Makes me happy just looking at it. Photo: NRDC Switchboard

According to a new study published in Urban Affairs Review, urban design can have a measurable effect on how people feel. Researchers at the University of West Virginia and the University of South Carolina Upstate examined levels of self-reported happiness in 10 major cities. They found that quality urban environments do indeed contribute to happiness among residents.

“People are often connected to quality places that are cultural and distinctive,” the authors wrote. “Not all neighborhoods are the same. Some are designed and built to foster or enable connections. Other are built to discourage them (e.g., a gated model) or devolve to become places that are antisocial because of crime or other negative behaviors.”

Kaid Benfield at the Natural Resources Defense Council’s Switchboard blog expanded on the findings:

The study examined a number of questions directly related to the built environment, including the convenience of public transportation, the ease of access to shops, the presence of parks and sports facilities, the ease of access to cultural and entertainment facilities, and the presence of libraries. All were found to correlate significantly with happiness, with convenient public transportation and easy access to cultural and leisure facilities showing the strongest correlation.

The statistical analysis also included questions related to urban environmental quality apart from cities’ built form, and produced additional significant correlations. Among these, the perception of living in a beautiful city had the strongest correlation with happiness.

So I guess that wouldn’t include the ubiquitous big box retail centers that haunt my dreams …

Elsewhere on the Network today: Greater Greater Washington reports that Maryland Governor Martin O’Malley has called to end the state’s six percent sales tax exemption for gasoline. The Austin Contrarian explains why the region’s plan to add two congestion-priced lanes to a local freeway is a win from an equity perspective. And the Active Transporation Alliance says congressional leaders have “declared war on transit” with HR 3854, a bill that would eliminate dedicated funding for public transportation.

The Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority plans to add two lanes to MoPac between Lady Bird Lake and Parmer Lane.  The cool part of the plan is that it intends to use dynamic congestion pricing – i.e., the toll will fluctuate as necessary to keep traffic in the the tolled lanes flowing at 50 mph.   The six existing lanes will remain free.

This is how we ought to add new capacity.  It will make everyone better off.   The people who choose to pay the toll will be better off because they value the time savings more than the cost of the toll.  Bus commuters will be better off — they might be the biggest beneficiaries, in fact — because they will get a suddenly much shorter commute for (I presume) the same bus fare.  Drivers who continue to use the free lanes will endure slightly less congestion, even if it’s just a narrower period of peak congestion.  Finally, taxpayers, if not better off, will be no worse off because they won’t have to pay for the extra capacity.  The capacity will be paid by those who value and use it.

Everyone will not only better off compared to the status quo, but . . . and this is the key point . . . they’ll be better off than if the two new lanes were free.   Adding two free lanes would reduce congestion, too, but they would reduce congestion less than two new tolled lanes.  Tolling congested lanes increases their capacity.  A congestion-priced lane can handle 1,800-2,000 cars per hour; an unpriced lane during peak congestion will handle less than half of that.  Somewhat counterintuitively, perhaps, charging for a congested lane is a sure way to get more cars through it.

Let’s put aside the fact that it attempts to solve funding shortfalls by drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Let’s forget, for a second, that even Senate Republicans don’t think drilling revenues would be enough to make up for the nation’s stagnant gas tax. Or that the average American hates the idea of drilling in the Arctic.

Wait, nope, still bad. The League of American Bicyclists has put together a list of the ten worst things about this bill for safe cycling and walking. Let’s take a glimpse at some of the highlights of the House leadership’s transportation policy. This is a good one:

3. CMAQ is gutted. Under current law, states can receive Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding to support projects that reduce transportation-related pollution. Currently, states use CMAQ dollars to support bicycling and walking infrastructure, which are proven to help reduce air pollutants by encouraging people to walk or bike instead of drive.

No longer. The House bill would change CMAQ by making congestion reduction, not air quality, the operative measure for eligibility. In other words, in order to qualify for CMAQ funding, a project doesn’t need to reduce air pollution; it just needs to be “likely” to reduce congestion. Under this new definition, the construction of new highway lanes qualifies for CMAQ funding. If the House bill were to become law, states would likely allocate CMAQ funds for highway construction at the expense of bicycle- and pedestrian-friendly projects.

Or how about this:

4. No safe access on bridges. Under current law, when states do work on a bridge that has bicycle or pedestrian access on either side, they are required to build safe bicycle or pedestrian access across the bridge itself.  Even though it’s only logical that people on traveling by bicycle or by foot should be able to cross bridges safely, the proposed House bill eliminates the requirement that states provide bridge access for walkers and bicyclists when it makes the most sense.

To get a good sense of everything at stake read the Bike League’s whole post. In the meantime, they are asking cyclists to take action to tell the House that these attacks on biking and walking are unacceptable.

Elsewhere on the Network today: BTA Oregon shares a study that examines barriers to cycling and walking among communities of color, immigrants and refugees. Bike Portland passes along Congressman Earl Blumenauer’s perspective on the House transportation bill: “I am appalled at the fantasy finance scheme Republicans are proposing.” And Portland Transport wonders if the House GOP seriously expects this bill to pass.

Referring to it as the, “Republican Highway and Transportation Bill,” Blumenauer said in an official statement, “I am appalled at the fantasy finance scheme Republicans are proposing.” Blumenauer is a senior member of the House Budget and Ways and Means committees, so he focused his criticisms on financial issues instead of simply bashing the bill for being anti-bike.

Here’s more from Blumenauer’s official statement (emphasis mine):

“Rather than working in a bipartisan fashion to find revenue for the Highway Trust Fund, House Republicans instead would tie revenues from oil and gas drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge and in our coastal waters to transportation funding. Drilling in these areas is opposed by the public and runs the same environmental risks that gave us the Deepwater Horizon disaster. What’s more, my colleagues know full well that revenues from this drilling would do almost nothing to close our funding gap. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that the best case scenario would result in $5 billion over ten years, when we need $60 billion over five years to fund the Trust Fund. This bill’s reliance on such an inadequate funding scheme shows just how unserious and partisan an effort it is at real transportation reform.”

Austin's Liberty Lunch had to close because of a nearby development. Will the increasing residential demand threaten other downtown music venues? Photo: Austinist

Network blog The Overhead Wire says that Austin, Texas lost a favorite nightspot more than 10 years ago when an iconic club was swallowed up by development. Lately the issue is noise. Responding to complaints, the city of Austin has created a program to save music venues by providing grant funding to soundproof walls.

But The Overhead Wire says new residents shouldn’t be allowed to interfere with what makes Austin, Austin:

Ultimately the downtown area has boomed in part because of those developments but at what point do the new residents moving downtown have the ability to complain about noise that existed before their new residences?

Personally, I have no sympathy for folks that decided to move right next to a music venue that plays until 2 a.m. To me, its just like moving next to a railroad track and complaining when they want to run more trains. Ultimately I hope that Austin keeps its live music heritage. With the closing of Emo’s, I fear that more dominos will fall. We shouldn’t have to choose between a vibrant urban scene at night and a vibrant scene in the day. There should be room for both.

Elsewhere on the Network today: The Transport Politic outlines the declining political fortunes of Toronto Mayor Rob Ford and his vision for suburban-oriented transit. Baltimore Velo says an opposition campaign is developing to two college presidents’ decision to forgo bike lanes on an important thoroughfare. And Urban Indy illustrates the lack of respect for bicycling that still exists among some city officials, even as $60 million is being invested in the “Cultural Trail” project.

The bill (soon to be available on transportation.house.gov) reverses 20 years of progress by:

• destroying Transportation Enhancements by making it optional;

• repealing the Safe Routes to School program, reversing years of progress in creating safe ways for kids to walk and ride bicycles to school;

• allowing states to build bridges without safe access for pedestrians and bicycles;

• eliminating bicycle and pedestrian coordinators in state DOTs; and

• eliminating language that insures that rumble strips “do not adversely affect the safety or mobility of bicyclists, pedestrians or the disabled.”

House Speaker John Boehner wants to insert language into his transportation bill that would clear the way for a pipeline through the Alberta Tar Sands. So much for infrastructure being a bipartisan issue. Photo: Art Threat

This bill, which attempts to make up for the country’s stagnant gas tax by squeezing revenue from domestic oil drilling, takes the concept of sustainability (environmental, fiscal and otherwise) and strives to achieve the opposite. Not only would it eliminate bike and pedestrian funding, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) has said he plans to saddle the bill with a measure permitting the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline, recently quashed by the president.

Some Republicans are even coming out against aspects of this proposal, says Stephen Lee Davis at Transportation for America:

In the Senate, Republican Sen. Inhofe has already said that expecting new oil drilling revenues to pay for an immediate multi-year transportation bill isn’t a realistic funding solution.

“While Speaker Boehner’s idea may be a long-term revenue source for transportation infrastructure,” said Sen. Inhofe back in November, “we need to focus on the immediate problem of how we will fund a multi-year highway bill. …If this is how the House is able to move the bill forward then I applaud them. But we need money now for transportation; we can’t afford to wait.”

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a conservative/libertarian think tank, held a session today on Capitol Hill with a title that leaves little mystery about their position: “Don’t Drill And Drive: Weakening The “User-Pays” Highway Funding Principle Would Endanger Our Nation’s Transportation Infrastructure.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Exit 133 reports there is a grassroots campaign to “depave Tacoma” by removing unnecessary parking lots. Renew Lehigh Valley says smart growth isn’t partisan politics, it’s common sense. And PubliCola announces that a Washington state legislative committee has passed a bill that would allow communities to lower their speed limits down to as little as 20 mph without conducting any expensive studies.

Well, Renew Lehigh Valley is here to say that this simply is not true.  Smart growth is not and should not become a partisan issue.  Policies utilizing smart growth planning are meant to reinvigorate a community and provide for wise and effective economic development.  Rather than letting a piece of land be developed in any way, why wouldn’t a community want certain boundaries to ensure that the development will enhance the economy, benefit the community, and bring jobs to the area for the long term?  “Planning” shouldn’t be considered a bad word; it’s smart.  And it has the community’s best interest at heart.

Piscataquis Village in Maine would emulate the urban style of a traditional village. Photo: Piscataquis Village Project

Well, one man is seeking to make that vision a reality rural Maine. Tracy Gayton, a former Maine banker, has given his vision the title Piscataquis Village, and built a design philosophy around the insights of Nathan Lewis at New World Economics and J.H. Crawford at Carfree.com. Gayton is recruiting individual investors, in a Kickstarter-like model, to raise $2 million — the amount he estimates is needed to clear regulatory hurdles and buy 500 acres in Maine’s Piscataquis County. (Of that land, 375 acres will be for agriculture, parks and car parking outside village lines, so residents will still be availing themselves of the auto.)

Emily Washington at Network blog Market Urbanism points out that this type of development, unfortunately, might not even be possible in a more developed environment thanks to inflexible zoning codes that protect the primacy of cars:

To me, this case illustrates the effectiveness that covenants have for shaping land use over an area broader than individual lots without the coercion of zoning.

Tracy has created a presentation on the preliminary objectives for Piscataquis Village. He writes: “We envision a settlement evolving organically and growing incrementally. Those people or groups of people that wish to pursue their own, various versions of the Good Life within the bounds of the Village are welcome.”

This project reminds me a bit of seasteading, the libertarian vision of a bottom-up society living on a water vessel to escape government coercion and violence. While I believe that most of the initial Piscataquis Village investors are from Maine and wish to continue living there, the projects’ rural location draws attention to the impossibility of a similar village emerging in the open space of, say, Howard County or Loudoun County because the realities of the political planning process would make it impossible to escape street width, parking, and setback requirements.

Elsewhere on the Network today: Charlottesville Tomorrow reports that a Virginia Supreme Court ruling has handcuffed the state’s planning commissions. World Streets says the transportation reform movement should adopt the “slow” mantra that has revolutionized thinking about food choices. And Stop and Move explores how the lack of resources and public input can lead to mediocre planning results.

While the business as usual approach threatens to harm the economic viability of the nation, it can be measured most accurately at the scale of the region where clusters of interdependent municipalities will win or lose the future by outcompeting each other for finite capital resources. To do this effectively requires one to differentiate itself beyond offering corporate tax breaks and the crown jewel school system, which only meet increasingly limited market segments.  Indeed, this country’s most desirable, and therefore sustainable, places have always created new paradigms rather then reinforcing old ones. In doing so, they often inspire change at a regional, national, or even international scale– they become Pattern Cities. If there is one city in America seeking to accomplish this, it’s Long Beach, California.

While we recently profiled the city’s new parklets, Nate Berg over at Atlantic Cities bring us this fantastic article about Long Beach, California’s conscientious effort to become America’s most bike-friendly city. While there is no need to re-hash the article (really, read the whole thing), it’s important to underscore the symbolism and substance of this bold decision.