NYC Council meetings, chaptered and linked by time.
Created by Uzair Qadir
Inspired by Vikram Oberoi's City Meetings
New York City Council
Requiring the department of transportation to install lighting under elevated train lines
Read summaries and jump into the video at the segment start.
Council staff welcomes attendees to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee hearing, asks everyone to silence phones, and instructs those wishing to speak to fill out appearance cards with the sergeants.
Councilmember Shaun Abreu opens the hearing and introduces the five pieces of legislation: Int 845 on lighting under elevated trains, Int 866 on disruptive work signage, Int 894 on seasonal sidewalk cafe enclosures, Int 917 on cafe cleanliness, and Int 918 on quarterly fee payments.
Abreu explains the hearing will examine the purpose, implementation, and impact of the bills, and that he looks forward to testimony from the administration, restaurant owners, community members, and advocates on how the proposals affect neighborhoods.
Abreu thanks committee staff including Jaleesa Quigley, Theodore Miller, Sierra Townsend, Kevin Katowski, John Bazile, Sarah Swain, Natalie Meltzer, and gives a special farewell to principal financial analyst Adrian Jipal.
Councilmember Gale Brewer explains her bill allowing restaurants to install high-quality winter vestibules enclosing licensed sidewalk cafe areas from October 1 to March 31, inspired by the Hospitality Alliance, to help businesses utilize year-round paid space during cold months.
Councilmember Justin Sanchez briefly introduces his bill on sanitation and cleanliness requirements for roadway and sidewalk cafes, thanking the chair and committee staff and expressing excitement about improving cleanliness standards.
Abreu reads Epstein's statement on Intro 866, which would require posted signs within a 500-foot radius of planned disruptive work at least 48 hours in advance, including contact information, to increase transparency and accessibility for residents, schools, and businesses affected by construction.
Councilmember Shanel Thomas-Henry presents Intro 845 requiring DOT to assess and install lighting under elevated train lines, citing safety concerns along Roosevelt Avenue under the 7 train, and Intro 918 allowing roadway cafe operators to pay revocable consent fees in quarterly installments to ease financial burdens on small businesses.
Council staff swears in the administration witnesses before they begin their testimony.
Deputy Commissioner Monty Dean explains DOT's lighting standards, installation methods, and challenges with lighting under elevated trains including shadows, structural limitations, and vibration. He expresses concern that the bill's requirement for distinctive lighting would slow implementation and offers to discuss enhancing lighting in specific districts.
Dean states that DOT already posts informational signs for long-term construction projects and uses street ambassadors and variable message signs. He expresses concerns that the bill's broad scope would slow construction and raise costs, and prefers utilizing existing notification requirements.
Dean expresses support for the goals of Intro 894, noting sidewalk cafes can already use overhead coverings. He suggests including other winterization methods like vertical screenings and aligning timelines with ongoing discussions about roadway cafe winterization.
Dean explains the bill would codify existing DOT rules on cleanliness and raise maximum civil penalties to $300 for first violations and $600 for subsequent ones. He emphasizes the Dining Out NYC program's existing cleaning requirements and suggests treating all program violations uniformly.
Dean explains DOT currently requires one-time upfront revocable consent payments and worries quarterly installments would create collection difficulties, staffing burdens, and application delays. He notes DOT charges less than DCWP did, making quarterly payments less relevant, but is open to further discussions.
Thomas-Henry asks what criteria DOT uses to decide between standard and distinctive lighting upgrades. Dean explains distinctive lighting is typically funded through elected official allocations while standard lighting uses normal city funding, and that lighting under elevated trains is addressed on a complaint-driven basis.
Thomas-Henry raises concerns about darkness and illicit activity under the 7 train on Roosevelt Avenue in her district, noting DOT's lighting improvements have been inconsistent. Dean acknowledges adding arms to existing poles in one section and offers to follow up on additional areas. Thomas-Henry emphasizes the bill aims to help communities that suffer in silence.
Thomas-Henry asks what interagency coordination would be needed to implement the bill. Dean explains DOT may need to coordinate with Con Edison for power, manage trenching and construction, and work with the MTA when work is near transit infrastructure columns.
Thomas-Henry references DOT's $331 million commitment to replace first-generation LED streetlight fixtures and asks whether it covers lighting under elevated trains. Dean confirms it does for existing fixtures but says additional fixtures would require separate surveys, and the program will take a few years to complete borough by borough.
Thomas-Henry asks how often DOT hears concerns about lighting under elevated train lines. Dean says he does not have a specific number but will check and follow up.
Councilmember Sanchez asks about installing lights on the elevated rail itself rather than street poles, citing examples from cities worldwide. Dean explains vibration issues, the trains' own power systems, and coordination challenges with NYC Transit make this atypical, but says he would check if it has been studied.
Sanchez asks about the 1.5-foot cleanliness radius and how it works. Michelle Craven explains sanitation enforces that radius while DOT enforces other cleanliness rules, and reports very few complaints under the new permanent program. Abreu asks about enforcement changes and costs; Craven says the bill would duplicate existing rules with no significant change.
Councilmember Phil Wong raises concerns about inadequate illumination under CSX and Long Island Railroad trestles in his district and asks if DOT can improve lighting there. Dean says DOT can evaluate lighting on its right-of-way and encourages Wong to share specific locations.
Thomas-Henry asks about the average annual consent fee range. Craven says fees range from a few hundred dollars to around $2,000-$2,500 on average, with some in central areas costing more, and clarifies this is the only annual fee businesses pay.
Thomas-Henry probes DOT's concern about collecting fees after licensing. Craven explains the fee is paid at the end of the approval process, so refunds are not an issue, but DOT worries businesses may be less motivated to pay on time once already operating, requiring staff to chase payments.
Thomas-Henry asks about implementation costs and whether automatic quarterly payments could work. Craven says it would add staffing responsibilities or slow down approvals, and while automated billing exists, converting to quarterly automated invoicing would be a slow process.
Thomas-Henry argues quarterly payments would alleviate financial stress for small businesses, citing her tours of restaurants across the city where owners mention fees as a major burden. Craven acknowledges fees can be burdensome but says no restaurants have specifically requested quarterly payments, only advocates have.
Wong shares that constituent requests for burned-out street lamps take months to get a reply. Dean says replies should not take that long, explains repairs typically take 10 days for evaluation, and more complex wiring or Con Edison issues can take longer, but commits to improving communication.
Abreu asks about anticipated costs for implementing Intro 894. Craven says there are no anticipated costs and explains DOT is reviewing rules for both sidewalk and roadway winterization to create consistent standards, including siding, wind protection, and snow load requirements.
Abreu asks what public notice DOT currently provides for disruptive work lasting at least seven days. Jeffrey Malamy describes DOT's notification toolkit including meetings with elected officials, community boards, flyers, street ambassadors at pedestrian hubs, and electronic sharing of project information.
Abreu asks how DOT defines disruptive work. Malamy says there is no defined standard and the bill's definition is quite broad, making signage requirements for minimal interruptions seem excessive. Abreu asks if DOT is open to conversations on defining triggers; Malamy agrees.
Abreu asks what role contractors play in posting notification signs and about implementation costs. Malamy says contractors already have statutory notice requirements, and while he lacks a specific budget figure, additional signage work would detract from other outreach efforts DOT finds most effective.
Councilmember Marte asks about replicating winterization standards between sidewalk and roadway cafes. Craven explains both currently must be open-air with some coverings, and DOT is exploring temporary siding options for wind and snow protection with consistent standards for both setups.
Marte raises concerns about establishments violating SLA stipulations regarding outdoor dining, such as serving liquor when not permitted. Craven explains SLA licenses are outside DOT's jurisdiction as a state entity, and DOT cannot enforce stipulations that conflict with city legislation or rules.
Wong asks about street ambassadors, noting he has never seen one in his district during major projects. Malamy explains the team of 12-15 ambassadors is deployed project-by-project across all five boroughs, coordinated by project managers and borough commissioners, and offers to follow up on specific district projects.
Abreu asks how many of the 2,500 lighting upgrades in 2025 were under elevated train lines. Dean says he will need to check the breakdown and follow up. Abreu then adjourns the administration portion of the hearing.
Abreu opens the floor for public testimony, reminding attendees of formal proceeding rules, the two-minute speaking limit, and procedures for submitting written testimony by email within 72 hours.
Andrew Rigie of the NYC Hospitality Alliance supports Intro 894, arguing restaurants pay year-round for sidewalk cafe space but cannot use it in winter. He says winter vestibules would help small businesses maximize revenue and sustain worker hours during cold months.
Rigie supports allowing quarterly fee payments, noting this was standard practice at DCWP for decades. He argues the city should not require lump-sum payments when even landlords don't demand a full year's rent upfront, and that total setup costs can reach tens of thousands of dollars.
Rigie acknowledges existing DOT rules already address cleanliness but asks that if penalties are codified, first-time violations allow a warning or cure period before monetary fines, consistent with broader small business reform efforts and Executive Order 11.
High school student Vinny Dong testifies in support of Intros 845 and 866, describing how students travel across the city at early and late hours and face unsafe conditions when streets are dark under elevated trains, especially in winter when daylight is limited.
Park Slope resident Blake Walker describes a bike loop connecting Prospect Park to Coney Island and Bay Ridge, arguing that missing signage prevents tourists and many locals from discovering the route. He proposes adding signage to capitalize on bicycle tourism and spread economic benefits across Brooklyn.
Council staff confirms no further witnesses wish to testify and officially adjourns the hearing.