Faster Trains? Better NYC Transit President?

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 The reason is that the distribution model chosen for the Subway is rather outdated.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

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

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?

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

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?

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

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

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!

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!

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?

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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

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

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

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:

1. New York: one crime per 37.38 residents.
2. San Jose, Calif.: one crime per 34.46 residents.
3. Los Angeles: one crime per 25.97 residents.
4. San Diego: one crime per 24.09 residents.
5. Chicago: one crime per 21.9 residents.
6. Philadelphia: one crime per 17.96 residents.
7. Houston: one crime per 14.17 residents.
8. San Antonio: one crime per 14.12 residents.
9. Phoenix: one crime per 14.10 residents.
10. 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