Commuter rail: Once a gamble, TRAX ingrained in Wasatch Front’s future

This article by María Villaseñor is a great history of Salt Lake City’s TRAX light rail along with some projections of its future.  Conservative groups protested its development up until opening day, when so many people wanted to get on the trains that hundreds had to be turned away.  TRAX has expanded from a single North-South line to a University of Utah line and an extension to an intermodal hub which links to FrontRunner, the commuter rail line that currently runs north of Salt Lake and will soon begin a new line to the South.  TRAX ridership has more than doubled since it first started.  The Utah Transit Authority (UTA) has plans to make rail the backbone of a public transit system that will have stops within one mile of 90% of the urban population of the entire Wasatch Front.  People are discovering that commute times are comparable during rush hour, and that you can actually relax and get other things done on transit instead of getting road rage in the gridlock on the freeway.  People assumed that Salt Lake residents would never give up their cars, but that simply wasn’t true, and isn’t for any other city.  Funding was a huge issue for TRAX, because Utahns are very averse to taxes, so UTA had to go to the Feds to get most of their funding.  They found that light rail is much more cost-effective than busing, to the tune of $1.25 per person on light vail versus $3-4 per person on bus.  Since TRAX has gone in, people have realized that it’s worth the investment, and voted for funding mechanisms for TRAX in both 2000 and 2007.  There are new lines proposed for west Salt Lake, West Valley City, Midvale, West Jordan, South Jordan, and possibly Draper.  Both TRAX and FrontRunner have set up transit-oriented development opportunities at their existing and future stops.  However, increased TRAX service should not be used as an excuse for decreased bus service.  Buses run infrequently on the Wasatch Front outside of Salt Lake City, and they need to have service improvements along with the rail systems.  That being said, before TRAX only 25% of people in the Salt Lake area had used transit in the last year.  That number is now 75%.  TRAX has done immense good in Salt Lake City and changed a lot of minds about transit in general, and I hope that this trend will continue.

Automobility and Freedom: Conflicts and Resolutions

In this article, Todd Litman discusses how freedom is often associated with cars.  Opponents to smart growth often argue on the grounds that restricting car use and where people live restricts freedom.  He quotes P.J. O’Rourke on a rant about how trains are nothing more than a way for the government to control our lives.  Litman argues that this view is immature and selfish, and that true freedom includes elements of responsibility.  Cars restrict our freedom through being expensive, altering land use patterns to remove other travel options, being limited to those old enough or wealthy enough to drive, creating greater risks to non-drivers, and massive public subsidies.  The true measure of car-based freedom should be determined on whether or not its positives outweigh these negatives.  He also questions, how much of our driving is voluntary and how much of it is mandated by the way our cities are built?  Would some drivers choose to walk, bike or take transit if these options were as convenient, attractive and affordable as car travel?  “A transportation system maximizes freedom by offering a diverse range of mobility and location options, so people can choose the combination that best meets their needs,” he says.  Car-dependent transportation is sneaky about taking away freedom.  Sure, you can walk places, but the fact that everything is built for the car makes other modes less safe, timely and accessible, as well as taking needed funds from other systems.  “Economic theory can help guide this analysis,” he says.  “It indicates that, in general, an efficient and equitable transportation system must reflect the following principles:

• “Consumer options (also called consumer sovereignty), which means that consumers have viable transportation and location options to choose from.
• “Cost-based pricing, which means that the prices of goods and services (including the costs of using roads, parking facilities and fuel) reflect the full marginal cost of providing them unless a subsidy is specifically justified.
• “Neutral public policies, which means that planning, funding and tax policies do not arbitrarily favor one transport mode, location or group over others.”

In many ways, our contemporary transportation systems don’t reflect these facts.  We need to build transportation that is more intelligent, equitable, and free.

Homefront: Frank Lloyd Wright and his Suburban Dream

Kathryn Gates Moore brings us this story on Frank Lloyd Wright and his ideas about urbanism.  Wright is often criticized by planners for his Broadacre City design, a city based on low density and personal vehicles (although he was more focused on helicopters than cars).  But this story talks about some little-mentioned ideas on planning from America’s greatest architect.  His 1913 drawings for a “model suburb” outside of Chicago includes mixed uses and incomes, and a range of housing types from his well-recognized single-family homes to apartments within walking distance of train stops (an idea that is considered novel today is about 100 years old).  And as opposed to the modern practice of building the same or very similar houses in a subdivision, Wright advocated making each house distinct, based on an architect consulting with an owner like Wright did with all his houses.

Healthy, Wealthy and Wise Transportation Policy

Todd Litman is one of my favorite writers on Planetizen’s blog, and he delivered a doozie of an article on the benefits of transit and triansit-oriented development.  He wrote the “Public “Transportation and Health” chapter of the new book, Healthy, Equitable Transportation Policy: Recommendations and Research, and shares some of his findings in this article.  He claims, “Public health impacts are not generally given a lot of consideration in transport planning decisions such as chosing between highway and public transit improvements, or whether to rise fuel taxes and parking fees, but this research suggests that creating a more diverse and efficient transport system may be among the most cost-effective ways to improve public health, and improving public health is one of the largest benefits of improving alternative modes (walking, cycling and public transit), encouraging more efficient travel patterns, and creating more accessible, multi-modal communities.”

He points out the US’ lower than average life expectancy among first-world nations, and our much higher healthcare spending.  A significant factor in our unhealthiness comes from our car dependence and high vehicle miles traveled (VMT) rates.  Many transit improvements would not only help ease congestion, but would help public health.  Our first place rank in traffic fatalities also contributes to our lower lifespan, to the tune of 1.2 million potential years of life lost annually.  If we could reduce this number it would improve lifespan and reduce disabilities and health care costs.  Improvements to air pollution would also positively affect public health.  Studies also show that car dependency and obesity are positively correlated; the more a country depends on the car, the fatter its people are. 

It has also been shown through a variety of studies that people who live in walkable communities and use transit are more likely to reach physical activity targets and avoid obesity, along with its correlated problems.  These communities also allow people to spend their money on things other than cars, including healthier food and better health care.  It allows people who would not be able to drive because of income or physical disability to get better access to services, including medical care.  The ability to exercise safely and casually mix with neighbors provides both physical and mental health benefits.

In his research, Litman also found that traffic casualty rates tend to decline as alternative modes of transportation (walking, biking and transit) increase.  This shows that, as far as general safety is concerned, the suburbs are often less safe and healthy than urban communities.  He also found that transit and TOD reduce emissions per VMT.  Demographic trends show a shift in desires from being able to use a car to being able to walk or use transit.  Transportation related health impacts are often overlooked in planning, despite the fact that planning was originally used to protect the health and safety of individuals.  We need to take these issues into consideration and plan for healthy, safe communities.

Pedestrian-friendly Miami 21 zoning code approved

In case anyone in the planning world hasn’t heard yet, Miami recently approved Miami 21, making it the largest city in the world to approve a form-based code.  Read about it on the Miami Herald, the Congress for the New Urbanism, Planetizen, and Streetsblog.  After four years of debate, editing, and over 100 neighborhood meetings, the commissioners voted 4-1 to pass this plan which will encourage walkability, mixed use, concealed parking, and an appropriate scale of development.  Mayor Manny Diaz said that this plan will finally allow Miami to be classified with New York, Chicago and Paris as great cities of the world.  “I’m going to tell you that history will judge us right,” he said.  The code is based on the SmartCode template, adapted to have a variety of higher-intensity transect zones for the many skyscrapers of Miami.  This vote is the culmination of years of work from Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk of the University of Miami and Duany Plater-Zyberk, as well as city staff and others.  Miami leads a growing trend of large cities adopting form-based code, with Denver close on its heels.  Miami will be a living laboratory to test the effects of form-based code on large cities.  This is the greatest victory yet for form-based codes and arguably one of the greatest for the New Urbanism movement as a whole.

Are banks a roadblock to walkable development?

Derek P. Jensen brings us this article on the only thing holding up transit-oriented and New Urbanist development in Salt Lake City: banks.  One of the biggest issues with banks is that their lending practices stress an abundance of parking, while one of the main purposes of these types of development is to reduce parking and encourage other modes of transportation.  Salt Lake City is having a hard time getting financing for the gateway district, which is expected to host a new TRAX light rail line and become a vibrant, walkable, 24-hour community, despite a number of local success stories in TOD.  Council Chairman Carlton Christensen explained that, even in the transit haven of Portland, early investors “had to have their hands held,” and the Council has the responsibility to educate investors.  Local builders agree; even after a tour of Portland and a conversion to the value of mixed-use development, they say they still have trouble finding financing.  Michael Morris of Zions Bank says that banks would be willing to be flexible if long-term investors were comfortable with less parking, but he doesn’t see that happening. “I don’t know if public transportation or fuel efficiency or the green movement is going to change that in the near term,” he says.  Apparently he’s never been to San Francisco, Portland or Washington, DC, or heard of Vauban, Germany or other communities making a lot of money off of green transportation and TOD.  Some people think that Salt Lake City is still a car culture city, but TRAX is already changing that, and as it expands, so will TOD.  Bruce Bingham, whose company is nearing completion of an office tower near the Gallivan Plaza TRAX station, deliberately scaled back the parking at his project because he knows that TRAX will  bring in workers without bringing in cars. “So far, it’s proven out that the TRAX stop is going to compensate for a lack of excess parking,” he says.  “The same conditions would exist for any transit-oriented development near a TRAX stop.”  He also says that developers shouldn’t worry about a lack of parking downtown. “The myth that there is a lack of parking in Salt Lake is just that: a myth.”  I hope that the continued success of TOD in Salt Lake City and elsewhere will soon convince lenders that these projects are worth their money.

Frightening Future for Island Traffic

Maura Yates brings us this story on the traffic on Staten Island, which is bad and getting worse.  Projections show a 35 percent growth in traffic in the next twenty years.  The story mentions an individual who moved to the island from Brooklyn and, at 29, took her driver’s test for the first time, because she will need a car for the first time in her life now that she lives on Staten Island.  There has been a ten percent increase in car registrations in the last decade.  To alleviate some of that congestion, Jonathan Peters of the College of Staten Island is encouraging transit-oriented development.  Unfortunately, Staten Island is the least transit-oriented of the boroughs.

Part of Staten Island’s problems are its streets.  Although it does have much greater connectivity than your average suburb, there are quite a few loops and lollipops in the system, and the large park in the center of the island, though an absolute asset to the community both of the island and the city at large, doesn’t help with road connectivity.  Staten Island also is very dependent on freeways to funnel traffic in and out.  This is partially due to a problem with external connectivity.  There are only four bridges and a ferry that connect the island to the rest of the city and to New Jersey, and only three of these options lead conveniently to Manhattan, where many of the residents work.

Another part of the problem is transit coverage.  The Staten Island Railway does a fine job of connecting the island together and routing commuters to the Staten Island Ferry, but it doesn’t connect to other rail transit systems throughout the area.  The bus system has pretty good coverage, but is too slow for many commuters.  The buses only drop people off at the ferry, which means that people would have to switch transportation systems to complete their journey, and every time you have to switch systems it makes people more likely to drive.  The subway in Brooklyn or the light rail in Bayonne is a similar story.  If someone has to ride the train to a bus stop to a subway station to get to downtown, they will probably drive instead.

There are a variety of solutions that Staten Island could pursue.  They could encourage TOD, as well as greater connectivity and infill development.  If the cities of New York and Bayonne and the states of New York and New Jersey are willing to spend some money to fix the problem, there are a number of ways they could improve the transit system.  One of the most effective would probably be to link the Staten Island Railway to the city subway.  The easiest way to do this would be to tie into the 95th Street-Bay Ridge Station in Brooklyn, either by adding a deck or taking a lane on the Verrazano-Narrows Bridge for trains, or by building another bridge near the Narrows Bridge.  This would require the least amount of track and would probably make for the fastest route, but it would be either very expensive or impossible to refit the Narrows Bridge, and very expensive to build a new bridge and to but up the properties needed on either side and tunnel down to the station.  Not to mention possibly ruining the view of the Narrows Bridge.

Another option would be to connect the Staten Island Railway to the light rail in Bayonne.  The shortest route with the least amount of track would be from the Ferry to the industrial area on the southeast of Bayonne, but this would mean the construction of a new bridge and conflict between passenger and freight rail.  Another route could take it on or near the Bayonne Bridge, but this would require a lot more rail being laid and a lot more properties being bought, and still may need a new bridge.

Fixing Staten Island’s traffic and transit problems won’t be an easy or a quick job, but it would help the island deal with intense growth over the next few decades and could make for a more sustainable lifestyle.

Design plans revealed for land at Laurel Park

Janene Holzberg brings us this story on plans for a transit-oriented development in Laurel, outside of Baltimore, MD.  The plan includes mixed-use buildings that could be up to ten stories.  The buildings will have 775 residential units, 650,000 square feet of office space, and 120,000 square feet of ground-floor retail.  The development will be behind existing buildings on nearby US 1, and will go to the county border.  The development will be built around the Laurel Park MARC station.  These plans finally come five years after the area was zoned for TOD.  Jeff Hayes, the developer, wants to create a “smart-growth community unto itself,” and to “encourage people to get out of their cars, walk around and enjoy what’s being developed there.”  The entrance road will be redesigned to function as an urban boulevard.  This development is hoped to spur more development along the US 1 corridor.  It’s good to see TOD happening in more suburban communities, and I hope that this project gets built and does help to revitalize the corridor and set a good example for the surrounding area about how to use MARC stations.

Survey: New Urbanist Community Results in More Walking, Interaction

Teresa Burney brings us this story on new research on the New Urbanist development of Orenco Station outside of Portland, OR.  Professor Bruce Podobnik of Lewis and Clark College surveyed residents about their neighborhood and travel habits and found that “their community is friendlier and offers more of a sense of community than other places they have lived, that they walk more often to the store, and occasionally use public transportation.”  Unfortunately, he also found that, though residents do walk more for shopping and social reasons, they still mostly drive to work.  Although they are less car dependent than another conventional suburb that was also part of the study, 64% of residents interviewed said that they drive to work alone, although 65% of residents say that they use mas transit more than they did before moving to Orenco.

There are a number of things to think about with these numbers, the biggest being, why do so many people still drive?  I have a few opinions myself.  First of all, let’s look at Orenco Station from Google Earth:

From this image, you can see that it is mostly suburban-type houses (although much superior to even the neighboring subdivisions).  The only real employment within Orenco Station is the four buildings along the main road to the Southwest, so they don’t have enough employment opportunities within the area itself to supply all the labor needs of the residents, thus they have to leave.  Most of these people probably work in or near Portland, the nearest major metropolitan area.  There is a MAX light rail station south of the development, but it is a quarter mile to almost a whole mile to get there, and even New Urbanist studies show that people will rarely walk more than a quarter of a mile before they decide to drive.  The orange lines on the image above indicate bus lines, which I’m sure entice a few people out of their cars, but when it comes to a choice between light rail, cars and buses, they are usually selected in that order.  There are certainly other nearby employment opportunities, considering the massive industrial/office park immediately north of the development, but look at the roads once you leave Orenco Station (image again from Google Earth):

Along one side of the road, the sidewalk comes to an abrupt stop.  The other side does have a trail, however.  Let’s take a look at that:

This trail is deathly boring, especially considering the interest and variety back in the neighborhood.  Also, weather.com puts August highs regularly in the 90’s on sunny days in this area, and this trail’s distinct lack of shade would allow someone to get very sweaty if they walked to work.  Also, the shortest distance from a house in Orenco Station to a business in this park is half a mile, and even considering the small chances of this optimal arrangement, the likelihood of walking is low.

If Orenco Station was to truly cut back on driving in a more significant manner, it would need more jobs internally, or better development externally.  Considering how well the neighborhood functions, I wouldn’t recommend significant redevelopment within.  However, the surrounding neighborhoods need a lot of work, and though there is some good development going up around, there’s a lot, both new and existing, that needs significant work.

Free Parking Versus the Free Market

In this article, Eric de Place calls on conservative think-tanks to address an issue that they rarely have: public parking.  This issue is rarely fought by conservatives, but in reality, it embodies many of the things that make their collective skins crawl: distortion of the free market; government intervention through minimum parking requirements; and an economic burden, especially on those who are taxed for parking but don’t use it, and on those who are required to build parking when they could make more money by developing the property in another way.  He suggests that all curbside parking be metered or that this extra space be put to better use, such as HOV lanes or wider sidewalks.  He also suggests dynamic parking prices that shifts in proportion to the demand.  He cites the few articles he could find on the subject, which are paltry.  He insinuates that conservatives may not be wanting to address this issue because it is generally unpopular and because conservatives generally are partakers of the car-dependent lifestyle.

I’ll be straightforward; I wouldn’t call myself a free market capitalist, because that economic theory is based on the assumption that markets are flawless and that people always make rational decisions, neither of which is true.  That being said, I’m something of a Keynesian.  Keynesian economic theory, though it does allow for government oversight and the action of a “spender of last resort,” still beleives that the free market should be the dominant force in economies, with the government stepping in when things get out of hand (Keynesianism isn’t socialism.  Look it up.).  I believe that parking is a situation that the government does not need to and, indeed, shouldn’t control, and that it should be turned over to the market.  If people actually had to pay what parking was worth (as well as what gasoline was worth), I think that more people would choose to drive less, and we would have better cities.