But in the last decade another set of relationships operating at a larger scale has started to impact the Tri-State region; they may or may not be evident, depending on how much time you spend on Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor, vacationing in Cape Cod, or flying to Washington. These are the challenges associated with being part of the Northeast Megaregion, the urban agglomeration on the Atlantic seaboard stretching from southern Maine to northern Virginia. The ties between the Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington regions have strengthened in recent years due to a number of factors related to advanced technology and the forces of globalization.

This larger perspective was the focus of a recent conference at the NYU Rudin Center called, “Thinking Bigger: New York and Transportation in the Northeast Megaregion,” which drew over 300 people, the largest attendance ever. RPA, which co-sponsored the conference, presented findings from its recent report, Northeast Megaregion 2050: A Common Future, which makes the case that the Northeast states and regions must act together to address issues of lagging job growth, land and resource consumption, aging infrastructure and our combined carbon footprint. (You can download this report on RPA’s website, www.rpa.org.) The impetus for shared action is the experience of common challenges in the Northeast and the inability of a single region or state to solve them by itself.

What are those challenges, exactly?

First, the component regions of the Northeast are literally growing together – blurring the boundaries between formerly distinct places and contributing to greater congestion, loss of open space and threatening our drinking water supplies. Low-density sprawl at the fringe of metropolitan areas is the greatest factor in the Northeast Megaregion’s growing consolidation and also the biggest threat to its competitiveness and quality of life.

Travel patterns and infrastructure are impacted as people and jobs move further away from the historic cores. The length of commutes and costs of congestion rose in the last decade, accompanied by a rise in “extreme commutes” of 90 minutes or more and flex-time commuting, where workers split their weeks between time at home and in office. In the 2000 Census, more people commuted on a daily basis from one metropolitan area to another than ever before (650,000 people in the Northeast did so on a daily basis, up 37 percent from 1990.) These new, long-distance travel patterns are not always supported by the linear and radial transit networks built around urban cores, which means that people are mostly taking the trips by car, impacting their own quality of life and everyone’s air quality.

Business travel also unites the Northeast megaregion and serves as a proxy for economic ties between metropolitan areas. Flightstats.com provides the number of flights between the major hubs on an average weekday: roughly 86 flights each way between New York’s three airports and Washington, D.C.; 76 flights between New York and Boston; 42 flights between Boston and Washington. Amtrak’s intercity service also plays an important role in this market. Amtrak captures 50 percent of the air-rail market share for trips between Washington and New York and 40 percent of trips between Boston and New York.

These interactions are good for the economy. In its five major metro areas and in smaller cities on the Northeast corridor like Providence, New Haven, Stamford, Newark and Wilmington, the Northeast has the highest concentration of highly-skilled labor and jobs in the nation. And in an era of climate change and oil uncertainty, the location of central business districts on the Northeast Corridor, with connections to surrounding urban and suburban density by public transportation, becomes an incredible asset.

But consider this: the Northeast Megaregion is growing. With a population of 49 million today and a $2.4 trillion economy, we will need to find a way to accommodate a projected increased of 19 million people by 2050 and a corresponding increase in our economy. The size of that growth, its shape and its impact will be determined by the decisions we make today. But considering the current congestion at our airports, seaports, roads and transit networks, and their neglected condition, this will not be an easy task.

Now is the time for a discussion among the Northeast states of how they will accommodate growth by making strategic investments in transportation infrastructure, protecting natural resources, and safeguarding quality of life. As discussed at NYU’s conference, Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor—the vital spine of the Northeast Megaregion—is a logical place to start. The timing has never been better. Ridership on Amtrak’s Acela Express service is up 20 percent over last year in the Northeast Corridor, thanks in part to the Acela’s superior on-time performance relative to New York’s regional airports last summer. At the end of last month, the Senate voted to increase funding for Amtrak in a six-year authorization bill; a companion bill is expected in the House early next year.

Regional Plan Association has begun a conversation with state and regional business organizations from Boston to Washington to build political support for investments in Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor and a long-range vision for mobility in the Northeast. This new coalition, called the Business Alliance for Northeast Mobility, is being led by RPA and the CEO Council for Growth of Select Greater Philadelphia. Adopting multi-year funding and appropriations for Amtrak is a starting point for greater collaboration on other mobility issues in the Northeast, such as the reauthorization of the nation’s transportation bill after the presidential elections.

The Northeast has a choice about what type of megaregion it wants to be. We can become the megaregion that we are growing into one that is connected by blurred regional boundaries because of sprawled land use, longer commutes and snarled airports, roads and goods movement. Or, we can focus growth in existing centers, invest in transit, and strengthen urban and suburban centers to become the most sustainable, competitive and connected megaregion in the nation—and possibly the world.

– Petra Todorovich, Director, America 2050

A Modest Proposal
What if we required property owners and developers to kick in say, $25,000 for every unit of housing they built and give it to New York City Transit as compensation for the riders the new development would generate?

So if you built a 40 unit apartment building, you would hand the Metropolitan Transportation Authority a $1 million check. With private developers constructing tens of thousands of units of housing every year, that would soon add up to a nice additional source of revenue for the region’s mass transit system.

Unfeasible? Unfair? Politically impossible?

If that’s the case, why do we already require the equivalent set of fees from developers for automobile use? And there is no tremendous hue and cry about it?

You see, right now in New York City, we require developers to construct a certain amount of parking for every unit of housing they construct. There are some exceptions, like in Midtown Manhattan, but in the boroughs and even much of Manhattan, constructing parking is a requirement.

For example, around Prospect Park in Brooklyn where I live, many areas require one unit of parking built for every two units of housing. So a 40 unit apartment building would have to build 20 parking spaces.

Twenty parking spaces do not come cheap. Because land itself is so valuable, a developer in Crown Heights or Park Slope will often choose to pack these spaces underground. This is a good thing urbanistically, or at least less of a bad thing, but very expensive. It costs about $150 per square foot to build below grade, my developer friends tell me, and a parking spot including necessary accompanying space takes up about 300 square feet. So one parking spot might cost $45,000, or even more in areas with higher construction costs.

In lower density areas farther out in Brooklyn, Queens and the other boroughs, developers will build surface lots. These cost less, but they have their own ill effects. They take away land that could have been used as yards, and help insure that street design is less urbanistic and thus less compatible with a mass transit system.

Let me ask a simple question: At a time when our roads are crammed, when we need open space, when we need lower-cost housing and more recreational areas, when our climate is changing because of exhaust from cars, why are we demanding developers construct parking that jacks up housing prices, spews more cars onto burdened streets, takes away land that could be used for either housing or open space, and contributes to global warming?

This is such a crazy policy that I would like any planner out there, and I know there are many on this list, to step forward and defend it.

I know the conventional explanation. We require developers to construct parking so that we do not put further demand on on-street parking. But the logic here has flaws you can drive a truck through. For one thing, on-street parking will always be full. Secondly, by subsidizing parking, we encourage people who live in these units to buy cars, who then drive them and fill up those on-street spaces when they do errands.

There is also the harm done to the urban fabric. Every curb cut for a parking space or parking garage takes away at least one on-street space, and puts more obstacles in the way of people walking on the sidewalk who have to contend with cars moving to and from the spaces.

How did we come to such a schizophrenic policy? On the one hand we here in the region spend a lot of public money for a great mass transit system. With our other hand we require people to build parking, thus encouraging people to use cars more, as well as corrupting the design of streets and buildings that should integrate with those mass transit systems.

Some urban planners suggest prohibiting or at least capping the construction of parking. While that’s a policy worth considering, that’s not what I’m talking about here. I'm just talking about not forcing people to build it. In this land of the free, why are we forcing people to spend good money on more parking for private automobiles?

Virtually all cities around the region also require parking construction. Those policies are also misguided in many ways, but the contradictions are particularly stark New York City, a place with the best mass transit system in the country, but where the government is actively working to undermine it by encouraging more use of automobiles and automobile-related infrastructure.

Answers, anyone?

– Alex Marshall, Editor, Spotlight on the Region

Engage!
If you are tired of public hearings where outraged citizens stand at a microphone and rant at a dais of yawning officials, you are not alone. Apparently the folks on the other side aren't happy either, so they are doing something about it.

For the first time in a long time, the MTA is taking a different approach to seeking public input about proposed fare and toll increases by offering an interactive workshop in addition to the traditional public hearing format.

Modeled after successful "town hall" - style events such as Listening to the City, which drew 5,000 participants to discuss post-9/11 plans for Lower Manhattan, the MTA's public engagement workshop aims to seek input from riders who want a more informed, meaningful process about fare options and rebuilding priorities for the future. The workshop will lay out the challenges the agency faces and encourage a healthy discussion of options and issues.

The event is being co-sponsored by the Empire State Transportation Alliance, a coalition of business, labor, environmental and civic groups dedicated to seeing a robust transportation investment program to sustain New York's economic growth and environmental quality.

If you want to take part in this new style of public input, sign up now and show the MTA there is interest in taking a new approach. Participation is free, but space is limited to 300 seats and pre-registration required. Here's how to register:

Saturday, November 17, 2007
10:00 am – 1:30 pm (registration begins at 9:30 am)
New York University – Kimmel Center KC Rosenthal Pavilion,
10th Floor
60 Washington Square South New York, NY 10012

EVENT REGISTRATION
Online: www.mta.info/workshop/
Phone: 212-878-7483

- Neysa Pranger, Director of Public Affairs

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