Camille Manning-Broome’s Post

Planning begins with a vision on how to improve the quality of life for a community.

Wherever Charles Marohn travels in America, he finds a similar type of road, lined with strip malls, fast-food joints, gas stations, car dealers and dying malls. Marohn calls these arterial roads “stroads”—a mix of a neighborhood street, where people want to live and shop, and a road, which is designed to move traffic quickly between two places. Stroads are trying to do two things at once, he says, and failing at both. They repel pedestrians and bicyclists. But they also fail to move traffic quickly the way a road should, says Marohn, a civil engineer turned writer and speaker, and the founder of the nonprofit Strong Towns, which advocates for more livable and resilient urban development. Cars can rev up to 45 mph or so but frequently must brake for red lights, a frustrating and dangerous stop-and-go. He blames traffic engineers for ignoring the way roaring traffic tends to decrease the value of adjacent neighborhoods and commercial districts, making them less safe and attractive to people who want to reside, stroll, shop or dine in calmer surroundings. That, he says, destroys the economic value of land and wastes public funds spent on ill-conceived roads. WSJ: How do you sum up your message about how streets should be designed to improve towns and cities? MAROHN: A street is about building a place. And so the focus has to be on the place, not getting through the place. And a road is about moving vehicles, moving traffic quickly. So the focus for a road isn’t on the place, it’s on the movement. It’s a difference in emphasis. Are you emphasizing building a place? Or are you emphasizing getting somewhere? WSJ: Does that mean that ideally we would end up with things that are either streets, where cars are moving at a leisurely pace and pedestrians and bicycles are comfortable, or else freeways? MAROHN: There would be some nuance between the two, but, ideally, yes. You’re having the best function when you are one of those two bookends. If you’re moving in an automobile at 10 to 15 mph through a place, that place is going to be really great. You’re going to have a lot of stuff going on.  If you’re moving 60-plus mph, you’re on a great road. That is going to have a lot of financial return on our investment. That moves goods and services and people. When you get into that middle area, where you’re traveling 30 or 40 mph, you’re really not going anywhere at a speed that is meaningful, but you’re also not building a place that can actually function or sustain itself financially—a place that anyone really wants to be in. WSJ: But do we need at least a few of those medium-speed streets to connect up the two ideals? MAROHN: I don’t think we need them. Given where we are at today, we’re going to have them for a while, and it will take time if we dedicate ourselves to phasing them out.

Check out this fantastic piece about the Government Street corridor, based on the research of Andrew Fitzgerald and Jake Polansky, MPA!

Cities like Washington, D.C., are reconsidering parking minimums, as critics argue they create excess parking, encourage driving, and inflate housing costs. Instead, better on-street management and pricing parking correctly are seen as more effective solutions. https://lnkd.in/gmZ7qJAA #UrbanPlanning #Parking #CityDevelopment #HousingCosts #Transportation

This is generally good news, and an important step in the right direction (check out Climate Town's hilarious & comprehensive take on the issue of parking minimums) -- but it's only one piece of a bigger puzzle. We ALSO, simultaneously, need to decouple housing from profit (to ensure the lowered cost results in more housing, not just more profit), vastly expand public transit (to ensure folks have a reasonable alternative to driving), and require electrification of all the parking spaces being built (to ensure those who drive are doing it w/o tailpipe emissions). And, crucially, we need to ensure that removing parking spaces doesn't engender *unbundling* those electrified parking spaces -- multi-family residents deserve the same regulated energy pricing and Vehicle-to-Home resilience opportunities that single-family residents enjoy. Happy to talk if anyone wants to dive into this!

Great to see so many cities realizing that endless #parking is a detriment and not benefit to thriving #downtowns. However, this isn't a new concept. CMSC recognized the City of Hartford with an Award of Excellence in 2017 for their transformative ZoneHartford, a comprehensive overhaul of the City's #zoning language, which included (among many positive changes) an elimination of costly parking requirements that inhibited #mainstreet pedestrian orientation. #parkingsolutions https://lnkd.in/eqaSXRGZ

If they can do it in Austin – one of the most car-centric cities in the country – we can do it here too. Every neighborhood starts with an intention. In Baton Rouge, and the majority of cities around the country, the intention has historically been to develop commercial corridors and car-dependent destinations – hence, stringent parking minimums that require developers to spend resources servicing cars over people. In order to plan for vibrant, pedestrian-safe neighborhoods, we have to do something about these outdated regulations. In implementing the Government Street road diet, we saw that by taking away some road and parking space, the corridor was actually able to welcome more customers, cyclists, walkers, and others who add to the bustling street life. Current zoning rules limit our ability to plan for the kind of places where people actually want to visit, live, and start businesses. City councils across the country are realizing this, and taking steps to enact zoning measures that get rid of parking minimums. I'm glad to see it! The next time the subject of parking comes up in your community, remember: if we want walkable places, we can’t over-prescribe for parking space.  #parking #walkability #urbandesign

An excellent article by Anthony Effinger in Willamette Week explaining the history behind the City of Portland's ongoing struggles with potholes and unrepaired streets. According to Effinger, Portland's street problems date to the 1990's, when Mayor Vera Katz prioritized sending more money on Portland schools, the Sellwood Bridge, and other projects over repairing roads. Effinger notes that Katz never acquired a driver's license and was less concerned about road conditions than other Portlanders. The last comment seems a bit overblown, as Portland potholes remain a problem for pedestrians, bicyclists, and even bus passengers. Moreover, part of Portland's road maintenance problems arrived with the annexation of the mid-county area, which has (or had) some of the highest concentration of unpaved streets (along with hilly areas in Southwest Portland). See here for that data. https://lnkd.in/gKSN5SGZ The timing of the article is the May 21 primary election where City of Portland voters will decide whether to extend the city's 10% gasoline tax, which will determine if the city can continue its efforts to repair potholes. City Commissioner Mingus Mapps is leading this effort and deserves credit. In the article, Mapps and others note that a gasoline tax is an imperfect instrument and will eventually be replaced by some system of road tolls and mileage fees. However, the state legislature will need to tackle that issue rather than cities. Former City Commissioner Steve Novick attempted to address the road repair issue with a utility tax, and that failed effort played a role in Novick losing re-election to activist Chloe Eudaly back in 2016. The City should consider more widespread adoption of local improvement districts to repair roads in the neighborhoods where unpaved roads are most prevalent. While that will be a burden to property owners, they will benefit from improved neighborhood conditions. Effinger's article also discusses the mechanics of water freezing and thawing as the main culprits for Portland's poor road conditions (ranked 66th worst among US cities). He highlights the 2024's week-long cold snap and suggests that climate change may lead to more problems in the future. Left out of that discussion is the role of studded snow tires, which Oregon drivers are permitted to use five months in the year. Studded tires provided similar traction as snow tires, but tends to cause greater damage to roads. Many states with significant snow and ice conditions prohibit studded tires - Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Vermont, along with many sunbelt states. Oregon's legislature needs to assist the City of Portland (and ultimately its drivers) by adopting a policy against studded tires. https://lnkd.in/ghpuQCgK

I've been a Strong Towns member since November 2022 when I was inspired by Not Just Bikes to make a difference in my own city at the neighborhood level. It's tangible and rewarding to watch small acts like talking to an alder or speaking at Common Council pile up into wins that help improve my neighborhood. One of the bigger acts I've taken is helping host a Crash Analysis Studio (tomorrow!) for a pedestrian fatality that occurred two blocks away from my apartment. The crash was not reported on by local media and the only physical indicator that it occurred is two sets of flowers that I routinely see replenished. I've learned a lot about street design through the "Safe and Productive Streets" campaign and I knew that Strong Towns hosts a monthly session to examine and suggest improvements to streets and intersections that are inherently dangerous through design, across the United States. The purpose is simple: no one should be the second person to die on a dangerous street. I got in touch with the coordinators and made the case for Raymond and Prairie Road. There was no excessive speeding. There wasn't an inebriated driver. A pedestrian attempted to cross a street where the driver's instinct is to look left for cars rather than look right for people. On a red light, the driver hit the pedestrian while turning right. It's tragic, but it's fixable and we can do it with just a couple tweaks to the street. I measured the streets, took videos and pictures, and conducted a two hour speed study showing 97% of drivers going above the 30 mph speed limit and one driver going 73 mph. There are 3 schools and a library within .5 miles of this intersection; we are waiting for more tragic stories if we continue with the status quo. If you'd like to learn more about safe and productive street design, please join us on Friday at 11am central as we discuss inattentional blindness and what we can do about it. There will also be a recording (and you can find other Crash Analysis Studio sessions) at https://lnkd.in/gHBSJpyW. If you have ever felt that there's a street that's too dangerous in your neighborhood, reach out and I can walk you through the steps I took to try and make my street safe for everyone.

I'm thrilled to see the City of Vancouver proposing the elimination of all minimum parking requirements citywide! This is a huge step forward in addressing housing affordability and combating our climate crisis. By removing these outdated requirements, we can better support active and sustainable transportation. Why enforce minimum parking requirements when: 🚗 Strata developers already build about 22% more parking than the by-law minimums on average. 🏘 Minimum parking regulations can prevent housing development on smaller and uniquely shaped properties. 💸 Reducing parking can save $60,000-$95,000 per space, significantly lowering costs for rental and non-market housing projects. This proposal builds on Phase 2 of the parking minimum removals from November last year, a project I was proud to provide technical support for along with Coriolis and BTY Group. Eliminating these requirements challenges the outdated assumption that everyone needs to own a car and will accelerate delivery of housing. Let's hope these changes get approved next week. This could be a game-changer for our city! https://lnkd.in/gaqmaM4U