Placemaking for Greater Prosperity

The term placemaking came into vogue just a few decades ago, but the concept of designing spaces that attract people has been around for centuries.  Designing with placemaking in mind involves a paradigm shift in the way we typically view urban planning.  Instead of giving prominence to vehicles and buildings, a designer must focus on people and the way they experience spaces.  The goals of placemaking run in the vein of creating lively and inviting public spaces, spaces that can be and are used by residents of a neighborhood.  There are a few recurring themes seen in successfully “made”  places, such as easy access by various modes of transportation, a sense of safety and cleanliness, and the ability of said place to host a variety of experiences and activities.

Benefits to the neighborhood are clear; placemaking provides spaces for interactions between citizens, builds a sense of community, etc.  But how does designing with people in mind benefit the community at large?  And does placemaking have any correlation with economic prosperity?  Neighborhoods designed with placemaking in mind are typically walkable, pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods.  Residents in these communities statistically have lower automobile costs, produce fewer carbon emissions and realize increased home values compared to communities that lack a sense of place.  Following hand in hand with lower private vehicle use is a lower demand on infrastructure.  Compact development pays.  An EPA study found that compact infrastructure could be 47% less expensive than conventional suburban development.

Residents living in neighborhoods designed with an orientation towards people versus cars, typically have higher levels of physical fitness.  Again this may seem like it's benefiting the individual, not the greater good, but keep in mind that in 2008 the medical cost to treat obesity in the US was $147 billion.  And let’s not overlook the reduction in carbon emissions mentioned above.  Environmental concerns aside, less pollution equates to cleaner air and lower incidences of asthma and other respiratory illnesses.

It's also been shown that walkable neighborhoods have lower crime rates.  Jane Jacobs, a community activist and early proponent of placemaking strategies, argued that streets are safer when more people are on them.  Her ‘eyes on the street’ theory contended that well-used public places and buildings that provide inhabitants views to the streets create inherently safer neighborhoods.And she was right; neighborhood watch programs across the country now use the same techniques she advocated.

Placemaking aims to provide a common meeting space and bolster the sense of community in a place.  These shared public spaces can offer venues for markets and cultural festivals or provide a performance area for bands or theater groups.  Communities can begin to see direct economic benefits when the value of their space is recognized and realized.

It's difficult to quantify all the benefits of placemaking, but with movements like Placemaking Chicago and the New York City Plaza Program growing in prominence, these benefits are hard to deny.

[Photo of Lincoln Square Arch in Chicago courtesy of Placemaking Chicago]

The Obama Infrastructure Plan, Year 2

On February 17th, 2009, President Obama countered the recession with his own economic stimulus plan: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). Proponents of public transportation heralded the effort, which allocated over $48 billion of the $787 billion economic stimulus package towards infrastructure improvements.  These investments into our nation's infrastructure focused on of a range of transportation initiatives including highway, rail, air and maritime. When the Act was first unveiled, its primary goals were threefold: to rescue, recover and reinvest. Long term benefits were intended to materialize through improvements in the efficiency of transportation systems across America and increasing our economic viability internationally. More immediate goals of the plan primarily came down to creating jobs. The Obama administration cited the lofty but vague goal of creating ‘millions of jobs’, both direct and indirect. Due to the long-lead nature of construction projects, it was speculated that the bulk of new jobs wouldn't be created until mid-2010. As we're nearing that milestone, it seems an opportune time to reflect on what the large-scale infrastructure plan has and has not accomplished early in its sophomore year.

To start, let's talk money. How much of the money has been awarded? How many projects have received money and commenced construction? Within days of ARRA’s passage, money was being awarded. Within six months $33.2 billion had been awarded to states for proposed projects and of that, $20.6 billion had been committed to specific projects readying them to begin construction. The push to award funds was immense right after ARRA passed, then slowed appreciably in following months. As of April 30^th, 2010, just over $39 billion had been awarded. Of that, less than one-third of funds, or $10.9 billion, has been received by states to begin projects. This equates to just over one-fifth of the total stimulus money allocated for infrastructure improvements currently being used to fund actual projects. While a $10.9 billion is a large injection into our nation's neglected infrastructure, the task at hand remains large. Let's hope that projects gain approval and funding is doled out with renewed ferocity in this second year.

Let's address the major short-term goal of the infrastructure plan, job creation. The Obama administration attempted complete transparency in job reporting, which proved to be a difficult task. Early reports in 2009 claimed that over one million jobs had been created within months of the act being passed. In fact the White House claimed that public and private forecasters estimated the Recovery Act was 'responsible' for 2 million jobs in its first year. The administration later admitted challenges in quantifying the number of jobs 'saved or created' by the Recovery Act and changed their terminology altogether to 'jobs funded by the recovery act'. Early numbers were revised and it was determined that from February 17th to September 30th, 2009, 633,376 jobs were funded by the Recovery Act. From last October 1st through the end of 2009, 608,311 jobs were funded by the Recovery Act and in the first quarter of 2010, 682,779 jobs were funded by the Recovery Act. While the numbers aren't as astonishing as what was first reported, the increase in job creation in 2010 is a reassuring trend. Could this be a leading indicator, demonstrating that we're on the verge of seeing the funded infrastructure projects go into full swing?

What are your thoughts?

The Preliminary National Rail Plan – A Work In Progress?

Spurred by the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act of 2009 (ARRA), the Federal Railroad Administration issued a Preliminary Rail Plan in October of 2009.  The plan was an attempt at laying the groundwork for future policies regarding our nation's rail transportation network.  The plan's lofty goals included improving safety, fostering livable communities, increasing the economic competitiveness of the United States and promoting more sustainable modes of transportation.  What the plan didn’t offer were specifics as to how to achieve these goals.  With the ARRA allocating $48 billion towards transportation funding, and $8 billion designated specifically for high-speed rail4, why does it appear that little action has been taken thus far? 

The Preliminary Rail Plan identified transportation corridors to target for improvement, and multiple states put their names in the running for a portion of the stimulus money.  To date, funding has been distributed to thirty-one states, with the largest grants going to California ($2.3 billion) and Florida ($1.25 billion).  A major drawback right now seems to be that states must raise additional funds, through tax increases or budget cuts, as the federal funding alone isn’t enough to subsidize their projects.  And given the current state of the economy, that drawback alone could be enough to kill transportation plans in some areas.

Another concern is the apparent lack of prioritization in identifying projects worthy of funding. The Florida project for example, would serve the Orlando-Tampa corridor, one not considered particularly viable for high speed rail due to the relatively short distance between the cities, the high number of intermediate stops along the route, and the lack of effective transit connections at either end.

Notwithstanding basic concerns about planning and financing, opinions differ substantially on how to best bring our nation's rail system up to twenty-first century standards.  Is it more economical to upgrade existing rail lines, or should we build brand new high-speed lines dedicated solely to passenger travel?  Our current rail network was largely in place by the end of the 19th Century. The system we now have was built in favor of freight rail and it’s slower speeds, and even with extensive retrofits, experts estimate that high-speed passenger trains on retrofitted tracks would run on average between 80 and 120 miles per hour, with speeds topping out in some locations around 160 miles per hour.  In Europe and Asia, high-speed rail lines have their own dedicated tracks and with improved construction techniques, the trains are easily capable of running over 200 miles per hour.

Additionally, infrastructure is typically shared between freight and passenger rail lines.  Freight railroads have historically been privately owned, and since their deregulation in 1980 have proven to be profitable businesses.  Passenger railroads on the other hand, provide a public service and are publicly subsidized by taxpayers.  Currently, most passenger service utilizes rail infrastructure owned and operated by the freight railroads.  So should those private companies benefit from infrastructure improvements paid for by tax dollars, or should they share in the cost?  Or does our current shared infrastructure reinforce the idea that passenger service should be provided on dedicated lines, removed from freight service?  One possible model is Chicago’s CREATE program, a partnership of public agencies and private railroads with the stated mission of solving the problems of both passenger (primarily commuter) and freight congestion in the nation’s rail hub, through investment of targeted improvements including grade separations, line section and signal improvements, etc.

The fact remains that even a sum of money to the tune of $48 billion falls short of upgrading our entire existing rail infrastructure and woefully short of providing gleaming brand-new high speed lines throughout the country.  Thus, the government has allowed individual states to strategize how to best use available funding.  California aims to spend $2.25 of their appropriated $2.3 billion on a new dedicated high speed line connecting northern and southern portions of the state.  Meanwhile, Midwestern states such as Missouri and Illinois prefer to upgrade their existing lines with hopes of incrementally improving service.  Only time will tell which tactic does the better job of fostering sustainable, livable communities and making rail travel more economically viable for the majority of Americans.

LA’s Ambitious 30-in-10 Plan

For at least the past two decades, no public official has been more up front with his agenda for transit-starved Los Angeles than that city’s Mayor Antonio Villaraigrosa. Largely through his unrelenting vision of how his city could benefit from tens of billions of dollars in mass transit investment, combined with his considerable political clout at the national level, Villaraigrosa has been a front-and-center advocate for heavy and light rail “dream projects” including the Subway to the Sea, Regional Connector, Crenshaw Corridor and service to Los Angeles International Airport, as well as busway extensions. Once in place, this network expansion would largely fill out the bare-bones high-capacity transit system currently making do in this megalopolis.

And in today’s environment, bringing dollars to the table may be just the ticket to make this dream into a reality. By borrowing federal stimulus money against proceeds from a 30-year local sales tax dedicated to transit and now in place, Villaraigrosa has convinced California lawmakers, federal officials and even mayors of other major cities that not only can Los Angeles deliver 30 years’ worth of major transit investments within 10 years, but also could jump-start an economic recovery by putting thousands to work designing and building the system.

We’ve discussed in a recent blog posting our view that stimulus spending might as well go into concrete-and-steel projects that will leave a legacy of lasting value. We acknowledge that our economy is in a dire predicament, the solution to which has befuddled even top government officials. While not perfect, Villaraigrosa’s out-of-the-box thinking is in our view exactly what is needed to get worthwhile projects built, put people to work, and rebuild a sense of national and civic self-esteem that has all but evaporated in the current financial crisis. Imagine a Los Angeles woven together by a series of high-capacity rail and bus guideways separated from the hellish traffic, dotted with high-density, mixed use centers of activity that complement the surrounding communities while maintaining lower densities where appropriate.

As far as projects, we’d like to offer one not on the table so far: an upgrade of key Metrolink commuter rail lines to more frequent mid-day and reverse-commute service, and better integration of that service with MTA at key stations. New diesel-multiple unit rail vehicles could be purchased and operated over Metrolink tracks in shorter consists and with smaller crew sizes than current push-pull equipment, to more cost-effectively accommodate mid-day service. This regime of service would be targeted to corridor segments with the greatest off-peak ridership potential. Metrolink already operates over a staggering 500+ route miles of rail corridors in the LA region, and the introduction of such service over current routes would almost guarantee increased development potential in nodes currently served by Metrolink.

We strongly support the LA mayor’s proposed solution and encourage other metropolitan areas to follow suit. Obviously not all regions with substantial transit needs have a dedicated funding source to borrow against, and in these cases even more out-of-the-box thinking is needed to create a national model for transit investment. And of course, we welcome your ideas and suggestions.

Public Works Infrastructure and Recessionary Finance

The Depression-era WPA building program left many iconic and enduring projects in place , even while putting people to work during the job-starved 1930s. Landmarks and structures such as public buildings, post offices, major bridges, dams, zoos and many others went up in a relatively brief period, and are still utilized and enjoyed by tens of millions today.

President Barack Obama’s multi-billion dollar federal stimulus package has not yet proposed a similar visionary program, instead focusing on “shovel-ready” projects, which typically translate into short-term fixes such as road repaving projects. This is even though taxpayers would be getting as much as 30% more for their money due to the favorable bidding environment (compared to pre-recessionary times).

Of course the type of planning needed requires a long-term vision which, in the arena of national politics and partisan bickering, is not necessarily the expedient route. Some cities such as San Diego have recognized this and are focusing on longer horizon projects entailing major transit/highway expansion or rehabilitation, with life spans of 50-year or longer. Schenectady, New York Mayor Brian Stratton, echoing the position of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, has been pushing a re-creation of the FDR-era WPA program, though his focus has been on funneling federal stimulus funds directly to local governments.

Despite the difference in these emergent approaches, there seems to be a general recognition that the first round of stimulus funding was not very effective. Aligning the true needs of our nation’s infrastructure to the Obama Administration’s vision for creating jobs seems the greatest challenge to overcome.

In our mind, the real question is this: if we’re spending money we don’t have anyways, why not spend it on projects with long-term value? And on a “touchier” note, at what level of government is “value” determined, when it comes to apportionment of federal tax dollars? Is it time to appoint a new “infrastructure czar” to work the interstices of federal/local politics, perhaps backed up by a nationwide cabinet of transit and public works officials? This panel could be given the authority needed to short-circuit the evaluation of projects, as well as to distribute stimulus funds, cutting through the red tape now hampering the process. This would be for the greater good of our nation in the short term, as well as our long-term economic prospects.

My fingers are limber. Who do we email??

As always, thoughts and comments are appreciated!