Video: "Complete Streets"

In my writings, I frequently mention terms such as "walkability", "livability", mode share", "bus rapid transit", bike friendly" and "transit oriented". Some of you may know what they mean and maybe you've heard them before. However, even if you do know what they mean, it is hard to visualize these words. It is difficult to translate these words into an actual physical space.

Another term I constantly mention is "complete street". I define it as a street for all users: cars, bikes, pedestrians, skateboards, children, transit users, transit vehicles, trucks, you know, everyone and everything.

If you've ever had a hard time visualizing a complete street, today is your lucky day! Streetfilms just released a very in depth video on complete streets.

Watch it right here:


My favorite part about this video is the people they interview. They ask pedestrians about the bike lanes, transit users about pedestrian plazas, car drivers about safer sidewalks. The big takeaway from all of this is mutual benefit. If a street is made safer for pedestrians, it is probably made safer for car drivers as well. Sure, you may have to wait at the light for another 5 seconds but you are also more likely to make it home alive! I think that's something we can all get behind.

In regards to this video, one small caveat: This is NYC they are talking about. This is a city where, as they said, over 50% of people do not own cars! Essentially, it's crazy to think that these complete streets policies are only now being implemented.

What about Tucson? Or Albuquerque? Or even Denver? Most people in these cities a) own cars and b) drive everywhere. Can we even compare these cities with the mighty Big Apple?

I would argue that we can. All of these cities have significant numbers of people who do not own cars. Maybe these people get a ride with friends or buy a car not because they want to but because they feel like there is no other choice.

Gas prices are on the rise again and more people are out biking and riding transit. As communities, will we support these people or continue pushing them to the margins?

I think the video speaks for itself.

The Layers of NYC

Yesterday, I spent the day touring New York City. I saw many interesting bits of urbanism, from the World Trade Center construction site (which, after years of delays, is finally being reconstructed) to the High Line (an old raised urban railroad that has now been turned into a spectacular park/public space).

New York City is a place like no other, especially in the context of America. Its density and population is unrivaled by any other urban area in these United States. It's transit system is not only extensive, but it is also used by a majority of the population. The city has recently received positive attention from the urban planning world as a result of the new planning director in NYC Janette Sadik-Khan. Her new policies on creating bike friendly and pedestrian friendly infrastructure have caught the eye of planners across the globe.



When I visit places like NYC, I try to figure out what exactly makes the city such an interesting and desirable place, both to live in and to visit. Parts of the answer may be obvious (such as Central Park), but some aspects of the city seem like true turn-offs. The streets are filled with speeding, stinky cars. The subway stations are old, dirty and hot. The traffic is terrible, and it is almost impossible to find one peaceful, quiet spot in the entire city.

So why go?

For people who live there, the simple answer might be employment. But in my opinion, time is the thing that truly makes this place fascinating.

Since people have been living on this little island for such a long time, layers and layers of culture, history and urbanism have been created over time. One could walk for 3 blocks and hear 20 different languages, We were sung to by an African-American trio on the subway (they were pretty talented). There were 4 different bands playing at one single relatively small park we visited (Washington Square Park).

This kind of culture can not be created overnight.

The people who argue about the urban/surburban divide never touch on the issue of time. Cities are usually more interesting places than suburbs simply because the cities have existed for a longer amount of time.

Mix of use is also incredibly crucial. When buildings have a mix of uses (basically residential + anything else) they allow people more options about where they live and work. This allows for a variety of transportation options: walking, biking, roller-blading, skateboarding, bus riding, train riding or even automobile driving. People are always clamoring for more options in life; auto dependent development does NOT provide many options.

Overall, time has led to the creation of city filled with layers. It has layers of culture and layers of infrastructure. It is an organically growing place with constant movement and evolution. Some call it the City that Never Sleeps. What allows the city to stay awake all night?

One important aspect of that is the 24/7 subway network. When you have a transportation network running all day and all night, people will use it all day and all night. This is especially true in a city such as NYC, which has high density and a robust diverse economy.


How can we create incredible places such as NYC? Time is one very important ingredient.

A great public transportation network also helps.

A Gas Tax Solution: Not All Urban Areas Are Created Equal

Let's face it: our infrastructure is broken. As population and road growth increases every year, less and less money is dedicated to essential infrastructure. As a country and people, what should we do? How can the government help?

I have read many articles recently discussing the idea of a gas tax in order to pay for our currently broke infrastructure system. I personally think this is a great idea; after all the gas tax has not risen much since the 1970's and since then, we have added a lot of infrastructure (especially roads) to our national network.

However, a blanket gas tax is so politically unpopular (especially in "tough economic times") that it will probably not happen for a long time, if ever. Therefore, I have a different solution: a gas tax based on zip codes.

The United States is not built in a uniform manner. Therefore, it should not have the same gas tax everywhere. For example, let us compare Manhattan, NYC with rural New Mexico. Both places have the same gas tax. However, virtually all the people who are driving cars in New York City are wealthy; most of the car drivers in rural New Mexico are car dependent and probably middle class or poor.

Based on this analysis, the gas tax should be different in different areas based on car dependency. If the gas tax goes up by 20 cents in NYC, it would hardly impact how people traveled around. If the same amount of taxation was applied to rural New Mexico, it would dramatically affect everyone who lived there on a wide variety of levels.

The gas tax should be raised incrementally based on where people live and work. This may sound complicated, but it can be made easier by the wide usage of zip codes. Zip codes comprise a small enough area that they could be used for this sort of analysis. If you live in an area with no public transportation, low density and low walkability ratings, you would have a small gas tax increase. If you live in an area with good public transportation, you would have a larger increase, and so on.

One of the biggest problems with this would be people traveling outside of their city to find area codes with lower zip codes. This could be countered by the use of credit cards. Since most people use credit cards for gas anyways, the card reader could scan where you live and charge you accordingly. Since this system would be costly and problematic, the easier solution would be to have very little initial difference between prices in the different areas. If a rural area has a 4-5 cent price difference from the urban area, there would not be significant numbers of people traveling to the rural areas for gas.

The advantage of this type of gas tax would be the ability to reward areas with more transit options. The extra tax dollars would go towards enhancing transit and livability in whatever urban area the zip code correlated with.

The most important part of this plan would be development incentives. New development approval would be tied in part to the gas tax in the given zip code. If the gas tax is low, development taxes would be high. If the gas tax is high, the development taxes would be low. It would create an incentive system for creating livable communities. Through this system, gas taxes could be used to make livable and walkable area more livable and walkable, as well as encourage non-livable and non-walkable areas to develop differently.

Though this idea is still a work in progress, I think it has potential to become a blueprint for change. Though I think the gas tax should definitely be raised, this kind of taxation would affect different people differently. Income taxes are applied based on how much is made; let's look at gas taxes based on how much, and where, gas is needed.


Let's Review:

Gas tax increase is a must

Should not be applied the same to everyone

More taxes for people who depend on gas the least

Less taxes for people who depend on gas the most

Taxation based on zip code

Still just a moderate increase for everyone at first