Put Providence streetcar in proper context


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

pvd streetcarI have many points of agreement with Barry Schiller’s post on a potential Providence streetcar, but my disagreements are serious enough to be worth writing about.

Barry is right to raise concern about whether the Providence streetcar is the best use of our funds. Streetcars do cost more than buses, and they don’t necessarily upgrade service. The main features that make transit better–a train or bus having its own right-of-way, having signal priority, having an off-board payment system, all-door-boarding, and frequent service–may or may not be present with rail. Many Americans express a strong preference for rail because oftentimes the rail options they’re familiar with have these features, while the bus lines they’ve been on usually have not.

A subway in New York, for instance, has its own tracks, and never gets caught in traffic. Trolleys in the Philadelphia suburbs (and I believe many of the Green Line Ts in Boston) control intersections, so that when they come to a crossing the cars have to stop and they proceed. When you pay to get on a subway or some stops of a trolley, you often will pay through a turnstile, so that when the vehicle arrives you can just get on (using all doors). There are even upgrades that can happen to subways along these lines. The frequent problem of passengers bunching up on the middle cars of a subway is now being solved by putting stretchy accordion-like connections between the cars so that passengers can spread out and reduce boarding delays.

The Providence streetcar, as currently planned, currently has none of these features (If you need convincing still on why it should have them, read this “Dissent of the Week” in Human Transit, about the Washington, D.C. trolleys).

I have criticized the streetcar, but I am currently a proponent of moving forward on it. There are several reasons for this:

Our time is better spent fighting for good service features than fighting whether or not to have a streetcar. While there are many really bright transit-supporters who have legitimate complaints about the Providence streetcar, many of the people who are against streetcars are fighting them for totally different reasons than Barry (or me).

The right has long proposed busing as a way to supplant the greater costs of rail projects, but when cities have recently attempted to take them up on it by building quality BRT routes, the Koch Brothers have banded together with state governments to stand in the way of city planners in cities like Nashville, Tennessee. I’m concerned that we’ll have a pyrrhic victory if we block the streetcar, because it won’t necessarily mean that we’re going to get the money that was for the Streetcar given to us for buses instead. We can grow the strength of smart critics while giving no quarter to anti-transit folks by supporting the streetcar, and simply demanding better service patterns as part of it. We shouldn’t be passive about this–we need to fight! But let’s pick our battles.

Short routes in dense areas are okay. One big criticism of the streetcar you hear is that it’s not long enough. I don’t agree with this one. The comprehensiveness of our transit system is definitely a problem, but it’s not because of length of routes. In fact, Rhode Island has a tendency to run infrequent “coverage” routes to places where they can’t reasonably pick up large riderships, and often those routes connect from parking lot to parking lot in highly un-walkable, sprawly areas. I’m not even talking about little villages or whatnot, which I think should get transit because of their walkability even though they have low population counts. I’m talking about routes like the 54 that loop through multiple parking lots off of highway exit ramps, and as a result are bad connectors between their main urban locations–Providence and Woonsocket (RIPTA addressed the long travel time of the 54 by removing the urban stops along Charles St. and making them a separate route, the 51, but kept the suburban Tour-de-Parking-Lot stops, which just makes me smack my face with my palm every time). A short PVD Streetcar is not perfect. It should go from Central Falls (or at least Pawtucket) to the Cranston border. But the area that was chosen is a dense and walkable area with many trips that need to be covered. In fact, I think the choice to shorten the route and run it north-south between the Upper South Side and the T station is a great idea, because it makes more sense in the long-term to route a PVD Streetcar up N. Main and down through the S. Side and update the R-Line, with a separate route pulling east-west duty from Olneyville to East Providence). Pro-car thinkers (and even a lot of very earnest transit supporters look at a map and see the length of lines), but what matters is the frequency of those lines, not their length.

Streetcars are not the most expensive transportation choice we have. I agree, in principle, and spent quite a long time talking about the fact that Bus Rapid Transit is a better investment idea than the streetcar, and I know that Barry agrees. But I also know that Barry will agree with me that the streetcar is certainly not the most expensive transportation option we have. The 6/10 Connector, for instance, won’t cost $100 million, but $500 million, and unlike the streetcar–the worst of which I think can be said that it will provide mediocre service–the 6/10 Connector will pull neighborhoods apart and absolutely get in the way of sustainable development. The 6/10 Connector is small potatoes compared to some of the highway-oriented crap that gets built around the country, but it actually costs the same as the entire TIGER grant program for the whole United States. So given the fact that RIDOT may imminently decide to throw a bond issue out, or grasp for federal money, in order to rebuild 6/10, I think our time is better spent fighting that abysmal attack on our landscape than trying to stop a mediocre project.

south-lake-2

It can get better. A lot of cities have tried streetcars in part because of the Obama administration’s efforts to kick-start them through the TIGER grant program (which also pays for biking and walking improvements), and some of those streetcars have done quite poorly. One such example was Seattle, which built several of them, and saw ridership goals unmet. The Seattle streetcars were sitting in mixed traffic, getting caught at lights, waiting for people to pay with dollar bills at the door, and just generally sucking in every way that a bus does. So Seattle is now working to change the streetcars so that they have rights-of-way, signal priority, and all-door boarding so that they can be highly efficient transit. Providence should build these features into the PVD Streetcar now, but even if it doesn’t we can make the city do it later.

Remember, the Streetcar has a lot wrong with it. But we can make it better. And most importantly, we have bigger fish to fry.

~~~~

Should Providence build a streetcar line?


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
pvd streetcar
Artist’s rendering of a PVD streetcar. Click on the image for plans from the city.

A streetcar, or a “trolley” running on tracks in the street, might be in the works for Providence. Last year the city received a $13 million “TIGER” grant from the US DOT for preliminary work on a streetcar line. It was recently reported that the city was indeed seeking proposals for its planning and engineering. But in December 2014 its proposed route, originally to go from near RI Hospital to the East Side, was changed so that the streetcar would not go through the tunnel to the East Side but instead terminate at the train station. This reduces the length from 2.1 to 1.6 miles and the projected cost from about $117 to $100 million. About 2,900 daily riders was projected.

To fund the full construction, the city may consider issuing about $50 million in bonds, to be paid back by a “TIF” that is, tax increment financing whereby taxes on the enhanced property values in the area that the streetcar is expected to generate will be used to repay the bonds. The project would still need another $30 million or so to be fully funded. If the enhanced property taxes do inadequately materialize, the city would still have to pay back the bonds.

Apparently Mayor Jorge Elorza and Council President Luis Aponte think this is a good bet. Reportedly, Mr. Aponte believed further federal funding is likely as Providence is the only New England city seeking to build a streetcar. I’ll note the next round of TIGER grant applications to are due in June but I’m not aware of any public input into what the city or state apply for.

Reactions to the streetcar are mixed. City leaders and other supporters believe it will spur economic growth and jobs by attracting developers, entrepreneurs and millennials and there is some evidence that this can happen as developers like the assurance that tracks in the streets provide. There will be construction jobs as this is built. Further, there are environmental benefits to electrified transportation, especially as sustainable generation increases. And this can be the basis for a larger system of electric streetcars to serve many more communities.

However, costs are high. There are both relatively few residents along the route, and relatively few commuters coming to Providence by train, though both are expected to increase. Many considering a streetcar trip can walk instead, especially with $2 fare even for short trips. Besides the still unfunded capital costs, estimated operating deficits remain about $3.2 million/year, adding significantly to RIPTA’s deficit projections.

Thus, there is concern that a streetcar could come at the expense of some bus service. The streetcar route has much overlap with bus routes that serve the train station and the jewelry district. While no buses actually now go directly from the rail station to the hospitals, this will change when the new bus hub by the train station that voters already approved is implemented. RIPTA could also simply try a shuttle bus between the rail station and hospitals to check on the demand.

So it could be an economic boon or a costly failure.  The Providence City Council Finance Committee is holding a hearing on authorizing a TIF district for this project 6pm on Thursday, May 14.   It may be the only opportunity to weigh in with your suggestions.

Barry Schiller, former RIPTA Board member and long-time transit advocate, can be reached at bschiller@localnet.com

Support modern streets in downtown Providence


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
Protected bike lanes in Vancouver, BC.

Providence needs modern bike infrastructure, but private interests stand in its way.

Regency Plaza Apartments and the Providence “Dunk” Convention Center should not get to decide what happens to Providence’s streets. We should.

Sign the petition: Broadway and Sabin St. should get modern design standards to improve conditions for all users.

Regency Plaza would like part of Broadway to be “abandoned” to allow for further development. New apartments in downtown would be great for the city, but with a footprint that is mostly surface parking, there’s no reason for Regency Plaza to take more land from the city’s rights-of-way. It should make better use of what it has.

The Providence Convention Center has blocked any changes to its front street, Sabin St. Sabin is essentially the same street as Broadway, leading up to where the name changes over. Sabin’s geometry is extremely wide, allowing for high speeds punctuated only by traffic jams. Bike infrastructure makes streets safer and helps to reduce city congestion.

We would like Jorge Elorza to act administratively or in concert with City Council to preserve these streets as public rights-of-way, and to modernize their design.

Please sign our petition, and share it far-and-wide (not too far, though, we only need Rhode Islanders.).

Sign the petition: Broadway and Sabin St. should get modern design standards to improve conditions for all users.

~~~~

Mandatory minimum for DUI homicides wrong way to enforce law


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Peter KilmartinAtty. Gen. Kilmartn’s recent proposal that vehicular homicide should bring a minimum 30-year sentence strikes me as a bad idea.

People who kill with their cars while intoxicated deserve severe punishment, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that higher sentencing guidelines are what will work to prevent deaths. If tomorrow it was announced that I could watch a drunk driver be dangled by his or her ankles from the top of the Superman Building, I’d be out at Kennedy Plaza with my lawn chair to see the debacle. As cathartic as that might be, though, there are better ways to approach the issue.

The Ocean State was a leader in ending the death penalty, and we should recognize as a culture that severe punishment is less important than consistent punishment.

Rhode Island suffers from a serious DUI problem. It’s ahead of its New England peers–in the sense of more drunk driving, not better policy–and needs desperately to do something about the problem. But the U.S. approach of using prison to deal with any social problem is a failed one that we should reconsider. The places that lead on road safety don’t share our views about imprisonment.

In the Netherlands, which boasts some of the safest streets in the world, prison is a last resort. The Netherlands impounds people’s cars much more easily and for much longer periods of time than the U.S. The response to driver offenses is swift and sure in the Netherlands, to be sure: people lose their licenses for much less than vehicular homicide there. What would be considered baseline Rhode Island driving technique–speeding and failing to yield to pedestrians–is considered a serious breech of public safety in the Netherlands and not tolerated. People are arrested for such behavior, but from there the focus is less on competing for longer and longer sentences than it is on keeping irresponsible people away from cars, fining them for their behavior, and moving on.

The Netherlands has such a low imprisonment rate that it’s renting out empty cells to inmates from other Scandinavian countries.

I have nothing but respect for Atty. Gen. Kilmartin’s proposal. In Rhode Island, many of our lawmakers treat DUIs as a joke. So much is this the case that we made it to Last Week Tonight for the flippant and disrespectful behavior of State Senators Ciccone and Ruggiero related to a drunk driving and shoplifting incident:

What should Rhode Island do about drunk or otherwise impaired driving?

  • Cars should be impounded with a very streamlined process. Driving is a privilege. You abuse it, you lose it. And that doesn’t mean just for homicide, but for offenses like speeding, distracted driving, and failing to yield to vulnerable users. One of the things that strikes me as odd about the 30-year minimum is that it is tied to the act of actually killing someone–a sort of flip of the coin. More modest but more consistent punishments for the act of bad driving itself–with or without killing someone–is more important. A person who doesn’t already consider the 15-year minimum enough to deter their behavior isn’t going to be further deterred by an extra 15 years. The odds have to be increased that a person will be caught, rather than focusing on extreme punishments for the rare cases where someone is caught.
  • Drivers should be able to lose their licenses very easily, and for very long-term periods of time. A second moving violation (after first receiving a ticket) should result in temporary license suspension of one year. A homicide or serious injury should result in permanent license revocation. Any incident of intoxicated driving–with or without injury–should also result in permanent loss of one’s license. Failing to submit to a breath test should mean permanent loss of one’s license.
  • The state should use suspended sentencing as a means to enforce behavior of convicts, but should focus on placing irresponsible drivers in jobs and treatment and keeping them away from cars. A focus that is less about prison should not mean that people who are irresponsible can’t get prison time. It just should mean that it isn’t our go-to, even for vehicular homicide. In many European countries, even first degree murder is treated with lighter sentences than what the Atty. Gen. is suggesting for vehicular homicide, and while I agree with him that driving drunk is a conscious choice on par with other types of murder, I think we should think carefully about the fact that these other countries are succeeding in every measure of crime prevention that we’re failing at. It’s not about being soft, it’s about being effective.
  • The state should make it illegal to operate a bar in a driver-dominated location. I hope that Rhode Island MADD will join the call to fix this design problem. The places which are most successful at combating drunk driving are those which focus on density, transit, walking, and biking as primary means of moving around. Bars do not belong on the sides of fast roads or in low density areas unless they are providing a specific non-motorized way of getting around. Rural or exurban bars can meet this requirement by helping to fund shuttles or safe biking routes for their patrons–this should be a requirement of any liquor license. Municipalities should start placing parking maximums instead of parking minimums on bars–because only a few designated drivers should be expected to arrive by car. In the Netherlands, people drink or even use decriminalized marijuana and then go home safely, because the Dutch don’t build their environments with cars as the first and last option–they’re just as obnoxious as any bar-goer in Warwick but no one is hurt. The owners of bars may respond that providing non-car transportation costs too much in their locations–if that is the case, then they should relocate to denser areas where provision of other options is easier. No exceptions.
  • RIPTA should also be receiving additional funding to extend its hours late into the night the way the MBTA, MTA, and SEPTA do.
  • I’ve reported in the past on a tip from a RIDOT safety worker who told me that many municipalities do a poor job of enforcing DUI laws because of the amount of time it takes to book offenders for this offense–five hours. The perception in many locations is that violent crime is a higher concern, but cars actually kill far more people than guns in the United States. The Atty. Gen. should work with communities to find out how this institutionalized bias away from DUI enforcement can be fixed.

We live in a culture that sees prison as the first solution to any criminal problem. Prison is a tool, and should be available as an option for offenders who cannot be controlled by other means. But the design of our communities, the consistency of our enforcement, the standards we have for our drivers’ licenses, and other factors are far more important than blustering over large sentences. I encourage Atty. Gen. Kilmartin to take a different route to solving this serious problem.

~~~~

Subsidized parking as substitute for justice


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
The Next City takes on gentrification–by proposing subsidized housing? Nope. Subsidized parking.

Over and over, I have had many frustrating conversations with people who don’t understand how egalitarian policies and land-use/transportation fit together, to the point that I’ve been working on a piece to parse apart the details. Just as I was on my fourth or fifth draft, a perfect example of people having all the right impulses in all the wrong places fell right into my lap like a ripe apple.

Exhibit A: Seattle advocates want to fix poverty by complaining about development and subsidizing parking. Face palm! According to The Next City, a Philadelphia-based urbanist blog, the proposal would:

1) Honor all requests for low-income restricted parking zone; 2) Charge no more than five dollars per year for low-income restricted parking permits; and 3) Allow restricted parking zone permits for registered nonprofits located within a restricted parking zone.

The Next City goes on to say:

On its face, Sen. Jayapal’s revision reads like a NIMBYish cry to protect her constituents’ parking as transit expands and density increases.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner! But then The Next City says:

In reality, it is part of a broader effort to protect some of Seattle’s most diverse and lowest-income communities from the high risks of displacement that rode into the neighborhood on light rail.

Um, no.

A tri-cornered hat

There are three basic progressive policy choices on any given issue, but the three do not always overlap. It’s important to understand the differences between them, because shooting from the hip without clarity sends you all over the map.

  1. Leave people alone. This is like the null hypothesis. There are lots of times when we should do something, but having a policy choice that says “do nothing” reminds us to think clearly about what we’re trying to accomplish, and whether we’re overstepping our bounds and creating a new problem out of whole cloth.
  2. Set a policy that equalizes people’s position. This is a huge one. There’s no end to the moral and practical reasons we should want to eliminate the unnatural wealth gap that exists in this country.
  3. Set a policy that incentivizes people’s behavior. Of course, fighting inequality relies on incentives, but the best poverty fighting does that and leaves everything else alone. So this category sums up policies that incentivize other things; examples include pay-as-you-throw trash collection, tolls and congestion pricing, and fines for not shoveling one’s sidewalk.

These three policy goals are not the same! Don’t tell me that pay-as-you-throw trash collection means that creating more trash costs more, and is therefore regressive. That would be the case if we fail to have option #2 in our policy array, because then very unequal people would be paying market prices without any counterbalance to ensure they stay within reach of one another. And for sure, our country doesn’t do very well with #2. But Fixing the lack of equality with #1 or #3 doesn’t work. It just creates a mess.

Let’s break it down

Leave it alone: Gentrification, which I will define here as the displacement of poor people from a neighborhood when wealthier people move in, mostly doesn’t exist. So at the outset, I bristle at the article because it misdiagnoses a positive thing as a problem.

A very wide-ranging study of 1,100 U.S. Census tracts from 1970 to the present shows that most high poverty census tracts stayed that way, that we actually gained some high poverty Census tracts, and that those Census tracts that did get new investment mostly maintained the same number of low income people, while simply gaining higher income people alongside them (that mix, the study found, actually ameliorated poverty, while in the most isolated Census tracts, poor people’s lives got worse). Although not concerned by gentrification per se, the study concluded that poverty remains a serious, wrenching problem that should actively confronted by government. Daniel Kay Hertz does a really great breakdown of the information in the context of Chicago, and This Old City has some great, specific data on housing prices in Philadelphia (the data pre-date the study). The point is, the model we have that says we have to jump in to stop gentrification is mostly wrong.

If your neighborhood is popular, that’s a good thing. But you should make sure there’s enough housing to allow everyone to enjoy that. And in a lot of cases that means leaving things alone.

Equalize people: The same study on gentrification that concluded that housing development should be allowed to happen, even encouraged, in gentrifying areas also concluded that deep, centralized, isolating poverty remains a problem in the U.S. It won’t be news to anyone here that poverty is, in fact, growing. So while under #1. we talked about how to leave something alone that’s not a problem, under #2 we should focus on how to change something that is a dire problem.

Some of the best programs that equalize people included the 1950s consensus to have an income tax system that decreased the income and wealth gap in the U.S. by creating an effective maximum wage, a proposed program for a guaranteed minimum income or its cousin the Earned Income Tax Credit. Other examples include the Estate Tax, which at the federal and state level has always been a way to equalize the inherited wealth gap. What’s perfect about these programs is they very squarely take on the problem of the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, but they stay hands off about exactly what it is that people do with the money beyond that. But that brings us to #3. . .

Incentivize behavior: In general, it’s good to let people have choices, but sometimes there is a society-wide reason for pushing people to make a particular decision. You would hope that one of the behaviors that cities would want to encourage would be driving less, and in fact, Seattle is a city that has made huge strides in that direction, moving from above 50% of urban core trips by single-occupant drivers to just around 30% in just a short time. But a program of subsidizing parking, though intended to accomplish the goals under #2, is actually a really bad conflation with #3. It incentivizes behavior: the wrong behavior.

These three categories fit together. You want to leave alone development–i.e., gentrification–and in fact, where housing prices have risen to the point of pushing low income residents out, it has been because zoning or other policies have gotten in the way of housing growth. You do want to take from the rich and give to the poor, but not in a way that interferes with that. And you absolutely want to push people away from cars, so your incentives shouldn’t nudge people towards them.

We get these three all mixed up. We don’t leave housing development alone. We put all sorts of constraints on it, from not allowing federally-backed lending for apartments, to zoning against density and for parking, to spending more than half of our road money on road expansion in order to encourage sprawl. We certainly don’t effectively deal with poverty. The top income tax rate used to be 90%, and the point of that was to create a disincentive against ridiculous executive salaries, simply and elegantly, and instead incentivize reinvestment into middle income jobs and capital improvements. And everything, everything we can think of goes into making driving easier. Alongside the pittance of money for walking, biking, and transit, we throw huge subsidies towards parking fees, new garages, wider roads, cheaper oil–and all of it, we say, is because we want to keep the American Dream alive.

The results are summed up pretty well by Angie Schmitt:

And, of course, any policy that mixes things up this way has the potential to help some poor people along with many middle class people, and leave some poor people completely out in the cold.

It’s so frustrating when you’re explaining to someone how to fix transportation or land use policy and that person responds by placing those goals at odds with equity. There couldn’t be anything further from the truth. If we could straighten out the differences between different policy options, we could have clearer conversations about the huge range of problems that face us.

~~~~

Raimondo toll plan deserves progressive support


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Tolls are the way to go, says Gov. Raimondo, and we need to have her back on that.

As Gov. Raimondo recently pointed out, Rhode Island has some of the highest per-mile costs for road infrastructure. In addition to that, as I’ve pointed out right here at RI Future, much of that road infrastructure is highway oriented, even in our cities. Providence is among a rogue collection of cities in the Rustbelt Midwest, Texas, and California for its lane-miles of highway infrastructure per capita.

highways
The Next St. Louis wrote a story on its problem with too much highway infrastructure, and unfortunately we ended up among the cities that have the same problem.

That means that our poorest areas where people often don’t have access to cars are choked by highways, causing air pollution and congestion that would otherwise be avoided with a multimodal system. The costs of this type of highway infrastructure are many orders of magnitude higher than other projects, and also at the same time stand in the way of development in urban areas. These factors act as both a push and pull force against our economic development and climate change goals.

One way Gov. Raimondo has sought to fix the imbalance of spending is to use tolls to provide some of our road funding. I know that there’s going to be lots of howling from all sides, so I want to preempt it and say to the governor, “Thank you! Well done!”

Tolls are not popular on the left or the right. The right, of course, unaware of how socialized and unbalanced policies around driving have become, cries that tolls are a “war on cars“. In Rhode Island, we’ve seen tea party vandalism against toll collection efforts on the Sakonnet Bridge. Sometimes elements of the left don’t understand the issue well either, seeing tolls as a way of stepping away from the responsibility of government to pay directly for infrastructure costs through general funds. I believe both are mistaken.

It’s correct to use government to invest in public infrastructure and lessen inequalities. Road spending is simply the least efficient way to do it. Although all classes of people drive to some extent, the poorest drive the least. Certainly if you want to help the odd person who is poor and happens to drive, there are more direct ways to target the aid. Though road projects cause a blooming of development, the revenue from the development does not add up to enough over the long-term to pay back the costs of the maintenance on infrastructure. Tolls are an equitable way to pay for road infrastructure. Paying for roads in this way also means that the general funds we have can be repurposed to more important and directly progressive goals, like an increased Earned Income Tax Credit in the state.

I call on the governor not only to toll highway-type infrastructure, but also to look carefully at how we can reduce unnecessary road expenditures. We need long distance roads in parts of our state, but our urban areas are far too choked by highways. The Route 10 section of the 6/10 Connector is now the oldest highway in the state, cuts neighborhoods in Providence and Cranston off from one another, makes the Washington Secondary bike path less useful, and prevents development along a prime corridor of urban land. Removing highways like Rt. 10 and building them in less expensive, more multimodal ways would lower our state’s costs, allowing tolls to be less extreme (I think Rt. 6 should go too, but its infrastructure is newer–some of it, in fact, is being replaced at great cost right now–so that may have to wait).

The progressive community needs to put its elbow grease into supporting tolling as one of the tools we use in transportation. It’s up to us to organize and educate constituencies for this, or else the governor’s proposal will fail.

~~~~

It’s time to stop waiting for the bus in Rhode Island


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

I like RIPTA. Transit agencies struggle to provide direly needed transportation access to thousands of people, and they don’t get to take a day off if they’re not feeling up to it. I’ve seen some RIPTA staff in action, and they impress me. I’m also pumped about the redesigned Kennedy Plaza; for all the flak it gets, I think it’s an excellent thing for transit service in Rhode Island and a boon to rejuvenating downtown Providence.

But this is the 21st century.

In the 21st century, people don’t want to wait around in the cold for a bus, because they don’t have to. They have the internet, which can tell them, based on real-time location data, exactly when their bus is going to arrive. Or, maybe they live in an urban area that values its transit system enough to provide frequent enough service such that, even if you miss one bus, the next one will be along before your toes fall off from frostbite.

Unfortunately, neither of those things are true in Rhode Island.

Google Maps and other transit apps are still waiting for RIPTA to provide them with real-time data, instead of relying on scheduled bus arrival times. When you’re standing out at a stop in the cold, and you have a meeting you need to get to, what do you do with the statistic that a majority of buses arrive at each stop within 5 minutes of their scheduled time? Do you wait to see if the bus will come? Or do you walk over to the next transit corridor to maybe catch that bus? Or, more likely, you just don’t rely on the bus, because you don’t know whether it can get you there. When you can’t rely on the bus, it’s not a good alternative to car ownership for most people.

Or wait! Even if there’s some major technological, bureaucratic, budgetary, or other reason RIPTA can’t set up a process to format its data in the necessary fashion and provide a feed for Google and other apps (or even *gasp* citizen developers!) it doesn’t matter, right? There are a lot of bus lines; people can rely on the schedule and function pretty okay, yeah?

Except the problem is, RIPTA’s bus service is on the low end of frequency. Transit expert Jarrett Walker categorizes transit service based on off-peak frequency into four categories: buses every 15 minutes or less, every 30 minutes or less, every 60 minutes or less, and occasional service. If you miss those most frequent buses, no worries, because another will be along soon. If you miss the less frequent ones, you know the drill. Walk home, and tell that fantastic job or client you were really excited about that you won’t be able to make it.

So here’s a map of Providence with RIPTA routes colored according to frequency. Red is the best, then blue, then green, then orange is practically nonexistent service.

PVD ripta

 

But look! There are lots of red lines there! Except if you notice, those red lines are mostly along limited-access highways, without much in the way of transit access to the people living next to them. I could count on one hand the corridors outside of downtown with actual frequent transit access:

  1. North Main (paragon of pedestrian friendliness that THAT is)
  2. West Broadway
  3. Cranston Street
  4. Broad
  5. Elmwood
  6. Waterman/Angell
  7. Eddy (only to Thurbers)

Okay I borrowed two fingers from the other hand. But THAT’S IT. No frequent service to RIC or PC. No frequent service to the Wards of City Council members Narducci, Ryan, Correia, Igliozzi, Hassett, or Matos, and hardly any to Councilman Zurier’s Ward 2 or Council President Aponte’s Ward 10. And really, the frequent coverage ain’t great in many other Wards; they just have one or two frequent lines running through them.

Ideally RIPTA would solve both of these problems, but of course there are budgetary constraints and an imperative to cover the whole service area with service. As Walker states in this awesome video (yes I’m a geek), there is a tension between the goal of coverage and the goal of frequency. And indeed, with the R-line and suggestions of further focus on the highest-potential routes, RIPTA is headed more in the direction of frequency than it has been historically.

But the other problem? C’mon RIPTA. We’re living in the 21st century. Get on it. Or tell us why you’re failing in this way. Do you think we don’t care? Or that you’ll look bad? We do care. You already look bad when you don’t tell us why you’re deficient in this area. Here are some links to help get you there if you’re not already on your way: GTFS-realtimeMBTA’s live-feed page. Transit Camp 2015 conference notes.

Rep. Regunberg supports ‘intelligently-structured parking lot tax’


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

A proposed parking tax has cleared an important hurtle. Providence legislator Aaron Regunberg is speaking up for an “intelligently structured parking lot tax.”

Rep. Regunberg, who won the 4th District (East Side of Providence) with 83% of the vote, sent this statement to RI Future:

It is important for economic development, sustainability, and quality of life that our city create incentives that will lead to fewer cars on the road. Most residents familiar with Providence will recognize the incredibly negative impact on downtown of our far-too-many surface parking lots. We know the economic benefits that come with higher density land use, yet our current system incentivizes the spread of these unproductive developments which hurt pedestrian byways, impact our small businesses, and mar our city’s beauty. I believe an intelligently-structured parking lot tax could spur higher-density development and help build a more sustainable community.

Regunberg notes the importance of emphasizing the “lot” part of the tax.

RegunbergA parking tax would charge a fee to surface lots in the city, and 100 percent of that fee would then be returned to residents and businesses as a tax cut. The exact type of tax cut is up for debate, but I’ve suggested reductions to property taxes targeted to areas nearest the lots.

Because the city’s tax structure offers lower taxes to parking lot owners than other businesses, owners are disincentized to redevelop lots, and building owners can even be encouraged by the tax code to knock down buildings for more parking lots. This creates a death-spiral for the city.

Ethan Gyles, Regunberg’s general election opponent who took 17% of votes, has also indicated support for a parking tax in December 8th Tweet, saying that he was behind the measure so long as it “is written such that the city must lower other regressive taxes” in its place.

Parking tax for PVD: advantage carpoolers


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

carpool“With a baby and work, everything else is pretty hectic,” said Andrew Pierson, when the Oak Hill, Pawtucket resident was asked why he often drives to work instead of taking RIPTA.

But when Pierson drives to work he never does so solo. He and his wife “carpool approximately three to four days a week.”

Pierson is rare among American drivers, 90 percent of whom make their trips to work alone. Among carpoolers, though, he’s pretty typical. The majority of carpoolers share their vehicles with family.

“Ironically, we have some of our best conversations in the car,” he said. “And when we really need to talk about something and can’t find any time – the car seems to be the best place. Most people thought that having a baby would force us to purchase another car but it really hasn’t been much of a change. We chose a daycare close to one of our offices and she [the baby] is basically part of the carpool.”

One reason families are the center of carpooling is the inherent power inequality between the owner of the vehicle and the non-driving partners. Carpooling is intimate as much because it asks us to share our vulnerability with a stranger as because it shares physical space.

Carpooling to a place with paid parking is different though. I know this because I’ve been in such carpools to Boston at hours when the T doesn’t run. When there’s parking to be paid for, the passenger is king. They have something to bargain with: half the parking fee.

It’s no real revelation, of course, that the cost of things like gas or parking matter to whether or not people choose to share a car. In 1980, when twice as many people (20%) carpooled to work, the price of gasoline was equivalent to $6/gallon. I’m making a different point entirely, which is that in these situations, the power of the lesser partner is amplified. This may be a major key to stretching carpooling beyond families the way it began.

On a commute, a driver of a carpool is providing a real service, but asking for anything can feel crass. The passenger is reaping a real reward, but might feel like a potluck attendee with no food if he or she didn’t offer something to the driver. Because conversations like these force people into acknowledging difference, some people might rather avoid the whole scene.

If the parking tax brings downtown parking from $10 up to $14/day, getting just one passenger should lower that to $7. When a third person is in the car, driving to downtown would be comparable to a round trip bus commute with transfers (just under $5). If carpooling commuters get more passengers than that, they actually beat the cost of transit, with or without transfers. Meanwhile, they save money on car maintenance, gas, taxes for road repair, reduce congestion and pollution, and help put money back into the downtown instead of surface lot owners’ pockets.

Pierson catches a ride with a coworker to meetings about once a week, something he says makes his shared car situation with his wife possible. This has been a real benefit to his family.

“Why waste ten grand on a depreciating asset when [my family and I] can get exercise, enjoy our commute more and spend a few extra minutes together,” he wondered.

Pierson is fairly conscientious about the role of cars in Rhode Island, working recently to encourage Pawtucket to make itself more bike- and pedestrian-friendly. He responded to a tweet asking for carpool interviews. I know Pierson and work with him on some of his goals.

With a higher parking tax, people who never thought about city planning or walkable cities will have it front and center, and they’ll save money because of it too.

Seth Yurdin: Parking tax ‘great idea for downtown’


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

yurdin“The parking tax would be a great idea for downtown,” was Providence City Councilor Seth Yurdin’s “initial response” when I asked him about it at a recent Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Commission.

But he also said he’d need more information before knowing if it would be the right tool for Providence. He said he worries it might be regressive. Our conversation was informal. I didn’t identify myself as a blogger/journalist, but I did introduce myself as, and was referenced several times during the meeting, as a transportation advocate.

Anything that would stop land-banking in Downcity is a good idea, Yurdin said. Land-banking is the process of demolishing buildings and using the vacant land as commercial parking lots in order to take advantage of the way the city’s tax code works: a parking lot owner can claim their lot isn’t worth much, while charging an arm and a leg to bring excess cars into the city.

Support from Yurdin is important because his ward covers the areas of the city that have the lion’s share of commercial parking lots: Downcity and College Hill. A tax on commercial lots, either by revenue or per spot, would be the most likely form that a parking tax would take.

Yurdin said he had “equity concerns” about extending a parking tax beyond downtown, although I think we should push him on the City Council to allow lots located in College Hill to be taxed as well. I feel strongly that colleges shouldn’t get a special status for their parking lots. (For the record, taxing parking is not regressive, although the federal parking tax benefit–essentially the opposite of a parking tax–is). Splitting the difference with Yurdin and taxing only wealthy areas of the city would be fine with me, though, especially since those roughly correspond to the most transit-served job centers in the state.

Yurdin wondered aloud whether a tax rebate on property taxes would actually lead to more affordable housing in the city (“What landlord have you ever heard of who gives you a break on your rent because his taxes go down?” –Touché, Mr. Yurdin). This has had me thinking pretty hard for a response. Charging a higher tax on rental properties indisputably leads those properties to be less plentiful and more expensive than they might otherwise be, but correcting the supply issues caused by bad city policies would take time. Who’s to say one’s landlord isn’t happy to pass on extra taxes when they come his way, but doesn’t care to do the reverse? It’s a quandary. In the long-term, removing exclusionary zoning would tend to put landlords in competition, but we should want tenants to get their money now.

A conversation should be had about how to split revenues in a way that is fair and actually results in tenants getting a fair share. One proposal worth exploring would be to have the city cut a check to tenants directly, rather than having their landlord serve as an intermediary. I haven’t researched how easily that could actually be administered, though. Another option would be to cut the tenants’ tax, but focus initial returns as a credit towards building repairs that can’t just spent away. I like the idea of lowering property taxes because I value infill and affordable housing as priorities, and because I think these goals elegantly replace tax base just as quickly as the city loses parking revenue, but I’ve also discussed the idea of trading a parking tax for part of the city’s car excise tax, and debatably that could be bargained over to achieve equity goals as well.

Seeing the city tackle either the quality or cost of housing would great.

More on A Parking Tax for Providence.

How to structure a parking tax for Providence


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

accessibleparkingpicThere are several ways a parking tax could easily be implemented in Providence.

In a previous post I introduced the concept of a parking tax for Providence. This post explores five such options for implementing and collecting parking taxes. Future posts will demonstrate how much revenue can be raised, how it could offset other city taxes and what social benefits will result.

A revenue tax on commercial lots

The easiest way to enact a parking tax would be to pass a tax on the revenue from commercial lots – that is, the ones that charge a fee to commuters in the downtown. This is the tax collection model in Pittsburgh, where lot owners are expected to keep receipts of the revenue they collect and pay a 40% tax on that revenue.

There’s a range of effects that could take place with this kind of tax. If demand for parking was really high–no one who already parked stopped parking–lot owners would be in a position to pass 100% of the tax on to customers. So, imagine for instance that your normal fee is $10/day. That fee would become $14/day.

If demand for parking was really low–everyone, say, decided that it was not worth it to park–then lot owners would have to eat the tax entirely themselves. Lot owners pay around $0.60 per spot per day in taxes, so paying a $4 a day tax would be left with a strong incentive to either sell or repurpose their land. Even if a healthy number of people still chose to park, lot owners might be incentivized to reduce the size of their lots in order to stop having to eat so much of the tax. This would reduce parking tax revenue (and parking supply) but would increase tax receipts from buildings (and more importantly, would mean that there’d be way more cool things to visit, places to live, and jobs to work at in the downtown).

The reality is that demand for parking would fall somewhere between these two extremes. Lot owners might feel some pressure to take on some of the tax as a profit loss, because at $0.60 or $0.70 a spot in property taxes, a $10/day fee minus x amount of additional parking tax would still leave them a healthy profit. There would probably be enough demand for parking that commuters would pay some of the tax themselves in higher fees, too.

The big thing to remember about a revenue tax is that if a parking spot were free in the city, the lot owner would pay no tax. If the spot were on the market, but didn’t “sell”, i.e., no one parked in it, it would also be tax-free.

A “per spot” tax on commercial lots

A tax on lots “per spot” could be applied to commercial lots. This varies from the revenue tax in that the city would decide a fee for each parking spot that did not depend on usage. In our 40% example, $4 would be the fee on a $10 parking spot, so perhaps the city would just say to lot owners, “if your spots are on the market, there’s a $4 tax. 100 spots is $400 a day tax, no matter who uses them.”

Lot owners in this scenario would face a slightly different situation, and I imagine this tax having a stronger effect on reducing lot size as well as a greater immediate effect on reducing the profitability of parking lots. For instance, if a lot owner has 20 spots open on a given day, that that’s an $80 loss. If it comes to 10 AM, and those spots aren’t full, he or she may give them away for $4 each, just to break even on the tax. A lot owner won’t accept that position for long, though. He or she will start to look at the bottom line and think about how to get rid of parking spots that are typically not full.

The other advantage to the “per spot” tax is that it’s much easier to account for. The city uses Google Maps, and counts, and issues a bill. In order to prevent fraud in revenue tax situations, cities often use some kind of a smart card, so that there’s an unchangeable paper trail. But none of that would be necessary for a per-spot tax.

Per spot taxes are favored by the Victoria Transportation Policy Institute, covered here on Streetsblog.

A “per spot” tax on all parking lots

A per spot tax also opens up the possibility of taxing all parking lots in the city, not just those that charge a value for their parking. I really think this is the best option, but I also realize that there are political difficulties to implementing it.

A disadvantage to only taxing commercial lots, whether in the “per spot” or “revenue” model is that it creates an arbitrage around the value of parking on free lots. An arbitrage is when something is selling for one price one place, and a different price in another. It’s the kind of thing that day traders take advantage of when they’re doing frivolous trades back and forth to make profits without creating things. Arbitrages can also be a legitimate tool in a marketplace, helping people to make sense of what the price of something is, if information is shared fairly. You don’t want to go out of your way to create one, though.

Imagine you’re the owner of a business. The cost of paving a flat parking lot might be very small to you, both in upkeep and taxes (property tax assessments would say that the lot wasn’t really worth anything). If you give your spots away to your workers for free, your workers are super excited. To them, this is a $14/day value, because their access to parking is solely through what they can buy from a commercial lot, and what is given away to them by an employer. But you, the employer, have a great deal more leverage. You’re not really giving your workers $14/day at all. You’re taking advantage of a tax loophole to turn a tiny investment into a huge benefit for your employees (and you). That might sound well and good if you’re the employee, but it circumnavigates the purpose of the parking tax, so the more we can do to stop that problem, the better.

A tax on free parking would tend to affect big box stores disproportionately, which in my opinion would be both fair in a market sense of the word (pay for what you use) and in a share-the-wealth way. A business like Home Depot is imposing a lot more cost on the city through all types of infrastructure than, say, Adler’s Hardware store on Wickenden. An African grocery store on Cranston Street in a bottom floor of a three story building is costing the city much less than a Stop & Shop. And you’ll notice, although there would be exceptions, that most of the smaller footprint businesses tend to be independently owned. It’s also the case that some Dunkin Donuts stores or other chain stores might get thrown into the mix. But for the most part, the tendency would be that large chain stores would have huge parking lots, and local businesses would have modest parking lots, or no parking at all.

Another really big advantage to a tax on big box lots is that, so long as the city allows it, big boxes may not necessarily object to having somewhat smaller lots. There was an absurd case of a municipality requiring so much parking that even Walmart asked for a variance to get out of the requirement. Parking requirements for big box stores is usually set to some imagined peak demand, usually Black Friday or Christmas Eve, and transportation advocates have even gone out on these days to take pictures and show how overabundant these parking supplies are even for that purpose. So big boxes would have a choice: pay a tax on parking that’s excessive to begin with, or lease out the space and build some more stores. As a mental exercise sometimes, when I’m in a really hopeless looking over-large strip mall, I like to imagine what it would look like if piece by piece, little bits of the parking lot were gradually turned into neighborhood extensions. All in all, many big box stores aren’t even necessarily that awful in and of themselves. In reduced lots with things built around them, they could be shopping hubs for a much more connected population.

Joe Minicozzi’s “value per acre” model often results in small businesses having the steepest lines. Imagine AS220 vs. Walmart. Land use!

Smart Providence voters would support the parking tax on big boxes also as a means of leveling the playing field. Providence has a minimum business tax, which means that you’re paying a fairly high premium just to start out, whether or not you’re successful. Lowering or eliminating this kind of tax, going to some kind of percentage tax, and having a surcharge on parking space could change that scenario. What a big box is doing is essentially wielding a huge weapon of amazing, awe-inspiring car access, but without having to pay for any of what makes that possible (environmental damage, loss of walkability, increased sewage runoff, increased sewer infrastructure, hundreds of thousands of dollars per intersection of signals, wider roads, etc., etc.). Small businesses are essentially paying those costs–the costs of taking away their own customers.

A per spot tax on all parking lots could be set up to have a deduction of sorts for the first X number of parking spots. I don’t really think this is necessary, because the net reality of a parking tax would be to return more property taxes to small businesses and residents than those small businesses or residents pay out, but we also have to be aware that many people don’t like to dive into complicated multivariable math, and if doing this makes it simpler for people to count the pluses and minuses in their life, then fine.

I wrote a lot about the concept of value-per-acre at EcoRI News some time ago. It’s an idea put forward by Joe Minicozzi, and I think people interested in building an equitable growth model that’s good for the environment would do well to familiarize themselves with his work. This also helps to explain this tax model more.

Residential parking

A concern is parking in shopping areas. How would a parking tax affect residential areas? I think the tax models above would have very diminished value in most residential parts of Providence, because in those areas the value of parking may be minimal compared to the effort of passing a law. However, there are parking policies we could institute that would help residential areas. Those I’ve loosely based off of parking guru Donald Shoup of UCLA.

Screen Shot 2014-11-18 at 3.55.58 PM
Mode share visual from California’s employee parking cash-out, which lets employees take cash instead of free parking.

A big tool would be giving renters a cash-out option on parking. As a beginning to this, renters who have a garage as part of their lease should be able to opt out of the cost of the garage if they don’t want to use it, because garage parking affects housing affordability. A rent of $1,000 for an apartment that includes one garage spot can be broken down into $600 for the room, and $400 for the garage. A lot of residents will be happy to pay for the garage if they use it, but forcing landlords to treat these as separate things will open up parts of the downtown to people with less money who don’t drive. The landlords would be free to open unused spots on the open market, which would also help get rid of surface lots, by competing with lot owners. There would be no tax on this residential parking, because forcing it to be treated as a separate commodity would have a downward effect on demand.

Many parts of Providence have driveways, a legacy of on-street parking bans of days of yore. It would be a real gain to get rid of some of those driveways, or at least people to put raised beds above them. Other driveways could be converted into “granny cottages” to add housing. But the reality is that driveways are just not worth anywhere near as much as garage spots, nor are they the severe blight on the city of surface lots. This might make a cash-out hard to calculate. Instead, why not nix the existing on-street parking permits entirely (Do I hear a huzzah?) and trade them for an equal permit cost on driveways. Parking on the street would be free in most residential areas. Think of this as a mini-credit towards green space. Homes that decided to park on the street would and use their driveway for raised beds, or that pulled up the paving on their driveway, or built a building extension into the driveway, would not pay the tax (although the building extension would be weighed into property taxes). Getting people to park on the street in residential areas would not only help green space, but would also slow down speeding. I know that getting rid of some of the driveways in Mt. Hope would make crossing my street much more pleasant.

For streets that got protected bike lanes (mostly arterials), the parking tax would be nixed, and no driveway tax would be issued either. The logic is that in some areas we may have to remove parking lanes to create safe biking, and if you’re not getting a parking spot out front of your house, why should you pay?

Screen Shot 2014-11-18 at 3.50.18 PM

Donald Shoup talks about “right pricing” (click for video) parking, which is really just an issue in places where parking is in high demand (the idea is the lowest price that still keeps a couple spots free). Most residential areas are not going to run low on parking no matter what the price, but some that are near shopping districts would benefit from parking meters to impose a price on visitors and ensure that residents have a place to park. To make things simple, residents would pay meters, but the meter money would be taken off their property taxes. This also solves a big problem with the parking permits we have now–they’re by ward. What happens if you want to visit someone? You can’t park away from your house without worrying that you’ll get a ticket. This way when I visit you I pay, and when you visit me, you pay, but we both get 100% of the money off the taxes we were going to pay the city for our house. And. . . and. . . we’ll be able to find a spot.

A land tax

A land tax is not a parking tax, but it’s worth talking about, since my proposal for a parking tax is sort of a modified land tax. A land tax says that you should pay not just for the building you build on top of a piece of land, but also for its location and the type of zoning it has. So, for instance, a vacant lot is a particularly galling case of an owner flaunting the lack of a land tax in Providence, because since we only tax property value, it’s assumed that the prominent downtown location of a lot is worthless when it’s anything but.

The concept of a land tax gets slightly complicated though, and although I’m a believer in land taxes overall, I want to avoid some of those complications by going straight for a parking tax. For instance, what do we do about green space? If you own a house with a huge yard, should you be taxed extra just for the fact that your land is a half acre instead of a quarter acre or tenth of an acre? I think a lot of people might find this concept troubling, because even if it’s not our yard that we’re talking about, we just kind of like grass and trees, etc.

By the same token, what if we decide that downtown is worth a lot more in land taxes than some other place, but we find that some historic buildings don’t produce enough revenue to pay what they would pay as 20 story buildings in that location. Do we want to create a situation that might push them out, or encourage demolitions? A clever administration could draw exceptions and loopholes into a land tax to try to close the problems with this, but I just prefer going around it entirely and focusing on what we want to get rid of most: surface lots.

One concept that works really well from a land tax that we should use is modifying our tax structure based on location. I think a really good rule of thumb should be that a parking tax should be highest in places within 1/4 mile of frequent transit, a bit less 1/2 mile from frequent transit, and nonexistent where transit is nonexistent. Providence City Council could also choose to tax parking lots that are a adjacent to the front of a building differently than it taxed parking in the back of a building, since the latter has less of an effect on neighborhood walkability.

In the next piece I’m going to consider how suburban and rural areas of Rhode Island could best respond to Providence imposing a parking tax if they’re interested in saving their residents money. Stay tuned!

Providence should pass a parking tax


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387
accessibleparkingpic
Map of Pittsburgh courtesy of Streetsblog. Click on the image for more information.

Cities with less parking do better economically and environmentally, so getting Jorge Elorza firmly behind a parking tax should be one of our top concerns.

When asked whether he would support a parking tax during his administration, Jorge Elorza blew a dog whistle for potential supporters and opponents, saying in effect “not now.” On balance, Elorza’s reply makes me confident that the mayor-elect’s administration will institute a parking tax if Providence voters push him on the issue. A parking tax is one of the most important economic development and transportation initiatives that the mayor could take on, and progressives should ready themselves to ask for its passage.

I feel comfortable trumpeting the impending passage of a parking tax because of the particular caveats Elorza had with passing one. He at first said “we can’t adopt it right now”, but then added this:

The larger reality is that our citizens are already over taxed, and we can’t consider adding anything new to that burden. Over the long term, if we can manage to lower some of the other taxes – property tax, the car tax, etc. – I would consider a parking tax, because it’s much more progressive tax. First, it requires visitors to the city to share a portion of the tax burden, unlike the property and car taxes, which only impact residents. It also incentivizes other forms of transportation and ride sharing. (my emphasis)

Why do I think such a seeming non-answer is hopeful? Because the caveats are built into the proposal itself. Proponents of a parking tax ask that the city tax parking, and use 100% of the revenue to reduce other taxes. A parking tax means a tax cut on your house or apartment. We should take this as a yes and start pushing Elorza to keep his promise. Yours truly much prefers a lowered property tax to a lowered car tax for obvious reasons, but even a lowered car tax in return for a parking tax wouldn’t be a non-starter.

Pittsburgh currently has the highest parking tax in the country, at 40% of value, and it brings in more revenue than income taxes for the city (I would favor a parking tax arrangement that also taxes “free” parking–see article here–but getting commercial lots to pay a tax would be a start). Allowing Providence to tax parking could create the right balance that would both favor development and create a fairer environment for ordinary people.

As a type of de facto carbon tax, a parking tax works much better than, say, the gas tax, because if the mechanism that discourages driving works to actually reduce vehicle miles traveled, the result will be an economic situation that favors less driving even more. When drivers reduce their vehicle use, gasoline tax revenues are reduced, and programs like public transportation budgets suffer. Raise the tax to get more revenue, and driving is reduced yet again. But drivers who shun the parking tax by driving less will leave lot owners with less revenue, not transit agencies. The owners of lots, who previously may have calculated that it was worth developing nothing and taking a fee each day from commuters, might get a different idea. On the other hand, if drivers continue to park, the city collects revenues which can be put into property tax reductions. This, too, would encourage infill. So we have a positive feedback loop.

A parking tax dodges some of the objections people could have to a land tax. Residents with big yards don’t need to worry that the city is going to try to punitively charge them for green space*. And a parking tax would favor smaller businesses that often struggle to compete with big boxes, but which produce more benefit with less cost to cities. Big business need not even worry so much, since catching up would simply mean following the set of incentives the city is offering. Got parking you’re not using? Build another store on it, or lease it out to developers for housing.

The parking tax, unlike the car excise tax, has the advantage of taxing non-residents as well as residents, making it a more progressive way of pricing the cost of automobiles to society. This set up also answers a critique I’ve heard of the car tax, which is that some people may find themselves unable to give up a car due to long exurban commutes out of the city. A parking tax would inherently tax those who work in the urban core the most, meaning that city residents who normally drive from nearby neighborhoods to their jobs in the core out of convenience would likely be the first to change their habits and use other methods to get to work, while those who live on the South Side but work out in the boonies at a Walmart would be unaffected. Since a parking tax would raise the effective cost of driving to the core while lowering the cost of living there, many residents would experience the parking tax as a break-even tax or even a tax reduction.

A parking tax, by lowering property taxes, would encourage infill. Currently, the city frequently awards tax stabilization agreements (TSAs) to downtown developers to help ameliorate the city’s huge parking crisis and get new building stock. TSAs have a built-in logic that makes economic sense, but residents nonetheless have good reason to feel annoyed at them. With very high property and commercial taxes (Providence has the highest commercial taxes of any city in the country, in fact), it just doesn’t make sense to develop parts of Downcity without some reduction in cost, so TSAs get something where the city might have gotten nothing. But instituting a parking tax will help to lower these overall tax burdens in a more equitable way. Now, not just those with connections to City Council, but also renters or homeowners in every  neighborhood of the city, will see a reduction in their taxes.

The parking tax should also please progressives because it asks for as much as it gives back. TSAs fundamentally lower taxes for certain people without any immediate short-term plan for revenue. In a city facing yet another fiscal shortfall in the coming year, that’s a problem. Raising revenue for the city from a parking tax while giving that revenue back would be a more balanced approach.

The immediate challenge for the parking tax will be getting a City Council resolution in favor of its passage. Based on my best advice from talking to a variety of city and state officials, I understand that the legislature would have to give Providence authorization to institute a parking tax. I know there are some who have said they’re interested in helping with this effort, but first City Council has to move forward.

I’m going to be working with City Council to build support for a parking tax in the coming year, and I hope that RI Future readers will join individually and as organizations to call on Council and the mayor-elect to pass it.

~~~~

*I don’t contend that this is something that really happens under a land tax, as, in fact, land taxes often effectively act as parking taxes, but what I would say is that this clarifies the issue in voters’ minds.

The many alternatives to lowering the car tax


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

As some of you may be aware, I very much disagree with the RI Progressive Democrats decision to push for a return to the way that car taxes were assessed in Providence. I previously had the ear of some of the mayoral campaigns, and have been attempting in my own small way to push them on this issue, but have found them to be unreceptive.

As I’ve attempted on my own blog to bring attention to this issue, it’s become clear to me that in order to win, there has to be a list of viable alternatives to lowering the car tax that accomplish the equity goals outlined by RIPDA without resorting to a subsidy for driving.

First, some background. The car tax in Providence is based on state DMV assessments of the value of one’s car. In the past, the state offered a $6,000 deduction for the value of one’s car, meaning that tax was only assessed on cars above that value. More recently, the deduction was withdrawn, and Providence residents currently enjoy only a $1,000 deduction. This also went alongside a small reduction in the percentage of taxation, overall. I made a spreadsheet that explains how this breaks down:

As RIPDA members point out, the change in the way that taxes are assessed results in people who own cheaper cars having to pay more tax than they did previously. Around the middle of the spectrum the change has little effect, and at the upper end people can expect to pay somewhat less tax. An important figure left out of this conversation is that 25% of Providence doesn’t drive at all and this group, much like the non-driving population of most places in the U.S., is overwhelmingly low income. Changing the way that this tax is assessed will not help those who do not drive. It’s also important to keep in mind that the tax on cars is not really intended as an income redistribution tax, although in other cases I would very much agree with having a progressive system of income redistribution. The purpose of a car tax is to have drivers pay the costs of driving, which even in the current system, they don’t.

The cost of driving is never fully allowed to touch drivers in the U.S., as opposed to in many countries that actually do take care to have better distribution of wealth, like the social democracies of Europe. Yet, when costs are assessed to drivers, it impacts whether and how much they choose to drive. For instance, people who work at jobs that offer an equal free parking or transit benefit are more likely to drive to work alone than those who get neither benefit, demonstrating that the existence of a free subsidy to driving even outweighs an equal subsidy to not do so. Forgiving even the small portion of costs that the car tax makes drivers pay ensures that more people will choose to drive in Providence.

Still, be damned whether this brushes over the 25% that are most likely to be poor! Be damned the environment! Some of you out there just want to know what’s in it for you if you’re hanging in that middle zone of people who can afford a car but hate paying the car taxes.

One option for supporters of reducing the car tax to consider is putting the money from the deduction to RIPTA. The first $6,000 of car value at 6% is equal to $360 per car. If 75% of Providence households continue to own just one car, that’s like $50 million in revenue for RIPTA, which could be targeted only to city bus service in lower income areas. This could mean better shelters, more frequent service, upgraded facilities, or other conveniences. RIPTA could offer a set number of free RIPTA cards to lower income families, or could put the money aside to help pay for the school-aged RIPTA cards it issues. With improved RIPTA service, it’s very possible that some households would choose to give up their cars, and so any assessment of this plan has to assume that there’s going to be multivariable math going on. However, this at least is a win-win situation: either people pay the fee to own a car, and help create better transit service, or they choose to give up their car, also reducing our transportation expenses.

A second option is to focus on bike infrastructure. Despite the visibility of white, upper-class people in spandex on fancy titanium bikes, studies consistently show that those who ride bikes for transportation are more likely to be lower income. Putting quality bike infrastructure in lower income neighborhoods would provide a low cost way for people to get exercise and transport themselves to-and-from work or school, and would really cut away from the need to have a car to transport children. There’s a real equity problem with the way that many cities allocate bike infrastructure, and putting a preference in place for low income neighborhoods to get the first and best of the pack would be a really equity gain.

One problem that exists with the car tax is that it comes as a sudden shock to some people, who may not expect it. I’ve been talking for some time about the need to have a parking tax in the city, and I think that one way we can lower the car tax while keeping the cost of driving the same or greater would be to take some part of the car tax and put it into a per-space tax on parking lots. This would help to incentivize development and infill, lowering the need to drive by reducing job and housing sprawl. It would allow the costs of driving to be paid more incrementally, in a way that’s predictable to users. It could help the city reduce property taxes, particularly on rental properties, which pay a higher tax and are more likely to house lower income people. A parking tax could really help put us on better footing.

For a lot of reasons, I’m not sure I would support using the funding for non-transportation uses. As I said, because drivers do not pay even close to the full amount of the costs their vehicles contribute to road construction and maintenance, there’s no way to wish away the expenses that exist in city government for these expenditures. This is part of the reason that lowering the car tax is so problematic in the first place: it may be that it helps to make driving cheaper for some in a temporary way, but as costs mount it also means that some other kind of tax has to go up, or that some other service has to suffer. So, while funding schools out of taxes on cars sounds morally sound to me, I’m not sure the costs would add up long-term. The city would need to take money from schools to pay for roads, and it might just end up being a wash. I also worry about what might happen politically to a city that funds schools through car charges. We should view a tax that puts the real costs of car ownership on the shoulders of drivers as a good thing, but if we find that important social goods in our society are funded by the continuation of more car ownership, that might give us a perverse reason to avoid fixing our transportation situation. This is, for instance, the conversation that already exists, where drivers accuse bicyclists or transit riders of “freeloading” on the system for not paying gas taxes, even though these users obviously pay generously from general tax funds for roads, and contribute a great deal less to the roads’ maintenance costs.

In any case, it may be defensible to try to ease the burdens of lower-middle class drivers, but we should structure any change in a way that helps to support the needs of non-drivers as well, and which helps to foster a better transportation system.

Reducing the car tax isn’t the way to do that.

Correction: The author acknowledges an error in the amount of revenue from this tax. While $360 is 6% of $6,000, there is still a $1,000 deductible for car value in place. This means the difference in tax is between the $1,000 deductible and a $6,000 one, not between a $6,000 deductible and zero. The difference in tax for a $6,000 car is $283. The revenue, assuming no change in driver behavior, is around $40 million, not $50 million.

RIPTA Riders Alliance: Save Kennedy Plaza


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

DSC_4681In the minds of some Rhode Island politicians and business leaders, the empty and unsellable “Superman” building hangs like a millstone around the neck of the City of Providence. Rather than come to grips with the fact that the building is rundown and overpriced and that new economic thinking is needed to reinvigorate the Capital City, Providence Mayor Angel Taveras and Warwick Mayor Scott Avidesian (who currently heads RIPTA, the Rhode Island Public Transportation Administration), have pushed through a plan that scapegoats the poor, disabled, elderly, homeless and people of color.

DSC_4707The new vision for a modern and vibrant downtown does not include a busing hub. So Kennedy Plaza has been fenced off and is being destroyed as quickly as possible, before an outraged public can mount any kind of coordinated defense. Already the shelters have been taken down and trucked away, and the expensive heating system that automatically melts the snow is being dug up and scrapped. This work is leaving a giant pit in the center of downtown, even though there is no money allocated to completing the project. The plan seems akin to digging a hole in the hopes that someone will come along and build a house there.

DSC_4566Simply stated, this is class warfare being waged against the most vulnerable populations in our state, and it is being done with taxpayer money. Instead of walking across a plaza replete with convenient shelters to transfer from one bus to another, bus riders are now required to walk several blocks from one bus to another. In the winter, when Burnside Park is effectively one giant sheet of ice, the walk will become more treacherous or even impossible, especially for the handicapped and the elderly.

DSC_4740
Tonya Withers

Yesterday the RIPTA Riders Alliance held a press conference calling on officials to allow the public to have real input into the redesign of Kennedy Plaza. They demanded that construction be halted pending the swearing in of a new Mayor of Providence and a review of the plan. Forty-five people attended the event, including members of the Sierra Club, the Rhode Island Progressive Democrats, Occupy Providence, The George Wiley Center and others.

Tonya Withers, a homeless woman who sleeps in Kennedy Plaza on the hard stones of the Civil War Monument, also spoke out against the construction and in favor of greater public services for the poor and homeless.

Of course, Tonya is exactly the kind of person this new plan seeks to eliminate from downtown, so what are the chances that city or RIPTA officials will give her words any weight?

RIPTA Riders Rochelle

RIPTA Riders Elaine

RIPTA Riders Patricia Raub

Sierra Club Barry Schiller

Tonya Withers

Joe Buchanan

RIPDA Jed

Occupy Providence Randall Rose

RIPTA Riders Ele

Deborah Wray

RIPTA Riders Ingrid

RIPTA Riders Ralph

DSC_4627

DSC_4587

DSC_4598

DSC_4606

DSC_4612

DSC_4616

DSC_4622

DSC_4627

DSC_4639

DSC_4647
Ed Benson, RIPTA Riders Alliance

DSC_4683

DSC_4697

DSC_4704

DSC_4709

DSC_4715

DSC_4731

DSC_4740

DSC_4748

DSC_4763

DSC_4769

DSC_4786

DSC_4795

DSC_4825

DSC_4860

Understanding the Highway Trust Fund


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

sheldon roadsRecently Congress passed a temporary funding measure for the Highway Trust Fund. The House-designed plan used a number of funding gimmicks that drew money from non-road expenditures to cover road construction projects. Although the Rhode Island delegation put up a protest to these pro-car funding mechanisms, it also in the end voted for them.

Since the temporary nature of the budget bill means this issue will come up again shortly, progressives should be aware of what the issues are so that next time we can demand a better deal.

I’ve chosen to push our own Senator Whitehouse on this issue, not by any means because he’s got the worst views in the Senate, but in fact because I think he’s got the potential to move beyond his mediocre position and become a real champion for reform on this issue. In a state like ours, where being a champion for better transportation isn’t a political liability, our senators should be using the deliberative nature of the upper house to prevent bills like this from passing.

Leading up to the vote, Sen. Whitehouse gave a speech against the House Bill, and proposed a more progressive alternative favored by a coalition in the Senate. The first thing to understand about the Senate bill is that although it was far better than the House one, and might have made an acceptable compromise, it still had a lot of problems with it, and much of that was displayed in Whitehouse’s speech.

The first thing to be said is that Whitehouse puts up a big protest, but says outright in the speech that he’s willing to vote for the bad bill, which he did. Think about this from the perspective of the Tea Party. What incentive does the rightwing of this country have to compromise in any form when its opponents announce such weakness upfront? The strength of the right in this country is that it continually draws a line in the sand that is outside of the Overton Window, and then demands that others catch up. The left needs to see itself in this same light. Whitehouse’s criticism of the House bill was welcomed, but his admission upfront that he had nothing up his sleeve to actually oppose the bill meant that the Tea Party had already won.

Sen. Whitehouse explains a number of reasons for being willing to vote for the problematic bill:

*He says we need to protect jobs– This is an understandable position in a state with poor employment, but the nature of our road infrastructure does a poor overall job of protecting a growing economy. Short-term spending on roads does employ some people, but if those roads cut off neighborhoods from neighborhoods, that harms the overall productivity of our cities. The overall cost of road infrastructure and car-oriented development outstrips its benefits in the longterm, what some observers have referred to as the Ponzi Scheme of Suburban Development.

The nature of both the House and the defeated Senate bill did nothing to address the nature of road building. Sen. Whitehouse has, for instance, lobbied on behalf of special funding for projects like the Providence “Viaduct” which divides the city in quarters, takes up about as much land as the I-195 Project, and makes non-car travel impossible from neighborhood to neighborhood. After funding was restored to the HTF, a number of states saw resumption of road widening. If Sen. Whitehouse and the others in the Rhode Island delegation would have held their ground on this issue, a short-term crisis in road spending might have forced some serious conversations nationwide about whether we’re spending our resources in a wise way.

*He uses the AAA and the American Society of Civil Engineers as support for his position. The AAA, though not viewed as a political organization by most Americans, is in fact deeply embedded in preventing transit projects, blocking parking reform, bike lanes, and other projects that reduce people’s dependence on cars. The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) gives “letter grades” to roads which include at times their structural integrity, but which also include measures such as “functional obsolescence.” Functionally obsolete bridges sound scary, but what that term actually means is that the bridges aren’t considered big enough by a subjective standard set by the ASCE. It’s important to understand that solutions like road widening, which a lot of HTF money goes to, actually worsen traffic congestion by creating an induced demand to drive. By quoting these sources uncritically, Sen. Whitehouse joins the road-building lobby and betrays his best efforts to stand up to climate change. More to the point, he endangers economic development, as the bigger picture around jobs and the economy calls for more investment in walkable, bikeable, transit-oriented places, and less sprawl and road-heavy design.

*The Senator rhetorically blames the age of Rhode Island’s colonial infrastructure for the poor condition of its roads. This is ironic on a number of levels, and intentionally or unintentionally misleads the public. Colonial roads, like Touro Street in Newport or Benefit Street in Providence are 1) not federally funded by the Highway Trust Fund, 2) Extremely cheap to construct and maintain–by many orders of magnitude–compared to highways, which are funded through the HTF, 3) usually able to self-support through local property taxes, because by nature they’re able to have housing and businesses alongside them, something which highways tend to push away. Post WWII road construction, which usually costs more than the surplus development it encourages, and is thus fiscally unsustainable in the long run, is the source of Rhode Island’s, and the country’s, transportation problems.

*Senator Whitehouse deserves credit for supporting a higher gasoline tax, calling for users to pay a fee for the roads they use rather than have them funded through a House gimmick. The gasoline tax has advantages and disadvantages. One issue, as mentioned in the colonial roads example, is that for road projects the federal gasoline tax is only available to projects like bridges and large roads, and this means that local short trips by car tend to subsidize longer trips (this wouldn’t be a problem if everyone used the highway equally, but since that’s not the case, it effectively underprices highways and overprices local roads). The continuation of a system in which gasoline taxes only fund half of road construction means that all non-car trips subsidize car trips as well. Raising the gasoline tax would tend to improve funding for these projects, while decreasing demand to drive, but it’s unclear that there’s a mechanism in our current transportation system to get state DOTs, that receive and manage much of the federal HTF, to spend less on roads. The fact that Sen. Whitehouse frames road construction as a form of jobs program underlines this issue. We need a better funding system, including a mix of a higher gasoline tax, as well as parking taxes, congestion pricing, and other mechanisms, alongside a better spending system. Support for “saving” the HTF without reform means “saving” our highway-dependent road spending. That’s nothing good.

*Pet projects sometimes get funding from the HTF. Sen. Whitehouse cites the Great Island Bridge, which serves a low density housing cul de sac in Narragansett. A just spending system on roads would have municipalities building bridges like this, rather than consigning them to federal spending. The overall structure of the HTF means that states get disproportionate amounts of money to spend as compared to their populations, so that Rhode Island is a rare dense state joined by many rural states that also take more than they put in to the system (the State of Rhode Island and its Providence Plantations are poorly suited to continue to expand its road system, when cities like Providence, for instance, have more highway lane-miles per capita than most other cities in the country). This means that denser, larger states that are more likely to focus on transit or biking lose out on funding. The aspects of the HTF that make it a good way to bring home spending to states with bad economies is also the aspect of the fund that makes it a bad way to prioritize transportation funding.

The federal vs. local framework that some progressives, including Sen. Whitehouse apply to this issue is understandable. On some issues, having the federal government intervene and take a stance that local governments will not is paramount to the functioning of a democracy. The history of left-leaning voters’ preference for federal over local spending comes from an honest source–without the federal role, issues like African-American civil rights might never have been resolved, even to the limited degree that they are today.

But when we encounter federal programs that do more harm than good–that essentially codify a bad way of doing things–we need to distinguish between that type of federal response and other progressive examples. What’s exciting about the new conservative recognition of some of these truths is that there is now a left-leaning as well as a right-leaning constituency for reform. Likewise, there still exists a left-leaning and a right-leaning constituency to keep things the way that they are. In standing up to the Tea Party, Sen. Whitehouse may have the right motivations, but if what he ends up supporting is business-as-usual with the Highway Trust Fund, that will ultimately harm Rhode Island.

Ultimately, a Rhode Island with less money to spend on roads would be a healthier Rhode Island. It would be a Rhode Island that would focus money on fixing local roads, on encouraging infill and reducing farmland destruction, on emphasizing Bus Rapid Transit and biking over road widening or vanity transit. There’s no value to short-term jobs over that. As Sen. Whitehouse himself emphasized, we need to look at the overall picture for jobs, not just particular jobs in particular industries.

When Sen. Whitehouse is again confronted with a chance to vote for a bad House Bill, we hope he’ll stand firm and vote no. We also hope to see some deeper investigation of these transportation and land use issues in his upcoming Time to Wake Up speeches. The Senator has been a leader on climate change within the hermetically sealed realm of direct environmental regulation, but he needs to see how his stances on issues like transportation directly correspond to the effectiveness of his overall message.

Time to Wake Up!

Wingmen: How to fund transportation


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

wingmenCongress should make a long term commitment to funding transportation, especially given that Rhode Island has the worst infrastructure and unemployment in the nation, I argued on Wingmen last week. Meanwhile, Justin Katz suggests we forgo federal money and fund transportation locally, which doesn’t seem like a serious solution to me.

News, Weather and Classifieds for Southern New England

Sign up for Park(ing) Day!


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Park(ing) Day was started in San Francisco, but has since spread to every continent except Antarctica. It came to Providence last year, a bit late, but with a bang. For a city of a few hundred thousand people, Providence’s turnout of 35 parklets was head and shoulders above other East Coast cities on a per capita basis, coming close to matching cities like Philadelphia on a numerical one as well.

The purpose of Park(ing) Day is to temporarily repurpose parking spaces as something other than parking, in order to draw attention to the large areas of our cities oriented towards cars. When parking and streets are taken into account, cities like Providence allocate more than fifty percent of their downtowns to cars, and often even more space in the outer neighborhoods. Parking policy has strong correlations to housing affordability (extra parking raises the cost of housing) and transportation sustainability (it also greatly encourages driving).

This year’s Park(ing) Day will be upping the ante, and we need you to be a part of it! Broadway in Providence will be getting the state’s first-ever protected bike lane in the northside parking lane for the day in order to show ways that our streets can be better organized. The hope is that businesses and residents will be able to see ideas tested out without having to commit to them permanently. So-called “tactical urbanism” trumps bureaucracy any day.

Residents and businesses are asked to contribute their ideas and elbow grease to setting up mini-parks called “parklets” next to the protected bike lane. There will also be many parklet locations in Downcity, adding green space to the downtown.

2014’s Park(ing) Day comes on the heals of some let-downs in Providence politics. The state government shoved through a paving of the State House lawn for free state employee parking in fall, ignoring laws on the books requiring it to incentivize employees away from driving to work. Then in May, Halitosis Hall voted to extend $43 million plus interest payments for the as-yet-unbuilt Garrahy Garage. While stopping the garage is a longshot, Park(ing) Day focuses on aligning transportation policies so that cars are not subsidized. These setbacks should embolden us.

Participation in Park(ing) Day is free, but we highly appreciate donations to help pay for materials and permitting costs. You can sign up by visiting the Rhode Island chapter of the American Society of Landscape Architects’ website: rhodeislandasla.org/parkingday.

Providence: Top 10 freeway miles per capita


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

We have many things to be proud of, friends. Providence is one of several great cities in our state. Sadly, we’re in the top ten for something we should not be so proud of–Providence tops the ranks of U.S. cities for freeway miles per capita.

image

I was blown away when I attended a Rhode Map recently and found that we have no plan yet through that planning process to address urban highway removal, as has been done in cities great and small throughout the country. Providence should take its top ten status as a new impetus to remove expensive nightmares like Routes 6 & 10, to manage capacity on highways like I-95 and I-195 through bus rapid transit lanes, and to save on road expense throughout our urban areas through judicious use of road diets. These solutions are not only green, but reduce state infrastructure liabilities in a way that can give left and right what they each want: more money for services, and less need for high taxes to upkeep aging infrastructure.

As you can see, Kansas City & St. Louis are outliers. But Providence is well within the ranks of cities in Texas, as well as Rust Belt Cities like Cleveland and Pittsburgh. Pittsburgh is working very hard though to add protected bike lanes and build a more reliable transit system, though, so its situation (just a hair better than us on the chart) is probably a result in part of historical inertia. Maybe that’s partially the case with us too. And we should have hope that we can turn it around. Seoul, South Korea has removed fifteen freeways, and we can certainly handle our smaller lot of removing many fewer. This is another area where being a really small city gives us an opportunity–yes, we have problems, but they’re geographically small, so we can turn them around much faster.

In any case, it seems that we have a problem, and it’s quantifiable. I’ve often felt like a Providence map, from far away, looks fairly close to a Philly map, but the difference is the geographic size of the cities. You have the same pattern of a freeway here and a freeway there cutting this or that area off, but if you pay attention to scale you realize that in some parts of Providence it may be just a ten or fifteen minute walk from one freeway obstacle to another, whereas for Philadelphia you may have to walk an hour or more. So it’s gratifying to see the numbers and realize that the feeling is true.

In Philadelphia, certainly the feeling of crossing the Schuylkill Expressway is almost on par with crossing I-95 in Providence, but that has been improved recently with rebuilds of older, car-oriented bridges towards more multimodal ones like the South Street Bridge (which could still get better. . . Can we get some trees, or does that go against AASHTO requirements? Sigh. . . ). People in Philadelphia complain (rightly so) about the crossing to Penn’s Landing, which feels similar to the bridge into India Point Park, but by Providence standards that crossing is quite nice. You have plants on either side of the bridge (somewhat) guarding you from the reality that you’re over a huge interstate, and the streets on either side are unpleasant but at least not as bad as the I-95 service roads.

But I didn’t write this to get people upset or to leave people without hope. Providence is a remarkable city in between its highways. It can turn things around very quickly in the areas where it’s not a nice place. The first step, though, is seeing the measurable difficulty we face from our unnecessary urban freeways.

Debating RI’s future: Moving away from knee jerk negativity


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Power of Place Summit adIf you’re like some key local pundits and bloggers, you believe that Rhode Island is a hopeless economic and political basket case that can’t seem to do anything right.

At Grow Smart RI, we think this conclusion is as off base and dangerous as the notion that Rhode Island is performing up to its potential—to the point where no major public policy changes or new investments are needed to improve our economic performance.

Why “Hopeless” Rhode Island is a Myth

Let’s pretend for a moment that the Ocean State is actually a total economic and political basket case. The following would not be a reality:

  • Attracting the world‘s largest distributor of organic foods (UNFI)
  • Emerging as a national center for world-class brain research
  • Gaining a national reputation for facilitating business startups
  • Attracting national acclaim for coastal resiliency planning
  • Moving rivers, railroad tracks, and highways to revitalize and visually enhance our major city
  • Our capital city of Providence having a vibrant food and music scene, which contributed to its recent distinction as #1 on Architectural Digest’s “Best Small City” list.

You would agree that—while this list is not exhaustive by any means—all of these indicators validate and radiate what our state motto claims: there has, and always will be, hope in Rhode Island.

Playing to Our Strengths

Despite these and other signs of progress and competence, Rhode Island today, with its relatively high unemployment and underemployment rate, is a major economic underachiever that has tremendous untapped economic and social potential.

Among the assets that we can leverage and capitalize on much more systematically and aggressively are:

  • Our outstanding collection of historic buildings and neighborhoods
  • Our well positioned deep water ports and harbors
  • Our good fortune to have more college students per capita than almost any other state in the country; with highly ranked design, research, culinary, oceanography, and business schools, as part of the vibrant local mix
  • Our compact size and development patterns
  • Our easy access to diverse natural resources and beauty
  • Our strategic geographic location within a day’s drive of more than 40 million people and
  • Our distinctive urban rural balance as the 2nd most urbanized and 16th most forested of the 50 states

Our 2014 Power of Place Summit: Positioning Rhode Island for an Economic Renaissance 

Grow Smart RI is convening a broad cross section of more than 500 Rhode Islanders on Friday, May 23rd at the RI Convention Center to learn from one another how to play more effectively to these and other strengths.

By doing so, we’re challenging ourselves to go beyond the negative headlines and the superficial whining that dominates too much of life in the Ocean State today.

We will learn from each other: exploring successful smart growth policies, partnerships, and projects that are already working to move our state forward, as well discussing those that have the potential to do the same.

And we will be sending a clear message regarding our economic woes: that while a sense of urgency is warranted and can serve as a catalyst for solutions—one of hopelessness and desperation is unwarranted and counterproductive.

The dialogue about Rhode Island’s future needs more balance, and more connection to reality vs. knee jerk negativity. We intend to push the dialogue in this direction, even if it requires confusing some people with the facts.

If you’re willing to move beyond stewing to doing, join us on May 23rd at our 2014 Power of Place Summit. [REGISTER HERE]. We look forward to seeing you there.

In service to the service road


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387

Screen shot 2014-04-05 at 11.48.06 AM

There was a fun online graphic survey at the New York Times a while ago which asked a series of questions and then placed participants on a map, showing the exact city or cities whence they came (my partner Rachel’s friend from college, for instance, had grown up in Texas and moved to North Jersey in elementary school, and the survey was able to pinpoint both that he was a New Yorker and that he had grown up in the Lone Star State based on different aspects of his speech. Rachel was placed appropriately between Wuhstahh and Prahhvidince as a native of Central Mass with a dad from Central Falls, while my Philly patois must have come through to the NY Times, because it placed me there).

Transportation figures heavily into our dialects. For instance, I grew up saying “traffic circle” but people around the country call those things rotaries, traffic circuses, roundabouts, and all manner of other things. My favorite transportation-related question from the survey was the one that asked you what you call the stretch of road that’s next to a highway, for the purpose of entering the highway. While New England calls these things “service roads”, Philadelphia doesn’t have a term at all. It’s not that we don’t have them, it’s just that they’re not named.

As you may know, RIDOT is planning an expansion of I-95 to help motorists bypass directly to 146 past the traffic that collects around the mall. The whole project, which stretches only a mile, will cost a projected $46 Million, which in context is more than the whole repaving bond amounted to for Providence. There are a whole lot of reasons why this project doesn’t make sense, and I’m in the process of writing more on that question. Right now I want to back off of the project itself and focus on a bigger-picture question, which is how the idea of a “service road” influences our chances of fighting for a more livable Providence.

The Vine Street Expressway in Philadelphia strikes me as a good example to visit for contrast.

For much of its eastern length since the Rizzo days, Vine Street is essentially the “service road” on either side of its expressway namesake. It’s not a great place to walk or bike, and the expressway creates a rough boundary between Center City and North Philly which especially around Chinatown has resulted in dilapidation and squalor. If you asked a Philadelphian what they would call this part of Vine Street though, my tongue-in-cheek guess is they’d say “It’s the part of Vine Street that Frank Rizzo fucked up” rather than having a term like “Service Road 8” for it.

What does Vine Street have that differs it from a service road?

Screen shot 2014-04-05 at 8.31.35 AM

Note here:

  • Sidewalks
  • Parking Lanes (you can’t see them here, but go on google and scroll around, you’ll see there are parked cars). This brings Vine Street to an unusually wide two lanes of traffic in each direction–rather expansive in Center City Philadelphia terms, but modest compared to the three lanes of speedway next to the West Side and Downcity Providence.
  • A bicyclist (way in the back)
  • Of course someone from South Philly has wandered away from Broad Street to park their car on the sidewalk
  • Trees (and even some large ones, which would perhaps be seen as immobile hazards for cars by some highly-trained traffic engineer). And the trees are on both sides, creating a sound buffer to the highway
  • Murals that don’t look like they were commissioned to fifth graders
  • There are traffic signals at every block, and as far as my visual investigation of the Google Streetview and my memory of living in Philly can tell, there are no “beg buttons” on the walk signals.
  • There are even trolley tracks (unused, but with a bus route that might go back to trolley someday) at the next intersection.
  • The lanes do not appear to me to be 12′ wide, as on Service Road 7, suggesting that perhaps cars are expected to act like they’re in a neighborhood until after they get on the highway.

This, friends, is a street. Not a great street–I’d like to reemphasize that this is a rough area with a lot wrong with it, and not someplace that you’d want to replicate by any means. But this is a street nonetheless.

The service road, on the other hand, will sometimes attain the name of some obscure local municipal or sports figure as a means of trying to tidy itself up, but will mostly be known by a number. And truly, the number tells you what it is much more honestly than the name of the celebrity could. When I first encountered Service Road 7, I assumed it was kind of like Vine Street–not a great place to bike, for sure, not a great place to be a pedestrian, but a street of sorts that someone like me–a person in the 1% of cyclists who are willing to bike in most any conditions–could use. Whoa! Was I wrong! Service Road 7 is a stroad (video explaining term).

The term “service road” is not destiny. We are not required to think in the way the word suggests we think. But having a word like service road does oblige us to think of certain distinctions that might remain unstated and below the surface in a place without the term. This is kind of how a German, with the feminine word for bridge, eine Brücke, will often use a feminine voice when asked by a researcher to anthropomorphize the feature, while a Spanish-speaker, saying el puente–masculine–will use a male voice to personify the crossing (does this affect how Germans or Spaniards build bridges? Researchers still don’t know, but that’s a crazy thought, isn’t it?). It’s not that these speakers can’t understand that bridges are in fact objects without set gender identities. But the first thing they think of when they use the word is the gender they’ve been taught to assign to these objects.

Mayor Rizzo (video), who helped push through the Vine Street Expressway, was an old school boss mayor (video) like Richard Daley of Chicago, having come up as the chief of police in a repressive city in spasms of racism  and injustice. Rizzo would make Buddy Cianci look like a paper tiger. The Toronto Sun recently cited Rizzo in order to give a favorable comparison to their coke-addled leader,Rob Ford, saying:

Then there was Frank Rizzo, mayor of Philadelphia in the 1970s, an autocratic leader accused by the city’s blacks of discriminating against them, who, in his 1975 re-election campaign infamously told a reporter: ‘Just wait, after November you’ll have a front row seat, because I’m going to make Attila the Hun look like a faggot.’

So let’s not make Ford a bigger deal than he is — a failed, largely powerless mayor who deserves to be soundly defeated in next year’s election.

Ah, I feel proud. There’s someone more embarrassing than Rob Ford.

The shadow of Rizzo’s time in office lays over Philadelphia in ways that are much deeper than this highway. Yet Rizzo got push back by the community around the Vine Street Expressway that helped shape the project. One major community success was that Vine Street got an expressway and South Street did not, saving things like the Magic Garden, which otherwise would have gotten the bulldozer. The Wikipedia article on the Vine Street Expressway notes several other changes due to environmental, historic, and neighborhood concerns which required changing the route, reducing the scope of the project, and adding transit improvements alongside it. Though we all talk about hating the service roads in Providence, somehow I can’t see a successful campaign by a community to change the nature of a service road in the same way that I can see a campaign to push back about a street, because the term service road says that its purpose is only to move cars quickly, and nothing else. Can you see a successful campaign to put bike lanes on Service Road 7?

The service roads are a piece of Providence’s landscape that more than any others diminish it. We need to start to recognize them for what they are: temporary mistakes to be corrected, rather than natural features of the landscape to be built upon and expanded. The city I grew up around, I think I’ve adequately explained, was no place of soaring progressive vision. But sometimes, I suspect, our words affect the way that we envision even the worst of ideas. If the people of Philadelphia, Providence, or any city were approached with a discussion about expanding a piece of infrastructure that was part of a highway, they would naturally consider that proposal differently than if they were asked to bring a highway onto their front street. In a way, I suspect that having these service roads as a cognitive frame disarms us from objecting to their role in the landscape: they may suck for anyone not barreling out of the city in a car, but c’mon, that’s what they’re for. As much as I dislike Vine Street and the legacy of the mayor who messed it up, I have to recognize that there are some major things that are different about it than our New England service roads.

~~~~


Deprecated: Function get_magic_quotes_gpc() is deprecated in /hermes/bosnacweb08/bosnacweb08bf/b1577/ipg.rifuturecom/RIFutureNew/wp-includes/formatting.php on line 4387