For People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

U.S. News and World Report: 15 Cities for People Who Hate Driving and Long Commutes

I like this report because it balances two often opposed concerns: (1) wanting to drive less and (2) maintaining a reasonable commute time.  As the article notes, some cities with heavy public transit ridership did not make the list because of the time it takes to commute on public transit.  That statement may be a little misleading.  There are certainly other factors to consider in those long-transit-commute cities - auto traffic, parking availability and cost, convenience - that make public transit the preferred option for folks despite the time commitment.  Cities in this category should not be surprising: New York City, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, among others.

The cities that did make this list have a common element - compactness.  That characteristic makes non-motorized commuting a viable option.  There should also be little surprise that several college towns make the list - Chapel Hill, Boulder, Eugene, Madison, and others.

The desirability of commuting options - including walking, cycling, and the like - has led some cities to try and incorporate elements of the named towns into neighborhood design.  Denver's Living Streets Initiative is one example.  Some of the aims of the initiative are multi-model transportation access (including non-motorized transportation) and increased mobility for the population in general; efficiency (increasing convenient stops per outing); sustainability; community; and encouraging a healthy lifestyle.  The initiative is integrated with the zoning code revision that I have written about several times recently, particularly the new code's Main Street districts.  In some neighborhood commercial areas, for example, the initiative would narrow lanes to slow car speeds and allow for wider sidewalks.  I live near the University of Denver in Denver.  The restaurants and shops along both Evans Avenue and University Boulevard are perfect for such a design.  For one thing, parking is not sufficient.  It is incredibly frustrating to try to drive to and park at many of the restaurants, especially during peak times.  Secondly, because of the rate at which traffic moves along both Evans and University, I sometimes do not absolutely safe walking, particularly at night or when I have either my dogs or infant son with me.  In short, the skeleton of great, compact, walkable neighborhood are there, so why not implement the necessary policies and physical changes to encourage that profile?

Such planning is not without its critics.  A recent opinion column in the Denver Post criticized and ridiculed the Living Streets Initiative.  But I think the author is ignoring an important aspect of the initiative - it will not work for every street in Denver.  Two of the roads he mentions, Colorado Boulevard and Hampden Avenue are major arterial streets (three lanes in most places) and serve very busy commercial districts.  While it might be nice to make those commercial areas more accessible, the reality is that it would require significant alteration of the infrastructure already in place.  Any of you who live in Denver and know the areas to which I am referring know there is a vast difference between Evans near DU and Colorado Boulevard.  I could also counter the author's arguments about traffic and induced congestion, but I will not belabor that point.  I will say, generally speaking, that advocating the status quo,  as the author does, certainly will not alleviate and is more likely to perpetuate the complaints he describes.  At least a fresh perspective represents a chance at progress, even if it ultimately fails. 

For those of us who feel tied to our cars, the cities in the U.S. News and World Report article are encouraging and inspiring, even if a bit aspirational.  Personally, I appreciate the efforts of my city to provide myself and fellow Denverites with options.  

Thinking Comprehensively About Development

In an interview with PBS's Blueprint America, Rep. Jim Oberstar discusses the current state of transit policy in the U.S., his theory on how that policy needs to be reformed, and how his Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 would help steer the country in that direction.

I appreciate that Rep. Oberstar recognizes that land use and growth should drive transit development rather than the opposite. Though his bill deals specifically with transit funding and planning, the fundamental principle he seems to advocate is a comprehensive analysis of all aspects of proposed urban or suburban development. A common pattern in the U.S. today is for a new road to be built first, and development around that road comes later. This generally promotes piecemeal, spotty development. Such an approach really prevents planners from accurately projecting the needs of transit, utilities, and public services required for the development.

To me, Rep. Oberstar is promoting an approach that will strive, as much as possible, to get things right the first time. Comprehensive planning could help to avoid such problems like needing to retrofit a larger roadway or a rail system onto an area that is designed to accommodate it. Such planning relates to the sustainability of development. Are we promoting development that will be accessible, livable, and desirable for years to come? Or are we thinking only about capitalizing on opportunities in the short-term? Ideally, projects could be developed in a way that attempts to satisfy both the goals of attracting private investment and building a community that will become and remain a community rather than just another place on the map.

A Few Thoughts on Sustainability

To kick off this effort, I would like to put some of my ideas about "sustainability" on paper. I do not intend for this blog to become one purely or even primarily dedicated to sustainability. However, I do hope sustainability will be one of the considerations by which to weigh some of the ideas, policies, and decisions that will be discussed herein. In other words, I plan to consider the ramifications of a particular policy or action on the sustainability of the affected community and the sustainability of individuals' lifestyles within that community.

Now, what do I mean by "sustainability," a term that has quickly become a prevalent buzzword in today's culture. I think sustainability is too often linked to modifiers like "eco-" and "green"; by such use, its scope is unfairly limited. Dictionary definitions define the root word, sustain, more generally in terms of longevity, prolonging, or keeping up. With this denotation, sustainability becomes an evaluator with much broader application, and with that tool, we can examine each action, idea, and policy with an eye toward each's long-term value and applicability. This is no doubt the type of analysis conducted by shrewd executives and investors in evaluating proposed deals with significant financial stakes.

It seems intuitive, then, that this same analysis should be forefront in the minds of elected officials, public deciders, and policy makers who have our communities' and citizens' futures at stake. However, these persons must act and react within a fast-food life context - instant gratification and what-have-you-done-for-me-lately. Thus, decisions are driven by this short-term, quick-fix attitude, and such decisions do not often stand the test of time. I would be unfair if I did not require the elector to shoulder equal blame as the elected. After all, finger-pointing is not my aim. Rather, I want us collectively to recognize the foundational problem at hand and, by doing so, take the first step to rectifying it. Thus, I believe that each issue, no matter the subject, deserves a sustainability analysis in terms of the longevity of its benefits, consequences, and relevance. Questions of economic policy, healthcare reform, transportation goals - for each we should ask how this decision will help each of us prolong a viable lifestyle that benefits and upholds our community as an economic unit, social group, and geographic environment.

A final word about sustainability. Sustainability will not just happen. Nor will a top-down type scheme really do the trick. Sustainability builds from everyday decisions of everyday persons. Not to make it appear black and white, but each decision we make in our daily lives often has a more sustainable and less sustainable option. Some of these I hope to address with some thought here on this blog. Others might pop up as tweets as I confront them myself here in Denver. To make my intended point, a sustainable lifestyle requires some measure of individual responsibility, with a mind toward the social impact of that individual responsibility. I am currently reading a Wendell Berry commentary in which one of the main themes discussed is his idea of defining the individual in terms of his community. I hope as I get a better grasp on Berry's philosophy, perhaps I will be able to incorporate it in my musings here, as one of my aims in these writings is to explore how we each fit into our present communities and the reciprocal relationship in establishing and sustaining the viability of each.