I was biking along the crowded Hudson River Greenway, all my focus on avoiding pedestrians, roller-bladers and darting toddlers, when suddenly two guys whipped by me on their bikes (passing on the right, no less) at super high speed. Annoyed at their recklessness, I was deciding exactly what withering thing to yell at them when I overhead one saying to the other, “…the real problem with our education system, the one no one ever talks about, is…” and then they were gone. My irritation was instantly replaced with a burning desire to hear what the guy had been about to say. I wanted to catch up to them, but there was no hope of that. Darn! What about the education system? Was it something I didn’t know about? Wait up!

One of the most wonderful things about New York City is that, because we are almost always within earshot of someone else, we have unlimited opportunities to listen in on the conversations going on around us. It’s as if New York were one giant cocktail party and we are all of us guests (or audience members at an avant-garde play, held on a very large stage). And this may sound New York-centric, but people here tend to be smarter, more talented, more culturally-diverse and more engaged in what goes on around them than they are in other places, so our conversations tend to be more interesting—and often more unguarded.

You can overhear personal secrets, philosophical and psychological discussions, juicy arguments, helpful lifestyle tips, political theory, news of the day, celebrity gossip. Who needs Twitter when you are on the sidewalks of New York? And it’s almost better that you usually never get the whole conversation, but only a snippet. Sometimes the few words you overhear can spur on a conversation between you and whomever you are with. You can have fun trying to figure out exactly what was being discussed, or try to guess what would have been said next. Or, if you happen to overhear two sides of a debate, you can talk about who you think is right. Overhead dialogue from a stranger can change the timbre of your whole day.

Is this eavesdropping? When you overhear something particularly intimate (“I did not even use protection last night”), it can feel like eavesdropping, yet it’s really accidental. However, if you decide to follow strangers into a store where you have no business, solely for the purpose of listening to the story a woman is telling about her messy divorce, you may have crossed the line into stalker territory (a conversation stalker!). A conversation stalker may not be as bad as the regular kind of stalker, but there is definitely acceptable and unacceptable urban eavesdropping.

Occasionally you find yourself so drawn to a stranger’s conversation—and so sure you have something of value to contribute—that you may want to try to join in. This must be done carefully, of course. Sometimes New Yorkers don’t respond well when their illusion of privacy is shattered. If you are on a bus or train, or standing together in a line, you can often politely insert a pertinent comment at just the right juncture. But you should be respectful of people’s boundaries and never expect to become a full-fledged participant in the conversation.

Last night I was walking in Chelsea with a friend, holding forth in a completely fantastic manner about a (non-existent) movie deal for a book of mine. I had had a glass of wine or two, which is probably why I was saying, “I just won’t let them do the movie unless I get to write the screenplay,” in such a grandiose tone. Out of the corner of my eye I caught the intrigued quick glance of a passerby, who slowed as I passed. Did I see a turn of her head? Suddenly I realized that my own overheard remark was serving as someone else’s delicious tidbit, if only for a New York minute.

—
Jeanne Martinet lives on the Upper West Side and is the author of seven books on social interaction. Read her blog at www.missmingle.com.

Wherever Broadway crosses an avenue, that avenue is narrowed both physically and temporally. Sixth Avenue at Herald Square, for example, is just four lanes wide, but north and south of the square it is six lanes wide. It is “pinched,” because Broadway traffic also has to be squeezed into the block between 33rd and 34th streets.

Sixth Avenue at 35th Street gets 55 seconds of “green time” in every 90-second signal cycle. But, at 33rd Street it gets only 32 seconds of “green time” because Broadway gets 26 seconds and 33rd Street gets 30 seconds.

The Green Light for Midtown Plan solves the pinch point at Herald Square by adding 21 more seconds of “green time” to Sixth Avenue now that we won’t have to worry about Broadway southbound. At Times Square, Seventh Avenue is widened from three lanes to four lanes, a capacity increase of 33 percent, and the “green time” is increased from 50 seconds to 54 seconds. All together, that yields an effective capacity increase of about 44 percent.

The streets will also be much safer. The diagonal Broadway reduces pedestrian crossing times and crosswalk lengths. It also creates a near head-on condition with Sixth Avenue in Herald Square. Right angle intersections have also been shown to be safer than acute or obtuse angled crossings, such as that caused by the diagonal Broadway. Restoring the grid for cars but not for pedestrians will improve safety for drivers and pedestrians.

Pedestrians in Times Square and Herald Square are constrained physically where the avenues intersect Broadway. Pedestrians also get less crossing time because of the multiple movements that must take place at these squares. When I think of Times Square, I think of the Yogi Berra quote, “Nobody goes there anymore, it’s too crowded.” That’s the way I, and probably many veteran New Yorkers feel. Finally, with the Green Light for Midtown Plan we will see sidewalk widths that comfortably handle the huge flow of people.

Broadway may have made sense 200 years ago when our grid system was created. But with the advent of the car, it has been more of a detriment to traffic than a help. The city’s plan to create the Green Light for Midtown will restore the grid pattern for cars, improve traffic flow, make streets safer for drivers and pedestrians and give pedestrians the room to walk and enjoy our great “bowties.”
–
Sam (Gridlock Sam) Schwartz is a former Deputy Commissioner at New York City Department of Transportation and President of Sam Schwartz Engineering, a traffic engineering and planning firm.

This winter, New Yorkers will use some 475 million gallons of diesel oil as heating fuel. This oil is highly polluting, and it increases our dependence on Middle East suppliers.

Obviously we have to heat our buildings. But there’s a better way.

Over the past two decades, scientists have figured out how to make perfectly good heating oil from vegetable matter—they call it “biodiesel.” While boilers in use today wouldn’t run well using pure biodiesel, they can use a blended fuel containing up to 20 percent biodiesel (and 80 percent conventional heating oil) with no loss of function.

(Don’t confuse biodiesel, which is soy- or palm-based, with ethanol made from corn. Ethanol is costlier than biodiesel and much less beneficial environmentally. What’s more, ethanol requires the destruction of corn crops, while biodiesel allows 80 percent of each producing plant to be used for food.)

Replacing 20 percent of the city’s heating oil with biodiesel would have enormous benefits for the environment, eliminating more than 700,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide per year. To put that in perspective, the congestion pricing plan would have eliminated only 240,000 metric tons.

Biodiesel makes economic sense, too. At various times over the past year, biodiesel has actually been cheaper than regular heating fuel. And as the science gets better, this green fuel will become even less costly.

The truth is that biodiesel isn’t just a dream for pie-in-the-sky environmentalists. The New York Home Heating Oil Association supports the use of biodiesel, and a few forward-thinking companies are already selling it here in New York. In fact, the city government has even begun using biodiesel to heat some of its own buildings.
To achieve mainstream conversion to biodiesel, however, the energy sector will need a prod from the government. Private companies have been reluctant to invest in biodiesel production for fear that new demand is only temporary. But industry experts agree that the prospect of supplying the enormous New York City market would certainly stimulate production—and would likely drive the price of biodiesel down.

To that end, I have introduced legislation in the City Council that would require heating oil retailers to begin phasing in biodiesel blends, beginning with a 5 percent blend next year and working up to a 20 percent blend by 2013.

Let’s make this the last winter that New York relies so heavily on petroleum oil for heat. The City Council should pass biodiesel legislation as soon as possible.
–
David Yassky is a City Council member from Brooklyn and a candidate for Comptroller. He grew up on the Upper West Side

Elliot Sander

Unfortunately, the MTA is facing a $1.2 billion deficit as a result of rising debt costs and a dramatic decrease in revenue due to the collapse of the economy. Make no mistake, we are doing everything we can internally to tighten our belts. We are cutting costs by 6 percent over three years, with managerial and administrative expenses cut by 7 percent this year alone. We will achieve these results by pursuing innovative programs, such as a plan to consolidate back-office operations that will save up to $40 million annually. I, along with agency presidents, will also forgo previously agreed-to raises. But administrative costs make up only 7 percent of the MTA’s budget, so no amount of cutting can solve our entire problem.

Even more worrisome is the lack of funding to pay for maintaining and expanding the system. Since 1982, the MTA has invested $76 billion on these capital projects. As a result, the subway is now literally 20 times more reliable than it was in the early ‘80s. Ridership is up 50 percent in the past dozen years, reaching levels not seen in a generation. While this progress doesn’t mean much when you’re standing on a crowded No. 2 train, it is important to acknowledge how far we’ve come from the days of graffiti-covered trains and daily track fires.

Thankfully, the commission appointed by Gov. David Paterson and chaired by former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch has recommended a funding package to support the system’s capital needs and help limit fare increases and eliminate service cuts. The Ravitch proposal shares the responsibility for funding the transit system among everyone who benefits from it, and I strongly support these recommendations.

After 25 years of dramatic improvement, New York’s transit network is clearly at a crossroads. A lack of funding threatens to derail unprecedented progress and send us in the wrong direction. If Albany doesn’t act soon, our customers will be faced with drastic fare and toll increases and service cuts, and the system will risk falling into disrepair.

Please call or write your local State Senator and Assembly Member and urge them to support the Ravitch recommendations to provide a steady, long-term funding stream for the MTA. Make sure our legislators understand the importance of the MTA’s transit network to all New Yorkers. Providing the region with efficient and reliable transportation options will keep our hardworking men and women and our economy moving forward.
–
Elliot Sander is CEO and executive director of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority.

Domestic and international titles, from floor to ceiling, at B.J. Magazines. Photo By: Andrew Schwartz

Also recently closed: First Wok Chinese Restaurant (1570 Third Ave. between 88th and 89th streets), which had been in the neighborhood since 1980; Starwich, a sandwich and salad shop that briefly occupied 1055 Lexington Ave. at 75th Street, just months after Crain’s New York Business reported that the company filed for bankruptcy protection in August; and Bar Vespa at 1609 Second Ave. between 83rd and 84th streets. While the vino-focused annex to the restaurant may be gone, the well-loved Vespa Restaurant (1625 Second Ave. between 84th and 85th streets) is still open and packing ‘em in.

On another note completely, there are a couple of spots that popped up before my column existed and deserve to be mentioned. While they are not brand spanking new to the Upper East Side, both are about two years old, still wet behind the ears and are being discovered by excited residents every day. KOKIN, 1388 Third Ave. between 78th and 79th streets, is a boutique specializing in hats and headpieces (from functional to cocktail to custom made), as well as accessories like evening wraps and jewelry. If you have ever passed by on foot, you have certainly been mesmerized by the eye-catching display of decadent, feather-topped, veil-flanked, ribbon-encircled hats—a shop window reminiscent of a glamorous, bygone era when an outfit wasn’t finished until one donned the perfect hat. Once you find a chic cloche to match your coat, head over to Peri Ela, a Turkish restaurant at 1361 Lexington Ave. between 90th and 91st streets. This warm and cozy spot just down the block from the 92nd Street Y, offers lecture-attendees and residents alike yet another upscale dining option in the area, aside from the ever-popular and perpetually booked Sfloglia.

I was a college sophomore and was home for winter break. My city friends were away for the holidays, so I was stuck celebrating New Year’s with my 13-year-old brother, Spencer. Before leaving for a party, my parents placed a champagne bottle in the refrigerator. “Only a sip for Spencer,” my mother instructed.

College had made me a champion beer drinker (back then the drinking age was 18), so I was disappointed to be spending the biggest party night of the year shackled to a minor. While jealously imagining that my friends were standing three-deep at a bar getting drunk on watered-down drinks (yes, this was my idea of a good time), I became resigned to watching Dick Clark on the television in my parents’ Upper East Side apartment.

My brother and I ate dinner at a local diner. I had a tasteless veal parmesan, while my brother ate an especially greasy chicken souvlaki, washed down by a strawberry milkshake, that he insisted was really Bisquick and milk. Afterward, we retreated to my parents’ apartment to plan the evening.

My brother wanted to watch the ball drop live, but I saw a trip to Times Square ending with my having to fill out a missing person’s report (13-year-old Caucasian male, last seen disappearing into a frenzied crowd of pickpockets and drunken tourists).

“Does the operator say happy New Year, when you call time at midnight?”
Spencer asked. He was referring to the telephone time service, with the monotone female voice that would say, “at the tone eastern daylight time will be…”

“What a great question!” I said. “Let’s find out.”

We decided to make the crucial call from a telephone booth outside the Plaza Hotel. The Plaza was a favorite spot for us, because our parents would take us to the hotel’s Trader Vic’s restaurant for special occasions. The location would also allow us a glimpse of the Central Park fireworks display that would begin at midnight.
At 11:30 we set out on foot for the Plaza, which was 20 blocks away. As midnight approached we began running. With a few blocks to go Spencer had fallen far behind. Looking over my shoulder, I saw him standing over a garbage can regurgitating his dinner.

Panicked, I sprinted over to him. “Are you all right?” I asked.

He looked up from the garbage can, laughing hysterically.

“C’mon!” I urged. We ran to the telephone booth, both of us laughing all the way.
As I reached into my pocket for change, the fireworks went off. We were too late.
In the 30 years since then, my New Year’s Eves have mostly been unremarkable: a black-tie party, or a casual affair; a kiss at midnight, or a lonely sip of champagne; a drunken walk home, or a search for a taxi, with a freezing wind slapping me into sobriety. I have sometimes thought about calling the time lady at midnight but never got around to doing so.

Spencer moved to Los Angeles after he graduated college. Every Dec. 31 we talk over the phone, with one of us always noting that for a three-hour window we will be living in different years; this observation—much like our quest to hear the New Year’s Eve telephone recording—being a joke about the significance we place on marking time.

Unfortunately, Spencer and I will never find out if the time lady acknowledged the New Year. Telephone companies discontinued the time service years ago.
Trade Vic’s and the Plaza Hotel (converted into condos) are also gone. But the lousy diner where Spencer and I ate our greasy New Year’s meal is still around.
–
Ben Krull is an Upper East Sider and essayist.

The man who once played the role of liberal minority leader in the State Senate is now the voice of reason, playing the part of a stable pragmatist. He has pursued a policy of slash and burn in the state budget. He knows that his constituents are hurting and that they have no tolerance for civil servants, even those who deliver health care, education and social services. These good people don’t deserve what they are about to get. We are talking about the poor and the mentally ill and sick people with no health insurance. We are talking about inner-city school children. We are talking about college kids who go to the state and city universities and whose parents can’t afford to help them out. Paterson will follow the formula in constructing his fiscal plan: no new taxes and cuts in state services. So far, people love the guy.

Of course, most people don’t have the slightest idea how many billions are in the state budget and the press knows it. They write the obligatory stories, but they concentrate their real work on the horse races, the contests that people can understand. One such story is the fight over who will be United

Gov. David Paterson faces fiscal crises, Senate appointments and a legislature in disarray. Photo By: Andrew Schwartz

States Senator. The two top candidates seem to be Caroline Kennedy and Andrew Cuomo. Rumors persist that Senator Chuck Schumer doesn’t want either of these two show horses and would prefer someone less well-known, like upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand. Hillary Clinton, who probably lost her race to Barack Obama because of the Kennedy (Ted and Caroline) endorsement of Barack, has been described as “…close to putting the kibosh on Caroline.” Payback doesn’t make her look good. Poor Paterson may have to make a choice between the Kennedy and Cuomo dynasties, and it is a lose-lose situation if there ever was one.

Of course, he could put a place holder in the job, like outgoing Chief Judge Judith Kaye, but that would leave him with a mess when he has to run in a few years, and the Senator will have to run with him. He’ll need someone in place who is popular and who can raise money. He can’t appoint himself because New York is currently without a lieutenant governor and either the hapless Malcolm Smith or the distasteful Dean Skelos would take over the governor’s job, depending on how that mess comes out.

Then there is the small matter of the Senate leadership. The Republicans theoretically are outnumbered, but they are trying to pull the Gang of Three over the line to keep them in power. In retaliation, we hear that the Democrats are trying to bring a couple of moderate Republicans over to their side. Paterson will have to get a budget through and this mess is just what he doesn’t need. It looks like he has been helping the so-called Gang of Three pull off their brand of political blackmail, and no one understands why he is doing that.

Usually I think I know what to do, but this is one time I just don’t. I’m glad I’m not Paterson.
–
Alan S. Chartock is president and CEO of WAMC/Northeast Public Radio and an executive publisher at The Legislative Gazette.

My parents have known just how gay I am for almost a decade. It’s just that Mom and Dad prefer that I keep my 18-year-old brother and 11-year-old sister in the dark when it comes to my sexuality. The fact that I am not allowed to tell them definitely speaks to the discomfort my sexuality still causes my parents. And it’s not just with my siblings either. There are huge swaths of my family who probably don’t know that I am gay. It’s not as if my life would be terribly improved if I came out to all the various aunts and cousins I have living in California. Wait…did I just say California? That’s right. The same state where voters just approved Proposition 8, overturning that state’s Supreme Court ruling granting marriage equality to same-sex couples. The margin of victory for Prop 8 was roughly 4 percent, which makes me wonder about all those family members who may not know how important it is to me that I have the right to marry the person of my choosing.

Political Organizing 101 teaches that the opinions of close friends and family members have perhaps the greatest amount of influence when it comes to our decisions on Election Day. It also teaches you to know on a scale of 1 to 5 which voters are with you (1s and 2s), which are against (4s and 5s), and which are persuadable (3s). I have no idea when it comes to marriage equality for gays and lesbians if my aunt in Long Beach is a 1, 3 or 5.

Evan Wolfson, founder and executive director of Freedom to Marry, has said that the “recipe for social change is simple: information over time.” He emphasized that we need to keep having multiple conversations with our friends, family, co-workers and others in our circles about how the right to marry impacts us as individuals. We need to exercise patience and persistence, understanding that someone might need to hear from us four or five or 15 times before they can find common ground with your cause.

According to CNN exit polls, the people who most supported Prop 8 are groups with whom the GLBT community doesn’t always do the best job engaging: weekly churchgoers, Republicans, African Americans, people age 65, and older and married (i.e. heterosexual) people. I can’t help but wonder if that doesn’t have something to do with avoiding those uncomfortable conversations with our family members. I still have no clue as to whether or not my parents’ views have softened. But now is as good a time as any to find out. So get ready, Mom and Dad. This Christmas we’re gonna be spending some quality time talking about marriage equality.

Jamaal Young is a columnist for New York Press

Family after family of first-time voters streamed into my polling location. Many brought their children, who watched as their parents participated in the most essential process and privilege of being an American. As each family walked out, I made sure to tell the children that their parents were making history.

But the undeniable promise of election night’s political events was tempered by the reality of intolerance, an intolerance that appears to be replacing racial inequality and rooting itself in “Christian” values. In Arizona, Florida and Arkansas, constitutional amendments were passed to enshrine discrimination against the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman. In Arkansas, voters banned non-married gay couples from being adoptive or foster parents.

But in perhaps the most devastating blow to the equality that an Obama presidency promises, the citizens of California, and the money of the Mormon Church and the Knights of Columbus, eliminated the Constitutional right of same-sex couples to marry—a right that had been upheld by the state’s highest court, which incidentally is predominantly conservative.

Setting aside the injustice of putting a citizen’s constitutional right up for a popular vote, the underlying religious justification for this law is almost too difficult to wrap one’s mind around. If religious intolerance of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender people is allowed to exist, especially if justified by “faith,” we all suffer. And the disease of racial hate that has plagued America for centuries may simply shift to gay people.

All hope is not lost. My husband and I recently attended a Unitarian-Universalist Sunday service at The Fourth Universalist Society on the Upper West Side. We listened to their minister, Rosemary Bray McNatt, an African-American woman, say a prayer of thanks, out loud, for the Supreme Court of Connecticut’s marriage decision, saying that the Constitution of Connecticut forbids marriage discrimination based on sex or sexual orientation. McNatt praised the court and thanked God for the justices’ understanding of the inherent value of love and the importance of a state’s protection of loving relationships, regardless of their gender makeup.

The journey toward real equality will require a sea change not unlike the election of an African-American president of the United States. I thank God that places like The Fourth Universalist Society exist and I pray that more people connect to a faith that embraces everyone, especially those who choose to love.

–

Anthony M. Brown served as research assistant to Nan Hunter, founder of the Gay and Lesbian Project at The ACLU, and he helped prepare the brief for  Lawrence v. Texas. He can be reached at Brown@msclaw.net.