GREENER GREATER NEW YORK
----------------------
John Pazmino
NYSkies Astronomy Inc
www.nyskies.org
nyskies@nyskies.org
2007 June 13
[This article, from before the NYSkies website, has minor editing to
remove typos. Other than that, the text is original]
Introduction
-----------
On 22 April 2007, Earth Day, New York mayor Michael Bloomberg
released an titanic scheme for a greater greener City. It, plaNYC2030
(plan-n-y-c-2030), has 127 individual projects to accommodate
anticipated population growth and sustain a harmony with nature. The
title is commonly shortened to 'plaNYC' (plan-n-y-c). Note that there
is only one 'N' in the word and it is not in any way related to a
separate institute at New York University called 'plannyc'.
The plan is a manifesto for the City except that it promotes real
action, rather than unelaborated goals, concepts, and thoughts. It
also has valuable background and baseline data for all parts of the
City.
Overview
------
plaNYC covers narrowly the City of New York with minor
consideration for adjacent counties or states. Its domain ends at the
City frontiers, even tho some projects in it could reasonably be
extended beyond them. Individual projects, like rail improvements, do
involve exterior territories because the trains need them to realize
full benefit from projects within the City. Also, projects in the
municipal water network include those in the upstate reservoirs. But
all-in-all, plaNYC2030 is a glatt noveboracian manifesto.
The programs in plaNYC cover the span from now, or even a little
before now, thru year 2030. If all goes well, we then have six more
years to enjoy the consummation of the plan before asteroid Apophis
whacks us.
The plan deals with projects to lessen or correct various social
ills in today's City and to cope with reasonably expected population
growth. It postulates an increase residency of one million by 2030. It
also assumes a general continuation of today's economy and culture in
the City. These include suppressed crime, high integrity rating for
municipal financing, abated unemployment, high revenues from taxes and
fees. In turn, these parameters suppose continued conscientious work
by the City authorities to sustain and maintain policies that realized
these good parameters.
plaNYC does NOT carry a black cloud of doom with it. There is no
skreed about global ecological catastrophe, inundation from melted
polar ice, decimation by epidemic and plague, conquest by foreign
invasion, dissolution of civil rule, suffocation from rising global
temperatures, nuclear winter. At the same time, it doesn't present
itself as the salvation of humankind from its potential ruination by
unchecked insults to the environment.
Taken all together, there seems to be no single place where the
full cost -- monetary and social -- for everything in plaNYC. I heard
guesstimates in the myriads of millions of dollars at 2007 level. Even
if the figure should rise to a full 100 billions of dollars, that's
only about 5 billion dollars per year until 2030 and the sum is barely
equal to that of building and running the International Space Station.
Tempering the fiscal pain is the inclusion in plaNYC of projects
ALREADY in the pipe and ALREADY funded, like Water Tunnel #3, East End
Access at Grand Central, segregated bus lanes and platforms in lower
Broadway.
If, just if, plaNYC is satisfied, at least in the whole, it will
be a smashing demonstration of how the planetary capital can align
with nature without undue imposition on its inhabitants. The costs of
living in the City under plaNYC should be only modestly greater than
in place now.
Elements
------
plaNYC is organized into six phyla, some with subphyla, for the
protection and management of the four classical elements of the world,
plus climate change and transportation:
Land - housing, open space, brownfields
Water - water quality, water [supply system] network
Air - air quality
Energy ('fire') - [efficiency, renewable sources]
Two additional ones deal with more modern sectors of nature:
Transportation - congestion, state of good repair
Climate Change - [greenhouse emission]
The elements are interlinked, so that progress in one relates to
that in others. On the other hand, they are not in lockstep. If
progress in certain elements lag, they do not seriously impede work on
the others.
Climate change is one hot theme in the US presidential runnings,
the United Nations, and world industrial associations. It is under
incandescent debate in environmental and scientific circles. The issue
is that climate change -- evidenced by a supposedly steady and slow
global warming (or cooling?) -- is augmented by release of greenhouse
gases from human civilization.
Regardless of the worldwide influence of humans on the planet,
certainly these gases emitted within the City deteriorate 'state of
good repair' of human life in and around the City.
plaNYC2030 documents
------------------
plaNYC comes in the main report whose books are the elements noted
above, plus various appendices. Supporting this are many supplemental
reports. All are in the plaNYC website 'www.nyc.gov/planyc2030'. for
free download. The papers are in PDF form, playable in Adobe Acrobat.
For those readers with dialup Internet or a low-quality printer,
fill in the online form to obtain a snailmail full-color published
copy of the main plaNYC2030 report.
I strongly suggest fetching the boro books, which give detailed
baseline information about each community board and some details on
future projects under plaNYC.
plaNYC is on shelf at the larger library outlets of New York,
Brooklyn, and Queens. (The City got THREE independent library
networks.) It can be examined at the urban studies departments of many
colleges and universities thruout the City.
I don't know if hard copies are placed elsewhere in the country,
even in New Jersey across the Hudson River. Readers beyond the City
may have to rely on the website.
Public participation
------------------
While the plan seems to be in a load-&-go status, awaiting the
work orders to be cut, there is ample room for public participation.
Because there are segments of the plan that WILL affect you, no matter
where you are in the City, it is absolutely imperative that you
acquire a general fluency in it. Get the documents!
Besides passively reading the report, you should avail of the many
meetings and briefings now starting up all over the City.
Representatives are on hand from the mayor's office; various
municipal agencies; satellites from industry, commerce, and services;
advocates and antagonists from social/nature groups explain and
discuss the plan. These are free and sometimes include refreshments.
Failure to engage in these dialogs could result in unexpected
changes in your hood, behind your back so to speak, that WILL alter
your daily routine. 'Hey, what's with the new trees on that ferry
depot roof' or 'If I pay my fare at the bus platform, I then have to
wait it out for the bus. Otherwise my fare falls thru!' syndrome.
I don't mean you should attend a large number of the meetings.
scurrying here and there to reach them. Definitely grab onto those
that come your way, both near home and near other districts of your
frequency.
You may also email plaNYC thru its website with your comments and
ideas. Snailmail the mayor at his office in City Hall. Speak with your
councilman, state senator and assemblyman (some parts of plaNYC call
for state enablement).
Academy meeting
-------------
I attended one early round of th public dialogs on Tuesday 5 June
2007. It was hosted by the New York Academy of Sciences, adjacent to
Ground Zero, in the evening. About 150 people attended the session,
titled 'greeNYC: goals for 2030'. They nearly filled all the seats in
the Academy's lecture room.
The presentation was delivered by:
Laura Kerr, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Mayor
Ariella Rosenberg, Senior Policy Advisor, Office of the Mayor
Joshua Laird, Asst Commissioner, Dept of Parks and Recreation
They each in turn gave a general peek at plaNYC, illustrating
their talks with numerous slides. There ws no way to absorb the
details on the spot. I noticed several attendees started to scribble
in notebook (paper ones or computers). After about ten minutes they
just sat and listened.
All three speakers maintained a professional demeanor, keeping to
rational facts and opinions. There was nothing of the strident
sermons, evangelist dreamspeak, appeals to predestiny, naive optimism,
preaching or scolding, doomsday forecasting sometimes issued at
environmental lectures.
Audience
------
The audience was a good spectrum of ages, from college student
types to senior citizens, about half-&-half male and female, of many
nationalities. They came from industry, trade associations, advocancy
groups, government agencies, college departments.
During the reception, with good drink and snacks, I spoke with
several people. Mostly light banter. All seemed quite aware and wisely
about the City, knew enough technical and social aspects to carry on a
rational discussion, were even-handed about plaNYC, were to a person
enthusiastic about satisfying the plan.
The elevated education and sophistication of the audience at this
specific plaNYC meeting may reflect the targeted publicity from the
Academy. I suppose at other plaNYC2030 sessions, the audience makeup
will follow the host's market for publicity.
Dress seemed to carry over from a daytime setting, as if the
people came here from a business office or college campus. Everyone
was in neat, if casual, attire, with a sprinkling of business suits.
Most people I spoke with pledged to work on their own, or thru
their profession and colleagues, to assist in fulfilling plaNYC. Or,
alternatively, to subsume its principles into their own area of work.
No one really bad-mouthed plaNYC or downplayed its importance and
influence. There were questions about a this or that feature, disputes
about certain statistics, doubts about assorted projections. No one
debunked the plan, voiced hostility toward it, vowed to oppose it. At
the worst, I did find a couple uncertain attendees of a 'let's see
what happens' felling.
Questions
-------
Questions from the audience were reserved to the end of the show,
when audience members came to microphones deployed in the aisles. All
were intelligent ones, mostly calling attention to some factor not
mentioned during the talks or offering additional considerations. The
speakers answered the questions quite spontaneously and informatively.
Three particular ones serve to illustrate this exchange between
speaker and audience.
The compact fluorescent lamps have a drop of mercury in them, as
part of the mechanism of a fluorescent bulb. Would this mercury suffer
an uncontrolled release when the bulb is discarded?
Well, likely, yes. The trade off is that the bulb lasts about ten
times longer than an incandescent bulb. During that time, the
incandescent bulbs cause a release of mercury, and other ecologicly
offensive material, from the fuel burned to make the electric that
lights the bulb. Over the lifetime of about ten incandescent bulbs,
equal to one fluorescent bulb, the released mercury would be at least
an order more than the bit in the fluorescent bulb. This figure
factors in the greater energy efficiency of the fluorescent lamp.
An other question asked about codifying the compact fluorescent
lamp as a replacement for incandescent ones. Several towns and states
are discussing legislation to require this replacement. But the
fluorescent lamp just happens to one of several possible replacements
in the interest of energy savings. Isn't a LED bulb a far better
replacement?
in New York the compact fluorescent lamp will not be hardcoded
into law or regulation precisa mente because it is merely one
potential substitute. It happens to be the best one on shelf now.
People can buy the compact bulbs now. They can not yet get LED bulbs.
LEDs are widely used in pocket lamps and signal lamps, like the stop
lights that in recent years replaced the incandescent lights thruout
the City. There seem to be difficulties in building an LED bulb to
screw into a regular lamp socket. The speakers mentioned the energy
waste in a rectifier built into the bulb (LEDs run off of DC, not AC),
which cancels out much of the energy efficiency of LEDs.
A third inquiry noted there was nothing in the plan for the
existing street steam network. Steam in New York displaces electric
for many commercial functions and probably should be looked at for
expansion and further electric displacement.
The plaNYC2030 commission is aware of the steam system, the
runaway largest on Earth. The speakers noted that steam is actively
considered when designing new corporate and office towers and is
actually chosen over electric in many situations. The steam network is
maintained in good repair. Certain power plants retired from electric
generation remain in operation for producing street steam.
Feasibility
---------
I find that plaNYC is founded on presently available methods,
products, techniques. It pretends no speculative new inventions,
technologies, arts, science. The many programs in it could be
accomplished today -- some being already underway -- without waiting
for some imaginary discovery in the future. The plan will take many
years simply from the sheer number and magnitude of the projects.
If there be new, unforeseen and unimagined, new developments down
the track, they will in general serve to enhance and quicken the
fulfillment of plaNYC. Or, potentially, remove the need for certain
actions under the present less-advanced world.
One example is the reforestation of the City. Now we must choose
trees from naturally living species. It's possible that geneticly
designed trees will be invented. We could request any desired species
with specified urban properties that grow fully in a couple years.
This will quicken the pace of reforestation and allow more options in
fitting trees to sites.
An other could be the discovery that greenhouse gases can be
recycled into petrochemicals. Reduction of emission could be achieved
by storing the emissions within the vehicles and pumping them out at
designation recycling depots. Vehicles availing of City streets could
then be required to have collection devices for this purpose.
A couple oddities
---------------
Two particulars of plaNYC discussed by the speakers may make you
wonder: What's this all about? They are the 'green roof' and seeding
mollusks into New York waters. The former refers to the theme of
displacing barren roofs with gardens, lawns, trees. The green roof
will help remove locally produced greenhouse gas from the air, provide
shade to reduce air condition demand in the underlying structure,
general beautiful the cityscape.
The speakers noted that the City is conducting experiments for the
mix of plants and soil suitable for green roofs.
Injecting mollusks into the waters around the City is already an
ongoing program. It is a successful effort, with several beds of
oysters thriving in shallow waters away from the shipping lanes. The
City in former centuries was fabled for its shell fishing. Shell fish
eat and remove certain contaminants from the water. They attract
regular fish and sea animals, like the seals now starting to
reestablish in the harbor.
The speakers noted that the restoration of mollusks can lead to
revival of the clam industry, with new job opportunities.
Population growth?
----------------
Since the meeting and already kicked about in the public news
media are two features of the plan. These are congestion tolls and
population growth. The statistics in plaNYC are founded on the
official US Census of 2000 and extensions from it. According to that
count, there ae about 8.2 million residents in the City.
This is an absurdly undercount. It is well understood by city
authorities that there a LOT more people around, creating more
rubbish, drinking more water, crowding more trains, looking for more
housing, eating more food, using more hospital services, and so on.
The surcharge of people is the residency that skipped the 2000 census
or who arrived here under the radar since then.
For those who are resigned to use only 'official' figures, there's
a social bomb on our doorstep that we better listen to. In May 2007
national debate opened on proposed changes for US immigration. Among
the features is to recognize formally the illegal residents, numbering
some 10 to 12 million in the country.
The idea is to convert the undocumented residents into legal ones
thru means still under debate in Congress. In what ever form this
conversion is enacted, it'll then take place over a few years. We then
just increased -- in one blow! -- the US population by that 10-12
million.
For the City, we may, within a couple years, absorb a spike in
population from plaNYC's 8.2 million to, uh, 9.6 million! Because this
will be the new accepted official count, plaNYC is thrown for a loop
in its early years. Features in it predicated on the old 8.2 million
starting figure could be exfrenestrate.
I also have problems with the modest growth of only one million
in, what?, 22 years. With immigration modification, the City may
experience a larger, looser, freer influx of new residents.
On top of new residents from overseas, we'll get increased
residency by migration from elsewhere in the country. Such shift
within the US is not in any competent way monitored. The same upbeat
factors of the City that spawned plaNYC also generates a magnetism to
attract huddled masses from the hinterlands of America.
From immigration and migration, we could take in more like TWO
million new residents by 2030, for an aggregate population by then of
11-1/2 million.
Second Avenue subway?
-------------------
The plan posits the completion of the Second Avenue subway to add
transit capacity and alleviate overcrowding on the parallel IRT
Lexington Av line. However, ONLY the line as designed NOW is assumed
to be in operation by 2030. This is a short reach from Hanover Square
in Lower Manhattan to Park-Lexington Av at 125 St in Harlem. It is
tied to the existing 63 St line only on one quadrant of the junction,
from the north leg of 2 Av to the west leg of 63 St. It has only two
tracks for only all-stop service.
Under current schedule, the line will be finished over its full
length by 2020. In the next ten years, thru 2030, plaNYC supposes no
effort to build it up to the New York standard with four tracks or to
attach new lines to it from the other boros. The line remains a long
shuttle on Manhattan.
Congestion tolls?
---------------
This is a major concern to a large sector of readers. Either
people want and like it or they despise and oppose it. Congestion
tolls was announced as a proposal before plaNYC, to collect a toll
from vehicles entering Manhattan below 86th St during weekdays. The
toll should dissuade casual influx of vehicles, reduce congestion,
encourage use of transit, generate a new revenue stream for other
parts of plaNYC, and reduce greenhouse emission from vehicles.
Realizing this program may involve placing EZ-Pass checkpoints at
the exits of highways, tunnels, bridges leading onto Manhattan
streets. There would be a scrimmage from river to river across 86th St
and, for sure, thru Central Park. There would be no toll booths
because EZ-Pass requires no humans to work it. Vehicles are gated by
barriers thru the EZ-Pass sensors and the fee is added to their EZ-Pas
billing statement.
It seems that plaNYC assumes universal use of EZ-Pass, which is
not really unreasonable. In an unrelated program, to start in 2008,
the Port of Authority NOW assumes complete penetration of EZ-Pass
among vehicles. It will remove all human-attended booths at its
crossings. All vehicles must pass thru the EZ-Pass gates.
One million trees?
----------------
This was announced before the issuance of plaNYC. The intent is to
reforest the City for ecological, social, comfort, quality of life
concerns. There are large sections of the City with no or few trees.
These will be targeted first.
One problem is that many of the new trees will replace older ones
lost to collision, storm, disease. The new tree is a small sampling;
the old one, a large and mature one. In the short term, there could be
a REDUCTION of tree function as small trees displace large ones. Down
the track, the tree function will increase as all-new trees fill in
barren parts of the City.
The figure of 'one million trees' is circulated. This is an
immense number of trees! The City today has around 600,000 trees, so
the scheme is to more than double the number of trees thruout the
City. Even if we allow for populating more parks and squares with new
trees, not just placing them on streets, that's a LOT of trees.
I figure that over the next 22 years, thru 2030, planting
1,000,000 trees calls for one new tree EVERY 12 MINUTES ROUND THE
CLOCK! If we impose the more realistic condition that trees are
planted only during work hours, there are about 2,200 such hours
available per year for tree planting. The rate of planting is, hold
your pants, a new tree EVERY 2-1/2 MINUTES during the workday.
Home astronomy
------------
New York, and its vicinity, is among the leading centers for home
astronomy on the planet. This derives from the cosmic perspective of
the City: think locally, act globally. If you read NYC Events, the
monthly NYSkies column for astronomy-related events in and around the
City, you appreciate why being a home astronomer in the City and
surrounds is a vastly more happy pursuit than anywhere else.
Look at some examples from May 2007. Home astronomers attended
many full-featured lectures on cosmology, Albert Einstein history,
string theory, and string cosmology[!]. These were held at either the
Graduate Center of the City University diagonally across from the
Empire State Building, or the New York Academy of Sciences,
overlooking Ground Zero. All the shows were free. One at the Academy
included free lunch.
Oh, this is all very nice, but what about stargazing?
In just about any other town, 'home astronomy' IS nothing but
'stargazing'. I fear one cardinal cause of this equation is that other
places plain lack the multidimensional opportunities for home
astronomy so casually taken for granted in the City. Be as it may,
there are in plaNYC segments that can abate the impediments against
stargazing in New York.
These parts deal with luminous graffiti, the trashing of the night
sky by obnoxious outdoor lighting. Many are a continuation of programs
ALREADY in action before plaNYC. Now they are in your face.
RIGHT NOW, outdoor lighting on municipal structures is turned off
or toned down after hours.
RIGHT NOW, the hideous cobrahead street lamps are being pulled
down. Far more star-friendly fixtures, like the bishopcrooks, take
their place.
RIGHT NOW, hybrid-electric taxis and buses are displacing the all-
petroleum ones. Their far lower consumption of petroleum fuel reduces
starlight-quenching air pollution.
RIGHT NOW, assorted vacant land is earmarked for open space with
ample exposure to the sky. As they are released for public use, they
offer more of the night sky for viewing.
RIGHT NOW, sky-washing incandescent bulbs are under displacement
by generally shielded compact fluorescent bulbs. Their far lower need
for electric reduces starlight-quenching air pollution at the power
plants.
RIGHT NOW, energy audits in skyscrapers and commercial properties
are advising the removal of excess outdoor lighting
RIGHT NOW some 90% of commuters into Manhattan arrive by transit.
They withhold encouragement for a car culture on the island, with its
apparently inevitable spread of luminous graffiti.
I really don't want that you rub the noses of your debunkers in
the City's ongoing and oncoming efforts to enrich home astronomy, even
if they were established for a more general motive. You can, never the
less, walk tall among other darksky wishers and say 'Been there, done,
and doing, that'.
A common heritage
---------------
In a serendipitous validation for the City's efforts to clean up
the air, litterally, by wiping out luminous graffiti, we have in hand
a remarkable paper from, of all outfits, UNESCO. Almost simultaneous
with the release of plaNYC is 'Declaration in defence of the night sky
...'. It puts natural starlight in the night sky as a common heritage
of all humankind. plaNYC, probably without knowing of this worldwide
proclamation, ingests many of the Declaration's precepts. It can be
held out as accessory support for plaNYC, an independent recognition
of humankind's duty to live in harmony with nature.
Other large towns
---------------
For most of the 20th century New York was the world's largest city
in population. Part of the claim came from inadequate records in
certain countries and disputes about who is a resident. In some years,
New York and London vied for first place, with Moscow asserting that
title, also.
By the late 20th century it was evident that New York is far from
the world's largest city, with the explosive growth and better
counting in places like Mexico City, Cairo, Dacca, Jakarta, Shanghai,
Istanbul. On the other hand, New York, with its 9-1/2 million
residents, is still among the more populous conurbations.
There are two singular attributes of New York that stand it apart
from other large towns. First is its cosmic mix of people. Other towns
tend to be homogenized. One nationality or faction overwhelms all the
others. New York is composed with substantial portions of hundreds of
sects, representing all parts of the world. Thus, calling New York a
'world city' in more than just a trite cliche'. The world lives here.
This made for a more vigorous and reasoned deliberation in civic
affairs, resulting in more rational ultimate courses of action.
The other factor, far less appreciated, is that New York for its
size is ALREADY leagues ahead of the world in achieving a sustainable
society. In spite of the many real and sometimes severe defects, New
York uses far less energy per person than other large towns in the US
and most other world cities. It has by far the cleanest air, water,
and land. It enjoy freedom from massive disease and illness. It has
ample park and seashore open space. It has almost no smokestack or
waste dump landscape. It is rather free from pestilence, vermin,
danger from jungle animals. It [so far] escaped routine disruptions by
rebellions, anarchists, separationists.
On just these two counts, plaNYC is unique to the City and is a
genuinely achievable program. An other large town can not simply edit
in its own name and proclaim its own planROW (plan-rest-of-world).
Perhaps this situation of the City and plaNYC may bring some mean
measure of envious criticism. This may be a tag-along to the
undercurrent in Transhudsonia of antinoveboracism. If so, so what?
It's OUR plaNYC and WE'RE going to fulfill it.
Conclusion
--------
plaNYC2030 is one hell of a massive manifesto for the City. It can
soon become a rallying paper for other world cities as part of the
global awakening to the problems of dense urban life. What
distinguishes plaNYC from other pious pronouncements is that it is a
prescription for actualization on a sustained level. It is based on
feasible and current humankind's capability.
It also has genuine potent support from a diverse spectrum of
interests in the City, even those who are traditionally adversaries.
It also enjoys a courteous, if not really enthusiastic, welcome in the
state and federal level. Many of the 127 programs will seek state and
federal funding.
It is a plan that profoundly will alter the way you as an
individual interacts with the City in your circumambulations. All of
us better read the plan, or at the very least competent descriptions
of it, attend the plan's briefings, engage in good-faith dialog with
the plan office, adapt some of its principles into your own lifestyle.
When all is said and one, where else on earth could such a
manifesto be issued and make it stick? Only in New York.