What is the Opposite of Traffic?

March is as good time as any to talk traffic Sarasota - in fact with all the spring-breakers and snowbirds - its the best time. Traffic is always a top concern here on the Sun Coast, so a reasonable question seems to be "What is the opposite of traffic?" 

When it comes to reducing traffic and congestion, all sorts of ideas get put on the table - widen lanes, install roundabouts, more transit. But, there is a growing body of work forming around factors that actually subtract traffic from the system - most of which have to do with rejiggering land use.  Informally among transportation geeks, they are called the "8 D's." The photo above is from a recent presentation by Jerry Walters of Fehr and Peers in California. He and several other colleagues have gone through hundreds of transit-oriented and walkable projects to judge whether they actually reduce auto trips.

There is no magic equation for weighting the 8 "D's," which will vary greatly by region and transit level (heavy versus local bus).  For example, a city that does not have great development scale may be able to make up for this deficiency by having favorable demographics.  On the flip side, pressure to keep density low can have costs that play out on the road.

The main questions for a place like Sarasota are:

1) How does this apply to cities where local bus is the highest transit technology?From the slide above, proximity to rail is the example given for distance to transit.  But like thousands of other communities, we have bus, but no rail.  The studies researchers used included a lot of bus system-linked communities (with plenty of Florida examples).   But, it would be nice to subtract out the information from higher transit technology to get a better sense of the investments and development patterns likely to deliver results for us bus-dependant communities.  Will Doig of Salon posted an article today on why it is time to love the bus - so let's think about bus TOD while we are at it.  Not the fancy bus rapid transit bus, but the workhorse local bus.

2) What does the density need to be?  This is ALWAYS the first question here, so let's cut to the chase.  What types of building arrangements are we talking about to successfully take car trips off the road with walk, bus, and bike travel.

3) The 9th D - Digital - Information technology can be reasonably included in the 8th D (Demand Management).   However, we could do so much more with maps, information and apps that are built around the user and where he or she needs to go (and get back).  One of the more immediate benefits of this ninth Digital- D is that it is not dependent on transit oriented development or land use and the slow slog of construction.  I am thinking that teasing this out and elevating it as our #1 D is a great bet in the near term.  Our transit System (SCAT) recently added NextBus type technology to check when the next bus arrives.  This blog post shows the augmented reality in San Fran for fidning bus stops.   We love technology.

 For more information on the "oppostite of traffic" see these links from Ellen Greenberg, who has a marvelous set of slides on this very topic from presentations in Boise, Idaho.  Many thanks and a big hat top to Ellen and her work.

How Do People Get Their Civic News?

Last year, after a contentious land use plan, I got together with civic leaders to perform a “post mortem” on the project.  Over a pitcher of beer, the conversation veered quickly to a fundamental question: “How do people get their civic news?”   We scribbled on napkins as they dissected their own neighborhood to the block level.  The napkin below is a snapshot of this fascinating conversation.

 

• The people who live in "A" will be most affected by the "New Project," so get to them personally and through every medium possible.
• The people in B are more affluent, so they will be involved and are technology-savvy
• The people in C are mainly snowbirds, so you'd better get out  E-newsletters over the summer  explaining the project before the late- fall hearing when people are beginngin to return.

Just how many times do we embark on contentious projects without asking the important questions on delivering civic news?  Social media may just be muddling matters more, with a focus on the medium, not the ultimate user. 

Nonetheless, social is here, adding to the traditional formats (email, electronic newsletters) and traditional human options (face-to-face). 

Luckily, the Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project (@pewinternet) has already figured out this is a big deal.   The following bullets highlight key points from several articles from Pew (sprinked with a couple of local pointers as well). 

 How People Learn About Their Local Community

• Local TV draws a mass audience largely around a few popular subjects; Local newspapers attract a smaller cohort of citizens but for a wider range of civically-oriented subjects.
• Though local papers are moving online, there is evidence that young people find specialty  websites and search engines a preferable way find the local material they want. (such as Sarasota Day ).
• This mirrors reports from a recent study from Sarasota on how people learn about activities downtown.  SRQ media found print and social media tied in influence, though varied by age, with younge people seeking out social and older folks turning to print.  (see 2^nd and 3^rd last to slides in this presentation).

How Mobile Devices are Changing Community Information Environments

• Local news is going mobile. Nearly half of all American adults (47%) report that they get at least some local news and information on their cellphone or tablet computer.
• The information they seek out on mobile platforms is practical and real time: 42% of mobile device owners report getting weather updates and 37% get material about restaurants or other local businesses on their phones or tablets. Fewer get news about local traffic and transportation, general news alerts or other local topics.

E-reader ownership doubles in six months

• The share of adults in the United States who own an e-book reader doubled to 12% in May, 2011 from 6% in November 2010.
• Hispanic adults, adults younger than age 65, college graduates and those living in households with incomes of at least $75,000 are most likely to own e-book readers. Parents are also more likely than non-parents to own these devices.
• Projections are that tablet sales will reach nearly 500 million units by 2015. 

How the Public Perceives Community Information Systems

• Surveys in Philadelphia PA, San Jose CA, and Macon GA show that those who believe city hall is forthcoming are more likely than others to feel good about (1) the overall quality of their community; (2) the ability of the entire information environment of their community to give them the information that matters; (3) the overall performance of their local government; (4) and the performance of all manner of civic and journalistic institutions ranging from the fire department to the libraries to the local newspaper and TV stations
• In addition, government transparency is associated with residents’ personal feelings of empowerment: Those who think their government shares information well are more likely to say that average citizens can have an impact on government

Other interesting stats:

• For Boomer-aged segment (50-64), social networking site usage grew 60% - from 20% to 32%.
• 71% of online adults use video sharing sites such as YouTube. Over half (54%) of users 50-64 have used them and 31% of those aged 65+.

So what does all this mean? 

1. It helps to ask how your stakeholders get information and like to get information – the neighborhood groups told me what they wanted: (1) ready-made newsletter articles on to explain hot button, complicated subjects, (2) a photo bank and (3) more maps.  
2. It looks like YouTube is a big hit with all ages.
3. Apple’s launch of book writing software, combined with the adoption of devices, means that localities can publish all manner of pamphlets, books and guides for stakeholders.  In fact, ease of publishing may end up being a challenge.   

The newsletter bank was particularly interesting - kind of "well Duh" since civic groups and others who publish newsletters are dying for content.  For the project I worked on, a decision to move an interchange in parallel with a land use proposal raised the anxiety level.  A sample article on how infrastructure projects are prioritized would have helped explain that the move was in the works for years and how it rose to a top priority project.   Duh.

Four Corners and Urban Design – It Didn’t Work for Basketball Either

I grew up in North Carolina in the 1980s which meant we ate up ACC basketball like most families eat cereal. It was during this time that Dean Smith, the legendary coach of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill reigned. Known mainly for coaching Michael Jordan and the eponymous Dean Dome, he is also invented the shot clock with his famous Four Corners play. Four Corners was basically the lowest order of basketball strategy – staking men at four corners with a pivot in the middle to wear down the clock. It led to technical wins but was not a sustainable way to go about business.

What does “four corners” have to do with crappy suburban planning? Well, it’s how a lot of mixed use development and redevelopment is taking place. As local governments begin to issue more permits where arterials meet, it feels like it should be coordinated planning, but it’s not – it’s rezoning of quadrants. It’s the lowest level of planning strategy – a player on each corner and crosswalks at the pivotal intersection.

This may not seem like an important story, but it is. I want to tell with an example on the Sarasota-Manatee county border. I used a nifty app called Doodlecast Pro to make this 4 minute presentation. (I made one blunder, noting 1500 square feet instead of linear feet in one place).

What are the main takeaways and why are they important? The obvious:

• Florida’s Development of Regional program has turned out to be more of a phasing and impact fee program – not a coordinated planning program. The DRI for this project is here.
• Form based codes (FBCs) would really have helped this project address the street.
• Walkscores for the housing are 14 – 26, even with the rich mix of uses and higher density housing.

The not so obvious:

The photo above shows where the cross walks are (green) and where they are not (red).

• Form based codes only work where the street is the connective tissue. In this project, the street design along Tuttle serves as a barrier (even to cars).
• My observation from suburban Florida is that asking a developer to design his or her project to address the design of another developer’s project is still an uncertain (and in some cases hostile) concept.
• This project was designed and approved when the Growth Management Act was in its smart growth heyday. As the DRI phases came in, reviewers likely ticked off the boxes. Sidewalks – check. Use mix – check. Multi-family housing- check.  We've got to do something better.
• The skill set for coordinating various parcels and streets is key to actually getting walkability, safety, mobility and economic outcomes. And in places like suburban Florida, it is a skill that never developed for many reasons.  I think planners and land owners want to get better stuff, but the structure of the Growth Management Act, decades-old DRIs, transportation concurrency and the chase for retail as highest and best use spit out pods.  I am interested in hearing from other Florida planners on this.
• The new provisions for sector plans in Florida start at 5000 acres.  Yet great sprawl retrofit will be in much smaller increments.  We need tools nationwide with a focus at 50- 150 acres in urbanizing areas and 150- 500 acres for sprawl repair.

We have a great new resource in Billy Hattaway, the new District 1 Secretary for FDOT. We really need to do some forensic planning with him and others to see what got us the design on Tuttle, the stormwater pond locations, and the DRI sequencing. As communities across Florida take more responsibility over local planning, an exercise in re-designing this intersection would begin building new skills we need to plan areas, not just corners. 

Are Electric Bikes the “Killer App” for Transportation?

Not quite bike, not quite scooter, certainly not car – the electric bicycle has had a hard time winning fans.  But now that City Car Share in San Fran is adding e-bikes to its lineup, perhaps these bikes will get the street cred they deserve.

Through a research grant, CityCar Share will team up with the University of California, Berkeley’s Transportation Sustainability Research Center to see how many car share members would (1) use bikes instead of cars and (2) why.   San Francisco is a hilly place, so regular bikes don’t have the same appeal as they do in the flatlands. As reported in the New York Times, City Car Share plans to roll out 45 bikes in the second half of this year and 45 more by the end of 2013.  Rates will be 50-70% of hourly car rental pricing, though you have to return the bike to the original pick-up space.   It also looks like they will rent “electric bike trailers.”  Bling!

Sydney Australia is also integrating e-bikes into their plans.  The Sydney Cycle Strategy electric bicycles with less than 200 watts of power on the City’s cycle paths.  Las Vegas instituted e-bike share for city workers.  And for real bling, check this out - the Yike Bike

There are upsides and downsides to e-bikes:

The upsides:

• Since the most powerful way to increase biking is the presence of bicyclists, e-bikes certainly send these signals.
• They can be a nice fit for aging boomers who need a little “pedal assist.”
• Bikes take up a fraction of parking that cars do – even tiny cars.
• E-bikes can bridge those nagging suburban distances that are too far to bike - especially with cargo and groceries. 
• For the Sunbelt, e-bikes can help commutes hit that sweet spot where the forehead is glistening, but not dripping, with sweat. 

The downsides:

• Cost – E-bikes are still about double or triple the price of a really good hybrid.
• The motorized aspect will still pose a conundrum on trails designed for pure cycling.
• Cities still need to do an awesome job at building and maintaining infrastructure for bike lanes, access, and bike parking.
• Crashes - no doubt.

The jury’s still out

• Battery life and recharge stations.
• License and registration – Yes?  No?

If DOT and the Transportation Sustainability Center are taking names on who wants to be studied next, I’ll throw Sarasota’s name into the hat.  We don’t have car share, but we are ideal for an e-bike sharing network.  We are flat and sometimes hot.  We have lots of tourists and lots of suburbs separated from shopping, but with surprisingly good paths and lanes.  By the way - Sarasota has an electric bike dealer at 3604 South Osprey - check them out (they are next to Yuppy Puppy and Shakespeare's just south of Siesta Drive)

A-park-olypse Arlington - what hath Donald Shoup wrought?

I have a confession.  In my early planning years, I wrote tons of policy recommendations on removing barriers to better development outcomes, including parking. I am a dyed in the wool Shoupista
But lately I am wondering if we have festishized policy to the point of missing the how-to of getting really good urban planning. 

This installment is about Arlington - or rather hub-bub over parking for a new development project that might unintentionally set new precedent for long-term policy.  But before we get to the hub-bub, a little history about the corridor.

In the 1970's Arlington Virginia made a now-famous decision to pay for undergrounding the subway corridor (because of economic reasons, not grammatical purity). The County made a deal with local residents: if you agree to put LOTS of density along this spine, we will cap and taper heights down to the neighborhoods, and set a boundary across which density will not jump.  Less advertised is the deal to also initiate a process called site plan review.   The deal goes like this: developers could go right ahead and build under their as-of-right suburban zoning, or come to table and hammer out details of their project.  Needless to say, the density allowances mean most developers come to the table to talk design review, regulatory relief, and community benefit proffers. The photo below shows this subway spine - S.F. means single-family (for more info - read Kaid Benfield’s post on the corridor here).

Over the years, parking has become the highest stakes element in the process, mainly because relief from the as-of-right parking requirements can save hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars (because underground parking is expensive).  When I sat in on such negotiations, the process became a kabuki dance of finding the right mix of proffer and relief from the strictures of out of date zoning.  At times, we neighborhoods overplayed our hand, and others, developers would throw in extras.  That's how site plan works.

So what's the kerfuffle now?  It looks like there is a push to replace the out-of-date parking ratios with a suite of new parking policies.  For example, maximum parking ratios would be put in place.  For those new to the issue, most suburban zoning codes require minimum parking ratios, for example a minimum of four spaces per 1000 square feet of retail space.  The developer can add more, and in fact often do.  Maximum allotments say "you can only build this many, you can build fewer spaces, or pay a hefty price for spaces above the allotment."  In Arlington, car ownership is really low, due to a combination of the subway, great bus service and the land use mix.  

But here's the problem.  If you take out the old ratios, you take out the biggest leverage you have to get and keep developers at the table.  In the negotiation stage, proffer funds are often sought to improve the walk, bike and transit amenities that support a car-free lifestyle (and as a result make lowered parking space requirements work in the first place).  Site plan review is also needed because, as the photo reveals, the transition from ultra-high density to single family neighborhoods takes place in a matter of blocks.  Making this work is a delicate, negotiated process that takes place building by building.  Parking is not the only objective to work out.  Neighbors have been able to get stipulations on operations that make life next to a 10 story building not just tolerable, but enjoyable. The same goes for design objectives, parks, trees, and historic preservation, though parking can be used as the lever to get the mix of amenities right depending on the particular location in the corridor.

I know Arlington is extremely proud of its smart growth credentials; having old suburban parking ratios on the books just seems to run counter to having a great smart growth program.  But here is the kicker: the “barrier” language is actually essential to getting smart growth, not stopping it. The key to smart growth success is not just in code, but in negotiations: the higher the ratios, the stronger the hand.  If you are saving a developer $50,000 it’s one thing, but $2 million? Why would anyone choose to water down their bargaining position?

And the timing is befuddling.  While some cities are changing codes to become more business friendly, Arlington doesn’t need it, at least not in the corridor.  In fact, businesses locate to the corridor because of the transit and walk investments. I've been told that there are plenty of infrastructure funds now, but we are talking about a policy change that could extend into a future with fewer public dollars.  In a state like Virginia at this political point in time - there is no going back, no do-overs.   

For my colleagues out there on the stump for better code language, this is not a jab.  Rather, I think we need to get a better hold on the definition of success:  is it neat policies and “clean code,” or is it successful smart growth and redevelopment projects?   They are not always the same thing and as this post points out, cities and counties can retain older code not because they are bad at what they do, but because they are really good.