All posts by Adrian Logan

Research Methods Response

Future of Public Transportation, Research Methods
  1. How can you document or better understand the issue? Do you need “hard” numbers (quantitative data) and/or stories of personal experience (qualitative data) or both?
    – We will need both quantitative and qualitative data for our project. We need to start off by using metrics such as ridership of other rail systems and other data points such as number of stations, fare/tax revenue and the like. We will also need data such as what people think of the BQX plan, how they think it will affect their communities, and how communities with streetcars feel about them. Also, it would be helpful if we can get some hard numbers as to the number of people who live along these lines.
  2. How are you going to give legs to your research? What action strategies could you employ to make the research and report as impactful as possible?
    -We will conduct our quantitative data to start which will give us hard number for our research to stand on, then we will use public opinion polls to give it legs. This way it should provide a logical and emotional rational to our conclusions in order to inform the reader. We will also scout out the areas that the BQX will be going through to understand the types of communities that live there.
  3. Who are the stakeholders in the issue? Who has interest? Who is affected? – The main proposed benefactors will be the people who live and commute along the Brooklyn-Queens waterfront. Real Estate owners and developers will benefit from the increased land values along the lines as well as possible easing of zoning restrictions. Finally, Mayor De Blasio has a bit of his political reputation on the line to get the project going although he is likely more interested in providing equitable transportation.
  4. Who needs to have their voice be heard?
     – The people who live and commute in the neighborhoods that will be served by the BQX.
  5. Who are you trying to influence? Who has power over the issue?
    – We are looking to both inform the public and to potentially to influence those who are planning the BQX line. The planners are the power behind the project which includes De Blasio, city officials, and the proposed investors.  
  6. Who is your target audience (community members, elected officials, media)?
     – The general public and city officials.
  7. Who will collect your data?
    – We all will collect the data through research.
  8. Where can you find the people you need to talk to get your data?
    – We have community contacts who are more knowledgeable about these issues, but for quantitative data we may also research online.
  9. Where can you find existing information that is relevant to your research?
    -We will be looking online for reputable sources, both scholarly and editorial, that cover both the BQX plan as well as our comparison projects.
  10. Where can you go for support and assistance (non-profits, universities, government agencies)?
    -We will seek help from our community contact at Transportation Alternatives for more information as we see fit.

Based on your answers to the above, which of the following community-engaged” methods are most appropriate for your group’s project?

-We will likely conduct a combination of interviews and community mapping in our project in order to collect portions of our data. Interviews will provide insight into those who will be affected by the BQX or perhaps those interested in building it. Community mapping will allow readers to understand why these areas are targets for new transportation, since they are a hotbed for gentrification and development.   

Project update – 3/23/2016

Future of Public Transportation, Updates - Public Transportation

            In order to address the topic of the future of public transportation, we are looking at the BQX streetcar line as one such possible future. The BQX line has been proposed by the DeBlasio administration as a convenient public-transportation option along the Brooklyn-Queens waterfront which currently is a public-transportation “desert”. We are addressing this topic by first looking into the history of streetcars and public transportation in New York. Next, we will compare the proposed project with contemporary implementations of streetcar/light-rail systems. In order to keep our heads out of the clouds, we are conducting some community outreach to assess the local opinions of the project. Finally, we will collect all of this research into a white-paper and a public engagement piece.

New York has a rich history with both public transportation and streetcars in particular. A current focus of our historical research are the neighborhoods that the proposed line will go through and how their history has been affected by public policy. We see that the neighborhoods were historically heavily industrial and the waterfront largely dealing in cargo and trade.  After a steep decline in the industrial sector and a growing need for residential and commercial space these areas have been the focus of much public and private interest. One of the first public transportation methods in these areas was Fulton’s Ferry opening in 1814. The ferry and many following public-transportation projects often led to rapid development in the surrounding neighborhoods. We are conducting further research into the role of public policy on these areas with a focus on specific zoning policies of the government.

Concurrently, New York City, as a whole, saw many changes in public transportation methods. Horse drawn streetcars were one of the first public modes of transportation. After the development of steam engines, horses were quickly replaced for their more reliable and less temperamental mechanical counterpart. Streetcars continued to rapidly evolve in New York until GM, Firestone, and Standard Oil colluded to eliminate streetcars in favor of cars and busses. Interestingly, this collusion was deemed criminal and the companies had to pay a fine – but the streetcars were never revitalized. This part of our research is mostly complete because we are focusing instead on the particular Brooklyn-Queens neighborhoods.

The next major aspect of our project is a comparison of contemporary streetcar/light-rail system that could analyzed in order to look at lessons learned and what may be most beneficial to the BQX implementation. We have begun researching various aspects of American transportation in the book, World Transport Policy and Practice. The relevant chapter focuses on Portland, Oregon and Vancouver. Which has given us insight how cities have focused their public transportation projects in order to address problems such as improving or maintaining access to employment and “maximizing efficiency in overall resource utilization” while also keeping the environment in mind.

The main part of our contemporary comparison will focus on streetcar systems in Washington DC, Hoboken New Jersey, and Baltimore Maryland. The Washington DC system was recently constructed and has encountered many hurdles that may serve to inform the development of the BQX line. We will be looking into the specifics of the problems encountered and look at how these lessons may apply to the proposed line.

The Hoboken system is a light rail line that goes from Bayonne to North Bergen and has a daily ridership of over fifty-thousand passengers. It has been expanded multiple times due to its popularity and success. Initial research indicates that there has been much growth in areas surrounding the rail line including both residential and commercial development. Further research will be conducted in order to confirm this and look into the motivations that led to the line’s development because it was part of a push to revitalize the surrounding area as well as provide more efficient transportation.

We have collected some preliminary research on the streetcar system in Baltimore in order to form a proper historical context. Baltimore incorporated streetcars into its public transportation well after New York, but it was one of the first cities to experiment with electricity for its public streetcars. Streetcars in Baltimore have a similar history to those in New York (popular until there was a shift of attention to cars/buses) but currently the city seems to be going through an identity crisis when it comes to whether they should have a streetcar or a light rail system. We will proceed with research that looks closer at the current state of streetcars in Baltimore and what funding, incentives, or subsidies that they may have provided for their development.

We have been in connection with our community contact, Julia Kite at Transportation Alternatives, and have been discussing their opinions and concerns relating to the BQX line. We will continue to stay in contact with Julia as we further develop the narrative of our project. We have also begun to survey public opinions about the BQX line in order to gain as much community knowledge as possible.

We are currently still working on researching our assigned topics and gathering community information. Over the next two weeks we will continue this research and complete drafts of what we have found in order to put together a draft on April 4. This will be the bulk portion of the white paper that we will be writing. We also need to begin working on our community engagement piece. We were originally planning on producing a brochure but we may instead opt to make a website that outlines our research in a creative manner.

The group has been functioning very well. We are able to complete various assignments efficiently, with all members contributing. This has all been done without specifically assigning roles and sections of each assignment to be completed. Our main method of communication is email which has been very effective. Email communication has been complemented by the use of google drive in order to coordinate research and collaborate on particular assignments. As of now, there are no current issues with the current group dynamic.

Historical Context Resources

Future of Public Transportation

I have compiled a list of the most promising resources that I have found for the historical context…

Project Proposal – A Streetcar Named BQX

Future of Public Transportation, Project Brief - Public Transportation

Earlier this year, the city proposed a plan to implement a streetcar line. The proposed streetcar line would run along the Brooklyn-Queens waterfront from Sunset Park to Astoria. The streetcar would run parallel to existing traffic on its own lane, and would it provide some much needed transit to these underserved areas. The Brooklyn-Queens Connector (BQX) is a bold project, and it comes with both advantages and disadvantages. Our research aims to provide a thorough investigation into the proposed streetcar line. Our project will focus on the criteria that the BQX needs to satisfy in order to successfully and efficiently supply transportation to underserved areas. We will also explore the potential consequences, both positive and negative, of the implementation of the BQX. We are ultimately interested in finding out what it will take in order for this proposal to be successful and what this will mean for the the future of transportation in New York City.

We will carry out this research through two means. The first is by studying the history of streetcars in New York City and examining modern successful streetcars in areas across the United States. The streetcar is currently planned to be completely operational by 2024 – a hopeful estimate given the significant red tape associated with such a project. As a result, most of our analysis will be based on already recorded results since there is no way for us to critically study the BQX line or its repercussions in person at present. The second means is by directly surveying a community contact who is familiar with the proposed BQX streetcar. Our community contact is Julia Kite, Policy and Research Manager at Transportation Alternatives. By meeting with someone who is familiar with alternative forms of transportation and who also has experience analyzing the effects of current transportation methods on the city, in this case, buses and cars, we will have a better background with which to evaluate the sucessfulness of the BQX streetcar.

Our research will begin by analyzing the historical background of streetcars in New York City. Streetcars were once common in the city, but they soon fell out of favor with the rise of automobile ownership and traffic. Also contributing to their downfall was the city’s annexation and subsequent administration of the once-private trolley car systems. Understanding the factors that surrounded the initial uses of the streetcar will help us gain a better understanding of the consequences that may occur if the BQX is eventually implemented. Next, we will look at current streetcar systems in Hoboken, NJ, Baltimore, MD and Washington D.C. as case studies for the possible New York City streetcar. These case studies will help us define what makes a streetcar successful and efficient, definitions that we can then apply to the current propositions for the BQX. In choosing these specific locations, we will study the application of streetcars in cities that are similar to New York City and which have other municipal public transportation options available.

After our historical research, we will then turn to our community contact, Julia Kite. She will help us get a better understanding of the financial repercussions of installing and maintaining the streetcar. For example, she might provide details about which private company is likely to fund this government effort and how the streetcar may improve land value more than other modes of transportation. We may include a second community contact, such as Queens Public Transportation Group, who is more directly associated with the particular communities being affected by the streetcar.  

At the conclusion of our research, we hope to produce a white paper that is able to adequately convey our findings on how the BQX streetcar can be implemented best. We also hope to produce a popular education/public engagement product that is interesting enough to attract an audience, while also being in-depth enough in describing our findings.   

We will work on researching our respective white paper topics and have a short draft of each section by Monday, April 4. We will stay in contact and meet before and after class in order to resolve any questions and concerns that come up. We will then draft and begin revising our white paper by Wednesday April 20th. During class on April 20th, we will discuss final revisions on our paper and complete any changes by the due date on May 2nd. Concurrently we will be drafting our public engagement piece,  having a first draft done by April 20th and completed revisions by the due date, May 18th.

We will divide the project into different sections upon which one group member will focus their research. For the white paper, Edwin will research the history of streetcars in New York City, Adrian will research the streetcar system built in Hoboken, New Jersey, Patrick will research the streetcar system in Baltimore, Maryland, and Mohamed will research the streetcar system in Washington D.C. Sonia will serve as a liaison between the group and Julia Kite at Transportation Alternatives by receiving input and relating our ideas. Jeffrey will compare and contrast the compiled research, organizing our findings. Currently, our public engagement product is going to be a brochure, neatly and succinctly displaying our findings and results.

A Plague of bad ideas.

A Plague on Houses

The Rand Institute made a science out of bad science. They looked at the city’s fire services and created metrics that were actual counter productive in reducing the impact that fires had on the population. They saw areas with more fire companies, not as areas that required more fire services, but as over served areas. Well that is to say that they saw low income areas in that way. Areas which were more affluent were deemed important commercial zones in need of more fire companies. It seems that the pseudo scientific method with which they reduced services was simply a political mechanism to burn out the city’s poor and foreign.

The plan was to neglect the problems of the poor and somehow the ills of the city would vanish or whatever officials though this would achieve. Fires do seem to be a rather effective way of clearing overcrowded areas for industry. What defense can a community put up if there is nothing left to fight for. The reading touched upon the support structure that communities can provide for people who go through hardships in their lives. Communities provide referrals, advise, guidance, and occasionally financial support for those in need. There is also the aspect of a community to self police and keep people in line without incarceration. It is exactly these non-monetary support structures that the fires destroyed and as the fires spread through new districts communities were crumbling as there existence was increasingly needed.

A much better approach to allocating services is to look at exemplary areas as measured by meaningful metrics and look at areas that are in need of improvement and attempt to tailor a solution to the area taking from what you have learned. As soon as the ideas of standardization and uniformity are applied to chaotic systems such as fires – it is likely that resources will be allocated in a minimally efficient manner. If everything is based on averages, half the city would be over-served and the other half would be under-served.

Discussion question: Were the people at the Rand Institute too naive to see that their methods were incorrect or did they intentionally design the system to be used as a mechanism for planned shrinkage?

Community Planning and NIMBYism

The Roots of Community Planning

(I hadn’t relied that the reading was only from p81 so my response is informed by chapters 1 and 2 as well. Also don’t necessarily take it as my opinion,  its more of a devils advocate look at the motivations of some community planning.)

The main theme in the reading/from community planners is that displacement and gentrification are bad and that they should be prevented. For those who are currently living in areas that may be at risk of gentrifying are justified in their concern but begin to lose credit when they deny that this is out of self interest. It is generally accepted that NYC is in need of more affordable housing but projects are often opposed by those who live in the area where they will be place. Classic NIMBYism. I can see that peoples voices are often ignored when plans are being made for an area because they are likely to advocate for little to no change.

It would seem that the flip-side of gentrification is repeatedly ignored.  The rise in property taxes in an area are directly related to the rise in property values of the properties from which homeowners are being displaced, so yes they may have to move but they will get at least some compensation for the inconvenience. Next we have to look at the much larger portion of people who are renters. They don’t see the benefit of rising property values but they may (if the city is managed properly) see the benefits of increased city services that result from increased tax revenues. Maybe these services would include better public transportation connecting more parts of the city thus expanding the viable housing options for those who are being displaced.

It is common to hear the argument, “well, who will be there for all the low-paying poor-people jobs, in a city with no cheap housing?” I wonder if is possible that, since these jobs must be done, a scarcity of workers may force establishments to offer more pay? It is also a common concern that the city is segregated and yet if no one is displace how will this be remedied? The idea that communities should prevent displacement is perhaps based only in the short sighted discomfort of having to move while sacrificing opportunity for growth.

This is where community planning can come to work in conjunction with improving areas and help facilitate gentrification is a beneficial way rather than resist it till they get bulldozed by it. The process could be harnessed to improve areas while ensuring that the discomfort felt can be minimized while the benefits can be extended to all parties.

Discussion: What should the role of the city government take in encouraging/discouraging projects that have the potential to transform neighborhoods?

How to rebuild a city.

“The Patron Saint” and the Git’r Done Man”

When it comes to any construction, redevelopment, or rezoning, one is sure to meet much resistance. In the case of Robert Moses, he wielded such great power that he was able to move all those in his way and build his grand projects. These projects sometimes mirrored the idea of the green city. Stuyvesant Town, for instance, is a residential development of medium-sized buildings surrounded by green trees and grassy areas. The development is conspicuously missing something,  business. If someone needs food or wants to do much else besides look at trees they need to leave the development and seek what they are looking for elsewhere. This prevents the development of a local community because one does not end up shopping at the same stores as  their neighbors. The segmentation of life created by developments such as this foster sterile living conditions devoid of character and convenience.

Then we have the “competing” ideology of Jacobs who advocated for smaller blocks, varied building age, and a mix of residential and commercial facilities. These areas foster a much stronger economic engine because they are in some ways self contained. The lack of central planning enables these areas to develop specialized neighborhood architecture and allow the community to shape itself. By means of gentrification the area is able to redefine and grow in a gradual manner. This allows the area to find out what is needed rather that necessitate an omnipotent planner who knows how everything needs to be from the beginning. It is likely, however, that this gradual growth without central planning is not good for the growth of a city because it doesn’t address the need for highways or large apartment buildings – resulting in areas that have lower population densities thus limiting the ultimate growth of a city.

Somehow a balance must be struck where the redevelopment of a city can be undertaken on grander scales while taking into account the inability to plan everything ahead. Planners perhaps should focus on designing areas that could take on many functions as they are needed. Mixing commercial and residential and even allowing for easy conversion between the two as needs change. This way communities are enable by large projects to make decisions on their own. Thus harnessing the power of government to build large projects while allowing communities to grow into the space strengthening the development with a robust economy and society, much like roots fortify an otherwise weak soil.

Discussion question: Public development and gentrification are often demonized as pushing out the underprivileged but are they a necessary “evil” in the growth of a city and its shifting infrastructure?

The importance of community.

Situating New York City

A reoccurring theme in the reading was that much of the effective governance of New York was accomplished with the help of communities or by creating them. The concept of BIDs  is a really keen move to have businesses for communities of there own where they work together in order to improve their immediate area. This takes advantage of the fact that no one knows an area better than those who live and work there. In the case of businesses they work together in order to reduce crime and improve services in was they deem most effective. Efforts to create communities such as Battery Park, where housing is paired with business and entertainment, are also surely effective at stemming the tide of people who are leaving the city by creating little self sufficient havens. If someone feels secure with their job which is close to their home and surrounded by entertainment – there is little reason for them to leave.

The power of a community can also serve to revitalize an area. Efforts to take a community in decline and get it back in the right direction may take as little as people moving into and renovating run down properties. This helps not only the person doing the renovation by creating equity, but it also lifts the surrounding area as well. Given enough time once bad neighborhoods could become thriving communities with just a little investment.

Unfortunately the idea of community can be taken too far. Boss Tweed took advantage of the idea that immigrants formed their own communities and became an overwhelming power in New York City government.  He played the power of a community to stick together in rough times and was able to harness it in order to create an omnipresent political machine. Fortunately this is a bit of a stretch and we now see mostly positive outcomes of people organizing for reform – not just in New York communities but all around the world.

Discussion Question: Will minority groups be able to take advantage of the current economic revitalization or will it only serve to push them out?

The importance of city structure.

Situating North American Cities

The reading brought to light many of the different aspects of city structure and the profound impacts that they have on a city’s development. Firstly, the governmental structure of cities are highly interesting because many have grown to consume smaller outlying towns and districts. The way that the governments handled theses new areas was and is very important because if a small government retains its power the city as a whole may suffer. This is because large metropolitan areas require massive infrastructure in order to handle water, waste, and services. Interestingly the reading stated that Toronto created federal governments to handle the management of these service. I wonder if New York has any semblances of that because as far as I know it seems to be much more of a city, state, and federal mess of a system.

This brings us to a similar aspect of urban development. We are seeing new southern and western cities develop in a much more orderly fashion but in at least one aspect this appears to be hurting them. Old cities have grown into their space and have been enclosed by surrounding municipalities, whereas southern cities have been allowed to grow out with much more ease. Some even have built in mechanisms for annexing outlying areas as needed. This leads to less dense cities which in turn require more driving and a decreased reliance on public transportation. This leads to increased pollution in the air. Southern cities also have issues in ensuring future supplies of water. This is in contrast to the cramped norther cities that nearly preclude the idea of cars as a major mode of transportation. In New York we have relatively low air pollution (though it is still omnipresent) and we are also fortunate to be located in a well hydrated area.

Finally, I find it interesting that city centers were emptied of upper class individuals to the suburbs where there was more room. This left the city centers in the slums and therefore less expensive. Now things are moving in the other direction and so called “yuppies” are moving back into the city centers which means that the economically disadvantaged are now trapped in an unaffordable city center, surrounded by suburbs which they also can’t afford. This makes clear the problems that this city is coming to face.

Discussion Question: How does the fact that housing close public transportation is more expensive affect economically disadvantaged people in New York? And conversely, does the increased prevalence of commuting in cars alleviate the problem of high housing prices by allowing people to commute from areas which are too far away for effective public transportation?