Who Needs ‘Centralized City Planning’? Everyone.

The always-interesting Witold Rybczynski has a provocative piece up on Slate arguing that the failure of government-led urban planning means that “in a democracy, a vision of the future city will best emerge from the marketplace.” I don’t disagree with his observation that private organizations and real estate developers have taken the lead in shaping our cities, however I don’t believe it follows that the government has no role whatsoever.

Such an argument erases the many ways governments are deeply involved in planning urban spatial structure: designing and operating streets and other infrastructure, regulating urban land markets through enforcement of property rights and zoning, shaping the location and character of development through wetlands and other environmental regulations, subsidizing and shaping the housing finance system, and establishing and enforcing building codes and standards, to just name a few.

Although Rybczynski is right the government has largely withdrawn from the business of directly engaging in architecture and urban design (and that’s a good thing), the lesson isn’t that government should (or will) withdraw completely. The stark contrasts of quality of life between well- and poorly-governed cities illustrates just how important these more subtle processes of planning remain. His argument reminds me of Peter Montgomery’s thoughtful analysis of Jane Jacob’s The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Although her critique of Robert Moses and heavy-handed modernist city planning is important, Montgomery argues her celebration of the urbanity of her neighborhood omits the government processes that establish the framework of urban life (zoning, subway system, urban services, etc). In this way it can be read as a neoconservative tract, writing out the role of government. (In addition, Montgomery argues she ignores corporations, class and race divisions, and metropolitan equity).

To be fair, Rybczynski does stress the importance of government for “management” and “little plans,” and to a degree I’m just rejecting his definition of planning. But the point I hope to make is the “urban visions” created by real estate developers aren’t a pure product of the market, but derivative from government-determined transportation systems, zoning, and metropolitan spatial structure.

The more interesting and accurate conclusion to draw from the failures of modernist city planning is to consider which forms of government planning are still active and desirable. In this sense, Rybczynski’s article is a bit behind the times. The tremendous interest in high speed rail, urban transit, green building codes, the government’s role in wind power and broadband, and housing finance regulation has reminded us of the central role of government in shaping our cities. Hopefully this will be the legacy of the Obama era: that the choice between government and the market is a false dichotomy. Because the two are mutually dependent, addressing public problems (such as city planning, and yes, health care) requires attention to the design of each.

> Witold Rybczynski – Don’t Plan On It: Centralized city planning is not the answer to the problems facing America’s cities.

Inside Cambridge’s Drinking Water System

I recently spotted a bundle of blue fliers in the lobby of my apartment building where the mailman piles the junk mail. The newsletters had tiny print and a dense, monochromatic layout. I grabbed it immediately: it was the City of Cambridge 2008 Annual Drinking Water Quality Report. Equal parts public policy, hydraulic engineering, public health science, and a product of bureaucratic government, the report makes for fascinating reading.

After deciphering the water quality data table (requiring a glossary of 14 acronyms and terms) it looks like my tap water is pretty clean, except for turbidity (suspended particles) and sodium (from road salt and the treatment process). Two of 60 homes tested had high levels of lead, unfortunately not unusual in a city with old water systems and old residential plumbing. The newsletter even boasted about a testing program for pharmaceuticals and personal care products (the D.C. water from the Potomac River has trace amounts of six of these) but they only found nicotine and acetaminophen in small amounts.

I also discovered that, unlike what I assumed, Cambridge does not share a drinking water source with the large Metropolitan Water Resources Authority system that serves the City of Boston. In this map of the MWRA system, the Cambridge drinking water source is located above the tanks just before the aqueduct splits to serve Boston.

Instead, the water comes from the affluent suburbs of Weston, Waltham, Lincoln, and Lexington, where the city funnels a small watershed into two reservoirs for drinking water. Although most of the land is privately owned, Cambridge owns over 1,200 acres of land including the reservoirs and some surrounding land. The water is piped to Fresh Pond in Cambridge, where the treatment plant is located. Tiny diagrams in the report illustrate the watershed and treatment process.

The majority of the watershed is very low density residential neighborhoods in Weston and Lincoln, which show up as a lush green forest on the satellite imagery. This is no doubt the reason for the water quality, and in an interesting way the low density of some of Boston’s exclusive suburbs serves to ensure the extremely urban City of Cambridge with a clean water supply.

The watershed is not without any potential pollutants, however. On their website, the city has detailed maps of zoning, land use, and protection areas in the watershed. The risk map (detail, below) shows the watershed area contains the busy Route 128/I-95, a number of buried petroleum storage tanks (usually at gas stations), and even a capped landfill (see arrow). The city reservoir at Fresh Pond is very close to Danehy Park, build on top of a closed 50-acre city landfill, but presumably the potential for contamination has been thoroughly explored.

What about the commentary on bureaucracy? Below the water quality data is a small note. “In 2008, we had a Monitoring Violation” the city reports. According to a “laboratory scheduling error” the city failed to test for perchlorate in the 3rd quarter of 2008. When they discovered the omission on October 28, 2008, they tested the water and found none detected. Nevertheless, the city reports, “we cannot be sure of the quality of our drinking water during that time.” That’s going in somebody’s annual review.

World Bank Policies and Public Participation

Among the various activities of the World Bank, some of the most visible and controversial are the infrastructure projects they fund around the world. The projects are intended to improve quality of life and encourage economic development, and include irrigation systems, road and rail improvements, dams, port facilities, and even dumps.(Shown the right is World Bank-funded road construction in Tajikistan) Lesser known are the World Bank policies that mandate that project sponsors write lengthy, western-style environmental assessments and engage in mandated consultations with local NGOs and affected populations. Are you a member of an obscure indigenous people being displaced from your home by a huge new hydroelectric dam? Go to the environmental assessment hearing, listen to the PowerPoint, and be heard. This type of process happens frequently under World Bank policies pointed out to me by a former bank staff I met at an event this fall.

The bank’s so-called Safeguard Policies, designed to prevent “undue harm” to society and the environment as a result of “the development process,” do indeed mandate a bare minimum of public participation. The Environmental Assessment Policy requires,

the borrower consults project-affected groups and local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) about the project’s environmental aspects and takes their views into account. The borrower initiates such consultations as early as possible. For Category A projects [those that "likely to have significant adverse environmental impacts that are sensitive, diverse or unprecedented"], the borrower consults these groups at least twice: (a) shortly after environmental screening and before the terms of reference for the EA are finalized; and (b) once a draft EA report is prepared. In addition, the borrower consults with such groups throughout project implementation as necessary to address EA-related issues that affect them.

In text reminiscent with the U.S. federal government’s mandates to cities in the 1950s regarding the relocation of people displaced for urban renewal projects, the World Bank’s Involuntary Resettlement policy requires (emphasis mine):

Involvement of resettlers and host communities:

(a) a description of the strategy for consultation with and participation of resettlers and hosts in the design and implementation of the resettlement activities;
(b) a summary of the views expressed and how these views were taken into account in preparing the resettlement plan;
(c) a review of the resettlement alternatives presented and the choices made by displaced persons regarding options available to them, including choices related to forms of compensation and resettlement assistance, to relocating as individuals families or as parts of preexisting communities or kinship groups, to sustaining existing patterns of group organization, and to retaining access to cultural property (e.g. places of worship, pilgrimage centers, cemeteries);5and
(d) institutionalized arrangements by which displaced people can communicate their concerns to project authorities throughout planning and implementation, and measures to ensure that such vulnerable groups as indigenous people, ethnic minorities, the landless, and women are adequately represented.

The Indigenous People’s Policy has similar language, recognizing the unique vulnerability of these populations:

A project proposed for Bank financing that affects Indigenous Peoples requires:

(a) screening by the Bank to identify whether Indigenous Peoples are present in, or have collective attachment to, the project area (see paragraph 8);
(b) a social assessment by the borrower (see paragraph 9 and Annex A);
(c) a process of free, prior, and informed consultation with the affected Indigenous Peoples’ communities at each stage of the project, and particularly during project preparation, to fully identify their views and ascertain their broad community support for the project (see paragraphs 10 and 11);
(d) the preparation of an Indigenous Peoples Plan (see paragraph 12 and Annex B) or an Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (see paragraph 13 and Annex C); and
(e) disclosure of the draft Indigenous Peoples Plan or draft Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (see paragraph 15).

As an aside, the views and leadership of indigenous peoples are particularly difficult for outside powers to pin down. Who, precisely, can speak for the group? I once had an interesting conversation with a Lakota tribal elder about why he felt the official tribal government, did not represent the “true” interests of the full-blooded tribal members like himself.

Examples

An interesting source of material about how these policies are actually implemented are the official Environmental Assessments, which are as a matter of policy all posted to the World Bank’s website. Let’s look at two recent environmental assessments to see what they have to say about the public consultation for the project. First, regarding a Tunisian irrigation project:

PUBLIC CONSULTATION AND DISCLOSURE OF THE SDR
15. For the purpose of presenting the results of the analysis of equivalence and acceptability of the Tunisian national system of EA in the water sector, a public
consultation, in the form of an Atelier deInformation et de Concertationo took place at CITET in Tunis on October 28-30, 2008 under the patronage of the Secretaire deEtat. There were approximately 75 people in attendance (List Attached), including representatives of public and private sector entities, NGOs and the media, and
international donors including AFD and the ADB.

16. In addition to the presentation by Bank staff of the findings and conclusions of the SDR, five presentations were made by ANPE, MARH, and the consultants respectively
on: (i) the Tunisian System of EA in the Water Sector; (ii) the PISEAU II; (iii) the Resettlement Policy Framework; (iv) the DCPES; and (v) Environmental Health and Safety in Connection with Asbestos. Representatives of the World Bank introduced the context and methodology for the analysis of equivalence and acceptability of the national system of EA in the water sector and the results of this analysis as well as the gap filling measures necessary for the application of the Tunisian EA system to projects financed by the World Bank, and in particular to the World Bank-financed Sub-projects under the PISEAU II.

17. During the consultations, it was concluded that the report reflects the current status of the EA system in Tunisia and that the World Bank has in fact identified the gaps between the Tunisian system and the requirements of World Bank Operational Policy 4.00 on Piloting the Use of Borrower Systems to Address Environmental and Social Safeguard Issues in Bank-Supported Projects. The participants agreed in general with the DCPES as a way to guide the environmental and social management of activities to be financed by the PISEAU II consistent with the findings and conclusions of the SDR. The principal points raised during the consultation focused on the gaps observed between the Tunisian EA system and the requirements of the World Bank’s environmental policy. After explanation was given on the comments raised herein, the participants endorsed the
content of the report.

Another recent project I selected at random, the “Southern West Bank Solid Waste Management Project,” provided a process a bit more nuanced than a dry public meeting in the capital city:

The Consultation Team had to adjust the consultation plan after the meetings with the scavengers and the leaders of two communities near the existing Yatta landfill. Informal leaders of scavengers from Yatta city and formal leaders of communities near the Yatta landfill site wanted to discuss negative environmental and social effects and impacts of the site. The site was managed very poorly until 2006 and some of the complains needed to be crosschecked with responsible government authorities and with field data. Therefore the Consultant Team decided to interview a medical expert in Yatta district and an social expert of the Municipal Social Department. In addition, the Consultant decided to conduct a census of all scavengers working on an average summer day at the landfill site, and to prepare profiles of four scavengers households from Yatta city and four households from El Deirat village. The additional data was required to deal with conflicting information about number of scavengers, health conditions and the socio-economic backgrounds of the households of scavenger families that have children and adults picking waste at the landfill site.

Thinly-veiled threats raised during one community meeting even made it into the report:

The leaders of communities living near to the proposed regional land fill site in El Menya and the proposed transfer station in South Hebron have given their conditional support to the project components. They want their communities to benefits from improved infrastructure and employment opportunities. Their conditions concern the management of the facilities in accordance with international environmental and social standards so that the communities and these assets will be protected for negative impacts in the short, medium and long term. The community leaders also expressed a warning: if the SWM facilities are not properly managed and cause hinder to the neighboring communities these might react by blocking the operation of the solid waste management system.

Some might scoff at the actual power wielded by the community. Once the trash transfer facility was built, what power could they have to ensure environmental standards are upheld? In 1968 one U.S. community faced the precise same problem. Officials refused to re-route garbage and fuel trucks serving Boston’s Logan Airport from a densely populated residential street in East Boston — Maverick Street. The street’s residents sparked a political confrontation and re-routing of the trucks by physically blocking the street. The comparison opens up the question of what social and political factors must be present for procedural environmental assessments to result in community power.

Conclusion

Like with many mandated consultation processes, distrust and frustration is rife on both sides. According to one article about a World Bank process in Pakistan I found online, a group of 24 NGOs dropped out of an official consultation process in 2001, complaining “The nature and content of the consultations has to be meaningful” before they would participate. In other places and times hundreds of groups have boycotted the consultation processes, including this example from 2004. An independent 2004 evaluation of the public consultation process for a hydroelectric project in Laos (right) critiques the process, concluding:

From its beginning in 1996 to the present time, the Nam Theun 2 public consultation process was aimed not at empowering the public to engage in informed dialogue and debate about the project, but rather to justify the decision to proceed with it. ” although they point out, “Whether it would be possible for a more neutral and well-intentioned party to structure a participatory decision-making process that works in the context of Laos–and that would meet the universal standards of transparency and accountability that both the World Bank and WCD recommend–remains to be seen. But in the current situation, the Nam Theun 2 public consultation process has clearly failed to meet even minimal World Bank standards, much less the more rigorous WCD standards, and should not be accepted as an adequate basis for the approval of support for the Project.

A 2002 World Bank working paper evaluating public consultations in the environmental assessment policy concluded something similar, finding that although consultation had become common, “the current challenge for Bank operations focuses on the quality of public consultations and the extent to which they influence project design and effect project impact.”

I am very new to the area of megaprojects, only recently having ordered the Flyvbjerg and Altshuler/Luberoff recent books on the subject. However even from this cursory review, the application of consultation requirements in developing world contexts can serve to illuminate the many factors consultation projects in general are are based upon: the existence of a civil society, free and robust media, and the assumption the people affected by the project are protected from possible harms outside of the scope of individual projects. Indeed, maybe these policies only make sense in a country with a rule of law that can function as an arena of last resort. After all, without legal recourse, how substantive would many participation processes in the U.S. be? Although the precise impact of the policies seems varied, at the very least it is sparking new forms of local debate and information exchange and warrant further examination.

This topic is related to two others I hope to write about soon. In the U.S., state planning and zoning laws can mandate participation for urban planning at the local level, like the World Bank policies setting requirements to guide local planning. Around the world, a new approach to infrastructure development shifts the paradigm away from procedural assessments and consultations such as the environmental assessments described above, or used in the U.S. under the National Environmental Policy Act. In the emerging field of participatory budgeting, urban residents themselves decide which infrastructure projects should be built, through cutting-edge democratic processes.

World Bank photos: road construction in Tajikistan and Nam Theum 2 project.

Examining the Redlands Dam

Last Sunday, hundreds of hikers and members of the Havasupai tribe had to be evacuated from a remote canyon connected to the Grand Canyon. Early press reports cited a statement from the National Park Service attributing the surge of water to the failure of the “Redlands Dam,” an earthen dam allegedly over 50 miles upstream. Scarce information about the dam was available on the web. It’s not one of the major dams in the state operated by the Bureau of Reclamation, and it doesn’t appear on this comprehensive state list.

The Arizona state geologist reports its now thought the dam breach was a minor contributor to the flood.

The dam, seen here, was created by a ranch to retain water.

Why might it have failed? According to this geologic study, the area of the dam contains deposits of coarse gravel, which makes a particularly bad foundation for a dam since the water can leak through air spaces in the material. Since the wash drains a huge area of desert, any unusual rain event can cause flooding so it seems reasonable the dam failure played a minor role.

However, there are larger dams in the state worrying officials. The Arizona Department of Water Resources maintains a list of unsafe dams in the state. Four dams are rated in the most serious category, “Unsafe Dams with Elevated Risk of Failure,” which the state thinks could fail during a “100-year or smaller flood event.” The dams are Fredonia, Powerline, Magma, and Cook Dams.

Although dam failures are generally rare, Wikipedia contributors have compiled this list of U.S. accidents. One of the most spectacular was the 1976 collapse of Teton Dam in Idaho, which luckily only killed 11.

Tolls More Equitable Than Sales Tax For Funding Freeways

You’ve heard the buzz about “Lexus Lanes,” a new trend where tolls are adjusted in order to keep some freeway lanes flowing smoothly. They’re related to the idea of charging higher prices for parking, or even a congestion charge such as the one considered for New York City. It’s widely thought the lanes are unfair, since they allow wealthy drivers to zip past congestion. There’s only one problem with that view: a new study disproved it, arguing instead toll lanes are more just than the usual method for funding highways, sales taxes.

Two California professors considered the issue in a new article titled, “Just Pricing: The Distributional Effects of Congestion Pricing and Sales Taxes.” The study found that the lanes were disproportionately used by middle and upper-middle income people, and that the tolls were regressive. So what’s the rub? It turns out the usual means for paying for transportation infrastructure, such as sales and gas taxes, are even more regressive than tolls. In fact, the study concludes that:

… if [sales tax] funds had been used to finance the express lanes, the study found, the poor and wealthy would have paid more. Middle- and upper-middle-income taxpayers would have paid $26 million less each year than they paid under the current cost-distribution system, and the very poorest residents would have paid over $3 million more than they actually did under the current toll system.

They conclude that “Using sales taxes to fund roadways creates substantial savings to drivers by shifting some of the costs of driving from drivers to consumers at large, and in the process disproportionately favors the more affluent at the expense of the impoverished.” The authors propose two policies to overcome the remaining regressive character of tolls: giving out free travel credits to low income commuters, or using the funds to invest in public transit. The comparison is between tolls and general sales taxes, not gas taxes, but I suspect gas taxes would have been only slightly less regressive than sales taxes. (Because the poor own fewer cars and drive less)

Previously I also suggested we should consider other benefits of congestion pricing in the equation – greater transportation choice for all (including low-income commuters), less pollution, and perhaps a shift in behavior towards transit, carpooling, or other more efficient modes. I also discussed before some of the implications for another form of congestion pricing — raising parking meter rates.

What most frustrates me with congestion pricing critics is not their concern — not enough research has been done on equity, and it is a valid point to discuss — but how misplaced it seems given our skewed policies. Our society is riddled with deeply regressive policies. Sales taxes, gas taxes, and lotteries are all known to be regressive. We spend more than twice as much money subsidizing housing for the rich than we do for the poor. The poor disproportionately live near sources of pollution, and consequently have higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and other diseases caused by environmental factors. Meanwhile, our public transit systems, critical lifelines to opportunity for the very poor, are crumbling. In that light, adopting less-regressive congestion pricing and spending some of the revenue on transit service seems like a good decision.

> UCLA: “Joint UCLA–USC study shows that toll roads are more fair than taxes”
> LATimes Blog: “Study finds congestion pricing doesn’t hurt the poor”

Smart Grid Pilot Program Launched

Over 1,000 D.C. homes are now equipped with smart electrical meters that record their hourly electricity usage, encourage conservation during peak times, and even automatically turn down the heat or A/C when electricity is most expensive. The meters are part of a pilot program starting this week to study how “price signals” can encourage consumers to save electricity by providing them with more information about the amount and price of power consumed.

Although the generation of electricity has been deregulated in Washington since 2001, about 99% of PEPCO customers subscribe to the Standard Offer Service, the rate charged to users who have not selected an alternate source. The cost of the electricity is calculated from the average rate of contracts from power plants, plus an administrative charge and taxes. The rate is changed yearly and only adjusted twice a year. This means that even though the generated supply and consumer demand for electricity can range widely, consumers have little incentive to modify their behavior. The idea is that by charging more to consumers during peak times (or, offering discounts for those who conserve at those times) will save consumers money and help PEPCO reduce the peak demand.

From the PEPCO announcement, here are the three pricing options the program is testing:

Under Hourly Pricing, electricity prices will vary hourly. The prices will be set a day ahead, based on prices in the “day ahead” wholesale market operated by PJM Interconnection, the regional power grid. Prices will be available on the project’s Web site or displayed real-time on “smart” thermostats. Based on recent wholesale market trends, hourly prices are expected to exceed conventional power supply prices only about a third of the time within a year, with lower prices the remainder of the time. Customers will be notified of high priced hours a day in advance through an automated phone call, an e-mail, text page or “smart” thermostat notification.

With Critical Peak Pricing, peak prices will be in effect for four hours on critical peak days, of which there are about 15 each year. These critical peak hours during which higher prices are charged will be limited to about 60 hours per year. Customers will be notified of these events the day before through an automated phone call, an e-mail, text page or “smart” thermostat notification. Prices during the critical peak hours will be substantially higher than conventional rates but will be offset by lower prices during the remaining 8,700 hours of the year.

Under Critical Peak Rebate, participants will continue to pay the same generation charges as the Standard Offer Service charged by Pepco. During critical peak events, however, customers can earn rebates by reducing their consumption below what they would normally have used during those times. Customers will be notified of these events the day before through an automated phone call, an e-mail, text page or “smart” thermostat notification.

Presumably the results from the program will help PEPCO decide which of the above policies to eventually extent to all residential customers. For now the program is closed since the program website reports they received a “tremendous” response from the 1,400 customers invited to participate one year ago. Although there’s not much there yet, one of the project’s sponsors, the D.C. Office of the People’s Council, has launched a blog to track the program.

In South Africa I experienced a related method for encouraging conservation: pre-paid electricity. We would purchase a fixed amount of electricity from an authorized seller such as a supermarket, and they would provide us a confirmation code we would enter into the meter in our rented home. The meter would recognize the code and display the total amount of electricity purchased, and slowly tick down the balance as you used it. In fact, the Wall Street Journal reported last year that “A half-dozen utilities are trying prepaid programs now, but that could accelerate quickly.” We found that a conspicuous meter in the kitchen ticking away our money made us highly aware of our power consumption. Participants in the Arizona program described by the Wall Street Journal cut their power usage 12%.

What about consumers generating their own power? Although PEPCO allows consumers to generate power for the grid from renewable technology through their Green Power Connection program, SproutDC pointed out in a previous comment that D.C. does not offer rebates or incentives for the installation of solar power systems like California or New Jersey.

More
> Power Cents DC
> DC Office of the People’s Council: D.C. Electric “SMART METER” Pilot Program Announcement, Blog
> PEPCO: Residential Pilot to Test “Smart Metering” for DC Electric Customers
> PR Newswire: Smart Metering and Demand Response Pilot Goes Live in Washington D.C.
> Wall Street Journal: “New Ways to Monitor Your Energy Use“