This week we’re joined by Kyle Paoletta to talk about his book American Oasis: Finding the Future in the Cities of the Southwest. We discuss the growth and history of southwestern US cities, how indigenous people didn’t disappear but adapted, the importance of language and identity, and climate adaptation lessons for cities from the driest region.

Get the show ad free on Patreon!

Listen to this show first at Streetsblog USA.  Episode list can be found at our archive.

Below is a full unedited AI generated transcript:

(more…)

How are you all holding up? You good? Big hugs.

So I know where I live, San Francisco, is easy to pick on. Our leaders can sometimes do dumb stuff and vote for things that seem to the rest of the country like they are out of touch. Our new Mayor just bought himself an electric SUV and gave it to the city so he could use it. He was seen on his e-bike on the campaign trail but in my mind I couldn’t help but wonder why they can’t take Muni more often and mix more with us plebes.

We even get it from allies. In today’s news an item from one of my favorite current thinkers Yale Law Prof. David Schleicher on the crisis of state capacity noted some of the city’s rougher neighborhoods and their tent encampments (and potholes) and the juxtaposition of some of the big technology things that are happening here.

Yes those things are here, and in every major city. But folks that have come to visit me in my neighborhood sometimes seem surprised at how different the national news coverage is from what they see. Admittedly it’s a nice neighborhood but I should also note some of the positive things that happen because it can’t be all negative all the time.

My street was repaved just a few years ago and crews are just finishing up laying asphalt on our main commercial street which has been battered by buses (tech and Muni). The whole neighborhood has gotten new sewer pipes and now has smooth roads which I love when I’m on my bike going down hill.

The repavings are so quick, just a few days and they are done. The main commercial street took a few weeks but they also put in new ADA ramps and concrete pads at the bus stops. No one is going to talk about how great an outcome that is, but it is an example of good execution by our city.

Additionally, for all the complaints about how long it takes to build multifamily housing, I found making a basement addition really easy with the right contractor and architects (Thank you OpenScope) that could bird dog everything and get approvals the same afternoon they walked into the permit office.

We knew to avoid anything that would bring us to design review or any of the other onerous processes the city is known for. But we designed it that way on purpose. And it should be that easy for everyone without scripting the process to avoid pain. It took 10 months for construction and it was done. Many of the houses on my street that made additions or went to design review took years. But our result just tells me that a better outcome IS possible.

And finally San Francisco is known as a city with small numbers of children. But you wouldn’t know it if you went to the local baby playground daily and talked with the unofficial mayor of the space, a Grampa who takes care of his grandson during the day and knows everyone.

Or if you are at Town Square, a former parking lot turned public space and the home of the infamous expensive toilet, on a warm afternoon after kids get out from daycare and parents can decompress from work. The place is teeming with life and giggling and children and wonder until dinner time.

Or getting on the 24 bus at Geary and missing one because it’s so full of high schoolers. It’s ok though, the next one came in five minutes.

I could go on about San Francisco’s natural beauty and its weather or food and all the other things that you already know about, but there’s so much that people don’t hear about because it’s boring or not controversial. Do we have issues and are they big ones? Yes. Housing, homelessness, cost of living etc. But we also have successes and wins and sometimes I wish we’d share more of them, wherever we come from.

For as long as I can remember starting in undergrad, I was hearing about the death of distance theory and how technology would bring us closer together. Telecommuting was going to be the answer to our transportation problems but as we learn more from the impacts of the pandemic it can be a double edged sword.

As technology use increases and more things are done online, the more important it is to be able to call a real person if something isn’t working. You all KNOW that many times those bots or automated phone trees don’t have the answer you’re looking for.

The early telecommunications revolutions of the telegraph and telephone could put you in touch with a real person who likely knew how to get things done. And since then it’s been one part of a larger system for those who did not benefit from a car oriented transportation system.

Many more people are non-drivers than we realize as our friend Anna Zivarts notes in her book When Driving is Not an Option which we discussed with her and SPUR’s Laura Tolkoff last summer. This knowledge makes some of the cuts that the Trump administration is making more confounding.

Cuts to the IRS, cuts to phone service for social security for seniors. These are systems that benefit from human interaction but many have a hard time getting to an office in person. Driving is not an option for them. So they must ask a friend or family member. And sometimes that creates shame or insecurity.

We shouldn’t be reducing people’s options to connect but expand them. Create more opportunities to talk with real people on the phone or the internet. More transportation policy that benefits everyone no matter their ability. More care, more trust, more humanity.

This week on Talking Headways we’re joined by Congressman Rick Larsen of Washington State, Ranking Member for the Democrats on the House Transportation Committee. We chat about USDOT’s recent guidance for stripping sustainable projects of funding and why active transportation advocates should focus on safety.

Find committee hearing schedules here.  Find the TNI Democrats page here.

To listen to this episode, find it at Streetsblog USA or at our hosting archive.

Below is a full unedited AI generated transcript of this episode:

(more…)

I think there will forever be a fight between those who argue over what sprawl is and isn’t. Even now the debate rages on in New Urbanist circles and other professional forums. In my personal opinion it doesn’t have to do necessarily with street design or the compactness of development but the degree to which you depend on driving a car to get to your destinations.

I applaud places like Daybreak in Utah, which Rob Steuteville mentions in his article in Public Square linked above, for moving in the right direction. They have bones that can be redeveloped in the future to actually support less car use, but only if they are allowed to evolve. Aerial photos tell stories, and the grocery stores and hospitals with wide swaths of parking there belie the true nature of the place in this moment.

And as that development marches to the edges of the valley, often a place choked by smog in thick inversion layers, the real work begins to keep that region affordable, accessible. Cities all over the country are running out of space to sprawl and our development and finance systems aren’t ready for it. Our politics aren’t ready for it. We claw at the answers in legislatures, but can’t agree on a solution.

Huge tracts of land are available now, pumping out tens of thousands of housing units until there are no tracts left. California’s major cities know what happens when you run out of land for sprawl. Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas will find out soon as well. Federal land releases will push the problem further down the road, figuratively and literally.

So in the end perhaps it doesn’t really matter what the definition of sprawl is and our current arguments about it. Now it means “cheap” housing and more driving, but it will come at a cost because we didn’t manage our land supply and growth more intelligently.

This week we’re Han Solo, but we talk about trends in state preemption, state capacity and road project costs, the possible death of the North Star commuter rail line, and how utility companies in California can’t cry takings when transit projects ask them to move equipment.

Links to the items we chatted about below the fold…

(more…)

This week on the Talking Headways podcast Yonah Freemark of the Urban Institute is back again for Part 2 of our annual discussion. This week we make predictions! We look at what we predicted last year and what might happen in 2025.

To listen to this episode (or Part 1) visit Streetsblog USA or the hosting archive.

Below is a full unedited AI generated transcript:

(more…)

I’m seeing a few talking point trends on transportation funding in the next transportation bill reauthorization that are a bit concerning. First while many of us were focused on the birth rate/marriage rate funding discussion, there was another section piece in those initial memos that stood out to me that might be easier to slip through the cracks.

“DOT-supported or -assisted programs and activities, including without limitation, all DOT grants, loans, contracts, and DOT-supported or -assisted State contracts, shall not be used to further local political objectives or for projects and goals that are purely local in nature and unrelated to a proper Federal interest…”

This seems like boilerplate language but if you’ve been at this long enough you know what this means. No active transportation funding. Bike lanes, bus lanes, complete streets, pedestrian safety…all “local” concerns.

Of course if you put it that way, most federal funding that goes to State DOTs as formula funds or to MPOs is for “local” roads and highways that serve short “local” trips but that’s not how it will be portrayed or structured.

And now some state officials and senators are stating that some of the programs from IIJA might get rolled back into formula funds that they admit mostly would go for road building alone.

With states piling on with preemption like Utah telling Salt Lake City they can’t build roads that impede car travel without permission, it’s likely going to get tougher for sustainable transportation advocates moving forward.

After all these years of light rail boosterism I can’t believe I’m saying this but Fort Worth really should hold off on planning what is basically a streetcar, light rail, even BRT network at the moment. Construction of a new network, with three corridors similar to 2010 plans is expected to take a decade and cost somewhere around $800m but perhaps more when operations are considered.

I love a good tram network, with dedicated lanes much much more. But while Trinity Metro has a 15 minute bus network that serves main corridors, with plans to upgrade some to 10 minutes, I can’t help but think what it might look like if they upped the service ante even more before spending all that capital money.

Try it out and see what happens if you brought frequencies down to 5 minutes on those key routes! It will be much cheaper and faster to implement and you may see a huge benefit to it. Maybe do it for just a year on a probationary basis, then plan for transit in dedicated lanes. See what happens!

I know why they are making these plans. It’s for economic development purposes in three areas that they have targeted which have some existing momentum. They have even mapped out the number of acres available for development and empty parking lots. And while I understand denser development is a hard to sell people along a corridor, increasing housing and “parking” without adding something else they believe will reduce that burden is always a tough sell to the NIMBY set.

The answer at this time in my mind is going to be frequency.

A few other things should be considered as well. One is just the current administration’s unfriendliness to urban transit projects of any kind. It makes sense to jump in the queue if we know the Capital Improvements Grants (CIG) program is going to be around for a while, but with the current dismantling of agencies and disregard for the rule of law I’m going to cross my fingers on that one.

But second, I want to see things work. We’ve been building a lot of middling transit for a long time and at some point maybe we should try something different to start. Maybe (de)congestion pricing has me fired up in terms of efficacy, but what if Fort Worth just threw out some of the incremental stuff on buses and said we’re going for it. 5 minute headways, best in the country for a city of our size on these key routes of cultural and civic importance to the community.

I think it could work.

This week we’re joined once again by Yonah Freemark of the Urban Institute to discuss his annual transit project updates at Transit Explorer. In Part 1, we talk about housing strategies for properties near transit, exciting transit openings in 2025, and which cities could use a subway project. We also talk about government deference to local officials and how we can better use public assets to create more housing.

To listen to this episode, find it at Streetsblog USA.

It’s also a part of our larger archive.

Below is a full unedited AI generated transcript:

(more…)