Obstruction or Opportunity? Environmentalists Sue to Stop Roads

Mark Dempsey • Tuesday February 27, 2007

Editor’s Note: Mark wrote this article a few years ago, however, it has relevance today as SACOG moves toward adoption of the new MTP for the Sacramento Region.

Environmentalists recently filed suit to stop some of Sacramento’s federally funded highway projects. The precedent for this was a case that brought Atlanta’s federally funded road construction to a halt because the road improvements would make enough traffic to break Federal clean air regulations. Predictably, business groups and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) who requested these projects are outraged, portraying their environmentalist opponents at best as obstructionists.

But is this really just obstruction? Having sat on one of the Planning Advisory Councils that helped make Sacramento County’s land use policy, I’ve seen seen how developers and politicians discourage the alternatives to the kind of development that requires all trips be made in a car. The lawsuit “obstruction” may the only way we have to ensure the Sacramento Valley does not become a north-state version of the congestion-plagued, smog-filled Los Angeles basin.

Current development practices offer enormous subsidies to those who build in outlying areas. (Outlying development requires long, unproductive, polluting commutes.) If they have enough political clout, developers can get Cities and Counties to “upzone” agricultural land purchased at $2,000 an acre, making this commercial/industrial/residential land worth $40,000 an acre. They can do this even if that land is godforsaken flood plain surrounded by weak levees. With profits like these, developers can even afford to build a constituency clamoring for the upzone by purchasing a sports franchise. >>Continue Reading This Article>>

 

Category: Editorials •• Region: Sacramento •• comments

Loving Life in a Loft: A Valentine’s Day Tribute

Lauren Hilliard • Wednesday February 14, 2007

Even as my four month anniversary approaches with my studio loft in downtown Sacramento, my honeymoon period is still well in tact as my love for all 547 square feet of it continues to grow each day. Like all relationships though, there is that list of daily annoyances that oddly seems to bring a smile to my face when I share these stories with friends and family. Despite the charm and suave ambiance that mid-town flaunts, I took a risk in this commitment and opted for something different, unexplored, admittedly a bit pricey, however under appreciated by many – and now I am happy to say that I have found a great love for my life in my loft.

I’ve known grown accustom to the nightly sounds of downtown that act as evidence that indeed our central business district is undergoing change. While my view of the sunset behind Tower Bridge and the fireworks on New Year’s Eve can’t be beat, there are definitely mornings and nights that make me realize why people live in quiet suburbia. The foot of space between each loft assists with the nightly noise from my neighbor’s electric drum set and my other neighbor’s barking dog. I could do without the jackhammers tearing up 8th street every week, trucks re-paving it, and the jackhammers ripping the street up again as if they lost something. But the one noise I can’t seem to sleep through would have to be my daily “alarm clock� that plays its bugle horn tune twice consistently at 6am to alert a line of people outside my building that morning tacos have arrived – I call him taco man.

I get pretty routine inquires regarding my little loftstyle, kind of like when you start dating someone and your mother asks you all those practical questions like “how old is he?� and “what does he do?� The loft life is what you make it. There’s a mix of people in my 225 unit building, from single parents with kids to young professionals with dogs to musicians with Lamborghinis. I would definitely say the majority of my loft acquaintances moved to the lofts due to its proximity to their downtown workplaces – some were serious commuters who figured out it was cheaper to live in a high-end loft and walk to work than to live in Yuba City or Napa Valley and drive hours every day. I totally dig not owning a car and walking my one block to the office, and considering the cost of owning a vehicle I consider my loftstyle well worth it. Plus there’s no need to pay for gym membership or television with a great work-out facility and screening room downstairs. And who needs internet at your house when you can get fair-trade, organic tea at Temple downstairs anytime of the day or a beer at Pyramid after work?

All in all, the sounds of ambulances and construction and people have become not so much an annoyance, but part of the comfort of living in a part of Sacramento that is experiencing urban adolescence. With a little support and love, downtown Sac will grow out of this awkward stage and find itself as an attractive lace to live with so much to offer. And to answer those practical questions everyone throws at me: living in a loft is personal lifestyle choice that is not for everyone, but it was my choice and it enables me to adhere to my values of living car-free in a dense development that I fell in love with.

To all the things we love this Valentine’s Day,
Lauren Hilliard

 

Category: Editorials •• Region: Sacramento •• comments [1]

Pete Lagerwey Dismissed as Seattle DOT Bike/Ped Program Coordinator

Eric Fredericks • Saturday January 27, 2007

This news came from from the latest edition of CenterLines, the e-newsletter of the National Center for Bicycling & Walking (NCBW). My comments follow:

From Bill Wilkinson, NCBW Executive Director:

At this week’s TRB meeting in Washington, DC, I was stunned by the news that the Seattle DOT (SDOT) has removed Pete Lagerwey from the manager’s position he has held for over 20 years and assigned him to a more limited set of duties as a “Ped/Bike Planner.” At the same time, another member of the small ped/bike office staff was reassigned to the SDOT sign shop! It is not clear what prompted these actions.

As virtually everyone in any way involved with bicycle and pedestrian programs in the U.S. knows, Pete is one of — if not the premier — planner working on these issues. Over the years, he has helped lead the City of Seattle to a well-earned status as having one of the best ped/bike programs in the country. The City’s many outstanding accomplishments have Pete’s stamp all over them.

So, this sudden act by the Seattle DOT is of great concern. Have pedestrian and bicycle affairs become such big issues that we should expect to see such precipitous actions affecting those of us in the profession? I sincerely hope not.

Additionally, the NCBW has another, related concern: we selected Seattle as the host city for Pro Walk/Pro Bike 2008. Notwithstanding a broad base of support from the Seattle community for the City’s bid for the conference, it was Pete’s leadership and his program’s accomplishments that prompted us to select Seattle. What now?

In a 22 January note to Grace Crunican, SDOT Director, I wrote, “I was planning a trip to Seattle in mid-February to meet with the local host committee and to formally kick off planning for the conference. Now, I’m not sure it is appropriate to move forward for the time being.” I have not heard back from Grace, so I am writing to the City today to postpone the meeting until such time as City officials meet with us to explain what is going on, what we can expect, and to — we hope — reassure us that the City is committed to hosting the conference and that Pete will continue to lead the City’s efforts in this regard.

I was shocked by this news. I echo many of the sentiments about Pete Lagerwey that Wilkinson expressed in this announcement. Pete is an incredible guy. I’ve had the chance to work with him on a few occasions and I’ve learned many tricks and tools in bike/ped planning from him. Where Pete really excels is his ability to win an audience over, because he’s experienced so many situations and come up with innovative solutions for problems. It’s nearly impossible to argue against him because he’s probably done it successfully a hundred times before.

The best thing about Pete is not his planning skills – it’s his people skills. He is honestly one of the nicest and most genuine people I have ever met. This is why this news is so perplexing to me. I really can’t understand the demotion. It’s probably some political battle, as alluded to in this Seattle Stranger article. If so, it was a bad move because of the likely damaging effect on Seattle in the bike/ped world. Pete is so well respected.

I’m hoping the best for Pete, but he probably has many job opportunities to fall back on if need be. I’ll keep you posted on any updates.

 

Category: Editorials •• Region: Seattle •• comments

Is the American Planning Association Too Greedy?

Eric Fredericks • Tuesday January 2, 2007

A great op-ed appeared today on Planetizen that questions the proposed American Institute of Certified Planners Certification Maintenance Program. The author, Leonardo Vazquez, AICP/PP, has this to say about the program:

The proposed Certification Maintenance program requires that planners get at least 48 credits of continuing education every two years to maintain their AICP status. That’s not a bad idea. But the way the APA is structuring the program is wrong on many counts. It will hinder fair competition, and most importantly, will fail to meet the goal of ensuring that AICP planners are more knowledgeable and current.

Under the Certification Maintenance program, at least half of the eligible credits have to come from APA or APA-sponsored programs. This means programs that APA produces itself or has a strong hand in producing. The rest can come from programs that are “registered” by APA. A quarter of the credits can come from “self-study” — which means reading books. AICP planners are not required to show that they’ve actually learned anything. They only need to prove that they showed up. Under the program, an AICP member can get 48 credits simply by going to the national conference every other year and “reading books”.

APA, which unveiled the proposal on December 9, will take comments until January 9. The Board of Directors is likely to vote on the proposal at its meeting in April.

I strongly encourage planners to read the entire article. Of course, I had to weigh in with my opinion. Here are some comments I left below the article:

Finally, someone else that is critical of the APA’s practices!

I know there are many great people with good intentions that work for the APA, but I often question the organization’s motives. In fact, I thought of creating a website and organization to rival the APA a few years ago but decided to go in a different route. Thankfully, Planetizen is serving that role quite well now. Part of the reason I wanted to create the site was the exuberant prices that the APA charges for most everything. I realize that they need money to function as a successful organization, but this article highlights another example of where I question their motives. I have considered attaining my AICP certification for a while now, and the biggest reason I haven’t is because I’m not sure if I would like to be affiliated with the APA. >>Continue Reading This Article>>

 

Category: Editorials •• Region: United States •• comments

My Top Five Walkability Wishes for 2006

Eric Fredericks • Monday January 16, 2006

We are a few weeks into the new year, so I guess I should have already made my wish list. Oh well, I can be the last list of them all. Today, I will be living in my own little world where I along get to make significant differences in my country. I apologize in advance if I sound a little bit harsh. Here are my top wishes for the new year (in no particular order):

1. The Disappearance of Surface Parking Lots That Dominate a Streetscape or Viewscape
If I had infinite money, I would buy nearly every surface lot in America and turn it into something more desirable. Only a few other countries in the world have vast seas of parking lots like the United States. Why? Because they do not need as much parking since there is adequate public transit or walking/biking facilities. Therefore, surface car storage becomes an inefficient use of the land.

2. Everyone Stop Justifying Every Decision Completely Based on Statistics
There are not abundant sources for bicycling/pedestrian data. So instead, many analyze car-oriented data searching for the best ways to justify projects. And this usually leaves bike/ped advocates on the outside looking in. But walkability is common-sense stuff! Just imagine nearly ANY walkable place you have visited or lived in. You do not need to see any data to realize that the place works. I always feel so relaxed and comfortable when I am walking in a truly walkable place. I would imagine many of you feel the same. I hope this new year it starts to dawn on people: walkable places = high quality of life. And at the end of the day, that is all that matters – statistics or no statistics. Sure, statistics can be incredibly useful – I love them just as much as the next person – but use some intuition as well. Another thought: does the world revolve around the acronym VMT? I am hoping for a change.

3. Density Becomes Our Friend
I do not understand why everyone has become so scared of their neighbors. Okay, well that is not entirely true. But I do want to say a few things about life in low-density suburbia. You still have neighbors in suburbia, and they are not that much farther apart from you than they are in higher density areas. If you want to get away from people, move to the (real) country. Your yards are not going to be that big, and you will likely have to drive your kids to the park, or to just about everywhere. And just a warning: many of those large McMansions built by the major home builders are cheaply constructed. In my opinion, the reason why most people locate to the suburbs is for their children. Mainly because the schools are better in the suburbs and the suburbs are perceived to be safer for children. At the core of this issue is school funding, of course, but a new and innovative solution to providing quality education has emerged recently that could change the way we provide school funding (see:“Kalamazoo Promise”:http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20051217/SCHOOLS/512170324/1026/LIFESTYLE01). This could help solve the problem of poor education in the inner city. Quality planning and design can help overcome others fears about density in the long run. I think that part of the misconception about high-density housing is that all developments will turn out to be places like Cabrini Green or the Robert Taylor Homes. I think the days of developing places like those are gone (and now those are being redeveloped – CG, RTH). The main reason I would like density to become our friend is for #4.

4. The End of Sprawl
This is a HUGE wish. I am tired of driving through most every town in America (driving because you cannot walk) and seeing the same thing over and over again – huge surface parking lots, fast food drive-throughs, strip shopping centers, huge pole and monument signs, no sidewalks, and 8-lane wide arterials (without the scale of buildings to compensate). And like I said before, my definition of sprawl is any place that is not walkable. The environmental effects of sprawl are just devastating – eating up open space and scenic areas, horrid air pollution, and rapidly depleting energy sources. We need to build more regular connecting roads, stop building huge arterials, quit adding lanes to our highways, and stop building new highways all together.

5. Shift Federal/State Primary Transportation Funding Focus from Highway Projects to those Projects with a Pedestrian, Bicycling, or Mass Transit Focus
This is slowly starting to happen, as evidenced by the passage of the new SAFETEA-LU bill. These are just baby steps, though. We need to stop pork barrel and pet projects of politicians. Most importantly, we need to educate people to get them to see that widening a freeway, while seemingly good from the standpoint that it reduces congestion in the short-term, is not a viable option because of the land use implications of widening – a.k.a. sprawl. These are the people that complain to politicians about the conditions, without providing solutions that actually work. Name one city in the last 50 years that reduced congestion by widening the freeways. I will answer for you – there are none – the cities that did widen their freeways only delayed their congestion. What is really sad is that cities and metro areas that are not growing in population size have used this method to reduce congestion. While it has reduced congestion in the downtown areas of the cities, it has just allowed for sprawl and flight from the inner city. In some cases, there is now congestion on the ring roads of metropolitan areas despite the fact that the region is not growing in population. For a perfect example of this, see the Cincinnati-Dayton region. The metropolitan area for both cities is not seeing major growth, Dayton especially, yet the two metropolitan areas are set to become one MSA very soon because the sprawl of both regions are becoming one. A contributing factor in this: the continued widening of Interstate 75, the major freeway that runs between the cities. And talk of the high-speed rail connection between the two cities continues to stall. Someday people that live in places in between, like Middletown, are going to be very upset that their commute to either city will be more than an hour, and there is no other alternative to driving.

There are many other wishes I have besides these, but these are five major ones I thought of as I wrote this. That felt good to release my problems, hopefully the new year will bring some solutions. I wish you and yours a very happy, safe, and walkable new year!

 

Category: Editorials •• Region: General •• Comments

Planners are the Sprawl Creators

Eric Fredericks • Monday August 22, 2005

Not all planners are fully to blame for creating sprawl, after all, some of them are only doing their jobs – following the guidelines set by their archaic zoning code, general plan, and design guidelines (if there are any). Many planners realize what they are creating is sprawl, but because of political will, are unable to change the mindset of elected officials or citizens to get away from the “quickest, cheapest” developments. And some planners do stand up for sustainable development, and in the end, move on to more walkable places. >>Continue Reading This Article>>

 

Category: Editorials •• Region: General •• Comments [1]

www.flickr.com

Visit our Photo Gallery

Post a Job!
$25 for 45 days