Discussion of transportation planning for more livable cities

1. Transportation Myths and Sacred Cows
The Restoration of Our Cities and Towns
Norman W. Garrick
University of Connecticut

11. Gilbert’s 1909 plan to connect the train stationand
downtown

12. myth [mith]
any invented story, idea, or concept:
sacred cow
an
individual, organization, institution, etc., co
nsidered to be exempt from criticism or
questioning.

13. Myth 1
Traditional Cities are
Obsolete

15. 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.”

17. Source: Die DisziplinierungDerStadtModernerStadtebau in Zurich 1900 bis 1940 by Daniel Kurz

20. The Housing Act
of 1949

24. “Our success as a country
and as a species utterly
depends on the health and
wealth of the cities.”

25. “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.”

28. Myth 2
Networks are no longer
important
http://www.georgeglazer.com/maps/newengland/images/newhavenmap-det2.jpg

31. FHA Technical Bulletin No. 7 (1938)
Planning Profitable Neighborhoods

32. According to the FHA the
grid layout was
Monotonous
Had Little Character
Uneconomical
Posed Safety Concerns
?

33. California Cities Study of Street Networks
Twenty-four Cities

34. Risk of Severe Injury or Fatality*
versus
Chance of being Severely
Injured
30% Higher
Chance of being Killed
*Given that an injury occurred
50% Higher

35. 16
In 2005 the USA had
14 the highest traffic fatality rate of any OECD
Country
12
10
8
6
4
2

36. USA Traffic Fatality Rate
1970 to 2005
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

37. Changes in Traffic Fatality Rate
in 16 OECD Countries
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005

38. Percentage of People
Walking, Biking orTaking Transit
2% 1% 2%
9% 4% 9%

39. Odds of Dying in a Road Accident
based on Intersection Density*
1 in 200
1 in 500
*Given that an injury occurred

40. Percentage of People Walking, Biking orTaking Transit
Effect of Intersection Density for Gridded Network
10%
5%
0%
< 81 81-144 144-225 225+

41. Cities with a fine grained network of small streets were
much safer and also had more walking and biking

42. Street Networks are not the only important Networks in
Cities
For example, Network of
Neighborhoods

43. Myth 3
Good Transportation is
Fast Transportation

46. 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”

47. What is Transportation for?
The purpose of transportation is to
provide access to goods and people

48. Speed
Access =
Distance

49. Speed
Acces
s
=
Distance

50. Access to Pharmacies in Hartford
½ Mile

51. Access to Pharmacies in Washington, DC
½ Mile

52. In Cities, Speed Kills
Literally and figuratively!

53. Speed Kills
Chance of Pedestrian Fatality vs. Impact Speed
100
% Chance of Fatality
85
80
60
45
40
20
5
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Impact Speed (mph)
Source: U.K. Department of Transportation, Killing Speed and Saving Lives, London, 1987.

54. Speed Kills Urbanism

55. Streetcars: Great Access – Great Urban Compatibility

56. 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

57. Myth 4
Traffic is always growing and
we must accommodate it or
the city will come to a halt

58. Predict and Provide
Street 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.”

59. 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

60. Sufficient Parking a Must!
„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.‟
“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).

61. Growth of Parking in 4 New England Cities
Which city has prospered the most?
150000
125000
100000
75000
50000
25000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

62. Daytime Population
4 New England Cities
275000
250000
225000
200000
175000
150000
125000
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

63. Persons per Parking Space
4 New England Cities
7.00
5.00
Cambridge
3.00 Lowell
New Haven
Hartford
1.00
1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

64. Parking versus People
12 Cities Nationwide
12500
People* Density
9500
6500
3500
6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0
Parking* per person
* Based on daytime population

65. Parking versus People
12 Cities Nationwide
12500
People* Density
9500
6500
3500
6.0 9.0 12.0 15.0 18.0
Parking* per person
* Based on daytime population

66. The Benefit of Walking, Biking, Transit
12 Cities Nationwide
People* Density
12500
9500
6500
3500
10% 30% 50% 70%
Walking, Biking, Transit, At Home
* Based on daytime population

67. 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

68. Some Places Developed Transportation
Systems that Serve the City, Not the Other
Way Around
http://www.cycling-embassy.dk/2010/08/16/1803/

69. Planning in an Auto-Oriented World

70. Streetcars and Freeway Removal
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?

71. Norman W. Garrick
norman.garrick@gmail.edu
www.engr.uconn.edu/~garrick