An urban policy agenda for conservatives, mobility innovation, bad Austin-SA rail, and more
A few items this week:
Finally, I'm generally non-partisan here, but I have to say I agree with a lot in this proposal of an urban agenda for conservatives
. The piece makes some good points about how Democratic one-party rule in a lot of cities has lead to a decidedly dysfunctional high-regulation and anti-opportunity agenda that, at its essence, doesn't seem very progressive. Well articulated - worth reading the whole thing
- but here's the final conservative urban policy agenda they propose:
"Some some possible elements of an urban agenda that come to mind: housing deregulation, charter schools, prison reform, occupational licensing reform, expanded income supports."
I'd add reigning in public employee unions to that, especially public pension reform.
Labels: economy, entrepreneurship, governance, Metro, mobility strategies, perspectives, rail, rankings, transit
Preparing for the impact of driverless cars
The buzz has been building about driverless cars for a while now, and this week I want to talk about a couple of new articles on the topic followed by my own thoughts. The first is a McKinsey article based on MIT research:
Full speed ahead: How the driverless car could transform cities
"By combining ride sharing with car sharing—particularly in a city such as New York—MIT research has shown that it would be possible to take every passenger to his or her destination at the time they need to be there, with 80 percent fewer cars.
Clearing the roads of four out of five cars has momentous consequences for cities, by measures such as environment, traffic, efficiency, and even parking. In most cities, for example, designated parking accounts for a huge amount of land, which ends up being useless for most of the day. With fewer cars, much of this space could be freed for other uses. Such reductions in car numbers would also dramatically lower the cost (and related energy consumption) of building and maintaining the roads. One engineering study found that automation could quadruple capacity on any given highway. And, of course, fewer cars also means less noise and a smaller environmental impact.
Driving patterns of individual cars can be algorithmically optimized as well. Because autonomous vehicles don’t get lost, they create less congestion and shorten travel times. More important, self-driving cars would also make for much safer roads; more than 30,000 people a year die in automobile-related deaths in the United States every year and 1.2 million worldwide."
I do have one quibble with the assertions above: yes, there will be fewer cars, but I suspect there will be a similar number of car *trips* (for example, one taxi providing 20 trips/day instead of 10 owned cars each providing two trips/day), and that means just as much wear and tear on the roads, unless
a lot more car sharing happens (i.e. one vehicle carrying multiple people on separate trips at the same time). More on that later...
The second article is from The Economist
and chock full of interesting facts:
- Cars sit idle 96% of the time.
- Google thinks self-driving taxis could have utilizations of 75%+.
- Stanford estimates we'll need 70% fewer cars to provide the same trips.
- "The idea that autonomous vehicles will be owned and used much as cars are today is a “tenuous assumption”, says Luis Martinez of the International Transport Forum, a division of the OECD, a think-tank. Fleets of self-driving vehicles could, he says, replace all car, taxi and bus trips in a city, providing as much mobility with far fewer vehicles. An OECD study modelling the use of self-driving cars in Lisbon found that shared “taxibots” could reduce the number of cars needed by 80-90%. Similarly, research by Dan Fagnant of the University of Utah, drawing on traffic data for Austin, Texas, found that an autonomous taxi with dynamic ride-sharing could replace ten private vehicles. This is consistent with the finding that one extra car in a car-sharing service typically takes 9-13 cars off the road. Self-driving vehicles could, in short, reduce urban vehicle numbers by as much as 90%."
- 94% of accidents are from human error, and these could be eliminated.
- "A study by the Eno Centre for Transportation, a non-profit group, estimates that if 90% of cars on American roads were autonomous, the number of accidents would fall from 5.5m a year to 1.3m, and road deaths from 32,400 to 11,300."
- "As well as being safer, self-driving vehicles would make traffic flow more smoothly, because they would not brake erratically, could be routed to avoid congestion and could travel close together to increase road capacity. A study by the University of Texas estimates that 90% penetration of self-driving cars in America would be equivalent to a doubling of road capacity and would cut delays by 60% on motorways and 15% on suburban roads. And riders in self-driving vehicles would be able to do other things. Morgan Stanley calculates that the resulting productivity gains would be worth $1.3 trillion a year in America and $5.6 trillion worldwide. Children, the elderly and the disabled could gain more independence."
- "With cars in constant use, much less parking space would be needed. Parking accounts for as much as 24% of the area of American cities, and some urban areas have as many as 3.5 parking spaces per car; even so, people looking for parking account for 30% of miles driven in urban business districts. By liberating space wasted on parking, autonomous vehicles could allow more people to live in city centres; but they would also make it easier for workers to live farther out. If you can sleep on the journey a longer commute becomes feasible, notes Mr Fagnant, who foresees a “simultaneous densification of cities, and expansion of the exurbs”.
Again, I think it's worth noting that even though the number of vehicles drops, the amount of vehicle-miles probably stays pretty steady or maybe even increases as people can be productive on longer commutes. In essence, there will be fewer vehicles, but they will get used up/worn out much more quickly from their high utilization (similar to buses today), so the car industry may be safe from complete collapse, although it will certainly be massively disruptive.
A key question is how much car sharing will occur, which reduces prices and increases efficiency by picking up and dropping off multiple people along routes. It can be a bit awkward sharing a vehicle with strangers. I would not be surprised to see someone like Uber custom design a vehicle with individual personal compartments. Imagine 5-6 private individual seating compartments in a 6-door SUV-sized vehicle. When it pulls up, an indicator tells you which door to get into for your compartment, and then alerts you again when it's time for you to get out, based on the destination you put into your smart phone. Private ride, shared prices and efficiency - best of both worlds. Mass adoption of shared rides would solve our traffic congestion problems almost overnight
A couple of additional thoughts: If most accidents get eliminated, do we still need shoulders? Maybe those could be converted to extra lanes? The same for street parking if vehicles are continuously utilized - long-term those spaces might be convertible to additional lanes, adding surface street capacity. Or in some cases, it might make sense to expand the sidewalk/public realm into that space instead.
So what should cities be doing now to prepare for this future?
- Loosen up or even eliminate minimum parking requirements now so available parking starts shrinking naturally over the next few years. This will also enable greater infill and density in cities as well as supply much-needed new housing stock.
- Stop investing in new rail transit - they're not going to be able to achieve their payback before this revolution (if they ever could in any case). Managed-lane networks are a better investment, as they can be used for buses, HOVs, and toll-payers now, and easily switched over to automated vehicles later.
It's going to be a brave, brave new world...
Labels: autonomous vehicles, mobility strategies, rail, transit, transportation plan
The rise of private transit, Texaplex book, Metro's redesign, what Jane Jacobs got wrong about cities, and more
Just a few small items this week:
"Just as conservatives who [hanker] for a return to the ’50s are sure to be disappointed, urban advocates who suggest a “return to the city” for middle-class families will be as well. Both minorities and millennials, often thought of as spearheading a “back to the city” drive, are, according to most indicators, moving out to the suburbs as they enter their 30s and start families.
Dense urbanity, of course, remains a huge contributor to the nation’s economy and culture. Urban centers are great places for the talented, the young, and childless affluent adults. But for most Americans, the central city offers at best a temporary lifestyle. It does not fit with what people can afford and where they want to live. There is a reason why 70 to 80 percent of Americans in our metropolitan areas live in suburbs, and those numbers are not likely to change appreciably in the coming decade."
Finally, Reason on the rise of private transit
with better service for niche markets, which I've been calling for for a long time for Houston commuters, ideally with a subsidy by METRO.
Labels: identity, Metro, perspectives, transit
Maximizing Opportunity Urbanism with Robin Hood Planning
My first paper as a Senior Founding Fellow with the Center for Opportunity Urbanism
has just been published: Maximizing Opportunity Urbanism with Robin Hood Planning
- How enlightened planners can be champions for the little guy and save America in the process
. It's an analytical policy-oriented paper aimed at getting urban planners to consider upward social mobility and inequality in their decision making, but don't let that scare your off - it's a pretty easy and short read. It articulates the key challenge faced by cities (affordable proximity) and four ways to maximize opportunity. It's already gotten a nice shout out from Scott Beyer at Forbes
. Please check it out
and forward it to all of your urban planning friends. I'm looking forward to your thoughts on it in the comments.
Labels: opportunity urbanism
TXDoT responds to issues with I45N redevelopment plan, no Pierce Elevated Park
A while back I posted my thoughts on TXDoT's proposed plan to redevelop I45N
. Oscar Slotboom, author of Houston Freeways
, shared similar concerns and recently met with TXDoT to discuss them. I've included his summary of his key findings below from his HAIF post here
, or you can find a more comprehensive issue-by-issue list and TXDoT response here
. It's important to note that nothing is final at this time, and all of this is subject to change as TXDoT goes through the process, but this is the preliminary feedback he received.
The headliner for most people is that they're intent on selling the land under the Pierce Elevated to fund other right-of-way purchases, so that disappointingly kills the idea of a Pierce Elevated Park
). I'm also disappointed they're declining to connect Midtown and Memorial to the new downtown connector
(or 59, in Midtown's case), which I think is a big mistake (although they are adding one for Allen Parkway, thank goodness). They're also still not considering connecting up the managed lanes through downtown to create a more comprehensive network
- instead they just terminate downtown the same as they always have. The only benefit left I'm really excited about is fixing the inbound 59S bottleneck at Spur 527 and the elevated, and that could be done without doing the whole project.
Overall, I'm personally pretty disappointed with the response and the constraints of the new plan, and am now concerned that in some ways we may end up worse off
than the current configuration (hard to imagine, I know), at least inside the Loop. I45 actually drops from six to four lanes through downtown under the plan - not an improvement. We could end up spending six+ billion dollars and enduring years of very painful and disruptive construction only to end up with very minor benefits - and that's hard to swallow. The downtown boosters will be happy losing the 59 and Pierce elevateds, but I think the majority of Houston drivers will see few or negative benefits inside the Loop. As much of a supporter as I am in freeway investments, I'm now half hoping the funding doesn't come through for this one...
On to Oscar's summary:
On Monday I met with a TxDOT representatives and representatives from HNTB, the consulting firm developing the design for the project. We reviewed my points of concern, and I updated my web page with the status of these issues
Although most of my concerns cannot or will not be addressed to the extent I would like to see, I appreciate that TxDOT took a close look at the issues and I think the ultimate design will be the best it can be within the financial limits, political constraints and traffic model results.
In most cases, issues are still under study and the any adjustments to the design won't be known until the next round of public meetings when the updated schematic is released. But it appears likely that the following items will be in the next iteration
Note that nothing below is final or officially decided for the next version of the plan until TxDOT officially releases it.
See the web link for the status of all issues
- Eastbound Allen Parkway will get loop ramp to the northbound downtown connector, similar to the existing loop ramp
- There will not be connections from Memorial to the downtown connector. Both the City of Houston and TxDOT are against connections. The COH and Downtown Management District are going to provide a recommendation for adjustments to the surface street design around Houston Avenue.
- The George Brown Convention center uses the area under the US 59 elevated as a staging area, and the need to retain a staging area is expected to require changes to the proposed design and will likely preclude widening the trench for additional I-45 lanes.
- The current proposed plan reduces Interstate 45 to two lanes in each direction through downtown. It appears TxDOT will try to add lanes, but due to GRB issue, it is uncertain to me how much relief can actually be provided.
- The proposed design has a built-in bottleneck at I-45 and North Main (Hollywood Cemetery area) due to the right-of-way issue. They are studying ways to get more lanes through, but I'm not optimistic that the choke point can be fixed.
- TxDOT's preference is to sell the Pierce Elevated land and use the revenue to purchase property needed for the project. Before selling on the open market, TxDOT is first obligated to offer the land to the COH, and then to adjacent land owners. It is unclear what price the COH would have to pay if it wanted the land. But I sensed no indication that the COH is interested in the land. If the COH has any money, it would likely go to a deck park over the trench near the GRB (my opinion, not a TxDOT remark). I expect a full deck park to cost in the $200-300 million range (my number, not TxDOT's).
- Poor connections to the I-45 managed lanes in the downtown area are likely to be fixed in the next plan iteration.
- TxDOT agrees that I-45 would perform better with five regular lanes in each direction between Loop 610 and BW8, and this is under study. I'm hopeful we'll get longer sections with five lanes, hopefully the full length from Loop 610 to BW 8.
- TxDOT's goal is to have signature bridges wherever feasible and is looking to work with neighborhoods and districts to realize local preferences. But signature bridges will cost more and funding could be an issue.
Labels: mobility strategies, transportation plan
Firefighter pension solution, disturbing METRORail numbers, #1 Food City in America, and more
A few items this week...
"While the average annual income in Texas is $45,330, only slightly above the national average, MoneyRates.com says "workers in Texas get good value from those wages." That's due to our below-average cost of living and no state income tax."
"Adding all of this early data up, these three new rail lines are attracting only between 10 – 35 percent of their predicted ridership estimates.
All of this for some $2.2 billion in local and federal tax money. If you apply the U.S. FTA formulas for grant consideration to current ridership on these three rail lines (total capital cost $2.2 billion, multiplied by 7 percent ($154 million), then add the annual operating expense of these rail lines at roughly $1 million per direction mile for $25 – 30 million in annual operating costs), it would work out to costing somewhere close to $50 every time a new rider boarded along these new rail lines."
Ugh. If that doesn't make you nauseous as a taxpayer, I'm not sure what will. Let's really hope the bus network redesign implementation and fall semester start at UH and TSU boost the ridership big time...
Finally, this data shows that firefighters have increased as rapidly as fires have *decreased*
, yet we keep finding new jobs for them to do. Maybe a solution for Houston's firefighter pension problem could be to scale back the department to just focus on fires and find more efficient ways to meet the other needs like emergency medical response?...
Labels: economy, emergency response, governance, Metro, mobility strategies, rail, rankings
How Houston can grow gracefully: Snow White and the Nine Dwarves
A lot of people shudder when they see growth projections of the Houston metro area from the current 6.5 million to 9 or even 10 million people over the next couple of decades. If traffic is this bad now, how can we possibly handle it? Is there any way this can be handled gracefully, or at least less painfully? I think it can be if we look at it with the right perspective, and I call that perspective "Snow White and the Nine Dwarves" (yes, even the fairy tales are bigger in Texas - I considered "Asgard and the Nine Realms" of Norse mythology, but I think that's too obscure a reference for most people).
If you look at a lot of modest-sized cities, they can operate effectively on as little as two crossing interstates/freeways. As you can see in this map, Houston's rapidly growing Grand Parkway outer loop is creating many more of these crossings along our radial spoke freeways.
I think each of these crossings will essentially form the center of a new self-contained suburban village or edge city, with the nine "dwarves" being roughly (clockwise from north)
- The Woodlands
- Kingwood/Humble (already growing that way)
- Clear Lake/League City
- Sugar Land
If nine makes your head spin, I think most of the growth will likely center on the Big Two of The Woodlands (drawing from Tomball to Kingwood) and Katy (drawing from Sugar Land to Cypress). Houston remains the center of the big amenities: professional sports, museums, performing arts, bars, live music/nightclubs, signature parks, the zoo, universities, festivals, high-end restaurants and shopping, etc. - thus "Snow White" (no snickering ;-)
I think each of these "villages" could comfortably grow to as much as a million people themselves, which, when added to 2-3 million in Houston, gets us as high as 12 million people in the metro area, almost doubling our current population and handling several decades of growth. Under this scenario, I would see much of the job growth increasing along Beltway 8, with workers with families commuting in from the villages and young inner loop singles commuting out, with both able to keep commutes under the magic half-hour limit (hopefully).
As part of this vision, I think it would be good for Houston to encourage a healthy competition among the villages similar to the many hospitals of the medical center (and, um, how the dwarves competed for Snow White's attention ;-) In both cases, the friendly competition makes the overall entity stronger and healthier. Of course much of that comparative competition would be on quality of life amenities, but I think the most important competition among them would be cooperating with METRO to provide the best express park-and-ride services to the most job centers in the core (downtown, uptown, med center, Greenway, Energy Corridor, Westchase, etc.). That's how this growth happens without traffic armageddon, and it will be a big factor in which village those young inner loopers choose when they decide it's time to have a family and move out to the suburbs. I think The Woodlands has a clear lead in this competition and sets the standard for the other dwarves to aspire to - always good to have a role model to point to (guess that's "Doc" in this case - nickname the other dwarf villages as you wish ;-)
This is somewhat similar to how DFW has grown over the last decades, although almost all of their villages/edge cities went straight north and northwest, which has shifted the metro's center-of-gravity towards the airport and has not been very healthy for the City of Dallas itself. If Houston can encourage somewhat balanced growth among the nine dwarves, it will help the core stay healthy as well, since employers will want to stay there to be able to draw employees from the entire metro (not to mention the young inner loopers) rather than commit to moving out to a single village like Exxon.
That's my vision for how Houston grows gracefully over the coming decades. I'm looking forward to your thoughts in the comments...
Labels: growth, Metro, planning, quality of place
Summing up Houston, realistic transit, better policy platform for cities, very bad rail, and more
Lots of items this week:
- Others will ride it which will clear up the road for me (never happens - transit does not reduce traffic congestion, all of the big transit cities also have big traffic congestion)
- The perfect route to my workplace will be created and it will be faster than my drive now with convenient schedules (rarely happens)
Not arguing against good, cost-effective transit - it is absolutely very important - just saying you have to take support surveys with a grain of salt and make intelligent, pragmatic decisions about road vs. transit investments based on real-world usage.
“For me, Houston is an intimate and kind-hearted city. A city as innovative as New York but with a Southern pace and a Western openness.”
"I ask Glassman a few times in a few different ways, What makes Houston Houston?
There's a "misfit tinkerer" mystique to the place, he finally answers.
"Think of the Astrodome," he says. "The Art Car Parade. Wes Anderson. The Orange Show. The Beer Can House ... "
"We’ve all heard the claim that a rail line can move as many people as an eight- (or sometimes ten-) lane freeway. Not so much. Orlando’s billion-dollar commuter-rail line carries less than 2,000 people to work each weekday morning and home in the evenings. (Amortized over 30 years at 3 percent, it would have cost less to buy every single daily round-trip rider a new Prius every year for the next 30 years.)"
- I generally like to avoid politics on the blog, but found this a compelling argument that the Republicans should adopt an urban policy of openness and affordability (second item). Hear, hear! Would love to see the Democrats adopt it as well!
"As a result of decades of Democratic governance and misplaced priorities…American cities do not offer the opportunities for success and growth that they should, especially for those looking to climb the socio-economic ladder. In many cases, city governments are utterly dysfunctional. And the reason for this dysfunction is that our cities are too often closed—closed to businesses and closed to outsiders. For the middle class and those striving to make it up the ladder, the taxes, housing, and other costs leave cities simply too expensive to afford—especially with a family. Excessive regulation makes it difficult, if not downright impossible, to get the permits necessary to start a business. Cronyism and a lack of transparency make it difficult to know whether anyone is trying to fix the situation."
"Housing regulations have been used by the urban left to restrict new construction, as if city neighborhoods are gated country clubs that should never allow change or new people. The liberal business elite have fortified the business permitting process so much that, in many cities, it is nearly-impossible for competing entrepreneurs to enter basic professions like hair-styling. And to carve out a voting bloc, the left has defended unionized public monopolies that deliver services at far higher cost, and less efficiency, than is necessary.
To the authors, making cities more “open” would mean embracing economic and administrative liberalization. They call for housing deregulation, so that cities can accommodate growing populations; one-stop shops for business permitting; and civil service reform, so that bureaucracies are either held to better standards, or replaced through privatization. They also call for better online data, so that residents can easily view info on their cities’ spending and debt, and gain access to officials."
Finally I want to end with an excerpt from Gov. Perry's National Press Club Speech
highlighted in the Wall Street Journal. Hat tip to Wendell.
"There's a lot of talk in Washington about inequality, income inequality. But there is a lot less talk about the inequality that arises from the high cost of everyday life. In blue state coastal cities you have these strict zoning laws, environmental regulations that have prevented buildings from expanding the housing supply. And that may be great for the venture capitalist who wants to keep a nice view of San Francisco Bay. But it’s not so great for the single mother working two jobs in order to pay rent and still put food on the table for her kids.
It's not just about how many dollars you earn, though there are still pretty substantial opportunities for that in the State of Texas. It's also about how far each dollar that you do earn can take you. After you’ve paid your taxes, you’ve paid your rent, your tuition, your grocery bills. "
Labels: affordability, commuter rail, governance, government transparency, home affordability, identity, land-use regulation, Metro, mobility strategies, opportunity urbanism, politics, rail, transit, zoning