The full ground floor of this super-transit-accessible Boerum Hill project will be dedicated to automobile storage, thanks to New York City's parking minimums. Image: ODA Architecture via Crain's

Parking minimums have struck another blow for terrible urban design, this time just three blocks from the transit mega-hub of Atlantic/Pacific, where nine subway lines and the LIRR converge. A new luxury apartment building going up at the corner of Bergen Street and Third Avenue will dedicate its entire ground floor, facing both the side street and the avenue, to one big, open garage.

The decision to give ground floor space to automobile storage and curb cuts rather than retail, a lobby or a stoop is very likely a result of the city’s outdated and anti-urban parking minimums (hat tip to Ben Furnas for flagging the project). The new development will have 85 apartments and 45 parking spaces, according to Department of Buildings records. Under current zoning, the law mandates that a building of that size include at least 43 parking spaces.

That’s close enough to indicate that the two extra spaces were probably architectural remainders left over after complying with the parking minimums. (In its definitive research, NYU’s Furman Center counts buildings that exceed their parking minimums by less than 25 percent as potentially constrained by the zoning mandate).

The Naftali Group, the building’s developer, didn’t respond to a Streetsblog inquiry about the project, so we can’t know for certain how much parking the developers would have preferred to build, nor why they opted to place it on the ground floor. In other nearby projects, though, parking has ended up on the ground floor rather than underground due to the high water table.

This site has better transit access than almost any place in the country. It’s hard to imagine that the Department of City Planning really believes that valuable ground floor space is best used as a parking lot. DCP’s review of parking minimums in the “inner ring” of New York City neighborhoods is expected to start by reducing or eliminating the car-friendly mandates in Downtown Brooklyn. Here’s hoping this building convinces Amanda Burden to define Downtown Brooklyn generously.

Assembly Member James Brennan wants the state government to force more parking into Atlantic Yards. Image: NYS Assembly.

Brennan is working on legislation that would force Forest City Ratner to build more off-street parking at the Atlantic Yards site, as was first reported in the Park Slope Patch. Currently, an 1,100 parking space surface lot is slated for the site.

Tonice Sgrignoli, a legislative aide for Brennan, said the legislation is still being researched and no details are available at this point. According to Sgrignoli, ESDC eliminated a requirement to build underground off-street parking that had been in an earlier agreement with Forest City Ratner and this legislation would likely undo that change.

When Streetsblog asked why Brennan thought that Atlantic Yards should have more parking in the first place, Sgrignoli replied that “Anyone who’s ever tried to drive a car and park it in that area will understand why it’s important to provide parking.”

Hopefully, Brennan himself has a more sophisticated understanding of parking policy. As former Boerum Hill Association president Jo Ann Simon said, no conceivable amount of off-street parking is going to free up on-street spaces so long as they are cheaper than going to a garage and available to anybody. “If people drive there, they will always try and find something free on the street,” she said. What happens on-street — many in the area, including Simon, have long pushed for residential parking permits — Simon said, “is entirely irrelevant to whether there should be more off-street parking to serve the arena.”

Simon’s argument is borne out by the reality at Yankee Stadium. There, despite a whopping 9,000 off-street spaces, area residents still complain that on-street parking is impossible on game day, according to a Crain’s report.

Moreover, building extra parking will simply mean that more people are able to drive to the area instead. “Brennan’s proposal to compel more off-street parking in one of New York City’s most transit-accessible locations betrays a terrible lack of understanding regarding transportation and mobility,” said University of Pennsylvania parking expert Rachel Weinberger. “His idea will invite more traffic through his district, more traffic in adjoining districts, and by requiring all of that parking, other development is preempted.”

Agreed Simon, “You induce drivers if there is parking there.”

Steven Higashide of the Tri-State Transportation Campaign, which has analyzed the plans for Atlantic Yards and is a member of the Brooklyn Speaks coalition, said that underground parking had been a part of the Atlantic Yards plans, but was removed when the amount of development planned was scaled back.

“The only way Atlantic Yards can become part of a vibrant urban fabric is if the city and developer work to reduce driving to the site,” said Higashide. “Providing hundreds or thousands of extra parking spaces won’t do that.”

Reichbach says the initial meeting will serve to outline long-term goals — one possibility is to lobby DOT for a 20 mph pilot zone. Brooklyn DOT Commissioner Joseph Palmieri will be asked to the next meeting. Levin plans for the group to meet every six weeks to two months, says Reichbach.

The membership roll at this point consists of Levin and Reichbach as co-chairs, plus two members of the Boerum Hill Association. Community Boards 2 and 6 will also be invited to participate. Now would be the time for livable streets advocates to get involved as well.

Tonight’s meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. at Brooklyn Community Board 6, 250 Baltic St., at Court.

A bit more background on the generous neckdown at Smith and Bergen spotlighted earlier today: This pedestrian amenity never would have been built without the long-term organizing for the Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Project. Street protests and advocacy campaigns stretching back more than a dozen years are bearing fruit now.

And advocates are still on their game, pushing for more. This slideshow comes from Dave "Paco" Abraham, a volunteer with Transportation Alternatives' Brooklyn Committee who's had his eye on the corner of Smith and Bergen in particular. "I always thought that intersection needed something," he said. Thousands of commuters pass through the subway entrances on these corners every day. You've got students walking to schools on Bergen and customers heading to the restaurant row on Smith. They're all contending with traffic that tends to accelerate on the excessively wide Bergen as drivers try to make the light at Court Street.

When Abraham heard the city was moving on a big slate of downtown Brooklyn traffic calming measures, he drew up a letter urging the maximum possible sidewalk extension and the addition of bike parking at the northwest corner of the intersection. He met with more than a dozen merchants in the immediate vicinity and asked them to sign on. "I don’t think there was a place I went to that said no," he says. "It was tremendous." He also garnered support from local civic groups and the two nearest schools -- the Brooklyn Heights Montessori School and the Mary McDowell Learning Center.

It's hard to say precisely what effect Abraham's campaign had on the final outcome at this intersection. But there's a lot more sidewalk real estate here than at your typical curb extension, and, at the very least, DOT knew there was widespread local support for something ambitious, thanks to his organizing. DOT is considering the addition of bike parking, a spokesman told Streetsblog earlier this week.

If you're interested in putting together a similar campaign for a specific intersection, Abraham has a whole tutorial about building momentum for a "bike parking swap" posted on the Livable Streets Community site.

Since the spring, DOT construction crews have been building out traffic calming improvements all over the neighborhoods near downtown Brooklyn. When the years-in-the-making Downtown Brooklyn Traffic Calming Project wraps up, pedestrians will have safer crossings at dozens of intersections. The sidewalk extension at the northwest corner of Smith and Bergen, shown here, is especially impressive. Several hundred square feet of street space now belong to pedestrians instead of cars.

I popped up from my subway ride home yesterday to take some pictures, and in the five minutes I spent there, it was plainly obvious that people feel more comfortable and at ease on the sidewalk with all that extra room. First, to give a sense of the extension's size, check out what this corner used to look like (you can use the green "Smith's Grocery" awning to orient yourself).

After the jump, more traffic-calmed goodness.

This is the view from the southwest corner, with the big extension on the far side of the street. I'm not the best at eyeball measurements, but the crossing distance on Bergen has got to be less than 20 feet now.

If you're on foot, you feel like you're in charge. You can run into a friend, catch up for a minute, and, yeah, stand nonchalantly by the curb without worrying about getting run over or obstructing someone else's way. If you're biking by, you might have to adjust your path a little...

...but that's okay. A place that feels safe to walk feels safe to bike, too. (This is the view from the northeast corner.)

Speaking of which, a rumor is circulating that DOT might install some bike parking here. The DOT press office told us the agency is "investigating the placement of racks in the vicinity of the sidewalk extension." I think there's enough room to go around.

Thanks to another 11:30am press conference in Midtown, I figured Streetsblog might be the only press to cover Mayor Bloomberg's announcement of a new, citywide residential parking permit program. But, no. There was plenty of other media gathered at the corner of Bond and Bergen Streets in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn. Let's see if there's any room in tonight's newscasts and tomorrow's papers for stories about something other than Governor Spitzer.

Stay tuned for details...

Her 18th Senatorial District covers Bed-Stuy, Boerum Hill, Downtown Brooklyn, Gowanus and Sunset Park -- a swath of Brooklyn that is absolutely pummeled by regional through-traffic and epidemic asthma rates. Clearly, Montgomery's district stands to gain more than most from reductions in traffic congestion and improvements to mass transit and air quality.

Yet, in her mailing, Montgomery says Mayor Bloomberg's congestion pricing plan "is silent as to the benefits for the outer boroughs and for upper Manhattan." For that and other reasons she has "major reservations" about the proposal. Montgomery then presents a number of informational points and objections to the pricing plan while offering no suggestion of any benefits to her constituents. 

One of the arguments stands out. Montgomery writes, "The congestion pricing measure will not help asthma sufferers." That one appears to be pulled directly from pricing opponents' talking points and, by most reliable accounts, is not based in fact.

If the Senate Democrats matter in the coming debate then, clearly, congestion pricing supporters have some work to do.

If you get congestion pricing mailings and letters from your elected officials, please send them to Streetsblog. Find Montgomery's mailing, in full, after the jump...

• The mayor's congestion pricing plan will create "undue hardships for many New Yorkers." 
• The transit system is inadequate "to accommodate many of the New York City residents who currently commute to Manhattan by car," particularly the elderly and disabled.
  
• The majority of traffic into Manhattan is created by commuters from outside New York City so they should pay more.
• "Because a congestion pricing proposal of this magnitude has the potential to become a bureaucratic catastrophe, the details of administration and reinvestment must be carefully worked out well before the plan is approved."
• "While several large corporations are in support of the Mayor's plan," Millman has "not yet heard the same positive feedback from small, locally owned businesses."
  

Here is the complete text of Millman's letter:

Dear Neighbor,

I am writing in response to your recent email message regarding the Mayor's congestion pricing plan. I agree with you that, ideally, congestion pricing could generate much needed revenue for improvements to and expansion of our mass transit system, and significantly reduce the amount of traffic, pollution and emissions of greenhouses gases in New York City. Unfortunately, when I met with representatives of the Mayor's Office to discuss the details of the proposal, I was not convinced that the current plan will succeed in accomplishing these goals without creating undue hardships for many New Yorkers. I have concerns with many aspects of the Mayor's plan.

One clear concern with the plan is that the mass transit system is severely inadequate to accommodate many of the New York City residents who currently commute to Manhattan by car. In fact, the MTA's policy of removing token booth collectors and the excessive lag times for repairs to broken elevators and escalators in subway stations, are just two of the recent examples of the transit system's failure to meet the needs of the elderly, the disabled, and other commuters who have difficulties navigating stairs.

Additionally, the data provided by the Mayor's Office overwhelmingly suggests that the majority of traffic into Manhattan is created by commuters from outside New York City. I am convinced that the congestion pricing plan should take this data into account by shifting a larger portion of the burden to commuters from the northern suburbs, Long Island and New Jersey.

I also questioned the Mayor's Office about how the City would collect the fee, including administration and infrastructure changes, and they admitted that there is no firm plan to date. Under close scrutiny of estimated administration costs, implementing the proposal will be significantly more expensive and complicated than originally anticipated. There has been no concrete explanation of the process by which the generated revenues will be invested into the mass transit system, or of how much money will be used to cover the administrative costs of the program. Because a congestion pricing proposal of this magnitude has the potential to become a bureaucratic catastrophe, the details of administration and reinvestment must be carefully worked out well before the plan is approved.

Furthermore, while several large corporations are in support of the Mayor's plan, I have not yet heard the same positive feedback from small, locally owned businesses - many of which are based in Brooklyn and other boroughs but conduct transactions in Manhattan on a daily basis. I am not convinced that these small business owners will come to the same conclusion as larger corporations that can more easily absorb the additional costs. For example, the current plan makes no distinction between a delivery truck from a multimillion dollar corporation and one from a bakery in Gowanus with fewer than a dozen employees - both would be charged the $21 commercial fee. I believe that the Mayor's plan must incorporate exemptions or reduced rates, or otherwise take steps to account for these real differences.

I certainly agree we must take action to improve the air quality and traffic problems in our Borough and City, but for congestion pricing to work for New York, it will have to work for all New Yorkers. The Mayor's Office agreed to supply me with additional information on the proposed congestion pricing plan, and I hope changes to the plan will be considered to address some of my reservations. While congestion pricing may prove to be the best idea, in its present form, I have many questions and concerns about the Mayor's proposal.

Thank you for sharing your ideas with me.

It would seem obvious that stop signs are much preferable to a traffic light in this type of a neighborhood setting, especially where two residential streets meet. Anyone who drives in New York City, as I do all too often, knows that most motorists speed up when as they approach a green light to make it through the intersection and hopefully catch the next light at the other end of the block.

This means that a large percentage of traffic moving down my block will now be going significantly faster than it did before, because with the stop sign, every car used to stop, or slow to a near stop, before proceeding. People already use my street as a cut-through from Cobble Hill to Park Slope, and this will only make matters worse.

It is true that a stop sign is not heeded in the same way a red light is, but as someone who walks through that intersection almost every day, frequently with small children in tow, I cannot remember a time when I had any trouble at all crossing safely.

In fact, it is easier in a lot of ways to work out the dynamic with an approaching or waiting car when at a stop-controlled intersection. At a stop sign, most drivers are looking for pedestrians and other cars because there is no traffic light telling them they have "the green light" to blast through the intersection. The same thing was true for me as a pedestrian. Approaching the curb, I frequently made eye contact with drivers, who would often wave me across the street. The stop signs forced drivers and walkers to interact in a human relationship, however cursory. With a traffic signal, the intersection is governed from the top down and there is no longer any need for human interaction. One of the results is that the intersection is a whole lot less safe.

What I'd like to know is: What city agency or official made this change and why? If one car in ten thousand is speeding through the stop sign at 2:00 a.m., will a red light make any difference to that scofflaw? If pedestrian safety is the concern, there are many other tools the city could use to make the intersection safer, including street narrowing, regularly re-striping the crosswalk or building curb extensions to shorten crossing distances. These options are no more expensive or difficult than installing and maintaining a new traffic signal. Lastly, why isn't such a decision the topic of at least a conversation with the community where the pros and cons of such things can be weighed out?

Wednesday, October 25 at 10:00 am on the corner of Atlantic Avenue and Bond St.

JOIN AABA FOR A PROTEST RALLY AND PRESS CONFERENCE

Excess speed kills two on Atlantic Avenue this October. One of them, Al Fernandez, a long time neighbor, was crushed to death while sitting on the sidewalk.

Stand with merchants and residents to show your outrage at Department of Transportation's policies to move traffic without regard for community safety. Demand a safer Atlantic Avenue. Demand that the 4-7 PM parking ban be lifted which hurts small businesses.

Act now before Atlantic Avenue becomes even more dangerous by plans to widen the road by eliminating more parking and moving traffic even faster by increasing green time. These are proposed as "mitigation" measures for the Atlantic Yards Development Project.

We can have a safer Atlantic Avenue. We can have more parking to benefit the restaurants, and other small businesses on the Avenue.

ATLANTIC AVENUE IS A DESTINATION, NOT A HIGHWAY !

At the press conference, AABA will present solutions for a safer and more business friendly Atlantic Avenue.

Merchants and residents will be joined by Elected Officials and Transportation Alternatives.

A correspondent sends in this photo of the morning commute on Bergen Street in Boerum Hill, Brooklyn. Moments before snapping it the photographer says he was "stopped at a light with six cyclists, all of whom looked at each other and smiled as if to say, ‘any more of us and we’ll need a permit!’" Including the cyclist who appears to be riding illegally on the sidewalk and the photographer standing in the middle of the street blocking traffic, I count six bikers. The neighborhoods around Downtown Brooklyn have the highest rates of bike commuting in all of New York City. This spring and summer is likely to set new records.