In an earlier post (Path to Prosperity – how to implement walkability regardless of the economic times) I extolled some of the virtues of one-story buildings as a means to “seeding” an urban market in many of our communities. To reiterate, while we still have some fine examples of walkable neighborhoods, the reality is that we’ve spent decades destroying most of what we had, and building new places with limited walkability at best.

While grand ambitions are nice, we have to understand how to realistically create the first phase of urbanism in places that have little or none. And, it has to work financially for all parties.

One solution that is still in evidence in many places: one-story buildings, built in an urban fashion. They are cheap to build, even with good detailing. They park easily in this transitional phase we’re in now on transportation, and they effectively create street walls, especially in combination with good landscaping.

As I travel around the country, I love to take photos of quality urbanism at this scale. It’s still evident in many smaller towns – especially in places that haven’t been wrecked by the state DOT.

Occasionally I will share some of these examples, since I think they are good prototypes for us to look toward in so many of our communities. Today’s photos are of some one-story structures that are more “cottage-like” in part because they are likely converted single-family houses. Again, when considering your own plans and codes, I’d suggest looking at these models and seeing if they have a role. And imagine this sacrilege – walkability not just with one story buildings, but completely detached. Food for thought…

It’s true, I’m not an engineer – I’m an architect. However, with all of our work in community planning over the years we’ve had to work hand-in-hand with engineers of all kinds. As a result, we’ve learned a great deal about how our transportation systems are planned. For my engineering friends – yes, I hope to get my “honorary engineer” badge one day. At any rate, it’s not the intent of this series or blog to talk solely about transportation and road design issues. However, it’s in that arena where an awful lot of decisions get made that impact the long-term health and character of our communities, and also where tremendous sums of money are spent daily. So, we need to pay attention, and learn not just the techniques but the philosophies.

So today, here’s a note on the philosophy behind much road design. One of the consistent beefs I’ve had with the way our transportation systems, especially roads are sized is based on what I like to call the “worst-case scenario” school of design. That is, much of the emphasis in traffic engineering is placed on how a road operates at the busiest time of day, with the highest amount of traffic.

For example, when a road is being studied for its current and future traffic levels, several variables are plugged in – current and future development patterns, other roads in the network, intersections, etc. And, what is often the controlling factor is what engineers call the “PM peak hour”. In English, that’s the amount of cars coming along a roadway during the afternoon rush hour (afternoon is typically assumed to be busier than morning rush hour). Additionally, since intersections or interchanges are always the “choke points” for traffic, the ultimate variable is how an intersection functions at the PM peak hour. Engineers assign a letter grade to this measure, called Level of Service. This grade ranges from “A” to “F”. An “A” grade essentially means that traffic flows freely without delay and an “F” grade indicates that there will be delays of 60 seconds (or more) at an intersection.

At this point, it all sounds very logical and, well… engineered.

Here’s the problem in a nutshell: we are fundamentally solving for the few hours a week when traffic is the worst. In a city where rush hour is 2 hours long, that would mean we are designing intersections to account for the traffic that happens during 10 of the 168 hours of any given week (20 if you allow for morning rush). For those doing math, 20 out of 168 hours is 12%. This is a little like designing an entire house for the few hours a week when it’s the most chaotic. Or, you might say, designing a home for the occasional 100 person party that you host. Sure, for a few folks with means, they can afford that. But for the bulk of the population it’s unnecessary and expensive. We arrange our lives for the day-to-day normalcy, and deal with the exceptions.

And, that’s fundamentally the difference we often have with those who size our roadways. Contemporary practice sizes for the *worst* condition, and then we are left with oversized roadways for the 148-158 hours of the week. That’s not only expensive to build, but it’s also dangerous by allowing for much higher speeds in those other hours. Plus, it makes any other form of travel non-competitive. Importantly, it also factors out the reality that these are human beings operating vehicles, not water running through a pipe. We can and do often change our behaviors as the conditions around us change – we might take a different route, might adjust our lifestyle or get around in other ways.

As we deal increasingly with limited resources for transportation, we should re-orient our thinking to design for the normal condition, and manage the exceptions. What would that mean in practical terms? Any number of things are possible: narrower (and cheaper) roadways, longer driving delays during rush hour, more transit usage/carpooling to help with rush hour conditions, or a change in land-use patterns. But the benefits would be many-fold: less infrastructure burden to build and maintain, streets that are pleasant and safe for all users (pedestrians, bicyclists, etc), and ultimately more choice in how to get around.

• Here’s an example of an “oversized road” in downtown Austin, Texas:
  

Last week I commented on how many of our city streets suffer from the excess of pavement dedicated to cars moving quickly. This is especially true in older urban areas that have seen decades of street “improvements” which loosely translate into removing people from streets and adding space for fast-moving cars.

The sad reality is that in many of the neighborhoods that fit this description, they have the double-whammy of reduced economic activity (more jobs and such have moved to outlying areas) and wider streets for fast traffic. The combination is not only one that creates deadly dull urbanity, but also is sometimes literally deadly to pedestrians, cyclists and transit users.

And, more importantly for the purpose of this post, these overly-wide streets (often with little or no curbside parking) are hostile to the success of businesses. As the previous post discussed, it’s absolutely fundamental for the success of businesses in walkable areas that on-street parking be provided and maximized. In fact, I’d go so far as to say the starting point for any planning effort should be to allow for the maximum amount of such parking on *every* street. Of course there will be exceptions where compromises are made. But again, I’d suggest that for the overwhelming majority of our communities that it’s a basic right and necessity.

Here in Kansas City, a group of us with the Urban Society of Kansas City undertook a project to show just how easy and beneficial it is to modify one section of such an urban street. Baltimore Avenue, in the Crossroads area just south of downtown, was a four lane road with very light traffic and parallel parking on both sides. Our group discussed with the property owners the idea of changing the configuration into one lane in each direction plus angled parking. The curb to curb width is 52 feet.

As is often the case in such matters, the first couple of answers from the city engineers were “no” and “there’s not enough room”. We disagreed, and in fact parked our own cars in the suggested configuration to test it (photo attached). After a couple of years of discussion, the changes we proposed were approved.

But here’s the real beauty of this: it only required a few thousand dollars in paint to re-strip the street and a few signs to clarify the parking situation.

The result over the last few years has been as expected. First off, there has been no increase in accidents or injuries in the area. Second, cars move a lot more slowly on the street. Third, several new businesses have sprung up and take advantage of the additional street parking. In fact, this simple employment of a few thousand bucks added nearly 100 spaces (double the previous amount) in a six block stretch. Run those numbers compared to the cost of building off-street structured parking and I think you’ll begin to see the wisdom of this approach.

The sad thing is – there are literally thousands of streets and blocks like this all over our communities that are oversized for traffic and undersized for doing business. Next time a plan calls for more parking garages, ask yourself first “are we using our existing street pavement to full advantage?”

Before… notice the demonstration of how cars would fit:

After… and now you can see how well everything fits:

A common refrain of this series is the notion that an awful lot of our existing paved street area is over-dedicated to fast through traffic. That is, we have too many lanes on most of our roads that are set aside for cars moving really fast through our neighborhoods. The consequences of this are important to consider:

1. It gives priority to people who live a remote distance instead of people who live in a neighborhood. 
2. The trade-off always involves less comfort and safety for pedestrians, cyclists or transit users.
3. Giving the nod to fast-moving traffic harms storefront businesses along those streets.

The final point is an important one to consider when looking at rush-hour parking restrictions. In many communities, the idea of not allowing parking from 7-9 AM or 4-6 PM is perceived as a good compromise. During high-traffic times, all lanes are dedicated to moving cars, and during slower times people can park on the street. Sounds like a win-win, right?

Except, it’s actually more of a lose, lose in most situations.

Any business that actually sits up on the street, as we aim to do in walkable neighborhoods, relies extensively on on-street parking for its customer base, (this is to temporarily put to the side the other benefits of on-street parking, which will be discussed in a separate piece). That space is the most valuable to a business, and ultimately to a city, as it is convenient and accessible especially for impulse buying. To some folks that may sound trivial, but to a business owner impulse buying and a convenient way to access their customers are fundamental to survival. Some retail consultants in fact have stated that each curbside space is worth $300,000 annually in retail sales.

And so, it’s clear that these spaces mean a lot. So why then can’t we just compromise and allow traffic to move quickly in rush hour? Because that’s precisely when those business need access to the curbside spots. Rush hour is the exact time when the most people will drive by a business, notice it and potentially stop to buy something. If the curbside spots are made unavailable, our human nature will kick in and we will just drive by.

The trade-off will mean slower commutes, especially for those traveling a long distance. Beyond the philosophical question of why some neighborhoods should have their quality of life sacrificed for those that are more distant, the bigger question is don’t we want to encourage thriving commerce in our walkable areas? If the answer is yes (I certainly hope so), then we need to look to maximize the opportunities for their business success, and job #1 in that regard is to enable on-street parking at all hours. And in many cases, this can be done simply by removing a sign.