Streetsblog Capitol Hill

Finally, a scientific explanation for the feeling of depression I get from suburban environments dominated by Applebee’s, OfficeMax and eight-lane thoroughfares.

According to a new study published in Urban Affairs Review, urban design can have a measurable effect on how people feel. Researchers at the University of West Virginia and the University of South Carolina Upstate examined levels of self-reported happiness in 10 major cities. They found that quality urban environments do indeed contribute to happiness among residents.

“People are often connected to quality places that are cultural and distinctive,” the authors wrote. “Not all neighborhoods are the same. Some are designed and built to foster or enable connections. Other are built to discourage them (e.g., a gated model) or devolve to become places that are antisocial because of crime or other negative behaviors.”

Kaid Benfield at the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Switchboard blog expanded on the findings:

The study examined a number of questions directly related to the built environment, including the convenience of public transportation, the ease of access to shops, the presence of parks and sports facilities, the ease of access to cultural and entertainment facilities, and the presence of libraries. All were found to correlate significantly with happiness, with convenient public transportation and easy access to cultural and leisure facilities showing the strongest correlation.

The statistical analysis also included questions related to urban environmental quality apart from cities’ built form, and produced additional significant correlations. Among these, the perception of living in a beautiful city had the strongest correlation with happiness.

So I guess that wouldn’t include the ubiquitous big box retail centers that haunt my dreams …

Elsewhere on the Network today: Greater Greater Washington reports that Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has called to end the state’s six percent sales tax exemption for gasoline. The Austin Contrarian explains why the region’s plan to add two congestion-priced lanes to a local freeway is a win from an equity perspective. And the Active Transporation Alliance says congressional leaders have “declared war on transit” with HR 3854, a bill that would eliminate dedicated funding for public transportation.

Want to make your community more walkable and bikeable? Maybe you’ve heard by now, the transportation bill put forward by House leadership is basically a worst case scenario, gutting programs like Safe Routes to School.

Let’s put aside the fact that it attempts to solve funding shortfalls by drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Let’s forget, for a second, that even Senate Republicans don’t think drilling revenues would be enough to make up for the nation’s stagnant gas tax. Or that the average American hates the idea of drilling in the Arctic.

Wait, nope, still bad. The League of American Bicyclists has put together a list of the ten worst things about this bill for safe cycling and walking. Let’s take a glimpse at some of the highlights of the House leadership’s transportation policy. This is a good one:

3. CMAQ is gutted. Under current law, states can receive Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding to support projects that reduce transportation-related pollution. Currently, states use CMAQ dollars to support bicycling and walking infrastructure, which are proven to help reduce air pollutants by encouraging people to walk or bike instead of drive.

No longer. The House bill would change CMAQ by making congestion reduction, not air quality, the operative measure for eligibility. In other words, in order to qualify for CMAQ funding, a project doesn’t need to reduce air pollution; it just needs to be “likely” to reduce congestion. Under this new definition, the construction of new highway lanes qualifies for CMAQ funding. If the House bill were to become law, states would likely allocate CMAQ funds for highway construction at the expense of bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly projects.

Or how about this:

Read more…

Nightlife and urban living — they seem to go hand in hand. But while the success of entertainment venues can draw residents to urban areas, a city made famous by its eclectic music scene is seeing pressure from new residents to quiet things down.

Network blog The Overhead Wire says that Austin, Texas lost a favorite nightspot more than 10 years ago when an iconic club was swallowed up by development. Lately the issue is noise. Responding to complaints, the city of Austin has created a program to save music venues by providing grant funding to soundproof walls.

But The Overhead Wire says new residents shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with what makes Austin, Austin:

Ultimately the downtown area has boomed in part because of those developments but at what point do the new residents moving downtown have the ability to complain about noise that existed before their new residences?

Personally, I have no sympathy for folks that decided to move right next to a music venue that plays until 2 a.m. To me, its just like moving next to a railroad track and complaining when they want to run more trains. Ultimately I hope that Austin keeps its live music heritage. With the closing of Emo’s, I fear that more dominos will fall. We shouldn’t have to choose between a vibrant urban scene at night and a vibrant scene in the day. There should be room for both.

Elsewhere on the Network today: The Transport Politic outlines the declining political fortunes of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and his vision for suburban-oriented transit. Baltimore Velo says an opposition campaign is developing to two college presidents’ decision to forgo bike lanes on an important thoroughfare. And Urban Indy illustrates the lack of respect for bicycling that still exists among some city officials, even as $60 million is being invested in the “Cultural Trail” project.

Remember how NRDC’s Deron Lovaas said the new transportation bill proposed by House Republicans is “a march of horribles“? Well, he wasn’t exaggerating.

This bill, which attempts to make up for the country’s stagnant gas tax by squeezing revenue from domestic oil drilling, takes the concept of sustainability (environmental, fiscal and otherwise) and strives to achieve the opposite. Not only would it eliminate bike and pedestrian funding, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has said he plans to saddle the bill with a measure permitting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, recently quashed by the president.

Some Republicans are even coming out against aspects of this proposal, says Stephen Lee Davis at Transportation for America:

In the Senate, Republican Sen. Inhofe has already said that expecting new oil drilling revenues to pay for an immediate multi-year transportation bill isn’t a realistic funding solution.

“While Speaker Boehner’s idea may be a long-term revenue source for transportation infrastructure,” said Sen. Inhofe back in November, “we need to focus on the immediate problem of how we will fund a multi-year highway bill. …If this is how the House is able to move the bill forward then I applaud them. But we need money now for transportation; we can’t afford to wait.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative/libertarian think tank, held a session today on Capitol Hill with a title that leaves little mystery about their position: “Don’t Drill And Drive: Weakening The “User-Pays” Highway Funding Principle Would Endanger Our Nation’s Transportation Infrastructure.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Exit 133 reports there is a grassroots campaign to “depave Tacoma” by removing unnecessary parking lots. Renew Lehigh Valley says smart growth isn’t partisan politics, it’s common sense. And PubliCola announces that a Washington state legislative committee has passed a bill that would allow communities to lower their speed limits down to as little as 20 mph without conducting any expensive studies.

It’s one version of an urbanist’s dream: a 125-acre sanctuary where walking and biking are the primary mode of transportation; a community of narrow streets where cars don’t intrude.

Well, one man is seeking to make that vision a reality rural Maine. Tracy Gayton, a former Maine banker, has given his vision the title Piscataquis Village, and built a design philosophy around the insights of Nathan Lewis at New World Economics and J.H. Crawford at Carfree.com. Gayton is recruiting individual investors, in a Kickstarter-like model, to raise $2 million — the amount he estimates is needed to clear regulatory hurdles and buy 500 acres in Maine’s Piscataquis County. (Of that land, 375 acres will be for agriculture, parks and car parking outside village lines, so residents will still be availing themselves of the auto.)

Emily Washington at Network blog Market Urbanism points out that this type of development, unfortunately, might not even be possible in a more developed environment thanks to inflexible zoning codes that protect the primacy of cars:

To me, this case illustrates the effectiveness that covenants have for shaping land use over an area broader than individual lots without the coercion of zoning.

Tracy has created a presentation on the preliminary objectives for Piscataquis Village. He writes: “We envision a settlement evolving organically and growing incrementally. Those people or groups of people that wish to pursue their own, various versions of the Good Life within the bounds of the Village are welcome.”

This project reminds me a bit of seasteading, the libertarian vision of a bottom-up society living on a water vessel to escape government coercion and violence. While I believe that most of the initial Piscataquis Village investors are from Maine and wish to continue living there, the projects’ rural location draws attention to the impossibility of a similar village emerging in the open space of, say, Howard County or Loudoun County because the realities of the political planning process would make it impossible to escape street width, parking, and setback requirements.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Charlottesville Tomorrow reports that a Virginia Supreme Court ruling has handcuffed the state’s planning commissions. World Streets says the transportation reform movement should adopt the “slow” mantra that has revolutionized thinking about food choices. And Stop and Move explores how the lack of resources and public input can lead to mediocre planning results.

Over the last few years, greater Indianapolis has been thinking big about transit. They developed a plan to double bus service and add new rail lines. They even identified funding (a 0.3 percent income tax hike) and built a viable political coalition around the vision — which represented a dramatic shift away from the old car-centric approach that has dominated transportation planning there for decades.

All that work is now hanging in the balance of a partisan standoff unrelated to the actual transit plan. Network blog Urban Indy reported yesterday that an Indiana House committee had voted down the transit legislation 11-10 after a Republican lawmaker inserted language into the bill that would make the transit system “right-to-work.”

The folks at Urban Indy, who have been advocating hard for this bill, are beside themselves. But a shred of hope remains, explains blogger extraordinaire Curt Ailes:

To be clear, the transit portion of the bill never seemed to be at the heart of the debate over HB1073; it was always the labor. The bickering could be see as an extension of the passionate debate of the past few weeks over Right to Work legislation which passed the House yesterday with Democrats coming up on the losing end of that debate.

This officially puts HB1073 in the failed bills category but does not altogether bury it from being passed in some other form this session.

Read more…

Here’s what’s going on around the Streetsbog Network today:

Baltimore Bungles its Complete Streets Policy: The city of Baltimore has a golden opportunity to build more livable college campuses. Unfortunately it appears intent on wasting it. Students at the University of Baltimore and Maryland Institute College of Art are upset over the city’s move not to include bike lanes on Mt. Royal Avenue. The road was to accommodate all modes as part of a special Midtown Complete Streets redevelopment plan.

But this week students learned that the presidents of both universities said there should be no bike lanes on the street, and the city has complied. “Since complete streets aren’t really complete without bicycling accommodation – we found this a bit strange,” a blogger at Baltimore Velo responded. And students aren’t taking it lying down. According to the blog: “MICA students who feel misrepresented by their leadership in this instance have begun to work on petitions and letters to send to the president’s office.”

Miami’s Parking Corral Push: Advocates in Miami, Florida continue to push valiantly for a more people-friendly streets in this car-friendly state. Locals are hard at work right now trying introduce the city’s first on-street bike parking, also known as a bike corral. Network blog Transit Miami reports that they have selected the city’s Wynood Arts District for the site. The Miami-Dade Bicycle and Pedestrian Advocacy Committee has endorsed the proposal and will be taking it to the city’s public works department. “The City of Miami District 5 has a tremendous opportunity to take the lead in building Miami’s first on-street bicycle parking corral to accommodate the burgeoning demand,” said Transit Miami’s Craig Chester. Check out the whole post for a great list of reasons bike corrals are good for business.

Virginia Lawmakers Throw Out Bill to Protect Pedestrians and Cyclists: A bill that could have helped ensure the safety of vulnerable road users died an untimely death in the Virginia House of Representatives yesterday. The “Due Care” requirement for motorists would have required drivers to “exercise caution” around children, incapacitated individuals and others who face heightened risk. The law also would have mandated motorists “exercise due care to avoid colliding with any pedestrian or the operator of a human-powered vehicle and shall give an audible signal when necessary.”

That innocuous language was rejected by four out of seven members of the committee, all Republicans, said Bruce Wright at Fairfax Advocates for Better Bicycling. Wright addressed committee chair Barbara Comstock (R-McLean) in a letter on behalf of the state’s cyclists, calling it “hard to believe.” “It doesn’t seem to be too much to ask motorists to exercise due care to avoid colliding with a pedestrian or a bicyclist.”

Being an election year, last night’s State of the Union Address carried an extra bit of gravity, at least according to the favored media storyline.

Transportation observers watched this speech with interest, because in past years Obama has made infrastructure spending a centerpiece. This year however, those straining their ears for word of some dynamic new program or spending package were disappointed.

And Obama’s relative silence on the subject of infrastructure says a lot about what we can expect from him over the coming year, says Yonah Freemark at the Transport Politic:

The contributions of the Obama Administration to the investment in improved transportation alternatives have been significant, but it was clear from the President’s State of the Union address last night that 2012 will be a year of diminished expectations in the face of a general election and a tough Congressional opposition.

Mr. Obama’s address, whatever its merits from a populist perspective, nonetheless failed to propose dramatic reforms to encourage new spending on transportation projects, in contrast to previous years. While the Administration has in some ways radically reformed the way Washington goes about selecting capital improvements, bringing a new emphasis on livability and underdeveloped modes like high-speed rail, there was little indication in the speech of an effort to expand such policy choices. All that we heard was a rather meek suggestion to transform a part of the money made available from the pullout from the Afghanistan and Iraq conflicts — a sort of war dividend whose size is undefined — to “do some nation-building right here at home.”

If these suggestions fell flat for the pro-investment audience, they were reflective of the reality of working in the context of a deeply divided political system in which such once-universally supported policies as increased roads funding have become practically impossible to pursue. Mr. Obama pushed hard, we shouldn’t forget, for a huge, transformational transportation bill in early 2011, only to be rebuffed by intransigence in the GOP-led House of Representatives and only wavering support in the Democratic Senate. For the first term at least, the Administration’s transportation initiatives appear to have been pushed aside.

For a glimpse at what a cyclist’s fantasy SOTU would have sounded like, check out this post from Bike Portland.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Transportation for America reports that the House of Representatives in on the verge of putting forward a transportation bill funded by (ugh) increased oil drilling. How We Drive comments on the transit vision offered by fellow Network blogger Jarrett Walker in his new book, “Human Transit.” And The City Fix outlines what national experts recommend for reducing air pollution caused by transportation.

No one is going to hail Toronto Mayor Rob Ford as a transportation visionary just because he keeps proposing outlandish “solutions” for Canada’s largest city.

Since being elected in 2010, Ford has presided over the removal of popular bike lanes and proposed building a new subway line entirely with private funds, a dream that failed to materialize.

Now Ford is back with another doozie. As Toronto plans a commuter rail line out to its suburbs, Ford has proposed burying the route underground in order to avoid the challenges that come with assembling right of way. Jarrett Walker at Human Transit says there is a very simple reason why no one does that:

Toronto readers, today’s Globe & Mail has everything you need to know about Mayor Rob Ford’s dream of building expensive subways under low-density suburbia, thereby spending billions that could be spent expanding actual mobility (and access) where it’s most needed and demand is highest. The article is about the crucial Eglinton corridor, an obvious grid-element that could help thousands of travellers get where they’re going without having to go through downtown, thus adding to capacity problems there. But the same logic applies to an underground extension of the Sheppard East line toward Scarborough, which the mayor has also mooted. Reporter Adrian Morrow has done his homework (not just by talking to me) and he carefully sets aside all the main talking points of the suburban-subway advocates.

Bottom line: Going underground is expensive, so we do it only when we really need to! Responsible planning fights hard for space on the surface — especially in space-rich low-density suburbs — before sacrificing millions just to get transit “out of the way” of cars.

Elsewhere on the Network today: A View from the Cycle Path warns readers to beware of the “turbo roundabout,” a high-speed, high-capacity version of its more pedestrian- and bike-friendly cousin. Streets.mn explores the necessity, and difficulty, of reallocating street space. And N8than writes that bridge tolls are a better source of new revenue for New York’s MTA than sales taxes.

For the uninitiated, the economics of curbside parking can be a tough subject to wrap your head around. Putting a price on parking runs counter to the orthodoxy that has prevailed in many American cities for the better part of a century: more or less, that free or artificially low-priced parking is a good thing.

A recent piece in the Boston Globe explored the concept of reforming curbside parking policy by aligning prices with demand. Globe writer Leon Neyfakh argued that higher parking prices (as much as $6 per hour) raised the question of equity. “The result, ultimately,” he wrote, “would be a city where the rich have access to whatever spots they want, while everybody else has to settle for what’s affordable.”

Paul Barter at Network blog Reinventing Parking says wait a second:

How does having the ‘legal right’ to park have anything to do with how parking should be priced? I have a ‘legal right’ to rent an apartment in the most prestigious street in my city. The fact that I, like most people, can’t afford to do so has nothing to do with whether apartments should be market-priced. Of course, if significant numbers of people can’t afford any decent shelter we must look for solutions. In market economies, those solutions are (usually) targeted and don’t abolish market pricing for real estate generally. In any case, surely parking in busy urban streets is much less of a basic need than housing.

This brings me to ‘compulsory car’ thinking, which is a culprit in many of these equity objections. Many people seem to assume that driving is the only (tolerable) way to move around or that most drivers have little or no choice. They assume that if you can’t afford to park in an area, then you can’t afford to go there. Many people seem to be thinking of parking and driving as a basic necessity, like water. The politics of pricing for basic needs is always tricky. Highly automobile dependent societies, like the USA, are naturally especially prone to compulsory car thinking. However, the places where parking is scarce enough for performance prices to be high by today’s standards also tend to be the kind of dense urban places that are richest in mobility alternatives. Cars are one option among many and are clearly not a basic need in order to reach such places, even when such a place is located within a generally auto-dependent metropolitan area.

Poor people, especially those who are car-free, may be the group that has suffered most from public subsidies to auto travel. Those who are truly concerned about equity issues should be enthusiastic supporters of dynamic parking.

Elsewhere on the Network today: M-Bike.org reports that in addition to hosting an auto show this year, Detroit is planning a a bicycle show and swap meet. Biking in LA says that despite the City of Angels’ reputation for being not as bike friendly, cycling fatality figures show that increasing cycling activity seems to have produced a safety-in-numbers effect. And Rebuilding Place in the Urban Space uses the Portland region to demonstrate that urban growth boundaries aren’t necessarily enough to prevent sprawl.