to specified safety standards and must comply with the Americans with Disabilies Act (ADA) in order to obtain a permit. Next Steps Instung a program such as the one DDOT is establishing would firstly require new State Leg- islaon. Once in place, perming would require the cooperaon of a number of different City agencies. A thorough inventory of spaces must be performed, which would be conducted by NYCDOT through the planned Chinatown Parking and Access Study. Once completed, NYCDOT could determine what space may be allocated to interstate buses and then instute a perming process. However, in order to improve traffic flow and public safety, it is necessary for the City to take measures to improve curb management. Proper enforcement by the NYPD is also essenal to the success of such a program. The NYPD cannot negoate individual agreements with bus operators. Decisions over proper locaons for buses must be determined in advance collaboravely with the NYPD. NYCDCP is commied to working with NYCDOT and the NYPD in order to facilitate this process. Conclusion This report provides a comprehensive assessment of all the issues associated with Chinatown buses, as well as a review of the history of the industry and how the government has previously dealt with them. Addionally, the bus schedules have been collected and presented in a maer that gives an accurate, or close to accurate, representaon of the magnitude of the industry. It was previously unknown how many buses were dispatched daily, to and from the Chinatown core. It is now clear that there are a minimum of 250 buses each day and the demand for such service is growing. DCP’s Transportaon Division has met with the Mayor’s CAU, NYCDOT, NYMTC and the 5th Precinct to collaborate on the best soluon for managing the industry and its inevitable growth. Unl a bus terminal can be built in lower Manhaan, it is necessary to allow curbside loading. Prohibit- ing this pracce could be viewed as a violaon of the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constuon. However, in order to improve traffic flow and public safety, it is necessary for the city to take measures to manage this industry and it is recommended that the bus companies be required to pay for the use of curb space through a perming system.

35 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

36 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Appendix A Demographics

37 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

38 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Demographics Populaon There are six census tracts (6, 8, 16, 27, 29, and 41) that fall within the study area (Figure 14). However, only a small poron of tract 27, consisng of a public plaza, falls within the study area. Since there are no residences on this public plaza the data from this census tract will not be ana- lyzed for this study. Figure 14 47 Y 36.01 ER LISP T R 36.01 X RIVINGTON ST EN A ST AR B T D ST S

H T OW MULBER ARD ST TT ST WALK O T M S E BETH S AMERICAS R ST 45 Y ± OLK THE ELIZA CANAL ST RF O

OF N WHIT ST 33 BOWER

AV E ST 18 D HE ELA S TH ST NC TER Y EY ST HURCH ST C CHRYSTIE ST FR ANKLIN ST FORS GE ST

DWAY ST A DRID ST AL EL RO LEN B ARD BRO NDT AL H O A 41 M C E ST 14.02 R O ORTL T C DLOW ST S YETTE ST LU A F A T LEONARD ST L HESTER S ESSEX GR K S AN L D O T ST F F

SU W ORT 16 H ST

RE ST T HOG B AYA CEN AN RD ST PL 29 14.01 C 31 ANAL ST DUANE ST PELL S T

RE O ADE MOSC ST ST OADWAY DIVISION ST E BR

JEF

FERS

OW T T 2.01 PL PARK R HENRY S HAYES OLIVE

CARDINAL MECHAN

N ST C R S MADISO LI

N 27 PL T S TON E ICS A RUTGERS ST

ST L 29 ST JAM PEARLST 8 6

PIKE ST T MONROE S MARKET ST

ATH

S ER PRUC

INE E

ST ST ST Census Tracts CHERRY T 25 SOUTH S ST BROO WATER R DR 15.01 Study Area KLY F D N BR

MANHATTAN Census Tract Boundaries 319 BRIDGE Feet 0250 500

39 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

According to the 2000 decennial census, there were 16,410 households in and around the study area and 49,170 people lived in or surrounding the study area. There was a 6.2% increase in populaon from the 1990 census to the 2000 census (Figure 15). This increase is much smaller than the 9.4% increase in the rest of the city’s populaon. Figure 15: Populaon Change Populaon in Study Area Populaon in New York City 60,000 9000000 8,010,278 49,170 8000000 7,324,554 50,000 46,308 7000000 40,000 6000000

30,000 5000000 4000000 20,000 3000000 10,000 2000000 2,862 6.2% 1000000 685,724 0 9.4% 1990 Census 2000 Census Change in Change in 0 Population Population Population Population 1990 Census 2000 Census Change in Change in (number) (percent) Population Population Number Percent

Journey to Work The modal split analysis captures both the means of transportaon to work for both the local resident labor force as well as for the people who travel into the study area to work. As part of the Census Bureau’s disclosure avoidance process, the numbers are rounded in order to protect the privacy of parcipants. This process somemes generates inconsistencies among the Journey to Work tables. However, the inconsistencies never exceed three percent. The 2000 Census shows that the local labor force consisted of 19,253 people over the age of 16. The data indicates that 7,970 (41%) people walked to work, making it the most common mode of transportaon. Approximately 34% of the local workforce commuted to work by subway, the second most common mode of transportaon. A relavely large poron of the Chinatown populaon walks to work in comparison to the rest of the City, where only 10% of the populaon walks to work. The most common mode of transportaon to work for the rest of the City is subway (38%), followed by driving (25%). (See Figure 16). Figure 16: Means of Transportaon to Work for Local Labor Force Age 16 or Older Study Area New York City

Motorcycle Worked At Drove Alone Other Other Means Worked At 0% Home 6% Motorcycle Means 0% Home 0% 0% Taxicab 2% 3% 1% Carpool Taxicab 6% Bus or Trolley Bicycle 2% Bus 0% 7% Ferryboat Walk 0% 10% Railroad Drove Alone 2% 25% Walked 41%

Carpool Subway or 8% Elevated 34% Subway or Elevated Bus or Trolley 38% Bus Bicycle 12% 1% Railroad Ferryboat 2% 0%

40 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Out of the 19,253 people age 16 and older that constuted the local labor force in the study area, 17,065 people worked in New York City. The remaining labor force worked in other parts of New York State (excluding New York City), Conneccut (135), New Jersey (1,059), Massachuses (43), Virginia (95), Pennsylvania (37), and elsewhere. This is consistent with the rest of the City, where most of the labor force works within New York City (Figure 17). Figure 17: Place of Work for Local Labor Force Age 16 or Older Study Area New York City 18,000 17,065 3,000,000 2,856,962 16,000 2,500,000 14,000 12,000 2,000,000 10,000 1,500,000 8,000 6,000 1,000,000 4,000 500,000 156,963 75,618 2,000 456 1,059 9,169 1,340 665 1,999 551 12,025 135 43 95 37 10 111 - Work Elsewhere Pennsylvania Washington, DC Connecticut Virginia New Jersey New York City Massachusetts

0 New York State Virginia Massachusetts New York State New Jersey Pennsylvania Work Elsewhere New York City Washington, DC Connecticut

According to the 2000 U.S. Census data, 42,767 people worked in the study area. Approximately 34% of workers, 14,365, commuted to work by either the subway or elevated train. The next larg- est segment of workers, 29%, drove into the study area for work. There were 2,210 people who commuted to work by the railroad. There were 12,185 that drove into the study area alone and 3,869 people that carpooled to work. A number of people, 6,080, walked to work in the study area. There were 149 people who traveled to work by ferry, 155 rode a bicycle to work, 265 traveled to work by taxi, 20 rode a motorcycle, 160 traveled to work by some other means, and 355 people worked at home. These ﬁgures are consistent with the rest of New York City (Figure 18). Figure 18: Means of Transportaon for Commuters Study Area New York City Motorcycle Other Means Worked At Motorcycle Other Means Worked At Home Taxicab 0% 0% Home 0% 1% 2% 1% Taxicab 1% Bicycle 1% Bicycle 0% Ferryboat Walk 0% Walked Ferryboat 14% 0% 9% 0% Railroad Drove Alone Railroad Drove Alone 8% 26% 5% 29%

Carpool 8% Carpool 9% Subway or Subway or Bus or Elevated Elevated 33% Trolley Bus 34% 12%

Bus or Trolley Bus 7%

41 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Out of the 41,812 people that commuted into the study area to work, 32,944 were from New York City. The remaining workers commuted from other parts of New York State (excluding New York City), Conneccut (38), New Jersey (2,108), Massachuses (4), Pennsylvania (120), and elsewhere. These ﬁgures are consistent with the rest of New York City (Figure 19). Figure 19: Place of Origin for Commuters

Study Area New York City 35,000 32,944 3,000,000 2,824,974 30,000 2,500,000 25,000 2,000,000 20,000 1,500,000 15,000 10,000 6,493 1,000,000 5,000 2,108 431,292 38 4 0 120 0 105 500,000 294,749 0 31,573 2,319 1,282 13,246 335 15,396 Work Elsewhere Pennslyvania Washington, DC Connecticut Virginia New Jersey New York City Massachusetts New York State - Virginia Massachusetts New York State New Jersey Pennsylvania Work Elsewhere New York City Washington, DC Connecticut

Households and Income According to the 2000 Census data, there were 16,410 households in the study area. The study area was comprised of a variety of income ranges. The median salary for this study area was $35,000 -$37,499. Approximately 37% of the study area earns less than $15,000 annually. This is a relavely large percentage in comparison to the rest of the City, where 23% of the populaon earns less than $15,000 annually. Within the study area only two percent of residents earn more than $150,000 annually, whereas in the rest of the City six percent of the populaon earns more than $150,000 annually (Figure 20). Figure 20: Income in 1999

Study Area New York City

4% 2% 3% 6% Under $15,000 Under $15,000 8% 6% 23% $15,000 -$29,999 $15,000 -$29,999 37% $30,000 -$44,999 9% $30,000 -$44,999 9% $45,000 -$59,999 $45,000 -$59,999 $60,000 -$74,999 9% $60,000 -$74,999 14% $75,000 -$99,999 17% $75,000 -$99,999 $100,000 -$150,000 $100,000 -$150,000 12% Over $150,000 Over $150,000 25% 16%

42 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Race/Ethnicity The data the U.S. Census obtains is based on informaon people report about themselves. Based on the 2000 Census data, the study area was relavely homogeneous, with 77% of the populaon classifying themselves as Asian. In the rest of New York City ten percent of the populaon classify themselves at Asian. There were 4,325 people who idenfied themselves Hispanic or Lano of any race. There were 4,245 people who idenfied themselves as White and 1,750 that idenfied themselves as Black (Figure 21). Figure 21: Racial and Ethnic Composion

Study Area New York City

All Other White Hispanic or Latino 2% All Other 9% Black or African 9% 4% American 3%

Hispanic or White Latino 35% 27%

Asian Asian 10% 77% Black or African American 24%

43 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

44 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Appendix B Transportaon Network

45 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

46 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Public Transportaon Subway The F train stops on East Broadway and Rutgers Street in the eastern secon of the study area and the J, M, Z, 6, N, Q, R and W all stop at Canal and Centre streets in the western secon of the study area. Entrances to this staon are also located at Lafayee Street and Broadway. Just north of the study area the F, J, M, and Z trains stop at Essex and Delancey streets and the J, M, and Z trains stop at Delancey Street and the Bowery. (See Figure 22 on the following page). Bus Several New York City Transit (NYCT) bus lines travel through the study area. The M22 travels from Grand Street on the Lower East Side to Vesey Street in Tribeca making stops along Madison and Worth streets. The M15 travels from East Harlem to Whitehall Street by South Ferry making stops along Allen Street and Madison Street. The M15 also makes part-me stops along East Broadway and has a part-me terminal at City Hall. The M9 travels from Union Square to Baery Park City. The bus travels through the study area along East Broadway. The M1 travels from Baery Park to West 147th Street in Upper Manhaan along Centre Street at the western edge of the study area. The B51 travels from Brooklyn to City Hall part–me. The bus travels over the Manhaan Bridge across Canal Street, down Centre Street and terminates at City Hall. The M103 travels from East Harlem to City Hall making stops along the Bowery.

47 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Figure 22 M 22 M 14

CLINTON ST Feet

RIVINGTON ST ST

NORFOLK ST NORFOLK

K ST K

NCEY L T SUFFO 9

M S

DELA M 14

ME 250 ADWAY BROO ) ST

JEFFERSON E BRO E

GRAND ST 0 500

EX S EX SOUTH ST SOUTH ESS

ST J,M,Z RUTGERS

Street M ST LUDLOW 15 Delancey

) CHARD ST CHARD R

F D D F

EN ST EN ALL F MANHATTAN BRIDGE

East

NRY ST NRY

E ST E M

Broadway ST 51

IDG PIKE

LDR E ST

J,M,Z FORSYTH FORSYTH Bowery

ESTER ST

H ST CHRYSTIE ST CHRYSTIE ANAL C HANICS AL MARKET ST ) MEC M

103

OWERY

Y ST Y

ELIZABETH ST ELIZABETH ST

WATER ST WATER

CHER

SON

NROE NROE

TT ST TT O

M MO ST MA NE

VISION ST VISION RI

I CATHE D

MULBERRY ST ST

ST BAXTER OLIVER ST M 22

TER BAYARD

HES

PELL ST 1 M M 51 M

OSCO

M PL JAMES T S 9

M W

RK RK PA ) M

HOWARD S 103 T )

LYN BR

ARL S ARL T

CANAL T

M ROOK

15 B NTRE S NTRE

E C HOGAN PL

) 51

S PL S LAFAYETTE ST LAFAYETTE

M 22

DT AL DT L HAYE L

LAN M

T 51 COR Area Boundary Study Bus Number and Route Subway Station Subway Line and Station

D CARDINA DWAY

T BROA NAR LISPENARD ST Canal Street J,M,Z,6,N,Q,R ER S LEO

RTH ST T O WALK S E W

ST Bx

WHIT ) ST M103 LIN E Canal Street J,M,Z,6,N,Q,R Transit Network Transit

FRANK ST DUAN H E ST

AS C I 1

CHURC M AV OF THE AME THE OF AV READ RUCE ST SP

48 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Truck Routes Truck movements within New York City are currently governed by the traﬃc rules and regulaons contained in the Rules of the City of New York, Volume II, Chapter 4-13. These regulaons apply to vehicles which are designated for the transportaon of property and have either of the following characteriscs; two axles and six res or three or more axles. There are two Truck Route designaons, Through and Local Truck Routes. Through Truck Routes are designated for trucks having neither an origin nor a desnaon within the local area. Local Truck Routes are designated for trucks with origins or desnaons within an area for the purpose of delivery, loading, or providing services. See Figure 23 for the locaon of all study area Truck Routes. The only Through Truck Route in the area is the Manhaan Bridge. There are several Local Truck Routes traversing the study area including Allen and Pike streets, Bowery, St. James Place, Di- vision Street, Henry Street, Forsyth Street, Chryse Street, Market Street, Worth Street, Canal Street, and Grand Street. Limited Truck Zones A Limited Truck Zone prohibits trucks from entering the designated boundaries except for the purpose of making a delivery and loading 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. Chinatown has been designated a Limited Truck Zone bounded by the northern property line of Worth Street, the eastern property line of Baxter Street, the southern property line of Canal Street, the western property line of the Bowery, and the western property line of Chatham Square. Figure 23

R E LI T SP RRY RIV EN AX ST ING A B RD S LBE ST TON H T O U ST T WARD T M

WAL ST H S KE MOTT S AMERICAS R ± ST Y OLK ST

THE CANAL ELIZABET ER

W T ORF S OF N WHITE O ST B ST AV ST DELANC HE YSTIE STE TH R EY HURCH ST S ST C T CHR FRANKLIN ST E ST Y FORSY G

RID T ADWA L D S A L N T E E BRO BRO ND ALL HARD ST ST OME C ST OR OW L CORTLA D ST LU AYETTE ST EX SS LEONA LAF HEST E ST GRAN ER D ST RD ST ST SUFFOLK W ORTH ST

T S

HOGAN NTRE BAYA E C RD ST CANAL PL ST D UAN PELL S E ST T

READE MOSCO T Y ST S BROADWA DIVISION ST E

JEFFERSO

N ST ROW ST PL PARK HENRY YES L HA OLI CARDINA V MEC

ER MADISON ST CLINTON S H

PL T AN S E R ICS UTGE

AL ST T JAM S

R ARL ST ARL

E S ST P

E ST K MONRO E ST MARK

CAT

HE ET SPRUCE S ST R

T T Y ST CHERR Truck Routes SOUTH ST

WATER ST D R DR Study Area BoundaryBROOKLYN BR F

Local Truck Route MANH Through Truck Route BRI Feet D AT 49 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Parking The parking regulaons for the Chinatown study area are grouped into nine different categories. The categories are as follows: no standing anyme; no parking anyme; no standing except authorized vehicles; truck loading/commercial parking; no standing during specified hours; no parking during specified hours; dayme alternate side parking regulaons; nighme alternate side parking regulaons; and metered parking. There are some noceable correlaons between parking regulaons and land use paerns. The areas that have alternate side parking regulaons are mostly residenal, mixed-use residenal and commercial, and open space. Commercial streets generally have parking regulaons that allow commercial vehicles to use the curb space. The most common parking regulaons are no parking and/or no standing during specified hours, truck loading/commercial parking, and no standing except authorized vehicles. Near schools and other instuons the parking regulaons are typically no standing at anyme and/or no standing except authorized vehicles. Parking meters are located throughout the study area, but they can be found most oen near mixed-use commercial and residenal buildings. There are many places in the study area where the curb space is governed by mulple parking regulaons. The parking regulaons map (Figure 24) illustrates the current curb regulaons. The curb regulaons state the hours and types of vehicles restricted or permied to park or stand at a specific locaon. Figure 24

LI RIV SP INGT EN O T A N S S RD T ST HO CHURCH WA RD ST

WALKER ST

TER ST ST X RY BA E

AVOF THE AMERICAS T W S ST ORFOLK BO N ST T T T S C O WHI A H NAL ULBERRY CHRYSTIE HE M TE S ST M YT T ER S T ST ST DEL E ANCEY FORS G ST D ST H DRI FR BET A EL N T KLI Y IZA S N S L E ST T RD DWA A L A LEN RO AL B ORCHA ST BR TLANDT W OOME O ST COR DL ST LU T

SEX S S AFAYETTE E L

LK ST LEON G O HE RAN F A ST D F RD ST ER ST ST SU

W OR T ST H ST E R BA NT YA E RD ST C

H OGAN P L CANAL ST

D PE U LL ST ANE ST

MOSCO ST RE ADE S T ISION ST AY DIV E BROADW

FFE CHATHAM SQ R

T L ES P AL HAY ROW DIN PARK CAR

ST O HENRY LIV

E MEC R MA

ST HA R CLIN

K ES PL N E

T S I

M C ST A TON

J S AL L L T T S ON ST ADIS R

M S EAR U

T P

TGER

MONROE ST

PIKE Chinatown Parking Regulaons MANHATTAN BRIDGE

C T A

THER

S P No Standing Anyme Dayme Alt. Side Parking Regs. RUR I U NE C E S ST T No Parking Anyme Nighme Alt. Side Parking Regs. Y ST CHERR NS Anyme Except Authorized Vehicles Meter Locaons SOUTH ST Truck Loading/Commerical Parking R ST WATE BRB DR R F D R O OKLO NS During Speciﬁed Dayme Hours K LY N BR B NP During Speciﬁed Dayme Hours R Feet 0250 500 50 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Street Network The street network in New York City’s Chinatown surrounds the Manhaan Bridge entrance. The bridge entrance is composed of several one-way on and oﬀ ramps which bring vehicles directly into the core of the study area. The entrance to the outbound Manhaan Bridge is from northbound Bowery and the exit from the inbound Manhaan Bridge is the intersecon of Canal Street and Chryse Street. Through Streets The Bowery is a major north-south thoroughfare within the study area. The street leads from Chatham Square in Chinatown to East 5th Street in the East Village, where it becomes Third Av- enue. The street is approximately 79 feet wide and has three northbound travel lanes and three southbound travel lanes with a parking lane on both sides of the street. There is a four-foot wide median along the center of the street. Allen Street is a north-south, two-way street that travels from East Houston Street to Canal Street where it becomes Pike Street, terminang at South Street. The street is approximately 112 feet wide with a 24-foot wide median. This median is referred to as the Allen Street Mall. Allen Street and Pike Street have three northbound travel lanes and three southbound travel lanes and a parking lane on each side of the street. A ﬁve-foot wide bicycle lane is striped along the enre length of Allen and Pike streets. Centre Street is a one-way northbound street, approximately 40 feet wide, with two travel lanes and two parking lanes. The street travels from the Brooklyn Bridge to Spring Street, where it merges with Lafayee Street. Canal Street is a major east-west thoroughfare that travels from Essex Street at the east to the Holland Tunnel at the west. The width of Canal Street varies along the length of the roadway. West of the Manhaan Bridge the street is approximately 70 feet wide and has two travel lanes and one parking lane in each direcon, with a center median turning lane. West of Walker Street Canal Street narrows to 60 feet wide and has two travel lanes and one parking lane in each direcon. East of the Manhaan Bridge the street is approximately 40 feet wide with one travel lane and one parking lane in each direcon. East Broadway is an east-west, two-way street that travels from Grand Street to Chatham Square. The street is approximately 50 feet from Chatham Square to Essex Street. The street narrows to approximately 45 feet east of Essex Street. South Street runs below the FDR Drive from Wall Street to Montgomery Street. The Street varies in width from approximately 40 feet to approximately 60 feet. Chryse Street is a 35-foot wide northbound street which travels from the Manhaan Bridge to East Houston Street. The street has one 13-foot wide travel lane and two parking lanes on both sides of the street. Minor Streets Hester Street is a one-way street that travels from Centre Street to Essex Street and is bisected by Eleanor Roosevelt Park located between Forsyth and Chryse streets. From Forsyth Street to Essex Street the street is approximately 25 feet wide and has one eastbound travel lane and one parking lane on each side of the street. From Chryse Street to Centre Street the street is approximately 30 feet wide and has one westbound travel lane and one parking lane on each side of the street. 51 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Division Street is a one-way westbound street that travels from Canal Street to Chatham Square. The street varies in width from approximately 25 feet at its narrowest point to approximately 55 feet at its widest point. The street has one travel lane from Canal Street to the Manhaan Bridge and two travel lanes west of the Bridge. Henry Street is a two-way east-west street varying in width from approximately 30 to 45 feet wide. The street travels from Grand Street to Oliver Street and has one travel lane and one parking lane in each direcon. Madison Street is a two-way east-west street varying in width from approximately 30 to 45 feet wide. The street travels from Grand Street to the Brooklyn Bridge and has one travel lane and one parking lane in each direcon. There is a ﬁve-foot bicycle lane striped along the street east of Pike Street. West of Pike Street the bicycle lane becomes shared. Monroe Street is a one-way eastbound street which travels from Catherine Street to Pike Street. The street varies in width from approximately 25 feet to approximately 32 feet and has one travel lane. Cherry Street is a one-way westbound street which varies in width from 35 feet to 50 feet. At its widest, the street can accommodate three travel lanes, however, no lanes are striped along the street and it carries observably light traﬃc. There is a parking lane on each side of the street. Water Street is one block long within the study area, traveling from Catherine Street to Market Street. The street begins again just outside the study area traveling from Montgomery Street to Jackson Street. Within the study area the street is a one-way eastbound street approximately 35 feet wide. Catherine Street is a one-way southbound street that varies in width from approximately 20 feet to approximately 50 feet. South of Cherry Street Catherine Street becomes two-way with an approximately 45-foot wide southbound roadbed and an approximately 30-foot wide northbound roadbed. The street also has an approximately 40-foot wide median between the northbound and southbound roads. Catherine Street travels from the Bowery to South Street. Worth Street is an east-west street traveling from Chatham Square to Hudson Street. There is one travel lane in each direcon. Market Street is a one-way northbound street that travels from South Street to East Broadway. The street is approximately 30 feet wide with one travel lane and a parking lane on each side of the street. Rutgers Street is a one-way northbound street that travels from South Street to Canal Street where it becomes Essex Street. Rutgers Street varies in width and becomes a two-way street from East Broadway to Canal Street, the intersecon where it meets Essex Street. Essex Street is approximately 54 feet wide and has two northbound travel lanes and two southbound travel lanes with a parking lane on each side of the street. The street travels from Canal Street to East Houston Street. Ludlow Street is approximately 25 feet wide and has one southbound travel lane and parking lanes on both sides of the street. The street travels from East Houston Street to Division Street. Orchard Street is approximately 25 feet wide and has one northbound travel lane and parking lanes on both sides of the street. The street travels from Division Street to East Houston Street.

52 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Eldridge Street is approximately 25 feet wide and has one northbound travel lane and parking lanes on both sides of the street. The street travels from Division Street to East Houston Street. Forsyth Street is a two-way street from East Houston Street to Hester Street and is approximately 45 feet wide. South of Canal Street Forsyth Street varies in width and becomes one-way southbound from Canal Street to Henry Street. Elizabeth Street is a one-way northbound street that travels from Bayard Street to Bleecker Street. The street is approximately 25 feet wide and has one travel lane and one parking lane on each side of the street. Mo Street is a one-way southbound street that travels from Bleecker Street to Chatham Square. The street is approximately 25 feet wide and has one travel lane and one parking lane on each side of the street. Mulberry Street is a one-way northbound Street that travels from Worth Street to Bleecker Street. The street is approximately 25 feet wide and has one travel lane and one parking lane on each side of the street. Bayard Street is a one-way eastbound street that travels from Baxter Street to the Bowery. The street is approximately 25 feet wide and has one travel lane and one parking lane on each side of the street. Baxter Street is a one-way southbound street that travels from Grand Street to Hogan Place. The street is approximately 25 feet wide and has one travel lane and one parking lane on each side of the street. Mosco Street is a one-way westbound street that travels from Mo Street to Mulberry Street. The street is approximately 15 feet wide and parking is not permied. The only excepon is when a funeral is in progress at a neighboring funeral home. Pell Street is a one-way westbound street traveling from the Bowery to Mo Street. The street is approximately 15 feet wide and parking is not permied. Doyers Street is a one-way southbound street traveling from Pell Street to the Bowery. The street is approximately 15 feet wide and parking is not permied.

53 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

54 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Appendix C Accidents

55 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

56 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Accidents Data was compiled from the New York State Department of Transportaon’s Local Accident Sur- veillance Project (LASP) for 2004 through 2006, the latest year for which data was available at the me of this analysis. The informaon gathered from LASP includes total accidents and pedestrian accidents. Total Accidents are the number of accidents where a police report was taken at the scene of the accident. The site of the accident may either be at an intersecon or at a mid-block locaon between two intersecons. Pedestrian Accidents are accidents in which a pedestrian was involved. There were 789 total accidents within the Chinatown study area during the period from 2004 through 2006, as indicated in Table 3. Data on the highest number of total recorded accidents over the three year period (2004-2006) revealed that one locaon, Bowery and Canal Street, 48 accidents occurred.

Table 3:

Intersecons with the Highest Number of Total Recorded Accidents over a Three-Year Period Intersecon 2004-2006 Canal Street and Bowery 48 Grand Street and Allen Street 35 Canal Street and Centre Street 28 Canal Street and Elizabeth Street 22 Canal Street and Mo Street 18 East Broadway and Pike Street 18 Madison Street and Pike Street 18 Hester Street and Bowery 17 Grand Street and Bowery 15 Grand Street and Centre Street 14 East Broadway and Forsyth Street 14 Canal Street and Baxter Street 13 Walker Street and Center Street 12 Grand Street and Chryse Street 12 Catherine Street and Henry Street 11 Division Street and Market Street 11 Canal Street and Mulberry Street 11 Elizabeth Street and Hester Street 10

Addionally, the intersecons of Canal and Centre streets, Canal and Elizabeth streets, and Grand and Allen streets had 20 or more accidents during the same me period. Table 3 indicates the intersecons within the study area that had ten or more accidents during the me period of 2004 through 2006, and Table 4 indicates mid-block locaons within the study area where ﬁve or more accidents occurred during the same me period. 57 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Table 4:

Mid-block Locaons with the Highest Number of Total Accidents over a Three-Year Period Locaon 2004-2006

Grand Street and Bowery/Hester Street 9 Canal Street and Bowery/ Ramp to Lower Level 8 Manhaan Bridge Grand Street and Chryse Street/Hester Street 7

Hester Street and Allen Street/Canal Street 5 Canal Street and Bowery/Main Ramp to Manhat- 5 tan Bridge Catherine Street and Madison Street/Market 5

Canal Street and Elizabeth Street/ Bowery 5

The number of accidents that involved pedestrians and cyclists were signiﬁcant during the 2004- 2006 period (see Figures 26 and 27). There were 273 accidents that involved pedestrians and 51 accidents that involved cyclists over the three year period. Data on the highest number of total recorded accidents over the three-year period (2004-2006) revealed that at two intersecons, Canal Street and Centre Street, and Grand Street and Allen Street, 11 accidents involving pedestrians occurred. Table 5 shows intersecons within the study area where ﬁve or more pedestrians were involved in accidents, and Table 13 shows intersecons within the study area with the highest numbers of accidents involving cyclists.

Table 5:

Locaons Where Vehicular Accidents Involved Pedestrians over a Three-Year Period Intersecon 2004-2006 Canal Street and Centre Street 11 Grand Street and Allen Street 11 Division Street and Market Street 10 Catherine Street and Henry Street 10 East Broadway and Forsyth Street 7 Forsyth Street and Division Street 6 Pike Street and East Broadway 6 Madison Street and Pike Street 6 Elizabeth Street and Hester Street 6 Canal Street and Elizabeth Street 5 Essex Street and Grand Street 5 Mo Street and Bayard Street 5

58 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Table 6:

Intersecons Where Vehicular Accidents Involved Bicyclists over a Three-Year Period Intersecon 2004-2006 Grand Street and Bowery 6 Madison Street and Pike Street 3 Forsyth Street and Canal Street 3

The intersecon with the highest number of total accidents was Canal Street and Bowery (48). This intersecon is the point of entry to the Manhaan Bridge and has observably high volumes. Fung Wah uses this locaon to load and unload passengers, which adds to the pedestrian traﬃc and general congeson of the intersecon. The intersecons of Forsyth Street and East Broadway, and Forsyth Street and Division Street had seven and six pedestrian accidents from 2004 through 2006, respecvely. These intersecons, located near 88 East Broadway, have recently been closed oﬀ to Chinatown bus operaons but unl recently had the highest number of Chinatown bus arrivals and departures. Once the buses were displaced from 88 East Broadway, many moved to nearby Allen Street between Grand and Henry streets. The intersecon of Grand and Allen streets has the second highest number of total accidents (35) and the highest number of pedestrian accidents (11) in the study area.

59 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Figure 25

RIDGE ST RIDGE

ATTORNEY ST ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY ST

CLINTON ST CLINTON

FDR DR FDR SUFFOLK ST SUFFOLK T

STATON ST E RIVER SHL W SHL RIVER E E S

NORFOLK ST NORFOLK T

BROO ND ST

GRA ALLEY S OUTH ESSEX ST ESSEX S

JEFFERSON ST CT BNDY CT

RUTGERS ST LOW ST LOW

TON ST D

U L

RIVING ST D ORCHAR

HESTER ST Y LEN ST LEN

ST L ! ( A MANHATTAN BRIDGE

! (

ADISON ST ADISON

ST ROADWA PIKE SLIP M

DELANCEY

HENRY ST HENRY PIKE ST

E B E ELDRIDGE ! (

! (

FORSYTH ST FORSYTH

IE ST IE

T S CHRY ! ( ! (

NICS AL D F ST MECHA MARKET

! ( ! ( BOWERY T

SPRING ST

! (

SOUTH ST SOUTH LIZABETH ST LIZABETH

E ST WATER CHERRY S CHERRY

T MONROE ST MONROE N ST N E ST O CATHERIN

CANAL S DIVISI

! (

KENMARE ST ! (

OTT ST OTT M

! ( T

MARKET PL MARKET T OLIVER S CENTER ST UNNAMED ST

D PELL S ! ( L

! ( ALLEY ST

T JAMES P JAMES

BAYAR S

BROOME ST MULBERR ! ( MOS

E ST E

CEN

! . ROW

ST CROSBY ST CROSBY

! (

BAXTER PARK PARK

ARD ST

W ST PEARL

TTE ST TTE HO E

HOGAN PL AFAY L AL

NAL ST MERCER ST MERCER

CA CORTLANDT L HAYES PL HAYES L

A A

ROADW R B

ST CA LISPENARD ST T S WALKER T S HITE IN W LYN BR 10 - 15 15 -25 25 -40 Study Area FRANKL BROOK

AMERICAS E OF TH OF AV LEONARD ST

WORTH E ST ! ( ! ( N ! .

ST CHURCH ST CHURCH DUA Total Accidents Total Total Accidents Total 2004-2006

± VARICK ST VARICK READE

CHAMBERS ST

60 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Figure 26

EST

RIDG

ATTORNEY ST ATTORNEY MONTGOMERY ST

CLINTON FDR DR FDR

K ST K

OL SUFF

STATON ST E RIVER SHL W SHL RIVER E

LK ST LK ME ST FO

NOR ST

BROO

TH TH

X ST X

GRAND ST OU SE

S ALLEY E S ST

JEFFERSON CT BNDY CT ! [

RUTGERS ST LUDLOW ST LUDLOW G F

G F

RIVINGTON ST D AR H ORC

HESTER ST Y

ALLEN ST ALLEN MANHATTAN W

! [ BRIDGE ISON ST ISON G F

! [ PIKE SLIP

MAD ENRY ST ENRY

G F T

DELANCEY ST

H PIKE S

E BROAD E ELDRIDGE ST ELDRIDGE G F

G F G F

G F

ST ! [ G F G F ! [ G F

FORSYTH MECHANICS AL

E TI

CHRYS F D R DR R D F G F ! [

! [ MARKET ST G F G F

G F G F

G F

OWERY B G F ! [

SPRING ST G F G F

G F SOUTH ST SOUTH

ELIZABETH ST ELIZABETH ST WATER

G F CHERRY ST CHERRY G F G F T

G F MONROE ST MONROE L S ATHERINE ST

! [ C

CANA G F DIVISION ST DIVISION G F KENMARE ST G F ! [

! [

G F

G F ST T MOT

G F MARKET PL MARKET T G F OLIVER ST

G F CENTER ST UNNAMED ST

PELL S

G F P ! [ G F ALLEY

G F

T G F

BAYARD JAMES S

BROOME ST MULBERRY MOS G F G F

G F CENTRE ST CENTRE

ST CROSBY ST CROSBY

R E

BAXT PARK ROW PARK

G F RD ST G F

ST G F PEARL ST PEARL

TTE TTE

HOWA E

Y L

HOGAN P LAFA

L ST

TLANDT AL TLANDT

MERCER ST MERCER G F CANA COR

RD ST ROADWAY A B

PEN PL HAYES CARDINAL S LI

ALKER ST ST W E IT

WH LYN BR K

O Accidents 1-4 Pedestrian Accidents 5-10 Pedestrian Study Area ANKLIN ST R

F BRO

ONARD ST

AV OF THE AMERICAS THE OF AV LE H ST

T WORT

S G F H NE ST

A ! [ CHURC DU

ADE ST

E Pedestrian Accidents 2004-2006 ± VARICK ST VARICK R

CHAMBERS ST

61 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Figure 27 ATTO

MONTGOMERY

CLINTON ST CLINTON FDR DR FDR

FOLK S FOLK

UF S

STATON ST E RIVER SHL W SHL RIVER E

E ST

K ST K NORFOL ST

D BROOM

GRA ST OUTH

SSE ALLEY E S ST

JEFFERSON

CT BNDY CT

ST RS ST

W RUTGE

LUDLO

T ^

RIVINGTON ST HARD S HARD

ORC

EN ST EN HESTER ST

ST Y ALL MANHATTAN

E BRIDGE

DISON S DISON ^

T A

S PIKE SLIP

M ENRY ST ENRY

DELANC IKE ST

H P

ELDRIDGE

E BROADWAY E

SYTH ST SYTH FOR

^ MECHANICS AL

STIE Y

C F D R DR R D F ^

ET ST

^ MARK

ERY

^ OW

SPRING ST ST

TH TH ^

ERRY

ELIZABE ST SOUTH

WATER ST WATER C

^ MONROE ST MONROE N ST N ST CATHERINE NAL ST

CA DIVISIO

KENMARE ST ^

MOTT MOTT

MARKET PL MARKET R ST

OLIVE CENTER

ST UNNAMED ST

D PELL ST

ALLEY ST

BAYAR

NTRE ST NTRE

ST JAMES PL JAMES ST MULBERRY

BROOME ST CE

MOSCO

ST CROSBY ST CROSBY

ARK ARK

BAXTER P PEARL ST PEARL

HOWARD ST

HOGAN PL

LAFAYETTE ST LAFAYETTE

AL P

AL ST TLANDT

AYES N R

MERCER ST MERCER

CA C

INAL INAL

BROADWAY ARD

ST C

LISPENARD ST

ST WALKER T S 3 - 6 Study Area WHITE LIN LYN BR NK RD ST

F BROOK

CAS

F THE AMERI THE F V O V A LEONA

T ^

WORTH ST ST

ANE S

URCH Bicycle Accidents CH DU

ADE ST

Bicycle Accidents E 2004-2006 ± VARICK ST VARICK R

CHAMBERS ST

62 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Bibliography Baily, Steve. “Peter Pan is a Bully.” The Boston Globe, (June 18, 2004) hp://www.boston.com/ business/arcles/2004/06/18/peter_pan_is_a_bully/ (Accessed July 29, 2008). Beck, Graham T. “The Down Side of Low-Cost Buses” Gotham Gazee, (September 18, 2008) hp://www.gothamgazee.com/arcle/transportaon/20080918/ (Accessed Septem- ber 19, 2008). Chinatown Bus. “Chinatown Bus History.” (2007) hp://www.chinatownbus.org/ (Accessed June 2, 2008). Daniel, Mac. “Wheel Scare Halts Fung Wah Bus Trip, Mishaps Connue for Bargain Car- rier.” The Boston Globe, (January 4, 2007) hp://www.boston.com/news/local/arcles/2007/01/04/ (July 2, 2008). Daniel, Mac. “Fung Wah Bus Line Faces State, Federal Scruny.” The Boston Globe, (September 7, 2006) hp://www.boston.com/news/local/arcles/2006/09/07/ (Accessed March 18, 2008). Doig, Jameson W. Empire on the Hudson: Entrepreneurial Vision and Polical Power at the Port of New York Authority. New York: Columbia University Press, 2001. Fleisher, Lisa and Daniel, Mac. “Passengers Say Bus Firm Unresponsive Fire, Delays Le Many in Diﬃcultly.” The Boston Globe, (August 18, 2005) hp://www.boston.com/news/local/ massachuses/arcles/2005/08/18/ (Accessed June 5, 2008). Freedlander, David and Marlene Naanes. “Bus Crash Latest in String of Pedestrian Accidents.” (June 24, 2008) AM New York . hp://www.amny.com/news/local/transportaon/am- bus/ (Accessed September 4, 2008). Gonzalez,David. “Forty Years of Growth, Except Where It Was Expected.” New York Times, August 27, 2007. Gotobus. “Brief History of Chinatown Bus” (2008) hp://www.gotobus.com/ (Accessed June 20, 2008). Independence Visitor Center. “Bus Parking.” (2009) hp://www.independencevisitorcenter. com/motorcoach/ (Accessed March 31, 2009). Knafo, Saki. “Dreams and Desperaon on Forsyth Street.” The New York Times, Sunday, June 8, 2008. McFadden, Robert D. “Bus to Casinos Skid oﬀ Parkway; 2 Die and 28 are Injured.” The New York Times, (February 8, 2003). hp://query.nymes.com/gst/fullpage.html/ (Accessed August 5, 2008). Naanes, Marlene. “Cheap Buses Drive NY Crazy.” AM New York, Pg. 3, October 27, 2008. Naonal Constuon Center. “Group Informaon” (2009). hp://constuon.org/ncc_visit_ Group_Informaon.aspx (Accessed March 30, 2009). Ng, I-Ching. “Trouble on the Highway and Parked in Chinatown.” City Limits Weekly, (June 11, 2007) hp://www.citylimits.org/content/arcles/viewarcle.cfm/ (Accessed July, 2008).

63 CHINATOWN BUS STUDY

Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporaon. “11th Street Commercial Corridor.” (June 2007) hp://www.chinatown-pcdc.org/images/11th/ (Accessed March 30, 2009). Pinnamaneni, Sruthi. “Corralling Chinatown’s Cowboy buses.” Downtown Express, (August 3, 2007) hp://www.downtownexpress.com/de_223/ (Accessed June 18, 2008). Port Authority of NY and NJ. “History of the Port Authority.” (2006) hp://www.panynj.gov/ (Accessed August 10, 2008). Rules of the City of New York, Title 34, Secon 4-10. Schumer, Senator Charles “Schumer Reveals Safety Gap on Inner-City Chinatown Buses; Rated Dangerously Low on Safety by Feds.” (August 28, 2005) hp://schumer.senate.gov/ ShumerWebsite/pressroom/press-release/ (Accessed July 8, 2008). Shat, Chrisna. “Health Needs Assessment: Execuve Summary.” hp://www.chinatown-pcdc. org/community_health.htm. (Accessed March 30, 2009). Stampas, Triada. “Idling Buses: Exhausng our Health.” Prepared for The Council of the City of New York, The Commiee on Oversight and Invesgaons, (October 2003) hp://www. nyc.gov/html/records/pdf/govpub/760busidling.pdf./ (Accessed July 25, 2008). Starcic, Janna, “Surviving the Motorcoach Rate-Cung War.” Metro Magazine, (August 2005) hp://www.metro-magazine.com/Arcle/Story/2005/08/Surviving-the-Motorcoach- Rate-Cung-War.aspx (Accessed July 18, 2008). United States Constuon, Commerce Clause, Arcle I, Secon 8. Wabash, St. Louis, & Paciﬁc Railway Co. v. Illinois, 118, U.S. 557 (1886).

Weiner, Congressman Anthony D. “New York Keeps on Trucking- A lot: A Study of Truck Traﬃc in NYC 1998-2007.” (January, 12 2007). www.house.gov/list/press/ny09_weiner/trucks_re- port.doc/ (Accessed August 5, 2008). Zearfoss, Christopher and Adrienne Eiss. “Development of a Bus-Management System for Inde- pendence Mall”. Instute of Transportaon Engineers. ITE Journal (June 2002). hp:// ﬁndarcles.com/p/arcles/mi_qa3734/is_200206/ai_n9134783/ (Accessed March 30, 2009).

64 BUS STUDY CHINATOWN

Credits New York City Department of City Planning Amanda M. Burden, FAICP, Director Richard Barth, Execuve Director Sandy Hornick, Deputy Execuve Director Elizabeth Mackintosh, Director, Planning Coordinaon David Karnovsky, General Counsel Julie Lubin, Deputy Counsel

Manhaan Oﬃce Edith Hsu-Chen, Director Arthur Huh

Transportaon Division Jack Schmidt, Director, Transportaon Division Kevin Olinger, Deputy-Director, Transportaon Division Stratos Prassas, Team-Leader, Transportaon Division Karen Bla, Project Manager Erica Alario Michelle Katopodes Alan Ripps Erik Seims Ruthie Gray, Graphics