Transportation Problems and Policy (2018)

   In “The abandoned social goals of public transit in the neoliberal city of the USA”, Joe Grengs’ focuses on the inequity of transit planning in 1990 Los Angeles, where new rail lines serving the suburbs were prioritized over needed bus service in the urban core.  A separate and unequal transit system was being developed which heavily favored white suburban choice riders over transit dependent urban core minorities.  Grengs’ asks, “ should transit serve people who have few transportation choices, or should transit offer drivers an alternate to their cars” (2010. p. 52)? In this case, the answer I believe is transit dependent inner city people should definitely be prioritized over choice riders in the suburbs.  He goes on to ask, “should public transit serve as an instrument for advancing social justice” (p.52)? My answer to this though is not an easy yes.  Although I strongly believe in advancing social justice, increasing transit...

As cities cram more and more housing and retail into the urban area, available parking diminishes. Some current residents in Portland are whining about the free curbside parking that’s getting more difficult to access because of all the new residents who don’t have private parking spaces (Beaven, 2012). This could be partly remedied by building parking structures into new developments: two parking spots for each new apartment, and for every 250 square feet of retail space, another parking spot built. This is actually a horrible idea, though. If a new apartment building does have parking built into the facility, the cost of that addition would of course be put on the tenants. The American Housing Survey found that 16% of housing cost is attributable to parking spots (Coren, 2017). This seems fair if the tenants have a vehicle in a dense urban area, but if the cost is passed on to residents whether they own a car or not, then this is an equity issue. Building housing without pa...

Lime e-scooters in Washington, DC ( @ joeflood  via Twitter) By Josh Linden Cards on the table -- my transportation preferences are biased. I firmly believe that motor vehicles should not dominate our streets and public spaces. In fact, I’ll go even further: urban and even suburban areas should actively discourage motor vehicle use. You can make this argument for environmental, economic, public health, or even aesthetic reasons. But a personal preference is certainly no match for decades of intentional development that responded to -- and in turn, prioritized -- the automobile. To the extent that more people and policymakers are acknowledging our misguided development patterns, retrofitting our cities to accommodate other modes is no easy task, even when new innovations could address some of our challenges. Look no further than the ongoing experiment with e-scooters to understand why.  Backed by millions in venture capital, e-scooters -- the shared, electric mobility ...

Some of the readings in this class have dealt with the attempt to make transportation safer by separating different users: freeways for cars only, or cul-de-sacs that prevent through traffic, or one road with separate lanes for every mode. Each form of separation has unforeseen consequences: freeways have cut through neighborhoods, cul-de-sacs force pedestrians onto unsafe roads, and even separate lanes (or so it is argued) shift our regard away from one another. I’ve been wondering if there’s a philosophical similarity between mode separation and separation of the sexes. The latter may generally be a patriarchal practice, but it also has specific and important benefits for women trying to avoid male violence or voyeurism – and it keeps coming up in public transportation policy. When rail travel became popular in Victorian England, the enclosed cars on a moving vehicle created a specific kind of dangerous environment. Concerned women successfully sought compartments of their own to...

Today if you were to ask anyone in Portland Oregon to describe to you what a typical Oregonian cyclist looks like, you will probably get the description of a white, hipster, and privileged man. It would be very rare that you got the description of a minority and undocumented person. Under Oregon laws, undocumented residents or people who are not citizens of the United States are not allowed to get a driver license or Identification card. Therefore many undocumented people in Oregon must rely on public and active transportation for their transportation needs and mobility. Portland offers different types of public transportations and infrastructure for biking for people who are dependent on public and active transportations; however, once you step out of Portland, the go into the suburbs or rural communities, one might be lucky if you find a bus stop near sight. Undocumented residents don't bike because of the benefits to the environment, or because of the positive impacts to their...

Shoup (2005) suggested curb parking because people spend a lot of time and effort on the road looking for space to park their cars. Many state governments are trying to solve parking problems by introducing the curb parking price which is based on the Goldilocks principle. For example, San Francisco applies the ambitious curb parking system in the SF Park, getting prices depending on the occupancy rate. Nevertheless, parking is still one of the biggest issues that need to be solved, given the fixed amount of space. According to Seymour Taylor’s research (1959), 28% of the downtown area in Los Angeles is used in the street, freeway, and service ways and another 38% is used as off-street parking. Wilbur Smith and Associates (1966) said that 59% of the LA Central Business District was composed with 10% of sidewalks, 25% of the streets and 24% of the parking lots. If most workers commute by automobile, the parking space may require 400 sqft, even though the office space for a worki...

I'm choosing to do my third blog post about The London Congestion Charge article that was assigned for us to read this week. I think I choose this article because it goes along with the congestion relief theme that I did for my last blog post. Perhaps the London congestion charge could give U.S cities an example of a successful method to providing congestion relief. The London congestion charge was put into place on February 17, 2003. The charge for driving and parking within the congestion zone was£5.00 per day between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Spatially, the congestion zone encompasses central London and its major tourist sites, official government buildings, shops, and entertainment venues. According to the article, "Traffic speeds in central London had fallen more than 20 percent since the 1960s, from an average 12.7 mph for the morning peak period in 1968 (and a high of 14.2 mph in 1975) to 10 mph in 1998." As a result of ...