Floor Area Ratios

 

By Dom Nozzi

“Floor Area Ratio” (FAR) is a commonly used land development regulation for nearly all communities. The ratio specifies how tall a building can be, or how much of the parcel the building can be built on, based on the size of the parcel to be developed.

An FAR of 1.0, for example, allows the developer to build a one-story building that covers the entire parcel, a two-story building covering half of the parcel, or a four-story building covering 25 percent of the parcel.

Commonly, citizen groups in town center locations urge their elected officials to keep FARs extremely low to “protect” the neighborhood for “excessive” densities or intensities. However, I do not believe that FAR rules that are deemed “too high” should be a concern for neighborhoods seeking a walkable, quality habitat for humans (assuming this is an objective).

Walkability and transit advocates correctly note that FARs that are too low result in loss of human scale, loss of densities and intensities needed to support transit, and loss of walkability (because low FARs often result in excessive building setbacks and huge parking lots).

FARs provide very little, if any, guidance about what sort of positive vision is sought by the community.

In my opinion, a much better approach than urging low FARs (which is essentially a negative approach saying here is what the developer must not do) is to set out a graphics-based vision for what is considered desirable examples of compatibility. Hopefully, such examples would include compact, human-scaled, charming, traditional, lovable, walkable designs.

Modernist designs tend to emphasize low densities, huge setbacks, excessive building heights, flat walls and excessive (often reflective) glass without ornamentation, and bizarre features that create obnoxious, context-violating “look-at-me” design—instead of a building that fits into the context and fabric of the nearby buildings. A pattern book is a good example of what I find desirable, as are “form-based codes.”

Lobbyists for car-dependent, sprawl-inducing design tend to be enormous advocates for keeping FARs low, because that provides more space for space-hogging cars, and reduces residential densities and commercial intensities (an indirect, counterproductive way to reduce the number of cars on the road). Indeed, in car-happy America, most all of our communities suffer from too much space (mostly taken up by parking, roads, & private building setbacks). For a more lovable, charming community design, space should be made more modest. More “human-scaled.” Not, as sprawl advocates seek, “car-scaled.”

Tools to create charming, compatible, lovable design: Higher FARs coupled with a positive, graphics-based vision. (“Here is what we desire.” Rather than “Here is what you cannot do.”)

Tragically, many well-meaning community activists counterproductively urge such things as low densities or low FARs or large setbacks or lots of parking in town center locations. There are at least two important reasons why this is so often done:

First, for approximately 80 years, developers and designers have abandoned the tradition of designing for people-happy, traditional places. Instead, the imperative is to design for happy cars, which creates unlovable, scary places. Given this, it is understandable that we always expect new development to worsen our communities, and decide that the only thing we can do is to adopt strict rules telling designers what they CANNOT do. We cannot trust them to give us lovable design, given their horrendous track record since the 1920s.

Second, many of these activists are thinking as motorists rather than as citizens. Too often, they ask “What design will be most convenient for my Ford”? Ruinously, the design desires of cars are nearly opposite of the desires of people.

Richard Untermann, a well-known urban designer, calls for FARs of 2.0-3.0 in town centers, and 3.0 for office areas.  San Diego requires at least 0.5 FAR near bus stations.  To increase employment densities, Orlando requires both a minimum and maximum FAR for most commercial zoning.  However, a FAR of 1.0-2.0 is considered ideal for creating transportation choices, yet most cities allow less FAR than this in town centers.  Every 20 percent increase in floor space in commercial centers developed as non-office uses is associated with a 4.5 percent increase in ride sharing and transit use.

Small villages using compact, charming, human-scaled design are almost universally loved, and end up being the most popular destination for a great many tourists around the world. Americans are often their own worst enemies by urging that such design should be made illegal. That all we should allow is low-density, drivable suburban design.

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

The Need for Rail-Banking

By Dom Nozzi

It has been common in recent decades for railroad rights of way to be abandoned by railroad companies. Many communities have seized this opportunity to convert such abandonments to “rail-trails” that serve the recreational and utilitarian needs of bicyclists and pedestrians.

“Rail-banking” should be considered an effort that works in tandem with the creation of rail-trails. The term refers to what I believe is the desirable effort to retain the linear integrity and value of a railroad right-of-way (ROW) corridor for future (probably inevitable) use as a restored, active railroad line.

I am convinced that the American rail system will be restored to its former glory as a passenger and freight system—particularly as car and truck travel becomes increasingly dysfunctional with the inevitable rise in the price of gasoline. When that happens, formerly abandoned rail ROW corridors will become immensely valuable, because the cost of assembling such corridors from scratch will be enormous.

In the “interim” period we are in right now, abandoned rail ROW is not much in demand for rail restoration. Such corridors are therefore often in great danger of being lost forever by adjacent property owners buying back the ROW that they used to own in the past. When that happens (which, throughout the nation, has been often), the corridor ROW “integrity” and value has been mostly lost, because it can be extremely costly to buy back such pieces to restore the ROW corridor. Often, loss of pieces of the ROW means the corridor has been lost forever as a corridor.

Rail “banking,” then, is an effort to use such abandoned ROW corridors as recreational trails so that they are protected from being bought back, piece by piece, by adjacent land owners.

In the future, this recreational ROW corridor can be restored as an active rail line. In some cases, that would mean that the recreational function has been lost, to allow the corridor to be used by trains again (and I’m mostly okay with that). In the best case scenario, though, the corridor can become a rail WITH trail that allows active train use to co-exist with recreational trail use that typically is moved to run next to the rail line.

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Bicyclist Safety and Recruiting New Bicyclists: Are Bicycle Helmets Counterproductive?

By Dom Nozzi

I joined a bicycling and walking board of directors in 2008 because I was no longer able to tolerate the annual carnage of bicyclists and pedestrians killed on roads throughout the nation. For example, in 2007, 698 bicyclists were killed and 43,000 were injured in traffic crashes in America. That same year, 4,654 pedestrians were killed and 70,000 were injured in traffic crashes.

I joined the board because I am impatient with how bicycle and pedestrian advocacy organizations have muddled along without showing any meaningful progress with regard to their two prime objectives: Growing the number of bicyclists and pedestrians, and dramatically improving bicyclist and pedestrian safety.

I joined the board because I presume that bicycling and walking organizations are interested in showing the courage, wisdom and leadership to break out of this unfortunate pattern of having very little to show for its efforts to grow bicyclists and pedestrians, or improve their safety. To take measures that are effective in achieving larger numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians, and substantially improving their safety.

With that introduction to what I have to say below, I humbly suggest the following recommendations:

Four Important Conclusions:

I have a master’s degree in city planning. My master’s thesis was bicycle transportation. In addition, I have been a daily bicycle commuter in several cities for over 30 years.

I have realized four important things in recent years with regard to bicycling and walking:

1. That true safety for bicyclists comes from low-speed street design (I’ve long known this), and Safety in Numbers (SiN). Recent studies have shown the effectiveness of SiN as a safety tactic (see citation below and links at end of this essay).

2. That nearly all state and local bicycle advocacy groups are undercutting their (presumably) prime objective of recruiting new bicyclists by obsessively, aggressively pushing bike helmet use.

3. That SiN is perhaps one of the most effective ways to achieve increased bicyclist safety, which means that bicycle advocates must start identifying and deploying the most effective bicyclist recruitment tactics to improve safety. Later in this essay, I provide my own personal list of what I believe are such tactics.

4. That large numbers of bicyclists effectively create a virtuous cycle: Lots of bicyclists means much safer bicycling conditions. The improved safety due to the large numbers of bicyclists sends the message that bicycling is safe (many who say they don’t bicycle say so because biking is thought to be too dangerous). And with large numbers of bicyclists, bicycling seems normal, not weird. These factors, in turn, recruit non-bicyclists—who formerly feared bicycling dangers and worried about looking weird—to start bicycling. Which adds more bicyclists to the community. Which makes bicycling safer and more normalized. And so on…

Of course, an additional, important benefit of successfully recruiting and maintaining large numbers of bicyclists in a community is that doing so inevitably sets in motion the political will to improve bicycling and walking conditions in the community transportation system—in particular, by slowing and narrowing streets, and creating more bicycle lanes, sidewalks, paths, and connectors.

Effective and Essential Tactics to Recruit New Bicyclists (and Pedestrians)

In my humble opinion, this is a list of the most effective and essential tactics to induce bicycling & walking, roughly in order of effectiveness…

• Scarce & priced car parking
• Proximity (via mixed use and higher residential densities)
• Relatively high gas prices (via a gas tax)
• Short block lengths and connected streets
• Slow speed street design (via attentive rather than forgiving street design)
• Converting one-way streets back to two-way streets
• Keeping all urban streets and intersections modest in size. Or, if already too large in size, reduced in size (road dieted travel lane reduction). Widening projects, especially those done in the name of safety or capacity, are opposed. Wider roads and intersections are among the biggest deterrents to walking and cycling.
• Full-time staff assigned to bicycling and pedestrian commuting
• Create the perception: Bicycling and walking is safe, pleasant, hip, convenient, and time-saving
• Create and preserve human scale in building, street and community size
• Create retail and residential vibrancy (and 24-Hour Activity)
• Create a comprehensive, community-wide system of off-street paths along rivers and rail/utility rights-of-way. Doing so is an effective way to recruit and provide training for non-bicyclists.

 Bike lanes and sidewalks are conspicuously absent from this list because while I believe they are a vital way to convey the important message that the community is bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly, I do not believe such facilities, alone, induce a meaningful increase in “utilitarian” (commuter) bicycling and walking.

 

Safety in Numbers

 “Safety in Numbers” needs to be promoted and leveraged as one of the most effective means of improving bicyclist and pedestrian safety, and thereby substantially reduce the appalling number of annual bicyclist and pedestrian deaths.

 Safety in numbers creates a herd mentality: With large numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians, these forms of travel are seen as safe, hip, and normal. “If everyone else is doing it (including ‘normal-looking people’), there is no reason why I shouldn’t give it a try, too.”

 When there are large numbers of bicyclists and pedestrians using streets on a regular basis, motorists are more likely to expect to see bicyclists and pedestrians. Expectation improves safety, in part because surprise is reduced. In addition, when motorists commonly see in-street bicycle lanes, crosswalks and sidewalks being used by bicyclists and pedestrians, the motorist learns how to drive more safely near bicyclists and pedestrians.

 In an article entitled “Safety in numbers: more walkers and bicyclists, safer walking and bicycling,” (Jacobsen, P.L., Injury Prevention 2003;9:205–209), the abstract of the paper noted the following:

 “Objective: To examine the relationship between the numbers of people walking or bicycling and the frequency of collisions between motorists and walkers or bicyclists. The common wisdom holds that the number of collisions varies directly with the amount of walking and bicycling. However, three published analyses of collision rates at specific intersections found a non-linear relationship, such that collisions rates declined with increases in the numbers of people walking or bicycling.

Data: This paper uses five additional data sets (three population level and two time series) to compare the amount of walking or bicycling and the injuries incurring in collisions with motor vehicles.

Results: The likelihood that a given person walking or bicycling will be struck by a motorist varies inversely with the amount of walking or bicycling. This pattern is consistent across communities of varying size, from specific intersections to cities and countries, and across time periods.

Discussion: This result is unexpected. Since it is unlikely that the people walking and bicycling become more cautious if their numbers are larger, it indicates that the behavior of motorists controls the likelihood of collisions with people walking and bicycling. It appears that motorists adjust their behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling. There is an urgent need for further exploration of the human factors controlling motorist behavior in the presence of people walking and bicycling.

Conclusion: A motorist is less likely to collide with a person walking and bicycling if more people walk or bicycle. Policies that increase the numbers of people walking and bicycling appear to be an effective route to improving the safety of people walking and bicycling.”

 

“Normalizing” instead of “Dangerizing”

 It is important to soft-pedal helmets and lycra clothing for city bicycle commuters. Helmets and lycra discourage non-cyclists from becoming bicyclists. They promote the perception that bicycling is dangerous and weird, not normal. Overly zealous bicycle helmet promotion visibly promotes the “dangerization” of bicycling (a term coined by Michael Ronkin), which is the last thing that a community should do when it seeks to increase the number of bicyclists.

 We know from studies that in low-speed environments, the chance of a bicyclist landing on his or her head is vanishingly small. We also know that in Europe, where bicycle riding is much higher and bicycle helmets are almost never used, bicyclist head injuries are much smaller than they are in the US.

 Furthermore, bicycle helmets provide much less protection against head injuries than is assumed. Helmeted bicyclists are therefore often bicycling with a false sense of security. At least one study has found that motorists drive closer to bicyclists wearing a helmet, and there is speculation that helmets encourage more risk-taking by the bicyclist.

 Finally, helmets discourage the large percentage of us who are “fashion-conscious” or who seek convenience. Why? Let’s be honest: Helmets make one look dorky. They create “helmet hair.” And they are inconvenient (how do you carry it or find a place for it in an office, restaurant or store?). Given the inconvenience of bicycling compared to driving, why add to the burden with a helmet?

 It is appropriate, of course, to support and encourage wearing lycra and a bicycle helmet for off-road trail riding and long-distance, higher speed road riding, as long as the safety limits of helmet use are understood.

 Bicyclists, AS INDIVIDUALS, are probably safer when wearing a helmet. But given the above, if we were to look at the life safety of an entire community or nation, we would almost certainly find that this GROUP of people, overall, would be safer if we did NOT require or aggressively push use of a bike helmet.

 

Recommended Bicycle (and Pedestrian) Advocacy Positions to Promote Safety in Numbers (i.e., to significantly grow the number of bicyclists and pedestrians)

 

1.  Our advocacy group recommends that communities provide car parking efficiently rather than excessively, and that on-street car parking be priced to provide an occupancy rate of approximately 85 percent during busy times of day or night. [Shoup has persuasively pointed out that underpriced, excessive parking is the largest subsidy in America. A subsidy that strongly promotes excessive car trips, and significantly discourages bicycling and walking. The parking subsidy also inequitably increases the cost of goods and services that non-motorists must pay to help subsidize parking costs. Perhaps the most effective and feasible tactic to end car parking subsidies is to employ “parking cash-out,” where the employee is given the option of retaining a free parking space, or getting a larger paycheck. Similarly, new residences, when feasible, should have the cost of parking “unbundled” from the cost of the housing so that the home-buyer has the option to pay more for parking, or pay less and not have parking. Excessive, inefficient, inappropriately located surface parking also consumes an enormous amount of space and creates unwalkably large dead zones, which undercuts the essential goal of proximity.]
2. Our advocacy group recommends that proximity to travel distances be promoted by strongly encouraging communities to create abundant mixed use areas (housing mixed with commercial land uses) and, where appropriate, higher residential densities. [Planning studies show that the low densities and single-use land use patterns in most of America create enormous travel distances — distances that make regular, utilitarian bicycling and walking impractical for nearly all Americans.]
3. Our advocacy group recommends that the State and Federal Government adopt relatively high gas prices via a gas tax, and that this tax be automatically inflation-adjusted. [Artificially low, subsidized gas prices strongly promote excessive car trips and create a highly inequitable economic situation in which non-motorists must help pay for roadway costs (through such things as property & sales taxes) necessitated by motorists.]
4. Our advocacy group recommends that communities require relatively short block lengths and relatively connected streets through their land development codes. [Urban designers have found that one of the most effective ways to promote walking and bicycling is to keep block lengths short and streets connected. The added benefit is that car speeds tend to be lower in residential and retail areas.]
5. Our advocacy group recommends that state and local governments design town center and neighborhood streets for low speeds by incorporating traffic calming, road diets, and attentive rather than forgiving street design. [Too often, street design standards and an excessive number of travel lanes unintentionally encourage high-speed, inattentive driving in inappropriate locations such as neighborhoods and retail areas. Such driving is extremely dangerous and discouraging for bicyclists and pedestrians.]
6. Our advocacy group recommends that local and state government avoid creating one-way streets in the future, and convert existing one-way back to two-way streets. [One-way streets strongly promote higher-speed, inattentive, impatient driving. They therefore not only create dangerous conditions for bicyclists and pedestrians, but they harm abutting retail & residential, and create inconvenience for motorists, bicyclists and pedestrians.]
7. Our advocacy group recommends keeping all streets and intersections modest in size. When streets contain an excessive, high-speed, and unsafe number of travel lanes, such streets should be reduced in size (road dieted travel lane removal). Widening projects, especially those done in the name of safety or capacity, should be avoided. [Wider, multi-lane roads and intersections are among the biggest deterrents to walking and bicycling.]
8. Our advocacy group recommends that local governments hire full-time staff assigned to bicycling and pedestrian commuting and recreation. [Traffic engineers who are assigned to motor vehicle travel management typically have insufficient time or interest to devote to bicycling and walking design.]
9. Our advocacy group recommends that to the extent allowable by liability management, that bicycle helmets and lycra be soft-pedaled for city bicycle commuters, rather than “dangerizing” bicycle commuting by aggressively urging the use of helmets. [Our advocacy group continues to support the voluntary use of helmets for commuter bicyclists but wishes to promote overall safety for all bicycle commuters by promoting safety in numbers, and take the position that helmets are not the first line of defense for bicycle commuter safety. We know that one of the most common reasons given for not wanting to bicycle is that it is “too dangerous.” Why, therefore, would a bicycle advocacy group wish to profoundly undercut a prime objective of recruiting new bicyclists by constantly requiring helmet use? Helmets undermine recruitment because they send a loud and clear message: “Bicycling is very dangerous! You are wise not to bicycle because you might get killed!”]
10. Our advocacy group recommends that local and state government establish a statewide network of off-road bicycle and pedestrian greenway trails, in part by getting “more bang for the buck” through the creation of mulit-use paths along water bodies, utility easements and rail rights-of-way. Our advocacy group recognizes that greenways and rail-trails are important gateway “training grounds” for novice bicyclists and others who are not confident, skilled bicyclists. Our advocacy group also strongly supports the conversion of abandoned rail rights of way to recreational trails, and the use of “rail banking.”

 

Summary: Promoting Bicycling and Walking  

 I strongly believe that one of the top issues—if not THE top issue—for bicycle and pedestrian advocacy groups is to grow the number of commuter bicyclists and pedestrians.

 We all know the many benefits of doing that: Environmental, economic, social, quality of life, etc.

 Additionally, I am convinced that there is another huge benefit to significantly growing the number of bicyclists and pedestrians. A benefit that is usually overlooked. A large number of bicyclists and pedestrians in a community is an extremely powerful way to improve SAFETY for bicyclists and pedestrians (and the motorists who are now not driving as much). In other words, “safety in numbers.”

 Richard Florida, in The Rise of the Creative Class, comes to the important conclusion in his studies that a community with a large number of bicyclists, joggers and pedestrians is a powerful economic engine. So a community needs to look at the growth of bicycling and walking as a crucial way to improve the local economy.

 Given this, I believe that an essential, perhaps overriding advocacy position for bicycle/pedestrian advocacy groups is to advocate those tactics that are most effective in inducing large numbers of citizens to become bicycle and pedestrian commuters.

 There are effective tactics to increase the number of bicyclists and pedestrians, and I have outlined those above.

 “Safety in Numbers” needs to be promoted and leveraged. Large numbers of bicyclists creates a herd mentality: when non-bicyclists see lots of fellow citizens bicycling, they are increasingly likely to join the herd. They are more likely to identify with bicyclists (rather than seeing them as annoying, in-my-way weirdos). When there are a lot of bicyclists, bicycling is more likely to be seen as safe, hip, and normal.

 The large number of bicyclists and pedestrians in Boulder, Colorado provides an excellent example of this.

  Consequently, there is an additional, important tactic: Soft-pedal helmets and lycra for city commuters. Helmets and lycra discourage bicycling and promote the perception that bicycling is dangerous and weird, not normal.

 Note that I strongly encourage helmet use and lycra for off-road trail riding and long-distance, higher speed road riding. I also respect and admire those who currently commute wearing a helmet.

 I’m not suggesting that helmet use should be discouraged. I simply believe that as an organization, advocacy groups needs to turn down the volume on aggressively promoting bike helmets for low-speed urban bicycle commuting.”

 Otherwise, the organization will be undercutting this important advocacy objective of growing the number of bicyclists and pedestrians.

 To effectively improve bicyclist safety, we need scarce/priced car parking, higher densities, attentive/shared/low-speed streets, mixed uses, proximity, high-cost gas, priced roads, and converting one-way streets to two-way.

 Effective safety improvements come not only from reduced motor vehicle speeds (due to calmed, shared, attentive streets), but also, importantly, from “safety in numbers.” Given how important I believe “safety in numbers” is for increasing bicyclist and pedestrian safety, those interested in dramatically improving bicyclist and pedestrian safety must urge the use of effective bicyclist and pedestrian inducement tactics.

Important essays I recommend regarding bicycle helmets and safety…

http://www.daclarke.org/AltTrans/helmyths.html

http://www.bicyclinglife.com/SafetySkills/SafetyQuiz.htm

http://www.onestreet.org/resources-for-increasing-bicycling/136-bicycle-helmets

http://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=46B9E06D-FC8E-9007-E864EF0B7227869B

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Which VA Governor’s Candidate Can Best Manage Congestion?

By Dom Nozzi

Can we widen our way out of congestion?

Discussion in the VA Governor’s race in the Fall of 2009 centered on which candidate can find money to reduce congestion. While Virginia does need lots of money to repair and maintain roads, doing so does little, if anything, to reduce congestion. The implication, then, is that new money is needed to widen roads.

However, studies have shown for decades that widening merely attracts new car trips, and the congestion returns almost overnight. Widening also bankrupts government and households, promotes sprawl, deadens town centers, increases car dependence, and degrades safety and quality of life.

It becomes a vicious cycle.

No, effectively managing congestion comes from economics, not more asphalt: toll roads, priced parking, pay-at-the-pump car insurance, priced lanes, and gas taxes, to name a few. These tactics put money into government coffers (to improve public transit – particularly trains), reduce sprawl, promote compact development and wean us from excessive car use.

Let’s not be our own worst enemy. The next VA governor needs to leverage economics, not bigger (and ruinous) roads.

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

 Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Blaming Bicyclists and Pedestrians

By Dom Nozzi

I am thoroughly convinced — particularly in cities — that if we are to experience any meaningful improvement in bicyclist and pedestrian safety (i.e., a long-term, meaningful reduction in crashes), it is very important to emphasize the significant role played by dangerously high average speeds by motorists — especially inattentive motorists. From my point of view, that means that the most effective safety tactics come from a very strong emphasis on traffic calming, and a strong call for streets to move away from the exceptionally counter-productive “forgiving street design” paradigm (which is responsible for a great deal of excessive speeding and inattentive driving).

One hundred years ago, Americans almost universally blamed motor vehicles for crashes, and there were strong calls to force lower motor vehicle speeds. It was considered an outrage and a violation of citizen rights to insist that pedestrians cross at crosswalks. Nearly all parents felt their kids had a right to play in streets, and were angry that high-speed motor vehicles were denying that right.

Indeed, in strong contrast to today, police reports 100 years ago nearly always blamed motorists rather than bicyclists & pedestrians for crashes. This is despite the fact that if anything, bicyclists and pedestrians behave much more safely today.

I believe we should return to those attitudes. And consider the current high-speed and inattentive motoring situation to be something we, as a civilized society, cannot tolerate.

Effective safety improvements come not only from reduced motor vehicle speeds (due to calmed, shared, attentive streets), but also, importantly, from “safety in numbers.” Given how important I believe “safety in numbers” is for increasing bicyclist and pedestrian safety, those interested in dramatically improving bicyclist and pedestrian safety must urge the use of effective bicyclist and pedestrian inducement tactics.

In other words, to really improve safety, we need scarce/priced car parking, higher densities, attentive/shared/low-speed streets, mixed uses, proximity, high-cost gas, priced roads, and converting one-way to two-way.

How many bicyclist and pedestrian safety advocates use or advocate these tactics? How successful have conventional bicyclist and pedestrian safety tactics been over the past several decades in the US?

While research is an important way to get a handle on crash details, an enormous problem we have is that such research needs to rely heavily on police reports regarding crashes. As we know, such reports tend to be highly unreliable as to cause of crash and who is responsible. If we compared today’s police reports for crashes with police reports from 100 years ago, there would be a stark difference in causes and responsibility.

It seems to me that a paradigm shift is necessary before we can rely on such things as police reports.

I think American roads would be dramatically safer if we followed the European lead of building shared streets. Streets that obligate motorists to drive slowly and attentively.

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

 Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Bicyclist Safety, Recruiting New Bicyclists, and Off-Street Bike Paths

By Dom Nozzi

 It is about the number of people bicycling, not the facility selected, that is ultimately going to lead to a big jump in bicyclist safety. Safety in numbers is so very important, and I enjoyed seeing studies recently that more scientifically demonstrated that. See, for example, this site

http://www.livablestreets.com/streetswiki/safety-in-numbers

 An important reason why safety in numbers is so powerful is that motorists are obligated to drive more slowly and more attentively. That is essential for safety. They also tend to expect bicyclists on a regular basis, and therefore learn how to drive more safely near them. Unexpected surprises are always unsafe. As is overconfidence that the motorist will never encounter a bicyclist while driving on a road (which leads to an increase in inattentive driving).

 I’m open to the idea that off-street paths next to a street can attract a lot of new bicyclists. As I understand it, one of the most important — if not most important — reasons people don’t bike is perceived safety problems. I don’t wear a helmet when I am engaged in low-speed downtown bike commuting in part because I want to send the message that biking is not deadly — helmets send the very bad message that your life is at risk on a bike.

 The European experience is instructive. There, bicycle commuting is relatively high and bicyclist injuries and deaths are comparably low. An important reason for the high levels of bicycling in European cities is that auto parking is comparatively scarce and expensive. Densities and mixed-use tend to be high. Destinations tend to be comparatively proximate. And gas is expensive. All of those factors tend to induce high levels of biking, walking and transit use in many European cities.

 By contrast, in nearly all American cities, there is too much free parking, densities are too low, gas is too cheap, and destinations are too dispersed.

 Given these rather intractable problems in the US, we are probably along way off seeing large numbers of bicyclists or transit users. Probably the obstacle that makes our low levels of bicycling most difficult to transform into high levels of bicycling in the near term is our dispersed land use pattern. Even if gas is, say, $10/gallon, a lot of us will be forced to drive cars (even if we have a full network of off-street bike paths).

 I continue to mostly adhere to the objective of taking back our streets from high-speed motoring, and urging the densification and mixing of residential with non-residential we need to make transit, walking and biking feasible. I think movement in that direction is inevitable because higher gas prices are inevitable, as is the cost of continuing to try to add road capacity for suburbia.

 I can envision, in the near future, various DOTs pursuing more aggressive non-auto projects as the cost of driving continues to mount. I’m sure that will mean that some state DOTs will decide to construct more off-street bicycle path projects, at least as a demo on one or two road corridors.

 I’m concerned that “Plan B” for transportation and land use might need to be in place very quickly, so we probably need Manhattan project urgency RIGHT NOW to start getting us there. We need a train system. We need to build denser, more localized communities. We need slower-speed and more human-scaled streets.

 What this might all come down to is how much of an emergency we believe we are in. Do we have 10 years before gas is $30/gallon? Or 100 years? If the former, this nation must not delay in transforming its transportation infrastructure.

 An Off-Street Epiphany

 I have a confession to make.

 I just finished reading the relatively inspirational Pedaling Revolution by Jeff Mapes.

 As a result, while I am still convinced that in-street bicycling is where our primary focus should be to provide for most regular, existing bike commuters, I am now more open to the idea of providing off-street or barrier-protected bike routes. I don’t know that I’d be okay with such routes if it took away from efforts to provide better in-street facilities, but I am now more sympathetic to the pressing need to recruit and train new bicyclists in cities.

 I continue to believe and hope that such new off-street recruits would eventually find that in-street bicycling makes more sense for bike commuting, and will “graduate” from off-street to in-street riding.

 And I continue to have concerns that we not squander public dollars on off-street or barrier-protected bike routes that will need to be removed “after the revolution” (i.e., when we have slower car travel in cities, and we more frequently and comprehensively put roads on a diet).

 Finally, concerns remain that off-street or barrier-protected bike routes will be a sign that we’ve given up on ever reforming/humanizing/taming streets (that they will always be hostile, inhuman car-only roads). In other words, I am concerned, again, that off-street bicycle facilities will put off the day when we are compelled to reform streets. Such a delay would put off the much-needed migration of buildings moving to more compact, walkable locations abutting sidewalks. Buildings that are today excessively set back due to such things as street hostility.

 Given all those provisos, I’m sympathetic to off-street and barriers. 

 

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

 

Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Increasing Transit Ridership

By Dom Nozzi

The origins of meaningful transit ridership in a community are largely based on motorist discontent. When motorists face high costs for driving or parking a car, or face traffic congestion, political will emerges to create ways to escape such travel pain: higher residential densities, mixed use, and better transit.

High transit ridership is almost never the result of foresighted planners, high-quality transit, educated activists or elected officials. Discontented motorists facing higher costs are the inducement.

Yes, there are certainly quite a large percentage of Americans who do not have good access to transit. Such an unfortunate circumstance is unsustainable. The inevitable adjustment to a transit-friendly, oil-scarce society will not be painless.

But it is clear that the sooner we create a nation rich in transportation choices, the less pain will be experienced.

We must therefore adopt effective policies and pricing that will more quickly induce the creation of transportation choices. I know of nothing that is anywhere near as equitable and effective as increasing the cost of driving a car — including such tactics as gas tax increases, traffic congestion and parking congestion.

Other essential tactics – many of which arise as an inevitable result of increasing car costs – include increasing residential and commercial densities, and embedding offices and retail in residential areas. Both of these tactics are important ways to achieve the crucial objective of creating proximity to transit.

Parking for cars must be scarce, inconvenient and costly (as is the case in any city with high transit ridership).

Car speeds need to be reduced in most locations, as higher-speed motor vehicles substantially increase safety threats for pedestrians and bicyclists, as well as creating an extremely uncomfortable ambience. Both of these factors discourage walking and bicycling to transit.

Low-cost methods of reducing car speeds include, where appropriate, roundabouts, road diets, on-street parking, and the conversion of one-way streets to two-way operation.

This is one of the many reasons I support a much higher gas tax. I remain concerned, however, that increased gas tax revenue is likely to counterproductively be used to widen roads. Despite this, on balance I believe that a significantly higher gas tax must be established. And soon.

 

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

 

Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Squandering a Transformative Moment

By Dom Nozzi

The Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Washington Post reports that there is some congressional disappointment that Obama’s $800 billion stimulus bill has only a “small amount devoted to long-lasting infrastructure investments in favor of spending on a long list of government programs…[these government programs] fall far short of the transformative New Deal-like vision many of them had entertained…Obama, with a public mandate to do something big, is missing a rare opportunity to rebuild the country.”

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) stated that “every penny of the $825 billion is borrowed against the future of our kids and grandkids, and so the question is: What benefit are we providing them?…It’s the difference between real investment that will serve the nation for 30, 50 years and tax cuts, and that’s a very poor tradeoff.” Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) said that the money proposed for infrastructure is “almost miniscule” and expressed regret that Obama was not proposing a transformative project such as building high-speed rail in 11 corridors around the nation (which Mica says would cost $165 billion).

“They keep comparing this to Eisenhower, but he proposed a $500 billion highway system, and they’re going to put $30 billion” in roads and bridges, said Mica. “How farcical can you be? Give me a break.”

According to some in the House, “…Obama may never again have as good a chance as this to act boldly.”

Frankly, I am deeply disappointed. Obama had, at the time, perhaps more political capital than he will ever have in his term as president, and might have the most political capital of any president in recent history (or in the future). Given the fact that America has no “Plan B” in transportation to face the inevitable, exponential increase in gasoline prices, it is a breath-taking squandering of a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform America’s transportation system towards one that is sustainable (not to mention the fact that a healthy rail system powerfully supports healthy city agglomeration and strongly discourages costly sprawl).

The Senate and the Obama administration should have delayed approval of this historic bill until it contains a visionary, long-term, sustainable, transformative plan. Creating high-speed rail, as Mica points out, is a fantastic way to start on that desperately needed path.

American may never have this chance again.

I am sorry to say that much of this federal stimulus money was instead and unconscionably used to widen roadways around the nation. Given the crises we face today, why on earth would we spend public dollars to further harm cities (wider roads drain the lifeblood from cities), increase auto dependence, delay the need to wean ourselves from such dependence, and worsen traffic congestion (due to induced demand)?

 

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

 

Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Are Residences and Non-Residential Uses Compatible When Near Each Other?

By Dom Nozzi

In America, residents of neighborhoods have come to expect business and industrial activity to be toxic, noisy, or likely to attract lots of big and dangerous truck volumes. These understandable concerns – particularly at the dawn of the industrial revolution in the early 20^th Century – mean that for most people, industrial, retail or office development is considered to be incompatible with residential areas (or anywhere at all in the community).

Advocates for compact, walkable community and neighborhood design often hear these concerns expressed when compact, “mixed-use” development is recommended. But there are three things to know about this commonly-used, squelcher objection to compact development.

First, such noisy or toxic businesses have dramatically reduced in number since the turn of the last century. As a result, zoning-based separation is now much less necessary to protect homes from toxic or noisy businesses. Unlike 100 years ago, it is now fairly easy and common today to design most all businesses or offices to be compatible with residential areas.

Why continue using an anachronistic “separation-of-uses” regulatory scheme that was designed to confront problems that society faced 100 years ago, but one that we almost never face today? I suspect the reason most elected folks maintain this outdated method is that continuing to use the old system is a way to make emotional, counterproductive NIMBYs less infuriated. Or else they themselves continue to believe that an office or shop near their home would degrade residential property values.

If we are paying more than lip service to making it feasible for people to walk or bicycle regularly, we need to get serious and largely dump zoning-based regulation to dramatically reduce trip distances. Note that despite a widespread suburban value system throughout most of America, many communities are slowly increasing the proportion of properties carrying a mixed-use zoning.

Secondly, the new urbanist Smart Code (which is now a free-to-use download without copyright protection) recognizes the existence of various locally-undesirable-land uses (LULUs). The Smart Code therefore assign such uses (airports are a good example) to “special districts” remote from the community. That allows a nearly complete elimination of the need to separate land uses, with the exception of a tiny fraction of certain especially unusual uses.

Thirdly, even if it were true that we must have zoning-based separation, it is just another sign that our society is unsustainable (because it is inherently car-dependent).

Unless we start building a more sustainable (read: compact) world, we’re heading for a train wreck.

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com

Fighting Traffic: The Dawn of the Motor Age in the American City

By Peter D. Norton. Published 2008 by MIT.

Review by Dom Nozzi

This book is provocative, exceptionally enlightening, and a must-read for all pedestrian and bicycle professionals, urban designers, traffic engineers, elected and appointed officials.

Another title that the author could have considered to accurately describe the message of this book is “The Fall of the Pedestrian Street.”

The book is an analysis of how the American street, its perceived purpose, and its design paradigm has been transformed over the past century. Up until the dawn of the 20^th Century, the rights of and sympathy for the pedestrian were supreme. Street rules (to the extent that any existed) and street design were focused on pedestrian travel.

The emergence of the motor vehicle, however, radically changed all of this.

Motorists and auto makers united and organized in the first few decades of the 20^th Century to overthrow the prevailing paradigm of the street. As motor vehicles started to be found on streets, they were quickly seen as inefficiently consuming an enormous amount of space. And combined with their horsepower, weight, and high speeds, motor vehicles were soon killing an alarmingly high number of pedestrians—particularly children and seniors.

Huge numbers of citizens at this time rallied to fight against the motor vehicle. There was a consensus that in a crash, the motorist was always at fault and the pedestrian (particularly children) were innocent. The media regularly faulted motorists for being “speed maniacs.” And “murderers.” Particularly in Cincinnati, there was a strong campaign to require cars to have “governors,” which would not allow a car to be driven over 25 mph.

The growing number of motorists and auto makers became alarmed that the “freedom” and speed of car travel was being threatened by these nationwide campaigns. “Motordom” united, and in the course of a few decades, completely transformed the American transportation paradigm.

First, they succeeded in convincing the public that the car itself was not to blame for crashes. Nor was the problem due to speed. Instead, the motorist lobby succeeded in (falsely) convincing Americans that the problem was entirely due to “reckless” motorists. The lobby also achieved another crucial victory: No longer were pedestrians always innocent in crashes. Increasingly, the lobby convinced us that “reckless” pedestrians were often at fault.

Instead of motorists being vilified as speed maniacs, the new villain became the “jaywalker,” a derogatory term that assigned blame to pedestrians who were irresponsibly crossing streets in unexpected locations (as they had done throughout history). Unexpected, carefree walking had become an incompatible public safety threat in the age of high-speed car travel. It was essential that uncontrolled pedestrians not using their designated crosswalks be seen as irresponsibly unsafe and immoral.

So the paradigm shift managed to reshape our thinking. Cars and car speeds are not a problem. What is needed, instead of slowing cars, is to vigorously prosecute “reckless” motorists and be vigilant in urging pedestrians to be careful. Comprehensive public safety education campaigns must teach all of us (particularly children) to be careful near roads. And to insist that pedestrians (and playing children) be kept out of the way of cars by keeping them off roads—or at least confined to intersection crosswalks.

Thus, the “forgiving street” (what the author calls the “foolproof street”) was born. Dominating street design for nearly 100 years, this paradigm strives to design streets not to be safe and convenient for all users (including bicyclists, pedestrians and transit users), but to keep all non-motorized travelers out of the way of freedom- (and speed) loving American motorists. Streets are to be designed for safe driving at high speeds. And because forgiving street designers assume we will always have reckless drivers, streets must be designed to forgive reckless, inattentive driving. Grade separated intersections are needed. As are pedestrian skywalks. Move street trees and buildings and pedestrians away from the street.

The ultimate result, after several decades of this new motorist speed paradigm, has been an annual roadway death rate that remains extremely high. High levels of speeding and inattentive driving. Streets that are designed and safely usable only by cars, instead of being Complete Streets accessible to all. Unimaginably high levels of car dependency, heavy and worsening congestion, plummeting quality of life, a near absence of pedestrians, bicyclists and transit users, endless suburban sprawl and strip commercial, and declining downtowns.

I’m certain the author would agree with me that an essential task for safety and quality of life is to return our communities to a lower-speed environment. And this must largely be achieved not through laws against speeders or speed limit signs, but through the design of streets that effectively ratchets down urban travel speed via such tactics as human-scaled dimensions to achieve traffic calming—and Monderman’s “shared space” concept (what I like to call “attentive” streets). High-speed car traffic is simply incompatible with the human habitat.

This is not a call to re-vilify cars, but to reshape our world to obligate motorists to behave themselves.

Visit my urban design website read more about what I have to say on those topics. You can also schedule me to give a speech in your community about transportation and congestion, land use development and sprawl, and improving quality of life.

Visit: www.walkablestreets.com Or email me at: dom@walkablestreets.com