New Title, New Vision, New Ideas

Here I am, back again.

I have not written in a very long time. This is due to the fact that I am in España (Spain)! I will be in Europe until early January and then return to the University of Arizona for one and a half more semesters.

The first item I would like to address is a project I have been working on with Parking and Transportation Services at the University of Arizona. Last year, I noticed an interactive map on the PTS website. It had some neat features, such as traces for various buildings on the campus, maps of parking zones and CatTran routes. However, the map left me wanting more transportation information, especially for SunTran, the Tucson city bus.

I visited PTS and talked to the person who created this map. He liked my ideas so much that he decided I should add the things I wanted to the map! How about that for innovative collaboration?

Though I made quite a few changes, the major ones were adding more SunTran stop icons (all stops within close vicinity of the U of A campus) and adding stop information to all of the stops (both SunTran and CatTran). Also, this map is now linked directly to the U of A home webpage. Here is the current live version of the map as it exists now. I am now listed as a collaborator. Though I have more ideas about things to add, I will wait until next semester to address them.



So, back to the title of this post.

New Title: I decided to change the title of this blog (yet again) to "Urban Transport Revolution: Ideas for a More Intelligent Future". Why the name change?

The new name is more broad because my posts and ideas have become more broad. Though I am primarily interested in transportation, I am also interested in EVERY facet of urban life.

In addition, transportation does NOT exist in an isolated bubble; its success or failure depends on a huge variety of factors, with walkabiltiy being a huge part of the equation. Changing the current paradigms of American transportation policy will truly require a revolution. Though some cities and states are beginning to understand the work necessary, there is a long struggle ahead of us.


New Ideas: Maybe there are not new, but they are important.

Walkable mixed-use density = successful transit. This equation may look simple, but it is incredibly complicated. Some think density is the primary factor in transit success, but it's only one part of the equation. If these dense areas are:

a) dense single use and not mixed use (miles of apartment buildings without a grocery store)
OR
b) dense and not walkable (divided up by lots of fences, walls, major busy streets, etc.)
OR
c) walkable but not dense (dense is a vague quantifier, but basically anything with only single family homes)
OR
any other combo, transit is not guaranteed success. Sure, there are a few examples of these outlier patterns leading to quality transit ridership, but they are not easy to find.

Jarrett Walker, in his blog Human Transit, goes into these issues with more depth.

Once the governments controlling the cash understand the connections between all these things (plenty of other people [PDF] already do), the revolution can begin.

Anyway, that's all for now. Hopefully, I will be posting more often now.

Ciao!

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.

Beantown: Urban Form and Function

Density: The part of Boston I am staying in (Back Bay) is quite dense, especially compared to the rest of the United States. This makes sense as Boston is one of the oldest American cities. It is also very diverse and educated, being home to a massive number of universities.

The city itself is different from many of the other older American cities (Philadelphia, NYC, Wash. DC) because it is not planned on a grid system. Its streets are chaotic and ancient, creating an interesting urban area with many urban layers. Much of the current city is also built on landfill, causing adjacent neighborhoods to be sometimes completely different.

As with most major American cities, Boston went through a serious decline/ urban renewal process a few decades ago. This led to the construction of some notoriously ugly modernist buildings (Boston City Hall). However, many locations that recently were open lots/surface parking have been transformed into lofts and other new/New Urbanist developments. A major project, called the Big Dig, recently covered a major freeway with a park. Though this project has been beneficial, some residents are unhappy about the quality of the new public space and the price of the project. However, it is really encouraging to see this city recovering from a period of serious urban decline. This success is in no small part due to the previously mentioned large number of universities.

All of this information goes to the back of my head as I witness an urban battle over space occur in Boston: cars vs. everything and everyone else.

This is not a new battle; it is constantly occurring everywhere. It happens to be especially fascinating to witness in Boston due the contrast of an ancient city and a relatively modern freeway network.

As recently mentioned in this Streetsblog video, the city of Boston is quickly becoming more bike friendly. It is astounding that this city was previously bike unfriendly (did I mention how many universities are located here?!?) and the city continues to have plenty of elements of a bike unfriendly city. Looking out my hotel window, there are encouraging symbols of the future to come, with brand new bike lanes, sharrows and bike boxes all visible from my room.

Just yards away form hotel exists a major freeway. This freeway is surrounded by properties in continual decline and areas that feel dangerous at night. The continual negative externalities of a surface freeway system continue to haunt many once beautiful Boston neighborhoods. Cars continue to speed by on wide urban arterials. Drivers continue to ignore pedestrians and bicyclists. Car sharing vehicles (Zipcar, etc.) are rarely if even seen, and a bike sharing network that was supposed to be up and running is nowhere to be found. Suburban style development rubs elbows with historic neighborhoods. Some metro stations are found outdoors under double tiered freeways, creating a dangerous and unfriendly pedestrian environment. Others are found in dark, old dirty tunnels, filled with squeaky trains that frequently break down.

How do we want to develop our cities? What do we want our future cities to look like? How much sense does it make to continue heavy subsidies for a network that depends upon finite fuels and massive amounts of valuable real estate?

It's time for a transportation revolution.

Land Use AND Transportation: The Importance of Understanding the Connection

Sometimes, when people discuss transit and transportation, they discuss the issues of transportation as if they were separate from land use policy and zoning. The truth is, these two things are linked very closely.

For example, if you wanted to walk or bike to the store from your house, would you be more likely to use these modes if there were many multilane roads/highways to cross to get there? What if a bus stop you needed to access was located on the other side of an interstate? How likely would you be to use these modes?


Good luck getting across this by foot or by bike.

If we do not start to realize the link between land use and transportation, we are in for a rude awakening when gas prices begin to rise again. Luckily, the Obama administration recently announced that there would be a partnership developed between HUD and DOT to build "sustainable communities".

Though I doubt any fully sustainable communities will be created in the very near future, this partnership is a great first step towards developing walkable, bikable livable communities. Lower income housing should also be more closely developed in conjunction with transportation. A recent study, the Housing and Transportation Affordability Index, showed that affordability of housing goes way down in exurban areas when the cost of transportation is added in. Data for the Albuquerque metro region is here, and data for the Tucson metro region is here.

This link has been documented for years, but having this great new interactive data set will allow people to see the link between land use and transportation more closely.

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.