Archive for July 30, 2008

Transit needs some creativity

July 30, 2008 / Wendy Waters / 8 comments

Despite rising fuel prices, agonizing congestion, and depressingly large portions of lives wasted in commutes, public transit is typically not viewed as a desirable choice in the United States. And most cities transit systems are woefully incapable of handling a significant increase in demand anyway.

The present situation presents a challenge and an opportunity for North American cities and society in general.

Most transit systems are crowded as well as uncomfortable for long commutes and frequently much slower than driving.

What if all that changed? Would more people take transit?

What if people with longer commutes could sit in a luxury coach, fully stocked with amenities, including:

  • Wireless internet (like the google bus in San Francisco)
  • A personal TV with a variety of programs (as on many airlines, especially in business or first class)
  • A comfortable tray table for your lap top, with a plug in
  • A cup holder for your morning latte
  • Free newspapers and magazines
  • Maybe even a bathroom

Imagine, you could check your e-mail and get some work done. Or, you could catch up on last night’s Letterman or Colbert Report, or a BBC news cast or world business report. This wouldn’t be wasted time, necessarily, unlike sitting in traffic in your own car.

What if for shorter commutes people could choose a ride in a comfortable smaller vehicle with a guaranteed seat but perhaps fewer amenities?

What if for all commutes people had a choice of services, as they do with air travel.
I think more people would get out of their SUVs for this than for what is currently offered.

But, these more comfortable transit options would not be cheap. The only way a private sector corporation could offer them would be if everyone had to pay the costs of building and maintaining the roads. The government would have to offer a level playing field and not subsidize single-occupant vehicle commuters.

If tax payers generally did not subsidize them to the same level as today, it could open up space for some creativity and entrepreneurial spirit (which the USA is famous for).

If driving 40 miles on a freeway cost a solo driver $20, each way ($40), plus gasoline (say $20), plus parking at the destination (say $15), then paying $20 each way for a seat on the luxury coach might be a more viable option.

Of course, transit system monopolies (sometimes attached to government-union agreements) would also have to end to bring this in.

But, look at the potential. Here are a few more ideas:

  • With mobile and internet technology, you could buy your ticket 10 minutes before heading out the door once you know you’ll be ready and confirm there is a seat for you.
    • Or you could advance book tickets, catching the 7 AM bus every day.
  • What if these luxury coaches departed from certain Starbucks (or equivalent) locations in the suburbs?
    • You could buy a latte and have a clean, safe place to wait. A bus company rep might even be in there with a mobile device to check you in.
    • As some suburban areas become higher density, this Starbucks might be at a Lifestyle Centre near peoples homes (walking distance or a park-and-ride situation).
  • What if some downtown workers who lived in suburbia could make extra money driving a nice coach into town. Presumably, there will be a need for some buses to drive in and stay until the end of the work day. An enterprising person could get his or her bus driver license and earn an extra $50 per day (and not have to pay their own commuting costs).
  • On shorter commutes perhaps different companies’ buses would be en route and you could check availability by mobile device and book a seat, catching it at a designated location. From the same mobile devices the driver would know whether to stop or not.
  • With competition among several commuting providers in a given metro area, service would be good. Creativity would be essential. Someone might offer regular customers Friday afternoon TGIF happy hour, for example.
  • One company might offer “business class” seating and “economy class” seating, similar to the airplanes.

If only some creativity could be unleashed.

Consider: Almost everyone takes commercial airline flights, even many people who can afford their own private jet. Airlines offer first class options, private lounges, complementary beverages, better food, etc. at a higher price. And there is considerable competition between airlines to offer these services. In wealthier Latin American countries, such as Brazil, Mexico, Chile and Argentina, competing companies offering luxury Mercedes Benz bus service for inter-city travel attract numerous people who could afford to drive their own vehicles. But with toll roads and higher gas prices, along with the comfortable bus service, they don’t drive themselves. The cost-benefit assessment weighs toward taking the bus.

 Addendum:  Marco’s comment reminded me of another point.  More people will take metros or trains, the latter often offering a nicer class of service.  But building train and metro infrastructure if it isn’t there is very costly.  By contrast, a premium bus service can use the existing roads.

Category: national politics, planning policy, resident attitudes, transportation, urban lifestyles /

Rise of cities, decline of national park visitation

July 22, 2008 / Wendy Waters / 2 comments

Fewer people are visiting America’s national parks, reports the Economist. Instead, the Economist believes more tourists are visiting cities, which have become cool.

This leads to the question of the relationship (if any) between urban revitalization and lower national park patronage.

Indeed, there seems to be a correlation between the cleaning up of cities like New York and the decline in national parks visitation.  The same Economist article states:

Attendance at national parks was not the only thing that peaked between the late 1980s and the early 1990s. In 1991 America’s homicide rate reached 9.8 per 100,000 people. Many cities were known for lawlessness and grot; not surprisingly, holiday-makers were passing them up for greener spots. Then, miraculously, the murder rate began to slide, falling to just 5.5 per 100,000 in 2000. Led by New York, cities spruced themselves up and began to attract more tourists.

Or, did the average age of the population change lowering the interest in camping? Does the typical aging baby boomer want a thermarest-and-sleeping-bag-on-a-tent-floor or a 4 star hotel room? The Economist didn’t suggest this, but I can’t help but think it’s a driving factor behind lower national park visitation and increased vacations in cities.

But maybe camping and national park visits will gradually rise again.  Here’s why:

  • People feeling less affluent will look for less expensive vacations.  Camping is cheaper than a hotel room in places like New York or Boston or San Francisco.
  • Although gasoline prices are rising, driving to a national park or state park will typically be cheaper than flying to a city.
  • As more people live in dense urban areas rather than the suburbs, then getting away to wilder areas may become more popular (especially given families feeling financially strained).  Not for everyone, but for just enough to reverse the tide.
  • Blackberries and mobile devices will soon work almost everywhere, if they don’t already.  And solar-powered battery rechargers now work quite well for small devices.
    •  Some of the appeal of urban vacations has no doubt been the ability to remain in touch with work while on vacation.
      While I can see a fad of “unplugging” on the horizon in which people will vacation without remaining connected, it’s not here yet and many will never feel comfortable and able to relax unless they know that all is well at home.

Vacations of the future may well be about “live” events and experiences — some of these will be found in cities, others in national parks, state parks and wilderness areas.  Some will be less expensive for those needing to live within their means.

Watching the stars from a mountain meadow is priceless yet affordable.

Category: revitalization, Uncategorized, urban history, urban lifestyles /

Two lessons from a massive CBD power outage

July 21, 2008 / Wendy Waters / 4 comments

Last week in downtown Vancouver a main electrical cable underground caught fire.  At approximately 10 AM, Monday morning, half of the CBD lost power including the building where I work.   BC Hydro could not fully restore the power for several days, although some buildings were back on the grid within about 6 hours.

In perspective, this event was an inconvenience.  No one died.  No real catastrophe happened.  But it did offer some valuable lessons, here are two.

Lesson #1: office towers require a lot of energy to remain comfortable.  While on the one hand I knew this, I’d never experienced life in an office building with no power.   Within 45 minutes of the power going off, my office was becoming uncomfortably hot and the air tasted stale.  And this was in a north-facing office in Vancouver on a mild summer day with highs only expected to hit 23 degrees c, or about 75 F.   I can’t imagine what it would be like in an office tower in places like Dallas or Phoenix or Atlanta on a hot summer day with no power — 5 minutes to get out before you slowly start to cook?

Clearly, it takes a lot of energy to keep that building comfortable.

The broader lesson: As energy becomes more expensive, office buildings in hot climates are going to become very costly to operate.  I’m not sure I’d be as bullish as Forbes last week on places like Phoenix.  If you can’t build up because of energy costs, and can’t build sprawl because of high gasoline costs, where are people going to work.

Lesson #2: I’m not ready for a major disaster (are you?)  What if this had been an earthquake knocking out power?  I had no comfortable walking shoes nor appropriate clothing for urban survival after a disaster, not to mention no water bottle.

I intend to remedy this in the next week.

Category: catastrophe management, downtowns, ecological issues /

Tougher home ownership credentials: better for cities?

July 12, 2008 / Wendy Waters / 9 comments

 Over the past few years, home ownership became easier than it had been in decades in the United States and in many countries around the world.  40 year mortgages and buying with little or no downpayment made purchasing easier.  A US practice of loaning 103% of the value of a house made it seem like a no-brainer to buy a house.

But should everyone own their home?  Is this really the path to prosperity and/or happiness?  Perhaps the tightening lending rules in the US and Canada and elsewhere in the world will be better for individuals, families and the urban economy.

When is home ownership not necessarily a good idea?

If you are young (or not) and “trying on” jobs and careers, changing employers every year or two, home ownership restricts your options and may hold back economic development in a city.

  • it limits your ability to relocate for a great opportunity.  Trying on cities — as Richard Florida suggests in his recent book — might be as important to one’s long term happiness as trying out jobs.   Also, in this era of high gas prices, owning in an eastern suburb could limit one’s ability to accept a job in a western suburb.
  • it could prevent you from taking a lower paying position that might be particularly interesting or a wonderful learning opportunity.
  • it could prevent you from returning to school, such as for an MBA, or a trade certificate or another diploma.  Without ownership, you could move to a cheaper home.
  • renting offers more cost certainty (in most cases).  Costly repairs are the owner’s responsibility.

That’s for individuals.  For cities, young people owning homes potentially creates labor imbalances.  In a national or even global economy, ideally, you want people to be able to move from places where jobs are scarce to places with workers shortages.

Cities also need new people and new ideas, as well as for previous residents to return with new ideas from their time elsewhere.

It may be that city economies need a certain number of workers, particularly younger ones, able to change jobs easily.  It’s possible that in order to best hone their talents, and excel in their careers the average person may need to change jobs a certain number of times.  If people are not free to find out what they enjoy and are best at, might that not bring down both the economy as well as the general happiness and human energy in a city?  

Cities are, of course, more than sites of transient workers.  They do need long term “community anchors” who own homes and contribute to neighborhoods and urban life.

Some people should own homes.  But, historically, home ownership happened once people had settled into a career with one employer and had settled down with their life partner.  Perhaps that should be the same way now.

If ownership typically required saving for a down payment and a solid recent employment history — as it historically has done — that might be best for cities and for the average person.

Category: economic development, real estate, resident attitudes, urban history /

Is urban living in conflict with the US Constitution?

July 4, 2008 / Wendy Waters / 9 comments

The American constitution was written to serve a new country’s new citizens who were hard-working, independent-minded and primarily rural.

If over the next few decades more Americans (not all, just more) move into higher density, “urban” neighborhoods, I’m wondering if some long-held American values and customs will be challenged.

A CEOs for Cities post this week was thought provoking on the urban-rural conflict within the constitution and division of powers. Carol wrote:

Saturday, I attended a press conference with Chicago Mayor Richard Daley at the city’s Riverwalk. Although he was there to recognize the new Riverwalk vendors and the artists selected for a major temporary exhibition, the media, of course, asked him not a single question on topic. Instead, they quizzed him on the Supreme Court action on guns and Reason magazine’s new survey that says Chicago is the most restrictive cities in the nation on personal rights.

He dismissed the Supreme Court decision’s by labeling the judges as “elitist.” As Daley put it, the federal government has nothing to do with safe streets. “Who do people complain to when there is crime in the streets? The mayor and the police commissioner. They don’t call their congressman or their senator.” He went on to say, “When I go see my congressman, I can’t carry a gun. If I go to the Supreme Court, there are guards all over the place. I can’t get in with a gun. So why is it that people can carry guns on the streets of Chicago? So who are the real elitists?”

Daley eloquently illustrates the tension between a constitution designed to provide for individual rights in a rural society when that same constitution applies to urban life.

In rural existence (and even some suburbs) “the state” (the government) is some distance away. Police will not be there in 1-2 minutes by calling 911. ( and of course when the constitution was written, the existing communications and transportation technology would have made police-assistance unlikely in the even of an emergency). Having the freedom or option to own a gun and protect oneself makes sense.

But translated to an urban region, everyone owning a gun becomes a huge challenge for keeping the majority safe. But challenging the US laws on this did not work for the city of Chicago. And a Washington DC gun restriction has been rejected in the courts as well (if I’m not mistaken).

Maybe in the future we’ll see some US cities become almost “city states” with their own amendments to the US constitution to aid in providing different services to citizens, including perhaps fewer guns. Citizens will be able to vote with their feet and leave that city if the legal code is not to their liking.

Something to ponder on Independence Day.

Happy 4th to my American readers.

Category: national politics, resident attitudes, urban history /

Celebrating North American history — Happy 400th to Quebec City

July 2, 2008 / Wendy Waters / One comment

The best, the worst, and the most defining aspects of North American history have roots in Quebec City.

July 3, 2008 marks the 400th anniversary of Samuel de Champlain’s historic landing on the shores of the St. Lawrence River in 1608 to establish a fir trading fort and settlement that has been occupied ever since (unlike some earlier North American settlements that were abandoned). The first European “city” north of Mexico.

Partnered with the Algonquin people (whose word “kebec” meaning where the river narrows has stuck), the French began to explore and map North America from here.

As the decades and centuries went on, Quebec / Kebec became a key location in North American history.

  • It was a landing point for not only more French settlers and immigrants, but for Irish, Scottish and English as well. Over 4 million people first reached North America at Quebec City.
  • It was the site of the battle that ultimately saw England take over as colonial master in North America — the battle of the Plains of Abraham. The “Plains” are still there today attached to the historic old Quebec.
  • Prior to this, the French had created a fortified city with a thick protective wall surrounding it — the only such wall that remains on the continent north of Mexico. A UNESCO world heritage site.
  • Over-zealous American Revolutionaries attempted to “liberate” Quebec from British rule. Thwarting American invasions, whether in 1776 or 1812 or the less-armed-and-violent variety since has become very “Canadian” and part of the push-pull of North American life.

There are many more ways Quebec’s history is intertwined with that of North America and the world (please add your thoughts here if you like).

So…Happy Birthday / Bonne Anniversaire to Quebec, one of the world’s most beautiful, unique and historic cities.

Category: urban history /