Transport Nexus is an urban planning and policy blog based on the nexus of transportation and land use, but as you know, we cover urban issues throughout the planning and policy world from the Olympic Games to parking capacity. My own experience in the field informs this blog. And that experience is further informed by my academic and personal background.
A bit about that last part…
You may have noticed posts have been slow. One reason: the birth of my daughter, Natalie Claire on July 9. She is my second daughter; my first, Andrea is 2. Becoming a father again is an astounding moment, with few, if any parallels in life. As the blog is concerned, I’d like to further explore the decision my wife and I made to raise children in the city, as we’re on the northwest side of Chicago. What are the benefits, from a planning perspective, of children in the city? Does the freedom of movement, inherent in the urban form and public transportation options enhance the quality of my daughters’ lives? I believe so, and I hope to show you why. But for now, blogging will be light as I spend time with all of my girls.
I’ve been mulling over Josh Barro’s contention that cars should not be blamed for the failures of mass transit and his conclusion that planning and zoning is to blame. His basic contention is thus:
…the real culprit keeping Americans away from mass transit and inside cars isn’t subsidies; it’s planning and zoning. Cities impose barriers to density that limit the number of housing units and offices that can be located near buses and trains, which reduces mass-transit usage. These barriers also drive up property prices in areas near mass transit, penalizing transit-oriented living and encouraging people to live farther from urban cores, in areas where they have to drive. Meanwhile, cities often require builders to include a minimum number of parking spaces in new developments, depressing the market price of parking and further rewarding drivers.
A better approach would take advantage of the fact that proximity to transit increases property values. Cities should allow dense development, collect the property taxes that are generated, and use them to finance transit. Increased development also means more transit users and more fare revenues. But locals tend to oppose greater housing density; they also often demand parking minimums, since they don’t want to face too much competition for free on-street parking. An ironic result is that the very urban liberals who like to complain about suburban sprawl can end up encouraging it.
I concur with the larger argument about minimum parking requirements and value capture but I believe the argument falls short. While, I see how decisions made in land use policy at the local level distort the market equilibrium of supply and demand when it comes to parking, it is not as simple as to just blame the planner and the zoning code. The fact is, sprawl is baked into the cake of modern urban (and suburban) development. This makes the failure (or at least, under utilization) of mass transit easier and more likely. Here’s why:
Housing
Suburban development in Colorado Springs, Colorado (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
We’ve been basically building one type of housing for the past 60 years: single family homes with attached garages, driveways and subdivisions modeled on the Plan for Riverside. When we’re not building single family homes, we’re building townhouses and apartment complexes with a similar auto-centric design. The fact is, despite the population growth in cities over the past 10 years and outside of new urbanism and rebuilding in existing neighborhoods, we have not really built any new greenfield communities that resembles any pre-depression urban form.
Finance
Even if we were to start building communities in greenfield locations with high densities that could support transit, like residential development that was built-in the streetcar era, we still likely could not build these communities without adding significant amounts of parking or by limiting density. This is in large part because of the financial institutions that provide funding for these developments do not properly know how to value these assets. Banks like to finance products in which they know and know well. The suburban form of development is one that banks have been financing for 60 years.
Other Government Agencies
This kind of development is illegal under most zoning codes throughout the U.S. However, there are a variety of other factors at play. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Let’s say that we can get the financing to build an urban development along new urbanism guidelines, for example. Let’s say we’ve got the zoning in place and the transit worked out. We still might not be able to build the dense, transit-oriented community we want due to the policies of other government agencies. For example, fire departments have been opposed to new urbanism developments due to the narrow streets within these developments. It turns out that the fire trucks have become too big to fit down these streets or the perception is such that it would be too much of an obstacle to navigate.
It may come as a surprise that transit agencies might also be unfriendly to transit-oriented development, particularly if the predominant mode of access to their stations is via car. The transit agency would want to make sure its commuter parking is located as close to the station as possible. This is a common tension when building transit-oriented development.
Commerce
Development like this, in the transit rich, dense, urban neighborhood of Lincoln Park in Chicago. Even in dense cities, retailers insist on providing enough parking to “access” their stores. (Photo credit: YoChicago via flickr)
Retailers, particularly of the big box and other large format varieties, often won’t build in town without sufficient parking. When I was in grad school, the adjunct professor for my land use planning course told us that when Chicago was first redeveloping the North/Clybourn corridor from industrial uses to retail, the city wanted far less parking than is currently there. However, the developers balked, insisting that they needed the parking so that customers could access their stores. Of course, there was already 3 bus lines and the CTA Red Line station right there.
As a transportation planner, I appreciate that Barro is trying to explain the nexus between transportation and land use. Land uses drive transportation decisions of whether to take mass transit or cars. But so do a lot of factors beyond just the zoning code and minimum parking requirements.
Following up on the seriesofpostson transportation investments in Olympic host cities, I thought it appropriate to explain what the transportation investments are for the 2012 Olympic Games. First, it’s important to note that transportation investments are legacy investments, most of these are long-term investments and will benefit Londoners for generations. The legacy investments in transportation cost a staggering £6.5 billion ($10.1 billion USD). These investments include the following:
Stratford Regional Station
Aerial view of Stratford Regional Station. Taken on 3/24/11 by Anthony Charlton via flickr.
Stratford Regional Station is a major connection point that links the London Underground’sCentral and Jubilee Lines, the Docklands Light Railway, the London Overground North London Line and several National Rail Services. This station will be a gateway for the Olympic Games and to the Stratford area of East London. £125 million ($194 million USD) has been invested into the station in preparation for the Games. During the Games this station will serve 10 different rail routes, making it one of the most connected stations in all of London.
The high level platforms serve the London Overground North London line, London Underground Central Line, the DLR via Poplar and the National Rail services on the top-level platforms (see photo, left). The lower level platforms serve the Jubilee Line and DLR via Canning Town. In the future, Stratford Regional will also connect with Crossrail services.
London Overground
The East London line opened in May 2010 and has been incorporated into the London Overground system. The service links 21 stations from Dalston Junction in east London to West Croydon and Crystal Palace in the south. Four brand new step-free stations have been built and the existing stations have been fully refurbished.
Capacity and service frequency have also been increased on the London Overground’s North London line, which connects Richmond and Clapham Junction in south-west London to Stratford Regional via North London. The upgrade includes new signals, track and rolling stock, and longer platforms so the line can operate four car trains. The video below provides a pretty good idea of the investments made on the London Overground.
Stratford International Station
Descending the escalator from the ticket hall. Via diamond geezer @ flickr
Stratford International Station is a mainline railway and DLR station located in the center of Olympic Park. It’s located on High Speed 1 between St. Pancras and Ebbsfleet International in the Stratford region. The DLR was extended from Canning Town north to provide a connection from Stratford International to the rest of the London public transport network.
During the Olympic Games this line will be used by the Javelin service, which will be able to transport thousands of passengers an hour. Service frequencies of eight trains per hour is planned between St Pancras and Ebbsfleet during the Olympic Games. Travel time to St. Pancras is 7 minutes.
Docklands Light Railway (DLR)
Extension of the DLR north to Stratford International. Source: TheTrams.co.uk
An extension of the DLR is from Canning Town to the new Stratford International station. It will stop at Stratford and West Ham stations as well as new DLR stations at Stratford International, Star Lane, Abbey Road, and Stratford High Street.
Another extension of the DLR is under the River Thames from King George V near London City Airport to Woolwich Arsenal station. This extension opened in January 2009. It provides a north–south link to the Olympic Park and Stratford area and offers better connections to East and South London. 55 new railcars have been ordered for the DLR, enabling it to run three car trains on its network.
London Underground
Capacity on the Jubilee line was increased by 17% following the addition of seven car trains in 2006. A new signaling system will increase capacity by a further 33% through faster more frequent services.
A new northern ticket hall opened at King’s Cross St. Pancras station in November 2009, providing a vital new link for passengers arriving on Eurostar services and National Rail services. Combined with the western ticket hall – which opened in 2006 – it has quadrupled the capacity of the station, cutting congestion and significantly improving accessibility.
Emirates Air Line
A cable car over the River Thames will be built with the sponsorship of Emirates air carrier. The £60 million ($93 million USD) project will link Greenwich Peninsula to the Royal Docks. The cable car could provide a crossing every 15 seconds carrying up to 2,500 passengers per hour in each direction, equivalent to the capacity of 50 buses.
Orient Way
To open land up for the Olympic Park, a large train storage yard depot used to store trains serving Liverpool Street Station during peak hours was relocated from the heart of the Olympic Park to a new 12-track facility at Orient Way to the northeast of Olympic Park.
Notes
Note how I have really only mentioned rail investments. That’s the beauty of the London Games is that there are virtually no permanent capital investments in the road network. Sure, there will be temporary park-and-ride facilities outside the M25, and there are miles of pedestrian and bike trails within and around Olympic Park, but virtually every major permanent capital investment is in rail. These transportation investments have been regenerating Stratford and the East London with new development, including one of the largest commercial developments in Europe, Stratford City.
This is, I believe, a positive legacy of hosting the Olympic Games. Increasing access and mobility to some of the poorest in the UK while providing jobs and a richer environment is a legacy worth having.
Looking northeast on Lake Wisconsin. Source: Lakeside Bar & Grill
I realize I am out of chronological order when I tell you that I traveled to Wisconsin over Memorial Day weekend after just writing a previous post upon return from Florida. Well, it’s my blog and I’ll do what I want.
Rather than talk to you about the transportation and land use nexus of Lake Wisconsin, where my wife’s parents own a home, I am really interested in exploring some of the economics of tourism in Wisconsin, particularly in the role Illinois plays in it.
As a native Chicagoan, born and raised, I was brought up with a healthy hatred of the Packers and jokes about all the funny things Wisconsinites do. This is of course while my family and millions of other northern Illinois families were busy making our way up north to indulge in the many beautiful parts of the state – areas which my own state lacks within an easy drive of Chicago. In Chicago, Wisconsin (and Michigan too) is sometimes referred as “our backyard.” But is it really? Does Chicago really “own” Wisconsin? Would the State of Wisconsin cease to exist without all of the Illinois (“fibs“) tourists visiting throughout the year?
Let’s examine the facts.
Tourism sustains 181,000 jobs in 2010, about 7.8% of total employment or 1 of every 13 jobs. There were over 2.8 million jobs in Wisconsin in 2010.
Visitor spending in Wisconsin was $9.2 billion in 2010. State and local taxes collected due to tourism was $1.3 billion. Total state and local sales tax revenues were $3.9 billion in 2010.
84.5 million leisure-person trips (one trip by one person) were taken in 2010 in Wisconsin. Of that total, 23% (17.6 million) of all trips were taken by Illinois residents. While highest among all other U.S. states, Wisconsin residents themselves account for 61.4% of the total leisure-person trips.
For simplicity, let’s assume that spending among all tourists was equal. Let’s also assume direct causation between the number of tourism jobs and leisure-person trips. In this model then, Illinois residents support 41,630 tourism jobs in Wisconsin (1.4% of total WI jobs) and contribute $300 million in state and local taxes (7.7% of total state and local taxes).
So, no, Illinoisans don’t own Wisconsin, we merely rent it one leisure-person trip at a time. I suspect, however, that Illinoisans’ negative externalities (in the form of traffic congestion) are responsible for the quest to widen I-90 south of Madison to Illinois.
Sarasota, FL skyline. Source: Patrick Braga via Wikimedia Commons
I’ve spent the better part of last week in Sarasota, Florida, on Lido Key with my family to attend a wedding for my sister-in-law. Much has been written about sprawl throughout Florida or the housing crisis. What interested me was the urbanism I had found near the resort I stayed at, most unexpectedly.
St. Armand's Circle, looking west towards Lido Key.
The urbanism I’m speaking of was found on Lido Key and neighboring St. Armand’s Key. John Ringling (of Ringling Bros. fame) and Owen Burns purchased Lido Key, St. Armands Key and neighboring Bird Key in the 1920s and began a development scheme which eventually failed in the 1929 stock market crash. St. Armand’s Key has in its center, Harding Circle, shopping district oriented around a beautiful roundabout, which has been recognized on the National Register of Historic Places.
In the pictures, you may notice several features celebrated in new urbanism and planning circles alike: roundabouts, landscaped sidewalks and pedestrian treatments, all imposed on a grid street pattern.
These types of urban environments in resort communities are few and far between. I treasure spending time in these environments.
St. Armand's Circle pedestrian crossing. Source: Thoralf Schade
See how the landscape treatments separate cars from pedestrians? This allows more intensive pedestrian uses of the sidewalk like this cafe. Source: winterwhiteiris
