CDD Forum: Jarrett Walker

On Monday, the author and transit expert Jarrett Walker visited MIT to give a talk to the City Design and Development forum. I was fortunate enough to have time to attend. Jarrett has written a book by the name Human Transit which is intended as an introduction to good transit planning principles in a format that is accessible to everyone. I recommend it for anyone at all interested in how transit affects their communities, and how their choices affect transit.

The talk itself was familiar to me, as I have been following his blog for some time. He pitched it towards the audience -- composed primarily of urban design students -- perhaps as a sharp reminder to them that transit is often forgotten by urban planners. He touches on several points, including,

• Mobility vs access: measuring transit by the "mobility" metric (e.g. "person-miles") is not appropriate. It values overly long trips (for example, American commuter rail) over the kind of trips that a transit system usually handles. Instead, the better way to think about transit is "access" which basically boils down to "frequency of service."
• More access means more freedom for people, and that is ultimately what transit is about. Freedom to move around at will, without the burden of a personal vehicle which imposes costs on the user as well as the city.
• He is well known for promoting a grid of transit which relies on easy connections for access to wider areas, as opposed to the one-seat ride school of thought. You can provide much more frequent, understandable service along well-defined corridors, and rely on good connections to other frequent service, and get a lot more transit for your dollar.
• He took a shot at planners who are overly dependent on the notion of "ridership projections" into the future, particularly long term projections. Making predictions about the year 2032 means assuming that the people living now will behave exactly as their parents did, not to mention predicting the strange twists of history that occur along the way.
• Transit agencies need to be more assertive about what is reasonable and feasible to expect out of their service. One of his favorite examples is the rural bus route which diverts two miles down a dirt track to serve a single user -- who may no longer even live there. The bus agency was too afraid to push back and say that this is unreasonable. Also, transit agencies need to work together with the other agencies in the city to improve matters.
• Finally, as always, he promotes the notion that availability and quality of service is much more important than the particular mode being utilized. Whether the vehicle has rubber tires or steel wheels, or anything else, what people care about most is getting to their destination in reasonable time and in a civilized fashion.

I think we would all be a lot better off if his book was required reading for all city and transit planners. The content is actually not that complicated if you are at all familiar with the basics, but that is a good thing because it is an introduction for those folks who may not be familiar with the geometry of transit.

One moment of note came up in the Q&A session afterwards, where a local Cambridge resident stood up and asked about the brewing controversy over the crowded route 1 bus. Briefly, there is a group of residents who are attempting to oppose further development in Cambridge and along the Red Line because they feel that the roads, buses and subways are overcrowded. Jarrett's response was this: build the new stuff, capture the revenue, and use it to fund improvements. If the route 1 bus is doing so poorly, then it needs dedicated lanes, all-door boarding, and more frequent service.

Another person asked whether it was a good idea to promote buses when they are frequently powered by polluting diesel engines. Jarrett's answer was that trolleybuses are still quite a viable alternative, so it is not an intractable problem, and that there are other pollution reducing technologies available to buses. I would have also pointed out that attracting riders out of single-occupancy vehicles and into buses is still a big net win for the environment and the community, even if the buses are powered by diesel engines.

114 moving violations in one hour

After yet-another close call with a red-light runner at Harvard and Brighton Avenues I decided to spend an hour on this lovely day recording the number of moving violations I could observe at this intersection.

I allowed for folks who had clearly committed to the intersection as the light turned yellow. If anything, this is an under-count of violations, as I was fairly forgiving of various questionable acts. For example, I did not count drivers who entered the intersection to make a left turn and got stuck. I did not count drivers who entered the intersection within a few seconds of the yellow, or who seemed to be unable to stop (and weren't egregiously speeding). I did not count drivers who ended up in the intersection after the light turned red if it was due to another driver's behavior. I looked specifically for intent -- for instance, a change of velocity indicating that the driver was responding to the yellow light and making an explicit decision to violate the law.

I have broadly categorized the violations as follows, in this summary:

• 114 total moving violations in one hour (12:48 to 13:48)
• 23 instances of drivers blatantly speeding through the red light, even though they had plenty of time to stop.
• 63 instances of drivers choosing to slowly roll into the intersection when they could easily have stopped.
• 28 illegal turns-on-red (No Turn on Red is posted on all directions).

This is a heavily trafficked intersection for people on foot because of all the businesses. I also observed a number of bicyclists who stopped and waited for the red light. I did not see any bicyclist blow through the red light.

Notable violations: a fuel tanker accelerated on Harvard south-bound dangerously and ran the red light. A police officer on a motorbike flagrantly blew through the light going east on Brighton, no lights flashing. A silver hatchback with plates MA 14XZ79 stepped on the gas to get through the red light going west on Brighton, and nearly rammed another vehicle, just stopping short in time. A heavy public works vehicle also ran the red light going south on Harvard.

I noticed (and you can see in the data) that drivers were more likely to roll through the light on Harvard Ave, but much more likely to speed through the red light on Brighton Ave. I suspect this is because traffic moves more slowly on Harvard than on Brighton; the latter functions almost as a 4 lane highway at this point. Also it became apparent that there was a significant difference regarding turn-on-red violations among the different corners: the corners with sidewalk bulb-outs saw fewer turn-on-red violations than the clipped corners. It looks like the clipped corners may actually invite more reckless turning motion.

It's easy to find cases of moving violations here. I counted 114 violations in one hour. There is no justifiable excuse for BPD D-14 to be putting any traffic safety resources they have available towards anything else until they first address the complete lack of enforcement of motor vehicle safety here.

Replaying real-time bus data

A while back, the MBTA released a few days worth of high-quality, real-time bus tracking information as part of a "data contest." The contest is over but the data is still available. So, for fun, I've created a new visualization of the data: a "replay" of a day's worth of real-time data for the 57/57A buses.

Screenshot of the "replay" animation

Each triangle shows the motion of an individual bus. They are colored arbitrarily to help distinguish one from another. The red circles pop up when a stop request is pressed, and the blue circles pop up where the bus opens its doors. You can rewind, pause, or fast-forward through the day, from 5 in the morning until 2 at night.

The positions are all based on real-time GPS data, so you can watch as the schedules break down due to bunching, observe buses slowing down due to heavy traffic, or see a single bus laying over multiple times. Although the rest of the data is also available, I decided to stick with just one route for now, to keep things simple.

You can see it by clicking on this link.

What should we do about reckless driving?

On October 31st, a white SUV crashed through a red light on Commonwealth Avenue and hit local resident and shopowner Brenda Wynne, then fled, leaving her for dead in the middle of the intersection. Coincidentally, her shop, Stingray Body Art, was tattooed by a black Jeep driven recklessly out of control on Cambridge Street only a couple weeks earlier. Also, in the video, you can see that a nearby pedestrian just barely avoided the collision by a few feet.

(other recent incidents: 1 2 3 4 5; more)

It's well accepted in Boston that drivers run red lights and behave outrageously at times. It's so ingrained that whenever a pedestrian signal turns to Walk, the first thing everyone does is check to see which cars are going to roll through the red light. For example, just a little while ago, I was crossing Brighton Avenue (with the Walk signal) when two vehicles decided to roll through the red light towards the crossing pedestrians (and me). They were going slowly enough to stop, but still opted to run it. One stopped for us, the other blasted through a gap between people walking. Hardly anyone took note, as this kind of behavior is a frequent occurrence.

On another evening, a few months ago, a different story played out, one which I found rather amusing. I was standing on the same corner waiting for a friend, when the driver of a BMW waiting at a red light to make a left onto Harvard Avenue decided to wait no longer. Not only that, he pulled into a parking space on the wrong side of the road, facing the wrong way, directly in front of me. Apparently, he was trying to pick-up his date, who happened to be standing next to me.

I looked back over and noticed a police car had been waiting behind him in the same lane. After a long moment, in which I believe the officer was simply shocked, the flashing lights came on and the police car pulled up behind the BMW. The driver of the BMW, playing coy, started to inch away as if nothing had happened -- until the sirens blared. I didn't stick around to see the rest of the encounter, but it was notable for being the first time I've ever seen a police officer respond to an outright moving violation in the area. Apparently, flagrantly snubbing the law directly in front of an officer is the required impetus.

So, the questions I have are these: why do we tolerate this behavior, why do the police look the other way most of the time, and is it worthwhile trying to change it?

I believe one of the reasons we tolerate reckless driving is that it is culturally accepted here: if everyone is doing it, why not? And the police don't have any moral motivation to stop something which is culturally acceptable. What about monetary incentives? Are the fines not high enough to motivate the police force to collect them? Or do they see the money go elsewhere, and have no financial motivation? Is that necessarily a bad thing? It could lead to abuse, after all. What structural changes in governance could tilt the balance in favor of traffic safety? Should we seek the use of red light cameras? Or will that also degenerate into abuse?

One notable quote from the article linked above is that there is no evidence to pursue the hit-and-run driver because there are no cameras at the scene. This is in sharp contrast to newer MassDOT roads which are extensively monitored for safety. Perhaps that would be the first step, easy and cheap. But it's not enough.

Election Day coming up

I've tended to stay away from overtly political posts, but it's a tough thing to avoid entirely because city planning and infrastructure is a necessarily political matter. Also, the biggest political day of the year is coming up, this November 6th. I just want to mention three Massachusetts candidates, briefly, who are running in contested elections this fall, and why I support them.

This list is composed of only Democrats because I find their priorities and values to be generally in the right place, and balanced. Unfortunately, the Republican party has become dominated by unhinged lunatics who threaten our economic growth as well as the religious liberty of non-Christians. They also seem intent on diverting as much money as possible to further highway construction, and rewarding their suburban and exurban base with more government resources and borrowing. I have trouble seeing why anyone who cares about cities, or urban issues, would be able to cast a vote for a Republican -- as long as that party continue to behave in this destructive manner, they are unfit to govern.

Elizabeth Warren

For me, Elizabeth's strength is on economic issues, particularly her work on the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau and reining in out-of-control banks. I also find the rest of her platform acceptable, and I know that she will work with President Obama if he is re-elected. Although her platform doesn't include too much explicitly on transportation, it does include this:

http://elizabethwarren.com/issues/jobs-and-the-economy

If we invest now in 21st century energy, over time we can lower the costs of production for all of our businesses. Right now, renewable energy is forced to compete with old, dirty energy sources like oil and coal that get billions in special breaks from Washington.

We need to upgrade our aging roads, bridges, mass transit and rail, water and sewage lines, port infrastructure, broadband internet - the basic pieces it takes to manufacture goods and to get them to market.

She also has a section on issues important to urban households, which is more than I can say for her opponent, who seems to treat Boston as a place for photo-ops, and nothing more.

Mike Capuano

For the most part I find Mike to be agreeable and a good fighter on issues important to my area as well as the nearby cities which I also follow. Then again, sometimes he gets weirdly pessimistic.

Here's what his website has to say about transportation:

http://www.house.gov/capuano/issues/mikeon_transportation.shtml

I will continue fighting to increase access to public transportation by extending the Green Line into Somerville, making improvements to the Fairmont Line, advancing an Orange Line stop at Assembly Square, and making progress on the Urban Ring. An enhanced public transportation system will give residents greater options, increase access to employment opportunities and help protect the environment.

Will Brownsberger

The only competitive local election, in my area, this year is the State Senator for the Second Middlesex and Suffolk district. And this is perhaps the most important competitive election in terms of importance for direct, local issues. I am happy to report that State Senator Will Brownsberger is an excellent candidate. From a recent interview, when asked about his priorities, he responded:

1) The MBTA – addressing its maintenance backlog and financial sustainability.

Further on:

Business leaders agree that public transportation is the top jobs issue in the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District. [...]

So, a top priority for job creation in the Second Suffolk and Middlesex District is efficient public transportation. That starts with putting the MBTA on a sound financial footing that allows it to reduce its maintenance backlog. The MBTA's inability to properly maintain and update its core resources will lead to further degradation of service over time. Additionally, we need to look at measures to improve service on the Green Line, which serves much of the district -- changing traffic signalization on the major thoroughfares that it shares with vehicular traffic may help. Finally, longer term, we need to advance plans for improving circumferential transit service -- connecting Longwood to the other great concentration of research in Kendall Square area and also to residential areas from Everett to Roxbury where many hospital workers live. This inner belt transit concept [Urban Ring] has been on the drawing boards for years, but has been stalled by the Big Dig financial crunch.

Will has been State Senator for two years and his district stretches from his native Belmont all the way along Commonwealth Avenue to Arlington Street in the Back Bay. As you can see on this map, his district includes the Central Subway through the Back Bay, portions of Fenway/Kenmore, and the "B" branch through Allston/Brighton. So his territory includes a very heavily traveled portion of the Green Line. Which is why I'm happy to see that he takes it very seriously.

Not only that, he also is very interactive in the community, and even invites everyone to call his personal cell-phone or write to his direct e-mail address if they have issues to talk about. He updates his website frequently and personally responds to all the comments posted on the articles. It's a level of transparency and openness to which I hope that all other members of State Legislature aspire.

Whichever way you vote, the most important thing is that you remember to go out and do so by Tuesday, November 6th. And pay attention to those local races, some of them could be quite important.

Unbunching the bus, part 2

Last time I discussed some of the reasons that buses bunch. Here's some possible ways to help alleviate the problem, if put into practice:

Fewer, higher quality bus stops, with curb extensions

Bus stop consolidation or elimination is an important step: it reduces the fixed costs associated with stopping the bus. One problem is political: people are often attached to their particular stop even if another one is close-by. But American standards for bus stop spacing are too small by far. Here in Boston there's plenty of examples of buses that stop every block or two, which is self-defeating. I believe the station spacing should be closer to a quarter-mile, and not less than 800 ft.

Waldo Terrace stop in Brighton Center: barely 30 feet long!

The other problem with bus stop consolidation is the higher strain placed on the remaining ones. This can be accommodated by using money saved to improve those stops to handle the increased load. There are many cases in the city where this could be applied. For example, take Waldo Terrace in Brighton Center. The following two stops are each separated by a mere 350 feet. Waldo Terrace stop itself is only 30 feet long at best, which is far below the MBTA standards of 60 feet for a corner stop. There is no physical way for a 40 foot bus to pull into this stop when cars are parked adjacent to it. So in my experience, the drivers simply stop in the travel lane.

Stopping in the travel lane has the benefit of eliminating clearance times from the delay equation. The problem is access: the curb is too far for level boarding of any kind, and stepping up into the bus does increase dwell time. The answer is to consolidate this stop with the other two, and to build a "curb extension" or "bulb-out" at the chosen site.

Curb extension: before and after (source: TRB Bus Transit Capacity manual)

The curb extension offers a place for passengers to comfortably wait, it brings level boarding to the side of the bus, helps disabled passengers, eliminates clearance times, and it even frees up some curbside parking space. The cost is a small delay to vehicles behind the bus. But the way I see it: that delay is already happening because of the poorly designed existing stations, and it doesn't really cause a problem. Also, the curb extension (with level boarding) can greatly speed up bus boarding time, making it less of an issue. And, the transportation planner should be thinking of delay in terms of person-minutes, not vehicle-minutes. The bus, with its capacity of 50-80 people, should weigh much more heavily in the mind than the typical private automobile, with its average of one or two people per car.

Bus lanes and signal priority

On wider roads, one potential improvement is a dedicated bus lane, which eases a great deal of the variability that makes scheduling buses a headache. They would still require grade crossings at intersections, so a bus detector could be employed to shift the priority of the traffic signal on approach. Bus lanes go well with curb extensions and also eliminate the one downside of curb extensions because there shouldn't be any other vehicles waiting behind the bus. Bus lanes can also provide an outlet for emergency vehicles that are stuck in traffic jams.

Better boarding and fare payment

Going along with those improvements to bus stops should be choices made to optimize boarding and alighting times. That means purchasing vehicles with low floors, wider doorways, and using all-doors boarding -- which most likely implies deploying Proof-of-Payment and possibly pre-payment of fares. A whole other post could be written about this, so I'll leave it aside. Designs made in accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (and the Mass. AAB) are also generally good for improving boarding and alighting times and therefore are good for transit service.

Self-stabilizing headways

A while back, Bartholdi and Eisenstein authored a paper named "A self-coördinating bus route to resist bus bunching" (summarized here). They described a fairly simple technique for bus dispatching which can be shown mathematically to reinforce stable, equal, and naturally-arising headways as buses circulate along a route. The gist is that it works by delaying buses at strategically chosen "control points" which are stops along the route designated for special treatment. The most natural choices for control points are the termini of a bus route, where the bus must layover anyway while the driver changes or takes a break. There could be other control points as well. I noticed that VTA designed layovers at intermediate stops along its longer routes, for example (whether they made good decisions on this is another matter).

The Bartholdi and Eisenstein idea is easy to implement: the amount of delay that a bus should undertake at a control point is equal to the backwards-headway times some adjustable factor (which be a fraction between 0 and 1). That factor (called α) must be determined through empirical observations and agency policy. But the backwards-headway is easy to measure, especially these days with GPS transponders installed in every bus. Just check how far away the next bus is from arriving at the current stop, and figure out how many minutes that is, and you've got the backwards-headway.

The neat thing is that you can show, mathematically, that by using this technique, headways stabilize naturally towards equal spreading of the buses. You don't even have to know the headways in advance -- the system will naturally tend towards the ideal spacing. They implemented it for a few experiments which seem to bear out their findings. The main failing, as far as I can see it from playing with the model, is that it may take too much time to unbunch buses if there are not enough control points. The other "problem" is that it is incompatible with scheduled arrivals by nature, although for a frequent bus route the schedule is usually wrong anyhow.

Unbunching the bus, part 1

I just wanted to discuss a few potential improvements to bus service here that occur to me as I am riding nearly every day. One of the most notable problems is that of bus bunching: where headways break down and several buses of the same route come along in short order. Probably everyone who has ridden the bus has experienced the frustration of waiting an inordinately long time only to see two, three, or even more buses of your desired route show up together, sometimes all of them busy.

Why do buses bunch?

Unfortunately, there is a natural tendency for buses to bunch like this -- almost a "gravitation" effect which is caused by a combination of factors. The first is the reinforcement of delays due to boarding and alighting. When a bus begins to fall behind, then at each bus stop it starts to face larger crowds than otherwise. These larger crowds require higher "dwell times", causing the bus to fall further behind. What's worse is that the more passengers there are riding the bus, the longer it takes for additional passengers to board. There are some scientific studies of this effect, but it should be fairly intuitive to the observant: just watch next time as riders attempt to board an already-crowded bus and you'll see that it takes much longer to get moving again. Also, the more riders on board the bus, the more likely the Stop Request will be pressed and the less likely the bus will be able to skip any stop (this also makes dynamic "non-stopping" or "expressing" less effective).

How two buses end up leap-frogging each other under heavy demand.

Ultimately the delays may add up so much that the next bus arrives and passes the crowded one. Unless passengers have opted to wait for the next bus (for example, by consulting their smartphones), it is likely that the new bus will be relatively uncrowded and unencumbered, making it much easier for it to catch up. But once the new bus passes the delayed bus, then it starts to encounter bus stops with higher than expected passenger loads, and begins to slow down in the same way. So it begins to "gravitate" back towards the first bus -- which may be moving more smoothly by now. Some of this could be avoided by sending the bus "express" but then that must be communicated to passengers on-board, giving them plenty of time to alight if necessary. On a bus it seems that delay cancels out any gain from going "express."

Clearance time adds random delays

Other sources of delay include increased "clearance time" caused by failure of passing motorists to yield to the bus that is merging back into the travel lane. Although the number of passengers riding isn't directly connected with increased clearance times, there is an indirect relationship: the more often the bus has to pull out of traffic, the more likely it is to spend an inordinate amount of time merging back into the lane. Also, times of heavy automotive traffic -- preventing the bus from merging back -- often correspond to times of heavy bus ridership (e.g. rush hour).

Optimizing traffic signals for cars can hurt bus performance

Finally, I would like to mention traffic signal timing. Traffic signals act as a capacity regulator insofar as they only permit bus movements a limited number of times per hour. Generally, that limited number is high enough to allow the needed capacity. But the timing of lights along a corridor can wreck bus schedules when poorly coordinated. For example, a set of signals that is optimized for automotive flow will probably not serve buses very well, because buses travel in a different pattern from private cars -- instead the bus will find itself stuck at every red light along the way, leading to delays that will probably tip over into the dwell-time "gravitation" trap described above.

What can be done? It seems that the root cause of the problem is the variability of dwell and clearance times. These also happen to be areas where train service is typically superior to bus service; although there is nothing inherent about buses which forces this distinction. The difference is simply that most train designs allow fast boarding and alighting (not the Green Line sadly), and that they do not have to deal with the clearance time issue at all. So, the first place to start, I believe, is to find ways of bringing these advantages to bus service as well.

Continued in part 2.

Mode shift means more than vehicle choice

I sometimes hear people tell me that they'd love to get rid of their car but they must keep it around for a particular sort of trip. While this is a reasonable complaint on one hand, on the other hand, there is more to switching from cars to public transit than just changing your vehicle from automobile to bus or train. Transit is not intended to be a direct replacement of the private car.  The actual alternative to driving is walking. Transit should be considered as a "walking enhancement."

When walking, your personal geography of the city changes. By that I mean, the outlook you have when consulting your mental map of the places you go and the things you need to do around town. Those people thinking about making the switch from private car to walking and public transit sometimes compare their trips under each case. For example, you might open up your web browser to your favorite maps website and compare the Driving directions to the Transit directions. Oftentimes this comparison shows that the transit alternative takes longer. This causes some folks to balk. But it's not the right comparison to make.

For one thing, driving directions never include time to find parking (which can sometimes take longer than the trip!), and they only occasionally factor in traffic delay. But I'm talking about something deeper: the choices you make traversing the city on foot are different than the ones you make while driving.

Some choices are obvious: you look at options that are closer to home; you frequent local business; you don't expect to carry too many things. You don't make trips out to the giant mall complex by the highway unless you really must. You keep an eye on what's available near stations, bus hubs, or along frequent transit lines. You look for clusters of "microdestinations" where you can quickly walk between the places you need to go. Distance and time projections are malleable: places that are more difficult to access seem further away, while those easier to access seem closer. The quirks of your local transit agency play into this: mistakes made in network design inflate travel time, while well-functioning connections decrease it. (This applies to road networks as well).

Not everyone can handle this change of viewpoint, and there's nothing wrong with that. But for those who are considering the change, it's not sensible to try and compare trips directly. You're not going to follow the same patterns of travel on foot as you would with a car. You're not going to run out to the faraway mall for small purchases, and attempting to duplicate that experience using the bus will likely be highly dissatisfying. You will factor transit accessibility into your decision about what jobs you take and where you live. For example, I have heard one person tell me that they chose one job over another because the other would require the purchase of a second car, which is very expensive. I know that lots of people choose to live near the T because it opens up those options for them.

This observation works both ways: buying a car means that you are going to shift from frequenting local walking-oriented places to those sprawled out on the highway, where you don't have to contend with limited parking. You'll choose to live and work somewhere with easy highway accessibility if that's what's important to you. It's not possible to separate decisions about lifestyle from land use and transportation. They are inextricably tied together, regardless of mode.

I believe that a lot of woes of city planning over the past century can be traced to the understandable desire to have it both ways: catering to vehicles and walking equally. But it's not really possible, and the result can be the worst of both worlds: sprawl with dangerous roads, yet a constant "shortage" of parking. Dis-investment in communities, followed by misguided "urban renewal" and the destruction of cities.

Everything I've said is a corollary of city geometry: shorter distances are more amenable to people on foot, but provide fewer places to conduct and store bulky vehicles; while large distances provide ample space for those vehicles, but are an obstacle for walking. This all may seem obvious, but for some reason, I find that it often gets overlooked.

Free highways lead to gridlock in China

The idea of pricing road usage is still controversial in this country. Although it would likely save everyone some time and headaches from congestion (and time is money for most folks), people resist paying for access they feel entitled to be given for free.

This year, China recently decided to celebrate a week of holidays by making all roads free for travel. The result was epic gridlock.

Long tailbacks were reported across the country, with 24 major motorways in 16 provinces effectively transformed into enormous parking lots as 86 million people took to the roads, a 13 per cent increase on last year.

Not everyone was surprised:

Li Daokui, one of China's most prominent economists and a policy adviser to the Central Bank, said the snarl-up was entirely predictable. 

"[Making the] Highways toll free on holidays? We are making a world record of stupidity by launching this policy […] Going free of charge is like shouting out to the public: '1,2,3, let's go jam the road!'" he posted on his Weibo.

I'm sure though that, as an economist, he may have some small appreciation of the mess as an unintentional experiment. I think that this decision by the Chinese government, regarding their toll roads, does a good job of making the case for road pricing: by demonstrating that the opposite causes chaos and unbelievably high levels of congestion.

Barry's Corner Parcel A

View Larger Map
Harvard, the BRA, and the hired developers came by to discuss plans for Parcel A in Barry's Corner. That's the one on the northwest corner of Western Ave and N. Harvard St. I wish I had some pictures to show, but they don't seem to have posted them online. In any case, the plan is to bring activity and diversity to the corner. The building will be mixed-use with 40,000 s.f. retail first-floor and residential above. It will range in height from two, to six, to nine stories. It seems they are leaning towards fully underground parking. There will be a new street created, Grove Street, along the northeast edge of the building, between 175 N. Harvard St and the new building. One slide placed the corner in the context of public transportation, with the 66, 70, 86 and Harvard Shuttle shown. Upgrades to transit access, they say, are forthcoming. They do plan to alter the Harvard Shuttle's route to take advantage of one of the new roads, and eliminate the extremely sharp curve it currently has to navigate.

So far I'm liking what I'm seeing, for the most part. Still need to see specifics in the upcoming institutional master plan PNF, but the presentation was good. All of the people in the room seemed to agree that Harvard did a good job this time with the presentation. They were also happy to see some changes made in response to comments earlier in the summer. Unfortunately, one of those changes was to reduce the maximum height from 11 stories to 9 stories. I'm not quite sure what's driving the community opposition to height, except that it might be rooted in some desire to see Harvard Stadium be the tallest structure in the area. Admittedly, I personally find this to be a weak reason. Anyway, one person asked if going to 8 stories was a make-or-break request. It strikes me that this was testing the developers. If they were willing to concede 8, then would someone else come forward and request 7? This could get out of hand.

There was a long discussion about the economics of building a project like this. The developers are interested in 275-325 units, and have proposed 300 for the time being. So far, they are holding firm on that, which is a good thing. The parcel is 2.4 acres so that works out to about 125 dwelling units per gross acre, which is a decent density for a city block. Interestingly, one of the finance guys spoke about some of the economics of the plan, saying basically that it cost 30-50% more money to build in the city than outside of it. He said that this construction cost is the main driver behind the cost/benefit analysis. He also claimed that pretty much all development in the city has razor thin margins in the first year, but the goal was to achieve decent profitability in the long run, over the course of decades.

Harvard envisions that the blocks surrounding Barry's Corner will also grow up in similar fashion, outside of the preserved open space areas. They showed some of this in several conceptual art images. Although you do have to take those visions with a large grain of salt, I do hope they're right.