Streetsblog New York City

This afternoon, the City Council passed the Manhattan Core parking text amendment with a vote of 47-0, with one abstention (Jessica Lappin). The zoning change, which modifies off-street parking rules in the densest parts of Manhattan, is as good as law now, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s approval basically a given.

The zoning change modifies the city’s 1982 shift from mandatory parking minimums to parking maximums in this part of Manhattan, which was spurred by the Clean Air Act. The regulations apply to Manhattan below West 110th Street and East 96th Street with limited exceptions, including Hudson Yards on the Far West Side. Parking minimums are still in force in almost all of the rest of the city.

The amendment includes a number of positive changes, including:

• Removing language that could be read as requiring parking for affordable housing units;
• Allowing buildings built before 1982, which had been required to build parking, to reduce or eliminate parking, though permission must be obtained from the City Planning Commission;
• Expanding the amount of space allowed in commercial districts for car rental and car-sharing vehicles; and
• Providing regulations governing the design and operation of automated parking garages.

The amendment would also weaken the distinction between public parking spaces, which can be used by anyone, and accessory parking spaces, which are intended for a building’s tenants and visitors. The new regulations allow accessory spaces to be opened to the public, giving developers a green light to build publicly-accessible parking until they reach the maximums in the zoning code — set at 20 percent of residential units below 60th Street and 35 percent of units on the Upper East Side and Upper West Side.

Many garages that were built for use by building tenants are currently operated and licensed by the Department of Consumer Affairs as public garages — no one enforces the rule against turning accessory parking into public parking. Instead of trying to tweak this laxly enforced system, the new regulations legitimize the existing practice of treating nearly all parking as public parking.

Some experts, including David King of Columbia University, argue that accessory parking should be eliminated entirely and replaced with a “shared parking” model that treats the total parking supply as a pool available to the public. The accessory parking model is fundamentally flawed, King says, because it assumes that certain land uses have an intrinsic need for parking that should be met by the zoning code. Weakening the accessory parking model is “the single best thing the city could do,” King told Streetsblog after DCP released the proposal last November. ”It is a necessary prerequisite for any future parking reform.”

Read more…

It’s easy to see why the New York City Housing Authority’s recent proposal to develop new housing on some of its property in Manhattan has aroused strong passions.

Under the proposal, NYCHA would enter into 99-year ground leases with developers to build new residential buildings at eight properties in Manhattan below 110th Street. Most of the new units — 80 percent — would be market-rate, while 20 percent would be income-restricted. Developers would also be asked to install upgrades to the existing properties. NYCHA’s main reason for pursuing this plan is that the land-lease rental revenue from the developments — up to $50 million per year — would fund capital improvements to NYCHA buildings, repairing things like roofs, elevators, and heating systems. Meanwhile, the angle that’s getting a lot of play in the press is “luxury condos replace public housing playgrounds.”

While it won’t completely make up for decades of declining federal support for NYCHA, and it would fill only a portion of NYCHA’s maintenance needs, the plan deserves consideration. New developments could replace space on NYCHA properties currently devoted to subsidized surface parking, without any net loss of park space or other community facilities. But so far, both the agency and its residents have shown a reluctance to reduce the amount of low-cost parking for NYCHA residents.

The new developments would go up on land currently occupied by a total of 632 surface parking spaces, as well as a community garden, a basketball court, a baseball field, two tree-filled spaces, two trash compactors, and a community center.

NYCHA says that the project will “replace or reconfigure impacted areas (i.e. seating areas and gardens) where space is available.” At most sites, this space is already available. At least 500 surface parking spaces would remain untouched in the development plans. To help address resident concerns about lost recreational space, NYCHA could specify in its plan that parking lots would be replaced with green space or community facilities.

Problem solved, right? Residents keep the same amount of green space, while new development helps fund needed maintenance.

But at community meetings where NYCHA has presented the proposal, a common theme has emerged from both the authority and its residents, though they remain locked in conflict: protecting the perk of subsidized parking.

“They’re trying to push this down our throats,” said Harvey Epstein of the Urban Justice Center at one public meeting about the proposal. ”They said they’re going to relocate the parking lot. Where are you relocating it to?”

“They should have already mapped out beforehand the alternative places for people to park,” said Bobby Forestal, a lifelong Douglass Houses resident, at another meeting.

NYCHA’s Margarita Lopez ”reassured residents repeatedly that no resident parking spaces would be lost and that new parking locations would be in place before construction began,” according to DNAinfo. Although most low-income public housing residents can’t afford the luxury of maintaining a car in Manhattan, NYCHA offers annual parking permits to its tenants for as little as $60 per year, far below the cost of nearby garages. Apparently the agency is committed to maintaining this perk, though it’s not exactly clear where.

Read more…

Yesterday, the City Planning Commission approved modifications to off-street parking regulations in the Manhattan Core, below East 96th Street and West 110th Street. Significant changes to the city’s only parking maximums, which have helped cut down on traffic in the city’s congested core since 1982, are on track for final approval from the City Council. Although the final proposal itself has not been released to the public by the Department of City Planning, the commission gave its unanimous approval.

The changes include some positive developments, such as eliminating parking requirements for affordable housing, retroactively applying post-1982 parking maximums to earlier development (thereby allowing parking spots to be repurposed for other uses), and new regulations for automated garages.

Community Boards 1 through 8 have already weighed in [PDF]. While some boards offered single-page letters of support, others produced in-depth critiques of the Department of City Planning’s proposal.

Community Boards 1, 2, 4, and 7, for example, expressed opposition to the more controversial changes, such as formally allowing accessory parking (which is intended to serve only building residents and visitors) to be opened to the public, and loosening the special permit process for building garages that exceed the maximums.

In a presentation on March 4 [PDF], DCP staff said the agency is tweaking the proposal to address some of these concerns. While the plan will continue to open accessory parking to public use, the special permit process for parking garages will be modified. The process will keep requirements for developers to state whether a new parking garage will increase traffic congestion (a requirement the proposal had initially discarded), and will allow the commission to consider vacancy levels in existing parking facilities surrounding a proposed garage. Supposedly, if they find there’s already an ample supply of parking nearby, the commission may use that fact to deny a request.

Special permits would continue to be granted, however, as long as the planning commission deems the garage permit request to be “reasonable.” “We think this description is entirely too vague,” said CB 4 transportation committee co-chair Christine Berthet. “‘Reasonable’ is really not a standard.”

So far, DCP has only shown the presentation about the updated parking proposal — the specifics have yet to be released. “The devil is in the details,” said Berthet. “Between the PowerPoint and the text amendment, it’s a huge space to cross.”

The full amendment could be released as soon as tomorrow. ”The modified text amendment is currently being proofed and approved,” said Michael Shilstone, a department spokesperson.

Borough President Scott Stringer has not yet expressed a public opinion on the proposed parking changes, a major transportation and environmental policy affecting the majority of the borough.

The City Council’s zoning subcommittee may take up the proposal at its next meeting on April 3, followed by the land use committee the next day, though agendas have yet to be released.

Did you hear? It didn’t get press coverage, but a week ago rates for on-street parking in Manhattan below 110th Street increased by 50 cents. The lack of attention this story has gotten is truly amazing, given the media’s usual windshield perspective.

As of January 25, meters below 96th Street now charge $3.50 an hour, while hourly rates between 96th and 110th Streets increased to $1.50. In Manhattan above 110th Street and elsewhere in the city, rates remain at $1.00 per hour. The last time City Hall tried to raise meter rates farther out from the CBD, City Council members including Transportation Committee Chair James Vacca made a fuss, though the council eventually agreed to a 25-cent increase in 2011.

The most recent round of meter rate increases were part of the city’s effort to close a budget gap in November and are expected to bring in approximately $5.1 million annually. Another gap-closing measure will bring muni-meters to 428 previously unmetered spots in Lower Manhattan, which is projected to raise $6.7 million per year.

In a way it’s a shame that changes to meter prices are usually tied to budget-balancing efforts, since there’s a compelling transportation policy case to set the price of parking to ensure spots are available, reducing traffic caused by drivers cruising for open spaces. DOT has been making some headway on this front in a handful of neighborhoods with its PARK Smart reforms.

The rate hikes and new meters in Manhattan are a step in the right direction, as far as setting the right price is concerned. But there’s still a long way to go until the price of on-street spaces is comparable to off-street spaces. As long as that’s the case, Manhattan drivers will have an incentive to cruise for spots. Since the difference between on-street and off-street prices got a little smaller last week and nobody noticed, maybe the city can start shrinking the gap faster.

The protected bike and pedestrian space on Broadway between 42nd and 35th Streets will be redesigned in 2013 to give more space to pedestrians, removing a motor vehicle lane. The alterations will also change the bike lane from a protected route often used by pedestrians as a de facto sidewalk extension to a buffered lane between curbside parking and moving cars.

Because Broadway carries fewer motor vehicles than it used to, thanks to the elimination of through traffic at Times Square and Herald Square, DOT is reducing the number of motor vehicle lanes on this section of the street from two to one. Cyclists riding in the buffered bike lane probably won’t have to worry much about speeding cars, since traffic on Broadway has been calmed significantly. But instead of pedestrians ambling in the protected bike lane, cyclists may have to contend with more double-parked vehicles blocking the way.

In its presentation to Manhattan Community Board 5′s transportation committee last month, DOT dismissed the option of moving the bike lane from the curb to the other side of the pedestrian spaces so it could remain protected by a row of parked cars, as on Broadway between 57th and 47th Streets. DOT said it was not considering this option because the buffer between the parked cars and the bike lane, when combined with the required fire zone, would significantly reduce the amount of space available for tables, chairs, and other public amenities.

The change does not affect other sections of Broadway that have been redesigned from Columbus Circle to Union Square. It was unanimously supported by CB 5′s transportation committee on October 22, and it will go before the full board tomorrow at 6 p.m. at Xavier High School, 30 West 16th Street.

As part of the safety improvements on Delancey Street that DOT is installing, the evening rush hour ban on left turns at the intersection of Essex and Delancey Streets was extended to prohibit left turns at all times. To educate motorists, DOT installed reflective overhead signs and temporary electronic signage.

So far, more than a few drivers are ignoring the new rules at one of Manhattan’s most dangerous intersections. During one signal cycle, Gothamist captured five drivers in a row making the illegal turn from southbound Essex Street to eastbound Delancey Street. Some drivers on their way to the Williamsburg Bridge jumped the queue, cutting in front and behind a pedestrian in the crosswalk. “There is often an adjustment period as new projects and traffic patterns are implemented,” DOT spokesman Seth Solomonow told Gothamist. “We’ll continue to monitor the location and will take additional steps if necessary.”

It seems the necessary additional steps need to be taken by the NYPD, which after all is the only agency with the authority to ticket lawbreaking drivers. We’ve put in a request to NYPD’s press office, asking how the agency is enforcing Delancey Street’s new rules. We’ll let you know if we hear back.

Manhattan’s Fifth and Sixth Avenues are two of the busiest bicycle routes in the city, even without protected bike infrastructure to make cycling appealing to a broader range of New Yorkers. They are also major pedestrian thoroughfares in need of safety upgrades. While DOT’s “6½ Avenue” project can help relieve some of the crowding, both avenues devote wide expanses to motor traffic and could use the kind of overhaul that the city has used to improve conditions for walking and biking on other major streets.

Now advocates and volunteers are mobilizing for changes: Last week, Transportation Alternatives kicked off a push for protected bike lanes and pedestrian safety improvements on Fifth and Sixth Avenues. TA and its volunteers are still in the early stages of outreach to build public support for the concept, but this is a major campaign that’s already generating attention from the local press.

Sixth Avenue is the most-biked street in New York, with Fifth Avenue ranking as the busiest southbound avenue in Midtown, according to DOT counts cited by TA following last week’s meeting. Protected bike lanes on Fifth and Sixth Avenues would fill in the center of Midtown with safer routes, providing safer options between the existing north-south pairs of protected lanes on the East and West Sides (First and Second Avenues, and Eighth and Ninth Avenues).

Miller Nuttle, a bicycle advocate at TA, described the meeting as “a brainstorming session about how to organize.” While the campaign does not have specific prescriptions for the avenues, Nuttle pointed to the safety interventions DOT has implemented on other major streets, such as protected bike lanes. Other changes the campaign might investigate include sidewalk widening or improvements to the dedicated bus lane on Fifth Avenue. The campaign has not yet focused on a specific stretch of the avenues.

“We’ll be reaching out over the next several months,” Nuttle said, “responding to the demands for safer and more efficient streets.” Any street safety changes on Fifth and Sixth Avenues will involve working with a broad range of partners, including businesses, commuters and Community Board 5.

Read more…

Photo contributor extraordinaire Jacob-uptown has uploaded a new batch to the Streetsblog Flickr pool, taking us on a tour of the major new bikeways DOT is implementing in Manhattan.

The extension of the First Avenue bike lane from the Queensboro Bridge up to 72nd Street is nearly complete. It’s the first protected bike infrastructure on the Upper East Side — “very exciting progress,” Jacob says, but he notes that the connection from the bike route south of the bridge could be better:

There is a big gap between the sharrows on 1st Ave leading up to 57th, and the beginning of the protected lane on 61st. At 57th the sharrows simply end, with no indication that a much nicer facility is only a few blocks away.

More photos from Jacob after the jump.

Read more…

Children growing up in Manhattan’s low-income communities are at significantly higher risk of being seriously injured or killed in traffic than their neighbors in wealthier districts, a new study from Transportation Alternatives finds [PDF]. Intersections near public housing appear to be particularly dangerous for children trying to cross the street.

In East Harlem and on the Lower East Side, the number of children younger than 18 who are killed or seriously injured while walking or riding their bikes is significantly higher than on the Upper East Side or in Gramercy and East Midtown, even though there are more total crashes with pedestrians in those wealthier neighborhoods.

The most dangerous intersection for kids on the East Side is Lexington and 125th, where 34 children were injured and one killed between 1995 and 2009.

The disparity can’t be explained by differences in population. In fact, the Upper East Side has the greatest share of residents under the age of 18 of the four areas studied. Rather, children are more at risk of getting hit by a car than adults in the low-income neighborhoods, while they are at lower risk in the high-income areas.

Transportation Alternatives hasn’t pinned down a cause, but they theorize that the design of public housing projects could be the culprit. Nine of the ten most dangerous East Side intersections for children were near public housing. The creation of large superblocks at many public housing developments could be encouraging children to cross mid-block, for example.

Twelve-year-old Dashane Santana, a resident of the East Village’s Jacob Riis Houses, was hit and killed last Friday while crossing Delancey at Clinton Street, across from NYCHA’s Seward Park Extension at the foot of the Williamsburg Bridge.

Leaders from East Harlem and the Lower East Side have decried the unsafe conditions their children face. “My district contains the greatest concentration of public housing in the city and is located in an area of Manhattan where traffic can be quite heavy. That means the children of my district are at risk,” said City Council Member Melissa Mark-Viverito. “We need immediate action to address dangerous driving habits and must improve traffic patterns in high risk areas. Bike lanes in East Harlem are certainly one part of the solution, but more can be done.”

“This map shows us an injustice, pure and simple,” said Damaris Reyes, the executive director of the neighborhood organization Good Old Lower East Side. “Our kids living in public housing on the Lower East Side, including my own children, deserve safe streets just as much as any other child in the city. The NYPD needs to get its priorities straight and crack down on dangerous driving.”

The Department of City Planning continues to send confusing signals about parking policy. Is the department looking to strengthen parking policies that limit traffic, or does it want to water down the rules already in place?

While DCP is developing a solid package of reforms for parking regulations in the Manhattan core right now, it is simultaneously preparing to open the door to the evisceration of parking maximums. DCP wants to sever the connection between existing parking maximums and the federal Clean Air Act, which is the ultimate guarantee that the parking rules will remain in place and be upheld.

Right now, parking maximums in Manhattan are backed up by the force of the Clean Air Act. Parking controls are not only part of the city’s zoning code, but also part of New York’s State Implementation Plan (SIP), which documents how the state complies with federal air quality standards.

Linking parking maximums to the SIP gives them teeth. Recently, when the city wanted to scrap parking maximums on the West Side as part of plans for the Hudson Yards development, neighborhood activists were able to take the city to court under the Clean Air Act. The city was forced to settle and enact a hard cap on the amount of parking at Hudson Yards, an important first for New York City.

Had parking maximums not been part of the SIP, eliminating them at Hudson Yards would have been a routine zoning change. In fact, while attempting to push through its parking plans for the West Side, the city tried to remove parking controls from the SIP in 2007. The state Department of Environmental Conservation did not go along with the city’s plans, however.

In a meeting earlier this year with parking reform advocates, DCP staff announced that they are again going to ask for parking caps to be removed from the SIP. Sandy Hornick, a long-time DCP official now serving as a consultant for strategic planning to the department, said that the department would make that request once the proposed Manhattan parking reforms are enacted, reported Christine Berthet, the co-chair of Community Board 4′s transportation committee, who attended that meeting.

Berthet said she believes that DCP’s actions don’t add up. “If all the efforts they are doing intend to reduce parking and reduce traffic, then why do they need to touch the State Implementation Plan?” she asked. She hypothesized that DCP might be seeking to inoculate itself from lawsuits the next time the agency tries to weaken Manhattan’s parking maximums.