A Web Life
date | 28 Feb 2009 11:33 CST |
---|---|
place | Milwaukee, WI, USA |
tags | mobility, transit, wisconsin, places, people |
share |
![]() |
track | ![]() |
previous | ![]() |
next | ![]() |
We need a mobility plan, not a transportation plan
The State of Wisconsin has prepared a long-range transportation plan ("Connections 2030") that misses the mark in terms of a vibrant vision for the future or a solid plan for the present. This plan mistakenly makes an assumption that the future will be like the past and fails to adequately envision smart urban design that puts people in touch with what matters. Indeed, the plan emphasizes resource-intensive transportation rather than mobility. Instead of deploying and managing resources intelligently, this plan supports bad decisions of the past. The result is that residents of Wisconsin may be doomed to suffer increased energy and transit costs, lower productivity, reduced economic activity, a sinking cultural environment, and increased debt required to prop up 20th-century modes of energy-intensive transportation. An alternative vision would place people first, foremost, and at the center of a network of alternate forms of urban (and suburban) design and unleash the creative economy that mobility fosters.
The Wisconsin plan fails to see emerging trends
While the Wisconsin plan does state that it supports the "integrated multimodal transportation system that maximizes the safe and efficient movement of people and products throughout the state (DRAFT Executive Summary)," it is short on specifics and misses emerging trends. The plan seems to assume that the arrangements of the past century will continue unchanged into the future.
The plan fails to mention or recognize these trends:
- People are choosing not to buy cars. The automobile (internal combustion engine invented in the 19th century) is not selling well in the 21st century. As a recent news report stated, "New-vehicle sales in the United States fell 37 percent in January to one of the lowest levels in half a century," New York Times, February 3, 2009.
- Current work in urban planning is going decisively away from automobile-orientation to people-orientation. See "Urban planning's future: people, not cars: History suggests gas-powered transport cannot last," Arrol Gellner, Thursday, August 28, 2008, Inman News. The recent summit, "Expanding the Vision of Sustainable Mobility," at the Art Center College of Design, Pasadena, California, February 17-19, 2009, www.artcenter.edu/summit, set forth a new vision of mobility and dynamic cities that the Wisconsin plan does not seem to grasp.
- As Richard Florida describes in "How the Crash Will Reshape America," The Atlantic, March 2009, the future of the United States may be very different than the past half-century. He looks at the housing bubble and economic crash of 2008, and he envisions for the future: "a lower rate of homeownership, and a more mobile population of renters. In short, it will be a more concentrated geography, one that allows more people to mix more freely and interact more efficiently in a discrete number of dense, innovative mega-regions and creative cities."
- Observers world-wide find that young, creative people see great freedom in being car-free ("Car-free? In Japan, that's how a generation rolls" The Associated Press, January 6, 2009). The article states that "Younger people think owning wheels is too much trouble, a trend the industry fears will continue." Moreover, as William Clay Ford Jr., CEO, Ford Motor Company Ltd, stated, "If you live in a city, you don't need to own a car," The Observer, November 12, 2000. Being car-free is a viable option for many people state-wide and can significantly reduce energy use and personal costs for transportation.
The Wisconsin plan as presented in the draft fails to recognize these trends. The plan assumes an unlimited amount of cheap oil to fuel transportation into the 21st century and unlimited money (and increased debt) to fund continuous road repair and bailouts for automobile manufacturing.
For example, chapter 1 includes projects such as: "Six-Year Highway Improvement Program, 2008-2013" and "2006-2017 Major Highway Development Program." The Wisconsin plan does mention alternative forms of transit in Chapter 8, "Provide Mobility and Transportation Choice," but there is not adequate funding for these alternative forms, as this chapter states. This mismatch between well-funded and planned highway programs and under-funded alternatives is at the heart of the plan's problems.

The Milwaukee Intermodal Station is a laudable step in the right direction toward multi-modal transit.
The Wisconsin plan as presented does not focus on the specifics of mobility, in which people can chose a wide variety of alternate forms of transit to reach nearby destinations (walking, bicycle, rail, bus, trolley, or other forms), but merely adds these alternate forms to a system of automobile travel as the primary form of transit. Forms of transit ranging from human-powered (walking, bicycling) to mass transit can be integrated into a network with many choices--such as high-speed rail and long-distance buses among cities and adequate transportation centers in cities and towns which connect to shorter-distance forms of transit. It is this integration of alternative and multi-modal forms that this plan fails to emphasize. The plan does not present specifics in Chapter 8 ("Provide Mobility and Transportation Choice") of a coherent plan for funding and building such an integrated, multi-modal network for mobility or how such a state-wide, comprehensive plan could be developed.
The Wisconsin plan fails to address current opportunities
While the Wisconsin plan fails to recognize long-term trends, it also fails to tap into current practices that are available now to improve mobility.
First, the gas tax can be increased to pay for existing roads and alternative transit throughout the state. Current gas taxes are inadequate to maintain roads. Public transit is underfunded, and human-powered forms of transit (walking, bicycling) are not supported adequately with pathways and law enforcement (of pedestrian rights in crosswalks, for example).
Second, the Wisconsin plan fails to address parking. Dr. Donald's Shoup's parking research, as he describes in The High Cost of Free Parking (American Planning Association, 2005), should be set as the norm throughout the state. In brief, below-market rates for parking provide an unnecessary burden on neighborhoods. Dr. Shoup states: "We can achieve enormous social, economic, and environmental benefits at almost no cost simply by subsidizing people and places, not parking and cars," p. 602.
Third, the concept of complete streets is not emphasized. For example, completestreets.org states: "Complete streets are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users. Pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and bus riders of all ages and abilities are able to safely move along and across a complete street." These kinds of streets can reduce the need for automobile-only travel and open up other travel modes in all areas of the state. Complete streets should be the norm state-wide.
Fourth, the Wisconsin plan lacks a specifics to allow urban design which places homes, businesses, and other institutions in close proximity. While the plan mentions this concept, it fails to provide specifics that will allow this proximity to develop, such as:
- Increase the capability for businesses and entrepreneurs to start businesses close to where people live--with walkable and safe paths to these businesses. Similarly, increase the capability for people to create small dwelling units close to workplaces and other features. Remove zoning and other regulations which prevent this. Do not allow nearby property owners who simply want to preserve the scaracity of nearby housing for their competitive advantage to prevent this.
- Remove any restrictions on where smaller grocery stores and other neighborhood-serving business can locate. Allow walkable/bikable paths to these stores. These stores should not be blocked by off-street parking requirements or existing businesses fearing competition.
- Place extra taxes on empty lots, abandonded buildings, and surface parking lots.
- Where possible, state funds should be spent on building new features close to existing features. For example, college housing and dorms should be placed on those college campuses. Any state-funded expansion should be oriented to existing locations rather than increasing sprawl or travel distances.
- Sell off underused state roads to railroads for new rail lines between cities (and bicycle trails).
The trends of increased public and private debt, rising energy costs, and diminished oil
production, mean that Wisconsin must provide a better transportation plan that emphasizes human
mobility as the central focus. Means to achieve this vision include proximity in urban design, parking reform, complete streets, and emphasis on many forms of mobility. Such a plan would have adequate funding through gas taxes, parking fees, taxes on underused land, and increased vehicle taxes. The current Wisconsin plan, with its assumptions based on 20th-century thinking, will not likely fit this need.