 |
||
 Feb. 8, 2008 | Vol 7, No. 03 |
||
|
|
||
|
In This Issue: – Congestion Pricing – What’s Next? As promising as this is, the fate of the plan is still uncertain. Before it can be implemented, the City Council and State Legislature must also approve it. The legislation that created the commission states that those legislative bodies must “consider” the panel’s recommendations by March 31st, though not necessarily vote on it. But, the end of March is also the deadline for obtaining $354.5 million in federal grant money to start-up the program and provide immediate transit improvements to underserved areas of the city. Given the glacial speed at which the legislature has been known to act, it is not too early to start looking at potential road blocks standing in the way of adopting the commission’s plan. Before we address those, however, let us take a minute to weigh in on the merits of the plan approved by the commission. All in all, it is a substantial improvement over the Mayor’s original version. It raises more money – $491 million annually – reduces more traffic, requires less up-front capital investment, and cuts down on concerns about privacy. It meets all the eligibility criteria for the $354.5 million in federal funds. The new plan shrinks the congestion zone boundary from 86th to 60th Street and charges only those motorists coming in to, rather than out of, the zone. It eliminates the fee for travel within the zone and charges the same fee for travel on the peripheral roadways. The plan also raises on-street parking meter rates to increase parking spot availability and cut down on endless searching for on-street parking, eliminates a little-known parking garage tax exemption for Manhattan residents, and adds a $1 surcharge to all taxi trips that either end or begin in the zone. So what are some of the remaining points of contention? Let’s examine some of them as well as look at ideas to address them. First, reducing the impact on limited-income drivers. This issue has been a thorny topic from the get-go. While 95% of city residents do not drive into Manhattan by automobile, 5% do. Census data clearly shows that these drivers are wealthier than transit riders, but the legislature should still think about how to accommodate those drivers with limited incomes who need to travel to Manhattan by car. One option could be to set up a state tax credit for those on limited incomes affected by the charge. Second, New Jersey toll offsets. Because tolls on all MTA and Port Authority facilities can be deducted from the congestion charge, a recently approved increase in Port Authority tolls mean that few drivers from New Jersey will pay any additional congestion fee. This issue raises ire among legislators who believe everyone should have to pay the congestion charge, not just New York residents. In many ways, however, the system of charging a similar fee at all access points makes sense. Drivers would then make rational decisions about which routes to take instead of driving out of their way for the cheaper toll barrier. New Jersey residents already pay a toll to come into the city, so providing an offset would equalize access into the Central Business District. The legislature should also consider the fact that New York drivers using MTA tunnels and bridges will benefit from the deduction just as New Jersey drivers will. Unfortunately this argument seems lost on Albany. If the congestion pricing revenue was devoted only to New York-oriented transit projects rather than shared projects, such as Access to the Region’s Core, this argument should go away. In the Mayor’s original PlaNYC proposal, congestion pricing revenue would help pay for projects jointly funded by the Port Authority and MTA, but legislators could simply move funding to MTA projects since the increased tolls on the Port Authority crossings would fund the projects joining New York and New Jersey. Third, dedicating the money for transit. There is a fear that the money raised will be siphoned off to other City or State expenses instead of being dedicated exclusively to transit. Committing revenue to a particular purpose, however, is entirely in the purview of the Legislature, and has been done before. In 1968, the legislature set a formula to guarantee that a share of the MTA’s revenues from its bridge and tunnel tolls is dedicated to transit. Similarly, taxes like the mortgage recording tax, petroleum business tax, corporate franchise tax and sales tax have also been reliably dedicated to transit since the early 1980s. Also, the Governor recently proposed a traffic congestion mitigation fund in the state budget to insure that these funds are dedicated to transit. And lastly, the MTA will be delivering its five-year capital program 18-months early so legislators can see exactly how congestion pricing funds will be spent. As RPA’s own Bob Yaro said last week, “Congestion pricing will not solve all our transit problems, but it is the most promising and innovative way to expand our transit system in a time of recession and budget shortfalls.” Congestion pricing is indeed our best hope for continuing the growth of our region and keeping transit projects going. While the plan put forth last week was a big step forward, there should be no doubt that much work remains. The State Legislature and the City Council must now have the drive to maneuver around potential roadblocks and steer congestion pricing home. One of the last of these as-yet-to-be reclaimed iconic places is Coney Island, the city’s now tatty former amusement Mecca. In much of the world even the name Coney Island still connotes roller coaster rides, cotton candy and fun at the seaside. But the reality of the place is that it remains forlorn and all but forgotten, a shadow of its former glory. The vestiges of its glorious past, such as the Parachute Jump and the Cyclone roller coaster ride remain, but the reality of the place is that it is now composed largely of vacant lots and shabby arcades. Last fall the City’s Economic Development Corporation announced a visionary plan to reinvent Coney Island as a regional amusement destination. Inspired by Copenhagen’s Tivoli Gardens, this initiative would create a new amusement district adjoining Coney Island’s Boardwalk. The centerpiece of the City’s proposal would be a new park east of KeySpan Park, the new minor league baseball stadium. Through a public-private partnership this park would become an attractively landscaped public space. It would also become the setting for a range of restaurant and amusement venues, including a contemporary version of the old amusement parks, creating a wholesome family entertainment destination for the region. As at Tivoli, these amusements would be designed to add value to the surrounding park. But unlike its Danish counterpart, Coney Island’s park would be open to the public without an admission fee. Along Surf Avenue, the creation of a range of complimentary development would be encouraged, including hotels, movie theaters, restaurants and even bowling alleys. The City’s proposal will require a zoning change from the City Planning Commission and City Council and state legislation for a land swap with Thor Equities, a major developer that controls a portion of the site needed for the new plan. Last year Thor proposed high-rise time share apartments and hotels for the site which the City claims would be incompatible with the kind of boisterous entertainment venues that have always been a hallmark of Coney Island. To succeed, the project will need to preserve the authenticity and diversity of Coney Island’s amusements and its visitors and residents. So far, the City’s plans for Coney Island remind one of the successful revitalization of Times Square, where the City and its partners took the best of the old Times Square and used it as the basis for a new place. From the sounds of it, the City’s plan will keep some of Coney’s Island’s raffish charms, while building new attractions that will fully capitalize on its stunning beach-front access. The City’s plan acknowledges that there are activities and historical features that need to be retained. The plan also attempts the difficult act of balancing preservation, redevelopment and community goals. Toward this end, some 4,000 to 5,000 new units of housing would be created outside the amusement area, including roughly 900 affordable units. To obtain approvals before Mayor Bloomberg leaves office, new Deputy Mayor Bob Lieber has made the project one of his top priorities. The City recently retained design consultants EDAW and the Rockwell Group to further detail its plans and is moving ahead aggressively to build public support and move the project forward. Many of the other building blocks for a world-class entertainment destination are already in place, including one of the world’s great urban beaches. Coney Island already has great transit access, now enhanced by the MTA’s elegant new Stillwell Avenue subway station, with its vast steel and glass train shed that is reminiscent of a grand European train station. As the city knew well back in the 1940s, the four separate lines terminating in Coney Island are sufficient to deliver a million people there on a weekend if so desired. For that reason, all new development should be built around transit access, and the city should discourage construction of parking. And in addition to KeySpan Park, the district also includes the New York Aquarium. The Aquarium was dumped in Coney Island half a century ago by Robert Moses, who wished to demolish the Aquarium’s former site in Lower Manhattan’s Battery Park to make room for his proposed Brooklyn Battery Bridge. When RPA and other groups stopped Moses’ bridge project in 1938, the master builder relocated the aquarium anyway, as an act of revenge. The New York Aquarium has never realized its potential to become a major regional destination, similar to its counterparts in Boston, Baltimore and other cities. The Wildlife Conservation Society recently announced some improvements for the Aquarium, but this should be the time to move forward with a more ambitious modernization and expansion program, as part of a larger vision to make all of Coney Island a regional entertainment destination. Imagine how wonderful it would be to have one of the world’s great seaside amusement areas and a beautiful new oceanfront park only a short subway ride away. For the first time in half a century this vision is within our reach. A public Scoping Session will be held on the project’s Environmental Impact Statement on Wednesday, February 13 at 6:00 p.m. at Lincoln High School Auditorium, 2800 Ocean Parkway, Brooklyn. It may come as a surprise to some of our readers from New York and New Jersey that ConnDOT is even one entity in the first place given the independence of NJ Transit and the MTA. But despite having one of the largest commuter rail systems in the nation and a state-operated bus service that covers many of its largest cities, transit planning and operations have all fallen under the same umbrella as highways and have inevitably not gotten the attention they deserve. One need only compare a ride on the 35-year old New Haven line rail cars to the new ones being operated on the Hudson Valley or Long Island lines of the MTA. To the Governor’s credit, new rail cars are scheduled for delivery in 2010 and we can only hope that a dedicated department tasked with managing the state’s transit assets would expedite such transit initiatives as this. A clear set of mobility priorities for the state need to be articulated and should govern the direction of both departments. It should include acknowledging the effect of transportation decisions on land use, and that traffic flow alone is not an adequate measure. While conceptually and theoretically it makes some sense to keep a unified Department of Transportation, practically speaking, putting transit, ports and airports into a separate department could help insure they get the attention they need. And an overarching mobility strategy for the state would ensure that both departments work towards a common objective while enabling their independent staff and management structures to work on the modes they know best. This mobility strategy, which should include a strong public involvement process, would also have to factor in the fact that transportation financing in the state is not working right now. Revenue sources are declining while maintenance, operations, and new project costs continue to rise. The entirety of transportation financing needs to be reexamined in order for the state’s balanced mobility system to be sufficiently maintained and upgraded. Innovative revenue raising strategies such as variable time of day electronic tolling on the state’s most congested highways should be on the table in the context of this restructuring. Coupled with a clear set of overall mobility goals for the state, modernized financing will ensure that these two departments do not ceaselessly compete for their slices of a constantly diminishing pie. Finally, every effort must be made to ensure that these two departments work together closely on the increasing number of projects that involve the inter-modal connections between the state’s public transit and highway systems. Specifically, projects like the New Britain to Hartford busway which runs in part on the Interstate 84 will require intricate cooperation between these two new departments. Similarly, every commuter who drives to a parking lot along the New Haven line knows that the state’s road and transit resources are interrelated. Connecticut’s residents deserve every option in their daily commute and travels. We laud the Governor’s willingness to take fresh look at how mobility is managed in the state. This is the correct conversation to be having at this time and a robust, public, and open-minded dialogue is what is now needed to ensure that these new departments rectify the problems that currently plague ConnDOT. This is a once-in-a-generation restructuring; let’s all help ensure that we get it right. From the Sky, Falleth Some Paper This observation came to mind Tuesday morning as I watched the newly Superbowl-winning, Patriot-stomping, New York Giants make their way up Broadway through “The Canyon of Heroes” from the Battery up to City Hall. The implacable dark glass towers stared down at the heroes, giving nothing to them. Despite this, the falling snow of paper was thick enough around Wall Street. There were still enough old masonry buildings with windows that opened. But as the parade progressed to around Fulton Street and toward City Hall, the rain of paper all but vanished as the buildings grew more modern. It is a note of satisfaction that the newest, most contemporary Class A skyscrapers are now being built with windows that open. I am told that windows open at the Conde Nast tower at 4 Times Square and at the new New York Times building. They probably will at the new Bank of America Tower at 1 Bryant Park, which has obtained the highest certification standard from LEEDS. Perhaps their future users will have experiences similar to mine when I visited an architect friend Ronnette Riley, whose office is on the 80th floor of the Empire State Building. I raised one of the old-fashioned windows there and stuck my head out. It’s a good thing that after an early emphasis on having hermitically sealed environments, green building design is now trending toward encouraging environments that give occupants more choice and allow the outside environment to enter into the building. But, as Gail Collins of the Times opinion page tends to say, I digress. Getting back to the Giants’ parade, it was certainly a pleasure to be there. Walking up Liberty Street after leaving the Wall Street subway station, I felt my heart speed up and I actually broke into a run as I saw bits of paper falling from the sky and heard the roar of the fans. But how to get close enough to see it? The New York City Police, in its infinite wisdom, had blocked off all side streets leading to Broadway so that the closest you could get was a block away. “It’s necessary to keep access open for emergency vehicles,” a blue-capper told me when I asked why. I used my superior knowledge of the subway system to my advantage, as doubtless others did too. From Liberty Street I made my way to Fulton Street, and then ducked down into the subway and through a turnstile, luckily having a MetroCard pass so I wasn’t charged an extra $2. Inside this rabbit-warren, I knew that if I followed signs to the 4 and 5 trains I would be able to pop up on the streets right beside Broadway, unless the police had blocked those exits too. They hadn’t. Just as I had hoped, I came out of the subway next to Broadway inside a thick crowd of rabid fans, many wearing Giants gear and who jostled each other for the sheer fun of it. Many seemed to have traveled in from New Jersey or other points distance. They certainly didn’t look like your typical Wall Street workers. I felt like an imposter among them. The Superbowl on Sunday was the first football game I had watched in years, unless you count watching the football-oriented television show Friday Night Lights. Still, I had watched the big game Sunday, and broke into shouts and hugs as the Giants pulled off their last-minute victory, which included that amazing pass by a scrambling Eli Manning to a catch-it-on-top-of-your-head David Tyree. So I added my cheers and shouts to those around me as some of the Giants finally made their way by us. Some looked more like hulky conservative businessmen in their nice suits with their primly dressed wives or mothers standing next to them. Most of the players opted for dignified Queen Elizabeth style turn of the hand to the fans, rather than back and forth, windshield-wiper style waves. The crowd around me got increasingly rowdy. A cop eventually hauled away a Giants-cap-wearing guy next to me, who had kept shouting obscenities at the police officer for no apparent reason. As for me, I did not stay long, a taste being enough to satisfy my hunger to be a part of a real life tickertape parade. Among the many inconveniences of living in New York City, it is certainly a plus that one can attend a ticker-tape parade, this fan’s very first. New York City is one of the few cities in the country capable of having a real ticker tape parade, because to do so you not only need older masonry skyscrapers with windows that open but also lots and lots of people being able to assemble in one place around those skyscrapers. And for that, you need a great subway system or similar mass transit system that can bring lots and lots of people to one place, without each of them carrying a car. The suburban teams that have won the Superbowl in recent years like Tampa Bay in 2003 must hold their ceremonies in some vast parking lot. Those past heroes must feel some bit of a letdown when they see the New York Giants regally floating by amid some floating paper, some of it perhaps actually real ticker-tape from Wall Street stock quoting machines. Or are those old devises now completely vanquished?
|
|
|
February 8 February 13 February 13 February 15 February 16 February 21 February 22 February 22 February 23 February 28 March 4 March 6 March 15 April 3, 4 and 5 April 18 April 29 May 17 September 27 November 15 |
|
|
||
|
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 |
|
