Results of the “Masters in Community & Regional Planning Prospective Student Survey”

On July 23, 2009 an online survey was developed to help gain an understanding of the needs, concerns and interests of prospective Community & Regional Planning (CRP) graduate students. This was a hypothetical survey, so it was sent out to fellow classmates and friends. The participants were asked to “pretend” they were prospective graduate students with an interest in Temple University’s CRP masters program. The survey was administered through a Survey Monkey basic account. The basic account restricts the number of questions to 10 and also limits the results analysis.  This 10 question limit likely contributed to the high response and completion rates.

An invitation was sent out directly to 24 different people as well as posting the link on this blog. 20 people responded to the survey. It is unknown how many of those respondents were a result of the invitation or only accessed the survey through this blog. Assuming that the 20 respondents were out of the 24 direct invitations, then the survey had a response rate of 83%. Of those that took the survey there was 95% completion rate, 20 people started the survey and 19 people completed it.

RESULTS

Below is a quick synopsis of the survey results for each question.

Question 1: Age Bracket

65% of respondents were between the ages of 35 and 45.  The next largest age bracket was 25-35 with 25% of respondents.

Question 2: Planning Experience

65% of respondents did not have a background in the planning field.

Question 3: Reason for Interest

Of the four choices, 60% of respondents were interested in the CRP program to further their career, and 35% to further their education.

Question4: Planning Area of Interest

This question allowed multiple selections.  Land Use and Sustainability tied with 55% of respondents, followed by Environmental with 50%, Transportation with 20%, and Law with 10%.

Question 5: Hindrance to Applying

Again this question allowed multiple answers:

50% said “Money”

40% said “Time Since Undergraduate Degree”

30%  “GREs”

15%  “Undergrad GPA”

15% “Other”

Question 6: GRE’s

80% of respondents had not taken the GRE’s

Question 7: Time since Undergrad

80% of respondents have had over 5 years since their undergraduate degree.

Question 8: Day or Evening Classes

80% were interested in taking classes after 4:00 pm.

Question 9: Number of Classes per Semester

80% of respondents were interested in taking 1 or two classes a semester.

Question 10: Which Temple Campus?

55% Online courses

45% Main Campus

25% Ambler Campus

10% Harrisburg Campus

5%  Ft. Washington Campus

SUMMARY

When looking at results of this survey it should be noted that this was a “hypothetical” survey given to “hypothetical” prospective students.  As a result some of the results are likely to be skewed due to the sample taken.  One example being the age bracket of respondents, it is likely that had this survey been given to real prospective students the age bracket would have come in lower.

However, the results of the survey could help CRP administration target certain audiences when advertising and when designing content for the website.  In particular, Question 5′s results demonstrate that the CRP administration and Temple admissions could emphasize admissions requirements that allow students to waive the GRE requirements.  Question 10 shows that there is an interest in taking classes online and may be worth investigating further.  In conclusion, the creation and execution of an online survey for prospective CRP students would surely have a great value in assisting CRP administration increase enrollment and provide better services for students once they become enrolled.

NGA Gardens of Philadelphia

The Neighborhood Gardens Association (NGA) of Philadelphia owns almost 30 gardens scattered throughout Philadelphia. These gardens have been mapped below using google maps.

Sitting/Flower gardens are color coded purple and food gardens are color coded green.

View Larger Map

“Dredging the Delaware”

In today’s (7/30/2009) editorial section of the Philadelphia Inquirer there is a column about the dredging of the Delaware River. As the editorial column points out, after having the application in “review” since 2001, Delaware environmental officials denied the project because the application was too old. This is a great example of the challenges that stand between economic development and environmental protection.

The economic benefits of the project are well documented with estimations of 175,000 jobs being created as a result of the dredging project. The project would also help economic redevelopment of many industrial sites along the Delaware River. Many of these sites have been neglected and fallen into disrepair and are in need of redevelopment.

On the opposite end of the spectrum are the environmental concerns with dredging the river. Issues of habitat destruction for many bottom dwelling species is a concern of many environmentalists. These environmentalist feel that the protection of this habitat is for the greater good.

The argument is often the same for those that favor the economic development, the developments and jobs are for the “greater good.” The conflict between environmental protection and economic development is a conflict that is affecting many projects across the region with neither side willing to work with the other. There needs to be give and take between the two sides if the region is to see economic development at the same time protecting the environment.

Masters in Community and Regional Planning Prospective Student Survey

Please take my “Prospective Student Survey.” This is a theoretical survey, as you are taking the survey please pretend you are interested in attending Temple University’s Community and Regional Planning Graduate Degree Program. THANK YOU!

Survey is now closed. Thank you to all who responded.

Quakertown-Stony Creek Passenger Rail Restoration

The Quakertown-Stony Creek Passenger Rail Restoration Business Plan was published in January 2006. This plan describes the mechanisms and strategies needed to restore passenger rail service along the Quakertown-Stony Creek rail line. The Quakertown-Stony Creek line is divided into several sections. The portion being discussed here is the Quakertown to Lansdale section. This section was serviced by SEPTA until 1981, when SEPTA discontinued all non-electrified rail service. (Quakertown-Stony Creek Passenger Rail Restoration Business Plan, p.2)

Since 1981 many of the stations along this line have been restored and converted to other uses. With the exception of a new Park and Ride to be constructed near Route 309 in Richland Township, all of the existing stations along this line will have stops either at the station or very close to the original location. This could enhance the vitality of the areas around these stations. (Photographs of the train stations are presented in the Flickr link below.)

Recently, the planning field has emphasized this type of development in and around transit hubs this is referred to as Transit Oriented Development. Often, particularly in the northeastern United States, this type of development is really the redevelopment of older suburbs that grew up around transit stops that have not been in use. This type of redevelopment, in conjunction with the possibility of restored rail service along the Quakertown-Lansdale line presents a tremendous opportunity for Transit Oriented Re-Development in and around the existing stations.

Quakertown Segment Flickr Set

Wastewater Regulations as a Growth Management Tool

Wastewater regulations, whether they promote individual septic systems or centralized sanitary sewer systems, have a tremendous effect on how a municipality can grow. These regulations determine the minimum density for any new construction and to a certain extent the type of construction that can occur. After almost ten years in New Jersey municipal government, I have seen that nothing inhibits or facilitates growth more than wastewater regulations. Which led me to consider the question: “Do wastewater regulations support or contradict smart growth principles?”
“Smart growth principles” have been defined by Smart Growth Network’s, “Smart Growth Online,” and are listed below:

• Create Range of Housing Opportunities and Choices
• Create Walkable Neighborhoods
• Encourage Community and Stakeholder Collaboration
• Foster Distinctive, Attractive Communities with a Strong Sense of Place
• Make Development Decisions Predictable, Fair and Cost Effective
• Mix Land Uses
• Preserve Open Space, Farmland, Natural Beauty and Critical Environmental Areas
• Provide a Variety of Transportation Choices
• Strengthen and Direct Development Towards Existing Communities
• Take Advantage of Compact Building Design

Many of the above principles are dependent on a central wastewater treatment system. In New Jersey these central wastewater systems are highly regulated.

The process, as laid out in the regulations, for these central systems is an extremely lengthy process and can take upwards of 5 years. Recently, these regulations have been tied to planning policy. Municipalities with an endorsed state plan, or an endorsed “center,” receive priority in obtaining central wastewater systems. When you include the state planning process with the approval process for central sewer systems, it can take as long as 10 years before a central sewer system can begin construction. In many cases the anticipated growth will have moved on to locations that already had a central wastewater system.

So, what happens when there is no central wastewater system? There exist a multitude of regulations dictating individual septic design. These regulations deal with both the physical size and quantity of the system, as well as regulating the densities of septic systems for new developments. The result of these regulations is that minimum lot sizes are often determined by septic regulations rather than municipal zoning. This is in direct contradiction to the smart growth principles dealing with “walkable neighborhoods” and “compact building design.”

Regulations for individual septic quantities also directly contradict smart growth principles. The quantities referred to are the maximum amount of flow that an individual septic can manage. Buildings that have a wastewater flow over the maximum are required to amend the municipal or county Wastewater Management Plan, which can take up to two years. This in effect prohibits larger buildings from locating in a town without adequate wastewater infrastructure, contradicting the smart growth principle dealing with “mixed land uses.”

In summary, it appears as if the wastewater regulations in New Jersey do not support smart growth. However, it does appear that with some modifications to the regulations, wastewater rules in New Jersey can support, direct and manage smart growth in New Jersey.

Wind Turbine Animation

I thought I’d post a 3d Wind Turbine animation I did for work.  We used it for presentations to Town Council and the Town Planning Board.