The Goodspeed Update

There’s a reason I told Planning magazine I’m excited about “more accessible and interactive approaches to the massive amounts of GIS data that planners have.” After all, it’s a type of data that has not yet been adapted to truly seamless social platform. I sketched out how such a system could be applied to vacant property.

That’s precisely what a group in New Orleans is working on in a project that has been entered in the NetSquared Mashup Challenge.

Here’s the idea:

Imagine a Google map that allows one to select a historical view of the topography, New Orleans before or after the storm. Imagine being able to integrate past and present. Being able to view current data on the recovery on old Sanborn maps. And historic data from archives on contemporary maps. And being able to turn on and off different sets of data simultaneously. In this way, one could see if a historic house is on a demolition list. Imagine that. Making information more accessible, meaningful and interesting.

Mapping gives life to spreadsheets (demolition lists or building permits). Suddenly these droning lists of addresses form patterns and relationships. We can now go to a house, photograph it, blog it and sometimes actually save it. Usually not. But in the very least, it has been documented before it’s history. The current push for demolition before the FEMA money runs out weighs heavy on the collective soul of New Orleans. …

Mapping is destiny and people all over the city are trying to map the madness away. Citizen created content in Google Maps track housing demolitions, housing project locations, shootings in 2008, mid-century modern architecture, unopened schools, schools to be demolished, the Housing Conservation District Review Committee (HCDRC) agenda, and of course New Orleans music.

Interestingly, another featured project called Your Mapper proposes some of the same functionality. Let’s hope a powerful system available for broad use emerges.

> NetSquared: City of New Orleans: A Mashup for Citizen Monitoring of the Recovery
> XXNO: Manifesto for a Mashup
> Think New Orleans: Help Me Obtain Funding for Online Mapping of the Recovery

All the major presidential candidate websites are generally similar in their structure. All three feature an “issues” tab, with pages on a variety of issues. These sometime link to other materials, such as lengthier plans in PDF format or other materials, but I thought the choice of issues and length might tell us something about what each candidate’s campaign think is important. At the very least, it might speak to the interest groups they’re cultivating and their general philosophy about how much information they should provide before requiring visitors to click more. Of course, what candidates say about their priorities, and what they actually do in office can be quite different for a variety of reasons.

Here’s the three way comparison (larger):

And just Obama and McCain (larger):

Obama’s top three are technology, urban policy, and family, and McCain’s are economy, national security, and veterans, and Hillary Clinton’s are innovation, veterans, and schools.

I noticed both Democrats have long pages on technology and innovation issues, a topic McCain omits entirely.

Barack Obama is also unique in organizing a variety of urban-related policy proposals and positions under the umbrella topic of Urban Policy, something that was added to the website since I scrutinized it last. As the first bullet to his plan he proposes creating a White House Office on Urban Policy to “develop a strategy for metropolitan America” and coordinate federal urban programs, reporting directly to the president.

Update: On the suggestion of Andrew Gelman, here’s a different version ranked by the difference in words between Obama and McCain.

Another just by Obama topics:

The gas tax for example, that seems like a good one to get rid of. It’s not doing much for us as it is. What’s that about a Minnesota bridge and global warming? I can’t hear you over the roar of this SUV engine.

Also, see the NY Times story “As Gas Costs Soar, Buyers Flock to Small Cars“

WMATA recently released the 2008 Metrorail Station Access & Capacity Study (PDF) which analyzes how the system can accommodate future growth in detail. David has a good summary of the report’s major recommendations for improvement and expansion. A table in the report caught my eye that showed the estimated number of jobs and households around a number of Metrorail stations from the year 2005. Metro’s Office of Long-Range Planning was kind enough to provide me the complete spreadsheet of the number of households and jobs within half a mile of each station, distilled from the Washington Council of Government’s transportation planning data. (I assume the numbers were calculated by summing the jobs for each traffic analysis zone whose center was half a mile from a Metro station.)

I’m using the data for a larger ridership study that should appear here sometime in the future, but in the meantime I realized it allows us to evaluate the level of transit oriented development in each jurisdiction. For Montgomery County and Prince George’s County, because the stations are spaced sufficiently far apart, we can also estimate the percentage of total jobs within half a mile of a Metro station. This relative measure takes into account the many more jobs in Montgomery County. Because the half mile radii overlap significantly in Arlington, Alexandria, and D.C. I can’t easily say what proportion of all jobs are accessible by transit for those jurisdictions.

Here’s the results after averaging the development for each station in the various jurisdictions.

The analysis confirms what we might expect: D.C. and Arlington have the most jobs near their stations, and the Prince George’s County stations have the fewest in absolute terms. The pattern holds in relative terms for the Maryland counties — according to the WMCOG data, roughly 50% of Montgomery County’s 500,293 jobs were within 1/2 mile of a Metro station, versus only 38.4% of Prince George’s County’s 358,450 jobs. While I agree there’s much Prince George’s should be doing to boost development around their stations, there are a couple important caveats. The county has seen much less real estate investment than other parts of the region, and the Metro stations are much newer. Metro made it all they way out to Shady Grove in 1984 and Glenmont in 1998, versus Greenbelt in 1993, Branch Avenue in 2001, and Largo Town Center in 2004.

For households, on average Arlington County’s stations have slightly more than D.C. stations, likely a reflection of Arlington’s aggressive development of high density housing along the Rosslyn-Ballston corridor and the low-density residential neighborhoods surrounding many D.C. stations.

Not surprisingly, some of the least-used stations I identified in my popular post on station ridership also have the least development around them. My next step is to use a regression to evaluate the relative role of jobs, housing, parking, bus lines, multi-modal access, and a variety of other variables to explain ridership.

Record high crude oil prices has put the federal gas tax in center stage, as McCain and Clinton have proposed a summer holiday of the 18.4 cent federal gas tax. Thomas Friedman blasted the short-sighted proposal, as well as our leader’s failure to create a coherent energy policy.

Calling it a meaningless “quick-fix” solution, Barack Obama argues the real solution lies in alternative fuels and higher fuel efficiency standards.

To that list I’d add increased investment in transit and a higher gas taxes, although I can understand why those proposals may not make it into a television ad in Indiana and North Carolina.

High gas prices don’t just effect consumers, they have resulted in record profits for oil companies. However, according to economic theory we should be doing the exact opposite of what McCain proposes if we want to cut their profits. Economists have found consumers pay roughly half the federal gas tax — the other half comes from the oil companies themselves. This study concludes:

Using the estimated coefficients, we can determine the incidence of federal and state specific taxes. An increase in the federal tax by 1¢ raises the retail price by 0.47¢ and decreases the wholesale price by 0.56¢. Thus, consumers and wholesalers each pay roughly half of the federal specific tax.

In effect, a higher federal gas tax would shift wealth from the oil companies profits to federal coffers, and help pay for badly needed infrastructure improvements.

Ever wanted to rent a bike in downtown D.C. to run a quick errand or see the town? Starting next month the city’s SmartBike rental program kicks off with 120 bikes at 10 locations, where the racks have already been installed. Membership will cost $40 annually and work something like Zipcar, with rentals limited to 3 hours and users charged $200 for bikes unreturned in 48 hours. Registration is not yet activated on the program website. Renting will be free to start. Clear Channel’s international program website has more data on the bikes and how the system works. The program is run through the city’s bicycle program, where you can find bike maps and other information. Of course WashCycle has the latest news and all the background on the program. Unfortunately there seems to have been a delay in the Bike Station at Union Station — maybe Arlington will beat D.C. in that one.

This Tuesday I attended the “Earth Day Rollout” of a new book detailing the relationship between urban development and climate change.

Intuitively, it would seem logical to conclude that compact cities release less greenhouse gasses on a per capita basis than low density ones. We might hypothesize compact cities shorten distances between destinations, encourage walking and biking for short trips, and encourage public transportation use. It may also be more energy efficient to heat and cool the housing in more compact cities.

Amazingly, many scholars disagree. Just one year ago UCLA professor Randall Crane stated on his blog “how discretionary land use decisions can best address global warming is virtually unknown.” Crane is co-author of a 240-page research survey on the relationship between urban form and travel. At the root of the issue is the difficulty of disentangling person preferences, culture, and the physical environment. Even if urban residents use much less energy per capita, it may be because of socio-economic or so-called “self selection” factors. This scholarly ambivalence has left the planning profession at the sidelines of the global warming debate. Despite a striking cover on last September’s Planning magazine (found in the mailboxes of most American urban planners) the articles inside were sadly disappointing, with few meaningful strategies presented. As a sign of the profession’s state, one reader wrote in to complain “other theories also explain the same observed data,” contrasting modern global warming theory with urban renewal theories of the 1950s. Another letter expressed disappointment over the lack of an article summarizing recommendations about what to do.

There are signs this is changing. A draft policy guide currently being considered by the American Planning Association on climate change features as its first two policy findings that land use patterns play a “significant” role in reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and that parking and transportation policies can be employed to “discourage” private auto use.

This is precisely the case Ewing and his co-authors make in Growing Cooler. In essence, they argue that even if alternative fuel vehicles are phased in aggressively and the gas mileage of vehicles is increased to 50 miles per gallon, the U.S. will be far from meeting its goal of reducing CO2 emissions. The reason is that travel growth is expected to continue to grow rapidly along with rising population and economic growth. They find that people living in compact neighborhoods drive roughly 20 to 40 percent less than the residents of sprawling areas. They define compact neighborhoods by five criteria — the five D’s — density, diversity of land uses, design, destination access, and distance to transit. In the aggregate, a national smart growth policy could cut transportation CO2 emissions by 7 to 10%. Since transportation is only responsible for 33% of total U.S. CO2 emissions the role of Smart Growth is modest, but significant factor.

The authors point out compact development is a particularly attractive strategy to combat climate change because the emissions savings are permanent, it also results in public health and environmental gains, and may result in additional greenhouse gas savings through more energy-efficient homes. We know people buy smaller houses in compact communities, and even if the size of their units don’t decrease, row homes and condos are more energy efficient to heat and cool than freestanding homes. (Indeed, my neighbor told me his heating bill dropped significantly when our row house was remodeled after being vacant for many years.) Chapter 9 on “Policy and Program Recommendations” offers a wide range of suggestions, from a reformed federal transportation policy in the form of a “Green-TEA” law and national cap-and-trade system, to a variety of proposals at the regional, state, and local levels to create compact development patterns. I’m happy to see the very last proposal listed “Invest in Civic Engagement and Education.” Recognizing that “successful planning requires the meaningful engagement of people who live and work in the affected community,” the authors call on “planners and decision makers [to] actively seek out public input early in the planning process.” After all, under our urban planning system local communities have the biggest role to play determine the form of our cities. This book makes the case their decisions will play a critical role in our effort to combat global warming.

> ULI: Growing Cooler
> Smart Growth America: Growing Cooler: The Evidence on Urban Development and Climate Change