Transport Nexus

Planning Politics

On November 8, 2012

So who watched the elections on Tuesday night? I was up until 1:30 AM watching the speeches. If you are an urban planner, it’s likely that you pulled the lever for Barack Obama. Because, sadly, the ideals and principles that planners hold dear are more often than not represented by the Democratic Party. And that is really a shame.

It is a shame that the Republican Party has effectively removed itself from concerns about urban affairs, the environment, and competent governance – all key factors in urban planning. Let’s face it, America is a metropolitan nation; no longer a rural agrarian society. And our metro regions have big problems and bigger governments to deal with those problems. So when you have guys like Grover Norquist saying that he “wants to drown government in a bathtub”, it doesn’t inspire a lot of confidence in competent government. And sound planning needs competence.

It’s time that we look closer into our urban affairs – our crime, heath care, infrastructure, education, and environmental issues that are so important to cities. It’s time that we seriously devote ourselves to adapting our cities to climate change (and stop denying its existence) and our infrastructure to the needs of a 21st century economy. It’s time that we improve our environment: air, water and land, and that we refocus our limited financial resources on the infrastructure we’ve got rather than building something new that we won’t be able to afford to maintain later. And all of this takes two parties.

The Most Important Transportation Infrastructure You’ve Never Heard Of

By Ryan Richter

On October 16, 2012

In Infrastructure

View of the Old River Control Structure looking southeast.

It is the Old River Control Structure.

This strays a little from the topics on this blog so let me explain. I just finished reading a fantastic book, The Control of Nature, by John McPhee. In the book, McPhee examines the human struggle to control nature and how incredibly difficult and perilous it can be. This, of course, is relevant to urban planners, particularly in the realm of transportation. But let me back up a bit.

The Old River Control Structure is a floodgate system located in central Louisiana. It is designed to regulate the flow of the Mississippi by a diversion of flow into the Atchafalaya River via a side channel known as Old River. Water is normally distributed at a 70%/30% split with 30% diversion to the Atchafalaya River for flood control purposes. Sounds like simple engineering, right?

Well, here is the problem. The Atchafalaya where it meets the Mississippi at Old River is about 18 feet below the Mississippi. Should Old River fail during a flood, there is serious concern that the Mississippi would jump the levees that act like a straitjacket and follow the Atchafalaya down to the Gulf of Mexico (see map below).

Maps showing the history of the course of the Mississippi river at what is now the Old River Control Structure in Louisiana. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Why the course change? It’s happened before and it will happen again. In fact, the Atchafalaya was the main channel of the Mississippi River 3,000 years ago. Much of Louisiana is built on the gigantic delta of the Mississippi. The problem is that humans have made permanent settlement on a river system that routinely jumps its banks. Should this happen, New Orleans would essentially become cut off from the Gulf and the associated port facilities, pipelines, oil production and communication facilities would be stranded.

Needless to say transportation throughout the Mississippi and Ohio River systems would be altered, and a significant amount of our oil refining capacity would be taken off-line. Transport costs would soar, not to mention the human costs of a built infrastructure that has lost its viability. Ponder that for a minute as we plan our cities and transportation networks. Are we sure they will last, that they can coexist with nature?

Weak Illinois Towns

By Ryan Richter

On September 10, 2012

In The Suburban Experiment

So I will admit: I am out of my league when it comes to municipal finance. As a transportation planner for a major transit agency in Chicago, I am not expected to know much about municipal finance in my professional line of work. But I do know a bit about Strong Towns. And after recently purchasing Charles Marohn’s guidebook, Thoughts on Building Strong Towns, I feel educated enough to point out what makes a strong town and what does not. Which brings me to the point at hand.

The Chicago Tribune (behind free registration and/or paywall) ran a rather insightful, if completely depressing, article on the ability of towns in Illinois to borrow incredible amounts of money with very little state (or even local) oversight:

That’s because Illinois law allows even the smallest of towns to tax, spend and borrow like the biggest of cities. Municipal advocates insist that home-rule power has largely improved towns, but the Tribune found suburb after suburb has gone deep in the hole over projects ranging from buying a roller rink to building condos — ventures far beyond the basics of building roads and sewers…

Critics say Illinois’ loose rules invite those dangerous conditions by eliminating fundamental checks and balances: Those borrowing the money — residents — may have little chance to vet the plans. And those lending the money — investors — may care little about the details, so long as the town leaders agree to boost taxes as high as needed to pay off the debt.

The ability of Illinois towns to borrow unseemly amounts of money is given to them via “home rule”. Home rule shifts many decision-making powers assumed by the State to the municipal corporation. In Illinois, it is triggered in one of two ways: either the municipality has grown to a population of 25,000 or greater in which home rule status is automatically acquired OR a municipality assumes home rule powers through public assent via referendum. Currently, over 70% of Illinois’ population lives under home rule status.

The issue with home rule status in this case is that the municipality has the ability to borrow large sums of money without a cap, without direct voter approval, and without state oversight. While local control is seen by many as a wonderful thing, when there is no oversight, these powers can lead to abuse. And they have:

Officials in south suburban Markham raised sales and property taxes while borrowing $20 million mostly to buy a roller rink and build a senior apartment building — the latter named after the mayor.

Northlake borrowed $14.5 million to build a 60-unit condo building that opened in 2009. The town cut prices and even helped finance mortgages, but about 20 units remain unsold.

Country Club Hills built an amphitheater that doesn’t make enough to cover debt payments and typically loses $300,000 to $1 million a year, depending on what expenses are counted.

These are the things that make weak towns. In terms of the “Growth Ponzi Scheme” that Marohn has described, this is it.

I see the suburban experiment failing all around. From municipalities that cannot afford their poor development investments to crumbling infrastructure to raising the ability to borrow ever more amounts of money for no productive use, it is clear that our society cannot function like we once did. Sadly, it is articles like this that are only the beginning of our fiscal woes.

Why should cities affect transportation mode share

By Ryan Richter

On August 23, 2012

In Transportation Policy, Uncategorized

They say bikes get in the way of traffic

Is this good for your city? For your health? (Photo credit: Richard Masoner / Cyclelicious)

In response to a comment in my last post, I’d like to discuss further how cities could affect transportation mode share,

particularly as it concerns driving. In the U.S., every single city has a dominant auto share (drive alone and carpool) except for New York, Washington D.C., Boston and San Francisco. In Chicago, where I live, the auto mode share is 61%. In the Chicago metro area, it’s 71%. So why is this a big deal? Why should urban policy be oriented towards reducing auto mode share?

It’s one way of efficiently managing an urban transportation system, for one. It also helps to deal with the following economic, social and environmental factors (externalities) associated with auto travel:

Rising facility costs. The costs of expanding highways and parking facilities is increasing. In many cases it is more cost-effective to manage demand than to continue expanding supply.

Increased urbanization. In most developed countries the majority (typically 80-90%) of people and jobs are located in urban areas, where traffic and parking problems are significant and alternative modes are cost-effective.

Demographics. The population is aging in most developed countries, increasing the importance of providing quality travel options for non-drivers.

Energy Costs. Vehicle fuel costs are projected to increase in the future due to depletion of oil supplies and environmental constraints.

Consumer preferences and market trends. Many consumers want to live in more multi-modal communities where it is possible to walk and bicycle safely, use neighborhood services, and have access to quality public transportation.

Environmental concerns. Concerns over air pollution, sprawl and other environmental impacts are motivating policy changes to encourage more efficient transportation.

In the context of the previous post, my skepticism towards traffic signal prioritization (TSP) is rooted in the rising facility costs and environmental concerns categories, although, all of these points can and should be applied. In cities where land is at a premium, we simply cannot afford to appropriate more land for the building of roads. And traffic signal prioritization, while making traffic move more efficiently in the short-term creates induced demand in the long-term. And then we are back to the original problem that traffic signal prioritization was trying to solve.

The environmental concerns, particularly concerning air quality in large cities is a serious concern that I addressed. Induced demand, which causes an increase in vehicle miles traveled, exacerbates air quality and emissions issues. There is a reason that most large U.S. cities are eligible for CMAQ grants. Those grants should not be used in TSP.

There are a variety of solutions (incentives) that cities could use to reduce auto mode share and shift towards alternative modes. For more information, see here.

Traffic Signal Synchronization – Why not?

By Ryan Richter

On August 14, 2012

In Technology, Transportation Policy

I was having a debate over John Hilkevitch’s article a while back in the Tribune about synchronized traffic signals with a friend of mine. My friend was surprised that this technology, most impressively shown in the movie, The Italian Job, was not widely deployed in many major cities such as Chicago. Alas, we still rely on, in some cases, 1950s technology to power our traffic signals. The essence of his thinking was why had it taken so long to roll out this technology given its substantial benefits.

My response, colored by my experience (cynicism?) in transportation, was to be skeptical. Traffic engineering has long been full of promises on solving road congestion, with many solutions worse than the problem. When roads have been widened or new roads built, induced demand has been the result. If we make all of our signals “smart” and easy for people to drive in the city, what happens then? We’ll see a mode shift away from alternative transportation options as people discover that synchronized traffic signals make driving easier, thus increasing demand for driving. As Todd Litman notes,

Field tests indicate that shifting from congested to uncongested traffic conditions significantly reduces pollution emissions, but traffic signal synchronization on congested roads provides little measurable benefit, and can increase emissions in some situations (Frey and Rouphail 2001).

Making driving easier brings all the negative externalities to the fore: increased auto emissions, gas consumption and pressure on land uses to accommodate cars. Thus, while traffic signal synchronization seems like a good idea, the unintended consequences are likely to make the existing traffic congestion status quo even worse.

Update: Dom Nozzi, making many of the same points, explains this in better detail here.