 |
||
 June 2, 2008 | Vol 7, No. 11 |
||
|
|
||
|
In This Issue: – Gas Prices and Transit Use Soar, But To What End? – Calendar But the good news is temporary and unsustainable without complementary public policy actions. The United States still relies on most of its petroleum for transportation (three gallons in every four) from potentially unstable and / or unfriendly countries. Tapping domestic sources, as has been suggested, will not change that appreciably. Almost ninety percent of all commuting is done in an automobile, and, given current patterns of home and work locations, this will not change anytime soon. The recent drop in vehicle-miles traveled will not be sustained even if gas prices continue to rise, because drivers will find they cannot continue to avoid auto travel while sustaining their current life style. Thus any reductions in carbon emissions from reduced driving will only be temporary – a blip in the trends of global warming. Meanwhile, because gas taxes are keyed to gallons sold, and not to the price of the sale, the current drop in driving is causing a drop in government’s revenue from gas taxes – revenue that is needed for transportation infrastructure investment, particularly for transit if ridership increases. What is to be done? We could raise gas taxes to yield more revenue for transportation investments and encourage still less driving, but that is politically unpopular. Gas taxes will also yield less revenue in the future as vehicle mileage efficiency goes up and other petroleum sources capture some of the market. Or we could shift to a vehicle-miles-of-travel (VMT) tax, as Oregon is experimenting with, to encourage less driving, but that would reduce buyers’ incentive to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. We could also ramp up the miles-per-gallon standards as was done so successfully after the 1970s oil shocks, but that would lower the yield from gas taxes. Congress recently increased fuel-efficiency standards, but the levels and timelines are not aggressive (read: wimpy). Finally, we could find fuels other than petroleum, but their impact would be seen over a longer period and would not lower vehicle use and traffic congestion, increase transit ridership, or provide funding for transportation investments. The point is that none of these actions is a silver bullet. In fact, some of these actions, if not done with the others, could have unwanted impacts and could justifiably be opposed and defeated. But what if we moved forward to do all four, gaining the benefits of each while blunting the negative effects of the others? Something to think about. Coals to Newcastle: Bringing TODs to NYC If you look at the dense apartment buildings being constructed around the new light rail line in Charlotte, NC, the contrast between those buildings and the big suburban homes on large lots that are the modus operandi in the rest of Charlotte is startling. Here in New York City, the contrasts aren’t so great. Even out in Queens and Brooklyn, the townhouses and apartments built close to the subway line, say in Sunset Park, may be a bit denser than the duplexes and even single family homes a mile away, but the contrast does not leap out at you. Nevertheless, the concept of developing specifically around transit lines with a set of coordinated land-use and development policies, something known as Transit Oriented Development, does have applicability in New York City. TOD, it’s fair to say, is a hot concept right now in the rest of the country. It’s been slow to be introduced here as a specific tool and vision, precisely because there was some uncertainty in whether it was needed. Isn’t New York City already one big transit-oriented development? In reality, the city has taken its massive transit system for granted. Much of the land use around our subway, bus and commuter rail system is of high density, but many stations are surrounded by vacant or underutilized land. Many valuable TOD concepts could in fact be applied in New York City, and they would help the city and region get even more value from its subway, bus and commuter rail system, the largest and best in the country. (Many of these policies fit in with Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s PlaNYC, which is in part a kind of manifesto for an urban version of Transit Oriented Development.) Then again, urban TODs do require slightly different strategies and guidelines than their suburban counterparts. Complete Communities Urban TODs, by contrast, are usually more about amplifying the existing fabric, or filling in the gaps in the urban fabric, rather than creating one from scratch. In New York, City the half-mile radius around a subway stop that is often the benchmark for the geographic boundary of a TOD, will likely include areas that are already dense, already mixed-use, and already walkable. Making these areas more transit oriented means creating overlapping concentrations of activity and density, as well as inserting both highly individualistic and idiosyncratic patterns of urban fabric. Because urban TODs need to recognize and build on existing elements, the laws and regulations that govern urban TODs should allow for flexibility and varied approaches. In places that are already relatively dense and include a mix of uses, new streetscape improvements and pedestrian connections may be all that needs to be built for a district to become a TOD. For example, the redesign of the open spaces around a “tower in the park” superblock housing project could increase the accessibility of a subway station not only for the housing project but for a larger neighborhood that thinks of the superblock as a barrier to transit. In another TOD location, a new park may have to be built to relieve significant amounts of new residential density. Yet another TOD location may need new mixed-use buildings that include live-work space or new retail on the ground floor. Even in transit-oriented New York City, things have been done – or not done – that limit the potential of development around transit stops. TODs, for example, should always be designed and operated to maximize intermodal activity. This means that TODs should include bus stops that facilitate transfers, as well as bike-rental, bike-sharing and bike-parking facilities. In each case, the test should be not just how much residential density can be created around a station, but whether a complete neighborhood has been created. From an implementation perspective, the city will need new tools. Borrowing primarily from the suburbs, the city could develop a TOD overlay zone. (There is a precedent in the city’s Transit Land Use Special District, but this was written with a fairly narrow intent.) A more comprehensive TOD overlay zone would allow a density bonus calibrated to proximity to the station, and would be linked to station improvements and pedestrian amenities. It would also allow more flexibility in terms of uses, and reduce or eliminate off-street parking requirements. Right now, developers of apartment buildings a block from a subway stop have to provide the same amount of parking as a building without access to transit, a policy that is expensive and counter-productive. One of the important themes in PlaNYC is the need to do more with what we have: by allowing school facilities to double as community facilities; by adapting outdated buildings to new uses; by finding co-locations for housing and government. A subtext to this theme is the need to think about mixed-use as being more than just stacking different uses in a single building; it’s using the same buildings and spaces in different ways at different times of the day. In other words, it’s “mixed-use” in time as well as space. This concept of flexibility could include flexible live/work arrangements, such as even combining housing with clean, high-performance manufacturing and assembly. This has been done in cities in Europe, Canada and the United States. Apartments could also be more easily subdivided or recombined – as they once were. Those once-large apartments in the classic pre-war buildings have often, over time, been cut up into smaller units, or more recently been recombined into larger homes again. Loft conversions have also demonstrated this kind of adaptability. Unfortunately, the way luxury high-rise apartment buildings constructed over the last twenty years makes it extremely difficult to subdivide or combine units. Small adjustments in building plans, particularly in the location of mechanical chases, could create flexibility for the future. If flexibility is needed, then “performance-based zoning” may be the way to manage the complex patchwork of activities and building types that is the urban TOD. Performance-based zoning is based on outcomes, for example whether a place is “walkable,” and this contrasts with standard zoning practice which is based on proscriptive lists of land uses and fixed standards for building form. There are precedents for this type of performance-based zoning in New York City, including the “Quality Housing” regulations which allow architects and developers to find their own solutions to goals relating to better housing design. But in general, “performance” is narrowly conceived around measuring nuisances like noises and odors that are quantifiable, enabling what is basically administrative review. Of course, with this flexibility comes a greatly increased administrative burden, especially if the performance issues become more complex and less quantitative, because someone has to judge whether the objectives are being met. As is also true with other goals the city has, New York will have to increase the staff capacity and tools of the City Planning Department. (The author would like to acknowledge Ernest Hutton, FAICP Assoc AIA, Co-Chair of New York New Visions, for sharing his ideas. A more complete report by NYNV on this and other topics relating to PlaNYC is in process.) Bird of a Different Feather in Business School As is traditional when starting school, this January when I began the MBA program at the Stern School of Business at New York University, I attended the requisite orientation weekend where my new classmates and I were forced to learn about each other's backgrounds, habits and hobbies. The goal was in part to familiarize ourselves with folks so we could form study teams. Although everyone seemed very smart and nice, my first impressions were just how different they were from me. I had expected this to an extent; I knew most of my MBA-seeking classmates came from the financial services, consulting, technology and marketing sectors with degree backgrounds in business and economics. I, in contrast, came with a history of working with non-profits, a degree in the sciences and absolutely no experience with business. But I wasn't prepared for how we differed on smaller things, like where we lived. Out of the sixty-five members of my core group (think law school "sections"), I was the only person working for a non-profit. Additionally, I was only one of three (of that sixty-five) living in Brooklyn. How could this be? NYU is a downtown campus. My apartment is a mere four subway stops away. Brooklyn is New York City's largest borough. It should be somewhat cheaper to live here on a student's budget than in other places. Most of my new classmates hailed from New Jersey and Manhattan. A few were scattered in the other boroughs. Now that I a full semester behind me, other differences strike me, such as how relatively little I know about many business matters - things like accounting, economics, corporate structure - compared to my classmates. Each day I climb a mountain of learning, whereas my classmates, to switch metaphors, are chomping at the bit to move on to the harder stuff. I keep asking myself, "What have I gotten myself into?" I find some minor solace with the fact that the school must have let me in for some reason, if not my business acumen. Marketing class, here I come. What I've gotten myself into is a challenge. I decided to get my MBA because, after nearly a decade of working in transportation, and seeing many projects halted and many agencies drowned because of financing troubles, I wanted to better understand the dynamics on that side of the equation. Ultimately I want to learn more about public-private partnerships and private infrastructure funds to be in the position to help find new ways to fund big projects like roads, bridges, tunnels and subways. While it's been tough getting back in to school and balancing work at the same time, and even tougher catching up on the learning curve, it has been refreshing to be around a group of individuals I find myself otherwise remarkably insulated from on a day-to-day basis. As my fondness for my classmates continues to grow, I suspect we will always differ in many ways, including what is motivating us to get through the program, but we're all there to learn more about how to manage the dominant force of capitalism in our society. Maybe we’re not so different, after all.
|
|
|
June 4 June 5 June 8 June 8 June 8 June 9 June 10 June 10 June 10
June 16 June 17 June 17 June 17 June 24 July 1 and 2 September 27 November 15 |
|
|
||
|
Spotlight on the Region: A publication of Regional Plan Association, Robert Yaro, President / Alex Marshall, Senior Editor 212-253-2727 x360 alex@rpa.org www.rpa.org |
|
