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.