transportation myths and sacred cows restoring our cities
DESCRIPTION
Discussion of transportation planning for more livable citiesTRANSCRIPT
Transportation Myths and Sacred Cows The Restoration of Our Cities and Towns
Norman W. GarrickUniversity of Connecticut
Gilbert’s 1909 plan to connect the train stationand downtown
myth [mith]
any invented story, idea, or concept:
sacred cow
an individual, organization, institution, etc., considered to be exempt from criticism or questioning.
Myth 1Traditional Cities are Obsolete
Le Corbusier’s Plan Voisin for Paris
c1925
“In the age of the automobile and the skyscraper, the corridor street had become a ‘dead organ’ incapable of fulfilling its
function.
In the Plan Voisin, Le Corbusier analyzed this function into two parts, transportation and sociability,
and created two new urban forms to deal with them: superhighways and pedestrian malls.”
From Urban Utopias by Robert Fishman
Source: Die Disziplinierung Der Stadt Moderner Stadtebau in Zurich 1900 bis 1940 by Daniel Kurz
The Housing Act of 1949
“Our success as a country and as a species utterly
depends on the health and wealth of the
cities.”
“America’s poor treatment of its own cities over the past half century helps spawn many of out most dire problems,
from increased inequality to
environmental damage to the recent economic collapse.”
Myth 2Networks are no longer important
http://www.georgeglazer.com/maps/newengland/images/newhavenmap-det2.jpg
How Did This Drastic Change Occur?
One important agency in getting rid of the grid
network was the Federal Housing Authority
FHA Technical Bulletin No. 7 (1938)Planning Profitable Neighborhoods
According to the FHA the grid layout was
Monotonous Had Little Character Uneconomical Posed Safety Concerns
?
California Cities Study of Street Networks
Twenty-four Cities
versus
Risk of Severe Injury or Fatality*
Chance of being Severely Injured
30% Higher
Chance of being Killed
50% Higher *Given that an injury occurred
Net
herlan
ds
Switz
erla
nd
Nor
way
Swed
en UK
Ger
man
y
Den
mar
k
Fran
ce
Austria
Austral
ia
Canad
a
New
Zea
land
Belgi
um USA2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16In 2005 the USA had
the highest traffic fatality rate of any OECD Country
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
USA Traffic Fatality Rate1970 to 2005
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 20050
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
Changes in Traffic Fatality Ratein 16 OECD Countries
9%
2%
4%
1%
9%
2%
Percentage of People Walking, Biking or Taking Transit
Odds of Dying in a Road Accident based on Intersection Density*
1 in 200
1 in 500
*Given that an injury occurred
Percentage of People Walking, Biking or Taking TransitEffect of Intersection Density for Gridded Network
< 81 81-144 144-225 225+0%
5%
10%
Cities with a fine grained network of small streets were
much safer and also had more walking and biking
Street Networks are not the only important Networks in Cities
For example, Network of Neighborhoods
Myth 3Good Transportation is Fast Transportation
Sixty years ago, Lewis Mumford reminded us that the exact opposite of this myth was true when he said
“A good transportation system minimizes unnecessary
transportation”
What is Transportation for?
The purpose of transportation is to provide access to goods and people
Access
Speed
=
Distance
Access
Distance
=
Speed
Access to Pharmacies in Hartford
½ Mile
Access to Pharmacies in Washington, DC
½ Mile
In Cities, Speed Kills
Literally and figuratively!
0 10 20 30 40 500
20
40
60
80
100
05
45
85
Impact Speed (mph)
% C
han
ce o
f F
atal
ity
Source: U.K. Department of Transportation, Killing Speed and Saving Lives, London, 1987.
Speed KillsChance of Pedestrian Fatality vs. Impact Speed
Speed Kills Urbanism
Streetcars: Great Access – Great Urban Compatibility
Speedier Travel, not Faster Vehicles
This does not mean that we should never try to speed up travel, but any increase in speed should
be done in a way that is compatible with the character of urban places
In Zurich, faster transit is achieved by giving the transit priority in many ways
Myth 4Traffic is always growing and we must accommodate it or the city will come to a halt
Predict and ProvideStreet and Highway Capacity
“With projections indicating fifty thousand cars by 1960, Moot (chair of the City Planning
Commission) projected a need for fourteen thousand new (parking) spaces.”
Minimum Parking Standards
Most cities require that a minimum amount of parking must be added for each 1000 sq. ft. of new development
or each new job or resident
Sufficient Parking a Must!
“The most critical improvement to [neighborhood shopping districts] which could be made at this time is the provision of off-street
parking facilities” (City of Harford, 1972).
‘With projection indicating fifty thousand cars by 1960, Moot (chair of the City Planning Commission)
projected a need for fourteen thousand new (parking) spaces.
Mayor Joseph Mruk agreed. Not only would the city build three parking ramps (garages), it would encourage the private development of parking
facilities downtown “by assisting in the condemnation and assembly of necessary
sites.” The campaign to build parking spaces for twenty-five thousand automobiles began in 1950.’
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 201025000
50000
75000
100000
125000
150000
Growth of Parking in 4 New England Cities
Which city has prospered the most?
Daytime Population 4 New England Cities
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010125000
150000
175000
200000
225000
250000
275000
Persons per Parking Space 4 New England Cities
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 20101.00
3.00
5.00
7.00
Cambridge
Lowell
Hartford
New Haven
6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.03500
6500
9500
12500
Parking versus People12 Cities Nationwide
Peop
le*
Den
sit
y
Parking* per person* Based on daytime population
6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.03500
6500
9500
12500
Parking versus People12 Cities Nationwide
* Based on daytime population
Peop
le*
Den
sit
y
Parking* per person
The Benefit of Walking, Biking, Transit
12 Cities Nationwide
Walking, Biking, Transit, At Home* Based on daytime population
10% 30% 50% 70%3500
6500
9500
12500
Peop
le*
Den
sit
y
Transportation Matters!
The goal of the modernist was to create cities that worked for cars.
We embraced this philosophy in Connecticut, and it failed abysmally
Some Places Developed Transportation Systems that Serve the
City, Not the Other Way Around
http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2010/08/16/1803/
Planning in an Auto-Oriented World
1. What are the strategic long term goals of the city?
2. Does a particular project advance or hinder these goals?
3. How does the project strengthen vital networks in the city (street, transit, neighborhood, regional networks?
4. Does the project help reduce the city’s environmental footprint?
5. Does the project reduce the long term economic burden for travelers in the city?
6. Does the project make the city more attractive and vital over the long run?
Streetcars and Freeway Removal