Ready for the next part of the journey. (Photo: Robert S. Donovan via Flickr)

Today’s post is going to be a little different. That’s because this will be my last blog entry here at Streetsblog.net.

I just want to say what a privilege and an honor it has been to work with so many talented, dedicated bloggers over the past 18-plus months. Together we have built an amazing network of people who care about active, sustainable transportation and the future of our nation’s communities. We’ve had a lot of meaningful conversation. And it’s been great fun.

My colleagues here at Streetsblog will continue this work, highlighting the best the Streetsblog Network has to offer.

As for me, I’m taking a little time off before starting in September at Grist, where I’ll be covering cities and placemaking.

In the meantime, I’ll be hanging out on Twitter — I’m @buttermilk1 — and at my blog, Pursuit of Happiness.

I hope to see you around.

A scene from Chicvago’s "Open Streets" event. The city’s growing number of people who ride bikes could use more support. (Photo: Vote With Your Feet)

By John Greenfield

[This piece also runs in this week's Newcity, www.newcity.com.]

Don’t get me wrong – Chicago’s already a terrific place to ride a bicycle. It’s flat, with a bike-friendly street grid and a scenic, 18.5-mile Lakefront Trail. Since the early ‘90s, the City of Chicago has spent $100 million to push pedaling, striping over 110 miles of bike lanes, installing more than 12,000 bike parking racks, and educating tens of thousands people about safe cycling via Mayor Daley’s Bicycling Ambassadors. Cyclists have access to buses and trains, we’ve got a fancy bike station in Millennium Park, and the list goes on.

But when Newcity asked me, a former Active Transportation Alliance staffer and consultant to the Chicago Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) Bicycle Program, for my take on the current state of bike culture in Chicago, one word sprang to mind: stagnant.

On some levels things are going great. Since changing its name from the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, Active Trans has been doing yeoman’s work building a coalition of biking, walking and transit interests. This has helped double the organization’s budget and staff size, increasing its clout to promote healthy, environmentally-friendly travel.

We now have four community bike centers spread from Woodlawn to Rogers Park, most teaching bike handling and mechanical skills to inner-city youth and selling refurbished rides to residents for cheap, green transportation. Three of these co-ops have expanded to larger digs in the last year or so.

Students and staff at Blackstone Bicycle Works in Woodlawn

There are now three Euro-style bicycle shops selling stylish, practical city bikes and cargo cycles, plus a gaggle of other new stores serving the ever-expanding ranks of daily commuters. After all, CDOT says bike traffic has quadrupled on Milwaukee Avenue over the last six years.

The Chainlink, a social networking site for Chicago cyclists, has ballooned to almost 4,000 members in just two years. There are now a multitude of two-wheeled subcultures in this city, some of which I’ve probably never even heard of. Why, only yesterday I heard the term “Tarck-ing” (fixed-gear, freestyle trick riding) for the first time.

But lately CDOT and other City agencies have been spinning their wheels when it comes to making bicycling safer, more convenient and fun through innovative bike facilities and programming. To paraphrase Daniel Burnham, they’ve been making little plans that have no magic to stir cyclists’ blood.

I’m not the only one who thinks so. Executive Director Rob Sadowsky recently resigned from Active Trans to take the reigns of the Bicycle Transportation Alliance in bike-crazy Portland, OR. Since Active Trans gets much of its funding from consulting contracts with CDOT, the nonprofit tends to be muted in its criticism of City Hall. Freed from this constraint. Sadowsky fired a parting shot in a recent Sun Times interview:

"Chicago was leading the way for a long while in cycling," Sadowsky said. "Things have been happening in other cities, like Minneapolis and New York, that really made strides we’re not even coming close to. Part of that is a strong presence from the Department of Transportation’s commissioner level and strong backing from the mayor. We’re kind of lacking that in the city right now."

This current leadership vacuum was apparent at this year’s lackluster Bike to Work Rally. Mayor Daley, who usually shows up to give an enthusiastic if somewhat cryptic speech at the annual rally, was conspicuous by his absence.

Mayor Daley at a previous Bike to Work Day rally

CDOT Commissioner Bobby Ware, subbing for the mayor, seemed to know little about his agency’s bike projects. He spoke with his nose in his notes, referred to the City’s Bike 2015 Plan blueprint for cycling as the “2010 Plan,” and mangled the name of a Bicycle Program staffer who accepted an award on behalf of the program.

In fairness, Ware’s only been on the job for a month. But the fact that CDOT has had five commissioners in six years, for reasons known only to Mayor Daley, has slowed the pace of bicycle planning. Each new commish has to be brought up to speed on cycling issues, and this wastes precious time.

Another speed bump to better bike facilities and events has been the City’s reluctance to put some skin in the game. Daley, rumored to be a cyclist himself, is often cited as the U.S. mayor who is most outspoken in support of biking. And as a powerful politician, his lip service is in fact crucial for motivating bureaucrats to support bicycle projects.

But like our under-funded transit system, bicycling gets almost no money from the City budget. Virtually all of the cash CDOT spends on bike initiatives comes from federal and state funds, often through federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grants which come from a tax on gasoline.

This stinginess makes it harder to pull off bold schemes like the “ciclovia,” an event that shuts down several miles of streets to cars, creating safe places to bike, walk and socialize. Active Trans first proposed bringing this Latin American concept to Chicago in the early 2000s, well before other U.S. cities were talking about it. But City Hall’s insistence on a heavy police presence and reluctance to foot the bill delayed the program for years while Active Trans struggled to raise the necessary funds.

Chicago’s "Open Streets" ciclovia

The ciclovia finally debuted in 2008 as “Sunday Parkways” with events on two different 3.5-mile courses on Sundays in the fall. In 2009 it was consolidated to one 7-mile summer Saturday event, called “Open Streets.” After these modest successes the program fizzled out due to the difficulty of funding it – there will be no major events in Chicago in 2010. Meanwhile, city-funded ciclovias have flourished in other cities. New York is staging three this year, Portland, OR, is staging five, and San Francisco is staging nine.

San Francisco’s "Sunday Streets" ciclovia

Chicago used to be the poster child for big-city bike improvements. A few years ago, New York’s Transportation Alternatives advocacy group liked to use the Second City’s successes to shame the then-sluggish New York DOT into action. But things changed in 2007 when New York got a dynamic, bike-friendly new transportation commissioner, Janette Sadik-Khan. In recent years Chicago has fallen behind New York and many other cities in several aspects of promoting cycling.

Chicago has installed more bike racks than any other U.S. city. But last year the City began uprooting most of Chicago’s parking meters to make way for pay-and-display units, eliminating tens of thousands of de facto bike parking spots. Meanwhile, CDOT has not installed any new bike racks for months and will not be doing so anytime soon, due to installation contract delays.

Bikes crowded on racks and poles in Logan Square after meter removal

On-street bike parking, where a single car parking space is filled with racks to accommodate a dozen cycles, reducing sidewalk clutter and advertising the space efficiency of bikes, is beginning to be commonplace in Portland, OR, and San Francisco. Although Andersonville’s Cheetah Gym, with the blessing of the local chamber of commerce, asked for on-street racks several years ago, CDOT passed on this opportunity, citing concerns about safety. Chicago still hasn’t tried on-street bike parking.

On-street bike parking in Portland, OR

Millennium Park’s $3 million, state-of-the-art bike station opened to fanfare in 2004, but the facility is too far east to be of much use to most Loop commuters. The Bike 2015 Plan calls for building a second bike station in the West Loop, near Union Station and the Ogilvie Center, so that Metra commuters could pick up bikes to pedal to their offices. Although space was available to build the station in Metra’s new French Market, next to the Ogilvie Center, CDOT missed the boat on this opportunity as well.

Millennium Park’s bike station

Separated bikeways, where cyclists are protected from cars by a curb or other physical barrier, are widespread in Europe and are becoming more common in U.S. cities. New York’s separated bike lane on 9th Avenue, for example, has been a hugely popular experiment, but Chicago has yet to try this idea.

Separated bike lane on 9th Avenue in New York City

Automated bike rental has been commonplace in Europe for years. Paris’ Velib system, with 20,000 bikes at rental kiosks all over town, is credited with doubling the mode share for cycling. Chicago has been talking about this idea for years and in 2007 Mayor Daley rode a Velib bike in Paris. But Washington D.C. beat us to the punch two years ago, Denver now has 500 automated rental bikes, and Minneapolis will be getting 1,000 this summer. Chicago is finally piloting a bike-share program this July, but once again we’re thinking small, with only 100 bikes in six Loop locations.

Denver’s B-Cycle automated bike rental kiosks

But perhaps the most frustrating example of Chicago being the first to come up with a good idea for cycling but the last to implement it is the Bloomingdale Trail. As early as 1997 planners proposed turning the little-used Bloomingdale elevated rail line on the Near-Northwest Side into a multi-use path, in 1997, and the Chicago Plan Commission committed to the idea in 2004.

The Bloomingdale Line

Although the rugged, now-abandoned rail bed is already getting plenty of illegal use from cyclists, joggers and squatters, the City seems to be dragging its heels on renovating the structure and opening it to the public. It’s unlikely to open until the end of this decade. Meanwhile, New York’s elegant High Line “vertical park,” a similar project that wasn’t officially proposed until 1999, debuted last year to huge acclaim – it’s already had millions of visitors.

New York City’s High Line

As a follower, not a leader, in all these different categories, it’s no wonder Chicago dropped in Bicycling magazine’s ranking of the best large U.S. cities for biking, from first place in 2001, to tenth place in 2010. It’s not that things are bad here, it’s just that more exciting stuff is happening more quickly elsewhere.

Active Trans will be hiring a new director soon, and it will be interesting to see if this person will can light a fire under CDOT and other departments to make some of the above projects happen sooner than later. But again, Active Trans can only push so hard, because the advocacy group depends on the City for consulting dollars.

Unlike in liberal, temperate West-Coast cities where bicycling has long been popular and politicians have responded to demands from the public for better bike facilities, cycling in Chicago has traditionally been a “top-down” affair. Under Daley, the City has installed paths, lanes and racks in an effort to coax people out of their cars.

But now that Chicago cycling has gained momentum while CDOT’s bike initiatives have lost steam, it’s time for a “bottom-up” approach. Citizens need to start pressuring City Hall to put the metal to the pedal.

It’s worked before. After seriously injuring herself when she wiped out on one of Chicago’s dangerous metal-grate bridges, in 2002 Kathy Schubert launched a letter-writing campaign demanding that the bridges be made safer for cyclists. The campaign infuriated then-CDOT Commissioner Miguel d’Escoto, but after receiving dozens of postcards, he ordered the Bicycle Program to start working on the problem. Eventually metal plates were installed on bridges at Wells and Cortland.

The Bike 2015 Plan, released in 2006, calls for the establishment of ten miles of “bike boulevards,” traffic-calmed, residential streets where cycling is encouraged because cars are forced to slow down, common in Portland, OR, Berkeley, CA, and other cities. Last fall Sarah Kaplan grew frustrated that little action had been taken on this proposal. She formed the grassroots group Bike Boulevards Now! to lobby the city to get moving on the idea. CDOT Bicycle Program Coordinator Ben Gomberg now says he’s hoping to establish Chicago’s first bike boulevard by 2011.

Bike boulevard in Berkeley, CA

If you want Chicago to remain a first-class bicycling town, contact your alderman, CDOT, or the Mayor’s Office to demand that the City starts implementing big plans for biking – now. Tell them you want immediate action on exciting projects like separated bikeways, on-street bike racks, a new bike station, a large-scale bike-share program, City-funded ciclovias and the Bloomingdale Trail. Or, better yet, form your own grassroots, recruit members via the Chainlink, and start organizing for change. It’s time to put the rubber on the road.

What will it take for people to realize hitting people on bikes is not a laughing matter? (Photo: Pedal_Power_Pete via Flickr)

Earlier this week, we wrote about a Mike Pintek, a Pittsburgh radio show host who joked about hitting bicyclists with his car.

Today, we read in the Chicago Bicycle Advocate Blog about two young men who were convicted of hunting down bicyclists to hit with their car — while they were drunk.

Good thing they were convicted, you might think. But when you hear the sentences they received, you might be shocked:

The second man charged with intentionally hunting down and striking a bicyclist in Brookfield on May 31, 2009 has been sentenced to zero jail time. The driver, 20-year-old Erik Fabian, pled guilty to aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and leaving the scene of an accident.  He was sentenced to two years probation.  Fabian’s buddy, Armando Reza, was sentenced last week to 10 days in jail for the same incident, a seemingly light sentence that has outraged a good many Chicago bicyclists. According to the Chicago Breaking News Center, the two were drinking before deciding to drive around looking for bicyclists to hit. Both men were sentenced by Cook County Judge Carol Kipperman.

The Active Transportation Alliance, a Chicago bicycle advocacy group, has expressed outrage at the "insufficient sentences" given to the men. This morning the group started a letter-writing campaign directed at Cook County State’s Attorney, Anita Alvarez, and assistant state’s attorney, Mike Pattarozzi, to justify these negotiated sentences. According to the Alliance the crimes with which the men were charged were eligible for penalties of up to 2-5 years in jail.

According to a news story about the incident, the two men dared each other to commit the assaults. It was like a game to them — they even pulled over to switch seats so they could each get a chance to play. Fortunately, neither of the people they struck was seriously injured. But it’s not hard to imagine how differently it might have turned out.

And yet, in a culture where assault with a vehicle is routinely joked about, prosecutors are willing to cut offenders an easy deal.

More from around the network: Xing Columbus writes in praise of car-pooling. M-Bike.org has some news about more funding for the Underground Railroad bike route. And Atlanta Bicycle Coalition reports on a $5 million boost for a major bike trail in that city.

Yesterday I had a few hours to kill, so I naturally decided to spend some time riding TRAX and some UTA buses.

First of all I started by walking to the Meadowbrook TRAX station from the area around 4000 South and State. A few days ago I made some comments about the new development going in south of 3900 South and I pointed out some of the problems current facing the complex. Well, I discovered another one. There is no sidewalk currently on the south side of 3900 South from West Temple to Main.

In fact, the southwest corner of Main and 3900 is a death trap. There is no way for cars trying to turn right onto Main or even going straight to see a pedestrian that is trying to cross the street from that point. I did it and lived to tell about it, but this is another reason that I do not see that new development being a true TOD development.

Once I got to the station I decided to take the first train that came along and that was a University to Sandy train with two of the ex-San Jose UTDC/Bombardier light rail vehicles. The car I rode in was squeaking really bad but hopefully these will be replaced by the new S70 cars next year.

I didn’t mention it in my article on TOD but the new development at the former Smith’s store at 7800 South and State is another example of TAD. It is playing on the fact that it is near a TRAX station but the development is clearly autocentric and because of the lack of amenities nearby (except of an excellent burger joint and a couple of restaurants) will do nothing to decrease car trips.

After arriving at the Sandy Civic Center Station the train went out of service and since the only bus in sight was the 811 and I didn’t feel like heading to Utah County, I hopped the northbound train to Central Station.

The new TRAX Express concession building is nearly complete at the Sandy Civic Center Station. Hopefully this will prove to be a success since so many TRAX stations are far conveniences. I also noted that there has been a lot of progress in the last couple of weeks at the 6200 South TRAX station where the new Mid Jordan line will tie in with the existing line. I also noted that the turnouts for the West Valley line have been put in.

I took TRAX all the way to central station and decided to walk over to the bus area and catch the first bus that came along. The first thing I have noticed is that a shelter has been installed over the bus boarding area. Not a real bus shelter but one of those canvas shelters used when camping and for outdoor parties and such. I am sure that bus riders will not mind having some shade from the hot summer days.

The first bus boarding as I approached the bus area was a 217 but there was a large number of people getting on so I waited for the bus behind it which was the 240 and jumped on it. This is the first time that I had the chance to ride this route since it was created during the bus realignment.

There was no one on board as we left central station and only person other person boarded before we jumped on the freeway and headed to Redwood Road. By the time the bus turned onto Decker Lake Blvd the driver was running a couple of minutes early so we sat and waited for time. We were riding in one of the oldest buses currently in the UTA fleet, a 1997 Gillig Phantom. While the bus may be older, it still is holding up better than the low floor buses that will soon replace this one.

In fact, once the 1996 and 1997 Gillig Phantoms are retired UTA will basically have an all low floor bus fleet except for the MCI Commuter Cruisers. While I know low floor buses make it easier for people with disabilities get on and off, I still dislike how much seating capacity goes down with a low floor and the quality just doesn’t seem to stack up.

I decided since I had not had the opportunity to ride MAX since the bus lanes open I would give it a shot. The other person on the bus got off along 3100 South giving me a bus to myself for a few blocks. However, that would not have lasted long if I didn’t get off at 3500 South since there was a fairly good crowd getting on when I disembarked.

I walked over to the MAX stop and waited for the bus to come. After about a 8 minute wait I boarded Van Hool bus number 09104 with a couple of other passengers. With the lack of seating capacity on the Van Hool’s it doesn’t take much of a crowd to fill up the seating capacity but I had no problem finding a seat on the left had side of the bus.

After crossing Bangerter Highway the bus enters the new bus lanes. While the lanes made have saved a couple of minutes, all the time saved was loss as the bus had to wait in an attempt to cross the road in order to turn right onto 2700 West. After making a loop pass the future TRAX station we headed toward to Millcreek TRAX station.

People who read this blog often know that I am not a fan of BRT or as I call it Badly Repackaged Transit. This is especially true of MAX which is supposed to have off bus fare collection but few use it, the bus lanes save little time, there is no next bus information, and

I once again boarded the first TRAX came that came along which was once again heading toward downtown. I was getting hungry at this point so I decided to head to the City Creek Center’s Food Court and see what was available there.

Among the choices were: Red Iguana, Bocata, Sbarro, Suki Hana, Great Steak, Chang Chun, and McDonald’s. Soon there will also abe a Roxberry’s and Subway. Except for the Red Iguana its pretty much standard sub par mall offerings but I was in the mood for Chinese so I tried Chang Chun. The food was good and the price reasonable so I can’t complain.

I then boarded a TRAX train back to 3900 South that ended my journey for the day.

Today I also took a shorter trip in order to head to a function I had to attended at 6:00pm so I rode the 213 and caught a northbound TRAX train.

There was a fairly good load on the 213 with a number of people getting on and off along the way. In fact I believe we stopped at every single stop along the 1000 east stretch of the route. You have to wonder if BRT is started along 1300 East how much the 213 would be cut back and how it would affect service along the route.

I then rode TRAX to the Murray Central TRAX station. The car I rode in seemed to have a flat spotted wheel as it had a distinct thumb while moving. I had to walk to Vine then over to 300 West then south toward 5300 South to reach my destination. As I have pointed out in the past, Murray has done little to connect both sides of the tracks so to speak in this area.

You have the new developments on the east side including the IHC Death Star as many people call it which was poorly designed to and doesn’t integrate well with the TRAX station. Then you have the 300 West corridor on the far side of the UP and future Front Runner tracks that have not been given easy access to the TRAX station. Hopefully as the station becomes an even more important transportation hub with the addition of Front Runner South, Murray will see fit to blend the areas together and make access easier.

I also wanted to give you a heads up on some article ideas I am working on. I will guarantee how fast each individual article will be put on the blog but keep an eye out.

Among the ideas rolling around up in my head:

• Why the streetcar may be downtown Bountiful’s only hope.
• Googleize UTA’s Website
• What High Speed Rail means to us
• The importance of mixed use
• Real Estate and the Free Market Myth
• How much does it cost to drive?

So there is a preview of future articles plus several others I have on the burner.

Transit UTA Utah Salt Lake City Park City Ogden Provo
Orem Transit Oriented Development

Sure, the Gateway Arch is spectacular, but there’s more to St. Louis. (Photo: hz536n via Core of Discovery Flickr pool)

Today we’ve got news from member blog Dotage St. Louis about a sweet new initiative from the National Parks Service (NPS) called "Core of Discovery." Aimed at tourists visiting the city’s Gateway Arch (an NPS property), it highlights various attractions of St. Louis’s downtown — historic architecture, bike rentals to enjoy the path along the Mississippi, the new Citygarden sculpture park and many others.

The Core of Discovery website is beautifully designed, and the NPS is also using social media — including a Flickr group that already has some quite stunning content — to draw visitors into an exploration of what urban St. Louis has to offer. The effort dovetails with a major design competition focused on better integrating the Gateway Arch grounds into the city’s urban fabric. Here’s what Dotage St. Louis has to say:

With the ongoing City Arch River 2015 design competition, it’s great to see the NPS express its dedication towards connecting the Arch to downtown in the meantime.… It might seem like a small step on the part of the NPS, but clearly much thought has gone into the design of this site and the marketing of our downtown. I applaud this effort and am excited that I’ll be here in person to witness the more radical interventions that will be proposed this fall as a part of the Archgrounds International Design Competition.

More from around the network: Half Mile Circles writes about a new report about the effect of compact development on greenhouse gas emissions. Transit Miami writes about the threat to some Miami Beach bike lanes. And One Speed: Go! has a philosophical meditation on the benefits of riding a tandem.

Cycling as serious transport in a country without a commitment to it requires a lot of guts and a lot of great gear. Over the last year, I’ve gone through a lot of money and strife finding that gear. Below is one of a series of posts sharing my experience with gear and the needs it fills.

This entry is about visibility: seeing and being seen. Reflectors are great but are drowned out by ambient light. Even at night, reflectors only work when they are shined upon. In turns, by the time lights hit your reflectors, it is too late. Bike lights increase your visibility anytime and anywhere. Consequently, this post is about lights.

Being Seen
Unseen cyclists are the most likely to get hurt or killed. That makes being seen essential. The lack of safe bike ways and the distracted nature of texting drivers makes being seen a serious challenge. Fortunately, a new wave of LED (light emitting diode) lights has revolutionized bike lights to meet this essential challenge. Thanks to these new LEDs, you can now make your bike incredibly conspicuous day or night with lights that weigh ounces, cost few dollars, last hours, and run on the same batteries as a digital watch.

Seeing
If you are cycling as serious transport, sooner or later you are going to be cycling at night or dusk.  In that situation, you need a light that reaches far enough ahead to give you time to react. If you are moving at 15 MPH (aka 22 feet/second) you need more than one second to react to upcoming turns. Otherwise, you find yourself slamming on the brakes a lot or going ridiculously slow.

For city biking at night, this can be less critical because of all the ambient light from cars, shops, and street lights. However, dedicated bike paths in the city or elsewhere tend to be woefully lacking for street lamps. Given this, night riding requires a light that fully illuminates at least 25 yards (aka 3 seconds) ahead of you and preferably much more.

Although LEDs have met the first visibility challenge (being seen), they’ve struggled to meet the second (seeing) without considerable cost and weight. Nevertheless, that is starting to change as well.

In this post, I won’t bother recounting most of the lights I have bought because most sucked. Nor, will I recount the features of each light. Let the reviewers do this. I’m simply listing the ones I’ve used that worked for me and why.

The Light for Being Seen
For being seen, the Planet Bike 1-watt LED has been a great light. When I bought it, it cost $40 which was double what some lights costs but I wanted something light, powerful, and longlasting and this seemed to deliver. Bright as it is, I learned the hard way that it cannot light your way on an unlit road so I am only listing it as a light for being seen. Nevertheless, it is decent for night biking on well-lit city streets. There is also a 2-watt version out now for $30. The added power will surely help but I’m betting you will still want more for seeing the road ahead.

The Light for Seeing
The need to light your way, puts you on a separate tier for lights. There are only a handful that can do it at anything close to a reaonable price. Amongst those, there is only one that is light and easy to use.

Lumens
Ultimately, what matters for lights is not wattage but lumens. The more powerful lights list the number of lumens they produce. From my experience, you want no less than 200 lumens to light your way. Sadly, most lights that deliver that require heavy battery packs with clunky cables that must be strung all over your bike. These lights also cost about $1/lumen and up. Happily, there is a light using yet another wave of new LEDs that resolves a lot of these drawbacks.

That light is the Exposure Diablo:

• no battery pack
• 1hr. @700 lumens
• 3hrs. @200 lumens
• All day in blink mode
• Water-proof
• Elegant/sturdy design
• Quick-release clip: the best I’ve seen

I have no incentive to rave about this light other than my own satisfaction in using it. This light delivers light for roughly $0.28/lumen, far less than the competition. It does so in an elegant, extremely durable, and easy to use, package. At 700 lumens, you’ve got enough power to fully illuminate the next 50 yards in front of you. With an hour at 700 lumens or 3 hours at 200 lumens, you’ve got enough time to reach your destination. The sealed aluminum casing has endured drops at high speed and heavy rain without failing or really scratching that much. The battery is built into the slender hour glass aluminum body which also works great as a regular flash light. It does have a proprietary charger because of the built-in battery but I already have a recharging routine for my phone. I simply charge this similarly and the battery life has been sufficient to get me through a ride on days I forget to charge.

I recently added an accessory to the Exposure Diablo which is the red, 70 lumen, tail light. It requires no batteries since it plugs into the back of the Diablo. The Diablo powers both just fine for the several hours I commute. This is just a fabulous light. No other light comes close.

The only drawback seems to be that it is tough to find: in North America, at least. Bike shops, like many sports gear shops, are filled with a lot of high-margin crap. It’s tough to get the good stuff in general but this light is especially tough to find even online. It did not even show up in a lot of reviews I found on the internet. I stumbled across it in some bike forum. Regardless, it is worth finding. Six months in, I couldn’t be happier.

As prices keep dropping and power keeps escalating with each new generation of LEDs, many of my points about power and price may soon become moot. What won’t become moot is the 3 second rule for biking in the dark. Even if you have ambient light, that won’t show a lot of potholes or cracks that can stop a road wheel dead in its tracks. Having a light that fully illuminates the next 3 seconds of your ride is a good thing.

Regardless, don’t let the dark discourage you from riding. Real statistics may say otherwise but in my experience drivers actually see a cyclist with lights better at night than they do in any other context. Given this, my reservations about riding at night have seemed mostly psychological. Overcoming those reservations has made evening outings more relaxing, thus more likely, and thus resulting in more of the benefits that PlanBike is all about.

A growing population of bicycle riders in Forth Worth needs more racks than these. (Photo: Fort Worthology)

A tip of the hat goes to our member blog Fort Worthology for being part of the bike parking solution in Fort Worth, Texas.

Just a few months ago, the city approved an ambitious "Bike Fort Worth" bicycle transportation plan, which aims to create nearly 1,000 miles of bike lanes — up from 100 miles today. Of course, the growing number of people on bicycles in town means a growing need for places to park bikes. That’s where yesterday’s Fort Worthology post picks up. Kevin Buchanan writes:

It’s not every day that we get to report on something we actually had a hand in, but today is one of those days. Fort Worth South, Inc. wanted to improve the bike parking situation in the Near Southside as part of their larger goal of huge bike infrastructure improvements across the district, and they decided they wanted some outside help. So they called us and Trinity Bicycles up and asked if we’d collaborate on a new bike parking improvement plan. After a lot of discussion, many meetings and several in-the-field work sessions identifying parking locations, ideal setups and more, we put together a comprehensive bike parking plan. Now, we’re happy to report, Phase One of the plan has been approved by the city and funded by the Near Southside TIF (Tax Increment Finance district), so we can give some details.

While we’re still finalizing the number of racks and such, we can say that this will be a pretty dramatic increase in bike parking, even in Phase One. At the moment, there are approximately 12 of the city-installed Texas star “lollipop” racks across the entire district.… Even in the best of cases, the Texas star racks are less than ideal — they look more like street art than bike racks, making them not obvious to riders, and there are simply too few of them and in too few locations. With the large increases in bike traffic in the Near Southside in the last year or so, thanks to the Magnolia Avenue bike lanes, groups like the Night Riders and a continued increase in new urban residents, the existing bike parking infrastructure was becoming very inadequate to meet resident and visitor needs.

As mentioned above, we’re still finalizing all the numbers, so we can’t give a specific number yet, but we’re fairly confident that you can look forward to dozens of new [simple 'staple'] racks in Phase One. 

Nice work. The bicycle transportation scene in that part of Texas has a lot of potential.

More from around the network: The Dead Horse Times analyzes plans for a Columbia River crossing between Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, Washington. Walkable Dallas-Forth Worth asks, What is livability? And The City Fix kicks off a great new series on "Access for All" with a post about Rio street dwellers and how their lives are affected by the lack of good public transit.

A proposal for the Columbia River crossing. (Image: Courtesy of CRC)

This blog, so far, has avoided serious comment about one of the most controversial projects being considered for the Portland metro area–the Columbia River Crossing.  Recently, I wrote about a blog comment concerning the advisability of adding MAX service to the project, in order to make a point in the bus/rail debate, but I haven’t blogged about the CRC itself.  Now, it’s time to correct that oversight.

The CRC project organization, which is jointly run by the Oregon and Washington Departments of Transportation (ODOT and WSDOT), recently published a proposed design for a replacement of the Interstate Bridge (an ancient pair of drawbridges which carry Interstate 5 over the Columbia River).  The price tag for the proposed design:  over US$4 billion.  Hardly anybody on either side of the river likes the proposed design, especially in the two cities (Portland, OR, and Vancouver, WA) which are directly affected by the project. 

The proposed design

The proposed design includes the following features:

• Rebuilding I-5 to modern design standards for about 5 miles–essentially from the Interstate Ave. interchange in Oregon, up to SR500 in Washington; this requires construction of quite a few C/D lanes and braided ramps and such.
• Three "through" auto lanes, and three "auxiliary" lanes, in each direction across the main span.  The auxiliary lanes are lanes which sooner or later you’ll have to exit if you use them (though the freeway is always 8 lanes wide through the project area, except at the ends), while the "through" lanes are continuous.  On the main span of the bridge, all six lanes in each direction are on a single carriageway; there is no segregation into highway and C/D lanes.  (A recent revision to the proposal includes only 2 auxiliary lanes per direction rather than three, but keeps some of the other controversial features of the project)
• Below the highway lanes will be a facility for pedestrians and bicycles, and two "transit lanes", which will contain light rail.  (AFAIK, it will be trains only; not a combined rail/bus facility like the Caruthers bridge which is part of the Milwaukie MAX project).
• The impacts on Hayden Island, an island in the Columbia (part of Oregon, as it is south of the main channel) will be particularly server.  The I-5 interchange on the Island will be kept, but significantly redesigned.   Rather than the treacherous "trumpet" interchange (with short ramps) that currently sits there, a braided ramp confiuration will be added, which will also include ramp structures crossing the Columbia Slough for accessing Marine Drive and OR99E.  The effective footprint on Hayden Island will be 22 lanes.  As is the case today, road access to Hayden Island will require use of I-5. (The picture at the top of this post is an illustration of what this might look like–it appears that a giant aircraft carrier was parked in the middle of the island).

What’s wrong?

Most people in the community recognize the need to do something.  The Interstate Bridge is functionally obsolete.  It’s a major bottleneck for traffic, especially during the afternoon commute.  The connecting ramps are dangerous, particularly the onramps from Hayden Island onto I-5 north, and from SR14 onto I-5 south.  The pedestrian facilities on the existing are downright scary; there’s no dedicated transit infrastructure at all, and the bridge must occasionally lift for river traffic.   And the combination of the drawspans of the Interstate Bridge, and the BNSF rail bridge a short distance downstream, make river navigation difficult for large vessels.  There’s also some structural concerns:  although the bridges are not yet structurally obsolete, extensive work would be needed to bring them to modern structural standards.  There’s a large consensus that the status quo is not acceptable.

But there’s little agreement among local stakeholders (even ignoring the DOTs for now) on what needs to be done.  There is rampant sticker shock at the $4 billion pricetag on both sides of the river; and calls to scale back the design–but the sticking point is just what ought to be removed.

We don’t need no stinking freeway

Many in Portland’s transit and urbanist communities view the Interstate Bridge as an important chokepoint with which to discourage automobile use, and don’t want to see any highway capacity added, other than what’s absolutely necessary for safety.  Portland’s urbanistas, while disliking suburbia in general, hold special disdain for the community across the river which is often derisively called "Vantucky" (and worse), and viewed as a gaping loophole in Oregon’s land use laws (and Metro’s implementation thereof).  Expanding freeway capacity into The Couv (what Vancouverites often call their city–a term which has the added benefit of only referring to Vancouver, WA and not Vancouver, BC; a persistently annoying ambiguity in the Pacific Northwest) would only encourage more urban sprawl across the river, they say, and the sort of capital flight that has devastated many cities elsewhere in the country.  (More than a few would be happy if the Interstate Bridge were to fall down into the river).

Another concern that Oregonians have, and one less politically sensitive, is the concern that widening the bridge will simply move the southbound bottleneck on I-5 a few miles further south, into downtown Portland–necessitating a costly rebuild of Portland’s downtown core.  (In the Rose Quarter area, I-5 reduces to only two lanes in each direction).   And the eastbank freeway, as I-5 is known in downtown, is highly unpopular, and a favorite target of urbanists who would prefer to see it buried (or removed altogether).

We don’t need no stinking tolls

Across the river, many in Vancouver naturally resent being viewed as Portland’s Oakland.  Vancouverites, like many suburban-dwellers, don’t consider their chosen lifestyle to be illegitimate in the least.  Many consider the problems of cities to be the problems of cities–not their concern.  And many in Vancouver are openly skeptical about Portland’s famously liberal political consensus (and recently, famously dysfunctional city politics).   They aren’t terribly interested in Portland’s transit system or enviro-urbanist agenda–and are primarily concerned about the cost of the project.  This is especially important on the Washington side since tolls are a significant part of the proposed funding package.  Vancouver residents enjoy an advantageous tax situation, in that Washington has no state income tax (and very low property taxes), financing government primarily through sales taxes; whereas Oregon has no sales tax.  Thus many Vancouverites cross the river to shop in Oregon.  (Many also work in the Beaver State; though those who do are subject to Oregon state income tax).  Tolling is seen as an unfair surcharge on those who live on the north side of the river; and thus many Vancouverites see reducing the scope of the project–and thus the cost–as a key priority.  (The recent mayoral election in Vancouver turned on the question of bridge tolls; with the incumbent mayor losing re-election to a candidate who focuses on the issue of tolling).

The prospect of tolls also brings about concerns that traffic would be simply shifted to the Glenn Jackson bridge instead; particularly N/S through traffic, and traffic from the E. Vancouver area.    Tolling I-205 was proposed as a solution to this issue (the Glenn Jackson bridge, about seven miles upstream, is not part of the project); however it seems to be the opinion that this is not legally permissible.   This state of affairs in Clackamas County, to Portland’s south, worried.

The result of this is that many in Portland want to see the highway features of the design reduced in scope.  A popular alternate proposal is for a seismic retrofit of the existing bridges, removal of many of the interchanges (including the dangerous Hayden Island ramps), and construction of a "supplemental bridge" which would connect Vancouver’s downtown street network with Hayden Island and Portland streets such as MLK and Interstate, and provide transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities.  Many in Vancouver, OTOH, want the highway capacity, and would just as soon jettison the light rail lines–noting that the tracks would only go a short distance into Vancouver. 

The devil’s in the DOTails

If the issue were merely a disagreement between two cities (located in two different states) on urban vision, that would be one thing.  But the two state DOTs, who are responsible for maintaining I-5 and have been managing the project, seem determined to build a big megafreeway.  A common allegation is that the acceptance criteria set forth in the purpose and need statement were carefully crafted to exclude any solution other than a big megafreeway, and as a result–a big megafreeway is what the engineers came up with.   And now, the DOTs are (allegedly) playing "chicken" with the project–claiming that it’s too late to make any material changes, lest the funding window for federal dollars close (the project is slated to receive funding from USDOT’s Corridors of the Future program).  The city of Portland, in particular, is calling that bluff; and actually hired its own engineering firm to review the project.  Metro has been challenging the state DOTs in unusually blunt language as well, with outgoing Metro president David Bragdon suggesting that the CRC project team "get real". 

The project’s design is severely constrained by several other factors:  the need to maintain a Columbia River shipping channel compatible with the BNSF rail bridge a short distance downstream, and the need to not affect the flight paths going in and out of Pearson Airpark in Vancouver (and to a lesser extent, PDX).   Until recently, Portland mayor Sam Adams also stressed the need for a "signature design" (a demand that the bridge be architecturally significant), a position that struck many as self-aggrandizement and placement of form over function–especially given the height restrictions which prevent the construction of towering arches or suspension systems.  (The proposed design, with box/girder construction, has also been criticized for being ugly).  As Adams has been politically weakened by a sex scandal, this concern has faded to the background, but still lingers.

A major issue with having state DOTs maintaining urban infrastructure, is that many of them are institutionally programmed to the "mobility" side of the mobility-access continuum.  Despite the multi-modal nature suggested by the name "department of transportation"; the primary responsibility for DOTs in most US states is building, maintaining, and regulating highways, often focused on smooth and timely passage of freight.  Other modes of regional or long-haul transportation–aviation, railroads, and navigation (whether on inland waterways or at sea) have long been primarily overseen by the Federal government, as are interstate motor carriers.  Local transportation links (including transit), on the other hand are generally handled by local communities.  Building highways is what DOTs are best at; and this role emphasizes throughput and mobility over local concerns such as access and community integration.  A big problem with freeways, generally, is that many of them don’t really serve the communities they pass through; instead they simply disrupt them. 

It should be noted that this state of affairs exists despite having relatively transit-friendly administrations in Salem and Olympia.  Democrats occupy the governor’s office in both Oregon and Washington, and control the legislatures of both states as well.  While both states have bicameral legislatures (the norm in the United States); both the upper and lower legislative houses in the two states are allocated based on population, not political subdivision.  (Many state Senates, as well as the US Senate; assign equal representation to political subdivisions regardless of population; a state of affairs which allows rural interests to dominate; for example, Alaska and New York each have the same number of US Senators–two). 

The good news

This project is a classic case of the paralysis that can result when state-level entities such as DOTs manage urban infrastructure projects.  The CRC is a particularly complex case, involving DOTs, MPOs, transit authorities, counties, and cities from two states and not just one.  Given that the project crosses a navigable waterway, is in close proximity to two airports, and even lies adjacent to a national park facility (Fort Vancouver); there are numerous Federal agencies involved as well, including several beyond the usual suspects.  There are many different players, all with different goals for the project, all playing hardball, and no supervising organization with the capability (or the authority) to solve the political conflicts necessary to generate reasonable requirements that are acceptable.   (Kind of reminds me of healthcare reform, actually).  Right now, many of the parties are perfectly happy to not cooperate, and to threaten to block any proposal which doesn’t meet their specific needs.  (An ODOT official was actually quoted stating that Portland wouldn’t be permitted to expand light rail across the Columbia unless as part of a larger highway project; and of course many in Portland hold the same attitude in reverse towards freeway expansion).

Whether this circle can be successfully squared remains to be seen.  The good news is that the DOTs are starting to get the message, so there’s hope that a reasonable design can be produced.  OTOH, even if the DOTs let the two cities and their respective MPOs take the lead, there’s bound to be friction given the apparent clash in values.

Mike Pintek of Pittsburgh radio station KDKA. (Photo: KDKA)

Last year, we posted a piece about a couple of shock jocks in Detroit who thought it was funny to talk about throwing things at bicyclists.

This year, the hateful talk is coming over the airwaves from Pittsburgh.

Streetsblog Network member blog Reimagine an Urban Paradise has been following the story of a Pittsburgh DJ, Mike Pintek of KDKA, who made some ugly remarks about being "tempted" to hit people on bikes with his car. The audio has been taken down, but here’s a partial transcript of what Pintek said from Reimagine’s author, Lolly:

"There are some bicyclists who are just these arrogant little dorks that think they can do anything they want because they’re on a bicycle and ‘we’re being green and environmentally friendly’…

"I have been thoroughly tempted — I haven’t done it ’cause I’m not going to do it — I’m not that kind of person…but I have been so tempted to just bump ‘em.

"I have been so tempted to pull up behind them when they’re doing this — you know spread out across the road — put my car in neutral, jam the accelerator down, race the engine and scare the living crap out of them.

"They’ve got to stop being so arrogant about what they’re doing. They’ve got to obey the rules. They have to do the right thing or else they’re going to get killed."

This all is playing out in a city where several bicyclists have been attacked in recent weeks by gangs of kids, as reported by Bike PGH.

Reimagine’s Lolly has this to say about what she thinks the consequences should be for the DJ:

Driver’s licenses are a privilege, not a right and if a person announces their desire to use their vehicle as a weapon, they should lose their license. If they use their job to incite others to commit violence, they should lose that job.

She also notes that in the case of a San Francisco driver who allegedly did target people on bikes and used his vehicle as a weapon, the charges are felony attempted murder.

PGH Is a City and WWVB have more. Apparently Pintek is going to talk about what he said on his show today. We’ll keep an eye on it.

On another note entirely, we’d like to thank the folks at the Top Online Engineering Degree blog for including Streetsblog.net on their list of Top 50 Blogs for Civil Engineers to Read. It’s a terrific list that we’re looking forward to digging into. You should definitely check it out. And we’re honored to be included.

An unusually intense period at work reduced my blogging activity to a few uninspired posts these past few weeks, but at long last I can return to the second part of my study on the application of labels such as “neighborhoods” and “subdivisions” to sub-districts within a larger metropolitan area. In the first part, I focused on the moneyed Garden District in Baton Rouge, which, in a city which is dominated by automobile-driven development patterns, emerges as one of the city’s most successful walkable, urban neighborhoods.

I use the term “neighborhood” loosely, primarily because, as I elaborated in Part I, the difference between a “neighborhood” and a “subdivision” often parallels the implied understanding of the distinctions between urban and suburban. Neighborhoods are old, urban, and walkable; subdivisions are newer, suburban, and auto-driven. These gross generalizations unfairly sequester the old and the new into two disparate categories, and the former enjoys a far loftier position in the cultural pecking order than the latter. Virtually everyone living in a reasonably dense residential community would like to claim part of a neighborhood, and civic associations rarely if ever organize themselves as the Highland Park Subdivision Association, for example. They use the word “neighborhood” instead. A Realtor is far more likely to promote a home as “being part of a community with a genuine neighborhood feel”, and Mister Rogers immortalized his miniature Pittsburgh with the opening song “It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood”. These examples may seem facile, but they demonstrate a prevailing aversion to “subdivisions” as anything beyond a clinical term; it is the developer-speak that refers to the initial reorganization of land title through the accrued sale of individually subdivided plats, derived from an initially significantly larger parcel. But a good subdivision almost always strives to shed its tedious image, away from a series of financial agreements into something apparently much more organic—conceived from the aims and values of the people living there, rather than the paper-pushing of a businessperson with eyes on the dollar signs. In short, subdivisions always try to mature into neighborhoods.

This is precisely what has happened with the Garden District in Baton Rouge. As I noted before, an address in this neighborhood ranks among the most prestigious in the metro. But the Garden District didn’t begin with such a distinct identity. In fact, it consists of several smaller districts, which today are on the National Register, but began as subdivisions platted out by a private realty company. The area shaded in red is Roseland Terrace, platted in 1911; the region in blue is Drehr Place, a subdivision platted in 1921, while the green rectangle to the south of the other two historic districts is Kleinert Terrace, founded just a few years after Drehr Place. Though the three developments are contiguous, they matured autonomously under these separate names for decades. The Garden District Civic Association relates its origins on the website. Essentially a rezoning hearing in 1976 for a house on the northern edge of Drehr Avenue drew an unexpectedly large number of residents in the vicinity. After learning about their shared interest in its future and well-being, several members decided to form a neighborhood organization. They agreed to bestow upon it the name “Garden District” because of the positive connotations it arose, recalling the prestigious New Orleans neighborhood 80 miles downriver. Within a few weeks, some of these neighborhood activists (many of whom live in the area to this day) had drafted by-laws and elected a president. Thus, the Garden District as a neighborhood name and its respective neighborhood association were born simultaneously. To this day, the Civic Association collects dues, publishes newsletters, runs the adopt-a-tree program for live oaks in common spaces, and maintains the signs and bollards it installed to demarcate the neighborhood’s entrance.
The original developers had conceived these three early subdivisions—Roseland Terrace, Drehr Place, and Kleinert Terrace—at slightly different time periods. But as they aged comfortably, their residents witnessed new development pushing considerably further to the north and east, and over time the architectural and socioeconomic similarities within the three early subdivisions became more widely visible. The eventual inception of a Civic Association was inevitable. It provided a forum for the transmission of the ideas and collective concerns that could reinforce the identity of a neighborhood. And through these regular meetings, the Association was able to bring to the table some of the technical specifications that the new Garden District was lacking—which, incidentally, happened to include the sort of “place-making” features that were increasingly prevalent in the subdivisions popping up in the outer suburbs. Essentially, the Garden District Civic Association—like so many others—has re-appropriated some of the initial roles of a developer. It clearly establishes cohesiveness to the neighborhood by simplifying the lines of communication. It also has implemented particular street and landscape improvements, which, in this day and age, would take place during the site planning stage, as a subdivision is getting off the ground.

By many standards, the neighborhood’s cohesiveness is patently visible (and no doubt was in 1976 as well). First, the array of housing types, while diverse, comes from a relatively uniform time period. The shared age of the housing mitigates the variety of styles and sizes. Secondly, the landscaping follows a certain basic pattern, emphasizing the tremendous tree canopy afforded by live oak trees, both in private property, and—in the wider streets—spaces throughout the broad, grassy medians. If the front yards cannot fit such an expansive tree, they will often host smaller indigenous species, such as the crepe myrtle. Thirdly, the three subdivisions share borders, proven by the three colored transparencies on the oft-referenced map.

Fourth, and perhaps the most important for the arguments featured in this half of the blog post, the three smaller subdivisions that make up the Garden District all share the same gridded street network. This shared network affords them a high level of interpenetrability among all the streets that make up the three, as well as—and this is critical—the surrounding neighborhoods. The strange brown shape shows the means of accessing the Roseland Terrace and Drehr Place involves nothing more than crossing an intersection. Even more critical is the purple demarcation on the map below: That thick purple line essentially separates the affluent sections of this part of Baton Rouge from the poor ones. I hate to make such broad distinctions on something as simple as a street map, but empirical evidence generally supports this. The Garden District occupies the northwestern most portion of a mostly upper-middle class part of town, but directly to the north and west of the neighborhood’s boundaries are considerably poorer districts. Particularly noticeable is the neighborhood west of 18th Street, where the housing more frequently looks like this: Simple, unadorned single shotgun houses with virtually no front yard and little foliage. Unlike in the Garden District, where cables are either buried or hidden behind back alleys, here they are out front along the streets and sidewalks. And the old commercial buildings along Government Street (the northern boundary to the Garden District) are generally vacant in the area to the west of the affluent neighborhood. Here is the vista at around 16th and Government: As Government Street continues toward the wealthier Garden District, the retail landscape is hardly top-tier for the metro, but it is considerably stronger than the virtual abandonment visible in the picture above.

In short, the Garden District—a general term for three old-money subdivisions in inner-city Baton Rouge—sits cheek-by-jowl with one of the poorer old neighborhoods, with not even a major arterial street or the stereotypical railroad track to separate them. For example, at the corner of 18th and Cherokee, on the edge of Roseland Terrace, one sees a typically immaculate house characteristic of the Garden District. And just a two blocks to the west, on 16th Street, the view below is not uncommon: In all likelihood, the neighborhood to the west of 18th street was not impoverished at the time Roseland Terrace was platted on the site of a former fairground racetrack. It was probably a working class or lower-middle class community. But by the time the Civic Association organized itself and bestowed the name Garden District to these three subdivisions, the fortunes on the two sides of 18th Street had diverged significantly. Forty years later, Old South Baton Rouge remains a largely low-income African American community, while the Garden District is mostly white and virtually devoid of poverty. In an era in which discriminatory redlining, fraudulent blockbusting, and publicly sanctioned segregation (once common in the South) are all illegal, how can two neighborhoods show such significant disparities, with the desirability of the Garden District remaining superlative despite sitting so close to such poverty? The Garden District Civic Association undoubtedly provides many of the answers. Aside from organizing a garden club to protect the live oaks, social committees to plan Christmas caroling and ice cream gatherings, or public relations to organize home tours, the Civic Association also has hired a separate security unit on top of the existing Baton Rouge Police Department. (Incidentally, the original Garden District of New Orleans, which sits almost as close to an even more impoverished neighborhood, also hires a plainly visible separate security force.) The association also allows homeowners who will be out of town for a lengthy amount of time to report their unoccupied home for extra monitoring during their absence.

Such actions are hardly unique among urban neighborhood associations, particularly those that are wealthy but remain close to considerably poorer areas. I by no means am attempting to portray the Garden District Civic Association nor the neighborhood’s residents as exclusive or prejudiced. They are reacting in a similar fashion as many other wealthy districts that rest squarely in high-crime cities, and the residents have clearly opted to buy into unity of activities as well as a shared sense of added security by remaining in the neighborhood instead of abandoning it to newer subdivisions out in the suburbs, where they would undoubtedly be far removed from inner-city privations and violence.

What is interesting about this is that, perhaps more powerfully than just signage and tree plantings, the Civic Association is helping to foster the unity an urban neighborhood needs, quite possibly as a compensatory gesture for the fact that its street configuration cannot exclude strangers in any other way. Compare the street grid from the color-coded maps above to the one below, several miles away on Highland Road, one of the wealthiest suburban districts within Baton Rouge city limits: Most of the housing around here post-dates the 1960s. Street designers for these subdivisions/neighborhoods have all but abandoned the old grid for a hierarchical design, in which most of the streets terminate in cul-de-sacs. Each individual development usually has only one or two means of ingress, as opposed to the Garden District, which has closer to twenty. The development pattern becomes even more pronounced a few miles further out on Highland Road. Here, in the last outskirts of the city and East Baton Rouge Parish, the housing typically post-dates the 1980s and is almost uniformly wealthy. The subdivisions are smaller and even less interconnected. Some of them are gated at the front.

Any elementary student of urban studies has caught on to this long ago; the average layperson can also recognize a change in street configuration from the old inner-city neighborhood and the modern subdivision. What is most striking is how urban neighborhoods have essentially had to co-opt certain features from suburban subdivisions—as well as duplicate basic city services—in order to preserve their desirability. The Garden District in Baton Rouge cannot build gates around every one of its entrances to keep the higher criminal activity at bay that residents might associate with the neighborhood to the west. Instead, the Civic Association must find ways to cultivate unity and inclusivity from within. It uses carrots like the neighborhood picnics, organized garage sales, decorative signage and lighting, and recommended arborists, electricians, or carpenters. It depends upon sticks as well, such as the additional security, stipulations for people who rent out part or all of their property, and a clear line of communication for reporting of city code violations, such as parking in the grass or sweeping debris into the street. Neighborhoods such as the Garden District will depend on a certain capacity to exclude on paper to compensate for the inability to exclude via physical barriers. One may consider this elitist or racist, but neighborhood associations are so prevalent in this day and age that they hardly single out certain segments of society—persons of all strata may find their neighborhood has one, rich or poor, white or black, urban or suburban.

The superficial stereotypes I listed in Part I of this blog post clearly placed neighborhoods into one categorical box and subdivisions into another. I did this ironically, because the old, venerable Garden District neighborhood originated from the subdivision of real estate that followed a similar pattern to the exurban subdivisions of today. Subdivisions and neighborhoods are little more than expressions of individual preferences; the line distinguishing them is impossibly blurry. The biggest difference, of course, is that the old urban subdivisions (which we are more likely to refer to as “neighborhoods”) typically depended upon rectilinear grids with an almost unlimited number of points of entry. Conversely, most contemporary neighborhoods (often referred to as “subdivisions” until they mature and develop something we like to call “character”) employ curvilinear cul-de-sacs that allow for a much clearer monitoring of who comes and goes—which nearly always happens by vehicle instead of by foot. One could argue, as many urbanists do, that the grid is more desirable because it offers a greater freedom of mobility. But the non-gridded subdivision emerged as a reaction to the characteristics that people found least appealing about the historic grid: namely, the ability to restrict who enters, whether it involves speeding cars that cut through or potential ne’er-do-wells from a neighboring community. The Garden District in Baton Rouge has undoubtedly attracted a certain type of resident that consciously eschews the suburban cul-de-sac, but such individuals often find themselves devoting more time and money to retain a certain level of security and privacy that almost everyone hopes to attain. The Civic Association has found a generally benign way of achieving this, keeping a gridded neighborhood safe and attractive as the majority of the population continues to surge toward cul-de-sacs ten miles down the road.