ABQ Bike Planning Open House: Some Great Ideas

Yesterday (May 19, 2010), I attended a meeting that discussed Albuquerques long-term plan for bikeways, trailways and other non-automotive infrastructure improvements (ABQ Bike Map [PDF]).

The Albuquerque Bikeways and Trails Master Plan Update is a series of meeting that will be occurring throughout the next year. They will be a series of discussions about the future of Albuquerque's bike and trail network.

The meeting yesterday took place at a library (Erna Ferguson Library for all you Burqueños). The format of the meeting was really good. Instead of some city officials just telling the citizens what they were going to do with our tax dollars, there were a series of interactive workshops. These workshops were staffed by the members of the consulting group hired by City of Albuquerque, Gannett Fleming West Inc. This consulting firm has teamed up with another firm, Alta Planning and Design. The people associated with this group, based in Portland OR, seemed to really understand how to create a comprehensive bike and trail network.

I remember one of the consultants from Alta discussing Albuquerque's potential to be a world class bike city. He listed these reasons:
1. Mild year-round weather
2. Lots of sunshine
3. A consistent grid-based street system (at least in the Northeast Heights)
4. Relatively flat terrain
5. The current existence of some great bike network elements

I have to say, the plan they have is pretty good and comprehensive. If they could fast-track many of these projects, I could see the mode share of bikes increasing by a large amount.


However, this will only occur if there are incentives not to drive instituted as well. Currently, Albuquerque, like the vast majority of American cities, is filled with developments surrounded by large free parking lots. As the great Donald Shoup once said, "There is no such thing as free parking." We all pay the costs of an automobile oriented built society. These costs include high bike and pedestrian fatality rates and long distances between places.

Having great bike infrastructure is essential, but in some ways, good planning and land use should be far more crucial long term goals.

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

What Kind of Neighborhoods Do Americans Want?

All day, I read blogs and studies citing the importance of progressive planning policy. These articles discuss all the benefits of creating developments that are walkable and "New Urbanist" in nature.

I do not disagree with any of these statements or opinions. In fact, I agree with the vast majority of them. These are not the important articles, though. I think most people can agree that building sprawlburbs for the next 30 years does not make a lot of sense for many reasons.

But what should the alternatives be?

This is a valid question because I don't think most people really know what they want. America has not built anything other than sprawl for a very long time. It's important to start thinking about and discussing alternatives now before people get jaded with the entire debate (remember health care?).

By talking to people, I get a pretty good idea of what people want in the future (and right now). I see people wanting a hybrid of sorts: New Urbanism + the suburbs.

The kind of areas I visualize would be similar to the neighborhood I currently live in: mixed housing densities/incomes (single family on the inside of the block, higher density multifamily housing on the outside), with multiuse on the edges of the block (commercial, retail). My neighborhood also has 2 bus routes (north-south, east-west) that come every half-hour on the weekdays, along with bike routes throughout the neighborhood.

This kind of urban diversity provides many benefits to residents. While driving is still the favored transportation choice by the majority of neighborhood residents, the design of this neighborhood makes it easy for residents to walk, bike or take the bus. Therefore, many residents (including myself) choose to use alternative modes of transportation.

At the same time, it is not a choice but a necessity for many residents as a result of income levels. This point demonstrates how everything zoning related is interconnected: since my neighborhood has a diversity of transportation choices, it supports a variety of income levels.

The main point here is that automobile dependency is not freedom: it is oppression. A diversity of transportation choices supports a diversity of lifestyles. It is easy to create places that are car accessible and not car dependent.

My neighborhood is proof of this ease of coexistence.