Chosen Topic: Restructuring NYC’S Transportation to Relieve Stress & Increase Resiliency
Group Members: Justin, Kyle, Jun, Herrick, Hugh
Goal/Aim: Incentivizing decreased use of private transportation in favor of public transportation to decrease stress on transportation in New York.

Why did our group choose this topic?
While discussing, our group realized that raising prices and taxes to reduce congestion is not an effective solution. For the sake of comfort, we believed that people would either pay the higher price, or others who are able to afford the more expensive rates would take their place. In the face of an indefinite increase in population for all the boroughs of NYC, it simply isn’t sustainable to assume that private cars can continued to be used in the way they are. By making people want to use public transportation more, while gradually/systematically weeding out the use of private cars, transportation in NYC can become more resilient to the increasing stress of population growth.

Our end, idealistic goal is for the streets of NYC to be void of privately-owned cars. By allowing the streets to be used for public transportation and other public uses like delivering supplies and transporting trash, there can be a more rigorous system/schedule designed to avoid traffic jams, scheduled in a similar way that the subways are. Realistically, our group would like an integration of reality and our ideas. It may be unreasonable to completely get rid of all private cars, but if we can reduce it enough for public transportation to be a viable means of transportation in NYC and relieve stress on transportation both above and below the ground, the city’s transportation infrastructure would be resilient enough to endure the projected population growth in all of its boroughs. Our project can be divided into a 3-staged approach: analysis of historic transportation and its successes and failures, gradual implementation of decreased private transportation on outer boroughs, and finally the holistic target of decreasing private car-use and opening up the streets of NYC for efficient public transportation (as well as other public services).

How will the research be divided amongst group members?
Our group has 5 members, and the content for our research can be divided as so, although tentative:

• Historical/background research on techniques on reducing traffic congestion and why they were ineffective. Some research into modern practices of cities completely banning cars, the pros and cons of this and what we can take from it. The person in charge of this aspect will have to research the history of NYC’s transportation system, and other city/countries’ in order to better understand why congestion occurs and how some cities may have managed to solve this problem.
• Incentivizing the use public transportation (buses), over private transportation. This includes making buses as viable as the subways.
  • Begin by analyzing why solely depending on NYC’s subway system is not sustainable. What stresses are there, can we depend on our subways in the next 50 years with the incoming increase in population?
  • Provide the benefits of not only effective public transportation on the streets, but how it works in conjunction with subways. When your train to New Jersey is suddenly closed for some obscure reason, you have limited options on going back home. And to call an Uber on a Friday evening when the cars flood Holland tunnel, there isn’t much of a choice to begin with.
  • Start on the outer boroughs where congestion isn’t as much of an issue. Slowly works inwards towards most problematic areas of the city. Demonstrate how clearing the streets for public transportation allows for less congestion and allows for more timely transportation (perhaps faster than subways and capable of making closer stops).
  • More effective bus designs; no linked-buses, more double deckers, trolleys? What are the issues from past bus designs and transportation systems that we can learn from? What are innovative ways to relieve congestion and simultaneously increase efficiency of public transportation.
  • The person in charge of this aspect is largely responsible for a list of why citizens of NYC would want less cars and more public transportation on the streets (and how we would start with this project). This section will likely require two members as it is a lengthy amount of research.
• Ultimate goal of having streets in NYC be mostly for public use (trucks delivering supplies, public transportation, and the allowance of smart cars). The person in charge of this section should outline a concrete image of what our final result should be (working with other members). This section would also include a ‘further considerations’ section that may be obstacles to our project, like what do citizens who already own cars do? What would the policy towards taxi drivers be?
• Other benefits to our solution: decreased amount of accidents both car-car and car-pedestrian collisions, decreased stress on subway system as people begin to use buses, and environmental benefits of less carbon emissions due to less cars.
  • Can also ensure guarantee schedule of buses that is not always delayed by traffic.
  • Safety is not only for pedestrians, but for bikers who at times have no lanes and navigate dangerously between cars and people.
  • The person in charge of this section of research would identify the many benefits of our project being successful, outside of relieving transportation congestion in NYC.

[Summary of Research]
->What have cities done in the face of traffic congestion that has and has not worked?
->What are the benefits of increasing public transportation use? What can we do to make public transportation more effective and comfortable to use?
->What are the issues with how things are at the moment? Can we continue to rely on the systems we have right now, or will an increased population be too much of a stress on NYC’s transportation?
-> What is the final result that our group wants to see? What are realistic obstacles that must be considered for this project?
->What are additional benefits in implementing our project?

[Tentative Deadlines]
[Mar. 12th] Submission of group proposal, discuss together and outline other possible issues we may face in our research. Agree on who will do which research parts.

[Mar. 18th] Have all sources we want to use chosen. Have a rough draft of our sections printed and ready to share. Read each other’s parts and make changes to make project cohesive. Do research together if necessary. Information should be on Google Drive.

[Mar. 29th] Put together all parts into a cohesive project. Revise and make sure that all aspects of the project have been considered.

[Apr. 9th] In-class working session. Outline presentation and be ready to rehearse.

[Apr.16th + 30th] Powerpoint should be finished, with each group member well-rehearsed in their part, but also knowledgeable in the entire project.

[May 4/5th] Conference Date

Group Members: Ingrid, Vicki, Anastasiya, Makinoon, Kevin

Our group is planning to address NYC’s food waste problem, particularly as it pertains to organic waste generated by businesses. We chose this topic because food waste is a problem that is both socially impactful, as 1 in 8 American’s struggle with hunger daily, and an environmental issue, contributing greatly to harmful greenhouse gas emissions, and businesses are a large contributor of this waste. The City of New York already has the capacity to expand its food waste recycling programs, which include composting and using wastewater treatment plants to convert organic matter into energy resources, and has shown willingness to expand its subsidization of food rescue operations. The main issue we believe, lies in incentivizing all businesses, small and large, to comply with the currently voluntary ordinances regarding organic waste recycling. Both Mayor Michael Bloomberg and Mayor Bill De Blasio have referred to New York City’s organics recycling as the final “frontier” in achieving a zero waste city, a goal outlined in the current mayor’s OneNYC plan.

In order to achieve our goal, and increase the number of businesses participating in the organics recycling program, we have come up with a multi-step policy that addresses several components of the Department of Sanitation’s organics recycling initiative. Primarily, the policy will mandate that all businesses, regardless of size, that generate organic waste, participate in the city-wide organic recycling operation, and reserve their organic waste for processing independent of all other waste. This would be a simple modification of the law already in place that affects large businesses. Businesses would have the choice of opting for this organic material to be removed to be composted or to be treated at a wastewater plant by the Department of Sanitation. Alternatively businesses, would have the opportunity to partner with a food rescue operation with existing food removal infrastructure such as City Harvest, to remove all edible food waste to be donated to shelters and soup kitchens. A good example of how this plan would work can be seen in the way Pret A Manger partners with food rescue operations to haul away uneaten food at the end of each day. The second part of our policy is the enforcement measure. The city will enforce the policy using financially punitive measures inspired by those implemented in Seoul, South Korea, to encourage the reduction of food waste, but modified to accommodate business practices. For all food waste produced over a certain threshold, which can be calculated as a percentage of all food purchased over the course of a month, the business will be charged by the pound. For example, if you are a donut shop that purchases 500 hundred dollars worth of raw ingredients per month, in that given month, you are permitted to generate 50 pounds of organic waste, and any waste produced over that amount will be charged at 5 dollars a pound. This will be measured by weighing scales inside of the sanitation trucks, and tracked by a digitized numerical system. This threshold will begin at a modest amount and decrease every year until a target percentage is reached, in order to incentivize businesses to seek ways to recycle organic material on premises, or to reduce wasteful consumption altogether.

We believe that a policy encouraging businesses to participate in organics recycling is a great way to not only reduce food waste but to utilize the city’s recycling capacity to its fullest, and a step bringing the city closer to its zero waste goal. We have subdivided the work into the following research sections: preliminary research on the topic of food waste and its effects, current NYC organics recycling policy and regulations, current food rescue operations active in NYC, comparable policy in Seoul, South Korea, and cost benefit analysis of our policy proposal. Each group member will conduct research and contribute information to comprise these five key elements of our final presentation. 

Timeline:
03/12: Group project proposal due, discussion and division of research.

03/18: Research due into shared document, begin outlining presentation content.

03/29: Outline presentation and schedule group rehearsal date.

04/09: In-class working session. Refine presentation and be ready to rehearse.

04/16 & 04/30: In-class Presentation practice dates.

04/4 or 04/05: Conference Date.