Archive for the Urbanism Category

Walkable City Prologue

Posted in Book Review, Urban Planning and Design, Urbanism with tags on March 15, 2013 by John Olson

I have finally opened the book that I have been thinking of reading for months now – Walkable City by Jeff Speck.

Immediately, I have started to write down quotes that need to be shared.

From the Prologue:

1. The Planners were so wrong for so many years that now that they are right, they are mostly ignored.
2. Get walkability right and so much of the rest will follow.
3. … city engineers – worshiping the twin gods of Smooth Traffic and Ample Parking – have turned our downtowns into places that are easy to get to but not worth arriving at.

I’m going to dive further into this, but I’m already enjoying it. If you want to grab a copy, it is available on Amazon for a very reasonable price. Enjoy, I will give a review after I finish it… But that might not be for a year, so I suggest you just buy a copy and read it yourself.

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?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,366 other followers