Metropolitan Planning Council

Dump the Pump on June 20

tgrzesiakowski@metroplanning.org (Tim Grzesiakowski) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:00:00 CST

On Thursday, June 20, the Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), along with Commute Options Providers the Chicago Transit Authority, Metra, Pace, Active Transportation Alliance, IGO and Chicago Water Taxi, will be encouraging commuters to “Dump the Pump,” by trading driving to work for a commute that uses one of these alternative transportation services.

That day, from noon to 2 p.m., WGN Radio’s Garry Meier will celebrate “Dump the Pump” outside Pioneer Court, the plaza located near the junction of the Chicago River and Upper Michigan Avenue in Chicago. Meier and folks from the Regional Transportation Authority will take the pledge to “Dump the Pump” and encourage other commuters – like you – to do the same. In addition to saving money on commuting costs (nearly $9,800 annually according to the American Public Transit Association’s (APTA) most recent Transit Savings Report), participants have the chance to win prizes, including:

2013-‘14 Chicago Blackhawks tickets;
An autographed Chicago Blackhawks puck; and
Chicago Cubs tickets.

“Dump the Pump” Day is a nationwide campaign sponsored by APTA, to encourage commuters to consider different commuting options. Public and private organizations can participate in this campaign by encouraging their employees to ride public transportation.

So what are you waiting for? Pledge to “Dump the Pump” on Thursday afternoon at Pioneer Court!

IGO acquired by Enterprise

tgrzesiakowski@metroplanning.org (Tim Grzesiakowski) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Tim Grzesiakowski

On Tuesday, May 28, Clayton, Missouri-based Enterprise Holdings, which owns and operates Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National Car Rental and Alamo Rent A Car brands, acquired Chicago-based car-sharing company (and Commute Options Provider) IGO. Enterprise, which also operates the Enterprise CarShare Network, plans to maintain the IGO name in Chicago.

IGO was founded in 2002 as a Center for Neighborhood Technology pilot program and grew to 15,000 members with vehicles in 40 neighborhoods and four suburbs, and into the only car-sharing service with 100 percent low-emission vehicles. Founded in 1957, Enterprise is the largest American car rental company, and has been in the car-sharing business since 2007. Their first carshare program, WeCar, was established at Washington University in St. Louis. As of September 2012, they are involved with 100 carshare programs in 30 states and Canada.

In 2011, Enterprise bought PhillyCarShare, a nonprofit carshare program in Philadelphia. Last year, they acquired Mint Cars On Demand, a car-sharing company in Boston and New York.

Due to changing market conditions, car rental companies now see carsharing as an extension of their existing business. As we reported a few months ago, Avis Budget Group acquired ZipCar Inc. in January 2013. And Hertz started its own car-sharing service is 2008, and bought Eileo, a Parisian car-sharing service, in 2009.

Enterprise also has made inroads into the rideshare market. They work with transit authorities in many U.S. cities, including Indianapolis, Ind., and Minneapolis, Minn., to provide carpooling and vanpooling programs.

Car rental companies can provide resources to the car-sharing market, since they can more easily increase the number of vehicles in a car-sharing fleet or provide entry into new markets. Enterprise is planning to update about one-quarter of IGO’s vehicles and expand into new neighborhoods in the near future. All of the IGO staff and call center operations will be retained to aid in the transition.

Alternative Transportation for Chicagoland, Inc. (ATC), the nonprofit entity that operated IGO, will continue to exist as an affiliate of the Center for Neighborhood Technology. Sharon Feigon, IGO’s former chief executive officer, will head ATC and continue to focus on other ways to help Chicagoans live well without owning a car. The acquisition will benefit Chicago area commuters, as it expands carsharing options. MPC looks forward to continuing our work with a Commute Options partners that encourages commuters to consider alternatives to driving alone.

Trend spotted: More people getting a ride without owning a car

tgrzesiakowski@metroplanning.org (Tim Grzesiakowski) — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Tim Grzesiakowski

Owning a car has long been viewed as a symbol of freedom and independence, values deeply rooted in the American psyche. However, new trends suggest that car ownership might just be one of the things many Americans want freedom from. As we reported a few months ago, Millenials are leading this change by purchasing far fewer cars than their parents and choosing to live in more urban and connected environments. Does this mean young people are giving up their freedom to move around? Absolutely not. They are simply not interested in owning a vehicle so much as having access to one when they need it.

The proliferation of vehicle sharing services is evidence of these shifts in preferences. Carsharing, just a few years ago at the forefront of transport innovation, has already become mainstream; earlier this year, AvisBudget Group bought Zipcar, the world’s largest car-sharing company, while Chicago’s very own IGO just announced its acquisition by Enterprise Holdings.

At the same time, a new model is gaining popularity: peer-to-peer carsharing. Unlike their “traditional” counterparts, peer-to-peer companies don’t have a dedicated rental fleet but instead take advantage of the army of private cars that, at any given time, are sitting in garages and parking spots. Car owners can put their vehicle up for rental during times when they don’t drive, receiving part of the revenue from rental while being covered by specific insurance. Renters, on the other side, get to enjoy rates typically lower than other rental services, a capillary network of rental locations (they may just have to knock on their neighbor’s door) and a wide variety of car models. This approach was first tested in California, where it quickly gained popularity. In Chicago, two peer-to-peer companies launched last year, Getaround and RelayRides. Hundreds of cars are already listed for rental, although it remains to be seen if they manage to attract a sizeable number of renters.

And what about the increasing number of people without a driver’s license? Another branch of the sharing economy is there to serve them: ridesharing, which capitalizes on the fact that most cars on the road only have the driver’s seat occupied. Usually, ridematching services (such as Chicagoland’s Pace Rideshare) focus on regular commuting trips, but new mobile apps are expanding this option to single, one-off rides. Chicagoans, for example, can use SideCar or Lyft to locate an available driver and request a ride. A registered driver will pick them up at the requested location and drop them off where desired. At the end of the ride, you can compensate the driver with a voluntary donation paid through the app.

Through a more efficient use of existing cars, these services allow people to live car-free, avoiding the biggest costs and hassles of car ownership (from purchase price to insurance, from parking to maintenance), while enjoying the convenience of driving when necessary. Rather than a costly possession, the car becomes a useful service. Clearly, the shift has just begun and it faces some challenges, particularly related to safety concerns and applicable regulations. However, these services reflect a general trend: From bike-sharing to apartment swapping, from designer dresses to sports equipment, the “sharing economy” is becoming a widespread model that is likely to stick.

The roots of this phenomenon are multiple. The economy surely plays a part: In a time of tighter finances, people may choose to rent rather than buy, or decide to share their existing properties to earn some extra cash. Technology is another important factor: Not only do we now have instant access to information and real-time data, but social networks have made us used to connecting with people online and “sharing” contents. Another strong influence, however, takes us back to values: Sharers are often motivated by a sense of community and the desire to help others. In any case, whether the sharing phenomenon represents nothing more than a lull in car consumption or signals the end of individualism in the U.S., right now rideshare symbolizes freedom from the burdens of ownership and isolation. Rather than dreaming of independence in the form of a car, Americans might just be looking for it in the form of a ride.

MPC Research Assistant Cecilia Gamba authored this post.

All aboard: Activating Chicago's Union Station

kriggio@metroplanning.org (Kara Riggio) — Fri, 14 Jun 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Kara Riggio

You’d think that a Union Station in the nation’s third largest metropolitan area—home to roughly 40 museums, 150 theatres, over 6000 restaurants and more than 30 Fortune 500 companies—would be bursting with fun, excitement and cultural fanfare. Whelp…it’s not! And that raises a great question: “Why can’t Chicago’s Union Station be more than just a transportation thoroughfare? Why not a place to hang out and enjoy for travelers and residents alike?” It’s a huge space—it should be a happening one too.

Got an idea, but no manpower? Or manpower but no idea? Drop a comment in our box below or tweet us @Metroplanners using #ActivateUS!

The good news is, you can help Chicago’s Union Station develop into a cultural and social hub. Through our “Activate Union Station” placemaking contest (and thanks to our generous sponsor, Fifth Third Bank), the Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) is investing $5,000 for two stellar projects that implement a program or series of programs for 10 days—activating Union Station in the process. It is our goal that this contest will signal to community developers and investors that Union Station is an opportunity for social and economic growth, and not just a giant revolving door for entering and exiting the city.

It’s been done before. Philadelphians are enjoying the benefits of “The Porch”—a modernized, outdoor gathering where residents can enjoy lunch, socialize and relax. The Porch offers spacious room for festivals, dining, outdoor fitness and leisurely relaxation. Philadelphia’s relatively modest $275,000 investment has reaped massive gains for their city; according to a University City District publication, The Porch at 30th Street Station drew over 10,000 visitors in its first 90 days. Apart from partaking in activities like mini golf or yoga, those patrons bought food; only 19 percent who lunched at The Porch brought food from home. In other words, placemaking at 30th Street has translated into dollars. Developers see the potential of expanding The Porch with retail, restaurants and other consumer-friendly amenities. From Philly’s Porch, the possibilities for Chicago’s Union Station seem endless. Imagine a beer garden, karaoke festival or other amusing opportunities. It can happen here in the Windy City!

Union Station is projected to grow 40 percent by 2040. At this rapid pace, Chicago must embrace the times and reevaluate how to fully maximize Union Station’s vast untapped potential.You can help save Union Station from a slow decay into obsolescence by entering MPC’s Placemaking Contest for a chance to receive $5,000 and implement your vision. Think you’ve got what it takes? Check out the guidelines and register today!

Got an idea, but no manpower? Drop a comment in our box below or tweet us (@Metroplanners) using #ActivateUS!

Activate Union Station calling on best ideas to bring Chicago's Union Station to life

kriggio@metroplanning.org (Kara Riggio) — Mon, 10 Jun 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Kara Riggio

Chicago’s Union Station is an iconic building and a major transportation hub—but it could be so much more: a gathering place for West Loop residents, an attraction for tourists, another cultural jewel in Chicago’s crown.

Apply below by Wednesday, July 24, at 5 p.m.

Two winners will receive $5,000 each, underwritten by Fifth Third Bank, to make their ideas happen at Union Station between Aug. 24 and Sept. 2.

Now is your chance to Activate Union Station. The Metropolitan Planning Council’s Fifth Annual Placemaking Contest, sponsored by Fifth Third Bank, is awarding cash prizes to the best ideas to breathe new life into Chicago’s Union Station.

We want you to dream it and design it … if you win, we’ll give you $5,000 to make it happen for nine days this summer, between Aug. 24 and Sept. 2. Enter using the form below between now and July 24!

Have a great idea, but no man power? Drop your thoughts in our idea box, or tweet at us (@Metroplanners) with #ActivateUS!

Contest Guidelines

Read the complete Contest Guidelines before submitting your application. The submission form appears at the end of this post.

MPC thanks Fifth Third Bank for underwriting the Activate Union Station contest.

This competition is open to anyone 18 and over with a vision of what Chicago’s Union Station could become: architects, landscape architects, planners, students, graphic designers, industrial designers, artists, neighborhood groups, chambers of commerce and others.
This is a design-build-program competition. Winners will be responsible for all three stages. Winning means implementing!
This contest is not about the best-looking design. The emphasis and the top criteria for our judges is the plan that best draws people in to activate the space with ideas that are both engaging and low-cost. Following the Project for Public Spaces' "Lighter, Quicker, Cheaper" mantra, successful designs will create a gathering place that is universally accessible and inclusive, as well as active and engaging. Function takes precedence over form: Programming will fare better than an art gallery, for instance. Entrants are encouraged to explore metroplanning.org/placemaking and placemakingchicago.com to learn more about the elements of placemaking, a community-based approach to planning, designing and managing great public places.

Why Union Station?

Located in Chicago’s bustling West Loop neighborhood, Union Station is the nation’s third-busiest rail hub, accommodating more than 120,000 Amtrak and Metra passengers every day—more daily traffic than Midway Airport. From local commuters to people traveling across the country, all of them pass through the station—but few actually hang out there because the station, sadly, is not the city’s most scintillating attraction.

Yet Union Station is full of untapped space and resources. In 2011, the City of Chicago adopted the Union Station Master Plan, which not only outlines plans for renovating the station to accommodate a greater number of travelers, but alsoidentifies the need to create a truly great place that invites people to stop and stay awhile. In D.C. and Philadelphia, Union Stations have transformed into community hotspots. They serve a robust commuter and tourist base, but have become so much more: a place for people to mix, mingle and enjoy.

The Activate Union Station contest calls on entrants to bring to life three prime locations at the station; two of the three sites will be selected for implementation:

The iconic Headhouse, located west of Canal Street
The east-facing arcade on Canal Street
Plaza of Fifth Third Center, along the Chicago River

Application

Enter today! Please read the complete Contest Guidelines, which includes detailed application instructions, before submitting your application.

Solving the parking predicament: How parking benefit districts revitalized Austin, Texas

cmancini@metroplanning.org (Chrissy Mancini Nichols) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Chrissy Mancini Nichols

Austin from the Congress Bridge at night

Source: Wikimedia Commons

They say everything is bigger in Texas. The state’s capital, Austin, knew that all too well—especially when it came to parking congestion around the University of Texas’ West Campus neighborhood. As new regulation permitting denser land use spurred development, student motorists and commuters began crowding the streets. Insufficient parking increased pollution as motorists circled around to find available spaces. Transit vehicles were bottlenecked into one traffic lane. The neighborhood’s attractiveness was challenged, but city leadership took creative action, using federal funds to produce a local solution.

In 2005, Austin received a $43,275 U.S Environmental Protection Agency Mobile Source Outreach Assistance Program competitive grant to reduce car emissions. Using this award, the city initiated a Parking Benefit District (PBD) pilot in West Campus to manage the area’s unsustainable parking demand.

The city purchased and installed 96 parking meters between West 19th and West 26th streets along San Antonio Street, parallel to the neighborhood’s main drag, Guadalupe Street. Enforcement ran five days a week from 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. at a flat $1-per-hour rate with a two-hour time limit to ensure turnover. West Campus residents, who received permits for themselves and their guests, were exempted from paying any parking charges.

West Campus Streetscape Improvement

Source: austintexas.gov

To gain support for the installation of parking meters, community members were included in the decision-making process to determine how revenues should be spent. Of the meter revenues, 51 percent (minus the city’s expenses) were dedicated to the West Campus PBD, with the rest allocated to the city’s general fund. Mirroring Old Pasadena’s parking program, this allowed direct investment in neighborhood initiatives such as streetscape projects, at the discretion of local residents and businesses.

In the pilot program’s first year, meters generated $163,000 for the PBD; over $40,000 was devoted to streetscaping projects, including sidewalk and curb enhancements, benches, crosswalks, transit shelters and bike lanes. Over time, revenues grew. About $294,000 was allocated toward two specific projects: a sidewalk on 23rd Street and improvements for Rio Grande Street.

Program benefits have accrued since the launch. Increases in sales and mixed beverage tax receipts show local businesses have not been negatively affected. Also, long overdue streetscape projects designed to address aging sidewalks and curbs have now been implemented thanks to a reliable source of funding.

Because of the success of the five-year pilot program, in 2011 Austin established PBDs in a city ordinance, allowing any neighborhood to apply to implement a PBD as a strategy to manage parking, while using revenues for community improvements.

An independent association in the West Campus neighborhood, University Area Partners, advocated to establish Austin’s first full-scale PBD, covering much of the neighborhood. The number of parking meters more than tripled from the pilot to 350 metered spaces with a five-hour time limit and a $1-an-hour charge.

West Campus Streetscape Improvement

Source: austintexas.gov

In the first three months following the West Campus PBD launch, the district generated $119,500 in meter revenues, a remarkable increase over the pilot and more than was estimated. Of this amount after city expenses, $28,000 was returned to the district. Moreover, thanks to its use of Austin’s Neighborhood Partnering Program, the PBD received a matching benefit, resulting in $56,000 for more focused streetscape projects including sidewalks, trees and benches to accommodate pedestrian and bicycle traffic. These improvements have been doubly beneficial thanks to the city’s work with retail and commercial users to encourage the use of non-automobile transportation in the area.

What thus began as the groan and grunt of Longhorns fighting congested streets for scarce parking became an air quality initiative and community development tool that motivated other cities like nearby Houston to implement their own parking management plans. Even parking solutions can be bigger in Texas.

Solving the Parking Predicament Series

MPC’s Solving the Parking Predicament series offers an in-depth discussion of parking management. Beginning with a review of the parking problem and new strategies to solve them, each case study highlights best practices from around the country:

Parking Meter Zones in Old Pasadena, Cali.,
The SFPark smartphone app in San Francisco,
The meter and permit system in Oak Park, Ill.,
Performance Based Parking in Washington, D.C.,
The EPA-piloted Parking Benefit District in Austin, Tex.,
The Parking Improvement District in Boulder, Colo., and
Payment-in-Lieu of Parking in Miami’s Coconut Grove neighborhood.

These case studies will show how parking can develop out of a headache and into a demand strategy that facilitates and supports the use of alternative modes of transportation, builds business activity and boosts community ambience.

Solving the parking predicament: Using parking as an economic development tool in Boulder, Colo.

cmancini@metroplanning.org (Chrissy Mancini Nichols) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Chrissy Mancini Nichols

Boulder cityscape view from the Rocky Mountain foothills.

Source: Wikimedia Commons

Set in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains and hosting a thriving university, Boulder, Colo., leads the way in managing one of the nation’s most advanced parking systems.

Established in September 1970, the Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID)oversees a 35-block district of parking facilities that include on-street curb parking, multiple parking garages and surface lots, totaling more than 4,000 spaces. Parking revenues in the CAGID are used as an economic development tool for downtown Boulder, paying for pedestrian and street improvements in the area and helping create a vibrant destination for visitors.

Essentially, Boulder maintains two pricing schemes, developed for its garage and street parking. Both assess variable pricing at 25-cent increments every 12 minutes, but while public garages charge fees 24 hours a day, metered spaces are only enforced from 9 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Saturday. Additionally, after four hours, hourly rates in the garages increase to $2.50. This pricing system helps to manage congestion and parking demand while enhancing downtown access for pedestrians, transit commuters and motorists. In 2011, parking revenues amounted to more than $5 million for the CAGID (of which $1.4 million was from on-street meters and the rest derived from short- and long-term parking in lots and garages).

Eco-Pass Transit Program

Source: bouldercolorado.gov

CAGID parking meter revenues have enhanced transit and the pedestrian environment in downtown Boulder. Some parking meter revenues are dedicated to the Eco-Pass Program of the Regional Transportation District, the Denver-Boulder area transit agency. The program provides workers with public transportation alternatives to driving alone. Close to 6,000 downtown employees annually receive free unlimited-ride transit passes (a $750,000 to $800,000 expense in total). Additionally, in 2011 Boulder invested $50,000 in the BCycle bike share program. Parking meter revenues also funded streetscaping improvements for the downtown Pearl Street Mall and the enhancement of public Wi-Fi facilities.

Success in Boulder’s parking management system results from collaboration between the City of Boulder, University of Colorado and local businesses. Such partnerships have given the downtown a walkable, sustainable and socially-appealing ambience—an important business-booster for an area with over 200 shops and restaurants. According to an annual user survey, the vast majority of downtown customers found the district highly favorable, emphasizing the area's sense of place and overall atmosphere as its most positive attributes. Surely the improved parking regime has much to do with that success.

Downtown Boulder

Source: bouldercolorado.gov

Downtown Boulder’s efforts to transform parking spaces from simple automobile depositories into effective engines for economic development have paid off. It has become a national model for effective urban transportation practice, connecting it to the larger backdrop of a sustainable environment and a comprehensive transportation system. So as the little college town on the foothills of the Rockies, Boulder shows parking can too reach great heights.

Solving the Parking Predicament Series

Parking Meter Zones in Old Pasadena, Cali.,
The SFPark smartphone app in San Francisco,
The meter and permit system in Oak Park, Ill.,
Performance Based Parking in Washington, D.C.,
The EPA-piloted Parking Benefit District in Austin, Tex.,
The Parking Improvement District in Boulder, Colo., and
Payment-in-Lieu of Parking in Miami’s Coconut Grove neighborhood.

Solving the parking predicament: Using parking-in-lieu of payment for community amenties

cmancini@metroplanning.org (Chrissy Mancini Nichols) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Chrissy Mancini Nichols

Coconut Grove on Biscayne Bay, Atlantic coast.

Source: coconutgrove.com

Just south of downtown Miami, Fla., along the Atlantic coast, Coconut Grove is a trendy neighborhood lined with boutique shops, open-air cafes and eclectic restaurants. It is also a great example of a community where a payment-in-lieu of parking (PILOP) program has been successfully implemented.

In the early 1990s, Coconut Grove had an overcrowded business district that required expanded parking facilities, but had little room available to build them. At the same time, the Grove did not intend to have parking affect its continuous storefront façade.

However, in 1993, the City of Miami passed an ordinance that required a minimum of one off-street parking space per 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area for large-scale establishments (defined as 20,000 sq. ft. or more). Smaller establishments are exempt from this regulation.

The law does more than set a parking minimum, however. It is particularly innovative because it provides an option for developers and property owners to opt out by making a payment in lieu of providing off-street parking. Owners can either pay a one-time fee of $5,400 per required opted-out space, or pay $50 per month. Therefore, businesses that expect to be in operation for the long term have an incentive to pay the one-time fee.

Ninety percent of parking waivers are deposited into the newly established Coconut Grove Parking Improvement Trust, which is used to enhance public parking facilities, offer infrastructure improvements, undertake maintenance and conduct marketing to serve the Coconut Grove Village Center. The remaining 10 percent of the collections are held in reserve for subsequent years, especially for large-scale projects such as the Oak Avenue Parking Garage.

Coconut Grove BID Map

Source: coconutgrove.com

Since the PILOP’s inception, developers have opted out of over 900 spaces, freeing valuable land for businesses to use while paying fees totaling $3 million by 2008. With an average parking space consuming 325 square feet, the sum of space saved amounts to close to 300,000 sq. ft. of land (equivalent to about six supermarkets) that can instead be used for more retail, restaurants or other amenities. More importantly, it allows owners and developers to make decisions on land allocation based on market demand for each property instead of a standardized rule.

All parking revenues go toward the Coconut Grove Business Improvement District (BID), a collaborative body with an elected board that also levies a special assessment on property to improve the area. In the BID’s initial years, from FY 2007-2009, the City of Miami contributed $200,000 annually from its General Fund to support the district’s launch. Table 1 gives an overview of the BID’s revenues spanning the last three fiscal years. Parking waivers and surcharges constitute a substantial source of income.

Table 1. Coconut Grove BID annual revenues, 2010-2012.

Revenues	FY 2010	FY 2011	FY 20121
Parking Waiver Revenue	200,000	160,000	194,300
Parking Surcharge Revenue	220,000	220,000	205,800
Special Events Fees	21,000	34,000	25,200
Sidewalk Café Fee Revenue	50,000	55,000	49,200
Banner Fee Revenue	2,250	3,000	2,500
Investment Income	115,000	106,600	88,700
BID Assessments	400,000	440,000	557,000
General BID Fund	402,000	587,300	---
Other Income	30,200	50,000	5,300

1 – Year covers 10/1/11 – 8/31/12.

Revenues fund neighborhood improvements in the BID, including public relations, marketing, grants for façade improvements, cooperative advertising, special events, capital projects, streetscape, sanitation and security. Funding also has supported a downtown circulator feasibility study, landscaping and traffic control device installations to improve parking and pedestrian access. Other initiatives include renovated brick sidewalks, a rejuvenated tree canopy, landscaping, a street cleaning crew and private security. Table 2 details the BID’s annual expenses.

Table 2, Coconut Grove BID annual expenses, 2010-2012.

Expenses	FY 2010	FY 2011	FY 2012
Sanitation	82,300	116,700	93,600
Security	239,900	238,400	158,300
Streetscape	249,000	119,900	80,800
Marketing	234,800	272,000	220,000
General Admin	383,800	368,600	348,900
Special Events	250,500	152,900	113,800

Coconut Grove Streetview

Source: Flickr User - AshtonColeman

With a population of 20,000 spread across six square miles, Coconut Grove stands out as a gem not only because of the shimmering waters of Biscayne Bay but also because it is a sustainable model of the built environment. Using parking as a management and improvement tool, Coconut Grove came up with a creative approach to determine how land should be managed to fund community and economic development initiatives. This South Florida neighborhood shows that parking can turn valuable spaces into vibrant places.

Solving the Parking Predicament Series

Parking Meter Zones in Old Pasadena, Cali.,
The SFPark smartphone app in San Francisco,
The meter and permit system in Oak Park, Ill.,
Performance Based Parking in Washington, D.C.,
The EPA-piloted Parking Benefit District in Austin, Tex.,
The Parking Improvement District in Boulder, Colo., and
Payment-in-Lieu of Parking in Miami’s Coconut Grove neighborhood.

Dispatches from Germany: Water management lessons from Hamburg, Frankfurt

jellis@metroplanning.org (Josh Ellis) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Josh Ellis

For the week of April 22-26, MPC's Josh Ellis was on a tour of water, wastewater, and stormwater industries and utilities with the German American Chamber of Commerce's Midwest office. Stopping in Berlin, Hamburg, and Frankfurt, the group attended trade shows, visited treatment plants, swung by Hamburg City Hall, and more.

Hamburg Wasser's main wastewater treatment plant is net energy positive - it produces more than it takes to run the place. The giant eggs in the background are anaerobic digestors, breaking down sewage waste into methane and residual organic material that is later burned.

I spent the bulk of my time in Hamburg at Hamburg Wasser's main wastewater treament plant, which is remarkable in its own right (as I explore through photos here), but at the end of the day, not that different from other treatment plants. Instead, what struck me most about Hamburg was all the other stuff - stuff I wouldn't typically consider as the core operations of most water/wastewater utilities here in the U.S. - that our hosts believed to be part of their core mission. It's my experience that most water utilities are driven by a goal of selling clean drinking water, while wastewater utilities are driven by a goal of meeting regulatory requirements for discharges into waterways. Those are admirable goals, far from easily accomplished. In the case of Hamburg Wasser (which is the second oldest utility in Europe, trailing only London), however, the goal appears to be true integrated water resources management in the service of Hamburg's broader economic development and environmental protection goals. That means water isn't sold for the sake of selling water, and wastewater isn't treated just because it's required by law, but because potable water (and some non-potable water) are required to run an economy and a city, while wastewater is a great source of resources for energy production, and yes, the quality of discharge to area waterways is a major factor in the integrity of those ecosystems. All told, this represents a divergence from many utilities here.

The boxy building on the left is an incineration plant - that's where the organic materials is burned after biogas has been extracted. The combustion powers turbines, producing more energy, and residual heat is transferred to the harbor facilities in the background, reducing energy demands there. You can just make out a few solar panels on the buildings on the right. There are more elsewhere, in addition to some wind turbines out of the frame.

Josh Ellis

As old as the Hamburg utility is, recent history can explain a lot of this new philosophy. Only a few years ago Hamburg had a standalone water utility, and their job was to sell water. They also had a wastewater utility, and their job was to get rid of relatively clean wastewater. From all accounts, it looked and operated sort of like the relationship between the City of Chicago (drinking water provider, as well as the first part of the wastewater system) and the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (wastewater treatment and discharge). Coordination was a challenge, things like re-use of effluent were a threat to one entity but a benefit to the other, and stormwater management was caught in the middle and not sufficiently addressed. So, a few years ago, those two entities merged. Simple as that. We didn't get into the details as much as I would have liked, but what it boiled down to is that a bunch of smart, concerned people decided that full consolidation of the two enterprises would lead to more efficient, cost-effective and sustainable management of their region's water resources, so they merged. It has paid off.

I openly admit that most of the time up at the top of these things I was thinking about filming a James Bond movie.

Josh Ellis

They started doing all kinds of interesting things once their goals changed. Hamburg relies on groundwater, which is pretty darn cold and relatively clean, so Hamburg Wasser started pumping groundwater to the zoo on its way to treatment plants. It cools zoo buildings, and reduces the zoo's need to buy treated drinking water to do the same thing. Hamburg Wasser deced it wanted to be self-sufficicent in regards to energy, and realized that its waste stream was its single biggest sources of resources for that... enter biogas harvesting, sludge incineration (the scrub the bejezzus out of the emissions, so the only thing going into the atmosphere is water vapor), solar and wind power, heat transfer, and some good ol' fashioned lightbulbs swaps. The utility started bidding on consulting projects to help other countries with their problems, and now have contracts in China, Russia, Rwanda, and Tanzania. And they started working with other city departments on the Jenfield project.

The water self-sufficient neighborhood of Jenfield.

Josh Ellis

Jenfield is a test case for self-sustained neighborhoods within an exisiting urban environment. A former police barrakcs facility, Hamburg decided to rebuild Jenfield (seen in the diagram to the right) as a way to prove the water-energy nexus can be met, resolved, and managed. Any tap water used on site is recycled as graywater, and any blackwater (sewage) has the waste removed for energy production, at which point the graywater is reused. Rain goes directly to the river (which is tidal, a nice feature, all your stormwater gets pulled out to sea every 6 hours). Add in some other energy production, and voila, a pretty much water and energy neutral neighborhood. I know this is the sort of technology being explored for the redevlopment of the USX site on Chicago's south side, but it's also the sort of thing the Chicago Housing Authority and Public Building Commission should be taking a look at as they continue to build anew in and around Chicago.

I mentioned Frankfurt in the title, and while the main lesson there was "Don't try to compete with Hamburg," some staff from Darmstadt University presented on Semizentral Germany, which is comparable to Jenfield in many regards. While Jenfield is a neighborhood, Semizentral is building modular units that can be rapidly built in developing countries and use potable water and resulting sewage to produce new potable water, non-potable water when you don't need to drink it, energy, caloric heat, and stabilzed waste that can be used as fertilizer. This stuff isn't the future. It's here.

Not everything at Hamburg Wasser was so crazy and different. They put their hard hats on one head at time, just like us.

Josh Ellis

All in all, what impressed me about Hamburg (and to a lesser extent, Frankfurt) was the willingness to reconsider what we normally think of as the provision of water and wastewater services and infrastructure. Hamburg Wasser doesn't exist to sell water - revenue generation is not their primary concern, though the water side generated a 65 million Euro surplus last year, after a 150 million Euro capital investment, and wastewater came out even - they exist to manage water resources in the service of economic development, high quality of life, ecological integrity, and all the other things where having some clean water and clean waterways might be nice. It was refreshing, somewhat startling, and worth the trip.

Chicago opens up for diagonal pedestrian crossings

yfreemark@metroplanning.org (Yonah Freemark) — Fri, 31 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Yonah Freemark

Several dozen Chicagoans gathered this morning in the heart of the Loop to celebrate an exciting event: the opening of the city’s first legal diagonal crossing.

At the intersection of Jackson and State streets, just in front of the DePaul Campus Center, the new crossing has been clearly painted onto the street. Zebra stripes, previously reserved for parallel crosswalks, now extend across the center of the street in a large “X.” As a result, pedestrians will now be able to cross from one corner to another more quickly during a dedicated traffic phase where all cars have red lights. People will still be able to cross parallel to traffic as with normal intersections. It’s a big pedestrian improvement for an intersection where walkers now outnumber drivers two to one.

The Chicago Dept. of Transportation (CDOT), whose commissioner Gabe Klein has been discussing such a project since 2011, expects the new crossing to improve conditions for pedestrians by increasing walk time. In addition, CDOT has eliminated turning traffic at the intersection, improving safety for walkers all around. In a similar intervention in Washington, D.C., at the intersection of 7th and H streets Northwest, pedestrian collisions declined by about 65 percent, according to Commissioner Klein. Traffic engineers predict that this will improve the conditions for automobiles as well. The Jackson and State intersection redesign is a pilot, so CDOT will study project outcomes to determine whether similar diagonal crossings should be added elsewhere.

The diagonal crossing, also known as the “X Crossing” in the United Kingdom and the “Barnes Dance” or “pedestrian scramble” in other U.S. cities, was first developed in the 1940s. Denver, Baltimore and New York City traffic commissioner Henry Barnes popularized the idea (though he did not invent it). Cities from Denver to Auckland, New Zealand, have removed them, however, in order to speed trains or automobiles through intersections. In places with heavy pedestrian traffic like Chicago’s Loop, though, diagonal crossings might be just the right touch.

Talking with Theaster Gates: Placemaking's positive connotations for negative space

kriggio@metroplanning.org (Kara Riggio) — Thu, 30 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Kara Riggio

Negative space, in the arts community, means the space around things. Artists think about negative space almost as much as they think about positive space, but do the rest of us? The space around an object is just as important as the form that the object takes, though the term “negative space” doesn’t yield a positive connotation. At MPC’s Urban Think & Drink on May 22, Chicago-based artist Theaster Gates helped us shift our thinking from focusing on what is actually in a space, particularly in areas that have been vacant and neglected, to imagine what could be.

Does Placemaking have to live within the realm of planners and architects? Gates emphasized that the ‘weirdest’ ideas – those that make the least conventional sense – might be the ones that really connect with people. He urged anyone with a passion for making positive change in their community, no matter the focus of that passion, to count themselves in as neighborhood change agents. Gates’ work in Chicago and beyond challenges us to think about what it means to invest in a place when it may not make a lot of conventional sense. The artist brings Placemaking to the neighborhood scale by focusing on neighbors doing neighborly things, just as MPC highlighted in last year’s Placemaking contest. The contest featured negative space – the Space In Between, as the contest was named – and asked the public to share ways that they were taking empty, vacant space in their communities and temporarily turning it into something positive.

Consider some of the winners of the Space In Between contest. Tired of foreclosures, crime and a transient population, the residents of Metcalfe Park claimed a vacant lot in the neighborhood to create a place where neighbors felt safe enough to come outside and get to know each other. This opportunity helped them realize that they share many of the same concerns and dreams for their community; they have since transformed the lot into a playground for children. Or consider the young women of Roseland, who worked with Demoiselle 2 Femme to reimagine and recreate a vacant lot into a much needed play area that mimics the Swiss Alps. They didn’t dream up the concept on their own, however; instead, they worked with their neighbors to figure out how the lot could truly fulfill a community need. The project has since become a gem that residents take great pride in. Neither of these winning groups waited for a public agency to sweep in and direct them. Like Gates, they took an assertive stance, imagined what could be and acted on it.

We don’t need permission to be positive agents of change, to be good neighbors or good stewards of our communities. Gates reminded us of this last week. Through great ambition, clarity of vision and the necessary tools, artists, planners, architects and neighbors alike can serve as Placemakers – reimagining the negative space by bringing positive people and activities to redefine the negative into something positive.

Stay tuned for video highlights from Mr. Gates' talk.

New Brookings book highlights Chicagoland's response to suburbanization of poverty

bgala@metroplanning.org (Breann Gala) — Thu, 30 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Breann Gala

Communities across the nation – big cities and small towns alike – are still grappling with the effects of the economic recession, from vacant properties to joblessness. Yet many would be surprised to learn the premise of the newest book published by The Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings Institution: that poverty has become even more prevalent in our nation’s suburbs than in urban areas.

On May 20, Brookings hosted a webinar on the book, Confronting Suburban Poverty in America, featuring co-authors Elizabeth Kneebone and Alan Berube. They were joined by experts and practitioners from around the country for a panel discussion about how our nation’s “antipoverty infrastructure” has not adapted to address suburban poverty – and what that means for local and national leaders as they work together to revitalize communities and connect suburban residents with new economic opportunities. Luis Ubinas, president of the Ford Foundation, gave opening remarks, noting that 2014 will mark the 50th anniversary of Linden B. Johnson’s War on Poverty. Ubinas reflected that the nation’s suburbs, once regarded as a bastion of the American Dream, have “become home to the same cycles of poverty” that trapped people in urban ghettos. He declared a call to action to accept this new geography of poverty as a means of properly identifying solutions.

MPC listened to the presentation in part to cheer on panelist Joe Neri, CEO of IFF in metropolitan Chicago. Neri represented our region’s case study featured in the book, which focused on two clusters of suburbs in Cook County that are taking an innovative, collaborative approach to housing and economic development. Metropolitan Planning Council (MPC) has been supporting this work since day one, helping these two collaboratives – one in South Cook County and one in West Cook County, which IFF and Neri supports as coordinator and development partner – work not only across municipal boundaries but also with regional and state governments, philanthropies and banks to target public and private funding to transit and freight corridors, to revitalize housing and attract new economic redevelopment. The South Cook County collaborative in particular is among a half-dozen local and regional efforts featured in the book, all of which are tackling the suburbanization of poverty in innovative and often collaborative ways.

But as Neri and his fellow panelists pointed out, the battle is just beginning to transform public policies and funding programs to support these innovators. Kneebone and Berube, along with Neri; Mary Fertakis, director of the Tukwila, Wash. School Board; and Angela Blanchard, president and CEO of Neighborhood Centers, Inc., stressed three much-needed policy transformations:

Strategic funding and implementation. Strategic funding and implementation, particularly the pooling of resources across private, public and community development financial institutions has proven highly useful in tackling housing issues in the Chicago suburbs. Neri described how IFF in Chicago has made great progress but still finds it challenging to attract resources flexible enough to adapt to changing suburban demographics, markets and needs.
Collaborate across borders and create strong alliances. Key to designing policies and programs that address suburban poverty is collective action—no one organization or program can tackle the numerous challenges facing communities today. In addition to metropolitan Chicago’s story, the Road Map Project in Seattle has brought together parents, students, teachers, schools, community organizations, government, and public and private funders to break down the silos that prohibit successful education. Rather than working in individual schools or communities, the organization collaborates across seven school districts to improve education. Nancy Fertakis discussed the immense costs incurred attempting to breakdown bureaucracy to effectively reinvest in our communities.
Properly scaling resources. Delivering social services at the proper scale – for instance, at a subregional scale instead of community by community – can optimize capacity and results. Neighborhood Centers, Inc. in Houston, Tex., demonstrates how scaling resources, such as money or manpower, has allowed the organization to comprehensively tackle neighborhood and community development, health and human services, and a range of school and youth programs.

To wrap up the presentation, Kneebone and Berube discussed the larger policy changes needed to support regions taking these innovative approaches. Their recommendations include repurposing $4 billion in federal funding to create a Metropolitan Opportunity Challenge, a competitive funding system for place-based poverty alleviation strategies. They acknowledge that waiting for such a policy could take some time and encouraged advocates, practitioners and local governments to continue adapting local efforts to address our country’s changing demographics.

MPC is looking forward to continuing this conversation with local decision makers and national policymakers on June 18, at 2 p.m. CT (3 p.m. ET, noon PT), during a webinar featuring Kneebone; Massachusetts Smart Growth Alliance; and MPC’s MarySue Barrett. Their discussion will highlight what metropolitan Chicago and Boston have learned about the benefits of and barriers to collaboration, as well as new strategies for planning and data analysis, community engagement, foreclosure response and prevention, transit-oriented development and more. Registration will be open soon; stay tuned!

In the Loop: May 30, 2013

yfreemark@metroplanning.org (Yonah Freemark) — Thu, 30 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Yonah Freemark

In the Loop is your round-up of what's going on in the transportation world, posted in conjunction with Talking Transit.

@mpc

Chicago’s busy investing in its future thanks to the formation of an Infrastructure Trust that will allow the city to partner with private investors to fund much-need upgrades to streets, buildings and other types of public infrastructure. Some of those funds could be used for a planned bus rapid transit (BRT) line on Ashland Avenue or to implement performance-based parking pricing. But private corporations are also working independently, funding private bus networks and improved water taxi service in Chicago and elsewhere. Let’s just hope they’re being designed for resiliency.

elsewhere

BRT brings to mind faster buses, but it will also mean nicer stations. The Chicago Architecture Foundation plans to announce winners for its BRT station design competition June 6. Better transit could mean more walkable, transit-oriented development (TOD) around stations, but so far, Chicago has been lagging on this front compared to other cities, at least according to a new Center for Neighborhood Technology study. Part of the problem is that Chicago’s population growth has been limited; according to new Census figures, the city’s growth of 10,000 people between 2011 and 2012 was the least of major American cities. Those new Chicagoans, though, will benefit from a major bike sharing program called Divvy, which will launch this summer—just in time for the completion of new protected bike lanes on Milwaukee Avenue.

San Francisco may be a step ahead. On bike to work day, that city found that 76 percent of all traffic on Market Street—the main drag through downtown—was made up of bikers. Now the local transit system is considering relaxing the rush-hour ban on bikes it currently enforces.

Bike infrastructure is cheap compared to the big investments necessary to keep our roads in good shape—a particularly big concern considering the recent collapse of a portion of Interstate 5 north of Seattle. U.S. infrastructure spending, it seems, is not keeping pace: Since 2008, allocations to maintenance and new construction of roads, transit and public buildings have dropped considerably. New Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx might be able to do something about that, but at his confirmation hearing, he hesitated to identify any new source of funding for infrastructure and said, “We’re not going to toll our way to prosperity,” indicating that tolling existing highways to pay for their maintenance would not be an administration priority.

What might help, though, is an increase in sales tax revenues, which pay for many of our nation’s transit systems, including Chicago’s. The Senate has passed, and the House is considering, a bill that would require internet transactions to be subject to the same local and state sales taxes as brick-and-mortar stores. More revenues like that might make grand projects like the renovation plans for Los Angeles’ Union Station possible. So would new state transportation legislation like that recently passed in Colorado and Maryland. Another option is using value capture mechanisms to take advantage of the increasing property value around new infrastructure to pay for improvements.

MPC Research Assistant Parfait Gasana contributed to the research for this post.

Investments to improve transit access likely to pay off through higher property value

yfreemark@metroplanning.org (Yonah Freemark) — Wed, 29 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Yonah Freemark

At roughly $23 billion, London’s Crossrail project may be the most expensive urban transportation project in the world. But its designers—and now real estate analysts—suggest that its benefits make the new line worth the cost.

Crossrail is an express rail line that will speed east-west in a 13-mile tunnel under the city by 2018. The project will link the city’s major airport at Heathrow, several existing rail stations and the business district at Canary Wharf. It will offer several connections with existing London Underground lines and reduce travel times for commuters—connecting Canary Wharf and Heathrow in just 39 minutes, compared to one hour minimum today.

According to Savills, a real estate agency, a minute saved on a commute into the center of London adds $2,023 to a property’s price.

According to a new study from Jones Lang LaSalle (JLL), a commercial real estate firm, the projected reductions in travel times are expected to dramatically increase property values in areas adjacent to Crossrail stations. All new housing in Central London is expected to increase in price by 30 percent by the time the line opens, but JLL’s research “suggests that Crossrail will contribute to residential price increases of between 6 percent and 19 percent above” that. For example, at Tottenham Court Road, one of the major stations along the line, nearby properties are expected to see a 44 percent increase in property prices. New development, like the completed Central St. Giles and the proposed Centre Point mixed-use projects, indicate that the private market is already excited by the prospect.

According to Savills, a real estate agency, a minute saved on a commute into the center of London adds $2,023 to a property’s price.

These study results are similar to those documented by the government agency building Crossrail, which suggests that the line will add £5.5 billion ($8.3 billion) in value to property along the line by 2021.

London’s example suggests that a major investment in new transportation infrastructure produces significant benefits above and beyond those offered by decreasing travel times alone. As part of MPC’s work to explore new ways of funding transportation projects, we have identified value capture – essentially, using some of the increase in property values surrounding a particular transit investment to front the cost of that investment – as a potential source of revenues. Though London is not using this tool to fund its line, other cities like Minneapolis are already considering the advantages of using this approach.

Expected price increases around Crossrail stations

Jones Lang LaSalle

The Private Bus Network: Pros and Cons

tgrzesiakowski@metroplanning.org (Tim Grzesiakowski) — Tue, 21 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Tim Grzesiakowski

There is an invisible web of bus routes that you won’t find on any transit map: It’s the private shuttle network. Usually designed as customized “last mile” connections from public transit stations to a specific location, these buses are offered by employers for their own employees, and typically are not available to the general public. In our previous blog post we explored this hidden phenomenon and the reasons why employers and other private entities choose to offer it. Here we analyze the main advantages and disadvantages of these services.

Advantages of private buses

What benefits do private buses deliver over public transit? Besides additional comfort features, their main advantage is that they run solely to serve the needs of a specific organization’s employees. Their route, stops and schedules are designed to match the company’s location and hours and to create efficient connections with the employees’ home locations. This neutralizes some of the biggest barriers to public transportation (namely travel time, convenience and reliability issues) and increases the attractiveness of taking the bus versus driving to work. Take for example the Aon Hewitt shuttle service, which transports employees from the Highland Park Metra station in the north suburbs of Chicago to company offices in Lincolnshire, about seven miles west. In theory, there is public transit available between these two points: Chicagoland's suburban bus service, Pace, runs route 471 from Highland Park to Deerfield, where commuters would transfer to Pace route 576, which runs at rush hours and stops very close to the Aon Hewitt building. However, the two bus lines are not timed to coordinate with each other, leading to overall travel time up to one hour.

In other cases, public transportation is simply not available. Some routes do not have the ridership potential to justify regular public bus service, and transit authorities cannot afford to run inefficient routes. Sometimes, private entities agree to subsidize specific routes that serve their location, which wouldn’t otherwise be serviced by transit operators. Take UPS, for example, which subsidizes the Chicago Transit Authority route 169 bus and multiple Pace routes to connect its Hodgkins campus (about 17 miles southwest of downtown Chicago) to various train stations in correspondence with shift changes. Similarly, a few companies in Deerfield subsidize numerous Pace “Shuttle Bug” routes, for example route 627 (Discover Financial Services and Takeda) or route 633 (Walgreens). These subsidized buses differ from private shuttles in that, while people affiliated with the subsidizing institution get to ride for free or at a reduced fare, anyone from the general public can also use them at full price. However, these ad-hoc arrangements are not always feasible, and completely private buses might constitute the only effective option for organizations that want to offer their employees an alternative to driving.

Whether they fill voids in public transit service or provide alternative routes, private shuttles are an effective way to take cars off the road. A study from the California Center for Innovative Transportation estimated that corporate shuttles replace some 327,000 solo vehicle round trips per year in the Bay Area, eliminating approximately 20 million vehicle miles travelled and 8,000 to 9,000 tons of CO₂ emissions annually.

Disadvantages of private buses

Private buses have some drawbacks. Their uncoordinated and unregulated nature might create inefficiencies, because employers are typically reluctant to coordinate shared buses with neighboring companies. In San Francisco, the proliferation of employer shuttles is creating congestion issues and interfering with public bus stops – to our knowledge, this is not an issue in Chicago at the moment. Furthermore, private buses might drain riders from public transit and jeopardize the viability of certain routes, to the detriment of the rest of the population. In some cases, they do compete directly with existing public transit service, which results in additional costs for the employer providing the service. It might be more cost-effective for that employer to promote that public transit service to their employees. However, private shuttles are more frequently a substitute for cars rather than public transit, as they fill specific connectivity gaps and provide a convenient alternative to people who would otherwise drive.

Better private buses through better communication

To minimize any issues, better communication and coordination between private companies and public agencies would be useful. MPC’s work on Union Station is looking at options to incorporate private buses as part of the overall transportation mix. City and regional governments could set guidelines and regulate shuttle services to avoid conflicts with public transit; public agencies could even contribute to funding, in order to achieve a consistent level of service across employers and over time. After all, despite their limited accessibility, private buses can deliver significant public benefits: Their flexibility makes them an effective Commute Options strategy to reduce car dependency, congestion and greenhouse gas emissions.

Overall, private buses are an important part of the regional mobility picture and could constitute a cost-effective way for governments and transit authorities to meet specific travel needs. The Chicago region could benefit from greater attention to these services and a better integration between the private and public network.

MPC Research Assistant Cecilia Gamba contributed to this post.

Tough Stuff: A robust discussion on how good planning makes for resilient cities

acrisostomo@metroplanning.org (Abby Crisostomo) — Mon, 20 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Abby Crisostomo

Is “resiliency” just the new “sustainability?” That question was on a lot of minds as we all sat down at MPC’s latest roundtable on the concept of resilient cities and what that means for planning. On Wednesday, May 15, we brought in experts from academia, a private utility and a government agency to have a robust discussion about the many facets of resiliency planning. If you missed the roundtable, be sure to check out the full video recording of the event, photos from the event and the presentation for download.

Resiliency has been in the news quite a bit in the past year with all the crises – weather, financial, security, health or otherwise – that we’ve had, and especially so recently with pieces in the New Yorker, the Atlantic Cities and the Huffington Post, culminating in an announcement by the Rockefeller Foundation on its hundredth anniversary about their 100 Resilient Cities Centennial Challenge (more on that in a sec). So what exactly is resiliency all about? Can it be more than just the trendy planning term of the moment?

When it comes down to it, planning for resilient cities is simply good planning, something that MPC has been working on for nearly 80 years. The momentum behind the term and forums like our roundtable, however, provide a great way to help the wider public understand the importance of planning and integrating everything from hard infrastructure to futuristic technology to strong social cohesion. As Andrew Zolli, a leading thinker on resilience, defined it in a recent Atlantic Cities interview with Richard Florida and Jonathan Rose, resiliency is “the ability to maintain core purpose, with integrity, under the widest variety of circumstances. More broadly, it’s the ability to recover, persist or even thrive amid disruption.” Planning resilient cities is not just about prevention – how do we anticipate future storm sizes and build better infrastructure? – it’s really about, as Zolli defines it, continuity and recovery in the face of rapid change.

"Resiliency is just good planning." - Peter Skosey

These issues were all discussed at the roundtable. MPC Executive Vice President Peter Skosey kicked it off by helping us frame the issue and how it relates to MPC’s work. While describing a few examples of MPC’s work on stormwater mitigation, Bus Rapid Transit and water supply management as they relate to making cities more responsive and flexible, Peter brought up the inherent contradictions and tradeoffs embedded in the concept of resiliency. Resilience means efficiency, but also redundancy. For example, with transit shutdowns, like last week’s Red Line derailment or the current Red Line south reconstruction, the system is more resilient if there are multiple ways for people to get around. Resiliency is both hard – physical systems – and soft – finance and management systems, governance and social structures – infrastructure. It’s both smart – technology and data – and dumb – passive and functional default modes.

Sybil Derrible, UIC, lays out the groundwork for the concept of resiliency.

Our first guest, University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) Assistant Professor Sybil Derrible gave us the theoretical context for our discussion. According to Sybil, “resiliency” goes beyond “sustainability” because it moves beyond balancing the triple-bottom line in the present to thinking about how to maintain that over time. He gave a great, but quick, overview of the key concepts of urban resilience, including the ability to recover from perturbations, centralized versus decentralized networks and, adding to Peter’s list of contradictions, the both formal – institutional preparedness and planning – and informal – citizen-led, improvisational and ad hoc – nature of urban resilience. Resilience is about the ability to resist disorder and minimize entropy. For Sybil, solutions include better understanding the way cities work, including complex networks, better integrating resilience into standard planning practices and doing scenario planning. Sybil closed out his presentation by showing us a drawing of a sustainable city that one of his students made and emphasizing the point that when we think about resilience and future cities, we often think science fiction, but what we really want is livable cities.

Tyler Anthony, ComEd, explains the role of resiliency in utility infrastructure.

Next up to talk about the private sector and physical infrastructure side of resilience was J. Tyler Anthony, Senior Vice President at ComEd, also our sponsor for the roundtable. Tyler again emphasized that resilience is all about planning. The old model of utilities reacting to outages and problems is replaced with using data and technology to strategize and plan for a more adaptive system. Recently, ComEd has undertaken a $2.6 billion investment in an updated smart grid system, including $1.3 billion in infrastructure improvements and the rest for technology. Part of a more resilient system means giving customers the ability to report electricity outages by text message and social media to get better information and to improve communications. As part of this, ComEd is getting into dimensionalized responses, which involves asking communities ahead of time to strategically prioritize which parts of their electric grid should be repaired first, a concept which fits well with MPC’s work on strategic, data-driven investments.

Stephen Konya, Ill. Dept. of Public Health, ties social infrastructure and public health into the resiliency discussion.

Finally, to provide the public sector and social infrastructure perspective, our final speaker was Stephen Konya, Chief of Staff at the Illinois Dept. of Public Health (IDPH). Stephen described a joint effort between IDPH and UIC called BRACE, Building Resilience Against Climate Effects. Resilience goes beyond just infrastructure and technology, but is really about how those things affect people and their health. Stephen explained the wide range of public health impacts that fall under his purview and how those need to be integrated into adapting to climate change. Resilient cities don’t just know how to respond to disasters, but also the slow motion daily impacts of crises like climate change and disease.

The audience and panelists took part in a robust discussion of what exactly resiliency looks like.

We saved a lot of time at the end for questions for the speakers and discussion with the audience. A number of key issues came up. There’s a tendency to look at our governments to do all the resiliency planning and emergency preparedness, but real resilience requires design for chaos or “improvised response.” When large centralized systems fail, the most resilient communities bounce back in part because of their strong citizen engagement and social networks. Kevin Brubaker from the Environmental Law & Policy Center brought up community building and the example of how his wife made soup for neighbors during a storm or how after Hurricane Sandy, people shared their power outlets to charge cell phones. There’s a need for robust government and planning for the good times, but to really be resilient, strong social ties within local communities is critical for the bad times. Chief Technology Officer for the City of Chicago, John Tolva, was in the audience and added comments on how citizens can help create small feedback loops. He used the example of the City’s preparations for the NATO protests, and how they were able to get more information from social media than their own security cameras.

Then there’s the difficult question of how to know whether we’re doing a good job of planning for resiliency. Sybil indicated that unfortunately, we’re still struggling with performance metrics for that and the need for network optimization. Stephen mentioned that a lot of the important work that needs to happen is embedded in mundane things like updating outdated codes, and often, government knows it’s doing a good job when no one knows about the problems.

Now, back to the Rockefeller Foundation’s 100 Resilient Cities challenge, an effort to fund 100 cities to do three main things: hire a Chief Resilience Officer to oversee the development of a resilience strategy, create a resilience plan, including tools and resources for implementation, and be part of a network of cities doing this resiliency work. President of the Rockefeller Foundation, Dr. Judith Rodin wrote in the Huffington Post that a resilience plan requires the flexibility to change and evolve in the face of disaster; diversity and redundancy which enables the system to function even when individual parts fail; options for safe failure that limits shocks rippling across systems; the ability for rapid rebound to re-establish function quickly; and robust feedback loops that sense and allow new options to be introduced quickly as conditions change. While some might wonder if a separate resilience plan and staff person are necessary or whether they should be integrated into the regular plans and processes, the challenge provides a good opportunity to help cities focus on and finance good, robust planning. We definitely hope that Chicago takes advantage of this, and we especially hope that our regions’ suburbs can build on existing interjurisdictional collaborations to work together to apply for this support.

We’re glad to provide a forum to ask these difficult questions and we thank our three panelists for a great discussion to get us thinking about the complexity of resilience, but also the back-to-the-basics nature of good planning. We look forward to thinking more of how to incorporate this into our work and to provide opportunities for discussions on this topic in the future. Tell us what you think: what did you think about our roundtable or what are your thoughts on the concept of resiliency?

MPC Roundtable—Tough Stuff: Resilient Infrastructure in a Changing World

aranieri@metroplanning.org (Ariel Ranieri) — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Ariel Ranieri

Watch the live stream, viewable from both PCs and mobile devices.

As many new and recurring challenges affect and shape our response to extreme events, the importance of resilient infrastructure becomes increasingly critical. Security threats, an uncertain climate and financial instability have all left their mark on our existing systems, begging the question, “Are we prepared for the future?” The greater Chicago region has experienced its share of extremes, including a foreclosure crisis that has led to a shortage of rental housing and a supply/demand mismatch, drought conditions for most of 2012, blackouts throughout the region and, most recently, intense storms resulting in impassable expressways, five straight days of flooding and combined sewer overflows.

How can we prepare for the unexpected? Coordinated, data-driven, purposeful planning leads to better communities today, as well as smarter investments for the future. At the local level, we can’t control the weather, the economy or security threats, but we can control our response. To make the most efficient and cost-effective use of our limited public resources, we need to take steps now to prepare and prevent, rather than continue to spend tens of billions of dollars or more in post-disaster relief.

Join MPC for a discussion with representatives from ComEd, Ill. Dept. of Public Health and UIC about the resiliency of physical and social infrastructure, and how we can effectively plan for both natural and man-made disasters.

Moderator:

Peter Skosey, Executive Vice President, Metropolitan Planning Council

Panelists:

J. Tyler Anthony, Senior Vice President of Distribution Operations, ComEd
Sybil Derrible, Assistant Professor, Civil and Materials Engineering, University of Illinois—Chicago
Stephen Konya, Chief of Staff, Ill. Dept. of Public Health

Watch the live stream, viewable from both PCs and mobile devices.

This event is sponsored by Illinois American Water.

Solving the parking predicament: Using performance-based parking to manage demand in D.C.

cmancini@metroplanning.org (Chrissy Mancini Nichols) — Wed, 15 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Chrissy Mancini Nichols

Arial view of National Park Stadium

Wikimedia Commons

Washington, D.C., like cities across the country, has begun to experiment with new and more effective ways to price its parking. Visitors to a number of the city’s most popular areas, from the DC USA shopping center to the Washington Nationals stadium, will experience the changes up close as the District Dept. of Transportation (DDOT) expands use of a new approach to manage parking availability, by pricing meters based on the changing demand for parking at different times of day.

Due to growing commercial and residential development, several years ago officials identified a need for improved parking management. In March 2008, DDOT first rolled out Performance Based Parking in a pilot zone in neighborhoods near the new Washington Nationals baseball stadium in the Ballpark District. By 2009, the program’s successes—which substantially increased meter revenues, providing new funding for affected neighborhoods—encouraged the city to expand into the neighborhood of Columbia Heights, where the bustling DC USA shopping center had just opened. More recently, in November 2012 DDOT introduced its program on the H Street NE corridor, which is increasingly an urban nightlife center. Further expansions into other neighborhoods—and eventually the entire city—are currently being planned.

DC USA Shopping Complex

Wikimedia Commons

With its gradual rollout, Washington D.C., has taken a cautious approach in implementing its new parking policies—and it plans to experiment to reach the right equilibrium. DDOT reserves the right each year to amend parking prices to reach the targeted occupancy rate of 85 percent, a figure recommended by parking expert Donald Shoup that encourages turnover and ensures a few vacant spaces for patrons willing to pay at any given time. Using license plate reader technology, District officials record occupancy data at meters and set rates based on the data. Rates rise and fall with demand; too few parkers might mean the rate is too high, while too few empty spaces might indicate the opposite. Prices are adjusted annually to meet the targeted 85 percent threshold.

The three performance-based parking districts are illustrated in the following map. Of the three zones, the Ballpark District is the largest, accounting for 145 blocks and 6,200 curbside parking spaces and includes sections of Capitol Hill. Columbia Heights is about one quarter the size, while the H Street Zone is smaller still.

Table 1 documents the general rate structure for 2011-2012 for all three areas, demonstrating the District’s varied approach to parking management. The Ballpark District uses different hourly rates, depending on whether a game is scheduled to occur or not. In Columbia Heights, the rates increase by the hour. In H Street NE, the rate varies between day and evening times. Each district enforces meters Monday through Saturday.

Table 1. Parking meter rate structure, 2011-2012.

	Ballpark District¹	Columbia Heights^1,2	H Street NE³
Hourly Rate	$1/2.50/2.50 / $2/8/8	$2.50/3/3	$0.75 / 2
Time Limit (until 6:30 p.m.)	2 hrs.	2 hrs.	4 hrs.
Hours of Enforcement	7 a.m.-9:30 p.m./ 7 a.m.-10 p.m.	7 a.m.-10 p.m.	7 a.m.-6:30 p.m./ 6:30 p.m.-10p.m.

¹Rates refer to the 1^st through the 3^rd hours; the Ballpark District is divided by non-game/game days
2Rates apply only to the 2900 through 3300 blocks of 14^th St. NW, all else $2/hr.
³Rates enforced by time of day: First rate aligns with daytime, second with evening time enforcement

The initial implementation produced mixed results. License plate reader studies conducted during eight-hour intervals for three consecutive days in summer 2010 suggested that there is room for improvement. An average of 10 percent of metered blocks in the Ballpark District reached or surpassed the 85 percent occupancy rate threshold, compared to 9 percent of metered blocks in Columbia Heights. Nevertheless, 100 percent of Columbia Heights’ multi-space meters (solar-powered payment devices that accept coins and cards to manage multiple parking spaces) achieved or surpassed the 85 percent occupancy rate. Since launch, revenues in the pilot zones have been substantial, especially in the Ballpark District. Table 2 compares annual meter revenues between 2009 and 2012. Currently, revenues are equally split between Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority initiatives (i.e., rail, bus and paratransit) and neighborhood improvements within the pilot zones.

Table 2. Pilot zone meter revenue, 2009-2012.

Annual Revenues	Ballpark District	Columbia Heights	H Street NE¹
2009	$575,000	$83,000	--
2010	$597,000	$52,000	--
2011	$1.5 million	$124,000	--
2012	$1 million	$117,000	$105,000

¹Timeframe covers November 2012 through March 2013

Funds have contributed to the completion of a wide variety of improvement projects, such as streetscapes, enhanced sidewalks, bike facilities and transit signage. Specifically, these projects include Big Belly solar trash compactors, the Capital Bikeshare program and street repaving.

DDOT argues that the program has provided advantages to residents and businesses, which have flourished thanks to reduced traffic and easier-to-find parking spaces. But perhaps the greatest benefits have extended beyond the mundane joy of a readily available parking space, as community members have reacted positively to the use of performance parking revenues for projects in their neighborhoods.

MPC Research Assistant Parfait Gasana authored this post.

Solving the Parking Predicament Series

Parking Meter Zones in Old Pasadena, Cali.
The SFPark smartphone app in San Francisco
The meter and permit system in Oak Park, Ill.
Performance Based Parking in Washington, D.C.
The EPA-piloted Parking Benefit District in Austin, Texas
The Parking Improvement District in Boulder, Colo.
Payment-in-Lieu of Parking in Miami’s Coconut Grove neighborhood

These case studies will show how parking can transform from a headache into a demand strategy that takes the stress out of parking for drivers, while supporting communities by increasing transportation options, building business activity, and boosting community ambience.

Metropolitan Planning Council cultivates leaders

msbarrett@metroplanning.org (MarySue Barrett) — Tue, 14 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By MarySue Barrett

Spring makes me feel happy, thanks to the sprouting plants in my parkway garden and along Chicago's verdant boulevards and downtown planting beds. This spring, I've been busy in MPC's "garden," recruiting and interviewing talent to join our growing team: I’m thrilled to welcome Debra Spencer as MPC’s new Government Relations Manager, and Yonah Freemark, a new Associate.

While it is always difficult to lose valued staff members, I've been reflecting on the influential roles our former colleagues have moved into, where they plant seeds that continue to flourish. I tapped our formidable database to produce a list of all the places where our former employees are making their marks. It's a terrific reminder that developing the region's leaders is a significant part of our mission.

Here's just a smattering of MPC alums:

Alds. Will Burns (4^th Ward) and Natashia Holmes (7^th Ward), two rising stars in Chicago's City Council
Municipal officials Kristi DeLaurentiis, Planning and Development Director for the south suburban Village of Lansing, Heather Gleason with the City of Chicago, and Karin Sommer with New York Mayor Bloomberg
Roberto Requejo, now serving the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago as an analyst
Community builders Brandon Johnson, breathing new life into Washington Park, and Mary Ellen Guest, with the Historic Chicago Bungalow Association
Strategist Emily Tapia Lopez of Resolute Consulting
Philanthropy leaders Kate McAdams at a major family foundation, Mike Davidson at The Chicago Community Trust, and Laura Sampson at Boeing
Planners Scott Goldstein at Teska Associates, Inc., and Sarah Wilson at Goodman Williams Group
Columnist John McCarron, continuing to educate and energize Chicago Tribune readers and future journalists at Northwestern University
Mike McLaughlin, bringing his formidable federal government knowledge to help the Chicago Transit Authority
Debbie Stone, Dominic Tocci and Jane Hornstein, helping Pres. Toni Preckwinkle and Cook County be a tremendously positive force on economic and community development
Karyn Romano and Robin Snyderman, who branched out to start their own consultancies, Metro Strategies, Inc., and Brick LLC, respectively
Kirsten Powers, who now works for DSC Logistics, run by MPC Board member Ann Drake
Kim Grimshaw Bolton, national communications director at New Voice Strategies
Joanna Trotter, who just in May joined the Civic Engagement team at the University of Chicago

This feels a bit like writing a holiday letter bragging about your kids—which has not been my practice! But I am extremely proud of the tradition of growing great leaders, some whom stay and make their impact at MPC, and others whom infiltrate multiple institutions and continue to be close partners. It's a wonderful and complex family tree!

As Red Line reconstruction gears up, Chicago Water Taxi is a commuting alternative

tgrzesiakowski@metroplanning.org (Tim Grzesiakowski) — Tue, 14 May 2013 12:00:00 CST

By Tim Grzesiakowski

There’s been a lot of press about the Chicago Transit Authority's (CTA) upcoming Red Line South Reconstruction Project, which is scheduled to begin on Sunday, May 19, and last for five months. With the Red Line sealed off from Cermak-Chinatown all the way south to 95^th/Dan Ryan, and trains rerouted to the Green Line, some people are rightfully wondering how they’ll be getting around. CTA, Metra and Pace all list Red Line commuting options on their websites. But there’s another alternative that will begin service on Saturday, May 25, that’s worth noting.

During this summer’s Red Line closure, the Chicago Water Taxi will double its service to and from Chinatown, making it the best alternative for some during CTA’s ambitious renovation project. The boat taxi service will begin operating daily service between the dock at Chinatown’s Ping Tom Park and 2 N. Riverside Plaza, adjacent to Ogilvie and Union Stations. Service continues on to the LaSalle/Clark and Michigan Avenue river stops. One-way travel time between Chinatown and Ogilvie Station is 15 minutes. Vessels will arrive and depart Chinatown every 20 minutes from 10 a.m. until 9 p.m. seven days a week through September 20.

If you’ve never ridden on the Chicago Water Taxi, there’s no better time to try it than right now. It’s an easy, refreshing way to avoid congestion on city streets, while still getting to work on time. Plus, it’s a great way to enjoy the (finally) nice weather!

For more information about schedules, fares and related information, visit Chicago Water Taxi’s website at www.chicagowatertaxi.com.