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.