Post #11: Adventures in Micromobility - Part 1

The American love affair with the automobile is starting to wane.  Not that the car is going to vanish anytime soon, but other transportation options which were either of limited popularity or which didn’t even exist 10 years ago are now commonplace.  Consider, for example, a class of transportation known as “micromobility” which consists of small vehicles focused on individual users taking relatively short trips.

The most familiar example is bicycling which has been around for over 100 years but which is enjoying a significant boost in popularity and in total miles traveled.  What is new with bicycling is the introduction in many cities of shared bike systems which allow users to easily rent a bike for a short trip, thus doing away with the cost of bike ownership and the hassles of storing and protecting the bike at the end of each trip.  Electrically assisted bikes have also proliferated in the last 10 years which has both extended the range of a reasonable bike trip and reduced the effort required.

The micromobility category also includes electric scooters which range from powered and ruggedized versions of kick scooters (generally referred to as “e-scooters), to electric mo-peds, to “Vespa-like” electric scooters, to full-fledged electric motorcycles capable of highway speeds.  All of these options are generally viewed as being more economical, more environmentally friendly, and more fun than a trip in an automobile.

The Scale of Growth

Unfortunately, there is no comprehensive source of trip data that can account for all the various forms of micromobility trips.  The best data comes from shared systems where the user has to explicitly rent the bike or scooter for each trip.  While this excludes privately owned bikes and scooters, it at least gives a sense of the growth in the number of trips taken and their general popularity.

In their report on 2019 travel using shared micromobility systems, the National Association of City Transportation Officials (NACTO) estimated that there were 136 million trips in 2019 -- up 60 percent from 2018 (1).  To put the rate of growth in perspective, the number of trips in 2019 exceeded the sum of all shared micromobility trips from 2010 through 2017.  This is partly due to the explosive growth in the number of cities with shared bike systems, but it is also due to the advent of shared systems for e-scooters which have only been on the market for the past 3 years.  In 2019, 50 million trips were taken on shared bike systems (up from 35 million in 2017) and 86 million trips were taken on electric scooter systems (up from virtually zero in 2017).  

I do not anticipate that this rate of growth will continue into the future.  Already, there has been some consolidation in the shared e-scooter market and some companies have withdrawn from certain markets to focus on others.  I do, however, expect the number of micromobility trips to continue to grow (just not as rapidly as the past couple of years) and I do expect continued innovation in the number and design of micromobility vehicles.

It is also important to point out that despite the impressive growth, the percentage of all trips taken by micromobility options is a very small number.  However, there are at least two reasons why micromobility needs to be taken seriously as a mode of urban transportation:

1.  Micromobility travel can be a substantial benefit to people who are unable to travel by car -- expanding their geographic range for living, working, education and shopping; and 

2. Even relatively small percentage reductions in trip volumes by car (or perhaps reductions in the growth of trips by car) can result in significant reductions in traffic congestion and the need for roadway expansions.

A Focus on Scooters

In this post, I’m going to focus on stand-up e-scooters -- the type that can be seen parked on street corners in most major cities and which are increasingly for sale online and in major retail outlets.  Throughout the coming year, I hope to touch on other forms of micromobility in order to gain a better understanding of the advantages and limitations of this growing form of transportation.

In order to conduct thorough and exhaustive research (wink, wink), I recently purchased a Bird Air scooter for my personal use.  The model I bought is in the middle of the pack as far as scooters go -- substantial enough for a serious commuter but lacking high-end features such as a full suspension, disc brakes or dual motors.  It is roughly comparable to the scooters used by Bird, Lime, Spin and others for their shared e-scooter systems except for three notable differences:  (1) my scooter has a stem that folds down and clips to the rear fender so that it can be easily picked up and carried; (2) the battery on my scooter is smaller to reduce weight; and (3) my scooter has no need for the GPS tracking and rental authorization systems that the shared scooters need for their commercial operations.

In addition to my own personal scooter, I have also used a shared e-scooter system by Lime in downtown Dallas when I was attending a convention in 2019.  E-scooter systems are now operating in over 100 cities in the US and over 50 in Europe.  Most of these cities now have regulations in place to address some of the problems that cropped up when scooter systems first appeared.  And while problems still exist to some degree, in most places scooters have become an accepted part of the transportation landscape and the behavior of scooter users and companies seems to have improved.

The Advantages

The micromobility sector in general, and the e-scooter segment in particular, are aimed at short trips.  Nationally, about a third of all trips are less than 2 miles in length which means there is a large pool of trips which could potentially shift to a micromobility product.  In a suburban setting, using a car for a short trip is reasonably convenient but in a more urban setting where parking and traffic congestion are more of an issue, a short trip by car can seem like more hassle than it is worth.  Enter the e-scooter and other micromobility solutions.  My experience has convinced me that e-scooters can be a great option -- with some limitations -- for trips that are a few blocks to two or three miles in length.

In general, e-scooters travel about the same speed as a bicycle, 10 to 15 miles per hour.  This is  roughly three to four times faster than typical walking speed.  Thus, the first two advantages of an e-scooter are that it (1) is much faster than walking and (2) requires none of the effort of either walking or biking.  Riding a scooter simply entails pushing off with one foot to get the scooter rolling and then pressing down on the throttle, and off it glides like a modern day magic carpet.  It takes no more skill or balance than riding a bike and it is far more accommodating of people who are dressed up for work.

Planners generally assume that the average person would be willing to walk roughly half a mile if sufficiently motivated.  Residents of highly urbanized areas are probably used to walking further and suburban residents often head back to their cars if they have to walk more than a block.  But an e-scooter makes trips of a mile or two seem like nothing.  In fact, this brings up advantage number three:  I found that riding an e-scooter was an absolute blast.  I’m sure it gets old after a while, but I’m still in the phase where I’m looking for reasons to take it for a spin.

Advantage number four is that e-scooters pair well with transit for longer trips.  If your commute to work, for example, involves a transit system that is an inconvenient distance from your residence and/or your place of work, an e-scooter is an excellent solution to that proverbial “first mile/last mile” problem.  Using a shared scooter system is probably the most obvious option provided you live and work in areas where scooters are readily available.  Simply locate the nearest scooter on your phone app, ride to the transit stop, park it on the street corner and board your bus, train or subway.  

In areas not well served by shared scooter systems, a personal scooter like mine works almost as well.  Simply ride to the transit stop, fold the scooter to its collapsed position and carry it on board.  A 30 pound scooter that is roughly a foot wide and a yard long is slightly awkward to carry with you but I have done it on our local bus system without any significant problems.  At the work end of the trip, simply unfold the scooter and ride to your place of employment.  Ideally, you would be able to fold it up again and take it inside to your office or workstation.

The fifth and final advantage is that e-scooter trips do, in fact, replace trips that would have otherwise utilized an automobile.  Studies in Portland (2) and Santa Monica (3) estimate that roughly a third to perhaps as many as half of scooter trips would have otherwise involved a car (either a personal vehicle or a ride-share vehicle like Uber or Lyft).  This can be a significant benefit in congested areas.  Another third of scooter trips replaced what would have otherwise been walking trips which raises an interesting issue.  While riding an e-scooter is more environmentally friendly than using a car, it is less environmentally friendly than walking.  Thus, it is not clear that scooters are as green as their proponents like to claim, particularly for shared scooter systems that require employees in trucks to pick up, re-charge and re-deploy the scooters each night. (4)

The Disadvantages

Although useful, scooters are far from perfect.  Problem number one, in my opinion, is safety.  Santa Monica reported 122 collisions in an 18-month period of time, ten percent of which resulted in serious injuries.  Undoubtedly, there were numerous other incidents that were never reported.  Nearly half of the reported collisions were with vehicles.  Another seven percent involved collisions with pedestrians and 18 percent involved collisions with fixed objects.  The remainder simply lost their balance and fell off.  Collisions are an even greater risk at night when a scooter’s minimal lighting makes the rider almost invisible to cars and makes obstacles harder to see.

I don’t want to overstate the problem because the number of accidents is quite small compared with the number of trips taken.  But since scooter riders are relatively unprotected, when accidents occur the results can be serious.  My experience has been that with a little common sense, riding an e-scooter can be quite safe but it does require constant awareness of both roadway hazards (e.g. potholes) and vehicular traffic.  The safest place for a scooter rider to be is in a bike lane, but particularly in the midwest, those are not nearly as prevalent as they ought to be.

Problem number two is weather.  Although many scooters are water resistant, I personally would not ride in the rain and I certainly would avoid riding in icy or snowy conditions.  Cold weather might deter some riders although I don’t think it would be any worse than walking.  The bottom line, however, is that in the midwest there are going to be a significant number of days in which a scooter is not a good transportation option.  This means, for example, that scooter commuters need to have a “plan B” ready for days when the weather is not cooperative.  In fact, many scooter sharing companies remove scooters from the streets when they deem the weather to be too adverse for safe riding.

Problem number three is the often haphazard parking of e-scooters in ways which create obstacles for pedestrians or people with disabilities.  This is a problem common with any “dockless” system that allows riders to end their rides pretty much anywhere, but scooters users seem to be worse at parking appropriately than dockless bike users.  Although all scooter systems give their users guidance on how to properly park the scooter at the end of the trip, that advice is disregarded too often.  Some cities have created scooter “drop zones” in areas that are popular destinations to avoid clogging sidewalks, but that is only a partial solution.

The fourth problem is also essentially a rider behavior problem.  Too many scooters are ridden in a way that either directly threatens pedestrians or at least makes them uncomfortable.  Ideally, e-scooters should never be ridden on a sidewalk but the world is not always an ideal place.  When I used a scooter sharing system in downtown Dallas, there were times when traffic congestion was so heavy that I felt extremely unsafe riding in the street.  Nonexistent bike lanes and narrow streets meant that I had to either take an entire lane of traffic -- in which case I became a traffic obstruction -- or I had to ride on the sidewalk and do my best to weave around pedestrians as safely as possible.

The final problem is that scooters have limited carrying capacity.  There is room for one person, and that person can have a backpack or over-the-shoulder handbag but that is about it.  The handlebar stem could probably support a plastic bag containing a few small items but this is not the vehicle you want for picking up the kids from daycare or shopping at Costco.  Of course, scooters were never intended for those kinds of trips, but it is a definite limitation that you have to keep in mind.

Impact on Urban Design

It is always dangerous to extrapolate a short-term trend into a longer term projection.  There are certainly plausible scenarios where e-scooter usage either continues its explosive growth, plateaus (or grows only modestly), or turns out to be a short-lived fad and fades from the urban scene.  If I had to bet, I’d probably pick the plateau/slow growth projection.  I think the most lucrative markets have already been tapped for shared scooter systems and I think only a handful of companies will make enough profit to survive over the long haul.  The companies that figure out the most efficient path to profitability will continue to expand incrementally to places that fit their operational model but there are many communities that won’t have the right combination of factors to make scooter sharing feasible. There is a substantial amount of innovation taking place with scooters made for private ownership, however, and that leads me to believe that growth will continue but at a modest pace as niche players fill in the gaps around the larger players.

Consequently, I think cities need to take this form of travel seriously and include e-scooters in their future planning and design efforts.  The approach I recommend is to view scooters as an alternate form of bicycle travel.  Cities should continue their efforts to create more bike lanes, bike routes and shared trails.  These efforts will support the continued growth of both bike trips and scooter trips.  Improving bike/scooter infrastructure is most crucial in areas of moderate to high density where traffic congestion is generally greatest.  Unfortunately, most cities focus exclusively on increasing vehicular capacity in congested areas when in many situations increasing micromobility capacity and pedestrian capacity would be more effective.  Obviously, there are no blanket solutions that work in every situation, but cities should not assume that vehicular capacity trumps everything else.

Secondly, cities should strive to maintain a grid of streets and avoid the suburban tendency toward endless cul-de-sacs that force all traffic onto major streets.  Scooters and other micromobility options work well on side streets where both speed limits and vehicular traffic volumes are lower as long as the side streets can get you where you want to go.

Finally, cities should look for underutilized areas in or adjacent to the public right-of-way for scooter drop zones and bike-share docking stations.  This might even require sacrificing an occasional parking space or two, but I think the potential of micromobility is substantial enough to make this bet worthwhile.  As I have mentioned in previous posts, street design needs to accommodate the full range of transportation options and not be focused exclusively on automotive traffic.

Thoughts?  As always, share your thoughts and ideas by leaving a comment below or sending me an email at doug@midwesturbanism.com.  Want to be notified whenever I add a new posting?  Send me an email with your name and email address.

 

 

 

Notes:

1.  Shared Mobility in the U.S.:  2019; National Association of City Transportation Officials; https://nacto.org/shared-micromobility-2019/ 

2. PBOT Releases Results of E-Scooter User Survey; Portland Bureau of Transportation; October, 2018; https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/article/700917

3. Shared Mobility Pilot Program Summary Report; City of Santa Monica, California;  November, 2019; https://www.smgov.net/uploadedFiles/Departments/PCD/Transportation/SantaMonicaSharedMobilityEvaluation_Final_110419.pdf

4. “Are shared e-scooters good for the planet?  Only if they replace car trips”; Jeremiah Johnson; Fast Company; August 2019; https://www.fastcompany.com/90385500/are-shared-e-scooters-good-for-the-planet-only-if-they-replace-car-trips#:~:text=Surveys%20show%20that%20about%20one,made%20

Post #10: Should Transit Fares Be Eliminated?

 There’s nothing like a pandemic to make you rethink the basic assumptions of modern life.  Because of COVID-19, we are rethinking the way we work, the way we shop, the way we socialize, the way we educate and a dozen other aspects of our daily routine.  Who knows how long all of this will last?  Some say that we are defining a new normal and we will never go back to the way things were.  Others think we will return to the old normal as soon as an effective vaccine is widely available. 

During all this “rethinking,” there has been a lot written about what all of this means for our society.  One of the most thought-provoking articles that I have read is entitled “In a Pandemic, we are all ‘Transit Dependent’ “ by Jarret Walker (Bloomberg CityLab).  If you have any interest in this topic, I encourage you to read the whole article.  For the purposes of this post, I’m going to selectively quote at length several sections that I think are particularly interesting:

“Right now, essential services have to keep going. It's not just the hospital, the grocery store, and basic utilities.  It’s the entire supply chain that keeps those places stocked, running, and secure. Almost all of these jobs are low-wage. The people using transit now are working in hospitals that are saving lives. They are creating, shipping and selling urgently needed supplies. They are keeping grocery stores functioning, so we can eat.

 

In transit conversations we often talk about meeting the needs of people who depend on transit. This makes transit sound like something we’re doing for them. But in fact, those people are providing services that we all depend on, so by serving those lower income riders, we’re all serving ourselves.”

 

. . . 

 

“What’s more, transit has always been doing that. Those “essential service” workers, who are overwhelmingly low-income, have always been there, moving around quietly in our transit systems, keeping our cities functioning. Too often, we have patronized them by calling them needy or dependent when in fact everything would collapse if they couldn’t get to work.”

. . . 

“ . . . we have to stop talking about transit as though ridership is its only purpose, and its primary measure of success . . .” (1)

This article was obviously written with the pandemic in mind and with a particular focus on the enormous impact that the pandemic has had on transit systems across the country.  It did not advocate for zero-fare transit, but reading it made me think about transit in much broader terms.  If transit is more than just a service to move mostly poor people from one place to another, then what are those other services that it provides and which ones are important enough to be considered primary?  And if ridership numbers (and ridership fare revenues) are not its primary measure of success (and a necessary source of funding) then how should we measure success and how should we fund transit?

The Economic Importance of Movement

Hundreds of years ago, the locations of ‘home’ and ‘work’ were very tightly aligned.  Farmers lived adjacent to their fields, miners often lived in company housing near the mine shafts, artisans and merchants generally lived above their shops.  Most people not only walked to work, they walked to market and to church and to social gatherings as well.  Even if you had access to an oxen-drawn cart or a horse-drawn carriage, the working classes weren’t likely to travel very far and so their economic and social worlds were very tightly constrained.

Fast forward to today and we have built our economies and our cities around the assumption that everyone -- workers, shoppers, students, babysitters, etc. -- can reliably travel 10, 20 or 30 miles on demand and without complaint.  Midwestern cities in particular, are so spread out that it is almost impossible to live a normal life without the ability to travel significant distances on a daily basis.  And midwestern transit systems generally have such limited coverage and frequency that meeting transportation needs means owning a car for the vast majority of households (typically well over 80 percent of all households).  The end result is that the average household spends over 15 percent of their budget on transportation costs.  

This is a burden that most middle- and upper-income families are willing to pay because we value the freedom that comes with car ownership.  For lower income households, however, the need to own a car (or two) often causes trade-offs with other essentials such as food, shelter, medical care or clothing.  For these households, the ability to reduce the amount spent on transportation would have significant quality-of-life benefits.

From a business perspective, attracting a reliable workforce that is willing to work for modest wages is increasingly difficult.  Low-wage jobs represent a large proportion of all jobs, particularly in service sector industries such as retail, health care, and leisure and hospitality.  For businesses that are heavily dependent on low-wage workers, transit is a form of business subsidy.  Without transit, they would have to pay their workers more and might potentially face increased costs for things like on-site parking.  This is particularly true in big cities with extensive transit service and high transit usage such as New York, Chicago or San Francisco.  It is less of a subsidy, although still important, in most mid-sized midwestern cities where transit moves a smaller percentage of the workforce.

Finally, increasing workforce mobility provides other economic benefits.  From the worker’s perspective, increased mobility means a expanded range of potential jobs, which is particularly important for low-income families who are trying to work their way up the economic spectrum.  Increased job opportunities mean increased chances for career advancement.  From a business’s perspective, increased mobility means a larger pool of potential job applicants which should result in better labor performance and increased profitability.

In short, providing transit service is a way to make the economy of the city work better, with benefits to both labor and business.  Unfortunately, analyzing the benefit versus the cost of subsidizing transit has historically been difficult.  It may be, however, that having an effective transit system is now becoming a minimum requirement for even participating in the corporate relocation game.  The recent search by Amazon for a second headquarters included a requirement of direct access to rail, subway or robust bus routes.  

“The emphasis on transit seems to be creating, in particular, something of a come-to-Jesus moment for cities where high-level service has long been an afterthought. Cities with legacy subway systems, such as Boston and Washington, D.C., have risen to the top of more than one ranking; so has Denver, with its relatively forgiving traffic and expanded rail investments. In weeks of speculation and showdowns, a lack of transit connectivity has been one of the great presumed disqualifiers for other towns.” (2)

Of course, the Amazon headquarters was definitely an outlier in economic development terms, especially for midwestern cities who probably didn’t stand much of a chance right from the beginning.  But a functional and resilient transportation infrastructure -- including transit -- is likely to be crucial for cities that want to be considered an up-and-coming economic power.

 

Additional Benefits of Transit

 

Aside from moving people to work, transit offers other benefits that are probably less understood and less appreciated.  The fact that these impacts may be hard to measure doesn’t mean that they should be completely ignored:

 

Transportation congestion.  Each person riding transit is one person not driving a car, thus theoretically reducing congestion.  And the cost of congestion is not just time wasted in traffic.  At a sufficient scale, it might be a multi-million dollar road widening project that is no longer needed.  I think this is a difficult benefit to sell, however, until roadway congestion gets to a level higher than is common in midwestern cities.

 

Reduced environmental impact.  Twenty people riding transit have less environmental impact than twenty separate car trips.  Tailpipe emissions are an obvious measure, but there are other elements to this such as reduced particulates from tires, reduced stormwater runoff from parking lots, etc.  If younger generations continue their concern about climate change and environmental health, the value of this benefit will increase significantly.

 

Improved transportation safety.  Transit systems have significantly fewer fatalities per passenger mile traveled than individually driven cars and trucks.  To the degree that low-income drivers can switch to transit, the impact may be disproportionately higher given that the alternative might be a trip in a poorly maintained vehicle or a vehicle without proper insurance.

 

Improved livability.  Increased mobility is important from a social perspective as well as an economic one.  Transit improves access to educational options, healthcare options, food options, and cultural options.  Again, translating this benefit to dollars is difficult, but the benefit is real, particularly for low- and moderate-income households.

 

Setting the Price for Transit

 

Virtually all forms of transportation have been supported and subsidized by some level of government.  But at the same time, all forms of transportation (with the exception of walking) have historically imposed some out-of-pocket cost to the user.  I have to buy a ticket if I want to fly commercially or ride on Amtrak.  I have to purchase a car and gas if I want to drive.  Even biking requires that I purchase (or rent) my own bicycle.  And transit riders, of course, have historically had to pay a fare.

 

I think this dual form of financial support -- part paid by government and part paid by the individual -- reflects our societal view of transportation having dual benefits.  Efficient options for moving people and things benefits our society as a whole -- hence the subsidy -- but also benefits the individual -- hence the cost borne by each user.  There is an undeniable logic to this approach.  If I decide to fly to New York to visit my daughter, the benefit is primarily mine so why shouldn’t I have to pay the cost of an airline ticket?

 

There is also the argument that putting a price on a thing or service sends a signal about how much of that thing or service is needed.  If I can get hamburgers for free, I’m likely to eat far more hamburgers than I need.  The price on a hamburger is a signal to the marketplace that regulates supply and demand to keep them in reasonable balance.  For a service like transit that seems to constantly be the subject of debate in terms of whether we provide too little or too much, having a price would seem to be a reasonable way to not only share the cost with users but also indicate the level of demand and thus the appropriate level of supply.

 

The problem is that there is no true marketplace for transportation.  The web of governmental subsidies and regulatory support is so complex and impenetrable that any semblance of a market is mostly an artificial facade in place to fool ourselves into thinking that our decisions are a logical result of supply and demand.  There has been no real analysis of societal versus individual benefits in setting the level of governmental support; there have simply been political choices that have been made which seemed reasonable (or politically palatable) at the time.

 

In the 1800s, for example, our country decided that train travel was crucial to our growth and so enormous subsidies were granted to the railroads to spur rapid expansion.  In the 1900s, the emphasis shifted to the automobile and so trillions of dollars were spent on the construction and maintenance of streets, highways, bridges and parking lots.  So perhaps the relevant question is what choices do we as a society want to make relative to transportation in the future?

 

Is Transit a Library or a Swimming Pool?

 

Government provides a wide range of services to the public and, presumably, all of them are generally beneficial to the community.  But the way in which those services are funded can vary widely from service to service.  Swimming pools, for example, charge a fee to people who want to use the pool but pools almost never cover their costs through fee revenue.  They are almost always heavily subsidized by local government because giving residents the option to go swimming on a hot summer day is seen as an important benefit to the community.

 

Libraries, on the other hand, almost never have user fees and are generally funded primarily through property taxes.  Why the difference?  Perhaps our society places a greater emphasis on the core purposes of a library (education and an informed public) than those of a swimming pool (recreation and relief from the heat).  If that is correct, where does transit fall?

 

I think it is certainly possible to argue that transit is an essential service in modern society and that providing it at no cost to the user would create a community benefit, both economically and socially, that is greater than the cost of eliminating transit fares.  This will be particularly true if the transit system provides a high level of service connecting residential areas for low- and moderate-income residents with a wide variety of daily destinations -- but especially employment centers with a large proportion of service-sector jobs.  Unfortunately, the argument is not so strong or compelling that it is likely to convince most cities to reverse the historical precedent of charging fares for riders.

 

The Kansas City Experiment

 

As it happens, my hometown of Kansas City is one of a small handful of major cities moving toward free transit service on a regular basis, not just during a pandemic.  And it has happened in two different ways with differing funding sources.

 

First, Kansas City opened a streetcar line in 2016 that from the outset did not charge any ridership fare.  The initial system is a modest 2.2 miles in length, but plans are in motion for two extensions that will increase the corridor to more than six miles.  The system has been reasonably successful with ridership levels growing over time and a substantial level of real estate investment in the corridor over the past few years.

 

The system is operated by the Kansas City Streetcar Authority which is funded through local taxes from a transportation development district.  This district covers an area surrounding the streetcar route by roughly a third of a mile.  Within the district, there is a 1-cent sales tax, a special assessment on property, and a special assessment on surface parking lots in the downtown.  This is an interesting approach to funding since studies have shown that property values and commercial rents tend to go up near transit routes, particularly fixed route systems such as streetcars or light rail. (3)   Consequently, the additional taxes (at least in theory) are offset by an increase in economic value.

 

In a second but unrelated initiative, recently elected Mayor Quinton Lucas has been pushing to eliminate fares on Kansas City’s bus system.  Last December the City Council voted unanimously to approve his plan, but the source of the necessary $8 to $9 Million dollars has not been identified.  This initiative is possible in Kansas City because fares currently account for only 12 percent of the total system funding, and eliminating fares also eliminates fare collection costs so the net impact is somewhat less than 12 percent of revenue.

The “no transit fare” initiative appears to have a primarily social equity focus emphasizing the need to improve transportation options for low income families.  One problem, however, is that Kansas City’s bus system has historically had relatively low ridership and relatively infrequent service on many of its routes (30 or 60 minute intervals).  Eliminating fares may help boost ridership numbers to some degree, but frequency of service is often as important if not more important to potential transit users.  This puts the bus system in the extremely awkward position of needing a significant budget increase to increase the frequency of service at the same time it is eliminating fares.

 

In any case, transit planning should not be about existing riders, or existing jobs, or existing traffic patterns.  Transit planning is a long-term play that must be part of a multi-pronged effort to improve urban life.  The land uses that are allowed to develop (or redevelop) along transit routes will play a huge role in long-term success.  There should be a concerted effort to supplement transit lines by allowing increased density and a wide variety of land uses.  In addition, transit corridors should be a focal point for sidewalks, bike routes, scooter sharing and bike sharing facilities to bolster multimodal trip options. 

 

To really make a difference in travel patterns, transit needs to do more than simply get people to their job -- it needs to be able to provide access to a wide range of daily destinations so that families can function without a car or with only one car instead of two.  The beauty of a no-fare system is that it becomes easy to use for short trips to the grocery store, or the barbershop, or the dry cleaners.  With no fare to worry about, a six-block trip is much more likely than if a $1.50 fare is required, which means that it is much more likely to be a frequent piece of everyday life rather than just a tool for commuting to work.

 

Will the Kansas City experiment work?  I have no idea, but I think it is a worthwhile effort to improve the quality of life for low-income households and may well pay economic development dividends as well.  I certainly prefer this type of an urban initiative to multi-million dollar subsidies to sports stadiums or convention hotels.

 

Thoughts?  As always, share your thoughts and ideas by leaving a comment below or sending me an email at doug@midwesturbanism.com.  Want to be notified whenever I add a new posting?  Send me an email with your name and email address.

 

 

Notes:

1.  “In a Pandemic, We Are All ‘Transit Dependent’ “; Jarrett Walker; Bloomberg CityLab, April 2020.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-07/in-a-pandemic-we-re-all-transit-dependent

2. “Amazons HQ2 Hunt is a Transit Reckoning”; Laura Bliss;  Bloomberg CityLab, September 2017.  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-28/amazon-hq2-search-is-a-reckoning-for-transit

3. “Want Higher Property Values and Lower Transportation Costs?  Move within a Half Mile of Transit.”;  Mass Transit, October 2019.  https://www.masstransitmag.com/management/press-release/21110162/want-higher-property-values-and-lower-transportation-costs-move-within-half-a-mile-of-transit

Post #9: Building Mixed Use Density - Part 3

In my two previous posts in this series, I explained why I believe that midwestern cities need to raise their overall density and I discussed some key issues in the design of mixed use districts.  Although what I’m advocating isn’t really “high density” when looked at from a big city perspective, in most midwestern cities it is likely to perceived as high density because it is likely to be substantially denser than what most people are used to given the low density sprawl to which we have all become accustomed.  Consequently, these mixed use developments should be carefully placed in locations where they really make sense, not scattered willy-nilly across the community if you want to minimize community opposition and maximize the chances for a successful development.  Evaluating locational options will be the subject of this post.

Before I get into the details of what constitutes a good location for mixed use density, there are two concepts that decision makers need to understand.  One deals with the profit motivations of developers and the other deals with the default assumptions underlying many NIMBY arguments.

The easiest way to make money.  The value of land in an urban area is generally defined by the amount of development potential that the land holds.  The higher the development potential, the higher the price per square foot of land area.  There are obviously a lot of practical considerations that go into making this determination such as the market demand for the type of development being proposed, the capacity of adjacent roads and utility infrastructure, or the shape and topography of the land itself.

But there is also a regulatory component as well which is the way in which the land has been zoned by the city, and the way in which it has been designated in the city’s long-term plans.  The zoning designation generally places very specific limits on development potential through both use and density restrictions that apply to any new development.  A city’s long-term plans come into play when a zoning change is contemplated since zoning changes should (in theory at least) be in compliance with those long-term plans adopted by the city.

The simplest way to make money in the development business is to find a parcel of land that meets the practical needs of your development idea but which has restrictive zoning limitations in place.  Those zoning restrictions limit its perceived development value to “X” dollars, but that can change if the developer can convince the governing body of the city to change the zoning designation to allow more intensive development.  One vote by the governing body can change the value of that parcel from X dollars to 2X or 3X or even 4X, and make a great deal of profit for the developer without moving any dirt or building any buildings.

This is why development proposals often seem to be coming “out of left field.”  While it is certainly possible that a developer has identified unforeseen potential in property that will make the community better as well as make the developer a profit, it is equally possible that the proposal will benefit only the developer and end up being disruptive for everyone else.  City leaders should be skeptical whenever a proposal requires a zoning change that is dramatically different from the existing designation or the adopted long-range land use plans.

Why does everyone oppose everything?  The world is changing, and that change is happening at an accelerating pace.  In my opinion, we are reaching the point at which change is happening faster than the average person’s capacity to adapt to change.  The result is that many people feel that their current lifestyle is threatened and they are scared that the future will be worse rather than better.  Scared people seek refuge, and for many that refuge is their home.

Little wonder then, that development proposals often stir up neighborhood opposition because they are seen as threatening that last refuge.  The status quo may not be perfect, but it is a known quantity.  Far better than a hard-to-understand development proposal brought forward by developers assumed to be self-serving and greedy, and approved by politicians assumed to be corrupt or easily swayed by big business.

I believe the level of neighborhood animosity is as much related to the level of the perceived threat brought on by societal change as it is by the specifics of the development proposal.  A bad proposal, of course, will rightly anger the neighbors, but even relatively benign proposals can generate opposition from those who are simply tired of change.  This often takes the form of an irrational nostalgia for the “way things used to be” paired with highly exaggerated assessments of development impacts such as traffic, noise or crime.  The end result is an increasingly rabid level of opposition that is resistant to logic and reasoned discussion.

If left unanswered, this type of opposition can lead to the election of local leaders who are so anti-development that they vote against virtually all development proposals that deviate from the way things were done in the past.  While this might be popular with those citizens threatened by change, in my opinion it is disastrous for cities trying to prepare for a future that almost assuredly will be different than the past.

Where moderate density, mixed use districts make sense

 I think there are three keys to finding good locations for mixed use density.  They are not all necessarily essential, but the most successful projects tend to have some elements of all three factors.  There may, of course, be local issues that also come into play and can eliminate an otherwise promising site.  I don’t mean to ignore local issues, but I’m going to focus on more universal concerns that I think apply across virtually all midwestern cities.

Build where infrastructure already exists.  In previous posts, I have talked about the dire financial conditions that many cities find themselves in and the need to increase tax density in areas that already have municipal infrastructure and services.  Moderate density, mixed use districts have a much higher tax value per acre than traditional, suburban style development.  But to maximize the benefit, it needs to be built where infrastructure is already in place which means we are typically talking about the redevelopment of an older part of town rather than new

development on the edge of town.  As is generally the case with redevelopment, there may be a need for some selective infrastructure upgrades, but these are almost always far cheaper than extending infrastructure into areas where nothing currently exists.  In nearly every midwestern city, infrastructure was designed and built with excess capacity, which means that density increases can almost always be handled without significant problems.

One type of infrastructure deserves special attention and that is alternative transportation systems.  One of the important lifestyle benefits that can help mixed use developments be successful is the ability to substitute walking, biking or transit for what would otherwise be an auto-based trip.  Some people may not take advantage of those options while others might reduce their car usage by 10 or 20 percent.  In either case, the value of having alternative transportation options is real and the target demographics for this type of development will pay for that value.  This means that moderate density, mixed use development should be located on or near existing transit services, or at least be located where future transit service is seriously contemplated.  It also means that they should be located in areas with good sidewalks, crosswalks, and bike lanes or bike routes.

Build near other interesting stuff.  The concept of building a new town from scratch has intrigued planners ever since the inception of the profession.  It has been done, but it is hard work and it takes a long time and a lot of money.  The New Town at St Charles is a midwestern example that has been at least moderately successful.  The problem is that building a “new town” on the fringe of a metropolitan area may appear urban, but it really is just a slightly different form of suburban sprawl.  Almost all of these developments end up being expensive to live in and very auto-dependent.

A far better approach, in my opinion, is to build or redevelop in a much more “close in” location and in a more incremental way.  Finding a location that is near employment, cultural, shopping, or entertainment opportunities will make each development project more successful and will build an economically sustainable mixed use district much faster.  This is why old warehouse districts on the edge of traditional downtowns often get converted to art galleries, loft apartments and coffee houses.  The old warehouses offer cheap and flexible space, but the nearby office buildings and cultural institutions make the location marketable because there are thousands of people who are already drawn to the area. 

This approach is also likely to attract multiple developers who each want to do their own project.  Not only does this speed up the creation of a critical mass of development momentum, but it also brings a creative diversity that tends to energize the area.

Build where there are clear signs of economic distress.  This final point may be a bit counter-intuitive.  Wouldn’t it be better to build in an area that is already successful?  Adding onto an already successful district is fine, but if you really want to maximize the impact on your city, find an area where mixed use density can be an economic shot in the arm that turns a declining area into a vibrant area.

This approach has two added advantages.  First, land is likely to be cheaper and land owners more willing to sell.  In most midwestern cities, building mixed use density is riskier than doing standard suburban development so finding land at a discount makes it easier to attract investors and financing.  

Second, existing businesses and residents are likely to be more receptive to something different and more intensive if they can see that their area is in decline.  As noted above, some people may be yearning for the area to return to its former glory regardless of how unlikely that may be.  Their opposition, however, will have far less impact if more intensive redevelopment is pitched as an economic revitalization strategy.

At first glance, it may seem like I am referring only to traditional central city locations but that is not my intent.  While declining downtowns and the surrounding commercial and industrial areas can be successful locations for mixed use density, more suburban locations may have potential as well.  Many of the early suburban shopping centers, for example, are now either largely vacant or occupied by third tier retailers that pay relatively little rent.  Most of these centers are never going to be successful as retail-only developments, but they might be successful if the parking lots and some of the retail space can be converted to residential, office and entertainment uses.  To be clear, I’m not talking about adding a couple of small office buildings and an assisted living facility to a failing 500,000 square foot mall.  To be successful, it is likely that the density will need to be increased by a factor of five or more which means hundreds of residential units and 100,000 to 250,000 square feet (or more) of non-retail uses such as offices, medical facilities, or entertainment uses.

The bottom line

Over the past several decades, cities have painted themselves into a corner with low-density, auto-oriented suburban style development.  Continuing down that path will lead to a slow but inevitable spiral of declining neighborhoods, vacant storefronts, crumbling infrastructure, economic irrelevance and reduced governmental services.  Cities need to increase density -- in selected locations and with a careful design approach -- to build a more robust tax base and to offer their residents and business owners a broader range of options for places to live, work and play.

Thoughts?  As always, share your thoughts and ideas by leaving a comment below or sending me an email at doug@midwesturbanism.com.  Want to be notified whenever I add a new posting?  Send me an email with your name and email address.

Post #8: Building Mixed-Use Density - Part 2

In my previous post, I explained why I believe that midwestern cities need to raise their overall density.  The best way to do that, in my opinion, is to develop mixed use neighborhoods of moderately high density.  I am not advocating that density be increased everywhere and in my next post I intend to talk about identifying where the most logical places for increased density are likely to be.

I’m also not advocating for areas of extreme density -- for example, an area where most of the buildings are 20 stories or taller.  If that happens, it isn’t necessarily a disaster, but given that land values in most midwestern cities are relatively low I generally don’t think it is a wise use of resources and I don’t think it does much to enhance the character of the city or the well-being of the people occupying the building.  I certainly would be reluctant to provide any public financial assistance to “skyscraper” types of projects.

And finally, I am not advocating for high density, single purpose districts.  Whether it is a suburban office park or a downtown dominated by financial institutions and government buildings, I think it should be clear by now that single purpose districts produce a boring, sterile environment that in the long run is not as productive or adaptable as it should be.  While they may be efficient in the short term, when demand or societal needs change these types of developments have a difficult time reinventing themselves to stay economically relevant.  How many huge shopping malls are vacant or struggling now that the department stores that were their “anchors” are out of favor with shoppers and going bankrupt one after another?

So now let me pivot from what shouldn’t be done and discuss what I think should be done.  One of the reasons there aren’t more successful mixed use districts is that they are difficult to do.  There are lots of design details that need attention and there is an enormous amount of coordination that needs to take place.  Consequently, it is difficult for the private sector to build a good mixed use district without a strong, long-term partnership with the local municipality.  This is often difficult for both the public and private sectors to accept.  The private sector hates the messy and unpredictable nature of the democratic decision-making process and often doesn’t trust that the input from the public sector is in their best interests.  The public sector is often uncomfortable with the reality that nothing will get built unless nearly everyone on the private side is making a profit from the end result, and may not understand that there are limits to how much largesse can be included in a development deal.  Both sides need to get outside of their comfort zone to make it work.

The remainder of this post is going to contain design recommendations that I have grouped into three general categories.  I am not going to get into the details of who should be responsible for fulfilling each recommendation -- that is the “partnership” piece that will vary from situation to situation.  In reality, the balance and participation in the partnership will often change over time.  At some points, the city will need to be the dominant player and at other times that will shift to the private sector.  My point is that someone needs to be paying attention to the issues discussed below.

Streetscape Design

Planning for any neighborhood or district should start with the public spaces that are in between the buildings, not the buildings themselves.  The relatively recent zoning innovation known as Form Based Codes has emphasized this approach and I think it makes a great deal of sense.  Historically, streets were treated in a very perfunctory and systematic manner -- a couple of standard street designs would be applied across entire cities without much thought about the unique needs of different neighborhoods.  While some consistency is needed, there is probably just as much about a street that should be localized as there is that needs city-wide consistency.  Allowing the character of a street to be localized is a significant mental shift for most cities.

A second important shift is to start thinking of streetscape design primarily from the point of view of a pedestrian.  For the past 50 years, streetscape design was focused on the perspective of the driver or passenger in a moving vehicle.  But the goal of a good moderate-density, mixed-use district should be to increase the amount people can do without getting in a car, and that requires placing the needs of the pedestrian on an equal footing with the needs of vehicles.

Within a mixed use district, a good place to start is by categorizing all of the streets by their primary functions.  Some streets, for example, may need to be used primarily for moving vehicles -- but this is generally a far smaller number than most people would expect.  A strong grid of streets that can accommodate a moderate level of vehicular traffic is normally sufficient to meet demand.  

Some streets may serve primarily utilitarian uses such as loading docks, parking garage access, utility infrastructure, or drive-through service.  You don’t want or need very many of these, but the insistence of some planners that all streets be designed as a pedestrian paradise while relegating any utilitarian function to an alley is unrealistic.  All streets should have sidewalks, but for streets in this category the sidewalks and pedestrian amenities can be very basic.

All of the remaining streets should be designed to be very pedestrian friendly, which means wide sidewalks, frequent and highly visible crosswalks, and appropriate street furniture and landscaping.  There should also be clear accommodations given to bikes and scooters that are separate from sidewalks, and preferably separate from vehicular traffic lanes and on-street parking.  The exact balance between the various modes of movement can vary but in most midwestern cities it needs to shift dramatically away from the current bias towards cars.  

The Netherlands developed a street design known as a “woonerf” that focuses on the street as a social space that allows movement of nearly all types but does not prioritize movement.  Other places have had success with pedestrian only streets, or streets where vehicular traffic is severely limited.  The point is that most streets should be thought of as a “place” where people will want to congregate, so we need to design that place to be as interesting, safe and enjoyable as possible.

As important as it is to make walking safe and convenient, it is also important to plan for people who want to stop or linger.  Restaurant seating areas, outdoor retailing, and public gathering areas such as plazas or courtyards should be encouraged and perhaps mandated in some situations.  To enhance the experience of being in the street “place,” there should be an explicit plan for art in virtually all its forms.  Sculptures, murals, street performers, creative fountains, decorative plants and more should all have a place.  Mixed use districts need to have a distinct sense of fun and discovery as a part of their character.  Unfortunately, neither cities or developers are particularly good at “fun” or “surprising” so the rules need to be flexible enough to allow creative people to express themselves in unexpected ways so that the district takes on its own local flavor and each visit holds the potential of stumbling across something new or unexpected.

Building Design

Most architects probably dream of getting a commission with such a large construction budget that they can indulge their wildest design fantasies.  Unfortunately for them, the reality is that most buildings have to be designed to meet very tight constraints.  Architects often have little option but to design a utilitarian box with some decorative elements applied to the outside.  When it comes to a mixed-use district in an urban area, having a limited budget is not necessarily a bad thing because when architects have a big enough budget to indulge their fantasies it generally results in a building that does not blend well with anything else around it.  Although cities generally should not push for “iconic” designs, there are a few things that cities should lobby for strenuously.

Frame the streetscape.  In the paragraphs above, I made the case for thinking of most streets as a “place” where people want to be rather than just pass through.  For that to happen, the street space needs to be enclosed or framed by the adjacent buildings.  This means that the buildings generally need to be at least two stories in height, with three to five stores being preferable.  Single story buildings are not necessarily a disaster, but they should be avoided if possible and should have as tall a front facade as possible if they cannot be avoided.  It also means that each building needs to be designed to work with adjacent buildings to form walls around the streetscape place that are as continuous as possible.

Build up to the street.  This need to enclose the street space generally means that buildings should be built either on the property line adjacent to the street or at least within a few feet of the property line.  Typical suburban zoning regulations often require that buildings be set back from the street 15 to 30 feet, and many building owners want a parking lot in front of the building which means even more distance between the building and the street.  Newer zoning regulations aimed at mixed-use developments have replaced the building setback requirement with a requirement that buildings be pulled up to the street (called a “build-to” line) with parking

typically tucked behind.  This requirement is definitely beneficial, although it is often written in a way that is too restrictive -- I think that buildings could be allowed to deviate from the build-to line by 6 to 8 feet and still create the sense of enclosure that is desired.  Gaps, such as a driveway leading to a parking facility, should be kept as narrow as possible.  The primary exception should be for spaces designed as pedestrian gathering spots.  Pedestrian plazas or courtyards can provide public or semi-public spaces that can accommodate events or uses that don’t fit well in a normal street space.

Focus on the first floor.  Buildings should be designed from the perspective of a pedestrian passing by, which means that the design emphasis should be on the first (and perhaps second) floor.  Urban buildings are only occasionally seen from a distance great enough to allow the entire building to be taken in, and even that is generally only for a few seconds.  People in vehicles are typically too focused on traffic to pay much attention to building details, so that leaves pedestrians in close proximity to the building as the only ones who are likely to care about building design -- and all they are likely looking at are the first and (maybe) second floors.  So that’s where the highest quality materials should be, along with any decorative elements that provide visual interest.  In addition, the first floor should be as transparent as possible so that pedestrians can see what is happening inside.  It will make retail space more successful, restaurants more inviting, and office buildings safer, and it makes the entire streetscape a more interesting place for pedestrians to be.

Build for 100 years.  We tend to design buildings for a single purpose even though our ability to predict what our society or our economy will need from a building is limited to maybe 10 or 20 years.  Really useful urban buildings have the ability to be periodically renovated or reinvented to serve a new set of occupants with needs that are different from what was originally conceived.  The adaptability of a well designed building is what allows a bank to become a library, an office building to become residential condominiums, or a warehouse to become an urban marketplace.  In particular, building systems (wiring, plumbing and communications) need to be expandable and reconfigurable -- and occasionally, capable of being completely replaced with the newest technology.  And yes, we should design buildings that are energy efficient, but the “greenest” design element is a building that can last 100 years or more because it can be adapted to new uses rather than torn down and replaced.

Design a hierarchy of spaces.  If we have learned anything from the pandemic and the gradual re-opening from the lockdown, it should be that we need a finer gradation of spaces rather than just fully private or fully public.  The buildings that were the most comfortable to live or work in had indoor and outdoor spaces that could be semi-public areas for small to mid-sized gatherings.  Small, private spaces (such as your residence) were necessary during the lockdown but became claustrophobic over time.  Large, unrestricted spaces (such as a park or a plaza) gave us relief from the claustrophobia but were scary.  Mid-sized spaces that had some control over who was there gave us a place to reopen social channels in a responsible way.  We need to make sure that all new buildings keep that in mind because the current pandemic probably won’t be the last pandemic.

Design Features for a New Age

Some of you reading the first two sections may think that I am calling for a return to the way things used to be built 50 or 80 or 100 years ago.  While there is much to admire about that era of urban design, we can’t afford to get lost in nostalgia.  It is great to learn from the past but the future holds new challenges that cities didn’t have to deal with 80 years ago.  We need an urban design approach that provides solutions to these new challenges.  

Take transportation as an example.  Transportation in 10 years is going to be markedly different than it is today and it would have been inconceivable to developers in the early 1900s.  New mixed-use districts need to not just accommodate transportation change, but be ready to embrace and optimize the new mix of travel options.  The paragraphs below describe six additional design challenges that urban areas should be ready to address.

Accommodating pets.  I have to confess that I am not a pet person, but seemingly everyone else is.  Pets are everywhere and they will need to be accommodated by not only residential buildings but commercial buildings as well.  If you don’t see this coming, look at the rise in the number of people traveling with pets.  Taking pets to work or on your shopping trips are nascent trends now, but I predict they will be mainstream in 5 to 10 years.  I don’t know exactly what building adaptations will be needed, but businesses and building owners better give this some serious thought.

Adapting to new work environments.  Even before the pandemic, the ability to work remotely was a job perk that had significant value for millennials and Gen-Z.  Now everyone wants that ability.  I think some type of hybrid work schedule will become the most common option, but I’m not sure that it really matters.  Residential units will need to include an office nook that can be customized for work if not a separate room that can be closed off for privacy and concentration.  Commercial buildings will need to be able to accommodate office “hoteling” and will probably need more spaces designed for collaboration in small groups.  All of this will be driven by expanded wireless communication systems (both WiFi and 5G) that will need to be both robust and ubiquitous -- and at the same time secure.  

Curb space will be the new gold.  Cities have traditionally used curb space for on-street parking often without much thought or analysis, but with the number of package deliveries skyrocketing, that may no longer be the best use of that increasingly precious commodity.  UPS, FedEx and Amazon trucks often opt to double-park and block a lane of traffic when no loading zone or delivery dock is available.  As a result, they pay millions of dollars in fines each year to major cities.  Add taxis, Uber/Lyft drivers, Grubhub/DoorDash, and transit buses to the mix and there clearly is not enough curb space to go around.  Cities will need to actively manage their curb space even in areas of moderate density, and that process will undoubtedly be contentious.

Not only is the volume of deliveries likely to continue growing, but eventually autonomous vehicles will need drop-off/pick-up areas for their passengers.  Autonomous vehicles will bring the added problem of rush-hour peaks.  Apartment buildings, schools and offices are all likely to cause a surge in pick-up/drop-off demand during a very limited window of time.  Not only will cities need to dramatically increase the amount of curb space dedicated to loading areas, but they may need to regulate which kinds of services are allowed to use the loading areas during certain times of the day.  This will require an incredible amount of coordination and communication between all of the various players.

Finding green space.  Probably the largest part of the “mix” in most mixed-use districts will be residential units.  And with a growing resident population will come a need for more park space.  Cities have always provided some park space in even their most dense districts, but that space will be in demand for an increasingly wide array of uses from kids playing, to yoga classes, to community festivals.  Cities will need to develop urban park designs that are different from the suburban park designs they are more familiar with, and they will need to be more compact than the sprawling “Central Park” designs that were popular in the early 1900s.

Electric car charging.  Just a couple of years ago, the global sales of electric vehicles topped a million units for the first time (a little over 1% of total sales).  Expect that number to grow exponentially over the next 10 years.  In two or three more years, the unsubsidized cost of an electric vehicle will be roughly equal to a traditional gas vehicle.  As the durability and cost efficiency of electric vehicles becomes more obvious, they will become the default choice for certain segments of the market -- particularly affluent adult households that are often the target demographic for urban residential projects.  Those projects should be planning on having 5 to 10 percent of their parking spaces served by charging stations within the next few years, and that could grow to 20 or 25 percent by the end of the decade.  Public and commercial parking structures should probably also add a few charging stations, but overnight charging at your residence makes so much sense that I think the majority of charging capacity belongs there.

Managing underground utilities.  Most midwestern cities have been fairly lax in managing the maze of water, sewer, gas, electrical and communication lines that are essential to all forms of urban development.  The result is quite frankly an inefficient mess that increases service costs and results in some streets being almost continually under construction as repairs and upgrades are made in a haphazard fashion.  As density increases, it is my opinion that cities should take a much larger role in mapping, coordinating -- and in some cases dictating -- where utility lines are placed.  Many utility providers have only a general idea of where their underground lines are located and much of this infrastructure is nearing the end of its useful life.  Cities should develop standards for where each type of utility line should be located and constructed with an eye toward simplifying long-term maintenance and minimizing utility conflicts and traffic disruption when upgrades are needed.

Thoughts?  As always, share your thoughts and ideas by leaving a comment below or sending me an email at doug@midwesturbanism.com.  Want to be notified whenever I add a new posting?  Send me an email with your name and email address.