Summary of Comments from PLANYC Website From December 12, 2006 to…

Summary of Comments from PLANYC Website

From December 12, 2006 to March 27, 2007, the Mayor's Office of Long-Term Planning
and Sustainability solicited comments through the PLANYC website from the general
public. The purpose of the interactive PLANYC website was to both inform New Yorkers
about PLANYC and to receive their feedback on the Mayor's "10 Goals for 2030." Their
suggestions and comments were collected and each was read by at least 3 members of the
PLANYC staff. The following summary of what we heard are divided by each of the ten
goals.



HOUSING
Goal: Create homes for almost a million more New Yorkers, while making housing more
affordable and sustainable.

This goal received the third-highest number of comments and the ideas presented here represent
a great diversity of conclusions and perspectives. Many comments suggest building solely low-
density, single-family homes, while many others suggest increasing the density of the outer
boroughs and constructing high-rise housing. Comments provide varied suggestions for how,
what, and where to build new housing in the city. Some comments express some dissatisfaction
with the overall purpose of this goal, suggesting that the city should focus on preventing future
population increases, that additional New Yorkers will make the congestion problem worse, and
that the goals should focus more specifically on ensuring high-quality jobs and schools.

Many comments address the issue of where additional housing should be built. Many of these
suggestions emphasize the redevelopment potential of existing or abandoned buildings, or
identify the outer boroughs as the most likely site for additional housing. For specific siting
suggestions, comments suggest placing housing in now-abandoned buildings, above commercial
areas, in industrial sections of the city, above highways and parking facilities, along the
waterfront, near public transit, and above schools and libraries. To identify priority housing
sites, some comments recommend a comprehensive housing survey or re-zoning initiative to
identify potential housing sites and prioritize development.

Comments are less homogeneous about what particular structures and housing types should be
constructed. A plurality of these comments, however, suggest that higher-density housing
projects will be necessary given the city's land constraints. Specific suggestions for housing
types include traditional responses such as affordable housing, mixed-income housing, middle-
class buildings, and low-income co-ops. Comments also suggest more innovative approaches,
such as dedicated senior-citizens' housing, mandates to ensure that new housing projects
conform to environmentally responsible and sustainable building designs, and zoning changes to
permit cooperative housing. Several comments suggest that new housing projects must respect
the local context of their neighborhoods.

To promote housing development, comments most frequently encourage the continuation or
strengthening of affordable housing programs, including rent control and rent stabilization,



                                                                                                    1
expanded housing subsidies for tenants, and tax breaks for affordable-housing developers.
Several comments express dislike for rent control and rent stabilization approaches, instead
suggesting a purely market-based approach. More novel ideas for how to encourage new
housing included abolishing large, multi-unit consolidations; investing government pension
funds in affordable-housing developments; providing housing subsidies to city employees in lieu
of pension contributions; encouraging public-private partnerships for low-income housing; and
easing zoning and permitting rules for affordable or green housing projects.



CONGESTION
Goal: Improve travel times by adding transit capacity for millions more residents, visitors, and
workers

The congestion goal provoked the greatest volume of public comments. There is widespread
acknowledgement among the comments that the current system is greatly overloaded and
requires some degree of expansion. Comments disagree, however, over what degree and type of
expansion will be required. Most comments address particular deficiencies in the current road
and public transit system, but some advocate a radical shift in transit priorities such as entirely
banning passenger vehicles, constructing a parallel light-rail or monorail system, or building
borough "superhighways." Comments acknowledge the compatibility of the congestion goal
with the air quality, climate change, and energy goals.

The greatest number of comments broadly address the improvement or expansion of the subway
and rail system to reduce congestion. Many comments suggest the expansion of a particular
component of the subway system, such as the Second Avenue Subway, a rail link to LaGuardia,
or transit connections to Staten Island and New Jersey. Others suggest reconfigurations of the
existing system, such as re-routing existing subway service, extending station platforms, and
improving subway signaling and passenger loading technology. Many encourage improved
management of the existing system, such as an explicit focus on reducing travel times, improved
information about arriving trains, and less disruptive maintenance activities.

Additional comments tend to support the creation of a supplementary transit system in addition
to the existing subway system. Many note that this supplementary system should be an
interconnected part of the existing transit system. Many suggest creating a Manhattan or Staten
Island light-rail, trolley, or monorail system that would reduce both subway and road congestion.
Expanded ferries and a modified Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) system are also popular suggestions.

Of the comments directed at road congestion, the vast majority of comments advocate the
imposition of a congestion pricing scheme, while only one comment opposes this proposal.
Comments suggest that these revenues should be directed toward improving public transit,
constructing pedestrian- and bike-friendly streets, and reimbursing outer borough commuters
faced with inadequate transit access. Other proposals include increasing bridge tolls, improving
bus service, and constructing a dedicated freight tunnel or freight-only rail system. Creating
dedicated bike lanes and infrastructure, increasing parking fees, and creating a residential
parking permit system are popular responses as well. Several comments suggest the



                                                                                                   2
establishment of a resident parking scheme in some neighborhoods and the revocation of free
City parking privileges. Many comments advocate some type of road infrastructure construction,
such as a direct tunnel between New Jersey and Long Island, a Staten Island-Manhattan tunnel,
and additional Manhattan highways.

Some comments make more broad-scale policy suggestions, such as banning cars in Manhattan,
providing tax incentives to use public transit, and making subsidies available to developers that
construct bike- and pedestrian-friendly projects. Multiple comments suggest that NYC should
move away from a singe business district (Manhattan) and toward a more decentralized urban
design, thereby eliminating the one-way rush-hour commute.



PARKS
Goal: Ensure that all New Yorkers live within a 10-minute walk of a park

This goal clearly resonates with a large number of New Yorkers, many of whom glowingly
describe the initiative ("What a wonderful and achievable goal"; "This is a great idea"; "Best
idea ever!"). Comments frequently center on specific parks and specific areas that could become
parks, particularly the St. Saviour's property in West Maspeth, Queens and the Atlantic Yards
project in Brooklyn. Some comments suggest a tension between this goal and the need for
additional housing, but others favorably connect the brownfields and parks goals. Though there
is some skepticism within the comments about how feasible this goal is, several comments
suggest that the parks goal can be achieved by including playgrounds, greenstreets, and green
roofs as parks.

Comments suggest a great variety of options for siting future parks. The most common site
suggestions involve placing parks along the waterfront, on abandoned or vacant sites, above
expressways and parking lots, along abandoned rail lines, and on brownfield sites. Comments
encourage the redevelopment of existing parcels but caution against tearing down historic
buildings or ignoring the educational potential provided by parks in historically relevant
locations.

Comments also address the specific features these existing and new parks should possess. The
greatest number of comments concern the need for improved park management at the same time
as additional parks are planned. Many would like to see additional "green" features within
parks, including trees and grassy areas rather than concessions and blacktop. Given the
tremendous land pressures within NYC, many acknowledge that many small parks and
community gardens will be necessary, as well as greenstreets, greenways, and pedestrian-
friendly streets. Additionally, many comments suggest the expanded use of green roofs as a
substitute or supplement to traditional parks. According to many comments, parks should be
fully open to all New Yorkers, many objecting to closed school playgrounds and plans for
Randall's Island. Many suggest that the parks should be treated as "green classrooms" for
promoting outdoor education.




                                                                                                    3
Several comments suggested particular methods for accomplishing the overall parks goal. Many
express disappointment with the parks allotment within the Atlantic Yards and other EDC
proposals. To enhance park acquisition, comments recommend that the City provide tax
incentives for land donations to the city, create a public fund to purchase parkland, pass
developer incentives or mandates for providing parks or trees, and require Business
Improvement Districts to set aside portions of their districts as parkland. Others suggest that the
city immediately analyze how well it currently meets the "ten-minute" goal, and determine
priority areas for new parks.



WATER NETWORK
Goal: Develop critical back-up systems for our aging water network to ensure long-term
reliability

To a great extent, comments on this goal do not directly address the fundamental infrastructure
issues behind the water network challenge. Discussions of water supply, distribution, and use
are emphasized far less than water quality issues. Comments for these two goals overlap
particularly strongly on the issues of improving public access to the waterfront, expanding ferry
transportation, and supporting efforts to restore degraded ecosystems. As a result, few comments
specifically address the key purpose of the goal, but instead discuss water quality-related topics.

Several comments emphasize the need to better leverage existing city water sources by
constructing or repairing tunnels, improving treatment infrastructure and residential piping
systems, and enhancing system security. Numerous comments encourage the development of
systems designed to better control sewage overflows. Comments suggest encouraging the
development of green roofs, water detainment systems, "natural" sewage treatment, and
permeable pavements.

Other comments suggest that New York City should identify new water sources, including from
upstate (e.g., Niagara Falls), New Jersey, Delaware, and through the construction of
desalinization facilities.

Of the remaining relevant comments, many focus on developing more efficient ways of using
our existing large-scale water distribution system. Conservation as a policy priority is a frequent
theme, as well as the more widespread use of "greywater" systems to reduce the demand for
potable water for non-consumptive uses. Comments advocate the toughening of water pollution
fines and standards, and a rethinking of the current water rate structure so as to provide clear
incentives for conservation.



STATE OF GOOD REPAIR
Goal: Reach a full "state of good repair" on New York City's roads, subways, and rails for the
first time in history




                                                                                                  4
Comments received for this goal address expanding the existing transit system, and how to
maintain or improve the system as it currently stands. Many argue that today's subway may not
be suitable for New York City in 2030, and are interested in both improving maintenance of
today's system and exploring the possibility of system expansion to underserved or congested
areas. Several comments express frustration with particular aspects of the subway commute, for
example cleanliness, station maintenance, and inadequate connections between subway lines and
among different transit options (e.g., LIRR, PATH, and MetroNorth).

As mentioned above, many comments move beyond today's transit system and suggest ways to
create a new system. Comments address expanding the subway system to such destinations as
La Guardia airport, under-served portions of the outer boroughs, or high-density residential
areas. Others suggest the construction of an express bus network, tramways, or light rail.
Finally, others believe that additional funding must be devoted to constructing and repairing
bridges, tunnels, and highways, and developing improved materials for highway construction and
maintenance.

Despite a general focus on new construction, comments seem to suggest that cleanliness, station
aesthetics, and rodent control are the greatest maintenance deficiencies within today's subway
systems. Many encourage providing subway arrival information and improving on-time
performance through improved signals and by running shorter, more frequent trains. Other
suggestions include better-maintained elevators and escalators, noise reduction, and improved
station ventilation.

Comments describe a general acknowledgement that a full "state of good repair" will require
tremendous resource commitments in the decades to come. Though some were skeptical that
such dedicated funding could be found, others provide cogent policy suggestions for obtaining
maintenance funds. These include diverting funding from congestion pricing, imposing time-
varying tolls and subway fares, increasing the city's share of state and federal transit funds, and
leasing air rights over subways and roads for additional funding.



ENERGY
Goal: Provide cleaner, more reliable power for every New Yorker by upgrading our energy
infrastructure

Comments submitted for this goal provide diverse perspectives on improving energy supply,
efficiency, and infrastructure, with particular focus on renewable power, energy efficiency, and
energy conservation. Many are pessimistic about the city's ability to markedly improve its
energy position without substantial tax incentives or stricter energy ordinances. Proposals in this
category frequently overlap with the ideas of those responding to the climate change goal, and
many also address the air quality and congestion goals in advocating more efficient vehicles.

Most comments advocate for the implementation of renewable energy technologies. Specific
technologies encouraged (and number recommending each) include solar roofs, coastal wind,




                                                                                                      5
building or park-based wind, and tidal or wave power. Other comments encourage the
development of distributed fuel cells to provide energy supplies.

On the demand side, many comments center on the promotion of energy efficiency initiatives.
These include the development of green roofs, mandatory green building requirements and
retrofitting standards, and the creation of decentralized water treatment and rain storage facilities
in large buildings. Recommended incentives to encourage this conservation include "smart
metering" schemes, methods of creating clear incentives for energy conservation, and the
taxation of inefficient consumer products such as incandescent bulbs. Several comments
recommended that the city prevent businesses from running air conditioning with their doors
open to reduce summer peak energy demand.

A comparatively small number of comments directly address the infrastructure-upgrade
component of the goal. Of responses that do, most encourage the adoption of district heating and
cooling schemes, decentralized energy generation, and pollution and efficiency improvements to
existing power plants, such as promoting cogeneration.



CLIMATE CHANGE
Goal: Reduce global warming emissions by more than 30%

Many comments in this category are qualitatively similar and synergistic with those offered for
other goals, especially air quality, congestion, and energy. Nearly all comments are supportive
of the overall climate change goal, but some concerns are clear regarding whether NYC can truly
make a meaningful difference in the climate realm, and whether a 30% reduction may be too
conservative a goal for 2030.

Reducing emissions from the transportation sector represents the largest proportion of comments.
Many wish to accomplish the overall goal of reducing traffic through congestion pricing, higher
bridge tolls, a citywide carbon tax, promoting carpooling and transit use, and creating incentives
and infrastructure for cycling. To reduce emissions of the cars that remain, suggestions include
tightening automobile emissions standards and promoting hybrid and alternative-fuel vehicles.

Encouraging efficiency, conservation, and green energy are three consistently voiced goals.
Comments present a diverse list of potential targets for new efficiency standards and incentives,
such as appliances, insulation, lighting, heating, air conditioning, and thermostats. Inventive
comments suggest that the city require electricity prices to change on an hourly basis, conduct
energy audits for all property transfers, require efficient lighting on all scaffolding throughout the
city, and impose an enhanced sales tax (or ban) on incandescent bulbs. Many encourage
incentives for green buildings, stronger energy codes, increased education, enhanced recycling,
tree planting, and green roofs. Finally, many support the creation of incentives for renewable
energy technologies such as residential and commercial solar, rooftop wind, tidal turbines, and
distributed generation. To best promote these activities, comments advocate developing strategic
partnerships between government and business, and advertising all available funding sources and
opportunities to developers and the public.



                                                                                                    6
Others focused on what the city government itself can do to reduce its carbon emissions.
Suggestions include requiring city buildings to meet green building standards, mandating the use
of hybrid and alternative-fuel cabs and city vehicles, upgrading city vehicle emissions controls,
turning off lights at night, requiring a city renewable portfolio standard, and publicizing the
city's own climate change efforts in order to encourage private actions.



AIR QUALITY
Goal: Achieve the cleanest air of any big city in America

Comments repeatedly recognize the importance of this goal and suggest diverse policy ideas to
address air pollution concerns. Several comments address more than one of the "10 Goals,"
particularly the climate change and the congestion goal. Most comments suggest policy options
that can be directly achieved at the city level, including retrofits of city vehicles, tree-planting
initiatives, and congestion pricing.

Numerous comments encourage air quality improvements through expanding existing urban
forestry or "greening" initiatives for purposes of reducing air pollution or decreasing the urban
heat island effect. Many combine a tree-planting focus with advocacy for green roofs, frequently
concentrating on the heat island impacts rather than specific air quality improvements. To
accomplish these broad goals, comments encourage enhancements to the existing DPR
Greenstreets program, the creation of additional parkland, and tougher ordinances to require
landlords to plant and maintain trees in front of their properties.

Many other comments focus on reducing traffic and/or overall car use in order to accomplish air
quality goals. Echoing a dominant recommendation of the congestion goal, many advocate the
imposition of a congestion or pollution charge, channeling revenues toward strengthening mass
transit systems or subsidizing transit use in underserved neighborhoods. Additional suggestions
along this theme include promoting cycling as a transportation alternative, prohibiting traffic at
particular times or in particular neighborhoods, and more effectively targeting illegal idling and
inefficient delivery-vehicle behavior.

From a transportation angle, many comments propose specific city government initiatives that
would help reduce the city's contributions to overall air pollution. Many comments specifically
encourage the upgrade or replacement of polluting city vehicles, especially school buses and
sanitation trucks. Others encourage the city to promote and require the development of hybrid
and hydrogen vehicles and cabs, which could be a gradual process in order to make the transition
more feasible. Finally, multiple comments suggest that the city reconsider its own parking
permit policies to support additional public transit use, and recommend that the city set its own
vehicle efficiency and emissions standards.



BROWNFIELDS



                                                                                                       7
Goal: Clean up all contaminated land in New York City

Although comments for this goal are generally supportive, there were few responses compared to
other goals. Some comments address recycling, composting, and trash issues that are not
directly relevant to the goal. A few comments address specific brownfield sites of concern.

Comments encourage the redevelopment of existing brownfield sites for future public uses,
including new parks, industrial facilities, green manufacturing plants, and schools. Several
comments mention the potential for brownfields to provide additional housing for New Yorkers,
an idea that reinforces our first goal.

Comments also focus on the issue of brownfields liability, advocating strict enforcement of the
"polluter pays" principle and the need to require polluting companies to undertake supplemental
remediation projects.

Several comments provide somewhat innovative policy solutions, such as sponsoring a contest to
showcase brownfield sites and promote comprehensive redevelopment planning, or using zoning
bonuses to spur brownfield redevelopment and encourage more public-centered use of
remediated land.



WATER QUALITY
Goal: Open 90% of our waterways for recreation by reducing water pollution and preserving our
natural areas

Several comments express frustration with past pollution cleanups, including Newtown Creek.
Other comments dealing with recycling and waste reduction are less on-topic, but still indirectly
contribute to impaired water quality.

Many comments suggest an enhanced focus on opening the waterfront to public access. Several
encourage the development of comprehensive greenways along borough coastlines and
connections between neighborhoods and waterways. Others support enhanced government
action to purchase waterfront property or encourage public waterfront access despite private land
ownership.

Many comments urge the implementation of storm water absorption and water conservation
measures in order to reduce the load on sewage treatment facilities. Specific suggestions include
green roofs, permeable pavement, and dual-flush toilets.

Restoration of rivers and wetlands was a chief suggestion of several comments. By restoring
historic waterways in the five boroughs and cultivating wetland areas, they believe, the city can
effectively improve water quality, aesthetics, and ecosystem health.




                                                                                                    8