Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Ken Maher on August 27, 2011 at 4:52pm

Thanks, Louise.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on August 27, 2011 at 10:02pm

Municipal WiFi is great for residents and a great way for cities to make neighborhoods more marketable; however, the issue is how to pay for it.  The primary cost is the ongoing operating costs of the Internet connection.  We would not be able to do this on a neighborhood level unless we found someone who was willing to pay for the costs.  The cities that have introduced free WiFi pay pay for the cost through the city budget.  This would be a relatively small cost for a city, but a prohibitive cost for a neighborhood group or other non-profit.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Louise Wu on August 28, 2011 at 6:26am

It would probably cost way less than light rail.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on August 29, 2011 at 10:18pm

Yes, but not very relevant.  A toothbrush costs way less that a refrigerator.  Both are essential, but the two are vastly different (so there would not be a point in comparing the costs).

A good transit system enables a strong downtown a strong regional centers (by enabling a greater density of offices than what can be supported through parking alone), and light rail lowers the operating cost per rider.  A municipal WiFi system would encourage more residents to stay in the city and move to the city.  So both are tools to boost cities, but they have totally different benefits.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Maher on August 28, 2011 at 1:45pm

Actually, the primary cost if not the ongoing operating cost of the internet connection but rather, according to the Wikipedia article Louise sent, "The construction of such networks is a significant part of their lifetime costs." A cost/benefit analysis certainly seems worthwhile.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on August 28, 2011 at 2:29pm

I know a couple of years ago Google had a competition going for what city it would award a free installation of a city wide wifi system.  We didn't win obviously but there was a local group advocating that people participate in the contest by contacting Google.  Does anyone recall what that local group was?  What part of the city administration would have looked at this?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on August 29, 2011 at 9:53pm

The Google competition was for a fiber optic system that would enable very high bandwidths (capacity).  It was not a WiFi system, which as a wireless method of supplying moderate bandwidths.  A fiber optic system would have been a great boost to our region, as it would make the Rochester region competative with other regions.

The Google proposal would not have been free to users.  The capital cost of a fiber system is much higher than a WiFi system.

There was a coalition that backed Rochester's application to Google, but it wouldn't really be applicable to a free WiFi proposal, because the two are vastly different critters.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on August 29, 2011 at 10:07pm

The imporant point is that someone would need to pay for the capital and operating cost, and the only entity that would have both the capacity and incentive to cover those costs would be the City of Rochester.  The UR could concievably be convinced to support a system, but a WiFi system would be well outside of the reach of the 19th WCA.

It is possible that the capital costs a modest network could be paid for with grants such as the NeighborGoods grants, but we still would not have a means of paying for the operating costs (which would mostly be the cost of the bandwidth to the Internet connection (which would have to be at least a T1 service costing at least $300 per month).

The cost/benefit would be very favorable to the City (the cost would be outwieghed by the benefit of increased tax base).  There would be no benefits for a telecom firm (i.e. Frontier, EarthLink, Windstream) to provide a valuable service for free.  It would be benficial to the 19th Ward, but it is not likely that an entity in the 19th Ward would have the funding to pay for the costs.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Louise Wu on August 30, 2011 at 6:24am

Freenet is a program that worked well reviving interest in blighted neighborhoods of places like Baltimore.  I see that Albany and Binghamton have them now as well.  Those cities are comparable in size and composition to Rochester.   Public opinion is out on light rail systems built in a number of cities, however.  I lived in Detroit and no one felt that its light rail system did much for the city. Same with Buffalo.  I'm from Buffalo, and got to hear what everyone thought of it.  It got a reaction much like our fast ferry got here.  That all being said, presenting a freenet versus a light train project is a false choice.  Both are too dissimilar to compare.  I agree with your assertion there.  Each can be considered independently and on their own merit as a both/and proposition rather than an either/or issue.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on August 31, 2011 at 9:11pm

Clearly, a free public WiFi would be beneficial to Rochester's neighborhoods.  However, it would be difficult to convince the City of Rochester to implement one now, given budget pressures and City Hall's lack of focus on neighborhoods.  There is little that we could do to move a WiFi project forward other than to advocate that City Hall explore it.  I would much rather see us put our efforts in pressuring the City to improve code enforcement and to better maintain and stabilize the houses that the city owns.

This segues to a key point, while a WiFi system would be indirectly beneficial to housing values, it is not directly an issue for the Housing Committee.  There are a number of other issues (most notably schools and crime) that affect housing values, but those issues are not appropriate for the housing committee (just because they are not directly housing issues).

I'm not sure how light rail worked its way into the discussion, and I don't want to get into too much of a tangential discussion, but I do want to set the record straight.  Firstly, Detroit does not have a light rail system.  It does have a small elevated automated guideway transit (AGT) system that was poorly planned and poorly implemented.  Detroit's AGT system is an example of what not to do, but it has nothing to do with light rail, which is widely and wildly successful.  Detroit is currently planning a light rail line on Woodward Boulevard, and that project is being planned using the best practices of successful light rail lines.

As for Buffalo, it’s overly maligned light rail line is just that:  overly maligned.  Nor is it really light rail; it is a large city heavy rail system that uses light rail vehicles.  By all objective measures, it is a success.  It has boosted transit ridership, it has made downtown more accessible, it costs less to operate (per passenger) than Buffalo’s buses, and it carries 23,000 riders per day (which is phenomenal for a city the size of Buffalo).  Again, light rail is not really an issue for the Housing Committee, but I wanted to make sure that the record was set straight.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mark Sweetland on August 31, 2011 at 11:08pm

DeWain,

Thanks for the information and help in keeping us on focus.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Louise Wu on September 1, 2011 at 7:22am

The trajectory of the discussion at the housing committee was dominated mostly by the subject of code violations in what some heard as several of those in attendance wanting to take the problem up with fellow Ward residents in an adversarial and seemingly not so neighborly manner.  Wifi and light rail (mentioned by you Dewain) were talked about at the meeting as some of the things that could happen to enhance property values and desirability of the neighborhood that were positive, not so adversarial, and community building.  People at that meeting asked about where to get info about Wifi, which I thought would be appropriate to send to the list as a follow-up.  You where then pretty assertive about wifi being expensive, and I was just pointing out that it is way less expensive than the light rail idea you put forward at the meeting at Peter's.  We have learned that not only are you quite a train enthusiast, knowing all the characteristics and merits of the different trains around the country, but we also now know that you don't want to talk about railroads although you mentioned it at the meeting.  All good information.  Whether you personally cotton to the idea of freenet wifi or not as a way to enhance property values, it still is probably a good idea to pursue the code subject in a careful manner.  We heard at the meeting that folks can get really upset if they are told what to do with their houses.  Here's a further cautionary tale: a resident on Post near Arnett was having a back and fourth with one of his neighbors about the length of the grass on one of their lawns.  A little later his neighbor puts a fence up (probably that blocks the view of the disagreed on grass), which is not only built over the property line, but makes it difficult for the person telling the story to access his back yard.  He naturally talks to the neighbor with the new fence about its encroachment over his property line.  That conversation doesn't go well, as you can imagine.  Sometime later the person telling the story says his house was fire-bombed.  I understand that you want to have a kind of PAC TAC for code violations, so that individual home owners don't have to risk talking to their neighbors about violations.  But there is a real possibility that "going negative" with the subject right away could send the entire neighborhood's attitude into a negative downward spiral.  I heard at the safety meeting last night that people who have done PAC TAC fear retaliation, even at their homes.  It looks like there is real potential for serious retaliation on the subject of code violations as well.  

 

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page