Angus, who sort of complained about people living in their big sprawling one family homes.

I didn't intend to complain about big sprawling one family homes, and I'm disappointed that you immediately took the most negative interpretation of my comment possible. Let me clarify:

I have nothing against one-family houses, whether big and sprawling or small and attached. I was making a point that the sprawl of one-family houses is expensive and ultimately unsustainable. And when I say "sprawl," I mean row after row of uninterrupted single-family dwellings.

What I would like to see us move towards is not all people living in multiple dwellings, but a more variegated model. Here in Woodside, we have areas near stations that are mostly apartment buildings, then areas further away that are attached one/two/three-family houses, then areas further that are detached single-family houses.

The concentration of apartment buildings near transit stations allows for walkable communities. I've often boasted about my neighborhood, where there's a supermarket right around the corner, and on the same short block are a hardware store, pub, newsstand, pizza parlor, podiatrist (a nice short walk), health food store/florist, hair salon and laundromat. Across the street are an excellent French bakery (that happens to be a customer of mine), a Japanese restaurant, a newsstand and another laundromat. I could go on like this, but you get the picture. I do have to mention the wonderful Malay takeout, though, and my talented hairdresser Fernando.

This is all possible because of the subway station and the apartment buildings. There are plenty of single-family homes nearby - your colleague Eric Gioia lives in one - and that gives the neighborhood a nice balance: populous but not too crowded. The people who live in single-family homes benefit from the density (sorry, did I scare you?) by being able to walk to all these wonderful businesses. Many of them own cars, but they don't use them very often, because they've got everything they need right around the corner.

You can see how this is a much more sustainable model, right? Instead of having to build enough roads and parking for everyone in the neighborhood to drive everywhere they go, we only need enough facilities for a few. If we could get people from outside to stop driving through on their way to the bridge, we'd be all set.

So I do favor increased density in certain places, but this does not have to come from population growth. I agree with you that the projected additional million may be better off living somewhere else. As people stop being able to afford to live in detached houses with big cars and move to apartments, we can tear down some of the houses - but only the newer, crappier ones, mind you - for the green and the jobs.

Two points: Since permit parking will never happen under these rules on BOTH sides of a street on the stame day, all it will do is cut down on park n riders, but will not open up any parking spots. It will merely heighten the competition for the non permit spots....which will be sucked up by park n riders early in the day anyway.

Second, all 3 major American cities that have parking permits are either charging fees for same or planning on it pBoston, the latter, and Chicago and SF the former].

If we follow suit, welcome to the newest tax on NY'ers....another regressive tax to be charged to anyone who wnts to park their car in front of their home.

If we don't, the cost of the program will be absorbved as yet another cost of guess what, congestion pricing. Further diminshing government's return for transit.

When are we goingto stop weaviong this tangled web and look to a broad based tax to support transit, one that won't cost 50%of what is collected for collection?

And finally, not sure if it was Angus or Doc, probably Angus, who sort of complained about people living in their big sprawling one family homes. Gosh. First let me say that my sprawling one family home is fully attcdhed on both sides. What occurs to me is that perhaps instead of planning for an increase of a million people by the year 2030 in NYC, we ought to consider NOT trying to squeeze another million people in our unexppanding confines. Maybe we should just suggest that planning for that growth is NOT good for our metropolitan area and that other areas ought to prepare for this growth. Save a little space for green. Save a little spance for jobs. Save a little space for history.
How bout that?

But to suggest that all people ought to live in multiple dwellings---which is the only inference that I can see---is just not the way I see the world. Sorry.

Lew from Brooklyn

Angus, there is thinking outside the box and then thinking YOUR way. I do not see a future [until we have an earth changing scientific technological breakthrough] in which significant portions of our population do not drive by car. Nor can our mass transit system POSSIBLY absorb all car drivers right now or for the forseeabloe future. these diffeerent methodologies will have to co-exist.

Of course I'd like it if you thought my way, but when I say "think outside the box," I just mean to consider things from my point of view. Not to accept the conclusions I draw from them, but just to consider, and not dismiss my ideas out of hand.

As for "a future where significant portions of our population do not drive by car," I'm assuming you mean where the people who drive by car do not make up a significant portion of the population. These are people who have chosen to live in areas without rapid transit and whose representatives have not fought for rapid transit, or who have good transit but choose to drive anyway. This driving, and the sprawling single-family homes, put a tremendous strain on our resources. Why should we continue to spend valuable tax money making sure they can get everywhere conveniently, instead of giving them transit options?

I've shown you how our transit system could absorb all the car drivers that currently come to Midtown and more. The fact of the matter is that people in cars take up way more space than they need to, or deserve to in a city. You did not respond to that comment.

As to some of you not caring if I come to your nabe or not, Isuppose you haven't opened a local retail business. If it costs a local business 5% of his or her volume, that could kill a business. And then btw, if it does it to several, it could turn your local merchant's strip into a declining ghost town.

Don't make assumptions. I not only have a local business, but I'm a member of the Sunnyside Chamber of Commerce (which supports congestion pricing). I wouldn't be supporting this if I thought it would put my neighbors out of business; quite the contrary, in fact. The reality is that if we'd lose any business due to car traffic, we'd more than make up for it by increased foot traffic. The noisy, dangerous car traffic on our neighborhood streets is bad for business. If you come here I can show you several strips that have high turnover largely because of this car traffic.

(Lawyers might find that notion quaint.) Instead of playing statute interpreter on the internet, I'm asking if there is any precedent for this particular derailment from those whose solemn duty it is to interpret the law. Signs point to no.

"But if a full EIS process pushes the implementation timeline past Bloomberg then the opponents may "prevail" no matter what the EIS ultimately concludes. But you knew that."

I do know about that cynical ploy of congestion pricing opponents. (As you've said, I love to imagine them all.) And everyone knows about the funds riding on a timely implementation, which is a problem for the ploy itself. Without a sad precedent for waylaying pollution reduction measures with environmental review, I do not anticipate an injunction that would hand the millions of federal dollars to some other city. If c.p. becomes law, these newly minted SEQRA lovers will have a chance to tell it to the judge. (And yet, the purpose of spreading these doubts now is to prevent it from getting that far. Cynical ploys within cynical ploys!)

And "success" can be defined in many ways. A full EIS process spread out over many years may ultimately conclude that there really aren't any significant adverse environmental impacts to CP. But if a full EIS process pushes the implementation timeline past Bloomberg then the opponents may "prevail" no matter what the EIS ultimately concludes. But you knew that.

OK.

Angus, there is thinking outside the box and then thinking YOUR way. I do not see a future [until we have an earth changing scientific technological breakthrough] in which significant portions of our population do not drive by car. Nor can our mass transit system POSSIBLY absorb all car drivers right now or for the forseeabloe future. these diffeerent methodologies will have to co-exist.

the absence of an EIS will surely not tell us who is right about parking permits. Maybe I am wrong about which nabes will be overwhelmed. Maybe not. An EIS MIGHT give us a fighting shot at knowing. spud is dead on, Doc, about the EIS issue. And I raised it over 8 months ago on a BCAT program that Erik moderated. Sorry Spud, I have been enganging in a fair and open dialogue here, so holding my caards closer to vest is not what this is about for me. Ihope you can appreciate that.

As to some of you not caring if I come to your nabe or not, Isuppose you haven't opened a local retail business. If it costs a local business 5% of his or her volume, that could kill a business. And then btw, if it does it to several, it could turn your local merchant's strip into a declining ghost town.

Hydrogen fuel cells. Better rules for traffic. Stricter enforcement. Broad based regional tax to support mass transit. Improvements that will cause people who CAN'T take mass transit now to be able to do so.

That's outside the box for me. CP is not the holy grail.

We can agree on most of the goals. We have a radical departure it seems when it comes to the methodology.

Lew from Brooklyn

http://www.dec.ny.gov/public/357.html

I think it's pretty obvious Doc. Here's pretty much all anyone needs to know:

"In New York State, most projects or activities proposed by a state agency or unit of local government, and all discretionary approvals (permits) from a NYS agency or unit of local government, require an environmental impact assessment as prescribed by 6 NYCRR Part 617 State Environmental Quality Review (SEQR). [Statutory authority: Environmental Conservation Law Sections 3-0301(1)(b), 3-0301(2)(m) and 8-0113].

SEQR requires the sponsoring or approving governmental body to identify and mitigate the significant environmental impacts of the activity it is proposing or permitting."

Read the second graph. If there are "significant environmental impacts" you're going to need an EIS. And nobody can argue with a straight face that CP has no significant environmental impacts since one of the stated goals of the program is to impact the environment significantly. And you can't just say that all the effects will be positive ones, because you just don't know that. Nobody does. Even if the overall effect is to reduce pollution, if you're going to radically alter the region's transportation plan then somebody may suffer, and that's what SEQRA is there to identify.

Regarding historical perspective, you can look that up yourself. The DEC says this about it:

"If an agency makes an improper decision or allows a project that is subject to SEQR to start, and fails to undertake a proper review, citizens or groups who can demonstrate that they may be harmed by this failure may take legal action against the agency under Article 78 of the New York State Civil Practice Law and Rules. Project approvals may be rescinded by a court and a new review required under SEQR. New York State's court system has consistently ruled in favor of strong compliance with the provisions of SEQR (see also case law to be posted later)."

I guess you can click back ten or twelve years from now when DEC finally updates the site with case law. Or you can dream on that CP opponents couldn't wield SEQRA like an iron hammer. I think the more appropriate course of action would be to just submit the whole thing voluntarity for review. Of course, that would push the whole project to the next administration, which may not be so welcoming to the idea, but them's the breaks.

I will add this: the "park-and-ride" effect of CP, it seems to me, would be minimal. The vast majority of drivers are not commuting by car to save money, so I don't see them circling for parking for 30 minutes to save a whopping $4 ($8 congestion fee less $4 round-trip subway fare). The savings is even less when you consider that the average car has more than one person in it (I think it's 1.4). Yet I talked to a Brooklyn assemblyman last week who's still convinced that his district would become a park-and-ride. I think most opponents really believe this, but also that they don't want to examine the evidence, lest they'd be convinced otherwise. None of them have crunched the numbers or done any behavioral analysis of auto commuters.

P.S. If Lew Fidler is running for citywide office, he sure has an odd fundraising strategy (i.e., not to raise any funds).

And it seems pretty obvious, if she has to suggest mitigation strategies to begin with, that there is in fact an impact to mitigate.

According to what she says, that is perfectly reasonable. If "the neg dec can also cite proposed mitigation," then it's not as black-and-white as you claim, and SEQRA allows a "neg dec" that includes mitigation. I don't really know anything about this; I'm just going on what people are saying here.

Will I be able to drive to WillyB and visit the local art store?

The L train goes right there.

This part of the plan strikes me as themost divisive thing we can do in our City. Why not just GATE certain neighborhoods off?

Your outrage over this says it all, Lew. You've asked us to think outside the box, and we have. We've asked you to simply imagine a scenario where you and your constituents go places without bringing two tons of deadly steel with you, and you've shown you are completely incapable of this simple mental challenge.

I'd be perfectly happy to "GATE" everything off. Let's do it, and do it now, because these "GATES" you scream about aren't keeping anybody out. People can come and go as they want; they just have to take the subway or bus.

You and your constituents are welcome to come to my neighborhood anytime you want, but I'd appreciate it if you leave your cars behind. I know your district is so car-dependent that it feels like a hardship to take transit, but even in your grand plans there are no proposals to bring rapid transit to your district.

If you're not even going to try to change things to make it easier to leave your cars behind, why shouldn't we put up gates to keep the cars out? After all, they still wouldn't keep you out; you'll always be just as welcome as you have always been.

You're clearly a smart guy. I have no idea why you refuse to grasp this simple concept.

I am not seeking City wide office. I am sure this is a releif to Streetsbloggers. And I am also sure given the overwhelming sentiment on the issue in my district that the next CM from my district will also oppose CP.

But as to accepting Ms Kronheim's reasoning, you fail to say why. And it seems pretty obvious, if she has to suggest mitigation strategies to begin with, that there is in fact an impact to mitigate.

And as to why there need not be an EIS on the various mitigation stragies such as the "you can't park in my neighborhood unless you live here and pay the next new tax on Ny'ers residential parking plan", I am without a clue. This part of the plan strikes me as themost divisive thing we can do in our City. Why not just GATE certain neighborhoods off? Who will get this privilege and who will not? Will it be the higher income tony nabes or will we see it filter down to their minority neighbors. And if so, what about the next community in? Or how aobut the communites farther out like Wasshington Hts, proud owner of the soon to become GW Bridge park and ride?

and what of the effect on loical businesses? Will I be able to drive to WillyB and visit the local art store?

You can argue with me as to the extent that this will all have an impact, but you can't argue with a straight face that it will have NO impact. Hence a negative declaration is worse than a legal fiction, it is a lie.

And that Sir Nick, guts SEQRA.

And I suspect will in fact generate litigation in the event that thsi plan actually passes.

IF it comes to that.

Lew from Brookyln

As to your view of the merits of the case Angus pretty much said it all with the "building parking to get people to stop driving". That has been the strategy in the 46th Council district and the traffic builds every day. Maybe the 46th Councilman will look for city wide office when his term expires. I'm thinking that whoever replaces him will have the same position with regard to congestion pricing. The auto-centricity of that turf is predetermined.

As to whether downtown Brooklyn will be a park and ride. Right now we are an on-ramp, I'd be grateful to be down graded to park and ride.