urban

Land Use, the “Jobshed” and exurban corporate campuses externalizing transit costs to employees

| Emily

Just found this great, although older, article from the SPUR Urbanist, which discusses the growth in job markets outside of traditional city downtowns and the effect on transit, land use, commuting decisions, etc. I found this particularly interesting re: the discussion about commuter vanpools and so on at the TransportationCamp “Employers and Transit” session on Saturday.

The article recognizes that many jobs ARE going to be and continue to be located at various ex-urban locations. According to the authors, the key is getting some jobs back in transit and density heavy downtowns, as well as pursuing strategies to get companies to localize around suburban transit hubs, as well as densifying sprawling highway-side campuses in order to service their transit needs in a better way than single-vehicle-occupancy high-mile trips. 

Great shot of highway 101 in San Mateo from Flickr user jeroen020

I think this is a very interesting issue to look at, having a personal interest in the juncture of land use with transportation issues (as well as the attendant issues of GHG emissions, quality of life, and sprawl). Does anyone have a good resource on the potential of the California SB 375 law? I’m currently trying to learn more about this legislation, and being new here, don’t have the network and resources yet to formulate a good idea of the key stakeholders. I’d appreciate some tips on great articles or sites to check out!

Transportation Camp Overview

| Emily

Final post about Transportation Camp (hosted by OpenPlans @SF Public Works this past weekend)  to wrap up my notes. In addition to the previous post on Sexy Transit, I also attended three other sessions on Saturday.

Session #1

The first session I attended was also my first unconference presentation. I wasn’t really sure what to do or who would show up, but a group of very experienced people showed up to discuss “Livable Streets and Public-Private Partnership” with me. I wasn’t sure how the session would go, but thanks to everyone’s ideas it went pretty well. We started off brainstorming some ideas about what a livable street entailed. Some of the key things that make a street “livable” according to the session’s participants included:

  • Equal access for transit, bikes, peds, cars
  • Mixed use development (residential, commercial, eateries, outdoor space)
  • A place I like to spend time
  • Green space (parks, gardens, recreation, landscaping)
  • Safe for pedestrians and bicycles
  • Traffic calming

The we discussed the public sector’s role in creating a livable street – what were some of the main obstacles, and some areas that could be productive:

  • Policy takes too long to change – current detrimental policies could have been invented decades ago and affect us today
  • Some environmentally focused policies can have a negative affect on creating better cities. One example was CEQA, and could also include zoning and road capacity issues that act as a deterrent to smart development.

Private sector challenges and roles were also a topic:

  • Branding and corporate sponsorship are one way to pay for public spaces, but there could definitely be some blowback from this depending on how blatant is was and access issues
  • Merchants may be wary to lose parking spaces

London’s Blue Bike lanes – from Alttransport

Finally, we tried to parse out a couple different areas where public-private partnership could be most productive in creating healthy, livable streetscapes where people like to spend time and money:

  • “Adopt a highway” is a very visible program. However, similar projects on behalf of BIDs and “Adopt a Street” programs are generally focused on cleaning up litter, etc. Can these be expanded to include landscaping, partnership with businesses to create parklets, working with the city?
  • Nonprofits have an important role to serve as arbiter between cities and businesses to create livable streets. They can serve to educate, do outreach and marketing trials, and explain the benefits to merchants.
  • What is an acceptable level of corporate sponsorship? One example was “bank sponsored” blue bike lanes in the UK. Others include “private outdoor space” for eating lunch in atriums and plazas downtown.
  • Parklets are a good way to promote the idea of livable streets when a merchant, with the help of the city, requests one. Can make the business more accessible and attractive to pedestrians and cyclists and can encourage people to linger. Two parking spots don’t generate much business, but those two spots can be turned into a space for eight people to eat, park their bicycles or sit next to a planter. Streetsblog has a list of ways for you to request a parklet here. 

Here’s a photo of the Mojo parklet in my ‘hood from socketsite.com I was surprised to see one of the first commenters denigrating this “down and out neighborhood” and expressing the view that the improvements are worthless. Pretty pathetic! I’d like know what this person thinks of some real “down and out neighborhoods” in other cities, because this does not qualify! I suppose we should never make small improvements to our neighborhoods either since, you know, it’s all or nothing. Ugh – this is a whole ‘nother post. 

I enjoyed leading the session and hearing everyone’s ideas! I’d love to get a copy of the notes when and if they go up online.

Session #2

This one was on “Employers and Transit”. I was a little of my knowledge zone in this group, with a lot of experts on employer commuting benefits and vanpools. Never having worked at a location with more than a dozen employees, the idea of a vanpool is pretty vague for me. Still, I took away some useful ideas and knowledge from this session!

  • Company culture is important when looking at commuting and transit. Does the company culture look kindly on employees using alternative transit? Can you leave early from a meeting to get your vanpool?
  • Transit benefits for cyclists are “transient” in nature – some have them, some don’t, no one can figure out how much they’re worth. In addition, many companies don’t have adequate services for cycle (or running!) commuter who need to change, safely store their gear, etc. It seems the only “benefit” cyclists really get so far is that they probably won’t need to pay for a gym membership after cycling off all those miles that they could be getting reimbursed to the tune of $200/month for if they chose to take the bus!
  • Land use is a surprisingly important aspect when looking at large companies and transit issues: think about how many more commuters or “single occupancy vehicles” a new Twitter or Salesforce location in downtown SF could create! Similarly, some attendees noted that large corporations in the Bay are truly “externalizing” the cost of their cheap corporate campuses (compared to downtown SF or Berkeley) in Silicon Valley onto the public transit and highway systems and onto their employee’s time and money!
  • While vanpools help keep single occupancy vehicles off the road and are an employee benefit, they are not open to the public and do not contribute to a potential groundswell of merchants and employers demanding better transit service.

Session #3

This session was on “Ensuring Equal Access.” I forgot the name of the lovely gentleman leading the session in my photo, below. Does anyone know who it was? Please tag or add his name.

This was an enjoyable discussion (if at times a little out of my depth). Topics included how public data can be better translated for the public by developers (rather than public agencies), how deferred infrastructure creates challenges, and also touched upon public-private partnership again.

  • What happens when governments give away their transit data and it is all used for new applications that aren’t accessible to many users (or only to those with the tech knowledge and devices to harness it)
  • Could a public-private partnership create better bus stops – “sponsor a bus stop” with better realtime bus info, shelter, and design?
  • Favorite quote of session: “tourists and other new users of transit systems have ‘low vending machine literacy’

All in all, very thought provoking and useful meeting. I like the unconference format a lot (I knew I would) and hope to see it and use it again. It was neat to meet such a wide cross-section of people and experiences within one overarching field. It was inspiring to use my brain to engage with others and create dialogue on issues I care about – especially after this long stint of unproductive and depressing unemployment. If you’re reading this, yes, I’m still looking for my next job. Are you hiring?

Sexytransit

| Emily

After the morning session at Transportation Camp West, and a well-earned burrito from Tonayense (requiring a 10 minute wait in some very cold rain), I headed off to a session called “Sexy Transit”, with more than a few others. In fact, it was standing room only in the little gallery space!

You can spot me in the back there in a striped jersey in this picture from Richard Masoner aka Cyclelicious’ photostream above. It was a great discussion veering from “what is sexy?” to why we need to make public transit sexy! Reps from local municipal transit agencies shared their input – as a new Californian and new to the West coast in general – I was happy to learn. Apparently Santa Cruz has a fun double-decker bus and AC Transit got some “sexy” new vehicles sourced from Europe (and face the wrath of Made in Americanists … )

I think these are the buses he meant, from Flickr user longa1020

For some, “sexy” means “empowerment and mobility”, which extends from less humiliating ways to board a bus on a wheelchair to cleaner, sleeker looking vehicles that have a modern image. I made an offhand comment on bus crowding (especially in downtown areas), that make it next to impossible to consider using the luxury of possible wi-fi, let alone get on with small children. After the session, several people approached me to mention that was a big concern of theirs, to! Who wants to go on public transit if it’s always an armpit-to-armpit battle of bags, butts, and bodies, anyway?

Other key points I jotted down from the session:

  • Arguments based on cost-efficiency and environmentalism aren’t sexy
  • Signage, icons, and maps should be simpler and more “sexy”. Think about the iconic look (and easy to remember station names) in the DC Metro and London underground
  • Market public transit in new and better ways. Utilize student designers for projects. Transit can be “hidden” so make it visible to motorists on a bridge or highway with an underground train line! “You could be at your destination right now, on the train speeding along unbeknownst to you….right underneath!”
  • There are so many transit agencies in the Bay Area – what about a unifying logo like “T” or a train icon, so tourists and commuters could know there’s a station nearby when in a neighboring city
  • Take PRIDE in your public transit system – this means having attractive bus stops and subway stations (with public art, etc.) 
  • Lots of people in the group had interest in continuing the discussion!

If you’re thinking of ripping up some concrete in Western Addition/NOPA count me in!

| Emily

Not only would this help with the streams of urine, dog feces, motor oil infested riffles of water coursing down every available surface when it rains – it looks quite nice too and would provide a LOT more light to grow plants than my current situation. How much do I want a sidewalk garden now!?

Found this great list of plants that will love growing in your San Francisco parklet, sidewalk garden or balcony! http://bit.ly/gelOOv

I will come to your neighborhood to help you build one, or let me know if you live near Western Addition/Divisadero. There are a lot of candidate corners over here!

Vintage DC streetcar in SF – New DC streetcars still sitting in storage

| Emily

I had a laugh yesterday sitting on the overcrowded “5” MUNI as we rounded the corner onto Market street and a flashy mint-ice-cream-green vintage streetcar pulled up next to us with the words “D.C. Transit” painted on the side in juicy melon orange.

Photo from Flickr user Jay Galvin

Just before I moved here from Washington, DC a couple months ago, I was lucky enough to try and bike down H Street, site of a new/old trolley line that would head to and from the central railroad station. It was virtually impossible – the entire middle of the street was surrounded in orange plastic netting, heavy eath moving equipment, and there was a cut in the pavement several feet deep. Funnily enough, there used to be a trolley going up and down H street, a long time before people considered putting in the current one. The original streetcar was eventually abandoned in favor of automobiles – and of course, probably also affected by the urban decline of that neighborhood in the aftermath of “white flight” to the surrounding Maryland suburbs after the riots of the late 60s and businesses began to abandon the neighborhood. I remember doing a public policy project on the H street corridor all the way back in 2007, and being very excited to find out that the trolley would be put in. I do find it pretty amusing that I got to see a streetcar – one of the originals that most likely puttered back and forth on H street in the 1950s – running strong, full of local residents, up and down Market Street in San Francisco. You can find out more about the DC Streetcar project here, and I’ll believe it when I see it 🙂

Wow – those SF sidewalks are actually EIGHT pavers wide!

| Emily

I was walking on Baker Street today and after yesterday’s rant about better use of sidewalks, pedestrian zones and permeable surfaces, I was surprised to notice that the sidewalk was even wider than I thought. I counted eight pavers from the edge of the buildings to the street. I don’t know for sure, but if I remember correctly, it looked to be about 30 inches per paver – making that a almost TWENTY FOOT WIDE sidewalk! Imagine what a boon for non vehicular traffice and pedestrian public space/street usage this would be if you could do anything but walk (or slog, if it’s raining) on it! Baker is already a pretty wide street with a bike lane too! Of course, there was a requisite expensive, oversized car pulled into “their driveway” – AKA the ENTIRE sidewalk – because they couldn’t fit in their garage. I had to literally climb onto the kerb to get around it (there were two twenty-somethings inside giggling over their iphone who didn’t even see me or a previous pedestrian…gag me).  In any case. I was so surprised to see all that unused sidewalk space!

Wide Sidewalk (courtesy SF Citizen)

This is a photo of Masonic Avenue, a few blocks away from Baker courtesy of SFCitizen – I didn’t have my phone on me.

I wonder if anyone can tell me what was the motivation behind the wide – but completely underutilized – sidewalks? There is only one “sidewalk cafe” at the corner of MacAllister, a coffee house that usually has a good group sitting outside enjoying the sunshine and their books. Why can’t we have more places to sit and enjoy outdoor space? Seeing all that paved over space – impermeable, heat absorbing, ugly – in a city with such a space premium, is such a shame. Especially for all those poor renters who aren’t privileged enough to enjoy access to a personal yard, deck, patio or garden. There’s hardly any pedestrian traffic on this street, it usually looks fairly clean, and I can’t see any reason not to tear up some of those pavers and try something different. sf I look forward to finding out more soon, and hopefully doing something better with some of those “extra wides”! Hope to engage with Plant*SF soon and meet some folks there. Here’s some examples of their work, but we need WAY more!