by Alex Marshall, Editor, Spotlight on the Region
It's some measure of how far New Urbanism, the two-decade-old urban design philosophy centered to some extent around copying the virtues of small towns, has come that it could have an entire conference last weekend centered on the nerdier subject of transportation. It was the sixth such conference to take place, this time in Charlotte, NC.
Unlike the full "Congresses" that attract thousands of devotees, this was attended by about a 150 or so people, mostly professionals, who were interested in the role transportation has in making a city or place livable or less so. I was one of them.
Of course, just what is transportation? While to some, particularly those in and around the Tri-State region, the word congers up a massive multi-modal system, billion-dollar tunnels under the Hudson and other massive projects, for much of the world, transportation is mostly about "streets," and the question of how they should be designed and who should use them.
It was this aspect that the Congress for the New Urbanism Transportation Summit was mostly devoted to. It was both exploring and advocating how cities could develop a more connected and open street system, which was labeled "the network," so that street life and community would arguably be encouraged. What kind of networks were best, and how could they be implemented?
I, while watching the speakers or participating in breakout work sessions, had trouble understanding just what a network was. Was it a grid? A grid of streets was a network, I was told, but it wasn't the only kind of network. There were various options, such as skewed grids or one with radius-like streets that would still promote openness.
The foe at the conference was the now traditional, (although it used to be new) pattern of laying out streets in the pattern of arterial, collector and so on. This pattern forces traffic onto fewer streets in a strict hierarchy, and thus provides not only drivers but pedestrians, cyclists and even fire trucks fewer options.
A multi-million-dollar fire station, an impressive study by the city of Charlotte showed, could only service a much smaller area, because it takes a fire truck longer to drive down a suburban artery onto a collector street and into a cul-de-sac with a home on fire, then to simply drive along a grid to a burning house. Traditional suburbia is expensive, was the message.
After a series of solid presentations and workshops, the question was left on how to implement such findings, convincing though they may be. While cities that have grids or other types of "networks" should keep and cultivate them, how are they installed in places without them? Can new streets be put in among the cul-de-sacs? Can cities return to their old role of actually laying out streets?
One effort that the CNU folk are doing is to work with the highway engineers to change or at least provide an alternative to the standard sprawl way of doing streets. CNU is working with the Institute of Transportation Engineers to write a manual that spells out how to do a more urban-style street system. This befits the organization's long-time emphasis on "codes," and the rules that govern things.
In the end a worthwhile, but not an easy assignment.
The summit also had lessons that more urban places, like New York City and the smaller cities around it, could learn. More suburban devises like left-hand turn lanes, wider turning radiuses and one-way streets can over time make an urban street network less porous, and less amenable to non-car types of traffic. Groups like Transportation Alternatives and Streetsblog are focusing on such issues here.
Overall, Charlotte, a quintessential suburban city that is doing surprisingly well at remaking itself into an urban one, was a good place to explore these subjects. This city that in modern times grew up around a big airport and large interstates now has a light rail line lined with urban-style apartments and set of street design guidelines that is encouraging more connections and other types of getting around beside driving. It's a start.
It's some measure of how far New Urbanism, the two-decade-old urban design philosophy centered to some extent around copying the virtues of small towns, has come that it could have an entire conference last weekend centered on the nerdier subject of transportation. It was the sixth such conference to take place, this time in Charlotte, NC.
Unlike the full "Congresses" that attract thousands of devotees, this was attended by about a 150 or so people, mostly professionals, who were interested in the role transportation has in making a city or place livable or less so. I was one of them.
Of course, just what is transportation? While to some, particularly those in and around the Tri-State region, the word congers up a massive multi-modal system, billion-dollar tunnels under the Hudson and other massive projects, for much of the world, transportation is mostly about "streets," and the question of how they should be designed and who should use them.
It was this aspect that the Congress for the New Urbanism Transportation Summit was mostly devoted to. It was both exploring and advocating how cities could develop a more connected and open street system, which was labeled "the network," so that street life and community would arguably be encouraged. What kind of networks were best, and how could they be implemented?
I, while watching the speakers or participating in breakout work sessions, had trouble understanding just what a network was. Was it a grid? A grid of streets was a network, I was told, but it wasn't the only kind of network. There were various options, such as skewed grids or one with radius-like streets that would still promote openness.
The foe at the conference was the now traditional, (although it used to be new) pattern of laying out streets in the pattern of arterial, collector and so on. This pattern forces traffic onto fewer streets in a strict hierarchy, and thus provides not only drivers but pedestrians, cyclists and even fire trucks fewer options.
A multi-million-dollar fire station, an impressive study by the city of Charlotte showed, could only service a much smaller area, because it takes a fire truck longer to drive down a suburban artery onto a collector street and into a cul-de-sac with a home on fire, then to simply drive along a grid to a burning house. Traditional suburbia is expensive, was the message.
After a series of solid presentations and workshops, the question was left on how to implement such findings, convincing though they may be. While cities that have grids or other types of "networks" should keep and cultivate them, how are they installed in places without them? Can new streets be put in among the cul-de-sacs? Can cities return to their old role of actually laying out streets?
One effort that the CNU folk are doing is to work with the highway engineers to change or at least provide an alternative to the standard sprawl way of doing streets. CNU is working with the Institute of Transportation Engineers to write a manual that spells out how to do a more urban-style street system. This befits the organization's long-time emphasis on "codes," and the rules that govern things.
In the end a worthwhile, but not an easy assignment.
The summit also had lessons that more urban places, like New York City and the smaller cities around it, could learn. More suburban devises like left-hand turn lanes, wider turning radiuses and one-way streets can over time make an urban street network less porous, and less amenable to non-car types of traffic. Groups like Transportation Alternatives and Streetsblog are focusing on such issues here.
Overall, Charlotte, a quintessential suburban city that is doing surprisingly well at remaking itself into an urban one, was a good place to explore these subjects. This city that in modern times grew up around a big airport and large interstates now has a light rail line lined with urban-style apartments and set of street design guidelines that is encouraging more connections and other types of getting around beside driving. It's a start.
@RegionalPlan