Diversified Transportation: More then one benefits

http://www.realtor.org/articles/how-millennials-move-the-car-less-trends

"The question is whether, after a downtown fling, millennials will follow in their parents’ footsteps and purchase homes in the suburbs."

I think the article points to the already known fact that people want better access on all levels - cars, trains, bikes, foot. That's been a given trend in the last ten/twenty years. We've been dumping to much of our money into cars for years. (Which comes no where close to the gas tax we pay).

But the quote above is the best indication. I know from my experiences, people don't move from an urban area once they have kids. I know lots of people who say they will, but then they stay. Heck, I've always said if I have a kid we're moving to an urban environment. It diversify's your child... and they aren't left to play alone in that "huge back yard". I know I was not a fan of said backyard, and it was an ordeal to arrange play dates with any of my friends. I wasn't mobile until I had a car, which is very very sheltered. 

Unassuming Signs Ahead

As many of my previous posts have described, the LSU Lakes are a sad representation of our community... and there isn't a plan (to my knowledge, including FutureBR) to deal with the issues resolving access and overall quality. The assets of the lake span beyond the Parish boundaries, and the lakes are the first impression most people get entering LSU. Yet the paths barley resemble a reasonable resource to the people who utilize the lakes. This ranges from path conditions, path size, path marking etc.

Instead of dwelling on the overall picture, I wanted to just nachalatly point out the issues that arise when actually approaching one of these mysterious pedestrian/bike/vehicle crossings along the route.

First, lets review state law (which pretty much mimickes the Baton Rouge Code of Ordinances).

RS 32:212
§212. Pedestrians right-of-way in crosswalks
A. When traffic-control signals are not in place or not in operation, the driver of a vehicle shall stop and yield the right-of-way, to a pedestrian crossing the roadway within a crosswalk when the pedestrian is upon the roadway upon which the vehicle is traveling or the roadway onto which the vehicle is turning.

RS 32:212
§197. Riding on roadways and bicycle paths
A. Every person operating a bicycle upon a roadway shall ride as near to the right side of the roadway as practicable, exercising due care when passing a standing vehicle or one proceeding in the same direction, except under any of the following circumstances:

RS 32:232
(4) In the event an official traffic-control signal is erected and maintained at a place other than an intersection, the provisions of this Section shall be applicable except as to those provisions which by their nature can have no application. Any stop required shall be made at a sign or marking on the pavement indicating where the stop shall be made, but in the absence of any such sign or marking, the stop shall be made at the signal.

Now, take these into consideration, and study the photo below.

To me, this is the biggest cluster. Ever. What is a person to do.

If one is driving, it's almost impossible to figure out what's going on here. First, this is a regular, signalized intersection. Nothing out of the ordinary... except for all the yield right hand turn lanes. Cars coming from the south, turning east yield to cars coming from the north turning east. In practice, this usually never happens. Southbound turning cars will usually yield to northbound turning cars, completely against any road signage. Making for a huge distraction taking place. Does the northbound turning car proceed, even when the southbound turning car is stopping? Should it wait? Should it break the yield sign and go? It's a predicament, and all their attention is now focused on this "cluster"...

Then notice notice what is within just feet of this cluster yield? A clearly marked crosswalk. Thus cars are to yield (per state law) to pedestrians in the crosswalk. But notice what is signed along the pedestrian walkway - a stop sign. Also per state law, the pedestrian is now suppose to wait for the car and disregard the yield in the crosswalk. Yet, there is no indication to the vehicle that the pedestrian does not have the right-away in this situation. On the contrary, the car is suppose to yield to the left hand turner, and then yield to the pedestrian.

But wait, there is even more a more complex situation taking place. The sign also has a bicycle. No where in state or local law does a biker have right-of-way over a vehicle, especially in a made up "bicycle crosswalk". Yet the sign for the vehicle would make it seem as if this were the case. 

Thus a cluster.

Actually, I would be interested to know the amount of accidents that occur in this area. There are so many conflicting events that so much cautious needs to take place. Thus creating a situation that may be safer at the end of the day. 

This happens all over the place. A favorite portion of the lakes is a very, very small portion when the paths are divided between southbound ped/bike and north bound ped/bike on both sides of the road. 

As you can see, one side of the road has a glorified shoulder, while the other side of the road is a small path. Mind you, this division only happens for a short half mile (maybe). Meaning pedestrian and bikes are suppose to cross in the meaningless "crosswalks", which (as you can see above) has amazing signage and is positioned perfectly... if you want to die. So of course, no one actually abides by the below markings, and they just continue to use the paths as normal.

Portion of the LSU Lake Paths that only allow northbound and southbound pedestrian and bikes on each side of the roadway.

Of course, they divided the pedestrian and bikes because the path widths suck. Bikes and pedestrians are suppose to use this (maybe) five foot walking trial. Which is near already impossible  Don't let this picture fool you... this is the most heavily traveled pedestrian/bike way in the Parish (and an amazing asset to the region). Not only does it provide for a six mile ring, it also provides a connection to LSU from densly populated neighborhoods and the downtown. 

Also notice in the above picture all the conflicting signage and road markings. Two clearly defined pedestrian crosswalks. A flashing caution light. EVERYONE has a stop sign (pedestrians and vehicles). In fact, the pedestrian/bike path has a stop sign for southbound travelers, even though the pavement clearly marks that pedestrian and bikers should not be traveling southbound. Not to mention the fact cars are coming up one of Baton Rouge's only hills, on a turn, in a 40 mph zone. They will only see the pedestrian crosswalk a  few seconds beforehand... but not to worry, the pedestrians are suppose to stop (per state law signage), but the vehicles don't know that because it is clearly marked as a crosswalk (where they suppose to yield to pedestrians and not bikes).

Thus a cluster.

Urban Freeways v. Suburban Bypass

Building the final link along Louisiana's Coast

While I’m obviously a firm supporter of a diversified transportation system and feel like the interstate funding has far superseded anything beyond (what I thought) taxpayer reality; I don’t discount interstate development at all. It is an important backbone to our economy. That’s why I fully support the I-49 extension between Baton Rouge and New Orleans (currently I-90). I mean, this should have been the actual route of I-10 because it includes much of Louisiana’s coastal infrastructure. So I see I-49 as a fairly critical link in Louisiana infrastructure. Thus, Lafayette is dealing with the bypass/inner-city freeway predicament.  Which is better?

On one hand, no one has dealt with an inner city freeway very well. Some places try to make parks under or above, some places try to bury the entire length, and some places just don’t care. There isn’t one place in this country where people “enjoy” living near the interstate. All other transportation infrastructure doesn’t really bother residents. Boulevards, Riverways, rail tracks, elevated transit, bike paths, etc. But the constant hum of the freeway is almost imposable. In addition (when above ground) it creates a nasty divide no matter which neighborhood it’s located in (upper/middle/lower class). There are some examples of minor mitigation, but I don’t know of any citywide efforts.

This has started a national trend of highway removal in urban areas (starting with San Francisco then Boston, and now a slew of other cities). But in our day and age, limited access freeways have to go somewhere. There are some great case studies of surface streets handling mass amounts of traffic, but it would be almost impossible to rid of the “interstate” culture.

So where do you direct the traffic? To a bypass/loop/beltway? Time and time again, this has been proven hugely ineffective for urban development. Yes it moves traffic (just) OK, but it also relocates entire sections of the city. Zoning laws and limited access can prevent some of these things. But it still draws away from economic development because people will chose to bypass the city for their destination.

So Lafayette is kind of caught in the middle. Do you mitigate the inner-city freeway? Do you do they bypass the city? Do they try a boulevard pilot project that deviates from Federal Interstate standards? Honestly, Acadian Thruway functions really well. But a bypass might take too much away from economic development inside the city (while also being hugely expensive).

At least Lafayette is being creative; down the road, Baton Rouge has (not) decided to build a multi-hundred (maybe billion) dollar loop. At the end of the day, it’s completely infeasible, and not one study shows how this will assist in traffic, economic development, etc. (Yes, it will be nice that one time traffic sucks so a driver can take the bypass; but is that really worth a billion dollars?)

If it's not broken, lets try to break it

http://theadvocate.com/home/2195766-125/ex-councilman-fighting-for-club.html

This article has so many things wrong, it literally made me giddy. I really wish I would have been at the meeting to see if it really was portrayed this horribly.

First, I’m not one to call racism fast. But wow. It seems that no one at this meeting even tried to hide raciest undertones. The people are against the bar because of alcohol… but then go on to say it’s really about the low income neighborhood, and the guns, and gangs. Really? There are two bars in the area… but this one will be the breaking point? Yeah.

Then people are against the bar because it’s in a “low-income area”. I didn’t realize the public was the police on “low-incomes”. In a state where the social scene surrounds the neighborhood bar, we’re really going to start regulating bar location based on income stature? This is news to me.

Finally is the fact people are against the bar because it’s so close to the neighborhoods. Of course this is the logical place for bars to be located. I mean, in the 70’s and 80’s we started putting bars along highways and interstates… but discovered that was a bad idea; which is why all the most popular entertainment areas are adjacent to neighborhoods. In a state with a high drinking and driving problem, we’re still going to advocate bars being located away from residential areas?

So I’m going to pretend I’m a Planning Commissioner, and instead of assuming people go to bars solely to “put their AK 47’s in the front seat", I’m going to look at the context. There are several bars in the area, including one of the biggest dance bars in Baton Rouge. Another bar wants to move in next door. This actually seems like a good idea. A cluster of bars near an established neighborhood. However, there are problems: noise, traffic, and other nuisances that come from late night entertainment. This area (oddly) wasn’t identified originally as an entertainment district. But maybe we should study the idea of it becoming a district. Make it comprehensive. Increase security, provide parking, make neighborhood connections, allow for better street crossings, etc.

I mean, if the study says points to different conclusions then you have a basis for the denial. But the thing about this particular zoning request is not use. It's purely alcohol.The use is allowed; Baton Rouge just requires an extra step in the zoning law to serve alcohol. 

Again, I’m irked by the train of thought in Baton Rouge. There’s an automatic mindset to reject things instead to improve situations that already exist. 

A plan you say? Preposterous!

I'm incredibly syndical about the Baton Rouge "loop" project which emerged a few years ago. No American city builds loops anymore (bypasses, beltways, etc); and when they are discussed they get rejected by the community fast. Most are shot down because of NIMY’ism. Heck, one could say that Jane Jacobs was a NIMBY at the time.

But the difference between Jane Jacobs and NIMBY's are solution based. Just opposing something gets a city nowhere. Obviously Baton Rouge has a traffic problem. We lack citywide connectivity with little to no interstate alternatives through town. Solutions are needed (plural "solutions"). We need interstate improvements; we need surface street improvements; we need transit improvements. We need an overall plan.

(Caution: sarcasm ahead.)

Baton Rouge insist on paying more than less, and mostly because of an “us” vs. “them”. Transit users are either poor, can’t drive, or get some kind of high using “free services from the government”. Obviously these are the only reasons anyone would use transit. Thus "transportation planners" (um, engineers) argue for a one solution (a loop), instead of a comprehensive fix to the Baton Rouge traffic.

The funny thing is, transit is cheaper, fee based, and can transport more people. So I cringe when newspaper comment sections blow up when the transit system wants $18 million dollars, yet no one opposes an additional three mile lane on the interstate for the same amount (see the above articles). Because of course, one solution is the best. We continue to throw millions and millions of dollars at one solution without any results being produced. A city the size of Baton Rouge needs a plan with options. When I fly home I have several options (my parents live in the middle of nowhere, btw). I could take the commuter rail, Amtrak, MegaBus, or Greyhound… or my family could come pick me up and take interstates, toll roads, highways, etc. I’m not stuck. When I fly into New Orleans I have two options to get home. I park, or someone picks me up. Both options are not ideal. The sad thing is, New Orleans was once on a tier of Chicago or New York... and their infrastructure still reflects that tier to an extent.

So the Baton Rouge's transit system sucks. But our traffic infrastructure is almost worse. Heck, I-10 goes to one lane after exiting the Mississippi River Bridge. Then the interstate expands to three lanes, and finally five lanes in the suburbs. Since Baton Rouge already has a dysfunctional urban interstate, I don't even know why we are arguing a new bypass. We need to improve existing conditions. So when the state proposes an upgrade, we shouldn't just shoot down the idea. This is the time to fix and improve what's wrong. Millions of dollars will be thrown at an interstate project (because a highway will never be rejected by the 'fiscally responsible'), so take a bad situation and make it better for the surrounding communities. I find it funny when people say a wider interstate will “ruin” an area that initially gained its character because it’s under an interstate (Perkins Road underpass). 

Of course, other arguments need to be made. Many cities are tearing down urban highway. Baton Rouge's "plan" should have this scenario. Rerouting I-10 around Airline Highway might be feasible; or around Baton Rouge all together. Even if a complete reroute of I-10 wasn't feasible, upgrading Airline Highway and Florida Boulevard would be much smarter than building an entirely new loop. Airline Highway was "the loop". Why can't it still be the loop? I would assume the cost of upgrading the Airline Highway would be far less than a loop. (But I have to assume because not one study was done).

When someone wakes up one day and decides a loop will fix all the traffic problems, it doesn't make sense. I don't consider myself a genius, but I can come up with all sorts of scenarios that should be studied before dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into just one project. But I guess that's the "planner" coming out in me.

The core to education is the community

While not directly related to urban development, the recent plans for education in Louisiana have many ramifications to development both local and statewide. I guess I didn't truly understand the importance between education and community development until I moved to Louisiana. I may have grown up in a rural, poverty setting. But public education was very important. I now live in the inner part of Baton Rouge, and would hesitate sending my children to private schools (or risking a lottery for a charter school). Thus my suburban job makes me realize why people still move to the suburbs with children.

My overall thoughts about the governor's proposal would create a huge education gap between haves and have nots; all while getting rid of public education in general. But that’s more my political view coming from a family of public school teachers. From an urban development view, education needs to be tackled at the core. Louisiana has a huge income, poverty, and racial divide. These factors run deep in Louisiana and create unstable communities, and thus unstable families. The failing points in our schools aren’t generally teachers, it’s the overall situation. A child's environment is directly related to their performance. The blame can be thrown back on the parents that they “aren’t working hard enough”, or “just want hand outs”, etc, etc, etc… but even in the rare case this is true, why is that the child’s fault. 

Nor is the problem embedded in the school buildings and teachers performance. Blaming teachers is the last thing we want to do.  That will just encourage the good ones to leave the state. All while allowing private schools to pick and choose which students they can accept; leaving behind a massive group. In the last fifty years Louisiana went from a strong state social system, to a very weak social system. State run colleges are so underfunded that we have no prestigious state school. Our healthcare system is dumping the uninsured. Our infrastructure is failing badly. Yet we have this new culture of “no government is good government”. Thus the state government has underfunded all these programs which is the foundation to our state’s economy. Education already has a history of non-importance in the state. All while the school’s are still recovering from segregation of less than fifty years ago. That problem in itself doesn't go away overnight (although a good portion of society seems to think it did).

Thus there is a huge list of problems that need to be tackled. It’s complicated. If it was easy, previous governors would have done it a long time ago. Heck, the solutions in the plan aren’t even revolutionary. The action steps are the same ones conservatives have been touting for years (where are the results?).  Our governor is just getting on board? In his second term? The plan needs to be revolutionary, not the same. There needs to be community based plans in place like Detroit. Plans at the community and family level within the school areas. Instead, the government is just saying “we failed”, and now if your special enough we will try and fix the problem. Assuming all the pieces fall into place – like, is there room at the school you want to attend? Can you provide transportation to that school? Are your parents willing to partake in your life? There are so many unknowns. Yet the governor says that his solution is “easy” and “cheaper”?

Meanwhile, our inner cities continue to drain like it's the 1980's. Leaving behind neighborhoods segregated-era created neighborhoods. Our past history requires the state to focus on the many social aspects of education. Not just the infrastructure within the school.

Coordinated Efforts

I’m not a huge sports fan, so I never really follow the process of the host city for the Super Bowl. So when Indianapolis was selected, it was my first opportunity to watch the events unfold. I haven’t lived in Indiana for over five years. But during my last year at home I worked in our university’s planning office in downtown Indianapolis, which is when we began working on things related to the stadium. Now that the Super Bowl has passed, I’m beginning to read articles about the public investment of a stadium; basically boiling down the pros and cons to spending a lot of money for little return. Typically I agree on these sort of things. But the way Indianapolis handled the event was completely different. While the city may have used the Super Bowl to sell the idea to the public, they were thinking long term when implementing all the projects.

When the City first announced the new Colts stadium it wasn’t all about “the stadium”. Sure they used the Super Bowl for the publicity side of getting the actual stadium approved. But several things were unfolding at the time. Most notably the site of the stadium would initially expand the urban area of downtown south of the railroad tracks (which made a physical barrier). The downtown Indianapolis plan breaks the city into the four quadrants originally planned back in the 1800’s. The new Colts stadium is located within the southwest quadrant, and has a focus for the tourist portion of downtown. This quadrant includes four sports stadiums, the convention center, the museum district, and the transportation hub; with a residential population being supported by the adjacent university. Thus the new stadium would only strengthen the areas intent, and the new design guidelines being implemented during this time would ensure everything else would fall into place.

In addition to building the stadium, the city created some robust infrastructure plans both citywide and downtown. This included a brand new terminal at the Indianapolis airport, expansion of interstate capacity, and the Indy Connect transit plan. Unfortunately, the Indy Connect was the only plan not pushed through. But, as a side note, it is still being worked and will probably succeed.

Downtown, the city expanded their bike and pedestrian lanes, and interconnected them with the vast system citywide system. Anchoring pedestrian activity downtown, and coinciding with the recent expansion to MegaBus, Greyhound, and Amtrak services to Chicago/Cincinnati/Louisville/Nashville.

So when the Super Bowl was announced, the city went into full swing to continue the urbanization of downtown. One has to remember that ten years ago downtown Indianapolis was considered a small mid-western town, with the notorious nickname of Naptown. Once the Super Bowl was announced, the city had three years to ensure the nickname would not reemergence.  And it did't. 

So the article that relates the stadium building to just one event is way off (in my very humble opinion), because so much more happened; and those investments will continue past the Super Bowl. I’m sure if Indianapolis “made money” from the Super Bowl. However, they made great strides as a city, and were able to showcase it to the world.

Then. I read this article. Oh New Orleans, why… I realize they have upgraded stadium, and have added Champion Square nearby, but otherwise there seems to never be a coordinated effort for major events. Are they planning on having the street cars installed prior to the event? What about projects from the Master Plan which can be expedited – infrastructure, art, programs?  Instead of taking the city’s status of a tourist city for granted, the city needs to start elevating themselves when they get the chance.

After watching the coordinated approach in Indianapolis, it’s disheartening to watch New Orleans keep taking things for granted.

The Parking Situation

Taking Parking Lots Seriously as Public Spaces - New York Times, January 6, 212

I know I've blogged about how parking lot layout is ridiculous. Given the fact current development puts so much importance to the parking (by providing an abundance); yet design is always the least of the concern. Retailers are focusing more and more attention on the "user experience". Well, user experience inside the store. Other than some minor tweaks to their outside appearance, the development community is not focused on street side appearance. At least in suburban Louisiana (development nation wide is trending away from this mindset).

In our auto-oriented state, everyone will be using a car. This means everyone will be parking in the parking lot and walking to the "front door". The parking lot itself is the first impression of a business. The car approaches the site, maneuvers the parking lot, then leaves the car to walk to the front door. This entire experience is usually horrific (to say the least). The bulky store, ugly sign, and poorly signed parking lot makes the experience unsafe to say the least. Then the motorist exits the car and transports themselves through the exact climate they drove through. Usually confusing, unsafe, and overall boring. Why do retailers make this a practice? I mean, once in the store huge amounts of details are incorporated into the design. From product placement, to advertising, to store layout, to design. There is more research done on your shopping experience then you will ever know. Yet, they don't really care about you until you enter the actual store. (Even though your experience is halfway over at that point.

That brings me to Towne Center in Baton Rouge. The shopping center was built in the middle of the older city, with a very strong client base. Mostly upscale stores, with lots of attention paid to attractiveness. Yet the parking lot is beyond ridiculous. Given the shopping center is set up to appear pedestrian friendly (i.e. lifestyle center), the pedestrian is give the last thought in all aspects. As a first time visitor I assumed it was pedestrian oriented. Yet it is impossible to store hope without crossing the parking lot. A parking lot that has few pedestrian paths (and absolutely no painted crosswalks). In fact, normal traffic flow is encouraged along the storefronts. By normal traffic flow, I mean the clueless driver trying to find a parking spot in a sea of a confusing layouts. The massive amount of parking makes it that much more confusing for the car - and encourages people to store hop with their car. All of this just makes me wonder why? A massive shopping center located in urban Baton Rouge should be extremely pedestrian oriented. Instead, all visitors are drivers who store hop in their car. It makes me extremely sad that a huge opportunity was wasted.

And yet, this mind set trickles down into the mindset of the older businesses in Mid City. Government Street, of course, is the prime example. Every single city in the United States have created amazing urban centers in their older neighborhoods. They are pedestrian oriented, while still allowing the car. This creates an amazing street life, and does nothing but escalates the sense of place. Yet Government Street businesses seem more concerned with parking then their actual business plan. Why do businesses sacrifice their appearance for the suburban parking influences? Gaining two or three parking spots in front of their store, while completely ruining the appearance of the area.

All of this is drenched in the suburban ideals (well, the twentieth century ideal). Mid-City drivers expect a parking spot in front of the store, even if it's easier to park on the street or adjacent to the store. In fact, it's more difficult to park in front of businesses along Government Street because of the foreseen "convenience"; which isn't anymore "convenient".

Because of this, Government Street still holds to the ideal of suburban parking lot standards, as stated in the article. Even though the density is well beyond an urban place.

By comparing the urban and suburban parking situation in Baton Rouge, two things need to be done. Mid City (and even downtown) need to move beyond the perception of parking convenience. It may seem like a petty issue, but the parking lot (as the article states) has become a huge public space in the last five years. While yes we do need to pay a lot more detail to the design because of the importance, we also need to evaluate how the need for each and every space that is provided. Government Street is extremely unattractive; and only because of the parking situation. By eliminating some of those space, redesigning the storefronts, and putting more thought in circulation; the street can put more focus on street life. Which would create a more desirable space that could be utilize day and night. Increasing the viability of the district.

And the suburbs will have their business from the car, the parking lot is crucial to their survival. If a stores parking lot is empty, it give a perceived appearance that no one is there. Creating a better designed parking lot will achieve a greater dynamic to the business climate. It just makes sense in today's market place.

Midwest Rail Lives! Work Underway in Four States
http://dc.streetsblog.org/2012/01/05/midwest-rail-lives-work-underway-in-four-states/

I've fallen off the blog since the holidays. Then this article forced me back because it coincided with my trip back home. I mean, a Chicago transit hub is growing fast. Which is - by the way - awesome.

When I go home, I like to fly into Chicago; especially right before Christmas. The one thing I hate living in the south is car dependency. Don't get me wrong, other than a semester in London, I've never been completely car-less. But at least in the Chicago area (and Great Lakes in general) there are options. I had a daily Amtrak train to Chicago that, be-it, never ran on time, and took forever; but for $20 I was downtown.

Thus my flight into Chicago commenced an entire week of car-free-ness. Ironically, I read an article on the plan announcing funds for the Detroit-Chicago and Davenport-Chicago rail line. Adding to the all-ready-under-construction, St. Louis line. Thus creating a pretty substantial hub in the midwest, especially with the combination of existing low-speed lines.

Yet... they aren't high speed. Maximum speeds at 110mph are no where near fast. It's literally 20th century 'stuff'. It's not horrible. When I was on the train from Milwaukee to Chicago, I clocked our pace at a steady  80mph. Which its still faster and more convenient than a plane of car.

What's even more awesome is that a Chicago hub will actually work. Florida gave up their funding; California is struggling with their funding; and the South received no funding... but I can't say I'm sad. Other than the east coast, Chicago is the only major cities where a good portion of the population doesn't have a car. Thus people need an option to leave the city... not just getting around the city.

Heck this already shows. Megabus entered the market (and was heavily used on my trip from Chicago to Indianapolis). Greyhound Express has also taken on an extensive hub in Chicago. The amount and frequency of these services identifies the need. A train line that would travel twice as fast would create even better access.

It makes me excited. Especially since the ease of access will trickle down into smaller markets (ah-hmm) Indianapolis, which grows better and better each time I visit. But I'll blog about that later.