Project Update: Week of April 27

Key Project Activities

In the final week before our white paper is due, we have shifted all of our attention to tying up the loose ends. Over the last two weeks, we have been putting our research onto paper and constantly adding and subtracting from it as we have honed the focus of our project. It’s easy to say you have a lot of useful research, but it isn’t until you actually have to put it on paper that you realize what is relevant and what is not. Our final thesis is that a successful BQX transportation plan should be modeled around previous public transportation projects that have met our set of criteria of a successful transportation alternative. We believe this thesis best represents our two-fold approach to tackling the issue- first developing criteria and analyzing whether they are effective by using them to evaluate other streetcar plans in different cities and then using these evaluations and the criteria again to make recommendations on how to best make the BQX streetcar a success.

Last week, before we left for break, we decided to make an outline and assign roles of each specific part of the white paper to a specific person. We have known the basics as to what each person will be responsible for (e.g. background information, research on the different streetcars systems) but we didn’t assign the smaller roles that usually get caught up in the minutiae, such as who will be writing the conclusion, formatting the appendix or even assembling the white paper completely. By handing out roles, we took some future stress off of ourselves since everything is now accounted for.

Progress

Progress is being made slowly, but surely, this week as everyone is working on translating his or her research and findings into a cohesive section of the white paper. Edwin, who is responsible for the introduction/background and political context, has been consulting our historical narrative, research methods response and our answers to “What’s the problem?” to make sure we don’t leave out anything we have previously discussed. A great background section is necessary since, as we have discovered throughout our research, not many people are too familiar on what the BQX is actually. We can’t start advising people on changes if they don’t know what is changing.

Adrian has been drafting his section of the white paper- his research into the Hoboken-Bergen streetcar line. To best convey his research, Adrian has created two figures, one showing a map of the general area and the other showing a comparison between 2000-2010 census data of the percentage of the population in the area that uses public transportation versus automobiles.

I have been drafting my research on the Baltimore Light rail and have also chosen to use maps to help convey my argument. Instead of making a claim and then trying to find research to back it up, I decided to work backwards. I first found the hard data, such as population densities and the number of no-car households in the area, and then formulated claims based on my findings. At first, when I began researching, I definitely had a bias as to where I wanted to go, but I decided to shift gears to provide a more objective piece. When drafting, I first started by checking each criteria one-by-one. Then, I grouped criteria together and made some changes so my research would flow better and not sound so repetitive and boring.

Mohamed has been formulating his research on “failed” streetcar proposals or projects in different cities across the country. Though not going as in-depth into each project as we have in our “successful” case studies, this portion of research is still fairly important since it serves as a sort of concession statement and helps us see what has lead to these projects failing. A large portion of our policy recommendations will probably draw from this since actions have already been taken. For example, in one city, residents actually voted down a streetcar proposal, something that tells us that democratic participation is probably a good recommendation.

Sonia has still had no luck with reaching out to more community contacts, but we still have Julia Kite at transportation alternatives. Sonia has scheduled a phone meeting with Julia to get more input on our white paper and hopefully help us better develop our policy recommendations. Sonia also has some great ideas for our policy recommendations such as having the government take a more active approach in the BQX project, since it seems like private investors almost have free reign. Another recommendation was having more oversight into projects like this, preferably with a third party acting as an unbiased arbitrator to go over the project plans for the sake of transparency.

Jeffrey has been drafting our section on our research methods and has begun creating citations for our lengthy list of references. Jeffrey also has taken on the role of master editor by connecting the sections in a way such that the white paper has a natural rhythm to it. Since we are all writing different sections and write with different voices, if we don’t actively connect each section, a read through will sound very disjointed.

Challenges

As we began drafting our white paper together, we have come across a few more challenges. First off is that we sort of ignored one of the selling points of the BQX. Many are championing it because it is going to connect Brooklyn and Queens. Most of our research has been looking at the political and economic effects of streetcars, while the BQX is being developed to also serve a unique purpose. We are glad we caught this challenge when we did so we can account for it in our policy recommendations, such as talking about alternative ways to ease transportation between the two boroughs.

Another challenge we see developing is trying to find a way to say everything we want to say. Throughout the course of our research, we almost have become experts on the subject. We even have developed our own personal feelings about what is the best way to go about creating a successful streetcar. We need to make sure to provide all relevant information for an objective, but all encompassing, evaluation and we need to pull from a variety of sources to provide a broad opinion.

Group Dynamics and Process

Even though we haven’t met face-to-face this week, we have still been communicating via email. Everyone knows what is expected of each other and we each have made sure to pitch in and help where it is needed.

One thought on “Project Update: Week of April 27

  1. Dear Patrick and all,

    Another great update! I’m glad to see that you’ve managed to hone in on a more specific claim. And that you’ve pushed yourselves to make the most of your data and findings towards a clear and coherent argument. It seems as though your group dynamic and division of labor has been especially productive- this is rare in my experience!

    One piece of encouragement/advice: If you’re doing it (critical research) right, you will always keep finding more even after you though you knew enough, and it will always be hard to distill that expertise for others. At some point though, you just call it (this particular project) done. It will never answer all the questions or address every important variable, but you will have learned a lot and shared what you learned to the best of your ability. I think you’re on the right track (no pun intended:)

    Speaking of late in the game findings, I just learned about something that I wish I had known about sooner! The Pratt Center for Community Development’s Transportation Equity Atlas: http://prattcenter.net/projects/transportation-equity/transportation-equity-atlas. I also spoke to someone who works at the Pratt Center who said they’re doing research/advocacy in favor of job programs for low-income people on the BQX line as a way to promote equity around the project. It might be worth checking out the atlas and contacting them for input on your pop-ed piece.

    Thanks and see you soon!
    Hillary

Leave a Reply