Transportation myths and sacred cows restoring our cities

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

Norman W. Garricknorman.garrick@gmail.edu

www.engr.uconn.edu/~garrick