Livability works for rural communities

Today, I'll be joined by HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan testifying before the Senate Appropriations Transportation, Housing & Urban Development Subcommittee. We'll be talking about a key item on the Obama Administration's agenda, livable communities.

Testifying with my partner in livable and sustainable communities, HUD Secretary Shaun Donovan

I think by now it's pretty clear that Americans want the kind of communities that are walkable, that offer a sense of connection to their neighbors. Everywhere I've been in the US during the past 16 months--and I've been to more than 80 communities in 35 states--people have been telling me they want more public transportation and walkability with less congestion and sprawl.

Downtown Tupelo, MS, a community planning for livability

Now, maybe it seems more obvious that walkable communities and communities served by transit work well for urban centers. But I want the Subcommittee to know this model works great for small towns and rural communities.

In fact, the livability Americans say they want comes to us from rural communities with town centers that are walkable and accessible to all ages and income groups.

But rural communities also face special challenges that have threatened the kind of traditional community design that nourished livability.  Past transportation policies have resulted in many rural Main Streets being bypassed by the interstate highway system--contributing to the decline of once-vibrant business centers.

Many rural communities located close to cities have lost farmland and open space as urban areas spread outward.

Readers may be surprised to know that transportation costs are often significantly higher for residents of rural communities, especially those with longer commutes to employment centers.

So the Obama Administration's Interagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities wants better coordination of housing and transportation to protect and safeguard open space and agricultural land in rural areas, preserve the traditional culture of rural town centers, and provide rural residents with transportation options that decrease their household costs.
 

Certainly, livability in rural areas will look different from livability in urban city centers, but the outcome--a small town with a walkable Main Street lined with spaces for retail, employment and housing is achievable.

Recently I blogged about Tupelo, Mississippi, and its support of bicycle and pedestrian access.

Bath's trolley, "Emma"

Bath is a small town in southwest Maine whose historic downtown area is a model of a livable community.  The town provides two trolley loops to transport residents and tourists through downtown, reducing the need for on-street parking.  Bath’s street design encourages citizens to get out of their cars, which in turn supports local merchants through increased foot traffic.

My favorite example is Dubuque, Iowa, which I had the pleasure of visiting last year.  In its Historic Millwork District, Dubuque is redeveloping old factories and mills–-dormant since the early part of the 20th century–-to create new mixed income housing, workplaces and entertainment.

Touring Dubuque's Millwork District with EPA's Lisa Jackson

Sustainable transportation options are important to this plan. Dubuque's trolley bus now connects the Millwork District to downtown.  We also funded a project to design streets in this district that are attractive, convenient and safe for a broad range of users, including drivers, public transit, pedestrians, bicyclists, people without access to automobiles, children and people with disabilities.

You know, Dubuque’s efforts helped attract IBM to move an IT services center to the area, where it will provide over 1,300 new jobs for the city. With its "Smart City" partnership with IBM, Dubuque has become a model for other cities seeking new livable uses for its established infrastructure.

DOT has made a special effort to promote livability in rural and tribal communities through our TIGER discretionary grant program. Through our pilot program to support bus-transit/livability projects. Through our recently announced bus system upgrade program.

Livability means building the communities that help Americans live the lives they want to live--whether those communities are urban centers, small towns, or rural areas. And this DOT is working hard to make that possible.

Comments

[crhilton]

Yes.

[Rob]

Look at a rural area on a map, identify the nearest city with a pop of 40,000 or more, and you'll probably find a state route or U.S. Highway local people refer to as "Old [insert city name] Road." These roads are not necessarily “old” in condition, as many are quite well maintained, but are “old” because their routes were subsequently “improved” with alternate paths in the form of interstate highways or other forms of freeways/tollways. I traveled "Old Bowling Green Road" many times in my youth, riding along with my grandfather in his Ford pick-up (not a Chevy, of course). Although I generally thought we took U.S. 231 to avoid tolls on the Green River Parkway, I now think my grandfather wanted to take 231 to tell me, as a Chicago suburbanite spending every summer in rural Kentucky, stories about the areas we passed though and to show me a sense of community where strangers waive to one another as they pass in vehicles, or between front yards and/or fields and vehicles.

Despite significant cultural differences, some urban drivers have at least a sense of what I am writing of; urban Jeep CJ/Wrangler drivers routinely waive to one another in passing, though only to other Jeep CJ/Wrangler drivers. Irrespective of the motivation, every time someone waives at me in my Jeep, I think of my time in rural Kentucky. While many rural communities and areas have retained the “Old Bowling Green Road” routes and associated culture, the same can’t generally be said for major urban areas, though walkable, livable, and sustainable community initiatives are redirecting and refocusing our energies in ways that endeavor to reaffirm or re-establish social, economic, cultural, and environmental connectivity.

Where I grew up and continue to live today, near west suburban Chicago, the “Old Bowling Green Road” is the former passenger rail service known as the Westchester Branch of what is now the Chicago Transit Authority’s Blue Line. Unlike our rural counterparts, we have virtually eliminated all signs of the “Old Bowling Green Road.” The former service has disappeared beyond the CTA Blue Line’s current terminus in Forest Park, IL. In its place we have constructed a multi-lane interstate that, despite successive major capital investments to relieve congestion, remains congested during many hours of the day; it would need to double in size to have any chance of achieving the capacity necessary to have meaningful impact on congestion relief. The interstate has contributed significantly to the economic health of our region and beyond, and continues to be of value today; however, making investments to increase capacity are no longer generating a worthwhile return. Our “Old Bowling Green Road” needs to return, and with it the sort of job creation, economic revitalization, regional accessibility, and environmental benefits that high quality, reliable, and affordable public transit has to offer.

As we have just entered into a major study focused on expanding the interstate yet again, despite knowing that there will be no congestion benefit, knowing that we will increase fuel consumption and associated pollution, and knowing that we will not maximize the economic value our major investment, I find myself thinking about what I will be telling my grandchildren when they travel with me down the interstate. I think I will be telling them stories about our “Old Bowling Green Road”, but instead of demonstrating connectedness to people and the environment along the corridor, I’ll be pointing out how foolish we have been not to realize that we – transportation planners, policy makers, and others - have continued to do what was once the right thing, but well beyond the point at which it was the right thing to keep doing.

Roads and highways have benefitted both urban and rural areas, but have also been harmful. In many respects, “livability” in rural areas caries a sharply different meaning from urban livability, and that meaning is arguably more variable from one rural locale to another than from one urban area to another. Care should be taken to develop and frame solutions that recognize the unique characteristics of geographies, cultures, and community values. I applaud efforts to recover and maintain the vitality of rural main streets, but care should be taken such that urban values are not thrust upon rural communities through rigid project evaluation criteria that can’t sufficiently recognize and adapt to the unique social, economic, and cultural differences of rural locales and people. For example, it is true that many rural residents travel long distances to work; however, some prefer to travel in order to maintain their access to the physical and social setting of their rural home and community. How can transportation and housing investments combine in such a way that the “Old Bowling Green Road” is still there for grandparents to travel with their grandchildren and yet support improved quality of life through improved access to essential living needs, decent education, and the ability to fulfill dreams?

Recognizing the value in supporting prudent and well-planned rural development, and with hope for successful initiatives, I can’t help but reflect on how past federal transportation policy has shaped my local “Old Bowling Green Road” – that transportation option, in the form of passenger rail service that had at one time ended just a short bike ride from my home, that disappeared with the advent of the interstate highways system and has never returned. We’re still trying to get it back, but it looks like an add-a (hopeless)-lane project is racing to the finish line.

I hope for better outcomes in rural America and applaud efforts to continue to re-imagine federal transportation policy in a way that promotes and achieves improved outcomes for all. This is not possible without demonstrating flexibility, awareness of prior learnings, and effective public engagement. Our computer simulation models are broken. Our investment strategies are beginning to fail. Our imagination has stagnated. It’s time for the next big thing . . . or maybe simply time to take a drive down “Old Bowling Green Road.” Revisiting our past to make improved decisions for our future. Livable, walkable, sustainable communities are a good place to start, but until things like funding formulas and project evaluation disparities are solved, “Old Bowling Green Road” is simply a longshot horse at the Derby on a fast track – all the “smart” money is on that other horse: Highways. We need a new favorite.

[Michael E. Bailey]

Walkable communities and increased use of transit rather than cars are what is needed. We don,t need to look any further than the Gulf of Mexico to see what an overreliance on diesel and gasoline will do. And there is no reason other than will why any community could not become a walkable community. My town--Mission Viejo--is a walkable community. Everything you need is in footsteps of where you live. The hardware store, gocery store, bank and barbarshop are across the street from where I live. The library and city hall are less than a block from where I live. I have seazure disorder and there is a county fire station across the street from where I live. And a bus stop is just off the complex grounds. Part of the effort should include emergency funding for transit operations funds and new technology for a good 21st Century transportation system. I got the monthly hydrogen fuel cells newsletter a few days ago, and there is an article in it about the German firm SFC SMART FUEL CELL AG and the German Federal Office For Goods Transport. The Ministry is using a fleet of all-electric powered vehicles, but instead of the vehicles having to come in to get their batteries recharged, each is equipped with hydogen fuel cell technolgy by SFC SMART FUEL CELL AG that allows the batteries to be rechared as needed in the field without having to be taken out of service. The Ministry says the technology is working out well, saving lots of money, and making use of the vehicles more efficient. We should have this type technology for our all-electric powered vehicles. It works better than even recharging the batteries using solar power because under the SFC SMART FUEL CELL AG system, the vehicle is recharged in the field as needed and does not have to be taken out of service. And no emissions are produced. I also saw in the same newsletter where the City of Burbank here in Southern California, is about to put in service the first fully hydrogen powered city bus another major step forward for Southern California. I also saw that DOT funded much of the cost of the new bus which is anothfer good thing. Best wishes, Michael E. Bailey.

[Bruce Lierman]

"We are discouraging transportation investments that negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians. And we are encouraging investments that go beyond the minimum requirements and provide facilities for bicyclists and pedestrians of all ages and abilities.”

I was struck by this phrase as quoted in a news release from Nelson Hoffman, Program Analyst at the Federal Highway Administration - VT and NH Divisions.
It seems to me one of the most difficult aspects of improving the transportation use of bicycles and pedestrians is the problem of traffic facilities. Particularly, my concern is with bicycle facilities, since I'm a bicycle commuter and have been for over 20 years.
The difficulties of designing facilities to accommodate bicyclists and other traffic has been greatly underestimated, as evidenced by the designs I have seen in use over the years. There is clearly more interest in providing separate facilities than ever before, but from my experience, there has been little success. As a cyclist, my anecdotal experience is that the majority of separate cycling facilities designed for transportation, as opposed to recreational, use "...negatively affect cyclists and pedestrians". Admittedly, I do not have to commute over particularly congested streets and I pick my routes to avoid difficult situations, while still providing a reasonable travel time.
The typical bike lane at the right side of the right lane is the most common example. These are the most difficult situations I see associated with these lanes, and the areas in which I see little design progress:
• They invite cyclists to pull up on the right side of cars where they are subject to collisions with cars who don't see them when they make a right turn.
• They obscure the cyclist in the bike lane from the view of left-turning traffic in the oncoming lanes, behind the line of car traffic.
• They seldom provide enough clearance from parked cars where on-street parking is adjacent to the lane. The absolute worst situation, fortunately rare, is where the bicycle lane passes on the street side of head-in diagonal parking.
• They are very seldom cleared of snow and debris. Yes, many cyclists do commute in winter. In fact, in my years of riding, I've never commuted on a bicycle lane or path that was routinely cleared of snow or debris.
• They cause additional peril for the cyclist at left turns, essentially creating another lane to cross to get to the correct lane.

Most of the solutions I have seen to these solutions involve even more infrastructure investment, and more delays for cyclist, pedestrian and motorist traffic. Congested intersections often now have 5-stage traffic signal cycles to serve straight-through and left turn traffic on each street, plus at least one pedestrian cycle. Will we add two (or four) more cycles to control bicycle traffic? How will that affect commute times and traffic backups? Do we have reliable detection equipment for cyclists so traffic signals can be "smarter" in regulating traffic flows?
I have seen many inventive solutions for some of these issues, but few effective ones that actually improved the safety of cyclists (and pedestrians).
Essentially, I think the problem may be unsolvable, at least without the construction of a completely separate bicycle infrastructure. The more we work to separate bicycle traffic, the more points of conflict we will encounter with existing infrastructure.
Many of these problems could be mitigated through training of both motorists and cyclists in the use of these facilities. But many of the problems of the current infrastructure could also be mitigated by education. I hope that as part of the new emphasis on human powered transportation modes, considerable thought and emphasis will be given to how education of all roadway users can help with the promotion and safe use of these transportation modes.
Sincerely,

Bruce Lierman
President
The Cycling Academy, Inc.
thecyclingacademy@comcast.net

[Jay Neel]

The Administration's transportation plans are horrible since they place an unrealistic focus on mass transit. Mass transit and high-speed rail are not bad, but they are hugely expensive and have never been proven to reduce traffic congestion. Furthermore, the Administration and environmental groups ignore the amazing flexibility that cars offer that mass transit and rail simply cannot and will never be able to.
DOT's plan for moving people into mass transit is to increase congestion on our roads by not expanding highway capacity.