Private developers undo a town’s pedestrian disaster

The Old Saybrook, Connecticut train station is less than a half-mile from a picturesque New England Main Street, but walking there is practically out of the question. The station itself is separated from the town’s main thoroughfares by a sea of parking lots and a maze of access roads. There is only one sidewalkFinding myself waiting for my ride from the station (my ride, naturally, was stuck in the parking lot that is Connecticut’s Interstate 95), I decided to venture away from the station yesterday to grab a bite to eat.

The view across the parking lot toward Old Saybrook's Amtrak station

After walking through the parking lot, I searched endlessly for a sidewalk. Getting to Old Saybrook’s Main Street, which literally runs into the parking lot, is impossible from the train station – with no sidewalk leading directly to town. The one sidewalk out of the station parking lot runs along the side of a slip ramp toward the high-speed Boston Post Road (US 1), but requires crossing that dangerous ramp that cars often speed onto from the nearby railroad bridge. I wandered back toward the station and found a way out in the right direction – through a gap in the fence by a neighboring lot. Naturally, it wasn’t connected directly to the parking lot, but instead stops about ten feet from the parking lot pavement – immediately at the property line.

This pathway is on the property of the neighboring CVS Pharmacy. Often, these drugstores are knowing for plopping down unsightly parking lots in the middle of pedestrian-friendly areas. In this case, the CVS is setting the example that the town of Old Saybrook should be following.

The pathway runs across the parking lot, clearly delineated from the asphalt parking lot, and toward Boston Post Road.

It then connects to a sidewalk that runs along the two streets that the property abuts.

Of course, again, the developer had no ability to make this sidewalk fully ADA compliant in the scope of providing mobility beyond the property line. Adding curb cuts at the corner of the property would have forced the town to create a crosswalk and pedestrian signals at this corner, even though the existing town sidewalk on the opposite corner dumps the pedestrian in the middle of a busy side street. There are no curb cuts, and the CVS sidewalk only ties into the town’s sidewalk on one end of the property – by the aforementioned slip ramp.

Despite the faults with the CVS sidewalk, any sidewalk is better than no sidewalk. And with no obstructions and a comfortable buffer from the shoulder-less street, it’s leaps and bounds beyond the town-constructed sidewalk just 50 feet away:

What’s amusing is that CVS likely added these elements to the store design in order to win the approval of the town’s Planning Board. Yet the town doesn’t practice what they preach. Old Saybrook might want to consider the CVS approach to pedestrian mobility. Without them, I’d still be trapped in the train station parking lot – or in worse condition for trying to escape.

On lifestyle centers, past and present

David Scharfenberg seems to cite Kansas City’s Country Club Plaza as the basis for the creation of modern-day “Lifestyle Centers” in an article in this week’s Providence Phoenix about Rhode Island’s lifestyle centers. Except comparing the 1920s-era Country Club Plaza to Rhode Island’s five-year old South County Commons is like comparing Manhattan’s Fifth Avenue to a suburban mega-mall.

To imagine that these new suburban lifestyle centers will at some point be swallowed up by dense urban development around them is a pipe dream. While many visitors to Country Club Plaza still arrive by automobile (and have since its inception), its high-rise apartment buildings have led to even more dense development beyond the Plaza’s bounds. The angle-in parking and low-rise buildings in suburban don’t exactly elicit the urban feel that the oft-cited first lifestyle center in America does. And until developers are willing to invest in creating a true sense of place in these centers, there’s not much of a chance that the new lifestyle centers are going to win any accolades from the Project for Public Spaces anytime soon.

Another benefit of the density of Country Club Plaza is its location in a corridor ripe for mass transit. While also being a destination, its surroundings could expand to become an ideal place to live and commute to other employment centers in Kansas City without stepping into a car. It’s highly unlikely that most of The Plaza’s suburban counterparts will ever act as anything more than a magnet for motorists. If care was taken to place these new developments in places ripe for density rather than in the middle of an open field in an exurb, lifestyle centers may not get such a bad rap. Otherwise, “lifestyle centers” are little more than open-air versions of the shopping malls with seas of parking that Scharfenberg vilifies.

Regardless, these spaces are at least getting Americans out of their cars and pounding the pavement to shop for the first time in a generation. If it leads to a call for better public spaces and stronger communities, it’s a step in the right direction.

(Photo of Garden City Center and Chapel View in Cranston, RI via thisisbossi on Flickr)

Fort Collins report shows dangers of ignoring cycling laws

As someone who complains often about drivers and pedestrians blocking bike lanes in New York, there is another breed of commuter who draws the ire of pedestrians, drivers, and even some cyclists. For the most part, this scofflaw is the one that drivers cite as the reason for the driver-cyclist animosity: the law-breaking cyclist.

In New York and most other states, cyclists are required by law to ride with traffic – never against it unless there is a contraflow bike lane. In addition, some municipalities outlaw sidewalk bicycle riding for the safety of both pedestrians and cyclists, who are less visible to motorists when in sidewalks and crosswalks. Unfortunately, for various reasons, this law is often ignored. In New York City, the most common law-breaking cyclist is the deliveryperson – someone trying to make their job on a bicycle as efficient as possible. Some wrong-way cyclists do so without knowing they’re breaking the law; while pedestrians are told to walk against traffic when using road space for the sake of safety, the same recommendation does not apply to cyclists. Other wrong-way cyclists ride against traffic out of sheer selfishness: it’s faster than riding around the block, even if it puts other cyclists or pedestrians at risk.

What’s not surprising, but finally put on paper after a citywide report on bicycle accidents in Fort Collins, Colorado (PDF), is that law-breaking cyclists are putting themselves at risk for injury. Among the facts from the report, which covered the period from 2007-2009:

• Nearly twice as many broadside accidents (126) occurred when the cyclist rode against traffic than when the cyclist rode with traffic (67).
• The #2 contributing factor in broadside collisions between cars and cyclists was that the cyclist rode against traffic on a sidewalk (second only to failure to yield on the part of the motorist).
• The broadside – the most common type of accident – was more likely to be the fault of the cyclist than the motorist by nearly a 3-to-2 margin.
• One-third of all accidents involved cyclists riding on the sidewalk.
• Across all types of accidents, more contributing factors were attributed to cyclists (272) than motorists (261).

What this data cannot demonstrate is just how many cyclists are breaking the rules in Fort Collins. If the majority of cyclists in Fort Collins are law-abiding, that could further prove just how dangerous cycling on sidewalks or against traffic can be (a Hunter College study of New York cyclists suggested that 21% rode on sidewalks or against traffic).

As a cyclist who plays by the rules, I am often endangered by the scofflaws who ride against traffic (forcing me into traffic nearly as often as motorists who park in bike lanes), ride on sidewalks (blindly entering the street while I ride with traffic), and fail to stop at intersections (potentially causing the most violent broadside bike-on-bike collisions). But the data show that not only are law-breaking cyclists a danger to others, they are also a danger to themselves.

An educational campaign to show that these cyclists are putting their own lives on the line to save a couple minutes might go a long way - perhaps moreso than Transportation Alternatives’ valient effort to educate cyclists on the rule of law.

(Photo via paytonc on Flickr)

Photo of the Week: Bike Lane in Georgia

Meet Cornelia, Georgia’s only Bike Lane… a dead-end street in a low-density suburban development named “Bike Lane.” Oh, the irony.

Friday Link Dump

• Google Maps is looking for new places to bring its Street View Tricycle. My suggestions: New York’s Hudson River Greenway, Rhode Island’s East Bay Bike Path, and Missouri’s 250-mile long Katy Trail.
• Phoenix’s METRO Light Rail continues to beat expectations – having its highest month for ridership yet in September. It’s amazing how large the fluctations in ridership are when Arizona State – whose campus is directly in the path of the line – is out of session.
• I like Biking in LA’s suggestion to encourage Bike Boulevards as a form of traffic calming – rather than the typical treatment of chicanes, roundabouts, and speed humps. On narrow residential streets, the mere presence of bikes can slow traffic down.
• In Ithaca, New York, the town of my alma mater, they’re closing the budget gap by getting rid of free parking downtown. This seems like a pro-livable streets initiative, but even this progressive city is still dependent on cars, and it’s hard enough for downtown businesses to compete with the acres of free parking offered by Wal-Mart and other big boxes on the outskirts of town.

What’s the matter with Rhode Island?

As someone who was born and bred in our nation’s smallest state, I’m mesmorized by how poorly public transit  in Rhode Island functions. And a clear lack of funding and stategic planning are the main reasons for these two stunning statistics:

• According to 2008 US Census data [PDF], Rhode Island ranks 12th in percentage of commuters who drive alone to work.
• Between 2007 and 2008, Rhode Island was one of only 9 states where the percentage of commuters driving alone to work increased.

What’s stunning is how out-of-whack Rhode Island is in modal use compared to states with similar density. Keep in mind that Rhode Island is the second most densely-populated U.S. state (third if you count the District of Columbia). Of the 11 states that rank above Rhode Island in solo commuting by car, only Ohio would be considered particularly dense – and is still nearly 4 times less dense than Rhode Island. Of the ten most densely-populated states, only in Ohio and Rhode Island do more than 80% of commuters drive solo.

It may not be that density and transit use are always correlated (see: Los Angeles), but such a dense state would require a significantly smaller per capita investment in mass transit than, say, a sprawling state like Kansas (driving alone accounts for practically the same share of commuting in both Kansas and Rhode Island). Shifting mode share in Rhode Island could be much easier than in places

There is hope on the horizon, as Rhode Island’s municipalities and RIPTA finally launched their Metro Transit Study for the state’s urban core. The most viable options on the table are a starter streetcar line for downtown Providence and its environs and BRT running across the state’s four largest cities. In addition, the group is exploring car share programs, streamlining bus services, commuter resources, parking cash-outs, bike and pedestrian facilities, transit-oriented development, and coordination with the MBTA’s commuter rail service that will be extended to southern Rhode Island in the coming years.

Of course, that hope could easily be stymied by a state government reluctant to change. While neighboring Massachusetts spends nearly six times more per capita on transit than Rhode Island, Rhode Island’s per capita tax burden is now higher than the oft-derided “Taxachusetts.” And solo commuters in Rhode Island may also be reluctant to change – a $610 million highway project to improve traffic flow on Providence’s interstates is going to make it even more difficult to pull the state out of the commuting dark ages.

For $610 million, all of the Metro Transit Study’s recommendations could be implemented… five times over.

Graphic via Wikipedia

Friday Link Dump

The Boston Globe compares two public spaces in Boston and Houston. Guess which one is “quiet” and which one is “vibrant?” [Boston Globe]

The aftermath of being behind the controls of a train when a jumper strikes can be long and troubling, according to some DC Metro and Amtrak operators. [Washington Post]

If you’ve never read about St. Louis’ Pruitt-Igoe housing projects – one of the biggest disasters in the history of public housing – catch up on where the massive urban forest stands today, and read about a documentary in the works. The story of it blew me away when I first read about it a couple years ago. [UrbanReviewSTL via Planetizen]

I was planning on relying exclusively on public transit on my next trip to LA so I could write about it, but the WSJ’s Stan Sesser summed it up pretty well. [WSJ]

TOD without the T: a packed-house hearing was held last night on this proposed mixed-use development in North Stonington, Connecticut. Of course, it would be TOD if not for the fact that the Connecticut DOT opted to widen roads instead of adding BRT or light rail between Southeastern Connecticut’s casinos and the cities of New London, CT and Westerly, RI. [The Day]

Are cities meant for children?

In the nearly six years I’ve lived in New York City, I’ve never come around on one question that’s been posed by out-of-towners: “would you ever raise children here?” The answer, plain and simply, has always been no. For me, I think it’s more of a personal preference to raise children in a place more like the one I grew up in: an idyllic community of gridded streets, sidewalks, front lawns, and picket fences in a depression-era development that was walkable to schools, parks, shops, and transit lines. It’s not quite suburban, but also not quite urban. (Coincidentally, this is not much unlike many parts of Brooklyn where many young New York families call home.) Over time, though, I’ve come to understand why parents believe cities like New York are the right place to raise kids. It’s not to over-expose them to reality or to develop an immunity to close contact… it’s because in many people’s eyes, it’s just right.

Traditionally, neighborhoods like the Upper West and Upper East Sides have been havens for yuppie parents and their small children, but that trend has now spread to other “hipper” neighborhoods. Brooklyn’s Park Slope has become the target of ire for those who wonder why over-protective parents would even try to raise their kids in a city the size of New York. Other Brooklyn neighborhoods are becoming rich in the kid culture, but no place is it more pronounced than Park Slope. After all, there are few other places where New Yorkers can find coffee shops, bookstores, wine shops, and even bars that accommodate children. Fast-paced New York pedestrians could very well pop a vein in their forehead just thinking about double-wide strollers that parents push along Park Slope’s narrow sidewalks. The single, childless population of New York often asks out loud: why don’t they just move to the suburbs?

The parents must know better. While New York City is an expensive place to raise children, it’s also a very unique and socializing environment. The street grid and dense population allows for a more social atmosphere, especially among the brownstone-lined streets of Park Slope. Parents gather at these neighborhood shops and cafes with their children, exposing children to a variety of human contact at an early age. Even an armchair sociologist could imagine that having an actual human being as a friend in childhood is a more positive than befriending a Teletubby. In the city, these centers of socialization are just a short walk from the front door. In the suburbs, the nearest neighbor may not even be at a walkable distance. The nearest child of similar age could be even further. The suburbs are the antithesis of a socialable environment.

The foes of Park Slope parents claim that children – and their parents’ double-wide strollers – need more space. They imagine that children should be raised with a big backyard on a quiet dead-end street in a sprawling neighborhood. It’s a fair assessment to anyone who was raised in that environment. The children of New York City know better: living in cramped city spaces is a part of their life experience. And just because their apartments are cramped doesn’t mean their lifestyles are. After all, Brooklyn’s largest city park, Prospect Park, is just blocks away from Park Slope. On any sunny weekday, thousands of parents and their children descend upon the park from neighborhoods across Brooklyn. Prospect Park’s Long Meadow is larger than any reasonably affordable backyard in the suburbs. Through the Prospect Park Alliance and the city’s Parks & Recreation Department, programs and volunteer opportunities build skills, social networks, and a community identity. This isn’t something you can find in the backyard of a McMansion.

One more argument that permeates the ongoing battle between Hipsters and Parents is the absurdity that, somehow, raising children in the city is akin to torture. For someone raised in the suburbs, it’s not hard to imagine that all children should cherish their sheltered childhood. But with a strong parental support structure, city children are well-adjusted. How can parents support their children most? Simply by being there. In the suburbs, a parent is more likely to work a great distance from home. A commute from a Lower Manhattan office to a Fairfield County home could take an hour and a half, even during rush hour. The commute from that same office to Park Slope is twenty minutes. That’s the equivalent of three weeks of time that wasted in transit each year. That’s three weeks that parents could better spend with their children. Let’s be honest – the way Park Slope parents coddle their children, that’s just the way they would want it.

Maybe we should give treat these often-despised city moms and dads with a bit less ire. They’re doing the right thing for their children by raising them in a supportive and vibrant community. Cities are supposed to be “young and active” – terms that are not exclusively defined by products of the suburbs that settle in New York after college. The density, walkability, and proximity of these neighborhoods make them perfect places for children. Sure, these concepts of an ideal community may be foreign to the children of the suburbs, but they’re not lost on the parents of New York’s newest generation. The city is meant for children – double-wide strollers be damned.

A quick hit on induced demand

I’m preaching to the choir here, but if you need any proof that the most simple premise of transportation planning is oblivious to the general population, look no further than the results of an Elon University poll of Charlotte residents reported by the Charlotte Observer last week:

The survey found wide support for relieving congestion by building more roads and building more transit. Just under 77 percent said building more roads would ease congestion, and just under 64 percent said the same for building light rail.

That sound you hear is my head banging against a wall.

It’s an uphill battle, even as Charlotte spent most of the last two decades building a massive beltway only to see traffic congestion increase, people still believe they can build themselves out of a problem.

Empty space; public space?

The Boston Globe asked local architects and artists to propose redevelopment of construction projects stalled due to the recession. Some of the ideas are really out there, but some of them are great adaptions of land to become great public spaces. Check them out here.