due urban mobilities | 2015

Urban MobilitiesMS Design and Urban Ecologies Studio 2 | May 2015

An exploration into the complex ecosystems of waste generation, collection and disposal in New York City, pg 10

Alternative Mobilities as a method for facilitating bottom-up transportation for under-serviced communities, pg 42

A community-inclusive planning process for the design of an interconnectivity transit plan to ensure mobile equity within this rapidly

developing waterfront neighborhood, pg 66

An exploration of emerging ecologies that originate from the Brooklyn Queens Expressway, pg 88

Cultivating parallel and emergent processes of participation and convergence through the already existing Participatory Budgeting (PB)

interface of resident participation, pg 110

Urban MobilitiesMS Design and Urban Ecologies Studio 2 | May 2015

2 WELCOME: Editors letter

2015 Design and Urban Ecologies Studio 2School of Design StrategiesParsons School of DesignNew York, NY Printed by CreateSpace

Urban Mobilities 3

Editors letterIn Spring 2015, the MS Design and Urban Ecologies Studio 2 focused on urban mobilities. By mobilities we refer to the capability of things and people to move but also to the networks, infrastructures and flows that make them capable of movement and that enable mobility.

Student teams focused on studying existing and designing new mobility infrastructures and systems along the Brooklyn-Queens waterfront, all in search for embedded possibilities in the spaces of mobility to act as the repository and relay for cultural imagination, community connections and for strengthening local ecological, economic, and political resources.

By foregrounding mobilities as the theme of Studio 2, we proposed that mobility is a key for understanding processes of production of urban space, particularly in the context of globalization. Working to understand how urban citizenship is constituted by examining regimes and modes of urban mobility helped students define dimensions of the public realm and civil society that need articulation by creating new connectivities and re-energizing the existing ones.

Miodrag Mitrasinovic, Adam Lubinsky, and Aran Baker, faculty

4 WELCOME: Contributors

Gamar MarkarianBorn to an Armenian-Lebanese family in Beirut, Gamar received her BS in Landscape design and Ecosystem Management in 2005 and taught and worked at the American University of Beirut, Lebanon and EARTH University, Costa Rica. in 2008, Gamar co-founded Atelier Hamra; a landscape architecture office in Beirut Lebanon. She is currently mastering urban design at the American University of Beirut, and Design and Urban Ecologies at Parsons / New York.

Darcy Bender is a designer currently living n Bushwick, Brooklyn. She studied architecture at University of Oregon where her thesis focused on the influence of mapmaking on the architectural process. Since graduating, she has worked in affordable housing construction, retail display and as a freelance designer, maker and handy woman.

Silvia Xavier was born in Belo Horizonte, Brazil, where she completed her bachelors degree in Product Design. After graduation she worked for the wood and furniture industry. Currently living in New York, she is expanding her design experience, shifting from products and services to larger artifacts and systems, focusing on the study of urban infrastructures and material flows. Her goal is to engage in innovative and critical practices, working on multidisciplinary projects to address the continuous development of cities and the environment.

Alexandra Venner (Zanny) is motivated by big mountains, people, and the processes of city-making. As a young woman balancing a rich city life with never-ending mountain invitations, Zanny is learning to find a way to let adventure, education and work coalesce and resonate into a single way of seeing and acting in the world. The life she lives, as an elite athlete, urban practitioner, and backcountry traveler, is her launching point.

Tamara Streefland Tamara is an urbanist and earth Scientist. She is committed to designing viable urban projects at the interface of social and natural resiliency. She is currently working on Constellation Project, a network of gathering spaces that are connected by vegetated flows of water infrastructure in Queens.

Bernardo Loureiro is an urbanist and architect from So Paulo, Brazil. He is mainly interested in the intersection of cities and landscapes, and in the materials and flows that underpin this relationship.

Wasteland, pg 10

Contributors

Urban Mobilities 5

Tait MandlerTait Mandler is an anthropologist, ecologist, and urbanist exploring methodologies for design interventions into socio-spatial issues of justice and inequality. Adamantly transdisciplinary in approach, Tait likes participatory co-creation that brings people together. Also: political ecology, science and technology studies, queer theory, practices of direct democracy, and trying to disrupt the capitalist system whether in the classroom or in the streets.

Alexander Valencia is from New York City studying Architecture and Design and Urban Ecologies at The New School. Alexander is dedicated to bridging the gap between architecture and urban Ecologies/Design in a provocative and progressive manner to give a new light into the possibilities of the Built Environment.

Alexa Jensen is a passionate urbanist, designer, life traveller, positivity engager and serial coffee drinker. Currently finishing her first year of her MS in Design and Urban Ecologies, Alexa previously graduated with a degree in Architecture from the University of Utah and went on to manage a team of employees while working within a design firm. She hopes to continue to study the complex inner workings of urban landscapes and begin to turn this information into strategic action all while exploring, enjoying the outdoors and hiking with her dog, Bowie.

Mariana Bomtempo is an Architect and Urbanist graduated at the Universidade de Brasilia, Brazil, in the beginning of 2013. Mariana has experience working with residencial and institutional architecture, construction, graphic design and urban planning.

Masoom Moitra is an architect, urban-activist, artist, researcher, dissenter, designer and student organizer from Mumbai. She works on urban issues that involve participation in collaborative and creative struggles for claiming the right to the city for those who are overlooked by the state and its allies.

Alternative Mobilities, pg 42

6 WELCOME: Contributors

Drew Vanderburg is an artist and street performer who has parlayed his theatrical training into a sociopolitical vehicle of urban transformation. He has worked extensively as a director and designer in the NYC downtown theater scene, but now designs for the world stage. Drew believes in love and fun as the antidotes to fear and oppression.

Michael Stepniak has worked in policy research and analysis in the public sector on issues including zoning, healthcare, and inter-municipal cooperation. He completed his BA in Urban Studies at Wayne State University. Michael is from Detroit, Michigan. He is a former construction and factory laborer, a local history buff, and sometime blogger of local urban issues..

Shibani Jadhav is an architect from India. Her interest lies in the relationship between the built, the unbuilt and the forces that govern these forms. Currently she is exploring the realm of intraregional migration, causes and its effect on the place of origin and destination.

Renata Benigno is Brazilian and received her bachelor in Architecture and Urbanism from the University of Brasilia. She has worked as an intern in different architecture offices in her city and later as an architect of real estate development at Odebrecht Realizaes, where she worked on various projects, in multidisciplinary groups. After completing her master program, she plans to engage with innovative urban practices and collaborate with the creation of new ways to reshape the urban.

Nadine Rasheed is a Lebanese interior architect pursuing her MS in the Design and Urban Ecologies program on a Provosts Scholarship, in addition to completing a post-graduate certificate in Sustainability Strategies. She is interested in the interplay of community engagement strategies and planning processes and their role in shaping the built environment. Prior to her New School studies, she oversaw large-scale interior architecture and design projects in the Middle East and Europe, designing hotels and other structures in Dubai, Amman, Cairo and Athens. She holds a BA in Interior Architecture from Notre Dame University in Lebanon.

Denilyn Arciaga With roots in Chicago, her fascination with the urban has led her to work, volunteer, and explore 15 countries spanning 3 continents. With an eclectic rsum, her passion has grown around endangered slum communities due to globalization. Denilyn obtained her BA in Architecture at the University of Illinois in Chicago and is currently in her first year of the DUE program. What she loves most about it: working with culturally diverse people from different fields gives her the ability to learn more about the global.

Parallel Movement Systems + Flows, pg 66 BQEThe In Between, pg 88

Urban Mobilities 7

Max FreedmanAs a Joker with Theatre of the Oppressed NYC, he has facilitated the creation and performance of original plays about homelessness, incarceration, racial discrimination, and gender identity. For the New-York Historical Society, he created and teaches a program for middle-school students using theater to explore and activate American history. He previously worked in community engagement for arts organizations in New York and Washington, DC. Born in New York City, raised in Los Angeles, he has lived in Bedford-Stuyvesant since 2012.

Maria Guadalupe is a Mexican architect that has worked in the design of vertical housing and in the diffusion of sustainable practices for large scale projects in Mexico City. She has been invited to publish and lecture some of them. Now, she is trying to accomplish better social and environmental strategies in a more complex and urban scale through the Design and Urban Ecologies Program.

Mateo Fernndez-Muro Architect in 2011 from Universidad Politcnica de Madrid (UPM) and Master Degree in Advanced Architectural Projects (MPAA) in 2013 from Escuela Tcnica Superior de Arquitectura de Madrid (ETSAM), where he is now a PhD candidate researching on the political relation between spatial fictions and conflict in the post-democratic city. He is co-founder of Displacements Journal (www.displacementsjournal.com) and collaborates with Cultural Landscape Research Group (GIPC) at ETSAM. Currently studying a Master of Design and Urban Ecologies (MSDUE) at Parsons The New School for Design, New York.

Kartik Amarnath is a recent graduate holding a BA in Biology with minors in Anthropology and Philosophy. He was a member of DePauw Universitys Honor Scholar program where his senior thesis focused on the urban ecology of slum communities in Chennai, India. His primary academic interests are in urban political ecology, environmental health, and critical theory. He has prior field research experience studying environmental health in urban Atlanta, migrant farm worker camps in the Southeastern United States, and slum resettlement projects in Chennai. He spent his childhood living in four countries and graduated from high school at the American Embassy School in New Delhi, India. For the 2013-2014 academic year, Kartik was in Kuala Lumpur researching accessibility and agency for the historic blind community of his mothers childhood neighborhood.

Dimitra Kourri is a practicing architect and future urbanist. As an architect she enjoys experimenting with materiality and creating healthy, sustainable environments. As an Urbanist she is interested in issues that affect urban development and the future of urbanity. Moreover, she is concerned with not only cross-cultural and historic perceptions of urban developments, but also exploring the associated socio-economic disparities that so often influence the urban design discipline.

Walter Petrichyn was born and raised in Windsor, Ontario. He received a Bachelor (Honors) of Arts at the University of Windsor in 2013, and studied at Concordia University in Montreal in 2010. His involvement in community engagement and his interests in urbanism, art, producing radio and films all emerged to find The New School to undergo a Master of Science degree in Design and Urban Ecologies.

BQEThe In Between, pg 88 Towards a Resourceful Sunset Park, pg 110

Alternative MobilitiesBased on a study of the Chinatown Dollar Van system, the Alternative Mobilities project is a method for facilitating bottom-up transportation for under-serviced communities. Read more on page 42.

Parallel Movement System + Flows analyzes the public transit along the Brooklyn/Queens waterfront and the impacts of the Mayors ferry proposal. Our project proposal in Red Hook provides a community-inclusive planning process for the design of an interconnectivity transit plan in order to ensure mobile equity within this rapidly developing waterfront neighborhood. Read more on page 66.

New York City: a dynamic convergence of Mobilities

8 WELCOME: Location map

Wasteland is an exploration into the complex ecosystems of waste generation, collection and disposal in New York City. Our group's vision is to create a more visible, equitable, and tenable waste stream across the expansive geography of New York City through 3 complementary strategies: (1) create the NYC waste stream visibility website to make the process of waste mobility transparent; (2) move the conversation around 'waste to energy' from conflict to action; and, (3) create civic and community-based waste collection centers at the community district scale. Read more on page 10.

BQEThe in between The project explores emerging ecologies that originate from the Brooklyn Queens Expressway. The main aim of the proposal is to transform the in between spaces into social and transit hubs by creating collective initiatives to activate these leftover spaces that are currently underused. Read more on page 88.

Resourceful Sunset Park builds upon the already existing Participatory Budgeting (PB) interface of resident participation to cultivate parallel and emergent processes of participation and convergence, thereby carving out discursive and political ruptures that counter predominant top-down master planned approaches to the climate crisis and foregrounds environmental justice. Making the asymmetric social dimensions of urban change more visible and expanding upon them to shift power relations can help ameliorate the inherent limitations of top-down and technocratic practices of transformation that often put environmentally overburdened communities in further risk. Harnessing the PB process, we strive to build up the transformative potential of neighborhood residents, thereby re-signifying the knowledge and experiences of historically marginalized residents and countering the trend of urban transformation grounded in exclusionary forms of decision-making. Read more on page 110.

Urban Mobilities 9

10 FEATURE: Group name

WastelandDarcy Bender | Bernardo Loureiro | Gamar Markarian Tamara Streefland | Alexandra Venner | Silvia Xavier

Urban Mobilities 11

12 FEATURE: Wasteland

IntroductionEvery year, eight million inhabitants in New York City produce almost six millions tons of residential and commercial waste. This waste flows through an essential, yet largely invisible system, across many different scales - from household to transfer station to landfill. The waste management system is heavily dependent on landfill disposal in distant locations, and is therefore inefficient due to the amount of truck miles traveled, as well as missed opportunities to retrieve valuable resources from it.

In the new and ambitious OneNYC plan, Mayor Bill de Blasio presents his vision of sending zero waste to landfills by 2030. In order to achieve this goal, New York City needs to drastically reinvent its current waste system by moving away from disposing its waste in the backyards of communities near and far, and design more localized, equitable, and resilient waste strategies.

Several preferred waste tactics that focus on diversion, re-use and prevention already exist in NYC and other cities. It is imperative to explore how such tactics can complement each other and trigger a paradigm shift towards a visible, equitable and tenable waste system in NYC.

Urban Mobilities 13

CURRENT SYSTEM

10% 15%

75%

Urban Mobilities 15

Urban Mobilities 17

Our vision is to create a more visible, equitable, and tenable waste stream across the expansive geography of New York City. In order to archive that goal, we propose to redefine New York Citys waste ecologies and changing its waste management systems through 3 complementary strategies: (1) create the NYC waste stream visibility website to make the process of waste mobility transparent; (2) create civic waste collection centers at the community district scale; (3) move the conversation around waste to energy from conflict to action. These three strategies require the involvement of numerous protagonists, including: DSNY and potentially other public agencies, waste diversion organizations and private waste collection companies,elected city officials, community based organizations, as well as individual urban citizens.


New York City hosts more than thirty waste transfer stations that hold the waste until it can be shipped via truck, rail or barge. These stations are obscure to the average citizen. Again, the amount of information available publicly on the source of the waste and its final destination varies widely.

The DSNY collection system is able to collect more than 10,000 tons of trash per day. There are over 200 licensed commercial haulers that take care of everything else, but have limited public records on where this waste ends up.

New Yorker Citys waste collection system ensures that it remains out of sight and out of mind. Most people have no idea how to find out what happens to their trash once it is collected.

Urban Mobilities 19

Preferable waste management systems in NYC are used to their capacity, but not used to their full potential

Parallel NYC waste diversions programs, such as Sure We Can, BK Rot and Lower East Side Ecology Center play a vital role in environmental and social waste management practices at the neighborhood scale. Sure We Can supports 315 Canners who have earned a total of half a million dollars by collecting 7 million containers in 1 year. BK Rot in Bushwick processes a small amount of organic waste, 5.66 tons/year, and employs local youth in Bushwick who transport organic waste via bike. Lower Eastside Ecology Center processes 200 tons of organic matter/year and is diverting organics from landfill by utilizing designated NYC Park space. Although these organizations cover a smaller waste collection area than DSNY, their social and environmental capacities are not utilized to significantly respond to the citys massive waste stream volume.

Several co-existing waste tactics that focus on diversion, reuse and prevention already exist in NYC, such as Sure We Can (Image 1, 2) & BK Rot (Image 3, 4, 5). It is imperative to explore how such tactics can complement each other and trigger a paradigm shift alongside DSNYs residential waste programs (Image 6).

5

3

6

1 2 3

5 6 4


The effects of living in a fast-paced city like New York, has allowed a mobile workforce to flourish, which in turn has contributed to NYCs mass throw-away society. Henceforth, the city produces around 20,000 metric tons of waste every year, of which 55% is residential waste and 45% is commercial waste. Most of the trash is poorly handled and maintained, which only results in 50% proper recycling. Also, the NYC curbside organic trash offers a perfect habitat for pests.

Currently 83% of NYC waste goes to landfill. This is a costly system that mixes and buries materials and does not generate any economic, energetic or use value. Alternatively, more than 60% of NYCs household waste could be diverted to composting and recycling and the remaining 40% could be processed into energy. Adopting these processes would not only avoid expenditures with landfilling, but also generate revenues.

plastic bottles

metal

glass containersre

fuse

pape

r & ca

rdboa

rdcompostable

1978 tons/day

7000 tons/day

Residential Waste11,500 tons/day

HOUSEHOLD ON THE MOVEMOBILE WORKFORCE

1000 tons of food scarps out of 3348 tons is consumed by pests every day

Subway Waste40 tons/dayStreet Waste380 tons/day Commercial Waste8,500 tons/day

1500 tons/day

1370 tons/day

3550 tons/day

3280 tons/day

RESTAURANT

Urban Mobilities 21

organics landfill refuse

$ 320 million/year spent on transport

and disposal of wasteto landfills

compost

pote

ntia

l val

uecu

rrent

loss

energymore recycling

+ 5 bottle redemption

679000 metric tons/yearof greenhouse gases

50%of all recyclables

go to landfills

recyclables paper & cardboard5 bottles

Trash is too valuable to be wasted and its monetary, energetic and use value must be extracted.


Twenty-six of the citys 38 private transfer sta-tions are located in four community districts. To-gether, they handle 70% of the trash processed in New York City.Antonio Reynoso,Chairperson

CartoDB attribution OpenStreetMap contributors CartoDB

Urban Mobilities 23

PA

OH

VA

SC

CT

NJ

KY

New York Citys waste system is composed

by a complex array of actors, facilities and

infrastructures, and is heavily dependent on long-distance export.


Visualizing New Yorks waste systemThe intent behind this strategy was to bring more visibility to the NYCs waste system. This is a very complex and difficult to see system. It handles 14 million tons of waste each year, but goes mostly unnoticed, besides trash bags on the curb and collection trucks on the street.

The infrastructure behind this system is, however, massive, and poses a series of issues. It is highly concentrated in some neighborhoods of the city, and depends on very distant sites for disposal (sometimes 600 miles away in other states). And it has many environmental and social impacts - air pollution, emissions, and water pollution, to name a few.

To bring more visibility to these issues, we created a website, waste.exposed, using data available in order to map out the waste system. In order to make this relatable to NYCs citizens, the website shows where your waste is going to, depending on where you live.

WASTE.EXPOSED

Urban Mobilities 25

Waste is a very mobile material, supported by massive infrastruc-

tures, but its journey and its land-scapes are often invisible.


The main feature of the website, the interactive map, shown above. The user can enter their address or neighborhood and see where their waste is going to, by type of waste. The panel on the right describes the journey.

By clicking on one of the destinations from the list, the user can zoom in and see what their landscapes look like from above. Shown here is the Atlantic Landfill, the largest in the state of Virginia.

Here, the landfills and incinerators that the non-recyclable waste of a Greenpoint, Brooklyn resident goes to. In red, the quantities and miles traveled to these destinations.

Incinerators, like this one in New York State, also receive about 15% of New York Citys residential non-recyclable waste.

Urban Mobilities 27

The journey for recyclable waste is also explained in another tab. It follows the same structure as the non-recyclable waste, showing the steps in the journey, along with metrics such as distance and quantity.

In this case, most of the metal, glass and plastic is taken to the Sims Claremont Terminal, in Jersey City.

Final destinations for recyclable waste are also listed, when data is available.

The journey for paper recyclables is also show, with its export destinations of paper mills in India and China, in this case.


Earns aprox.$103 per day

6886 sanitation street workers

Diesel powered trucks

$393 millions spent per year

to export waste to landlls

Heavy loads

Mixed materials $307/ton

for collection

$124/tonfor disposal

Long distance tranportation to centralized facilities

Unionized citywork force

Out of sight out of mindwaste tranportation

-

Approx. 700 Canners in NYC

Human-powered cartsNon-recognized

city waste work force

Hauling micro-loads of recyclables & organic waste to micro-facilities

Depositing 2000 five cent bottles is

an earning of $100/day

Diverting materials away from landfills

Human-poweredcarts can haul Approx.130 lb of food scraps

per trip

Creates more living-wage jobs

Into sight into mind organic waste transportation

Stimulates & educates household organic waste

separation

Current Coexisting Collection Systems

CIVIC WASTE CENTERSA Place with a System that Sorts, Transports, and ProcessesWaste at the Neighborhood Level

Waste Transfer Stationreceiving wate from this

collection shed

Estimated DNSY truck trips

Canners human-powered trips

Example of distributer truck trip

Sure We Can (SWC)redemption center

Cyclers human-powered trips

BK ROT compostcollection center

Urban Mobilities 29

Waste Transfer Stationreceiving wate from this

collection shed

Estimated DNSY truck trips

Canners human-powered trips

Example of distributer truck trip

Sure We Can (SWC)redemption center

Cyclers human-powered trips

BK ROT compostcollection center

Our strategy responds to the three waste matters that we have identified as key insights:

(1) three Community Districts are handling 70% of New York Citys Waste. This demonstrates a massive & unjust concentration of where waste is being processed;

(2) door -to- door DSNY truck collection travels all throughout neighborhoods. This emits 1.7 million metric tons of greenhouse gas per year, which is a huge environmental justice concern for the communities that take on this burden;

(3) there are already successful social and environmental waste management systems in NYC whose impact are not being used to their full potential. They utilize human powered carts that carry micro loads of recyclables & organic waste to micro facilities.

Example of DSNY Collection Shed

Example of Parallel Systems Collection Shed


Framework to implement the Civic Waste Centers

Sure We Can Canners cover a 1.5 mile radius

NYC needs arounds 60 Sure We Cans

distributedover 59communitydistricts

The Framework to Implement One Civic Waste Center (CWC) per Community District on City-Owned Land

Year 1-2Stage 1: Govt Policy & Recognition

CannersRecognized

The 5 Bin Program

contract between DSNY & CWC

Year 3-4Stage 2: Transitioning Govt Policy into Law & Expanding DSNYs Role

The 5 Bin buer period

CannersLegalized

human poweredpaper pick-up Year 5 +

Stage 3: Legal Implementation& CWCs Expansion with DSNY

The 5 Bin Law

Environmentally Friendly VehicleTransporting all

Household Waste CWC Ocially

Registered with DSNY

ECO-FRIENDLY

Urban Mobilities 31

The Framework to Implement One Civic Waste Center (CWC) per Community District on City-Owned Land

Year 1-2Stage 1: Govt Policy & Recognition

CannersRecognized

The 5 Bin Program

contract between DSNY & CWC

Year 3-4Stage 2: Transitioning Govt Policy into Law & Expanding DSNYs Role

The 5 Bin buer period

CannersLegalized

human poweredpaper pick-up Year 5 +

Stage 3: Legal Implementation& CWCs Expansion with DSNY

The 5 Bin Law

Environmentally Friendly VehicleTransporting all

Household Waste CWC Ocially

Registered with DSNY

ECO-FRIENDLY

Challenges of the CWCs & what this strategy highlights to address



NYCsCivic Waste Centers

Paradigm Sh

ift!

We are proposing Civic Waste Centers (CWC) for each community district on city-owned land to receive residential waste. Rather than large centralized waste facilities concentrated in a single community district and trucks moving all throughout neighborhoods, hyper-local waste diversion facilities across the city, distribute waste more evenly and creates a critical proximity to the waste a community generates.

Imagine a CWC, which is not only a waste processing facility, but an economic, environmental, and social resource shared with you, your neighbors, your community and the city of New York.

1- The shift from city-wide programs to city-wide laws and the time factor this entails2- Bringing a variety of actors together from different scales3- Community Outreach4- Changing behavior5- City-owned land availability6- Acceptance of close proximity to waste in parks7- Mechanics of collection8- Seasonal Considerations9- Shifting DSNY operating dynamics10- Designing efficient human-powered transportation modes


The pamphlet addresses the challenge of community outreach within our strategy. Currently DSNYs outreach material is scattered and uses different languages due to the shifting of DSNYs ongoing developments in household waste management.

To exemplify our strategy as a whole, we chose to test it in Community District 7, which is Sunset Park. This is our way of responding to the challenges of the mechanics of collection, while exploring the possibility of locating and defining the Civic Waste Centers on city-owned land.

Our pamphlet is a skeleton to outline an all inclusive tool that explains what goes intoeach of the 5 bins. This tool would facilitate the process of household sorting.

We began by dividing sunset into 24 manageable sections and zoomed into one area where we figured out volumes, routes and the dynamic between CWC and DSNY.

23

2

1

3

89

1412

11

10

6

7

1

Sunset Park

126,000

37.7 tons oforganics/day

Population concentration

3.9

residents

sq miles

*

The All Inclusive Pamphlet

Pilot Area: CD 7 Sunset ParkManhattan

Brooklyn

Urban Mobilities 33

First, the collection process begins with DSNY workers picking-up residential organic twice/week. Each section needs 5 workers who would transport 6 loads per day via human powered mobility.

Second, each section has 2 drop off-sites where workers place the collected organic waste, which will later be picked up by DSNY trucks that will transport it to the CWC.

2.6g of organics per household

60kg per load

2.2 tons of organics

63 in

63 in300 in

STEP 1

STEP 2


In the case of Community District 7 we decided to locate the CWC in city owned land close to the newly opened Bush Terminal park. This demonstrates how the CWC will grow over years from collecting residential organic matter and 5 cent bottles to being the preferred destination for sorting and processing all household waste.

What is significant about the CWC is that it is a place that redefines how we live with our waste: (1) it encourages citizens to think more critically about how much they are throwing away because of the close proximity of the Waste center to their own homes; (2) it transforms waste into a social and environmental community resource; (3) the Civic Waste Center becomes space where people in the neighborhood can come meet, gather, learn and even cook.

GARDEN EXTENSION

COMPOSTING

COMMUNITY GARDEN

RECYCLING PROCESSINGFACILITY RECYCLABLE

STORAGE

CANNER STORAGE

OFFICE

OFFICE

RECYCLABLESSTORAGE

OFFICE

KITCHEN

PAPERSTORAGE

WORKSHOP/LEARNING SPACE

OPEN SPACE

WORKSHOP SPACE

GATHERING SPACE

COMMUNITYGARDEN

COMMUNITYGARDEN

COMMUNITY GARDEN+

COMPOSTING

GATHERING SPACE

GATHERING SPACECOM

POSTINGCOM

POSTING

STAGE 1: ORGANICS + 5 c BottlesYEAR 1-2

YEAR 3-4

YEAR 5+

STAGE 2: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles + Paper

STAGE 3: ORGANICS + 5 c Bottles + Paper + Recyclables + Refuse

50 10 20 500 50 100 200

SECTION A

SECTION A

GARDEN EXTENSION

COMPOSTING

COMMUNITY GARDEN


STORAGE

CANNER STORAGE

OFFICE

OFFICE

RECYCLABLESSTORAGE

OFFICE

KITCHEN

PAPERSTORAGE


OPEN SPACE

WORKSHOP SPACE

GATHERING SPACE

COMMUNITYGARDEN

COMMUNITYGARDEN

COMMUNITY GARDEN+

COMPOSTING

GATHERING SPACE

GATHERING SPACE

COMPOSTING

COMPOSTING


YEAR 3-4

YEAR 5+



50 10 20 500 50 100 200

SECTION A

SECTION A

GARDEN EXTENSION

COMPOSTING

COMMUNITY GARDEN


STORAGE

CANNER STORAGE

OFFICE

OFFICE

RECYCLABLESSTORAGE

OFFICE

KITCHEN

PAPERSTORAGE


OPEN SPACE

WORKSHOP SPACE

GATHERING SPACE

COMMUNITYGARDEN

COMMUNITYGARDEN

COMMUNITY GARDEN+

COMPOSTING

GATHERING SPACE

GATHERING SPACE

COMPOSTING

COMPOSTING


YEAR 3-4

YEAR 5+



50 10 20 500 50 100 200

SECTION A

SECTION A

GARDEN EXTENSION

COMPOSTING

COMMUNITY GARDEN


STORAGE

CANNER STORAGE

OFFICE

OFFICE

RECYCLABLESSTORAGE

OFFICE

KITCHEN

PAPERSTORAGE


OPEN SPACE

WORKSHOP SPACE

GATHERING SPACE

COMMUNITYGARDEN

COMMUNITYGARDEN

COMMUNITY GARDEN+

COMPOSTING

GATHERING SPACE

GATHERING SPACE

COMPOSTING

COMPOSTING


YEAR 3-4

YEAR 5+



50 10 20 500 50 100 200

SECTION A

SECTION A

The Civic Waste Center (CWC)

Urban Mobilities 35

This strategy creates a more intimate relationship with our household waste while simultaneously bringing numerous protagonists together, including: DSNY, Department of Parks, waste diversion organizations as well as individual urban citizens in relation to each other. We strongly believe that the feasibility of the CWC as a place with a system that sorts, transports, and processes waste at the neighborhood scale needs to be integrated within DSNYs formal waste management structure.


Mayor Bill de Blasios OneNYC plan calls for zero waste to landfills by 2030. Major changes regarding NYCs waste management system are needed in order to reach this goal.

Could Waste to Energy (WTE) be an alternative to landfills for New York Citys waste?

As we found out this is a very political question. WTE is a heavily contested subject, which finds its roots in thousands of municipal and domestic waste incinerators, that polluted the city throughout the 20th Century. Scientists and the companies running the plants insist the newest technology is better than landfilling, but issues remain around the siting of plants, diversion from recycling and composting efforts and commonly held perceptions about incinerators.

A wide range of information exists about the pros and cons of these techniques, although the information varies widely and few studies are conducted by independent researchers making it difficult to base decisions on hard facts.

Waste to Energy?Shifting the conversation from conflict to action.

1885 Americas first incinerator built on Governor's Island

1908-1968 24 municipal incinerators are built in NYC and about 17,000 domestic waste combusters

1947 Fresh Kills Landfill opens as a temporary

solution for waste

1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act to promote and

provide assistance in research and development

1968 24 incinerators

1972 7 incinerators

1990 3 incinerators

CO2

Particulate Matter

1999 The last incineratoris torn down in NYC through

efforts of NYPIRG, South Bronx Clean Air Coalition

Waste incineration without air pollution control was a major source of airborne, respirable pollutants in NYC for many decades during the 20th century.

Incinerators emit toxic smoke containing dioxins, particulate matter and CO2

1970 Federal Clean Air Act sets emission guidelines that lead to incinerator shutdowns

1990 Federal Clean Air Act sets new

emission guidelines

15% of US total waste is incinerated by the

start of the 90s

1994 US Supreme Court rules waste a commodity and trade may not be inhibited across state lines.Landfills across America can take waste with no state interventions.

2012 Mayor Bloomberg solicits proposals for WTE in NYC. The

plan is abandoned within the year.

Urban Mobilities 37

1885 Americas first incinerator built on Governor's Island

1908-1968 24 municipal incinerators are built in NYC and about 17,000 domestic waste combusters

1947 Fresh Kills Landfill opens as a temporary

solution for waste

1965 Solid Waste Disposal Act to promote and

provide assistance in research and development

1968 24 incinerators

1972 7 incinerators

1990 3 incinerators

CO2

Particulate Matter

1999 The last incineratoris torn down in NYC through

efforts of NYPIRG, South Bronx Clean Air Coalition

Waste incineration without air pollution control was a major source of airborne, respirable pollutants in NYC for many decades during the 20th century.

Incinerators emit toxic smoke containing dioxins, particulate matter and CO2

1970 Federal Clean Air Act sets emission guidelines that lead to incinerator shutdowns

1990 Federal Clean Air Act sets new

emission guidelines

15% of US total waste is incinerated by the

start of the 90s

1994 US Supreme Court rules waste a commodity and trade may not be inhibited across state lines.Landfills across America can take waste with no state interventions.

2012 Mayor Bloomberg solicits proposals for WTE in NYC. The

plan is abandoned within the year.

WASTE TO ENERGY

FACTS?

US/EU

Gasification

Incineration

Anaerobic digestionEMISSION

SYNGAS

BIOGAS

1375MSW

COAL

MSW

COAL

CO2 EMISSIONS (KG/ MWh)

379

1022

Source: OBrien & SWANA., 2006 Source: EPA, 2007

69%

1%

7%

24%

38%

22%

38%

38%

30%

70% 51%40%

49%

US NL Austria SE EU

Landfill WTE Recycling/ Composting

1022

WASTE TO ENERGY

FACTS?

US/EU

Gasification

Incineration

Anaerobic digestionEMISSION

SYNGAS

BIOGAS

1375MSW

COAL

MSW

COAL

CO2 EMISSIONS (KG/ MWh)

379

1022

Source: OBrien & SWANA., 2006 Source: EPA, 2007

69%

1%

7%

24%

38%

22%

38%

38%

30%

70% 51%40%

49%

US NL Austria SE EU

Landfill WTE Recycling/ Composting

1022

In Europe, Waste to Energy is used much more widely used due to lack of space for landfills. However, many countries also have much better recycling rates which changes the composition of the waste being converted.

Waste to Energy is a widely used yet controversial term. In this publication we use it to refer to the these three mechanisms for converting waste matter to energy.


Historically, there has been a lot of controversy around the subject of waste to energy. Therefore, we propose a process that aims to find common ground between different actors that have taken positions that are seemingly incompatible. The first step is to identify the issue and the actors involved in the debate and to gather data on the Internet. In this case we identified the proponents and opponents through anti-incineration petitions, scientific publications, company statements, governmental presentations among others, which was then mapped in step two.

The third step is to engage with the actors. Initial contact revealed the main actors that exist in the debate, as many organization referred to other organizations as key players. We were able to map these relationships in order to reveal the WTE debate landscape.

The survey that was developed proved to be a valuable tool to obtain further understanding on players positions. It included a variety of opinions on efficiency, public health, environmental impact and alternative strategies. Scenarios that cover a large spectrum of alternative approaches and scales of applying WTE, were an important part of the process of finding common ground.

Identify

1

Engage.

3

Share.5

Map. 2

Collaborate.6

Map.

4

The Process

Urban Mobilities 39

EnvironmentalEconomic

The Battlefield


WASTE-TO-ENERGY: WHAT IF?

1. Business as usualThe current waste system continues as it is functioning now. The city keeps promoting recycling, composting, prevention and re-use. The rest of the waste is transported to landfills in Ohio, Virginia, South Carolina and Pennsylvania. A small portion is converted to energy.

75% Landfill disposal15% Recycling and re-use10% Waste to Energy conversion

BUSINESS AS USUAL

LIMITING TRUCK TRIPS HOSPITALS

LOCAL GASIFICATIONTRANSFER TO GASIFICATION

90% RE-CYCLING

ANAEROBIC DIGESTIONCONVERSION

The City should be able to deal with its own waste!

The City should pursue recycling, composting and WTE

I am not sure that this can be done by government edict.

Silly. Waste to energy is landfilling forever

This technology is not operating in the US. Too costly to implement.I fully agreeLimiting truck miles, absolutely. WTE, absolutely not

No, it is much more efficient to sent it to a local WTE facility

You should ask the people on the Upper East Side.Economics might not work

Impossible.There is room for improvement but Im doubtful of the chances of success.The best Future scenario is working towards waste reduction

A lot of public education is needed for this to work.

AD is a useful technology, but very expensive.The gases emitted are just as dangerous to health as those from incinerationAll for it!.

Yes this can be done. Converting LF to WTE is a boon to host communities of present landfills.

The issue is the interstate commerce clause.

WHAT IF....

10%

90%Hospital waste management has progressed beyond incineration.

The current system is kept as is.

The city should be able to deal with its own waste!

The city should pursue recycling, composting and WTE.

BUSINESS AS USUAL

LIMITING TRUCK TRIPS

CONVERSION

LOCAL GASIFICATION

HOSPITALS




BUSINESS AS USUAL



90% RE-CYCLING














WHAT IF....

10%





BUSINESS AS USUAL



90% RE-CYCLING














WHAT IF....

10%


Create a cap on number of truck miles allowed for exporting waste.



Convert landfills to WTE plants.



Turn local waste transfer stations into small scale gasification plants.

You should ask the people on the Upper East Side.

Economics might not work

All organic waste is converted to energy through biomass gasification.

AD is a useful technology, but very expensive.

All for it!.

Emissions from all technologies should be held to the same standards.

Open two gasification plants within city limits.

This technology is not operating in the US. Too costly to implement.

I fully agree

Limiting truck miles, absolutely. WTE, absolutely not.

All hospitals use on-site WTE.



Hospital waste management has progressed beyond incineration.

Reduce waste to achieve 90% recycling rate.

Impossible.

There is room for improvement but Im doubtful of the chances of success.

The best future scenario is working towards waste reduction

Urban Mobilities 41

We found incentive to open up the conversation around anaerobic digestion, as actors at both sides of the debate saw an opportunity in that. The final step is to share the information with the actors involved and propose a roundtable to talk about concerns and explore further opportunities for moving the conversation forward.

Anaerobic Digestion solely uses organic waste to create biogas. Starting in 2015, a large part of NYC commercial organic waste will have to be processed outside of landfills by law. Local composting in NYC is challenging due to lack of space, Anaerobic Digestion provides opportunity to process this waste on a smaller, local area. An example of AD in NYC are the Digester Eggs at the Newtown Creek wastewater treatment facility.

The key elements of this process are 1) giving people space to explain their positions on the subject in great detail. 2) Asking them about a series of scenarios that cover a whole spectrum of possible solutions 3) focus on an scenario that can open up the conversation from conflict to action.

Since these politically charged controversies exist globally, this approach could be used to move forward in other urban areas of contention.

Anaerobic Digestion is a really solid plan for NYC organic waste

AD would workfor the commercialorganic waste

I endorse AD, but how would we fund it?

How do we collect all the organic waste? I am all for it,

but what are the emissions of AD?

OPEN CONVERSATIONOpen Conversation

Desalination?

World Cup?

Rezone?

LandfillMining?

Subway?

Smart City?

FLUSHING

ELMHUST

MANHATTAN

SUNSET

FLUSHING

ELMHUST

MANHATTAN

SUNSET

Alternative Mobilities

Based on a quantitative and qualitative study of the commuter vans that run between New York Citys Chinatowns, our group has designed a participatory process for communities that are underserved by public transforation to co-create their own mobility systems. While participatory process have become more commonplace in urban design, mobility remains a project that is usually approached from the perspective of top-down planning.

We believe that the Right to Mobility is closely related to the Right to the City- and by taking collective responsibility for connecting parts of the city that have been neglected by traditional processes of transportation planning and political will, this right can be claimed.

Mariana Bomtempo | Alexa Jeansen | Tait Mandler Masoom Moitra | Alexander Valencia

44 FEATURE: Alternative Mobilities

IntroductionNew York City may have one of the most robust public transportation systems in the world but it does not work for everyone equally. People whose movement is not based on the centrality of Manhattan or a 9 to 5 work day have transportation needs that are underserved. Immigrant communities that are low income and where English is not the primary language have solved their own mobility problems, often with systems reminiscent of their native countries.

Dollar Vans, a misnomer now that fares have increased, are self-organized commuter vans that have become more common around the city since the 1980s. With the growth of the Chinese immigrant population, there was an economic and cultural incentive for fast and linguistically accessible transportation between the developing Chinatowns. Unlike the other dollar vans in the city that pick up passengers all along their routes, the Chinatown vans operate mostly as shuttles between their destinations. This system has no formal maps and emerged without authorization but is currently being assimilated into the citys authorized transportation through licensing of the vans.

We came to understand the Chinatown vans to be a successful system, as measured by the riders themselves. Our mobility co-design process is informed by insights from the Chinatown vans.

Urban Mobilities 45

Urban Mobilities 47

Historical Socioeconomic ContextWhile anyone can ride the vans, they are clearly run by and for the Chinese cultural enclave. Patterns of migration to and settlement in New York City are affected by geopolitical forcings as well as local land use and real estate markets. And, of course, the social ties of new immigrants who likely move near family members. Chinese immigrants are made up of many ethnic groups who generally settle together. The Cantonese have largely located themselves in Flushing, Queens while the Fujianese make up a greater portion of Manhattan and Sunset Park, Brooklyn residents.

But these divides are not absolute and family members may live in different areas of the city. The commuter vans are a vector of socioeconomic connection. They allow families to easily visit each other, provide home-work transportation, and facilitate the flow of capital via consumption between enclaves.

In the following pages we explore why the vans have become so common even though there is public transportation con-necting Manhattan, Sunset Park, and Flushing.

Without maps or consistently clear signage, finding the vans for those who are uninitiated is a lexicon of Chinatown and parked vehicles.

The images here represent the process of locating and boarding one of the vans. First moving through the bustling economic 8th Ave in Sunset park, finding a licensed van marked with the NYC Commuter logo, asking the driver which direction the van is headed, taking a seat, and paying a fare to the collector who walks down the aisle.


4:56pm4:56pm4:56pm

Atlantic Av / Smith st5:48pm

B63 [33 stops]

B57 [36 stops]

Q58 [11 stops]

Flushing Av / 61th st6:48pm

7:54pm

5:43pm

N train [16 stops]

Queensboro Plaza7 train [16stops]

6:05pm 5:46pmFLUSHING

ELMHUST

MANHATTAN

SUNSET PARK

The commuter vans are substantially faster than

taking the subway or public bus

Time and DistanceThe most obvious reason for taking the dollar vans over public transportation is that they are faster. In the map above we show the relative transportation times between the Chinatown vams, public bus, and subway. As the vans only make a few stops at their pick-up and drop-off locations they are approximately three times faster than the bus, which requires transfers and constant stops along the route. This is important in understanding the price difference. While public

transit between Sunset Park and Flushing costs $2.75, the Chinatown vas costs $4. Unlike public transit which costs the same to go anywhere, the Chinatown vans have prices based on distance, so the route from Sunset Park to Manhattan only costs $3. The vans understandably charge less for this route as the operating costs and time saved is less than for a longer route. On the next page we review some of the metrics of the Chinatown van system and then we explore some of the other reasons besides cost that make the vans so prominent.

Urban Mobilities 49

FLUSHING

ELMHUST

MANHATTAN

SUNSET PARK

MANHATTAN - SUNSET6 miles

38-58 TRIPS PER TANK

MANHATTAN - ELMHURST7.8 miles


MANHATTAN - FLUSHING13.8 miles


SUNSET - FLUSHING17.4 miles


RIDERS PER DAY

Dollar Vans MTA Bus

= 20,000 riders

120,000 342,000

25th largest US bus system

11th largest US bus systemNUMBER OF VEHICLESDollar Vans MTA Bus900 vans 1,200 buses

20 people / van 50 people / bussource: Tait!

licensed van

unlicensed van

$34,350 per year

$26,247 per year

OPERATING COSTS

GAS CONSUMPTION

Hack License $275Inspection $150Emissions $15

Insurance $7,663 Gas $26,097Oil & Maintenance $150

Gas $26,097Oil & Maintenance $150

The largest operating cost of the vans is gas consumption. To the left we have mapped the costs of gas for each route. One way that the vans mitigate this cost is by only running trips when the vans are adequately full. This means the vans are not on a set schedule, they wait at the pick-up location until there are enough passengers and then leave.

The Chinatown vans are just one of the dollar van system in NYC. Collectively the dollar vans are the 25th largest bus system in the United States. Data on the size of each dollar van system is harder to collect as they are operated without authorization for most of their history. The current move to license and authorize the vans means more accurate data will be available in the near future. The MTA bus is just one aspect of the larger public NYC bus system, which is the largest in the United States.

It is still unclear how licensing may affect the cost of dollar vans, but because of fees and insurance it is more expensive to operate a licensed van. The Chinatown vans seem to be more accepting of licensing than some of the other dollar vans. This may be because of a fear of negative interactions with the police and that many Chinatown vans are actually more like mini-buses than the 18-passenger vans in Flatbush and Queens, making them more visible.


Enclaves Along RoutesWe understand that there is more than time or money to taking the Chinatown vans. The above map shows the growing population of Asian immigrants in the areas where the vans

1980 1990

20102000have operated since the 1980s. The vans facilitate social connections through socioculturally appropriate transportation.

Urban Mobilities 51

Yelp Tag Cloud generated by text analytics from all yelp reviews on Chinatown Dollar Van.

MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD INCOME

LINGUISTIC ISOLATION.4% - 8%8.01% - 18%18.01% - 28%

28.01% - 38%38.01% - 48%48.01% - 100%

2005 - 2009 - $25710$25710 - $33099$33099 - $37450

$41490 - $46097

$46097 - $52177$52177 - $59421

$37450 - $41490$59421 - $67000$67000 - $81806$81806 +

CHINATOWN FLUSHINGWORKING POPULATION: 26,935

CHINATOWN SUNSET PARKWORKING POPULATION: 28,001

CHINATOWN MANHATTANWORKING POPULATION: 26,950

2005 - 2009

flushing (81)

bus (68) chinatown (73)driver (58)

ride (57)

van (49)stop (44)

chinese (31)

manhattan (32)minutes (31)

seat (37) shuttle (32)taking (31)

main (23)people (27

service (26)street (27)

train (24)

asian (18)

driving (21)friends (18) going (17)

passengers (21)

sit (18)speak (17) subway (19)

traffic (21)

along (14)

sometimes (14)

sure (15)

board (13) brooklyn

(12)

deal (12) division (11)drop (12)

hour (13) leave (11)

parking (12)

pick (11) price (12) queens (12)

route (12)

trip (11) usually (13) waiting (13)

ave (10) best (9)

buses (8) city (10)

convenient (9) depending (8)

efficient (8) fast (10) feel (10)

gets (10) give (10) guy (8) hand (9)

live (8) location (8) lot (10)

min (9) money (9)

person (9) point (9) pretty (10) riders (8)

start (8)

talking (8) think (10) times (10) took (8) transportation (8)

worth (8)

asking (7) beat (7) bowery (7)

bumpy (7) car (7)

comfortable (7) commuter (7) cost (6)

end (7) english (7) everyone (7) far (7) fare (7)

front (7) helps (6)

line (7) loud (7) love (7)

mta (7)

phone (7) really (6) review (7)

safe (6) save (7) short (6)

travel (7)

[Dollar] vans allow immigrants to navigate easily through New York without ever learning about the citys subway and bus system or learning English. Riding them is a bit like riding a bus in Fuzhou... they serve a very particular niche for new immigrants who must circulate in a Chinese community that is now stretched between three New York City boroughs.

- Ken Guest

These two maps show the connection between median household income and linguistic isolation in the areas served by the vans. As Ken Guest explains below, the vans are important because many riders do not speak English, which can make taking public transportation difficult and threatening. Compared to many other immigrant groups, lower-income Chinese communities in NYC are less assimilated and less likely to speak English even after years or decades in the United States. The vans offer an important cultural connection between riders and drivers that is not found in public transportation. Thus the

vans can be seen as these communities realizing their right to the city through the right to mobility. Not only do they make transportation more accessible for non-English speaking individuals, they are reminiscent of transportation systems in China and other parts of the world.


Fomalizing The Dollar VanAfter decades of contentious relationships with the police and city government, there is currently a push to license and authorize many of the dollar van systems into commuter vans. This happens through the NYC Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) and the Department of Transportation (DOT). TLC grants the driver a license the van a decal identifying it as an authorized commuter van. DOT overseas the area of operation for each van or company, especially to prevent too much overlap with extant MTA transportation. It is important for city revenue and the Transit Workers Union that commuter vans not be overly in competition with public

ChinatownFormal Protocol

Sunset Park

Flushing

Elrmhust

Manhattan

T123456C

TLC blue diamond decals are located in 4 places: each rear passenger door, the windshield and the rear door window.

Plates: Commuter vans have TLC-issued license plates that either begin with T and end with C or begin with LV.

Info: Licensed vans have important information about the vans owner and operator visibly marked.

How to identify a licensed commuter van? OwnerOperatorAddressBase/Permit Numbers

ommuterLicense #:12345

Symbol >> test phase August 2014 Existing regulationsChapter 57 >> rule for drivers: penalties, licensing, laws, operations, vehicles conditions

Taxi & LimousineCommission

transit. Even with a license, a commuter van is not supposed to be hailed and cannot pick up passengers at MTA bus stops.

To the left we have mapped some of the registered areas of operation for some Chinatown van companies. This shows that these vans are only authorized to run as shuttles, picking up passengers in one area and dropping them off in another without stopping in between.

The following page illustrates some of the informal protocol that allow the dollar van systems to operate. These are the flexible and unspoken relationships and behaviors between drivers and riders that make the system operational. Some of them, such as which side of the street pick-up happens on, can be formalized while others, such as the illegal but common pick-up of hailing riders, cannot.

Urban Mobilities 53

Chinatown Informal Protocol

Flushing

Sunset ParkBeginning of Sunset Park to Flushing Route

60th Street and 8th Avenue

Manhattan = South Facing Vans

Queens = North Facing Vans

15 - 20 Minute Wait Between Vans

1 2 3 4 5

Drivers Must Wait In Line On Return From Previous Trip

Drivers in front of the line have passenger priority until max capacity

Operates as a shuttle van until entering into Chinatown, where it operates as a dollar van

MTA Route

Vans pick up passengers, signaling with their hand out, along MTA Bus routes


COMMERCIAL

CIVIL SOCIETYPUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

SOCIO

-CUL

TURA

L ENC

LAVE

BUSINESSBANKS

WORKERS(LOW-WAGE)

FAMILIESIMMIGRANTSCOMMUNITIES

INSURANCE

NYPD

DRIVER

COMPANY

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONSUNIONS

CAAAV | CSWA | TWU

NEW YORK STATE

POLITICAL PRESSURE

LICENSED

DRIVERUNLICENSED

LICENSE

RIDER

$$$

TRANSIT

TRANSIT$$$

COMMUNITYBOARD

INVESTORS

MAYOR

ENFORCEM

ENT

Urban Mobilities 55

COMMERCIAL

CIVIL SOCIETYPUBLIC INSTITUTIONS

SOCIO

-CUL

TURA

L ENC

LAVE

BUSINESSBANKS

WORKERS(LOW-WAGE)

FAMILIESIMMIGRANTSCOMMUNITIES

INSURANCE

NYPD

DRIVER

COMPANY

COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONSUNIONS

CAAAV | CSWA | TWU

NEW YORK STATE

POLITICAL PRESSURE

LICENSED

DRIVERUNLICENSED

LICENSE

RIDER

$$$

TRANSIT

TRANSIT$$$

COMMUNITYBOARD

INVESTORS

MAYOR

ENFORCEM

ENT

Mapping the socioeconomic and political connections of the Chinatown vans

The connection map to the left shows how the Chinatown vans operate at the intersection of commerce, civil society, and public institutions. Chinese immigrant communities in NYC, like all communities, are both social and commercial. Van drivers and company owners are members of the same communities as the riders, so this transportation system socioeconomically contributes to and is sustained by Chinese immigrants. The connections created and sustained are also both social and economic. In this way the vans are completely embedded into the flows of people and capital that occur between NYCs Chinatowns.

Government oversight of licensed vans involves TLC, DOT, and the NYPD. These organizations, in turn, are responsible to or influenced by the Mayors office, community boards, the MTA, and NY state government. Pressure from civil society groups may be in favor of the vans, as with Committee Against Anti-Asian Violence (CAAAV), or in opposition to them, for example the Transit Workers Union (TWU).

Understanding and visualizing these connections as reinforcers that make the Chinatown van system more than alternative transportation system but an embedded aspect of everyday socioeconomic life led us to the design proposal laid out in the remaining pages. We drew inspiration and guidance from the Chinatown vans to create a process for other communities underserved by public transit to create their own alternative mobility systems that are embedded and socioculturally appropriate, creating connections beyond just transportation.


Chinatown dollar-van

Reinforcers

design a process for communities to realize their right to the city through the right to mobility

that can

be

...potentially used by:

government agencies

community organizations

independent consultation

...custumized to specific socio- economical and cultural systems:- community organizations (mobility to mobilize)- find and improve the existing dollar-vans- community board meetings- day labors centers- elderly- other social enclaves that need connections

A participatory processfor alternative mobilities!

facilitators: students A research project with

an experimental archiving application

day labor centers

Our hypothesis is that some communities may be more adept at cooperatively creating and sustaining their own mobility systems than the MTA

We identified the following reinforcers from the Chinatown van system: cohabitation with the MTA, connection between price and time saved, optimized routes, trip schedule based on passenger demand, operation at

REPLICATING THE RIGHT TO MOBILITY

and between socioeconomic centers, maintenance of cultural ties, marketing through word of mouth, cooperation between drivers, and navigating government transit policy.

Urban Mobilities 57

Chinatown dollar-van

Reinforcers

design a process for communities to realize their right to the city through the right to mobility

that can

be

...potentially used by:

government agencies

community organizations

independent consultation

...custumized to specific socio- economical and cultural systems:- community organizations (mobility to mobilize)- find and improve the existing dollar-vans- community board meetings- day labors centers- elderly- other social enclaves that need connections

A participatory processfor alternative mobilities!

facilitators: students A research project with

an experimental archiving application

day labor centers

Our hypothesis is that some communities may be more adept at cooperatively creating and sustaining their own mobility systems than the MTA

Our participatory process of alternative mobility co-creation could be applied by government agencies, community organizations, or independent consultants to a variety of community transportation needs underserved by the

MTA. To test and exemplify the process we have experimentally applied it to a day laborer job center to see if transportation between laborers home, work, and job center could also build community and reinforce workers rights.

For this example we will take the position of student facilitators and the Bay Parkway Job Center will be the collaborator we are working with.


MISSED CONNECTIONS

Initial Meeting to Frame Situation and Identify the Crime Scene.

1.Identify

Stakeholders and Community

Organizations + Investigation of Crime Scene with Lexicon + Metrics.

Specify Potential Riders + Community to Outreach for a Collaborative

Workshop/Meeting.

Workshop with Workbook to Identify Rider

Demand + Crime Scene from a Community Perspective.

Evaluate + Process Community Input to Conduct A Second Round of Research +

Interviews.

Return to the Question of Rider Demand to Find a

Conclusive Demand.

Workbook Collaboration to

Identify A Common Sense of Direction

Assembly to Present Information + Gather

Rider Feedback.

Workshop with Updated Workbook.

Consultation to Discuss Feasibility

Workshop with Revised Preliminary

Action Plan to Further Develop

Criteria For Success

2.3.

4.

5.

6a

6b7a

7b

Analysis + Design

Identify Formal Structures,

Economic Systems, Social Cohesion,

Protocols, Policy/Regulations,

+ Criteria for Success From

Riders, Community, Organization and Collaborator Feedback.

Develop a Preliminary Action

Plan.

8a

9.Revise Design +

Create Comprehensive Action Plan

8bPilot Revised

Preliminary Action Plan to Further

Develop Criteria For Success

Legend

Facilitators

Collaborator

Organizations

Riders

Technicians

This participatory process involves multiple stakeholders and is guided by a Missed Connections workbook. The steps are outlined in the diagram to the right and the complete workbook and details of the Bay Parkway Job Center example (along with all of our research on the Chinatown van system) can be found online at alternativemobilities.wordpress.com. The goals of this process are to identify areas of transportation that are lacking, to identify the existing connections and strengths of the community, to organize collaboratively and cooperatively, and to ensure that a new transportation system creates and maintains community cohesion. The process and workbook move through the collection of qualitative and quantitative data through meetings and workshops that bring stakeholders together in discussion and collaborative activities.

Each step is described and how it could be applied to the Bay Parkway Job Center is explored. The final pages have a visualization of the job center scenario in the form of a comic, which can also be found online.

First the facilitators and collaborators need to come together to understand each others goals for this process. Figuring out what transportation needs and lacking and why they are lacking is the primary goal of this step.

STEP 1. understanding the situation:A B

who are A and B?

what the connection line(s) would represent?

what is impeding the mobility?

where are A and B? successful mobility = A is able to go to B

A B

A B

NOT successful mobility = A is NOT able to go to B

For the Bay Parkway Job Center, it is difficult to day laborers to get from their homes, to the center, to a workplace, and back to their homes. Taking so many trips a day costs a lot on public transportation and take a lot of time because there are not direct connections between these place. Additionally, making it easier to work through the job center instead of from a street corner could help more laborers find non-exploitative work and increase the power of the collective.

1.

2.3.

4.

5.

6a

6b7a

7b

8a

9.

8bLegend

Facilitators

Collaborator

Organizations

Riders

Technicians

Initial Meeting to Frame Situation and Identify the Situation.

Identify Stakeholders and

Community Organizations + Investigation of Situation with

Lexicon + Metrics.





Revise Design + Create

Comprehensive Action Plan

Pilot Revised Preliminary Action Plan to Further


Workshop with Workbook to Identify Rider Demand +

Challenges from a Community Perspective.


Workshop/Meeting.




Rider Feedback.


Analysis + Design







Plan.


Interviews.


Conclusive Demand.

Urban Mobilities 59

1.

2.3.

4.

5.

6a

6b7a

7b

8a

9.

8bLegend

Facilitators

Collaborator

Organizations

Riders

Technicians

Initial Meeting to Frame Situation and Identify the Situation.

Identify Stakeholders and

Community Organizations + Investigation of Situation with

Lexicon + Metrics.





Revise Design + Create

Comprehensive Action Plan

Pilot Revised Preliminary Action Plan to Further


Workshop with Workbook to Identify Rider Demand +

Challenges from a Community Perspective.


Workshop/Meeting.




Rider Feedback.


Analysis + Design







Plan.


Interviews.


Conclusive Demand.

The facilitators need to collect the contextual and background research that will inform the rest of the process. This means compiling demographic data and maps, locating other community stakeholders, understanding other key issues in the community, and generally spending time in the location.

STEP 2. neighborhood profile:

situation investigate metrics lexicon stakeholdersreport 1

The Bay Parkway Job Center serves very low income hispanic immigrants with varying fluencies in English. Workplace harassment and exploitation is common among day laborers and there are few other organization helping laborers know their rights.


STEP 4. ridership workshop:

??

Does rider demand actually exist?

ridership

narrative storytelling

walking tours open questions

among others

mapping exercise

report 2

STEP 4. ridership workshop:

??

Does rider demand actually exist?

ridership

narrative storytelling

walking tours open questions

among others

mapping exercise

report 2

STEP 3. outreach:which is the best way to target this ridership?

Who are the potential riders of a new mobility system and how can they be reached to be included in this process? This step is dependent on the community that is being worked with. Flyers, showing up at other meetings, tabling, online promotion, word of mouth, and hanging out are all viable outreach strategies.

In the case of the job center there are already laborers moving through the space daily. Spending time there, hanging up flyers, talking to them, and making sure they tell their friends and families would all be great ways to ensure potential riders come to the following meetings and workshops.

Workshops! Discussion! Community Mapping! Storytelling! Coming together to collect qualitative data and figure out what resources the community has and what resources they need. The most important goal of this step is to establish whether rider demand exists and what the numbers might look like. Community mapping would include walking tours and collaboratively marking nodes of connection (ie. home, work, church) on a large map to gather where people are going, how they are getting there, and what the most difficult areas of movement area.

The number of meetings and workshops required will be dependent on the size of the community and their schedules.

The laborers that use the Bay Parkway Job Center do not all necessarily know each other and may be unaware of other laborers making similar daily commutes. Collectively mapping out nodes of connection would be especially important here. Laborers come from the directly surrounding area but also from Sunset Park and even Staten Island. How large an area would a laborer transportation system need to cover? Are there other places that laborers regularly need to get to?

How are laborers currently getting around? When are they using public transit and when are employers picking them up and dropping them off? Do some individuals own personal vehicles?

Urban Mobilities 61

more accurate reportis the bigger picture

STEP 6. detailing the needs:

more accurate reportis the bigger picture

STEP 6. detailing the needs:

STEP 5. filling the gaps:

report 1 report 2

+ + =more investigation more accurate report

All of the qualitative and quantitative data collected so far needs to be compiled and analyzed by the facilitators. Any important information that might still be missing needs to be collected, this might include interviews and further site visits. Personal and collective maps need to be synthesized to create a spatial picture of mobility needs. Finally, the potential other connections and resources that community transportation could provide need to be clearly defined.

There are two parts to Step 6, which depending on the situation cycle through each other and back into Step 5 if necessary. First the facilitators and collaborators need to work together, based on the report produced in Step 5, to sketch out possible forms the mobility system could take. This includes: types of vehicles, routes, stops, signs, licensing, the economic model, and marketing. How flexible will this system be? Do there need to be set stops or can routes change with daily need? Where can riders be aggregated into common stops? Who are the drivers going to be? And how will the system support itself?

Compiling the maps will show the areas that day laborers are commuting from and the areas where they work. Grouping these nodes can start to form the framework for potential transportation routes. The Bay Parkway Job Center wants to attract more laborers but it also needs to outreach to more employers so that there will be enough jobs. How could transportation assist with this marketing and outreach?

Part B is the process of bringing these plans and ideas to the community and ridership. This gives riders the chance to comment on and adjust routes and stops. If the system requires fares, how much can the riders afford? Are riders comfortable with demarcated vehicles, or would they prefer to be less visible? Depending on the input received, Step 5 and 6a may need to be revisited.

Check out our comic at the end to see how this might look at the Bay Parkway Job Center.


STEP 8. mobility research:

ridership

forms

STEP 7. develop a project:

?do!

+

a. design! + action planning b. consultation

Step 7 also has a part A and B. First the facilitators need to again compile and analyze the feedback received to create a preliminary action plan, which would lay out the entire proposed mobility system: formal structures, economic system, social aspects, protocols, policy, regulations, and the criteria that determine whether the system is successful. There then needs to be a consultation with experts and technicians to make sure such a system would be feasible.

This final collaborative step is to propose the preliminary action plan to the ridership and to run some pilot routes with riders. There are final quantitative surveys to complete to make this input easy to aggregate and address. Stakeholders need to agree on the criteria of success so that the system can be evaluated once it has been implemented. Criteria of success are meant to move beyond the financial and into the social.

For the Bay Parkway Job Center this preliminary action plan could take many different forms. If only a small number of laborers will initially be involved than nothing more than a regular carpool system may be necessary, opening up the center to more laborers may require a loop shuttle that stops in areas where groups of laborers live. The best option may even be something more along the line of a fleet of community bikes.

Some example criteria of success for a Bay Parkway Job Center mobility system could be: doubling the number of laborers working out of the job center, transportation that facilitates worker collective meetings, or the connection of the Bay Parkway center to another local job center so that resources can be shared.

Urban Mobilities 63

STEP 9. revising the design:

4

37

25

81

6The final step is to revise and create the comprehensive action plan. At this point not only has the community imagined a mobility system that serves their socioculturally specific needs, but hopefully through workshops and collective envisioning other communities connections have been created and strengthened as well.

Referring to the initial overview diagram, Steps 7, 8, and 9 form feedback loop of sorts, with the input and reaction to allowing the process of design to cycle through each as many times as is necessary. At this point, depending on who the facilitators are, the comprehensive action plan can be passed off to the collaborators or the facilitators can continue on with the project aiding in the implementation of the design. Either way, the final action plan should contain criteria of success for anyone to be able to assess whether the resulting mobility system is meeting the communitys needs.

Revise Design To Create A Comprehensive Action Plan

STEP 9 | PG XXMISSED CONNECTIONS

QUESTIONS TO BE FILLED OUT BY RIDER

Driver Communicated Well With MeHow Could This Be Improved?

I Felt Comfortable and SafeHow Could This Be Improved?

I Was Pleased With the Ammenities OfferedPlease Suggest Other Possible Ammenities:

Pickup and Pickup Location Was ConvenientAnd StraightforwardPlease Suggest Other Possibilities:

Dropoff and Dropoff Location was ConvenientAnd StraightforwardPlease Suggest Other Possibilities:

I Was Picked Up and Dropped Off in a Timely MannerHow Could This Be Improved?

This Mobility System Offers a Sense of Community How Could This Be Improved?

I Had a Conversation With Someone During My Ride

I Would Use This Mobility System AgainWhy or Why Not?

due urban mobilities | 2015

Documents