Archive for the Comprehensive Planning and Codes Category

Freeways to Boulevards: A CNU Colorado Presentation with Norquist, Tumlin

Posted in Comprehensive Planning and Codes, Events, Urban Planning and Design, Urbanism with tags , , , , on March 1, 2013 by John Olson

I had the pleasure to attend one of the best presentations I have been to in the past couple years this past Wednesday in Denver. CNU Colorado hosted CNU’s CEO, John Norquist and Jeff Tumlin of Nelson-Nygaard. They, along with Denver’s former Planning Director, Peter Park, discussed highways in our cities and the negative side effects that City officials, dwellers, and tax payers, have to deal with today.

Interesting points during the discussion included where cities have made the conscious decision to not allow highways within the City, where they were limited, and where they are being torn down today. There are also the cities where they were allowed with high frequency… *Cough* Kansas City… *Clear throat* Detroit…

In other news in Colorado Springs this morning, the Gazette interviewed people regarding the upcoming interstate widening on the north side of Colorado Springs. The article was titled “Residents flock to look at I-25 widening project maps” The following are some of the entertaining quotes that were in the article.

(Name removed) said that she has been waiting for it for years because she thinks the narrow stretch of highway that bottlenecks traffic is the cause of many dangerous crashes.

I agree, however the key word is bottleneck, which will simply be shifted elsewhere. But then, she went onto say this:

“Having a third lane will be safer for everyone.”

100% disagree with this statement. In what world is faster speeds and increased capacity for more vehicles “safer”?

Once the third lane is complete, she said she thinks traffic will be much smoother.

Translation: “If there are less cars near me, I don’t have to pay as much attention to the road and can check my email while I drink my Double Carmel Macchiato Espresso.” This will be true only until we fill in the capacity provided by the millions of taxpayer dollars.

“I think the congestion won’t be as bad,” she said. “I won’t have to rush to work.”

Translation: “After this is completed, I think I can move 10 more miles north AND have the same commute time. Yay!” Ten years later, the same discussions will ensue about how congested the 6-lane road is.

If you would like to hear more about the presentation, it will only cost you a beer… or coffee, preferably beer. If you want to hear more from me ranting about local policy and the misallocation of taxpayer dollars, please get your head checked…

To keep up with the upcoming CNU events and presentations, their website is http://www.cnucolorado.org, or you can also follow them on Twitter or Facebook.

The following are some of the memorable quotes/comments that I posted to Twitter, or retweeted during the Norquist/Tumlin Presentation:

‘Transit only works when walking works’ -Jeff Tumlin #cnuco

Freeways are great for long distances; very bad for local access -Jeff Tumlin #cnuco

The interface between the very large pipe and very small pipes are a major issue. #Freeways #JeffTumlin #CNUco #AutoSewer

RT @CNUColorado: Freeways export real estate value from cities to suburban auto dependent areas #cnuco

RT @CNUColorado: FHA is set up in a way that punishes good urbanism #cnuco

What we are trying to do in CNU, is allow #Urbanism to happen. -John Norquist # #cnuco

“The highway program devalues the tax base of a city.” -John Norquist #cnuco

“Cities are all about access and interaction.” – Peter Park. Freeways provide the opposite. #cnuco

“DOT’s one goal is to delete congestion. The problem is congestion is a side effect of success.” -John Norquist

If #Denver wants to grow, it needs to take space away from the cars. It cannot be both urban and auto centric at the same time. – Jeff Tumlin

Do We Really Want Our Streets to Make the Honor Roll?

Posted in Comprehensive Planning and Codes, Town Planning, Urban Planning and Design, Urbanism with tags , on February 16, 2013 by John Olson

An interesting question that I believe requires exploration in towns and cities is in the priority of level of service. Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe the quantity of congestion and velocities for any given street. Letter grades are given for each level of service. The problem is that a high grade in one subject often leads to a low grade in other subjects. As stated in the EVstudio blog post, Inverse Relationship of Level of Service and Pedestrian Propulsion, free flowing vehicular traffic often results in a negative experience for the pedestrian.

So the question is when the priority should be for free flowing vehicular traffic. Generally speaking, free flowing traffic is helpful when traveling long distances. Lets say for instance, when you are driving across a state of corn fields. Free flow traffic at the regulated speed limits is desirable to get through as fast as possible.

I have touched upon the undesirable consequences of our desires for faster travel speeds. Let’s go a step further and consider the installation costs for increasing the LOS. There are financial costs involved for putting the infrastructure in place. They could include additional asphalt, concrete, curbs and new sidewalks. The more expensive and regional LOS fixes include additional land, bridges, concrete cloverleafs, and so on.

In addition to the direct costs, there are also indirect LOS costs… Ironic to have LOS costs to improve the LOS, right? But yes, there is often a great amount of time to add lanes, etc to a corridor which royally messes up the level of service during construction.

This is often a very expensive endeavor, but wait… that is only for the installation. We also need to consider the maintenance of these new roads that increase our levels of service. Local and state governments are buried with debt for the maintenance of their existing street, road and bridge maintenance. There is really no light at the end of the tunnel of the maintenance debt…

The other side effect for cities and counties is the stretching of a municipality to the point that improvements to LOS often benefit the next city or county rather than the government who pays for the infrastructure and its maintenance.

So… How important is it really to increase the level of service? Shouldn’t we really be talking about the integration of services, residents, offices, and institutions to decrease the need for highways, arterials, and collectors? Shouldn’t we be talking about the finer grain detail of our transportation palette?

Can we accept D’s and F’s for our streets if it means that there are places to walk and bike safely?

Classifying Suburbia

Posted in Comprehensive Planning and Codes, Urban Planning and Design, Urban Renewal with tags , , on January 27, 2013 by John Olson

The question came up over the weekend regarding retrofitting suburbia, due to the anticipated arrival of speaker, author and urbanist, Ellen Dunham Jones. My friend and colleague asked where in Colorado Springs would be the places that Ellen describes in her TED Talk. It was a question that really deserved more than a short response, so I offered this impromptu classification of ‘suburbia‘:

  1. Future Suburbia: Areas on the periphery of cities which market themselves as “outside the city“. These would include larger lots ‘away from the city‘, or even clusters of homes with a buffer of undeveloped land between them and the city. Residents here enjoy quiet evenings and low traffic. Most do not believe that their community will ever be a part of the city. Due to the high cost of maintenance infrastructure per tax dollar, a responsible city government would not choose to annex it into the city. Geographically and by association however, they are Future Suburbia.
  2. Marketed Suburbia: These are the shiny, new, clean areas of the community, which actually market themselves as suburban and away from the chaos of the city, but include the new amenities of a large city (big box retail, new restaurants, kid-oriented amenities, etc.). They often tout safety and great schools as a part of the marketing strategies. Market values are generally at their peak in the first five years of construction. If you can continue to ride the wave of living in marketed suburbia before the crash of the wave, you will enjoy the life modern adjacent amenities, albeit with an automobile dependent lifestyle. Franchises and retail businesses that plan for obsolescence (build with the plan of vacation in a specific range of years) do very well in these locations while the location remains in the marketed suburbia portion of the community. At some point, they will become the former suburbs, and even worst yet, the forgotten suburbs. Yes, I speak from experience, read Quantifying the Effects of Suburban Living for more.
  3. Former Suburbia: Former Suburbia flirts with the needs of a Suburban Retrofit, as Ellen references in Retrofitting Suburbia. They include homes, strip malls, and pad sites that are on their third or fourth owner/company/tenant. The strip malls are not completely vacant in the former suburbs, but close to it. They are basically doing well enough that the owner can offset the decrease in rent. Little to no profit is being made here. Tenants may include pawn shops, advanced paycheck shops, and as of a couple of years ago in Colorado, medical marijuana. The residents may be paying a low rent for a larger home, however the buildings and home materials are in need of repair in Former Suburbia.
  4. Forgotten Suburbia: The areas classified as Forgotten Suburbia are otherwise considered modern-day slums. They consist of strip malls, pad sites, and homes that people do not want to be in. Generally, they are in disrepair and are begging for a retrofit. Unfortunately, it is difficult for someone to develop these parcels because the adjacent properties are still a major negative. Ideally, these would be the first to be redeveloped, but on the other hand they become very difficult because there is large-scale decay in the areas.

So what could be concluded from this is that ideally, a suburban retrofit is most needed in Forgotten Suburbia. However, it may be more financially effective to conduct a retrofit in Former Suburbia. The decay of suburbia is quite powerful in cities. Suburbia moves swiftly with green horizons. It has a clean exterior skin with a slightly less clean layer inside of it. Inside of that is the decay. Even further in, at the core of the city, is the truly sustained downtown of a city.

The core, or in some instances, multiple cores, are the portions of the city, where decay is less likely. In Colorado Springs, we have one primary core, that is our Downtown. It must be nurtured and given the greatest level of priority. We also have other nuclei of places that greatness can radiate from: Old Colorado City; Manitou Springs; Fort Carson; Air Force Academy; Schriever Air Force Base; Peterson Air Force Base; Colorado College; University of Colorado at Colorado Springs; Pikes Peak Community College; US Olympic Training Center; and our loved parks and natural amenities.

Suburban retrofits can make changes to the pattern of this decay, creating interventionist pockets of positive energy. Occasionally, they can be incredibly strong and really improve the landscape of a larger region. These are the retrofits that Ellen and June Williamson speak of in Retrofitting Suburbia.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,366 other followers