Jeffrey Murillo Professor Jeff Bain-Conkin Writing and Rhetoric November 19, 2013 New Urbanism and Congestion

in Southern California The rise of urban sprawl in the U.S. throughout the 20th century has led to the surfacing of several concerning issues. Of them, the issue that has received most attention is the problem of congestion and the pollution it causes. This is especially true for Southern California where pollution and traffic statistics have been deemed most problematic. New Urbanism, an urban/architectural design movement that has recently reached decent popularity, offers an environment that is more conducive to the environmentally considerate attitudes that are needed to effectively deal with congestion. The design concept of neotraditional and transit-oriented developments create several incentives for residents to walk or use alternate forms of transit. If executed within the confines of the vision of New Urbanisms foremost advocates and theorists, Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Peter Calthorpe, this style of development could potentially solve the problem of Southern Californias general overdependence on the automobile and the mass congestion it generates, but it wont do so quite as easily as presumed by most. However simple the idea of New Urbanism may sound, implementing it in Southern California is far more complicated. That being said, it has been done. In Otay, San Diego a development plan has been completed which calls for 27,000 dwelling units organized into 11 villages that ring around a 430acre town center, where a majority of the civic and commercial buildings would be located. Each village would have a civic center containing public facilities, businesses, high-density housing, and a public plaza (Calavita 1, 2). This project is likely one of the best examples of New Urbanism in San Diego because it essentially achieves nearly all of the main objectives set forth by its doctrine. Critics, however, dont exactly see it that way. One criticism is that the developers should bring the plans residential density up

from 14.5 units per acre to at least 20 (2). Other critics have pointed out a flaw that is commonly found in many other New Urbanist projects, which is that there is no good way to accommodate the lower income demographic of the area. It seems, though, that this rise in living standards in inevitable simply because the standard of living is actually rising in these kinds of communities. Unfortunately, it contradicts one of the principles of New Urbanism: that the sustainable living offered by Neotraditional and transit-oriented developments should be applied to everyone indiscriminately. Although these issues dont have to do with traffic and congestion, they should be considered in evaluating the effectiveness of New Urbanist residential development planning. Another example of New Urbanism in Southern California resides in the West side of Los Angeles and does actually offer some insight into the neotradional designs effect on transit and automobile use. The cities of Playa Vista and Mar Vista are two cases of urban infill inspired by neotraditionalist theories. Both have managed to see a noticeable increase in pedestrian activity, however, studies have shown however, that this rise in walking and public transit use is also accompanied by a rise in car use implying a synergistic relationship between transit use and car use, as opposed to the substitutive one championed by most New Urbanist theorists (Allison and McLaughlin 15). The study also shows that the ones who use public transit in these developments already had environmentally friendly tendencies, similar to the transit users in the transit oriented developments proposed in Los Angeles and Orange County. It is safe to conclude that even with seemingly successful examples of New Urbanism in Southern California, the car is still the king of transit and while these developments do create a weak substitution environment where some parts of the service base are offered, it stands that nearly all other daily chores still require a car (Crane 51,61).

The Neo-traditional neighborhood first came to the forefront of American urban design when Duany and Platter-Zyrberk completed their urban project in the town of Seaside, Florida, the first example of a New Urbanist community, which focuses on the public space as the pinnacle for authentic community life. Of the

several principles that govern New Urbanism, the use of the gridded street design seems to be the most relevant to our question of whether or not this design style can serve to remedy or even reduce the effects of traffic congestion in Southern California. The gridded street design is effectively borrowed from design practices in pre 1928 America. Back then, the design trend was coined traditional gridiron and in its day it gained a significantly negative reputation as an idea which forced suburban dwellers to succumb to a monotonous, lifeless environment (Ryan and Mcnally, Accessibility of Neotrad. 89). Ironically, in an attempt to reexamine this old style of living, Neo-traditionalists found that the gridiron provided them with a design that allowed for urban growth without compromising the citys shape or unity (89). For our purposes, the gridiron street design is evaluated less for the previously stated reason and more as a concept that could potentially promote the average suburbanites independence from the automobile. Most neo-traditionalists argue that the neo-traditional neighborhood and its gridiron street design will promote independence from the automobile by making public transit more accessible to the pedestrian and by reducing the amount of time and distance spent travelling (Ryan and Mcnally, Comparative Assessment, 6). They make such claims because it is believed that the gridiron street design is more effective and efficient than the conventional design of contemporary suburban communities. This neo-traditional street network contains four features that support this belief (Kulash). First, the more human-scaled streets make more logistical sense. Second, turning movements on these narrower streets are more efficient. Third, drivers have more routes to choose from in real time. Lastly, uninterrupted flow of traffic is more likely to occur due to the greater frequency of unsignalized intersections. In the end, the neo-traditionalist argument indicates that the use of the gridiron design will ultimately bring about a positive impact on the transportation tendencies in neotraditional communities. While this argument is founded and Kulashs four reasons do seem to imply a more efficient network of streets, it would be unwise to take it for face value, simply because the newness of the neo-traditional design practice implies that its literature is quite a ways from drawing such conclusions. In A Comparative Assessment of Travel Characteristics for Neo-Traditional Developments, researchers Sherry Ryan and Micheal G. Mcnally put the neo-tradionalist claim regarding the effectiveness of gridded street design to the

test. In their research it is shown that, during the AM peak in an average neo-traditional grid network, drivers travel approximately 10.5% less than drivers in a conventional street network, spend approximately 27% less time driving, and travel a mean trip length that is 15.5% shorter (17,18). Ryan and Mcnally credit this to the fact that the grid design offers greater flexibility and directness of route. They also found, however, that the congestion at intersections in the grid design, although more evenly distributed, averaged at about the same level as the conventional design (21). All these statistics show us that the neo-traditionalist argument that the gridiron design is more efficient than the conventional suburban street design. However, they fail to show us how the automobile is any less central to the homeowners means of transportation. That drivers travel shorter distances to get to their destinations does not entail that they travel less frequently. The real issue behind congestion is not so much that drivers drive longer distances than necessary; rather it is that drivers have to drive everywhere and always. It is the established norm and as the established norm, even when there is opportunity to stray from it by using other forms of transportation, a large majority choose to abide by it.

An alternative form of New Urbanism, developed by Peter Calthorpe to suit the same purpose as the neo-traditional community, is the transit-oriented development. Calthorpes transit oriented developments are mixed use, moderately high density communities that are intentionally located along light rail and bus networks of the region to improve general publics accessibility to public transit. This idea is part of one of Calthorpes new urbanist theories, which advocates for a focus on regional implementation as opposed to neo-traditionalist stand point arguing for local, community specific implementation. These developments are to be accessible to each other via the transit network that connects them. The city centers typically consist primarily of a transit station, and surrounding it a mix of business, industry, and high density residential developments. The community is designed to maximize the pedestrians right to public transit. This is evident because the town limits lie within the quarter mile boundary and the street network includes a system of radial streets, which gives the pedestrian a direct route to the center. All this is proposed with a single principle on mind: Put more origin and destination points within an easy walk of a transit stop and more people will use transit (Bressi xxx,xxxiv, Katz).

In Southern California, where the light rail industry has plummeted, with the exception of San Diego, as a result of the rise of economic interest in the automobile industry during the 20th century, the idea of transit-oriented development has little to work with. This doesnt necessarily mean that the idea is of no use here. There are several examples of municipal actions by the regional and state governments that helped move Southern California toward the implementation of transit oriented development. In San Diego (where the light rail system is widely popular), Los Angeles, and other major cities, county policies have been approved to establish transit-oriented development guidelines (Boarnert and Crane 5). In addition to these, is the state wide California Transit Village Development Planning Act, which gives municipalities permission to establish transit oriented developments within a quarter mile of any rail station zone boundary, as well as encourages them to make the developments residential (5). Also, in Orange County the idea for an elevated light rail system running through 13 of the countys major activity centers is being proposed and is pending action. Accompanying this proposal is the plan to create an HOV network to give a greater range of communities access to the railway stations (8). In conjunction, these two projects offer a plan that would make the creation of a network of transit-oriented development quite relevant and practical in Orange County. In fact, it does so quite well, that its neighboring counties are trying to follow in its footsteps. Increasing the possibility for these developments, however does not guarantee that if or when established they would indeed make a significant impact on light rail ridership throughout the region or at least one that is proportionate to the regions investment into transit-oriented development. In his research, Robert Cervero found that 42.5% of rail commuters who live in current transit-oriented developments also commuted by rail before living there. This fact indicates that the inclination to use transit is not exactly dependent on the fact that rail commuters live in these transit nodes. Conversely, it shows that the fact that they live in transit- oriented communities might actually depend on their inclination to use the rail way. Cervero also continues to assert that housing location is equally as important as employment location in analyzing the tendency to use the light railway. If ones job is not

close to the railway, it would make less sense to use the railway, even if he/she lives within a 5 minute walk from a station. This would logically explain why the implementation of a system of residential transit-oriented developments alone would likely not significantly impact railway ridership (Boarnert and Crane 5). Despite these seemingly negative statistics, the idea of system wide implementation of these developments is still a popular idea and only makes sense as an alternate to the conventional, poorly planned suburban developments in Southern California.
This idea has a very real future because it has the support of both the state and regional governments, however, its lack of popularity among the smaller municipalities throughout Southern California may pose an increasingly hard obstacle to get past. The Home Rule, a legislation passed by Californias state government in 1916, gave the city government fiscal autonomy. This essentially gave the local governments in Southern California power to set up local ordinances regarding use of the land within their domain however they please without the need for state approval or oversight. This acted as great incentive for cities to incorporate; consequently, Southern California has over 1000 special districts, within 184 cities, which are part of 6 counties. Each of these have their own independent legislation on land use and zoning. (Wolch et. al. 228) Setting up residential developments around light rail stations may be a lucrative move for the regional government for the reasons outlined earlier; however, doing so does very little for the local governments overseeing the site of these communities. In 1978 the forced passage of Proposition 13 lead to the fiscalization of the property tax, which in turn curtailed all incentives to encourage housing development unless it was privatized and worked exclusively with private organizations to provide many of the social services it would formerly provide. It does not benefit local governments to approve residential developments at rail station

sites, as much as it does to use it for commercial purposes. Research has shown that city employment growth rates and shares of the transit system directly correlated to commercial zoning, as opposed to residential zoning, near rail transit stations (Boarnert and Crane 13, 14). Such is the reason behind the general opposition to Calthorpes idea in nearly all local municipalities in Southern California (14). This significant force of opposition means that planners trying to act on Calthorpes theory, in our case, the state and regional government, would have to find a way to convince localities to use the

land differently in order to benefit the region as a whole. As part of their investigation, Boarnert and Crane identified three possible ways in which this hurdle can be overcome. The first of the three, is to demand a share of transit-oriented housing or in other words require the cities containing these sites to approve residential development (15). This likely wouldnt go well because it would work against the democratic process. The second is to create a fiscal incentive program that would reward cities that use transit-oriented housing in conjunction with commercial development (15). The cost of this incentive system would likely be quite steep, so it might not be worth all the trouble in the end. The final solution mentioned would be to encourage localities to look for instances when transit-oriented residential development is would meet the same needs commercial developments would normally provide (15). This goes along the lines of simply trying to persuade them, but it needs not be said that the local governments would likely find more reasons not to cooperate. It seems as though the fight to establish this system of transit-oriented residential developments in Southern California is not going to be an easy one, nonetheless it is one worth investing further study and experimentation. New Urbanism has much potential for providing Southern California with some solutions to its problem of congestion. Calthorpes idea of the transit-oriented development has proven to have more results and be more practical than its New Urban complement, Plater-Zyberk and Duanys neo-traditional community design. Although the two main branches, so to speak, often work together, the transit oriented development, which does essentially include the design concept of the neo-traditional neighborhood, has reached more popularity in Southern California, partially because its language deals exclusively with transit and because its implementation can work well within the confines of the state and regional legislation and be more far reaching. The neo-traditional community, on the other hand, is limited to the municipal areas which host it and, although it promotes more considerate and efficient use of the automobile, it does not so much as put a dent on the entire regions congestion issue. Despite what the two offer, whether it works or not, there will be several powerful forces at work preventing developers from applying these New Urban design styles and concepts. Even though the ideas appeal to the state and

regional governments, they dont receive the same support from the local governments, who on principally unrelated terms created the fragmented system of land development and sprawl in Southern California that has contributed to congestion. In an ideal situation, where all levels of government are primarily concerned with the greater good and the increased accessibility of public transit and pedestrian centered communities throughout Southern California would truly de-emphasize the role of the car in daily life, New Urbanism would be the best and most logical answer. For now however, the New Urban theory, to have any advocacy and success, would have to be adjusted in accordance with the reality of the social and political situation in Southern California.

Work Cited Allison, Emmons Juliann, McLaughlin, Jeff. Urban Design, Environmental Consciousness, and Sustainable Communities: Can New Urbanism Reduce Driving in Auto Friendly Los Angeles? . Riverside: University of Riverside, Working. PDF Boarnet, Marlen, Crane Randall "L.A. STORY: A Reality Check for Transit-Based Housing. Journal of the American Planning Association 63, 2, 189-216. PDF Bressi, Todd W. Planning the American Dream. The New Urbanism: Toward and Architecture of Community 1994: xxv-xlii. Print Calavita, Nico. "A Little Bit Of Seaside Comes To Southern California." Planning 59.9 (1993): 24. Business Source Complete. Web. 30 Oct. 2013.

Cervero, Robert. 1994c. Transit-Based Housing in California: Evidence on Ridership Impacts. Transport Policy 3. 1994: 174-83. PDF
Crane, Randall. 1996. Cars and Drivers in the New Suburbs: Linking Access to Travel in Neotraditional Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 62, 1: 51-65. Downs, Anthony. New Visions for Metropolitan America. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institute, 1994. Print Duany, Andres, Plater-Zyberk, Elizabeth. The Neighborhood, the District and the Corridor. The New Urbanism: Toward and Architecture of Community 1994: xvii-xxiv. Print Katz, Peter. The New Urbanism: Toward an Architecture of Community. Portland: Print Vision, 1994. Print Kulash, W. "Traditional Neighborhood Development: Will the Traffic Work?" presented at the Eleventh International Pedestrian Conference, Bellevue, Washington. Ryan, S., McNally, M. G. "Accessibility of Neotraditional Neighborhoods: A Review of Design Concepts, Policies, and Recent Literature." Transpn. Res. 29A.2 (1995): 87-105. PDF Ryan S., Mcnally, M. G. A Comparative Assessment of Travel Characteristics for Neo-Traditional Developments. Berkeley: University of California Transportation Center, 1992. PDF Wolch, Jennifer, Manuel Pastor Jr., Peter Dreir, et al. Up Against the Sprawl: Public Policy and the Making of Southern California. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2004. Print.