Planning Commissioners Journal

Interview with Hannah Twaddell & Gary Toth about their article "Transportation Planning for Livable Communities"

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

Our recently published Fall issue includes a fascinating and timely article by Hannah Twaddell and Gary Toth, “Transportation Planning for Livable Communities: Measuring What Matters.” Hannah and Gary cover some very important, but often confusing, subjects that citizen planners (and professional planners, too!) need to be familiar with -- in particular, the role of “level of service” standards (commonly referred to as “LOS”) and the relationship between mobility and accessibility.

We thought it would be helpful to further explore these topics with Hannah and Gary -- and we hope that the discussion below provides a good supplement to what you’ll be reading in their article in the Planning Commissioners Journal.

By way of background, Hannah Twaddell is a Principal Planner in the Charlottesville, Virginia, office of Renaissance Planning Group. Her articles on transportation planning topics appear regularly in the Planning Commissioners Journal; many are included in our two reprint collections: Transportation: Getting Started and Transportation: New Directions.

Gary Toth is the Senior Director of Transportation Initiatives at the Project for Public Spaces. Gary worked for more than 30 years with the New Jersey Department of Transportation, where he spearheaded many innovative projects and programs to promote techniques such as context sensitive solutions, complete streets, transit-oriented development, and smart growth. Gary has authored A Citizen’s Guide for Better Streets: How to Engage Your Transportation Agency (available as a pdf download); created a Healthy Living by Design training module for the Centers for Disease Control; and developed a Streets as Places training module for the Main Street program of the National Trust for Historic Preservation.

Wayne Senville:

First off, I want to thank both of you for taking the time to further explore what you covered in your article “Transportation Planning for Livable Communities,” now out in our Fall issue.

You start the article by focusing on what you say is our over-reliance on “level of service” standards in designing roadways. But aren’t LOS standards easy to use and understand, and don’t they focus on accomplishing something almost everyone wants: reducing congestion?

Gary Toth:

LOS standards are easy to understand, which is what makes them so dangerous. They take a very subjective experience like how we react to congestion and boil it down to the pretense of an objective measurement, creating the illusion of science and objectively. What’s more sinister, it uses a scale of A to F that resonates subconsciously and totally with every American.

Hannah Twaddell:

The simple nature of LOS letter grades may be easy to grasp intuitively, but few people other than transportation professionals have any notion of the rationale that goes into creating them (and, sadly, many transportation planners and engineers don’t understand the inner workings of LOS either). It’s remarkable to me that so many educated, smart people just accept being told that LOS is the best and only indicator of roadway performance, and they don’t question how it’s derived.

We don’t do this in other areas of life. For example, most of the parents in my daughter’s school system don’t just meekly accept poor grades on their kids’ report cards without trying to find out what’s going on and what can be done about it. Because of this community-driven pressure, coupled with local, state and federal mandates, my daughter’s teachers send me simple but comprehensive reports that document clearly each of the factors that contribute to her overall grade.

Gary Toth:

The reality is that asking someone the simple question: “do you want congestion reduced at a particular location” is a question out of context. It is like asking someone whether they want to never be stung by a bee again. Of course, the answer will be yes.

But what if the question is “Would you like me to apply chemicals that completely eliminate bees from the planet, thereby reducing your risk but of course also meaning that we will never be able to have plants, fruits and vegetables again?” OK, perhaps an extreme analogy, but the point is that we need to be asking our citizens bigger questions. For instance, “do you want us to widen your Main Street if it means unintended consequences of erosion of your CBD, increasing reliance on use of your car, and ultimately more congestion”

So what we need are broader community performance measures, with LOS not eliminated but considered within the broader context. Elimination of congestion could be good, but only if it contributes to broader quality of life goals in a community or region.

Hannah Twaddell:

If we made a point of breaking down the components of LOS clearly -- showing what is and, perhaps more importantly, is not considered a contributing factor -- planners, local officials, community members, and highway engineers might be able to communicate more effectively about what’s really going on and how we could address it.

Congestion is obviously an important performance measure. But it’s important to remember that a roadway with minimal congestion problems may be performing poorly in other ways. And the root causes of congestion along any given corridor could be traced to larger network or land use issues that might not be fixed -- and could even be exacerbated -- by widening the “problem” corridor until its LOS grades improve.

Wayne Senville:

In your article, you urge community leaders to “engage with transportation agencies to customize level of service expectations for different contexts along corridors.” Do you see evidence that state transportation agencies are growing more responsive to this?

Measuring What Matters

There’s a growing recognition that transportation systems need to foster livable, sustainable communities -- and focus on more than just mobility. Hannah Twaddell & Gary Toth explore the relationship in transportation planning between: mobility, accessibility, livability, and sustainability. Plus: Gary Toth takes a closer look at the use of “level of service” standards and traffic projections -- as reported by PCJ Editor Wayne Senville in "Getting Good Grades Isn't Always the Answer." See also our discussion with Hannah & Gary about their article. Two articles: Transportation Planning for Livable Communities, by Hannah Twaddell & Gary Toth; and Getting Good Grades Isn't Always the Answer, by Wayne Senville -- from PCJ #80 (Fall 2010). Read excerpt from Transportation Planning for Livable Communities below; to order & download both articles use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post. See other articles by Hannah Twaddell.

Let's pay a visit to the imaginary planet HemoGlobe. The people of this world have bodies just like ours, but they measure their physical health by only one indicator: the speed at which their blood moves. If blood is traveling too slowly through a certain area, a surgeon widens the problematic vein. Or if a patient is starting to gain weight, the surgeon expands more veins to make room for anticipated fat deposits. This practice has gone on so long that few doctors ever "think outside the vein." No one questions the assumption that faster blood flow is always better, or considers the adverse impacts of widening the veins on other bodily functions. Alternative treatments, such as losing weight, are considered by only a few "radical fringe" practitioners. Most of us on Earth would probably agree that the single-minded, HemoGlobian approach to managing health makes little sense. Yet in our world, to draw an analogy, transportation planners tend to rely on a similar method to manage the "health" of our transportation systems. We put a great deal of emphasis on a single indicator of travel speed -- roadway Level of Service (LOS) -- and our strategies to deal with congestion usually involve widening highways. This narrowly focused approach doesn't help us address the really important question: Is our collective life-blood (people and goods) flowing properly in ways that nourish our vital organs: the places where we live, work, learn, and play? In order to get a more complete picture of how well our transportation systems are really serving us, we need to assess their impacts and performance from several perspectives. In this article, I'll explore ways to measure four aspects of community life that depend upon well-functioning transportation systems: (1) mobility -- our need to drive; (2) accessibility -- our need to arrive; (3) livability -- our need to thrive; and (4) sustainability -- our need to survive. Mobility -- Our Need To Drive Can people and goods move quickly and safely along our corridors, in any type of vehicle -- cars, buses, bikes, wheelchairs -- and on foot? Mobility is, quite simply, the ability to move. We measure it by calculating the speed at which people can travel along a given route. Level of Service (LOS) indicators for highway mobility are the most commonly used measures in transportation planning. If drivers can travel as fast as they desire along a given corridor during the most congested time of day (the "peak hour"), the LOS score is an "A." The slower the traffic moves, the lower the grade. An "F" means gridlock. The thresholds for acceptable LOS are, in most communities, based upon long-held transportation agency rules of thumb -- such as maintaining a minimum LOS level of C for all suburban arterials and D for all city streets, regardless of urban context or local land use policies. Agency traffic forecasts for future LOS usually assume the highest possible level of potential development over a 20- or 30-year period. Relying heavily on highway LOS as the dominant indicator for transportation planning tends to encourage ham-fisted solutions to complex problems. As the old saying goes, "to a man with only a hammer, everything looks like a nail." Roadways with poor LOS show up on traffic model maps as red lines. The easiest way to deal with them in the model is to keep adding roadway links and lanes until you "get the red out." But LOS models don't help us consider the adverse impacts that can result from roadway expansion, such as destroying natural areas, bisecting neighborhoods, or affecting pedestrians, bicyclists, or transit riders. In many communities, major arterials have been widened extensively in order to maintain the highest possible LOS at rush hour. But they may sit unused much of the time. Those wide, empty lanes tempt drivers to zoom well above posted speeds most of the day and night. The resulting conditions are dangerous for motorists and downright hostile to bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders. Congestion problems can often be solved by simpler, less expensive, and more environmentally sound methods than highway expansion. For example, instead of widening a single congested artery, a community can make the existing system more efficient. Operational improvements such as coordinated signal timing and turning lanes can often go a long way towards clearing up rush hour bottlenecks. Networks of local connector streets can enable travelers to avoid using major arterials, and thus provide more opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, and transit options. Local community leaders can -- and should -- engage with transportation agencies to customize LOS expectations for different contexts along a given corridor. More importantly, communities need to expand the types of indicators and tools they use for transportation planning. ... article continues with discussion of Accessibility, Livability, and Sustainability -- to order & download the complete article, select Shopping Cart button below.

order & download both articles -- "Transportation Planning For Livable Communities" & "Getting Goods Grades Isn't Always the Answer" $5.00 (single copy license)
order & download both articles $20.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of articles)

Where Are We Heading?

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

In planning for our communities, how often do we really think about where we’re heading -- and to what extent do we rely on old assumptions?

In the Fall issue of the Planning Commissioners Journal, transportation planners Hannah Twaddell and Gary Toth talk about the new direction many communities are taking when it comes to transportation planning. It’s based on a growing realization that for too long the overriding objective of transportation planning has been to come up with ways of moving vehicles through our cities and towns as quickly as possible -- and that this single-minded approach has hurt efforts to build more livable, sustainable communities.

Not too long ago, for example, few transportation planners (or others) questioned the assumption that the best way to improve our transportation networks is by building wider and straighter roadways. But now, there’s a growing recognition this is often not the best approach to reducing traffic congestion and improving mobility. Even more importantly, there’s a realization that mobility is just one factor to consider when thinking about how well our transportation systems work.

Of course, it’s not just in the field of transportation planning that we need to think about the direction we’re taking our cities and towns. This calls for the insights planners and planning commissioners can bring to the table. Inside our Fall issue, you’ll also find articles showing how you can gain a clearer understanding of your community -- and region -- in several ways: by cataloguing its natural and man-made resources (Wendy Grey); by examining its economic assets (Gwendolyn Hallsmith); and by better understanding its retail market (Beth Humstone).

Gain knowledge of your community.

Question old assumptions.

Don’t be afraid to ask: “Where are we heading?” 

 

Give My Regards to Broadway

One of the most remarkable sights in New York City these days is the transformation of Broadway in the Times Square district from a traffic-jammed artery to a car-free zone, where pedestrians reign. I touched on this briefly in my last post -- in how movable chairs are one key element in this changeover.

One of the advocates behind New York City's growing embrace of pedestrian and bicycle-oriented policies is Transportation Commissioner Janette Sadik-Khan. Listen to her in the following two short video clips. In the first she talks about the changes to Broadway, and how they can serve as a model for New York's other boroughs. In the second video, she responds to questioners in Los Angeles about how to shape city transportation policies.

The Other Half of the "Deadly Duo"

In a post last week, I reported on the first half of the "deadly duo" -- and, no, I wasn't referring to rapper Jay-Z. What I was talking about something more important, at least to planners and local officials: level of service standards and travel projections. They're what transportation engineer Gary Toth calls the "deadly duo," since unthinking reliance on them can kill efforts to build strong, vibrant communities.

The first half of the deadly duo, according to Toth, is LOS (that's "level of service" standards for those not familiar with the acronym). Today I want to go over some of his basic arguments about the other half of Toth's deadly duo: travel projections. 

As Toth made clear during a recent Project for Public Spaces workshop, travel projections -- and the models that generate them -- are of critical importance because they set the table for how we plan and design our roadways ... and communities.  

We all know the expression, "garbage in," "garbage out," that shorthand reminder that the quality of the results we get from using data depends on the quality of the data we're relying on. That's also true when thinking about traffic models. So what are some of the warning signs?

For Toth, the first thing to watch out for is growth projections, both for population (which he says often result in overestimations) and for traffic. As Toth explains: "Most [traffic models] ignore changing demographics such as the aging of our population, rising energy prices, ... and societal changes. Most assume that our economy will continue to grow at the same rate as it has over the last 30 years."

But there's an even more important thing to watch out for, Toth warns, models have a built-in bias towards continuation of the status quo. "Without direction or a reason to do otherwise, modelers will likely assume that future growth will occur ... as usual segregated and spread out (sprawl) patterns." Why is this critical? "Because research shows that compact mixed use development can reduce travel by 25% or more." Traffic models, Toth continues, don't consider how we can reshape the direction our communities are heading. 

What's more, by relying on the projections of traffic models that overestimate our need for more or wider roadways, we're making it more difficult to achieve the goal of more walkable, less auto-dependent, communities.

In an article for the Planning Commissioners Journal (available on our web site), noted planning historian Laurence C. Gerckens wrote about the tyranny of projections driven by over-reliance on past trends: 

"The second 'flaw' -- or built in bias -- in the 'classic' planning process lay in the fact that it was premised on the projection or continuation of past trends. In other words, past trends became the policy-bases for the comprehensive plan. As a result, plans rarely reflected any vision for positive change. Instead, they reinforced historic patterns. ... 'Modern' planning processes began not with the acquisition of immense amounts of data, but with the creative visioning of alternative futures -– establishing community goals, alternative patterns of development, and the means of their attainment. ... Responsible planning is a creative art using data from the past and knowledge of interrelationships to create new and better communities for the future."

But what can you as a planner or local official do when faced with traffic projections you believe overestimate future travel demand and fail to take into account the community's vision of its future? Ask hard questions, was Toth's reply. "Challenge growth and buildout numbers, and ask if they adjust for walkability and for increased mixed-use ... listen to the answers, and then ask more questions." 

"Don't let the model tell you how wide your streets should be," Toth continued, "you tell modelers how wide you want your streets to be, and then have them tell you what that will mean in terms of congestion." In other words, remember that you are the policy makers, and the traffic modelers are there to help you understand the impacts of what you want. It's up to you then "to decide what you want to do about any projected congestion" given your community's vision and goals. 

What's more, Toth concludes, if the model is cheap or faulty, just don't use it.

[Note: in putting together this post I drew on both my notes of Gary Toth's comments during the workshop and material in a handout he prepared, "Traffic projections and levels of service targets."]

Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville: Are you interested in transportation planning topics? This June, we have a terrific special offer -- you can download 15 articles that transportation planner Hannah Twaddell has written for the Planning Commissioners Journal -- all for a substantially discounted price. Gary Toth calls Hannah one of the top progressive transportation planners in the United States. She's a Project Manager with the Renaissance Planning Group -- and also an outstanding writer who does a great job in boiling down sometimes complex topics so that they can be readily understood by citizen planners. For more about Hannah. Go to our Special Offer page and find out about the 15 articles included in this pdf download.

Pavement into Parks

While the Project for Public Spaces (which I've been reporting on in recent posts) works with communities across the globe, it hasn't forgotten its roots in New York City. In fact, the Big Apple is brewing with pedestrian and bicycle-oriented projects and organizations. This really kicked into high gear in 2006, when the New York City Streets Renaissance (NYCSR) was formed. As described on the StreetFilms blog, the NYCSR was initiated as "a collective effort of non-profit advocacy organizations Transporation Alternatives, the Project for Public Spaces, and The Open Planning Project, the primary goal was to encourage a citywide enlightenment in planning our streets for people and places, not cars and traffic."

One early offshoot was StreetsBlog, followed soon after by StreetFilms. These are two web sites every planner, local official, and community activist should be familiar with. Streetsblog now operates in New York, San Francisco, and Los Angeles, and as Streetsblog New York editor Ben Fried told us at the PPS workshop, the number of blogs covering similar issues has dramatically expanded in the past few years. This has been fostered by the creation of the StreetsBlog network, a collection of nearly 400 independent web blogs that cover pedestrian and bike issues in communities big and small. 

Taking a look at the StreetsBlog network home page right now as I'm writing this, I see that reports are posted from Newton, Massachusetts (We Can Prevent Bicyclists From Being Run Over); Virginia Beach, Virginia (Virginia Beach to Lower Shore Drive Speed Limit), along with other cities. 

In fact, you may have noticed on our own web blog that we include the StreetsBlog network widget, where you can view recent stories posted by organizations that have joined the network. See what's happening right now -- just scroll towards the bottom of the right hand column on this page and you'll spot the widget.

But I don't want to forget that today is Friday, the day we've been posting short video clips we think you'll enjoy. StreetFilms offers over 300 great videos to choose from -- a collection that's constantly growing. For this post, I want to highlight a new video they've posted that ties in (at least to me) to what I wrote about Petrosino Square earlier this week. The video shows the creative way new public space (often called "parklets") is being created in San Francisco out of portions of streets. Turning pavement into parks -- perhaps something to think about for your community.

For more details about the Pavement to Parks program.

Breaking Our Addiction to Highway Level of Service Standards

Note from PCJ Editor Wayne Senville: this is the third in a series of postings about a recent two-day workshop I attended. Sponsored by the Project for Public Spaces, it focused on "streets as places."  

In this post I'm passing along some of what I learned from transportation engineer Gary Toth. Toth, who is now Senior Director of Transporation Initiatives for the Project for Public Spaces, worked for 34 years for the New Jersey Dept. of Transportation, where he served as Director of Project Planning & Development. He has been one of the leading national advocates for integrating land use and community considerations into transportation planning.

Why Getting Good Grades Isn't Always the Answer

It's a constant source of amazement to me how much we're addicted to report cards. Many of us strove in elementary school, high school, and then in college to get those A's (OK, sometimes a B or C was acceptable). But the idea of receiving an F for flunking/failure, or even a D, was something to dread.

I think -- and I'm not kidding about this -- this is part of what embues highway "Levels of Service" ratings with such power. Most local elected officials and citizens I've encountered seem to view good LOS grades as a sign of success, and D's (or even C's) as evidence of failure. Our built-in aversion to receiving a "failing" LOS report card is reinforced by the fact that there is some truth to the ratings: D does indicate congestion problems, while A or B means we can zip along our roadways with nary a stop.

You noticed that I highlighted the word "some." The problem, according to transportation engineer Gary Toth, is that LOS ratings tell you only part of the story -- and sometimes not the most important part. As Toth explains, "design decisions based on LOS performance measures end up serving only the through motorist at the expense of the very communities that the road is also supposed to serve."

How's that? According to Toth, LOS simply does not take into account other considerations -- such as impacts on pedestrians, on businesses served by the roadway, or on other community or neighborhood interests. It simply focuses on the motor vehicle. "The fact is," Toth said, "improving levels of service for cars can degrade it for pedestrians, shops, and others."

What's more, Toth adds, LOS calculations are typically made "using peak hour travel projections, generally 20 years into the future." This means our roads are intentionally "over designed" to handle capacity that only occurs at the very heaviest travel period. The problem with over-designed roadways, Toth notes, is that they can "take major bites out of the community's fabric," while -- especially during off peak hours -- turning the roadway into a speedway.

Are we bound by Level of Service standards contained in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual and AASHTO's Green Book? No, we're not, says Toth. As he points out, "while often used as a bible by traffic modelers, in reality the Highway Capacity Manual neither constitutes nor attempts to establish legal standards for highway construction." 

As Toth explains, "the Green Book and most DOTs provide guidelines for selection of LOS, but these are guidelines only ... selection of a target LOS is a policy decision and is based on a particular jurisdiction's philosophy on whether or not to accept congestion." Indeed, the Federal Highway Administration notes that "while the Highway Capacity Manual provides the analytical basis for design calculations and decisions, judgment must be used in the selection of the appropriate level of service for the facility under study."  

That was my key take away from Gary Toth's remarks: communities have a choice -- and these choices have major ramifications. They can decide on wider, straighter roadways to eliminate congestion (and receive better grades on their LOS report card), or they can balance traffic needs against other community goals, such as encouraging more pedestrian activity and street life. 

A community, if it wants to, can actually aim for having drivers slow down so they can smell the coffee -- and pull over to stop at that tempting coffee house. 

For a growing number of cities and towns, living with some congestion is a trade-off worth making.

It's also worth noting that major highway planning organizations such as AASHTO and the Institute for Transportation Engineers have been moving towards more flexible guidelines that take a roadway's surrounding context into account. [For more on this, see an excellent article we published by transportation planner Hannah Twaddell, "Fitting Roadways to Community Needs: A Look at the ITE Urban Thoroughfares Report."]

During the PPS workshop, Toth called level of service standards one of the "deadly duo" -- the other being traffic projections. More on the misuse of traffic projections in next Monday's post.

[Note: in putting together this post I drew on both my notes of Gary Toth's comments during the workshop and material in a handout he prepared, "Traffic projections and levels of service targets."]

Can a Street Be a Place?

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville: 

This post's title is the question that was at the heart of a fascinating two-day workshop I attended in April. Sponsored by the Project for Public Spaces, the workshop's description as covering "Streets as Places" intrigued me. But PPS Executive Vice President Kathy Madden told me to only come if I was also willing to be an active participant. Sounded like fun, and it was. Indeed, the PPS workshop centered around active interaction between the thirty or so attendees. (Next week I'll talk about our group "walking audit" exercise).

But why think about streets as places? First, streets constitute a surprisingly large amount of the land area within cities, often 30 percent or more. That's a lot of valuable real estate given over the cars and trucks. Second, what happens on streets directly affects what happens on sidewalks. Third, streets affect quality of life; something most all of us care about.

Here's some of what PPS has to say about streets: "While streets were once a place where we stopped for conversation and children played, they are now the exclusive domain of cars. Even where sidewalks are present along highways and high-speed streets, they feel inhospitable and out of place."

For planners and transportation engineers, dealing with streets has long focused on how to move traffic as efficiently and quickly as possible. Other concerns, if considered at all, were secondary. The not too surprising result of this philosophy, as those at PPS succinctly put it, is that "if you plan cities for cars and traffic, you get cars and traffic. If you plan for people and places, you get people and places."

So how do you plan for streets that work as places where people are comfortable? Among the key things PPS recommends is:

1. using traffic calming strategies, including curb extensions and better intersection design, "to slow down cars, provide more space for walking, and make streets safer to cross;" 
2. simplify circulation patterns for both motorists and pedestrians; 
3. give more emphasis to sidewalks and how they function; and
4. strengthen the relationship of buildings and surrounding land uses to streets.

But there's one even more overriding concept that PPS President Fred Kent pointed out right at the start of the workshop: "It's not just the road and sidewalks, it's the community. Streets are public spaces."

Kent has focused much of his professional life on this theme. A student of William Holly Whyte -- who pioneered in researching how people use and interact in public spaces -- Kent recounted how one of his first research assignments involved filming a day in the life of a wastebasket on one corner of a midtown Manhattan street. Yes, you read that right. There's much that can be learned, he noted, through careful observation of how people actually use streets and sidewalks (and even how they interact with trash receptacles). 

[As a side note, take a look at the short William Whyte video, The Social Life of Small Urban Spaces, that we posted on the PlannersWeb last winter].

Kent went on to found the Project for Public Spaces in 1975. Over the years PPS has grown, and now works with cities not just in the U.S. and Canada, but around the globe.

Kent also spoke about the late Dutch traffic engineer Hans Monderman, who developed the idea of "shared streets" (aka "shared spaces") -- that is, streets without traffic lights, stop signs, or lane markings, but where people can walk freely wherever on the street they want to. According to Kent, one of Monderman's favorite sayings was: "If you want vehicles to behave like they are in a village, build a village." 

Monderman's research on shared streets found that they do slow down car speeds, as motorists take their time to weave their way down the block. Earlier in his career, Monderman originated the "Woonerf" street which some of you may have heard of (see slides of a Woonerf street in Delft), a precursor of the shared street. 

Interestingly, scenes from early 20th century America show that our main streets back then worked, at least in some ways, as shared streets. Take a look at this short video filmed in 1906 of Market Street, San Francisco's main downtown corridor.

While we may not be ready for shared streets in 21st century America (and the concept is still relatively untested and controversial), the underlying point -- that streets should be designed not just for cars, but for people -- is highly relevant to our cities and towns today.

In my next post, I'll tell you how workshop participants spent part of the afternoon circling a square.

Charlotte's Urban Street Design Guidelines

As you've undoubtedly read in a variety of publications (including the Planning Commissioners Journal) there's a growing interest in "complete streets" and the positive impact that better streetscape design and increased connectivity can have. Last year, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, won a National Smart Growth Award from the EPA for their street design guidelines.

 EPA's web site includes a short video about Charlotte, and videos on the three other award winners. We can't embed the video, but you can access it either by using this link or by clicking on the screenshot on the right.

As the EPA noted: 

"With the Urban Street Design Guidelines, the city of Charlotte is using street design to shape its development patterns and provide residents and visitors with viable choices for how they move about the city. ... The guidelines promote sustainable development patterns and streets that are more pleasant, safe, and walkable. For instance, policies include recommending block lengths for new development that create a more dense, well-connected network of streets that in turn promote more compact building design. Additionally, the city encourages wide planting strips to allow large, mature trees to grow, enhancing Charlotte's tree canopy and making the streets more pleasant for pedestrians and motorists alike. The city also has improved pedestrian crossings by making them more visible and changed traffic signal timing to better accommodate pedestrians.

Since 2004, the Charlotte Department of Transportation has applied the guidelines to more than 20 streets and 10 intersections. Seven of these projects included 'road diets,' which allow more bike lanes and improve sidewalks and crossings for pedestrians. The guidelines have facilitated the increase in the bike lane network from one mile in 2000 to more than 55 miles today."

The Guidelines are available on the City's web site along with a Policy Summary document.

See also:

• the Complete Streets Resource page we've posted on the PlannersWeb.
• an article we published by transportation planner Hannah Twaddell, Fitting Roadways to Community Needs (read excerpts; full article can be ordered & downloaded).

In Our Spring Issue: "21st Century Transportation Planning Challenges"

As the 21st century dawns, we need to plan for our cities and towns in ways that bring people and places closer together and provide more travel choices. by Hannah Twaddell; from PCJ #78 (Spring 2010); 2 pages Read excerpts below; to order & download the full article use Shopping Cart button at bottom of this post.

First part of article: American settlement patterns have always been strongly influenced by our transportation technology. In 18th century America, the best locations for cities and commerce were accessible to major rivers and ports. Few people lived in "backwater" communities. Once you got off the boat, however, you had to rely on the power of feet -- human or horse. Within cities, all activities had to be located within walking distance of each other. Suburban growth extended about as far as one could go within a day's ride from town. With the advent of steam- and diesel-powered trains in the 19th century, people began venturing away from the rivers and built new cities across the landscape. However, since foot-power was still the dominant form of local travel, rail towns retained the compact form of older communities. The automobile allowed us to spend the 20th century spreading out in all directions. Networks of high-speed highways and local roads created opportunities to build cities virtually anywhere. With the power of hundreds of horses under the hood, cars made it possible for people to live miles away from daily activities such as work, school, and shopping. No longer confined to the walkable dimensions of one-horse towns, we shaped new communities around large street networks and parking lots. As the 21st century dawns, the American dream made possible by the remarkably fast, flexible mobility of the automobile has begun to take on nightmarish qualities. It is becoming clear that our collective dependence upon the automobile is threatening our natural environment, our health, and our economic vitality. As our anxiety about these problems grows, however, so does our creativity. We are in a time of fundamental change that portends both danger and opportunity. Our Natural Environment A 2009 report by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicates that fossil fuel combustion for transportation is responsible for a third of America's CO2 emissions, which are an important ingredient of the "greenhouse gases" associated with global climate change. The three most prominent factors affecting the transportation sector's emissions are the fuel economy of vehicles on the road, the types of fuels used, and the overall amount of driving by all vehicles, expressed as vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Federal agencies, state governments, and private sector entrepreneurs are working on the tasks of making vehicles more energy-efficient and finding new sources of fuel. But our success at reducing VMT depends largely upon our ability to plan and locate communities in ways that reduce our need to drive. To achieve this goal, it is essential for local and regional planners and decision-makers to redesign existing and new places so that people can choose to walk, bike, or use transit for daily trips. Studies show that improving the proximity and connectivity of activities can reduce the overall number of vehicle trips generated within a given area by as much as 25 percent. This, along with operational improvements to improve free-flow movement on local roadways, can make an important contribution toward reducing the amount of carbon dioxide generated. Stormwater runoff is another important environmental problem exacerbated by our automobile-oriented development pattern. That's because roadways, surface parking lots, and driveways result in large amounts of paved, impervious surface which, in turn, can lead to excessive runoff. As the EPA's Lynn Richards noted last year in an article in the Planning Commissioners Journal, it is important to ask whether street and road widths in our communities are sized appropriately since "over[ly] wide streets will create excess impervious cover." Richards also touched on the importance of downsizing our parking requirements, pointing out that "parking lots designed for peak demand periods [create] acres of unused pavement during the rest of the year." ... article continues with look at Our Health and Our Economy

order & download full article $3.25 (single copy license)
order & download full article $10.00 (license to print/store up to 20 copies of article)

Safe Routes to School

 What can I do to improve my community? That's a question that civic-minded individuals often ask. While there are many possibilities, you'll see one great example in today's two videos. They're part of a series of short videos for school age kids on bike and walking safety. They resulted from the hard work of Kim Arline, a resident of Pueblo, Colorado. Take a look two of the videos, then hear Kim describe how they came about. 

---

"This all started when my daughter was in 1st grade attending a school that just needed a trail connecting it to the neighborhood behind across a drainage area. I talked about it to the principal, teachers and nothing ever happened. I found the community master trail system plan about that time and the trail was shown so I thought I could sit back and progress would happen. Years passed, I learned about the Safe Routes to School (SRTS) program and when my daughter was in the 5th grade I pushed the community and school district to work on a SRTS grant. Months passed and nothing. With only 6 weeks before the grant was due, I wrote my first grant, had a rude awakening to local government politics but pushed on to submit the grant after much scrambling and convincing local leaders. I could not have done it without the guidance and encouragement of a planner at the MPO -- a chance meeting at the right time made all the difference!" 

"After my first successful grant, I thought I'd give it another try the following year with a non-infrastructure grant (education and encouragement) to produce an educational video showing people how to navigate our semi-rural roads safely to get to the trail system. The videos were originally created to be shown on the school-wide TV system over several days after the pledge of allegiance. The production crew suggested posting them on You Tube to reach a larger audience and we've promoted the links the past 2 months. People in health promotion and bike safety LOVE the videos and I've received many requests for DVD copies for them to use in classes. I will be using the videos in bike safety/commuter classes as our county tries to promote more healthy and active living with bike month and bike to work days coming up in May."

I asked Kim what lessons she learned from all this, and what advice she has for others. 

 "The advice I would give to anyone wanting to make a change in the world they live in is to start researching, networking locally and regionally and just keep working at it, even when it seems like nobody cares or wants to help. This has been one of the most rewarding and frustrating things I've ever done. The wheels of government turn slowly and people change their behaviors even more slowly -- but someone has to start the change. Don't just talk about it, be the change you want to see in the world!"

Note: Thanks to planner Todd Ahlenius (who I met in Pueblo three years ago) for alerting me to these videos and putting me in touch with Kim. Also, we're setting out a portion of the Pueblo Bicycle & Trails map below -- use this link to download the full map (pdf format).

 

Online Newsletter Highlights Pedestrian Safety Topics

Just a quick note to those of you interested in pedestrian issues. The FHWA (yes, the Federal HIGHWAY Administration) puts out a short -- but informative -- online newsletter called the Pedestrian Forum. It provides useful summaries of various projects, research, and reports dealing with pedestrian safety issues. You can also sign up to receive information about these quarterly updates by email. 

• For a listing of past Pedestrian Forum newsletters, and to subscribe.
• To view the Spring 2010 issue.

Here's a screenshot of part of the Spring Pedestrian Forum:

 

Robert Moses & Jane Jacobs

The first video below is about two individuals who, arguably, have had more of an impact on the course of urban planning than any others -- Robert Moses and Jane Jacobs. In the second half of the 8 minute video, you'll hear how their paths crossed in the battle over the Lower Manhattan Expressway in 1962. This video was produced by John Elias and Peter Baum in 2008. 

The second video features an interview of Jane Jacobs in 2002. As Jacbos remarks, what we most need to do is "study the parts [of our cities] that work and that people use," adding that "the greatest asset a city or city neighborhood can have is something that is different from every other place." And, Jacobs notes, "don't think it can be done by wishful thinking or pretty words." Produced by the Active Living Network.

Valuable Stats on Biking & Walking in U.S.

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville: In yesterday's post, I reported on Reid Ewing's findings on the growing interest in having walkable communities. Today's post is also about walking -- and bicycling.

The Alliance for Biking & Walking, with funding from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has released a remarkably useful report for anyone interested in bike, pedestrian, public health, and traffic safety issues. Bicycling and Walking in the United States 2010 Benchmarking Report is available to download as a pdf file; you can also separately download the Executive Summary.

The Report is replete with data. In fact, there's an almost overwhelming amount of data, covering a wide range of topics. But what's most important is how well organized and designed the report is -- and how easy-to-read the charts, maps, and graphics are (several are included below with permission of the Alliance). It's a pleasure to come across a document like this.

Some of the information that caught my eye:

"States where bicycling and walking levels are lowest have the highest levels of obesity." Not surprising, but well-documented in the report. As with most of the data, you can see how your state ranks; rankings are also listed for major U.S. cities.

Related to this, "states with the highest levels of bicycling and walking have a greater percentage of the population meeting the recommended 30-plus minutes a day of physical activity."

 

The Report notes that: "Walking and bicycling have great potential to improve public health. In 2001, 41% of trips in the U.S. were shorter than two miles and 28% were shorter than one mile. Since bicycling can accommodate trips of up to two miles and most people can walk at least one mile, there is a lot of hope to use this form of travel in our communities." -- Amen to that.

 "On average, states spend just 1.2% of their federal transportation dollars on bike/ped projects (based on the 5-year funding period from 2004-2008). This amounts to just $1.29 per capita for bicycling and walking each year." Distressing information. -- But, on the bright side, there's lots of room for improvement.

"The number of people who bicycle to work has increased steadily, rising 29.8% between 1990 and 2007 from 466,856 to 664,859 people who bicycle to work nationwide. During the same time period the number of people who walk to work fell 12% despite population growth of 21% (from roughly 249 million people in 1990 to roughly 301 million people in 2007)." Again, room for improvement.

"Cities plan for roughly 60% more miles of bicycle and pedestrian facilities as the amount they currently have." -- Ah, good news!

 "Cities averaged 22.5 bicycle parking spaces per 10,000 people. Minneapolis has the highest amount of bicycle parking per capita with 430.3 bicycle parking spaces per 10,000 people." -- And it can sure get cold in Minneapolis from November through April (see below).

Finally, something we also think about a lot up here in Vermont where the Planning Commissioners Journal is located: does weather influence the choice to bicycle?

"The Alliance compared average summer and winter temperatures to bicycle share of work trips in 50 states and did not find any compelling evidence that weather is a major influence. Montana and Alaska, for example, are among states with the coldest temperatures, yet are also among the states with the highest levels of bicycling." -- While I'm not totally convinced that weather is irrelevant, it's still good to hear that bicyclists are not easy to deter! See a video about winter bike commuters in Chicago.

Again, those are just some of the highlights. Take a look for yourself, I'll bet there's some interesting information you'll find.

Note: graphics from the Report are reposted here with permission of Alliance for Biking & Walking.

The Future Belongs to Walkable Communities

From PCJ Editor Wayne Senville:

"The future belongs to walkable communities," claimed planning scholar Reid Ewing at a forum in Burlington, Vermont, sponsored by the University of Vermont Transportation Research Center and the Chittenden County Regional Planning Commission and Metropolitan Planning Organization. 

Ewing, who recently joined the faculty at the University of Utah's City and Metropolitan Planning program, has long focused his research and writing on land use and transportation issues. His career's included stints as Director of the Voorhees Transportation Center at Rutgers University and as a research professor at the National Center for Smart Growth. Interestingly, he's also squeezed in two terms in the Arizona state legislature. 

In his Burlington remarks, Ewing highlighted the benefits of "transit-oriented development" (TOD). But Ewing also argued that "pedestrian-oriented development has more potential nationwide than transit-oriented development." As he explained, outside of larger cities there's just not enough population to support rail-based transit, an essential component to TOD. That's certainly the case in places like Vermont. But pedestrian-oriented development (POD) will work in small and mid-sized communities.

Ewing noted that walking is the second most used mode of transportation after the automobile. In the U.S. today, he said, 86% of all trips are by car, followed by 9% on foot, and only 2% by transit. What's more, when people are surveyed they invariably indicate they would like to be able to walk more. Yet land development patterns and current housing choices, Ewing argued, often put roadblocks in the way of increased walking.

One factor necessary for POD, said Ewing, is density two to three times higher than the roughly 4 dwelling units per acre that is currently the norm in many suburbs. Also critically important is having a diversity of land uses close by. This allows, he noted, a higher proportion of people to walk from their homes to grocery stores, coffee shops, and sometimes, their place of employment. 

Another key factor in PODs or TODs is good design. Among the design principles Ewing pointed to is shorter blocks. "Block size is really important, and the shorter the block, the more walkable a community will be." As density increases it is also essential, he said, to provide ample public spaces, such as parks and plazas, "as a relief so it doesn't feel as crowded."

 Why care whether we have PODs and TODs? To Ewing, the single biggest benefit is that increased walking (or use of transit) reduces car use. This matters because cars run on fossil fuels which emit carbon dioxide which increases global warming (Ewing is co-author of Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change, published by the Urban Land Institute). But walking, Ewing added, also yields health benefits.

Ewing acknowledged that there's no hard data on the percentage of new development that would be considered pedestrian-oriented, though he said a ballpark figure would be between 3 and 5 percent. For Ewing, part of the problem is that "the development industry is still building for an outdated market, one that existed twenty years ago." Ewing does, however, see signs of change, especially in the increased consumer demand "for smaller lot single-family homes."

Two other obstacles cited by Ewing: older land development codes which prohibit the higher densities and smaller lot sizes needed to support PODs or TODs, and "subsidies for automobile use" -- especially through what he said is the over generous supply of parking. On this last point Ewing noted that "the less parking provided the more likely people will walk or use transit."

Mobility Crisis Is No Midnight Hallucination After a Bad Burrito

We've been periodically posting excerpts from "State of the City" addresses given by mayors from across the U.S. These addresses can offer insights into both innovative programs and challenges facing cities.

Previously posted:

Shoreview, Minnesota, Mayor Sandy Martin

Salt Lake City, Utah, Mayor Ralph Becker

Ashland, Oregon, Mayor John Stromberg

Topeka, Kansas, Mayor Bill Bunten

Albany, New York, Mayor Gerald Jennings

Grand Rapids, Michigan, Mayor George K. Hartwell

Austin, Texas, Mayor Lee Leffingwell

---

Fort Worth, Texas, Mayor Mike Moncrief 
To read his complete State of the City address 

If I had to name one thing … one top issue that poses the greatest threat to Fort Worth’s ability to compete, I wouldn’t have to think twice about it -- It’s mobility, or the lack there of. This is an extraordinarily complicated and expensive problem ...

The mobility crisis of North Texas is no midnight hallucination after a bad burrito, it’s not a naysayer’s notion, it’s real and it’s costing us dearly. To meet growth expectations over the next two decades, North Texas needs to invest $130 billion in regional transportation system improvements.

That number should be no surprise to anyone who frequents our congested highways. I’ve sat in that traffic more than I’d like to admit. I know how frustrating it is. Some days you can change a tire without losing your place in traffic.

We, and many of you in this room, have been working hard to find answers that offer real relief for commuters. Southwest Parkway continues to move forward steadily. This major artery will greatly improve mobility in southwest Fort Worth and relieve the pressure on I-35, Hulen, Bryant Irvin, and others by the year 2013 ... Widening I-35 between downtown and far north Fort Worth also continues to be a priority. ...

Although all battles are not yet won, we are advancing the front lines.

Commuter Rail, street cars, and other alternative modes of transportation also remain a priority for me and this City Council. Unfortunately, Fort Worth and other major metropolitan areas are finding out the hard way what a mistake it was to design and build cities around automobiles years ago. Friends, we cannot continue to focus solely on building more roads for more vehicles. That’s counter productive at best.

Business as usual is dead!

North Texas requires a transportation overhaul. No more band-aides, no more patches -- a complete overhaul! ...

Frankly, I’m tired of talking about this. This afternoon, workers at BNSF … employees at Lockheed Martin or Bell Textron … even many of you in this room will leave work and then sit … and sit … and sit in traffic. It’s a frustrating daily routine that carries a great cost once you consider the impacts to our quality of life, our environment, our air, and our ability to attract and keep new business investment. 

If this is a mobility crisis -- and I believe it is -- then it must be treated like one!

In the spirit of the early Fort Worth pioneers who took it upon themselves to pick up shovels and extend the first rail line to our city, it’s time that we took matters in our own hands. It is clear to me that we are not going to get where we need to be by relying only on help from the feds or the state.

We are going to have to pull ourselves out of the ditch!

In the coming weeks, I will appoint an 11-member Blue Ribbon Task Force. I will charge this body with returning specific recommendations to the full City Council on how we fix or relieve pressure on Fort Worth’s aging transportation infrastructure. ... Because of the urgency of this matter, I will ask this task force to present recommendations within 90-days of the first meeting. This will allow any proposals to be thoughtfully considered during the next budget cycle. ...

We must take responsible action, and we must do it swiftly!

I submit that further delays are as dangerous as licking a steak knife! Got that visual?

And, let me be absolutely clear: Finding solutions to this mobility crisis ourselves does not relieve the state of its responsibility to deliver our region and our city its fair share of transportation dollars.

---

Editor's note: heard about this State of the City address via George Osner on Twitter.

Comments by Secretary Ray LaHood at AASHTO Briefing

 Take a look at this quite interesting 8 minute video of U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood speaking at an AASHTO briefing yesterday. Among his comments:

• totally nixes idea of raising gas tax given bad economy & high unemployment; explains that this is just not realistic politically [3:52 into video clip]
• says high speed rail is now at a point comparable to where America was when the Interstate highway system started [5:40 into video clip]
• while saying that highways are still important, strongly defends value of high speed rail, streetcars, & transit; saying that people want more transportation choices and don't want more congestion [6:05 into video clip]

Take Our March Poll on Cellphone Use & Texting While Driving

 Our March poll focuses on a controversial issue facing state policymakers across the country: whether to impose restrictions on cellphone use and texting while driving. 

-- For perspectives from the U.S. Department of Transportation, see Distraction.gov
-- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration web page on drowsy and distracted driving
-- For a report from the Highway Loss Data Institute finding no change in collision rates resulting from cellphone laws.
-- Recent NY Times article, Bills to Curb Distracted Driving Gain Momentum (Jan. 1, 2010)
-- Nationwide's 2009 Driving While Distracted Survey Results

But what do you think? 

Our poll question can be found in the upper-left sidebar of this page. 

Bike Storage ... Japanese Style

 Given the high population density in Japan's metropolitan area, it shouldn't come as a surprise that a Japanese firm has come up with an automated bicycle storage facility. Take a look at this short video from The Guardian newspaper's website.

As Guardian editor David Munk describes it: "Has Japan designed the world's best bike shed? It's not often something stops you in your bike tracks. But a spectacular "bike tree" invention from Japan bowled me over when I was in Tokyo a couple of weeks ago.

Fed up with bicycles locked to railings, piled on top of each other, blocking doorways and roads, a local council in the city installed the mechanical masterpiece. It's basically an automatic storage system for cycles and operates with computer tagging of bikes and either storage in a building or a basement structure.

There are a number of locations where these bike trees are now in place in Tokyo some hold 600-odd bikes, others more than 6,000. The concept came from the massive Japanese steel company JFE, whose engineering works division first started them in 2007 but are now spreading.

... The process of retrieval normally takes 15 seconds but can be slightly longer (it took 30 seconds in my experience). The advantages are plain your bike becomes theft-proof, you are encouraged to cycle to work and local authorities don't have to deal with unsightly and sometimes annoying bicycle clutter. The downside is that it costs a lot of money and the infrastructure involves serious resources."

For more details on the bicycle storage facility, see:

• CYCLE TREE: Multi-level Mechanical Bicycle Parking System (from JFE Engineering corporation, which built the facility)
• Yet Another Video of Amazing Japanese Bike Storage System (from Treehugger.com)

On the Fast Lane

I have to say that U.S. Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood has surprised me. But it's in a way I didn't expect: he knows how to communicate. He (or his staff) is just about everywhere -- heading out around the country, and also online. 

Whether it's on Twitter, Facebook, or the Web, our Secretary of Transportation is doing a terrific job of informing us of what's going on at the Department of Transportation. I'd especially recommend you take a look at his web blog, if you haven't seen it. 

Sure, there's a certain amount of promotion involved. But more importantly, there's lots of good information, conveyed in a very readable style. I've been especially impressed by the focus LaHood has been giving to distracted driving, a very important public health and safety issue. 

LaHood's Fast Lane blog will give you a better feel for the big picture (as well as some of the details) of federal transportation policy and programs. But given the attention high-speed rail has been getting, I almost expect the blog to be renamed from "Fast Lane" to "Fast Track"!

If you Tweet, be sure to follow Ray LaHood on Twitter: