 |
||
 April 6, 2006 | Vol 5 No. 07 |
||
|
|
||
|
In this issue of Spotlight on the Region: – Moving Ahead with Moynihan Station Don’t forget to register for the 2006 RPA Regional Assembly, “Come What May: Planning in an Age of Disaster.” Attorney General Eliot Spitzer will deliver the keynote address on May 5th a day full of exciting speakers and panels. Register online at www.rpa.org or call 212/253-2727, ext. 317. For Moynihan Station, First Things First Moynihan Station is the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s vision for a grand rail gateway into New York City. The plans call for redeveloping the eastern half of the Farley Post Office Building (which sits across 8th Avenue from Penn Station) to accommodate a train hall reminiscent of the original Penn Station, complete with all of the amenities commuters enjoy at Grand Central. Moynihan Station has been in the planning stages for a decade, but stands poised to break ground this year. A developer has been selected, funding is in place and final environmental reviews are underway. Suddenly, a new vision has emerged that could go even further toward redeeming the tragic destruction of the original McKim, Mead, and White station in 1963. By moving Madison Square Garden to a new site (such as the Annex on the western side of the Farley Building), the entire Penn Station complex could be re-developed. If the developer builds a grand new transit hub – with open public spaces, better restaurants and shopping, natural light, improved access and security – the zoning bonuses will allow up to 5 million square feet of commercial development right where it belongs – at the busiest transit hub in North America. If designed in a thoughtful way, with the public interest at heart, the plan would surely make Senator Moynihan proud. The new Penn Station complex could undo the tragic flaws of the 1960’s project, bringing back street life. It is also a terrific opportunity to grow Manhattan’s central business district, complementing Mayor Bloomberg’s vision for the Far West Side. But there are still many unknowns and obstacles to be cleared. How will the relocated MSG co-exist with the historic Farley Building, and the new train hall? Will Penn Station get the overhaul it requires or just a new paint job in the rush to build the commercial space? The Friends of Moynihan Station, a fledgling advocacy group convened by RPA under the leadership of Senator Moynihan’s daughter, Maura, held a reception in Washington this week to address these issues. The message from the event’s attendees – including Senators Schumer, Clinton, Lautenberg, Menendez and Warner, and Representatives Nadler and Maloney – was that Moynihan Station must come first. There is a real danger that the federal funding for this project will disappear if we delay any further. And in any case, to meet the public expectation for the project, a Garden move would call for a grand Penn Station complex that reaches both sides of 8th Avenue. The message to Washington, and from our leaders in the Capitol, is clear: Keep pursuing the big Penn Station prize, but move ahead immediately with the Moynihan Station piece of the puzzle.
The station threatens me in various ways. Some affect only me and other tall people. Others present difficulties to most station users. They raise question of how universal design can be, and whether the difficulties I encounter are just the burdens of being very tall, or whether they indicate some structural design flaw that should or could be remedied. Whatever the answer, the threats are numerous. First of all, there are the infamous iron maidens, also called “egg slicers.” These are the gleaming steel carriages with teeth that are the only means of exiting and entering at some portals at Union Square and other stations. The top cylinder on these devices, from which the metal teeth revolve, is set relatively low – just above my eyes, but below my height. The first time I entered one of these, about ten years ago, I hit my head so hard I fell to the ground, my forehead bleeding. I think I lost consciousness for a few seconds. And it was at Union Square station, of course. The egg slicers are unpleasant for everyone, even short people. No one likes squeezing into a small space, and then shuffling around to the other side. If you are carrying a package, or even worse, if you are with a stroller, it’s an awkward if not impossible trip to the other side. If there is a crowd, it can be a substantial wait to get in or out. Should an emergency ever occur underground, it’s frightening to consider the pile-up that would occur at one of these. The MTA is hopefully studying ways that allow more people to enter or exit swiftly, while still preventing or cutting down on fare dodgers. One curious thing about the iron maidens is that there are older ones, colored a dull black and lacking the gleaming top cylinder, that provide plenty of clearance for me. I have learned to spot and use them. It’s curious that something older provides more clearance for tall people. But it’s not unusual. As a rule of thumb, what is newer is likely to be more threatening. The horseshoe-shaped pieces of steel tubing that go over the standard turnstiles at many entrances are a good example. They are there, I suppose, to make it more difficult for turnstile jumpers, something you once saw all the time in the city but now seldom do. What makes these portals so dangerous for me is that they are constructed at varying heights. Many I can walk through without a problem. Others hang right above my eye level and bang me firmly on the forehead unless I duck. There are also the swinging signs that identify where the different subway lines meet. When I hit these signs with my head, there is a loud "dong" sound, like a hammer hitting a gong in a Buddhist temple. These encounters are painful, but less drastically than the iron maidens or the steel hoops. Despite all these hazards, nineteen times out of 20, I’ll walk through the Union Square station without a problem. I’ll remember to duck my head here and there. But on that 20th time, some element of the station will manage to whack me. Each time it does, I'm amazed at the capacity of the station to sneak up on me and hurt me. The end result is that I now always walk through the station in a slight crouch. I am determined to not let the station get me, once again. I would like New York City Transit to renovate the Union Square station to better accommodate tall people. I see soaring ceilings and new entry and exit technology that allows a thick flow of people to get in or out, even while stopping those who haven’t paid. But that’s asking a lot. As a start, I ask only a bit of sympathy. Condolences are in order.
Book Review Donald Shoup wrote 700 pages or so about, well, the strips of concrete and asphalt within which we place our vehicles – namely parking. The High Cost of Free Parking, to be more exact. You might think that there is no way that such a dry subject could merit so many pages, or sustain a reader on anything but a forced march. But what’s astonishing about The High Cost of Free Parking is that Shoup, an urban planning professor at UCLA, has written what amounts to a crowd pleaser on a planning topic. He manages to both amuse and convince. M.F.K. Fischer, the famous food writer, used oysters and a piece of pate to show the wider world. Shoup uses parking. His analysis of the demand for and production of parking, within the context of government policy, leads him into analogies with the erroneous practices of ancient medics. He quotes folks like Shakespeare, Lewis Carroll, the scientist Richard Feynman and others seldom seen in planning books to illustrate his points. What’s so good about Shoup’s book is that he goes beyond this fairly linear thought – charge market rate for parking – to show how this could be effectively implemented. Economists such as Shoup often err in applying the simple tenet of their profession, which is that everything should be “marketized.” But in Shoup’s case he applies the principle with subtlety. Take, for example, the immediate response that neighborhoods would raise a huge fuss if cities started to charge them for housing their cars on the streets outside their apartments. How could one get around this? Shoup advocates the carrot that neighborhoods who allow paid parking get to keep all or most of the revenue generated. The money is used to repair sidewalks, maintain street trees or even build neighborhood centers. This principle can often win over a recalcitrant neighborhood, Shoup says. Similar principles are explored in downtown environments. Business and shopping districts that do not charge enough for street parking are burdened in several ways, Shoup shows. First, traffic goes up because of the extra quantity of cars circling the streets looking for a parking space. Secondly, city districts often look shabby because they have both a high amount of traffic and use, and not enough money to keep sidewalks and streets in good repair. Things change, Shoup writes convincingly, when cities such as Pasadena start charging market rate for parking in and around their downtowns. There is an optimal pricing point where a certain percentage of the spaces are always available, lowering the endless circling of the block and reducing traffic congestion. Secondly, streets and sidewalks look good, because of all the money pouring in from parking revenues. This in turn, helps a shopping district increase its allure, which generates more customers, and ultimately more tax revenues. It’s a virtuous circle. Why haven’t cities or towns generally charged for parking? Why did they start to require businesses to provide it? Shoup shows how these policies emerged gradually in the first half of the 20th century, as car ownership became widespread. At first, when car ownership was relatively low, drivers delighted in parking easily on city streets. Then as car ownership grew, there was a certain shock to find out that there was more demand for that slot on the street then there were spaces available. It was thought that a few easy planning policies, such as requiring businesses to provide spaces, would quickly cure the paucity of parking. Which it did, but it also led to more car use and the destruction of walking environments, ill effects that policy makers never envisioned. There’s no doubt that Shoup’s principles are applicable in and around New York. We have perhaps the most valuable street space in the country, yet we rent it out to drivers at exceeding low rates. Not long ago I drove into Nolita in Lower Manhattan from Brooklyn for the first time. I was stunned to find that there, on one of the highest pedestrian areas of the city, drivers could park their cars all day, for free. Imagine how much a store would pay for the same square footage! Naturally, with such a valuable commodity being given away, there were virtually no spaces available. I circled the streets for a half hour, contributing to traffic, until I found a space. Imagine how much better Nolita or neighboring Soho would work if Shoup’s principles were applied. If a market rate were charged for street parking, probably quite a few dollars per hour, then finding a space would be easy because by definition the price would be set high enough so that spaces would come free at frequent intervals. Few people would park their cars on the street all day. Because the price of parking would be high, more people would leave their cars at home and travel by mass transit, which would mean less annoying and polluting traffic. Residents who chose to keep cars on the street would pay the market rate, which again would be quite high, so fewer residents would choose to do that, which again would diminish traffic and open up parking spaces so that they would be available when really needed. It’s not just in Soho that Shoup’s principles are applicable, but in neighborhoods and business districts all over the region. Of course, Shoup’s rules and guidelines are just a starting point for policies that would have to be crafted for the dynamics of each area. But even if you’re not a planner, or have no intention of changing parking regulations, you might give Shoup’s book a try. Pour yourself a glass of wine, and curl up in bed with The High Cost of Parking. You might find yourself surprisingly engaged.
Questions Or Comments On What’s In This Issue? Send Them To The Editor Of Spotlight On The Region, Alex Marshall At alex@rpa.org |
|
|
April 7, 8 a.m. – 12 p.m. April 8 April 18 April 19 April 19-23 April 20
April 27 – 29 May 5 May 9 May 24 |
|
|
||
|
Spotlight on The Region A publication of Regional Plan Association, Robert Yaro, President, Alex Marshall, Senior Editor 212-253-2727, x360 alex@rpa.org www.rpa.org |
|
