Abby Quillen

Freelance Content Marketing Writer and Editor

New Urbanism

Imagine a City With No Cars

By

sunday streets 069

Every summer in Eugene, the city blocks off a neighborhood to car traffic for an afternoon, and people come out to bike, walk, roll, dance, do yoga, listen to music, and celebrate in the streets. The event, called Sunday Streets, and similar ones around the country are inspired by Bogota, Colombia’s Ciclovía, which started in 1976.

We always have a great time wandering around and celebrating human powered transportation. While most people don’t want to live in a city with no cars, Sunday Streets events help us envision safe and vibrant city centers that cater to people, instead of automobiles.

sunday streets 066

sunday streets 074

sunday streets 070

sunday streets 065

sunday streets 023

sunday streets 022

sunday streets 021

As I mentioned last week, August will likely be quiet here, as I travel and revamp this site.  (Of course, I may not be able to resist stopping in for a garden update; there’s so much happening out there!) I look forward to seeing you back here at a new and improved website in September.

When Bicycle Trailers are Outlawed…

By

To some, this scene of a Kidical Mass ride may represent a wholesome, healthy way for parents to spend a summer afternoon with their kids. But one Oregon congressman sees something altogether more sinister happening here.

Representative Mitch Greenlick has proposed a state law, punishable by a $90 fine, that will, if passed, make it illegal for parents to bicycle with a child under six in a bike seat, trailer, or on a tow-along bike.

Portland has long been revered by bicycle enthusiasts for its bike-friendly culture and infrastructure. It boasts the highest number of bike commuters of any large U.S. city, and it’s the only city in the nation that has been awarded with the League of American Bicyclists’ platinum status. The city council unanimously approved the 2030 Bicycle Master Plan last year, envisioning Portland as a “world-class bicycling city” and outlining a goal of building three times as many bicycle routes as the city currently has.

So why would Greenlick, a Democrat representing Northwest Portland, introduce a bill that would keep a large segment of the cycling population from using their bicycles as transportation?

Greenlick cites child safety. He says that while there’s no data to suggest children are unsafe in bike trailers, bike seats, or on tow-along bikes, he wants to “start a conversation” about the topic and hopes his proposed bill will compel a study. He points to a recent study of serious male riders who bike to work on a regular basis, which he says found that 30 percent of riders suffer a “traumatic injury” each year and 8 percent suffer an injury serious enough to require medical attention.

“I was not able to resist asking myself what would have happened to a young child strapped into a seat on the bike when the rider suffered that serious traumatic injury,” Greenlick wrote in a statement. “The study clearly leads us to work to reduce the environmental hazards that make those injuries more likely.”

The study Greenlick cites actually found that 20 percent of serious cyclists experienced a traumatic injury each year and 5 percent required medical attention. And, Mia Burk, the former bicycle coordinator of the city of Portland and current CEO of Alta Planning and Design, points out that the language in the study is misleading, because the emotionally-loaded words “traumatic injury” actually denote minor injuries, like bumps, bruises, and scrapes. As she points out, doing any sort of outdoor athletic activity brings some risk of minor injury, as does cooking. Moreover, the study says nothing about the safety of bike trailers, tow-along bikes, or bike seats.

Greenlick is simply concerned that transporting kids on bikes may be dangerous. I’ve heard the same concerns before, notably from my own parents. And here’s where, at the risk of destroying my status amongst adventurists and the free-range parenting community, I have a little confession to make. My husband and I are, um, cautious. Okay I said it. We’re not into heli-skiing or sky-diving, bull-riding or rugby, motocross or sword swallowing. I teasingly call my husband “Safety Dad”, because he seems to have the vision of a condor when it comes to detecting danger. “Be really careful,” were some of our son’s first words, which perhaps tells you how often he’s heard that phrase.

When we ride our bikes, we take quiet roads and bike paths, wear helmets, and look both ways before we cross streets. And we — cue the scary music — strap our son into a bike trailer, which we both feel is safe, and which my son loves riding in.

Not surprisingly Greenlick’s bill has outraged Oregon’s cycling community, including the small but growing number of people who live car-free. Greenlick says he’s received hundreds of angry letters in the last week, and he’s already considering amending the bill to get rid of the violation portion and instead ask for a study on child safety.

I’m glad Greenlick is reconsidering this bill, because I believe it is misguided on a number of levels. Oregon is suffering during this economy, and the bill would hurt one of the most economically vulnerable populations — those who can’t afford cars.

I agree with Greenlick that we should have a conversation about bicycle safety, because we should be encouraging more people to ride bikes. We know that bicycling is good for the health of people, society, and the environment. We also know that a large percentage of Americans say in surveys that they would like to ride a bike, but feel scared doing so. Bicycling does not have to be as risky as it is in most American cities.

I like to envision a city where the roads and sidewalks are safe for pedestrians and bicyclists, a city with lots of bike lanes, bike paths, bike boulevards, and bike boxes. A city where goods and services are within walking distance of where people live. A city where sprawling parking lots, 12-lane highways, and neighborhoods without sidewalks, which are deadly to non-motorists, are replaced with human-scale development. A city where the air and water are clean and people are healthy.

If it’s hard to imagine such a city, my vision looks a little bit like this:

I hope Greenlick’s bill will start a conversation about how we can get closer to this vision. Criminalizing riding bikes with children is certainly not that way.

Besides, as my husband, points out, “When bicycle trailers are outlawed, only outlaws will tote their kids in bicycle trailers.”

If you liked this post, check out these related posts:

What do you think of Greenlick’s bill? I’d love to hear your thoughts.

Save

Save

How Walkable is Your Neighborhood?

By

I’m a huge fan of walking. I wrote about why I love it here. I take a walk at least once a day, rain or shine. And every time I wheel my son’s stroller out to the sidewalk in front of our house, I am grateful that we live in a walkable neighborhood.

So what makes a neighborhood walkable? This is how the folks at Walkscore.com define it:

  • A center: Walkable neighborhoods have a center, whether it’s a main street or a public space.
  • People: Enough people for businesses to flourish and for public transit to run frequently.
  • Mixed income, mixed use: Affordable housing located near businesses.
  • Parks and public space: Plenty of public places to gather and play.
  • Pedestrian design: Buildings are close to the street, parking lots are relegated to the back.
  • Schools and workplaces: Close enough that most residents can walk from their homes.
  • Complete streets: Streets designed for bicyclists, pedestrians, and transit.

My neighborhood only scores 63 out of 100 according to Walkscore’s criteria and earns their rank of “Somewhat Walkable”. I checked some of the other addresses I’ve lived at in the last six years. Most of them earn a higher score, because they were closer to downtown, which means they were closer to bookstores, restaurants, and other amenities.

But I think my neighborhood has something going for it that can’t be easily quantified – a culture of walking. Many of my neighbors are home during the day, many of them have young children, and they are often outside and out walking themselves. So my son and I invariably run into people we know when we’re on a walk. Occasionally we even go on walks with our neighbors. So we’re getting to know each other in a way that I’ve never experienced in a neighborhood, even those closer to more amenities.

My neighborhood is also safe, which I think makes a big difference to walkability. Sadly in a few of the other neighborhoods I’ve lived in, including a few that Walkscore deems more walkable, I didn’t feel comfortable walking alone at night. Especially when I lived alone, that meant the neighborhood was only walkable during daylight hours. And there just aren’t many of those in the winter.

So while I love Walkscore’s ranking system and would like to see urban planners put walkability first when designing or retrofitting cities, I’ve discovered that some of what makes a neighborhood walkable just can’t be easily measured.

If you’re curious, here are Walkscore.com’s most walkable cities:

  1. San Francisco, Walk Score 86
  2. New York, Walk Score 83
  3. Boston, Walk Score 79

And here are the ones they rank as least walkable:

  1. Charlotte, Walk Score 39
  2. Nashville, Walk Score 39
  3. Jacksonville, Walk Score 36

You can find out how your neighborhood scores here.

How walkable is your neighborhood? Do you agree with Walkscore’s rating?

Cars are going out of style.

By

car

That’s right, car-free living is in the news this week.

The New York Times featured a story, “Is Happiness Still That New Car Smell?” by Micheline Maynard about the increasing trend of people going car-free because of the recession.

Maynard writes, “The recession and a growing awareness of the environment are causing many people to reassess their automobile ownership. After more than a century in which an automobile represented the American dream, car enthusiasm may no longer be a part of Americans’ DNA.”

Read the article here.

And Bob Sawatski wrote about the auto accident that made him go car-free in his Writer’s in the Range column this week.

“The more you drive, the dumber you get. Driving makes people act like rats trapped in a maze. You lose touch with your senses, your imagination and your compassion for other travelers on the road of life. Air-bagged, air-conditioned, locked in and desensitized, drivers assume they’re safe,” Sawatski writes.

Read his essay here.

New Urbanism: Planning healthier cities and retrofitting suburbia

By

Photo courtesy of Geek Philosopher
Photo courtesy of Geek Philosopher

(The third in a series highlighting U.S. Movements to celebrate, support, and spread the word about.)

Suburban sprawl has been the dominant development pattern for the last fifty years. By 2000, more people lived in suburbs than in cities, small towns, and the countryside combined. Most of these suburbs were built after 1950 to accommodate the automobile, and they usually have the following familiar characteristics:

  • Low population density
  • Separate business and residential districts
  • Large lots
  • No sidewalks
  • Complex hierarchical street systems
  • Cul-de-sacs
  • Large parking lots
  • Shopping malls
  • Strip malls
  • Big box stores
  • Traffic congestion

These features – especially the curving dead-end streets, lack of sidewalks, massive parking lots, and the distance  between residences and businesses make it nearly impossible to walk or ride a bike in many suburbs.

The result? 41% of urban trips in the U.S. are under 2 miles, but 90% are made by car. Only 6% of trips are made on foot and 1% by bicycle (1995). Compare that with a few other countries:

  • France – 24% foot, 4% bike
  • Switzerland – 24% foot, 10% bike
  • Sweden – 29% foot, 10% bike
  • The Netherlands – 18% foot, 28% bike

The vast majority of Americans also drive to work. The average commute is 16 miles. Only 4% of Americans commute via public transportation, 2.93% walk, and .38% cycle.

cars

Sprawl is hazardous to our health.

Suburban living undeniably has good points – big backyards, good schools, friendly neighborhoods, and roomy living quarters. But sprawling cities mean more driving and lead to:

1. Physical inactivity

Researchers Barbara A. McCan and Reid Ewing studied the health effects of sprawl by comparing the “sprawl index” to the health characteristics of 200,000 people in 448 different counties. They found that people living in more sprawling counties were more likely to

  • be physically inactive
  • have higher body mass indexes
  • be obese
  • suffer from high blood pressure.

2. Road rage

With everyone relying so heavily on cars, our roadways are packed and driving is often stressful. A third of drivers can be characterized as aggressive. 62% say they occasionally get frustrated behind the wheel, 40% admit to getting angry, and 20% confess to getting road rage at times.

3. Traffic accidents

Driving is one of the most dangerous activities we do each day. 6.5 million auto accidents occur every year in the U.S, and almost 40,000 people died last year in car crashes. That’s 110 deaths every day, or one death every 13 minutes.

4. Air Pollution

Cars are the leading cause of air pollution in the U.S. Long-term exposure to dirty air is known to shorten lives and contribute to cardiovascular and lung disease.

There’s an alternative to sprawl.

sweden bikes

New Urbanism is an urban planning movement that rose up in the early 1980s in reaction to suburban development.

The ten principles of New Urbanism are:

  1. Walkability – Amenities are within a ten minute walk from home or work and streets are pedestrian-friendly.
  2. Connectivity – Cities are on a grid to make walking easier.
  3. Mixed Use and Diversity – Residential and business districts are mixed and appeal to people of all ages and walks of life.
  4. Mixed Housing – Neighborhoods have different types and prices of housing.
  5. Quality Architecture and Urban Design – Developments are beautiful, comfortable, and have a sense of place.
  6. Traditional Neighborhood Structure – The center of town is public open space.
  7. Increased Density – Everything is closer together to make walking more convenient.
  8. Green Transportation – A network of trains connects neighborhoods, towns, and cities.
  9. Sustainability – Developments encourage energy efficient living: less driving, more walking.
  10. Quality of Life – Neighborhoods, towns, and buildings uplift and enrich people’s lives.

New Urbanist developers have fought to change city codes that favor sprawl to build more walkable, livable communities. Critics have pointed out that some New Urban developments, like Plum Creek in Kyle, Texas; Kentlands, Maryland; and Seaside, Florida, are built on open space and thus add to sprawl, even if these communities are compact, mixed-use, and walkable.

But not all New Urbanist settlements are on open space. Many are suburban retrofits. Stapleton in Denver, Colorado was an old airport; and Belmar in Lakewood, Colorado and Mizner Park in Boca Raton, Florida were abandoned shopping malls.

walkable

Suburbia needs a rehab

Time Magazine reports that “the American suburb as we know it is dying” because of the housing bust, and Christopher B. Leinberger asks if suburban McMansion developments will be “the next slum” in the Atlantic Monthly. 148,000 shopping malls and big box stores closed last year, including Circuit City, Gottshalks, and many Home Depots and Mervyns. When big retailers desert neighborhoods, they don’t just leave giant, windowless, vacant buildings. They also leave lost tax revenue, fewer jobs and the potential for increased vandalism, more crime, and lower property values.

The residential districts of suburbs were also vastly overbuilt during the housing bubble. Arthur C. Nelson of the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, forecasts a surplus of 22 million large-lot homes by 2025, which is about 40% of those in existence today.

bike lightRemaking the abandoned miles of sprawl resulting from the unsustainable development patterns of the last fifty years will be a major challenge in the next few decades, and New Urbanist theorists, planners, and architects will undoubtedly be on the front lines.

If reshaping American cities to be healthier and less car-centric seems hopeless, look at Bogota, Colombia. In 1998, to fight severe traffic congestion and pollution problems, Enrique Peñalosa, the new mayor of Bogota, built 70 miles of bike paths; converted many streets into pedestrian malls; and built a relatively inexpensive rapid transit bus system. The results were quick and dramatic. The average commute time decreased 21 minutes and the air got significantly cleaner. The citizens of Bogota were so pleased that they voted to ban cars entirely from downtown during rush hour starting in 2015.

Read more about New Urbanism at Congress for the New Urbanism. Or grab a copy of Retrofitting Suburbia: Urban Design Solutions for Redesigning Suburbs by Ellen Dunham-Jones and June Williamson.

Are you a fan or member of a movement fighting for social, cultural, or environmental change? Leave a comment! Your movement could be highlighted in a future New Urban Habitat article.

Suburban Life Minus the Cars

By

sweden bikes

Imagine a suburb with no cars. No traffic jams. No drive ways. No garages. Vauban, Germany, a suburb of Freiburg, is pioneering this revolutionary concept. The 5,500 residents of Vauban are not forbidden from owning a car. But they must purchase a parking space in a shared garage at the edge of the development for $40,000. 70% of the residents do not own a car, and all streets except the main thoroughfare to Freiberg and a few streets on the periphery of the suburb are car-free. Biking and walking are the main means of transport. The New York Times featured an article about Vauban on May 11. Check it out!

 

Save