The Urban Land Institute's Daniel Rose Center recently released a report entitled "Implementing Vision for Transit-Oriented Development, based on a ULI panel conducted in February 2010. The panel and report focused on development in two light rail station areas in Minneapolis, including the 38th Street station. Seeing as I live a short four-minute walk from that station, I paid particular attention. Among the recommendations from the ULI panel for the 38th Street station area are some of the usual suspects, including public improvements to the station such as a plaza or identifying element, pedestrian connections and better streetscaping in the neighborhood, and various zoning and tax incentives to promote denser development. However, one recommendation jumped out at me: "Hiawatha Avenue could be reduced to one lane in each direction...wide sidewalks, pedestrian crosswalks and landscaping, particularly at intersections." Did I read that right? Reduce driving lanes on Hiawatha? The NIMBYs will scream bloody murder! A little context - Hiawatha Avenue is a four-lane divided roadway running immediately parallel to the light rail line. It is a state highway (55) and built like one: although it has a 40 MPH speed limit it is built for about 50, and it is not unusual for vehicles to reach that speed, provided the lights are green. As one would expect, crossing Hiawatha on foot or bike feels like taking one's life in their hands. Given 38th Street has a light rail station, more than 100 people cross per day in a lousy pedestrian environment. This was not lost on the ULI panel, but there is more, and here is where it gets interesting. The ULI Panel noted that traffic counts on Hiawatha are less than 30,000 per day, while ridership on the train is more than 30,000 per day. You can split hairs, as this is like comparing Granny Smith apples to Galas, but it is worth noting that the light rail is used more than the adjacent roadway. Furthermore, for just 26,000 vehicles per day, Hiawatha is overbuilt - there are streets elsewhere in the city with similar traffic counts that are narrower and far easier to cross on foot. I won't go so far as to say that Hiawatha should be reduced to one lane in each direction, but it can be tamed without reducing capacity measurably. We must ask ourselves what behavior are we trying to reward? Cars streaming by, traffic congestion, dependence on foreign oil, pollution, and a lousy pedestrian environment? Or walking, biking, building excercise in to our daily lives, riding the train, driving less, reducing gas consumption and greenhouse gas emissions, and building an attractive urban environment with housing and retail? The design of the street rewards the former, but luckily city policy is rewarding the latter, but there is much work to do. Hiawatha Avenue for too long has been a dividing line between neighborhoods. About 20 years ago it was even widened (although the freeway concept was fortunately shot down) to speed traffic in to the downtown. Along came a square peg in a round hole - light rail plunked down next to a state highway with all its regulations and restrictions - the "standards," the "clear zone," the "turning radii," etc. In other words, the goal of the state highway is to move vehicles, and making it easier to cross Hiawatha and access the train is in direct violation of state highway rules. I believe we can make Hiawatha more pedestrian friendly without slowing traffic overall. It is possible, with better timed traffic lights, to slow the speed limit for vehicles but actually reduce the time it takes to drive the corridor. Then again, if cars were actually slowed, those bothered by that could ride the train, right? After all, already more are choosing to do so. More mixed-use development, with the right uses accessible on foot, by bike and for train riders, will reduce the need to drive anyway. It is fundamentally important to set a long-term goal for Hiawatha Avenue to be a uniting street in the city, a place where people gather to live, shop and hang out, rather than race along. We need to start small - make crosswalks a little straighter and more intuitive. Guarantee a walk signal every cycle - don't make pedestrians press the button. Have the walk signal appear a couple seconds before the light turns green to give pedestrians a head start, and have the blinking don't walk signal count down the seconds left before the yellow. Maybe crosswalks can even be a different color of pavement. Eventually reclaim the shoulder for on-street parking (they are wasted space), and then add a canopy of street trees and landscaping, perhaps interspersed with on-street parking to provide a better buffer between cars and pedestrians. Add sidewalk cafes. At a minimum, create curb bumpouts at intersections to reduce the crossing distance for pedestrians. But the city, county and state are broke? How to we pay for it? Let developers help out. They have already proven their desire to build near our light rail stations. Make them share the cost, but give them density bonuses for the added price of public improvements. Better design begets improved property values, which increase tax receipts - everybody wins! All of these ideas have been tested elsewhere, and should be considered for 38th Street and Hiawatha Avenue. Hiawatha should be a complete, great street, and fixing the public realm is fundamental to that end. It is time to tame Hiawatha Avenue and make our light rail station areas proper urban neighborhoods.

The current effort in Cinncinnati to cancel its streetcar project is both unnerving and a travesty, given recent development along its route. According to a great post on Streetsblog, the project receives a top score by the state of Ohio's Transportation Review Advisory Council. It is predictable but no less a travesty that elected officials would threaten to pull funding for a transportation project that scores well, but according to the Cincinnati Enquirer, that is exactly what is happening. More damning is the provision by Tom Patton, the Ohio Senate Transportation Committee Chair, to single out this specific rail project for elimination. Looking at recent decisions in Florida and Wisconsin, it is not surprising what is happening in Ohio. Rail is not popular among conservatives, and it seems more political than fiscal, although the fiscal argument is used. Perhaps legislators should do a little research and listen to the likes of Ed Glaeser and Bill Lind, who in their separate ways argue that the right rail project in the most appropriate location can be indeed a very wise use of public dollars. The Cincinnati streetcar is a very good project, as it links the University and downtown via the Findlay Market and re-emerging Over-the-Rhine district. The Over-the-Rhine and the Gateway Quarter are a fantastic story of leveraging public and private dollars to incentivise commerical and housing development and historic preservation. Stores are filling, condos are selling, apartments are renting and a new park is under construction. A streetcar is a very good complement to this effort and these areas of the city, as it will spur additional investment and tax revenue. Conservatives and liberals alike win when transportation dollars are invested wisely. You can help by going to the Cincinnatians for Progress website and getting involved. Don't let political shenaigans get in the way of intelligent transportation investments.

The online magazine of the Urban Land Institute this week published an article about the Cotton Belt in Dallas/Fort Worth entitled A Value-Capture Strategy for Transportation in Texas. (You have to be ULI member to read it, but I'll tell you the premise.) The value-capture strategy in question is an effort to find alternative and creative sources of financing for the construction of the 62-mile Cotton Belt rail line, which slices across north Dallas-Fort Worth metroplex. The North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) selected Scott Polikov of the Gateway Planning Group to create the Partnership for Livable Communities and lead the process. The goal is to raise private equity to build the line, and pay for it with a variety of means, including real estate development, on-site advertising revenue, station naming rights and other alternative financing mechanisms. The beauty of the Cotton Belt is the regional government and private sector understand that the benefit of the line won't be based purely on ridership, but on land use around it, which will follow traditional neighborhood development principles and be walkable and sustainable. Kudos to these Texas urban development cowboys and their "git 'er done" mentality to engage the private sector and market for doing the right thing and creating sustainable urban development. In a time of uncertain government funding, the Cotton Belt story is well worth a look!

Are cities the real America? For the answer, just check out Jon Stewart's interview with Ed Glaeser last month on The Daily Show. Better yet, read Glaeser's new book, "Truimph of the City." In it, he presents a very clear-eyed view of the economic value of cities, and strongly argues that urban living is also greener. "We must discard the view that environmentalism means living around trees," he writes. "We must free ourselves from our tendency to see cities as buildings, and remember that the real city is made of flesh, not concrete." I like that very much. Glaeser is unafraid to admit to living in the suburbs, but notes that government should allow people to live where they want, so long as they pay the cost for doing so. Yet today it still encourages people like him to sprawl. You don't have to agree with his views on high-rises and preservation to appreciate his honesty about our current condition, particularly if we are to seriously address the issue of the myriad ways we encourage sprawl in this county, not to mention that sprawl is a leading export. He forcefully argues of the economic benefits, efficiencies and opportunities of living in urban places, citing statistics that people are better educated, earn more and consume less in cities. Perhaps most important of all is his recognition that urbanization is occurring worldwide as people seek opportunity, and that America must lead by promoting a greener, more urban lifestyle in order to avert disaster. We must, he notes, "to reduce the hypocrisy of telling China and India to be greener while driving our SUVs to the mall." Good urbanism is healthier for the entire planet. Ed Glaeser represents a huge opportunity for urbanists. Rather than criticize him for living in the suburbs and apologizing for Houston, as Phil Langdon does on the New Urban Network, embrace him for being honest about the urban condition. Here is a conservative proposing, quite reasonably, to eliminate the mortgage interest deduction. We new urbansists must understand a that sweeping piece of legislation alone could help our cause immensely by encouraging less buying of large suburban homes and more urban living. My experience with people in the development industry who believe in the virtues of and opportunities present in cities is they are not as liberal as you might think. Glaeser's combination of economic potential and environmental friendliness in cities presents the foundation for a coalition of liberals and conservatives to agree on a platform to fundamentally change public policy, and tilt it in favor of cities. The time is now.

The tension is palpable in Seattle as an effort to get the Alaskan Viaduct replacement up for public vote (again). The tunnel replacement currently being proposed is a bad idea for Seattle, as it is excessively costly and not good urbanism. Not to mention it isn't needed - the city has reduced its driving in the past decade while increasing population. But don't let me tell you. Just read this article in The Stranger here. For those worried about the gridlock that will occur if there is no tunnel built, consider this article in the Seattle Times. Think about it. In the name of public safety, I sincerely hope the Alaskan Way Viaduct can be closed and dismantled before nature and/or gravity does it for us. In the name of good urbanism, I hope it is not replaced by the currently proposed tunnel. Seattle will be better off without it.