We Should Design Cities For Shorter Distances, Not Faster Speeds

[M II A II R II K]

We Should Design Cities For Shorter Distances, Not Faster Speeds


December 17, 2020

By Adie Tomer and Joseph W. Kane

Read More: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-a...faster-speeds/

.....

Decades of suburbanization and highway investment have stretched the distances between where people live and where they want to go. The result is a transportation system that is a top source of pollution and unintentional death, strains household budgets and public coffers, and gives consumers little transportation choice.

- Metropolitan American needs an approach focused on proximity and bringing people and places closer together. This means we can no longer make congestion our top priority; we need to build cities for shorter-distance travel. Today’s structural problems have their roots in how we measure the performance of our transportation networks and prioritize faster vehicle speeds. — Governments tend to use a system called “level of service” (LOS) to measure congestion, which isn’t too dissimilar from the color-coded traffic indicators in a GPS map app. Essentially, LOS delivers higher scores for roads where traffic can more frequently reach posted speed limits. Transportation analysts then use LOS results to judge where to make infrastructure investments and inform the kinds of congestion indexes that the media cites.

- LOS and congestion indexes fail to inform practitioners about where travelers start their trips, where they end those trips, or why they’re traveling in the first place. There is no recognition of the interplay between physical design and travel behavior, nor is there a recognition of broader economic, social, or environmental goals. And with Americans regularly wasting more time in traffic than ever before, the approach doesn’t even work. — Fortunately, new technology can support a new approach. The emergence of anonymized geolocation data allows practitioners and researchers to better track travel behavior at a regional and neighborhood scale, measuring exactly when, where, and how far people travel every day. The COVID-19 pandemic has been the grand demonstration of this data’s power: Media outlets worldwide have used geolocation data to demonstrate how many people were staying home, where people were congregating too much, and a host of other measures.

- Considering these findings, metropolitan planners, elected officials, and other partners should want to create more neighborhoods like Logan Square. Neighborhoods designed at this scale are more socially inclusive, more environmentally resilient, require less infrastructure per capita, and are safer for all. Our findings also reveal why chasing congestion reduction is a fool’s errand: Communities will lose many benefits of proximity while mostly failing to give residents shorter travel times. — Practitioners at all levels of government need a new approach to performance measurement, one that will help build more proximity-focused neighborhoods and downplay the importance of congestion reduction. We recommend any performance measurement suite include three key guiding principles:

• Practitioners should use anonymized geolocation data to accurately measure travel behavior at the neighborhood scale and make inter-neighborhood comparisons.

• Practitioners should build accessibility indexes to measure the number of key destinations someone can reach by multiple modes within certain distances and times.

• A database should include a broad range of complementary datasets—industry location data, sidewalk quality, property values, etc.—to compare how infrastructure supply, neighborhood conditions, and travel behavior interrelate.

.....

Using a pool of 71.5 million daily trips, we found that the average trip in these six places spanned 7.3 miles and lasted 15.5 minutes. But it was also clear that metro areas with less congestion also force residents into longer-distance trips. It’s nice that Kansas City, Mo. drivers encounter less rush hour congestion than their peers in Portland, Ore., and that they save 2.5 minutes per trip—but they’re also likely to travel 1,600 more miles per year.







Neighborhoods associated with longer-distance trips do enjoy faster travel speeds, but their total travel time is often longer. In other words, there’s little to no time savings to counterbalance all the extra miles traveled. Second, physical design matters: Neighborhoods with shorter-distance trips tend to have greater population densities, are situated closer to downtown, and contain more intersections—all features of more proximity-focused designs.







Comparing two specific neighborhoods can visualize the relationship between physical design and local travel behavior. For example, Chicago’s Logan Square neighborhood—which was designed for pedestrians and transit use, not cars—ends up having much shorter trips than a suburban peer like Roselle, Ill., which filters traffic to a highway and other wide roads.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by M II A II R II K

Yikes, what a juxtaposition.

Hey post-war america,

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Yikes, what a juxtaposition.

When you see them side-by-side like that, it really makes you wonder who the fuck thought that was a good idea?

(Without getting into a whole debate on the merits of suburbia, I can certainly understand the appeal. It just doesn't have to be so goddamn ugly and inhumane)

[accord1999]

Isn't that the way big cities were before the 1920s (as transportation options were far more limited and people far less wealthy) and the shift away from it afterwards, thanks first to rail then cars, suggests that many didn't like it.

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

(Without getting into a whole debate on the merits of suburbia, I can certainly understand the appeal. It just doesn't have to be so goddamn ugly and inhumane)

Because Manhattan 1910, or Hong Kong present is so "humane" and pretty for the average person.

[memph]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Isn't that the way big cities were before the 1920s (as transportation options were far more limited and people far less wealthy) and the shift away from it afterwards, thanks first to rail then cars, suggests that many didn't like it.


Because Manhattan 1910, or Hong Kong present is so "humane" and pretty for the average person.

Zaragoza doesn't seem to be so bad though. 700,000 people and 46% walk to work.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by accord1999

Because Manhattan 1910, or Hong Kong present is so "humane" and pretty for the average person.

Inhumane as in not made for humans. They're designed for cars with people as an afterthought.

In any case the density of early 20th century slums is besides the point when it comes to the design of modern suburbs.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

Inhumane as in not made for humans. They're designed for cars with people as an afterthought.

No, they're designed for people who happen to have cars. Meanwhile, the old cities were designed for a time when people were much more disposable.

In any case the density of early 20th century slums is besides the point when it comes to the design of modern suburbs.

No it's not, because without the mobility of the car, or at least the rail (which usually has the longest commute by time), the modern city would still look like a lot like the slums of old. The inner city would look a lot different in Manhattan, central Chicago, central London, central Paris, etc if modern mobility hadn't allowed millions to expand their housing and working options.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by MonkeyRonin

In any case the density of early 20th century slums is besides the point when it comes to the design of modern suburbs.

Totally, as if the only two kinds of built environments that one can choose between are Roselle, IL or Manhattan's lower east side circa 1910.

As I often like to say, we could've continued building more oak parks, but we ended up with a bunch schaumburgs instead.

Whoops.

[mhays]

You didn't link a source, but I'll make some typical points with this sort of stat:

1. Cities would be fairly different from the national stats. Obviously transit would be much higher.

2. A drive with two stops will typically count as three trips. Transit won't, including transfers unless you go into a store. Walking will, but they likely use a distance figure that segments must each exceed...maybe a kilometer for example.

3. Due to the distance figure, a lot of walks aren't "trips"...the sort that urban people take frequently because things are close.

[accord1999]

The data comes from the UK Government at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...t-britain-2019

1) It's only significant for London, as even for commutes the car dominates everywhere else in the UK. Even with recent growth from massive investment into rail, UK public transit use in 2018 (116B passenger-km) is lower than it was in 1952 (130B passenger-km). And with the very long commute times of bus and especially rail, we can see that many workers in London live well outside of the core, for probably the same reasons that they do in the US.



2) The car has even higher modal share by distance (from the 2018 report) than it does by trips.



3) I think the UK data collection tries to account for that.

[mhays]

So you're saying that in a big city, transit can do really well!

Also....you're showing that places can look like British cities and still accommodate the car as the largest transportation share...they don't have to look and function like shit for people.

[MolsonExport]

Sprawl begats roads which begats sprawl which begats roads which begats sprawl which begats roads which begats sprawl which begats roads which begats sprawl which begats roads which begats sprawl which begats roads which begats sprawl which begats roads which begats sprawl which begats roads which begats sprawl which begats roads which begats sprawl which begats roads which begats sprawl which begats roads ...

[dleung]

Suburbs started because cities were polluted back then and people with means wanted to escape. Now cities are much cleaner, and guess where the wealthiest live in most cities? Leafy inner-ring neighbourhoods a short drive away from everything. People only "choose" to live in scorched-earth power-centre exurbia because they can't afford the same things closer to the city.

The Life-Saving Car Technology No One Wants

Safety features that would make vehicles far less lethal to pedestrians exist right now. Why aren’t they required?

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/featu...to-pedestrians

[SIGSEGV]

imagine being the first manufacturer to use a car's smart features to disable speeding.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

imagine being the first manufacturer to use a car's smart features to disable speeding.

Probably not as a requirement like seatbelts, but I could totally see it happen as an option to vehicle owners, similar to channel restrictions on cable TV boxes. Why? Rental car companies, insurance companies, and parents with teen drivers.

[Acajack]

When I think of places that I've visited that have enthused me from a city perspective, the thing that strikes me the most positively in terms of transportation and getting around isn't a single mode like public transit, but rather the multiplicity of "options" and ways to easily get around.

That's what makes a great experience for me. Buses, subways, trains, walking, cycling, taxis and yes even private cars if that's what makes the most sense for going from point A to B in a specific case.

Too many cities only offer one (or sometimes two) way of more or less efficiently getting around.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by Acajack

When I think of places that I've visited that have enthused me from a city perspective, the thing that strikes me the most positively in terms of transportation and getting around isn't a single mode like public transit, but rather the multiplicity of "options" and ways to easily get around.

That's what makes a great experience for me. Buses, subways, trains, walking, cycling, taxis and yes even private cars if that's what makes the most sense for going from point A to B in a specific case.

Too many cities only offer one (or sometimes two) way of more or less efficiently getting around.

Yep. Living in Chicago now for a year(although an insane year), i've found my options to be the biggest selling point:

I can walk a block to a bus station
I can walk 2 blocks to a train station(with three lines)
I can walk downtown in 25 minutes

I can bike pretty much anywhere in the central city within 45 mins

My drives in the car are usually very short. A target, home depot, TjMaxx(not for me...:S), and pretty much any big box type store is 3-10 mins away. I can drive almost anywhere in the city with a car comfortably(minus downtown, but thats what walking and trains are for). I have legit options. This wouldn't be the case for me in Manhattan or 98% of other places in the country. It's a sweet spot.

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

imagine being the first manufacturer to use a car's smart features to disable speeding.

Wouldn't be an issue if government passed regulations requiring it, but the auto lobby would fight tooth and nail because they might not sell as many absurdly overpowered cars to man-babies.

[Doady]

Post-war subdivisions in Canada often incorporate TOD measures to reduce walking distances. Not just increased densities near arterials, but pedestrian walkways to the arterials to allow people to walk in a straight line to the nearest bus stop. As a result, even 90% post-war/suburban cities like Calgary (population 129,000 in 1951) have ridership competitive with US central cities and mid-sized European urban areas. Toronto is mostly suburban but TTC ridership is comparable to MTA in NYC. Pure suburban systems like Brampton Transit have 10 times higher ridership than suburban US systems like Pace. It takes very little effort to reduce these barriers to non-car travel, but US suburbs don't even try. Is it complacency, or is it deliberate? That is the real question.

Look at a place like Brampton, on the surface there are little difference from a typical US suburb. Brampton is clearly suburban, it is still largely built for the car, and yet Brampton Transit, serving a population of 600,000, got 144,000 boardings per weekday in 2016, more than St. Louis, Austin, San Antonio, Milwaukee, etc. Building new subdivisions for the car doesn't mean sacrificing permeability. So don't think of this a city vs. suburb thing, or a North America vs. Rest of the World thing.

The problem is not just that built form affects transit, but lack of transit also affects built form. You want dense, vibrant downtown with lots of pedestrians and cyclists? You want to reduce travel distances? Then you need to get rid of the parking lots. And to get rid of the parking lots, to reduce demand for parking, you need more people using transit. So if suburbs go out of their way to put up barriers to transit users from the city, or to discourage their own residents from using transit, then that will hurt the central city as well. We cannot think about the problem in terms of central cities vs. suburbs but instead as one urban area. It is all connected, and that's what this is all about, connecting not just people together but also places together. Ultimately, it is about unity, and the root of the problem in the US is it is just a deeply divided country. The poor transit ridership in the US, even compared to Canada, is mostly just a reflection of those divisions.