New Haven Independent

posted by: DueRuoteOneEarth on August 3, 2011  8:31am

The more you build roads, the more you invite people to live in the suburbs and drive in to work.  Don’t ask for more taxes…
The more you build road and parking spaces, the more you invite rubber traffic over pedestrian traffic. You can’t expect small stores to thrive and multiply, if you all you invest is in parking spaces and bigger road lanes.
More cars, more gas, more dependance on foreign oil.
More roads for cars, yet there is a large majority of New Haveners who do not have vehicles…Let’s think of them, for once. Mobility increases freedom.
When you fly over this area, please take a look at look down: parking spaces and roads everywhere.  Let’s not kid around here. Urban development has been hooked on octane for way too long and like all addictions, unless we admit we are addicted to our cars, we will continue find excuses to build more roads and parking spaces..

posted by: meta on August 3, 2011  8:55am

Thank you Alderman! An official voice of reason that might have some positive impact on this area is a refreshing thing. PLEASE require dedicated bike lanes!

posted by: robn on August 3, 2011  9:56am

why? this is why?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/31/opinion/sunday/the-dutch-way-bicycles-and-fresh-bread.html

posted by: streever on August 3, 2011  10:01am

Great resolution!

Elicker, Lemar, and Hausladen “get it”—New Haven needs to stop prioritizing out of town workers over local residents.

If a 30 minute work commute versus a 20 minute doesn’t work for someone, I invite them to move to New Haven and have a 5 minute commute.

posted by: Threefifths on August 3, 2011  10:13am

It is funny how people complain about pro union people runing for office.Look at this no complains about the pro biker in office Justin Elicker.

posted by: Wooster Squared on August 3, 2011  10:19am

Thank you Alderman Elicker. Your resolution echos the both the concerns and the vision of people throughout New Haven.

The community in large part is behind the project, but the specific plans shown to the public have been disappointing to say the least. Instead of a freeway removal as promised, the City has proposed a freeway replacement, simply widening the frontage roads to replace the lanes being removed.

Not only is this type of autocentric development bad design, it goes against the wishes of the community which wants a more human-scaled pedestrian friendly environment. It also flies in the face of the City’s own Complete Streets policy, which seeks to promote increased pedestrian, bicycle and transit access.

Instead of moving forward and seizing this great opportunity to remove the freeway and expand downtown, the City seems to be doubling down on the failed policies of the 1960’s highway building era.

It’s not too late for the City to improve this plan and develop one that transforms the freeway and frontage roads into walkable, beautiful downtown streets that will be an asset to the City.

Is anyone in City Hall listening? This project is a great opportunity, but it’s being squandered.

posted by: Moses on August 3, 2011  11:16am

Thank You Justin , Doug and Roland for standing up for clean air and a livable city that New Havenites need and want going forward.  I am happy to say that some of us have learned from the mistakes of the past and have no desire to re-create monstrosities which can not be undone.

posted by: nfjanette on August 3, 2011  12:35pm

This is what happens when lofty ideas overrule the data on an issue.  The problem is the reality of the high volume of vehicles that have used, do use, and will continue to use that section as an arterial thruway to points both downtown and also further westward/eastward.  It’s quite humorous to me that one design group is now fighting with the other, the first that wanted to destroy the higher speed below grade throughway and force 4-5 lanes of slower traffic onto the street level at the first exit and the latter group that perhaps now understands the impact of that traffic volume.

The answer is as simple as I’ve stated for many months: leave the two current express lanes in place and build over and around them to your new urbanist hearts delights.  That would preclude the need for 5 lane wide traffic at street level.  This can be a big win for many groups if people move away from the “you have to lose for me to win” approach to design that pits pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists needs against each other.

posted by: anon on August 3, 2011  12:48pm

the current city design is a nightmare, and should be scrapped.

posted by: 34er on August 3, 2011  1:14pm

nfjanette has had this right for a while.  Stopping the car is unrealistic but burying it is a good idea and makes for more flexibility on the surface design.

posted by: nfjanette on August 3, 2011  1:36pm

Given that the plans I saw at one of the public design sessions showed one lane continuing to the Air Rights garage, it seems a reasonable suggestion with minimal impact on the Grand Plan to propose keeping the two existing lanes already in place with the existing exit ramp and signaling.  Better still would be have been for the lanes to also run under the garage and exit in the next block, keeping through-traffic out of the York and Park street intersections, but that option was blocked by other developments.

posted by: Anstress Farwell on August 3, 2011  1:50pm

nfjanette - the community groups concerned about safe streets, clean air, economic opportunity, multi-modal transportation, and strong urban design are not divided. They share a view that the current concept does not succeed, and they concur on solutions. A plan based on traffic reductions, narrower streets and transportation mode-shifts will create safer streets, cleaner air, and pleasant places where people will want to live and work. Land will be saved from wasteful use in extra travel lanes and garages. The groups working together on plans are also incorporating frequent intersections, small blocks, and various sized lots - elements which create a human scale for living—and a diversity of scale where developers and businesses both large and small can find a place to pursue their enterprises, create jobs, and build a strong, balanced, and shared economy.

posted by: streever on August 3, 2011  2:04pm

@nfjanette
Which data sets are you using? Everything I’ve seen has demonstrated over and over that increasing capacity increases demand for capacity. Increasing capacity on these arterials increases distances traveled.

All over the world, planners and governments are discovering that building infrastructure leads to increases in the corresponding usage—it has been studied and evaluated and found to be true.

Which data have you found to contradict that?

posted by: Jenny R. on August 3, 2011  2:38pm

@anon- “the current city design is a nightmare, and should be scrapped.”

Do you realize that if this design is scrapped, you will virtually never again see the city ask for and recieve funding from the govt. for progressive big urban projects like this? The USDOT doesn’t just keep an open checkbook… New Haven is soooo lucky to have the funds we do to build what could be a great project. I think (and agree with some) that with some fine tuning, and maybe one or two less travel lanes this is going to be a great step in the right direction for our downtown.

It takes work from everyone, including residents… And to those who have stepped up to the plate and been active at city meetings, neighborhood meetings, speaking with your elected offcials and at the Design League meeting this past weekend… I applaude you.

posted by: ER Sally on August 3, 2011  2:52pm

Here’s how I see this…

First, thank you to the Alders, Mr. Hausladen and Rep. Lemar for taking a stance on this and speaking for their contituents. I live in East Rock, have for years, and I am glad to have you all as my elected delegates

But, there’s no question that this could (and hopefully) will be a tremendous project for the future growth and prosperity of this city. The businesses that will come to the city after Route 34 is re-developed will add real value and lots and lots of jobs. All this, not to mention the millions back in tax revenue from the buildings.

I think we need to all agree on something. Is this going to be the local New Havenites/cyclists/East Rock-Downtown types who stir the pot to get their Alders and Legislator onboard simply to stop a development project from happening because they think it only benefits commuters from outside the city’s limits? Or, are we ALL going to embrase the fact that New Haven is a center of the state and region for jobs and thining and welcome those in who come to our city to work?

To me this is rediculouly getting out of hand with those who ride bikes and live/work wihtin the city’s confines and those who drive into the Elm City each day to work.

This is a good thing for everyone; both in our city, and in our region. And those in New Haven need to stop the fighting and accept this fact.

posted by: anon on August 3, 2011  3:33pm

ER Sally and Jenny R.:

Actually, that’s not true. In fact, adding high speed traffic, pollution and highly unsafe areas will diminish tax revenues and cause jobs and residents to flee.  Building the project correctly will result in a great benefit and many jobs, of course, but that’s not even remotely what this looks like just yet. 

Many cities have found that turning down Federal money in some cases is better than not accepting it at all, because it can tend to force the urban political “growth regimes” that be to make extremely stupid decisions.

One may learn from Eli Goldratt’s saying, “never allow what is important to become urgent.”

posted by: streever on August 3, 2011  3:55pm

ER Sally:
Unfortunately, the city disagrees with you.

I’ve cut and pasted their own wording on why car-centric designs—like the one they proposed—are bad.

Currently, route 34 prioritizes out of town employees of the Hospital, at a real cost (in tax money and public health) to residents of New Haven.

If there was a vibrant, walkable, beautiful place to live within 5 blocks of YNHH, many of the suburban residents would choose to live there. The city pledged to create what we’re asking for, before turning around and showing us this car-centric proposal. This current proposal INCREASES the number of lanes at many points, and widens the curb radii, making it more difficult to cross streets as a pedestrian.

Here are the quotes, from the cities own literature, on how the area should be transformed away from a multi-lane highway and toward a pedestrian friendly city street:

“primary goal of the Downtown Crossing/Route 34 East project is to develop a livable, walkable community”
“The Hill and the Medical District, in particular, were separated from the heart of the Downtown when the highway was constructed in the 1950s.”
“Over 881 households were relocated and 350 businesses were cleared in order to build the highway.”
“Increased physical activity and reducing air and noise pollution associated with automobile travel have health and environmental benefits. By reducing reliance on automobiles, providing new and enhanced bicycle and pedestrian accessibility, and providing opportunities for mixed use development within the corridor, Downtown Crossing/Route 34 East will support the City’s sustainable growth objectives.”

posted by: anon on August 3, 2011  4:45pm

I’ll tell you one thing… If I needed to get my brain worked on, I’d go see a professional Brain Surgeon.

If professional Traffic Engineers and Urban Planners think we need 3 or 4 lanes instead of 2 to ensure we’re not having cars backing up onto 95 and 91, and so everyone is kept safe (walking, biking, in cars, etc)... Umm… shouldn’t we listen?

posted by: Wooster Squared on August 3, 2011  4:48pm

ER Sally et al,

This is a debate over whether or not the redevelopment is a good thing, everyone thinks it is. The issue that Elicker, Lemar and others have is that given the cost of this project and the fact that we will all have to live with whatever is built for the foreseeable future, this should be a great project. Right now, it looks like a mediocre to bad project with some tax benefit from the planned medical office.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think “better than nothing” should be the measure of success on a project that is going to cost the City millions of dollars at a time when we are laying off police officers and closing fire houses.

This is an opportunity to really improve the City, let’s not blow it on plans that most of the community knows could easily be made much better with a little bit of work. The City has plenty of talented staff, let’s see them come up with an improved plan while there’s still time.

posted by: streever on August 3, 2011  4:55pm

Wooster Squared:
Well said!

As to the comment on “professional engineers”—professional engineers also say this plan is terrible. It is a question of which ones you listen to.

Some of the city ones have directly told me that they are trying to accommodate the suburban hospital employees at the expense of the local residents—one of the firms even told me that the work was not good, but it was the best possible, given the constraints imposed by the city.

You should try to talk one-on-one with one of the engineers from one of the contracted firms. Ask them if this is the “best possible plan for this area”, or the “best possible plan if you decide that you can’t risk slowing down out of town commuters going to YNHH”.

Ask them how they would do it differently, and you’ll see plans more like those being proposed by the Route 34 Coalition.

posted by: anon on August 3, 2011  4:57pm

Anon,
... “Professional traffic engineers and urban planners” advised us to literally blow up Dwight Street, Trumbull Street, West River Park, and the Mill River as it runs along the face of East Rock Park, among other places.

These areas were planned to become multi-lane highways, similar to what is now planned for Route 34.  Luckily, community coalitions rallied and put an end to these projects (or at least parts of them—some parts of East Rock, West River, and Trumbull Street were destroyed by our engineers, despite the community objections).

Most of our planners and engineers do not live here, and never walk our streets.  Also, most were trained during past decades when gasoline was pennies per gallon, and long before the impact of urban freeways on health was fully understood.

The current plan that our “Professional engineers and planners” have submitted to DOT has pedestrians crossing over 14 lanes of high speed traffic while walking between the Hill/Union Station, area and Gateway Community College.

Listening to them, like we did too often during the 1960s, would be the biggest mistake in the history of New Haven.

posted by: ER Sally on August 3, 2011  5:05pm

Streever,

I don’t believe the city ‘dis-agrees’ with my point of view at all. In fact, the quotes which you cited from the city’s litature are true, and hold true with what I’ve seen of the project… Sure, it does need some work. But, I see this more as the city taking into accout the realities of this project and trying to bring together all of the elements that are good for everyone- including cyclists and motorists.

This can’t turn into “let’s pit those who live in the city vs. the commuters”. I live here and I love our city too, but without the suburbs and commuters we wouldn’t have a thriving, diverse, metro area we do.

posted by: Emperor's Clothes on August 3, 2011  6:01pm

Am I the only one who thinks the city’s photo illustration looks like an interstate? It looks worse than what we have now.

The Downtown Crossing website, to which Mike Piscitelli directs readers, says the project aims to create a “livable, walkable community while providing local and regional connectivity. With housing and shopping linked to nearby transit and more comfortable streets for pedestrians and bicycles.”

The same website touts the city’s Complete Streets plan. Here’s how that plan describes a boulevard, the type of street envisioned for Route 34:

“Boulevards are wide streets with multiple roadways and medians and an emphasis on
greening and design quality ... and an exceptional level of landscaping, public open space, and visual quality.”

Other than the wide street with multiple roadways and median, do you see any trace of this language reflected in the illustration?

posted by: streever on August 3, 2011  7:09pm

@ER Sally
How do you think widening a 4 lane roadway into a 5 lane accomplishes the goal of making a vibrant, mixed use area?

Where is the mixed use? Where is the residential living?

Why is the bike lane a schizoid patchwork of 4 different approaches, all intersecting within blocks of each other?

This isn’t “resident vs commuter”—it is a deeply ingrained methodology that eliminates all viable transportation with tax dollars, and wastefully over-spends and over-builds on private car transportation.

The consequence is a dramatic increase in mortality, injury, asthma, and a variety of other health problems. The consequence is that no one walks or bikes or takes a bus unless they really have to or really want to.

The end consequence of widening these roads and increasing the capacity is future increases, as they encourage and force more road users to be car drivers.

posted by: streever on August 3, 2011  7:12pm

Maybe “better” is good enough for some folks, but I strongly disagree. Spending a hundred million dollars in tax money, I think the city has an opportunity and an obligation to do “incredible” with this. Arguments that we should stop whining and accept the mediocre or the half-baked fall on deaf ears.

posted by: Icarus on August 4, 2011  8:16am

I agree with ER Sally that “pitting” commuters versus residents is counterproductive. As someone who commutes to the city from West Haven by both car and bicycle I would like to see a more pedestrian oriented design as well. On the other hand, many commuters do use 34 to get into New Haven to provide healthcare, volunteer, and visit local businesses.

... stop demonizing people who do not live in New Haven and instead include them in the process. A successful plan will need to accommodate both residents and non-residents. A balance will optimize revenue and standards of living for New Haven, although I agree the current plan is too car-centric.

posted by: Stephen Harris on August 4, 2011  8:29am

The current plan reflects short-term thinking. It presumes the auto-centric world will continue far into the future. It won’t. That window is beginning to close. The City should be planning for the world that will exist 30-50 years from now: One with a local/regional economy.

As to the concern for traffic backing up, there are other points of entry into the city, not just the 91/95 interchange. When the most recent earthquake in San Francisco destroyed a key span of highway, and was rebuilt as a blvd with less carrying capacity, traffic problems didn’t materialize because drivers found other ways to get around. The same will happen here.

Also, planning for the maximum number of cars isn’t just bad aesthetics, or dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists, it’s bad transportation planning when considering the long term energy situation. In the next few generations the price of oil will raise high enough to force a change in the way we live. People will be driving less, looking for short commutes and moving much closer to work. This should be good news for New Haven from a development point of view.

The City should get ahead of the curve and implement a multi-modal transportation system that will accommodate the coming reality. Having a working port and rail connections to Boston and New York, and perhaps Hartford in the future, should position us to capture new industry focused on the local/regional market.

The city has an opportunity to heal the scar that bisects the town. I would urge an appropriately scaled T-5 zone from the highway to the ARG, then transitioning to a T-4 down to the blvd, reconnecting all of the lost crossing streets. The Rt. 34 connector (all the way down to the blvd) can become the most dynamic commercial/residential corridor in the city if it’s planned as a place to be, not just a means to move cars from here to there.

Doing all this will put New Haven in a better position to take advantage of the local and regional economy that will develop as the global economy inevitably shrinks.

posted by: streever on August 4, 2011  8:41am

Icarus/Sally:
the problem with the point you are making is you spin a tale of a battle between car commuters and everyone else—but there really is no battle.

It isn’t that “everyone needs to give a little”—the car commuters are giving nothing at all, and every one else—New Haven residents & taxpayers, the people who live on the other side of Route 34, cyclists, walkers, bus riders—are making all of the sacrifices. People who live in West Haven and drive to the hospital are making a non-sacrifice.

I agree completely that “every side has to give” a little. The problem is that, with this plan, one side gives all, and the other side ... gives nothing.

posted by: streever on August 4, 2011  8:46am

Icarus—“stop demonizing”—when did I demonize car commuters? I think you’ve totally misread my comments, and that is why you’re back seems up?

If anything, I demonized the short-sighted economic development gurus with the City of New Haven, who have failed to approach this plan with any semblance of long-term thinking or planning.

Stephen Harris is correct—this plan is nothing more than short-term thinking with multiple logical failures.

Sorry, Icarus, if you misunderstood me—I’m not sure how you think that me chastising my city for building a highway for out-of-towners to drive through is demonizing the out-of-towners. Of course they’d use and enjoy the road! Why not? but we shouldn’t be spending taxpayer money and time on a project for out-of-towners. It doesn’t make you a bad person—it just is poor prioritization by our city leaders.

posted by: Anstress Farwell on August 4, 2011  9:33am

Streever - I think the out-of-towners would USE the new highway, but I doubt they would “enjoy” it any more than anyone “enjoys” the current Connector. I know you understand this - but thanks for your imperfect word choice—it does provide an opportunity to make this distinction. No one enjoys or feels comfortable in multi-lane arterials. They are hazardous and stressful. I think the out-of-towners would enjoy coming to work in an attractive, safe and vibrant place. A re-highway-ization of the area would obviate this achievable goal.

posted by: Icarus on August 4, 2011  9:44am

Streever,

I am not disagreeing with your assertion that the plan needs work. I am disagreeing that this plan is all about the residents of New Haven. It is not. First of all, the TIGER grant which is fueling this project is federal funding.

“Doing all this will put New Haven in a better position to take advantage of the local and regional economy that will develop as the global economy inevitably shrinks.”

Secondly, agreeing with the above serves to diminish your points. There is no evidence to support a shrinking global economy.

Also, when did I mention car commuters? It is about all commuters and residents. It is in our best interest to come away with a win-win and not a win-lose. As a matter of fact, nfjanette is the only person to present ideas that create a win-win.

posted by: robn on August 4, 2011  10:40am

ICARUS,

Does a 5% reduction in global GDP over a one year time period prove a shrinking global economy?

http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&tdim=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=global+gdp#ctype=l&strail=false&nselm=h&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country&ifdim=country&tdim=true&hl=en&dl=en

posted by: streever on August 4, 2011  10:40am

Icarus:
...this plan is bad for New Haven.

This plan is not “decent” for New Haven. Rather, it causes undue damage and actively hurts residents.

As such, if the stipulation of doing it is that we need to build it out in a way that prioritizes and benefits only out of towners, I suggest we do not build it at all and turn down the Federal funding until we can afford to build a street that doesn’t cause active harm to our citizens.

The current plan actively harms residents and discourages them from using the road the way the city describes. If the city can not build a road that meets the vision they laid out to us, then they need to take a step back and postpone this project until they find the funding they need.

@Anstress
Well said! Thank you Anstress.

posted by: Icarus on August 4, 2011  11:44am

Streever,

You are ignoring what I am actually saying…which is not totally disagreeing with you. I would like a pedestrian friendly environment with less lanes. A pedestrian friendly plan is both good for residents and “out-of-towners”. I just think a great way to achieve the maximum pedestrian friendly environment and have efficient commuting infrastructure is to build over a smaller highway.

Robn,

You are right but I understood Stephen Harris’s comment to mean it was shrinking in relation to the local economy. GDP shrinking 5% has more to do with a poor world economy overall and less to do with actual globalization.
Many smaller countries are actually growing GDP at high rates as they become developed, and part of the global economy. World GDP does not measure globalization…

posted by: streever on August 4, 2011  12:09pm

Icarus:
I was largely responding to your mis-characterizations of my comments—you’ve claimed that I’m starting a “commuter vs resident” battle and “demonizing” the commuters. Really, I’m criticizing a planning process in which the city has stated one goal, then failed to meet that goal, and continued to solicit community input which they have not acted on.

If you don’t disagree with me, I’m not sure why you felt the need to express your solution with a criticism of my criticism, but I think we’ve gone sufficiently meta to move on at this point :)

posted by: streever on August 4, 2011  12:16pm

Icarus:
re-reading the comments, I think I see where you got confused—
I’m saying, the city should not plan this with out-of-town commuters SOLELY in mind, and residents as an after-thought (which is what they are doing: read the comments by Harris & other local urban planners—certified planners and specialists who are saying the same thing I’ve been saying for months)

You seem to have taken that as “out of town commuters are bad”—it isn’t at all—it is just unacceptable that our city government would ask residents to be part of a “planning process” which ultimately is really an exercise in moving more cars to YNHH and securing land for an independent developer in a no-bid process.

I haven’t seen the developer or YNHH reps at the public information meetings asking for the things being done in the final plan, which makes it even more upsetting that the city would waste countless hours of volunteer time to then cram a plan we hate down our throats.

Again—not criticizing YNHH or the developer—they add a lot to our city—but I tend to think that our city staff can work with developers/businesses without giving them everything they want, and disenfranchising citizens.

That is what they are doing—and that is the criticism.

posted by: Stephen Harris on August 4, 2011  1:29pm

About globalization: (pay attention Thomas Friedman). The global economy will shrink in the coming decades because the oil supply will shrink. The economy needs cheap, abundant energy in order to grow. Alternatives are great for local solutions but they can’t replace oil energy unit for unit. Resource depletion is a compounding problem.

According to the International Energy Agency production of conventional oil (the low hanging fruit) has been running between 84-86mbd since 2005. The decline of the easy oil is happening now. For instance the Cantarell oil field in Mexico, a super giant discovered in 1976 and one of the world’s largest has suffered a staggering decline. Production has gone from a high of 2.1mbd in 2003 to just 465K today. This rapid decline is due to modern extraction techniques getting as much oil as possible to the surface. Likewise the North Sea and Alaska are also in steep decline, and so forth. OPEC’s books are closed but they always report their reserves going up, never down, even though they haven’t had a major find in decades. Nobody in the oil industry believes them.

What’s left is deep water (usually a mile below the surface then another 10k to 15K beneath the sea floor), polar and oil sands. All of these sources are very difficult and expensive to produce and do not have anything resembling the rate of return of conventional stick-a pipe-in-the-ground-and-out-it-comes oil. And to top it off speculators - who follow all this - run up the price even more by trying to lock in futures at the lowest price they can.

Therein lies the problem.

Less energy will be available in the coming decades to run a far flung global economy. The cost of producing goods for distant markets at a reasonable cost will become increasingly more difficult to maintain. A shift to a local/regional economy is just a matter of time. And the clock is ticking.

It is within that context that the Rt. 34 project (and all development really) becomes very important. We cannot develop this very large strip of land (remember it goes all the way down to blvd) in an auto-centric way. It would be extremely short-sighted. 

For those interested in a Peak Oil Primer please go to: http://www.odac-info.org/peak-oil-primer

Rummage around, read the information, follow the links. It’s eye-opening and will change how you see the world.

posted by: robn on August 4, 2011  2:01pm

“GDP” is a metric.
“Globalization” is a slogan.

posted by: HewNaven?? on August 4, 2011  3:13pm

The world economy is indeed shrinking and it will never grow back. EVER.

Clinging to the rotting corpse of capitalism is just… well, it’s just plain gross. Don’t be a necrophiliac!

Who Killed Economic Growth?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQqDS9wGsxQ

300 Years of Fossil Fuels in 300 Seconds
http://youtu.be/cJ-J91SwP8w

posted by: anon on August 4, 2011  3:17pm

stephen: based on what you’ve written, would you say that the project is irredeemable at this point, and should be scrapped?

posted by: anon on August 4, 2011  3:45pm

The City said: “public outreach is ongoing and we will be scheduling the next community meeting in the fall.”

I believe that the next community meeting has to do with “Phase 2.”  What people are concerned about right now is “Phase 1”, which is what is about to go into construction. 

“Phase 2” is something that is years or even decades down the road, depending when funding comes in.

posted by: Threefifths on August 4, 2011  4:22pm

For all who say we are depend on oil.B.S.These cars will be ready in five years.

Solar Electrical Vehicles.

http://www.solarelectricalvehicles.com/

BMW Plugs into the Electric Car Craze.

http://www.peachygreen.com/electric-cars/bmw-plugs-into-the-electric-car-craze

posted by: Stephen Harris on August 4, 2011  6:50pm

@ anon:

I think the project should go forward and we should try to improve it as best we can. Giving up means getting nothing. Even a bad project is better than what’s there now.

Keep in mind that Rt. 34W is something like four or five times the size of 34E. We still have an opportunity to shape the longer term project in a good way.

As someone who has worked in planning for many years I’ve learned that urban morphology oftentimes unfolds in unpredictable ways. Urban planning in America is messy and frustrating for citizens, developers and planners. But you never stop trying to make improvements.

@robn:
Yes, GDP is a metic, albeit a poor one for measuring the health of an economy. It just refers to the market value of all goods and services produced. It’s poor at measuring the standard of living.

No, globalization is not a slogan. Globalization is a world wide economic system featuring the international trade of goods and capital, and the specialization of the means of production at the national level (toys - and almost everything else it seems - in China, t-shirts in Nicaragua, banking & insurance in America etc). In the end it seeks to create a single world market.

That type of market, whether you think it’s good or bad is not sustainable because it depends on cheap, abundant oil to run factories and move all that stuff around the globe. It will contract when it becomes unaffordable to keep it running as is. Since oil is finite and we most likely have entered the downside slope of the curve it is foolish, IMHO, to plan the city as if the global economy will go on forever.

Some long posts, I know, but the argument for pedestrian oriented development is not just aesthetics, although that’s an important reason too.

A compact, dense, multi-modal city that serves its own needs first, and nurtures its own citizen’s wellbeing will be better positioned to thrive in the coming economy that will be, whether we like it or not, much more local and regional.