Nearly a full year after the tragic death of pro-bono lawyer and bike commuter Elizabeth Padilla, the Department of Transportation has responded to our requests to make changes to Fifth Avenue in Park Slope, Brooklyn making it safer for cyclists. DOT will install new signs and shared lane markings to help explain how cyclists and motorists are supposed to interact with each other along the narrow stretch of Fifth Avenue north of Carroll Street. The changes will be completed by the end of summer. This small but meaningful win for more livable streets was attained with the help of Councilmembers Bill DeBlasio and David Yassky and Craig Hammerman of Community Board 6, though at far too high a price.

Elizabeth Padilla memorial web site
Liz Padilla Ghost Bike memorial
Memorial bike ride
TransAlt magazine article on 2005 bike fatalities (PDF)

2:27 PM | Link | (0) comments   

Over the last few months I have been helping to organize a group that we are calling The Grand Army Plaza Coalition. It's a great project with a remarkable level of momentum, excitement and broad-based support. Below is a news blurb that went out in the New York City Streets Renaissance Livable Streets newsletter yesterday.

But first, here is an NYCSR short-film on the Grand Army Plaza Coalition by Clarence Eckerson.

And here is a great article by Park Slope Civic Council newsletter editor Ezra Goldstein on the history of Grand Army Plaza and its transformation from great urban civic space to "traffic circle of death."

FILLING THE GAP: THE GRAND ARMY PLAZA COALITION

Brooklyn's Grand Army Plaza was designed to be one of the world's truly great civic spaces. Prospect and Central Park designers Frederick Law Olmsted and Calvert Vaux laid out the sweeping, oval introduction to Prospect Park in 1867. The construction of the Soldiers and Sailors Memorial arch, created by John Duncan in 1889, was an event of national importance. Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman laid the first stone and President Grover Cleveland presided over its unveiling ceremony on October 21, 1892.

Today, Brooklyn's plaza rivals the grandeur of European plazas like the Parisian Etoile where the Arc de Triomphe is located. There is, however, one notable difference: Unlike the great European plazas, Grand Army Plaza is, for the most part, disconnected from the city around it and devoid of human life and activity. Over the years, this great civic space has evolved into a gigantic traffic rotary. With minimal pedestrian connectivity, no accommodation for Prospect Park's countless cyclists, and six full lanes of one-way traffic whizzing around the plaza's grand arch and newly renovated $2 million Bailey Fountain, the message Grand Army Plaza sends to the public is, "Look but don't touch." It doesn't feel safe to cross the street to get to Grand Army Plaza so people simply don't go there, even on beautiful weekend afternoons with a bustling, crowded greenmarket, less than 100-feet away at the entrance to Prospect Park.

In recent months a diverse group of community stakeholders have come together to begin to re-envision Grand Army Plaza. What has emerged is one of the most exciting New York City Streets Renaissance projects. The Grand Army Plaza Coalition includes a rapidly expanding list of neighborhood groups, advocacy organizations and important local institutions like the Prospect Park Alliance, The Brooklyn Public Library and The Heart of Brooklyn which represents all of the cultural institutions around Grand Army Plaza, as well as neighborhood groups like the Park Slope Civic Council and the Prospect Heights Parents Association.

"Our mission is to fill the GAP," says Coalition organizer Aaron Naparstek. "We envision Grand Army Plaza as a great place for people, a place where Brooklyn's diverse communities can come together for concerts, festivals and simple relaxation and recreation. We believe that Grand Army Plaza is one of New York City's most valuable, yet under-utilized, assets."

For the past three months the Grand Army Plaza Coalition has been holding regular monthly meetings. The Coalition's immediate goal is to create safer, easier pedestrian access to the under-utilized center of Grand Army Plaza. Towards that end, members of the Coalition have met with New York City DOT's Brooklyn Borough Commissioner, Joseph Palmieri, requesting the installation of a crosswalk and pedestrian signal directly linking the greenmarket space at the Prospect Park to the Memorial Arch. The Coalition's longer-term goal is to conceptualize, encourage and advocate for a broad transformation of Grand Army Plaza.

Already, Coalition members are developing powerful strategies to transform the plaza. Transportation Alternatives and the Prospect Park Alliance have retained the renowned Danish urban designer Jan Gehl, whose Gehl Architecture firm helped London, Melbourne, and Copenhagen transform inefficient, traffic-clogged streets and squares into great pedestrian spaces and models of public space reclamation. The first phase of the study will be completed by June 2nd, when Gehl will present the key findings to the public at Grand Army Plaza.

1:26 PM | Link | (4) comments   

The ribbon-cutting for the new Fairway supermarket in Red Hook, Brooklyn draws Senator Chuck Schumer, Mayor Michael Bloomberg and one very enthusiastic repeat customer...

From the Brooklyn Star:
"...According to [Fairway co-owner Howard] Glickberg, [Department of Transportation Commissioner Iris] Weinshall had already been shopping at his new store - Fairway's fourth, after two in Manhattan and one on Long Island - four times in the six days it had been open. Indeed, the Star saw her there at least twice, on Wednesday and on Monday. Ironically, it is just such frequent motorists like herself that have some local residents lambasting the very agency she oversees - the Department of Transportation - for a lack of infrastructure to cope with the expected increase in traffic.

From NY1:
"It's only been opened a couple of days, and the Fairway in Red Hook is already attracting a lot of shoppers. The parking lot is pretty full, and that's one thing that concerns residents – that the traffic will come along with new development. One resident says nearby Van Brunt Street is already taking the brunt of the traffic, on a stretch that goes 12 blocks without a light.

“'We wanted the store to open up, we wanted to see people develop their traffic patterns, and then we'll be back here in the fall, we'll put our counters down, and we'll see if any of the corners will meet warrants to put up traffic lights,' said Department of Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall."

The Daily News:
"We had people from Queens; we had people from Lower Manhattan, some from Staten Island," said co-owner Howard Glickberg. "There were a lot of New Jersey plates in the parking lot." Glickberg said about 10 people came off every ferry, while most came by car. Many locals either walked or took their bikes to the store, housed in a Civil War-era warehouse on the waterfront.

"One guy fell on a pothole," said Glickberg said. The bruised biker than accosted unsuspecting shopper City Transportation Dept. commissioner Iris Weinshall. "He started to complain to her." Weinshall turned out to be quite a fan of the new store herself: Husband U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer reported Weinshall has made at least four trips to the new market since it opened last week.

1:07 PM | Link | (1) comments   

An interesting take on congestion pricing from Harvard economics professor Edward L. Glaeser in today's New York Sun:

The debate over what is called congestion pricing - charging a fee for the use of the city streets in high traffic areas during rush hour - is set to heat up, as the business group known as the Partnership for New York City gets set to release what its president, Kathryn Wylde, calls a study on the problem, which she says is having a "multi-billion dollar negative impact on the economy."

Mrs. Wylde said the partnership hasn't endorsed congestion pricing, but, "It's something we need to figure out how to solve." She said the partnership is looking at different models in cities around the world, including user fees, increasing the costs of on-street parking, and having more regulations on trucks. "Ultimately, what we are trying to do is frame the decision - not have a tolling of the bridges discussion. We are trying to get away from this as a tax."

Following is an article, commissioned by The New York Sun, from the Glimp Professor of Economics at Harvard and Director of the Taubman Center for State and Local Government.

A Congestion Charge for Manhattan
The Soviet approach to markets set prices at some controlled price, and then let shortages ensue. Under this system, millions wasted hours queuing and goods went to consumers with the time to stand on line rather than to consumers who valued the goods most. Today, you don't need to go through the messy process of getting a visa to Cuba or North Korea to see the social costs of under-pricing. Right here in New York, we don't charge anything for using a particularly valuable resource: car access to Manhattan streets. We ration the limited access to streets through time wasted in traffic. New York's mean travel time to work was 40 minutes in the 2000 Census, almost 15 minutes more than the national average. We've set the price of driving at zero and inevitably too many people drive.

There are only two ways to make real headway against congestion in Manhattan: build more streets or get fewer people to drive. Knocking down high-rises to expand Third Avenue seems pretty stupid, so to fix congestion we have to reduce the amount of driving. There is plenty of scope for improving public transportation, but the most reliable means of reducing traffic is to charge people for the social costs of their driving. When anyone drives in a crowded street, they create an externality: One person's driving slows down everybody else.The best way to handle this externality is to charge drivers a congestion charge that reflects the social costs of the congestion they create.

New York should follow London and charge drivers for driving in the city during peak hours. London's congestion charge system, introduced on February 17, 2003, requires drivers to pay eight pounds before they enter a congestion charging zone during peak hours. The zone is eight square miles in the heart of London.

Drivers pay either online or at one of many payment facilities. The system is enforced with a network of fixed and mobile cameras that take snapshots of license plates. Individuals who are caught driving without paying are fined 100 pounds. The fine system is computerized, and it is both reliable and inexpensive to operate.

According to London's "Third Annual Monitoring Report," the number of cars entering the charging zone during peak hours fell by 33% after the congestion charge. As traffic fell, speeds rose. Before the congestion charge, the average traffic delay was 3.7 minutes per mile during morning rush hour and four minutes per miles during the afternoon rush hour. After the congestion charge, delays per mile fell to 2.4 minutes per mile in the morning and 2.6 minutes per mile in the evening. Overall, there was a 30% decrease in time wasted in traffic delays.

Some critics of congestion charges argue that they are unfair to low income people, but in London, lower-income bus travelers were the charge's biggest beneficiaries. Bus riders didn't have to pay the charge and their travel times plummeted. As the time cost of bus travel fell, the number of bus passengers during morning hours increased by 38% (some of this is due to improved bus service provision). Like London, New York has many more people who commute by public transportation than by car, and New York's many bus travelers would particularly benefit from a congestion charge reducing their commute times.

One worry about congestion charging is that traffic might increase on the edge of the charging zone; this was a problem when Singapore introduced congestion charging in the 1970s. But good implementation reduces this danger. In London, traffic congestion was stable or declined in the area surrounding the congestion charging zone.

New York's economic edge lies in enabling smart, productive people to interact with each other quickly. The financial district thrives as a center of information flows and this information is carried by people traveling to meet each other. Traffic congestion strikes at the heart of the city's comparative advantage. In a world where time is ever more valuable, New York can't afford to fall behind London in traffic management any more than it can afford to fall behind in pricing derivatives.

How would a New York City congestion charge work? First, the city needs to define a congestion charging zone. I suggest Manhattan south of 59th street. This compact area includes the city's economic core and would be easy to monitor. Since this area includes all of the downtown entryways into the city, the congestion fee could even substitute for bridge and tunnel fees for all of the river crossings south of 59th street. Getting rid of lines at these tolls would save more time.

The amount of the congestion charge should equal the congestion costs created by each driver and determining this number requires more study. I suspect that the right charge is around $20. Buses, taxis, and ambulances would be exempt. A discount for people who live south of 59th street might also be politically prudent. It would be easy to exempt vehicles belonging to the handicapped or other groups for humanitarian reasons.

The best enforcement plan today is probably to copy the London system and use fines based on photos of license plates. Fines need to be set so that the probability of getting caught cheating times the penalty is significantly higher than the cost of paying the congestion charge. If there are enough cameras to catch a cheating driver 20% of the time, the fine would have to be above $100. In the future, enforcement will become far easier with improvements in global positioning technology.

The fees could be used to improve public transportation, as was done in London, or to better New York City public schools, but there is also case for just giving the money back to New York taxpayers as a tax rebate. The point of a congestion charge is not to raise government revenue. It isn't a tax and giving the money back will help stop the government from increasing the charge to raise revenues. A congestion charge is a price for using a scarce resource and if New Yorkers get that price back, then they will reap the benefits of a congestion charge without (on average) paying more.

If done right, a congestion charge can reduce travel times for Manhattan drivers so that many car travelers will benefit, despite the charge, because the time they save is worth more than the cash cost of the congestion charge. The current ration-by-congestion system seems designed for those drivers who like spending time sitting in traffic watching pedestrians speed by. A congestion charge - like any price - will ensure that the streets are used less and more efficiently. Congestion charging will make the city more competitive by reducing the time wasted in traffic. New Yorkers' time is too valuable to be wasted by an unwillingness to charge drivers for the congestion they cause.

1:00 PM | Link | (2) comments   

The New York Metro Chapter of the American Planning Association will host a roundtable discussion addressing one of New York City’s most critical transportation planning issues: How do we improve travel through the City?

Experts from the planning, advocacy, public, and business sectors will present best practices from across the globe and discuss what’s possible in New York.

Answers may include City-wide programs including congestion pricing, market-rate parking, return of funds to transit and alternative transportation programs, as well as local initiatives including neighborhood traffic calming and parking districts.

Panelists:
Bruce Schaller, Principal, Schaller Consulting
Kathy Wilde, President, New York City Partnership
Sam Schwartz, President and CEO, Sam Schwartz PLLC
Jon Orcutt, Executive Director, Tri-State Transportation Campaign

Wednesday, May 24th, 2006
8:00 am to 8:30 am -- Continental Breakfast
8:30 am to 10 am -- Panel Discussion

Steven L. Newman Hall137 East 22nd Street, Second FloorBetween Lexington and Third Avenues

RSVP: office (at) nyplanning (dot) org

This event is cosponsored by the American Planning Association's Transportation Division

4:42 PM | Link | (1) comments   

Apparently, we have come to accept the destructiveness and sociopathy of American car culture as so thoroughly normal and mundane that even when a guy intentionally uses his SUV to try to kill five people after a fight, we still call it an "accident." This little gem was found by Starts & Fits in today's New York Times:

May 18, 2006
Man Strikes 5 With S.U.V. in North Bellmore, N.Y.
By JENNIFER 8. LEE
A man intentionally ran over five people in North Bellmore, with an S.U.V. after a fight last night, the Nassau County police said. The driver fled the scene of the accident, at 2800 Pacific Ave. But the police later located the vehicle they believed was involved in the accident in Garden City and took the driver in for questioning. The victims were taken to Nassau University Medical Center, the police said. One was in critical condition, a hospital spokeswoman said.

5:45 PM | Link | (7) comments   

On January 3rd, Stockholm, Sweden became the latest major world city to begin managing and controlling motor vehicle traffic with congestion charging, an automated system that charges motorists a fee to drive into the most gridlocked sections of the city center. The fee varies depending on the time of day and level of traffic congestion.

Yesterday, The Local, an English-language Swedish newspaper reported the following:

"The widescale opposition to Stockholm's congestion charge appears to have evaporated. According to a new poll carried out by Sifo on behalf of the Green Party, 62% of Stockholm residents are planning to vote to keep the charge in the autumn referendum... Opinion has shifted in favour of the charge since the trial has shown it to have a positive effect on traffic levels."

According to one newspaper poll, 80% of Stockholm residents opposed congestion pricing before its implementation. A March 10 survey showed that 44% were in favor of congestion charging and 47% were against. In September Stockholm voters will go to the polls for a referendum on whether or not to keep the congestion charge.

Previous headlines:
Stockholm gets congestion charge go-ahead
Protests Mar Opening of Stockholm Congestion Tax
"Quiet start" for Stockholm congestion charge
197 new buses have been bought by the Stockholm transit agency

11:16 AM | Link | (0) comments   

Boy, the parking squat post really seems to have hit a nerve in the comments section. In some ways, it is not surprising. Working and writing on these issues for a few years now I have found that New Yorkers are increasingly supportive of the idea of creating better pedestrian, cycling and bus facilities. Yet, when you point out that, very often, the best ways to translate this support into action involve making it even more difficult, costly and inconvenient to drive and park private automobiles in the city than it already is, the support quickly evaporates, no matter the potential benefits.

When, on top of that, you also point out the extraordinary costs of our automobile-dominated transportation system, it often just makes people feel kind of bad and defensive. This is why I have learned to try to focus on the benefits. No one wants to be reminded that they are, in a small but significant way contributing to global climate change, the war in Iraq and their neighbors' kids' asthma every time they turn their ignition key. So, despite the seeming innocence of setting up lawn chairs in a parking space, it is not a surprise that the parking squat would provoke some strong, emotional reactions. The squat challenges some very fundamental assumptions about how Americans and New Yorkers live their lives. American culture teaches explicitly and implicitly, over and over, that owning, driving and parking a motor vehicle is perfectly normal, good and absolutely necessary. The parking squat challenges all of that. That is hard for people to hear.

One commenter questioned the economic argument of the parking squat. I will try to respond to that and a few other comments:

The market rate price for a private parking space in Park Slope runs between $500 and $1,200 per month. People pay a lot of money for a parking space in New York City. On-street parking on the vast majority of the streets in Park Slope, on the residential blocks, is totally, completely, 100% free. On the commercial avenues parking costs about $1/hour for about eight hours of the day. That is $8/day or about $250/month. But people looking for long-term storage of their cars can't really use metered spaces anyway. These motorists are either paying a huge monthly fee for private space or they are trolling the streets looking for a free spot.

So, there is an enormous discrepency between the market rate price of parking and the on-street price of parking in most of New York City. This inefficiency in the market for automobile storage space creates a lot of irrational and destructive behavior. For example, many motorists clog the city's streets (especially during morning rush hour when street cleaning takes place) spending countless hours, gallons of gas and pounds of carbon emissions circling their neighborhood searching for free parking space. This uniquely New York behavior was even memorialized in Calvin Trillin's hilarious novel, "Tepper Isn't Going Out."

The irrationality and dysfunctionality of New York City parking policy and parking's role in generating automobile traffic and congestion is beginning to become a major topic in academic, policy and planning circles. UCLA professor Donald Shoup kick-started the public discussion with the recent publication of his book, "The High Cost of Free Parking," in which he details, among other things, the vast waste of time, gas and carbon emissions spent simply "cruising" for parking in dense urban areas. Next Wednesday, May 24, the NY Chapter of the American Planning Association is hosting a roundtable discusion, "No Time to Stop! Moving People Through NYC" that will focus on many of these parking issues, including the idea of how pricing and permits can be used to rationalize parking policy in New York.

The bottom line to the ecomonic argument is that space is one of the most precious commodities in New York City. Yet, we give away automobile storage space nearly for free. In neighborhoods like those of north Brooklyn where a fair number of residents have personal wealth, traffic congestion is a major problem, transit, biking or walking into the Manhattan business district is a viable option, and where the public would benefit from more space being dedicated to things like bus lanes and even cafe tables, it doesn't make sense to give away such vast tracts of public space for the free storage of personal motor vehicles.

Likewise, as New York City grows, develops and densifies -- a necessity for New York's economic survival -- we are seeing that there are better, more efficient and more socially and economically productive uses of our public space than automobile storage. Automobile-dependency is, in many ways, becoming a brake on New York City's growth. Virtually, every big development in town is being fought on the grounds that it will generate too much traffic. We need to make our streets work more efficiently as people-movers. Personal automobiles won't allow us to do that.

We know from Shoup and others that making parking free, cheap or abundant helps to encourage automobile use. And automobile use in a crowded city is costly and destructive in many ways. On the micro level our car dependency produces an inefficient, gridlocked transportation system, horn-honking, car alarms and diminished quality of life, third world level asthma rates, and enormous personal expense in the form of gas, insurance and maintenance. On the macro level our car dependency is helping to produce global climate change, resource war and political instability in oil-producing regions, and a lack of funding for other more efficient modes of transportation like a national rail system or our local bus systems, for example.

So, while, on one level doing a parking squat is inherently a little bit silly, I think it is also a great way for people on the super-micro local level to challenge some ingrained assumptions about how we run our city and to take action on some of the most pressing local and global challenges that we face. Clearly, the event touched a nerve.

Finally, one commenter called the event a "protest" but I do not think that is an accurate description. The squat didn't look, feel or sound like a protest. No one was angry, holding signs or chanting for powers-that-be to take some specific action. In fact, people seemed relaxed, mellow and enjoying the alteration of New York City land use policy that they were themselves creating right there and then. Rather than a "protest" the parking squat seemed a lot more like a "celebration" or a "reclamation." The event was just a bunch of people parking their bodies and their bikes in a space that the city has, without a whole lot of thought, discussion or analysis, handed over to a minority of New Yorkers to store their automobiles, their space-hogging, gas-guzzling, air-polluting, glacier-melting private property.

11:54 AM | Link | (23) comments   

Below is an update from Ken Coughlin, Chair of Transportation Alternative's Car-Free Central Park Committee, to campaign supporters.
------

Things have been happening, as I'm sure many of you are aware. The details and our analysis are below, but before getting to that, I have a personal message for all supporters of a car-free Central Park. If you read no further, please read this, and forward it on:

The next few weeks will decide whether Central Park will be car-free this summer, and, by extension, how quickly we will win a park that is permanently free of traffic. Even though you and thousands of other park users favor a car-free park, persuading elected officials to act against the interests of even a handful of drivers can be surprisingly difficult. YOU are the only force that will persuade them to do this. They have heard that 102,000 people signed a petition in support of a car-free park. But claims of signatures on pieces of paper are one thing; real voters who contact them are another.

As they decide how to vote, the Council members will be looking closely for evidence of continued strong support. If instead they sense apathy or indifference on this issue, they are unlikely to stick their necks out and vote against the interests of motorists.

Toward the end of this week, Transportation Alternatives will be sending out an action alert. There may also be follow-up calls for action. To win a car-free park, we all must respond. I know that you have heard this message before, but a successful advocacy campaign absolutely depends on persistent effort. No one can say whether we will prevail in the next few weeks, but I can guarantee you that we will fail unless we continue to demonstrate to elected officials that thousands of New Yorkers want Central Park to be car free, at least for this summer.

NOW THE NEWS:
As you may know, City Council members Gale Brewer and John Liu have introduced a bill, Intro. 276, mandating a car-free summer in Central Park from June 24 to September 24, 2006, as well as car-free afternoons in Prospect Park during the same period. On May 8, the day before the Council Transportation Committee's scheduled hearing on the bill, Mayor Bloomberg announced a six-month pilot plan to ban traffic from portions of Central Park's loop road that are already little used by cars. As of Monday June 5, 2006, vehicles will no longer be allowed on Central Park's East Drive north of 72nd Street in the morning or anywhere (apparently) on the West Drive in the afternoon. (In addition, Prospect Park's West Drive will be closed to traffic in the mornings.)

The mayor's announcement was clearly an effort to drain support from the Council bill by giving car-free supporters something while maintaining the loop road as a traffic artery. Whether this strategy will succeed remains to be seen. While any reduction in car usage is welcome, most of the loop road will continue to be flooded with cars during prime recreational hours. Worse, recreational users who may believe they are exercising in a totally car-free park will suddenly encounter traffic, perhaps with disastrous consequences. The administration is now boasting that the loop road is free of traffic "75 percent of the time." We don't know how they arrived at this figure. Between prime recreational hours of 7 am and 7 pm, the loop road is entirely free of traffic exactly 0 percent of the time. Considering that the park is officially closed from 1 am until 6 am, even under the new rules the loop will be entirely free of traffic for only seven hours -- from 7 pm to 1 am and from 6 am to 7 am (assuming the entrances are opened and closed on time).

The Council hearing went forward as planned the following day. The Transportation Committee, chaired by Liu, first heard from Transportation Commissioner Iris Weinshall. Although Weinshall had stood alongside the mayor the day before and said that "people come to New York City's parks to get away from the hustle and bustle of urban life," at the hearing she declared that Central Park's loop road was an "essential traffic artery" and that its closing would cause "significant" disruption. Pressed by Council member Daniel Garodnick for a definition of "significant," Weinshall and First Deputy Commissioner Michael Primeggia offered only more vague portents of traffic tie-ups.

They were followed by a panel of three independent traffic experts who believe that closing the Central Park loop road to traffic will lead to an overall reduction in traffic on city streets. Under questioning from Garodnick, consultant Bruce Schaller said that "shrinkage" -- the percentage of cars now using the park that would effectively disappear from the street grid if Central Park were closed -- could reach 100 percent. Schaller said that the Department of Transportation's assumption of 15 percent shrinkage was too pessimistic.

Other witnesses speaking in favor of the bill included Columbia University professor Patrick L. Kinney, an expert on the human health effects of air pollution. Noting that fine particles from car exhaust can lodge deep in the lungs and cause lung cancer, heart disease and asthma, Kinney said "moving traffic off of the park loop roads will significantly reduce health risks for people using the park, especially those exercising along the loop roads."

Since this was just a hearing, the committee's stance on the bill was hard to read. We know that Liu and Brewer are 100 percent behind Intro. 276. At a press conference prior to the hearing, both spoke strongly in favor of it, as did Brooklyn Council member Bill de Blasio and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer, whose latest newsletter to Manhattan residents twice mentions his support of a car-free Central Park. We believe Intro. 276 also has the support of East Side Council members Garodnick, Jessica Lappin and Melissa Mark Viverito. The big question mark is Council Speaker Christine Quinn, who may hold the key to not only the bill's passage but its passing with enough votes to overcome an almost certain mayoral veto. Quinn has not yet made her position known.

It is likely that the Transportation Committee will vote on Intro. 276 in late May, and, assuming it passes, a full Council vote will come shortly thereafter.

Again, prior to these votes the Speaker and other Council members will be paying close attention to the level of popular support the bill has. We need to show them that New Yorkers want nothing less than a safe and pollution-free Central Park loop road this summer.

Ken Coughlin,
Chair
Transportation Alternatives' Car-Free Central Park Committee

1:05 PM | Link | (0) comments   

Otis White's Civic Strategies newsletter reports on a Los Angeles-based real estate developer, Rick Caruso, who is finding that the most effective way to get big development projects done is to work with neighborhood and community groups on plans and designs from the very beginning rather than shutting them out of the process:

"...Caruso's secret seems to be working with the neighbors in the earlydesign stages and not walking through the door with renderings inhand. This approach works not only in California but in citiesaround the country. Recently, a developer wanted to build a 40-storydowntown condo tower in St. Paul, Minn., where people are sensitiveabout high-rise buildings overwhelming the city. The company metwith neighborhood groups more than a dozen times and ran through 24 different designs before coming up with one that satisfied theneighbors and make sense financially...."

9:06 PM | Link | (3) comments   

In the coming weeks I will be transitioning my blogging over to a new domain: StreetsBlog. This new blog, supported by The Open Planning Project, will be covering the New York City Streets Renaissance Campaign on a daily basis. It will include other contributors as well. While the new site is in development, I will still be posting here at nap.com, so please stay tuned.

On Saturday, a group of Livable Streets advocates staged a "parking squat" in Park Slope, Brooklyn (see QuickTime video here). Organizers David Alquist, Jeff Prant and Geoff Zink showed up in front of the Connecticut Muffin shop on 7th Avenue and 1st Street at 9:00 am, dropped quarters in two parking meters, unfolded lawn chairs and proceeded to hang out, drink coffee, read the paper and chat with friends, neighbors and passersby in street space that would typically be occupied by two lifeless automobiles.

A parking squat challenges the idea that the vast majority of a crowded city's street space--its public space--is best used for the storage and movement of private automobiles. Space is one of New York City's most precious and valued commodities. The sidewalks of Park Slope's shopping avenues are narrow and on nice weekends they are jam-packed. Yet, while pedestrians hauling strollers and shopping carts jostle up against one another on tiny strips of sidewalk, single-passenger vehicles frolic across vast swaths of asphalt. And while some people in this neighborhood pay as much as $2,500 per month to rent an apartment the size of a parking spot, renting an actual parking spot costs a mere 25 cents per hour.

Centrally-located, catty-corner from the P.S. 321 flea market, and with generous outdoor seating, Connecticut Muffin already functions as a kind of neighborhood Town Square. On nice days like last Saturday the benches fill up fast and the line for coffee extends out onto the street. The demand for sitting space at this corner is high and as soon as the squatters put out their chairs, they were filled. People even came and sat on the curb.

New York City regulations say that metered, curbside parking spaces are only to be used for the storage of vehicles. This kid made sure the rules were being followed.

Artists, activists and regular people in cities all over the world are staging similar events to point the irrationality of public space policies that put automobiles and parking ahead of people and communities. Last fall members of Transportation Alternatives staged New York City's first-ever parking squat in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. That was inspired by an art collective in San Francisco that, literally, transformed a parking space into a park. The San Francisco project also spurred on a group in the Sicilian town of Trapani to transform a strip of curbside asphalt into that city's first and only public lawn. Recently, artist Michael Rakowitz used a car-shaped tent to create his very own affordable housing program in Vienna, Austria. In July 2003 this group in Oxford, England staged the grand daddy of all parking squats, putting an end to speeding in their neighborhood by installing a fully-furnished living room in the middle of their street. When one pissed-off motorist crashed into some of the furniture, it sparked "Britain's first documented example of 'room rage.'" The Open Planning Project's Clarence Eckerson filmed the Park Slope squat and got some great interviews. If you still think a parking squat sounds a little bit crazy listen to how articulate these people are in explaining what they are doing and why. Consider running a parking squat in your own neighborhood one of these days.



12:56 PM | Link | (60) comments