From Romance to Realism: Connecting the Boroughs

“What thrills me about trains is not their size or their equipment but the fact that they are moving, that they embody a connection between unseen places.”

--Marianne Wiggins, The Shadow Catcher, 2008

Yesterday, Times architecture critic Michael Kimmelman wrote about the need for a streetcar line to connect the burgeoning neighborhoods along the Queens and Brooklyn waterfronts. While some of these neighborhoods (such as Downtown Brooklyn and Long Island City) are well served by transit vis-à-vis the “Manhattan Core,” they lack reliable, efficient options for inter-borough travel (with the notable exception of the ever-maligned but ever-more-popular G train).

In endorsing a streetcar line (nicknamed the “desire line”), Kimmelman admits that buses may provide a “more obvious solution,” but that a bus would lack the “romance” of a streetcar. Kimmelman is nothing if not consistent—his columns on the current and future state of Penn Station often dwell on what was lost in the destruction of the old Penn Station rather than necessarily where the rebuilding of a new “head house” should rank in the pecking order of Midtown Manhattan’s public transportation wish-list.

Now, I’ll admit—as someone who dreams of the California Zephyr and gets excited by National Train Day, more sympathetic to this view, I could not be. 

However, there are bolder, more urgent priorities than the “desire line” that the City and State of New York should be focusing on to improve inter-borough service outside Manhattan. Indeed, the best plan of all—the “X” line—would seize on existing rights of way to stimulate investment in neighborhoods beyond the waterfront that could make up the job corridors of New York’s 21^st century economy.

The Regional Plan Association first proposed the “X” line, which stretches from the Bay Ridge waterfront to the South Bronx in a semicircle route, in its Third Regional Plan in 1996. And since that time, many folks with far more knowledge of NYC transit than yours truly—from Michael Frumin (whose map is shown below) to Ben Kabak to Andrew Lynch have added to the chorus of voices clamoring for this transformative cross-town line.

In short, the “X” line would travel along the old Bay Ridge Line, which makes a broad arc through southern Brooklyn from Bay Ridge to Broadway Junction. It would then use the Canarsie Line (L) until it turns towards Bushwick. It would then run through Ridgewood, Middle Village, Maspeth, Jackson Heights, and Astoria before rising onto the Hell Gate Bridge and terminating in the South Bronx.

In 2012, Kimmelman declared, “We have become a city too cynical about big change, resigned to the impossibility of unraveling bureaucratic entanglements, beholden to private interests, inured to commercialism and compromise.”

I agree with this critique—but it is imperative that our response to it be properly directed to maximize scarce resources and build up communities that have traditionally been underserved by transit and are in need of investment for future growth.

This week, the RPA is hosting its annual Assembly with an eye toward its Fourth Regional Plan. While it is beyond dispute that the waterfront districts have benefitted from zoning changes, reductions in crime, and other public efforts over the past 20 years, they have also been able to attract billions in private investment even without ideal cross-borough transit access (though the East River Ferry has significantly improved this service).

As a result, my hope is that the RPA uses this opportunity to make the “X” line a centerpiece of its vision for regional transportation. More than ever before, connectivity outside the Manhattan Core is central to New York’s continued success and few projects hold the potential to bring communities together in support of mass transit like the “X”.

Big Data and Mass Transit: From Bikes to Buses

“I have travelled the length and breadth of this country and talked with the best people, and I can assure you that data processing is a fad that won’t last out the year.”

-- Editor, Prentiss Hall Books, 1957

Last week, the Globe profiled an effort by 23-year-old entrepreneur Matthew George to use data analytics to provide “pop-up” bus service across many underserved routes in the Cambridge-Boston area. This “pop-up” service—called Bridj—is designed to use data about “where people live, work, and play” to predict where non-stop service is needed and adjust schedules based on time of day/day of week, etc.

George’s introduction of disruptive analytics to the metro-Boston transit network is long overdue and I’m anxious to see how his system works (and to try it myself come July 4th weekend). But, as noted by MIT Professor Nigel Wilson, George’s service (which is expected to launch at a cost of $5-8 pre trip) has the potential to siphon riders from the MBTA. Indeed, while the Bridj homepage champions “Better Transit. For All,” it is not yet clear whether the business model can rely solely on routes not directly served by the T.

In a normal setting, competition would be an unquestionable good—with the better product/price/service winning out over time. However, public transit is a unique animal—a deeply subsidized public good that must cater to the needs of very low-income city dwellers (among others).

To his credit, George seems quite cognizant of this fact and has indicated that he hopes to reduce fares to a price approaching a single-ride T-pass ($2-2.50). However, it is ultimately not the job of entrepreneurs like George to worry about how their innovations might affect competitors like the MBTA.

Instead, as I briefly noted last year, what the MBTA and other transit agencies from New York City’s MTA to the smallest regional network in Berkshire County need to do, is to get in the data analytics game themselves. In Boston, this effort should include investing in smaller vans that can operate at lower cost than articulated buses, depending on demand, GPS tracking to allow riders to plan their trips, and demand-responsive transport during late nights and weekends. In the spirit of George’s “pop-up” service, demand responsive transport covers a fixed service area but without fixed routes, allowing it to cater to fluctuations in ridership.

This type of planning should not be limited to buses, but should instead be used to integrate a municipal transit network’s bicycles as well. In NYC, CitiBike recently released a trove of data charting hundreds of thousands of rides and, as shown in the graph below from the NYU Rudin Center for Transportation Policy and Management, there is a slight, but meaningful correlation between subway disruptions and use of CitiBike along those routes.

Dubbed “reactionary biking” by the Rudin Center, this pattern should lead to partnerships between the MTA and CitiBike. For instance, when there is a planned service outage—especially a long-term outage, like the 5-week closure of the G train’s Greenpoint Tube planned for this summer—MTA should not only provide replacement bus service, but also work with CitiBike to extend bike share to affected communities. Similarly, the two systems should share data on ridership so that CitiBike can do a better job of balancing stations near transit hubs which, at certain times of the day, are overrun with passengers (most notably on the Lexington Line (456)).

In 2012, Peter Sondergaard of the Gartner Group declared, “Information is the oil of the 21st century, and analytics is the combustion engine.”

If Sondergaard is right, public transit systems cannot sit back in the horse and buggy age while private companies like Bridj act like the Maseratis of the data world. They need to get in the game themselves and use “big data” to increase efficiency and improve service for the millions of Americans who rely on buses, trains, trams, and bike share.

The "Magic Semicircle": The Future of the Route 128 Corridor

“Route 128 is more than a highway…It is, as the blue signs posted for many years, ‘America’s Technology Region.’”

--Alan Earls, Route 128 and the Birth of the Age of High Tech, 2002

This week, the Martin Institute for Prosperity published a new report, “Start-up City: The Urban Shift in Venture Capital and High Technology.” Written by University of Toronto/NYU Professor Richard Florida (author of The Rise of the Creative Class), the report finds that while “[s]uburban high tech is not going away…the newest and most innovative developments in the industry are likely to emerge from urban and urban-like locations.”

While the 128 corridor remains, in Florida’s words, a “classic suburban nerdistan,” the highway once known as “the road to nowhere” has lost share of VC funding in recent years to Cambridge and Boston.  Indeed, while the “978” remains the 15^th largest recipient of VC funding—with 42 deals worth nearly $350 million in 2012—there is room to grow VC funding on the 128 belt—particularly in Essex County, as shown in the map below.

Source: "Start-up City" Report, Martin Institute, p.25

How then can Massachusetts poiicymakers ensure that the “Massachusetts Miracle” of the 1970s, which witnessed the establishment of Route 128 as one of the nation’s leading tech hubs does not fade into the Massachusetts mirage? [for a terrific primer on Route 128’s history, check out “Silicon Valley and Route 128: The Camelots of Economic Development,” in the May 2013 issue of the Journal of Applied Research in Economic Development].

We can start to answer that question by defining what cities and towns in Essex County cannot do: become dense metropolises like New York City. The infrastructure of the North Shore won’t allow it and the proud history of the Essex County National Heritage Area precludes communities from tectonic shifts in development priorities.

To state the obvious, Northeast Massachusetts can’t compete with New York and San Francisco on the playing field of the “global city.” Instead, our region must leverage its unique assets to drive growth in a way that shows fidelity to history and takes advantage of new modes of suburban living that emphasize mixed-use, sustainable neighborhoods.

We already have models of what these walkable suburban centers can look like. Salem and Lynn earn relatively high scores from WalkScore, but when you drill deeper into the mapping, it is clear that the downtowns of these ancient cities are extremely walkable. Not coincidentally, these downtowns are located near train stations that can whisk residents to Boston in about a half hour.

In recent years, development throughout NE Mass has focused on walkable neighborhoods and live-work environments. As stated in the 2009 Bridge Street Revitalization Plan prepared for Salem, “The Bridge Street Neck neighborhood should be an active mixed-use neighborhood, incorporating lively commercial and residential areas. The neighborhood should have a safe and enjoyable pedestrian environment that connects its different amenities and serves its residents and businesses.” The City of Beverly has also promoted its walkable downtown in its effort to woo business to the home of the Panthers.

Governor Deval Patrick must have been listening. Three years later, he announced a plan called the “Compact Neighborhoods Policy” which calls for the construction of multi-family homes, rental apartments, and starter homes near jobs, transit, and city and town centers. Providing incentives to cities and towns to engage in such “smart growth” is one of the keys to ensuring the continued vitality of the suburban ring, not just the entrepreneurial engines of Boston and Cambridge.

In addition to embracing smart growth and walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods, Essex County also needs to do more to capitalize on the creativity of our college students. Gordon College in Wenham, Endicott College in Beverly, Salem State University in Salem, Northshore CC campuses throughout the region, Merrimack College in North Andover—each of these institutions of higher learning should be nodes for innovation on the North Shore.

Public-private partnerships that position incubators and affordable housing near campuses (linked to downtowns with free/low-cost bus/van transportation) can help to ensure that graduates not only see Essex County as a great place to learn, but also as a prime location to start a business and raise a family. Salem State’s Enterprise Center is a terrific start, but more can be done to harness this enduring asset. In particular, universities should actively partner with existing private sector incubators with proven results, from Newburyport’s CleanTech Center to Beverly’s North Shore InnoVentures.

This last element leads me to my final ingredient for the success of the Route 128 corridor—preserving the natural treasures and community assets that make Essex County such a sought-after place to live. This means protecting our beaches, from Salisbury and Crane to Good Harbor and Preston, as well as taking advantage of our history to drive tourism.

But it also means continuing to invest in our schools, many of which consistently rank among the best in Massachusetts. Salem Academy Charter School ranks 5^th in the State and 139^th in the nation, serving a diverse student body where 2 in 5 students are economically disadvantaged. And last year, Masconomet Regional High School ranked in the top 15 in statewide testing on math and science.

Route 128 may no longer be known as “America’s Technology Region,” but on the North Shore, it remains a critical job corridor in the modern innovation economy—one that can and should be exploited to transform the ancient industrial cities and shipbuilding ports of Essex County into engines of creative class growth.

Bike Share: Public Health + Public Transit = Public Subsidy?

“To ride a bicycle is in itself some protection against superstitious fears, since the bicycle is the product of pure reason applied to motion. Geometry at the service of man! Give me two spheres and a straight line and I will show you how far I can take them. Voltaire himself might have invented the bicycle, since it contributes so much to man’s welfare and nothing at all to his bane. Beneficial to the health, it emits no harmful fumes and permits only the most decorous speeds. How can a bicycle ever be an implement of harm?”

-- Angela Carter, “The Lady of the House of Love”, 1979

Last week, the City of Boston announced an innovative partnership with the Boston Medical Center that allows doctors to “prescribe” memberships to Beantown’s “Hubway” bike share system for as little as $5 a year.

The  “Prescribe-a-Bike” program, which comes with a free helmet, is designed to combat an urgent public health crisis: obesity. As noted by the Boston Globe, more than 1 in 4 low-income residents in Boston is obese—twice the rate of higher-income residents.

My precious "Founding Member" key

To date, New York has not made a similar commitment to ensuring that all Gothamites have access to its bike-share program, CitiBike. As DNAInfo reported, of the first 62,000 annual members, only 285 were residents of the New York City Housing Authority (less than 0.5 percent of the total), despite considerable outreach efforts by the NYC Department of Transportation. One considerable barrier continues to be cost. While Boston offers discounted memberships for $5, New York’s discounted membership still costs $60.

Despite innovative public health initiatives to curb smoking and encourage healthy eating, the Bloomberg Administration left office with New York still in the grips of an obesity epidemic.

As noted in NYC’s “Take Care Report”, published in September 2013, more than 50 percent of adults and 40 percent of children in grades K-8 are either overweight or obese. More than 5000 New Yorkers die each year from obesity-related illness. Black New Yorkers are almost three times as likely, and Hispanics twice as likely, as whites to die from diabetes. Furthermore, people living in very high poverty remains twice as likely to report not eating any fruits or vegetables on a daily basis.

New York should follow Boston’s lead by viewing bike share as a core element of the City’s public health infrastructure. By working with our world-class hospitals, we too can curb obesity by “prescribing” bikes as a healthy, efficient option for commuting and recreation.

Of course, bike share isn’t just good public health policy. It’s smart public transportation, too. New Yorkers have taken over 7 million Citibike trips covering over 13 million miles since the system launched last May. By comparison, the East River Ferry—which most have seen as a smashing success—provides about 1.2 million rides annually.

Bike share is now an integrated part of mass transit infrastructure in cities across the country and around the world. It’s time we started treating them that way.

That means amending the federal tax code to permit bike share membership fees to qualify for commuter tax benefits. Today, the federal transit benefits program subsidizes parking fees—encouraging drivers to bring their automobiles and the congestion they create into the hearts of America’s cities. And yet, bike share—with all its attended positive consequences—remains outside the ambit of that critical benefit program.

In addition, cities need to work with private sector partners—as New York City has done with Billy Bey ferry company and others—to expand availability of bike share to new neighborhoods using public dollars, rather than assuming that bike share should be self-sustaining purely on the backs of its users.

Lastly, we need to do a better job of integrating bike share siting decisions into broader, regional mass transit capital programs. For instance, in New York, CitiBike must work with the MTA to plan how bike share can augment the effect of new Select Bus Service routes.

Bike share is here to stay. The question is: will we have the foresight to view its prosperity as part of a broader public health effort and an integrated public transit system? For New Yorkers, Bostonians, and others, here’s hoping the answer is yes.

The Rebirth of the American City and the Future of Intercity Bus Service

Two kinds of people wait in the Port Authority Bus Terminal near Times Square. Some are waiting for buses. Others are waiting for death.

--McCandlish Phillips, New York Times (18 May 1970)

As is my custom on long weekends, I took a bus (this time, Greyhound’s YO! Bus) from New York City to Boston (en route to Essex County). YO! Bus, which serves the Boston-NYC-Philadelphia market, is one of many players in a curbside bus industry that has proliferated in recent years, as “Chinatown” bus operators and international competitors (like the UK’s Megabus) have entered a market previously dominated by Greyhound/Peter Pan.

This growth, which emerged in the late 1990s after decades of declining ridership, corresponded with the rebirth of American cities—not just in the Northeast Corridor, but across the country. That rise continues unabated, with Inter-city bus travel growing by 7.1% in 2011, compared with 1.5% for air and 1.16% for rail, according to DePaul University.

Many cities, including Boston, require bus operators to use indoor terminals. However, New York City’s main terminal, the Port Authority Bus Terminal (PABT) at 42^nd Street and 8^th Avenue—the world’s busiest (225,000 passengers daily)—has no openings, thanks in part to pitiful trans-Hudson train service, which leads the PABT to be the destination for commuter buses from New Jersey. As a result, operators have sought and received approval for pick-up and drop-off sites throughout Manhattan, Brooklyn, and Queens.

This has led to significant community opposition, with neighborhoods fearful of the effects of pickups and dropoffs late into the night—from idling buses and crowded sidewalks, to noisy travelers and reduced parking. Not only does the curbside model have negative effects on communities, it also is less desirable for travelers, who are forced to brave the elements and who would—all things equal—prefer greater multi-modal access near the city core.

In NYC, the solution to this problem is well known—replacement/expansion of the PABT. However, while the Port Authority recently announced an 18-month study of possible expansion, the 2014-2023 capital plan does not include funding for such a project. At a time in which the Port’s balance sheet is saddled with billions in cost-overruns related to the rebuilding of the World Trade Center and the WTC-PATH terminal, where would such funding come from?

One obvious answer would be from the valuable air rights the Port owns atop its Times Square terminal. A plan in 2008 valued these rights and the rents that could be secured in connection with those rights, to be worth about $500 million. Since that time, the price of air rights in the Midtown area has risen further, especially for residential construction, providing a source of private capital that will help reduce the burden on tolls at Port crossings.

Regardless of the funding mechanism, one thing seems certain—the intercity bus market and the demand for space in Midtown Manhattan isn’t gong away anytime soon. With low barriers to entry (in NYC, permits are issued for three years at a cost that varies based on the number of weekly trips made), the market is ripe for more disruption by smaller players. That very prospect has led the American Bus Association, a trade group representing large operators, to call for more regulation of the industry. While all buses should meet basic safety standards, erecting further barriers to protect the position of the larger players is inappropriate and should be resisted by city and state leaders who must recognize the importance of intercity links to economic growth.

Indeed, while low-cost, environmentally-friendly bus service has been revived by the rise of America’s cities, buses also add fuel to that rise—linking campuses and job corridors to create economic growth opportunities at the regional level. Cities and transit agencies like the Port Authority must do their part to embrace this development by investing in bus terminals—which improve modal connectivity and reduce the burden of curbside pickups on communities—and can, if well-designed, become a destination in their own right.