DOT Legislation on Sidewalk Cafes, Street Lighting and Construction Notices
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
Meeting overview
The Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure held a hearing on five bills covering street lighting under elevated train lines, advance notification for disruptive street work, seasonal enclosures for sidewalk cafes, cleanliness standards for outdoor dining, and quarterly payment of revocable consent fees. The hearing was largely exploratory, with no votes taken, but several bills appear close to amendment or advancement.
The administration's testimony, delivered by DOT's Commissioner of Traffic Operations and colleagues, was cautiously resistant across the board. On Int 0845-2026 (lighting under elevated train lines), DOT raised legitimate technical concerns about vibration, pole height restrictions, and the elevated structures not being engineered for additional loads, while also noting that the bill's specific requirement for "distinctive" lighting rather than standard lighting would paradoxically slow down installation. This is a real drafting problem the Council should fix. CM Krishnan pressed DOT on whether lighting under elevated lines is systematically assessed or only addressed on complaint — it is the latter, which is the core policy failure the bill is trying to correct. CM Pierina Ana Sanchez asked the interesting question of whether the existing power infrastructure on elevated rail lines could be used to power lighting underneath; DOT said it had not been studied. On Int 0866-2026 (advance notice signs for disruptive work), CM Epstein's office had already pre-negotiated a key amendment shifting the signage obligation from DOT to the permit-holder, and DOT acknowledged that the bill's current definition of "disruptive work" is too broad. On Int 0918-2026 (quarterly fee payments), DOT's objection that it has not heard restaurants requesting this option prompted a sharp and credible rebuttal from CM Thomas Henry, who described direct feedback from business owners across the city. DOT's counter-argument — that the fees are now low enough that quarterly payment is unnecessary — is debatable and somewhat condescending to small businesses managing cash flow.
The New York City Hospitality Alliance, represented by Executive Director Andrew Rigie, testified in support of all three outdoor dining bills. His strongest point was on Int 0918-2026: he noted that restaurants already pay a stack of upfront costs including licensing fees, security deposits, architecture fees, and expediter fees, potentially running to tens of thousands of dollars, making the lump-sum consent fee one burden too many. On Int 0894-2026 (seasonal enclosures), DOT was broadly supportive but wants to align sidewalk cafe winterization rules with a parallel and apparently ongoing negotiation about roadway cafe winterization, which suggests a more comprehensive outdoor dining winterization framework may be in the works. On Int 0917-2026 (cleanliness standards), DOT and the Hospitality Alliance both essentially said the rules already achieve what the bill requires; the main substantive debate was over the proposed fine structure, with the Alliance asking for a warning period before penalties are issued for first violations, consistent with broader small business reform efforts under Executive Order 11.
Public testimony was brief. A high school student testified compellingly about the safety implications of poor lighting under elevated transit infrastructure for students traveling early and late. A Brooklyn resident made an earnest and specific pitch for better cycling signage connecting Prospect Park, Coney Island and Bay Ridge — a reasonable idea but off-topic for the bills on the agenda. CM Wong raised the useful point that inadequate lighting is not just a subway-elevated issue but also affects areas under Long Island Rail Road trestles, which DOT confirmed falls within its jurisdiction to address.
Numbers
- DOT is responsible for nearly 400,000 streetlights citywide.
- DOT enhanced lighting at nearly 2,500 locations across the city in 2025.
- The bill Int 0845-2026 would require lighting assessment and installation under elevated train lines within a defined timeframe.
- Int 0866-2026 requires notification signs within a 500-foot radius of planned disruptive work, at least 48 hours before work begins.
- DOT's street ambassador program consists of approximately 12 to 15 ambassadors serving all five boroughs.
- DOT committed $331 million at the May 29 executive budget hearing to repair and replace every first-generation LED streetlight fixture across the city.
- The LED replacement program is expected to take several years, proceeding on a borough-by-borough basis.
- DOT contractors have a 10-day standard to evaluate and begin repair or determine if more substantial work is needed after a streetlight outage is reported.
- Annual revocable consent fees for outdoor dining range from a few hundred dollars to an average of approximately $2,000 to $2,500.
- Fees in central city areas (Sector 4 under the legislation) run into higher thousands of dollars annually.
- Int 0917-2026 would raise maximum civil penalties for cleanliness violations to $300 for a first offense and $600 for second and subsequent offenses at the same location.
- The seasonal enclosure period under Int 0894-2026 covers October 1 through March 31.
- The Hospitality Alliance noted total upfront costs for outdoor dining setup can run to tens of thousands of dollars when combining consent fees, licensing fees, security deposits, architecture fees, and expediter fees.
- Blake Walker cited $150 billion per year in bicycle tourism nationally as context for his signage proposal.
Action Points
- DOT to report back to the committee on how many of the approximately 2,500 lighting upgrades made in 2025 were located under elevated train lines.
- DOT to report back to CM Krishnan's office specifically on what assessments have been conducted and what determinations were made for lighting along Roosevelt Avenue under the 7 train.
- DOT to investigate whether using existing electrical power on elevated rail infrastructure to illuminate underneath has been studied and to report findings to the committee.
- DOT to follow up with CM Wong's office on lighting conditions under Long Island Rail Road trestles in his district and to evaluate specific locations flagged by his office.
- DOT to develop and share a timeline for the borough-by-borough LED replacement program with the committee.
- DOT to provide the committee with data on how frequently it receives complaints or requests regarding lighting conditions under elevated train lines.
- CM Epstein's office to advance amendment to Int 0866-2026 shifting signage obligation from DOT to the entity obtaining the permit, consistent with discussions already held with DOT.
- Council and DOT to continue discussions on narrowing the definition of "disruptive work" in Int 0866-2026 to make the notification trigger more workable.
- DOT to continue discussions with the Council on aligning the seasonal enclosure timeline for sidewalk cafes in Int 0894-2026 with parallel negotiations on roadway cafe winterization rules.
- DOT to work with the Council to develop consistent materials and standards for winterization across both sidewalk and roadway cafes.
- DOT to continue discussions with the Council on appropriate fine levels and structure under Int 0917-2026, with a view to uniform treatment of program violations.
- Council to consider whether Int 0917-2026 should include a warning or cure period before monetary penalties are imposed for first-time cleanliness violations, consistent with Executive Order 11 and broader small business reform efforts.
- DOT to assess feasibility of updating its portal to support quarterly automated invoicing for revocable consent fees under Int 0918-2026 and report back to the committee.
- DOT to engage directly with CM Thomas Henry's office and specific restaurant contacts identified through her district tours to gather firsthand input on the quarterly payment proposal.
- DOT to brief CM Wong's office on which street ambassador deployments have occurred or are planned in his district and to ensure ambassador presence at upcoming major projects there.
- Council drafters to amend Int 0845-2026 to remove the restriction to "distinctive" lighting, allowing DOT to use standard lighting where appropriate to accelerate installation under elevated train lines.
▸ Full Transcript
Good morning. Welcome to today's New York City Council hearing for the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. At this time, please silence all cellphones and electronic devices. If you wish to speak in today's hearing, please fill out an appearance card with one of the sergeants. Moving forward, no one is to approach the dais. Chair, you may begin.
Welcome to today's hearing of the New York City Council's Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. I am CM Shaun Abreu, Majority Leader and Chair of this Committee. Today the Committee will hear testimony on five pieces of legislation.
Int 0845-2026, sponsored by CM Thomas Henry, in relation to requiring the Department of Transportation to install lighting under elevated train lines. Int 0866-2026, sponsored by CM Epstein, in relation to requiring the Department of Transportation to post notification signs regarding upcoming disruptive work. Int 0894-2026, sponsored by CM Brewer, in relation to seasonal enclosures for sidewalk cafes. Int 0917-2026, sponsored by CM Justin Sanchez, in relation to sanitation and cleaning requirements for roadway and sidewalk cafes. And Int 0918-2026, also sponsored by CM Thomas Henry, in relation to allowing sidewalk and roadway cafe revocable consent fees to be paid in quarterly installments.
Because today's hearing is focused solely on legislation, we will use it as an opportunity to examine the purpose of and potential impact of these Bills. Together, these Bills raise important questions about how New York City manages its streets, sidewalks and public spaces. Whether we are discussing lighting beneath elevated train lines, public notice requirements for work on streets, or the cleanliness, affordability or seasonal availability of outdoor dining, the issue at the heart of these Bills is how to make our public spaces safer, more accessible and better maintained for everyone.
I look forward to hearing from the administration about their views on these Bills, including any operational or fiscal concerns as well as any recommendations on how these Bills could be improved. I also look forward to hearing from restaurant owners, community members, advocates and other stakeholders about how these proposals would affect them in the neighborhoods they serve.
Before I hand it over to my colleagues to speak on their Bills, I would like to thank my staff and the Committee staff for their hard work in preparing for today's hearing: Lisa Quickly, my Deputy Chief of Staff; Theodore Miller and Tara Sierra Townsend, Counsels to the Committee; Kevin Kostovski and John Brazil, Senior Policy Analysts with the Committee; and Sarah Swain and Natalie Meltzer, staff to the Committee on Consumer Protection, who have been involved in developing the Council's outdoor dining legislation. I would also like to give a special thanks to Adrian Paw, who has been the principal financial analyst of the Committee for several years, for his commitment, savvy and unfailing good humor in working to better this Committee, the Council and our City. Adrian, thank you for your service and good luck in your next endeavor. We will miss you. I will now pass it over to my colleagues to speak on their Bills, starting with CM Gale Brewer.
Thank you very much. I am here to talk about, as you heard from the Chair, Int 0894-2026. It has to do with seasonal enclosures for cafes that are outdoor, and this did come from a suggestion made by the Hospitality Alliance. I want to thank them, as I always do, for their incredible support of these kinds of issues. There is a time frame during the year when it is chilly, as you all know, and the idea would be that because of that frigid and wet weather across our City, especially between October 1 and March 31, during that time period, Int 0894-2026, if enacted into law, would allow restaurants to install high quality winter vestibules enclosing their licensed sidewalk cafe area. These are spaces which they already pay the City for the whole year, and so that notion would be to have better access to that space.
There are also businesses that are unclear on what is permitted. To provide clear guidance to help businesses and owners plan, I think we all see that in some cases businesses have these enclosures and sometimes they do not, and they all differ. This Bill would make it clear. I do want to thank Andrew Rigie from the New York City Hospitality Alliance for raising this issue and for his tireless advocacy for restaurants, bars, cafes, owners and people who are crucial to our City's economy and neighborhood life. I want to thank Chair Abreu for including this on the agenda and legislative staff Richard Federal, Sarah Swain and Natalie Meltzer, as well as Committee staff Townsend, Theo Miller, John Brazil and Kevin Khodorkovsky. Thank you very much and we hope that it will pass. Thank you.
Thank you, CM Brewer. I will now turn it over to CM Sanchez to speak on Int 0917-2026.
Int 0917-2026. First and foremost, I want to thank the Chair and all of the Committee staff for having this on the agenda today. We are really excited to hear more about how this Bill can help actually improve cleanliness standards across the City as we roll out outdoor dining, and we look forward to hearing a substantive question and answer period. Thank you.
I will now read CM Epstein's remarks on Int 0866-2026. Thank you to Chair Abreu and all my colleagues for the opportunity to hear my Bill, Int 0866-2026, at today's hearing. My office has already had discussions with DOT and we will be moving forward with amending this Bill to require the entity obtaining the permit, not DOT, to put up the signage.
We all know the feeling. You wake up to unexpected noise coming from the sidewalk below. You are walking your child to school and suddenly the path you take every day is taped off for construction. You go to open up your deli for the day only to find someone jackhammering outside of your business. You did not know this was going to happen and you are not sure how long it will last. This type of disruptive work presents additional challenges for individuals who use assisted mobility devices, who struggle to get around if their typical sidewalk route has changed. While the work being done to improve our streets and sidewalks is necessary, it can be disruptive to our daily life. It is critical that all New Yorkers have access to the information necessary so they can plan ahead when construction projects arise.
My Bill, Int 0866-2026, addresses this all too common occurrence by providing New Yorkers with posted signs within a 500 foot radius of the location of planned disruptive work, at least 48 hours before the work is scheduled to begin. It would also include contact information, ensuring the public knows who to talk to about the work if there are questions or concerns. Construction can be disruptive to surrounding residents, schools and businesses. It is important that neighbors have advance notice of construction so they can make necessary plans. This Bill is about increasing transparency between City agencies and residents and increasing accessibility in our government system. I look forward to hearing feedback about this Bill and about how we can make our streets more accessible for everyone.
Thank you. That was a statement by my colleague CM Epstein. I would also like to recognize the colleagues who have joined us today: CM Brewer, CM Wong, CM Krishnan, CM Justin Sanchez, CM Louis and CM Thomas Henry. I will now pass it over to my colleague CM Thomas Henry to speak on her Bills.
CM Thomas Henry, to speak on her Bills.
Thank you, Chair. Just need one second.
Good morning, Chair Abreu, and thank you for convening today's hearing. Thank you to my colleagues on the Committee. Transportation is about more than getting people from one place to another. It is about how people experience our neighborhoods once they arrive. It is about whether a resident feels safe walking home beneath an elevated train. It is about whether a family chooses to stop by at a neighborhood cafe. It is about whether our streets invite people in or push them away.
Today, as a member of this Committee and the Chair of the Small Business Committee, I am proud to present two pieces of legislation that recognize a simple truth: our transportation system should work for the people who use it every day. Int 0845-2026 would require the Department of Transportation to assess streets and sidewalks beneath elevated train infrastructure to determine where additional lighting is needed and install it within a defined timeframe. In my district, the 7 train runs through the heart of our community. For years, residents have shared concerns about darkness under the underpasses that feel unsafe and overlooked. No New Yorker should have to question their safety simply because they are walking home beneath our transit infrastructure. This legislation creates accountability by ensuring those concerns are evaluated, addressed and reported on.
Int 0918-2026 focuses on another important part of our streetscape: the small businesses that activate our sidewalks and make our commercial corridors vibrant. By allowing roadway cafe operators to pay revocable consent fees in quarterly installments rather than all at once, we can ease unnecessary financial burdens while continuing to support the outdoor dining program that has become such an important part of our City's fabric. These Bills address different issues but they advance the same goal: creating streets that are safer and more economically vibrant. That is the kind of transportation system we should continue building — one that moves people while also strengthening the communities they call home. Thank you, and I look forward to today's discussion.
Good morning, Chair Abreu and members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. My name is Monty... and I am Commissioner of Traffic Operations. I am joined by Michelle Craven, Associate Deputy Commissioner of Cityscape and Franchises; Jeff Mala, Director of Street Improvement Projects; and Rick Rodriguez, Assistant Commissioner for Interagency Community Affairs. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Mayor Mamdani and Commissioner Flynn about Int 0845-2026, Int 0866-2026, Int 0894-2026, Int 0917-2026 and Int 0918-2026.
First, Int 0845-2026, sponsored by CM Thomas Henry. This Bill would require DOT to install distinctive lighting under elevated train lines. With nearly 400,000 streetlights citywide under our responsibility, we recognize the importance of street lighting in enhancing both safety and quality of life. We are committed to ensuring streets are well lit for vehicle traffic as well as pedestrians in both the roadway and the sidewalk. As a national leader in sustainable street lighting, our lighting studies are based on standards that include recommended practices and guidelines published by the Illuminating Engineering Society, the internationally recognized entity that sets recommended practices for lighting levels in various applications.
To ensure lighting standards are sufficiently addressed citywide, we are happy to provide a quick breakdown of how lighting is installed. Based on study evaluations, we routinely make upgrades in any street reconstruction project for installation. There are three ways we can add lighting depending on where the lower lighting levels are located: we can reduce the distance between streetlights, add secondary lighting on the back of existing poles over the sidewalk at a lower height, or install new standard poles. We must consider various factors when installing lighting, including extensive coordination with contractors and utilities when working around obstructions caused by trees or hydrants and existing below-ground infrastructure like gas mains and electric ducts. These factors require further extensive survey and design work. Installations can also require time-consuming and disruptive street excavations to lay new conduits and cables as well as construction for new feeds.
Our team works every day to make sure our streets and roadways are well lit. In 2025 alone, we enhanced lighting at nearly 2,500 locations across the City. Despite these efforts, we hear from New Yorkers that they feel safer and more secure when streets and sidewalks under elevated train lines are more brightly lit. Lighting under elevated trains is particularly challenging because the support columns create shadows and the elevated structures limit the height of the poles. The elevated structures are not engineered to support additional loads. Further, high vibration levels can prevent the installation of equipment.
The installation process has two categories of lighting we typically install: standard and distinctive. Any street pole other than the standard steel octagonal and David designs for City streets is considered distinctive. There are seven types of distinctive streetlights, which are installed as part of streetscape projects and other elected-funded initiatives requiring Public Design Commission approval. Due to the different funding streams and additional approval processes, distinctive lighting is generally more expensive and slower to implement. While DOT strives to be responsive in addressing community concerns regarding sufficient lighting, we have concerns about the Bill as written. We are worried that this Bill would have the unintended consequence of slowing down our ability to address lighting conditions by limiting us to distinctive lighting. We would be happy to discuss with the Council how we can enhance lighting in your districts and welcome feedback if there are particular locations of concern.
Next, Int 0866-2026, sponsored by CM Epstein. This Bill would require DOT to post signs in advance within a 500 foot radius of a location of disruptive work. Disruptive work as defined in the legislation means work that is performed under a permit issued by DOT that is expected to create street, sidewalk or parking space closures, reroute traffic, cause relocation of bus stops or bike stations, or work between certain hours that includes noise, vibrations or bright lighting. DOT already posts informational signs for long-term construction projects pursuant to existing requirements. We understand the need to communicate effectively to New Yorkers that there will be disruptive construction work. We believe that existing rules and current practices accomplish the goals of this Bill while balancing operational needs. In addition to the informational construction signs, we have other tools in our toolkit to appropriately notify and involve communities within project areas, for...
For example, our street ambassadors meet people where they are by discussing project impacts in communities on the street. We also deploy variable message signs when needed. Of course, we are also proud of the ongoing partnerships we have with the Council and the community boards to utilize your networks to spread the word with residents about critical projects in your neighborhoods.
Although we support the goal of the Bill as described, with our existing toolkit of communication efforts we have a number of concerns with the current scope of the Bill and would prefer to utilize existing requirements on construction signage to meet the intended goals. With affordability and project delivery a top priority in this administration, we would be wary of creating additional requirements which would slow construction and raise costs. We would be happy to continue conversations with the Council to identify the best way to implement notice requirements.
Next, Int 0894-2026, sponsored by CM Brewer. This Bill would allow sidewalk cafes to include removable vertical screenings and overhead coverings from October 1 to March 31. We are thrilled with the significant interest in expanding the dining out program and we support the goals of this Bill. Sidewalk cafes are already allowed to operate with overhead coverings and awnings pursuant to our rules, along with our sister agencies' requirements in specific instances. We have suggestions for how to include other winterization methods like vertical screenings and want to modify the timeline so the requirements are in alignment with existing discussions on winterization for roadway cafes. We are happy to have more conversations with the Council on how best to enhance the sidewalk experience.
Next, Int 0917-2026, sponsored by CM Sanchez. This Bill would codify existing rules pertaining to cleanliness standards for businesses operating sidewalk and roadway cafes. The Bill would also raise maximum civil penalties to $300 for the first violation and $600 for second and subsequent violations at the same place of business.
Prioritizing quality of life concerns is critical to the success of our dining out program. We have been working to be incredibly responsive to complaints and carry out enforcement when necessary. The dining out program requires durable, modular and easy to clean materials for outdoor dining setups, establishes weekly cleaning requirements and prohibits impediments to the outdoor dining experience. Regarding the fine structure, we understand the desire to raise the fees but believe it is important that all program violations related to noncompliance be treated uniformly. We look forward to working with the Council to determine appropriate violation amounts. We are always striving to make the dining out program the best it can be for New Yorkers and visitors and we are happy to work with the Council on this Bill to strengthen cleanliness and sanitation standards.
Finally, Int 0918-2026, sponsored by CM Thomas-Henry. This Bill would give businesses the option to pay revocable consent fees in quarterly installments. Along with addressing quality of life concerns, we are also working every day to help small businesses thrive through outdoor dining, a program that New Yorkers love and that restaurants depend on. We strive to make participation as accessible and streamlined as possible. Currently, restaurants must pay an initial revocable consent fee once their application is approved. Across the board, we require one-time upfront payment for all our revocable consents. Additionally, it has been my experience that restaurants have a harder time meeting program requirements once they have been authorized to commence operations. We worry that if this new payment method was authorized, DOT would struggle to collect after the initial payment. This would not only leave the program with a deficit but would result in new costs for the department and delays in application approval for the restaurants, due to already limited staff capacity being shifted to chase down payments four times a year.
While quarterly payments perhaps were necessary in the program when fees were notably higher, DOT charges far less for the revocable consent now, making a quarterly payment less relevant. We share the Council's goal to improve the application process and are happy to have more discussions with Council stakeholders about adapting our program processes. In conclusion, I would like to
thank the Council for the opportunity to testify before you today. We would now be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I would like to acknowledge we have been joined by CM... and I will turn it over to CM Thomas-Henry for the first set of questions. Okay, thank you, Chair.
So first I will start with Int 0840-2026. What are current practices for improving street lighting, or more specifically, what criteria do you use to decide if a particular corridor will get standard versus distinctive lighting?
Upgrades to distinctive lighting typically come when we get funded through REZO or multimodal funding from an elected official, and that is what is used to purchase and install the distinctive types of lighting, whereas our standard lighting is funded through the normal City-funded process.
And what are your current practices regarding lighting conditions on streets and sidewalks located underneath elevated subway lines?
When we get a request or a complaint, we will go in, evaluate conditions at that area, and will do data collection. We will do an assessment of the lighting levels and then, if we determine that there is additional lighting that is necessary, we will evaluate what the right approach is, whether it means adding arms on existing poles or whether we need to install new poles to achieve the right lighting level.
So currently it is not a practice to elevate the lighting levels under elevated subways. It is only done on complaint?
It is mostly driven by when we get requests or complaints about conditions there.
Okay. Do you have any... I just want to take a step back. The nexus of this Bill really comes specifically from conditions, particularly in my district, where the 7 train lies on Roosevelt Avenue. We have had a number of serious things — I have heard, you have heard on the news — of illicit activity that happens, and a lot of it is because it is a very dark and desolate area. DOT has attempted some type of lighting but it has not been consistent. Do you know in particular about this corridor what that assessment was? I know there is one section, as you said, where you did come in and added arms on the back of existing poles. If there are additional areas, we can certainly look at adding in other places. We can check where we have evaluated and what our determination was, and we are going to follow up on that.
My concern is, I mean, often our communities suffer in silence. The advocating usually comes from one or two people, but meanwhile you have an entire community that is affected. So part of this Bill is really to assess those areas where you have individuals who are not as vocal and to make sure that they are safe in our City. My next question pertains to Int 0845-2026. What interagency
coordination would be required to implement this Bill? Again, it depends on each location and what we find. If we find there is a need for additional lighting and we can, for instance, add to existing poles, we might need to work with Con Ed if there needs to be more power provided, and then we would have to coordinate on construction. If there is trenching required, we would have to go through the normal process to make sure we know
what else is under the street there. And also, if any of the trenching or other work was near any of the transit infrastructure — the columns for the overhead infrastructure — we would have to coordinate closely with them on that as well.
Now, at the Committee's executive budget hearing on May 29 of this year, DOT testified to its $331 million commitment to repair and replace every first-generation LED streetlight fixture across the City. Does that commitment include sufficient funds to replace the lighting fixtures targeted by this Bill?
It would include the existing lighting that we have in these areas. Yes, so we would replace all the existing LED lights, including under transit infrastructure.
How long do you anticipate
that taking? We are working on the timeline now and we typically have gone by borough, so we will have to figure out the scheduling. But it will take a few years. The benefit of this program, in addition to replacing existing LEDs, is that we also include installing sensors in the lights so that we will know right away when there are issues with outages or anything like that. So we will be able to be more responsive in the future to issues with lighting.
In addition to replacing those LEDs on existing fixtures, would you also look to assess whether additional fixtures are needed in those
areas? We would not necessarily do that as part of this. We would have to do separate surveys for areas where there were concerns about the lighting level.
Okay. How often does DOT hear concerns regarding lighting conditions under elevated train lines?
I do not know if we have a specific number. We can check on that and get back to you on how frequently we get those requests.
Okay, I am going to go to Int 0918-2026 for now. I can come back. Yeah, come back to you. I think CM Sanchez wants to add commentary on Int 0845-2026.
Yes, I do. So if you look around the world — if you go to Santiago, Santo Domingo, Puerto Rico, Bangkok, Kuala Lumpur, Miami — the list goes on. All of these places around the world have lights specifically on their elevated rail system. I am curious to know if there is an opportunity that does not include lighting on actual street poles, but on the elevated rail itself, and what is preventing anyone from adding lights to that elevated rail itself.
We typically do not, because there are vibration issues and they also have their own power on the train lines that we would have to contend with. So there may be instances where we have done it, but it is not the typical practice, so it can be challenging. For us, it is typically easier because we own and operate the streets and we usually have some form of existing light poles there that we can add on to. So if, for instance, adding an arm on an existing light pole is an option, that is typically easier to do.
Is it accurate to say that the street lighting on rails would be more of a state issue than a City issue, because of the control of the elevated subways? We would certainly have to work with them in those instances too, because they own the infrastructure. So in those scenarios we have to coordinate definitely with New York City
Transit. Has there been any
assessment of using the power that already exists on the trains to illuminate underneath? I mean, the way that I envision CM Thomas-Henry's Bill is... I mean, we have lights that you can literally just stick onto a wall with batteries, and that was when I was a kid. So seeing the way that technology has vastly improved, I am curious to know if there are green infrastructure ways that we can be adding light that uses the renewable electricity that already exists on these train tracks to help illuminate underneath. Has there been any ability to study that or any discussions with either state partners or other City partners about doing something that way? Have you been able to envision this legislation in that way at all?
I am not aware that that has been studied, so we would have to check and see if that is something that has been looked at before. Okay, thank you all.
Right. I am now going to CM... just ask your Int 0917-2026 questions now. Be short. Hold on two seconds.
In terms of Int 0917-2026, the rules currently have the outdoor cafe operators keeping their area clean — I think it is within a 1.5-foot radius of the area.
From... how is that radius actually working? Does that work? And how did that 1.5-foot radius come to be?
I believe the 1.5-foot radius is the sanitation jurisdiction, so they actually enforce that piece of it and we enforce the rest of it. I will say we have gotten very few complaints about cleanliness in this new permanent outdoor dining program. In the emergency program we had many, many, many complaints about cleanliness. It is something we have taken very seriously in setting this program up and setting up our rules, and we have hardly heard about it at all. Our inspectors do go out and enforce for cleanliness. We look for waste and debris and graffiti and food scraps or whatever else. That is mostly inside the setups, but we have had very few
issues. And how would enforcement change at all, if at all, with this new legislation?
I think it would be substantially the same. I mean, we have these rules already, so it would not actually change the requirement. We would just kind of duplicate it in the administrative code. I think someone would still enforce it the same way.
And generally, what is the most common cleanliness issue that is reported when you do get the few reports? Oh, outside. Okay.
If someone dumps garbage or debris or something outside of the setup, that is the most common complaint.
And how much would it cost to implement Int 0917-2026?
I do not think it would really change things because, again, we already have these in the rules, so it would be the same requirements.
Great. Sounds like a great Bill. Thank you. I cannot...
CM Phil Wong.
Yes, hi. Thank you. I would like to ask about the lighting specifically under trestles. Yes, I totally support CM Thomas-Henry's issue on the stem areas on the 7 train on Roosevelt Avenue. But I am also concerned about the trestles, like under the Long Island Rail Road tracks. There is clearly some inadequate illumination in my district and other places. My question is, are those areas something that DOT can work on to improve the illumination, or is that not City property and there is not much you could do about it? Can you please talk about it?
Yeah, as long as it is going over our right of way, we would have the ability to go take a look and see if we need to add lighting there and see if it is sufficient. So if you have locations, we can certainly evaluate those.
Yeah, because specifically the lifespan of these fixtures — as they age and when there are so many fixtures, they all get to either the time to replace them or upgrade them. Because that is an issue and quite often that leads to a lot of the tracks having graffiti or crime and other issues. So I will work with your office on that, but I support this Bill. Thank
you. Thank you. Thank you. CM Thomas-Henry, ask your questions on Int 0918-2026.
Thank you. On average, what is the range of the annual consent fee?
So off the top of my head, I would say it is a big range — from a few hundred dollars. On average it is probably $2,000 to $2,500, something like that. And then there are some in the central parts of the City, in what is called Sector 4 in the legislation, that would be in the thousands — more thousands of dollars. Okay. And as mentioned, this is just one of the fees that businesses have to pay when they are doing outdoor dining. This is the only annual fee that they have to pay. There are several fees when you are setting up the program, when you first apply, and then from year to year there is one annual
fee. Okay. So it was mentioned that if an application does not go through — correct me if I am wrong — the owner basically does not receive any of that couple of hundred to $2,500 back. Is that correct?
That is not correct actually. This fee is what you pay — it is sort of a final fee before you get your license, and then it is the annual one. So if it does not go through, you do not pay this
fee. So what was the concern around if the entity does not get the license, you will never see the fee? What is that concern?
The concern is actually we have found in various programs that once someone has the authority to operate — so you would pay the first fee, you would get your license — sometimes it is difficult. We find that sometimes people are less interested in paying once they are kind of already out there. They have their license, they are ready to go, and then people do not always pay on time or they might be late and then we have to chase after people to get them to pay.
So as the structure is now, you pay the fee before you get your license. Yeah, upfront. It is the last thing before you get your license when you sign your revocable consent agreement. But if
you do pay the fee and do not get your license, you get that back?
You would. Yeah, but that would not happen.
What do you mean? That would not happen if, once you have gone through the entire review and approval process, before you would pay this fee... Okay. How much would it cost to implement Int 0918-2026?
So I do not know if we have done a specific estimate, but we do believe it would add to our staffing responsibilities because it would be the same people who currently issue the invoices and also do things like register contracts, who are currently very busy full time getting restaurants set up with their licenses. So either we would have to add additional staff or it would have the effect of slowing down the approval process for other restaurants. Have you considered an automatic payment process so once the person signs up, they can automatically pay that fee quarterly?
We have considered it. We have automated billing for the annual fees. Currently we would have to change it in our portal to get it to be a quarterly automated invoice process and that is something that is kind of a slow process to implement unfortunately.
So definitely considered it. It sounds great. Can we agree that oftentimes, especially for our small businesses, different fees can be cumbersome and burdensome, and this would alleviate some of that financial stress and obligation if we allow them to pay over a period of time versus upfront?
So I do not want to discount the costs. I agree with you. Obviously fees can definitely be burdensome for businesses. I think in this case we actually have not heard from any restaurants specifically requesting quarterly payments. We have heard something from the advocates, but not from any restaurants, and we have found that restaurants are not very shy about asking us for things. So if you are familiar with specific restaurants, we would certainly be interested in talking to you and getting more information.
So for the past two months I have been doing tours of small businesses, predominantly restaurants, across the City of New York. One of the main things they mentioned are the fees, specifically with outdoor dining cafes. A couple of restaurants have actually said that they have paid fees in the past — I am not going to say it is the same fee, but they have paid fees in the past, have not been able to open their sidewalk cafe, and had never received those fees back. So this really derives from again just common sense that it helps to pay over time versus one time, and also actually speaking to businesses to see what would be helpful. When I discussed this with those businesses, they smiled ear to ear and were super excited.
When I discuss it with businesses as well as community boards, because individuals who own businesses and individuals who know business owners recognize that we are in an affordability crisis — not just in housing, but across the board — our small businesses are getting hit very hard. This is just one measure we see as being able to take some of that financial burden off of them. Thank you.
CM, do you have any more questions? You are good for now. All right, regarding the intro, CM Wong, go ahead.
Thank you. Regarding replacement of fixtures in my district, because I worked for my predecessor Robert Haden and I handled constituent services — when we make a request to either repair or replace a burned out street lamp or a fixture on the trellis, it takes a very long time just to get a reply. I myself followed up on a case and it took three months for me to get a reply that said okay, we will work on it. Can you talk about why it takes so long? Constituents are concerned when you live on a residential block and a street light goes out. It is very unsafe when that happens.
Certainly. We can make sure we are getting a response that something is being worked on. As far as the repair itself, it can vary. Typically our contractors have 10 days to evaluate and either make a repair or determine if something more substantial is necessary. So sometimes it is a fairly simple matter — like you said, sometimes there is a burnt out fixture that needs to be replaced. Other times there might be more extensive issues with the wiring or maybe with the Con Ed feed, so in those instances it can take longer to make the actual repair. But we can certainly make sure that we are at least keeping you informed on when those issues arise. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, CM. Regarding Int 0894-2026, I know that you are mostly supportive but wanted to ask how much it is anticipated it would cost to implement Int 0894-2026.
I do not know that there are any anticipated costs. I think we just say, as I am sure you know, we are having larger negotiations with the Council about other outdoor dining bills, including winterization of roadway cafes. Something that we are doing right now is we are taking a hard look at our rules to figure out what restaurants would need to do on the roadway to be able to winterize their setups without going into a full scale shed situation like we had in the pandemic. I think we want to take a look at this for sidewalks as well and maybe treat the two similarly so we can have consistent standards for both. Thank you.
Now I want to just pivot to my last set of questions on Int 0013-2026 regarding CM Epstein's bill requiring DOT to post notification signs regarding upcoming street work. This bill would require signage for work that would cause a disruption for at least seven days. What public notices currently provide for work that will cause a disruption for at least seven days?
Are there issues in the process that could be fixed?
Hi. Yes, thanks for that question.
So I am Jeffrey Mala, Director of Street Improvement Projects. Happy to give a response there.
So currently there is quite a lot that the agency does to notify the public about some of our projects. When they are in the project planning phase, through meetings with elected officials and their staffs and community boards and other stakeholders that we are aware of, those iterative processes lead to improving the performance of the projects that we are designing. Once we get closer to implementation, there is a lot more notification that we do again through elected officials' offices and community boards. We post "what is happening here" flyers, which are kind of plain language, very easy to read, non-jargon materials that we put up along the corridor in advance of construction. We also share those electronically and appreciate the work that you and your colleagues do to amplify those messages to let the community know that work will be ongoing.
We also have a street ambassador program because we know not everyone has the time or the flexibility to be engaged at community board meetings or to attend workshops. So those folks often set up on the street by really popular pedestrian hubs like around bus stops and subway stations and outside grocery stores so that New Yorkers just in the regular course of their days can happen by, learn about an upcoming project, talk with the street ambassadors who can answer their questions, or if they are pressed for time, just pick up a pamphlet or a flyer and learn more about the project on their own.
How does the bill define disruptive work generally? Does it pertain to specific work being done, such as utility work, street resurfacing and reconstruction?
I think for how do we define disruptive... it depends on the scope and scale of a project. All of those tools in our toolkit that I mentioned do not get deployed for every single project. But we have a good gauge, working with your offices and your colleagues' offices and the community boards, understanding what the community would perceive as disruptive and then matching the outreach materials to speak to that need. So there is no defined standard per se for disruptive work.
No, not really. I think the way that it is defined in the bill is quite broad, and so requiring signage to that extent for a minimal interruption as described in the bill seems excessive to us, and you know the way of...
You are open to having conversations on defining that and what would trigger...
Notice? Sure. Yeah, definitely. I think just like...
Our safety projects for an intersection or a corridor, it is not one size fits all. So it really depends on the makeup and the interests of the community and how best to notify members of ongoing work and the scope and scale of it. So we are happy to work with your offices to define that. I am sure the Council member is up for working with you on that.
What role do contractors or utilities play in ensuring that these notification signs are put up?
Yeah, so certainly we have a number of notice requirements in statutes and in rules that non-DOT partners like contractors are required to install along the corridor of a project or of their work.
How much is it anticipated it would cost to implement Int 0013-2026?
I do not have a budget amount, but we are sensitive to the fact that additional signage work — with printing and installing and maintaining and updating and removing those signs so there is not litter on the streets — would detract from the other work that the agency does, such as coordinating with elected officials' offices and holding meetings and street ambassador deployments as I mentioned, that we feel are effective at hearing back from the public on their concerns around a given project. So we are sensitive to those trade-offs.
Thank you. CM Marte, thank you for being here. I just want to clarify one of the points that you made. You said that in regards to Int 0894-2026 and the winterization of sidewalk cafes, you mentioned that you wanted something that could be replicated on the roadside. Can you talk about that a little further? How would that look? What are some potential options of something that could be replicated from the sidewalk to a roadside cafe?
I think we are still in early discussions about this, so I do not want to get too specific into anything. But I think both roadway and sidewalk cafes are currently required to be open air. And so you can have some sort of coverings on both, but you are not really supposed to have anything on the sides. We are trying to figure out what kind of siding could be put up on a temporary basis through the winter, ideally with the dates to match on both, which they currently do not quite do with this bill. But to have something that could provide some kind of wind protection and snow protection and whatever else on the sides of the setups for the comfort of everyone sitting inside.
I think we would want some kind of similar materials, similar requirements, protection from the snow. There might be standards to make sure that the roof does not collapse if there is too much snow, something like that. So those kinds of things are what we are trying to work out and we think it would probably make sense to look at those things together and just be consistent. It will be easier for us, it will be easier for the restaurants, it will be easier for everyone trying to understand the program.
I know we have talked a number of times about this, but there are stipulations that are made with the community board regarding whether they have windows open, close hours, hours of serving drinks. However, a lot of times — and we have done walk-throughs in my district and I know CM Epstein has done walk-throughs in his district — we see people take advantage of, whether it is sidewalk or roadside dining, to continue to serve liquor when the law says they cannot, or whether they made an agreement with the community that they should not. What can DOT do to make sure that the agreements that are made with the community or with the SLA are actually monitored and enforced on both the sidewalk and roadside cafes?
So that is a great question. It is kind of a tricky question because liquor licenses are outside of our jurisdiction. It is a state entity. We do not have the authorization to enforce that.
And so I have a quick follow up. Because the SLA does a lot of stipulations with the community board during the process of how an establishment is going to function and look, would DOT be able to respect, promote or advocate to the owner of that establishment to act in accordance with those agreements that have been made in the past?
It would depend at a minimum on what those requirements or stipulations were, because I know there is certain language in the legislation that prevents us from enforcing certain things like hours of operation in those agreements. Some of those stipulations, I understand, are things like hours of operation and they would not necessarily align, and so anything that conflicts...
...with the legislation or the rules, we would not be able to enforce.
Thank you. CM Feliz. Yes. You were mentioning street ambassadors. Can you talk about how often they come out? Because I have never seen one in mine. Can you tell me who is...
...the street ambassador in my district? I would certainly like to reach out to him or her.
Got it. Okay. Yeah, happy to talk about that program. So they serve all five boroughs and it is a team of about 12 to 15. So they are deployed throughout the city on a project by project basis. Between the project managers and the Borough Commissioner's offices, we strategize about when and where to deploy the street ambassadors, whether they are gathering feedback from the public or explaining a project that is about to be implemented. So I am not sure — I would get back to you on projects in your...
...district. I certainly need an ambassador around when there are major projects in my district and there were several of them, and I have not seen any ambassadors collecting feedback. I had to do that myself. All right, so I welcome the ambassadors in my district at the next project. Thank you.
Okay. Thank you. Thank you, CM Wong. I want to go back quickly to Int 0845-2026. Your testimony said that DOT upgraded lighting in more than 2,500 locations across the City in 2025. How many of those locations were under elevated train lines?
We will have to get back to you and check on what the breakdown is of that.
Please do. Thank you. I have no other questions to ask, so this portion of the hearing is hereby adjourned. Thank you very much. You are excused.
I now open the hearing for public testimony. I remind members of the public that this is a formal government proceeding and that decorum shall be observed at all times. As such, members of the public shall remain silent at all times when not testifying. The witness table is reserved for people who wish to testify. No video recording or photography is allowed from the witness table. Further, members of the public may present audio or video recordings of testimony but must submit transcripts of such recordings to the Sergeant at Arms for inclusion in the hearing record. If you wish to speak at today's hearing, please fill out an appearance card with the Sergeant at Arms and wait to be recognized. When recognized, you have two minutes to speak on the legislation being heard today. If you have a written statement or additional written testimony you wish to submit for the record, please provide a copy of that testimony to the Sergeant at Arms. You may also email written testimony to testimony@council.nyc.gov within 72 hours of this hearing. Audio and video recordings will not be accepted. I am going to call the first panel: Vinny Dawns and Andrew Yo.
You can start whenever you are ready. Good afternoon. My name is Andrew Rigie. I am the Executive Director of the New York City Hospitality Alliance. We represent restaurants, bars and nightclubs across the five boroughs. Thank you for hosting today's hearing. I am going to testify on three bills: Int 0894-2026, Int 0917-2026 and Int 0918-2026. I have also submitted written testimony.
First, on Int 0894-2026, seasonal enclosures for sidewalk cafes. Restaurants are paying the City for a year-round license for their sidewalk cafes, but as mentioned earlier, during the more inclement months they are unable to really utilize that space, even though they are paying for it. So as CM Brewer mentioned, we would like the ability to use high-quality winter vestibules. You have seen restaurants that have used them in the past. They hold up to the elements. They allow businesses, small businesses in particular, to really maximize their revenue by using the space that they are paying for throughout the winter months. It is also important for worker protection, as when the weather gets cooler you see restaurants are reducing worker hours, even eliminating some jobs, because they are losing that space. If they are able to utilize it by keeping it warm during the winter, then they will be able to sustain those jobs as well as sustain the small business revenue and give their customers a place to sit.
The next bill we are speaking on is Int 0918-2026, which would allow the revocable consent to be paid quarterly instead of in one lump sum. This is how it was done previously. Not even a small business landlord requires one year's rent paid up front. Why is the City requiring small businesses to pay fees in a lump sum? It is not just the consent fees. It is also the licensing fee, security deposit, the fee for the public notice, architecture fees, expediter fees. It is a lot of money. You could be talking tens of thousands of dollars. It worked in the past paying quarterly. We think it would be a nice option, especially when we talk about supporting small businesses and neighborhoods across the City.
And I have 30 seconds to finish up the last one. Obviously we all want to keep streets and outdoor dining clean. We believe, as was mentioned earlier, that the rules currently establish a regulatory framework and penalties if the sidewalk or roadway cafe area is not kept clean. We do not necessarily love doubling up the fine scheme. However, that being said, if you are going to codify what is already in the rules, we would just ask that first-time violations allow for a warning or cure period before a monetary penalty is issued. The Council, I know, is working on small business reforms. The Mayor's administration through Executive Order 11 is looking at reducing fines and fees, and we believe as the Hospitality Alliance that any small business violation that does not pose an immediate hazard to workers or to the public should allow a warning or cure period before a penalty is issued. We think the focus should be on education and training first, with penalties as a last resort. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. Thank you for allowing me to testify. My name is Benito and I am a current sophomore at Plains High School for the Sciences. As a student, I am here to testify about Int 0845-2026 and Int 0866-2026. As students, we travel across all five boroughs of New York City to get to our schools every single day, Monday to Friday. Sometimes we wake up at 6 o'clock and sometimes we get home at 9 o'clock because of extracurriculars. Getting to school at the distance it is is essential, and it is essential for the Department of Transportation and this Committee to invest in the infrastructure surrounding the trains, underpasses and streets. When winter comes and the daylight shrinks, it sometimes gets dark at around six or seven.
When unsafe things happen, it is well documented in crime reports, and when streets are unsafe, parents cannot be assured that their child will come home safe. No student should have to give up their access to activities or programs they do outside of school simply because transportation is unsafe or uncertain. Additionally, this issue goes beyond infrastructure. Sometimes when transportation is delayed or uncertain, or when the roads are uneven, it poses a significant threat to students, especially those with disabilities. Thank you.
Kassam Art.
I just want to say thank you for coming today and for testifying. I think what you said is exactly what this legislation is meant to
achieve, and so I just want to thank you for having the courage to show up to a City Council hearing and saying how you and other students feel. Thank you. This panel is excused. If we inadvertently missed anyone who registered to testify today and has yet to be called,
please use the Zoom raised hand function if you are testifying remotely and you will be called in the order your hand has been raised. If you are testifying in person, please come to the dais. I will need you both to fill out an appearance card. Thank you. They are bringing an appearance card for you to fill out in a moment. All right.
Blake Walker, please turn on your mic. You are fine. Hi. My name is Blake Walker. I live in Park Slope, Brooklyn, and I would like to speak about a different infrastructure issue. So at the start of each summer, my dad and I ride our bikes from Prospect Park to Coney Island along the Ocean Parkway bike path, and embarking on a journey from a 585-acre urban park to the sea is an experience that is unique to New York City. The problem is that there is a lot of misplaced potential to extend this opportunity to the 10 million people who visit Prospect Park, as many locals and virtually all tourists are actually unaware of the opportunity.
So on this year's bike ride, my dad and I decided to go on a little biking exploration by figuring out a way to connect Coney Island to the Shore Parkway bike path. We rode along the water at Coney Island to Owls Head in Bay Ridge before taking the New York City Greenway bike path to another protected path along Fourth Avenue, then turning on Fifteenth Street before returning to Prospect Park, which effectively created a loop. The loop was an obvious missed opportunity for New York City to capitalize on bicycle tourism. The current problem is that this loop I just spoke of, which connects a lot of historic locations and beautiful landscapes, is disconnected. The infrastructure is in place but the signage is not. There is no signage on the bike paths to effectively guide riders, and although some locals might be able to figure it out, a lot of tourists are just not going to even try.
So simply closing the loop by adding signage and calling it something like the Prospect Park-Coney Island-Bay Ridge Loop would allow Brooklyn to capitalize on the $150 billion a year in bicycle tourism that is generated, and it would also enable all of Brooklyn to benefit from the tourism, which often stays centralized in affluent neighborhoods. Thank you.
Thank you so much, Blake. I really appreciate your coming to testify today. Thanks for having me. Of course, always welcome. We are going to do another check to see if there is anyone on Zoom who would like to testify. Please use the Zoom raised hand function if you are testifying remotely, and if you are in person, please come to the dais. Seeing none, I will now close the hearing. Thank you to the members of the administration and the members of the public who joined us today. This hearing is officially adjourned.