Freeway removal

After getting multiple e-mails regarding an article published in D Magazine, I figured it would be worth a discussion. It is no secret that I am not a fan of the freeway ring around downtown. It has numerous negative consequences for the built urban environment.

Well, Patrick Kennedy isn't either. That's no surprise to me, since his blog, http://www.carfreeinbigd.com/, is one I follow. In fact, his was one of the inspirations to start my own.

In the article, Kennedy states that TxDoT's approach to I-345, the unsigned freeway between I-30 and Woodall Rogers linking Central Expressway and I-45 is too limited. As it stands now, they are looking at two options, replacement or repair. Kennedy says a third option should be on the table, demolition.

I-345 severs, Deep Ellum and downtown Dallas, creating a dead zone between the two. Kennedy makes the case (using land use economics that I am not as well-versed in) that using an outmoded form of transportation thinking, TxDoT is keeping downtown's (not to mention Deep Ellum) urban revival muted.

The traffic impact of removal would be minimal, he argues, since it is a regional road, and there are freeways further out that are built and made to handle it and unlike downtown, their land use doesn't suffer because of it.

I made a similar point here when I was talking about Julius Schepps in South Dallas. Regionalism is great, but the problem in Dallas, as well as all inner cities across the country, is that neighborhoods built before the freeways ran through them are the ones to make sacrifices, not the suburban neighborhoods that were built around the freeways. That is why stopping at I-635 or even Loop-12 makes sense. There is no neighborhood decay by the freeways running through them there, since they were built in tandem.

The downtown inner ring road was built to take traffic off the streets of downtown. Back in that day, planners saw that many of the vehicles weren't destined for downtown, just passing through, it was still the nexus of the regional highway system. However, when it was built, two things happened that weren't expected.

Fitting with the Induced Traffic Principle, the new downtown freeways attracted more traffic than was already there. Inversely, downtown streets stayed as congested as ever. So the problem the ring road was supposed to solve, downtown congestion, was only made worse. Most of that traffic was generated from regional traffic, who now saw an easy way to get through the city to the other side. Today, four out of five cars that drive on the Downtown Loop aren't going to or from downtown itself, so 80% of the users aren't local. That would be fine on LBJ, where the freeway fits. If downtown and Deep Ellum receive little benefit, but have a long list negative externalities, then something needs to be reexamined.

The second was the decline of the neighborhood. The required space needed for storage and use of the vehicles was astronomical and, like many other American cities that followed this chain of events, historic, functional buildings were torn down to make room for the cars. The continuity of city blocks were torn asunder as the once uninterrupted, pedestrian-friendly streetscape, much of which were lined with storefronts, was pockmarked by asphalt parking lots. These places were no longer the attractive places to visit and shop and instead, folks moved to the strip center or regional shopping mall (ironic since they were and still are patterned after the Main Street shopping seen downtown).

Thanks in large part to their solid bones and clusters of businesses left over, America's downtowns were still viable business centers, but rarely anything else. The shopping was gone, as were the theaters and most entertainment options and residents fled to the fringes. Anything else left behind had to adapt to the new reality or fail, restaurants had to have business hours revolving around lunch, stores changed target markets or were inventive (Nieman Marcus was a pioneer in online retailing).

In addition, the new infrastructure required massive amounts of land. Each freeway is roughly a block wide. The entire downtown freeway ring is over five miles (it would be shorter to go from downtown to Loop 12 than it would be to circle the loop) and passes over 50 blocks. The exit and entrances usually take up at least a block. Add in the parking requirements and it isn't hard to see that downtown is dominated by the car's infrastructural requirements.

This is where I struggle with the concept of downtown freeways. Downtown is supposed to be the center of the city and region. Yet, it is dominated by a transportation system that whisks drivers by as fast as possible for the sake of a suburban development pattern that doesn't fit an urban area. Why is interstate traffic being routed through downtown? Why is the suburban interests taking a priority over downtown's?

If we can make downtown a more vibrant active place, everyone benefits. The City benefits with an increased tax base and a greater tourism draw, city residents benefit by having a quality urban environment and public gathering space (the oxymoron here is that they wouldn't have an abundant supply of "convenient" parking, which they do now, but don't use because there isn't many reasons to go downtown). The region benefits by having the same thing.

There are some groups (road building lobby, trucking companies, landscapers, etc.) that will see a negative impact from downtown freeway removal, but seeing as how they have little-to-no stake in the actual neighborhood, their concerns take a backseat to the neighborhood. You can even take out neighborhood and replace it with city and it would still ring true.

In the end, everyone benefits from a vibrant city core. Having one that is gutted on the inside, but looks great at 70 mph as motorist cruise on by doesn't have the same effect at all. Demolition of I-345 would be great for downtown, Deep Ellum and Dallas.

Raising Kids Downtown

Some of you may know, but for those that do not, I am a volunteer columnist for the Dallas Morning News Community Voices page that runs every Saturday. Several weeks ago I submitted a piece that ran a week ago. In it, I talked about the reason my wife and I decided not to eave for the suburbs, a uniquely American phenomenon when we have kids.

http://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/local-voices/headlines/20130201-j-branden-helms-urban-living-has-benefits-for-my-children.ece

As cities across the country have continued efforts to repopulate their downtowns and urban areas, Generation Y and the millennials became known as urban pioneers. Even before they could count on neighborhood amenities like close grocers or dry cleaners, they moved to places like Uptown, which was once devoid of urban amenities. Now the place teems with life and activity.

Downtown is following the same path. It isn’t there yet, but in the six years I have lived in this neighborhood, it has made much progress. My new neighbors are no longer urban pioneers, except in one important way.
Urban pioneers dated and married. Some then had kids. Conventional wisdom dictates that they would then get a house in a suburban setting. Certainly, some have followed that path.

But those who haven’t are the new urban pioneers. I often feel like my family is part of a group blazing a new path. I’m not going to speak for the others, but we have specific reasons we choose to raise our two boys in an urban area.

It’s not, as some anonymous Internet commenters have suggested, that we want to appear hip and trendy.
One of the biggest reasons is health. For a lot of reasons, kids today are the fattest, unhealthiest they have ever been. Giving them an environment where they can be active is very appealing to my wife and me. We envision a future where the kids, when they get older, are able to live a semi-independent life, where they do not depend on us to be their chauffeur. In the process, they will burn calories as they go, or so our line of reasoning takes us.

We also hope some level of exposure to people who don’t all look and behave the way we do will help them, too. They will see rich and poor, all races, genders, religions and everything between. We hope this understanding of their fellow citizens will offer insights that others may not have.

Even some commonly considered problems in this regard have benefits. I grew up in a small farming community in West Texas. Drug education basically consisted of “don’t do drugs ’cause they are bad.” However, my sons will see firsthand where drug or alcohol addiction can actually lead.

My wife really likes the idea of having many cultural facilities nearby. The Arts District venues are within walking distance. Fair Park is an easy train or bike ride away.

Certainly, as in any parenting situations, there are challenges. The schools zoned for our area leave a lot to be desired, even for me, a guy who thinks that parents matter far more than the school does in a child’s education. We are looking into Montessori schools, magnets, charters and other options.

There are also fewer kids in the urban neighborhoods than in the suburbs. More are coming to downtown all the time, but most of our kids’ play time comes at their school.

Now, we can debate all of the above, but I think there is one important thing to remember about any decision parents make. The best choice is the one they truly believe is best for their children.

If parents choose one lifestyle over another without that focus, the children are in trouble. But if parents do what they really believe is best for their children — no matter where they choose to live — then the children’s best interest is served.

In the end, isn’t that what we all need — more kids who are cared for?

Why Pro-Alternate Transportation is not Anti-Car

It is generally my philosophy to link and have a discussion on topics that are local in value, for example, the Trinity Tollroad or discuss examples from across the country in relation to the Trinity Tollroad. Today I will make an exception because it is relevant to planning, planners and me personally.

I put it here to give an understanding of my philosophy, and hope that readers will keep this in mind when policies are put forth that may limit the automobile's reach.

Herb Caudill believes that planners are not anti-car and the supposed "war on cars" that planners have been accused of is not true. It is that cars and what they need, from a pure physical infrastructure point, are not an efficient use of resources.

The central fact about cars, from a planner's perspective, is that they take up space. Lots of space. And this matters because space in cities (a.k.a real estate) is scarce and therefore expensive.
Cars take up space when they're moving and they take up space when they're parked, and even though they can't be simultaneously moving and parked, you have to plan for both states and plan for peak demand; so you have to set aside some multiple of the real estate actually occupied by the car at any given time.

That's just a practical observation about the spatial geometry of cities that doesn't bow to my ideology or yours. And it would still remain true even if cars ran on nothing but recycled newspapers and emitted nothing but rainbows and unicorn tears.

In the past, our policy response has been to just set aside more and more space for cars: More freeways, more roads, more lanes on existing roads, more parking garages and surface lots. This approach hasn't worked, and there are two very practical reasons why:

First, you can never build enough. There's a phenomenon called "induced demand" that is very well understood by now. A new lane or a new freeway never reduces congestion in the long run: People respond to new capacity by driving more or by living or working in previously remote places, and you're very quickly back where you started and have to build still more. The same phenomenon applies to increases in the supply of parking. It's a game you can't win.

Second, when you do make more space for cars you quickly start to crowd out any other potential mode of transportation, especially walking. All those parking lots and freeways and roads spread everything else out so that the distances become too great for walking. And the more you optimize any given space for cars the more hostile that space is for pedestrians. Very quickly you get to the point where it becomes impossible—or prohibitively depressing—to get things done on foot.

I agree whole-heartedly about this. While he does say that externalities are excluded for this discussion, I would say that also has a huge effect in my reasoning. DFW as a region is a non-attainment area for ozone. The primary reason for the ozone is the exhaust from cars. To try and solve the ozone issue without addressing cars will never work. Any solution has to incorporate that aspect.

What the "war on cars" boils down to is those that are funded by the road lobby **coughcoughCatoInstitutecough** are working to find a way to keep doing what has always been done in the last 60-70 years. Folks in cars scoff at perceived anti-car policies, for example, tolling of freeways, not because the policy to pay for what you use is bad, but because they have always had free roads.

What planners get flack for is trying to shift the pendulum, which is so far towards cars at this moment, more toward the middle. I have often said, much to disbelieving ears, that I am not anti-car. I am pro-transportation-choice. There have been times where I could have taken something that wasn't a car, but didn't. Sadly, there have also been times where I didn't want to take the car but had no option. That's what we are out to fix.

Are Kids the Urban Canary in the Coal Mine?

I have touched on the idea of kids, cities and suburbs are few times, and shall revisit that here, thanks to an article I read in the Salon, written by Will Doig.

In the past, I have said that urban design can make it dangerous for kids to walk on their own. This article looks at the issue from a different approach. In essence, by not allowing kids to walk, we are suppressing urban life, something that is essential to a vibrant streetscape.

That a kindergartner was allowed to toddle four blocks without adult supervision seems extraordinary now, even though cities are at least as safe for children today as they were then. Crime is at a 40-year low. The percentage of kids fatally hit by cars has been dropping for decades. And the child abductors that leer from every corner are tabloid fantasy — only about 100 kids, out of tens of millions, are kidnapped in public by a stranger each year.

So naturally, children can now be found romping unsupervised throughout our neighborhoods, acquiring the intuition, resourcefulness and sense of independence that such a childhood provides, right?

Actually, no. In the time since [Lenore] Skenazy walked off to kindergarten alone, the number of children that can be found in public without supervision has only diminished. In one survey, 85 percent of mothers said they allowed their kids outside unsupervised less frequently than they themselves were allowed. In Britain, the average age of children allowed to play outside adult-free has risen by more than a year since the ’70s, and 25 percent of 8- to 10-year-olds have never played outside without an adult. One study diagrammed the shrinking distances that four generations of one family’s kids were allowed to stray from home: six miles in 1919, one mile in 1950, half a mile in 1979, and 300 yards today.

 I think this is what it boils down to when parents think about this. We all want our kids to be safe. Yet, we always revert to the lowest common denominator. When they are infants, we have baby monitors or video feeds to make sure they are safe when they move to their on room, away from parental supervision. Play dates weren't "invented" 20 years ago, because we just naturally let our kids go out and play...by themselves or to their friends. Even things that I can remember doing as a kid (I am just 32) aren't allowed anymore by lots of parents. I remember the first freedom I felt when I got my own bike and was allowed to roam the neighborhood alone or with friends or sister. My parents said what to watch out for and what to do and let me be on my way. And you know what? I did it. I believe to often we think kids don't have the ability to follow instructions when it matters, but they do. We did.

I think that may be more of the crux of this issue. Trust. Either we don't trust our kids or don't trust other people.

That also comes into part of what good urban areas build, a community trust. Seeing the same people, eventually socializing with them builds social capital. When you see the same folks, an informal relationship builds. Even seeing the same type of people tears down walls. In an area that is car-oriented, those things aren't possible. People aren't out socializing, they are in their own private sphere. People there just aren't able to do the same things in suburbs that they can in quality urban areas.

My son, in a few years, will be able to walk to the convenience store a block away. Folks in the suburbs can't, because it is a mile or more and the streets may or may not have sidewalks, but a certainly border thoroughfares that are a minimum of six lanes, straight and at least 40 miles per hour and usually more.

However, until now, I never thought of the urban area's health and vitality in terms of children walkability. 

She travels the globe preaching the gospel of less-protective parenting and hosts an annual event called “Take Our Children to the Park and Leave Them There,” which is exactly what it sounds like. It’s not just for the kids’ sake: Skenazy believes that free-roaming children are an integral part of what makes a good city. “When you’re talking child-friendly, you’re usually talking about the same things urban planners talk about: mixed-use, people outside, a rhythm to the streets.”

She says the “Popsicle test” is a convenient way to use free-roaming kids to gauge a city’s health. “If an 8-year-old child can go get a Popsicle from the store by themselves and finish it before they get home, that city is probably thriving,” says Skenazy. Such an act is possible only in a walkable, reasonably safe environment that has a good pedestrian infrastructure and where retail and residences are relatively intermixed.

 As it happens, this is exactly the type of environment that’s proliferating in many cities. So why has kids’ freedom to roam only faltered? Overprotective parenting is, of course, the culprit that first springs to mind. “We’ve come around to the idea that parenting is a skill,” says psychologist Alex Russell. “We’re now all aware that those early years are extremely formative.” But another reason, says Russell, “is that we are parenting more and more in isolation. Parents used to parent in communities, but now it falls squarely on the mother and father.”

This, I think, is a direct result of suburbanization. This village parenting idea has existed for centuries and more. The phrase it takes a village is quite old, but no longer applies to our country's society. Low-density, car-oriented design has spread families apart and isolated us from our neighbors. Add in the mistrust that isolation brings and it is no wonder kids aren't allowed to be kids. 

Cities reinforce this paradigm with ever more creative ways of banning unsupervised kids, even though the definition of “unsupervised” depends on one’s perspective. As Russell suggests, kids can be supervised in the absence of their parents. In the Sydney Morning Herald, a writer recently marveled at seeing children wandering unchaperoned all over Tokyo. When she worried to her Japanese colleague about the lack of adult supervision, he responded, “What do you mean, no adults? There were the car drivers, the shopkeepers, the other pedestrians.” In Japan, 80 percent of kids between 6 and 12 walk to school grownup-free.

I have always marveled at the Japanese urban design. Now there are obvious cultural differences, but they build cities in the way that I preach here. There is a great appreciation for social bonds and responsibilities there.

In some ways, I don't think it is that much different here, only the design. Here's what I mean. If I am walking down the street and I see a kid, I watch the kid, even if only casually. If something bad were to happen, like an abduction, theft or just a crying kid, I intervene. Surely, there isn't that many who wouldn't. Yet here, we first think the parents are bad.

And it also takes a step for the parent too. In my personal experience, it can be hard to give them that freedom that isn't 100% secure or safe. But I see an independence streak in him that I had. And I am already seeing the parental and developmental benefits of giving him freedom to make choices.

Part of this is simple geography — Americans are more spread out than the Japanese. Sixty percent of Americans lived within two miles of their children’s schools in 1969. Now, 40 percent do. This helps explain why, in 1969, walking or biking was the most common way of getting to school, according to a UCLA study. Today, only about 13 percent of kids get to school that way.

BTW, we also had a childhood obesity epidemic. Coincidence? Certainly not in part. A lot of blame goes to video games or staying indoors, but now allowing them to walk for everyday needs may be the biggest change that requires the smallest change.

Also, if people say kids don't get enough outdoor play time, but they aren't allowed to go outside on their own, is it a shock they aren't getting enough active play time?

Once again, I think suburbanization plays a part. Some people have expressed their opinions that I am making a bad decision by not moving to a single-family house with a backyard. I just don't think that is necessary. When you realize that humans survived centuries upon centuries without backyards, it does seem weird that a relatively recent invention is considered an absolute necessity for childhood development.

“It’s almost a suburbanization of cities,” says Skenazy. “The idea that we should keep kids in cars and hover at the park and be with them 24/7 — it started in the suburbs and became the norm for parenting.”

Exactly right. When suburbs are all you know, and when you have a city like Dallas that tries to emulate suburban design, it is no wonder the current generation doesn't know anything but the suburbs.

[Nancy] Pullen-Seufert gets this, and I imagine that when she’s not talking to a reporter, she’s just as openly frustrated with parents’ irrational fears as Lenore Skenazy is. “Sometimes what we hear from [parents] is, ‘Look, my job is to protect my kid, and if this is one less thing I can expose them to, great, let’s mark it off the list,’” she says. “For a while some organizations tried to convince parents by saying, ‘Take the longer-range look: This is a way to build physical activity into your kid’s day.’ And some parents bought that, but a lot of others just said they could get the physical activity in other ways.”

I'd even take it a step further. Yes the physical activity is important, but what does this do for kid's mental development? What happens when a teen finally has freedom they never had before? What happens when a helicopter parent stays in their kids life and directs their children, even when they are in college and beyond?

It is a fact that the human brain develops most of its lifelong functions before ten. If kids don't know how to handle freedom and responsibility before that process finishes, then they will struggle with it for the rest of their lives.

It says something that we perceive walking down the street to be a greater risk to kids than speeding along in two tons of steel and glass, when in actuality, four-fifths of kids killed by cars are in those cars. No parent, however, is going to be accused of endangering their child by driving them to school, but the parent who lets them walk might be — the fear of being judged by other parents looms large. As does the fear of liability on the part of these schools and cities. “Our belief in our communities has been eroded by fears of lawsuits, insurance companies whaling on the schools, the constant din of horror story tonight at 6,” says Skenazy.

This is what gets at the heart of the matter for me. This is the oxymoron of suburban development. We want to make our kids safer, yet the thing that makes that perceived safety possible, is actually the biggest threat of all. The number one killer of humans between the age of 2 and 19 is the car. Nothing kills our kids more, not disease, not inner city violence, not bullying and certainly not walking outside but ferrying our kids around in the car. But we never hear of the dangers of that, at least not on any large scale. But we do hear about the more rarer incidents like abductions, and then paradoxically, we keep them more isolated and more dependent upon the car.

And in the end, Salon notes, when we think of kids in the design of our cities, everyone wins.

And seeing kids outside can give people confidence in their city, too. It can make them think twice about speeding in their cars and help old people age in place (kid- and senior-friendly infrastructures are often one and the same). “There’s this intangible piece to it,” says Pullen-Seufert, when asked what makes a true safe route for a child. “It’s an overall community feel, where people just feel comfortable being out there.”

I shudder to think of what cost suburbanization will have on the baby boomers. Once their capacity to drive has diminished to the point of dangerous for themselves and society, it is either nursing home or extreme isolation. Neither sounds pleasant. Cities with a greater degree of walkability will certainly have the edge, both for their citizens personal benefits and socially as a whole.

Finding the Grey in the Black and White

In my previous post, I mentioned the idea, long considered valid, that kids belong in the suburbs. Being car oriented, they are breeding grounds for accidents, more kids die from cars than anything else, and being in a car doesn't allow the kids to feel a connection to their area, which has a whole host of negative effects.

A loyal reader commented:
Hmmm, I don't think I quite agree with some of your "facts". You have tons more cars driving down the street in front of your house in the city than I do in the suburbs. Plus, I have a back yard for a child to play in. I'm not trying to convince you that the 'burbs are best, but the vast majority of people in this beautiful country prefer where I live to where you live.

I answered a bit, but there is a bit more I want to say. I responded with this:

I don't think I accurately relayed what I or the study is saying.
First, cars on the street are not the inherent problem. Street design can be. However, the big problem is kids being stuck in a car for everything. Every errand you run is with the car. Kids don't die from being hit by car nowhere near as often as being in the car.

As for the street, more cars can actually be safer. On conventional, modern suburbs, streets are wider. This design gives drivers a certain comfort level. That usually means faster speeds. Design considerations aside, more cars can actually be safer. Speeds on I-30 are slower at 5pm than at 9 pm, even though more cars use the 5pm time.

I think a common mistake is evidenced here in that the common thought is either low-density single family or high density towers. Single family neighborhoods can be quite urban. For local examples, see the Bishop Arts District, Lower Greenville or even leftover pieces of Uptown. The difference is design. Modern suburbia is car-only. Pre-WWII suburbia is quite dense and walkable. I think I have a topic for a new post.

I think I sufficiently answered the car vs. kid point. While the hit-by-a-car to death ratio is greater in the developing world, in our fair country, it is being inside the car that is the problem. Those that do survive a wreck can often have injuries that stay with them the rest of their lives. We all know someone who has been at least injured or worse in a wreck.

Allow me to move on then to the second point of the first comment. How do we know that the vast majority of people prefer auto-oriented suburbs? I am not convinced.

A few numbers to consider. The residential rents in walkable areas (rents in economic terms do not refer to lease payments, but land value) primarily located in city centers have eclipsed pre-recession levels.  Meanwhile, residential properties in areas that rely solely on cars for transportation are still declining in value. Together, that tells me a bunch. It means that walkable areas are so scarce compared to demand, that even though the country itself hasn't achieved a full-scale recovery, urban area property managers use a little supply-and-demand theory and raise the prices to match the supply, forcing out the margins, which appear to be wide in this case.

Meanwhile, there was evidence before the housing crash that home builders had overbuilt the supply of single-family housing. After the banking crisis, it became severely evident. Single-family housing still hasn't recovered. Yet there needs to be an asterisk here.

Walkable single family housing has done remarkably better than their auto-oriented peers. Some of the neighborhoods I named above are examples, like Bishop Arts and Lower Greenville, but the M Streets, Winnetka Heights and parts of Lakewood are further examples. Most people don't realize, but even posh Highland Park is a highly walkable suburban enclave. All of these places have either declined slightly or gained in value. Even now, once outside Loop 12 and particularly LBJ freeway, price declines in double digits are quite common.

There is one final point I wish to make on this topic. One critique that planners receive in trying offer the fruitcart variety is that people don't want to live in anything other than single-family homes. I really struggle with that idea. Go to the grocery store and see how many types of bread sit on the shelves. Dozens of brands offer dozens of varieties. Go to a movie store and see how many types and genres of movies there are. Go to an electronics store and see the huge variety of TV's. Walk on to a car dealership and count the many types of different cars. Yet, all we want is one type of housing? It doesn't add up. A person will prefer different housing at different stages in their life. A similar person will prefer different types at those same stages. Cities that don't reflect that will suffer. Some already are.

The Paradox that is the Suburbs: Kids, Death and other Deficiencies

As a parent with a kid in the urban core that is not a prototypical city (like New York or San Francisco), I am asked all the time when I am moving to the suburbs. In an area where that thinking has been entrenched for decades, city living is for those without kids and the 'burbs are where kids are raised, folks have a hard time understanding the severe trepidation my wife and I have towards moving to a conventional suburban setting.

I posted before about the myth that kids and suburbs hold hands and skip in the wildflower fields. While my opinions since that post haven't changed, I want to add a supporting stance from articles discussing new academic research about this topic.

Sarah Goodyear penned this article in the Atlantic Cities that says much of the same that I did, and also adds other useful information. For example residential neighborhood design that still reflects an auto-favored design force kids away from the street. Without decent parks, and for some, with a nearby park, this encourages a sedentary childhood. This contributes to the lack of place that pervades our cities, since they don't really experience their city.

She also wrote this one, that gives numbers to the point. Bottom line, there is no greater killer of children than cars worldwide.

Aside from schools, lack of a backyard is the other big reason I hear for leaving my current living situation. However, there is no proof that a backyard equals physical activity. Manhattan kids, many of which have no backyard, are still less obese than the American average. The same exists everywhere, urban kids are less obese than suburban counterparts.

In the end, it comes down to design. An environment that encourages activity will have healthier people. We walk, bike and play in the park across the street as an everyday activity. The same can not be said in the modern suburban setting. Just by living day-to-day, my family burns more calories than if we had to drive everywhere.

Note, when I reference urban versus suburban, I am not referring to city boundaries, but urban design. Lake Highlands in Dallas is suburban, downtown Plano is more urban, even if small in area.

The last point I want to make is that it is not just kids who suffer. Continuing the citing of Atlantic Cities, Nate Berg points out that there has been a correlation established between the health of adults and time spent behind the wheel. Keeping it local, the study cited followed drivers in DFW and Austin and found the longer the commute the greater chance for decreased cardiorespiratory fitness, increased weight, high cholesterol and elevated blood pressure.

The scary part is that all these are simply direct results. These are easily quantifiable. But what happens to the indirect externalities?  How do you quantify health impacts of particulate matter? Smog? The end of a car's life? Estimates vary widely, but even conservative ones show a huge societal problem.

If you see me next, ask about my family, job or thoughts on a certain topic. Please don't ask when I plan to move to the suburbs.

How the Car became King

No editorial or opinions today, I just want to post something that speaks for itself.

A couple of planning-related sites posted some unconnected, though related articles chronicling how we went from a country with good-to-great-urban cities to one that is dominated by cars. It's a fascinating read, no matter your take on the issues and really paints a great picture of all the forces and actions that were put into play to make our transportation system what it is today.

The Invention of Jaywalking from Atlantic Cities

Car Culture: Freedom Brought to You by the American Auto Industry, Hello Officer, Put the Phone Down, and More from Urban Milwaukee

Negative Externalities of the Auto

An article in The Dallas Morning News about particulate matter and the DFW area got me to thinking about a new post for my blog. I won't go into too much detail about the piece, other than more and more studies are showing that particulate matter pollution at lower levels are more harmful to the general public's health than previously thought. The majority of this pollution comes from the tailpipe.

It is articles like this that reinforce my stance that cars need to come further down in use and into a more balanced transportation system as a whole. While I can think of numerous other reasons, I haven't put them into one comprehensive post before. So without further ado, here's some of the reasons I know of car's negatively effecting the general public.

My number one personal reason has and most likely will always be for environmental reasons. Supporting this stances, and said far more eloquently than I ever could, are books similar to Jane Holtz Kay's Asphalt Nation. The North Central Texas Council of Governments tracks the pollution data locally, but the one that everyone has been focused on nationally is ozone. The numbers may be old, but 47% of all smog causing agents came from exhaust in DFW. Compound that with expected increase in auto travel and the ability to fight that regional becomes much harder. Barring lobbying for stricter pollution controls and emission standards, this is out of the reach of any regional or smaller government. That means near half of the emissions are untouchable. Sure there are programs that they can do that will encourage people to buy newer and less polluting cars, but that is minor when spread over a region of six million people.

Now, it appears that particulate matter is next on the list of pollutants that are more harmful than we knew before. How many more health harming pollution issues are going to keep arising? The list from the past is long too. Lead, carbon dioxide, smog, ozone, etc. have all been targeted in the past with varying degrees of success. Each time progress is made, another issue or pollutant becomes apparent.

On top of all that, the above only accounts for direct use. There are pollution and environmental concerns for manufacturing, disposal and maintenance for the vehicles. Fuel, transmission fluid, brake fluid, battery acid and other components also cause environmental degradation. Even when the vehicle in in motion, bits of tires are being sanded off. When you brake, metallic brake dust is being ejected. I consider this a hidden environmental cost of car use. Many people are focused on reducing gas consumption through increased fuel efficiency as the answer. I know several environmentally-minded people who think their hybrid is the answer. However, that doesn't account for what was listed directly above and only marginally reduces overall fuel consumption. In my opinion, the real answer is going to have to come through whole scale changes in the way we build our cities.

Speaking of cities, I mentioned some previous posts about how a car-favored city will always struggle to have a great urban environment on any large scale. The best that can be done are small, quaint downtowns surrounded by surface parking, as seen in cities like Grapevine, Carrollton or even Arlington. Transit can help, but until zoning codes reflect a more urban-style development, it will always struggle. The main reason is the space needed to store cars is tremendous. In the Sunbelt, the number one use of land is for parking (one of my biggest gripes is even this is hidden, as the land is actually categorized by its zoning classification). A number that I have seen floated around (though never with a source) is that the City of Houston has 34 parking spaces per resident. That is more space than their house and workplace combined.

That leads me to...the actual infrastructure, which is extremely inefficient in numerous ways. The first is the amount of land required. Since our roadways are effectively conduits for the car and little more, they are basically car infrastructure. The closer into the old urban core you go, the more likely you are to see transit, pedestrians and cyclists on those streets balancing the transportation system, but they are increasingly the exception. If those car-centric streets are added in with the freeway system and the parking from the previous point, the vast majority of the land in a "modern" American city is dedicated to storing and transporting cars.

Consider this point. One freeway lane can transport 2,000 cars an hour. In peak direction, U.S. 75 can handle 8,000 cars an hour (despite the diminishing returns of adding more lanes, I use that number for easy math). At full capacity, a light rail line can carry roughly 10,000 peak direction, on 1/5th the land. As I have explained in previous entries, cities like Dallas may struggle to reach capacity based on the system design and city layout. But, all things equal, transit is the better choice for moving the most people on the least amount on any distance. The most efficient mode of transport is walking. Sidewalks can carry thousands upon thousands of people in a short time. But, since this is America and very little is walkable or even in walking distance, it is rarely chosen. In places where the design supports it, that is usually the most common choice.

By my rough estimate, there are 23 freeway lanes leading out of downtown. That means roughly 46,000 cars an hour. At an occupancy rate of 1.2 per vehicle, downtown evacuates 55,000 people an hour. Downtown employs 130,000 people. That math doesn't add up. Add in the fact that only 20 percent of the traffic around downtown during rush hour actually comes from downtown and the shortcoming becomes quite apparent.

In a way, the takeover of the street from a multi-modal system to what it is now is another externality. A road built for only the car will see little walking, transit or biking activity. It will also mean less everyday activity, which is another problem.

Health and safety is another big issue for me. I mentioned the pollution, but that is not all. The obesity rate in this country would decline is more people were able to get out and walk to accomplish day-to-day activities. This review of another book I own documents this quite effectively. Bottom line, you know there is a problem when doctor and medical groups are beginning to speak out against current development patterns.

On that same note, it would take 50 years of average Iraq War casualties to equal one year of auto fatalities. A big reason President Barack Obama beat out John McCain for president was the general public's war weariness. Yet cars go on at a much greater rate unnoticed by the general public. Now I will grant that the number of fatalities has decreased over the past two decades, much of it due to safety features of newer cars, but it can be a mixed blessing. Accidents that previously would have killed occupants only severely injure them now. In 2005, there were 42, 636 people killed in car crashes. There were almost 3 million injured. While the deaths are decreasing, the injuries are rising.

I tried to keep this post on the public costs, but there certainly are private concerns for users in picking their transportation mode. My opinion, though, is for each person to be able to have that choice. Sadly, particularly in my neck of the country, there is little choice to be had. That is one of the big reasons I wanted to pursue planning. If we can correct some issues, build in moderation, allow connectivity of the built environment, many of these negatives will be reduced.