Today’s Headlines

  • Big-Name Architects Chosen for MLS Stadium; Plans for 4,100 Parking Spots, Plus 300 for VIPs (CapNY)
  • NYPD Lieutenant Suspended After Being Charged with Williamsburg Hit-and-Run (Post)
  • TZB: “The Questions Kept Coming, With Many…Dissatisfied With the Answers” (Hudson Independent)
  • 93 Year-Old and Son Fight for Classic Car’s Indoor Co-op Parking Spot (News)
  • School Bus Driver Plows Into Syosset Home, Injuring 5 Children; Charged with DWI (Post, WSJ)
  • Bloomberg’s Pitch for Free Transit: A Good Idea, But Not Happening Anytime Soon (CapNY)
  • Straphangers Campaign: Subway Announcements Are Getting Better (TransNat, Post, News)
  • Want to Grab a Seat Outside the Met? Too Bad, Thanks to NIMBYs (DNA)
  • Charming: S.I. Driver Charged with DWI Spits Blood at Cop (Advance)

More headlines at Streetsblog Capitol Hill

  • Bolwerk

    Former Westchester County planning commissioner Joyce Lannert wanted to
    know why the state is spending money now for later. “Rail isn’t possible
    (so) why are we paying that much more to design a rail option that
    won’t happen?” Lannert asked.

    Roche agreed “rail is expensive,
    (yet) we have to think beyond what is now. (It is a) minimum investment
    that leaves options open for the future and is the right thing to do for
    all possible future transit.”

    They aren’t afraid to guarantee higher long-term costs (and possibly higher construction costs period) by implementing a so-called BRT. Either Cuomo thinks this is his Hagia Sofia, or they’re really trying to pander to construction unions. The whole thing stinks.

  • Jeff

    Does the Capital NY article really imply that the developer has “plans for 4,100 parking spots, plus 300 for VIPs”?

    “It will also need 4,500 parking spots for fans—who would park in the Mets parking lots—and 375 parking spots for players and VIPs.”

    Yes, later in the article they mention the parking requirements being trimmed a bit, but this still says to me that the developer/MLS anticipates a need for 4,100 parking spots–a need which will be satiated by Mets stadium parking–not that the stadium project will necessarily involve the construction of additional parking.

  • Bolwerk

    A moratorium on new megaparking lots would be nice.

    We should implement something like a carbon offset plan. Want to build a new parking space? Eliminate one somewhere else.

  • krstrois

    The “93 Year-Old and Son Fight for Classic Car’s Indoor Co-Op Parking Spot” article is a good overview of “Everything That is Wrong With Everything Ever.” 

  • kevd

    Thanks Jeff,

    The MLS stadium plan (as the article clearly states) is for those 4,100 cars to park in the Mets / Citi Field lots, which would be a considerably longer walk than the 7 train and a much further walk than the LIRR. 
    It doesn’t say where VIP parking would be, but I imagine they would like it next to the stadium. 300 seems like an unnecessarily large number to me and should be fought back against..
    Especially since with MLS salaries, many of the players will barely be able to afford the subway!

  • Larry Littlefield

    This is unbelievable.

    “A moratorium on new megaparking lots would be nice.”

    The 1961 zoning required a special permit for large parking lots.  But it allowed fewer spaces as of right than many developments were required to have.  So the DOB interpreted it to mean you were allowed that many parking spaces IN ADDITION to required parking.

    The effect was to allow, indeed require, lots of accessory parking in new buildings, but to prohibit new paid parking, even in smaller quantities, that could be used for the whole neighborhood and for vehicles for non-car owners such as Zipcar.  Until the city started looking the other way and allowing owners to charge, and everyone to use, “accessory” parking.

    Bottom line, an additional parking lot with the arena would require a special permit.  But so would the stadium itself, as a new use.

  • Vincent Van Go Somewhere Else

    What a fantastic display of NIMBY logic on display on the Upper East Side. 

    1. We moved into apartments across the street from a  museum that has been here forever, but we don’t like the way the museum is changing the neighborhood.

    2. We wouldn’t want people loitering at tables and chairs in a European-style plaza, so let’s create conditions that will force them to continue loitering on the stairs.

    3. Only some random lady knows anything about maintaining trees.

  • Danny G

    Quick question: we know what a “European-style plaza” looks like, but what does a New York-style plaza look like?

  • krstrois

    There’s also a piece about NYPD in the upcoming New York Review:

  • kevd

    So… I guess you just going to go with the deliberately misleading headline then!
    Good work Streetsblog, at misinforming your readership

  • kevd

    you’re just going to go with….

  • Joe R.

    Regarding “free” transit, how much does fare collection and fare evasion prevention cost? I suspect it’s not cheap. Just manning token booths in 460 stations probably costs hundreds of millions annually, if not more. At $200 per 8-eight shift, you’re looking at about $100 million a year just assuming one person per station. Many have more than that. That should be factored into the equation here but I suspect it’s not because the transit unions would be averse to the mass layoffs which would be needed to eliminate the fare. If fare collection/evasion prevention costs $1 billion annually, then getting rid of the fare would only cost $2.5 billion, not $3.5 billion.

  • Anonymous

    @kevdflb:disqus @7e1970922cf83fe54c9f1a64d1af39c9:disqus The headline does not say that MLS wants to construct 4,100 new parking spaces, only that the league is planning for that many spaces to accommodate fans. As we’ve reported before, and as the Capital New York piece notes, MLS says it will not take parkland for parking, instead building a limited number of spaces beneath the Van Wyck Expressway, and plans on most fans using parking at Citi Field.

  • kevd

    “Plans for 4,100 Parking Spots” implies a plan to build or construct parking spots, as we are talking about a construction project.

    A more accurate headline would be “Plans for 0 new Parking Spots” since the article clearly states that the need for 4,100 spots would be filled at the CitiField lot. I’m not suggesting a pattern of inaccuracy on your part regarding this stadium plan, just that THIS headline implies something that very clearly untrue.

    I say this, because when I read the headline, I was shocked that the MLS would want 4,100 new parking spots, only to be relived that they plan on building zero when I read the article. (Zero excluding the VIP spots that is, which are a problem) But your headline makes no distinction between 300 new VIP spots to be constructed (it seems from the article), and 4,100 spots that already exist and would simply be used about 40 more times a year. There is a huge difference between building something new, and using something that already exists and your headline is misleading because it makes no indication of that very substantial distinction.

  • kevd

    On second thought, I’m sure it isn’t deliberately misleading.
    But it is misleading nonetheless.

  • @kevdflb:disqus The proposed stadium is an enormous new trip generator, for which the planners want to set aside thousands of parking spots. That’s thousands of new vehicle trips. I don’t think there’s anything misleading, deliberate or otherwise, in the headline.

  • kevd

    Sorry Ben, I’m not sure how to respond directly… And there is not reason for everyone to have to read this.

    Setting aside 4,100 parking spaces is a trip generator, I certainly agree with that.
    The phrasing that would accurately reflect that is “Set aside 4,100 Parking Spaces”