Has the phrase "New Urbanism" lost meaning?

[docwatson]

The part that is funny to me is that you say for you it is about the easy of transit and your ability to get around "faster". The point is that lots of people don't care about that. They would rather be alone in their car then to ride the bus.

Downtown Denver Commuting Survey

Mode split for all Downtown Denver employees:
45% transit
33% drive alone
7% rideshare
4% bicycle
3% walk
1% telework

Mode split for employees, with commutes of 5 miles or less:
31% transit
30% drive alone
12% rideshare
11% bicycle
8% walk
1% telework

[ColoGI]

Downtown Denver Commuting Survey

Mode split for all Downtown Denver employees:
45% transit
33% drive alone
7% rideshare
4% bicycle
3% walk
1% telework

Mode split for employees, with commutes of 5 miles or less:
31% transit
30% drive alone
12% rideshare
11% bicycle
8% walk
1% telework

My wife works downtown. She'll drive to the LR station, park, and ride in, then shuttle to work. Lots of people do that, as parking is expensive, but sometimes the commute time on LR is too long and there are "free" places to park.

Just saying it skews the numbers.

Nonetheless, I agree this has degenerated into the old pattern of: ideologue pushing dogma - perspective offered - vigorous hand-waving - someone trying to change subject to stop hand-waving. We should all just number our standard replies to save bytes. ;o)

[bsteckler]

Nonetheless, I agree this has degenerated into the old pattern of: ideologue pushing dogma - perspective offered - vigorous hand-waving - someone trying to change subject to stop hand-waving. We should all just number our standard replies to save bytes. ;o)

Well now that the screaming match over the walkability is over, I figure I'll chime in. I think a lot of what ColoGI says is correct, I also think a lot of opposition to any type of dense development/mixed use development/affordable housing, regardless of how it's branded, is simply because people do not know how cities work. They simply accept it as fact and don't ask themselves how planning effects their daily lives. This is a running complaint of mine, and I don't expect it to change without hard work.

But back to the original point of this thread, I think the the phrase "New Urbanism" with or without caps, still has merit. However, there needs to be a difference made between "we want this project done this way because we want to and because it looks cool" and "we want this project done this way because this is how people actually use urban spaces". This applies to both sides of the argument, you don't build a retail development with street level retail in a place where people can only get there by driving, and you don't build a large low income housing project in the middle of a slum to satisfy an appetite for grandiose construction.

[Hink]

Downtown Denver Commuting Survey

Mode split for all Downtown Denver employees:
45% transit
33% drive alone
7% rideshare
4% bicycle
3% walk
1% telework

Mode split for employees, with commutes of 5 miles or less:
31% transit
30% drive alone
12% rideshare
11% bicycle
8% walk
1% telework

I'm tired of trying to get you to understand this... but look at the highlighted number. That is a big number. I would imagine your argument is that more people take transit, but really those numbers include park and ride people too. 30% is still a third of people.

A third of people can't be wrong!

[Pragmatic Idealist]

.... you don't build a retail development with street level retail in a place where people can only get there by driving.

Why don't you build street-level retail that people can only reach by driving?

The trend here is towards building more "park-once" development in advance of transit improvements.

[ColoGI]

But back to the original point of this thread, I think the the phrase "New Urbanism" with or without caps, still has merit. However, there needs to be a difference made between "we want this project done this way because we want to and because it looks cool" and "we want this project done this way because this is how people actually use urban spaces".

Good point. To me, it is like a pair of jeans: nobody cares whether the leg seams are secured by a running stitch or a backstitch. And no one except seamspeople want to educate the public about the difference between the stitches. People don't care about the stitch: they just want comfortable jeans that don't make their *ss look big. People don't need to be educated about what we do or the historicity of the blablablablacityurbanismfabric, they just need good places without some seamstress ululating about the fenestration and parking mins.

I'm tired of trying to get you to understand this... but look at the highlighted number. That is a big number. I would imagine your argument is that more people take transit, but really those numbers include park and ride people too. 30% is still a third of people.

A third of people can't be wrong!

Who says they are acting rationally, or that they aren't trip chaining to pick up the kid and run to the store after work or doing a kiss and ride or simply scared to ride the train? Is this "right" or "wrong"? And says who? People are often not rational.

[Gotta Speakup]

I'm tired of trying to get you to understand this... but look at the highlighted number. That is a big number. I would imagine your argument is that more people take transit, but really those numbers include park and ride people too. 30% is still a third of people.

A third of people can't be wrong!

Now I'M confused. So even in a sprawling, western, modern metro area like Denver almost half the people drive. Are you saying we shouldnt bother to build walkable communities or transit?

[docwatson]

I'm tired of trying to get you to understand this... but look at the highlighted number. That is a big number. I would imagine your argument is that more people take transit, but really those numbers include park and ride people too. 30% is still a third of people.

Really, Hink, you're arguing against a straw man. No one on this forum said no one wants to drive. What we are arguing against is your contention that most people want to only drive (I think we've refuted that) and that there is no political support for multi-modal transport (again, look at the relatively moderate Denver metro voting taxes and 38 of 38 mayors supporting a transit tax for rail) and that people do not make rational decisions on what mode they use because they have an ingrained preferences unchanged by environment, perception or cost-benefit. I would argue that the DT Denver figures have more to do with environment and people comparing the attractiveness of the different modes available to them, than to an ingrained preference. Compare to the auto-oriented Tech Center, our other employment concentration, and the figures look a lot different. Sure, some people may choose a job in one or the other because it suits their preference, but how many really have that luxury and that strong a preference? And which system is more efficient in terms of fiscal impact?

New Urbanists and transit advocates have never said they believe cars will go away - if they did, why would they spend so much time and research on street layout and design and planning and inclusion of on-street parking? Look at a complete street - what % of the ROW is still for moving or parking cars? If they wanted no cars, they'd be planning cities around bicycle trails and transit only, right?

I think electric & hybrid vehicles will be a big boon to cities, b/c driving won't go away, but at least the noise and air pollution (which gets bad here in summer) can be reduced. Many continue to mix modes - transit to work, during rush hour; the car for weekend getaways, or large shopping trips. The point is to have choices - both in modes and land use - in a way that creates a city in which people want to live.

[Tarf]

Now I'M confused. So even in a sprawling, western, modern metro area like Denver almost half the people drive. Are you saying we shouldnt bother to build walkable communities or transit?

No, I read it as saying that we need to plan not only for those who like to walk/bike or use transit, but also for the 30% that prefer to drive solo.

We're planners, not autocrats - so it isn't our role to demand that 30% use mass transit instead of driving themselves. We can nudge them in that direction, but never force. We have to plan for all user groups.

And yes, I'm a Southern Californian - where a mere 72% of people commute by driving alone (with another 12% by carpools) :P

[Howl]

This may be relevant to the way this discussion has turned. I have just finished up two studies of two neighbouring communities. Both communities had a history going back to the mid-1800’s but were subsequently swallowed up by a larger city. They were both originally small towns based on a grid network of streets. One would expect that both these areas would have very similar characteristics today, but that is not the case.

One was first redeveloped in the 1920’s through 1940’s. In that era houses were bought up and replaced with new apartment buildings, but the grid of streets remained intact. The other was redeveloped in the 1950’s and 1960’s and during that era the style of redevelopment was to create super blocks and to get rid of the grid of local streets. As a result one still has a walkable grid network of public streets and the other does not.

The community with the grid network of streets has become a very popular neighbourhood. The people who buy units there are attracted to the area because of its walkibilty, freindliness, and street trees. It has been able to retain its traditional retail main street. Residents are very interested in looking at all new development proposals to ensure the character and function of the community is maintained.

The community without the grid network of streets has evolved into one of the poorest neighbourhoods in the city. The people who buy units there buy them because they are cheap and they don’t really care about the community outside their door. The retail environment is weak and there are a lot of disreputable or questionable operations. New development in the area has virtually no restrictions because the city planners see any development as good and the local residents just don’t care.

The conclusion is that by maintaining their walkable grid network of streets the first community probably avoided sliding down a slippery slope into suburban hell. The study I was working on recommended leaving the first community largely alone while putting major incentives in place that would encourage the complete rebuilding of the second community that included reintroducing the walkable gird network of streets.

[ColoGI]

I would argue that the DT Denver figures have more to do with environment and people comparing the attractiveness of the different modes available to them, than to an ingrained preference. Compare to the auto-oriented Tech Center, our other employment concentration, and the figures look a lot different. ...

New Urbanists and transit advocates have never said they believe cars will go away - if they did, why would they spend so much time and research on street layout and design and planning and inclusion of on-street parking? .

That's the key elevator phrase right there. Can I steal it?

The community with the grid network of streets has become a very popular neighbourhood. The people who buy units there are attracted to the area because of its walkibilty, freindliness, and street trees. It has been able to retain its traditional retail main street. Residents are very interested in looking at all new development proposals to ensure the character and function of the community is maintained.
.

This is a cool anecdote - thanks for sharing it. If I can simply point out I doubt the citizenry cares whether the area is 'New Urbanist' or 'Smart Growth' or 'Bob Smith' (like my 'jeans' point above), but simply that it works. Surely they don't reject a proposal because it is not 'New Urbanist' or approve one because it is NU.

[docwatson]

No, I read it as saying that we need to plan not only for those who like to walk/bike or use transit, but also for the 30% that prefer to drive solo.

One day soon - and we may see it in our lifetime - the U.S. will stop planning just for transit, walking and cycling and start planning for the auto-user. I dream of free parking and free-ways. Keep up the struggle!

[Gotta Speakup]

No, I read it as saying that we need to plan not only for those who like to walk/bike or use transit, but also for the 30% that prefer to drive solo.

We're planners, not autocrats - so it isn't our role to demand that 30% use mass transit instead of driving themselves. We can nudge them in that direction, but never force. We have to plan for all user groups.

And yes, I'm a Southern Californian - where a mere 72% of people commute by driving alone (with another 12% by carpools) :P

Name some places in the US that are being planned for 100% non-car transportation. Some of us (yourself?) would want to avoid them. Some of us may want to move there. But help me, I can't think of any place, even Mayor Bloomberg's New York, where zero cars are planned for.

Perhaps someone else can identify areas where they are planning for 100% car transportation. Maybe we can compare the land area of one vs. the other.

[Tarf]

Name some places in the US that are being planned for 100% non-car transportation. Some of us (yourself?) would want to avoid them. Some of us may want to move there. But help me, I can't think of any place, even Mayor Bloomberg's New York, where zero cars are planned for.

Perhaps someone else can identify areas where they are planning for 100% car transportation. Maybe we can compare the land area of one vs. the other.

I didn't intend to imply that any area is planning for 100% of one or the other - and such areas don't exist (except perhaps on a very small scale, such as a few streets in a downtown area converted to a pedestrian plaza). Everywhere accommodates both mass transit/bikes/walking and automobiles - the only difference is the degree to which each element is supported.

And I think I probably gave you the best example in the US - and possibly the world - of where the highest % of transportation planning is geared towards the automobile (that being Southern California). 74% of users are reliant on automobiles (including carpooling). A mere 7% of Southern Californians use public transit... A good portion of that 7% uses mass transit because they simply can't afford a car.

(Source: Wikipedia - yeah, not the greatest, but about as much research as I'm willing to conduct for this thread )

Edit: And I live in Southern California - that doesn't mean I'm against walkable communities; however, they're not especially viable here, except at the neighborhood scale. Maybe over time that will improve, but the current reality is such that we're not likely to see a huge change in the 74% number above any time soon.

[Howl]

Name some places in the US that are being planned for 100% non-car transportation. Some of us (yourself?) would want to avoid them. Some of us may want to move there. But help me, I can't think of any place, even Mayor Bloomberg's New York, where zero cars are planned for.

Perhaps someone else can identify areas where they are planning for 100% car transportation. Maybe we can compare the land area of one vs. the other.

Mackinac Island has about 500 residents and about 15,000 tourists per day at peak season, and is completely car free.

[Tarf]

Mackinac Island has about 500 residents and about 15,000 tourists per day at peak season, and is completely car free.

Doh forgot about tourist areas...

Add Catalina Island to that list. Although, in true Southern California fashion, Catalina was designed to accommodate golf carts, in addition to pedestrians...

[Howl]

I think it's the car-free nature of these places that attracts people.

[Hink]

I think it's the car-free nature of these places that attracts people.

You might be right. The economy of the area is completely determined by tourists. These people would not live there though. They would not work there. They go to get away. Then go back to the lives they live and work in. Just like the suburbs....

[bsteckler]

Why don't you build street-level retail that people can only reach by driving?

The trend here is towards building more "park-once" development in advance of transit improvements.

I've always been of the idea that you should start in and retrofit out, not start out and go in. The areas closest to the city center should be retrofitted for improved transit/pedestrian use in a manner consistent with how people use them (street level retail, wide sidewalks, mixed uses). Once abandoned property/vacant lots have been used up, then go to the first ring suburbs and do the same thing. I don't support building isolated pockets of development, be it car oriented or pedestrian oriented, and then filling it in later.

[Gotta Speakup]

There are large parts of the US that are planned exclusively for cars. and only tiny places that are totally not allowing cars. It makes it hard to be sympathetic that anyone is discriminating against car use.

[DetroitPlanner]

Mackinac Island has about 500 residents and about 15,000 tourists per day at peak season, and is completely car free.

Mackinac was not planned to be car-free. It just always was and it is silly to ferry cars over there for day trips as it is several miles from shore, and the developed area is quite compact. There are a few emeregncy vehicles that are cars, but the place does not like change. Cars would change the island and they are not needed.

Several years back a resident with mobility issues purchased a electric bike to assist him up hills. He would use it as a normal bike elsewhere. The townfolk went nuts and demanded he stop using the bike. This was later struck down in court using ADA accomadation rules. What makes this ironic is that in winter months snowmobiles are the primary source of transport on the island and if he had a motorized scooter like a 'Lil Rascal' he would be fine.

Here is an interesting fact about the place: it was the second national park shortly after yellowstone. After about a dozen years the park was shifted to the state. All homes on the island are not privately owned but leased from the state in 100 year leases.

Mackinac Island is an important historic and cultural resource with a fort built by the british and associations with names such as Astor and Vanderbuilt. My biggest complaint about it is that it gets gas tax revenue to keep its streets maintained but there are virtually no VMT that is associated with gasoline powered vehicles. (Spoken like a transportation planner from another region, if I planned for Mackinac I'd be bragging about that fact!)

[Pragmatic Idealist]

Doh forgot about tourist areas...

Add Catalina Island to that list. Although, in true Southern California fashion, Catalina was designed to accommodate golf carts, in addition to pedestrians...

Golf carts don't cause problems.

[Pragmatic Idealist]

And I think I probably gave you the best example in the US - and possibly the world - of where the highest % of transportation planning is geared towards the automobile (that being Southern California). 74% of users are reliant on automobiles (including carpooling). A mere 7% of Southern Californians use public transit... A good portion of that 7% uses mass transit because they simply can't afford a car.

(Source: Wikipedia - yeah, not the greatest, but about as much research as I'm willing to conduct for this thread )

Edit: And I live in Southern California - that doesn't mean I'm against walkable communities; however, they're not especially viable here, except at the neighborhood scale. Maybe over time that will improve, but the current reality is such that we're not likely to see a huge change in the 74% number above any time soon.

This comment is far removed from reality. When the Pacific Electric red cars were in operation, southern California had the largest and most elaborate electric railway in the world. The system stretched from Newport Beach to Redlands. Most of these old cities and towns were built around trains and trolleys, and the places had, and still have, good street grids. The coastal cities were further linked by ferry.

Los Angeles is currently one of the most transit-rich places in the country, and the commuter rail system in the region is quite extensive.

L.A., San Diego, and San Bernardino are all making major new investments to expand the respective networks of high-quality transit, and the California High-Speed Rail and DesertXpress systems will force even more such changes. Combined with car sharing, N.E.V.'s, bicycles, and pedestrian infrastructure, southern California's walkability and transit offerings will improve significantly and in relatively short order.

[Cismontane]

Why don't you build street-level retail that people can only reach by driving?.

One needs to consider that retail isn't really a panacea at an urban scale, since, at moderate densities, it only works at your highest value intersections. Taken regionally and given mostly middle income residents, each resident generates only about 20 sq ft in retail demand (that each resident currently has 40 sq ft in retail to their name in the US is an example of thin-stocked big box bubble-economics.. not market sense). Each middle income resident generates only 10-12 sq ft in neighborhood-level retail.

So, if you have a typical, middle income-targeted residential block with two FAR 3.0 p-blocks (roughly 34 units per urban block), you would generate about 1,200 sq ft in neighborhood retail demand and 2,000 sq ft in total (local, community and regional demand). This means 1-2 storefronts for that entire block. Since retail requires clustering to work, this means that most such high density residential streets in a given development won't have any retail at all. I can get a 1/4 mile walking radius to retail in a middle income residential area to work at FAR 3.0, barely. At below FAR 3.0, forget about it, unless you're doing this in Beverly Hills or La Jolla (wealthy people buy more stuff).

[Cismontane]

that doesn't mean I'm against walkable communities; however, they're not especially viable here, except at the neighborhood scale. Maybe over time that will improve, but the current reality is such that we're not likely to see a huge change in the 74% number above any time soon.

Obviously, large city regions aren't going to be walkable, but are they transitable? Much of the Socal and San Diego evidence shows that if you restrict parking at the destination, people start taking transit a lot more (and developers are a lot happier, since they don't have to provide as much land for low-yielding surface or, worse, structured parking).

The other factor to consider for Socal and San Diego is the relative cost of driving or using transit. At any given relative cost ratio between the two modes the modal share seems to be largely stable (only availability and cost of destination parking seems to reliably control it), but at around $4.00-$4.50 a gallon cost of gas, transit boardings in San Diego - where the morphology makes transit viable in much of the city - start going bonkers. In the two periods in the last decade that gas stayed above $4.00-$4.50/gallon for sustained periods, you saw radical swings in MTS boardings of up to 40% across the system and sometimes 2 or 3 times at specific transit-rich and TOD-planned stops.

This tells you two things: people will use available, convenient and well-designed transit options at or above certain affordability thresholds. Unfortunately, the corollary to this statement also holds: mere accessibility to transit or transit-friendly urban design and planning does not in and of itself guarantee transit use in the absence of an economic necessity (or exigent trigger). Design can enable the capacity for modal shift, but it cannot actually, in and of itself, dictate modal shift.

In fact, it appears that the choice to live in a TOD doesn't actually involve making a commitment to use transit but rather it entails (among many other factors) the purchase of an option by the new TOD resident to enable his or her use of transit in the event certain exigent circumstances occur (triggers such as unavailable destination parking, car breakdowns and servicing, health-related issues, or spikes in the price of oil). Mathematically speaking, this suggests a very very different model than the deterministic model of behavior pushed by the Smargrowth/New Urbanism crowd... which is that the benefit of transit-oriented development is principally option value, not behavioral. This makes all the difference in the world in terms of what urban design and transportation planning decisions one makes and at what threshold levels.

For PI, I suggest taking a look at data on the income elasticity of transit use in Socal vs San Diego vs San Jose. Transit use in LA is somewhat higher a percentage of total trips in Socal (LA in particular) than it is in San Diego but not so if you control for income. Controlled for income, transit use in LA and San Jose is somewhat lower than it is in San Diego despite your (fallacious IMO) argument that LA is more transit-rich. I suspect this has alot to do with what destinations in San Diego are actually served by transit and the greater frequency of transit friendly morphology, but who knows. My point here is that the evidence is far from clear that simply building more transit results in higher transit modal share with any degree of predictability.