Seeking a quick resolution to the MTA funding crisis, Governor Paterson lobbied over the weekend to get a Band-aid fix through the State Senate. The problem is, Paterson's plan provides no resolution at all. Fundamental details of the proposal are still sketchy, even as the governor pushes for a vote as soon as today, but there's no doubt that the numbers don't add up to a healthy transit system. Consider:

• The revenue streams in Paterson's plan keep shrinking while the MTA's operating deficit keeps growing, meaning that further fare hikes and service cuts will be necessary in a matter of months.
  
• All indications are that the latest proposal would direct zero dollars to the MTA capital plan, the five-year package of maintenance and expansion projects that is still completely unfunded.
  

By pushing for a stopgap measure on the Senate Democrats' terms, Paterson has effectively abandoned the framework laid out by the Ravitch Commission. His proposal does not share the funding burden equitably -- car commuters pay nothing to keep congestion-busting trains and buses running. Nor does it address long-term funding needs, risking system-wide decline by leaving even routine maintenance unpaid for.

Observers are in the dark about the most basic aspects of the governor's proposal, like how much it would raise in total. Does the plan still fund upstate roads and bridges with a surcharge on New York City cab fares? Will service cuts still be necessary even if this plan passes? It's hard to tell when all the discussions take place behind closed doors.

Advocates aren't pleased. The Empire State Transportation Alliance -- a coalition representing business, labor, and environmental groups -- released a statement yesterday stressing the importance of funding the MTA capital plan now, not just passing a temporary fix. 

"In light of what has transpired as well as what has failed to happen to date, we have little confidence that the Governor and Legislature will be able to come together to address the urgent capital needs of the MTA once such a band-aid is applied," said ESTA co-chair Kevin Corbett in a statement.

Delaying action on the capital plan will also affect transit service down the line, because debt payments come out of the MTA's operating budget. "The two are very closely related," RPA's Neysa Pranger told Streetsblog. "A good part of the reason they're in the operating deficit now is that they had to borrow to pay for the capital plan. By 2012, debt service will eat up 20 percent of the MTA's operating budget. If you don't do the capital piece now, you run the risk of driving the system into the ground, or the MTA continues to borrow a lot of money which puts additional pressure on fares and service. It's all part of the same picture."

Politically, passing a sound plan will only get tougher from here on out, as the 2010 elections draw closer. "The MTA will be very constrained by the election cycle," said Pranger, noting that the agency will soon have another budget shortfall on its hands, but the money to cover it probably won't come from fare hikes. "It's happened before, Pataki would give the MTA these one-shots -- payments out of the general fund. The legislature has got to be wary of the fuzzy math right now, and demand some answers about where the money's going, before voting on anything."

At a morning workshop about the challenges to funding transit during an economic downturn, Ravitch spoke about the current impasse in Albany that's putting New York's transit system at risk:

The difficulty, politically, in my judgment, is very obvious. There are very few short-term dividends, for people who run for office, in long-term investments. They don’t get the benefit out of it. It doesn’t have the same electricity to it as keeping the fare low. The benefits may not be realized until future generations. That is a political problem.

People are going to have to bite the bullet, in terms of usage charges and various taxes that will generate the revenue streams we need in order to build.

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, who served in the state legislature when the MTA was emerging from the financial catastrophe of the 1970s, added this perspective:

The 1970s crisis allowed us in the 80s to put new revenue streams in place and implement the original MTA capital plan. We had the ability to do these things because people remembered the bad times. But then you start to get complacent.

The politics in the legislature is more difficult now than it used to be. The Senate has switched parties; Republicans would like it to go back the other way. The Republicans won’t vote for anything and the Democrats can't unite. The only way around that, frankly, is for a few Republicans to step up to the plate. How do you do that? The leadership could step up and do a deal. It takes delicate political negotiating behind the scenes, and whether the public-spiritedness is there, I’m not at all sure.

During the Q&A, federal funding for transit service came up. Veronica Vanterpool of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign asked the panel about the budget crisis now facing transit agencies across the country. The feds used to fund transit service, she noted, but they don't anymore, and the stimulus bill failed to include operating assistance for transit. She asked why the federal policy changed in the first place, and what are the impediments to operating assistance now.

Nadler explained:

The Republicans who took over Congress in the 90s were ideologically opposed to operating assistance; they killed it. We’re going to try to do it again. (The House passed a bill last year that would have granted some operating assistance, but it did not clear the Senate.) There is a fixed determination in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to restore operating assistance at this point.

New York City DOT chief Janette Sadik-Khan, who also heads the National Association of City Transportation Officials, said that words matter when pushing policy:

Language is important. When we talk about operating assistance, you would think we were talking about giving crack to cities. If we start to talk about energy independence grants, it starts to resonate a little better on the Hill.

Here's another highlight from Sadik-Khan, which she delivered during a plenary session about how federal policy needs to adapt and improve:

For 50 years we have had no national vision for transportation. We are working under an outdated mission, with outdated institutions. Our competitor nations are not saddled with that. We are increasingly a metropolitan nation, but our institutions do not reflect that. NYCDOT is larger than two-thirds of the state DOTs, and yet we do not have direct access to federal transportation funds. I am hobbled by the fact that we can't access the funds that we need.

Barring a viable MTA rescue plan, the 140,000 transit riders in Ruben Diaz. Sr.'s district will lose the Bx4 and the Bx14

Not that the Fare Hike Four concern themselves with facts and data, but in Ruben Diaz, Sr.'s Bronx district, maps show the planned elimination of bus lines Bx4 and Bx14, as well as altered or reduced service on seven additional routes. Not to mention increased wait times on the 4, 5, and 6 subway lines. Constituents of Hiram Monserrate, Pedro Espada, Jr., and Carl Kruger all face cutbacks and service eliminations as well.

With GOP senators indicating a willingness to negotiate, there may yet be an outside chance to salvage a workable, long-term MTA rescue plan. There's still time to remind your legislators what you, and the city, stand to lose without it.

Whatever your stance on the Ravitch Commission's MTA rescue plan, the broad inequities of allowing New York transit service to deteriorate while fares rise 23 percent are stunning. The doomsday budget passed earlier this week would affect vastly more New Yorkers than bridge tolls or congestion pricing, burdening those who can least afford the added delay and expense.

The Regional Plan Association and the Tri-State Transportation Campaign came out with a strong one-two punch yesterday that frames this disparity in no uncertain terms, countering the shopworn drivel we've been hearing in defense of the "driving public."

These fact sheets from the RPA chart the doomsday service cuts by borough. The maps are helpful and alarming -- visual confirmation that pretty much everyone who rides the train can expect longer waits and more crowded conditions. Bus riders from eastern Queens to lower Manhattan will see routes eliminated and less frequent service. I see that in my neighborhood, Windsor Terrace, the B75 is slated for extinction, shunting more riders onto the F train.

New Yorkers who would bear the brunt of these cuts, of course, outnumber those who would be asked to pay bridge tolls under the Ravitch plan. The gap is cavernous, as Tri-State shows in these fact sheets, updating its earlier analysis of congestion pricing impacts. In the Bronx, where pols balked at the Ravitch plan's modest Harlem River bridge tolls, car-free households outnumber car owners by greater than 3 to 2. The margin is much larger when straphanging commuters are compared to solo drivers -- 5 to 1. Even in Westchester, three times as many people commute to Manhattan by transit as by driving alone.

As ever, the populist "defense" of the driving public is a bunch of hokum that no reporter should let go unchallenged. Households without a car earn, on average, less than half what their car-owning counterparts make. Streetsbloggers know this already. What about everyone who gets their transportation news from the morning paper and the local network desk anchors?

Following yesterday's Build for America launch and last night's presidential debate, the Regional Plan Association released a major report today recommending an array of public transportation improvements for New York City and northern New Jersey, adding its name to the ever-growing list of orgs and officials calling for federal investment to spur and sustain economic growth in the coming decades.

Over a dense 53 pages, "Tomorrow’s Transit: New Mobility for the Region’s Urban Core" [PDF] lays out dozens of projects, large and small, that would improve transit access and performance, with a focus on underserved and, in many cases, high poverty areas. The report, as breathtaking in scope as the $29 billion five-year capital plan unveiled by MTA head Lee Sander last March, also proposes augmentations to long-planned mega-projects like the Second Avenue Subway, and stresses links between modes to maximize coverage and efficiency.

Proposals are categorized by cost and level of need, as determined by existing transit service, income levels, and rates of auto ownership.

Follow the jump for highlights.

• Bronx: Extend the Second Avenue Subway to the Third Avenue corridor and Co-op City; provide added service on Metro-North at six Bronx station stops on the Harlem and Hudson River lines; offer peak express service on the Dyre Avenue line; and establish ferry service from Soundview.
  
• Brooklyn: Convert the Atlantic Branch of the LIRR to subway service and connect it to the Second Avenue Subway; build a Utica Avenue branch off the converted Atlantic Branch of the LIRR; extend the Nostrand Avenue 2 and 5 lines to Kings Highway; extend the Canarsie L line to Spring Creek Towers/Starrett City; and establish high speed ferry service from Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and Bay Ridge.
  
• Manhattan: Implement no-fare rides on the 34th Street, 42nd Street and 50th Street cross-town bus routes; extend the Second Avenue Subway west along 125th Street; construct a station entrance on the east end of the First Avenue L station; and establish a midtown Bus Rapid Transit or light rail route loop.
  
• Queens: Convert the LIRR Atlantic Branch to subway service; connect Queensboro Plaza and Queens Plaza and the E, F, G and V at Court Square; and begin Bus Rapid Transit on Queens Boulevard.
• Staten Island: Proceed with Hylan Boulevard Bus Rapid Transit; establish ferry service from southern Staten Island; and establish a bus lane along the full length of the Staten Island Expressway.
• New Jersey (Hudson County and Newark): Extend currently planned Bus Rapid Transit routes in Newark to include cross-town and Sumner/Mt. Prospect Avenue corridors; construct a new Hudson Bergen Light Rail Station at Grand Street and 17th Street in Hoboken; and extend the Hudson Bergen Light Rail to Route 440.
  

In addition, the RPA recommends a number of complementary measures, including parking and land use reforms, transit-oriented development, and congestion pricing.

"Tomorrow's Transit" was composed over the course of a year in conjunction with area transportation experts, NJ TRANSIT, the MTA and New York City DOT.

What would you do if you went to the doctor, and before speaking to you, taking your vital signs, or learning about your condition, she prescribed a powerful drug and kicked you out the door?

New York City's land-use doctor is the City Planning Commission, and the drug it doles out is the Zoning Resolution, a 1960s-era set of laws that is gradually transforming swaths of the city into more suburban, car oriented environments.

City zoning requires substantial parking at all new residential buildings. In many neighborhoods that means an astoundingly higher level of parking. For instance, the Zoning Resolution requires new residential buildings in walkable Park Slope to have eight times more off-street parking than the existing housing stock. So what does the planning commission base its powerful prescription on? Not much, according to Suburbanizing the City [PDF], a study just released by Transportation Alternatives, the Regional Plan Association and a host of other prominent transportation and planning groups. The study projects a billion miles of new driving by 2030 due to the planning commission's off-street parking requirements. Yet, in the recommendations accompanying the report, the groups write:

It appears that City planners do not know how much off-street parking exists, how much parking is planned and permitted, or how existing or planned new parking contributes to traffic, air pollution and carbon emissions.

As a first step toward diagnosing the extent of the parking problem, the groups ask the mayor to "fully assess the amount of existing and planned off-street parking" and take the following actions to accomplish that:

• Inventory existing and planned off-street parking. The City should create a complete, public, inventory of existing, permitted and planned off-street parking. Using this information, the City should fully assess the relationship between residential, retail and commercial parking requirements, driving and travel choice. This information will provide a baseline to assess the impact of additional parking.
• Measure how much driving is created by new off-street parking. City agencies do not know the impact of new parking. Neither the Department of City Planning nor the Department of Transportation have computer models, surveys, sampling or studies that reveal the local or cumulative impact of parking requirements.
• Determine parking demand based on the assumption that off-street parking has a cost. Currently, the Department of City Planning and environmental documents project demand for parking based on the assumption that it is free. This results in very high demand assumptions. The City should estimate demand for off-street parking based on appropriate price levels.
• Measure the effect of increases in parking growth on neighborhood and citywide traffic congestion. Through permits and as of right building, the City is increasing the city’s off-street parking supply, while the capacity of the street network remains static. New traffic as a result of new cars on the road (facilitated by the availability of parking) must be closely analyzed.

Given the mayor's sustainability push and the highly-touted PlaNYC, it seems logical that the City Planning Commission would take a careful look at Robert Moses-era, driving-inducing parking requirements. But old habits die hard. Ask the doctors. For hundreds of years they tried to cure the common cold by bleeding the patient. For some, the cold went away; many others died.

Photo: Ben Fried

Planning advocates recommended doing away with parking requirements and "unbundling" the cost of parking from the price of housing. "There's no reason for parking to be paid for by people who don't own cars," said Tri-State Transportation Campaign director Kate Slevin, adding that the construction of parking should be "a choice rather than a necessity."

Minimum parking requirements are especially ill-suited to affordable housing developments, said Elena Conte of the Pratt Center for Community Development (pictured at the mic). "[A parking minimum] really makes no sense at all for communities where less than 20 percent of households own cars, because it drives up the cost of housing and takes up valuable space that otherwise could be used to create additional units or public space."

Representatives of Environmental Defense and the New York League of Conservation Voters rounded out the proceedings, calling on the city and state to take stock and head off the traffic-congested future that excessive off-street parking threatens to bring about. "We're building the infrastructure to encourage more people to drive with very little understanding of the environmental impacts," said Josh Nachowitz of NYLCV.

T.A.'s Paul Steely White tied the issue to preserving New York's streets for people on foot, noting that more off-street parking means less sidewalk integrity: "Curb cuts enable cars to drive across the sidewalk and block the sidewalk; it erodes the pedestrian environment."

Major planning groups, including the American Planning Association, the Regional Plan Association, and the Municipal Art Society, have also signed on to the report and urged Mayor Bloomberg to revise the city's ad-hoc policies governing off-street parking. According to one organizer behind the effort, this marks the first time all three organizations have lined up behind the same transportation reform.

Streetsblog will have more soon on the recommendations being advanced by this coalition.

"We'll be going forward with pedestrian projects on Broadway," she said, "putting the square back in Madison Square and Union Square West." Near-term plans also include building up the bike network, reclaiming surface pavement for public space, and making streets safer for seniors, she said.

Taking the long view, Sadik-Khan mentioned that DOT will unveil its new strategic plan at the Municipal Art Society on April 28th. The document will set the goal of cutting traffic fatalities in half compared to 2007 levels, she said, in addition to making a commitment to more BRT, among other policies. She later noted that Federal Transit Administrator James Simpson has encouraged DOT to apply for federal funding for BRT projects.

While the commissioner professed disappointment at the defeat of pricing, she remained optimistic that the extensive public debate about mitigating traffic and funding transit would yield a payoff down the road. "We shouldn’t be in the business right now of eulogizing congestion pricing," she said. "The process itself has been extremely useful in many other ways. It’s been a galvanizing force. The words congestion pricing could only be whispered in City Hall a year ago."

More thoughts from the commissioner after the jump.

"After all the meetings, I think the terrain has fundamentally changed. The mood is that Albany has to fund the whole MTA capital plan. Even opponents acknowledge that. And we’ve got people thinking about what the city would be like with less traffic.

"The public and the civic community have a deeper appreciation for the connection between congestion and transit. We now know that license plate rationing is not an effective solution. We know that modifying taxi policies isn't sufficient. And we can safely say that a millionaire’s tax will not have a meaningful effect on VMT.

"All the information [from the congestion pricing approval process] doesn’t have to sit on a shelf. It can be used to streamline an EIS going forward. We are better positioned to pursue pricing and non-pricing strategies that we need. I hope we continue the partnerships that we’ve formed. I think the process we’ve just been through is a watershed for New York. We’ve shifted the paradigm and started a new conversation. We’re disappointed, but we’ve laid a foundation for future action for months and years to come.

"We need more bus riding. We now have the most bus passengers, and the slowest bus speeds in the country. Why? It has to do with congestion. Even without congestion pricing, we’re still committed to reducing congestion on the streets of New York."

Together at last: Pre-congestion pricing short-term transit enhancements and MTA capital projects in one map! The graphic comes courtesy of the Regional Plan Association, which made the map for an insert touting pricing [PDF] placed in the Legislative Gazette this Monday by Environmental Defense, TWU Local 100, and the Straphangers Campaign. This is what's at stake in Monday's City Council vote.

MTA chief Elliott "Lee" Sander delivered the first-ever "State of the MTA" address this morning, using the agency's 40th anniversary to urge the enactment of the full $29.5 billion, five-year capital plan unveiled last week. Speaking before a packed house at Cooper Union's Great Hall, Sander argued that the New York metro region needs every tier in the plan to serve a growing population, keep up with global competition, and address the challenge of climate change.

Sander linked the plan to the historical trajectory begun in the early 1980s, when the MTA rolled out successive five-year capital plans, reviving a decrepit system with a $70 billion overhaul. The capital plan now on the table, he said, would "turn the page to the next chapter in New York City's transit history" and create "a world-class, seamless transportation network."

Sander also reinforced the importance of congestion pricing to the MTA's plans, and placed major capital projects within the context of the city's sustainability initiatives. "Inherent in the capital plan and in congestion pricing is the belief that sustainability is critical to the region's future," he said. "Global warming and sea level rise are challenges no enlightened society can afford to ignore."

The presentation depicted three categories of improvements: 1) short-term service enhancements that can be implemented before congestion pricing, 2) major projects in the 2008-13 capital plan, and, looking ahead as far as 2048, 3) long-term system extensions for the five boroughs and surrounding counties that the current proposal would make possible.

The first category will consist of new bus routes in every borough and more frequent subway service on 11 lines. In the second category, big-ticket projects like the Second Avenue Subway and East Side Access -- linking the LIRR to Grand Central -- take center stage. The third category, which Sander called a "long-term vision and action plan for the next 25-40 years," includes ideas like using the Second Avenue Subway as a trunk line for service into Brooklyn and the Bronx, and building a "circumferential" subway line connecting Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx using existing rail rights-of-way (an idea first proposed by the Regional Plan Association). A detailed summary is available in the MTA press release, and City Room has posted a great recap.

Transportation advocates were largely positive, though not without reservation, in their assessments of the speech.

"It was a smart thing for the MTA to do," said Neysa Pranger of the RPA. "Any opportunity they can take to pitch their program is a good one. It's going to need the energy and enthusiasm of the people in that room to get the capital program through Albany."

In the MTA's long-term vision, the Second Avenue Subway (yellow) will serve as a trunk line extending to routes in upper Manhattan and other boroughs (blue).

Noah Budnick of Transportation Alternatives said Sander made a compelling argument. "They explained how much investment has already gone in, and what that has done for the system. I heard a case made for why past investments have worked, and why we need to keep investing or else the system's going to go downhill."

A cautionary note came from Joan Byron of the Pratt Center for Community Development. With commodity prices rising and the region's economy on shaky ground, she said, "it all adds weight to the argument for doing things to expand the system incrementally." The Pratt Center and its partner, COMMUTE, have been advocating for more BRT in the capital plan to make sure neighborhoods underserved by transit see a greater, more immediate benefit. "East Side Access has a lot of benefits," Byron said. "But you could value-engineer money out of that and deliver miles and miles and miles of BRT."

In a Q & A following his speech, Sander was asked if the MTA planned to implement BRT lines that cross bridges, which would directly connect the outer boroughs to Manhattan. "In the five corridors that we're doing with DOT, none of those go over bridges," he said, "but I wouldn't rule it out."

Graphics courtesy of the MTA

No huge surprise, Assemblymen Andrew Hevesi and Rory Lancman both came out against congestion pricing, citing not enough evidence it would work and demanding transit improvements without explaining where the money would come from or why as state legislators they haven't allocated more money to the MTA themselves. Then they left.

Queens Borough President Helen Marshall didn't even make it, she sent her Chief of Staff to repeat the same speech from the last public hearing, also calling for lots of great transit improvements without explaining where the money would come or why Queens hasn't gotten it before now.

That was one step better than Assemblywoman Cathy Nolan who was listed as first to speak, but didn't make it to the hearing. It's too bad our elected officials, with the exception of City Councilman Leroy Comrie, couldn't have stayed or even bothered to come because they would have seen something that they claim doesn't exist in Queens… supporters of congestion pricing who live in the borough, several for their whole life.

There were still the usual opponents to congestion pricing. One woman voiced concern that the fee on trucks would raise the price of food and essentials. Another man claimed that transit improvements would never come to Queens, although isn't that really our elected officials fault? One delightful woman claimed that to reduce congestion all we had to do was rewire all the traffic lights to only allow pedestrians to cross when all traffic was stopped. She then blamed the new meters placed near the Bronx subway stop where she used to ride and park before their presence for forcing her to drive into the city, when after all her tax dollars were paying for the streets. I guess my tax dollars go to pigeon birth control and not the city streets.

But the real story last night was the turnout of congestion pricing supporters in the borough that supposedly refuses to accept anything that would keep them from driving. Angus Grieve-Smith told the story of a motorcyclist that was struck by a speeding car and killed, the motorcycle then striking and crippling his friend who was walking along Skillman Ave. all because Skillman is designed to get drivers through Sunnyside and Woodside and to the Queensboro Bridge as fast as possible.

Emmanuel Fuentebella said they he owns a car for work, but because of oil issues worldwide we must be spendthrift in its use. Dan Hendrick of the League of Conservation Voters, Neysa Pranger of the Regional Plan Association and Karla Quintero of Transportation Alternatives, all Queens residents, gave their respective groups' support for the plan.

The quote of the night came from Eddie Hernandez, a lifelong resident of Queens. "Opponents of congestion pricing preposterously claim that congestion pricing hurts the middle class. I have news for them, if you can afford to throw away $10,000 per year in parking fees in Midtown because you don't feel like using the subway: Congratulations, you're rich, you're not middle class and you can afford an $8 toll."

Will congestion pricing pass? Time will tell. But as Angus said, "I hope tonight has put to rest the myth that no one in Queens supports congestion pricing."

The Daily News reports:

State and city officials are hashing out a plan to ensure congestion pricing money pays for mass transit upgrades -- and mass transit upgrades only, sources said Wednesday.

Under the developing plan, net proceeds from new tolls for motorists entering a large section of Manhattan would be put in a "lock box" administered by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, sources in City Hall and Gov. Spitzer's office said.

The fund could only be used for transit projects that meet specific criteria, which would be spelled out by state legislation, sources said.

A member of Gov. Spitzer's administration confirmed that Spitzer will include the creation of the MTA account as a line-item in the proposed budget he unveils next week.

At a Congestion Mitigation Commission hearing yesterday at Hunter College (which saw the notable emergence of a pro-pricing coalition of advocates for low-income transit customers), Regional Plan Association President Bob Yaro testified that similar measures have successfully earmarked transit funds for decades.

The MTA's revenues at their bridge and tunnels in excess of operating costs is guaranteed by formula set by the State Legislature for use by the MTA for transit since 1968. Taxes such as the mortgage recording tax, petroleum business tax, corporate franchise tax and sales tax have also been reliably dedicated to transit since the early 1980s. It should not be difficult to establish a mechanism for congestion pricing revenue that would do the same, while requiring the use of the funds by the MTA on the projects agreed to by the MTA and the City.

Yaro also rebutted opponents' claims that the Traffic Commission's alternative pricing plan is worse than the Mayor's because it gives Manhattanites a free ride. Yaro said:

The inclusion of increased metered parking rates and a taxi surcharge within the zone, as well as the elimination of the resident park tax exemption [in the Alternative Plan] ensure that residents of the charging zone pay their share.

As key arguments against pricing are dismantled, and as the MTA and its working-class ridership finally find their collective voice, congestion pricing's impact on neighborhoods just outside the zone remains a focus of the vocal opposition.

Studies of London's congestion pricing plan showed "no adverse impact" or major parking problems on the outskirts of the congestion pricing zone. The Department of Transportation is responding to the park-and-ride concern by putting big resources into a second round of citywide neighborhood parking workshops starting next week. And, of course, Mayor Bloomberg recently announced a major crackdown on government employee parking placard abuse.

The question is whether any of that will be enough for legislators like State Senator George Onorato, who rallied a recent town hall meeting in Astoria, Queens with the cry, "We would be the parking lot for all the Long Island commuters."

Of course, this isn't helping either.

Leading off from the event's title, Jean-Christophe Agnew, a professor of American Studies at Yale, spoke about congestion pricing's roots in bridge-crossing and stall-renting tolls in early modern Europe. Jeffrey Zupan of the Regional Plan Association fast-forwarded to 20th century New York when Columbia professor and Nobel prize winner William Vickery and Mayors Lindsay, Dinkins, and Koch, as well as the RPA itself, all proposed different modes of congestion pricing (none of which came to pass). Zupan also highlighted some points in New York's troubled transit history, among them the fact that, despite population growth in the millions during the last century, the extent of NYC's subway system peaked in 1937.

Environmental economist and "re-founder" of Transportation Alternatives Charles Komanoff jumped in next with some of the theories behind the plans. Quoting pedicab luminary George Bliss, Komanoff pointed out that mobility and community should not be in conflict, "they should enhance and serve each other." Jeffrey Risom followed with examples of Copenhagen's effective methods for reducing traffic congestion while bolstering quality of life: many use incentives for biking and walking rather than "punishments" for driving.

When the floor opened for questions, many in the full-house crowd of about 80 asked about the fairness of congestion pricing -- wouldn't it run poor drivers off the road while providing a smoother commute for the rich? Komanoff asserted that, for one, most people driving into Manhattan's CBD have higher annual incomes than those who take public transit, so most people paying congestion fees wouldn't be those who could least afford it. He also said that in existing congestion pricing systems, such as California's State Route 91, it has been shown that most drivers choose to pay the fee for situational, not habitual, reasons (for example, taking a sick child to the hospital rather than just wanting to get to work faster every day). This tendency leads to less essential car trips as a group, rather than less wealthy drivers as a group, being cut from the equation.

Also discussed was the notion of reforming the car from its growing status as entitled emotional limb back to simply a method of transport. The panel agreed that the proclivity of old habits to die hard is one of congestion pricing's toughest foes. Zupan iterated that the process will take patience and that people do grow to like new and better systems, but only when they can see them in action.

Talk shifted from the historical and theoretical to the immediate and practical: the what's and how's of congestion pricing for New York City. When asked how taking one in ten cars off the road would make any real difference to gridlock, Zupan responded that the relationship between the number of cars on the road and the amount of congestion is not necessarily linear. For example, he said, when there is a 10% reduction in volume of traffic, there can be up to a 30% gain in space for the remaining cars.

Other points raised included the fact that New York, unlike London, already has a way to track almost three-quarters of its drivers -- through their E-Z Passes -- and that adding a tracking element to the existing technology wouldn't incur nearly the cost that creating and installing all-new tracking systems in the UK has. Therefore, New York City's congestion pricing system might not have to start as high or be raised as much as London's to make equivalent capital gains.

Komanoff outlined his four stopgap measures for the time between the implementation of congestion pricing (and the subsequent swell in numbers of transit riders that might result) and the completion of the Second Avenue subway and East Side Access: 1) drivers can stagger their trips to spread out rush hours, 2) while many subways are currently operating at capacity, MetroNorth and the LIRR are not; they could take more intra-city riders and help relieve subways, 3) there is unused subway track on many lines and being able to use it depends not on politics but on raising money, 4) potential for biking in the city is largely untapped; thinning car traffic would provide a great incentive for more to ride.

Reported by April Greene

Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer wants to trade parking spots for wider sidewalks and bike infrastructure on West 33rd Street, moving more Moynihan Station commuters above-ground.

AMNY has the story:

Stringer will float the idea to widen sidewalks and create bike lanes at a public hearing [Thursday] on the future of Moynihan Station. The pathway, which would run past the station, would link Broadway and the planned mega-development at the Hudson Yards.

Parking is already restricted along some of the stretch, and pedestrians need the space in the already congested area, his office said.

"During rush hours, 33rd Street could become a walkway and bikeway for commuters traveling to and from the new station, as well as a thriving, active retail corridor," Stringer said in a written statement. "During the day and on weekends, it could be a lively thoroughfare for New Yorkers to get from midtown to the West Side Rail Yards, and to the Hudson River waterfront beyond."

The plan is backed by Transportation Alternatives and the Regional Plan Association. The Empire State Development Corp., which is overseeing the station project, did not offer an opinion on Stringer's ideas or how it would impact parking in the area.

Photo: moynihanstation/Flickr

Devotees of the Red Hook, Brooklyn Fairway grocery store can have the pleasure, after loading up on gourmet salt and other essentials, of sipping coffee on their back veranda over looking the river. It's a wonderful view. On your right is the Statue of Liberty, flame aloft, and to your left, about ten feet away, a decrepit old green streetcar.

This old trolley, which adds a rough urban charm to the spot, is about all that remains of an admirable effort that ended a few years ago by Bob Diamond and cohorts to bring streetcars back to Brooklyn.

Diamond, renowned for his discovery of the old Atlantic Avenue tunnel -- one of the oldest rail tunnels in the world - may have simply been peaking too soon, for streetcars are coming back. While they aren't back in Brooklyn yet, they are in many cities. Dozens of cities have built, or are building, new streetcar lines. They include Portland, Kenosha, Charlotte, Little Rock, Lowell, Memphis, Tampa, San Diego and Charlotte. Some of them are installing vintage or antique cars; some are installing brand new ones. They join cities like New Orleans, Toronto, Melbourne and San Francisco that kept or revived existing lines.

Paris, France launched a sleek, modern streetcar system last year. More Paris photos below...

This trend is a good one, for streetcars can be one more way to give people alternative to driving, and thus enabling more walkable, bikeable streets. Perhaps most important, streetcar lines are the most urban of transit systems, at least those that run above ground. Unlike their competitor, the so-called "light rail line," streetcars mesh almost seamlessly into a street without bulky grade-separating apparatus and stations that can end up making a street less walkable. Streetcars are also less polluting, more energy-efficient and cheaper to maintain than their other big competitor, freewheeling buses.

Before World War II and the complete domination of the private car, streetcars used to run on virtually every major street New York City and indeed, every major street in every city in the United States. These old lines, although long gone, have left their mark on streets in big and small ways.

For example, most local shopping streets tend to be where the old trolley lines ran, like 5th Avenue or 7th Avenue in Brooklyn. That's because commerce tends to congregate around transportation lines. Those shopping streets are still there, even though the streetcar lines are not. Most of New York City's current bus lines run along the same routes as the old trolleys.

Another marker is in names, which, as in shopping streets, tend to persist. The Los Angeles Dodgers baseball team, formerly of Brooklyn, derives its name from the hundreds of streetcars that used to roll down the streets of this New York City borough, and the "trolley dodgers" who had to jump out of their way. The name was apt, for the number of streetcar lines that once were in Brooklyn is truly astonishing. It is indeed a subject for an entire field of research.

Could Brooklyn or other boroughs ever have anything like the dozens of different lines they once had? I don't want to rule it out, even though it's clearly a dream. What's not just a dream is that streetcars are coming back, perhaps even in this region. Stamford solicited proposals just last week to examine the potential for a new four-mile line that would connect major nodes within the city. Whether this would qualify as a streetcar or a light rail line might be a matter of semantics.

I could see streetcars playing a substantial role within many cities in the region, even Manhattan. The Regional Plan Association's (where I'm a Senior Fellow) Third Regional Plan recommended a Midtown light rail loop, which is essentially just a streetcar loop. Vision42 has been pushing for years for a Midtown light rail loop part of its plan to pedestrianize 42nd Street. Vision42 argues that light rail loop could be built at far less cost than the proposed #7 subway line extension while providing many of the same benefits in helping to improve mobility and galvanizing development on Midtown Manhattan's far west side.

As a "mode," to use a planneresque word, streetcars have a lot to offer. They are better than buses, which are the usual lower cost alternative, because they provide a smoother ride, even while traveling at higher speeds, and being more beloved by customers. One study showed that streetcars travel faster than buses, because drivers tend to defer to a train-like vehicle and get out of their way. As significant, they tend to attract more private development because rails in the street have a permanence that inspires confidence in commercial and residential developers.

The usual competitor to streetcars is light rail lines. Interestingly, there is no clear distinction between a light rail line and a streetcar line, although there are general ones. Light rail lines tend to have dedicated and separate right of way, tend to travel out of town rather than within town, tend to have longer trains, and tend to have fewer stops. And most significantly, tend to cost a lot, lot more to build, often three times as much per mile.

A good place to start looking at the possibilities of streetcar revival is Street Smart: Streetcars and Cities in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Gloria Ohland and Shelley Poticha of Reconnecting America. In a series of separately authored articles, it provides a range of both broad overview and technical analysis of the options involved. They look at vintage cars, new lines, even things like the "rapid streetcar," that blends the best of both the streetcar and light rail styles.

Some combination of the above could clearly work in Brooklyn, to name my own favorite borough and dwelling one. If that were to happen, then the lonely streetcar in Red Hook could be a reminder of what is to come, rather than just of what was.

Photos: Aaron Naparstek, Paris, France, March 21, 2007

Next Saturday the MTA will be running a town hall-style meeting to take public input on various fare and financing options. The latest issue of Spotlight on the Region sums it up pretty well (as does the photo above):

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.

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

Streetsblog will be keeping an eye on Save The G, a new blog advocating for service improvements on the beleaguered G subway line. The blog is being produced by a coalition of civic groups and elected officials from Brooklyn and Queens, including, Queens Civic Congress, NYPIRG Straphangers Campaign, Regional Plan Association, GWAPP, North Brooklyn Greens, Fort Greene Association, Bed-Stuy Neighborhood Stabilization Task Force, and Assemblyman Joe Lentol.

Photo: Triborough on Flickr

Jan Gehl, the famed Danish urbanist, is in New York City this week where, sources say, he has been hired as a consultant for Mayor Bloomberg's PlaNYC program.

At a presentation to the board of the Regional Plan Association on Wednesday at the offices of PriceWaterhouseCoopers at 41st and Madison, Gehl said the city must tame the automobile if it is going to become a truly great city for pedestrians and for public life.

Asked during questions what he would do specifically for the city, Gehl said he would make pedestrians more comfortable in the city by adding street furniture, widening sidewalks and creating "oasises" for them. In addition, he would put immediate emphasis on better conditions for cyclists. And finally, he said attention should be paid to the mass transit system. Good mass transit and good pedestrian environments, he said, "are brothers and sisters," each depending on the other.

In his lecture and slide show, Gehl talked of how in Copenhagen they had added bike lanes and additional sidewalk space by converting most four-lane streets to two lanes. Looking back over the last few decades, Gehl showed how big urban cities like Barcelona, Melbourne, Copenhagen and others are "reclaiming" their public spaces and streets for pedestrians by putting less emphasis on accommodating cars. He mentioned how in 1962, all of Copenhagen's principal squares, 18 of them, were being used for parking lots. Now all are used for public life. Gehl said that he sees enormous potential for similar improvements in New York City.

The Dept. of Transportation's press office declined to comment on Gehl's work at this time. In an interview with Streetsblog in June, DOT Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan said she was "hoping to bring Gehl over at the end of next month to help us work on a pedestrian and public space strategy much like what he did for London."

Photo: Aaron Naparstek

Here's a transcript: 

Brian Lehrer: Streetsblog, the website, reported yesterday that over the past five years you have accepted at least $16,000 in campaign contributions from parking garage interests which far exceeds those of any other state legislator. They are implying here that parking lot interests, being based mainly in midtown are opposed to congestion pricing because it would mean less cars and less business and you may be carrying some water for them.

Richard Brodsky: First of all, lets just assume, Brian, that I am the worst person in the world. I assume the reason they are attacking me rather than the report we issued is because the report stands as a fair, thorough, true and accurate analysis of the plan. The attack on me is silly. I raised over 2 million dollars while I was running for Attorney General...um..We raised it from a lot of progressives and a lot of left-wingers. The attempt to demonize and attack your opponents on a personal basis is something I reject when it’s Karl Rove and I reject it when it’s Transportation Alternatives or these blogs.

Brian Lehrer: Than why does parking lot industry give you more money than any other legislator?

Richard Brodsky: Part of the reason is because I have a long-standing relationship with one... uh...family..uh...friends of mine, who have been supporters of mine for years. Brian, I put in bills against congestion pricing in 1995. That's on the public record. If...if...if what we're about...assume I'm a crook, if you like. Lets then discuss whether the report that I put out has merit or it doesn't. And if it doesn't than I ought to fix it and I ought to re think my position. And if it does, even the people calling me names ought to deal with that. I mean...this is...this is silliness. The...the...the decision to change the discussion to whether I am an honest person from whether the mayor's program is good for the people of the city is not in anyone's interest. The Mayor gives out millions of dollars to the organizations that are supporting his plan. He...he gives his personal money. Tens of millions of dollars. I don't believe those people are supporting his plan because they are dishonest. And I'll tell you right now, and real clearly -- that the decision to raise this now is a sign of intellectual and political bankruptcy.

For the Regional Plan Association, Michael Frumin visualized their plan for a rapid transit line in Brooklyn, Queens, and the Bronx that could be built almost entirely on pre-existing rail and would connect with at least twenty existing subway lines. The "Triboro RX", which originated in the 1996 Third Regional Plan, could provide effective transit between these boroughs at a fraction of the cost of most transit projects.

Working with Jeff Zupan and Alexis Perrotta, I helped to develop a possible alignment for the Triboro RX, and a crude estimate of what levels of initial commuter ridership one could expect to see if it were built. At the end of the day, we can comfortably say that at least 76,000 New Yorkers (including 32,000 diverting from other modes of transportation) would use the Triboro RX to get to and from their jobs every day. This number that is quite competitive with many existing lines, and without ever touching the island of Manhattan.

At the heart of our ability to make this estimate is the Journey-to-Work data published by the census -- counts of commuters between every census tract and every other census tract in the city. Given these flow data, the shape of the subway network with and without the Triboro RX, and a rough model of how people make travel decisions on public transportation, it's not so hard to guess which subway riders would use a new transit line if it were built. Estimating new transit riders is more nuanced, but we did our best with limited resources.

To create these transportation models, Frumin used one of The Open Planning Project's software projects GeoServer. Take a look at the fruits of Michael's labor:

• Interactive map of New York City, its subway system, and the Triboro RX
  
• Subway and Triboro RX in Google Earth
• The whole enchilada in Google Earth
  

How would the TRX tie into congestion pricing? The graphic above shows that the TRX would do a great job of providing mass transit to unserved communities in the outer boroughs.