The Antiplanner » Transportation » The Planners Who Never Think

The Planners Who Never Think

By | | Transportation

Back in January, the New York Times published an article claiming that New York City has become “the city that never walks.”

The writer, one Robert Sullivan claims to have “spent two years researching roads and transportation across the United States.” Yet somehow he has come to the conclusion that New York is no longer a pedestrian city.

The city that never walks? Flickr photo by Geff Rossi.

Sullivan thinks that New York should emulate, of all places, Albuquerque and Grand Rapids. He likes Albuquerque because they recently made their downtown more “pedestrian friendly” by converting one-way streets to two way. He likes Grand Rapids because they recently built a “new bus plaza that is part of a mass transit renaissance” (discussed here last week).

It should be very much clear to all men out there who are struggling with erectile dysfunction or male impotency which has been now creating an impact on their lives as a whole levitra online usa and missing them for some reason. Many pastors are unable to reach large congregations, as they cannot begin the flow easily and even if they bought that viagra no prescription do the stream is weak. The remedial measure for such issues is its detection in the rudimentary stage levitra 60 mg and upfront intervention by management in stake. The most effective herbal erectile dysfunction remedies should begin working within 15 minutes after they viagra sildenafil canada are taken into the body. Once again, this is a case of judging planners by their intentions and not their results. According to the Census Bureau, about 21 percent of Manhattan commuters and 10 percent of New York City commuters walked or biked to work in 2005. The share riding transit to work was 59 and 55 percent, respectively.

The last time I was in Albuquerque, I walked for miles, yet only 3.0 percent of Albuquerque commuters walked or bicycled to work and another 1.6 percent rode transit in 2005.

In Grand Rapids, about 4.1 percent of commuters walk or bike and 2.4 percent ride transit in 2005. The transit center that Sullivan praises opened in 2004.

Sullivan believes that Albuquerque has become more pedestrian-friendly because planners say they made it more pedestrian-friendly. But is it? Numerous studies show that one-way streets are far safer for pedestrians than two way. The Albuquerque city council never consulted these studies or even knew to ask if they existed.

Sullivan believes that Grand Rapids has become more pedestrian- and transit-friendly because planners say it is. But spending a humongous amount of money on a transit center that few people use does not make your city pedestrian- or transit-friendly. (New York City, of course, already has the PATH stations that are used by hundreds of thousands of transit riders every day.)

If New York wants to stay pedestrian friendly, the best thing it can do is look at Albuquerque and Grand Rapids — and then run the other way.

Bookmark the permalink.

About The Antiplanner

The Antiplanner is a forester and economist with more than fifty years of experience critiquing government land-use and transportation plans.

3 Responses to The Planners Who Never Think

  1. JimKarlock says:
    April 13, 2007 at 1:23 am

    I particularly liked this, from your link, No Two Ways About It:

    No Two Ways About It
    Clearly, planners and engineers think in dramatically different ways. Engineers think in terms of safety and efficiency. Planners demonize the auto for killing people and polluting the air, then willfully promote transportation policies that increase accidents and air pollution. Engineers experiment and publish their findings. Planners implement and declare victory no matter what the reality.

    If planners no longer considered safety and efficient transportation the top priorities, what they wanted instead was almost indefinable. Planners in Albuquerque advised, “The slowed and more congested auto travel which is projected to accompany the conversion [of one-way to two-way] promotes a positive ambiance of urban activity and vibrancy.” Like an urban cargo cult, this appears to say, “popular places are congested, so if we can
    congest an unpopular place it will have the ambiance of popularity even if our actions actually reduce the number of people able to get to the area.”

    JK: I think the sad truth is that planners really believe that when the congest an area it has gotten more popular.

    No Two Ways About It
    No doubt planners believe they are thinking on some entirely different level. “A pedestrian-oriented hierarchy
    of transportation promotes density, safety, economic viability, and sustainability,” say planners in Austin,
    Texas. While the first three claims are wrong or at least questionable, the real key may be “sustainability,” which in transportation planning is a code word for “anything but automobiles.”
    JK: Lets review some planner’s delusions:

    * High Density will reduce traffic congestion. It doesn’t, it increases congestion. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm
    * High Density will reduce cost. It actually increases costs. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm
    * High Density will give us affordable housing. High density increases housing costs. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCost.htm
    * High Density will let you walk to the store to get a quart of milk. So what? http://www.debunkingportland.com/Smart/QuartOfMilk.htm
    * Mass transit saves energy. It dosen’t. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm
    * Mass transit reduces pollution. http://www.seattleweekly.com/2003-05-28/diversions/bus-ted.php
    * Mass transit saves money. It is much more expansive than driving. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/Cost-Cars-Transit.htm
    * If we become more like Europe, people will drive less. Europe drives almost as much as we do. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/EuroTranistShareLoss.htm
    * Automobiles are massive subsidised. (They aren’t, transit is.) http://www.debunkingportland.com/Roads/Docs/Delucchi_Chart.htm
    * Light rail causes development. No the tax abatements and special treatments cause development. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/LightRailDevelopment.htm
    * Light rail is safer than cars. Light rail kills at over twice the rate of cars. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/MAXSafetyChart.html
    * A single light rail line can carry as many people as a ten lane freeway. Actually it carries as many people as about 1/4-1/3 lane or freeway. http://www.debunkingportland.com/Transit/10LaneFreeway-2.htm

    The really sad part is that many planners actually believe these things.
    Thanks
    JK

  2. Dan says:
    April 13, 2007 at 5:30 am

    Randal equates a writer with a planner and then, hugging his strawman firmly to his chest, proceeds to point out why this false equivalence is so terrible.

    But the writer also points out some interesting non-straw things [emphases added]:

    We have lost our golden pedestrian touch in New York mostly because we still think about traffic as though it were 1950, and we needed Robert Moses to plow a few giant freeways through town to get the cars moving again. But the fact is that more roads equal more traffic.

    London now charges drivers a fee to enter the core business area, but here such initiatives are branded as anti-car, and thus anti-personal freedom: a congestion fee, critics say, is a tax on the middle-class car commuter. But as matters now stand, the pedestrian is taxed every day: by delays and emissions, by asthma rates that are (in the Bronx) as much as four times the national average. Though we think of it as a luxury, the car taxes us, and with it we tax others.

    And yet, here in New York, we even have the debate over bicycle traffic backwards. We focus on drivers’ complaints about the bicycle commuter who races through red lights, rather than on the concerns of the mother biking her child around organic-food delivery trucks that idle in bike-only lanes…Asked what was being done to improve safety in light of the biker’s death, Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested that bikers “pay attention.”

    “Even if they’re in the right, they are the lightweights,” he told a reporter.

    Contrast this response with that of Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago after a 4-year-old pedestrian was killed in a hit and run. Mayor Daley immediately set up a pedestrian awareness program, suggested that police sting operations arrest speeding drivers…

    One reason New York is losing its New York edge may be that the city’s revival is partly based on a strange reversal: the city is the new suburb. Families have returned to the New York that was abandoned years ago for lawns and better public schools. They’ve brought with them a love of cars.

    Huh. Planning to blame, eh?

    And moving back to the city?! How can this be? Certain ideologues tell us no one likes density and everyone should have a lawn so they spend all their free time mowing and weeding. Ah, well.

    DS

  3. JimKarlock says:
    April 13, 2007 at 11:04 am

    DAN:Asked what was being done to improve safety in light of the biker’s death, Mayor Michael Bloomberg suggested that bikers “pay attention.”

    “Even if they’re in the right, they are the lightweights,” he told a reporter.
    JK: Good advice.

    Here in perfectly planned Portland (ppP), it is easy to improve bike safety. In one word:

    Bikes should obey the law!

    Get a light on the back. Reflectors don’t cut it.
    Get a light on the front. If I can’t see you coming I may open my car door in your face. Or pull out in front of you.
    Although not required, it would be a good idea to have that headlight on during the day too.
    Read lights have meaning, learn about it.
    Turn signals have a purpose. Use them.
    We assign a direction to each lane for safety, quit ignoring it.

    Bikers should also recognize basic physics: Hit a two ton object and you loose, wether or not you are right.

    I could go on, but you get the idea.

    Thanks
    JK

Leave a Reply