Seattle, urbanism, transportation and planning

Nigel calls our attention to this article, "What would Jane Jacobs do about the Viaduct?," from Crosscut. It is about Jane Jacobs type thinking and how it has been applied in Seattle, using the new book on Jane Jacobs, Wrestling with Moses by Anthony Flint as a fulcrum.

I wish we could get DC Councilmembers to think like this (from the article):

A big fan of Wrestling with Moses is Seattle city council member Tim Burgess. I had lunch with Burgess recently and over turkey sandwiches at Bakeman's, the legendary downtown cafeteria where Burgess has been eating since he was a Seattle beat cop in the '70s. He told me that he'd purchased copies of the book for every member of the city council and his own staff.

Burgess loved the book on several levels. One, he was struck by how Jacobs and a small and of ordinary folk were able to have such a huge impact. She not only stopped big projects pushed by Moses, but she changed the way people see cities, and the way urban activism is conducted. "She moved mountains and never gave up," he says.

He also loved the way Jacobs made a habit of studying street life in the neighborhoods, stopping to reflect on what was really happening at the level of the individual. "It's easy to get lost in the skyscrapers," Burgess says, and forget about life on the sidewalks. Burgess said it's inspired him to pay more attention to the streets, to watch what's going on, how people are using their neighborhoods. You often see photographs of Robert Moses looming over models of a miniature New York, a giant surveying his domain from 20,000 feet. Jacobs had her feet firmly planted on the ground. In my reading of the book, Jacobs comes across as kind of an urban John Muir, with Greenwich Village as her Yosemite.

Councilmember Burgess believes that the Seattle Viaduct, Highway 99, should be replaced with a tunnel, not a surface street boulevard, because a significant amount of the traffic is commercial--large trucks--and it is through traffic (not trying to get to and stay downtown). In short, a surface boulevard Highway 99 would be congested with trucks, ruining the quality of being on the street. (It happens that while I am no expert on Seattle, I agree, given the nature of the options and the nature of the traffic.)

There are many other interesting articles about urbanism and transportation in Crosscut right now, such as "Walkable cities? So how come pedestrian malls usually fail?," "Will a new mayor think boldly about planning?,"Metro's dilemma: high demand, thin wallet," and "Why the West deserves more rail service."

Of course, I like this article very much, "The coming Metro Transit cuts are a rare opportunity." From the article:

King County can take one of two paths to deal with excessive costs, looming service reductions, and the outdated policy of regional equity. It can “spread the pain” and make simple broad-stroke across-the-board budget cuts and service reductions. Alternatively, it can view the situation as a strategic inflection point — that time in the life of an organization when circumstances force it to adapt to new reality — and use the crisis as an opportunity help shape the future we want. To date the Metro debate has focused on the first path. I hope that King County will step back and take a broader look at the situation.

There are a number of strategic and tactical steps Metro can take to use the crisis as an opportunity to shape the region’s future. First, the failed "20-40-40" service allocation formula must be scrapped. Originally put in place as a political way to make each region of the county feel there was some degree of equity in the allocation of service, it has instead created an artificial barrier to the county’s ability to shape regional mobility and support our growth management goals. (The 20-40-40 percentages refer to Seattle, Eastside, and South King County respectively.)

The formula also fails to meet any rational definition of equity for a population moving around the region, taking trips that cross artificial boundaries daily. Measuring effort by neighborhood benefits no one moving between neighborhoods. Further, it has created a system that measures effort rather than performance and results in unacceptability high costs by almost every measure. The Municipal League has documented the agency’s high cost per mile. While that figure is troubling, the high cost per rider is cause for even greater alarm as it clearly indicates that the system’s routes aren’t as productive as they should be.

As a policy, 20-40-40 also fails the test of shaping mobility for the region. There is no understandable tie to our regional growth management plans, and no ties to city permitting. Metro’s strategic policy should be to put buses where they work, and where we want them to work. Putting buses where they work (drawing good ridership) will maximize the performance of the system in those markets where transit can dominate: Downtown Seattle, the University District, Bellevue, and SeaTac. These are job centers already dense enough to make transit successful, and they are designated as growth centers for regional employment. They are the “cash cows” of the system.

The transit system in the DC region doesn't have the same exact kinds of problems of conceptualization as does King County, but we do have relatively arbitrary political allocations and decision making getting in the way of transit service. Plus the leadership, structure, funding, and oversight issues, not to mention the lack of real regional transportation planning means that the DC region has many wrenching issues with transit and transportation planning too, just like Seattle and King County.

Although Seattle at least has its Urban Mobility Plan. Were DC proper to have such a plan I can only dream. (The Master Transportation Plan for Arlington County comes close.)

I'm going to have to add Crosscut to my regular review list (even though I am buried in online and print media as it is).