Fix New York

San Francisco smugly shows NYC what not to build

2008-12-11T18:52:00.003-05:00

Check out Streetsblog's "San Francisco Mayor to NYC: 'Eat Your Heart Out'." I can count quite a few problems with that rendering just based on observing form vs. function:

It's big. It takes up five blocks. It disrupts the flow of pedestrian traffic for five blocks.
The park is high up and inaccessible.
The transit center probably doesn't need to be in downtown. Stops can be in downtown; transfers can be in downtown; the transit center is redundant.
If this is a terminal station, it's a real waste. There's no need to have a terminal station built in the most expensive part of the city.

Hispanic empowerment?

2008-12-06T08:01:00.004-05:00

Imagine for a second that your home state Senate's major political party just shifted in last month's election. Then, a handful of gay senators announce they'll support the party that wasn't voted if they don't get handed a ton of power.

Well, cross out "gay" and replace it with "Hispanic," and that's what's happened in New York State. The "Gang of Three" holdouts in the Senate are partly motivated by empowering Hispanics. One in particular, Ruben Diaz, is also motivated by keeping gays disenfranchised, refusing to caucus with the Democrats unless he's sure gay marriage won't even be voted on.

So, Hispanic power: good! Homosexual equality: bad!

Ruben Diaz is an embarrassment to the state, just as James Dobson is an embarrassment to the country. How about worrying about real issues, like healthcare, transportation, and the budget?

Tolling the East River bridges: more MTA woes perhaps leading to a backend congestion charge?

2008-11-30T14:49:00.006-05:00

First, to come clean: I supported the congestion charging plan. I thought it was a great alternative to the present system of inconsistent tolling of various routes into the midtown and downtown. For instance, if you come from wealthy Westchester, you can get to Midtown and Lower Manhattan without paying any tolls. If you come from poorer Staten Island (within the city!) or Rockland County, there's no way to avoid a toll. The best routes of travel from Queens often are avoided, irrationally, by motorists trying to avoid the TBTA tolls (Triborough Bridge of Queens-Midtown Tunnel) by taking a "free" bridge. I bet such motorists waste more fuel in traffic than they would have spent just taking the closest bridge—and they don't exist in a vacuum either. They're probably causing unnecessary congestion too.

While the congestion charge had popular support, at least when people understood that its revenues were going to go to improving transit, it also had some powerful enemies. The most powerful enemy it had was, arguably, the New York State Assembly, which refused to even consider the proposal and killed it after the City Council voted in support of it. So desperate were the Assembly Democrats to pander to suburbanites that they were willing to violate the city's sovereignty, and blew hundreds of millions of dollars in federal financing to get the program started.

Now, with the MTA's budget even more in the pits, a commission appointed by Governor David Paterson to recommend new financing sources for the MTA came up with a plan that will have almost the same effect: tolling the East River and Harlem River bridges ("M.T.A. Needs Champion, but Who?" by William Neuman at The New York Times, 2008-11-29).

He is due to deliver a final report to the governor by Friday that is expected to include proposals for a tax on corporate payrolls in the region, tolls on the bridges across the East and Harlem Rivers and an increase in fares on the subway, bus and commuter railroads. Those measures would provide enough money for the authority to overcome a $1.2 billion budget gap next year and allow it to finance a long-term capital program that could cost as much as $30 billion through 2014.

The response to Mr. Ravitch at the partnership underscores the difficulty of his task. Kathryn S. Wylde, the president and chief executive of the group, said “the overwhelming reception” to Mr. Ravitch’s appeal — which did not include details of the payroll tax or tolls — was “positive.” But she also said that while business leaders might be open to a new tax to support the transportation authority, they were concerned about the possibility of multiple tax increases as the state and city sought to balance their budgets as well.

I'm not sure I would consider a new tax a good idea, although additional tolls are certainly fiscally sound.

Here's what I'd like to see immediately before any new taxes are implemented in our overtaxed state: first, keep labor costs down. Don't toll the East River bridges except electronically. Next, eliminate toll booths on the MTA bridges and tunnels and replace these tolls with electronic collection. For those who don't have E-ZPass, send them a bill in the mail along with an E-ZPass (and charge them for the E-ZPass, plus labor)—that way there will be no excuse for not having a pass. Over the long term, this should cut the operating costs of the MTA bridges and tunnels drastically. Finally, permit and external, independent audit of all MTA operations to eliminate as many inefficiencies as possible, managerial and union alike.

See also:

NY1: "Report: Commission To Recommend Tolls On East River Bridges", 2008-11-27

Gillibrand offers ambitious agenda

2008-11-27T01:33:00.002-05:00

Conservative Democrat Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand's agenda ("Gillibrand offers ambitious agenda," 2008-11-26, by Diane Valden at The Independent Online) is laid out.

Taxes:

The congresswoman said she plans will be a "strong voice" for investment in middle class tax cuts, noting that property taxes are too high mostly due to unfunded mandates at the federal level. She said she will promote targeted tax credits for college tuition and early childhood education.

Transport and infrastructure:

Included in the government's attention to infrastructure will be roads, bridges, sewer and water systems, high speed Internet access in rural areas and health care IT (information technology). Ms. Gillibrand said she has gotten healthcare IT money for Columbia Memorial Hospital, noting "mistakes are the biggest costs in health care."

She said she would also like to see high-speed rail or light rail in this region to build public transportation, because "seniors need it" and there is limited bus service.

Energy: wind! solar! hydro!

Wind, solar and hydropower all offer opportunities for the creation of manufacturing jobs, she said, as does the exploration of alternative building materials. She referred to a young inventor who figured out how to make insulation out of a fungus, which turned out to be more efficient than petroleum-based products.

Newsstands

2008-09-09T11:24:00.002-04:00

forgotten NY has a great collection of pictures of newsstands, lamenting their disappearance. Quite melodramatic to use Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis in reference to newsstand, but I guess it fits:

Is it not cruel to let our city die by degrees, stripped of all her proud monuments, until there will be nothing left of all her history and beauty to inspire our children? If they are not inspired by the past of our city, where will they find the strength to fight for her future?

N.Y. Times City Room: "Paterson Criticizes M.T.A.’s Plan to Raise Fares"

2008-07-23T01:33:00.003-04:00

It seems Governor Paterson doesn't like fare increases:

HUDSON, N.Y. — Gov. David A. Paterson sternly criticized the Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s proposal to increase subway, bus and commuter rail fares and called on the authority to take a second look at its finances before it formally asks for an increase.

But here's the kicker:

However, Mr. Paterson did not say whether he would support the authority’s plea for more operating aid from the state.

Apparently he doesn't think the choo-choos, buses, etc. should be funded either.

Here's a question for Paterson: why aren't fares at least covering operating expenses, or at least the vast majority of operating expenses? According to the National Transit Database's Long Island Rail Road data (PDF), in 2006, a year of record ridership, the Long Island Rail Road only managed to cover 47% of its operating expenses with fares ($457,384,145). Meanwhile, the rail road paid out $861,314,374 in "salaries, wages, and benefits" out of its total operating budget ($975,310,538). If I understand these statistics correctly, dividing the fare revenues by the annual number of unlinked trips reveals an average fare might be around $4.60.

By comparison, New York's other major commuter rail road, Metro-North, managed to get 58% of its operating revenues paid for with fare receipts in 2006 (PDF).

Other articles are bemoaning the MTA's shortfall, such as this editorial in The Times ("Higher Fares, Worse Service, No Help," 2008-07-23):

The M.T.A. budget shortfall has ballooned from $200 million to $900 million in recent months, mainly because of the rising cost of fuel, falling tax revenues and debt servicing. The authority expects to raise some $200 million by raising fares. It has asked the state and city to contribute another $300 million to help narrow the gap.

NY1 speculates a little on the details ("MTA To Propose 2009 Fare Hike; Riders Outraged," 2008-07-22):

It's not clear yet exactly how much subway, bus, and rail fares would go up, but the MTA says it needs to increase total fare revenue by eight percent – the equivalent of about $400 million a year.

The details have not yet been worked out, but a 25-cent increase in the cash fare would be a 12.5-percent increase, in the neighborhood of the MTA's eight-percent target.

And don't help from the city, according to the NY1 article:

Both the mayor and the governor said Tuesday that the MTA should explore every other option before resulting to the hike.

"If we can cut five percent this year and two and a half percent last year, and we'll have to have further cuts, then the MTA's got to find ways to do that," said Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

"Not only don't we have money to contribute, we put in an enormous amount of money," continued Bloomberg. "For example, we pay debt service on a lot of the capital investments that have been made in the past in the MTA. And we provide police protection."

As for cutting bureaucratic tape, an article in The New York Daily News offers a little hope ("MTA boss says he'll appoint chief for each subway line to improve service," 2008-07-22):

Metropolitan Transportation Authority brass, confronting massive budget gaps that may lead to fare hikes, also said they anticipate savings by reorganizing and streamlining the underground bureaucracy.

NYC Transit - the MTA's bus and subway division - launched a pilot program to test the general managers' structure on the 7 and L lines in December.

"It's been very successful and we expect to expand it significantly," MTA CEO Elliot Sander said.

Interesting proposal: Subway to Seacaucus

2008-07-16T01:45:00.003-04:00

I'm really not sure what qualifications the writer of this website, Subway to Secaucus, has to comment on rail projects, but they probably are more than mine. But it does get me thinking about some things.

One thing I can't help but notice is the sheer amount of money being spent on a few rail projects, all ringing in at billions of dollars:

($8B?) Billions of dollars to double the capacity of the commuter rail under the Hudson River (see Access to the Region's Core), primarily an NJ Transit project
($3B-$12B?) Billions of dollars to build a grand west side rail station to replace the long-lost Pennsylvania Station out of the Farley Post Office building (see Moynihan Station), I suppose primarily funded by the State of New York
($6B?) Billions for East Side Access, designed to connect the Long Island Rail Road to the east side of Manhattan via a new station under Grand Central Terminal (the LIRR isn't exactly compatible with Metro-North Rail Road's infrastructure, and the organizations squabble anyway)—his is also funded primarily by the State of New York
The Second Avenue Subway (SAS), funded by the city, state, and feds
The 7 Train extension, funded pretty much exclusively by the city

These projects are all more or less under way. I imagine the SAS makes a lot of sense, given the sheer volume of passengers on the Lexington Avenue lines (4/5/6 Trains). It may be unfortunate that this will only be a 2-track rather than 4-track line, but that will be a burden later. Part of the reason there might be such political will to build the SAS is that another of the projects above, East Side Access, is going to put a lot more pressure on the limited east side transportation infrastructure.

East Side Access can be explained by two factors: one is it's favorable to a powerful political demographic, and the other is that more jobs in midtown Manhattan are on the east side anyway. The way things work now is the LIRR whisks people west of where they actually work, forcing them to take an uncomfortable crosstown trip back. East Side Access should cut a significant amount of time off commuters' trips.

More to the point, our public transportation infrastructure follows commuter patterns set in the early 20th century. New York is in a sense very lucky that these patterns remain intact in 2008, but there is more to how people in the region live and work. New York may be bigger than it was in 1908, but Manhattan is smaller population-wise. Further, the once sparsely populated region is now quite densely populated. Somebody in downtown Brooklyn is less than two miles from Jersey City, but will have a hell of a time making that trip. Staten Islanders have one of the longest commutes in the country. Getting seamlessly from Queens to The Bronx? Fergetaboutit.

I think reasonable people can make a good case for the merits of each of the projects listed above, but I'm guessing in the net additional number of people who will be moved by those five projects is under a million daily—certainly that's the case if we discount the SAS and the estimated 500,000 riders that will use it daily. At the opposite extreme, we have Moynihan Station, which will move zero people and may cost the state $3B.

It would definitely be nice to see more emphasis on moving people, rather than building fancy projects. Unclogging the Lex and Queens Boulevard trunk lines might be achieved by additional feeder services into Midtown, rather than new trunk lines. This could have the effect of improving Manhattan crosstown service as well. Why Moynihan Station? A four- or six-track fare-controlled or proof-of-payment system* could load many trains for through service without being too fancy. Any commuter and intercity rail yards necessary could be on Long Island or well outside the city. Naturally some Amtrak trains will need to hang around to allow passengers to load, but that shouldn't be a show-stopper. This idea of NJT, Amtrak, and LIRR services all terminating in one place is very demanding of land.

Finally, a definite flaw in our region's transportation model is inter-agency bickering. The Metropolitan Transportation Authority of New York is itself a rather loosely-organized umbrella organization of agencies that don't like to cooperate, perhaps owing partly to separate corporate legacies. The Long Island Rail Road was part of the Pennsylvania Railroad (and many other predecessors before that) while Metro-North is the commuter successor of the New York Central. Naturally, the PRR and NY Central were bitter rivals. On top of that, the MTA and NJ Transit work very little together, and the Port Authority isn't all that interested in funding public transportation.

* proof-of-payment systems are popular in many places because turnstiles don't need to be maintained and they're not too labor-intensive. Fare inspections are random, with fines issued to cover operating losses by cheating.

Christ Matthews on Italian-New Yorkers

2008-01-14T15:33:00.001-05:00

I mostly try to keep federal politics off this page, and Rudy Giuliani, while I don't like him, is running for federal office. This post is no different, except for the context. Chris Matthews, the Democratic-leaning, right-wing host of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews, apparently loves Rudy, and doesn't seem to have a lot of affection for Hillary. Matthews claims to be independent, and to be equally hard on both candidates. Media Matters for America, a Democratic-supporting think tank tested that.

Amongst the quotes on MM's page, Matthews says:

"The Italian-Americans [references a Giuliani profile in Newsweek] are the people that rub the graffiti off the walls when somebody puts it on the wall. They're the ones that won't move out of the neighborhood when it changes. They're the ones that really do fight for the city. They try to keep it straight and narrow. They are straight-and-narrow people. It seems to me it's a plus."

It's little tiny, almost coded bits of bigotry like this that really bother me. First of all, it seems by saying "[t]hey're the ones that won't move out when [a neighborhood] changes," Matthews is saying Italians stick around when neighborhoods turn browner.

There are scant examples of Irish and German neighborhoods left in NYC, but there are still a lot of Italians. Part of the reason for this might be that Italians don't fit into mainstream American society as well because they're slightly less lily-white and a bit more Catholic than even the Irish. There's nothing wrong with that, and indeed, New Yorkers probably realize that better than anyone, which is why Italians stick around here more than other, older ethnic groups. Further, the Italians haven't been in the U.S. as long as other groups, and were only accepted as "mainstream" much later than the Irish,* English, Dutch, and Germans.

But it doesn't really matter what the reason is. Matthews' comment is idiotic. Plenty of people fight for the city, including Italians, blacks, whites, Latin Americans, Asians, and many other representatives of the hundreds of countries, cultures, and languages found here. That so many peoples are around is what makes New York special and unique.

* Don't forget, there was a time when the Irish were looked down upon as scum by society at large, and signs were posted saying "INNA," meaning Irish need not apply. The Irish became rather successful and accepted by the 20C, arguably culminating in the election of John F. Kennedy. There was Irish mob activity in New York as late as the 1970s.

Reform from Bruno?

2007-12-23T18:36:00.000-05:00

From the Albany Times Union ("Bruno cuts ties to firm"):

Almost exactly a year after revealing the FBI was looking into some of his "outside business interests," Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno severed one of those relationships this week.

Bruno also recommended a serious debate about lawmakers' becoming full-time employees of the state.

I'm speechless.

Top legal advice?

2007-12-23T12:10:00.000-05:00

More evidence that the MTA needs a serious independent audit from NY1 ("Report: MTA Spending Millions On Consulting Fees"):

As city commuters prepare to see their tolls and MetroCard fares increase, the MTA is reportedly paying lawyers tens of millions of dollars in consulting fees.

...

More than a quarter of [the] money has reportedly gone to a prestigious law firm that once employed Governor Eliot Spitzer. The firm charges $668 an hour.

By contrast, the agency's 32 in-house lawyers only make an average of less than $100,000 a year.

Officials tell the paper that getting top legal advice actually saves money in the long run.

Then perhaps the agency needs fewer in-house lawyers?

Sunday funday at the NY Times: this time, an op-ed about parking spaces and why they should be eliminated

2007-12-23T11:31:00.000-05:00

From "The High Price of Parking" by Alex Garvin and Nick Peterson:

AFTER years of traffic jams and air pollution, New Yorkers are finally starting to rethink the role of cars in our city. Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s PlaNYC initiative has suggested programs like congestion pricing, new bike lanes and expanded mass transit. But city policy has not yet addressed a confusing tangle of off-street parking rules that still quietly encourage automobile use. These requirements not only add to congestion and pollution, they also make life in the city more expensive for every New Yorker.

In most of New York City, a developer who puts up a new building is required to provide a minimum number of parking spaces. These requirements were first put in place in 1950, when the prevailing wisdom was that the automobile would be the transportation mode of the future.

Planners and civic leaders believed that New York had to make itself car-friendly if the city was to grow and prosper. So it responded by requiring developers to build off-street parking for their tenants. These new rules, which varied according to the uses and location of the buildings, seemed like sound planning at the time: force the parking onto private property and solve the public’s problem.

MTA: no more free rides!

2007-12-21T12:48:00.001-05:00

From NY1 ("Mayor Not Happy That MTA Offers Free Ride To Board Members"):

The MTA board members who voted this week to raise fares are eligible for free rides when they need them – a perk that's not sitting well with Mayor Michael Bloomberg.

Under the agreement, members can ride subways, buses, MetroNorth and Long Island Rail Road trains for free and drive on MTA bridges and tunnels without paying the tolls.

The mayor says no one should be exempt from paying their fair share.

It's really time for a full-on, third party audit of all the MTA's activities. Before fares get increased again, all waste should be eliminated and the entire organization streamlined.

An age-old, yet illegal, solution to the rat problem

2007-12-21T12:44:00.000-05:00

"To Dismay of Inspectors, Prowling Cats Keep Rodents on the Run at City Delis" in The New York Times today.

Fascinating article. This is one of those cases where you can see how overzealous regulation of small business is never quite a good idea.

Mandatory sentences

2007-12-20T09:15:00.001-05:00

In an editorial today, The New York Times goes after mandatory sentences demanded by the Rockefeller Drug Laws again ("An Idea Whose Time Should Be Past"):

Nowhere is repeal of mandatory-sentencing policies more urgently needed than in New York, which sparked an unfortunate national trend when it passed its draconian Rockefeller drug laws in the 1970s. Local prosecutors tend to love this law because it allows them to bypass judges and decide unilaterally who goes to jail and for how long.

But the general public is increasingly skeptical of a system that railroads young, first-time offenders straight to prison with no hope of treatment or reprieve. In an often-cited 2002 poll by The New York Times, for example, 79 percent of respondents favored changing the law to give judges control over sentencing. And 83 percent said that judges should be allowed to send low-level drug offenders to treatment instead of prison.

The State Legislature has tinkered at the margins of these horrific laws, but stopped short of restoring judicial discretions. The time is clearly right for that crucial next step. The Legislature needs to gear up for the change, and Gov. Eliot Spitzer, who has thus far tiptoed around the subject, needs to set the stage when he delivers his State of the State message early next month.

Spitzer gets one right: higher education

2007-12-15T23:54:00.000-05:00

A few articles about the future of SUNY and CUNY. The New York Sun is the most critical article, I think. I was surprised Upstate papers didn't provide more coverage.

From The New York Sun ("Spitzer May Hire 2,500 More Professors"):*

Governor Spitzer's Commission on Higher Education is poised to recommend to the governor on Monday that the State and City Universities of New York hire between 2,000 and 2,500 additional full-time faculty by 2013.

As the state faces a $4.3 billion budget gap, the commission, appointed by Mr. Spitzer in May, is also expected to recommend spending billions of dollars to fix crumbling infrastructure at state schools and creating an "innovation fund" to subsidize scientific research it says would boost economic development and New York's status as a research capital.

...

During an economic downturn, New York is one of the only states in the country seeking to expand its public university system, education experts said.

...

"These blithe demands for ever more government funds and tuition hikes must be challenged in light of the prediction that student enrollment in the near future will decrease, faculty members are now getting paid more to teach fewer hours, and there are currently twice as many campus administrators as there were in the 1970s," a former SUNY trustee, Candace de Russy, said in an e-mail. Online education could also undercut the demands for new full-time faculty members, Ms. de Russy said.

The state currently contributes about $1.2 billion to CUNY's budget, and $3.36 billion to SUNY. The commission is slated to release its final recommendations in June, but university officials are putting more stock in the preliminary report, which can affect the state budget.

"So How Do We Get to Berkeley? Spend Big on SUNY, Panel Says" (The New York Times, 2007-12-16):

“For this area to be viable,” he said in an interview in his art-filled office, “the best thing they can do, the only thing they can do, is develop great research universities.”

As the largest and most comprehensive university of the State University of New York’s 64 campuses, Buffalo is a good yardstick for measuring just how far New York has traveled — yet how short it has fallen from Nelson A. Rockefeller’s vision of creating a premier public university system.

With specialties in biomedical sciences and earthquake engineering, it is one of only two SUNY campuses, along with Stony Brook, that belong to the Association of American Universities, an elite group of 62 research universities. But even its national reputation, buzz and research dollars put it nowhere near the ranks of the University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor.

...

“We certainly don’t have a Berkeley,” said Lloyd Constantine, Mr. Spitzer’s senior adviser, who worked with the commission and visited all the SUNY campuses. “California has more than one. In a state like ours, we could certainly have a couple. Their importance is that they are great schools, and they also lift the entire system.”

California and some other states have invested heavily in public research universities for decades and are not stopping for New York to catch up. Still other states, like Georgia and Arizona, have been pouring money into their public systems to try to rise in the rankings.

...

SUNY has grown substantially since the system was cobbled together from teachers’ colleges, agricultural schools, and swamps and farmland. Today it has more than 400,000 students at its research campuses, comprehensive colleges and community colleges.

Still, only 55 percent of college students in New York are in public institutions, compared with 79 percent nationally. Higher education draws less than 7 percent of the state budget in New York, compared with a national average of 11 percent.

...

“Typically, the SUNY board of trustees doesn’t understand what a research university is,” said Stephen B. Sample, who was the president of Buffalo for nine years before taking the same post at the University of Southern California in 1991. “One of the challenges I had as president of Buffalo was to help the board of trustees understand how different these institutions were, that Buffalo was not just bigger, but that it was a different animal, a different kind of institution.”

...

“President Simpson has done a great deal about making his plan visible,” Mr. Niejadlik said. “Things are happening.” Dr. Simpson, recruited from the University of California Santa Cruz four years ago, has an ambitious expansion plan, with the goal of creating a world-class research center that would help rebuild the region’s economy. The plan calls for new construction, and for growing to 35,000 students by 2020.

...

His ideas have won critical backing from business. “Until very recently, if you listed the most important priorities for business, the advancement of SUNY would not have been on the list,” said Andrew J. Rudnick, president of the Buffalo Niagara Partnership, which represents 2,500 employers. Now, he said, there is a recognition that the university “can be part of an economic transformation of this region.”

(The article also expounds that the university system could be seen as a catalyst for revitalizing western New York.)

"Report to Urge Sweeping Change for SUNY System" (The New York Times, 2007-12-15):

Warning that New York has “slipped in stature” and that its once-powerful position in national research has “faded,” a commission set up by Gov. Eliot Spitzer is recommending that the state free its public colleges and universities to raise tuition without the Legislature’s approval and to charge different prices from campus to campus.

“New York State’s public higher education institutions face a chronic problem — they have too little revenue and too little investment,” said the report.

...

The 30-member commission is calling for the state to create its own low-cost student loan program, to clear up a $5 billion backlog in maintenance and construction at its public universities and to hire 2,000 new full-time professors — including 250 academic stars who could bring in research dollars and prestige.

* The Sun article also provides some other interesting stats: "The number of full-time faculty at CUNY is about 6,100, down from 11,300 in 1975, when the university had 250,784 enrolled students, as compared to 225,962 in 2006." Concerning SUNY: "SUNY currently employs 30,916 full-time professors, which account for about 48% of their faculty, and teach about 75% of credit hours, according to the university's Web site."

Where's the urban candidate?

2007-12-15T10:03:00.001-05:00

Clyde Haberman wrote in The New York Times ("So Many Presidential Debates, So Little Concern Shown for Cities," 2007-12-14):

In mid-October, I noted that the Democrats and Republicans had held 17 or so presidential debates (the number can vary, depending on who’s counting), but that with all the gabbing they managed not to focus on America’s cities.

Well, two months have passed, and that observation is no longer valid.

The candidates have now held 25 or so debates without talking about urban issues.

Someone ought to alert the Guinness people. For sidestepping matters of direct concern to more than 30 percent of the population — people living in urban areas — this has to be some kind of record.

Read the rest here.

I have to agree—it's quite tragic that urban issues aren't trotted out in campaigns. The interests of the rural Midwest, and tiny New Hampshire, are elevated well beyond their importance. That's not to say these are bad places, but they don't reflect the needs of most of the country.

Amtrak and New York State settle; high-speed rail upgrades a possibility in Capital Corridor?

2007-12-13T10:38:00.000-05:00

From The Albany Times-Union (by Cathy Woodruff, "Amtrak, state settle suit," 2007-12-12):

Amtrak and the state Department of Transportation have settled a three-year legal feud over a plan to speed rail service between New York City and the Capital Region by overhauling seven old Amtrak Turboliner trains.

...

The state sued Amtrak in August 2004, claiming the railroad had failed to deliver on its promise to bring high-speed rail service to New York as part of an agreement crafted with the state's Pataki Administration in the 1990s. The state sought $477.3 million from Amtrak.

From Buffalo Business First ("Amtrak deal ticket for high-speed upgrades," 2007-12-12):

About $22 million in state funds was approved in the 2006-07 fiscal year budget for the high-speed rail initiatives, designed to reduce travel times and increase safety along the tracks.

Half of that funding will be used to add a fourth track and extend platforms at the Albany-Rensselaer station, Bruno said at the time.

"This agreement puts to rest a long-standing dispute and enables the state and Amtrak to move forward cooperatively to improve passenger rail service," Gov. Eliot Spitzer said in a statement.

There were 734,187 riders on the Albany to New York City route in 2005.

Chimes in NY1 ("Settlement Revives Hopes Of High Speed Rail Upstate," 2007-12-12):

The plan has been kicked around Albany since the ‘80s but not much has been done with it because of scheduling delays and cost overruns.

The original idea was to run trains that go 200 miles an hour, which would make the trip from New York to the capital less than an hour.

Subway financing woes?

2007-12-13T10:34:00.000-05:00

While the authority will end the current year with a $500 million surplus, it forecasts red ink for the foreseeable future and needs to find money now. It’s no mystery why Mr. Spitzer, at the end of a rocky first year and facing red ink of more than $4 billion, would want to put off the day of reckoning. It is puzzling, though, that he is holding off a promise of new transit money to 2010 — when he’ll be seeking re-election.

In the meantime, he should not be rejecting offers for help. The city comptroller, Bill Thompson, produced a study two months ago that found $728 million in potential revenue, more than enough to offset the need for immediate fare increases. And in Albany, scores of lawmakers have vowed to fight for extra money for transportation in the budget due before April 1.

If the increase is approved, the fare would not rise for the 14 percent of passengers who buy single-ride tickets. But the 86 percent who enjoy discounts will pay significantly more. New York passengers already bear more of mass transit’s costs than riders in other major cities. They should be squeezed harder only after every option has been tried.

- New York Times editorial "Express Track to a Fare Increase," 2007-12-13

What I'm disappointed about is I rarely ever see The New York Times attacking corruption at the MTA.

NY Times NY/Region Section: "Teenagers and Cars: A Deadly Mix"

2007-12-11T10:45:00.002-05:00

[A]s adults, don’t we know enough — and do enough — to save them from themselves? Clearly not, according to national death and injury statistics that have shown virtually no improvement over the last decade. Each year, nearly 6,000 American teenagers die in car accidents involving teenage drivers, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; more than 300,000 are injured. The cost, in property damage and health care expenses, is $14 billion. The economic fallout will come as no surprise to anyone who has had to insure a male driver under 21.

- Gerri Hirshey, writing in the NY Times, December 9, 2007 (link)
Driving is one of the greatest perils of modern American society, it seems. In many suburbs, you have no choice but to drive everywhere.

People often underestimate how dangerous driving is. Streetsblog used a rather interesting way of putting it into perspective ("The ‘Burbs: Extremely Safe or Especially Dangerous?") for the N.Y. metropolitan area:

A decade ago, Northwest Environment Watch (now the Sightline Institute) published a memorable report showing that violent deaths were less common in Seattle than in the surrounding suburbs. The author of this myth-buster, Alan Durning, took the novel but logical step of combining traffic fatalities with homicides and found fewer violent deaths (per million people) in the central city. It wasn't that city drivers were saner. Rather, city dwellers spent less time driving than suburbanites, giving them fewer opportunities to kill themselves or other Seattle residents on the roads, which more than offset the city's higher homicide rate.

A similar calculation for New York City and Long Island, using 2005 data, likewise upends the conventional wisdom. Per million people, Long Island had 51 fewer homicides (16 vs. 67), but 50 more traffic fatalities (89 vs. 39), than New York City. In terms of total violent deaths, the difference between the Big Apple and Long Island - 105 deaths per million people in the City, 104 on the Island - is statistical noise.

New York City is widely believed to be the safest big city in the U.S., and Long Island is probably the safest suburb.

I'd be interested to see the numbers on how many of those fatalities and major accidents are young people in the suburbs—given the high insurance rates for young males, I'd guess a lot.

So, ironically, could it be possible that parents moving their kids to the suburbs weren't making an optimal choice concerning their safety?

The conclusion to draw from this, perhaps, is that it might not hurt to look into organizing lifestyles into a more town-like environment again, where driving could be minimized.

Links:

Sightline Institute: "The Car and the City"

NY1: "Lawmakers Call For Mayor To Put More Money Into City Transit"

2007-12-07T10:15:00.000-05:00

This is from December 3rd:

Lawmakers and advocates are pushing Mayor Michael Bloomberg to put the brakes on the MTA's proposed fare hike and pour more money into the transit system.

They say the city could keep the fares down if it contributed more to the MTA's annual budget. Critics say the city's funding only accounts for about four percent of the $5.7 billion annual budget for running subways and buses.

They want the city to give more.

"You can build a world class transit system, or you can nickel and dime it to death. You can't do both,” said TWU Local 100 President Roger Toussaint. “Mayor Bloomberg can be helpful to millions of New Yorkers who rely on mass transit and to the local economy that it powers – all he has to do is speak up.”

Not that I necessarily disagree, but isn't this the same Roger Toussaint who cost the city's economy probably around a billion dollars by frivolously (and illegally) striking in late 2005? Nickel and diming indeed! I'd be curious to know what could be done to cut the fat in the New York City Transit workforce.

Of course, there is one thing the city probably could, and maybe should, do to bring down costs over the long run: pay down some MTA debt.* Failing to pay down this debt is going to mean interest on it keeps piling up. Under Giuliani and Pataki, the MTA borrowed heavily to meet its operating costs, which is dangerous and moronic. Such a thing might circumvent future fare hikes; maybe not the next one, but perhaps one in 2030.

* I know, it's sort of like what the anti-New York New York Post wanted when it said the city should use its surplus to "DO THE RIGHT THING." However, the difference is that we actually gain more by paying down MTA debt; in the long-run, we'll be paying the state debt down anyway (we do send more to Albany than we get back, afterall).

The Immigration Picture

2007-12-07T10:10:00.000-05:00

In The New York Sun ("Reports Add Depth To Illegal Immigration Picture" by Sarah Garland, 2007-11-29):

More of New York City's illegal immigrants hail from Mexico, China, and the Dominican Republic than from any other countries, and they make significantly less money than native New Yorkers, according to two new reports released this week that together paint a clearer picture of this elusive group than has previously existed.

Other top countries bolstering the city's illegal population include Ecuador, Poland, and Pakistan. While many work in the service industries, it is also possible to find many undocumented Chinese, Central American, and Polish professionals along with Dominican and Columbian office workers, according to new data from the Fiscal Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank that released a report this week lauding the economic benefits immigrants have brought to the city.

Project Sunlight?

2007-12-06T10:53:00.000-05:00

This is from Albany?

A Subway to Staten Island? And other rail proposals on the forgotten borough.

2007-12-03T10:57:00.000-05:00

It seems that The Brooklyn Paper looks at the idea of a Subway to Staten Island with contempt ("Fiddler's Folly: Let's Tunnel to SI!," by Gersh Kuntzman, 2007-11-10):

Here’s an idea whose time has come — again: How about a subway to Staten Island?

This back-to-the-future bombshell was dropped by Councilman Lew Fidler (D–Canarsie) last week as one of the points in his “Nine-CARAT STONE Plan” (the awkward acronym stands for “Clean our Air, Reduce All Traffic, Support Transportation Operations in New York’s Environs”).

The tunnel, which would allow for an extension of the subway system to Staten Island from the critical 59th Street station just north of Bay Ridge, was first proposed back in the 1920s — and workers even started digging it — but the project was abandoned due to opposition of Staten Islanders and disputes between then-Mayor Hylan and the then-independent subway operators.

...

Fidler called the Nine CARAT STONE Plan his “alternative to congestion pricing,” which he believes does not share the burden fairly. All told, Fidler’s follies would cost well more than $10 billion, he estimated, but the payroll tax would generate $1-2 billion.

An editorial from Nov. 30th in the Staten Island Advance ("Pretty Subways?"):

The first phase of the new subway line, which will cover about 30 blocks on the Upper East Side, will cost about $4 billion -- and that's at today's prices. The final cost is likely to be much higher. Even at the current 4-billion pricetag, that first phase will cost about $50,000 a foot to construct.

Perhaps we're not as sympathetic as we should be about the plight of hard-pressed Upper East Side residents, but from where we sit, there are much better things the Metropolitan Transportation Authority could spend its money on.

Mass transit on Staten Island, for one.

...

Staten Islanders would happily take a North Shore passenger rail line, even if it wasn't underground and even if it didn't have pretty stations.

More info:

Daniel Convissor's "A Tunnel from Staten Island to Brooklyn?"
Second Avenue Sagas' "A subway tunnel to Staten Island, 80 years in the making"

Vanity Fair on Spitzer

2007-12-03T10:32:00.000-05:00

Vanity Fair has a long article on Spitzer's first year. It talks about his fall from grace.

People like to compare him to Michael Bloomberg, but I wonder if he's actually functioning very much like Bloomberg did early in his first term. He spent a lot of political capital fighting for unpopular proposals, but has some time to try to endear himself to the electorate again before it's time for his next election race.

I think he made some critical miscalculations, sometimes even with his heart in the right place. First of all, ejecting Joseph Bruno from power would be about the best thing that could happen to Albany (and to not sound partisan, I feel the same way about Sheldon Silver). Of course, it looks like Spitzer may have put at risk any chances of the Democrats taking over the state Senate in the next election.

Spitzer's driver license proposal wasn't all that bad an idea; illegal immigrants aren't going away, and it would be safer if they had driver licenses, insurance, etc.—the alternative is not knowing how to drive properly, even when they drive commercially (which means not always understanding that some roads aren't big truck-friendly because of low bridges and the like).

On the other hand, some areas of concern are barely even touched upon: New York State still loses more people than any other state. Most of the state has seen little to no job growth. Energy expenses are too high. Manufacturing is still declining, with nothing on the horizon to replace it. And, as long as Joseph Bruno and Sheldon Silver have jobs, I don't think they're going to care.

Alternatives to the traffic congestion charge?

2007-10-13T14:52:00.000-04:00

A local group opposed the congestion charge ("Study Gives Alternatives to City Plan for Traffic," William Neuman, NY Times, 2007-10-12) proposes alternatives:

Raising parking meter rates in Manhattan, creating more taxi stands and putting in place a series of other measures could achieve the same level of traffic reduction as Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan, according to a report by a group opposed to the mayor’s proposal.

“We’ve said all the way through that there are better ways to deal with traffic congestion,” said Walter McCaffrey, a former city councilman from Queens who is the spokesman for the group, Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free.

Mr. McCaffrey said the report was sent this week to the 17 members of a commission created by the State Legislature to study the mayor’s plan for an $8 charge on cars entering or leaving the area of Manhattan below 86th Street.

The commission is also required to consider alternatives to the mayor’s plan that could achieve similar results. The Bloomberg administration has estimated that its proposal would reduce the miles traveled by vehicles in the Manhattan charging zone by 6.3 percent.

The commission must make a recommendation to the Legislature by Jan. 31 on a plan to ease traffic congestion.

The report by Keep NYC Congestion Tax Free identifies 13 measures that, when taken together, it predicts would reduce traffic more than the mayor’s plan.

Chief among the measures is a proposal to increase greatly the number of metered parking spaces in Manhattan by putting meters on many blocks where parking is now free. The study also proposes raising the rate for on-street parking, doubling it in many areas and increasing it even more in the busiest parts of Manhattan.

The goal would be to create a higher turnover in parking spaces, in order to lessen the time drivers spend circling the block looking for parking. The report says that is a major contributor to congestion in parts of Manhattan.

I think we should do that anyway, but here's where it gets touchy:

Hugh O’Neill, the president of Appleseed, an economics consulting firm, which wrote the report, said that the goal of the study was to find measures that focused on specific causes of congestion. The report also includes proposals that the city could carry out on its own, without the Legislature’s approval, which is needed for congestion pricing.

The report calls for the city to eliminate many of the thousands of parking placards that city employees use to get free parking.

It's really amazing that the city would want to decrease the environmental effects of driving and then turn around and encourage its employees to drive. NYC has the most extensive rapid transit system on Earth; we could encourage our civil servants to use it.

Other proposals included more taxi stands and higher peak hour tolls. The mayor's office had no comment.

Racial bias in New York City

2007-10-10T14:21:00.000-04:00

I've been hearing a lot about particularly racist intimidation lately. Often, you hear ethnic taunts and whatnot in New York. That's not so surprising when you consider all the different ethnic groups here. Overall, however, talk rarely rises to violence.

In the past two weeks, two really crazy things happen that you'd expect in the Deep South, not in New York. First, there was an outright racially motivated fight in Tribeca (NY Daily News: "Basketball team: We're target of racial bias attacks," by Juan Gonzales, 2007-09-19):

Two coaches and several players of the Manhattan Community College basketball team say they were the targets of separate racial bias attacks and robberies near City Hall.

They say it happened last week, the attacks were carried out by the same group of white men - and the NYPD has failed to properly investigate.

"I've been all over this country and the world playing sports," said Chester Mapp, 49, coach of the Borough of Manhattan Community College Panthers for 15 years. "But never in my born days have I seen the kind of racism I witnessed last week right here in New York City."

The first incident erupted around 8:30 p.m. on Sept. 11 outside the Patriot, a notoriously rowdy Chambers St. bar, as members of the Manhattan team were walking to the A subway station on Church St. after four hours of basketball practice at the school.

Several players told the Daily News a group of white men standing across Chambers St. outside the bar started yelling "n-----s" and "this is what slavery feels like." One of the men, they said, then threw a bottle at them.

Then, yesterday, a noose was found hanging around a black professor's door at Columbia University (CNN: Rally set to protest noose found at Columbia University by Sarah B. Boxer, 2007-10-10):

NEW YORK (CNN) -- A rally was planned for Wednesday afternoon at Columbia University to protest the discovery of a noose on the office door of an African-American professor.

The noose was found Tuesday at Columbia's Teachers College, said Joe Levine, executive director for external affairs at Teachers College.

The New York Police Department is investigating the matter as a hate crime.

The apparent target, Madonna Constantine, 44, is a professor of psychology and education at Teachers College. She co-wrote the book "Addressing Racism: Facilitating Cultural Competence in Mental Health and Educational Settings."

The noose apparently was placed on the office door sometime before 9 a.m. ET Tuesday, Levine said.

Police received a 911 call concerning the noose about 9:45 a.m. Tuesday. They were told it was on the fourth floor of Teachers College.

Security cameras monitor the entrance to the building, but there are none in the hallway where the noose was discovered, Levine added.

The building, which is open 24 hours a day, is accessible only to those with a Teachers College ID card or other credentials, he said

Staten Island hipsterfying?

2007-10-09T14:12:00.000-04:00

NY Times by Cara Buckley (October 7, 2007): "Bohemia by the Bay."

Within the past few years, a small but growing number of hip young things have begun staring in the face of the island’s lack of coolness and embracing it, to the delight of local boosters. A report released in the spring by the Center for an Urban Future, a public policy group, recommended denser development near the ferry to attract more young professionals and artists. But a good many are already there.

It's a long article with lots of anecdotes (something I often don't like about the Times). Needless to say, it'll be interesting to see if it continues with Williamsburg now pricing out the middle class.

Hidden costs to the congestion charge?

2007-10-09T12:51:00.000-04:00

NY1: "MTA Finds Hidden Costs In Mayor's Congestion Pricing Plan" (October 8)

MTA officials say Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s congestion pricing plan project would wind up costing hundreds of millions of dollars more than originally thought in transit service upgrades.

A commission created to evaluate the plan estimates the agency would need to spend more then three quarters of a billion dollars over the next five years. That money would go toward new buses, subways, and station renovations to accommodate the thousands of commuters, who are expected to take public transportation to avoid paying $8 to enter portions of Manhattan.

The MTA's concerns come as the agency is trying to raise support for a fare hike on trains, buses and subways.

The commission's recommendation on congestion pricing is due in January. The measure requires support from City Hall and Albany.

NY Times: "M.T.A. Says Mayor’s Plan to Ease Traffic Will Cost $767 Million to Accomplish" (Robert D. McFadden, October 8)

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority, in a report to a commission created to evaluate the mayor’s plan, estimated that expanded transit service and capital improvements for city and suburban riders who would give up their cars to get into Manhattan over the next five years would cost $767 million.

The total, the authority said, comprised $284 million in 2008 and 2009 for 367 new city and suburban buses, 46 new subway cars and many station renovations and service enhancements; $163 million for other subway and bus improvements from 2010 to 2012, and $320 million for two new bus terminals in Queens and Staten Island.

...

Citing congestion pricing projections provided by the city, the authority said 78,000 motorists in the city would shift to mass transit, while only 2,500 from the Mid-Hudson region served by Metro-North and 3,500 served by the Long Island Rail Road would take trains. It said it was premature to estimate how many of the 170,000 commuters who crossed bridges and tunnels each day would give up their cars.

I wonder why this comes as a surprise actually. We knew we'd have to upgrade service sooner or later. It just now happens to be sooner.

This puts NYC in an interesting dilemma though. Much of our rail transit actually runs at capacity, which means that adding more people to the services means overloading the system.

There is, however, the obvious fact that this "unfunded" spending will at least be made back. It's times like these when it's responsible for the City or State to take out debt.

Upstate's brain drain

2007-10-09T12:43:00.000-04:00

Professionals, teens consider 'brain drain' by Jake Palmateer (October 4, 2007)—a symposium on how Upstate New York young people often simply leave their hometowns.

The trick, he said, is getting them to return.

"We don't know how to do that," [Former Daily Star publisher Daniel B.] Swift said.

One way may be to concentrate on making their high school years positive and fulfilling, he said.

That way, when they are at the stage in their lives were they are settling down to raise a family, they may consider doing so in their hometowns, Swift said.

One observation that came from high school students regarded their feeling of self-worth coming from a mostly rural area of the state, Robinson said.

"It's a variation of the small fish, big fish issue," Robinson said. "They want to be noticed. They want to be important."

Better communication with high school alumni could also help draw them back to this area, he said.

Maps of Publicly Installed Surveillance Cameras in New York City

2007-10-08T02:56:00.000-04:00

I found it in an op-ed about alleged police misconduct (especially during the GOP Convention in 2004). Click here. The article also mentions how a police helicopter caught a couple in an "intimate moment" on a rooftop.

Congestion Pricing Goes Down

2007-07-19T10:02:00.000-04:00

Almost everyone is probably aware that Bloomberg's congestion pricing proposal went down in flames yesterday. I've always generally supported the idea. It should be remembered that it is, largely, a pilot, and there is always the chance that it could fail. I too have some misgivings about the design—I, for instance, think it should be city-wide so that people aren't encouraged to park in the still very dense urban neighborhoods outside the charging zone.

Here's a link to the story on the BBC.

The New York Times is still holding out hope that the plan could be salvaged (Make Nice, Win Up to $500 Million):

Yesterday, two days after a federal deadline, leaders in Albany were attempting a 13th-hour rescue of the congestion-pricing proposal. Voters could have been spared the cliffhanger, but the turnaround is welcome if it works. In the days leading to the deadline, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, disappointingly, did not even seem to be trying. Senate Majority Leader Joe Bruno did not get a bill through his chamber. Gov. Eliot Spitzer did not push hard enough. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who needs congestion pricing as part of his plan to reduce greenhouse gases, should have done a better job selling it.

This is no time, though, for finger-pointing. Mayor Bloomberg, in particular, is wise to check his anger at Albany lawmakers because he still needs them as long as there is a glint of hope the city could still get a hearing for a federal grant. The Department of Transportation, which has praised Mr. Bloomberg’s proposal, has not ruled out that it could extend last Monday’s application deadline for applying for the $500 million.

That said, there is a deeper underlying issue here: New York City shouldn't need Albany's approval to implement a critical public policy. Albany has a whole state to worry about, and New York City is geographically a tiny part of that state. It probably has a better grasp on its own transportation needs than Albany.

New York Candidates

2007-06-26T13:16:00.000-04:00

This is from Associated press (printed in The Washington Post) the other day ("New Yorkers Crowd White House Field"):

NEW YORK -- New Yorkers: They're smug, egotistical, and already think they run the country (if not the world). So what's the rest of the nation to do now that three of 'em are mentioned as White House hopefuls, ready to swap Penn Station for Pennsylvania Avenue?

Smug and egotistical? Does that mean we're like Texans, only smarter?

"I think basically they are the same candidate," said Bob Haus, a Republican from Des Moines, Iowa. "We all love New York. But when our options are New York, New York, New York, I think people want to see a different life experience."

(Different, as in another president from the South?)

They buried someone who had something positive to say towards the end of the article:

Attorney Felix Lasarte, 36, brought his 9-year-old daughter to see Giuliani speak last week in Hialeah, Fla. He was not bothered by the concept of three New Yorkers vying for the presidency; he even thought their Empire State pedigree was a plus.

"Coming from a big city, it really helps the candidate to address the issues that are really relevant to the country," Lasarte said. "Certainly on issues of safety and terrorists, it helps if you're from New York."

New York Post: Anti-New York?

2007-06-06T22:33:00.001-04:00

Lee Anthony Nieves is leaving New York. He couldn't take all the godless liberalism, gun control, high utilities, and "easeless left-wing extremism." And he's taking the wife and kids with him.

Who is Lee Anthony Nieves? I don't really know either. Some guy who wrote an op-ed in The New York Post ("Ex-New Yorker: Why I'm Gone," May 29, 2007). Says the post, "Lee Anthony Nieves was a lifelong resident of The Bronx. He resigned recently as deputy director of the Mayor's Office of Veterans' Affairs." The best part of the whole thing is the terrorism hook.

And then there's the liberal political culture of Bush-bashing and anti-conservative hatred. No matter what the White House does to protect New Yorkers in particular and the nation as a whole, it's either never enough, wrong, illegal or stupid. It's as if the Republicans (I'm one) are the real enemy, not Islamic jihadis.

Well, yes, Islamic jihadis are a "real enemy" of free people. But that doesn't exclude the Republicans from being a "real enemy" of free people as well.

Bye, Lee. Take The New York Post with you.

Faster Trains? Better NYC Transit President?

2007-05-26T14:18:00.000-04:00

The good news: new New York City Transit President Howard Roberts wants to speed up train service, and possibly run longer trains (maybe he could start with the insultingly infrequent, stubby G Train).

From NY1 ("NYC Transit President: Faster, Longer Trains May Help Ease Overcrowding," May 25, 2007):

Subway cars generally run somewhere between 30 and 40 miles an hour, topping out at no more than 55. But what if you could find a way to run trains faster? It's just one of the issues on the mind of Howard Roberts, the new president of New York City Transit.

"Is it possible to look at, you know, the possibility of running instead of at 50 miles an hour or 80 miles an hour," says Roberts.

The first piece of bad news: new lines seem to be ruled out.

Increasing the frequency of trains on existing lines is his top long-term goal, Roberts told NY1 in his first sit-down interview with us this week. Another possibility to alleviate overcrowding and meet growing ridership, he says, is longer trains, which would of course require extending platforms. They may be pie in the sky ideas, but still probably cheaper than drilling new tunnels, which can cost $2 billion per mile.

It's nice they want to save money, but a simple look over the map released by the MTA shows that significant portions of the city have no Subway service.

Of course, I find the contention that these are "pie in the sky" ideas a little ridiculous. For the first half of the 20th century, the magnitude of rapid transit construction in New York City was incredible. The system is still the largest in the world by track mileage, and most of that was built before 1950.
As for digging more tunnels, it might not hurt either. Even extending existing lines to further reaches of the city could help enormously, and maybe could drastically boost ridership. The reason is that the distribution model chosen for the Subway is rather outdated. The Subway was designed first and foremost to bring people into and out of Manhattan. In the 21st century, jobs and industry are more spread around the city. The Subway is still great for taking you from Brooklyn to Manhattan, Queens to Manhattan, or The Bronx to Manhattan. It's really less useful for taking you from Queens to Brooklyn, Brooklyn to The Bronx, etc. Manhattan may be the city's behemoth "downtown," but more people live in Brooklyn and Queens alone, and almost as many people live in The Bronx.

However, if you take into account the extent at which people who live in one outer borough have to work in another, you'd probably find a multitude of trips people need to take that aren't even possible by Subway—and if they are possible, a car trip is far more convenient. What the MTA should be doing is looking into the most important and frequent trips taken within the outer boroughs. Extending the 6 and 7 trains to cross the East River north of Queens might be a good start—the two could interline across the river and in presently unreachable parts of the city. The 7 could be further extended as a Bronx crosstown train, while the 6 could be extended as an outer Queens crosstown line.

In light of present attempts to reduce automobile congestion, better ways of utilizing the Subway in the outer boroughs seem sensible. Three articles critical of Michael Bloomberg's congestion charging proposal appeared in The New York Times last week, and virtually no mentions of public transit were made in any of them. Julia Vitullo-Martin of the right-wing Manhattan Institute argued the congestion charging proposal in London didn't work as planned ("A Solution to Crawling City Traffic? Not So Fast," May 20, 2007). Among other things, Gabriel Roth, a former World Bank transportation economist at the World Bank, argued that the congestion charge should be paid for to improve roads, not rapid transit ("The Road Best Not Taken," May 20, 2007). Ellen F. Crain, a professor of pediatrics and emergency medicine at the Albert Einstein College of Medicine, argued that the proposal would be bad public health, at least in areas outside the congestion charging zone, where people might choose to park their cars ("Red Light for Breathing," May 20, 2007).

The other bad news: Mr. Roberts doesn't even ride the Subway, and a fare hike is possible next year (of course, the MTA has been saying that for years).

One of Roberts first initiatives will be a rider report card, asking passengers to grade their experience. He says it should be up to the paying customer, not him, how to prioritize dollars.

"I'm not somebody who rides the system and pays the fare, and if that individual wants the money put into better air conditioning on the buses, than that's where it ought to go," he says.

Roberts' boss, MTA chief Elliott “Lee” Sander has said a fare hike is possible next year. Roberts has little say over the matter, but suggests New Yorkers would probably rather pay more than let the system deteriorate.

Can't we find a transit president who at least uses the system, rather than driving around in a limo all day? Even billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg uses the Subway. Of course, he lives in Manhattan, where trips tend to be pretty convenient.

Julia Richman vs. Hunter College

2007-05-16T13:12:00.000-04:00

I couldn't find anything about this on Hunter's web site, though I guess I didn't look too hard.

See: "Save JREC."

The City's Crime Rate

2007-04-10T00:43:00.000-04:00

An op-ed by Franklin E. Zimring, a professor of law at the University of California, Berkeley, said that the crime drop in New York can't easily be fully accounted for with police tactics alone ("Little Changes, Big Results," The New York Times, April 8, 2007):

Three policing changes introduced after 1990 account for between a quarter and a half of the city’s decline — hiring more officers, increasing the aggressiveness of policing tactics and changing management systems — but that doesn’t tell the whole story.

Indeed, at least half of New York City’s drop in crime reflected a national phenomenon that had nothing to do with policing. What New York City has proved is that huge changes in crime and violence can happen without fundamental changes in urban populations, economic opportunity, housing, schooling, culture or transportation. This demonstration has destroyed the conventional wisdom of social science and the major assumptions of almost all scholars.

...

What the New York City experience teaches is that modest changes in urban environments can produce big changes in crime levels. Add up all of the changes in police numbers and tactics, in population, in economic opportunity and jobs, and you are talking about a city that is perhaps 10 percent different from what it was 15 years ago. But that 10 percent difference has made a huge difference in life-threatening crime. It turns out that our populations, the places they live and the institutions that touch their lives are not hard-wired to produce high and invariant levels of urban crime.

Zimring also mentions that crime rates dropped in spite of the usual conditions associated with urban crime: poverty, crowding, easy opportunity to commit crimes, etc.

Good news, perhaps, but it doesn't account for why the crime that's still there is still there. Perhaps much crime was outsourced to other states? Criminals probably have trouble living in expensive, dense urban environments too.

More importantly, how might urban institutions actually play a part in preventing crime? New York City is a place where people are outside a lot, even at night. Could it be that while being outside could produce opportunities to commit muggings, such opportunities are negated by the presence of others who might be willing to stop such actions? Also, while New York has a reputation for being jaded, a typical New York neighborhood is full of friends, families, and casual acquaintances willing and able to stand up for each other.

Perhaps urban environments aren't a model for everyone to follow, but there's something to be said for the success of one of the world's most superlatively urban environment.

Rail service from Orange to NYC?

2007-04-03T14:42:00.000-04:00

A short article on MidHudsonNews.com ("Commission may study viability of high-speed rail between Sullivan County and New York," March 28, 2007):

Albany – Sullivan County’s two state lawmakers are backing a proposal to create a commission to study the viability of constructing a commuter rail system from Sullivan and Orange counties to New York City.

Assemblywoman Aileen Gunther of Forestburgh is a co-sponsor in her house and Senator John Bonacic is the sponsor of the bill in the Senate.

Gunther said a high-speed rail could make it easier for people who live in New York, but want to move north, to commute to work. There would be other benefits as well, she said.

“We’ve seen a lot regarding air quality, congestion on Route 17, I think it would help with tourism, and I think it will save gas in the crisis regarding the use energy and fuel,” Gunther said. “It’s important to get mass transit to all parts of New York State and I think this is a great beginning for a community 90 miles outside New York City.”

Gunther said the rail line would make sense since Sullivan and Orange counties are among the fastest growing in the state.

Rising waters, climate change, and sewage treatment

2007-04-01T14:57:00.000-04:00

From WNYC ("Flood Control—Planning for a Wetter City," March 28, 2007, by Beth Fertig):

REPORTER: The city’s 14 sewage treatment plants also take in lots of rainwater, so they’re designed to handle big storms. But with heavier storms expected more frequently as temperatures rise, Sapienza acknowledges the obvious.

SAPIENZA: Well it’s a challenge. If we start getting a lot more days where we have to treat up to 120 million gallons a day rather than 35-40 it just makes it more of a challenge for the operators and the process to make sure everything is running up to full capacity and continuing to meet the standards.

More here.

Did the northeast die?

2007-03-13T21:54:00.000-04:00

Neal Pierce, a columnist for Citistates, wrote an interesting article on the future of the northeast region of the United States. I found the article in The Houston Chronicle ("Philadelphia Story: The Northeast plots a comeback," 11-March-2007). He writes about the feeling among some planners at an economic summit that the region needs to craft unified policy goals throughout. Former Governors Michael Dukakis (of Massachusetts) and Parris Glendening (of Maryland) attended. Here are some excerpts:

1) What is the northeast?

A close geographic match to many of the 13 colonies that formed the United States more than 200 years ago, the Northeast Corridor today is 50 million people strong and can boast a $2.7 trillion economy, 27 percent of the nation's output. In finance, media, health care and higher education, it still trumps many newer regions of the nation.

But there are serious threats. A high cost of living makes it tough for firms to attract talented workers. Climate change, including rising seas and storm surges, threatens the Atlantic coastline. The environment is imperiled by sprawling growth that in recent decades has consumed as much space, including vast stretches of open land and farms, as the prior three centuries of settlement. Washington, New York and Boston may seem to be thriving, but not such cities as Philadelphia, Baltimore, Newark, N.J., and Bridgeport, Conn.

2) Who is the northeast competing with? It's not only California or the Midwest anymore.

The 200 summit attendees, including two nationally known former governors — Massachusetts' Michael Dukakis and Maryland's Parris Glendening — reached an audacious conclusion. Projected to grow by 18 million people in the next decades, the Northeast states need to coalesce, with joint goals and programs, if the region is to compete globally and offer an attractive place to live and work. The chief competition is no longer simply with the Midwest or California. Rather, it is with regions ranging from China's Pearl River Delta to Europe's London-to-Milan corridor.

3) What about transportation challenges?

Top on the agenda: radical expansion of rail service to allow for high-speed trains competitive with new world standards, plus expanded lines to accommodate massive new freight demands. Auto and truck traffic is close to congealing around every metro area; road stretches such as I-95 are often at a standstill; truck traffic on the crowded New Jersey Turnpike is increasing an unsustainable 3 percent a year.

Dukakis, a former vice chair of Amtrak, trumpeted welcome news for the Northeast: "We have the best rail Congress in my lifetime." Top evidence: New Jersey Sen. Frank Lautenberg's bill to infuse close to $20 billion into new Amtrak equipment over six years, plus repairing the Northeast Corridor's dangerously outmoded tunnels, track and catenary wires.

France, noted Dukakis, is spending 20 times per capita on rail as the U.S.; new funding of $3 billion to $4 billion a year, combined with state collaboration, "can get us cracking," building a quality nationwide rail network for less cost than a week or two of the Iraq War.

4) How might the northeast improve its prospects in the 21st century?

But for true breakthroughs, said Glendening, the time is at hand for the region's governors, and the mayor of Washington, to "think outside the box," perhaps undertake a common "visioning" process on how this mega-region develops, even consider a regional fund for major transportation and conservation initiatives.

Would independent states ever do that? It's a long stretch. But the timeliness is beyond question.

Another question: will Congress let them?

Some of these ideas don't seem all that bad. However, I would sort of contest that the northeast is in terrible shape. If anything, it's probably just more developed than the rest of the country. Hot real estate markets alone tell me there's at least some interest in the region.

The region, as a whole, should do what it can to lower costs of doing business and improve transportation ties throughout. There is very little desire to try to do something revolutionary anymore. The Erie Canal made New York State important. It'll take something else of that magnitude in today's terms to make the region get ahead of the competition. What if the transportation system improved so that most of the region could work within three miles from home? The region needs big ideas.

Transit Growth On Staten Island

2007-03-13T20:23:00.000-04:00

According to Progressive Railroading, the American Public Transportation Association reports transit use is up nation-wide ("U.S. transit ridership hits 10-billion mark in 2006, APTA says," 12-March-2007). The biggest growth is in light rail, but urban heavy rail grew too.

U.S. public transportation trips totaled 10.1 billion in 2006 — the first time annual ridership reached the 10 billion mark in almost 50 years, according to the American Public Transportation Association. Ridership increased 2.9 percent compared with 2005.

Light-rail systems, which include streetcars and trolleys, recorded the highest increase among all modes at 5.6 percent. Agencies in the following cities and states posted double-digit ridership growth: San Jose, Calif., 36.6 percent; New Jersey, 20.1 percent; Minneapolis, 18.4 percent; St. Louis, 16.2 percent; Philadelphia, 10.8 percent; and Salt Lake City, 14.2 percent.

Heavy-rail ridership rose 4.1 percent, with the largest gains recorded at systems in Los Angeles (10.8 percent); New Jersey (10.1 percent); Staten Island, N.Y., (9.4 percent); Atlanta (6.3 percent); and Chicago (4.5 percent).

Finally, commuter-rail ridership increased 3.2 percent. Agencies posting the largest gains include those serving south Florida (21.3 percent); Harrisburg, Pa., (18.9 percent); South Bend, Ind., and Chicago (10.7 percent); Stockton and San Jose, Calif. (8.8 percent); and New Haven Conn. (8.3 percent).

I take it increased fuel costs pushed the increase.

Ontario vs. New York

2007-03-13T18:14:00.000-04:00

I always find it interesting to compare Ontario to New York State. In many ways, Ontario is for Canada what New York State once was in the United States. In some ways, the two are very much alike still. They're probably more similar than New York is to California or Ontario is to Alberta.

There are some stark similarities. Ontario, especially recently, has been a magnet for immigrants. Ontario contains what might arguably be Canada's most important city, Toronto. Toronto is the center of finance in Canada, just as New York City is the center of finance in the United States. Both Toronto and New York City are growing cities, able to continue to attract talented people from around their country to work in their sophisticated service economies. Both are experiencing real estate booms that are putting pressure on lower- and middle-income people. Likewise, both Ontario and New York have a conflict between urban and rural, big city and small city (this is represented in New York as upstate vs. downstate, and in Ontario as south vs. north, in a sense).

Nonetheless, there are stark differences. New York is growing very slowly, and many people are leaving it. Ontario, on the other hand is growing quite quickly. Some of this is explained by geography. New York is much smaller geographically, whereas Ontario encompasses all of the Great Lakes bordering Canada (bringing it as far west as Michigan and Minnesota). Much of the growth in both the State of New York and the Province of Ontario is explained by immigration, however. In terms of size and influence, Ontario is able to impact national politics much the same way New York once could. Ontario, indeed, is the only Canadian province with a larger population than New York City.

Ontario's urban population is moving to suburbs and exurbs, much like New York's is. The geographic constraints in Canada are different though. Canadians tend to live within a few hundred miles of the United States. As such, those who live urban Ontario are very likely to settle in rural Ontario. Those who leave New York State often pack up and head south or west (it's hard to go somewhere in the United States without meeting someone from Brooklyn). From CTV ("Cdns. choose urban sprawl in staggering numbers," 13-March-2007):

OTTAWA -- The environment may rank No. 1 in polls meant to tap the national consciousness but Canadians are choosing auto-dependent suburbs and exurbs over big city life in staggering numbers, the first major release from the 2006 census shows.

The trend, fuelled in part by young families seeking larger, yet affordable, homes outside of the urban centres from which they draw salaries, is raising concern among academics and environmentalists who say urban sprawl cannot survive the "carbon-constrained future.''

The 11.1 per cent population growth rate posted in peripheral municipalities, those that surround the core cities of Canada's 33 census metropolitan areas, more than doubled the national growth rate of 5.4 per cent, according to figures released Tuesday by Statistics Canada.

The fastest growing municipality was Milton, Ont., a classic example of an exurb -- a term coined in the 1950s to describe that place where affluent suburb meets countryside. Milton, some 55 kilometres west of Toronto, posted a 71.4 per cent growth rate with a population of 53,939 compared to 31,471 in 2001.

By contrast, the average growth rate for metropolitan core areas across Canada was 4.2 per cent while Toronto grew only 0.9 per cent.

First of all, don't call it urban sprawl. There's nothing urban about sprawl. But that aside, the fact that this trend is hitting Canada so hard now is rather alarming, given the rather recent realization on the part of many that dense urban cities actually do provide a degree of environmentally sustainability that newer suburbs don't offer. Cities use less energy per capita, even if they do use more per square foot. Cities allow people to transport themselves without automobiles, at least sometimes. The denser the city, the more to be gained from walking on foot rather than hopping into an automobile.

One sometimes has to wonder, why is Ontario growing, while New York is not? Well, part of the trend might be explained by the above. Ontario may be growing, but it isn't urbanizing. New York isn't growing, but it's not sprawling so much either. The small towns in the Hudson Valley allow workers to commute by train to New York City, whereas those going from the suburbs of Syracuse to downtown Syracuse are pretty much stuck driving. Likewise for a city in Ontario, outside Toronto (and Toronto's public transportation system is nowhere near as extensive as New York's).

Ontario, ironically enough considering Canada's undeserved reputation in America as socialist and economically rigid, probably has a much more friendly business climate. Ontario actually does pretty well attracting even manufacturing. In 2005, Toyota announced that it was going to open a factory there, instead of in the American South ("Toyota to build 100,000 vehicles per year in Woodstock, Ont., starting 2008," CBC, 13-March-2005):

Several U.S. states were reportedly prepared to offer more than double that amount of subsidy. But Fedchun said much of that extra money would have been eaten away by higher training costs than are necessary for the Woodstock project.

He said Nissan and Honda have encountered difficulties getting new plants up to full production in recent years in Mississippi and Alabama due to an untrained - and often illiterate - workforce. In Alabama, trainers had to use "pictorials" to teach some illiterate workers how to use high-tech plant equipment.

"The educational level and the skill level of the people down there is so much lower than it is in Ontario," Fedchun said.

In addition to lower training costs, Canadian workers are also $4 to $5 cheaper to employ partly thanks to the taxpayer-funded health-care system in Canada, said federal Industry Minister David Emmerson.

"Most people don't think of our health-care system as being a competitive advantage," he said.

Tanguay said Toyota's decision on where to build its seventh North American plant was "not only about money."

"It's about being in the right place," he said, noting the company can rely on the expertise of experienced Cambridge workers to help get Woodstock up and running.

That's pretty damning really. But New York State doesn't have a workforce as uneducated as that in the south. If anything, the old manufacturing workers who have lost their jobs are perhaps pretty skilled. Perhaps their skills are outdated, and maybe it would be hard to re-train them.

Either way, it appears to me that New York isn't even trying to attract these kinds of jobs. It's not entirely at a competitive disadvantage. It's been more than willing to unload subsidies on behemoths like IBM and Kodak, not to mention New York City's financial heavyweights.

It's been unloading subsidies on high-tech firms as well. Joseph Bruno had this in a press release on June 26, 2006:

Senate Majority Leader Joseph L. Bruno joined Dr. Hector Ruiz, Chairman and CEO of Advanced Micro Devices (NYSE: AMD), Governor George Pataki, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and Congressman John Sweeney today to confirm that AMD has selected the Luther Forest Technology Park as the site of their next semiconductor manufacturing facility. This announcement is one of the largest private sector industrial investments in New York State history and is projected to create more than 1,200 new high-tech jobs, thousands of construction jobs, and more then 3,000 jobs through businesses that will serve AMD.

Under the terms of the agreement, AMD would be able to construct a new, $600 million, 1.2 million square foot facility, equipped with approximately $2.6 billion in state-of-the-art tools designed to produce 300 mm wafers using 32mm process technology. Expenditures at the facility are projected to total more than $2 billion during the first five years of operation, bringing the projected total investment to $5.2 billion. The Luther Forest site in Saratoga County was selected by AMD after an extensive review of a number of sites nationwide and internationally. The agreement enables construction on the 1.2 million square foot plant to begin between July 2007 and July 2009 and be fully operational sometime between January 2012 and January 2014.

"Upon becoming Majority Leader 11 years ago, I made clear that my top priorities would be to support economic development and job creation initiatives that would allow the Capital Region and New York State to be competitive in the global market place," Senator Bruno said. Today's announcement is a culmination of our efforts to ensure that New York State will not only be a player in the global economy, but a predominant leader in charting the course for economic development in the 21st Century. The AMD announcement is great for Saratoga County, the Capital Region and all of Upstate New York. It will mean billions in economic investment and the creation of thousands of jobs so our children and grandchildren can enjoy the career of their choice right here in New York State."

I'd really be very curious to know why Advanced Micro Devices would want to settle in New York State, especially Joseph Bruno's part—well, I know why, but it's because of the subsidies Bruno offered. Though this idea isn't all-bad either. New York State invests a lot in education, and that does pay off. SUNY is brings billions of dollars to the state, and CUNY in the city has been doing well lately too. As Sheldon Silver was quoted as saying int he press release:

"My Assembly colleagues and I recognized the unique possibilities and potential economic benefits of this new-technology industry when we funded the first ever clean-room facility at the State University at Albany. That initial investment has created a dynamic, growing, synergy here that has attracted AMD to conclude New York is the place to be. Our state is making its mark on the world’s high-technology stage. Our talent, our universities, our workforce and our investments are creating the environment that this industry seeks. New York State’s high-tech future couldn’t be brighter."

Given the rigid economic structure of the state, one sometimes has to wonder why New York has any future at all in the land-intensive market of researching and manufacturing silicon wafers. On the other hand, though, New York has a long history of high-tech research. Afterall, Kodak and IBM are here, and have been for a long time. Technological advances in New York go back longer than that, and certainly can be traced at least to the day when Robert Fulton first tested his steamboat. Alexander Graham Bell, Nikola Tesla, George Westinghouse, and Thomas Edison all worked, did business, or researched in New York City.

Looking at New York through the prism of history, one sometimes has to wonder why Silicon Valley didn't end up being the Hudson Valley. A lot of the ingredients are there: great schools, room for growth, skilled and educated labor, and a massive well of businesses and industries that could have benefited directly from high-tech research.

Instead, the situation today involves skilled workers educated in the state leaving the state for other states. There are all kinds of reasons cited for this, but it can't all be described by weather. Colorado and New Hampshire are growing. Likewise, Ontario isn't the warmest place in the world either.

Improving the state's population growth might require a slew of serious reforms at all levels of government. The federal government should make it easier for the city and state to welcome what newcomers it does manage to attract, be they laborers working in kitchens or high-tech talent from India—there is no reason to lose this kind of talent to Ontario or to other states. Likewise, the state and city need to reform their tax structure. Albany needs to stop acting as a second municipal government for the city, and focus broadly on the needs of the state as a whole. Albany shouldn't concern itself with New York City's bus routes. New York City needs to figure out how it can best diversify its economy in the face of competition from other great world cities, as well as smaller cities in America that could easily attract New York City's artistic and creative population with cheaper real estate.

As a matter of fact, New York City seems to be promising some years of balanced growth, if the city's own estimates are to be believed (that's according to the Department of City Planning). This is a strange prospect for a big American city indeed. It will provide new tax revenues, while simultaneously eating them up with new challenges in the areas of education, public health, housing, and transportation. Sam Roberts reported this problem on February 19, 2006, in The New York Times ("Coming Soon, 9 Million Stories in the Crowded City"):

With higher birth rates among Hispanic and Asian New Yorkers, immigrants continuing to gravitate to New York City and a housing boom transforming all five boroughs, the city is struggling to cope with a phenomenon that few other cities in the Northeast or Midwest now face: a growing population. It is expected to pass nine million by 2020.

New York might need an extra million or so slices of cake for its 400th birthday party in 2025.

Estimated today at a record 8.2 million, the population is expected to reach nearly 9.4 million in 2025. But that projected growth poses potential problems that New York is just starting to grapple with: ensuring that there are enough places in which to live, work, attend school and play and that transportation and energy are adequate.

Elaborating on Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's disclosure last month that city planners were drafting a strategy to cope with this expected growth, Daniel L. Doctoroff, the deputy mayor for economic development, said the city could accommodate a million additional people or more, but only if it began planning for their needs now.

''We have the capacity through rezoning and underutilized land to go well over that number,'' he said. ''But you cannot simply divorce the issue of growth from the infrastructure required to support it. It opens up great opportunities only if the growth is smart, if we have the things that make cities worth living in.''

...

Among the goals of the plan, Mr. Doctoroff said, are to produce greater geographic diversity -- more jobs in Downtown Brooklyn, Flushing and Jamaica in Queens, the South Bronx, Harlem and the Far West Side -- and to preserve manufacturing jobs.

Except for the clothing industry, manufacturing jobs have not decreased year to year for the first time since World War II.

City officials rarely engage in long-range planning, particularly for growth. A short-lived proposal for ''planned shrinkage'' was advanced in the mid-1970's, sandwiched between a comprehensive statement of urban challenges and potential solutions in 1969 and a candid but still largely optimistic assessment in 1987.

''This will be different,'' Mr. Doctoroff said. ''Much more practical.''

New York has been the most populous American city since the first census in 1790. Almost steadily since the 1940's, more people have been leaving the city for other parts of the country than have arrived here from other areas of the nation.

Growth in the 1980's and especially the 1990's has been largely driven by immigration. Foreigners are expected to account for much of the growth in the next two decades, growth that, according to the forecasts, would keep New York in first place among the nation's cities and maintain the New York metropolitan region either as the largest or, at least, tied with Los Angeles.

I've always taken a wait-and-see approach to state reformists. It's obvious that the state bureaucracy is too bloated, too rigid, and too draining on taxpayer money. That's been the case for a long time, and it's created a slew of problems. The challenge has always been to keep the state afloat, and allowing it to thrive is rarely discussed. Nevertheless, there are a few optimistic signs about Upstate New York. Take this one from Syracuse ("Projects under way reflect investors' confidence," The Syracuse Post-Standard, March 13, 2007; by David Mankiewicz):

The story in Sunday's Post-Standard, "CNY in for $2 Billion Building Boom," gives an excellent picture of growth and development in the city of Syracuse.

All of the projects referenced in the story are in, or near, downtown Syracuse. These are not speculative projects 20 percent are underway, and the remainder will be initiated within two years. This level of capital investment is a reflection of the growing confidence by developers and investors in Syracuse's urban core.

There are important implications of this new investment....

Needless to say, the implications involve improved energy use, a more vibrant downtown, better transportation options, population growth, job grown, and a more vibrant economy. The downsides noted were noted too:

Another story in Sunday's Post-Standard, "Local Warming," discussed the negative consequences of continuing our sprawl-dominated, fossil-fuel dependent lifestyle. The story reported on new efforts to affect change at a local level.

As a community, we have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reverse the impact of suburban sprawl and create a thriving urban center. The Syracuse community should react positively to this growth and focus resources toward building new housing and transportation forms to support it.

David Mankiewicz is deputy director of the Downtown Committee and assistant to the Metropolitan Development Association president.

But what about Buffalo, Albany, and Rochester? All these are cities that have been slowly declining in prestige and economic vitality.

Bad Bats!

2007-03-13T16:03:00.000-04:00

The New York Times is reporting that metal baseball bats could be banned from New York City public school sports activities ("Council Moves Toward Ban on Metal High School Bats," Chan, Sewell; March 13, 2007):

New York City would become one of the first cities in the country to prohibit the use of metal bats in high school baseball games, under a bill that a City Council committee approved yesterday and that the full Council is considered all but certain to pass tomorrow.

The issue has sharply divided youth baseball leagues, coaches, players and fans. Industry groups have hired lobbying and public relations firms to oppose the bill, while parents of players severely injured by balls hit off metal bats have given tearful testimony in support of it.

I actually didn't realize these bats were an issue, myself. I liked metal bats more than wooden ones when I was growing up. The mayor's office could be against the ban:

“The mayor has some skepticism both about whether this bill fixes the problem it says it does and whether this is something the government should be doing,” a mayoral spokesman, Stu Loeser, said yesterday. “He has made no decision about a veto.”

What is the problem anyway? It's buried a little further along in the article:

The bill’s leading proponent, Councilman James S. Oddo, said that youth baseball regulatory bodies had failed to respond to highly publicized episodes in which children were critically injured by balls hit with metal bats.

I guess wooden bats can't even hurt a fly.

So what does this come down to? Municipal waste:

According to the Council, it would cost the city’s public high schools $253,500 to replace 5,070 metal or metal-composite bats used by 169 baseball teams with wood bats, and $67,600 a year thereafter to replace broken wood bats. The bill’s sponsors said they would ask donors to defray the costs for private and parochial schools.

Simply speaking, it would be cheaper to ban baseball.

However, there is merit to the claim that metal bats maybe hit balls faster:

Researchers from Brown University found in 2001 that baseballs hit with a metal bat traveled faster than those hit with a wood bat, but could not conclusively identify the factors responsible for the difference in performance. Since then, the N.C.A.A. and the National Federation of State High School Associations have adopted rules requiring that metal bats perform no better than the best wood bats.

On Sunday, Richard M. Greenwald, one of the Brown researchers, wrote that he knew of no scientific data to support the notion “that the use of nonwood bats poses an unacceptable risk to children, particularly high school competitive players,” according to an e-mail message released by Easton Sports.

Bat makers have hired Suri Kasirer and Stanley K. Schlein, prominent city lobbyists, and Knickerbocker SKD, a media consulting firm. Mr. Ettinger, the lawyer for Easton Sports, said yesterday that the ban, if enacted, could face a strong legal challenge.

Binghamton is a green city!

2007-03-11T23:27:00.000-04:00

According to Country Home magazine, Binghamton is the 9th greenest city to live in the United States ("Binghamton ranks No. 9 on 'Green Places' list—High rating could help promote region," Press & Sun-Bulletin, Binghamton, NY, 2007-03-09).

That's good news. What's the first? According to Country Home, it's Burlington, Vermont (another city in New York made the top 10 list at #2: Ithaca).

Sadly, the criteria haven't been published yet. As of right now (March 11), the following notice is on Country Home's site:

next month: GREEN LIVING

Being earth-friendly has never looked better. In this special issue, Country Home shows you the innovations, trends, products, and people who are leading the way to a cleaner, greener tomorrow. JunkMarket shops a re-use center and shows how a little reinvention can yield a great look. Make a super simple Earth Day meal featuring locally grown ingredients. Plus: Seasonal ideas for Easter eggs and flowering branches.

I'll be curious to see where New York City stands. It rarely gets credit for how green it truly is. As far as environmental sustainability goes, there is a lot to be said for large, dense cities.

Links:

David Owen wrote an interesting article in The New Yorker ("Green Manhattan," PDF) on the positive effects of places like Manhattan on the environment, and also spoke about the D.C. transportation system and its effects on the environment.

New York: 39th Most Walkable City?

2007-03-08T18:07:00.000-05:00

If I were asked to list the top 10 most walkable cities in the United States, I'd definitely have to pick New York, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco in my top 10. Not so for Prevention Magazine, which rated Madison, Wisconsin, as their number one. Admittedly, I might be inclined to agree if I had been there, but I haven't been. I might even include Austin in my top 10, as they did (it was #2, ahead of San Francisco!). But New York came in at #39 (behind Wichita, Kansas). That strikes me as, to say the least, bizarre.

From CNN ("Top 10 cities for taking a stroll," CNN, March 8, 2007):

Madison was the only city in the walking top 10 in a state that's not in the South or the West, a point of pride for people like Kathy Andrusz, coordinator of the Fit City initiative. Started in 2003 by Mayor Dave Cieslewicz, the program is a collaboration between Madison city officials and more than 30 other groups to combat obesity and get people moving.

Of course, there is a certain fundamental unfairness to some of the criteria Prevention used:

• % of pop that walks for exercise
• Use of mass transit
• Parks per square mile
• Points of interest per squre mile
• Avg winter/summer temperatures
• % of athletic shoe buyers

New York probably gets a lot of kudos for the second point. Mass transportation is as big or bigger than driving to get around NYC. As far as parks go, there are quite a few, but perhaps not enough (which, actually, as far as walking is concerned is possibly a good thing because parks could possibly interfere with street life by cutting off neighborhoods). New York's points of interest per square mile (whatever that means) is probably hard to beat, given New York's population density.

But the first point immediately skews the result away from New York: why do New Yorkers need to walk for exercise as much as, say, someone from the suburbs when walking is already such a big part of their daily lives? Many New Yorkers walk to work, walk home, walk to transit, and walk for the hell of it. Likewise, why would they need athletic shoes to walk? I walk in the same shoes I work in, which aren't fancy. And, as far as I'm concerned, cold is no excuse for not walking.

Food for thought: Newark, NJ, was #100.

David Weprin: Against Congestion Charging Because It Hurts The Outer Boroughs; Most Pols Afraid To Take Opinion On Matter

2006-11-24T09:55:00.000-05:00

From NY Times ("Bigger Push for Charging Drivers Who Use the Busiest Streets" by William Neuman, November 24, 2006):

One of the most outspoken opponents of congestion pricing in New York has been David I. Weprin, a City Council member who represents some neighborhoods in eastern Queens that are far from subway lines and where residents with jobs in Manhattan are more likely to drive to work.

He said congestion pricing amounted to an unfair tax on residents in those areas, many of whom can ill afford it.

“The potential for causing hardship to people who rely on their cars in boroughs other than Manhattan is too great to try to implement congestion pricing at this point,” Mr. Weprin said.

In response, advocates said revenue from a congestion pricing program should be reserved for public transportation improvements that would help the outer boroughs. For instance, if new or faster bus routes could bring residents into Manhattan or to subway stations more efficiently, they may be more willing to forgo driving. That would also help answer critics who have said congestion pricing is nothing more than a new tax that would go straight into the city’s general budget.

Most of all, the advocates of congestion pricing have their eyes on the long-term strategic plan for the city being prepared by Deputy Mayor Daniel L. Doctoroff. The plan is a response to predictions that the city will add one million residents by 2025, and figuring out how to keep people and vehicles moving around an ever more crowded city will be an important part of it. The activists hope that it will include a recommendation for some form of congestion pricing.

Mr. Doctoroff refused to talk about what the plan would include, but he said he was aware that traffic is a concern.

“It’s clear the level of congestion is an inhibitor to growth,” Mr. Doctoroff said. “We believe that smart growth is good, and therefore we need to provide additional capacity on every mode of transportation.” That, he said, includes city streets, and he added, “How we do that, that’s what we’re thinking through now.”

I can't say I know what the scope should be, or how high the charges, but it seems to me that congestion charging makes sense. If billions of dollars per year is being lost in traffic jams due to unncessarily burned fuel and wasted labor time, why not?

But it's hard not to be sensitive to Weprin's objection. Considering the vast majority of the city doesn't live in Manhattan, it really is high time to consider that the outer boroughs of New York City could really use improved subway service. If you live in Brooklyn and work in The Bronx, you probbaly have to drive. If you live in Queens, you probably have to drive unless you're lucky enough to live near a subway line. And if you live or work in Staten Island, you have to often drive no matter what.

Wasteful Underage Drinking Summit

2006-11-17T02:34:00.000-05:00

With all the talk in recent months of alcohol causing so many problems in New York City (see my post "Attacking the Nightlife Industry"), a (snicker) sobering trend has begun Upstate.

Apparently, Central New York, an ill-defined region of what is probably the state with the loosest cultural identify in the entire United States, is having major problems with underage drinking. News 10 has the grim details ("Underage Drinking Summit," October 27, 2006, Cait McVey):

Underage drinking is a reality for most teenagers today, and the consequences can be serious. Recently, there have been several teen fatalities due to drunk driving in the Central New York area. In an effort to curb the problem, the group Prevention Network is holding an Underage Drinking Summit. Thursday's presentation was for teens and their parents.

So what the solution to this quagmire? Talk to your kids? Well, sort of. Teach your kids how to drink responsibly? No!

Actually, there was an ever-so-small snippet of wisdom at the bottom of this article:

Although the teenage years are known as a time when kids tune their parents out, teens we spoke with said they are listening, and they appreciate mom and dad's involvement.

"You act like you're ignoring them, but you're subconsciously listening," Chittenago High School student Rachael Gerow said.

Wait, that wasn't it. But that did lead into it:

"They always say if there's a need or a ride that's needed or I need a ride home somehow to give them a call. They're always supportive," said Chittenago High School student Scott Rutledge.

(I find it very amusing that the article was covering up the implication that this high schooler's parents told him if he had a drink he should call them so they could pick him up.)

That's right. If you have kids who are old enough to drink (and by old enough, I don't mean legally old enough—I mean they're probably old enough to be curious enough to sneak a bottle out of your liquor cabinet when you're not looking), it is your responsibility to see to it that they do it safely. So, if they entertain their curiosity, they shouldn't have to be afraid to call you if they need help. Calling somebody when you've had too much to drink is a sign of responsibility.

As a side note, it's very interesting that journalistic impartiality flies out the window when alcohol is being discussed:

During his presentation, Creagh also told parents that driving isn't the only danger teens face when drinking. He said alcohol can be a factor in many acts of sexual assault and violence...yet another reason to tell your teen to stay sober.

Yet another reason? How many reasons are there? The general rationale seems to be that we intoxication is immoral, and that drinking leads to intoxication. Meanwhile, young people should be protected from immorality. Therefore, young people should be protected from drinking. Of course, this ignores the reality that many young people are surrounded by images, and even witness first-hand, people drinking and enjoying themselves—with no ill consequences. I know I've had plenty of drinks in my time—probably too many sometimes—and have never once even considered committing a sexual assault or any other violent act. And I've met many other drinkers for whom I could safely say the same.

Many authority figures in this state and country seem to overlook the absurdity of saying to somebody who is by most measures legally recognized as an adult—and many high school seniors fit into this category—that you should do as I say, not as I do. If you're 18 and in high school, you likely have an older brother or sister who is 21 and legally allowed to drink in public. As a matter of fact, you very likely spend a lot of time with that person.

The good news for residents of New York State is that parents actually at least have some say in how their children consume alcohol. There's still enough liberty in the matter to let a parent allow a child to drink at home. I hope they take advantage of the opportunity to teach them to drink responsibly, so they don't learn in their dorm rooms or leaning over a frat house toilet.

Long Island: Crime in the Suburbs

2006-10-15T14:58:00.000-04:00

Newsday has an interesting history of crime on Long Island posted on their web site ("Crime in the Suburbs: A deadly parade of violence brings pain to peaceful neighborhoods" by Tom Demoretcky):

For the postwar generation of baby boomers and their parents, Long Island was seen largely as a refuge, away from the big city and, of course, away from crime. "I never thought anything like that would happen here," reporters covering crimes would often hear. "That's why we left the city."

But in the past 25 years, the quiet suburbs have spawned enough murder and mayhem to keep both prosecutors and movie-of-the-week producers busy. From Colin Ferguson's horrific slaughter of commuters on the Long Island Rail Road to the antics of Joey Buttafuoco and Amy Fisher, local crime has often become national news -- and network entertainment.

More here.

Buffalo News Report on the Spitzer-Faso Debate

2006-10-14T21:15:00.000-04:00

John Faso (R) made some fair points in his debate with Elliot Spitzer (D), but he seems to be a little desperate at this point (Matthew Spina; "Faso, Spitzer talk taxes, economy," The Buffalo News; October, 13, 2006). On one hand he pointed out:

"We are losing thousands of young people, leaving Long Island, leaving upstate," Faso said in a debate televised statewide from the Buffalo studios of public station WNED-TV. "Seniors leaving because they can't afford the school taxes. Others leaving because they are going to flee the estate tax. And unless we recognize that that's the fundamental competitive challenge we face, we are not going to keep people and jobs in New York."

On the other, he had to resort to attacking Spitzer's character in some rather unfair ways:

"Higher taxes under him," Faso continued. "Lower taxes under me."

For his part, Spitzer often corrected Faso but never showed the anger Faso said he possesses. At one point, Faso said Spitzer would resort to "bluster and intimidation" to get his way as attorney general when his office prosecuted corporate fraud.

"Well, once again Mr. Faso wants to run against a mythology," Spitzer responded. "Perhaps he believes if he repeats something often enough, he can persuade himself it's true.

"I have said clear as day to the public, "We will not raise taxes. We will cut them.' I believe in smaller government, smarter government. Mr. Faso is the one described by his own party leadership as an Albany insider."

Stewart Airport

2006-10-14T21:04:00.000-04:00

Bob Baird of The Journal News talks about the possibility of making Stewart Airport a "fourth major airport" for the New York metropolitan region ("A fourth major airport?," October 5, 2006). He also talks about ancillary mass transit potential:

Even back in the Quonset hut days, there was talk of a direct rail connection to help attract some of the Rockland, Bergen and even Westchester travelers away from the other jetports and make Stewart a more attractive departure point for them.

For a long time, those who support restoration of passenger service on the old West Shore rail line argued that it could eventually make a connection to Stewart — perhaps even a high-speed connection.

But now, with mass transit virtually assured to be a component of a new Tappan Zee Bridge project, it may be commuter rail across the Hudson that provides that connection.

Just this week, Al Samuels, president of the Rockland Business Association and Nyack architect Jan Degenshein visited the newspaper to make a case for two-way commuter rail as the favored mass transit option. Both say that the ability of New York City residents to reach employment in Rockland is just as important — maybe more so — than providing a one-seat ride to Manhattan for Rockland residents.

Having that reverse commute option, they argue, would bring in the work force that's needed to fuel the next round of economic development here. It would fill a staffing need expressed by companies that would like to relocate to Rockland and for those that consider leaving because they can't find the help they need.

But both business leaders also see commuter rail across the Tappan Zee possibly providing a more direct rail link to Stewart than is available now.

At the AirTran announcement Tuesday, Vanderhoef called Stewart the "linchpin" for the future of the Hudson Valley. If that's true, from this vantage point, that would make frequent, quick and dependable rail service essential. Such a "train to the plane" could make Stewart the airport of choice for Rockland, Bergen, Westchester and even parts of New York City.

The old chicken-and-egg question remains. Will it be Stewart's need that generates support for the rail line or will it be rail access that prompts the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey to designate Stewart as New York's fourth major airport?

No one can crystal-ball that one as yet. But with Orange and Sullivan counties growing rapidly and the three other airports projected to max out their capacity in about 15 years, the future of Stewart will have to come into focus soon.

Perhaps as much as the decision on a Tappan Zee Bridge mass transit option, Rockland's future — in terms of transportation options, economic development and land use — may hinge on decisions related to Stewart that have been a quarter-century in coming.

New Traffic Plan for Times Square: Does It Go Far Enough or Too Far?

2006-10-13T02:32:00.000-04:00

A new traffic plan, emphasizing pedestrian space, is coming to Times Square. The plan includes wider sidewalks and diversion of traffic from Seventh Avenue to Broadway. "Urban visionary" Enrique Penalosa doesn't think the plan goes far enough ("New Traffic Plan In Times Square Favors Pedestrians," NY1, October 12, 2006):

some are calling for more radical solutions to traffic, among them, Enrique Penalosa, widely considered an urban visionary, who as mayor of Bogota, Colombia, revolutionized transportation there.

He says the key is getting people out of their cars, by creating quality pedestrian space.

"We have to choose between a city that is friendlier to cars, or friendlier to people," said Penalosa.

Penalosa advocates restricting car use, and cutting down on curbside parking, although he did not discuss the ramifications, like say, the impact on businesses or city revenues. Some changes, he says, could even be put to public referendum.

"In Manhattan, they close many streets for markets," said Penalosa. “But I dream of Manhattan, making Broadway pedestrian, permanently."

Among his other ideas, is recreating 42nd Street as a pedestrian corridor, with a tramway.

"We are beyond just patchwork solutions,” said Stringer. “What we really have to talk about is the overall transportation network that is on the brink of collapse."

For now, advocates of more radical change will have to settle for smaller steps, like the changes here in Times Square, which take effect November 4th, and will be evaluated by the city after six months.

Attacking the Nightlife Industry

2006-10-08T15:07:00.000-04:00

One of the city's most robust industries is entertainment, specifically nightlife. According to The New York Times, this should be stunted along with many of our other economic activities under the guise of "Improving the Quality of Nightlife" (editorial, October 8, 2006). Here are some of the details of the Times' proposals:

"The police would surely get better cooperation from the clubs if the city had greater say over whether the owners could keep their licenses."
"It needs to take a close look at the licensing process and the density problem not just in New York City but in Syracuse, Buffalo and other places as well. And it must make the licensing process perfectly transparent, so that everyone can see where all the licenses, actual and proposed, are located on the map. (In some places, that will mean bypassing local political cliques who keep this to themselves.)"
"[T]he authority should devise a strategy for cutting back the number of licenses in areas that are deemed to be overly saturated. When owners close down or give up a license in an area troubled by club noise and violence, the liquor authority should be able to retire the license rather than giving it to a new applicant."

First of all, I'm not so bothered by a democratic process that ends up restricting nightlife. I think it's a bad idea, because nightlife is a healthy sector of the economy, and certainly plays a huge role in making New York a livable 24-hour city.

However, there is no reason a state bureaucracy should have any say in the matter under and circumstances. They shouldn't even have the power to grant licenses to an establishment; this power should be local, and a locality should have the right to simply not even require a license if it pleases. There is no reason, under any circumstances, by any stretch of the imagine, for the state to be involved in granting liquor licenses to establishments in New York City, Buffalo, Syracuse, or anywhere else. These matters should be left to village, city, and county governments.

The state liquor control board, if it isn't abolished outright, should have a single goal: making sure that liquor is safe to drink, and not bathtub moonshine. There is no reason for the state to be wasting its money on any other project.

As for violent bouncers, that shouldn't be a problem unique to the alcohol business. Bouncers who commit violent acts should be treated the same way as mall security guards who commit violent acts.

And as far as underage drinking goes, it's time to work with the state to repeal that policy of preventing young adults from drinking. Young adults are going to drink anyway, and there should be safe places for them to drink, so they don't binge drink with a powerful substance that they have little to no control over.

City Population Estimate Revised Upwards

2006-10-04T16:18:00.000-04:00

According to recent news reports, the city's population estimate has been upwardly revised by the U.S. Census Bureau to 8,213,839. This is after a successful challenge by the city government. The reasoning and methodology is reported by Newsday ("Big Apple grows: 8.2 million people, revised after census dispute," October 3, 2006):

The planning department contends thousands of New Yorkers are not counted by the Census Bureau in its annual population estimates, which are created by monitoring births, deaths and migration information. The estimates are separate from the official census population count conducted every 10 years.

The annual estimates draw migration information from tax returns, a method city planners say doesn't work for New York because it misses thousands of immigrants, students and other new residents who don't immediately file those documents.

"It falls far short," said Joe Salvo, director of the planning department's population division.

With that in mind, Salvo and his staff compile their own figure, which uses housing data such as construction permits, certificates of occupancy and utility records. In their three successful challenges since the 2000 census, they have discovered more than 205,000 additional residents.

The procedure is widely accepted by demographers and other experts, including the Census Bureau, which sent a letter to Mayor Michael Bloomberg saying the city's help was appreciated.
...
[Mayor Michael] Bloomberg said in a statement that a more precise count is crucial because it affects state and federal funding for programs including affordable housing and low-income housing tax credits. He said it paints a more accurate picture of the city, which is estimated to reach a population of 9 million by 2025 or 2030.

"The increase is also a resounding statement of confidence from the thousands of people who continue to come to New York City from other states and countries for the opportunity and diversity we offer," he said.

From the Village Voice Power Plays Blog ("Size Matters: Feds Admit NYC's Enormity," Murphy, Jarrett; October 3, 2006), with links from that blog included:

The Census Bureau updates its decennial census every year by looking at birth and death rates in a city, as well as figures on the migration of people in or out of that jurisdiction. City Planning argued that the figures on migration aren’t reliable. It suggested an alternative way of counting, using occupancy rates and a count of housing units of different sizes. The Census Bureau bowed to City Planning's wisdom (as it has for three straight years now, for a cumulative increase of 163,712 bodies.)

It's cause to celebrate when the entire city of Los Angeles would have to clone itself and merge with Oklahoma City to steal the No. 1 spot, especially when you think about the years when New York was bleeding people. But while Mayor Bloomberg is quick to tout the city's gain of 200,000 people since April 2000, getting big has its problems. One is how city services keep up with increased demand. Right now, New York has fewer cops and firefighters than it did five years ago, and while the administration says the headcount is doing more with less, the bitch from the front lines is that it doesn't add up.

Additional resources:

Bloomberg: "New York Population Revised To Record 8.2 Million," Oct. 3, 2006

FBI Stats Show New York Safest City In 2005; Statewide Violent Crime Up A Little

2006-09-20T02:23:00.000-04:00

From KWTX ("New York Safest; Dallas Most Dangerous," September 19, 2006):

FBI statistics show Dallas had the highest crime rate of any of the nation's top largest cities last year.

The FBI Uniform Crime Report found about one crime was reported in Dallas last year for every 12 people.

New York remained the safest of the nation's ten largest cities in 2005, with about one crime reported for every 37 people.

San Jose was the second safest, followed by Los Angeles, San Diego, Chicago, Philadelphia, Houston, San Antonio, Phoenix and Dallas.

The national figures showed that violent crime rose 2.3 percent last year, the first increase since 2001.

And the ten largest cities in order of safety from the above link:

New York: one crime per 37.38 residents.
San Jose, Calif.: one crime per 34.46 residents.
Los Angeles: one crime per 25.97 residents.
San Diego: one crime per 24.09 residents.
Chicago: one crime per 21.9 residents.
Philadelphia: one crime per 17.96 residents.
Houston: one crime per 14.17 residents.
San Antonio: one crime per 14.12 residents.
Phoenix: one crime per 14.10 residents.
Dallas: one crime per 11.79 residents.

On a bad note, violent crime around the state increased a little this past year. However, overall, the state crime rate is down a bit too ("New York State crime rate down," September 18, 2006):

The state's overall crime rate has dropped once again, although there was a slight increase in violent crimes. According to the 2005 FBI report, violent crime was up a little more than one percent last year.

That reflects similar numbers for the rest of the country. Officials from Governor Pataki's office say an increase in gun crimes led to the bump in the overall violent-crime rate.
But the governor says he's already boosted money for gun violence prevention by $16 million for this year.

The crime ratea for 2005 was up a little nationally. Information from the FBI:

Crime in the United States 2005

FOX23 in Albany: "Canal Businesses Took Hit from June Flooding"

2006-09-20T02:20:00.000-04:00

Flooding damaged Erie Canal boating business this summer. From the AP via Fox News ("Canal Businesses Took Hit from June Flooding," loaded Sept. 19, 2006):

(Utica, N.Y.) AP -- Too much water wasn't a good thing this year for the New York state canal system.

The severe flooding that hit parts of upstate New York in late June closed sections of the Erie Canal for two weeks at the height of the summer boating season. That put a dent in the bottom line for many of the canalside businesses that rely on boaters for much of their summertime trade.

According to state officials, the canal locks handled 80,000 boat passages from late April through early August last year. During the same period this year, that number was about 57,000.

Waterway commuting

2006-09-17T15:36:00.000-04:00

An old saying goes that every great city has its river. This may be true, but many aren't using them very much anymore, as cities concentrate more on tertiery services and less on shipping and industry. Jennifer Saranow of The Wall Street Journal wrote an article ("Cities encourage commuters to take to the water," September 5, 2006) about the expansion of commuting services by waterways, which has gotten some attention from the federal government.

According to the article, "At the federal level, the latest transportation bill authorized more funding for ferries than the previous bill - $335 million over five years, up from $220 million in the previous bill."

The New York metropolitan area has seen the following:

Besides the new water-transportation options, existing services in cities from New York to Seattle are expanding and trying to spur ridership. Earlier this year, the privately owned New York Water Taxi, which serves commuters crossing the East River with yellow taxilike boats, started forming partnerships with new apartment developments and giving new tenants discounts and free passes. Another private ferry operator NY Waterway, with 18 local routes, painted two of its ferries last month to resemble yachts and plans to put the finish on all 34 ships it operates. In August, Washington State Ferries started testing letting riders buy tickets online and is working on enabling monthly pass holders to get fees automatically downloaded to pass cards each month.

...

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey estimates that there are about 37,000 daily weekday trips across 22 routes in the area, up from about 33,000 trips daily on 14 routes before the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks. The agency, which has started working on a study that could lead to a regional ferry plan, predicts growth of 3 percent to 5 percent over the next few years, with ferry service set to be launched between Yonkers, N.Y., and Manhattan in the spring and from Edgewater, N.J., to lower Manhattan later this year.

...

NJ Transit in New Jersey has also over the past year adjusted some of its commuter-bus routes so they link up better to ferries going to New York.

...

Ferries also can serve as an important form of backup transportation, for instance, during blackouts or after terrorist attacks. After Sept. 11, 2001, large numbers of people were evacuated from lower Manhattan in boats and extra ferry service in the area until late 2003 helped to make up for shuttered commuter-train service.

The drawbacks? Ferries generally depend on gasoline, which is getting expensive. "[O]n June 1, NY Waterway raised some prices 25 cents to $1 per ride depending on the route," Saranow wrote. "A one-way ticket from Weehawken, N.J., to midtown Manhattan, for instance, went up 25 cents to $6 and a monthly pass went up to $211 from $200. In contrast, to get from Weehawken to Manhattan by rail would cost about $3.25 per ride and about $93 a month, but would include a train transfer in Hoboken, according to NJ Transit. The monthly NY Waterway fare from Belford, N.J., rose to $572 from $550. To get a train from the area to Manhattan costs $297 per month.

AMD Coming to Albany

2006-09-17T15:25:00.000-04:00

Advanced Micro Devices is opening a plant in New York's Capital Region. According to Times-Union interviews with locals in Austin, Texas, where the bulk of AMD's operations are, it's been a good corporate citizen ("A city without limits for AMD," Rulison, Larry; Albany Times-Union, September 17, 2006):

Although some in Austin have been upset by the construction of AMD's new campus -- the 59-acre site is located atop a sensitive aquifer -- others are happy the company is investing money in the city and solidifying its operations here. They praise AMD for its economic impact and support of the city's cultural and social welfare institutions.

Locals say New York's Capital Region should expect similar corporate involvement when AMD ultimately decides to build a chip fab here.

"You are very fortunate that AMD is coming to Albany," said Brewster McCracken, an Austin City Council member who says AMD is the city's largest user of renewable energy and one of the largest supporters of local nonprofits. "They're going to be a major contributor to your community."

New York Sun: "Realign Amtrak"

2006-09-17T15:14:00.000-04:00

The New York Sun, a conservative city-based paper, published an op-ed making the case for privatizing Amtrak ("Realign, Amtrak," Joseph Vranich, September 15, 2006):

Today the Senate will vote on whether to give Amtrak a record $1.6 billion in subsidies for next year and still more for a loan bailout. This is wrong. It's past time for someone in Congress to apply the brakes to the run-away Amtrak train

The bill at issue, promoted by Senators Lott, Clinton, and Schumer, aims to reform Amtrak. But it is only a pretend reform. One problem is that it prohibits competition against Amtrak's monopoly by private contractors who have taken over and improved trains in Europe, Australia and South America and won contests against Amtrak to run commuter trains in Boston, Los Angeles and San Diego. The bill allows domestic freight railroads to bid on any one Amtrak route in 2008, but freight lines like Union Pacific and CSX have made it clear they have no interest in doing so. Hence, the Senate bill thumbs its nose at innovative solutions that 56 nations have applied to their Amtrak-like problems.

A transportation expert at the Heritage Foundation, Ron Utt, hits the nail on the head when he notes that the proposals taken as a whole fall short of real reforms: "It is replete with directives, alterations, restructurings, subsidies, studies, reports, metrics, five-year plans, transitions, and other forms of top-down micromanagement designed to create the impression that spinning wheels represent forward movement."

Part of the case Vranich makes is that cutting under-used routes would free up resources for Amtrak to concentrate on useful routes, most notably the Northeast Corridor between Washington, D.C., and Boston.

He largely models a proposed privatization scheme on the British privatization of railroads in the 1980s.

The Traffic Problem (Again)

2006-09-15T00:59:00.000-04:00

Carolyn Curiel wrote an interesting op-ed—"Hey! Hey! I’m Walking Here! — How New York (and Other Big Cities) Should Solve the Traffic Problem"—in The New York Times about the crippling effects of traffic in New York City and the metropolitan area.

Key problems mentioned in the article are:

trucks in Queens
gridlock in Manhattan, The Bronx, and Staten Island
low-income people frequently have the longest commutes, often by car

Curiel mentions tolling bridges and congestion charges as ways out of the mess.

Sadly, many of the problems won't be solved this way. Much of the traffic comes from the suburbs. While much of the region is served by local bus service and commuter rail service, an interesting oversight in planning is how to best expand and utilize mass transit.

There are two separate solutions, and ideally both need to be implemented.

PATH Extensions
The first solution requires cooperation with suburban counties. While expensive, this solution might really be the expansion of the PATH trains to other points in the region. Among densely-populated places lacking heavy rail mass transit:

The borough of Staten Island
Bergen County, New Jersey
Paterson, New Jersey
Yonkers, New York (so immediately north of The Bronx that it's often confused as part of the city)
New Rochelle, New York
Long Island

These are all densely populated centers nearly or completely devoid of regular, speedy mass transit service. Southern Westchester has suburban commuter lines, as does much of New Jersey and Long Island.

Nobody wants to build mass transit anymore, but it's clearly the best solution. The region along the Hudson River in New Jersey has become densely populated enough that it would be ideal for an underground PATH four-track line mirroring the subway trunk lines in Manhattan. With two new cross-river tunnels built, one to Midtown and one to The Bronx, that region of New Jersey could potentially see immense growth.

A four-track tunnel under the Hudson River to The Bronx from somewhere north of Fort Lee, New Jersey, where population density decreases, could allow the trunk line to continue to Stewart Airport, which admittedly requires yet another crossing in the Hudson Valley. This has the benefit, however, of adding new mass transit options to Yonkers and other parts of the the Hudson Valley where none exist. Such options could be a boon to towns like Beacon and Newburgh. Keeping the service as a four-track trunk line allows for complementary local and express service between Manhattan and the distant airport, while benefitting many communities inbetween. The trunk line could be fed by the following interstate feeder services:

a two-track spur from Fort Lee to Paterson via local communities in New Jersey. This would provide direct access to Midtown Manhattan from these communties.
a two-track spur south from Jersey City to Staten Island via Bayonne. This would complement present PATH service and the Hudson-Bergen Light Rail service, as well as any planned Staten Island light rail projects.
a two-track across The Bronx or Yonkers to places like Rye and New Rochelle. This would provide feeder service to the main trunk line and to the New York City Subway's present spurs in The Bronx that feed Manhattan trunk lines.

Another major component of PATH expansion would be to the three airpirts already in the region. A small expansion is all it takes to bring PATH to Newark Airport. A longer expansion to Kennedy Airport has the benefit of giving downtown Brooklyn access to the suburbs, yet is already somewhat on the table politically as a Long Island Rail Road expansion. Thirdly, there is no mass transit service except by bus to LaGuardia Airport.

Beltway Service On The Subways
The other way to improve transit in the city is entirely local, and should be the city's responsibility. The outer boroughs, except a part of Brooklyn and Queens, lack any sort of cross-town mass transit service. Most of the subways feed into Manhattan. The A Train could be expanded across The Bronx, and perhaps even under the East River to LaGuardia. Beltway service further out in Brooklyn and Queens is sorely missing.

New York Colleges to Link Through Web Port

2006-09-09T15:06:00.000-04:00

From The Business Council of New York State:

New York’s public and private colleges have joined together to create a Web site that will foster partnerships between business and approximately 175 of New York's higher education institutions.

The Web site will help businesses contact institutions and researchers working on specific topics.

The Web site, which is expected to go live in early 2007, will be “a fast, relevant online resource to support efforts to connect, and grow industry clusters, emerging businesses, and non-profit organizations,” according to a press release from the State University of New York (SUNY) and the Commission on Independent Colleges and Universities (CICU).

For more information, see "New York's colleges connect through 'Web portal'."

New World Trade Center Complex Plans Unveiled

2006-09-09T15:04:00.000-04:00

See "New Ground Zero designs unveiled" from the BBC.

Albany Times Union Goes After Bruno

2006-09-08T02:15:00.000-04:00

The Albany Times-Union ("Upstate reality," September 7, 2006) had some harsh words for New York State Senate Majority Leader Joseph Bruno:

Last Friday, on the day Mr. Faso was again in the news for challenging Mr. Spitzer's air travel, this time for using a luxury jet owned by a gambling lobbyist, Sen. Bruno was getting most of the attention as he scolded Mr. Faso for suggesting that upstate cities are "withering on the vine" and in a "death spiral." Upstate has its problems, Mr. Bruno said during an interview on a local radio station, but "I want to hear positives; I don't want to hear negatives."

Talk about being in denial. Things are bad upstate, even if Mr. Bruno doesn't want to hear about it. How bad? Bad enough for Eliot Spitzer to have compared upstate to Appalachia earlier in the campaign, only to stand corrected -- Appalachia is doing better than upstate. And bad enough that any candidate who cares about his or her credibility will acknowledge these grim facts.

Mr. Faso has his own problems, to be sure. More recently, he was attacked for using a contributor's aircraft, even as he deplored Mr. Spitzer's air travel. But that aside, Mr. Faso clearly wants to take the gloves off and go after his opponent. If only Sen. Bruno would take off his rose-colored glasses -- and leave them off.

It's hard to disagree with assessment. It's hard to find an Upstate city that has done even modestly well over the past half century. Utica has lost more than 40% of its population since 1940 (see the population chart on WikiPedia, or confirm the figures for yourself on this site from the Census Bureau). Similar stories can be told of the other formerly large cities of the region: Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse, and even humble Albany (which once had a population well in excess of 100,000). Even more indicative of decline, the suburbs of those cities are hardly booming, even if some modest growth has at times occurred.

This was once the region with arguably the most successful, advanced economy the world had even known. The Times-Union is right: something is seriously wrong, and Bruno probably doesn't even understand what.

The Links:

Joseph Bruno

Elliot Spitzer

John Faso

NY Times: Liquor-License Freeze Enacted in N.Y.

2006-09-08T02:14:00.000-04:00

According to The New York Times ("Liquor-License Freeze Enacted in N.Y.," September 7, 2006):

The state liquor board yesterday imposed an immediate four-month freeze on approving liquor licenses for areas of New York City that already have three or more license holders within 500 feet of each other.

The unanimous action by the New York State Liquor Authority, which was immediately denounced by a trade group of city nightclubs, follows the deaths this year of two young women. They were killed after drinking heavily at nightspots in SoHo and Chelsea.

This, of course, serves no useful public purpose whatsoever, and in the end hurts what may actually be one of the city's fastest growing economic sectors.

Nevermind that it hurts entrepreneurial individuals as well:

Robert Bookman, a lawyer for the New York Nightlife Association, a trade group of 125 bars and nightclubs, mainly in Manhattan, said the action was unfair. It has “thrown the industry into chaos within the last few hours,” he said.
Mr. Bookman added, “If I have my lifetime savings wrapped up in a place that I’m prepared to open Oct. 1 and now I can’t get a license until January, how am I going to pay $30,000 in monthly rent and not be able to open?”

The New York Times points out that there have been a few shocking murders in Manhattan in the past few months after young women left bars or clubs and got attacked by bouncers. The city, of course, enacted legislation to deal with that problem:

Last month, Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg signed legislation that made it easier for the city to shut down establishments that fail to conduct background checks of security workers.

Come to think about it, that sounds like the solution: legislation that attacks the problem.

Imette St. Guillen, killed in February, and Jennifer Moore, who was 18 when she was killed in July, were not killed because liquor licenses were being issued to clubs within 500 feet of each other.

More information: "Liquor Licenses"

2006-09-03T18:05:00.000-04:00

I launched this blog to deal with my musings concerning New York State and New York City politics and problems.

These are previous posts from my personal blog concerning New York State: