Speeding vs. running red lights

Which is worse behavior, speeding or running red lights?  The immediate response is more than likely running red lights.  It’s more dangerous and a clear infraction of traffic rules whereas speeding is more stretching a rule than breaking a law.  If we compare this question across different modes, however, the answer becomes less apparent.  What’s worse, speeding or jaywalking?  Your response may depend on where you live and whether you walk more or drive more but, in either case, neither act is likely to provoke controversy or legal action.  Now, which is worse, running red lights on a bicycle or speeding in a car?  If you’re American and either drive or bicycle, there’s a good chance that this question provokes rage and, in conversation, perhaps even a tirade of the myriad violations and bad behavior of either bicyclists or drivers.

I was in Austin on vacation recently, enjoying a beer and some barbecue, when I happened to hear a friend complain about how terribly the bicyclists behave.  A polarized and passionate conversation ensued and I’m pretty sure that neither of us came off any wiser.  Her primary argument was that roads are for cars — sad, but from a design and use perspective, often true — mine that various subsidies promote auto use, despite its many negative impacts (fatalities, congestion, pollution, excessive use of space, and the privatization of public space to name a few).  Given our existing cities — lots of roads, lots of drivers — and existing laws — bicyclists have a federally protected right to non-highway roads — the conflict between cyclists and drivers looks set to continue.  Despite the best efforts of many bicycle advocacy groups and the occasional violation-related traffic fatality, the majority of urban bicyclists are scofflaws.  Unfortunately, so are the majority of drivers, but with more serious consequences.

As the old adage goes:

Actually, in a highway situation, driving under or over the speed of traffic tends to kill.  In an urban situation, where there are many intersections, not everyone is going in the same direction and there are pedestrians, cyclists and other users, however, speed contributes to both the number of collisions and their severity.  Approximately 5,500 pedestrians and bicyclists were killed in collisions with motor vehicles in the United States in 2007.  That’s more than one eighth of that year’s 41,000 motor vehicle-related fatalities or about the same number of US soldiers killed in the war in Iraq.  And, the faster a vehicles goes, the more likely it is to crash and to kill someone.  At 20 mph, 5% of collisions with pedestrians lead to death; at 40 mph, 85% do.  If the statistics are a bit fuzzy, the physics should not be.

In a car both speeding and rolling through stop signs are such common practices that few stop to criticize.  As with bicyclists running red lights,  the practice of speeding and running red lights is rarely punished — it’s true that both speeding and bicycling tickets get handed out, but compared to the number of infractions committed, both go largely unenforced.  The big difference, in economist’s jargon, is that a bicyclist internalizes the costs of risky behavior, whereas a driver does not. Put simply, riding stupidly on a bicycle puts you in greater danger.  Driving stupidly puts you in greater danger, but also everyone around you.

Jones, David: Mass Motorization and Mass Transit (Indiana University Press, 2008)

I just finished reading David Jones’ Mass Motorization and Mass Transportation (Indiana University Press, 2008), an examination of the recent history and future of mass transportation in the United States.  Jones does a good job of explaining some of the fundamental attributes that contributed  to the massive shift in urban transportation from rail to private automobile.  He articulates that the shift was well under way prior to the end of WWII, when the interstate highway act, the expansion of Federal Housing Authority insurance and returning GIs all contributed to the rapid increase of the existing trend.

While, I recommend the book to anyone interested in the history of transportation in the United States, I also offer the following four criticisms.

1) It needs some love in the editing room.  Perhaps the result of being the compilation of a number of essays, articles and lectures, the book can be quite repetitive.  It’s only about 250 pages, but would read better at a leaner, meaner 200 pages or fewer.  The same could probably be said of most books, but the constant repetition is actually a bit distracting.  Nevertheless, the bullet point summaries of key chapter messages are useful.

2) Some of the conclusions are sloppy.  The author generally relies on census and other 10-year increment data.  These are fine for examining simple long term trends, but do not provide conclusive evidence for how or why some cities have lost or gained public transportation mode share in recent years.  For example, he asserts that Las Vegas attained high increases in transit mode share over recent years because they contracted out services to private operators.  While this may have played some role, the case he makes is not convincing.  I’m left to wonder what role the rapid increase in Latin American workers played in an expanded demand for bus service.

3) The conclusions are far too lax on the negative impacts of auto use.  Jones sees most of the negative externalities of auto use to be based on the combustion engine and as a result advocates hydrogen fuel cells as the future solution of mass transportation.  This ignores the fact that automobiles kill around 45,000 Americans per year, that automobile infrastructure destroys neighborhoods and ecosystems and uses a lot of space, and that cars, highways and their associated land uses make it difficult to get around by other  modes for those that can’t or don’t drive — this will become particularly problematic as the baby boomers enter retirement.  In the short term, he suggests a modest increase in petrol taxes, offset by decreases in other taxes, and a subsidy for fuel cell distribution systems in the short term.

4) With its US focus, the book ignores that the majority of global growth in the next twenty-five years will occur in dense urban environments of developing world cities where mass motorization cannot occur without a massive acceleration of the pace of  already rapid urban expansion.  This will eat up valuable land and resources and, in the process, create excessive amounts of pollution and  alienate the many poor residents who cannot afford private automobiles in their own cities.

Enjoy the read.

A Titanic mistake?

Before sinking with over one thousand five hundred people aboard on April 15, 1912, the Titanic was briefly the world’s largest active naval vessel.  Her three year construction provided thousands of jobs and, like the other White Star Liner Olympic class ocean liners of the time, she was designed and built in Belfast, Northern Ireland at the Harland and Wolff shipyard.  At its peak, the yard employed over 30,000 people and was the mainstay of the Belfast economy.  Like many other western shipyards, however, it fell sharply into decline after World War Two as the economics and port requirements of shipbuilding began to change.  Despite the construction of the two massive gantry cranes, Samson and Goliath, to promote large scale shipbuilding in the late 60s and early 70s, the industry continued its steady retreat.

Samson and Goliath (2007)

Although both the Port of Belfast and Harland and Wolff continue to be active, most of the current port related activities have moved away from the original shipyard, where the waters are too shallow for large modern ships.  As a result, much of the original port has become largely inactive and, given its proximity to Belfast city center, is considered underutilized.  Taking inspiration from the London Docklands and Dublin Docklands, the Belfast Harbour Commission, which owns all of the port area, partnered with Harcourt Developments to form Titanic Quarter Limited, which is in the process of redeveloping 185 acres of port into a mixed use urban neighborhood, called Titanic Quarter.  The plans call for over 7,500 dwellings and 9 million square feet of office, retail and institutional uses.  Given the scale of development’s ambition, the tragic fate of its namesake, and the current state of the economy, it’s hard not to wonder whether Titanic Quarter is a titanic misjudgment.

Titanic Quarter Before Construction (From Titanic Quarter Media Room)

Victoria Square (2009). (Incidentally, as urban malls go, it is exceptionally well done opening up into the city, providing natural light and generally feeling like a part of the urban environment rather than an escape from it.)

I first started looking at Titanic Quarter in early 2007.  Although, pre-sales on the first phase of apartment condos were doing well, the housing market was already showing signs of coming apart.  Prices had skyrocketed, the majority of sales were going to investors, and the city continued to lose residents. In terms of office developmet, most of the cities permitted projects were on hold or seeking to convert to residential.  Although retail had been booming since the 1998 Belfast Agreement, construction was well underway on Victoria Square, an 800,000 square foot urban mall, that looked likely to absorb most of the City’s high end retail demand over the short and potentially medium term.

As the UK property market collapsed and the world economy went into recession over the last year, Titanic Quarter’s prospects have become somewhat more questionable.  Finding myself in Belfast for a weekend last January, I decided to take a day to visit Titanic Quarter to see how it was progressing.  Several buildings have been completed, although appear not yet leased, and work on the first 500-unit phase of housing construction, Abercorn Basin, is well underway, although work currently continues at a reduced pace.

The Gateway Office Building (2009)

Abercorn Basin Housing Construction (2009)

Abercorn Basin Housing Construction (2009)

Despite the unfavorable economic conditions, there are a number of reasons to remain confident about the project’s prospects for financial success over the long term.

First, the Belfast Harbour Commission owns the land.  They have a very low carrying cost and can sit on it until market conditions improve.  Although this will reduce the previously projected returns on investment it also suggests that the project is unlikely to go bust.  Without major construction or land purchase loans, Titanic Quarter Limited could delay development almost indefinitely.  In the meantime, there are potential interim uses that could earn the Commission some revenue.  For example, in a recent change, much of the Harland and Wolff land is currently being used to assemble large marine wind turbines.

Wind Turbine Assembly

Furthermore, despite the current market weakness,  several factors related to “the Troubles”, the roughly 30-year period of ethno-political violence in Northern Ireland that officially ended with the Belfast Agreement,  suggest that Titanic Quarter will succeed commercially.  In many ways, Belfast, emerging from 30 years of economic stagnation,  is a laggard in the process of playing catch up to other European cities.   Although Northern Ireland had some of the highest increases in average home prices in the United Kingdom over the last 5 years, the bubble may not be as large.  While Belfast  certainly experienced unsustainable boom in house prices and construction, it is difficult to disentangle the bubble induced increase from that brought about by the emergence of peace and stability.  As a result, the bust seems likely to be less painful than elsewhere.

Another, potential advantage of Belfast’s lagging is that it has yet to experience the recent boost in urban population that has benefited many other cities of the United States and Europe.  Like most other Western cities, Belfast experienced a significant decrease in its population since its post World War Two high of over 400,000.  By 2000, Belfast’s population had decreased to 281,000 and has continued to decline to an estimated 268,000.  Although, not all Western cities have increased in population over the last 10 years, Belfast’s economic performance, status as political, educational and social capital of Northern Ireland, and lively energy suggest that it will experience a “Fifth Migration” of urban in-migration over the coming years.  The chart below compares Belfast’s population over time with that of Manchester, a similar sized city with an industrial past that experienced recent population growth.

From Belfast Capital City, The Development Brief, Belfast City Council, Issue 9, October, 2006

An interesting, if depressing, legacy of “the Troubles” is that multiple property markets have emerged, based on whether an area is considered Nationalist, Unionist or neutral.  A a result of differing birth and migration rates, housing demand is stronger in Nationalists (Catholic) areas than Unionist (Protestant) ones.  The highest demand in the future, particularly at the upper end of the market — and perhaps I’m excessively optimistic — will tend to be in neutral areas where Northern Ireland’s Catholics, Protestants and growing numbers of ethnic minorities all feel comfortable living.  Despite being a traditional Protestant area of employment, the port is generally considered a neutral area for housing, giving Titanic Quarter a strong advantage in its targeted segment of the housing market.

Finally, Titanic Quarter will be able to offer new office buildings in a rapidly changing business market.  As a result of “the Troubles”, Britain has been pumping money into the Belfast economy since the decline of its manufacturing employment base.  The public sector has grown over-sized and not only employs a significant portion of the population but also dominates the office real estate market.  Since the Belfast Agreement, however, London has been seeking to extricate itself from giving the same kind of financial assistance that it gave in the past.  As a result, Northern Ireland, and Belfast in particular, will have to shift away from public sector dominated employment into private industries.  Over the long run, the shift to new industries will spark a demand for new Class A office, which had previously been of little interest to the public sector.  With permitting secured and large contiguous plots of land, Titanic Quarter is suitably positioned to quickly provide a central location for whatever industries emerge.  On the other hand, this large scale industrial shift could prove quite painful and slow down the overall economy, thus hindering Titanic Quarter’s development.

Thus far, this entry has focused on the prospects of financial success of Titanic Quarter over the medium term.  Given its scale and location, of equal importance is whether the project will be a great place.  While I consider the chances of financial success as very likely over the next 20 years, its prospects of becoming an inspiring and thriving urban neighborhood are far more in doubt.  The image below shows the proposed development photoshopped over the existing port area.

Titanic Quarter: Rendering of the first phases overlaid on the existing port

Rather than embracing its industrial past and neighboring industrial uses, the design is a generic post modernist nowhere place that seems to associate with a romanticist nod to the glory of the Titanic’s brief life and little else.  Given the ship repairs, warehousing and distribution and giant garbage piles in the immediate vicinity, Titanic  Quarter would do well to aim for a much funkier environment.  At present there is a serious disconnect between the targeted yuppie market and the rawness of the surrounding port.  While Titanic Quarter markets its waterside location, the view across the Lagan is unlikely to appeal to all its potential residents.

Ship under Repair. (2009)

Warehousing and Distribution (2009)

Waste Disposal (2009)

Chemicals Storage (2009)

View Across the Lagan (2007)

In another important respect, however, the design does not succeed in breaking with its industrial legacy.  It fails to move from the titanic to the human scale.  The open spaces are large and barren; the blocks, massive; the streets, long corridors of unbroken and uninteresting building facade.  From bottom to top, the peninsula is only about a mile and a half, but it feels much longer walking down the long straight corridor that is the main street.  This may be a bit unfair since construction has barely begun on the masterplan, but only the port activity, that will eventually be blocked by uniform residential blocks, makes the walk interesting and enjoyable.  The pictures below show some of the typical pedestrian views along the main street.  The buildings that have already gone up do not suggest a pleasant pedestrian experience.

Trees and pavers are a welcome addition but really just dressing that don't address the underlying form and scale issues (2009)

The business park at the northern end of the peninsula is clearly not designed with residents or pedestrians in mind.

One of the few human scale elements of Titanic Quarter is the signage.  As with most of the project marketing, this has been done quite well.

Few visitors, however, descend from the tour buses that drive by every 20 minutes or so.

One of the poorest design decisions of Titanic Quarter has been the determination to create a 90 million pound signature architectural building, shaped disturbingly enough like an iceberg, to house a museum dedicated to the Titanic.  Never mind the tastelessness of alluding to the iceberg that led to the deaths of 1,517 people, the tackiness and expense are a bit shocking.  This is doubly so because of the superior alternative right next to its proposed location: the former Harland and Wolff main office, a beautiful early 20th century 3-story sandstone building.  It is more than  large enough to accommodate the exhibits of a Titanic museum and is better tied to the history of the site.  Since there are not very many suitable options for its reuse, building a separate non-revenue generating building  is also a financial mistake.  The iceberg is not going to be the next Sydney Opera House or Walt Disney Concert Hall.

Harland and Wolff Building (2009)

Harland and Wolff Drawing Room (2007)

Rendering of Signature Building from Titanic Quarter Website

The space in front of the building also demonstrates some of the mismatch between the plans for Titanic Quarter and the way it will feel for pedestrians.  This wide paved area stretches on for approximately 300 yards leading out to the water.  While this space looks fine in the rendering and will provide a good view of the signature building for cars on the highway and cruise ships, it is not an appealing pedestrian environment.  There is no protection from the elements and nothing to do.  If the pavers are smooth enough, it could emerge as a good informal destination for skateboarders.

300 hundred yards of boring space unless you're on a skateboard or BMX. From the Titanic Quarter Website.

Perhaps the greatest challenge to Titanic Quarter will be connecting it to the city and the economic region.  Unlike the London and Dublin Docklands which were supported by large investments in public transportation to extend rail lines and create stations, Titanic Quarter relies on one woefully inadequate spine road, a bus route and several intersection improvements.  The two intersections circled in red below will have to handle the traffic generated by the 7,500 dwellings, 9 million square feet of office, retail and institutional uses, and existing and future port uses.  They both intersect with the A2, one of the most congested highways in the United Kingdom.  Given the limited public transport and poor walking environment, Titanic Quarter as currently envisioned will have a difficult time capitalizing on its proximity to the the city center.  At the very least, the developers need invest heavily in bike and pedestrian access to a not-too-distant commuter rail station.  Even if they do, the lion’s share of residents and workers in Titanic Quarter will drive, sit in long queues and create greater congestion on the highway.  The parking lot of the Odyssey Complex, Titanic Quarter’s southern anchor and essentially a suburban mall, does not bode well for Titanic Quarter’s transportation future.

Traffic Pinch Points (Google Maps, 2009)

View of Train Station and A2 Highway. Titanic Quarter is to the right. (2007)

Locked Pedestrian Bridge to Station. (2007)

Already a Traffic Pinchpoint (2007).

So what will happen with Titanic Quarter? Most likely it will be built, although it will take longer than expected and make less money for its investors than envisioned.  London Docklands went bust before it turned a profit and became the new financial center for London.  Given the low costs of holding the land and options for generating other sources of cash flow, however, it’s unlikely that any of the investors or developers will lose their shirt.  Unfortunately though, Titanic Quarter appears set become a fairly boring and car dependent enclave that will add to Belfast’s urban planning problems rather than alleviate them.  Given its proximity to the city centre,  its potential contribution to Belfast’s housing stock — an estimated six percent increase of total existing housing units — and its interesting history, this is quite a shame.

Future Location of Titanic Quarter (2007).

Future Location of Titanic Quarter (2007).

Future Location of Titanic Quarter (2007).

Travel Dumb: A Proposal

Last December (2008), Planning, the magazine of the American Planning Association, published an article Travel Smart, A Proposal: Commute by Freeway and Save Energy (italics from original!). As a card-carrying, dues-paying member of the American Planning Association, I receive an issue of the magazine each month — sadly you’ll need a membership to read the original article. In full disclosure, I’m not Planning magazine’s biggest fan. Outside of more technical articles, I find the self-congratulatory lauding of “good planning” to be light on content and heavy on feel-good platitudes. This recent article on revolutionizing transport while saving the environment and reducing congestion, however, struck a particular nerve. Rather than simply return the offending magazine to the growing pile to the left of my toilet and several weeks later to the recycle bin, I’ve decided to put metaphorical pen to paper and actual fingers to keyboard.

The basic premise of the article is that commuters love the flexibility and privacy of individual cars, that private auto commuting creates growing and unacceptable congestion and environmental costs, and that a hybrid solution, a “SMART Commuter system”, can resolve these conflicting interests. The author’s proposal suggests transporting small cars along congested highway corridors via tractor trailer trucks equipped with photovoltaic chargers on designated, exclusive lanes where possible (see images below). This would, he claims, reduce highway congestion, greenhouse gas emissions, traffic accidents and foreign oil dependency. It would also, I presume, be of great emotional and psychological succor to the commuting masses sipping lattes and reading newspapers in their new smart cars, secure in the knowledge that not only are they saving time, stress and energy, but also the environment as the photovoltaic panels charge satellite radios, air conditioning, and electric batteries. While I sympathize with the proposal’s intentions, the actual idea makes little to no practical sense. Disregarding the absurdity of convincing Americans or any other people that they should all drive the same expensive, tiny cars — a two-seater coupe Smart Car currently starts at around $18,000 — without some sort of massive financial incentives or heavy handed State regulation, the proposal still fails to deliver on its proposed objectives.

(Photo, model and drawing by Alexander Pollock)

First, it won’t reduce congestion. Even if we just consider traffic along the corridor without thinking much about city streets, exit ramps or vehicle loading stations, the tractor trailer trucks will cause as much traffic as the smart cars they are transporting. Passenger Car Equivalents (PCE) — a figure used by transportation engineers that represents the number of private vehicles that would take up the same amount of road capacity — for tractor trailers vary based on terrain and road conditions, but fall somewhere between 1.5 and 6. Given hills, general traffic in urban areas and the size of the vehicles proposed in the article, an average PCE of 3.0 seems reasonable. Thus a truck, carrying 14 vehicles can take up the space of just three. This sounds like a pretty good deal even if the trucks carry an average of 10 to 12 vehicles per trip — full capacity on all trips is unrealistic. Given the size of the transported cars, however, the 12 foot wide highway lane could be divided into two 6-foot lanes, if it were exclusive to the small vehicles that the trucks carry. This extra lane would more than double capacity by allowing for passing and preventing a single breakdown or accident from choking up the lane. Thus for the 10 to 12 smart cars carried by one truck, 6 to 10 could be driving and using the same road capacity. Given the congestion caused at truck loading and unloading facilities, the plan would likely increase commute times along the corridors it intended to free up, when compared to another system which assumes a massive switch to small two-passenger vehicles.

Second, it won’t help the environment. Switching from normal passenger vehicles to electric powered smart cars will help the environment no doubt. Dragging these cars around in large gas-powered trucks will not.

Third, it’s a logistical nightmare. Every car would have to arrive at and depart from some sort of designated truck loading station. Each car on the same truck would have to have the same rough origin and destination. The more the trucks stop at different destinations, the slower the commute will be and the more congestion the trucks will create. The trucks would also have to load and unload at the same time and have regular enough headways so that cars didn’t sit waiting in a loading station for a truck to come along for excessive periods of time. These loading stations would also require significant new space and investment to operate. If this does not seem impractical enough, imagine the headache of 400 cars entering a suburban loading space to drive onto and get secured to 40 tractor trailer trucks with several different destinations throughout the city. Now 1200 cars arrive at an urban unloading station on 120 trucks, get unfastened and drive off to their varying destinations. The congestion and collisions and wasted space of these loading stations would more than offset any gains made by the system.

Finally, it’s a political non-starter. Special lanes and subsidized trucking for the drivers of mini cars is as unrealistic as it sounds. Even if politicians did not realize the infeasibility of the transport system, giving favors to suburban commuters in two-seater European cars through massive investments in loading and unloading infrastructure and rights to use exclusive lanes will not play well with everyone else no matter the level of greenwashing.

Unfortunately, in trying to provide the benefits of both private auto use and mass transportation, the scheme would fail to provide either. While the intention of the scheme is admirable, add this one to the scrap bin of thought-provoking but mercifully non-implemented modernist fantasies. Given the amount of work put into this — as evidenced by the models, drawings and article — perhaps my reaction comes across as a little bit cruel and dismissive. Then again, history smiles fondly on the designers of the modernist fantasies to the left (Top to Bottom: Le Corbusier’s Plan of Paris, Frank Loyd Wright’s Broadacre City, and Buckminster Fuller’s dome over Manhattan). All were considered geniuses and, at the very least, their ideas are historically important and, more importantly, pretty damned cool in a retro sci fi kind of way. One of my biggest concerns with the “SMART Commuter system” is that it was developed by the head planner for the city of Detroit.

Of the 181 American cities with populations of more than 125,000 in 2003, none lost more residents than Detroit between 2000 and 2003. Only St. Louis and Cincinnati lost a higher percentage of their resident population; 4.59 percent and 4.20 percent, compared to Detroit’s 4.19 percent. According to American Community Survey estimates, Detroit lost nearly 75,000 residents, a further 8 percent of it’s population, between 2003 and 2005 to 2007 (counts are taken over a three year period). Unsurprisingly, median commute times for residents of Detroit dropped 8 percent from 28.4 minutes in 2000 to 26.3 minutes in 2005/2007. In San Diego, which has gained roughly the same population as Detroit lost, median commute time decreased less than 1 percent from 23.2 to 23 minutes over the same time period. While changes in commute times have to do with many factors, particularly the increasing suburbanization of employment centers, these figures reinforce the fact that commuter congestion is low on the list of Detroit’s many urban problems. With American auto-manufacturing on the brink of collapse and one of the fastest decreasing populations of any world city, the last thing Detroit, one of the original post-urban “doughnut” cities, needs is another modernist vision of its transportation future. So long as the “SMART Commuter system” remains on paper, it’s really not much of a bother. Although it may distract certain individuals from more pressing affairs, let him that doesn’t engage in personal hobbies or fancy the occasional wild idea cast the first stone.

My problem is that by publishing it, the professional body of planners in the United States has to some degree endorsed it. While Le Corbusier’s vision for Paris is known by every planner and architect, a visit to some of Paris’ banlieus quickly shows the painful divergence of modernist fantasy and the realities of implementation. Let’s be glad that when Buckminster Fuller’s famous dome caught fire it covered an empty exposition center in Montreal rather than a third of Manhattan. As planners, we need to do better.