Less Parking

Apropos to the post below, it seams as though some cities are beginning to rethink the unhelpful and backward urban policy of minimum parking requirements for new construction.

 

Like nearly all U.S. cities, D.C. has requirements for off-street parking. Whenever anything new is built — be it a single-family home, an apartment building, a store or a doctor’s office — a minimum number of parking spaces must be included. The spots at the curb don’t count: These must be in a garage, a surface lot or a driveway.

 

D.C. is now considering scrapping those requirements — part of a growing national trend. Officials hope that offering the freedom to forgo parking will lead to denser, more walkable, transit-friendly development. […]

 

Parking requirements — known to planners as ”parking minimums” — have been around since the 1950s. The theory is that if buildings don’t provide their own parking, too many drivers will try to park on neighborhood streets.

 

In practice, critics say, the requirements create an excess supply of parking, making it artificially cheap. That, the argument goes, encourages unnecessary driving and makes congestion worse. The standards also encourage people to build unsightly surface lots and garages instead of inviting storefronts and residential facades, they say. Walkers must dodge cars pulling in and out of driveways, and curb cuts eat up space that could otherwise be used for trees. […]

 

”We’re forcing people (through parking requirements) to invest in spaces for automobiles rather than in spaces for people,” she said. ”There’s no way to recover that use.”

 

Excess off-street parking is insidiously destructive public policy; it’s bad for the environment (more greenhouse gases), bad for cities (more traffic), bad for neighborhoods (dangerous and inhospitable curb cuts) and bad for buildings (less space for people).

 

As a resident of a dense urban neighborhood, I can confidently say that neighborhoods (and blocks) are safer and more vibrant when stoops and storefronts are active and cars stay on the street.

 

That’s not to say there should be no off-street parking whatsoever, just that it should be geared toward appropriate scale development and, as the article suggests, should stipulate reasonable maximums rather than minimums.

 

This is a good step, and other creative driving disincentives, along with an imperative policy towards better transit, would go a long way to creating healthier, happier and more pleasant communities for people outside of their cars.

 

Parking Space

It’s quite possible you missed it, but yesterday was Park(ing) Day here in New York City. That’s “Park”, as in public green space.

 

The concept is simple: find an empty parking spot on your local street and feed the meter, but rather than steer your ride into the spot, roll out some sod, unfold a lawn chair, open a book and…relax. Voila, instant park!

 

Part activism, part installation and part good use of space, this gesture cleverly illustrates just how much of the public urban fabric is dominated by the automobile, to the detriment of various constituencies.

 

To be fair, New York City has made some promising moves in this regard by requisitioning a few lanes of traffic here and there for use by pedestrians and bicycles, as well as actively promoting the occasional closing of streets for better public use; all of which is hopefully part of a broader civic trend in recognizing that cities exist, first and foremost, for the convenience, pleasure and welfare of citizens, and policies favoring automobiles often run counter to those needs.

 

A Constructive Example?

China seems an awfully problematic place to turn when looking for inspiration to jumpstart the still shameful rebuilding efforts in New Orleans.

 

However one feels about its other policies, the Chinese government is clearly not afraid to invest in the future of its cities…

 

Meanwhile, three full years after Hurricane Katrina devastated New Orleans, much of the city remains a wasteland…

 

…

 

Yet the kind of visionary urban plan that could address these issues in a bold and thoughtful way has yet to materialize. Instead, some of the country’s greatest architectural minds are inventing the future in cities like Beijing, Shenzhen and Dubai, where their talents are more appreciated

 

You’d think forced evictions, inadequate compensation, repression of dissent and official corruption would be enough to disqualify China as an model example of anything, much less the monumental physical, economic and social task of rebuilding a predominantly poor and black American city.

 

One might even infer the ability of the Chinese to “invest” in their cities in such an impressive way may be inextricable from their “other policies”. Policies so problematic that even some of those “greatest architectural minds” often stop to consider what it means to sell their talents to an “appreciative” client like China.

 

Funding Transit through Energy

It’s a bit of a pittance in the grand scheme of transportation funding, but the political tide really does seem to be shifting:

 

On Monday, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) said a measure that would provide as much as $2 billion in grants and other funding for public transportation appears likely to be included in energy legislation that could be voted on next week…

 

The legislative push comes as high gas prices are spurring Americans to drive less and use public transportation more…

 

The increased demand is straining many transit agencies, which are already coping with higher prices for fuel, steel and other commodities.

 

An encouraging sign, to be sure, that public transportation is finally gaining a greater appreciation from both commuters and lawmakers. Another decade or so of sustained interest (i.e. panic over high gas prices) and we might just be on our way to some first class travel options in this country.

 

More and Faster Trains

From the (shamefully) centrist Progressive Policy Institute comes a very sensible proposal: develop a number of regional high-speed rail corridors in the U.S. to relieve pressure on both roadways and runways:

 

In the short term, passengers have two choices: fly less, or pay more for an inferior service. But if the United States is serious about fixing the air-travel mess — not to mention congestion on our roadways — there is a real, long-term solution: high-speed rail (HSR).

…

With the airline industry cutting routes and raising fares, the cost of a gallon of gas racing past $4, and the unemployment rate rising, the time for a major investment in high-speed rail may finally be here.

 

The realization of any such long term high-speed rail plan is a long way off, but there’s no time like the present for crafting ambitious policy towards that goal. However, translating that into legislation is another matter altogether, and negotiating HSR development with the intractable auto and airline industries will require clear-headed and far-sighted political leadership.

 

(PPI link via Yglesias)

 

Transportation We Can Believe In

 

Brookings has a side by side comparison of the presidential candidates’ transportation policies [pdf]. The differences are quite stark actually, and one candidate seems far more serious than the other on the issue. Guess which.

 

From the section entitled Increased Federal Financing for Transportation:

 

Barack Obama: “Obama will address the infrastructure challenge by creating a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to expand and enhance, not supplant, existing federal transportation investments. This independent entity will be directed to invest in our nation’s most challenging transportation infrastructure needs. The Bank will receive an infusion of federal money, $60 billion over 10 years, to provide financing to transportation infrastructure projects across the nation.”

 

John McCain: The August 2008 edition of Governing (Governing.com) explicitly states that McCain supports cutting ‘pork from transportation spending’ and does not support a larger federal role in the transportation sector.

 

A casual analysis of the major issues facing America – the climate crisis, alternative energy, crumbling infrastructure, economic recession, Iraq war – would seem to suggest that all are at least indirectly related to transportation. This does not seem like an issue best passed off to state and local governments.

 

Another section, this one with direct implications to the economy: Transportation Investments as a Job Creator

 

Barack Obama: “… a robust federal infrastructure investment program today will help strengthen the U.S. economy and provide at least one million more U.S. jobs at a time when the housing and construction industries are slowing … [the Infrastructure Bank] will create up to two million new direct and indirect jobs per year and stimulate approximately $35 billion per year in new economic activity.”

 

John McCain: McCain has not made any public comments on this issue during the campaign.

 

Crickets?

 

Big Sky Energy

 

 

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer is quite the entertaining speaker, and his speech last night at the Democratic National Convention was pretty great. He made some potent points regarding the state of America’s energy system and did it with a good bit of humor.

 

Some gems:

 

“We need a new energy system that is clean, green, and American made.”

…

“Barack Obama understands that the most important barrel of oil is the one that you don’t use.”

…

“We simply can’t drill our way to energy independence, even if you drilled in all of John McCain’s backyards, including the ones he can’t even remember.”

 

Update: Nice ad-lib apparently. And here’s a bonus quote:  

“The petro-dictators will never own American wind and sunshine.”

It’s the Infrastructure, Stupid

 

 

Wind and solar power sure sound great – too bad we can’t use any of it, because our transmission lines suck:

 

The dirty secret of clean energy is that while generating it is getting easier, moving it to market is not.

 

The grid today, according to experts, is a system conceived 100 years ago to let utilities prop each other up, reducing blackouts and sharing power in small regions. It resembles a network of streets, avenues and country roads. [Emphasis mine]

Are we at all serious about this stuff? I mean jeesh.

 

Politicians in Washington have long known about the grid’s limitations but have made scant headway in solving them. They are reluctant to trample the prerogatives of state governments, which have traditionally exercised authority over the grid and have little incentive to push improvements that would benefit neighboring states.

 

…

 

Energy Department leaders say that, however understandable the local concerns, they are getting in the way. “Modernizing the electric infrastructure is an urgent national problem, and one we all share,” said Kevin M. Kolevar, assistant secretary for electricity delivery and energy reliability, in a speech last year.

 

…

 

Without a clear way of recovering the costs and earning a profit, and with little leadership on the issue from the federal government, no company or organization has offered to fight the political battles necessary to get such a transmission backbone built. [Emphasis mine]

 

OK, c’mon folks, how about some of that leadership at the federal level? You know, some guidelines, some incentives, some serious investment? Anyone out there even trying?:

 

A handful of states like California that have set aggressive goals for renewable energy are being forced to deal with the issue, since the goals cannot be met without additional power lines.

 

But Bill Richardson, the governor of New Mexico and a former energy secretary under President Bill Clinton, contends that these piecemeal efforts are not enough to tap the nation’s potential for renewable energy.

…

 

“We still have a third-world grid,” Mr. Richardson said, repeating a comment he has made several times. “With the federal government not investing, not setting good regulatory mechanisms, and basically taking a back seat on everything except drilling and fossil fuels, the grid has not been modernized, especially for wind energy.” [Emphasis mine]

 

Oh mon dieu.

 

People Power

Literally:

 

Boesel recently showed off the Human Dynamo prototype, an exercise machine consisting of four spin bikes attached to a small generator. As he pedaled one of the human-powered bikes, a digital readout showed the amount of watts, a measure of power, that he was producing by pedaling and turning an arm crank that strengthens the upper body, he said. As many as four riders can propel the prototype system, which can produce 200 watts to 600 watts of energy an hour.

 

…

 

Most gyms are energy hogs, with sweeping floor space, high heating costs and hot showers always steaming in the locker rooms. Boesel doesn’t know how much energy the solar arrays and human-powered equipment will produce, but he expects his fitness center to use about half the energy of most gyms its size by providing as much as 40% of its energy needs. His goal is to have the gym run solely on the energy it generates.

 

There’s something undeniably poetic about using the pedestrian bits of our lives to keep the lights on. But these kinds of things remain on the fringe, more in the realm of novel, high-end gadgetry than viable technology. And they have yet to be transferred to a larger scale where they could actually have some impact and influence. This is where government comes in, or should. As Matt Yglesias says:

 

… But the trouble is that at the moment the incentives exist primarily as a means of doing marketing to a niche market of upscale consumers. That’s nice, and it’s produced some clever notions, but what’s really needed is smart policies that drive incentives in a bigger and broader manner. [Emphasis mine]

 

Second that.

 

Spend More on Infrastructure

 

 

Pulling one nugget from yesterday’s Times Magazine story on “Obamanomics”:

 

From there, Obama moved the conversation toward a discussion of how the government could improve the nation’s infrastructure — its backbone of bridges, roads, tunnels, airports and the like, much of which has seen better days. Since the dawn of the Age of Reagan, the idea that government spending can be a good thing for the economy has been out of favor, even among Democrats. But it’s now making something of a comeback, particularly within Obama’s camp. His agenda calls for about $50 billion in new annual spending on various investments, including infrastructure, alternative energy and scientific research…

 

These investments might pay off in all sorts of ways. They are a classic form of stimulus that could help the economy emerge from the housing hangover. They would provide jobs for former factory workers and others without college degrees, many of whom have struggled over the past generation, and for whom the current home-building slump has been yet another blow. Above all, the investments would have the potential to pay big long-term dividends, in the form of a national economy that operated more smoothly. [Emphasis mine]

 

Now, economics is far from my area of expertise, but it’s hard to see why investment in our national infrastructure would be anything but a win-win-win situation, especially as it concerns renewable energy. Of the figure sited above, Obama proposes to spend $15 billion annually on alternative & renewable energies. That strikes me as both quite a bit and not all that much. (It amounts to about one month in Iraq, just saying).

 

But, government need not and cannot be the sole investor in the effort. Equally important, government should be in the business of inspiring private industry with a clear and ambitious vision; (memo to government: off-shore drilling – not ambitious). This vision will also help build a broad, popular narrative that will (and must) inspire and invest ordinary citizens in the cause. In other words, government should lead on the issue.

 

To this end, I’d like to hear a bit more from Obama, as he obviously supports infrastructure investment as an economic engine and his renewable energy policy points have substance. But we still haven’t heard a truly inspiring call to action the likes of which is really required. Even so, there are already remarkable grass-roots efforts underway to create this new economy around renewable energy, with all its attendant benefits. All we need now is a government and a president truly willing to lead the way. Stay tuned…

 

Amtrak Veep

 

 

Word.

 

Especially in this moment when rising gas prices have set Amtrak ridership records, having one of the rail service’s supporters handed a bigger soapbox creates a real moment of potential. This country needs more public transit — more miles of service, funding to repair and upgrade equipment, … and, as Atrios tirelessly points out, we need public transit to become an organizing principle of new development of residential and commercial areas. This is one of the most important components of improved energy policy.

 

 

Trouble the Water

This important film about Hurricane Katrina is now playing in New York and LA. From the Times review:

 

Ms. Roberts didn’t wait out the storm from her home in the Lower Ninth Ward; she chased it. Roaming her neighborhood on foot and bicycle, she videotaped the gathering dark clouds and her stranded neighbors with a newly bought camera, watching with mounting concern as the drizzle grew into a deluge. Her rough, untutored camerawork has an ugliness and urgency that only add to the escalating sense of chaos and unease. As her sightlines roughly shift from one fugitive image to the next — wary adults, giggly children, nervous dogs, a stop sign that will soon be almost entirely under water — you can feel the pressure of the moment. Excitement courses through her free-ranging chatter and the palsied, swerving visuals.

 

As someone in the film says, “Katrina is still goin’ on”. Indeed it is. Let’s hope this film receives a wide release, which may help this conversation gather the urgency it desperately deserves. See it if you can and better yet, get involved.

 

 

Street Bacchanal

 

 

 

 

Tomorrow is this summer’s final installment of the inaugural and very cool NYC Summer Streets program.

 

This event takes a valuable public space – our City’s streets – and opens them up to people to play, walk, bike, and breathe. Summer Streets provides more space for healthy recreation and is a part of NYC’s greening initiative by encouraging New Yorkers to use more sustainable forms of transportation.

 

Get out there and take back the streets, as it were. Here’s some video for inspiration.

 

Update: Image above replaced with documentary evidence of car-less streets.

 

Gulf Coast Civic Works Act

Please support this far reaching and extremely important effort.

 

The Gulf Coast Civic Works Act would hire 100,000 Gulf Coast residents and evacuees, providing them with training and jobs to rebuild their homes and communities. It’s a solution that would give all Katrina survivors a fair chance to rebuild their lives, while revitalizing the Gulf Coast’s economy and rebuilding its infrastructure.

 

You can read more here.

 

Manhattan as Wind Farm

Now we’re talking.

The plan, while still in its early stages, appears to be the boldest environmental proposal to date from the mayor, who has made energy efficiency a cornerstone of his administration.

 

Mr. Bloomberg said he would ask private companies and investors to study how windmills can be built across the city, with the aim of weaning it off the nation’s overtaxed power grid, which has produced several crippling blackouts in New York over the last decade.

While it’s unlikely something like this will happen anytime soon, you’ve got to hand it to Mayor Michael Bloomberg for even going there.

Whatever your opinion of Mayor Bloomberg, the scope of his environmental agenda is admirable. But as we saw with another great idea of his, getting far reaching, ambitious projects through New York’s political landscape is unimaginably difficult.

UPDATE: I think this article is making a rather simplistic critique of the windmill proposal. (Though there are some illustrations in the article that take some funny jabs.)

 

UPDATE 2: Also, a slightly tongue-in-cheek piece on the mixed history of Dutch windmills in Manhattan.

 

UPDATE 3: My pals at Pinko Magazine share their thoughts on the issue.

 

Pay as You Drive

 

 

This concept seems like a winning idea.

Many of the ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will require major changes in behavior and/or impose serious costs. However, there is one mechanism that could lead to substantial reductions in emission with no cost: pay-as-you-drive auto insurance.

…

The impact would be large. The average cost of insurance per mile driven is close to 8 cents. This means that if insurance were paid on a per mile basis, for a car that gets 20 miles to a gallon, pay-as-you-drive insurance would provide the same disincentive to drive as a $1.60 a gallon gas tax. This can easily lead to reductions in gas consumption and greenhouse gas emissions from the auto sector of 10 percent or more.

As gasoline remains comparatively inexpensive, pay-as-you-drive insurance, combined with smart ideas like car shares may begin to shift people’s driving habits. Add to that vigorous investment in transportation infrastructure and a long-needed shift in community planning toward increased densities, and we may actually be onto something.

Adding, obviously driving disincentives of any kind, including higher gas prices, risk disproportionately affecting rural and exurban residents due to a generally woeful lack of alternatives. The solution: more and better infrastructure.