During the last week, we have mainly been continuing our research into how the BQX will impact public transportation within the city, which included going through the updated news and resources links that Aaron Kendall helpfully put up for us on the course website (Thanks Aaron!). We continued to dig into the light rail systems of Baltimore, Hoboken, and Washington D.C, but some of our group members also went and did some scouting work, including visiting the areas that the proposed BQX line will serve and contacting various community organizations that are connected to the BQX. We have also been discussing our research methodology and what we want our white paper to accomplish. The goal of our white paper is chiefly to inform and educate the media and the public about the BQX, but we also wish to influence those who have power over the project, including Mayor DeBlasio, whose pet project this is, his officials, and the investors.

One of the things that our group accomplished over the weekend was figuring out what our approach to gathering data and research will be. We decided at first that we would definitely need to collect quantitative data for our white paper, which will allow us to compare different metro systems with each other in an unbiased way. Consequently, quantitative data are going to be integral to the bulk of our white paper and for constructing our arguments. However, our white paper also needs qualitative data that tells us what people think about the BQX streetcar plan, especially those who live close to the proposed line and whose everyday lives will be affected by it. If our white paper is supposed to benefit and give a voice to these people, it would be extremely remiss to write it without any input from the people themselves!

We will gather our quantitative data through research on the internet, as it is the most convenient and accessible medium for procuring information about train systems in other states. Qualitative data will require a more interactive approach, though. We are thinking of using public opinion polls to figure out what residents and commuters think about streetcars and their potential effects upon their communities, including increasing land values and looser zoning restrictions. These will probably make real estate developers and landlords happy, but not their tenants. We hope that our community contacts will help us with collecting our qualitative data by administering surveys, answering our inquiries, and sharing their thoughts about the project.

Edwin took the opportunity to visit some of the places that will be served by the BQX line over the weekend, and he made several observations about these areas and neighborhoods while he was there. In Sunset Park, he found that many of the buildings there were being used for industrial and commercial purposes, with few residential buildings. He saw that there were already subway lines running through residential areas, just an avenue away from the planned BQX route, with subway stations being about a ten minute walk away for most residents. Edwin also saw that many businesses had trucks and cars double parked on the street, which would be an issue for the BQX.

Sonia emailed three more community organizations about the BQX, which are the Uprose Organization, the Red Hook Civic Organization, and the Regional Plan Association. We are trying to see if they would be interested in answering some of our questions about the BQX and help us with collecting our qualitative data. In any case, it can’t hurt to expand our community contacts! As of Wednesday, we are still waiting for a reply from these groups.

Adrian has been researching the impact of the Hudson-Bergen line in Hoboken. One interesting discovery that he made was that the Jersey waterfront used to be an industrial manufacturing and shipping hub too before becoming a semi vacant area with little development. Beginning in the early 90’s, New Jersey formed a master plan for the waterfront that included the light-rail line. They packaged the line with sweeping changes in zoning, just like what the BXQ plan intends to do. The area along the rail line has seen much commercial and residential development. The changes in zoning have also had a very small requirement of 1 parking space/1000sqft, which has since been reduced further. This indicates that there is a significantly decreased reliance on cars as a means for transportation.

Patrick has been continuing his research into the Baltimore light rail system. Most of the light rail in use today opened in 1992, coinciding with the opening of the Baltimore Orioles new stadium, Camden Yards. It was built without federal money, though the government paid for some costs in a 2004 expansion. The light rail in Baltimore, unlike the BQX in Brooklyn, was intended to help fans reach the new ballpark, and not to provide public transportation to underserved areas. Patrick was especially interested to learn how many streetcars and light rails were created in cities as a way to move money and stimulate the economy, even though they are now considered an environmentally friendly and cost-effective alternative to other forms of public transportation. There are some notable differences between the Baltimore light rail and the proposed BQX streetcar, though. The Baltimore route is about twice as long as the proposed BQX line, and not all of it runs through the city, while the BQX will only run along the waterfront. Outside of Downtown Baltimore, the light rail runs on private right-of-ways, which are privately owned and maintained access routes specifically made for light rails. Also, many of the Baltimore light rail tracks were already in place from defunct railcar routes.

Over the next week, we plan to use the social explorer tool, as it seems like it will be very helpful with our research into the streetcar systems of different cities and the neighborhoods that the BQX will serve. We definitely could use a clear way to compare population density and the needs of public transportation in certain neighborhoods, which is what we can get from the social explorer tool. We are still thinking about our public engagement product, and though we haven’t decided on whether we want to go with the website or the pamphlet yet, we do have an idea of what we want them to be like. If we go with the pamphlet, we would want it to be clear and easy to comprehend by somebody who picks it up, and it will probably look a bit like one of the MTA’s bus schedules. If we go with the website, we would want it to be clear and user friendly, but it would also be more in-depth and creative because of the lack of physical restrictions. We will continue to think about these choices.

The group has been functioning very smoothly so far, and everybody is going to continue researching the topics that they were assigned, but we are aiming to have a draft of each section by April 4th. We have been contacting each other via email and a shared google drive folder, which has been very productive so far.