Archive for October, 2007

Launch Event

Tuesday, October 23rd, 2007

I’d like to thank everyone for coming out to our launch event last night!  It was a huge success and great job consuming all of the free wine provided by Cooper Mountain Vineyards and Oak Knoll Winery!  Thank you to Friends of Trees for attending and we appreciate all the donations.  We’ll be contacting you if you were the winner of either the Blazers tickets or the seats on the EcoShuttle for a wine tour.  I hope you had as much fun as I did, we’ll see you at the next great event!

Dense Thinkers

Tuesday, October 16th, 2007

“New Urbanism,” the latest fad in urban planning, promises less traffic, better air, and lower taxes. Here’s what it really delivers.

Randal O’Toole | January 1999 Print Edition

In 1992, residents of Portland, Oregon, were terrified that their growing city was fast becoming the Pacific Northwest’s version of Los Angeles–as they saw it, a congested, polluted city with too many cars and too little sense of community. The threat was considered so serious that a traditional anti-growth response–a tough, comprehensive land-use plan limited to the actual city boundaries–wasn’t enough. To prevent the paving of Portland, area voters signed off on the creation of Metro, a regional planning authority with dictatorial land-use planning powers over 24 cities and three counties.

To hear Metro boosters describe it, Portland-area residents can now rest easy. The concrete landscape of Southern California won’t be copied any time soon in the Beaver State. Far from it. Though Metro’s experts predict that the region’s population will grow by 75 percent in the next few decades, the agency has a plan that will accommodate these newcomers while promoting “livable neighborhoods,” “protecting open space,” “reducing dependence on the automobile,” and maintaining “affordable housing” and lower infrastructure costs. All in all, an idyllic package: better neighborhoods, pedestrian-friendly streets, cheaper housing, and lower taxes.

What will it take to reach such goals? Only the community’s desire–as codified in Metro’s planning and zoning laws–to squeeze more people and more businesses into smaller spaces under tighter regulatory control. Metro’s regional plan restricts development outside of an urban growth boundary that allows only a 6 percent expansion of the urbanized area for at least two decades. The plan also doubles or triples the population density of many neighborhoods by rezoning them to require apartments, row houses, or other high-density housing whenever new construction is undertaken.

Additionally, Metro sets strict population targets for each of the 24 cities and three counties under its dominion, forcing them to convert 10,000 acres of prime farmlands, golf courses, city parks, and other open spaces to high-density residential or commercial uses. Finally, Metro plans to spend billions of dollars to build 100 miles of rail transit lines to free residents from their cars.

Reduced congestion, better air quality, lower taxes. No wonder Portland has gotten great national press and praise. There’s only one little problem: Metro’s own data say the plan is doomed to failure.

Details, Details

Consider, for instance, Metro’s bold, confident prediction that its plan will double public transit usage. Since transit currently carries less than 2.5 percent of Portland-area trips, doubling that doesn’t get you very far toward a car-free utopia. Similarly, Metro expects at best a modest decline in auto usage, from 92 percent of urban trips to 88 percent. In fact, given the 75 percent population increase that Metro predicts over 50 years, that translates into five cars driving around for every three cars today. Accordingly, planners estimate that traffic congestion will triple or quadruple and that air pollution will increase.

Then there’s the tax question. Metro wants to pay for the rail lines it says will lure people out of autos by adding billions of dollars to local property taxes. And to promote high-density development in an area already glutted with apartments, Portland and other area cities are giving developers millions of dollars in tax breaks and other subsidies that will ultimately come out of residents’ pockets. Meanwhile, housing prices are skyrocketing because of the artificial land shortage created by the urban growth boundary, giving Portland the least affordable housing in the nation after only San Francisco.

Oh, and there’s one more thing. Remember how Metro was supposed to save Portland from becoming Oregon’s answer to L.A.? In 1994, Metro planners studied the nation’s 50 largest urban areas to see which one was closest to the future they envisioned for Portland–one with higher population densities and fewer roads. It turned out that the metropolitan area–defined as all of the land in and around a city whose population density exceeds 1,000 people per square mile–with the highest population density also had the fewest miles of freeway per capita. Its name: Los Angeles. While the city of Los Angeles proper has a lower density than New York City, the Los Angeles metro area is nearly one-third denser than the New York metro area, which includes–among other places–northeastern New Jersey and Long Island. Far from being the incarnation of evil, auto-dependent sprawl, L.A. was the model to emulate.

To their credit, Metro planners did fess up to this unexpected and uncomfortable finding, daring to write, “With respect to density and road per capita mileage, [Los Angeles] displays an investment pattern we desire to replicate” in Portland. Of course, saying this out loud would have meant instant death for their plans, if not their persons. So the document in which this conclusion is reached is available only to people willing to pay $10 for a 60-page booklet filled with eyeball-glazing graphs and statistics.

Here’s another irony: Despite such glaring and self-evident contradictions, Portland has become a shining beacon for urban planners, who envy Metro’s Singapore-like regulatory authority. Places ranging from Minneapolis-St. Paul (with a metro population of about 3 million) to Missoula, Montana, (43,000) have adopted plans based on the Portland model.

Suburban Renewal

Welcome to the crazy world of the New Urbanism, the latest fad in urban planning. The New Urbanism is a broad-based movement of planners, architects, environmentalists, central city governments, downtown business interests, transit agencies, and engineering and construction firms that has coalesced over the past 10 years. Proponents seek to recreate the high-density cities of the 19th and early 20th centuries. To impose their will, New Urbanists take particular aim at suburbs and the automobiles that helped make them possible. Indeed, a more appropriate name for the movement might be Suburban Renewal, since the New Urbanists’ chief goal is to convert the suburbs–invariably regarded as banal, ugly, sterile, and inefficient–into something like inner-city areas.

A recent Sierra Club study, “The Dark Side of the American Dream,” is representative of New Urbanist thinking. “The automobile way of life is unhealthy, anti-social, and unsustainable,” claims the report, which was partly funded by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The New Urbanism, in contrast, seeks to create neighborhoods “where jobs, shopping, services, and recreation are all nearby” so that people can get around without cars. Low-density suburban development–pejoratively termed “sprawl”–leads to “increased congestion, longer commutes, increased dependence on fossil fuels, crowded schools, worsening air and water pollution, lost open space and wetlands, increased flooding, destroyed habitat, higher taxes and dying city centers.”

None of these claims is documented, which isn’t surprising, because none of them is true. What is true is that the Sierra Club, the American Planning Association, and other New Urbanists have definite ideas about how the suburbs should be rebuilt. Their plans usually call for the following:

  • Urban growth boundaries to restrict suburban expansion.
  • Prescriptive zoning and development subsidies to force higher-density development inside growth boundaries. Prescriptive zoning mandates higher densities whenever building or rebuilding occurs. If your house burns down, you may even be required to build an apartment in its place.
  • Discouraging driving through “traffic calming” measures such as narrow streets, parking limits, roadway barriers, and zoning codes that require shopping malls to turn their parking lots into apartments. There may also be rules requiring employers to write up plans to reduce workers’ auto commuting.
  • A focus on hugely expensive–and hugely ineffective–rail transit to the exclusion of highway construction or expansion.

New Urbanists firmly believe they can change people’s behavior by redesigning the cities in which they live. That’s not an indefensible notion, but it’s not as easy as it sounds. Consider the fate of Laguna West, a widely touted Sacramento suburb designed by California architect and New Urban guru Peter Calthorpe. Calthorpe thinks suburbanites suffer from a “sense of frustration and placelessness.” To fix this, he designs what he calls “pedestrian pockets” or “transit-oriented developments” that plug people into where they live.

As envisioned by Calthorpe, Laguna West would have consisted of a “transit center” surrounded by high-density apartments and condominiums. A ring of single-family homes on small lots would surround the high-density core. Scattered throughout would be stores, offices, and other commercial uses. Most people would be able to walk to shopping, and many would be able to walk to work or the transit center.

But Laguna West was a financial failure. No one wanted to live in the high-density area, and as a result its developer went bankrupt. Instead, a new builder put low-density housing in the core. While those houses were actually salable, their presence also meant that most transit riders had to drive to the transit center. Since Calthorpe provided no parking at the transit center, drivers parked in front of other people’s homes. The homeowners objected and successfully lobbied to have the transit center moved outside of the development. Meanwhile, residents do all of their shopping at a conventional strip mall outside the development. The only commercial use inside Laguna West–a quick oil-change joint–hardly testifies to people’s decreased dependence on the auto.

If it’s hard to design a successful suburb from scratch, it’s that much more difficult to shift residents from already established patterns of land use and behavior. But urban planners all over the country are trying to impose New Urban ideals on existing suburbs and cities. Metro even hired Calthorpe to show them how pedestrian pockets and transit-oriented developments could be scattered throughout the Portland area.

Congestion as “Positive Urban Development”

The vision of a place where people walk to the grocery store and take the train to work certainly has its charms. But far from delivering urban zones from the curse of “auto-dependent” lifestyles, New Urbanist policies have consistently led to significant increases in highway congestion; deteriorating air quality (because autos pollute more in slow-moving, congested traffic); dramatic infrastructure shortfalls as sewer, water, schools, and other systems designed for low-density cities must be rebuilt for higher densities; rapidly increasing housing prices as land becomes scarce; and disappearing urban open spaces such as parks and golf courses as developers turn them into residential and other developments. Such negative outcomes are not accidental. Indeed, they are the predictable, inevitable, and often intended consequences of New Urbanist plans.

Consider the New Urbanist claim that increased population density will reduce traffic congestion. The idea makes some intuitive sense: If people are closer to one another, to jobs, and to shopping, they won’t need to drive so much to get to their destinations. But the reality is that while higher population density may slightly reduce per capita driving, it vastly increases congestion and pollution. Say, for instance, that doubling density reduces per capita driving by 10 percent. Two hundred percent as many people each driving 90 percent as much results in 180 percent as many cars. Unless the road network is expanded by 80 percent–which New Urbanists would oppose–80 percent more traffic produces a huge increase in congestion.

Real-world experience suggests that 10 percent less per capita driving with a doubling of density is about the best that can be expected. In fact, it may be overly optimistic. What’s more, Census Bureau and Federal Highway Administration data show little correlation between density and the number of miles people drive. The Miami, Ft. Lauderdale, and West Palm Beach metropolitan areas all cover about the same number of square miles. Miami has twice the density of West Palm Beach, and per capita driving is indeed about 10 percent less in Miami. But residents of Ft. Lauderdale, whose density is halfway between those of Miami and West Palm Beach, drive more than residents of both areas.

In Portland, planners have used a sophisticated computer model to predict the effects of their plans on driving habits. Under their most optimistic scenarios, by the year 2040, auto use will drop from 92 percent of all area trips to 88 percent. Since planners assume a 75 percent increase in population, this translates to a massive expansion in traffic and congestion–they figure three to four times the current number of congested road miles.

But that’s OK, say Metro officials in one of their we’ve-got-to-destroy-the-village-in-order-save-it moments, because congestion actually “signals positive urban development.” Indeed, though they rarely talk about it in public, a major short-term New Urbanist goal is to increase, not reduce, congestion. After all, clogged, slow-moving traffic might encourage a few people to get out of their cars, while punishing those who do not.

Minnesota’s Twin Cities Metropolitan Council takes a similar view of increased congestion. In addition to planning the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, the council runs the area’s public transit system. Bus ridership has declined by 40 percent in the past 25 years, while highway traffic has greatly increased, with further increases projected. So what does the Metropolitan Council plan to do? Build no more roads for at least 20 years. The council wants to promote ridership on its buses by increasing highway congestion to intolerable levels. “As traffic congestion builds,” says the council’s Transportation Plan, “alternative travel modes will become more attractive.” Of course, as congestion builds, alternative places to live will become more attractive too.

If New Urbanist attitudes toward traffic congestion are muddled–they seek to alleviate traffic congestion by increasing it–their attitudes toward commuting are no less contorted. As with the assumed relationship between density and miles driven, the real world refutes New Urbanist claims that low-density suburban development forces people to spend more time commuting. Census data show that, regardless of the year or the urban area’s size, commuters spend an average of 20 to 25 minutes getting to work. This is as true in Los Angeles (with a metro area population of 12 million) as it is in Houma, Louisiana (68,000).

Indeed, if New Urbanists were really concerned about long commutes, they would advocate more road construction and less emphasis on mass transit: The average public transit commuter travels a shorter distance yet spends more time commuting than the average driver. The first-, second-, and third-longest average urban commute times are in New York, Washington, and Chicago–which, not coincidentally, are the urban areas with the first-, second-, and third-highest shares of commuters riding mass transit.

A similar paradox undergirds New Urbanist air quality policies. Since automobiles pollute the air, New Urbanists convinced Congress to deny federal highway funds to cities with significant air pollution problems. Not only does that policy make it tough for congested areas to build bigger highways, it almost certainly makes pollution worse in those cities. That’s because most auto pollution is a function of congestion and density: Cars use more energy and pollute more when they drive slowly or in stop-and-go traffic than when they drive fast in free-flowing traffic. The best prescription for reducing air pollution, then, is to reduce congestion by adding highway capacity or making other improvements to speed up traffic.

Dirty air is also a function of density, which promotes the concentration of dangerous levels of pollutants. The EPA rates urban air pollution as extreme, serious, moderate, marginal, and none. Not surprisingly, the worst pollution is found in the urban areas with the densest populations (see chart). Thus, the New Urban prescription of increased density with few new roads doubly increases urban air pollution.

Sprawling Costs

Worsened air quality is a price New Urbanists apparently are willing to pay. But when it comes to what they call “the costs of sprawl,” they’re not so generous. As with most of their core beliefs, New Urbanist cost analyses of suburban development rely more on faith than on empirical data. Hence, a 1974 Council on Environmental Quality report arguing that low-density development imposed higher costs for urban services–roads, sewers, schools, and the like–than higher densities remains a holy text among the New Urbanist faithful. That the document was based entirely on speculative and unverified estimates doesn’t seem important; neither does the fact that numerous studies since that time have found that taxes and urban service costs are actually higher in high-density areas.

A 1992 Duke University study, for example, analyzed data from 247 counties that contain well over half the population of the United States. The researchers found that, above a density of 250 people per square mile (which is a rural density), costs rose as densities increased. In fact, urban service costs in areas of 24,000 people per square mile–a density typical of the core of older cities such as Philadelphia and Boston–were nearly 50 percent greater than in areas of 250 people per square mile.

But even if a new high-density development did impose lower costs than a low-density development, it does not follow that it costs less to rebuild a low-density suburb to high densities than it would to simply build a new low-density suburb. That’s because infrastructure such as sewers, water, roads, and schools are built for the densities they serve. Suddenly doubling densities means tearing up streets for utilities, widening roads (or increasing congestion), and buying land for new schools.

Residents of San Diego know all about that. In 1980, the city adopted a New Urban plan that discouraged development outside of an urban ring and promoted “infill” development in the core area (“infill” is the development of vacant lots and redevelopment of existing residential areas to higher densities.) Ten years later, the sewage system was regularly breaking down, traffic congestion had significantly increased, and the city estimated that it needed $1 billion to bring urban infrastructure up to its 1980 levels. Ironically, the Sierra Club cited San Diego as one of the nation’s worst examples of sprawl.

In a related way, New Urbanists get it backward when it comes to housing and living costs: Policies they think will lead to cheaper housing and living costs actually make things more expensive. In low-density cities such as Houston and Minnesota’s Twin Cities, land represents a tiny fraction of the value of a home. In higher-density cities, it’s common for land to account for half or more of the value of a home. This means that people of a given income level in a high-density city can afford less house than they might buy in a low-density area. That’s one reason why the suburbs are so popular–you tend to get more house (and property) for the money.

The same basic economic reality affects retailing as well. A major reason why megastores and supermarkets gravitate to the outskirts of areas is that land is cheaper and allows for bigger buildings. The New Urbanist dream of shopping at a corner market may be quaint, but it ignores two basic things people look for in stores: good prices and a wide selection of products, neither of which is characteristic of small shops (as any inner-city grocery shopper will tell you). Stores get bigger when they can serve more people. When they get bigger, they can offer a greater variety of products, fresher produce, and lower prices than small stores. Corner grocery stores might serve the occasional emergency need for a quart of milk or six-pack of beer. But most people will do most of their shopping where choices are greater and costs are lower–which means that they will shop by car.

In spite of New Urbanist claims, such residential and retailing mobility hasn’t led to unchecked sprawl. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, more than 95 percent of the lower 48 states remains undeveloped. In fact, the vast majority of Americans live in the less than 3 percent of the country that is urbanized (defined by the Census Bureau as more than 1,000 people per square mile). The only open spaces that are truly threatened are golf courses, u-pick farms, and large suburban backyards. All are targeted by New Urbanists for “infill” development. Portland is even selling park lands at discount prices to entice developers into building high-density apartments.

The Congestion Coalition

Despite its theoretical and practical failings, the New Urbanism is quietly sweeping the nation. Portland’s Metro recently passed the most restrictive plan ever adopted for a U.S. city. The legislatures of Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington have enacted “smart growth” or “growth management” laws, both New Urbanist euphemisms. Pressure groups in Denver, Phoenix, Albuquerque, Tampa, and other cities are demanding and getting New Urbanist plans for their communities. If you live in a metropolitan area, your city planning bureau is probably infested with New Urbanists.

This success is all the more remarkable given the manifest and widely recognized failure of grand, utopian planning schemes. As Jane Jacobs’ The Death and Life of Great American Cities (1961) showed, the urban renewal movement in the 1950s and ’60s destroyed living communities and replaced them with sterile monuments to human arrogance. In Nowhere to Go (1988), Fuller Torrence credibly blames much of the homeless problem on planners who demolished the low-income apartments where many of these people lived. Planners also created many of the public housing disasters of the past few decades. The history of urban planning is a lesson in the law of unintended consequences.

How do the New Urbanists respond to the failure of their forebears? They not only admit that past planners made mistakes, they themselves blame most urban ills on previous generations of planners. Their perverse, if savvy, solution is to give planners more power, so they can correct past mistakes through even stronger rules and regulations.

New Urbanist supporters include planners, environmentalists, federal bureaucrats, central city officials, downtown businesses, and construction companies. Their motivations range from idealism to economic self-interest, but all have a stake in maintaining or rebuilding tightly packed urban cores. Together, they also have the clout to get things done.

Planners and environmentalists are among the idealists in what can be dubbed the “congestion coalition.” Recognizing that traffic congestion is one of the major concerns of urban residents, most New Urbanist planners no doubt think their convoluted approach will eventually alleviate the situation. (To put a more cynical spin on their designs, they can at least rest assured that increases in congestion caused by their plans will lead to calls for more planners.) Environmentalists’ idealism is less concerned with urban quality of life per se than with preserving what they see as pristine wilderness; New Urbanist nostrums of denser urban areas and less automobile usage are means to that end.

By themselves, however, planners and environmentalists are not powerful enough to persuade anyone to implement the New Urbanism. That’s where the other members of the congestion coalition come in. If planners and environmentalists supply the vision, bureaucrats, local officials, downtown businesses, and contractors provide the money and the might to make New Urbanist dreams a reality.

A number of friendly federal agencies directly finance the New Urbanist agenda. For instance, as part of its Transportation Partners program, the EPA gives several hundred nonprofit organizations money to lobby for transit and pedestrian ways and against highways. The avowed goal of the program is to reduce the number of “vehicle miles traveled.” (In true New Urbanist fashion, the claims to success are meager at best: The EPA boasts these “partners” reduced annual vehicle travel by 1.25 billion miles in 1997. That’s a questionable figure, but even if valid, it represents less than 0.1 percent of all urban driving.)

The U.S. Department of Transportation also supports the New Urbanism. The Federal Transit Administration, the branch of the department charged with promoting transportation planning, strongly influences urban spending because New Urbanists convinced Congress that cities receiving federal transportation funds should be forced to create regional transportation plans. The onerous planning process gives New Urbanists plenty of opportunities to skew the results their way. For example, federal transit officials grade local transportation planners for the effort they make at getting cyclists, pedestrians, and transit riders–but not auto drivers–involved in the planning process. The transportation bill recently passed by Congress provides $20 million a year in local grants similar to the EPA’s Transportation Partners program.

New Urbanism is also supported by DOT and Department of Housing and Urban Development requirements that urban areas have metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) representing most or all local governments. Originally conceived as clearinghouses for federal grants, many MPOs function instead as political safety valves. As Brookings Institution economist Anthony Downs notes in Stuck in Traffic (1992), a regional planning agency “can take controversial stands without making its individual members commit themselves to those stands. Each member can claim that `the organization’ did it or blame all the other members.”

Urban Godsends

That’s exactly what has happened in Portland, where Metro has ultimate planning authority over two dozen cities and three counties. Metro requires these cities and counties to rezone existing neighborhoods to meet its population targets. Far from resisting such targets, many cities view them as a way to increase their tax base by packing more residents into their jurisdictions, and some even asked for higher ones. But when neighborhoods object to being rezoned, they are told, “We don’t have a choice. Metro is making us do it.”

The turn to MPOs is a godsend especially to officials in large cities seeking to consolidate, if not increase, their power, which has been on the wane for most of the postwar period. Since 1950, nearly all urban growth has been outside big cities. That massive population shift toward suburbs and mid-size cities has made it tougher for traditional central cities to generate tax revenue and to qualify for pork-barrel spending tied to population. The MPOs change all that.

Because of its relative size, the strongest player in any MPO is invariably the largest city in the region. The MPO gives such cities an instrument to redirect development dollars their way and to get revenge on the suburbs (tellingly characterized as “godawful trash” by one Portland City Council member). The same holds true for downtown business interests: Like their public-sector counterparts, they resent the shopping malls, office campuses, and modern factories that have grown up in the suburbs. For central city officials and businesses, then, the New Urbanism represents the latest ploy to maintain their way of life.

Of course, it’s unlikely it will succeed any more than the billions of federal and local dollars already spent trying to maintain particular urban areas. The problem with most central cities is that they were built in an age when primitive transportation and communications dictated high densities; people had to live near one another. The “decline” of cities that officials worry so much about is due to the fact that cars, telephones, and electricity make it possible for people to live in lower densities–and most choose to do so.

Fretting over urban “decline” is misguided in another sense too. Downtown interests, argues Joel Garreau in the brilliant Edge City (1991), “believe settlement patterns to be a zero-sum game”: Any gain in the suburbs represents a loss for downtown. Yet Garreau notes that even as suburbs have boomed, American “downtowns have been going through their most striking revivals of this century. From coast to coast…downtowns are flourishing.”

To be sure, most recent downtown growth has been in the areas of arts and entertainment. This fails to impress downtown traditionalists, who still think downtowns should be the main retail and commercial centers of a city. So New Urbanist prescriptions, such as limits on new shopping malls and parking restrictions in existing malls, are appealing to downtown businesses. If new stores can’t open in the suburbs, goes this line of thought, they’ll have to set up shop downtown.

Such zero-sum thinking undergirds what is perhaps the defining characteristic of the New Urbanism: an undying reverence for light-rail networks. Central city officials and downtown interests know that, if transportation dollars go into highways, they will be spent in the suburbs, where most growth is taking place. But if those funds are spent on a rail transit system, the vast majority will be spent in the central city because most, if not all, rail lines will radiate from a downtown.

Light rail not only restores to downtown some of its former centrality, it represents a huge pork-barrel project for the fifth member of the congestion coalition: the civil construction industry. With the Interstate Highway System effectively completed and strong resistance to new roads in the cities, the construction industry has been looking for work. What better opportunity exists than to rebuild the rail systems that moved urbanites in the pre-automobile age?

New Urbanists spuriously claim that light rail is more efficient than highways. For the construction industry, the attraction of rail systems is that they cost much more to build than highways. A typical urban freeway costs about $5 million to $10 million per lane-mile, or $20 million to $40 million per mile of four-lane road. By comparison, Portland just opened a new light-rail line that cost $55 million per mile–and is planning a new line that will cost a whopping $100 million per mile. (That neither of these lines will carry as many people as a single freeway lane is the sort of consideration that never seems to make it onto the planner’s ledger sheet.)

Light rail isn’t always as expensive as in Portland, but its costs when finished are almost always far greater than when originally proposed. For the construction industry, then, rail is not only less controversial than highways. Because of typical cost overruns and “gold-plating,” rail adds up to huge profits for a wide variety of consulting, engineering, and building firms.

Light rail does nothing to reduce congestion; in fact, because most transit systems sacrifice more-popular bus routes once they introduce less-popular trains, it typically increases congestion. But that is not the construction industry’s concern. So long as New Urban interests can channel money toward rail, the construction industry will be only too happy to finance the political campaigns of New Urbanist city officials and any ballot measures that might be required to obtain local rail funding.

The Metro Dilemma

Given the strength of the congestion coalition, it’s no surprise that the New Urbanism has gotten as far as it has. While the movement has visible critics–including Joel Garreau, Peter Gordon of the University of Southern California, and John Charles of the Portland-based Cascade Policy Institute–sometimes it seems as if it is an unstoppable civic juggernaut. Beyond underscoring its inconsistencies and misrepresentations, one way of challenging the New Urbanism is to recognize its place in the urban planning tradition.

Far from being the “scientific” and “rigorous” school of thought its proponents claim, the New Urbanism is best understood as simply the latest attempt by planners to pass narrow, essentially moral judgments on American cities. Beginning with the “City Beautiful” movement in the late 19th century, planners believed that good design would lead to a “new urban man” who would be a morally upright member of the community. Given the proper architectural circumstances, planners theorized, urban residents would work hard and not turn to crime; social ills such as drunkenness would disappear.

Early land-use planners believed that the crowded, dirty cities where houses were mingled with factories and commercial uses should be replaced by low-density residential areas separated from other uses. There, workers would be free from easily transmitted diseases and have cleaner air. A few decades later, in the 1920s, early transportation planners hoped that good roads would revitalize downtowns–threatened even then by “sprawl” –by reducing congestion and attracting new investments. But all the freeways did is give residents and employers a quicker escape from the crowded central cities.

New Urbanism has learned well the lesson that roads let people go where they want to go. They’ve wedded that insight to the early land-use planners’ goal of improving people’s moral behavior. The immoral behavior New Urbanists want to end now is driving, which they see as wasteful, noxious, and anti-social. Interestingly, to stop people from driving, they are trying to turn entire urban areas into the crowded, mixed-use cities that 19th-century planners found so degrading. “The politics of stasis,” says interstate highway historian Mark Rose, “has displaced the politics of growth.” What hasn’t changed is the belief that people cannot or should not be left to their own devices when it comes to deciding where and how to live their lives.

If the New Urbanists put the actual quality of life of urban residents ahead of their theories about quality of life, they would chart a vastly different course. The best prescription for the central cities is to let them depopulate as people move out to the suburbs. As their densities fall, they will become more attractive places to live. This has happened in Cleveland, the former national joke which has become one of the more livable cities in the Midwest. But such a policy bruises the egos of the city officials who want to maintain political hegemony over the suburbs; it also fails to satisfy the demands of the rest of the congestion coalition.

So the New Urbanists turn instead to regional planning, growth boundaries, suburban “densification,” congestion-inducing road policies, and light-rail transit. This is a prescription for destroying not only the central cities but the suburbs as well. As baby boomers retire and telecommuters increase, fewer and fewer people will need to live in urban areas. If the New Urbanists succeed in making the suburbs as unlivable as many central cities already are, people living in cities and suburbs are likely to become “exurbanites,” moving out to rural areas. Exurbanization will be sprawl with a vengeance, as people forbidden to live on quarter-acre suburban lots happily move to five-to-40-acre rural lots.

A recent survey of Portland residents should give the New Urbanists pause, even as it apparently confirms their agenda. The poll found that most Portlanders do in fact support Metro’s plan. But then the poll asked where people would live if they had a choice: the city, the suburbs, or rural areas. The same majority said “rural areas.” That response might seem odd, but it’s in keeping with the New Urbanism, which produces in abundance everything its adherents claim to oppose: congestion, pollution, unaffordable housing, and higher taxes.

©2007 Reason Magazine.

PRIUS PARADE

Tuesday, October 9th, 2007

PRIUS PARADE
and

Media Event
to highlight TOYOTA’s lobbying against fuel efficiency in US Congress.

Time: Friday October 12th, 2007 10:30am-11:30am
Location: Parading from Fred Meyer’s parking lot (NE Wiedler St. and 32nd Ave) to media event.

We’d love to know that you’re coming!  Please contact Emily Southard to RSVP at esouthard@greencorps.org or 503.231.4181 x 303.

TOYOTA: moving backward.

Toyota’s actions don’t match their “Green” image:

-Toyota, producer of the Prius, one of the most efficient cars on the road, is actually lobbying against increasing fuel efficiency standards.

-Join the thousands of American consumers who are telling Toyota to drop its efforts to block legislation to increase fuel economy and state laws that reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

-It is time for Toyota to earn its reputation as a green company!

Private: EcoShuttle Shuffle

Friday, October 5th, 2007

Start at Touche for a 30th Bday party

Private Wine Tour

Friday, October 5th, 2007

Drive Less. Save More.

Portland Fashion Week

Friday, October 5th, 2007

Portland Fashion Week’s vision is to emphasize eco-responsible fashion, stage independent designers, and draw national attention to Portland’s unique intersection of Art, Commerce, and Sustainability.

As a longtime hotbed of creativity for modern art, design, and urban development, Portland is being unveiled as fashion’s best-kept secret. On the runway since 2003, Portland Fashion Week is the second-longest running fashion week on the West Coast. PFW stages the freshest designers’ collections of the upcoming season through a week-long series of high-production runway shows at the hippest venues in downtown Portland, and exposes independent designers to style-savvy consumers, as well as buyers, and regional & national press.

2007 TransitCenter Commuter Impact Survey Reveals 132% Growth in Commuter Benefits in Major U.S. Markets since 2006

Thursday, October 4th, 2007

Nearly Two-Thirds of Employers in Major Metropolitan Areas Now Offer a Tax-free Commuter Benefit; Many Say Offering the Benefit is their Most Significant Contribution to Curbing Global Warming
NEW YORK–(BUSINESS WIRE)–September 25, 2007–

U.S. employers now view pre-tax commuter benefits as the number-one planned addition to their benefits packages, amidst a growing focus on the environment and supporting employee commuting, according to the 2007 TransitCenter Commuter Impact Survey. TransitCenter, Inc., a nonprofit organization that promotes the use of mass transit, independently fielded the survey to 245 U.S. human resource professionals across public, private, nonprofit and government organizations at the June 2007 Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM) Annual Conference & Exposition as well as online.

Under Internal Revenue Code, tax-free commuter benefits programs can be offered by employers as an employee-funded pre-tax payroll deduction or as an employer-provided fringe benefit – and allow participants to set aside up to $110 a month tax-free to pay for transit and vanpool commuting costs, and up to $215 for commuter parking. Employees who participate can achieve tax savings equivalent to 30 to 40 percent of their out-of-pocket commuting expenses. Offering a commuter benefits program can also help employers lower their payroll taxes.

Compared to last year, the 2007 TransitCenter Commuter Impact survey shows that deployment of tax-free commuter benefits programs by U.S. employers in major metropolitan areas has grown 132 percent, jumping from 28 percent in 2006 to 65 percent in 2007. Today, it is the number-one program that employers plan to add to their benefits package in the next year, with 17 percent saying they intend to implement a pre-tax commuter benefit program as compared to 5 percent in 2006.

TransitCenter’s survey also reveals that more employers are focused on providing commuting alternatives to employees, responding to growing employee concern about the cost of driving to work (93 percent), traffic congestion and drive time (84 percent), and carbon emissions and their impact on global warming (79 percent). The 2000 U.S. Census found that over 78 percent of people employed in the U.S. drive alone to work – and, according to the Texas Transportation Institute’s 2007 Urban Mobility Report, lose nearly a full work week of productivity per capita annually by sitting in traffic.

“Employers are striving to make a positive impact on their employees and the environmental future of the communities they serve, and TransitCenter is extremely proud that commuter benefits are rising to the forefront as a simple way to make a significant difference,” said Larry Filler, president and CEO of TransitCenter. “As we mark the 20th anniversary of commuter benefits being recognized under federal law, the number of employers offering the benefit has never been higher. We expect participation to grow as more realize the value of these programs in encouraging people to get out of their cars and ride mass transit.”

TransitCenter introduced TransitChek, the nation’s first tax-free commuter benefits program in 1987 to engage employers in encouraging their employees’ use of mass transit to reduce traffic congestion and curb emissions that cause global warming. Its latest survey confirms that its mission is being heard by employers today more than ever: 84 percent of respondents said that their companies are concerned about the environment and global warming, and approximately two-thirds have developed initiatives to respond. The survey found that employers are addressing global warming and environmental issues in a number of ways:

  • * 28 percent offer commuter benefits specifically as a means to encourage the use of mass transit
  • 22 percent currently partner with a green organization
  • 20 percent have established an internal policy for energy conservation
  • 20 percent are developing products and services that are not detrimental to the environment
  • 19 percent are teaching employees how to use less energy
  • 17 percent are pursuing a greener supply chain approach

TransitCenter offers services to help employers determine how to implement a commuter benefits program that is right for them and their employees. The organization offers best practices and assistance in expanding employee participation for public, private and nonprofit and government employers nationwide.

A copy of the 2007 TransitCenter Commuter Impact Survey report is available by contacting Charles Kim at ckim@transitcenter.com.

About Tax-Free Commuter Benefits

Since 1993, employers have been able to offer employees a tax-free benefit for commuting by transit and eligible vanpools or to pay for commuter parking primarily at transit or ridesharing locations under IRS tax code section 132(f). Tax-free commuter benefits can be structured as an employee-funded tax-free payroll deduction; as an employer-funded benefit; or the costs can be shared by employer and employee. The benefit can be delivered in the form of transit provider-specific passes, universally accepted vouchers and terminal–restricted debit cards, or through a reimbursement model under specific conditions defined by the IRS. Current IRS limits allow for participants to set aside up to $110 a month tax-free to pay for transit and vanpool commuting costs, and up to $215 for commuter parking.

About TransitCenter

A nonprofit corporation, TransitCenter specializes in tax-free commuter benefits, transit information and assistance for employers and commuters nationwide. TransitCenter introduced the nation’s first tax-free commuter benefits program in 1987 to encourage more people to use mass transit to protect the environment, preserve natural resources and improve the quality of life where people work and live. Today, more than 11,000 employers and 500,000 employees participate in TransitCenter’s TransitChek commuter benefits programs as a convenient, money-saving way to pay for commuting.

For 20 years, TransitCenter has worked hand-in-hand with transit providers, communities and employers to make mass transit more accessible. Independent since 2001, TransitCenter was founded in 1986 as a joint alliance of leading public transit providers. A deep heritage in transit drives TransitCenter’s continued commitment to bringing new innovations to employers and transit riders that participate in TransitChek tax-free commuter benefits programs. Learn more by visiting www.transitcenter.com.

CONTACT: Moon Kim

                Makovsky + Company 
                (212) 508-9614 
                mkim@makovsky.com

SOURCE: TransitCenter
Copyright Business Wire 2007

AAAOM Conference

Thursday, October 4th, 2007

The American Association of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine mission is:

To promote excellence and integrity in the professional practice of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, in order to enhance public health and well-being.

Venue: The Hilton Portland & Executive Tower

Open to public October 19th-21st

Please check out AAAOM’s website for more details

Attendees please contact us @ 877-ECO4PDX for pick up and drop off details

Private Lincoln City Pub Crawl

Thursday, October 4th, 2007

Private Coast Tour

Wednesday, October 3rd, 2007

Our Friendly Shuttles

Currently powered by 100% biodiesel.

Most Recent Entry

This is an article from Gemma Renton

Car pollution is having a huge impact on our environment, affecting everything from the size of the hole in the ozone layer to the health and wellbeing of the general public, with vehicle air pollution contributing to the rise in individuals suffering from acute respiratory conditions around the world. One of the most devastating impacts of increased motor vehicle use is the increased level of pollutants it is releasing into our air and atmosphere.

Read the rest of this page »

Browse by Category

100% biodiesel 100 billion 1869 2010 Affordable Health Care Act 2012 2013 4th of July Adam Yauch adopt a highway Ages and Ages agriculture air pollution air port transportation Alberta Canada Alexana Winery algae algae blooms alternative energy American Chemistry Council Americans animal exctinction animal fats animals apple Archery Summit Athens Atlants Falcons b20 b99 Bamboo Sushi Bangladesh Barack Obama basic rights bear Beastie Boys beer Bengals Berkeley Better Living Show big oil bike bike lanes BikeBar bikes Bill Clinton biodiesel biodynamics Birdfest and Bluegrass Birdfest and Bluegrass Nature Festival birth rate Bison Organic Brewing Black Friday Black Mountain BLIZZAKS blog Bluefin Tuna bluegrass Blues Fest Bobcats Booker T bourbon Bravo Wedding Affair Brazil brew tours brewpubs Buddy Guy bus buses Business Success buy local California Cape Wind Project carbon carbon dioxide carbon emissions carbon foot print carbon legacy Carbon Neutral Challenge carless in portland cars Central America Century Link Field Champoeg Farms charter Chehalem Winery Chernobyl Chicago Chicago Cubs Chicago River China Christmas Christmas tree Cincinnati Reds Cinco De Mayo clean coal clean energy clean energy initiatives Clean Fuels Now climate change coal coal ash cold water laundry colonizing the ocean Columbia Boulevard Columbia Gorge Columbia River Gorge Committed Wedding Event Community Supported Agriculture compost consumption Cooper Mountain Wines cost effective CSM Monitor Cuyahoga River cyclist Daryl Hanna Dave Kestenbaum Daves Killer Bread Dawn of the Bed De Ponte Cellars debris department of defense deposits Dhani Jones dogs dolphins Domaine Drouhin Dr. Robert Ballard drilling drive less Duck Pond eco friendly eco friendly christmas tree eco friendly holiday eco friendly transportation eco portland eco toys ecofriendly EcoHouse ecoShuttle Ecotrope election 2012 electric cars electricity energy environment Environmental Defense EPA facebook Fake Plastic Trees fall travel fauna federal government first thursday fiscal responsibility fish deformities Fish Tale Organic Beer Fisker Karma. Chevy Volt food food supply food waste football Forbes Ford forest park Fourth of July fracking fun Galactic Galleria building George H.W. Bush George W. Bush Germany Glass Candy Glen Jackson Bridge global warming Google Gorge Tour Gov. Schwarzenegger Grain and Gristle Great Willamette Cleanup green beer Green Coach Certification green gifts green house gases green oregon Green Path Green Path Transfers green portland Green Portland Tours green roofs Green Sports Alliance green sprouts Green Tips green transportation green wedding greenest city in america greenloop Grochau Cellars Growing Gardens GrowingGardens growler Happy Hour Holiday Waste Hood River Fruit Loop Hood River Wine Tour hopworks Hopworks Urban Brewery hot green Hotel Monaco Hotel Oregon hoyt arboretum Hurricane Sandy hydrothermal energy Iberdrola Renewables Indiana interstate bicycle highway Italy Ivan Neville Jamal Crawford James Inhofe Jason Jesse and Fiona Yun junk to funk Kentucky Keystone XL Pipeline KGW Lake Michigan Las Vegas LEED Certified Left Coast Cellars Lemelson Vineyards Les Schwab Amphitheatre license plates Little Big Branch lobbyists lobsterman lungs MAC Maceo Parker Macindoe Family Cellars Mark Klosterman Mayor Emanuel McMenamins mcminnville Meatless Monday Memorial Day Miami Erie Canal Microsoft migrating birds military Miss Teen Earth Mississippi River mt hood Mt. Hood Scenic Highway Multnomah Falls MusicFest Northwest MusicfestNW New Jersey New Seasons New Year New York New York City New York Times NFL Niger Nissan Leaf NOAA non partisan northeast Northwest Shingle Recyclers NPR Obama Administration ocean off shore oil platform Ogallala Aquifer Ohio Ohio University oil oil platforms Olympia Olympia Snowe Oregon oregon beaches Oregon Ducks Oregon State University Oregon wines oregon zoo organic coffee overpopulation Ovie Mughelli partisan party pdx pedestrians Philadelphia Eagles pickathon Pink Floyd plastic plastic bag ban plastic bags plate and pitchfork polar ice caps politicians pollution population growth portland Portland Oregon portland oregon in the fall Portland tours Portland Trailblazers powells books preservation President Obama Presidential campaigns Presidential Debates Prius privatized recycling project syndicate pub crawls R99 rain forests Rainbow Wedding Expo rainforest raised gardens recreation recycle recycling Red Lion renewable renewable energy Renewable energy ghost towns reuse Rex Hill Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge Ridgefield Nature Preserve roads Robert Cray Rose Festival Rose Garden Arena safety Safeway Waterfront Blues Festival Sam Adams Sasquatch Music Festival Sauvie Island Sauvie Island Organics Science Daily Seahawks Seattle Seattle Seahawks see portland sewage runoff sharks Sherwood shuttles Siria Bojorquez Small Business Saturday Smith Berry Farms Smithsonian Institue snow Sokol Blosser solar energy solar power Solyndra Soter Vineyards spell check spiders State of the Union stem cell research Steve Miller Band Steven Chu Stoller Vineyards studded tires stumptown coffee Styrofoam subway summer Sun Gold Farms Sunnyside superfund site superstorm sustainability sustainable energy sustainable gift wrapping sustainable living sustainable transportation sustainable travel SW Washington Talk of the Nation Science Friday Tesla Texas Thanksgiving the Antlers The Flaming Lips the Wall Thee Oh Sees Three MIle Island Titanic Toronto tours toxins Toyohashi University of Technology Toyota Prius Trail Blazers transfer service transportation trash trashion travel oregon travel portland Travelocity trees University of Vermont Univore used cooking oil Van Wert Vancouver Canucks vegetable oil veggie oil Viridian Farms washington washington park oregon Washington Post waste free wedding Waterfront Blues Fest waterfront blues festival weddings weekend Will Sampson Willamette River Willamette Riverkeepers Willamette Valley Willamette Valley Vineyards Wilsonville wind energy wind farm wind farms wind power wind turbines Winderlea Vineyards wine wine tasting wine tour wine tours winter Yale Yale Project on Climate Change Communication Yucca Mountain Zanzibar

The Green Commuter

Sign Up for our Quarterly Newsletter to find out what we and the rest of the industry are doing to make Green Commuting work.