Benjamin Kabak

The latest plan for 34th Street isn't nearly as ambitious as the Transitway was.

The Department of Transportation unveiled another new new look for 34th Street on Monday, and despite my earlier doom and gloom, the proposed design isn’t all bad. Despite giving more space over to cars and parking while removing many of the benefits for pedestrians, it seemingly prioritizes buses and does give more sidewalk space to those who most need it.

Per the latest DOT presentation, 34th Street’s new look will feature dedicated — but not physically separated — bus lanes as well as bus bulbs and more curbside space. Traffic will be confined to one late in each direction, and from 9th Ave. to 3rd Ave., only one side of the street will enjoy precious curbside access. Plus, the MTA will institute pre-boarding fare payment procedures this year, thus speeding up the bus in the process.

During the presentation last night, DOT officials spoke about their goals for 34th Street. As it stands right now, the street plays host to 33,000 bus riders per day, but the vehicles average only 4.5 miles per hour. It also features some of the most tourist-laden sidewalks in the city and, as the Far West Side emerges as a residential and commercial hub, will play host to future growth.

Meanwhile, with input from the community, DOT tried to incorporate a variety of aspects into the new plan. While the old Transitway reserved most space for pedestrians and buses, the new proposal called for shared road space. DOT tried to “improve curbside access wherever possible” while also maintaining two-way traffic. Despite the focus on cars, though, the department also wanted to make sure that pedestrian improvements were key. Thus, the new plan includes 18000 square feet of new pedestrian space while increasing daytime loading spots from 55 to 355. As compromises goes, this one, while far from ideal, isn’t awful.

The future for 34th Street, though, is still hazy. Nearly four years after the Transitway was first presented to the public, DOT still has another year to go on this new plan. It will conduct open houses on March 30th and 31st before presenting a traffic analysis in the fall and an environmental assessment report by early 2012. We’d be lucky to see these badly needed street improvements before the next presidential election. That’s a timeline far too elongated by rampant NIMBYism.

And that brings me to this interesting article in The Times’ Week in Review. Noting the small but loud minority of folks who hate the Prospect Park bike lane, Elisabeth Rosenthal accuses liberals in particular of espousing green development — except for when it impacts their lives. She writes:

Nimbyism is nothing new. It’s even logical sometimes, perhaps not always deserving of opprobrium. After all, it is one thing to be a passionate proponent of recycling, and another to welcome a particular recycling plant — with the attendant garbage-truck traffic — on your street. General environmental principles may be at odds with convenience or even local environmental consequences.

But policymakers in the United States have been repeatedly frustrated by constituents who profess to worry about the climate and count themselves as environmentalists, but prove unwilling to adjust their lifestyles or change their behavior in any significant way. In Europe, bike lanes crisscross cities, wind turbines appear in counties with high-priced country homes and plants that make green energy from waste are situated in even the wealthiest neighborhoods. So what is going on here?

Robert B. Cialdini, an emeritus professor at Arizona State University who studies environmental behaviors, points to two phenomena: Humans hew to the “normative” behaviors of their community. In places where bike lanes or wind turbines or B.R.T. systems are seen as an integral part of society, people tend not protest a new one; if they are not the norm, they will. Second, whatever feelings people have about abstract issues like the environment, in practice they react more passionately to immediate rewards and punishments (like a ready parking space) than distant consequences (like the threat of warming).

It’s something to chew on at least as we’ve seen an ambitious plan for 34th street pared down to some relatively minor bus improvements. Of course, NIMBYism is a curse and a blessing for any democracy, but at some point, those of us who espouse pedestrian- and transit-oriented development have to win those folks over to our side. Along 34th Street, we didn’t, and the future plans are worst off for it.

Project opponents actually contended that the 34th St. Transitway would have blighted the area. (Image via NYC DOT)

As the city readies to unveil a drastically reduced plan for 34th St., the once and former Transitway will go down in history as another great idea for the transportation landscape in the City of New York that fell victim to the complaints of its neighbors. Instead of physically separated bus lanes and a pedestrian plaza that would promote economic activity along a busy and tourist-heavy corridor of Manhattan, cars and curbside access have seemingly won the day after months of bitter debate.

Still, despite my eulogy, the proposal isn’t all bad. Car traffic will be restricted, and buses will earn their dedicated — but not physically separated — lanes in the new proposal set to be revealed later today. Michael Grynbaum has the nitty gritty:

Cars and trucks on 34th Street in Manhattan would be squeezed into two lanes — one moving east, the other west — with a bus-only lane on either side, under a revised plan for the thoroughfare to be unveiled by the Bloomberg administration on Monday. The plan would eliminate an earlier proposal for concrete barriers that would have separated bus lanes on the street from other vehicular traffic, according to four people briefed on the city’s plans who did not want to be identified over concerns that city officials might be angry at them for releasing the information early.

The reconstituted streetscape is a stripped-down version of an earlier design, first proposed by the city in 2008, that drew ire from some residents and tabloid columnists. Other controversial elements of that plan have now also been scrapped, including a pedestrian plaza that would have banned cars and trucks between Herald Square and the Empire State Building.

The new proposal calls for buses to travel in exclusive terra cotta-hued lanes, similar to a street design recently installed along First and Second Avenues that has speeded up trips along Manhattan’s East Side. But a parking and loading lane would be installed in some places between the bus lanes and the curbside, a concession to residents and business owners concerned that the plan would block automobile access to the front of their buildings. A spokesman for the city’s Department of Transportation declined to comment on Friday.

Those involved in this months-long soap opera praised the Department of Transportation and, begrudgingly, Janette Sadik-Khan for their willingness to listen to what I will politely call community input. “In the midst of all this hubbub, there has been careful analysis going on behind the scenes,” Dan Biederman, head of the 34th Street Partnership said to The Times. “They have come to a scheme that they believe in, rather than one that’s only the product of political compromise.”

Daniel Garodnick, the City Council member who represents may residents along 34th Street, inadvertently exposed the true concerns: curbside space for cars. “Curb access is already the source of much frustration, and this plan may actually bring some relief,” he said. The Post meanwhile sees conspiracy theories everywhere and says the process cannot be trusted.

Even Gene Russianoff, a long-time transportation advocate, seemed ready to throw in the tunnel for the once-heralded Transitway. “This is New York. Every inch of public space has a constituency and a set of demands. It’s just realistic to pay attention to what those are and the parameters of what’s possible,” he said.

Yet, what happened here is a blow to improved transportation and pedestrian access. As Grynbaum writes in his piece, the new proposal is “also expected to create more space for parking, loading and deliveries than is found in the street’s current configuration,” and that’s just the opposite of what New York’s planners should be encouraging in mid-2011. To build a sustainable city, to cut emissions and congestion, the streets must be made safer and more friendly for pedestrians. Particularly around Midtown, in which people and not cars are the shoppers and browsers, unnecessary driving should be discouraged while activity that contributes to the economy should be encouraged.

What has happened instead is a tyranny of the minority. The people who would stand to see their personal auto access eliminated have risen a stink, and in a city in which curbside access is all but non-existent in most places, they have turned it into a rallying cry. The city itself failed to adequately consider input from commuters and allowed the opponents to grab the press. Who knows The Post has made it its mission to destroy any transit improvements that take street space away from cars? Maybe it’s advertiser-driver, but maybe it’s just ignorance and fear of positive change.

Ultimately, the city should offer this Transitway to a neighborhood that wants it. Flatbush Ave. in Brooklyn needs some serious traffic calming and reengineering. Queens Boulevard is ripe for a Transitway as well. If 34th Street does not want to serve as a model for a better city, let another borough take a crack at it. This might be a setback, but it shouldn’t be an ultimate loss.