Lexington Looks To Improve Their Public Spaces --- Again

I cannot hide the fact that I want more walkable spaces in Lexington, even in the area considered the most walkable – downtown. Therefore, I participated in the Gehl Studios Public Space Public Life study done for the Lexington DDA this past summer. I took part in the two initial session where the questions about where the places of most interest are and what Lexingonians want in their public spaces. I not only gave my opinions but also watched as others worked to give theirs and to appropriately show locations on an aerial photo. More than a few had some trouble.

I also attended two similar versions of a presentation on the results of the study and was quite surprised by the way the data was depicted. It took me a few additional days to finally see the final study maps for a detailed perusal.

Favorite places

The initial step in the study was to gather base data and basically confirm some apparently global social desires for public spaces.

The first set of points mapped was to show where the respondents go today and for which of 4 reasons they go. This to highlight the current hot spots of urban activity as it relates to public space. The obvious and usual places jump right out at you: Jefferson Street, Triangle Park, Cheapside Pavilion, Gratz Park and the Court House Plaza. These are what I consider our current “pockets” of urban vitality.

Some others are not so logical either from their location or for the listed reason for going there. The cluster of 11 or so dots in the center of the CentrePointe “hole” indicates that some want to spend more time there – today-. An additional 8 or so indicate that they go to socialize on that block of Vine St without any public attraction apparent there. Similar groupings of markers in the Cox St parking lot for Rupp Arena or the rock strewn lot across from the Thoroughbred Park on Main St raise major question about the usefulness of this as “baseline”data. The points concerning Thoroughbred Park itself could be a whole question to be answered later.

From the responses of what Lexingtonians like to see in public spaces (here and elsewhere) and the mapped “hot-spots” of their favorites, ten key focus areas were identified. Again the obvious ones predominate. Jefferson St, Gratz Park, Short St, Cheapside Pavilion, North Lime (up to 3^rd St) and Thoroughbred Park on the north side of Main St. Triangle Park, Phoenix Park, South Limestone (at campus) and the Transit Center on the south side. As an aside, only three people indicated the Transit Center structure as a “favorite” place and they may have been misplaced.

Movement between our favorite places

The next step was to measure when and how we move between these hot-spot or “pockets” on a typical day. Using volunteers to count solely the pedestrians as they took to the streets on their daily routines, maps were generated showing hourly levels of foot traffic.

The weekday locations of maximum traffic did not surprise me, nor should it anyone else. The Short/Limestone intersection and the Transit Center /Ayres Al connection (or lack thereof) dominated the morning and evening commute time frames. Main and Short Streets from Limestone to beyond Broadway held the top area during the lunchtime hours followed by the university heavy dining choices of South Limestone restaurants. The happy hour foot traffic centered on South Lime, Main/Broadway and Jefferson St in that order.

Pedestrian traffic between any identified “pockets” is minimal to non-existent. Knowing this and seeing that the data confirm it may lead to another study, but that is what I thought would be covered in this one.

The weekend locations again surprise no one. In fact their beginning time frame is the “morning market” when the primary traffic of any kind will be focused on the weekly Lexington Farmers Market event which has held dominance in downtown for many years. The numbers for Thoroughbred Park look to be at their highest at this time and despite the claims of desires to spend more time there, they. barely make the chart. Lunchtime on a Saturday afternoon should typically find most of the activity around the dining places on the west side of Limestone and the campus hangouts of South Lime and the realization that Jefferson St barely moves the needle until after 5pm is interesting.

Again the pedestrian movement between these “pockets” is lacking.

To compare Lexington to other US cities might seem a bit presumptuous but, at its peak even Short ST is on par with other business districts. That it cannot hold that pedestrian count for any sustained amount of time tells a different story. This study does freely admit that we have definite peaks and lulls but says nothing about the relative distances of the compared districts.

Pedestrian conclusions

Some of the most notable conclusion which were drawn from the collected data are:

• 1) that very few people downtown are willing to walk to work.
• 2) that the greatest downtown pedestrian volume is at lunchtime.
• 3) that the pedestrian activity comes in bursts (usually accompanied with sponsored events).
• 4) that without the events, the pedestrians go away.
• 5)that families do not spend non-event time strolling through the downtown.

But the top conclusion was:

that people will stay downtown after work and party, get this, around the Pavilion and usually with an event. 

What is missing from any conclusion is the recognition that pedestrian traffic on Vine Street, other than at the Transit Center is minimal at best. Yet th.is is where the City has spent a lot of money in the recent past

Anybody even remotely cognizant of downtown could come up with this conclusion without hiring a consultant.

Passive public recreation figures.

In terms of what a typical downtown visitor does when one gets to a public space, Gehl Studios measured the ratio of those who lingered to those who passed by. This was labeled as “stickiness” and looks at where they did linger but not totally identifies the why of the lingering.

On a typical weekday one out of every two pedestrians took time to linger in both Gratz and Phoenix parks followed by Thoroughbred Park with one out of three, but the pedestrian numbers for Phoenix dwarfed the other two. Of the 3 sites, I can find little reason to stay at any of them.

North Limestone at 1 out of 4, South Limestone with 1 out of 7 and Jefferson St showing 1 out of 15 all share the same characteristic, the public realm in each is the sidewalk which connects drinking/dining establishments there. I think that the Jefferson St ratio is skewed due to the number of elderly from Connie Griffith Manor out for a walk around the block.

Triangle Park holds one out of every 38 passers by on a typical weekday and one out of 19 on the weekends. Unless there is an event in the park, there is little reason to pause for any length of time. The park neither engages the street nor fully isolates the seeker of passive free time from the sounds of major city traffic. One cannot find respite from the hot summer sun nor the brisk spring and autumn breezes and while the soothing sounds of the tumbling water may bring comfort to the mind it does not mask reality. What becomes quite evident from the numbers is that despite the claims of being “favorite” places, Thoroughbred and Triangle Parks are not very popular. Symbolic and visually striking, but not gathering spots for Lexington.

Four guiding strategies

After the collection of numbers, the visualizations of the actions of our pedestrians versus the expressed desires of interested parties and the discovery of the lack of retention elements of our public saces, the Gehl Studios group put out 4 strategies to guide further work.

To begin with, we need a “people first” urban core. With that I agree. That is not to say we need to remove automobile traffic altogether, but to limit its domination of all forms of urban traffic. Pedestrians should get priority at major intersections and through town vehicular traffic should be discouraged.

Then a bridging of our north-south divide by not just strengthening our Limestone and Jefferson corridors, but Martin Luther King and Rose/Elm Tree Lane as well. Our focus need not be just on the west side of Limestone. The report says to 'prioritize sidewalk improvements' and that should not be limited to additional paving but more and better retail engagement to whatever pavement that currently exists.

We must also begin to use what we have, our existing resources. It was acknowledged that all of our “great” destination style public spaces are not well connected. That these spaces need to be easily accessible and imbued with something to invite and hold a visitors interest. Attempts at better way-finding signage are being made but we must do more. It is suggested that an increase in diverse and more dramatic programming, with extended hours could be the answer, but there is an expense to that.

Filling in the gaps, those basically dead pedestrian segments, seems to roll all of the other strategies into a culminating objective for downtown. Many of these gaps are extended lengths of monochromatic wall or surface parking lots where retail formerly stood. Main St and Vine St are of particular note in having more of this dead space, even where the former retail spaces remain but the engagement with the sidewalk/pedestrian is missing. No amount of streetscape redesign or rain gardens will solve this.

Next, I think will look at the several “pilot” projects which have been proposed. Until then, let me know what you think.

Approach To Commonwealth's Image In The Coming Years

I, as many others as well, have noticed over the past few years that the University of Kentucky has greatly enhanced their sports facilities. The new softball field for the ladies and the new soccer complex along Alumni Dr brightly advertise the UK logo both day and night. And prior the this year's football season, the relocated tail-gating lot which cleverly hides an underground rainwater runoff control system was completed, but there is much more to do.

The City is currently in the process of constructing an enlarged and more modern senior citizens center on a portion of the Idle Hour Park property. This should allow the City to transfer, back to the University, the present site which they received in a land swap for the right-of-way of College View years ago.

From my memory, College View was a street of modest to small frames houses running from Lexington Avenue to Rose St. The present entry to the parking lot for the Joe Craft Center and the Coal Lodge is the sole remaining vestige of the this roadway. There was small confectionery store on the northwest corner with Rose and a storefront addition to a house anchoring the other end at Lexington Ave in my youth.

What I cannot recall is the section of deteriorating shotgun houses that lined Adams St, which paralleled College View on the south nor the ones which lined Euclid Ave. They were built when this area was developed as Adamstown and faced a city park. This city park was traded for the University's predecessor, the Kentucky Agricultural and Mechanical College's, interests in Woodland Park The only remaining evidence that this street ever existed is the driveway along the south side of Blazer Hall and the access to the rear of the Papa Johns/Qudoba lot off of Rose St.

Concerning the little storefront at College View and Lexington Avenue, the Lafayette studios collection at the http://exploreuk.uky.edu/ has a couple of images and the 1934 Sanborn Fire insurance map clearly shows a retail space. Owned by a man named Johnson, he merely called it Sampy's

In November of 1946, G.L.“Sampy” Johnson applied to the City and County Planning and Zoning Commission for a change in the zoning for 200 College View. The request was from a Residence “B” district to a Business “B” district and I can only assume that his reason was to make his existing store comply with the rules. The Commission's Zoning Committee also concurred and the item was moved to a public hearing.

Objectors at this hearing were led by Dr McVey, the University president, who “offered objections on behalf of the university -- not to the operation of a grocery store...” since the store served the existing residents, “but to the changing of the entire area as set out by this Commission because of the probability businesses being established there over which the University have no jurisdiction.

Strangely enough, in this time period the Planning Commission was of the habit (or proclivity) of suggesting and recommending additional properties besides the requested area. In this case they may have included the whole street but, since there is no attached map, the entirety is unclear. Was this the University using its influence beyond it's campus borders?

A Mr. H. B. McGregor also appeared before the Commission saying that he “objected to such change because he would dislike seeing any homes being torn down and converted or built into businesses.” An early preservationist obviously. Upon consideration of evidence the petition was refused.

I an only wonder how Mr McGreror felt just two years later when the University called upon the City to assist in clearing the “slums” of Adamstown and allow the school to erect their new sports arena, Memorial Coliseum on that spot. Dr McVey and his successors now had jurisdiction of the area.

What does this have to do with my opening remarks? Little more than that the University is not shy about using its influence to “improve” their jurisdiction's image, be it by removing outdated structures or skillfully landscaping its grounds as it sees fit. Of all the improvements around their part of Alumni Dr, the road itself is an aging (deteriorating) two lane facility for the most part and leads to what will be a “showcase” Commonwealth Stadium before next season.

When Commonwealth Stadium was planned in the early '70s, the University provided two access points on the southern boundary of its shrinking research farm. This road, connecting those two points, was labeled as “Farm Road D” and wound itself through the rolling fields. It looked to be a lot of pavement to only used for a few football games a year.

At this same time the City was wrestling with suburban traffic and looking to implement a long planned connector road between the Mt Tabor/Tates Creek Rd intersection and Rosemont Garden/Nicholasville Rd intersection. Envisioned in the 1930 Comprehensive Plan prior to any suburban development, to push through established neighborhoods as other communities were doing, Lexington found very stiff resistance.

Farm Road D provided a reasonable alternative in terms of traffic movement and allowed the contested connector road to be put to rest, except. Most of the non game day type traffic would be coming from the residents and taxpayers of the City, therefore the City should bear the cost of maintenance became the University's position. Therefore a memorandum of understanding (MoU) was hammered out and I believe is still in effect today.

Th MoU and the alignment of the roadway have impact on issues such as traffic control, snow removal, out of county emergency medical access and even the joint Arboretum venture which is so successful. What appears to not be covered is the now needed upgrade and landscaping of a primary approach to the SEC class (and pride of the Commonwealth) football stadium.

I realize that the Town-Gown discussions were primarily to bridge the gap from downtown to campus, but I hope that this is not too far afield to create a better image for our visitors and a point of pride for our residents. The impending shuttering of the existing senior citizens center will allow the final campus access point to be brought in line with the rest and reinforce the University's overall image.

What Will Our Future Neighborhoods Look Like?

Like all cities, the suburbs are where most of us live and as a general rule we do not spend all of our time there. I can almost equate that with remaining inside your bedroom or man-cave when there are other parts of the house to explore and use. We entertain in the formal living room or dine in the the kitchen if it is informal and the dining room if it is not. Today's housing is a much more mixed blend of uses but our neighborhoods and suburbs are not. I, and others, believe that that may soon change.

I have lived outside of Man o' War for only two years. Those 2 years were over two decades ago and are still the dullest times of my life. Getting to work and anyplace remotely interesting to me was more effort than I usually want to put into something. Therefore, the idea of making Lexington's suburban neighborhoods more like their “first ring” older brothers and sisters is something on which I fixate. I am always looking for ways to help make that change happen.

Suburbs, or at least those which follow the American-style model, have been called obesogenic , that is inducing its inhabitants to become fat. Along the way, they have been called sterile, homogeneous, anti-social simply because they are auto-centric and, for the most part, very inefficient. Is there any hope for an urban form so maligned to transition into someplace more desirable? Some experts think so and I believe that they may be right.

Many places in the U.S. the suburbs are beginning to emulate the patterns of cosmopolitan city centers, becoming more dense, taking on new forms and practices and responding to economic and cultural changes in our world. I am looking for ways to get Lexington moving in such a direction. Maybe we can grow the city and protect the rural area in doing so.

Without a doubt, the ideas which develop in American suburbs end up influencing at least the affluent suburbs around the world. In a recent article in Planning Theory & Practice, Arthur C. Nelson and others discuss the demographic changes and shifting consumer preferences that are likely to have dramatic implications on suburban design in the next few decades.

Government subsidies, economic prosperity and demographic shifts since the end of World War II have led to generations of low density suburban growth which continue in Lexington to this day. Could it be that current economic conditions will begin to alter our development practices toward denser and better connected neighborhoods/communities. Will we see a re-commitment to urban and urbane living?

One place where w could begin that re-commitment is in our public investment and financing strategies to keep up with expectations for services such as public transit. Our regulations and development financing need to shift away from contemporary practices to support re-urbanization policies.

The process of “fracking” has led to the recent growth in petro-carbon production and the proposals to build pipelines from Canadian tar-sands to southern refineries may signal that “peak oil” has not yet arrived. But to assume that the return to the era of cheap energy may be sheer folly. We still need to shift away from the reliance on the private automobile. Despite consumer preference surveys which indicate that people say they would choose cosmopolitan options, those options need to in place before the choice can be made.

The suburban landscape needs to be able to transition in form, function, and pattern as quickly as community needs change. Financing practices, community attitudes and, above all, our zoning regulations currently restrict that transition flexibility. Zoning codes and covenants enforced by developers, neighborhood and homeowners’ associations have increasingly limited the potential for ready physical adaptation. 

How will we find ways to address the needs of the less affluent when the market producing our housing has other priorities? Jill L. Grant, Professor of Planning at Dalhousie University (Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada), said it best “In trying to address the problems of homogeneity and inefficiency which we regret in our old suburbs, how can we avoid stimulating gentrification processes that suburbanize poverty and disadvantage?”

Nelson is Director of the Metropolitan Research Center, City & Metropolitan Planning at University of Utah so he probably understands the subject of urban sprawl as well as anyone. Having grown up in a suburb of Portland, Ore. and having to drive everywhere, I believe that he seen the beast that sprawl has become firsthand. He has also recognized the American suburbs are a unique development form that may be replicated in some fashion around the world although not to the extent that they are here at home.

American planners have built our suburbs as mostly low density, with uniformly developed landscapes of few land-use interactions and an intentional dependency on the automobile. At about 14,500 individuals per square mile, the suburbs of London, England are more densely settled than such central cities as Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles and Philadelphia. The actual City of London has under 10,000 residents of its own. It really becomes easy to see that we have planned the very urban vibrancy we seek out of our neighborhoods.

“Unlike suburbs in much of the rest of the world... ... American suburbs do not have mixed land uses or a range of housing options, and lack densities to support public transit.”

Nelson has identified three reasons as to why suburbs in America are different. 

First, Americans have an entrenched anti-urban sentiment with strong libertarian undercurrents to the point that an individuals property rights are above the community's interests. Outside of Lexington and a few other communities, few impediments exist to developing open land and that facilitates the low density environment which encourages sprawl.

Second, government (and financial institutional policies) since the Depression favor new construction over rehabilitation, new highways over public transit, construction of owner-occupied and detached homes over rented and attached homes and converting farmland/open space into low-density suburban development over sustaining working or passive landscapes.

Prior to World War II, the worries in housing were from urban pollution brought about by over-crowding and lack of sufficient daylight. After the war, the plans actively sought to reduce the residential densities for public health reasons. Section 701 of the 1954 Federal Housing Act provided grants for land-use planning templates which separated residential subdivisions from retail uses, employment centers and civic institutions. All of the things which make a neighborhood and community a vibrant and desirable place to live.

The third reason is a direct result of the preceding two. Subsidized road projects and subsidized energy costs helped to inflate the value of land for suburban development. More efficient development was economically punished while less efficient development was rewarded. More suburban uses imposed negative externalities on adjacent farmland which depressed the farm land's value and virtually assuring far more land was converted than would otherwise occur.

There is little doubt that suburban America will continue to dominate growth and settlement, but one should expect it to become more urban along the way. Recent preference surveys and projections of demographic trends hint that America’s suburban future may be quite different. Lexington has embarked on a path of infill and redevelopment which may need to achieve a certain level of neighborhood urbanity to work.

So, what are these emerging trends that Nelson has identified?

1 Rising energy costs

From World War II until the early '70s there was a vast supply of cheap gasoline and being able to drive out to the inexpensive land available for home building took home ownership rates from 55% in 1950 to 69% in 2004. Rising fuel prices may dampen the appeal of the suburban fringe for home buying, with or without self driving cars.

2 Lagging employment

The structure of the American labor force has made it prone to high unemployment as may be evidenced by the dismal recovery from the Great Recession. A key component of employment and income recovery is educational preparedness and in many cases America trails in many categories. A rapid population growth among those who are less prepared to succeed, could lead to lower wages and higher unemployment rates. Without falling home prices and and a return to the previous mortgage underwriting policies there may be lower home ownership rates in 2035 than in 2010.

3 Falling incomes

Median household incomes for ALL age groups in EACH income category ended the decade lower than in 2000. Suburbs have accounted for nearly half the increase in the population in poverty. Add this with trends 1 & 2 and the effects may further lower demand for owner-occupied homes over the next decades.

4 Shifting wealth

Nearly 99% of America’s wealth was held by the highest fifth of households. Well higher than most of the last century. The shifting of wealth in the US means that America has become a nation where wealth inequality is greater than in many emerging countries. It is now more difficult to rise above poverty than in nearly any developed country.

5 Tighter home financing

In the wake of our recent financial disaster, lending institutions have increased their underwriting requirements, thereby reducing the number of people who can buy a home. Conventional mortgages now need higher credit scores, longer and more stable work histories, and 20% down payments. Those changes alone may disqualify about five million potential home buyers, resulting in 250,000 fewer home sales and 50,000 fewer new homes built per year. 

6 Changing housing and community preferences

Americans are looking for something different in their homes, neighborhoods and communities than they have had in the past.

The latest period of suburbanization, what we generally call the “era of sprawl” began in 1948 and is basically a “parasitic” version of suburbanization since it fed of off resources not generated by the growth itself. Fiscal policies, both State and Federal, transferred wealth from cities to suburbs though subsidization of roads and energy. Taxes on existing infrastructure and property allowed for reduced levies on developing land. Land-use and zoning codes socially engineered many a community composition. 

The bursting of the “housing bubble” and, for Lexington, the EPA consent decree are some evidence of the price which has now come due.

Robert Fishman, as an Associate Editor of the Journal of the American Planning Association, has suggested a fifth migration emerged during the 2000s. Since 2005, we have seen a re-urbanization of the inner city and our older suburban areas. It has been led by the young professionals, many an empty-nester senior, and and even immigrants. 

It is exactly the disadvantages of our inner-city districts, the “obsolete” retail and manufacturing facilities (Bread Box, Distillery District, et. al.), the pedestrian scale, an ability to rely on mass transit and even the aging housing stock which are being turned into advantages in this fifth migration. I think that we may need to extend or replicate some, if not all, of these new “advantages”into the suburbs once held by the “fourth migration”. That area we now call sprawl.

The challenge in making this transition is to change attitudes of suburbanites. This is a tall order. Nelson suggests that “local governments will need to become proactive in applying affordable housing tools such as density bonuses, subsidized low and moderate income housing, and inclusionary zoning.”

Older and closer-in suburbs, those built at low densities, may find retrofitting them a bit difficult but higher density redevelopment can be accomplished by using parking lots and low rise, low intensity nonresidential property along commercial corridors. Neighborhood opposition and disagreements along these commercial corridors pass may undermine any opportunity of transition.

As Nelson ends his piece “Successful American suburbs of the future will be resettled by very different kinds of households.” I ask, when will we see it here?

A Look At The New Comprehensive Plan - Part 2

Continuing the look at the 2013 Comprehensive Plan.  Today we will look at some of the tools being considered.

The concept of Complete Streets has found a home among the Planning staff if not in the hearts and minds of most neighborhood residents. The Complete Streets program encourages our city streets to become what they have been for centuries – except this last one – a place for all of our residents to use for getting around town. A good design can reduce auto trips by allowing access by foot or other means. That same good design also means that there is someplace of necessity/desire within a reasonable traveling distance, otherwise the usefulness declines.

Complete Streets should not be solely about including transportation and beautification amenities. They need to include convenient neighborhood destinations which allow residents with one another in ways beyond a wave as they speed to work or collect the mail from the street side box. Walking to a corner diner or tavern bound many a neighborhood together that few understand today.

The Plan does speak to the issue of traffic speed and pedestrian safety. “Traffic speeds dramatically affect a pedestrian’s actual and perceived sense of safety...” only states one side of the equation. Pedestrian activity and resident attention can also dramatically influence the care that motorists need to exhibit for safe operation of their vehicle. Many neighborhoods have abdicated their streets to the motoring public since they need their cars to anywhere themselves. If you want to create a successful neighborhood, create a series of places for the residents to go and a way for them to get there safely.

Successful neighborhoods can have a variety of housing types.

Take Ashland Park as an example. For years the typical image of Ashland Park was of a single family subdivision built from the early 20^th century but the area is riddled with duplexes, apartments and mother-in-law suites. They are all hiding in plain sight and designed so as to not call attention to their different purposes. Driving by, one would be hard pressed to tell the difference until you get to the sections built after the '30s.

Why do today's apartments have to look so different from any other housing style? By the same token, why do renters seem to care so little about their dwelling place be it an apartment or a house? Is a walkable, connecting focal point someplace where renters can blend with the neighborhood? Today's method of relegating apartments to the massive complexes on the major corridors removes valuable intra-neighborhood cohesiveness as well as diluting what could be a vibrant focal point or two.

The Plan text is not wrong when it says,

These neighborhoods will have a clear sense of place when the following standards are met:

• Inviting streetscape

• Varied housing choice

• Abundant private and public open space

• Neighborhood focal points

• Quality connections with parks, schools, and stores

The question is- How do we strengthen the fabric by reweaving from the existing thread rather than trimming back to apply a possibly ill fitting or mismatched patch?

With that in mind, take a look at what the Plan says about the focal points of a neighborhood.

Neighborhood Focal Points

The character of a neighborhood is made of more than a collection of bricks and shingles. Character encompasses a broad array of qualities. A focal point can be a gathering point such as a park, a shopping center, a community center, or public square. To the extent possible, new residential development should be developed to accommodate future sites by allowing for easy integration into the neighborhood and allowing for easy, multimodal access from the neighborhood instead of development that turns its back on a community center.

The last sentence, again, is written from the perspective of whole new developments, but the thoughts expressed in the first part apply full well to aiding in the strengthening of existing neighborhoods.

I have only come to realize lately (and it may have been the Kroger zone change) that stores in the shopping centers on corridors may wish to engage the neighborhood, but turn their dirtier side to those they wish to engage. By catering to the auto-bound shopper, they have lumped all of their customers in a single, lone category. I wish that I knew how to begin reversing the situation.

Small area planning

The use of small area plans has been around since the 1973 Plan even though planning areas have existed from the 1963 version. The '63 areas were divisions of the urban area and split by the city limits boundary which made planning for logical unit quite difficult. The 1973 plan, being post merger, allowed greater continuity in looking at whole neighborhoods under one legislative jurisdiction. Most of the small areas planned then were for developing subdivisions and leaving many a transition of uses to go uncontrolled.

Small area planning is now going to be applied to strengthening our declining or transitional neighborhoods to bring about neighborhood stabilization and revitalization rather than guiding growth and development. Surely there must be growth of some sort to make some of these areas desirable.

Desirable communities in Lexington possess a number of characteristics, including access to transportation, jobs, and quality food.

The above statement about desirable areas is basically true but the access described is mostly resident provided and areas which lack it fall into the candidacy for an area plan.

I think that it should be noted that three of the recommended areas for small area plans were developed between the planning areas of the '63 Plan and the SAP's of the '73 Plan. That could indicate a failure to do better implementation of those plans.

Development Incentives

There is included in this draft text some development incentives which, currently not adopted or in force, could allow great neighborhoods to be built (or rebuilt) where we now see just subdivisions.

• Review the zoning ordinance for impediments to the development of successful neighborhoods with an eye towards retooling zoning categories that are not fulfilling their potential.

This could go a long way toward allowing and encouraging the natural development of neighborhood local focal points, which in turn can create more walkable communities.

• Establish an objective and standardized process to evaluate new developments for neighborhood character that, if met, would expedite approval of the development.

While not saying so, I expect that NOT meeting such a standardized character criteria will delay or prevent any approval of projects. This is not out of line with my thinking on CentrePointe since there is no established standardized process, now or 5 years ago.

• Enable the Division of Planning staff to approve final record plats.

This, when used in concert with the above, will remove the Planning Commission from considering where the property line will go and may shorten the time necessary to implement approved plans. It should also be used to prohibit a lot pattern which does not assure true connectivity or density.

• Convene a summit of financial and neighborhood development leaders in order to increase understanding of the financial costs and challenges to funding mixed-use, multi-family, and innovative developments.

• Ensure that exaction fees are reviewed and revised to meet the infrastructure needs of the Expansion Area.

• Establish partnership opportunities by funding the Land Bank and creating an affordable housing trust fund.

• Pursue Federal and state funding for high-cost projects of a community interest, such as bridges and community centers.

Next, we will look at the environmental concerns

Lexington Has An Image Problem !

Believe it or not, Lexington has an image problem.

The problem does not lie in whether we are the home of a high caliber basketball program or the capital of thoroughbred horse breeding. No, our stumbling block is that we either cannot see or refuse to see our city as others see us.  This is something that we NEED to fix - soon.

Events of the last week seem to have gone out of their way to drive this realization home to me.

First, were a few quotes from Erik Carlson, the new editor for Business Lexington, as a way of introduction. He said, “We’re fans of Lexington and want the city to succeed economically... But we’re not a cheerleader. We can’t be. … Dissension is necessary for proper growth. It must be respectful, but being polite and keeping everyone happy all the time cannot trump Lexington’s desire to advance as a city.”

Second, was the discussions of the Planning Commission's work session, where I understand the staff's proposed wording of plan elements appear to paint Lexington in a bad light. Having worked closely with planning staff members for over 40 years, I feel that I know the city's shortcomings and the staff's desire to overcome them. Identifying our many problems and proposing reasonable solutions should be the very starting point for a 20 year plan. Like Business Lexington, the Commission should not be a cheerleader. They should be the leaders in pushing the good solutions.

Back in 1929, when Lexington's first Comprehensive Plan was being written, the planners looked at what the existing conditions were and looked to remedy the problematic ones. They proposed a city in which they wanted their children (and others) to live. Subsequent plans seem to have backed off the identification of problem areas and more emphasis of making what we have available to more of the population. Strange, have we not seen the growing disparity in our economic classes both here, nationally and globally?

When the staff speaks of growing suburban poverty levels and a lack of adequate basic services like food and healthcare within an easily traveled distance, should that be ignored or downplayed? When the need for affordable housing is demonstrated, should certain factions on the Commission question the authenticity of the demonstration? It may be time for those making the guiding decisions for Lexington's future to take off the rose colored glasses.

From a post by Carl Schramm, a well respected economist comes a different view pertaining to urban planning. It does have some nuggets of truth and maybe some elements which Lexington can consider in future plans.

Several things are almost never spoken of when perusing a community's comprehensive plan. These items may also be considered benchmarks as to the success of following such a plan.

Plans seldom speak of what the city’s population might be at the end of the planning period. They may have varying, wide ranges of population but nothing specific for having followed the plans recommendations. A good measure of success is how many people chose to live there or have the jobs to keep them in a particular place.

Plans have no answer to the question of what the profile of persons in poverty will be by the target year. Since the usual goal of a plan is to toward success for all of a community's residents then the change in poverty profile should me measurable or predicted. Any plan should have goals and recommendations to stabilize and grow the local economy, with the ultimate purpose of making it sustainable for all.

I don't think that I have ever seen a plan which discussed measures concerning the day to day operations of running a municipality. Most plans never relate the location or timing of land use decisions to the true cost of providing city services. Should a plan be as cognizant of where city employment goes as it is how it affects the long term pension and retirement programs.

So, what do these plans speak of? 

Many cities give themselves high marks on their diversity of population, the cultural mix evident in their public schools, yet the US education system is behind just about all of the component countries. They trumpet the stability of most neighborhoods and praise the strength neighborhood fabric while ignoring the frayed edges and the sometime missing elements that are so desperately needed.

Environmental sustainability is spoken of strictly in terms of the natural environment while leaving the talk of sustainable infrastructure investments to the whims of politics. Are the green, environmentally friendly buses or high mileage city vehicles any more important than the lower wattage LED street lighting which is available? Would our city streets last longer if we restricted the weight of not only our own city vehicles but many private ones to boot?

How about the changing nature of our economy? We set goals for increasing employment but rarely lay out the steps for reducing the current unemployment levels. When we talk of creating new neighborhoods, why are they centered around the creative class and called “Arts” or “Entertainment” districts? Can the creative class not build a district that they want for themselves? 

If a plan is to be useful it may need to see cities first as the economic communities that they are and have been from their beginning. “Build it and an economy will come” is proving to be a fallacy , it was the other way around. People came and the city followed later. It was the commerce which the people brought that enabled the city to grow. Neighborhoods, like cities, that no longer produce sufficient commerce to sustain themselves become dependent on others. 

But can a neighborhood produce more than it consumes?

New technology in residential solar and wind generation can,under certain conditions, produce a reverse flow on electric meters. Combine that with lower wattage, yet brighter, LED lamps and you will aid in the power part of that question.

Increased connectivity, both vehicular and pedestrian, will reduce the consumption levels of outside resources, raising sustainability chances.

Home or community gardens will reduce the dependence on external food production.

So, WHY do our plans not encompass the discussions which can bring about a real progress in Lexington?

I surmise that it may be the above referenced growing disparity in our population classes. Our Planning Commission members serve in a purely voluntary role, and are supposed to represent the various interests of the whole community. Many will say that they came from humble beginnings and have worked hard to achieve some level of success. But who now represents those who have failed, for whatever reason, to escape that humble situation, or fallen through no fault of their own.

I see on our Commission, representatives of the farmers and downtown, our home builders and developers, our neighborhoods and even racial issues. I do not see an advocate for the homeless or housing challenged. I do not see truly innovative entrepreneurs pressing for alternative methods of progressive development.

Planners do not get off Scot free either. The planning field has a serious flaw. They have no reliable source for the candid, consistent critique of their plans. We award great plans but we don’t scold bad ones. Why is that? It’s because planners don’t have a consistent logic for what makes a great plan (and conversely, a bad one).

So, is there some which can be done to change out image problem?

Choices, Lets Talk About Them

Everybody is talking about it. IT is everywhere that you turn. IT is the talk about the rising price of gas, of food, of just about anything that we buy-from household goods to daily utilities. Everything is going up. And there is nothing that we can do about it. We are stuck.

We are just going to have to get used to it. There doesn't seem to be anyone who can do anything about it. So we get mad about having to pay more at the pump and complain that the oil companies did this to us. By golly, we are Americans and gas should only cost around $1.50 a gallon. I hear that Europeans pay roughly twice as much as that, but I don't care about the Europeans and what they do with their time and money.

Somebody should make the oil companies do more for us – not to us. Somebody should make it easier for us to do what we want in order to get through life. We should be able to live anywhere that we want and be able to go anywhere that we want and anytime that we want. Oh, and it should be cheaper.

Folks that somebody is us. We, the people of the United States. And nobody did this to us, we did it to ourselves.

Our choices of where to live are predicated on the availability of cheap gas. Our abundance of electronic gadgets is built on the availability of cheap power. Our shopping centers full of mostly over packaged, soon to be obsolete goods are there due to cheap imports – which is also due to cheap oil. These are our choices. They weren't forced on us by government planners, they were chosen by us by our own free will.

I can remember $0.35 - $0.45 a gallon gas when a neighborhood kid could make a few bucks mowing grass for under a buck's worth of fuel. When you could walk to the gas station and back home in just a few minutes. I can remember when downtown was just a quick bike ride or bus trip away. Those days are about as far off as a quick bike trip in to town from Hamburg or South Point. Nobody make people live out there and nobody make them drive their autos in to town. Those are choices of free will.

I can remember when subdivision development patterns began to use the cul-de-sac as an enticement to quiet suburban living. Cul-de-sac lots were desirable and they carried a 10 – 20% premium on land cost, but the choice was worth it apparently. We do have so many of them. We now know that these cul-de-sac areas, and similarly less connected street patterns, can increase the per capita cost of fire protection services by over 400%. Other government services may be increased likewise. Again, choices of free will.

I can remember when an auto vacation involved many days, not hours and special trips used trains while very special ones took airplanes. When they built the Interstates, folks did not want to be tied to scheduled departures of the trains but still tolerated it for the airlines. Now that the trains are gone and the airlines require such a hassle of screening, we are left with the long road trip and the high cost of gas. This is a result of the choices that we made.

What other poor choices have we, the people of the Unites States, made that we will look back on with regret? What choices will we make in the future? Will we be willing to re-think our cul-de-sac subdivisions in a reasonable manner? Will we be forced to re-think the distances that we will have to move ourselves to work, play and shop? Will our food come from longer or shorter distances? Will our energy sources become more local, sustainable and renewable?

Are we up to the challenge of these types of choices, or are those days gone too.

Giving Mr. Farmer A Hand

I commented the other day about the deplorable conditions of our streets and the possibly diminished prospects for actual repair in the near future and probably the long term future.

I also see that the Councilman for the 5^th district has reported to his constituents that he is opposed to the expansion of the city's urban services area.

I will chair the LFUCG Planning and Zoning Committee, where I will oppose any additions to the Urban Service Area and will have a vote and a voice on issues related to city's Comprehensive Plan.

Well, now that is out in the open. Ain't nobody going to stand up to that kind of talk. Is anybody going to ask for large expanses of new land for development with the economy the way it is?

Just what kind of topics do you think Mr. Farmer should have an opinion on? I believe that we should have more neighborhoods like Aylesford and the early Ashland Park portions of the Chevy Chaser circulation coverage area. You know, the parts where everybody can walk to the store or school and maybe even the pub for a toddy in the evening. Some of these things are missing as get to the subdivisions which were built in the '60s and later. What do you say Bill, is this something that you can get behind?

I see that you are all for upgrading and repairing the storm sewers of your district. Can we change the way that the residents keep creating more impervious surfaces which places the rainwater, that used to soak in to the ground, into piping designed for considerably less capacity? I don't think that we are getting that much more rainfall, on a yearly basis, than we did 80 years ago, we just expect the old style pipes to handle it. What started off as houses with yards for the kids or maybe a small garden are now entertainment spaces designed like an extension of our family rooms, paved patios and pergolas included.

I have also mentioned the trolleys coming to Chevy Chase like you want. Some folks say that that would be just free mass transit for the well off in the area to get downtown. Others see it, like I do, as a way to get downtowners to a little bit farther away on their lunch hour. (the trolleys won't run all the time, that is what buses are for.) I, myself, don't see the Chevy Chase residents giving up their autos for a trip downtown. A short jaunt of a walk for the normal person but maybe a bit much for those past middle age.

Can we have a discussion, a realistic discussion, on what we may have to do should the relatively cheap energy that we have grown up with start fading like a Cheshire cat, leaving us with a sickening grin of memories. Will our newer subdivisions realize that they will be faced with decisions about major changes which may be needed in order to survive? How can you effectively route pedestrian traffic to distant facilities in a neighborhood fraught with cul-de-sacs and dead ends? Will we end up with houses being remodeled into store fronts for some local retail? You do remember that many of the shops in Chevy Chase started out that way, don't you. (Go around back of those places on the south side of Euclid and check it out.)

There you have a few of the topics that are ripe for consideration in this next Comprehensive Plan process, anyone have some others? Let us give Billy Farmer a hand.

More On Our Connections

There have been some comments from other communities about the Knight Foundation study "The Soul of the Community" and on the overall results from 26 nationwide cities. There may be a new formula emerging from this research.

L + P = $

L come from loyalty. The loyalty that comes from living in a community that make you feel comfortable and welcome. But that feeling on comfort exists on a two way street. Just like that bar "where everybody knows your name", you have to extend yourself to become one that everyone wants to know. You can't be a wallflower and be accepted into the "family", nor can you be the one who contests, vocally, what the majority tend to agree with.

P come from passion. Passion for your community shows in many ways and can be very confusing. Some may show their passion by going along with everything that is proposed, no matter what the outcome. Others may show their passion by holding firmly to the old tried and true ways of past generations until they are simply outnumbered. Those with true passion for their community will take the best of their past and the most viable option for their future and forge new pathways boldly into breech.

L + P = $ means that communities able to inspire loyalty and passion among residents are also likely to see a swell in their financial outlook. I think that we can see evidence of this in our own community, or at least in our sports community. Our University of Kentucky sports community, both local, statewide and nationwide, are some of the most passionate fans alive. The loyalty that the show for home games and away games has made sports fans and media very aware of the level of passion and loyalty and how it relates to the financial success of having those fans attend or watch the games. Simply put, UK athletics means $BIG BUCKS$.

So, how can we, as a community, inspire the loyalty and passion needed to bring a swelling of our financial future?

“There's more to folks coming and staying in communities than just jobs – especially for that highly mobile, talented population sought after by many communities,” said Katherine Loflin, lead consultant on the project. “If they feel like their community is on the rise ... they have more of a tendency to feeling more attached to where they are,” she said, adding that people who feel satisfied in their jobs also tend to have more feelings of attachment to the place they call home.

That high touted "creative class" is once again in the spotlight. Those who can do their jobs from just about anywhere and unfortunately, are loyal more to the money than to the job location. To a larger and larger proportion of them it is more about "Who will pay me more for what I do?" than "Who will benefit the most out of what I do?".

Across the board, the relatively young and highest educated respondents rated themselves the least attached to their current communities.

Those are often people who are able to create the conditions they want or need in any environment they find themselves

How do we instill loyalty and passion for Lexington in these people?

Really Think of The Future

The Saturday Wall Street Journal had a great article about retrofitting our sprawling suburbs, or in Lexington's case, our recent subdivisions. It is nice to see that I am not the only one thinking about these things or writing about them.

The nation's sprawling suburbs—home to as much as half of the U.S. population and more than 30 million people age 55-plus—may have been a good place to grow up. But the suburbs are proving a tough place to grow old.

The above quote seems to sum up the feeling I have about the newer subdivisions of Lexington and the Central Kentucky region. Homes that are placed farther and farther from schools, shopping, jobs and life's other essentials. But while this article is aimed at the aging population, some in the younger generations are being limited also(see this piece from the New York Times). Kids are living in neighborhoods where engaging in any activity outside the home requires an automobile trip. New schools supplies? A trip to the mega-center. Go to school? Ride the bus or the parents drop them off(causing a traffic tie up). After school get-togethers? The parents have to drive. Can the kids find their way there? Not without the Google maps app on their cell phones. This is not a good way to grow up.

Maintaining yards and homes requires more effort; driving everywhere, and for everything, becomes expensive and, eventually, impossible.

With or without children, newly married or empty-nesters, both parents working and no day-care living in these subdivisions tend to cause not relieve stress in a family's life. Driving to, or for, everything that a family does gets expensive and will get very much more so in the years ahead. This article assumes the aging adult as not being able to drive and does not factor in the rising price of fuel or its relative availability. Even the cost of getting services delivered to your door will become prohibitive.

Even something as simple as the absence of sidewalks can discourage older adults from walking through their neighborhoods and seeing other people.

The requirement for sidewalks along public streets has been in effect for some time in Lexington
and has been a bone of contention in developments with private streets and accessways. How strange it is to see that some of the more recent retirement/active adult gated communities have not provided for these sidewalks and force the older residents to drive or walk in the street. Lower speed limits will do little to restrict the damage done by an impaired driver to their pedestrian neighbor.

And speaking of the retirement/active adult facilities, there are going to be many more of our population that will need such living arrangements in the near future. Being shipped off to a facility is not what your parents(or you) should desire. I should think that the style of housing found in the early Ashland Park/Chevy Chase sections would be applicable to many of our recent subdivisions and quite a few of the ones of the '50s-'60s. Multi-generational subdivisions and housing types should not be a taboo subject.

"Planning has been based on wealth. We would build six lanes just to go to Starbucks; we would throw infrastructure and services after people, which was incredibly inefficient. This recession has given us a chance to think. It's a wonderful opportunity to get things done that you couldn't get done just two or three years ago."

Andres Duany

This recession and the eventual economic reset should make us think(and change) how we have dealt with development and our aging population and so keep our active and diverse community appealing to everyone.

More Thoughts on Yesterday's Post

I left something out of yesterday's entry on High Speed Rail and its possibilities in the state of Kentucky. Our Transportation Cabinet planners and the ones from Wisconsin must have attended the same classes.

The Wisconsin Transportation people are advocating an airport location for the site of a HSR extension/enhancement strictly on the basis of the amount of available parking. Yes, that's right automobile parking. Can these people get an auto-centric society out of their heads?

The beauty of the European mass transportation "system" is that it is seamless. Home to downtown, downtown to downtown, downtown to business/recreation and back again, all without using a personal automobile. Why does it work so well?

Frequency and speed. Multiple trips a day between cities at high speed(+110) and from downtown to downtown would make a personal auto for out-of-town travel unnecessary. It would remove the need for gas, parking and the inevitable traffic jam delays that we now see on our inter-city trips via Interstates.

Central location of stations. Transportation from where the people are to where they want to be. Why do we go out to the airport, park the car, fly to a destination, rent a car/hire a taxi, go into town and do business? And then repeat in reverse to come back home. Why not just cut out a few of those expense laden steps? You may also notice that I left out the time waster of TSA screenings.

Integration of systems. The European model is a co-ordination of multiple systems(or sub-systems) that are coordinated into one well functioning transportation system. We, as Americans, should not try to implement just one or two of these. We will doom ourselves to failure by leaving out, what may appears to be a small element, which binds the whole together.

Granted, the planning for this AMTRAK station in Wisconsin started in 2000, about the same time as the Kentucky study, but conditions do change and their(and our) thinking must change with them.

Why Are We Unlike The Rest of The World

LA Times columnist David Lazarus, in yesterdays edition, started off with this broad statement:

It's hard to appreciate how truly pitiful our public transportation system is until you spend some time with a system that works.

And then goes on to gush over how the transportation in Japan is far superior to what we have in the states. I have also heard for people who long for a train system similar to Europe's. Lazarus and others speak somewhat fondly of the ease of use and the simplicity of the linkages found in these systems. So, what is keeping us from creating the same atmosphere on this continent?

For the most part, I think that we all find only one or two things that we like about those cultures, that we would be willing to emulate. Some like the active street scenes with the restaurants and shops on the ground floor and residential above. Some like the narrow streets and hidden nooks and crannies. Others like the grand public spaces and the wide plazas and boulevards. There are those who enjoy hopping on the train and running to another city for the evening(and returning before morning). And those who desire to walk to the local green grocer for the fresh harvested produce from which to prepare the evening meal. These are all pieces to the whole picture. But we American don't want the whole picture, just selected parts of it.

Americans, from the Revolution, have tried to differentiate themselves from the Europeans in almost every way possible. Driving on the right and not the left, English measures and not metric(dosen't that sound odd), horse racing counter-clockwise and not clockwise just to name a few. We have tried to become unlike them, even though before we got here, we were them. We charted our own course and took it on with rugged individualism.

Except that that rugged individual still needed some kind of support network. Very few explorers went off into the wilderness alone, they traveled in groups. Often in groups of twenty or more. The frontier farmers didn't establish their farms alone, the usually did it similar to the way the Amish do it still, as a group effort. The westward push across the Great Plains were in wagon trains and even the great "mountain men" had to have somewhere to get supplies.

Now we look back at Europe or other places that we have come from, sometimes longingly, sometimes not, and wish that we had some small part of what they have. Be it their rail system or their local street scene, some of us just wish that we had it. It reminds me of the local Chamber's trips to similar "successful " cities for "ideas". This buffet of ideas will work only if all the pieces complement each other, otherwise you may just end up with a toxic cocktail.

Lazarus at one point says that we will need to make our cities less comfortable in order to force our population into mass transit. Are these Japanese or European cities so uncomfortable that we will stop visiting in such great numbers? Are they so uncomfortable that their own inhabitants are fleeing in droves? I think not. So, why do we visit there (repeatedly) and long for what they have, yet fail to bring it about in our own country. Even our own "world class" cities cannot pull it off with the same panache as they do. I don' t think that we want their comfort level, because we are Americans and we deserve more.

And maybe we are just deluding ourselves.

On the Issue of Connectivity

I recently posted on the issue of connectivity and cul-de-sacs and it has occurred to me that Lexington has been faced with a lack of such connections before. Even in the days of the "streetcar suburbs" there was a lack of connectivity in the new developments. These are some of the ones that I know of.

When the Woodland subdivision was platted in the late 1870's the primary street, Woodland Ave. was built as a single block all the way to High St. Thus the addresses in the 100's were assigned in the re-addressing of 1902. Central Ave. followed a natural drainage feature from Woodland to Ashland and parallel to Main St. Roughly ten years later when the Ransom property was developed, the same thing happened with their residential street. It would take another 30 years for the city to build an extension of Vine St to the east of Limestone, past Rose St and approach the Woodland/Central intersection. I know of at least one house that they tore down and at least two others are possible.

Likewise, the Hollywood Terrace subdivision off Tates Creek Rd. Three streets facing Tates Creek and only a back exit to South Ashland Ave Extended by away of Ashland and Wilcoxen(now Hollywood) and itself an extension of an original court. Platted in 1929 it took until the summer of 1950 for the residents to ask for Sunset to be connected to Columbia Ave, which ended just about 200 feet away at Lafayette(now Marquis). After the Mt Vernon Subdivision was built farther out and Kastle Rd. extended toward town from Cooper, there was just a house and lot fron letting them connect. I watched as that house came down and the roadway built.

The connecting of Harrison Ave(now S Martin Luther King Blvd.) from High St. to Maxwell St. was first talked about publicly in 1949, took three properties and over four years to complete.

Waller Ave in the Rodes Addition was platted and built in the early '20s and I'm sure expected to be extended at some time. The Rosemont Gardens situation was the same except that it was extended just a few short years later. The Waller extension didn't come until the summer of 1960.

There are others I am sure, but I don't know for certain.

There are also instances where the wealthy have closed off some existing connections in order to privatize their areas. One such is Deepwood Dr, a street of less than 20 houses, that used to run from Old Paris Pike to Eastin Rd. The residents requested that the Eastin end be closed for security reasons. Several "high end" subdivisions have been built without connections to existing streets, some of which are Ashland Park, Griffin Gate.

We have done better in the recent past and we will have to do much better in the future, if we are to become a truly connected city.

High Speed Rail... Ten Years after

I came into possession of a document that I thought would not have been produced. An Examination of I-75, I-64 & I-71 High Speed Rail Corridors. Wow, was all I could say.

The Kentucky Transportation Cabinet...I mean KENTUCKY's...Transportation Cabinet asked for a study on High Speed Rail. Ten years ago. How many people knew this existed? How well was this publicized? Ten years ago did anybody care?

Ten years ago, when the SUV was just coming into it's own and gas was fairly cheap, no state transportation agencies were seriously studying High Speed Rail. Forget the fact that the Europeans had basically created it and the Japanese had perfected it, Americans had no need for it. The Americans had gas(we liberated Kuwait for it), we had autos (GM & Ford saw to that)and we had the Interstates(Congress and the the 1956 Highway Revenue Act took care of that). The airlines had been deregulated two decades before and fare were about 9% lower than 1978, even though nine of the MAJOR airlines had been sent into bankruptcy. We Americans had everything we needed to move about the country-time, money and modal options galore. We, as a whole, were not thinking about rail in any form, commuter, regional, standard or High Speed.

For just those reasons, I believe the premise of the above study is flawed. The methodology is sound but the assumptions and the associated data may have directed the conclusions toward a less than accurate assessment of the travel demand projections between the three cities..Lexington, Louisville and Covington

The first flaw that I see is the intent to connect the airports of the these major urban areas. Two of the airports are greatly removed from the population cores and any existing rail facilities. If the desire is to build a seamless multi-modal transportation system, why add to the expense by starting at the least integrated modes terminals?

Secondly the search for comparisons of city pairs connected by existing rail that would be of similar size led to only two previously studied areas, Detroit/Chicago and North Carolina's Piedmont Corridor.

Thirdly, I think that they limited their ridership estimates to the trips between the three cities although the did generate their numbers as a percentage of the air passengers of the three cities. It was recently reported that in Spain the HSR trains will beat the airlines and this analysis was estimating the demand to get to a different airport for a longer distance trip.

I, for one, would desire to take HSR not just to Cincinnati for the day but on to Washington for the weekend, much like the short plane trip to connect on by air. A short hop to Cincinnati by plane would not only involve airfare, but cab fare or car rental fee, into downtown and back. A train should take you from downtown to downtown and connect with the urban mass transit node there. I took a trip to Washington D.C. in the early '90's where I flew into Reagan, switched to the Metro, changed trains in Farragut Center, exited the Metro, walked across the street to the hotel, signed in and changed clothes, back across the street and a train to Union Station, hopped a MARC train to Baltimore for a ballgame(opening season in Camden Yards), back to D.C., the Metro to the hotel. All with a minimum of effort and cost, plus the idea that I had never been to D.C. before.

This study needs to be redone, and this time the estimates of ridership should include the desired destinations of a 600 mile radius as an initial "order of magnitude". I don't want anyone to get me wrong, I am glad that they were thinking ahead but their thinking was clouded by the highway first mentality of most transportation planners today.

The Price Savings of Connectivity

Thanks to Mary Newsome at Naked City for this one. The City of Charlotte did a study on the comparative costs of fire stations in different sections of their city. I worked out that the areas with the most cul-de-sacs, or the areas with the least connectivity, covered less square miles per station and cost more per station to maintain.

I wonder how our fair city compares, or if we have even done a look see.