If the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approves the Central Business District Program’s Environmental Assessment, New York City will be the first in the nation to implement a congestion pricing program, something it desperately needs to minimize congestion in Manhattan and to raise revenue for overdue transit improvements, but it must help make transportation easier for those it aims to serve – not harder.
The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Reform and Traffic Mobility Act, approved in April 2019, included a tolling program to be facilitated by the MTA’s Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA).[i] Revenue will be used to fund the MTA’s capital program, which is in dire need of funding for system modernization improvements. While the program has been criticized by certain residents for unfair tolling, the MTA assures the public that the program is necessary for reducing congestion, decreasing travel times, and improving air quality.[ii] However, the success and overall acceptability of the program relies on the MTA’s ability to adequately address real or perceived concerns about inequitable impacts.
According to the MTA, 95 percent of trips to the Manhattan CBD by low-income populations are made using public transit. Further, fewer than one percent of commuters to Manhattan’s CBD are low-income individuals who drive,[iii] meaning only a very small portion of low-income commuters will be directly burdened by the toll.
The program still must consider the effects on low-income car users from the outer boroughs, however. In 2008, FHWA produced a report titled Lessons Learned from International Experience in Congestion Pricing, which summarizes some successes and failures of other congestion pricing programs. This report found that low-income car users are most likely to be negatively affected by congestion pricing.[iv]
To address this, the MTA plans to provide discounts on commuter rail to New York City residents of up to 20 percent. It also agreed to commit funds to improve bus service from Queens to Midtown, which would improve transportation options for car-reliant households.[v] To take it a step further, a portion of the toll revenue could even be used to subsidize taxis or ride-hailing services for first/last mile connections, thereby providing even more mobility for commuters from areas with poor bus or subway access.
The FHWA also notes that the distribution of toll revenues is important for ensuring equitable results. Since all the revenue will be directed towards public transportation expenses – 80% for New York City Transit, 10% for the Long Island Rail Road, and 10% for Metro-North Railroad – the resulting improvements will be directly benefitting lower-income residents and public transportation customers.[vi]
Once the program begins operation, the TBTA is required to collaborate with the City Department of Transportation to produce biannual reports on topics such as impacts to traffic congestion, changes in traffic patterns, and environmental improvements.[vii] However, there is no specific plan to evaluate equity impacts after the program is implemented. The FHWA report notes that, while some cities have designed their policies with equity in mind, post-implementation equity analysis is lacking. Though New York City is completing the required amount of public engagement, planners could take the lead on collaborative planning and on integrating equity into the process. If the public is only engaged before the program has started, how will the city know how it impacts residents’ day-to-day lives down the road?
Another important question about the congestion pricing program: who is going to be exempt? Who is going to be eligible for a tax credit? Who is going to pay the $23 toll every day? As expected, many residents are already attending the public engagement meetings to advocate for exemption. The MTA Reform and Traffic Mobility Act exempts emergency vehicles and vehicles transporting those with disabilities, but who else will be exempt is yet to be decided.[viii] Some say that just residents of the congestion zone should be exempt; others say that suburban commuters or even off-duty police should be exempt. With equity at the forefront, the MTA must listen to these concerns and re-evaluate who should bear the burden of congestion tolls.
If the congestion pricing program is rejected, the MTA would need to cover increased capital costs somehow – which would most likely result in a fare increase. This policy would hurt most New Yorkers who utilize public transit, but especially low-income individuals who are disproportionately burdened by transportation costs. Clearly, New York City needs a congestion pricing program now more than ever. But if New York City wants their program to be a successful model for other cities, equity concerns must be seriously addressed as the details of the program become finalized.
Sophia Nelson is a first-year Master’s student in City and Regional Planning. Specializing in Transportation Planning, she is particularly interested in urban public transit systems and equitable community engagement. Sophia received her undergraduate degree from the University of Washington, where she studied urban planning and geography. Besides her interests in planning, she loves hanging with her cat, cooking, and tending to her houseplants.
This week Chapel Hill Transit celebrated Valentine’s Day by restoring several bus trips that had been removed at the beginning of the year.[i] Following an erratic Fall semester, the provider officially reduced its service in response to staff shortages. Beginning in January 2022, the A, CL, CM, CW, D, J, and N routes all had leaner schedules with the goal of “minimizing missed trips throughout the system.”[ii] Anecdotally, reliability did indeed improve; however, despite adjustments as “the number of callouts [started to] decrease,” conversations among frustrated UNC students on being late for class were replaced by those on having no choice but to be half-an-hour early instead.[iii] Even as route schedules continue to return to normal, expectations for service quality remain low.
The bus driver shortage is far from a unique problem for the Town of Chapel Hill. In October 2021, public transit employment was at 84 percent of pre-pandemic levels.[iv] Arguably the most heavily hit by the trend are schoolchildren: over 80 percent of school districts have altered their service since the outbreak of COVID-19, further complicating the learning of student cohorts already balancing blended instructional delivery modes.[v] More broadly, public transit disruptions have racial equity implications, as 60 percent of riders nationwide are people of color.[vi]
Other than food and agriculture workers, transportation operators face the highest risk of COVID-19 death of all employment sectors, so an individual’s cost-benefit analysis that produces a verdict that $16.50/hour is not worth jeopardizing her health or that of her loved ones is, perhaps, understandable.[vii],[viii] With that in mind, below I evaluate potential policy measures that Chapel Hill Transit and other public transit systems can consider to remedy the impact of bus driver shortages.
Partner with Rideshare Companies
At the beginning of the 2021-22 school year, Mayor Lori Lightfoot of Chicago proposed rideshare companies as a potential stop-gap for bus driver shortages caused by mass resignation over Chicago Public School’s vaccine mandate.[ix] The idea would be to strike an agreement with Uber, Lyft, or a similar company to fulfill the transit needs of the city’s school children. Although no deal was made, the suggestion no doubt tickled the fancies of transportation engineers. Can mass transit need be fulfilled by a fleet of personal automobiles operated by gig workers?
Uber certainly seems to think it has a role to play; the company is positioning itself as a new public transit option, suggesting that replacing 1 to 6 percent of bus trips with their ridesharing services could result in a 15 to 30 percent cost reduction per trip for transportation agencies.[x] Putting aside that Uber almost exclusively cited data from “Uber analysis” in its report, the conclusion is not illogical: ridesharing’s variable cost structure is inherently more responsive to demand than is the fixed cost structure typical of public transportation agencies. In Uber’s vision, if it were to integrate into a public transportation system, tax-payer money would go directly to its corporate headquarters instead of toward financing bus routes; so, if ridership decreases, cost would too. The simple beauty of this measure is that the more thoroughly a local government commits to it, the less consequential the shortages become. Running out of bus operators? Cut some lines, throw subsidies at Uber, and save some money.
Potential Impact of Policy on Chapel Hill Transit
+ Point-to-point service would improve first- and last-mile connectivity; blind allegiance to the Invisible Hand would restore patriotism to Orange County.
– The rush of developers hoping to revitalize defunct bus stops could cause speculation.
Uber’s intricately detailed explanation of economics to local government. Source: Uber
Induce Demand for Operators
Historically, transportation planners have either misunderstood or chosen to ignore “induced demand.” This economic principle states that if a good that people value is provided at no cost then demand will meet the supply.[xi] The frequently referenced (and even more frequently witnessed) scenario is that of highway expansion; local governments try to alleviate traffic by building new lanes, thereby attracting more car drivers to the road and instead increasing congestion.
Cries for officials to recognize this trend are only growing louder, and opportunity awaits those that do. Not only can planners reverse their auto-centric policies and reduce congestion and emissions, they can mitigate bus driver shortages as well. Following the above logic, if public transit providers construct buses and allow people to drive buses free of charge, the demand of people willing to drive buses will meet the supply of buses. In theory, this policy could maximize the potential of induced demand in transportation, as bus operators are paid – imagine how many cars would be on the road if drivers earned money to be there? It remains a personal curiosity and frustration of mine that so few planners have a working understanding of induced demand.
Potential Impact of Policy on Chapel Hill Transit
+ Surplus bus drivers can be retrained as bus conductors, adding new jobs to the economy and reinstating a sorely missed pillar of 1970s European society.
– Building more buses may contribute to sound pollution by also inducing demand for young mothers singing “The Wheels on the Bus.”
Highway expansion is often used as an example of how planners have traditionally ignored induced demand theories. Source: Steve Davis
Force Passengers to Say Thank You
Doug Conant, former CEO of Campbell’s Soup, wrote 30,000 notes to his employees between 2001 and 2009, each one thanking an individual for a specific contribution; in that time, the company transformed from one with falling stock to one outperforming both the S&P Food Group and the S&P 500.[xii] Many understand the power of the words “thank you” on an intuitive level, but thinking about the phrase as having economic value is not so widespread.
As mentioned above, many former or potential bus operators do not see the pay as worth the risk of transmitting COVID-19, but the increase in gratitude that a thank-you-mandate would provoke would effectively add an additional wage, thereby encouraging more drivers to work for public transit providers.
Potential Impact of Policy on Chapel Hill Transit
+ Bus operators will feel so valued that Chapel Hill will never have to worry about collective bargaining.
– If saying thank you is forced, there is an outside chance it will come across as disingenuous thereby having the opposite effect.
Campbell’s Soup was the inspiration for one of Andy Warhol’s most famous pieces – could Chapel Hill benefit similarly? Source: The Museum of Modern Art
Wait for the “Thin Air Phenomenon”
Perhaps by virtue of its Big Bang ancestry, the world has a habit of conjuring something where nothing came before it. From monoliths to Beanie Babies, Jesus to Eminem, unexplained phenomena can be found throughout human history. American democracy has often relied heavily on the “Thin Air Phenomenon” to drive much of its national agenda. Trickle-down economics, good-guy-with-gun theory, and clean coal initiatives have all successfully informed government officials that doing nothing is often the best way to achieve desired results. Waiting might be transportation providers’ best option.
Potential Impact of Policy on Chapel Hill Transit
+ Easy, no cost to tax payer
– Can the Town be trusted not to abuse handouts?
Immaculate conception has a strong political tradition in American democracy. Source: Garrett Parker
Pay Bus Drivers More
The least likely measure that I shall not waste time articulating.
[vi] National Campaign for Transit Justice Alliance for a Justice Society Labor Network for Sustainability TransitCenter, Invest in Transit Equity, Invest in Transit Workers.
James Hamilton is a first-year Master’s student with the Department of City and Regional Planning whose interests center on urban design in relation to community marginalization, environmental justice, societal cohesion, and suburban retrofit. He studied public policy and economics at Duke University and has since worked in New Orleans and New York before circling back to the triangle. Never happier than when he is hiking up a mountain or traveling on a train, James fails to commit enough time to his average writing collections, ambitious reading list, and lifelong rugby enthusiasm.
Edited by Amy Patronella
Featured image: A Chapel Hill bus advertises for new operators. Courtesy of the Town of Chapel Hill.
If you’re a vehicle owner and you’re reading this, I’m willing to bet you can think of a time or two in your life where you felt a real freedom attached to driving. However, I’d also wager that you don’t always love sitting in traffic when you’re already twenty minutes late to work. Recognizing the environmental and economic downturn that has been borne out of American auto dependency has planners searching for both sustainable and efficient transit options to offer to the average commuter. However, where cities like Raleigh have faltered on offering new-age transit options, others like Charlotte are at the forefront of modern mass transit. The questions of how to best move the thousands of residents that make daily commutes into a city may at first seem daunting, especially given the American romanticism of the car. But for planners, the answers may lie in the not so distant past.
In the early 20th century, streetcars lined the roads of American cities in all directions, offering clean and safe transportation for all. Now, the light rail is doing the same thing in many major US cities. Given that light rails cost less than subways, are often cheaper to construct and maintain than normal trains, and offer more consistent on-time service than buses, it is easy to see why urban planners across the country have made the light rail their answer to both sprawl and auto dependency.
Throughout 2020, Raleigh had a single occupancy vehicle use rate of nearly 80%.[i] This means that nearly 80% of drivers were traveling alone when commuting. In addition to Raleigh’s high rate of lone drivers, the current average commute time is 23 minutes.[ii] These statistics indicate the city’s need for some form of mass transit that can alleviate the burden placed on both infrastructure and environment by auto dependency. As a regular driver in the Triangle, it is this writer’s very professional opinion that something needs to change so I can spend less time sitting in Durham traffic. There are innumerable reasons the light rail is an excellent answer for this conundrum. In multiple cities, this form of mass transit offered not just alleviation from congestion, but also economic and neighborhood revitalization in downtowns of cities in decline.
Source: Triangle Business Journals
Since 1986, the MAX Light Rail in Portland, Oregon has carried urbanites all over the city. The city has a population of approximately 650,000 people, and yet the light rail still manages to move roughly 3.9 million people annually. During non-Summer work months, like October, the Portland light rail moves an average of about 80,000 people a week. [iii] Given Raleigh’s similarity in population (467,000 people in 2020), and the abundance of surrounding towns outside of both Portland and Raleigh that serve as bedroom communities bursting with city commuters, the success of the light rail in Portland bodes well for Raleigh. The large number of mass transit users in Portland bodes well for other cities bold enough to introduce light rail as a transit option, despite some worry about who precisely benefits from light rail services.[iv]
On that note, it is important to ensure that low income individuals, people of color, and other disenfranchised communities are offered the opportunity to make use of a light rail, since these populations are often the ones who rely on mass transit services the most. Minority communities are often faced with, as engineer Christof Spieler states, “different standards for ‘choice’ and ‘dependent’ riders (that is to say white and Black).”[v] Spieler’s article goes on to explore the inequities in transit quality, bus stop location, and overall experience for commuters in different boroughs of Houston, Texas. While a light rail will not solve every racial divide in the transportation sector, equitable and clean transit is a great way to offer services than benefit multiple communities within a city. However, to reach those underprivileged communities, a city must first take a leap of faith through one key step: giving people new ways to get around.
Charlotte, North Carolina is a recent convert to the light rail lifestyle, having just debuted a light rail service in 2007. The city of Charlotte is an excellent example of a metropolis that recognized the potential benefits a light rail could have. Like Raleigh, Charlotte is surrounded by smaller towns and suburbs full of city commuters, and the city’s own data suggests that a least half of the city’s workforce commutes from outside the county. Additionally, the same data indicates that roughly 37% of Charlotte commuters spend over 30 minutes in their vehicles each morning.[vi] I was born just outside Charlotte. My parents ultimately moved us out of the city in the mid-2000s because the daily congestion was becoming unbearable. The data in Raleigh is strikingly similar, though commute times in the capital city are admittedly a bit quicker than that of the average Charlottean.
However, the Charlotte Department of Transportation (CDOT) rose to the challenge, working with the Charlotte Area Transit System (CATS) to debut the light rail and revamp the streetcar system across the city.[vii] While the system may not have been in place as long as Portland’s, and as such cannot be analyzed as extensively, implementation in Charlotte points towards something that might prove to be a useful transportation solution for Raleigh planners. Charlotte geared their resources in the direction of capacity increase for transportation options. As a result, the city now has the potential to move more residents on public transit than ever before.
City officials hope that with this expansion of transportation options, people will make the transition from personal vehicle use to a more sustainable and accessible transit option that will also cut down on their daily commute to work. Charlotteans did not just invest in a light rail, they invested in their own future. Raleigh should do the same.
Ian is a second-semester senior at UNC, set to graduate in May with a BA in Public Policy. He also has minors in Geography and Urban Planning, the latter of which led him to the Carolina Planning Journal. He is a DJ for WXYC, the campus radio station. Ian was recently accepted to the Master’s Program in Public Policy at UNC, and will be part of the first cohort to graduate from the program. His planning interests include environmental land use planning, expansion of public transportation, and revitalization in areas initially targeted by Urban Renewal.
Edited by Ruby Brinkerhoff
Featured image: LYNX light rail system in Charlotte. Courtesy ofJames Willamor, Flickr
When I tell people that the High Line is my least favorite park in New York City, their jaws instantly drop. I am aware that some view my opinion as blasphemous, but when we critically assess the High Line’s impact, it’s clear it wasn’t designed to benefit all New Yorkers.
Please, don’t get me wrong, it has some very good qualities. It has reinvented adaptive reuse as glamorous and inspired countless cities to revive their abandoned spaces. And yes, for those who only care about looks, the High Line is breathtaking. However, my disdain for the High Line is because City Hall has used parks and open space as a tool to rebrand neighborhoods as luxury. This only attracts more wealthy newcomers and displaces and excludes native New Yorkers.
The creation of the High Line began in 2004 when then-Mayor Bloomberg supported the creation of the West Chelsea Special District.[i] This zoning change cemented the High Line into the city’s zoning map and allowed for it to begin developing as a park. Coincidentally, it was during this time that Bloomberg and the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYEDC), the city’s economic development arm, also began a covert operation to rebrand New York as a city of opulence.[ii]
The goal of the rebranding was to attract key investors and residents to the city. Bloomberg’s development strategy viewed New York City as a product with a distinct brand. Bloomberg and NYEDC decided — without input from New Yorkers — upon a brand of luxury.
As Julien Brash writes in Bloomberg’s New York: Class and Governance in the Luxury City, “If New York City is a business, it isn’t Wal-Mart…It’s a high-end product even a luxury product.” Knowing that rebranding was the principal economic development strategy during Bloomberg’s tenure, it isn’t hard to see that the unprecedented public spaces that have been created since are a direct manifestation of that policy.
Some may protest, “But public spaces and parks are good! We should be building more!” And they are completely right. However, the city should build parks in neighborhoods like Mott Haven and Bushwick, which the non-profit New Yorkers For Parks has found to be vastly underserved by open space.[iii] Instead, the city develops extravagant parks in places like Chelsea and Brooklyn Heights, which aid in rebranding entire neighborhoods and ultimately displaces families.
Governments should create parks to provide necessary open space to existing residents, not to catalyze real estate investment and attract a wealthier class. Since the High Line opened in 2009, the median household income of the surrounding area has increased from $80,747 to $141,672.[iv] This is an increase of about 23%, while the overall household income of New York City has only increased by 7%.
Anyone who visits the High Line (including the 7,000,000 annual visitors) can see this.[v] When walking along the path, one would expect to see beautiful views of the Hudson. In reality, it’s hard to see anything other than the backside of countless million-dollar apartments, which have sprouted up mere inches from the rail. This is not to mention the fact that the park has now finished its final stretch, which circumvents Hudson Yards, the largest real estate development in the history of the United States.
I’m sure the designers and community activists who fight tirelessly for these parks are well-intentioned. Unfortunately, what the High Line and many of New York’s other luxury open spaces say, is that only individuals in the highest income bracket are entitled to well-designed, highly programmed open spaces. What makes this statement even more gut-wrenching, is that it’s not just real estate developers and billionaires saying this, the city is too.
In 1961, Jane Jacobs wrote, “Cities have the capability of providing something for everybody, only because, and only when, they are created by everybody.”[vi]
This directly translates to how the city should use parks and open spaces. The High Line and others like it, were developed because a small group of people decided what the city should be and who it should serve. However, public space is meant to be shared by the public—everyone.
To achieve this, parks and open space planning should be more participatory, focusing on the needs of every person in that community. Secondly, open space interventions should also be developed in areas that truly need them, not high-income neighborhoods in Manhattan. Lastly, both administrative and community-led tools like downzoning, rent controls, and 197A plans should be implemented to make sure that amenities like parks don’t displace existing communities.
Now, the next time the city promises a new park, regardless of where it may be, I hope you pay attention. Because at the end of the day, it is up to us, New Yorkers, to reclaim our public spaces.
[vi] Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities.
Eve Lettau is a second-year Master’s student in City and Regional planning, studying equitable economic development. She’s passionate about how good jobs create access to good housing opportunities and vice versa. Originally from the Shenandoah Valley in Virginia, she received undergraduate degrees in Economics and Public and Urban Affairs from Virginia Tech. In her free time she spends time hiking with her 2 year old puppy or taking care of her much-too-large plant collection.
Back in 2016, the UNC City and Regional Planning’s Class of 2017 answered some of the incoming class’s deepest darkest questions as they began their first year of graduate school. As the Class of 2023 wraps up week 1 of the program, we revisit this great advice, still just as relevant a full five years later.
By Rachel Wexler, Daniel Bullock, and Chris Bendix, MCRP ’17
2018: What advice do you have for students who are transitioning from working full-time to being a student full-time, in terms of getting back into an academic mindset?
2017: Depending on your priorities, you might not need to change your mindset too much. If you’re organized and efficient you can treat school like a 9 to 5. Generally though, you will likely not have a full day of rest and relaxation until summer time. So hold onto your hat. Also, it’s pass-fail and there will be times when you will need to do less than you’d ideally like to for the sake of your schedule and your own sanity.
2018: How much group-work is required, and do you have any tips for working in groups?
2017: A large amount of projects are done as groups but once tasks are delegated work is largely independent. Assign project components based on the skills each member has and the skills they want to gain. Have internal deadlines.
2018: How early should first-years start thinking about summer internships?
2017:It should always be in the back of your mind but second semester is the time to actively seek internships. With that being said, if you know you want to stay in the area and start working before summer starts, go ahead and start looking now. With that being said, internships can and may come together at the last minute and still work out really well.
2018: Do you recommend that first-years take the introductory courses for all of the DCRP specializations to get a sense of options, or is that unnecessary?
2017: No. Don’t do this. Maybe take two courses in different specializations if you’re trying to decide but really, there isn’t enough time. If you are unsure about what specialization you’re aiming for try to take courses that count towards multiple specializations. This is not hard to do if you’re wavering between ED and Housing.
2018: Any advice for balancing schoolwork and extracurricular activities like TA-ships?
2017: Be prepared to turn in work that you know you could have done better on. There is not enough time to do everything to the best of your ability. Focus on the things you want to get out of the program and forget about perfectionism.
2018: What’s your favorite bar and/or coffee shop in Carrboro/Chapel Hill?
2017: Grey Squirrel – hip Open Eye – study spot Johnny’s (now called Present Day on Main) – local community vibe Honeysuckle Tea House – if you like tea and farms this is the place OCSC -seems to be the grad student go-to Beer Study – for beer geeks Zog’s – divey(now closed) Lantern – for the fancy occasion Steel String – nice patio and people-watching
2018: Any advice for cultivating relationships with professors in your first year?
2017: You probably heard this in undergrad but the same goes for grad school– go to office hours, ask questions, be engaged in class. They’re generally really accessible and genuinely care about helping their students but they’re not going to come to you. Try not to be too intimidated by them. They understand how ridiculously complex planning things tend to be so it’s ok if you show up and ask really basic questions. Also, use your TAs, especially if they’re DCRP PhD candidates. They’re crazy knowledgeable.
Rachel Wexler specialized in Economic Development at DCRP, and is now a German Chancellor Fellow at ZK/U – Zentrum für Kunst und Urbanistik in Berlin, Germany.
Daniel Bullock was in the Housing and Community Development and Real Estate specialization, and now works as the Housing and Facilities Development Manager at CASA of Oregon in Sherwood, Oregon.
Chris Bendix studied both Housing and Community Development and Transportation, and is a Project Developer at Mercy Housing in Seattle, Washington.
In light of Apple’s announcement that they will be placing one of their headquarters in Wake County, many fear skyrocketing housing costs in response. Apple touts that this new 3,000 new jobs to the area, potentially encouraging mass migration to the Raleigh-Durham area. Google has also recently announced their plans to build a hub in Durham and claims that they will eventually create 1,000 jobs in the area. These announcements are being made during a time of large inbound migration to North Carolina, with North Carolina now considered the 5th most popular state to move to.
All these changes beg the question of how increased housing demand from high-income tech sector employees will affect housing affordability in North Carolina. This is of special concern to the currently booming metropolitan areas of NC: Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte. Who will be displaced by this mass migration? How big of a threat is gentrification? How can we ensure sustained affordable housing for North Carolinians?
North Carolinians’ fears about what happens if Raleigh-Durham becomes the “new Bay Area” are not unfounded. It’s easy to look at the Bay Area, California as a blueprint for the impact of expansive tech sector development on housing affordability. San Francisco is currently the most expensive housing market in the US, with other Bay Area cities such as San Jose and Oakland following closely behind. However, this future is not set in stone for North Carolina. State and local policymakers can begin to reform our current housing system to accommodate newcomers in a way that balances the needs of long-term residents with the goals of economic development.
SB349, the NC Senate’s “Increase Housing Opportunities” bill, is a good start. The bill legalizes “missing middle” housing in residential area (townhouses, duplexes, quadplexes), blocking local attempts at single family zoning that restrict more affordable housing options. It also legalizes additional dwelling units, or ADUs, without any parking minimums or conditional use permits, further increasing housing stock. It also blocks local downzoning attempts without substantial evidence indicating public health or safety risk. Compared to other state bills, NC’s bill goes further than most, preventing local governments from banning land uses that are not a demonstratable threat to health or safety.
In short, SB349 will make housing construction easier and avert local attempts to block new housing development. This bill is the floor that North Carolina needs to preserve existing housing affordability. By permitting housing construction, NC housing markets can meet growing demand from incoming tech workers. This isn’t purely theoretical either – research indicates that housing supply restrictions raise housing costs.
For those concerned about the displacement effects of new economic development, bills like SB349, and other laws permitting housing construction, are still the best bet. Some may argue that the construction of new, market-rate units creates an induced demand effect. Under this logic, new construction encourages wealthier people to move in, landlords appease these newcomers by evicting low-income tenants and raising rents, and low-income residents are then displaced.
However, evidence suggests just the opposite. Market-rate housing construction does not increase rents in nearby units. In fact, new construction lowers rents in nearby housing. A recent working paper by Xiaodi Li found that for every 10% increase in housing stock, local rents decrease by 1%. The construction of new, market-rate housing offsets potential displacement caused by migration. Artificial housing scarcity creates a system where low-income residents are competing against (and often losing to) higher-income, newcomers for the same units. By creating new housing units, however, newcomers with money can buy or rent the newer units, while low-income residents can keep their homes.
If NC policymakers want to create economic dynamism and growth while ensuring an affordable housing market, they should embrace SB349. It is a bold state bill that will protect the rights of individuals to build on their own property and increase housing stock. Beyond SB349, NC state and local authorities can do more even to encourage an affordable housing market. Many localities in NC have laws restricting the construction of manufactured housing and specific restrictions targeted at trailer parks. These should be repealed, as manufactured housing is an important element of NC’s affordable housing stock. The creation of community land trusts (CLTs) and affordable housing trust funds (such as those in Asheville) can also provide opportunities to support permanently affordable housing for low-income residents.
Without preemptive action, North Carolina risks creating the same problems that plague Silicon Valley and the greater Bay Area. That future, however, is not inevitable. Policies that promote housing development and affordable housing can create an inclusive, prosperous NC for everyone.
Elijah Gullett is a rising fourth-year undergraduate student majoring in Public Policy with minors in Urban Studies and Environmental Justice. His academic interests include fair and affordable housing, sustainable development, and LGBTQ+ urban life.
With the Town of Carrboro’s first-ever comprehensive planning effort currently under way, our community has a unique opportunity to assess where we’re at and chart a better vision for the future. This is a call for Carrboro’s Town Council to abolish parking minimums in Carrboro, which will help to move our town toward a more racially and economically equitable, sustainable, and economically vibrant future. You can urge the Council to end parking minimums by sending them an email at council@townofcarrboro.org, or by signing up to speak at a Council meeting.
Parking minimums have received recent attention in a number of cities and towns across the U.S. as communities have reckoned with antiquated policies that subsidize driving, mandate large areas of impermeable surface, increase the costs of housing, and degrade natural environments and the aesthetic characters of neighborhoods. Cities such as Minneapolis, MN,[1] and Berkeley, CA,[2] have recently moved to eliminate parking minimums. Carrboro should follow suit.
In this article, I first provide a brief background on parking minimums and how they operate in Carrboro. Then, I look at how removing parking minimums can help to address three interrelated issues: 1) racial and economic inequities; 2) environmental sustainability; and 3) the economic health of our community.
Background
Parking minimums are unfortunately common in towns and cities across the U.S. As car ownership became increasingly widespread beginning in the 1920s and accelerating dramatically post-war,[3] parking minimums in turn became bread-and-butter planning policy.[4] In response to fears that free, on-street parking would become overwhelmed unless there were also sufficient off-street spaces, and through pseudo-scientific assessments of how many off-street spaces are needed, planners created parking minimums.
These minimums require a specific number of parking spaces for each new development, with the total required parking dependent on characteristics such as the number of bedrooms (for residential development) or the square footage (e.g., for retail or office uses). But because the number of parking spaces is usually based on the peak demand—for example, calculating the number of parking spaces required for a mall based on the number of cars expected the day before Christmas—minimums almost always require more spaces than are actually needed. And because parking minimums bundle parking costs in with other expenses, such as the cost of your housing or the price of food at the grocery store, they both force non-drivers to pay for parking and hide the true costs of these requirements. In the words of UCLA Professor Donald Shoup:[5]
“[Parking minimums] increase traffic congestion, pollute the air, encourage sprawl, raise housing costs, degrade urban design, prevent walkability, damage the economy, and penalize everyone who cannot afford a car.”
So how do parking minimums work in Carrboro? Carrboro’s Land Use Ordinance (LUO) establishes the parking minimums that apply to different types of development. Table 1 highlights some of the most common types of residential development and their required parking levels, but don’t forget that parking minimums apply to retail, office, and other land uses as well! (They’ve been omitted here for brevity; you can avail yourself of them in detail on pages 425-430 of the LUO.)
Table 1. Carrboro’s Parking Minimums
Type of development
requirement
Single-family detached houses
Two per unit, plus one per rented room.
Spaces in a garage don’t count.
Duplexes and triplexes
Two per unit; one-bedroom units only require one.
Multi-family residences
One space per bedroom, plus one per four units.
Except if “each dwelling unit has an entrance and living space on the ground floor”:
Two per unit; one-bedroom units only require one.
Except if the unit is limited to low- or moderate-income residents or the elderly:
One per unit.
The product of Carrboro’s minimums is a streetscape overwhelmed by empty parking, as shown below.
Parking lots dominate Weaver St. just one block from the heart of town. Photo credit: Google Maps 2021
Racial and Economic Inequities
Parking minimums disproportionately impact lower-income residents of our community, who are less likely to own a car,[6],[7] are more likely to live in multi-family housing[8]—which has the highest parking requirements per unit—and for whom the added costs of unneeded parking represent a greater share of their income.[9] Though parking minimums might appear to be “race neutral”, they also disproportionately affect Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) community members, who, due to systemic racism, are more likely to be lower-income.[10]
By making residents pay for parking in order to obtain housing, buy groceries, or get a haircut, parking minimums directly contribute to issues of housing unaffordability and effectively impose a regressive sales taxi on other goods and services. One recent study estimates that each residential parking space costs $800 per year,[11] and Carrboro’s parking minimums require at least two parking spaces per unit. This means that we’re forcing households to pay hundreds of dollars each year for parking in order to obtain housing… even if those households don’t own a single car.
i While the costs of parking, which are bundled into the costs of goods and services, are undoubtedly regressive, the sales tax analogy is imperfect. Sales taxes generate revenues for the taxing government, and consumers can clearly identify the impact of a sales tax on their bill or receipt, in contrast to parking costs (among other differences).
Environmental Sustainability
Parking requirements, beyond creating and sustaining racial and economic inequities, are also environmentally destructive in terms of both our community’s natural environment and the effects parking and driving have on greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.
By legally requiring unneeded parking spaces as part of new construction, parking minimums require development to pave over more of our community’s land, converting open space to impermeable surface and leading to serious stormwater runoff problems. Further, because parking minimums effectively subsidize the cost of driving,[12] and thus induce more driving, they contribute significantly to transportation-related GHG emissions.[13] And because parking minimums reserve otherwise valuable land for parking, they push other development outward.[14] This contributes to lower-density, sprawling development patterns, which in turn are directly related to higher levels of driving and GHG emissions.[15] Finally, the process of creating and maintaining parking generates GHG emissions in and of itself.[16]
Economic Vitality
The negative economic effects of parking minimums stem from many of the issues introduced above. Carrboro’s parking minimums force residents (and everyone else who might want to do something in town) to pay for parking, instead of spending their money on local goods and services. Parking payments don’t accrue to the Town government, the way sales tax revenue would, nor do they redound to local business owners. This money just goes toward the costs of installing, maintaining, and paying the taxes on parking.
Speaking of taxes, lost property tax revenue is another huge, hidden expense of parking. Instead of more valuable and productive uses of our community’s land, such as housing, businesses, and offices, we waste acres of our most valuable land on mostly-unoccupied pavement. Because the per-square-foot tax assessments of parking are so low, parking mandates preclude more robust public revenues. When we come up short for funding critical community services such as our schools, subsidized affordable housing, libraries, and parks, the prevalence of low-tax-value parking is significantly to blame.
Conclusion
Our community already has too much unneeded parking; there’s no good reason to require more of it. Ending parking minimums doesn’t mean prohibiting new parking—it just means allowing new development to build more appropriate quantities of parking going forward. As one of very few places in the country with a free public transit system, and as the densest municipality in the state, Carrboro is ideally positioned to take this progressive step forward. Ending parking minimums will support our community’s economic health, align with our climate change goals, and serve to remove one significant but invisible policy that perpetuates racial and economic inequity.
Will is a second-year master’s student in the Department of City and Regional Planning. Prior to UNC, he worked in public health and social services research with a nonprofit in Philadelphia. Will’s academic interests include land use policy, affordable housing, and the relationship between the built environment and health.
Edited by Emma Vinella-Brusher
Featured image: Front yard or parking lot? The perverse outcomes of Carrboro’s parking minimums. Image source: Author.
[1] Muzzy, Emalyn. 2021. “Minneapolis Planning Commission approves a parking requirement change that may impact future developments new UMN.” The Minnesota Daily. Retrieved May 5, 2021 from: https://mndaily.com/267426/news/ctparkingmin/.
[6] Nicholas Klein and Michael Smart. 2019. “Life events, poverty, and car ownership in the United States: A mobility biography approach.” Journal of Transport and Land Use. http://dx.doi.org/10.5198/jtlu.2019.1482.
[11] Victoria Transport Policy Institute. 2020. “Transportation Cost and Benefit Analysis II – Parking Costs.” Retrieved from: https://www.vtpi.org/tca/tca0504.pdf.
[14] Sofia Franco, Bowman Cutter and Autumn DeWoody. 2010. “Do Parking Requirements Significantly Increase the Area Dedicated to Parking? A Test of The Effect of Parking Requirements Values in Los Angeles County.” Retrieved from: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20403/.
[15] István László Bart. 2010. “Urban Sprawl and climate change: A statistical exploration of cause and effect, with policy options for the EU.” Land Use Policy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2009.03.003.
[16] Mikhail Chester, Arpad Horvath, and Samer Madanat. 2010. “Parking infrastructure: energy, emissions, and automobile life-cycle environmental accounting.” Environmental Research Letters. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/5/3/034001
People who go into the planning profession are inclined to like walkable, human-scale environments, effective public transit, vibrant cultural life, diverse culture and job opportunities, and other such things. One irony of planning is that the job often brings people to places that do not have these factors or are maybe at the beginning stages of incorporating them.
Even a job of trying to change things is an optimistic and unlikely outcome. As with any profession intent on improving the world, disappointment in this regard can generate quite a lot of cynicism and hopelessness. Despite drawbacks, I still want to do this job. There are two books that have done wonders for me in rectifying the ideals of the planning profession with its realities. What an aspiring planner may need is a good hard look at the cities of New York and Houston, through the fresh and subversive voices of authors Samuel Stein and Stephen Klineberg.
Samuel Stein: Capital City
In a similar manner to Howard Zinn’s telling of US history in A People’s History of the United States, Stein’s Capital City, Gentrification and the Real Estate State is very much a “People’s History” of American planning, serving as a counterweight to Jane Jacobs’ Death and Life and other sacred texts. Urban renewal was indeed a crime against humanity, as is continuing suburban sprawl, but what about the coinciding de-funding of public housing? Can we really say design is the sole problem when federal, state, and local governments have done all they possibly could to subsidize white homeowners and impoverish (and increasingly force everyone to become) renters? Stein’s book is not an outright repudiation of Jacobs, like A People’s History is of other accounts of US history, but rather an affirmation with a profound shift in the implications. Jacobs said success can breed self-destruction in a city. You could say that is happening in New York now, but are design elements solely culpable? What else is going on here?
Stein provides a vivid and intricate picture of gentrification in New York, a city so commoditized that any improvement in urban form seems to hurt more people than it helps. Developers, egged on by city and state tax giveaways, build towers designed to be expensive and largely unoccupied. Buildings and properties get passed off at higher and higher prices to other large owners in a scheme that pointlessly raises rents across the city and seems destined for a disastrous collapse for all parties.
Stein enumerates actions that planners, governments, and organizers can take to fight the injustices of urban life as run by real estate. The message is stridently socialist, which is no problem for me. To me, however, the takeaway is a (probably unintended) confirmation of my growing dislike for the glamorous side of urbanism: the modern trend of re-urbanization as a change in fashion, usually at the expense of the most vulnerable people. Even the word “urbanism” seems to embody how pretentious the whole thing is. Doing the work of making good urban environments possible in “unfashionable” places feels a lot more righteous and even more appealing after reading Stein’s book. Sure, there is justice to be done in New York and much to enjoy, but New York does not need me.
Stephen Klineberg: Prophetic City
Stephen Klineberg’s Prophetic City tells the economic and demographic story of Houston, a contender for the world’s least glamorous city and something of an urban horror story that is nonetheless a gem in other ways. The book is an exercise in seeing beauty and potential. Metropolitan Houston is the most culturally diverse region in the country. The city’s anathema to planning, resistance to regulation, and reliance on toxic industry have led to eclectic business and social environments more inclined to fight for social justice and environmental causes. In the recent presidential and senate elections, Georgia demonstrated the phenomenon of a voter-suppressed state; there is every indication that Texas is similar. Houston has a population overwhelmingly progressive in political, social and economic views, but the city is under the thumb of strategically malapportioned political representation. Houston area residents want greater racial integration, better city services, and better urban environments, but the state does not necessarily represent them in these interests.
At times, Klineberg writes with infuriating optimism, and without the socialist conscience Stein has about what “economic revitalization” usually means for most people. However, he consistently reminds us of political realities after exhaustively outlining demographic and economic trends. The overall picture according to Klineberg and other authors is that, Texas, and especially Houston, is the future. Booming cities like Houston are places where there is work to be done, and where the most work probably should be done.
In recent conversations about jobs with my classmates, people have been frustrated and often cynical. I count myself as one of the most guilty. Some have understandably realized they do not want to be planners. However, if you still want to be an urban planner, I pose a question: what are you really trying to do with this degree? You’re probably not in it just for the money. Are you trying to live in a wonderful vibrant place or create one? There is nothing wrong with the former. It’s a great thing in fact. The latter is naïve to be sure, but if you’re open to my suggestion, I say have an open mind. Go to that sprawling boomtown or struggling backwater. Maybe you won’t really accomplish anything, but maybe you will!
I am a born and bred northerner; I need my cold, snowy winters and their miraculous springs, and I like not having my political voice gerrymandered away. Yet a substantial portion of the planning work is in the south, and one thing I’ve noticed is that almost every planning job interview I have had so far has involved a panel member saying they never wanted to live in the south, but they have loved the past 10 to 15 years and are here to stay. Klineberg’s book presents statistically significant proportions of transplants saying this about Houston. Maybe I’ve just spent enough time idle and made a decision I am rightly or wrongly sticking with, but I still want to do planning. Personally, I am having a hard time being picky about where. People move to follow opportunities, and in my limited experience, it pays to be open-minded on the various forms opportunities might take.
Author Bio: Evan King is a second-year master’s student in city and regional planning. His interests include transportation policy in the developing world, light rail, and freight movement on inland waterways. He can found in his free time trying to kayak long distances and making hand-drawn maps. Evan hails from central Connecticut and completed an undergraduate degree in Maryland. Opinions are his own.
Featured Image courtesy of iStockphoto. Other images show the covers of the recommended books: Capital City, Gentrification and the Real Estate State by Samuel Stein and Prophetic City: Houston on the Cusp of a Changing America by Stephen L. Klineberg.
The following is written under the assumption that by the year 2050, the United States will have completely converted to the usage of level 5 autonomous vehicles (AVs). This means that all vehicles will be fully automated and capable of performing all driving functions under any conditions. Innovations such as camera sensors, Lidar, Radar, ultrasound, and computer vision will enable AVs to resolve technical problems and safety issues currently of concern. Consequently, the conversion to AVs throughout the U.S. will create both benefits and drawbacks related to land use planning, subsequently facilitating various economic scenarios. The primary land use benefits and concerns are outlined below, along with policy recommendations to address them.
Benefits
Improved Efficiency of Parking Structure and Location
The conversion to level 5 AVs throughout the United States enables the improved efficiency of parking facilities in regards to location and design. The use of autonomous vehicles lessens the need for onsite parking due to built-in self-parking capabilities. Instead of requiring on-site parking, AVs, whether public or private, can drop off and pick-up users as needed. As a result, parking in urban areas can be consolidated outside of the city center where the land value is cheaper. Currently, the average comprehensive parking costs in the U.S. range from $3,300 to $5,600 per parking space in central business districts. On the other hand, the cost of parking falls to $680 to $2,400 in peripheral urban areas. Consequently, parking companies are incentivized to relocate parking structures to the urban periphery where there is still demand but costs are lower. Since parking will be consolidated in the urban peripheries, AVs enhance the viability of combined parking structures for people shopping, commuting, and engaging in leisure activities.
Automated parking systems also allow parking to be more space-efficient. Developers predict that through replacing ramps and aisles with lift shafts and reducing the size of parking spots, each parking deck will be able to hold 60% more parking. Combined with the consolidation of parking spaces in the urban peripheries, improved space-efficiency will significantly lower the amount of land dedicated to parking. Currently, there are 800 million surface parking spaces in US urban areas, equal to 1/3 of the United States’ combined downtown area. By cutting down on these parking spaces, the quality of the built environment will be improved by replacing urban parking structures with new land uses such as residential, commercial, and green spaces. The change of land uses will subsequently increase the density of core urban areas, which allows for enhanced economic activity.
Redistribution of Road Spaces
Similar to parking, the proliferation of AVs enables the redistribution of road spaces into more efficient uses. Due to AVs’ automation and safety capabilities, planners no longer need to account for human error in the design of roads and lanes. Assuming vehicles remain the same size, engineers believe lane size can be reduced by 20%. Moreover, since AVs have a significantly faster reaction time and can communicate with other vehicles, they are capable of traveling closer together than human-operated vehicles. This increases throughput of each lane, which reduces the demand for lane expansions and can potentially lead to fewer traffic lanes. Additionally, the use of medians as a method of providing a safety buffer between traffic lanes will no longer be needed, allowing roads to consolidate space.
Throughout the United States, road networks are a major land use of any city or suburban area, constituting 25% to 35% of the total land. Therefore, the redistribution of roadways can create a significant amount of space for bicycle and pedestrian facilities, active streetscapes, and greenspaces. As seen below in Figure 1, the use of AVs can transform American streetscapes into complete streets, allowing for a more diverse system of transportation for many different modes. The implementation of complete streets creates many long-term economic benefits for urban areas, including increased property values and opportunities for private investment along the roadways.
Figure 1: The Transformation to Complete Streets with AVs (Source: Florida DOT)
Drawbacks
Greater Urban Sprawl
While the change to fully autonomous vehicles does create beneficial land-use impacts, AVs may also facilitate the continuation of urban sprawl. Planners have discovered that individuals believe their living environment and quality of life to be more important than living near where they work. Since AVs create travel that is less burdensome for riders, riders are incentivized to continue living in cheaper and greener areas located farther from the city center. A survey completed by the Transportation Institute at Texas A&M found that 80% of respondents want to remain within suburban areas while utilizing an AV. Furthermore, 20% of respondents expressed a desire to relocate farther away from the city center after obtaining an AV. As seen in this survey, the conversion to AVs increases an individual’s willingness to live farther away from work because the cost of traveling is worth living farther from the city center.
Due to this increased urban sprawl, residential and commercial land use patterns will continue to disperse and fragment. The construction of low-density single-family dwellings will spread throughout rural domains, which will also incentivize the creation of new commercial strip developments. As development grows farther away from urban cores, greater economic deterioration may occur in those areas. Moreover, the combination of commercial and residential relocation away from city centers creates urban decay as property values and public investments decline. Overall, AVs will make transportation easier for riders, resulting in increased urban sprawl and economic disinvestment in urban areas.
Policy Recommendations
Supporting the Potential Land Use Benefits
For AVs to create land use benefits, planners must ensure that any new policies or repurposing of public roads and parking spaces prioritize the needs of the whole community, rather than focusing strictly on serving vehicles. For public roads, city and regional planners can utilize federal grants to fund capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure such as encouraging the redistribution of road spaces and implementation of complete streets. In the case of Saint Paul, Minnesota, planners utilized a USDOT TIGER II grant to create a street design manual to be used to implement complete streets throughout the city. Furthermore, the use of public engagement strategies will educate public stakeholders about the benefits of reducing lane sizes, adding bike lanes, and increasing sidewalk size. Such demonstrations can help garner public support, enhancing the viability of new complete street policies.
Additionally, planners can incentivize public infill of abandoned parking facilities by implementing smart growth policies that reduce the amount of parking within urban areas. According to the EPA, a 50% reduction in parking would reduce parking capital costs by 25% and allow for 20% more residential units. As a result, developers can lower their capital costs and increase profitability. This increased profitability will incentivize more investment in public infill areas, increasing opportunities for inner-city development and economic revitalization.
Preventing Potential Land Use Drawbacks
Other than supporting the aforementioned benefits, planners must also implement policies that actively prevent the spread of urban sprawl and incentivize the densification of living spaces. Urban planner Craig Lewis states that sprawl will only continue if planners continue to support sprawl through focusing on free highway infrastructure and providing little access to affordable and attractive alternatives. By eliminating subsidies for highway infrastructure, planners can influence people to remain in their current suburbs or relocate within the city. Local and regional planning organizations can implement land-sharing plans or zoning laws to protect more rural areas from new development. Through these methods, planners can limit the potential for future urban sprawl and redirect movement back into the urban cores.
Conclusion
Within the next 30 years, land use plans will experience a significant change as the nation converts to the use of level 5 autonomous vehicles. In order to promote beneficial land use changes, planning organizations must implement policies that support the redistribution of public road space and incentivize the improved efficiency of parking infrastructure. Additionally, planners will need to develop policies that prevent the expansion of urban sprawl and redirect economic development to the city core. By implementing these measures, planners will promote centralization and rekindle economic growth throughout the nation’s urban landscape.
Will Anderson is a third-year undergraduate student with a major in Environmental Studies and minors in Urban Planning and Geographic Information Science. His academic interests include sustainability, land use planning, transportation planning, urban design, and architecture. I his free time, he enjoys playing tennis, mountain biking, and surfing.
The people who benefit most from the American urban environment’s injustices do not usually make a habit of talking about them. Wealthy suburbs are built not just to keep resources away from minorities, but to make this deprivation invisible and undiscussed. It’s no coincidence that high-profile political debate rarely focuses on the built environment – national elections hinge on the support of suburbs and it does not do for candidates to question their inhabitants’ way of life.
But nor was it common to aggressively support suburbia until recently. To be sure, suburbanites themselves push back against concerns relating to sharing their resources and always have. Threats to property value or the exclusivity of schools are often met with fury. But the Not in My Backyard (NIMBY) movement has in the past been more of a local phenomenon, even if one that occurs in every locality. Sure, people want to protect their property values and live separately from other races, but these are due to selfishness and racism, not some broad ideological vision for how the country should be, shared and propagated on Fox News. I want to emphasize that long-held racism and NIMBYism are just as evil as the more dramatic policies being advanced at the national level right now, but I have always been able to discuss issues of the built environment with people I disagree with far more reasonably than any other political issue. The injustices and inefficiencies of suburbs are intuitive and easy to explain, tax policy or abortion rights not so much.
But the urban environment is now a mainstream political talking point, if it ever really wasn’t. In July, the Trump administration rolled back Obama-era housing policies meant to bring more affordable housing to suburbs, appealing to tweet-based racist fears about crime reduction and home values without evidence. In the past, an administration might have quietly undone these regulations, justifying it only if opponents called attention to it and probably trying to disguise it as something more innocuous. As with so many political controversies now, however, President Trump understands that making more overtly racist appeals is effective for him in appealing to his base. Justice in the built environment has always been a cause of the left, but now it is fully and visibly partisan whether we like it or not – Not in My Backyard is now Not in Anyone’s Backyard.
This is unfortunate, but what is more disturbing is the fact that left-leaning politicians cannot even touch the issue; to do so would alienate most swing voters and many Democrats, who may say they want a transportation system that minimizes emissions and opportunity and justice for Black people. But at the end of the day, they have a $100,000 house and a $20,000 car and loath to share the fruits of their success when a substantive chance comes. If politicians campaigned more on affordable housing, mixed-use development, or transit, we might not see as many Bernie stickers on Porches in hilltop McMansion driveways in exclusive school districts (a sight I see every so often), nor as many progressives holding office. Meanwhile, President Trump can continue “telling it like it is” and reminding suburbanites of why they are truly there, celebrating this and reaping political rewards.
Perhaps aversion to the current presidency will win some support for modern planning ideas from moderate Democrats – it would only be fair given how much Republicans have united on so many issues. And maybe some change is on the horizon as more and more people find themselves unable to afford homes or cars. But for now, planning is under an unfriendly spotlight – one many of us likely hoped would never materialize. If planning is to stay in the front row of the national consciousness, we can only hope some new voices join the conversation and push urbanism forward.
Photo Credit: National Archives HOLC records (left), netclipart.com (right)
Evan King is a second-year master’s student in city and regional planning. His interests include transportation policy in the developing world, light rail, and freight movement on inland waterways. He can found in his free time trying to kayak long distances and making hand-drawn maps. Evan hails from central Connecticut and completed an undergraduate degree in Maryland. Opinions are his own.
