You can sign it at:
http://www.savethem8.org

I live very close to you. Regarding the F, it is pretty far down the food chain on most crowded lines, lower 1/4 I think, look it up if you like, I think around 70% loaded. The G sucks but then again…its not the Franklin St. Shuttle. I can agree that our neighborhood is about right. Then why down-zone it? The neighbors have fought a jihad against a six story building right above a subway stop on a previously rat-infested lot, perhaps yours. That building is stopped right now thanks to the down-zoning effort. Maybe you don’t like it to be called NIMBY but NIMBY describes it pretty well. The down-zoning in that neighborhood though is only a small part of the overall problem as virtually every neighborhood, driven by the mad scientists who go to Community Board meetings (plenty of time on their hands), in the outer boroughs want fewer people in their neighborhoods as well. Fragmented decision making on land use will mean the end of all industry and much lower densities city wide and actually make land use and transportation planning in the city much like the mess it is in the burbs.

Residential density is the most important indicator of transit efficiency. Young politicians can sometimes actually get elected pointing fingers at others inefficiencies (in your case TWU represented workers) while encouraging other inefficiencies. Sure you want more regional planning but you also want your neighborhood to have lower residential densities than currently permitted. Go figure.

Density is our chief resource. Down-zoning clearly leads to lower land values, lower tax receipts per square foot, lower ridership and higher rents per square foot, no thanks. And, threatening Brooklyn with becoming Manhattan (horror of horrors) is really nonsense, have you been to Manhattan?

I’ve had the good fortune to visit Paris on three occasions, and in 2000 stayed at a friend’s flat in the 16th arrondissement (sp?). I loved the neighborhood structure there as well as the architecture and it was a short walk to the RR. IIRC all the buildings were 6 stories.

Your point about fragmentation is a good one; in NJ where I was raised and studied, there are 566 municipalities, each with it’s own policies. It is a mess that has made regional planning highly difficult.

I think we need more regional planning, including a compact re-established among NY,NJ and CT for transportation infrastructure. The political boundaries don’t reflect geographic/demographic reality, and we really could be coordinating better.

The next transcendental step in regional planning policy will have to encourage suburban consolidation of services, de-emphasizing of property taxes for funding essential services (e.g. schools), and smart growth – the sticks – along with state and federal incentives to do so (the carrots).

Gary – In regards to urban density, it’s also worth pointing out that the built form to density relationship allows a lot of flexibility. Paris proper is about as dense as Manhattan even though buildings are almost never taller than 7 stories. Density does not have to equate to high-rises.

There is a certain density required to make transit viable, but not every urban, walkable neighborhood needs to be built to Manhattan scale, or even downtown Brooklyn scale.

I believe it’s good to have a mix of densities that support public transit and local businesses and thus, walkable communities. To say that it is an either/or situation distorts reality.

I live in Carroll Gardens, which for me is the “just right” neighborhood in Goldilocks terms. Not too big, not too small. We are served by the F and the G, as well as buses. Good luck taking the bus up Smith Street though, it is a heavily trafficked stop-and-go ride. For most people it is the F line, which is currently crowded. We have considerable development going on along the length of this line, from Boerum Hill through Windsor Terrace/Sunset Park and plans for tremendous development in Coney Island.

Frankly I think the “NIMBY” calling is silly. Not everyone wants to live in Manhattan. If we were talking about some public utility, such as a new transit line in the area, or a power plant, or some other public use, that local people oppose for selfish reason (i.e. an actual “not in my back yard” situation) I could see your point. But we’re not. We’re talking about housing density. And beyond the level necessary to support transit use, I think it’s better to have a variety in our neighborhood options.

We have a difference of opinion. My opinion is not uninformed; I studied land use and housing policy in law school. I spent a considerable amount of time working on affordable housing policy and smart growth advocacy through the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic. I studied urban economics and public economics as an undergrad. And I believe a range of densities and neighborhood variety create a more vibrant city. I’m happy (and proud) to volunteer my time on neighborhood preservation AND transit advocacy. The two are not mutually exclusive concepts.

Cheers.

Gary

More viable is an exchange of land use reform in the suburbs for property tax relief. The suburbs that commit to transit oriented development and other service consolidations could receive state funds relieving their property taxes. Likewise city neighborhoods would drop their ill considered down-zoning strategies and encourage transit oriented development densities in exchange for other state commitments and the MTA could be guaranteed markets in both the burbs and outer boroughs that can be served efficiently.

For that sort of strategy though, hungry young political wannabes would have to get off of their down-zoning NIMBY bandwagon and admit how anti-transit down-zoning really is. Its easy to point at someone else in the TWU (not TWA) or the suburbs and ask them to pay, but if you are looking for cheap votes by pandering to the NIMBY anti-developers you owe someone an explanation as to how that is going to effect mortgage recording taxes and transit operational efficiency.

But I guess the point of the way it’s described is that this way you close all those M/R/W stations (City Hall, Wall, Whitehall, Court, Lawrence) overnight because there are plenty of alternatives in that Lower Manhattan/Downtown Brooklyn area.

It expects a 50% decrease in real estate transfer tax revenues from the peak. NYC investment sales have been doing much better than most places. In other markets — even places such as SF, LA, Bos — they have fallen to near zero.

The MTA has variable rate debt. Interest rates could explode as the federal deficit does. (In the early 1990s I got a two-year Treasury note for 9.5%. The federal deficit is going much higher than it was then).

Required pension contributions are going to soar as a result of investment losses.

As others lose insurance, the health care industry is going to jack up charges even faster to those who still have it, mostly public employees and retirees.

If the economy goes into deflation — with falling prices but nost of us having falling wages and tax revenues going down — the 2000 pension deal nonetheless guarantees an inflation adjustment of at least 1% per year.

The state could cut operating assistance again. Would that surprise you?

The good news — lower construction costs — won’t help once the MTA capital program shuts down, after it overpaid massively in the construction boom.

NO SERVICE CUTBACKS
- Cutting service would be disastrous for a number of reasons. First, people need to be able to rely on consistent and convenient transit service in order to forgo car ownership and use. Cutting back on service increases uncertainty and keeps people reliant on personal autos. In the short term, we can expect increased auto traffic, decreased quality of life in an immediately immiserating fashion for thousands of commuters, and greater public contempt for the MTA. Long term, we would be undermining our goal of sustainable transportation.

EFFICIENCY
- The MTA does need to look inward for some belt tightening and eliminate inefficiencies. The TWA also needs to look inward and recognize that some cuts will need to be made where jobs have become redundant, obsolete or otherwise unproductive. But the rights of workers in useful and productive positions must be protected.
- Modernization of signalling and computerized fleet management to improve system efficiency.

CAPITAL FUNDING
- Now is the time for an ambitious capital program. We should absolutely NOT be looking to cut back projects, but to expand the system aggressively. NYC does not exist in a vacuum. The entire US economy is facing a crisis to rival, perhaps even surpass, the Great Depression. We need bold leadership from Washington and the new Democratic president and congressional majorities will soon be in a position to make it happen. I propose a national infrastructure stimulus plan more ambitious than the WPA of FDR’s time. Something on the order of $1.0 – 1.5 trillion over 2-3 years.
- MTA should be drawing up proposals for this stimulus funding NOW, so that we are positioned to take part in funds immediately upon passage of the bill.

FIXING THE OPERATIONAL AND LEGACY DEFICIT
- I propose a package of funding mechanisms, all DEDICATED TO FUNDING TRANSIT:
- Tolling the East and Harlem River crossings on par with existing tolled crossings. This will more accurately price the externalities of personal auto and truck travel and reduce congestion and pollution. Secondly it would raise a significant source of revenue for transit operations.
- Bring back the Commuter tax, only now to be DEDICATED to MTA funding. This tax should be progressively scaled.
- Moderate increase in fares of pay-per-ride and shorter term metro cards; no increase in monthly unlimited ride cards. Recent increase have fallen largely on regular riders and residents. Tourists and visitors are also capable of sharing some higher costs.

Lastly, I think it is very important to recognize the role Mayor Bloomberg played in our current fiscal crisis. Lack of adequate planning and responsible policy during the greatest building boom this city has seen in our lifetimes, culminating in a $1.1 billion discretionary tax rebate last year while the recession’s shadow was already creeping over us should not be forgotten. Bloomberg has gotten a total pass from the press on this so far, and he doesn’t deserve it.

Comments? Email me at info@garyreilly.org. Looking to work with others to form an alliance of transit advocates and elected officials to head off service cuts. This cannot be allowed to happen; the stakes are enormous.

Speaking as a regular transit rider, if fare hikes are needed, so be it. You want things, you have to pay for them. But the idea that I should be paying more while drivers from Marine Park and Gerritsen Beach and Sheepshead Bay continue to be able to drive to work for free over the East River bridges is what pisses me off.

Brilliant.