Project 3
Student id: s23
To select another student or project, return to the Project Page.
Title: Public Initiative Proposal
Author: Monica Salas
Date:
WRTA Redesign
- Monica Salas
- August 30th 2016
- Attention to: To:don't need the "to" here The City of Worcester’s Executive Office of Economic Development
Table of Contents
- Introduction
- Background
- Purpose
- Approach
- Feasibility
- Conclusion
- References
exec_sum
Over the past several years, the city of Worcester, MA has invested several millions of dollars into improving the city. Federal and state money has been dedicated to cleaning up parks and neighborhoods, reconstructing the entire down town area including Union Station, establishing community centers and helping create jobs for the citizens of Worcester. Despite all the work going into these projects, public transportation has been completely overlooked. How does the city expect to increase employment if half of it’s population doesn’t have a reliable way to get to work? Worcester has long been a city dependent on cars since so much of it’s work force resides in suburbs and neighboring towns. Most people know that the WRTA (Worcester Regional Transit Authority) exists, but they don’t know how to use it. This is because of the small number of bus stops, inconvenient routes, and completely lack of outreach by the WRTA. Implementing something like Boston’s MBTA is not realistic in a city like Worcester, however major reorganization and improvements to the WRTA could provide huge benefits in driving forward economic growth in Worcester, as well as making it much more pleasant place to live. Rerouting existing routes to reach major residential areas (especially low income neighborhoods) and heavy commercialized areas, adding busses and bus stops, making public transportation more affordable and accessible to students and young adults, and providing more rigorous training for bus drivers would dramatically turn around the state of Worcester’s public transportation. All this could be achieved with predetermined yearly milestones being funded by the city’s federal grant under the Community Development Block Grant Program over the course of 5-7 years.[i.n.]
Background
As of right now, only 55% of all jobs in Worcester have access to public transportation routes; and only 6% of people who reside in suburbs (where rent and mortgages are more affordable) have public transportation available to their work within 90 minutes (5). On top of this, Worcester Public Schools have consistently cut school bus services for students to get to school every day. In past years, Worcester Public Schools has charged students hundreds of dollars to be able to take a school bus to school, and have even suspended bus transportation for students in high school or who live within 2 miles of their schools. Considering the level of financial diversity in Worcester and how harsh winters can be in the Northeast, these scenarios pose a clear need for more accessible public transportation in Worcester. Most bus routes currently just connect downtown Worcester to major shopping centers in the Greater Worcester Area, but none go to residential, commercialized, or school areas. The WRTA is, at best, inconvenient to use. This is a major barrier in the economic growth of the city because of how difficult it is for anyone to get around to be able to get to work or school (2). Aside from this, the existing transportation facilities are difficult to find, dingy and unsafe looking, unadvertised, and generally inaccessible (1).
Purpose
Even with all the money that Worcester is putting into developing the city and giving it this much needed ‘face lift’,[i.n.] all the progress will reach a glass ceiling without improvements made to the public transportation system. Economic growth will only be stimulated from an improved bus system, despite the capital costs of investing in transportation. Better bus routes could increase accessibility for students to get to school every day, and lower and middle class persons to get to work. If money could be spared in the next 5-7 years to make the initial capital investments in a better bus system for the WRTA, then this would be a massive stimulus for the city of Worcester.
Approach
Worcester is a recipient of a $3.8 million annual grant funding from the HUD called the Community Development Block Grant Program (CDBG). Each year it submits a request for proposals to investigate ideas for how this money could be spend to benefit low and moderate income persons, eliminate slums or blight, or meet urgent needs of the city (3). The transportation system addresses all three of these types of needs that the grant funding is intended for. With a team of financial representatives of the city, officials from the Worcester WRTA, and contractors invested in building infrastructure in the city, a 5-7 year plan could be made to invest a percentage of this grant funding annually into the reworking of the WRTA. Milestones could be predetermined based on priority areas in the city and necessary development of Worcester Transit Authority. Milestones each year will include buying new energy efficient busses to serve the city, construct safe, well lit, strategically placed bus stops, advertise bus travel within Worcester and it’s surrounding towns, subsidize transportation services for students, reorganize routes that reach into more suburban areas, and hire more well qualified drivers and officials for the WRTA. [i.n.]
Feasibility
Now that Worcester has achieved so much federal funding for city development and has gained momentum in the community’s investment in the city, it is a perfect time to make major changes within the city. The funding exists and the need is evident. Planning would require input from financial professionals and zoning committees in order to figure out the best way to invest in the WRTA and where there is most need for public transportation. This initial set up would be the biggest capital investment, however most of the costs could be covered by the CDBG grant and could be spread out over several years. The only lasting costs would be salaries for the increase in WRTA drivers and employees and maintenance to buses and new infrastructure. The hope would be that these long term costs will be insignificant compared to the financial benefits the city would gain by becoming more accessible and making work more possible for residents. If needed, there are many big businesses and organizations that could benefit from public transportation in the city. Big business owners and surrounding towns could be willing to invest in a public transportation system that could bring people to their business and make their own communities more accessible. Also, as it is the few buses that do exist in Worcester reach out to surrounding towns like Leicester, Millbury, and Charlton. Theoretically, all of central Worcester County would benefit from developments to the WRTA, which is about twenty towns that could also contribute to WRTA developments and would be more invested in the greater Worcester community.
Conclusion
Investing in public transportation within Worcester would be investing in the future growth of Worcester. It would make holding a job more possible for low and middle income populations and increase accessibilities to commercial and residential areas of the city. It would also make it possible for kids to miss less school. It would also benefit surrounding towns that are considered “bedroom towns” to Worcester and allow residents of lower income neighborhoods to seek work all over the city.
References
"Groundbreaking Ceremony for WRTA Transportation Hub | City of Worcester, MA." Groundbreaking Ceremony for WRTA Transportation Hub | City of Worcester, MA. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Aug. 2016.
"GoLocalWorcester | News | Worcester’s Public Transportation Critical to Economic Growth." GoLocalWorcester Main. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Aug. 2016.
United States. Worcester City Hall. The City of Worcester’s Executive Office of Economic Development. City Fiscal Year 2017 Community Development Block Grant Program. Worcester: n.p., n.d. Web.
"GoLocalWorcester | Politics | Grace Ross: How to Solve Worcester’s Public Transportation Problems." GoLocalWorcester Main. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Aug. 2016.
"GoLocalWorcester | News | Worcester’s Public Transportation 2nd Worst in NE." GoLocalWorcester Main. N.p., n.d. Web. 15 Aug. 2016.
Peer review
Your background and history sections are very strong with the number of arugments they contains and the amount of information. However, at times they can start to become a little redundant. It is mentioned several times that many residential areas do not have bus access or what they do have is below par. Due to the redundant nature between certain sections of the proposal, it might be better to limit the amount of time you spend talking about the lack of access in certain areas and create a shorter and moreconcise statement that encompasses everything. This could be done along the lines of "the target audience for public transportation is the one with the least access to the invaluable resource." A similar widdling down could potentially be done to your intor paragraph The execution section has a very good list of all the major attributes that would be addressed in the process of upgrading the system. One place it may fall short is in the actual numbers section though, since 15-30% of the highlighted grant would equal roughly $1 million a year. With new buses costing upwards of $100,000, an increase in the donations and support from business or other subsidaries might be necessary to realistically reach the goal. You could improve this section by adding an emphasis on the collective effort it would take to improve the current state of the system. In regards to your feasiblity section (and difference from the action plan), the sections seem to be pushing the same idea. The action plan states what must be done and the feasibility plan echos how it must be done, more so than if it can be. You did a great job adressing the problem and how it must be fixed, but must take into how realistic it is that every problem will be addressed. You can emphasise that unless big things are changed, it might not be feasible to persue the entire project. Remember, it will not lower the validity or urgency of your argument if you say that it is not entirely feasible given the current state. For your conlcusion it might help to talk more about the prominent topics you discussed in your paper than the schools. This would be a good reinforcement that sums up your main points. Overall great job! .
Instructor Note
Great work here. This is a well articulated proposal with a very clearly established exigence and audience. I made some notes above, but have no real revisions that I think you need to make here. Nice job!