Another Rant on Transportation Planning

First, let me get my defensiveness out of the way. Years ago I was going from mid-town Manhattan to the upper east side for an event at Christies (I wasn't bidding, just there to drink wine). It was a work event, so as I left the building my boss and another colleague decided to join me. My colleague, a long time New Yorker flagged a cab. And we promptly got stuck in traffic. My boss, a native New Yorker dryly said: If only we'd taken the subway...I love mass transit. Particularly in cities where it actually gets you somewhere you want to go and works. The whole time I lived back east I rarely rarely drove my car into the city.

Having said that, in cities like Seattle there really is no mass transit. Oh, I know, in a month we will be having a huge hoopla about a light rail link opening from downtown to the airport. Good idea, except a small problem. Parking.

Parking in Seattle has become a new form of social engineering and taxation. First the social engineering part. When the light rail opens it will run from downtown Seattle through a tunnel bored under one of our famous hills, out through a neighborhood south east of the city, then back west toward the airport. Along this whole route, except for downtown Seattle, there will be no parking. Unlike the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) which has parking lots near BART stations, Seattle and the regional government bringing us this light rail (billions over budget and years late) want us to bus to the light rail station, light rail to the airport, stand in the TSA line, and what was a two hour flight to San Francisco has now become a 5 or 6 hour ordeal. Great.

And while the city is eliminating parking, in other areas, small business districts, where parking was once free, they are putting up meters as fast as they can.

Chicago is finally admitting there are some unintended consequences to this parking meter taxation. In Chicago, Mayor Daly (a good friend of Seattle's mayor) "sold" the parking meters to a private company who promptly made them 24 hour. With 2 hour limits. And parking rates in private garages soared. So if you want to attend an art event or a movie, you begin watching the clock and you don't linger. Arts organizations have begun to notice their customers are leaving quickly and don't seem as relaxed during performances.

Remember, having density in urban areas is a good thing. But if these social engineers in transportation (and planning) offices make it hard for people to live in cities, well, be ready for another flight to suburbia. The unintended consequences of social engineering. I am old enough to remember all the planners ideas in the '50s, '60s, and '70s just had to be implemented and we spent the '80s knocking them all down! We should really try to learn from our history.

Government and Social Engineering

The City of Seattle has finally fessed up to what many city park users already knew: they are removing garbage cans.  In an attempt to, apparently, save money, the city is removing garbage cans from parks and asking users to "pack it out."

While this "pack it out" system works fairly well for backpackers in wilderness areas, urban picnickers with tubs of chicken, potato salad, and a case of Coca-Cola, along with baby strollers, toys, and other assorted "day in the park" items will have a hard time packing it all out.  Already, neighbors of Seattle Parks are reporting their garbage cans are being filled by park users.  

It seems to me that this is a perfect example of government trying to social engineer behavior in ways that might look good in discussions at the conference rooms but in reality is forgetful of the role of government and the relation with the governed.  

In the Pacific Northwest there is a push to have urban areas like Seattle and Portland increase their densities.  In the past ten years thousands of multi-family units have been built, pushing out single family dwellings and low scale buildings in favor of multi-use multiple story structures.  Both Portland and Seattle have gone from being small urban areas to New York wanna-bes.

The idea of increasing densities is good if it stops the expansion of growth into the lowland forested areas surrounding both Seattle and Portland.  Recent studies, however, are showing that sprawl continues to edge into these vital lands despite urban growth.  

Nonetheless, cities must make themselves attractive to multiple generations if they are to continue to house and employ large numbers of people.  Making amenities like parks difficult to visit, or "work," will not accomplish that goal.  Rather, it will encourage people to get in their cars and find places to picnic where they can conveniently get rid of their trash by throwing it into a garbage and recycling bin.

Sometimes great ideas have rather bad consequences and the social engineering of city staffs usually flop.  Often it is far far better to continue to provide good service and as a result people will enjoy living in the city.  Seems simple, huh.