<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gml="http://www.opengis.net/gml"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: An English Plan in New York</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/28/an-english-plan-in-new-york/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/28/an-english-plan-in-new-york/</link>
	<description>Covering the New York City Streets Renaissance</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 23 Nov 2009 11:07:22 -0500</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Backwards</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/28/an-english-plan-in-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-30339</link>
		<dc:creator>Backwards</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:33:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/28/an-english-plan-in-new-york/#comment-30339</guid>
		<description>London clearly understands that land use/transportation are two sides of the same coin. But NYC&#039;s current, and planned, land use seems to have little to do with encouraging communities based on walking, cycling, transit and high quality public space. NYC is walling off waterfronts with immense residential towers that are poorly served by transit. Huge big box stores with vast parking fields are now accepted as normal, and tens of thousands of off-street parking spots, many mandated by backwards zoning laws, are springing-up in every borough. Not surprisingly, traffic on already clogged neighborhood streets is projected to grow and grow. 

There is no transportation policy that can save the city from being inundated by cars if land use rules encourage driving.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>London clearly understands that land use/transportation are two sides of the same coin. But NYC's current, and planned, land use seems to have little to do with encouraging communities based on walking, cycling, transit and high quality public space. NYC is walling off waterfronts with immense residential towers that are poorly served by transit. Huge big box stores with vast parking fields are now accepted as normal, and tens of thousands of off-street parking spots, many mandated by backwards zoning laws, are springing-up in every borough. Not surprisingly, traffic on already clogged neighborhood streets is projected to grow and grow. </p>
<p>There is no transportation policy that can save the city from being inundated by cars if land use rules encourage driving.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: David</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/28/an-english-plan-in-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-30323</link>
		<dc:creator>David</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/28/an-english-plan-in-new-york/#comment-30323</guid>
		<description>I agree about that 10-minutes-to-a-park goal, Micaela. That goal really makes me think that Mayor Bloomberg doesn&#039;t understand Enrique Penalosa&#039;s idea that sidewalks are &quot;cousins&quot; of parks, they are not &quot;cousins&quot; of streets. Bloomberg thinks that healthy, auto-free activity needs to be segmented off in parks -- that it can&#039;t be done in streets. 

Maybe the smart people in the LT Planning office can twist this goal by, say, pedestrianizing St. Nicholas Ave. in Harlem and then say, OK, here&#039;s a &quot;park.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree about that 10-minutes-to-a-park goal, Micaela. That goal really makes me think that Mayor Bloomberg doesn't understand Enrique Penalosa's idea that sidewalks are "cousins" of parks, they are not "cousins" of streets. Bloomberg thinks that healthy, auto-free activity needs to be segmented off in parks -- that it can't be done in streets. </p>
<p>Maybe the smart people in the LT Planning office can twist this goal by, say, pedestrianizing St. Nicholas Ave. in Harlem and then say, OK, here's a "park."</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Micaela</title>
		<link>http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/28/an-english-plan-in-new-york/comment-page-1/#comment-30321</link>
		<dc:creator>Micaela</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:18:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.streetsblog.org/2007/03/28/an-english-plan-in-new-york/#comment-30321</guid>
		<description>so many streets in NYC are so ripe for this.  many streets are what traffic engineers call &quot;over capacity&quot;, that is there are too many lanes for too little traffic. broadway below times square is like this; a whole lane could be reclaimed to put in place a double wide sidewalk that would operate as a ribbon plaza from times square to herald square. 

as for the 2030 goal of putting a park within a 10 minute walk of every new yorker: the Mayor needs to rethink this goal.  what good is walking 10 min to a park when there are cars parking in it, nightmare traffic volumes circling it or even driving through it?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>so many streets in NYC are so ripe for this.  many streets are what traffic engineers call "over capacity", that is there are too many lanes for too little traffic. broadway below times square is like this; a whole lane could be reclaimed to put in place a double wide sidewalk that would operate as a ribbon plaza from times square to herald square. </p>
<p>as for the 2030 goal of putting a park within a 10 minute walk of every new yorker: the Mayor needs to rethink this goal.  what good is walking 10 min to a park when there are cars parking in it, nightmare traffic volumes circling it or even driving through it?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
