Today’s Times, talking about commuting, has this:

Or look at the New York Water Taxi, which started a route from Red Hook to Wall Street last year. Five years ago that circuit wasn’t necessary. But the perpetual “next big neighborhood” has sprouted not only a gourmet grocery store but also a community that shops there.

“The stop has two things,” said Tom Fox, president of New York Water Taxi, who worked with Fairway and local developers to create the service. “It has a new population in Red Hook that is going to Wall Street, and second it’s got Fairway which draws people to Red Hook, so there’s a potential for travel to and from the location.”

What both the Times and Fox fail to point out is that New York Water Taxi suspended its Red Hook service last week. Even though they keep their boats in Red Hook, its still not worth picking up passengers there.

(The Red Hook service is different from the East River service, which is to be suspended this week.)

Councilmember David Yassky at the NYWT press conference.

On Saturday there was a press conference at Schaeffer Landing to push for the preservation of NY Water Taxi service through the winter. The press conference was held by Council members Eric Gioia (Queens) and David Yassky (Brooklyn), and was attended by 30 or 40 water taxi patrons.

Between them, Gioia and Yassky probably represent 90% of the commuters on the water taxi. Both pols were pushing the Bloomberg administration to subsidize the water taxi to keep it operation. Gioia noted, quite rightly, that we should be “expanding water access, not cutting back”.

No doubt, the water taxi is an important adjunct to local mass transit. More important, though, it is an important perk for luxury waterfront development. As a frequent, though not regular, patron of the water taxi, I certainly hope that it will be back in business soon (like, next Wednesday). But before the subsidies start flowing, lets recognize some of the shortcomings of the water taxi, and see if maybe government can’t step in smartly.

First, the water taxi is not cheap. The current fare from Schaeffer Landing to Wall Street is about $5.00 each way if you buy tickets in lots of 10. There is a monthly commuter pass, but that costs just under $200.

Second, the water taxi is only convenient to places near the water. Unless you live AND work near a water taxi stop, you’ll need to add in the cost of a bus or subway, which will take your daily commute (round trip) to $14. So unless (like me) you live AND work reasonably close to the water taxi, a daily commute will run you 3.5 times the cost of a subway commute (even without the added cost of a subway/bus connection, the water taxi is 2.5 times the cost of mass transit).

Third, the water taxi runs hourly, three times in the morning and four times in the evening. The latest run out of Schaeffer Landing each morning is 9:20. Fine if you work banker hours, not so hot if you don’t.

That means that for the water taxi to be viable without a double fare, you probably live near the waterfront in northern Brooklyn Heights, southern Dumbo, southern Williamsburg, or southern Long Island City, and you work either in Lower Manhattan or in the far east 30s (Bellvue/NYU hospital area). But you don’t work any of the swing shifts at Bellvue/NYU, and you may not be one of the increasing numbers of non-fiancial types working in the financial district.

(And I’ll add in a fourth shortcoming – the water taxi is not always the most reliable means of transport. I’ve had it show up 40 minutes late for an evening run. And with no notice as to when the boat will actually show.)

All that said, the water taxi is a great resource. Between the JMZ and the water taxi (and the occasional ride across the Williamsburg Bridge), my reliance on the L train in the past year has become occasional at best. The JMZ is still the preferred means of transit (when I’m not on two wheels), but I take the water taxi about a third of the time. And it is by far the quickest and most relaxing way to get to the city – from Williamsurg, its 10 minutes to Wall Street (about 3 minutes from Fulton Ferry) – and the whole way you are able to sit back and watch the city float by.

But taking into account all of the above, how should we city subsidize the water taxi (if it should). First off, I think that the people that should be stepping up to the plate with wallets open are the developers and condo associations of waterfront property. The developers have sold (or are selling) their luxury units on the basis of convenient access to the city via water taxi. They (and the condo owners themselves) have the most to lost if the water taxi disappears, or (just as bad) becomes a seasonal means of transport. So in terms of direct subsidies to keep the water taxi running all year long, most, if not all of any subsidies should be coming from them.

The city, though, should recognize the value of the water taxi. It takes commuters off already crowded subway lines (like the L and the 7). It makes previously remote areas of the city more accessible and more open to new development (and the more profitable those developments are, the better they will be able to support the affordable housing components that are part and parcel of the development). What the city should try to subsidize is a viable water taxi system that integrates with the existing mass transit system (i.e., free transfers), expands service (i.e., longer hours) and makes the service more affordable (i.e., lower fares in general).

In terms of lowering fares, the city’s help here should be temporary. As water taxi service expands, and more waterfront developments come on line, basic economics says that the cost per ride should come down. How far it comes down is another question, but it should come down. But until the water taxi achieves that level of viability, there is a public interest served in subsidizing service (even if it be through loans rather than direct subsidies). Until then, I’ll be taking the J train or (weather permitting) the bridge.

More here:
Pol urges Mike to shore up river taxi [NYDN]
Lawmakers call on city to subsidize water taxis [7Online]
Local Lawmakers Call On City To Offer Water Taxi Service [NY1]
Lawmakers call on city to subsidize water taxis [Newsday]

Bridge Vineyards on Long Island is opening a tasting room at 20 Broadway.

Via Brownstoner, comes this gem from BushwickBK – proof that the bubble is still inflated.

BBK is right, the developer has serious issues with reality if he is looking to get $725,000 for this “luxury” condo. But I don’t know where BBK gets off saying they did a “decent job” on this project – it looks as though the developer saved money by a) not hiring an architect; and b) shopping the return bins at Home Depot.

BBK says that the project was “previously rickety frame building”. Underneath all that stucco, I suspect that it still is. Caveat emptor.

I haven’t been to Luger’s in a year or two, so I can’t say whether or not there has been a slip in quality. But the idea that a chain steakhouse in downtown Brooklyn is going to cut into their business is pretty funny. Until Morton’s starts drawing crowds from Manhattan, its not a threat to Luger’s. (The corollary being that if Luger’s is losing business, it is to Manhattan steak houses.) Besides, as Bruni says, “no other steakhouse serves a porterhouse so breathtaking”.

This is old news by now, but there was closure to the Fortunato murder-for-hire trial a couple of weeks back. One defendant – Carmine Polito – was acquitted in a jury trial on the 14th of December. The following day, Mario Fortunato (of the bakery family) was convicted by the trial judge. Turns out Fortunato had waived his right to trial by jury, and put his fate in the judge’s hands. With the jury verdict in favor of his co-defendant, it would appear that Fortunato (or more accurately his attorney), chose poorly. Is that in itself grounds for a new trial on the basis of incompetent counsel?

Once upon a time, there were only three bars in all of the Northside (Greenpoint Tavern, Turkey Nest and Mugg’s (or before that, Ship’s Mast)). OK, five if you count Kokie’s, but no one went there for a drink or to socialize. Back then, Mona’s and Sophie’s were akin to a local. I haven’t been to either in years, but its still sad to know they won’t be there.

Not to mention the fact that Sophie’s spawned Sweetwater Tavern (at the time, the fourth bar in the nabe).

This past weekend, the Times posted an op-ed by Alexander Garvin and Nick Peterson titled The High Price of Parking, on the pitfalls of providing mandatory parking in most rehabs and all new developments. The argument really boils down to this: if you build it, they will park. And in the process, they will add more cars to the city. Those cars eventually wind up on the streets (even if they are parked at night), and add to congestion and pollution.

Recently, this was an issue at CB 1’s land use committee. Developers of 55 Hope Street, a turn-of-the-century loft building being converted to apartments, want to waive most of the required parking. Their argument is that it would require a significant expenditure to adapt this 100-year-old building to provide the 46 parking spots required by zoning (essentially, it would require rebuilding the structural system of the basement and part of the first floor to eliminate about half of the structural columns). They are able to provide 11 spots on vacant land on the development site. In addition to the expense required in retrofitting the building for parking, the creation of a parking garage at the raised basement would have a significant impact on this historic building (it has been deemed eligible for the National Register of Historic Places).

Most importantly (and not part of the applicant’s argument for a special permit), the provision of this much parking flies in the face of smart development. As Garvin and Peterson point out, the parking requirements in the zoning resolution are more than 50 years old, and date to a time when the powers that be thought that the car was the future of New York City.

The argument put forth by those who oppose the special permit at 55 Hope is that its already hard enough to find parking on the street. But the provision of off-street parking actually has very little effect on the demand for on-street parking. Look in Manhattan, where there are many off-street garages – all of the on-street parking spaces are still taken. The availability of off-street parking simply increases the overall supply of parking – encouraging more people to have cars – and does nothing to offset the supply of (free) on-street parking. So long as on-street parking is plentiful and free, people will have cars. When free parking becomes difficult, people will start to make rational decisions on the relative merit of owning a car. (In many Brooklyn developments – high end ones at that – provided parking is sitting vacant.)

The real solution is to rethink the parking requirements in the zoning resolution, as Garvin and Peterson argue. I would add that the solution to some of our local parking woes would be to institute resident-only parking during certain hours. But for 55 Hope, a project that is 6 blocks or less from 3 subway stations (on two different lines), it simply doesn’t make sense to require parking that doesn’t work for the building, and won’t significantly impact the number of cars parked on the street (but will impact the number of cars driving on the street).

NYS has released its own list of failing schools, and there is some disagreement between what the State deems a failure and what the City deems a failure. Unfortunately, for PS 84 (Jose de Diego), it appears that there is a consensus: things are not good. 84 is the only school in 14 to be added to the list of failing schools, er, I mean “in need of improvement”.

Meanwhile, all six local Junior High Schools are either “restructuring” or “requiring academic progress” on the state list. Likewise, PS 19 (Roberto Clemente) is also “restructuring”. If I’m reading my euphemisms correctly, that means that all of those schools are on the failed list. The disagreement is evident in PS 19 (which the City graded as “B”) and JHS 50 (John Wells, which the City graded as “A”). A number of schools that the city gave low grades to did not appear on the state’s list of failing schools.