Physical Address

304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124

Category Uncategorized

Just give Access-a-Ride users cash!

The New York City MTA is starting a paratransit pilot program whereby it seeks to control skyrocketing Access-a-Ride costs by basically handing out unlimited vouchers for cabs for handicapped residents traveling below 96th Street in Manhattan, who would only have to pay $2.25 for each ride. I’m no fan of enormous and amorphous unfunded mandates like the ADA in the first place, and it does seem very unfair to force cities to offer huge public transit subsidies to the elderly and disabled, while not forcing towns without transit to do a damn thing to increase mobility for those who can’t drive. (I should note that the pilot program only applies to the 75% of Access-a-Ride users who aren’t in wheelchairs.) But if we’re going to have these mandates, it seems to me that a better way to achieve mobility for those who cannot climb steps or walk long distances is to simply hand out cash grants. This pilot program brings us closer to that ideal, but there are two main problems with it: the scope of alternatives offered, and the unlimited manner in which they’re offered. Let’s start with the unlimitedness. This was clearly already a problem with Access-a-Ride, as its costs have been exploding ever since it was implemented, but it will be an even bigger problem when using the subsidies becomes even easier. My understanding of Access-a-Ride is that it’s unreliable and difficult to use – while not an ideal rationing device, at least this gave people an incentive to limit their use of it. But when claiming the subsidy is as easy as hailing a cab, I can foresee some definite abuses and overuses. The current program is incredibly expensive ($49 for each door-to-door ride!) compared to estimates for taxicabs ($15/ride), so it probably won’t become more […]

Midweek link list

1. Mumbai is rethinking its density bonuses for developers who build parking lots and hand them over free of charge to the city. 2. Tort liability driving away possible MARC operators. 3. San Mateo County legislators threaten to charge San Franciscans a congestion charge similar to the one that the city is proposing to charge San Mateo (and East and North Bay) commuters. Bring it on, I say – it’s about time drivers were charged for using local roads. 4. The Supreme Court refuses to hear West Harlem business owners’ appeal against the city’s decision to use eminent domain to hand Manhattanville over to Columbia University. 5. The NYT has a story about a commercial kitchen-for-rent in Queens, calling it a “lifeline” for for “100 small businesses.” It’s a nonprofit, but even renting a space there for 6.5 hours in the middle of the night costs $154. I’m still waiting for the Times story about the many more people who cook illegally out of their own homes and whose businesses are therefore stunted and precarious, all because they can’t afford to comply with the city’s onerous health and zoning codes. 6. The US may have 1 billion parking spaces. This does not in and of itself prove that we have too much, but for those of us who already believe that zoning codes mandate more parking than the market would provide (for which there is good empirical evidence), it’s a horrifying thought. 7. Yonah Freemark discusses how Hong Kong’s transit agency uses property development to internalize positive transit externalities and maintain (relative) independence from the municipality. 8. The WSJ reports on the strong market for downtown office space, especially compared to declining suburban office parks.

Abandoned properties require reform, not more money

A few decades ago, abandoned urban property wasn’t much of an issue, since cities were in clear decline and it wasn’t obvious that anyone even wanted the land to begin with. But with the revival of downtowns (including Detroit’s!) and cities in general, the issue of derelict property is going to become a lot more embarrassing and inexcusable. Philadelphia alone has 40,000 abandoned or vacant properties, and despite Mayor Nutter’s supposed dedication to fixing Philadelphia’s blight, the Daily News doesn’t sound optimistic. And while they acknowledge that one-quarter of these properties are government-owned, I think they downplay Philadelphia’s culpability with the half of all vacant private properties that own backtaxes. As emphasized in a Radio Times discussion on the topic of vacant properties in Philadelphia, it is the city’s job to deliver a credible threat to property owners that their land and buildings will be seized if they don’t pay their taxes. This is a basic function of government, and one with broad political support (who, besides drug dealers and the homeless, has an interest in empty buildings?) – the fact that the city is failing at it is a very troubling sign. As usual, throwing money down the hole (the subject of my favorite Onion video) is the most popular insider solution. But despite spending almost $300 million during his eight-year term as mayor, John Street “fell far short of his goal to demolish 14,000 buildings.” The “mo’ money” approach even has intellectual backing, with a Philadelphia Fed, ironically enough, publishing a report by Alan Mallach explaining how the federal government should throw $3.92 billion (warning: PDF) at the problem. But Philadelphia’s problem is not like Detroit’s, where the property needs to essentially be rewilded – Philadelphia is not in decline, and these abandoned properties are common even in […]

Private parking contracting giving ‘privatization’ a bad name

In the past Market Urbanism has been lukewarm on parking “privatization” (Adam on Chicago and me on LA), but I’m becoming more and more convinced that it’s a bad idea. To start off with, these “privatizations” are actually private contracting schemes – the “owners” are barely even allowed to set their own prices, nevermind decide to use their land for, *gasp* something other than parking. The possible benefit from the market urbanism perspective is that they seem to be accompanied by the raising of parking prices, but the potential pitfalls are actually quite large. Yonah Freemark explains, in a commentary on NJ Transit’s plan to “privatize” its parking lots: Moreover, the privatization of parking management prevents the agency from engaging in what is perhaps the most promising use of that resource: Redeveloping it into transit-oriented developments. In places like the San Francisco Bay Area, former transit parking lots have been successfully morphed into neighborhoods where people live in close proximity to public transportation and therefore use it frequently. Will the privatization deal make such projects impossible? My only quibble with Yonah (and just about everybody) is that the market’s contribution to urbanism is maligned and neglected enough as it is – do we really have to associate yet another sprawl-inducing policy intervention with “privatization”? But beyond that, he’s got a point – rather than taking on entrenched suburban interests, we’re just adding another layer of government dependents, this time of the monied corporate variety (bidders include KKR, Morgan Stanley, Carlyle, and JP Morgan). The land on which transit parking lots sit is uniquely positioned to be converted into dense development, and the only thing worse than sitting on the land would be for the agencies to sign away their rights to change that within the foreseeable future. The good news, […]

Free parking outside the $1,000/mo garage

This $1,000+/mo. parking space (without the 18+% parking tax! but one Curbed commenters calls bullshit) on the Upper East Side has been bouncing around the NYC blogosphere, and Curbed commenter low baller just about sums up my thoughts on the matter: And people howl because street parking is going up to $1 / hour (but of course free after 7pm and mostly free all the time off the avenues)? So let me get this straight – Upper East Side apartment: $4,000 a month, parking $1,000 a month, parking spot outside said apartment free, or at most $1 an hour. And oh, how they howl!

Parking politics in the 1920s and a bleg

While doing research for something totally unrelated, I came across this paper by Asha Weinstein (.pdf) on parking policy in Boston in the 1920s. One of the things she (?) discusses is the political feasibility of charging for the right to park downtown: Despite this general consensus, however, there was no shared view on what might constitute effective downtown parking policies. On the one hand, most people supported modest policy changes such as modifying existing regulations, improving motorist compliance with those regulations, or building more off-street parking, but even the strongest advocates of such policies never claimed they would significantly impact congestion. At the other end of the spectrum, a few people called for the drastic options of banning all street parking during business hours, or charging a fee to park on the streets. These proposals were touted as highly effective congestion relief, but they garnered little serious support and generated storms of opposition, and were never treated as serious proposals by the larger community. […] So you might think to yourself, “Banning parking entirely seems kind of draconian, but pricing parking at least sounds rational.” But you’re not a Bostonian living in 1926: Even less popular than a parking ban was the idea of a parking fee. In January 1926, this new approach to parking was proposed by a sub-committee of Boston’s Ways and Means Committee and Mayor Nichols. The proposal called for keeping the existing parking regulations, but charging drivers an annual fee of $5 to $10 for the right to park on city streets. The opposition from business and automobile advocacy groups was decisive and adversarial. All the city’s newspapers ran scathing articles. For example, the high-society Transcript immediately published an editorial warning that the proposed fee would be counterproductive as a revenue-generator because it would likely […]

Link list

1. Development blogger Roving Bandit criticizes UN-Habitat executive director Joan Clos for saying that Africa is “confronted with […] the challenge of preventing the formation of new slums.” I wonder if Clos thinks that the Lower East Side was born with yoga studios and Starbucks. 2. A kidney dialysis center in the Chestnut Hill neighborhood of Philadelphia wants to open in an abandoned industrial site, and when the City Council moved to overrule the local residents’ objections to the clinic staying open nine extra hours a week, they sued and called it an attack on democracy. The residents claim to want “peace and quiet,” which I guess you can’t get when you have people whose kidneys are failing all around you. Edit: Commenter Terry Nicol pointed me in the direction of this story earlier this year about a locally-owned Chestnut Hill grocery store that was threatened by a local resident for selling prepared food. 3. Yonah Freemark writes about Dallas’ new and extensive, but underperforming light rail network. Apparently the new lines were built along automobile corridors and bypass the densest parts of town entirely, and so the system functions more as a glorified park-and-ride rather than as an engine for infill growth. 4. Topher Matthews lays out his proposal for “performance parking” (i.e., charging market rates for street parking) in Georgetown. This is desperately needed in this very trendy and congested area – I remember one hairdresser on Wisconsin Ave. telling me about the convoluted game of hide-and-seek she played in order to park for free on the residential streets. Unfortunately, one DC Commissioner apparently believes that, even in one of DC’s most walkable neighborhoods, parking minimums are necessary: “This is an office building. There’s no Metro, people are going to drive.” 5. Apparently satellite photos show that the […]

Environmentalism vs. density, Clean Water Act edition

I know I’ve kind of beaten this horse dead, but this environmentalism vs. density stuff just enrages me too much to relegate it to a link list. Here are some excerpts from an article about how the EPA’s proposed new rules for cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay could impede dense, environmentally-friendly development: For decades, the federal Clean Water Act has tried to get communities to reduce the effects of stormwater runoff. Heavy rains often carry fertilizers and soil into streams and rivers — ultimately killing aquatic life in vulnerable bodies like Chesapeake Bay. In response to tightening federal requirements, the state of Maryland is putting together a regulatory system that aims to cut the amount of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment flowing into the degraded Bay. But opinion is sharply divided over whether the plan will have a good or bad effect on the character and location of future development. […] In the letter, Potter warned, however, that there are “potential conflicts between the TMDL mandate and Smart Growth” — conflicts that neither the state of Maryland nor the Environmental Protection Agency has adequately addressed. “I believe the WIP will definitely make it harder to do low-density greenfield sprawl,” says a forum organizer, Stuart Sirota, principal of the New Urbanism-oriented TND Planning Group. “But I am concerned that the [state plan] may have the unintended consequence of making it more difficult to do higher-density infill within redevelopment areas and growth areas.” Another forum organizer, Jim Noonan, who in the 1990s helped implement Governor Parris Glendening’s original smart growth program, agrees with Sirota that the Maryland plan may hinder dense, walkable, transit-served development — the kind of development that meets smart growth objectives. Noonan, practice leader for comprehensive planning at KCI Technologies, also predicts that unless the watershed plan is altered, it […]

Livechat invitation and more thinktank responses

As promised, I want to reprint the responses I got from Wendell Cox and Randal O’Toole, but first I wanted to invite everyone to a livechat that’s being organized by Tim Lee. Tim used to write for Cato, but now he’s pursuing a PhD at MIT and doing freelance writing on tech policy. He organizes these livechats occasionally and has been kind enough to ask me to be his guest, so if you want to participate (or just watch), go to Tim’s website on Wednesday between 9:30 and 10:30 pm EST, and click on “General Chat” on the bar in the lower right-hand corner. The audience should be relatively small, so if you have something you want to ask or discuss or debate, there’s a good chance that we’ll get to it. So anyway, Marc Scribner has posted his response to my response to his response to my response (sorry, couldn’t help myself) to Seattle’s recent land use liberalization. Wendell Cox’s response was similar to Marc’s, so my disagreements are similar, but Randal O’Toole took a different approach, and one that I pretty much completely agree with: I have no significant problem with liberalizing parking codes. My one caveat is that planners need to remember why those parking minima were there in the first place. In some cases, they were put in because some guru somewhere said that was the way to do it. But in other cases, there was a genuine concern about the need for off-street parking in order to prevent congestion around on-street parking. In this case, I agree with Don Shoup that the remedy is for the city to charge market rates for on-street parking. Sometimes, of course, the market rate is zero. But other times parking should be metered to insure that everyone who really wants […]

Marc Scribner at CEI on Seattle’s land use regulation

A few days ago I wrote about inner Seattle’s residential density liberalization, and I mentioned that I’d emailed a few land use writers at libertarian think tanks to get their reaction. I’m happy to report that all of them responded, and throughout the week I’ll post links to/reprint their responses, along with any comments I might have. So first I’d like to direct y’all to CEI’s OpenMarkets.org where Marc Scribner responded. He essentially said that the move looks like a net benefit in terms of land use liberalization, but that Seattle’s limits on sprawling growth (as opposed to infill growth) are more serious and costly. I’m glad that he agrees with me that Seattle’s new plan will be a positive marginal change, but I’m not sure that I agree with some of the other things he says. I’m certainly not going to defend King County’s urban growth boundary – we’re opposed to them, and think that people who are concerned about sprawl could achieve better results less coercively by simply allowing more infill and stopping the subsidies for all modes of transportation. But I do wonder how Marc reached the conclusion that sprawl restrictions are more onerous than density restrictions. He points to the run-up in housing costs in Seattle over the last decade, but given that we’ve already established that Seattle has both sprawl-prohibiting and density-prohibiting regulations, I don’t see how he’s decided that the former are more significant than the latter. This is a difficult question to answer, and on some level can only be done properly by liberalizing and observing. But barring that, econometric methods can be used to make guesses as to how restrictive such regulations really are – something we’ve tried to do before with parking minimums. I do not, however, see any of those […]

Trending now

A self-defeating argument
Texas MUD
gentrification
Only 2 Ways to Fight Gentrification (you’re not going to like one of them)
The problem with “public” transportation