Streetbeat, Vol. LIII
Why wasn't America ready for congestion pricing?
Ça va*
And welcome to this newsletter.
It's where I (John Surico) talk each month about cities & all their discontents: streets, environment, energy, cultures, people, food, form, etc. This month, we cover:
- A sudden reversal on streets;
- How planners talk about housing;
- Making parking policy cool;
& much, much more.
Programming note: my partner (who came up with the name of this missive, amongst other classics) and I will be decamping to Paris from mid-July to Labor Day, to partake in a lifelong dream of carrying around a baguette everywhere we go, whilst working on some exciting projects. If you’re there, do shout!
Traffic jam
I started this newsletter off last month stating unequivocally that America was about to witness one of the boldest, most ambitious changes to one of its cities’ street grid since the advent of the automobile. And a month later, it’s abundantly clear that this country still isn’t ready for that.
I am sure you heard, reader: New York State Governor Kathy Hochul shocked virtually everyone by placing an 11th-hour ‘indefinite pause’ on congestion pricing, which would’ve charged motorists $15 to enter Manhattan below 60th Street and then funneled that money—all $15 billion of it—to years’ worth of transit upgrades, like elevators, modern signaling, all-electric buses, system expansions, and more. The cameras—all $500 million of them—were set to start clocking cars at midnight today. But now, a plan decades in the making has been put on ice.
There is so much to say here. And the leaky faucet of news since has felt like a stampede of shifting narratives—about Hochul, who I had previously described as “one of the policy’s most articulate defenders;” about the now-Pangaea-sized hole in the MTA’s capital budget, which lacks any sort of legitimate backup plan; about the lawsuits, which could determine congestion pricing’s fate in the courts; about the feds, who recently said they underestimated the traffic reduction in their review (oof); and so on and so forth.
What countless New Yorkers who ached for quieter streets, better transit, and cleaner air have experienced these last few weeks resembles something of a 12-step process for grief: shock; disbelief; anger; rage; hope; frustration; confusion; rage again; shock again; disbelief again; remorse; and, ultimately, resignation. And when I traveled to Boston earlier this month to speak on a panel about congestion pricing planned before Kathy flipped, I tried to translate that immense cloudiness of emotions and politics to a live audience as the sole New Yorker present. Just so they know what they’re signing up for. (Was I successful? You decide.)
It all still feels unsettled, in so many ways. But what I can’t stop thinking about is how New York City, this place that sometimes does really big things, has lost its way. Congestion pricing was pivotal to the story of this place over the next few years; practically every story I’ve written since 2019, even if it wasn’t transit-related, made some mention of congestion pricing, because its impact would’ve been far-reaching. And now, it seems like that chapter—and what it would’ve meant for the rest of America—has been washed from the history books before even being written. Well, at least for now.
This actually happened quite literally with a feature I wrote this month for Urban Omnibus about New York’s bus lanes (the good, the bad, the beautiful). We were finalizing copy right when the news broke, and so its conclusion about a coming golden age for buses, which flourished in London, my last home, before it implemented congestion pricing in 2001, had to be hastily rewritten. It published the week the decision was made. What I landed on—and what I truly believe myself, as a native son and regular booster of this often maddening metropolis—is that New York will keep moving, even if it’s missing a few (billion-dollar) wheels. But where it sees itself going from here? That, I do not know.
Planner’s dilemma
The great Achilles heel of urbanism is affordability. We love to expound the values of walkability to our offices, schools, late-night bodegas, favorite eateries, religious institutions, civic halls, and clubs—and all the synergy that comes with living super close to one another—but it’s tough to make that case when you can’t make rent. Like their own selves, cities used to represent a great diversity of the market: public or social housing for newly arrived emigrés and low-income residents; ‘middle’ housing for those moving on up; and brownstones, lofts and estates for the higher-earning end of the spectrum. But we know these days, that social contract has found itself on life support.
This generational elephant in the room hung over practically every conversation at the Strong Towns and Congress for the New Urbanism gatherings last month in Cincinnati. The organizations—arguably two of America’s most prominent groups saying walkable cities good, suburban sprawl bad—have been forced to confront the growing price tag of their pitch. And from that has sprung a long overdue conversation in planning circles on what to do about housing.
I traveled over to Ohio for Bloomberg CityLab to find out more. Here’s what I heard. (And a shout-out to Streetbeat stan Jackson Chabot for showing me around his homeland.)
OSA: Inertia
At some point in July, the city’s crews will rip up 31st Ave. It will be milled and repaved—a process that can take up to three weeks. In doing so, we will lose a few things: a bike corral; planters, which will be moved to the sidewalk; Talisa Almonte’s ‘Kaleidoscope’ mural, which recently turned one years old; and, potentially, programming for a few weekends. The risk, however, is the reward: the corridor will be striped anew in August. And it’ll look slightly different.
For about 20 blocks, most of the two-way traffic lanes that currently exist will flip to one-way. Each corner will receive ‘daylighting.’ A bike lane, protected by parking, will run up the side—sometimes on the north; sometimes on the south. Every few blocks, traffic will switch directions. The two blocks of the 31st Ave Open Street will become ‘shared’ streets, designed to slow speeds with a zig-zag of curb extensions (known as ‘chicanes’). And instead of just weekends, curbside seating will be provided there all week-long.
Those were the details provided by the city’s Department of Transportation (NYCDOT) to the local community board in early June. The meeting was purely informational; the board, which is advisory in nature, didn’t hold a vote at the end, but instead used the opportunity to voice opinions. Most were positive (several of the board’s members are fans, some even volunteers); the negative centered around dangerous mopeds and traffic diverting to other streets. But the design vision itself avoided fanfare. (It helps that most parking won’t be touched.) And we showed up in full force to testify in support.
When congestion pricing was halted, we worried that the ‘bike boulevard’ redesign would be, too, since it was listed as one of the city’s crucial projects in the lead-up just a few weeks ago. (It fills a long-sought east-west connection for cyclists to and fro Manhattan.) But we soon received confirmation that NYCDOT is moving forward with their plan regardless. Given what’s happened on other anticipated projects, we’ll believe the change when we see it in stripes. The path, though, is quite literally being paved for something to happen.
Bright Side
*June felt particularly glum, so no positive spin on our current state of affairs this month. It’ll return in July, if only for my mental sake.
On the Radar
Paved Paradise: How Parking Explains the World, by Henry Grabar
For those familiar with it, The High Cost of Free Parking is a tome. It’s genuinely heavy: the physical version clocks in at 733 pages; the updated version, 808. It reads like a biblical text. (I actually remember carrying it around in a separate bag during planning school.) And it functions in that way, too: UCLA Professor Donald Shoup’s 2005 manifesto on parking and what it’s done to our cities started a movement that very much continues today. Shoupistas, as his disciples are known, have infiltrated all levels of government since.
Nearly twenty years later, Henry Grabar, a staff writer who covers cities for Slate, has penned a much-needed counterweight that adds both humanity and depth to a seemingly mundane conversation. (“A book about parking?” should be the first question any normal person asks you.) He also brings us up to speed on what’s been happening: the growing number of cities eliminating mandatory parking minimums; the rethinking of parking spaces for other usages; the conversion of garages into homes; and the emergence of dynamic pricing, driven in large part by technology. (‘Curb management’ is another one of those terms that I try really hard to convince people is actually cool.)
But what I think Grabar does so well—and, for what it’s worth, all of his writing is very good—is leave us with solutions. He smartly recognizes quite early on that we live in a world of cars, and that’s not changing anytime soon. But the policies in place to feed their never-satisfied hunger for parking—with endless lots, endless garages, endless curbs, and endless sprawl—is actually doing more harm than good to everyone, drivers included. Cities can, and should, fix that. And in doing so, you might even find a spot, too.
Streetbeat Gig Board
Join the board of Projects for Public Spaces, an outfit doing some of the most impressive placemaking and urban design work out there. (Remote)
New York’s Department of City Planning, the agency spearheading the biggest change to the city’s zoning codes in a generation, is on the hunt for an urban planner. (New York, NY)
C40, the knowledge-sharing network for over 100 cities, is hiring up their urban heat team. (Greece, South Africa, or UK)
***
Tell us where the jobs are in your city. Submit them here.
Kita Monthly
See you soon in Paris!
Love the community board update. I attended the full board meeting that followed the committee meeting you described. You mentioned that the committee didn't weigh in on the design vision. I'm curious if that's what you expected or if you were surprised?