A Transit To-Do List for a Revamped NYPD and DOT

It is with mixed emotions that I mark the end of Mayor Bloomberg's time in office. The city's yawning gap between rich and poor has left many, including myself, wanting a new direction, and the result was Bill de Blasio's thumping of centrist Democrats and Republicans alike. But I will give credit where credit is due. Mayor Bloomberg and his transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan, presided over an unprecedented expansion of transit and bike/ped options in New York. They weren't always well thought out, such as the 7-line extension which primarily served the interests of real estate developers at Hudson Yards, and they weren't always effective (watered down BRT on 34th Street comes to mind), but they did serve to fundamentally reshape New York's transportation landscape. While bike lanes and pedestrian plazas still arouse strong emotions (and the occasional lawsuit), their implementation over the past decade has become increasingly commonplace. Unlike many of the Mayor's policies, these improvements have enriched the lives of New Yorkers rich and poor, and I hope that Mayor de Blasio will continue - and improve upon - them as he takes office. With that in mind, I offer my own take on priorities for Mayor de Blasio and his to-be-appointed DOT and NYPD commissioners.

NYPD Bike Patrol / Photo: Streetsblog

Increase foot and bike patrols by the NYPD. For a city trying to heal itself from more than a decade of stop and frisk, foot and bike patrols have their own value as proven methods to develop trust between police and communities. But from a transit perspective, we should also push for keeping officers out of their cars and on the streets. The NYPD under Ray Kelly seems reluctant to investigate pedestrian injuries and downright intent on harassing and ticketing cyclists. Putting officers in the shoes of those they have failed to help is a powerful tool to help the NYPD develop respect and understanding for cyclists and pedestrians, and it will make officers more aware of the laws they are supposed to enforce.

Pursue SBS-type improvements for non-SBS routes. Obviously this is as much an MTA issue as a city issue, but NYCDOT does have control over bus infrastructure such as lanes and stops. Many of the improvements that have been shown to decrease travel times - offboard fare payment and increased stop spacing - can be implemented relatively quickly and (in well-traveled corridors) cost-effectively. Other improvements, such as bus bulbs and improved shelters with real-time arrival information, are well within the city's control. All of these could help improve the mobility of New Yorkers without requiring significant capital spending.

Expand the city's red light and speed camera programs. New York lags behind many major cities in its enforcement of moving violations by camera. The NYPD has been resistant to change (partly due to the risk of job cuts), but the fact remains that the NYPD issues shockingly few summonses for speeding and other moving violations. As New York moves toward a 20 mph citywide speed limit for residential streets, enforcement will become even more important. I hope that with a change at One Police Plaza and a mayor who has pledged to eliminate traffic fatalities, the new administration will fight to expand the use of cameras citywide.

Increase Citibike's footprint. The bike sharing program has proved very popular in Manhattan and the few areas of Brooklyn where it exists, and current plans have areas such as Cobble Hill and Park Slope slated for expansion. Given the Mayor's focus on inequality, I hope that he will also push for expansion into Red Hook, Bed Stuy, Bushwick, Sunset Park, and other less affluent areas with relatively good access to the city's wider bike network.

Couple development and transit. Massive new developments in Williamsburg, Greenpoint and the Astoria waterfront have the potential to strain limited transit resources in their respective areas. As a mayor who will seek to dramatically expand the city's affordable housing options, Mayor de Blasio cannot follow that blueprint. He and his planning team should consider proximity to transit and area capacity when deciding where to upzone - focusing the densest development near existing transit hubs (Downtown Brooklyn, Long Island City, Broadway Junction) rather than adding development in areas where transit would be strained or new residents would be forced to drive.

And finally...

Cut parking minimums citywide. The Mayor's goal of increasing affordable housing will never get off the ground if developers are constrained by the added costs of building unnecessary parking. Less than a third of New Yorkers commute by car, so Mayor de Blasio would be well served to enhance transit access, rather than give in to outdated planning ideas.

None of these ideas outlined are as costly or as ambitious as some of Mayor Bloomberg's larger plans, but they can nonetheless serve to enhance pedestrian and cyclist safety, give more transit options to all New Yorkers and help the new mayor achieve his goal of drastically increasing affordable housing options.

What If We Presented New York's Bike Lanes Like Transit Lines?

Today's thought comes from a post on the Atlantic Cites featuring the work of Mat Kladney. Kladney developed a bike map for San Francisco which radically simplified the official SF Bike Coalition map into one that resembles a subway map. Instead of detailed road maps and indications of type of bike land (protected, sharrow, etc.), Kladney's map shows crisp routings with critical features along the route denoted like stops and transfers between "lines" clearly marked.

There's much to be said for bike maps that do the opposite; maps which clearly define whether a lane will be adjacent to traffic or set off from it, or whether a road is simply "bike friendly" are invaluable resources, especially for first time riders. But I can't help but think the transit map model is a valuable one. New York features an extensive - and growing - network of protected bike lanes. They aren't always perfect (i.e. mixing zones for vehicle turns), and they are not always continuous, but they are by and large the closest thing this city has to permanent, dedicated bicycle infrastructure.

For this top-tier infrastructure, we could benefit from official (or unofficial) maps that abstract away the details and simply show what cyclists need to see: major routes with key features and transfers along the way. Much as a subway rider doesn't need to know every street and place a line passes under, a cyclist on the Brooklyn Greenway or 1st/2nd Avenue lanes doesn't need a detailed schematic. A map which only shows the major routes would give cyclists a better understanding of where the fastest and most protected lanes are (a particularly great benefit to Citibike users). It is not - and should not be - a replacement for the more detailed maps that already exist, but it could be a valuable complement, identifying the most robust portions of our bike infrastructure as being equivalent to bus or subway networks. What's more, such a map would clearly identify to anyone viewing the map gaps in the protected lane network. Making clear where cycling infrastructure doesn't make the cut, e.g. is not featured on the map, could be a tool for activism and a rallying cry for expansions of the protected lane network.

Morning Links: Election Edition

Links from around New York:

It's election day. Don't forget to take the time and vote.

Forget Gracie Mansion. Apparently you can buy a castle in the Bronx. (Curbed NY)

Renderings are in for the permanent pedestrian plaza at Fowler Square in Fort Greene. (Brownstoner)

Who doesn't love a good local food smackdown? Head down to the Brooklyn Winery in Williamsburg on November 11th to see local CSAs go head to head with a spot in the citywide final on the line. (Brooklyn Based)

Atlantic Yards is getting some Chinese can-do attitude. Greenland, which is buying 70% of the project from Forest City Ratner, has promised to complete the entire project within eight years. (Curbed NY)

And in not-so-New-York news:

DC's S-line buses are responsible for half of the people moved along 16th Street during peak period, yet they account for only 3% of vehicles on the road while most of the space is devoted to cars. Will these facts convince the city to implement dedicated lanes for bus movement? (Greater Greater Washington)

Delaware cyclists can feel a little safer - the state's DOT has agreed to drop its ambiguous "Share the Road" signs in favor of road signs that clearly indicate the rights of bicycles. (Streetsblog)

A former student's masters thesis on light rail expansion in Pittsburgh goes viral on tumblr. (Tumblr, Pittsburgh City Paper)

Rethinking the Blog

Well it's been quite some time since my last post. I've wanted this blog to be a lot of things: an outlet for my public transit and planning ideas, a source of information and commentary on local development, and a celebration of my adopted home, South Brooklyn. So far I fear these various goals have proven to be too many cooks for this one blog.

It is with that in mind that I am attempting to roll out a more focused version of The Culver Local. With a little luck (and a bit more persistence), I will give the blog more focus, with dedicated subject areas that will hopefully allow me to pursue all of my interests without losing focus. While there will always be posts that demand to be published right now, I want to add these genre pieces to give the blog some structure. They'll certainly be modified as I start fleshing them out, but for now I will be adding the following:

Morning Links. Like so many other blogs, this section (published weekly or more frequently, depending on the circumstances) will provide links to some of my favorite pieces on transportation, sustainability and local issues from around the web.

Transit Tuesday. This weekly piece will focus on a pressing streets/transit issue, with particular emphasis on issues in Brooklyn. I would, however, like to leave open the possibility of transit issues from outside of the New York region. This space is intended for the most transit nerd/policy wonk-y pieces I'd like to write.

Local Focus. Part opinion and part analysis, this weekly column will focus exclusively on South Brooklyn livability issues and will cover everything from local development and housing issues to the area's growing restaurant and bar scene. 

A Day In... This occasional piece (every 3 to 4 weeks) will profile a Brooklyn neighborhood or portion thereof. Each article will contain a bit of neighborhood history as well as a profile of the best local spots, shops, restaurants and bars from my daylong exploration. To get this section moving, I will begin with a profile of one of my favorite places in all of New York, Red Hook.

With any luck this structure will help me post more often and, more importantly, make this a better blog.

Reconsidering the Local

I'll admit, living on two local-only lines makes me a little biased against express trains. Expresses are one of the great oddities you encounter when moving to New York. We're conditioned to believe these trains, whisking past station after station, are getting us to our destination so much faster than those poor souls on the local tracks. Those long, uninterrupted stretches feel so much faster, and we arrive sooner than the equivalent local, and so we take for granted that an express train is a great upgrade in service.

Waiting for the local / Photo by the author

Expresses do a lot of great things for the subway, namely add capacity that would not exist in a traditional two-track setup, so that the system has incredible throughput capacity, even with its aging infrastructure (signals, switches, interlockings, and so on). And express trains are faster - that's no illusion. But go through the timetable or take a moment to track just how much time you're saving, and you'll quickly realize that an express, fast as it feels, doesn't offer the sort of mythical time savings we've been conditioned to believe. Take for example a trip from 168 Street to Euclid Avenue. On the local C train, it takes about 63 minutes. If you took the A instead, it would last about 52-53 minutes, depending on the train. In relative terms, that's a big savings (15-16%), and even in absolute terms 10 minutes is something. But that's a ride over the entire length of the C line, not a jaunt from uptown to downtown or Brooklyn to Manhattan. On most trips, the savings offered by an express over an equivalent local is only a couple of minutes - convenient, but not exactly life changing.

That's an important distinction to note when considering our system, because the express good/local bad paradigm seeps into most conversations about subway service. Here on the Culver line, the unused express tracks rear their ugly head on a regular basis. Adding express service would lengthen headways on the local tracks (the MTA has stated it would not add net service and is otherwise constrained by 6th Avenue and Queens Boulevard track capacities) and would add express trains that bypass the some of busiest stops on the line, save for 7th Avenue and Church Avenue, all for a time savings of a few minutes for express riders (and an added wait of 4+ minutes for local riders). Even so, local politicians and advocacy groups love to talk up the prospect of an express, as if that 3-5 minute time savings from Kings Highway will be more than a drop in the bucket. If the line needed more capacity and the MTA were offering more trains, then express service would be a no-brainer, but that's not the situation. Time, effort, and resources spent on advocating for express service could be spent instead on improving service, such as by implementing Communications Based Train Control (CBTC), which would allow faster and more frequent service at all stops.

The express/local dynamic also keeps us from considering other options that could improve service. Local service along the 4th Avenue line was hit hard by the 2010 cuts, which eliminated M service and reduced local stations R service only. The N and D trains run express from Atlantic Av-Barclays Center to 36 St, skipping 4 stops along the way. Late at night, however, the D runs local along this stretch (the N does too, but it replaces the R). Based on the MTA's timetable, an express train from Atlantic to 36 St should take 6 minutes. The local? 8-9 depending on the train. If we could get away from denigrating local service vis-a-vis express, we might be able to consider a new service option: run the D local in Brooklyn (these 4 stops plus DeKalb) at all times. It might sound crazy to make an express service local, but consider the benefits: a new, one-seat ride to areas in Midtown and the West Side for growing areas like Gowanus, South Slope, Greenwood, and Sunset Park; and vastly improved transfer options for F and G riders at 4 Av-9 St (the nearest F-D transfer is at Broadway-Lafayette and no G-D transfer exists). And the costs for such a change are quite minimal: a delay of 2-3 minutes over the entire 36 St-Atlantic stretch - one that could likely be managed away over the length of the route.

This is just one possibility, but it goes to show that by reconsidering our perception of express service, we can find low- or no-cost ways to improve service. And who knows, maybe someone will think this is a worthwhile idea.

Dead in the Water

Transit advocates in the Twittersphere have been (rightly) taking our ragtag group of mayoral candidates to task for their near-universal devotion to five-borough ferry service as a solution to the city's transportation problems. And rightfully so. Even though the city refuses to release numbers for some of their subsidized programs, such as the Rockaway service, it's generally assumed that the subsidy per rider far exceeds what we spend on bus and subway operations. 

The East River Ferry / Courtesy: East River Ferry

But ferries remain an appealing fix in a city where every change to a street or local disruption is subject to unruly community boards, local protests, vitriolic press coverage and, not least, the astronomical cost of doing business in New York City. Ferries, in contrast, require subsidies but are run by private companies. They run on the water, a place with far fewer stakeholders, and as a result require virtually no infrastructure except for relatively simple docks. For a politician looking to win voters, ferries offer an attractive combination of limited capital spending and easy implementation that doesn't kick up opposition the way subway construction or bus lanes do.

Of course, that approach also ignores the many shortcomings of ferry services, starting with their private ownership. With the exception of the city-owned Staten Island Ferry, which is free, the services running on New York harbor have independent ticketing and fare structures. That means fares aren't harmonized with local agencies. Worse, it precludes the one feature that could make ferries part of a robust network: interoperability. NY Waterway, the operator of many of the city's ferries, operates its own free shuttle buses in Midtown, but that separate network reinforces the idea that ferries are a different system. If riders could pay with a Metrocard and receive discounts (or free transfers) going between the East River Ferry and the A/F at Brooklyn Bridge Park or J/M/Z at Schaefer Landing, the East River Ferry would become a more functional service. Instead, a one-way trip using both MTA and the ferry costs $6.50 - hardly an incentive to use the service if you're already shelling out the $2.50 for the bus or subway.

That said, I have to defend some of the ferry proposals. Do I think we need five-borough service? Probably not. The Bronx has transit issues, but plodding ferry service to Manhattan will not solve most of them. Ferries simply distract from the more difficult task at hand, which involves making tough choices to improve or augment local bus and rail (like the newly opened Bx41 SBS or new Metro North stations along the Hell Gate line).

But ferries can provide a useful service when linking areas that are transit poor, provided the service is part of a broader transit plan. Ferries by themselves are expensive gimmicks, and their lack of infrastructure means they can disappear as quickly as the are introduced. Ferries such as the free weekend shuttle from IKEA and Red Hook to Pier 11 seem nice, but the City is missing a huge opportunity to tie the service into local bus routes, making the ferry part of the transportation network instead of a standalone novelty. Neighborhoods such as Red Hook, College Point, Hunts Point, or Astoria could benefit from service if an adequate feeder system (buses) were in place. Likewise, launch points such as Atlantic Ave/Pier 6, which are already serviced by multiple bus routes, could make use of an integrated network.

As it stands the proposals by Anthony Weiner, Christine Quinn and co. will do little to improve transportation if their expensive subsidies result in services that burden riders with additional costs and fail to link with existing transportation. And while ferries can provide value in select areas, it is a shame to see our elected officials eschewing important decisions about New York's transit infrastructure at a time when our city is growing again.

I Know Better: Fourth Avenue and the Power of Anecdote

I'd like to take the opportunity to remind anyone reading that Brooklyn Community Board 6 will hold a meeting this Wednesday 10 July to discuss DOT's proposed traffic calming for Fourth Avenue between Pacific Street and 15th Street. As many may remember, Fourth Avenue has received pedestrian safety and traffic calming improvements along virtually its entire length south of 15th Street, and the world has not come to an end. In fact, the improvements north of 15th have received the overwhelming support of our local elected officials, particularly Councilmember Brad Lander. They have had support from all corners, with the sole exception of Brooklyn Community Board 6. 

Left turn reductions and median expansion on Fourth Ave / Courtesy: NYCDOT

Even though CB6's transportation committee overwhelmingly approved the changes, in June CB6 made the surprise decision to oppose DOT's plan. The reason? Last minute opposition from groups which claimed a reduction in traffic lanes and left turn restrictions would result in traffic backups and force - yes, force - more traffic onto Park Slope's bucolic side streets. But here's the kicker - none of these assertions were backed up with facts. As we see in virtually any transportation project that disrupts an established pattern, the war of information is an asymmetric one. 

Contrary to what some might believe, DOT does not simply lay out and implement a vision, a la Robert Moses. Instead, it goes through a study process - one that is filled with opportunities for public feedback that ultimately is incorporated into the final design or decision. So did DOT miss these traffic backups? Were they unaware that trucks would invade Park Slope en masse? Of course not. Even in the summary of the study available on DOT's website, you can see the empiricism that was applied. Cars and pedestrians were counted, and the impact of various changes on both parties were weighed before the final recommendation was made. In the end, DOT used traffic counts to justify reducing travel lanes and weighed average volumes of cars against pedestrians when recommending left turn restrictions. To wit, DOT recommended maintaining 3 travel lanes on the northbound side of Fourth Ave above Union St specifically to avoid traffic backups. Data can always be reanalyzed from different angles, but this is hardly evidence of regulatory fiat by DOT.

Unfortunately, opposition doesn't have such exacting standards. Whereas one side makes use of objective counts and models, the other only needs to voice its fears. And that's what has nearly scuttled a sensible project to make a dangerous stretch of road safer for pedestrians and drivers alike. It doesn't matter that cutting down the highway-like design to a more reasonable urban boulevard is not expected to increase traffic. It doesn't matter that left turn restrictions and fewer traffic lanes will create a safer crossing environment for the area's multiple school zones and subway stations. What matters is who can shout the loudest and stir up the most fears. In lieu of facts, opponents present anecdote and emotion. And once we lower ourselves to knowing better than the evidence at hand, the entire process becomes a joke. In the case of Fourth Ave, years of planning and advocacy for safer streets have been placed in jeopardy, not because the project lacks merit, but because its proponents have remained in the land of facts, not fantasy.

It is fortunate that CB6's approval, while desired, is not necessary for DOT to receive. It would be a rare case of override by the Council and the Department, particularly during an election year, but the project is fortunate to have a local Councilmember who remains a steadfast supporter, in spite of the CB's intransigence. I remain hopeful that this Wednesday's meeting will feature a thoughtful discussion of the project's safety enhancements and its minimal impact on vehicle traffic, but I won't hold my breath. As with every improvement to our streets, opponents will have to be dragged to the table, kicking and screaming, only to see when everything is finished that the model was right all along. 

No, We Don't Need Sexy. But We Do Need Functional.

Bogota's famed BRT system. Credit: Streetsblog

Eric Jaffe had a good piece this morning about the city of Wellington's decision to move forward with bus rapid transit instead of a light rail system to meet its transportation needs. Jaffe makes several good points about the effectiveness of light rail versus BRT systems, the most salient of which is LRT's seeming inability to draw additional factors when service quality is controlled for. From the study quoted by Jaffe:

This suggests that routes with higher service levels are more efficient and attract more ridership than low-service routes, all other things being equal...Results suggest that the transit mode does not directly impact ridership but rather acts through vehicle size and service levels.

I can't say I disagree with the notion that level of service, not mode of transportation, is what drives transit adoption and mode shifting rates. If something will get you where you're going both quickly and reliably, you're more apt to use it. But Jaffe uses this level-of-service straw man to make an argument that BRT can be just as good as light rail and, given its lower capital costs, can be a much more cost effective means of promoting transit.

I get it, BRT is cheaper than light rail. But there's a reason that "true" BRT systems are few and far between, and why none exist in the US even as we've built new light rail systems from LA to Denver to Charlotte. Buses are less sexy, but that's not why they have so many opponents. The simple fact is, it is exceedingly difficult to put into place dedicated infrastructure for buses only. Laying rails forces transportation planners to make decisions regarding rights of way, and that typically means separation of LRT vehicles along most, if not all, of their routes.

Here in New York, we've seen just how effective vocal opponents can be at stripping away the "rapid" features of BRT. SelectBus Service on 1st and 2nd Avenues, for example, utilizes painted lanes, which are shared with right-turning traffic. Further down the M15's route, buses run in mixed traffic, rendering the speed-enhancing bus lanes less effective by placing a large bottleneck in lower Manhattan. The end result is a bus that is slightly faster than a local bus, though mainly by virtue of features - offboard payment, all-door boarding, greater spacing between stops - that could be applied to any local bus route without the buzz or branding of SBS.

This isn't to say New York, or any city for that matter, couldn't implement an effective BRT system. But to make the argument that BRT is just as good as LRT (or heavy rail) because only level of service matters is to completely miss the point. By virtue of building rail, planners are forced to make the tough decisions that BRT planners can set aside. These decisions, such as dedicated rights of way and high quality stations, are exactly what provide the level of service Jaffe discusses. All things being equal, BRT is just as good as light rail. But until planners see the two as equal systems, BRT (and New York's SBS in particular) will continue to be an inferior product.

A Bus Boards in Brooklyn

Like plenty of other 20-somethings in New York with limited disposable income (after accounting for craft beers and other dalliances), I tend to take the bus when I travel out of the city. It's a little slow and subject to occasionally absurd traffic delays, but it's also cheap. My last minute bookings to Boston run around $20-25 per person, each way - and that's on the expensive side. Compared to $100 each way on Amtrak, there isn't much of a choice.

And for the most part, lines like Megabus or Bolt aren't that bad. I can remember taking early Chinatown buses and Greyhounds to NYC nearly a decade ago, and they were decidedly miserable experiences. It might be cramped and habitually late, but the ride on Megabus itself is hardly terrible. The bad part of the ride has everything to do with getting to and from the bus in New York. 

Over the years, curbside boarding locations have migrated, from the ultra-convenient (Penn Station) to the passable (PA Terminal - not as accessible from NJ or Long Island and a longer ride from Brooklyn, but more subway lines), to the hellish current location outside the Javits Center. For a Manhattanite, the new location is an inconvenience, but if you are coming from Brooklyn or Queens, the added trek to 11th Avenue is virtually a deterrent to riding. The original location outside Penn put locations from Jersey City to Jamaica within 30 minutes of the departure point. Today, only a handful of subway stations outside of Manhattan can claim to be so close.

30-minute accessibility from Penn Station. Credit: Mapnificent New York.

30-minute accessibility from Megabus' current stop.

I like saving money, but having to travel for 45 minutes to reach the least convenient form of travel - and one that requires a long walk or bus transfer to get to - can be a trying experience. Quite frankly, there's no reason for service to and from New York to work like this. Cities such as DC and Boston have companies that pick up and drop off outside of their downtown terminals. New York was made for just such a service. Brooklyn in particular is home to virtually every subway line - and every trunk line except the 7 - as well as LIRR and East River Ferry service. In short, it would be an attractive place to add supplemental (or competing) intercity service with curbside pickup/drop-off.

Imagine being able to pick up the bus to Boston, DC, or Philadelphia from a curbside stop near Atlantic Terminal. You would have easy access to Brooklyn and Manhattan on the 2, 3, 4, 5, B, C, D, G, N, Q, and R trains, and to Jamaica on the LIRR. It's not a route that would be as popular with "traditional" tourists interested in seeing Midtown, but Brooklyn has grown into a destination in its own right, and such a stop would place most of the borough's 2.6 million people within convenient range of the bus.

30-minute accessibility from Atlantic Terminal.

Just as the outer boroughs deserve better transit options from the MTA and our city government, we also deserve a shot at better intercity options. Adding service from Brooklyn's most transit-oriented areas - a difficult, but not impossible proposition - would give large portions of the borough access to cost effective travel without subjecting them to an unreasonable commute to or from the bus. And in the end, that means more passengers - and more profit - for the operators. Seems like such a good business idea I almost don't want to give it away.

Alley Markets and Urban Oases

A post about this weekend - but better late than never, right?

This weekend I had a chance to swing by the opening of the Grove Alley Nite Market in Downtown Brooklyn. The small alley - touted in the ads as being one of the worst streets in Brooklyn, once upon a time - has been cleverly repurposed into a pedestrian plaza, with lighting strung across and vendors selling food, drink, and clothing. It also makes for a rather intimate concert space, nestled as it is between the alley walls with the lights overhead. 

Looking into Grove Alley. All photos from the author's Instagram.

Events like these add a level of vitality to Downtown that doesn't currently exist (our walk back to Boerum Place along Fulton was about as dead as it gets until we reached Shake Shack). A 24 hour neighborhood is safer and better for business than one that closes down at 8 or 9pm. And judging by the crowd braving Friday's rain, there are plenty of people dying for more things to do Downtown. I'm sure we'll see that number grow, too, as the neighborhood's long list of new residential towers is completed.

And adding to the excitement of Friday's night market, I had the pleasure of working my required shift at the Carroll Gardens CSA. Plenty of fresh kale, zucchini, and cucumbers all around, and all in the beautiful setting of the Transit Garden.

Setting up at the Carroll Gardens CSA

Berries growing in the Transit Garden

If you've never been, take a look the next time you're near 2nd and Smith. It's amazing what has been done to this MTA property (it's located on the empty lot next to the Smith St. Substation). What might have been a barren spot next to the subway is instead a little oasis, thanks to the community members who have made a point of improving the neighborhood. Sometimes, it's the little things that make our city a great place to live.

Bringing Back the B71

It's no secret that Red Hook and its neighbors were some of the hardest hit areas by the MTA's 2010 budget cuts. While some efforts - new bus shelters and service augmentation for the B61, an extension of the B57 - have been made to remedy the service losses, some losses are still noticeable. One of those is the B71, which ran primarily along Union Street from Van Brunt Street to Crown Heights. Without it, there is no crosstown service between Atlantic Avenue and 9th Street. This leaves large swaths of Park Slope, Prospect Heights, and Crown Heights inaccessible from Carroll Gardens or Red Hook on public transit, despite their proximity.

The B71 was, by most measures, an underperformer. Its daily ridership stood at barely 1,000 daily weekday riders prior to cuts, making it one of the least utilized routes outside of Staten Island. 30 minute headways (slightly shorter during rush hour) and operations that ended before 10pm every night certainly didn't help make the route popular.  But the route did provide a vital connection between neighborhoods - one that has not been replaced since. With the MTA still considering what to do with its surplus, its worth throwing the B71's hat into the ring. The question is, what can we change to increase ridership on this corridor and make its return a worthwhile investment.

1. Extend the route. The old B71 ended with a loop on Van Brunt Street on the waterfront. It could instead be extended along Columbia and Van Brunt streets, following the B61's route to the IKEA terminal. This would provide additional connections from Red Hook to the subway, add additional destinations, such as Fairway and IKEA, for riders in Park Slope or Crown Heights. It would also be a boon to the commercial district along Van Brunt Street, providing new customers with better access. These areas have grown since the route was cut in 2010, and it is possible that an extension would serve as a strong boost to ridership.

2. Reconsider the timetable. The B71 provides a vital link to subway stations, but it is mostly a neighborhood connector, rather than a commuter route. A revisited B71 timetable should recognize this role, particularly with more appropriate hours. An route through food and drink strips in North Park Slope, Smith Street, and Red Hook demands hours that work for restaurant goers and bar patrons. While a 24 hour bus would be excessive, late hours on Friday and Saturday nights could serve to boost overall use of the line.

3. Bus Time. This will ultimately be rolled out on all MTA routes, but it's worth noting that being able to track a bus with long headways makes the route considerably more useful than having to guess. In a perfect world the MTA would be able to run buses on a more frequent schedule but absent that, using technology to cut down on the interminable wait for the next bus would go a long way to making the route more useful to everyone who uses it.

Thoughts on Speed Cameras, from a Former DC Resident (and Driver)

Yes, it looks like New York may finally get past legislative obstruction in Albany and approve a (minimal) bill allowing speed cameras in some of the city's highest risk school zones. It's a small - and incomplete - step, but this being New York, getting even this modest proposal has been fraught with every imaginable challenge.

Speed cameras, you see, seem to bring the worst out in drivers. Let's face it, speeding is taken as a right on most American roadways; there is the speed limit, then there is the driver's discretion, an "acceptable" amount over that limit that we are "supposed" to drive. Thus, 25 mph becomes 30 or 35, and so on. It's a mindset that has also been enabled by ineffective measurement technologies that, in many parts of the country, still render enforcement under +11 mph impossible. So when we start talking about implementing a fixed, permanent, accurate, you-may-never-speed-here-again solution, drivers see it as taking away a right.

And to an extent, we are. We're forcing them to obey the letter of the law, not the implied discretion they were taught exists. They're meant to change behavior by forcing people to slow down if they don't want a ticket; with a comprehensive enough network of cameras, it means people are forced to obey the law virtually everywhere. Of course, what we always here is that it's a money-grab by municipal authorities, taking advantage of drivers with repeated tickets. But it's not a tax, and it's not mandatory: if you don't want to pay it, just obey the letter of the law. 

Once upon a time, I owned a car in the home of the speed camera, Washington, DC. I even picked up a sizable ticket for doing 45 in a 35 on a long downhill stretch of Massachusetts Avenue. I was understandably upset about the fine, but like most drivers, I altered my behavior. In fact, that was my most lasting impression from the implementation of cameras all around the District: most drivers did change their speed to avoid tickets. My favorite anecdote was Connecticut Avenue, which is a five-lane commuter corridor stretching from downtown to major residential areas in DC and southern Maryland. It also is littered with speed cameras. As a city street, Connecticut is subject to a 30 mph speed limit throughout the District. 

And guess what? Drivers tend to go that speed. Get in your car during a free-flowing period of the day (30 mph would be a fantasy during rush hour), and you'll find that the speed of traffic around you sets a pace within a few miles per hour of the stated limit. Through the magic of enforcement, a major arterial has free-flowing traffic at a safe speed, and pedestrians have a safer route as they access the many businesses and residences located along Connecticut. And that's the kind of result that we can expect in New York - slower vehicles making pedestrian access safer, and our businesses and neighborhoods prospering as a result.

Let's hope Albany does the right thing and gets us started on this path.

Where Are You, Google?

It's been nearly a month since the Smith-9 Sts subway station reopened, restoring a vital link to southern Carroll Gardens and Red Hook. Unfortunately, you wouldn't know that if you checked the world's most popular mapping program, Google Maps. This surprises me; Google is very good with its transit applications, offering real-time data in countless cities (including the IRT lines in NYC) and a comprehensive data layer showing transit lines and bus stops. It's not as robust in New York as in, say, San Francisco or Portland (there, even the bus lines are shown on the map), but it's generally accurate and up-to-date.

That is what makes their failure a problem. By becoming the market leader and taking upon itself the mantle of transit expert, Google is also making a promise to the public: we will not let you down. When we go to Google for directions, there is an expectation that it will accurately reflect every line and every stop available. It's especially distressing to be let down in an economically distressed area such as Red Hook. For the past month, businesses that were battered by Hurricane Sandy and cut off from the world by the two year closure of Smith-9 Sts have been accessible again - and anyone using Google has been left unaware. To them, the nearest access point is still at Carroll St or 4 Av-9 St, or a bus ride on the B57 or B61. We can only wonder how many people have skipped out on a meal on lower Smith St or a venture into Red Hook for want of better information.

Of course, we can't blame Google for our own failures to search elsewhere. But the service's ubiquity also reveals out own vulnerabilities: without accurate information, we're flying blind.

Privatizing The Public Good

I'll start with a confession: I paid the outrageous asking price for Friday night tickets at GoogaMooga. I go to Smorgasburg in East River State Park more times than my wallet can probably handle. I like these things. I have fun at them. I'm not here to bitch and moan about their existence or play the New York Times' Lifestyles section and bemoan the influx of "hipsters" (does that word even have meaning at this point?) in Brooklyn.

That said, the rain yesterday and today does have me a little concerned. GoogaMooga is but one of many examples of our city parks being taken over by private events. GoogaMooga isn't your local charity holding a benefit concert on the park grounds; it's a privately-run, for-profit event that is closed to the general public (paid tickets Friday and free-but-ticketed general admission on Saturday/Sunday). According to the New York Times, the Prospect Park Alliance, which is charged with maintaining the park, is receiving a paltry $75,000 from the event's organizers to cover the cost of using the space for three days. That's $75,000 to repair any damage, like the massive amounts of grass that will be destroyed this weekend by foot traffic, or the large metal fences erected across the Nethermead.

Now I love a good festival, and I love the opportunity to sample, Smorg-style, the great offerings that were at GoogaMooga this year. But $75,000 doesn't seem like an appropriate amount, not only for the material damage a rain-soaked festival causes, but also to compensate the public for their lost time. Prospect Park is a public asset; not only did the non-ticketed public lose 3 days of access during the festival, they also lost several before and after (setup/takedown), and they will likely lose access to large swaths of the Nethermead over the summer as the area is roped off and re-seeded...all so we can do this again next May. As much as I love a good food/beer/music event, I'm not sure the public is being adequately compensated for its subsidy to for-profit organizers who are raking in over $100 per person in combined ticket/food/alcohol sales.

This, of course, speaks to a wider issues of privatizing our public spaces. The Atlantic Cities had a great article recently on several of New York's privately owned public spaces (POPS), and the significant restrictions placed on public access to benefit private owners and donors. This should be a source of concern to the public, especially as some of the city's newest parks - the High Line and Brooklyn Bridge Park - have utilized creative public/private partnerships to finance their construction and maintenance. While it seems great in the near-term to save taxpayers the money, it often means sacrificing access for all in favor of ticketed events or private parties. And in Queens, the city has found an even worse idea, selling prime parkland to a private developer, all for a yet-to-be-defined construction of new parkland elsewhere.

Public parks are some of the most egalitarian assets left in a city that is marked by a yawning - and growing - wealth divide. In the shadow of $100 million penthouses, they remain a place we can all enjoy, regardless of age, race or income. They present no barriers to entry, and we can stay in them as little or as long as possible. Whether it's a pocket park at a busy intersection or an Olmstead-designed refuge from urban life, a park is a public investment that is supposed to pay dividends to everyone, regardless of social status. Events such as GoogaMooga are great ways to attract people to our parks, and to hopefully win new fans in the process. But our elected officials should never forget who are parks are meant to benefit: us. We shouldn't lose a summer of access to valuable public spaces just to benefit a private promoter for three days. Just a private venue would, we need to ensure that New York City taxpayers are getting an adequate return when we allow an event onto our public spaces.

Contrasting Visions for Brooklyn Bridge Park

If you needed another reminder of development in Dumbo, look no further than the Empire Stores RFP Responses presentation released by Brooklyn Bridge Park. The stores, located next to the north end of the park (and the Tobacco Warehouse - home to Sunday Smorgasburg), represent a prime real estate parcel whose development will ultimately help finance the completion of Brooklyn Bridge Park. BBP's RFP to develop the parcel received 10 responses, all with a common theme: some mix of ground floor retail with offices above. Even so, these constrained guidelines yielded a rich array of options for the site and revealed diverging visions for the future of Brooklyn Bridge Park, Dumbo, and Brooklyn.

The Tragedy of the Commons

So what is it that makes these similar designs so remarkably different? Their approaches to common space. On the one hand, we have traditional designs that emphasize discrete, privately-held "common" areas (the ground floor and roof). Like a Fifth Avenue office building, they rigidly segregate the various  leasable spaces into individual storefronts, creating a modern shopping center-styled environment. In most locations, this wouldn't be a huge issue, but the Empire Stores are part of BBP, and their design is intended to complement the park. Large, separated retail spaces in a desirable area means high rents and limits prospective tenants to larger stores that can fill the space. In other words, it excludes the small, local merchants that give Dumbo - and Brooklyn - their distinctive feel. That feel is exactly what the BBP should be emphasizing, not plowing under with a muted design.

Luckily, there are numerous proposed designs that go the other way, creating an open, market-like atmosphere on the ground floor. They range in vision from the victorian-style market proposed by Team 1 to the more subtle food exchange and retail mix envisioned by Team 8. But all of these alternatives have an approach to common space that encourages free movement and interaction, and creates space for small vendors. Not only is that a distinctively Brooklyn approach to the space (one I would assume BBP would want to maximize), it is an approach that fits with the free circulation of the surrounding park and Tobacco Warehouse.

Team 1 Ground Floor / Image: BBP

A View, but for Whom?

The rooftop of the Empire Stores is another interesting area; it offers close-up views of the Brooklyn and Manhattan Bridges, not to mention sweeping panoramas of lower Manhattan and Downtown Brooklyn. Faced with the question of who should be able to enjoy such a unique space, the teams again diverged, though  not always in alignment with their respective ground floor visions. In the most extreme private space case, we have Team 4, which reserves the breathtaking vistas for the highest-paying office tenants. Others, such as Teams 6 and 7, create a semi-public atmosphere with private event space. While in theory this means anyone could be able to enjoy the area, the assumed high cost of renting the space virtually excludes the area's middle- and low-income residents.

Team 9's Sculpture Garden Rooftop / Image: BBP

Others take a very open and democratic approach to the rooftop space. Team 9, despite its decidedly uninspired ground floor, offers us a public sculpture garden and space for multiple small restaurants. Team 10's ambitious plan places a brewery on the roof, along with a 7,000-square foot hops garden. These approaches, and the other garden/restaurant mixes, create another public space that adds value to the park below. Even more so than on the ground floor, this comes down to a choice between exclusion - creating a space for the wealthy and well-connected - and accessibility to everyone.

Choose Inclusion

It's hard to call any of these designs perfect, but they do offer a stark view of the different ways BBP could develop. It's important that the park knows how different these visions are and how critical it is to emphasize an open, collaborative design that embodies the best of Brooklyn and BBP. This is not some private development parcel; BBP exists to benefit the public, and while the conservancy has an obligation to raise maximum funds in order to care for and build out the park, it also has an obligation to ensure these park amenities are available to everyone, regardless of social standing or income level. There are enough exclusive places in New York to hold $100,000 weddings or Goldman Sachs holiday parties - our public parks should not be among them. So if you have time, contact BBP and let them know that the winning design should be a place that emphasizes the things that make Brooklyn great - small, local businesses and a diverse population. Perhaps your comments can help inform their decision.

Democratize Transportation Planning with TrafficCOM

If you want to get more involved in local transportation planning, then look no further than TrafficCOM, a great new idea on Kickstarter. Their project creates a low cost, portable, durable traffic counter than can be deployed by individuals on local roads and bike lanes.

Why does this matter? TrafficCOM takes data that is virtually monopolized by state and local DOTs (and their contractors) and places it in the hands of individuals and local advocacy organizations. In short, it allows anyone to initiate a review of local conditions and advocate for a fix, using hard data instead of observations (e.g. this bike lane looks overtaxed or this road probably doesn't need another traffic lane). With private citizens and groups uploading data that is both open source and regularly updated, we can gain a better understanding of local and regional traffic patterns without the bureaucratic procurement processes of a DOT. That means a better understanding of where roads should or should not be widened, where traffic calming is needed, where bike lanes should be added or expanded, and where bus route can be modified to avoid bottlenecks.

Participatory Budget Voting Starts Today

A reminder to those living in the 39th District that Councilman Lander's office will be holding Participatory Budget voting today through April 7th. This is an opportunity for area residents to have a say in $1 million in discretionary funds that have been set aside to improve our neighborhood. Early voting is available April 2nd - 4th at Councilman Lander's office on 5th Avenue, and this weekend at various locations. Voters can select up to five projects, and funding decisions will be made based on which projects receive the most votes. You can prepare yourself by looking at the sample ballot and brief videos for each proposal.

This is a great way to speak directly to local elected officials about the issues that affect our communities. Councilman Lander's website runs through the top projects from 2012 and progress that has been made on them; last year 7 projects were ultimately funded, with most scheduled for completion this year. Several others identified by the voting process but not in the top 7 have also been pursued, with several already complete.

So without further ado, here are this blog's five recommendations for PB 2013:

1. Hicks Street Pedestrian Safety Improvements ($350,000). Given the racetrack nature of the northbound side of Hicks Street - two lanes with virtually zero clearance to either side - and the limited visibility afforded by the fencing over the BQE, this should be a top priority. Growth on the Columbia Street side of the BQE has meant - and will continue to mean - more pedestrian traffic between the Waterfront and Carroll Gardens. Ideally this side of Hicks would be cut down to one lane (as it already has on the southbound side) but absent that, improving pedestrian visibility and making physical changes such as curb extensions can go a long way toward improving pedestrian safety and avoiding potential tragedies. 

2. 3rd Street Green Corridor ($170,000). With the new Whole Foods under construction and the Lightstone Project set to move ahead, permeable surfaces are at a premium along the Gowanus Canal. This project would install enhanced planting boxes along 3rd Street between Bond and 3rd Avenue, adding much needed storm runoff diversion and enhancing a bleak but growing corridor. Plus, all that green will go nicely along side the 20,000 square-foot rooftop farm at Whole Foods.

3. Hamilton/Van Brunt Community Plaza ($205,000). This project gets added urgency from the fact that DOT will be reconfiguring this mess of an intersection - meaning there is limited time to add pedestrian-friendly amenities. A plaza here could serve as a catalyst for community activity on the Waterfront/Red Hook boundary and would tie in nicely with the current and future extensions of the Brooklyn Greenway running along Van Brunt.

4. Ocean Parkway Pedestrian Safety Improvements ($300,000). As with Hicks Street, this would address a dangerous stretch of roadway, adding new crosswalks, signage, stop lines, and curb extensions. 

5. Groundswell Community Mural Project Media Upgrade ($40,000). This is a very inexpensive investment that can reap huge dividends by helping at-risk youth find creative outlets. It helps that the work produced by Groundswell's artists adds an element of beauty to our communities that everyone can enjoy.

Get Excited: The Latest Citi Bike Map Is Out

Detail of Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn / Credit: DOT

It's (almost) here: the rollout of our very own bikeshare system, Citi Bike. Yes, we are years behind other major cities, but in fairness to DOT New York is a big place (and some people here really, really hate bikes). But for those of us who have been waiting to join the rest of the first world and enjoy a world class bikeshare system, we are just a few months away from being in luck.

Thanks to a bit of Sandy-related damage, not all of the system will roll out immediately. Instead, DOT will start with 293 stations (in blue on the map), expanding to 420 stations by the end of the year. That will add those gray points on the map, mostly in Bed-Stuy, Williamsburg, Greenpoint, and LIC.

So what does it mean for the average Brooklynite? Bikeshare systems like Citi Bike allow users to enjoy the benefits of bike ownership without the hassle of locking up at home or your destination, nor any responsibility for maintenance. Just take any available bike from a dock, and return it to an open docking space at your destination. With a well developed network, bikeshare is a great way to commute, run to the store, visit friends, even have a night out (the blog reminds you that biking drunk, while not technically illegal, is still a tremendously irresponsible idea). In DC, where Capital Bikeshare has been operating since 2010, red and gold bikes have become a mainstay of the morning and afternoon commutes; the biggest problems with the system have been associated with too much demand leading to occasional imbalances (full/empty docks) around rush hour. You can read about DC's success and see a great visualization of how extensive the daily flow of CaBi bikes at area blog Greater Greater Washington.

Here in South Brooklyn, we'll have to walk a little to enjoy the system, as Atlantic Ave is the de facto southern boundary for Citi Bike at this time. But with that little walk, this summer we'll be able to enjoy quick and easy bike trips to virtually anywhere in Manhattan south of Central Park, not to mention Brooklyn Bridge Park and DUMBO, Fort Greene and, later in the year, Williamsburg. And don't forget that DOT is still planning on adding another 180 or so stations. They collected thousands of suggestions in 2011-2012, and they are still working with community boards, including CB6, to determine the best locations. I'm partial to filling in some of the transit gaps along Columbia Street and in Red Hook, but there are plenty of places nearby that would benefit from another convenient transportation option. Have a look, have your say, and enjoy having another option to get from A to B.

Construction in New York (or, A Study in Incompetence)

The latest water main break. Photo by the author.

Having spent a few years working around major industrial construction projects, I like to think I know a few things about managing a construction site. That's why I've been so amused watching the 7-story apartment that is supposed to be going up along Columbia Street. For the first 6 months we lived here the site, little happened save for excavation. Then, at the end of January, something did happen. They broke a water main. We woke up to find the site next door flooded with 4+ feet of water. FDNY eventually pumped it dry, but work was stopped at the site for the better part of two months. It was, sadly, not much of a surprise. We had spent months watching the site be managed with a level of professionalism that was marginal at best - an aimless construction team animated by the occasional visit by what I can only guess is the owner of the property. From our vantage point, the construction contractor(s) were rarely managed by anyone.

The first flood. Photo by the author.

Fast forward to last week and - finally - work began again. They laid a partial slab foundation and just today completed excavation work on the site. In fact, it was around the time they completed excavation that I was roused from my desk to see what was going on. I looked out my window and saw, little to my surprise, water pouring into the newly excavated foundation. They had struck the water main. Again.

Which brings me to a broader issue I have with construction in New York. Coming from DC, I am used to large developers taking the lead, even with small buildings (our old 4 unit apartment in DC was owned, renovated, and managed by Douglas Development Corporation, one of the largest property development firms in the region). New York is not lacking in its Turners and others, but compared to most cities there seems to be an incredible number of small firms that both own and manage construction projects. I'm certainly a fan of encouraging small businesses, but I cannot help but feel that the prevalence of small management companies, less flush in cash or construction management expertise, breeds a culture of slipshod work and corner cutting that simply would not fly in another city or a company like Turner. 

Does that mean every small property developer is incapable? Of course not. But in New York this is a very important issue. In a city that is short on housing inventory, adding to the housing stock is one of the few tools available to relieve pressure on ever-increasing rents and sales prices. Prices along Columbia Street, where this apartment is going up, appreciated by 32% between 2004 and 2012, and there are few remaining sites on which to build. Incompetent construction management, then, isn't simply an inconvenience; it costs renters and buyers money by adding to construction costs and keeping new units out of the citywide housing inventory with endless delays. And that means it's in all of our interests to make sure construction companies in this city are held to the same high standards used in other cities.

As for the site? At the time of this posting, it's still filling with water. FDNY's pumps are failing to keep up with the volume spilling from the main. And it's looking like it will be another couple of months before they get back to work.

Small Fixes, Big Gains for the B61

Living on the waterfront means a lot of great things: lower rents in good neighborhoods, incredible views of the harbor and the Manhattan skyline, not to mention my own growing addictions to Calexico and Baked. But it also means a few inconveniences, namely a relatively long (for NYC) walk to the subway and limited bus routes. I'm thankful that we moved to the area after 2010, because I can only imagine how painful it must have been to see the B71, B75, and B77 - virtually all of the bus routes serving an area with limited subway service - axed. The MTA, for its part, has made some good faith efforts to mitigate and restore much of the service that was cut, mainly through service extensions and consolidations (with the glaring exception of Union St - leaving South Brooklyn with no crosstown options between Atlantic and 9th St), but there is much more the agency could be doing to benefit the area, particularly with its main bus route, the B61.

The B61 and the Downtown Problem

The B61 has only existed in its present form since 2010, when it was extended from Red Hook to Park Slope and severed at Downtown Brooklyn from the new B62. This created a new terminal for the route at the corner of Smith and Fulton streets, just outside the entrance to the Jay St-MetroTech station. That means the B61 provides connections from Red Hook and the waterfront to five subway lines: the F at Jay St; the F and G from Smith-9 St to 15 St-Prospect Park; the R at 4 Av-9 St and Jay St; and the A/C at Jay St. This may seem like a great deal of connections, but when you consider that most of the B61's route falls within the half-mile (10-12 minute walk) catchment for the F and G, and that those lines provide connections to the A, C, and R at some of the stations listed above, the advantages become less apparent.

The trouble for bus service in a city with such an expansive rail network is that it will almost invariably be perceived as a second-class form of public transportation. There are certainly reasons to knock the bus - its vulnerability to traffic, its relatively rough ride, its limited capacity - but a well-conceived bus network can complement rail with targeted, neighborhood-level services that the subway cannot provide. The B61 does this to some extent by providing direct service to Red Hook, which is partially served by a single subway station at Smith-9 St. Even so, the MTA is missing a great opportunity to make small adjustments that would yield big results. 

Simple Solutions

One of the most vexing issues with subway service in South Brooklyn is separation of the IRT lines (2/3/4/5) from the IND lines (A/C/F/G). The IRT was also separated from the BMT system until the recent opening of a connection between R trains at Court St and the 2/3/4/5 at Borough Hall. Elsewhere in South Brooklyn there are no opportunities to transfer, save for a possible two-stop connection via the R. This is where the B61's opportunity comes in. 

Until 2010, the B71 bus provided some measure of connection from F and G-served neighborhoods to the IRT at Grand Army Plaza and along Eastern Parkway. Since that cut, no direct transfer has existed. The B61's terminus, however, sits at the corner of Fulton and Smith - barely 3 blocks from the entrance of the Borough Hall station. This might sound like a non-issue. After all, do three blocks really prevent a transfer? Admittedly, some people already make the switch from the B61 to Borough Hall. But exceptions to the rule do not change the fact that a three block walk does not feel like a transfer (and for children, the elderly, and the disabled three blocks is a very real impediment). Three blocks might work on a one-off basis, but it would hardly be acceptable for an all-weather daily commute. A stop directly in front of Borough Hall, however, would feel like a regular bus-to-subway transfer.

So how can a change be made? Unlike many suggested changes to the transit system, this one comes at virtually no cost to the MTA. Instead of remaining at the Smith/Fulton stop (Jay St) as its terminus, the B61 would turn left onto Fulton St, as it normally does to start a new run. It would continue past Boerum Place (where it currently turns toward Atlantic) and instead proceed to the stop in front of Borough Hall, near the intersection of Joralemon and Court, where it would make its remain and wait to start a new run.

The result: B61 riders in Red Hook, Carroll Gardens, and Cobble Hill all would gain a convenient two-seat trip to four subway lines, linking them to job centers along 7th Avenue and the East Side, as well as growing Brooklyn communities in Prospect Heights and Crown Heights and cultural amenities at Grand Army Plaza, the Brooklyn Museum, and the Botanical Gardens. It would also provide greater access to the waterfront and Red Hook and generate new opportunities to discover the area's eclectic mix of shops and restaurants or to visit major shopping attractions such as IKEA. Not only would this benefit the communities along the way, it would also drive greater ridership on the B61, to the benefit of the MTA. 

Best of all, this could be accomplished with minimal cost or disruption to existing ridership patterns. The B61's route would remain unchanged, save for the bus making its return trip to Atlantic Ave along Court St (with the B57) instead of Boerum Place. Because the lost stop at Boerum and Fulton would be made up for by the new stop at Borough Hall, only one stop - at Boerum and Atlantic - would be lost, and another stop exists one block away at Court. The terminal change would also avoid disruptions to many of the riders at Jay St-MetroTech. Riders on the F could choose to catch the B61 at Smith-9 St instead, and R riders could transfer at Court St. The largest potential disruption would be A/C riders, who would have to walk to Borough Hall to transfer to the B61 at the beginning of its route (but would be able to transfer to the subway without issue).

This is a simple fix that can be accomplished at minimal cost, be it financial or political. It adds new transfers and removes some of the significant overlap between the B61 and the F/G services. The question I leave is, does this make sense? Would you be more likely to transfer if the bus stopped directly in front of Borough Hall? Would having a transfer available make you more inclined to ride?

LICH Closing May Benefit Neighborhood

SUNY Downstate is expected today to recommend shuttering its Long Island College Hospital facility on Atlantic Avenue, leaving around 2,000 employees at the facility in jeopardy of losing their jobs. The facility has been losing money hand-over-fist since its acquisition by SUNY in 2011, and it has been determined by SUNY that the facility is its most attractive option to sell. That means - you guessed it - SUNY will sell the LICH property for redevelopment.

This is a development (pun intended) that will rub a lot of people the wrong way. After all, it means further reducing healthcare choices for the borough, in addition to the 2,000 jobs that may be lost. But the sale of LICH can also be a great opportunity for the far west end of Atlantic Avenue to reinvent itself and serve as a crucial community link between the growing recreation opportunities on the waterfront and the burgeoning retail and entertainment district on Atlantic from Downtown Brooklyn  to the Barclays Center.

Connection to the Water

Development of Pier 6 (and more recently, Pier 5) at Brooklyn Bridge Park has created an uncomfortable realization that, while the park is one of New York's gems, there aren't many easy ways to access the southern portions. The only major roadway linking the park to Downtown, Atlantic Ave, is less than hospitable, thanks to on/offramps for the BQE and a dreary underpass that is slated to receive a makeover in the near future. Complicating this is LICH, whose presence creates a long, lifeless stretch on the south side of Atlantic from between Henry and Hicks Sts to the BQE.

The Atlantic Avenue "funderpass" / Credit: Atlantic Ave BID

Mixed-use redevelopment of the LICH site would invigorate this stretch of Atlantic and encourage foot and bike traffic between Brooklyn Bridge Park and the Atlantic Avenue BID. Ground-floor retail and restaurants would add life to this stretch of Atlantic and help to shore up businesses on the north side of Atlantic by increasing foot traffic in the area. New housing units would also liven the area (I will leave discussions about height on Atlantic for another time), introducing hundreds of new households to the neighborhood. All of this would drastically improve the walkability of western Atlantic and encourage new connections, both between the park and Downtown, and between Cobble Hill and Brooklyn Heights via a more engaging common boundary.

Although it is de rigueur for groups to argue against any new development in Brooklyn, replacing an inward-focused hospital center with a vibrant, mixed use community would be a win for Cobble Hill and the Atlantic Avenue BID. That does not mean it should be a giveaway: whoever ultimately develops the site should bring tangible benefits to community members of all income levels, and not simply build luxury condos with a prime view of Manhattan. That means working hard on concessions such as affordable units (or perhaps a New York trial for inclusionary zoning) and reopening the street grid on Pacific St, but it is far from impossible. 

It is sad to see a major local employer go under, but given the economics facing LICH, this was probably inevitable. The sale of LICH represents a rare large scale opportunity to add new life and vibrancy to the neighborhood without major displacements or disruptions. Proper development will help cement a corridor of activity from Brooklyn Bridge Park to the Barclays Center, pumping money into local businesses throughout. Let's hope that whoever purchases the property gets it right and seizes the opportunity to become the final link in Atlantic Avenue's renaissance.