October 31, 2012
“New Yorkers, widely considered to be tough and selfish, are suddenly eager to share cellphones, drink beer with strangers at their local bars, and to cook meals at home — since without subways there is no way to go out for dinner and get home easily.”
Mitchell Moss, CNN.com, October, 30 2012
The statement that a New Yorker can’t go out to dinner without the subway is perplexing, all the more so in that it comes from an NYU professor of Urban Policy and Planning who presumably has spent some time living or at least working in Manhattan. The comment was a footnote in a much longer article which had an entirely different focus, but as a former Manhattanite it was enough to catch my eye. In a city with a Walkscore of 85 (99-100 on most of the island) you can hardly step out your door in many neighborhoods without stumbling into a restaurant or at least a take-out joint. Of those neighborhoods that lack restaurants within walking distance most also lack quick access to a subway station. The idea that the subway is necessary for most New Yorkers to “go out for dinner” is odd claim. Was this a quickly written oversight on behalf of the professor? Perhaps he is just exceedingly picky about which restaurants he frequents. You could presume he meant go out to dinner with friends but then the issue would be more the location of his friends than the location of the restaurant and cooking at home wouldn’t solve that problem. I should note of course that his account accurately reflects that for many city residents taking the subway to your favorite pasta or to catch up with an old friend over fries is much more convenient than taking a taxi or driving a car (if you even have one). However for the many residents who bypass the kitchen on a daily basis, when it comes to simply getting fed, nothing beats walking down to the end of the block.
The subway closure has been labeled “debilitating” and this is in large part true. Thirty-seven percent of New Yorkers rely on the Subway system daily to get to work. In addition to the 1.6 million who live on the island, another 2 million commute into Manhattan from elsewhere (I couldn’t quickly turn up a commuter number for the whole city). For some Manhattanites, taking the subway is as much a convenience as a necessity. Ten percent already walk to work. On an island 2 miles wide and 10 miles long, many more likely live within a 20 or 30 minute walk of work or school, which is quite a luxury in a country where the vast majority of citizens are lucky to live within a 20 minute walk of a bus stop. And of course many could take the bus (the horror!); granted the number of buses required to get every New Yorker to work would be unwieldy as evidenced by the overcrowded buses Wednesday morning.
Certainly the subway is the lifeblood of the city’s economy (and to some degree the nations as home to Wall Street other national headquarters). But the daily chores of those who actually live in the city limits, as represented by visits to the grocery, the diner, a few local shops, the hardware store, local schools, playgrounds, and usually at least one decent sit-down restaurant, can actually go on without much fuss without subway because the city is composed of a dense web of walkable neighborhoods. Of course other storm issues such as power outages and delivery delays may prevent those local businesses from actually providing service during a crisis, but the issue will is not the lack of a subway to get residents to the door.
What kind of impact will this event and its media coverage have on the hearts and minds of potential transit users and car ditchers across the country? Will some fear becoming too reliant on public transportation? Manhattan always makes a good news story so there’s an over-reporting bias that risks leading some to believe they have abundantly more challenges than the rest of us. Of course suburban systems are vulnerable too. When Hurricane Hugo hit my suburban neighborhood 45 minutes inland in 1989, downed trees made it impassable by car. Schools remained closed for up to two weeks. We were thrilled when we regained power and were given the green light to drink tap water without pre-boiling. There are certainly huge implications of the subway shutdown and any sort of long-term closure would be hugely disruptive, but the picture that all elements of daily life are disrupted by the closure is misleading. Perhaps part of the problem is that the city that never sleeps, and increasingly the country that never stops working, expects normal life to resume so soon after disaster strikes.
One thing I think we can all agree on, it never hurts to be within walking distance of your local bar & grill.
Update: A fellow urbanist, John Massengale in New York, informs me that going out dinner is in fact an issue for those living south of 40th street due restaurants suffering from “no electricity, no refrigeration and a shortage of staff.” There are also issues with credit card processing and ATMs. Store shelves in lower Manhattan are sparse. Of course as another colleague noted if the restaurant on your block doesn’t have power, your kitchen probably doesn’t either. Uptown in contrast the restaurants are full and the shelves are stocked. Downtowners do have the option of walking a few miles uptown, cabs are available and buses are returning. If you have a gym membership a walk uptown could also mean a hot shower. I would also note that Moss’s distinction between beer and restaurants may be valid. Better drink it before it goes sour! Highlights and challenges: A brick oven pizzeria in the Village was able to operate without power gives away free pizza. A restauranteur considered opening by candlelight but deciding against because of lack of functioning bathrooms.
Articles & Updates on City Life During and After the Storm:
- Storm Aftermath: New York Times Live Updates (“Where the City of Darkness Meets the City of Light,” “New York Restaurant Industry Takes a Hit”)
- Cities Are the Best Places to Ride Out a Hurricane
- Unlike the Chains, Local Businesses Stay Open in Sandy’s Wake
- NYC Small Businesses Open after Sandy
The author is a former resident of Manhattan and weathered Hugo in Summerville, South Carolina.
July 5, 2012
Last night in downtown Orlando (which is not in top 50 bike cities and not really a college area) I saw about a dozen bicyclists after the July 4th fireworks during my five block walk down a side street. But then anecdotes about how many cyclists one person observed on a particular day are statistically irrelevant.
Here are some actual statistics: Nationally 0.55% of adults bike to work (ACS 2009). That’s the primary information given to us by the U.S. Census American Community Survey. Of course it can be further broken down geographically and demographically. That’s a statistic but does it show the whole picture? It doesn’t count students (grade school or college), it doesn’t count non-work trips (85% of trips are non-work according to NHTS) and there are other grey areas like folks to who bike to work a few days a week or those who bike to or from a transit station. It also doesn’t take into account occasional users; for example, while only about 2% of adults walk to work (ACS), 41% took 4 or more walk trips in a survey week (NHTS 2009 Profile). There are even concerns that lower income citizens and apartment dwellers are systematically under-reported.
Nationally about 1% of all trips are made by bike (all trips, not just commute trips). That compares to 1.9% of trips made by transit and about 10% by walking (NHTS 2009). Now that National Household Transportation Survey (NHTS) statistic has some problems of it’s own. It still does not include trip chaining (riding a bike to or from transit), though that data is available elsewhere in the NHTS dataset. It condenses “recreational” with “social” biking (this is partially addressed in the extended survey). There’s a substantive difference in riding down a recreational trail for exercise and going out to dinner, especially in the needs of those bicyclists, but it would seem that the NHTS conflates these two which is particularly problematic given these account for 60% of bicycle trips (and before you assume that all those trips are exercise rides, note that 25% of trips by car are dubbed “Social/Recreational”).
The next logical step would be to break out to break out urban/rural, central cities, regions, etc. In certain cities and neighborhoods the bicycle percentages are much higher and in other cities and many suburban/rural areas bicycles as transportation are virtually nonexistent. The good news is that bicycling is higher in center cities where space is at a premium. This is good because a parked or moving bicycle takes up less space than a car. It’s also challenging because the political competition for space in center cities is incredibly high.
To give a taste of what we might find if went further into the statistics, Portland has the highest bicycle commute percentage in the U.S. with 5.8%; impressive by cycle commute standards but low enough to draw grimaces from skeptics. If we assume that Portlanders bike share of non-work trips is similar to the national statistics, then we can reasonably expect that number to nearly double to an even more respectable sounding 10% or more. Keep in mind that there are also people walking, biking and taking public transportation, so it’s not as if bikes are the only trade-off to driving. Frankly I don’t think getting people in Manhattan to switch from walking or taking transit to biking is necessarily a big win. In fact people who bike to work may walk to lunch; or people who drive to work may bike to lunch. It’s important to look at both the percent of people who cycle and percent of trips by bike. The percentage of people who bike for some trips shows a willingness, ability and interest in biking when the conditions are right. The percentage of trips actually taken by bike gives a fuller pictures of how people travel our streets on a daily basis.
As an added transport statistical tip, if anyone tries to compare bicycle or walk statistics with driving statistics on a per mile basis, tell them to go take a hike! The 10.4% share of trips which are taken on foot plunges to a 0.7% share when considered on a per mile basis. Why? Because no one takes a 10 mile walk trip to go out to dinner unless they’re incredibly athletic or desperate! Similarly, bikes go from 1.0% to 0.2% when considered in miles. It makes all the sense in the world that average walk or bike trip is shorter than the average car trip. Most people who have access to all three modes will choose the car for the longest trips.
There’s plenty more to be statistically analyzed, especially at the geographic level. Alas my time for delving into transportation statistics has expired for the day so I can’t get into specific numbers. Hopefully I have at least instilled in you a healthy skepticism for bicycle and transportation statistics, so that you can ask the right questions about the data presented to you.
May 15, 2012
We’re going back to the future. The Congress for the New Urbanism started as a hard-working, interactive meeting of the minds where the few hundred attendees were actively engaged in moving forward the mission of urbanism. As the years wore on and the Congress grew in numbers, education became more central to CNU’s mission and the annual Congress started to look more like a classroom than a parliament. Fast forward to CNU 20.
The dynamism is back. Rapid-fire “Open Innovation” presentations in the “basement” play to a packed full room and when time permits overflow into debate and discussion. Panels are conversations rather than just a series of related presentations. New designs are critiqued in the hallways. The Open Source room is constantly abuzz with conversation. The Art Room has hands-on demonstrations. Member-led initiatives to solve problems and spread new solutions to larger audiences are popping up left and right.
CNU is offering more free content. In conjunction with this increase in interactive content, CNU is posting more of the “presentation” style content on web for free. Several of the plenaries were broadcast live on the web and we expect to see the slides with audio from most of the breakouts going up on the web soon. In addition we’ve had great video content going up from First + Main and others. This is a momentous development. In this new age holding intellectual content close to the vest is not necessarily the best way to maximize revenue for the organization so they can continue their important work and is certainly no the most efficient way spread our message. We, as urbanists, want as many people as possible to understand our mission and so they might be partners in future projects and change the built environment for the better.
And it’s good timing. The world of information is rapidly changing. Planners and Architects are getting their continuing education credits from free webinars. TED.com is a leader in intellectual content offering high quality, well-produced content “Free to the World”. People don’t need to buy cross-country plane tickets to hear educational content. What they do need to cross the country for is dynamic, compressed, interactive work-shopping of the ideas that will carry their practice and our movement forward in the following year.
In order for the Congress as an event to stay relevant the model must evolve, and it is doing so. Attendees need to be present for the tumultuous exchanges that are difficult to capture on podcast and to contribute to those debates. New participants need to learn by engaging and getting their intellects in gear. They need to make non-digital eye contact with the people who have the potential to be their colleagues, friends, and workmates for the next decades. Even if we see much more of our engagement moving to the digital sphere, shaking hands with your re-tweeter or listserve sparring partner enhances the digital experience, defusing tension, and helping participants to understand the personalities and perspectives they are engaging with when they return to the web.
My next post will get into a little more detail on the new types of content at CNU and how they’re succeeding. In the meantime, hats off to CNU for recognizing the changing world and being nimble enough to meet it.
May 11, 2012
Rapid-fire, open topic presentations with faces new and old from an open call for proposals:
In Room 1J during all Friday and Saturday breakouts.
Friday, May 11th, 2012:
10:30am | From Balanced Roads to Transit Oriented Development
- Incorporating Feeling and Habit into Bicycling Advocacy
- Tracks to TOD in Somerville: One Community’s Approach to TOD Planning
- Fare-Free Transit
Saturday, May 12th, 2012:
10:45am Tactical Urbanism, Economics and Community
- Tactical Urbanism Workshop
- The Importance of Local Infrastructure Financing
- Economic Incentives to Reduce Sprawl
- Killing the Civic Inferiority Complex
- Randall Anway – Deep Placemaking
For questions or feedback about the Open Innovation Track, please email email@example.com.
March 26, 2012
I am running for the national board of the Congress for the New Urbanism!
Find out more here.
If you’re a member, vote here (for Eliza Harris).
I would write more but I think the above links contain my thoughts and I’m pretty busy right now trying to do my part for CNU 20, running CNU Orlando, trying to contribute to a Sprawl Retrofit event and of course my wonderful job!
September 26, 2011
One of the many products that makers claim to be environmental but is fundamentally flawed.
Bamboo textiles (i.e. clothes, towels etc). Sure they are nice and soft. But in terms of environmental performance, they are a form of rayon (which means chemically laden). Bamboo socks may be no worse than any other synthetic socks you buy, but they are also no better. “Bamboozled” on Grist
Using bamboo as a wood substitute is a completely different story
and may be a good choice.
August 17, 2011
I was already planning to document some products that are marketed as eco-friendly that fail miserably when this story crossed my radar.
In order to promote its “EcoBoost” truck, Ford is hosting a contest for which the prize is free fuel, not only to the driver for a year, but to an entire city for a little over 2 hours. Now, 2 hours of fuel isn’t going to suck dry the wells or tip us into permanent smog but it certainly sends the wrong message.
I won’t get into the question of whether the “eco” label should be applied to an oversize truck to begin with; some people legitimately need these types of vehicles for work. But as Steve Mouzon is fond of saying: the most energy efficient machine is the one that’s turned off. Hybrid cars will do the environment no good if we drive them twice as far and efficient gadgets won’t help if we leave them on four times as long. The worst thing we can possibly do for the environment is give away or artificially lower the cost of fuel or energy. If people are going to be wasteful at least let them pay their own way (Libertarian alert).
A better plan might have been to follow SmartCar’s lead and promote a bicycle, but I can see how that might not appeal to their customer base.
Now of course people buy fuel efficient vehicles for different reasons. Some don’t care about the environmental impact at all but rather about saving money on fuel. But in this case given that they are placing the “Eco” label on their truck this is an incredibly silly/(disingenuous/vacuous) promotion, almost as bad as politicians requesting a Gas Tax Holiday in the summer of 2008.
July 26, 2011
On the day of sentencing the petition for Raquel Nelson that I started a week ago is at 136,965 signatures and counting. This case was first brought to my attention on twitter via the author of the Free Range Kids blog. I’m floored (in a good way) by the magnitude of the response. I’m saddened that it takes so egregious a miscarriage of justice to bring attention to the risks people like Ms. Nelson must take every day just to function in suburbs ruled by fast cars.
According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution (July 26, 2011) Nelson was convicted of “homicide by vehicle in the second degree, crossing roadway elsewhere than at crosswalk and reckless conduct.” Ms. Nelson was crossing the street from a bus stop to her apartment building with her 3 children in tow when her son, A.J. Nelson, ran ahead and into the path of an oncoming car. A.J. died from his injuries and Raquel and one of her daughters were also injured.
UPDATE/CORRECTION: I am hearing now that the charge may have been “failure to yield” rather than “crossing roadway elsewhere than at a crosswalk” which changes things a bit. More analysis to follow.
The problem, aside from the pure callousness, with the charges against Raquel is that there is no law against “crossing the roadway elsewhere than at crosswalk.” Raquel Nelson most likely was not even crossing illegally (informally “jaywalking”) when the crash occurred.
Based on Peds.org excerpts of Georgia law:
§ 40-6-92. Crossing roadway elsewhere than at crosswalk:
(a) Every pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway unless he has already, and under safe conditions, entered the roadway.
(b) Any pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing has been provided shall yield the right of way to all vehicles upon the roadway if he uses the roadway instead of such tunnel or crossing.
(c) Between adjacent intersections at which traffic-control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.
(d) No pedestrian shall cross a roadway intersection diagonally unless authorized by official traffic-control devices. When authorized to cross diagonally, pedestrians shall cross only in accordance with the official traffic-control devices pertaining to such crossing movements.
Looking at the presumed location of crash on Google Maps, Raquel’s crossing location fits those legal requirements; the adjacent crosswalks were not signalized so she was totally justified in crossing at that location. (This location is based on the oblique photo shown in the Transportation for America blog post)
The question of whether she was “jaywalking” was first addressed by Forbes Blog though relevant details were actually brought up in a comment by “reggie”.
Of course the overarching problem here is that, legal or not, this–like too many places in America–was not a safe place for Raquel and her children and very few places in the United States are because most of the American streetscape is designed for drivers, not for pedestrians (or cyclists or transit users). This is described in detail in the @T4America Dangerous by Design Report.
Update: According to liveblogging on Marrietta Patch the State is not seeking jail time. They are asking for community service and probation. That makes this no less a miscarriage of justice. She should never have been charged. She should never have been harassed by the State by dragging her through this trial. And she should never have been blamed in a court of law for a legal or moral responsibility in her son’s death.
Update 2: Marrietta Patch reporting that Ms. Nelson was sentenced to probation and community service. No jail time. Nelson’s lawyer says they will seek a new trial.
Update 3: This is NOT THE FIRST TIME that this has happened. Keri Caffrey, from commuteorlando.com where this is cross-posted, found out this key information. Cobb County previously prosecuted another grieving mother who was walking with her child in an eerily similar situation.
For more updates keep an eye on Transportation for America’s blog.
May 26, 2011
Please come hang out with us. You’ll find the New Urbanism is hardly a static system. Debates abound. What we don’t do is constantly rehash our premises. This allows us to move forward instead constantly revolving in circles questioning our first principles. Let others seek a deus ex machina in flying cars or argue about “flux;” we’re busy refining our solutions.
While academia can be content to publish theory, we have to commit to a path in order to implement change. We are racing against suburbia, climate change and obesity. We must implement imperfect systems now while debating more perfect solutions for tomorrow.
We fight for recognition because we need more hands on deck, skilled ones. We face enormous challenges—environmental, economic. It pains us to see young, desperately-needed talent wasted on Corbusian revivals. The savvy among us often have to educate ourselves in traditional urbanism because the academy has denied us. Many architects are left to practice kitschy historicist or postmodern architecture because the public doesn’t want modernist design for the vast majority of the urban fabric. So these architects who were never taught the skills necessary to design high quality traditional, vernacular or classical architecture, are forced to navigate their clients desires making do and playing catch up. Finally, the classicists and the urban designers are blamed for the poor interpretations of traditional architecture resulting modernist educated architects. Are young architects-in-training given a choice? Are they merely allowed an illusion of choice of a dozen different architectural styles so long as it excludes classicism and vernacular (like the false variety of our multi-colored supermarket shelves with thousands of products all made of same 3 industrial ingredients)? Where is their free market?
As far as the landscape urbanists, as schoolyard as it sounds … they started it. Here’s to the new new urbanism. http://www.cnunextgen.org
This is a slightly expanded version of a response to comments on: http://www.metropolismag.com/story/20110414/new-urbanism-the-case-for-looking-beyond-style
April 6, 2011
“Texas, where counties aren’t even allowed to zone, much less impose minimum-parking requirements”
- Randall O’Toole USING MARKETS TO ENHANCE MOBILITY
O’Toole is getting his facts wrong again on Texas parking. I previously did extensive research on parking requirements in Texas cities in response to a flawed O’Toole analysis of parking. See the summary below the cut. This time he admits that Texas cities may have zoning and parking minimums but still claims that the counties surely don’t. Putting aside the fact that dense development would be most likely to develop in cities not the counties anyway (I haven’t done the research but I would take the bet that cities are denser than counties despite zoning minimums) and that there appears to be a mechanism by which Texas cities have zoning or similar powers via “municipalities’ extra territorial jurisdictions,” he’s still just missing the mark on the facts.
While it is true that Texas counties don’t have zoning power, they DO have subdivision regulations. Much of what we think is zoning is actually subdivision regulations which is why form-based codes often merge the two. And low and behold a look at Montgomery County Texas subdivision standards shows a set of pretty conventional off-street parking standards. Check it out for yourself at MONTGOMERY COUNTY SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES AND RECOMMENDATIONS Appendix I. Also see Llano County: “Adequate off-street parking space must be provided in business or commercial areas.”
I do not pretend to understand the intricacies of how subdivision and permitting in Texas works but to all appearances they’ve got enough to tip to scale in favor of free parking and dumb growth.