Adjacent Definition Rule

Online comments: 93

• Kevin McGhee

  DEP should withdraw this rule as proposed, which narrows the definition of adjacency with respect to schools relative to its current definition and will result in greater exposure of children to pollution. As proposed, a line of dump trucks across the street from a school or double parked next to the “adjacent” parking lane would not trigger the adjacency definition, while still posing a grave risk to the health of school children. This would allow polluting drivers to easily evade the 1 minute rule by standing across the street or a few feet off of the curb. The adjacency definition should instead be expanded to include ALL parts of ANY block that abut the school property or park.

  DEP’s mission is purportedly to protect the public and the environment. It is shameful that they are attempting to take this action which will obviously reduce protections afforded to children.

  Comment added February 7, 2024 9:22am

• Peter Nigrini

  This proposed rule change undermines the effectiveness of the program and will result in detrimental effects on school age children. This change should not be made.

  Comment added February 7, 2024 1:53pm

• AJ King

  I think it’s absolutely ridiculous for NYC/DEP to ease restricting on Idling. Just look at the amount of money that NYC is bringing in with this program, while cleaning up the air at the same time. It is VERY odd and contradictory that the DEP and NYC Council would take steps to weaken the program. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” We must beg the question of…who benefits from weakening this idling program?

  Comment added February 7, 2024 3:07pm

• David Bresnahan

  Pollution does not respect road markings. This will worsen children’s air quality immediately. Does DEP think emissions stay on the side of the street where they’re emitted? This is misguided and should not be approved.

  Comment added February 7, 2024 3:12pm

• Climate Package

  This proposed rule weakens the currently existing idling law by excluding, from the stronger one-minute provisions, areas next door to, down the block from, or across the street from, schools (also parks). Because air pollution, including PM 2.5 pollution, travels far, this proposed rule will increase idling on school and park blocks and damage the health of every single New York City resident, student, and worker. This proposed rule will also, by increasing emissions, contribute to climate change. The health and climate impacts, as always, will be disproportionately felt in lower income communities.

  Moreover, the proposed rule will invite endless wrangling, during idling hearings and during DEP reviews, as to property lines of businesses. This will dissuade participation by the public in the citizen idling complaint program.

  This proposed rule further exacerbates the harm done by DEP’s current illegal and unconstitutional policy of allowing all school buses to idle for 30 minutes in connection with each pickup or dropoff.

  A good adjacent definition rule was proposed on April 12, 2023, by a member of the public. This strong, fair school-and-park adjacency definition rule was proposed to DEP by a mother of a one-and-a-half year old concerned about her baby breathing in fumes in Minetta Playground. It, very much consistent with the prior adjacent definition successfully used since 2009 by the DEP, reads:
  “Adjacent” shall mean on each and every street on which a school or park is located and/or has entrances and/or exits to such street. School shall include any building or structure, playground, athletic field or other property that is part of the school. Park shall include any building or structure, playground, field, court, green space, forest, garden, square, plaza, mall, greenstreet, walkway, bikeway, beach, course, pier, promenade, trail, pool, museum, rink, or other property that is part of the park, other than parking lots.

  DEP should evaluate, and adopt, this definition, which will be better for the environment and our health.

  It has become clear that New Yorkers need to stop subsidizing the leadership of DEP, such as Commissioner Rohit Aggarwala and Counsel Russell Pecunies, by paying them salaries to put forth rules that will harm New Yorkers with increased air pollution. Instead, the money set aside for their salaries should be paid to competent DEP leadership that will faithfully protect, not destroy, the environment. These individuals have blood, and asthma, and cancer, and developmental disorders, and the discriminatory effects of their decisions (such as proposing bad rules like this and banning foreign language speaking New Yorkers from participating in the idling complaint program) on their hands.

  Comment added February 7, 2024 3:24pm

• Jonathan Weiner

  Hello,

  Please do not modify the adjacency definition for idling near schools. Idling should be reduced, not expanded. Doing so contradicts the mission of your organization.

  Comment added February 7, 2024 4:31pm

• Raphael Wakefieldw

  We live in a city where public employees whose job is supposedly to enforce the law are breaking vehicular laws non-stop. These pathetic new regulations reflect the reality that entitled city employees and whoever else can get a fake plate on their car is free to do whatever they want with no consequence. I support this new reign of total lawlessness, enshrined in law.
  In fact, it does not go far enough. It is time, for the sake of reducing pollution and “maintaining passenger comfort”, to make it legal for all cars to drive onto the sidewalk of their occupants’ destinations and idle there for an unlimited amount of time. There should also be a complementary rule that all DEP employees may use city vehicles (which every city employee shall be issued) for any personal purpose they wish without regard to any laws whatsoever, and that they need not perform any further work to receive continued paychecks either. Get stuff done!

  Comment added February 7, 2024 10:54pm

• Eric Eisenberg

  Please consider, as an environmentally preferable alternative, adjacent to mean “within 2,640 feet of,” or the definition proposed to the DEP on April 12th, 2023 by rulemaking request.

  The DEP’s proposed definition is an absolute insult to the good legislative work of Alexa Aviles, whose intro 606-A was intended to EXPAND the area covered by the one minute law, not RESTRICT it. Ms. Aviles and the Council obviously wanted to save children in passing intro 606-A. DEP, conversely, obviously wants to kill or otherwise harm children in proposing this terrible rule. I would submit that, instead of attempting to kill or harm children, DEP should instead adopt a broad adjacency definition consistent with Ms. Aviles’ and the City Council’s laudable legislative intent.

  Comment added February 8, 2024 9:48am

• Aaron Jacobs

  More disappointment from DEP leadership. The DEP is tasked with protecting our air and keeping New Yorkers safe. My question is, who is benefiting from this rule change? It certainly isn’t our children nor the citizens of NY. Instead of working to weaken the program, why aren’t they working to strengthen it from pollution and idlers? Why does the DEP admin continue to reward Idlers with these rule changes? The way things are looking, this agency may change its name to the Department of Idler Protection. Step it up and get it together. They are not fooling anyone with these arbitrary rule changes.

  Comment added February 8, 2024 12:18pm

• Heather Wopat

  When amending the definition of “adjacent” to schools and parks, DEP should keep in mind that particulate matter from car exhausts are not restricted to traffic lanes and parking zones marked by placards. If the goal is to protect young lungs from car exhaust pollution, the definition of “adjacent” should include vehicles in close proximity to/on the same block as the school or park no matter what traffic lane or parking zone (and whether this is directly in front of the school or not) they are idling in. In addition, “vehicles” should be noted to include city and law enforcement vehicles, not just commercial or private drivers. This proposed rule amendment undermines the existing idling restrictions and will negatively affect the health of all New Yorkers. We all have to breathe; why don’t we strengthen idling restrictions and work on improving public transit or non-fossil fuel powered transit instead? It is unconscionable that the leaders of DEP, whose mission is “To enrich the environment and protect public health for all New Yorkers by … reducing air, noise, and hazardous materials pollution” would think this is an improvement.

  Comment added February 8, 2024 2:48pm

• Michael Forcina

  If these proposed changes were to go into effect, they would put our children at a greater risk of adverse health effects from air pollution. It seems these changes would help truck drivers evade accountability for the unnecessary pollution that they cause and the health of our children should be prioritized.

  Comment added February 10, 2024 8:07pm

• Scott Weinstein

  This proposal is in the wrong direction. If anything the rules for adjacency need to be relaxed to be defined in terms of radial distance or linear walking distance (turns allowed). For the simple reason that air pollution is in the air doesn’t keep track of where the roads are.

  Comment added February 13, 2024 12:14pm

• Sarah Gentile

  This rule should not be amended because it creates loopholes to an otherwise common sense approach. We need to protect New Yorkers from the pollution caused by idling cars, not make it easier to thwart enforcement. Thank you.

  Comment added February 16, 2024 1:33pm

• Nat D

  Protect our children and our climate by upholding – or strengthening! – our current air pollution controls, not weakening them.

  Comment added February 22, 2024 10:14am

• Jane Burn

  Our block has struggled for years with the fumes from the ice cream trucks that idle at the entrance of the park in spring, summer and fall. Residents facing the park are unable to open their windows for much of the year, and our very busy park is flooded with constant exhaust.
  Ice cream trucks are currently exempt from the idling law because of the refrigeration component.
  We have asked for help for many years from the City, from the companies (we have multiple trucks parked in the no-standing zone), to the drivers themselves, all to no avail. These vehicles produce far more pollution than any Amazon truck, and it is constant. I implore the City to account for this issue in this rule, or another.

  Comment added February 23, 2024 1:17pm

• J. M.

  This is a ridiculous proposed change, to lax restrictions on idling in a time where we should aggressively pursue any and all channels to reduce emissions. How anyone can suggest this in good conscience is beyond me.

  Comment added February 23, 2024 6:10pm

• Kenneth Chin

  Please do not change this. Idling is not something that needs to be helped. Emissions do not only affect the air quality of its immediate area. This reads as a bad faith measure. Who is benefiting from this? Making this change directly hurts the individuals that are being protected.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 11:42am

• Dhananjay Jagannathan

  Air quality in New York City is atrocious and young people suffer the most, with many of them going to develop lifelong health problems as a result. Idling vehicles can be seen on most blocks in the day time, with little to no enforcement by 311 or the NYPD Traffic Division, especially in the winter. This rule should NOT be changed. What we need is greater enforcement of existing anti-idling provisions.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 11:49am

• Miles Pierce

  This proposed rule should be withdrawn and not enacted. We should be doing everything possible to fight against polluting our air, yet this rule would have the exact opposite effect. Please do not enact this rule!

  Comment added February 26, 2024 12:40pm

• Matt Russell

  This proposal is in the wrong direction. If anything the rules for adjacency need to be relaxed to be defined in terms of radial distance or linear walking distance (turns allowed). For the simple reason that air pollution is in the air doesn’t keep track of where the roads are.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 12:44pm

• Jonathan Swift

  We have reached a population size that is simply unsustainable, and I wholeheartedly support this proposed rule to help us limit the number of children by increasing truck and bus exhaust near schools and parks to shorten their lives.

  However, I do have one modest proposal. Once these children are killed by the fumes, they will surely be smoked most deliciously. If the rule allowed for not just the killing, but also the eating, of these wonderfully BBQ’d children, that would eliminate the food scarcity brought on by the climate effects of your proposed idling-increasing rule.

  Yours truly,
  Jonathan

  Comment added February 26, 2024 12:55pm

• Kewin Zygmunt

  Trucks and other vehicles making minor pollution while idling are neglegible compared to other parts of the world. In situations where a driver is stuck in a hot truck waiting for a shipment in the 90 degree sun or if your local mailman is freezing his boots off in the winter. A minor adjustment to an idle time of 5-10 minutes would be acceptable

  Comment added February 26, 2024 1:07pm

• Katya Willard

  I disagree with this proposed rule change. We should not make it easier for vehicles to idle and pollute our neighborhoods. DEP is supposed to protect the environment – this proposed rule change does the opposite of that.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 1:14pm

• WC

  Withdraw this proposed change immediately! This not only endangers our school staff and children, but goes against DEP’s mission. This proposal is reckless and backwards.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 1:21pm

• Ryan Quinn

  I oppose increasing air pollution around schools. This should not be a debate.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 1:28pm

• Cormac Nataro

  It is laughable that the DEP would attempt to weaken policies meant to protect the environment. Please reconsider this clearly misguided and foolish rule change.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 1:29pm

• Your Mother

  I’m not mad, just extremely disappointed that you’d loosen pollution regulations.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 1:29pm

• Landon Knoblock

  I oppose this rule.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 1:53pm

• Jay Gupta

  Cars and trucks already idle throughout the city, spewing exhaust fumes which damage the quality of life of residents. There is no reason to make it easier for a vehicle to needlessly idle. Engines can be started in less than ten seconds. It seems the only reason this change is being proposed is to bring the definition of “adjacent” more in line with the dictionary definition, which seems irrelevant to me.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 1:56pm

• Robert Bowen

  We are in a climate emergency and we DO NOT need to expand the areas where vehicles are allowed to idle. If anything, we should increase them! The air in NYC is polluted enough as it is, and there is no good reason for someone to idle at any time. Idling should be banned everywhere and I do not understand who in the world would want to allow more options for idling vehicles.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 2:03pm

• James A Bonavita

  I don’t really understand the motivation behind changing this rule. We know that vehicle emissions play a large role in climate change and we know vehicle emissions play a damaging role in the health of our communities. Children are especially vulnerable and are several times more likely to develop asthma and childhood leukemia. They are also more susceptible to impaired lung growth, premature birth, and premature death due to emissions from vehicles.

  With all of these well studied, known facts in mind, why would the Department whose name suggests is responsible for Protecting our Environment even consider a policy that would make it acceptable for vehicles to idle for longer in locations that are in direct proximity to children. The department should be cracking down on idling and emissions overall, in every location around the city, because of how they affect every member of our communities. This change in definition should not even be on the table.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 2:28pm

• Safiya Altman

  DEP should withdraw this rule, which will allow far more idling and pollution and will expose far more children to the detrimental effects of said car pollution. If anything, the rule should be expanded to include the ENTIRE city.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 3:09pm

• Adam

  This would allow more pollution in our neighborhoods and is blatantly a bad idea. We should be further restricting the areas where you are allowed to idle a vehicle, not expanding it.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 3:34pm

• Katherine

  No longer idling times! This will affect the environment and all of its living inhabitants to suffer more due to more pollution.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 3:35pm

• Pavel D

  This is nonsense. To allow cars to idle for no particular reason, to ruin the quality of the air we breathe as we live here to make life cheaper and simpler for monied interests, is despicable. Do better, I am opposed to this. Our kids are more important than their profit

  Comment added February 26, 2024 4:10pm

• Maggie Lee

  I do not support the proposal to increase idling times. I have asthma and so do many children in the area. We should be enforcing the law against polluters, not helping them do more of it. I am disappointed at the DEP for rolling back one of the easiest things we can do to reduce air pollution.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 4:10pm

• David Casler

  I can’t believe you would even submit this. Drivers are a minority while people with lungs are at least, last I checked, a strong plurality. I don’t want my wife and son’s asthma to be worsened just because people can’t be bothered to turn their cars off.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 5:02pm

• Binyamin Radensky

  We cannot give more room for idling. It is terrible for us and makes walking around our city unbearable for those that have a sensitivity to car exhaust. Not to mention how terrible it is for children etc. We should be tightening the rules around idling and forcing car manufacturers to turn off the engine automatically if the car does not move for 2 minutes.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 5:04pm

• David Atkinson

  The proposed wording and diagram would seem to almost entirely nullify the applicability of the word ‘adjacent’ in the in the rules. Based on the new wording, the idle rules only apply when a vehicle is directly against the curb of the road. Double parked vehicles, and / or vehicles next to bike lanes would be exempt from the 1-minute standard. That does not seem to be in keeping with the purpose of the 1-minute standard in the first place, which is to reduce air pollution near schools.

  A much better solution would be to clarify ‘adjacent’ to mean the entire width of any road that directly abuts school property, for the entire length of said road until it crosses an intersection with another road. Such a wording would satisfy the goal of clarifying the meaning of the word ‘adjacent’ in the rules and would also provide a meaningful restriction on idling vehicles which, presumably, would help improve air quality near schools. In this wording, the diagram would have 1a, 1b, 2a, and 2b all falling under the 1 minute idling restrictions as they should, while 1c remains at the default 3 minute restriction since it is on a road that does not abut school property.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 5:10pm

• Charlie Nom

  NYC should be trying harder to maintain clean air, changing verbiage or rules to softening regulations or to make exceptions, is not the solution here.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 5:15pm

• Thomas Payne

  It’s unacceptable to give an inch of daylight to polluters in the city.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 6:06pm

• Peter Roach

  This proposed rule change undermines the effectiveness of the program and will result in detrimental effects on school age children. This change should not be made.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 6:08pm

• Stephen Souza

  Absolutely not. Vehicles idling should not be permitted to pollute the air in our neighborhoods!

  Comment added February 26, 2024 7:31pm

• Robert Schumacher

  I STRONGLY oppose this rule change in the strongest possible terms. This change would be a huge step backwards. Idling vehicles spew unnecessary pollution and toxins into the air, landing in the lungs of New Yorkers and on our roads where they wash into our waterways. This is a terrible rule change and would stand in stark opposition to the City’s stated Climate goals.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 7:49pm

• Thomas Mac

  Hello. Of course this shouldn’t be a rule as it would cause more pollution if the rule not to idle is neutered in any way to only apply when close to schools or parks.

  Don’t anyone else deserve fresh air? And you realize that air moves right. It doesn’t matter overall if cars are directly adjacent to a school or not, it still adds to the overall pollution.

  No car should ever be allowed to idle for more than 1 minute, and we should in general be tougher on people sitting in their cars with their engines on.

  Climate change is not just a buzzword, it’ll be the storm next year that ruins your house and all your things and makes you homeless in a blink of an eye. Don’t be stupid and saw off the branch on which you are sitting.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 9:02pm

• Mel Skluzacek

  Please do not allow trucks to idle for more than a minute near our parks and schools. Enforcement of polluting trucks has not been adequate for years so we already can expect to have our air quality affected as it is and now the DEP wants to endanger people’s well-being by allowing more pollution. How does this make sense? How does allowing trucks to idle along sidewalks where kids walk and in parks where families go to have a reprieve from the daily assault on our lungs in this city? Because I want to know what the net benefit is and for whom this serving. From my perspective, it is foolish, ignorant and frankly selfish to allow trucks to idle anymore than they already do and get away with. Enough of the excuses made that lessen the quality of life here during a time when car and truck use has exploded in the city over the last four years. DO the right thing DEP for kids, the vulnerable and everyone that doesn’t appreciate breathing in a tailpipe when visiting our parks and going to school.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 9:42pm

• Alexis Perez-Gonzalez

  I do not support this proposed rule

  Comment added February 26, 2024 11:20pm

• Nicholas Fazio

  I oppose this rule change. Vehicle emissions impact on children don’t lessen if the idlers are parked across the street. This is weakening existing protections put in place to protect our air quality.

  Comment added February 26, 2024 11:57pm

• Anjali Bhat

  I oppose this because it will allow more idling near schools and parks.

  Comment added February 27, 2024 1:23am

• Alex G

  There is no need for idling, especially in a school zone. Stop loopholes.

  Comment added February 27, 2024 7:20am

• David Reid

  I oppose those rule. We need to reduce the anount of idling vehicles, not increase.

  Please do not vote for this.

  Comment added February 27, 2024 11:12am

• J. Mohorcich

  I oppose this proposed rule, which would weaken existing protections for children’s health in favor of idling vehicles.

  Comment added February 27, 2024 12:25pm

• Alan Morningstar

  This is clearly a rule change that disregards the intent and spirit of the original rule. Is idling really something we want to promote, or is it lazy behavior on the part of motorists which presents significant, known, and quantifiable externalities? Scientific data prove that children are one of the most vulnerable groups to this kind of easily preventable pollution.

  Comment added February 27, 2024 4:05pm

• Asif Khadir

  I’m in approval of this for people that are picking up their kids or need to be wheelchair assisted. This is good.

  Comment added February 28, 2024 2:56pm

• Brian Gatens

  DEP has sadly lost sight of its mandate. In § 24-102, the declaration of policy of the Air Code, the city council declared “the policy of the city to actively regulate and eliminate … emissions.” The code is REQUIRED to “be liberally construed so as to effectuate the[se] purposes.”

  Aside than requiring an idling vehicle to be literally inside the classroom with children, DEP could not have created a more restrictive reading of the council’s chosen term, “adjacent.”

  DEP’s role is not to create an enforcement scheme that is easiest for it to administer. Its job, and its mandate, is to liberally construe the laws passed by the council so as to best protect the public from harmful emissions. This proposed rule fails to effectuate both the desire of the council and the mandate of the air code.

  Shame on DEP for being reactionary, rather than a progressive agency that our city deserves. Intro 0606-2022 was introduced 8/11/2022 and passed almost a year ago. In that time, this is the best that DEP could come up with? If it foresaw issues with implementation, it had an obligation to work with the council to address those years ago. Instead, it now presents a rule that would totally neuter the council’s intent and would harm our most vulnerable. The rule should be withdrawn.

  Comment added March 1, 2024 3:03pm

• Climate Package

  During legislative hearings on the bill that introduced the concept of adjacency to schools, and which was ultimately adopted into law about 15 years ago, the bill’s prime sponsor John Liu explained his understanding that “adjacent” would cover the school’s whole adjacent block/street, e.g. stating: “So if there was a great deal of idling on one block versus the next block, the people on that first block, where the idling takes place mostly are going to be much, much more harmed than the people on the other block where there may be a lot less idling. So, it would make sense to curtail the idling on the streets adjacent to schools.”

  DEP adopted this reasonable adjacency definition by rule many years ago.

  Now, in this new rulemaking, and despite DEP’s mandate to liberally construe the air code to reduce emissions, DEP seeks to overturn its own sensible earlier definition and overturn the expressed understanding of (now Senator) Liu. DEP’s newly-proposed narrow definition will harm children and everyone else in violation of its mandate.

  Comment added March 1, 2024 3:24pm

• Danny Pearlstein

  Idling is terrible for children’s health and preventive measures should not be watered down for drivers’ convenience, which is a much lower priority, if a priority at all. Instead, air quality restrictions should be increased with enforcement made a much bigger priority. School buses should be converted to clean technology as quickly as possible. Gas-powered leafblowers should be eliminated from school and parks immediately. In this post-COVID age of climate change-induced wildfires, what could possibly possess this administration to further compromise the health of our children, of our very future?

  Comment added March 5, 2024 3:44pm

• Patrick Thomas Schnell

  I wish I could be amazed, that NYC DEP would propose rules that remove accountability for idling around children. Instead, that’s what we have to expect from the NYC DEP these days. As a pediatrician, I have treated thousands of children for respiratory diseases worsened by air pollution. I have treated children with cancers that are causally linked to air pollution. Diesel exhaust fumes’ neurotoxic effects on the developing brain have been well documented. Yet NYC DEP proposes rules that decrease the ability to enforce anti-idling laws. This is unconscionable. NYC DEP leadership needs to collectively resign. This organization needs to be rebuilt from scratch, populated by people who care for the environment and the health of vulnerable New Yorkers. The fact that we need to comment on the absurdity of the proposed rule is itself a farce and an embarrassment. If adults are unwilling to protect children from known risks, then we have reached an absolute low point. This low point is where NYC DEP can be found.

  Comment added March 5, 2024 6:45pm

• M Streeter

  The schools in my neighborhood are mostly storefront-type locations, where often the classes are held above the ground floor. Children and parents line up here for drop-off and pick-up (as well as excursions to playgrounds), extending to other addresses. Are the children, parents and staff at these schools not as deserving of clean air as children who attend sprawling full-block-compound schools and the like? According to DEP with this rule change, they are not.
  The DEP’s proposed rules are short-sighted and unnecessarily confusing. Beyond rewarding polluters, what purpose do these rules serve other than to avoid some edge cases in which a school sits on a long avenue block?
  The proposed rules are clearly contrary to the original intent of the 1-minute school idling legislation from years ago AND Ms. Aviles’ 606-A. For the DEP – the Department of Environmental PROTECTION – to abuse a rulemaking assignment as a way to plunder both 15 year old legislation AND a brand new bill is unconscionable. Beyond which it is also disrespectful to the council members and everyone else who worked so hard to pass these bills in an effort to improve air quality in their communities.
  I urge DEP to withdraw the rule as proposed and to instead build upon the current adjacency rule to ensure children, parents, as well as anyone enjoying our parks, are better protected from illegal idlers.

  Comment added March 5, 2024 8:50pm

• Dietmar Detering

  I oppose this rule change. Idling is pollution without legitimate purpose. This rule change will result in more unnecessary pollution in locations where the law itself shows the good intentions of City Council to protect our children. I cannot see any upside to this (cynical?) rule change and find it deeply concerning that the DEP is proposing such.

  Comment added March 5, 2024 9:17pm

• NYC Air Force

  One must wonder who this law actually benefits. Mr. Exhaustee is who. It’s despicable and corrupt.

  Comment added March 5, 2024 10:18pm

• Sean Basinski

  I live near a public school which is right across the street — and it is a narrow street — from a Verizon facility. Any given morning you can go and find Verizon vehicles idling there as children file into class. I have made many complaints and nothing has changed. And now, DEP proposes to exempt such behavior? Shameful. This is only the latest in a string of tweaks the DEP has made – or proposed to make — that have created loopholes for companies that continue to pollute our city’s air. I am dumbfounded. I hope that City Council will look into this program and hold DEP to task. The idling enforcement program needs to be stronger, not weaker. For now, DEP should wholesale withdraw and reject this complicated and unnecessary rule change.

  Comment added March 6, 2024 7:56am

• Peder Wessel

  Dear DEP,

  I write to oppose DEP’s plan to repeal the existing definition of “adjacent” which has served the City well for years, and replace it with a hard-to-understand and implement rule, which in my opinion is likely to lead to increased pollution next to schools. The current rule works and should be expanded to include parks.

  But DEP’s proposed rule will triple the amount of legal idling on blocks that have school exits or entrances. A truck parked across the street from a school will be able to idle three times as long with no penalty. A vehicle parked one foot past a school line will also not be subject to the one-minute idling penalty. A truck parked in a bike lane or on a sidewalk can also pollute for three times longer than under the current rule.

  But air pollution travels through the air. Kids also have to walk down school blocks to go to school. Right now, the adjacency rule protects kids in school playgrounds or walking to and from our schools. The proposed rule strips kids in playgrounds of these important protections.

  To my knowledge speed limit rules around schools don’t only apply immediately in front of the building, but within a certain distance to/from the school, for obvious reasons. Kids move to/from their school on the block. I don’t see why DEP would want to make a more narrow definition of what constitutes adjacent to a school (or park). We should continue to protect kids, teachers and parents, just as we do with speeding zone considerations around schools.

  Please adopt the citizen-proposed rule that will expand the current simple and sensible rule to include parks.

  Comment added March 6, 2024 12:30pm

• stella chen

  This proposed rule change undermines the effectiveness of the program and will result in detrimental effects on school age children. This change should not be made and is ridiculous!

  Comment added March 6, 2024 1:16pm

• Duc Anh Le

  I am writing to express my strong opposition to the Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) plan to repeal the existing definition of “adjacent” and replace it with a rule that is not only unworkable but poses a serious threat to our environment, particularly in proximity to schools and parks.

  The current rule, as defined by 15 RCNY § 39-02, has been effective in curbing idling violations and protecting public health around our schools. However, the proposed rule introduces unnecessary complexities that could lead to an increase in pollution near schools and hinder the success of the existing program.

  One major flaw in the proposed rule is its potential to triple the legal idling time for vehicles near school exits or entrances. This not only undermines the progress made in reducing idling violations but also puts the health of our children at risk. Furthermore, the lack of clarity in the new rule makes it challenging for ordinary citizens to understand and report violations accurately, which may lead to a decline in public participation.

  It is concerning that DEP has failed to provide any justification for the proposed change and has not conducted an environmental review to assess its potential impact. This lack of transparency raises serious questions about the motives behind the rule change and its potential consequences for our community.

  I strongly urge DEP to reconsider its position and instead adopt the citizen-proposed rule submitted on April 12, 2023. This rule, supported by concerned citizens, builds upon the successful school adjacency definition rule already in place and extends its coverage to include parks. Such an approach aligns with the goal of protecting our children’s health and maintaining the positive effects achieved by the current regulation.

  Comment added March 6, 2024 2:22pm

• Ephraim

  This is an unacceptable diminution of air quality for our most vulnerable residents–children. Additionally, the DEP will make a program that now already takes far too much expertise for the average untrained citizen to master and add yet another layer of needless complexity. This should be voted down, firmly. DEP should wherever possible loom to fight air pollution, not enable it. The current school definitions should also apply to parks and hospitals.

  Comment added March 6, 2024 2:30pm

• Wanfang Wu

  Dear Department of Environmental Protection,

  I believe one reason behind this proposed rule to redefine “adjacent” in the context of idling regulations near schools is to address the issue of truck drivers not always knowing when they are adjacent to a school. While ensuring that schools are visible to drivers might seem like a more fair definition to truckers, I believe this will result in a negative net effect and result in compromises to the environmental health and welfare of New York City.

  The existing definition, which applies to “each and every street on which a school is located and has entrances and/or exits to such street,” has been both clear and effective in reducing vehicle idling and consequently harmful emissions around our schools. By narrowing this definition, we risk losing the progress made in improving air quality and public health around schools where those most vulnerable to air pollution, children, frequent.

  I acknowledge the concern regarding driver awareness but a better method would be to enhance driver awareness by posting signage around schools. This achieves the same result without subjecting students to more air pollution.

  Additionally, narrowing the definition could create enforcement loopholes and decrease public participation due to its complexity. Air pollution doesn’t respect property lines; emissions from idling vehicles can affect air quality well beyond the immediate school vicinity.

  Thus, I urge the DEP to reconsider and withdraw the proposed rule change in favor of adopting the citizen-supported proposal submitted on April 12, 2023, which extends protections to parks and retains the clarity and effectiveness of the existing rule. By focusing on visibility and awareness improvements alongside a broad definition of “adjacent,” we can continue to reduce unnecessary vehicle idling, protect public health, and promote a cleaner, healthier environment for all New Yorkers.

  Sincerely,
  Wanfang Wu
  District 1
  CB 3

  Comment added March 6, 2024 2:58pm

• Michael McFadden

  I write to strongly oppose this proposed rulemaking. My name is Michael McFadden, I am a NYC resident and retired city employee.

  I implore the members of the City Council and the Environmental Committe to thoroughly question these proposed changes. Why they are being made and what effects these proposed changes will actually have?

  I am absolutely alarmed that these changes are being proposed by our Dept. of Environmental Protection, as they are doing nothing to better protect our environment and will actually permit more, indisputably illegal, and unnecessary idling to occur. WHY?

  The law as it is currently written, and the current definition of adjacent, provide more protection around and near our schools then this proposed rule affords. If passed it will also allow more idling to occur around our parks, then current law intended. These changes as proposed will do nothing to lessen air pollution from illegal and unnecessary vehicle engine idling. That is the truth. Don’t take my word for it, or the word of the DEP. Do the review and ask the questions yourselves before deciding. How will this change lessen air pollution in NYC? Particularly around the parks and schools where our children are concentrated. Ask the DEP why after the idling law was recently amended to limit idling to 1 minute while adjacent to a park, they have only issued violations when idling inside of a park, except from a parking lot inside of a park. Why is this a protected from enforcement area? They currently will not accept a park adjacent complaint when parked anywhere alongside (adjacent) any park or playground even with this new law. They will claim it is because they didn’t define adjacent related to parks. Clearly adjacent to a park, must be completely different then adjacent to a school, or simply the common definition of adjacent. The follow-up question should be why not? How long has it been since that law was proposed and passed? Why define park adjacent differently than the current school adjacent? Ask, why is the Department of Enviromental Protection seeking these changes that are polar opposite of what they should be seeking? How are they trying to better protect our environment, our air, and our children, with these changes?

  What has gone so wrong at our Department of Environmental Protection?
  Why are they actually weakening protection of our air from unnecessary idling?
  What changes and oversight should the Council be taking in regards?

  I believe that if questions like these are asked and considered you will only be able to VOTE NO for the proposed rulemaking.

  Thank you for considering my comments and more importantly asking the questions that must be asked prior to making your decision.

  Sincerely,
  Michael McFadden

  Comment added March 6, 2024 4:00pm

• Hilton S

  I write to OPPOSE DEP’s plan to repeal the existing definition of “adjacent,” which has served the City well for years, and replace it with an unworkable, hard-to-understand, and dangerous rule that will increase pollution next to schools. The current rule works! It should be expanded to include parks.

  But DEP’s flawed rule will triple that amount of legal idling on blocks that have school exits or entrances. A truck parked across the street from a school will be able to idle three times as long with no penalty. A vehicle parked one foot past a school line will also not be subject to the one-minute idling penalty. A truck parked in a bike lane or on a sidewalk can also pollute for three times longer than under the current rule.

  But air pollution travels through the air! Kids also have to walk down school blocks to go to school. Right now, the adjacency rule protects kids in school playgrounds or walking to and from our schools. The proposed rule strips kids in playgrounds of these important protections. And DEP has failed to take into account any of these harms in proposing this dangerous and harmful rule.

  Please adopt the citizen-proposed rule that will expand the current simple and sensible rule to include parks.

  Sincerely,
  Hilton

  Comment added March 6, 2024 5:14pm

• Ryan Lokey

  I OPPOSE DEP’s plan to repeal the existing definition of “adjacent.” The current definition has served the City well for years.

  To replace it with an unworkable, hard-to-understand, and dangerous rule will increase pollution next to schools.

  A truck parked across the street from a school will be able to idle three times as long with no penalty. A vehicle parked one foot past a school line will also not be subject to the one-minute idling penalty. A truck parked in a bike lane or on a sidewalk can also pollute for three times longer than under the current rule.

  But air pollution travels through the air! Kids also have to walk down school blocks to go to school. Right now, the adjacency rule protects kids in school playgrounds or walking to and from our schools. The proposed rule strips kids in playgrounds of these important protections. And DEP has failed to take into account any of these harms in proposing this dangerous and harmful rule. 

  The current rule works! It should be expanded to include parks. Please adopt the citizen-proposed rule that will expand the current simple and sensible rule to include parks.

  Sincerely,

  Ryan Lokey

  Comment added March 6, 2024 6:39pm

• Paul Slapikas

  I am disappointed with DEP for even considering changing the School adjacency rule. For years it has been used by citizen reporters to report vehicle illegally idling near schools. If I remember correctly, it was originally carefully defined in order to safeguard the health of our most vulnerable residents – children. I believe, by now, we all are aware of the dangers of breathing nocuous exhaust fumes. The current “adjacent” rule should not only be kept unchanged – it should be expanded to city parks and other gathering areas that attract children.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 7:19am

• Bryce Stack

  The NYC Department of Health estimates that about 2,400 people in NYC die every year directly due to air pollution (https://www.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/air-quality-air-pollution-protection.page). Compare this to about 400 homicides in 2023. All this rule will do is increase the amount of idling over the long term. Please reconsider this rule and focus on decreasing emissions and air pollution.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 7:40am

• Mike C

  As a parent I am opposed to this change due to the potential health affects on children. Idling is a big problem anyway but especially near schools

  Comment added March 7, 2024 7:56am

• Chris Hartmann

  Dear Commissioner Aggarwala,

  I write to strongly OPPOSE the proposed amendment to re-define “adjacent” to a school. As a father, NYC citizen, and public health professor, I find that this proposed rule change goes against New York State residents’ right to clean air and water, and a healthful environment and will do irreparable harm to the health of all New Yorkers, particularly the most vulnerable like children, persons with existing health conditions, and historically minoritized populations (e.g., Black Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, etc.). Indeed, this proposed rule change reverses the laudable efforts by NYC City Council to hold accountable the polluters who willingly choose to pollute near schools. We need stronger anti-idling rules, not weaker ones.

  In 2021, New York State residents overwhelmingly approved a constitutional right to “clean air and water, and a healthful environment.” I expect New York City’s Department of Environmental Protection to affirm and uphold this constitutional right. Any actions taken to increase pollution and not hold polluters accountable—like this proposed rule change will do—is in direct violation of this state constitutional amendment.

  Furthermore, this proposed rule goes against scientific evidence that all idling in the vicinity of a school is harmful and toxic to children, which adversely impacts their health and cognitive development (see for example, U.S. EPA, 2024), and that anti-idling policies are helpful for improving outdoor and indoor air quality in and near schools. Mendoza et al. (2022) write:
  “Anti-idling policies also appear to have their greatest potential in the school setting. When traffic-related emissions are the dominant pollution source in the school vicinity, the changes in outdoor air quality associated with the anti-idling campaign are capable of reducing the children’s exposure to traffic-generated aerosols inside the schools at a statistically significant level.”

  The health impacts of idling are frightening and infuriating because they are preventable. This rule change does nothing to reduce idling near schools. And it does nothing to address the health impacts of idling on school-aged populations and others. The U.S. EPA recognizes that “people with heart or lung diseases, children, and older adults are the most likely to be affected by particle pollution exposure.” Adverse health impacts include premature death, aggravated asthma, decrease lung function, and increased respiratory symptoms, among others (U.S. EPA, 2024). Again, these are preventable health issues and this proposed rule change does nothing to alleviate them.

  Again, I implore you and the DEP to protect our children and adopt more stringent anti-idling rules. NYC can and must do better.

  Sincerely,
  Chris Hartmann, PhD
  NYC Resident

  References:

  Mendoza, D.L., Benney, T.M., Bares, R. et al. (2022). Air quality and behavioral impacts of anti-idling campaigns in school drop-off zones. Atmosphere, 13(5), 706.

  U.S. EPA. 2024. Health and environmental effects of particulate matter (PM). https://www.epa.gov/pm-pollution/health-and-environmental-effects-particulate-matter-pm

  Comment added March 7, 2024 8:28am

• Grant Braam

  I am opposed to the rule as written. It will significantly weaken the existing school rule, with no clear upside. The diagram as drawn is also ambiguous and needs to be clarified regarding DEP’s views as to the impact of bike lanes and illegal parking, at the very least.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 8:51am

• Caleb Crain

  I don’t see why the city should weaken the protection of air quality around schools—or in the city generally, for that matter. Please keep the existing, broader definition of “adjacent” and the existing, stronger protection of air quality.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 10:22am

• Aaron Jacobs

  Please see attached my PDF letter comment opposing the DEP’s rule, Reference Number DEP-99. Thank you.

  Comment attachment
  Final-Jacobs-NYCAC-Letter-on-Proposed-Adjacent-Rule-Change.pdf

  Comment added March 7, 2024 10:29am

• Tyler Beresford

  As a NYC resident close to many schools, I can confidently say that idling vehicles in school zones is a big problem for our city and the health of our children. I’d like to reiterate a comment made by David below, that “Pollution does not respect road markings.” I ask the DEP: is this about pollution & and safety of schools? Or is it about disgruntled truck companies?

  The proposed rule to modify the usage of “adjacent” is arbitrary and unnecessary, and only helps the operators and business owners of idling vehicles. Why should we be bowing to them?

  Comment added March 7, 2024 10:35am

• Nate flagg

  As citizens, we have a duty to protect the health and welfare of the children in our community. Weakening emission restrictions is directly counter to our values and is deeply unethical. We already face elevated rates of Asthma and pulmonary diseases among children in New York City, particularly in lower-income neighborhoods. This policy only exacerbates these issues. Supporting this rule is unconscionable, and I implore this body to reject it out of hand.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 10:40am

• Christopher Cox

  Please do not change this rule. We need fewer cars idling, not more, and better enforcement of the rules that exist. I don’t want my children to breath in more carbon monoxide because the word “adjacent” means “very close.” We should protect children and weakening this rule will harm them.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 11:17am

• Jonah S

  Dangerous byproducts of truck engines don’t know how to stop at the property line of a school. They will happily float over the line or from the other side of the street to give my 7-year-old child asthma. Why would the Department of Environmental Protection loosen a rule that protects children, and makes it easier for trucks to idle next to where our most vulnerable New Yorkers are trying to learn? Please keep the rules as strong as possible near schools, parks, and playgrounds to protect the health of our children from diesel fumes. Thank you.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 11:20am

• Tom Keough

  There is no good reason to change this rule and increase any idling time . There should not be MORE idling fumes near schools or anywhere else.
  Please OPPOSE this proposed change

  Comment added March 7, 2024 11:28am

• Georgia Cool

  Please do not change the rule to allow more air pollution from idling vehicles to happen closer to schools. Please protect our children, who would be forced to be exposed to even more of the pollution from uncaring adult drivers of vehicles. One of my young children has asthma, like so many other NYC children. The DEP should work to protect the air quality of our city, not weaken the few laws that we do have to improve air quality for children.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 11:50am

• New York Lawyers in the Public Interest and NY Clean Air Collective

  Please see the attached letter opposing this rule change, sent by the New York Lawyers in the Public Interest and the New York Clean Air Collective.

  Comment attachment
  NYLPI-and-NYCAC-Adjacency-letter-FINAL.pdf

  Comment added March 7, 2024 12:10pm

• Larry Lee

  A best friend of mine past away from lung cancer. While he was a non-smoker, he did live on 2nd Ave. in the East Village. His living room window faced the avenue and was always open. While no one knows for sure, I’m sure the daily fumes from the trucks and cars that invaded his apartment played a big part in his passing.

  Please save the children, save the adults, and save this city from the insidious poison that comes out of idling trucks. The bottom line, please don’t change/make rules that will hurt the citizens of NYC. We need to breathe better air. NYC deserves better. Thank you.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 12:21pm

• Patrick Thomas Schnell

  Dear DEP,
  please accept the attached letter OPPOSING the proposed school zone rule change.
  thank you,
  Patrick Schnell, M.D., FAAP.

  Comment attachment
  Schnell-Letter-Signed.pdf

  Comment added March 7, 2024 2:11pm

• Elena Pretto

  I strongly oppose the change that is being advanced and that will negatively impact clean area around schools. This is a disrespect to future generations and the protections offered to our little ones.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 2:21pm

• Charles Denson

  Stop Poisoning Children!
  I write to OPPOSE DEP’s plan to repeal the existing definition of “adjacent,” which has served the City well for years, and replace it with an unworkable, hard-to-understand, and dangerous rule that will increase pollution next to schools. The current rule works! It should be expanded to include parks.

  But DEP’s flawed rule will triple that amount of legal idling on blocks that have school exits or entrances. A truck parked across the street from a school will be able to idle three times as long with no penalty. A vehicle parked one foot past a school line will also not be subject to the one-minute idling penalty. A truck parked in a bike lane or on a sidewalk can also pollute for three times longer than under the current rule.

  But air pollution travels through the air! Kids also have to walk down school blocks to go to school. Right now, the adjacency rule protects kids in school playgrounds or walking to and from our schools. The proposed rule strips kids in playgrounds of these important protections. And DEP has failed to take into account any of these harms in proposing this dangerous and harmful rule.

  Please adopt the citizen-proposed rule that will expand the current simple and sensible rule to include parks.

  Sincerely,
  Charles Denson

  Comment added March 7, 2024 4:11pm

• Nydia Leaf

  I write to OPPOSE DEP’s plan to repeal the existing definition of “adjacent,” which has served the City well for years, and replace it with an unworkable, hard-to-understand, and dangerous rule that will increase pollution next to schools. The current rule works! It should be expanded to include parks. Please do not move backwards! I write as a retired pre-school teacher, mother and grandmother.

  DEP’s flawed rule will triple the amount of legal idling on blocks that have school exits or entrances. A truck parked across the street from a school will be able to idle three times as long with no penalty. A vehicle parked one foot past a school line will also not be subject to the one-minute idling penalty. A truck parked in a bike lane or on a sidewalk can also pollute for three times longer than under the current rule. Air pollution is a menace to everyone’s health.

  Consider the children who walk down school blocks to go to school. Right now, the adjacency rule protects kids in school playgrounds or walking to and from our schools. The proposed rule strips kids in playgrounds of these important protections. And DEP has failed to take into account any of these harms in proposing this dangerous and harmful rule.

  I urge that you adopt the citizen-proposed rule — it will expand the current simple and sensible rule to include parks.

  Sincerely,
  Nydia Leaf, MS.Educ.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 4:12pm

• ChatGPT 3.5

  It’s important to be cautious about labeling individuals as “bad people” based solely on a single action or proposed rule. However, if Rohit Aggarwala and Russ Pecunies are indeed advocating for a rule to increase truck and bus emissions near schools and parks, it could be considered harmful or misguided due to the potential negative impacts on public health and the environment. Increased emissions from trucks and buses can contribute to air pollution, which poses risks to the health of children, the elderly, and other vulnerable populations. It’s essential to prioritize policies and regulations that promote clean air and public health while minimizing environmental harm.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 4:36pm

• Sean Adair

  I think this proposed rule opens up areas that were protected under the original definition, yet still should be strictly regulated. As a parent that brought a child through the NYC school system, this longstanding rule about idling should be more strictly enforced, including vehicles simply across the street from a school, or just past the property line!
  I was in NYC public school myself back in 1972, and after being inspired by the first earth day and implementation of this law, expected we’d have much better knowledge and obedience to this important law. Health, global warming and fossil fuel resources are being exploited.

  Comment added March 7, 2024 5:18pm

• Dr. Micaela Martinez

  Please see attached

  Comment attachment
  2024-03-07_WE-ACT-Comments-on-Adjacent-Definition-Rule.pdf

  Comment added March 7, 2024 5:25pm

• WE ACT for Enviromental Justice

  Please see attached comment.

  Comment attachment
  2024-03-07_WE-ACT-Comments-on-Adjacent-Definition-Rule-1.pdf

  Comment added March 7, 2024 5:27pm