Gothamist: Two Ideas to Make NYC More Livable

anti-truster

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 22:06:47 -0500

dave h., the hudson river park trust attempted to establish major restrictions on access to the west side pier area for gays. bette midler's nyrp's new leaf cafe charges 30-40 dollars a plate for a meal in what once a beautiful snack bar with burgers, dogs n fries for far less. the central park conservancy has worked with the department of parks to restrict outdoor events and demonstrations. i don't think that this is what true public parkland is about.

kevin bracken

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 02:33:29 -0500

Also I would like to correct something: >Toronto has dedicated lanes for their buses and they are much faster than NYC buses. I live in Toronto and we don't have dedicated bus lanes. What are you talking about? Two streetcar lines have ROWs, Spadina and parts of Queen's Quay (pronounced "key"). St. Clair is getting one (which has created huge amounts of controversy) but most of our streetcars compete with traffic.

kevin bracken

Wed, 25 Oct 2006 02:30:22 -0500

these create public destinations that are accessible to all new yorkers, not just rich ones. making great places should be a priority in every corner of the five boroughs, and PPS just came out with a new report about the city you should read. you don't have to be rich to visit a public park. also, because new york has the money to build new subways, it ought to. some cities are not fortunate enough to build subways and resort to bus improvements and dedicated light rail as a compromise. most cities would love to build subways, but because of the failure of upper levels of government to provide an adequate funding structure are unable. that said, bus rapid transit is a great idea and hopefully the plan will convince the city to create a barrier.

Dave H.

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 18:08:52 -0500

I am completely perplexed by the objection to the involvement of civic trusts at improving the civil landscape of the city. While it's easy to object to "privatization" now, one's gotta look with some historical perspective. All of these parks are still public--I believe Gramercy is the only private park in the city. The formation of these conservancy groups was an attempt to step in and fill a gap the municipal government was completely failing at. Central Park is pretty goddamn nice, but it wasn't before the Conservancy offered its stewardship. And they don't have control, just stakeholder input equivalent with their support of the park. Bryant Park on 42nd St. was a dirt field populated with vagrants that people would rush past before a neighborhood consortium rallied to beautify it and make it a place for hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers to enjoy an urban oasis. Ragging on Bette Midler's organization is just bizarre. Do you think that boathouse and waterfront park that far up in Manhattan would have ever been created by the city? I personally appreciate the fact that private businesses have realized a sense of civic communitarianism, where the creation of well-maintained public spaces benefit a great number of people and if the city's not going to accomplish it, they'll do it themselves. The downside of these projects is obviously at the immediate expense of homeless people, but I don't think a static solution of letting these people sit and rot in unmaintained, unpoliced and outdoor environments is really a charitable or viable solution. If that's a primary concern, let's argue that productive measures can be taken to care for that population, rather than argue that an environment of decay benefits anyone.

Toby

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:57:48 -0500

The BRT solution is a good stop gap, but the problem with buses is they are big dirty things that spew fumes. True there are some electric buses, but there are not really enough of them to make a real difference. As mentioned above, a streetcar/light rail system would be better, since they tend to be quieter and don't have tailpipes spewing out fumes. And a right of way for light rail would be a much better use for the High Line than a pie in the sky park.

Tom

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:03:50 -0500

A second avenue subway line seems like a non-starter in these times, but I'm not sure BRT is the answer. Sure, it's the cheapest option, but the reality is that even if you dedicate a lane with physical separation and use low-floor rolling stock, people will see it as a bus and -- again, reality time -- there's a stigma associated with bus travel that reduces the pool of likely customers. Surface light rail (a la TTC streetcars in Toronto, as mentioned earlier) would be a better solution.

wirc

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:33:07 -0500

Well, BRT is definitely a good solution, as part of a broader strategy that includes the SAS, streetcars, traffic volume reducing measures, and better bike lanes. But using BRT to the exclusion of other transit solutions is rarely enything more than an expensive bus route. The capital improvements needed to really make it rival heavy rail raise it to an investment that also rivals heavy rail, without other benefits. But this is still a good sign that the city is looking to diversifying the ways you can get around this city.

jack oneil

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:07:48 -0500

Fuck the poorer areas, the projects already have great basketball, and in some cases tennis, courts and $100,000 parks for the welfare kids. Try to find that in the swanky rich areas, the city spends shit on places without project housing.

WT Economist

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:01:50 -0500

(Without physical separation, this is doomed to failure.) Agreed. You've got to have grade separation, at least at the major streets. Just look how much faster the M15 is northbound, where it goes under the Queensboro and Triboro, than southbound, based on the schedule. The UN underpass speeds things along too. Of course, the city could build three underpasses on Second Avenue at the same time as the SAS to get the same effect.

Vanessa

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:17:45 -0500

I think both ideas are great. Toronto has dedicated lanes for their buses and they are much faster than NYC buses. As for the highline and the pedestrian piazza, they are both great ideas that make the city more pedestrian friendly. I find it odd that people oppose it just because rich people happen to live nearby. I am a far left liberal and I think making any city better for the people is a good thing. Yes, it would be nice to see more projects in poorer areas as well.

Vinny

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:00:19 -0500

For those worried about the rich/hipster/whatever crowd that this might serve -- if you ever go to nearby Abingdon Square or Jackson Square, you'll know that it'll be filled with drunken bums instead. Bullshit. Where do all these bums go when the "be seen" crowd comes out at night? Ah ah. These trendoids ain't havin' none of that homeless crap in their 'hood. And don't argue with me that blue collar folks work there so it'll be good for them. That's great but that's over at 6. Once the sun goes down that neighborhood has no resemblance whatsoever to a blue-collar neighborhood. I stand by my original assertion that this is exactly the crowd Gothamist rails on and on against. Calling this 'hood some blue collar multi culti haven is just flat out stupid.

anti-truster

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:57:14 -0500

i am totally with vinny and soak the rich, especially re. the high line!!!! alas, those who can set up the trust funds, etc. get what they want (perhaps only up to a point in some cases - e.g. keeping out gays from the west side piers altogether.... not sure what is up there at this point, but it is not as good as it should be). we have got to stop privatization of ny public park and other land. screw the Hudson River Park Trust, Bette Midler's NY Restoration Project, the Central Park Conservancy, etc!

sdjfksjfjajfa

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:53:53 -0500

i am totally with vinny and soak the rich, especially re. the high line!!!! alas, those who can set up the "trust" funds, etc. get what they want (perhaps only up to a point in some cases - e.g. keeping out gays from the west side piers altogether.... not sure what is up there at this point, but it is not as good as it should be). we have got to stop privatization of ny public park and other land. screw the Hudson River Park Trust, Bette Midler's NY Restoration Project, the Central Park Conservancy, etc!

S

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 14:05:53 -0500

soak the rich

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:54:06 -0500

I'm with Vinny. I've been saying the same thing about the High Line for years. Why use federal money to boost property values of millionaires? And create a park primarily for the nannies to push the millionaires kids around in?

Vinny

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:46:27 -0500

Wait... Gothamist... A site that prides itself on spending money where it's most warranted (ie: "affordable housing," public schools, low income neighborhoods, etc., is calling a plan to build an open air plaza in one of the richest trendiest neighborhoods a good one? How does that make NYC more liveable except for the people you guys are usually all over for their arrogance and self-importance? Why is this even remotely necessary? So a bunch of hipsters can eat their overpriced dinners in open air? Honestly, you folks are about as consistent as John Starks from 3 point range.

fishtale

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:38:59 -0500

i agree buses are an under-appreciated facet of city life...but, i don't think real bus corridors is the solution for new york. the way they have these test sites set up is decent i think, but building physical barriers would be a bad idea if they are as the diagram pictures. putting up those orange plastics dividers where the lane stripes are could also work. but in my experience, building physical barriers that exist as islands only makes the intersections more crowded and hazardous for pedestrians.

Glenn

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:37:22 -0500

Without physical separation, this is doomed to failure. And with the cameras in place on the buses, I bet the city just loves the idea of all that parking ticket revenue.

Kevin Walsh

Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:06:12 -0500

Dedicated bus lanes should be the idea, instead of new subway lines and light rail that can never be built because of politics, lack of funding and NIMBYs. www.forgotten-ny.com