In 2016, the U.S. Census Bureau found that it took the average commuter more than 26 minutes to get to work. That figure might sound less than much—26 minutes is about enough time to finish a podcast, after all, and some historians argue that a roughly half-hour commute has been
“The super commuters in areas where the housing isn’t necessarily super-expensive and there just isn’t transit infrastructure are concentrated more in the middle of the country,” said Sydney Bennet, a senior research associate at ApartmentList and the author of the report. “There’s a lot more people super commuting for economic reasons in those places.”
The media has a curious fascination with feats of extreme commuting. Readers seem to take pleasure in marveling at the “astonishing human potential wasted” by other Americans whose commutes are literally “killing them.” City Observatory’s Joe Cortright has long been a critic of this fixation, pointing out that the last decade’s growth in super commuters mostly reflects economic growth, and that the number of car commuters engaged in these grim daily rituals has stayed largely flat. Many super-commute stories are also tales of privilege—people determined to take on high-powered jobs in cities without uprooting their families. There’s the chief medical officer choosing to commute from her Boston-adjacent hometown to Manhattan, or the chief operating officer who flies from Toronto to Vancouver every week. And, indeed, super commuters overall do represent a more affluent subset of Americans, according to Bennet: About 2.5 million of the 4 million (or 62.5 percent) of super commuters nationwide make above the median income.
But the report also highlights the fact that many super commuters now look more like Sheila James, the health and human services worker whose epic schlep (she wakes up at 2:15 each weekday to travel by bus and train from Stockton to San Francisco) was the focus of a much-discussed New York Times piece in August.Super commuters like her are more likely to be using public transit, and that transit is not always serving them well.
The Miami Herald, for example, recently profiled hotel housekeeper Odelie Paret’s two-bus slog, for example, to draw attention to the affordable housing challenges facing Miami-Dade’s service workers, but it’s also an indictment of the area’s transit access: Her afternoon commute takes about two hours door-to-door, though she lives only 13.5 miles away.
Nationally, the vast majority (91.4 percent) of workers with shorter, “regular” commutes drive to work, ApartmentList estimates, compared to only 69.7 percent of super commuters. But the gap can vary widely from city to city. In Las Vegas, 95 percent of regular commuters drive, versus only 47.9 percent of super commuters. And in many such cities, it’s the state of public transit itself that is contributing to the conditions that create the painful super commute, says Bennet. “It’s really a lot of lower-income super commuters in areas like Las Vegas or Cleveland that are taking transit,” she said. “Not necessarily of choice, but out of necessity.”
Among those Cleveland super commuters, for example, 55 percent are earning below the metro area’s median income. (It’s worth noting, however, that super-commuting Clevelanders represent an extremely small community: A mere 1.3 percent of the Ohio city’s metro qualify.)
But ultimately, the report emphasizes the importance of improving public transit: “As more households are priced out of expensive cities and inner suburbs, without major investment in public transit, the growth in the share of super commuters is likely to continue,” it concludes. As fixes go, that’s neither quick nor easy, especially given the current political climate. But it’s also a solution that would improve the lives of all commuters, not just the super ones.
Heads up, cities: Economic growth does not necessarily go hand-in-hand with economic and racial inclusion.
That’s the finding of a new, in-depth analysis by the Urban Institute (UI) of the 274 largest cities in America. The report and accompanying data tool show how economic shifts in these cities since the 1980s have corresponded with “inclusion”—the ability of low-income residents and people of color to benefit from and contribute to the city’s economic gains.
To demonstrate that, the researchers first measured whether the city recovered its economic health between 1980 and 2013, a period that saw a series of downturns. Then, they looked at factors like income segregation, housing affordability, educational attainment, and job quality, that give a sense of the well-being of low-income residents. They also examined the disparities between white residents and communities of color with respect to such indicators. With all of this information in hand, the researchers set out to create separate rankings of the economic and racial inclusion in each city, as well as a combined snapshot of both.
One of their top-line findings: The ten cities faring the best on the inclusion metrics in 2013 were also flourishing economically. “There is a strong relationship between the economic health of a city and a city’s ability to support inclusion for its residents,” the authors write in the report.
In UI’s map, all the cities are represented as dots, with the bluer ones being more inclusive:
Fremont, California, tops the list of ten most inclusive cities in 2013, (many of which are in California). Clicking on the dot representing Fremont pulls up details of how it fared with respect to economic health (first image below), as well as on indicators of economic and racial inclusion over time (second and third image below, respectively):
If we were to leave it at that, it would seem like all cities needed to do to become more inclusive was to become wealthier. But other findings from the report challenge that notion. When the researchers zoomed in on the 41 cities where economic conditions had improved in this time period, they found that 23 were more inclusive overall, while 18 became less so. In other words, making the pie bigger didn’t guarantee everyone in the city a piece.
Plus, even where economic inclusion exists, it was not necessarily accompanied by racial inclusion. Sioux Falls, South Dakota, was 38th in terms of economic inclusion in 2013, for example, but at the very bottom of the list when it came to racial inclusion. Camden, New Jersey, was the opposite: in the 13th spot when it came to racial inclusion, but 271st when it came to economic inclusion. Overall, in 2013, more than half of the cities were very far apart on the two scales.
So what could we learn from the cities that were at the top? The end of the report focuses on the commonalities between four cities—Columbus, Ohio; Louisville, Kentucky; Lowell, Massachusetts; and Midland, Texas—all of which improved their racial and economic inclusion, as they recovered economically. One central theme throughout was that these cities appeared to emphasize racial and ethnic inclusion in their plans for economic development. Initiatives included bringing immigrant groups to the table, empowering local community organizations, and crafting education policies catering specifically to students of color. This approach appeared to promote a better economic future not just for the groups that had been historically disadvantaged, but for everyone in the city. (Previous research has shown that inclusive, diverse cities helps foster a better future for all residents.)
In a time of widening inequality, the findings of this report provide a roadmap for a deliberate effort to mitigate the forces that have created unequal communities. The authors conclude:
As this research illustrates, not all cities have made intentional progress, and, for some cities, economic conditions changed and prosperity was more widely shared. However, sustaining this progress toward more shared prosperity requires intentional effort, transparency, and policies.
What can a town do to advance clean energy locally if it is fed up with its incumbent, investor-owned monopoly utility? In the latest episode of the Local Energy Rules podcast, John Farrell, Director of ILSR’s Energy Democracy Initiative, interviews Andy Johnson and Joel Zook, community members and local energy leaders from Decorah Power, about an upcoming ballot initiative in Decorah, Iowa, and the culmination of an organized, grassroots effort by residents to take back local control of their electric utility and energy future. In a midterm election year, this is one vote that those who care about local, clean energy will not want to miss.… Read More
The pattern is the same throughout the world. People do not want garbage incinerators which pollute, need enormous amounts of capital and cap comprehensive job-intensive recycling, reuse and composting efforts. The staying power of anti incineration and pro Zero Waste campaigns prove this. In most cases a mobilized citizenry and small business sector and democratic institutions assure eventual victories over garbage incineration.… Read More
Have you ever wondered how many cigarettes you’re passively smoking while walking through the streets of a polluted, smog-infused city? No?
Well, a pair of digital developers just invented an app that will definitely (and accurately) answer that question. (Attention, smokers: You might want to quit after reading this.)
Shit, I Smoke! was created by Brazilian-born designer Marcelo Coelho and Paris-born app developer Amaury Martiny in just a week, after they read a study that analyzed air pollution and its equivalent to cigarette smoking. The article––co-written by Richard Mueller, a MacArthur fellow and physics professor at the University of California, Berkeley––explains a mathematical model that compares smoking and tobacco-related deaths to levels of PM2.5, a microscopic particle that is a dangerous, cancerous pollutant after combustion.
“Here is the rule of thumb: one cigarette per day is the rough equivalent of a PM2.5 level of 22 μg/m3 (…) Of course, unlike cigarette smoking, the pollution reaches every age group,” the study reads. It finds that Beijing has on average a PM2.5 level of 85 μg/m3, which makes for four cigarettes; Los Angeles County registered an average of half a daily cigarette, or 12 μg/m3, in 2016.
“The interface is pretty straightforward: It geolocates your phone, connects to the database, and shows the number of cigarettes smoked that day,” said Coelho.
The idea to develop the app is tied to Martiny’s experience living in Beijing, specifically during the years prior to the 2008 Olympic Games. “I personally saw a huge transformation of the city,” Martiny said. “In the beginning, I could see big blue skies, and there were not so many cars. It was quite pleasant.” But, according to Martiny, everything changed after the Chinese government started to emit a large number of pollutants from coal-burning plants, amid construction projects and other investments related to fast-paced industrialization in Beijing.
“The city changed its face, right before I decided to leave. It was really not livable; the air was horrible to breathe, and I just couldn’t stand to live there any longer.”
The app reveals that Parisians can effectively inhale between three and six cigarettes per day, while a person in Delhi could be smoking up to 20 cigarettes—without even touching one—on a bad day. Other urban agglomerations have worrying numbers, too (6.5 cigarettes daily in Mexico City).
“I was also surprised to see that Buenos Aires and São Paulo have the best air quality in all Latin America, despite the fact these are heavily populated cities,” said Coelho, who’s originally from the latter, Brazil’s largest city.
For both Coelho and Martiny, the app isn’t only a useful tool to inform users about their city’s air quality; it also makes this information more accessible and easier to comprehend. “These air-quality monitoring stations are just numbers, numbers that are very specific to professionals who work in environmental issues,” Martiny said. “So when you make this conversion to cigarettes, it makes it easier to understand what people are dealing with and the consequences air quality has in their daily lives.”
The developers’ plan now is to keep working on and enhancing the app’s features. This will most likely include monthly average cigarette rates, and enabling users to get data from cities other than the one they’re in.
On April 9, the Treasury Department debuted the first details of a new and far-reaching community-based tax incentive. In 18 states,newly designated zones could see a wave of new investment under a little-known provision of the recent tax overhaul.
These Opportunity Zones are designed to lure investment to the nation’s poorest urban, suburban, and rural communities with a powerful tax incentive.By the accounts of some experts, the program could deliver a vital injection to areas that haven’t yet recovered from the Great Recession. Yet it could also fuel gentrification in those communities where too much opportunity, too fast, has led to rapid displacement.
Nightmare scenarios under the Opportunity Zones program would mean tax benefits flowing to the wrong places or paying for the wrong things: Amazon receiving sweeping federal tax benefits to build HQ2 in D.C.’s Shaw neighborhood, for example, or payday lenders expanding their already substantial profile in places such as Louisville.
Or Opportunity Zones could just be, as critics contend, more of the same: the latest in a long line of economic development incentives that have failed to deliver. It all depends on how it’s implemented.
“Amazon HQ2 could figure out a way to make this [incentive] work [for the company’s benefit], potentially,” says Brett Theodos, a principal research associate for the Urban Institute. “Which is why zone selection matters so much. If we get places that really need the investment, it’s more likely those benefits are going to accrue to low- and moderate-income people.”
Congress created the bipartisan Opportunity Zones program as part of the tax bill passed last December. It’s an effort to try to rip up the stagnant and uneven pattern of economic development across the country, conditions that are dark and worsening. Even as the Department of Treasury confirms the remaining zone designations—for 32 more states, the territories, and the District of Columbia—leaders are hammering out the terms for Opportunity Funds, vehicles that will allow investors to defer their tax liability by investing equity into a number of different kinds of assets within a community. Final nominations for Opportunity Zones were due to Treasury on April 20.
The test of this program may be two-fold: first, whether cities and states pick the right places to be Opportunity Zones; and second, whether their federal partners set the proper guidelines for transparency and accountability.
Across the nation, a huge gob of census tracts were eligible to be designated Opportunity Zones—41,201 in all. (That’s a bit more than half of all the census tracts in the country.) State and territorial governors (plus the mayor of D.C.) were limited to picking just one-quarter of their eligible tracts to be Opportunity Zones. Unlike with Empowerment Zones, a more top-down Clinton-era predecessor, Opportunity Zones leave a great deal of discretion to state and local leaders as to where to steer the incentive.
“We don’t have a lack of capital in the U.S. We have a lack of connectivity,” says Bruce Katz, who until recently served as a scholar for the Brookings Institution. “We have a matching problem. This incentive might accelerate our ability to match up.”
Katz is not a disinterested observer. He recently teamed up with Jeremy Nowak—a fellow at Drexel University’s Lindy Institute for Urban Innovation and Katz’s co-author for The New Localism: How Cities Thrive in the Age of Populism—to launch a consultancy related to Opportunity Zones. This work is taking them across the country to talk with leaders and investors alike about the program. Consider them matchmakers.
In Louisville, for example, that might mean turning an under-used high school into a vocational training facility. That’s one idea for an investment opportunity in Louisville’s historically black, near-downtown neighborhood of Russell, where Katz says he talked about the possibility with a school superintendent. A program to boost on-boarding makes sense for Russell (and for Louisville, and for Kentucky as a whole, and really, for America). The idea is that new investments will work hand-in-hand with other factors—assets, existing programs, benefits, local conditions—to generate new jobs and also produce new skilled workers to fulfill those jobs.
Below is a map showing Louisville’s Opportunity Zones, courtesy of a tool built by Enterprise Community Partners. The Opportunity Zones designated by the state appear in orange. Russell, just west of downtown Louisville and across the highway that segregates the city racially and economically, is among the designated zones.
Other areas that meet the main criteria for eligibility but haven’t been designated are shown in blue. These are Low Income Community census tracts: areas with either a poverty rate of at least 20 percent or a median family income less than or equal to 80 percent of the area median income. Some tracts are eligible because they are adjacent to Low Income Community census tracts, even though they don’t have quite the same poverty profile; rendered in green, these contiguous tracts can make up only 5 percent of a state’s nominated zones. (Another 200 select tracts around the nation with especially high migration rates or low population levels were also granted special eligibility.)
In a month, Treasury will release the final Opportunity Zones. These designations will last a decade, meaning that decisions by state and local leaders will determine the fate of the federal program. That’s key in differentiating Opportunity Zones from the New Markets Tax Credit: Local governments get say. Only one-quarter of eligible tracts will be open to Opportunity Funds. Local stakeholders’ decisions in choosing between qualifying tracts will be especially consequential.
“There’s a lot of variation in how much capital the qualifying census tracts are accessing,” says Theodos, who led a project at the Urban Institute to show where Opportunity Zones could do the most good (and where they might not). “That means that some places need the incentive more than others, and that ranges of course across place as well. The governors have a lot to choose from, and their choice matters quite a bit.”
The program’s authors say that Opportunity Zones can offset a tilted economy. At a time when inequality is practically a new national anthem, access to capital is especially skewed, geographically. Whole swaths of the nation have seen a decline in large banks lending to small businesses or opening new branches. Smaller and regional banks have struggled to keep up with the majors (or they’ve been absorbed by them). In some places, banking disparities are the result of racial discrimination, while other areas are just being left behind.
At the growth end of the spectrum, venture capital is highly concentrated in a handful of metro areas, and so is high-wage job growth. Sacramento, Philadelphia, Buffalo, and Hartford have lost high-wage jobs to Austin, Nashville, and Denver. Growth in places hit hardest by the Great Recession—in cities such as St. Louis, New Orleans, Rochester, Columbus, and beyond—is mostly confined to low-wage sectors.
“Given the trends we’re seeing in the economy, this is the right time and a necessary time to be reevaluating the policy toolkit that we use to address economic disparity at the community level and the regional level,” says John Lettieri, cofounder and president of the Economic Innovation Group, the think tank that helped to write the legislation. “The toolkit we use now does not equip us very well to deal with the trends that we’re seeing, which don’t look anything like the trends we saw in the 1990s or 2000s.”
Here’s how the incentive works: Individual or corporate investors can defer their capital gains on investments in Opportunity Funds for a certain number of years (and in limited cases, permanently). The asset classes in Opportunity Funds are broad and flexible, with few set parameters: think affordable housing, real estate, infrastructure, and even transit. Cities, suburbs, rural enclaves, and regions can establish their own Opportunity Funds to identify needs ranging from hyperlocal (small businesses) to intra-state (transit).
The new tax incentive is not a strategy by itself, Lettieri says. The fact that states need to “down select”—or narrow down a list of many eligible tracts to final nominated zones—was baked into the legislation. The program will only work as well as local and state leaders plan it to work. There’s nothing preventing a state from parceling out its Opportunity Zone incentives to places that are already gentrifying, as appears to be the case in Cleveland.
“The Opportunity Zone incentive is not a silver bullet,” says Steve Glickman, cofounder and CEO of the Economic Innovation Group.
Cities like Louisville have a few different kinds of urban markets to consider. There’s the medical district on the east end of downtown, which works like an innovation district. There’s the area of the city near the University of Louisville that has a strong engineering focus. The near-in but economically fenced-off west end is another typology—but it’s an area that the market has historically ignored or discounted or failed to appreciate.
The promise of Opportunity Zones is that self-selecting communities can identify their assets and signal their potential to investors. An Opportunity Fund that drives investment into small businesses and real estate into neighborhoods like Russell in Louisville could be a model for Opportunity Zones in other cities that are similar to Russell (and vice versa). The same way that innovation districts and anchor institutions resemble one another (as markets) from one city to the next, so will the to-be-determined opportunities in distressed communities—from South Bend to Louisville to St. Louis and beyond.
“[The market]’s going to begin to understand that the country has these typologies, has these categories, of different kinds of geographies and assets which then lend themselves to certain kinds of investment,” Katz says. “It’s not like, at the end of the day, we’re dealing with hundreds of radically different kinds of propositions. I think this is going to be a market that routinizes.”
Kentucky’s Opportunity Zones cluster in urban tracts in Louisville, Lexington, Bowling Green, and outside Cincinnati. But many more eligible tracts (and Opportunity Zones) fall in exurban and rural areas—places where the reach of banks is declining, job growth has fallen off, and home mortgages are more likely to be under water. Much more of the country looks like these places than like the white-hot markets of Boston, New York, San Francisco, Seattle, and Washington, D.C.
Whether the Opportunity Zones program can avoid the mistakes of Empowerment Zones and other place-based incentives depends on what places leaders pick. In Texas, for example, San Antonio Mayor Ron Nirenberg submitted 27 tracts for consideration to the state: a few downtown but most of them stretching further out into Bexar County. (Texas Governor Greg Abbott included 24 of them in the state’s final 628 nominations.) Knowing whether Nirenberg called it right means weighing a host of thorny factors related to race, class, blight, potential employment centers, and more.
Socioeconomic change red flags
For the Urban Institute, Theodos’s team charted various kinds of capital flows for every eligible Opportunity Zone tract out there. The project assigned each tract an investment score, a value based on four factors: commercial lending, multifamily lending, single-family lending, and small-business lending. Tracts with a high ratio of investment in one or all these categories earned a high investment score. At such a small geographic level, a high score can sometimes reflect a skewed reality: a concentrated share of low-income housing, for example, or a prison construction project.
Theodos also generated a “socioeconomic change flag” as a measure of demographic change in every tract.
Put simply, it’s an indicator for gentrification. Tracts that earned a flag have showcased enough socioeconomic growth already that they don’t need economic stabilization. For these neighborhoods, Opportunity Zone designation could mean property tax shocks, luxury development, displacement, and all the other undesirable effects of geographic disparity that the program is trying to solve.
In Louisville, the census tract that matches up with Russell—where investment might take the form of a new vocational school—has an investment score of 9 (out of 10). That means a high level of existing investment, mostly in small businesses (which may reflect the $29.5 million that the neighborhood received through another federal program, the Choice Neighborhoods Initiative). Only one of the eligible tracts for Jefferson County (i.e., Louisville) earned a socioeconomic change flag, the gentrification bat-signal in Theodos’s analysis. Kentucky leaders skipped this tract, although they designated almost all of its neighbors as Opportunity Zones.
In some urban areas, it may be hard to designate Opportunity Zones without running the risk of transforming the neighborhood. For example, nearly every census tract in Baltimore City qualifies as an eligible low income tract, but large parts of Baltimore definitely do not lack for private investment. By the Urban Institute’s measure, nearly 20 percent of Baltimore City tracts are already gentrifying. A tax incentive for investors to build up areas like Fells Point or Station North—the places where investors are happily building already— will do the opposite of what the program’s framers intended.
“Those communities that have experienced a lot of social change, it may well be that low- and moderate-income residents are not able to remain and benefit from the incentive,” Theodos says.
Treasury has not yet released Maryland’s designations. Same with Washington, D.C., a unique city-state with no rural areas within its 68-square-mile boundaries. Almost half of the District’s Opportunity Zone–eligible tracts got Urban’s gentrifying marker. The new tax incentive could carefully guide investment toward the parts of the city where it is still badly needed, or it could pour gasoline on a market that’s already white hot.
“I think it’s all over the place. I saw a few instances in which states seemed really sophisticated and knew what they were doing,” Nowak says. “They’re grappling particularly with what urban areas can grow, and really grappling with the rural issues, which are really hard. Then I saw other examples where states just said, ‘Give us your tracts, we’ll use those and see if we can get them all in.’”
A federalist approach
Even as the administration is still mapping out where the nation’s Opportunity Zones will go, policymakers and stakeholders are puzzling out what Opportunity Funds will mean to investors. Lettieri and Glickman say that the breadth of possibility for Opportunity Fund investments is critical to ensuring that it works as an incentive for struggling communities across urban, suburban, and rural settings. The same tax incentive might build workforce development in rural Appalachia or affordable housing in downtown Atlanta.
“If these projects are used broadly to accomplish social good, to build affordable housing, to create new businesses and help businesses expand, then this program will be able to create a new ecosystem of community development financial institutions and equity investors coming together to support businesses and developers to do work,” Theodos says.
“Alternatively, if it’s used by payday lenders to grow their payday footprint, that might have a different effect on the local community,” he adds.
But the upside is substantial, too. Nothing in the U.S. serves quite the same role as, say, Sweden’s Kommunivest, a consortium that enables municipal governments to raise capital by issuing green bonds. Done right, Opportunity Zones could serve an unfulfilled intermediary role between capital and places where capital has evaporated.
The problem is larger than a missed marketplace opportunity. Economic anxiety in America is linked to sincere systemic problems, from lifetime earnings gaps to lower childhood achievement gaps to higher suicide rates. “Worst of all, the longer the unemployment spell, the less likely the possibility of reemployment—and by extension the opportunity to escape these terrible costs—becomes,” reads a white paper by Jared Bernstein and Kevin A. Hassett. The Economic Innovation Group released the bipartisan paper in 2015 as its mission statement for Opportunity Zones.
Depending on what local and state leaders do with it, the program may exacerbate some of the problems stemming from growth in high-octane areas. But there are worse problems, and those are the ones that Opportunity Zones were designed to target.
“I think cities, counties, and states are grownups,” Katz says. “Let’s take [this program] at its word and see if we can—in a classic, American, federalist, distributed way—figure it out.”
Cities addressing plastic pollution and contamination of US recyclable materials are taking aim at single- use disposable plastic foodware. Berkeley, Calif. is considering the most aggressive legislation among actions in six other US cities.… Read More
Enthusiasm for congestion pricing reached a fever pitch amongst New York City’s transportation advocates earlier this year, but to little avail. The state’s political process once again delayed enacting structural changes that would address congestion and transit financing directly. Instead, Governor Andrew Cuomo enacted a surcharge on taxis, for-hire vehicles, and pooled rides, calling this “phase one of the congestion pricing plan.” The move was aimed at both easing traffic and creating a sustainable revenue source to fund public transportation improvements.
Starting in 2019, New Yorkers can expect to pay an additional $2.75 on for-hire vehicles that are booked through apps or over the telephone such as a single ride Gett or Uber, $2.50 for yellow and green taxis that are hailed on the street or via an app, and $.75 for pooled rides such as a Lyft Line or Via with multiple passengers that enter Manhattan south of 96th Street. When all of these fees are added up, we are told, they will create $400 million per year for the MTA on an ongoing basis.
Based on what Cuomo has emphasized, the fees seem to be mostly about generating new revenue for transit. At that, it seems they will be effective. But the mechanics are worrisome: Yoking transit funding to a newly created “congestion fee” severs transit from the regular budgeting process and existing tax revenues. This puts transit at a further disadvantage when it comes time to negotiate budgets or face off against street pavings, highway widenings, or bridge maintenance.
First, though, will these fees have much of an effect on congestion? “The experts will say, to handle the congestion you really need to charge tolls for cars that are coming from the outside,” Cuomo recently told NY1. But while surcharges on taxis and for-hire vehicles may address a portion of the congestion problem in New York, they aren’t enough to manage it effectively over the long-run. According to Charles Komanoff, one of the principal analysts behind Move NY, an earlier congestion-busting plan, the new fees will boost travel speeds by just 3 percent. While every mile per hour counts when sitting in traffic, in practice these fees will translate to less than an extra half-a-mile per hour.
Furthermore, Komanoff argues that there will be an undesirable side effect: Driving personal vehicles will become cheaper, compared to taking a taxi or slogging through today’s congestion, because the surcharges will create some space on the road by diverting cabs and for-hire vehicles. As traffic recomposes over time, this will mean more private cars and fewer taxis because drivers will avoid the additional costs imposed on taxis and for-hire vehicles. No wonder cab companies are protesting the surcharges. Uber and Lyft, meanwhile, are pushing for a complete congestion pricing plan that applies to all vehicles.
Then there is the matter of fundraising. New York isn’t the first city to introduce per-ride fees on app-based ride services like Uber, Lyft, Gett, and Via. Chicago, Seattle, Portland, Washington D.C., and Boston all levy per-ride fees on these types of rides in order to pay for a variety of initiatives, such as transport infrastructure improvements, wheelchair accessible vehicles, financial assistance for “traditional” taxi operators, and administrative costs for regulating these services. Both Chicago and D.C. have either enacted new fees or are considering new fees that will be used to help fund transit directly. In Chicago, it is expected that a new $.15 fee will raise $16 million in 2018 and another $30 million in 2019 that will be used to fund the Chicago Transit Authority. As D.C. finalizes its budget, it, too, sees fees on app-based mobility companies as a source for about $18 million to fund the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.
The scale of these programs, however, pales in comparison to the $400 million New York anticipates collecting annually. This $400 million is already earmarked for the Subway Action Plan, an $800 million plan to stabilize and modernize the existing subway system through the replacement and repairs to existing tracks and signals. As the MTA attempts to maintain and improve its existing infrastructure and rolling stock, it will also dedicate resources to more frequent station cleanings and greater attention to keeping tracks clear of passengers’ litter that sparks track fires and slows down service.
Clearly, transit needs all the funding it can get. But there is a more structural issue here: Why does transit have to rely on levies? This stands in contrast to road projects and improvements for cars. There always seems to be room in the municipal budget for those. Elected officials and public policy researchers often repeat the mantra that budgets reflect priorities. When we examine road construction financing versus transit financing through this lens, it is impossible not to see that roads are a priority: They receive funding without protest or debate, while transit improvements are seen as exceptional and something to be taken on a case-by-case basis. A clear evocation of this difference in prioritization comes in the form of general obligation bonds that are routinely issued by cities and states to pay for key projects, such as road widenings or new bridges and even transit-related improvements on occasion.
For example, in Washington, D.C., the $1.4 billion, six-year capital program to fund the Department of Transportation’s Capital Projects is largely paid for using debt financing, such as general obligation bonds. These bonds are secured by “the full faith and credit of the District.” In the event that the full faith and credit of the District is unable to pay back the interest and principal spelled out in the initial offering, the Special Real Property Tax, which is uncapped, will increase to cover shortfalls. Some key projects covered by this program include $275 million for the “preservation, maintenance, and repair,” of 528 miles of roadway in Wards 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. Another $150 million will go towards the “rehabilitation, reconstruction, and maintenance” of 364 miles of D.C.’s alleyways. Despite the heavy tilt toward road improvements, this package also includes $100 million for a streetcar connection. Rather than use this money to plug WMATA’s budget shortfall and address existing maintenance and operations issues, capital dollars are being used for shiny new capital projects.
Back in New York, the city has already committed to
spending $14 billion repaving roads and maintaining bridges over the next 10 years. The bulk of this money will also come from general obligation bonds. There is no expectation that these improvements should go through the same tortuous and uncertain funding process that the current Subway Action Plan has endured. Looking over different capital plans from around the country, it’s clear that repavings and road improvements are normal while transit repairs and expansion to legacy systems are exceptional. This helps explain why New York has struggled to add new capacity to the subway network.
Even if New York could find the money to pay for the Subway Action Plan, we still need to spend our money more responsibly. The continuous pattern of cost overruns by the MTA and the region’s commuter rail systems poses a serious threat to our transit system by limiting our ability to maintain and expand the system in a timely and cost-effective manner. If New York is serious about managing congestion and raising revenue for transit, Cuomo’s surcharges on Uber and taxis are a small first step towards that comprehensive transportation plan. But ultimately, they’re a flawed solution.
Keep up with the most pressing, interesting, and important city stories of the day. Sign up for the CityLab Daily newsletter here.
What We’re Following
Toronto attack: Monday’s sidewalk attack in Toronto follows a pattern of vehicular terror that further demonstrates how traffic threatens lives, and the need for safe streets. As CityLab’s Laura Bliss wrote after a truck driver plowed through a New York bike path in October, vehicle attacks don’t have to be inevitable:
Not every street will ever be lined with concrete barriers, and in a crowded city, all vehicles can be weaponized, intentionally or not. … Banning cars and trucks [from pedestrian-heavy areas] would not only make acts of vehicular terror far harder to execute, it would ease the quotidian bloodshed of fatal crashes. And then, those walking and riding through their cities would actually be safer, instead of just feeling that way.
What’s your password? Atlanta’s ransomware attackers demanded about $50,000. The aftermath has cost the city more than $2.6 million, Wired reports. It’s possible that city officials never even had a chance to pay the ransom after the attackers took the payment portal offline, but the expenses, ranging from tech consulting to crisis communication services, have proved far more costly. CityLab context:The Atlanta cyberattack could have been much worse.
Public or private? Docked or dockless? E-bike or e-scooter? It’s complicated. But bikesharing is now big business, and cities need to understand how these emerging systems operate—and who operates them.
The Hague’s new ban on the public consumption is the latest signal of the country’s waning tolerance. It could also be a step toward a happier medium.
Map of the Day
Mapped in Manhattan: Open data does it again. This new interactive map of all the buildings in Manhattan, created by software engineer Taylor Baldwin, combines the city’s publicly available 3-D building models and PLUTO tax lot data to sort the borough’s buildings by age, building height, or residential building class.
It’s a little clunky (best viewed in Chrome on desktop), but that last option is worth the load time, turning the city’s residential zoning into a Fruity Pebbles array of walk-ups, condos, hotels, and more. (h/t Curbed NY)
What We’re Reading
Amazon wants to drop its junk off in your trunk (The Verge)
A new kind of city tour shows the history of racist housing policies (Fast Company)
Traffic safety data company finds more drivers using cell phones (Streetsblog)
“Architecture fiction” is the design world’s clickbait (Quartz)
Sean Hannity is just another corporate landlord (Slate)
Tell your friends about the CityLab Daily! Forward this newsletter to someone who loves cities and encourage them to subscribe. Send your own comments, feedback, and tips to email@example.com.
BANGALORE—Last fall, near the southern Indian city of Bangalore, Kurian Mathew received an earnest call from a local silk farmer. “Every month, tons of mulberry leaves are left over from our pruned plants,” the farmer said. “Would you like to use them at your factory?”
Along with two partners, Mathew runs a pilot plant for a German company called Bio-lutions, which uses agricultural waste to create eco-friendly food packaging. So when the farmer called, he agreed to try mulberry stems and leaves as raw materials. “A week later, sacks full of mulberry leaves were delivered at our doorstep,” he recalled.
The leaves were shredded and dried for two days in the front yard of the small factory. They were then cleaned, mixed with water, and converted into self-binding fibers in a patented machine. More water and centrifugal force turned the fibers into a pulp, which was then passed through a forming machine and a hot press—and voilà, packaging trays for vegetables and fruits were ready.
Mulberry leaves are just one kind of plant material that Bio-lutions can turn into packaging. Wheat and rice straw, sugarcane leaves, banana stems, pineapple leaves, and tomato plants are all processed in its factory using just 3.7 to 5.3 quarts of water for slightly more than 2 pounds of product, no added chemicals, and very little energy. Since only water and plant residue go into them, the products biodegrade easily.
“Our products are like leaves: They biodegrade in three months,” Mathew said. “We’re just giving another life to agricultural residue by converting it into something usable.”
India’s plastic waste is a big contributor to pollution, and not only within the country. A 2017 study found that of the 10 rivers that drain more than 90 percent of the world’s plastic debris into the oceans, three flow through India. At the same time, stubble-burning by farmers is so pervasive that it is responsible for an estimated 90 percent of Delhi’s pollution during the fall and winter months. Bio-lutions is addressing two of India’s big environmental problems at once, producing a biodegradable alternative to plastic and utilizing crop residues that would otherwise be burned.
India generates some 15,000 tons of plastic every day, equivalent to 9.1 million tons per year. (By comparison, the United Kingdom generates 3.7 million tons annually, and in 2010, the United States produced about 31 million tons of plastic waste.) Of those 15,000 daily tons, only 9,000 are recycled. The rest goes into landfills and water. India’s rules for plastic waste management, which mandate clampdowns on unlicensed plastic manufacturing, are poorly enforced.
Bangalore produces about 3,500 tons of garbage, including plastic, daily. “Being a resident of Bangalore, I have seen enough garbage all around, and wanted to contribute in some way,” said Mathew. So when Eduardo Gordillo, the Hamburg-based founder of Bio-lutions, raised the idea of opening the company’s first plant in India, Mathew grabbed the offer.
Mathew has relatives who own farms in southern India, so he was aware of stubble-burning. Farmers across India burn significant amounts of agricultural waste to clear their fields for the next crop. Although there are numerous uses for that waste—it can be plowed back into the ground as a nutrient or used as roof thatching, for example—farmers rarely use it except as animal fodder or mulch.
Jessica McCarty, a geographer at Miami University in Ohio who has studied stubble-burning in India, said that most farmers don’t know of other options, and if they do, “[they] also need to be cheap or subsidized for the farmers to switch their management practices.” Bio-lutions pays farmers for their crop waste.
Since early 2017, the company has supplied its packaging (which is approved by India’s food standards authority) to online grocery stores. Bio-lutions’ products are only marginally more expensive than the plastic variants, and have found a ready market. With a five-year, interest-free loan from a German bank, the company is preparing to manufacture tableware as well.
Next month, Bio-lutions is moving into a new, larger factory in Mandya,an agricultural district near Bangalore. Being closer to farmer sources will reduce its transportation costs and carbon footprint. The new factory will employ about 60 people and has already received enough orders, Mathew said, to give the company an annual turnover of 2.5 million Euros.
The company hopes to begin setting up factories elsewhere in India next year. A shortage of crop waste won’t be a problem: “We [would] need to set up at least 10 factories in just one agricultural district of Punjab to consume all their residue,” Mathews said.
This model is a good alternative for agricultural waste management, according to McCarty. But she warns of perverse incentives: If manufacturing from crop waste really takes off, farmers might be tempted to abandon agro-ecology practices like improving soil fertility to sell all their residue. “So, be careful what you wish for,” she said.