A few years ago I had a memorable ride on the Ventura Blvd Metro Rapid from Warner Center to Sherman Oaks. The service flowed smoothly through Tarzana and Encino but then got stuck in two miles of gridlock leading up to I-405, as it often does, and the crowded bus spent 20 minutes going almost nowhere. It made no sense. Cars can only fit onto 405 at a certain rate, especially if they’re going over Sepulveda Pass. So in the current arrangement, the surplus traffic is stored blocking Ventura Blvd. Why do you give over the entire width of Ventura Blvd, and effectively shut down the street, just for the purpose of storing waiting cars? Why don’t you set aside a through lane for transit (and perhaps also for taxis, HOVs, and certainly for emergency vehicles) so that efficient use of the street can continue even as the cars pile up? What would be the effect on traffic? Simple: the pile of stored cars would be narrower and longer. But meanwhile, people could get where they were going, and emergency vehicles could get through to save lives and property.

Chokepoints in a network are huge opportunities for transit, but only if transit can get past them. This bit of Ventura Blvd is one example. Another is the Sepulveda Pass itself. Caltrans is widening the freeway to add HOV lanes, which will finally give buses a clear path around gridlock, so that from the Valley to Westwood they can start offering the only truly reliable means of getting through the Pass. If it works reliably you may see a range of services extended through the Pass to broaden the reach of that advantage.

But Los Angeles is almost done widening roadways. It’s time to make hard choices about how to apportion the space that you have. The great boulevards of Los Angeles can be, in their own way, as magnificent as the boulevards of Paris. In the last decade Paris has added bus lanes on virtually every one of its boulevards, mostly at the expense of traffic lanes. Traffic isn’t any worse than it was, because once people see that transit is getting through reliably, some of them choose to use it.

Great little video by Streetfilms about the transformation of New York City’s streets so they become both more bike and pedestrian friendly — and create some great new urban spaces in the process.

No factor has a bigger impact than going from conventional suburban to transit-oriented design. Making that change alone results in a 50 percent reduction in energy use in multifamily buildings and 42 percent and 39 percent reductions in single family attached and detached dwellings. In fact, the most inefficient TOD beats the most efficient Conventional suburban development (CSD) in this study. (emphasis added)

How could that be? And what is “transit-oriented design” anyways? The EPA explains:

Housing that is located in a walkable neighborhood near public transit, employment centers, schools, and other amenities allows residents to drive less and thereby reduces transportation costs. Development in such locations is deemed to be “location efficient,” given a more compact design, higher-density construction, and/ or inclusion of a diverse mix of uses. If American families can reduce their necessity to drive through better housing and transportation options, then commute times and household energy costs will drop.

The CDC asked people how “street-scale urban design policies” (read: sidewalks, lighting) affect their level of physical activity. Overall, about 57 percent of adults said these neighborhood features were “moderately” or “very” important – but people of color placed far greater importance on those factors in the built environment than the white people surveyed.

In fact, 50.5 percent of black respondents and 40.6 percent of Hispanic respondents said neighborhood features were “very important” in determining their level of physical activity. Only 26.9 percent of the white people surveyed gave that answer….

people of color are also more willing than white people to take civic action on neighborhood issues. It found that 58.8 percent of blacks said they were willing to write letters to elected officials about neighborhood livability issues, as well as 47.8 percent of Hispanics. Only 36.7 percent of whites were willing to write letters, though more of them were willing to pay more property taxes for better neighborhood design. Blacks were less willing to do that – but 6.3 percent of them (and 5.8 percent of Hispanics) were interested in running for office to support neighborhood improvements. Only 3.2 percent of whites were willing to go that far.

So if folks in the Livability movement want to reach out to a more diverse audience, what do they need to do? They could follow in the footsteps of Adolfo Hernandez, director of outreach and advocacy for Chicago’s Active Transportation Alliance:

“We targeted five communities along Chicago’s west side,” Hernandez says. “And when we started this work, they were all pretty hesitant. At the time, we were the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, so it sounded like some cycling club.”

But it wasn’t just the name change that helped build trust and partnership with these groups. Active Trans went to community members where they were – at PTA meetings and block parties – and engaged them on the issues that were important to them. They realized that violence, or the perception of violence, was at least as significant a barrier as traffic in encouraging community members to use parks and go outside. They partnered with them on issues like housing access and jobs. And they linked all of these issues back to changes in the built environment that would improve their quality of life. “Now we have African-American and Latino community-based organizations going to their councilmen and alderman and asking for bicycle and pedestrian improvements,” says Hernandez.

In short, if Livability advocates want to create a more diverse movement, they need to go to where folks are and get to know their world – not bad advice, in general, for reaching out to other communities (e.g., folks in rural areas).

The result was streets and sidewalks that were often smelly and disgusting – and plenty of freedom for other actors, like Mr. Cholera, to breed to their hearts content and kill tens of thousands of people.

Eventually, city governments began to put limits on people’s freedom to do whatever they wanted. Cities became less smelly and more safe.

Over the years, these restrictions got tighter and tighter — sometimes for good reasons that benefited everyone, and sometimes because of games played by powerful interests.

In 2005, a design studio called Rebar decided it was time to test these restrictions. They temporarily turned one metered parking space into a public park — a quick and dirty guerrilla art project to raise questions about how we use our city space. The project was a success, partly because they did in San Francisco and not, say, Dallas, partly because they showed respect for other uses of the street by cleaning up after they were done — no pig remains or horse poop were left behind — and partly because they did it with style.

Over the next few years, citizens, artists, and activists around the globe joined in for what became an annual PARK(ing) Day event. Their mission:

to call attention to the need for more urban open space, to generate critical debate around how public space is created and allocated, and to improve the quality of urban human habitat … at least until the meter runs out!

Eventually this innovation inspired officials in cities around the globe to act. For example, New York City closed parts of Broadway and created “pedestrian plazas in Times Square and Herald Square.” The result was a smashing success. Tourists and New Yorkers loved it, and it had other benefits as well:

Advocates for the project said it had vastly improved safety in the area, pointing to a 35 percent decline in pedestrian injuries and a 63 percent reduction in injuries to drivers and passengers, according to city data. Foot traffic grew by 11 percent in Times Square and by 6 percent in Herald Square, and a survey of local businesses found that more than two-thirds of the area’s retailers wanted the project to become permanent…. The Times Square Alliance, a business group, surveyed residents and office workers and found that about 75 percent were “satisfied with their experience” in the area, up from less than half in 2007….

“It’s shifted the paradigm for what a street and sidewalk experience is supposed to be like in New York City,” said Tim Tompkins, the president of the alliance.

The city of San Francisco also finally got in the game, creating official “parklets” last year:

The first pedestrian plaza opened in May at 17th and Market streets in the Castro and has become so popular that four more plazas as well as five “parklets” – two or three successive parking spaces turned into teeny parks – are slated to open by this summer. More are expected to be built this fall and next year.

The idea is to replicate the European tradition of outdoor plazas for sunning and socializing on the cheap as the city faces a grim $522 million budget deficit for the coming fiscal year.

The city’s official website called Pavement to Parts describes the project is way:

San Francisco’s streets and public rights-of-way make up fully 25% of the city’s land area, more space even than is found in all of the city’s parks. Many of our streets are excessively wide and contain large zones of wasted space, especially at intersections. San Francisco’s new “Pavement to Parks” projects seek to temporarily reclaim these unused swathes and quickly and inexpensively turn them into new public plazas and parks. During the temporary closure, the success of these plazas will be evaluated to understand what adjustments need to be made in the short term, and ultimately, whether the temporary closure should be a long term community investment….

Each Pavement to Parks project is intended to be a public laboratory where the City can work with the community to test the potential of the selected location to be permanently reclaimed as public open space.

The city liked parklets in part because at a time when the city was struggling financially parklets didn’t cost a lot of money:

The parklets – which will consist of raised platforms to make them level with sidewalks for seating, planters and bicycle parking – cost $7,000 apiece. The larger plazas with tables, chairs, planters and art installations can cost up to $35,000.

“It’s pennies compared to a brand new park,” said Astrid Haryati, the mayor’s greening director.

Sponsored by neighborhood businesses and corporate donations, they’ll cost the city nothing but labor from the Department of Public Works to set them up and maintain them.…The [Department of Public Works] also is scrounging up unused city property like Dumpsters to serve as large planters for fruit trees and the trunks of dead trees for use as planter borders.

According to Andres Power of San Francisco’s Planning Department, what’s interesting about San Francisco is that it’s more decentralized than New York City’s

Our plaza program is not exactly like New York’s. Their Department of Transportation designs their plazas in-house, with their engineers and landscape designers. Which has its advantages. Their plazas are incredibly replicable, efficient, and easy. But in having different local designers work on ours, we have something more organic and site-specific. And there’s more room for whimsical projects.

What’s up next for San Francisco? Making every day PARK(ing) day.

The plazas will always likely require some input from the various city agencies, including DPW and the municipal transportation agency. But we’re working with these same agencies on developing a permit system that will allow anyone willing to hold a permit for a space – a business, a nonprofit, a group of people – to apply to put in a parklet.

In the meantime, outside groups keep innovating. Rebar has created what they call a walklet that they have been experimenting with and eventually hope to be able to offer for sale:

The sixty foot linear parklet (Rebar uses the term “Walklet”) is composed of pre-fabricated modular sections, each three feet wide by 6 1/2 feet deep. The module foundations are welded steel frames with bamboo decking, each affixed to the curb edge. The modules have different components, some simple flat sidewalk extensions, others with seating. One variation has seating with a planter built into it; another is a high bar 40 inches above the platform. Two modules have two bike racks each and several modules will be deep benches that allow reclining.

“The idea was to have a magic carpet of bamboo,” said Merker, describing the aesthetic. “It creates a sense of prospect and refuge for people who want to inhabit the street.”

Up next: parklets as a different way of thinking about government and innovation.

Many suburbanites take free parking for granted, whether it’s in the lot of a big-box store or at home in the driveway. Yet the presence of so many parking spaces is an artifact of regulation and serves as a powerful subsidy to cars and car trips. Legally mandated parking lowers the market price of parking spaces, often to zero. Zoning and development restrictions often require a large number of parking spaces attached to a store or a smaller number of spaces attached to a house or apartment block.

If developers were allowed to face directly the high land costs of providing so much parking, the number of spaces would be a result of a careful economic calculation rather than a matter of satisfying a legal requirement. Parking would be scarcer, and more likely to have a price — or a higher one than it does now — and people would be more careful about when and where they drove.

The subsidies are largely invisible to drivers who park their cars — and thus free or cheap parking spaces feel like natural outcomes of the market, or perhaps even an entitlement….

if we’re going to wean ourselves away from excess use of fossil fuels, we need to remove current subsidies to energy-unfriendly ways of life.

The Economist’s Ryan Avent comments on the entertaining response to the piece by US libertarians, who like most Americans believe free/cheap parking is a God-given Right:

One of the results of the piece was a barrage of perplexing responses from people who normally agree with Tyler…

One thing that surprises me is that libertarian economists wouldn’t immediately adopt the default assumption that mandated parking minimums are bad. What does it mean to be a libertarian if that’s not your default position? Ditto for below-market pricing of scarce resources. You’d expect progressive writers to make a strong case that goods a, b, and c should be affordable to everyone and government subsidized as a matter of basic decency. It’s bizarre that libertarians leap to this position when driving-oriented policies are up for discussion.

The best part of the dustup is where libertarians try to argue that inexpensive parking is one of those rare places where the government needs to step in to provide a “public good.” There’s only one tiny problem:

You’d think that libertarians making the public good argument would have no problem defending government provision of and subsidy for [mass] transit, but of course they don’t. They get around this by arguing that people want to drive and they don’t want to ride transit. This is strange in that in few other cases would a libertarian claim to know what markets want.

Some of the strongest backing for the bill has come from AARP, which sent a letter to committee members on Monday pointing out that the country’s aging population will be poorly served if development patterns don’t evolve to make driving less necessary. “Nine out of ten of our members tell us they want to stay in their own homes as they age — most are living in suburban or rural areas and don’t have access to public transportation,” said Debra Alvarez, senior legislative representative for AARP. “There’s a lot of things that can be done in small towns: co-locating things like post offices, grocery stores, pharmacies, and putting housing there too.”

A few Smart Growth advocates have been making the connection between our aging population and the need for Smart Growth for a while now. It’s great to see that the ideas have gone from theory to senior boots on the ground.

In DC, I have friends here who bike to work every day. They tell me that so long as you’re aggressive enough with car drivers, you’re usually okay. That and watch out for folks in cars who open up the door right in front of you so you can avoid the delightful experience known as getting “doored .” Anybody surprised more of us don’t follow their path?

If we want more folks to “pony up” like Mykleby says they should, we’ve got to make it easier so those of us without a Mad Max approach to biking will do it. One interesting example of how is a pilot project San Francisco is trying out in Golden Gate Park.

The $250,000 project will move parking spots away from the curb so bicyclists and cars no longer have to mingle on the roadway. The lanes are expected to protect bicyclists and encourage more cycling in The City.

“A painted buffer area between the parked cars and bikeway will provide space for passengers to enter and exit vehicles,” the SFMTA said. “In areas without parking, the bikeway will be separated from the travel lane by a painted buffer area only.”…

The lanes have been a success in Amsterdam, Copenhagen and New York City, said Andy Thornley, the Bicycle Coalition’s program manager.

But even less complicated or expensive changes can make a real difference. Cities have discovered that creating what are known as Bike Boulevards, or a network of streets where signs and lines painted on the road make it clear that on these roads, bikes have priority, can significantly increase bicyclist safety without making car drivers crazy. No matter what cities do, individuals still have to make the decision to bike. But we can make that decision a much more appealing — and sane — one.

1. Create more sustainable and resilient communities
2. Green the local economy
3. Engage the community in the climate change planning process
4. Approach climate change planning on a regional level
5. Address transportation through transit-oriented development and complete streets
6. Promote density through infill development and brownfield redevelopment
7. Adopt green building policies
8. Preserve and create green space
9. Plan for climate adaptation

One of the more interesting case studies was of Sarasota County, Florida, which has adopted the Architecture 2030 Challenge,

which is built around the goal of achieving carbon neutrality for county operations by 2030…

As staff members began examining what it would take to succeed on that challenge, they quickly realized that land use and community design were every bit as critical to carbon neutrality as energy use in public buildings. In just one example of how that realization translated into a different way of thinking about policy, county staff members looked at the amount of driving that residents were doing and saw that it was largely predetermined by the pattern of development. The task of reducing VMT became not just an issue of housing demand but also a matter of housing need: where does the county need to locate housing and what form does the housing need to take?

That insight, and the fact that folks in Sarasota care about “protecting the area’s natural systems, the county developed a 2050 plan that

proposes the development of “2050 Villages”–compact developments designed to preserve open space and reduce driving–as well as an initiative emphasizing strong transit connections and TOD.

to get a sense of what kind of carbon emission savings Smart Growth can offer, a few steps from the report:

Transportation accounts for one-third of all greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, more than any other single end-use sector. Between 1990 and 2006, GHG emissions from the transportation sector accounted for 47 percent of the increase in overall U.S. GHG emissions…

SMARTRAQ [Strategies for the Metro Atlanta Region’s Transportation and Air Quality] found that people living in neighborhoods that were rated as the least walkable drove about 30 percent more—and produced about 20 percent more GHG emissions—than those living in the areas rated most walkable….

The greater location efficiency offered by redeveloped brownfields can reduce VMT by 33 to 58 percent over greenfield developments….

Residential buildings account for 21 percent of all CO2 emissions. A detached single-family home uses 54 percent more energy for heating and 26 percent more for cooling than a multifamily home. Homes in compact developments use, on average, 20 percent less energy than homes in sprawling development.

Will all of this stop the climate crisis? No, because right now the efforts are too scattered and diffuse. But what if the environment movement and folks like Obama were doing everything they could to encourage and provide resources for these local experiments? We could make a hell of a lot more progress much more quickly than we can with all the energy being spent on a probably doomed effort to pass cap and trade.

Come to think of it, if Obama, the enviros, and Obama’s amazing social network of folks who organize to get him elected were focused on these kinds of climate crisis fights at the local level, it might create serious increase the odds of getting something serious done at the national level — corporations might decide he was worth cutting a serious national deal if only to slow down local efforts. These are the kinds of options we lose when we follow Krugman and other economists’ market-based framework.

1. Strives for full democratic participation.

2. Builds capacity for a truly sustainable infrastructure and green economy.

3. Creates and share “green” wealth.

The rest of the report shows how groups around the country are fighting for this vision.

Take Harlan County, Kentucky. You probably know about the environmental devastation caused by strip top mining. At the same time, most folks in Harlan County are in a no-win situation.

There are few employment alternatives to coal-related jobs, even as coal employment in Kentucky is a third of what it was 30 years ago, largely due to the increased mechanization of the industry. Large absentee landlords and local land-owners are unaccountable to new forms of economic development. The local elite maintain tight control over politics, commerce, and public life in this region.

But folks are fighting back, in part through a statewide organization called Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC).

In Benham, a coalition made up of KFTC and the Mountain Association for Community Economic Development (MACED) is exploring a range of “green,” renewable energy sources. In addition to wind power, potential exists for micro-hydro power, utilizing the creeks that run through the towns, and small-scale solar energy. The coalition’s efforts are informed by two reports from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology: one on models for developing locally owned wind power and a second on viable strategies for local renewable energy and energy efficiency improvements. As the mines “write people off,” with job elimination that trigger growing desperation and anxiety, Harlan County KFTC leader, Carl Shoupe, a retired, disabled third generation miner, realizes that this moment is a “critical time” to take action.

In San Diego, the Environmental Health Coalition is also fighting to create a just, green economy for all. Last year, it

successfully blocked the expansion of a fossil fuel power plant in Chula Vista, California, where over 80% of residents are people of color and 16% of all residents fall below the poverty line. This proposed plant expansion would have more than doubled the size of the existing plant…. It would have been sited 1,300 feet from a local elementary school and only 350 feet from the nearest home in that community.

In fighting against the plant expansion, which blatantly violated the town’s general plan that EHC spent two years working to pass, EHC didn’t just argue against the plant. They won in part because they proposed an alternative vision of the future.

They drafted a detailed energy plan that described the rationale and benefits for alternatives such as solar arrays on rooftops and parking lots, repair of transmission lines, and improvement of residential energy efficiency. EHC also provided expert testimony and analysis showing that these options were not only feasible and cost effective, but could provide three to four times the energy that the proposed plant would provide.

Similarly, in New York City, WE ACT has been fighting for years to take on pollution in their neighborhood.

Five out of six public transit bus depots on Manhattan are located in the brown and black, low-income communities of Northern Manhattan. For the most part, these bus depots are situated close to apartments, schools, playgrounds, and senior centers. Inundated by toxic diesel pollution, residents suffer some of the highest rates of childhood asthma hospitalizations in the nation, and disproportionately high levels of other respiratory illnesses and heart disease. Northern Manhattan’s cancer and child-asthma rates exceed area, state, and national averages….

Years of advocacy by WE ACT for Environmental Justice (WE ACT)2 and other partners have certainly helped lessen the toxic burden of these transit depots. Their coalition work has resulted, for example, in the conversions of 400 diesel buses into compressed natural gas buses, and another 900 into hybrid electric buses. But WE ACT’s environmental justice efforts go well beyond these near term mitigations.

For example, after many years of community pressure, NYC’s MTA decided they would rebuild a Lower Manhattan bus depot that handles 120 buses a day. WE ACT trained folks in the community “in the principles of green building and the science of sustainability,” and now they are working with the MTA to create a truly green depot, including features such as “a green roof, air pollution controls, energy efficiency, and gray water reclamation.”

The report also highlights how some groups who began by fighting for economic justice have broadened their vision to for a just, sustainable economy. In Miami, in 2001 “the Miami Workers Center (MWC) sought to prevent the demolition of low-income housing developments in Liberty City,” eventually forcing developers to build units that were affordable for everyone who lived in the development. As part of their experience in that fight, now one of their main goals is “to deepen community involvement in the redevelopment and green design process.”

In early 2008, MWC collaborated with US Green Builders to host a community design competition, called a charette, of the Scott-Carver site. These charettes have served as a popular education piece for residents, and MWC members and have helped the wider community understand the connection between environmental and racial justice….

Poinciana Industrial Park, a mostly vacant industrial site that for three decades was supposed to have brought economic development and opportunities to the black community. MWC is helping policy makers and developers understand the value of turning that Park into a “green enterprise zone” that will host small to medium scale green businesses. In its attempt to reframe conventional “green” discourse, MWC uses the term “Community Driven Green Industry” to describe the public, non-profit, and private sector ventures that create environmentally friendly products and services that also generate long-term living-wage jobs at all skill levels. As Benford explained, MWC “really need[s] to drive consciousness of what kind of development we need to be focused on,” given Miami’s track record of pursuing “shallow” development versus wealth-generating development.

And in LA, home of the highway car chase, last year the Labor/Community Strategy Center helped create Transit Riders for Public Transportation, a network of 11 groups across the country fighting to “bring environmental justice and civil rights priorities to the upcoming federal surface ransportation act—whose budget is estimated to be at least $500 billion.” Eric Mann, the Labor/Community Strategy Center’s Director, argues that

a strong investment in public transportation can create real green jobs (defined as jobs that reduce fuel emissions, and provide sustainable, long term employment with promotions potential for minority populations).

The Labor/Community Strategy Center estimates, for instance, that 7,000 green jobs could be created for every 1,000 buses built. For every 100 buses, they estimate that 300 drivers could be hired to enable buses to run round the clock. Jobs in clerical work, cleaning and maintenance, bus mechanics, and bus construction would also be created…

“a mass transit system that prioritizes the needs of the most transit-dependent communities can serve the needs of all. The process of getting people out of their cars can begin now, not after manufacturing 200 million electric cars or after constructing a multi-billion or trillion dollar new rail project, or after transitioning to a clean electricity grid 20 years from now.”

You can read more about these organization’s struggles and their vision of a better future for all in the Environmental Justice and the Green Economy report. If you or your organization wants to endorse their Vision Statement, check out http://ejstimulus.wordpress.com/selected-list-of-endorsers/